{"response":{"docs":[{"id":"bcas_bcmss0837_430","title":"Exit Report (student)","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"],"dcterms_description":null,"dc_format":["application/pdf"],"dcterms_identifier":null,"dcterms_language":["eng"],"dcterms_publisher":["Little Rock, Ark. : Butler Center for Arkansas Studies. Central Arkansas Library System"],"dc_relation":null,"dc_right":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC-EDU/1.0/"],"dcterms_is_part_of":["Office of Desegregation Monitoring records (BC.MSS.08.37)","History of Segregation and Integration of Arkansas's Educational System"],"dcterms_subject":["Little Rock (Ark.)--History--20th century","Little Rock School District","Education--Arkansas","Education--Evaluation","Educational statistics","School management and organization"],"dcterms_title":["Exit Report (student)"],"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/430"],"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":["102 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(^rr-e.ci-e J 10/19/1995 14:24 5013242231 LRSD STUDENT ASSIGNM PAGE 03 /08/93 11:31:46 PAGE 1  Entry * Withdrawal Coda Entry/Withdrawal Description E AR CS DZ DO HS IE LR NO NP PO RE FROM PUBLIC SCHOOL IN ARKANSAS CHANGE TO ENTRY RECORD FROM DETENTION FACILITY IN ARKANSAS FROM DETENTION FACILITY OUTSIDE ARKANSAS FROM HOME SCHOOL INITIAL ENROLLMENT THIS YEAR FROM ANOTHER LRSD SCHOOL FROM NON-PUBLIC SCHOOL OUTSIDE ARKANSAS FROM NON-PUBLIC SCHOOL IN ARKANSAS FROM PUBLIC SCHOOL OUTSIDE ARKANSAS RE-ENROLL APTER EXIT SAME SCHOOL W AO ex DC DF ED EM EP EX EY FL GR ID LT ML MM MO MR NA NE NZ OT PC PG PS SC SI TI UN VD XH ADMINISTRATIVE REQUEST CHANGE TO EXIT RECORD DECEASED assigned to a detention FACILITY EXEMPTED BY THE DISTRICT WITHDREW/EMPLOYMENT WZTHDREW/EMOTIONAL PROBLEMS EXPELLED BY THE DISTRICT END OF YEAR WITHDREW/FAILING GRADES STUDENT GRADUATED DUPLICATE ID LONG TERM SUSPENSION WITHDREW/ENLISTED IN MILITARY M TO M TRANSFER moved TO ANOTHER DISTRICT WITHDREW/MARRIAGE WITHDREW DUE TO NON-ATTENDANCE ON RECORD BUT NOT ENROLLED WITHDREW/LACK OF INTEREST OFFICIAL TRANSFER WITHIN DISTRICT PEER CONFLICT WITHDREW/PREGNANCY ENROLLED IN A PRIVATE SCHOOL ENROLLED/POST-SECONDARY SCHOOL WITHDREW/SERIOUS PERSONAL ILLNESS TRANSFER WITHIN DISTRICT/MOVED WITHDREW/UNIDENTIFIABLE REASON WITHDREW VOLUNTARILY/DISCIPLINE EXIT TO HOME SCHOOL Ji END O F REPORT10/19/1995 14:24 5013242281 LRSD STUDENT ASSIGNM PAGE 02 CORRECTED COPY Little Rock School District Exit Totals 1994-95 August 22, 1994-June 30, 1995 SENIOR HIGH SCHOOLS central jA fair'.............. hall MCCLELLAN PARKVIEW subtotal  JUNIOR HIGH SCHOOLS Cloverdale DUNBAR FOREST HEIGHTS HENDERSON MA8ELVALE\"2 \"\" MANN magnet\"' PULASKI HEIGHTS SOLITHWeST ~ SUBTOTAL ELEMENTARY SCHOOLS BADGETT BALE RELINE BOOKER MAGNET BRACY CARVER MAGNET CHICOT ____________ CLOVERDALE____________ DODO____________________ FAJR PARK FOREST PARK I aiL, i Ji T J\n' 21 1 1 ! 2. r FRANKLIN FVLflRIQHT GARLAND GEYgR SPRINGS GIBBS MAGNET jEFFSRSQN mabelvale MCOERMOTT meaooacliff MITCHeiX OTTER CRSgK PVIASKIH6IGWT5 RpHTSELt \" RQCKEFELLCT ROM! Ng STEPHENS  TERRY_________ ^*M(EFfELD WASHINGTON WATSON i^STERN HILLS ^iams'magnet i^ON WOORUFP SUB total .. ,......... TT 2! 1\n+ I 4- J- T I t I ^1- 10\nMU MM MO MR I NA NE Nl OT PC PG! PS 3C sr Tl I UN VP XHI TOT~| ..I JJZ___i 11 t29l 2 I 6l ... J..-. 7: 13\n2i 1: 1 '3' li 1 8 7 T I 73 66 I 3! 43\u0026lt; 7t| 37 TT^ 2** I SI If  st a isi I 4- I 1 I I t X + i X X T I i X 4___L 11 I 1  I i T X I t\" mi T 4I 11 I ORA ND TOTAL I 27 16 26i I' /WM ?___ t _1 I I 06 : ! 106' 24 i f f I ' I 'v.....f~- ?\n j-'T' I I I 106 1- 17 1 2 I 2i 379 54* Lil.. 1 103! 4 I 2 408' 88 I -n 1 J- 70 J 17\n\"si\" 17' I 9i 33' ? 8' 32 84. 18 dOl I I 1: 356 21'2  j I 276 l! 47 2 1188 , 1 ii e\nT X ad 74 sa 74' 1i 1 108\n3i 1,\n11 I __[ 5i iTTj' T . 20 3l T + 11 2 4* i X I i I I ! I T I L I t T t -X 11 I J 1 4. I X ! X T II I i II X 1 I X X I t X I I J. 1! 1 if 71 4' 81 41 I I T T t X 1* M 1 m-4 -U. z I 2l 2 2I I t X T I 144 SO 64 57 69 610 23 32 21 n\" 61 28 78 57 38 TT 25 20 30 23 44 50 43\n79 79: 10! 2^ 54 12 1$: 69! 60' 46 i -?5L 15\" 32f' IS** 1' 1240 1\n2229 I I X i + X 1 2 4 li I 1i 26. 2j It I I .21 J 1l 6 T + I I I \"if -'21- - f-. n 11 64* 901 94\" 55 961' $48 5 18* 35! 35i 2: 23i s: 31 i3i 7\n11! 591 13! 22, T Jasti 4\n___ *9i 11! Tl 4 . - -14 I T t 1 I X X T I X 'U 4i 7l I i2 , 24I 8j nl 32( T 36! 23f 17t 56$. t I\n1101 1521 58 4-Ji-, 'i I 34\n1! 1| I 1 T 4 T 1) i I ^f II .ji II i I- 11  199 140 n} p- ! It 210 11 42\n\"47 11 ( 119 139 176 I 133\n7\n1' 4l 11 7| 1360 St I 61 1 T I ' HI\nI ' I Ilf 4j TT JX T 11 sT 1! T nr I i! I 4f 11 10! L-Ll 1 I 1, X I I I 11 T + if 121 it 1J 6' 12 T~ I 3 2j 3? 1QI 3 2 1 '1 1 i 1201 2: t 21 1 I i 1| I I I 1 I rrr I 1 1 T H I 1\nilWl'iili' fl! 26$i 611 2! 21 I n li 1 f 1 T 1 TT 3 38 ~~46 38 ts 1?1 34 110 71  68 31 39 34 116 22 _5e 2S 72 103 ~i7 103 18 37 69 9 27 44 J. I I 1 88 81 72 60 56 41 I ! I 38 221 12i 2032 !___' 1181 1! 2l 4580 Rrp4r6 by AMLw10/19/1995 14:24 5013242281 LRSD STUDENT ASSIGNM PAGE 01 OfRCE of SwdENT AssiqNMENT SO! Sh^XMAN UnU Rock, AR 72202 Tlpltox SO I-724-2272 Fax SO I-724-2231 FAX COVER SHEET DATE TO -0 C) fyy Fax NiMbat, 3\u0026gt;'7l'-C) / 0 o FROM. SPECIAL INSJRUCTIONS // NUMBER OF PACES, INCLUDING COVER Arkansas Democrat W(5azcttc  WEDNESDAY, OCTOBER 11, 1995 Extra 689 pupils straggle in at LR schools BY SUSAN ROTH Democrat-Gazetto Education Writer The Little Rock School District period last year, the district pulled 689 students out of a hat in gained 309 students. the last month, raising enrollment figures that initially showed dramatic losses. On Sept 1, the district recorded 24,233 pupils. On Oct. 2, the count was 24,922. Officials shrug, unable to explain the surge. The only thing I can think of is the districts official total that is, we feel that some parents dont will be filed with the state for persend their kids back to school un- manent records and for comput- til afl\ner Labor Day, said Snellen ing state education funds the dis- Vann, district spokesman. Were always up by the October count But not that much. In the same And some confusion remains over whether this years 24,233 September head count was taken before or after Labor Day. The forms used in the count are dated Sept. 5, the day after Labor Day. The October enrollment figure trict will receive. Compared with last years October enrollment, the district is down 309 students. Little Rock will not lose state funding this year because of the loss of students, but the numbers will count for next years state funding. In the coming budget process, the school district can expect to lose about $3,800 for every lost pupil  a total of nearly $1.2 million. But state officials have pointed out that the district is still among the richest in the state. It actually grows richer with the loss of students because the citys education tax levy remains the same regardless of enrollment figures, officials say. Schools that appear to have the largest enrollment declines since last October are Hall High School, which lost 103 students, or 10 percent of its population\nand Henderson Junior High, which lost 125, or nearly 14 percent. Both schools had a startling growth in violent incidents in 1993 and 1994. Little Rock continued its long- See SCHOOLS, Page 10A Schools  Continued from Page 1A time racial trend this year, growing steadily blacker. Last year, 64.9 percent of the districts students were black, compared with 66.5 percent now. The October figures showed 381 fewer white students and 112 fewer other students than a year ago. The number of black pupils rose by 184. Schools that had significant increases in the percentage of black population include McClellan Community High School, up by 43 to 80.4 percent black\nCloverdale Junior High, up by 6 to 86.5\nand Henderson, which lost 38 black students and 77 white students to increase to 78.6 percent black. Among elementary schools, Chicot Cloverdale, Fair Park, Fulbright, Meadowcliff, Wakefield, Wilson and Woodruff all increased their black populations more than 5 percent A report on students who left the district during the last school year shows that 2,^ moved to other districts, while 285 withdrew to private schools. The district had another 1,494 pupils on record but not enrolled A total of 4,580 students left for a variety of reasons during the course of the year, according to the report Little Rock Sehool EnroIJment J 64.9% 32.5% ^vhite Uack 1994 Total studoatK 25,231 if 2.6% other Figures taHen Oct 3,1394 31.3% white 66.5% black ^2^% other 1995 Total atudenti: 24,922 Figures taken Oo. 2,1995 Difference fran last yes' 200 o-J -200 Black +184 Down 309 students overall from 1994 White -aai other -112 -400 NOTE: ThosnamttloflnaKIgiirottbn school dbtilet sahmlts to the slots for ponnanent records and funding puposet. SOURCE LRSD Arkansas OemocratXiazette/UZ ROBERTSI Leave a system with so much? They wouldnt BY SUSAN ROTH AND CYNTHIA HOWELL Oemocrat-Gazette Stall Wrttefs One Saturday in the middle of her sixth-grade year, Melissa Rudder marched up to the principal at a Pulaski Heights Elementary School open house and asked to observe a class. She never went back to her private school. Penny and Patt Rudder moved their family into the Hillcrest neighborhood from a Houston See LRSD. Pane 8A I Arkansas Democrat W^azcttc SUNDAY, OCTOBER 29, 1995 Copyright 6 UWe Rodt Newspapers, Inc. I LRSD  Continued from Page 1A suburb the week before school started eight years ago. They didnt know a soul here. high school. It took her three weeks to catch up academically, Penny Rudder said. The deciding factor was academics a few years later when Christian chose a high school. riculum at private school. Melissa, now 17, is a senior at Central considering a myriad of i districts 12-year-old school de- it is those schools that have lost mentary, where her daughter is buc uiuoL as in sixth grade, and at Pulaski Little Rocks enrollment contin- Heights Junior High, where her son is an eighth-grader. At my first parent conference last year, sitting before us the most students this year as So many segregation case. times the administrations hands are tied by a court order. She said teachers and parents worked hard to try to close the disparity between black and white pupils' standardized test scores at Forest Park Elementary. While scores for white students in the Little Rock district are among the highest in the state and stack up well nt^- ues to decline. Parents still speak of positive college choices. Many families like the Rudders are growing more passionately vocal in support of the Little Rock School District in the experiences at Hall High, J.A. ence Fair High and Parkview Magnet in semicircle were my son s six High, and at Mann Magnet Ju-  This nior High and Dunbar Junior teachers, East related. The Rudders worried about re- ------------------ ports of violence, and several of face of dropping enrollments  Christians classmates decided especially a dramatic loss of Hi^. donl**put\\our*dmi2it*er' hi toe to attend Catholic High. white children in the last three public schools, PennyRudder recalled. They took toe advice, fearing the public schools from ^Christian wL fine at I^laski would have had to give up Span- thT'^laskTHeightso?Hiiicrest students, teachers and parents. neighborhoods, like the Rud- ^e?pS= eo^=a\n^^\noi\ntoe'-has\".... m ever made  chose Central. Christian, now 20, increased. nnaiitv Thpv sav Heishts and she acknowledged trate on those who need it mosL ever mane. ic a snnhnmnre at Harvard Uni- Teachers at some secondary is academic quality. 1 hey say tieignts, ana sne .. .Ea. nmhahiv lafcas Melissa encoimtered intoler- is a sophomore at Harvard uni frustration their children are far safer in that some may not be as safe. ant students and teachers who versi^. schools speax itn Little Rock schools than they are I know some things have failed to supervise at the school, The reason he was so well about a^^lack of omte at shoS  been handled very poorly by the SLi sx'\nisssx\"i's SiSUgjsa .k.'sskt\ns's,'?es.'^.'5n PTA i boUl Forest Part El. os.-E. sold, ret.^W to Ot. The few people we were able to meet said, Your son will be Une at Pulaski Heights, but is really strange, I thought at first. But we sat there and lis- We did check out private years. schools, and we found them to While many of L^e Rocks be academically much inferior elementary schools have active options, Rudder said. He parent ^oups would have had to give up Span-  neiKiiis duuiui ish and a year of math. was miserable. The Rudders call After companng course offer- But the most aggressive tened to a forum on our child, cheerleaders for the secondary what they each thought his schools have children at Pulaski strengths and weaknesses were. .......... Heights Junior High and Central It really bolsters the child as an pmeiii and abundant High School. They tend to be af- community support, the junior fluent white couples who five in U really ooioie.o me emm aa tioually, black studeuts gener- individual and as a student and ally score much lower than boosts communication among whites. ,-----1 \" We were just really concen- ! trating on those kids, East said. r Thats one of the reasons white is a sophomore at Harvard Uni- Teachers at some secondary is academic quality. They say schools speak with frustration their children are far safer in   - - --=- Little Rock schools than they are UUiei JUIllUi uisbb ovuwio --------- - -- , , in their not have the same atmosphere people dont go to the schools, found at Pulaski because teachers really concen- I cant deny that probably takes away a little bit from my child, who could read when she got in there. Like others, the Rudders said See KIDS, Page 9AArkansas Democrat (gazette Kids We want to be a  Continued from Page 8A pOSitive VOiCO for the they feel confident the district can schools in the turn around its problems one U/a a/cn school at a time. Parents mention COmmumty. rVe aiSO two programs. Vdunteeis m Public SChoolS Schools and Partners in Education, community. We also that help. The volunteers program encourages parental participation in the schools. Schools with few active parents to the mark and help them put together ways to evmuate and report how they are doing. Its should get more financial support J _ from the district and more active business partners, Penny Rudder \\ said. The Partners in Education pro- set them. We want pMieinOCCOC with fHp t SKSpSSarmSK themtobesuccessfuL rtal-world learning experiences and mentors for children and the school has sought to suspend or expel fewer students, he said. There has been one incident involving a weapon. School officials took an ice pick from a violent student during the first period on the first day of school j Washington believes his school is safe although he acknowledges that there have been problems on buses and at bus stops this year. While Washington, parents and many other school district leaders ' and cheerleaders frequently blame the media for Little Rocks image problems, the Rudders have another idea. What all the schools need, they saii is more support from Little Rocks political and business leaders, o The city business leadership is Scott Christie behind the schools, Patt Rud- ff M\u0026amp;rtha and Scott Christie, a west ^7, , L-rttteRock couplMecengr^ to 'ai^anize another association called Parents In Public Schools. der said. I think maybe they\\e giv- I think we will go from 30 people to 100, and from 100 to several thousand, said Scott Christie, a father of four and a global sales sup- SSIS'/SSKtoS wtu.(-\"-I. ____________ I en up on the school system. Its very she predicts that parents of some of difficult to get community leaders to her sons friends will opt for private step up and say Yeah, TU serve on . schools next year.________________the school board. We have to help S Lite other families, the Christies them realize its worth their while. say they will visit all the junior The way they will do that, they i highs to select one for their son and said, is to keep talking to people  then will involve themselves at the until were blue in the face.  in Jackson, Miss., and chapters across the country use Jackins One person who plans to work hard to recruit families like the charter and bylaws as models. J^es Washh^n, p^ There are three things this or- cipal of Henderson JimiOT High, the ........ school that got the worst rap last year. Washington looks back on last year and shudders. You dont have lor me scnouis m me eeumiumu,. to tell him that was not a We also want to hold the schools to goo^ear for his schwl. the mark and heln them put togeth-  Every day when I get to work, I ganization wants to accomplish, Christie said. We want to be a positive voice for the schools in the community. the mark and help them put togeth- to evaluate and report how think about what I was doing a year ago, he said. And what was he doing? Probably busting up a fi^t Even his mother in Hot Springs er ways they are doing. Its not that we are out to get them, he said in an aside. We want them to be suc- cessftil. worried about his safety. A 10-year district veteran, Wash- T7ie third thing we would like distnet veteran^. w^- to'de is understand the federal ington started work Sept 21,1994, at courts involvement in our school Henderson, replacii^ a principal who was transferred because of her syStem and see if there is not a way to get more local participation in decision-making in our schools. highly publicized disputes with the staff. Parents reacted to the problems Early participants in the group ------------ . have mostly been white parents with by send^ their children els\" children in schools on the citys west where this year. The enrolment of side. The group wants to expand its 917 at Henderson, the distnci s membership to include more black largest junior high l^t ye^, participants and representatives of dropped by 125, mostly white schools all over the city. pupils.   This year, 17 new staff members, leave me _______-__,___ including two new assistant princi- Martha Christie, who has a masters pals, have injected new energy, md degree in education firom Columbia there is more collegiality, Washing- University in New York City. I ton said. have a child going to junior high L We do understand why people the Little Rock district, said Last year's distractions are gone,I Arkansas Democrat ^(OazcUc SUNDAY, OCTOBER 29, 1995 Copyright O Little Rock Newspapers, Inc. k DRAIN ON THE DISTRICT Urban fears pose problem for Little Rock schools Many parents found they couldnt love LRSD and so were happy to leave it BY CYNTHIA HOWELL, CHRIS REINOLDS AND SUSAN ROTH Democrat-Gazette Staff Writers Last June, the White family sold their west Little Rock house nt n los.s, packed their beloiieings and left town. I he faniily moved to Cabot, a bedroom community of about 8,3(X) people northeast of Jacksonville. Now they have five acre.s of land and a two-stoiy house with an American flag in (lie front yard. a There's no shopping mall, and they have a half-hour commute to Little Kock. But (he White.s they did the right thing. The schools were the No. 1 say reason we moved, L......... .. _ i said. \"We wanted a better. rpasor ^hite safer environment for (he kids. Scores of families, particularly whites, have fied the majorityblack Little Rock School District for suburban or private schooLs fru.strating the districts desegregation efforts, ramifies who moved out say they found better teaching, discipline, buildings and supplies in other districts. T he,v also found lower taxes and less crime (han in Little Rock. The Whites never viewed private schools a.s a good alternative. \"Were adamant about using the public schools, not just fieeing to Pulaski Academy or a parochial school, Jim White said. So, when White to a x-w. i OU, wneil vvniie became fed nn ThaVUka n. . Arkansas Democrat-GazeltaDAVID GOTTSCHALK \u0026lt;'*s\u0026lt;^ipHne problems - mwed I?\"!- Brandon (left), 11, and Colin, 6 r f Seer,tv,P.gA I Arkansas Democrat ?9\u0026gt;(Bazettr. Family put its house up for sale and got out of Dodge  Continued from Pans 1A _______ __________________ Page in Little Rocks public schools, he took his family to Cabot Brandon White, 11, was enrolled in Terry Elementary in west Little Rock after the family moved to Arkansas from California. Brandon and his younger brother, Colin, a kindergartner at the time, transferred to Fulbright Elementary the next year. At Fulbright. Brandon was moved nearly every day to sit next to a child who was misbehaving. Jim White said. The boy was used as a role model for a bad student But the concept backfired, and Brandon went home with a bad attitude and foul language. My kids are not there to be teaching other kids how to behave themselves, White said. In Cabot they expel kids. They dont sacrifice the majority for the rights of the minority. And, regardless of integration efforts. White felt a cultural gap remained between poor black inner-city children and west Little Rock middle-class white children. Brandons fourth-grade teacher at Fulbright didnt speak proper En^ish, White said The teacher didnt seem to check homework or show concern that homework was completed, and she could not control the students, he said White and other families criticized the Little Rock disWct and measuring THE DROP IN SEARCH OF SAFETY --------- ... many otn- * lu mierviews that would have paid had they reason not to go back to LitUe ers have taken the same ao- diey bailed out of the LitUe Ropk P'odjor private schools - an op- Rock.