{"response":{"docs":[{"id":"bcas_bcmss0837_1127","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":["1995-01-12/1995-06-22"],"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 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/1127"],"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":["188 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 FEB 3 1995 SPECIAL BOARD MEETING LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT BOARD OF DIRECTORS January 12, 1995 The Board of Directors of the Little Rock School District met in special session at 6:25 p.m. on January 12, 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 Mrs. Judy Magness Dr. Katherine Mitchell Mr. Kevin O'Malley Mr. John Riggs MEMBERS ABSENT: Mrs. o. G. Jacovelli ALSO PRESENT: Dr. Henry P. Williams, Superintendent of Schools Mrs. Estelle Matthis, Deputy Superintendent Mrs. Beverly Griffin, Executive Assistant Mrs. Norma Rodgers, Acting Recorder of Minutes h CALL TO ORDER: The President, Ms. Linda Pondexter, called the regular meeting to order at 6:25 p.m. The roll call revealed the presence of six ( 6) Board members. The Ex-Officio student, Krystal O'Donald, from Central High School, was present for the meeting. The purpose of the special meeting was to receive Board approval to apply for two grants - (1) Grant Application for Science Project and (2) Grant Application for Staff Development Project. II. GRANT APPLICATION FOR SCIENCE PROJECT The LRSD has an opportunity to submit a grant application to the Toyota Foundation and the National Science Teachers Association for an innovative program in science education. The n Special Board Meeting January 12, 1995 Page 2 program is offering grants of up to $10,000 to classroom teachers. The application submission deadline is January 26, 1995. The Model Farm Project has been designed by Amy Snodgrass, a biology teacher at Central High School. The one-year project seeks to increase student awareness of plant and animal sciences by having them plan and develop a simulated small family farm. The Superintendent recommended Board approval to make application for this grant. STAFF DEVELOPMENT PROJECT The LRSD has the opportunity to submit a proposal for a staff development grant to the State Department of Education for funding under the federal Goals 2000 Program Funding of up to $50,000 which is available for a one-year project. Submission deadline is January 16, 1995. The Superintendent recommended Board approval to make application for this grant. Mr. Riggs moved approval of the Superintendent's recommendations on both of these grant applications, seconded by Dr. Mitchell, and it carried unanimously. MISCELLANEOUS The Board President, Ms. Pondexter, expressed her appreciation to the Legislators and the Board Members who were present for a reception and short meeting that was held to discuss matters of interest during this legislative session. This meeting was held at the LRSD Administration Building. Ms. Magness requested that a budget work session be held each month after the regular agenda meeting. It was reported that plans were to have the first draft of the Budget ready by March 9. Mr. Riggs gave a brief update on the Beacons' Project. He stated they will have a committee meeting at Cloverdale Junior High School in three weeks, but that no specific date or time had been decided as yet. Mr. Billy Bowles, Assistant Superintendent for Desegregation for the Pulaski County Special School District, was in attendance at the request of the Board to discuss some of the desegregation issues pertaining to student assignment in the county. Specifically, he spoke on the assignment of students to the magnet schools. He stated that Mr. Aubrey Mccutcheon, who was a court appointed consultant to the original desegregation suit Special Board Meeting January 12, 1995 Page 3 under Judge Woods, had told the County that they should not assign students to magnet schools in the city from a certain area in the county that was very difficult to desegregate, this area was the very Southeast corner of the county. At the time, it was felt that the county has a sufficient number of white students who would adequately supply enough white students to the city magnet schools. He stated that the county has increased their recruitment to magnet schools, and they send black and white students on a 50/50 basis to magnet schools. He stated that in his opinion it would take court action to change this procedure. Dr. Williams gave a brief report on the 8th Circuit court appearance in St. Louis which was held on Monday, January 9. There was discussion about a Board Retreat to be held on Tuesday, January 24 at the Hilton Inn. A Board training session will be held in April, with the date to be decided. ADJOURNMENT: With no further business to come before the Board, Riggs moved adjournment at 7:15 p.m., Dr. Mitchell seconded motion, and it carried unanimously. ,...:..-o_n_d_ .r, P~residen APPROVED: Mr. the *CORRECTED LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 810 WEST MARKHAM STREET LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS RC APR 6 1995 Office of Desagr(:g:l1,on ,...,  _,..\n.  g MINUTES LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT BOARD OF DIRECTORS REGULAR MEETING January 26, 1995 The Board of Directors of the Little Rock School District met in its regularly scheduled meeting at 6:00 p.m. on January 26, 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 Mrs. Judy Magness Dr. Katherine Mitchell (Arrived at 6:15 p.m.) Mr. Kevin O'Malley Mr. John Riggs MEMBERS ABSENT: Mrs. o. G. Jacovelli ALSO PRESENT: Dr. Henry P. Williams, Superintendent of Schools Mrs. Estelle Matthis, Deputy Superintendent Mrs. Beverly Griffin, Executive Assistant Mrs. Norma Rodgers, Acting Recorder of Minutes Mr. Phillip Vano, Audiologist CALL TO ORDER The President, Ms. Linda Pondexter, called the regular meeting to order at 6 p.m. The roll call revealed the presence of six (6) Board members. The Ex-Officio teacher member to the Board, Mr. Dave Mccree, from Metropolitan Vo-Tech, and the student Ex-Officio member, Mr. Roland Brown, student at Central High School were introduced. READING OF MINUTES The chair directed the Board members' attention to the minutes of the Regular Board Meeting on December 15, 1994, and Regular Board Meeting January 26, 1995 Page 2 the Special Board Meeting of January 12, 1994, Mr. Riggs moved approval of the minutes, seconded by Ms. Patricia Gee, and it carried unanimously. PRESENTATIONS fu_ SUPERINTENDENT h The Superintendent recognized members of the McClellan football team and they were presented plaques of commendation for their accomplishment for being undefeated in their regular season and represented the LRSD in the state championship playoffs. Also recognized was head coach, Ellis Register\nAssistant Coaches, Tony Bohannon, Ken Davis, Carlis Shelby, and Todd Shirley. The ball boys were recognized: Kevin Bohannon and Wade Davis, together with the ball girl: Toni Register. The managers, Bryon Alexander, Darrell Evans, Cris Cravens, and Shannon Hall were included in the recognition. The Team members are: Kevin Thomas, Marcus Horton, James Johnson, Stephen Kassa, Kendrick Shepherd, Cory Harris, Adrien Lewis, Jeremy Smith, c. J. Jackson, Deshaun Rose, Chris Saxton, Jeremy Neel, Charleston Bonds, Freddie Ross, Shane Crutchfield, Shawn Crutchfield, Shawn Bennett, Roderick Murdock, L. J. Davidson, Kevin Clark, Aaron Reedy, Roe Brammer, Anthony Ackee, Nick Cheatham, Patrick Cooley, Cory Lindsey, Charles Spencer, Bo Pifer, Lance Red, Josh Reed, Mrs. Judy Magness was recognized for having completed the mandated six hours of school board training from the Arkansas School Boards Association. (Copy attached and made a part of these minutes.) Ex-Officio Citations were presented to the teacher, Dave Mccree and the student, Roland Brown for their participation in the Board Meetings. INTRODUCTION OF RUSSIAN EXCHANGE TEACHERS Mr. Gene Parker, Supervisor of English and Foreign Languages, introduced the Russian Exchange Teachers, Marina Baku and Tatiana Tinchurina. Mr. Parker explained that a third exchange teacher, Vera Govorova, had been called away because of a death in her family. The teachers expressed appreciation for being allowed to participate in the Little Rock School District activities. Regular Board Meeting January 26, 1995 Page 3 !h PARTNERSHIPS The following partnerships were recognized as completing the requirements necessary to establish a partnership: Romano's Macaroni Grill, Dana Junck \u0026amp; Kirk Doughty, Representatives\nand Western Hill Elementary School, Scott Morgan, Principal and Beth Collins Mr. O'Malley moved approval of this partnership, seconded by Mr. Riggs, and it carried unanimously. ~ CITIZENS COMMITTEES 1. Chicot PTA President, Mr. Kevin McGuire Mr. McGuire addressed the Board with a report from the Committee on the rebuilding of Chicot School. They made the following motion: \"The Chicot Building Committee's recommendation to the Little Rock School District is to rebuild Chicot Elementary with enhancements. An amendment to this motion was added to allow faculty the opportunity for input into the details of continued building options. The committee surveyed Chicot staff who supported the recommendation of adding classroom walls to the present design, and the Neighborhood Association's representative was also in agreement with this option. Figures provided by the Little Rock School District estimate additional funding would be required in the amount of $150,000. The projected construction completion date would be December, 1995.\" It was agreed by the Board Members that this motion from the committee would be considered at a Special Meeting on February 9, 1995. SPECIAL PRESENTATIONS Office of Desegregation Monitoring Melissa Guildin, representative to the LRSD Board from the Office of Desegregation Monitoring, reported that the Board had received reports from the Monitoring Office, and would be receiving another report that would be filed the next week. CLASSROOM TEACHERS ASSOCIATION Eleanor Coleman, representing the Classroom Teachers Regular Board Meeting January 26, 1995 Page 4 addressed the Board concerning discipline in our schools. She stated that she is encouraged that they were beginning to meet with the administration and talk about discipline. She stated they wanted action and not lip service. Ms. Coleman also expressed concern that some intercoms in schools were not in working order. She asked that they make sure there are people in the school office to answer the intercoms. h JOSHUA INTERVENORS No Report KNIGHT INTERVENORS No Report PTA COUNCIL Debbie Glasgow, PTA Council President, together with Dr. Williams, Superintendent, presented certificates to students who were winners in the American Education Week Essay Contest. BOARD MEMBERS Mrs. Judy Magness reported that she, Mr. Riggs, and Superintendent Williams* were guests at Jefferson PTA Meeting. She* also attended a Recruitment Party at Forest Park for kindergarten children. She appreciated the chance to talk to parents and teachers. Mr. John Riggs reported that he had spent the day at Metro last Thursday. He thanked Ms. Green for the hospitality. Ms. Gee reported on the retreat and thanked New Futures for bringing the facilitator. Ms. Pondexter reported she had attended a meeting in Washington D.C. on desegregation. She also participated in a forum on January 16 sponsored by the Gentlemen's Club at Central High School. She also reported on a meeting held with superintendents and Board Presidents from the three Pulaski County School Districts concerning the possibility of hiring a law firm to represent the school districts to try to settle the desegregation lawsuit. IV. REMARKS FROM CITIZENS Ms.* Brook Moore addressed the Board to report on a fund raiser to be conducted by Jerry Peters. He will hike from the Ouachita Trail in Arkansas to Pinnacle Mountain. This would give - *Denotes Correction to minutes Regular Board Meeting January 26, 1995 Page 5 the school children a chance to make money for their schools by getting pledges from friends and families. The money would go to the schools to purchase educational materials. Mr. John Gross, teacher in the LRSD, spoke to the Board concerning discipline in the schools. Mr. Benny Johnson, School Security Officer, addressed the Board concerning discipline in the schools. Mr. Bennie Smith, Forest Heights Jr. High patron, addressed the Board concerning late buses. Mr. Smith also expressed concern about the old building at Forest Heights. He stated that the building needs to be torn down because of bad repair. Mr. Say McIntosh addressed the Board concerning TV coverage in our schools. He asked the Board to keep the TV cameras off the school grounds. He expressed concern because of black on black crime. Mr. John York, Southwest Little Rock United for Progress Committee, spoke to the Board on the District's commitment to the public. He stated there was a meeting concerning the middle school concept, however, no one from the Little Rock School District attended this meeting. He asked for their commitment to cooperate with this committee. He thanked the Board for their commitment to the Beacons' School project. v. ACTION AGENDA fu. ARKANSAS DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION DIRECT AND EQUITABLE PROPOSAL FOR 1995-96 (ADULT EDUCATION) The Superintendent recommended the Board's approval to request funding ($38,929.32) to allow the Adult Education Program to continue serving educationally-disadvantaged adults on 0-8. 9 grade levels. Ms. Gee recommended approval, seconded by Dr. Mitchell, and it carried unanimously. 1h_ AREA SCHOOL ADVISORY COMMITTEE Ms. Magness through the help of a committee of patrons, prepared a proposal for establishing an Area School Advisory Committee. The Superintendent recommended that this be passed on to our legal council for their review. He recommended that the Board approve the proposal if it wishes, but to get clarification from the legal council regarding several points. Mrs. Magness expressed thanks to several people who worked on this proposal. Regular Board Meeting January 26, 1995 Page 6 She made a couple of editorial amendments. She asked that the Knight Intervenors be added to the membership list by adding one non-voting representative. The paragraph stating that ... \" the membership would reflect diversity of the area schools. . . \" should be stricken from the proposal. Also, she asked that paragraph No. 4 \"ASAC members will be able to review, consider, hear ... \" be deleted. Dr. Williams wanted to bring this back at the agenda meeting after the attorney gives advice. Mr. Riggs suggested that this be sent to the PTA Council and get their input. Mrs. Magness stated that it had been given to the PTA Council for their input. Mrs. Magness moved approval with the editorial changes, seconded by Ms. Gee, and it carried unanimously. MS. PONDEXTER STATED THAT SHE HAD ASKED FOR AN ACTION ITEM ON LONG-TERM SUSPENSIONS BE PLACED ON THE AGENDA. The Superintendent explained that this item was placed on the report agenda and that Mr. Robertson would be reporting on this. The Board President, Ms. Pondexter, relinquished the gavel to the vice-president, Ms. Gee, and stated that she wanted the Board to reaffirm the Board's commitment to the policy on discipline and recommendations from the principals. Dr. Williams stated he wanted to be sure that the student's would receive due-process. She moved that the expulsion recommendation of the principal be upheld unless it is appealed by the parent or guardian of the student involved. The principal shall notify the parent in writing by certified letter or a letter delivered by a school employee of the reasons for the expulsion recommendation. A parent may request a hearing in writing within 10 days of receiving notice, and a hearing will be conducted within 5 days by the hearing officer after receiving the request for a hearing. The hearing officer shall act as the convener and administrative officer for the committee. The student and/or his representative shall be given complete instructions for appeals made to the Board. Mrs. Magness seconded the motion. The motion failed 3-3 with Ms. Pondexter, Ms. Gee, and Mrs. Magness voting 11yes11 , and Mr. Riggs, Dr. Mitchell, and Mr.0 1Malley voting 11no. 11 ~ PREVENTION SERVICES PROJECT The Superintendent recommended that the Board approve the administration to proceed with the development and submission of an application to the Bureau of Alcohol and Drug Abuse Prevention, Arkansas Department of Health, for a program of prevention services for high risk youth. The Bureau is offering program support of up to $20,000. Mrs. Magness moved approval, seconded by Dr. Mitchell, and it carried unanimously. Regular Board Meeting January 26, 1995 Page 7 1h_ REQUEST FOR REPRESENTATION ELECTION FOR AIDES, AND BUS DRIVERS AND BUS DRIVER AIDES The Little Rock Classroom Teachers Association has petitioned the Board to allow a representative election for aides, and bus drivers and bus driver aides. The Superintendent recommended that this be allowed. Ms. Gee moved the recommendation, seconded by Mr. O'Malley, and it carried unanimously. FREEZE ON HIRING, WAGE INCREASE, PURCHASING AND TRAVEL Ms. Gee moved that an immediate hiring freeze be implemented at the Little Rock School District. Replacement hiring would only take place due to attrition, resignation or the inability to serve. She also stated she would like for an immediate freeze on purchasing be included in this motion. She stated she did not think that a travel freeze would be necessary at this time since the Board is going to be furnished with a monthly financial expenditure of travel report for all administrative staff. Mrs. Magness seconded the motion. After discussion, the vote failed 5-1, with Ms. Gee voting 11yes11 and Mr. O1Malley, Ms. Pondexter, Mrs. Magness, Dr. Mitchell, and Mr. Riggs voting 11no. 11 DONATIONS The Superintendent recommended the approval of the following donations: Division of Exceptional Children Washington Magnet School Watson Elementary LRSD Martin Luther King School Chicot Elementary Computer/Monitor/ Printer/Surge Protector Microwave Oven 800 Bags of Snacks Four Copies of Wordperfect 5.2 for Windows Silvertone Organ Solid State Several Donations on List in Agenda Regular Board Meeting January 26, 1995 Page 8 Mr. Riggs moved acceptance of these donations, seconded by Ms. Gee, and it carried unanimously. PERSONNEL CHANGES Mr. Riggs moved that the Board adjourn to Executive Session, seconded by Mrs. Magness, and it carried unanimously. The Board returned from Executive Session with Mr. Riggs moving acceptance of the personnel items as printed in the agenda, together with the slip sheet in which Dennis Snider was recommended for the position of Assistant Superintendent - Secondary Schools. The motion was seconded by Mr. O'Malley, and it carried unanimously. FINANCIAL REPORTS Mr. Riggs moved approval of the Financial Reports as printed on the agenda, seconded by Mr. O'Malley and it carried 5-1 with Ms. Gee casting the 11no11 vote. SUSPENSION OF THE RULES: The Superintendent asked for a suspension of the rules to consider the approval of the following: ~ IMPLEMENTATION OF COMMERCIAL ART COURSE The Superintendent recommendation that a Commercial Art I Course be implemented at Parkview Arts/Science Magnet High School beginning with the 1995-96 school year with Commercial Art II following in the school year 1996-97. The Visual Arts Program at Parkview Arts/Science Magnet High School is in need of expansion to support it's magnet focus and provide high tech learning experiences for the Visual Arts students. Commercial Art will provide this opportunity as well as meet state requirements relative to Tech Prep mandates. Mr. Riggs moved approval of this course, seconded by Dr. Mitchell, and it carried unanimously. ~ JUNIOR HIGH SCHOOLS FOREIGN LANGUAGES PREREQUISITE EXPLORATORY COURSE The Superintendent also recommended that the Board approve the addition of a prerequisite foreign languages exploratory course for seventh and eighth graders who have no previous foreign languages learning experiences. Mr. Riggs moved approval of this recommendation, seconded by Dr. Mitchell and it carried unanimously. Regular Board Meeting January 26, 1995 Page 9 VI. REPORT AGENDA fu DISCUSSION OF ARTICLE XXXV OF THE PN AGREEMENT Ms. Pondexter had asked that the Board look at Article XXXV (Joint Committees) of the Professional Negotiations Agreement and abide by this Article. 1h PEER HELPER ADVISORY COUNCIL PRESENTATION Jennifer Lynch, President of the Peer Helper Advisory Council, made a presentation to the Board concerning the council. It is sponsoring Safe Schools Project with the approval of Governor Tucker. The governor issued a proclamation designating February as Safe Schools Month. She stated that the council's purpose is to promote safe school projects for the Safe Schools Program. ~ DESEGREGATION UPDATE Dr. Mayo answered questions from the Board on the Desegregation Report that was printed in the agenda. UPDATE ON ABACUS WITH COST TO DATE Mark Milhollen presented an update on the cost of ABACUS for a three year period: 1992-93 $371,995.15\n1993-94 $256,441.42\nand 1994-95 - $228,046.64. There was no discussion. UPDATE ON STATUS OF PROGRAMS Dr. Clowers gave a report on the programs that were identified for an Extended Evaluation. The report on the extended Evaluations/Business Cases is printed in the agenda. DISCUSSION OF POSSIBLE STATE-WIDE SCHOOL CALENDAR Brady Gadberry reported on the possible state-wide school calendar. He explained that the three school districts in Pulaski County try to coordinate their school calendars in order to establish uniform student days because of the M to Mand magnet students who must be transported between the districts.. He explained that the calendar could be complicated this year because of a strong push by the representatives of businesses who profit from tourism to move the start of all of the state public schools back to the day following Labor Day. To date this has not been determined. Regular Board Meeting January 2~, 1995 Page 10 ~ STATUS OF CHANGING FRANKLIN AND STEPHENS SCHOOL FROM INCENTIVE TO MAGNET Dr. Williams stated that did not materialize because the District was going to apply for a grant to finance this project. The District was not encouraged to apply for the grant. li..!.. UPDATE ON STEPHENS SCHOOL IN RELATION TO PARTNERSHIP WITH CITY The city of Little Rock has continued to express a desire to enter into a partnership in the construction of the new Stephens Elementary School. They have indicated they are seriously looking at the inclusion of an Alert Center and possibly some type of physical recreation facility. A determination had not been made as of this date. L.. DISCUSSION OF POLICY OR PROCEDURE TO DISCONTINUE CLASSES THAT ARE UNDER ENROLLED Mr. Gadberry stated that there are no Board policies which cover minimum class size. However the practice for many years has been not to allow secondary classes of fewer than 15 students with some exceptions. STATUS REPORT ON JOSTENS COMPUTER LABS A report was given on Jostens Learning Corporation's computer-based instruction program that began in the 1987-88 school year. Charts were supplied to the Board on the results of Achievement Tests given to students. SAFETY AND SECURITY REPORT INCLUDING LONG-TERM SUSPENSIONS Mr. Jones, Director of Security, reported to the Board on the major activities that have occurred in the schools broken down into categories. Mr. Robertson, Student Hearing Officer, reported on the number of long-term suspension recommendations for the first semester. The Board asked that Mr. Robertson give them a break down on the number of these students are repeat offenders. Regular Board Meeting January 26, 1995 Page 11 UPDATE ON EXPENDITURES FOR CHICOT ELEMENTARY SCHOOL TO DATE Mr. Eaton gave a report on expenditures for Chicot. There was discussion about making a decision on which plan would be used for the rebuilding of Chicot. The Board requested that this be placed on the agenda for a Special Meeting at the Regular Agenda Meeting on February 9, 1995. DATA ON NUMBER OF SUBSTITUTES PROVIDED BY SOS OFFICE BY SCHOOL This report was furnished to the Board as a general number of substitutes. Dr. Hurley was to furnish the Board with a report of substitutes by school. VII. AUDIENCE WITH INDIVIDUALS OR GROUPS VIII . STUDENT AND/OR EMPLOYEE DISCIPLINARY RECOMMENDATIONS An expulsion recommendation was presented to the Board for approval. The student, Brandon Hughes, Cloverdale Junior High School, was recommended for expulsion on 12-21-94 for possession of a weapon. The Superintendent recommended the expulsion of this student. Mrs. Magness moved approval of the recommendation, seconded by Mr. Riggs, and it carried unanimously. EMPLOYEE HEARING Ms. Sherry Henderson, a former teacher at Central High School, and presently a teacher at Geyer Springs and Woodruff, appealed to the Board. The grievance centered around Ms. Henderson's assignment for the 1994-95 school year. Ms. Henderson's teaching assignment was changed for this school year and she was assigned as an elementary music teacher. She had applied for a position at Parkview Magnet School and feels she should have been assigned to Parkview as a choral teacher. It was stated that another teacher with more teaching experience was assigned to the position at Parkview. After hearing oral arguments from Ms. Henderson's attorney and those of the Director of Labor Relations, Mr. Brady Gadberry, the Board went into Executive Session at 11:10 p.m. They returned from Executive Session at 11:15 p.m. Dr. Williams moved that the recommendation of the labor relations specialist be upheld - that being that Ms. Henderson was properly placed. Mr. Riggs moved the Superintendent's - recommendation, seconded by Mr. Riggs, and it carried unanimously. Regular Board Meeting January 23, 1995 Page 12 ADJOURNMENT: With no further business to come before the Board, Mr. Riggs moved adjournment at 11:18 p.m., seconded by Mrs. Magness, and it carried unanimously. APPROVED: RKANSAS SCHOOL BOARDS AsSOCIATION ASBA 808 Dr. M.artin Luther King Drive * Little Rock, AR 72202-3646 (501)372-1415 * FAX (501)375-2454 January 1995 TO: Superintendents FROM: Dan Farley, Assistant Executive Director RE: Certificates for Board In-Service Enclosed is a certificate for each member of your board that has completed the mandated six hours of in-service training between September 1993 and now. We suggest that you present the certificate(s) at a public board meeting and then, according to the law, attach it (or a copy) to the official, permanent minutes of the board. As you know, the new ASBA Boardmanship Program is ongoing and is set up to recognize not only individual board members, but school boards as well. The hours board members have accumulated beyond the mandated six hours will be kept and reviewed periodically so that appropriate awards may be given . . RECEIVED JAM 2 51995 SUPT'S OFFICf l . ..  ,:., ,  -   _.__,..___,\n_\n__~, ... _..\n_(\",.,_ ..,,..--,.,_.,.,.u ,..,.,.. ,..,:r .. r.:. lr):/\n . __ ,JUDY [_ ., /, ''.\", . .. :: .... ... :- .... .- .. .: .. MAGNESS :, ' f ''\n~,,. . , .1,,,, accoulance ~ ..Jct 767,f 1987, ~ ~ 6(a\nh\u0026lt;JM of' in~ 61u4, ~~ ~:~ ffdwol~ ~J in 1k ~ ~ o/. ~ a,\nj 1k ~ rMUI ~ ',1,J-'J ,~, 6Clwol lxxud ~- .. ,, ~\"' JAN 20, 1995 : .... , . ...  .... :, :::-.: ...  . '., . . .  ~t .. : . --:: '. .:.:i:: ... , , , . .........   ... -. : /::_1 ,..\n,\n. ,: ~\n.  : .. ::: :-:  ... .:,.' ..: :,: .,\n .. ' ........... '.,\n.\u0026gt;:_ . ,' .... ~::,\"-:~ .: ... .'\n. :rr. .. . ,. .. ,, . ,, . ..... ... :. .. ' . , ., :,,, . ' ' ....... . . . ,. .  ....  ..... : . :. . . . .. :.:::::: ..  SPECIAL REPORT: LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 810 WEST MARKHAM STREET LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS PROPOSED AGENDA FOR REGULAR BOARD MEETING February 23, 1995 February 9, 1995 FEB 9 \\995 o11\nca ol oa regaliot, A. Reform of Public Schools Funding - Mr. Gene Wilhoit, Director - State Department of Education PARTNERSHIPS ACTION AGENDA: A. Proposal for New or Expanded Programs: Computer Commercial Art - Parkview B. Development of Neighborhood Alert Center at Ish Site c. Arkansas Arts Council Grant D. Donations - Monetary E. Donations - Property F. Personnel Changes G. Financial Reports REPORT AGENDA: A. Desegregation Update B. Percentage of Southwest Elementary Students Attending Southwest Schools C. First Semester Truancy Report (to be furnished later) , To: LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 810 WEST MARKHAM STREET LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS 72201 February 23, 1995 Board of Directors From: Russell Mayo~tssociate Superintendent, Office of Desegregation Through: He~s.~ols Subject: Partners in Education Program: New partnerships The Little Rock School District Partners in Education program is designed to develop strong relationships between the community and our schools. The partnership process encourages businesses, community agencies and private organizations to join with individual schools to enhance and support educational programs. Each partnership strives to meet and utilize the resources of both the school and the business for their mutual benefit. The following schools and businesses have completed the requirements necessary to establish a partnership and are actively working together to accomplish their objectives. We recommend that the Board approve the following partnerships: Baptist Medical Center, Baptist Rehabilitation Institute and Little Rock School District K-Mart and Bale Elementary School The National Dunbar Alumni Association of Little Rock, Arkansas, and the Little Rock Chapter of the National Alumni Association and Dunbar Magnet Junior High School Federal Bureau of Investigation, Little Rock Field Office and Garland Incentive School Pulaski Heights Baptist Church and Pulaski Heights Elementary School Baptist Medical center and Baptist Rehabilitation Institute and the Little Rock School District propose to establish a partnership baaed upon the following activities. Baptist Medical Center and Baptist Rehabilitation Institute agree to the following: * collect Harvest Foods tapes from employees. * purchae red ribbons for a school's Red Ribbon Week and provide apeakers. * arrange tours of facilities for any classes who are interested. * publicize volunteer opportunities in the schools in employee newletter. * provide a listing of health and wellness educational offerings available at Baptist to schools. The Little Rock School District agrees to the following: * promote Baptist Medical Center and Baptist Rehabilitation Institute as a Partner in Education to the co111J11unity. * invite claaaea to provide art work for hospital patient during the holiday season.  invite clas to sing carols to families in waiting rooms during the holiday (before school vacation begins). * provide LRSD facilities when possible tor COJIJllunity-based Baptist activitiea. PARTNERSHIP ACTIVITES K - MART \u0026amp; BALE ELEMENTARY SCHOOL BALE ELEMENTARY SCHOOL WILL: 1. Provide monthly decorations for the K-Mart store located at Asher and Uniyersity. 2. Visit the store and meet employees while learning about career and consumer needs. 3. Participate in an environmental contest sponsored by K-Mart stores. All students will be allowed to enter this program. 4. Students will perform special programs for K-Mart employees. 5. Place a sign at Bale recognizing K-Mart as our partner. K-MART WILL: 1. Donate 100 disposable cameras to be used in their environmental contest and with our Focused Activity Grant activities. 2. Donate some film developing for the grant activities. 3. Sponsor a science project contest. 4. Will provide assistance in school needs as much as possible. 5. Provide speakers for Career Day. 6. Donate school supplies for students that need assistance. The National Dunbar Alumni Association of Little Rock, Arkansas and the Little Rock Chapter of the National Alumni Association Partnership Proposal Opening: Purpou: . ~c:tivities: The National Dunbar Alumni Association was one of the first established high school alumni associations in the nation. lt is a dynamic organiution with active local chapters and members across the United States, with the Uttle Rock local chapter maintaining a strona presence. A bi-aMual convention is held each year in cities as diverse as San Francisco, Chicago. Detroit, etc. Association membership consists of graduates of the Paul Laurence Dunbar High School located at I 100 Wright Avenue in Little Rock, AI. The class of 1955 was the final class to graduate from the school before its incarnation as a junior high school. In order to preserve the rich history of Dunbar High School, the National Alumni Association and its Little Rock local chapter propose to function in partnership with Dunbar Magnet Junior High School. A visible presence and strong avenue of communication will be maintained and nurtured . Activities will include, but certainly are not limited to: ())The Little Rock chapter will donate a refurbishment of the auditorium stage including all drapes and mechanical workings. (Completed in August and Dedicated in January) (2) Maintaining the Dunbar Alumni Room in order to educate past, current and future students as to the history of black education in Little Rock (3) The MEN OF DUNBAR, an organization of retired male alumni, will mentor male students and offer direction, support and positive male role modeling that is too often laclcing. (4) An extensive landscape renewal program is being undertaken with the goal being beautification of the grounds. (5) Other activities will be addressed on an as needed basis Dunbar Magnet Junior High School Participation ( 1) Dunbar Magnet Junior High School will provide space for an alumni memorabilia room. (2) The school facility v.ill be opened for any functions of the Alumni Association, (monthly meetings, press conferences. assemblies, etc.). (3) The Partnership wilt be duly noted in brochures, fliers and other communications where appropriate. LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT GARLAND INCENTIVE SCHOOL Multimedia Technology and Educational Research 3615 West 25th  Llttle Rock, Arkansas 72204 January 26, 1995 Federal Bureau of Investigation and Garland Incentive School Partnership Establishment Garland Incentive School asks the Little Rock School District Board of Directors to recognize a partnership with the Federal Bureau oflnvestigations (FBI). The FBI is eager to provide a number of services, and its employees have a wide range of interests, talents and experiences to share. The Federal Bureau oflnvestigation completely supports education and the educational process, and its employees have made a commitment to our students that will enhance their lives for years to come. Our students, parents and staff welcome the Federal Bureau oflnvestigation to Garland Incentive School. The Federal Bureau oflnvestigation offers to provide the following services: 1. Conduct Jr. G-Men Program at the school during the Extended Day program, for 4th, 5th, and 6th grade students. 2. Provide tutorial services for students and provide \"celebrity readers\" for students. 3. Become mentors for Garland Incentive School (visit on campus/eat lunch with students on a regular basis). 4. Serve as chaperons for field trips. 5. Provide motivational speakers for classrooms, at teachers' request. 6. Assist with the \"Career Fair\" to provide enrichment for students. 7. Collect newspapers and business magazines to be used as teaching aids. 8. Judge the \"Red Ribbon\" poster and essay contest in October. Garland Incentive School will provide the following services: 1. Provide a meeting place for the Federal Bureau oflnvestigation for presentations and training. 2. Recognize the partnership in school and PT A newsletters. 3. Provide a display of pictures of activities between students and partners in the school. 4. Perform for special holidays at the Federal Bureau oflnvestigation office (Christmas, Hanukkah and Kwanzaa). 5. Set up a \"Writing Partners\" program (write letters to FBI employees on a regular basis). 6. Conduct a Partners-in-Education Reception at the end of the school year. 7. Provide students' \"art work\" for FBI employees to display at their work sites, .if requested. LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT PULASKI HEIGHTS ELEMENTARY SCHOOL 319 North Pine Street  Phone 171-6290  Llttle Rock, Arkan 72205 PULASKI HEIGHTS BAPTIST CHURCH WILL: 1 . Serve ~s mentors (12) 2. Recognize teachers and staff on special days 3. Provide transportation for students to the Francis Allen Center who participate in the Helping Heart Program. 4. Establish a Pen Pal Program 5. Sponsor a Career Day 6. Exhibit Students' Art Work 7. Judge Rssay Contest 8. Provide school supplies and clothing for needy families Pulaski Heights Elementary will: 1. Provide students' artwork 2. Help with annual food drive 3 . Assist with Fallfest Activities TO: LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 810 WEST MARKHAM STREET LITTLE ROCK , AR 72201 January 8, 1995 't}ard of Directors FROM: ~ fEstelle Matthis , Deputy Superintendent ~arolMwo~~ THROUGH: Henry P. Williams, Ster1n~cnucrr~ SUBJECT: Application for New or Expanded Vocational Programs for School Year 1995-96 Education Each year the Little Rock School District is required to submit proposals for any New or Expanded Vocational Education Programs for the coming school year to the Vocational and Technical Education Division, Arkansas Department of Education. by March 1. As we continue to implement Tech Prep in the Little Rock School District, Commercial Art was approved at the January 26, -1995, Board of Directors meeting to meet state requirements at Parkview Arts/Science Magnet high school. We are seeking permission to submit an application for Commercial Art as a new and expanded program at Parkview. An application is provided for your review, under separate cover. No District funds will be required to implement this program. We recommend that you approve the submission of this proposal to the Vocational and Technical Education Division, Arkansas Department of Education. Proposal for a New or Expanded Secondary Program Submitted to the Vocational and Technical Education Division Arkansas Department of Education LITTLE ROCK School District PARKVIEW MAGNET School Pulaski County Trade and Industrial Education Full Name of Vocational Program VE-92 2/94 (Examples: Agriculture Education\nBusiness Education\nTrade and Industrial Education Welding, etc.) Computerized Commercial Art Program of Study to be Offered (High School) OR List Foundation Courses (Junior High School) AUGUST, 1995 Proposed Starting Date Signature of Superintendent Or Authorized Person Signature of Program Advisory Committee Chairperson (Occupation Specific Programs Only) March 1, 1995 Date March 1, 1995 Date VE-92 2/94 I. GENERAL DESCRIPTION OF THE PROGRAM I I. Computerized Commercial Art is an instructional program that prepares individuals in grades 10-12 to design and execute layouts and make illustrations for advertising displays and instructional manuals using conventional and computerized methods. Students will also receive instruction in the preparation of copy, lettering, poster, package and product design, fashion illustration\nsilk screening\nair brushing\nand ink and color dynamics. Class sections will contain approximately 20 students each, Classes will be 50 minutes in length under the current master scheduling plan. Two sections will be offered daily each semester. JUSTIFICATION FOR THE PROGRAM The Visual Arts Program at Parkview Arts/Science Magnet high school is in need of expansion to support it's magnet focus and provide high tech learning experiences for the Visual Arts students. As we approach the threshold of a prevailing informational society, the commercial artist has become one of the most important individuals in this process. Through techniques used in DeskTop Publishing and Computerized graphics, more sophisticated layout and design can be achieved. Modern magazine layouts and front pages are being done through the use of computers. This process also includes the artistic element, combined with the mechanical process of the computer. The Demand Training Program List (appendix A) published by the Arkansas Employment Security Division includes commercial art as one of the most promising employment opportunities in the state. -2- III. IV. VE-92 2/94 Priorities and Policies for Detennining Grant Awards to Support the Start-up of New Vocational Programs A. Please indicate the category or categories that your proposed program fits relative to the priorities for approval of programs which meet documented labor market needs and individual student needs. You may check the applicable category. Please check:     ul  1. Schools where two or more school districts propose to share classroom/laboratory facilities (not just instructors) to provide arrangement. one of which had not operated a state-funded vocational program the previous year. 2. School districts which did not operate any type of a state-funded vocational program the previous year. 3. Schools where two or more school districts propose to share classroom/laboratory facilities (not just instructors) to provide vocational training in a cooperative arrangement even though all cooperating districts may already operate one or more state-funded vocational programs. 4. School districts which propose to add approved vocational programs to meet the minimum standard for accreditation which requires that a minimum of one program of study selected from three different occupational/technical programs be offered annually. 5. School districts which propose to add new vocational programs in a service area that is not presently being funded in that district. 6. School districts which propose to expand one of more existing vocational programs. Student Enrollment Information for Proposed New or Expanded Programs A. Estimated enrollment in proposed program. Include this information separately for each teacher involved in the new or expanded program. -3- IV. STUDENT ENROLLMENT INFORMATION FOR PROPOSED NEW OR EXPANDED PROGRAM FlRST SEMESTER Computerized Program of Study (Sr. High) Commercial Art Teacher's Name Robert Clark Foundation Courses (Jr. High).~-- - _______ _ Grade No. of Period Sem. Name of Course 7 8 9 10 11 12 Computerized 1 2 Commercial Art ii 8 7 2 1 Art History 20 5 Computerized 3 2 Commercial Art 5 8 7 4 2 Conference 5 1 Art History , 20 'i 6 1 Drawing One 20 5 7 2 Conference SECOND SEMESTER Grade No. of Period Sem. Name of Course 7 8 9 10 11 12 1 SAME 2 3 4 5 6 7 -4- VE-92 2/94 Total 12 25 20 ?ii 25 Total - V. B. According to these categories, estimate the total number of students you expect to serve in the new expanded program: Handicapped Students 5 Disadvantaged Students 6 Limited-English Proficiency Students 2 Sex: Males 28 Females 34 Race: Black 32 White 25 Other 5 Administration VE-92 2/94 Explain the administrative structure under which the program will function (include an organization chart). VI. Resource Material Indicate the supplies, teaching aides, and reference materials that will be needed for the program. VII. Program of Study for Middle/High School Include drawing board for this program using the format attached. A drawing board should be provided for each program of study to be offered, i.e., nurse assisting, physical therapy aide, medical records clerk, computerized accounting, automotive, etc. -5- VE-92 - 2/94 V. ADMINISTRATION The Computerized Commercial Art instructor will work directly under the school principal. The administrative chart is as follows: School Board 1 Superintendent 1 Principal 1 Instructor 1 VI. The Parkview Visual Arts Department will be able to provide supportive resources for the proposed program. The media center has met the required standards of the North Central Association and will assist to avail additional resource materials for teachers and students for supplies, teaching aids, and reference materials. Supplies ............................. $ 1,000 Teaching Aids ....................... . 500 Reference Materials Commercial Art Textbooks......... 875 Teacher Edition.................. 45 Software............................. 600 TOTAL ................................ $ 3,020 VII. PROGRAM OF STUDY (See attached list) -6- ARl(ANSAS TECH PREP- ORA WING BOARD\" Program of Study COMPUTERIZED COMMERCIAL ART Service Arca TRADE AND INDUSTRY JUNIQR HIGH 7th GRADE 8th GRADE SUBJECT FRESHMAN Math Math Algebra I or MATH Applied Math I 1 Unit 1 unit 1 Unit English English ENGLISH English I 1 Unit 1 Unit 1 Unit Science Science SCIENCE Physical Science 1 Unit 1 Unit 1 Unit Social Social Studies Studies SOCIAi. Civics STUDIES 1 Unit 1 UnH 1 Unit Art/Music Hea lth-1/2 Unit 1/2 Unit OTHER Physical Ed. 1/2 Unit Personal C.O.-1 Unit Fine Arts Family Life EITE-1/2 Unit OTHER Ski lls-1/2 Un t 1/2 Unit Keyboarding CT: Intro. TECHNICAL E.I.T.E. 1/2 Unit 1/2 Unit CORE 1 Unit TECHNICAL SPECIALTY Options for Stud,nls: R~ular Academics or Al,'plled Acad,mlcs. Applied Math I and Apphed Math II moy suhslltute for Ali\nebra I. l'rinclpl,s of Technololjy I and II may substitute for one umt of Physics. Appli,d lliology/Ch,mtstry I and II may suhstitule for one unit of lliology. HIGH SCHOOL SOPHOMORE JUNIOR Geometry or Algebra II ApBlied Math I I Geometry 1 nit 1 Unit English I I English I I I 1 Unit 1 Unit Biology or AP.plied A~plied Biology Biology/Chemistry 6n e1~.1, es ~r~ hIi sI 1. ocrs or 1 Unit Chemistry- Unit World History American History 1 Unit 1 Unit Oral Communications Foreign Language 1 Unit 1 Unit-Optiona 1 WorkPlace Readiness Computerized Commercial Art SENIOR Algebra II English I I 1 Unit Physics or Unified Physics 1 Unit Foreign LanguagE 1 Unit-Optional Computerized Commercial Art THIS IS AN EXAMPLE OF WHAT OUR STUDENTS CAN TAKE SO THEY CAN BE CLASSIFIED AS A TECH PREP COMPLETER. -6- VE-92 - 2/94 VIII. PHYSICAL FACILITIES An existing visual art classroom will be used for the program. Adequate florescent lighting, chalkboard and bulletin board space is present. The area is presently used for Art History and Drawing I classes. Changes to the facility is as follows: Additional electrical wiring and outlets will be provided $1,200 for the greater utilization of computerized equipment Construction of counter space and storage for computer $1 , 300 equipment IX. EQUIPMENT (See attached list) X. ADVISORY COMMITTEE(S) (Only required for Occupation Specific) (Advisory committee list attached) XI. XI I. COOPERATIVE PROGRAM PROPOSAL(S) ONLY N.A FACULTY CREDENTIALS The instructor for this program will meet all secondary program policy guidelines for state certification. -7- COMPUTERIZED COMMERCIAL ART EQUIPMENT LlST ITEM Complete Student Work Station Power MacIntosh 6100/66 AV Color System Server Power Mac 8100/lOOAV (2MB VRAM) 16 MB HD 1000 CPV w/AV Kit Apple AV 14\" Display w/AV Kit Apple Keyboard Ethernet Adapters - Apple Ethernet twisted pair Transceivers Network Cables - Apple Ethernet (2 meters) (to connect comp to comp) Laserwriter 16/600 PS Toner and 250 Sheet Feeder Apple Color Scanner w/Accessory Kit with Cables Apple Quicktake 100 Hewlett Packard Globewriter 5606 Advantage DAT Backup System w/Cable External 2GB Digital Audio Tape, Hard Drive/Storage WaCam Digitizing Tab TOTAL COST OF EQUIPMENT: QUANTITY 18 1 18 18 1 1 1 TOTAL COST $ 46,836 4,779 1,062 153 2,181 804 653 1 1,110 1 1,269 1 800 $ 59,747 X. ADVISORY COMMITTEE(S) VE-92 2/94 Form YE-7 YOCATIO!'.Al EDUCATION AD\\'ISORY COMMITTEE SCHOOL YEAR 19 95 Commercial Art SCHOOL Parkview Magnet High School ADDRESS 2501 Barrow Road TEACHERS Mr. Robert Clark Mrs. Rosemary Burke-Carroll List name (beginning with committee chairman), title, employer, address, telephone number, and origin and sex of advisory committee members. 1. Name Tonya Palanca Title Art Director Sex_F_ Orip'---'-W'----- Employer The Graphics Company Adclras 6300 Old Jacksonville Highway Telephone 374-9331 Jacksonville, AR 72217 2 N... Nancy Grable Title Production Dr. Sex- F- Ori ... '---\"----- 3. ... .s. F 1e,,- Cranford, Johnson, Robinson \u0026amp; W'f~._ _. .3. 7.:\n:6_-~6.,_2.5._1 ______ \u0026gt;.Mal 303 w. Capitol Avenue L.R. AR 72201 s- _Jon_ C_o_op_er_ ________ Title Graphic Artist Sex.21_ Oripa. __B ____ !\"-.,..P,.:,r._ __T_:C.:B.:.Y,:: ..,_ ________ T.e .l.e pboer-.,..-._.::.6.:::.88:::..-...::8:.:::2.::.2~9 ______ Mlllal N-Emplo,- er Address 425 w. Capitol L.R. AR 72201 LaShuan Vaughn Tide Program Artist Scx.J.._ Oripa._-=B~--__ Chann_el_ 16_ _______ Telepeoae BW -526285--2090D156 2501 Barrow Road L.R. AR 72204 Same- -C-ar-ol- A-. -Je-n-ni\"ng-s ---- Title Business Instructc8ex_F_ Oripo_.a.,,W ___ Employer Little Rock School District Telephone 228-3025 Address 2501 Barrow Road L. R. AR 72204 6. Name Chester Storthy Title Art Dr. Sex_l!_ Oripo._.._ __ _ Employer (self) Storthy Ad. Agency Address 2224 Cottondale Lane Telephone 661-0126 L.R. AR (U5e reverse side for listin\u0026amp; additional advisory committee membcr5.) -8- ESTIMATED COST FOR PROPOSED VOCATIONAL PROGRAM COMPUTERIZED COMMERCIAL ART TRADE AND INDUSTRY Name of Program(s) of Study, Occupational Area VE-92 2/94 (e.g., Nurse Assisting, Medical Assisting) (e.g., Medical Professional Education) Description Amount Salary Costs .............................................................................................. $_ ____..2.,._8~,5 .u0.. 0. u., ...,0.._0- --- Supplies/fe aching Aids, etcJCosts .......................................................... $_ __1., _,5 _0_0_._0_0 ___ Resource Materials Costs ......................................................................... $_ ___92_ 0_._0_0 ___ Travel Costs .............................................................................................. $_ ___-_ O_-_____ Capital Equipment Costs as outlined in Item IX ....................................... $_ _5_ 9...._7_4_7_._0_0 ___ Software Costs.......................................................................................... $ __ 6_0_0_._0_0 __ _ TOT AL ..................................... $_ _91_ ,_2_67_._o_o- -- ST ART-UP MONEY REQUESTED (when available) ........................... $_ _4_ 5 ~0 _0_0_.0 _0_ ___ Attach a list of equipment that is to be purchased with funding and the estimated cost of this equipment NOTE: Only capital equipment may be purchased with start-up money. -9- TO: FROM: THROUGH: SUBJECT: LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 810 WEST MARKHAM STREET LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS February 23, 1995 Board of Directors argaret Gremillion, Assistant Superintendent rginia Ashley, Principal, Forest Park arvin Schwartz, Grants Writer Henry P. Williams, Superintendent Arkansas Arts Council Grant Forest Park Elementary School and P.T.A. would like to request a $2,500 grant from the Arkansas Arts Council for a residency arts program for the 1995-96 school year. The program would provide weekly instruction in the visual arts for all students, a short-term residency artist for storytelling in grades K-3 , and a short-term residency artist for theater arts in grades 4-6. Educational impact of the arts programs will be to provide multicultural experiences through a variety of mediums and reduce racial disparity of test scores. Forest Park has implemented arts education programs of this type since 1990. Each annual application to AAC was matched by cash and volunteer input from the school PT A Similar local matches will be provided for the new program. It is recommended that the Board of Directors approve the administration to proceed with the Forest Park application to the Arkansas Arts Council. TO: FROM: THROUGH: SUBJECT: LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 810 WEST MARKHAM STREET LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS February 23, 1995 Board of Directors A\u0026lt;-fiBrenda Scrimager, Director, McClellan Community Education _,,'(/llEstell~ty Superintendent Henry P. Williams, Superintendent Donation Park Plaza Mall wishes to donate $2,000 to McClellan Community Education. It is recommended that this donation be approved in accordance with the policies of the Little Rock School District. TO: FROM: THROUGH: SUBJECT: LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 810 WEST MARKHAM STREET LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS February 23, 1995 Board of Directors Ai ~renda Scrimager, Director, McClellan Community Education (pl v:,stelle Mattl~s eputy Superintendent Henry P. Wil iams, uperintendent Donation Baseline Wal-Mart Store wishes to donate $2,000 to McClellan Community Education. This money will be used to purchase second-hand clocks for McClellan's football field. It is recommended that this donation be approved in accordance with the policies of the Little Rock School District. TO: LI'rl'LE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 810 WEST MARKHAM STREET LITTLE ROCK, AR 72201 February 23, 1995 Board of Directors FROM: ,~ 0 Charles A. Neal, Director, Procurement \u0026amp; Materials Mgmt. h Fred Smith, Mana r, R~sources and School Support THROUGH: H~ia , Superintendent of Schools SUBJECT: Donations of Property Attached are requests to donate property to the Little Rock School District as follows: School/Department Pulaski Heights Jr.High Pulaski Heights Jr.High Williams Magnet School Wilson Elementary Wilson Elementary Badgett Elementary Little Rock School District Chicot Elementary Item Office Furniture/ Two Typewriters/ Miscellaneous Office Supplies Scoreboard for Gym Cabinets/Ellison Dies/Basketball Goals/Computers/ Chalkboard Two Basketball Goals $500.00 Cash Kindergarten Loft Apple IIE Computer System Complete/ Software/Printer Items on Attached List Donor Social Security Office Mr. Gary Smith of Worthen Bank Williams PTA Wilson PTA Wal-Mart/Asher Mr.Jerry Peters of Webster Univ. Mr.Harry Brummett Donors on Attached List It is recommended that these donation requests be approved in accordance with the policies of the Board. LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DiSTRICT PULASKI HEIGHTS JUNIOR HIGH SCHOOL 401 North Pine Street  Phone 671-6250  Little Rock, Arkansas 72205 To: From: Date: Subject: Charlie Neal, Director Procurement \u0026amp; Materials Mona Bri' ggs~, Prin ci' pal January 6, 1995 Donation Please accept a donation of (6) Tables, (12) Chairs, (2) typewriters \u0026amp; Ribbons and other office supplies from the Social Security Office to Pulaski Heights Junior High School. Estimated valued at $750.00. \"70/u.re ~U!L. it a :7\"nul.ili.1n\" LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT PULASKI HEIGHTS JUNIOR HIGH SCHOOL 4 01 North Pl ne Street  Phone 671-6250  Little Rock, Arkansas 72205 To From Date RE Char! ie Neal_ Q Mona Briggs ~ January 10 , 1994 Donation We have received a scoreboard for our gym from Gary Smith at Worthen Bank. The approximate value is $3 , 600.00. Please accept this donation . P., .. '- , \\.:\" \"7(JfuN. ~ u.. a U,adi,ti,nn.\" LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT WILLIAMS MAGNET SCHOOL 7301 Evergreen Street  Phone 671-6363  Llttle Rock, Arkansas 72207 TO: FROM: M E M O R A N D U M Charles A. Neal Director of Procurement and Materials Management . v~J,1 . . Mary Menking, Principal SUBJECT: Donations of Property DATE: January 20, 1995 The Williams Magnet School PTA wishes to donate the following property to our school: Cabinets Ellison Educational dies Window blinds Basketball goals Computers for library automation Dustless chalkboard $305.00 $258.83 $425.00 $398.84 $9100.00 $1300.00 It is recommended that the donations be approved in accordance with the policies of the Little Rock School District. Thank you for your consideration. /brs A CHOICE FOR EXCELLENCE To: From: Subject: Date: Wilson Elementary School 4015 Stannus Road Little Rock, Arkansas 72204 (501) 570-4180 .. M~harles A. Neal, Director, Procurement ~ranklin A. Davis, Principal, Wilson Elementary Donation of Property January 25, 1995 The Wilson Elementary School PTA wishes to donate two basketball goals to the school. Total value of the goals is $1,026.14. It is recommended that this donation request be approved in accordance with the policies of the Little Rock School District. To: From: Subject: Date: Wilson Elementary School 4015 Stannus Road Little Rock, Arkansas 72204 (501) 570-4180 ~ Charles A. Neal, Director, Procurement 1'ranklin A. Davis, Principal, Wilson Elementary Donation of Money January 25, 1995 The Wal-Mart Store on Asher Avenue wishes to donate $500.00 to the school. The money is to be used towards beautification of the campus lawn. It is recommended that this donation request be approved in accordance with the policies of the Little Rock School District. LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT Badgett Elementary School 6900 Pecan Avenue Phone 324-24 7 5 Little Rock, Arkansas 72206 Date: February 3, 1995 To: Charles A. Neal From: ~'(Mary Golston, Principal Subject: Donation of Property Mr. Jerry Peters of Webster University wishes to donate a Kindergarten loft to Badgett Elementary. The estimated value of this donation is $700.00. - .. -.--.... - \\ ' I\nt '. DATE: TO: ~ LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT PROCUREMENT AND MATERIALS MANAGEMENT 1800 EAST SIXTH STREET LITTLE ROCK, AR 72202 February 8, 1995 Henry P. Williams, Superintendent of Schools FROM: L,~w\nvcharles A. Neal, Director IP'-\\ SUBJECT: Donation of Property Mr. Harry J. Brummett wishes to donate the following computer equipment to the Little Rock School District to be used where needed: Apple IIE System Unit/Two Disk Drives/Monitor/Cable Modem/Modem Cable/Software/Printer The value of this used equipment is $645.00. It is recommended that this donation be approved in accordance with the policies of the Board. DATE: TO: FROM: SUBJECT: CHICOT ELEMENTARY SCHOOL 11100 Chicot Road Mabelvale, AR 72103 February 8, 1995 Charles A. Neal, Director of Procurement and Materials Management Otis Preslar, Principal Additional Donations for Chicot It is recommended that the donated items on the attached list be accepted and approved in accordance with the policies of the Board of Directors of the Little Rock School District. Thank you for your consideration. Donor/Address 1. Meadowcliff Brookwood Neighborhood Assoc. c/o Beverly Nelson 40 Westmont Circle Little Rock, AR 72209 2. French Club c/o Kristie Robinson McClellan High School LRSD 3. LR CTA 1500 W. 4th Little Rock, AR 72201 4. Bale Elementary LRSD Donations to Chicot $100.00 check 2 boxes of new paperback books Value Microwave $100.00 Portable Cassette Player-Primary Portable Cassette Player-Intermediate 2 Handmade Banners 65.00 TO: FROM: THROUGH: SUBJECT: LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 810 WEST KARKBAM LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS February 23, 1994 Board of Directors Richt.1 ~ Director\nHuman Resources H~liam, Superinten~nt of Schools Personnel Chang s I recommend the approval of the following personnel changes at the indicated positions, salaries and classifications. In accordance with A.C.A. 6-17-1502, it is recommended that one additional year of probationary status is provided for all teachers who have been employed in a school district in this state for three (3) years. Teachers with an effective date of employment after August 22, 1994 are considered intern teachers. Personnel Changes Page 2 February 23, 1995 NAME POSITION SCHOOL BFFBCTIVE SALARY DATB CLASS Resignations/Terminations certified Employees Burns, Joe Reason: Personal Haley, Jill Reason: Leaving City Holder, Patricia Reason: Leaving City House, Keith Reason: Accepted Another Position Lubansky, Harry Reason: Personal Wilson, Phillip Reason: Accepted Another Position George, Kimberly Phy Science 1-26-95 DUNBAR Elem III 1-20-95 WASHINGTON Elem II 1-13-95 ROCKEFELLER Elem V 1-18-95 GARLAND Algebra I 1-27-95 HALL Math-Compt 1-25-95 PARKVIEW Nev certified Employees Lng Fund FOREST HGTS 1-04-95 1-05 TCH925 1-02 TCH925 4-08 TCH925 1-06 TCH925 6-01 TCH925 4-09 TCH925 1-01 TCH925 ANNUAL SALARY 23286.00 20877.00 28846.00 24089.00 25414.00 29649.00 20074.00 annual 10559.75 prorated - - Personnel Changes Page 3 February 23, 1995 NAME Glover, Susan Jones, Daphane Jones, Tina Tims, Daisy POSITION SCHOOL Elem III WASHINGTON Math-Compt PARKVIEW Math DUNBAR Elem V GARLAND Resignations/Terminations Allen, Denise Custodian Reason: Accepted CLOVERDALE Another Position Arnold, Brenda Bus Driver Reason: Failure TRANS To Report Boykins, Elbert custodian Reason: Terminated MEADOWCLIFF Chatman, Dennis Custodian Reason: None HALL Given EFFECTIVE SALARY DATE CLASS 1-19-95 1-06 TCH925 1-24-95 1-01 TCH925 1-04-95 1-01 TCH925 1-13-95 1-03 TCH925 ANNUAL SALARY 24089.00 annual 11040.74 prorated 20074.00 annual 9200.58 prorated 20074.00 annual 10559.75 prorated 21680.00 annual 10049.52 prorated Non-certified Employees 1-20-95 1-01 8199.00 CUS900 11-23-94 3-01 42.54 BUSDRV per day 1-16-95 1-01 8199.00 CUS900 1-17-95 1-04 9229.00 CUS900 \\ - - Personnel Changes Page 4 February 23, 1995 NAME Clanton, James Reason: None Given Dukes, Bennie Reason: None Given Evans, Bertrand Reason: None Given Evans, Pauline Reason: Personal Gregory, Kevin Reason: Term-Invol Hatchett, Anthony Reason: Returning To School Herron, Cynthia Reason: Failure To Report Holcomb, Frank Reason: No Return Hunter, Sheila Reason: Returning To School Kirby, Gerald Reason: None Given Lamkin, Shirley Reason: None Given POSITION SCHOOL Bus Driver TRANS Bus Driver TRANS Sec Officer METROPOLITAN Food Services J.A. FAIR Custodian BRADY Custodian BRADY Bus Driver TRANS Bus Driver TRANS Superv. Aide DODD Bus Driver TRANS Nurse MABELVALE EFFECTIVE SALARY DATE CLASS 1-23-95 4-01 BUSDRV 12-08-95 3-01 BUSDRV 1-30-95 1-04 SEC900 12-21-94 1-02 FS900 1-31-95 1-01 CUS900 1-14-95 1-01 CUS900 1-17-95 3-02 BUSDRV 12-12-94 3-10 BUSDRV 12-22-94 1-01 SVA900 12-21-95 3-01 BUSDRV 1-11-95 1-04 NUR900 ANNUAL SALARY 57.16 per day 42.54 per day 11794.00 6.41 per hr 8199.00 8199.00 45.12 per day 37.14 per day 4.70 per hr 42.54 per day 22483.00 - - Personnel Changes Page 5 February 23, 1995 NAME Merretazon, Ari Reason: Personal Ragland, Stephanie Reason: None Given Reams, Carroll Reason: None Given Reynolds, Sarah Reason: None Given Simpson, Mitchell Reason: Health Stacks, Morris Reason: No Return Thompson, Wendy Reason: Abandonment Washington, Lejuan Reason: None Given Watson, Fulton Reason: None Given White, Janice Reason: None Given Wright, Gwen Reason: Personal POSITION SCHOOL Bus Driver TRANS Custodian WASHINGTON Bus Driver TRANS ADM ADULT ED COMM ED Custodian CLOVERDALE Bus Driver TRANS Custodian MABELVALE JR Bus Driver TRANS Bus Driver TRANS Clerical DESEG Superv. Aide WOODRUFF EFFECTIVE SALARY DATE CLASS 12-09-94 3-01 BUSDRV 1-23-95 1-02 CUS900 1-03-95 3-01 BUSDRV 1-18-95 5-04 ADM12 1-20-95 1-05 CUS900 2-01-95 3-06 BUSDRV 12-05-94 1-09 CUS900 1-26-95 3-01 BUSDRV 2-01-95 3-01 BUSDRV 12-31-94 4-06 CLKll 1-19-95 1-04 SPV900 ANNUAL SALARY 42.54 per day 8523.00 42.54 per day 16546.00 9539.00 55.50 per day 10863.00 42.54 per day 42.54 per day 12983.00 5.38 per hr Personnel Changes Page 6 February 23, 1995 NAME Ash, Francis Austin, Shinda Bealer, Antionette Butler, Barbara Greer, Todd Guest, Francell Howard, Barbara Jackson, Evelyn Jones, Cody Jones, James Kemp, Anita Mack, Desiree POSITION SCHOOL EFFECTIVE SALARY DATE CLASS New Non-certified Employees Bus Driver 1-06-95 3-01 TRANS BUSDRV Bus Driver 1-26-95 3-01 TRANS BUSDRV Superv Aide 1-04-95 1-05 RIGHTS ELL SVA4 Food Service 1-06-95 1-01 PARKVIEW FSH4 Superv Aide 1-09-95 1-03 FRANKLIN SVA5 Custodian 1-17-95 1-01 KING CUS925 Food Service 1-23-95 1-03 MCCLELLAN FSH4 Food Service 1-30-95 1-02 BASELINE FSH5 Custodian 1-26-95 1-01 HALL CUS925 Custodian 1-24-95 1-01 CLOVERDALE CUS925 Food Service 1-06-95 1-01 M. L. KING FSH5 Bus Driver 1-17-95 1-01 TRANS BUSDRV ANNUAL SALARY 42.54 per day 42.50 per day 5.61 per hr 6.41 per hr 5.15 per hr 5.57 per hr 6.41 per hr 6.41 per hr 5.57 per hr 5.57 per hr 6.41 per hr 27.90 per day - Personnel Changes Page 7 February 23, 1995 NAME Mason, Earnest Peten, Kelvin Taylor, Gina Taylor, Ron Williams, Mae Wilson, Corey POSITION SCHOOL Custodian RIGHTS ELL Bus Driver TRANS Superv Aide FRANKLIN Bus Driver TRANS Food Service RIGHTS ELL Custodian MEADOWCLIFF BFFBCTIVE SALARY DATE CLASS 1-04-95 3-03 CUS12 1-09-95 3-01 BUSDRV 1-19-95 1-01 SVA6 1-17-95 3-10 BUSDRV 1-13-95 1-01 FSH550 1-17-95 1-01 CUS925 ANNUAL SALARY 7.15 per hr 42.54 per day 4.70 per hr 42.54 per day 6.41 per hr 5.57 per hr Little Rock School District MEMORANDUM To: Through: From: Board of Directors q\nf7~ ' 1  Dr. ~msf'uperin~ Russ Mayo, Associate Superintendent ~ Date: February 7, 1995 Subject: Desegregation Update FEB 9 1995 Ottice of D gregalion J.i,on I in The attached information represents the desegregation update for the month of February. Little Rock School District Desegregation Update Board of Directors Meeting February 23, 1995 Registration Pre-Registration for the 1995-96 school year began on Monday, February 6, 1995 at all area schools, incentive schools, and the Student Assignment Office. The registration period will continue through February 17, 1995. All forms collected at schools will be forwarded to the Student Assignment Office for data input. The February 6 - 17, 1995 period is for 4 year old program, kindergarten, students new to the LRSD, students requesting magnet assignment, and elementary desegregation transfer requests. The secondary desegregation transfer period will be from March 27 - April 7. The patron turn-out at the Student Assignment Office was approximately 500 persons on Monday, February 6, 1995. The Student Assignment Office staff was efficient in the organization of the registration process and the public commented positively. Total number of students registering will be available in the March Desegregation Update. Southwest Attendance Zone Analysis (Attachment) Attached is an analysis of our southwest attendance zones. The first chart is a one page chart which shows the percentage of students who attend southwest elementary schools and live in southwest. The information appears by school in the next to the last column at the right of the chart. For example, of those students attending Baseline Elementan\n, 90.29% come from southwest attendance zones. The average percentage of students living in southwest and attending southwest elementary schools is 80.13%. See the lower right corner of the chart. The last column of the chart indicates the percentage of black students who live in southwest attendance zones and attend the southwest schools. For example, black students living in southwest make up 67.64 % of the total student enrollment at Baseline Elementary. At Dodd Elementary, black students living in southwest make up 35.31 % of the total student enrollment. Southwest attendance zones are shaded. All schools listed on the left are southwest schools. The second chart (two pages) shows where southwest elementary students attend school who leave southwest. Note that 19.87% leave southwest. Of southwest students, 8.68% chose to attend one of the original magnet schools. This leaves 11.19%. Some of these remaining students moved into southwest from incentive school attendance zones and chose to continue in the incentive school rather than transfer to a southwest school. Southwest students attending incentive schools are 4.20%. This is permitted under the plan. This leaves only 6.99% who attend school outside of southwest for miscellaneous reasons. Director of Student Assignment The position of Director of Student Assignment was advertised on January 10, 1995. The deadline for application was January 31, 1995. Due to the limited the Desegregation Update Board of Directors Meeting 2 deadline was extended to February 20, 1995. After qualified applicants have been selected, an interview committee will interview and select a candidate for recommendation. April 1, 1995 has been established as a target date for the recommended candidate to report to work. School Closings Meetings were held on Tuesday, January 31, 1995 with interested parties regarding the recommendation of closure of Fair Park Elementary School, and on Tuesday, February 7, 1995 with interested parties regarding the recommendation of closure of Badgett Elementary School. Questions and recommendations by the public were encouraged. The Fair Park meeting had approximately 100 present and the Badgett meeting was not held as of this writing. New Streets Added To LRSD Zones With the metropolitan area of Little Rock growing rapidly on the west side, many new streets have been created. Some of these new streets extend into PCSSD. This means that students leave a Little Rock neighborhood to attend a PCSSD school. We may have to look at changing school district boundaries in the future. Listed below are streets that extend into the PCSSD: CHERRY CREEK SUBDIVISION (KANIS/BOWMAN ROADS) Cherry Laurel Drive (12705 and up) Misty Creek Drive Cherry Laurel Court Stoney Creek Drive Cherry Leaf Cove VILLAGES OF WELLINGTON SUBDIVISION (WEST OF ST. CHARLES) Governors Drive Bellevve Drive PEBBLE BEACH SUBDIVISION Lorian Drive Levant Drive Ledgelawn Drive (parts of) LRSD Biracial Committee The LRSD Biracial Committee is active and meeting monthly. We have had a slow start because of many new members and the job transfer of the LRSD Biracial Committee chair. Unfortunately, they have been unable to do two of their four required monitoring visits to the Incentive Schools. It is likely that they will do only Desegregation Update Board of Directors Meeting 3 two monitoring this year. Dr. Clowers trained them for monitoring at their February meeting. They are beginning to come together. With much lively debate, they have approved a modification to the LRSD Biracial Committee portion of the desegregation plan. It will be included in the process with other modifications being collected at this time. 'RUM-~~0\nA~ Sv.pev~ fe,br-uary 7, 1995 Count of ID School Baseline Baseline Tctal Chicot Chicot Total Cloverdale Cloverdale Total Dodd Dodd Total Geyer Spr,ngs ZSchool I I little Rock School District Southwest Schools n~, \u0026lt;\u0026gt;mt er 2 1994 Data 0 0 193 0 18 25 2 0 0 2 0 2 14 2 1 0 13 2 0 0 - 1 1 1 0 0 1 0 2 ,12 15 ', 2 0 0 1 309 90.29% Black 0 1 6 2 171 33 4 1 1 2 1 0 3 2 0 13 t 9 0 1 6 0 0 0 0 4 5 0 2 0 10 19 21,_1_ _2 + --0-+--_33 _0-+------+-5_9_0_3__ __ Other O O O :=] 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 3  0 0 0 ' 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0\no ~ 0 0 0 0 6 Vllh1te - o -1 2 1 87 t 1 o o o 1 o 3 3 1 o 7 1 1 o o t o o o 1 o o o  O o llt-1:+--\"o+-o:+--1,-1.,-8\"+-----+---+-----l 0 2 8 3 262 34 5 1 1 2 2 0 8 5 1 13 26 1 2 6 0 1 0 0 4 6 0 2 0 10 19 29 2 2 0 4S. ~ 14% Black __o _ o 11 1 23212 1 o o o o o 3 o o 2 20 o . 0~_Q o o o 2 o o 1 3 \"\" ' 3 11t-o:+--=o+-o:+-_3_0-=8c +-----+7-7_4_9_\n.-+-----l Other O O O ::}\u0026gt; O S O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O  0 O O O O O O O ,t O 1 0 0 0 7 White ---o - 2 s o a 32 1 o o o o o 3 o o o 6 o 1 o o 1 o o o o o o o 2 o .ct-2:+-\"o\" +-o'+--~6.7,,. +-----+---+--- 0 2 16 1 31 249 2 0 0 0 0 0 8 0 0 2 26 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 2 0 0 1 3 11 3 23 2 0 0 382 95 81% Black O 2 0 3 0 3 83 0 0 1 2 4 0 0 0 0 2 0 . 1 10 0 11 0 0 3 4 19 3 3 t 2 11 4 5 12 0 183 35 31'!. Other - 0 - 0 0 ~ 0 0 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 'o '0 00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ~ 0 0 Ot-0:+-.c.1+-0'+--~6+-----+~-c.,lr------l White --1 1 1 1 1 1 73 1 0 o'oo O 000 0 ,-1 800 0 1 0 0 0 3 0 0 ,.20 0 0 2 0 97  1 3 1 4 1 4 161 1 o 1 2 4 O o o o 2 1 , I 10 O 8 1 o 3 4 22 3 3  4 11 4 5 15 o 286 67 13% Black 0 0 S _ 1 II 6 0 2 0 0 3 1 135 2 0 5 7 1 . 4 3 0 2 0 0 1 1 1 3 0 C S 6 10 0 0 1 209 62 46% Other O 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 5 0 0 0 0 0 , 10 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 \"\n:1 0 . Ot-0+--\"-1+-0+---=c1c.0c. 1-----+=----'---'-+---4 White o o 100 3 o 1 o o o o 1 a2 o o o 03 1100 o 1 o o o o o o ' s1 o o o o 66 Geyer Sor,nas Total 0 1 15 1 9 8 1 3 0 0 3 2 172 2 0 5 7 4 18 3 0 2 1 0 1 1 1 3 0\n7 7 10 0 1 1 285 85 96% I Mablevale Black O O 16 O 30 22 1 0 1 0 0 0 3 0 0 1 200 0 1 4 0 7 0 0 0 3 1 3 2 t:1i _2 stt-0::+--=0+-2::+-_3-4-=5+----+6_6_46_'!._,t-----t Other ~ o o o o 4 o o o o o o o o o o o 5 o O o o o o o o o o o o .fl\u0026gt; ,_Q ot-o=+--=o+-o::+--=9+----+---+-- Wh1te O O 2 - 0 8 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 108 0 ' 1 o O ,o O O O O O O O I' 0 0 1 0 0 0 132 Mactevale Total O o 18 o 42 23 1 0 1 O O O 3 1 0 1 313 0 2 4 0 17 0 o o 3 1 3 2 1l 5 32 O O 2 486 95 27% Meadowchff Black _ _Jlf-1 20,_po 3 5 2 0 4 21 1 15 II 4 0 4 3 0 173 2 0 8 0 0 II 4 0 6 3 ,\\~ 11--1-+-_1+-1-t-_2_94 _____+ 5_0_9_7_%~-- Other 0 o ,_.Q 0 0 ~o o o o o o o o o o ~,_Q,_Q o o : '. 1 ~ ~ o o o o o o o o ~o o 01-o-+-_o+-o---+-__ 1+----+---+--- Wh1te O 2 2 0 2 0 D O 1 0 0 0 0 0 108 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 D O \u0026gt;''-4 0 ' 0 0 0 0 119 Meadowcl1ff Total 0 1 2 0 3 7 4 0 6 21 1 15 7 4 0 4 3 0 282 2 0 I O O 6 4 0 6 3 .,12 9  1 1 1 1 414 79 47% Oner Creek Black o 2 8 o 12 11 2 o 2 1 2 3 2 o o 11 S 1 , 3 4 1 89 1 o 3 1 o o o ._:,a 1 1,2 o o o 150 3287'1', Other - 0 0 00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 _o O O O _9 o'o 000 I O O O O O O O ~90 .:o:=o~=~o:=0~~==~~9~======:~~~=:~==------l White O 1 0 0 3 0 4 1 0 - 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0\u0026gt;-0 18!5 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 { 0 0 0 0 1 0 197 Oner Creek Total 0I 3 8 o 15 11 6 1 2 1 2 3 3 0 o 11 Ii 1 3 4 1 2$3 2 0 3 1 0 o 0 : 3 1  2 0 1 0 356 89 61% Wakefield Black O O 4 0 3 5 0 2 7 4 0 2 7 3 0 0 !i O . 8 0 2 0 0 1 1 1 0 3 0 230 7 , 11 0 0 0 306 69 82 Other O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O  1 00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 fi11 0 . 21-0+--,-0+-0'+-~-\"1~41-----+~=--+---4 Whrte ___ o o 2 0 2 o 4 o o oo - o \u0026lt;too o oo 020 o~- 000000 :550 1 o o o 11 Wakefield Total o o 6 o S 5 4 2 7 4 o 2 11 3 o o 5 o 11 2 2 0 1 1 1 1 o 3 o 218 7 14 o o o 391 90 79% Vva:son Black o 1 8 o 25 11 1 o o o 1 1 e 1 o o 12 o 1 o o o o o o o o o o ~ Q 3 2481-o+-.,,.o+-o+-~3\"\"23,,. t------+7_4_8~8_-+--- O_th~ =--0 ::}\u0026gt; 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 ...0 0 :=] ~ ,, 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 '.2 0 0 ' 5,-0-+-_0+--0-+-__7 t -----+----+----t White O O 6 'o 4 3 0 00 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 7 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Sc O  to O O O 92 Watson Total O 1 14 O 29 20 1 0 0 0 1 1 7 1 0 O 21 0 -2 0 0  0 O O O O O O O  D 3 321 O O O 422 98 34% Fair K Black White o o o ~ 1 2 o o o o o o o o o 1 o o o o o 2 o o o o 1 o o ~ 1 ,_1 , 0,--0-+-_2+-o---+-__ 1_2+----+4_0_0_0_'!._. ,_ _ _, o o o o o o o o a o o o o o o o 2 o ci o o o o o o o o o o ,:o o o o , o 3 Fair K Total 01 0 0 0 1 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 2 0  0 0 0  2 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 -\n1 2 '. 0 0 3 0 15 McClellan K Black 0 0 0 0 1 6 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 . 2 0 ... 0 0 0 ,' 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ,, 2 1 4 0 0 0 18 83 33/4 McClellan K Total 0 0 0 0 1 6 Q O O O O Q O O O 2 2 Q  Q O O f O O O O O O O O 2 1  .. 0 0 0 18 Grand Total 1 13 281 9 415 392 187 8 17 31 11 29 231 18 2 39 425 9 327 31 3 301 6 2 20 20 26 21 13 370 83 439 10 23 5 3818 lnSW 33111 80.13'!1 Office of Desegregation Pag. Count of ID School Badgett Badgett Total Bala Bale Total Booker Magnet Booker Maanet Total Brady Bradv Total Carver Magnet Carver Maanet Total Fair Park Fair Park Total Forest Park Forest Park Total Franklin Franklin Total Fulbright Fulbright Total Garland Garland Total Gibbs Magnet Gibbs Mac::inet Total Jefferson Jefferson Total M.L. King M.L. King Total McDermott McDermott Total 1/8195 Little Rock School District Southwest Schools December 2, 1994 Data ZSchool Ill C, C GI c  ii a. .5 'E en \"ii 8 QI ... -0 QI \"' \u0026gt; -0 \u0026gt;, \"' :c 0 0 QI Race al (.) u 0 C, Black 0 2 1 2 2 VVhite 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 1 2 2 Black 1 2 1 0 2 Other 0 0 0 0 0 VVhite 0 1 1 1 0 1 3 2 1 2 Black 13 6 11 9 5 Other 0 0 1 0 1 VVhite 4 2 8 4 2 17 8 20 13 8 Black 0 2 2 2 0 VVhite 0 0 0 2 0 0 2 2 4 0 Black 3 6 6 5 0 Other 0 0 0 0 0 VVhite 0 2 3 2 0 3 8 9 7 0 Black 0 0 3 0 2 VVhite 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 2 Black 1 0 2 0 0 VVhite 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 2 0 1 Black 3 2 2 2 3 Other 0 0 0 0 0 VVhite 0 0 1 0 2 3 2 3 2 5 Black 0 2 2 1 0 VVhite 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 2 1 0 Black 0 0 1 0 1 VVhite 0 0 0 3 0 0 0 1 3 1 Black 2 4 5 0 3 Other 0 0 0 0 0 VVhite 0 1 0 0 2 2 5 5 0 5 Black 0 0 1 0 0 VVhite 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 Black 0 1 4 1 1 White 3 1 2 0 0 3 2 6 1 1 QI ii \u0026gt; QI J5 ::\":E' 1 0 1 2 0 1 3 5 0 7 12 5 0 5 6 0 0 6 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 2 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 11 Black 0 4 0 1 21 0 0 4 01 1 Office of Desegregation Page 1 2 0 It: ...: 19 i5 QQII -0 0 ! ... \"ii C: I- (.) \"\" -0 ... QI \"0 ' -C0: \"' QI ...: QI ~ 5 I~ ~ :::E C, 1 0 2 1 12 0 1 0 0 1 1 1 2 1 13 8 0 4 2 22 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 3 1 8 9 0 7 3 31 8 1 7 10 75 0 0 1 0 3 2 1 11 2 43 10 2 19 12 121 1 2 0 0 14 0 0 0 0 2 1 2 0 0 16 6 1 4 9 46 0 0 1 0 1 3 0 2 0 12 9 1 7 9 59 5 1 0 3 14 1 0 0 0 1 6 1 0 3 15 8 4 1 2 18 0 0 0 0 1 8 4 1 2 19 12 2 2 6 36 1 0 0 0 1 4 0 1 2 10 171 2 3 8 47 2 0 0 0 7 0 1 0 0 1 2 1 0 0 8 6 3 0 0 11 01 0 0 0 5 6 3 0 0 16 2 2 3 1 22 2 0 0 0 2 1 0 1 1 6 5 2 4 2 30 5 0 1 0 7 O' 0 0 2 3 5 0 1 2 10 1 I 6 0 2 17 2: 3 0 0 11 3 9 0 2 28 1 0 2 2 12 1 0 2 2 12 School Mitchell Mitchell Total Pulaski Heights Pulaski Heiqhts Total Riahtsell Riahtsell Total Rockefeller Rockefeller Total Romine Romine Total Terry Terrv Total Washington Washington Total Western Hills Western Hills Total Williams Magnet Williams Maqnet Total Wilson Wilson Total Woodruff Woodruff Total Hall K Hall K Total Central K Central K Total Parkview K Parkview K Total Grand Total 1/819S Little Rock School Oistnct Southwest Schools December 2, 1994 Data C/) Cl C: Cl) c: iii a. Cl) .!: \"O en \"ii 8 Qi \"O Qi C/1 \u0026gt; \"O \u0026gt;, I'll 1: 0 0 Cl) Race ID u u 0 (!) Black 0 2 1 1 0 Other 0 0 2 0 0 0 2 3 1 0 Black 3 0 2 0 0 White 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 2 0 0 Black 0 2 1 2 1 0 2 1 2 1 Black 4 9 8 0 5 White 9 5 0 1 3 13 14 8 1 8 Black 1 0 3 4 0 Other 0 0 0 2 0 White 0 3 1 14 0 1 3 4 201 0 Black 0 1 0 4 0 Other 0 0 1 0 0 White 0 0 4 0 0 0 1 5 4 0 Black 1 5 11 01 2 Other 0 0 0 o, 0 White 4 6 8 31 0 5 11 19 3 2 Black 1 1 0 61 1 White 0 0 0 21 0 1 1 0 8 1 Black 4 4 2 10 2 Other 0 0 0 0 0 White 0 0 0 0 0 4 4 2 10 2 Black 0 5 1 71 1 White 0 1 1 2r 1 0 6 2 9, 2 Black 0 0 0 0 0 White 0 0 o, 0 0 0 0 0 o, 0 Black 0 0 01 0: 0 0 0 O! 0 0 Cl) iii \u0026gt; Cl) :c I'll ::E 4 0 4 0 0 0 0 0 2 1 3 2 0 1 3 0 0 1 1 4 3 9 16 0 0 0 2 2 0 4 5 1 6 0 0 0 0 0 Black 0 0 o: 0 0, 0 Black 0 0 01 0 0 1 2 0 1 0 1 2 0 11 0 58 85 1031 94 45 Office of Desegregation Page 2 0 0 0 69 Int: .Y. ffl Cl) \"O 0 3: Cl) Gi I- 0 u ii: C \"O ... Q) 0 \"O I'll C/1 C Cl) .Y. Cl) = ~ ia I'll ::E 0 ~ c'.5 4 13 1 0 26 0 0 0 0 2 4 13 1 0 28 6 2 4 0 17 3 0 0 0 3 9 2 4 0 20 1 0 0 1 8 1 0 0 1 8 3 4 3 4 42 6 1 2 0 28 9 5 5 4 70 1 0 0 1 12 0 0 0 0 2 0 1 0 1 21 1 1 0 2 35 4 0 0 0 9 0 0 0 0 1 0 2 0 0 7 4 2 0 0 17 7 3 7 10 50 0 0 0 0 3 5 2 9 3 49 12 5 16 13 102 3 0 1 3 16 0 0 0 0 2 3 0 1 3 18 6 6 4 9 49 0 0 0 0 2 2 0 0 0 2 8 6 4 9 53 4 1 2 1 27 1 0 0 0 7 5 1 21 1 34 5 2 1 2 10 2 0 0 1 3 7 21 1 3 13 0 01 1 I 0 1 0 0 11 0 1 2 \\ 41 o: 0 6 2 41 0 0 6 0 0 1 0 5 0 0 1 0 5 148 169 182 1 82 835 ,. LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 810 WEST MARKHAM STREET LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS February 23, 1995 To: Board of Directors FEB 9 1995 Of!ICO of D seg From: Russ Mayo, Assc.ciate superintendent Through: He~lia~ndent of Schools Subject: Percentage of Southwest Elementary Students Attending Southwest Schools Attached is a report on the Percentage of Southwest Elementary Students Attending Southwest Schools. Two separate charts are included in this report. ' . Little Rock School District MEMORANDUM To: Dr. Henry P. Williams, Superintendent From: Russ Mayo, Associate Superintendent f.)A, Date: January 7, 1995 Subject: Percentage of southwest elementary students attending southwest schools In our cabinet meeting on Friday, January 6, you requested information about students attending southwest schools. Two separate charts are attached presenting this information. The first chart is a one page chart which shows the percentage of students who attend southwest elementary schools and live in southwest. The information appears by school in the next to the last column at the right of the chart. For example, of those students attending Baseline Elementary, 90.29% come from southwest attendance zones. The average percentage of students living in southwest and attending southwest elementary schools is 80.13%. See the lower right corner of the chart. The last column of the chart indicates the percentage of black students who live in southwest attendance zones and attend the southwest schools. For example, black students living in southwest make up 67.64% of the total student enrollment at Baseline Elementary. At Dodd Elementary, black students living in southwest make up 35.31 % of the total student enrollment. Southwest attendance zones are shaded. All schools listed on the left are southwest schools. The second chart (two pages) shows ~here southwest elementary students attend school who leave southwest. Note that 19.87% leave southwest. Of southwest students, 8.68% chose to attend one of the original magnet schools. This leaves 11.19%. Some of these remaining students moved into southwest from incentive school attendance zones and chose to continue in the incentive school rather than transfer to a southwest school. Southwest students attending incentive schools are 4.20%. This is permitted under the plan. This leaves only 6.99% who attend school outside of southwest for miscellaneous reasons. C: Superintendent's Council RECEI\\J~(' JAN O 9 199.S S0PT'S ut-r-,G Count of ID School Baseline Baseline Total Chicot ZSchool I I Little Roe. col District Southwest Schools December 2 1994 Data ,__Bla_c_k-+-__o+ -.0.. . 141 0 10 21 1 0 0 2 0 2 12 2 0 0 10 ,___! 1 ,____!! __Q O 1 0 0 0 1 0 2 11 15 2t-:O:-t--::-Ot-1:-t-_2_36-+----t-6_7._64_%+-----l r~c..tch--'i~c...\n1----'~-+-~, 4\n~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~ ~+---'~+-~:1--'~+-- s~:+-- --+---+-- ---1 0 0 193 0 16 25 2 0 0 2 0 2 14 2 1 0 13 2 1 0 0 1 1 1 0 0 1 0 2 12 15 2 0 0 1 309 90.29% i-=~cc~:~:..:\":~r-l----'~-+-6, ~~ 17! 3~ ~ 6 6 ~ 6 ~ ! ~ ~ 1~ 1~ 3 ~~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 1~~ 2~1-6+--=-~+---'~+----'-33\"-~' +----+5:..::9.c.O:.c::3.%c.: +-_~ VVhite O 1 21 87 1 1 0 0 0 1 0 3 3 1 0 7 1 100 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 5 1 0 0 118 ChicotTotal o 2 8 3 262 34 5 1 1 2 2 0 8 5 1 13 26 1 2 6 O 1 O O 4 6 O 2 O 10 19 26 2 2 o 454 84.14% Cloverdale Black o o 11 1 23 212 1 o o o o o 3 o o 2 20 o O o o O o o 2 o o 1 3 8 3 1et-:o:1---:::o-t-o:1-_3_0-=8t----+-7_7~.4_9_'A,,_ ,---1 ,-.O~th~e-r .......... --0+-o\"\" o 5 ,_Q 0 0 8 3 5 2 o o o o o o o o o o oo ooo o o o o o o o o 10 1 o o o 7 IVVhite o 2 1 o o o o o 3 o o o 6 o 1 oo 1 o o o o o o o 2 o 4t-:2ct--=-o+---'o+--6:-::7+------+--+--~ Cloverdale Total O 2 16 1 31 249 2 0 0 O O O 6 O O 2 26 0 1 O O 1 0 O 2 O O 1 3 11 3 23 2 0 O 382 95.81% Dodd Total 1 3 1 4 1 4 161 1 0 1 2 4 0 0 0 0 2 1 9 10 0 8 1 0 3 4 22 3 3 4 11 4 5 15 0 286 67.13% Geyer Springs Gever Sonnas Total o 1 15 1 9 6 1 3 0 O 3 2 172 2 O 5 7 4 18 3 O 2 1 O 1 1 1 3 0 7 7 10 O 1 1 285 85.96% Mablevale ,__~_~a_h~- r-+---~-+--1~ 1~ ~ ~ 2~ 6 ~ 6 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 00 1 2 1 00 058 30 ~ 1 :1 030 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 6 ~ ~ 1~ j 3~ ~ ~ ~ 34: 66.46% ,___VVhite-+---o+--10 20 a 1 o o o o o o o 1 o 10 o o o o o o o o o 10-0-+-o-+-o-+-- 1-32,__ _- -+----+------\u0026lt; Mablevale Total Meadowcliff Meadowct1ff Total Otter Creek Otter Creek Total Wakefield Wakefield Total Watson Watson Total FairK Fair K Total 0 0 18 0 42 23 1 0 1 0 0 0 3 1 0 1 313 0 2 4 0 17 0 0 0 3 1 3 2 12 5 32 0 0 2 486 95.27% Black O 1 2 O 3 5 2 0 4 21 1 15 8 4 0 4 3 0 173 2 0 8 0 0 6 4 0 6 3 8 9 1 1 1 1 294 50. 97% t---+----+--1 0 0 - --- - l-+-.c+----l-=-+----rc::=..:..:..-------1 ,___!~hiet\n-+---~+-o-\u0026lt; 0 oo ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ g ~ ~ g~ 1~~~ ~ ~ g ~ g ~ ~ ~ ~~ ~1-~+-..c~.1-~+-- 1-1c!..1----+---+-----1 0 1 2 0 3 7 4 0 6 21 1 15 7 4 0 4 3 0 282 2 0 8 0 0 6 4 0 6 3 12 9 1 1 1 1 414 79 47% IBlack O 2 8 0 12 11 2 0 2 1 2 3 2 0 0 11 5 1 3 4 1 89 1 0 3 1 0 0 0 3 1 2 0 0 0 150 32.87% l'o\"\"th\"'\"e\"r+------o'+-=-io o ~ o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o 9 o o o o o o o o o ot-:oct--=o-t-oct---'--'-91+------+=~+-----1 VVhite O 1 0 0 3 0 4 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 185 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 197 O 3 8 0 15 11 6 1 2 1 2 3 3 0 0 11 5 1 3 4 1 263 2 0 3 1 0 0 0 3 1 2 0 1 0 356 89 61% !Black O O 4 0 3 5 0 2 7 4 0 2 7 3 0 0 5 0 8 0 2 0 0 1 1 1 0 3 0 230 7 11 0 0 0 306 69.82% 1'=\"=+------'+--'-1 00 - - - - t-:1--c+---cc1t------'-,-----=-t----l ,__o_the_r-+-__ o_,_o.... 2 - 0 o o o o o o o o o o o o o __Q 1 __Q __Q o o o o o o o 0 o 55 11 ,__ 0 o 2t-o'+-\"o\"-+-o=+---'1-4' 1------+---+-----1 VVhite O O 2 0 4 0 0 0 0 0 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 O 71 0 0 6 0 5 5 4 2 7 4 0 2 11 3 0 0 5 0 9 2 2 0 1 1 1 1 0 3 0 296 7 14 0 0 0 391 90 79% Black O 1 8, 0 25 17 1 0 0 0 1 1 6 1 0 0 12 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 248 0 0 0 323 7 4.88% t---+----+--1 - 2 - 0 0 0 0 :0 51-c+-.c+- t--_\nc:\nc+----+'-=------4 ,__l~h_i~-\n---~+-~\"\" ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 7 ~ 1 0 o ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 0 O TOt-:~:-t-::-~t-:~:t------:9:-~:::t-----+--+---t 0 1 14 0 29 20 1 0 0 0 1 1 7 1 0 0 21 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 321 0 0 0 422 98.34% 0 0 0 0 1 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 2 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 2 0 0 3 0 15 McClellan K Black 0 0 0 0 1 6 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 1 4 0 0 0 18 83.33% McClellan K Total Grand Total ,..,.. 0 0 0 0 1 6 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 1 4 0 0 0 18 1 13 281 9 415 392 187 8 17 31 11 29 231 18 2 39 425 9 327 31 3 301 6 2 20 20 26 21 13 370 83 439 10 23 5 I I I I Office of Desegregation Page 1 3818 In SW out of SW SW Total 3368 80.13% 835 19.87% 4103 Count of ID School Badgett Badgett Total Bale Bale Total Booker Magnet Booker Magnet Total Brady Brady Total Carver Magnet Carver Magnet Total Fair Park Fair Park Total Forest Park Forest Park Total Franklin Franklin Total Fulbright Fulbright Total Garland Garland Total Gibbs Magnet Gibbs Magnet Total Jefferson Jefferson Total M.L. King M.L. King Total McDermott McDermott Total 1/8/95 Little Rock School District Southwest Schools December 2, 1994 Data ZSchool fl) Cl C: Q) -~ Q) ro (/) .!: \"E di 0u \u0026gt;Q) \"C Qi fl) \"C \u0026gt;- n, :.c 0 0 Q) Race Ill u 0 0 C) Black 0 2 1 2 2 White 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 1 2 2 Black 1 2 1 0 2 Other 0 0 0 0 0 White 0 1 1 1 0 1 3 2 1 2 Black 13 6 11 9 5 Other 0 0 1 0 1 White 4 2 8 4 2 17 8 20 13 8 Black 0 2 2 2 0 White 0 0 0 2 0 0 2 2 4 0 Black 3 6 6 5 0 Other 0 0 0 0 0 White 0 2 3 2 0 3 8 9 7 0 Black 0 0 3 0 2 White 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 2 Black 1 0 2 0 0 White 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 2 0 1 Black 3 2 2 2 3 Other 0 0 0 0 0 White 0 0 1 0 2 3 2 3 2 5 Black 0 2 2 1 0 White 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 2 1 0 Black 0 0 1 0 1 White 0 0 0 3 0 0 0 1 3 1 Black 2 4 5 0 3 Other 0 0 0 0 0 White 0 1 0 0 2 2 5 5 0 5 Black 0 0 1 0 0 White 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 Black 0 1 4 1 1 White 3 1 2 0 0 3 2 6 1 1 Black 0 4 0 1 2 0 4 0 1 2 Office of Desegregation Page 1 !t .\u0026gt;t! Q) 13 ~ Q) \"C ro ~ ~ di I- \u0026gt; 0 u I\n: C: Q) \"C Q) 0 \"C J5 n, Qi .\u0026gt;t! 2 C: n, Q) :i:: ~ ::i: ::i: 0 ~ ~ C) 1 1 0 2 1 12 0 0 1 0 0 1 1 1 1 2 1 13 2 8 0 4 2 22 0 1 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 3 1 8 3 9 0 7 3 31 5 8 1 7 10 75 0 0 0 1 0 3 7 2 1 11 2 43 12 10 2 19 12 121 5 1 2 0 0 14 0 0 0 0 0 2 5 1 2 0 0 16 6 6 1 4 9 46 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 3 0 2 0 12 6 9 1 7 9 59 0 5 1 0 3 14 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 6 1 0 3 15 0 8 4 1 2 18 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 8 4 1 2 19 2 12 2 2 6 36 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 4 0 1 2 10 2 17 2 3 8 47 0 2 0 0 0 7 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 2 1 0 0 8 0 6 3 0 0 11 2 0 0 0 0 5 2 6 3 0 0 16 0 2 2 3 1 22 0 2 0 0 0 2 0 1 0 1 1 6 0 5 2 4 2 30 0 5 0 1 0 7 0 0 0 0 2 3 0 5 0 1 2 10 1 1 6 0 2 17 0 2 3 0 0 11 1 3 9 0 2 28 0 1 0 2 2 12 0 1 0 2 2 12 TB12_2_ 4 XLS )- School Mitchell Mitchell Total Pulaski Heights Pulaski Heights Total Riohtsell Riohtsell Total Rockefeller Rockefeller Total Romine Romine Total Terry Terry Total Washington Washinoton Total Western Hills Western Hills Total Williams Magnet Williams Magnet Total Wilson Wilson Total Woodruff Woodruff Total Hall K Hall K Total Central K Central K Total Parkview K Parkview K Total Grand Total 1/81'95 Little Rock School District Southwest Schools December 2, 1994 Data ti) Cl C: Cl) '._ Cl) ro (/) .!: -e ai 0u Cl) \"0 ai ti) \u0026gt; \"0 \u0026gt;, nl :c 0 0 Cl) Race lD (.) u 0 Cl Black 0 2 1 1 0 Other 0 0 2 0 0 0 2 3 1 0 Black 3 0 2 0 0 White 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 2 0 0 Black 0 2 1 2 1 0 2 1 2 1 Black 4 9 8 0 5 White 9 5 0 1 3 13 14 8 1 8 Black 1 0 3 4 0 Other 0 0 0 2 0 White 0 3 1 14 0 1 3 4 20 0 Black 0 1 0 4 0 Other 0 0 1 0 0 White 0 0 4 0 0 0 1 5 4 0 Black 1 5 11 0 2 Other 0 0 0 0 0 White 4 6 8 3 0 5 11 19 3 2 Black 1 1 0 6 1 White 0 0 0 2 0 1 1 0 8 1 Black 4 4 2 10 2 Other 0 0 0 0 0 White 0 0 0 0 0 4 4 2 10 2 Black 0 5 1 7 1 White 0 1 1 21 1 0 6 2 9 2 BJack 0 0 0 0 0 White 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Black 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Black 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Black 1 2 0 1 0 1 2 0 1 I 0 58 85 103 94 45 Office of Desegregation Page 2 ~ -\" ro Cl) 13 Cl) ni \"0 0 \u0026gt; ~ (~.) ai C: f- Cl) \"00 IC.l:) 0 \"0 :0 nl ai -\" ti) C: nl Cl) :i::: ~ ~ ~ ~ 0 ~ Cl 4 4 13 1 0 26 0 0 0 0 0 2 4 4 13 1 0 28 0 6 2 4 0 17 0 3 0 0 0 3 0 9 2 4 0 20 0 1 0 0 1 8 0 1 0 0 1 8 2 3 4 3 4 42 1 6 1 2 0 28 3 9 5 5 4 70 2 1 0 0 1 12 0 0 0 0 0 2 1 0 1 0 1 21 3 1 1 0 2 35 0 4 0 0 0 9 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 2 0 0 7 1 4 2 0 0 17 4 7 3 7 10 50 3 0 0 0 0 3 9 5 2 9 3 49 16 12 5 16 13 102 0 3 0 1 3 16 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 3 0 1 3 18 2 6 6 4 9 49 2 0 0 0 0 2 0 2 0 0 0 2 4 8 6 4 9 53 5 4 1 2 1 27 1 1 0 0 0 7 6 5 1 2 1 34 0 5 2 1 2 10 0 2 0 0 1 3 0 71 21 1 3 13 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 2 4 0 0 6 0 2 4 0 0 6 0 0 0 1 0 5 0 0 0 1 0 5 69 148 169 ! 82 82 835 LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 810 WEST MARKHAM STREET LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS BOARD OF DIRECTORS SPECIAL MEETING February 9, 1995 CORRECTED APR 6 1995 Office of Desog The Board of Directors of the Little Rock School District met in a lawfully called special meeting at 5 p.m. on February 9, 1995, in the Board Room of the Administration Building, 810 West Markham Street, Little Rock, Arkansas. The vice-president, Ms. Patricia Gee, called the meeting to order. BOARD MEMBERS PRESENT: Ms. Patricia Gee Mrs. Judy Magness Dr. Katherine Mitchell Mr. Kevin O'Malley Mr. John Riggs BOARD MEMBERS ABSENT: Ms. Linda Pondexter Mrs. o. G. Jacovelli ALSO PRESENT: Dr. Henry P. Williams, Superintendent of Schools Mrs. Estelle Matthis, Deputy Superintendent Mrs. Beverly Griffin, Executive Assistant Mrs. Norma Rodgers, Acting Recorder of Minutes CALL TO ORDER: The Vice-President, Ms. Patricia Gee, called the meeting to order at 5 p.m. The Roll call revealed the presence of five (5) Board members. The chair introduced the ex-officio student for the month of February, Mr. Brad Johnson, of Fair High School. PURPOSE OF SPECIAL MEETING: The Special Meeting was called for the following: A. To hear a representative from Service Master B. Discussion of Board Meetings and Communication Special Board Meeting February 9, 1995 Page 2 C. Green Factor Comments D. Incentives for Superintendent E. Area School Advisory Committee F. Curriculum - Restructuring Schools G. Rebuilding of Chicot H. Carnegie Corporation Program for Middle School Development I. Student Hearings REBUILDING OF CHICOT: It was stated that the Chicot Committee had recommended that Chicot be rebuilt with enhancements - placing the walls around the individual classrooms. Mr. Eaton stated that this would cost about $150,000 extra. This can be financed from the bond money under projects already approved. The projected finish date would be December 1, 1995. Dr. Mitchell moved the approval of the recommendation to rebuild with walls, seconded by Mrs. Magness, and it carried unanimously. REPRESENTATIVE FROM SERVICE MASTER Mr. David Ashbaugh, a management representative with Service Master, spoke to the Board on the service they could provide to the District in the way of custodial, maintenance, and grounds. He stated they would place all new equipment into the buildings together with the chemicals to be used with the equipment. They would set up training for the employees. The employees would still be employed by the District, but would use their management service. He stated they would work within the present budget and present staff. DISCUSSION OF BOARD MEETINGS AND COMMUNICATION Mrs. Magness had several questions concerning the setting of the agenda for Board Meetings. It was agreed that the Board Members would put in writing any additional agenda items and let the Superintendent know whether the item would be action or report. The Board asked that the Superintendent to establish a policy whereby the Superintendent can approve grants up to a certain amount of money. The Superintendent would then inform the Board about the grant applications. Special Board Meeting February 9, 1995 Page 3 Mrs. Magness stated that on oral reports she would like to have something in writing before the Board meetings. The superintendent was asked to inform the Board members when* the president of the Board has attended meetings and the purpose of the meeting. Also they would like for the member to give a short report on that meeting at the Board Meetings. There was discussion concerning the role of the school board members. Mr. Riggs agreed to bring a written report on the role of the three officers of the Board. GREEN FACTOR COMMENTS The Superintendent presented a Statement of Intention to Establish \"Green Factor\" Research Cammi ttee. As part of the process for moving the Little Rock School District toward unitary status, the Superintendent told the Board he intended to implement the following measures: Establish Committees to Research Specific Areas as follows: 1. Student Assignment 2. Faculty Ratios 3. Staff Ratios 4. Transportation 5. Extracurricular Activities 6. Facilities 7. Student Achievement The work of the committees will be coordinated by Dr. Russ Mayo, Associate Superintendent, and the Student Assignment Office. ACTION: INCENTIVES FOR SUPERINTENDENT Mr. Riggs reported on the incentives for Dr. Henry Williams. Mr. Riggs moved that the Board accept items #1 and #2 at this meeting: 1. If LRSD receives a final and unappealable determination by a federal court in the case of LRSD v. PCSSD or its successor that LRSD has achieved unitary status in one of the \"Green Factors\", the Superintendent will receive a bonus, 5% of his base salary for the fiscal year in which unitary status of that \"Green Factor\" is achieved. 2. In the first fiscal year in which the white student population of LRSD, including majority to minority transfer *Corrected Special Board Meeting February 9, 1995 Page 4 students, is 40% or more of the total enrollment of LRSD according to the October 1 enrollment count, the Superintendent will be paid a bonus of 5% of his base salary for that fiscal year. Dr. Mitchell stated she thinks there is too much emphasis on numbers and the emphasis needs to be placed on achievement. After discussion, Mr. Riggs withdrew his motion and Mrs. Magness withdrew her second. Mr. Riggs stated he would go back and redo the incentives. AREA SCHOOL ADVISORY COMMITTEE - APPOINTMENT OF CONVENER Mrs. Magness recommended the name of Ms. Martha Almon as the convener for the Area School Advisory Committee's first meeting. There was not objection, and no further action was taken. The Superintendent will contact Ms. Almon.* CURRICULUM - RESTRUCTURING SCHOOLS It was recommended that Learning Foundations be eliminated from the curriculum of the Restructuring Schools. Dr. Williams reported that New Futures has approved the elimination of this course. Board members had not had an opportunity to study this change, so the decision was postponed until the February Meeting.* CARNEGIE CORPORATION PROGRAM FOR MIDDLE SCHOOL DEVELOPMENT Pulaski Heights Junior High School has the opportunity to join with schools from five other Arkansas school districts in an application to the Middle Grade School State Policy Initiative of the Carnegie Corporation. The application is being coordinated by the state Department of Education which would serve as lead applicant and fiscal agent for the project. The grant proposal would allow Pulaski Heights to receive a share of a $400,000 grant from Carnegie for the continued exploration of a middle school staff development, curriculum design, and the school configuration process. The Superintendent recommended the Board's approval of this grant application. Mr. Riggs moved the approval of this application, seconded by Dr. Mitchell, and it carried unanimously. IT WAS RECOMMENDED THAT THE BOARD GO INTO THE REGULAR AGENDA MEETING, AND THEN COME BACK FOR STUDENT HEARINGS. REPORT ON FACILITIES STUDY: Mr. Doug Eaton reported to the Board that he had been working on the facilities study. On February 13 the people who are being considered to do the facilities study will give him a price for the cost of conducting the study. AGENDA MEETING ADJOURNED AT 7:35 p.m. *Corrected Special Board Meeting February 9, 1995 Page 5 NOTE: The Superintendent left the meeting at this time. Matthis acted as the Superintendent for the hearings. Mrs. STUDENT HEARINGS: Mr. John Walker, Attorney, represented the students at this hearing, and Mr. Clay Findley, Attorney, represented the Board. Jeff Hicks, a ninth grade student at Mabelvale Junior High School appealed to the Board to reverse the recommendation of the administration for expulsion on the charge of inciting to riot. Oral arguments were heard from both Mr. Walker and Mr. Findley. Several witnesses were called. After hearing witnesses, Dr. Mitchell moved that the Board go into Executive Session, seconded by Mrs. Magness and it carried unanimously. After the Board returned from Executive Session, the principal, Ms. Bradford modified her recommendation to fighting instead of inciting to riot, and thus further recommending that Jeff Hicks be long-term suspended. Mr. Riggs moved the recommendation of the principal, seconded by Mrs. Magness, and it carried unanimously. The Acting Superintendent, Mrs. Matthis, recommended that the long-term suspension be for the remainder of the 1994-95 school year. Mr. Riggs moved the recommendation of the Acting Superintendent, seconded by Mrs. Magness, and it carried 3-2 with Mr. O'Malley and Dr. Mitchell casting the \"no\" vote. Lakeysia Wilson, a twelfth grade student at Hall High School appealed to the Board to reverse the long-term suspension recommendation of the principal, Dr. Victor Anderson. Lakeysia was charged with assault because of a fight that occurred on January 13 at the school. Several witnesses were called and questioned by the attorneys. Mrs. Magness moved that the Board retire into Executive Session to deliberate the recommendation, seconded by Dr. Mitchell and it carried unanimously. After returning from deliberation, Mr. Riggs moved the finding of fact that the student be charged with fighting, seconded by Mr. O'Malley, and it carried unanimously. The Acting Superintendent, Mrs. Matthis, recommended long-term suspension, but that it be limited to the time served and that she be placed at the Adult Education center and receive her textbooks and assignments from Hall High School so that she can graduate after summer school. Mr. Riggs moved the Acting Superintendent's recommendation, seconded by Mr. O'Malley, and it carried unanimously. McClellan expulsion ALLEN COTTON, a Community High recommendation tenth-grade student School appealed to the of Allen Cotton who was enrolled at Board on an charged with Special Board Meeting February 9, 1995 Page 6 inciting to riot. After questioning of several witnesses, Mr. O'Malley moved t~at the Board retire into Executive Session to discuss this case, seconded by Dr. Mitchell, and it carried unanimously. Upon returning from Executive Session, Mr. Carter recommended that the student be long-term suspended for the time served and that he be placed in an Adult Education environment. He stated he would also recommend to the Resource Officer that the inciting to riot charges be dropped. Mr. Riggs moved acceptance of the principal's recommendation, seconded by Mrs. Magness and it carried unanimously. Mrs. Matthis, Acting Superintendent, recommended that the student be assigned to the Adult Education Center. Mr. Riggs moved the recommendation of the Acting Superintendent, seconded by Mrs. Magness, and it carried unanimously. Jermaine Ingram, a ninth grade student at Mabelvale Junior High School, was recommended for expulsion, and charged with inciting to riot. Jermaine's parents had stated they wished to appeal the decision of the hearing officer and the principal, however, he did not attend the hearing. Ms. Gee relinquished the gavel to Mrs. Magness and moved acceptance of the recommendation of the administration that he be expelled. Mrs. Magness seconded the motion, and it carried 4-1 with Dr. Mitchell abstaining. ADJOURNMENT: With no further business to come before the board, Mr. Riggs moved adjournment at 12:35 a.m., seconded by Mrs. Magness, and it carried unanimously. APPROVED: J-J.3 -q 5 yM11ess,Sretary .,,., LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 810 WEST MARKHAM STREET LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS REC IV FEB 9 1995 February 9, 1995 Office ol Dee0ft 1 , AGENDA SPECIAL BOARD MEETING I. REPORTS: (l?\n- Service Master Representative B Discussion of Board Meetings and Communication (Magness) ~ - Green Factor Comments II. ACTION: \u0026amp; Incentives for Superintendent Area School Advisory Committee - Appointment of Convener (Magness) Curriculum - Restructuring Schools Rebuilding of Chicot Carnegie Corporation Development F. Student Hearings III. BUDGET WORK~ ION\n:, Program for Middle School LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT EPS CODE: BDDB ADOPTED: 11/21/91 REPLACES OR REVISES POLICY: BDDB SCHOOL BOARD AGENDA An agenda for each regular meeting of the Board of Directors shall be prepared by the Superintendent of Schools. The method used by the Superintendent to establish the Board agenda must provide an opportunity for the Board members to voice objections or add items. The agenda will contain all, but only those items introduced by the Board members and Superintendent. Only action items scheduled in the agenda will be acted upon in a regular Board meeting unless a suspension of the rules is agreed to in compliance with Policy BDDEB (Suspension of the Rules of Order). The order of business at a regular meeting of the Board of Directors shall be:  1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. Call to Order Roll Call Minutes Consent Items Presentations Remarks From Citizens Special Report Action Items Financial Reports Reports from Superintendent Audience with Individuals or Groups student or Employee Recommendations Adjournment Parsons wishing to address the Board during the 11RemarJta from Citizens\" section on the agenda will be required to sign up and state the subject of their remark prior to the convening of tha meeting. The Board may vote to  at time limitation or require representatives to speak for large group  whose interests are similar. Person speaking al:\u0026gt;out i ua  on the agenda for Board action will be given priority during the \"Remarks from Citizens\" section. If additional time i  required for citi1en or employee remarks or if there is a large delegation wishing to address a single issue not on the agenda, the Board may vote to defer their comments to the \"Audience with Individuals or Groups\"  action in order to complete the pending agenda in a timely manner. .. (REGULATION) LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT . EPS CODE: BOOB - R FREEDOM OF INFORMATION ACT 12-2805. OPEN PUBLIC MEETINGS - Except as otherwise specifically provided by law, all meetings, fonnal or infonnal, special or regular, of the governing bodies of all municipalities, counties, townships, and school districts, and all boards, bureaus, corrmissions, or organizations of the State of Arkansas, except Grand Juries, supported wholly or in part by public funds, or expending public funds, shall be public meetings. The time and place of each regular meeting shall be furnished to anyone who requests the information. In the event of emergency, or special meetings, the person calling such a meeting shall notify the representatives of the newspapers, radio stations and television stations, if any, located in the county in which the meeting or special meetings, of the time, place and date at least two (2) hours before such a meeting takes place in order that the public shall have representatives at the meeting. Executive sessions will be permitted only for the purpose of considering employment, appointment, promotion, demotion, disciplining or resignation of any public officer or employee. (a) Only the person holding the top administrative position in the public agency, department or office involved\nthe irrmediate supervisor of the employee involved\nand the employee may be present at the executive session when so requested by the governing body, board, corrmission or other public body holding the executive session. (b) Any person being interviewed for the top administrative position in the public agency, department, or office involved may be present at the executive s~ssion when so requested by the governing board, ccxnmission or other public body holding the executive session. Executive sessions must never be called for the purpose of defeating the reason or the spirit of the Freedcxn of Information Act. No resolution, ordinance, rule, contract, regulation or motion considered or arrived at in executive session will be legal unless following the executive session, the public body reconvenes in public session and presents and votes on such resolution, ordinance, rule, contract, regulation or motion. LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT EPS CODE: BDDC PREPARATION OF SCHOOL BOARD AGENDA An agenda for each regular meeting of the Board of Directors shall be prepared by the Superintendent of Schools in the following manner: Adopted: The Wednesday that falls two weeks prior to the regular Board meeting (usually the second Wednesday of the month) will be \"Agenda Day.\" On \"Agenda Day,\" the Associate Superintendents will provide the Superintendent with  proposed agenda items along with a brief description of each item and the reason for placement on the agenda. The Superintendent will deliver this infonnation to the Board on the afternoon of Agenda Day. The Board will have until noon on Friday of the week it receives the proposed agenda to contact the Superintendent with objections to the agenda. After Friday at noon, the agenda will be \"set\" and printed. The agenda will contain all, but only those items introduced by the Board members and Superintendent. May 25, 1989 LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT EPS CODE: BODO QUORUM A majority of the Board shal~ constitute a quorum for the transaction of business. Adopted: 12-17-81 LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT EPS CODE: BODE RULES OF ORDER The Board shall observe Robert's Rules of Order Revised except as otherwise provided by these policies or by statute. ., - !. ! -:- :a HOLK $CHGOL DISTRICT EPS CODE: BDDEB SUSPENSION OF RULES OF ORDER The Goard may suspend its parliamentary rules of order by a vote of consent of at least five (5) members. Adopted: May 25, 1989 GREEN FACTORS 1. STUDENT ASSIGNMENTS 2. FACULTY 3. STAFF 4. TRANSPORTATION 5. EXTRACURRICULAR ACTIVITIES 6. FACILITIES Statement of Intention to Establish \"Green Factor'' Research Committees Presented to the LRSD Board of Directors - February 9, 1995 As part of the process for moving the Little Rock School District toward unitary status, the Superintendent intends to implement the following measures: A. Establish committees to research specific areas, \"Green Factors,\" that have potential for achieving unitary status Committees will be established to research the following areas: 1. Student Assignment 2. Faculty Ratios 3. Staff Ratios 4. Transportation 5. Extracurricular Activities 6. Facilities 7. Student Achievement The work of the committees will be coordinated by Dr. Russ Mayo, Associate Superintendent, and the Student Assignment Office. B. Define the composition of the committees and the structure of their work Each committee will be composed of ten to fifteen people who understand the importance of unitary status in the Little Rock School District. The committees will include persons with appropriate skills in observing, interpreting, and communicating conditions and factors of influence in the topic areas. Committee members will include teachers, administrators, and community members. Each committee will be co-chaired by a LRSD administrator and an individual selected by the Superintendent. Each committee will produce a report that addresses the opportunity for the LRSD to seek unitary status in its respective area. The reports will identify if such action is feasible and provide information to support its findings. C. Identify the funding source for the committees The Green Factor Research Committees will be financed with funds from the LRSD legal fees account. Approximately $12,000 - $15,000 is anticipated for this activity. Project Timeframe: The Superintendent intends to submit a resolution to the Board for action at the next Board meeting on the establishment of Green Factor Research Committees. Each Research Committee will be expected to deliver its report with a six-week period. Assuming project start up by March 1, the Green Factor reports should be available by mid-April. LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 810 WEST MARKHAM STREET LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS February 23, 1995 To: Board of Directors From: John Riggs, Board of Directors Subject: Incentives for Superintendent Attached are the suggested incentives for the Superintendent for which we are requesting your consideration and approval. _,r.27-.\\,m-95 l-l:35 r5u1571J3525 J.A. Riggs Tractor Company John Riggs !\\-+Beverly Griffin 1. If LRSD n:ceiH:s a final and unappealable detenninatiun by a foderal court in the case of LRSD v. PCSSD or its successor that LRSD has achieved unitary status in one of the \"Green Factors, the superintendent will receive as a bonus, 5 % of his base salary for the fiscal year in which unitary status of that \"Green Factor\" is achieved. 