\" said Blck Lafferty, M Droach Tha diehenF . w. onihA/xic p tioD, uicy considered. In the last six years, many oth- 5 havA Pole.*.. 4.U_ . Parents said in interviews that same ap- ***'-'* UA uuB ijime nocs Si n ' has reported s'I\u0026gt;ols m the last few years rnain- eyollment losses each of those better and safer facill- yean, exc^tforagainof552stu- to , Paula Launius, for example, \"w.  lost 618 Stu- yed 15 months ago from the .U A.SP.PP'^ on student exits for school year shows that 4^ students left the LitUe Rock schools during the year 18 ner- cent of the enrollment Wlule Uie report does break dom the staUsUcs by race, ft does offer figures to 28 cate- h? po'ftding those assigned io detenUon faciliUes (28 pupils) and dropouts (68). for spending tOT much energy and 49 perreto^or 22M toto desegrogauon and n't heir eh.J.-.. VBO J ':~ luiioiosiu- AU luuuuis aeo trom thp wtoto neighborhood in South- districts west Little Rock to Cabot with her Mike, and their two ele-  steady 64 per- mentary school-age sons, Rick, 12. cem black to percent black. and Timmie, 6. They now lire to ...^^^i'n?'*t\"etis66per- walking distance of both Soth- St and Cabo?ju- ment fell by 309 students, and nior High schools. ofwh'itTwJL^^SlToSi^^^ abo\\f.r''^ a'' gam in black students to the W ^O-to six years, the schools tost 1S \"\"\"\"te' 'a. .... students, or 4 percent of enrollment But the loss of white pupils numbers 1218, or 4.7 percent Distoct officials say they cant reasons families iMve. But they are starting to track some trends, in keeping mto a promise they made IM ^y live in not Superintendent Henry Williams \"Dr. Williams is a politician ... a., sninon,. and is trying to get tilings accom- whether they moved pushed, White said. \"But theyre the schroK tor just strangling the teachers with a new job to MothTS'**  no money, no supplies. , Another i tle^R \"t ftioted but?ever shoUfui'fo? tie Rock  a young, energetic  P black woman  was excellent, class. Officials dont know why the Whites said. But she became About 6 percent, or 285 frustrated with district adminis- students, said they had switched trators and the school principal private schools. and took a job in the private sec- ask students tor e next year. The physical condition of the school also was deplorable, White said. So we decided to put our house up for sale and get the hell out of Dodge, White said. Out here, its hometown USA. school. Their son is in second grade\ntheir daughter is 4. It was a wonderftil school, Lieblong said, but it was not your standard school in Little Rock. agent with Liber^ Real Estate in Bryant He sard his company sells to many families who leave Little Rock for various reasons, includ- They dont even want to go Rick had to work a little harder at his new school, his mother said. But the family found the school more orderly, a result of more restrictions and more incentives for good behavior. And. unlike Little Rock, Cabot allows corporal punishment in schools, giving teachers an additional tool for maintaining order, she said. Parent involvement also is high in Cabot, which Launius said was different from what she saw ... ------ - The problems in the Little back to shop there, Lafferty said. Rock district stem from societal Theyre just sick of it They want problems, Lieblong said. Working a little bit of old Americana. parents, single parents and ne- In the early 1970s, the first few giectftil parents pour undisci- years of forced busing in Little plined children into Little Rock Rock, many families moved out of schools, he said. Pulaski County, but several ---------- --------- Tlie/re fighting a losing bat- Saline County school officials tie. I just think its broken, and said white flight had slowed in re- they dont know how to fix it I cent years.----------------------------------dont think they can fix it I dont 40-mtoute?ommut7,'\nhl^rf''hl'' me ao \"Bryant is not growing like Con- think they can make parents husband way and Cabot,\" said Danny care,\" he said. LitUe Rock and  wealth of volunteers leaves them Spadoni, principal of Bryant High Lieblong said he wanted to We wmiSd toT r '\"tribute. School. Eight or nine years ago, we support the Little Rock school areata bSe? *5 Rick, now a seventh-grader, had a lot coming from the metro- but his children come first Launius, a nurse. I wSi we had Sd'? htoT nnd wtoto Pit\"\" \"t\"-tt\"!so much now.\"  .7, ,,3^ people tell me that if I moved here five years ago. We love there^^e atentoges CHIUHIEN COME FIRST left I wouldnt be helpi^ the situ- It ................* -T,_____J r i.Li____ation, he said. But its the an- Launius, 39. has no regrets in Little Rock. If parents dont ifa Fka on . . sign up early in the year to do tasks at the Cabot schools, the Launius had nothing but praise for Little Rocks Mabelvale Elementary and its teachers. Thats where her son Rick attended kindergarten through fifth grade  except for second grade when he went to Washington Mae- net Elementary. But the fear of junior high, particularly of youth gangs and the need for metal detectors to scan chitoen for weapons, scared the family into leaving the ci^. Launius, a LitUe Rock native called the meUl detectors \"a wake-up call to her at a time when Rick and his friends were talking more and more about* gangs. Rick came home one day almost in tears asking, How am I going to make it with the gangs?  his mother said. scan We honestly did not move here to get away from blacks. It was for a safer community and better schools, Launius said. She described her new home as a relaxing, small, country town populated with friendly people_a town where she can send her children off to school with a minimum of worry. The familys new red-brick house has about 300 more square ^t of space and cost about 530,000 more than their Little Rock home. The monthly house payment increased by about $100  much less than the tuition the There is a lot less cussing at ...... Tom and Mary Lieblong chose this school, he said. You dont Cabot when they decided to leave have to be scared about violence. Little Rock. The property values If I went to junior high at Mabel- in Benton and Conway had skyvale. right now I would feel so rocketed because of population worried every day at school I growth. would try not to mess with some people. I just wouldnt have anything to do with some people. Tom Lieblong said the family decided to move to Cabot while land prices were still affordable. Other nearby districts have When he first moved to Cabot, seen an influx of Little Rock fam- Lieblong made a 50-minute com- Ilies over time, but ofilcials in mute to an insurance sales job in Benton and Bryant said few, if Little Rock He is now trying to any, families moved there recent- establish a client base in Cabot ly from Little Rock because of the - - -.................. The Lieblongs moved after schools. In fact Bryant and Ben- their son completed kindergarten ton enrollments declined this fall. at Little Rocks Jefferson Elemen- School principals, real estate tary in 1994. The family sold their agents and parents said they Kingwood home near Cantrell knew couples who moved before Road and Mississippi Street for a they had children or when their new country house and what they children were Infants, fearing the believed would be a better educa- schools before their children en- tion system in Cabot tered them. Others came from Like the Launius family, the other parts of Arkansas or out of Lieblongs didnt have any probstate and chose to avoid Little lems with their child's elemen- Rock altogether. tary school but worried about the We get a lot of people who, future  junior and senior high once they move out here, look for   swer for me. DISAPPOINTZD IN MSCIPUNE Little Rock lawyer John Moore moved his family out of west Little Rock a little more than a year ago, not because of the schools, but for a new house in west Puias- k County. After the move. Moore's oldest son continued to attend Little Rocks Henderson Junior High Schoolfor a while. He started this year at Arkansas Baptist School I dont want to slam the district, said Moore, who was president of the Little Rock School Board in 1992-93. But, the main reason we left was because, while I heard the administration talk about a strict discipline policy, I never saw it get down to the school. My son was tired of being in classes where teachers spent most of the time trying to maintain discipline. Im almost embarrassed to say I dont have any kids in the district, even though I dont live there anymore, Moore added. . But my boy actually made the re-  quest to change.\nHenderson lost 125 students, 14 percent, this year and more than any other school in the district The exodus followed a troubled year that included a controversial midyear change of principals and a steep increase in violent incidents. Moore said he believes Principal James Washington is working hard to improve student behavior, and he feels Henderson is a safe school. Moores niece continues to attend Henderson.-I I- - 'J Arkansas Democfat-GazettaSTcPHEN 9. THORNTON But Moore also believes teach-', ers and the principal didnt have the authority they needed last\" year to deal with the troublemak-I ers. There were students at Henderson who shouldnt have been, in a regular public school, said! Moore, who was a frequent visitor to the school and its classrooms. Moore said Washington would! beg district administrators to get. those students out of his hiiilrling, Some were removed for awhile.. but returned at the beginning\nof? the new semester to cause more problems. tziiMfr, Dale Gunter, an engineer wjth  the citys public works depMt , ment said he moved his 14-yeary old son, John, from Hendersonrto-. Robinson Junior High in the Pu-'\nu.ski County Special School Dis- People would just hit me, jump me, simply because youre white, happened all the time. The education theyre trying to sve you is good, but the fear tand of distracts you. I was so unhappy there, I didn't care about my grades anymore. Im 6-l,:.-\n'I60 pounds, and I was terrified. I doirt partcularly like to fight i\n,... At Robinson, the princip^ doesnt give you any slack no matter what color you are. The teachers have the guts to stand up to students. .At Henderson, the teachers are scared of being shot up. II UI'.' Gunter is frustrated because he wants to support the Little Rock schools. His stepdaughter is now in seventh grade at Dunbar and has had no problems so far, he said. tne: to escape the climate of fear a -. J u.  to try to stick with public scho'o'ls Both his son and stepdaughter, j-.i-   . One of the reasons we chose attended Fulbright Elementary. They had nothing but positive'^ experiences, Gunter said. When it was time to choose a' junior high, the family investigated six different schools, including, private and parochial schools.' The promise of a specialty in health sciences attracted them to. Henderson because it fit Johns.' career interest in physical thera-, py. I felt his educational opportu-. nities would be better at Header^, is that, as a public official. I feel a community is no better than its school system. Gunter said. My personal feeling was that I had an obligation to the city to try to set an example. We really tried. And there are good schools. But they have to get a grip on discipline and security. My sou will stay at Joe T. Robin- son for high school. He's theyve lost one I tri lEU-, O. I nWOII I ------- ------------ ----. --------------.  Tea^ Beisr Henderson (rigM) tells Henderson Junior High Principal James being expelled. The school lost 125 students this year after a sharp increase last private schooisi Washington of the improved attitude of a student who had returned to class after year in violence and discipline problems The first year at Henderson Moore said his advice to the school district is unchanged since the days when he was on. the board: Follow the student TUte S'- 3^\n2yjqw BUCK -153 book to the letter, and. when students continue to misbehave,4st was satisfactory, Gunter said..Buti them out of the school. Give the the school fell apart last .yasat- teachers the auonty to act to get and, though Washington stabifp those students out lized it the damage was already, Moore isnt as involved in his done. he said. sons new school as he was with the There was a distinct, dual set ...... ~ little Rock schools. But his son gOE wffiM xjom OIHER .251 of rules for discipline for white,, likes Arkansas Baptist, is doing well versus black students, he said. ., academically and participates in John said it made him mad tO\nextracurricular activities. I * kzn see blacks with drugs get ex-n We go to the football games, peiled, then return to school thert Moore said. My boy plays footnext week, while a white student^ ball. Its the way school used to go SOURCE. jOeAccx Senoo Qstci Afkartsas Oemocral-Gazene/UZ ROBBTTS caught in horseplay would get suspended for two or three wee!is,i He said black students could even,\nwear things whites couldn't be.\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_466","title":"Facilities Implementation Planning Committee","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","Educational planning","School management and organization","School improvement programs"],"dcterms_title":["Facilities Implementation Planning Committee"],"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/466"],"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":["52 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\nLittle Rock School District r*\" November 8, 1995 NOV 15 1995 Ms. Ann Brown 201 East Markham Little Rock, AR Office of Oea\nDear Ms, Brown: 72201 The Superintendent and the Board of Education of the Little Rock School District has reqpiested that I extend an invitation to you or your representative to participate in an Implementation Planning Committee that is being drawn together to analyze the recommendations of the 1995 Facility Study and to put together implementation plans for those recommendations that are approved by the Board of Education. Our first meeting will be held at 9:00 a.m., November 9, 1995, in the office of Student Assignments. I apologize for the short notice for that meeting and if you are unable to attend because of this short notice, copies of agendas and minutes and any other documents generated as a result of that meeting will be forwarded to you. Should you have any questions concerning this invitation, please feel free to contact me at 570-4020. Sincerely yours, Djpugllps C. Eaton DIRECTOR FACILITY SERVICES DEPARTMENT DCE/apl/invite 810 West Markham Street  Little Rock, Arkansas 72201  (501)324-2000Little Rock School District J k- f NOV I 51995 Office of Desegregdiion vudy November 10, 1995 Ms. Melissa Guildin Office of Desegregation Monitoring Dear Ms. Guildin: The second meeting of the Facility Study Implementation Planning Committee will be held at 9:00 a.m. on Friday, November 17, 1995, in the Little Rock School District Board Room, 810 West Markham Street. At this meeting we will be continuing our general discussion of the Facility Study and will be trying to define the scope and purpose of the committee and the general plan areas, most respectfully requested. Your attendance is A sincerely yours, D^glas'C. Eaton DI^CTOR FACILITY SERVICES DEPARTMENT DCE/apl/fsm 810 West Markham Street Little Rock, Arkansas 72201  (501)324-2000MINUTES: IMPLEMENTATION COMMITTEE NOVEMBER 9, 1995 The Facility Study Implementation Committee had their first meeting on November 9, 1995. attached hereto. In attendance were the individuals as listed The meeting began with a general discussion of what the charge was of the committee. We considered and discussed the following areas: Committee Membership - Recommendations were solicited for additional committee members that may be able to serve and provide guidance and research in developing an Implementation Plan. 2. We discussed the draft, scope and purpose of the Committee and decided that this would be an item to be reviewed and finalized at our second meeting. There was a brief overview by Mr. Eaton of the Facility Study which prompted many questions and discussion. We discussed the Implementation Plan outline and began looking at responsibilities. We discussed the considerations. draft Implementation Plan 1. 3 . 4 . 5 . a Dr. Russ Mayo gave the group a brief overview of the Facility Study as it affects Student Assignments. He also answered many questions dealing with the general perceptions of the Study and explained to the members present how student assignment policies generally work and how children are assigned throughout the District. Our next meeting will be Friday, November 17, 1995, at 9:00 a.m. in the Board Room. DCE/apl/minutesDCE/apl/ic Mr. Doug Eaton Director, Facility Services, LRSD 3601 South Bryant Little Rock, AR 570-4020 72204 Ms. Sue Strickland 19 Pear Tree Place Little Rock, AR 374-0123 Work 455-1843 Home 72209 Ms. Melissa Guildin Office of Desegregation Monitoring, LRSD 810 West Markham Little Rock, AR 376-6200 72201 Mr. Skip Marshall Office of Desegregation Monitoring, LRSD 810 West Markham Little Rock, AR 376-6200 72201 Mr. Fred Smith Manager of Support Services, LRSD 810 West Markham Little Rock, AR 324-2003 72201 Mr. Xanier Heard Alltel Information Services 4001 Rodney Parham Road Little Rock, AR 220-5370 72205 Mr. Sammy Mills 7 Conifer Place Little Rock, AR 568-4727 72209 Ms. Diane Vibhakar 3917 South Lookout Little Rock, AR 661-8030 72205 Ms. Suellen Vann Director of -Communications, LRSD 810 West Markham Little Rock, AR 324-2020 72201Ms. Sadie Mitchell Assistant Superintendent, LRSD 810 West Markham Little Rock, AR 324-2007 72201 Dr. Vic Anderson Assistant Superintendent, LRSD 810 West Markham Little Rock, AR 324-2005 72201 Mr. Charles A. Johnson, Jr. 3907 American Manor Little Rock, AR 565-5715 72209 Ms. Betty Mitchell 107 Detonte Drive Maumelle, AR 372-3519 72113 Ms. Linda Young New Futures, LRSD 810 West Markham Little Rock, AR 324-2112 72201 Ms. Margaret Gremillion Assistant Superintendent, LRSD 810 West Markham Little Rock, AR 324-2006 72201 Mr. Leon Modeste Special Assistant to Superintendent, LRSD 810 West Markham Little Rock, AR 324-2011 72201 Dr. Russ Mayo Director, Office of Desegregation Monitoring 810 West Markham Little Rock, AR 324-2271 72201 Mr. John Walker 1723 South Broadway Little Rock, AR 72206 Mr. Richard Rochelle 401 West Capitol Little Rock, AR 72201c s Si Little Rock School District November 10, 1995 Ms. Melissa Guildin O^ce HU'I 0^ - '\\ l l Oese9'eaa^'\" VlO'!^-^' ..4 ODM 201 E. Markham Little Rock, AR 72201 Dear Ms. Guildin: The third meeting of the Facility Study Implementation Planning Committee will be held at 9:00 a.m. on Friday, December 1, 1995, in the Little Rock School District Board Room, Street. 810 West Markham Your attendance is most respectfully requested. Siijicerely yours. l^bgras C. Eaton ELECTOR FACILITY SERVICES DEPARTMENT DCE/apl/fsm 810 West Markham Street  Little Rock, Arkansas 72201  (501)824-2000a '0 MINUTES IMPLEMENTATION COMMITTEE NOVEMBER 17, 1995 NOV ^7 /995 OlficQ of ^ssegreg. luui t^oiwomig The Facility Study Implementation Committee had their meeting on November 17, 1995. as listed attached hereto. second In attendance were the individuals The meeting began with a general discussion of the scope and purpose as outlined in our first meeting. There were essentially no comments with regard to the scope and purpose. meantime, until is formally approved by the committee, we will work For the under the charge of the draft, scope and purposes outlined in our first meeting. The second Considerations. item discussed was Implementation Planning A significant addition will be made to the Implementation Planning Considerations to include the securing of public support or any aspect of the recommendations made by the committee. Other discussions centered around the following items: A discussion that we outline committee objectives so that everyone has a clear understanding of what is to be A. accomplished. That a Neighborhood Association list be compiled by committee members so as to insure that we are including the associations in our public meetings at our schools. B. C. Discussions ensued regarding how we structure the committee, how we divide into sub committee's in order to analyze our charge. D. How do we develop a program that clearly emphasizes and supports the strategic plan as adopted by the Little Rock School District Board of Directors? E. Suggestions were made to form a sub committee on how to market the Facility Study to the general public, addition, a list was requested identifying where various copies of the Facility Study are located. In F. Fred Smith gave a briefing and commented on the planning and budget time lines which are Dr. Mayo and Mr. presently being pursued by the District and how the recommendations of this Committee tie in with the budget procedures.Page Two Continued Copies of the District Facility Plan are located at the following locations: 1. 2 . 3 . 4 . 