2. In the first fiscal year in which the white student population of LRSD, including majority to minority transfer students. is 40% or more of the total enrollment of LRSD according to the October 1 enrollment count, the superintendent will be paid a bonus of 5% of his base sala1y for that fiscal year. In the first fiscal year in which the white student population of LRSD. including majority to minority transfer students, is 45% or more of the total enrollment of LRSD according to the October 1 enrollment count, the supc1intcndcnt will he paid a hon us of 5% of his base salary for that fiscal year. ln the first fiscal year in which the white student population of LRSD, including majority to minoritv transfer students, is 50% or more of the total e::nrulhm:nl of LRSD acrnrding tu the October 1 enrollment count. the superintendent will be paid a bonus of 5% of his base salary for that fiscal year. 3. If the LRSD receives a final and unappealable determination by a federal court in the case of T .RSD v. PCSD or its successor that T .RSD has achieved unitary status which results in the termination of federal court supervision of the implementation of LRSD's desegregation obligations, the employees of the LRSD including both certified, non-certified, and any other full time classification will receive a bonus of$ 1,000,000 that will be split between all classifications by a method determined by the CTA or successor bargaining unit and the administration. The $ 1,000,000 will be put into escrow at the end of the 1995 fiscal year and will come from loan process from the state of Arkansas. 4. If a school achieves all the goals of its school improvement plans, that school will be receive ex\"tra funding in the amount of$ 5.00 per child as of ~~ -,..U-_l\nin-9:, 14:3:i r5Ul57U352:i J.A. Higgs 1ractor Company john Riggs !\\.  Beverly Griffin the October 1st enrollment of the fiscal year that the plan goals are met. A committee composed of the building administrator, a ce1tified staff member, an\u0026lt;l a member of the PTA will \u0026lt;letennine huw the funding '\"ill be spent. In addition, every staff member will recei\\e 2 paid days of vacation in the following year for plan goal achievement. 4. 4/4 TO: FROM: THROUGH: SUBJECT: LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 810 WEST MARKHAM STREET LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS February 9, 1995 Board of Directors -~ ~telle Matthis, Deputy Superintendent ,. ~- ilhams, Superintendent Curriculum - Restructuring Schools Gene Parker, Director of Language Arts\nLinda Young, New Futures Liaison\nand Estelle Matthis, Deputy Superintendent, have reviewed the district's current language arts course selections in an effort to eliminate course duplications and services. Implementing the Language Arts Plus model in lieu of the Learning Foundations course would focus district resources more specifically on our at-risk youth. This model provides for smaller class sizes as well as an additional opportunity for teacher/student contact during the school day. During the New Futures Program, practice has proven that high-risk students experience greater academic achievement in small class settings with the same teacher. A business case has been developed that recommends the deletion of Learning Foundations from the district's curriculum. In accordance with Board policy, we will request your approval to delete this course during our February 9, 1995, Board agenda meeting. By this date, you will have had adequate time to review the business case. District administrators are available to address your concerns and other pertinent issues. v TO: FROM: THROUGH: SUBJECT: LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 810 WEST MARKHAM STREET LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS February 9, 1995 Board of Directors \\ -~~Estelle Matthis, Deputy Superintendent ona Briggs, Principal, Pulaski Heights Junior High nda Young, New Futures arvin Schwartz, Grants Writer Henry P. Williams, Superintendent Carnegie Corporation program for middle school development Pulaski Heights Junior High School has the opportunity to join with schools from five other Arkansas school districts in an application to the Middle Grade School State Policy Initiative of the Carnegie Corporation. The application is being coordinated by the state Department of Education, which would serve as lead applicant and fiscal agent for the project. Submission deadline in February 10, 1995. The grant proposal would allow Pulaski Heights to receive a share of a $400, 000-grant from Carnegie for the continued exploration of a middle school staff development, curriculum design, and school configuration process. The potential two-year grant period would serve as a follow up to a 1993-94 award of $10,000 received by Pulaski Heights for an earlier stage of the MGSSPI. The exploration process for the development of middle schools has been previously approved by the Board and community meetings have been conducted to gain public input. It is recommended that the Board of Directors approve the administration to submit the Pulaski Heights application to the state Department of Education to continue this development process. LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT APR 6 1995 810 WEST MARKHAM STREET LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS Ohico of Desegr February 23, 1995 MINUTES BOARD OF DIRECTORS REGULAR MEETING The Board of Direc tors of the Little Rock School District met in its regularly scheduled meeting at 6:15 p.m. on February 23, 1995, in t he 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 Mrs. Judy Magness Mr. Kevin O'Malley Mr. John Riggs MEMBERS ABSENT: Mrs. o. G. Jacovelli Dr. Katherine Mitchell ALSO PRESENT: Dr. Henry P. Williams, Superintendent of Schools Mrs. Estelle Matthis, Deputy Superintendent Mrs. Beverly Griffin, Executive Assistant Mrs. Norma Rodgers, Acting Recorder of Minutes .L. CALL TO ORDER: The President, Ms. Linda Pondexter, called the regular meeting to order at 6:15 p.m. The roll call revealed the presence of five (5) Board members. The Ex-officio teacher member to the Board and student were introduced, Ms. Barbara Strickland, Teacher, of Williams Magnet School, and Brad Johnson, student at J. A. Fair High School. II. READING OF MINUTES The chair directed the Board members' attention to the minutes of the Regular Board Meeting of January 26, 1995, and the Special Meeting of February 9, 1995. Mr. Riggs moved approval of the minutes as corrected, seconded by Ms. Gee and it carried unanimously. g Regular Board Meeting February 23, 1995 Page 2 III. PRESENTATIONS A. SUPERINTENDENT - 1. The Superintendent, Dr. Henry Williams, recognized Mr. Gene Wilhoit, Director - State Department of Education, who spoke to the Board on the Reform of Public Schools Funding. The Superintendent issued the following citations: PTA Council's Educator of the Year awards to Ms. Lillie Carter, Principal - Pulaski Heights Elementary and Ms. Irish Williams, a teacher at Fulbright Elementary. Ms. Carter was recognized for her outstanding leadership skills and her dedication to students. Ms. Williams was recognized for her outstanding work with children in helping them to develop physically, socially, emotionally and intellectually. Mr. Odas Parsons, Teacher at Dunbar International Studies/Gifted and Talented Jr. High, administered the Heimlich Maneuver and successfully cleared the throat of a student who was choking in the cafeteria. Mr. Parsons was recognized for his dedication in keeping our students safe. The Hall High Warrior Football Team was recognized together with their Coach Roy Wade. Coach Wade and the senior members of the team accepted the citation on behalf of the entire team. One of the players, Chris Akins, was recognized for having recently signed with the University of Arkansas football team next year. He was named State Player of the Year by the Gatorade Circle of Champions and his picture appeared in this month's issue of Scholastic Coach magazine. The following students were winners in a Logo/Slogan Contest for the Safe Schools Campaign: 1st place winner was Yolanda Purifoy, an 11th grader enrolled in Metropolitan Commercial Art Class\n2nd place winner was Mae Marocchine of Metropolitan Commercial Art Class\nand, 3rd place was Katrina Collins of Henderson Junior High School. Citations were awarded to the teacher ex-officio representative, Barbara Strickland of Williams Magnet Elementary, and student ex-officio representative, Brad Johnson, a senior at Fair High School. Regular Board Meeting February 23, 1995 Page 3 B. PARTNERSHIPS The following Partnerships were presented for approval: Baptist Medical Center, Baptist Rehabilitation Institute and Little Rock School District K-Mart and Bale Elementary School Federal Bureau of Investigation, Little Rock Field Office and Garland Incentive School Pulaski Heights Baptist Church and Pulaski Heights Elementary School Ms. Gee moved approval of the partnerships, seconded by Mrs. Magness, and it carried unanimously. C. CITIZENS COMMITTEES 1. Ms. Joan Adcock, vice-mayor for the City of Little Rock, addressed the Board, asking for permission to place a Neighborhood Alert Center on the campus of Ish Elementary School. She stated that the Pulaski County Special School District has donated a portable building to be placed on the Ish campus to house the policeman. This would be on a temporary basis only. The city will fund the cost of moving the building. Since Ms. Adcock asked that the Board approve this at this meeting, Ms. Magness moved the suspension of the rules and act on this agenda item at this time. Seconded by Ms. Gee, and it carried unanimously. Ms. Pondexter asked for the Superintendent's recommendation on this matter. The Superintendent recommended that the District be allowed to do its homework by talking to the people in the community in that area about the placement of the Alert Center in that particular location. Ms. Davis, president of the Southend Neighborhood Association addressed the Board and stated they were looking forward to the partnerships between the City and the Little Rock School District with the placement of the Alert Center on this location. Mrs. Magness moved that the Board approve this conditionally until further investigation can be conducted by the Superintendent, seconded by Ms. Gee, and it carried unanimously. 2. Mr. McGuire, PTA President at Chicot, addressed the Board to bring them up to date on the meetings held on the rebuilding of Chicot. There has been discussion about sidewalks to Regular Board Meeting February 23, 1995 Page 4 be donated by the City of Little Rock. A parent of one of the special needs children will be placed on t~e building committee. March 2, 1995 will be the next meeting of the Chicot Rebuilding Committee. D. SPECIAL PRESENTATIONS Office of Desegregation Monitoring - Melissa Guildin, Desegregation Monitor, reported to the Board that ODM has begun their annual auditing of Incentive Schools. Classroom Teachers Association - Ms. Eleanor Coleman, President of the CTA, reported that she had several items to address, but that she would put them in writing in order to save time, but asked that the issues be responded to promptly. Joshua Interveners - No Report Knight Interveners - No Report PTA council - No Report E. Board Members Ms. Gee expressed appreciation to the administration for inviting Mr. Wilhoit to speak to the Board. Mr. Riggs thanked the staff at Martin Luther King Interdistrict School for inviting he and a fellow board member to judge the Science contest. He stated they were impressed with the school and the Science projects. Mr. Riggs also brought to the Board's attention that the District was going to lose a strong patron of the District - Mr. Kurt Bradberry of Worthen Bank. Mr. Riggs stated that Mr. Bradberry had gone out on a limb to make sure the District remained solvent. They loaned the District money at a time when the District needed it. He wished to thank Mr. Bradberry for his support. Mr. Riggs wanted Mrs Jacovelli to know that she is missed and asked for the prayers of ~he Board and the patrons for a return of her health. Mrs. Magness expressed thanks to the people who have called and written to let her know about the cuts. Ms. Pondexter expressed appreciation to the Dunbar Alumni Association who donated curtains for the stage at Dunbar. The Regular Board Meeting February 23, 1995 Page 5 Association has also established an archival to be placed at UALR Library to provide research for other schools throughout the state of Arkansas. IV. REMARKS FROM CITIZENS The following patrons expressed concern about the proposed closing of Fair Park Elementary School, several stated that they were a close neighborhood group and that the school is located in the \"oldest neighborhood\" in the city of Little Rock: John Graves Margie Malezycki Michael Hampton Deanna Jones Chris Ruby Diane Williamson Opal Rice Julian Leake Denise Nesbitt O. C. Sparks Wendolyn Adams Catherine Diggs Wally Lovelace Mr. Ballard The following patrons and staff addressed the Board with concerns about the proposed cut in the number of nurses in the District. There was concern with regard to chronic illnesses of several children who have diabetes, asthma, and other illnesses. Kay Peters Dr. Debra Caradine Barbara Irvin Sherry Herndon Ann Neid Ellen Stauber Mark Dailey The following patrons spoke to the Board on the proposed outsourcing of transportation: Teretha Jackson Michael Campbell Teresa Adams Ms. Laura Martin spoke to the Board in support of keeping the fo?r-year-old program in the District. Regular Board Meeting February 23, 1995 Page 6 The following patrons addressed the Board concerning the proposed closing of Badgett. They stated that Badgett is the best kept secret in the District. Several of the parents stated that they had gone to school at Badgett as well as their parents. One patron asked that LRSD give the school back to the county: Claude Johnson Jodie Crowder Judy Davis Linda Profit Mary Swift Don Beasley Vicky Roshell Laura Ballard Mr. Benny Johnson addressed the Board on the subject of school safety. He praised Ms. Pondexter' s statement concerning the violence in schools (from January Board Meeting). He stated that violence in schools is very bad. Mr. Say McIntosh addressed the Board and the patrons. He stated that the patrons in this District are concerned only when the\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_7","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":["1995-01/1995-08"],"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":["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/7"],"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\n\n\n "},{"id":"bcas_bcmss0837_848","title":"Budget: ''North Little Rock School District Budget''","collection_id":"bcas_bcmss0837","collection_title":"Office of Desegregation Management","dcterms_contributor":null,"dcterms_spatial":["United States, 39.76, -98.5","United States, Arkansas, 34.75037, -92.50044","United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, 34.76993, -92.3118","United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, Little Rock, 34.74648, -92.28959"],"dcterms_creator":null,"dc_date":["1995/1996"],"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","North Little Rock School District","Education--Arkansas","Education--Evaluation","Education--Finance","Educational statistics","School buildings","School employees","School facilities"],"dcterms_title":["Budget: ''North Little Rock School District Budget''"],"dcterms_type":["Text"],"dcterms_provenance":["Butler Center for Arkansas Studies"],"edm_is_shown_by":null,"edm_is_shown_at":["http://arstudies.contentdm.oclc.org/cdm/ref/collection/bcmss0837/id/848"],"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":["3 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\nThe transcript for this item was created using Optical Character Recognition (OCR) and may contain some errors.\nTHJEN ORTH lJITI1LJER OCK lPUIBlXCC HOOl ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICES 2700 POPLAR STREET Steve Jones Jack, Lyon, \u0026amp; Jones, P.A. Attorneys At Law July 21, 1995 3400 TCBY Tower, 425 W Capitol Little Rock AR 72201-3472 Dear Steve: RECE~VED f/anr:f- lJd,'vc,.e ,L //.'S7a-. JLIL 2 4 1995 Office of DesegregatioMn onitoring As directed by the July 13, 1995 court order, this document represents the 1995-96 budget for North Little Rock School District. The document contains seven sections--Revenue and Expenditures\nExpenditures by Function, Object, and Function/Object for the Salary, Operating, and Debt Service Funds\nExpenditures by Function, Object, and Function/Object for Federal Funds\nFive Year Revenue and Expenditure Projection\nBudget Notes\nSalary Schedules\nand Program Analysis. The Revenue and Expenditure section provides graphs for 1995-96 projected revenue and expenditures. The revenue graph shows the amount of local, state, and federal revenue projected for the operating, debt service, capital outlay, and federal funds. The expenditure graph shows the combined expenditures projected for the funds included on the revenue graph and the salary fund. This section also provides detailed revenue for the operating budget and the federal programs. The beginning balance, ending balance, and a summary of expenditures for the operating, capital outlay, building/bond, and federal budgets are also included in this section. The second section provides expenditures by function, object, and function/object for the salary, operating, and debt service funds. The third section provides expenditures for Federal Funds. The fourth section of this document provides a five year projection of revenues and expenditures for operating, capitol outlay, buildings, and federal programs. The Budget Notes section provides information regarding local tax revenue reduction, state funding, workers compensation, the need for millage increases, and the loss of desegregation settlement funds. The sixth section of the document contains the end-of-the-year (FY94) salary schedules for administrators, teachers, and classified employees~ The program analysis for one new program and one expanded program is included in the final section of the document. P.O. BOX 687, NORTH LITTLE ROCK, AR 72115/0687 501/771-8000 _, .. ,,.. The 1995-96 budget will be presented for board approval at the August school board meeting. After final approval, the budget will then be submitted to the Arkansas Department of Education and the Office of Desegregation Monitoring. Please contact me if you have questions. Sincerely, Donald Watkins Assistant Superintendent Business Services 07/31/95 11:29 FAX 501 771 8069  NLR School Dist 14!001 N1!D1Bs.TIILEJII TTILJE~ CQ)(CiJl F1UIB3ILITCCI EI@@JL ADMINISTRATIVEO FFICES 2'700P OPLAR STREET Fax Number(:5 01) 771-8069 FAX COVER SHEET Date: ______ ,_7-_'3_/-__'7___5_ ___________ _ TransmittinTgo : _ -'{J\"'-[).\n._/_lv___\"_---____________ _ FAX Numbcr_: ___ 3_\n_1_-_0_1 _o_ u_ ______________ _ Attention_: ___ ~----.~'-/-\".:\n_,\n.\n_ ____________ _ I~ Numbero f Pages,I ncludingC overS heet:_ __\n_::\n_ _________ , _ From: ---~- 1 __ L.fl-.l..__,\n=-._ l. Jaa....\nD.\n.\n4.\n\n.\u0026gt;.:---_::,:\n::\ni-=---------------Comments: AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER P. 0. BOX 687, NORTH LI'ITLE ROCK, AR 721:15/0687 50l1771-8000 N 0 0 I .-\u0026lt; 0 0 .c u Cfl 0::: .....I /. \u0026lt;\"D' 0 00 N\". '. -\u0026lt; -\u0026lt; \"\"'' '- -\u0026lt; h ,'- ....... ,. 0 NORTH LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT EXPENDITURES SALARIES $30,552,120 1995-1996 DEBT SERVICE $1,304,410 INSURANCE/OTHER $286,100 CAPITAL OUTLAY $1,316,700 SUPPLIES $1,555,410 SERVICES $2,529,920 TUITION $1,240,000 BENEFITS $3,958,660~ TOTAL EXPENDITURES = $42,743,320 -3-  \u0026lt;I) ..... C, ..... 0 0 .c: u VJ 0:: ..J 7. a, co 0 \u0026lt;O .......... tr.) a..,. ._ .,.,.,. . ...._ I'- . 0. NORTH LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT REVENUE AND EXPENDITURES 1992-1996 OPERA TING BUDGET 1992-93 1993-94 1994-95 1994-95 SALARIES (01), OPERATING (02), \u0026amp; DEBT SERVICE (04) ACTUAL ACTUAL BUDGETED ACTUAL TOTAL REVENUE AND BALANCE $34,680,190.72 $36,953 926.81 $36 827 843.00 $38,287, 118.1 J EXPENDITURES Salaries $24 654,619.76 $26 9621118.71 127,243,645.00 $27 863,295.15 Benefits $2 624,924.22 $2.841 125.27 $3155 388.00 $3 258.713.98 Tuition $1,067,374.16 $1,229 399.42 $1 085 000.00 $1,239,950.00 Services $2159,022.38 $2,420 129.81 $2 482,594.00 $2,262,676.98 Supplies $1,244,849.46 $1,379,589.79 $1,157,982.00 $1,356,006.55 Equioment $218,292.93 $164,833.43 $129,754.00 $132,412.08 Insurance/Other $256,304.01 $311320.48 $306,538.00 $221,462.63 Debt Service $7119,841.15 $1,188,769.94 $1,105,970.00 $1,102.578.74 TOTAL EXPENDITURES $33,015,228.07 $36,224,356.65 $36,546,869.00 $37,437,116.11 ENDING BALANCE $1,664,962.65 $729,570.16 $180,974.00 $850,002.02 FEDERAL PROGRAMS 1061 TOTAL REVENUE ANO BALANCE $3 560 377.92 $3,598 093.54 $3 641 169.00 $3 660 124.78 EXPENDITURES Salaries $1,644,091.99 $1,967 932.113 $2 014,031.00 $2,022,586.80 Benefits $441,367.07 $539 817.68 $596 338.00 $565,991.45 Services $472,493.90 $421,038.73 $407 002.00 $416,207.75 Suoolles - $371,965.64 $205,874.02 $228,831.00 $171,185.15 Equipment $206,103.77 $115,140.30 $216 712.00 $188,975.14 Other M $42,809.42 $40,626.02 $49 077.00 $12,494.75 TOTAL EXPENDITURES $3,178,831.79 $3,290 429.58 $3,511,991.00 $3,377,441.04 ENDING BALANCE $381,546.13 $305,663.98 $129,178.00 $282 683.74 CAPITAL OUTLAY (OS) BEGINNING BALANCE $185,463.82 $34,828.03 $1,882.00 $1,892.64 REVENUE $391,650.75 $389 503.75 $385,000.00 $724,080.73 EXPENDITURES $542,286.34 $422449.14 $382,195.00 $701122.98 ENDING BALANCE -- ~~4,828.03 ~1.882.64 $4,687.00 $24~0.39 BUILDING 1031/BOND (10) FUNDS BEGINNING BALANCES $1,027,013.50 $3 277,801.44 $1,321,857.00 $1,321 829.65 REVENUE .. $4,012,465.94 $168,411.99 $50,000.00 $79,533.42 EXPENDITURES $1,761,678.00 $2,124,355.78 $500,000.00 $417,890.93 ENDING BALANCE $3,277,801.44 $1 321,857.65 $871,857.00 $983.472.14 -4- 1995-96 1995-96 BUDGETED CHANGE $38,746,676.00 $459 557.87 $28,555 600.00 $692.304.85 $3,315,200.00 $56 486,02 $1,240 000.00 $50.00 $2,217 960.00 ($4,4 716.98 $1,377,470.00 $21,463.45 $97,280.00 ($35, 132.08 $245,610.00 $24,127.37 $1,304,410.00 $201,831.26 $38,353,530.00 $916,413.89 $393146.00 ($456,856.02 $3,268 978.00 ($391,146.78 $1 997 520.00 ($25 066.80 $583,460.00 $17,468.55 $371,960.00 ($4,4 247.75 $177,940.00 $6,754.85 $60,425.00 ($128 550.14 $40,490.00 $27,995.25 $3,231,795.00 ($145,646.04 $37183.00 ($245,500.74 $24,840.00 $22,957.36 $1,139,600.00 $415 519.27 $1 159,000.00 $457,877.02 $5,440.00 ($19 400.39 $983,472.00 1$338,357.65 $3,300,000.00 $3,220 466.58 $3,225 000.00 $2,807,109:of $1,058,472.00 $74,999.86 .,,. 0 0 ~ ~,. ,, ..... Q ..... 0 0 .c u CJ) CG ....J z C) ~ 0 00 ...\n0 ,r., C) N .. ...\n...\n,r., C) '...\nM ',- 0  NORTH LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT EXPENDITURES 1992-1996 OPERA TING BUDGET 1992-93 1993-94 1994-95 1994-95 SALARY (011, OPERATING (021, \u0026amp; DEBT SERVICE ACTUAL ACTUAL BUDGETED ACTUAL TOTAL REVENUE AND BALANCES $34,680,190.72 $36,953,926.81 $36 827 843.00 $38,287,118.13 SALARY FUND EXPENDITURES ADMINISTRATORS $2,389 830.04 $2,790,319.05 $2 803,200.00 $2,851,452.52 TEACHERS $16,842,870.86 $18,069,269.74 $18,453,600.00 $18 369,424.17 SUBSTITUTE TEACHERS $341,415.27 $378,002.30 $381,000.00 $353,107.00 TOTAL CERTIFIED SALARIES $19,574,116.17 $21,237,591.09 $21,637,800.00 $21,573,983.69 FRINGE BENEFITS $524,031.13 $537,924.71 $,458,550.00 $546,350.13 TUITION $1,067 374.16 $1179,221.M $1,117,000.00 $1,239,950.10 TOTAL SALARY FUND EXPENDITURES $21166 521.46 $22,95'6,737.34 $23 213,360.00 $23,360,283.92 OPERATING FUND EXPENDITURES REGULAR PROGRAMS $1,627,825.46 $1 860 739.69 $2,163,030.00 $2 392 243.73 SPECIAL EDUCATION $327.404.86 $440 823.23 $45'6646.00 $493,188.52 VOCATIONAL EDUCATION $319,065.38 $271, 186.29 $265 321.00 $244 821.89 COMPENSATORY EDUCATION $782,927.75 $790,763.62 $776 554.00 $707 897.46 OTHER INSTRUCTIONAL PROGRAMS $82 727.23 $92.761.70 $137 920.00 $91 205.63 PUPIL SUPPORT $466,769.73 $635,801.50 $651,325.00 $715.521.77 STAFF SUPPORT $795,427.64 $910,551.76 $1,044198.00 $926.687.85 ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPORT $449,835.91 $445,226.59 $453,280.00 $411,107.95 PRINCIPAL'S OFFICE $629.584.22 $709,199.75 $756,527.00 $763 326.79 BUSINESS SUPPORT $5, 160,19'.84 $5,445,349.38 $5,143,269.00 $5,575,347.89 CENTRAL SUPPORT $186,702.32 $212,485.65 $204,830.00 $260,340.87 OTHER SUPPORT $225 795.84 $250 598.39 $263.150.00 $267,918.66 NON-BOND/NON-PROGRAM/COMMUNITY $5,604.29 $15,361.93 $13,500.00 $23,502.87 TOTAL OPERATING FUND EXPENDITURES $11,059,865.46 $12,080,849.38 $12.327 .549.00 $12 873 111.118 DEBT SERVICE FUND EXPENDITURES PRINCIPAL $224.285.46 $474,843.71 $463,005.00 $460 534.18 INTEREST $564J799.49 $709,800.03 $638,935.00 $638 210.06 FISCAL FEES $766.20 $4,128.20 $4,030.00 $3,834.50 -- TOTAL DEBT SERVICE EXPENDITURES $789,841:.!! .. _ $1,188,769.94 $1,105,970.00 $1102 578.74 CERTIFIED SALARIES - LAKESIDE CASE $101,141.57 -- TOTAL SALARY, OPERATING AND DEBT SERVICE FUNDS EXPENDITURES $33,015 228.07 $36,224 356.66 $36,646 869.00 $37,437,116.11 ENDING BALANCES $1,664,962.65 $729,570.15 $180,974.00 $850,002.02 -6- 1995-96 1995-96 BUDGETED CHANGE $38, 7 46.646.00 $459,627.87 $2,850,490.00 1$962.52 $19,279 550.00 $910, 125.83 $373,000.00 $19,893.00 $22 503,040.00 $929,056.31 $626,330.00 $79,979.~ $1,240,000.00 $49.90 $24,369,370.00 $1,009,086.08 $2 467 700.00 $75 456.27 $487,960.00 ($5,228.52 $258,480.00 $13,658.11 $717,030.00 $9,132.54 $159170.00 $67 964.37 $648, 130.00 ($67 391.77 $1,091,500.00 $164 812.15 $492,830.00 $81,722.05 $606,560.00 ($156,768.79 $5 291,300.00 ($284,047.89 $194,360.00 ($65,980.87 $252,480.00 ($15,438.66 $12,250.00 ($11,252.87 $12 679,750.00 ($193,361.681 $586,600.00 $125,965.82 $712,880.00 $74,669.94 $5,030.00 $1, 195.~0 $1,304,410.00 $201 83-1.26 $38,353,530.00 $916 413.8!:I $393 116.00 1$456,886.02 ,,, 0 0 (1 ...... 0 0 .c: u V) 0::: ....l ~ C) (0 0 00 ,..-.. ,- ...... 0, ,, \u0026gt;..,\u0026lt;:: ., C) \"\" .......... ,,, C) ' .... \"', -' 0 ,I .. NORTH LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT REVENUE AND EXPENDITURE PROJEC~IO S 1sss-2000 l i~ OPERAT ING BUDGET 1995-98 1996-97 I 1997-98 SALARY (01), OPERATING (01), \u0026amp; DEBT SERVICE (4) PROJECTION PROJECTION,/ ,, PROJECTION TOTAL REVENUE AND BALANCE $38,748,680.00 $38 379 566.00 $38,965,282.00 EXPENDITURES Salaries $28 555 600.00 $28 326 700.00 $28,769,000.00 Beneflls $3,315,200.00 $3,342 700.00 $3 411,600.00 Tuition $1,240,000.00 $1,264,800.00 $1 290 100.00 Services $2 217,960.0il $2 101 000.00 $2,144,000.00 SuDclles , $1 377,470.00 $1,305,000.00 $1,333,000.00 Equipment $97 280.00 $99:200.00 $101,200.00 Insurance/Other $245 610.00 $250 500.00 $255,500.00 Debt Service $1,304 410.00 $1 330 500.00 $1,357 000.00 TOTAL EXPENDITURES $38,353 530.00 $38,020 400.00 $38,661 400.00 ENDING BALANCE $393150.00 $359, 166.00 $303,882.00 FEDERAL PROGRAMS (06) TOTAL REVENUE AND BALANCE $3 268,980.00 $3,334 278.00 $3,380,000.00 EXPENDITURES Salaries $1 997,520.00 $2,067 400.00 $2 300 000.00 Benefits $583 460.00 $595100.00 $660,000.00 Services $371 960.00 $375 000.00 $40,000.00 Suoclies $177 940.00 $185 000.00 $240,000.00 Eaulnment $60,425.00 $61 600.00 $75,000.00 Other $40490.00 $40 600.00 $48,000.00 TOTAL EXPENDITURES $3 231 795.00 $3 324.700.00 $3 363 000.00 ENDING BALANCE $37,1115.00 $9 578.00 $17 000.00 CAPITAL OUTLAY (051 BEGINNING BALANCE $24 840.00 $5440.00 $45,440.00 REVENUE $1, 1311,600.00 $1 240 000.00 $1,280,000.00 EXPENDITURES $1159,000.00 $1,200,000.00 $1 310 000.00 ENDING BALANCE $5440.00 $45 440.00 $15,440.00 BUILDING (031/BOND 110) FUNDS BEGINNING BALANCES $983,472.00 $1,058,472.00 $888,472.00 REVENUE $3,300,000.00 $30 000.00 $35,000.00 EXPENDITURES $3.225,000.00 $200 000.00 $0.00 ENDING BALANCE $1.058,472.00 $888 472.00 $923,472.00 -96- 1998-99 1999-2000 PROJECTION PROJECTION $39,541,798.00 $40,133 614.00 $29150,000.00 $29 540,000.()0 $3,500 800.00 $3 572,600.0U $1,315.900.00 $1,342,200.00 $2,195,100.00 $2,241 ooo.oo $1 371,600.00 $1,400,000.00 $103,000.00 $100,100.00 $260,600.00 $265,900.00 $1,394 000.00 $1,400,000.00 $39,291,000.00 $39 881,800.00 $250 798.00 $271 814.00 $3,447 600.00 $3,585,500.00 $2,346,000.00 $2 439,800.00 $673 200.00 $686 700.00 $41,000.00 $43,000.00 $245 000.00 $260 000.00 $90,000.00 $92,000.00 $49,000.00 $50100.00 S3 444 200.00 $3 571 600.00 $3,400.00 $13 900.00 $15 440.00 $1 240.00 $1,305,800.00 $1,332,960.00 $1 320,000.00 $1 330,000.00 $1,240.00 $4,200.00 $923,472.00 $865472.00 $42,000.00 $50 000.00 $100 000.00 S150 000.00 $865 472.00 $765,472.00 NORTH LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT BUDGET 1995-96 NORTH LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 1995-96A NNUALB UDGET TABLE OF CONTENTS Boardo f DirectorsS, uperintendent REc~~'.1.r=\"l f-1,:,,nJ . J\u0026gt;t.l,'v\u0026lt;V'J\u0026lt;,-, 11:na..., , II II 2 1t 1995 O fficeo f DesegregatiMono nitoring and Assistant Superintendents . . . . . . . . . . . . _. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 REVENUE AND EXPENDITURES RevenueG raph. ............................................................. 2 ExpenditureG raph .......................................................... 3 Revenuea nd Expend\"rture- sO peratingC, apitalO Jtlay, Building/Bonda,n d FederalP rograms ........................................... 4 Revenue- C)peratingB udget. ................................................... 5 Expenditure-s OperatingB udget ............................................... 6 Revenuea nd Expenditure-s FederalP rograms ...................................... 7 EXPENDITUREFSO RS ALARYO, PERATIONSA ND DEBT SERVICE FUNDS Expenditurebs y Function. ...................................................... 8 Expenditurebs y Function'Object ................................................ 15 Expenditurebs y Object . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 65 , EXPENDITUREFSO RF EDERALP ROGRAMS Expenditurebs y Function . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 70 Expenditurebs y FunctiorvObject. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 73 Expenditurebs y Object . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 92 FIVE-YEARR EVENUEA ND EXPENDITURPER OJECTIONS RevenueP rojections- 1995-2CXX). ............................................. 95 ExpenditureP rojections- 1995-2000 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 96 BUDGET NOTES BudgeNt otes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 97 SALARY SCHEDULES Adrrinistrators . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 98 Teachers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 99 OassifiedE .rrl\u0026gt;loyees.. ..................................................... 101 PROGRAMA NALYSIS Second Lien Bond Issue ..................................................... 104 The BementaryI nterventioana ssroom Project .................................... 107 AlternativeE ducation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 112 NORTH LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISlRICT BOARD OF EDUCATION Marty Moore, President Lany Shadid, Vice President Teresa Burl, Secretary Pat Blackstone Lynn Hamilton Mable Mitchell Louella Thomas James R Smith, Superintendent Assistant Superintendents Bobby Acklin - Desegregation Bobby New - Instruction Donald Watkins - Business Services -1- REVENUE AND EXPENDITURES\nNORTH LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT REVENUE STATE REVENUE $21,615,670 52% 1995-1996 LOCAL REVENUE $17,280,730 41% FEDERAL REVENUE $2,950,300 7% TOTAL REVENUE = $41,846,700 -2- NORTH LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT EXPENDITURES ... SALARIES $30,552,120 1995-1996 DEBT SERVICE $1,304,410 INSURANCE/OTHER $286,100 CAPITAL OUTLAY $1,316,700 SUPPLIES $1,555,410 SERVICES $2,721,920 TUITION $1,048,000 BENEFITS $3,958,660 TOTAL EXPENDITURES = $42,743,320 -3- NORTH LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT REVENUE AND EXPENDITURES 1992-1996 OPERA TING BUDGET SALARIES (01), 0 PERA TING (02), \u0026amp; DEBT SERVICE (04) TOTAL REVENUE AND EXPENDITU~ BALANCE - Salaries Benefits Tuition Services ~upplies Eql!_i_pment Insurance/0th Debt Service TOTAL EXPEN - er DITURES ENDING BALANCE -- FEDERAL PROGRAMS (06) TOTAL REVENUE AND BALANCE EXPENDITURES - Salaries Benefits Services --- Supplies - Eauioment - Other TOTAL EXPENDITURES ENDING BALANCE CAPITAL OUTLAY (051 BEGINNING BALANCE REVENUE EXPENDITURES ENDING BALANCE BUILDING (O3)/BOND (101 FUNDS BEGINNING BALANCES REVENUE EXPENDITURES ENDING BALANCE 1992-93 1993-94 1994-95 ACTUAL ACTUAL BUDGETED \u0026gt;--- $34,680,190.72 $36,953,926.81 $36,827,843.00 $24,654,619.76 $26,962,188.71 $27,243,645.00 $2,624,924.22 $2,841,125.27 $3,155,386.00 $1,067,374.16 $1,229,399.42 $1,065,000.00 $2,159,022.38 $2,420,129.61 $2,482,594.00 $1,244,849.46 $1,379,589.79 $1,157,982.00 $218,292.93 $164,833.43 $129,754.00 $256,304.01 $38,320.48 $306,538.00 $789,841.15 $1,188,769.94 $1,105,970.00 $33,015,228.07 $36,224,356.65 $36,646,869.00 $1,664,962.65 $729,570.16 $180,974.00 $3,560,377.92 $3,596,093.54 $3,641,169.00 $1,644,091.99 $1,967,932.83 $2,014 031.00 $441 367.07 $539,817.68 $596 338.00 $472,493.90 $421,038.73 $407,002.00 $371,965.64 $205,874.02 $228,831.00 $206,103.77 $115,140.30 $216,712.00 $42,809.42 $40,626.02 $49,077.00 $3,178,831.79 $3,290,429.58 $3,511,991.00 $381,546.13 $305,663.96 $129,178.00 $185,463.62 $34,828.03 $1,882.00 $391,650.75 $389,503.75 $385,000.00 $542,286.34 $422,449.14 $382,195.00 $34,828.03 $1,882.64 $4,687.00 $1,027,013.50 $3,277,801.44 $1,321,857.00 $4,012,465.94 $168,411.99 $50,000.00 $1,761,678.00 $2,124,355.78 $500,000.00 $3,277,801.44 $1,321,857.65 $871,857.00 -4- 1994-95 1995-96 1995-96 ACTUAL BUDGETED CHANGE $37,287,118.13 $38,746,676.00 $1,459,557.87 $27,863,295.15 $28,555,600.00 $692,304.85 $3,258,713.98 $3,315,200.00 $56 486.02 $1,079,536.15 $1,078,000.00 ($1,536.15 $2,423,090.83 $2,379,960.00 ($43,130.83 $1,356,006.55 $1,377,470.00 $21,463.45 $132,412.08 $97,280.00 ($35,132.08 $221,482.63 $245,610.00 $24,127.37 $1,102,578.74 $1,304,410.00 $201,831.26 $37,437,116.11 $38,353,530.00 $916,413.89 $850,002.02 $393,146.00 ($456,856.02 $3,660,124.78 $3,268,978.00 ($391,146.78 $2,022,586.80 $1,997 520.00 ($25,066.80 $565,991.45 $583,460.00 $17 468.55 $416,207.75 $371,960.00 ($44,247.75 $171,185.15 $177,940.00 $6,754.85 $188,975.14 $60,425.00 ($128,550.14 $12,494.75 $40,490.00 $27,995.25 $3,377,441.04 $3,231,795.00 ($145,646.04 $282,683.74 $37,183.00 ($245,500.74 $1,882.64 $24,840.00 $22,957.36 $724,080.73 $1,139,600.00 $415,519.27 $701,122.98 $1,159,000.00 $457,877.02 $24,840.39 $5,440.00 ($19,400.39 $1,321,829.65 $983,472.00 ($338,357.65 $79,533.42 $3,300,000.00 $3,220,466.58 $417,890.93 $3,225,000.00 $2,807,109.07 $983,472.14 $1,058,472.00 $74,999.86 NORTH LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT REVENUE 1992-1996 OPERATING BUDGET 1992-93 1993-94 1994-95 1994-95 SALAJlY (01), OPERATING (02), \u0026amp; DEBT SERVICE (0) ACTUAL ACTUAL BUDGETED ACTUAL BEGINNING BALANCE $533,896.92 $1,664,962.00 $729,570.00 $729,570.21 REVENUE, LOCAL Property Taxes $8,463,731.24 $8,514,794.30 $8,320,000.00 $8,519 142.54 40% Pullback $2 659 432.57 $3,289 950.09 $3 250 000.00 $3,877 785.03 40% Pullback (Accrued) $1 584 228.23 $869 400.91 $1 000,000.00 $994,735.19 Dellnquent Taxes $960,646.26 $1,203,584.16 $1,150,000.00 $1 038,918.05 Excess Commissions $31,612.84 $30,561.43 $30,000.00 $31,760.13 Land Redemption $92,073.43 $102,947.89 $100,000.00 $108,438.36 Tuition - Summer School $66,435.00 $91,076.02 $85,000.00 $103,522.25 Interest $144,538.58 $119,250.61 $110,000.00 $183,818.62 Pupll Activltv Sales $56,616.18 $55,259.04 $50,000.00 $58,036.05 Rent and Miscellaneous $131,122.06 $126, 125.88 $118,300.00 $147,324.48 Desegregation - Sec. VIII.C - LR $283,862.40 $345,000.00 $360,806.72 Deseareaation - Sec. VIII.C - PCSSD $94,620.79 $115,000.00 $120,268.90 Tuition - PCSSD $96,047.54 $117,254.41 $110,000.00 $130 367.43 County General and Severance Tax $35,830.83 $35 369.94 $32,219.00 $49,731.43 TOTAL LOCAL REVENUE $14,322,314.76 $14,934,057.87 $14 815 519.00 $15 724 655.18 REVENUE STATE MFPA $16 096 402.01 $16 733 932.00 $17 693 840.00 $17 951 462.00 State Armortlonment/Workers' Compensation $28,479.49 $141,500.00 $138 524.10 Transportation Aid $513,002.00 $537,899.00 $582,575.00 $585, 122.00 M-to-M Incentive $1,131,696.00 $1,034,620.00 $1,030,000.00 $1,065,124.00 Comoensatorv Education $251,557.04 $382,057.01 $365,000.00 $311,598.01 Special Education Suoervlsor $67,150.00 $67,150.00 $67150.00 $67.150.00 Act 591 Residential $26,957.82 $41,246.75 $35,000.00 $35,029.81 Soeclal Education Preschool $156,202.00 $321,255.00 $287,638.00 $339 588.00 Vocational Education $80,435.96 $24,802.34 $28 562.00 $27 842.84 ABC Preschool $274,585.00 $234, 116.00 $234, 116.00 $234,116.00 Desegregation - Sec. VIII.B $389,025.00 $389,025.00 $289,025.00 $389 025.00 Deseareaatlon - Sec. VIII.C $455,368.81 $57,082.32 Magnet/M-to-M Transportation $260 337.00 $271 430.00 $275,000.00 $275 000.00 Other State $36 039.95 $177 074.21 $127 648.00 $172,750.00 Public Law 874 and Other $22 762.00 $25 665.00 $75 700.00 $72 608.43 MFPA - LAKESIDE $135137.85 TOTAL STATE AND UNRESTRICTED FEDERAL REVENUE $19,790,000.08 $20 297,154.63 $21 232,754.00 $21,800 075.84 1ufAL LOCAL, COUNI T, ::\n1A1t: AND UNRESTRICTED FEDERAL REVENUE I ,~.112,Ji.J.8411 135,m ,212.5011 IJil,048,273.0011 l3'7,s24,73U211 '\"UNl'tr:VENUE Rr- -\"'~ I\n:, l:SAl.r-.\u0026gt;. INSUR , - - ,Mil\u0026gt;~.) $55,264.44 ~lU,fllll.21 $5,uuu.oo TRANSFERS TO/FROM OTHER FUNDS I ($21,285.48 $48 963.10 $45,000.00 $32,818.90 ~t\u0026lt;AND IUfAL --,..!!:,NUN-REVENUE, II I BALANCES AND I+ OR -1 TRANSFERS I 134,680,190.72! 138,953,926.81 II 136,827,843.0011 138,287,118.1311 -5- 1995-96 1995-96 BUDGETED CHANGE $850,000.00 $120,429.79 $9,359,000.00 $839,857.46 $4 000,000.00 $122,214.97 $875 000.00 ($119 735.19 $1,050,000.00 $11,081.95 $30,000.00 ($1,760.13 $100,000.00 ($8,438.36 $99,000.00 ($4,522.25 $110,000.00 ($73,818.62 $55,000.00 ($3,036.05 $103,000.00 ($44,324.48 $155,750.00 ($205,056.72 $51,920.00 ($68,348.90 $120,000.00 ($10,367.43 $32465.00 1$17 286.43 $16 141135.00 $416 479.82 $18 135 100.00 $183 638.00 $140 000.00 $1 475.90 $585,000.00 ($122.00 $1,100 000.00 $34,876.00 $270,000.00 ($41 598.01 $67,150.00 $0.00 $35,000.00 ($29.81 $356,000.00 $16,414.00 $18,000.00 ($9 842.84 $234, 118.00 $0.00 $389,025.00 $0.00 $275 000.00 $0.00 $40,000.00 ($132 750.00 $71150.00 ($1,458.43 ($135 137 .85 $21,715,541.00 ($84 534.84 131,i!iil,67il.i!i!II 1m,!i44.!lil s10,uuu.oo $10,uuu.OO $30 000.00 ($2,818.90 13\u0026amp;,74\u0026amp;,67\u0026amp;.0011 ~69,557.871 NORTH LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT EXPENDITURES 1992-1996 OPERA TING BUDGET 1992-93 1993-94 1994-95 1994-95 SALARY (01), OPERATING (02), \u0026amp; DEBT SERVICE ACTUAL ACTUAL BUDGETED ACTUAL TOTAL REVENUE AND BALANCES $34,680,190.72 $36,953,926.81 $36,827,843.00 $38,342,715.66 SALARY FUND EXPENDITURES 1ADMINISTRA TORS $2,389,830.04 $2,790,319.05 $2,803,200.00 $2,851,452.52 TEACHERS $16,842,870.86 $18,069,269.74 $18,453,600.00 $18,369,424.17 SUBSTITUTE TEACHERS $341,415.27 $378,002.30 $381,000.00 $353,107.00 TOTAL CERTIFIED SALARIES $19,574,116.17 $21,237,591.09 $21,637,800.00 $21,573,983.69 FRINGE BENEFITS $524,031.13 $537,924.71 $458,550.00 $546,350.13 TUITION $1,067,374.16 $1,179,221.54 $1,117,000.00 $1,239,950.10 TOTAL SALARY FUND EXPENDITURES $21,165,521.46 $22,954,737.34 $23,213,350.00 $23,360 283.92 OPERATING FUND EXPENDITURES REGULAR PROGRAMS $1,627,825.45 $1,860,739.59 $2, 163,030.00 $2,392,243.73 SPECIAL EDUCATION $327 404.86 $440,823.23 $454,645.00 $493, 188.52 VOCATIONAL EDUCATION $319,065.38 $271,186.29 $265,321.00 $244,821.89 COMPENSATORY EDUCATION $782 927.75 $790 763.62 $776,554.00 $707,897.46 OTHER INSTRUCTIONAL PROGRAMS $82,727.23 $92,761.70 $137 920.00 $91 205.63 PUPIL SUPPORT $466,769.73 $635,801.50 $651,325.00 $715,521.77 STAFF SUPPORT $795,427.64 $910,551.76 $1,044,198.00 $926,687.85 ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPORT $449,835.91 $445,226.59 $453,280.00 $411107.95 PRINCIPAL'S OFFICE $629,564.22 $709,199.75 $756,527.00 $763 326.79 BUSINESS SUPPORT $5,160, 194.84 $5,445,349.38 $5 143,269.00 $5,630,945.42 CENTRAL SUPPORT $186,702.32 $212 485.65 $204,830.00 $260,340.87 OTHER SUPPORT $225,795.64 $250,598.39 $263, 150.00 $267 918.66 NON-BOND/NON-PROGRAM/COMMUNITY $5,604.29 $15,361.93 $13 500.00 $23,502.87 TO. TAL OPERATING FUND EXPENDITURES $11 059,865.46 $12,080,849.38 $12,327,549.00 $12 928 709.41 DEBT SERVICE FUND EXPENDITURES PRINCIPAL $224,285.46 $474 843.71 $463,005.00 $460,534.18 INTEREST $564,799.49 $709 800.03 $638 935.00 $638,210.06 FISCAL FEES $756.20 $4126.20 $4,030.00 $3,834.50 TOTAL DEBT SERVICE EXPENDITURES $789,841.15 $1,188 769.94 $1105,970.00 $1102,578.74 CERTIFIED SALARIES  LAKESIDE CASE $101.141.57 TOTAL SALARY, OPERATING AND DEBT SERVICE FUNDS EXPENDITURES $33 015,228.07 $36 224,356.66 $36,646 869.00 $37,492,713.64 ENDING BALANCES $1 664,962.65 $729,570.15 $180,974.00 $850 002.02 -6- 1995-96 1995-96 BUDGETED CHANGE $38,746,646.00 $403,930.34 $2,850,490.00 ($962.52 $19,279,550.00 $910,125.83 $373,000.00 $19,893.00 $22,503,040.00 $929,056.31 $626,330.00 $79,979.87 $1,290,000.00 $50,049.90 $24,419,370.00 $1 059,086.08 $2,467,700.00 $75,456.27 $487,960.00 ($5,228.52' $258,480.00 $13,658.11 $717 030.00 $9,132.64 $159 170.00 $67,964.37 $648, 130.00 ($67,391.77 $1 091,500.00 $164,812.15 $492,830.00 $81,722.05 $606 560.00 ($156,766.79 $5,241,300.00 ($389 645.42 $194,360.00 ($65 980.87 $252,480.00 ($15438.66 $12,250.00 ($11 252.87 $12,629,750.00 ($298 959.41 $586,500.00 $125,965.82 $712,880.00 $74 669.94 $5,030.00 $1195.50 $1 304 410.00 $201,831.26 $38,353,530.00 $860,816.36 $393, 116.00 ($456 886.02' NORTH LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT REVENUE AND EXPENDITURES 1992-1996 FEDERAL GRANTS 1992-93 1993-94 1994-95 1994-95 ACTUAL ACTUAL BUDGETED ACTUAL BEGINNING BALANCES $392,286.73 $370,093.99 $305,750.00 $305,750.40 REVENUE EVEN START $125,578.00 $122,396.00 $116,110.00 $116,100.00 CHAPTER 1 $1,691,172.00 $1,593,471.00 $1,860,625.00 $1,842,953.00 CHAPTER 2 $73,515.00 $65,593.00 $59,791.00 $59,791.00 MEDICAID $39,619.78 $68,819.89 $45,000.00 $46,644.88 SP ED PRESCHOOL !SECTION 619 AND ECCi $354,585.00 $396,305.00 $471,234.00 $474,913.00 HEAD START $48,646.00 $71,325.00 $48,180.00 $48,181.00 TITLE VI-B $309,238.00 $319,554.00 $345,912.00 $345, 162.00 P.L. 89-313 $21,704.00 $18,410.00 $15,168.00 $16,818.00 HOMELESS ASSISTANCE $21,000.00 $21,875.00 $21,000.00 $18,539.00 JTPA $114,151.39 $199,660.66 $109,295.00 $99,305.50 CARL PERKINS VOCATIONAL AID $134,578.12 $148,911.00 $147,209.00 $147,209.00 EISENHOWER MATH/SCIENCE $42,740.00 $22,000.00 $62,421.00 $51,216.00 DRUG ABUSE PREVENTION $92,818.00 $85,230.00 $54,494.00 $54,494.00 EXXON ENERGY $39 705.00 $82,627.00 $47 950.00 $33,048.00 OTHER $59,040.00 $9,822.00 TOTAL REVENUE $3,168,090.29 $3,225,999.55 $3,404,389.00 $3,354,374.38 TOTAL F EDERAL REVENUE AND BALANCE $3,560,377.02 $3,596,093.54 $3,710,139.00 $3,660,124.78 EXPENDITURES REGULAR PROGRAMS $32,270.60 $27,126.04 $29,325.00 $18,165.28 SPECIAL EDUCATION $457,219.61 $412,930.10 $389,342.00 $502,151.30 VOCATIONAL EDUCATION $163,807.83 $213,678.55 $146,747.00 $165,387.97 COMPENSATORY EDUCATION $1,355,723.69 $1,672,116.72 $1,921,279.00 $1 709,768.60 OTHER INSTRUCTIONAL PROGRAMS $14,738.70 $12,578.27 $0.00 $14,710.88 PUPIL SUPPORT $441,017.06 $395,686.85 $504,917.00 $520,868.20 STAFF SUPPORT $420,312.43 $445 465.77 $396 354.00 $367 499.03 BUSINESS SUPPORT $121,729.51 $34,328.37 $39,010.00 $42 286.04 OTHER/CENTRAL SUPPORT $28,799.11 $23,798.02 $17,500.00 $17 750.35 NON-PROGRAMMED $41,954.42 $39,576.02 $46,017.00 $10 000.00 COMMUNITY SERVICES $101,258.83 $13,146.87 $22,500.00 $18,853.39 TOTAL FEDERAL PROGRAMS EXPENDITURES $3 178,831.79 $3,290,429.68 $3,611,991.00 $3,377 441.04 ENDING BALANCE $381,545.23 $306,663.96 $198,148.00 $282,683.74 -7- 1995-96 1995-96 BUDGETED CHANGE $282,683.00 ($23,067.40 $116,100.00 $0.00 $1,623,000.00 ($219,953.00 $77,588.00 $17,797.00 $50,000.00 $3,355.12 $444,899.00 ($30 014.00 $58,410.00 $10,229.00 $353,100.00 $7,938.00 $0.00 ($16,818.00 $17,000.00 ($1,539.00 $0.00 ($99,305.50 $140,043.00 {$7166.00 $51,205.00 1$11.00 $40,000.00 ($14,494.00 $14 950.00 ($18 098.00' $0.00 $2,986,295.00 ($368.079.38 $3,268,978.00 ($391,146.78 $21,160.00 $2,994.72 $482,150.00 ($20 001.30 $162,485.00 ($2,902.97 $1,620 770.00 {$88 998.60 $8,700.00 ($6 010.88 $480,840.00 ($40 028.20 $348,376.00 ($9,124.03 $40,166.00 ($2121.04 $20,670.00 $2,819.66 $30,000.00 $20,000.00 $16,580.00 {$2 273.39 $3,231,795.00 ($145,646.04 $37,183.00 ($245,600.74 EXPENDITURES BY FUNCTION\nOBJECT\nAND FUNCTION/OBJECT FOR SALARY (01) OPERATING (02) AND DEBT SERVICE (04) Fund Fnct 01 1000 02 1105 01 1110 02 1110 01 1120 02 1120 02 1121 02 1122 02 1123 02 1124 01 1130 02 1130 02 1131 02 1132 02 1133 02 1134 02 1135 02 1136 02 1137 02 1139 01 1140 02 1140 02 1141 02 1142 02 1143 02 1144 02 1145 02 1146 North Little Roel~ Public Schools 1992-1995 Expenditures by Function Funds: Salarv (01): Ooeratimi (2): Debt Service (04) 92-93 93-94 94-95 Description Expenses Expenses Budge1 INSTRUCTION 0.00 0.00 0.00 PRESCHOOL 119,761.99 170,817.77 129,944.00 KINDERGARTEN 1,125,722.30 1,084,841.48 1,118,200.00 KINDERGARTEN 93,805.50 98,542.71 102,005.00 ELEMENTARY 4,942,200.72 5,352,864.41 5,195,500.00 ELEMENTARY 513,465.65 559,819.76 798,303.00 ELEMENTARY MUSIC 2,451.76 4,285.45 1,000.00 LANGUAGE ARTS ~ 21.57 0.00 0.00 MATHEMATICS 556.76 0.00 0.00 SCIENCE 72.22 0.00 0.00 MIDDLE SCHOOL 2,025,258.66 2,354,532.83 2,421,600.00 MIDDLE SCHOOL 253,749.33 296,486.86 374,637.00 MUSIC 934.71 8,805.50 12,297.00 LANGUAGE ARTS 1,197.49 1,139.79 1,483.00 MATHEMATICS 1,598.93 6,548.26 6,111.00 SCIENCE 3,633.06 2,303.78 2,748.00 SOCIAL STUDIES 716.89 1,056.22 1,030.00 SPEECH \u0026amp; DRAMA 81.61 0.00 0.00 ART 1,707.73 1,483.84 2,680.00 PHYSICAL EDUCATION 721.13 387.13 1,405.00 HIGH SCHOOL 3,426,737.10 3,679,926.22 3,700,700.00 HIGH SCHOOL 329,844.19 410,072.03 579,278.00 MUSIC 56,440.14 19,237.04 19,450.00 LANGUAGE ARTS 1,154.39 1,036.71 1,600.00 MATHEMATICS 7,228.82 863.68 1,400.00 SCIENCE 2,811.59 3,045.56 3,700.00 SOCIAL STUDIES 917.14 1,387.56 1,250.00 SPEECH AND DRAMA 353.19 0.00 400.00 Page: 8 94-95 Percent o1 Expenses Exp/Bud 11,857.62 122,038.81 93.92% 1,157,672.93 103.53% 107,420.26 105.31% 5,216,809.35 100.41% 624,057.84 78.17% 1,973.87 197.39% 0.00 14,625.59 0.00 2,332,390.81 96.32% 311,421.98 83.13% 11,450.31 93.11% 934.85 63.04% 1,914.59 31.33% 2,638.19 96.00% 871.38 84.60% 0.00 3,648.32 136.13% 824.90 58.71% 3,793,052.15 102.50% 507,923.99 87.68% 16,707.68 85.90% 1,644.67 102.79% 1,730.82 123.63% 7,527.70 203.45% 1,515.80 121.26% 88.10 22.03% Fund Fnct 02 1147 02 1148 02 1149 02 1150 02 1151 02 1152 02 1153 02 1160 02 1161 02 1162 02 1166 02 1191 02 1192 02 1193 02 1194 02 1195 01 1199 02 1199 01 1210 02 1210 01 1215 02 1215 01 1220 02 1220 02 1230 01 1240 02 1240 01 1250 North Little Rock Public Schools 1992-1995 Expenditures by Function Funds: Salarv (01): Operatine (2): Debt Service (04) 92-93 93-94 94-95 Description Expenses Expenses Budgel ART 2,854.22 2,687.48 1,700.00 RADIO/TV 2,029.62 0.00 0.00 PHYSICAL EDUCATION 587.40 416.10 500.00 ATHLETICS 922.50 21,993.61 21,500.00 BOYS ATHLETICS 48,525.33 48,428.68 54,750.00 GIRLS ATHLETICS 19,121.21 14,532.51 22,000.00 COMBINED ATHLETICS 8,292.74 16,304.51 19,800.00 STUDENT ACTIVITIES .. 0.00 7,051.09 5,500.00 CHEER 2,964.59 11,786.45 8,110.00 DRILL 1,875.46 0.00 7,800.00 CHOIR 0.00 0.00 0.00 SUMMER SCHOOL 89,059.92 93,393.39 233,855.00 DRIVER EDUCATION 18,601.08 19,315.86 22,200.00 MINI GRANTS 4,630.44 4,494.03 5,000.00 ACT/PSAT SUMMER SCHOOL 29,669.41 27,905.27 32,852.00 SATURDAY DETENTION 5,465.74 5,110.96 6,675.00 JROTCINSTRUCTOR 0.00 0.00 83,300.00 JROTCINSTRUCTOR 0.00 0.00 0.00 ITINERANT/HOME BOUND 75,015.07 78,925.33 81,250.00 ITINERANT/HOME BOUND 5,786.21 7,995.42 9,250.00 VISION IMPAIRED 0.00 0.00 0.00 VISION IMPAIRED 0.00 0.00 0.00 RESOURCE ROOM 1,164,399.94 1,535,149.75 1,580,000.00 RESOURCE ROOM 88,209.13 116,962.39 134,885.00 SPECIAL CLASS 1: 15 5,832.17 0.00 0.00 SPECIAL CLASS 1:10/BA 659,049.10 529,506.64 545,000.00 SPECIAL CLASS 1:10/BA 49,077.48 57,708.52 67,135.00 SPECIAL CLASS, 1 :6 188,085.82 179,976.77 185,500.00 Page: 9 94-95 Percent o1 Expenses Exp/Bud 647.38 38.08% 0.00 487.69 97.54% 5,576.70 25.94% 49,672.17 90.73% 19,802.80 90.01% 18,815.44 95.03% 889.40 16.17% 6,225.99 76.77% 6,803.99 87.23% 593.76 254,587.18 108.87% 21,611.61 97.35% 4,585.06 91.70% 35,906.77 109.30% 4,620.20 69.22% 74,845.42 89.85% 36,291.49 93,483.12 115.06% 8,018.66 86.69% 26,043.96 2,163.94 1,908,256.00 120.78% 159,613.16 118.33% 0.00 375,754.39 68.95% 79,040.09 117.73% 90,131.85 48.59% Fund Fnct 02 1250 01 1260 02 1260 02 1271 02 1272 01 1280 02 1280 02 1285 02 1290 01 1320 02 1320 01 1330 02 1330 01 1350 02 1350 01 1352 02 1352 02 1354 02 1355 01 1360 02 1360 01 1370 02 1370 02 1380 01 1390 02 1390 02 1510 02 1520 North Little Rock Public Schools 1992-1995 Expenditures by Function Funds: Salarv (01) Ooeratirn:\u0026gt;' (2): Debt Service (04) 92-93 93-94 94-95 Description Expenses Expenses Budget SPECIAL CLASS, 1 :6 28,486.45 29,362.68 42,400.00 PRIVATE DAY SCHOOL 0.00 63,001.89 25,000.00 PRIVATE DAY SCHOOL 2,212.20 0.00 0.00 ACT 591 HANDICAPPED, RESI 8,629.20 11,066.61 10,000.00 ACT 591, NON-HANDICAPPED 17,571.13 30,291.27 25,000.00 PUBLIC DAY SCHOOL 130,713.72 136,403.28 140,400.00 PUBLIC DAY SCHOOL 12,889.62 13,080.51 21,150.00 BARING CROSS WORK PROG\" 0.00 12,489.12 12,425.00 EARLY CHILDHOOD, HANDICA 108,711.27 161,866.71 269,000.00 DISTRIBUTIVE EDUCATION 80,524.69 86,127.89 88,700.00 DISTRIBUTIVE EDUCATION 10,733.13 10,733.83 9,969.00 BUSINESS EDUCATION 366,005.06 391,647.97 396,500.00 BUSINESS EDUCATION 68,227.45 66,084.40 81,793.00 TRADE AND INDUSTRIAL 259,903.38 278,527.46 282,000.00 TRADE AND INDUSTRIAL 77,329.25 67,949.63 64,267.00 PRINCIPLES OF TECHNOLOG 63,137.94 67,499.54 69,700.00 PRINCIPLES OF TECHNOLOG 33,933.71 6,026.53 7,900.00 TELEVISION PRODUCTION 13,957.82 0.00 0.00 TELEVISION PRODUCTION 0.00 0.00 13,500.00 HOME EC 286,119.03 282,091.81 291,000.00 HOME EC 34,395.05 39,782.80 42,119.00 CAREER ORIENTATION 48,449.20 53,913.34 55,600.00 CAREER ORIENTATION 9,231.33 6,264.81 10,840.00 WORKPLACE READINESS 0.00 4,546.77 1,000.00 SPECIAL NEEDS EDUCATION 363,105.62 350,815.36 362,000.00 SPECIAL NEEDS EDUCATION 71,257.64 69,797.52 47,433.00 BASIC SKILLS 0.00 4,362.79 4,087.00 DROPOUT PREVENTION 19,931.81 14,738.08 15,720.00 Page: 10 94-95 Percent 01 Expenses Exp/Bud 23,964.83 56.52% 134,879.95 539.52% 0.00 12,051.54 120.52% 23,008.67 92.03% 154,081.04 109.74% 17,969.60 84.96% 14,393.61 115.84% 157,867.98 58.69% 44,764.32 50.47% 5,416.72 54.34% 409,517.76 103.28% 95,956.86 117.32% 238,423.78 84.55% 40,097.07 62.39% 69,801.48 100.15% 6,562.25 83.07% 0.00 12,872.96 95.36% 295,346.14 101.49% 38,039.87 90.32% 78,639.47 141.44% 12,857.78 118.61% 316.35 31.64% 345,306.96 95.39% 41,452.17 87.39% 2,353.97 57.60% 14,565.54 92.66% Fund 02 02 02 02 02 02 02 02 02 01 02 01 02 02 02 02 02 02 02 01 02 02 02 01 02 01 02 01 Fnct 1522 1525 1550 1560 1590 1591 1592 1593 1594 1910 1910 1911 1911 1912 1913 1990 2101 North Little Rock Public Schools 1992-1995 Expenditures by Function Funds: Salarv (01)\nOperatini,t (2) Debt Service (04) 92-93 93-94 94-95 Description Expenses Expenses Budge1 VITAL LINKS PROGRAM 11,798.37 10,328.44 13,350.00 ALTERNATIVE ED PROGRAMS 223,574.19 229,784.31 318,815.00 EARLY CHILDHOOD EDUC 124,898.65 120,760.93 128,647.00 READING 0.00 79,685.61 69,030.00 OTHER COMP ED 152,333.13 167,730.99 133,325.00 COMPEDPARENTIHOMEWOR 115,841.03 109,134.13 90,018.00 COMP ED ELE EXTEND DAY 29,957.18 499.93 0.00 COMP ED TURNING POINT ' 42,826.09 42,771.43 43,900.00 COMP ED PALS LAB 58,295.09 10,966.98 0.00 GIFTED AND TALENTED 405,353.20 390,136.80 401,900.00 GIFTED AND TALENTED 67,758.57 49,117.85 74,381.00 GIT PROJECT PROMISE 10,040.08 0.00 0.00 GIT PROJECT PROMISE 2,424.63 7,624.89 10,150.00 GIT SUMMER QUEST 2,675.74 16,200.52 23,400.00 GIT MATHEMATICS 7,149.61 19,818.44 23,200.00 OTHER INSTRUCTIONAL SER\\I 2,718.68 0.00 0.00 54,612.91 0.00 0.00 2102 * 166,860.00 0.00 0.00 2110 ATTEND \u0026amp; SOCIAL WRK SEV 15,669.53 69,798.26 51,450.00 2120 GUIDANCE/COUNSELING SER 843,592.20 905,111.89 932,000.00 2120 GUIDANCE/COUNSELING SER 170,218.18 177,093.39 191,500.00 2123 APPRAISAL SERVICES 14,044.28 12,833.53 21,700.00 2130 HEAL TH SERVICES 86,756.63 92,450.67 97,800.00 2140 PSYCHOLOGICAL SERVICES 158,965.08 174,376.81 179,700.00 2140 PSYCHOLOGICAL SERVICES 69,707.68 78,503.21 66,825.00 2150 SPEECH PATH/AUDIOLOGY S 387,373.48 389,677.14 401,100.00 2150 SPEECH PATH/AUDIOLOGY S 71,168.22 169,571.20 34,800.00 2160 PHYS \u0026amp; OCC THERAPY 62,688.24 61,774.94 71,200.00 Page: 11 94-95 Percent o1 Expenses Exp/Bud 1,279.18 9.58% 325,845.46 102.21% 111,647.56 86.79% 76,210.95 110.40% 150,500.16 112.88% 75,868.38 84.28% 0.00 33,646.05 76.64% 0.00 378,380.58 94.15% 54,017.06 72.62% 0.00 0.00 0.00% 22,932.72 98.00% 18,027.89 77.71% 0.00 0.00 0.00 50,304.30 97.77% 919,726.65 98.68% 189,001.54 98.70% 15,519.97 71.52% 104,196.23 106.54% 152,138.13 84.66% 74,304.74 111.19% 359,791.83 89.70% 205,918.58 591.72% 71,362.96 100.23% Fund 02 01 02 02 02 01 02 02 01 02 02 02 02 02 01 02 02 02 02 01 02 01 02 01 02 01 02 01 Fnct 2160 2190 2190 2193 2195 2210 2210 2211 2215 2215 2216 2217 2218 2219 2220 2220 2225 North Little Rock Public Schools 1992-1995 Expenditures by Function Funds: Salarv (01)\nOperatine (2): Debt Service (04) 92-93 93-94 94-95 Description Expenses Expenses Budqel PHYS \u0026amp; OCC THERAPY 4,686.25 23,806.74 6,000.00 OTHER PUPIL SUPPORT SERV 0.00 0.00 62,200.00 OTHER PUPIL SUPPORT SERV 34,518.96 4,230.33 35,250.00 NATL SCIENCE FOUND GRAN 0.00 7,514.17 0.00 STUDENT ASSIGNMENT CLAS 0.00 0.00 0.00 INSTRUCTION/SUPERVISION 415,391.85 555,826.07 572,000.00 INSTRUCTION/SUPERVISION 358,615.51 432,415.69 468,329.00 INSTRUCTION COE/NCA ' 4,112.74 4,788.47 10,200.00 CH I ADM/INSTRUCTION 13,987.57 29,875.38 30,900.00 CH I ADM/INSTRUCTION 6,349.67 7,934.50 8,600.00 CURRICULUM FRAMEWORK 18.80 585.01 0.00 CELEBRATION OF TEACHING 0.00 1,058.82 0.00 INSERVICE-ADE CURRICULUM 15,138.45 37,371.68 75,000.00 INSERVICE-ADE READING 3,087.45 1,024.26 16,160.00 EDUCATION MEDIA SERVICES 587,960.59 583,299.87 600,500.00 EDUCATION MEDIA SERVICES 389,728.15 393,832.93 524,555.00 INSTRUCTIONAL COMPUTER 18,376.87 31,540.40 33,120.00 2295 * 3,432.93 0.00 0.00 2310 BOARD OF EDUCATION SERVI 256,980.24 232,666.92 250,000.00 2320 SUPERINTENDENT'S OFFICE 84,204.50 90,110.93 92,800.00 2320 SUPERINTENDENT'S OFFICE 64,552.63 71,545.48 81,000.00 2321 ASST SUPT INSTRUCTION 56,890.69 61,420.65 63,400.00 2321 ASST SUPT INSTRUCTION 28,456.94 31,254.60 33,500.00 2322 ASST SUPT BUSINESS SERVI 55,764.93 60,260.25 62,100.00 2322 ASST SUPT BUSINESS SERVI 28,921.34 32,146.80 35,480.00 2323 ASST SUPT PUPIL SERVICES 55,925.22 60,260.38 0.00 2323 ASST SUPT PUPIL SERVICES 30,917.11 32,046.62 250.00 2324 ASST SUPT DESEGREGATION 52,149.08 56,351.85 58,050.00 Page: 12 94-95 Percent of Expenses Exp/Bud 49,993.75 833.23% 51,327.62 82.52% 49,058.36 139.17% 0.00 30,625.29 638,940.43 111.70% 462,805.31 98.82% 1,558.73 15.28% 15,417.75 49.90% 14,164.43 164.70% 0.00 0.00 22,969.44 30.63% 2,882.83 17.84% 572,554.59 95.35% 409,280.82 78.02% 17,326.04 52.31% 0.00 234,918.27 93.97% 94,041.52 101.34% 61,625.21 76.08% 65,456.68 103.24% 32,766.13 97.81% 61,528.15 99.08% 33,486.67 94.38% 9,871.22 5,081.49 2032.60% 56,272.34 96.94-% Fund Fnct 02 2324 01 2400 02 2400 01 2401 02 2401 01 2410 02 2410 02 2510 01 2540 02 2540 02 2541 02 2549 02 2550 02 2551 02 2555 01 2570 02 2570 02 2630 01 2640 02 2640 01 2660 02 2660 02 2900 02 2901 02 2902 02 2905 02 3900 01 4100 North Little Rock Public Schools 1992-1995 Expenditures by Function Funds: Salarv (01): OoeratinQ' (2): Debt Service (04) 92-93 93-94 94-95 Description Expenses Expenses BudQe1 ASST SUPT DESEGREGATION 40,007.65 45,566.17 53,050.00 PRINCIPAL'S OFFICE 1,040,705.36 1,092,383.33 1,125,000.00 PRINCIPAL'S OFFICE 596,111.12 664,246.46 704,927.00 ASST. PRINCIPALS 0.00 0.00 610,000.00 ASST. PRINCIPALS 0.00 0.00 51,600.00 ASST PRINCIPAL'S OFFICE 449,509.91 592,413.59 0.00 ASST PRINCIPAL'S OFFICE 33,473.10 44,953.29 0.00 BUSINESS SUPPORT SERVIC 104,622.58 113,937.05 120,500.00 M \u0026amp; 0 OF PLANT SERVICES 55,794.93 60,298.41 62,150.00 M \u0026amp; 0 OF PLANT SERVICES 3,873,345.31 1,488,145.08 1,144,950.00 M \u0026amp; O-CUSTODIAL SERVICES 0.00 1,241,626.19 1,320,600.00 M \u0026amp; 0 UTILITIES \u0026amp; INSUR 0.00 1,428,033.30 1,468,675.00 PUPIL TRANSPORTATION SER 1,121,656.19 1,050,789.35 1,032,330.00 MECHANICS 0.00 0.00 0.00 MAGNET/M-TO-M TRANSP. 0.00 31,619.12 16,064.00 INTERNAL SERVICES 55,795.01 60,298.53 62,150.00 INTERNAL SERVICES 60,570.76 91,199.29 45,150.00 INFORMATION SERVICES 35,111.12 35,494.94 13,000.00 PERSONNEL SERVICES 55,794.96 60,298.41 62,150.00 PERSONNEL SERVICES 31,535.66 36,929.52 39,100.00 DATA PROCESSING SERVICE 45,833.07 48,590.49 50,100.00 DATA PROCESSING SERVICE 120,055.54 140,061.19 152,730.00 OTHER SUPPORTING SERVIC 890.00 2,718.67 1,000.00 CROSSING GUARDS 0.00 56,271.57 59,000.00 BREAKFAST/LUNCH AIDES 0.00 187,129.87 197,850.00 VIPS 0.00 4,478.28 5,350.00 OTHER COMMUNITY SERVICE 425.33 3,108.00 4,500.00 PAYMENTS TO OTHERS 1,067,374.16 1,116,219.65 1,092,000.00 Page: 13 94-95 Percent 01 Expenses Exp/Bud 43,701.22 82.38% 1,089,182.79 96.82% 703,381.72 99.78% 629,884.45 103.26% 52,685.60 102.10% 0.00 0.00 119,373.14 99.06% 61,565.76 99.06% 1,610,805.83 140.69% 1,324,593.18 100.30% 1,137,133.52 77.43% 1,034,141.42 100.18% 236,077.16 32,757.14 203.92% 65,555.10 105.48% 81,583.01 180.69% 37,460.01 288.15% 61,565.76 99.06% 64,468.88 164.88% 49,590.96 98.98% 158,442.38 103.74% 890.00 89.00% 63,877.05 108.27% 199,195.63 100.68% 188.00 3.51% 3,589.50 79.77% 1,104,025.15 101.10% Fund Fnct 02 4400 02 4900 04 5100 04 5101 04 5102 North Little Rock Public Schools 1992-1995 Expenditures by Function Funds: Salarv (01): Overatinf{ (2): Debt Service (04) 92-93 93-94 94-95 Description Expenses Expenses Budge! INDIRECCTO STS 3,472.21 0.00 0.00 PAYMENTTO STATE 5,178.96 12,253.92 9,000.00 BONDEDIN DEBTEDNESS 711,056.79 1,130,326.40 1,047,525.00 BONDEDINDEBTEDNES~PCS 43,619.74 23,351.50 23,350.00 BONDEDINDEBTEDNESS~R 35,164.62 35,092.04 35,095.00 DistricTt otals 33,015,228.07 36,224,356.65 37,101,267.00 Page: 14 94-95 Percent o1 Expenses Exp/Bud 0.00 8,002.46 88.92% 1,048,392.25 100.08% 18,769.85 80.38% 35,416.64 100.92% 37,288,588.95 100.50% Fund Fnct Fnct Descr 01 1000 INSTRUCTION 02 1105 PRESCHOOL 02 1105 PRESCHOOL 02 1105 PRESCHOOL 02 1105 PRESCHOOL 02 1105 PRESCHOOL 02 1105 PRESCHOOL 02 1105 PRESCHOOL 02 1105 PRESCHOOL 02 1105 PRESCHOOL 02 1105 PRESCHOOL 02 1105 PRESCHOOL 02 1105 PRESCHOOL 02 1105 PRESCHOOL 02 1105 PRESCHOOL 02 1105 PRESCHOOL 02 1105 PRESCHOOL 02 1105 PRESCHOOL 02 1105 PRESCHOOL 02 1105 PRESCHOOL 01 1110 KINDERGARTEN 02 1110 KINDERGARTEN 02 1110 KINDERGARTEN 02 1110 KINDERGARTEN 01 1110 KINDERGARTEN 02 1110 KINDERGARTEN 02 1110 KINDERGARTEN 02 1110 KINDERGARTEN North Little Rock Public Schools 1992-1995 Expendihrres by Function/Object Funds: Salarv (01): Oneratim::f l02) Debt Service (04) 92-93 93-94 94-95 Object Object Description Expenses Expenses Budge1 00240 INSURANCE 0.00 0.00 0.00 00110 REGULAR CERTIFICATED 2,910.60 3,240.00 0.00 00120 REGULAR NON-CERTIFICATED 76,589.40 96,968.11 92,500.00 00210 SOCIAL SECURITY TAX 222.66 247.84 0.00 00211 SS TAX, NON-CERTIFIED 5,673.45 7,373.65 8,000.00 00241 INSURANCE, NON-CERT 5,631.32 6,789.28 8,200.00 00251 UNEMPLOY COMP, NON CERT 129.57 136.29 150.00 00261 WORKERS COMP, f.lON-CERT 26.21 93.48 150.00 00310 PROFESSIONAL \u0026amp; TECH SERV 751.00 100.00 100.00 00331 PUPIL TRANSPORTATION 289.41 38,346.83 16,812.00 00333 INSERVICE REGISTRATION 28.00 0.00 0.00 00341 TELEPHONE 0.00 990.59 950.00 00410 SUPPLIES AND MATERIALS 11,204.56 3,831.24 1,450.00 00411 SUPPLIES AND MATERIALS 0.00 0.00 100.00 00490 OTHER SUPPLIES/MATERIALS 0.00 0.00 200.00 00521 CARPET 2,556.05 373.29 0.00 00532 FENCE 1,749.00 0.00 0.00 00533 PLAYGROUND EQUIPMENT 8,529.92 8,927.10 0.00 00540 EQUIPMENT 3,470.84 3,400.07 0.00 00670 INDIRECT COSTS 0.00 0.00 1,332.00 00110 REGULAR CERTIFICATED 1,092,499.27 1,054,269.70 1,085,900.00 00120 REGULAR NON-CERTIFICATED 0.00 2,820.48 0.00 00210 SOCIAL SECURITY TAX 81,302.96 79,610.54 83,100.00 00211 SS TAX, NON-CERTIFIED 0.00 215.76 0.00 00240 INSURANCE 33,223.03 30,571.78 32,300.00 00241 INSURANCE, NON-CERT 0.00 214.13 0.00 00250 UNEMPLOYMENT COMPENSATION 1,375.59 1,693.37 1,800.00 00251 UNEMPLOY COMP, NON CERT 0.00 6.63 0.00 Page: 15 94-9E Percent o1 Expense~ Exp/Bud 11,857.62 0.00 90,562.18 97.91% 0.00 6,825.57 85.32% 6,410.84 78.18% 135.39 90.26% 784.99 523.33% 123.50 123.50% 7,857.64 46.74% 3,650.00 990.00 104.21% 4,498.70 310.26% 0.00 0.00% 0.00 0.00% 0.00 0.00 0.00 200.00 0.00 0.00% 1,124,931.79 103.59% 0.00 85,505.37 102.89% 0.00 32,741.14 101.37% 0.00 1,681.94 93.44% 0.00 Fund Fnct Fnct Descr 02 1110 KINDERGARTEN 02 1110 KINDERGARTEN 02 1110 KINDERGARTEN 02 1110 KINDERGARTEN 01 1120 ELEMENTARY 02 1120 ELEMENTARY 01 1120 ELEMENTARY 01 1120 ELEMENTARY 02 1120 ELEMENTARY 02 1120 ELEMENTARY 02 1120 ELEMENTARY 01 1120 ELEMENTARY 02 1120 ELEMENTARY 02 1120 ELEMENTARY 02 1120 ELEMENTARY 02 1120 ELEMENTARY 02 1120 ELEMENTARY 01 1120 ELEMENTARY 02 1120 ELEMENTARY 02 1120 ELEMENTARY 02 1120 ELEMENTARY 02 1120 ELEMENTARY 02 1120 ELEMENTARY 02 1120 ELEMENTARY 02 1120 ELEMENTARY 02 1120 ELEMENTARY 02 1120 ELEMENTARY 02 1120 ELEMENTARY North Little Rock Public Schools 1992-1995 Expenditures by Function/Object Funds: Salarv (01) Ooeratine' (02)\nDebt Service (04) 92-93 93-94 94-9E Object Object Description Expenses Expenses Budge 00260 WORKERS COMP 675.47 1,140.92 8,800.00 00331 PUPIL TRANSPORTATION 1,107.05 798.87 0.00 00410 SUPPLIES AND MATERIALS 9,344.43 11,073.83 8,305.00 00540 EQUIPMENT 0.00 968.18 0.00 00110 REGULAR CERTIFICATED 4,614,691.08 4,982,083.12 4,823,600.00 00120 REGULAR NON-CERTIFICATED 10,487.04 11,414.86 11,700.00 00130 SUBSTITUTE TEACHERS 165,050.60 181,388.50 182,000.00 00131 ASSIGNED SUBSTITUTES 24,887.60 37,801.90 38,000.00 00140 SUBSTITUTES, NON-CERT. 13,452.40 13,551.90 13,500.00 00210 SOCIAL SECURITY TAX 354,750.65 387,737.93 409,800.00 00211 SS TAX, NON-CERTIFIED 1,738.52 1,876.86 2,000.00 00240 IN.SURAN CE 137,571.44 145,348.39 145,700.00 00241 INSURANCE, NON-CERT 830.22 856.66 900.00 00250 UNEMPLOYMENT COMPENSATION 6,098.60 8,088.27 8,100.00 00251 UNEMPLOY COMP, NON CERT 47.77 39.74 100.00 00260 WORKERS COMP 3,025.74 5,685.59 3,600.00 00261 WORKERS COMP, NON-CERT 17.55 25.31 300.00 00290 TUITION REIMBURSEMENT 0.00 6,242.50 6,200.00 00310 PROFESSIONAL \u0026amp; TECH SERV 125.00 2,245.50 0.00 00320 RENTAULEASE OF COPIERS 0.00 342.78 0.00 00326 REPAIRS/MAINT-EQUIP 174.08 0.00 0.00 00331 PUPIL TRANSPORTATION 6,193.80 6,658.43 7,115.00 00332 TRAVEL EXPENSES 0.00 643.87 0.00 00333 INSERVICE REGISTRATION 0.00 0.00 650.00 00335 INDISTRICT TRAVEL 0.00 0.00 0.00 00360 PRINTING AND BINDING 24.34 168.00 420.00 00410 SUPPLIES AND MATERIALS 51,417.18 62,845.58 68,888.00 00420 TEXTBOOKS 61,220.51 55,860.33 71,745.00 Page: 16 94-95 Percent o Expenses Exp/Bud 9,612.39 109.23% 97.10 10,523.46 126.71% 0.00 4,895,868.77 101.50% 27,651.75 236.34% 126,504.30 69.51% 50,046.30 131.70% 27,840.10 206.22% 379,590.82 92.63% 4,211.34 210.57% 140,502.48 96.43% 2,022.13 224.68% 7,622.94 94.11% 83.50 83.50% 43,963.55 1221.21% 447.42 149.14% 3,887.50 62.70% 1,398.00 3,170.62 269.03 6,681.30 93.90% 0.00 55.00 8.46% 30.63 0.00 0.00% 67,378.38 97.81% 50,815.48 70.83% Fund Fnct Fnct Descr 02 1120 ELEMENTARY 02 1120 ELEMENTARY 02 1120 ELEMENTARY 02 1120 ELEMENTARY 02 1121 ELEMENTARY MUSIC 02 1121 ELEMENTARY MUSIC 02 1121 ELEMENTARY MUSIC 02 1122 LANGUAGE ARTS 02 1123 MATHEMATICS 02 1124 SCIENCE 01 1130 MIDDLE SCHOOL 02 1130 MIDDLE SCHOOL 01 1130 MIDDLE SCHOOL 01 1130 MIDDLE SCHOOL 02 1130 MIDDLE SCHOOL 02 1130 MIDDLE SCHOOL 02 1130 MIDDLE SCHOOL 01 1130 MIDDLE SCHOOL 02 1130 MIDDLE SCHOOL 02 1130 MIDDLE SCHOOL 02 1130 MIDDLE SCHOOL 02 1130 MIDDLE SCHOOL 02 1130 MIDDLE SCHOOL 01 1130 MIDDLE SCHOOL 02 1130 MIDDLE SCHOOL 02 1130 MIDDLE SCHOOL 02 1130 MIDDLE SCHOOL 02 1130 MIDDLE SCHOOL North Little Rock Public Schools 1992-1995 Expenditures by Function/Object Funds: Salarv (01) Qperatine (02)\nDebt Service (04) 92-93 93-94 94-95 Object Object Description Expenses Expenses Budget 00422 STATE TEXTBOOKS 0.00 0.00 197,810.00 00440 PERIODICALS/SUBSCRIPTIONS 163.20 0.00 0.00 00540 EQUIPMENT 3,699.05 1,740.15 1,375.00 00630 DUES AND FEES 0.00 38.00 300.00 00335 INDISTRICT TRAVEL 876.30 994.66 1,000.00 00342 POSTAGE 0.00 9.04 0.00 00410 SUPPLIES AND MATERIALS 1,575.46 3,281.75 0.00 00410 SUPPLIES AND MATERIALS 21.57 0.00 0.00 00410 SUPPLIES AND MATERIALS 556.76 0.00 0.00 00410 SUPPLIES AND MATERIALS 72.22 0.00 0.00 00110 REGULAR CERTIFICATED 1,908,435.80 2,203,650.99 2,269,800.00 00120 REGULAR NON-CERTIFICATED 57,039.52 60,520.08 62,300.00 00130 SUBSTITUTE TEACHERS 49,256.07 66,864.00 67,000.00 00131 ASSIGNED SUBSTITUTES 11,620.50 24,185.00 24,000.00 00140 SUBSTITUTES, NON-CERT. 6,945.10 8,338.10 8,300.00 00210 SOCIAL SECURITY TAX 146,436.69 172,254.29 180,800.00 00211 SS TAX, NON-CERTIFIED 4,530.44 5,016.92 5,400.00 00240 INSURANCE 55,946.29 59,280.84 59,500.00 00241 INSURANCE, NON-CERT 4,235.14 4,283.65 4,400.00 00250 UNEMPLOYMENT COMPENSATION 2,539.72 3,561.83 3,600.00 00251 UNEMPLOY COMP, NON CERT 125.60 110.09 150.00 00260 WORKERS COMP 1,288.19 2,482.76 2,900.00 00261 WORKERS COMP, NON-CERT 37.43 75.31 6,500.00 00290 TUITION REIMBURSEMENT 0.00 552.00 1,300.00 00310 PROFESSIONAL \u0026amp; TECH SERV 0.00 0.00 0.00 00320 RENTAULEASE OF COPIERS 0.00 88.30 0.00 00326 REPAIRS/MAINT-EQUIP 3,334.12 230.17 300.00 00331 PUPIL TRANSPORTATION 1,676.05 1,375.43 2,700.00 Page: 17 94-95 Percent o Expenses Exp/Bue 0.00 0.00% 0.00 825.85 60.06% 0.00 0.00% 1,177.29 117.73% 0.00 796.58 0.00 14,625.59 0.00 2,181,811.05 96.12% 65,545.66 105.21% 68,973.40 102.95% 22,019.50 91.75% 4,059.60 48.91% 170,879.60 94.51% 5,103.10 94.50% 59,181.86 99.47% 4,220.64 95.92% 3,409.24 94.70% 103.40 68.93% 19,542.19 673.87% 590.82 9.09% 405.00 31.15% 525.65 313.08 35.40 11.80% 1,631.40 60.42% Fund Fnct Fnct Descr 02 1130 MIDDLE SCHOOL 02 1130 MIDDLE SCHOOL 02 1130 MIDDLE SCHOOL 02 1130 MIDDLE SCHOOL 02 1130 MIDDLE SCHOOL 02 1130 MIDDLE SCHOOL 02 1130 MIDDLE SCHOOL 02 1130 MIDDLE SCHOOL 02 1130 MIDDLE SCHOOL 02 1130 MIDDLE SCHOOL 02 1130 MIDDLE SCHOOL 02 1130 MIDDLE SCHOOL 02 1130 MIDDLE SCHOOL 02 1131 MUSIC 02 1131 MUSIC 02 1131 MUSIC 02 1131 MUSIC 02 1131 MUSIC 02 1131 MUSIC 02 1131 MUSIC 02 1131 MUSIC 02 1131 MUSIC 02 1131 MUSIC 02 1132 LANGUAGE ARTS 02 1133 MATHEMATICS 02 1133 MATHEMATICS 02 1134 SCIENCE 02 1134 SCIENCE 'North Little Rock Public Schools 1992-1995 Expenditures by Function/Object Funds: Salarv (01)\nOperatine (02): Debt Service (04) 92-93 93-94 Object Object Description Expenses Expenses 00332 TRAVEL EXPENSES 0.00 270.95 00333 INSERVICE REGISTRATION 0.00 475.00 00335 INDISTRICT TRAVEL 345.58 1,001.37 00342 POSTAGE 1,281.60 2,131.46 00360 PRINTING AND BINDING 631.86 106.80 00394 SECURITY OFFICER SERVICES 0.00 0.00 94-95 Budge1 270.00 1,000.00 1,000.00 3,750.00 1,485.00 300.00 00410 SUPPLIES AND MATERIALS 17,712.52 21,880.95 21,167.00 00420 TEXTBOOKS ~ 2,980.45 6,206.96 5,585.00 00422 STATE TEXTBOOKS 0.00 0.00 55,830.00 00440 PERIODICALS/SUBSCRIPTIONS 0.00 0.00 100.00 00521 CARPET 0.00 366.45 0.00 00540 EQUIPMENT 2,534.32 5,709.99 6,500.00 00630 DUES AND FEES 75.00 0.00 300.00 00310 PROFESSIONAL \u0026amp; TECH SERV 0.00 0.00 575.00 00326 REPAIRS/MAINT-EQUIP 50.00 1,295.52 3,432.00 00331 PUPIL TRANSPORTATION 467.50 1,575.75 2,500.00 00334 CAR ALLOWANCE-MONTHLY 0.00 0.00 0.00 00335 INDISTRICT TRAVEL 252.00 168.00 300.00 00410 SUPPLIES AND MATERIALS 165.21 3,332.47 3,500.00 00420 TEXTBOOKS 0.00 0.00 0.00 00499 AWARDS 0.00 249.25 850.00 00540 EQUIPMENT 0.00 1,714.51 600.00 00630 DUES AND FEES 0.00 470.00 540.00 00410 SUPPLIES AND MATERIALS 1,197.49 1,139.79 1,483.00 00410 SUPPLIES AND MATERIALS 1,534.62 6,548.26 6,111.00 00540 EQUIPMENT 64.31 0.00 0.00 00410 SUPPLIES AND MATERIALS 1,179.76 2,303.78 2,748.00 00450 AUDIOVISUAL MATERIALS 2,453.30 0.00 0.00 Page: 18 94-95 Percent o1 Expenses Exp/Buo 194.00 71.85% 0.00 0.00% 1,384.84 138.48% 1,574.75 41.99% 300.28 20.22% 0.00 0.00% 28,660.01 135.40% 141.05 2.53% 0.00 0.00% 0.00 0.00% 0.00 2,895.02 44.54% 312.25 104.08% 0.00 0.00% 1,298.48 37.83% 2,618.50 104.74% 180.60 84.00 28.00% 2,944.42 84.13% 2,290.22 0.00 0.00% 1,679.09 279.85% 355.00 65.74% 934.85 63.04% 1,914.59 31.33% 0.00 2,638.19 96.00% 0.00 Fund Fnct Fnct Descr 02 1135 SOCIAL STUDIES 02 1135 SOCIAL STUDIES 02 1136 SPEECH \u0026amp; DRAMA 02 1137 ART 02 1137 ART 02 1139 PHYSICAL EDUCATION 02 1139 PHYSICAL EDUCATION 02 1139 PHYSICAL EDUCATION 02 1139 PHYSICAL EDUCATION 01 1140 HIGH SCHOOL 02 1140 HIGH SCHOOL 02 1140 HIGH SCHOOL 01 1140 HIGH SCHOOL 01 1140 HIGH SCHOOL 02 1140 HIGH SCHOOL 02 1140 HIGH SCHOOL 02 1140 HIGH SCHOOL 02 1140 HIGH SCHOOL 02 1140 HIGH SCHOOL 01 1140 HIGH SCHOOL 02 1140 HIGH SCHOOL 02 1140 HIGH SCHOOL 02 1140 HIGH SCHOOL 02 1140 HIGH SCHOOL 02 1140 HIGH SCHOOL 02 1140 HIGH SCHOOL 01 1140 HIGH SCHOOL 02 1140 HIGH SCHOOL North Little Rock Public Schools 1992-1995 Expenditures by Function/Object Funds: Salarv (01): Ooeratimi \u0026lt;02): Debt Service (04) 92-93 93-9~ 94-9E Object Object Description Expenses Expenses Budge 00410 SUPPLIES AND MATERIALS 716.89 0.00 1,030.00 00540 EQUIPMENT 0.00 1,056.22 0.00 00410 SUPPLIES AND MATERIALS 81.61 0.00 0.00 00410 SUPPLIES AND MATERIALS 1,707.73 1,483.84 2,680.00 00540 EQUIPMENT 0.00 0.00 0.00 00331 PUPIL TRANSPORTATION 0.00 0.00 70.00 00410 SUPPLIES AND MATERIALS 648.52 387.13 1,115.00 00440 PERIODICALS/SUBSCRIPTIONS 72.61 0.00 0.00 00540 EQUIPMENT 0.00 0.00 220.00 00110 REGULAR CERTIFICATED 3,246,173.56 3,522,525.32 3,628,200.00 00110 REGULAR CERTIFICATED 0.00 32,518.80 33,500.00 00120 REGULAR NON-CERTIFICATED 0.00 11,788.56 12,100.00 00130 SUBSTITUTE TEACHERS 67,420.90 57,941.90 60,000.00 00131 ASSIGNED SUBSTITUTES 23,179.60 9,821.00 10,000.00 00140 SUBSTITUTES, NON-CERT. 1,870.60 2,945.20 3,000.00 00150 STIPENDS-WORKSHOPS 6,014.50 4,373.50 2,500.00 00210 SOCIAL SECURITY TAX 246,234.28 268,275.86 285,550.00 00211 SS TAX, NON-CERTIFIED 579.72 1,127.35 1,200.00 00212 SS TAX, STIPENDS 0.00 334.57 500.00 00240 INSURANCE 89,963.04 87,071.50 0.00 00240 INSURANCE 0.00 785.38 850.00 00241 INSURANCE, NON-CERT 0.00 856.54 900.00 00250 UNEMPLOYMENT COMPENSATION 4,320.37 5,617.56 5,650.00 00251 UNEMPLOY COMP, NON CERT 26.53 22.25 100.00 00260 WORKERS COMP 2,250.81 3,943.90 7,300.00 00261 WORKERS COMP, NON-CERT 11.60 7.99 1,300.00 00290 TUITION REIMBURSEMENT 0.00 2,566.50 2,500.00 00310 PROFESSIONAL \u0026amp; TECH SERV 0.00 450.00 0.00 Page: 19 94-95 Percent o1 Expenses Exp/Bud 871.38 84.60% 0.00 0.00 1,660.01 61.94% 1,988.31 0.00 0.00% 824.90 73.98% 0.00 0.00 0.00% 3,616,804.71 99.69% 34,871.04 104.09% 41,150.72 340.09% 73,968.30 123.28% 11,595.20 115.95% 2,368.10 78.94% 6,656.25 266.25% 278,046.78 97.37% 3,310.70 275.89% 509.22 101.84% 86,666.94 844.20 99.32% 2,461.54 273.50% 5,616.90 99.41% 65.08 65.08% 32,096.88 439.68% 358.95 27.61% 4,017.00 160.68% 363.98 Fund Fnct Fnct Descr 02 1140 HIGH SCHOOL 02 1140 HIGH SCHOOL 02 1140 HIGH SCHOOL 02 1140 HIGH SCHOOL 02 1140 HIGH SCHOOL 02 1140 HIGH SCHOOL 02 1140 HIGH SCHOOL 02 1140 HIGH SCHOOL 02 1140 HIGH SCHOOL 02 1140 HIGH SCHOOL 02 1140 HIGH SCHOOL 02 1140 HIGH SCHOOL 02 1140 HIGH SCHOOL 02 1140 HIGH SCHOOL 02 1140 HIGH SCHOOL 02 1140 HIGH SCHOOL 02 1140 HIGH SCHOOL 02 1141 MUSIC 02 1141 MUSIC 02 1141 MUSIC 02 1141 MUSIC 02 1141 MUSIC 02 1141 MUSIC 02 1141 MUSIC 02 1141 MUSIC 02 1141 MUSIC 02 1141 MUSIC 02 1141 MUSIC North Little Rock Public Schools 1992-1995 Expenditures by Function/Object Funds: Salarv (01). Ooeratinp' \u0026lt;02): Debt Service (04) 92-92 93-9~ 94-9E Object Object Description Expenses Expenses Budge 00316 SECURITY SERVICES 132.00 0.00 0.00 00318 RENTAL OF EQUIP \u0026amp; VEHICLE 33.51 874.31 0.00 00319 RENTAL OF LAND \u0026amp; BUILDING 3,149.28 3,706.04 2,600.00 00320 RENTAULEASE OF COPIERS 11,665.95 1,898.80 7,000.00 00326 REPAIRS/MAINT-EQUIP 8,943.26 1,232.72 3,050.00 00331 PUPIL TRANSPORTATION 2,787.94 5,551.98 7,250.00 00332 TRAVEL EXPENSES 0.00 0.00 0.00 00333 INSERVICE REGISTRATION 0.00 0.00 500.00 00335 INDISTRICT TRAVEL 709.72 1,489.54 1,500.00 00342 POSTAGE 5,083.81 9,176.11 7,100.00 00360 PRINTING AND BINDING 1,123.92 196.61 200.00 00394 SECURITY OFFICER SERVICES 1,385.00 3,725.00 3,800.00 00410 SUPPLIES AND MATERIALS 17,885.79 34,366.06 55,179.00 00420 TEXTBOOKS 12,619.09 8,431.05 12,845.00 00422 STATE TEXTBOOKS 0.00 0.00 109,904.00 00540 EQUIPMENT 2,011.51 5,062.35 12,000.00 00630 DUES AND FEES 1,005.00 1,314.00 1,900.00 00310 PROFESSIONAL \u0026amp; TECH SERV 350.00 0.00 300.00 00318 RENTAL OF EQUIP \u0026amp; VEHICLE 0.00 274.25 200.00 00324 CLEANING SERVICES 145.00 459.98 900.00 00326 REPAIRS/MAINT-EQUIP 4,663.83 2,024.27 3,100.00 00331 PUPIL TRANSPORTATION 4,864.61 3,916.74 3,700.00 00332 TRAVEL EXPENSES 578.45 665.62 600.00 00335 INDISTRICT TRAVEL 142.80 0.00 200.00 00342 POSTAGE 0.00 232.61 0.00 00410 SUPPLIES AND MATERIALS 13,854.30 8,240.30 6,500.00 00440 PERIODICALS/SUBSCRIPTIONS 25.32 0.00 0.00 00499 AWARDS 1,189.93 198.08 1,000.00 Page: 20 94-9E Percent o Expenses Exp/Bue 0.00 2,708.44 3,665.69 140.99% 2,794.74 39.92% 2,847.52 93.36% 4,202.10 57.96% 0.00 0.00 0.00% 1,130.39 75.36% 9,057.16 127.57% 0.00 0.00% 3,685.50 96.99% 33,635.09 60.96% 17,128.28 133.35% 0.00 0.00% 17,432.74 145.27% 916.00 48.21% 0.00 0.00% 0.00 0.00% 0.00 0.00% 2,864.55 92.40% 4,719.95 127.57% 937.12 156.19% 0.00 0.00% 0.00 6,875.88 105.78% 0.00 81.08 8.~ Fund Fnct Fnct Descr 02 1141 MUSIC 02 1141 MUSIC 02 1141 MUSIC 02 1142 LANGUAGE ARTS 02 1143 MATHEMATICS 02 1143 MATHEMATICS 02 1143 MATHEMATICS 02 1143 MATHEMATICS 02 1143 MATHEMATICS 02 1144 SCIENCE 02 1144 SCIENCE 02 1145 SOCIAL STUDIES 02 1146 SPEECH AND DRAMA 02 1146 SPEECH AND DRAMA 02 1147 ART 02 1148 RADIOnY 02 1148 RADIOnY 02 1149 PHYSICAL EDUCATION 02 1149 PHYSICAL EDUCATION 02 1150 ATHLETICS 02 1150 ATHLETICS 02 1150 ATHLETICS 02 1151 BOYS ATHLETICS 02 1151 BOYS ATHLETICS 02 1151 BOYS ATHLETICS 02 1151 BOYS ATHLETICS 02 1151 BOYS ATHLETICS 02 1151 BOYS ATHLETICS North Little Rock Public Schools 1992-1995 Expenditures by Function/Object Funds: Salarv (01). Ooeratim\n,' l02): Debt Service (04) 92-93 93-94 94-9E Object Object Description Expenses Expenses Budge 00540 EQUIPMENT 268.66 2,091.31 600.00 00549 BAND INSTRUMENTS 29,178.24 553.88 1,500.00 00630 DUES AND FEES 1,179.00 580.00 850.00 00410 SUPPLIES AND MATERIALS 1,154.39 1,036.71 1,600.00 00155 STIPENDS-OTHER 0.00 0.00 0.00 00214 SS TAX STIPENDS-OTHER 0.00 0.00 0.00 00250 UNEMPLOYMENT COMPENSATION 0.00 0.00 0.00 00260 WORKERS COMP  0.00 0.00 0.00 00410 SUPPLIES AND MATERIALS 7,228.82 863.68 1,400.00 00410 SUPPLIES AND MATERIALS 2,811.59 3,045.56 3,500.00 00540 EQUIPMENT 0.00 0.00 200.00 00410 SUPPLIES AND MATERIALS 917.14 1,387.56 1,250.00 00331 PUPIL TRANSPORTATION 0.00 0.00 100.00 00410 SUPPLIES AND MATERIALS 353.19 0.00 300.00 00410 SUPPLIES AND MATERIALS 2,854.22 2,687.48 1,700.00 00326 REPAIRS/MAINT-EQUIP 547.24 0.00 0.00 00410 SUPPLIES AND MATERIALS 1,482.38 0.00 0.00 00410 SUPPLIES AND MATERIALS 587.40 416.10 200.00 00540 EQUIPMENT 0.00 0.00 300.00 00319 RENTAL OF LAND \u0026amp; BUILDING 922.50 0.00 1,500.00 00331 PUPIL TRANSPORTATION 0.00 21,993.61 20,000.00 00630 DUES AND FEES 0.00 0.00 0.00 00150 STIPENDS-WORKSHOPS 95.00 0.00 0.00 00211 SS TAX, NON-CERTIFIED 7.27 0.00 0.00 00326 REPAIRS/MAINT-EQUIP 8,998.33 7,325.23 8,500.00 00331 PUPIL TRANSPORTATION 9,564.39 11,548.97 12,400.00 00410 SUPPLIES AND MATERIALS 24,236.24 25,512.16 28,500.00 00499 AWARDS 2,079.83 2,175.37 2,350.00 Page: 21 94-95 Percent ol Expenses Exp/Bue 779.10 129.85% 0.00 0.00% 450.00 52.94% 1,644.67 102.79% 360.00 27.54 0.54 2.88 1,339.86 95.70% 6,077.17 173.63% 1,450.53 725.27% 1,515.80 121.26% 88.10 88.10% 0.00 0.00% 647.38 38.08% 0.00 0.00 487.69 243.85% 0.00 0.00% 840.00 56.00% 1,986.70 9.93% 2,750.00 0.00 0.00 8,101.53 95.31% 12,821.56 103.40% 26,817.59 94.10% 1,931.49 82.19% Fund Fnct Fnct Descr 02 1151 BOYS ATHLETICS 02 1152 GIRLS ATHLETICS 02 1152 GIRLS ATHLETICS 02 1152 GIRLS ATHLETICS 02 1152 GIRLS ATHLETICS 02 1152 GIRLS ATHLETICS 02 1153 COMBINED ATHLETICS 02 1153 COMBINED ATHLETICS 02 1153 COMBINED ATHLETICS 02 1153 COMBINED ATHLETICS 02 1153 COMBINED ATHLETICS 02 1153 COMBINED ATHLETICS 02 1153 COMBINED ATHLETICS 02 1153 COMBINED ATHLETICS 02 1153 COMBINED ATHLETICS 02 1160 STUDENT ACTIVITIES 02 1161 CHEER 02 1161 CHEER 02 1161 CHEER 02 1161 CHEER 02 1161 CHEER 02 1161 CHEER 02 1161 CHEER 02 1162 DRILL 02 1162 DRILL 02 1162 DRILL 02 1166 CHOIR 02 1166 CHOIR North Little Rock Public Schools 1992-1995 Expenditures by Function/Object Funds: Salarv (01)\nQperatine' (02) Debt Service (04) 92-93 93-94 94-95 Object Object Description Expenses Expenses Budge! 00540 EQUIPMENT 3,544.27 1,866.95 3,000.00 00326 REPAIRS/MAINT-EQUIP 0.00 0.00 400.00 00331 PUPIL TRANSPORTATION 6,678.40 5,797.36 7,100.00 00410 SUPPLIES AND MATERIALS 10,278.58 7,992.29 12,000.00 00499 AWARDS 1,568.15 742.86 1,100.00 00540 EQUIPMENT 596.08 0.00 1,400.00 00150 STIPENDS-WORKSHOPS 62.50 0.00 0.00 00211 SS TAX, NON-CERilFIED 4.78 0.00 0.00 00320 RENTAULEASE OF COPIERS 0.00 58.86 0.00 00332 TRAVEL EXPENSES 0.00 0.00 500.00 00334 CAR ALLOWANCE-MONTHLY 540.00 540.00 540.00 00341 TELEPHONE 0.00 206.25 360.00 00342 POSTAGE 0.00 110.30 150.00 00410 SUPPLIES AND MATERIALS 0.00 193.10 250.00 00645 ACCIDENT INS-STUDENTS 7,685.46 15,196.00 18,000.00 00331 PUPIL TRANSPORTATION 0.00 7,051.09 5,500.00 00150 STIPENDS-WORKSHOPS 0.00 820.09 800.00 00212 SS TAX, STIPENDS 0.00 62.74 60.00 00310 PROFESSIONAL \u0026amp; TECH SERV 0.00 0.00 0.00 00331 PUPIL TRANSPORTATION 0.00 70.37 875.00 00332 TRAVEL EXPENSES 0.00 0.00 0.00 00333 INSERVICE REGISTRATION 565.10 130.00 525.00 00410 SUPPLIES AND MATERIALS 2,399.49 10,703.25 5,850.00 00331 PUPIL TRANSPORTATION 903.17 0.00 625.00 00333 INSERVICE REGISTRATION 535_99 0.00 275.00 00410 SUPPLIES AND MATERIALS 436.30 0.00 6,900.00 00331 PUPIL TRANSPORTATION 0.00 0.00 0.00 00410 SUPPLIES AND MATERIALS 0.00 0.00 0.00 Page: 22 94-95 Percent o1 Expenses Exp/Bud 0.00 0.00% 0.00 0.00% 8,065.06 113.59% 9,990.05 83.25% 1,302.13 118.38% 445.56 31.83% 0.00 0.00 106.14 0.00 0.00% 540.00 100.00% 205.47 57.08% 180.89 120.59% 68.74 27.50% 17,714.20 98.41% 889.40 16.17% 0.00 0.00% 0.00 0.00% 140.00 316.90 36.22% 180.00 0.00 0.00% 5,589.09 95.54% 0.00 0.00% 0.00 0.00% 6,803.99 98.61% 151.20 182.56 - Fund Fnct Fnct Descr 02 1166 CHOIR 02 1191 SUMMER SCHOOL 02 1191 SUMMER SCHOOL 02 1191 SUMMER SCHOOL 02 1191 SUMMER SCHOOL 02 1191 SUMMER SCHOOL 02 1191 SUMMER SCHOOL 02 1191 SUMMER SCHOOL 02 1191 SUMMER SCHOOL 02 1191 SUMMER SCHOOL 02 1191 SUMMER SCHOOL 02 1191 SUMMER SCHOOL 02 1191 SUMMER SCHOOL 02 1191 SUMMER SCHOOL 02 1191 SUMMER SCHOOL 02 1191 SUMMER SCHOOL 02 1191 SUMMER SCHOOL 02 1191 SUMMER SCHOOL 02 1191 SUMMER SCHOOL 02 1191 SUMMER SCHOOL 02 1191 SUMMER SCHOOL 02 1191 SUMMER SCHOOL 02 1191 SUMMER SCHOOL 02 1192 DRIVER EDUCATION 02 1192 DRIVER EDUCATION 02 1192 DRIVER EDUCATION 02 1192 DRIVER EDUCATION 02 1192 DRIVER EDUCATION North Little Rock Public Schools 1992-1995 Expenditures by Function/Object Funds: Salarv (01): Operatine (02)\nDebt Service (04) 92-92 93-94 94-95 Object Object Description Expenses Expenses Budge1 00630 DUES AND FEES 0.00 0.00 0.00 00110 REGULAR CERTIFICATED 50,587.50 50,520.00 127,900.00 00115 CERTIFIED ADMIN 8,153.00 11,745.50 15,533.00 00120 REGULAR NON-CERTIFICATED 3,445.00 4,566.00 8,600.00 00130 SUBSTITUTE TEACHERS 0.00 0.00 5,400.00 00150 STIPENDS-WORKSHOPS 540.00 620.00 580.00 00210 SOCIAL SECURITY TAX 4,370.30 4,763.04 14,134.00 00211 SS TAX, NON-CERTIFIED 288.66 349.28 1,811.00 00212 SS TAX, STIPENDS 0.00 47.43 450.00 00250 UNEMPLOYMENT COMPENSATION 46.99 1.50 4,054.00 00251 UNEMPLOY COMP, NON CERT 9.99 0.00 602.00 00260 WORKERS COMP 111.61 0.00 1,740.00 00261 WORKERS COMP, NON-CERT 6.55 0.00 341.00 00331 PUPIL TRANSPORTATION 1,215.00 0.00 8,600.00 00335 INDISTRICT TRAVEL 0.00 0.00 0.00 00342 POSTAGE 0.00 47.95 100.00 00370 TUITION 19,200.00 8,820.00 12,000.00 00380 FOOD SERVICES 0.00 0.00 8,000.00 00385 M\u0026amp;O/CUSTODIAL SERVICES 0.00 0.00 8,000.00 00390 OTHER PURCHASED SERVICES 0.00 0.00 0.00 00410 SUPPLIES AND MATERIALS 1,085.32 11,552.62 16,010.00 00430 LIBRARY BOOKS 0.00 360.07 0.00 00670 INDIRECT COSTS 0.00 0.00 0.00 00110 REGULAR CERTIFICATED 15,120.00 15,841.00 17,794.00 00210 SOCIAL SECURITY TAX 1,124.93 1,211.84 1,361.00 00250 UNEMPLOYMENT COMPENSATION 12.10 0.00 18.00 00260 WORKERS COMP 28.73 0.00 178.00 00318 RENTAL OF EQUIP \u0026amp; VEHICLE 1,600.00 1,550.00 1,550.00 Page: 23 94-9E Percent o Expenses Exp/Bue 260.00 154,892.50 121.10% 15,249.00 98.17% 12,090.00 140.58% 0.00 0.00% 0.00 0.00% 13,015.79 92.09% 924.97 51.08% 0.00 0.00% 255.22 6.30% 18.14 3.01% 1,361.13 78.23% 96.72 28.36% 0.00 0.00% 82.09 0.00 0.00% 0.00 0.00% 7,636.45 95.46% 4,789.00 59.86% 34,636.71 6,880.69 42.98% 0.00 2,658.77 18,294.00 102.81% 1,399.54 102.83% 27.44 152.44% 146.35 82.22% 420.00 27.10% Fund Fnct Fnct Descr 02 1192 DRIVER EDUCATION 02 1192 DRIVER EDUCATION 02 1192 DRIVER EDUCATION 02 1192 DRIVER EDUCATION 02 1192 DRIVER EDUCATION 02 1193 MINI GRANTS 02 1193 MINI GRANTS 02 1193 MINI GRANTS 02 1193 MINI GRANTS 02 1193 MINI GRANTS 02 1193 MINI GRANTS 02 1193 MINI GRANTS 02 1193 MINI GRANTS 02 1194 ACT/PSAT SUMMER SC 02 1194 ACT/PSAT SUMMER SC 02 1194 ACT/PSAT SUMMER SC 02 1194 ACT/PSAT SUMMER SC 02 1194 ACT/PSAT SUMMER SC 02 1194 ACT/PSAT SUMMER SC 02 1194 ACT/PSAT SUMMER SC 02 1194 ACT/PSAT SUMMER SC 02 1194 ACT/PSAT SUMMER SC 02 1194 ACT/PSAT SUMMER SC 02 1194 ACT/PSAT SUMMER SC 02 1194 ACT/PSAT SUMMER SC 02 1194 ACT/PSAT SUMMER SC 02 1194 ACT/PSAT SUMMER SC 02 1194 ACT/PSAT SUMMER SC North Little Rock Public Schools 1992-1995 Expenditures by Function/Object Funds: Salarv (01). Ooeratimi \u0026lt;02) Debt Service (04) 92-93 93-94 94-9E Object Object Description Expenses Expenses Budge 00327 REPAIRS/MAINT-BUSNEHICLE 62.51 32.95 549.00 00342 POSTAGE 0.00 17.40 0.00 00410 SUPPLIES AND MATERIALS 197.81 0.00 0.00 00464 GASOLINE AND DIESEL 455.00 662.67 750.00 00644 VEHICLE INSURANCE 0.00 0.00 0.00 00130 SUBSTITUTE TEACHERS 0.00 0.00 300.00 00212 SS TAX, STIPENDS 0.00 0.00 30.00 00310 PROFESSIONAL \u0026amp; TECH SERV 0.00 325.00 300.00 00331 PUPIL TRANSPORTATION 0.00 0.00 260.00 00410 SUPPLIES AND MATERIALS 3,717.25 3,596.80 3,520.00 00430 LIBRARY BOOKS 537.08 0.00 0.00 00450 AUDIOVISUAL MATERIALS 13.19 0.00 0.00 00540 EQUIPMENT 362.92 572.23 590.00 00110 REGULAR CERTIFICATED 19,575.00 19,860.00 24,325.00 00115 CERTIFIED ADMIN 2,250.00 2,300.00 2,300.00 00150 STIPENDS-WORKSHOPS 74.00 290.00 600.00 00155 STIPENDS-OTHER 0.00 0.00 0.00 00156 STIPENDS-OTHER NON-CERT 0.00 0.00 0.00 00210 SOCIAL SECURITY TAX 1,669.59 1,695.20 2,037.00 00211 SS TAX, NON-CERTIFIED 5.66 0.00 0.00 00212 SS TAX, STIPENDS 0.00 22.18 0.00 00214 SS TAX STIPENDS-OTHER 0.00 0.00 0.00 00250 UNEMPLOYMENT COMPENSATION 0.00 0.00 26.00 00251 UNEMPLOY COMP, NON CERT 0.00 0.00 0.00 00260 WORKERS COMP 0.00 0.00 266.00 00261 WORKERS COMP, NON-CERT 0.00 0.00 0.00 00310 PROFESSIONAL \u0026amp; TECH SERV 46.00 0.00 0.00 00319 RENTAL OF LAND \u0026amp; BUILDING 329.13 0.00 0.00 Page: 24 94-95 Percent o Expenses Exp/Bue 66.00 12.02% 0.00 14.28 900.00 120.00% 344.00 0.00 0.00% 0.00 0.00% 50.00 16.67% 160.20 61.62% 4,182.63 118.82% 0.00 0.00 192.23 32.58% 24,875.22 102.26% 2,342.88 101.86% 200.00 33.33% 183.00 170.00 2,082.34 102.23% 13.00 15.28 13.98 41.42 159.31% 0.26 220.80 83.01% 1.36 0.00 0.00 Fund Fnct Fnct Descr 02 1194 ACT/PSAT SUMMER SC 02 1194 ACT/PSAT SUMMER SC 02 1194 ACT/PSAT SUMMER SC 02 1194 ACT/PSAT SUMMER SC 02 1194 ACT/PSAT SUMMER SC 02 1194 ACT/PSAT SUMMER SC 02 1195 SATURDAY DETENTION 02 1195 SATURDAY DETENTION 02 1195 SATURDAY DETENTION 02 1195 SATURDAY DETENTION 02 1195 SATURDAY DETENTION 02 1195 SATURDAY DETENTION 02 1195 SATURDAY DETENTION 02 1195 SATURDAY DETENTION 02 1195 SATURDAY DETENTION 02 1195 SATURDAY DETENTION 01 1199 JROTC INSTRUCTOR 02 1199 JROTC INSTRUCTOR 02 1199 JROTCINSTRUCTOR 02 1199 JROTC INSTRUCTOR 01 1199 JROTC INSTRUCTOR 02 1199 JROTCINSTRUCTOR 02 1199 JROTC INSTRUCTOR 02 1199 JROTC INSTRUCTOR 02 1199 JROTC INSTRUCTOR 02 1199 JROTC INSTRUCTOR 02 1199 JROTC INSTRUCTOR 01 1210 ITINERANT/HOME BOU North Little Rock Public Schools 1992-1995 Expenditures by Function/Object Funds: Salarv (01). Oneratiw:1 \u0026lt;02) Debt Service \u0026lt;04) 92-93 93-94 Object Object Description Expenses Expenses 00332 TRAVEL EXPENSES 0.00 35.07 00342 POSTAGE 0.00 199.04 00385 M\u0026amp;O/CUSTODIAL SERVICES 2,044.00 0.00 00410 SUPPLIES AND MATERIALS 2,464.99 3,503.78 00411 SUPPLIES AND MATERIALS 237.13 0.00 00670 INDIRECT COSTS 973.91 0.00 00110 REGULAR CERTIFICATED 4,160.00 3,442.50 00120 REGULAR NON-CE~TIFICATED 0.00 607.50 00210 SOCIAL SECURITY TAX 316.07 263.16 00211 SS TAX, NON-CERTIFIED 0.00 46.44 00250 UNEMPLOYMENT COMPENSATION 7.87 4.18 00251 UNEMPLOY COMP, NON CERT 0.00 0.00 00260 WORKERS COMP 2.22 4.77 00261 WORKERS COMP, NON-CERT 0.00 0.21 00310 PROFESSIONAL \u0026amp; TECH SERV 979.58 0.00 00410 SUPPLIES AND MATERIALS 0.00 742.20 94-9E Budge 50.00 0.00 1,785.00 1,463.00 0.00 0.00 4,000.00 1,000.00 300.00 50.00 25.00 0.00 40.00 10.00 500.00 750.00 00110 REGULAR CERTIFICATED 0.00 0.00 83,300.00 00120 REGULAR NON-CERTIFICATED 0.00 0.00 0.00 00210 SOCIAL SECURITY TAX 0.00 0.00 0.00 00211 SS TAX, NON-CERTIFIED 0.00 0.00 0.00 00240 INSURANCE 0.00 0.00 0.00 00241 INSURANCE, NON-CERT 0.00 0.00 0.00 00250 UNEMPLOYMENT COMPENSATION 0.00 0.00 0.00 00251 UNEMPLOY COMP, NON CERT 0.00 0.00 0.00 00260 WORKERS COMP 0.00 0.00 0.00 00261 WORKERS COMP, NON-CERT 0.00 0.00 0.00 00334 CAR ALLOWANCE-MONTHLY 0.00 0.00 0.00 00110 REGULAR CERTIFICATED 73,231.27 77,212.26 79,500.00 Page: 25 94-95 Percent o Expenses Exp/Bue 15.24 30.48% 0.00 1,785.00 100.00% 3,946.99 269.79% 0.00 0.00 3,105.00 77.63% 1,147.50 114.75% 237.38 79.13% 87.72 175.44% 4.60 18.40% 1.70 26.72 66.80% 9.58 95.80% 0.00 0.00% 0.00 0.00% 73,227.83 87.91% 26,761.72 5,559.87 2,047.30 1,617.59 432.74 109.85 40.13 585.78 214.10 540.00 91,795.20 115.47% Fund Fnct Fnct Descr 02 1210 ITINERANT/HOME BOU 02 1210 ITINERANT/HOME BOU 02 1210 ITINERANT/HOME BOU 01 1210 ITINERANT/HOME BOU 02 1210 ITINERANT/HOME BOU 02 1210 ITINERANT/HOME BOU 02 1210 ITINERANT/HOME BOU 01 1215 VISION IMPAIRED 02 1215 VISION IMPAIRED 01 1215 VISION IMPAIRED 02 1215 VISION IMPAIRED 02 1215 VISION IMPAIRED 01 1220 RESOURCE ROOM 02 1220 RESOURCE ROOM 01 1220 RESOURCE ROOM 02 1220 RESOURCE ROOM 02 1220 RESOURCE ROOM 02 1220 RESOURCE ROOM 02 1220 RESOURCE ROOM 02 1220 RESOURCE ROOM 02 1230 SPECIAL CLASS 1:15 02 1230 SPECIAL CLASS 1:15 02 1230 SPECIAL CLASS 1:15 02 1230 SPECIAL CLASS 1:15 01 1240 SPECIAL CLASS 1:10/B 02 1240 SPECIAL CLASS 1:10/B 02 1240 SPECIAL CLASS 1:10/B 02 1240 SPECIAL CLASS 1:10/B North Little Rock Public Schools 1992-1995 Expenditures by Function/Object Funds: Salarv (01): OoeratinP (02) Debt Service (04) 92-9~ 93-94 94-9E Object Object Description Expenses Expenses Budge1 00155 STIPENDS-OTHER 0.00 0.00 0.00 00210 SOCIAL SECURITY TAX 5,341.07 5,617.82 6,100.00 00214 SS TAX STIPENDS-OTHER 0.00 0.00 0.00 00240 INSURANCE 1,783.80 1,713.07 1,750.00 00250 UNEMPLOYMENT COMPENSATION 117.10 138.00 150.00 00260 WORKERS COMP 39.00 83.55 800.00 00335 INDISTRICT TRAVEL 289.04 2,156.05 2,200.00 00110 REGULAR CERTIFICATED 0.00 0.00 0.00 00210 SOCIAL SECURITY TAX 0.00 0.00 0.00 00240 INSURANCE 0.00 0.00 0.00 00250 UNEMPLOYMENT COMPENSATION 0.00 0.00 0.00 00260 WORKERS COMP 0.00 0.00 0.00 00110 REGULAR CERTIFICATED 1,132,640.52 1,494,469.24 1,539,300.00 00210 SOCIAL SECURITY TAX 83,872.79 110,603.71 113,400.00 00240 INSURANCE 31,759.42 40,680.51 40,700.00 00250 UNEMPLOYMENT COMPENSATION 1,444.11 2,346.19 2,500.00 00260 WORKERS COMP 716.69 1,572.40 15,000.00 00331 PUPIL TRANSPORTATION 0.00 0.00 200.00 00410 SUPPLIES AND MATERIALS 2,175.54 2,440.09 3,685.00 00540 EQUIPMENT 0.00 0.00 100.00 00120 REGULAR NON-CERTIFICATED 5,391.51 0.00 0.00 00211 SS TAX, NON-CERTIFIED 412.76 0.00 0.00 00251 UNEMPLOY COMP, NON CERT 23.78 0.00 0.00 00261 WORKERS COMP, NON-CERT 4.12 0.00 0.00 00110 REGULAR CERTIFICATED 640,302.24 514,275.65 529,700.00 00120 REGULAR NON-CERTIFICATED 0.00 14,772.92 15,400.00 00210 SOCIAL SECURITY TAX 46,866.20 38,071.86 40,500.00 00211 SS TAX, NON-CERTIFIED 0.00 1,130.50 1,200.00 Page: 26 94-95 Percent o1 Expenses Exp/Bud 330.00 6,737.87 110.46% 25.24 1,687.92 96.45% 138.34 92.23% 787.21 98.40% 0.00 0.00% 25,200.00 1,924.47 843.96 37.87 201.60 1,859,615.51 120.81% 138,787.71 122.39% 48,640.49 119.51% 2,782.83 111.31% 15,765.63 105.10% 0.00 0.00% 2,098.69 56.95% 178.30 178.30% 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 364,852.61 68.88% 41,120.97 267.02% 27,258.17 67.30% 3,137.27 261.44-% Fund Fnct Fnct Descr 01 1240 SPECIAL CLASS 1:10/B 02 1240 SPECIAL CLASS 1:10/B 02 1240 SPECIAL CLASS 1:10/B 02 1240 SPECIAL CLASS 1:10/B 02 1240 SPECIAL CLASS 1:10/B 02 1240 SPECIAL CLASS 1:10/B 02 1240 SPECIAL CLASS 1:10/B 02 1240 SPECIAL CLASS 1:10/B 02 1240 SPECIAL CLASS 1:10/B 02 1240 SPECIAL CLASS 1:10/B 01 1250 SPECIAL CLASS, 1 :6 02 1250 SPECIAL CLASS, 1 :6 02 1250 SPECIAL CLASS, 1:6 02 1250 SPECIAL CLASS, 1 :6 01 1250 SPECIAL CLASS, 1:6 02 1250 SPECIAL CLASS, 1:6 02 1250 SPECIAL CLASS, 1:6 02 1250 SPECIAL CLASS, 1:6 02 1250 SPECIAL CLASS, 1:6 02 1250 SPECIAL CLASS, 1:6 02 1250 SPECIAL CLASS, 1:6 02 1260 PRIVATE DAY SCHOOL 01 1260 PRIVATE DAY SCHOOL 02 1271 ACT 591 HANDICAPPED 02 1272 ACT 591, NON-HANDICA 01 1280 PUBLIC DAY SCHOOL 02 1280 PUBLIC DAY SCHOOL 02 1280 PUBLIC DAY SCHOOL North Little Rock Public Schools 1992-1995 Expenditures by Function/Object Funds: Salarv (01)\nOoeratimt (02) Debt Service (04) 92-93 93-94 94-9E Object Object Description Expenses Expenses Budge 00240 INSURANCE 18,746.86 15,230.99 15,300.00 00241 INSURANCE, NON-CERT 0.00 1,284.81 1,325.00 00250 UNEMPLOYMENT COMPENSATION 815.20 800.16 800.00 00251 UNEMPLOY COMP, NON CERT 0.00 25.72 75.00 00260 WORKERS COMP 399.54 505.35 5,000.00 00261 WORKERS COMP, NON-CERT 0.00 3.90 100.00 00331 PUPIL TRANSPORTATION 161.27 107.29 475.00 00410 SUPPLIES AND MA'T'ERIALS 751.40 1,006.01 2,160.00 00440 PERIODICALS/SUBSCRIPTIONS 83.87 0.00 0.00 00540 EQUIPMENT 0.00 0.00 100.00 00110 REGULAR CERTIFICATED 183,255.96 175,532.62 180,800.00 00120 REGULAR NON-CERTIFICATED 12,910.56 14,081.25 24,000.00 00210 SOCIAL SECURITY TAX 13,725.38 13,252.92 13,800.00 00211 SS TAX, NON-CERTIFIED 987.56 1,077.20 1,900.00 00240 INSURANCE 4,829.86 4,444.15 4,700.00 00241 INSURANCE, NON-CERT 463.34 463.04 1,000.00 00250 UNEMPLOYMENT COMPENSATION 231.86 273.47 300.00 00251 UNEMPLOY COMP, NON CERT 19.42 21.92 50.00 00260 WORKERS COMP 113.57 178.11 1,300.00 00261 WORKERS COMP, NON-CERT 2.76 14.77 50.00 00410 SUPPLIES AND MATERIALS 32.00 0.00 0.00 00331 PUPIL TRANSPORTATION 2,212.20 0.00 0.00 00370 TUITION 0.00 63,001.89 25,000.00 00370 TUITION 8,629.20 11,066.61 10,000.00 00370 TUITION 17,571.13 30,291.27 25,000.00 00110 REGULAR CERTIFICATED 126,626.49 132,263.27 136,200.00 00120 REGULAR NON-CERTIFICATED 0.00 0.00 3,000.00 00210 SOCIAL SECURITY TAX 9,188.60 9,608.89 10,400.00 Page: 27 94-95 Percent o1 Expenses Exp/Bud 10,901.78 71.25% 3,049.24 230.13% 547.41 68.43% 61.62 82.16% 3,232.99 64.66% 335.02 335.02% 0.00 0.00% 297.40 13.77% 0.00 0.00 0.00% 88,281.73 48.83% 14,580.24 60.75% 6,721.73 48.71% 1,115.35 58.70% 1,850.12 39.36% 456.24 45.62% 132.44 44.15% 21.74 43.48% 812.31 62.49% 124.78 249.56% 0.00 0.00 134,879.95 539.52% 12,051.54 120.52% 23,008.67 92.03% 149,368.75 109.67% 0.00 0.00% 10,925.06 105.05% Fund Fnct Fnct Descr 02 1280 PUBLIC DAY SCHOOL 01 1280 PUBLIC DAY SCHOOL 02 1280 PUBLIC DAY SCHOOL 02 1280 PUBLIC DAY SCHOOL 02 1280 PUBLIC DAY SCHOOL 02 1280 PUBLIC DAY SCHOOL 02 1280 PUBLIC DAY SCHOOL 02 1280 PUBLIC DAY SCHOOL 02 1280 PUBLIC DAY SCHOOL 02 1280 PUBLIC DAY SCHOOL 02 1280 PUBLIC DAY SCHOOL 02 1280 PUBLIC DAY SCHOOL 02 1280 PUBLIC DAY SCHOOL 02 1280 PUBLIC DAY SCHOOL 02 1280 PUBLIC DAY SCHOOL 02 1280 PUBLIC DAY SCHOOL 02 1285 BARING CROSS WORK 02 1285 BARING CROSS WORK 02 1285 BARING CROSS WORK 02 1285 BARING CROSS WORK 02 1290 EARLY CHILDHOOD, HA 02 1290 EARLY CHILDHOOD, HA 02 1290 EARLY CHILDHOOD, HA 02 1290 EARLY CHILDHOOD, HA 02 1290 EARLY CHILDHOOD, HA 02 1290 EARLY CHILDHOOD, HA 02 1290 EARLY CHILDHOOD, HA 01 1320 DISTRIBUTIVE EDUCATI North Little Rock Public Schools 1992-1995 Expenditures by Function/Object Funds: Salarv (01). Oneratino' \u0026lt;02) Debt Service \u0026lt;04) 92-9~ 93-9'1 94-9E Object Object Description Expense~ Expense~ Budge 00211 SS TAX, NON-CERTIFIED 0.00 0.00 230.00 00240 INSURANCE 4,087.23 4,140.01 4,200.00 00250 UNEMPLOYMENT COMPENSATION 161.21 203.87 200.00 00251 UNEMPLOY COMP, NON CERT 0.00 0.00 10.00 00260 WORKERS COMP 79.29 142.50 1,000.00 00261 WORKERS COMP, NON-CERT 0.00 0.00 10.00 00331 PUPIL TRANSPORTATION 15.00 0.00 350.00 00332 TRAVEL EXPENSES- 137.97 190.08 150.00 00333 INSERVICE REGISTRATION 140.00 185.00 150.00 00380 FOOD SERVICES 564.37 694.71 600.00 00410 SUPPLIES AND MATERIALS 2,289.23 1,434.78 3,056.00 00440 PERIODICALS/SUBSCRIPTIONS 23.73 0.00 0.00 00490 OTHER SUPPLIES/MATERIALS 290.22 350.06 425.00 00540 EQUIPMENT 0.00 270.62 269.00 00630 DUES AND FEES 0.00 0.00 100.00 00670 INDIRECT COSTS 0.00 0.00 1,200.00 00120 REGULAR NON-CERTIFICATED 0.00 11,575.63 11,400.00 00211 SS TAX, NON-CERTIFIED 0.00 886.16 900.00 00251 UNEMPLOY COMP, NON CERT 0.00 16.23 100.00 00261 WORKERS COMP, NON-CERT 0.00 11.10 25.00 00110 REGULAR CERTIFICATED 98,512.08 147,864.92 242,100.00 00131 ASSIGNED SUBSTITUTES 0.00 0.00 0.00 00210 SOCIAL SECURITY TAX 7,292.73 11,098.93 26,900.00 00240 INSURANCE 2,732.94 2,597.63 0.00 00250 UNEMPLOYMENT COMPENSATION 124.75 190.80 0.00 00260 WORKERS COMP 48.77 114.43 0.00 00410 SUPPLIES AND MATERIALS 0.00 0.00 0.00 00110 REGULAR CERTIFICATED 78,562.32 84,414.58 86,900.00 Page: 28 94-95 Percent ol Expenses Exp/Bue 0.00 0.00% 4,712.29 112.20% 224.12 112.06% 0.00 0.00% 1,276.01 127.60% 0.00 0.00% 0.00 0.00% 149.19 99.46% 205.00 136.67% 810.00 135.00% 1,756.11 57.46% 0.00 370.47 87.17% 2,253.64 837.78% 0.00 0.00% 0.00 0.00% 12,838.83 112.62% 983.35 109.26% 19.43 19.43% 552.00 2208.00% 137,448.11 56.77% 2,074.00 10,000.69 37.18% 3,123.52 211.79 1,226.30 3,783.57 43,920.00 50.54% Fund Fnct Fnct Descr 02 1320 DISTRIBUTIVE EDUCATI 01 1320 DISTRIBUTIVE EDUCATI 02 1320 DISTRIBUTIVE EDUCATI 02 1320 DISTRIBUTIVE EDUCATI 02 1320 DISTRIBUTIVE EDUCATI 02 1320 DISTRIBUTIVE EDUCATI 02 1320 DISTRIBUTIVE EDUCATI 02 1320 DISTRIBUTIVE EDUCATI 02 1320 DISTRIBUTIVE EDUCATI 02 1320 DISTRIBUTIVE EDUCATI 02 1320 DISTRIBUTIVE EDUCATI 01 1330 BUSINESS EDUCATION 02 1330 BUSINESS EDUCATION 01 1330 BUSINESS EDUCATION 02 1330 BUSINESS EDUCATION 02 1330 BUSINESS EDUCATION 02 1330 BUSINESS EDUCATION 02 1330 BUSINESS EDUCATION 02 1330 BUSINESS EDUCATION 02 1330 BUSINESS EDUCATION 02 1330 BUSINESS EDUCATION 02 1330 BUSINESS EDUCATION 02 1330 BUSINESS EDUCATION 02 1330 BUSINESS EDUCATION 01 1350 TRADE AND INDUSTRIA 02 1350 TRADE AND INDUSTRIA 02 1350 TRADE AND INDUSTRIA 01 1350 TRADE AND INDUSTRIA North Little Roel~ Public Schools 1992-1995 Expenditures by Function/Object Funds: Salarv (01)\nOperatintt (02)\nDebt Service (04) 92-93 93-94 94-95 Object Object Description Expenses Expenses Budge! 00210 SOCIAL SECURITY TAX 5,788.66 6,252.90 6,650.00 00240 INSURANCE 1,962.37 1,713.31 1,800.00 00250 UNEMPLOYMENT COMPENSATION 104.75 131.25 130.00 00260 WORKERS COMP 61.43 89.50 870.00 00326 REPAIRS/MAINT-EQUIP 0.00 0.00 200.00 00334 CAR ALLOWANCE-MONTHLY 990.00 990.00 495.00 00335 INDISTRICT TRAVEL 259.33 0.00 0.00 00341 TELEPHONE 0.00 438.72 324.00 00410 SUPPLIES AND MATERIALS 607.49 425.75 900.00 00440 PERIODICALS/SUBSCRIPTIONS 156.66 0.00 100.00 00540 EQUIPMENT 2,764.81 2,405.71 300.00 00110 REGULAR CERTIFICATED 356,120.34 382,226.08 386,900.00 00210 SOCIAL SECURITY TAX 26,192.32 28,437.99 29,600.00 00240 INSURANCE 9,884.72 9,421.89 9,600.00 00250 UNEMPLOYMENT COMPENSATION 476.71 593.90 600.00 00260 WORKERS COMP 280.92 403.13 3,000.00 00320 RENTAULEASE OF COPIERS 0.00 0.00 0.00 00326 REPAIRS/MAI NT-EQUIP 3,642.76 2,237.66 3,300.00 00334 CAR ALLOWANCE-MONTHLY 495.00 495.00 495.00 00335 INDISTRICT TRAVEL 450.46 450.45 0.00 00341 TELEPHONE 0.00 408.96 324.00 00410 SUPPLIES AND MATERIALS 22,171.87 17,456.10 24,014.00 00450 AUDIOVISUAL MATERIALS 414.78 52.70 700.00 00540 EQUIPMENT 14,102.63 15,548.51 19,760.00 00110 REGULAR CERTIFICATED 252,779.19 271,659.88 275,000.00 00110 REGULAR CERTIFICATED 0.00 10,449.18 10,800.00 00210 SOCIAL SECURITY TAX 18,822.36 21,090.94 21,900.00 00240 INSURANCE 7,124.19 6,867.58 7,000.00 Page: 29 94-95 Percent o Expenses Exp/Bue 3,322.57 49.96% 844.32 46.91% 65.84 50.65% 396.71 45.60% 0.00 0.00% 495.00 100.00% 0.00 438.72 135.41% 697.88 77.54% 0.00 0.00% 0.00 0.00% 400,234.20 103.45% 30,142.04 101.83% 9,283.56 96.70% 600.36 100.06% 3,407.70 113.59% 441.85 666.21 20.19% 495.00 100.00% 483.22 408.96 126.22% 32,694.12 136.15% 0.00 0.00% 26,617.40 134.70% 232,888.18 84.69% 0.00 0.00% 17,585.87 80.30% 5,535.60 79.08% Fund Fnct Fnct Descr 02 1350 TRADE AND INDUSTRIA 02 1350 TRADE AND INDUSTRIA 02 1350 TRADE AND INDUSTRIA 02 1350 TRADE AND INDUSTRIA 02 1350 TRADE AND INDUSTRIA 02 1350 TRADE AND INDUSTRIA 02 1350 TRADE AND INDUSTRIA 02 1350 TRADE AND INDUSTRIA 02 1350 TRADE AND INDUSTRIA 02 1350 TRADE AND INDUSTRIA 01 1352 PRINCIPLES OF TECHN 02 1352 PRINCIPLES OF TECHN 01 1352 PRINCIPLES OF TECHN 02 1352 PRINCIPLES OF TECHN 02 1352 PRINCIPLES OF TECHN 02 1352 PRINCIPLES OF TECHN 02 1352 PRINCIPLES OF TECHN 02 1352 PRINCIPLES OF TECHN 02 1352 PRINCIPLES OF TECHN 02 1354 TELEVISION PRODUCT! 02 1355 TELEVISION PRODUCT! 02 1355 TELEVISION PRODUCT! 02 1355 TELEVISION PRODUCT! 01 1360 HOME EC 02 1360 HOME EC 01 1360 HOMEEC 02 1360 HOME EC 02 1360 HOMEEC North Little Rock Public Schools 1992-1995 Expenditures by Function/Object Funds: Salarv (01)\nOoeratimi \u0026lt;02): Debt Service \u0026lt;04) 92-9~ 93-94 94-9f Object Object Description Expense~ Expense~ Budge 00240 INSURANCE 0.00 214.10 250.00 00250 UNEMPLOYMENT COMPENSATION 339.15 438.48 450.00 00260 WORKERS COMP 203.02 292.98 2,000.00 00326 REPAIRS/MAINT-EQUIP 1,417.22 1,344.88 1,700.00 00341 TELEPHONE 0.00 1,626.24 1,620.00 00410 SUPPLIES AND MATERIALS 12,922.43 15,910.55 12,845.00 00430 LIBRARY BOOKS 194.90 0.00 0.00 00440 PERIODICALS/SUBSCRIPTIONS 14.77 0.00 0.00 00450 AUDIOVISUAL MATERIALS 0.00 0.00 200.00 00540 EQUIPMENT 43,415.40 16,582.28 12,502.00 00110 REGULAR CERTIFICATED 61,563.60 66,213.84 68,200.00 00210 SOCIAL SECURITY TAX 4,513.46 4,905.98 5,250.00 00240 INSURANCE 1,574.34 1,285.70 1,500.00 00250 UNEMPLOYMENT COMPENSATION 82.06 102.90 100.00 00260 WORKERS COMP 48.08 70.19 550.00 00326 REPAIRS/MAINT-EQUIP 0.00 0.00 200.00 00410 SUPPLIES AND MATERIALS 2,700.56 947.46 1,400.00 00450 AUDIOVISUAL MATERIALS 104.40 0.00 0.00 00540 EQUIPMENT 26,485.15 0.00 400.00 00540 EQUIPMENT 13,957.82 0.00 0.00 00326 REPAIRS/MAINT-EQUIP 0.00 0.00 800.00 00410 SUPPLIES AND MATERIALS 0.00 0.00 1,500.00 00540 EQUIPMENT 0.00 0.00 11,200.00 00110 REGULAR CERTIFICATED 278,086.20 275,260.60 283,500.00 00210 SOCIAL SECURITY TAX 20,360.89 20,130.08 21,700.00 00240 INSURANCE 8,032.83 6,831.21 7,500.00 00250 UNEMPLOYMENT COMPENSATION 369.00 427.92 450.00 00260 WORKERS COMP 213.06 304.76 2,250.00 Page: 30 94-95 Percent o1 Expenses Exp/Bud 0.00 0.00% 349.34 77.63% 2,011.77 100.59% 131.58 7.74% 1,221.12 75.38% 9,634.37 75.00% 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00% 9,163.02 73.29% 68,534.64 100.49% 5,110.06 97.33% 1,266.84 84.46% 102.83 102.83% 583.80 106.15% 0.00 0.00% 314.76 22.48% 0.00 450.80 112.70% 0.00 912.52 114.07% 1,533.63 102.24% 10,426.81 93.10% 288,481.09 101.76% 21,489.18 99.03% 6,865.05 91.53% 432.83 96.18% 2,458.75 109.28% Fund Fnct Fnct Descr 02 1360 HOME EC 02 1360 HOME EC 02 1360 HOME EC 02 1360 HOME EC 02 1360 HOME EC 02 1360 HOME EC 02 1360 HOME EC 02 1360 HOME EC 01 1370 CAREER ORIENTATION 02 1370 CAREER ORIENTATION 01 1370 CAREER ORIENTATION 02 1370 CAREER ORIENTATION 02 1370 CAREER ORIENTATION 02 1370 CAREER ORIENTATION 02 1370 CAREER ORIENTATION 02 1370 CAREER ORIENTATION 02 1370 CAREER ORIENTATION 02 1370 CAREER ORIENTATION 02 1380 WORKPLACE READINE 02 1380 WORKPLACE READINE 02 1380 WORKPLACE READINE 01 1390 SPECIAL NEEDS EDUC 02 1390 SPECIAL NEEDS EDUC 02 1390 SPECIAL NEEDS EDUC 02 1390 SPECIAL NEEDS EDUC 02 1390 SPECIAL NEEDS EDUC 01 1390 SPECIAL NEEDS EDUC 02 1390 SPECIAL NEEDS EDUC North Little Rock Public Schools 1992-1995 Expenditures by Function/Object Funds: Salarv (01). Oneratim:i \u0026lt;02): Debt Service (04) 92-93 93-94 94-9E Object Object Description Expenses Expenses Budge' 00326 REPAIRS/MAINT-EQUIP 1,964.25 1,523.34 1,800.00 00334 CAR ALLOWANCE-MONTHLY 200.00 425.00 495.00 00341 TELEPHONE 0.00 0.00 324.00 00410 SUPPLIES AND MATERIALS 8,705.74 8,720.97 7,050.00 00430 LIBRARY BOOKS 134.90 0.00 0.00 00440 PERIODICALS/SUBSCRIPTIONS 109.98 56.00 250.00 00450 AUDIOVISUAL MATERIALS 400.03 769.05 800.00 00540 EQUIPMENT ~ 1,937.20 7,425.68 7,000.00 00110 REGULAR CERTIFICATED 47,372.64 52,689.00 54,300.00 00210 SOCIAL SECURITY TAX 3,583.26 3,822.38 4,150.00 00240 INSURANCE 1,076.56 1,224.34 1,300.00 00250 UNEMPLOYMENT COMPENSATION 62.90 82.45 100.00 00260 WORKERS COMP 36.70 57.91 450.00 00326 REPAIRS/MAINT-EQUIP 0.00 0.00 400.00 00410 SUPPLIES AND MATERIALS 662.47 1,653.77 1,900.00 00440 PERIODICALS/SUBSCRIPTIONS 110.83 251.62 150.00 00450 AUDIOVISUAL MATERIALS 267.38 0.00 650.00 00540 EQUIPMENT 4,507.79 396.68 3,040.00 00326 REPAIRS/MAINT-EQUIP 0.00 0.00 100.00 00410 SUPPLIES AND MATERIALS 0.00 896.52 700.00 00540 EQUIPMENT 0.00 3,650.25 200.00 00110 REGULAR CERTIFICATED 353,914.23 343,484.33 353,800.00 00110 REGULAR CERTIFICATED 2,760.00 5,573.73 5,000.00 00120 REGULAR NON-CERTIFICATED 6,731.59 22,633.19 0.00 00210 SOCIAL SECURITY TAX 26,600.78 26,265.29 27,480.00 00211 SS TAX, NON-CERTIFIED 515.03 1,731.53 0.00 00240 INSURANCE 9,191.39 7,331.03 8,200.00 00241 INSURANCE, NON-CERT 214.03 856.54 0.00 Page: 31 94-9E Percent o Expenses Exp/Bud 1,602.69 89.04% 450.00 90.91% 0.00 0.00% 7,864.96 111.56% 0.00 111.75 44.70% 1,036.29 129.54% 2,593.42 37.05% 77,064.82 141.92% 5,661.40 136.42% 1,574.65 121.13% 115.56 115.56% 645.01 143.34% 0.00 0.00% 1,643.05 86.48% 217.59 145.06% 37.10 5.71% 4,538.07 149.28% 0.00 0.00% 0.00 0.00% 316.35 158.18% 338,505.60 95.68% 643.52 12.87% 0.00 25,791.70 93.86% 0.00 6,801.36 82.94% 0.00 Fund Fnct Fnct Descr 02 1390 SPECIAL NEEDS EDUC 02 1390 SPECIAL NEEDS EDUC 02 1390 SPECIAL NEEDS EDUC 02 1390 SPECIAL NEEDS EDUC 02 1390 SPECIAL NEEDS EDUC 02 1390 SPECIAL NEEDS EDUC 02 1390 SPECIAL NEEDS EDUC 02 1390 SPECIAL NEEDS EDUC 02 1390 SPECIAL NEEDS EDUC 02 1390 SPECIAL NEEDS EDUC 02 1390 SPECIAL NEEDS EDUC 02 1390 SPECIAL NEEDS EDUC 02 1390 SPECIAL NEEDS EDUC 02 1390 SPECIAL NEEDS EDUC 02 1390 SPECIAL NEEDS EDUC 02 1510 BASIC SKILLS 02 1510 BASIC SKILLS 02 1510 BASIC SKILLS 02 1510 BASIC SKILLS 02 1510 BASIC SKILLS 02 1510 BASIC SKILLS 02 1510 BASIC SKILLS 02 1510 BASIC SKILLS 02 1510 BASIC SKILLS 02 1520 DROPOUT PREVENTIO 02 1520 DROPOUT PREVENTIO 02 1520 DROPOUT PREVENTIO 02 1520 DROPOUT PREVENTIO  North Little Rock Public Schools 1992-1995 Expenditures by Function/Object Funds: Salarv (01) OoeratinQ (02)\nDebt Service (04) 92-93 93-94 Object Object Description Expenses Expenses 00250 UNEMPLOYMENT COMPENSATION 453.36 540.59 00251 UNEMPLOY COMP, NON CERT 47.47 37.05 00260 WORKERS COMP 287.82 387.53 00261 WORKERS COMP, NON-CERT 0.00 19.83 00310 PROFESSIONAL \u0026amp; TECH SERV 3,875.00 0.00 00326 REPAIRS/MAINT-EQUIP 196.68 115.00 00332 TRAVEL EXPENSES 0.00 191.57 00334 CAR ALLOWANCE-MONTHLY 2,475.00 1,485.00 00335 INDISTRICT TRAVEL 228.23 596.47 00341 TELEPHONE 0.00 424.80 00360 PRINTING AND BINDING 0.00 234.53 00410 SUPPLIES AND MATERIALS 9,166.28 3,606.56 00430 LIBRARY BOOKS 100.64 244.57 00450 AUDIOVISUAL MATERIALS 0.00 0.00 00540 EQUIPMENT 17,605.73 4,853.74 00310 PROFESSIONAL \u0026amp; TECH SERV 0.00 1,677.43 00320 RENTAULEASE OF COPIERS 0.00 397.49 00331 PUPIL TRANSPORTATION 0.00 0.00 00332 TRAVEL EXPENSES 0.00 485.75 00380 FOOD SERVICES 0.00 35.69 00390 OTHER PURCHASED SERVICES 0.00 37.50 00410 SUPPLIES AND MATERIALS 0.00 1,298.93 00540 EQUIPMENT 0.00 0.00 00690 OTHER EXPENSES 0.00 430.00 94-95 Budge1 560.00 0.00 2,860.00 0.00 0.00 900.00 0.00 1,485.00 0.00 648.00 0.00 5,700.00 200.00 1,000.00 1,600.00 250.00 250.00 250.00 250.00 100.00 0.00 2,287.00 0.00 700.00 00110 REGULAR CERTIFICATED 11,732.78 12,769.70 13,410.00 00210 SOCIAL SECURITY TAX 897.54 976.65 1,025.00 00250 UNEMPLOYMENT COMPENSATION 11.71 19.77 25.00 00260 WORKERS COMP 7.22 13.44 110.00 Page: 32 94-95 Percent o1 Expenses Exp/Bud 508.77 90.85% 0.00 2,897.33 101.31% 0.00 0.00 201.22 22.36% 0.00 1,485.00 100.00% 0.00 424.80 65.56% 0.00 8,733.76 153.22% 283.89 141.95% 37.10 3.71% 445.08 27.82% 13.75 5.50% 0.00 0.00% 62.70 25.08% 0.00 0.00% 84.26 84.26% 0.00 781.88 34.19% 711.38 700.00 100.00% 12,689.69 94.63% 970.85 94.72% 18.99 75.96% 109.37 99.43% Fund Fnct Fnct Descr 02 1520 DROPOUT PREVENTIO 02 1520 DROPOUT PREVENTIO 02 1522 VITAL LINKS PROGRAM 02 1522 VITAL LINKS PROGRAM 02 1522 VITAL LINKS PROGRAM 02 1522 VITAL LINKS PROGRAM 02 1522 VITAL LINKS PROGRAM 02 1522 VITAL LINKS PROGRAM 02 1522 VITAL LINKS PROGRAM 02 1522 VITAL LINKS PROGRAM 02 1525 Al TERNA TIVE ED PRO 02 1525 Al TERNA TIVE ED PRO 02 1525 Al TERNA TIVE ED PRO 02 1525 Al TERNA TIVE ED PRO 02 1525 Al TERNA TIVE ED PRO 02 1525 Al TERNA TIVE ED PRO 02 1525 Al TERNA TIVE ED PRO 02 1525 Al TERNA TIVE ED PRO 02 1525 Al TERNA TIVE ED PRO 02 1525 Al TERNA TIVE ED PRO 02 1525 Al TERNA TIVE ED PRO 02 1525 Al TERNA TIVE ED PRO 02 1525 Al TERNA TIVE ED PRO 02 1525 Al TERNA TIVE ED PRO 02 1525 Al TERNA TIVE ED PRO 02 1525 Al TERNA TIVE ED PRO 02 1525 Al TERNA TIVE ED PRO 02 1525 Al TERNA TIVE ED PRO North Little Rock Public Schools 1992-1995 Expenditures by Function/Object Funds: Salarv (01) Overatin!:\"t (02) Debt Service (04) 92-93 93-94 94-9E Object Object Description Expenses Expenses Budge 00331 PUPIL TRANSPORTATION 6,321.91 54.15 100.00 00410 SUPPLIES AND MATERIALS 960.65 904.37 1,050.00 00110 REGULAR CERTIFICATED 0.00 7,710.00 8,400.00 00150 STIPENDS-WORKSHOPS 7,524.00 0.00 0.00 00210 SOCIAL SECURITY TAX 0.00 589.81 650.00 00211 SS TAX, NON-CERTIFIED 575.63 0.00 0.00 00331 PUPIL TRANSPORTATION 1,872.40 0.00 1,000.00 00342 POSTAGE 0.00 87.90 0.00 00410 SUPPLIES AND MATERIALS 1,643.20 1,940.73 2,700.00 00411 SUPPLIES AND MATERIALS 183.14 0.00 600.00 00110 REGULAR CERTIFICATED 25,390.08 26,647.79 22,000.00 00120 REGULAR NON-CERTIFICATED 101,334.48 101,786.28 107,440.00 00150 STIPENDS-WORKSHOPS 0.00 0.00 4,000.00 00155 STIPENDS-OTHER 0.00 150.00 0.00 00210 SOCIAL SECURITY TAX 1,942.31 1,935.75 1,600.00 00211 SS TAX, NON-CERTIFIED 7,329.94 7,633.89 8,220.00 00212 SS TAX, STIPENDS 0.00 0.00 300.00 00214 SS TAX STIPENDS-OTHER 0.00 11.47 0.00 00231 PUBLIC EMPLOYEES RET SYST 361.94 78.18 100.00 00240 INSURANCE 475.00 999.29 850.00 00241 INSURANCE, NON-CERT 7,612.23 7,379.73 8,060.00 00250 UNEMPLOYMENT COMPENSATION 31.97 37.02 50.00 00251 UNEMPLOY COMP, NON CERT 175.08 160.22 190.00 00252 UNEMPLOYMENT COMP.STIPEND 0.00 0.00 10.00 00260 WORKERS COMP 16.11 23.91 200.00 00261 WORKERS COMP, NON-CERT 68.25 113.60 39,485.00 00262 WORKER'S COMP, STIPENDS 0.00 0.00 40.00 00310 PROFESSIONAL \u0026amp; TECH SERV 61,395.24 51,854.46 58,100.00 Page: 33 94-95 Percent o1 Expenses Exp/Buo 52.70 52.70% 723.94 68.95% 0.00 0.00% 0.00 0.00 0.00% 0.00 0.00 0.00% 0.00 1,279.18 47.38% 0.00 0.00% 19,860.48 90.27% 90,834.05 84.54% 500.00 12.50% 0.00 1,519.26 94.95% 6,778.70 82.47% 38.20 12.73% 0.00 0.00 0.00% 843.96 99.29% 5,869.43 72.82% 30.49 60.98% 136.31 71.74% 0.00 0.00% 173.63 86.82% 778.85 1.97% 0.00 0.00% 93,673.45 161.23% Fund Fnct Fnct Descr 02 1525 ALTERNATIVE ED PRO 02 1525 ALTERNATIVE ED PRO 02 1525 ALTERNATIVE ED PRO 02 1525 ALTERNATIVE ED PRO 02 1525 ALTERNATIVE ED PRO 02 1525 ALTERNATIVE ED PRO 02 1525 ALTERNATIVE ED PRO 02 1525 ALTERNATIVE ED PRO 02 1525 ALTERNATIVE ED PRO 02 1525 ALTERNATIVE ED PRO 02 1525 ALTERNATIVE ED PRO 02 1525 ALTERNATIVE ED PRO 02 1525 ALTERNATIVE ED PRO 02 1525 ALTERNATIVE ED PRO 02 1525 ALTERNATIVE ED PRO 02 1525 ALTERNATIVE ED PRO 02 1525 ALTERNATIVE ED PRO 02 1525 ALTERNATIVE ED PRO 02 1525 ALTERNATIVE ED PRO 02 1550 EARLY CHILDHOOD ED 02 1550 EARLY CHILDHOOD ED 02 1550 EARLY CHILDHOOD ED 02 1550 EARLY CHILDHOOD ED 02 1550 EARLY CHILDHOOD ED 02 1550 EARLY CHILDHOOD ED 02 1550 EARLY CHILDHOOD ED 02 1550 EARLY CHILDHOOD ED 02 1550 EARLY CHILDHOOD ED North Little Rock Public Schools 1992-1995 Expenditures by Function/Object Funds: Salarv (01), OneratinP \u0026lt;02): Debt Service (04) 92-93 93-94 94-9~ Object Object Description Expenses Expenses Budge 00320 RENTAULEASE OF COPIERS 0.00 1,892.41 2,000.00 00326 REPAIRS/MAI NT-EQUIP 986.43 295.82 800.00 00331 PUPIL TRANSPORTATION 229.95 495.48 4,800.00 00332 TRAVEL EXPENSES 0.00 591.77 1,870.00 00333 INSERVICE REGISTRATION 20.00 1,650.00 500.00 00334 CAR ALLOWANCE-MONTHLY 0.00 180.00 200.00 00335 INDISTRICT TRAVEL 67.20 151.20 200.00 00342 POSTAGE . 0.00 29.00 100.00 00380 FOOD SERVICES 315.35 0.00 0.00 00398 STAFF DEVELOPMENT 0.00 0.00 3,600.00 00410 SUPPLIES AND MATERIALS 6,096.78 6,936.22 14,900.00 00420 Tl:XTBOOKS 4,495.27 8,914.19 9,500.00 00430 LIBRARY BOOKS 0.00 2,957.54 4,000.00 00440 PERIODICALS/SUBSCRIPTIONS 0.00 339.00 500.00 00450 AUDIOVISUAL MATERIALS 0.00 0.00 0.00 00540 EQUIPMENT 2,420.33 6,540.09 25,200.00 00541 FURNITURE 2,810.25 0.00 0.00 00630 DUES AND FEES 0.00 0.00 0.00 00670 INDIRECT COSTS 0.00 0.00 0.00 00110 REGULAR CERTIFICATED 399.00 300.00 450.00 00120 REGULAR NON-CERTIFICATED 75,861.61 73,570.46 79,740.00 00150 STIPENDS-WORKSHOPS 0.00 60.00 0.00 00210 SOCIAL SECURITY TAX 30.50 22.95 35.00 00211 SS TAX, NON-CERTIFIED 5,433.70 5,252.79 6,592.00 00212 SS TAX, STIPENDS 0.00 4.59 100.00 00221 TEACH RETIRE, NON CERT 0.00 0.00 2,105.00 00241 INSURANCE, NON-CERT 3,037.00 5,329.86 4,600.00 00250 UNEMPLOYMENT COMPENSATION 0.00 0.00 0.00 Page: 34 94-95 Percent o Expenses Exp/Bue 2,573.87 128.69% 266.38 33.30% 72,646.80 1513.48% 108.43 5.80% 750.00 150.00% 0.00 0.00% 33.60 16.80% 96.00 96.00% 22.57 5,600.00 155.56% 10,771.92 72.29% 775.95 8.17% 3,448.67 86.22% 664.87 132.97% 784.92 5,093.52 20.21% 0.00 50.00 1,121.15 450.00 100.00% 73,907.58 92.69% 0.00 34.44 98.40% 5,368.94 81.45% 0.00 0.00% 0.00 0.00% 1,119.22 24.33% 0.68 Fund Fnct Fnct Descr 02 1550 EARLY CHILDHOOD ED 02 1550 EARLY CHILDHOOD ED 02 1550 EARLY CHILDHOOD ED 02 1550 EARLY CHILDHOOD ED 02 1550 EARLY CHILDHOOD ED 02 1550 EARLY CHILDHOOD ED 02 1550 EARLY CHILDHOOD ED 02 1550 EARLY CHILDHOOD ED 02 1550 EARLY CHILDHOOD ED 02 1550 EARLY CHILDHOOD ED 02 1550 EARLY CHILDHOOD ED 02 1550 EARLY CHILDHOOD ED 02 1550 EARLY CHILDHOOD ED 02 1550 EARLY CHILDHOOD ED 02 1550 EARLY CHILDHOOD ED 02 1550 EARLY CHILDHOOD ED 02 1550 EARLY CHILDHOOD ED 02 1550 EARLY CHILDHOOD ED 02 1550 EARLY CHILDHOOD ED 02 1550 EARLY CHILDHOOD ED 02 1550 EARLY CHILDHOOD ED 02 1555 HIPPY 02 1560 READING 02 1560 READING 02 1560 READING 02 1560 READING 02 1560 READING 02 1560 READING North Little Roel~ Public Schools 1992-1995 Expenditures by Function/Object Funds: Salarv (01)\nOoeratinQ' (02) Debt Service (04) 92-93 93-94 Object Object Description Expenses Expenses 00251 UNEMPLOY COMP, NON CERT 145.08 98.31 00260 WORKERS COMP 0.00 0.00 00261 WORKERS COMP, NON-CERT 39.05 73.96 00310 PROFESSIONAL \u0026amp; TECH SERV 1,450.00 4,086.40 00331 PUPIL TRANSPORTATION 972.53 270.39 00332 TRAVEL EXPENSES 911.94 1,078.01 00333 INSERVICE REGISTRATION 255.00 170.50 00334 CAR ALLOWANCE-MONTHLY 330.00 2,801.06 00335 INDISTRICT TRAVEL 1,007.37 385.00 00342 POSTAGE 0.00 31.50 00360 PRINTING AND BINDING 0.00 0.00 00380 FOOD SERVICES 36.55 191.68 94-9E Budge 220.00 0.00 320.00 6,350.00 300.00 1,000.00 500.00 2,100.00 880.00 100.00 1,100.00 200.00 00410 SUPPLIES AND MATERIALS 34,866.57 15,753.63 18,283.00 00411 SUPPLIES AND MATERIALS 0.00 1,834.28 500.00 00464 GASOLINE AND DIESEL 0.00 0.00 0.00 00490 OTHER SUPPLIES/MATERIALS 0.00 0.00 1,100.00 00540 EQUIPMENT 0.00 0.00 500.00 00630 DUES AND FEES 122.75 0.00 0.00 00644 VEHICLE INSURANCE 0.00 0.00 0.00 00670 INDIRECT COSTS 0.00 0.00 1,572.00 00690 OTHER EXPENSES 0.00 9,445.56 0.00 00120 REGULAR NON-CERTIFICATED 0.00 0.00 0.00 00110 REGULAR CERTIFICATED 0.00 59,006.16 61,960.00 00210 SOCIAL SECURITY TAX 0.00 4,414.30 4,740.00 00240 INSURANCE 0.00 1,726.14 1,710.00 00250 UNEMPLOYMENT COMPENSATION 0.00 76.10 125.00 00260 WORKERS COMP 0.00 22.93 495.00 00331 PUPIL TRANSPORTATION 0.00 10,360.00 0.00 Page: 35 94-9E Percent ol Expenses Exp/Bud 110.42 50.19% 3.60 629.12 196.60% 7,875.45 124.02% 93.77 31.26% 701.98 70.20% 300.00 60.00% 2,365.00 112.62% 380.00 43.18% 77.22 77.22% 0.00 0.00% 0.00 0.00% 16,990.14 92.93% 0.00 0.00% 529.00 0.00 0.00% 0.00 0.00% 0.00 711.00 0.00 0.00% 0.00 0.00 63,432.00 102.38% 4,835.48 102.01% 1,687.80 98.70% 94.79 75.83% 542.12 109.52% 0.00 Fund Fnct Fnct Descr 02 1560 READING 02 1560 READING 02 1590 OTHER COMP ED 02 1590 OTHER COMP ED 02 1590 OTHER COMP ED 02 1590 OTHER COMP ED 02 1590 OTHER COMP ED 02 1590 OTHER COMP ED 02 1590 OTHER COMP ED 02 1590 OTHER COMP ED 02 1590 OTHER COMP ED 02 1590 OTHER COMP ED 02 1590 OTHER COMP ED 02 1590 OTHER COMP ED 02 1590 OTHER COMP ED 02 1590 OTHER COMP ED 02 1590 OTHER COMP ED 02 1590 OTHER COMP ED 02 1591 COMP ED PARENT/HOM 02 1591 COMP ED PARENT/HOM 02 1591 COMP ED PARENT/HOM 02 1591 COMP ED PARENT/HOM 02 1591 COMP ED PARENT/HOM 02 1591 COMP ED PARENT/HOM 02 1591 COMP ED PARENT/HOM 02 1591 COMP ED PARENT/HOM 02 1591 COMP ED PARENT/HOM 02 1592 COMP ED ELE EXTEND North Little Rock Public Schools 1992-1995 Expenditures by Function/Object Funds: Salarv (01)\nOoeratim.1 (02) Debt Service (04) 92-93 93-94 Object Object Description Expenses Expenses 00332 TRAVEL EXPENSES 0.00 241.89 00410 SUPPLIES AND MATERIALS 0.00 3,838.09 94-95 Budge1 0.00 0.00 00120 REGULAR NON-CERTIFICATED 95,820.14 98,588.54 101,500.00 00155 STIPENDS-OTHER 0.00 0.00 200.00 00211 SS TAX, NON-CERTIFIED 7,329.56 7,542.11 7,800.00 00214 SS TAX STIPENDS-OTHER 0.00 0.00 25.00 00241 INSURANCE, NON-CERT 5,665.85 5,013.41 8,000.00 00250 UNEMPLOYMENT COMPENSATION 0.00 0.00 0.00 00251 UNEMPLOY COMP, NON CERT 199.62 151.54 250.00 00260 WORKERS COMP 0.00 0.00 0.00 00261 WORKERS COMP, NON-CERT 61.33 107.94 850.00 00310 PROFESSIONAL \u0026amp; TECH SERV 38,032.03 260.00 3,300.00 00326 REPAIRS/MAINT-EQUIP 0.00 0.00 3,000.00 00331 PUPIL TRANSPORTATION 0.00 120.37 100.00 00333 INSERVICE REGISTRATION 0.00 0.00 0.00 00335 INDISTRICT TRAVEL 361.28 0.00 300.00 00390 OTHER PURCHASED SERVICES 0.00 49,002.35 0.00 00410 SUPPLIES AND MATERIALS 4,863.32 6,944.73 8,000.00 00120 REGULAR NON-CERTIFICATED 76,315.76 79,065.04 75,840.00 00211 SS TAX, NON-CERTIFIED 5,571.95 5,786.37 6,350.00 00241 INSURANCE, NON-CERT 4,053.12 4,467.82 4,500.00 00251 UNEMPLOY COMP, NON CERT 180.41 137.60 163.00 00261 WORKERS COMP, NON-CERT 51.00 84.70 665.00 00331 PUPIL TRANSPORTATION 22,017.72 17,614.79 1,000.00 00335 INDISTRICT TRAVEL 180.08 0.00 0.00 00410 SUPPLIES AND MATERIALS 7,377.09 1,977.81 1,500.00 00440 PERIODICALS/SUBSCRIPTIONS 93.90 0.00 0.00 00120 REGULAR NON-CERTIFICATED 23,348.66 464.42 0.00 Page: 36 94-95 Percent o Expenses Exp/Bue 0.00 5,618.76 102,065.49 100.56% 80.00 40.00% 7,808.03 100.10% 6.12 24.48% 5,337.62 66.72% 0.12 152.16 60.86% 0.64 873.68 102.79% 225.00 6.82% 0.00 0.00% 0.00 0.00% 1,195.00 0.00 0.00% 32,756.30 0.00 0.00% 64,533.06 85.09% 4,673.91 73.60% 4,431.26 98.47% 96.19 59.01% 561.93 84.50% 0.00 0.00% 0.00 1,572.03 104.80% 0.00 0.00 - Fund Fnct Fnct Descr 02 1592 COMP ED ELE EXTEND 02 1592 COMP ED ELE EXTEND 02 1592 COMP ED ELE EXTEND 02 1592 COMP ED ELE EXTEND 02 1592 COMP ED ELE EXTEND 02 1593 COMP ED TURNING POI 02 1593 COMP ED TURNING POI 02 1593 COMP ED TURNING POI 02 1593 COMP ED TURNING POI 02 1593 COMP ED TURNING POI 02 1593 COMP ED TURNING POI 02 1593 COMP ED TURNING POI 02 1593 COMP ED TURNING POI 02 1594 COMP ED PALS LAB 02 1594 COMP ED PALS LAB 02 1594 COMP ED PALS LAB 02 1594 COMP ED PALS LAB 02 1594 COMP ED PALS LAB 02 1594 COMP ED PALS LAB 02 1594 COMP ED PALS LAB 01 1910 GIFTED AND TALENTED 01 1910 GIFTED AND TALENTED 02 1910 GIFTED AND TALENTED 02 1910 GIFTED AND TALENTED 02 1910 GIFTED AND TALENTED 02 1910 GIFTED AND TALENTED 02 1910 GIFTED AND TALENTED 02 1910 GIFTED AND TALENTED North Little Rock Public Schools 1992-1995 Expenditures by Function/Object Funds: Salarv (01) Ooeratimi \u0026lt;02) Debt Service (04) 92-9~ 93-94 94-95 Object Object Description Expenses Expenses Budge! 