5. Office of Student Assignments (Full Copy) Director of Communications (Full Copy) Manager of Support Services (Full Copy) Office of the Superintendent (Full Copy) Director of Facility Services (Full Copy) Copies of Volume I, Executive Summary, and Volume II, Demographic Analysis are located in the following offices: Office of Human Resources Office of the Federal Court Office of Desegregation Monitoring Attorney for Knight Intervenors Attorney for Joshua Intervenors North Little Rock School District Pulaski County Special School District Office of the Assistant Superintendents Office of Neighborhood and Planning, City of Little 1. ( 2. ( 3. ( 4. . 5. . 6. 1 7. 8. ( 9. I Rock 10. 11. 12 . 13 . Office of Judge Susan Weber Wright Department of Education, State of Arkansas Office of Procurement Each Board Member, Little Rock School District Board of Directors Our next meeting will be at 9:00 a.m., December 1, 1995, Board Room. in the DCE/apl/ininutes2Planning and Budgeting Time Line JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG 1 PROGRAM INVENTORY 2 PROGRAM EVALUATION I I 3 NEEDS ASSESSMENT I 4 GOALS I I 5 PROGRAM DEVELOPMENT I I I 6 BUDGETING I 7 LZ I I I I I I I I MONITORING A REPORTING I I I I I I I I I I I 0 REASSESSMENT OF PLANNING PROCESS A ORGANIZA IION 5 Little Rock School District 1RECEIV an y SCHEDULE OF NOV 1 7 1995 PARENT MEETINGS FOR FACILITIES STUDY^**'' ^sresaticn Mon AND BOARD MEMBERS FOR THOSE SCHOOLS 1. November 29, 1995 3. December 14, 1995 Pulaski Heights Elementary 6:00 p.m. (Judy Magness) Jefferson Elementary 6:30 p.m. (Judy Magness) 2. December 12, 1995 4. January 9, 1996 Mabelvale Jr. High 6:00 p.m. Woodruff Elementary 6:00 p.m. (Sue Strickland) (Michael Daugherty)/ JUL 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Planning and Budgeting Time Line NOV 1 I 1995 \"J -nicR of Daseyreyaiiori Moruoimy AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG PROGRAM INVENTORY PROGRAM EVALUATION I I NEEDS ASSESSMENT I GOALS I I PROGRAM DEVELOPMENT I I I BUDGETING I I I I I I I I I I I I MONITORING \u0026amp; REPORTING I I I I I I REASSESSMENT OF PLANNING PROCESS * ORGANIZATION I I I 3 I LHUe Rock School District I RiCEIV^n OK 2 7 1995 Little Rock School District Office of Desegregajiofl Monitonrig December 21, 1995 Ms. Melissa Guilden 201 E. Markham Little Rock, AR 72201 Dear Ms. Guilden: The sixth meeting of the Facility Study Implementation Planning Committee will be held at 6:00 p.m. on January 3, 1996 in the Little Rock School District Board Room, 1996, 810 West Markham Street. Your attendance is most respectfully requested and should you not be able to attend, it is requested that you contact the undersigned prior to the meeting. you not I wish to take this opportunity to ask the committee members to teview the scope of work and the charge of this committee. tendency to be side tracked the last two meetings Oxx j-ooxxca that parallel our charge, but which we are allowing to overshadow our real intent. We have on issues The scope and charge of the Implementation Planning Committee is to analyze the Options in the Little Rock School District Long Range Facility Study to determine whether or not they can be implemented, and if so what other steps to take for implementation. It is not our charge to determine whether or not we agree or disagree with the Options, but rather to use our knowledge to determine what the advantages and disadvantages of the various Options are so as to be prepared to make a recommendation to the Superintendent and Board Education on an Option and what other steps to take for implementing the Option. an Option steps Long Range Beginning with our January meeting, we must focus more on the Option which was determined to be studied by the committee which is Option M Modified Junior High School and determine the steps of implementing that Option. various See you at our next meeting... Sincerely yours. Dd g s C. Eaton DCE/apl/ipcmeet DIRECTOR FACILITY SERVICES DEPARTMENT 810 West Markham Street  Little Rock, Arkansas 72201  (501)324-2000MINUTES RECEIVED DEC 2 7 1995 - IMPLEMENTATION COMMITTEE Office Of DesefliegtUion MoiWerii'U DECEMBER 20, 1995 The Facility Study Implementation Committee held their fifth meeting on December 20, 1995. The meeting began with comments in regard to the December 13th Minutes. A typographical error was noted and references to Option M in those minutes should reflect that Option M deals with the Junior High Schools and not the High Schools. 1. Special Report Hightower and Ms. Van Light. Public Meetings, Mr. Robert A special report was given by Mr. Hightower and Ms. Light regarding the District's public meetings at Mitchell Elementary, Wakefield Elementary and Jefferson Elementary, with regard to specific comments: Mitchell Elementary comments centered around concerns of intercity schools being closed and that facilities would be allowed to decay. This was the concern around the community that this could be the circumstance with regard to Mitchell. Indications were that the Little Rock School District does not have a good tract record disposing of its intercity schools. All other concerns and statements during the Mitchell meeting were of the same general nature. With regard to Wakefield Elementary, Wakefield, as was Mitchell and Jefferson, was well attended. Members of the City Board (Ms. Adcock, Ms. Joyce and Ms. Wyrick) were present. The concerns at Wakefield centered around the recognition that Wakefield very much considers itself to be a neighborhood school that should not be touched because it was successful in attracting students from its own neighborhood and that the District needed to be more positive in managing its assets as opposed to preparing for restructuring. In addition, concerns were expressed with the possibility of expanding the school and its utilization to support community initiatives by increasing the building and possibly bringing outside entities into our school to operate and that they should be a consideration when schools are looked for possible downsizing. Jefferson Elementary School comments centered around the general building concerns and the future plans for the school in the area. There was many positive comments with regard to the retention of our Superintendent, Dr. Henry Williams. There was also demographic concerns via questions asked as to where children may be reassigned. Concerns raised over the criteria used to establish schools would be considered for restructuring during downsizing and what positive steps the community and the District might take to reserve the trend of decreasing enrollment. meetings are being accepted, primarily on The public a very localized basis\nalthough, the intent is to inform thegeneral public of the overall condition of the District and its direction with regard to student enrollment and demographics. must continue to be stressed. The localized situation in each school 2. Special Report Dr. Middle Schools, Dr. Vic. Anderson. Anderson, Assistant Superintendent for Secondary Schools, gave the committee a briefing on the Middle School Concept. His talk centered around the educational development throughout the nation which thrives on the concept of Middle Schools by stressing community involvement and an active learning in grade grouping as trends for academic achievement. He indicated that the committee, which has worked over a year on the Middle School Concept, appears to be gathering support from the general populace for different grade configuration within the Little Rock Schools. A definite date for implementation or recommendation to the Board has not been made. within this school year. The recommendation is expected to be made We briefly discussed the committee composition and a list of permanent committee members was distributed to all that were present. These are committee members who were requested to serve on the committee or were nominated to serve. Committee membership covers the wide breadth of experience and concerns and should give the committee a broad base on which to conduct its business. A draft Implementation Planning Sub Committee recommendation was presented so that the committee could discuss how it could subdivide to ensure that the multitude of areas necessary to be considered in studying Option M would be achieved. Committee members were asked to volunteer for the various sub committees. It is hopeful that the sub committees will be finalized by our next meeting. A draft recommendation to the Superintendent based on the desires of the committee from previous meetings was presented. In essence, the recommendation stated that the pursuit of Option M Junior High Schools for possible implementation during this school year was not possible. committee members. This draft recommendation brought much discussion from Discussions centered around public involvement in the process and whether or not the committee could solidify the support necessary for these recommendations. We voted three (3) times on whether or not we would make a recommendation to the Superintendent and ended up dead locked in that no majority could be determined as to whether or not to recommend the pursuit of Option M. Our next meeting is scheduled for 6:00 p.m., January 3, 1996 in the Board Room, 810 West Markham. DCE/apl/minutes5eouNnrju I T I W,. .\u0026lt; ^Utu IhM el School CompoMon Auguo(21.1M u9U3f 23. 1995 I I I August 21, 1996 I T Central HS FairHS HallHS McClellan HS Parkview HS Magnet Sub-Total w/o Magnets Cloverdale JH Dunbar JH Forest Heights JH Henderson JH Mabelvale JH Mann jH Magnet Pulaski Heights JH Southwest JH Sub-Total w/o Magnets Badgett Bale Baseline Booker Magnet Brady Carver Magnet Chicot Cloverdale Dodd Fair park Forest Park Franklin Fulbright Carland Ceyer Springs Gibbs Magnet Jefferson______ King Mabelvale McDermott Meadowcliff Mitchell otter Creek Pulaski Heights Pightsell Rockefeller Romine Terry Wakefield Washington Watson Western Hills Williams Magnet Wilson woodruff Sub-Total w/o Magnets Grand Total vtio Magnets u 5 899 591 565 663 411 3129  3 508 214 243 167 361 o  O 41 9 32 11 40 a .0 1448 814 840 841 812 27181 1132 14931 1331 4735 93I 3943 501 433 484 603 306 439 431 381 61 268 152 154 107 362 315 73 9 18 11 14 13 23 9 13 35781 14921 1101 571 719 647 771 426 824 755 467 5180 u m 62.09% 7260% 67.26% 78.83% 50.62% 6530% 68.93% 87.74% 6022% 74.81% 78.21% 71.83% 53.28% 57.09% 81.58% 69.07% u n 978! 508 554 654 453 3 595 116 191 111 351 e  O 45 11 25 15 34 a o 1618 635 770 780 838 u a m 60.44% 80.00% 71.95% 83.85% 54.06% o (8 o o a a a O 31391 11301 87| 43561 7206% 1531 233 236 313 243 319 338 365 187 208 40| 75 64 243 110 281 89 59 91 1 20 7 24 24 18 6 7 7 53i 10 1841 214) 12| 365 247 219 216 165 209 287 282 151 121 253l 121 2 191 68 122' 131 281 Ot 2181 141 1^ 31 1941 328 307 580 xn 618 433 431 285 271 410 392 512 240 289 300 497 519 412 78.87% 71.04% 76.87% 53.97% 64.46% 51.62% 78.06% 84.69% 65.61% 76.75% 44.88% 93.11% 48.24% 9125% 74.74% 55.00% 4205% 5530% 68.45% 2511 2131 201 305 229 132 176 190 229 218 228 94! 51 183! 01 01 71 191! 171 5i 1071 3! 17! 3541 65! 121 2771 261 411 21! 4231 2071 32! 3291 206 253' 290 154' 741 1041 7! 3! 2231 16l 74 771 91 ir 4841 51.86% 3991 76.44%, 234 322 384 198 353 295 531 416 662 410 313 492 373 239 97.86% 40.99% 45.83% 95.96% 64.87% 73.90% 42.94% 85.10% ' 63.90%  80.24% ' 65.81% ' 51.42%  77.75% ' 64.44% ' 87361 4345! 4191135001 64.71% 76861 34761 3481 115101 66.78% 154431 73301 6621 234351 65.90%, 135431 57381 5281 198091 68.37%i 31471 13641 130 26941 10131 96 46411 67.81% 38031 70.84% 4761 411 420 550 315 460 438 353 44 271 121 100 114 355 304 68 21 33 9 16 6 20 8 12 541 715 550 666 435 835 750 433 87.99% 57.48% 7656% 8258% 72.41% 55.09% 58.40% 81.52% 1891! -273 9541 -319 1291 -521 1199^ -419 10001 -162 6335! -1694 5335  -1532 868, -327 812: -97 858! -308 907! -241 614! -179 850! 745 -15 5 34231 1377| 125| 4925 | 6950% 29631 10221 1051 4090! 72.44%| 163 246 226 304 225 293 361 406 148! 1781 36 82 48 239 91 264 119 49 84 451 2081 226! 3981 21 1 19 7 26 43 20 27 10 4 7 5 9 200 347 281 569 359 577 507 465 236 81.50% 70.89% 80.43% 53.43% 6267% 50.78% 7120% 8751% 6271% 737 -304 6391 -1466 5541 -1451 257 401 390 656 -57 -54 -109 -87 467 -108 2301 77.39% 2451 230 11 234i 3 641 16 5 1571 122| 10 201 '317? 2831 282 241 9 19 96! 10 439 428 486 253 284 289 492 577 47.38% 9299% 50.41% 92.49% 75.70% 54.33% 40.85% 54.94% 265i 193! 19 263! 2231 77! 7 128i 165i oj 1 71 2331 197! 19 aef 224? 205| 4! 4 127! 22 76! 17 217! 2611 23 3651 29| 17 414| 2301 47 3571 207! 79 91 2571 221 269! 183! 52 761 11 2 22 13 8 3891 72.75% 4771 55.56% 347! 75.79% 230 i 96.96% 300! 42.67% 4491 51.89% 224 ! 96.43% 3731 60.05% 2981 68.79% 501! 43.31% 4111 88.81% 691! 59.91% 447! 79.87% 300 ! 69.00% 5001 51.40% 334! 80.54% 267! 68.54% 613 558 492 328 351 399 434 540 298 328 353 492 728 515 517 465 298 351 374 258 469 487 515 492 -36 -51 -27 -92 -121 40 -6 -54 45 -44 -64 ____0 -151 -126 -40 -118 -68 -51 75 -34 -96 -189 -14 -81 836. -145 492! 328! 5171 394i 324! -45 -28 -17 60 ' -S7 88341 42261 4971 13557! 65,16% 7823! 33801 4191 116221 67.31% 15717:-2160 13578 -1956 _____________________________________________ 15404! 69671 752| 231231 66.62%! 28443! -5320 134801 54151 6201 195151 fiS.OSy.l 244541 -4939 Offlca of OtMQrvgattonLITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT FACILITIES STUDY COMMITTEE Dr. Delbra Caradine P. O. Box 164229 Little Rock, AR 72216 B. J. McCoy 2417 S. Marshall Little Rock, AR 72206 Rohn Muse 822 Lewis Little Rock, AR 72204-2016 Lou Ethel Nauden 4400 w. 22nd * Little Rock, AR 72204 Diane Vibhakar 3917 S. Lookout Little Rock, AR 72205 Kris Baber 2519 N. Fillmore Little Rock, AR 72207 Andy Carpenter 6 Van Lee Little Rock, AR 72205 Terry Paulson 2613 Wentwood Valley Dr. Little Rock, AR 72212 Patricia Davenport 502 Green Mtn. Circle, #22 Little Rock, AR 72211 Latricia Henderson 1724 Marlyn Drive Little Rock, AR 72205 Joa Humphrey 5022 W. 56th St. Little Rock, AR 72209 Arthur Locke 3515 LeHigh Drive Little Rock, AR 72204 Tom Brock 8207 Crystal Valley Cv. Little Rock, AR 72210 Gregg Stutts * 13005 Lemoncrest Lane Little Rock, AR 72209 John Walker 1723 S. Broadway Little Rock, AR 72206 Joy Springer 1723 S. Broadway Little Rock, AR 72206 Betty Mitchell CTA Office Frank Martin CTA Office * Skip Marshall, Monitor ODM - 201 E. Markham Brady Gadberry * LRSD Administration Heritage West Bldg-Suite 510 Little Rock, AR 72201 * indicates newly nominated members of the committee(7. Z - Bloc 0111 0112 0121 0122 0123 0124 0125 0126 0127 0210 0220 0232 0240 0301 0412 0413 0420 0431 0432 0433 0434 0435 0436 0437 0438 0439 0440 0441 0442 0443 0444 0445 0446 0448 0449 0450 0451 0452 0453 0454 0455 0456 0457 8/27/96 K-3 17 26 7 26 21 60 15 25 9 48 55 3 17 4 6 2 15 24 28 19 10 7 16 31 35 48 16 7 22 17 8 13 8 54 38 31 7 22 18 12 32 35 20 G3 -6 6 14 5 13 17 30 10 19 4 29 34 1 14 2 3 2 8 11 10 16 8 5 20 19 14 23 9 7 12 16 7 4 2 36 20 24 7 18 10 10 14 24 17 G7-9 7 16 5 15 23 25 12 15 6 43 50 8 14 4 1 0 9 19 11 12 3 9 23 18 17 29 21 11 14 13 8 7 7 25 20 30 10 14 8 17 26 18 22 GlO-12 6 9 7 13 15 19 11 26 7 23 49 0 6 4 2 0 13 15 9 13 7 12 23 12 12 25 16 9 16 9 6 4 6 29 17 14 6 12 9 8 17 23 26 Litlie Rock School District Zone Block Count August 23, 1996 Total 36 65 24 67 76 134 48 85 26 143 188 12 51 14 12 4 45 69 58 60 28 33 82 80 78 125 62 34 64 55 29 28 23 144 95 99 30 66 45 47 89 100 85 Black 35 63 24 67 76 134 48 85 26 138 173 11 51 14 11 3 22 66 52 59 27 17 82 79 73 124 52 34 61 53 29 28 23 142 91 98 29 66 44 47 68 70 85 Page 1 of 8 6' hit Non-Black 1 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5 15 1 0 0 1 1 23 3 6 1 1 16 0 1 5 1 10 0 3 2 0 0 0 2 4 1 1 0 1 0 21 30 0 B Pin 1 3 1 3 3 5 2 3 1 6 7 0 2 1 0 0 1 3 2 2 1 1 3 3 3 5 2 1 2 2 1 1 1 6 4 4 1 3 2 2 3 3 3 W Pins 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0Z - Bloc 0458 0459 0460 0461 0462 0463 0464 0471 0472 0473 0474 0475 0476 0477 0478 0479 0480 0481 0482 0483 0484 0485 0511 0512 0513 0521 0522 0523 0524 0525 0526 0527 0528 0530 0531 0532 0533 0534 0535 0586 0537 0538 0539 8/27/96 K-3 16 35 27 25 37 22 21 7 18 28 9 29 26 21 20 29 15 65 46 55 10 24 4 2 34 26 40 39 41 0 __n 241 3 0 41 25 15 23 20 43 41 20 4 G3 -6 7 10 20 12 26 13 18 7 12 20 4 22 7 13 15 15 10 27 12 34 10 10 7 5 36 12 26 23 31 0 _____7 11 2 0 26 20 13 12 19 29 24 7 4 G7-9 12 12 16 21 21 13 20 7 18 15 5 37 16 9 16 9 11 23 11 30 10 18 4 6 32 24 ___ ___ ___ 1 7 15 1 0 24 24 13 7 12 19 26 13 4 GlO-12 13 20 10 13 11 10 15 12 16 27 10 17 13 5 7 16 14 21 19 14 6 15 3 5 33 ____ ____n 26 34 0 9 8 2 1 16 23 12 8 18 24 32 16 6 Little Rock School District Zone Block Count August 23, 1996 Total 48 77 73 71 95 58 74 33 64 90 28 105 62 48 58 69 50 136 88 133 36 67 18 18 135 90 135 121 132 1 ___ 58 ____8 1 107 92 53 50 69 115 123 56 18 Black 48 74 69 62 91 57 73 33 64 88 28 100 61 48 57 69 50 131 84 132 36 67 13 16 129 70 121 120 126 1 ___ 56 8 1 91 85 51 41 61 105 116 55 18 Page 2 of 8 Non-Black 0 3 4 9 4 1 1 0 0 2 0 5 1 0 1 0 0 5 4 1 0 0 5 2 6 20 14 1 6 0 1 0 0 16 7 9 8 10 7 1 0 B Pin 2 3 3 2 4 2 3 1 3 4 1 4 2 2 2 3 2 5 3 5 1 3 1 1 5 3 5 5 5 0 ____2 2 0 0 4 ____3 ____2 ____2 2 4 5 ____2 1 WPins 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 _____0 _____0 0 _____1 _____0 _____0 _____0 _____0 ____0 ____0 ____0 0Z - Bloc 0540 0552 0553 0554 0556 0561 0562 0563 0571 0572 0573 0574 0575 0581 0582 0583 0584 0585 0586 0587 0591 0592 0610 0620 0630 0640 0641 0650 0651 0660 0662 0670 0710 0811 0821 0910 0920 1010 1020 1110 nil 1120 1121 8/27/96 K-3 5 40 49 31 24 31 29 32 34 19 24 34 7 28 37 32 40 42 15 18 34 5 14 25 4 23 14 9 37 55 13 59 28 18 44 37 29 8 20 24 54 6 6 G3 -6 1 20 45 17 11 26 18 19 25 17 15 15 8 18 22 15 34 25 16 13 14 1 18 16 7 3 8 3 33 40 12 49 12 18 22 33 17 4 15 14 11 3 2 G7-9 5 27 37 14 24 26 30 18 29 21 21 18 10 16 20 21 35 31 9 16 20 2 20 20 6 6 7 2 28 54 18 36 27 16 25 42 27 5 ___17 7 23 5 6 GlO-12 4 25 27 21 16 33 20 25 31 14 15 16 12 17 25 24 36 27 8 17 18 1 13 21 6 4 0 10 26 41 13 28 13 15 24 34 25 4 ____ n ____ 6 2 Little Rock School District Zone Block Count August 23, 1996 Total 15 112 158 83 75 116 97 94 119 71 75 83 37 79 104 92 145 125 48 64 86 9 65 82 23 36 29 24 124 190 56 172 80 67 115 146 98 21 68 62 113 20 16 Black 8 105 152 80 74 116 96 93 113 71 74 83 36 76 103 92 141 102 48 62 81 5 0 10 1 3 0 13 3 148 51 90 16 0 2 12 15 10 20 0 41 4 1 Page 3 of 8 Non-Black 7 7 6 3 1 0 1 1 6 0 1 0 1 3 1 0 4 23 0 2 5 4 65 72 22 33 29 11 121 42 5 82 64 67 113 134 83 11 48 62 72 16 15 B Pin 0 4 6 3 3 5 4 4 5 3 3 3 1 3 4 4 6 4 2 2 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 6 2 4 1 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 ____2 0 0 W Pins 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 3 3 1 1 1 0 5 2 0 3 3 3 5 5 3 0 2 2 3 1 1Z - Bloc 1210 1220 1230 1231 1240 1310 1311 1312 1331 1332 1405 1410 1420 1421 1430 1440 1510 1511 1512 1515 1520 1530 1531 1532 1541 1550 1610 1620 1630 1711 1712 1713 1714 1715 1716 1717 1721 1722 1723 1724 1725 1726 1727 8/27/96 K-3 16 8 28 18 122 37 20 11 23 4 13 74 18 16 105 21 27 68 20 50 19 10 17 17 15 37 12 9 __ 8 __ 9 92 40 39 44 29 27 17 44 16 23 50 G3 -6 9 4 26 14 92 17 11 2 17 5 12 43 23 20 59 13 13 46 15 41 5 2 3 12 12 20 10 3 22 6 26 2 50 21 23 33 18 29 14 ____30j ____B ____11 29 G7-9 13 7 33 22 96 11 18 2 15 2 8 47 17 23 65 8 22 36 10 40 6 6 6 11 12 17 7 6 22 9 30 9 ___ ___ ___ 44 31 31 20 26 10 14 20 GlO-12 22 7 31 22 61 14 18 7 18 7 18 74 26 25 48 18 15 25 11 40 10 2 8 8 10 23 5 6 17 6 38 5 60 37 20 43 ___ 18 22 29 14 21 28 Little Rock School District Zone Block Count August 23, 1996 Total 60 26 118 76 371 79 67 22 73 18 51 238 84 84 277 60 77 175 56 171 40 20 34 48 49 97 34 24 91 29 122 25 248 127 100 164 121 105 73 129 53 69 127 Black 8 0 4 1 10 41 63 0 10 0 9 32 10 10 109 7 14 49 14 11 8 12 6 28 13 18 3 5 ___ 7 110 15 239 123 80 160 108 71 71 111 50 46 118 Page 4 of 8 Non-Black 52 26 114 75 361 38 4 22 63 18 42 206 74 74 168 53 63 126 42 160 32 8 28 20 36 79 31 19 68 22 12 10 9 4 20 4 13 34 2 18 3 23 9 B Pin 0 0 0 0 0 2 3 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 4 0 1 2 1 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 0 ____0 1 ____0 4 1 10 5 3 6 4 3 3 4 ____2 2 5 WPins 2 1 5 3 14 2 0 1 3 1 2 8 3 3 7 2 3 5 2 6 1 0 1 1 1 3 1 1 3 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 1 _____0 _____1 _____0 1 0Z - Bloc 1728 1810 1811 1812 1813 1821 1822 1823 1824 1910 1921 1922 1923 1924 1925 2010 2015 2020 2110 2120 3201 3250 3251 3253 3301 3312 3316 3330 3401 3405 3406 3410 3415 3420 3425 3430 3435 3440 3464 3601 3605 3615 3620 8/27/96 K-3 31 33 12 36 33 47 48 85 39 11 20 28 30 47 7 22 32 17 72 48 1 32 15 14 34 30 23 21 49 43 52 13 19 14 18 6 14 11 36 24 8 14 15 G3 -6 14 19 10 30 24 25 32 50 21 9 15 19 14 32 6 16 36 15 51 35 2 29 13 13 40 22 11 19 30 26 35 12 18 8 7 7 12 10 20 21 12 14 10 G7-9 16 12 15 19 38 26 30 66 31 10 17 18 15 38 5 12 32 15 49 36 0 24 11 9 22 13 10 18 30 28 33 8 17 2 12 4 12 8 15 23 10 10 10 GlO-12 28 15 16 44 50 30 35 59 22 14 20 19 16 40 9 17 27 16 47 23 2 24 17 14 34 16 16 16 18 34 26 6 14 5 7 3 12 5 7 11 7 9 4 Little Rock School District Zone Block Count August 23, 1996 Total 89 79 53 129 145 128 145 260 113 44 72 84 75 157 27 67 127 63 219 142 5 109 56 50 130 81 60 74 127 131 146 39 68 29 44 20 50 34 78 79 37 47 39 Black 82 68 53 112 121 109 126 198 76 41 48 36 31 123 12 26 56 29 109 86 5 63 31 44 37 19 10 13 93 110 135 20 64 22 38 7 26 25 33 59 24 38 21 Page 5 of 8 Non-Black 11 0 17 24 19 19 62 37 3 24 48 44 34 15 41 71 34 110 56 0 46 25 6 93 62 50 61 34 21 11 19 4 7 6 13 24 9 45 20 13 9 18 B Pin 3 3 2 4 5 4 5 8 3 2 2 1 1 5 0 1 2 1 4 3 0 3 1 2 1 1 0 1 4 4 5 1 3 1 2 0 1 1 1 2 1 2 1 W Pins 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 2 1 0 1 2 2 1 1 2 3 1 4 2 0 2 1 0 4 2 2 2 1 1 0 1 0 0 0 1 1 0 2 1 1 0 1Z - Bloc 3625 3630 3635 3640 3645 3646 3647 3648 3649 3650 3651 3652 3654 3655 4001 4010 4015 4020 4025 4046 4048 4049 4052 4053 4401 4405 4410 4415 4420 4429 4430 5401 5402 5405 5406 5407 5408 5415 5452 5455 5460 5462 5465 8/27/96 K-3 15 0 39 12 25 13 26 34 18 46 12 7 40 8 13 30 5 15 7 6 11 14 6 0 37 22 14 12 __n 24 17 4 __14 ___9 6 9 __ 6 ___ ___4 15 3 13 G3 -6 13 1 37 4 19 7 9 15 12 20 11 7 23 9 4 21 6 7 14 7 15 19 9 2 29 10 9 5 13 13 7 2 13 8 6 5 19 5 11 1 13 2 5 G7-9 10 0 30 8 16 17 8 15 10 11 9 7 24 11 4 32 7 6 13 6 16 22 6 1 23 15 ___16 ____7 14 20 10 3 ___ ____8 8 10 ___ 6 2 1 21 0 7 GlO-12 18 0 24 7 9 14 12 7 8 15 5 3 12 6 7 57 4 4 22 8 17 11 7 2 26 19 8 6 11 17 7 1 3 9 2 8 18 3 6 2 10 2 8 Little Rock School District Zone Block Count August 23, 1996 Total 56 1 130 31 69 51 55 71 48 92 37 24 99 34 28 140 22 32 56 27 59 66 28 5 115 66 47 30 69 74 41 10 40 34 22 32 86 20 28 8 ____ 7 33 Black 28 1 113 30 61 47 47 57 32 85 33 18 81 19 3 118 12 3 53 2 19 44 4 0 106 54 32 13 59 61 28 0 2 14 2 18 73 5 0 2 4 0 9 Page 6 of 8 Non-Black 0 17 1 8 4 8 14 16 4 6 18 15 25 22 10 29 3 25 40 22 24 5 9 12 15 17 10 13 13 10 38 20 20 14 13 15 28 6 55 7 24 BPin 1 0 5 1 2 2 1. 1 3 1 1 3 1 0 5 0 0 2 0 1 2 0 0 4 2 1 1 2 2 1 0 0 1 0 1 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 W Pins i 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 0 1 0 1 2 1 1 0 0 0 1 1 0 1 1 0 2 _____1 1 1 1 1 1 0 2 0 1Z - Bloc 5467 5470 5475 5476 5477 5478 5492 6110 6115 6120 6122 6125 6171 6188 7201 7210 7220 7230 7235 7240 7245 7250 7276 7277 7279 7280 7281 7301 7305 7310 7315 7325 7330 7375 7377 7378 7380 7381 7382 7383 7384 7385 7387 8/27/96 K-3 2 4 30 29 19 23 19 58 30 1 12 9 13 26 59 15 11 18 37 17 54 34 14 22 17 7 15 40 5 7 38 19 5 15 45 6 40 25 67 4 28 22 98 G3 -6 0 0 22 18 18 8 10 28 16 0 6 6 10 23 45 13 5 23 19 10 40 22 19 17 6 9 13 30 6 6 26 8 5 10 25 7 20 15 27 4 20 8 48 G7-9 2 1 18 18 23 9 9 13 10 0 19 4 12 14 34 10 7 17 22 9 18 22 22 20 16 6 14 26 18 5 30 9 9 17 42 6 20 8 6 8 29 ___10 37 GlO-12 0 2 12 28 23 5 7 24 24 0 11 5 6 16 39 9 3 18 18 19 12 16 10 12 15 8 7 35 8 8 22 10 3 5 23 7 39 15 7 8 29 18 29 Little Rock School District Zone Block Count August 23, 1996 Total 4 7 82 93 83 45 45 123 80 1 48 24 41 79 177 47 26 76 96 55 124 94 65 71 54 30 49 131 37 26 116 46 22 47 135 _______ 119 _______ 107 24 106 58 212 Black 0 3 11 31 13 4 10 12 23 0 8 3 5 17 146 36 15 57 83 45 106 79 47 35 46 19 33 115 22 24 93 46 16 36 114 ________ 108 51 102 22 86 54 199 Page 7 of 8 Non-Black 4 4 71 62 70 41 35 111 57 1 40 21 36 62 31 11 11 19 13 10 18 15 18 36 8 11 16 16 15 2 23 0 6 11 21 4 11 12 5 2 20 4 13 B Pin 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 6 1 1 2 3 2 4 3 2 1 2 1 1 5 1 1 4 2 1 1 ________ 1 ____4 2 4 1 3 2 8 W Pins 0 0 3 2 3 2 1 4 2 0 2 1 1 2 1 0 0 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 0 0 1 1 1 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1Z - Bloc 7388 7390 7401 7405 7410 7415 7420 7425 7467 7468 7469 7470 7471 7474 7475 7476 7479 7480 7490 7495 Totals K-3 14 17 64 15 28 29 7 12 5 25 11 9 11 19 27 18 1 5 3 10 7718 G3 -6 9 25 24 11 25 26 13 16 9 13 10 7 4 22 21 4 0 9 4 9 5086 G7-9 14 21 28 17 26 24 17 23 13 18 2 16 12 11 18 17 1 9 4 11 5384 GlO-12 13 19 27 16 27 25 16 18 7 18 10 14 15 17 27 20 0 6 0 14 5188 Little Rock School District Zone Block Count August 23.1996 Total 50 82 143 59 106 104 53 69 34 74 33 46 42 69 93 59 2 29 11 44 23376 Black 48 77 80 52 88 82 46 53 32 50 31 36 38 55 80 53 1 20 4 34 16331 69.86% Non-Black 2 5 63 7 18 22 7 16 2 24 2 10 4 14 13 6 1 9 7 10 7045 30.14% B Pin 2 3 3 2 4 3 2 2 1 2 1 1 2 2 3 2 0 1 0 1 653 WPins 0 0 3 0 1 1 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 282 8/27/96 Page 8 of 8Arkansas Democrat T3'(0azcllc  FRIDAY. MAY 10, 1996 LR panel on closing schools is reborn \u0026lt; BY CHRIS REINOLDS Democrat-Gazette Staff Writer 'AyLittle Rock School District committee created to make recommendations about renovating and possibly closing schools to cut costs is back in business with new faces. -The Little Rock School Board voted, unanimously at its agenda-setting meeting Thursday to recreate the Facilities Study Committee, dis- Ijanded in February. 'The panel will consist of two res- idents from each school board zone\ntwO representatives of the Joshua intervenors, who represent the black children in the district\nand twb people from the Knight intervenors, representing the teachers. The old panels composition had drawn complaints from board member Sue Strickland, who helped disband tlie committee. She will be the new committee's chairman. Strickland said the old committee included district administrators but not residents who would actually be affected by school closings. She also said that she disagreed with what she believed was the committee's sole intent  closing Mabelvale Junior High School in Southwest Little Rock. School district officials calls for closing some schools with low enrollments have continued during the conuiiittee's absence. The old committee began meeting in November after a consulting firm from San .Antonio issued a 13- volume study of district demographics and tire condition of school buildings. The study said the schools need S77 million in repairs, renovations and modernization. The consultants recommended closing as many as 11 schools because of poor physical condition and declining student population. The distncfs 50 school buildings have as many as 5,000 vacant seats. Bob Morgan, a member of the district's financial advisory committee. has said the districts student-to- employee ratio is below average when compared with districts of similar size. Maintaining schools not filled to capacity contributes to the low ratio and extra costs, Morgan said. The board also voted Thursday to allow, but not require, individual schools to determine the dress code for students, including the use of uniforms. Board member Judy Magness said Watson and Forest Park ele- i inentaries plan to use unifoi^ next I school year. Those schools join sev- | eral other elementary schools in the district that have a voluntary or mandatory' uniform policy./ 810 West Markham Street  Little Rock, Arkansas 7300 100LRSD plant SERyiCES TEL:501-570-4027 Nov 08,95 12:05 No.003 P.02 5?-* I I Little Rock School District I November 8, 1995 I Ms. Ann Brown 201 East Markham Little Rock, AR 72201 I I Dear Ms. Brown: I I The Superintendent and the Board of Education of the Little Rock School District has requested that I extend an invitation to you or your representative to participate in an Implementation Pleuining Committee that is being drawn together to analyze the recommendations of the 1995 Facility Study and to put together implementation plans for those recommendations that are approved by the Board of Education. I I I I Our first meeting will be held at 9:00 the office of Student Assignments. a.m., November 9, 1995, in _ I apologize for the short notice for that meeting and if you are unable to attend because of this short notice, copies of agendas and minutes and any other documents generated as a result of that meeting will ba forwarded to you. I i I Should you have any questions concerning this invitation, please feel free to contact me at 570-4020. Sincerely yours. ^ugl^s C. Eaton DIRECTOR :rector FACILITY SERVICES DEPARTMENT DCE/apl/invxte I I ) iAGENDA IMPLEMENTATION PLANNING COMMITTEE 9 NOV. 1995 1. Welcome \u0026amp; Introductions 2. Committee Membership Discussion received 3. Scope \u0026amp; Purpose of Committee NOV 9 199S Ql 4. Facility Study Overview (Optional) Discussion 5. Implementation Plan Outline, Responsibilities 6. Implementation Plan Considerations 1. Ne?d MeetingRECOMMENDATIONS : To the Board of Directors of the Little Rock School District Recommendation No 1 Establish Preventative Maintenance Capital Fund  Policy Protected Escrow  Annual Incremental Funding 9 9 9 Separate from Maintenance Budget Maintenance Operating Budget Surpluses to Fund Planned Capital Replace/Repair Disbursements Board Oversight Recommendation No 2 Establish Capital Program 9 9 9 9 Five Year Building Program Preferable Strategic Plan for Capital Program Design, Estimates and Planning Decisions Sale of Bonds Supported by Millage Increase Include Seed for Preventative Maintenance Fund Complete a Representative Program Recommendation No 3 Establish School Database  Zone Block System for LRSD School Boundaries 9 On Site Survey to Establish Accurate Census  Consider Attendance/Mapping/ Software System  Include Magnet Information  Include Record of Private School Attendees  Maintain System for Best Results (Forecasting)RECOMMENDATIONS : To the Board of Directors of the Little Rock School District Recommendation No 4 Achieve Unitary Status e 9 Continuing Quality of Education Complete Capital Program Effective Maintenance Plan and Budget Reduce Burden of Bussing Eliminate Funding of Non Productive Programs Taxpayer Dollars for Students, not Lawyers Provide Flexible Educational Opportunities for Ali Recommendation No 5 Consolidation and Re-use 9 9 9 Establish New Attendance Zones Closure of Seven Elementary Schools Closure of One Jr. High School One to Four Elementaries out of Service Requires Completed Alterations, Additions and New Construction Operational Savings Pays for New Construction Recommendation No 6 Option C Preference  Enhanced School Experience for Children  Favorable Opportunity for Parent Participation  Development of Community Identities  Diminished Burden of Bussing  Comparable Cost to the District  Does Not Affect Special Education Opportunities  More Student Value for the DollarRECOMMENDATIONS : To the Board of Directors of the Little Rock School District Recommendation No 7 Reviev\\/ of Options  Representative Review Team for Options  Evaluation of Strengths and Weaknesses  Include the Court  Reach a Conclusion for Best Interest of Children Recommendation No 8 Develop Critical Initiatives  Form Broad Based Dedicated Citizen Task Force  Support of Educational Programs \u0026amp; Achievements Support of Capita! Programs and Bond Offering Support of Adult Educational Programs via LRSD Support of Preventative Maintenance Recommendation No 9 Develop Leadership Core  Board Initiative  Community Representation Professional Men and Women Leaders from Area  Include Industry and Commerce Leadership  Commuter Assignments  Encourage Board Service (subject to election)RECOMMENDATIONS : To the Board of Directors of the Little Rock School District Summary: Recommendation No 1 Establish Preventative Maintenance Capital Fund Recommendation No 2 Establish Capital Program Recommendation No 3 Establish School Database Recommendation No 4 Achieve Unitary Status Recommendation No 5 Consolidation and Re-use Recommendation No 6 Option C Preference Recommendation No 7 Review of Options Recommendation No 8 Develop Critical Initiatives Recommendation No 9 Develop Leadership CoreBia an OPTION C JUNIOR HIGH SCHOOL Closed School Primary Affect Cost Secondary Affect Cost Mablevale Cloverdale Southwest Pulaski Heights Dunbar Forest Heights Henderson OPTION M JUNIOR HIGH SCHOOL Mablevale Cloverdale Southwest Forest Heights Henderson Dunbar SouthwestEBfiH OPTION C ELEMENTARY SCHOOLS Closed Schools Primary Affect Cost Secondary Affect Cost 1. Fair Park Brady $0 Franklin $1,300,596 Forest Park $2,086,500 2. Garland RightseU $1,996,085 RockefeUer $1,731,795 New School $4,190,120 3. Ish N/A 4. Stephens New School $4,190,120 5. Jefferson Badgett $938,925 RightseU $1,996,085 ML King $0 Brady $0 Mcdermott Bale $271,245 Cloverdale $549,445 Dodd $681,590 Romine $1,432,730 Western HiUs $1,571,830 6. Mitchell RightseU $1,996,085 RockefeUer $1,731,795 7. Wakefield Geyer Springs $2,566,395 8. Woodruff Forest Park $2,086,500 SUBTOTAL: $16,896,916 $3,092,193Closed Schools 1. Fair Park 2. Garland 3.1sh 4. Stephens OPTION M ELEMENTARY SCHOOLS Primary Affect Cost Secondary Affect Cost__ New School $3,778,170 New School $3,625,160 N/A Terry $1,008,475 McDermott $375,570 Bale $159,968 Cloverdale $111,280 Otter Creek $452,075 Watson $111,280 5. Jefferson New School $3,778170 Western Hills $326,885 Rockefeller $0 Rightsell $389,480 Washington $0 ML King $0 6. Mitchell New School $3,625,160 7. Wakefield Baseline $1,189,305 Geyer Springs $1,057,160 8. Woodruff Forest Park $236,470 SUBTOTAL: $11,659,790 $1,161,488 SB anBsan IMPLEMENTATION PLAN CONSIDERATIONS 1. Cost (Renovation, New construction. Relocation, Equipment, Supphes, Organization) 2. Funding Considerations (Operational Budget, Multiple yr. Funding, MiUages, Bond Issues, Program impact) 3. Personnel (Reductions, Reassignments, New personnel. Organizational Changes) 4. Student Assignment Changes (Policies , Start dates, Academic Program Changes) 5. Desegregation Plan Changes (Racial balance definition. Student Assignment pohcy Changes, Multiple Areas) 6. Grade Structure Change (Middle school concept) I. Support Function Changes (Transportation, Procurement, Facihty Services) BganPURPOSE AND SCOPE FACILITY STUDY IMPLEMENTATION COMMITTEE This document outlines the purpose and scope of the Little Rock School District Implementation Committee which is being staffed to analyze and make recommendations on the Long Range Facility Study completed in 1995 by 3D International Corporation. The Committee will consist of persons from the Little Rock School District staff and local community who will be charged by the Superintendent to make recommendations to him and the Little Rock School District Board of Education on the various aspects of the Facility Study. Their charge may also be extended to put together implementation plans and time lines once recommendations have been approved by the Board. PURPOSE: The purpose of this Committee is to devise an implementation plan and schedule based upon approved recommendations by the Little Rock School District Board of Education. The Committee will work within the frame work of the study analyzing the study recommendations for possible adaptations by the Little Rock School District. Those recommendations will comprise the final reports submitted to the Superintendent and Board of Education on which aspects of the Long Range Facility Study should be implemented by the School District along with recommendations as to an implementation schedule, time line and staffing of other areas of consideration. The Committee derives its authority from the Superintendent and is to work within the confines of the purposes and scope of the Facility Study as outlined in the contractual agreement between the Little Rock School District and 3D International Corporation. SCOPE\nThe scope of this Committee is to put together recommendations for the Superintendent and Little Rock School District Board of Education based on the nine (9) recommendations as made in the Long Range Facility Study. The Committee has the authority to consider and recommend or not recommend any and all aspects of the Facility Study for implementation. The scope of this Committee will be centered around the various aspects that run parallel to the basic recommendations in the Study by drawing them together as points of consideration and present recommendations to the Superintendent and Board. The Committee has the authority to deal directly with other staff members in making requests of them for information and cooperation should sub committees be formed under this general committee. It is intended that those recommendations whether they specifically impact the financial programming of the District would be made in such a way and at such a time that implementation can possibly BBaO'Page Two Bsan Continued occur during the next budget cycle. Recommendations dealing with closures and expansions, both cost saving and cost expanding, items in the study will be included in the recommendations. The Committee will work closely with the office of Program Review and Evaluations to ensure that its time lines accurately in project and budget documents. are reflected DCE/apl/lrfsBESaO COMMITTEE RESPONSIBILITIES: LONG RANGE STUDY IMPLEMENTATION COMMITTEE The Implementation Committee that is being drawn together to analyze and make recommendations on the Long Range Facility Study will consist of the following individuals by job title and general subject area. 1. Associate Superintendent, Office of Desegregation and Student Assignment\nwill oversee the aspects of student assignment policies and compliance with the Desegregation Plan. 2. Director of Facilities Services: will oversee cost analysis and facility related matters dealing with expansions and closing of facilities. 3. Director of Communications: to oversee the public affairs efforts and public notifications dealing with meetings and the general public. 4. Special Assistant to the Superintendent: responsible for coordinating meetings in conjunction with the Director of Communications. 5. Manager Resources and School Support: to oversee financial planning and provide financial and fiscal guidance with regard to recommendations. 6. Assist ant Superintendent: to provide information regarding academic implementation and program changes with regard to the recommendations. 7. Human Resources Representative: to provide information regarding general knowledge of the District history and human relation aspects of the recommendations. 8. Board Members: to provide input and guidance from the Little Rock School District Board of Education. 9. Strategic Planning Committee Members: to provide input, analysis and guidance with regard to the tie in of the Long Range Facility Study to the Strategic Planning Process. 10. Representatives of the Intervenors, Knight). Desegregation parties (Joshua 11. Representatives from the office of Desegregation Monitoring. DCE/apl/crlrfsBsao FACILITY STUDY IMPLEMENTATION PLAN 1. Facility Study Review 2. Superintendents Guidance. 3. Implementation Committee Assignments, Purpose and Scope 4. Implementation Planning - Plan of Action - Analysis of Facility Study - Recommendations, Submittal - Approvals - Implementation Plan, Schedule, Time lines - Oversight Responsibility'2 '* . .. -hzt^-\nSchoolV- BADGETT S 2 124 BALE 1 221 II w MO W' ItalilaS ! 2 5 1 i 3 BASELINE 220 1 17 ! o fiH ii\" 26^ 3 BOOKER 10 15 19 ' 12 14 20 BRADY 11 i 199 CARVER 15 8 b'i I 3 5 CHICOT 5 CLOVR EL DODD FAIR PRK 2 FORST PK 1 FRANKLIN FULBRIGH  GARLAND GEYER SP . GIBBS 2 JEFFRSN M L KING MABEL EL . MCDERMOT MEADCLIF MITCHELL\nOTTER CR PUL HT E 2 KIGHTSEL ROCKFELR 13 ROMINE TERRY WAKEFIEL WASHNGTN 5 WATSON WEST HIL WILLIAMS WILSON WOODRUFF TOTAL 15 18 I 9 4 . 302\n13 3 18 j 1 2 i!8 30 ! 318 7 3 1 10 4 11 3 3 5 8 3 6 4 5 8 2 1 7 1 2 9 6 1 I 2 6 5 7 2 12 2 15 J I 2 6 2 2 11 2 14 7 10 10 1 i 3 ziz: 2 1 i 2 2 1 2 i 13 11 4 2 8 6 2 8 3 4 4 7 2 I 2 J------- 8 I 11 ! 2 5 2 I I 1 3 23 { 20 3 2 2 1 1 8 2 34 ' i 8 2 16 6 4 14 1 I 4 2 8 1  f 1 tS *\"1...14 12 12 38 I 11 8 6 j 3 1 1 LIHLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT SCHOOL ATTENDANCE ZONE SUMMARY OCTOBER 2. 1995 Bi ip\ni 180 1 6 2 1 3 5 1 2 1 5 1 1 28 7 4 2 6 9 8 ffi o 1 5 1 9 4 1 165 4 9 1 2 4 6 3 9 11 } 8 3 9 11 5 286 11 7 5 1 1 7 6 5 2 6 2 3 2 15 5 52 2 2 4 249 8 I 4 1 8 1 9 0 6 I 2 - r....... 7 1 6 1 5 1 2 2 10 30 15 6 1 6 0 4 2 10 1 4 ...i....... 3 6 ! 14 10 17 6 I 160 I 413 I 357 I 380 j 557 | 506 1 306 | 320 | 412 [ 464 ifi LsiOllaiij o U Isii 2 5 2 1 3 5 11 1 12 17 i 19 2 5 2 6 4 385 3 1 9 6 10 21 2 3 1 5 15 18 16 S 12 13 6 605 4 2 2 1 3 2 8 24 164 3 2 7 7 1 2 IS 6 2 1 4 8 5 4 1 6 1 2 6 303 3 8 7 1 4 203 9 2 3 9 4 3 4 9 9 4 3 2 310 HJ 10 19 8 41 1 1 3 17 2 6 1 5 352 6 1 4 9 25 2 3 16 1 5 3 6 551 1 4 1 1 1 1 3 2 1 18 2 1 1 B\n18 14 2 4 4 1 s 1 5 1 1 42 2 1 2 5 2 6 7 2 4 9 7 3 11 18 1 11 11 15 5 102 ? 210 59.05% 2 4 4 11 5 6 3 i 347 327 144 9 6 3 2 13 18 26 11 1 24 3 63.69% 67.28% ! 26 1(f Ti6~ 23 5 6 5 604 1 5 14 7 29 6 1 10 2 5 10 9 6 3 2 7 14 221 4 1 4 5 6 13 14 3 2 2 4 9 1 9 1 11 418 1 1 1 1 3 2 4 329 4 5 3 7 1 4 12 19 1 5 4 482 14 4 2 IS 1 8 6 10 2 318 2 S 4 4 3 5 4 11 11 2 14 6 519 4 2 5 2 6 4 6 7 10 12 2 2 3 173 2 11 ..b\" 2 2 3 2 8 1 4 4 9 323 105 186 1 2 1 7 1 2 9 1 4 9 5 2 1 4 2 5 8 1 13 2 1 11 3 27 2 5 3 8 3 1 4 5 5 5 45 2 35 3 22 2 2 2 1 2 1 15 3 8 8 IS 3 4 3 7 1 12 34 14 2 7 5 17 8 10 1 5 6 5 24 1 394 629 50.51% 22 19 2 4 2 3 5 4 3 3 1 3 3 8 3 4 3 7 4 452 453 294 270 46 67 18 5 5 1 4 8 15 62 1 3 354 6 9 4 5 140 6 25 4 2 39 2 139 2 774 7 6 2 1 6 10 3 9 161 2 1 4 15 2 3 6 1 317 1 2 3 2 4 3 \\20 2 15 4 1 5 2 285 2 1 8 2 2 4 190 26 8 10 24 19 394 2 5 1 13 6 3 1 7 6 2 1 6 2 12 5 188 4 5 3 8 13 23 2 19 3 3 6 4 392 16 18 2 6 614 2 4 1 8 2 2 2 4 1 1 340 14 5 2 495 14 11 3 6 16 13 3 2 17 2 2 295 5 2 7 9 618 2 2 17 4 6 2 1 5 1 12 16 349 12 4 3 528 5 4 1 2 9 3 2 2 2 4 17 66.81% 70.20% 61.22% 61.11% 2 8 2 2 435 431 518 255 310 307 501 531  i 460 2 487 400 257 339 11 8 406 219 406 65.75% 57.77% 74.32% 64.31% 65.48% 70.26% 41.62% 71.52% 65.30% 68.50% 67.32% 79.06% 59.11% 73.52% 41.87% 3 7 213 8 15 2 296 16 3 21 20 20 226 476 2 2 1 302 536 429 j 656 114  444 315 508 384 62.91% 73.13% 79.25% 44.97% 78.60% 67.62% 58.85% 254 ' 44.88% 162 I 14O7o\"T OFFICE OF STVOENT ASSIGNMENTCLOVR JR 494 DUNBAR 38 FORST HT 23 HENDERSN 21 MABEL JR 73 MANN M/S 90 PUL HT J 21 SOUTHWST 17 JR TOTAL 777 LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT SCHOOL ATTENDANCE ZONE SUMMARY OCTOBER 2, 1995 62 3 4 23 1 6 1 15 609 81.12% 443 64 64 3 15 9 22 21 53 732 60.52% 45 36 50 57 21 23 737 483 50 20 72 7 59 759 63.64% 34 4 54 36 18 696 588 4 114 48 20 8 892 f 3 1 7 11 1 19 11 71 792 74.24% 333 66 15 25 508 7 3 17 491 67.82% 109 2 1 123 67 570 4 767 220 8 271 67 59 504 847 781 612 845 15623 72.98% 82.35% OFFICE OF STUDENT ASSIGNMENTLU ILfc HOCK SCHOOL DISTRICT SCHOOL ATTENDANCE ZONE SUMMARY OCTOBER 2. 