00211 SS TAX, NON-CERTIFIED 1,787.17 35.51 0.00 00251 UNEMPLOY COMP, NON CERT 23.72 0.00 0.00 00261 WORKERS COMP, NON-CERT 13.63 0.00 0.00 00331 PUPIL TRANSPORTATION 99.46 0.00 0.00 00410 SUPPLIES AND MATERIALS 4,684.54 0.00 0.00 00110 REGULAR CERTIFICATED 36,186.00 38,391.78 39,060.00 00210 SOCIAL SECURITY TAX 2,726.15 2,921.51 3,080.00 00240 INSURANCE ~ 863.86 856.54 860.00 00250 UNEMPLOYMENT COMPENSATION 42.80 59.68 80.00 00260 WORKERS COMP 23.70 40.71 320.00 00331 PUPIL TRANSPORTATION 2,044.00 60.24 100.00 00335 INDISTRICT TRAVEL 133.52 0.00 0.00 00410 SUPPLIES AND MATERIALS 806.06 440.97 400.00 00110 REGULAR CERTIFICATED 52,009.46 9,817.68 0.00 00210 SOCIAL SECURITY TAX 3,617.04 732.76 0.00 00240 INSURANCE 1,717.09 357.04 0.00 00250 UNEMPLOYMENT COMPENSATION 65.74 10.52 0.00 00260 WORKERS COMP 29.63 48.98 0.00 00410 SUPPLIES AND MATERIALS 73.32 0.00 0.00 00540 EQUIPMENT 782.81 0.00 0.00 00110 REGULAR CERTIFICATED 349,719.41 379,858.62 391,300.00 00115 CERTIFIED ADMIN 44,610.96 0.00 0.00 00120 REGULAR NON-CERTIFICATED 13,628.88 0.00 16,000.00 00150 STIPENDS-WORKSHOPS 2,289.00 0.00 0.00 00155 STIPENDS-OTHER 0.00 560.00 0.00 00210 SOCIAL SECURITY TAX 28,868.47 27,933.30 29,900.00 00211 SS TAX, NON-CERTIFIED 1,153.53 0.00 1,200.00 00214 SS TAX STIPENDS-OTHER 0.00 42.85 0.00 Page: 37 94-9E Percent o1 Expenses Exp/Bud 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 29,861.04 76.45% 2,274.80 73.86% 773.63 89.96% 44.52 55.65% 261.08 81.59% 38.10 38.10% 0.00 392.88 98.22% 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 369,097.14 94.33% 0.00 0.00 0.00% 0.00 0.00 27,342.95 91.45% 0.00 0.00% 0.00 Fund Fnct Fnct Descr 01 1910 GIFTED AND TALENTED 02 1910 GIFTED AND TALENTED 02 1910 GIFTED AND TALENTED 02 1910 GIFTED AND TALENTED 02 1910 GIFTED AND TALENTED 02 1910 GIFTED AND TALENTED 02 1910 GIFTED AND TALENTED 02 1910 GIFTED AND TALENTED 02 1910 GIFTED AND TALENTED 02 1910 GIFTED AND TALENTED 02 1910 GIFTED AND TALENTED 02 1910 GIFTED AND TALENTED 02 1910 GIFTED AND TALENTED 02 1910 GIFTED AND TALENTED 02 1910 GIFTED AND TALENTED 02 1910 GIFTED AND TALENTED 02 1910 GIFTED AND TALENTED 02 1910 GIFTED AND TALENTED 02 1910 GIFTED AND TALENTED 01 1911 GIT PROJECT PROMISE 02 1911 GIT PROJECT PROMISE 02 1911 GIT PROJECT PROMISE 02 1911 GIT PROJECT PROMISE 02 1911 GIT PROJECT PROMISE 02 1911 GIT PROJECT PROMISE 02 1911 GIT PROJECT PROMISE 02 1911 GIT PROJECT PROMISE 02 1911 GIT PROJECT PROMISE  North Little Rock Public Schools 1992-1995 Expenditures by Function/Object Funds: Salarv (01): Oneratino' \u0026lt;02): Debt Service (04) 92-93 93-94 Object Object Description Expenses Expenses 94-95 Budge! 00240 INSURANCE 11,022.83 10,278.18 10,600.00 00241 INSURANCE, NON-CERT 907.90 0.00 850.00 00250 UNEMPLOYMENT COMPENSATION 502.75 590.62 600.00 00251 UNEMPLOY COMP, NON CERT 20.68 0.00 50.00 00260 WORKERS COMP 250.83 400.21 3,150.00 00261 WORKERS COMP, NON-CERT 10.14 0.00 150.00 00310 PROFESSIONAL \u0026amp; TECH SERV 3,470.00 1,225.00 0.00 00320 RENTAULEASE OFCOPIERS 0.00 91.69 0.00 00331 PUPIL TRANSPORTATION 2,804.34 1,087.76 2,000.00 00333 INSERVICE REGISTRATION 2,175.00 2,120.00 2,000.00 00334 CAR ALLOWANCE-MONTHLY 495.00 495.00 495.00 00335 lf'lDISTRICT TRAVEL 564.55 225.41 806.00 00341 TELEPHONE 0.00 442.81 500.00 00342 POSTAGE 239.71 333.65 300.00 00410 SUPPLIES AND MATERIALS 9,765.87 12,954.43 13,000.00 00411 SUPPLIES AND MATERIALS 0.00 198.14 200.00 00440 PERIODICALS/SUBSCRIPTIONS 586.92 391.98 600.00 00540 EQUIPMENT 0.00 0.00 2,550.00 00630 DUES AND FEES 25.00 25.00 30.00 00110 REGULAR CERTIFICATED 10,040.08 0.00 0.00 00120 REGULAR NON-CERTIFICATED 930.00 6,975.00 7,500.00 00150 STIPENDS-WORKSHOPS 272.00 0.00 0.00 00210 SOCIAL SECURITY TAX 761.26 0.00 0.00 00211 SS TAX, NON-CERTIFIED 90.48 533.65 550.00 00250 UNEMPLOYMENT COMPENSATION 16.06 0.00 0.00 00251 UNEMPLOY COMP, NON CERT 1.77 8.97 50.00 00260 WORKERS COMP 6.37 0.00 0.00 00261 WORKERS COMP, NON-CERT 0.60 4.47 50.00 Page: 38 94-9E Percent ol Expenses Exp/Bud 9,283.44 87.58% 0.00 0.00% 553.66 92.28% 0.00 0.00% 3,187.07 101.18% 0.00 0.00% 0.00 0.00 1,424.10 71.21% 2,770.00 138.50% 495.00 100.00% 212.39 26.35% 482.04 96.41% 411.06 137.02% 14,388.49 110.68% 97.92 48.96% 576.31 96.05% 2,051.07 80.43% 25.00 83.33% 0.00 0.00 0.00% 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00% 0.00 0.00 0.00% 0.00 0.00 0.00% Fund Fnct Fnct Descr 02 1911 GIT PROJECT PROMISE 02 1911 GIT PROJECT PROMISE 02 1911 GIT PROJECT PROMISE 02 1912 GIT SUMMER QUEST 02 1912 GIT SUMMER QUEST 02 1912 GIT SUMMER QUEST 02 1912 GIT SUMMER QUEST 02 1912 GIT SUMMER QUEST 02 1912 GIT SUMMER QUEST 02 1912 GIT SUMMER QUEST 02 1912 GIT SUMMER QUEST 02 1912 GIT SUMMER QUEST 02 1912 GIT SUMMER QUEST 02 1912 GIT SUMMER QUEST 02 1912 GIT SUMMER QUEST 02 1913 GIT MATHEMATICS 02 1913 GIT MATHEMATICS 02 1913 GIT MATHEMATICS 02 1913 GIT MATHEMATICS 02 1913 GIT MATHEMATICS 02 1913 GIT MATHEMATICS 02 1913 GIT MATHEMATICS 02 1913 GIT MATHEMATICS 02 1913 GIT MATHEMATICS 02 1913 GIT MATHEMATICS 02 1913 GIT MATHEMATICS 02 1913 GIT MATHEMATICS 02 1913 GIT MATHEMATICS North Little Rock Public Schools 1992-1995 Expenditures by Function/Object Funds: Salarv (01) OoeratinQ' (02) Debt Service (04) 92-92 93-94 Object Object Description Expenses Expenses 00331 PUPIL TRANSPORTATION 0.00 0.00 00342 POSTAGE 16.82 0.00 00410 SUPPLIES AND MATERIALS 329.27 102.80 94-95 Budge! 1,000.00 0.00 1,000.00 00110 REGULAR CERTIFICATED 0.00 11,160.00 16,200.00 00150 STIPENDS-WORKSHOPS 0.00 360.00 0.00 00155 STIPENDS-OTHER 0.00 0.00 1,100.00 00210 SOCIAL SECURITY TAX 0.00 853.74 1,100.00 00212 SS TAX, STIPENDS  0.00 27.54 0.00 00214 SS TAX STIPENDS-OTHER 0.00 0.00 0.00 00250 UNEMPLOYMENT COMPENSATION 0.00 0.00 0.00 00260 WORKERS COMP 0.00 0.00 0.00 00310 PROFESSIONAL \u0026amp; TECH SERV 0.00 0.00 0.00 00331 PUPIL TRANSPORTATION 0.00 905.00 0.00 00342 POSTAGE 0.00 53.28 0.00 00410 SUPPLIES AND MATERIALS 2,675.74 2,840.96 5,000.00 00110 REGULAR CERTIFICATED 0.00 14,500.50 15,000.00 00120 REGULAR NON-CERTIFICATED 5,706.05 2,820.85 3,000.00 00130 SUBSTITUTE TEACHERS 0.00 260.00 300.00 00150 STIPENDS-WORKSHOPS 0.00 232.00 700.00 00155 STIPENDS-OTHER 0.00 300.00 300.00 00210 SOCIAL SECURITY TAX 0.00 1,128.79 1,150.00 00211 SS TAX, NON-CERTIFIED 436.44 215.84 100.00 00212 SS TAX, STIPENDS 0.00 17.76 25.00 00214 SS TAX STIPENDS-OTHER 0.00 22.96 50.00 00250 UNEMPLOYMENT COMPENSATION 0.00 14.91 25.00 00251 UNEMPLOY COMP, NON CERT 5.72 3.80 25.00 00260 WORKERS COMP 0.00 13.77 125.00 00261 WORKERS COMP, NON-CERT 1.40 4.46 25.00 Page: 39 94-95 Percent o1 Expenses Exp/Bud 0.00 0.00% 0.00 0.00 0.00% 15,262.50 94.21% 0.00 69.00 6.27% 1,167.71 106.16% 0.00 5.28 22.99 122.65 204.00 1,343.10 12.35 4,723.14 94.46% 14,700.24 98.00% 1,354.18 45.14% 0.00 0.00% 0.00 0.00% 375.00 125.00% 1,124.55 97.79% 103.54 103.54% 0.00 0.00% 28.70 57.40% 22.82 91.28% 1.98 7.92% 128.32 102.66% 15.26 61.04% Fund Fnct Fnct Descr 02 1913 GIT MATHEMATICS 02 1913 GIT MATHEMATICS 02 1913 GIT MATHEMATICS 02 1913 GIT MATHEMATICS 02 1990 OTHER INSTRUCTIONA 02 1990 OTHER INSTRUCTIONA 02 1990 OTHER INSTRUCTIONA 02 2101 02 2101 02 2101 02 2101 02 2101 02 2102  02 2102  02 2102  02 2102  02 2102  02 2110 ATTEND \u0026amp; SOCIAL WRK 02 2110 ATTEND \u0026amp; SOCIAL WRK 02 2110 ATTEND \u0026amp; SOCIAL WRK 02 2110 ATTEND \u0026amp; SOCIAL WRK 02 2110 ATTEND \u0026amp; SOCIAL WRK 02 2110 ATTEND \u0026amp; SOCIAL WRK 02 2110 ATTEND \u0026amp; SOCIAL WRK 02 2110 ATTEND \u0026amp; SOCIAL WRK 02 2110 ATTEND \u0026amp; SOCIAL WRK 02 2110 ATTEND \u0026amp; SOCIAL WRK 02 2110 ATTEND \u0026amp; SOCIAL WRK North Little Rock Public Schools 1992-1995 Expenditures by Function/Object Funds: Salarv \u0026lt;01)\nOperatine (02)\nDebt Service (04) 92-93 93-94 Object Object Description Expenses Expenses 00310 PROFESSIONAL \u0026amp; TECH SERV 1,000.00 0.00 00342 POSTAGE 0.00 14.67 00410 SUPPLIES AND MATERIALS 0.00 268.13 00420 TEXTBOOKS 0.00 0.00 00110 REGULAR CERTIFICATED 2,520.00 0.00 00210 SOCIAL SECURITY TAX 192.60 0.00 00250 UNEMPLOYMENT COMPENSATION 6.08 0.00 00120 REGULAR NON-CERTIFICATED 50,433.42 0.00 00211 SS TAX, NON-CERTIFIED 3,848.96 0.00 00251 UNEMPLOY COMP, NON CERT 257.39 0.00 00261 WORKERS COMP, NON-CERT 29.82 0.00 00410 SUPPLIES AND MATERIALS 43.32 0.00 00120 REGULAR NON-CERTIFICATED 154,106.26 0.00 00211 SS TAX, NON-CERTIFIED 11,799.02 0.00 00231 PUBLIC EMPLOYEES RET SYST 40.41 0.00 00251 UNEMPLOY COMP, NON CERT 817.89 0.00 00261 WORKERS COMP, NON-CERT 96.42 0.00 00110 REGULAR CERTIFICATED 0.00 0.00 94-9~ Budget 0.00 75.00 600.00 1,700.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 00120 REGULAR NON-CERTIFICATED 12,304.08 32,948.30 35,000.00 00155 STIPENDS-OTHER 0.00 290.95 300.00 00210 SOCIAL SECURITY TAX 0.00 0.00 0.00 00211 SS TAX, NON-CERTIFIED 673.45 2,233.61 2,700.00 00214 SS TAX STIPENDS-OTHER 0.00 22.24 25.00 00241 INSURANCE, NON-CERT 850.61 2,080.87 2,125.00 00250 UNEMPLOYMENT COMPENSATION 0.00 0.00 0.00 00251 UNEMPLOY COMP, NON CERT 18.81 54.85 75.00 00260 WORKERS COMP 0.00 0.00 0.00 00261 WORKERS COMP, NON-CERT 3.29 20.69 275.00 Page: 40 94-95 Percent o Expenses Exp/Bue 0.00 0.00 0.00% 0.00 0.00% 173.30 10.19% 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 4,350.00 36,930.07 105.51% 0.00 0.00% 332.76 2,579.45 95.54% 0.00 0.00% 2,160.00 101.65% 6.53 55.24 73.65% 34.80 337.12 122.59% -- Fund Fnct Fnct Descr 02 2110 ATTEND \u0026amp; SOCIAL WRK 02 2110 ATTEND \u0026amp; SOCIAL WRK 02 2110 ATTEND \u0026amp; SOCIAL WRK 02 2110 ATTEND \u0026amp; SOCIAL WRK 02 2110 ATTEND \u0026amp; SOCIAL WRK 02 2110 ATTEND \u0026amp; SOCIAL WRK 02 2110 ATTEND \u0026amp; SOCIAL WRK 02 2110 ATTEND \u0026amp; SOCIAL WRK 02 2110 ATTEND \u0026amp; SOCIAL WRK 02 2110 ATTEND \u0026amp; SOCIAL WRK 02 2110 ATTEND \u0026amp; SOCIAL WRK 01 2120 GUIDANCE/COUNSELIN 02 2120 GUIDANCE/COUNSELIN 02 2120 GUIDANCE/COUNSELIN 02 2120 GUIDANCE/COUNSELIN 01 2120 GUIDANCE/COUNSELIN 02 2120 GUIDANCE/COUNSELIN 02 2120 GUIDANCE/COUNSELIN 02 2120 GUIDANCE/COUNSELIN 02 2120 GUIDANCE/COUNSELIN 02 2120 GUIDANCE/COUNSELIN 02 2120 GUIDANCE/COUNSELIN 02 2120 GUIDANCE/COUNSELIN 02 2120 GUIDANCE/COUNSELIN 02 2120 GUIDANCE/COUNSELIN 02 2120 GUIDANCE/COUNSELIN 02 2120 GUIDANCE/COUNSELIN 02 2120 GUIDANCE/COUNSELIN North Little Rock Public Schools 1992-1995 Expenditures by Function/Object Funds: Salarv (01): OoeratinQ' (02): Debt Service (04) 92-93 93-94 94-95 Object Object Description Expenses Expenses Budge 00327 REPAIRS/MAINT-BUSNEHICLE 0.00 0.00 500.00 00332 TRAVEL EXPENSES 0.00 294.00 300.00 00333 INSERVICE REGISTRATION 0.00 100.00 200.00 00334 CAR ALLOWANCE-MONTHLY 405.00 450.00 450.00 00335 INDISTRICT TRAVEL 29.40 0.00 0.00 00341 TELEPHONE 1,384.89 4,533.41 5,200.00 00410 SUPPLIES AND MATERIALS 0.00 194.12 1,000.00 00464 GASOLINE AND DIESEL 0.00 84.80 500.00 00540 EQUIPMENT 0.00 468.42 1,000.00 00550 VEHICLES 0.00 24,264.00 0.00 00644 VEHICLE INSURANCE 0.00 1,758.00 1,800.00 00110 REGULAR CERTIFICATED 824,164.07 885,880.38 912,400.00 00120 REGULAR NON-CERTIFICATED 92,650.68 93,177.21 96,000.00 00210 SOCIAL SECURITY TAX 61,004.98 66,823.49 69,800.00 00211 SS TAX, NON-CERTIFIED 6,753.96 6,928.12 7,400.00 00240 INSURANCE 19,428.13 19,231.51 19,600.00 00241 INSURANCE, NON-CERT 4,808.58 4,302.30 4,400.00 00250 UNEMPLOYMENT COMPENSATION 942.00 1,360.50 1,400.00 00251 UNEMPLOY COMP, NON CERT 131.85 141.64 150.00 00260 WORKERS COMP 498.10 935.25 7,300.00 00261 WORKERS COMP, NON-CERT 69.61 100.28 750.00 00310 PROFESSIONAL \u0026amp; TECH SERV 150.00 0.00 0.00 00326 REPAIRS/MAINT-EQUIP 0.00 44.30 0.00 00335 INDISTRICT TRAVEL 1,452.81 1,223.19 1,500.00 00410 SUPPLIES AND MATERIALS 1,644.78 1,320.11 2,500.00 00440 PERIODICALS/SUBSCRIPTIONS 110.83 277.00 100.00 00540 EQUIPMENT 0.00 265.00 0.00 00630 DUES AND FEES 0.00 195.00 200.00 Page: 41 94-95 Percent o Expenses Exp/Bue 139.18 27.84% 0.00 0.00% 0.00 0.00% 450.00 100.00% 0.00 1,240.10 23.85% 0.00 0.00% 267.05 53.41% 0.00 0.00% 0.00 1,422.00 79.00% 900,703.15 98.72% 95,530.34 99.51%  68,251.60 97.78% 7,117.18 96.18% 19,023.50 97.06% 4,621.31 105.03% 1,350.90 96.49% 142.72 95.15% 7,711.95 105.64% 807.89 107.72% 0.00 0.00 881.02 58.73% 2,074.93 83.00% 175.72 175.72% 140.98 195.00 97.50% Fund Fnct Fnct Descr 02 2123 APPRAISAL SERVICES 02 2123 APPRAISAL SERVICES 02 2123 APPRAISAL SERVICES 02 2130 HEAL TH SERVICES 02 2130 HEAL TH SERVICES 02 2130 HEAL TH SERVICES 02 2130 HEAL TH SERVICES 02 2130 HEAL TH SERVICES 02 2130 HEAL TH SERVICES 02 2130 HEAL TH SERVICES 02 2130 HEAL TH SERVICES 02 2130 HEAL TH SERVICES 02 2130 HEAL TH SERVICES 02 2130 HEAL TH SERVICES 01 2140 PSYCHOLOGICAL SER\\/ 01 2140 PSYCHOLOGICAL SER\\/ 02 2140 PSYCHOLOGICAL SER\\/ 02 2140 PSYCHOLOGICAL SER\\/ 02 2140 PSYCHOLOGICAL SERV 01 2140 PSYCHOLOGICAL SERV 02 2140 PSYCHOLOGICAL SERV 02 2140 PSYCHOLOGICAL SERV 02 2140 PSYCHOLOGICAL SERV 02 2140 PSYCHOLOGICAL SERV 01 2150 SPEECH PATH/AUDIOL 02 2150 SPEECH PATH/AUDIOL 02 2150 SPEECH PATH/AUDIOL 01 2150 SPEECH PATH/AUDIOL North Little Rock Public Schools 1992-1995 Expenditures by Function/Object Funds: Salarv (01)\nOoeratirni \u0026lt;02): Debt Service (04) 92-92 93-94 94-9!: Object Object Description Expenses Expenses Budge1 00310 PROFESSIONAL \u0026amp; TECH SERV 0.00 1,100.00 2,200.00 00326 REPAIRS/MAINT-EQUIP 1,160.50 0.00 500.00 00410 SUPPLIES AND MATERIALS 12,883.78 11,733.53 19,000.00 00120 REGULAR NON-CERTIFICATED 76,083.24 79,620.73 82,500.00 00211 SS TAX, NON-CERTIFIED 5,536.30 5,889.57 6,300.00 00241 INSURANCE, NON-CERT 3,019.99 3,069.12 3,200.00 00251 UNEMPLOY COMP, NON CERT 90.22 114.92 130.00 00261 WORKERS COMP, NON-CERT 51.25 89.99 700.00 00326 REPAIRS/MAINT-EQUIP 220.00 334.44 500.00 00332 TRAVEL EXPENSES 0.00 312.50 1,000.00 00333 INSERVICE REGISTRATION 125.00 332.00 300.00 00334 CAR ALLOWANCE-MONTHLY 700.00 700.00 720.00 00410 SUPPLIES AND MATERIALS 930.63 1,272.37 1,950.00 00540 EQUIPMENT 0.00 715.03 500.00 00110 REGULAR CERTIFICATED 104,130.00 114,174.00 117,600.00 00115 CERTIFIED ADMIN 51,602.16 57,153.60 58,900.00 00155 STIPENDS-OTHER 0.00 0.00 1,500.00 00210 SOCIAL SECURITY TAX 11,552.27 12,764.66 13,500.00 00214 SS TAX STIPENDS-OTHER 0.00 0.00 125.00 00240 INSURANCE 3,232.92 3,049.21 3,200.00 00250 UNEMPLOYMENT COMPENSATION 183.40 265.88 300.00 00260 WORKERS COMP 108.01 180.56 1,400.00 00310 PROFESSIONAL \u0026amp; TECH SERV 57,324.00 64,752.11 50,000.00 00334 CAR ALLOWANCE-MONTHLY 540.00 540.00 0.00 00110 REGULAR CERTIFICATED 377\n103.12 379,296.64 390,700.00 00110 REGULAR CERTIFICATED 37,758.08 129,737.76 0.00 00210 SOCIAL SECURITY TAX 30,820.39 38,213.15 29,900.00 00240 INSURANCE 10,270.36 10,380.50 10,400.00 Page: 42 94-9!: Percent o Expenses Exp/Bue 0.00 0.00% 1,100.00 220.00% 14,419.97 75.89% 89,890.99 108.96% 6,663.71 105.77% 2,964.38 92.64% 134.44 103.42% 758.38 108.34% 220.00 44.00% 378.70 37.87% 100.00 33.33% 720.00 100.00% 2,365.63 121.31% 0.00 0.00% 149,239.55 126.90% 0.00 0.00% 1,484.00 98.93% 11,059.88 81.93% 113.53 90.82% 2,898.58 90.58% 226.10 75.37% 1,421.23 101.52% 60,000.00 120.00% 0.00 351,079.40 89.86% 145,778.08 37,418.76 125.15% 8,712.43 83.77% Fund Fnct Fnct Descr 02 2150 SPEECH PATH/AUDIOL 02 2150 SPEECH PATH/AUDIOL 02 2150 SPEECH PATH/AUDIOL 02 2150 SPEECH PATH/AUDIOL 02 2150 SPEECH PATH/AUDIOL 01 2160 PHYS \u0026amp; OCC THERAPY 02 2160 PHYS \u0026amp; OCC THERAPY 02 2160 PHYS \u0026amp; OCC THERAPY 01 2160 PHYS \u0026amp; OCC THERAPY 02 2160 PHYS \u0026amp; OCC THERAPY 02 2160 PHYS \u0026amp; OCC THERAPY 02 2160 PHYS \u0026amp; OCC THERAPY 01 2190 OTHER PUPIL SUPPOR 02 2190 OTHER PUPIL SUPPOR 02 2190 OTHER PUPIL SUPPOR 02 2190 OTHER PUPIL SUPPOR 02 2190 OTHER PUPIL SUPPOR 02 2190 OTHER PUPIL SUPPOR 01 2190 OTHER PUPIL SUPPOR 02 2190 OTHER PUPIL SUPPOR 02 2190 OTHER PUPIL SUPPOR 02 2190 OTHER PUPIL SUPPOR 02 2190 OTHER PUPIL SUPPOR 02 2190 OTHER PUPIL SUPPOR 02 2190 OTHER PUPIL SUPPOR 02 2190 OTHER PUPIL SUPPOR 02 2190 OTHER PUPIL SUPPOR 02 2190 OTHER PUPIL SUPPOR North Little Rock Public Schools 1992-1995 Expenditures by Function/Object Funds: Salarv (01) Ooeratini\nt (02) Debt Service (04) 92-93 93-94 94-95 Object Object Description Expenses Expenses Budge 00240 INSURANCE 1,444.96 0.00 0.00 00250 UNEMPLOYMENT COMPENSATION 462.93 746.32 600.00 00260 WORKERS COMP 214.90 431.62 3,100.00 00310 PROFESSIONAL \u0026amp; TECH SERV 0.00 0.00 0.00 00410 SUPPLIES AND MATERIALS 466.96 442.35 1,200.00 00110 REGULAR CERTIFICATED 61,092.96 60,061.50 69,400.00 00110 REGULAR CERTIFICATED 0.00 7,281.78 0.00 00210 SOCIAL SECURITY TAX 4,584.71 5,115.53 5,300.00 00240 INSURANCE 1,595.28 1,713.44 1,800.00 00250 UNEMPLOYMENT COMPENSATION 69.38 104.70 150.00 00260 WORKERS COMP 32.16 69.98 550.00 00310 PROFESSIONAL \u0026amp; TECH SERV 0.00 11,234.75 0.00 00115 CERTIFIED ADMIN 0.00 0.00 61,300.00 00120 REGULAR NON-CERTIFICATED 29,713.52 0.00 23,600.00 00150 STIPENDS-WORKSHOPS 0.00 160.00 0.00 00210 SOCIAL SECURITY TAX 0.00 0.00 4,700.00 00211 SS TAX, NON-CERTIFIED 2,189.94 0.00 1,800.00 00212 SS TAX, STIPENDS 0.00 12.24 0.00 00240 INSURANCE 0.00 0.00 900.00 00241 INSURANCE, NON-CERT 1,596.50 0.00 900.00 00250 UNEMPLOYMENT COMPENSATION 0.00 0.00 100.00 00251 UNEMPLOY COMP, NON CERT 42.18 0.00 50.00 00260 WORKERS COMP 0.00 0.00 450.00 00261 WORKERS COMP, NON-CERT 18.94 0.00 200.00 00310 PROFESSIONAL \u0026amp; TECH SERV 0.00 0.00 0.00 00326 REPAIRS/MAINT-EQUIP 0.00 0.00 100.00 00331 PUPIL TRANSPORTATION 778.16 0.00 1,500.00 00332 TRAVEL EXPENSES 0.00 698.00 0.00 Page: 43 94-95 Percent o1 Expenses Exp/Bud 3,028.11 743.89 123.98% 4,313.37 139.14% 14,220.00 416.37 34.70% 69,674.64 100.40% 0.00 5,318.14 100.34% 1,688.32 93.80% 104.52 69.68% 599.01 108.91% 43,972.08 50,624.02 82.58%  33,671.74 142.68% 0.00 3,872.73 82.40% 2,476.39 137.58% 0.00 703.60 78.18% 1,758.16 195.35% 75.90 75.90% 55.94 111.88% 404.92 89.98% 309.15 154.58% 2,800.00 85.90 85.90% 41.60 2.77% 8.00 Fund Fnct Fnct Descr 02 2190 OTHER PUPIL SUPPOR 02 2190 OTHER PUPIL SUPPOR 02 2190 OTHER PUPIL SUPPOR 02 2190 OTHER PUPIL SUPPOR 02 2190 OTHER PUPIL SUPPOR 02 2190 OTHER PUPIL SUPPOR 02 2193 NATL SCIENCE FOUND 02 2193 NATL SCIENCE FOUND 02 2195 STUDENT ASSIGNMEN1 02 2195 STUDENT ASSIGNMEN1 02 2195 STUDENT ASSIGNMEN1 02 2195 STUDENT ASSIGNMEN1 02 2195 STUDENT ASSIGNMEN1 01 2210 INSTRUCTION/SUPERVI 02 2210 INSTRUCTION/SUPERVI 02 2210 INSTRUCTION/SUPERVI 02 2210 INSTRUCTION/SUPERVI 02 2210 INSTRUCTION/SUPERVI 02 2210 INSTRUCTION/SUPERVI 02 2210 INSTRUCTION/SUPERVI 02 2210 INSTRUCTION/SUPERVI 02 2210 INSTRUCTION/SUPERVI 02 2210 INSTRUCTION/SUPERVI 02 2210 INSTRUCTION/SUPERVI 02 2210 INSTRUCTION/SUPERVI 02 2210 INSTRUCTION/SUPERVI 01 2210 INSTRUCTION/SUPERVI 02 2210 INSTRUCTION/SUPERVI  North Little Rock Public Schools 1992-1995 Expenditures by Function/Object Funds: Salarv (01): Ooeratim:i \u0026lt;02): Debt Service (04) 92-93 93-94 94-9~ Object Object Description Expenses Expenses Budget 00333 INSERVICE REGISTRATION 0.00 0.00 100.00 00334 CAR ALLOWANCE-MONTHLY 0.00 0.00 540.00 00341 TELEPHONE 0.00 0.00 60.00 00342 POSTAGE 0.00 689.89 250.00 00380 FOOD SERVICES 0.00 172.00 175.00 00410 SUPPLIES AND MATERIALS 179.72 2,498.20 725.00 00410 SUPPLIES AND MATERIALS 0.00 253.20 0.00 00540 EQUIPMENT ... 0.00 7,260.97 0.00 00120 REGULAR NON-CERTIFICATED 0.00 0.00 0.00 00211 SS TAX, NON-CERTIFIED 0.00 0.00 0.00 00241 INSURANCE, NON-CERT 0.00 0.00 0.00 00251 lJNEMPLOY COMP, NON CERT 0.00 0.00 0.00 00261 WORKERS COMP, NON-CERT 0.00 0.00 0.00 00115 CERTIFIED ADMIN 407,067.90 546,426.72 562,800.00 00115 CERTIFIED ADMIN 5,000.00 17,855.32 39,000.00 00120 REGULAR NON-CERTIFICATED 148,297.98 173,135.14 177,532.00 00125 NON-CERTIFIED ADMIN 39,933.84 43,515.80 2,025.00 00130 SUBSTITUTE TEACHERS 2,368.10 0.00 4,000.00 00150 STIPENDS-WORKSHOPS 7,629.38 19,755.00 19,880.00 00151 STIPENDS NON-CERTIFIED 0.00 0.00 0.00 00155 STIPENDS-OTHER 0.00 0.00 4,130.00 00210 SOCIAL SECURITY TAX 30,687.24 41,241.91 51,688.00 00211 SS TAX, NON-CERTIFIED 14,621.01 16,330.59 13,440.00 00212 SS TAX, STIPENDS 0.00 1,541.66 3,660.00 00213 SS TAX STIPENDS NON CERT 0.00 0.00 0.00 00214 SS TAX STIPENDS-OTHER 0.00 0.00 35.00 00240 INSURANCE 8,323.95 9,123.35 9,200.00 00240 INSURANCE 0.00 351.70 0.00 Page: 44 94-9~ Percent o Expenses Exp/Bue 50.00 50.00% 495.00 91.67% 47.60 79.33% 743.73 297.49% 126.85 72.49% 2,034.75 280.66% 0.00 0.00 26,192.15 2,003.88 2,180.29 39.31 209.66 628,590.25 111.69% 46,399.08 118.97% 190,358.05 107.22% 2,229.96 110.12% 437.80 10.95% 23,310.00 117.25% 560.00 4,770.00 115.50% 50,718.98 98.13% 14,437.29 107.42% 1,783.04 48.72% 42.84 364.90 1042.57% 10,350.18 112.50% 844.08 Fund Fnct Fnct Descr 02 2210 INSTRUCTION/SUPERVI 02 2210 INSTRUCTION/SUPERVI 02 2210 INSTRUCTION/SUPERVI 02 2210 INSTRUCTION/SUPERVI 02 2210 INSTRUCTION/SUPERVI 01 2210 INSTRUCTION/SUPERVI 02 2210 INSTRUCTION/SUPERVI 02 2210 INSTRUCTION/SUPERVI 02 2210 INSTRUCTION/SUPERVI 02 2210 INSTRUCTION/SUPERVI 02 2210 INSTRUCTION/SUPERVI 02 2210 INSTRUCTION/SUPERVI 02 2210 INSTRUCTION/SUPERVI 02 2210 INSTRUCTION/SUPERVI 02 2210 INSTRUCTION/SUPERVI 02 2210 INSTRUCTION/SUPERVI 02 2210 INSTRUCTION/SUPERVI 02 2210 INSTRUCTION/SUPERVI 02 2210 INSTRUCTION/SUPERVI 02 2210 INSTRUCTION/SUPERVI 02 2210 INSTRUCTION/SUPERVI 02 2210 INSTRUCTION/SUPERVI 02 2210 INSTRUCTION/SUPERVI 02 2210 INSTRUCTION/SUPERVI 02 2210 INSTRUCTION/SUPERVI 02 2210 INSTRUCTION/SUPERVI 02 2210 INSTRUCTION/SUPERVI 02 2210 INSTRUCTION/SUPERVI North Little Rock Public Schools 1992-1995 Expenditures by Function/Object Funds: Salarv (01)\nOperatine' (02): Debt Service (04) 92-93 93-94 94-95 Object Object Description Expenses Expenses Budge1 00241 INSURANCE, NON-CERT 7,179.43 8,171.60 8,760.00 00250 UNEMPLOYMENT COMPENSATION 481.06 883.34 867.00 00251 UNEMPLOY COMP, NON CERT 252.31 335.26 370.00 00260 WORKERS COMP 304.34 574.81 4,568.00 00261 WORKERS COMP, NON-CERT 130.11 238.47 1,820.00 00290 TUITION REIMBURSEMENT 0.00 276.00 0.00 00310 PROFESSIONAL \u0026amp; TECH SERV 5,720.10 75.00 3,800.00 00318 RENTAL OF EQUIP \u0026amp; VEHICLE 21.05 0.00 0.00 00319 RENTAL OF LAND \u0026amp; BUILDING 140.00 50.00 150.00 00320 RENTAULEASE OF COPIERS 0.00 175.45 100.00 00326 REPAIRS/MAI NT-EQUIP 3,838.76 2,875.39 3,700.00 00331 PUPIL TRANSPORTATION 134.10 184.45 745.00 00332 TRAVEL EXPENSES 2,589.19 5,030.31 20,853.00 00333 INSERVICE REGISTRATION 5,489.00 15,138.88 20,115.00 00334 CAR ALLOWANCE-MONTHLY 2,790.00 3,215.00 3,235.00 00335 INDISTRICT TRAVEL 1,248.67 147.80 1,500.00 00341 TELEPHONE 0.00 6,367.51 2,624.00 00342 POSTAGE 170.38 941.94 1,185.00 00360 PRINTING AND BINDING 10,336.04 7,592.48 14,500.00 00380 FOOD SERVICES 723.28 1,286.76 1,025.00 00398 STAFF DEVELOPMENT 3,500.00 2,400.00 7,600.00 00410 SUPPLIES AND MATERIALS 56,253.91 51,276.44 41,422.00 00411 SUPPLIES AND MATERIALS 0.00 0.00 3,000.00 00420 TEXTBOOKS 0.00 564.45 0.00 00440 PERIODICALS/SUBSCRIPTIONS 894.08 0.00 550.00 00464 GASOLINE AND DIESEL 0.00 500.02 500.00 00540 EQUIPMENT 1,197.15 3,339.21 3,100.00 00630 DUES AND FEES 6,685.00 6,445.00 6,850.00 Page: 45 94-9E Percent o1 Expenses Exp/Bud 7,746.12 88.43% 1,057.26 121.94% 286.31 77.38% 5,800.13 126.97% 1,612.57 88.60% 0.00 1,597.22 42.03% 0.00 300.00 200.00% 411.15 411.15% 722.21 19.52% 0.00 0.00% 13,372.11 64.13% 13,677.37 68.00% 4,230.00 130.76% 133.52 8.90% 1,795.07 68.41% 1,389.93 117.29% 11,542.45 79.60% 2,804.49 273.61% 4,466.23 58.77% 43,654.90 105.39% 0.00 0.00% 0.00 437.44 79.53% 0.00 0.00% 1,559.81 50.32\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_862","title":"Budget: ''North Little Rock School District Budget''","collection_id":"bcas_bcmss0837","collection_title":"Office of Desegregation Management","dcterms_contributor":null,"dcterms_spatial":["United States, 39.76, -98.5","United States, Arkansas, 34.75037, -92.50044","United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, 34.76993, -92.3118","United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, Little Rock, 34.74648, -92.28959"],"dcterms_creator":null,"dc_date":["1995/1996"],"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","North Little Rock School District","Education--Arkansas","Education--Evaluation","Education--Finance","Educational statistics","School buildings","School employees","School facilities"],"dcterms_title":["Budget: ''North Little Rock School District Budget''"],"dcterms_type":["Text"],"dcterms_provenance":["Butler Center for Arkansas Studies"],"edm_is_shown_by":null,"edm_is_shown_at":["http://arstudies.contentdm.oclc.org/cdm/ref/collection/bcmss0837/id/862"],"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":["455 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\nThe transcript for this item was created using Optical Character Recognition (OCR) and may contain some errors.\nTHJEN ORTH lLJIT'JrlLRlEO CK lPlIBlLKCO CHOOlL ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICES 2700 POPLAR STREET Steve Jones Jack, Lyon, \u0026amp; Jones, P.A. Attorneys At Law Ju 1 y 2 1 , 19 9 5 3400 TCBY Tower, 425 W Capitol Little Rock AR 72201-3472 Dear Steve: RECEIVED\n-lam:/- /Jd,'vc\n-c ,L /l.'S:7a,..,, JUL 2 4 1995 Office cf 0esegregat,0,1M onitcr:ng As directed by the July 13, 1995 court order, this document represents the 1995-96 budget for North Little Rock School District. The document contains seven sections--Revenue and Expenditures\nExpenditures by Function, Object, and Function/Object for the Salary, Operating, and Debt Service Funds\nExpenditures by Function, Object, and Function/Object for Federal Funds\nFive Year Revenue and Expenditure Projection\nBudget Notes\nSalary Schedules\nand Program Analysis. The Revenue and Expenditure section provides graphs for 1995-96 projected revenue and expenditures. The revenue graph shows the amount of local, state, and federal revenue projected for the operating, debt service, capital outlay, and federal funds. The expenditure graph shows the combined expenditures projected for the funds included on the revenue graph and the salary fund. This section also provides detailed revenue for the operating budget and the federal programs. The beginning balance, ending balance, and a summary of expenditures for the operating, capital outlay, building/bond, and federal budgets are also included in this section. The second section provides expenditures by function, object, and function/object for the salary, operating, and debt service funds. The third section provides expenditures for Federal Funds. The fourth section of this document provides a five year projection of revenues and expenditures for operating, capitol outlay, buildings, and federal programs. The Budget Notes section provides information regarding local tax revenue reduction, state funding, workers compensation, the need for millage increases, and the loss of desegregation settlement funds. The sixth section of the document contains the end-of-the-year (FY94) salary schedules for administrators, teachers, and classified employees. The program analysis for one new program and one expanded program is included in the final section of the document. P.O. BOX 687, NORTH LITTLE ROCK, AR 72115/0687 so1m1-aooo \"'- .. ,. The 1995-96 budget will be presented for board approval at the August school board meeting. After final approval, the budget will then be submitted to the Arkansas Department of Education and the Office of Desegregation Monitoring. Please contact me if you have questions. Sincerely, Donald Watkins Assistant Superintendent Business Services NORTH LITTLE OCK SCHOOL DI T CT BUDG 995-9 NORTH LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 1995-96 ANNUAL BUDGET TABLE OF CONTENTS Board of Directors, Superintendent and Assistant Superintendents . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 Revenue Graph ................................................................ 2 Expenditure Graph ............................................................. 3 Revenue ..................................................................... 4 EXPENDITURES FOR SALARY, OPERATIONS AND DEBT SERVICE FUNDS by Function ............................................................... 7 by Object ................................................................ 14 by Function/Object ......................................................... 19 EXPENDITURES FOR FEDERAL PROGRAMS by Function .............................................................. 71 by Object ................................................................ 73 by Function/Object ......................................................... 76 Budget Summary Reports ...................................................... 95 State/Local Funded (Unrestricted) Programs- ...................................... 100 State/Local Restricted Programs ................................................ 103 Federal Programs ............................................................ 124 Salary Schedules ............................................................ 142 NORlH UTTI..E ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT BOARD OF EDUCATION Marty Moore, President Larry Shadid, Vice President Teresa Burl, Secretary Pat Blackstone Lynn Hamilton Mable Mitchell Louella Thomas James R Smith, Superintendent Assistant Superintendents Bobby Acklin - Desegregation Bobby New - Instruction Donald Watkins - Business Services -1- NORTH LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT REVENUE STATE REVENUE $21,718,550 51% 1995-1996 LOCAL REVENUE $17,414,350 41% FEDERAL REVENUE $3,057,400 7% TOTAL REVENUE = $42,190,300 -2- NORTH LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT EXPENDITURES SALARIES $30,365,500 1995-1996 DEBT SERVICE $1,304,410 INSURANCE/OTHER $245,750 CAPITAL OUTLAY $1,324,670 SUPPLIES $1,581,700 SERVICES $2,601,320 TUITION $1,317,000 BENEFITS $3,903,770 TOTAL EXPENDITURES = $42,644,120 -3- REVENUE NORTHL ITI'IJI ROCICS CHOOLD ISTRICT RllVBNt7B SUMARY ui.-RESTRICTEDF UNDS LOCAL RBVl!NUE CURRBNTT AXES PULLBACIC ACCRUBD PULLBACIC DBLINQUl!NTT AXES LAND RBDBMPTION COUNTYIN TBRBST BXCESS COMMISSIONS COUNTYG BNERAL SEVERANCET AX INTBRBST TUITION-PCSSD Rl!NT MISCELLANEOUS 1S94-1995 BUDGBT 8,320,000 3,250,000 1,000,000 1,150,000 100,000 50,000 30,000 27,939 4,280 60,000 110,000 20,000 15,000 TOTAL LOCAL UNRESTRICTBDR BVBNUB 14,137,219 STATB RBVl!NUE MINIMUMF OUNDATION SPECIAL EDUCATION M - TO - M PROGRAM 17,693,840 67,150 l,030,000 TOTAL STATB UNRESTRICTBDR BVBNUB 18,790,990 FEDERAL RBVENUE - UNRESTRICTBD PL 874 ROTC/TROOPS-TO-TEACHBRS TOTAL FEDERALU NRESTRICTEDR BV SUBTOTAL OTIIER STATB TRANSPORTATION MAGNBT/M-TO-MTR ANSPORT WORKER'S COMP TOTAL 0'n!ER STATE FUND TRANSFERS TOTAL LOCAL, STATE, \" FEDERALU NRESTRICTBDR BVBNUE 25,000 50,700 75,700 33,003,909 582,575 275,000 141,500 999,075 45,000 34,047,984 1994-1995 ACTUAL 8,519,142.54 3,877,785.03 994,735.19 1,038,918.05 108,438.36 116,547.96 31,760.13 41,908.50 7,822.93 67,270.66 130,367.43 19,760.33 5,675.99 ------------- 14,960,133.10 17,943,314.00 67,150.00 1,065,124.00 19,075,588.00 23,828.00 48,780.43 72,608.43 34,108,329.53 585,122.00 275,000.00 138,524.10 998,646.10 66,572.34 35,173,547.97 -4- 199:,-1996 BUDGET 9,420,500 4,000,000 927,100 1,050,000 100,000 50,000 30,000 28,080 4,385 60,000 120,000 20,000 5,000 ----------- 15,815,065 18,135,103 67,150 1,100,000 19,302,253 20,000 51,150 71,150 35,188,468 585,000 275,000 110,000 970,000 45,000 36,203,468 RBSTRICTBD PONDS LOCAL RBVBNUB TUITION-SUMMERSC HOOL G/T SUMMERO UBST SCHOOL ACTIVITY SALBS CUSTODIAL SERVICES TOYOTA FAMILY LITERACY ROCICBPBLLBRRB STRUCTORING DBSBG AJ:D-LR  PCSSD MISCBLLANBOUS TOTAL LOCAL RBSTRICTED RBVBNUB STATB RBVBNUB VOCATIONALE OUIPMBNI' VOCATIONALS TART-UP KINDERGARTEMN ATERIALS DESBGRBGATIOANI D COMPENSATORAYID CPBP/ACT K-4 SUMMERS CHOOL ABC PRESCHOOL SPECIAL BD. PRESCHOOL SPECIAL BO. RESIDBNI'IAL ALTERNATIVEE DUCATION CARNEGIE RESTRUCTURING MPPA PRIOR YEAR MISCBLLANBOUGSR ANTS TOTAL STATB RBSTRICTED RBVBNUB TOTAL LOCAL  STATE RESTRICTED RBVBNUB FOOD SERVICB RBVBNUB MEAL COLLECTIONS FEDERAL RBIMBURSBMBNT STATE RBIMBURSBMBNT INTEREST OTHER TOTAL FOOD SERVICB NORTH LITI'LB ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT RBVBNUB SUMARY 1994-1995 1994-1995 BODGBT ACTUAL 70,000 83,787.00 15,000 19,735.25 50,000 58,036.05 24,000 24,999.99 11,500 11,500.00 3,000 9,000.00 460,000 481,075.62 54,278 75,338.17 ------------- ------------- 687,778 763,472.08 19,202 18,495.65 9,360 9,347.19 8,148 8,148.00 389,025 389,025.00 222,000 218,086.00 25,000 55,597.78 145,000 93,512.01 234,116 234,116.00 287,638 339,586.00 35,000 35,029.81 37,750 37,750.00 12,500 12,500.00 135,137 135,137.65 123,000 123,550.00 ------------- ------------- 1,682,876 1,709,881.09 ------------- ------------- 2,370,654 2,473,353.17 ------------- ----------- 638,000.00 689,399.43 1,320,000.00 1,321,184.89 25,000.00 24,462.46 15,000.00 2,395.41 3,000.00 14,641 .15CR ------------- ------------- 2,001,000.00 2,022,801.04 -------------- - -5- 1995-1996 BODGB'I' 80,000 19,000 55,000 26,000 0 15,000 207,670 57,000 ------------ 459,670 18,000 0 0 389,025 125,100 40,000 145,000 234,116 356,085 35,000 0 12,500 0 500 ------------ 1,355,326 ------------- 1,814,996 ............ 648,000.00 1,350,000.00 25,000.00 12,000.00 15,000.00 ------------ 2,050,000.00 -------------- PB'OERAl, RBVENOE-RFSTRI':T!'!l CHAPTIIR I CHAPTIIR II VOCATIONAL, CAIIL PIIIUCINS TITLB VI-B PL U-313 MBDICAID MBDICAID, PRBSCHOOL SPBCIAL ID. PRBSCHOOL SPICIAL BDOCATiaf BCC IIBAD START BVB11 START JTPA LBAIUf-A-LIVIJIG 1'0RTB LI'lTLI IIOCX SCIIOOL DISTllICT -.vlllltlS SCNART 1994-1995 1994-1995 BUOCE'. ).::!\"\\,\n_ l,8'0,,25 l, H2, 953. 00 59,791 59,791.00 l\u0026lt;l7,209 l\u0026lt;l7,209.00 3\"5,912 3\u0026lt;l5,162.00 15,1'8 1',118.00 30,000 \u0026lt;ll,113.1' 15,000 2,831.72 U\u0026lt;l,530 U\u0026lt;l,529.00 36,70\u0026lt;( \u0026lt;l0,38\".00 ,a.no U,181.00 116,100 11',100.00 2,,000 23,603.U JTPA-CAPDD LBAIUf-A-LIVDIG 85,295 75,702. o, DRUG BDOCATIOII 54,49\" 54,49\".00 MATII/SCIINCB, BISBIIHOIIBR ,2,,21 51,216.00 HOMBLISS ASSISTAHCI 21,000 11,539.00 ENERGY, EXXON 47,950 33,048.00 ---------- ------------ TOTAL PEDERAl, RBVBNOII 3,\u0026lt;(04,379 3,354,374.38 CAPITAL OUTLAY RBVBNUB: CUR.REln' TAXIS 186,900 193,009.1, PULLBACJt TAXIS 125,000 385,417.10 PULLBACIC - ACCRUBD 37,300 111,822.68 DBLINQUBNT TAXIS 33,000 30,\u0026lt;(57 .96 EXCESS COMMISSION 800 882. 07 INTEREST 2,000 2,491.76 ............................. ----------- TOTAL CAPITAL OUTLAY 385,000 724,080.73 BUILDING FUND REVENUB: SALES 0 3,000.50 INTEREST 50,000 76,532.92 OTHER 0 .00 ------------- ------------- TOTAL BUILDING FUND 50,000 79,533.42 SALB OP BONDS 0 .00 TOTAL RBVBNOII \u0026lt;(2,259,017.00 \"3,827,690.71 -6- 1995-1996 9,'IY\"E'T 1,623,000 77,558 1\"0,043 353,100 0 ,0.000 10,000 ,oa. 195 36,70\u0026lt;( 58,UO 116,100 0 0 40,000 51,205 17,000 H,950 ------------ 2,986,265 634,000 385,U0 86,960 30,000 800 2,400 ----------- 1,139,600 2,000 U,000 0 ---------- 50,000 3,225,000 \u0026lt;l7,4U,329 EXPENDITURES BY FUNCTION\nOBJECT\nAND FUNCTION/OBJECT FOR SALARY (01) OPERATING (02) AND DEBT SERVICE (04) North Little Rock Public Schools 1992-1995 Expenditures by Function Funds: Salary (01 ): Operatina (2): Debt Service (04) 92-93 93-94 94-95 94-95 95-96 Fund Fnct Description Expenses Expenses Budget Expenses BudQet 01 1000 INSTRUCTION 0.00 0.00 0.00 11,857.62 0.00 02 1105 PRESCHOOL 119,761.99 170,817.77 129,944.00 122,192.41 127,152.00 01 1110 KINDERGARTEN 1,125,722.30 1,084,841.48 1,118,200.00 1,157,672.93 1,145,000.00 02 1110 KINDERGARTEN 93,805.50 98,542.71 101,848.00 107,420.26 101,450.00 01 1120 ELEMENTARY 4,942,200.72 5,352,864.41 5,195,500.00 5,216,809.35 5,273,000.00 02 1120 ELEMENTARY 513,465.65 559,819.76 811,003.00 624,057.84 702,777.00 02 1121 ELEMENTARY MUSIC 2,451.76 4,285.45 1,000.00 1,973.87 1,100.00 02 1122 LANGUAGE ARTS 21.57 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 02 1123 MATHEMATICS 556.76 0.00 0.00 14,625.59 5,500.00 02 1124 SCIENCE 72.22 0.00 0.00 0.00 1,700.00 01 1130 MIDDLE SCHOOL 2,025,258.66 2,354,532.83 2,421,600.00 2,332,390.81 2,262,800.00 02 1130 MIDDLE SCHOOL 253,749.33 296,486.86 374,637.00 311,421.98 361,236.00 02 1131 MUSIC 934.71 8,805.50 12,297.00 11,450.31 2,530.00 02 1132 LANGUAGE ARTS 1,197.49 1,139.79 1,483.00 934.85 1,738.00 02 1133 MATHEMATICS 1,598.93 6,548.26 6,111.00 1,914.59 3,994.00 02 1134 SCIENCE 3,633.06 2,303.78 2,748.00 2,638.19 1,975.00 02 1135 SOCIAL STUDIES 716.89 1,056.22 1,030.00 871.38 1,055.00 02 1136 SPEECH \u0026amp; DRAMA 81.61 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 02 1137 ART 1,707.73 1,483.84 2,680.00 3,648.32 2,770.00 02 1139 PHYSICAL EDUCATION 721.13 387.13 1,405.00 824.90 1,277.00 01 1140 HIGH SCHOOL 3,426,737.10 3,679,926.22 3,700,700.00 3,793,052.15 3,676,000.00 02 1140 HIGH SCHOOL 329,844.19 410,072.03 582,278.00 505,270.29 587,748.00 02 1141 MUSIC 56,440.14 19,237.04 19,450.00 16,707.68 3,000.00 02 1142 LANGUAGE ARTS 1,154.39 1,036.71 1,600.00 1,644.67 1,600.00 02 1143 MATHEMATICS 7,228.82 863.68 1,400.00 1,730.82 1,400.00 02 1144 SCIENCE 2,811.59 3,045.56 3,700.00 7,527.70 5,900.00 02 1145 SOCIAL STUDIES 917.14 1,387.56 1,250.00 1,515.80 1,150.00 02 1146 SPEECH AND DRAMA 353.19 0.00 400.00 88.10 300.00 02 1147 ART 2,854.22 2,687.48 1,700.00 647.38 1,300.00 Page: 7 North Little Rock Public Schools 1992-1995 Expenditures by Function Funds: Salary (01 )\nOperatin~ (2)\nDebt Service (04) 92-93 93-94 94-95 94-95 95-96 Fund Fnct Description Expenses Expenses Budget Expenses BudQet 02 1148 RADIOfTV 2,029.62 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 02 1149 PHYSICAL EDUCATION 587.40 416.10 500.00 487.69 400.00 02 1150 ATHLETICS 922.50 21,993.61 3,500.00 5,576.70 0.00 02 1151 BOYS ATHLETICS 48,525.33 48,428.68 54,750.00 49,672.17 56,850.00 02 1152 GIRLS ATHLETICS 19,121.21 14,532.51 22,000.00 19,802.80 22,400.00 02 1153 (:OMBINED ATHLETICS 8,292.74 16,304.51 19,800.00 18,815.44 22,450.00 02 1160 STUDENT ACTIVITIES 0.00 7,051.09 1,000.00 889.40 9,025.00 02 1161 CHEER 2,964.59 11,786.45 8,110.00 6,225.99 0.00 02 1162 DRILL 1,875.46 0.00 7,800.00 6,803.99 0.00 02 1165 BAND 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 18,820.00 02 1166 CHOIR 0.00 0.00 0.00 593.76 6,030.00 02 1191 SUMMER SCHOOL 89,059.92 93,393.39 240,470.00 255,088.61 242,346.00 02 1192 DRIVER EDUCATION 18,601.08 19,315.86 22,995.00 21,611.61 22,200.00 02 1193 MINI GRANTS 4,630.44 4,494.03 5,000.00 4,585.06 5,000.00 02 1194 ACT/PSAT SUMMER SCHOO 29,669.41 27,905.27 36,457.00 35,906.77 34,486.00 02 1195 SATURDAY DETENTION 5,465.74 5,110.96 6,675.00 4,620.20 6,675.00 01 1199 JROTCINSTRUCTOR 0.00 0.00 83,300.00 74,845.42 77,100.00 02 1199 JROTCINSTRUCTOR 0.00 0.00 0.00 36,291.49 38,460.00 01 1210 ITINERANT/HOME BOUND 75,015.07 78,925.33 81,250.00 93,483.12 96,700.00 02 1210 ITINERANT/HOME BOUND 5,786.21 7,995.42 7,050.00 8,018.66 10,200.00 01 1215 VISION IMPAIRED 0.00 0.00 0.00 26,043.96 26,850.00 02 1215 VISION IMPAIRED 0.00 0.00 0.00 2,163.94 2,200.00 01 1220 RESOURCE ROOM 1,164,399.94 1,535,149.75 1,580,000.00 1,908,256.00 1,916,500.00 02 1220 RESOURCE ROOM 88,209.13 116,962.39 134,885.00 159,613.16 160,710.00 02 1230 SPECIAL CLASS 1: 15 5,832.17 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 01 1240 SPECIAL CLASS 1:10/BA 659,049.10 529,506.64 545,000.00 375,754.39 387,200.00 02 1240 SPECIAL CLASS 1:10/BA 49,077.48 57,708.52 102,860.00 79,040.09 145,077:00 01 1250 SPECIAL CLASS, 1 :6 188,085.82 179,976.77 185,500.00 90,131.85 93,800.00 02 1250 SPECIAL CLASS, 1 :6 28,486.45 29,362.68 33,400.00 23,964.83 25,196.00 Page: 8 North Little Rock Public Schools 1992-1995 Expenditures by Function Funds: Salarv (01 ): Ooeratina (2): Debt Service (04) 92-93 93-94 94-95 94-95 95-96 Fund Fnct Description Expenses Expenses Budget Expenses Budget 01 1260 PRIVATE DAY SCHOOL 0.00 63,001.89 25,000.00 134,879.95 125,000.00 02 1260 PRIVATE DAY SCHOOL 2,212.20 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 02 1271 ACT 591 HANDICAPPED, RE 8,629.20 11,066.61 10,000.00 12,051.54 10,000.00 02 1272 ACT 591, NON-HANDICAPPE 17,571.13 30,291.27 25,000.00 23,008.67 25,000.00 01 1280 PUBLIC DAY SCHOOL 130,713.72 136,403.28 140,400.00 154,081.04 158,700.00 02 1280 PUBLIC DAY SCHOOL 12,889.62 13,080.51 21,150.00 17,969.60 31,757.00 02 1285 BARING CROSS WORK PRO 0.00 12,489.12 12,425.00 14,393.61 14,140.00 02 1290 EARLY CHILDHOOD, HANOI 108,711.27 161,866.71 160,824.00 157,867.98 194,655.00 01 1320 DISTRIBUTIVE EDUCATION 80,524.69 86,127.89 88,700.00 44,764.32 46,400.00 02 1320 DISTRIBUTIVE EDUCATION 10,733.13 10,733.83 9,969.00 5,416.72 6,054.00 01 1330 BUSINESS EDUCATION 366,005.06 391,647.97 396,500.00 409,517.76 421,800.00 02 1330 BUSINESS EDUCATION 68,227.45 66,084.40 81,793.00 95,956.86 74,383.00 01 1350 TRADE AND INDUSTRIAL 259,903.38 278,527.46 282,000.00 238,423.78 156,900.00 02 1350 TRADE AND INDUSTRIAL 77,329.25 67,949.63 52,267.00 40,187.65 25,536.00 01 1352 PRINCIPLES OF TECHNOLO 63,137.94 67,499.54 69,700.00 69,801.48 72,000.00 02 1352 PRINCIPLES OF TECHNOLO 33,933.71 6,026.53 7,900.00 6,562.25 8,536.00 02 1354 TELEVISION PRODUCTION 13,957.82 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 02 1355 TELEVISION PRODUCTION 0.00 0.00 13,500.00 12,872.96 23,984.00 01 1360 HOME EC 286,119.03 282,091.81 291,000.00 295,346.14 304,600.00 02 1360 HOME EC 34,395.05 39,782.80 42,119.00 38,039.87 35,319.00 01 1370 CAREER ORIENTATION 48,449.20 53,913.34 55,600.00 78,639.47 81,100.00 02 1370 CAREER ORIENTATION 9,231.33 6,264.81 10,840.00 12,857.78 9,480.00 02 1380 WORKPLACE READINESS 0.00 4,546.77 1,000.00 316.35 1,150.00 01 1390 SPECIAL NEEDS EDUCATIO 363,105.62 350,815.36 362,000.00 345,306.96 355,200.00 02 1390 SPECIAL NEEDS EDUCATIO 71,257.64 69,797.52 47,433.00 41,452.17 39,514.00 02 1510 BASIC SKILLS 0.00 4,362.79 4,087.00 2,353.97 0.00 02 1520 DROPOUT PREVENTION 19,931.81 14,738.08 15,720.00 14,565.54 0.00 02 1522 VITAL LINKS PROGRAM 11,798.37 10,328.44 13,350.00 1,279.18 13,000.00 01 1525 ALTERNATIVE ED PROGRA 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 21,950.00 Page: 9 North Little Rock Public Schools 1992-1995 Expenditures by Function Funds: Salary (01 )\nOperating (2): Debt Service (04) 92-93 93-94 94-95 94-95 95-96 Fund Fnct Description Expenses Expenses Budget Expenses Budget 02 1525 ALTERNATIVE ED PROGRA 223,574.19 229,784.31 368,515.00 325,845.46 37,160.00 02 1550 EARLY CHILDHOOD EDUC 124,898.65 120,760.93 111,147.00 111,647.56 2,940.00 02 1555 HIPPY 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 87,374.00 01 1560 READING 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 850.00 02 1560 READING 0.00 79,685.61 74,630.00 75,709.52 72,700.00 02 1590 OTHER COMP ED 152,333.13 167,730.99 157,325.00 150,500.16 178,000.00 02 1591 COMPEDPARENTIHOMEW 115,841.03 109,134.13 89,518.00 75,868.38 75,895.00 02 1592 COMP ED ELE EXTEND DAY 29,957.18 499.93 0.00 0.00 0.00 01 1593 COMP ED TURNING POINT 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 21,225.00 02 1593 COMP ED TURNING POINT 42,826.09 42,771.43 43,900.00 33,646.05 1,780.00 02 1594 COMP ED PALS LAB 58,295.09 10,966.98 0.00 0.00 0.00 01 1910 GIFTED AND TALENTED 405,353.20 390,136.80 401,900.00 378,380.58 389,800.00 02 1910 GIFTED AND TALENTED 67,758.57 49,117.85 74,981.00 54,017.06 72,790.00 01 1911 GfT PROJECT PROMISE 10,040.08 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 02 1911 GfT PROJECT PROMISE 2,424.63 7,624.89 0.00 0.00 2,000.00 02 1912 GfT SUMMER QUEST 2,675.74 16,200.52 23,000.00 22,932.72 23,605.00 01 1913 GfT MATHEMATICS 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 19,500.00 02 1913 GfT MATHEMATICS 7,149.61 19,818.44 23,200.00 18,027.89 3,635.00 01 1950 ALTERNATIVE SCHOOL 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 251,150.00 02 1950 ALTERNATIVE SCHOOL 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 200,815.00 02 1990 OTHER INSTRUCTIONAL SE 2,718.68 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 02 2101 54,612.91 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 02 2102 * 166,860.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 02 2110 ATTEND \u0026amp; SOCIAL WRK SE 15,669.53 69,798.26 45,450.00 50,304.30 61,252.00 01 2120 GUIDANCE/COUNSELING S 843,592.20 905,111.89 932,000.00 919,726.65 949,500.00 02 2120 GUIDANCE/COUNSELING S 170,218.18 177,093.39 191,500.00 189,001.54 255,615.00 02 2123 APPRAISAL SERVICES 14,044.28 12,833.53 16,700.00 15,519.97 10,700.00 02 2130 HEAL TH SERVICES 86,756.63 92,450.67 97,800.00 104,196.23 107,020.00 01 2140 PSYCHOLOGICAL SERVICE 158,965.08 174,376.81 179,700.00 152,138.13 156,900.00 Page: 10 North Little Rock Public Schools 1992-1995 Expenditures by Function Funds: Salarv (01 ): Ooeratina (2): Debt Service (04) 92-93 93-94 94-95 94-95 95-96 Fund Fnct Description Expenses Expenses Budget Expenses Budget 02 2140 PSYCHOLOGICAL SERVICE 69,707.68 78,503.21 66,825.00 74,304.74 12,980.00 01 2150 SPEECH PATH/AUDIOLOGY 387,373.48 389,677.14 401,100.00 359,791.83 370,400.00 02 2150 SPEECH PATH/AUDIOLOGY 71,168.22 169,571.20 210,095.00 205,918.58 168,265.00 01 2160 PHYS \u0026amp; OCC THERAPY 62,688.24 61,774.94 71,200.00 71,362.96 73,500.00 02 2160 PHYS \u0026amp; OCC THERAPY 4,686.25 23,806.74 50,300.00 50,278.40 6,039.00 01 2190 PTHER PUPIL SUPPORT SE 0.00 0.00 62,200.00 51,327.62 61,300.00 02 2190 OTHER PUPIL SUPPORT SE 34,518.96 4,230.33 42,450.00 49,058.36 57,065.00 02 2193 NATL SCIENCE FOUND GR 0.00 7,514.17 0.00 0.00 0.00 02 2195 STUDENT ASSIGNMENT CL 0.00 0.00 0.00 30,625.29 154,000.00 01 2210 INSTRUCTION/SUPERVISIO 415,391.85 555,826.07 572,000.00 638,940.43 663,800.00 02 2210 INSTRUCTION/SUPERVISIO 358,615.51 432,415.69 461,735.00 467,951.61 481,456.00 02 2211 INSTRUCTION COE/NGA 4,112.74 4,788.47 10,200.00 1,558.73 10,200.00 02 2212 ELEMENTARY INSERVICE 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 01 2215 CH I ADM/INSTRUCTION 13,987.57 29,875.38 30,900.00 15,417.75 16,000.00 02 2215 CH I ADM/INSTRUCTION 6,349.67 7,934.50 8,600.00 14,164.43 14,778.00 02 2216 CURRICULUM FRAMEWORK 18.80 585.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 02 2217 CELEBRATION OF TEACHIN 0.00 1,058.82 0.00 0.00 0.00 02 2218 INSERVICE-ADE CURRICUL 15,138.45 37,371.68 75,000.00 22,969.44 52,000.00 02 2219 INSERVICE-ADE READING 3,087.45 1,024.26 16,160.00 2,882.83 13,277.00 01 2220 EDUCATION MEDIA SERVIC 587,960.59 583,299.87 600,500.00 572,554.59 591,100.00 02 2220 EDUCATION MEDIA SERVIC 389,728.15 393,832.93 522,555.00 409,280.82 412,182.00 02 2225 INSTRUCTIONAL COMPUTE 18,376.87 31,540.40 21,120.00 17,326.04 24,000.00 02 2295 * 3,432.93 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 02 2310 BOARD OF EDUCATION SE 256,980.24 232,666.92 250,000.00 259,918.27 257,950.00 01 2320 SUPERINTENDENT'S OFFIC 84,204.50 90,110.93 92,800.00 94,041.52 95,780.00 02 2320 SUPERINTENDENT'S OFFIC 64,552.63 71,545.48 81,000.00 61,625.21 75,592.00 01 2321 ASST SUPT INSTRUCTION 56,890.69 61,420.65 63,400.00 65,456.68 67,400.00 02 2321 ASST SUPT INSTRUCTION 28,456.94 31,254.60 33,500.00 32,766.13 35,943.00 01 2322 ASST SUPT BUSINESS SER 55,764.93 60,260.25 62,100.00 61,528.15 63,400.00 - Page: 11 North Little Rock Public Schools 1992-1995 Expenditures by Function Funds: Salarv (01 ): Ooeratina (2): Debt Service (04) 92-93 93-94 94-95 94-95 95-96 Fund Fnct Description Expenses Expenses Budget Expenses Budget 02 2322 ASST SUPT BUSINESS SER 28,921.34 32,146.80 35,480.00 33,486.67 36,090.00 01 2323 ASST SUPT PUPIL SERVICE 55,925.22 60,260.38 0.00 9,871.22 0.00 02 2323 ASST SUPT PUPIL SERVICE 30,917.11 32,046.62 250.00 5,081.49 0.00 01 2324 ASST SUPT DESEGREGATI 52,149.08 56,351.85 58,050.00 56,272.34 58,100.00 02 2324 ASST SUPT DESEGREGATI 40,007.65 45,566.17 53,050.00 43,701.22 43,495.00 01 2400 PRINCIPAL'S OFFICE 1,040,705.36 1,092,383.33 1,125,000.00 1,089,182.79 1,121,680.00 02 2400 PRINCIPAL'S OFFICE 596,111.12 664,246.46 697,927.00 703,381.72 758,663.00 01 2401 ASST. PRINCIPALS 0.00 0.00 610,000.00 629,884.45 648,310.00 02 2401 ASST. PRINCIPALS 0.00 0.00 51,600.00 52,685.60 53,530.00 01 2410 ASST PRINCIPAL'S OFFICE 449,509.91 592,413.59 0.00 0.00 0.00 02 2410 ASST PRINCIPAL'S OFFICE 33,473.10 44,953.29 0.00 0.00 0.00 02 2510 BUSINESS SUPPORT SERVI 104,622.58 113,937.05 120,500.00 119,373.14 126,160.00 02 2515 BUSINESS-FINANCE/AUDIT! 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 82,540.00 01 2540 M \u0026amp; 0 OF PLANT SERVICES 55,794.93 60,298.41 62,150.00 61,565.76 63,500.00 02 2540 M \u0026amp; 0 OF PLANT SERVICES 3,873,345.31 1,488,145.08 1,144,950.00 1,610,805.83 1,435,128.00 02 2541 M \u0026amp; O-CUSTODIAL SERVICE 0.00 1,241,626.19 1,280,300.00 1,324,593.18 1,343,000.00 02 2549 M \u0026amp; 0 UTILITIES \u0026amp; INSUR 0.00 1,428,033.30 1,468,675.00 1, 160,628.52 1,240,250.00 02 2550 PUPIL TRANSPORTATIONS 1,121,656.19 1,050,789.35 1,089,330.00 1,033,987.82 268,120.00 02 2551 MECHANICS 0.00 0.00 0.00 236,077.16 245,220.00- 02 2552 BUS DRIVERS 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 774,350.00 02 2553 BUS AIDES 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 74,460.00 02 2555 MAGNET/M-TO-M TRANSP. 0.00 31,619.12 16,064.00 32,757.14 13,700.00 01 2570 INTERNAL SERVICES 55,795.01 60,298.53 62,150.00 65,555.10 67,600.00 02 2570 INTERNAL SERVICES 60,570.76 91,199.29 45,150.00 81,583.01 78,985.00 02 2630 INFORMATION SERVICES 35,111.12 35,494.94 13,000.00 37,460.01 39,150.00 01 2640 PERSONNEL SERVICES 55,794.96 60,298.41 62,150.00 61,565.76 63,500.00 02 2640 PERSONNEL SERVICES 31,535.66 36,929.52 66,700.00 64,468.88 65,330.00 01 2660 DATA PROCESSING SERVIC 45,833.07 48,590.49 50,100.00 49,590.96 51,100.00 02 2660 DATA PROCESSING SERVIC 120,055.54 140,061.19 152,730.00 158,442.38 163,840.00 Page: 12 North Little Rock Public Schools 1992-1995 Expenditures by Function Funds: Salary (01 ): Operating (2): Debt Service (04) 92-93 93-94 94-95 94-95 95-96 Fund Fnct Description Expenses Expenses Budget Expenses Budget 02 2900 OTHER SUPPORTING SERV 890.00 2,718.67 1,000.00 890.00 0.00 02 2901 CROSSING GUARDS 0.00 56,271.57 59,000.00 63,877.05 67,260.00 02 2902 BREAKFAST/LUNCH AIDES 0.00 187,129.87 197,850.00 199,195.63 217,200.00 02 2905 VIPS 0.00 4,478.28 5,350.00 188.00 3,000.00 02 3900 OTHER COMMUNITY SERVI 425.33 3,108.00 4,500.00 3,589.50 1,500.00 01 4100 PAYMENTS TO OTHERS 1,067,374.16 1,116,219.65 1,092,000.00 1,104,025.15 1, 192,000.00 02 4400 INDIRECT COSTS 3,472.21 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 02 4900 PAYMENT TO STATE 5,178.96 12,253.92 9,000.00 8,002.46 12,000.00 04 5100 BONDED INDEBTEDNESS 711,056.79 1,130,326.40 1,047,525.00 1,048,392.25 1,251,700.00 04 5101 BONDED INDEBTEDNESS-P 43,619.74 23,351.50 23,350.00 18,769.85 18,578.00 04 5102 BONDED INDEBTEDNESS-L 35,164.62 35,092.04 35,095.00 35,416.64 34,130.00 District Totals 33,015,228.07 36,224,356.65 37,293,525.00 37,339,951.78 38,432,067.00 Page: 13 North Little Rock Public Schools 1992-1995 Expenditures by Object Funds: Salary (01 )\nOperating (02)\nDebt Service (04) 92-93 93-94 94-95 94-95 95-96 Fund Object Description Expenses Expenses Budget Expenses Budget 01 00110 REGULAR CERTIFICATED 16,742,398.94 18,069,269.74 18,382,600.00 18,369,424.17 18,587,800.00 02 00110 REGULAR CERTIFICATED 359,620.58 606,633.28 671,329.00 680,513.42 656,517.00 01 00115 CERTIFIED ADMIN 2,490,301.96 2,790,319.05 2,874,200.00 2,851,452.52 2,941,700.00 02 00115 CERTIFIED ADMIN 15,403.00 31,900.82 61,723.00 63,990.96 19,088.00 02 00120 REGULAR NON-CERTIFICATE 4,433,555.87 4,797,606.80 4,724,852.00 5,234,121.81 5,640,501.00 02 00125 NON-CERTIFIED ADMIN 222,770.10 224,202.98 186,425.00 188,483.34 253,150.00 01 00130 SUBSTITUTE TEACHERS 281,727.57 306,194.40 309,000.00 269,446.00 283,000.00 02 00130 SUBSTITUTE TEACHERS 2,385.56 260.00 10,000.00 437.80 4,720.00 01 00131 ASSIGNED SUBSTITUTES 59,687.70 71,807.90 72,000.00 83,661.00 66,000.00 02 00131 ASSIGNED SUBSTITUTES 0.00 0.00 2,075.00 2,074.00 0.00 02 00140 SUBSTITUTES, NON-CERT. 22,268.10 24,835.20 24,800.00 34,267.80 26,300.00 02 00150 STIPENDS-WORKSHOPS 24,500.38 28,220.59 29,060.00 30,666.25 15,498.00 02 00151 STIPENDS NON-CERTIFIED 0.00 0.00 0.00 560.00 0.00 02 00155 STIPENDS-OTHER 0.00 1,300.95 6,530.00 8,482.04 483.00 02 00156 STIPENDS-OTHER NON-CERT 0.00 0.00 0.00 170.00 170.00 02 00210 SOCIAL SECURITY TAX 1,474,276.85 1,627,892.40 1,728,152.00 1,670,082.91 1,726,751.00 02 00211 SS TAX, NON-CERTIFIED 346,599.03 375,122.62 401,043.00 406,633.11 443,097.00 02 00212 SS TAX, STIPENDS 0.00 2,189.28 5,200.00 2,345.74 1,599.00 02 00213 SS TAX STIPENDS NON CERT 0.00 0.00 0.00 42.84 0.00 02 00214 SS TAX STIPENDS-OTHER 0.00 99.52 260.00 648.87 0.00 02 00221 TEACH RETIRE, NON CERT 0.00 0.00 2,105.00 0.00 3,500.00 02 00231 PUBLIC EMPLOYEES RET SYS 62,632.45 61,803.78 62,550.00 60,971.50 66,775.00 01 00240 INSURANCE 524,031.13 528,287.71 448,550.00 538,040.63 545,495.00 02 00240 INSURANCE 7,233.85 8,777.82 13,345.00 12,035.30 12,040.00 02 00241 INSURANCE, NON-CERT 160,878.40 167,475.73 175,655.00 175,531.80 228,455.00 02 00250 UNEMPLOYMENTCOMPENSA 25,064.50 33,729.21 38,6.90.00 33,552.77 13,142.00 02 00251 UNEMPLOY COMP, NON CERT 7,997.67 7,332.51 9,110.00 8,142.93 9,573.00 - 02 00252 UNEMPLOYMENT COMP,STIP 0.00 0.00 10.00 0.00 36.00 -- 02 00260 WORKERS COMP 13,177.96 23,104.34 106,912.00 191,829.96 161237.0Q Page: 14 North Little Rock Public Schools 1992-1995 Expenditures by Object Funds: Salarv (01 ): Operatina (02): Debt Service (04t 92-93 93-94 94-95 94-95 95-96 Fund Object Description Expenses Expenses Budget Expenses Budget 02 00261 WORKERS COMP, NON-CERT 3,032.38 5,310.35 117,591.00 150,546.12 158,677.00 02 00262 WORKER'S COMP, STIPENDS 0.00 0.00 40.00 0.00 151.00 01 00290 TUITION REIMBURSEMENT 0.00 9,637.00 10,000.00 8,309.50 15,000.00 02 00300 PURCHASED SERVICES 0.00 0.00 0.00 (52,305.88 0.00 02 00310 PROFESSIONAL \u0026amp; TECH SERV 227,589.66 236,917.38 317,505.00 304,098.30 242,350.00 02 00311 CONSOLIDATION LAWSUIT SE 77,853.85 85,080.99 85,000.00 78,995.70 85,000.00 02 00312 LEGAL SERVICES 42,489.33 32,551.77 35,000.00 19,091.24 35,350.00 02 00313 ELECTION SERVICES 9,734.22 8,636.03 9,500.00 11,640.24 9,500.00 02 00314 DESEGREGATION MONITOR 41,211.61 50,322.00 60,000.00 62,253.00 67,500.00 02 00315 AUDIT SERVICES 15,700.00 15,950.00 16,250.00 16,100.00 16,500.00 02 00316 SECURITY SERVICES 43,605.93 46,942.81 53,125.00 43,742.25 46,250.00 02 00317 MAGNET REVIEW COMMITTEE 50,000.00 25,000.00 25,000.00 25,000.00 25,000.00 02 00318 RENTAL OF EQUIP \u0026amp; VEHICLE 8,664.68 12,403.12 11,850.00 24,230.84 12,500.00 02 00319 RENTAL OF LAND \u0026amp; BUILDING 6,025.66 3,756.04 4,700.00 4,805.69 4,850.00 02 00320 RENTAULEASE OF COPIERS 22,795.45 18,147.81 16,975.00 25,799.90 13,925.00 02 00321 UTITLITY SERVICES-GAS 212,020.84 218,463.09 224,125.00 159,194.84 185,700.00 02 00322 UTILITY SERVICES-ELECT 764,066.41 799,413.36 787,275.00 689,241.78 712,200.00 02 00323 UTILTITY SERVICES-WATER 61,988.98 67,832.82 70,225.00 60,777.89 59,700-.00 02 00324 CLEANING SERVICES 275.74 477.58 900.00 43.06 1,000.00 02 00325 REPAI RS/MAINT-BLD/GRNDS 45,546.71 48,636.18 11,000.00 71,399.13 20,500.00 02 00326 REPAIRS/MAINT-EQUIP 103,340.24 84,652.77 105,417.00 96,586.50 92,200.00 02 00327 REPAIRS/MAINT-BUSNEHICLE 12,860.03 25,190.82 23,949.00 17,764.41 20,550.00 02 00328 REPAIRS/MAINT-SEC SYSTEM 1,702.13 2,342.10 1,000.00 0.00 5,000.00 02 00329 WASTE DISPOSAL 35,571.83 51,843.37 62,100.00 53,038.07 49,300.00 02 00331 PUPIL TRANSPORTATION 78,784.03 177,064.18 225,007.00 185,342.66 76,415.00 - 02 00332 TRAVEL EXPENSES 16,933.70 33,884.59 62,293.00 24,890.85 66,535.00 - 02 00333 INSERVICE REGISTRATION 17,993.55 27,067.40 33,265.00 29,379.67 24,445.00 --- 02 00334 CAR ALLOWANCE-MONTHLY 23,055.00 24,451.06 22,790.00 24,713.10 23,985.00 -- 02 00335 INDISTRICT TRAVEL 10,227.24 12,858.10 13,436.00 9,119.38 11,750.0-0 Page: 15 North Little Rock Public Schools 1992-1995 Expenditures by Object Funds: Salary (01 )\nOperating (02)\nDebt Service (041 92-93 93-94 94-95 94-95 95-96 Fund Object Description_ Expenses Expenses Budget Expenses Budget 02 - 00338 ENTRANCE FEES 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 2,150.00 02 00340 REPAIRS-TELEPHONE 573.58 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 02 00341 TELEPHONE 118,770.02 171,947.59 171,154.00 116,510.03 119,469.00 02 00342 POSTAGE 18,348.12 42,491.81 31,248.00 53,211.74 27,226.00 02 00350 ADVERTISING 1,245.92 2,347.52 2,950.00 1,125.27 3,085.00 02 00355, WRECKER SERVICE 1,940.00 2,490.00 2,200.00 2,150.00 1,600.00 02 00360 PRINTING AND BINDING 26,086.14 17,286.91 31,220.00 20,699.00 20,685.00 02 - 00361 DATA PROCESSING SERVICE 0.00 0.00 1,000.00 0.00 1,000.00 01 00370 TUITION 21,988.00 84,173.89 52,000.00 159,368.95 152,000.00 02 - 00370 TUITION 45,400.33 50,177.88 47,000.00 35,060.21 49,100.00 01 00371 TUTION - PCSSD 122,087.84 110,453.11 115,000.00 130,181.69 115,000.00 01 00372 TUITION - MAGNET 923,298.32 984,594.54 950,000.00 949,354.46 1,050,000.00 02 00380 FOOD SERVICES 2,012.61 5,421.86 12,300.00 13,076.27 8,040.00 - 02 00383 FIRE SAFETY SERVICE 1,158.51 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 02 00385 M\u0026amp;O/CUSTODIAL SERVICES 2,044.00 0.00 9,785.00 6,574.00 9,785.00 02 -00390 OTHER PURCHASED SERVICE 5,178.96 61,293.77 41,000.00 84,282.29 63,690.00 02 00391 PHOTOGRAPHY 222.43 367.28 400.00 623.22 500.00 02 00392 TRASH/WASTE SERVICES 1,094.94 0.00 0.00 0.00 1,500.00 02 00394 SECURITY OFFICER SERVICE 1,410.00 3,725.00 5,000.00 3,685.50 5,100.00 02 00398 STAFF DEVELOPMENT 3,500.00 2,872.50 13,500.00 10,066.23 8,000.00 02 00400 SUPPLIES \u0026amp; MATERIALS 0.00 0.00 0.00 (281,409.07 (75,000.00 ,-. - 02 00401 SUPPLIES, TOOLS \u0026amp; SM EQUI 3,156.13 3,086.20 3,000.00 3,289.24 2,000.00 02 - 00405 SALES AND USE TAX 0.00 0.00 160.00 0.00 160.00 02 00410 SUPPLIES AND MATERIALS 549,757.65 615,622.06 584,473.00 695,746.85 544,631.00 02 00411 SUPPLIES AND MATERIALS 66,375.02 59,798.76 56,400.00 98,139.53 200.00 ---- 02 00412 --SUPPLIES ELECTRICAL 55,842.24 42,562.86 30,000.00 60,289.12 40,000.00 02 00413 SUPPLIES PLUMBING 15,285.59 25,882.25 28,000.00 33,780.19 27,000.00 02 00414 SUPPLIES FLOORING 1,648.56 1,407.96 2,500.00 752.21 _ 2,500.QQ -02 00415 SUPPLIES ROOFING 9,281.83 9,564.81 10,000.00 __ 7,670.59 7,000.00_ Page: 16 North Little Rock Public Schools 1992-1995 Expenditures by Object Funds: Salary (01 ): Operatina- (02): Debt Service (04) 92-93 93-94 94-95 94-95 95-96 Fund Object Description Expenses Expenses Budget Expenses Budget 02 00416 SUPPLIES HARDWARE 39,840.67 36,903.71 25,000.00 35,319.07 30,000.00 02 00417 SUPPLIES PAINTING 36,829.92 35,532.54 35,000.00 29,692.68 30,000.00 02 00418 SUPPLIES PUTTY/GLASS 14,914.92 8,196.71 15,000.00 8,819.15 8,000.00 02 00419 SUPPLIES-HVAC 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 20,000.00 02 00420 TEXTBOOKS 81,315.32 79,976.98 94,375.00 71,324.28 396,260.00 02 00422, STATE TEXTBOOKS 0.00 0.00 363,544.00 0.00 0.00 02 00430 LIBRARY BOOKS 60,727.36 58,215.40 75,454.00 58,849.06 62,010.00 02 00440 PERIODICALS/SUBSCRIPTION 15,223.89 15,654.82 18,995.00 20,620.20 18,867.00 02 00450 AUDIOVISUAL MATERIALS 22,101.33 24,909.82 25,531.00 26,101.78 26,980.00 02 00451 COMPUTER SOFTWARE 0.00 184.44 160.00 0.00 160.00 02 00464 GASOLINE AND DIESEL 50,676.27 117,158.36 46,550.00 133,546.35 99,820.00 02 00490 OTHER SUPPLIES/MATERIALS 290.22 350.06 1,725.00 370.47 4,577.00 02 00491 #* UNDEFINED ACCOUNT*# 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 02 00492 BUILDING MATERIALS  51,228.16 61,645.60 0.00 56,091.01 30,000.00 02 00495 FOOD 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 500.00 02 00496 PARTS/SUPPL, VEHICLE BUS 124,954.17 124,773.81 45,000.00 113,289.87 65,500.00 02 00497 PARTS/SUPPL, EQUIP REPAIR 40,050.83 52,624.86 42,800.00 37,836.32 42,800.00 02 00499 AWARDS 5,349.38 5,537.78 7,500.00 4,856.91 6,900.00 02 00521 CARPET 2,556.05 954.59 0.00 0.00 0.00 02 00525 BLINDS 1,178.44 0.00 0.00 3,829.12 2,000.00 02 00528 WATER FOUNTAINS 388.21 0.00 0.00 0.00 0-.00 02 00532 FENCE 1,749.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 02 00533 PLAYGROUND EQUIPMENT 8,529.92 8,927.10 0.00 0.00 0.00 02 00540 EQUIPMENT 170,006.45 130,133.86 130,754.00 126,213.91 112,239.00 02 00541 FURNITURE 4,706.62 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 02 00549 BAND INSTRUMENTS 29,178.24 553.88 1,500.00 0.00 0.00 02 00550 VEHICLES 0.00 24,264.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 04 00610 REDEMPTION OF PRINCIPAL 224,285.46 474,843.71 463,005.00 460,534.18 586,499.00 04 00620 INTEREST 564,799.49 709,800.03 638,935.00 638,210.06 -----r:r28,7 9.0 0 Page: 17 North Little Rock Public Schools 1992-1995 Expenditures by Object Funds: Salarv (01 ): Ooeratina (02): Debt Service (04\u0026gt; 92-93 93-94 94-95 94-95 95-96 Fund Object Desc~iptio__n_ _______ E__,xp_e_n_se_s_f--_Ex__,__p__ e_nBs__ue-_'dsg _..-_+e-_Et _xL-pe_n__s_e__ s Bu_.1.d.g. .'.- -et_--1 02 00630 DUES AND FEES 16,200.75 15,782.50 18,670.00 15,885.25 17,890.00 04 -00630- DUE~S= A-=N-D--. ,F--E::E--S~ ---=--=---t---:--::--c--=c:--=7-5-6=.-2-=0- +------'-4::,-1--2-:6-.-2:-0+ --~----:-4-:,-0--3-0:-.-0,,0-+ ---~----3--,'8--3--4-.-5t 0 5,030.00 02 00641 PROPERTY INSURANCE 161,730.68 132,949.00 148,400.00 110,301.80 92,400.00 02 ~ 00642 LIABILITY IN SU RANC-=E----+--~....,..o_,,. o-o+-----,,5~,4....,..6..,,,...5.-20-+-0---60,-'--+o---o-5o--'.- ,-51__25- o-+---6-\"--,o-o-oo---.- lo 02 00644 VEHICLE INSURANCE-- --+--~-------'---f--6-4-\",-9-8--0--.0+0-- --'----1+0--2--,'8--4-3--.-0l 0 105,209.00 54,079.00 54,860.00 02 00645, ACCIDENT INS-STUDENTS 7,685.46 15,196.00 18,000.00 17,714.20 18,000.00 02 00646 ACCIDENTAL DEATH INS 1,261.00 0.00 0.001---~-o-.oc-cco-t---~---,-0.-00---i -c--:-==..,...,.-----:--=:-c,=-:-,=-=--+---~--::c---t------------=-+-----::c--=-=--=--=--1r--------,:-=--:---+-------i 02 00650 LEGAL AGREE/JUDGEMENTS 0.00 69.30 800.00 37,002.26 1,000.00 02 00670 INDIRECT COSTS 4,446.12 0.00 4,104.00 3,779.92 5,715.00 02- 00690 OTHER EXPENSES 0.00 9,875.56 5,700.00 700.00 0.00 02 -00699-EXPENDI_T_U_R_E_R_E_F_U_N___D__ S 0.-00-+---(:2-4-3,'--8-60-.0-8--~-0-.0-0-+-----o-.o-o+-----0.-00----1 -- -----------t---,---,-----+--~~--'f-----f---------+--------4 33,015,228.07 36,224,356.65 37,293,525.00 37,339,951.78 38,432,067.00 Page: 18 North Little Rock Public Schools 1992-1995 Expenditures by Function/Object Funds: Salary (01 )\nOperating (02)\nDebt Service (04) 92-93 93-94 94-95 94-95 95-96 Fund Fnct Function Description Object Object Description Expenses Expenses Budget Expenses Budget 01 1000 INSTRUCTION 00240 INSURANCE 0.00 0.00 0.00 11,857.62 0.00 02 1105 PRESCHOOL 00110 REGULAR CERTIFICATED 2,910.60 3,240.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 02 1105 PRESCHOOL 00120 REGULAR NON-CERTIFICATED 76,589.40 96,968.11 92,500.00 90,562.18 92,000.00 02 1105 PRESCHOOL 00210 SOCIAL SECURITY TAX 222.66 247.84 0.00 0.00 0.00 02 1105 PRESCHOOL 00211 SS TAX, NON-CERTIFIED 5,673.45 7,373.65 8,000.00 6,825.57 7,038.00 02 1105 PRESCHOOL 00241 INSURANCE, NON-CERT 5,631.32 6,789.28 8,200.00 6,410.84 16,360.00 02 1105 PRESCHOOL 00251 UNEMPLOY COMP, NON CERT 129.57 136.29 150.00 135.39 138.00 02 1105 PRESCHOOL 00261 WORKERS COMP, NON-CERT 26.21 93.48 150.00 784.99 734.00 02 1105 PRESCHOOL 00310 PROFESSIONAL \u0026amp; TECH SERV 751.00 100.00 100.00 123.50 150.00 02 1105 PRESCHOOL 00331 PUPIL TRANSPORTATION 289.41 38,346.83 16,812.00 8,011.24 9,000.00 02 1105 PRESCHOOL 00333 INSERVICE REGISTRATION 28.00 0.00 0.00 3,650.00 275.00 02 1105 PRESCHOOL 00341 TELEPHONE 0.00 990.59 950.00 990.00 957.00 02 1105 PRESCHOOL 00410 SUPPLIES AND MATERIALS 11,204.56 3,831.24 1,450.00 4,498.70 500.00 02 1105 PRESCHOOL 00411 SUPPLIES AND MATERIALS 0.00 0.00 100.00 0.00 0.00 02 1105 PRESCHOOL 00490 OTHER SUPPLIES/MATERIALS 0.00 0.00 200.00 0.00 0.00 02 1105 PRESCHOOL 00521 CARPET 2,556.05 373.29 0.00 0.00 0.00 02 1105 PRESCHOOL 00532 FENCE 1,749.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 02 1105 PRESCHOOL 00533 PLAYGROUND EQUIPMENT 8,529.92 8,927.10 0.00 0.00 0.00 02 1105 PRESCHOOL 00540 EQUIPMENT 3,470.84 3,400.07 0.00 200.00 0.00 02 1105 PRESCHOOL 00670 INDIRECT COSTS 0.00 0.00 1,332.00 0.00 0.00 01 1110 KINDERGARTEN 00110 REGULAR CERTIFICATED 1,092,499.27 1,054,269.70 1,085,900.00 1,124,931.79 1,110,000.00 02 1110 KINDERGARTEN 00120 REGULAR NON-CERTIFICATED 0.00 2,820.48 0.00 0.00 0.00 02 1110 KINDERGARTEN 00210 SOCIAL SECURITY TAX 81,302.96 79,610.54 83,100.00 85,505.37 84,900.00 02 1110 KINDERGARTEN 00211 SS TAX, NON-CERTIFIED 0.00 215.76 0.00 0.00 0.00 01 1110 KINDERGARTEN 00240 INSURANCE 33,223.03 30,571.78 32,300.00 32,741.14 35,000.00 02 1110 KINDERGARTEN 00241 INSURANCE, NON-CERT 0.00 214.13 0.00 0.00 0.00 02 1110 KINDERGARTEN 00250 UNEMPLOYMENT COMPENSATI 1,375.59 1,693.37 1,800.00 1,681.94 550.00 02 1110 KINDERGARTEN 00251 UNEMPLOY COMP, NON CERT 0.00 6.63 0.00 0.00 0.00 02 1110 KINDERGARTEN 00260 WORKERS COMP 675.47 1,140.92 8,800.00 9,612.39 7,800.00 - Page: 19 North Little Rock Public Schools 1992-1995 Expenditures by Function/Object Funds: Salarv (01 ): Ooerating (02)\nDebt Service (04) 92-93 93-94 94-95 94-95 95-96 Fund- -Fn-c1F unction Description_ Q~jec.!__Q bjectD escription Expenses Expenses Budget Expenses Budget 02 1110 KINDERGARTEN 00331 PUPIL TRANSPORTATION 1,107.05 798.87 0.00 97.10 0.00 ,0_2 1110 KINDERGARTE-N- 00410 SUPPLIES AND MATERIALS 9,344.43 11,073.83 8,148.00 10,523.46 8,200.00 02 1110 KINDERGARTEN 00540 EQUIPMENT 0.00 968.18 0.00 0.00 0.00 01 1120 -E-LEMENTARY -- 00110 REGULAR CERTIFICATED 4,614,691.08 4,982,083.12 4,823,600.00 4,895,868.77 4,950-,000.00 .0.2. - -1120 ELE-MENTARY 00120 REGULAR NON-CERTIFICATED 10,487.04 11,414.86 22,900.00 27,651.75 29,700.00 -01 1120 ELEM~NTARY 00130 SUBSTITUTE TEACHERS 165,050.60 181,388.50 182,000.00 126,504.30 140,000.00 01 1120 ELEMENTARY 00131 ASSIGNED SUBSTITUTES 24,887.60 37,801.90 38,000.00 50,046.30 30,000.00 - _,__ ,_ 02 1120 ELEMENTARY 00140 SUBSTITUTES, NON-CERT. 13,452.40 13,551.90 13,500.00 27,840.10 19,000.00 - - - 02 1120 E--LEMENTARY 00210 SOCIAL SECURITY TAX 354,750.65 387,737.93 409,800.00 379,590.82 391,700.00 02 1120 E--LEMENTARY 00211 SS TAX, NON-CERTIFIED 1,738.52 1,876.86 2,900.00 4,211.34 3,730.00 -01 -1120 E-L-E-MENTARY 00240 INSURANCE 137,571.44 145,348.39 145,700.00 140,502.48 144,000.00 02 1120 ELEMENTARY 00241 INSURANCE, NON-CERT 830.22 856.66 1,500.00 2,022.13 3,370.00 02 1120 ELEMENTARY 00250 UNEMPLOYMENT COMPENSATI 6,098.60 8,088.27 8,100.00 7,622.94 2,560.00 02 1120 ELEMENTARY 00251 UNEMPLOY COMP, NON CERT 47.77 39.74 100.00 83.50 80.00 - - - 02 1120 ELEMENTARY 00260 WORKERS COMP 3,025.74 5,685.59 3,600.00 43,963.55 35,900.00 -02 -1120 E--LEMENTARY 00261 WORKERS COMP, NON-CERT 17.55 25.31 300.00 447.42 400.00 01 -1-120 E--LEMENTARY 00290 TUITION REIMBURSEMENT 0.00 6,242.50 6,200.00 3,887.50 9,000.00 02 1120 ELEMENTARY 00310 PROFESSIONAL \u0026amp; TECH SERV 125.00 2,245.50 0.00 1,398.00 0.00 -- - -- 02 1120 ELEMENTARY 00320 RENTAULEASE OF COPIERS 0.00 342.78 0.00 3,170 62 0.00 -02 -1120 E--LEMENTARY 00326 REPAIRS/MAINT-EQUIP 174.08 0.00 0.00 269 03 0.00 02 1120 E-L-EMENTARY 00331 PUPIL TRANSPORTATION 6,193.80 6,658.43 7,115.00 6,681.30 6,930.00 02 1120 E-L-EMENTARY 00332 TRAVEL EXPENSES 000 643.87 0.00 0.00- 0.00 02 - -11-20 E-L-EMENTARY 00333 INSERVICE REGISTRATION 0 00 0.00 650.00 -55.00 2-00.00 -02 ,_11_2 0 -E-LEMENTARY 00335 INDISTRICT TRAVEL 0.00 0.00 0.00 30.63 -- - 50.00 -02 _,1_1 20 ELEME-NTARY 00360 PRINTING AND BINDING 24.34 168.00 420.00 0.00 225.00 - - ---- -02 1120 ELEMENTARY 00410 SUPPLIES AND MATERIALS 51,417 18 62,845.58 68,888.00 67,378.38 62,132.00 \u0026gt;- -- -- 02 1120 ELEMENTARY 00420 TEXTBOOKS 61,220 51 55,860.33 71,745.00 50,815 48 146,500.00 -- - 02 1120 ELEMENTARY 00422 STATE TEXTBOOKS 0.00 0.00 197,810.00 000 0.00 -- 02 1120 ELEMENTARY 00440 PERIODICALS/SUBSCRIPTIONS 163.20 0.00 0.00 0.-00 0.00 Page: 20 North Little Rock Public Schools 1992-1995 Expenditures by Function/Object Funds: Salary (01)\nOperatin~ (02)\nDebt Service (04) 92-93 93-94 94-95 94-95 95-96 Fund Fnci Function Description Object Object Description Expenses Expenses Budget Expenses Budget 02 1120 ELEMENTARY 00540 EQUIPMENT 3,699.05 1,740.15 1,375.00 825.85 300.00 02 1120 ELEMENTARY 00630 DUES AND FEES 0.00 38.00 300.00 0.00 0.00 02 1121 ELEMENTARY MUSIC 00335 INDISTRICT TRAVEL 876.30 994.66 1,000.00 1,177.29 1,100.00 02 1121 ELEMENTARY MUSIC 00342 POSTAGE 0.00 9.04 0.00 0.00 0.00 02 1121 ELEMENTARY MUSIC 00410 SUPPLIES AND MATERIALS 1,575.46 3,281.75 0.00 796.58 0.00 02 1122 LANG\\JAGE ARTS 00410 SUPPLIES AND MATERIALS 21.57 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 02 1123 MATHEMATICS 00410 SUPPLIES AND MATERIALS 556.76 0.00 0.00 14,625.59 5,500.00 02 1124 SCIENCE 00410 SUPPLIES AND MATERIALS 72.22 0.00 0.00 0.00 1,700.00 01 1130 MIDDLE SCHOOL 00110 REGULAR CERTIFICATED 1,908,435.80 2,203,650.99 2,269,800.00 2,181,811.05 2,110,000.00 02 1130 MIDDLE SCHOOL 00120 REGULAR NON-CERTIFICATED 57,039.52 60,520.08 62,300.00 65,545.66 69,400.00 01 1130 MIDDLE SCHOOL 00130 SUBSTITUTE TEACHERS 49,256.07 66,864.00 67,000.00 68,973.40 67,000.00 01 1130 MIDDLE SCHOOL 00131 ASSIGNED SUBSTITUTES 11,620.50 24,185.00 24,000.00 22,019.50 24,000.00 02 1130 MIDDLE SCHOOL 00140 SUBSTITUTES, NON-CERT. 6,945.10 8,338.10 8,300.00 4,059.60 4,300.00 02 1130 MIDDLE SCHOOL 00210 SOCIAL SECURITY TAX 146,436.69 172,254.29 180,800.00 170,879.60 168,400.00 02 1130 MIDDLE SCHOOL 00211 SS TAX, NON-CERTIFIED 4,530.44 5,016.92 5,400.00 5,103.10 5,940.00 01 1130 MIDDLE SCHOOL 00240 INSURANCE 55,946.29 59,280.84 59,500.00 59,181.86 60,300.00 02 1130 MIDDLE SCHOOL 00241 INSURANCE, NON-CERT 4,235.14 4,283.65 4,400.00 4,220.64 4,200.00 02 1130 MIDDLE SCHOOL 00250 UNEMPLOYMENT COMPENSATI 2,539.72 3,561.83 3,600.00 3,409.24 1,100.00 02 1130 MIDDLE SCHOOL 00251 UNEMPLOY COMP, NON CERT 125.60 110.09 150.00 103.40 100.00 02 1130 MIDDLE SCHOOL 00260 WORKERS COMP 1,288.19 2,482.76 2,900.00 19,542.19 15,400.00 02 1130 MIDDLE SCHOOL 00261 WORKERS COMP, NON-CERT 37.43 75.31 6,500.00 590.82 560.00 01 1130 MIDDLE SCHOOL 00290 TUITION REIMBURSEMENT 0.00 552.00 1,300.00 405.00 1,500.00 02 1130 MIDDLE SCHOOL 00310 PROFESSIONAL \u0026amp; TECH SERV 0.00 0.00 0.00 525.65 1,000.00 02 1130 MIDDLE SCHOOL 00320 RENTALJLEASE OF COPIERS 0.00 88.30 0.00 313.08 0.00 02 1130 MIDDLE SCHOOL 00326 REPAIRS/MAINT-EQUIP 3,334.12 230.17 300.00 35:40 225.00 02 1130 MIDDLE SCHOOL 00331 PUPIL TRANSPORTATION 1,676.05 1,375.43 2,700.00 1,631.40 3,000.00 02 1130 MIDDLE SCHOOL 00332 TRAVEL EXPENSES 0.00 270.95 270.00 194.00 300.00 02 1130 MIDDLE SCHOOL 00333 INSERVICE REGISTRATION 0.00 475.00 1,000.00 0.00 5-00.00 02 1130 MIDDLE SCHOOL 00335 INDISTRICT TRAVEL 345.58 1,001.37 1,000.00 1,384.84 1,400.00 Page: 21 North Little Rock Public Schools 1992-1995 Expenditures by Function/Object Funds: Salarv (01 ): Ooeratinq (02) Debt Service (04) 92-93 93-94 94-95 94-95 95-96 Fund- Fnc Function Descripti~ _Q_bjectQ bject Description Expenses Expenses Budget Expenses Budget 02 1130 MIDDLE SCHOOL 00342 POSTAGE 1,281.60 2,131.46 3,750.00 1,574.75 2,800.00 - - 02 1130 MIDDLE SCHOOL 00360 PRINTING AND BINDING 631.86 106.80 1,485.00 300.28 1,470.00 -- -- -- - - - 02 1130 MIDDLE SCHOOL 00394 SECURITY OFFICER SERVICES 0.00 0.00 300.00 0.00 500.00 ,- - 02 1130 MIDDLE SCHOOL 00410 SUPPLIES AND MATERIALS 17,712.52 21,880.95 21,167.00 28,660.01 21,221.00 -- - 02- - -1130 MIDDLE SCHOOL 00420 TEXTBOOKS 2,980.45 6,206.96 5,585.00 141.05 50,125.00 02 1130 MIDDl,E SCHOOL 00422 STATE TEXTBOOKS 0.00 0.00 55,830.00 0.00 0.00 - 02 1130 MIDDLE SCHOOL 00440 PERIODICALS/SUBSCRIPTIONS 0.00 0.00 100.00 0.00 100.00 -- - 02 1130 -MIDDLE SCHOOL 00521 CARPET 0.00 366.45 0.00 0.00 0.00 02 1130 M-IDDLE SCHOOL 00540 EQUIPMENT 2,534.32 5,709.99 6,500.00 2,895.02 8,660.00 -02 -1130 -MIDDLE SCHOOL 00630 DUES AND FEES 75.00 0.00 300.00 312.25 535.00 02 1131 MUSIC 00310 PROFESSIONAL \u0026amp; TECH SERV 0.00 0.00 575.00 0.00 100.00 - - 02 1131 MUSIC 00326 REPAIRS/MAINT-EQUIP 50.00 1,295.52 3,432.00 1,298.48 550.00 - --- 02 1131 MUSIC 00331 PUPIL TRANSPORTATION 467.50 1,575.75 2,500.00 2,618.50 460.00 -- 02 1131 MUSIC 00334 CAR ALLOWANCE-MONTHLY 0.00 0.00 0.00 180.60 200.00 - - 02 1131 MUSIC 00335 INDISTRICT TRAVEL 252.00 168.00 300.00 84.00 100.00 -- 02 1131 MUSIC 00410 SUPPLIES AND MATERIALS 165.21 3,332.47 3,500.00 2,944.42 1,020.00 - ,0_2 -1131 MUSIC 004-20 TEXTBOOKS 0.00 0.00 0.00 2,290.22 0.00 0-2- 1131 MUSIC 00499 AWARDS 0.00 249.25 850.00 0.00 - 0.00 -0-2 -1131 MUSIC 00540 EQUIPMENT 0.00 1,714.51 600.00 1,679.09 0.00 02 1131 MUSIC 00630 DUES AND FEES 0.00 470.00 540.00 355.00 100.00 02 1132 LANGUAGE ARTS 00410 SUPPLIES AND MATERIALS 1,197.49 1,139.79 1,483.00 934.85 1,738.00 02 1133 MATHEMATICS 00410 SUPPLIES AND MATERIALS 1,534.62 6,548.26 6,111.00 1,914.59 3,994.00 1-- - 02 1133 MATHEMATICS 00540 EQUIPMENT 64.31 0.00 0.00 000 0.00 02 1134 SCIENCE 00410 SUPPLIES AND MATERIALS 1,179.76 2,303.78 2,748.00 2,638 19 1,975.00 - 02 1134 SCIENCE 00450 AUDIOVISUAL MATERIALS 2,453.30 0.00 0 00 0.00 0.00 - - - 02 1135 SOCIAL STUDIES 00410 SUPPLIES AND MATERIALS 716.89 0.00 1,030.00 871.38 1,055.00 -- - 02 - -1135 SOCIAL STUDIES 00540 EQUIPMENT 0 00 1,056.22 000 000 0.00 02 - 1136 SPEECH \u0026amp; DRAMA 00410 SUPPLIES AND MATERIALS 81.61 0.00 0.00 0.00 ----- 0.00 02 1137 ART 00410 SUPPLIES AND MATERIALS 1,707.73 1,483.84 2,680.00 1,660.01 - 2,~ Page: 22 North Little Rock Public Schools 1992-1995 Expenditures by Function/Object Funds: Salary (01 )\nOperating (02)\nDebt Service (04) 92-93 93-94 94-95 94-95 95-96 Fund Fnct Function Description Object Object Description Expenses Expenses Budget Expenses Budget 02 1137 ART 00540 EQUIPMENT 0.00 0.00 0.00 1,988.31 103.00 02 1139 PHYSICAL EDUCATION 00310 PROFESSIONAL \u0026amp; TECH SERV 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 100.00 02 1139 PHYSICAL EDUCATION 00331 PUPIL TRANSPORTATION 0.00 0.00 70.00 0.00 100.00 02 1139 PHYSICAL EDUCATION 00410 SUPPLIES AND MATERIALS 648.52 387.13 1,115.00 824.90 877.00 02 1139 PHYSICAL EDUCATION 00440 PERIODICALS/SUBSCRIPTIONS 72.61 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 02 1139 PHYSICAL EDUCATION 00540 EQUIPMENT 0.00 0.00 220.00 0.00 200.00 01 1140 HIGH SCHOOL 00110 REGULAR CERTIFICATED 3,246,173.56 3,522,525.32 3,628,200.00 3,616,804.71 3,500,000.00 02 1140 HIGH SCHOOL 00110 REGULAR CERTIFICATED 0.00 32,518.80 33,500.00 34,871.04 36,950.00 02 1140 HIGH SCHOOL 00120 REGULAR NON-CERTIFICATED 0.00 11,788.56 12,100.00 41,150.72 42,600.00 01 1140 HIGH SCHOOL 00130 SUBSTITUTE TEACHERS 67,420.90 57,941.90 60,000.00 73,968.30 76,000.00 01 1140 HIGH SCHOOL 00131 ASSIGNED SUBSTITUTES 23,179.60 9,821.00 10,000.00 11,595.20 12,000.00 02 1140 HIGH SCHOOL 00140 SUBSTITUTES, NON-CERT. 1,870.60 2,945.20 3,000.00 2,368.10 3,000.00 02 1140 HIGH SCHOOL 00150 STIPENDS-WORKSHOPS 6,014.50 4,373.50 2,500.00 6,656.25 0.00 02 1140 HIGH SCHOOL 00210 SOCIAL SECURITY TAX 246,234.28 268,275.86 285,550.00 278,046.78 277,320.00 02 1140 HIGH SCHOOL 00211 SS TAX, NON-CERTIFIED 579.72 1,127.35 1,200.00 3,310.70 3,490.00 02 1140 HIGH SCHOOL 00212 SS TAX, STIPENDS 0.00 334.57 500.00 509.22 460.00 01 1140 HIGH SCHOOL 00240 INSURANCE 89,963.04 87,071.50 0.00 86,666.94 83,500.00 02 1140 HIGH SCHOOL 00240 INSURANCE 0.00 785.38 850.00 844.20 850.00 02 1140 HIGH SCHOOL 00241 INSURANCE, NON-CERT 0.00 856.54 900.00 2,461.54 2,550.00 02 1140 HIGH SCHOOL 00250 UNEMPLOYMENT COMPENSATI 4,320.37 5,617.56 5,650.00 5,616.90 1,844.00 02 1140 HIGH SCHOOL 00251 UNEMPLOY COMP, NON CERT 26.53 22.25 100.00 65.08 70.00 02 1140 HIGH SCHOOL 00252 UNEMPLOYMENT COMP,STIPEN 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 10.00 02 1140 HIGH SCHOOL 00260 WORKERS COMP 2,250.81 3,943.90 7,300.00 32,096.88 25,500.00 02 1140 HIGH SCHOOL 00261 WORKERS COMP, NON-CERT 11.60 7.99 1,300.00 358.95 370.00 02 1140 HIGH SCHOOL 00262 WORKER'S COMP, STIPENDS 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 50.00 01 1140 HIGH SCHOOL 00290 TUITION REIMBURSEMENT 0.00 2,566.50 2,500.00 4,017.00 4,500.00 02 1140 HIGH SCHOOL 00310 PROFESSIONAL \u0026amp; TECH SERV 0.00 450.00 0.00 363.98 0.00 02 1140 HIGH SCHOOL 00312 LEGAL SERVICES 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 350.00 02 1140 HIGH SCHOOL 00316 SECURITY SERVICES 132.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Page: 23 North Little Rock Public Schools 1992-1995 Expenditures by Function/Object Funds: Salarv (01 ) Ooeratina (02): Debt Service (04) 92-93 93-94 94-95 94-95 95-96 Fund Fnc1 ,--.... Function Description Object Object Description Expenses Expenses Budget Expenses Budget -02 1140 HIGH SCHOOL 00318 RENTAL OF EQUIP \u0026amp; VEHICLE 33.51 874.31 0.00 2,708.44 0.00 -02 -1140 HIGH SCHOOL 00319 RENTAL OF LAND \u0026amp; BUILDING 3,149.28 3,706.04 2,600.00 3,665.69 2,600.00 -02 _11,4_0 HIGH SCHO-OL 00320 RENTAULEASE OF COPIERS 11,665.95 1,898.80 7,000.00 2,794.74 4,000.00 02 1140 -HIGH SCHOOL 00326 REPAIRS/MAINT-EQUIP 8,943.26 1,232.72 3,050.00 2,847.52 3,200.00 0-2 114_0, .H..I GH SCHOOL 00331 PUPIL TRANSPORTATION 2,787.94 5,551.98 7,250.00 4,202.10 1,750.00 -02 1140 ,-H-.I.G.. H ~. CHOOL 00332 TRAVEL EXPENSES 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1,000.00 02 1140 HIGH SCHOOL 00333 INSERVICE REGISTRATION 0.00 0.00 500.00 0.00 500.00 \u0026gt;- - - \u0026gt;- 02 1140 HIGH SCHOOL 00335 INDISTRICT TRAVEL 709.72 1,489.54 1,500.00 1,130.39 1,200.00 \u0026gt;-- -- .0_2 -1140 -HIGH SCHOOL 00342 POSTAGE 5,083.81 9,176.11 7,100.00 9,057.16 5,000.00 02 1-140 -HIGH SCHOOL 00360 PRINTING AND BINDING 1,123.92 196.61 200.00 0.00 0.00 02 1-140 HIGH SCHOOL 00394 SECURITY OFFICER SERVICES 1,385.00 3,725.00 3,800.00 3,685.50 3,800.00 02 1140 HIGH SCHOOL 00410 SUPPLIES AND MATERIALS 17,885.79 34,366.06 55,179.00 33,635.09 34,900.00 \u0026gt;-- -02 - 1140 -HIGH SCHOOL 00420 TEXTBOOKS 12,619.09 8,431.05 12,845.00 17,128.28 120,725.00 02 1140 HIGH SCHOOL 00422 STATE TEXTBOOKS 0.00 0.00 109,904.00 0.00 0.00 ,- -- ,0_2_ -1140 -HIGH SCHOOL 00540 EQUIPMENT 2,01151 5,062.35 15,000.00 14,779.04 11,029.00 02 1140 HIGH SCHOOL 00630 DUES AND FEES 1,005.00 1,314.00 1,900.00 916.00 1,700.00 I- - 02 1140 HIGH SCHOOL 00670 INDIRECT COSTS 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 930.00 I- 02 1141 MUSIC 00310 PROFESSIONAL \u0026amp; TECH SERV 350.00 0.00 300.00 0.00 0.00 I- 02 1141 MUSIC 00318 RENTAL OF EQUIP \u0026amp; VEHICLE 000 274.25 200.00 0.00 0.00 t-- - -02 1141 MUSIC 00324 CLEANING SERVICES 145.00 459.98 900.00 000 0.00 02 1141 ,M_U_S IC 00326 REPAIRS/MAINT-EQUIP 4,663.83 2,024.27 3,100.00 2,864.55 1,~ 02 1141 MUSIC 00331 PUPIL TRANSPORTATION 4,864 61 3,916.74 3,700.00 4,719.95 1,500.00 ,--.... - - \u0026gt;-- - -- 02 - -1141 MUSIC 00332 TRAVEL EXPENSES 578.45 665.62 600.00 937- 12 - 0.00 02 1141 MUSIC 00335 INDISTRICT TRAVEL 142.80 0.00 200.00 00-0 0.00 02 1141 MUSIC 00342 POSTAGE 0.00 232.61 0.00 0.00 0.00 -02 -1141 MUSIC 00410 SUPPLIES AND MATERIALS 13,854.30 8,240.30 6,500.00 6,875 88 400.00 \u0026gt;-- - -02 - -11-41 MUSIC 00440 PERIODICALS/SUBSCRIPTIONS 25.32 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 ~ - -~ - - 02 - 1-141 MUSIC 00499 AWARDS 1,189.93 198.08 1,000.00 81.08 0.00 ,--. -- 02 1141 MUSIC 00540 EQUIPMENT 268.66 2,091.31 600.00 779.10 - -0.00 Page: 24 North Little Rock Public Schools 1992-1995 Expenditures by Function/Object Funds: Salarv (01 ): Qperatina (02): Debt Service (04) 92-93 93-94 94-95 94-95 95-96 Fund Fnct Function Description Object Object Description Expenses Expenses Budget Expenses Budget 02 1141 MUSIC 00549 BAND INSTRUMENTS 29,178.24 553.88 1,500.00 0.00 0.00 02 1141 MUSIC 00630 DUES AND FEES 1,179.00 580.00 850.00 450.00 0.00 02 1142 LANGUAGE ARTS 00410 SUPPLIES AND MATERIALS 1,154.39 1,036.71 1,600.00 1,644.67 1,600.00 02 1143 MATHEMATICS 00155 STIPENDS-OTHER 0.00 0.00 0.00 360.00 0.00 02 1143 MATHEMATICS 00214 SS TAX STIPENDS-OTHER 0.00 0.00 0.00 27.54 0.00 02 1143 MATHJ:MATICS 00250 UNEMPLOYMENT COMPENSATI 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.54 0.00 02 1143 MATHEMATICS 00260 WORKERS COMP 0.00 0.00 0.00 2.88 0.00 02 1143 MATHEMATICS 00410 SUPPLIES AND MATERIALS 7,228.82 863.68 1,400.00 1,339.86 1,400.00 02 1144 SCIENCE 00410 SUPPLIES AND MATERIALS 2,811.59 3,045.56 3,500.00 6,077.17 5,500.00 02 1144 SCIENCE 00540 EQUIPMENT 0.00 0.00 200.00 1,450.53 400.00 02 1145 SOCIAL STUDIES 00410 SUPPLIES AND MATERIALS 917.14 1,387.56 1,250.00 1,515.80 1,150.00 02 1146 SPEECH AND DRAMA 00331 PUPIL TRANSPORTATION 0.00 0.00 100.00 88.10 100.00 02 1146 SPEECH AND DRAMA 00410 SUPPLIES AND MATERIALS 353.19 0.00 300.00 0.00 200.00 02 1147 ART 00410 SUPPLIES ANO MATERIALS 2,854.22 2,687.48 1,700.00 647.38 1,300.00 02 1148 RADIOfTV 00326 REPAIRS/MAINT-EQUIP 547.24 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 02 1148 RADIOfTV 00410 SUPPLIES AND MATERIALS 1,482.38 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 02 1149 PHYSICAL EDUCATION 00410 SUPPLIES AND MATERIALS 587.40 416.10 200.00 487.69 200.00 02 1149 PHYSICAL EDUCATION 00540 EQUIPMENT 0.00 0.00 300.00 0.00 200.00 02 1150 ATHLETICS 00319 RENTAL OF LAND \u0026amp; BUILDING 922.50 0.00 1,500.00 840.00 0.00 02 1150 ATHLETICS 00331 PUPIL TRANSPORTATION 0.00 21,993.61 2,000.00 1,986.70 0.00 02 1150 ATHLETICS 00630 DUES AND FEES 0.00 0.00 0.00 2,750.00 0.00 02 1151 BOYS ATHLETICS 00150 STIPENDS-WORKSHOPS 95.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 02 1151 BOYS ATHLETICS 00211 SS TAX, NON-CERTIFIED 7.27 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 02 1151 BOYS ATHLETICS 00326 REPAIRS/MAINT-EQUIP 8,998.33 7,325.23 8,500.00 8,101.53 9,500.00 02 1151 BOYS ATHLETICS 00331 PUPIL TRANSPORTATION 9,564.39 11,548.97 12,400.00 12,821.56 16,000.00 02 1151 BOYS ATHLETICS 00410 SUPPLIES AND MATERIALS 24,236.24 25,512.16 28,500.00 26,817.59 29,000.00 02 1151 BOYS ATHLETICS 00499 AWARDS 2,079.83 2,175.37 2,350.00 1,931.49 2,350.00 02 1151 BOYS ATHLETICS 00540 EQUIPMENT 3,544.27 1,866.95 3,000.00 0.00 0.00 02 1152 GIRLS ATHLETICS 00326 REPAIRS/MAINT-EQUIP 0.00 0.00 400.00 0.00 - 400.00 Page: 25 North Little Rock Public Schools 1992-1995 Expenditures by Function/Object Funds: Salarv (01 }: Qperatina CO2}: Debt Service (04) 92-93 93-94 94-95 94-95 95-96 -Fund Fncl ~ction Description Object Object Description Expenses Expenses Budget Expenses Budget 02 1152 GIRLS ATHLETICS 00331 PUPIL TRANSPORTATION 6,678.40 5,797.36 7,100.00 8,065.06 8,900.00 -- 02 1152 GIRLS ATHLETICS 00410 SUPPLIES AND MATERIALS 10,278.58 7,992.29 12,000.00 9,990.05 12,000.00 - -- - 02 1152 GIRLS ATHLETICS 00499 AWARDS 1,568.15 742.86 1,100.00 1,302.13 1,100.00 - 02 1152 GIRLS ATHLETICS 00540 EQUIPMENT 596.08 0.00 1,400.00 445.56 0.00 - 02 1153 COMBINED ATHLETICS 00150 STIPENDS-WORKSHOPS 62.50 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 02 1153 COME\\INED ATHLETICS 00211 SS TAX, NON-CERTIFIED 4.78 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 .0_2_ 1153 COMBINED ATHLETICS 00319 RENTAL OF LAND \u0026amp; BUILDING 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1,500.00 02 1153 COMBINED ATHLETICS 00320 RENTAULEASE OF COPIERS 0.00 58.86 0.00 106.14 0.00 -- 02 1153 COMBINED ATHLETICS 00332 TRAVEL EXPENSES 0.00 0.00 500.00 0.00 500.00 --- - - - - 02 1153 COMBINED ATHLETICS 00334 CAR ALLOWANCE-MONTHLY 540.00 540.00 540.00 540.00 540.00 -- - - 02 1153 COMBINED ATHLETICS 00341 TELEPHONE 0.00 206.25 360.00 205.47 260.00 02 1153 COMBINED ATHLETICS 00342 POSTAGE 0.00 110.30 150.00 180.89 150.00 - - -- 02 1153 COMBINED ATHLETICS 00410 SUPPLIES AND MATERIALS 0.00 193.10 250.00 68.74 250.00 -- - 02 1153 COMBINED ATHLETICS 00630 DUES AND FEES 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1,250.00 - - - 02 1153 COMBINED ATHLETICS 00645 ACCIDENT INS-STUDENTS 7,685.46 15,196.00 18,000.00 17,714.20 18,000.00 - - 02 1160 STUDENT ACTIVITIES 00331 PUPIL TRANSPORTATION 0.00 7,051.09 1,000.00 889.40 0.00 02 1160 STUDENT ACTIVITIES 00333 INSERVICE REGISTRATION 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 825.00 -- -- 02 1160 STUDENT ACTIVITIES 00410 SUPPLIES AND MATERIALS 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 6,400.00 02 1160 STUDENT ACTIVITIES 00630 DUES AND FEES 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 00 1,800.00 -- - 02 1161 CHEER 00150 STIPENDS-WORKSHOPS 0.00 820.09 800.00 0.00 0.00 02 1161 CHEER 00212 SS TAX, STIPENDS 0.00 62.74 60.00 0.00 0.00 - 02 1161 CHEER 00310 PROFESSIONAL \u0026amp; TECH SERV 0.00 0.00 0.00 140 00 0.00 02 1161 CHEER 00331 PUPIL TRANSPORTATION 0.00 70.37 875.00 316.90 0.00 02 1161 CHEER 00332 TRAVEL EXPENSES 0.00 0.00 0.00 180.00 0.00 - - 02 1161 CHEER 00333 INSERVICE REGISTRATION 565.10 130.00 525.00 0.00 0.00 -- - 02 1161 CHEER 00410 SUPPLIES AND MATERIALS 2,399.49 10,703.25 5,850.00 5,589.09 0.00 - - 02 1162 DRILL 00331 PUPIL TRANSPORTATION 903.17 0.00 625.00 0.00 0.00 - - 02 1162 DRILL 00333 INSERVICE REGISTRATION 535.99 0.00 275.00 0.00 0.00 -- - 02 1162 DRILL 00410 SUPPLIES AND MATERIALS 436.30 0.00 6,900.00 6,803.99 0.00 - - Page: 26 North Little Rock Public Schools 1992-1995 Expenditures by Function/Object Funds: Salarv (01 ): Ooeratina (02) Debt Service (04) 92-93 93-94 94-95 94-95 95-96 Fund Fnc1 Function Description Object Object Description Expenses Expenses Budget Expenses Budget 02 1165 BAND 00310 PROFESSIONAL \u0026amp; TECH SERV 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 800.00 02 1165 BAND 00318 RENTAL OF EQUIP \u0026amp; VEHICLE 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 800.00 02 1165 BAND 00324 CLEANING SERVICES 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 600.00 02 1165 BAND 00331 PUPIL TRANSPORTATION 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 4,300.00 02 1165 BAND 00332 TRAVEL EXPENSES 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 860.00 02 1165 BAND, 00338 ENTRANCE FEES 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1,300.00 02 1165 BAND 00410 SUPPLIES AND MATERIALS 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 9,210.00 02 1165 BAND 00499 AWARDS 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 950.00 02 1166 CHOIR 00310 PROFESSIONAL \u0026amp; TECH SERV 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 250.00 02 1166 CHOIR 00318 RENTAL OF EQUIP \u0026amp; VEHICLE 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 250.00 02 1166 CHOIR 00324 CLEANING SERVICES 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 400.00 02 1166 CHOIR 00326 REPAIRS/MAINT-EQUIP 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 250.00 02 1166 CHOIR 00331 PUPIL TRANSPORTATION 0.00 0.00 0.00 151.20 1,100.00 02 1166 CHOIR 00332 TRAVEL EXPENSES 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 330.00 02 1166 CHOIR 00338 ENTRANCE FEES 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 850.00 02 1166 CHOIR 00410 SUPPLIES AND MATERIALS 0.00 0.00 0.00 182.56 1,200.00 02 1166 CHOIR 00499 AWARDS 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 700.00 02 1166 CHOIR 00540 EQUIPMENT 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 700.00 02 1166 CHOIR 00630 DUES AND FEES 0.00 0.00 0.00 260.00 0.00 02 1191 SUMMER SCHOOL 00110 REGULAR CERTIFICATED 50,587.50 50,520.00 127,900.00 154,892.50 154,575.00 02 1191 SUMMER SCHOOL 00115 CERTIFIED ADMIN 8,153.00 11,745.50 15,533.00 15,249.00 16,763.00 02 1191 SUMMER SCHOOL 00120 REGULAR NON-CERTIFICATED 3,445.00 4,566.00 8,600.00 12,090.00 8,055.00 02 1191 SUMMER SCHOOL 00130 SUBSTITUTE TEACHERS 0.00 0.00 5,400.00 0.00 0.00 02 1191 SUMMER SCHOOL 00150 STIPENDS-WORKSHOPS 540.00 620.00 580.00 0.00 2,820.00 02 1191 SUMMER SCHOOL 00210 SOCIAL SECURITY TAX 4,370.30 4,763.04 14,134.00 13,015:79 13,639.00 02 1191 SUMMER SCHOOL 00211 SS TAX, NON-CERTIFIED 288.66 349.28 1,811.00 924.97 633.00 02 1191 SUMMER SCHOOL 00212 SS TAX, STIPENDS 0.00 47.43 450.00 0.00 200.00 02 1191 SUMMER SCHOOL 00250 UNEMPLOYMENT COMPENSATI 46.99 1.50 4,054.00 255.22 267.00 02 1191 SUMMER SCHOOL 00251 UNEMPLOY COMP, NON CERT 9.99 0.00 602.00 18.14 -12.00 Page: 27 North Little Rock Public Schools 1992-1995 Expenditures by Function/Object Funds: Salary (01 )\nQperatinQ (02)\nDebt Service (04) 92-93 93-94 94-95 94-95 95-96 Fund Fnct ,- - Function Description Object Object Description Expenses Expenses Budget Expenses Budget 02 1191 SUMMER SCHOOL 00260 WORKERS COMP 111.61 0.00 1,740.00 1,361.13 1,474.00 - -- - 02 1191 SUMMER SCHOOL 00261 WORKERS COMP, NON-CERT 6.55 0.00 341.00 96.72 58.00 ....- - - 02 1191 SUMMER SCHOOL 00331 PUPIL TRANSPORTATION 1,215.00 0.00 8,600.00 0.00 9,600.00 - - - 02 1191 SUMMER SCHOOL 00335 INDISTRICT TRAVEL 0.00 0.00 0.00 82.09 150.00 02 - 1191 .S_U_M MER SCHOOL 00342 POSTAGE 0.00 47.95 100.00 0.00 0.00 -02 1191 SUM~ER SCHOOL 00370 TUITION 19,200.00 8,820.00 12,000.00 0.00 12,100.00 02 1191 SUMMER SCHOOL 00380 FOOD SERVICES 0.00 0.00 8,000.00 7,636.45 3,000.00 i-- - 02 1191 SUMMER SCHOOL 00385 M\u0026amp;O/CUSTODIAL SERVICES 0.00 0.00 8,000.00 4,789.00 8,000.00 02 1191 SUMMER SCHOOL 00390 OTHER PURCHASED SERVICES 0.00 0.00 0.00 34,636.71 0.00 - t- - 02 1191 SUMMER SCHOOL 00410 SUPPLIES AND MATERIALS 1,085.32 11,552.62 22,625.00 7,382.12 11,000.00 - 02 1191 SUMMER SCHOOL 00430 LIBRARY BOOKS 0.00 360.07 0.00 0.00 0.00 -- -- 02 1191 SUMMER SCHOOL 00670 INDIRECT COSTS 0.00 0.00 0.00 2,658.77 0.00 02 1192 DRIVER EDUCATION 00110 REGULAR CERTIFICATED 15,120.00 15,841.00 17,794.00 18,294.00 17,787.00 02 1192 DRIVER EDUCATION 00210 SOCIAL SECURITY TAX 1,124.93 1,211.84 1,361.00 1,399.54 1,361.00 - -0-2 -1192- -DRIVER EDUCATION 00250 UNEMPLOYMENT COMPENSATI 12.10 0.00 18.00 27.44 27.00 02 -- 1192 DRIVER EDUCATION 00260 WORKERS COMP 28.73 0.00 178.00 146.35 142.00 02 1192 DRIVER EDUCATION 00318 RENTAL OF EQUIP \u0026amp; VEHICLE 1,600.00 1,550.00 2,000.00 420.00 1,575.00 02 1192 DRIVER EDUCATION 00327 REPAIRS/MAINT-BUSNEHICLE 62.51 32.95 549.00 66.00 250.00 - -02 1192 DRIVER EDUCATION 00342 POSTAGE 000 17.40 0.00 0.00 0.00 02 1192 DRIVER EDUCATION 00410 SUPPLIES AND MATERIALS 197.81 0.00 0.00 14.28 158.00 - 02 1192 DRIVER EDUCATION 00464 GASOLINE AND DIESEL 455.00 662.67 750.00 900.00 900.00 - 02 1192 DRIVER EDUCATION 00644 VEHICLE INSURANCE 0.00 0.00 345.00 344.-00 0.00 -0-2- - 1193 MINI GRANTS 00130 SUBSTITUTE TEACHERS 0.00 0.00 300.00 0.00 0.00 02 - 1193 -MINI GRANTS 00212 SS TAX, STIPENDS 0.00 0.00 30.00 0.00 - 0.00 02 1193 MINI GRANTS 00310 PROFESSIONAL \u0026amp; TECH SERV 0.00 325.00 300.00 50.00 0.00 02 1193 MINI GRANTS 00331 PUPIL TRANSPORTATION 0.00 0.00 260.00 160.20 0.00 \u0026gt;- - \u0026gt;--- -02 1193 MINI GRANTS 00410 SUPPLIES AND MATERIALS 3,717.25 3,596.80 3,520.00 4,182.63 -- 5-,000.00 02 1193 MINI GRANTS 00430 LIBRARY BOOKS 537.08 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 - - ----- - 02 1193 MINI GRANTS 00450 AUDIOVISUAL MATERIALS 13.19 0.00 0.00 0.00 _E:Oi - - Page: 28 North Little Rock Public Schools 1992-1995 Expenditures by Function/Object Funds: Salarv (01 ): Ooeratina (02)\nDebt Service (04) 92-93 93-94 94-95 94-95 95-96 Fund Fnc Function Description Object Object Description Expenses Expenses Budget Expenses Budget 02 1193 MINI GRANTS 00540 EQUIPMENT 362.92 572.23 590.00 192.23 0.00 02 1194 ACT/PSAT SUMMER SC 00110 REGULAR CERTIFICATED 19,575.00 19,860.00 24,325.00 24,875.22 24,875.00 02 1194 ACT/PSAT SUMMER SC 00115 CERTIFIED ADMIN 2,250.00 2,300.00 2,300.00 2,342.88 2,325.00 02 1194 ACT/PSAT SUMMER SC 00150 STIPENDS-WORKSHOPS 74.00 290.00 600.00 200.00 200.00 02 1194 ACT/PSAT SUMMER SC 00155 STIPENDS-OTHER 0.00 0.00 0.00 183.00 183.00 02 1194 ACT/RSAT SUMMER SC 00156 STIPENDS-OTHER NON-CERT 0.00 0.00 0.00 170.00 170.00 02 1194 ACT/PSAT SUMMER SC 00210 SOCIAL SECURITY TAX 1,669.59 1,695.20 2,037.00 2,082.34 2,081.00 02 1194 ACT/PSAT SUMMER SC 00211 SS TAX, NON-CERTIFIED 5.66 0.00 0.00 13.00 13.00 02 1194 ACT/PSAT SUMMER SC 00212 SS TAX, STIPENDS 0.00 22.18 0.00 15.28 29.00 02 1194 ACT/PSAT SUMMER SC 00214 SS TAX STIPENDS-OTHER 0.00 0.00 0.00 13.98 0.00 02 1194 ACT/PSAT SUMMER SC 00250 UNEMPLOYMENT COMPENSATI 0.00 0.00 26.00 41.42 40.00 02 1194 ACT/PSAT SUMMER SC 00251 UNEMPLOY COMP, NON CERT 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.26 0.00 02 1194 ACT/PSAT SUMMER SC 00252 UNEMPLOYMENT COMP,STIPEN 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 02 1194 ACT/PSAT SUMMER SC 00260 WORKERS COMP 0.00 0.00 266.00 220.80 218.00 02 1194 ACT/PSAT SUMMER SC 00261 WORKERS COMP, NON-CERT 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.36 0.00 02 1194 ACT/PSAT SUMMER SC 00262 WORKER'S COMP, STIPENDS 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 02 1194 ACT/PSAT SUMMER SC 00310 PROFESSIONAL \u0026amp; TECH SERV 46.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 02 1194 ACT/PSAT SUMMER SC 00319 RENTAL OF LAND \u0026amp; BUILDING 329.13 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 02 1194 ACT/PSAT SUMMER SC 00332 TRAVEL EXPENSES 0.00 35.07 50.00 15.24 15.00 02 1194 ACT/PSAT SUMMER SC 00342 POSTAGE 0.00 199.04 0.00 0.00 0.00 02 1194 ACT/PSAT SUMMER SC 00385 M\u0026amp;O/CUSTODIAL SERVICES 2,044.00 0.00 1,785.00 1,785.00 1,785.00 02 1194 ACT/PSAT SUMMER SC 00410 SUPPLIES AND MATERIALS 2,464.99 3,503.78 5,068.00 3,946.99 2,550.00 02 1194 ACT/PSAT SUMMER SC 00411 SUPPLIES AND MATERIALS 237.13 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 02 1194 ACT/PSAT SUMMER SC 00670 INDIRECT COSTS 973.91 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 02 1195 SATURDAY DETENTIO 00110 REGULAR CERTIFICATED 4,160.00 3,442.50 4,000.00 3,105.00 4,000.00 02 1195 SATURDAY DETENTIO 00120 REGULAR NON-CERTIFICATED 0.00 607.50 1,000.00 1,147.50 1,000.00 02 1195 SATURDAY DETENTIO 00210 SOCIAL SECURITY TAX 316.07 263.16 300.00 237.38 300.00 02 1195 SATURDAY DETENTIO 00211 SS TAX, NON-CERTIFIED 0.00 46.44 50.00 87.72 50.00 02 1195 SATURDAY DETENTIO 00250 UNEMPLOYMENT COMPENSATI 7.87 4.18 25.00 4.60 20.00 Page: 29 North Little Rock Public Schools 1992-1995 Expenditures by Function/Object Funds: Salary (01 )\nOperating (02)\nDebt Service (04) 92-93 93-94 94-95 94-95 95-96 Fund Fnct Function Description Object Object Description Expenses Expenses Budget Expenses Budget 02- 1195 SATURDAY DETENTIO 00251 UNEMPLOY COMP, NON CERT 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.70 5.00 -02 -1195 -SATURDAY DETENTIO 00260 WORKERS COMP 2.22 4.77 40.00 26.72 40.00 02 1195 SATURDAY DETENTIO 00261 WORKERS COMP, NONCERT 0.00 0.21 10.00 9.58 10.00 - -,- 02 1195 SATURDAY DETENTIO 00310 PROFESSIONAL \u0026amp; TECH SERV 979.58 0.00 500.00 0.00 500.00 - -02 1195 SATURDAY DETENTIO 00410 SUPPLIES AND MATERIALS 0.00 742.20 750.00 0.00 750.00 -01 1199 JROT~INSTRUCTOR 00110 REGULAR CERTIFICATED 0.00 0.00 83,300.00 73,227.83 75,400.00 02 1199 JROTCINSTRUCTOR 00120 REGULAR NONCERTIFICATED 000 0.00 0.00 26,761.72 28,250.00 ,- ,0-2 1199 JROTCINSTRUCTOR 00210 SOCIAL SECURITY TAX 0.00 0.00 0.00 5,559.87 5,800.00 02 - 1199 -JROTCINSTRUCTOR 00211 SS TAX, NONCERTIFIED 0.00 0.00 0.00 2,047.30 2,160.00 ,0_1_ _ 119--9 JROTCINSTRUCTOR 00240 INSURANCE 0.00 0.00 0.00 1,617.59 1,700.00 02 1199 JROTCINSTRUCTOR 00241 INSURANCE, NONCERT 0.00 0.00 0.00 432.74 850.00 02 1199 JROTCINSTRUCTOR 00250 UNEMPLOYMENT COMPENSATI 0.00 0.00 0.00 109.85 40.00 f- - --- 02 1199 JROTCINSTRUCTOR 00251 UNEMPLOY COMP, NON CERT 0.00 0.00 0.00 40.13 40.00 02 1199 JROTCINSTRUCTOR 00260 WORKERS COMP 0.00 0.00 0.00 585.78 550.00 ,0_2 1199 JROTCINSTRUCTOR 00261 WORKERS COMP, NONCERT 0.00 0.00 0.00 214.10 230.00 02 1199 JROTCINSTRUCTOR 00334 CAR ALLOWANCEMONTHL Y 0.00 0.00 0.00 540.00 540.00 -- 01 1210 ITINERANT/HOME BOU 00110 REGULAR CERTIFICATED 73,231.27 77,212.26 79,500.00 91,795.20 95,000.00 - 02 1210 ITINERANT/HOME BOU 00155 STIPENDS-OTHER 0.00 0.00 0.00 330.00 0.00 - - 02 1210 -ITINERANT/HOME BOU 00210 SOCIAL SECURITY TAX 5,341.07 5,617.82 6,100.00 6,737.87 7,280.00 02 1210 ITINERANT/HOME BOU 00214 SS TAX STIPENDSOTHER 0.00 0.00 0.00 25.24 0.00 01 1210 ITINERANT/HOME BOU 00240 INSURANCE 1,783.80 1,713.07 1,750.00 1,687.92 1,700.00 02 1210 ITINERANT/HOME BOU 00250 UNEMPLOYMENT COMPENSATI 117.10 138.00 150.00 138.34 50.00 -1- . 02 1210 ITINERANT/HOME BOU 00260 WORKERS COMP 39.00 83.55 800.00 787.21 670.00 - --- --- -02 - ,-1210 ITINERANT/HOME BOU 00335 INDISTRICT TRAVEL 289.04 2,156.05 0.00 0.00 yoo.oo 01 1215 VISION IMPAIRED 00110 REGULAR CERTIFICATED 0.00 0.00 0.00 25,200.00 26.~ 02 1215 VISION IMPAIRED 00210 SOCIAL SECURITY TAX 0.00 0.00 0.00 1,924.47 1,990.00 f-- -- -- 01 1215 VISION IMPAIRED 00240 INSURANCE 0.00 0.00 0.00 843.96 850.00 -- - 02 1215 VISION IMPAIRED 00250 UNEMPLOYMENT COMPENSATI 0.00 0.00 0.00 37.87 20.00 --- --- -- 02 1215 VISION IMPAIRED 00260 WORKERS COMP 0.00 0.00 0.00 201.60 - - 1-90.00 Page: 30 North Little Rock Public Schools 1992-1995 Expenditures by Function/Object Funds: Salarv (01 ): Ooeratina (02) Debt Service (04) 92-93 93-94 94-95 94-95 95-96 Fund Fnct Function Description Object Object Description Expenses Expenses Budget Expenses Budget 01 1220 RESOURCE ROOM 00110 REGULAR CERTIFICATED 1,132,640.52 1,494,469.24 1,539,300.00 1,859,615.51 1,865,500.00 02 1220 RESOURCE ROOM 00210 SOCIAL SECURITY TAX 83,872.79 110,603.71 113,400.00 138,787.71 142,710.00 01 1220 RESOURCE ROOM 00240 INSURANCE 31,759.42 40,680.51 40,700.00 48,640.49 51,000.00 02 1220 RESOURCE ROOM 00250 UNEMPLOYMENT COMPENSATI 1,444.11 2,346.19 2,500.00 2,782.83 940.00 02 1220 RESOURCE ROOM 00260 WORKERS COMP 716.69 1,572.40 15,000.00 15,765.63 13,060.00 02 1220 RESORCE ROOM 00331 PUPIL TRANSPORTATION 0.00 0.00 200.00 0.00 250.00 02 1220 RESOURCE ROOM 00410 SUPPLIES AND MATERIALS 2,175.54 2,440.09 3,685.00 2,098.69 3,650.00 02 1220 RESOURCE ROOM 00540 EQUIPMENT 0.00 0.00 100.00 178.30 100.00 02 1230 SPECIAL CLASS 1:15 00120 REGULAR NON-CERTIFICATED 5,391.51 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 02 1230 SPECIAL CLASS 1 :15 00211 SS TAX, NON-CERTIFIED 412.76 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 02 1230 SPECIAL CLASS 1:15 00251 UNEMPLOY COMP, NON CERT 23.78 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 02 1230 SPECIAL CLASS 1:15 00261 WORKERS COMP, NON-CERT 4.12 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 01 1240 SPECIAL CLASS 1: 10/B 00110 REGULAR CERTIFICATED 640,302.24 514,275.65 529,700.00 364,852.61 375,800.00 02 1240 SPECIAL CLASS 1:10/B 00120 REGULAR NON-CERTIFICATED 0.00 14,772.92 46,400.00 41,120.97 98,900.00 02 1240 SPECIAL CLASS 1:10/B 00210 SOCIAL SECURITY TAX 46,866.20 38,071.86 40,500.00 27,258.17 28,750.00 02 1240 SPECIAL CLASS 1:10/B 00211 SS TAX, NON-CERTIFIED 0.00 1,130.50 3,500.00 3,137.27 7,570.00 01 1240 SPECIAL CLASS 1:10/B 00240 INSURANCE 18,746.86 15,230.99 15,300.00 10,901.78 11,400.00 02 1240 SPECIAL CLASS 1:10/B 00241 INSURANCE, NON-CERT 0.00 1,284.81 3,750.00 3,049.24 5,095.00 02 1240 SPECIAL CLASS 1:10/B 00250 UNEMPLOYMENT COMPENSATI 815.20 800.16 800.00 547.41 190.00 02 1240 SPECIAL CLASS 1:10/B 00251 UNEMPLOY COMP, NON CERT 0.00 25.72 75.00 61.62 95.00 02 1240 SPECIAL CLASS 1:10/B 00260 WORKERS COMP 399.54 505.35 5,000.00 3,232.99 2,650.00 02 1240 SPECIAL CLASS 1:10/B 00261 WORKERS COMP, NON-CERT 0.00 3.90 100.00 335.02 730.00 02 1240 SPECIAL CLASS 1:10/B 00331 PUPIL TRANSPORTATION 161.27 107.29 475.00 0.00 75.00 02 1240 SPECIAL CLASS 1:10/B 00410 SUPPLIES AND MATERIALS 751.40 1,006.01 2,160.00 297.40 1,022.00 02 1240 SPECIAL CLASS 1:10/B 00440 PERIODICALS/SUBSCRIPTIONS 83.87 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 02 1240 SPECIAL CLASS 1:10/B 00540 EQUIPMENT 0.00 0.00 100.00 0.00 0.00 01 1250 SPECIAL CLASS, 1 :6 00110 REGULAR CERTIFICATED 183,255.96 175,532.62 180,800.00 88,281.73 91,000.00 02 1250 SPECIAL CLASS, 1 :6 00120 REGULAR NON-CERTIFICATED 12,910.56 14,081.25 15,000.00 14,580.24 15,300.00 -- ---- 02 1250 SPECIAL CLASS, 1:6 00210 SOCIAL SECURITY TAX 13,725.38 13,252.92 13,800.00 6,721.73 7,00-0.00 Page: 31 North Little Rock Public Schools 1992-1995 Expenditures by Function/Object Funds: Salarv (01 ): Ooeratina (02): Debt Service (04) 92-93 93-94 94-95 94-95 95-96 Fund Fnct Function Description Object Object Description Expenses Expenses Budget Expenses Budget 02 1250 SPECIAL CLASS, 1.6 00211 SS TAX, NON-CERTIFIED 987.56 1,077.20 1,900.00 1,115.35 1,200.00 01 1250 SPECIAL CLASS, 1 6 00240 INSURANCE 4,829.86 4,444.15 4,700.00 1,850.12 2,800.00 -- -02 1250 -SPECIAL CLASS, 1.6 00241 INSURANCE, NON-CERT 463.34 463.04 1,000.00 456.24 850.00 02 1250 ~PECIAL CLASS, 1.6 00250 UNEMPLOYMENT COMPENSATI 231.86 273.47 300.00 132.44 46.00 -02 1250 SPECIAL CLASS, 1 6 00251 UNEMPLOY COMP, NON CERT 19.42 21.92 50.00 21.74 25.00 02 1250 SPECIAL CLASS, 1 6 00260 WORKERS COMP 113.57 178.11 1,300.00 812.31 650.00 - f--- 02 1250 SPECIAL CLASS, 1.6 00261 WORKERS COMP, NON-CERT 2.76 14.77 50.00 124.78 125.00 -- f-- 02 1250 SPECIAL CLASS, 1 6 00410 SUPPLIES AND MATERIALS 32.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 - - -- 02 1260 PRIVATE DAY SCHOOL 00331 PUPIL TRANSPORTATION 2,212.20 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 -01 126-0 PRIVATE DAY SCHOOL 00370 TUITION 0.00 63,001.89 25,000.00 134,879.95 125,000.00 -02 1271 ,A- CT 591 HANDICAPPE 00370 TUITION 8,629.20 11,066.61 10,000.00 12,051.54 10,000.00 02 1272 ACT 591, NON-HANDIC 00370 TUITION 17,571.13 30,291.27 25,000.00 23,008.67 25,000.00 - 01 1280 PUBLIC DAY SCHOOL 00110 REGULAR CERTIFICATED 126,626.49 132,263.27 136,200.00 149,368.75 153,900.00 02 1280 PUBLIC DAY SCHOOL 00120 REGULAR NON-CERTIFICATED 0.00 0.00 3,000.00 0.00 5,050.00 -- -- 02 1280 PU-BLIC DAY SCHOOL 00210 SOCIAL SECURITY TAX 9,188.60 9,608.89 10,400.00 10,925.06 11,800.00 02 1280 PUBLIC DAY SCHOOL 00211 SS TAX, NON-CERTIFIED 0.00 0.00 230.00 0.00 385.00 01 1280 PUBLIC DAY SCHOOL 00240 INSURANCE 4,087.23 4,140.01 4,200.00 4,712.29 4,800.00 \u0026gt;--- - 02 1280 PUBLIC DAY SCHOOL 00250 UNEMPLOYMENT COMPENSATI 161.21 203.87 200.00 224.12 77.00 02 1280 PUBLIC DAY SCHOOL 00251 UNEMPLOY COMP, NON CERT 0.00 0.00 10.00 0.00 15.00 02 1280 PUBLIC DAY SCHOOL 00260 WORKERS COMP 79.29 142.50 1,000.00 1,276.01 1,080.00 -- 02 1280 PUBLIC DAY SCHOOL 00261 WORKERS COMP, NON-CERT 0.00 0.00 10.00 0.00 400.00 02 1280 PUBLIC DAY SCHOOL 00331 PUPIL TRANSPORTATION 15.00 0.00 350.00 0 00 200.00 \u0026gt;- f-- -02 1280 PUBLIC DAY SCHOOL 00332 TRAVEL EXPENSES 137.97 190.08 150.00 149.-19 -- 225.00 02 1280 PUBLIC DAY SCHOOL 00333 INSERVICE REGISTRATION 140.00 185.00 150.00 205.00 250.00 -- --- 02 1280 PUBLIC DAY SCHOOL 00380 FOOD SERVICES 564.37 694.71 600.00 810 00 900.00 ,- r - - -02 128-0 .P..U.B..L.I.C DAY SCHOOL 00410 SUPPLIES AND MATERIALS 2,289.23 1,434.78 3,056.00 1,756.11 ___ 3~ -02 1280 PUBLIC DAY SCHOOL 00440 PERIODICALS/SUBSCRIPTIONS 23.73 0.00 0.00 000 --- --- 0.00 ,0_2_ 1280 PUBLIC DAY SCHOOL 00490 OTHER SUPPLIES/MATERIALS 290.22 350.06 425.00 370.47 -- -4-25.00 02 1280 PUBLIC DAY SCHOOL 00525 BLINDS 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 2,00-0.00 Page: 32 North Little Rock Public Schools 1992-1995 Expenditures by Function/Object Funds: Salarv (01 ): Ooeratina (02) Debt Service (04) 92-93 93-94 94-95 94-95 95-96 Fund Fnct Function Description Object Object Description Expenses Expenses Budget Expenses Budget 02 1280 PUBLIC DAY SCHOOL 00540 EQUIPMENT 0.00 270.62 269.00 2,253.64 4,250.00 02 1280 PUBLIC DAY SCHOOL 00630 DUES AND FEES 0.00 0.00 100.00 0.00 0.00 02 1280 PUBLIC DAY SCHOOL 00670 INDIRECT COSTS 0.00 0.00 1,200.00 0.00 1,500.00 02 1285 BARING CROSS WORK 00120 REGULAR NON-CERTIFICATED 0.00 11,575.63 11,400.00 12,838.83 12,600.00 02 1285 BARING CROSS WORK 00211 SS TAX, NON-CERTIFIED 0.00 886.16 900.00 983.35 965.00 02 1285 BARlf'iG CROSS WORK 00251 UNEMPLOY COMP, NON CERT 0.00 16.23 100.00 19.43 35.00 02 1285 BARING CROSS WORK 00261 WORKERS COMP, NON-CERT 0.00 11.10 25.00 552.00 540.00 02 1290 EARLY CHILDHOOD, H 00110 REGULAR CERTIFICATED 98,512.08 147,864.92 137,450.00 137,448.11 172,560.00 02 1290 EARLY CHILDHOOD, H 00131 ASSIGNED SUBSTITUTES 0.00 0.00 2,075.00 2,074.00 0.00 02 1290 EARLY CHILDHOOD, H 00210 SOCIAL SECURITY TAX 7,292.73 11,098.93 10,000.00 10,000.69 13,290.00 02 1290 EARLY CHILDHOOD, H 00240 INSURANCE 2,732.94 2,597.63 3,125.00 3,123.52 4,200.00 02 1290 EARLY CHILDHOOD, H 00250 UNEMPLOYMENT COMPENSATI 124.75 190.80 210.00 211.79 260.00 02 1290 EARLY CHILDHOOD, H 00260 WORKERS COMP 48.77 114.43 1,225.00 1,226.30 1,390.00 02 1290 EARLY CHILDHOOD, H 00410 SUPPLIES AND MATERIALS 0.00 0.00 6,739.00 3,783.57 2,955.00 01 1320 DISTRIBUTIVE EDUCAT 00110 REGULAR CERTIFICATED 78,562.32 84,414.58 86,900.00 43,920.00 45,500.00 02 1320 DISTRIBUTIVE EDUCAT 00210 SOCIAL SECURITY TAX 5,788.66 6,252.90 6,650.00 3,322.57 3,490.00 01 1320 DISTRIBUTIVE EDUCAT 00240 INSURANCE 1,962.37 1,713.31 1,800.00 844.32 900.00 02 1320 DISTRIBUTIVE EDUCAT 00250 UNEMPLOYMENT COMPENSATI 104.75 131.25 130.00 65.84 25.00 02 1320 DISTRIBUTIVE EDUCAT 00260 WORKERS COMP 61.43 89.50 870.00 396.71 320.00 02 1320 DISTRIBUTIVE EDUCAT 00326 REPAIRS/MAINT-EQUIP 0.00 0.00 200.00 0.00 200.00 02 1320 DISTRIBUTIVE EDUCAT 00334 CAR ALLOWANCE-MONTHLY 990.00 990.00 495.00 495.00 495.00 02 1320 DISTRIBUTIVE EDUCAT 00335 IN DISTRICT TRAVEL 259.33 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 02 1320 DISTRIBUTIVE EDUCAT 00341 TELEPHONE 0.00 438.72 324.00 438.72 324.00 02 1320 DISTRIBUTIVE EDUCAT 00410 SUPPLIES AND MATERIALS 607.49 425.75 900.00 697.88 800.00 02 1320 DISTRIBUTIVE EDUCAT 00440 PERIODICALS/SUBSCRIPTIONS 156.66 0.00 100.00 o:oo 100.00 02 1320 DISTRIBUTIVE EDUCAT 00540 EQUIPMENT 2,764.81 2,405.71 300.00 0.00 300.00 01 1330 BUSINESS EDUCATION 00110 REGULAR CERTIFICATED 356,120.34 382,226.08 386,900.00 400,234.20 412,500.00 02 1330 BUSINESS EDUCATION 00210 SOCIAL SECURITY TAX 26,192.32 28,437.99 29,600.00 30,142.04 31,600.00 01 1330 BUSINESS EDUCATION 00240 INSURANCE 9,884.72 9,421.89 9,600.00 9,283.56 9,-300.00 Page: 33 North Little Rock Public Schools 1992-1995 Expenditures by Function/Object Funds: Salary (01 ): Operating (02)\nDebt Service (04) 92-93 93-94 94-95 94-95 95-96 Fund Fnc1 Function Description Object Object Description Expenses Expenses Budget Expenses Budget - 02 1330 BUSINESS EDUCATION 00250 UNEMPLOYMENT COMPENSATI 476.71 593.90 600.00 600.36 210.00 -- 02 1330 B-USINESS EDUCATION 00260 WORKERS COMP 260.92 403.13 3,000.00 3,407.70 2,900.00 02 -1-3-30 BUSINESS EDUCATION 00320 RENTAULEASE OF COPIERS 0.00 0.00 0.00 441.65 0.00 02 1330 BUSINESS EDUCATION 00326 REPAIRS/MAINT-EQUIP 3,642.76 2,237.66 3,300.00 666.21 1,760.00 - ,- ._ 02 1330 BUSINESS EDUCATION 00334 CAR ALLOWANCE-MONTHLY 495.00 495.00 495.00 495.00 495.00 02 1330 BUSINESS EDUCATION 00335 INDISTRICT TRAVEL 450.46 450.45 0.00 463.22 500.00 \u0026gt;---1- - 02 --1330 BUSINESS EDUCATION 00341 TELEPHONE 0.00 406.96 324.00 406.96 646.00 -02 1330 BUSINESS EDUCATION 00410 SUPPLIES AND MATERIALS 22,171.67 17,456.10 24,014.00 32,694.12 13,950.00 02 1330 BUSINESS EDUCATION 00450 AUDIOVISUAL MATERIALS 414.76 52.70 700.00 0.00 500.00 02 1330 BUSINESS EDUCATION 00540 EQUIPMENT 14,102.63 15,546.51 19,760.00 26,617.40 21,600.00 - 01 1350 TRADE AND INDUSTRI 00110 REGULAR CERTIFICATED 252,779.19 271,659.66 275,000.00 232,666.16 151,000.00 - 02 - 1350 TRADE AND INDUSTRI 00110 REGULAR CERTIFICATED 0.00 10,449.16 0.00 0.00 0.00 02 1350 TRADE AND INDUSTRI 00210 SOCIAL SECURITY TAX 16,622.36 21,090.94 21,000.00 17,565.67 11,600.00 01 1350 TRADE AND INDUSTRI 00240 INSURANCE 7,124.19 6,667.56 7,000.00 5,535.60 5,900.00 -- 02 1350 TRADE AND INDUSTRI 00240 INSURANCE 0.00 214.10 0.00 0.00 0.00 - - - 02 1350 TRADE AND INDUSTRI 00250 UNEMPLOYMENT COMPENSATI 339.15 436.46 400.00 349.34 76.00 - - 02 1350 TRADE AND INDUSTRI 00260 WORKERS COMP 203.02 292.96 2,000.00 2,011.77 1,060.00 -- - 02 1350 TRADE AND INDUSTRI 00326 REPAIRS/MAINT-EQUIP 1,417.22 1,344.66 1,700.00 131.56 1,150.00 - - -02 -1350 TRADE AND INDUSTRI 00341 TELEPHONE 000 1,626.24 1,620.00 1,221.12 610.00 -02 1-350 TRADE -AND INDUSTRI 00410 SUPPLIES AND MATERIALS 12,922 43 15,910.55 12,645.00 9,634.37 7,240.00 02 1350 TRADE AND INDUSTRI 00430 LIBRARY BOOKS 194.90 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 - -02 -1350 TRADE AND INDUSTRI 00440 PERIODICALS/SUBSCRIPTIONS 14.77 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 02 1350 TRADE AND INDUSTRI 00450 AUDIOVISUAL MATERIALS 0.00 0.00 200.00 90.56 100.00 - 02 1350 TRADE AND INDUSTRI 00540 EQUIPMENT 43,415.40 16,562.26 12,502.00 9,163.02 3,500.00 - - ---- 01 1352 PRINCIPLES OF TECHN 00110 REGULAR CERTIFICATED 61,563.60 66,213.64 66,200.00 66,534.64 70,600.00 02 1352 PRINCIPLES OF TECHN 00210 SOCIAL SECURITY TAX 4,513.46 4,905.96 5,250 00 5,11006 5,400.00 - -- - ,.__ 01 - 1352 -PRINCIPLES OF TECHN 00240 INSURANCE 1,574.34 1,265.70 1,500 00 1,26-6-.64 1,400.00 \u0026gt;-- -- 0-2 -1-352 -PRINCIPLES OF TECHN 00250 UNEMPLOYMENT COMPENSATI 62.06 102.90 100.00 102.63 -- 36.00 -02 1352 PRINCIPLES OF TECHN 00260 WORKERS COMP 46.06 70.19 550.00 56-3 60 -- 5-0-0.00 Page: 34 North Little Rock Public Schools 1992-1995 Expenditures by Function/Object Funds: Salarv (01 )\nQperatinq (02): Debt Service (04) 92-93 93-94 94-95 94-95 95-96 Fund Fnct Function Description Object Object Description Expenses Expenses Budget Expenses Budget 02 1352 PRINCIPLES OF TECHN 00326 REPAIRS/MAINT-EQUIP 0.00 0.00 200.00 0.00 200.00 02 1352 PRINCIPLES OF TECHN 00410 SUPPLIES AND MATERIALS 2,700.56 947.46 1,400.00 314.76 1,400.00 02 1352 PRINCIPLES OF TECHN 00450 AUDIOVISUAL MATERIALS 104.40 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 02 1352 PRINCIPLES OF TECHN 00540 EQUIPMENT 26,485.15 0.00 400.00 450.80 1,000.00 02 1354 TELEVISION PRODUCT 00540 EQUIPMENT 13,957.82 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 02 1355 TELEVISION PRODUCT 00326 REPAIRS/MAINT-EQUIP 0.00 0.00 800.00 912.52 1,150.00 02 1355 TELEVISION PRODUCT! 00341 TELEPHONE 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 162.00 02 1355 TELEVISION PRODUCT! 00410 SUPPLIES AND MATERIALS 0.00 0.00 1,500.00 1,533.63 2,500.00 02 1355 TELEVISION PRODUCT! 00540 EQUIPMENT 0.00 0.00 11,200.00 10,426.81 20,172.00 01 1360 HOME EC 00110 REGULAR CERTIFICATED 278,086.20 275,260.60 283,500.00 288,481.09 297,500.00 02 1360 HOME EC 00210 SOCIAL SECURITY TAX 20,360.89 20,130.08 21,700.00 21,489.18 22,800.00 01 1360 HOMEEC 00240 INSURANCE 8,032.83 6,831.21 7,500.00 6,865.05 7,100.00 02 1360 HOME EC 00250 UNEMPLOYMENT COMPENSATI 369.00 427.92 450.00 432.83 150.00 02 1360 HOME EC 00260 WORKERS COMP 213.06 304.76 2,250.00 2,458.75 2,100.00 02 1360 HOME EC 00326 REPAIRS/MAINT-EQUIP 1,964.25 1,523.34 1,800.00 1,602.69 1,500.00 02 1360 HOME EC 00334 CAR ALLOWANCE-MONTHLY 200.00 425.00 495.00 450.00 495.00 02 1360 HOME EC 00341 TELEPHONE 0.00 0.00 324.00 0.00 324.00 02 1360 HOME EC 00410 SUPPLIES AND MATERIALS 8,705.74 8,720.97 7,050.00 7,864.96 4,350.00 02 1360 HOME EC 00430 LIBRARY BOOKS 134.90 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 02 1360 HOME EC 00440 PERIODICALS/SUBSCRIPTIONS 109.98 56.00 250.00 111.75 200.00 02 1360 HOME EC 00450 AUDIOVISUAL MATERIALS 400.03 769.05 800.00 1,036.29 650.00 02 1360 HOME EC 00540 EQUIPMENT 1,937.20 7,425.68 7,000.00 2,593.42 2,750.00 01 1370 CAREER ORIENTATION 00110 REGULAR CERTIFICATED 47,372.64 52,689.00 54,300.00 77,064.82 79,500.00 02 1370 CAREER ORIENTATION 00210 SOCIAL SECURITY TAX 3,583.26 3,822.38 4,150.00 5,661.40 6,080.00 01 1370 CAREER ORIENTATION 00240 INSURANCE 1,076.56 1,224.34 1,300.00 1,574.65 1,600.00 02 1370 CAREER ORIENTATION 00250 UNEMPLOYMENT COMPENSATI 62.90 82.45 100.00 115.56 40.00 02 1370 CAREER ORIENTATION 00260 WORKERS COMP 36.70 57.91 450.00 645.01 560.00 02 1370 CAREER ORIENTATION 00326 REPAIRS/MAINT-EQUIP 0.00 0.00 400.00 0.00 300.00 - 02 1370 CAREER ORIENTATION 00410 SUPPLIES AND MATERIALS 662.47 1,653.77 1,900.00 1,643.05 1,150.00 Page: 35 North Little Rock Public Schools 1992-1995 Expenditures by Function/Object Funds: Salarv (01 ): OperatinQ (02): Debt Service (04) 92-93 93-94 94-95 94-95 95-96 Fund Fnc1 Function Description Object Object Description Expenses Expenses Budget Expenses Budget -02 1370 CAREER ORIENTATION 00440 PERIODICALS/SUBSCRIPTIONS 110.83 251.62 150.00 217.59 150.00 - 02 1370 CAREER ORIENTATION 00450 AUDIOVISUAL MATERIALS 267.38 0.00 650.00 37.10 450.00 02 1370 -CAREER ORIENTATION 00540 EQUIPMENT 4,507.79 396.68 3,040.00 4,538.07 750.00 02 1380 WORKPLACE READINE 00326 REPAIRS/MAINT-EQUIP 0.00 0.00 100.00 0.00 100.00 -- --1-- 02 1380 -WORKPLACE READINE 00410 SUPPLIES AND MATERIALS 0.00 896.52 700.00 0.00 750.00 02 1380 ,- WOR~PLACE READINE 00450 AUDIOVISUAL MATERIALS 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 100.00 02 1380 WORKPLACE READINE 00540 EQUIPMENT 0.00 3,650.25 200.00 316.35 200.00 ,0_1_ - 1390 SPECIAL NEEDS EDUC 00110 REGULAR CERTIFICATED 353,914.23 343,484.33 353,800.00 338,505.60 348,700.00 02 1390 SPECIAL NEEDS EDUC 00110 REGULAR CERTIFICATED 2,760.00 5,573.73 5,000.00 643.52 750.00 I- - 02 1390 SPECIAL NEEDS EDUC 00120 REGULAR NON-CERTIFICATED 6,731.59 22,633.19 0.00 0.00 0.00 I- ~ 02 1390 SPECIAL NEEDS EDUC 00210 SOCIAL SECURITY TAX 26,600.78 26,265.29 27,480.00 25,791.70 26,760.00 02 1390 SPECIAL NEEDS EDUC 00211 SS TAX, NON-CERTIFIED 515.03 1,731.53 0.00 0.00 0.00 -- 01 1390 SPECIAL NEEDS EDUC 00240 INSURANCE 9,191.39 7,331.03 8,200.00 6,801.36 6,500.00 f- 02 -1390 SPECIAL NEEDS EDUC 00241 INSURANCE, NON-CERT 214.03 856.54 0.00 0.00 0.00 02- 1390 SPECIAL NEEDS EDUC 00250 UNEMPLOYMENT COMPENSATI 453.36 540.59 560.00 508.77 185.00 - - 02 1390 SPECIAL NEEDS EDUC 00251 UNEMPLOY COMP, NON CERT 47.47 37.05 0.00 0.00 0.00 02 1390 SPECIAL NEEDS EDUC 00260 WORKERS COMP 287.82 387.53 2,860.00 2,897.33 2,560.00 \u0026lt;-- - -- 02 - 1390 SPECIAL NEEDS EDUC 00261 WORKERS COMP, NON-CERT 0.00 19.83 0.00 0.00 0.00 - 02 1390 SPECIAL NEEDS EDUC 00310 PROFESSIONAL \u0026amp; TECH SERV 3,875.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 02 1390 SPECIAL NEEDS EDUC 00326 REPAIRS/MAINT-EQUIP 196.68 115.00 900.00 201.22 750.00 02 1390 SPECIAL NEEDS EDUC 00332 TRAVEL EXPENSES 0.00 191.57 0.00 0.00 0.00 02 1390 SPECIAL NEEDS EDUC 00334 CAR ALLOWANCE-MONTHLY 2,475.00 1,485.00 1,485.00 1,485.00 1,485.00 1--- - ,0_2_ 1390 SPECIAL NEEDS EDUC 00335 INDISTRICT TRAVEL 228 23 596.47 0.00 0.00 0.00 02 139-0 SPECIAL NEEDS EDUC 00341 TELEPHONE 0.00 424.80 648.00 424.80 324.00 \u0026gt;--- 02- 1390 SPECIAL NEEDS EDUC 00360 PRINTING AND BINDING 0.00 234.53 0.00 0.00 0.00 \u0026gt;- ,0_2_ 1390 SPECIAL NEEDS EDUC 00410 SUPPLIES AND MATERIALS 9,166.28 3,606.56 5,700.00 8,733.76 4,4-0-0.00 02 1390 SPECIAL NEEDS EDUC 00430 LIBRARY BOOKS 100.64 244.57 200.00 283.89 100.00 02 1390 SPECIAL NEEDS EDUC 00450 AUDIOVISUAL MATERIALS 0.00 0.00 1,000.00 37.10 80-0.00 02 1390 SPECIAL NEEDS EDUC 00540 EQUIPMENT 17,605.73 4,853.74 1,600.00 445.08 1,400.00 ~ - Page: 36 North Little Rock Public Schools 1992-1995 Expenditures by Function/Object Funds: Salarv (01 ): OoeratinQ (02): Debt Service (04) 92-93 93-94 94-95 94-95 95-96 Fund Fnc1 Function Description Object Object Description Expenses Expenses Budget Expenses Budget 02 1510 BASIC SKILLS 00310 PROFESSIONAL \u0026amp; TECH SERV 0.00 1,677.43 250.00 13.75 0.00 02 1510 BASIC SKILLS 00320 RENTAULEASE OF COPIERS 0.00 397.49 250.00 0.00 0.00 02 1510 BASIC SKILLS 00331 PUPIL TRANSPORTATION 0.00 0.00 250.00 62.70 0.00 02 1510 BASIC SKILLS 00332 TRAVEL EXPENSES 0.00 485.75 250.00 0.00 0.00 02 1510 BASIC SKILLS 00380 FOOD SERVICES 0.00 35.69 100.00 84.26 0.00 02 1510 BASIG SKILLS 00390 OTHER PURCHASED SERVICES 0.00 37.50 0.00 0.00 0.00 02 1510 BASIC SKILLS 00410 SUPPLIES AND MATERIALS 0.00 1,298.93 2,287.00 781.88 0.00 02 1510 BASIC SKILLS 00540 EQUIPMENT 0.00 0.00 0.00 711.38 0.00 02 1510 BASIC SKILLS 00690 OTHER EXPENSES 0.00 430.00 700.00 700.00 0.00 02 1520 DROPOUT PREVENTIO 00110 REGULAR CERTIFICATED 11,732.78 12,769.70 13,410.00 12,689.69 0.00 02 1520 DROPOUT PREVENTIO 00210 SOCIAL SECURITY TAX 897.54 976.65 1,025.00 970.85 0.00 02 1520 DROPOUT PREVENTIO 00250 UNEMPLOYMENT COMPENSATI 11.71 19.77 25.00 18.99 0.00 02 1520 DROPOUT PREVENTIO 00260 WORKERS COMP 7.22 13.44 110.00 109.37 0.00 02 1520 DROPOUT PREVENTIO 00331 PUPIL TRANSPORTATION 6,321.91 54.15 100.00 52.70 0.00 02 1520 DROPOUT PREVENTIO 00410 SUPPLIES AND MATERIALS 960.65 904.37 1,050.00 723.94 0.00 02 1522 VITAL LINKS PROGRAM 00110 REGULAR CERTIFICATED 0.00 7,710.00 8,400.00 0.00 8,400.00 02 1522 VITAL LINKS PROGRAM 00150 STIPENDS-WORKSHOPS 7,524.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 02 1522 VITAL LINKS PROGRAM 00210 SOCIAL SECURITY TAX 0.00 589.81 650.00 0.00 600.00 02 1522 VITAL LINKS PROGRAM 00211 SS TAX, NON-CERTIFIED 575.63 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 02 1522 VITAL LINKS PROGRAM 00331 PUPIL TRANSPORTATION 1,872.40 0.00 1,000.00 0.00 1,000.00 02 1522 VITAL LINKS PROGRAM 00342 POSTAGE 0.00 87.90 0.00 0.00 0.00 02 1522 VITAL LINKS PROGRAM 00410 SUPPLIES AND MATERIALS 1,643.20 1,940.73 2,700.00 1,279.18 3,000.00 02 1522 VITAL LINKS PROGRAM 00411 SUPPLIES AND MATERIALS 183.14 0.00 600.00 0.00 0.00 01 1525 ALTERNATIVE ED PRO 00110 REGULAR CERTIFICATED 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 21,100.00 02 1525 Al TERNATIVE ED PRO 00110 REGULAR CERTIFICATED 25,390.08 26,647.79 22,000.00 19,860.48 0.00 02 1525 Al TERNATIVE ED PRO 00120 REGULAR NON-CERTIFICATED 101,334.48 101,786.28 98,440.00 90,834.05 0.00 02 1525 Al TERNATIVE ED PRO 00150 STIPENDS-WORKSHOPS 0.00 0.00 4,000.00 500.00 4,000.00 02 1525 Al TERNA TIVE ED PRO 00155 STIPENDS-OTHER 0.00 150.00 0.00 0.00 - 0.00 02 1525 Al TERNATIVE ED PRO 00210 SOCIAL SECURITY TAX 1,942.31 1,935.75 1,600.00 1,519.26 1,650.00 - Page: 37 North Little Rock Public Schools 1992-1995 Expenditures by Function/Object Funds: Salarv (01 ): Ooeratinc:1(0 2): Debt Service (04) 92-93 93-94 94-95 94-95 95-96 -Fund Fncl Function Description Object Object Description Expenses Expenses Budget Expenses Budget 02 1525 ALTERNATIVE ED PRO 00211 SS.TAX, NON-CERTIFIED 7,329.94 7,633.89 8,220.00 6,778.70 0.00 - - - 02 1525 ALTERNATIVE ED PRO 00212 SS TAX, STIPENDS 0.00 0.00 300.00 38.20 300.00 -- 02 1525 ALTERNATIVE ED PRO 00214 SS TAX STIPENDS-OTHER 0.00 11.47 0.00 0.00 0.00 02 1525 ALTERNATIVE ED PRO 00231 PUBLIC EMPLOYEES RET SYST 361.94 78.18 100.00 0.00 0.00 01 1525 ALTERNATIVE ED PRO 00240 INSURANCE 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 850.00 \u0026gt;- 02 1525 ALTE~NATIVE ED PRO 00240 INSURANCE 475.00 999.29 850.00 843.96 0.00 \u0026gt;- .0_2 1525 ALTERNATIVE ED PRO 00241 INSURANCE, NON-CERT 7,612.23 7,379.73 8,060.00 5,869.43 0.00 \u0026gt;- - 02 1525 ALTERNATIVE ED PRO 00250 UNEMPLOYMENT COMPENSATI 31.97 37.02 50.00 30.49 30.00 - - 02 1525 ALTERNATIVE ED PRO 00251 UNEMPLOY COMP, NON CERT 175.08 160.22 190.00 136.31 0.00 - -- 02 1525 ALTERNATIVE ED PRO 00252 UNEMPLOYMENT COMP,STIPEN 0.00 0.00 10.00 0.00 10.00 02 1525 ALTERNATIVE ED PRO 00260 WORKERS COMP 16.11 23.91 200.00 173.63 170.00 t-- - 02 1525 ALTERNATIVE ED PRO 00261 WORKERS COMP, NON-CERT 68.25 113.60 985.00 778.85 0.00 02 1525 ALTERNATIVE ED PRO 00262 WORKER'S COMP, STIPENDS 0.00 0.00 40.00 0.00 40.00 02 1525 ALTERNATIVE ED PRO 00310 PROFESSIONAL \u0026amp; TECH SERV 61,395.24 51,854.46 93,100.00 93,673.45 0.00 - ,___ -- 02 1525 ALTERNATIVE ED PRO 00320 RENTAULEASE OF COPIERS 0.00 1,892.41 2,000.00 2,573.87 0.00 02 1525 ALTERNATIVE ED PRO 00326 REPAIRS/MAI NT-EQUIP 986.43 295.82 800.00 266.38 0.00 - -t- 02 1525 ALTERNATIVE ED PRO 00331 PUPIL TRANSPORTATION 229.95 495.48 76,800.00 72,646.80 4,000.00 02 1525 ALTERNATIVE ED PRO 00332 TRAVEL EXPENSES 0.00 591.77 1,870.00 108.43 1,000.00 02 1525 ALTERNATIVE ED PRO 00333 INSERVICE REGISTRATION 20.00 1,650.00 500.00 750.00 0.00 r 02 1525 ALTE-RNATIVE ED PRO 00334 CAR ALLOWANCE-MONTHLY 0.00 180.00 200.00 0.00 0.00 02 1525 ALTERNATIVE ED PRO 00335 INDISTRICT TRAVEL 67.20 151.20 200.00 33.60 0.00 02 1525 ALTERNATIVE ED PRO 00342 POSTAGE 0.00 29.00 100.00 96.00 0.00 r - - 02 1525 ALTERNATIVE ED PRO 00380 FOOD SERVICES 315.35 0.00 0.00 22.57 0.00 -- 02 1525 ALTERNATIVE ED PRO 00398 STAFF DEVELOPMENT 0.00 0.00 3,600.00 5,600.00 1,200.00 - -02 - 1525 ALTERNATIVE ED PRO 00410 SUPPLIES AND MATERIALS 6,096.78 6,936.22 14,900.00 10,771 92 4,560.00 02 1525 ALTERNATIVE ED PRO 00420 TEXTBOOKS 4,495.27 8,914.19 2,500.00 775.95 0.00 - -- - -- -02 1525 ALTERNATIVE ED PRO 00430 LIBRARY BOOKS 0.00 2,957.54 4,000.00 3,448.67 0.00 - - 02 - -1-525 ALTERNATIVE ED PRO 00440 PERIODICALS/SUBSCRIPTIONS 0.00 339.00 500.00 664.8-7 -- - 0.-00 -02 -1-525 ALTERNATIVE ED PRO 00450 AUDIOVISUAL MATERIALS 0.00 0.00 0.00 784-.92 - 0.0-0 Page: 38 North Little Rock Public Schools 1992-1995 Expenditures by Function/Object Funds: Salarv (01 ): Ooeratina (02): Debt Service (04) 92-93 93-94 94-95 94-95 95-96 Fund Fnc1 Function Description Object Object Description Expenses Expenses Budget Expenses Budget 02 1525 Al TERNA TIVE ED PRO 00540 EQUIPMENT 2,420.33 6,540.09 22,400.00 5,093.52 20,200.00 02 1525 Al TERNA TIVE ED PRO 00541 FURNITURE 2,810.25 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 02 1525 Al TERNA TIVE ED PRO 00630 DUES AND FEES 0.00 0.00 0.00 50.00 0.00 02 1525 Al TERNATIVE ED PRO 00670 INDIRECT COSTS 0.00 0.00 0.00 1,121.15 0.00 02 1550 EARLY CHILDHOOD ED 00110 REGULAR CERTIFICATED 399.00 300.00 450.00 450.00 0.00 02 1550 EARL y CHILDHOOD ED 00120 REGULAR NON-CERTIFICATED 75,861.61 73,570.46 64,740.00 73,907.58 0.00 02 1550 EARLY CHILDHOOD ED 00150 STIPENDS-WORKSHOPS 0.00 60.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 02 1550 EARLY CHILDHOOD ED 00210 SOCIAL SECURITY TAX 30.50 22.95 35.00 34.44 0.00 02 1550 EARLY CHILDHOOD ED 00211 SS TAX, NON-CERTIFIED 5,433.70 5,252.79 6,592.00 5,368.94 0.00 02 1550 EARLY CHILDHOOD ED 00212 SS TAX, STIPENDS 0.00 4.59 100.00 0.00 0.00 02 1550 EARLY CHILDHOOD ED 00221 TEACH RETIRE, NON CERT 0.00 0.00 2,105.00 0.00 0.00 02 1550 EARLY CHILDHOOD ED 00241 INSURANCE, NON-CERT 3,037.00 5,329.86 2,100.00 1,119.22 0.00 02 1550 EARLY CHILDHOOD ED 00250 UNEMPLOYMENT COMPENSATI 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.68 0.00 02 1550 EARLY CHILDHOOD ED 00251 UNEMPLOY COMP, NON CERT 145.08 98.31 220.00 110.42 0.00 02 1550 EARLY CHILDHOOD ED 00260 WORKERS COMP 0.00 0.00 0.00 3.60 0.00 02 1550 EARLY CHILDHOOD ED 00261 WORKERS COMP, NON-CERT 39.05 73.96 320.00 629.12 0.00 02 1550 EARLY CHILDHOOD ED 00310 PROFESSIONAL \u0026amp; TECH SERV 1,450.00 4,086.40 6,350.00 7,875.45 0.00 02 1550 EARLY CHILDHOOD ED 00331 PUPIL TRANSPORTATION 972.53 270.39 300.00 93.77 0.00 02 1550 EARLY CHILDHOOD ED 00332 TRAVEL EXPENSES 911.94 1,078.01 1,000.00 701.98 0.00 02 1550 EARLY CHILDHOOD ED 00333 INSERVICE REGISTRATION 255.00 170.50 500.00 300.00 0.00 02 1550 EARLY CHILDHOOD ED 00334 CAR ALLOWANCE-MONTHLY 330.00 2,801.06 2,100.00 2,365.00 0.00 02 1550 EARLY CHILDHOOD ED 00335 INDISTRICT TRAVEL 1,007.37 385.00 880.00 380.00 0.00 02 1550 EARLY CHILDHOOD ED 00342 POSTAGE 0.00 31.50 100.00 77.22 0.00 02 1550 EARLY CHILDHOOD ED 00360 PRINTING AND BINDING 0.00 0.00 1,100.00 0.00 0.00 02 1550 EARLY CHILDHOOD ED 00380 FOOD SERVICES 36.55 191.68 200.00 o:oo 0.00 02 1550 EARLY CHILDHOOD ED 00410 SUPPLIES AND MATERIALS 34,866.57 15,753.63 18,283.00 16,990.14 1,000.00 02 1550 EARLY CHILDHOOD ED 00411 SUPPLIES AND MATERIALS 0.00 1,834.28 500.00 0.00 0.00 02 1550 EARLY CHILDHOOD ED 00464 GASOLINE AND DIESEL 0.00 0.00 0.00 529.00 0.00 02 1550 EARLY CHILDHOOD ED 00490 OTHER SUPPLIES/MATERIALS 0.00 0.00 1,100.00 0.00 0.00 Page: 39 North Little Rock Public Schools 1992-1995 Expenditures by Function/Object Funds: Salarv (01 ): Qperatina (02): Debt Service (04) 92-93 93-94 94-95 94-95 95-96 Fund Fnct Function Description Object Object Description Expenses Expenses Budget Expenses Budget 02 1550 EARLY CHILDHOOD ED 00540 EQUIPMENT 0.00 0.00 500.00 0.00 0.00 \u0026gt;- - ,0_2 1-550 EARLY CHILDHOOD ED 00630 DUES AND FEES 122.75 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 02 --1-550 EARLY CHILDHOOD ED 00644 VEHICLE INSURANCE 0.00 0.00 0.00 711.00 0.00 02 1550 EARLY CHILDHOOD ED 00670 INDIRECT COSTS 0.00 0.00 1,572.00 0.00 1,940.00 - - - -02 - 1550 EARLY CHILDHOOD ED 00690 OTHER EXPENSES 0.00 9,445.56 0.00 0.00 0.00 02 1555 HIPPY, 00120 REGULAR NON-CERTIFICATED 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 59,146.00 - - ,0_2_ __ -1555 HIPPY 00211 SS TAX, NON-CERTIFIED 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 520.00 02 1555 HIPPY - 00221 TEACH RETIRE, NON CERT 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 3,500.00 02 1555 HIPPY 00241 INSURANCE, NON-CERT 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 4,245.00 02 1555 HIPPY 00251 UNEMPLOY COMP, NON CERT 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 110.00 02 1555 HIPPY 00261 WORKERS COMP, NON-CERT 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 205.00 ,- - 02 1555 HIPPY 00310 PROFESSIONAL \u0026amp; TECH SERV 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 750.00 ,- - 02 1555 HIPPY 00331 PUPIL TRANSPORTATION 0.00 0,00 0.00 0.00 50.00 ,--- 02 1555 HIPPY 00332 TRAVEL EXPENSES 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 675.00 f- - -- ,0_2_ 1555 HIPPY 00333 INSERVICE REGISTRATION 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 350.00 02 1555 HIPPY 00334 CAR ALLOWANCE-MONTHLY 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1,800.00 - - 02 1555 HIPPY 00335 INDISTRICT TRAVEL 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 100.00 t- - 02 1555 HIPPY 00341 TELEPHONE 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 150.00 ,- -- 02 1555 HIPPY 00380 FOOD SERVICES 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 50.00 - 02 1555 HIPPY 00410 SUPPLIES AND MATERIALS 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 13,258.00 - 02 1555 HIPPY 00464 GASOLINE AND DIESEL 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 620.00 02 1555 HIPPY 00540 EQUIPMENT 0.00 0.00 0.00 000 500.00 \u0026gt;-- - ,__ 02 1555 HIPPY 00670 INDIRECT COSTS 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1,345.00 02 1560 READING 00110 REGULAR CERTIFICATED 0.00 59,006.16 61,960.00 63,432.00 65,350.00 ~- - 02 1560 READING 00210 SOCIAL SECURITY TAX 0.00 4,414.30 4,740.00 4,835.48 5,000.00 -- - 01 1560 READING 00240 INSURANCE 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 850.00 f- - - ,0- 2 1560 RE-ADING 00240 INSURANCE 0.00 1,726.14 1,710.00 1,687.80 - 1~ 02 1560 READING 00250 UNEMPLOYMENT COMPENSATI 0.00 76.10 125.00 94.79 100.00 f- - --- --- - 02 1560 READING 00260 WORKERS COMP 0.00 22.93 495.00 542.12 5-50.00 Page: 40 North Little Rock Public Schools 1992-1995 Expenditures by Function/Object Funds: Salary (01 )\nOperating (02)\nDebt Service (04) 92-93 93-94 94-95 94-95 95-96 Fund Fnct Function Description Object Object Description Expenses Expenses Budget Expenses Budget 02 1560 READING 00331 PUPIL TRANSPORTATION 0.00 10,360.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 02 1560 READING 00332 TRAVEL EXPENSES 0.00 241.89 0.00 0.00 0.00 02 1560 READING 00410 SUPPLIES AND MATERIALS 0.00 3,838.09 5,600.00 5,117.33 0.00 02 1590 OTHER COMP ED 00120 REGULAR NON-CERTIFICATED 95,820.14 98,588.54 101,500.00 102,065.49 108,000.00 02 1590 OTHER COMP ED 00155 STIPENDS-OTHER 0.00 0.00 200.00 80.00 0.00 02 1590 OTHER COMP ED 00211 SS TAX, NON-CERTIFIED 7,329.56 7,542.11 7,800.00 7,808.03 8,200.00 02 1590 OTHER COMP ED 00214 SS TAX STIPENDS-OTHER 0.00 0.00 25.00 6.12 0.00 02 1590 OTHER COMP ED 00241 INSURANCE, NON-CERT 5,665.85 5,013.41 8,000.00 5,337.62 6,000.00 02 1590 OTHER COMP ED 00250 UNEMPLOYMENT COMPENSATI 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.12 0.00 02 1590 OTHER COMP ED 00251 UNEMPLOY COMP, NON CERT 199.62 151.54 250.00 152.16 160.00 02 1590 OTHER COMP ED 00260 WORKERS COMP 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.64 0.00 02 1590 OTHER COMP ED 00261 WORKERS COMP, NON-CERT 61.33 107.94 850.00 873.68 850.00 02 1590 OTHER COMP ED 00310 PROFESSIONAL \u0026amp; TECH SERV 38,032.03 260.00 3,300.00 225.00 300.00 02 1590 OTHER COMP ED 00326 REPAIRS/MAINT-EQUIP 0.00 0.00 3,000.00 . 0.00 0.00 02 1590 OTHER COMP ED 00331 PUPIL TRANSPORTATION 0.00 120.37 100.00 0.00 800.00 02 1590 OTHER COMP ED 00332 TRAVEL EXPENSES 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 300.00 02 1590 OTHER COMP ED 00333 INSERVICE REGISTRATION 0.00 0.00 0.00 1,195.00 890.00 02 1590 OTHER COMP ED 00335 INDISTRICT TRAVEL 361.28 0.00 300.00 0.00 300.00 02 1590 OTHER COMP ED 00390 OTHER PURCHASED SERVICES 0.00 49,002.35 32,000.00 32,756.30 50,000.00 02 1590 OTHER COMP ED 00410 SUPPLIES AND MATERIALS 4,863.32 6,944.73 0.00 0.00 2,200.00 02 1591 COMP ED PARENT/HO 00120 REGULAR NON-CERTIFICATED 76,315.76 79,065.04 75,840.00 64,533.06 65,000.00 02 1591 COMP ED PARENT/HO 00211 SS TAX, NON-CERTIFIED 5,571.95 5,786.37 6,350.00 4,673.91 4,830.00 02 1591 COMP ED PARENT/HO 00241 INSURANCE, NON-CERT 4,053.12 4,467.82 4,500.00 4,431.26 4,500.00 02 1591 COMP ED PARENT/HO 00251 UNEMPLOY COMP, NON CERT 180.41 137.60 163.00 96.19 100.00 02 1591 COMP ED PARENT/HO 00261 WORKERS COMP, NON-CERT 51.00 84.70 665.00 561.93 550.00 02 1591 COMP ED PARENT/HO 00331 PUPIL TRANSPORTATION 22,017.72 17,614.79 500.00 0.00 0.00 02 1591 COMP ED PARENT/HO 00335 INDISTRICT TRAVEL 180.08 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 02 1591 COMP ED PARENT/HO 00410 SUPPLIES AND MATERIALS 7,377.09 1,977.81 1,500.00 1,572.03 915.00 02 1591 COMP ED PARENT/HO 00440 PERIODICALS/SUBSCRIPTIONS 93.90 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Page: 41 North Little Rock Public Schools 1992-1995 Expenditures by Function/Object Funds: Salary (01 )\nOperating (02)\nDebt Service (04) 92-93 93-94 94-95 94-95 95-96 Fund Fnct -F-u-nction Description Object Object Description Expenses Expenses Budget Expenses Budget -02 1592 COMP ED ELE EXTEND 00120 REGULAR NON-CERTIFICATED 23,348.66 464.42 0.00 0.00 0.00 -02 1592 -COMP ED ELE EXTEND 00211 SS TAX, NON-CERTIFIED 1,787.17 35.51 0.00 0.00 0.00 -02 - 1592 -COMP E-D ELE EXTEND 00251 UNEMPLOY COMP, NON CERT 23.72 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 02 1592 COMP ED ELE EXTEND 00261 WORKERS COMP, NON-CERT 13.63 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 - 02 1592 COMP ED ELE EXTEND 00331 PUPIL TRANSPORTATION 99.46 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 - - 02 1592 ~MP. ED ELE EXTEND 00410 SUPPLIES AND MATERIALS 4,684.54 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 - 01 1593 COMP ED TURNING PO 00110 REGULAR CERTIFICATED 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 20,800.00 -- -02 1593 COMP ED TURNING PO 00110 REGULAR CERTIFICATED 36,186.00 38,391.78 39,060.00 29,861.04 0.00 -02 1593 COMP ED TURNING PO 00210 SOCIAL SECURITY TAX 2,726.15 2,921.51 3,080.00 2,274.80 1,590.00 -01 1-593 -COMP ED TURNING PO 00240 INSURANCE 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 425.00 02 1593 COMP ED TURNING PO 00240 INSURANCE 863.86 856.54 860.00 773.63 0.00 02 1593 COMP ED TURNING PO 00250 UNEMPLOYMENT COMPENSATI 42.80 59.68 80.00 44.52 30.00 -02 1593 COMP ED TURNING PO 00260 WORKERS COMP 23.70 40.71 320.00 261.08 160.00 -02 -1-593 -COMP ED TURNING PO 00331 PUPIL TRANSPORTATION 2,044.00 60.24 100.00 38.10 0.00 -02 1593 COMP ED TURNING PO 00335 INDISTRICT TRAVEL 133.52 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 02 1593 COMP ED TURNING PO 00410 SUPPLIES AND MATERIALS 806.06 440.97 400.00 392.88 0.00 - \u0026gt;-- 02 1594 COMP ED PALS LAB 00110 REGULAR CERTIFICATED 52,009.46 9,817.68 0.00 0.00 0.00 02 1594 COMP ED PALS LAB 00210 SOCIAL SECURITY TAX 3,617.04 732.76 0.00 0.00 0.00 .0_2 1594 COMP ED PALS LAB 00240 INSURANCE 1,717.09 357.04 0.00 0.00 0.00 \u0026gt;-- - \u0026gt;- 02 ,_15 94 COMP ED PALS LAB 00250 UNEMPLOYMENT COMPENSATI 65.74 10.52 0.00 0.00 0.00 02 1594 COMP ED PALS LAB 00260 WORKERS COMP 29.63 48.98 0.00 0.00 0.00 02 1594 COMP ED PALS LAB 00410 SUPPLIES AND MATERIALS 73.32 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 02 1594 COMP ED PALS LAB 00540 EQUIPMENT 782.81 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 ,- ~01- - 1910 GIFTED AND TALENTE 00110 REGULAR CERTIFICATED 349,719.41 379,858.62 391,300.00 369,097~ 380,500.00 - -01 - -1910 GIFTED AND TALENTE 00115 CERTIFIED ADMIN 44,610.96 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 -0-2 1910 GIFTED AND TALENTE 00120 REGULAR NON-CERTIFICATED 13,628.88 0.00 16,000.00 0.00 15,000.00 1-- - --- 02 1910 GIFTED AND TALENTE 00150 STIPENDS-WORKSHOPS 2,289.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 - 0.00 02 1910 GIFTED AND TALENTE 00155 STIPENDS-OTHER 0.00 560.00 0.00 0.-00 - -0.00 02 1910 GIFTED AND TALENTE 00210 SOCIAL SECURITY TAX 28,868.47 27,933.30 29,900.00 27,342.95 -- 29,1~ Page: 42 North Little Rock Public Schools 1992-1995 Expenditures by Function/Object Funds: Salary (01 )\nQperatim::1(0 2): Debt Service (04) 92-93 93-94 94-95 94-95 95-96 Fund Fnct Function Description Object Object Description Expenses Expenses Budget Expenses Budget 02 1910 GIFTED AND TALENTE 00211 SS TAX, NON-CERTIFIED 1,153.53 0.00 1,200.00 0.00 190.00 02 1910 GIFTED AND TALENTE 00214 SS TAX STIPENDS-OTHER 0.00 42.85 0.00 0.00 0.00 01 1910 GIFTED AND TALENTE 00240 INSURANCE 11,022.83 10,278.18 10,600.00 9,283.44 9,300.00 02 1910 GIFTED AND TALENTE 00241 INSURANCE, NON-CERT 907.90 0.00 850.00 0.00 2,700.00 02 1910 GIFTED AND TALENTE 00250 UNEMPLOYMENT COMPENSATI 502.75 590.62 600.00 553.66 600.00 02 1910 GIFT~D AND TALENTE 00251 UNEMPLOY COMP, NON CERT 20.68 0.00 50.00 0.00 40.00 02 1910 GIFTED AND TALENTE 00260 WORKERS COMP 250.83 400.21 3,150.00 3,187.07 3,120.00 02 1910 GIFTED AND TALENTE 00261 WORKERS COMP, NON-CERT 10.14 0.00 150.00 0.00 120.00 02 1910 GIFTED AND TALENTE 00310 PROFESSIONAL \u0026amp; TECH SERV 3,470.00 1,225.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 02 1910 GIFTED AND TALENTE 00320 RENTAULEASE OF COPIERS 0.00 91.69 0.00 0.00 0.00 02 1910 GIFTED AND TALENTE 00331 PUPIL TRANSPORTATION 2,804.34 1,087.76 2,600.00 1,424.10 1,000.00 02 1910 GIFTED AND TALENTE 00333 INSERVICE REGISTRATION 2,175.00 2,120.00 2,000.00 2,770.00 1,000.00 02 1910 GIFTED AND TALENTE 00334 CAR ALLOWANCE-MONTHLY 495.00 495.00 495.00 495.00 495.00 02 1910 GIFTED AND TALENTE 00335 INDISTRICT TRAVEL 564.55 225.41 806.00 212.39 300.00 02 1910 GIFTED AND TALENTE 00341 TELEPHONE 0.00 442.81 500.00 482.04 500.00 02 1910 GIFTED AND TALENTE 00342 POSTAGE 239.71 333.65 300.00 411.06 300.00 02 1910 GIFTED AND TALENTE 00410 SUPPLIES AND MATERIALS 9,765.87 12,954.43 13,000.00 14,388.49 14,000.00 02 1910 GIFTED AND TALENTE 00411 SUPPLIES AND MATERIALS 0.00 198.14 200.00 97.92 200.00 02 1910 GIFTED AND TALENTE 00440 PERIODICALS/SUBSCRIPTIONS 586.92 391.98 600.00 576.31 600.00 02 1910 GIFTED AND TALENTE 00540 EQUIPMENT 0.00 0.00 2,550.00 2,051.07 3,500.00 02 1910 GIFTED AND TALENTE 00630 DUES AND FEES 25.00 25.00 30.00 25.00 25.00 01 1911 GIT PROJECT PROMIS 00110 REGULAR CERTIFICATED 10,040.08 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 02 1911 GIT PROJECT PROMIS 00120 REGULAR NON-CERTIFICATED 930.00 6,975.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 02 1911 GIT PROJECT PROMIS 00150 STIPENDS-WORKSHOPS 272.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 02 1911 GIT PROJECT PROMIS 00210 SOCIAL SECURITY TAX 761.26 0.00 0.00 0.00 - 0.00 02 1911 GIT PROJECT PROMIS 00211 SS TAX, NON-CERTIFIED 90.48 533.65 0.00 0.00 0.00 02 1911 GIT PROJECT PROMIS 00250 UNEMPLOYMENT COMPENSATI 16.06 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 02 1911 GIT PROJECT PROMIS 00251 UNEMPLOY COMP, NON CERT 1.77 8.97 0.00 0.00 0.00 --- 02 1911 GIT PROJECT PROMIS 00260 WORKERS COMP 6.37 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 - Page: 43 North Little Rock Public Schools 1992-1995 Expenditures by Function/Object Funds: Salarv (01): OperatinQ (02): Debt Service (04) 92-93 93-94 94-95 94-95 95-96 -Fund Fnc ~nction Description Object Object Description Expenses Expenses Budget Expenses Budget 02 - -1-911 GIT PROJECT PROMIS 00261 WORKERS COMP, NON-CERT 0.60 4.47 0.00 0.00 0.00 02 1911 GIT PROJECT PROMIS 00342 POSTAGE 16.82 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 02 1911 GIT PROJECT PROMIS 00370 TUITION 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 2,000.00 f- - I--. - 02 1911 GIT PROJECT PROMIS 00410 SUPPLIES AND MATERIALS 329.27 102.80 0.00 0.00 0.00 02 1912 GIT SUMMER QUEST 00110 REGULAR CERTIFICATED 0.00 11,160.00 15,300.00 15,262.50 18,975.00 t-- -- 02 1912 GIT SVMMER QUEST 00150 STIPENDS-WORKSHOPS 0.00 360.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 -02 1912 GIT SUMMER QUEST 00155 STIPENDS-OTHER 0.00 0.00 100.00 69.00 0.00 02 - 1912 GIT SUMMER QUEST 00210 SOCIAL SECURITY TAX 0.00 853.74 1,300.00 1,167.71 1,450.00 I- 02 1912 GIT SUMMER QUEST 00212 SS TAX, STIPENDS 0.00 27.54 0.00 0.00 0.00 02 1912 GIT SUMMER QUEST 00214 SS TAX STIPENDS-OTHER 0.00 0.00 0.00 5.28 0.00 -02 1912 GIT SUMMER QUEST 00250 UNEMPLOYMENT COMPENSATI 0.00 0.00 0.00 22.99 30.00 -02 1912 GIT SUMMER QUEST 00260 WORKERS COMP 0.00 0.00 0.00 122.65 150.00 -02 1912 GIT SUMMER QUEST 00310 PROFESSIONAL \u0026amp; TECH SERV 0.00 0.00 200.00 204.00 0.00 02 1912 GIT SUMMER QUEST 00331 PUPIL TRANSPORTATION 0.00 905.00 1,380.00 1,343.10 0.00 i--- I- 02 1912 GIT SUMMER QUEST 00342 POSTAGE 0.00 53.28 20.00 12.35 0.00 I- - I- 02 1912 GIT SUMMER QUEST 00410 SUPPLIES AND MATERIALS 2,675.74 2,840.96 4,700.00 4,723.14 3,000.00 \u0026gt;- 01 1913 GIT MATHEMATICS 00110 REGULAR CERTIFICATED 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 19,500.00 I-- 02 1913 GIT MATHEMATICS 00110 REGULAR CERTIFICATED 0.00 14,500.50 15,000.00 14,700.24 0.00 .0.2. . 1913 GIT MATHEMATICS 00120 REGULAR NON-CERTIFICATED 5,706.05 2,820.85 3,000.00 1,354.18 1,500.00 -f-- f- 02 1913 GIT MATHEMATICS 00130 SUBSTITUTE TEACHERS 0.00 260.00 300.00 0.00 0.00 \u0026gt;-- -02 .1..9.1.3.- GIT MATHEMATICS 00150 STIPENDS-WORKSHOPS 0.00 232.00 700.00 0.00 0.00 -02 .1.9.1.3 GIT MATHEMATICS 00155 STIPENDS-OTHER 0.00 300.00 300.00 375.00 300.00 -02 1913 GIT MATHEMATICS 00210 SOCIAL SECURITY TAX 0.00 1,128.79 1,150.00 1,124.55 1,500.00 02 1913 GIT MATHEMATICS 00211 SS TAX, NON-CERTIFIED 436.44 215.84 100.00 103.54 130.00 1-- 02 1913 GIT MATHEMATICS 00212 SS TAX, STIPENDS 0.00 17.76 25.00 0.00 10.00 ~ -02 - 1913 GIT MATHEMATICS 00214 SS TAX STIPENDS-OTHER 0.00 22.96 50.00 28.70 0.00 1-- -\u0026gt;-- - 02 1913 GIT MATHEMATICS 00250 UNEMPLOYMENT COMPENSATI 0.00 14.91 25.00 22.82 30.00 02 1913 GIT MATHEMATICS 00251 UNEMPLOY COMP, NON CERT 5.72 3.80 25.00 1.98 5.00 - - -- 02 1913 GIT MATHEMATICS 00260 WORKERS COMP 0.00 13.77 125.00 12--8.32 -140.00 Page: 44 North Little Rock Public Schools 1992-1995 Expenditures by Function/Object Funds: Salarv (01 ): Ooeratina (02) Debt Service (04) 92-93 93-94 94-95 94-95 95-96 Fund Fncl Function Description Object Object Description Expenses Expenses Budget Expenses Budget 02 1913 GIT MATHEMATICS 00261 WORKERS COMP, NON-CERT 1.40 4.46 25.00 15.26 15.00 02 1913 GIT MATHEMATICS 00262 WORKER'S COMP, STIPENDS 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 5.00 02 1913 GIT MATHEMATICS 00310 PROFESSIONAL \u0026amp; TECH SERV 1,000.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 02 1913 GIT MATHEMATICS 00342 POSTAGE 0.00 14.67 75.00 0.00 0.00 02 1913 GIT MATHEMATICS 00410 SUPPLIES AND MATERIALS 0.00 268.13 600.00 0.00 0.00 02 1913 GIT MATHEMATICS 00420 TEXTBOOKS 0.00 0.00 1,700.00 173.30 0.00 01 1950 Al TERNATIVE SCHOOL 00110 REGULAR CERTIFICATED 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 243,500.00 02 1950 ALTERNATIVE SCHOOL 00120 REGULAR NON-CERTIFICATED 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 90,050.00 02 1950 ALTERNATIVE SCHOOL 00210 SOCIAL SECURITY TAX 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 18,650.00 02 1950 Al TERNA TIVE SCHOOL 00211 SS TAX, NON-CERTIFIED 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 6,900.00 01 1950 Al TERNATIVE SCHOOL 00240 INSURANCE 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 7,650.00 02 1950 Al TERNATIVE SCHOOL 00241 INSURANCE, NON-CERT 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 6,720.00 02 1950 ALTERNATIVE SCHOOL 00250 UNEMPLOYMENT COMPENSATI 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 365.00 02 1950 Al TERNATIVE SCHOOL 00251 UNEMPLOY COMP, NON CERT 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 130.00 02 1950 ALTERNATIVE SCHOOL 00260 WORKERS COMP 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1,950.00 02 1950 ALTERNATIVE SCHOOL 00261 WORKERS COMP, NON-CERT 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 720.00 02 1950 Al TERNATIVE SCHOOL 00310 PROFESSIONAL \u0026amp; TECH SERV 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 64,000.00 02 1950 Al TERNATIVE SCHOOL 00320 RENTAULEASE OF COPIERS 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 100.00 02 1950 Al TERNATIVE SCHOOL 00326 REPAIRS/MAINT-EQUIP 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 250.00 02 1950 Al TERNA TIVE SCHOOL 00331 PUPIL TRANSPORTATION 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 900.00 02 1950 ALTERNATIVE SCHOOL 00333 INSERVICE REGISTRATION 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 180.00 02 1950 ALTERNATIVE SCHOOL 00341 TELEPHONE 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 100.00 02 1950 ALTERNATIVE SCHOOL 00342 POSTAGE 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 128.00 02 1950 ALTERNATIVE SCHOOL 00380 FOOD SERVICES 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 140.00 02 1950 Al TERNA TIVE SCHOOL 00410 SUPPLIES AND MATERIALS 0.00 0.00 0.00 0,00 6,320.00 02 1950 ALTERNATIVE SCHOOL 00430 LIBRARY BOOKS 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1,100.00 02 1950 ALTERNATIVE SCHOOL 00440 PERIODICALS/SUBSCRIPTIONS 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 212.00 -- 02 1950 Al TERNATIVE SCHOOL 00450 AUDIOVISUAL MATERIALS 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 550.00 -- 02 1950 ALTERNATIVE SCHOOL 00540 EQUIPMENT 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1,350.00 Page: 45 North Little Rock Public Schools 1992-1995 Expenditures by Function/Object Funds: Salarv (01 }: Ooeratina (02): Debt Service (04) 92-93 93-94 94-95 94-95 95-96 Fund Fnc Function Description Object Object Description Expenses Expenses Budget Expenses Budget - - 02 1990 OTHER INSTRUCTIONA 00110 REGULAR CERTIFICATED 2,520.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 ,-- 02 1990 OTHER INSTRUCTIONA 00210 SOCIAL SECURITY TAX 192.60 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 \u0026gt;- - 02 1990 OTHER INSTRUCTIONA 00250 UNEMPLOYMENT COMPENSATI 6.08 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 02 2101 00120 REGULAR NON-CERTIFICATED 50,433.42 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 - - 02 2101 00211 SS TAX, NON-CERTIFIED 3,848.96 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 - 02 2101 _, 00251 UNEMPLOY COMP, NON CERT 257.39 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 - -02 - 2101 00261 WORKERS COMP, NON-CERT 29.82 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 02 2101 00410 SUPPLIES AND MATERIALS 43.32 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 - - - 02 2102  00120 REGULAR NON-CERTIFICATED 154,106.26 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 - --- - 02 2102  00211 SS TAX, NON-CERTIFIED 11,799.02 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 - - 02 2102  00231 PUBLIC EMPLOYEES RET SYST 40.41 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 02 2102  00251 UNEMPLOY COMP, NON CERT 817.89 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 --\u0026gt;- - 02 2102  00261 WORKERS COMP, NON-CERT 96.42 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 -- - 02 2110 ATTEND \u0026amp; SOCIAL WR 00110 REGULAR CERTIFICATED 0.00 0.00 0.00 4,350.00 4,350.00 - 02 2110 ATTEND \u0026amp; SOCIAL WR 00120 REGULAR NON-CERTIFICATED 12,304.08 32,948.30 35,000.00 36,930.07 44,400.00 --- - 0-2 - -211-0 ATTEND \u0026amp; SOCIAL WR 00155 STIPENDS-OTHER 0.00 290.95 300.00 0.00 0.00 -02 2110 ATTEND \u0026amp; SOCIAL WR 00210 SOCIAL SECURITY TAX 0.00 0.00 0.00 332.76 340.00 02 2110 ATTEND \u0026amp; SOCIAL WR 00211 SS TAX, NON-CERTIFIED 673.45 2,233.61 2,700.00 2,579.45 3,350.00 02 2110 ATTEND \u0026amp; SOCIAL WR 00214 SS TAX STIPENDS-OTHER 0.00 22.24 25.00 0.00 0.00 02 2110 ATTEND \u0026amp; SOCIAL WR 00241 INSURANCE, NON-CERT 850.61 2,080.87 2,125.00 2,160.00 2,535.00 02 -2110 -ATTEND \u0026amp; SOCIAL WR 00250 UNEMPLOYMENT COMPENSATI 0.00 0.00 0.00 6.53 7.00 02 2110 ATTEND \u0026amp; SOCIAL WR 00251 UNEMPLOY COMP, NON CERT 18.81 54.85 75.00 55.24 65.00 - 02 2110 ATTEND \u0026amp; SOCIAL WR 00260 WORKERS COMP 0.00 0.00 0.00 34.80 35.00 - -- -- -02- - 2110 ATTEND \u0026amp; SOCIAL WR 00261 WORKERS COMP, NON-CERT 3.29 20.69 275.00 3-37.12 - 360.00 02 2110 ATTEND \u0026amp; SOCIAL WR 00327 REPAIRS/MAINT-BUSNEHICLE 0.00 0.00 500.00 139.18 500.00 -- - 02 2110 ATTEND \u0026amp; SOCIAL WR 00332 TRAVEL EXPENSES 0.00 294.00 300.00 0.00 300.00 -- - 02 2110 ATTEND \u0026amp; SOCIAL WR 00333 INSERVICE REGISTRATION 0.00 100.00 200.00 0.00 200.00 02 2110 ATTEND \u0026amp; SOCIAL WR 00334 CAR ALLOWANCE-MONTHLY 405.00 450.00 450.00 450.00 450.00 -- - --- - 02 2110 ATTEND \u0026amp; SOCIAL WR 00335 INDISTRICT TRAVEL 29.40 0.00 0.00 0.00 - ~ Page: 46 North Little Rock Public Schools 1992-1995 Expenditures by Function/Object Funds: Salarv (01 ): Ooeratina (02): Debt Service (04) 92-93 93-94 94-95 94-95 95-96 Fund Fnct Function Description Object Object Description Expenses Expenses Budget Expenses Budget 02 2110 ATTEND \u0026amp; SOCIAL WR 00341 TELEPHONE 1,384.89 4,533.41 1,200.00 1,240.10 2,000.00 02 2110 ATTEND \u0026amp; SOCIAL WR 00410 SUPPLIES AND MATERIALS 0.00 194.12 0.00 0.00 1,000.00 02 2110 ATTEND \u0026amp; SOCIAL WR 00464 GASOLINE AND DIESEL 0.00 84.80 500.00 267.05 500.00 02 2110 ATTEND \u0026amp; SOCIAL WR 00540 EQUIPMENT 0.00 468.42 0.00 0.00 0.00 02 2110 ATTEND \u0026amp; SOCIAL WR 00550 VEHICLES 0.00 24,264.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 02 2110 ATTEND \u0026amp; SOCIAL WR 00644 VEHICLE INSURANCE 0.00 1,758.00 1,800.00 1,422.00 860.00 01 2120 GUIDANCE/COUNSELIN 00110 REGULAR CERTIFICATED 824,164.07 885,880.38 912,400.00 900,703.15 930,000.00 02 2120 GUIDANCE/COUNSELIN 00120 REGULAR NON-CERTIFICATED 92,650.68 93,177.21 96,000.00 95,530.34 100,000.00 02 2120 GUIDANCE/COUNSELIN 00210 SOCIAL SECURITY TAX 61,004.98 66,823.49 69,800.00 68,251.60 71,200.00 02 2120 GUIDANCE/COUNSELIN 00211 SS TAX, NON-CERTIFIED 6,753.96 6,928.12 7,400.00 7,117.18 7,650.00 01 2120 GUIDANCE/COUNSELIN 00240 INSURANCE 19,428.13 19,231.51 19,600.00 19,023.50 19,500.00 02 2120 GUIDANCE/COUNSELIN 00241 INSURANCE, NON-CERT 4,808.58 4,302.30 4,400.00 4,621.31 5,100.00 02 2120 GUIDANCE/COUNSELIN 00250 UNEMPLOYMENT COMPENSATI 942.00 1,360.50 1,400.00 1,350.90 465.00 02 2120 GUIDANCE/COUNSELIN 00251 UNEMPLOY COMP, NON CERT 131.85 141.64 150.00 142.72 150.00 02 2120 GUIDANCE/COUNSELIN 00260 WORKERS COMP 498.10 935.25 7,300.00 7,711.95 6,550.00 02 2120 GUIDANCE/COUNSELIN 00261 WORKERS COMP, NON-CERT 69.61 100.28 750.00 807.89 800.00 02 2120 GUIDANCE/COUNSELIN 00310 PROFESSIONAL \u0026amp; TECH SERV 150.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 60,000.00 02 2120 GUIDANCE/COUNSELIN 00326 REPAIRS/MAINT-EQUIP 0.00 44.30 0.00 0.00 0.00 02 2120 GUIDANCE/COUNSELIN 00335 INDISTRICT TRAVEL 1,452.81 1,223.19 1,500.00 881.02 1,000.00 02 2120 GUIDANCE/COUNSELIN 00410 SUPPLIES AND MATERIALS 1,644.78 1,320.11 2,500.00 2,074.93 2,200.00 02 2120 GUIDANCE/COUNSELIN 00440 PERIODICALS/SUBSCRIPTIONS 110.83 277.00 100.00 175.72 150.00 02 2120 GUIDANCE/COUNSELIN 00540 EQUIPMENT 0.00 265.00 0.00 140.98 150.00 02 2120 GUIDANCE/COUNSELIN 00630 DUES AND FEES 0.00 195.00 200.00 195.00 200.00 02 2123 APPRAISAL SERVICES 00310 PROFESSIONAL \u0026amp; TECH SERV 0.00 1,100.00 2,200.00 0.00 2,200.00 02 2123 APPRAISAL SERVICES 00326 REPAIRS/MAINT-EQUIP 1,160.50 0.00 500.00 1,100.00 500.00 02 2123 APPRAISAL SERVICES 00410 SUPPLIES AND MATERIALS 12,883.78 11,733.53 14,000.00 14,419.97 8,000.00 02 2130 HEAL TH SERVICES 00120 REGULAR NON-CERTIFICATED 76,083.24 79,620.73 82,500.00 89,890.99 93,400.00 02 2130 HEAL TH SERVICES 00211 SS TAX, NON-CERTIFIED 5,536.30 5,889.57 6,300.00 6,663.71 7,150.00 02 2130 HEAL TH SERVICES 00241 INSURANCE, NON-CERT 3,019.99 3,069.12 3,200.00 2,964.38 3,350.00 Page: 47 North Little Rock Public Schools 1992-1995 Expenditures by Function/Object Funds: Salarv (01): Operatina (02): Debt Service (04) 92-93 93-94 94-95 94-95 95-96 Fund Fnc1 Function Description Object Object Description Expenses Expenses Budget Expenses Budget 02 2130 HEAL TH SERVICES 00251 UN.EMPLOY COMP, NON CERT 90.22 114.92 130.00 134.44 250.00 - - - 02 2130 HEAL TH SERVICES 00261 WORKERS COMP, NON-CERT 51.25 89.99 700.00 758.38 750.00 - 02 2130 HEAL TH SERVICES 00326 REPAIRS/MAINT-EQUIP 220.00 334.44 500.00 220.00 300.00 ---- I--- \u0026gt;- 02 2130 -HEAL TH SERVICES 00332 TRAVEL EXPENSES 0.00 312.50 1,000.00 378.70 0.00 02 2130 HEAL TH SERVICES 00333 INSERVICE REGISTRATION 125.00 332.00 300.00 100.00 100.00 - ,-...- 02 2130 HEALTH SERVICES 00334 CAR ALLOWANCE-MONTHLY 700.00 700.00 720.00 720.00 720.00 - - 02 2130 HEAL TH SERVICES 00410 SUPPLIES AND MATERIALS 930.63 1,272.37 1,950.00 2,365.63 1,000.00 - 02 2130 HEAL TH SERVICES 00540 EQUIPMENT 0.00 715.03 500.00 0.00 0.00 - - 01 2140 PSYCHOLOGICAL SER 00110 REGULAR CERTIFICATED 104,130.00 114,174.00 117,600.00 149,239.55 153,800.00 01 2140 PSYCHOLOGICAL SER 00115 CERTIFIED ADMIN 51,602.16 57,153.60 58,900.00 0.00 0.00 I- ~ I- 02 2140 PSYCHOLOGICAL SER 00155 STIPENDS-OTHER 0.00 0.00 1,500.00 1,484.00 0.00 ,- - - I- 02 2140 PSYCHOLOGICAL SER 00210 SOCIAL SECURITY TAX 11,552.27 12,764.66 13,500.00 11,059.88 11,800.00 ,-- 02 2140 PSYCHOLOGICAL SER 00214 SS TAX STIPENDS-OTHER 0.00 0.00 125.00 113.53 0.00 f- ,-...- 01 2140 PSYCHOLOGICAL SER 00240 INSURANCE 3,232.92 3,049.21 3,200.00 2,898.58 3,100.00 ,- 02 2140 PSYCHOLOGICAL SER 00250 UNEMPLOYMENT COMPENSATI 183.40 265.88 300.00 226.10 80.00 I- -f- 02 2140 PSYCHOLOGICAL SER 00260 WORKERS COMP 108.01 180.56 1,400.00 1,421.23 1,100.00 ,__ - ---- -02 - 2140 PSYCHOLOGICAL SER 00310 PROFESSIONAL \u0026amp; TECH SERV 57,324.00 64,752.11 50,000.00 60,000.00 0.00 02 2140 PSYCHOLOGICAL SER 00334 CAR ALLOWANCE-MONTHLY 540.00 540.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 -\u0026gt;- 01 2150 SPEECH PATH/AUDIOL 00110 REGULAR CERTIFICATED 377,103.12 379,296.64 390,700.00 351,079.40 361,700.00 .-- 02 2150 SPEECH PATH/AUDIOL 00110 REGULAR CERTIFICATED 37,758.08 129,737.76 145,780.00 145,778.08 122,945.00 02 2150 SPEECH PATH/AUDIOL 00210 SOCIAL SECURITY TAX 30,820.39 38,213.15 40,900.00 37,418.76 37,100.00 01 2150 SPEECH PATH/AUDIOL 00240 INSURANCE 10,270.36 10,380.50 10,400.00 8,712.43 8,700.00 1--f- -1- 02 2150 SPEECH PATH/AUDIOL 00240 INSURANCE 1,444.96 0.00 3,025.00 3,028.11 3,360.00 ,- 02 2150 SPEECH PATH/AUDIOL 00250 UNEMPLOYMENT COMPENSATI 462.93 746.32 815.00 743.89 360.00 ,-. 02 2150 SPEECH PATH/AUDIOL 00260 WORKERS COMP 214.90 431.62 4,375.00 4,313.37 3,450.00 02 2150 SPEECH PATH/AUDIOL 00310 PROFESSIONAL \u0026amp; TECH SERV 0.00 0.00 14,000.00 14,220.00 0.00 f- -f- 02 2150 SPEECH PATH/AUDIOL 00410 SUPPLIES AND MATERIALS 466.96 442.35 1,200.00 416.37 ___!,0~ 01 2160 PHYS \u0026amp; OCC THERAPY 00110 REGULAR CERTIFICATED 61,092.96 60,061.50 69,400.00 69,674.64 71,800.00 ---- -- -- 02 2160 PHYS \u0026amp; OCC THERAPY 00110 REGULAR CERTIFICATED 0.00 7,281.78 0.00 0.00 0.00 -- Page: 48 North Little Rock Public Schools 1992-1995 Expenditures by Function/Object Funds: Salarv (01 ): Qperatina (02): Debt Service (04) 92-93 93-94 94-95 94-95 95-96 Fund Fncl Function Description Object Object Description Expenses Expenses Budget Expenses Budget 02 2160 PHYS \u0026amp; OCC THERAPY 00210 SOCIAL SECURITY TAX 4,584.71 5,115.53 5,300.00 5,318.14 5,500.00 01 2160 PHYS \u0026amp; OCC THERAPY 00240 INSURANCE 1,595.28 1,713.44 1,800.00 1,688.32 1,700.00 02 2160 PHYS \u0026amp; OCC THERAPY 00250 UNEMPLOYMENT COMPENSATI 69.38 104.70 150.00 104.52 36.00 02 2160 PHYS \u0026amp; OCC THERAPY 00260 WORKERS COMP 32.16 69.98 550.00 599.01 503.00 02 2160 PHYS \u0026amp; OCC THERAPY 00310 PROFESSIONAL \u0026amp; TECH SERV 0.00 11,234.75 44,000.00 43,972.08 0.00 02 2160 PHYS,\u0026amp; OCC THERAPY 00540 EQUIPMENT 0.00 0.00 300.00 284.65 0.00 01 2190 OTHER PUPIL SUPPOR 00115 CERTIFIED ADMIN 0.00 0.00 61,300.00 50,624.02 60,400.00 02 2190 OTHER PUPIL SUPPOR 00120 REGULAR NON-CERTIFICATED 29,713.52 0.00 29,600.00 33,671.74 41,000.00 02 2190 OTHER PUPIL SUPPOR 00150 STIPENDS-WORKSHOPS 0.00 160.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 02 2190 OTHER PUPIL SUPPOR 00210 SOCIAL SECURITY TAX 0.00 0.00 4,700.00 3,872.73 4,650.00 02 2190 OTHER PUPIL SUPPOR 00211 SS TAX, NON-CERTIFIED 2,189.94 0.00 3,000.00 2,476.39 3,140.00 02 2190 OTHER PUPIL SUPPOR 00212 SS TAX, STIPENDS 0.00 12.24 0.00 0.00 0.00 01 2190 OTHER PUPIL SUPPOR 00240 INSURANCE 0.00 0.00 900.00 703.60 900.00 02 2190 OTHER PUPIL SUPPOR 00241 INSURANCE, NON-CERT 1,596.50 0.00 900.00 1,758.16 1,800.00 02 2190 OTHER PUPIL SUPPOR 00250 UNEMPLOYMENT COMPENSATI 0.00 0.00 100.00 75.90 30.00 02 2190 OTHER PUPIL SUPPOR 00251 UNEMPLOY COMP, NON CERT 42.18 0.00 50.00 55.94 60.00 02 2190 OTHER PUPIL SUPPOR 00260 WORKERS COMP 0.00 0.00 450.00 404.92 430.00 02 2190 OTHER PUPIL SUPPOR 00261 WORKERS COMP, NON-CERT 18.94 0.00 200.00 309.15 320.00 02 2190 OTHER PUPIL SUPPOR 00310 PROFESSIONAL \u0026amp; TECH SERV 0.00 0.00 0.00 2,800.00 2,500.00 02 2190 OTHER PUPIL SUPPOR 00326 REPAIRS/MAI NT-EQUIP 0.00 0.00 100.00 85.90 100.00 02 2190 OTHER PUPIL SUPPOR 00331 PUPIL TRANSPORTATION 778.16 0.00 1,500.00 41.60 800.00 02 2190 OTHER PUPIL SUPPOR 00332 TRAVEL EXPENSES 0.00 698.00 0.00 8.00 0.00 02 2190 OTHER PUPIL SUPPOR 00333 INSERVICE REGISTRATION 0.00 0.00 100.00 50.00 50.00 02 2190 OTHER PUPIL SUPPOR 00334 CAR ALLOWANCE-MONTHLY 0.00 0.00 540.00 495.00 540.00 -- 02 2190 OTHER PUPIL SUPPOR 00341 TELEPHONE 0.00 0.00 60.00 47.60 50.00 02 2190 OTHER PUPIL SUPPOR 00342 POSTAGE 0.00 689.89 250.00 743.73 470.00 02 2190 OTHER PUPIL SUPPOR 00380 FOOD SERVICES 0.00 172.00 175.00 126.85 150.00 02 2190 OTHER PUPIL SUPPOR 00410 SUPPLIES AND MATERIALS 179.72 2,498.20 725.00 2,034.75 -975.00 02 2193 NATL SCIENCE FOUND 00410 SUPPLIES AND MATERIALS 0.00 253.20 0.00 0.00 0.00 Page: 49 North Little Rock Public Schools 1992-1995 Expenditures by Function/Object Funds: Salary (01 )\nOperating (02)\nDebt Service (04) 92-93 93-94 94-95 94-95 95-96 Fund Fnct Function Description Object Object Description Expenses Expenses Budget Expenses Budget 02 2193 NATL SCIENCE FOUND 00540 EQUIPMENT 0.00 7,260.97 0.00 0.00 0.00 02 2195 STUDENT ASSIGNMEN 00120 REGULAR NON-CERTIFICATED 0.00 0.00 0.00 26,192.15 131,000.00 02 2195 STUDENT ASSIGNMEN 00211 SS TAX, NON-CERTIFIED 0.00 0.00 0.00 2,003.88 10,000.00 02 2195 STUDENT ASSIGNMEN 00241 INSURANCE, NON-CERT 0.00 0.00 0.00 2,180.29 11,800.00 02 2195 STUDENT ASSIGNMEN 00251 UNEMPLOY COMP, NON CERT 0.00 0.00 0.00 39.31 200.00 02 2195 STUDf:NT ASSIGNMEN 00261 WORKERS COMP, NON-CERT 0.00 0.00 0.00 209.66 1,000.00 02 2210 INSTRUCTION/SUPERV 00110 REGULAR CERTIFICATED 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 25,000.00 01 2210 INSTRUCTION/SUPERV 00115 CERTIFIED ADMIN 407,067.90 546,426.72 562,800.00 628,590.25 653,100.00 02 2210 INSTRUCTION/SUPERV 00115 CERTIFIED ADMIN 5,000.00 17,855.32 43,890.00 46,399.08 0.00 02 2210 INSTRUCTION/SUPERV 00120 REGULAR NON-CERTIFICATED 148,297.98 173,135.14 177,532.00 190,358.05 181,500.00 02 2210 INSTRUCTION/SUPERV 00125 NON-CERTIFIED ADMIN 39,933.84 43,515.80 2,025.00 2,229.96 0.00 02 2210 INSTRUCTION/SUPERV 00130 SUBSTITUTE TEACHERS 2,368.10 0.00 4,000.00 437.80 4,720.00 02 2210 INSTRUCTION/SUPERV 00150 STIPENDS-WORKSHOPS 7,629.38 19,755.00 19,880.00 23,310.00 8,478.00 02 2210 INSTRUCTION/SUPERV 00151 STIPENDS NON-CERTIFIED 0.00 0.00 0.00 560.00 0.00 02 2210 INSTRUCTION/SUPERV 00155 STIPENDS-OTHER 0.00 0.00 4,130.00 4,770.00 0.00 02 2210 INSTRUCTION/SUPERV 00210 SOCIAL SECURITY TAX 30,687.24 41,241.91 51,720.00 50,718.98 51,970.00 02 2210 INSTRUCTION/SUPERV 00211 SS TAX, NON-CERTIFIED 14,621.01 16,330.59 13,440.00 14,437.29 13,610.00 02 2210 INSTRUCTION/SUPERV 00212 SS TAX, STIPENDS 0.00 1,541.66 3,660.00 1,783.04 600.00 02 2210 INSTRUCTION/SUPERV 00213 SS TAX STIPENDS NON CERT 0.00 0.00 0.00 42.84 0.00 02 2210 INSTRUCTION/SUPERV 00214 SS TAX STIPENDS-OTHER 0.00 0.00 35.00 364.90 0.00 01 2210 INSTRUCTION/SUPERV 00240 INSURANCE 8,323.95 9,123.35 9,200.00 10,350.18 10,700.00 02 2210 INSTRUCTION/SUPERV 00240 INSURANCE 0.00 351.70 425.00 844.08 430.00 02 2210 INSTRUCTION/SUPERV 00241 INSURANCE, NON-CERT 7,179.43 8,171.60 8,760.00 7,746.12 9,500.00 02 2210 INSTRUCTION/SUPERV 00250 UNEMPLOYMENT COMPENSATI 481.06 883.34 897.00 1,057.26 778.00 02 2210 INSTRUCTION/SUPERV 00251 UNEMPLOY COMP, NON CERT 252.31 335.26 370.00 286.31 268.00 02 2210 INSTRUCTION/SUPERV 00252 UNEMPLOYMENT COMP ,STIPEN 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 - 15.00 02 2210 INSTRUCTION/SUPERV 00260 WORKERS COMP 304.34 574.81 4,758.00 5,800.13 5,205.00 02 2210 INSTRUCTION/SUPERV 00261 WORKERS COMP, NON-CERT 130.11 238.47 1,820.00 1,612.57 1,350.00 --- 02 2210 INSTRUCTION/SUPERV 00262 WORKER'S COMP, STIPENDS 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 -55.00 Page: 50 North Little Rock Public Schools 1992-1995 Expenditures by Function/Object Funds: Salarv (01 ) Ooeratina (02): Debt Service (04) 92-93 93-94 94-95 94-95 95-96 Fund Fnct Function Description Object Object Description Expenses Expenses Budget Expenses Budget 01 2210 INSTRUCTION/SUPERV 00290 TUITION REIMBURSEMENT 0.00 276.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 02 2210 INSTRUCTION/SUPERV 00310 PROFESSIONAL \u0026amp; TECH SERV 5,720.10 75.00 3,800.00 1,597.22 3,600.00 02 2210 INSTRUCTION/SU PE RV 00318 RENTAL OF EQUIP \u0026amp; VEHICLE 21.05 0.00 0.00 0.00 25.00 02 2210 INSTRUCTION/SUPERV 00319 RENTAL OF LAND \u0026amp; BUILDING 140.00 50.00 150.00 300.00 300.00 02 2210 INSTRUCTION/SUPERV 00320 RENTAULEASE OF COPIERS 0.00 175.45 100.00 411.15 200.00 02 2210 INST~UCTION/SUPERV 00326 REPAIRS/MAINT-EQUIP 3,838.76 2,875.39 3,700.00 722.21 1,000.00 02 2210 INSTRUCTION/SUPERV 00331 PUPIL TRANSPORTATION 134.10 184.45 745.00 0.00 100.00 02 2210 INSTRUCTION/SUPERV 00332 TRAVEL EXPENSES 2,589.19 5,030.31 13,253.00 13,372.11 21,520.00 02 2210 INSTRUCTION/SUPERV 00333 INSERVICE REGISTRATION 5,489.00 15,138.88 17,115.00 13,677.37 8,725.00 02 2210 INSTRUCTION/SUPERV 00334 CAR ALLOWANCE-MONTHLY 2,790.00 3,215.00 3,235.00 4,230.00 3,350.00 02 2210 INSTRUCTION/SUPERV 00335 INDISTRICT TRAVEL 1,248.67 147.80 1,500.00 133.52 500.00 02 2210 INSTRUCTION/SUPERV 00341 TELEPHONE 0.00 6,367.51 2,624.00 1,795.07 800.00 02 2210 INSTRUCTION/SUPERV 00342 POSTAGE 170.38 941.94 1,185.00 1,389.93 1,000.00 02 2210 INSTRUCTION/SUPERV 00360 PRINTING AND BINDING 10\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_265","title":"Business cases","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":["1995/1996"],"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"],"dcterms_title":["Business cases"],"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/265"],"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":["261 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\nOffice of Desegregation Monitoring United States District Court  Eastern District of Arkansas Ann S. Brown, Federal Monitor 201 East Markham, Suite 510 Heritage West Building Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 (501)376-6200 Fax (501) 371-0100 Date: February 10, 1995 To: Hank Williams From: Ann Brown Subject: Business Cases In your February 1, 1995 reply to my second request for business cases, you stated that you would furnish them when they were completed and ready for submission to the Board. At last night's meeting of the Board of Directors, one Director stated that the board had received the business cases yesterday. 1 trust that the business cases are now on their way to my office. I look forward to looking through them so 1 can better understand what changes you are contemplating in order to reach your desegregation goals and deal with your financial limitations. Thank you for your assistance. cc: Judge Susan Webber WrighthuUiUc. tlzU6(- c  f I Hi BUSINESS CASES FOR FY 1995-96 Business Case None Academic Progress Incentive Grant BUSINESS CASES RESULTING IN SAVINGS Description Delete, Add, or Modify Plan Modification Cost Savings Badgett School Relocation Fair Park School Relocation Four-Year-Old Program Home Instruction Program for Preschool Youngsters (HIPPY) Incentive School Plan Staffing McClellan Comnunity Education Program Elementary Music Teacher Staffing Family Life Education (New Futures) Guidance Services Health Services (Mursing Services) Improving Student Transportation Mew Futures Parkview Conmercial Art Class Proposal Substitute Teachers Vocational Education APIG and Focused Activities deletions School Closing School Closing Eliminate program except at the Incentive ______ Schools Eliminate HIPPY program except for parents within Incentive ______ Schools Revise staff configuration\nimprove staff efficiency Deletion of program, with Business Department delivering the program_ Revision of current elementary music teacher assignments Assign FLE teaching responsibilities to nurses, counselors \u0026amp; science teachers Reduce positions but maintain Arkansas Public School Accreditation Standards Reduction in nursing positions while maintaining services Outsourcing Implement Language Arts Plus in lieu of Learning Foundations\nreturn to 6-period day Implement Commercial Arts I course to expand magnet arts program and satisfy state standards Place a cap on professional leave Eliminate Exploring Industrial Technology Education programs at two Junior High Schools\neliminate low demand courses Delete Delete Delete Modi fy Modi fy Modify Oelete Modi fy Modify Modify Modify Modify Modi fy Add Add Modi fy Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Mo No No No No No No No No $ 445,000.00 523,000.00 637,000.00 1,321,520.00 185,828.18 607,250.00 170,000.00 161,000.00 77,000.00 125,268.00 560,000.00 100,000.00 669,900.00 0.00 50,000.00 182,783.90 BUSINESS CASES REQUIRING ADDITIONAL EXPENDITURES Business Case Name Description Delete, Add, or Mc^ify Plan Modification Additional Costs t rarn Alternative Education Pilot Program - Alternative classroom at SWJH and CJHS Modi fy No 34,965.00 Arkansas Crusades Beacon School Mann Magnet Additional Clerical Position New Comers Center Reading Recovery/Early Literacy Pilot Program Security Officers to Work on Safety and Security Issues Social Studies Curricultn Revision FES I 19^5 Offics oi CdSOyroijeiif Equipment and teacher training to support the Math, K-4, and Science Crusades Implement Beacon School Concept at CJHS Provide assistance to Ixtokkeeper and assistant principal Designate selected schools to serve increasing needs of LEP students Provide early intervention strategies to reduce later ______remed i a t i on Two additional security officers to deal with security related problems/issues Form committee to revise Social Studies curriculun to correlate with new state frameworks\nrevise curriculLin guides Total Savings Total Expenditures Net Savings Modify Add Add Modify Add Modi fy Modify $ 5,815,550.08 $ 211,782.00 $ 5,603,768.08 No No No No No No No 30,000.00 12,000.00 3,000.00 52,117.00 30,000.00 36,500.00 13,200.00 Business Cases Received but not Recommended as \"DO PASS\" to Superintendent: Cloverdale Junior High School Incentive School Principals Rockefeller Incentive School -- Alternative Room Specialist Seventh Grade Expansion of the Alternative SchoolBusiness Cases not Recommended as \"Do Pass\" Cloverdale Junior High Incentive School Principals Rockefeller Incentive School -- Alternative Room Specialist Hu Utt Seventh Grade Expansion of the Alternative Schooltl U w rcr 1 3 1995 co (/) c Oifica ct Cesegi 5 = 8 \"S  o 4 LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT PLANNING, RESEARCH, AND EVALUATION BUSINESS CASES FOR REVIEW by BOARD OF DIRECTORS 1994-95 1BUSINESS CASES REQUIRING ADDITIONAL EXPENDITURES Business Case Name Description Delete, Add, or Modify Plan Modification Additional Costs Alternative Education Pilot Program - Alternative classroom at SUJH and CJHS Modify No 34,965.00 Arkansas Crusades Equipment and teacher training to support the Math, k-4, and Science Crusades Modify No 30,000.00 Beacon School Implement Beacon School Concept at CJHS Add No 12,000.00 Mann Magnet Additional Clerical Position Provide assistance to bookkeeper and assistant principal Add No 3,000.00 Neu Comers Center Designate selected schools to serve increasing needs of LEP students Modify No 52,117.00 Reading Recovery/Early Literacy Pilot Program Provide early intervention strategies to reduce later remediation Add No 30,000.00 Security Officers to Uork on Safety and Security Issues Tuo additional security officers to deal with security related problems/i ssues Modify No 36,500.00 Social Studies Curriculum Revision Form committee to revise Social Studies curriculim to correlate with new state frameworks\nrevise curriculum guides Modify No 13,200.00 R7 F r 1 C ICQ! Total Savings $ 5,815,550.08 Total Expenditures Net Savings S 211,782.00 1 5,603,768.08 L Lil r?\" FEB 1 S 1 Ofiice ci Di Office Ct li Business Cases Received but not Recommended as \"DO PASS\" to Superintendent: Cloverdale Junior High School Incentive School Principals Rockefeller Incentive School -- Alternative Room Specialist Seventh Grade Expansion of the Alternative SchoolBUSINESS CASES FOR FY 1995-96 BUSINESS CASES RESULTING IN SAVINGS Business Case Nane Description Delete, Add, or Modify Plan Modification Cost Savings Academic Progress Incentive Grant Badgett School Relocation Fair Park School Relocation Four-Year-Old Program Home Instruction Program for Preschool Youngsters (HIPPY) Incentive School Plan Staffing McClellan Comnunity Education Program Elementary Music Teacher Staffing Family Life Education (New Futures) Guidance Services Health Services (Nursing Services) Improving Student Transportation New Futures Parkview Commercial Art Class Proposal Substitute Teachers Vocational Education APIG and Focused Activities deletions School Closing School Closing Eliminate program except at the Incentive _________Sch 001s Eliminate HIPPY program except for parents within Incentive ________Schools Revise staff configuration\nimprove staff efficiency Deletion of program, with Business Department delivering _____the program_____ Revision of current elementary music teacher assignments Assign FLE teaching responsibilities to nurses, counselors \u0026amp; science teachers Reduce positions but maintain Arkansas Public School Accreditation Standards Reduction in nursing positions uhile maintaining services Outsourcing Implement Language Arts Plus in lieu of Learning Foundations\nreturn to 6-period day Implement Conmercial Arts I course to expand magnet arts program and satisfy state standards Place a cap on professional leave Eliminate Exploring Industrial Technology Education programs at two Junior High Schools\neliminate low demand courses Delete Delete Delete Modify Modify Modi fy Delete Modi fy Modify Modi fy Modify Modi fy Modify Add Add Modify Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes No No No No No No No No No $ 445,000.00 523,000.00 637,000.00 1,321,520.00 185,828.18 607,250.00 170,000.00 161,000.00 77,000.00 125,268.00 560,000.00 100,000.00 669,900.00 0.00 50,000.00 182,783.90Business Cases Resulting in Savings Academic Progress Incentive Grant Badgett School Relocation Fair Park School Relocation Four-Year-Old Program Home Instruction Program for Preschool Youngsters Incentive School Plan Staffing McClellan Community Education Program Elementary Music Teacher Staffing Family Life Education (New Futures) Guidance Services Health Services (Nursing Services) Improving Student Transportation New Futures Parkview Commercial Art Class Proposal Substitute Teachers Vocational EducationLITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 810 West Markham Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 January 13, 1995 memorandum TO: Mrs. Estelle Matthis, Deputy Superintendent FROM: Mitchell. Margaret chell, Actii^A \\y ^Assistant Superintendent isistant Superintendent SUBJECT: Business Case - Academic Progress Incentive GrantBUSINESS CASE / 5 (995 ACADEMIC PROGRESS INCENTIVE GRANTS of January 13, 1995 A. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY In order to address the concerns of the area school patrons, equity issues regarding area The adequate resources and an overwhelming percentage of our students attend area schools, the Little Rock School District proposed in the Tri-District Plan to implement a program entitled Academic Progress Incentive Grants (APIG). The grants, which were not to exceed $25,000, were to be offered for one year with an opportunity to continue for two more years. The District, in its May 11, 1992, request to modify the settlement plan, proposed to substitute APIG for Focused Activities. The proposal did not clearly explain the Districts intent. The Court approved the continuing of the APIG program, which the District was to evaluate for continuation at the end of the 1992-93 school year. However, the Court recognized the grant program as a complementary addition to, but not a replacement of, the original Focused Activities feature of the plan. The APIG has been offered to schools for application the last five years. It is now time to evaluate and assess the program for continuation. B. BACKGROUND 1990 - 1991 The The Academic Progress Incentive Grant (APIG) was first made available to each area school principal in the 1990-91 school year in the sum of $25,000. The process to be followed was for each school principal to write a proposal attached to a budget sheet identifying times and cost as related to the proposal being submitted. The District established two goals that were to be the outcomes of this initiative: (1) to improve the education of all students and (2) to reduce the disparity in achievement among students of different racial, socioeconomic, and gender groups. The grant proposals were then to be forwarded to the Academic Progress Grant Committee for review and approval. Upon approval, the budget sheet was forwarded to the Financial Services Department, and budget codes were set up for the individual schools to use in purchasing the items requested. The respective assistant superintendent over the area schools who monitored the schools annual plan would review incoming requisitions to see if the purchases requested related to the districts Desegregation Plan.Several schools were successful in receiving early approval in the first semester for the full amount. The majority of schools, however, did not receive grant approval until late January and early February of 1991 and not for the full amount. Even though the money was received on a late timeline, it did enable the schools to purchase needed equipment, materials, supplementary reading materials, enrichment trips, etc. for all students as well as providing funds for some mtoring assistance to their at-risk groups before the MPT (Minimum Performance Test) and MAT-6 (Metropolitan Achievement Test Edition 6) test dates. Considering the timeline with a week out for Spring Break and two to three weeks scheduled for MPT and MAT-6 testing, the principals were asked only to write a narrative for the grant evaluations that would be no longer than three typed pages describing the status of their grant. The report was to include: 1. 2. 3. Identification of local school grant goals. A description of the results. Identification of any proposed change for the 1991-92 school year, if possible. These narratives were attached to the schools annual report and forwarded to their assistant superintendents. 1991  1992 In the second year of the Academic Progress Incentive Grant, the funds were frozen the first semester of the school year. Once the funds were released, the procedures set forward for application were the same as outlined in the 1990-91 school year. Principals, teachers, and parents worked together to develop tutoring schedules for their at-risk students. During this year a new standardized test, Stanford 8, was given in the place of the MAT-6 test. Principals were asked to use the same reporting format in describing the status of their grant. The narrative was to be attached to their annual school report and forwarded to their assistant superintendent. 1992  1993 In the third year of the APIG, the funds were reduced to $10,000 for which the area schools could apply. Again, many of these grants were not funded until November due to changes in the districts central office staff and a new superintendent. The principals were to use the same format for applying and reporting as was used in the 1991-92 school year. -2-c. PROBLEM DEFINITION Current implementation has not resulted in either expected improved achievement or a reduction in the disparity in achievement among students of different racial, socioeconomic, or gender groups. The District continues to cope with many of the problems that are unique to urban school district, including safety and security, urban flight, racial issues, aging buildings, and financial issues. The severity of the financial problems and the need to evaluate the effectiveness of existing programs have caused the District to seek more efficient ways of educating our students. Opportunities for academic achievement are enhanced by commitment, high expectations, a strong belief that all children can and will learn, and broad-based community support. When these ideals are coupled with availability of financial resources and adequate quality instructional time, educational excellence prevails. The District must now redefine the required levels of focus, clarity, and connectivity of our programs if we are to optimize student performance. This plan must allow the District to operate an efficient school district within the boundaries of the revenues it receives on an aimual basis. In accordance with the Desegregation Plan, the District has determined, based on the results of Fast Track Evaluations, informal and formal observations, that it is appropriate to seek Court permission to discontinue the implementation of APIG. APIG is a complementary addition to the Plan. D. ANALYSIS OF ALTERNATIVES Educational excellence, as measured by state testing programs, does prevail in a number of district schools. Achievement disparity still exists. However, data show that some schools utilize the current curriculum (revised July, 1994) with emphasis on the acquisition of basic skills. Thematic and interdisciplinary approaches have been used by the teachers to successfully integrate and ensure designated themes to support the curriculum. Students in these schools tend to perform at or above grade level. 1. 2. 3. 4. Change nothing. Continuing to offer the APIG and Focused Activity Grants to the Area Schools will not aide in the reduction of the budget. The Chapter I Extended Day Program has been considered in order for all schools to continue the quality after school programs. This program is federally funded and is consequently no expense to the district. Grant solicitations from focused activities, private resources and support from some local PTAs where possible could be considered. K-4 Special Summer School programs are funded by the state. -3-E. RECO MMEND ATION Evidence from the principals narrative reports and surveys indicate that funds received from the APIG proposal over the three-year period were used to support the school plan as it related to the goals of the district.\" The programs and projects were numerous and were targeted to assist groups of students as well as the total school population. The selection of targeted groups are as follows: Students eligible for participation in the Academic Support Program were identified from the District-wide printout of the Stanford 8 results. Identified students were those with total reading and/or mathematics scores falling within the lowest quartile on the Stanford 8 (total NCE of 35.8 or below). Multiple criteria, including student grades, teacher recommendations, and student records, were used to select targeted students form the identified population to participate in the Academic Support Program. At the conclusion of each school year, the principals would then submit in the narrative the names of the projects that were implemented, the list of students who were targeted, and if improvements were made. All of the reporting schools used their funds to provide activities interrelated to the core curriculum. It is also noted that school climate surveys were used to target areas needing improvement. As a result of this data, principals, staff, and parents tried hard to provide a disciplined, structured learning environment for all students. implemented to encourage good behavior. An incentive program was T^ere were reports made by principals, staff, and parents, and program participants ot the overall positive results that they could identify as happening for the benefit of the students. However, with all of the favorable behavior changes that were confirmed, achievement data did not reflect that the grants led to the disparity reduction that had been desired. Extended Day was a widely - used activity that was funded by APIG. This activity was in some instances a duplication of efforts already funded through Academic Support Program. It is recommended that the Little Rock School District concentrate on the implementation of its new curriculum that is aligned with the Arkansas Department of Education frameworks and standards. It is also recommended that any extra remediation be supported by the Academic Support Program and the Special Summer School for K-4. -4-Objective To discontinue the Academic Progress Incentive Grant and the Focused Activities Grant. Evaluation Criteria The K-4 Summer School Extended Year Program and Academic Support evaluation will be utilized for documenution. A pre and post test will be used in the K-4 program to determine the progress of students. There will be a shift from sole emphasis on the products or outcomes of student learning to a concern for the learning process. Evaluation will include assisting products such as: 1. projects with rating criteria 2. student portfolios with rating criteria 3. student demonstrations/investigations 4. objective tests, where appropriate, perhaps with a section for explaining the answer chosen. Evaluation should reflect the following process-oriented factors: 1. collaboration among students 2. student self-evaluation 3. 4. higher level thinking and problem solving \"learning to learn\" skills Expected Benefits The District will be able to continue to make efforts to meet its commitment of increasing achievement for all students, which will result in a reduction of disparity among different racial, socioeconomic, and gender groups. These benefits will be derived from the establishment of a community of learning that has school/community support as well as a stronger focus and connection between teaching, learning and support program. The focus of Extended Day can be more structured. The K-4 Summer School Program and Regular Summer School will be offered. -5-The deletion of the APIG will provide the district in ueie ion or tne AKIU will provide the district in assisting with budget cuts and ^e dSSa concentrate and implement a more uniform curriculum across F. IMPACT ANALYSIS The District will be able to continue to make efforts to meet its commitment of . - ---------------------------- .V. vxiui to UV increasing achievement for all students, which will result in 5 auucvcment tor ail students, which wfll result in a reduction of disparity socioeconomic, and gender groups. The area schools will be 'e_ 25 communities of learning,\" will continue to provide enrichment oPPOffuiMes and will ensure equitable opportunities for participation in area spools. The District will implement programs that are comprehensive, effective, and efficient. viewed as participation in area Activities appear to Quality equitable desegregated education wUl be provided in an environment that is attractive and conducive to learning. The District will channel its resources into area schools in a manner that eliminates duplication of efforts. Activities appear to provide a broader range of opportunities in a more comprehensive and focused manner. G. This is the fifth year for the Academic Progress Incentive Grants to be offered to area schools. (90-91 - 94-95) The timeline for implementation of three years _..l support the Desegregation Plan and address will The timeline for implementation of three court orders favorably. J C7 -C------------ - WUl t UlUClb ia unds were available for building administrators to submit applications Suin'e applications were turned in late which caused a delay in program implementation. Some RESOURCE ANALYSIS Personnel Human and financial students, and the resources can be used in a more meaningful way. Staff, community can benefit greatly from a more focused and connected program. The District should continue its efforts to adequately provide needed rACAiircac ______1_ resources for our area schools. Schools should be encouraged to implement innovative practices that build upon effective schooling principles by underwriting demonstration projects through business cases. Students could be introduced to curriculum materials, in exciting and innovative ways that they might otherwise find difficult. Extensive tutoring could be provided through academic support programs to targeted students. -6-Financial Analysis The District will save a total of 5445,000 by discontinuing both grants. (See graph below) APIG 510,000 Focused 5,000 Elementary Area Schools (25) 5250,000 125,000 Junior High Area Schools (4) 540,000 Senior High Schools (3) 530,000 Total Schools 5320,000 125,000 TOTAL 5375,000 540,000 530,000 5445,000 Force Field Analysis The primary supporters of this recommendation will be the administrators who indirectly involved in the decision making process for the 1995-96 budget are cuts. The primary detractors will be principals and patrons of the area schools who feel that there are already many inequities between them and the magnet schools. General Implementation Plan The grant proposals will not be submitted in the 1995-96 school year budget. The Board will have to agree on this recommendation and the ultimate decision may be made by the federal courts. If this recommendation is approved, the following timeline will be implemented and monitored. January - April, 1995 Continue to read and approve grants as they are submitted from schools June, 1995 Evaluations submitted from principals regarding programs implemented through APIG proposals End of Academic Progress Incentive Grant and Focused Activity submissions Conclusion of programs implementation with APIG and Focused Activity funds K-4 Summer School will start -7-July, 1995 November - December, 1995 Business Case process reviewed with principals in Principals Instimte K-4 Summer School Ends K-4 Summer School Evaluations submitted Information shared with principals regarding Extended Day for the 95-96 school year Compile information from schools in order to organize and implement Extended Day for the 95-96 school year January, 1996 Extended Day will start -8-LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT PLANNING, RESEARCH, AND EVALUATION BUSINESS CASES FOR REVIEW by BOARD OF DIRECTORS 1994-95B Business Cases Resulting in Savings Academic Progress Incentive Grant Badgett School Relocation Fair Park School Relocation Four-Year-Old Program Home Instruction Program for Preschool Youngsters Incentive School Plan Staffing McClellan Community Education Program Elementary Music Teacher Staffing Family Life Education (New Futures) Guidance Services Health Services (Nursing Services) Improving Student Transportation New Futures Parkview Commercial Art Class Proposal Substitute Teachers Vocational Education I I-a L ri Little Rock School District 810 West Markham Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 FEB 1 3 '995 Offics of Osssgi MEMORANDUM TO: From: Subject\nDate: in Brown, Omce of Desegreg^ion M inr/ Ann Office Monitoring Hei Schools Business Cases January 14, 1995 Please find enclosed copies of business cases that have been submitted by program managers for review in the budgeting process for the 1995-96 school year. I have also enclosed a business case from Information Services as a separate enclosure because of its unique circumstances. Enclosures be odm.docInformation Services (IS) Directors, students. Superintendent, Little Rock School Diotriet Information Services Business Cass EXECUTIVE SUMMARY FEB I 5 J995 OffiC0_of_De223j\n1 SITUATION does not meet the basic needs faculty, admini s t rat i ve of LRSD Board of Additionally IS does not adequately requirement to local. staff, employees, or support LRSD basic reporting state and federal agencies as required. Analysis of the situation identifies three crucial issues. First, LRSD's most critical short term computing need is valid, timely, information to the Superintendent, Board and Court. Second LRSD must develop an architecture which allows migration to and integration of new technology, as technology changes, in support of a diverse administrative and instructional user community. Third, resolution of both issues must be accomplished with minimal resources\nno expensive, quick fix, throw away solution. Second crucial issues. First, timely. throw away solution. * Alternative One. Do nothing. ALTERNATIVES  Alternative Two. Upgrade by building additional AS400 processors, disk storage, upgrade networks. processors, on current systems. Procure and install application source code. and  Alternative Three. Transition from the current \"closed\" AS400 environment to a networked, client-server PC architecture. En^hasize prototyping for all technical solutions with constant evaluation, making. correction and decision IMPLEMENT ALTERNATIVE THREE  Alternative One is not viable. No cirucial issue is resolved. $2,800,000 over five years. LRSD will spend  Alternative Two builds on current architecture. Problems with valid, timely reporting are only partially resolved. There is limited ability to integrate new technology. Since new technology is less expensive and easier to use. Alternative Three is not cost effective in either financial or human resources. LRSD will spend $3,590,500 over five years. Alternative Three, begin transition from the current environment to a networked, client-server PC architecture. \"closed\" AS400 is the preferred Valid, timely reporting issues are more easily corrected with new architecture. solution. There is significant ability to integrate new technology a Since new technology is less expensive and easier to use. Alternative Three is most cost effective in both financial and human spend $2,697,000 over five years. resources. LRSD will 2/7/95Little Rock School District Information Services Business Case COSTS Note that $560,000 for LRSD AS400 is a yearly, reoccurring encumbered budget item. Significant costs for this system will continue until it is replaced. Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year 5 5 YEAR TOTAL IBM IBM IBM IBM IBM ALTE9RAT1VE ONE AS400 Administrative Computer AS400 Administrative Computer AS400 Administrative Computer AS400 Administrative Computer AS400 Administrative Computer $560,000 $560,000 $560,000 $560,000 $560,000 $2,800,000 Year 1 Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year 5 5 YEAR TOTAL ALTERNATIVE TWO Upgrade IBM AS400 \u0026amp; Associated Systems IBM IBM IBM IBM IBM AS400 Administrative Computer AS400 Administrative Computer AS400 Administrative Computer AS400 Administrative Computer AS400 Administrative Computer $790,500 $560,000 $560,000 $560,000 $560,000 $560,000 $3,590,500 Ye\u0026amp;r 1 Year 1 Year 2 Year 2 Year 3 Year 3 Year 3 Year 4 Year 5 5 YEAR TOTAL ALTERNATIVE THREE Initiate New Architecture IBM IBM AS400 Administrative Computer AS400 Administrative Computer 35 School Servers IBM AS40O Administrative Computer 15 School Servers District Applications Eliminate IBM Eliminate IBM AS400 Administrative Computer AS400 Administrative Computer $317,500 $560,000 $560,000 $350,000 $560,000 $150,000 $200,000 NONE NONE $2, 697,000 2/7/95Little Rock School District Information Seirvices BusixiesB Case IMPLEMENTATION YEAR 1 Procure and install a data server with associated software and hardware. Physically link the data server to the Administrative AS400\ninstall a data gateway to implement data transfer between the AS400 and the data PKIHTCR o SCHOOL LAN A FAX Q server. Link local administrative staff to both the AS 400 and the data server via a LAN. Use low cost, graphical. b PUNTU PC tools\nprovide local RUtOTC STATT LUI administrative staff access to all LRSD data. A$\u0026lt;n VO TECH  PtlKTOt 9 FAX AMD APMIWUTAATIVE ASCO ADMIMISTKATIVE DATA POODSEKVtCE I I SttVEK LAM SUVCK O LAM SEXVU 0 USD ACUINUTRATIVt BUILDING b PUHTU LAM SBvn b purrn PAX q PUNT EK 9 Install both a school and a remote administrative staff LAN prototype which is linked back to the Administrative AS400\nadministrators, students may access centralized educators and student services, administrative services, library services etc. as appropriate. These LANs also allow local implementation of office applications, instructional applications, - multimedia, Internet etc. . Administrators, educators, students and technical staff evaluate prototypes. A i A A A a A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A Standardize technical procurement to insure all technology \"plugs in\" new architecture. Identify past LRSD average yearly expenditures for to the technology. EncumlDer or set aside, this average yearly technology expenditure in the current budget. Users may access the technology budget for technical \u0026lt; supplies etc. . All significant technology procurements must be approved, i.e. must meet new architecture standards. Initiate bulk procurement of PCs, printers etc.. Direct savings from bulk procurement to implementation of the approved prototype in schools. 2/7/9Stittle Rock School District Inforaation Services Bueineas Ca Reorganize and realign technical staff as required. Identify each LRSD employee supporting the planning, implementation and operations of technology. Identify the cost associated Secretary Telephone Specialist I Applications \u0026amp; Dat^ase Manaper I Programmer Programmer Programmer Programmer ----1 Operator Operator Director Technical Planner Network \u0026amp; PC Manager Network \u0026amp; PC Network \u0026amp; PC Network A PC Network \u0026amp; PC Network \u0026amp; PC Network \u0026amp; PC Network \u0026amp; PC Network \u0026amp; PC Network \u0026amp; PC Manager Network \u0026amp; PC Network \u0026amp; PC Network \u0026amp; PC Network \u0026amp; PC Network \u0026amp; PC Network \u0026amp; PC Network \u0026amp; PC Network \u0026amp; PC with each employee. Develop position descriptions, responsibilities etc. a comprehensive IS staff model with relevant Eliminate positions and create positions as required to support this model. The goal is improved support without additional funds. Aggressively pursue technology grants. The approved school prototype will serve as a technical model which educators, in coordination with LRSD Grant Writer, may use to justify educational technology greints. Insure a Technical Planner position is a part of any technical staff realignment. The Technical Planner, in coordination with the Grant Writer, grants of significance to LRSD information architecture. will identify and pursue 2/7/95 I I I I 1 I 1 I 1Little Rock School Disttict Information Services Businese Case IMPLEMENTATION YEAR 2-3 Complete implementation of new architecture. Continue standardized procurement, and pursuit of technology grants. Prepare to phase out AS400 systems. Evaluate business^ administrative, and instructional for new architecture. applications FWNTER o a a FAX Q a a a a b mum a a \u0026amp; FtUNTtt o a a FAX Q a a a FVMTU o a AS400 VO TECH  i LUI SOtVEK a a AS400 FOOD SERVICE  J_ 6 AS400 ADMINISTRATTVE E DATA DATA SERVER i -o- UM xw  O-L- a 6 FUN TUI a a a a FAX Q a a LUI uavu a 6 fWKTOt a a a a a b FMNIOt DOLl. a. a FAX Q a F Q a a a a 9 a a a \"q a a b a a a a a fix Q a a \"q\" HHH a 6 a a a 2/7/95Little Rock School Dietrict Information Services Businese Case IMPLEMENTATION YEARS 4-5 Phase out AS400 systems.Implement business and student administrative applications for new architecture. *MD Kce: AEkMSTMTTVI  DISTWCT SERVER FUNTU o a a FAX Q a a a LAN sexvu 1 SEX VI -HU-F UN A c a a i a a b FVNTU a A a i a a A a FUNTU o a nciXL* a FAX Q a a. a rui q a \"q a A 6 FUNTU A A A FUNTEK o a A FAX Q a A LAN SEXVU a a b nnnu a a a i i A a 6 HUNTtF a a a a A FAX Q a a MFRU 9 A a a A a 211133Little Rock School District Information Services Business Case BACKGROUND Information Services (IS) does CURRENT SITUATION Directors, students. not meet the basic needs of LRSD Board of Superintendent, administrative staff, faculty, employees, or Additionally IS does not adequately support LRSD basic reporting requirement to Federal Court, Office of Desegregation Monitoring (ODM), Department of Education or other local, state and federal agencies required. or State as BACKGROUND INFORMATION For many years LRSD IS operated as a centralized, mainframe based, data processing (DP) facility with terminal drops supporting basic administrative functions. Data (not information) was provided to customers by a central programming staff who wrote code and a central operations staff who printed reports. The demand on DP was minimal. LRSD information was generated by administrative staff usinq a combination of dp rpnnrrc anrA -St, Data (not information) using a combination of DP reports and data stored in administrative file cabinets. In the mid 1980's a technology explosion, as evidence by the personal computer (PC), forever changed administrative dependence Individual schools. on a central DP facility. and administrative staff could and did purchase and Reliance on the PC increased dramatically, unfortunately neither staff nor LRSD infrastructure PCs. use LRSD DP User demand for PC support grew. software were virtually nonexistent. was realigned to support PC implementation. Standards for procurement of PC hardware and In 1992, purchased an IBM AS400 midrange administrative software and peripherals. LRSD IBM computer, associated closed environment. Unfortunately this solution was a a \"The AS400 was not designed to take full advantage of PC although PCs could be attached using emulation (translator) hardware and software which was expensive. Additionally, the academic use of PCs, difficult to install, configure and maintain. PC computing labs increased etc. rapidly. AS400 administrative computing, PC based administrative computing and PC based academic computing were now competing for limited financial and administrative computing. staff resources. Simultaneous with the necessity to make major technical decisions in a rapidly changing technical environment, LRSD grappled with the impact of continual change in administration. In 1994 a new Superintendent recognized the negative impact IS was having on LRSD's ability to conduct business. a monitor desegregation compliance and report and directed Human Resource initiated a search for a qualified Director of Information Services. November 1994 LRSD hired a new Director of Information Services. to In 2/7/95Information Services (IS) Directors, students. Little Rock School District Information Services Business Case BACKGROUND CURRENT SITUATION does not meet the basic needs of LRSD Board of Superintendent, administrative staff, faculty, employees, or Additionally IS does not adequately support LRSD basic reporting requirement to Federal Court, Office of Desegregation Monitoring (ODM), Department of Education or other local, state and federal agencies required. State as BACKGROUND INFORMATION For many years LRSD IS operated as a centralized, mainframe based, data processing (DP) facility with terminal drops supporting basic administrative functions. Data (not information) was provided to customers by a central programming staff who wrote code and a central operations staff who printed reports. The demand on DP was LRSD information was generated by administrative staff Data (not information) minimal. using a combination of DP reports and data stored in administrative file cabinets. In the mid 1980's a technology explosion, as evidence by the personal computer (PC), forever changed administrative deoendence on a cantral dp fariiitv dependence central DP facility. Individual schools, and administrative staff could and did ourchase and use and administrative staff could and did purchase and Reliance on the PC increased dramatically, unfortunately neither staff nor LRSD infrastructure PCs. LRSD DP User demand for PC support grew. software were virtually nonexistent. was realigned to support PC implementation. Standards for procurement of PC hardware and In 1992, LRSD purchased an IBM administrative software and peripherals. AS400 midrange computer, associated closed\" environment. Unfortunately this solution was a a \"The AS400 was not designed to talce full advantage of PC although PCs could be attached using emulation (translator) hardware and software which was expensive, difficult to install, configure and maintain. Additionally, the academic use of PCs, PC computing labs increased etc. rapidly. AS400 administrative computing, PC based administrative computing and PC based academic computing were now con^eting for limited financial and computing. staff resources. Simultaneous with the necessity to malce major teclinical decisions in rapidly changing technical environment, LRSD grappled with the impact of a continual change in administration. a In 1994 a new Superintendent recognized the negative impact IS was having on LRSD's ability to conduct business. monitor desegregation compliance and report and directed Human Resource initiated a search for a qualified Director of November 1994 LRSD hired a new Director of Information Services. Information Services. to In 2/7/95[ Information Services (IS) Little Rock School Diatrict Information Services Business Case PROBLEM DEFINITION PROBLEM STATEMENT does not meet the basic needs of LRSD Board of Directors, Superintendent, LRSD faculty, administrative staff, employees. students. or Additionally IS does not adequately support LRSD basic reporting requirement to Federal Court, ODM, State Department of Education or other Federal Court, ODM, local, state and federal agencies as required. The conditions that create this problem include a lack of procurement policy. no infrastructure and corporate data model, incorrect staff alignment. background and training, redundancy of effort, system saturation, the inability to effectively report and the inability to effectively integrate redundancy of effort. new technology. PROCUREMENT Currently individual schools and staff agencies budget for and purchase PCs, servers, networks, printers, modems, software, consulting services, etc. These procurements range from a $200 word processor, to a $75,000 computer lab to a $100,000 consulting and software development project. The, results from decentralized budgeting and procurement are wasted human resources, wasted money and no infrastructure. The, results resources, i For example. assume purchased. 50 LRSD purchases 200 PCs are individually purchased. PCs per year. 150 PCs are bulk An individual PC purchase requires 1 day visiting a computer store, talking to a friend or a vendor and completing the procurement request. LRSD Purchasing Department then spends 1/2 day requesting bids and finalizing purchase. In total, 75 days of LRSD human resources are expended. Additionally a \"custom\" than a standard bulk procurement PC. PC costs considerably more PCs for $3000-$5000. 1994 LRSD records reflect procurement of $2000. A very adequate PC may be procured in bulk for $1500- The excess costs of 50 \"custom\" PCs may range from $75,000-$175,000. INFRASTRUCTURE AND CORPORATE DATA MODEL LRSD has agencies no viable each IS procure infrastructure. Individuals, schools. and staff PCs, servers, printers. modems, networks, word processors, spreadsheet, etc. The result of nonstandard procurement is a lack of connectivity, inter-operability and no corporate data model. Data resides in \"islands of automation\" in various schools and staff physical or logical connectivity exists. agencies. Little severely restricts LRSD ability to effectively report. The lack of corporate data model To use an analogous situation, suppose the decision was made to rebuild Chicot Elementary. No architect is hired\ninstead the librarian is given money to rebuild the library, food service is given money to rebuild the cafeteria, and each teacher is given money to rebuild his/her classroom. The probable result 2/7/95Little Rock School Dietrict Information Services Business Case would be an excellent library, an excellent cafeteria and excellent individual classrooms. Unfortunately, Chicot would consist of multiple buildings, connected to the other, no hallways, no lockers. none no rest rooms etc., etc. In summary a new, expensive, Chicot Elementary would be nonfunctional. LRSD information infrastructure is currently comparable to this hypothetical expensive but nonfunctional Chicot Elementary, and staff new. Currently, each school agency spends considerable money to meet their specific automation needs. Personal computers, printers, fax machines, modems, etc., with a multitude of software applications have been purchased and installed. No Personal computers, printers, etc., comprehensive plan for connectivity, standardization. and installed. maintenance, etc., has been followed. Data/information now resides in multiple locations in multiple formats. LRSD There are no \"hallways\" connecting these diverse automation islands. information will probably survive without one agencies and activities. infrastructure connects/encompasses elementary school, however. an all LRSD schools. staff Effective technology maintenance is not possible, breaks down. When a PC, printer, etc. the user calls IS staff\nunfortunately IS staff was not involved in the purchase, has no idea who, where to call for maintenance and has had no training on this unique hardware and software. pushed into a i itself over and impacted. comer, I over. another PC or printer ordered. The broken PC or printer may be The user. the process repeats IS staff, and LRSD budget are negatively The current de-centralized IS procurement policy with resulting maintenance problems is roughly analogous to each school buying its own bus. breaks down, the school calls Transportation for maintenance. When the bus ----- Transportation would not have the spare parts and no mechanics trained on that specific bus system. LRSD's ability to transport students would deteriorate rapidly. A perception that \"I'm only buying one PC, that can't possibly compare to a bus\" is not valid. Various agencies within LRSD are spending from $20,000 to $100,000 on automation with the expectation that IS will hook it up and keep it repaired. Not possible. motivation IS STAFF ALIGNMENT, BACKGROUND \u0026amp; TRAINING The and dedication of LRSD IS staff is not in question, unfortunately IS staff alignment, background and training are not adequate to of LRSD Staff is in meet the demands of a volatile, diverse, technical environment. IS staff is currently aligned to meet the needs of a centralized, mainframe DP environment. The majority of LRSD computing growth over the past several years has been PCs and networks. Approximately 500 administrative terminals and PCs exist\nunfortunately no IS staff position has been added, or existing position converted, to either PC or network responsibility. IS staff technical background is insufficient\nonly the Director and programmer have degrees in CS/IS. one public school with one This is roughly equivalent to running a certified principal and one certified classroom 2/7/95teacher. Little Rock School District Information Services Business Case All other classes are taught by teachers aides. It is doubtful either LRSD or the public would tolerate a school staffed without certified teachers. While a school staffed without certified teachers would certainly have problems, there would be little impact on the other 51 schools in LRSD. Unfortunately IS cannot be isolated. IS staff is responsible for a multimillion infrastructure which impacts every employee and student in LRSD. IS staff is not trained. on In 1992 LRSD spent approximately 2 million dollars new computer systems. Unfortunately IS staff received negligible training to effectively implement this multi-million dollar or no procurement. The alignment, background and training of computing staff may be worse than for IS staff. LRSD academic/instructional PC technicians are scattered throughout LRSD, managed by principals, secretaries, librarians etc. The CS/IS education, background and training these PC technicians and their managers have is minimal yet, they are planning, procuring and managing a sizable percentage of LRSD's background and training these PC technicians and they are planning, procuring and managing a multi-million dollar IS infrastructure. REDUNDANCY OF EFFORT Considerable redundancy of effort and resources exist. IS staff. Instructional Resource Center (IRC) staff and various administrative staff agencies within LRSD each expend considerable human resolve computing needs. resource effort defining and attempting to systems are the result with associated Redundant human effort and redundant information redundant costs. SYSTEM SATURATION LRSD Administrative AS400 computer and its associate networks have reached capacity utilization. exceeds 90% Central Processing Unit (CPU) utilization frequently (computers exceeding 90% capacity are susceptible to 90% are \"crashing\").Communication networks are primarily 9.6 kbps. susceptible . . roughly half the necessary capacity. As an example, in the January 1995 report card/grade processing cycle, the Administrative AS400 CPU and network saturation forced school administrative staffs to download student grade data from school PCs to disks which were then driven in private automobiles to district headquarters for uploading into the Administrative AS400. INABILITY TO REPORT In addition to reporting problems caused by insufficient infrastructure \"islands of information\". and desegregation and or LRSD's unique reporting requirements created by court requirements have not been addressed. Administrative AS400 applications were purchased as a \"canned\" package. These applications have a series of data entry screens and reports designed to meet the needs of a generic or \"average\" school district. LRSD faces daily requests for information from Federal Court, ODM, etc. which standard applications cannot address. The legal rights etc. and necessary software to modify these standard applications have not been purchased. 2/7/95[ Little Rock School District Information Services Business Case INABILITY TO IMPLEMENT NEW TECHNOLOGY primary computing LRSD's prxmary facilities are an IBM AS400 and its associated network. Both are \"closed\" or \"proprietary\" systems, which do not effectively integrate PCs, printers, scanners, fax modems, LANs etc. viewed as a cabinet stereo\nand two speakers. IBM AS400 The IBM AS400 may be a beautiful piece of furniture with a turntable It has limited effectively upgrade to and connect significant cost and effort. in an AS400 environment a expansion capability, i.e. you cannot cassette deck and CD player without Attempts to implement new PC and LAN technology are roughly equivalent to integrating a cassette and CD with a cabinet stereo\ncost and effort. it can be accomplished, but only with significant ANALYSIS OF ALTERNATIVES ] ALTERNATIVE ONE Change nothing. Current IS systems, infrastructure, procurement policy and staff remain. IS problems will continue to have LRSD. serious negative impact on\nNo\nNo i Develops adequate procurement \"policy .' i No i correct architecture and builds adequate infrastructure\"\nNo i No : Addresses staff ali^ment, background and training i Eliminates redundancy \"of\"effort\" .. : Eliminates system saturation. i No i No i Provides effective \"reportingT\nAllows effective integration of new \"technology No Meets basic needs of LRSD Board of Directors, Superintendent, \"facuityT No administrative staff, employees, and students. Adequately supports \"lrsD'\"basic repbrti'ng' r'e^'iremen't ODM, State Department of Education or other local. to Federal Court, iagencies as required. state and federal ALTERNATIVE TWO Upgrade LRSD IS by building on the current infrastructure. install additional IBM AS400 code\nupgrade networks. processors, disk storage and application Procure and administrative computing. Realign IS staff to meet the needs of source LRSD Clearly define and separate administrative and academic IS systems, responsibilities and staff. Develop a comprehensive Information Services Plan which includes technical standards and responsibilities and staff. policy procurement 2/7/95\nYes No Partial Partial : Yes i Partial\nNo Partial Partial Little Rock School District Information Services Business Case\nDevelops adequate procurement policy .\nDevelops correct architecture and builds adequate infrastructure. i Addresses staff ali^ment, background and training. Eliminates redund^cy^of \"effort\"\nEliminates system saturation. i Provides effective reporting\". ........ i Allows effective integrati'on\"of'\"new\"tecta Meets basic needs of LRSD Board of Directors, Superintendent, faculty, administrative staff, employees, and students. Adequately supports LRSD basic reporting requirement ODM, State Department of Education or other local, to Federal Court,\nagencies as required. state and federal ALTERNATIVE THREE Transition LRSD IS from the current \"closed\" AS400 environment to a networked, client-server PC architecture. Emphasize prototyping for all technical solutions with constant evaluation, correction and decision making. Implementation is phased based on user needs and available resources. PC architecture. constant correction for all decision __________ Study the consolidation of administrative and academic computing to include systems. responsibilities and staff. Study reorganization and realign of technical staff to meet the needs of a diverse LRSD client-server, PC environment. user community in a networked, Plan which includes a district Develop a comprehensive Information Services wide procurement policy and training architecture. technical standards. : Yes i Yes rYes\" : Develops adequate procurement\"po'iicyT Yes Develops correct architecture and build's a'dequate infrastructure. Addresses staff alignment, background and training. Eliminates redundancy of\"effort7 Yes\nYes\nYes Yes Yes Eliminates system saturation. Provides effective reporting\".' Al 1 ows effective integra\"t\"ion\"\"of \"new\"\"tec^ i Meets basic needs of LRSD Board of Directors, administrative staff, faculty, employees, and students. Superintendent Adequately supports LRSD\"\"basic\"\"reporting\"\"\"re^Tre^^^ ODM, State Department of Education or other local. Federal Court iagencies as required. state and federal 2/7/95Little Rock School District Information Services Business Case I RECOMMENDATION I Transition LRSD IS from the current client-server solutions PC architecture. with constant ACTION \"closed\" AS400 environment to a networked. evaluation, Emphasize prototyping correction and Implementation is phased based on user needs and avat 1 ahi a for all decision technical making. --------- resources. Study the consolidation of administrative and academic computing to include systems. responsibilities and staff. Study reorganization and realign of technical staff to meet the needs of a diverse LRSD client-seirver, PC environment. user community in a networked, Plan which includes district Develop a comprehensive Information Services wide procurement policy and training. architecture. technical standards. RATIONALE  Enhances LRSD ability to report. Improves connectivity, reduces information\" develops a corporate data model. \"islands of LAN servers access with low cost. migrates data to low cost easy to use PC tools. a  Provides a comprehensive infrastructure which enhances connectivity, reduces islands of information\" and develops a corporate data model.  Migrates to and provides technology. the architecture for implementation of new  Provides the infrastructure and architecture to \"plug in\" instructional technology consequently, the ability to aggressively pursue technology grants. to  Procurement is standardized to reduce costs, streamline maintenance, build infrastructure, eliminate redundancy.  Eliminates redundant systems, effort and costs.  Reduces saturation of existing AS400 systems by downloading processing to lower priced LAN based servers.  Initiates configuration of technical technical needs. staff to meet current and future 2/7/95Little Rock School District Information Services Business Case [ OBJECTIVE ]  Resolve LRSD's most critical short term computing need, valid, timely, information to the Superintendent, Board, Court and other agencies as required.  Develop an architecture which allows migration to and integration of new technology, as technology changes, in support of a diverse administrative and instructional user community.  Maximizes resources\nno expensive, quick fix, throw away solution.  Implementation allows constant evaluation, correction and decision making by educators, administrators and technical staff. Implementation is incremental based on user needs and available resources. c IMPACT ANALYSIS  DESEGREGATION/COURT Alternative Three meets the IS needs of LRSD Board of Directors, Superintendent, administrative staff, faculty, employees, and students. This solution supports LRSD basic reporting requirements to Federal Court, ODM, State Department of Education or other local, state and federal agencies. POLITICAL FACTORS Alternative Three transitions LRSD to the same technical architecture as chosen and implemented by both APSCAN and Pulaski County Special School District. Politically the implementation of Alternative Three makes LRSD \"team player\". a RISKS There is no significant downside risk associated with Alternative Three. This solution emphasizes prototyping and phased implementation with evaluation, correction and decision making at every stage. Risks would be associated with any other solution. From a technical and political perspective LRSD would be a \"Lone Ranger\" implementing a solution other than Alternative Three. TIMING Phased implementation is an Alternative Three strength. Each phase allows for evaluation, correction and decision making. Implementation speed may be adjusted based on user needs and available resources. 2/7/95Little Rook School Dietrlct Information Services Business Case RESOURCE ANALYSIS A brief analysis indicates LRSD PERSONNEL have 45 to 50 personnel who plan, implement and operate LRSD information systems\nbe $800,000 to $1,000,000 costs for these personnel may per year. Currently 12 work for the Director IS, trained and managed by a wide variety of administrators, educators, librarians etc. all others are hired, The effective, efficient employment of technical personnel in this scenario must be questioned. example, the IRC supports 52 ABACUS PCs with For a ratio of 1 technician per 20 IS currently maintains approximately 500 terminals of one 1 technician per 250 PCs. PCs. and PCs with a ratio To plan, implement and operate 3- comprehensive information system, with Iapidly expanding demand for technical services LRSD must either hire more IS staff or realign and reorganize to effectively support growing IS demands within existing budget constraints. IS organizational structure should include several key technical positions, director, applications and database manager, network and PC manager, and technical planner. Each must have the education. perform his/her responsibilities. training and experience to current technical skills are a Technology is a volatile environment. demand commodity. LRSD must pay current market rates for its key technical positions else current technology cannot be implemented.  Director. Responsible to the Superintendent, and operations. LRSD, for IS policy, planning Applications and Database Manager. Responsible for central applications databases and computer operations.  Technology Planner. Responsible for the planning and acquisition of new technology. Additionally works with LRSD Grant Writer grants. to obtain technology  Network and PC Manager. Responsible for all networks, L? printers, scanners etc. in a designated area. For example LANs, servers, PCs,  ------o-----. * v'B. , one Network and PC Manager may be responsible for all LRSD secondary schools. It is important to note that, while the majority of technology growth has been , there is currently no corresponding position in LRSD. in this area. 2/7/95Little Rock School District Information Services Business Case Director \u0026gt;4 r L Secretary Technical Planner ] Telephone Specialist I 1 Applications \u0026amp; Database Manager^ Programmer Programmer Programmer Programmer -----1 Operator Operator Network \u0026amp; PC Manager Network \u0026amp; PC Network \u0026amp; PC Network \u0026amp; PC Network \u0026amp; PC Network \u0026amp; PC Network \u0026amp; PC Network \u0026amp; PC Network \u0026amp; PC Network \u0026amp; PC Manager | -T'  -1 Network \u0026amp; PC Network \u0026amp; PC Network \u0026amp; PC Network \u0026amp; PC Network \u0026amp; PC Network \u0026amp; PC Network \u0026amp; PC Network \u0026amp; PC I I I I 1 Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 3 5 YEAR TOTAL COSTS Initiate New Architecture 35 School Servers 15 School Servers District Applications $317,500 $350,000 $150,000 $200,000 $1,017,500.00 Year 4 Year 5 5 YEAR TOTAL Eliminate IBM Eliminate IBM SAVINGS AS400 Administrative Computer AS400 Administrative Computer $560,000 , $560,000 $1,120,000.00  LRSD will receive IS funding REVENUE based on a recent court decision reference the creation and fimding of APSCAN. Amount unknown.  A procurement plan that requires technical standards and bulk, discount purchase will yield significant savings. A \"custom\" PC costs considerably more than a standard bulk procurement PC. 1994 LRSD records reflect procurement of PCs for $3000-$5000. A very adequate PC may be procured in bulk for $1500-$2000. The excess costs of 50 \"custom\" PCs may range from $75,000-$175,000. Amount unknown.  LRSD Grant Writer has briefed the availability of several large technology grants. A LAN environment in every school provides a basis for implementation of technology such as Internet, multimedia, interactive learning applications, etc. at the individual school, consequently the possibility of aggressive pursuit of grants. Amount unknown. 2/7/95Little Rock School District Information Services Business Case c FORCE FIELD ANALYSIS 1 FORCES FOR A phased implementation which emphasizes prototyping will include representatives of the entire LRSD user community. Administrators and educators will be in a position to evaluate and provide feedback at each phase of implementation. In a sense the user community will progressively \"buy in\" to the solution, consequently the entire LRSD user community will have a vested interest in IS success. FORCES AGAINST LRSD administrators and educators have enjoyed considerable autonomy budgeting and purchasing IS\nthere will be initial reluctance to give this autonomy up. Both administrative staff and instructional staff will express concern regarding any staff realignment or reorganization. 2/7/95Little Rock School District Information Seirvicos Business Case IMPLEMENTATION  Procure and install a data server with associated software and hardware. Physically link the data server to the Administrative AS400\ninstall a data gateway to implement data transfer between the AS400 and the YEAR 1 AMD VOTICM AMO KHOlUVCI AfiMtNSnATIVI data server. Link local administrative staff to both the AS 400 and the data server via a LAN. Use low cost, graphical, PC tools\nprovide local administrative staff to all LRSD data. access Install both a school and a ruma o tone*. LAN 4 4 FAX Q 4 4 4 b HNTU 4 4 MMOn (TAFT LAM S_J3 4 4 rurm o a FAX LAN nivu 4 4 I DAT* raavu a LMD ADMoramATTva buudm 4 -o 4 4 4 b wnu LAM navu JL 4 4 4 4 b Funn LAM \u0026lt;nvix 4 4 FAX Q 4 4 4 4 4 runu 9 4 remote administrative staff LAN prototype which is linked back to the Administrative AS400\nadministrators, educators and students may access centralized student services, administrative services, library services etc. as appropriate. These LANs also allow local implementation of office applications, instructional applications, multimedia, I..'____ _ Administrators, educators, students and technical staff evaluate Internet etc. . prototypes. Standardize technical procurement to insure all technology \"plugs in\" to the nc'.\n^ architecture. Identify past LRSD average yearly expenditures for new technology. Encumber or set aside, this average yearly technology expenditure in the current budget. Users may access the technology budget for technical maintenance, supplies etc.. All significant technology procurements must be approved, i.e. must meet new architecture standards. Initiate bulk procurement of PCs, printers etc.. Direct savings from bulk procurement to implementation of the approved prototype in schools. 2/7/95Rock School District Information SorvicoB BuslneBs Case Reorganize and realign technical staff as required. Identify each LRSD employee supporting the planning, implementation and operations of technology. Identify the cost associated Secretary Telephone Specialist Director Technical Planner X I Applications \u0026amp; Database Manager | f Network \u0026amp; PC Programmer Programmer Programmer Programmer Operator Operator I I Manager j F 1 Network \u0026amp; PC Manager with each employee. Develop Network \u0026amp; PC Network \u0026amp; PC Network \u0026amp; PC Network \u0026amp; PC 1 Network \u0026amp; PC Network \u0026amp; PC Network \u0026amp; PC Network \u0026amp; PC I I ] Network \u0026amp; PC Network \u0026amp; PC Network \u0026amp; PC Network \u0026amp; PC 1 Network \u0026amp; PC Network \u0026amp; PC Network \u0026amp; PC Network \u0026amp; PC . , -  comprehensive IS staff model with relevant position descriptions, responsibilities etc. positions as required to support this model, without additional funds. Eliminate positions and create The goal is improved support Aggressively pursue technology grants. The approved school prototype will serve as a technical model which educators, in coordination with LRSD Grant Writer, may use to justify educational technology grants. Planner position is a part of any technical staff realignment. The Technical in coordination with the Grant Writer, Planner, IS Insure a Technical grants of significance to LRSD information architecture. will identify and pursue 2/7/95Little Rook School Dietriot Information Services Buaineas Caaa IMPLEMENTATION YEAR 2-3 Complete implementation of new architecture. Continue standardized procurement, and pursuit of technology grants. Prepare to phase out AS400 systems. Evaluate business, administrative, and instructional for new architecture. applications A a WWTU o a nUHTU o a a a a FAX Q a a b KMTU a a a Q a b a a a FAX 0 a AS4W VO TECH  I LAN tuw AS40U FOOD SEX VICE  J_ AMW ADMINISTRATIVE I DATA DATA 5EXVEA LAN Bn* A a a a a o  lAV suvu a a b FMROI atoai* a Q a a q a a a a. a a \"o a MO 9 a a b a MMT* a 9 a a a a a 9 a a a a a a a a a b b MMTtlt4 appl 2/7/9S Little Rock School District Information Services Bualness Case c ATTACHMENT 1 COSTS All costs listed are estimates and will vary based on bids, bulk purchase etc. Costs could also change based on an assessment of equipment in each school. Note that $560,000 for LRSD AS400 is a yearly, reoccurring encumbered budget item. Significant costs for this system will continue until it is replaced. Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year 5 5 YEAR TOTAL IBM IBM IBM IBM IBM ALTERNATIVE ONE AS400 Administrative Computer AS400 Administrative Computer AS400 Administrative Computer AS400 Administrative Computer AS400 Administrative Computer $560,000 $560,000 $560,000 $560,000 $560,000 $2,800,000 Year 1 Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year 5 5 YEAR TOTAL ALTERNATIVE TWO Upgrade IBM AS400 \u0026amp; Associated Systems IBM IBM IBM IBM IBM AS400 Administrative Computer AS400 Administrative Computer AS400 Administrative Computer AS40O Administrative Computer AS400 Administrative Computer $790,500 $560,000 $560,000 $560,000 $560,000 $560,000 $3,590,500 Year 1 Year 1 Year 2 Year 2 Year 3 Year 3 Year 3 Year 4 Year 5 5 YEAR TOTAL ALTERNATIVE THREE Initiate New Architecture IBM IBM AS400 Administrative Computer AS400 Administrative Computer 35 School Servers IBM AS400 Administrative Computer 15 School Servers District Applications Eliminate IBM Eliminate IBM AS400 Administrative Computer AS400 Administrative Computer $317,500 $560,000 $560,000 $350,000 $560,000 $150,000 $200,000 NONE NONE $2,697,000 2/7/95Little Rock School District Information Services Business Case ALTERNATIVE TWO EQUIPMENT AND SERVICES Application source code and RPG compiler Application software license for new processor Upgrade AS400 processor and disk storage IBM software Query and reporting software (50) Printers (5) Scanners (3) Communication controllers (3) 5 year maintenance AS400 and controllers 3 year IBM telephone support PC (25) Network Installation at $300 Upgrade network Tape BU Staff training Total per $150,000 $150,000 $125,000 $25,000 $20,000 $10,000 $9,000 $18,000 $70,000 $15,000 $60,000 $7,500 $100,000 $6,000 $25,000 $790,500.00 ALTERNATIVE THREE EQUIPMENT AND SERVICES Central Server w/OS, RDBMS, Apps, Gateway LAN Server w/OS \u0026amp; tape BU 35 School Servers 15 School Servers District Applications Scanners (3) (2) PC (25) Network Installation at $300 per Staff training Total Cost $150,000 $30,000 $20,000 $350,000 $150,000 $200,000 $9,000 $50,000 $7,500 $14,000 $980,500.00 2/7/95[ ATTACHMENT 2 Little Rock School District Xnforznatlozi Services Business Case CURRENT ARCHITECTURE AS400 FOOD SERVICE AS400 ADMINISTRATIVE AS400 VO TECH 2/7/95 Little Rock School Diatrict Information Services Buainesa Case [ ATTACHMENT 3 TARGET ARCHITECTURE I DISTRICT SERVER nUNTEX PUNTU 2/7/95 7 Little Rock School Dietrlct Information Services Businea* Ca FEB J 5 1005 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Offics of Ses?' Information Services (IS) Directors, students. Superintendent, SITUATION does not meet the basic needs requirement to local. Additionally IS does faculty, administrative of LRSD Board of staff, employees. or not adequately support LRSD basic reporting state and federal agencies as required. Analysis of the situation identifies critical short term three crucial issues. First, LRSD's most computing need is valid, timely, information to the uperintendent, Board and Court. Second LRSD must develop an architecture w ich allows migration to and integration of new technology, as technology changes, in support of a diverse administrative and instructional user community. Third, resolution of both issues must be accomplished with minimal resources\nno expensive, quick fix, throw away solution. Second timely. throw away solution.  Alternative One. Do nothing. ALTERNATIVES  Alternative Two. Upgrade by building additional AS400 upgrade networks. processors, disk storage. on current systems. Procure and install application source code. and  Alternative Three. Transition from the current . , \"closed\" AS400 environment to a networked, client-server PC architecture. Emphasize prototyping for all technical solutions with constant evaluation, making. correction and decision IMPLEMENT ALTERNATIVE THREE  Alternative One is not viable. No crucial issue is resolved. $2,800,000 over five years. LRSD will spend  Alternative Two builds on current architecture. Problems with valid, timely reporting are only partially resolved. There is limited ability to integrate new technology. Since new technology is less expensive and easier to use. Alternative Three is not cost effective in either finariri al resources. LRSD will spend $3,590,500 over five years. or human Alternative Three, begin transition from the current environment to a networked, client-server PC architecture. closed\" AS400 is the preferred Valid, timely reporting issues are more easily corrected with _ new architecture. There is significant ability to integrate new technology. Since new technology is less expensive and easier to use. Alternative Three is most cost effective in both financial and human solution. spend $2,697,000 over five years. resources. LRSD will a 2/7/95Little Rock School District Inforaation Services Business Case COSTS Note that $560,000 for LRSD AS400 is a yearly, reoccurring encumbered budget item. Significant costs for this system will continue until it is replaced. Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year 5 5 YEAR TOTAL IBM IBM IBM IBM IBM ALTE9NAT-L-VE ONE AS400 Administrative Computer AS400 Administrative Computer AS400 Administrative Computer AS400 Administrative Computer AS400 Administrative Computer $560,000 $560,000 $560,000 $560,000 $560,000 $2,800,000 Year 1 Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year 5 5 YEAR TOTAL ALTERNATIVE TWO Upgrade IBM AS400 \u0026amp; Associated Systems IBM IBM IBM IBM IBM AS400 Administrative Computer AS400 Administrative Computer AS400 Administrative Computer AS400 Administrative Computer AS400 Administrative Computer $790,500 $560,000 $560,000 $560,000 $560,000 $560,000 $3,590,500 Year 1 Year 1 Year 2 Year 2 Year 3 Year 3 Year 3 Year 4 Year 5 5 YEAR TOTAL ALTERNATIVE THREE Initiate New Architecture IBM IBM AS400 Administrative Computer AS400 Administrative Computer 35 School Servers IBM AS400 Administrative Computer 15 School Servers District Applications Eliminate IBM Eliminate IBM AS400 Administrative Computer AS400 Administrative Computer $317,500 $560,000 $560,000 $350,000 $560,000 $150,000 $200,000 NONE NONE $2,697,000 2/7/95Littl RoqX SohooX Information Servlcea BuoinooB Case IMPLEMENTATION YEAR 1 Procure and install data server with associated software and hardware. Physically link the data server to the Administrative AS400\ninstall a data gateway to implement data transfer between the AS400 and the data WMTB o SCHOOL LAM A TAX Q server. Link local administrative staff to both the AS 400 and the data server via a LAN. Use low cost, graphical. b FUHTU PC tools\nprovide local UHOTt JTAZT UAX administrative staff access to all LRSD data. AS\u0026lt;D WTtCH  __L_ TAX AMS raoosotvKC  LAM JUVU  b nuHTn AMS APMtXISTKATTVt DATA LAM SUVU  MTA SUVU  Id- USD AounnsruTTvi builoemc b MUKTEI LAM snvn  -io TAX Q raXHTtt 9 Install both a school and a remote administrative staff LAN linked back to the Administrative AS400\nadministrators, prototype which is students may access centralized educators and student services, administrative services, library services etc. as appropriate. These LANs also allow local implementation of office applications, instructional applications. ------, multimedia, Internet etc. . Administrators, educators, students and technical staff evaluate prototypes. a A 1 I A A A A A a o A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A \u0026amp; A A Standardize technical procurement to insure all technology \"plugs in\" to the new architecture. technology. Identify past LRSD average yearly expenditures for Encumber or set aside, this average yearly technology expenditure in the current budget. Users may access the technology budget for technical maintenance, supplies etc.. All significant technology procurements must be approved, i.e. must meet new architecture standards. Initiate bulk procurement of PCs, printers etc.. Direct savings from bulk procurement to implementation of the approved prototype in schools. 2/7/95Little Rock School District Information Services Business Case Reorganize and realign technical staff as required. Identify each LRSD employee supporting the planning, implementation and operations of technology. Identify the cost associated Secretary Telephone Spedaiist [Applicatona \u0026amp; Database Manap^ p Programmer Programmer Programmer Programmer Operator Operator Director technical Planner Networlt i PC Manager Network \u0026amp; PC Manager Network \u0026amp; PC Network \u0026amp; PC Network A PC Network \u0026amp; PC Network A PC Network A PC Network A PC Network A PC Network \u0026amp; PC Network A PC Network A PC Network A PC Network A PC Network A PC Network A PC Network A PC with each employee. Develop a comprehensive IS staff model with relevant position descriptions, responsibilities etc. Eliminate positions and create positions as required to support this model. The goal is improved support without additional funds. Aggressively pursue technology grants. The approved school prototype will serve as a technical model which educators, in coordination with LRSD Grant Writer, may use to justify educational technology grants. Insure a Technical Planner position is a part of any technical staff realignment. The Technical Planner, in coordination with the Grant Writer, will identify and pursue grants of significance to LRSD information architecture. 2/7/95 }-[ I 1 I I 1 H I 1 I 1Rook School District Information Services BuslnesB Case IMPLEMENTATION YEAR 2-3 Complete implementation of new architecture. Continue standardized procurement, and pursuit of technology grants. Prepare to phase out AS400 systems. Evaluate business, administrative, and instructional applications for new architecture. NUKTU o wxm o FAX Q b NUMTU FAX Q 6 HUMm rxx Q b wMm AS4a\u0026gt; VO TECH  SBVCK e- LM LAN KA VIA AS400 FOODSERVICE AS40O AOMMSTRATTVE DATA SEX VIA DATA o- r* FAX Q FAX Q rut Q \"o 2/7/95  i 4 a a a a a \u0026amp; A a n SBvi A a k A a a a A A a a A a 9 A A a o ? a A a A a A a a a a  a a a a a A i a tTT7 b A 6 a A A a a A a 9 a a a a a a a 6 a a a aLittle Rook School District Information Servlcea Business Case IMPLEMENTATION YEARS 4-5 Phase out AS400 systems.Implement business and student administrative applications for new architecture. uo Pi*nTAATn  DISTRICT SERVEK FMHTU. o a n FAX Q a a a LAN suvu a Q a a p e' i a b rUNTU a a \u0026amp; i a a i. a nUNTU o a BRBLM a FAX Q a a a. a Q a a \"q a a b nitau a a a FUNTCR o a a Fax Q a a UH suvu a a b nUNTCt a a a  i HHH a a a _b_ a a a a a Q a a Q a a a a 2/7/95[ Information Services (IS) Directors, students. Little Rock School District Information Services Business Case BACKGROUND CURRENT SITUATION does not meet the basic needs of LRSD Board of Superintendent, administrative staff, faculty, employees, or Additionally IS does not adequately support LRSD basic reporting requirement to Federal Court, Office of Desegregation Monitoring (ODM), Department of Education or other local, state and federal agencies required. or other local, State and as BACKGROUND INFORMATION For many years LRSD IS operated as a centralized, mainframe based, data processing (DP) facility with terminal drops supporting basic administrative functions. Data (not information) was provided to customers by a central programming staff who wrote code and a central operations staff who printed The demand on DP was minimal. years IS operated Data (not information) reports. mainframe based LRSD information was generated by using a combination of DP reports and data stored in administrative file cabinets. administrative staff In the mid 1980's a technology explosion, as evidence by the personal computer (PC) , ------ --- ..... forever changed administrative dependence on a central DP facility. , and administrative staff could and did purchase and Reliance on the PC increased dramatically, unfortunately neither staff nor LRSD infrastructure Indivi dua1 schools, PCs. User demand for PC support grew. on use LRSD DP was realigned to support PC implementation. Standards for procurement of PC hardware and software were virtually nonexistent. In 1992, purchased an IBM AS400 midrange administrative software and peripherals. LRSD an IBM computer. associated \"closed\" environment. Unfortunately this solution was a a The AS400 was not designed to take full advantage of PC although PCs could be attached using emulation (translator) hardware and software which was expensive, difficult to install. Additionally, the academic use of PCs, configure and maintain. PC computing labs etc. increased rapidly. AS400 administrative computing, PC based administrative computing and PC based academic computing were now competing for limited financial and AS400 computing. staff resources. Simultaneous with the necessity to make major technical decisions in a rapidly changing technical environment, LRSD grappled with the impact of continual change in administration. In 1994 a new Superintendent recognized the negative impact IS was having on LRSD's ability to conduct business. a monitor desegregation compliance and report and directed Human Resource initiated a search for a qualified Director of Information Services. November 1994 LRSD hired a new Director of Information Services. to In 2/7/95[ Information Services (IS) Little Rock School District Information Services Business Case PROBLEM DEFINITION 1 PROBLEM STATEMENT does not meet the basic needs of Directors, Superintendent, LRSD faculty, administrative staff, students. - - -  LRSD Board of employees, or Additionally IS does not adequately support LRSD basic reporting requirement to Federal Court, ODM, State Department of Education or other local, state and federal agencies as required. Federal Court, ODM, The conditions that create this problem include a lack of procurement policy, no infrastructure and corporate data model, incorrect staff alignment, background and training, redundancy of effort, system saturation, the and corporate data model, redundancy of effort. system saturation -*  ------------a 2 6^ OCl U ULX Cl U X f UllC inability to effectively report and the inability to effectively integrate new technology. PROCUREMENT Currently individual schools and staff agencies budget for and purchase PCs, servers, networks, printers, modems, software, consulting services. etc. These procurements range from a $200 word processor, to a $75,000 con^uter lab to a $100,000 consulting and software development project. The results from decentralized budgeting and procurement are wasted human resources, wasted money and no infrastructure. For example. assume LRSD purchases 200 PCs per year, The resources, 150 bulk PCs are purchased, 50 PCs are inaiviaually purchased. An individual PC purchase requires 1 day visiting a computer store, talking to a friend or a vendor and individually purchased. An individual completing the procurement request. LRSD Purchasing Department then spends 1/2 day requesting bids and finalizing purchase. In total, 75 days of LRSD human resources are expended. Additionally a \"custom\" PC costs considerably than a standard bulk procurement PC. are more PCs for $3000-$5000. 1994 LRSD records reflect procurement of $2000. The excess costs of 50 A very adequate PC may be procured in bulk for $1500- \"custom PCs may range from $75,000-$175,000. LRSD has agencies no viable each INFRASTRUCTURE AND CORPORATE DATA MODEL IS infrastructure. Individuals, procure PCs, servers. printers. schools. and modems, networks, staff word processors, spreadsheet, etc. The result of nonstandard procurement is a lack of connectivity, inter-operability and no corporate data model. in \"islands of automation\" physical or logical connectivity exists. in various schools and staff Data resides agencies. Little severely restricts LRSD ability to effectively report. The lack of corporate data model To use an analogous situation, suppose the decision was made to rebuild Chicot Elementary. No architect is hired,* instead the librarian is given money to rebuild the library, food service is given money to rebuild the cafeteria each teacher is given money to rebuild his/her classroom. and The probable result 2/7/95Little Rock School District Xnforsiation Seirvices Business Case would be an excellent library, an excellent cafeteria and excellent individual classrooms. Unfortunately, Chicot would consist of multiple buildings, connected to the other, no hallways, no lockers. none no rest rooms etc., etc. In summary a new, expensive, Chicot Elementary would be nonfunctional. LRSD information infrastructure is currently comparable to this hypothetical expensive but nonfunctional Chicot Elementary. Currently, each school and staff agency spends considerable money to meet their specific automation needs. Personal computers, printers, fax machines, modems, etc., with a multitude of software applications have been purchased and installed. No new. Currently, each school Personal computers, printers, etc., and installed. comprehensive plan for connectivity, standardization, maintenance, etc., has been followed. Data/information now resides in multiple locations in multiple There are no \"hallways\" connecting these diverse automation islands. maintenance, formats. LRSD information will probably survive without one infrastructure connects/encompasses agencies and activities. elementary school. however. an all LRSD schools. staff Effective technology maintenance is not possible, breaks down. When a PC, printer. etc. the user calls IS staff\nunfortunately IS staff was not involved in the purchase, has no idea who, where to call for maintenance and has had no training on this unique hardware and software. The broken PC or printer may be pushed into a comer, another PC or printer ordered, the process repeats Itself over and over. The user, IS staff, and LRSD budget are negatively impacted. I The user. The current de-centralized IS procurement policy with resulting maintenance problems is roughly analogous to each school buying its own bus. breaks down, the school calls Transportation for maintenance. When the bus would not have the Transportation spare parts and no mechanics trained on that specific bus LRSD's ability to transport students would deteriorate rapidly, perception that  ' system. I'm only buying one PC, that can't possibly compare to a bus A \u0026gt;// is not valid. Various agencies within LRSD are spending from $20,000 $100,000 on automation with the expectation that IS will hook it up and keep it repaired. Not possible. to IS STAFF ALIGNMENT, BACKGROUND \u0026amp; TRAINING The motivation and dedication of LRSD IS staff is not in question, unfortunately IS staff alignment, background and training are not adequate to meet the demands of a volatile, diverse, technical environment. IS staff is currently aligned to meet the needs of a centralized, mainframe DP environment. The majority of LRSD con^iuting growth over the past several years has been PCs and networks. Approximately 500 administrative terminals and PCs exist\nunfortunately no IS staff position has been added, or existing position converted, to either PC or network responsibility. IS staff technical background is insufficient\nonly the Director and one programmer have degrees in CS/IS. This is roughly equivalent to running public school with one certified principal and one certified classroom a 2/7/95teacher. Little Rock School District Information Services Businese Case All other classes are taught by teachers aides. It is doubtful either LRSD or the public would tolerate a school staffed without certified teachers. While a school staffed without certified teachers would have problems, there would be little impact on the other 51 schools Unfortunately IS cannot be isolated. certainly in LRSD. IS staff is responsible for a multimillion infrastructure which impacts every employee and student in LRSD. IS staff is not trained. on In 1992 LRSD spent approximately 2 million dollars new computer systems. Unfortunately IS staff received negligible training to effectively implement this multi-million dollar procurement. or no The alignment, background and training of computing staff may be worse than for IS staff. LRSD academic/instructional PC technicians are scattered throughout LRSD, managed by principals, secretaries, librarians etc. The CS/IS education, background and training these PC technicians and their managers have is minimal yet. percentage of LRSD's they are planning, procuring and managing a sizable multi-million dollar IS infrastructure. REDUNDANCY OF EFFORT Considerable redundancy of effort and resources exist. IS staff. Instructional Resource Center (IRC) staff and various administrative staff LRSD each expend considerable human agencies within resolve confuting needs. resource effort defining and attempting to systems are the result with associated Redundant human effort and redundant information redundant costs. SYSTEM SATURATION LRSD Administrative AS400 computer and its associate networks have reached capacity utilization.. Central Processing Unit exceeds 90% (computers exceeding \"crashing\").Communication networks 90% (CPU) utilization frequently capacity are susceptible to are primarily 9.6 kbps, roughly half the necessary capacity. As an example, in the January 1995 report card/grade processing cycle, the Administrative AS400 CPU and network example. saturation forced school administrative staffs to download student grade data from school PCs to disks which were then driven in private automobiles to district headquarters for uploading into the Administrative AS400. INABILITY TO REPORT In addition to reporting problems caused by insufficient infrastructure and \"islands of information\", LRSD's unique reporting requirements created by desegregation and or court requirements have not been addressed. Administrative AS400 applications were purchased as a \"canned\" package. These applications have a series of data entry screens and reports designed to meet the needs of a generic or \"average\" school district. LRSD faces daily requests for information from Federal Court, ODM, etc. which standard applications cannot address. and necessary software to modify these standard applications have not been purchased. etc. The legal rights 2/7/95LRSD's network. Little Rock School Dietrlct Information Services Bueineee Caee INABILITY TO IMPLEMENT NEW TECHNOLOGY primary computing facilities Both are \"closed\" or are an IBM AS400 and its associated integrate PCs, printers. \"proprietary\" systems, which do not effectively scanners, fax modems, LANs etc. viewed as a cabinet stereo\nThe IBM AS400 may be and two speakers. a beautiful piece of furniture with a turntable effectively upgrade to and significant cost and effort. It has limited connect a expansion capability. I.e. you cannot cassette deck and CD player without in an AS400 environment Attempts to implement new PC and LAN technology are roughly equivalent to integrating a cassette and CD with a cabinet stereo\ncost and effort. it can be accomplished, but only with significant [ ANALYSIS OF ALTERNATIVES j ALTERNATIVE ONE Change nothing. Current IS systems, infrastructure, procurement policy and staff remain. LRSD. IS problems will continue to have serious negative impact on i No i No\nDevelops a^q^te procurement EToli'cy i No builds adequate infrastructure i No : No aiisnment, background and training. : Eliminates redtmdancy\"oT\"S'fort'. i No r'No\nEliminates system saturation?\nProvides effective reporting.  iAllows effective integration\"? new\"technologyT i No No Meets basic needs of LRSD Board of Directors, Superintendent, administrative staff, eirployees, and students. faculty Adequately supports LRSD basic reporting requirement to ODM, State Department of Education or other local. Federal Court : agencies as required. state eind federal ALTERNATIVE TWO Upgrade LRSD IS by building on the current infrastructure. install additional IBM AS400 code\nupgrade networks. processors, disk storage and application Procure and administrative computing. Realign IS staff to meet the needs of source LRSD Clearly define and separate administrative and academic IS systems, responsibilities and staff. Develop a comprehensive Information Services Plan which includes technical standards and responsibilities and staff. policy procurement 2/7/95\nYes Partial Partial i Yes\nPartial Mo Partial Partial Little Rock School Dietrict Information SarviooB BuBinesB Case iDevelops adequate procurement policy. correct architecture and builds adequate infrastructure. : Addresses staff alignment, background and training i Eliminates redundancy 'of effort?\nEliminates system saturation.'\nProvides effective reporting.' ^Allows effective integration oFne'wtechnoio^. Meets basic needsof\" LRSd\" Board\"'df'\"\"Directors7 administrative staff, employees, and students Superintendent, faculty Adequately supports LRSD basic reporting re^irSnent to ODM, State Department of Education or other local. Federal Court\nagencies as required. state and federal Transition LRSD IS from the current ALTERNATIVE THREE client-server PC architecture. closed\" AS400 environment to a networked. solutions with constant evaluation. Emphasize prototyping for all correction and Implementation is phased based on user needs and avai1abi decision technical making. the consolidation of administrative and academic resources. Study responsibilities and staff. computing to include systems. Study reorganization and realign of technical staff to meet the needs of a diverse LRSD client-server. Plan which PC environment. user community in a networked. includes a district Develop a comprehensive Information Services procurement policy and training wide architecture. technical standards, Yes Yes' Yes Yes Yes\nDevelops adequate procurement policy. ~ ~\nAddresses staff alignment, background\"and\"training Eliminates redundancy of effort. Eliminates system saturation. Yes Yes\nProvides effective reporting. Allows effective integration of new technology Yes\nMeets basic needs of LRSD Board of Directors, Yes sdi^nistrative staff, faculty, employees, and students. Adequately supports LRSD basic reporting requirement\" Superintendent ODM, State Department of Education or other local. to Federal Court i agencies as required. state and federal 2/7/95Little Rock School District X\u0026amp;foraation Services Business Case RECOMMENDATION ACTION current \"closed\" AS400 c^Sni ieXer J T \"closed\" AS400 environment to a networked, soluSonrwith Whasize prototyping for all technical constant evaluation, correction and decision making. Impiementation is phased based  with PC architecture. constant correction for all , - - on user needs and available the consolidation of administrative decision resources. Study - - and academic computing to include systems, P ilities and staff. Study reorganization and realign of meet the needs of a diverse LRSD Develop a comprehensive Information Services piSuremen? oo, a architecture, technic! standards, procurement policy and training. staff to staff. technical PC environment. a  Enhances LRSD ability to information\" develops LAN servers user community in a networked, technical RATIONALE report. Improves connectivity, reduces a corporate data model, migrates data access with low cost, easy to use PC tools. \"islands of to low cost  Provides a comprehensive infrastructure . -----------which enhances connectivity, reduces islands of information\" and develops a corporate data model.  Migrates to and technology. provides the architecture for implementation of new  Provides the infrastructure and architecture to \"plug in' technology consequently, the ability to aggressively grants. instructional pursue technology * Procurement is standardized to reduce infrastructure, eliminate redundancy. costs, streamline maintenance, build  Eliminates redundant systems, effort and costs.  Reduces saturation of lower priced LAN based existing AS400 systems by downloading processing to servers.  Initiates configuration of technical technical needs. staff to meet current and future 2/7/95Little Rock School Dletrlet Information Services Business Case [ OBJECTIVE as 1  Resolve LRSD's most critical short term coirputing need, valid, timely, information to the Superintendent, Board, Court and other agencies required.  Develop an architecture which allows migration to and integration of new technology, as technology changes, in support of a diverse administrative and instructional user community.  Maximizes resources\nno expensive, quick fix, throw away solution.  Implementation allows constant evaluation, correction and decision making by educators, administrators and technical staff. Implementation is incremental based on user needs snri avA 11 ahi a resources. c IMPACT ANALYSIS DESEGREGATION/COTOT Alternative Three meets the IS needs of LRSD Board of Directors, Superintendent, administrative staff, faculty, employees, and students, solution supports LRSD basic reporting requirements This to Federal Court, ODM, State Department of Education or other local, state and federal agencies. POLITICAL FACTORS Alternative Three transitions LRSD to the same technical architecture as chosen and implemented by both APSCAN and Pulaski County Special School District. Politically the implementation of Alternative Three makes LRSD a \"team player\". RISKS There is no significant downside risk associated with Alternative Three. This solution emphasizes prototyping and phased implementation with evaluation, correction and decision making at every stage. Risks would be associated with any other solution. From a technical and political perspective LRSD would be a \"Lone Ranger* implementing a solution other than Alternative Three. TIMING Phased implementation is an Alternative Three strength. Each phase allows for evaluation. correction and decision making. Implementation speed may be adjusted based on user needs and available resources. 2/7/95Little Rock School District lafonaatioxx Services Business Case RESOURCE ANALYSIS A brief analysis indicates LRSD PERSONNEL niay have 45 to 50 personnel who plan, implement and operate LRSD information be $800,000 to $1,000,000 systems\ncosts for these personnel may all others are hired. per year. Currently 12 work for the Director IS, trained and managed by a wide variety of administrators, educators, librarians etc. The effective, efficient employment of technical personnel in this scenario must be questioned. example, the IRC supports 52 ABACUS PCs with For a ratio of 1 technician per 20 IS currently maintains approximately 500 terminals of one 1 technician per 250 PCs. PCs. and PCs with a ratio To plan, implement and operate a comprehensive information system, with 2^a.pidly expanding demand for technical services LRSD must either hire more IS .\\. realign and reorganize to effectively support growing IS demands within existing budget constraints. IS organizational structure should include director, applications and database several key technical positions. technical planner. Each must have the education, perform his/her responsibilities. manager, network and PC manager, and training and experience to current technical skills are a Technology is a volatile environment. demand commodity. LRSD must pay current market rates for its key technical positions else current technology cannot be implemented.  Director. Responsible to the Superintendent, and operations. LRSD, for IS policy, planning  Applications and Database Manager. Responsible for central applications. databases and computer operations.  Technology Planner. Responsible for the planning and acquisition of new technology. Additionally works with LRSD Grant Writer grants. to obtain technology  Network and PC Manager. Responsible for all networks, LANs, printers, scanners etc. in a designated area. For example, servers, PCs, one Network and PC Manager may be responsible for all LRSD secondary schools. It is important to note that, while the majority of technology growth has been in this area. there is currently no corresponding position in LRSD. 2/7/95Little Rock School District Information Services Business Case Director ] Secretary Technical Planner Telephone Specialist I 1 Applications \u0026amp; Database Manager | Network \u0026amp; PC Manager Network \u0026amp; PC Manager | I I I I 1 I Programmer Programmer Programmer Programmer I Operator Operator Network \u0026amp; PC Network \u0026amp; PC Network \u0026amp; PC Network \u0026amp; PC Network \u0026amp; PC Network \u0026amp; PC Networks PC Network \u0026amp; PC Network \u0026amp; PC Network \u0026amp; PC Network \u0026amp; PC Network \u0026amp; PC Network \u0026amp; PC Network \u0026amp; PC Network \u0026amp; PC Network \u0026amp; PC 1 1 Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 3 5 YEAR TOTAL COSTS Initiate New Architecture 35 School Servers 15 School Servers District Applications $317,500 $350,000 $150,000 $200,000 $1,017,500. 00 Year 4 Year 5 5 YEAR TOTAL Eliminate IBM Eliminate IBM SAVINGS AS400 Administrative Computer AS400 Administrative Computer $560,000 , $560,000 $1,120,000.00  LRSD will receive IS fimding REVENUE based on a recent court decision reference the creation and fimding of APSCAN. Amount unknown.  A procurement plan that requires technical standards and bulk, discount purchase will yield significant savings. A \"custom\" PC costs considerably more than a standard bulk procurement PC. 1994 LRSD records reflect The excess costs n procurement of PCs for $3000-$5000. A very adequate PC may be procured in bulk for $1500-$2000. The excess costs of 50 \"custom\" PCs may range from $75,000-$175,000. Amount unknown.  LRSD Grant Writer has briefed the availability of several large technology grants. A LAN environment in every school provides a basis for implementation of technology such as Internet, multimedia, interactive learning applications, etc. at the individual school, consequently the possibility of aggressive pursuit of grants. Amount unknown. 2/7/95Little Rock School District laforaation Services Business Case [ FORCE FIELD ANALYSIS I FORCES FOR A phased implementation which emphasizes prototyping will include representatives of the entire LRSD user community. Administrators and educators will be in a position to evaluate and provide feedback at each phase of implementation. In a sense the user community will progressively \"buy in\" to the solution, consequently the entire LRSD user community will have a vested interest in IS success. FORCES AGAINST LRSD administrators and educators have enjoyed considerable autonomy budgeting and purchasing IS\nthere will be initial reluctance to give this autonomy up. Both administrative staff and instructional staff will express concern regarding any staff realignment or reorganization. 2/7/95[ Procure and install a data server with associated software and hardware. Physically link the data seirver to the Administrative AS400\ninstall a data gateway to implement data transfer between the AS400 and the data server. Link local administrative staff to both the AS 400 and the data server via a LAN. Use low cost, graphical, PC tools\nprovide local administrative staff to all LRSD data. access Install both a school and a Little Rock School Dietrict Information Services Business Case IMPLEMENTATION YEAR 1 AA400 VOTSCM *400 mootuvn S_J2 AnAgManxAWi urm o KNOOLLAM 4 4 AX Q 4 LAM UVUl o- I DAT* mvu a LAID ADMSamuTTVI IVLOtM 4 4 4 b ruTO 4 4 4 uno b a 4 MHOn rrAFT LAM a TAX 4 4 b WTO LAM MXVU  9 4 b WTO a 4 UM mm O 4 4 AX Q 4 a WTO o 4 4 4 4 remote administrative staff LAN prototype which is linked back to the Administrative AS400\nadministrators, educators and students centralized student services, administrative services, library\" services etc. as appropriate. These LANs also allow local implementation of office student services, may access applications, instructional applications, multimedia, !______ Administrators, educators, students and technical staff evaluate Internet etc. . prototypes. Standardize technical procurement to insure all technology \"plugs in\" to the new architecture. Identify past LRSD average yearly expenditures technology. Encumber or set aside, this average yearly technology for expenditure in the current budget. Users may access the technology budget for technical maintenance, supplies etc.. All significant technology procurements must be approved, i.e. must meet new architecture standards. Initiate bulk procurement of PCs, printers etc.. Direct savings from bulk procurement to implementation of the approved prototype in schools. 2/7/9SLittle Rock School Dietrlct Information Servlcee Bueineee Caee Reorganize and realign technical staff as required. Identify each LRSD employee supporting the planning, implementation and operations of technology. Identify the cost associated I [ Director Secretary Technical Planner Telephone Specialist I Applications 4 Database Manager j F f '---------1 Network \u0026amp; PC Manager Programmer Programmer Programmer Programmer Operator Operator I I ][ 1 Network \u0026amp; PC Manager with each employee. Develop Network \u0026amp; PC Network \u0026amp; PC Network \u0026amp; PC Network \u0026amp; PC 1 Network \u0026amp; PC Network \u0026amp; PC Network \u0026amp; PC Network \u0026amp; PC I I Network \u0026amp; PC Network \u0026amp; PC Network \u0026amp; PC Network \u0026amp; PC 1 Network \u0026amp; PC Network \u0026amp; PC Network \u0026amp; PC Network \u0026amp; PC  comprehensive IS staff model with rel Avant- position descriptions, responsibilities etc. positions as required to support this model. without additional funds. Eliminate positions and create The goal is improved support Aggressively pursue technology grants. The approved school prototype will serve as a technical model which educators, in coordination with LRSD Grant Writer, may use to justify educational technology grants. Planner position is a part of any technical staff realignment. The Technical in coordination with the Grant Writer, Planner, IS Insure a Technical grants of significance to LRSD information architecture. will identify and pursue 2/7/95Littl* Rook School District Information Services Buaineaa Caao IMPLEMENTATION YEAR 2-3 Complete implementation of new architecture. Continue standardized procurement, and pursuit of technology grants. Prepare to phase out AS400 systems. Evaluate business, administrative, and instructional applications for new architecture. AMOO VO TECH AS400 FOOD SEX VICE A9it0 ADMDflSTXATtVE DATA SEX VEX DATA MIMTU o a. FAX Q kAW tuvi* MW b rMtnt b MB fWNTU o rtx q Fax o o b rutira FAX Q LAN ntwu rm b runu :/7/95   a a a A a a o a 4 1 A a a a i Q a \u0026amp; a a Q a a a a a a A a A A A a a A A A i A A a A a a a A a a o a A a b a b A a a A A A 9 a A A A ALittl* Rook School Diotrict Information Services Buainaaa Case IMPLEMENTATION YEARS 4-5 Phase out AS400 systems.Implement business and student administrative applications for new architecture. \"o d nuNTu o A NUMTU o d rux a q a a. a uut StXVlK o a A d a b a d A A ro Q d A otmuT SFdVER  i a A Q A a HHH d -St a a b wmu d A A a rut q A a (AM suvu d b MUKTU d A a  \"o a tu q a A i A A Q A a d a a A .d a A Q A \"o b iwm d d d d 2/7/9S [ Little Rock School District Information Services Business Casa ATTACHMENT 1 COSTS All costs listed are estimates and will vary based on bids, bulk purchase etc. Costs could also change based on an assessment of equipment in each school. Note that $560,000 for LRSD AS400 is a yearly, reoccurring encumbered budget item. Significant costs for this system will continue until it is replaced. Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year 5 5 YEAR TOTAL IBM IBM IBM IBM IBM ALTERNATIVE ONE AS400 Administrative Computer AS400 Administrative Computer AS400 Administrative Computer AS400 Administrative Computer AS400 Administrative Computer $560,000 $560,000 $560,000 $560,000 $560,000 $2,800, 000 Year 1 Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year 5 5 YEAR TOTAL ALTERNATIVE TWO Upgrade IBM AS40O \u0026amp; Associated Systems IBM IBM IBM IBM IBM AS400 Administrative Con5)uter AS400 Administrative Computer AS400 Administrative Computer AS400 Administrative Computer AS400 Administrative Computer $790,500 $560,000 $560,000 $560,000 $560,000 $560,000 $3,590,500 Year 1 Year 1 Year 2 Year 2 Year 3 Year 3 Year 3 Year 4 Year 5 5 YEAR TOTAL ALTERNATIVE THREE Initiate New Architecture IBM IBM AS400 Administrative Computer AS400 Administrative Computer 35 School Servers IBM AS400 Administrative Computer 15 School Servers District Applications Eliminate IBM Eliminate IBM AS400 Administrative Computer AS400 Administrative Computer $317,500 $560,000 $560,000 $350,000 $560,000 $150,000 $200,000 NONE NONE $2,697,000 2/7/95Little Rock School Dietrlct Xnforaatlon Services Business Case ALTERNATIVE TWO EQUIPMENT AND SERVICES Application source code and RPG compiler Application software license for new processor Upgrade AS400 processor and disk storage IBM software Query and reporting software (50) Printers (5) Scanners (3) Communication controllers (3) 5 year maintenance AS400 and controllers 3 year IBM telephone support PC (25) Network Installation at $300 Upgrade network Tape BU Staff training Total per $150,000 $150,000 $125,000 $25,000 $20,000 $10,000 $9,000 $18,000 $70,000 $15,000 $60,000 $7,500 $100,000 $6,000 $25,000 $790,500.00 Central Server w/OS, Gateway LAN Server w/OS \u0026amp; tape BU 35 School Servers 15 School Servers District Applications Scanners (3) ALTERNATIVE THREE EQUIP RDBMS, Apps, AND SERVICES (2) PC (25) Network Installation at $300 per Staff training Total Cost $150,000 $30,000 $20,000 $350,000 $150,000 $200,000 $9,000 $50,000 $7,500 $14,000 $980,500.00 2/7/95[ ATTACHMENT 2 AS400 ADMINISTRATIVE Little Rock School District Xnfocnation Services Business Case CX7RRENT ARCHITECTURE 1 AS400 FOOD SERVICE AS400 VO TECH 2/7/95 Little Rock School Dietrict Information Services Bualneee Case [ ATTACHMENT 3 TARGET ARCHITECTURE 1 DISTRICT SERVER PWKTHl 2/7/95 / 5 of .. '^3 Little Rock School District Badgett School Relocation A Business Case January, 1995 Addition Modification Z Deletion $523,000 savings 1/9/95Badgett School Relocation Business Gise 2 Executive Summary For several years, the Little Rock School District (LRSD) has faced austere budgets. Though many strategies were developed to cut costs, most have been one time cuts. A comparison of the district's total building capacity and total enrollment shows many vacant seats. i------ While a larger than normal number of seats are necessary for desegregation, the number of vacant seats is significant. Said another way, LRSD has too many school buildings. The financing of any school is a major expense. Therefore, ^rious consideration must be given to closing some schools. It is a reasonable strategy. The savings are significant and are repeated from year to year. As attractive as it is to savmg money, it is more unattractive to the patrons of the school considered for closing. Because it is an emotional issue, snerifir rpQparrh rrit-oria uTom __i.\n__.v. an emotional issue, specific research criteria were used in making the decision about which school to close. Badgett has become expendable as a public school because of its isolation, its declining enrollment, and its increasing costs in per pupil expenditure and in building operation. The following are reasons why Badgett Elementary School is considered for closing: 1. As of October 1,1994, the school was fUled to only 68.87% of its capacity\n2. The capacity of the school itself (257) is below the district average of 425 for area elementary schools. Therefore, if the school were at capacity, the school would not operate efficiently when compared to other average size schools\n3. Enrollment since 1989 has declined steadily from 237 to 177 and is expected to continue\n4. The school is out of racial balance by 15.14%. It has not been within balance as far back as 1989 in spite of efforts to reverse this. A dramatic increase of 5.30% in percentage black occurred this year\n5. Because the attendance zone (160) is smaller than the capacity of the school (257) students must come from elsewhere to fill the school. recruiting has not been achieved for this school. Successful experience in 6. The per pupil cost has increased to $4021.87 in 1994-95 which is the highest of any area elementary schools\nThe additional 7. The school is geographically isolated from other populations. population to fill the school must come from other attendance zones which will negatively impact other schools\n8. Operational costs for the building have increased enough to make this school one on the most expensive to operate annually\nand. 9. The building is in need of renovation and upgrading. Together these costs will exceed $1,000,000, which is considerably more that the average cost of renovation and upgrading needed at other buildings. Sutwuiitdhy Di Hnr\u0026gt; P Ol/W/W he BADCTPOrBadgett School Relocation Business Case 3 By the opening of school for 1995-96, Badgett students will be relocated, faculty will be reassigned according to the negotiated contract, and appropriate reductions in positions will be completed with a minimum of disruption to these individuals and the school district. Plan. Fulfilling this proposal will require a modification to the LRSD Desegregation This proposal supports LRSD goals relating to securing financial resources necessary to support schools and the desegregation program. 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. The problem will be considered solved if the following list of criteria is met: New attendance zones affected by this relocation will reflect a better racial balance\nThe community is given the opportunity to be heard on the decision\nTransportation is re-routed to accommodate these students\nSpecial activities are planned and implemented by each new school to make the new students and patrons feel welcomed\nNew patrons are included in appropriate school correspondence and activities with those who have been enrolled\nLeaders within the community are made aware of the relocation plan and have the opportunity for input\nImmediate cost savings is realized\nand, The relocation of students and staff at will be complete before the opening of school for 1995-96. Most of these benefits will occur when the process concludes. Desegregation Plan goals will not be altered. Parent concerns about the process and their newly assigned school will be minimal. District officials are aware that the community will be concerned about relocating the students. A number of school buildings have been abandoned in the city. These are of paramount concern to many community members. Some will want to know if a plan exists for use of the building when the students are relocated. Some will want assurance that students will receive equal program quality in the reassigned school. While these concerns are understandable, we believe we can offer our students an equal program in a more economical way. Negatives 1. Students and staff will experience some their friends\ndisappointment in being separated from 2. Community reaction will be strong against the decision for fear of the impact on the community as mentioned above\n3. The building may stand vacant for a period of time if not used by an agency or the community\nOI/Ow/wS Bf HADCTDT*-Badgett School Relocation Business Case 4. The general community may react to the redrawing of attendance general area of the city. zones in that Positives 1. Students will receive assignment to schools equal to current programs\n2. Special activities will be planned and implemented by each newly assigned school make new students and patrons feel welcomed\nto 3. New patrons are included in appropriate school correspondence and activities with those who have been enrolled\n4. Elementary schools in contiguous areas are capable of absorbing the student population of Badgett\n5. 6. Immediate and year-to-year cost savings will be realized of approximately $523,000\nand. The Badgett School facility may be available to the community for use pending court approval. The risks of not implementing this solution is increasing district costs thus inhibiting the expected goals of desegregation and responsible fiscal management. It is critical that the process be complete before the opening of school for 1995-96, If this solution is to be implemented, patrons will need to know immediately after the Board of Directors decides to pursue this alternative. Awareness and input must be generated in the community through meetings. Eventually, students must be notified of their new assignments, and a number of other tasks as noted in the timeline (later page) must be addressed. This will impact projected enrollment at other schools, transportation, food services, and the relocation of students, staff, and equipment. The following milestones for implementing this proposal are suggested and will be monitored by the Associate Superintendent for Desegregation. Milestone 1. Develop a list of key people in the community who should be contacted immediately 2. Contact the principals of surrounding schools who may be affected by the relocation 3. Business Case presented to the LRSD Board of Directors for approval 4. Make contact with key people in the community who should be contacted immediately and solicit support for getting people to community information meetings. Include PTA president and ministers.________________________ 5. Compile list and mailing labels of all students living in the Badgett School attendance zone and those scheduled to attend the school. Sort the lists by: a) those who attend Badgett School but live outside of the attendance zone b) those who attend Badgett School but live in the attendance zone\nand, c) those who do not attend Badgett School but live in the attendance zone. Date 1/13/95 1/25/95 1/31/95 2/10/95 2/10/95 Person Modeste Modeste Williams Modeste Mayo 4 SutHnilwd K Ih Hir\\ T Mdlunu Svpmnimdfni oi/(w/*5K BAncr rxxBadgett School Relocation Business Case 5 6. Develop notice of relocation and date of a) parents \u0026amp; students\nb) community groups and churches\nc) media (press release) Milestone community information meeting to send to: d) for door-to-door delivery in the neighborhood 7. Conduct informational meeting with the principal, faculty, and staff about the process 8. Mail notice of possible relocation and date of community information------------------------ a) parents \u0026amp; students\nmeeting to: b) community groups and churches\nc) media (press release) 9. Deliver fliers, door-to-door, announcing the relocation and date of the information meeting 10. Conduct community information meetings by 11. Notify finance person to include this as a budget reduction strategy 12. File motion with the U. S. Federal Court to relocate students at Badgett School 13. Develop letter to parents and students with announcement and reassignment. 14. Inventory building '  15. Design plan for new attendance zones in southwest. 16. Mail letter to parents and students with announcement and assignment______ 17. Remove materials and equipment from school ' 18. Reroute transportation of students 19. Secure building 20. Reassign staff 21. Send final assignment notices Date 2/10/95 2/10/95 2/20/95 2/22/95 2/28/95 3/3/95 3/15/95 4/19/95 5/30/95 6/1/95 6/15/95 7/31/95 7/31/95 7/31/95 7/31/95 8/1/95 Person Mayo Modeste Mayo Mayo Williams Williams Williams Mayo Neal Mayo Mayo Eaton Cheatham Eaton Hurley Mayo I Background For several years, the Little Rock School District (LRSD) has faced austere budgets. Though many strategies were developed to cut costs, most have been one time cuts. A comparison of the district s total building capacity and total enrollment shows vacant seats. _ . , - - many While a larger than normal number of seats are necessary for desegregation, the number of vacant seats is significant. Said another way, LRSD has too many school buildings. The financing of any school is a major expense. Therefore, serious consideration must be given to closing some schools. It is a reasonable strategy. The savings are significant and are repeated from year to year. As attractive as it is to saving money, it is more unattractive to the patrons of the school considered for closing. Because it is an emotional issue, specific research criteria were used in making the decision about which school to close. Based on the criteria used, Badgett Elementary School is a school that must be considered for closing. It is located in the extreme eastern tip of the City of Little Rock. See Attachment A. Reasons for this conclusion are explained in this business case. I Problem Definition Badgett has become expendable as a public school because of its isolation, its declining enrollment, and its increasing costs in per pupil expenditure and in building operation. Hmrv P WiUmom SxwrwMMMimi n RAfKTTrXXBadgett School Relocation Business Case 6 The following are reasons why Badgett Elementary School is considered for closing: 1. As of October 1,1994, the school was filled to only 68.87% of its capacity\n2. The capacity of the school itself (257) is below the district average of 425 for area elementary schools. Therefore, if the school were at capacity, the school would not operate efficiently when compared to other average size schools\n3. Enrollment since 1989 has declined steadily from 237 to 177 and is expected to continue\nThe school is out of racial balance by 15.14%. It has not been within balance as far back as 1989 in spite of effor1:s to reverse this. A dramatic increase of 5.30% in percentage black occurred this year\n5. Because the attendance zone (160) is smaller than the capacity of the school (257), students must come from elsewhere to fill the school. recruiting has not been achieved for this school. Successful experience in 6. The per pupil cost has increased to $4021.87 in 1994-95 which is the highest of any area elementary schools\n7. The school is geographically isolated from other populations. The additional population to fill the school must come from other attendance zones which will negatively impact other schools\n8. Operational costs for the building have increased enough to make this school one on the most expensive to operate annually\nand, 9. The building is in need of renovation and upgrading. Together these costs will exceed $1,000,000, which is considerably more that the average cost of renovation and upgrading needed at other buildings. Figure 1 illustrates some of these trends. b*' Dt. Henn- P WillMmt OI/W/B RC BADCT.nOrBadgett School Relocation Business Case 7 Figure 1 Badgett Elementary Enrollment History Criteria Enrollment % Black % Out of Balance Capacity_______ Attnd. Zone Ttlt 1989-90 237 76.00 16.00 92.22 1990-91 797 74.77 14.77 86.38 1991-92 220 73.18 13.18 85.60 1992-93 202 76.24 16.24 78.60 1993-94 1994-^ AZ % Black 189 69.84 9.84 73.54 135 65.93 177 75.14 15.14 68.87 160 61.25 One intent of desegregation is to bring children of different cultures together for common opportunities. Badgett's location causes it to be difficult to desegregate. To the south of the attendance zone is the PCSSD boundary line. M-M transfers across that line to Badgett, if permitted, would not help because that area of PCSSD is predominately black. On the north, the zone is bound by the river and North Little Rock School District, which does not participate in M to M transfers now. To the west, the school is buffered from the rest of the city by the airport and industrial complexes. See Attachment A. I Ana/ysis of Alternatives Solutions were discussed with a committee representing administrators in the LRSD. Data on attendance zones, enrollment, ethnic makeup of students in the school as well as those in the attendance zone were reviewed. After considerable discussion, it was decided that three things must be addressed for an alternative to be satisfactory. They were declining enrollment, increasing costs, and location. Addressing only one or two and not all three aspects seriously compromises an effective solution. Inherent in the selection of an alternative is the assumption that the problem can be addressed adequately if the alternative offers quality for students and cost efficiency for tax-payers. To be a good alternative, it must address adequately all areas of concern. The alternative solutions considered are listed below\n1. Change nothing. This will not address any aspect of the problem and will allow costs to grow annually\nEnrollments are for October of each year. - Attendance zone data is available for two years only. K Ih Hmn f William, lufa laiiinili iii RArvrrnivBadgett School Relocation Business Case 2. Redraw the attendance zone to increase the number of students attending Badgett School. This reduces the per-pupU costs at Badgett but wfll increase costs elsewhere since another attendance zone must be reduced to enlarge Badgett's. Further, it would impact in negative ways the enrollment of other schools. 3. Relocate students from Badgett to solve the problem. This alternative addresses areas of the problem. all three a) A plan to relocate students will be devised. One possible Attachment C\nscenario appears in b) An immediate savings of approximately $523,000 will be realized by ehmmating the need for management staff, food service, buUding maintenance and utilities to name a few\nc) d) Staff will be relocated according to the provisions of the negotiated contract. The curriculum offered at Badgett wfll be offered at other schools under the program for that particular school. 4. Intensify recruitment efforts in LRSD and PCSSD. Badgett's location causes it to be difficult to desegregate. Recruitment has been tried in LRSD. The results have not been significant. If the enrollment of Badgett were increased by this effort\nit would have a negative impact .... on attendance zone is neighboring attendance zones. To the south of the the PCSSD boundary line. M-M transfers across that line to Badgett, if permitted, would not help because that area of PCSSD is predominately black. On the north, the zone is bound by the river and North Little Rock School District, which does not participate in M to M transfers now. To the west, the school is buffered from the rest of the city by the airport and industrial complexes Attachment A. See 8 [ Recommendation Alternative 3 is recommended. 3. Relocate students from Badgett to solve the problem. This alternative addresses all of the problem areas. I Objective By the opening of school for 1995-96, Badgett students will be relocated, faculty will be reassigned according to the negotiated contract, and appropriate''reductions in positions will be completed with a minimum of disruption to these individuals and the school district. Suhmmod H Di P WiUmru SoprtmflMimi Ol 'CN/fS BI MADCT.rXXBadgett School Relocation Business Case 9 Plan. Fulfilhng this proposal will require a modification to the LRSD Desegregation This proposal supports LRSD goals relating to securing financial resources necessary to support schools and the desegregation program. 1. 2. 3. 4. The problem will be considered solved if the following list of criteria is met: New attendance zones affected by this relocation will reflect a better racial balance\nThe community is given the opportunity to be heard on the decision\nTransportation is re-routed to accommodate these students\nSpecial activities are planned and implemented by each new school to make the new students and patrons feel welcomed\n5. New patrons are included in appropriate school correspondence and activities with those who have been enrolled\n6. Leaders within the community are made aware\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_279","title":"Business cases","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":["1995/1996"],"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"],"dcterms_title":["Business cases"],"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/279"],"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":["179 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\nRECEfVFo OCT 2 4 1995 Office of ^^^^d^egation ^omioring LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT BUSINESS CASE ALTERNATIVES TO IMPROVE CUSTODIAL/GROUNDS \u0026amp; MAINTENANCE SERVICE c August 24, 1995LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT BUSINESS CASE ALTERNATIVES TO IMPROVE CUSTODIAUGROUNDS \u0026amp; MAINTENANCE SER VICE EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Aging facilities, limited resources and the need to prioritize assets are all conunon problems faced by school districts. Our specific challenge is how to keep our need in balance and provide adequate, safe and suitable facilities to meet our educational needs and do it a reasonable cost. The situation that the Little Rock School District faces, with regard to its facilities and custodial program, is not unlike that of most other school districts in the United States. Support Services functions have often had their budgets reduced to support academic programs. The emergence on the market of firms who specialize in school district support management have certainly added a boost to the overall appearance and professionalism of the way school districts conduct their support programs. Many of these firms offer programs that allow school districts to leverage limited resources in ways not available to districts to improve the overall quality of service in custodial and maintenance functions. The history particular to the Little Rock School District shows a school system which has expanded over the last twelve (12) years, but not kept up with the finances necessary to support this expansion. The backlog of maintenance and repair in the Little Rock School District are projects beyond the capability of the in-house work force or a small management company to complete. Committing the district at this time to reorganizing our assets commensurate with our financial and physical abilities is a prudent management step. It is necessary to reassess our programs and assets on a continual basis to ensure that they are meeting the districts educational goals. Outside influences regarding the way that the Little Rock School District does business, such as the Desegregation Plan, expanding State and Federal laws, monitoring groups and parent committees all play a role in analyzing this problem.The administration recommends forming a partnership with a firm which will provide the expertise to allow the district to better utilize its assets and will add the additional resources necessary to meet the objective of cleaner, safer schools utilizing existing available funds. Forming a partnership with a management firm would give this district a boost in resources and capital investment and would jump start the custodial and maintenance program. PROBLEM DEFINITION The Little Rock School District has a need to improve the appearance and overall visual condition and cleanliness of its facilities so as to enhance its recruitment and educational programs and to minimize long term damage due to neglect or non repair. BACKGROUND The Custodial and Grounds aspects of the Maintenance Program of the Little Rock School District are duties which are assigned the custodial staff of the various facilities. The custodians receive technical assistance in broad terms from the Plant Services Department but work directly for the individual principals. There is a long history of actions that have been taken regarding custodial service in this District which must be closely examined. Another major aspect of the Plant Services Department is the Maintenance and Repair Program. The Maintenance and Repair Program also has undergone significant changes in the last several years which are additionally provided as general background information. Each of these two (2) subjects will be addressed individually. Custodial and Grounds In 1986, the Little Rock School District had approximately 216 full time equivalent positions to maintain its custodial mission. This was an average of one (1) FTE per each 11,672 square feet. During that year, the Administration proposed to the Board a Plan to use an outside contractor to perform the cleaning duties of the Little Rock School District. It was estimated that the District could save over $250,000 annually by using a contract cleaning service. The proposal was not approved\nhowever, the Board instead charged the Plant Services Department with making cuts in custodial staffing, supplies and training to save $250,000 annually. The custodial staff reduction was achieved and a partial formula for staffing was adopted as a guideline for future staff planning. The full time equivalents rose to one (1) custodian for each 17,700 square feet or approximately 200 custodians. A plan known as the Omaha Formula was considered the most plausible and was applied generally throughout the District\nhowever, certain exceptions were made in Magnet and Incentive 2Schools. The plan also called for the custodial staff of each facility to report directly to an on-site supervisor, normally the principal. It was this on-site supervisor that made the final selection for hiring replacements and handled disciplinary action and recommended termination. In order to provide assistance to the on-site supervisors in managing custodial activities, the Plant Services Department employed four (4) custodial supervisors and recommended a custodial manager. Except dtiring summer months when the on-site supervisor was absent from the building, the custodial supervisors were not responsible for direct supervision of the custodial staff, but rather provided technical assistance, training, inspections, job site assistance, recommendations to the on-site supervisor and general persormel management functions. This program was recommended in the draft Desegregation Plan\nhowever, budget cuts in 1989 precluded this entire process from being implemented. Custodial supervisors were hired but the custodial manager to oversee the program and provide general technical expertise in custodial matters was never funded. To supplement absences in custodial staffing during the normal school year, a substitute program was implemented whereby the District would hire individuals\npay them at minimum wage and with minimum training would be assigned to the schools to assist the custodial staff. This proved to be very costly, both in dollars and in resources and was modified in December of 1991 when the Plant Services Department instituted a custodial position request procedure and a substitute custodial program. The substitute custodial program deleted another $250,000 from the custodial training program so that these funds could be used for higher district priorities. It established a priority system whereby substitutes would be pulled from a minimum pool of 25 custodians and sent to schools on a priority basis. Additionally it provided the six (6) temporary personnel to augment the ground capabilities of the Plant Services Department to compensate for the lack of training, expertise and abilities of the substitute custodians to do grounds work. The procedure was put in place in 1992. In August of 1992, during the beginning of the budget cycle for the following year, $220,000 was cut from the Plant Services Departftients custodial budget. It should be mentioned that a complete analysis was done at that time of the entire custodial program by the department. It was determined that over staffing against the Omaha Formula and leveling the staff to meet the needs of that formula would save approximately $150,000. This redistribution of custodial assets had previously been recommended by the Little Rock School District Curriculum Review (1990) which recommended equitable staffing among all schools. However, to meet the remaining goal of $220,000, additional cuts came by not filling custodial supervisory vacancies. As a result, the four (4) custodial supervisors were reduced to three (3). The remaining savings came from custodial supplies. In October of 1992, custodial supervisory responsibilities were realigned so as to ensure all schools and administrative buildings were covered to a minimum degree. In August of 1993, after testimony was given in court to these procedures, an evaluation was done of the custodial reductions of 1992 and recommendations were made to the superintendent to make adjustments. A Business Case was written and submitted and certain adjustments were made to the Omaha Formula throughout the district. The evaluation was provided to the Federal 3Court in January of 1993, along with a history of staff changes from 1991 through 1993. In 1993 and 1994, due to further staff reductions, two (2) of the three (3) remaining custodial supervisors were deleted. This left a staff of one (1) custodial supervisor, whose primary concern was to manage the Substitute Custodial Program with very limited training and custodial advising. New requirements, such as HAZMAT training and asbestos training has been picked up by the Plant Services Department and have fallen under the job description of the Environmental Coordinator. General overall training of the custodial staff has fallen tremendously due to the result of budget cuts in the supervisory functions to administer this program. The present situation is that custodians work for the principals, as has been the case since 1986. The Plant Services Department provides only minimal training and assistance due to the lack of management personnel. From the program initiated in 1991, where the Plant Services Department had full responsibility for training, scheduling and technical assistance, we have a program now where this is only provided on a minimal basis. Grounds allocations have been made, such that immediate responsibility close into the building is the responsibility of the custodial staff and the mowing of major areas and open fields, to include athletic fields, is the responsibility of Plant Services. Maintenance and Repair Throughout this budget cutting scenario from 1986 to the present time, the maintenance side of the program has had to adjust constantly to decreasing resources. Prior to 1986 and the transfer of the southwest Little Rock schools from PCSSD, the ratio of maintenance workers to square foot responsibility was 1:48,000. When the schools were transferred to LRSD control the ratio changed to 1:72,500 sf. At the time the transfer occurred, no additional manpower was given to the maintenance department to compensate for this additional workload. The installation of an Energy Management Program in 1988 to monitor facilities energy consumption, the installation of an automated maintenance management program in 1991 to keep track of costs, scheduled work and assisting in the prioritization of work has helped the maintenance program make some improvements. The establishment of priorities for all work assigned to the Plant Services Department which was put in place in early 1992, has aided in ensuring that the work necessary for the health safety and operational support of ongoing programs is accomplished and that work necessary to support new programs is prioritized against the needs of the new program and long range and deferred work is treated appropriately as funds become available. Budget cuts in the maintenance program over the last: five (5) years have amoimted to over $750,000. Part of this has been offset by a better utilization of the energy monitoring system, which has allowed the district to save over $450,000 in the last five (5) years. This money was not directed back into the maintenance program to offset the loss of normal budget cuts, but rather into the general pool and used by the administration against all of the Little Rock school District priorities. 4Supplementing the custodial effort at the schools, there are twelve (12) building engineers at: the larger secondary schools and administration buildings to assist in doing minor maintenance. The building engineers work for the principals arid receive supplies and technical support from the Plant Services Department. The overall condition of our schools indicates an array of buildings that generally meet minimal needs of our academic program. However, there is need for improvement. Conelating this background to our problem definition gives rise to the questions on how to enhance our facilities and to sustain our maintenance and custodial operations with diminishing resources. ALTERNATIVES AND ANALYSIS Leading up to this business case, the administration made contact with several providers of management firms to learn of the benefits of their programs. Information was secured from firms which provide management services in custodial and maintenance areas by issuing a request for information in early 1995. This request for information was responded to by three (3) companies. A committee reviewed the three (3) proposals and agreed that discussions would be held with ServiceMaster to determine whether or not management plan could be put together in such a way that management services could be secured and funded from increased productivity. The end result would be a more organized and systematic support system of custodial and maintenance services to our schools. Information regarding comments and analysis dealing with management services were derived over a three (3) month period with ServiceMaster during May through July. Four (4) different alternatives have been considered. Alternative Number One - Do Nothing. Doing nothing must be considered an alternative. It implies that the cunent situation would remain as is and that forces impacting this alternative, such as reductions or enhancements in FTEs, supplies, equipment would be subject to the normal budget process of the District. The Custodial \u0026amp; Maintenance Program would fall in line with all other District priorities, and funds would be appropriated based on budget needs. The budget would not allow for enhancements in the Custodial or Maintenance Programs, but sustain them at the current level. Alternative Number Two - Add Resources/Reorganization. Additional resources are assuredly needed by the custodial and maintenance staff to enhance our facilities. But simply adding resources will not suffice, A cursory review of our program indicates that most of these resources are needed not in additional personnel, but in equipment, training and programs that could raise the stature and expertise of our custodial staff. Additional resources would most assuredly have to be made in the area of custodial supervisors and a custodial manager. The implications of cleanliness goes well beyond maintaining clean floors and clean bathrooms. Our need to maintain facilities that are safe from airborne diseases, rodents, insects, and to support indoor air quality programs coupled with laws requiring training and protection in hazardous material handling, asbestos and chemicals, 5and the need to understand new cleaning methods and materials on the market make additional resources mandatory regardless of which alternative is chosen. Reorganization would consist of realigning the custodial staff, the infusion of trained managers to run this program, the realignment of building engineer assets to make the grounds and preventive maintenance programs more effective, and a plan to coordinate all the different functions. This can be done initially out of personnel assets presently assigned to the district, but would require the addition of a number of managers at an approximate cost of $160,000 and at least $300,000 in capital equipment. However, a considerable amount of time would have to be given to the Plant Services Department to put together a viable reorganization plan to ensure that all facets of the custodial and maintenance program could be supported. It is estimated that this would take approximately two months to study and analyze, and another 12 -24 months to implement. The biggest disadvantage to this option in addition to the need for more resources and time for implementation is that there are no guarantees of success. Alternative Number Three - Contract Out. Contracting out normally refers to the situation where a company, expert in a specific area, comes into an organization and takes over all aspects of that function to include personnel. It would mean that a company would provide all levels of management of not only the subject area, such as custodial and maintenance, but areas such as engineering, financial supplies, etc. Employees would be members of that firm and not of the school district, and the school district would pay a set amount each year for this contract. Contract management can bring to a district a large and fast infusion of equipment and expert training, which is needed to jump start a program. However, the pay back is usually costly and over a long period of time, such that the management firm can amortize their costs. Many times when a district buys a \"Management Package\" it is forced to buy the entire package to include elements of the program that they may already be providing to be able to get the portions of the programs that they actually want. Alternative Number Four- Professional Management Services. In this concept our school district would enter into a partnership with a firm that would agree to provide the resources and expertise that is unavailable to the district due to budget constraints. By combining the skills and abilities of district staff with the technology and resources of an experienced provider of professional management services, we would be able to improve the delivery of custodial and maintenance services without having to spend any additional dollars. The aforementioned three month study and discussion with ServiceMaster has led to a specific management plan which has been custom designed to achieve district objectives of better maintained schools, employment procedures and practices continued (Employees will continue to work for LRSD with existing wages and benefits), and no increase in current fiscal year budget. An appendix of additional information has been provided as an attachment to this business case. 6Advantages  Cleaner and better maintained schools  Faster implementation of resources  Better coordination of custodial and maintenance services  Provides for additional capital investment  Provides for training of LRSD personnel Disadvantages  Perception that LRSD management cannot provide cleaner schools without outside assistance  Possibility of conflict over ServiceMaster recommendations RECOMMENDATION It is the recommendation of administration to choose alternative four (4) which is to form a partnership with ServiceMaster which will allow Plant Services to reorganize and regroup its assets and add the additional resources necessary to meet the objectives of cleaner and safer schools. This envisioned five-year contract (which will contain a 90-day cancellation clause) program will help the district to compensate for decreases in resources over the years, and provide a tailored program to meet LRSD needs. The most significant difference from previous attempts at improvements is that the cost and length of time factors that limited our success in the past will be removed as obstacles through the partnership with ServiceMaster. This course of action can be implemented much more quickly, with greater impact and less cost than the other alternatives. OBJECTIVE OF RECOMMENDATION The overriding objective of this recommendation is to improve the overall appearance of school site environment by maintaining cleaner and safer school buildings without increasing current budgetary resources. It is believed that the implementation of the above recommendation will provide the LRSD the most cost effective method of achieving the stated objective. IMPACT ANALYSIS The facility services program of custodial and maintenance can have both a positive and negative impact on this districts image and ability to perform its primary mission. A 7well executed custodial and maintenance program that results in better looking facilities with groomed and manicured grounds and better maintained buildings could foster new enrollment and the expansion of the Little Rock School District. Needless to say, the further detriment of the maintenance program could have the exact opposite effect. RESOURCE ANALYSIS In summary, the district will pay approximately $700,000 for management fees and $300,000 for equipment and supplies to ServiceMaster annually. The fees will be funded through productivity improvement savings and reductions in positions by attrition over time. No employees will be laid off. If Savings do not occur, ServiceMaster fees will be deferred until savings are produced. The attached financial summary provides additional information relating to fees. FORCE FIELD ANALYSIS Attractive, well maintained facilities would obviously be accepted by all of the Little Rock School District students and staff and the general public. We must strive to make our schools acceptable to the people that we serve and it must be done, in part, by making them visually appealing, safe and as well maintained as our resources will allow. There is no known contingent that would object to the betterment of our schools. IMPLEMENTATION PLAN Should this recommendation be approved, it is expected that implementation would take place on or about October 1, 1995. 8APPENDIX Appendix A ServiceMaster Proposal Appendix B Program Overview Appendix C Financial Analysis Appendix D ServiceMaster OverviewAppendix A ServiceMaster ProposalService Master Proposal To Little Rock School DistrictServices Provided To LRSD EHRBRE i bi * iin 111 r r 1111 rii rii v bcm* b  ri!ri!RiriBiRaBiBMBaBaiBaiKBHasB\u0026gt;naaMRaBaiMM  Management Services  Systems approach to maintaining buildings  Technical expertise  Administrative Services  Training of LRSD personnel  Capital investment  Cleaner \u0026amp; better maintained schoolsAnnualized Cost To District m unmminiiiiiHiiiiiHiiiHiiUHiuiBiniiiPUMniniiMflu  $700,000 management fees  $300,000 Materials \u0026amp; SuppliesCost Will Be Paid BY  Productivity improvement savings  Position reductions over time through attrition  21 FTE Custodians  14 FTE Building Engineers/others  Substitutes  If savings do not occur, ServiceMaster fees will be deferred until savings are produced  Potential for savings in excess of SM feesContract Requirements nonBBnraaBBBHHBBNnnHBinflHaMM imnunoiKimnBmaHmiMHiwamsBvmanmwviiBaevflmiMM  Will include maximum LRSD expenditures  LRSD will not pay fees to SM that will cause the district to exceed current budget  Expenditure amounts will be defined in terms of function \u0026amp; object codes  Service Standards  Provision for 90-day termination of contract if standards are not met  No payment of deferred feesBsesme tiiannMwiiiiTmismiiiiuruHriiiiiitiiaiMiiiijnBiiHiiiniwiatMa Board Action Requested Authorize the district administration to enter into contract Negotiation with ServiceMaster. Once mutual agreement has been reached regarding terms, the Board will be asked to authorize the execution of the contract.Appendix B Program OverviewPROGRAM OVERVIEW GENERAL OVERVIEW OF PROGRAM A. Professional Management Services for Little Rock School District By Whom ServiceMaster is the leading provider of Professional Management Service to the education industry, serving in over 520 school and universities worldwide. ServiceMaster has reached this position through personal individualized service to education executives. Program Concept Little Rock School District and ServiceMaster have an opportunity to work together in a new and unique way. The education industry is facing new and most challenging times. We are both being asked to provide a higher standard of quality, with greater customer focus, and to do so at a lower cost. To accomplish these objectives, we are proposing a new, more effective organizational structure and a unique combination of the School District and ServiceMaster resources. The success of this program depends on Little Rock School District and ServiceMasters people working closely together. This proposal describes a new relationship between us in which we will work together to increase the effectiveness of all services, merging them into a single, responsive service organization. ServiceMasters resources are very significant, and our commitment to the success of this program at Little Rock School District is complete. By combining ServiceMasters systems, technical resources, and resident department management leadership with the skills and abilities of Little Rock School District people, we will: * significantly improve and maintain quality levels as measured by formal quality assessment procedures.\u0026lt; provide the Little Rock School District a return on investment projected to be in excess of $2 million dollars over the life our Agreement. be responsive and accountable to your administration, to your teachers, and to your students. Together, we will apply good sound common sense and business judgment to all decisions affecting our entire responsibility. Your decision to join with us in this venture is one which reflects your agreement that together we can accomplish more and accomplish it faster. We look forward to working with you to begin this exciting new program. B. Program Benefits Our objective is to work in the shadow of your School District supporting Administration in every way possible to achieve its goals and objectives. The Administrative team will benefit from: 1) 2) 3) 4) 5) A quality level of service much higher than previously experienced, achieved through the latest developments in process engineering, productivity improvements, and Human Resource Development techniques. The addition of a professional supporting management team headed by high caliber, highly motivated managers, able leaders of personnel. They will also have a true understanding of the education community, facilities management, and modem engineering practices. Additional levels of supporting management through an operational backup team consisting of a Director of Operations, Customer Support Representative and Vice President for Operations, as well as a Technical Support Team consisting of Technical Specialists, Process Engineers and others. Greater management control over the Maintenance Department while reducing your time involved in the day-to-day operation of the department. Establishment of a climate of meaningful motivation to the employees that will challenge them in their job for achievement, responsibility, growth, earned recognition and the work itself through initial and continuous training and development programs.6) Improved employee morale through enlightened management and supervisory practices, assistance to administration in reflecting the basic safety and social needs to these employees, for identifying with the School District, for belonging. They, in turn, will be recognized as being part of the education team. 7) Positive feedback from customers (students, teachers, community and staff) generated from the impact of the ServiceMaster Professional Management Program. 8) Flexibility to meet the changing needs of your School District. 9) Protection of your investment in the buildings accomplished through the technical back-up and research, laboratory, and manufacturing facilities of the ServiceMaster organization together with the consulting support of ServiceMaster Professional Engineers, Chemists, Bacteriologists and Training Specialists whenever needed (see organization chart). 10) Thoughtful and careful coordination of Environmental Service duties and personnel with other District personnel and departments improving both communications and harmony of operation throughout the District. 11) Reduced equipment maintenance and replacement costs accomplished through the implementation of the systematic \"Computenance Plus\" Preventive and Corrective Maintenance Program. 12) Minimized risks to students, employees and staff throughout the District accomplished through the implementation of a Casualty Prevention and Control Program. 13) A performance oriented program. 14) Protection of m^jor pieces of capital equipment is realized through ServiceMasters Guaranteed Equipment Life Program. 15) Minimized Liability, Improved Service, and Reduced Costs - Is realized through the establishment of ServiceMasters in-house Maintenance Management System. 16) Provision of a program which fully complies with. Federal, State and Local Regulatory Agencies.ServiceMasters record of service in and long-standing relationship with the education marketplace makes us uniquely qualified to assess the management of support services at Little Rock School District and to propose solutions. A team of ServiceMaster professionals spent firam 2-4 weeks surveying the District. During the on-site survey process our engineering teams assessed your needs by reviewing the cost of payrolls, purchased services, supplies, utilities and capital expenditures. We toured every building inspecting cleaning surfaces, mechanical equipment, ventilation systems, roofing systems and grounds conditions. Interviews were held with administrators, principals, staff, and those involved with related functions. Safety, training, quality control, and operational methods were thoroughly reviewed. With great care and detail an implementation plan has been specifically and uniquely prepared for the Little Rock School District. Features of the program can be classified into six (6) major categories. 1) 2) 3) 4) 5) 6) Leadership and Organization Education and Development Technology and Systems Corporate Resources Total Quality Management Financial Performance Following is a brief outline of these sections and features provided as a ready reference overview. 1) Leadership and Organization Integral to the success of ServiceMaster programs is the full-time involvement of professional ServiceMaster managers in the organization. Our managers are trained extensively in processes and procedures, labor relations, management skills, financial skills, and human relations. ServiceMaster Will Provide\nA. B. A full-time, on-site, resident ServiceMaster management team which will be integrated carefully with the current management team to maximize existing skills. A proposed organization that would include the appropriate number of full-time equivalent custodial/grounds personnel, and full-time equivalent maintenance personnel, and clerical personnel, all of whom will remain employees of Little Rock School District.2) c. Continuous Management Development Programs held on-site, regionally, and nationally. Education and Development Much of the success of ServiceMaster programs is due to our ongoing commitment to provide the very best training, education, and development programs for the employees we are privileged to lead. ServiceMaster Would Provide: A. One-on-one training programs to be accomplished with all department staff and documented as such every six (6) months. B. Alternating with the above training, audiovisual reinforcement training accomplished semi-annually. C. Monthly group meetings with all staff containing discussion on informational/motivational topics. These would include special guest speakers and would be designed to encourage the staff as an important part of the school family. D. Special annual programs such as \"Pride Day,\" \"Open House,\" and \"Award of Excellence\" held to help build pride and professionalism among the staff. E. Special career development opportunities to include development in maintenance skills and technology, G.E.D. certification, and similar programs to help staff members enrich their lives and further their careers. F. Certification seminars held regionally on such topics as carpet care, gym floor care, athletic turf, track maintenance, and playground equipment. G. Leadership development programs for those expressing the interest and talent to advance to leadership roles. H. Job descriptions, standards of performance, and performance evaluation tools implemented and utilized as a regular part of operations. 1. Risk management and safety programs for all personnel. These would include required training courses for \"Right to Know\" and Asbestos Safety. J. Specific Recruitment Strategies for reducing turnover and absenteeism and improving performance.3) Technology and Systems Effective management of the custodial, maintenance, and grounds functions of a district requires an ongoing program of research and development. New technology, innovative techniques, and effective procedures and methods are constantly being developed by ServiceMaster to meet the challenges presented by todays education environment. ServiceMaster Would Provide: A. Maintenance 1. A fully computerized state-of-the-art maintenance program. 2. Preventive maintenance for all electrical and mechanical systems. 3. Casualty prevention and control programs for all equipment and buildings. 4. Life expectancy reports for all electrical and mechanical equipment. 5. Formalized maintenance summaries to include schedules, actions completed, cost analysis, and productivity reports. 6. Establishment of a complete cost accounting system for maintenance activities including parts, labor, and services. 7. Monitoring of all correctivd maintenance activities structuring and planning tasks. 8. Provision of a complete technical reference library concerning methods and skills. 9. Computerization of work order processes and systems. 10. Tracking of all minor construction activities to include parts, services, and labor costs. 11. Provision of employee education and training as required under the Asbestos Hazard Emergency Response Act. 12. A program designed to alert the school to any potential problems related to lead in drinking water and possible solutions.13. A program designed to expose any potential hazards related to underground storage tanks and recommendations regarding actions required to meet EPA standards. 14. Education for the maintenance staff on the potential dangers of Radon Gas, and recommendations regarding necessary actions to reduce any potential health risks. B. Custodial 1. New special and patented custodial chemicals for all building locations and processes. 2. New state-of-the-art ServiceMaster patented custodial equipment providing greater efficiency and productivity. 3. A complete technical library of custodial processes and procedures on-site for department use. 4. Documented standardized cleaning schedules developed and utilized for each building and situation. 5. Proven ServiceMaster processes for all job tasks put into place and documented as such. 6. New ServiceMaster developments in cleaning technology to each school as appropriate. C. Grounds Provisions 1. Implementation of standardized grounds care procedures for all grounds functions. 2. Structure and planning for all grounds-care tasks to include pruning, fertilization, pesticide, herbicide, and fungicide application. 3. Planned balanced mowing routines. 4. Regular inspections of playground equipment. 5. A complete library of grounds care procedures and reference materials. 6. Inclusion of specified new grounds equipment.D. Energy Management 1. Implementation of a comprehensive operational energy management program. 2. Produce monthly analysis, by school, of energy cost and consumption. 3. Assist Administration in the analysis of existing energy management system to enhance energy control. 4. More efficient plant system that reduces energy consumption. 5. Through our energy shared-savings program we have over $100 million to invest in state-of-the-art energy efficient units to replace your outdated and inefficient systems. 4) Corporate Resources Perhaps the greatest benefits provided by ServiceMaster is the addition of resources and support far greater than anything otherwise available to the District. Nowhere else can the District find the extensive experience, proven record of performance, and vast corporate resources provided by ServiceMaster. ServiceMaster Would Provide: A. An implementation team during the initial phases of the program accomplishing indexing of equipment, initial training, schedules, gener^ program installation, and other tasks related to the start of services. B. Additional management support by Director of Operations and Customer Support Representative visits, monthly or more frequently, if necessary. These visits insure program completeness and effectiveness. C. Engineering teams and individual engineers providing ongoing consulting support in the area of Plant Operations and Maintenance. D. ServiceMaster Systems Managers providing ongoing consulting support in the area of custodial services. E. Grounds specialists with expertise in turf management providing grounds consulting and on-site support.F. The corporate resources of ServiceMaster made available to the school to include Research and Development laboratories. G. National discount programs on a wide range of maintenance, custodial and grounds products and services. H. Immediate information resources through 1-800-SM-KNOWS. 5) Total Quality Management ServiceMaster Quality Assurance/Quality Management Programs are of importance to the District in that they provide assurance that the quality standards promised are the quality standards delivered. Scheduled inspections are designed to guarantee that acceptable levels of department quality are reached and maintained. These inspections provide for positive learning experiences and recognition for work done well, resulting in heightened morale. ServiceMaster Would Provide: A. Daily supervisor inspections made on-site by the supervisor at the facility. B. Maintenance daily rounds logs and routines established and documented. C. Weekly inspections of quality taken by the resident manager in the company of a school designee. D. Monthly meetings with school Administration to insure proper program direction. E. Quarterly inspections taken by the ServiceMaster Customer Support Representative with findings reported to Administration. F. Teacher interviews conducted with approximately 10% of the teachers each month to assess program effectiveness. G. Annually a formal report to the Little Rock School District detailing accomplishments for the past year. H. Long-term benefits in extended building and equipment life.6) Financial Comparison ServiceMasters contract amount will guarantee to the District the cost of management, school labor, custodial equipment, custodial supplies, training and materials, etc., whUe providing assurance of quality performance throughout the operation. ServiceMaster Would Provide: A. An investment in new labor efficient custodial equipment. B. An investment annually in custodial supplies and materials. C. An investment in grounds equipment. D. Potential replacement of some electromechanical equipment and grounds equipment. E. Long-term benefits in extended building and equipment life. F. A program to guarantee the life of major capital equipment by agreement to pay the financial penalty for premature failure. G. Total Maintenance and Custodial Program projected to be budget-neutral in the first full year of implementation. Long-term savings or the return on investment over the life of the agreement is projected to be greater than $2 million. A complete financial analysis is attached.ServiceMaster Management Team for Little Rock School District Corporate Support Bacteriologist Education and Training Regulatory Compliance 1-800-SM-KNOWS Little Rock School District Administration Operational Support Vice President Director of Operations Coordinating  Manager Customer Support Representative zXssistant Director Custodial Director * Systems Manager Assistant Director Principals * Responsible for coordination of training, computer systems, preventive maintenance, regulatory compliance, operational energy management, level I maintenance, grounds, and customer support. Appendix C Financial AnalysisFINANCIAL ANALYSIS OF SERVICEMASTER PROGRAM AMOUNT Management Team Custodial System Grounds Equipment Computerization Salaries and Benefits Capital Equipment is Annualized ($106,389) Annualized Amount Includes Hardware, Software, Customer Programming, and Support $332,188 265,584 22,600 11,163 Vehicles (4) Direct Investment 30,000 Indirect Invesment Profit and Taxes TOTAL Special Project Personnel Specialty Training Seminars Relocation Expense for Managers Start-up and Implementation Personnel Travel and Staff Expenses Safety Programs In-service Programs Motivational Programs Recruitment Strategies Program Customer Service Hot-line (1-800-SMKNOWS) Divisional Education Support Division Manager Area Operations Manager Vice President of Operations Audit and Control Direct Expense Total Labor Relations Education and Training Program Support Insurance Process Engineering Equipment Research and Development Chemical Research and Development Systems Research and Development Quality Control Finance Control Program Improvement Clerical Support Legal Support Service Administration Plant and Facilities Overhead Indirect Expense Total 259,417 122,945 140.011 Sl,183,908FINANCIAL ANALYSIS - FOOTNOTES LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT (1) Non-budgeted but utilized amount for substitutes. (2) Amount spent on custodial supplies developed from information provided by Plant Services and Procurement. (3) Line item #. (4) Line item #. (5) Salary for custodial supervisor. (6) Amount estimated that is spent on disposable supplies such as tissue and trash can liners not provided as part of custodial system. (7) Analysis of ServiceMaster program amount provided separately.Appendix D ServiceMaster OverviewServiceMaster Overview  Number of K-12 School Districts Currently Served  Number of Employees ... 370 Over 30,000ServiceMaster The Company Pursuing quality and exceIlencc...Treating people with dignity and pridc...Being driven by service to our customers...Growing profitably...these are all part of the goals and objectives of ServiceMaster. ServiceMaster continues to expand our technical resources and customer base in an atmosphere that fosters innovation, creativity and development. Long before the concept of \"total quality management\" was fervently discussed among businesses and learning institutions, ServiceMaster had committed itself to the objective of \"Pursuing Excellence.\" In the early 197O's, Kenneth T. Wessner, then Chairman of the Board of Directors, wrote: \" Our company accqjts the responsibility to continually seek better methods to render current and new services to its' customers at a better value. Our trademarks and service marks stand for excellence...The pursuit of excellence is a never-ending process, the continuing search for a better way. It requires a strong commitment and an understanding that a job, a career  life itself is never completed, but is in a continual stage of change and growth.\" It is this philosophy that has continued to guide management and support employees. By listening to customers' needs and remaining focused on the business of providing quality services, ServiceMaster has grown from a small mothproofing business in the early 194O's to a $3.0 billion international company that provides a network of services to consumers, businesses, health care systems and education customers. In 1962, at the request of hospital administrators, the first Housekeeping Management Support Program was introduced. Based on findings from the American Hospital Association, health care professionals and additional research, ServiceMaster designed a program to improve overall cleanliness while reducing costs and management burdens. I In 1971, through a series of discussions with school administrators, the company learned of the unique demands and challenges encoimtered in maintaining school buildings and groimds. As a result, a separate division of the company was started in order to better focus on the specific concerns of educators. Now, over 20 years later, ServiceMaster education resources include four specific divisions nationwide, staffed with operations, sales and support professionals dedicated to handle all aspects of school and college facilities management. In addition, corporate resources are committed to technical research and development, management and support employee training, motivational program development, and hiring professionals with expertise in the education market. ServiceMaster The Company (continued): Today, as the world's leading provider of support management services to education customers, ServiceMaster continues to serve our first education customer as well as 500 additional colleges, universities and school districts. ServiceMaster is the only company in the world that can provide maintenance, custodial, groimds, energy management, food service, pest control, capital retrofit and asbestos programs all through a single source provider.ServiceMaster Sponsored Programs ServiceMaster continues to demonstrate our education commitment by providing corporate sponsorship and leadership support to a number of different education organizations and programs including:  The AASA National Superintendent of the Year Program  ServiceMaster is proud to have initiated, fimded and developed, along with the American Association of School Administrators, this prestigious program. The National Superintendent of the Year recognizes and honors the important contribution that superintendents of America's public schools make to our youth and the preservation of our society.  Education Research and Development Institute (ERDI)  ERDI is a unique organization whose goal is to bring together iimovative leadership in education and business from around the country. Initiated, funded and developed by ServiceMaster, ERDI provides a \"think tank\" atmosphere for Fortune 500 companies.... a forum for progressive educators to share and exchange ideas, and funding for education research and development.  Flag of Learning and Liberty -The Flag of Learning and Liberty, developed in 1985 by the National School Public Relations Association (NSPRA), symbolizes the link between education and the American democratic way of life. ServiceMaster continues to provide funding and support to promote this important education symbol.  ASBO International Eagle Service Award Program - The Eagle Service Award was developed by ServiceMaster and the Association of School Business Officials International to recognize business officials who demonstrate outstanding service to their school, community and the profession. In addition, ServiceMaster was named as one of President Bush's 1,000 Points of Light for providing the opportunity and funding for over 200 ServiceMaster employees to mentor elementary students. ServiceMaster also provides funding and support for the Council of Great City Schools and sponsors over 100 student scholarships nationwide. / REFERENCE School District Name of Client: Richardson Independent School District Location: Richardson, Texas Services Provided: Maintenance, Custodial, Grounds, Technology Management Employees on payroll of: District Contract Start Date: October 1990 Total Square Feet/Sites: 5,008,318 sq. ft./63 Buildings Students: 33,000 Contact Personfsl/Phone: Mr. Vernon Johnson, Superintendent Mr. Jack Huffman*, Director of Physical Plant Services 214/301-3333 * Reference Contact ServiceMASTER REFERENCE School District Name of Client: Polk County Schools Location: Bartow, Florida Services Provided: Custodial Management Employees on payroll of: District Contract Start Date: November 1986 Total Square Feet/Sites: 7,828,000 sq. ft./109 Buildings Students: 68,000 Contact Person(s)/Phone: Dr. John A. Stewart, Superintendent Mr. Denny Dunn*, Deputy Superintendent 813/534-0500 * Reference Contact ServiceMASTER / REFERENCE School District Name of Client: Memphis City Schools Location: Memphis, Tennessee Services Provided: Custodial, Maintenance, Grounds Management, Energy Employees on payroll of: District Contract Start Date: June 1993 Total Square Feet/Sites: 16,000,000 sq. ft? 1,884 Acres Students: 106,000 Contact PersonfsJ/Phone: Dr. Gerry House, Superintendent 901/325-5444 ServiceMASTER. REFERENCE School District Name of Client: Kansas City Missouri School District Location: Kansas City, Missouri Services Provided: Maintenance, Custodial, Grounds Management Employees on payroll of: District Contract Start Date: August 1991 Total Square Feet/Sites: 7,629,101 sq. ft./102 Buildings Students: 35,000 Contact Person(s)/Phone: Dr. Walter Marks, Superintendent Mr. William M. Threatt*, Associate Superintendent 816/871-7814 * Reference Contact ServiceMASTER I REFERENCE School District Name of Client\nDistrict of Columbia Public Schools Location\nWashington, D.C. Services Provided\nCustodial, Preventive Maintenance Management Employees on payroll of\nDistrict Contract Start Date\nJanuary 1993 Total Square Feet/Sites\n14,000,000 sq. ft? 198 Buildings Students\n81,000 Contact PersonfsJ/Phone\nDr. Franklin Smith, Superintendent Mr. William McAfee*, Director of Facilities Management Division 202/724-4222 * Reference Contact ServiceMASTER. B4112802 08/09/1400 LRSD BUDGET ACTION SUMMARY FY 95-96 This document is an ODM staff working paper which contains the following material: 1. Chart of Business Cases. This is a listing of all business cases known by ODM, and contains a cumulative summary of actions taken by the LRSD on those business cases. 2. Chart of Shortfall Strategies. This is a listing of all shortfall strategies known by ODM, and contains a cumulative summary of actions taken by the LRSD on those strategies. If a shortfall strategy had a business case prepared, then the strategy was moved into the Chart of Business Cases. 3. Chart of Budget Issues. This is a listing of budget related issues that should be addressed somewhere in the LRSD budget. 4. Mooneys Brainstorming List of Possible Cost Cutting Measures. This is an informal brainstorming list of possible measures for cutting the budget or improving services. We have not determined the feasibility of the items, nor have we run cost/benefits. The menu is made up of things that might be considered with no judgement made on value. These items in no way should be construed as ODMs position, recommendation, or suggestion. NOTE: Please help keep this paper updated by letting Mooney know of budget actions or suggested changes. 1LRSD CHART OF BUSINESS CASES BUDGET FY 95-96 NOTE: The items in bold print headings are active. The items with regular print headings are not active. 1. Academic Progress Incentive Grant. *  * * * * * * * * * 11/7/94 Board Work Session. 1/5/95 Extended Program Evaluation list. Shows up on the evaluation list as Sequence # 14, Academic Incentive. An extended program evaluation will be prepared. 1/17/95 Joint ODM/LRSD staff meeting handout. Tentative business case list shows program sequence #14 will have a business case. It will be prepared by Gremillion and Mitchell. 1/26/95 Board meeting material. New Extended Evaluation list recommends sequence # 14, Academic Incentive, for modification or deletion. 2/15/95 Business Case book to Board and ODM. APIG and Focused Activities deletions. Would require a Deseg Plan modification. Savings of $445,000. 2/22/95 Board Work Session. General discussion. 3/8/95 Board Work Session. Magness wanted to know why the district can cut this program in light of the Court Order. Williams says a plan modification will be required. This item is on the Budget Consideration list, and the savings will be reflected in the proposed budget. 3/16/95 Special Board Meeting and Work Session handout. Item still included in the proposal for a savings of $445,000. 3/22/95 Proposed Budget, dated 3/14/95. Item was deleted from the budget for a savings of $445,000. 3/31/95 Technical assistance meeting. Smith and Mooney meet with Matthis and Ingram to discuss the technical aspects of a proposed modification to the business case. 4/3/95 Court Submission. Revised business case reduced the savings from $455,00 down to $290,000. * 4/6/95 Board Work Session. General discussion of revised business case. No action taken.  * * 4/10/95 LRSD Budget Hearing. Detailed testimony by Matthis concerning the business case. No action taken. 4/12/95 Board Work Session. The Board approved continuing APIGS/FA and funded it at $20 per student for each area elementary school. The approved cost is now approximately $171,000, making the savings approximately $274,000. LRSD estimates savings as $261,000 on the summary table from the Board meeting. 