1995 OFFICE OF STUDENT ASSIGNMENT 1 Q X BZEHBi Little Rock School District receivst^ (3 JAN 1 6 1996 Office of Desegregacon fviontojn,^ January 11, 1996 Ms. Melissa Guilden 201 E. Markham Little Rock, AR 72201 Dear Ms. Guilden: The Implementation Committee recently held their Enclosed please find a copy of those minutes. sixth meeting. Our next meeting has not been scheduled due to scheduling conflicts\nhowever, I hope to contact you this month to request your selection on which subcommittee that you would like to serve. Once our next meeting has been scheduled, you will be notified. Sincerely yours, V D^ DIR] I [TOR C. Eaton FACILITY SERVICES DEPARTMENT DCE/apl/ipcmeet 810 West Markham Street  Little Rock, Arkansas 72201  (501)324-20004 A 5 JAH J 6 ^9% MINUTES IMPLEMENTATION COMMITTEE JANUARY 3, 1996 The Facility Study Implementation Committee held their sixth meeting on January 3, 1996. At that meeting, a revised scope was presented to the Committee for consideration so as to realign the direction of the Committee. A recommended change was made by committee members in reference to the Little Rock School District Board of Directors as opposed to Board of Education\nhowever, the scope was not voted upon and the committee is still not clear on what the general scope of their authority is. A Draft Implementation Planning Sub-Committee list was also prepared which initially divided LRSD employees and some members who have volunteered for specific committees to assist in drafting the various phases of an implementation plan assessment of the Facility Study. and because of The sub-committees have still not been firmed up, this the specific charge. obligations requirements of those sub-committees has not been defined. and An agenda item of a plan time line was not discussed due to lack of time. A special report was made by Ms. Lowe, who is working on the subcommittee dealing with public affairs. They have began holding sub-committee meetings and have taken a first step of holding their own public meeting on January 10, 1996. We had a long, involved discussion regarding what the aspects are of our committee and how we are to develop an implementation plan. Of many items discussed. highlights centered around how the configuration of the middle schools would be impacted or would impact the Facility Study\nhow do we secure public reaction to the various aspects of the downsizing\nand how do we involve public acceptance? We have yet to develop any kind of a firm guideline or plan as to how we should approach the public. At the direction of the Superintendent, informal meetings have begun in various communities simply to inform Little Rock School District patrons and the general public on what the study encompasses and to assure them that a group of LRSD employees and the general public are looking at how the various options in the Facility Study could be implemented if necessary, but that no decisions have been made. It is becoming obvious that specific sub-committees will have to be formed out of the realm of the general committee by securing volunteers and that specific areas of implementation will have to be examined.Page Two Continued covers. At the present time, the only thing that we are comfortable going to the public with is the general parameters of the study and what it Detailed questions regarding whether or not the District is going to implement the Study, and how it will affect the children and the education system have yet to be determined. This leaves many unanswered questions at many of these public meetings. DCE/apl/minutes6! Arkansas Demi  locrat I SATURDAY, JANUARY 13, 1996------- \u0026lt;*\u0026lt; Ulto  Committee on LR school closings sets forum A Little Rock School District committee charged with developing a plan that could lead to some schools being closed will hold a community forum at 10 a.m today at the Adult Leisure Center, 6401W. 12th St The Facilities Committee, made up of district administrators and commimity members, has been studying the recommendations of a Texas consoling firm that evaluat- No decisions have been made by ii J.i 1 1- ujg committee although members have indicated they dont believe ed all district schools. The consultants recommended closii^ at least eight schools and redrawing attendance zones as a way to oSset a projected loss of more any schools should be closed in the 19^97 school year. than 3,000 students by the year 2005. f The facilities conunittee has been meeting with parents at each of the schools that the consultants named as candidates for closure.RECEIVED JUN  1996' FACILITIES COMMITTEE NOMINEES Zone 1 Mitchell Dr. Delbra Caradine B. J. McCoy of O' OOi! :i: i\"cni\ncrinc,^ Zone 2 Daugherty Rohn Muse Zone 3 Magness Diane Vibhakar 3917 S. Lookout Little Rock, AR 72207 661-8030 Kris Baber 2519 N Fllmore Little Rock, AR 72207 663-5443/682-2479 Zone 4 Riggs Andy Carpenter 6 Van Lee Little Rock, AR 72205 221-9632 Terry Paulson 2613 Wentwood Valley Dr. Little Rock, AR 72212 225-8155/569-8868 Zone 5 Pondexter Patricia Davenport 502 Green Mtn. Circle, #22 Little Rock, AR 72211 221-0876/570-4100 Latricia Henderson 1724 Marlyn Drive Little Rock, AR 72205 227-9498/982-9436 Zone 6 Gee Joa Huphrey 5022 W. 56th Little Rock, AR 72209 565-4110 Arthur Locke 3515 LeHigh Drive Little Rock, AR 72204 225-9035/225-5534 Zone 7 Strickland Tom Brock 8207 Crystal Valley Cv. Little Rock, AR 72210 455-4754 Phil Wyrick 11001 Alexander Rd. Alexander, AR 72103 455-4073 JOSHUA INTERVENORS: John Walker 1723 Boadway Little Rock, AR 72206 374-3758 Joy Springer KNIGHT INTERVENORS: Betty Mitchell Frank MartinVAN N. LIGHT 15 Sunset Drive Little Rock, Arkansas 72207 663-9287 aa: c/ - mar 7 4- 1996 March 5, 1996 of Oeje\nar\nn. Ms. Sue Strickland Member, Little Rock School Board 19 Pear Tree Lane Little Rock, Arkansas 72204 Re: February' 22, 1996 School Board Meeting\nFacility Study Committee Dear Sue: Thank you for having lunch with me yesterday to discuss my concern regarding your failure to advise members of the Facility Study Committee of your intention to call for the suspension of the Committees work at the February 22, 1996 school board meeting. As I indicated at lunch, in my view, the community members who had volunteered so much of their time to this committees work deser'/ed prior notice of your intention out of courtesy and respect for their efforts. While you and I disagreed on whether the Committee should have been informed of your intentions prior to the meeting, I did appreciate your apology. I think your apology has the potential for healing some of the frustration felt by the community members of the Committee and plan to share it with the Committee by copy of this letter. There remains one open issue relating to the actions taken at the February 22, 1996 LRSD Board meeting with regard to the Committee having to do with a reason you expressed for wanting to suspend the Committees work. I reviewed the tape of the board meeting last week and believe you misstated the present status of the Committee when you stated: Excuse me. I am on that committee. The only thing that we are challenged to address is closing Mabelvale Junior High. As you know, the foregoing statement is simply not true. I advised you by phone on Monday, February 19 and by fax (copy enclosed) the next day that the committee leadership had been restructured and that the Committee was searching for a facilitator to assist the Committee in coming to an agreement regarding its scope, purpose, composition, subcommittee structure, decision timeline and decision framework. The information conveyed to you before the February 22nd Board Meeting clearly indicated that the Committee was no where near making a recommendation of any sort-much less a recommendation to close Mabelvale Junior High. Had you been at the February 14th Committee meeting (minutes enclosed) you would have witnessed the expression of dissatisfaction with the course of the Committee and appreciated the strong desire of theMs. Sue Strickland March 5, 1996 Page 2 community members of the Committee to set the Committee on an agreed upon course. Unfortunately, this information was not relayed to the Board and it was forced to make a decision without knowing all the facts. Of course, if I or a member of the Committee had been informed of your intention to seek suspension of the Committee at the February 22nd meeting the Board could have been informed of the current status of the Committee. The failure to portray accurately the status of the Committee is particularly puzzling in light of the concern you expressed at the February 22nd meeting about recruitment of students and families to the Little Rock School District. How can the Board expect to instill trust and involvement in the District when the efforts of people, like the volunteer members of the Committee, are summarily dismissed based on inaccurate information? Volunteers who take time away from other priorities to serve the public school system deserve more. The very least you owe the Committee members is to set the record straight regarding the work of the Facility Study Committee. The Board and the public should know that the committee members were determined to set the Committee on a correct course, had taken steps to do so and did not have the single issue agenda of closing Mabelvale Junior High. I would hope that you would make this information available to the Board. If you wont correct the record, then I will at the next available opportunity address the Board. I care very deeply about the future of the Little Rock School District and have been actively involved since my children began attending public schools. I also care about getting other parents involved in the District. I hope you will help insure that the efforts of those who do get involved will not be taken for granted or misinterpreted by accurately conveying the work of the Facility Study Committe to the Board. Thanks again for taking the time to meet with me. Sincerely, inht Van N. Light Co-Chair Facility Study Committee cc: Facility Study Committee MembersDELIVERED BY FAX 9 V DATE: February 20, 1996 TO. Facilities Study Committee Members OJSce ^4i-' 7 FROM: RE: Van Light, 663-9287 Co-chair, Facilities Study Committee Facilitator Selection/Critical Questions Input for Facilities Study Committee At the Facilities Committee meeting on Wednesday, February 14, 1996, the committee decided to restructure the committee leadership with a co-chair format, one chair from the community and one chair from the LRSD staff. I was elected as a co-chair representing the community and Doug Eaton will continue as the LRSD staff co-chair. In addition, pursuant to Committee action on February 14th, a facilitator is to be identified and selected to assist our committee in developing committee goals, scope, decision timeline and framework. Several other critical questions were compiled at this meeting. They are enclosed for your review. Please call me with additions or corrections. These questions will be given to the facilitator. Selection of Facilitator The Committee agreed to seek the assistance of a facilitator for a limited time and as a volunteer. Suggested work parameters are at most 2 committee workshops of up to four hours each. Please submit your suggestions by the end of the week. I contacted as many of you as I could by phone on Monday, February 19th in advance of this memo. Two suggestions have been made so far: Judith Foust and Max Snowden. Since we are asking candidates to volunteer his/her time, several suggestions are required. Thanks very much. If you do suggest someone, please provide a short profile. Once all suggestions have been made, then I will contact you again by letter/phone/fax with names and profiles. You will have the opportunity to rank preference and/or express concern about a candidate. Remember the facilitator will not make decisions but help us to formulate our own committee structure and framework for the committee members to make the decisions. Thank you for your time and support.DRAFT Facility Study Implementation Planning Minutes, February 14, 1996 Committee Members Present Doug Eaton, chair Nancy Acre Brady Gadberry Melissa Guildin Charles Johnson Van Light Nancy Lowe Leon Modeste Rohn Muse Fred Smith Diane Vibhakar Connie Whitfield Linda Young Members Not Present Sadie Mitchell Sue Strickland Sammy Mills Vic Anderson Russ Mayo Betty Mitchell Xavier Heard Margaret Gremillion Suellen Vann John Walker Donna Creer Robert Hightower Kathy Wells Skip Marshall Frank Martin Richard Roachell 1  ** ~ \" y,  MAR 7- 'i5?3 D Mr. Doug Eaton, chair, called the meeting to order at 5:00 pm. Mr. Eaton asked for a report from the Outreach Subcommittee. This report was defered to the next meeting because certain members necessary to make the full report were not present at the meeting. Nancy Lowe did state that she had presented the overview of the Facility Study to the Area School Advisory Committee on Monday, February 12, 1996 and circulated the \"Public Schools at the Crossroads\" document (attached) compiled by the Outreach Subcommittee. Rohn Muse, who is on a Greater Little Rock Chamber of Commerce committee, stated that the Chamber's Executive Committee had requested through him that the Outreach Subcommittee brief the Executive Committee. After discussion the Facility committee agreed that future requests for Facility Study briefings should be requested through the Communications Office under the direction of Suellen Vann. Since the Chamber briefing had already been scheduled for the next day, February 15, the committee agreed that only the \"Public Schools at the Crossroads\" document be circulated and that any questions or requests for more information concerning the Facility Study should be directed through the Communications Office.DRAFT Minutes, February 14, 1996 Page 2 Mr. Eaton announced that the Bi-Racial Committee had been given a Facility Study Briefing on February 6, 1996. Additional briefings are scheduled for Wilson Elementary on March 8, 1996\nFair Park Elementary on March 11, 1996\nand, Garland Elementary on March 25, 1996. Mr. Eaton circulated to members the Special Report\nFacility Study Implementation Planning Committee Memo and School Closing Timeline (attached) which had been presented to the LRSD Board of Directors on January 25, 1996. Van Light noted that Number 2 of the memo should read \"Option M\" instead of \"Option C.\" Further discussion occured concerning these documents. Van Light made a motion that written Facility Committee progress reports to the LRSD board should be reviewed, if time permitted, by all committee members prior to submission to the LRSD Board of Directors. The motion was discussed and passed. It was agreed on occasions when LRSD Boardmembers and/or the Superintendent requested information from Mr. Eaton as the Plant Services Director and required immediate response then the commmittee would be apprised after the fact. Linda Young requested that Rohn Muse's name be added on the committee membership list. Mr. Eaton agreed to do so. As Mr. Eaton was circulating a draft Revised Scope for this committee to discuss, the members discussed and agreed that the Agenda Item dealing with Committee Structure should be addressed first. Van Light then circulated a letter (attached) signed by Charles Johnson and herself requesting two agenda items for the February 14th meeting. The first item addressed committee leadership. The letter attached explains the committee situation. The community members recommended that a facilitator should be asked to run the meetings. After discussion and specifically Fred Smith noting that there was no budget to hire a facilitator, a compromise approach was reached. It was agreed that the committee should have co-chairs, one from the community who would run the meetings, and a LRSD staff member as the other co-chair. In addition, a facilitor would be asked to come on a voluntary basis for a limited time to help the committee develop an agreed uponDRAFT Minutes, February 14, 1996 Page 3 scope, purpose, committee structure, composition, and other organizational needs. The members agreed that a facilitator would be more likely to help if it was a short term commitment. Fred Smith nominated Van Light to be the community co-chair. It was seconded. She was elected to the position. The members then listed serveral critical questions (attached) that are to be given to the facilitator once identified. It was noted that a committee member, instead of the chairperson, should become the official secretary for future meetings. Mr. Eaton had been taking the minutes of all the meetings previously. The second agenda item requested by the community members in the above referenced letter concerned requesting 3D1 to make a formal presentation to the committee. This would allow all questions that committee members had to be anwered and understood fully. No specific action was recommended because it was deferred for the next meeting when the facilitator would be present. The revised scope statement and subcommittee composition agenda items were tabled until the next meeting when the facilitator will be present. Mr. Eaton did state that he had asked three LRSD staff to begin forming subcommittees in order to get issues surfaced that would assist the general committee in its thought process with regard to studying the options. Mr. Eaton passed out, as general information, a document entitled \"School Closing Information Paper\" (attached) to assist committee members in trying to understand the multiple steps necessary in deciding school closings. The meeting adjourned about 6:15 pm. The next meeting would be determined once a facilitator had been identified and an agreed upon date set. Minutes prepared by Van Light with assistance from Mr. Eatons Memorandum for Record, Implementation Planning Committee Meeting - 2/14/96, dated March 1, 1996 and Nancy Lowe's recording the list of critical questions.TO: TKR! q-[jc -r LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT DIRECTORATE OF FACILITY SERVICES 3601 S. BRYANT LITTLE ROCK, AR 72204 January 25, 1996 Vittle Rock School District Boar FROM : a Sat on, Director of Special Sucerintendent T ommr tie Rock School District Faci Ccmmi tee xS charged Wltl\" he various restru uring options as presenter The committee administration membership consists staff, Desegregaticr community individuals. d of Directors y Sezn-ices V o do 1 y stU\narty ers ccmmlttee has casi t this point has made the following pre iminary det ns an ions\ncommittee focus Fa will only be on -mendati rents. ty restr'ucturing to meet projected stu^ 7 T 2 . Tha ths specifi e Wi' lT 7 be Optz.cn C.as it ertains to J nior i--ab schools. 3 . a school closin reccmmen\n:s .b-e his budget year cue to the estimated time of F 4 . Tha a primary focus will be :ubli and rmation sessions to secure public t and sun 5 . That additional subcommittees will be ether aspects o school restructuring and they ecome to analyte identified. There are no set timelines to implement a school closing, but rather a backward planning process starting with the desired closing date and student assignment effective date and then prorating your time over the identified steps and procedures necessary. The following is a list of significant events and suggested dates\n1. Prior to January: - Completed all data collection and analysis - Comprise list of facilities to be considered - Conduct public information meetings 2. January: - Finalize recommended action to board(Business case) - Secure board decision on closure - Begin support planning - Tentative assignment notification to students Begin support) definitized planning(personnel, students, 3 . Febr-uary: - Request court date - Conduct pre-registration 4. March: - Complete support planning (support staff) - Complete student plans - Complete public hearings - Complete personnel plans - Court hearing 5. June: - Close school - Final notification to students on assignments 6. August: - Reassign students This is a very condensed list and does not include he multitude of specific staff considerations with regard to this type action. CLCB2HPTFebiuaiy 12, 1996 Delivered in Person by Charles Johnson and Van Liuhl Mr. Doug Eaton Director, Plant Services LRSD 3601 S Bryant Little Rock .AR 72201 RE. Aaenda Items for 2'14/96 Facility Study Implementation Planning Committee (FSIPC) Meeting Dear Doug Persuant to your most recent letter in which you offered to receive agenda item suggestions from committee members, we respectfully submit the following agenda items A) B) Committee Leadership Structure Request for Facility Study Presentation by 3D! Last Friday '9/96, five FSIPC members from the community, Charles Johnson. Van Light. Kathy Wells. Nancy Lowe. Rohn Muse, met for 1 1. hours to discuss the FSIPC and its fiiture direction. The group agreed to recommend the above agenda items We also want to recommend that Rohen S Rules of Order be followed in future meetings. A. Committee Leadership Structure Problem Statement. In its present leadership structure the committee has not been able to progress as it should due to members and committee leadership not agreeing on committee purpose and scope. Symptoms of Problem. These symptoms suggest that a change is needed. a) 2 V2 - 3 hour meetings conducted with little or.no progress made or action taken, b) Committee Chairperson forming subcommittees outside the committee structure. c) Poor attendance at last two meetings. d) Expression of frustration by all membersdeadersiiip on lack of committee progress. Discussion This group discussed several strategies to address this problem. In the discussion of all strategies it was aareed that a neutral person was needed to run the meetings. The strategies discussed were. 1. Co-chairs, one community member\none LRSD staff member. The community member tunning the meeting, , 2. One chairperson - a community member 3. One chairperson - an experienced facilitator. This group by consensus agreed to recommend Strategy ^3, to find an experienced facilitator as soon as possible who might donate his/her time.Rationale for Selection of Strategy #3 Due to the obvious public interest and sensitivity/volativity with issues concerning facility changes, it is imperative that the public perception and, indeed, the reality be that this committee be one in which a) the leadership of the committee is neutral, b) the committee membership representation is city-wide, c) the evaluation process is fair and logical and is agreed upon by the committee, and, d) decisions are based on a shared vision by the committee using the Strategic Plans beliefs, mission and objectives as a guide. Due to the various perspectives of the committee members and the complexitv of issues relating to facilitv changes, having an experienced facilitator would be a needed asset. t. B) Facilitator Recommendations. The group did brainstorm on possible facilitators. Of course, other names can and should be considered. Those mentioned were. Ken Hubbell Earl Moore Joyce Springer Williams Mary F Dillard Dr David Sink Judith Foust Cliarlev Crawford Request for Faciiit\u0026gt; Study Presentation by 3DI Problem Statement. The inability of the members to understand the reasons and iustificaiii recommendations that per to facility changes. Reasons for Inability to Understand. 