5/26/95 Tentative Budget Document. Tentative Budget Document reflects the program 25 * modifications for a savings of $261,100. A new business case was submitted with the budget document. 7/24/95 Final Budget Document. Final Budget Document reflects the program modifications for a savings of $261,100. Academic Support Program. 2. 3. 4. 5. * * * * 1/5/95 Extended Program Evaluation list. Shows up on the evaluation list as Sequence # 03, Academic Support. An extended program evaluation will be prepared. 1/17/95 Joint ODM/LRSD staff meeting handout. Tentative business case list shows program sequence # 03 will have a business case. It will be prepared by Glasgow, Parker, and Adams. 1/26/95 Board meeting material. New Extended Evaluation list recommends sequence # 03, Academic Support, for modification or deletion. 2/15/95 Business Case book to Board and ODM. Was not included in this package, which would indicate this is a dead proposal. Data Processing. * * * * 1/5/95 Extended Program Evaluation list. Shows up on the evaluation list as Sequence # 23 and 24, Data Processing. An extended program evaluation will be prepared. 1/17/95 Joint ODM/LRSD staff meeting. Williams indicates he wants to give Beason some time on the job before considering Outsourcing data processing services. 1/17/95 Joint ODM/LRSD staff meeting handout on tentative business cases. Program sequence # 24 and 230, will be prepared by Beason. 2/15/95 Business Case book to Board and ODM. Becomes feeder for # 33. District Wide Facilities Study (School Closings). * * * * * * * 11/7/94 Board Work Session. 1/5/95 Extended Program Evaluation list. Shows up on the evaluation list as Sequence # 33, Facilities. An extended program evaluation will be prepared. 1/17/95 Joint ODM/LRSD staff meeting handout. Tentative business case list shows District wide Facilities Study (program sequence # in error) will have a business case. It will be prepared by Mayo. 1/27/95 Arkansas Democrat Gazette article. Article quotes Mayo as saying that Badgett and Fair Park are at the top of a possible closing list. Mayo says closing both would save $900,000. 1/31/95 Community meeting held at Fair Park to discuss recommended closure. 2/7/95 Community meeting held at Badgett of discuss recommended closure. 2/15/95 Business Case book to Board and ODM. Becomes feeder for # 22 and # 23. Pupil Transportation Services. * * 11/7/94 Board Work Session. 1/5/95 Extended Program Evaluation list. Shows up on the evaluation list as Sequence # 223, Pupil Transport. An extended program evaluation will be prepared. 3* * 1/17/95 Joint ODM/LRSD staff meeting handout on tentative business cases. Program sequence # 223, will be prepared by Cheatham. 2/15/95 Business Case book to Board and ODM. Becomes feeder for # 25. 6. Family Life Education/New Futures. * * * * 1/5/95 Extended Program Evaluation list. Shows up on the evaluation list as Sequence # 231, Family Life/New Futures. An extended program evaluation will be prepared. 1/17/95 Joint ODM/LRSD staff meeting handout. Tentative business case list shows program sequence # 231 will have a business case. It will be prepared by Young and Carson. 1/26/95 Board meeting material. New Extended Evaluation list recommends sequence # 231, Family Life/New Futures, for modification or deletion. 2/15/95 Business Case book to Board and ODM. Assign FLE teaching responsibilities to * nurses, counselors and science teachers, modification. Savings of $77,000. 2/22/95 Board Work Session. General discussion. Would not require a Deseg Plan * 3/8/95 Board Work Session. No discussion. This item is on the Budget Consideration * * list, and savings will be reflected in the proposed budget. 3/16/95 Special Board Meeting and Work Session handout. Item still included in the proposal for a savings of $77,000. Also included an action deadline of 4/15/95. 3/22/95 Proposed Budget, dated 3/14/95. Item was deleted from the budget for a savings of $77,000. * 4/12/95 Board Work Session. The Board approved the business case as submitted by the * * superintendent. Savings at $77,000. 5/26/95 Tentative Budget Document. Tentative Budget Document reflects a savings of $77,000. 7/24/95 Final Budget Document. Final Budget Document reflects the program modifications for a savings of $77,000. 7. New Futures. * * * * * * 1/5/95 Extended Program Evaluation list. Shows up on the evaluation list as Sequence # 13, New Futures. An extended program evaluation will be prepared. 1/17/95 Joint ODM/LRSD staff meeting handout. Tentative business case list shows program sequence # 13 will have a business case. It will be prepared by Young. 1/26/95 Board meeting material. New Extended Evaluation list recommends sequence # 13 New Futures, for modification or deletion. 2/15/95 Business Case book to Board and ODM. Implement Language Arts Plus in lieu of Learning Foundations\nreturn to 6 period day. Would not require a Deseg Plan modification. Savings of $669,900. 2/22/95 Board Work Session. General discussion. 2/23/95 Board Work Session. Board deleted the Learning Foundations course in the New Futures Junior Highs. This seems to lay the foundation for elimination of the 7 period day. Savings of $669,900. 4* * * * * * 3/8/95 Board Work Session. Magness noted amount of savings dropped to $626,848. Difference is that this amount is based on actual salaries vice averages. This item is on the Budget Consideration list, and the savings will be reflected in the proposed budget. 3/16/95 Special Board Meeting and Work Session handout. Item still included in the proposal for a savings of $626,848. Also included an action deadline of 4/15/95. 3/22/95 Proposed Budget, dated 3/14/95. Item was deleted from the budget for a savings of $626,848. 4/10/95 LRSD Budget Hearing. Detailed testimony by Young concerning the business case. Mainly centered on cutting the 7th period. No action taken. 4/12/95 Board Work Session. Motion to accept the business case as submitted by the superintendent failed. No action taken. 5/26/95 Tentative Budget Document. In response to the failed business case. New Futures funding of $626,848 added back into the Tentative Budget Document. No savings now reflected. 8. Four-Year-Old-Program. * * * * * * *   * * * 11/7/94 Board Work Session. 1/5/95 Extended Program Evaluation list. Shows up on the evaluation list as Sequence # 02, 4-Year-Old. An extended program evaluation will be prepared. 1/17/95 Joint ODM/LRSD staff meeting handout. Tentative business case list shows program sequence # 02 will have a business case. It will be prepared by Price. 1/26/95 Board meeting material. New Extended Evaluation list recommends sequence # 02, 4-Year-Old, for modification or deletion. 2/1/95 flyer to parents. The pre-registration material sent to parents around the first week of February contained a flyer on the 4-year-old program. The flyer said that due to projected budget cuts the program may not be available in many of the schools. The final decision will be made by the Board in the near future. 2/15/95 Business Case book to Board and ODM. Eliminate program except at the Incentive Schools. Would require a Deseg Plan modification. Savings of $ 1,321,520. 2/22/95 Board Work Session. General discussion. Many board members voice opposition. 2/28/95 Board Work Session. Magness states that the Board does not want to cut the 4 year old program, and the administration should look elsewhere. 3/8/95 Board Work Session. This item has been dropped from consideration on the Budget Consideration list, and the savings will not be reflected in the proposed budget. 3/16/95 Special Board Meeting and Work Session handout. Item shown as defened and on hold. Still shows possible savings of $1,321,520. Also included an action deadline of 4/15/95. 3/22/95 Proposed Budget, dated 3/14/95. Item was included in the budget as a program cost of $1,321,520. 4/6/95 Board Work Session. Board formally approved leaving the program in the budget. No cuts will be made in the program. Now a dead issue. 5 5/26/95 Tentative Budget Document. Tentative Budget Document reflects no cuts and no savings. 9. Guidance Services, * * * 1/5/95 Extended Program Evaluation list. Shows up on the evaluation list as Sequence # 213, Guidance Services. An extended program evaluation will be prepared. 1/17/95 Joint ODM/LRSD staff meeting handout. Tentative business case list shows program sequence #213 will have a business case. It will be prepared by Elston. 1/26/95 Board meeting material. New Extended Evaluation list recommends sequence # 213, Guidance Services, for modification or deletion. * 2/15/95 Business Case book to Board and ODM. Reduce positions but maintain Arkansas * Public School Accreditation Standards, modification. Savings of $125,268. 2/22/95 Board Work Session. General discussion. Would not require a Deseg Plan * 3/8/95 Board Work Session. No discussion. This item is on the Budget Consideration * * * * * list, and the savings will be reflected in the proposed budget. 3/16/95 Special Board Meeting and Work Session handout. Item still included in the proposal for a savings of $125,268. Also included an action deadline of 4/15/95. 3/22/95 Proposed Budget, dated 3/14/95. Item was deleted from the budget for a savings of$125,268. 4/12/95 Board Work Session. The Board approved the business case as submitted by the superintendent. 5/26/95 Tentative Budget Document. Tentative Budget Document reflects the cut and the savings of $125,268. 7/24/95 Final Budget Document. Final Budget Document reflects the program modifications for a savings of $125,268. 10. Health Services. * * * * * * * * * 11/7/94 Board Work Session. 1/5/95 Extended Program Evaluation list. Shows up on the evaluation list as Sequence # 215, Health Services. An extended program evaluation will be prepared. 1/17/95 Joint ODM/LRSD staff meeting handout. Tentative business case list shows program sequence #215 will have a business case. It will be prepared by Efird. 1/26/95 Board meeting material. New Extended Evaluation list recommends sequence # 215, Health Services, for modification or deletion. 2/15/95 Business Case book to Board and ODM. Reduction in nursing positions while maintaining services. Cut 19 nurses from area schools. Would not require a Deseg Plan modification. Savings of $560,000. 2/22/95 Board Work Session. General discussion. Many board members voice opposition. 2/24/95 Mooney meets with Riggs to discuss alternatives in health services. 2/24/95 Brown/Morgan/Mooney meet with Magness/Mayo to discuss alternatives in health services. 3/8/95 Board Work Session. No discussion. This item has been dropped from 6* * * * consideration on the Budget Consideration list, and the savings will not be reflected in the proposed budget. 3/16/95 Special Board Meeting and Work Session handout. Item shown as deferred and on hold. Still shows possible savings of $560,000. Also included an action deadline of 4/15/95. 3/22/95 Proposed Budget, dated 3/14/95. Item was included in the budget as a program cost of $560,000. 4/6/95 Board Work Session. Board formally approved leaving health services in the budget. No cuts will be made in the program. Now a dead issue. Williams indicates the district is now working with the Dept of Health on some new ideas for health services. 5/26/95 Tentative Budget Document. Tentative Budget Document reflects no cuts and no savings. 11. HIPPY.  *  * * * *  * * *  * * 11/7/94 Board Work Session. 1/5/95 Extended Program Evaluation list. Shows up on the evaluation list as Sequence # 01, HIPPY. An extended program evaluation will be prepared. 1/17/95 Joint ODM/LRSD staff meeting handout. Tentative business case list shows program sequence #01 will have a business case. It will be prepared by Shead. 1/26/95 Board meeting material. New Extended Evaluation list recommends sequence # 01, HIPPY, for modification or deletion. 2/15/95 Business Case book to Board and ODM. Eliminate HIPPY program except for parents within Incentive Schools. Would require a Deseg Plan modification. Savings of $185,828.18. 2/22/95 Board Work Session. General discussion. Many board members voice opposition. 2/28/95 Board Work Session. Magness requested some service numbers, asked about duplication of services, and possibilities of combining with other programs. 3/8/95 Board Work Session. Magness, Mitchell, and Pondexter voiced concerns about cutting this item. If cut, savings have been increased to $223,769. This item is on the Budget Consideration list, and the savings will be reflected in the proposed budget. 3/16/95 Special Board Meeting and Work Session handout. Item still included in the proposal for a savings of $223,769. Also included an action deadline of 5/15/95. 3/22/95 Proposed Budget, dated 3/14/95. Item was deleted from the budget for a savings of $223,769. 3/24/95 LRSD Budget Hearing. Williams says they are recommending the cut in the HIPPY program because of the deficit. The proposed cut is not final at this time, since the Board has not voted. Other programs can deliver this service. Matthis says HIPPY will remain in the incentive schools and schools in southwest Little Rock. Cuts will remove about 50% of the kids served. 4/6/95 Board Work Session. General discussion of the proposal. No action taken. 4/12/95 Board Work Session. A number of Board motions failed. No action taken. 5/26/95 Tentative Budget Document. Tentative Budget Document reflects the HIPPY 7expenditures added back at $223, 769, and now shows no savings. Removed from the actual list. 12. McClellan Community School. * * * * * * * 11/7/94 Board Work Session. 1/5/95 Extended Program Evaluation list. Shows up on the evaluation list as Sequence # 15, McClellan Community School. An extended program evaluation will be prepared. 1/17/95 Joint ODM/LRSD staff meeting handout. Tentative business case list shows program sequence # 15 will have a business case. It will be prepared by Carter. 1/26/95 Board meeting material. New Extended Evaluation list recommends sequence # 15, McClellan Community School, for modification or deletion. 2/15/95 Business Case book to Board and ODM. Deletion of program, with Business Department delivering the program. Would require a Deseg Plan modification. Savings of $170,000. 2/22/95 Board Work Session. General discussion. 2/28/95 Board Work Session. Magness asked questions about advisory board involvement. Williams directed Carter to go back to the advisory board for more input. * 3/8/95 Board Work Session. General discussion concerning involvement of the Advisory Council. Board wants more input from Advisory Council and additional information from the staff. This item is on the Budget Consideration list, and the savings will be reflected in the proposed budget. * * * * * * * * 3/16/95 Special Board Meeting and Work Session handout. Item still included in the proposal for a savings of $130,000. Also included an action deadline of 4/15/95. 3/22/95 Proposed Budget, dated 3/14/95. Item was deleted from the budget for a savings of $130,000. 4/6/95 Board Work Session. General discussion of the proposal. No action taken. 4/10/95 LRSD Budget Hearing. Detailed testimony by Matthis concerning the business case. No action taken. Administration considering counter-proposal (business case) by the McClellan Advisory Board. 4/12/95 Board Work Session. The Board approved the revised business case as submitted by the superintendent. The Community School will be funded at $40,000 (plus earnings of about $50,000), for a total savings of $130,000. 4/27/95 Special Board Meeting. General discussion on the business case developed by the Advisory Committee\nthe committee did what they were supposed to do. No action taken. 5/26/95 Tentative Budget Document. Tentative Budget Document reflects savings still at $130,000. 7/24/95 Final Budget Document. Final Budget Document reflects the program modifications for a savings of $130,000. 13. Staff Development. * * 11/7/94 Board Work Session. 1/5/95 Extended Program Evaluation list. Shows up on the evaluation list as Sequence # 8* * * 21, Staff Development. An extended program evaluation will be prepared. 1/17/95 Joint ODPvI/LRSD staff meeting handout. Tentative business case list shows program sequence # 21 will have a business case. It will be prepared by Woods. 1/26/95 Board meeting material. New Extended Evaluation list recommends sequence # 21, Staff Development, for modification or deletion. 2/15/95 Business Case book to Board and ODM. Was not included in this package, which would indicate that this is a dead proposal. 14. Substitute Teachers. * * *  * * * * * * 1/17/95 Joint ODM/LRSD staff meeting handout on tentative business cases. Program sequence # NA, will be prepared by Gadberry and Hurley. 1/26/95 Board meeting material. New Extended Evaluation list recommends sequence # none. Substitute Teachers, for modification or deletion. This item did not appear on the 1/5/95 Extended Evaluation List, but was on the 1/17/95 tentative business case list. 2/15/95 Business Case book to Board and ODM. Place a cap on professional leave. Would not require a Deseg Plan modification. Savings of $50,000. 2/22/95 Board Work Session. General discussion. 3/8/95 Board Work Session. No discussion. This item is on the Budget Consideration list, and the savings will be reflected in the proposed budget. 3/16/95 Special Board Meeting and Work Session handout. Item still included in the proposal for a savings of $50,000. 3/22/95 Proposed Budget, dated 3/14/95. Item was deleted from the budget for a savings of $50,000. 4/12/95 Board Work Session. The Board approved the business case as submitted by the superintendent. 5/26/95 Tentative Budget Document. Tentative Budget Document reflects the $50,000 savings. 7/24/95 Final Budget Document. Final Budget Document reflects the program modifications for a savings of $50,000. IS. Vocational Education. *  * * * 11/7/94 Board Work Session. 1/5/95 Extended Program Evaluation list. Shows up on the evaluation list as Sequence # 08 and 204, Vocational Education. An extended program evaluation will be prepared. 1/17/95 Joint ODM/LRSD staff meeting handout. Tentative business case list shows program sequence # 08 and 204 will have a business case. It will be prepared by Green. 1/26/95 Board meeting material. New Extended Evaluation list recommends sequence # 08/204, Vocational Education, for modification or deletion. 2/15/95 Business Case book to Board and ODM. Eliminate Exploring Industrial Technology education programs at two junior high schools\neliminate low demand courses. Would not require a Deseg Plan modification. Savings of $182,783.90. 9* * * 2/22/95 Board Work Session. General discussion. 3/8/95 Board Work Session. Magness noted the savings had been reduced to $98,462. Smith says this is the result of fine tuning. This item is on the Budget Consideration list, and the savings will be reflected in the proposed budget. 3/16/95 Special Board Meeting and Work Session handout. Item still included in the proposal for a savings of $98,462. Also included an action deadline of ASAP. * 3/22/95 Proposed Budget, dated 3/14/95. Item was deleted from the budget for a savings of $98,462. * 4/12/95 Board Work Session. The Board approved the business case as submitted by the superintendent. * 5/26/95 Tentative Budget Document. Tentative Budget Document reflects the $98,462 cut * and savings. 7/24/95 Final Budget Document. Final Budget Document reflects the program modifications for a savings of $98,462. 16. Safety and Security, * *  * 1/5/95 Extended Program Evaluation list. Shows up on the evaluation list as Sequence # 25 and 225, Safety and Security Services. An extended program evaluation will be prepared. 1/17/95 Joint ODM/LRSD staff meeting handout. Tentative business case list shows program sequence # 25 and 225 will have a business case. It will be prepared by Jones. 1/26/95 Board meeting material. New Extended Evaluation list recommends sequence # 25/225, Safety and Security, for modification or deletion. 2/15/95 Business Case book to Board and ODM. Becomes a feeder for # 31. 17. Discipline Management. * * 1/17/95 Joint ODM/LRSD staff meeting handout on tentative business cases. Program sequence # NA, will be prepared by Mitchell, Robertson, Marshaleck. 2/15/95 Business Case book to Board and ODM. Was not included in this package, which would indicate that this is a dead proposal. 18. Alternative Education.  * * * * 1/17/95 Joint ODM/LRSD staff meeting handout on tentative business cases. Program sequence # NA, will be prepared by Elston, Anderson, and Glenn. 2/15/95 Business Case book to Board and ODM. Pilot program of alternative classrooms at Southwest Junior High and Cloverdale Junior High. Would not require a Deseg Plan modification. Additional cost of $34,965. 2/23/95 Board Work Session. General discussion. 3/8/95 Board Work Session. No discussion. This item is on the Budget Consideration list, and the additional cost will be reflected in the proposed budget. 3/16/95 Special Board Meeting and Work Session handout. Item still included in the proposal for an additional cost of $34,965. 10* 3/22/95 Proposed Budget, dated 3/14/95. Item was added to the budget for an additional * * cost of $34,965. 4/12/95 Board Work Session. No action taken. 5/26/95 Tentative Budget Document. Tentative Budget Document reflects the addition of $34,965. * 7/24/95 Final Budget Document. Final Budget Document reflects the program addition of $34,965. 19. Incentive School Program Modification. * * * * * * * * * * * * * 12/22/94 Project Management Tool, task 217. Develop business case for incentive schools program modifications for submitting to Superintendent and Council. 2/15/95 Business Case book to Board and ODM. Revise staff configuration\nimprove staff efficiency. Would require a Deseg Plan modification. Savings of $607,250. 2/22/95 Board Work Session. General discussion. 2/28/95 Board Work Session. Magness requested more numbers and better justification. More general discussion. 3/8/95 Board Work Session. Magness noted the savings amount had been reduced to $608,250. The difference is cutting 38 vice 45 positions. This item is on the Budget Consideration list, and the savings will be reflected in the proposed budget. 3/16/95 Special Board Meeting and Work Session handout. Item still included in the proposal for a savings of $608,250. Also included an action deadline of 4/15/95. 3/22/95 Proposed Budget, dated 3/14/95. Item was deleted from the budget for a savings of $608,250. 3/31/95 Technical assistance meeting. Smith and Mooney meet with Matthis and Ingram to discuss the technical aspects of a proposed modification to the business case. 4/3/95 Court Submission. Revised business case reduced savings from $608,250 down to $211,250. Personnel cuts not as severe\nfrom 45 FTE down to 10.5 FTE. 4/7/95 Court Submission. LRSD submits corrections to the revised business case. No change to the bottom line savings of $211,250. 4/10/95 LRSD Budget Hearing. Detailed testimony by Ingram on the business case. Detailed testimony by Brooks, Donovan, and Buchanan. No action taken. 4/12/95 Board Work Session. The Board approved the revised business case as submitted by the superintendent. Savings at $211,250. 5/26/95 Tentative Budget Document. Tentative Budget Document reflects savings still set * at $211,250. 7/24/95 Final Budget Document. Final Budget Document reflects the program modifications for a savings of $211,250. 20. Middle School Concept. * * 12/22/94 Project Management Tool, task 218. Explore, gather, and assess data relative to the transition to the Middle School concept. 2/15/95 Business Case book to Board and ODM. Was not included in this package, which would indicate this is a dead proposal. However, the 1/30/95 Project Management 11Tool indicates the district is 100% complete on exploring, gathering, and assessing data relative to such a transition. 21. Beacon School Concept. * * * * * * 11/11/94 letter from Williams to Brown. Letter indicates that planning has been completed and the district is moving ahead without the benefit of a business case. 2/15/95 Business Case book to Board and ODM. Implement Beacon School concept at Cloverdale Junior High. Would not require a Deseg Plan modification. Additional cost of $12,000. 2/23/95 Board Work Session. General discussion. The $12,000 is for custodial costs. Program would run year round. Gee suggests looking for a grant. 3/8/95 Board Work Session. No discussion. Budget cost still shows $37,000. This item is on the Budget Consideration list, and the additional cost will be reflected in the proposed budget. 3/16/95 Special Board Meeting and Work Session handout. Item still included in the proposal for an additional cost of $37,000. 3/22/95 Proposed Budget, dated 3/14/95. Item was included in the budget for an additional cost of $37,000. * 4/6/95 Board Work Session. General discussion on proposal. No action taken. * * * * * 4/10/95. LRSD Budget Hearing. Brief discussion about the Beacon School concept in relation to the McClellan Community School business case and recommended cuts. No action taken. 4/12/95 Board Work Session. Williams says the amount can be lowered to $18,500 additional. The board tabled the addition. 4/27/95 Special Board Meeting. Since only about $20,000, Riggs suggests waiting on this issue until later in the year when the programs are about ready to start up\naround 12/95. No action taken by the Board. 5/26/95 Tentative Budget Document. Tentative Budget Document reflects the addition of $18,500. 7/24/95 Final Budget Document. Final Budget Document reflects the program addition of $18,500. 22. Badgett School Relocation. * * * * * * See feeder item #4. 1/27/95 Arkansas Democrat Gazette article. Article quotes Mayo as saying that Badgett and Fair Park are at the top of a possible closing list. Mayo says closing both would save $900,000. 2/7/95 Community meeting held at Badgett to discuss recommended closure. 2/15/95 Business Case book to Board and ODM. Closing Badgett School. Would require a Deseg Plan modification. Savings of $523,000. 2/22/95 Board Work Session. General discussion. 2/28/95 Board Work Session. Magness asked questions about keeping all the students together in any move. Riggs supported the idea. 12* * * * * * * * * 3/8/95 Board Work Session. This item has been dropped from consideration on the Budget Consideration list, and the savings will not be reflected in the proposed budget. 3/16/95 Special Board Meeting and Work Session handout. Item shown as deferred and on hold. Still shows possible savings of $523,000. Also included an action deadline of 4/15/95. 3/22/95 Proposed Budget, dated 3/14/95. Item was included in the budget for an additional cost of $523,000. 4/12/95 Board Work Session. Motion to close Badgett failed. Funding will stay in the budget. 5/26/95 Tentative Budget Document. Tentative Budget Document reflects the school still open, with no savings in the budget. 6/15/95 Newspaper Article. Article reported that a 6/14/95 Special Board Meeting to vote on the closing of Badgett/Fair Park would be postponed. 6/22/95 Special Board Meeting. Board approved closing the school without discussion. The decision rescinded a Board vote in April that allowed the school to remain open. 7/3/95 LRSD Court Submission. Filed a revised business case and a motion to modify the desegregation plan in relation to closing the school. 7/7/95 Special Summit Meeting of the Parties. In striking this special deal among the parties, the Board (without formal vote) agreed to leave Badgett and Fair Park open for the next year. 23. Fair Park School Relocation. * * * * * * * * See feeder item #4. 1/27/95 Arkansas Democrat Gazette article. Article quotes Mayo as saying that Badgett and Fair Park are at the top of a possible closing list. Mayo says closing both would save $900,000. 1/31/95 Community meeting held at Fair Park to discuss recommended closure. 2/15/95 Business Case book to Board and ODM. Closing Fair Park School. Would require a Deseg Plan modification. Savings of $637,000. 2/22/95 Board Work Session. General discussion. 2/28/95 Board Work Session. Magness requested the amount of money to repair Fair Park if it were kept open. Figures were not available. 3/8/95 Board Work Session. This item has been dropped from consideration on the Budget Consideration list, and the savings will not be reflected in the proposed budget. 3/16/95 Special Board Meeting and Work Session handout. Item shown as deferred and on hold. Still shows possible savings of $637,000. Included an action deadline of 4/15/95. * 3/22/95 Proposed Budget, dated 3/14/95. Item was included in the budget for an additional * cost of $637,000. 4/12/95 Board Work Session. Motion to close Fair Park failed. Funding will stay in the budget. 13* * * * * 5/26/95 Tentative Budget Document. Tentative Budget Document reflects the school remaining open, with no budget savings. 6/15/95 Newspaper Article. Article reported that a 6/14/95 Special Board Meeting to vote on the closing of Badgett/Fair Park would be postponed. 6/22/95 Special Board Meeting. Board approved closing the school without discussion. The decision rescinded a Board vote in April that allowed the school to remain open. 7/3/95 LRSD Court Submission. Filed a revised business case and a motion to modify the desegregation plan in relation to closing the school. 7/7/95 Special Summit Meeting of the Parties. In striking this special deal among the parties, the Board (without formal vote) agreed to leave Badgett and Fair Park open for the next year. 24. Elementary Music Teacher StafTing. * * 2/15/95 Business Case book to Board and ODM. Revision of current elementary music teacher assignments. Would not require a Deseg Plan modification. Savings of $161,000. 2/22/95 Board Work Session. General discussion. * 3/8/95 Board Work Session. No discussion. This item is on the Budget Consideration * * * * * list, and the savings will be reflected in the proposed budget. 3/16/95 Special Board Meeting and Work Session handout. Item still included in the proposal for a savings of $161,000. Also included an action deadline of 4/15/95. 3/22/95 Proposed Budget, dated 3/14/95. Item was deleted from the budget for a savings of$161,000. 4/12/95 Board Work Session. The Board approved the business case as submitted by the superintendent. 5/26/95 Tentative Budget Document. Tentative Budget Document reflects the cut and savings of $161,000. 7/24/95 Final Budget Document. Final Budget Document reflects the program modifications for a savings of $161,000. 25. Improving Student Transportation.   * * * * * See feeder item #5. 1/17/95 Joint ODM/LRSD staff meeting. Williams says the LRSD is coming back with a recommendation to outsource transportation. 1/17/95 Joint ODM/LRSD staff meeting handout. Tentative business case list shows program sequence # 223 will have a business case. It will be prepared by Cheatham. 1/26/95 Board meeting material. New Extended Evaluation list recommends sequence # 14, Pupil Transportation, for modification or deletion. 2/15/95 Business Case book to Board and ODM. Outsourcing transportation. Would not require a Deseg Plan modification. Savings of $100,000. 2/22/95 Board Work Session. General discussion. Some opposition, but not as much as last time. 2/28/95 Board Work Session. Magness requested material from last year. Numerous 14 questions on the mechanics of outsourcing, but staff did not answer. * 3/8/95 Board Work Session. No discussion. This item is on the Budget Consideration * * * * * * *  list, and the savings will be reflected in the proposed budget. 3/16/95 Special Board Meeting and Work Session handout. Item still included in the proposal for a savings of $100,000. Also included an action deadline of 4/15/95. 3/22/95 Proposed Budget, dated 3/14/95. Item was deleted from the budget for a savings of $100,000. 4/6/95 Board Work Session. Williams says RFP ready to go. No action taken. 4/12/95 Board Work Session. RFP issued on 4/7/95. The Board tabled the item. On hold. 4/27/95 Special Board Meeting. General discussion with numerous questions. Issue still tabled. 5/26/95 Tentative Budget Document. Tentative Budget Document reflects the item remaining deleted from the budget for a savings of $100,000. 6/15/95 Newspaper article. Article reported that a 6/14/95 Special Board Meeting to vote on outsourcing contract would be postponed. 6/22/95 Special Board Meeting. After a presentation by Laidlaw, the Board approved a * three year, $19,500,000 contract. 7/24/95 Final Budget Document. Final Budget Document reflects the program modifications for a savings of $100,000, and the line item transfers for the outsourcing contract. 26. Parkview Commercial Art Class. * * * 2/15/95 Business Case book to Board and ODM. Implement Commercial Arts I course to expand magnet arts program and satisfy state standards. Would not require a Deseg Plan modification. Savings of $0.00. 2/22/95 Board Work Session. General discussion. 2/23/95 Board Work Session. Board approved this item. Unknown building renovations may be expensive. 27. Arkansas Crusades. * * * * * 2/15/95 Business Case book to Board and ODM. Equipment and teacher training to support the Math, K-4, and Science Crusades. Would not require a Deseg Plan modification. Additional cost of $30,000. 2/23/95 Board Work Session. General discussion. Will support about 30 teachers. Mostly for equipment at 50% match for implementation of programs. Have done this in the past. No evidence that it is successful at this point. 3/8/95 Board Work Session. No discussion. This item is on the Budget Consideration list, and the additional costs will be reflected in the proposed budget. 3/16/95 Special Board Meeting and Work Session handout. Item is still included in the proposal for an additional cost of $30,000. 3/22/95 Proposed Budget, dated 3/14/95. Item was included in the budget for an additional cost of $30,000. 4/12/95 Board Work Session. The Board approved the addition as submitted by the 15* * superintendent. 5/26/95 Tentative Budget Document. Tentative Budget Document reflects the addition of $30,000. 7/24/95 Final Budget Document. Final Budget Document reflects the program addition of $30,000. 28. Mann Magnet Additional Clerical Position. * * 2/15/95 Business Case book to Board and ODM. Provide assistance to bookkeeper and assistant principal. Would not require a Deseg Plan modification. Additional cost of $3,000. 2/23/95 Board Work Session. General discussion. * 3/8/95 Board Work Session. This item was dropped from the proposal. It was solved with staff realignment. It will be dropped from the proposed budget. 29. New Comers Center. * * 2/15/95 Business Case book to Board and ODM. Designate selected schools to serve increasing needs of LEP students. Would not require a Deseg Plan modification. Additional cost of $52,117. 2/23/95 Board Work Session. General discussion. Would have 4 centers at elementary schools, 2 centers at junior high schools, and 1 center at a senior high school. The funding is mainly for staff development for teachers. * 3/8/95 Board Work Session. No discussion. The budget considerations list shows that the additional cost has been revised down to $12,117. This item is on the Budget Consideration list, and the additional costs will be reflected in the proposed budget. * 3/16/95 Special Board Meeting and Work Session handout. Item still included in the * proposal for an additional cost of $12,117. 3/22/95 Proposed Budget, dated 3/14/95. Item was included in the budget for an additional cost of $12,117. * 4/12/95 Board Work Session. The Board tabled this issue. * * * 4/27/95 Special Board Meeting. The board approved the recommendation. Will add the $12,117. 5/26/95 Tentative Budget Document. Tentative Budget Document reflects the addition of $12,117. 7/24/95 Final Budget Document. Final Budget Document reflects the program addition of $12,117. 30. Reading Recovery/Early Literacy Pilot Program. *  * 2/15/95 Business Case book to Board and ODM. Provide early intervention strategies to reduce later remediation. Would not require a Deseg Plan modification. Additional cost of $30,000. 2/23/95 Board Work Session. General discussion. Would pilot reading recovery in grade 1. Funding is for training, materials, and supplies. 2/28/95 Board Work Session. Gee asked questions about the number of students served. 16Magness clarified that the actual amount of new money required is really only $10,614, and not the full $30,000 cost. * 3/8/95 Board Work Session. General discussion. This item is on the Budget * * * * * * Consideration list, and the additional cost will be reflected in the proposed budget. 3/16/95 Special Board Meeting and Work Session handout. Item still included in the proposal for an additional cost of $10,614. 3/22/95 Proposed Budget, dated 3/14/95. Item was included in the budget for an additional cost of $10,614. 4/12/95 Board Work Session. The Board tabled this issue. 4/27/95 Special Board Meeting. Board approved the recommendation. Will add the $10,614. 5/26/95 Tentative Budget Document. Tentative Budget Document reflects the addition of $10,614. 7/24/95 Final Budget Document. Final Budget Document reflects the program additions of$10,614. 31. Security Officers to Work on Safety and Security Issues. * * * *  * * *  * * See feeder item #16. Two additional security officers to deal with security related problems/issues. Would not require a Deseg Plan modification. Additional cost of $36,500. 2/23/95 Board Work Session. General discussion. Officers would be used mainly in the bus areas. Outsourcing transportation would not impact this request. 2/28/95 Board Work Session. Mitchell asked questions about the two officers that would be hired. Williams says they would be police officers that could fill in for the Resource Officers. Magness questions whether they are security officers or resource officers. Matthis says security officers. 3/8/95 Board Work Session. No discussion. This item is on the Budget Consideration list, and the additional costs will be reflected in the proposed budget. 3/16/95 Special Board Meeting and Work Session handout. Item still included in the proposal for an additional cost of $36,500. 3/22/95 Proposed Budget, dated 3/14/95. Item was included in the budget for an additional cost of $36,500. 4/12/95 Board Work Session. The Board tabled this issue. 4/27/95 Special Board Meeting. Board approved the recommendation. Will add the $36,500. 5/26/95 Tentative Budget Document. Tentative Budget Document reflects the addition of $36,500. 7/24/95 Final Budget Document. Final Budget Document reflects the program additions of $36,500. 32. Social Studies Curriculum Revision. * 2/15/95 Business Case book to Board and ODM. Form committee to revise Social Studies curriculum to correlate with new state frameworks\nrevise curriculum guides. Would 17* not require a Deseg Plan modification. Additional cost of $13,200. 2/23/95 Board Work Session. General discussion. * 3/8/95 Board Work Session. Magness had questions. Williams dropped this item from the proposal. It will come out of Matthis budget. This item has been dropped from the Budget Consideration list, and the additional costs will not be reflected in the proposed budget. 33. Information Services. * * * * See feeder item #3. 1/17/95 Joint ODM/LRSD staff meeting handout. Tentative business case list shows program sequence # 24 and 230 will have a business case. It will be prepared by Beason. 1/26/95 Board meeting material. New Extended Evaluation list recommends sequence # 24/230, Data Processing, for modification or deletion. 2/15/95 Business Case book to Board and ODM. Convert district to a PC-based architecture with LANs. Multi-year project will lower costs in out-years. Would not require a Deseg Plan modification. Additional cost of $317,500. * 2/28/95 Board Work Session. Beason makes presentation. Cites significant technological problems. General discussion on costs. OMalley brings up outsourcing, but Williams says this year is not the time. Williams talks about the need for fiber optics.  3/8/95 Board Work Session. No discussion. This item is on the Budget Consideration * list, and the additional costs will be reflected in the proposed budget. 3/16/95 Special Board Meeting and Work Session handout. Item still included in the proposal for an additional cost of $317,500. * 3/22/95 Proposed Budget, dated 3/14/95. Item was included in the budget for an additional * * * * cost of $317,500. 4/6/95 Board Work Session. Williams pushes for the addition of funds based on being able to access archived documents from 7 years ago. No action taken. 4/12/95 Board Work Session. The Board approved the business case and addition as submitted by the superintendent. 5/26/95 Tentative Budget Document. Tentative Budget Document reflects the addition of $317,500. 7/24/95 Final Budget Document. Final Budget Document reflects the program addition of $317,500. 34. Cloverdale Junior High School. * * 2/15/95 Business Case book to Board and ODM. Name change to academy, and other program changes. Case did not receive Do Pass from Superintendent. 2/28/95 Board Work Session. Magness wanted to know why this was turned down. No one could remember. Magness wants more information. 35. Incentive School Principals, * 2/15/95 Business Case book to Board and ODM. Pay increase and back pay for Incentive 18* School Principals. Case did not receive Do Pass from Superintendent. 2/28/95 Board Work Session. Magness initiates a general discussion. 36. Rockefeller Incentive School  Alternative Room Specialist. * 2/15/95 Business Case book to Board and ODM. Add a teacher to be the alternative room * specialist. 1 FTE. Case did not receive Do Pass from Superintendent. 2/28/95 Board Work Session. Magness initiates a general discussion. 37. Seventh Grade Expansion of the Alternative School. * 2/15/95 Business Case book to Board and ODM. Add two 7th grade classes. 4 FTEs and equipment. Case did not receive Do Pass from Superintendent. 38. Reduction in Administrators. * * * * * * Moved from strategy listing. 3/8/95 Board Work Session. This item was added to the budget considerations handout. It calls for a $300,000 reduction in administrative positions. Although not specific, Williams says he has identified some positions. This item is on the Budget Consideration list, and the savings will be reflected in the proposed budget. 3/16/95 Special Board Meeting and Work Session handout. Item still included in the proposal for a savings of $300,000. Positions still identified. Also included an action deadline of 4/15/95. 3/22/95 Proposed Budget, dated 3/14/95. Item was deleted from the budget for a savings of $300,000. 4/12/95 Board Work Session. Williams says he will propose cutting 10 or 12 positions in the central office, not at the building level. The Board tabled the issue awaiting additional information. 4/27/95 Special Board Meeting. Proposed savings increased from $300,000 to $400,000. Actual cut list has not been published at this time. Numerous rumors\nno facts. Board passes the $400,000 cut without the specific cuts. * 4/29/95 Democrat Gazette article. Listed the cuts. Staff attorney plus secretary, $88,520. Deputy Superintendent, $93,969. Associate to the Deputy, $72,439. G/T Coordinator, $52,671. HIPPY Coordinators (2), $48,118. Plant Services * * * (EPA/const mgr), $49,127. Instructional Technology, $42,056. Math Supervisor, $55,942. Displaced principals, $125,288. Total cut package of $628,130. The $228,130 difference between the total and the approved cut amount of $400,000 would be additional new positions yet to be identified or approved. 5/17/95 Special Board Meeting. Meeting held to listen to patron pleas to retain (not cut) the G/T Coordinator position. No other administrative reductions were discussed. No action taken. 5/26/95 Tentative Budget Document. Cuts still at $400,000, but no description of the $228,130 for new positions. Business case included in the Tentative Budget Document. Business case undated. 7/24/95 Final Budget Document. A newly modified business case was submitted with the 19Final Budget Document. Final Budget Document reflects the program modifications for a gross savings of $566,312\nless a contingency add-back of $150,000, for a net savings of $416,312. 20LRSD CHART OF SHORTFALL STRATEGIES BUDGET FY 95-96 NOTE: The items in bold print headings are active. The items with regular print headings are not active. 1. Outsourcing other services. 11/7/94 Board Work Session. 1/17/95 Joint ODM/LRSD staff meeting. Williams indicates the LRSD is not looking at any other Outsourcing opportunities at this time. 2/9/95 Board agenda/special meeting. ServiceMaster makes a presentation on managing custodian, maintenance, and landscaping services. Representative says they can do it within the current budget, but no details given on how the dollars will be handled. Board does not take any action. ServiceMaster will provide more information. See item #13. 2. Clerical Support. 11/7/94 Board Work Session. 3. IRC - Staffing/Use. 11/7/94 Board Work Session. 4. Federal Programs. 11/7/94 Board Work Session. 1/5/95 Extended Program Evaluation list. Shows up on the evaluation list as Sequence # 07, Federal Programs. An extended program evaluation will be prepared. 1/26/95 Board meeting material. New Extended Evaluation list recommends sequence # 07, Federal Programs, for continuation without modification or deletion. 2/15/95 Business case Book to Board and ODM. This item was NOT included in the business case Book, which would tend to indicate this may be a dead issue. 5. Staffing Efficiencies/RIF. 11/7/94 Board Work Session. * * * * * * * * * * * 6. New Futures/In-School Suspension. * 11/7/94 Board Work Session. 7. Facilities Usage. 21* * 11/7/94 Board Work Session. 1/17/95 Joint ODM/LRSD staff meeting. Mayo says the LRSD has completed a preliminary status report on the facilities study for input into the needs assessment. All area elementary schools were rated for possible closing. The top four are Badgett, Fair Park, Baseline, and Woodruff. A business case will be done on the closing recommendations. 8. Student Assessment. * * * 11/7/94 Board Work Session. 1/26/95 Board meeting material. New Extended Evaluation list recommends sequence # none. Student Assessment, for continuation without modification or deletion. 2/15/95 Business case Book to Board and ODM. This item was NOT included in the business case Book, which would tend to indicate this may be a dead issue. 9. Fringe Benefit Package. * 11/7/94 Board Work Session. 10. 11. 12. 13. Contract Lengths.  * * 11/7/94 Board Work Session. 4/12/95 Board Work Session. Pondexter initiates request for more information. Item becomes active after five months. 7/24/95 Final Budget Document. No action was taken, and the budget reflects on change. Millage Election. * * * * * * 11/7/94 Board Work Session. 4/12/95 Board Work Session. Pondexter urges the Board to consider going for a 5 mil tax increase. 4/13/95 Board agenda meeting. Board voted to put the subject of a millage election on the agenda for the next meeting. 5/11/95 Board Agenda Meeting. Board held general discussion on a possible millage election. Williams says they will need between 8 and 12 mils. 7/8/95 Newspaper Article. Board decided not to go for a millage increase this year. 7/24/95 Final Budget Document. No action was taken, and the budget reflects on change. Spending Freeze. * * 11/7/94 Board Work Session. 1/26/95 Board meeting. Gee suggests a purchasing freeze as part of a freeze package (hiring, wage increase, purchasing, travel). Voted down by the Board. Custodian services\nconsulting by ServiceMaster. * * 1/17/95 Joint ODM/LRSD staff meeting. Williams says the district is coming forth with a recommendation on ServiceMaster serving as a consultant on custodian services. 3/16/95 Special Board Meeting and Work Session. ServiceMaster offices make 22presentation. Williams says district would have to bid the work, but could save about $600,000 per year going with ServiceMaster. * 7/24/95 Final Budget Document. No action was taken, and the budget reflects on change. 14. Communications Services. * * 1/5/95 Extended Program Evaluation list. Shows up on the evaluation list as Sequence # 227, Communications Services. An extended program evaluation will be prepared. 1/26/95 Board meeting material. New Extended Evaluation list recommends sequence # 227, Communications Services, for continuation without modification or deletion. 2/15/95 Business case Book to Board and ODM. This item was NOT included in the business case Book, which would tend to indicate this may be a dead issue. 15. Computerized Transportation. * * * 1/5/95 Extended Program Evaluation list. Shows up on the evaluation list as Sequence # 23, Computerized Transportation. An extended program evaluation will be prepared. 1/26/95 Board meeting material. New Extended Evaluation list recommends sequence # 23, Computerized Transportation, for continuation without modification or deletion. 2/15/95 Business case Book to Board and ODM. This item was NOT included in the business case Book, which would tend to indicate this may be a dead issue. 16. Contingencies. * * * * * * * * * 1/5/95 Extended Program Evaluation list. Shows up on the evaluation list as Sequence # 233, Contingencies. An extended program evaluation will be prepared. 1/26/95 Board meeting material. New Extended Evaluation list recommends sequence # 233, Contingencies, for continuation without modification or deletion. 2/22/95 Board Work Session. Eliminating contingencies introduced in handout during meeting. Would save an estimated $1,000,000. No discussion. 3/8/95 Board Work Session. No discussion. This item is on the Budget Consideration list, and the contingency amounts will be deleted from the proposed budget. 3/16/95 Special Board Meeting and Work Session handout. Item still eliminated from the proposal for a savings of $1,000,000. 3/22/95 Proposed Budget, dated 3/14/95. Item was deleted from the budget for a savings of$l,000,000. 4/27/95 Special Board Meeting. Superintendent reminded the Board that they still must take action on this item. No action taken. 5/26/95 Tentative Budget Document. The Tentative Budget Document does not reflect any contingency funds, thus saving the originally budgeted $1,000,000. 7/24/95 Final Budget Document. The Final Budget Document does not reflect any contingency funds, thus saving the originally budgeted $1,000,000. 17. Gifted and Talented. * 1/5/95 Extended Program Evaluation list. Shows up on the evaluation list as Sequence # 207, Gifted and Talented. An extended program evaluation will be prepared. 23* * 1/26/95 Board meeting material. New Extended Evaluation list recommends sequence # 207, Gifted and Talented, for continuation without modification or deletion. 2/15/95 Business case Book to Board and ODM. This item was NOT included in the business case Book, which would tend to indicate this may be a dead issue. 18. Human Resource Services. * * * 1/5/95 Extended Program Evaluation list. Shows up on the evaluation list as Sequence # 228, Human Resource Services. An extended program evaluation will be prepared. 1/26/95 Board meeting material. New Extended Evaluation list recommends sequence # 228, Human Resource Services, for continuation without modification or deletion. 2/15/95 Business case Book to Board and ODM. This item was NOT included in the business case Book, which would tend to indicate this may be a dead issue. 19. Planning and Evaluation. * * * 1/5/95 Extended Program Evaluation list. Shows up on the evaluation list as Sequence # 226, Planning and Evaluation. An extended program evaluation will be prepared. 1/26/95 Board meeting material. New Extended Evaluation list recommends sequence # 226, Planning and Evaluation, for continuation without modification or deletion. 2/15/95 Business case Book to Board and ODM. This item was NOT included in the business case Book, which would tend to indicate this may be a dead issue. 20. Plant Services. * * * 1/5/95 Extended Program Evaluation list. Shows up on the evaluation list as Sequence # 222, Plant Services. An extended program evaluation will be prepared. 1/26/95 Board meeting material. New Extended Evaluation list recommends sequence # 222, Plant Services, for continuation without modification or deletion. 2/15/95 Business case Book to Board and ODM. This item was NOT included in the business case Book, which would tend to indicate this may be a dead issue. 21. Purchasing Services. * * * 1/5/95 Extended Program Evaluation list. Shows up on the evaluation list as Sequence # 224, Purchasing Services. An extended program evaluation will be prepared. 1/26/95 Board meeting material. New Extended Evaluation list recommends sequence # 224, Purchasing Services, for continuation without modification or deletion. 2/15/95 Business case Book to Board and ODM. This item was NOT included in the business case Book, which would tend to indicate this may be a dead issue. 22. Rockefeller Early Childhood. * * 1/5/95 Extended Program Evaluation list. Shows up on the evaluation list as Sequence # 79, Rockefeller Early Childhood. An extended program evaluation will be prepared. 1/26/95 Board meeting material. New Extended Evaluation list recommends sequence # 79, Rockefeller Early Childhood, for continuation without modification or deletion. 2/15/95 Business case Book to Board and ODM. This item was NOT included in the 24business case Book, which would tend to indicate this may be a dead issue. 23. Romine Interdistrict School. * * * 1/5/95 Extended Program Evaluation list. Shows up on the evaluation list as Sequence # 78, Romine Interdistrict School. An extended program evaluation will be prepared. 1/26/95 Board meeting material. New Extended Evaluation list recommends sequence # 78, Romine Interdistrict School, for continuation without modification or deletion. 2/15/95 Business case Book to Board and ODM. This item was NOT included in the business case Book, which would tend to indicate this may be a dead issue. Special Education. 24. 25. 26. n. * * * 1/5/95 Extended Program Evaluation list. Shows up on the evaluation list as Sequence # 203, Special Education. An extended program evaluation will be prepared. 1/26/95 Board meeting material. New Extended Evaluation list recommends sequence # 203, Special Education, for continuation without modification or deletion. 2/15/95 Business case Book to Board and ODM. This item was NOT included in the business case Book, which would tend to indicate this may be a dead issue. Special Education/Learning. * * * 1/5/95 Extended Program Evaluation list. Shows up on the evaluation list as Sequence # 05, Special Education/Learning. An extended program evaluation will be prepared. 1/26/95 Board meeting material. New Extended Evaluation list recommends sequence # 05, Special Education/Learning, for continuation without modification or deletion. 2/15/95 Business case Book to Board and ODM. This item was NOT included in the business case Book, which would tend to indicate this may be a dead issue. Freeze on Hiring. * 1/26/95 Board meeting. Gee suggests a hiring freeze as part of a freeze package (hiring, wage increase, purchasing, travel). Voted down by the Board. Freeze on Wage Increases. * 1/26/95 Board meeting. Gee suggests a wage increase freeze as part of a freeze package (hiring, wage increase, purchasing, travel). Voted down by the Board. 28. Freeze on Travel. * 1/26/95 Board meeting. Gee suggests a travel freeze as part of a freeze package (hiring, wage increase, purchasing, travel). Voted down by the Board. 29. Eliminate Purchase of Buses. * * 2/22/95 Board Work Session. Introduced in handout during meeting. Would save an estimated $1,000,000. No discussion. 3/8/95 Board Work Session. No discussion. This item is on the Budget Consideration 25 * * *  * list, and the additional costs will not be included in the proposed budget. 3/16/95 Special Board Meeting and Work Session handout. Item still eliminated from the proposal for a savings of $1,000,000. 3/22/95 Proposed Budget, dated 3/14/95. Item was deleted from the budget for a savings of$l,000,000, 4/27/95 Special Board Meeting. Superintendent reminded the Board that they still must take action on this item. No action taken. 5/26/95 Tentative Budget Document. Item still eliminated from the Tentative Budget Document for a svaings of $1,000,000. 7/24/95 Final Budget Document. This may get confusing. The district was budgeted to spend $1,000,000 on buses during 94-95. The buses were not purchased, only ordered, in 94-95, so the money was not spent and was reflected in the year end carryover. The bus purchase will actually occurred in 95-96 so most of the money, about $991,000, is now added into this budget to pay for those previously orderd buses. Therefore, no savings are reflected. 30. Eliminate Increment for Employees. * * * * * * 2/22/95 Board Work Session. Introduced in handout during meeting. Would save an estimated $2,000,000. No discussion. 3/8/95 Board Work Session. Pondexter opposed to cutting or freezing pay. Savings reduced to $1,500,000. This item is on the Budget Consideration list, and the additional costs will not be reflected in the proposed budget. 3/16/95 Special Board Meeting and Work Session handout. Item still eliminated from the proposal. Unable to determine the estimated savings since this item is lumped in with other items totaling $3,500,000. 3/22/95 Proposed Budget, dated 3/14/95. Item was deleted from the budget for a savings of$l,500,000. 5/26/95 Tentative Budget Document. Tentative Budget Document reflects this as an item still under consideration at $1,500,000, but does not reflect any savings at this time. 6/15/95 Newspaper Article. An article in the Democrat Gazette stated that eliminating the increment was still being negotiated in the contract talks. 31. Shorten School Year by Two Days.  * * * * 2/22/95 Board Work Session. Introduced in handout during meeting. Would save an estimated $750,000. No discussion. 3/8/95 Board Work Session. No discussion. Savings reduced to $702,000. This item is on the Budget Consideration list, and the savings will be reflected in the proposed budget. 3/16/95 Special Board Meeting and Work Session handout. Item still included in the proposal for a savings of $702,000. Also included an action deadline of 4/15/95. 3/22/95 Proposed Budget, dated 3/14/95. Two days were deleted from the budget for a savings of $702,000. 3/24/95 LRSD Budget Hearing. Williams says that cutting two days pay is for all 26 * * * * * employees, not just teachers. 4/12/95 Board Work Session. Gadberry says the cut would be from all employees of the district. The Board decided to wait to consider this item until after contract negotiations. 4/27/95 Special Board Meeting. Williams says the rules have changed on this proposal. Bus drivers, custodians, and security not affected. Administrators would take a 3 day cut, teachers would take a 2 day cut. Savings amount changed to $699,546. 5/17/95 Special Board Meeting. General discussion on proposal. Board awaiting Attorney Generals opinion on the number of hearings required. No action taken. 5/26/95 Tentative Budget Document. Tentative Budget Document reflects a successful negotiation outcome with the savings of $699,546. 6/15/95 Newspaper article. An article in the Democrat Gazette stated that eliminating the increment was still being negotiated in the contract talks. 32. Move IRC to Fair Park. * * * * * * * 2/22/95 Board Work Session. Introduced in handout during meeting. Would save an estimated $161,800, but would also have a first year expense of $50,000 for utilities and $270,000 for renovations. This would result in a net first year cost of $158,200. Depends upon the closing of Fair Park School. No discussion. 2/28/95 Board Work Session. Magness asked what options were available for moving the IRC if Fair Park was left open. Williams says they need to look at the whole picture of school closings and usage. 3/8/95 Board Work Session. The preliminaiy decision to not close Fair Park precludes this move. This item has been dropped from the Budget Consideration list, and the savings and additional costs will not be reflected in the proposed budget. 3/16/95 Special Board Meeting and Work Session handout. Item still shown as deferred and on hold. Shows a net savings of $111,800. Also included an action deadline of 4/15/95. 3/22/95 Proposed Budget, dated 3/14/95. $161,800 in savings was not shown in the budget since the decision has been defened on closing the school. 4/12/95 Board Work Session. Cant move the IRC if not closing down Fair Park. Pondexter wants information on moving the IRC to Oakhurst. 5/26/95 Tentative Budget Document. Tentative Budget Document reflects no move and no savings. 33. Reduction in Debt Service if Stephens is not Rebuilt. *  * 2/22/95 Board Work Session. Introduced in handout during meeting. Would save an estimated $300,000. No discussion. 3/8/95 Board Work Session. OMalley says building has not been dropped, only being delayed. This item is on the Budget Consideration list, and the savings will be reflected in the proposed budget. 3/16/95 Special Board Meeting and Work Session handout. Item still included in the proposal for a savings of $300,000. Also included an action deadline of 4/15/95. 27* 3/22/95 Proposed Budget, dated 3/14/95. Item was deleted from the budget for a savings * * * * of $300,000. 3/24/95 LRSD Budget Hearing. Williams says the rebuilding of Stephens has been delayed. No date has been set for when it will be rebuilt. 4/12/95 Board Work Session. The Board approved delaying the rebuilding of Stephens for the 95-96 school year. 5/26/95 Tentative Budget Document. Tentative Budget Document reflects the delay and the savings of $300,000. 7/24/95 Final Budget Document. Final Budget Document reflects the delay and the svaings of $300,000. 34. Combine administration of the 4 Year Old Program and the HIPPY Program. * 2/22/95 Board Work Session. Suggested by Pondexter as an alternative cost savings measure. No commitment by the administration. 35. Green Factors. * * *  2/9/95 agenda/special Board meeting. The superintendent proposed spending about $105,000 (7 committees at $12,000-$ 15,000 each) for Green factors study committees. The money would come from the legal object code. Since the projected report delivery deadline is well within this fiscal year, all of the cost should accrue to the current year reducing the year end carry-over. No business case was prepared, thus no options were identified or analyzed. 2/23/95 Board Work Session. Board will not authorize the Green factor committees or the money to fund them until they have an on-the-record conference with Judge Wright. Deleting this action would avert spending about $105,000 in the current fiscal year for incentive payments proposed by the superintendent. 3/9/95 Court Conference. Judge says Green factors will not get you home in this case. The Plan is the law. 3/24/95 LRSD Budget Hearing. Williams says he recommended paying $100,000 to look at the factors. Would have paid out of the legal fees line item. Board did not approve the proposal. 36. Reduction in Administrators. * Moved to business case list. 37. Closing High School Kindergartens.  * 4/19/95 Democrat Gazette article. At a Town Hall feedback meeting on 4/18/95, Williams said the district was now considering the closing of the high school based kindergarten programs. No business case has been prepared. No short fall strategy proposal. No discussion before the Board. 7/24/95 Final Budget Document. No action was taken, and the budget reflects on change. 2838. Utilities for IRC at Fair Park. * 5/26/95 Tentative Budget Document. Tentative Budget Document reflects a cost of $50,000, but shows no savings since this has not been approved by the Board. 29LRSD CHART OF BUDGET ISSUES BUDGET FY 95-96 1. Buses for transportation. According to the October, 1994, business case, the district will be 95 buses short on current year and will need 29 more to make their replacement schedule. Therefore, some buses should be added into the 95-96 budget as an expense item. The decision to outsource transportation makes this issue moot. 2. Appeal of M-to-M pooling. If the appeal is not heard by budget time, the pooling money must be added into the LRSD budget. Order was reversed. LRSD does not have any additional pooling money in the budget. The other pooling funds were never paid to PCSSD, but rather put in an escrow account for the winner of the case. 3. Workers Compensation. Court Order of 1/13/95 ruled in favor of the district. Additional money should be included in the budget. Based on ADE calculations of 4/14/95, the amount will be $167,111. 4. Loss Funding. Court Order of 1/13/95 ruled in favor of the district. Additional money should be included in the budget. Based on ADE calculations of 4/14/95, the amount will be $238,824 for FY93-94, and $472,718 for FY94-95\nfor a total payment of $711,542. 5, Arkansas Public School Computer Network Court Order of 1/13/95 ruled in favor of the district. According to the revised ADE calculations of 5/4/95, the money available to LRSD for computer related expenses would be $176,483. 6. Rebuilding Stephens School. Money to rebuild Stephens School should be included in the capital budget if plans are to move forward. Board made the decision to delay the rebuilding of Stephens. 7. Rebuilding Chicot School. Revenue and expense should be included in the budget to show any rebuilding, insurance revenue, and total building expense. At the agenda/special Board meeting of 2/9, the Board approved rebuilding Chicot with walls for an additional cost of $150,000 over the insurance. The money is in the bond fund. No business case was prepared. 8. Loan payback LRSD/ADE negotiations regarding achievement disparity and the loan payback. What is the status of the negotiations, and what contingency is being planned for the payback of the 30loan. 9. Facilities Study. The cost of the facilities study needs to be included in the budget. Some will be current year, but the final payoff will probably be in the next fiscal year. As of the joint ODM/LRSD staff meeting on 2/21/95, the facilities study is now in three phases: the first is due soon and will cover everything needed by the Judge\nthe second will be delivered on 8/15/95 and will cover what is needed by the District\nthe third will be due sometime after 8/15/95 and will be even more comprehensive than the second phase. 10. Magnet School budget. The calculations for the Magnet School budget need to be changed to reflect the changes pointed out by Bob. 11. Middle Schools. Check and annotate the budget for expenditures being added for middle schools. 12. ServiceMaster. At the agenda/special board meeting on 2/9/95, ServiceMaster made a presentation to take over the management of the districts custodian, maintenance, and landscaping services. It was projected that no additional costs would be required, however, nothing was mentioned on how the dollars would be handled. No business case was prepared. 13. Green factors. At the agenda/special board meeting on 2/9/95, the superintendent proposed spending about $105,000 (7 committees at $12k-$15k each) for Green factors study committees. The money would come from the legal object code. Since the projected report delivery deadline is well within this fiscal year, all of the cost should accrue to the current year reducing the year end carry-over. No business case was prepared. Locate and annotate expenditures for the Green Factor committees. Verify Board approval. No business case was prepared. Board action made this a dead issue. 14. Superintendent incentives. At the agenda/special board meeting on 2/9/95, Riggs proposed an incentive package for the superintendent. The cost of the package was not given. No business case was prepared. How the money will be handled was not discussed, but there were indications that the district wanted to pay it from the remainder of the deseg loan. Locate and annotate projected budget expenditures for incentive payments. The Board put this on hold for the year. 15. Beacon Schools. Check and annotate the budget for expenditures being added for beacon schools. A business case has been submitted for the additional funds, and the funds have been added to the Final Budget Document. 16. Great Expectations. Check and annotate the budget for expenditures being added for Great Expectations. 31No money was identified in either the Tentative or Final Budget Documents. 17. Outsourcing Transportation. If the district fails in the outsourcing attempt, what is the contingency plan and what will it cost? This is a done deal. 18. New Futures. Locate and annotate expenditures for the New Futures funded Board retreat and Strategic Planning effort. Identify the fiscal year. Identify follow-on expenses. New Futures cuts were added back into the budget. 19. Administrative Positions. The Board approved a $400,000 cut in administrators. The cuts recommended by Williams total $628,130. A difTerence of $228,130 has not been approved. Williams said that will be taken by the addition of new positions. No new positions have yet been identified. Those positions should have business cases, should be approved by the Board, and should be included in the tentative budget. The Final Budget Document had a revised business case with the following numbers\na gross savings of $566,312, with an add-back contingency of $150,000 and a net savings of $416,312. 32MOONEYS BRAINSTORMING LIST OF POSSIBLE COST CUTTING MEASURES Mooneys Brainstorming List of Possible Cost Cutting Measures. This is an informal brainstorming list of possible measures for cutting the budget or improving services. We have not determined the feasibility of the items, nor have we run cosuTienefits. The menu is made up of things that might be considered with no judgement made on value. These items in no way should be construed as ODMs position, recommendation, or suggestion. * * * * * * * * * * * * Performance based pay. Benchmark Cincinnati Public Schools plan for administrators. Negotiate with the union. Stipends. Stop advance payments on payroll\nproblems stopped and one-time windfall Salary evaluation and overall review Salary freeze\nfreeze administration first for buy-in Salary rollback. Reduce the number of school days. Reduce the hours of certain staff. Purge positions over $35,000. Freeze all hiring of replacements in non-teaching positions. Consolidate classes Purge all vacant positions from the budget * Car allowance. * Cellular phones. * Vacation days policy revision. * Review sick leave policy. * Cafeteria plan\nbetter education and selling. * Revise travel reimbursement procedures and amounts. * Look at alternative health care plan with eye to maintain benefits at less cost\nthird party arrangements. * Employee suggestion program. * Get suggestions from transportation workers. * TQM initiatives. * Review monitoring functions of the parties for possible coordination/consolidation. * Review reporting generated by PRE. * All secretaries must demonstrate proficiency in WordPerfect and Excel. * Incentive program for attendance\npreferably non-monetary 331 * Incentive program for accident free driving\nboth monetary and non-monetary * Six period day. * * * * * * * *  Flatten administrative organization\nremove some layers Get 10% to 15% from each administrative department General layoffrRIF Give transportation to someone else. Outsourcing\ntransportation, custodial, accounting, data processing, human resources, or all support services in a bundle. Serious program evaluation. Begin benchmarking campaign nation-wide to identify cost saving targets. Reorganize and downsize Federal Programs office. Bus driver recommendation to combine certain routes. * Lease purchase refinancing. Food Service transfer. * Insurance fund transfer. * Transfer of positions and expenses from operating funds to federal funds. * Settlement Loan draw-down. * Grants which would defray operating costs for programs. * Get computer company to volunteer training staff on PC's. * Combine AS400 operations into one. * Work with APSCN to find low cost, long term computer solution. * Implement the Finance Analysis Model immediately, and try to retro-fit for the last two years for possible cut analysis * Check actual expenditures against budgeted for targets of opportunity. * Control and crack down on substitutes. * Cut athletic programs. * Combine recruiting efforts (teacher, parent, VIPS, private school) * Increase Medicaid reimbursement for health services * No cost contract for all health services with A.C.H.\nuse Westside as chip. * Approach State about picking up the Medicaid match portion. * Social work reimbursement from DHS * Reject paying for th\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_276","title":"Business cases","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":["1995/1996"],"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"],"dcterms_title":["Business cases"],"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/276"],"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":["238 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\nS~\"\u0026gt; r-: 1 5  Office :r C-g\n:- 5?' BUSINESS CASE Home Instruction Program for Preschool Youngsters EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The Little Rock School District is committed to quality education for all students, reducing the disparity between sub-groups, balancing the budget, and implementation of the current Desegregation Plan. The HIPPY Program is an intervention program that focuses upon the parent as the first teacher of four and five year olds. However, there has been a decline in recent years of the enrollment of five year olds in the HIPPY program due to the mandatory kindergarten program in public schools. The HIPPY USA guidelines advocate teaching a specific curriculum to young participants. The earlier that we begin with an educational program, the sooner students will experience learning that is valued and needed in early schooling. Further, research has proved that early learning impacts a childs motivation and ability to achieve as he/she progresses through school. Restructuring of the HIPPY Program, its staff, and responsibilities will allow the District to continue to provide quality services to designated students, incentive schools, and portions of Southwest Little Rock, as well as reduce and/or realign our spending.A. BACKGROUND Those The Little Rock School District was one of the first of four sites to begin implementation in Arkansas in 1986 Those '  programs included the Little Rock School District, Pulaski Countv Center i^Harrison^\" Childhood Development^ reflects the participation of families HIPPY Program since 1986. in the 3CC - I I\n250 -}-233  i! 220 230 --------230..... 150 Ji li 175  ..140___ .125 ------- I 100 -' 50\nii2 32  100 s 101't 1986-87 1987-88 1988-89 1989-90 1990-91 1991-92 1992-93 ENROLLMENT BY AGE GROUP (150 219 1 4-YEAR OLD FAMILIES .W'5-YEAR OLD FAMILIES 200 H H I i 0 ' i I 0 ' I I i*' II I I I 2 B. PROBLEM DEFINITION There exists a need to improve the delivery and quality of the HIPPY Program, as well as reduce the budget. After a study of the decline in five-year-old student participation, high turnover of Home Visitors, delivery of services, and utilization of resources, it was determined that some problems existed and the District needed to improve the effectiveness of the program at a reduced cost. a result of mandatory kindergarten There has been a decline in the participation of five year olds as kindergarten. Many parents of five year olds are not participating as they did in earlier years. The quality of Home Visitors services are difficult to maintain as a result of high turnover of staff. There is a need to review the current pay schedule in order for us to attract and maintain highly skilled Home Visitors. Further, there is a need to restructure the program. This will allow the resources, human and financial, to be used in a more efficient and effective manner. Annual reviews for several years of the program indicate a need to reorganize. The HIPPY Program productivity is affected by a high turnover in staff. Stability is lacking when time and effort are being used to train beginners. C. ANALYSIS OF ALTERNATIVES Weekly staff meetings were Ideas were generated that were designed to improve the quality of the HIPPY Program. Issues were used as inservice topics, others were assessed for the purpose of developing alternatives that would be cost effective, saving the district money, and would maintain a high quality program. ... held\nalternatives were discussed and developed. and suggestions were considered. Group meetings and Home visitor reports during weekly inservices have been helpful in gathering parental input. Some suggested alternatives included: Parent requests 1. Assignments of Home Visitors to one specific geographical area to save mileage. Each Home Visitor would be allowed several days to recruit the required number of families and would be limited to a specific 32. 3. 4. location. Most of the Home Visitors recruit in areas across the city and may not reach the required enrollment number. Additional assignments would be made based upon enrollment. Consequently, the family assignments could be dispersed across the city. Fundraisers were suggested with the emphasis on securing private donations. Initially, not enough donors were identified. This option will be pursued in order to expand services. Salary increases for Home Visitors were discussed. This alternative is in direct conflict with reducing the budget. This alternative was rejected because of the Districts current financial condition. Provide services to HIPPY families in the incentive schools and designated families in southwest Little Rock. D. RECOMMENDATION Given the Districts current financial condition and the need continue to provide services to designated four year olds, the following recommendations are proposed: Eliminate the HIPPY program except for parents within the incentive schools. Continue to provide service to designated families in southwest Little Rock using Arkansas Better Chance (ABC) funds\nseek funding from the citys Job Training Partnership Act (JTPA)\nand refer families to appropriate city and state agencies for services (Headstart, Children \u0026amp; Family Services, private daycare providers etc.) to E. OBJECTIVE The objective of these recommendations is to continue to serve families in our incentive schools and southwest Little Rock, as well as reduce spending to maintain a high quality HIPPY program. 4Evaluation Criteria Maintenance of enrollment of four year olds in the incentive schools will be evidenced by enrollment numbers for the 1995-96 school year. 2. Restructuring of staff responsibilities will be evidenced by a more efficiently managed office. 3. Align staff development activities as in Pulaski County Special School District and North Little Rock and narrow the focus to be more effective. 4. The numbers of students entering kindergarten ready to learn will be maintained and/or increased. The District will be able to meet its commitment of increasing achievement for all students which will result in reducing the disparity between black and white students in our district. F. IMPACT ANALYSIS 1. The recommendations will promote savings for the District and enhance the quality of services provided by the HIPPY Program. Human Resources will be better utilized as a result of restructuring the staffs responsibilities. Spending will be decreased as a result of the reduction of positions. ! More time will be available for home visits as a result of decreasing the weekly inservice time. Negative Impact Fewer families will be served in the HIPPY Program. Impact on the Desegregation Plan All recommendations will impact the Desegregation Plan in a positive manner. Each recommendation is in harmony with the components of the Desegregation Plan that outlines the expectations of the HIPPY Program. F \\ ' assist in reducing the disparity and provide quality achievement for all students. Early intervention can 5Impact on Court Orders This modified plan will assist in balancing the budqet Fl irtho n ^nn oT om um n  ___ __________- Further the plan will improve productivity by maintainina TnP numnop pt __________I____I__I.  number of families that can be served and adequate utilization of resources. Further, it will assist in meeting the goals of the Desegregation Plan. Political Factors The success of the recommendations will depend upon how wen central office and the Board of Directors communicate the programs vision to the community. There are no major risks for implementing the recommendations. The risk against implementing these recommendations could result in the HIPPY Program not improving the qualitv of services to families as well as assist the district in reducing its spending. G. RESOURCE ANALYSIS Provided is a listing of personnel before and after implemented. uxuxuy puui , ,-un. wn V ^5 personnel can be selected from parents and participating in the program. Tiiei _ additional expense for training because the Regional Technical Office provides training at the beginning of as part of the program. Additic\"*   by trained central office staff. the The recruiting pool from which There will -----=, each year Additional training will be done weekly e* 4* Program Year 1994-95 Salary Fringes Total Salary and Fringes Supervisor Home Visitors In-Office Aides Secretary Coordinators 1 20 2 1 2 $27,801.00 143,004.00 19,671.35 17,915.00 42,516.00 5,665.85 28,702.73 4,009.02 3,651.08 8,664.76 33,466,85 171,706.73 23,680.37 21,566.08 51,180.76 26 $250,907.35 $50,693.44 $301,600.79 Materials/Supplies: 296 families x $100 29,600.00 TOTAL Home Visitors working 40 hours per week $331,200.79 NUMBER OF FAMILIES SERVED 1994-95 296 6Program Year 1995-96 (Desegregation Fund) Salary Fringes Total Salary and Fringes Supervisor Home Visitors Secretary Coordinators 1 3 1 0 $29,191.05 23,133.60 18,810.75 44,641.80 5,949.14 4,714.64 3,833.63 9,098.00 35,140.19 27,848.24 22,644.38 53,739.80 $115,777.20 $23,595.41 $139,372.61 Materials/Supplies: 70 families x $100 7,000.00 TOTAL $146,372.61 5 *Home Visitors working 40 hours per week TOTAL PROJECTED SAVINGS $ 185,828.18 Program Year 1995-96 Salary (Arkansas Better Chance Grant (ABC) Fringes Total Salary and Fringes Supervisor Home Visitors Secretary Coordinators 0 3 0 0 $23,133.60 4,714.64 27,848.24 Materials/Supplies: 60 families x $100 6,000,00 TOTAL $33,848.24 *Home Visitors working 40 hours per week PROJECTED NUMBER OF FAMILIES TO SERVE 1995-96 130 7H. FORCE FIELD ANALYSIS The supporters of the recommendations are those who are inclined to promote and advocate early Intervention programs. The recommendations are philosophically sound and designed to imorove services when reducing the budget for the 1995-96 school year. Among the supporters are: Parents of hippy participants Home Visitors Regional HIPPY office HIPPY USA Community Early Childhood Education Task Force Early Prevention Advocates HIPPY Advisory Board detractors may be families not served in other wI L11C wX lV areas 8I. GENERAL IMPLEMENTATION PLAN ACTIVITY COMPLETION DATE PERSON(S) RESPONSIBLE 1. Restructure program 03/95 Supervisor 2. Restructure of staff, responsibilities \u0026amp; schedules 03/95 Supervisor/ Deputy Superintendent 3. Parents will enroll four year olds 07/95 Supervisor/ Home Visitors 4. Reduce Inservice time to accommodate additional families 08/95 Supervisor 5. Maintain or increase the number of families that Home Visitors serve each week 07/95 Supervisor/ Deputy Superintendent 6. Monitor on a regular basis the effectiveness of the program 06/96 Supervisor/ Deputy Superintendent 9I EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ^995 BUSINESS CASE VOCATIONAL EDUCATION ij' on iViOotiot Currently, the Little Rock School District offers an Exploring Industrial Technology Education (E.I.T.E.) program at all eight (8) junior high schools to 7th, 8th, and 9th graders. The curriculum content in Exploring Industrial Technology is directed toward four major clusters: ( ' ' manufacturing, E.P.T. (energy, power and transportation), exposed to using computers, robots, other modern equipment and concepts, four years. and communication, construction, Students are lasers, pnuematics, telecommunication, and The program was implemented over a period of Start-up funding was obtained through a proposal for New or Expanded Programs offered by the Arkansas Department of Education, Vocational Division. The equipment used in these labs are very costly, with the initial cost, including materials and supplies, rising well above $40,000.00. personnel changes, a lack of student discipline and/or student carelessness, of these labs have been almost demolished. Within the last three years. many Equipment in two of the junior highs have been severely damaged, lost or stolen. Due to funding circumstances and budget cuts, it has been futile to try to maintain or re-equip some labs. Thus, the Little Rock School District cannot continue to meet state department required equipment standards. Certified personnel in the field of Industrial Arts/ Technology continues to be another problem surfacing as the years pass, either through teacher retirement or those teachers not meeting required certification standards. Thus, As graduation requirements become more rigid, vocational courses, as well as other elective courses, begin to experience low enrollment problems, education and training are undergoing major restructuring. system no longer meets the needs of society. Thus, the Tech Prep movement was initiated. The purpose of Tech Prep is to better prepare students for the changing demands of the workplace through a combination of strong academic and technical skills training for entry and/or mid-level careers. To do so means having a strong curriculum as well as high tech equipment to train our students. Several courses in vocational education are experiencing low enrollment either due to a lack of interest or scheduling conflicts relative to graduation requirements.............. courses need to be eliminated because of low enrollment, the Little Rock School District must be careful to not eliminate courses that are \"capstone\" or completer courses for Tech Prep programs of study which are mandated by Act 980 of 1991. the other hand, the elimination of a course or courses not affecting a Tech Prep program of study would provide additional funding to purchase equipment, supplies and materials direly needed by other vocational courses in order to meet the Nationwide, Our present educational While some II On standards required by the Arkansas Department of Education, Vocational Division,A. BACKGROUND Beginning with the 1988-1989 school year, the Little Rock School District Full replaced the traditional, but outdated. Industrial Arts program with a new concept designed to provide students with learning experiences in modern industrial technology. This new educational program is Exploring Industrial Technology Education (E.I.T.E.) and is taught as a semester course for seventh and eighth graders, and a full year course for 9th graders. implementation was completed during the 1992-93 school year when the last lab was installed at Southwest junior high, f\" LL, T._,._____ Industrial Arts teachers, who had to receive additional training and college credit to become certified to teach the course. All of the instructors were certified communication, The curriculum content in Exploring Industrial Technology Education is directed toward four major clusters for 7th, 8th, and 9th graders: communication, construction, manufacturing, and E.P.T. (energy, power and transportation). Students are exposed to using computers, robots, lasers, pneumatics, telecommunication, and other modern equipment and concepts. This course should be taken by any student declaring a Tech Prep course of study in Trade and Industry skilled training programs. This course should B. Tech Prep is a national movement to better prepare students for the complexities of life in the 21st century. Tech Prep is considered a \"dual- purpose program of study\", which means that upon completion of the Tech Prep core, students are prepared to enter a vocational college preparatory program or a combination. or technical program, a Act 980 of 1991 requires that schools establish a Tech Prep core curriculum. _____ has made great progress in implementing the Tech Prep initiative, but still has a lot of work to complete. During the 1993-94, and 1994-95 school years, changes have been made and capstone or \"completer\" courses have been put in place to provide the linkage needed to have complete programs of study in the home schools. The Tech Prep programs of study are available in Consumer Home Economics, Business Education and Marketing, and Trade and Industry in all of the home schools. These programs of study will give students what they need to be employable or to continue their postsecondary education or training after high school graduation. The new standards require each school to make available programs of study in three occupational programs. Because Metropolitan Area Vocational Center is a part of the Little Rock School District, the skills training programs offered there are an extension of the Trade and Industry program of study. In the Little Rock School District home schools. Trade and Industry programs are limited, almost non-existent. The Little Rock School District II PROBLEM DEFINITION I I I lab. Current funding and the high cost of equipment, supplies and materials prohibits the opportunity to fully comply with state required standards for an E.I.T.E. Further, the lack of trained, certified personnel to teach the course provide additional problems for this program. There are currently three schools with long-term substitutes or non-certified personnel teaching the course. Since these teachers are not trained to teach this course, it is not cost effective to continue to offer it unless certified personnel are hired and adequate funding is available to maintain the labs or bring them up to required standards. Another problem vocational programs are facing is that of low enrollment in some skills programs or lack of equipment needed to adequately support the program, caution. While trying to eliminate these courses, the District must use Several vocational courses are needed to make complete programs ofstudy available to those students declaring Tech Prep rather than College Pr courses of study. Under Act 969 of 1993, students who graduate after May 1, 1997, shall have successfully completed either the college preparatory core curriculum or the technical core curriculum. \u0026amp;D 1 1 I I C. ANALYSIS OF ALTERNATIVES The acceptable alternative is to eliminate the E.I.T.E. course at these schools and distribute the equipment to the other schools. Two of the schools have had such severe equipment loss/damage within the last 2-3 years, it would be impossible to purchase the equipment needed to bring the labs up to standards. The initial cost of setting up these labs amounted to well over $45,000.00. Those two schools are Forest Heights and Pulaski Heights. high, a certified teacher is needed. The equipment and lab at Southwest was the last to be installed in the District, and is currently being well- --- The minority teacher recruiter has been contacting several col lege/universities in search of certified E.I.T.E. personnel. maintained. At Southwest junior Those vocational courses with low enrollment at the home schools should continue if their elimination would in effect, eliminate the completion of a program of study. If programs of study are not implemented, the District could lose federal and state funds. D. RECOMMENDATION The Little Rock School District recommends that the E.I.T.E. labs at Forest Heights and Pulaski Heights be eliminated and also, that vocational courses in the home schools not in high student demand, be eliminated if it would not negatively impact a vocational course of study. The following vocational courses have been identified by the vocational director and principal of the identified home schools. 1) 2) Computer Tech: RPG Programming -McClellan Business Magnet Due to low enrollment in some of the Home Economics programs at J. A. Fair, one of the FTE Home Economics positions should be cut to .5 FTE ! E. OBJECTIVES 1. Exploring Industrial Technology Education (E.I.T.E.) labs not meeting state standards either through equipment needs or lack of certified staff, will be eliminated to allow funds/equipment needed to operate other E.I.T.E. labs to be transferred, thereby ensuring their success. 2. Vocational courses with consistent low enrollments will be eliminated to provide adequate funding for other, more viable vocational courses in that school or in the District. These objectives support District goal #4, which will allow for the securing of financial and other resources that are necessary to fully support district schools and programs. Evaluative Criteria: The following is a list of the criteria to be used in determining whether or not the problem is solved: 1) The amount of additional funds and equipment made available2) 3) 4) for the remaining labs\nstudents having access to the E.I.T.E. lab will also have access to all of the required equipment and materials needed to meet state standards\nstudents will be able to transfer learning experiences to skilled training programs in Trade and Industry\nand immediate cost savings is realized. Expected The District will be able to meet the state required equipment standards for the E.I.T.E. programs remaining in existence and provide adequate Tunaing for other vocational programs relative to eouioment ciiinnlioc: matorijic Benefits: and staff. programs relative to equipment, supplies, materials F. IMPACT ANALYSIS 1. Pro^r^ - There will be students at two junior high schools who will not have access to the learning experiences gained in an Also, this program is used as a \"back-up\" course at these schools which may present a scheduling problem for school administrators. E.I.T.E. lab. 2. 3. 4. The changing of two FTE Home Economics positions at J. to 1.5 FTE would not adversely affect the program, with the present enrollment, this would have been change this school year. The .5 FTE could travel between J. A. Fair and another school with a need for a .5 FTE. A. Fair Currently, a more resourceful The Computer Technology: RPG Programming course at McClellan has never been in full force since being implemented in the 1993-94 equipment needed to teach the programming course {AS400) IS housed at Metropolitan Area Vocational Center and was tied into by McClellan in 1993. Many mechanical difficulties were experienced and, low enrollment and/or lack of student interest has resulted in this recommendation to eliminate the course. TLI^ vul not have a negative impact on the magnet program, nor the Tech Prep programs of study. school year. This would Desegregation Plan No negative impact is noted. Court Order No negative impact is noted. Political Factors Each year, the vocational programs are monitored through the State Equipment standards required by the State Department is a part of that monitoring system. The District can be cited for lack of required equipment as well as certified staff. S^,^ parents and students may complain because they will not have access\"to these classes. Administrators will be displeased if the elimination of courses cause master scheduling problems. Department of Education. The District can be Some* * .5 FTE 1 FTE $ 13,850.00 or 27,700.00 *Based on average teacher salary. H. FORCE FIELD ANALYSIS Primary supporters of this proposal will be central office staff, including the vocational director.  . These are the supporters who will not be directly affected by the recommendation. Those opposed to the recommendation will include school administration, teacher some parents, and students attending that school. The opposition by teacher and administration will stem from the loss of a program and possible scheduling problems. Students and parents will object to the loss of an opportunity to experience the learning activities or exposure to modern technology in the E.I.T.E. lab. I. GENERAL IMPLEMENTATION PLAN DATE ACTIVITY PERSON RESPONSIBLE 1/13/95 Business Case submitted to PRE and Deputy Superintendent Vocational Director 1/26/95 Recommendation presented to LRSD Board of Directors Superintendent 2/01/95 Building Administrator and Counselors notified of Program changes Superintendent and Deputy Superintendent 2/10/95 Course Selection forms and brochures reflect changes Deputy Superintendent 3/01/95 Spring Recruitment begins Vocational Administration and Staff5. Ri sks If these courses are not eliminated, the District runs the risk of being cited for not meeting state standards. Complaints may also arise from parents and students due to the lack of equipment, supplies and materials needed to properly operate the lab. Further, there may be complaints from parents, students, administrators, staff and other student interest groups due to a lack of understanding why these budget cuts are necessary. I 6. Timing The major timing issues are those of spring registration and recruitment for the 1995-96 school year. j G. RESOURCES ANALYSIS 1. Personnel - The elimination of two (2) E.I.T.E. labs would also eliminate two (2) FTE positions. The reduction of two (2) FTE positions at J. A. Fair in Home Economics to 1.5 FTE positions would have no impact since that .5 FTE position would in effect, travel to another building as a .5 FTE. The elimination of the Comouter Technoloav\nRPG Programming course Computer Technology: would not affect personnel. 2. Financial Analysis - Provided is a listing of equipment that must be purchased to meet state standards for E.I.T.E. labs. Additionally, tools, supplies, and materials will need to be purchased. EQUIPMENT PRICE 1. CAD Drafting Station W/Auto CAD and Mouse $ 1,845.00 2. IBM Printer (2) 500.00 3. Software Packages Aldus PageMaker, Word Processing, and Flight Simulator 710.00 4. Lego Technic Control - #968 670.00 5. IR02-EMU-Into to Robotics 2,995.00 6. SIP 250 Communications Trainer 1,980.00 7. ECI Into to Electronic Systems 689.00 8. EET-IL #200-2002 Modular Electronics W/Lego 1,199.95 9. C.A.D.E.T. II #325-1450 Exploring Technology Trainer W/Lego 1,075.00 10. C.A.D.E.T. II #325-1450 W/#200-1403 Exploring Fiker Optics 875.00 11. Exploring Technology Trainer W/Power Base Plate 575.0012. 13. Exploring Fiker Optics Trainer W/Power Base Plate Amatrol H-l-Hydraulics W/90-VHI-VHS Tape 275.00 1,399.00 14. Amatrol P-1 Pnuematics 1,099.00 15. Compressor for P-1 and #-l 445.00 16. Amatrol M-l-Mechanisms 1,199.00 17. Lenco Welding Simulator 3,010.00 18. CNC Mill W/Tool Kit and Engraver 4,945.00 19. CMC Lathe 0 #104 W/Tool Kit 4,580.00 20. Intro to Power Mechanics 3,210.00 21. Solar Energy Test Center 1,800.00 22. Solar Sterling Engine 695.00 23. Holography - SLC-ALT HO 1 759.00 24. Laser W/Voice Transmission 659.00 25. Structural Systems Kit 150.00 26. Surveying Package To include: Transit Level, Transit Tripod, Plumbob and Survey Rod 599.00 27. Small Gas Engine Module 1,850.00 28. Structure Module 1,995.00 29. Electronic Publishing Module 599.00 30. Audio/Video Module 2,460.00 Total Equipment Cost: $ 44,841.95 Materials/Supplies, Etc. 5,000.00 Total Estimated Program Cost: (Per Lab) $ 49,841.95 Through the elimination of two E.I.T.E. labs, the following cost savings will be realized: 1. Equipment, Supplies and Materials - 2 @ $ 49,841.95 each $ 99,683.90 2. Two teachers positions - 2 @ $ 27,700.00 each $ 55,400.00 $ Total savings: $155,083.90 The recommendation to eliminate one Home Economics teacher at J. A. Fair or reduce the staff from 2 FTE's to 1.5 FTE would yield the following cost savings:Business Cases Requiring Additional Expenditures Alternative Education Arkansas Crusades Beacon School Mann Magnet Additional Clerical Position New Comers Center Reading Recovery/Early Literacy Pilot Program Security Officers to Work on Safety and Security Issues Social Studies Curriculum RevisionBUSINESS CASE ALTERNATIVE EDUCATION ! 5 19 r EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Oike of  C ui* V'ClJIi? At the end of the 1990-91 school year, the three Pulaski County School Districts elected to disband the Tri-District Alternative Education Program junior high students that they had collaboratively operated for two years in a facility owned by the Little Rock School District located at 800 Apperson Street. for In August of 1991, the Pulaski County School District opened its program in a District owned property in Scott, Arkansas\nThe North Little Rock School District located its program in the North Little Rock Boys Club and the Little Rock School District choose to maintain its alternative education program in the old Carver Elementary School at the Apperson site. program. Center nine. The District renamed the the Little Rock School District Alternative Learning and continued to serve students in grades seven, eight and Typically, students accepted into the program have evidenced a pattern of low achievement, lack of motivation, poor attendance, low self-concept, are over age for their grade level and have experienced moderate to extensive behavioral problems in traditional school environment. the In recent years, the number of LRSD students in need of alternative programming has far exceeded the number that could be served at the Alternative Learning Center with its present staffing limitations. A waiting list of thirty to forty students who cannot be placed is Expansion of the program to serve a larger pool of at-risk students has been identified as a critical need by building common. principals, teachers, and parents. program enrollment, there is also In addition to increasing the a improvements to the program in general. need to make qualitative Several options for expanding and refining the current Alternative Learning Center program were considered: 1. 2 . Double the enrollment to serve additional students. Establish additional ALC sites at other District owned 3 . 4 . facilities. Do nothing. Maintain the status quo. Explore the feasibility of implementing pilot alternative classrooms in several junior high schools. Alternative one would require a significant expansion in certified and support staff that would be financially prohibitive due to the precarious financial condition of the District at this time. Alternative two, expanding into other District facilities, could greatly increase the operational costs that would be incurred by opening additional buildings and would also result in increasedadministrative costs, unfeasible at this time. Financially, this option also appears The third alternative, ... _______ confidence of parents. \"do nothing If is unacceptable as we would raicn ana parents, staff and the community for failing to appropriately respond to the ' youth. needs of our high-risk The expansion proposed would result from implementing within-a-school\" concept at two pilot \"ilininr* H n e-r-iK. Xv- wouia result trom implementing a \"school- junior high schools, strategy would open up additional seats at the Alternative referrals. Qualitative changes are Kude^t improve discipline, academic achievement, student motivation, and ensure that the staff commitment, training and skills This Learning  discipline. assigned has the vuiiiii.iuii.enc, necessary to provide a quality educational experience to this most at-risk population. These programmatic enhancements would only cost $34,965 in new S:? 1SS5-56 school year. This option would also allow sonoept with an eye toward cost $34,965 in replication if it proves successful. A. BACKGROUND The Little Rock School District Alternative venue commenced operation in the fall of the 1991-92 school vear AS r'aeo T___________1____ . _ Learning Center As IS the case in many other large urban school districts, the need for alternative educational programs arose in response to the steadily increasing numbers of students in urban districts whose educational . as their personal and social needs were not being met in the traditional educational Generally, alternative school .programs take one following forms: .programs take setting. of the a) Nontraditional instructional, organizational, and . , . , programs designed to engage and challenge students who have become disenfranchised within traditional administrative organizational, school settings. These are typically schools of choice* serving as an alternative within a district's overall school program options. Last b) uasU cnance programs to which students administratively assigned, usually in lieu of suspension expulsion. chance which are or on academic and social-emotional remediation, with the intent of eventual successful transition of the student back school program. Schools with remedial programs which focus to their regular Alternative are nontraditional Intervention strategies are in constant flux, and modes must be reevaluated often. schools by nature. Learning styles ----- The alternative school staff must be flexible and open to change. Each situation is - 2 -unique and instructional schools become requires programs. specialized operate in the staffing, just another educational alternativ\"\"^l Unfortunately same manner ' support and as school alternative regular schools. instead of a They \"true\" The Little Rock has functioned y-9 Me _ J e admi School District as a ' ' upon the recotnmonria*.\n__ blending-oZ/o^rnative recommendation Alternative Learning CeSer' Dunior high schools. Little Rock -  to the  Alternative placement staff and a Students a and , i'^^^ning Center a and b. Students are u Learning Center team Students composed of from the may also be Rock School District Board of n?r^nt by the xPttLion.   alternative S-S-? through the Alte%Vt?vran\" wlU Sudent eventually return l Learning Cente7 i students from the ' to thei-r \"in  beaming Center i------- _ heir home school . Presently,\" the school. program and Several ei'rrht -i ' Staffed to eight junior high , accommodate sixtv schools. ia-Lxcy conditions be effective: must be met for an alternative school to a - PosiffS! trained i - school climate - high expectations parent involvement - respect at all levels - freedom for the with in alternative clearly de^ined\"\"\" limits staff to During the 1994-95 school year - - the structure and ooeratin/ '  Center as current!v Procedures identified: organized. and year 1) 2) 3) 4) experiment a committee was formed to examine of the Alternative Several areas nf conc'e^m concern were areas of Learning High absentee director, the averaqe daiiv co of enrollment. daily attendance hovers rate of students. According to the program around 60% High suspension A disproportionate cehavioral the process at ffe\" CeXt\"' term suscension or expulsion. d' students have are disruptive to suspension and end the program. serious up receiving either learning a long Limited number certifiod *. students ^^^'^bers have a students.  students. have served. Th in- ratio This ratio dictates a The staff Of to twelve capacity of one sixty The absence of an on-^ enhance skills and sxiiis and understand^^^^ development high risk students in program to working with - 3 -5) The absence of a strong transition component that effectively paves the and way follow-up for the student's eventual reintegration into the regular school setting. After an examination of issues relating to the educational and support needs of the target students and the fiscal limitations of the Little Rock School District, it was concluded that a plan to pilot an expansion of the program and to implement specific strategies to improve and refine the existing program would be the most effective and fiscally responsible path to take for the 1995- 96 school year. - 4 -I B. PROBLEM DEFINITION Many concerns are apparent with the junior high alternative program now in place. Building administrators and teachers are identifying more students with special needs that cannot be addressed in the regular classroom setting. The current program cannot honor all of the recommendations made by the schools. In most cases, students have to be placed on a waiting list while problems tend to escalate. The alternative program also needs to be refined to become more responsive to the needs of its students. or school. ---------------- Students are not motivated, nor do some show an interest in attending class On average, forty percent of the students are absent daily. Students appear to have a difficult time in their transition back into the regular school setting. The students who want to receive a quality education are affected by those students who are constantly being disruptive. At times teachers are not provided the courtesy and respect to present uninterrupted lessons. This problem is widespread in many District junior high schools. Numerous incidents which occur in our schools gives some sense of the magnitude of problems faced daily in both the school and community. C. ANALYSIS OF ALTERNATIVES 1. 2. Double the enrollment at the ALC to increase the number of students served. Expand the maximum number of students served by providing services at more than one site in the Little Rock School District. 3 . 4 . Do nothing. Maintain the status Quo. Explore the implementing a pilot alternative classroom in targeted junior high schools. feasibility of Alternative one would require that the current instructional staff at the ALC be doubled. This expansion would be financially prohibited at this time due to the precarious financial condition of the district. The District has several surplused buildings which could be used to expand services. However, this option would greatly increase the operational costs that would be incurred by opening an additional building with attendant administrative costs. feasible at this time. Financially, this option is not The third alternative is unacceptable as we would lose the faith and confidence of parents and staff for failing to respond to the needs of our at-risk students. Alternative programs, by their nature, are designed to provide the academic and social support for students - 5 -D. whose developmental needs are not being met through the traditional educational delivery system. Our continuing goal is to ensure that all students receive a guality educational experience that is appropriate to the needs of each youngster. The waiting list for students in need of alternative educational services continues to grow and feed the disillusioned ranks of students dropouts, whose pushouts learning and styles other and personal/social needs are not met within the traditional educational setting. RECOMMENDATIONS Due to the need for increased capacity for alternative educational services in the District and the limitations in funding an expanded program, the following recommendations are proposed to increase capacity by reducing the number of schools who refer through establishing pilot, school-based alternative classrooms. This proposal would increase the number of students served through alternative educational options while providing opportunity to test the efficacy of a school-based alternative an I classroom model. 1. Pilot a school-based alternative class in two junior high schools where the building administrator has agreed to be a pilot site. \"Base\" or coordinating teacher would remain with a maximum of twelve to One fifteen seventh and eighth grade students during the school day. The Base teacher will provide programmatic instruction in social skills, school survival s............................. provide maintain skills, behavior management and would also assistance with homework student records and serve assignments, between the home and school. as a liaison Instruction in the English, math. core curricula science and social content areas of studies would be provided by regular teachers from the core disciplines who would be assigned or would volunteer to teach one This period during the day in the alternative classroom. approach allows the students to remain in the regular school setting and maintain academic progress without losing touch with the regular curriculum or the regular teachers. By removing these thirty students from the pool of referrals to the Alternative Learning Center, more space would be freed up at the ALC for the more difficult students. Nominations to the Alternative Classroom would be made by classroom teachers and/or parents to the school's Pupil Services Team where all decisions on placement would be made. Students would be assigned to the program for a minimum of nine weeks and a maximum of one semester in a - 6 -2. eligible for re-entry into the regular school structure. However, re-entry would be contingent upon the recommendations of the Base Teacher to the Pupil Services Team. The existing ALC program design be revised and refined to strengthen the academic offerings and to make the environment more responsive to the special needs of the students. These modifications would include: A. Staffing Modifications 1. 2. 3. Vacate current staff and recruit new staff who demonstrate commitment to the ALC concept and possess skills required to support the needs of the student population. Add a full time resource officer Replace the school counselor position with a psychiatric social worker position. B. Dress Code Institute a dress code that would require uniformity in dress. some C. Parental Involvement 1. Mandate parent/student contract that specifies required parental involvement in the school's program and attendance at required teacher/parent conferences. a 2. Parents would be expected to volunteer at least one day each nine weeks at the school. D. Transitioning Component Develop specific procedures that prepare the student and the \"home school\" for the students re-entry. Monitoring and follow-up o'f the student's progress for a minimum of six months after exiting the ALC would be conducted by the ALC social worker and the home:-school counselor. E. Pre-service and Inservice Training Component Plan a schedule students five day pre-service training workshop for are the first week school staff. assigned to of the school before ALC, for all Content would include, but not be limited to, classroom management, contingency contracting. Service Learning, development and cooperative learning. adolescent In-service workshops would be conducted throughout the school 7 -F. year based on needs identified by building staff. Curriculum Enhancements 1. Implement curriculum based Service Learning into the curriculum. E. 2. Providea daily class in behavior management and social skills content to be delivered by the school social worker. OBJECTIVES 1. To increase the number of junior high school students served through alternative educational options. 2. To provide an appropriate classroom environment for those school-based alternative success . -------- students not having in the regular classroom setting. The school-based alternative classroom recommendation Little Rock School District goals, follows: 1 and 5 which supports are as Goal One:  Implement integrated educational programs that will ensure that all students grow academically, socially and emotionally with emphasis on basic skill and academic enrichment while closing disparities in achievement. Goal Five: Provide a safe and orderly climate that is conducive to learning for all students. Evaluation Criteria Criteria for evaluation of the alternative classroom will include: proposed school-based 1. An increase in the number of junior high school students being served. 2. A reduction in the number of student absences measured by attendance reports. as 3. Increased student motivation as measured by improved attendance, academic achievement, improved behavior, and a reduction in long term suspension and expulsion disciplinary sanctions. suspension Expected Benefits expected The benefits of the school-based classrooms for the seventh and eighth grade students include: services to more students than are currently being served' less difficulty in their transition back into the ' alternative regular - 8 -classroom\nand a reduction in daily absenteeism and recidivism rates. These benefits should be realized during the first two years of operation. F. IMPACT ANALYSIS Positive Impact 1. 2. 3. Better support for more students with specialized needs. Less transition difficulty for students returning to the regular classroom. A reduction in daily absenteeism. Negative Impact 1. 2. Possible increases in program costs. Administrators and teachers who feel disobedient students should be removed from classroom setting, district. as well that the as from the school The proposed school-based alternative classrooms will complement both the Little Rock School District desegregation plan and court orders by providing additional specialized alternative learning opportunities for high risk students that are cost effective and educationally sound. Political Factors Because the implementation of this recommendation will result increased spending over the 1994-95 budget for the ALC, some may object to additional expenditures while other programmatic and staff cuts are being made. in while Timing Because of the general concerns regarding school and classroom * -   the achievement disparity between at- risk and other students, the refinement of the ALC program will be viewed as a welcomed relief by building administrators teachers. discipline, and The parties in the desegregation case should also see this move as a positive effort toward recognizing and responding to the needs of this population of students in spite of our diminishing financial resources. RISKS The risk of implementing this program is that it has the possibility of increasing the cost of alternative educational programs for students in this district. ------- The risk of not implementing change is that fewer students would be served and the schools will continue to have students on lonq waitino lists. - 9 -G. RESOURCE ANALYSIS 1. Personnel analysis School based alternative classrooms would be piloted at Southwest and Cloverdale Junior High Schools. Each classroom would be staffed by a full time coordinator who would have the responsibility for delivering academic instruction, developing and delivering behavior modification instruction, maintaining student records, contacting parents with status reports, and advising the administration on program progress. In addition to a coordinator at  each site, four core curriculum instructors would be required for one hour daily at each site to deliver instruction in English, science, and social studies. mathematics, It is proposed that Alternative Classroom personnel be identified from the current teaching faculty in the pilot schools and released from their current responsibilities to participate in this program for the 1995-96 school year. This would require the elimination of 1 FTE at each site from the current programming to serve as program coordinator. would also require the identification of four core This area teachers (English, science, social studies, mathematics) who could be assigned to the alternative classroom for one hour daily to deliver instruction as part of their teaching load. The total personnel requirement for program operation for 1995-96 would be 1.8 FTE (1+.2X4=1.8) existing personnel from the current sites in each site. released from current responsibilities to could assume not If be these positions, then an additional new personnel requirement of 3.6 FTE would be required to operate the two pilot projects. If new personnel are required, candidates may emerge from current staffing that are surplused in other area junior high schools due to enrollment changes in some schools. Otherwise, candidates would be selected from the current applications of new employees. Training of all program personnel would be necessary. Administrators in the pilot schools would need training in program operations, behavior modification, record keeping, linkages with service providers district. and curriculum outside and inside the for the program. Program coordinators would need training in all of the above areas and also parental contact administration. requirements. and program The core teachers would need training in curriculum development (combining curricular objectives and delivery techniques for grades 7 and 8 into one course in each core area). training and requirements. They would also need behavior modification would need to know the parental contact 10 -Training for the teachers and coordinator would be held prior to the assignment of students to the program in the time period after 9 1/4 contract personnel report to work in the fall of 1995. July, 1995. Training for the administrators should occur in Course development would begin in the Spring 95 by curriculum supervisors and core teachers at the school pilot sites. 2. Financial analysis The following costs would be incurred in 1995-96 for each of the two pilot programs. Program Coordinator 1.0 FTE .2 FTE core area teacher = 6,000 X 4 = Curriculum development Training $33,495 X 2 = 24,000 X 2 = Materials, Supplies, Textbooks Equipment School Resource Officer 8,075 X 2 7,300 X 2 $66,990 48,000 4,265 1,000 16,000 14,600 16,500 The above itemized costs for personnel are based on an average teacher salary of $30,000 plus $1,200 benefits and $2,295 FICA for a total cost per coordinator of $33,495. These costs would already be borne by the personnel budget of the two individual schools if individuals can be surplused from current assigned duties to serve as program coordinators. Similarly, the 48,000 for .2 FTE for eight core instructors would not be new or additional costs either, if these persons can be identified from existing staffs and assigned one hour of their day to teach in the program. An added cost for personnel would be for the proposed school resource officer for the Alternative Learning Center, cost would be $16,500. That The materials and supplies costs for desk supplies, paper for copying, VCR tapes, and textbooks would not be new costs. These monies would already be in the operations budget in the two pilot schools, but would be diverted to this program. costs for supplementary instructional materials The and supplementary textbooks, and software would be new costs ($3,500 total) X 2 = $7,000. Equipment costs for an overhead projector, TV and VCR would normally be expected to be included in the operations budgets of the two schools. available at no new cost. These are usual items, probably already that could be dedicated to this program. The expenses for an FM radio, computers, repairs, and a copier allocation would be new costs, ($3,100 total) X 2 = $6,200. Training costs ($1,000) and curriculum development costs ($4,265) would also be new costs, not included in the current operations budgets of the involved schools. 11The total new costs for the two pilot programs which would not be absorbed by having to provide services to the students in the two pilot schools, is $18,465. An additional new cost for the Alternative Learning Center Program on Apperson is $16,500 for the school resource officer. The total new costs for this proposal are $34,965.00. Costs for personnel would be expected to increase annually over district. 5 years at the same cost of other personnel in the That expected rate is 3%. Books, supplies, and materials costs should remain fairly consistent over the period of five years except for anticipated inflation rate of 3-5% per year. an Training would be ongoing and periodic as changes in the program dictate. It is expected that training cost would increase by 5% per year. Equipment costs should be constant year to year except for an inflation rate of 3-5%. Funding sources for the operation of this program would be the local school operations budget. Because these students are to be housed at the regular school program, the costs for serving them would be covered in the building budget. However, due to the relatively small class size of this program (12-15), the per pupil cost ratio would be higher for these students than for others. Additional supplementary funding for the program might be available from grants or the local business community from matching grants such as the Entergy Stay In School program. Cost savings by using the pilot approach will result from a decreased need to duplicate these services at another site or to expand the size, of the current Alternative Learning Center on Apperson. Although these pilot programs will increase costs, the overhead will be less due to the requirement to educate these students in the home school that is already built into the operational budget of the school. This model eliminates transportation costs to the alternative learning center and will use existing faculty and classroom space. It will not require additional utility costs or furniture costs. 12 -BUDGET MATERIALS/SUPPLIES desk supplies (stapler, paper clips, tape, markers, etc.) Paper for copying Software VCR tapes Supplementary instructional materials Textbooks 4-6 per student @ approximately $45.00 each Supplementary textbooks $ 250.00 250.00 2,000.00 25.00 500.00 Total $ 4,050.00 1,000.00 8,075.00 X 2 $16,150.00 EQUIPMENT Overhead projector Television VCR Radio(FM for communications) Computers Repairs Copier or copier allocation Total $ $ 140.00 350.00 250.00 350.00 2,000.00 500.00 250.00 3,840.00 X 2 $ 7,680.00 TRAINING COSTS Consultants Materials $ 750.00 250.00 Total $ 1,000.00 CURRICULUM DEVELOPMENT COSTS Stipends Materials $ 4,015.00 250.00 Total $ 4,265.00 PERSONNEL School Resource Officer $114,990.00 16,500.00 $131,490.00 PROJECT TOTAL $160,585.00 TOTAL NEW COSTS $ 34,965.00 13 -H. FORCE FIELD ANALYSIS Classroom Teachers should support the concept of the school within a school. The process would allow those students who waiting list to be removed from the classroom. are on a Parents of those students would appreciate the opportunity for their children to attend school instead of staying home where sometimes they tend to get into more trouble. Troubled students would probably feel more comfortable in a regular school setting where they may still have the opportunity to be mainstreamed back into the classroom. Little Rock Community. Little Rock The School District Board of Directors. law enforcement and truancy authorities would feel more comfortable with ALL students in school on a daily basis. Concern over disruptive students is presently very high among school district personnel, parents, and the Little Rock community at large. Efforts to improve the Little Rock School District's programs for such students would be expected to receive support from all of these factions. However, detractors may emerge among individuals or groups who feel these efforts are of insufficient magnitude, or who oppose any efforts which do not result in immediate removal of disruptive students from their home school campus. Primary detractors may be some administrators and teachers who feel that  disobedient students should be removed from the classroom setting as well as from the school environment. The success of the pilot programs would convince detractors that the possibilities of a school within a school may resolve many of our problems which include attendance, the lack of an experienced staff, list and disruptive students in the classrooms. a waiting I. GENERAL IMPLEMENTATION PLAN The milestones for plan implementation include the following: approval of the (a) business case, developed at the building level. (b) program guidelines (c) budget development and (d) curriculum development completed, approval (local and ADE), approval, (e) curriculum training scheduled, (f) training design developed and (g) program staff selected, (h) site for determined, (i) furniture, equipment administrator training completed, (k) textbooks, (1) training of coordinator and program furniture. supplies provided. provided, (j) materials. (m) teachers, initial selection and placement participants, (n) delivery of program curriculum. core area of program aelivery curriculum, (o) monitoring and evaluation of program operations, (^\n_i_ii_ program monitoring and evaluation (q) modification of operations as necessary, (r) end of year evaluation design developed and submitted. (p) periodic reporting of program Timelines, tasking, and reporting forms are included in the attached tables. 14 -MILESTONES a. aproval of the business case b. program guidelines developed at the building level c. budget development and approval d. curriculum development completed (behavior modification program, combining 7 8 course objectives to one course with suggested instructional procedures) e. curriculum approval (local administration and Board) f. training design developed and training scheduled g. program staff selected h. site for program determined i. furniture, equipment provided j. adn'inistraior training completed K. Textbook, materials, and supplies provided I. training completed for coordiantor and core area teachers m. initial selection and placement of program participants n. delivery of program curriculum o. monitonng and evaluation of program operation p. periodic reporting of program monitoring and evaluation q. modification of program operation as necessary r. end of year evaluation developed and submitted TIMELINES a. Januar\\-Februar\u0026gt;. W95 b. March 1-31. 1995 c. March - April, 1995 d. March - May, 1995 e. June 1-30, 1995 f. March - June, 1995 g. June-July, 1995 h. June-July, 1995 i. July-August, 1995 July 1-31, 1995 k. August 1-31, 1995 1, August-September 10, 1995 m. August-September 10, 1995 n. August-June, 1996 o. August-June, 1996 p. October, January, April, June q. October, January. April, June r. June 1-Junc 30, 1996 a. TASKING Cabinet b. Pnncipals. Cloverdale. Southwest c. Principals and Mark Milhollen d. Principals, curriculum supervisors, core teachers, staff development e. curriculum supervisors f. principals, curriculum supervisors, staff development g. principals h. principals i. principals, purchasing dept. j. staff development k. principals, purchasing dept. 1. principals, curriculum supervisor, staff development m. principals, assistant principals, pupil services Team. Larry Robertson n. coordinators, core teachers 0. principals, coordinators p. principals, coordinators q. principals, coordinators r. principal, coordinators 15 - a. reporting approval nwnw b. Program description completed c. budget approval memo d. curriculum developed e. approval memos f. training design completed and scheduled g. master schedule developed h. memo to Deputy Superintendent i. memo to Deputy Supt. (status report) j. memo (status report to [\u0026gt;epuiy Superintendent) k. status report to Deputy Superintendent 1. status report to Deputy Superintendent m. quarterly reports n. quarterly reports o. quarterly status reports p. quarterly status repons q. quarterly status repons r. Annual ReportBUSINESS CASE The Arkansas Crusades 01 I' iun iviCitK.i-V EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The State of Arkansas received a $10 million grant from the National Science Foundation (NSF) to initiate systemic change in mathematics and science. The Statewide Systemic Initiative started in 1991 with the Math Crusade, followed by the K-4 Crusade in 1994 and the Science Crusade in the Spring of 1995. Crusades are now known as the Arkansas Crusades. These three Crusade training has been highly touted by Little Rock School District teachers. Participants in the Arkansas Crusades rank the training course as one of the very best in which they have ever participated. (See Appendix A) They feel that the training has helped improve the math and science instruction they provide to their students. For teachers to participate in Crusade training, their district must purchase classroom sets of math and science equipment that is reimbursed on a 50-50 basis with NSF funds. The Little Rock School District used desegregation funds for these purchases during the 1994-95 school year. Separate business cases were.accepted that provided $18,000 for K-4 Crusade equipment and $25,000 for Science Crusade hands-on equipment. The Math Department used $9,000 in a desegregation control account to purchase Math Crusade equipment. Assistance for the three Crusades is requested in the amount of $30,000 to use for purchase of math and science equipment on a 50- 50 matching basis with NSF grant funds. will be able to participate in one of the Crusade training courses Approximately 30 teachers during 1995-96. With the NSF match the $30,000 will purchase $60,000 of math and science equipment for our schools. A State bid further increases the amount of equipment that can be purchased with the requested funds by about 40-50%. The bottom line is that $30,000 will purchase about $90,000 of vital hands-on science and math equipment that trained teachers will use to instruction in math and science for all students, K-12. improve A. BACKGROUND The Statewide Systemic Initiative (SSI) Program began in 1991 with the Math Crusade, a three hour graduate course taught by teams consisting of a university professor and a public school teacher. More than 1200 math teachers statewide and over eighty (80) teachers in the Little Rock School District have been retrained through the Math Crusade. These teachers' classrooms have been equipped with the latest mathematics tools and calculators. Much of the training focuses on the use of manipulatives to teach mathematics concepts. The new phase of the Statewide Systemic Initiative that includesthe K-4. and Science Crusades is supported by a National Science Foundation grant of $10 million and covers five years. Crusade began in the Spring of 1994 and is delivered through a six hour graduate course that integrates reading, mathematics, The K-4 and science. science specialists that include university professors ___ elementary teachers. The Science Crusade is a three hour graduate course that began in January, 1995. Like the other Crusade K-4 Crusade courses are team taught by reading, math, and and courses, the Science Crusade is team taught by university professors and public school teachers. The K-4 and Science Crusades place the latest science and math equipment in participating teachers' classrooms. Thirty-eight (38) LRSD teachers have participated in the K-4 Crusade to date and fifteen (15) LRSD teachers made application for the Science Crusade, which is just underway. During the 1994-95 school year, $42,000 was used to support the P^^ticipstion of Little Rock School District teachers in one of the Arkansas Crusades. Continued support of the Arkansas Crusades for 1995-96 is warranted. Although Stanford-8 achievement results by teacher are not kept at the secondary level, students at the elementary level scored highest in mathematics in five of the six elementary grade levels. studies in grade 3.) (Math was slightly lower that social K-4 and Science Crusade training has not been place long enough to determine its effect on student achievement. We are awaiting the 1995 Stanford-8 results to track in individual teacher-participants in the Arkansas determine Crusade training leads to increased achievement in reading, science, and mathematics. if Crusades to student B- PROBLEM DEFINITION To register for one of the Arkansas Crusades, teachers must have the financial support of the sending district. The superintendent of each district must sign an agreement to purchase classroom equipment and supplies for each participating teacher. Fifty percent (50%) of the equipment cost is reimbursed the district through NSF matching funds. The per teacher cost for the district's part of the classroom equipment and supplies is $250 for grades K-2 in the K-4 Crusade, $400 for grades 3-4 in the K-4 Crusade, $400 for grades 5-7 Math Crusade, $1200 for grades 8-12 Math Crusade, $900 for grades 5-8 Science Crusade, and $1,500 for grades 8-12 Science Crusade. Individual schools in the Little Rock School District have limited funds for materials and supplies\nthey consequently, have a difficult time supporting participation of teachers in the Arkansas Crusades. the To ensure continued participation of teachers in the Arkansas Crusades, the Little Rock School District must dedicate funds for that purpose over the four remaining years of the SSI project. C. ANALYSIS OF ALTERNATIVES Possible alternatives for funding teachers to participate in one of the Arkansas Crusades fall into two major categories: site basedfunding and district funding. funding from grants, PTA, and partners solicited. within both categories, outside in education can be Non-participation in the Crusades is another option. These alternatives, which are described below, were generated by a brainstorming session with Little Rock School District trainers for the Arkansas Crusades. 1. Non-participation in the Crusades - Because of our budget crisis, the Little Rock School District could elect to not support teachers in taking Crusade courses. The problem with this approach is that LRSD Goals require that we try to increase disparity among students. achievement and decrease 2. 3. component in reaching our goals. Staff development is a vital development programs should be supported. Successful staff Our teachers, patrons, community and students would frown upon a nonparticipation attitude by the District. Site based funding - Local schools could support their own teachers to participate in one of the Crusades. Schools could allocate a portion of their supply budget for this purpose. In addition schools could ask their PTA or partner in education to help fund a teacher to take a Crusade course. Schools could also work with the grant writer to identify possible grant sources to help teachers participate in the Crusades. Local school support of teachers in the Crusade courses has the drawback that support will be low and uneven among the schools due to local constraints. in the Crusades. schools, and school budgetary Many teachers will be unable to participate In the past, magnet schools, incentive schools with strong PTA support have provided limited support for the Math Crusade and Crusade. Other schools have provided no support. K-4 Grant opportunities are likely to be successful at only one or a few sites, so grants aren't an answer to the problem. District funding - The District could dedicate funds to support Crusade training. District funds could ensure that participation occurs and that it is equitable among schools. In other words, teacher A at school Y would have as good a chance of participating as teacher B at school Z. The District could pursue outside monies supplement local funding. For example. to help the District received $5,000 of Act 453 funds in 1994 to help 5 teachers attend Science Crusade training. Outside funding, however, is uncertain and unlikely to meet the District's needs to support the Arkansas Crusades. Since the Arkansas Crusades are statewide, they don't meet the criteria of uniqueness funding agencies require. and replicability that mostD. By providing District funds for teachers to participate in the Arkansas Crusades, the objective of increasing math and science achievement through an emphasis on the \"hands-on\" would be supported. The Desegregation Plan (April 29, 1992), in strategy 1.2 on page 77, requires that the District \"purchase science supplies for teachers to facilitate the hands-on approach approach.\" The Arkansas Crusades' training would help meet this requirement in the Desegregation Plan. ___ total cost to the District for this alternative would be $30,000. The cost is small compared to the benefits: quality training for about 30 teachers in the latest The teaching strategies in math, science, and reading and the infusion of approximately $90,000 worth of math and science equipment and supplies into our schools. RECOMMENDATION $30,000 in Desegregation money should be dedicated to purchase the math, and/or reading equipment and supplies that are required for teachers to participate in one of the three Arkansas Crusades: K-4 Crusade, Science Crusade. This was selected because it promotes equity among the schools and helps to fulfill our District goals and requirements of the The recommendation is affordable in the sense that a relatively small amount of money is leveraged by a SOSO NSF match and a state bid to allow the purchase of approximately $90,000 worth of equipment and supplies, not to mention the quality training that about 30 teachers will receive. science, Math Crusade, was Desegregation Plan. E. OBJECTIVE The objective of the recommendation is to train and equip 30 teachers of mathematics and science. The training in the use of the hands-on approach to teaching math and science, plus the equipment and supplies, will improve instruction for students, resulting in improved student learning. The recommendation supports the goals of the Little Rock School District. Crusade training will help teachers in our District implement educational programs that will ensure that all students grow academically (goal #1) The hands-on approach has proven successful across the nation in helping students learn math and science concepts. The hands-on approach works especially well with low academic achievers since it provides the experiential base that many of these students are missing. The Crusades will also provide teachers with an opportunity to become better trained (goal #2) in the areas of mathematics, science and reading. The National Science Foundation is providing funds for the eauinment and supplies. equipment The NSF funds help leverage local funds to secure financial resources to help to support our schools (goals #4). E_, providing District funds, inequities in opportunities for teachers to participate in Crusade training as a result of where they teach will be reduced (goal #6). ByThe recommendation also supports the hands-on approach to science and math that is described strategies 1.2 and 1.3). in the Desegregation Plan (page 77, Evaluation criteria for the objective are both qualitative and quantitative\n1. Teachers who receive Crusade training will be asked to complete a survey about the quality of the training and the impact it has had on their teaching. 2 . A comparison of students' SAT-8 scores in science and/or math will be made for elementary teachers who complete Crusade training. Determining students' SAT-8 results by teacher are not feasible at the secondary level. The expected benefits are better equipped math and science classrooms and teachers who are trained to use the equipment to teach a hands-on approach to science and math. the benefits are the students of the teachers The recipients of F. IMPACT ANALYSIS 1) Program The Arkansas Crusades will provide teachers in the Little Rock School District an opportunity to become more knowledgeable about the national standards in I mathematics, science, and reading and also become more comfortable in teaching math with manipulatives, using more hands-on science activities, and integrating science and math with reading. This knowledge and experience will transfer to the science and mathematics program in our District. Our students will become the benefactors of this new methodology and content information. 2) Desegregation The Arkansas Crusades will enhance the goals for science. math, Strategies and reading that are in the Desegregation Plan. 1-2, 1.3 and 1.4 on page 77 of the Desegregation Plan states that- the District will purchase science supplies to facilitate the hands-on science approach, math manipulatives to facilitate hands-on math instruction, and sets of trade books to facilitate the emphasis on literature. The Arkansas Crusades support the purchase of equipment for math, science, and reading and the hands-on approach to teaching. 3) Court Order The Arkansas Crusades support the recommendations made by ODM in the Incentive School Monitoring Report (12/09/93, page 49) concerning science labs in the Incentive Schools and in-service regarding the use of the labs. Incentive4) 5) 6) G. school teachers who participate in Crusade training would receive equipment and supplies and training about how to use them This equipment and training will enhance the science labs in the Incentive Schools. Political Factors The Arkansas Crusades an effort to bring about systemic change in the area of mathematics and science. are The Crusades are a joint effort of the General Education Division of the Arkansas Department of Education and the Arkansas Department of Higher Education. Cooperating with these agencies would be a positive action for our District. Principals, teachers, and patrons feel that the District should support teachers in participating in Crusade training. Risks The risk of doing this program consists of a $30,000 hit on an already undernourished budget. doing this program are considerable. Inequity in teacher pai^ticipation in the Arkansas Crusades among schools. The risks of not missing a tremendous opportunity to improve math and science education, and the political fall-out from not providing teachers the tools they need to improve math and science instruction are the primary risks. Little Rock School District does not participate and loses ground in student test scores to districts that do If the participate, the satisfaction level with the LRSD will diminish among patrons, business groups. teachers, and community and Timing 1995-96 will be the second of five years that Statewide Systemic Initiative will be funded. the The Little Rock School District needs to be active in the Crusades for each of the five years. A modest amount of funding is requested in this proposal with the assumption that the support by the District will continue throughout the five years of the Arkansas Crusades. RESOURCE ANALYSIS The Arkansas Crusades proposal provides funds for the required purchase of classroom equipment and supplies for teachers who complete one of the Crusade training programs, does not ask for nor does it impact personnel. The proposal Cost of materials and supplies for about 30 participants in the Arkansas Crusades - $30,000 (50-50 matching funds from NSF and a State bid increases the purchasing power of the $30,000 to about $90,000 for 1995-96. )A similar amount will be requested over the next three years. H. FORCE FIELD ANALYSIS Supporters of this program will include teachers who either have participated in Crusade training or desire to do so in the future. principals of teachers who have or intend to see complete the training, and students and parents of students who are the beneficiaries of the training. Supporters will also include business and community leaders who want to graduates who are better prepared to assume jobs in the 21st century. A step toward this goal will be to make state-of- the-art math and science equipment available to every student beginning in kindergarten. makes on the Detractors, if any, would be those who view this proposal only in terms of the small splash of red ink it budget. I. GENERAL IMPLEMENTATION PLAN Activity Completion Date Responsible/ Participating Person(s) I. Tachers make applicaion far Arkamas Cnuadei. M4JJ-9S Ftdl 12-01.95 Sprmg Teachers. Phnapals 2. Sdence!Mah Oflee processes the applictaions and secures the Superotsoidenr's signanoe 00-15-95 Ftdl 12-15-95 Sprotg Trish FSIeigstvordi Fate Carson 3. Approved afpiieaioni are sera ro requested 08-15-95 Fdl 12-1595 Sproig Demis Giasga\u0026gt;rf 4. Teaekerj partapate in Cntjaie 090195 ihreugh 12-15-95 F(dt OI-OS-96 rfrough 05-15-96 Sprotg Teachers 5. Teachers select equipnenr a/td supplies from appraifai State Bid list. 10-15-95 Fan 02-15-96 Sprotg Teachers. Phnapals 6. Equifmtemlsuppiia ordered by Sdeneeiideeh ogiee. 11-01-95 F^ 03-01-96 Sproig Trish FBI'otgseterdi Fene' Caan 7. Afareceftofequipmeraisupplia. copies of tnooiees sem to Arhansas Crusades o fox fa 507i rdmbursetmnt. 12-15-95 Ftdl 0S4)J-96 Sprott Demis Clastoof 5. Teachers surveyed about value of tntruni upon complaion of course. 12-15-95 Fidl 05-01-96 Sprmg Dennis Glasgotv 9. Pre-post SAT-B scores of paradparetf teachers are compared. (-l5-9d Dennis Glatgow, Dr. Fobert CbversAPPENDIX A Summary of K-4 Crusade Survey Eleven(ll) participants in the K-4 Crusade returned survey forms. The collective responses of these participants are included below each letter. As a participant in the K-4 Crusade IRC. AS Crusade, please respond to the following items and return the survey to Dennis Glasgow, Results of the survey will be used as a measure of success of the ^4 Crusade and to build a case for additional District support for teachers to participate in the K-4 Crusade. Please circle the letter that reflects your opinion of the K-4 Crusade for each item. EFFECT ON KNOWLEDGE The K-4 Crusade: Strongly Agree Strongly Disagree 1. increased my knowledge of science and mathematics content. a (9) b (1) c (1) d (0) e (0) 2. increased my knowledge of strategies for integrating reading, science, and math. a (8) b (3) c (0) d (0) e (Oj 3. increased my knowledge of hands- on activities in science. a (9) b (1) c (1) d (0) e (0) 4. increased my knowledge of math activities that use manipulatives. (g) c (0) d (0) e (0) 5. increased my knowledge aJaout how to use science materials and equipment. a (9) b (1) c (1) d (0) e (0) a b {2} EFFECT ON TEACHING As a result of taking the K-4 Crusade: Strongly Agree Strongly Disagree 6. I have increased the time I spend teaching science in my classroom. a (6) b (4) c (0) d (1) e (0) 7. I have improved the quality of science instruction provided to my students. a (7) b (3) c (0) d (1) e (0) 8. I have improved the quality of math instruction provided to my students. a (9) b (2) c (0) d (0) e (0) 9. I teach more lessons that integrate reading, science, and math. a (9) b (1) c (1) d (0) e (0)As a result of taking the K-4 Crusade: Strongly Agree Strongly Disagree 10. I have more materials and supplies to teach science, mathematics, and reading. (10) (1) c (0) d (0) e (0) a b OVERALL RATING 11. How would you rate the K-4 Crusade compared to other training courses you have taken? 12. Among the very best a bed (10) (0) (0) (1) .... Please make comments about your participation in the K-4 Among the very worst e Crusade. (0) b c I enjoyed the course more than can be described. It truely helped my science instructic  I feel the crusade has given me the training, strategies and materials to give my children a more than ample science and math background for their grade level. Good class. Excellent instructors. I truely appreciate having such wonderful and dedicated instructors. They have been a true catalyst for the crusade.  It is a great course. I think it should be required for every teacher. The materials and ideas of whole language was very good. I think with new attitudes and time frame, I would eagerly recommend this class to other teachers. This was an extremely worthwhile class. All teachers should have it!BUSINESS CASE BEACONS SCHOOL Ft kJ .1,: J 5 1905 J')?.\nExecutive Summary The Beacons School, based on a model initiated in New York City, is a comprehensive, year-round school based program located in public school buildings and operated by community-based organizations. During the academic year. Beacons programs operate after school, evenings, and weekends. During summer vacation and other holidays. Beacons programming includes daytime, evening, and weekend hours. The Beacons School is between an example of a program that develops a connection existing resources and community-based organizations to develop viable neighborhood-oriented programming. Community residents will be actively involved in the planning and implementation of range of services that accentuate youth development and strengthen school, family, and community linkage. a After an examination of New York's Beacons Program, the city of Little Rock, the Little Rock School District, New futures for Little Rock Youth, the Department of Health, and Lhc Division Children and Family Services have taken the lead and formed the of Steering Committee to explore the feasibility of operating similar program in Little Rock. a a Junior High School. The City Board of Directors and the School Board both approved resolutions supporting a Beacons School Program at Cloverdale T respective board approvals were Dec. 20, 1994 and Dec. 15, 1994. A. BACKGROUND New York City established the Beacons Program in 1991 to create safe havens for children. youth, and families within the communities considered the poorest and most affected by substance abuse, AIDS and crime. The New York Beacons Programs have been very successful.page 2 The need for a Beacons Program in Little Rock was expressed by the city, school district, state agencies, and New Futures. ' ~ A Beacons Steering Committee was established to study the feasibility of initiating and implementing such program. The committee developed a comprehensive list of criteria to be used by the school , . .. criteria included the district is recommending a school site. following: adequate recreation facilities, sufficient health facilities, ample educational facilities, adequate office space, principal/staff support, and a history of collaborative efforts with youth programs. _ Cloverdale Junior High School successfully fulfilled the necessary criteria. a This collaborative effort now includes the following parties: the city of Little Rock, New Futures for Little Rock Youth, United Way, Department of Human Services, Department of Health, Junior League of Little Rock, county-based organizations and area businesses. B. PROBLEM DEFINITION Over the last decade, a depressed economy and a focus by the Federal government on other national priorities has left little money for the funding of youth programs. Families must work harder simply to make ends meet, and therefore the role of adults in guiding youth is reduced and community and neighborhood life strained. Therefore, many young people today are left with \"nowhere to go and nothing to do\" for nearly 30% of their time. C. ANALYSIS OF ALTERNATIVES Three alternatives were considered: (1) do nothing and continue with current after school programming, (2) discontinue after school programming and refer youth to agencies outside the neighborhood, (3) develop a Beacons Program which would meet the needs articulated by the community. as The best alternative is to establish a Beacons Program. D. RECOMMENDATION In response to the intent demonstrated by both the city of Little Rock and the Little Rock School District, we would recommend the development of a Beacons Program as suggested by the community.E. OBJECTIVES page 3 The objective of establishing a Beacons Program is to address critical issues around youth development, family involvement, neighborhood and community life, and multi-level partnerships in order to achieve improved outcomes for at-risk youth. F. BUDGET The budget is currently being developed by the participating agencies. Each agency is contributing services, relocating services, seeking grant funding for program initiation, and making in-kind contributions.  space, and utilities. The LRSD is contributing office and program The school district has estimated annual custodial costs of $12,000 and strategies regarding this issue are currently being discussed. G. GENERAL IMPLEMENTATION PLAN Below is a projected timeline that will be modified as community input and the implementation process is further defined. DATE ACTIVITY Feb. 95 March 95 Initiating informational meetings in the target community Developing a comprehensive budget Developing the RFP process Securing program agreement April 95 May 95 Disseminating RFP's Conducting a proposers conference Conducting CBO assessments Developing Cloverdale/Beacons agreement Securing programming facilities and office space June 95 Developing job descriptions (director and staff) Hiring of director and staff Program implementationI. I99S ADDITIONAL CLERICAL POSITION Ollinc C!  I executive summary The district is committed to safe, secure school environments, accurate attendance -Arinw J 2- vilvuVlUUCUlb financial accounting and to the educational, social Ar Of nr .  ' of all itc etL . Vai^ounnng ana to the educational, social and emotional growth of all ,.s sludents. Wc a. Mam, arc involved daily will, our expected rcaponsibil^ and dicerJ rr community. Our goal continues to focus on and to carr^' out district mandates effectively and efficiently. obligation to our school We eagerly accept our charge, remaining one of the district's successful schools. Due to the complex nature of being a magnet, this business case proposes Clenca nncit nn mni,\n__,*_____ clerical position, making it possible for an additional us to continue our goals at an optimal level. A. Background Mann Magnet serves a ,. ,  consistent enrollment of 850 students from all three school districts: Little Rock, North Little Rock and Pulaski need to establish and maintain a County. There is an urgent sense of community for our diverse population. /-s ---------------- uul uivcrbc poDUiaiion ^'6^ expectations because, for the most pa.., wc 0  attractive curriculum in a public most part, we B. school setting. Our students are transported to us on different buses, and since fk.... . -----' uiiititiii uubcs, ana since ^ey must perform, attend mandated field trips, participate in activities relating to science and the artsour two soecialtv arras w mnet ^0 specialty areas, we must provide nurturing, after school duty and support for them.  Through the years, there has also been increased demands to take care of extra clerical needs, related on administrative staff to attendance, possible litigating concerns and other reporting. These demands lessen the effectiveness . Assistant Principals, taking away from their expected job responsibilities. of the three secretaries in our office-principal's secretary, registrar and bookkeeper/attendance secretary, a slot of which either bookkeepingconstitutes a full-time job. areaattendance or Problem Given the recent increase of paperwork and all requirements connected with it r __?___ - .  * * ---------- a V Will assistant principals are devoting an inordinate amount of time i Normally, these certified personnel staff members should to clerical minutiae. 1 be assisting withBusiness Case No. 3 Page 2 plenenting d.scipHnan- interventions for our There are a number of factors contributing to this problem:  population from the three schools districts, making at\" -y -de ve^uf that which is typically found in an area nei^borhood school.  There are increased demands accounting accuracy. on administrators due to attendance  Existing clerical personnel are overextended with a myriad of daily responsibilities connected with the effective, efficient high school. running of a junior C. Analysis of Alternatives The administrative team and clerical staff generated and analyzed alternatives: 1. Train and assistance. maintain a strong volunteer pool of parents to give clerical a. Breaching of confidentiality is possible. b. Consistent pattern of service and times needed is lacking. 2. Seek clerical assistance from the district's pool of secretaries, a. Not available at this point. 3. Seek additional who has a night/evening job. monetary resources for existing clerical staff, that is for one regular job hours\nthis is more economical for the district. away A disadvantage is possible bum out plus the possibility misunderstnnd ac ___ misunderstood as preferential treatment for staff member involved. of being 4. \"Do Nothing.\"Business Case No. 3 Page 3 The bookkecpcr/attendance slot is unattractive to employees, causine ____If 1___ r\u0026gt;   dissatisfaction with oneself because of daily overload. Assistant principals will not receive relief from menial tasks at hand. 5. Hire an additional clerical person, who would serve as attendance secretary and as an aide for the assistant principals. This will best accomplish Mann's needs. 6. Half-time Person. While this may look attractive and cost effective, the job is not such that it can be accomplished effectively in one half day. The job's responsibility continues throughout the school day hours. D. Recommendation It IS recommended that a clerical position be added to Mann's clerical staff, giving relief to the bookkeepcr/attendance slot and to the assistant principal's paperwork burden. This addition would give the assistant principals more time to share their expertise in professional ways, such as disciplinary intervening and instructional improvement. E. Objectives The objective of this recommendation is to preserve and maintain an effective school which keeps a positive image for our district. F. Impact Analysis The addition of a clerical position will allow assistant principals to give attention to their expected job responsibility, rather than to clerical duties. Furthermore, the position of bookkecpcr/attendance secretary will be divided into a more workable and manageable job responsibility, making for sound financial accounting and accurate attendance reporting. This addition of a clerical staff member will have a positive impact on the Desegregation Plan because of the added effectiveness and efficiency that arc certain to occur. Assistant nrincioals will he able tn Jjccict mnrn principals be to assist more with the academic, and social environment of Mann, helping to maintain a sense of community for the parents, students and staff.Business Case No. 3 Page 4 G. H. Resource Analysis It is estimated that $3,000 minimal training would be\nForce Field Analysis ' would be required. more than enough for this position and I. General Implementation Plan The pnmipal, working with the Human P i,v 0, is-'thraiired beginning time. Resources Director, will have theEXECUTIVE SUMMARY BUSINESS CASE NEWCOMER CENTERS rc3 i 5 1995 Office of Di Over the past several years, the number of students attending the Little Rock Public Schools who are limited English proficient (LEP) has grown steadily.  This trend has been confirmed by two recent surveys conducted by the district at the request of the Arkansas Department of Education (ADE). The most recent survey reveals that there are currently five hundred one (501) students representing forty-nine (49) different language groups in the district for whom English is not the native language. It is the responsibility of the district to provide the educational services necessary to enable LEP students to function successfully in a mainstreamed English language educational setting. Federal and state laws do not consider lack of English language skills because of nationality to be a handicapping condition. Instead, such lack of English language skills is viewed as a barrier to access of equitable educational opportunity. It becomes the responsibility of the local school district to provide out of its local funds whatever services are needed to help students overcome the language barrier. Currently, the district is operating an English as language (ESL) tutorial program for LEP students. students are identified by their individual schools. a second As these they are referred to the district's curriculum and instruction division for tutorial services. Tutors are assigned to the students for minimum of one hour of pull-out language instruction each week. a To date, one hundred seventeen (117) students, representing twenty-two (22) language groups, have been referred for tutorial assistance this school year. Because the tutorial program is not equipped to meet the needs of the growing population of LEP students, the district must design and implement a more comprehensive program to meet all state and federal requirements regarding the education of language minority students. After extensive research, it appears that the Newcomer Center concept would serve as the most logical approach for the district to take in order to ensure full legal compliance. Implementation of the Newcomer Center approach will require the district to identify four to six (4-6) elementary schools, two (2) junior high schools, and one (1) senior high school to serve as Newcomer Centers for LEP students and their families. These schools will be equipped to provide the services necessary to assess language and academic skills, to provide intensive English language instruction, to provide appropriate grade level placement and educational orientation services, and to provide parents/family members with the necessary support that they need to be appropriately equipped to assist their children in gaining full access to the educational process.The overall goal of the proposed Newcomer Center program is to provide identified LEP students with opportunities to acquire the English language skills necessary to function successfully within a mainstreamed educational setting. In order to accomplish this, the district must achieve the following program objectives: In order to accomplish this, To develop and implement a - staff development program for principals, counselors, classroom teachers, and English language tutors at each Newcomer Center To develop and implement an ESL language arts curriculum designed to meet the English language learning needs students of LEP To coordinate classroom instructional activities with the ESL English language arts program to ensure that LEP students are being supported within the mainstreamed setting and to ensure a smooth transition for the LEP students and their families into and out of the Newcomer Centers To develop and implement an organized LEP Family Education which will help parents/f amilies members to work effectively with their children in Model succeed at school an effort to help them The Newcomer Center program will be implemented c.. The director of communications, English, ESj languages, and reading will serve as the program leader, of the deputy superintendent and the superintendent for desegregation. Tl__ ......ii\n^ development for all school staff at\" each site* planned and delivered by the program leader, along with trainers from the University of Arkansas at Little Rock (UALR), and a support trainer from Arkansas Tech University (ATU). The staff development component is the cornerstone of the proposed program and will serve to help the district realize the program goal. period. direction A. BACKGROUND over a three-year ESL, foreign and under the associate The program will emphasize staff which will be were Such Prior to 1991, the LRSD relied on its Volunteers in Public Schools (VIPS) Office to offer tutorial assistance to LEP students who having difficulty learning in mainstreamed classrooms, assistance was generally sporadic due to lack of determining need, as well as a lack of volunteers. a process for For the most part, the unique learning needs of LEP students were ignored, and the district was out of compliance with federal laws and state regulations. Currently, the district is operating an ESL Program which aims to provide tutorial services for identified LEP students. The ESL Program was established in the spring of 1991 in recognition of a need for the district to achieve compliance with federal laws and 2I state regulations. primary goal of the existing program remains to assist LEP students in acguiring the level of English language skills necessary for parity of participation in the standard instructional program. The of participation in The LEP students identified by the local schools through referral process comprised of multiple records, student self-identification, teacher recommendations. district's are a criteria, including student counselor assessment, and director of The ESL program is managed by the communications, ESL, foreign The program budget for the 1994-95 school English, languages, and reading. ____________ year is $75,000, which covers financial compensation for six part- time tutors at a rate of $15 ner hour fnr ovorw hour n-F a a 1 . 3 rate of $15 per hour for every hour of actual interaction time with LEP students. The tutors are assigned to the a minimum of one hour of pull-out English language instruction each week. referred students for The tutors travel, at their own students' schools where they assist the principals, teachers, and counselors in devising and implementing a support plan for each student assigned to them. expense. ^2 April, 1993, the district conducted a Home Language Survey i request of the Arkansas Department of Education (ADE). All 50 of the district's (regular) schools were asked to administer the survey to all students in all classrooms at all grade levels, K-12. '^2 survey results revealed that 400 students were potentially eligible for ESL services because a language other than English was Identified as the primary language used in their homes, students represented 66 distinct language English. groups. These 400 other than In early November, 1994, the district again conducted a Home Language Survey at the direction of the ADE. All 4 district's (regular) schools were asked to administer the ap students in all classrooms at all grade levels, K-12. This tiroe the survey results revealed that 501 students were potentially eligible for ESL services because a language other than English was identified as the primary language used in their homes. These 501 students represent 49 distinct language groups, other than English. Of the 501 identified students, the district is currently serving a total of 117 students at 36 different school sites. All 48 of the K-12. survey to These 501 The results of the 1993 and 1994 Home Language Surveys confirm sizeable and growing ESL eligible population in the district. Federal laws, which have been enacted to support and protect civil rights, reguire the district to provide an array of special services to ensure that LEP identified students can succeed in mainstreamed classrooms. Because the laws do not recognize a language barrier a handicapping condition or as a skills succeed a deficit. as the district cannot provide such services for these students through existing Special Education, Compensatory Education programs. Chapter One, or 3B. PROBLEM DEFINITION The district s existing ESL program lacks the financial and human resources needed to implement the comprehensive array of services required by law. As well, the program design lacks the components necessary to comply with all facets of the applicable laws. Federal civil rights laws and recent state legislation through ___ all school districts identify national origin minority students and then assess them in order to accurately Identify a LEP student population. 236 require that Act luenuiry A program which diagnoses and provides for special instructional needs must be developed to serve The program must help the LEP students develop positive self-concepts and identify with their cultural heritages, while equipping them for equitable access to all other district programs and services. As well, the program must also provide for parental/family involvement. this population. while The district's existing ESL program lacks the financial and human required by law. This resources needed to implement the comprehensive array of services required by law. As well, the program design lacks the components necessary to comply with all facets of the applicable laws. This situation is complicated by the fact that the current LEP student population is comprised of 49 known language groups, which makes utilization of traditional ESL program designs impossible. LEP students. District classroom teachers have not been trained to provide for the diverse needs of the LEP students in mainstreamed classrooms. Counselors have not been trained to accurately identify and place LEP students. The district does not have any kind of testing program to identify and assess the learning needs of LEP students. The LEP students are not provided with planned opportunities to connect with their native cultures, and LEP parents are not provided the comprehensive assistance they need to support their children, who must function in learning environments where their language is not spoken or read. Because the LEP population is continuing to grow, scheduling the six tutors into the district's schools has become a logistical nightmare. It is no longer possible to confine tutors to specific geographic regions is limited and service is consistent. so that travel Instead, LEP students must be assigned a tutor on a \"first first served\" basis, as already existing tutor schedules will allow. As a result, the tutors must criss-cross the district at their own expense, while their part-time schedules become more and more crowded to the point that they are now working full-time hours at a part-time hourly wage with no benefits. come, Extensive travel time and crowded schedules have left the tutors with little time to interact with teachers, counselors, and principals. counselors. This lack of interaction is leading to a lack of 4continuity in effort to meet the diverse learning needs of the LEP ---------------- As well, the limited interaction time between tutors and students. students (one hour per student per week) is not sufficient to help the LEP students acquire the English language skills needed to function successfully in the mainstreamed classroom setting. is compounded by the pull-out nature of the program, disconnects the LEP student from the mainstreamed classroom, This which ---- ---------------------------------------------and, in many instances, leads the classroom teacher to conclude that the LEP student is not her responsibility. C. ANALYSIS OF ALTERNATIVES In 1990 the Desegregation district requested the Chicago, Illinois. Assistance services of the Federal Centers in San Antonio, Texas, and These agencies were recommended to district administrators by the ADE's Equity Assistance Center. Both agencies sent representatives to the district to analyze the needs and to make recommendations on how to meet the identified needs. size The and diversity of the district's LEP population was determined to be too extensive to allow for a traditional approach to meeting the needs. A number of additional factors contributed to the complexity of the problem, including a lack of Arkansas certification for ESL teachers, a lack of special financial assistance to serve the LEP population, a lack of any other Arkansas school district programs targeting similar populations, and the LRSD's commitment to a desegregation plan that had inadvertently excluded the LEP A review of these factors, along with the knowledge about population size and diversity, led to the recommendation that the district develop a tutorial program to serve only as an interim measure during the time it would take the district to secure population. resources and develop a more comprehensive program that would meet needs and satisfy laws. Since 1990, district officials have possibilities for providing appropriate considered services a 1 to number \u0026gt; the of LEP population. Initially, an attempt was made to supplement a minimal tutorial program with volunteer assistance, but issues regarding training, liability, and reliability made this an impractical solution. well, the district extended invitations to known liability. As well. local organizations that represent interests of foreign language groups, but found that, for the most part, agendas were too different and lacked common goals. the And, while some of these entities shared good intentions, informal infrastructures limited actual follow through. The district has attempted to utilize translators to assist with testing, placement, and family communication, but because of the number of language groups (currently 49) represented in the LEP population the district has found this to be of little assistance. The lack of translators and trained teachers, whose native 5languages match those of the LEP population, have made implementing a traditional, transitional program of study offered in the native languages of the LEP population an impossibility. Besides, the laws favor a mainstreamed approach, and current research indicates growing trend toward utilization of immersion approaches in which .students learn in a setting where the target language - English is used exclusively, but with appropriate strategies activities designed to support the non-English speaker. Besides, the D, RECOMMENDATION and Because the tutorial program is not equipped to meet the needs of the growing population of diverse LEP students and because there are no other acceptable known alternatives, it is recommended that the district designate four to six elementary schools, two junior high schools, and one senior high school to serve as Newcomer Centers for LEP students and their parents. It remains the responsibility of the district to provide the educational services necessary to enable LEP students to function successfully in mainstreamed English language educational Federal and state laws do not consider lack of English skills because of nationality to be a handicapping condition. Instead, such lack of English language skills is viewed as a barrier to access of equitable educational opportunity. __ ________ the responsibility of the local school district to provide out of its local funds (pending forthcoming changes in Chapter One/Compensatory Education guidelines) whatever services are needed to help students overcome the language barrier. setting. Instead, It becomes in Currently, the district is operating a tutorial program for LEP students. ' . - schools, As these students are identified by their individual they are referred to the director of communications, English, ESL, foreign languages, and reading for tutorial services. Tutors, from a staff of six, are assigned to the students for a minimum of one hour of pull-out language instruction each week. date, To 117 students, representing 22 language groups, have been referred for tutorial assistance this school year. a Because the tutorial program is not equipped to meet the needs of the growing population of diverse LEP students and because there are no other acceptable known alternatives, it is recommended that the district designate four to six elementary schools, two junior high schools, and one senior high school to serve as Newcomer Centers for LEP students and their parents. These schools will be equipped to provide the services necessary to assess language and learning skills, to provide intensive English language instruction, to provide appropriate grade level placement and educational orientation services, and to provide parents with the necessary support that they need to be appropriately equipped to assist their children in gaining full access to the educational process. 6The Newcomer Centers will be selected by considering the proximity of existing LEP populations to school sites and by carefully examining existing transportation routes.   provide comprehensive staff development for these schools, including training for all classroom teachers on how to work with such students in mainstreamed classrooms and training for school counselors on how to place such students and on how to provide appropriate counseling services for them. Additionally, these schools will be equipped to appropriately test the students to determine educational needs, and each school will be staffed with trained language tutor, who will provide additional language acquisition assistance to LEP students who attend the school. for The district will Additionally Program components of the Newcomer Center concept will operate under the supervision of the director of communications, English, ESL, foreign languages, and reading, who will provide technical assistance and support to the school sites as appropriate, director of student assignment will facilitate placement of students at the district level, using a process involving multiple The Newcomer Centers will provide all short-term services necessary to acclimate the LEP students to the English language educational setting. The aim will be to fully mainstream these students into the area, incentive, or magnet schools to which they would otherwise be assigned. The E. The OBJECTIVES a The over all goal of implementing the Newcomer Center concept is to provide identified LEP students with opportunities to acquire the English language skills necessary to function successfully within a mainstreamed educational setting.  ILL L ______^_L____ achieving the following program objectives as measured by the accompanying evaluation criteria: This will be accomplished by To develop and implement a staff development program for principals, counselors, classroom teachers, and English language tutors at each Newcomer Center as evidenced by sign- in sheets and evaluation forms. The mean value of the training will be greater than 3.0 on a scale of 1.0 to 5.0. To develop and implement an ESL language arts curriculum designed to meet the English language learning needs of LEP as students evidenced by a curriculum implementation objectives checklist in which all indicators are in place. To coordinate classroom instructional activities with the ESL English language program to ensure that LEP students are being supported within the mainstreamed setting and to ensure a smooth transition for the LEP students and their families into and out of the Newcomer Centers as documented by lesson plans, individual student learning plans, and student portfolios. 7To develop and implement an organized LEP Family Education Model which will help parents to work effectively with their children in an effort to help them succeed at school as documented by sign-in sheets, testimony, questionnaires, and evaluation forms.  ' - . . . The mean value of the training will be greater than 3.0 on a scale of 1.0 to 5.0. GOAL SUPPORT These objectives directly support district goals 1, 5, and 6. objectives are included to ensure that all LEP students The are provided with equitable educational opportunities that will enable them to grow academically, socially, and emotionally while reducing disparity in achievement. The objectives also provide LEP students with the opportunity to learn in a risk-free environment and one that is safe and orderly. that equity The program will be monitored to ensure in all phases of school activities and operations, including provision of program and technical support. occurs F. IMPACT ANALYSIS The development of the Newcomer Center concept will have a positive impact on the district's learning achievement, district personnel, parents/families, patrons, and all students at each school site. Building principals, counselors, and teachers are becoming increasingly frustrated with the present difficulties in serving LEP students in ill-equipped schools void of a comprehensive action plan. Implementation of this program will alleviate this frustration. As well, the Newcomer Center Concept will strengthen each school in which it is implemented because it is designed to benefit all students who attend those schools. DESEGREGATION PLAN The Newcomer Center Concept students through an \"inclusion\" approach. is designed to benefit all Its implementation will underscore a recognition of the value of diversity within the public school setting in ways that directly achieve the aims of the district's desegregation plan. - - Most notably, the Newcomer Center Concept will focus on the development of classroom settings and support activities that will lead to increased student achievement, reduced academic disparity, and parody of educational opportunity for all students. COURT ORDER Implementation of the Newcomer Center Concept will not result in any negative impact. POLITICAL FACTORS/RISKS Standard One of the revised Arkansas Public School Standards 8G. For Accreditation requires the district to provide for the learning needs of all language minority students in equitable way in accordance with federal and state an laws. Currently, the district is not in full compliance of this standard or with all applicable federal and state laws that protect the rights of LEP students. Failure to implement a comprehensive plan of action for meeting the learning needs of these students will result in significant risk to the including the prospect of loss of accreditation, loss of state aid, and probable lawsuits. TIMING Immediate implementation of the Newcomer Center Concept is critical ensure that the district is in full legal compliance. ' ''   to As well, the district must demonstrate effort to serve all LEP students to the fullest extent of all laws in order to be eligible for possible funding sources in the including chapter One, Compensatory Education, and Title VII, as well as private and state grant opportunities. future, RESOURCE ANALYSIS PERSONNEL The Newcomer Center concept will utilize existing personnel at the selected school sites. As well, current ESL tutors will be assigned to the sites at the ratio of one tutor to each site. The tutors will continue to work part-time at the rate stated below: 8 tutors (maximum) X $2,250 per wk X 36 wks ($18 per hr X 125 hrs per wk) $ 81,000 8 tutors X $3 6 per month X 9 months ($18 per hr X 2 hrs per month for prep) 2,592 FINANCIAL In addition assigned to TOTAL SALARY COST $ 83,592 to continuing- the salary cost for ESL tutors each site, the Newcomer Center program will require on-going staff development and additional materials and supplies in order to achieve full implementation over a three-year period of time. The cost breakdown is as follows: 9Year One f1995-96): Staff Development $6,000 for stipends for UALR trainers\n$4,000 for stipends for ATU trainers $ 10,000 $51 stipend per teacher X 275 teachers for inservice pay 14,025 $2,000 per school for materials and supplies X 8 (maximum) schools 16,000 8 teachers X 3 days X $100/day (to write, edit, and word process) 2,400 2 writers X 3 days X $100/day (to write, edit, and word process) 600 Printing for ESL Language Arts Curriculum guides 500 TOTAL STIPEND/MATERIALS/SUPPLIES COST $ 43,525 GRAND TOTAL (including tutor salaries) Year Two (1996-97)\nCurrently budgeted $127,117 75,000 Total requested $ 52,117 Staff Development $4,000 for stipends for UALR trainers $2,000 for stipends for ATU trainers $ 6,000 $51 stipend per teacher X 275 teachers for inservice pay 14,025 $1,500 per school for materials and supplies X 8 (maximum) schools 12,000 TOTAL STIPEND/MATERIALS/SUPPLIES COST $ 32,025 GRAND TOTAL (including tutor salaries) $115,617 Year Three fl997-98): Total requested $ 40,617 Staff Development $3,000 for trainer stipends $ $51 stipend per teacher X 275 teachers for inservice pay 3,000 14,025 10$1,000 per school for materials and supplies X 8 (maximum) schools 8,000 TOTAL STIPEND/MATERIALS/SUPPLIES COST $ 25,025 GRAND TOTAL (including tutor salaries) $108,617 Total requested $ 33,617 The financial analysis outlines a budget that represents the minimum funding required to implement the Newcomer Center program over a three year period, if only district (local) funds are available. However, it is anticipated that additional funding will become available to ensure a quality implementation effort. district has just completed a proposal for a Goals 2000 State Grant The that would provide up to $50,000, which would fund the year one activities.   If awarded the grant, the district will be able to reapply for funds to continue the program components addressed within the grant application. As well. Chapter One/Compensatory Education guidelines are being changed. It is anticipated that the changes will allow the district to apply for these funds in order to pay for much of the program. Finally, the district will again apply for a Title VII grant when the new program is announced by the federal government sometime this spring. H. FORCE FIELD ANALYSIS The primary supporters of the Newcomer Center concept are the ESL tutors, classroom teachers. guidance counselors. district and school administrators, parents, students, patrons, and government. Because components of program implementation are required by law, there are no known detractors. I. GENERAL IMPLEMENTATION PLAN The current Director of communications. English, ESL, foreign languages, and reading will serve as the program leader and will assume the primary responsibility for organizing and implementing the Newcomer Center concept. The program leader will serve under the immediate direction of the district's deputy superintendent and the district's associate superintendent for desegregation, program leader will follow the time line below: The 11DATE ACTIVITY Feb. 1995 Feb. 1995 Feb. 1995 Feb. 1995 Mar. 1995- May 1996 July 1995 TIME LINE YEAR ONE (1995-96) Identify school sites/transportation routes Hire Newcomer Center Trainers (UALR/ATU) Plan first year staff development Schedule first year staff development Implement first year staff development Purchase materials and supplies PERSON RESPONSIBLE English/Reading Director, Student Assignment Office English/Reading Director English/Reading Director, UALR, UTA trainers English/Reading Director, Building Principals English/Reading Director, UALR, UTA trainers English/Reading Director, Building Principals * * * A June-Aug. 1995 Write LEP language arts curriculum English/Reading Director/ Teacher Committee/UTA trainer Feb.-May 1995 Pre-register LEP students Student Assignment Office March 1995 Provide School Site Staff Orientation English/Reading Director, UALR trainers Aug. 1995 May 1996 Register LEP students * Student Assignment Office/ Building Principals Sept. 1995- May 1996 Host LEP School Site Open Houses/Family Orientation/Follow-up meetings A Building Principals/Building Staffs/English/Reading Director 12Sept. 1995- May 1996 Assess LEP students * Counselors, School team Sept. 1995- May 1996 Schedule LEP students Counselors, School team Aug. 1995 Assign ESL tutors * English/Reading Director Sept. 1995- May 1996 Schedule ESL tutors * English/Reading Director Sept. 1995 Implement Portfolio Assessment * English/Reading Director Aug. 1995- May 1996 Monitor English/Reading Director/Building Principals Jan. 1996- May 1996 Develop Time Lines for Years Two and Three English/Reading Director/Building Principals NOTE: Activities followed by an asterisk will be continued during the second and third of implementation. year 13i I f .J FEB i iOO' BUSINESS CASE READING RECOVERY/EARLY LITERACY PILOT PROGRAM EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Currently, the Little Rock School District provides additional learning support to students in the areas of reading and These support efforts are determined by the options mathematics. available to each school through the district's Academic Support Program. * -------------- the elementary level, all schools provide accelerated reading experiences for students who have been identified as having a need for additional support based on an analysis of specified multiple criteria. The reading program at the elementary level is funded through Chapter One/Federal Programs and ' ~ ------ ' ' ' ' either direct or indirect services. IS characterized by offering - ------------- These services are delivered in theform of in-class assistance or limited pull-out by reading Each school is responsible for identifying students to receive the assistance, using the multiple criteria process outlined by the district's Academic Support Program. The schools then coordinate delivery of services through the district's reading/language arts department. certified teachers. The The existing program focuses on sustained remediation efforts from elementary school through high school. The program lacks a concentrated component at the initial stages of the elementary school experience that focuses on intervention. As a result, few first grade children are served because need for remediation must be determined before service can be rendered, intervention exists, first graders move The program lacks As a result, few ---------------- Because no early into the current remediation program in reading at subsequent grade levels when it has been determined that they have fallen behind. Early intervention would prevent this continuing cycle of need for later remediation. behind. The district must begin to emphasize early intervention rather than sustained remediation. Otherwise, as more students enter school without previous experiences that serve as a foundation for reading experience, more and more students will exhibit need for remediation later on. The current remediation program is not equipped for such growth in need, nor is it designed to adequately serve the array of needs. A review of test scores and other criteria used to identify students for this service indicates that lack of early intervention is perpetuating at an alarming rate the need for continuing remediation for the same students through high school. The district must begin to follow the direction now being set by the State by focusing on early intervention. This proposal outlines a pilot approach to an early intervention focus in the district in the area of reading. The Reading Recovery Program is 1Reading Recovery offers a the choice for this pilot effort, specialized approach for intervening problems, while simultaneously accelerating young students' learning processes to enable them to catch up to the average of their classroom peers. in young students' literacy accelerating model in This proposal recommends piloting the Reading Recovery lx. three elementary schools during the 1995-96 school year. The pilot approach will rec^ire three reading specialists, trained in Reading Recovepr/Early Literacy. These specialists will target first grade students, while the traditional program is continued at the other grade levels. As the Reading Recovery model begins to succeed, the current traditional approach will be modified and eventually eliminated. ' A. BACKGROUND I t Although the district revised its support programs in reading and the elementary schools continue to provide ------------ the area of reading in much the way that they have historically provided such services. mathematics in 1992, support services to students f same uuae uney nave nisporically This effort de-emphasizes support at the primary level in favor of a remediation approach for students with critical reading needs at the intermediate levels and beyond. The current elementary school reading program is characterized by making available either direct level, 2 through 6. or indirect services at each grade Limited\" assistance is provided at grade 1. services are delivered in the form of in-class assistance limited pull-out by reading certified teachers. or puii-ouL py reading certified teachers. Each school is responsible for identifying students to receive the assistance using the multiple criteria process outlined in the district's Academic Support Program, r* ' 1 _______________ services through the district's reading/language arts department. The schools then coordinate delivery of For provision of indirect services, reading specialists are paired with classroom\" teachers to assist in implementing accelerated learning experiences. An instructional program and schedulp nf schedule of services are designed for each student served in order to address individualized needs. For provision of direct services, pull-out reading classes -----.S ~ ~ Vildes, puxx-ouc reaaing classes are available to students identified as having severe reading problems The focus of these classes is to provide students with help in mastery of basic reading skills, while stimulating their interest in reading. Because the focus of the district's Academic Support Program is remediation after need has been established and tracked, very little emphasis is currently placed on intervention for \"cur,- At first grade, learning is primarily developmental and students learn at different speeds.  ' students. young Remediation need does not 2! I J surface until second grade or later, when students are suddenly expef^ed -ho al- =. At this point, some students are behind because of the slower learning pace at which they learned during first grade. They become candidates for the current expected to learn at a single pace. reading program. They become candidates for the current Although the efforts to meet reading needs at first grade have been minimal, beyond the classroom----------------- made. These include: experience, some attempts have been - indirect se^ices through Chapter I teachers - direct services for limited number of first grade students - additional resources were provided to seventeen (17) schools (Literacy 2000 - 14 schools\nDISTAR [direct instruction program] - 1 school) - learning styles model - 2 schools B. PROBLEM DEFINITION students intervention. The existing reading component of the district's Academic Support Program focuses on sustained remediation efforts rather than early This focus perpetuates a need for remediation seCTice for the same students from elementary school through high school because once they fall behind, they stay behind as learners. The current program lacks a concentrated component at the initial stages of the elementary school experience that focuses on intervention. experience Because of the remediation focus of the Academic Support Program, few first grade students receive services. Many first graders in need of support move on to second grade before support is rendered because they have fallen behind. At this point, they enter the remediation program, where they continue to functi\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":"usm_hmp_mus-m357-0115","title":"Complimentary ticket to Freedom Riders; January 1995","collection_id":"usm_hmp","collection_title":"Historical Manuscripts and Photographs","dcterms_contributor":null,"dcterms_spatial":["United States, 39.76, -98.5"],"dcterms_creator":["Youth Performance Company (Minneapolis, Minn.)"],"dc_date":["1995-01-01"],"dcterms_description":["From the Dahl (Kathleen) Freedom Summer Collection. Complimentary ticket for performance of a play, Freedom Riders, written by Jacie Knight and Lester Purry, to be performed by Youth Performance Company at Howard Conn Fine Arts Center, Minneapolis, in January 1995.","Electronic version made available through a National Leadership Grant for Libraries from the Institute of Museum and Library Services.","This item is part of the Civil Rights in Mississippi Digital Archive."],"dc_format":["image/jpeg","application/pdf"],"dcterms_identifier":null,"dcterms_language":["eng"],"dcterms_publisher":null,"dc_relation":null,"dc_right":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/CNE/1.0/"],"dcterms_is_part_of":["M357 Dahl (Kathleen) Freedom Summer Collection","Box 3, Folder 5"],"dcterms_subject":["Plays"],"dcterms_title":["Complimentary ticket to Freedom Riders; January 1995"],"dcterms_type":["StillImage","Text"],"dcterms_provenance":["University of Southern Mississippi. Libraries"],"edm_is_shown_by":null,"edm_is_shown_at":["https://usm.access.preservica.com/uncategorized/IO_287b19fd-af27-41e3-9598-eadd2ff9f49f"],"dcterms_temporal":null,"dcterms_rights_holder":null,"dcterms_bibliographic_citation":null,"dlg_local_right":["University Libraries provides access to these materials for educational and research purposes. Use of materials from this collection beyond the exceptions provided for in the Fair Use and Educational Use clauses of the U.S. Copyright Law may violate federal law. When possible, we have provided information regarding the copyright right status of an item; however, the information we have may not be accurate or complete. Obtaining permissions to publish or otherwise use is the sole responsibility of the user."],"dcterms_medium":["documents (object genre)"],"dcterms_extent":null,"dlg_subject_personal":null,"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":null},{"id":"bcas_bcmss0837_931","title":"Discipline: ''Analysis of Disciplinary Actions, District Level,'' North Little Rock School District","collection_id":"bcas_bcmss0837","collection_title":"Office of Desegregation Management","dcterms_contributor":null,"dcterms_spatial":["United States, 39.76, -98.5","United States, Arkansas, 34.75037, -92.50044","United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, 34.76993, -92.3118","United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, Little Rock, 34.74648, -92.28959"],"dcterms_creator":null,"dc_date":["1995/1996"],"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","North Little Rock School District","Education--Arkansas","Education--Evaluation","Educational statistics","School discipline"],"dcterms_title":["Discipline: ''Analysis of Disciplinary Actions, District Level,'' North Little Rock School District"],"dcterms_type":["Text"],"dcterms_provenance":["Butler Center for Arkansas Studies"],"edm_is_shown_by":null,"edm_is_shown_at":["http://arstudies.contentdm.oclc.org/cdm/ref/collection/bcmss0837/id/931"],"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":["72 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.\nDate: NORTH LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT Behavior Document --------------- Class Period:- ----- Notice#: Teacher: Student: ------ --------------- ---------------- Reason for Behavior Document: [ ] Class tardiness [ ] Excessive talking [ ] Lack of class materials [ ] Sleeping in class [ ] Eating in class [ ] Cutting class Action Taken: [ ] Student conference [ ] Parent conference [ ] Parent contact [ ] Counseling [ ] Disrespect for teachers [ ] Disrespect for students [ ] Improper care of school property [ ] Disobedience to classroom rules [ ] Overdue library book - second notice [ ] Not doing assignments [ ] Other: _______ _ [ ] Privileges denied [ ] Detention hall [ ] Other Parent's signature: _______________________________ _ Student's signature: ______________________________ _ White copy - Parent Canary copy - Principal Pink copy - Teacher 1995-96 B-15 REF: DlS()211? Disciplin.:1ry B~ferral--Sururuary of Suspensions u/201~2 Sui\nPc:ILf\nion::\nfor 1881 - 1992 ' :'3chol\n~- ---SAC--- --HOME--- BOYS. CLOE --TOTAL-- B NB B NB B NB B NB n 1 2 l~C1l~TLllT TTLE f\u0026lt;OC'K HlGH :.\nc 112 62 12 2 29 6 153 7 (J n 1:., Wlli'l'H LITTLE ROCK HIGH SC :\no 1 lUl 15 9 32 ~ 348 119 U'.24 RIDGEf-\u0026lt;OAMDI DDLE SCHOOL 144 117 18 7 23 10 185 134 U2b LAKEWC10M1JI DDLE SCHO(iL 198 33 i:i 4 41 r~ 245 43 020 [\u0026lt;USE CITY MIDDLE SCHOOL 284 166 12 2ti 8 322 175 0:30 BAl-dNG Ch:OSS CENTER 1 1 031 AMHUYb :LEMENTARSYC HOOL 22 ~i 22 3 032 LAKEWOCiEDL EMENTARYSC HOO 5 1 6 11 1 033 H,lUI-IEl- 'ARK ELEMENTARYSC H 4 [l ,,-, 12 5 03r\u0026gt; :::iEVENTH:3 Thh:ET ELEMENTARY 13 13 037 LYNCHD HIVE ELEMENTARYSC 1 8 ~~ 8 3 038 CENTi\u0026lt;AL b:LEMENTARY 3 10 4 13 4 040 Mi:AJJOWP ARK ELEMENTARYSC 7 2 7 r, ,\u0026lt;. 041 NCRTHH EIGHTS ELEMENTARY 3 1 16 8 19 10 042 r.1-\u0026lt;ESTWC1EuLDh :MENTAl:\u0026lt;SYC HO 3 1 17 1 20 2 043 PARK HILL ELEMENTARYSC HO 9 b 9 8 044 p JKl!: vu:w b:LEMENTAl:\u0026lt;SCYH O 4 1 9 13 1 04t.\u0026gt; BcLWCJ(Jib\":JL b:MENTAHSYC HOOL 3 \"-:,  3 3 046 GLENVIEWE LEMENTARYSC HOO 11 1 11 1 047 f, (J:~ b: CITY ELEMENTARYSC HO 5 21 7 26 7 048 fNDlAN HT LL:~ ELEMENTARYs 2 4 l 6 1 048 l-\u0026lt;EUWCiOELDE MENTARYSC HOOL 8 l 8 l Dl3Tl:\u0026lt;ll:'l' TUTAL.~ 1039 479 96 27 320 87 1455 5~3 EXPULSIONS FOR 1991-92 SCHOOL YEAR SCHOOL GRADE/RACE/SEX OFFENSE Ridgeroad Md. 7 Black/Male wt.:apon Ridgeroad Md. 7 Black/Mi6le weapon Rose City Md. 8 Black/Male weapon l~LRH-East 9 Black/Female weapon NLRH-East 10 Black/Male Prohibited Conc:luct BLK/WHT DISTnICT POLICY 1 0 :E'BJ 0 0 FBM 0 0 FBO 4 0 FBP PROHIBITED CONDUCT DEMONSTRATIONS AND DISORDERLY ACTIVITIES DRUGS AND ALCOHOL WEAPONSA ND DANGEROUSIN STRUMENTS 5 0 Total: 5 INCIDENT# ______ _ NORTH LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT CALL DATE. ____ _ INC. DATE ______ _ CRIMINAL INCIDENT REPORT CALL TIME. ____ _ I Location or Inc: I Address or Inc: I Phone# CQMPLJJ.STN.lC'tlM.:mr.OiiMA,t{()~QT'W'.2':.c?oNM'.1':.t\n.A::lNet'.Je'/wVtIwC\u0026lt;'l' IM:.~JU\\t\nAn,Q,~f'.\n::t\ny::2Lust Name: I Fint: I Ml: Last Name: I First: I Ml: Address: Address: Phone: I DUSSN: Phone: I Dl.JSSN: DOD: / / I Race: I Sex: DOB: T Race: l Sex: Hair Color: Eyes: Hehtht: Wet: Hair Color: Ens: Hl!t: W2t: Plwsical Descriution: Ph\\'Sical Descriotion: Em1loyee: I I Student: I I Other: I Emnlo,ee I I Student I I Other I SUSPltct'JDUltNb.ANTiiNPORMATlONM.%M@.%t@:SAU'WSMPWEC.t'l'I/ DEJl'ENDAN1JmokMAnoNWl@tH1iH@MLast Name: I First: I MI: Last Name: I First: I MI: Address: Address: Phone: I DUSSN: Phone: l DUSSN: DOB: / / I Race: I Sex: DOB: / I Race: I Sex: Hair Color: Eyes: Hel2ht: W2t: Hair Color: Eves: H2t: W2t: Phnical Decsrh,tion: Phvsical Descriution: Emulo,ee: I I Student: I I Other: I Emnlovee I I Student I I Other I wrtNtSSffillORMATION%.tii?).:\n.g\nj\u0026lt;.'\n.'.i\u0026amp;i4~(.F.'./?~:~:w:-1~m.f.is2s\n:\nitflfN%F1~O .itMATiON:~.\n:~\nh~L.:J12\n,_::..\n: :\n\n:S\u0026gt;:Last Name: I First: I Ml: Last Name: I First: I MI: Address: Address: Phone: I DUSSN: Phone: I DUSSN: DOB: / / I Race: I Sex: DOB: / / I Race: I Sex: Hair Color: Eyes: I Hel2ht: W2t: Hair Color: Ens: He:t: W2t: Ph:-!sicaDl escri11tion: Phvsical Descrintion: Emulovee: I I Student: I I Other: I Emulovee I I Student I I Other I Make/Model: I Year: Color: License No: Pro1\u0026gt;ert~D amae.e I I Gane Incident I Personal Iniurv I I Tbcft/Robberv I School Pro11erty Dama2e I I Dru2s I Wca11ons Violation I I Other I \\::\n::\n:::::::\n~:(::::=/f:f-t:)A::\n~0~1tC~-\n-~t1~\n.?~:-~\n\\\\?)~~\n.:~rtt?l:Jt)=A.:.~t f~t\\i~::/fb:l~tA~:thtsSY-iO:~F:f-fJ~NitC::Jdl~)lfl~tt~:}::J:t~:.::}::\\.f:~::~-:~::\n:_=.. . . \u0026lt;'''''  w,::g:i\u0026gt;.:::r,-.J.w i:  + w m@+%1.ao111JrtV1\u0026gt;AMAc.:Nvo.tvE.::a@wtwA:\u0026gt;w neYwm,igw@wiI+@::M#\u0026gt;Descri11tlon: Cost: Serial/ID: Police I I Suuerlntendent I I School I I Safctv/Securitv Office I I Other I Form Pre11nred B,: I Date: I Time: WlilTE COPY -NLR POUCE DEPARTMENT PINK COPY - SCHOOL PRJNCIPAL GOLDENROD COPY - STUDENf AFFAIRS omCE INCIDENT# ______ _ NORTH LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT CALL DATE_. ____ _ INC. DATE_. _____ _ CRIMINAL INCIDENT REPORT CALL TIME._ ____ _ I Location of Inc: I Address of Inc: I Phone# coMPLAtNTMCTJMilNFOaMA'tlQNMIM!MMiW::tOid~/Ml.AMlN!@'t'IfVfWICW'l' IMUWOlU\\fA'rlQN-@d:\\N'\\tMWMMMFiMl\\ Lust Name: First: I Ml: Last Name: I First: I MI: Adtlress: AtldreH: Phone: I DUSSN: Phone: I DUSSN: DOD: / I Race: I Sex: DOB: Race: I Sex: Hair Color: Eves: Hei2ht: Wirt: Hair Color: Ph~sical Descriution: Phnical Descriution: Emulovee: I I Student: I I Other: Em11lo1ee I 1 Student l l Other SUSPECT/DJ:PBNDANl\\ffiia'ORMA.TlONiiWA@dMtM.iMSUMSMP#EfaCifT /DEFENfiMtr:mroRMAttoN:MtiM\u0026amp;t%%WMW%Last Name: First: I Ml: Last Name: I First: I Ml: Address: Address: Phone: I DUSSN: Phone: I DUSSN: DOB: / / I Race: I Sex: DOB: / / Race: I Sex: Hair Color: Eves: Heleht: Wirt: Hair Color: Eves: Hl!t: Wirt: Ph\\'Sical Decsriution: Phvsical Descrintion: Em11lo1ee: I I Student: I I Other: Emnloyee I T Student I I Other Last Name: First: I Ml: Last Name: I First: I Ml: Adtlress: Atltlress: Phone: I DUSSN: Phone: I DUSSN: DOB: I I I Race: I Sex: DOB: / T Race: I Sex: Hair Color: Eves: Heieht: Wl!t: Hair Color: Ens: Het: Wirt: Ph'\\sical Descri11tion: Phvsical Descrintion: Emnlo,ee: I I Student: I I Other: Emnlovee I I Student I I Other    .. i :\n:\u0026lt; s\" 5 t!TP\\ + \u0026gt;TJA hN Y : 'llli'. Make/Model: I Year: Color: License No: . \u0026lt;\u0026lt; , x \n.= ,,,~ . .,v~.n: i\u0026gt;h,\u0026lt;= ~j I' NEIH .. t,1/:?  i +\u0026amp;\u0026lt;\"'  \n,\\\n.\n:,,_:\n::'.:''''''-i~c,:i::~:\"\"~}Pro11ert1D ama2e Gan2I ncident Personal lniurv Thcft/Robberv School Pro11erty Dama2e Drues Weanons Violation Other \" 'Ii ,,,,.,myy, \"'\"\"?-l'KI!'JH,%%\"::1:'==r = rxwvn.,,x. :M'.\",. .. ,.   ,.... mu------\"\"'+nI ,.,.,.,.,.,, :::\ntn:At:\u0026gt;\\ '.\n-:t:'?JIT:7. ....\" ..\". .' , Descrh,tion: Cost: Serial/ID: Police I I Su11erlntendent I I School I I Safetv/Securitv Office I Other Form Pre11nred Bv: I Dnte: I Time: WlUIE COPY -NLR POLICE DEPAIITMENf PINK COPY - SCHOOL PRINCIPAL GOLDENROD COPY - STUDENT AFFAIRS OFFICE INCIDENT# ______ _ NORTH LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT CRIMINAL INCIDENT REPORT CALL DATE. ____ _ INC. DATE ______ _ CALL TIME. _____ _ I Location of Inc: I Address or Inc: I Phone# COMPI.Al8'l'NIC'tlMfflll'Ot(MA}1y'lrOn:N2\u0026lt;Y'\u0026gt;.YEfW '.'2:c\\o}M PllAlNTNIC'flf.{:tmt()JtMA'l2'lON\\? :?::ES:rnt:\u0026lt;Lust Name: First: I MI: Last Name: ( First: I MI: Address: Addreu: Phone: I DIJSSN: Phone: I DUSSN: DOB: / / I Race: I Sex: DOB: / / Race: I Sex: Hair Color: Eyes: Heieht: Wet: Hair Color: Ens: Wet: Phnical Descrintion: Phvsical Descrintion: Emnlovee: I I Student: I I Other: Emnlovee I l Student l l Other SUSPECTIDEFBND.ANtriiNWRMATJON{ii\u0026amp;.M:HWM:!@SUMS\\tP%E%CMT/fDf EJi'ENfiANT'INFORMATION\\WMMNK@WHLast Name: First: I Ml: Last Name: I First: I MI: Address: Address: Phone: I DIJSSN: Phone: I DIJSSN: DOB: / / I Race: I Sex: DOB: / / Race: I Sex: Hair Color: Eves: Heleht: Wet: Hair Color: Eves: Hl!:t: Wet: Ph~sical Decsrintion: Phvsical Descrintion: Em11lo,ee: I I Student: I I Other: Emnloyee I l Student l l Other WITNESSJN li'OitMATIONMt@\u0026lt;c tt\u0026lt; (j: ':~ EL'.\u0026gt;L':SfW\nrtNESSI NFOIU\\IA'.tlO'N. { 't\u0026gt;\u0026gt; ::ttLt::nnxLttW\u0026lt;\nY Last Name: First: I Ml: Last Name: I First: I Ml: Address: Address: Phone: I DUSSN: Phone: I DIJSSN: DOB: / / I Race: I Sex: DOB: / I Race: I Sex: Hair Color: Eves: Heleht: Wl!:t: Hair Color: Phnical Descri11tion: Phvsical Descriution: I I Student: I I Other: Emnlovee I I Student I I Other E\n:.,.,\n.}S\u0026lt;\n:/A? \\bi,/C{hi .\\ VltntCLI.JNl()R.MA'J'iQN\"',., ,.,,,fr~, \\tt:Le,,,-~ . .. .\n,:..,. ,. ..:.: Make/Model: Color: License No: M  ~ \" )\u0026lt;.wWiX \u0026lt;.:\u0026lt;  / ~  -~ Prouert,D ama2e Gnni!I.n cident Personall niurv Theft/Robberv School Pro1,ertv Damaee Drues Weanons Violation Other Descrintlon: Cost: SeriaVID: Police I I Suuerlntcndent I I School I I Safctv/Sccuritv Office I I Other Form Prei,nred By: I Dnte: 1 Time: WlilTE COPY -NLR POLICE DEPARTMENT PINK COPY - SCHOOL PRINCIPAL GOLDENROD COPY - STIJDENT AFFAIRS OFFICE NORTH LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT District Suspension Student's Name _________________ Student ID# ____________ _ School ______________ Grade ___ _ Date ---------------- Address of Parent or Guardian: _____________________________ _ Dear ____________ _ Your child has been involved in the following incident: ----------------------- This letter is to infonn you that the following disciplinary action has been taken concerning your child. Beginning ___________ , your child will be assigned to the following program for ____ day(s):      Boys/Girls Club Suspensions for students in grades seven through twelve will be served at the North Little Rock Boys/Girls Club located at 13th and Main Streets directly across the street from the Alternative School. Classes begin at 8:30 a.m. and dismiss at 3:30 p.m. Transportation to the Boys/Girls Club Suspension program is the family's responsibility. Elementary Alternative School Suspensions for students in grades Kindergarten through six will be served at: School:_ ___________ Location: ____________ _ Time: __________ . Transportation to the Alternative School suspension class is provided. See attached bus schedule. Saturday School Suspensions for students in grades four through twelve will begin at 8:00 a.m. and will dismiss at 12:00 noon. This assignment is effective only on the date shown above. Failure to attend Saturday School will result in further disciplinary action. See attached Saturday School infonnation sheet. Student Assignment Class Suspensions/SAC classes for students in grades seven through twelve are located on each secondary school campus. The class will begin and dismiss within the school's nonnal bell schedule. Home suspensions will be served in the students' homes. If a suspension exceeds four (4) days (not counting today), then it will be reviewed, if a parent or guardian so requests, by the Assistant Superintendent for Student Affairs. A copy of the policies of the Board of Education pertaining the suspensions and expulsions is available for examination at each school and at the Administrative Office .  Parent: Please retain this copy for your records. If you have further questions, please contact the school at Principal Assistant Principal/Administrative Assistant Whitec opy-Parentc opy Yellow copy-Studenct opy Pink copy-Officec opy Goldenrodc opy-StudentA ffairsO ffice 1995-96 B-16 I 1 l ,. 1~93 NORTH LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT ANALYSIS OF DISCIPLINARY ACTIONS DISTRICT LEVEL 1995-96 FRANCICAL J. JACKSON DIRECTORO F STUDENTA FFAIRS Ref: DIS032 flat .. , r./1 /o, Time: 15:26:38 Analysis of Disciplinary Actions r\u0026gt;Tn'l'n (\"'I' r.~r. Prom AUGUST Through MAY l 9 9 4 - 9 5 ===============a======= -----BM------ -----BP------ -----NBM----- -----NBP----- # REP PCT/TOT # REP PCT/TOT # REP PCT/TOT # REP PCT/TOT # STU # STU # STU # STU ======--------aaaacaaaaa==E=ccmccaaasacc============= 09 S.A.C. 869 46.6\\ 460 24.7\\ 411 22.0\\ 126 6.8\\ 1866 429 252 231 76 988 10 HOME SUSP. 236 50.8\\ 106 22.8\\ 103 22.2\\ 20 4.3\\ 465 166 73 78 17 334 11 BOYS CLUB 133 61.6\\ 44 20.4\\ 31 14.4\\ 8 3.7\\ 216 95 36 28 8 167 12 E. I. C. 178 57.6\\ 68 22.0\\ 58 18.8\\ 5 1.6\\ 30~ 123 55 41 5 224 17 EXPULSION 7 87.5\\ 0 .0\\ 1 12.5\\ 0 .0\\ 8 7 0 1 0 8 ================-------====------====--=-------------------~---=-=== 1 9 9 5 - 9 6 -----BM------ -----BP------ -----NBM----- -----NBP----- # REP PCT/TOT # REP PCT/TOT # REP PCT/TOT # REP PCT/TOT # STU # STU # STU # STU ==m============== 09 S.A.C. 1043 51.2\\ 445 21.8\\ 410 20.1\\ 140 6.9\\ 2038 450 232 224 89 995 10 HOME SUSP. 141 61.8\\ 42 18.4\\ 42 18.4\\ 3 1.3\\ 228 99 32 31 2 164 11 BOYS CLUB 371 66.1\\ 102 18.2\\ 75 13.4\\ 13 2.3\\ 561 214 67 53 13 347 12 E. I. C. 1540 59.3\\ 489 18.8\\ 498 19.2\\ 71 2.7\\ 2598 554 231 209 42 1036 17 EXPULSION 2 40.0\\ 1 20.0\\ 0 .0\\ 2 40.0\\ 5 2 l 0 2 5 ================------------------------------------------------------------ COMPARISON ===========================a============ -----BM------ -----BP------ -----NBM----- -----NBP----- # REP PCT(+/-) # REP PCT(+/-) # REP PCT(+/-) # REP PCT(+/-) # STU # STU # STU # STU ====================~-----====---------=-=----------------------------------=- 09 S.A.C. 174 20.0 \\ 15- 3.3-\\ 1- .2-\\ 14 11.l \\ 172 21 20- 7- 13 7 10 HOME SUSP. 95- 40.3-\\ 64- 60.4-\\ 61- 59.2-\\ 17- 85.0-\\ 237- 67- 41- 47- 15- 170- 11 BOYS CLUB 238 178.9 \\ 58 131.8 \\ 44 141. 9 \\ 5 62.5 \\ 345 119 31 25 5 180 12 E.I.C. 1362 765.2 \\ 421 619.l \\ 440 758.6 \\ 66 1320.0 \\ 2289 431 176 168 37 812 17 EXPULSION 5- 71. 4-\\ l 100.0 \\ 1- 100.0-\\ 2 200.0 \\ 3- 5- l 1- 2 3- Ref: Date: Time: DIS032 6/12/96 15:26:49 09 S.A.C. 10 HOME SUSP. ll BOYS CLUB 12 E.I.C. 17 EXPULSION 09 S.A.C. 10 HOME SUSP. ll BOYS CLUB 12 E.I.C. 17 EXPULSION Analysis of Disciplinary Actions HIGH SCHOOLS From AUGUST Through MAY l 9 9 4 - 9 5 -----BM------ # REF PCT/TOT # STU 510 243 80 57 89 57 0 0 5 5 53.9\\ 60.6\\ 7l.8\\ .o, 83.3\\ -----BF------ # REF PCT/TOT # STU 207 128 12 ll 21 19 0 0 0 0 21.9\\ 9.l\\ 16.9\\ .o, .o, l 9 9 5 - 9 6 -----BM------ # REF PCT/TOT # STU 470 220 20 18 207 116 0 0 2 2 50.2\\ 60.6\\ 7l.l\\ .o, 66 .7\\ -----BF------ # REF PCT/TOT # STU 189 105 7 5 41 31 0 0 l l 20.2\\ 2l.2\\ 14 .l\\ .o, 33.3\\ COMPARISON -----NBM----- # REF PCT/TOT # STU 180 109 36 32 9 8 0 0 l l 19.0\\ 27 .3\\ 7.3\\ .o, 16.7\\ -----NBM----- # REF PCT/TOT # STU 192 ll0 4 3 36 28 0 0 0 0 20.5\\ 12.l\\ 12.4\\ .o, .o, -----NBF----- # REF PCT/TOT # STU 49 31 4 4 5 5 0 0 0 0 5.2\\ 3.0\\ 4.0\\ .o, .o, -----NBF----- # REF PCT/TOT # STU 85 52 2 l 7 7 0 0 0 0 9.l\\ 6.l\\ 2.4\\ .o, .o, 946 511 132 104 124 89 0 0 6 6 936 487 33 27 291 182 0 0 3 3 ====================--------------=--=--=-----------===--=----------------= -----BM------ -----BF------ -----NBM----- -----NBF----- # REF PCT(+/-) # REF PCT(+/-) # REF PCT(+/-) # REP PCT(+/-) # STU # STU # STU # STU =================--=---=-=-====--======-------------=-------------------= 09 S.A.C. 40- 7.8-\\ 18- 8.7-\\ 12 6.7 ' 36 73.5 ' 10- 23- 23- l 21 24- 10 HOME SUSP. 60- 75.0-\\ 5- 4l. 7-\\ 32- 88.9-\\ 2- 50.0-\\ 99- 39- 6- 29- 3- 77- ll BOYS CLUB 118 132.6 ' 20 95.2 ' 27 300.0 ' 2 40.0 ' 167 59 12 20 2 93 12 E.I.C. 0 .0 ' 0 . 0 ' 0 .o ' 0 .o ' 0 0 0 0 0 0 17 EXPULSION 3- 60.0-\\ l 100.0 ' l- 100.0-\\ 0 .0 ' 3- 3- l l- 0 3- Ref: DIS032 Date: 6/12/96 Time: 15:26:46 Analysis of Disciplinary Actions MIDDLE SCHOOLS From AUGUST Through MAY 1 9 9 4 - 9 5 -----BM------ # REF PCT/TOT # STU -----BF------ # REF PCT/TOT # STU -----NBM----- # REF PCT/TOT # STU -----NBF----- # REF PCT/TOT # STU ====-======---------------------------=------------------------========= 09 S.A.C. 359 39.0% 253 27.5% 231 25.1% 77 8.4% 920 186 124 122 45 477 10 HOME SUSP. 106 43.3% 75 30.6% 49 20.0% 15 6.1% 245 68 49 30 12 159 11 BOYS CLUB 44 47.8% 23 25.0% 22 23.9% 3 3.3% 92 38 17 20 3 78 12 E.I.C. 0 .0% 0 .0% 0 .0% 0 .0% 0 0 0 0 0 0 17 EXPULSION 2 100.0% 0 .0% 0 .0% 0 .0% 2 2 0 0 0 2 1 9 9 5 - 9 6 -----BM------ -----BF------ -----NBM----- -----NBF----- # REF PCT/TOT # REF PCT/TOT # REF PCT/TOT # REF PCT/TOT # STU # STU # STU # STU ===================---------------=-------------------------------==-----==== 09 S.A.C. 573 52.0% 256 23.2% 218 19.8% 55 5.0% 1102 230 127 114 37 508 10 HOME SUSP. 5 41. 7% 4 33.3% 3 25.0% 0 .0% 12 5 4 3 0 12 11 BOYS CLUB 164 60.7% 61 22.6% 39 14.4% 6 2.2% 270 98 36 25 6 165 12 E.I.C. 0 .0% 0 .0% 0 .0% 0 .0% 0 0 0 0 0 0 17 EXPULSION 0 .0% 0 .0% 0 .0% 2 100.0% 2 0 0 0 2 2 aa:asaa:cca=c=aaca:caDaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaac COMPARISON -----BM------ -----BF------ -----NBM----- -----NBF----- # REF PCT(+/-) # REF PCT(+/-) # REF PCT(+/-) # REF PCT(+/-) # STU #STU #STU #STU ========================--===------------------------------------=-= 09 S.A.C. 214 59.6 \\ 3 1.2 \\ 13- 5.6-\\ 22- 28.6-\\ 182 44 3 8- 8- 31 10 HOME SUSP. 101- 95.3-\\ 71- 94.7-% 46- 93.9-% 15- 100.0-% 233- 63- 45- 27- 12- 147- 11 BOYS CLUB 120 272.7 % 38 165.2 % 17 77 .3 \\ 3 100.0 \\ 178 60 19 5 3 87 12 E.I.C. 0 . 0 % 0 .o % 0 . 0 \\ 0 .o \\ 0 0 0 0 0 0 17 EXPULSION 2- 100.0-% 0 .o \\ 0 . 0 \\ 2 200.0 \\ 0 2- 0 0 2 0 Ref: Date: Time: DIS032 6/12/96 15:26:42 Analysis of Disciplinary Actions ELEMENTARY K-6 From AUGUST Through MAY l 9 9 4 - 9 5 ====-==========--=---=-----======--------=------------=-----------= -----BM------ -----BF------ -----NBM----- -----NBF----- # REF PCT/TOT # REF PCT/TOT # REF PCT/TOT # REF PCT/TOT # STU # STU # STU # STU ===================----------=--------=-==--====================== 09 S.A.C. 0 .0\\ 0 .0\\ 0 .0\\ 0 .0\\ 0 0 0 0 0 0 10 HOME SUSP. so 56.8\\ 19 21. 6\\ 18 20.5\\ l l.l\\ 88 41 13 16 l 71 11 BOYS CLUB 0 .0\\ 0 .0\\ 0 .0\\ 0 .0\\ 0 0 0 0 0 0 12 E.I.C. 178 57.6\\ 68 22.0\\ 58 18.8\\ 5 1.6\\ 309_ 123 55 41 5 224 17 EXPULSION 0 .0\\ 0 .0\\ 0 .0\\ 0 .0\\ 0 0 0 0 0 0 l 9 9 5 - 9 6 ========================-------------------------------=-------------------= -----BM------ -----BF------ -----NBM----- -----NBF----- # REF PCT/TOT # REF PCT/TOT # REF PCT/TOT # REF PCT/TOT # STU # STU # STU # STU =================-=----------------------------------------------------------= 09 S.A.C. 0 .0\\ 0 .0\\ 0 .0\\ 0 .0\\ 0 0 0 0 0 0 10 HOME SUSP. 115 63.2\\ 31 17.0\\ 35 19.2\\ 1 .5\\ 182 75 23 25 1 124 11 BOYS CLUB 0 .0\\ 0 .0\\ 0 .0\\ 0 .0\\ 0 0 0 0 0 0 12 E.I.C. 1539 59.3\\ 489 18.8\\ 498 19.2\\ 71 2.7\\ 2597 553 231 209 42 1035 17 EXPULSION 0 .0\\ 0 .0\\ 0 .0\\ 0 .0\\ 0 0 0 0 0 0 =============-=-=-------=------------------------------------------------- COMPARISON ===================s============================ -----BM------ -----BF------ -----NBM----- -----NBF----- # REF PCT(+/-) # REF PCT(+/-) # REF PCT(+/-) # REF PCT(+/-) # STU # STU # STU # STU ==================a===s 09 S.A.C. 0 .o \\ 0 .0 \\ 0 .0 \\ 0 .0 \\ 0 0 0 0 0 0 10 HOME SUSP. 65 130.0 \\ 12 63.2 \\ 17 94.4 \\ 0 .o \\ 94 34 10 9 0 53 11 BOYS CLUB 0 .0 \\ 0 .0 \\ 0 .o \\ 0 .0 \\ 0 0 0 0 0 0 12 E.I.C. 1361 764.6 \\ 421 619.1 \\ 440 758.6 \\ 66 1320.0 \\ 2288 430 176 168 37 811 17 EXPULSION 0 . 0 \\ 0 .0 \\ 0 .0 \\ 0 . 0 \\ 0 0 0 0 0 0 DIS0325 'ate: 6/13/96 1me: 15: 56: 21 chocl: 012 Analysis o~ Disciplinary Actions by School From AUGUST Through MAY NORTH LITTLE ROCK HIGH SCHOOL - 11/12 --------------------=-======================================-----------========= i 9 9 4 - 9 5 --------------=--================================================================ -----BM------ # REF PCT/TOT w STU -----BF------ # REF -PCT/TOT w STU -----NBM----- # REF PCT/TOT w STU -----NBF----- # REF PCT/TOT w STU -=============================================================-----============= 5.\n,, - 163 58. bi. 51 18. 3i. 54 19. 4% 10 3. 6i: 278 87 41 36 7 171 . \\_' HOMi:: Si.}SF 21 70. 0 .,,. 1 3. 3'1/. 7 23. 3i: 1 - ,.j_ .~..\",,'. 30 19 1 7 1 28 BOYS CLUB 41 -91. 1.,,. 2 'L 47. 2 4.4'1/. 0 . 0'1/. 45 21 2 \"2 0 25 E I. ,-_ -. 0 . Oi: 0 . Oi~ 0 . 0% 0 . Oi. 0 0 0 0 0 0 -\n- EXPi_,iL.5 I ON 4 100_ 0'1/. 0 . O't. 0 . 0'1/. 0 . 0% 4 4 0 0 0 4 ======~========================================================================= 1 9 9 5 - 9 6 .: --==:..:=---================-=========================================================== -----BM------ -----BF------ # REF PCT/TOT # REF PCT/TOT # STU # STU -----NBM----# REF PCT/TOT # STU -----NBF----# REF PCT/TOT # STU --=====~=-====~~=======-==-======================================================= S. ~,.. - 192 59. 6'1/. 40 12_ 4'1/. 76 23. 6'1/. 14 4. 3i. 322 98 30 46 1 i 185 HCH'1:= s:_1s~ s: 81. 8% i 9. 1i': 1 9_ n: 0 0% 11 - 1 1 0 9 B ~\n-:UJE iOi 82. 8% 5 4. 1 '1/. 15 12. 3% 1 Bi. 122 5i 5 10 1 67 E. J.. C 0 O,.\n0 0% 0 0'1/. 0 0% 0 - 0 0 0 0 0 E::\u0026lt;PU\n_SIQt--1 50. 0% 1 50. 0 .,,. 0 0% 0 0% 2 1 i 0 0 2 ------------------------------------------=--=---------------------------------- COMPARISON : -==-=========================================================================== ------Bn------ -----BF------ -----NBM----- -----NBF-----  REF PCT(+/-l # REF PCT(+/-)# REF PCT(+/-l # REF PCT\u0026lt;+/-) # STU # STU # STU # STU =----=~======~=====--=--======================================================== f-. ,.. ~- 29 17. 8 I, 11- 21. 6-% 22 40. 7 I. 4 40. 0 i. 44 11 1 i- 10 4 14 HOM.:: SUSP. 12- 57. 1-i\n0 0 i\n6- 95_ 7-'1/. 1- 100. 0-' 19- 12- 0 6- 1- 19- BOV=: Cl.-LiB 60 146. 3 i: 2 150. 0 I, 13 650. 0 I. 1 100. 0 .,,. 77 ..... ,.:,_~, 3 8 1 42 - 0 0 I, 0 - ~ ~ - 0 i: 0 0 I. 0 0 i: 0 - 0 0 0 0 0 EX?ULSiON ~- 75. 0-i: l 100. 0 I, 0 0 i: 0 0 i\n2- 3- 1 0 0 2- .ef: DIS0325 AnEol1Jsis of Disc ip l ina'T'IJ Actions 6/13/96 by School 15:56:25 From AUGUST Through MAY chool 013 NORTH LITTLE ROCK HIGH SCHOOL - 09/10 ---==========================================-==--==========--------------====== l 9 9 4 - 9 5 =---------=-======================--======--==--=-----=-==-----------------====== -----BM------ -----BF------ # REF PCT/TOT # REF PCT/TOT # STU # STU -----NBM----# REF PCT/TOT # STU -----NB'F----# REF PCT/TOT # STU -------------=-===============================================------========----- S. A C 347 51. 9% 156 23. 4% 126 18. 9% 39 5. 8'Y. 668 i58 88 73 24 343 HDl'ic SUSF. 58 e~ .., I. 4'i. 1i iO. 9% 29 28. 7,\n3 3. O'Y. 10i 37 iO 25 3 75 BOYS CLUB 48 60. 8' 19 24. 1 ' 7 8. 9' 5 6. 3' 79 36 17 6 5 64 E. ' .-. 0 0% 0 0' 1 0' 0 Oi'\n0 0 0 0 0 0 EiP:JL..5lON 1 50. 0% 0 0% i 50. Qi'\n0 0% 2 l 0 1 0 2 ====~=========================================================================== i 9 9 5 - 9 6 ---=================--=-=====================================--------============ -----BM------ -----BF------ # REF PCT/TOT # REF PCT/TOT # STU # STU -----NBM----# REF PCT/TOT # STU -----NBF----- # REF PCT/TOT # STU --~====================-==========================================-=-============ S. H , 278 45. 3'i. 149 24.3% 116 18. 9 71 11. 6'1/. 614 12~ 75 65 42 305 HDMi:: SvSF 1 3~. 3'i. i 33. 3 1 33. 3 0 . O 3\nL 1 1 0 3 BOYS CLUB 68 6i. 3% 21 18. 9 17 15. 3'1/. 5 4. 5' 111 5.-, C. 17 15 5 89 E I.C 0 . Oi: 0 . 0'1/. 0 . Oi: 0 . O 0 0 0 0 0 0 EXPULSION 1 100. O't. 0 . 0% 0 . O 0 . 0'1/. 1 1 0 0 0 1 - ---===:====-=--------============================================================ COMPARISON ~~==================-==========================================================-----BM------ -----BF------ -----NBM----- -----NBF----- # REF PCT(+1-l # REF PCT(+/-) # REF PCT(+/-) # REF PCT(+/-) # STU # STU # STU # STU ____\n ======-=-------------=================================================--=- 5 A C. 69- 19. 9-i'\n7- 4. 5-'1/. 10- 7. 9-'1/. 32 82. 1 '1/. 54- 35- 13- 8- 18 38- HOM:: SI_ISP 57- 98. r:_\n~ ,. 10- 90. 9-' 28- 96. 6-'1/. 3- 100. 0-'Y. 98- 36- 9- 24- 3- 72- BOr~ C:...\\.'F 2c, 41 7 I. ~, 10. 5 ., ,:.. ,. 10 142. 9 'Y. 0 0 r. 32 le 0 9 0 25 - ' ... 0 (, I. 0 0 'Y. 0 0 /. 0 0 '1/. 0 ' 0 0 0 0 0 EXPULSION 0 0 ,\n. 0 0 % 1- 100. o- 0 0 'Y. 1- 0 0 1- 0 1- DIS032S Analysis of Disciplinary Actions 6/13/96 by School ,ime: 15: 56:25 From AUGUST Through MAY _ch oo l 020 NLRHS-WEST ANNEX M-0W'\\fr b=-==================================\ni,~========================================= 1 9 9 4 - 9 5 -=-----------============================:ac=:===================================== -----Br-1------ # REF PCT/TOT # STU -----BF------ # REF PCT/TOT # STU -----NBM----# REF PCT/TOT # STU -----NEF----# REF PCT/TOT w STU -===========================================================--==--==========:=== 5. A C. 0 0'1/. 0 O 0 O 0 0'1/. 0 0 0 0 0 0 HDr1i:: SUSP. 0 0.,, . 0 0 .,, . 0 0% 0 0'1/. 0 0 0 0 0 0 l BOVS CLUB 0 0 0 0 0 O 0 O'l. 0 0 0 -o 0 0 E. I. C. 0 0'1/. 