1) Contradictory messages: :ueen sections of studc 2) Insufficient narrative to support and.'or explain recommendations. Discussion. The group agreed that it w before decisions impacting on for the s essential that the integrity and validity of the study had to be upheld 'acilities by the committee could be made. This group agreed it could not and did not want to move fonvard until that point was reached. Therefore, it is recommended that a one-on- one session with the consultant be arranged. Specific information requests from consultant can be determined at the Wednesday meeting. This group recognizes the seriousness of the agenda items recomm.ended in this letter. We are earnest in our desire to make informed decisions We are committed in being supportive of the LRSD and its staff as we work together to recommend changes concerning the Districts facilities We pledge our good faith efforts to make decisions based on the overall good of the District. We await your comments and would be glad to discuss further any issue With regards, Charles Johnson 565-5715   \\ Van N. Light 663-9287'\" y cc: Mr. Fred Smith FSIPC Members (at W'ednesdays meeting) FACILITIES COMMITTEE Little Rock School District Critical Questions 1. 2 3. 4. 5. What is the scope of the committee? Do we need to revisit establishing goals? How can committee set forth a planning framework for itself with goals and timelines and benchmarks? Determine committee composition and numbers. Determine best tune to meet. 6. Vanong levels of trust w ith school district within committee. 7. 8. 9. Wdiat are the specific subcommittees? Determine subcommittee composition and numbers. Wdiat are the subcommittees tasks? 10. 11. 12. 13. Are we satisfied wdth the facilities study as a piece to begin decision making\"? Do we need to have 3 DI make a presentation? Varying levels of understanding about facility study wtliin committee. How did decision to close identified schools within recommendations get done? 14. 15. How do we communicate internally within the committee and with and between subcommittees? How are we going to communicate committee decisions to the general public? 16. Others? SCHOOL CLOSING PROCEDURES INFORMATION DOCUMENT 1) INTRODUCTION: 2) RSCEJVED MAR 7 199$- Office cf Desegrajefien Monitoring School closings are generally examined using the same criteria established by planners for the location and construction of new schools. Such general areas as student populations, demographic trends, economic analysis are the same general areas of consideration to be used when the predetermined goal is consideration of closing a school. Because there are no defined guidelines for decision-makers, nor definitive brackets of cost and population against which an objective analysis can be made to lose a school, we WP can establish research data but not clearly define will fully support a closing, will be heavily subjective. WXiCil that Therefore, our final decision We must understand that School Districts must operate financially by maximizing costs on a per capita basis. Only through maximum economies of scale, by going to maximum class size and facility capability. while meeting students' individual needs for achievement can we hope to operate in an economically efficient manner. In examining a particular school as a candidate for closing. we must certainly examine the entire school system. or at least a cluster of schools which would be immediately impacted by the closing. Basic economic decisions considered in facilities planning include decisions to incrementally add to schools as student numbers go up, and the fact that we design and build for future use, and not just current needs. This leads us to consider projected student populations and current and expected costs as the two (2) main considerations in school closings. WHEN DO WE CONSIDER A SCHOOL FOR CLOSING: I've identified five (5) areas of consideration that would support a decision to examine whether or not a specific facility should be closed: A) Consideration should be given to closing a acility when the repair costs can not be amortized economically. Examples would be when emergency repair costs exceed the value of the school, such as damage due to f 1 fire, 1earthquake, etc., or when the deferred maintenance costs on any major component would exceed a certain value of the overall costs of the facility. This deferred maintenance must include replacement to include costs to upgrade to current standards of such major components of the school as the heating/ventilation system, structural repairs, roof, and grounds. B) We should consider closing the facility when the operational maintenance costs of the facility begins to exceed the norm of all other similar facilities or when it can be shown that the operational maintenance cos C) D) would far exceed the life cycle costing of a new f as compared to the remaining life of the original. This can be done through a life cycle cost analysis of a new facility of equitable size. One must consider here that a replacement facility of larger size can better capitalize on economies of scale and will tend to show a lower operational cost on a per capita basis than the ole facility. This is used as the strength of an argument for normal facility replacement simply due to age and operational costs. We should consider closing a facility when the student population decreases to the point that consolidation or redistribution of students must occur,- or when student projections show a steady decline over a determined period of time. The determined period of time should exceed the number of years of one (1) cycle of the school\nfor example, if the school encompasses K - Sth Grade, we should look, at least, at one (1) full cycle, or seven years, as the projected length and time to fully determine whether or not student projections are rising or falling. This should allow a slight increment in any given year due to a rise in birth rates but not skew the final data. We should consider closing a facility when general demographic trends of the entire area surface indicate a movement or shift in population, away from an existing 2E) 3) school. As population centers shift within the School District, it can be expected that as student populations decline in older areas. that per capita cost increase, that the closing of schools must be considered to meet the demands of the moving population. Many times, this will result in the Board of Education examining older schools. areas in more established areas, yet these established predominantly house older populations which do not tend to move with demographic trends within the city. We should consider closing a facility when the cost analysis of the school shows a disproportionate spending on a per capita basis for all other items not including operations and maintenance. We must closely examine this area. If operational costs on a per caoita basis are increasing due to decreasing student e rising operational costs of the program, be examined in support of school closing, must be cautioned that operational programs, newer technology. then nis However, osts for ust W6 new to achieve higher academic standards are not to be considered in this analysis per capita costs. RESEARCH AREAS: of The research area list is not all-inclusive, but meant to identify those key areas of consideration that will produce objective data. and those answers that will produce subjective answers. The following are areas which can be clearly defined objectively: A) A current operational cost analysis will proouce hard figures showing the operational costs on B) C) either a per school. or per capita basis. against the norm. We should consider both maintenance costs and academic costs. One time costs to bring the facility in line with current academic demands and current physical requirements such as bringing the building in line with current city codes. Examining student projections will clearly show a rise or fall in the anticipated enrollment over a 3given number of years. D) The costs associated with the transfer of students and the costs associated to adapt surrounding schools school. to incorporate students from the closed The following areas of examination will produce subjective answers: A) Trying to determine the impact on student's education if we move the student from a familiar environment to an unfamiliar environment. a B) Examining whether or not the closing of a school is not in contravention to t Laws. Fe C) Whether or not the closing of a facility is in line with the Little Rock School District's Desegregation Plan, or intent thereof. A subjective analysis will raise further questions such as: A) When do we physically close the school and move children? the B) How long will it take the children to go to, or be acclimated. in their new school? C) What would be the racial balance of the schools to which the children are redistributed? 4) WHEN DO YOU CLOSE A FACILITY: As Stated before, there are no hard, fast guidelines which would produce checklists that say. if you meet four (4) or five (5) criteria, the school will be closed\". It is more a subiective evaluation based on II It subjective objective data, and as such, will allow the decision-maker the ability to determine the nrioritv of the to determine priority listing considerations, and the specific criteria which will determine that the facility will be closed. In general, if a 45) combination of any of the following factors are present, a s A) B) ) D) then chool should be considered for closing: when the operational specified amount\ncosts exceeds the norm by a when the costs to upgrade the facility to current educational and code standards is cost-prohibitive against either new construction or the facility\nthe expected life of when you are considering realigning attendance zones just support student populations, or have to transport simply to maximize the facility. to children into an area or to spend funds to support educational attract students, all of which are intended to offsec L co rograms 11 c W student population and decreasing trends\nand, if schools are examined on a regional cluster. total combined facility space and exceeds the current projected needs and redistribution economic sense, or social considerations. consideration. PLANNING FACTORS: procedure which is does not and violate then closing is The following planning steps formulate a intended to be used as a guide vzhen school closing is contemplated. The procedure is set forth in a logical manner\nhowever, uniformly as local conditions require. its sections may be used separately or uniformly as locai i\nuuuii,j.uuo It is primarily intended to identify the various kinds of information as well that should be considered before as the particular activities It is intended that this procedure will be closing a school. the _______________to provide an organized structure for decision-makers when a school closing is being contemplated. followed so as A) acili.tx Evaluations t Facility evaluations are undertaken only when it is apparent that physical condition school. will influence the decision to close the This evaluation should properly identify the 5general condition of the facility and detail any special problems relating to age, structure or utility systems. The evaluations should include an estimate of useful life be made if the facility is continued in service. expectancy and, in particular, an accounting of repairs to Some schools will need to be closed regardless of age and condition. B) Capacity of Facility: Useful capacity should be C) calculated in terms of the numbers of students the facility can accommodate using criteria as established by *  . Each either the Local or State Board of Education. administration must establish its own formula capacity calculations. Suggested methods include: Capacity as ietermined J* Itiplying pupil.'t ratio times the number of classrooms Capacity as determined by dividing square footage in an instructional area by the per pupil square a footage recommended for the purpose for which the area is being used Capacity determined by physical determination cr each academic space as compared to the Board of Education standard capacity may not exceed the class any case, non cue cj-obo size limits as established by the State Board of Education. In Student Enrollments: Present and projected student enrollments should be a necessary part of any decision uO close a school. To decrease the margin of'error, {7) years should minimum period of time of at least seven be established upon which to base population projections. This should be done for the school system as a whole, all schools included. One should be aware of two (2) factors * *  a in projecting populations: a) The relationship between increases or decreases in the general population and school enrollment\nand. 6D) E) b) The need to project enrollment in a given attendance area where it is anticipated that a school may close. would be appropriate to establish an enrollment figure such that if the school falls below this number, that the school will be closed after due process, and all pupils It and school personnel reassigned. A proposal to close Organization of the School SYStemu should consider the organizational needs of the a school including reorganization of particular school system, schools which otherwise might have been closed. examole, be subtracting grades at an elementary level For consideration might facility could be continued in service. add such that o..e Within this context, one examines the long-range programmatic ntc-s of the school system before deciding to close a s\u0026gt;_hool. In doing so, it may be appropriate to close a school for some temporary purpose, which, in the final analysis will seirve the permanent goals of the school system. Cost of operationL To be explicit in one's assessment to close a school, we must calculate the financial costs of operating the facility, and more especially, the funds to    These costs m.ay be be saved by closing the facility. compared to per capita costs of operating other similar schools in the school system. or just simply on the basis that a given amount of money will no longer be spent if the facility is closed. These financial assessments normally include, but are not restricted to the areas of: a) Personnel reassign or eliminated\nb) Utilities for a period of time such as a year\nc) Maintenance and repair costs for a period of t ime\nd) Custodial costs\n7e) Transportation costs,- and, f) Miscellaneous costs. such as insurance. If the facility is to be closed, and not replaced, then obviously a substantial capital outlay may be avoided. If the facility is to be replaced, then a comparison must be made to the expected operational costs which will be determined from a cost analysis of the new facility. Obviously, if the per capita costs decrease. or the same general operational costs remain approximately the for a larger number of students in a more modern facility, then closing would be advantageous to the District. then F) Transportation: It is not 1 T. ays possr 1 o o.a G) H) savings in transportation by closing a school since ass .sporta' ignment of students sometimes increases transportation However, one may well reduce costs in responsibilities. this area by school closing, and it is incun-ibent upon us to assess this accurately. Specifically, rerouting should be buses, plus its effect upon time and distance, A corollary is the need for additional or examined. fewer buses. distance, issue. The relationship among routing, t ime, number of buses, and concomitant costs is the Racial Balance: racial balance enrollment. which so school The administration must recognize that IS a sensitive factor in No administration should take an school action seriously affects pupil assignment as closing a without being completely aware of its ramifications on racial balance. The probability is that racial balance alone will not likely determine whether or not a school is closed. However, it is a sensitive matter that may not be overlooked, this factor carefully. We must calculate Alternative Uses: Alternative uses of the facility must be examined during the analysis process to insure that the facility may not be compatible with the education process in an alternative use. Instructional programs, as well as auxiliary services, should be in an alternative use. as 8considered. Possible alternatives include: a) Special education\nb) Special purpose schools,- c) Social and community purposes\nd) Maintenance and repair services\ne) Storage\nand, f) Office space. irrrent expense to provide the aroremer and capital outlay costs should be me 1 jded 'Vices 1 any assessment of alternative uses. i) Program Considerations.:. In considering a school closing, the administration should determine where students will be reassigned, and what effect closing will have on j) k) program opportunities which result from staff reassignments and the relocation of resources. Tentative Decision: studies school After the administration carefully the facility evaluations. facility capacity. projections. school organizations, cost operation, effect on transportation, alternative uses the facility, effect on racial balance. of for and effect on local governmental planning, the administration should make a tentative decision. If the tentative decision is to close the school, then informal meetings and hearings should be scheduled. Informal MeetinQSu The administration. in conjunction with the Board of Education, should hold public hearings prior to the closing of the school. The administration should, in order to cement good public relations. hold certain informational meetings with their various publics prior to closing. These activities are strictly for the purpose of providing information. answering questions. and most important of all. establishing in the' minds of those affected. that their reactions and opinions are 96) 1) m) being evaluated, public support. School closings are much easier with These meetings should involve, should not necessarily be restricted to: a) b) c) d) but Parents\nSchool-related groups\nLocal government officials\nand, Other local interest groups. Additionally, the administration should keep a displaced faculty-as well informed as can be. Personnel reass ignm.ent plans should prepared and given to soon as possible. Closing Decisions: d c After all essential info: ion has been obtained and evaluated by the administration, and after all essential activities have been carried out, then the administration should approach the Board of Education, in an official session, regarding closing the school. If a school closing is voted upon. then it should be as specific as to termination date, and should be accomplished in conjunction with applicable general statutes regarding property disposal. Disposition of Surplus Property.:. If the closing of the school results in the property being surplus o the District's needs, then applicable laws should be followed regarding this disposition. Final disposition is. of course, at the determination of the Board, and may include the options of demolition, sell, or leasing. SUMMARY: The following checklist summarizes the school closing procedure. EVALUATION OF FACILITY  * * Report on physical condition State useful life expectancy Identify specific maintenance or code problems 10CAPACITY OF FACILITY  Determine formula useful, pupil capacity by approved STUDENT ENROLLMENT  * Project enrollment five {5} years as a minimum Identify minimum enrollment for automatic closing Project enrollment for specific attendance area ORGANIZATION OF SCHOOL SYSTEM if if  if Needs of total school system Reorganization required by closing Cost of operation Current expense in capital outlay of closing S S' r.crs ?er capita costs in compari to Oti TRANSPORTATION if if Rerouting needs including additional i Cost savings, if any RACIAL BALANCE ALTERNATIVE USES  * Total school system, program needs Auxiliary uses PROGRAM CONSIDERATIONS TENTATIVE DECISION INFORMATIONAL MEETINGS if Parents, local government officials, local interest groups School related groups, others DISPOSITION OF SURPLUS PROPERTY  Other school system needs Sell Lease 11\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_446","title":"Facilities study","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":["1995/2005"],"dcterms_description":null,"dc_format":["application/pdf"],"dcterms_identifier":null,"dcterms_language":["eng"],"dcterms_publisher":["Little Rock, Ark. : Butler Center for Arkansas Studies. Central Arkansas Library System"],"dc_relation":null,"dc_right":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC-EDU/1.0/"],"dcterms_is_part_of":["Office of Desegregation Monitoring records (BC.MSS.08.37)","History of Segregation and Integration of Arkansas's Educational System"],"dcterms_subject":["Little Rock (Ark.)--History--20th century","Little Rock School District","Education--Arkansas","Education--Evaluation","School facilities","School integration","Educational statistics"],"dcterms_title":["Facilities study"],"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/446"],"dcterms_temporal":null,"dcterms_rights_holder":null,"dcterms_bibliographic_citation":null,"dlg_local_right":["Available for use in research, teaching, and private study. Any other use requires permission from the Butler Center."],"dcterms_medium":["documents (object genre)"],"dcterms_extent":["28 pages"],"dlg_subject_personal":null,"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":"\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n\n\n\n   \n\n\n\n\n   \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n  \n\nJ B PUBLIC SCHOOLS at the CROSSROADS Sponsored By: Outreach Subcommittee, LRSD Facilities Study Committee 5,000 Vacant Seats ! Income Cut Millions ! YOU will decide Its YOUR tax dollar and YOUR vote! B Learn More - Invite a Speaker to YOUR civic club, business, church, etc. Call Kathy Wells, 374-7269, Nancy Lowe, 666-2061, Bob Hightower, 664-7724, Charles Johnson, 565-57IS, fax 565-5395, Rohn Muse, 663-3368 lUSeptember 26, 1995 Little Rock School District News Release For more Information: Suellen Vann, 324-2020 LRSD Facilities Study Completed The comprehensive facilities study ordered by the Little Rock School District (LRSD) Board of Directors has been completed. The study Is critical in determining the future needs of the school district and the best allocation of resources to meet those needs. The facilities study focused on four main components: 1. Assessment of facilities and the cost of Implementation of recommendations: 2. Assessment of demographic changes In populations and enrollment\n3. Analysis of all school capacities with current and projected utilization\nand. 4. Consideration of the Implications of the desegregation plan. The study firm (3/D International) visited and studied conditions In every school building. Demographic data, student enrollment/assignment Information, policies, and financial information were gathered and Included in the study. Severed recommendations were developed, with one of the recommendations consisting of three options. These options relate to utilizing existing facilities, closing some schools. (more) 810 West Markham Street  Little Rock, Arkansas 72201  (501)824-2000 LRSD Facilities Study Page 2 of 3 expanding some schools, building new schools, and redrawing school attendance zones. The recommendations are: 1. Establish a preventive maintenance program. 2. Establish a capital program through the sale of bonds supported by a millage Increase. 3. Develop a database of school-aged children In the district which Is maintained on an aimual basis. 4. Appeal to the court for unitary status based on continuing the quality of education supported by Improved, equitable facilities. 5. Close seven elementary schools and one Junior high school along with four additional elementary schools slated for alternate uses by the district and community. Select one of three options, all of which consist of closure or expansion of existing schools and construction of new facilities. Option M - maintains current attendance zone boundaries with minor modifications. Option T - recommends aligning the current attendance blocks and current and new schools Into a zoning system aligned with federal census tracts. Option C - recommends new attendance zones based on a corridor approach. This would allow students to attend an elementary school within a reasonable distance from their homes and reduce the burden of busing. 6. Implement Option C based on considerations of the school experience for children, more favorable opportunity for parent participation, development of community identities. diminished burden of busing, least expense to the district, and lowest cost to the public. 7. Notwithstanding recommendation 6, form a committee to consider each option and effect the one which best serves the children of Little Rock. (more)LRSD Facilities Study Page 3 of 3 8. 9. Take Initiatives to reverse decreasing enrollment pattern. Also, form committee to plan for use of closed facilities. Encourage a group of business leaders and other citizens to become Involved In the activities of the district In Its guidance of the education process and policies and continue the development of community awareness. The LRSD Board of Directors will discuss the facilities study findings at Its monthly meeting on Thursday, September 28, 1995. The meeting will be held at 6:00 p.m. In the Board Room of the LRSD Administration Building at 810 West Markham. ###LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT FACILITIES STUDY Data Drawn from Study Prepared by 3D/ International - August 30,1995 - by Outreach Subcommittee of the LRSD Facilities Study Com. Those proposed to be closed are marked with a C - Those proposed to be re-used for other purposes are marked with an R School Renovation Cost Sq.Ft. Cost Sq.Ft. of School #of Classrms. Value Score Anl. Oper. Budget Excess Seats #of Students Elem. Sch. Badgett Bale Baseline Booker Brady Carver Chicot Cloverdale D. O. Dodd FairPark-C Forest Park Franklin Fulbright Garland- C Geyer Spgs. Gibbs Ish-C Jetfcrson-C M.L. King. McDermott Mabelvale-R Meadowcliff-R Mitchell-C Otter Creek Pulaski Hgts.-R Rightsell-R Rockefeller Romine Terry Wakefield-C Washington Watson Western Hills Williams Wilson-R Woodruff-C $ 666,504 1,200,466 1,111,915 892,564 476,919 378,889 28.48 35.70 22.04 11.98 13.15 6.14 Total ELEM. 481,989 954,119 714,626 752,687 1,845,175 484,019 1,373,658 321,017 215,003 656,776 1,814,531 239,042 689,136 1,568,674 1,138,095 579,516 674,313 1,389,146 645,652 399,444 1,660,421 498,742 1,238,092 313,822 937,532 850,067 723,963 933,698 212,098 14.49 20.43 24.76 23.58 26.94 7.24 35.56 7.68 5.77 20.65 41.67 3.19 14.35 28.23 30.82 14.78 18.45 23.85 17.16 6.19 39.24 11.01 33.11 3.49 17.41 20.24 15.34 25.18 5.58 23,404 33,626 50,455 74,430 36,259 61,695 59,687 33,263 46,712 28,867 31,914 68,500 66,892 38,632 41,780 37,237 31,802 43,546 75,000 48,020 55,568 36,931 39,200 36,551 58,252 37,630 64,561 42,314 45,312 37,395 89,800 53,846 41,991 47,200 37,075 38,000 14 21 Open 38 24 31 Open 18 Open 12 19 42 26 25 17 18 22 23 38 25 28 25 15 20 21 19 30 28 26 23 46 25 21 25 24 23 Acceptable Acceptable Acceptable Acceptable Acceptable Acceptable $ 704,527 1,081,655 972,972 2,342,801 1,147,571 2,134,430 $29,032,310 Acceptable Acceptable Needs repair Acceptable Acceptable Acceptable Needs repair Acceptable Acceptable Needs repair Needs repair Highly Satisf. Acceptable Acceptable Acceptable Needs repair Acceptable Acceptable Acceptable Acceptable Acceptable Acceptable Needs repair Highly Satisf. Acceptable Acceptable Acceptable Acceptable Needs repair 1,107,190 916,524 924,020 1,130,600 1,838,099 1,544,004 1,246,993 823,012 1,320,131 1,572,822 1,437,864 1,773,977 1,322,150 1,343,716 1,144,114 1,242,719 938,437 1,004,237 1,029,820 1,955,387 1,364,597 1,363,947 1,178,781 2,258,943 1,202,740 926,227 1,873,461 1,159,664 735,334 42 26 74 68 37 10 20 42 71 58 -2 29 23 15 21 48 -57 83 16 53 37 11 8 -40 35 23 86 -33 111 95 64 23 n 76 73 210 347 327 604 394 629 452 453 294 270 435 431 518 255 310 307 0 501 531 487 460 400 257 339 406 219 406 302 536 429 656 444 315 508 384 254LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT FACILITIES STUDY Data Drawn From Study Prepared by 3D/ International - August 30,1995 - by Outreach Subcommittee Of LRSD Facilities Study Com. Those proposed to be closed are marked with a C - Those proposed to be re-used for other purposes are marked with an R School Renovation Sq.Ft. Cost Cost Sq.Ft. of School #of Classrms. Value Score Anl. Oper. Budget Excess Seats #of Students High Sch. Central Hall Parkview J.A. Fair McClellan $ 5,763,718 2,182,064 837,872 1,725,309 3,489,032 $21.60 14.32 5.03 13.11 29.46 266,826 152,340 166,477 131,628 118,425 111 59 61 49 48 Needs Repair Acceptable Acceptable Acceptable Acceptable $ 4,998,321 3,233,040 3,678,656 3,041,886 3,366,982 615 354 191 289 260 1,591 928 855 905 904 Vo-Tech Sch. Metropolitan 3,488,367 26.93 129,546 55 Acceptable 1,334,595 0 Jr. High Cloverdale Dunbar Forest Hgts. Henderson Mabelvale-C Mann Pulaski Hgts. Southwest 687,389 3,855,668 2,410,310 845,431 2,263,241 1,414,500 1,620,183 1,483,632 8.39 38.79 34.37 8.19 37.73 12.52 22.13 17.88 81,894 99,397 70,137 103,212 59,981 113,013 73,216 82,968 37 41 35 51 27 51 36 44 Acceptable Needs repair Acceptable Needs repair Poor Needs repair Needs repair Needs repair 1,957,408 2,287,694 2,464,108 3,049,193 2,162,579 3,264,881 2,323,492 2,133,841 353 339 488 304 152 90 184 361 609 732 759 792 491 847 781 612 Alt. Learn. A. L. Ctr. 1,183,270 17.88 37,360 27 Poor 445,144 Admin. Admin. Bldg. Annex Cashion Transportn. Plant Serv. Purchasing Security 597,648 539,715 117,330 247,707 498,984 272,004 387,874 22.31 20.54 18.28 11.84 23.85 45.33 19.89 26,790 26,273 6,418 20,914 20,914 6,000 19,500 Subtotal Elem. Total Other Grand Total 35,911,178 29,032,310 15,111,221 (Roofs, Asbestos Removal, Disability Facilities, Inflation factor) $ 80,054,709 5,255LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT FACILITIES STUDY Data Drawn from Study Prepared by 3D/ International - August 30,1995 - by Outreach Subcommittee of the LRSD Facilities Study Com. Those proposed to be closed arc marked with a C - Those proposed to be re-used for other purposes arc marked with an R School Allcudancc Zone Population: % While % Black Today Today % While Option M % Black Option M % Wliite Option T % Black Option T % Wliite Option C % Black Option C Elcm. Sch. Badgett Bale Baseline Booker Brady Carver Chicot Cloverdale D. O. Dodd Fair Park-C Forest Park Franklin 35 35 27 65 65 73 36 35 24 64 65 76 27 15 73 85 18 36 44 82 64 56 53 47 56 44 98 02 85 15 30 15 45 46 66 05 70 85 55 54 34 95 30 15 45 70 85 55 42 26 41 58 74 59 19 17 49 81 83 51 62 05 38 95 97 08 03 92 72 07 28 93 Fulbright Garland- C Geyer Spgs. Gibbs Ish-C JefTerson-C M.L. Kmg. McDennott Mabelvale-R Meadowcliff-R Milchell-C Otter Creek 55 08 21 45 92 79 56 22 44 78 91 22 09 78 89 22 11 78 58 01 64 32 35 03 68 42 99 36 68 65 97 32 01 48 33 36 99 52 67 64 19 93 81 07 24 83 46 76 17 54 69 31 80 20 82 18 Pulaski Hgts.-R Rightsell-R Rockefeller Romine Terry Wakefield-C Washington Watson Western Hills Williams Wilson-R Woodruff-C 73 05 11 08 71 21 02 20 39 27 95 89 92 29 79 98 80 61 75 04 11 08 59 03 21 39 41 41 59 59 42 25 96 89 92 41 97 79 61 58 68 04 23 87 02 21 47 32 96 77 13 98 79 53 04 13 15 82 21 13 05 32 96 87 85 18 79 87 95 68LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT FACILITIES STUDY Data Drawn from Study Prepared by 3D/ International - August 30,1995 - by Outreach Subcommittee of the LRSD Facilities Study Com. Those proposed to be closed are marked with a C - Those proposed to be re-used for other purposes are marked with an R School Attendance Zone Population: % White % Black Today Today % White Option M % Black Option M % White Option T % Black Option T % White Option C % Black Option C High Sch. Central Hall Parkview J. A. Fair McClellan 36 43 64 57 30 44 70 56 30 44 70 56 30 44 70 56 31 19 69 81 33 26 67 74 33 26 67 74 33 26 67 74 Vo-Tech Sch. Metropolitan Jr. High Cloverdale Dunbar Forest Hgts. Henderson Mabelvale-C Mann Pulaski Hgts. Southwest 16 19 36 27 84 81 64 73 21 20 28 28 79 80 72 72 21 20 28 28 79 80 72 72 21 20 28 28 79 80 72 72 43 32 57 68 44 37 56 63 44 37 56 63 44 37 56 63 Alt. Learn. A. L. Ctr.Little Rock School District Facilities Master Plan Study 3D/I ENROLLMENT ANALYSIS 1995 COMPARISON OF JR. vs MIDDLE SCHOOLS LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT Table ES-8 (95) TYPE OF SCHOOL ENROLL OPTIONS NO HIGH SCHOOLS TOTAL PK OPTION 1 6TH-STH enroll * capcty delta OPTION #2 7TH-8TH enroll capcty delta OPTIONS #1 4 #2 k.9TH-12 enroll capcty delta 1 2 3 4 5 CENTRAL HALL PARKVIEW J.A.FAIR McClellan TOTAL HIGH SCHOOLS 1591 928 855 905 904 5183 45 17 18 15 20 115 ASSUMPTIONS 2172 1286 1149 1216 1202 7026 2256 1389 991 1206 1157 6999 1. if 85% factor is deleted capacity is adequate 83 103 158 -10 -45 -27 VOCATIONAL TECHNICAL SCHOOL 1 METROPOLITAN TOTAL VTS 0 2. If the 151 deduct, is removed from Parkview capacity, capacity exists in all buildings and overall factor = 83,8% 3. Indications are that middle school is possible by 1996 4. 9th grade has been prorated to % of building capacity (all assumptions do not consider class choice loading) JUNIOR HIGH SCHOOLS 1 CLOVERDALE 2 DUNBAR 3 FOREST HEIGHTS 4 HENDERSON 5 MABELVALE 6 MANN MAGNET 7 PULASKI HEIGHTS 8 SOUTHWEST TOTAL JR HIGH SCHOOLS 609 732 759 792 491 847 781 612 5623 652 742 745 770 579 829 805 658 5,778 1000 1046 1268 1221 737 935 955 971 8,134 348 304 523 452 158 107 150 313 2,356 391 485 463 486 309 572 538 387 3,631 1000 1046 1268 1221 737 935 955 971 8,134 609 561 805 735 428 363 417 584 4,503 Table ES-B Page 1 of 2ENROLLMENT ANALYSIS 1995 COMPARISON OF JR. vs MIDDLE SCHOOLS LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT TYPE OF SCHOOL ENROLL OPTIONS NO ELEMENTARY SCHOOLS TOTAL PK 1 BADGETT 2 BALE 3 BASELINE 4 BOOKER MAGNET 5 BRADY 6 CARVER MAGNET 7 CHICOT 8 CLOVERDALE 9 DAVID O DODD 10 FAIR PARK 11 FOREST PARK 12 FRANKLIN 13 FULBRIGHT 14 GARLAND 15 GEYER SPRINGS 16 GIBBS MAGNET 17 ISH 18 JEFFERSON 19 MARTIN L KING 19 MCDERMOTT 20 MABELVALE 21 MEADOWCLIFF 22 MITCHELL 23 OTTER CREEK 24 PULASKI HEIGHTS 25 RIGHTSELL 26 ROCKEFELLER 27 ROMINE 28 TERRY 29 WAKEFIELD 30 WASHINGTON 31 WATSON 32 WESTERN HILLS 33 WILLIAMS 34 WILSON 35 WOODRUFF 36 ALTERNATE LEARNING CNTR TOTAL ELEMENTARY 210-1 347 327 604 394 629 452 453 294 270 435 431 518 255 310 307 0 501 531 487 460 400 257 339 406 219 406 302 536 429 656 444 315 508 384 254 0 14070 184 293 284 509 343 528 372 407 228 243 382 379 429 210 267 262 0 418 483 413 396 351 213 283 355 199 372 260 454 368 565 398 276 436 319 232 0 12111 18 41 37 95 44 101 58 45 50 27 53 40 82 38 43 45 0 74 48 74 55 49 34 56 51 20 34 32 82 61 87 46 39 72 44 22 0 1797 No of schools] 29 25 TOTAL ALL SCHOOLS] 24,876 Little Rock School District Facilities Master Plan Study 3D/I Table ES-8 (95) OPTION #1 6TH-8TH enroll capcty delta OPTION #2 7TH-8TH enroll capcty delta OPTIONS #1 i#2 k-9TH-12 enroll capcty delta 219 335 400 641 445 598 523 434 0 369 350 430 472 565 297 321 341 459 634 510 527 448 283 367 380 264 426 409 526 524 782 491 340 501 421 316 0 15350 35 42 116 132 102 70 151 27 -228 126 -32 51 43 355 30 59 . 341 41 151 97 131 97 70 84 25 65 54 149 72 156 217 93 64 65 102 84 0 3239 Table ES-8 Page 2 of 2Little Rock School District Facilities Master Plan Study 3D/I EDUCATIONAL STUDY The educational study of the Little Rock School District was confined by the contract to those features of the buildings that support the educational process\nthe capacity of each school building and its utilization\nconsiderations of school size\nand the organization of the middle/junior high school grades. As a result of the condition survey, the impact of recommended school closures to attendance zones and ethnic composition were considered. Education and Facility Evaluations The educational facilities survey, examined each building relative to its mission to house and support the educational process. Utilizing a survey process tested for its effectiveness by use in a significant number of projects throughout the United States, building scoring was based on a 1000 point system to generally bracket the facilities into four groups. Group 1 consists of schools with a point value score of 900-1000 and relates to buildings which were highly satisfactory. Group 2 with a point value score of 700-900 relates to buildings that are generally acceptable but require further study of their component parts to establish a level of repair and updating required to meet policy and code standards. Group 3 with a point value score of 600-700 relate to buildings that are in substantial need of rehabilitation and upgrade. The final category. Group 4, with a point value score of 400-600 relates to buildings requiring a complete re-study of the facility before conclusions can be reached. Buildings with score values less than 400 are generally recommended for abandonment. A similar evaluation process based on a 1000 point score was conducted by the facility engineers and architects and addressed a subjective impression from the surveyors during the course of their examination of the building (Evaluation No. 1) as well as a weighted score based on the asset value measured in dollars required to correct the deficiencies found (Evaluation No. 2). The latter utilized the CSI cost format basis through the 16 divisions where the greater the cost and deficiency correction requirements, the lower the score. Both the educational and facility scores were then averaged to develop the rank order for elementary schools, junior high schools, and senior high schools. This rank order was one of the considerations in determining recommendations for school consolidations and alternate uses. While the evaluation guidelines were extensive, they are basically summarized as: Structural Features: Foundations, exterior walls, windows, roof (information supplied by LRSD), floor structure, interior walls, ceilings the operating plan, and appearance. Safety and circulation which included the type, condition, and location of stairs\ncorridors\nnumber of location of exits\nfire protection\nand general safety. Page 1Little Rock School District Facilities Master Plan Study 3D/I Mechanical Features: Air conditioning and heating (including type and condition of system)\nventilation system\ntemperature and ventilation efficiencies\nmechanical room\nand controls. Plumbing facilities\nToilet room adequacy and conditions\nwater facilities\ndrinking fountains\nindividual room installations\nshowers and special equipment. Electrical Services\nPower installation and control\ncommunication and _signal^ystem\n_alanns-and^t.Jjghts\n_genetai.and_special room installations\nand electrical safety. Illumination: Number and type of fixtures\nquality and quantity of illumination\ncontrols\nand effect. Educational Features\nadministrative spaces. Instructional rooms\nspecial rooms\ngeneral areas\nand Operational Features: Suitability for educational program\nflexibility\neconomy of effort (circulation, supervision, and access)\ngeneral and instructional storage\npupil lockers\nacoustical conditions\ncustodial facilities\nenergy systems\nand accommodations for the physically handicapped. Site: Adequacy and development\ndrainage, lighting, security, recreational equipment, and landscape. Tables ES-1 and ES-2 at the end of this tab provide ranking and evaluation score summaries for individual school buildings. Capacity The operating capacity and its dynamic nature of school buildings is often misunderstood when one considers the school room merely as a space. Factors that govern capacity are: regulatory, grade level, policy, and function. Each of these affect a given area and volume of space. A multi-purpose room, for example, would probably be too small to serve as a gymnasium (in both in area and volume) but too large to meet the needs of a classroom. A classroom space of a given size when functioning as a mathematics class could tolerate a larger capacity than if the same space were converted to a laboratory. A more subtle example is the same given space regulated by the grade level or special education requirements. Thus, the dynamics of classroom use can easily generate a different capacity from year-to-year depending on the program assignments. For the purposes of this study, the accepted procedure for developing a schools capacity begins with the determination of the number of pupil stations assigned in accordance with standards and policy to each and every classroom. Pupil stations occurring in portable/trailer facilities