0 O 0 O' 0 0% 0 0 0 0 0 0 - EiPU-SIOr-i 0 O' 0 O 0 O 0 0% 0 0 0 0 0 0 -~====~========================================================================= 1 9 9 5 - 9 6 =-===========-================================================--------============ -----BM------ ~ REF PCT/TOT # STU -----BF------ # REF PCT/TOT # STU -----NBM----# REF PCT/TOT # STU -----NBF----# REF PCT/TOT # STU ================================================================================ 5. A r 0 . 0% 0 . O'Y. 1 100. 0% 0 . O'Y. 1 0 0 1 0 1 HOM:i: 3USC:1 11 50. o\n,: 7 31. 8'1/. 4 18. 2i: 0 . Ot. 22 11 5 3 0 19 BOYS C1-.UB 38 60. 3'Y. 20 31. 7'1/. 4 6. 3'Y. 1 1. 61. 63 25 14 4 1 44 E - { .L. ~ 0 . O'Y. 0 . O'Y. 0 . Ot. 0 . Ot. 0 0 0 0 0 0 EXP!JL.SION 0 . 01. 0 . O'Y. 0 . O'Y. 0 . O 0 0 0 0 0 0 --=-=====~~--------===========================================================-- COMPARISON ~~==~=~========================================================================~ -----EM------ -----BF------ -----NBM----- -----NBF----- # REF PCTC+/-l # REF PCTl+/-l # REF PCT(+/-) # REF PCT(+/-) # STU # STU # STU # STU -=---==~==============-=--=========================================================== s F-.\n., 0 .0 I. 0 .0 % 1 100. 0 - 0 .0 '1/. 1 C, 0 1 0 1 HLil'iE SU3P 11 1100. 0 ,: 7 700.0 'Y. 4 400.0 'Y. 0 .0  22 11 5 3 0 19 BC!YS ,: ... iJE 38 3800. 0 I. 20 2000. 0 ,: 4 400. 0 I. 1 100.0 t. 63 25 14 4 1 44 -- - '-. 0 .0 '1/. 0 .0 I. 0 .0 - 0 .0 I. 0 0 0 0 0 0 r:x\n:uLSION 0 .0 I. 0 .0 I. 0 .0 t. 0 .0 I. 0 0 0 0 0 0 ~ef: DIS0325 :\u0026gt;ate: 6/ !3/96 ,ime: 15: 56: 30\nc hool: 024 Analysis of Disciplinary Actions by School From AUGUST Through MAY RIDGERDAD MIDDLE SCHOOL =--------------========================================------------------=----=~ i 9 9 4 - 9 5 ---------------=============================================--================== -----BM------ # RE'F PCT/TOT # STU -----BF------ # REF PCT/TOT # STU -----NBM----- # REF PCT/TOT # STU -----NIF ----# RE'F PCT/TOT # STU ===========================================================---------============ :9 S. A C. 131 30. Oi:. 128 29. 4'Y. 122 28. Oo/\n55 12. 6'1/. 436 73 57 53 32 215 ~0 HOi'i:i:: SUSF. 72 39. 81: bi 33. 7'Y. 34 18. 8'1/.. 14 7. n\n181 4i 38 19 11 109 11 BOVS CLUB 18 54. 5 4 12. 1 'Y. 8 24. 2'Y. 3 9. 1 'Y. 33 16 4 7 3 30 . ~- E. I. c. 0 . O'Y. 0 . O'Y. 0 - O'Y. 0 . O'Y. 0 ~ 0 0 0 0 0 ..:.7 ~X?ULSIO~-. i 100. Qi'\n0 . O'Y. 0 . O'Y. 0 . O'Y. i i 0 0 0 i ======~==============:=========================================================== 1 9 9 5 - 9 6 ~=======================================================-==--------============= -----BM------ -----BF------ # REF PCT/TOT # REF PCT/TOT # STU # STU -----NBM----# REF PCT/TOT # STU -----NBF----- # REF PCT/TOT # STU ~====~=========================================================================== _-r 5 f-. --. 2'?5 50. 4'1/. 158 27. 0'1/. 99 16.9% 33 5.61, 585 . ,J .V\"C..., 67 48 ,,,, \"-\"- 242 :i.0 HOME. SUSP. 1 100. Qi\n0 . 01o 0 . 0% 0 . O 1 1 0 0 0 1 BOVS CLUB 71 54. 6% 39 30. 0% 16 12.3 4 3. 1% 130 42 22 11 4 79 , ,.., ..:..:.. E . I C 0 . Or. 0 . 0% 0 . Oi. 0 . O' 0 0 0 0 0 0 :7 EXPULSI  f\\, 0 . Oi. 0 . Oi: 0 . O 1 100.0i. 1 0 0 0 1 1 =~~==~========================================================================== COMPARISON\n~~=~--~~============~=========================================================== -----B~------ -----BF------ -----NBM----- -----NBF----- # REf PCT(+/-) # REF PCT(+/-)# REF PCTi+/-) # REF PCT(+/-) # STU # STU # STU # STU ~=====~========================================================================= - ~- A C. 164 125. 2 /a 30 23. 4 /a 23- 18. 9- 22- 40. 0- 149 32 10 5- 10- 27 . '\nHOr-i= SUSP 71- 98. 6-'1/. 61- 100. 0- 34- 100. 0-'1/. 14- 100. 0- 180- 40- 38- 19- 11- 108- BC::,:\nCL...UB 53 294. 4 ,\n. 35 875. 0 '1/. 8 100. 0 '1/. 1 33. 3 /a 97 - 26 18 4 1 49 -- - :i: - 0 0 '1/. 0 0 % 0 0 'Y. 0 0 'Y. 0 - 0 0 0 0 0 . EiPUL.SION 1- 100. 0-i': 0 0 ' 'Y. 0 0 '1/. 1 100. 0 'Y. 0 1- 0 0 1 0 .e-f DIS0325 6/13/96 ime 15:56:31 ~hool: 025 Analysis of Disciplinary Actions by School From AUGUST Through MAY LAKEWOOD MIDDLE SCHOOL ======================--=-===================================================== i 9 9 4 - 9 5 ~=====:==========-===-------===================================================== -----Br-1------ 4' REr PCT/TOT # STU -----BF------ # REr PCT/TOT # STU -----NBM----# REr PCT/TOT # STU -----NBF----# REF PCT/TOT # STU =====~================----===========--===------============-====--============ S. A. ~. \\..,. 96 51. 6'1/. 47 25. 3'1/. 41 22. 0'1/. 2 1. 1' Y. 186 55 3i 29 2 117 .. HOM:C: SiJSP. 8 42. io/. 4 21. 1o/. 6 3i. 6% i 5. 3% 19 8 3 6 1 18 BOYS CLUB 8 27. 6'1/. 14 48. 3 7 24. 1 0 0'1/. 29 5 8 6 0 19 2 E. I. -- 0 0o/. 0 0'1/. 0 0% 0 O'l: 0 0 0 0 0 0 EXPULSIOr-.i 0 0'1/. 0 Oo/. 0 07: 0 0% 0 0 0 0 0 0 -=====================~=====================================------------======== i 9 9 5 - 9 6 ======~========================================--======-===--------------====== -----Bt.\n------ # REF PCT /TOT # STU -----BF------ # REF PCT/TOT # STU -----NBM----# REF PCT/TOT # STU -----NBF----- # REF PCT/TOT # STU --===~====================--==================================================== S. A .-. 135 63. 1 ., ,. 36 16. 8% 39 18. 2% 4 1. 9% 214 71 28 27 3 129 HOMi: susr=. l 50. Oi\n1 50. 0% 0 . 0% 0 . 0% 2 i 1 0 0 2 BO'{~ C1-UE 47 79. 7i: 5 8. 5'1/. 7 11. 9' 0 . 0o/. 59 28 4 5 0 37 E. I C 0 . 0% 0 . 0% 0 . Oi: 0 . 0'1/. 0 0 0 0 0 0 EXPUi_S ION \\ . .\u0026gt; . 0o/. 0 . 0% 0 . 01 1 100.07. 1 0 0 0 1 1 ::.. :===.:=========================================================================== COMPARISON ===========================================================================~== -----B~------ -----BF------ -----NBM----- -----NBF----- # RE~ PCT(+/-) # REr PCTI+/-} # REF PCT(+/-} # REF PCT(+/-} # STU #\"STU # STU # STU ~~===~=~========================================================================= '\"\" ~- r- 39 40. 6 '1/. 11- 23. 4-% 2- 4. 9-o/. 2 100. 0  28 16 3- 2- 1 12 - HOM:: SUSF 1- 87. 5-'1/. 3- 75. 0-'1/. b- 100. 0- 1- 100. 0- 17- 7- 2- b- 1- 16- BOY.=. C:...JJ\n3q 487. 5 ,\n. 9- 64. 3-'1/. 0 0 o/. 0 0 t. 30 23 4- 1- 0 18 - - - ~. C C, /. 0 0 /. 0 0 o/. 0 0  0 - -- 0 0 0 0 0 EXPULSION 0 0 I. 0 0 I. 0 0 '1/. 1 100. 0 '1/. 1 0 0 0 1 1 Ref: L\u0026gt;IS032S Date: 6/13/96 Time: 15: 56: 33 School. 026 ROSE Analysis of Disciplinary Actions by School From AUGUST Through MAY CITY MIDDLE SCHOOL ================================================================================ i 9 9 4 - 9 5 ======:========================================================================= -----BM------ -----BF------ -----NBM----- -----NBF----- # REF PCT/TOT # REF PCT/TOT * REF PCT/TOT # REF PCT/TOT # STU 4i STU * STU * STU ====================---==========--========------==-=======----================= Q9 S. A. C. 132 44. 3' 78 26. 2'Y. 68 22. B'Y. 20 6. 7 .,,. 298 bi 37 42 11 151 10 HOM:i:. SUBP. 26 59. i'Y. 9 20. 5 9 20. 5' 0 O'Y. 44 20 8 6 0 34 11 BOYS CLUB 18 60. O'Y. 5 16. 7 7 23. 3'Y. 0 O'Y. 30 17 5 7 0 29 i2 E. I. C. 0 O'Y. 0 O'Y. 0 O'Y. 0 . o~~ 0 0 0 0 0 0 - E\n,(Pi.JLSIOl\\i i 100. O'Y. 0 O'Y. 0 O'Y. 0 O'Y. i 1 0 0 0 1 i 9 9 5 - 9 6 -===========================================--====-=========----================ -----BM------ -----BF------ # REF PCT/TOT # REF PCT/TOT # STU # STU -----NBM----# REF PCT/TOT # STU -----NBF----- # REF PCT/TOT # STU --=====--===--=--==--------===============----==============-==-================ ,:,~ 5. A - i43 47. 4% 62 20. 5 79 26. 2'Y. 18 6. 0% 302 63 36 38 12 149 10 HOME susi:_ ~- C: 66. 7 .,,. 0 0 .,, . 1 33. 3'1/. 0 O'Y. 3 2 0 1 0 3 11 BOY::i CLUB 46 60. 5 12 15. B'Y. 16 21. 1' 2 2. 6'Y. 76 29 8 9 2 48 12 E. I. G 0 O 0 O'Y. 0 0'1/. 0 0'1/. 0 0 0 0 0 0 17 EXPULSION 0 0% 0 O'Y. 0 0'1/. 0 0'1/. 0 0 0 0 0 0 ============================================================================~=-= COMPARISON ---=-:=-====------==-============================================================= -----BM------ -----BF------ -----NBM----- -----NBF----- # REF PCT(+/-i # REF PCT(+/-i # REF PCT(+/-) # REF PCT(+/-) # STU # STU # STU # STU ----------------------------================================================---- )S -- A -:. 1i 8. 3 ,.\n:\n, 16- 20. 5-'1/. 11 16. 2 '1/. 2- 10. 0-'Y. 4 c~.. . 1- 4- 1 2- ~o HDME SUSP. 24- 92. 3-~~ 9- 100. 0-'Y. 8- 88. 9-'Y. 0 0 'Y. 41- 18- 8- 5- 0 31- - l BOYS c:...uB 28 155. 6 'Y. .I. . 140. 0 'Y. 9 128. 6 '1/. 2 200. 0 '1/. 46 12 3 2 2 19 l2 - I ,,. 0 0 '1/. 0 0 'Y. 0 0 '1/. 0 0 'Y. 0 0 0 0 0 0 ,- !. ' E1.F-..it..SI ON 1- iOO. 0-'Y. 0 0  0 0 'Y. 0 0 'Y. 1- 1- 0 0 0 1- .ef: DIS032S Analysis of Disciplinary Actions 6/13/96 by School 15: 56:33 From AUGUST Through MAY 030 BARING CROSS CENTER ----------==================================================---=----------====== 1 9 9 4 - 9 5 ======================================================================-========= ----- B t\"i------ # REF PCT/TOT # STU -----BF------ -----NBM----- # REF PCT/TOT # REF PCT/TOT # STU # STU -----NBF----- # REF PCT/TOT # STU ============================================================---=----============ S. A. C. 0 . 0'1/. 0 . O' 0 . 0' 0 . 01. 0 0 0 0 0 0 HOMi:: SUSP. 1 50. Oi'~ 1 50. O 0 . o,: 0 . 0/~ 2 1 1 0 0 2 BOYS CLUB 0 . 0% 0 . 0% 0 . O' 0 . 0% 0 0 0 0 0 0 E. I. C. 0 . O 0 . O 0 . O' 0 - . 0'1/. 0 0 0 0 0 0 EXPULSION 0 . o,~ 0 . 01. 0 . Oi~ 0 . 01. 0 0 0 0 0 0 --================--------======================================-=-==--========= l 9 9 5 - 9 c, -----=~---------------------====----===------------=--==----------------======== -----BM------ # REF PCT/TOT # STU -----BF------ # REF PCT/TOT # STU -----NBM----- # REF PCT/TOT # STU -----NBF----# REF PCT/TOT # STU ----===-~-=====-================================================================== 5. A .-- 0 . 0'1/. 0 . 0'Y. 0 . 0'1/. 0 . 0'Y. 0 0 0 0 0 0 HOME SUSF 0 . Ot. i 33. 3'Y. 0 . 0'Y. 2 66. 7 3 0 1 0 1 2 BDYS CLUB 0 . 0'Y. 0 . 0% 0 . 0'Y. 0 . 0'Y. 0 0 0 0 0 0 E. I C 0 . 0'Y. 0 . 0'Y. 0 . 0'1/. 0 . O'Y. 0 0 0 0 0 0 EXPULSION 0 . O 0 . 0'Y. 0 . 0'Y. 0 . O'Y. 0 0 0 0 0 0 ---============================================================================== COMPARISON =~===:========================================================================== -----BM------ -----BF------ -----NBM----- -----NBF----- # REF PCT(+/-1 # REF PCT(+/-i # REF PCT(+/-) # REF PCT(+/-) # STU # STU # STU # STU ------------------------======================================================== S. A. C. 0 .0 i. 0 .0 i: 0 .0 I 0 .0 I 0 0 0 0 0 0 HOME SUSP 1- 100. 0-i: 0 .0 I, 0 .0 I, 2 200.0 I, 1 1- 0 0 1 0 . , BOYS CL..UB 0 .0 i: 0 .0 I, 0 .0 I 0 .0 I, 0 0 0 0 0 0 l 2 ~ I - 0 .0 i\n0 .0 i~ 0 .0 la 0 .0 i\n0 0 0 0 0 0 ~7 EXPULSION 0 .0 ,. 0 .0 I, 0 .0 I 0 .0 I 0 0 0 0 0 0 ef: DIS0325 6/13/96 15:56:34 ::hool: 031 AMBOY Analysis of Disciplinary Actions by School From AUGUST Through MAY ELEMENTARY SCHOOL =============================================================================== 1 9 9 4 - 9 5 - ---------=========================-=========-=----=====-==-----------------===== -----BM------ # RE'F PCT/TOT # STU -----BF------ # REF\" PCT/TOT # STU -----NBH----# REF PCT/TOT # STU -----NBF----# REF PCT/TOT # STU ============================================================-------============ B. A. C. 0 . Or. 0 . Or. 0 . Or. 0 . Or. 0 0 0 0 0 0 HOME SvSP. ..\ni 75. Oi: 0 . Oi: 1 25. Oi: 0 .Oi: 4 2 0 1 0 3 BOYS CLUB 0 . Ot. 0 . Or. 0 . Or. 0 . O't. 0 0 0 0 0 0 E. I. C. 9 34. bi: 9 34. 6Y. 0 30. 8 0 . O't. 26 9 6 6 0 21 E\u0026gt;::PUL.SION 0 . 01. 0 . 01 0 . Qi\n0 . Oi: 0 0 0 0 0 0 -=====~========================================================================= l 9 9 5 - 9 6 -------------------------------========------==================-=---============== -----EM------ # REF PCT/TOT # STU -----BF------ # REF PCT/TOT # STU -----NBM----# REF PCT/TOT # STU -----NBF----- # REF PCT/TOT # STU -----------------------------==========----===--=============-================== S. ,=... ... 0 0'1/.. 0 0'1/. 0 0'1/. 0 0'1/. 0 0 0 0 0 0 HOMt: S:JSP 10 l-:.j-.. ..:,. 3o/. i 8. 3'1/. i 8. 3'1/. 0 O'Y. 12 iO i 1 0 12 BOYS CLUB 0 01: 0 0% 0 0'1/. 0 O'Y. 0 0 0 0 0 0 E. I. C Se 57. 1 % 13 13. 3'Y. 25 25. 5t. 4 4. 1'Y. 98 38 7 18 4 67 EXPULSION 0 01. 0 Or. 0 O'Y. 0 Or. 0 0 0 0 0 0 ------------==:-==========================================================------ COMPARISON -------------------=======================================================------ -----Bt1------ -----BF------ -----NBM----- -----NBF----- # REF P:T1+/-i # REF PCT(+/-i # REF PCT(+/-) # REF PCT(+/-) # STU # STU # STU # STU ==-----==------------=========================================================== s . M. r 0 .0 /. 0 .0 t. 0 .0 t. 0 .0 t. 0 0 0 0 0 0 HOMi:: SiJSP. 7 233. 3 i\n1 100. 0 Y. 0 .0 Y. 0 .0 ., lo 8 8 1 0 0 9 BC:VS CL..UB 0 .0 i: 0 .0 ,. 0 .0 ,. 0 .0 i: 0 0 0 0 0 0 - I C 47 .0 i: 4 .0 i\n17 .0 i~ 4 .0 'Y. 72 5 0 17 4 46 Ex.PU ...S.. IOl'l 0 .0 - 0 .0 ., 0 .0 ., ,. ,. 0 .0  0 0 0 0 0 0 ~ef: DIS032S Date: 6/13/96 Time: 15: 56: 34 3chool: 032 Analysis of Disciplinary Actions by School From AUGUST Through MAY LAKEWOOD ELEMENTARY SCHOOL =------------------------=---=-====================-------------------------==== 1 9 9 4 - 9 5 -------------=-----==-=-====================================--=========-======== -----E t4------ -----BF------ -----NBM----- -----NBF----- # REF PCT/TOT # REF PCT/TOT # REF PCT/TOT # REF PCT/TOT # STU * STU * STU # STU ======================= =================================================== -:\n,c S. f1. '~. 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 . 0% 0 0 0 0 0 0 ,0 HOME' SUSP. 9 75. 0% 2 16. 7.,, . 1 8. 3.,, . 0 0% 12 b 2 1 0 9 1 i BOYS CLUB 0 0% 0 . Oo/. 0 0% 0 0% 0 0 0 0 0 0 ~ ., 4,:\n_ E. I. C. 3 37. Si. 4 50. 0% 0 12. 5' 0 0% 8 3 4 1 0 B ~ / EXPU!...SION 0 o , 0 . O'Y. 0 Oi. 0 Oi'~ 0 0 0 0 0 0 ======~======================================================================~== i 9 9 5 - 9 6 ~=============================================================================== -----BM------ # REF PCT/TOT # STU -----BF------ # REF PCT/TOT # STU -----NBM----- # REF PCT/TOT # STU -----NBF----# REF PCT/TOT # STU ================================================================================ ,:,c: S. A ~ 0 . 0'1/. 0 . 0'1/. 0 . O'Y. 0 . 01. 0 0 0 0 0 0 10 HOME SIJSP. 6 66. 71. ~. C. 22. 2% 1 11. 1 '}~ 0 . 01. 9 3 1 1 0 5 11 i3OYS CLUE 0 . 0'1/. 0 . 0'1/. 0 . O'}~ 0 . 01. 0 0 0 0 0 0 i2 E. I C 23 47.9% 7 i4.6% 18 37. St. 0 . 0%. 48 . .., 17 3 7 0 27 Ei(PUL.SION 0 . 0% 0 . 0% 0 . 0% 0 . 01. 0 . : 0 0 0 0 0 ====~======================================================================COMPARISON --====~======--=-==-============================================================ -----Bl'-1------ -----B'F------ -----NBM----- -----NBF----- # REF PCT(+/-) # REF PCT(+/-) * REF PCT(+/-) # REF PCT(+/-) # STU # STU * STU # STU ~===~======~==================================================================== 09 S. A C 0 0 I. 0 0 i. 0 0 i. 0 .0 I. 0 0 0 0 0 0 10 HOME SIJSP. 3- 33. 3-1. 0 0 'Y. 0 0 'Y. 0 0 I. 3- 3- 1- 0 0 4- 11 BDY::, Ci...UB 0 0 i: 0 0 'Y. 0 0 i. 0 0 'Y. 0 0 0 0 0 0 l.2 r:::. :i: - 20 0 i. 3 0 '1/. 17 0 '1/. 0 0 lo 40 7 1 17 0 19 4. EXPiJt..SION 0 0  0 0 'Y. 0 0 i. 0 0 lo 0 0 0 0 0 0 .ef: DIS032S ate: 6ii3/96 15: 56:37 chool: 033 BOONE Analysis of Disciplinary Actions by School From AUGUST Through MAY PARK ELEMENTARY SCHOOL ==============================================================--=---=--======== 1 9 9 4 - 9 5 ~================================================-===========--====-----======== -----BM------ w REF\" PCT/TOT # STLI -----BF------ # REF\" PCT/TOT # STU -----NBM----- -----NBF----# REF PCT/TOT # REF PCT/TOT # STU # STU ===============================================================--=-============ S. A. C. 0 . 0'1/. 0 . O 0 . 0'1/. 0 . 0'1/. 0 0 0 0 0 0 HOME SUSP 3 75. 0'1/. 0 . O 1 25. O' 0 . 0/~ 4 3 0 1 0 4 BOYS CLUB 0 . O'l. 0 . O 0 . 0' 0 . O'l. 0 0 0 0 0 0 E. I. C. 12 66. 7 2 11. 1 0 22. 2' 0 . 0% 18 9 1 4 0 14 EXPULSION 0 . O'l. 0 . O 0 . o,: 0 . 0'1/. 0 0 0 0 0 0 ================================================================================ i 9 9 5 - 9 6 --====~==========-===========================================-==-=============== -----BM------ -----BF------ # REF PCT/TOT # REF PCT/TOT # STU # STU -----NBM----# REF PCT/TOT # STU -----NBF----- # REF PCT/TOT # STU -=============================================================================== 5. A. C. 0 . O' 0 . 0'1/. 0 . O' 0 . O'l. 0 0 0 0 0 0 HOM= s, JC\n~ 1i 47.8'1/. 2 8. 7 10 43. 5 0 . O 23 6 2 4 0 12 BOYS CLUB 0 . 0'1/. 0 . O' 0 . O 0 . O 0 0 0 0 0 0 t:.. I. C 25i 52.8 105 22. 1 ,105 22. 1 14 2.9 475 72 40 27 9 148 EXPULSION 0 . 0'1/. 0 . 0'1/. 0 . O 0 . O 0 0 0 0 0 0 ~~==~=======-=================================================================== COMPARISON -:=========~===================================================================== -----BM------ -----BF------ -----NBM----- -----NBF----- # REF PCTl+/-l # REF PCT(+/-) # REF PCT(+/-) # REF PCT(+/-) # STU # STU # STU # STU .\n_-----==-====-------------===============================================-------- S. A ~ 0 0 '1/. 0 0 I. 0 0 I 0 0  0 0 0 0 0 0 i-iOM:: SUSP. 8 266. 7 i: 2 200. 0 I 9 900. 0 .,,. 0 0  19 3 2 3 0 8 BOY:: :L..UE 0 0 'l. 0 0 i: 0 0 ., 0 0 ., ,. ,. 0 (i 0 0 0 0 .:. r - -. 239 0 % 103 0 ' 101 0 'l. 14 0 I 457 20 52 101 14 134 E\u0026gt;..PULSION 0 0 ,. 0 0 ., 0 0 ., 0 0 ., ,. ,. ,. 0 0 0 0 0 0 ef: DIS032S 6/13/96 i1me: 15: 56: 37 chool 035 Analysis of Discipline~y Actions by School From AUGUST Through MAY SEVENTH STREET ELEMENTARY SCHOOL =====================================================================-==-====== i 9 9 4 - 9 5 ======~========================================================================= -----BM------ # RE'F PCT/TOT # STU -----BF------ # REF PCT/TOT # STU -----NBM----# REF PCT/TOT # STU -----NBF----- # REF PCT/TOT # STU -------===============================---=------------=-==-------------=======- S. A. C. 0 0% 0 01/. 0 0% 0 O 0 0 0 0 0 0 HOri:i:: SuSP. 3 37. Si'.: 0 O 5 62. 5~~ 0 Oi'.: 8 3 0 3 0 6 i BOYS CLUB 0 0% 0 0% 0 o,~ 0 O 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 E. I. C. 5 62. 5 0 0% 0 37. 5% 0 0 8 5 0 1 0 6 EiPULSIOi\\i C, 0% 0 0% 0 0 0 o~~ 0 0 0 0 0 0 -~============================================================================== i 9 9 5 - 9 6 ~============~================================================================= -----BM------ # REF PCT/TOT # STU -----BF------ # REF PCT/TOT # STU -----NBM----# REF PCTiTOT # STU -----NBF----# REF PCT/TOT # STU -=======:======================================================================= . .,. - I-. ,- 0 . Oi~ 0 . 0% 0 . O 0 . 0% 0 0 0 0 0 0 . c, HOME SUSP . c:: 28. 6\n~ 3 42. 9% c:: 28. 6 0 . 0 7 2 3 1 0 6 BOYS CLUB 0 . 01. 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . Oi. 0 0 0 0 0 0 E. I C. 51 55. 4,\n19 20. 7 22 23.91. 0 . Ot. 92 33 11 13 0 57 EXPUi...SION 0 . Oi: 0 . Oi. 0 . Oi\n0 . O 0 0 0 0 0 0 =-~===::.:=-========:======================================================s======-==--- COMPARISON ~~===~=~=:====================================================================== -----BM------ -----BF------ -----NBM----- -----NBF----- # REF PCTI+/-) # REF PCT(+/-) # REF PCT(+/-) # REF PCT(+/-) # STU #- STU # STU # STU ~~====~========================================================================= ~-- A C 0 0 % 0 0 % 0 .0 % 0 .0 % 0 0 0 0 0 0 !-iOl\"t:c SUSF- i- 33. 3-i'~ 3 300. 0 ~\n3- 60. 0-'1/. 0 .0 i. 1- 1- 3 2- 0 0 BCvs CLUB 0 .0 '1/. 0 .0  0 .0  0 0 % 0 0 0 0 0 0 - I i.. 4b .0 /. 19 0 I. 19 .0 ,. 0 .0 % 84 q 19 19 0 51 EXPULSION 0 .0 I. 0 0 % 0 .0 % 0 .0 % 0 (I 0 0 0 0 ~ Ref: DIS032S Analysis of Disciplinary Actions\n:,ate: 6/13/96 by School Time: 15.56:38 From AUGUST Through MAY School 037 LYNCH DRIVE ELEMENTARY SCHOOL ============================================================---===-===-----===== 1 9 9 4 - 9 5 ================================================================================ -----BM------ -----BF------ -----NBM----- -----NBF----- # RE'F PCT/TOT # REF PCT/TOT # REF PCT/TOT w REF PCT/TOT # STU # STU # STU # STU ---==---------====================-=======----------====-==---------============ :,9 S. A. C. 0 0.,,. 0 01. 0 0% 0 01. 0 0 0 0 0 0 l\\.J HOME SUSP. 3 25. 0'1/. 5 41. 71. 4 33. 3/: 0 0.,, . 12 3 2 4 0 9 11 BOYS CLUB 0 0 .,,. 0 O' 0 Oo/. 0 01. 0 0 0 0 0 0 -\n_2 E. I. C. 8 44. 4'1/. 7 38. 9% 0 16. 7% 0 0% 18 6 7 2 0 15 :: 7 EXPU!...SION 0 0 .,, . 0 o,\n0 0 .,,. 0 0% 0 0 0 0 0 0 ======~~======================================================================== i 9 9 5 - 9 6 ================================================================================ -----BM------ # RE\"F PCT/TOT # STU -----BF------ * REF PCTiTOT # STU -----NBM----* REF PCT/TOT # STU -----NBF----# REF PCT/TOT # STU ================================================================================ :)c\n, s ,:._ C 0 0% 0 . 01. 0 . 0% 0 . 0% 0 0 0 0 0 0 10 HOl'E SUSF. i5 65.2% 5 2i. n\n3 13. 0o/. 0 . 0o/. 23 i2 3 3 0 18 l .i. B  vs CL.UB 0 0% 0 . 0'Y. 0 . 0 0 . O'Y. 0 0 0 0 0 0 12 E. 7~ - ,r._ 120 63. 2% 36 18.9 31 16. 3'Y. 3 1. 6'Y. 190 59 27 21 2 109 17 EXPUt...SIOt~ 0 . 01. 0 . O 0 . 0% 0 . O' 0 0 0 0 0 0 =~==========================================================================~=== COMPARISON =~===~=======:==============================================================-----BM------ -----BF------ -----NBM----- -----NBF----- # REF PCTI+/-) # REF PCT(+/-) # REF PCT(+/-) # REF PCT(+/-) # STU # STU # STU # STU =~==========================================================================~=== )9 ::,_ 1-c ,- - 0 .0 i: 0 0 'l. 0 .0 % 0 .0 'Y. 0 C, 0 0 0 0 1.0 HOME SiJSP. 12 400. 0 I. 0 0 '1/. 1- 25. 0-1. 0 .0 ' 11 9 1 1- 0 9 ~ ... BC:VS C,_Ur\n0 .0 i\n0 0 ., 0 0 % 0 .0 ., ,. ,. 0 0 0 0 0 0 ~.:. ~ I ~ ... 112 0 i\n29 0 i\n28 .0 i: 3 .0 'l. 172 14 4 28 3 94 :i.--\nE\u0026gt;C:\n:,ULSiON 0 .0 I. 0 .0 .,,. 0 .0  0 .0 I. 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ref: DIS032S Analvsis of Disciplinarv Actions Date: 6/13/96 bv School Time: 15:56:40 From AUGUST Through MAY School 038 CENTRAL ELEMENTARY ================================================================================ 1 9 9 4 - 9 5 ================================================================================ -----Bi-1------ # REF PCT/TOT # STU -----BF------ # REF PCT/TOT # STU -----NBM----# REF PCT/TOT # STU -----NBF----# REF PCT/TOT # STU =~============================================================================== v-r S. A. C. 0 . 0% 0 . 0% 0 . 0% 0 . 0% 0 0 0 0 0 0 :.G HOME SUSP 2 66. 7% 0 . 0% 1 33. 3% 0 . 0'1/. 3 2 0 1 0 3 11 BO'fS CLUB 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0'Y. 0 . 0 ,1. 0 0 0 0 0 0 ... _:. E. I. C . 47 73.4% 4 6.3'Y. 0 18.8% 0 1. 6'Y. 64 29 4 6 1 40 17 E)(PUi....SIDN 0 . O'Y. 0 . 0'Y. 0 . 0'1/. 0 . Oi. 0 0 0 0 0 0 =======~======================================================================== i 9 9 5 - 9 6 ================================================================================ -----BM------ -----BF------ # REV PCT/TOT # REF PCT/TOT # STU # STU -----NBM----- # REF PCT/TOT # STU -----NBF----- # REF PCT/TOT # STU --------------==-----------=======--===-======================================== --):\n, E /:,, :... 0 0% 0 0% 0 Oi'~ 0 0% 0 0 0 0 0 0 ~v 1-iCJM: SUSF- :-3.-. ,:\n8 .-. c:.. 1% i 2. 6'i'~ b 15. 4' 0 O' 39 i5 i 4 0 20 l J BOVS CL..iJB 0 0% 0 Oi'~ 0 0% 0 0% 0 0 0 0 0 0 12 c . ... C 145 62. 5,\n. 33 14. 2~: 48 20. 7i'~ 6 2. 6 232 60 20 18 5 103 17 HPULSION 0 0% 0 0% 0 O' 0 0% 0 0 0 0 0 0 =========================================================================-=-=~=- COMPARISON ====~=========================================================================== -----BM------ -----BF------ -----NBM----- -----NBF----- # REF P-:\nT ( +/-i # REF PCT(+/-) # REF PCT(+/-\u0026gt; # REF PCT(+/-) # STU # STU # STU # STU --------------------------==============================================------=- .)9 s A r. 0 0 i: 0 0 i: 0 0  0 0 'Y. 0 0 0 0 0 0 :..:: HOM:: SUSP 30 1500. 0 I. 1 100. 0 'Y. 5 500. 0  0 0  36 13 1 3 0 17 l ! BOY:= CLiJB 0 0 I. 0 0 I. 0 0 ,. 0 0 'Y. 0 0 0 0 0 0 l\n: i:. I ~ 98 0 I, 29 0 I. 36 0  5 0 'Y. 168 2 7 36 5 63 :7 EXPULSION 0 0 i: 0 0 ., 0 0 ., 0 0 ., I, - - 0 0 0 0 0 0 D!S0325 Analysis of Disciplinar~ Actions 6il3/96 by School 15:56:40 From AUGUST Through MAY 040 MEADOW PARK ELEMENTARY SCHOOL ----=================================---=-=--=-----------------------------===== 1 9 9 4 - 9 5 =======~=====================================================-==-===--========== -----B ,\n------ # REF PCT/TOT # STU -----BF------ # REF PCT/TOT # STU -----NBM----# REF P\"CT/T OT # STU -----NBF----# REF PCT/TOT # STU ================================================================----============ S. A C. 0 . 0% 0 . 01o 0 . 01o 0 . Oi'~ 0 0 0 0 0 0 HOME: =\u0026gt;'-'::\u0026gt;~. 0 . Oi\n0 . Oi: 0 .Oi: 0 . Oi: 0 0 0 0 0 0 BOYS CLUB 0 . 01o 0 . 0% 0 . D1o 0 . 0% 0 0 0 0 0 0 E. I. C. 3 21. 4% 7 50.01o 0 28.61o 0 . Oi'~ 14 3 6 3 0 12 EXPU~SIOt 0 . o~,: 0 . 0% 0 . Oi'~ 0 . o~~ 0 0 0 0 0 0 i. 9 9 5 - 9 6 ====~=:=======~================================================================== -----BM------ -----BF------ -----NBM----- -----NBF----- # REF PCT/TOT # REF PCT/TOT # REF PCT/TOT # REF PCT/TOT # STU # STU # STU # STU ================================================================================ :::. F, ' 0 01. 0 01o 0 01o 0 01o 0 0 0 0 0 0 HCiM:C Si,_iSF 0 01. 0 01o 0 0% 0 0% 0 0 0 0 0 0 BOYS CLUB 0 0% 0 01o 0 01. 0 0% 0 0 0 0 0 0 E. I. C 77 42. 31. 37 20. 31o 50 27. 51o 18 9. 91o 182 33 17 14 7 71 EXPULSION 0 0% 0 01. 0 01o 0 0% 0 0 0 0 0 0 :~==~~========================================================================== COMPARISON =======-======================================================================== -----BM------ -----BF------ -----NBM----- -----NBF----- # REF PCT(+/-i # REF PCT(+/-) * REF PCT(+/-) * REF PCT(+/-) # STU # STU # STU # STU =====~~~======================================================================== S. A C 0 0 i: 0 0 'l. 0 0 'l. 0 0 i. 0 0 0 0 0 0 HOMi:: SUSP 0 0 i: 0 0 '1/. 0 0 - 0 0 lo 0 0 0 0 0 0 BOV3 Ct....t.JB 0 0 i~ 0 0 lo 0 0 '1/. 0 0 lo 0 0 0 0 0 0 ~ I C 74 0 i~ 30 0 '1/. 46 0 '1/. 18 0 '1/. 168 25 4 46 18 59 EXPULSION 0 0 i: 0 0 lo 0 0 lo 0 0 lo 0 0 0 0 0 0 '\n-- ..: ~ef: D!S032S t\nate: bi 13/96 Time: 15: 56: 41 '3chool: 041 Anal~sis of Disciplinar~ Actions b~ School From AUGUST Through MAY NORTH HEIGHTS ELEMENTARY SCHOOL ====================================================-=======------============== i 9 9 4 - 9 5 ~====================================================-=====-----=-============== -----i3t\" ------ -----BF------ -----NBM----- -----NBF----- # REF PCT/TOT # REr PCTiTOT # REF PCT/TOT # REr PCT/TOT # STU * STU * STU # STU ================-===-------======--=-----===-====--====---=-----------========== )9 S. A. C. 0 . O'Y. 0 . 0'1/. 0 . 0'i'\n0 . 0'1/. 0 0 0 0 0 0 10 HOME SUSF. 1 100. 0'1/. 0 . 01 0 . 0'1/. 0 . 0'1/. 1 i 0 0 0 1 11 BOYS CLUB 0 . 0i. 0 . 0:1. 0 . 0i. 0 . 0i. 0 0 0 0 0 0 i.2 E. ! . '-.... 26 65. Qi. 8 20. 0i. 0 10. Qi. 0 - 5. 0i. 40 16 7 4 2 29 EXPULSION 0 . O'Y. 0 . 0i. 0 . 0i~ 0 . 0i. 0 0 0 0 0 0 -===~========-====-============================================================= 1 9 9 5 - 9 6 ------------------------------------===--=-=-==--------====--------============= -----BM------ -----BF------ # REF PCT/TOT # REF PCT/TOT # STU # STU -----NBM----# REF PCT/TOT # STU -----NBr----# REF PCT/TOT # STU ---------------------------------======-=======--=================-============= --,,:j, S. A C 0 O'i'\n0 0% 0 O'Y. 0 0'1/. 0 0 0 0 0 0 10 HOM:: SUSF- 1 33. 3'1/. 2 66. 7'Y. 0 0'1/. 0 0i. 3 1 2 0 0 3 11 BOYS CLUB 0 O'Y. 0 0'1/. 0 0'1/. 0 0% 0 0 0 0 0 0 12 ,.. .c.. I. C 121 50. 6'1/. 54 22. 6'Y. 51 21. 3% 13 5. 4i. 239 38 23 23 6 90 i7 EXPULSION 0 0'1/. 0 O'Y. 0 0% 0 0% 0 0 0 0 0 0 COMPARISON --------------------------======================================================= -----BM------ -----BF------ -----NBM----- -----NBF----- # REF PCT(+/-)# REF PCTI+/-) # REF PCT(+/-)# REF PCT(+/-) # STU #-STU # STU # STU -==================================----=------------------=--------------=---==~ :9 C.. .,_{ -. ,-. 0 0 'l. 0 0 'l. 0 0 '1/. 0 0 i. 0 0 0 0 0 0 iO HOME SUSP. 0 0 '1/. ,, 200. 0 ., ~ I, 0 0 '1/. 0 0 '1/. 2 0 2 0 0 2 ~ ! BOVS CL.iJB 0 0 I, 0 0 ., I, 0 0 '1/. 0 0 '1/. 0 0 0 0 0 0 .:..::: E I r. 95 0 '1/. 4o 0 '1/. 47 0 I. 11 0 '1/. 199 4 6 47 11 61 -\nEXPUL.SION 0 0 I, 0 0 ., I, 0 0 la 0 0 i. 0 0 0 0 0 0 = ~ef: DIS032S Analvsis of Disciplinarv Actions Date: 6/13/96 by School Time: 15:56:42 From AUGUST Through MAY 3=hooi 042 CRESTWOOD ELEMENTARY SCHOOL ==================================================================---=----====== 1 9 9 4 - 9 5 ============================================================---=-======--======= -----BM------ # REF PCT/TOT # STU -----BF------ # REF PCT/TOT # STU -----NBM----# REF PCT/TOT # -STU -----NBF----# REF PCT/TOT ,it STU ==================================================================-------======= }'t S. A. C. 0 . 01a 0 . 01a 0 . 01a 0 . o,\n0 0 0 0 0 0 1.G HOME SUSP. 5 55. 6% 4 44. 4% 0 . 0% 0 . 0i: 9 4 3 0 0 7 11 BOYS CLUB 0 . 0i. 0 .Di. 0 . 0% 0 . 01. 0 0 0 0 0 0 .!..:.'. E I. t-, . 24 82. 8% 3 10. 3% 0 6. 9% 0 . 0% 29 16 2 2 0 20 . ' EXPiJLSION 0 . 01. 0 . 0% 0 . 0i: 0 . 01. O 0 0 0 0 0 =======================~=================~c~s================================c= 1 9 9 5 - 9 6 -============================================================-================== -----BM------ -----BF------ ~ REF PCT/TOT # REF PCT/TOT # STU # STU -----NBM----# REF PCT/TOT # STU -----NBF----# REF PCT/TOT # STU -=====~========================================================================= :19 S. A C. 0 . o,: 0 . 01. 0 . 0% 0 . 0i. 0 0 0 0 0 0 .10 HOl'E SUSP. 17 85. 0% 2 10. m~ 1 5. 0% 0 . 0i. 20 . , ii r.:.:.. . 1 0 14 J ~ BOYS CLUB 0 . o\n,\n0 . 0% 0 . o\n,\n0 . 0i. 0 0 0 0 0 0 12 E. I. C 230 75. 2i. 54 17.61. 20 6. 5\n,\n2 . 7i. 306 48 24 10 2 84 17 EXPULSION 0 . 0% 0 . 0i. 0 . 0% 0 . 0i. 0 0 0 0 0 0 =~===~========================================================================== COMPARISON ================================================================================ -----BM------ -----BF------ -----NBM----- -----NBF----- # REF PCT(+/-)# REF PCT(+/-)# REF PCT(+/-)# REF PCT(+/-) # STU # STU # STU # STU ==~==========================================================================m== .:,9 s I-, ,. - 0 0 '1/. 0 0 i\n0 0 la 0 0 i. 0 0 0 0 0 0 10 HOME: SUSP. 12 240. 0 '1/. 2- 50. 0 -,., . 1 100. 0 i. 0 0 i. 11 7 1- 1 0 7 :. 1 BOYS Ct..UB 0 0 :. (I 0 la 0 0 la 0 0 i. 0 0 0 0 0 0 ~:. E I ~ 206 0 '1/. 51 0 la 18 0 la 2 0 la 277 ~ 9 17 18 2 64 17 EXPULSION 0 0 '1/. 0 0 ,. 0 0 ,. 0 0 i. 0 0 0 0 0 0 :Ref: DIS032S 'Date: 6i13/96 1me. 15: 56: 43 School: 043 PARK Analysis of Disciplinary Actions by School From AUGUST Through MAY HILL ELEMENTARY SCHOOL ================================================================================ 1 9 9 4 - 9 5 =======--------=----=-------=====--============================================= -----8 [j-----.. REF PCT/TOT # STU -----BF------ # REF PCT/TOT # STU -----NEM----w REF PCT/TOT # STU -----NBF----# REF PCT/TOT # STU =-============================================================================== -,:.~ S. A. C. 0 Oi. 0 Oi. 0 Oi. 0 O.\n. 0 0 0 0 0 0 i.J HOMc s0s.:. 1 100. Oi. 0 Oi. 0 Oi. 0 0 .,, . 1 1 0 0 0 1 i 1 BOYS CLUB 0 .Oi. 0 Oi. 0 Oi. 0 O'Y. 0 0 0 0 0 0 12 E. I. C. 2 ,,,, c.c:.. 2% 1 11. 1% 0 66. 7.,,. 0 Oi. 9 2 1 3 0 6 ,-  I EXPULSION 0 0.,,. 0 Oi. 0 0% 0 O'Y. 0 0 0 0 0 0 =======~=====================================================================~=1 9 9 5 - 9 6 ----===--------------------===-----=====-=-=------==========--=-----============ -----BM------ # Rl::T PCT /TOT # STU -----BF------ # REF PCT/TOT # STU -----NBM----- # REF\" PCT/TOT # STU -----NBF----- # REF\" PCT/TOT # STU ------------------------------------====-------=-=-===-========================== a ...... HOt-i:C SU2P 11 BOYS CLUB 12:E.I.C l 7 EXPULSION 0 0 0 0 0 100 32 0 0 0'1/. 68.0'1/. 0 0 0 0 0 0 13 8 0 0 0'1/. 0'1/. 0% 8.8 0'1/. 0 0 1 1 0 0 33 15 0 0 0'1/. 100.0% 22.4'1/. 0'1/. 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 0% 0'1/. O't. 7'1/. Oi. 0 0 1 1 0 0 147 Sc 0 0 ================================================================================ COMPARISON ~============================================================================== -----BM------ -----BF------ -----NBM----- -----NBF----- # REF' PCTi+/-) # REF PCTi+/-i # REF PCT(+/-) # REF PCT(+/-) # STU # STU # STU # STU ------------------------------------========================================-=--- = - I-. - 0 0 I. 0 0 I. .o 0 / 0 0 t. 0 0 0 0 0 0 :.C: r-iOMr: SJ3F 1- 100. 0-% 0 0 I. 1 100. 0 / 0 0 i. 0 1- 0 1 0 0 BOY:: :U.iB t) 0 i: 0 0 i: 0 0 i: 0 0 I. 0 0 0 0 0 0 E. !::. .. -- 98 0 I. 12 0 I. 27 0 I. 1 0 i. 138 ' 4~ 12 27 1 50 17 EXPvLSIOt-i 0 0 i: 0 0 ,. 0 0 i. 0 0 i. 0 0 0 0 0 0 DIS0325 Analysis of Disciplinary Actions !:)ate: 6/13/96 b\\j School Time: 15:56:43 From AUGUST Through MAY :3~hool 044 PIKE VIEW ELEMENTARY SCHOOL :~=============================================================================== 1 9 9 4 - 9 5 =~============================================================================== -----BM------ -----BF------ -----NBM----- -----NEF----- # REF PCT/TOT # REF PCT/TOT # REF PCT/TOT # REF PCT/TOT # STU # STU # STU # STU :--=================================-====-===--=-------==--=-----------========== -s. A. C. 0 0 ., 1. 0 0., 1. 0 0'1/. 0 . 0'1/. 0 0 0 0 0 0 ~o HOME SUSP. 1 50. 0 ., I. 1 50. 0'1/. 0 Oi: 0 0'1/. 2 1 1 0 0 2 11 BOYS CLUE 0 0'1/. 0 .-0~ 0 0% 0 O'Y. 0 0 0 O 0 0 ~2 E. I. ,.. \\.,. 15 83. 3'Y. 3 16. 7'Y. 0 0% 0 - O'Y. 18 iO 3 0 0 13 ~7 EXPULSION 0 0% 0 Ot. 0 Ot. 0 0% 0 0 0 0 0 0 =============================================================-==-=============== i 9 9 5 - 9 6 ======~=====================================================-----------========= -----BM------ # REF PCT/TOT # STU -----BF------ # REF PCT/TOT # STU -----NBM----- # REF PCT/TOT # STU -----NBF----- # REF PCT/TOT # STU ================================================================================ 10 H  t-E susi:- ~l BOY~ CLUB ~2.c.:i.C 17 EXPULS:\n:  N 0 0 l 1 0 0 99 30 0 0 . O'Y. 100. 0'1/. . 0'1/. 68.8% . 0% 0 0 0 0 0 0 26 i4 0 0 . 0% . 0% 18. 1% . 0% 0 0 0 0 0 0 19 12 0 0 . 0'1/. . 0% . 0'1/. 13. 2'1/. . 0% 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 . 0'1/. . 0'1/. . Ot. . 0'1/. . O'Y. 0 0 1 1 0 0 144 56 0 0 ~~=============~===========================================================--=~ COMPARISON ==-~=~~====~===================================================================== -----BM------ -----BF------ -----NBM----- -----NBF----- # REF PCTi+/-) # REF PCT(+/-) # REF PCT(+/-) # REF PCT(+/-)  STU # STU # STU # STU =-=====================~========================================================= )C? -- ,\n, :: _ 0 0 % 0 .0 % 0 .0 I 0 .0 I 0 0 0 0 0 0 :0 r-lOMc 2us~ 0 0 'l. 1- 100. 0 -1.. , 0 .0 .1,. 0 .0 .1,. 1- 0 1- 0 0 1- :. l BOYS \\:LUB 0 0 i~ 0 .0 ., 1. 0 .0 I 0 .0 I 0 0 0 0 0 0 . - ~ . C. 84 0 i: 23 .0 ' 19 .0 I 0 .0 'Y. 126 6 8 19 0 43 - E\u0026gt;'.PULSION 0 .0 i~ 0 .0 % 0 .0 '1/. 0 .0 lo 0 0 0 0 0 0 :\n_~ f: DI 8032S Date: 6i13/96 Time: 15: 56 44 3~hool: 045 Analysis of Disciplinary Actions by School From AUGUST Through MAY BELWOOD ELEMENTARY SCHOOL ================================================================----===--======= 1 9 9 4 - 9 5 ~~==========---=======------=------==============--=---========--===-=========== -----Bh------ # REF PCT/TOT # STU -----BF------ # REF PCT/TOT .+ STU -----NBM----# REF PCT/TOT # STU -----NBF----# REF PCT/TOT # STU =============-~==================--==============----=========================== _,...\nS. f,, C. 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0 0 0 0 0 :.,,:, HOME SUSP. 4 50. O'i. 3 37. 5 .,, . 1 12. 5% 0 Qi\n8 4 2 1 0 7 11 BOYS CLUB 0 0% 0 0'1/. 0 0'1/. 0 01. 0 u 0 0 0 0 12 E. I. C. 4 25. 0'1/. 9 56. 3 0 18. Bi. 0 Oi. 16 4 5 2 0 11 , 7 EX.PUL_SION 0 0 .,, . 0 0'1/. 0 0.,, . 0 0 .,, . 0 0 0 0 0 0 ~===~=~=====================================================================c=~= 1 9 9 5 - 9 6 ----------------=--------------==--==============-=============================== -----BM------ -----BF------ # REF PCT/TOT # REF PCT/TOT # STU # STU -----NBM----# REF PCT/TOT # STU -----NBF----# REF PCT/TOT # STU ---------------===---------=--=-=-============================================== :,~ 5. A ,. 0 0'1/. 0 . Ot. 0 . 0'1/. 0 . 0'1/. 0 0 0 0 0 0 .:.c .. HOl'l= SU::iP. 4 80. 0'1/. 0 Oi. i 20. 0'1/. 0 . 01. 5 3 0 1 0 4 l l BOY\nCLUB 0 . 0'1/. 0 . 0% 0 . O'Y. 0 0'1/. 0 0 0 0 0 0 -, r\n\"'- E. I. (. 15 78. 9'1/. 3 15.8% 1 5. 3~~ 0 . 0'1/. 19 4 3 1 0 8 17 EXPULSION 0 . 0'1/. 0 . 0'1/. 0 . O'Y. 0 0% 0 0 0 0 0 0 -===~================================================-------------------===-===- COMPARISON -=:-:========-==-======================================================================-= -----BM------ -----BF------ -----NBM----- -----NBF----- # REF PCT(+/-l # REF PCTI+/-) # REF PCT(+/-) # REF PCT(+/-) # STU # STU # STU # STU -~-----------=------------==================================================--= ...,.,. ::\n~- I'\"\\ - 0 0 i:. 0 0 I. 0 0 lo 0 0 '1/. 0 0 0 0 0 0 ~ : _ ! HOME SUSF'. 0 0 ,. 3- 100. 0 -,.,. 0 0 lo 0 0 4 3- 1- 2- 0 0 3- : l B,--,. ..., =_. C.L .U P 0 0 i:. (\\ 0 i: 0 0 .,, . 0 0 i. 0 0 0 0 0 0 - .::.: , 11 0 ,. 6- 0 - 2- 0 ., ~- - ~. ,. 0 0 I 3 3 1- 2- 0 3- EX:PU:...SIOI', 0 0 i: 0 0 i~ 0 0 ., - 0 0 i. 0 ,. 0 0 0 0 0 'i:ef: DIS032S ]ate: 6/ 13/96 7ime: 15: 56: 44 School: 046 Analysis of Disciplinary Actions by School From AUGUST Through MAY GLENVIEW ELEMENTARY SCHOOL --------=====================================-=----=--====-=----------------==== 1 9 9 4 - 9 5 ----===--=-------------======-================----==---=====-----------------=--- -----BM------ -----BF------ # REF PCT/TOT # REF PCT/TOT # STU # STU -----NBM----# REF PCT/TOT # STU -----Nlff ----# REF PCT/TOT # STU ~==============================================================---------=-====== j~ ~. A. - 0 O'Y. 0 . O'Y. 0 . 0i. 0 . O'Y. 0 0 0 0 0 0 - - Hr\"ii: SiJ3F. 9 69. 2i. 1 7. 71. 2 15. 4'1/. 1 7. n~ 13 - 6 l 2 1 10 '- l, BOYS CLUB 0 . O'Y. 0 . O 0 . 0i. 0 . 0i. 0 0 -o O 0 0 . , E . .- 7 77. Bi. 2 22.2 0 . O 0 . O 9 ~ ... ~. 6 2 0 0 8 . , EXPULSION 0 . O'Y. 0 . O'Y. 0 0 .,,. 0 . o,~ 0 0 0 0 0 0 ~============================================================================== i 9 9 5 - 9 6 ~=====:========================================================================== -----BM------ # REF PCT/TOT # STU -----BF------ # REF PCT/TOT # STU -----NBM----# REF PCT/TOT # STU -----NBF----* REF PCT/TOT # STU ~~====~~======================================================================== :1~ S. A - 0 . o,: 0 . 0'1/. 0 . o\n,.: 0 . O 0 0 0 0 0 0 .\n.~ J HOMES :JSF . 6 46. 2,~ 1 7. 7% 6 46.2% 0 . 0'1/. 13 5 1 5 0 11 -. .' .. B0'y E CLUB 0 . 0i. 0 . O 0 . 0 0 . 0'1/. 0 0 0 0 0 0 . -~, E . I. C 111 59. 7' 29 15. 6i. 43 23. 1' 3 1. 6 186 32 11 16 2 61 17 EXPULSION 0 . 0'1/. 0 . 0'1/. 0 . O 0 . 0'1/. 0 0 0 0 0 0 -=============================================================================== COMPARISON ===============================================================================c -----BM------ -----BF------ -----NBM----- -----NBF----- # REF PCT(+/-)# REF PCT(+/-)# REF PCTC+/-) # REF PCT(+/-) # STU #-STU # STU # STU ================================================================================ :,9 ::\u0026gt;. A C. 0 0 ,. 0 .0 '1/. 0 .0 i. 0 .0 'Y. 0 0 0 0 0 0 ~v HOME SvSP. 3- 33. 3 ., - 0 0 i: 4 200.0 ,. 1- 100.0- 0 1- 0 3 1- 1 11 BOYS Ci_UB 0 0 i\n0 .0 i: 0 .0  0 .0 i. 0 0 0 0 0 0 . .:.: - 104 .0 ' 27 0 % 43 .0 ., ~ - --,. 3 .0 i. 177 ,. 15 14 43 3 53 17 EXc:,ULSION 0 .0 i. 0 0 /a 0 .0  0 .0 ,. 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ref: DIS032S Analysis of Disciplinary Actions Date: 6/13/96 by School Time: 15: 56:45 From AUGUST Through MAY School: 048 INDIAN HILLS ELEMENTARY SCHOOL ================================================================================ 1 9 9 4 - 9 5 =================================================-==--========================== -----Br'.------ -----BF------ -----NBM----- -----NBF----- # REF PCT/TOT # REF PCT/TOT # REF PCT/TOT # REF PCT/TOT # STU # STU # STU # STU =================================-===============-=----====-------==-=========== :9 S. A. C. 0 . 0% 0 . 0% 0 . o~~ 0 . 0% 0 0 0 0 0 0 10 HOtiE SUSF 1 50. Oi: 1 50.0i. 0 0 .,, . 0 .Oi: 2 1 1 0 0 2 11 BOYS CLUB 0 . 01 0 .-0 0 0.,, . 0 . Oi. 0 0 0 o 0 0 i2 E. I. C. 4 44. 4t. 3 33. 3.,, . 0 22.21. 0 . Oi. 9 4 3 2 0 9 .:. / EXPULSION 0 . 0'1/. 0 . Oi. 0 . 0'1/. 0 . O 0 0 0 0 0 0 -----------------=---------=======-================--========--------=========== i 9 9 5 - 9 6 -----------------------------------===----=------------=====-------============= -----BM------ # REF PCT/TOT # STU -----BF------ # REF PCT/TOT # STU -----NBM----# REF PCT/TOT # STU -----NBF----# REF PCT/TOT # STU -----------------------------------====-====-====-=---=========-===============- :l9 S. A (, 0 o,: 0 0% 0 o~: 0 Oi. 0 0 0 0 0 0 10 t-iOME SUSF. 3 42. 9% 4 57. 1 '1/.. 0 01 0 O'. 7 1 3 0 0 4 ..I.. .I. BOYS CL.UB 0 0'1/. 0 0% 0 0'1/. 0 01 0 0 0 \"O 0 0 i2 i::. I. C 8i 66. 4'1/. 25 20. 5% 16 13. 1'1/. 0 01 1~2 46 18 9 0 73 17 EXPULSION 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0'1/. 0 0 0 0 0 0 =-===::==============:\n:=========================================================a: COMPARISON ~~===~=====================================================================-=--- -----BM------ -----BF------ -----NBM----- -----NBF----- # REF PCT(+/-)# REF PCT(+/-)# REF PCT(+/-)# REF PCT(+/-) # STU # STU # STU # STU -===--======================================================================--=== .)9 :::,. I... -~ 0 0 '1/. 0 0 t. 0 0 ,. - 0 0 I 0 0 0 0 0 0 : c._, HOMr: SiJSP. 2 200. 0\n,: 3 300. 0 .. ,. 0 0 I 0 0 '. 5 0 ,., C. 0 0 2 1. ~- BOVE CLUB 0 0 t. 0 0 I. 0 0 ., ,. 0 0 I 0 C, 0 0 0 0 '- .-:. E ! C 77 0 I. 22 0 '1/. 14 0 '1/. 0 0 '. 113 19 7 14 0 64 \"7 EXPULSION 0 0 ., ,. 0 0 t. 0 0 - 0 0 I 0 0 0 0 0 0 . ef: DIS032S 6/13/96 1me: 15: 56: 45 Analysis of Disciplinary Action~ by School From AUGUST Through MAY 049 REDWOOD ELEMENTARY SCHOOL =============================================================================== 1 9 9 4 - 9 5 ================================================================================ -----B ti------ # REF PCT/TOT # STU -----BF------ # REF PCT/TOT # STU -----NBM----# REF PCT/TOT # STU -----NBF----- # REF PCT/TOT # STU -=============================================================================== B. A. C. 0 . 0'1/. 0 . 0'1/. 0 . 0% 0 . 0% 0 0 0 0 0 0 HOM::: SdSP. 0 . Oi\n0 . Oi\n0 .Oi: 0 . o~-\n0 0 0 0 0 0 BOYS CLUB 0 . 0'1/. 0 . 0'1/. .0 . 0% 0 . 0i~ 0 0 0 0 0 0 E. -. ,.~. .. 9 39. 1% 6 26. 1 '1/. 0 26. 1 /, 0 - 8. 7t. 23 .:! 4 5 2 14 EXPULSION 0 . Qi\n0 . 0'1/. 0 .Oi: 0 . 0i: 0 0 0 0 0 0 -=============-===============================================-================== i 9 9 5 - 9 6 -=============================================================================== -----BM------ -----BF------ # REF PCT/TOT # REF PCT/TOT # STU # STU -----NBM----# REF PCT/TOT # STU -----NBF----# REF PCT/TOT # STU ----=========-=========-========================================================== S. A ..-. 0 . 0'1/. 0 . 0'1/. 0 . 0'1/. 0 . 0'1/. 0 0 0 0 0 0 !-iOi'E S:JSF. 8 40. 0'1/. 8 40. 0'1/. 3 15. o,: 1 5. 0'1/. 20 6 4 3 1 14 BDYS C ... UB 0 . 0'1/. 0 . 0'1/. 0 . 0'1/. 0 . 0'1/. 0 0 0 0 0 0 E. l. r. '.., 79 54. 5'1/. 35 24. 1 '1/. 24 16. 61, 7 4. 8'1/. 145 32 13 10 4 59 EXPULSION 0 . Ot. 0 . 0'1/. 0 . 0'1/. 0 . 0'1/. 0 0 0 0 0 0 -----===~=-------=============================================================== COMPARISON ----------------------=========================================================== -----BM------ -----BF'------ -----NBM----- -----NBF----- # REF PCT(+/-) # REF PCT(+/-) # REF PCT(+/-) # REF PCT(+/-) # STU # STU # STU # STU =----==~==-------------========================================================= ~- I-, C. 0 0 I. 0 0 I. 0 0 I. 0 0 t. 0 0 0 0 0 0\n_-,.,\nHC!r1E S\\..JSP. 8 800. 0 i~ a 800. 0 i: 3 300. 0 .,, . 1 100. 0 i: 20 6 a 3 1 14 BD\",.5 CL.VE 0 0 .,, . 0 0 i: 0 0 I, 0 0 ' 0 0 0 0 0 0 - .,_ i:: ., - . - 70 0 i: 2Q 0 i~ 18 0 I, 5 0 I, 122 a 5 18 5 45 EXPULSION 0 0 '1/. 0 0 I, 0 0 t. 0 0 '1/. 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ref: DIS032S Date: 6/13/96 , .. me: 15: 56: 46 S:::::hool 050 Analysis of DisciplinaTy Actions by School From AUGUST Through MAY ROSE CITY ANNEX ================================================================================ i 9 9 4 - 9 5 =~============================================================================== -----BM------ -----BF------ # REF ?CT/iOT # REF PCi/iOT * STU # STU -----NBM----# REF PCT/TOT # STU -----NEF----w REF\" ?CTiTOT ~ STU i\n-~~\n~\n===========o======_ 0%=====0======_ 01 =====0======_ 01 =====0======_ oi=====o 0 0 0 0 O 10 HOME SUSP. 5 55. 6% 2 22.2% 2 22.2% 0 .0% 9 4 2 2 0 8 ll BOYS CLUB O .0% 0 .0% 0 .0% 0 .0% 0 0 0 0 0 0 12 E. I. C. 0 .OX O .0% 0 .OX O .OX 0 0 0 0 0 0 17 EXPU~SION O .0% 0 .0% 0 . 0% 0 .0% 0 0 0 0 0 0 ================================================================================ 1 9 9 5 - 9 6 =~====~=======-==============================================--------============ -----BM------ # REr PCi/TOT # STU -----BF------ # REF PCT/TOT # STU -----NBM----- # REr PCT/TOT # STU -----NBF----- # REF PCi/TOT # STU ~~==~============================================================================ 5 P, --- 0 0'1/. 0 0'1/. 0 o: 0 o: 0 0 0 0 0 0 \"~ i-iOM:: 5.,_j5r=, C 0'1/. 0 0% 0 0'1/. 0 0% 0 0 0 0 0 0 BOYS CLUB 0 o : 0 o : 0 0'1/. 0 0% 0 0 0 0 0 0 :t 2 E. ~- C 0 0'1/. 0 ox 0 0'1/. 0 0% 0 0 0 0 0 0 -. EXPU:._SIOi\\i 0 0'1/. 0 0'1/. 0 Oo/. 0 0% 0 0 0 0 0 0 --~~============================================================================= COMPARISON -= -:.\n:=====================-=========================================================== -----BM------ -----BF------ -----NBM----- -----NBF----- # REF PCT(+/-) # REF PCT(+/-) # REF PCT(+/-) # REF PCT(+/-) # STU # STU # STU # STU ---==~=====~==~================================================================== -, S.\n.., C. 0 0 I. 0 0 % 0 0 X 0 0 lo 0 0 0 0 0 0 HOM~ susr._ 5- 100. 0 ., -.,'II. 2- 100. 0-1. 2- 100. 0-% 0 0 lo 9- 4- 2- 2- 0 8- l3 ClYi= c~uB 0 0 I. 0 0 I. 0 0 ., 0 0 .. I, 0 ,. 0 0 0 0 0 ,. - - '- 0 0 i: 0 0 i~ 0 0 i~ 0 0 X 0 0 0 0 0 0 DPULSIGN 0 0 i: 0 0 i: 0 0 .. 0 0 .. ,. ,. 0 0 0 0 0 0 NORTH LITTLE ROCK PUBLIC SCHOOLS DISCIPLINARY ACTIONS SCHOOL YEAR 95-96 DISTRICT LEVEL NORTH LITTLE ROCK PUBLIC SCHOOLS DISCIPLINARY ACTIONS SCHOOL YEAR 95-96 DISTRICT LEVEL Action 09: S.A.C. Action 10: Home Suspension 1,200 ..--------------~ 1,000 800 94-95 95-96 869 1,043 460 445 NBM 411 410 Action 11: Boys Club Suspension NBF 126 94-95~ 140 95-96L BM BF NBM 236 106 103 141 42 42 Action 12 Elem Intervention Class NBF 20 3 400 ,-----------------, 2,000 ,-----------------, 300 200 100 94-95 95-96 BM 133 371 BF 44 102 NBM 31 75 NBF 8 13 1,500 -- 1,000 BM 94-95 ii 178 95-96 =1 1,540 ------- BF NBM NBF 68 58 5 - --- ---- - 489 498 71 8 6 4 2 0 BM 94-95 7 95-96 2 NORTH LITTLE ROCK PUBLIC SCHOOLS DISCIPLINARY ACTIONS SCHOOL YEAR 95-96 DISTRICT LEVEL Action 17 Expulsion - - BF NBM NBF 0 1 0 1 0 2 R II 600 500 400 300 200 100 -94-95 95-96 510 470 NORTH LITTLE ROCK PUBLIC SCHOOLS DISCIPLINARY ACTIONS SCHOOL YEAR 95-96 HIGH SCHOOLS Action 09: SAC Action 10: Home Suspension ---- BF NBF -207 180 49 189 192 85 40 20 0 94-95~ 95-96C BM 80 20 BF NBM 12 36 7 4 Action 11: Boys Club Suspension Action 12 Elem Intervention Class NSF 4 2 250 ~------------~ 200 _,--,_ __ 150 BM BF NBM NBF 94-95 I\n- 89 21 9 5 95-96 207 41 36 7 0.8 ,___ ____________ - - - 0.6 ---------- - - - -- 0.4 --------- - - - - 0.2- 0--------------------' 94-95 95-96 0 0 BF 0 ----- 0 NBM 0 0 NBF 0 0 NORTH LITTLE ROCK PUBLIC SCHOOLS DISCIPLINARY ACTIONS SCHOOL YEAR 95-96 HIGH SCHOOLS Action 17 Expulsion 6~----------~ 5 4 3 2 0 94-951\\1 95-96nc- BM -5 2 --- - -- ___ __, BF NBM NSF 0 - 1 0 1 0 0 NORTH LITTLE ROCK PUBLIC SCHOOLS DISCIPLINARY ACTIONS SCHOOL YEAR 95-96 MIDDLE SCHOOLS Action 09: SAC Action 10: Home Suspension  600 ~------------~ 500 120 ..-----------------, 400 300 200 100 359 573 253 256 NBM 231 218 Action 11: Boys Club Suspension 77 -- 55 200..---------------, 150 - 100 94-95 i-L 95-96 BM 44 - 164 - - --- BF NBM NSF -23 22 3 61 39 6 100 80 60 40 20 0 Lliii-.1=::i__ BM 94-95 ~ 106 95-96 5 BF NBM 75 49 4 3 Action 12 Elem Intervention Class 0.8 0.6 0.4 0.2 - - - -- - - - - NSF 15 0 0L-----------------' BM BF NBM NBF 94-95 J.\n- 0 ---- 0 - 0 -0 95-96 0 0 0 0 2.5 2 1.5 0.5 0 BM 94-95 2 95-96 0   NORTH LITTLE ROCK PUBLIC SCHOOLS DISCIPLINARY ACTIONS SCHOOL YEAR 95-96 MIDDLE SCHOOLS Action 17 Expulsion -- -- BF NBM NBF 0 0 0 0 0 2 NORTH LITTLE ROCK PUBLIC SCHOOLS DISCIPLINARY ACTIONS SCHOOL YEAR 95-96 ELEMENTARY K-6 Action 09: SAC Action 10: Home Suspension 140.----------------~ 0.8 120 100 ~6 - 00 0.4 - - - -- -- - - 0.2 0'-----------------' 94-95 95-96 0.8 0.6 0.4 0.2 BM 0 0 BF 0 0 NBM 0 0 Action 11: Boys Club Suspension NBF 0 0 o~------------~ 94-95 95-96 BM BF 0 0 --+---- 0 0 NBM NBF 0 0 0 0 40 20 - 0 L....1111111111,1-..L-.E,,i\n,ZIIIL-.....L--14o1-....-'---------' BM BF NBM NBF 94-95ml 50 19 18 1 - 95-96r l 115 31 35 1 Action 12 Elem Intervention Class 2,000 .----------------~ 1,500 1,000 - 94-95il 95-s6n BM 178 1,539 BF - 68 489 NBM NBF 58 5 -- -- 498 71 0.8 0.6 0.4 0.2 NORTH LITTLE ROCK PUBLIC SCHOOLS DISCIPLINARY ACTIONS SCHOOL YEAR 95-96 ELEMENTARY K-6 Action 17 Expulsion o~----------~ 94-95 95-96 BM 0 0 BF 0 0 NBM NBF 0 0 0 0 NORTH LITTLE ROCK-PUBLIC SCHOOLS DISCIPLINARY ACTIONS 5 YEAR TRENDS f'I( Jf~ 1111 .1l r I I r N)(:I, Pl If~,I ( SCIl UOI S I W~\u0026lt;:111\"'1/ \\f~/\\Y/' I l()f\\!f\nri \\( I /\\ I \u0026lt; I f) I f H t\nAction 09: Student Assignment Class (SAC) 1,200 1,000 800 600 400 200 0 ....__..........,.___ 91-920 92-93D - 93-94  --- 94-95  BM 700 920 977 869 95-96LJ 1,043 BF 328 - - - 486 - 529 -~ 460 445 NBM NBF 372 97 _,_ - - - -- - - - -- 492 158 c- - - -- 449 156 - - 4-11 - - 126 410 140 . - ... . ......,,_,,..._!lllllll!IJll ____ \"'l!lllllllllll!llll~l!lllll!l!!II.....-.----- Action 10: Home Suspensions 200 50 0 91-92fi) 92-93D 93-94  94-95  95-96D BM 65 134 231 236 141 BF NBM 24 23 69 58 60 76 106 103 42 42  NBF 2 14 22 -- - --- 20 -- 3 300 200 100 BM 91-920 224 92-930 2- 76 93-94  119 94-95 133 - 95-96n 371 - l( H~1 1111111l1,: or. I\\ FII FHI \u0026lt;:S CH()OLS u1(-\nc)1I1 lf \\J1\\nY/\\( j 1101\\lS r) YI /' I~ I rn I ,ff)~' Action 11: Boys Club BF NBM 70 66 -- -- - - - - - - - - 97 -- -8--7- 39 - - 39 44 31  NBF 11 -- - 10 -- - - 9 8 -- - - - -- - -- -- - - 102 75 13 1,l() I~ 1111 111 1l h'r lCI\\ I )I )[11.I C ~Cl lOUI S I W'1 ,WI 11\\1/\\l~/\\Y(' 11)(I ~~, r) YI /\\n i l\\f NI \")S Action 12: Elementary Assignment Class (E.I.C.) 2,000 ~--------------------~ 1,500 ----- ---- 1,000 500 BM BF NBM NSF 91-92 - 0 - - - --- 0 - - 0 - 0 92-93D 0 0 0 0 ---- -- --- -- - - - - - 93-94 168 - - 54 -- 45 - - 8 94-95  178 68 58 5 95-960 -- -- - - 1,540 489 498 71 I H) f\\ 11l I 111 1I f{ ( JC!\\ I 1[ IHI IC r~c1! 001S I qc.C\n11\" 1 I H\\/I\\ I? Y /\\ C I IOf \\JS r) YI /\\f~ l l~f [,,JU~\nAction 17: Expulsions a~-----------------------. 6 4 2 -- BM BF NBM NSF 91-92  4 1 0 0 92-93D -- - - - - ~- f- - - - - - - 6 3 1 0 93-9411 -- - - - - -- -- 6 4 3 0 94-95 ~--- - --- - - - 7 -- 0 - - -- -1 - - -0 95-96D 2 1 0 2\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_392","title":"Dismissal for settlement 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":["1995/1997"],"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":["Dismissal for settlement 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/392"],"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)","newspaper clippings"],"dcterms_extent":["127 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\nA'/e. IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION FILED district COURT eastern district ARKANSAS DEC 1 2 1995 LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT JAMES W. McMRMACK. CLERK ' OEP CLERK :S,McMRMA ' t PLAINTIFF vs. No. LR-C-82-866 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT No. 1, ET AL MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL RECEIVED DEFENDANTS INTERVENORS KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL DEC I 4 1995 INTERVENORS SERVICEMASTER MANAGEMENT SERVICES, A LIMITED PARTNERSHIP Office of Deseflregatiofi INTERVENOR Montofiiiy ORDER Upon motion of the Joshua Intervenors, and without objection. the time for filing a response to the Little Rock School District's motion for an order of dismissal is hereby extended to and including January 5, 1996. IT IS SO ORDERED this 12th day of December 1995. JUDGE WfS DOCUMENT ENTERED ON DOCKET RWppt i COMPLIANCE WITH RUL IN 2 S 8 8 1 I RECEfVED 1 5 1995 Office of Desegregation ^ASTefOo oisVfICT g'^y^r, '^^kansas Moiuiuimy CH ---------  - _ JAMES W. IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT (^URT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION 2 I99S '^COKMACK. CIERK 'EP CLERK LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT, ET AL. PLAINTIFFS V. LR-C-82-866 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT, ET AL. DEFENDANTS MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL. INTERVENORS KATHERINE W. KNIGHT, ET AL. INTERVENORS MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME Come now the Joshua Intervenors, by and through undersigned counsel, and move the Court for an extension of time within which to file their response to the Little Rock School District's motion for an order of dismissal state: 1. Additional time is needed in which to respond to the motion recently filed by the LRSD. Said motion is not being made for purposes of delay. Counsel for the Little Rock School District does not oppose said extension. WHEREFORE, for the reasons set forth above, Joshua Interevenors respectfully pray the Court for an order extending the time in which they may respond to the LRSD motion to and including January 5, 1996. 2. 3.Respectfully submitted, John W. Walker, P.A. 1723 Br Little/ tway (501) :ohk, AR 72206 By: CBRTIF .TE OF SERVICE 8 I do hereby state that a copy of the foregoing was forwarded to all counsel of record via U.S. mail on December, 1995. ,his day of Jo: Walker IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT RZCEIVED PLAINTIFF V. LR-C-82-866 DEC 1 1995 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, ET AL Office Of Desegregation Woiinonnfl UI ucQ a J DEFENDANTS MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL INTERVENORS KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL INTERVENORS BRIEF IN SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR ORDER OF DISMISSAL Introduction The settlement agreement in this case requires that the case be dismissed with prejudice with respect to LRSD, PCSSD and NLRSD. The settlement agreement was approved by the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals and by this court, but the required order of dismissal was overlooked and has not been entered. In accordance with the terms of the settlement agreement. LRSD, PCSSD and NLRSD are entitled to an order of dismissal. Statement of the Case The \"RELEASE OF ALL CLAIMS AGAINST THE LRSD, I* which was approved by this court and the court of appeals as Attachment B to the settlement agreement, contains the following requirement: \"It is further understood and agreed that the litigation now pending in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Arkansas, Western Division, entitled Little Rock School District v. Pulaski County Special School District No. 1, et al. No. LR-C-82-866 and cases consolidated therein and their predecessors (including, but not limited to. Cooper v. Aaron. Norwood v. Tucker and Clark v. Board of Education of the Little Rock School District) (the II Litigation\") is to be dismissed withprejudice as to the LRSD and the former and current members of its board of education named in the Litigation. This dismissal is final for all purposes except that the court may retain jurisdiction to address issues regarding the implementation of the Plans.\" Pulaski County Desegregation Case Settlement Agreement, Attachment B, p. 2. The settlement agreement also requires that this case be dismissed with respect to PCSSD and NLRSD. Settlement Agreement, Attachment C, p. 2 and Attachment D, p. 2. The settlement agreement contains the following \"Agreement Regarding Litigation Among Joshua And The Districts\": \"Joshua releases the Districts of all liability for issues which have been raised, or could have been raised, in this Litigation and commits that there will be no further litigation among or between Joshua, Knight and any of the districts, other than proceedings to enforce the terms of this settlement or the terms of the Plans.\" Settlement Agreement, p. 19. This litigation ended with the approval of the settlement agreement except that this court has retained jurisdiction. in accordance with the agreement. to resolve issues related to implementation of the desegregation plans and enforcement of the settlement agreement. An order of dismissal, however, has not yet been entered. Argument The Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals approved the parties' settlement agreement on December 12, 1990. LRSD V. PCSSD. 921 F.2d 1371 (Sth Cir. 1990) . The court of appeals directed the district court, on remand. \"to approve the parties' settlement agreement as written by them.\" Id. at 1394. On January 18, 1991, this court 2ordered that II [t]he parties' settlement agreement is hereby approved as written by them.\" According to the terms of the settlement agreement set forth above, LRSD, PCSSD and NLRSD were entitled to an order of dismissal with prejudice upon this court's approval of the settlement agreement. The order required by the settlement agreement will not affect this court's authority, as described in the settlement agreement, to retain jurisdiction to address issues regarding implementation of the desegregation plans and to conduct proceedings to enforce the terms of the settlement agreement or the desegregation plans. The question of whether a certain component of the settlement agreement should be implemented has arisen once before. In LRSD V. PCSSD. 971 F.2d 160 (Sth Cir. 1992) , the court of appeals confronted the issue of whether the district court was required to extend certain millages in accordance with Item M of the settlement agreement. The district court had \"thought it 'unwise to infer from the court of appeals' approval of the settlement agreement that [the district court was] required to extend the omitted millages. II Id. at 164. The Eighth Circuit said: \"What the district court failed to recognize is that we directed it to 'approve the parties' settlement agreement as written by them.\" \"[A]s written by them,\" the settlement agreement included Item M, which corrected the problem of the omitted millages. The extension of the omitted millages is therefore settled as the law of the case.\" Id. at 165 (citations omitted, emphasis in original). 3One of the reasons the district court had given for declining to implement Item M was that even though the court of appeals had approved the settlement agreement in its entirety, it had not specifically mentioned Item M in its opinion. Id. at 164. The court of appeals made it clear that the parties were entitled to implementation of all of the terms of the settlement agreement: \"The Special Master approved the agreement, including Item M, as did the district court. Most importantly. when the matter came before this court on appeal from the district court, we held that the settlement agreement as drafted by the parties met constitutional standards and directed the district court to approve the settlement agreement as submitted by the parties. therefore. We do not. agree with the district court that it is necessary to infer approval of Item M from our earlier opinion. Our language was clear in its approval of the entire agreement, including Item M.\" Id. at 165. The releases of liability for each of the districts and the dismissal with prejudice of this litigation are important components of the settlement agreement and are at least as significant as the extended millages. The approval by the court of appeals and this court of the entire settlement agreement entitles the three school districts to an order dismissing this case with prejudice. Conclusion This court should enter an order dismissing this case with prejudice effective January 18, 1991. Respectfully submitted. LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 4FRIDAY, ELDREDGE \u0026amp; CLARK 2000 First Commercial Bldg. 400 West Capitol Street Little Rock, AR 72201 (501) 376-2011 Christopher Heller Robert Shafer John C. Fendley By* Christopher Hell Bar No. 81083 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I certify that a copy of the foregoing Brief In Support of Motion for Order of Dismissal has been served on the following by depositing copy of same in the United States mail on this 30th day of November, 1995. 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 Roache11 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 5Mr. Timothy G. Gauger Office of the Attorney General 323 Center Street 200 Tower Building Little Rock, AR 72201 6 a/'rLuMe-\u0026lt;i- IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT PLAINTIFF V. LR-C-82-8\u0026amp;6 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, ET AL RECE!^ DEFENDANTS MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL DEC I 1995 INTERVENORS KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL Office Of Desearegaiiofi INTERVENORS MOTION FOR ORDER OF DISMISSAL' ' For its motion, the Little Rock School District (LRSD) states: 1. This court approved the parties' settlement agreement in an order filed on January 18, 1991. The January 18, 1991 order dismissed the State of Arkansas as a party to this case pursuant to the terms of the settlement agreement. 2. The settlement agreement also requires that this case be dismissed with prejudice with respect to LRSD, PCSSD and NLRSD. The \"RELEASE OF ALL CLAIMS AGAINST THE LRSD,\" which was approved by this court and the court of appeals as Attachment B to the settlement agreement, contains the following requirement: \"It is further understood and agreed that the litigation now pending in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Arkansas, Western Division, entitled Little Rock School District v. Pulaski County Special School District No. 1, et al, No. LR-C-82-866 and cases consolidated therein and their predecessors (including, but not limited to. Cooper v. Aaron. Norwood v. Tucker and Clark v. Board of Education of the Little Rock School District) (the \"Litigation\") is to be dismissed with prejudice as to the LRSD and the former and current members of its board Litigation. of education named in the This dismissal is final for all purposesexcept that the court may retain jurisdiction to address issues regarding the implementation of the Plans. II Pulaski County Desegregation Case Settlement Agreement, Attachment B, p. 2. The settlement agreement also requires that this case be dismissed with respect to PCSSD and NLRSD. Settlement Agreement, Attachment C, p. 2 and Attachment D, p. 2. The settlement agreement contains the following 3 . \"Agreement Regarding Litigation Among Joshua And The Districts\"\n\"Joshua releases the Districts of all liability for issues which have been raised, or could have been raised, in this Litigation and commits that there will be no further litigation among or between Joshua, Knight and any of the districts, other than proceedings to enforce the terms of this settlement or the terms of the Plans.\" Settlement Agreement, p. 19. 4. LRSD, PCSSD and NLRSD were entitled to an order of dismissal upon this court's approval of the settlement agreement on January 18, 1991. A review of the docket shows that the required order has not been entered. According to the terms of the settlement agreement, the district court should enter an order of dismissal with respect to LRSD, PCSSD and NLRSD effective January 18, 1991. 5. The requested order of dismissal would not affect this court's jurisdiction \"to address issues regarding the implementation of the plans\" or to conduct \"proceedings to enforce the terms of [the] settlement or the terms of the Plans.\" WHEREFORE, for the reasons set forth above and in the accompanying brief. the Little Rock School District moves in accordance with the terms of the settlement agreement for an order 2dismissing this case with prejudice with respect to LRSD, PCSSD and NLRSD as of January 18, 1991, except to the extent the court retains jurisdiction to address issues regarding implementation of the plans and to conduct proceedings to enforce the terms of the settlement agreement or the desegregation plans. 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 Christopher Heller Robert Shafer John C. Fendley By: Christopher Helle, Bar No. 81083 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I certify that a copy of the foregoing Motion for Order of Dismissal has been served on the following by depositing copy of same in the United States mail on this 30th day of November, 1995. 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 3Mr. 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 .ristopher Heller 4 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT V. FILED U.S. DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT ARKANSAS APR - 9 1996 JAMES W McCORMACK, CLERK By. PLAINTIFOEH. CLERK (f PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, ET AL APR 1 2 1996 DEFENDANTS MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL ^Office of Desegregation dsori.'! INTERVENORS KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL INTERVENORS NOTICE OF APPEAL Plaintiff Little Rock School District hereby gives notice of its appeal to the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit from the March 11, 1996 Order which denies the Little Rock School District's Motion to Dismiss this case with prejudice and refuses to reconsider its previous order concerning a contract between the Little Rock School District and ServiceMaster Management Services. 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 By(' Christopher Heller Bar No. 81083 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I certify that a copy of the foregoing Notice of Appeal has been served on the following by depositing copy of same in the United States mail on this 9th day of April, 1996\nMr. 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 Ms. Elizabeth Boyter Arkansas Dept, of Education 4 State Capitol Mall Little Rock, AR 72201-1071 John C. Everett 3822 N. Parkview Drive P.O. Box 1646 Fayetteville, AR 72702 Joseph S. Mowery 111 Center Little Rock, AR 72201 Christopher 2 Filed U 3, OlSTtsiCT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT ARKANSAS MAR 1 I 1996 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION JAMES By\n3 W McCjORMACK, C U-xJAWa OEP CCLLIERK LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT PLAINTIFF 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 SERVICEMASTER MANAGEMENT SERVICES A Limited Partnership INTERVENORS MEMORANDUM AND ORDER Before the Court are a number of motions (listed in the order filed) which the Court now addresses: (1) motion of the Pulaski County Special School District (\"PCSSD\") to withdraw supervision from three discrete areas of the PCSSD plan [doc.#2481]\n(2) motion of the Little Rock School District (\"LRSD\") for partial unitary status [doc.#2483 ]\n(3) motion of the Joshua Intervenors (\"Joshua\") to enjoin the LRSD from entering into a service contract without following bidding procedures, requests for infoirmation and without prior involvement of Joshua [doc.#2506]\n(4) motion of PCSSD to clarify the PCSSD desegregation plan [doc.#2520]\n(5) motion of Joshua for the Court to set forth in detail the continuing vs. Ctev I 3 obligations of the LRSD under the desegregation plan with respect to faculty and staff desegregation [doc.#2544]\n(6) motion of PCSSD for an Order regarding portable buildings [doc.#2546]\n(7) motion of LRSD for an Order dismissing this case without prejudice with respect to LRSD, PCSSD, and the North Little Rock School District (\"NLRSD\") [doc.#2573]\n(8) motion of Joshua for reconsideration of 2 6 4 the Court's Order of December 11, 1995, and for completion of the hearing [doc.#2594]\nand (9) motion of PCSSD regarding the replacement of portable buildings with permanent construction. dated October 25, 1995 [doc.#2612]. I. The Court first addresses PCSSD's motion to withdraw supervision from three discrete areas of the PCSSD plan [doc.#2481] and LRSD's motion for partial unitary status [doc.#2483]. The PCSSD states that it has substantially complied with plan provisions regarding library media services, staff development and counseling services, while the LRSD states that it has substantially complied with LRSD plan provisions regarding Home Instructional Program for Preschool Youngsters (\"HIPPY\"), Rockefeller Early Childhood Program, Parkview Science Magnet Program, and Job Training Partnership Act/Summer Learning Program (\"JTPA\"). Both the PCSSD and the LRSD argue that the Court should withdraw supervision from these areas of the respective plans. The PCSSD's and LRSD's motions were both filed on August 23, 1995. On February 9, 1996, the parties entered into a Stipulation whereby it was agreed that the PCSSD, LRSD, and NLRSD should be released from court supervision and monitoring in certain discrete areas of the desegregation plans. The parties further stated that they are in the process of assessing what additional areas of the desegregation plans are ripe for release from Court supervision and monitoring and to identify what areas of the desegregation plans -2-remain deficient in terms of compliance. The additional hearings that were scheduled to address the motions to withdraw were cancelled at the parties' request as a result of the Stipulation. In light of the Stipulation and subsequent cancellation of the hearings, the Court finds that both the PCSSD's motion to withdraw [doc.#2481] and the LRSD's motion for partial unitary status [doc.#2483] have both been superseded by the Stipulation. Accordingly, these motions are denied as moot. II. On August 31, 1995, Joshua filed a motion to enjoin the LRSD from entering into a service contract without following bidding procedures, requests for information and without prior involvement of the Joshua Intervenors [doc.#2506]. In its motion Joshua argues that (1) the LRSD had not discussed the proposed management services contract with the Joshua Intervenors, (2) the proposed management contract has potential adverse racial effect and impact, (3) the proposed management contract has not been let for bids and is not a part of the program. research and evaluation instrument for the next five years, (4) the proposed management contract has potential adverse monetary effects upon financial resources of the district and has the potential for adversely affecting the ability of the school district to meet its a desegregation obligations, and (5) the proposed management contract was not negotiated at arms' length and was designed to provide special favor to some unknown person in the school district. -3-The Court held a hearing on Joshua's motion on Saturday, October 28, 1995, and again on Friday, December 8, 1995. At the hearing on December 8th, counsel for Joshua tendered into evidence a document entitled \"Settlement,\" which Joshua maintains constitutes a settlement offer by LRSD that was accepted by Joshua with respect to the ServiceMaster contract. Joshua claims that this constitutes an offer by LRSD to settle the matter with Joshua by having the Court enter an Order enjoining the LRSD from entering into the ServiceMaster agreement and terminating the district's liability pursuant to Paragraph 14.12 of the contract. The LRSD, however, contends that this document was not intended as an offer to settle, in that it is stamped \"Draft\" and is not signed by any party or the attorney for any party. On December 11, 1995, this Court issued an Order in which it ruled as follows: This Court declines to rule on whether this 'settlement' constitutes a binding agreement on the district or on whether the board of directors delegated Mr. Malone the authority to enter into it with Joshua. The Court finds that even if Mr. Malone had the authority and even if it was an offer to settle which Joshua accepted, settlement. public This policy 'settlement' prohibits this type of purports to create a situation in which this Court, by agreement of Joshua and LRSD, would by court order declare the agreement to be non-binding on the part of LRSD and would relieve LRSD of any liability. Indeed, Paragraph 14.12 of the ServiceMaster contract provides an \"escape clause\" for LRSD should this Court terminate or ServiceMaster agreement. modify the It provides that LRSD shall have no obligation to appeal decisions affecting the contract. Therefore, it implies that LRSD will in good faith abide by the terms of the contract and will not contract with Joshua or anyone else to procure a court order allowing it to escape liability. It would not be consistent with public policy to permit one party to a -4-contract to escape its obligations unilaterally without a similar provision for the other contracting party. This Court finds that ServiceMaster and LRSD did not intend that this clause would permit Little Rock to escape liability without a ruling on the merits. Therefore, the Court holds that this purported settlement cannot be enforced against ServiceMaster. Order, at 5-6 [doc.#2586]. On December 22, 1995, Joshua filed a motion for reconsideration of the Court's Order of December 11, 1995, and for completion of the hearing [doc.#2594]. Joshua states they have not completed their presentation in support of their initial motion to enjoin the LRSD from entering into a service contract, and they argue the Court has not ruled on the substantive grounds which it has set forth in its motion. The Court has considered the matter and remains convinced that its interpretation of the contract was correct and that it would not be consistent with public policy to permit one party to a contract to escape its obligations unilaterally without a similar provision for the other contracting party. See Order, at 6. Joshua cites Union Nat. Bank v. Federal Nat. Mortg. Ass'n, 860 F.2d 847 (8th Cir. 1988), in support of its motion. The Court finds Joshua's reliance on Union Nat. Bank to be misplaced, however. as that case involved a termination clause between the parties to the contract, see id. 860 F.2d at 849, while the case at Bar involves a purported settlement between a contracting party and a third party allowing the contracting party to escape its obligations unilaterally without a similar provision for the non-settling -5-party. Union Nat. Bank is thus distinguishable and provides no support for Joshua's motion for reconsideration. In any case, even if Joshua is correct that such a unilateral escape from contractual obligations would be permissible under Arkansas law, the parties in this case intended that the contract would be performed in good faith unless this Court issued an Order allowing the LRSD to escape liability pursuant to 5 14,12 of the contract. The Court has not and will not at this time issue such an Order allowing the LRSD to escape liability under the contract. Accordingly, the Court denies that portion of Joshua's motion which asks for reconsideration of the Court's December 11, 1995, Order. With respect to that portion of Joshua's motion which asks for completion of the hearing, the Court finds that this aspect of the motion should be and hereby is denied as moot. The Court notes that the December Sth hearing was not completed because Joshua specifically requested that the matter be continued so that it could file an interlocutory appeal of the Court's Order. Tr. at 92, 97. Indeed, Joshua stated that such an appeal would \"resolve a lot of matters. II Tr. at 90. It was only after Joshua concluded that the Order was not appealable that Joshua now asks that the hearing be completed. However, because the Court's docket is full. the Court is unable to schedule the matter for a hearing in the immediate future. Accordingly, for administrative purposes. and because the Court in any case denies Joshua's motion for reconsideration, the Court concludes that Joshua's motion to enjoin the LRSD from entering into a service contract without following -6-bidding procedures, requests for information and without prior involvement of the Joshua Intervenors [doc.#2506] should be and hereby is denied without prejudice. Joshua may refile the motion to the extent they wish to pursue the matter after reviewing today's order. Should Joshua refile the motion, the Court will schedule the matter for a hearing. III. On September 14, 1995, the PCSSD filed a motion to clarify the PCSSD desegregation plan [doc.#2520]. PCSSD seeks to clarify those parts of the plan and programs that are or were calculated to further desegregate the southeast sector schools within the PCSSD, i.e., the Talented and Gifted Program within the southeast sector. the Fine Arts Program at Landmark, the Specialty Program at Bates Elementary, and Harris Elementary. The Court has considered the motion and finds that it should be and hereby is denied without prejudice. Joshua has not filed a response to the motion even though they would appear to be significantly affected by the matters contained therein. In any case, the status of this motion is questionable given the subsequent motions of PCSSD regarding potential school closings and new construction that would affect the schools in the southeast sector and elsewhere. Should PCSSD refile this motion, Joshua is expected to file a timely response stating their position on the matter. -7-IV. The LRSD moves for an Order dismissing this case without prejudice with respect to the LRSD, PCSSD, and NLRSD as of January 18, 1991, except to the extent the Court retains jurisdiction to address issues regarding implementation of the plans and to conduct proceedings to enforce the terms of the settlement or the terms of the plans [doc.#2573]. The Court finds that the motion for an order of dismissal should be and hereby is denied. Let there be no mistake that, with the entry of the settlement agreement, the claims involved in this ongoing litigation were dismissed. at least as a technical matter. The Court finds. however, that no useful purpose would be served by entering an order of dismissal at this time. The Court of Appeals has instructed this Court \"to monitor closely the compliance of the parties with the settlement plans and the settlement agreement, to take whatever action is appropriate, in its discretion, to ensure compliance with the plans and the agreement. and otherwise to proceed as the law and the facts require.\" Little Rock School List. V. Pulaski County Special School District No. 1, 921 F.2d 1371, 1394 (Sth Cir. 1990) . The LRSD has frequently exhibited indifference or outright recalcitrance towards its commitments and has been slow to implement many aspects of its agreements (although some improvements have been made) . Therefore, the Court finds that an order of dismissal should be deferred in order to ensure compliance with the plans and the agreement. Even had the LRSD acted in good faith throughout the years. the logistics and -8-complexity of this case are such that this Court's monitoring function would be impaired by entering this time. an order of dismissal at V. On October 25, 1995, Joshua filed a motion asking the Court to set forth in detail the continuing obligations of the LRSD under the desegregation plan with respect to faculty and staff desegregation [doc.#2544]. Joshua objects to certain staff and faculty assignment practices of the LRSD and contends that the parties have a material disagreement. Joshua seeks an Order which either defines or interprets the obligations of the LRSD with respect to faculty and staff. The Court has considered Joshua's motion and finds that it should be and hereby is denied without prejudice. The obligations of the LRSD regarding faculty and staff are clearly set forth in both the LRSD Plan and the Interdistrict Plan and need not be repeated here. Moreover, the parties have agreed in their Stipulation that they are in the process of assessing what additional areas of the desegregation plans are ripe for release from Court supervision and monitoring and to identify what areas of the desegregation plans remain deficient in terms of compliance. Should the parties be unable to reach agreement regarding faculty and staff desegregation, Joshua may refile its motion. -9-VI. On October 26, 1995, PCSSD filed a motion for an Order regarding portable buildings [doc.#2546]. In its motion, PCSSD asks for permission to begin construction on one permanent classroom at Jacksonville Elementary, four permanent classrooms at Bayou Meto, seven permanent classrooms at Landmark Elementary, and three permanent classrooms at Pine Forest Elementary. On January 29, 1996, PCSSD filed a subsequent motion regarding the replacement of portable buildings with permanent construction dated October 25, 1995 [doc.#2612]. This latter motion supplements and essentially supersedes the previous motion filed on October 26, 1995. In its supplemental motion, PCSSD seeks permission to begin construction on two permanent classrooms at Cato Elementary, two classrooms at Arnold Drive Elementary, four permanent classrooms at Bayou Meto, seven permanent classrooms at Landmark Elementary, and three permanent classrooms at Pine Forest Elementary. The Court has carefully considered the matter and concludes that PCSSD's request is consistent with the district's long-range plans for replacement of portable buildings. The construction will not increase the capacity of the aforementioned schools, with the exception of Pine Forest Elementary.' Accordingly, the motions for an Order regarding portable buildings are hereby granted. 1 On Sqjtembcr 15, 1995, the Court approved a motion granting the PCSSD permission to add a kindergarten class to improve racial balance at Pine Forest Elementary. The district has represented to the Court that one of the permanent classrooms would reflect the additional capacity resulting from the new kindergarten class. -10-VII. In sum, the Court denies as moot PCSSD's motion to withdraw [doc.#2481], denies as moot LRSD's motion for partial unitary status [doc.#2483], denies that portion of Joshua's motion which asks for reconsideration of the Court's December 11, 1995 Order [doc.#2594], denies as moot that portion of Joshua's motion which asks for completion of the hearing [doc.#2594], denies without prejudice Joshua's motion to enjoin the LRSD from entering into a service contract without following bidding procedures, requests for information and without prior involvement of the Joshua Intervenors [doc.#2506], denies without prejudice PCSSD's motion to clarify the PCSSD desegregation plan [doc.#2520], denies LRSD's motion for an Order of dismissal [doc.#2573], denies without prejudice Joshua's motion for an Order setting forth in detail the continuing obligations of the LRSD under the desegregation plan with respect to faculty and staff desegregation [doc.#2544], and grants PCSSD's motions for an Order regarding portable buildings [doc.#'s 2546 \u0026amp; 2612]. IT IS SO ORDERED this // ^^day of March 1996. 'A DGE PHIS DOCUMt.NT ENTERED ON DOCKET SHEET IN COMPLIANCE WITH RULE 58 AND/OR 79(a) FRCP ON BY -11- 1 J IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT. ET AL. PLAINTIFFS V. NO. LR-C-82-866 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT. ET AL. DEFENDANTS J ! i LORENE JOSHUA ET AL. INTERVENORS THE JOSHUA INTERVENORS' OPPOSITION TO THE LRSD'S MOTION FOR AN ORDER OF DISMISSAL 1 The Joshua intervenors oppose the LRSD's motion for an order of dismissal and i i i urge that it be denied. The Little Rock defendants ignore, among other things: the details of the treatment of the issues of continuing jurisdiction and monitoring by the Court of Appeals, when that Court addressed the proposed settlements in 1990\nthe overall legal context in which the Court of Appeals considered the settlements\nthe differing terms of the \"Pulaski County School Desegregation Case Settlement Agreement\" (September 28.1989) with regard to the State and the local districts\nand the history of this case since the Court of Appeals decision. I. A. The Legal Context: The Doctrine of Continuing Jurisdiction and the Violations To Be Remedied The legal context relevant in considering the LRSD motion begins with the decision in Brown v. Board of Education. 349 U.S. 294 (1955) (Brown II). The Court there began 1by reiterating the holding of Brown. However, the focus of Brown II was \"the manner in which relief [should]... be accorded\" in segregated systems, jd., at 298. The Court recognized that \"the transition to a system of public education freed of racial i discrimination\" might \"require solution of varied local school problems\" (id., at 299) arising in many areas of school administration, id., at 300. The Court held that local district 1 courts could best oversee the required remedial efforts (id., at 299), and directed that those courts retain jurisdiction of cases during the transition period. I The Supreme Court returned to the proper role of a district court in the remedial I 1 phase of a school desegregation case in Raney v. Board of Education of the Gould Sch. I i Dist., 391 U.S. 443 (1968), there confronting a case which had been dismissed. The Court I rejected this approach, identifying the need for a Court to focus in the remedial period on whether \"a constitutionally permissible plan\" \"is operated in a constitutionally permissible fashion....\" ii, at 449. A district court should retain jurisdiction \"until it is clear that disestablishment has been achieved....\" The next relevant part of the legal context is the decision of the Court of Appeals in this case in 1985, addressing, in part, this court's order (then Judge Henry Woods) requiring consolidation of the three local districts. See Little Rock School District v. Pulaski County Special School District. 778 F. 2d 404 (8th Cir. 1985) (en banc), cert, denied. 476 U.S. 1186 (1986). The Court of Appeals \"[held] that the district court's findings on liability [were] not clearly erroneous and that intra- and interdistrict relief [were] appropriate. [The court found], however that the violations [could] be remedied by less intrusive measures than consolidation.\" See 778 F.2d at 408. The Court then set forth in detail \"principles\" to 2govern the required intra- and interdistrict remedies (at 434-36), and \"remanded [the case] to the district court for further action consistent with [its] opinion\" (at 436). B. The Court of Appeals Decision of 1990 Concerning the Settlement On remand, the parties ultimately developed five agreements in an effort to repond to the Court of Appeals' 1985 decision. In its opinion of December 1990, the Court of Appeals described Judge Woods' treatment of these agreements as follows: 'The District Court rejected both the settlement plans and the settlement agreement, as submitted. It purported to modify them and to order the unwilling parties to put them into effect as modified.\" Little Rock School District v. Pulaski County Special School District. 921 F.2d 1371, 1376 (Sth Cir. 1990). The Court of Appeals rejected this general approach (ii)\nhowever, it is vital, with regard to the current motion, to focus with care on the Court's treatment of the question of continuing jurisdiction and monitoring. The Court of Appeals first discussed the standards governing its review of the parties' settlement. See, for example, id., at 1383-85, 1388-89. On the one hand, it emphasized the importance of the parties' agreement and the public policy in favor of settlements. Id, at 1383,1388. The Court also recognized, however, its responsibility to insure that the agreements were not \"unfair to class members...\", or ones inconsistent with the \"[court's] strong interest in not involving itself, along with the prestige of the law, in an ongoing equitable decree vzhich is either manifestly unworkable or plainly unconstitutional on its face.\" Id, at 1383. The context for the Court's 1990 decision, then, had multiple facets. It included legal principles regarding the fundamental importance of continuing jurisdiction until violations 3are cured\nthe need to provide, in this case, remedies for intra- and interdistrict violations of the constitution\nthe parties' agreements\nand the principles regarding review of settlements in class actions, striking a balance between the fact of agreement and important legal standards. The Court's application of these principles produced, we submit, the following holding relevant to the matters raised by the current LRSD motion. The district court must retain jurisdiction of the case with regard to the three local school districts for a considerable time to monitor compliance with the settlement agreements (see, for example. ii, at 1383, 1388)\nand the parties have agreed to this continuing jurisdiction and monitoring, if necessary to secure approval of the agreements. I^, at 1386,1390. The following excerpts from the Court of Appeals decision demonstrate that this interpretation is a valid one. 921 F.2dat1376 We now reverse the judgment of the District Court. In general, we direct that Court, on remand, to approve the settlement plans and settlement agreement as submitted by the parties. We also make certain other directions for the future of the case. 921 F. 2d at 1383 This does not mean that a court must automatically approve anything the parties set before it. In the present case, for example, any remedy will necessarily reguire some judicial supervision -monitoring, at least - for a long time. A court has a strong interest in not involving itself, along with the prestige of the law, in an ongoing equitable decree which is either manifestly unworkable or plainly unconstitutional on its face. In addition, this is a class action, and courts are not obliged (indeed they are not permitted) to approve settlements that are unfair to class members, or negotiated by inadequate class representatives. 921 F.2d at 1386 4The district Court was concerned about the lack of sufficient detail in the plans to guarantee successful implementation. The answer to this concern lies, we think, in the fact, upon which we place a great deal of weight, that the parties have all agreed to continued monitoring. Indeed, such monitoring by the District Court and its agents is essential. It is important for the settlement plans to be scrupulously adhered to - and here we have in mind especially the kind of programs that the plan contemplates for the incentive schools - and it will be the job of the district Court to see that this monitoring is done effectively, and that appropriate action is taken if the parties do not live up to their commitments. 921 F.2d at 1388 As indicated above, this does not mean that the parties will be free of supervision or monitoring. Quite the contrary: a necessary condition of our holding that the plans are not facially unconstitutional is that the parties'compliance with them will be carefully monitored. As we shall make clear at the conclusion of the opinion, when we set out the directions to be followed by the District Court on remand, the office previously known as the Office of the Metropolitan Supervisor will be reconstituted as the Office of Desegregation Monitoring, to be headed by a Monitor appointed by the District Court, with such additional personnel as the District Court shall deem appropriate. 921 F.2d at1390 ....We accept these undertakings [of the districts], again with the reminder that that compliance with them will be closely monitored. If the District Court becomes convinced in the future that money is being wasted, and that desegregation obligations contained in the settlement plans are being flouted, it will be fully authorized to take appropriate remedial action. As the parties agree, the settlement agreement implicitly authorizes the District Court to retain jurisdiction to oversee its implementation. See 14 App. 3466. The approach which we urge is also consistent with the Court of Appeals' summary of its rulings appearing at 921 F.2d 1394. The Court wrote in paragraph (8.): The District Court is instructed to monitor closely the compliance of the parties with the settlement plans and the settlement agreement, to take whatever action is appropriate, in its discretion, to ensure compliance with the plans and the agreement, and otherwise to proceed as the law and the facts require. The Court added, in addressing the issue of a transition to the standards of the 5settlements, that if the parties could not resolve the matter by agreement, \"the district Court [was] authorized to take such action as may be just\" (at 1394, para, 9). To be sure, the Court also wrote: \"On remand, the District Court is directed to approve the parties' settlement agreement as written by them.\" li, at para. 6. However, as the excerpts of the opinion quoted above demonstrate, the Court of Appeals interpreted the \"settlement agreement\" to reflect the parties' agreement to continuing jurisdiction over the local districts and monitoring of the agreements. After all, each release relating to the three districts contained this sentence: 'This dismissal is final for all purposes except that the Court may retain jurisdiction to address issues regarding the implementation of the plans.\" E.g., \"Settlement Agreement,\" Attachment B., at 2. The quoted language from the release also puts to rest the LRSD's reliance on the dismissal of the State in this court's order of January 18,1991. See Motion, at para. 1. The quoted sentence is absent from the release regarding the State. See \"Settlement Agreement\", at Attachment A, p. 2. C. The Court of Appeals Decision Regarding the Modification of the Settlement The opinion of the Court of Appeals in 1991 addressing the standards to be employed by this court in considering proposed modifications to the settlements also warrants brief reference. In describing the manner in which this court should proceed on remand, the Court plainly paraphrased the standard set forth in Brown II, to which we have alluded above. See Appeal of Little Rock School District, 949 F.2d 253, 257 (Sth Cir. 1991). The Court added: \"We ask the District Court, to the extent practicable, to give this 6matter priority on its docket.\" at 258/ D. The History of the Case Since the 1990 Decision The Court of Appeals' reference to this court's docket provides an apt starting point for our final argument. We recently had occasion in the Joshua intervenors' application for a fee award to cite the official case docket - totalling 128 pages for the period from December 11,1989 to September 15,1995 - as evidence of the mammouth effort which has been undertaken by Joshua representatives, during the monitoring period following the Court of Appeals decision at the end of 1990. Roughly 10 days after the filing of our fee petition, and almost 5 years after the proposed dismissal date, LRSD filed the current motion - seeking an order under which the case would be treated as if dismissed for some purposes 5 years ago. We have to wonder if the timing of the motion relates to the Joshua fee petition in some way\nand we can only wonder because the defendants do not inform the parties or the court, by use of examples or otherwise, what would be accomplished by the motion, and what, if any, difference it would make. The court should not lend its power to the requested form of belated wand waving. Conciusion The motion should be denied. Neither the formulation which appears in the motion. at pages 2-3, nor the one in the memorandum, at page 1, is consistent with the language employed by the Court of Appeals in 1990 in reviewing the proposed settlement. The LRSD's argument based upon the opinion of the Court of Appeals concerning the milages does not justify the relief sought here. The 1990 opinion of the Court of Appeals did not address the matter of millages in a manner analogous to the matter of continuing Jurisdiction. 7moving papers are otherwise inadequate at this late date, given the insufficient explanation offered for the proposal. I Respectfully submitted, I JOHN W. WALKER, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, Arkansas 72206 (50U 374-3758 By\n^n W. Walker, Bar No. 64046 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing pleading has been served upon all counsel of record, by placing a copy of the same in the United States Mail with sufficient postage prepaid, on this 18th day of December, 1995. /ohr?W. Walker 7 L 8 Arkansas Democnit ^(Jiazctte 22, 19QS-? Lawyer in case tells s judge not to toss desegregation suit mt XXA-^ BY CYNTHIA HOWELL Ownocrat-Gazette Education Writer r 3 attorney for tlie? District, ask^^\" Wnght Nov. 30 to end toe high-prbr. tile school case but to continue TXT ^sicsauou lawsuii, accnrrting (o at- Hicw Ibe thrM Pulaski CounlY\" toey Joto Walken irto black families m toe case. a u ' All three distncts are entitled-fo\n'\" :miceol ___ .. A federal judge should deny toe toiUe Rock School Districts request to dismiss its 13-year-old school desegregation lawsuit accordi^ to at- uidcx lamuies In a motion submitted to US ''Jabber WnghL Walker said toe districts request for dismissal includes little explanation or justificatioa He ----- said toe district failed to inform toe--------------------------------dismissal ot\". court by toe use of examples what hrjfZ overdue,\nwould be accomplished if the dis- dismissal from toe case as toe  language included in toe' 1989 financial settlement of ther case, Heller said at toe time he sub-^ der is at least four years overdue he said. T' lissal is granted. Heller called his request to tii\u0026amp;. judge both a housekeeping mea-' sure and a symbolic gesture to remind people that toe settlement agreement was supposed to end to^ Walker questioned toe motives of toe district He noted that toe motion for dismissal was filed 10 days after he filed a request for i* -i V -rr~vii/tuuuw~ S8O5.00O in legal fees from the three although toe districts had-'to,' ^^001 districts in- ---------------------- volved in the desegregation ! llQim J _: f 11 ,,,, , ------oJ case. We have to wonder if the timing of toe motion relates to toe Joshua meet specific desegregation obliga^ The Little Rock School Distri^ ^ , -------------xyiouiui -_________ accused Walker in rece\u0026lt;^- some way, said bying to impose new Walker, who represents toe Joshua P^'^bons on toe district  spedf-. ically in regard to the assignment^r  nla/*lr J_V  . intervenors, the class of black chU- dren and their parents in the de- , . ----------- segregation case, and we can only bergarten throu^ three, wonder because toe defendants do ~~~~~~------------ not inform toe parties or toe court by use ot examples or otherwise what would be accomplished by toe rnotiom and what if any difference it would make. The court should not lend its power to toe requested form of belated wand-waving, '* Walker quotes toe Sth U.S. Circuit Com of Appeals at St Louis rei^atedly on Wrights ongoing role in the case as a monitor to ensure that toe distact implements and complies with its desegregation plan. black teachers to jobs in grades' killQCPPSrtPn Mimii/rk 'A^iPublic school patrons should insist parties negotiate issues in good faith I 8Y KRISTEN BABER Special to the A/kansas Democrat-Gazette am the concerned parent of two children in the Little Rock Public Schools. Our school board and the other parties to the desegregation case enter^ into an agreement on a desegregation plan that was approved by the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals in 1991. To some extent we are inextricably bound by that agreement, except where, if changed circumstances justify it, the parties may compromise on modifications to the agreement I have been attending meetings between the parties to the desegregation case. These meetings are held in an attempt to agree on necessary modifications to the dese^egation plan, with minimal court involvement. I began to attend the meetings so I could understand the issues because I believe in public schools. I want to support them and I believe it is vital for our school district to get out from under court supervision. I believe in public schools because, more than any other public institution, they form the core of our communities. Our children receive benefits from attending school with a diverse population and everyone benefits from providing a good education to all. Court supervision is detrimental to the district in two ways: Too much money that should be spent on children is being spent on lasers, court costs and the office of desegregation monitorins and being in court means continued instability. Ail school patrons should attend these meetings and encourage the parties to negotiate in good faith and to get us out of court . The following comments are made to parties in the case.  Linda Pondexter, president of the Little Rock School Board: The meetings between parties have the potential for successful changes in the plan, but the meetings need a neutral chairperson. At the last meeting, Chris Heller, a lawyer representing the school district and John Walker, attorney for the Joshua Intervenors, appeared poised to agree on some issues. However, you were so convinced that Heller and the administration had conspired against you with the suggestion for a changed format for the meetings, you were a hindrance rather than an aid to negotiations. I realized then that we need a neutral chairperson\none who is flexible enough to hear suggestions without feeling threatened.  John Walker I support you in many ways. I want the Little Rock Schools to be integrated\nI want my children to go to school with children of all colors and backgrounds and I want the same for black children. I am afraid that your efforts are going to result in the opposite effect Private schools are gaining more students as this case drags on. Integration alone will cause some Commentary white flight, but your resistance to strong discipline in the schools and your unwillingness to compromise will cause the public schools to lose people who can afford private schools even though, ideally, they would choose an integrated school. You say that it is racial discrimination when the police are called when black children scuffle just as we all scuffled when we were youngsters. We all know that there are more fights now. more violence and certainly more guns and knives found on school property. I dont want children who have nowhere to go to be suspended. but I also dont want children who are chronically antisocial or are violent to be in the classroom with mine. When our schools are not perceived to be safe and well-disciplined, families who can afford private school will leave. The result is that the school system will become one of poor, disadvantaged students. You say that I and other white parents come to the meeting to seek special favors for our children. I doubt if Ill ever convince you otherwise. The only special favor I want for my children is for you to re-examine the perspective from which you view the involvement of white parents and children. Looking at the issues as white versus black will only aggravate, not heal, our wounds. We all need you to help effect a compromise that will allow a stable, s^e, disciplined and integrated school system. --------- .position for those who do not When you are being an advocate for black chil- c L, !**?- dren, remember that you do not stand alone. It {grated schools? That goal will not be reached by is the largely white PTA members at my chil-  drens area school who take children on field trips, provide tutoring and pay for an art teacher. Many of those resources would disappear if Little Rock were to become a one-race school system. I agree with you that it is unfair that so few black children are in the gifted classes in elementap^ schools. All children deserve those opportunities, but the court cases drain on school finances makes it that much harder to provide such opportunities to all children, Mr. Walker, please realize that I am not your enemy and neither are the majority of the white parents that I know. If you want to fight, attack the dragons that lead to more white flight  Ann Brown, desegregation monitor You have stated that factors that will draw white children to the district are on-time bus schedules and good curriculum. I have told you that I believe white parents want cooperation between the school board and the superintendent good curriculum and to be out of court You responded, I could not disagree more. You told me that you do not believe parents care about being in court When I recount that to parents, they laugh. Parents do care about on-time bus schedules, but more importantly they want good curriculum tau^t in a safe and stable environment where their tax dollars are spent on the students and not on lawyers fees nor your salary. The public perception is that there are too many in control of this case who are gaining financially from the ongoing litigation, What your comments reveal to me is that being out from under court supervision is not your primary goal. Does the district court realize that?  Dr. Henry Williams and Dr. Russ Mayo: The district needs to act in good faith, also. At the last meeting Pondexter repeatedly asked whether the district could provide a list of what parts of the desegregation plan had been complied with and what was left to do. Your response was always. Our employees are conducting interviews with a view to the hearing. That is no answer at all. I was surprised to learn that neither the school district nor the desegregation monitor knows which parts of the plan have been complied with. Does the district court realize that? What are the monitors monitoring?  AH members of the Little Rock School Board: None of the parents I know wants to change superintendents again. If Heniy Williams is so bad, convince us with facts. But realize this: the parents want a satisfactory compromise in the desegregation case. We^will rally support for those a members of the schck)l board who help find way to get us out of court and we will rally op-  Joshua intervenors: Is your goal safe, inte- I ArkansaTDemo^ C^azctk ] . SUNDAY, DECEMBER 24, 1995 this protracted court case and uncompromising positions that erode safety and discipline in the schools. Those factors are driving afHuent\npar- ents from the district sj\n*  Black and white parents: Our children-need us to speak up and say we dont want to sperid our tax dollars on lawyers fees and on th'e desegregation monitors salary, especially'when that monitor believes that parents arent concerned about the district remaining in court. What we do want is a school system where children of all colors and backgrounds can learn together. We parents need to remember that-iVis not just up to the court to solve the schools problems: it is also up to the school board we elect and the lawyers we have chosen to represent us. We want our schools to be about good education for all and we want our money spent toward that goal. Walker tells me that the state is constitutionally required to pay for public education and that there is no way the school system could go bankrupt\nbut he must know that if dire tactics are used, such as putting the district in receivership or consolidating the districts, affluent parents will leave in larger numbers than before. Walker also tells me that if I really want to help black youngsters I need to speak out fbr their rights in the community. This is mjc first step. Unless we agree on some modifications-and get out of court, this will be a one-race school \u0026lt; system and the children will be as segregated as ! when this suit was first filed. I Kristen Baber is a lawyer who Hoes in LiOle Rock.r-y TUESDAY, DECEMBER 16, 1997 A I , L.I I I W| I  Cooyr^t O Little Rock Newsoaoers. Inc. j Arkansas Demcxn'at'i^(i^azettc I LR schools win a^eOof (iismissal\"tan suit Although vre can well under- Pulaski County districts and the stand the frustration the district state from the case. The state was BY CYNTHIA HOWELL settlement agreement among the will bring more into focus the fact underetanding ^at compliance ARKAiNSAs DEMocRAT-GAZETm three Pulaslti County districts and that a settlement apeement was monitoring would contmu . . The Little Rock School Distact the state that provided for the dis- reached to end the litigation, smd Wri^had denied the Little court has experienced over the dismi^d several ye^ ago, but The Uttle Rock School District the state mat provmeu lor uie u- 7,: Rod: totricts request for an or- years in carrying out our instate- the districts were not Ody the Litis entitled to be dismissed tom its missal. , ..  Hr nf di.^missai sadng that the tion, we conclude that the districts tie Rock distact raised the issue in .................... ''^T^eoking for the day'  haTbel r^akiSLt in motion should have been grant- 1995, but all three are expected to when all federal jurisdiction ends implementing its desegregation ed. - . der of dismissal, saying that the tion, we conclude that the districts  ------------------ -  1 motion should have been grant- looj, uuu on implementing us aesegregauuu cd, wrote U.S. Circuit Judge benefit tom the latest co^ order. plan. Ordering ffie dismissal could Roger Wollman of Sioux Falls, 15-year-old desegregation lawsuit --------------- ionU^ng^m appeak'rourt pan- matter and a symbolic reminder when dism^rould Roger\"Wollman'of\" Si^ Fails, \"But Woihnan also warned that 81 ruled Monday. that the 1989 settlement agree- and contro of the djstact retunm pl^Orde^me msmissai coma ger all three districts must continue to  A three-judge panel of the Sth ment ended litigation on desegre- usSpurpLe the judge As we held in our 1992 deci- implement desegregation plans 0.8. Circuit Court ofAppeals at St gation issues, leaving the courts to This is a small step m that direc- seivenou purp , j u8 terms of the settlement under Wright's supervision. Louis reversed a 1996 order by monitor and orfy thed^ tiom saim agreement became the law of the As the agreement specifically U-S.pistoct Judge Susan Webber tacts compliance with its desegre- moS the diSs desegrega- cSe, Wollman said. , SdMeXu^sl^^'or'^^^^ aSasSSs* gsaasassa the case despite language in a 1989 of what we do everyday, except it the desegregation lawsuit with the Court_______________________ The settlement agreement provided for the dismissal of all three See DESEGREGATION, Page SB Desegregation  Continued from Page 1B to comply with our instruction), to retain jurisdiction to address issues regarding the implementation of Sie desegregation plans, he wrote. 7 He said the entry of a dismissal order will do nothing to relieve any of the three Pulaski County districts of their continuing desegregation obligations as listed in their plans. Any post-dismissal stance by the districts to the contrary, it i should be made clear, would subject them to appropriate sanctions and the granting of remedial relief to those adversely affected by the districts' refusal to honor their desegregation commitments. Wollman wrote the order on behalf of a panel that also included Chief Circuit Judge Richard S. Arnold of Little Rock and Circuit Judge Gerdld Heaney of Duluth, Minn. Attorneys made oral arguments in the case Feb. 25 in Little Rock.\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_424364","title":"Doris Matthis individual file","collection_id":"bcas_p15728coll3","collection_title":"Butler Center for Arkansas Studies Documents Collection","dcterms_contributor":["Matthis, Doris"],"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":["1995/1997"],"dcterms_description":["This folder contains documents and photographs donated by Doris Matthis.","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":["audio/mpeg","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":["Doris Matthis 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/424364"],"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_p15728coll3_430096","title":"Dunbar History Project materials","collection_id":"bcas_p15728coll3","collection_title":"Butler Center for Arkansas Studies Documents Collection","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":["1995/1996"],"dcterms_description":["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","Class reunions"],"dcterms_title":["Dunbar History Project materials"],"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/430096"],"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}],"pages":{"current_page":37,"next_page":38,"prev_page":36,"total_pages":362,"limit_value":12,"offset_value":432,"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}}]}}