were subtracted from the total number of pupil stations recorded for each school. This procedure produced the number of permanent pupil stations that could be accommodated in the permanent components of the Page 2Little Rock School District Facilities Master Plan Study 3O/I building. The sum of the permanent pupil stations for any given building is then referred to as the buildings capacity. Adjustments have been made for those schools where the desegregation plan has established a maximum. The final step in establishing capacity is to apply the professionally-accepted efficiency percentage factors which provides a contingency. In elementary schools the factor is 95%, in junior and middle schools the factor is 90%, and in high schools the factor is 85%. This contingency factor provides a cushion for selective class placement. marginal overcrowding etc. inherently a part of the class section organization at enrollment Certain single-purpose areas do not contribute the number of total pupil stations. This is easily demonstrated in elementary schools where the student is counted once in the home room (by grade section), and his or her participation in special program areas such as music and auditoriums, libraries, gymnasiums etc. do not contribute to the schools capacity-neither do faculty nor administration spaces. In Forest Park Elementary, for example, there are 468 total pupil stations. Twenty-eight of these students attend classes in the two portable/trailers on site. Thus, the current number of permanent pupil stations is 440, and when factored at 95% the current operational capacity at Forest Park is 418 students. It is interesting to note that in 1994, enrollment was reported as 432 students, indicating the use of that contingency allowance by 14 students. (These students were accommodated in the portables/trailers.) The dynamics of marginal uses, as described, are often why portables/trailers are moved from school to school, as needed. In levels above the elementary school where full or partial departmental scheduling occurs, special program areas, laboratories, music areas, arts and crafts, etc. will add permanent pupil stations with the allowed capacity established by code or by policy. When departmental scheduling is used, each student is counted in each class during the seven period day. and schedules vary from student to student in grade sections. Table ES-3 provides the capacity analysis for elementary, junior high, and senior high schools and is located at the end of this tab. Utilization Space utilization is simply a record of a percentage of a classroom day that a particular classroom is in use. Experience has demonstrated that when space is in demand the optimum utilization of pupil stations can approach 85% in high schools, 90% in middle schools, and 95% in elementary schools which is termed operational capacity. Recognizing that LRSD is considering the formation of the middle school system, the capacity and utilization factors become important in the reuse of existing or construction of new facilities. Table ES-4 provides utilization ratios for existing facilities. Table ES-5 is the distribution of the M to M students based on the 1994 school year. With one exception (Martin Luther King) these reserved positions are assumed to be handled within the contingency utilization factor. Page 3Little Rock School District Facilities Master Plan Study 3DZI Schoc) Size ! I I I I I I 1 The number of individual school buildings needed in the Little Rock School District, is a direct result of the method used to organize grade levels and the desired size of schools in the elementary, junior high (or middle school), and the senior high schools. How big should any school be? This is an unresolved question that continues to be debated by planners. The optimum size for any specific school building will vary according to the programs offered, organization of grade levels, and the unique policies of the district. Other local factors to be considered in determining the size of school buildings include\ndensity of population, geography and availability of sites, and the cost of transportation. Local history and tradition will also have bearing on sizes of the separate school buildings. There is, however, general agreement among educators that a school building should be large enough to take advantage of operational economies, but should remain small enough to avoid an institutional atmosphere. There are definite improvements in educational efficiency and economy of operation as the size of school buildings increases to approximately 300 pupils. From 300 to 500 pupils, advantages of economy of operation tend to be offset by educational disadvantages, and beyond approximately 500, the disadvantages of large size become more apparent.^ Although educational opportunities may increase slightly in secondary schools with enrollments in excess of 800, there is little evidence of a further decrease in operational costs with building enrollments of more than 1000 students. Any further increase in size beyond this point may be offset by educational and psychological disadvantages. In an effort to combine the efficiency of operation found in large facilities with the advantages of a smaller atmosphere that enhances the learning environment, the concept of schools within schools is being developed. Almost every teacher believes that students perform better in smaller classes. As a result, parent groups and state legislatures are pushing for regulations that limit class size, especially in elementary schools. The ideal class size is probably around 20 pupils, although guidelines in some states allow for classes of up to 30. The impact on school design is clear Schools [the buildings] have to get bigger. ...One design response that shows promise is creating schools within schools,\" shaping smaller environments within larger institutions. Whether the architect does this by breaking down a school into various houses, each with its own identity and sometimes even its own entrance), or by some other means may be less important than the general response itself. The lesson is that design approaches do exist that can mitigate student's perception of size. A large school does not necessarily have to be a numbingly anonymous one. 2 ' 1994 Guide for Planning School Plants by the National Council on School Construction.  Ben E. Graves\nMcGraw-Hill, Inc., New York, 1993 Page 4Little Rock School District Facilities Master Plan Study 3D/I How large should the Little Rock schools be? The answer depends on the kind of school desired, the surrounding community, the age of the students, and a multitude of other considerations. The decision on the minimum and maximum sizes cf schools for LRSD should be supported by a district policy based on well-defined educational reasons, economic realities, and features unique to this district. With the fluid definition of what a school size should be described above, we are presenting three organizational structures for consideration. Tables 1, 2, and 3 display the number of school buildings that will be needed for various grade level organizations ..based-on_the4)rojected-enrQllments....Table-d-rafJects-thexurrent grade -organizations (PK-6: 7-9\nand 10 - 12), the Table 2 grade organization reflects a middle school with grades 7 and 8 (PK6\n78\nand 912), and the Table 3 grade organization presents a middle school with grades 6, 7, and 8 (PK-5\n6-8\nand 9-12). Projected enrollment figures are taken from Table 4. The category of ungraded in this table represents those students who are in special education or similar programs and who are not assigned to a specific grade. Tables 1, 2, and 3 have assigned these numbers to the appropriate schools levels. The tables emphasize the amount of excess space that exists in the Little Rock School District and implies, of course that some school consolidations need to be taken into account. The space needs will, of course, change as the maximum size of a school is either lowered or raised. In rating the Little Rock School District facilities. 13 of the elementary schools received good to excellent value scores of over 800. and Chicot (a new school) is scheduled to open soon and will be rated very high. Nine more elementary schools received scores of 750 - 800. These represent schools that are in good condition but need some attention. These 23 schools are presented on Table 5 but do not have adequate capacity to meet projected enrollment capacity. Table 6 lists 7 additional schools with average scores of 700 - 750 which require somewhat more attention. With the capacity added by these 7 schools, if fully utilized, will meet the projected enrollments beginning with the year 1996 and appear adequate when projected through 2005. These categories provide the district with 30 elementary schools that should provide a good educational environment with completion of the recommended capital program. Table 7 presents 6 elementary schools with value scores of less than 700 that have been recommended for closure or alternate use. Ish Elementary has been previously closed and is serving only as an interim facility to house students during the reconstruction of Chicot. A 7th anticipated closure would be Garland Elementary, even though the educational value score is relatively high. Neither facility scores nor the cost of improvements has been considered in preparation of these tables. This information is available elsewhere in this report. As the recommendatiori for consolidation of various schools is considered, factors that will impact decisions include: 1. The existing condition of the facility. Page 5Little Rock School District Facilities Master Plan Study 3D/1 i 2. Its ability to accommodate the desired enrollment and programs with minimal remodeling and addition of space. 3. The location of the site. It is apparent that the LRSD has a facility inventory that should be capable of adequately housing enrollments well into the next century, independent of the grade organization that may be selected. It is highly recommended that the grades for the young adolescent be organized into small units of 300 to 500.students.. .Even at a.large,school of 1000, this can be accomplished by organizing into smaller units with shared common spaces. One design innovation that accomplishes marrying the economy of a larger size with the desirability of the smaller school units consists of a single administrative core that houses office functions, cafeteria, auditorium, library, and gymnasium with separate annexes that will house the desired number of students. This strategy may be particularly appropriate for Little Rock School District and should be considered closely where, consolidations of existing schools or new construction is recommended. The high schools will present a challenge. The district will have to decide if it is feasible to keep five schools with an average enrollment of 1000 to 1200 students. If a maximum of three high schools is decided, average enrollments will be 1800 students by the year 2005. School Assignment The following tab Attendance Zones\" presents three scenarios dealing with optional attendance zone configurations. These options have each assumed the closure or alternate use of elementary schools set out in Table 7. In addition to the elementary schools, Mabelvale Jr. High School has been considered as a facility recommended for closure or alternate use. Impact of Middle School Organization The impact of District decisions relative to the organization of the middle school grade levels should be studied very carefully by grade section as the capacity of the remaining seven junior high schools are maximized under the middle school concept. This impact tends to create a condition of additional surplus capacity in the remaining elementary schools if the 6th grade is removed, but utilizes the junior high schools at their maximum capacity. If this concept is implemented, the closure of Mablevale may not be feasible without an added space to one or more of the remaining junior highs. Moving the 9th grade into the high school organization, on the other hand, appears to be very feasible due to the excess capacity available in the five senior high schools. A position paper on the feasibility of the middle school concept follows this section. Page 6December 21, 1994 Little Rock School District Second Quarter Comparison 1994-95 To 1995-96 Page 1 December 19, 1995 Difference Central HS** Fair HS Hall HS McClellan HS**_____ Parkview HS* Sub-Total w/o Magnets Cloverdale JH Dunbar JH** Forest Heights JH Henderson JH* * Mabelvale JH Mannjh* Pulaski Heights JH Southwest JH______ Sub-Total w/o Magnets u m m 1020 o I 535, 620! 266 646\n310 671 197 re  o Ik 61 38: 13 5 o o \u0026lt;0 m 422 341. 37 3379 1649 145 1606\n63.51% 892\n69.51% 994, 64.99% 881! 76.16% 800 52.75% 5173 65.32% e  5 1021 639' s I 530 222 o  0 'Tf 9 S o 2957 1308 108 4373 67.62% 5301 110 4641 204\n573[ 186| 7 11 647 i 81.92% 654! 210i 27 411  452 426 4981 613! 260) 44 741 159, 15! 444, 364! 40 3458 1535 155 1598 870 917 915 848 u w ffi 63.89% 73.45% 66.85% 80.98% 52.36% 5148 67.17% 3014 1171 115 4300 70.09% 1 3561 21 317! 1131 6 19 679 781  891  570 829 749 630' 68.34% 73.37% 73.40% 72.11% 54.52% 56.88% 79.05% 5421 4008 1648 120 5776 69.39% 3556 1292 99 4947! 71.88% 437 593 630 377 450 442 493 3964 77 281 164 143 129 377 325 80 1576 181 22 16' 21 ' 5| 22 10 17 131 637 740 773 794 511 849 777 590 85.09% 59.05% 76.71% 79.35% 73.78% 53.00% 56.89% 83.56% 5671! 69.90% 3514 1199 Badgett Bale Baseline Booker\" Brady Carver*______ Chicot_______ Cloverdale Dodd________ Fair Park Forest Park Franklin* Fulbright Carland* Ceyer Springs CIbbs*_______ Jefferson King-________ Mabelvale McDermott Meadowcllff Mitchell* Otter Creek Pulaski Heights Rightsell* Rockefeller Romine- Stephens* Terry vyakefield___ Washington - mtsojiyy Western Hills Wiiijam^ Wilsey Woodruff Special Schools 136' 2221 2361 48! 74 0 8 4 184! 73.91% 109 48221 72.87% 303, 235i 20i 254! 119\n14! 313^ 268\" UT 344 j 312! 189' 195' 122! 721 103i 8' 7 7 6  2051 2271 394' 244! 241 215' 158' 2151 287. 356! 247' 294 256 161 198' 224, 260 226 36 121 308 314 558 387 595 474 391 292 304 438 72.08% 75.16% 54.30% 65.63% 52.61% 72.57% 79.80% 64.73% 64.14% 46.80% 2901 TiT 9, 27! 69' 129\n2801 224, 133 226' 1151 61 191 198 A 123 69 7, 13 6 21 9 Zzl 1 i 4 8\n15 31 231. 307 329 70 431' 208, 325 205 249 269 140 15 96 216 80. 84 21' 4421 89.14% 555! 43.96% 277\n87.00% 291 300 501 532 73.86% 52.67% 42.91% 53.95% 176 240 248 321 246 324 346 387 188 211 203 415 254 238 243 42 79 69 253 118 287 92 57 86 54 222 16 256' 1 498! 71.49% 490! 50.41% 410[ 71.71% 266 360 411 96.24% 44.72% 48.18% 3! 2311 96.97% 74! 3971 65.49% T61 Closed 30' 15^ 27 10, 8, 10, 8 0, 311! 72.87% 5681 40.67% 414' 79.47% 666\n64.71% 431 j 75.41% 310! 66.13% 475 [ 52.42/? 358' 75.14% 232! 60.34% 36 41.67% Sub-Total w/o Magnets Grand Total w/o Magnets 8879 4723 405 14007 63.39% 7841 3854 348 12043 65.11% 16266 S020 670 24956 65.1S% 14354 6454 555 21363 67.19% 165 219' 289' 312' 262' 306' 250 137 209' 213' 25^ Wf 68 130' 28(r 252 123' 197' 91  5 188 207 4 126 2 22 6 31 25 19 12 10 7 8 8 14 10 18 7' 15 7 16 11  25 6' 2' 8! 2^ 6! 83] 18| Closed 244! 265! 25I 370[ 35 23' 419 372! 2111 264 3061 159! 17! 199 38! 73' 104! 7^ 00 2^ 3, 19! 13, \"8^ 0! 2201 80.00% 341 323 605 389 630 450 454 281 273 433 445 520 257 70.38% 76.78% 53.06% 63.24% 51.43% 76.89% 85.24% 66.90% 77.29% 46.88% 93.26% 48.85% 92.61% 3181 76.42% 310| 53.23% 5061 43.28% 5571 51.89% 446 484' 403 257 333' 432 223 402 312 534 428 656 453 69.96% 54.13% 75.93% 97.28% 41.14% 48.38% 95.52% 63.18% 67.63% 45.69% 86.45% 63.87% 82.12% 318, 66.35% 513- 51.46% 3821 80.10% 239\n66.53% 46! 36.96% 9229 4456 488, 14173 65.12% 8138 3527 404 12069 67.43% 16651 7567\n774 24992 66.63% 14666 5397  628 21191 69.21% Office of Student Assignment re 1 19 -33 70 22 79 57 12 -27 20 -24 -34 -2 16 -5 -44 -42 40 18 12 18 -8 11 2 75' -1  16' -2' 21  10 -3 28' 7' 4' 2' -44' 15' 12' -6' -24' 11  -11  -6 -15' 13| 41 -12 47 6 15 37 19 2 2 LU -5 -44 -50 -38 23 -114 -137 -33 77 -22 -67 -23 21 8 -33 -72 -93 -6 1 -5 18 -1 19 -30 -15 -10 -49 -5 -20 -34 -8 -1 1 0 28 -10 -29 -24 -1 -3 9 0 3 14 a JC -4 3 6 2 3 3 o re m -8 -22 -77 34 48 101 -25 71 -73 11 11 -6 -6 -2 1 4 -2 -10, 61 -8 -97 -59 20 28 -40 111-105 10 2 14 2 11 11 5 4 3 0 2 2 2 -11 -9 0 2 1 -51 2 8 5 -2 0 1 3 8 2 -125 36 33 ___9 47 2 35 -24 63 -11 -31 -5 3 -35 -20 27 10 5 25 -52 -6 -7 9 -27 21 -8 5 1 Closed -42 -35 -9 -23 7 14 -17 -12 8 -5 8 11 -34 14 -10 -21 22 -5 9 4 0 0 8 38 24 7 10 350 -267 83\n166 297 -3271 56, 26 385 [-453! 104! 36 0.38% 3.94% 1.86% 4.82% -0.39% 1.85% 2.47% 3.17% -9.28% 3.35% 5.94% 1.67% -1.52% 0.01% 4.51% 0.51% 0.99% 6.09% -1.70% 1.62% -1.24% -2.39% -1.18% 4.32% 5.45% 2.18% 13.14%  0.08%  4.12%  4.88%  5.60%  2.53%  0.56%  0.37%  -2.06%  -1.53%  3.72%  4.22% 1.04% \" -3.58%  0.20% _ -1.45% -2.31% -5.04% 5.02% 6.98% -0.84% 6.71% 0.22% -0.96% 4.97% 6.18% -4.71% 1.73% 2.32% 1.45% 3121-5571 731-172 2.02% * u n o. n O 1891 954 1291 1199! lOOOl * o n Q.  u -293 -84 -374 -284 -152 6335 -1187 5335\n-1035 868 812 858 907 614 850 745 737' 6391 5541, 257 401 390 656 467 613 558 492 328 351 399 434 540 298 328 353 492 728 515 517 465 298 351 374? 258! 469 487? 515 4921 836^ 492' 328 394 [ 324 -231 -72 -85 -113 -103 -1 32 -147 -720 -719 -37 -60 -67 -51 -78 ___[7 -108 -38 -47 -78 34 11 -20 -41 -10 -43 14 -171 -69 -33 -62 -41 -18 58 -35 -67 -175 19 -64 -180 -39 -10 -4 -12 -85 46 15717 -1544 13578 -1509 28443 -3451 24454 , -3263*5 LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT STRATEGIC PLAN 1996-2001 ADOPTED BY LRSD BOARD OF DIRECTORS NOV 16,1995 Mission Statement The mission of the LRSD is to equip all students with the skills and knowledge to realize their aspirations, think critically and independently, learn continuously and face the future as productive contributing citizens. This is accomplished through open access to a diverse, innovative and challenging curriculum in a secure environment with a staff dedicated to excellence and empowered with the trust and support of our community. Beliefs We believe....  All people have equal, inherent worth.  Every individual can learn.  Higher expectations coupled with effort stimulate higher levels of performance.  Attitude always influences behavior.  All citizens share the responsibility to ensure that quality education is available to the children of our community.  Excellence in education and fairness for all (equity) are both compatible and inseparable.  The family is a primary influence on the development of a child.  Educated and involved citizens are necessary to sustain the health of a democracy.  Accepting and utilizing cultural and racial diversity enrich and strengthen the community.  Education can enhance every aspect of a person's life.  With every right comes a responsibility.  Actions speak louder than words.  Self-worth allows each individual to aspire to excellence and develop his/her unique capabilities.  Every individual is responsible for contributing to the general welfare of the community. Objectives  By the year 2001, average student performance for every identified sub group (race, gender) will be at or above the 75th percentile as measured by standardized tests.  No later than the year 2001, no fewer than 9 out of 10 students will meet or exceed LRSD standards of performance identified in the core curriculum.  Each student will set and achieve challenging educational goals tailored to his or her interests, abilities and aspirations related to meaningful work, higher learning, citizenship or service to others.Parameters *  No new program or service will be accepted unless it is consistent with the Strategic Plan, benefits clearly exceed costs, and provisions are made for staff development and program evaluation.  No program or service will be retained unless benefits continue to exceed cost and it continues to make an optimal contribution to the mission.  School-based decision making will always be consistent with the Strategic Plan as well as the Desegregation Plan.  We will not tolerate behavior that diminishes the dignity or self-worth of any individual.  We will maintain a positive fund balance in the operating budget  We will not tolerate ineffective performance by any employee. * Contractual items will be subject to negotiation. Strategies  In partnership with our community, we will establish standards in the core curriculum (reading/language arts, mathematics, science, and social studies) at each appropriate level, as well as develop the means of assessing whether students have met these standards.  We will develop the means to successfully implement or modify the Desegregation Plan in order to achieve unitary status as well as the objectives in the Strategic Plan.  We will develop and implement a broad range of alternatives and interventions for students scoring below the 50th percentile on standardized tests or who are at serious risk of not achieving district standards in the core curriculum.  We will design and implement internal and external communication plans to improve public trust and community support  We will build strong partnerships with other community agencies and orgariizations to address external issues that are interfering with our students' learning.  We will develop and implement personnel policies and procedures to ensure all employees are making optimal contributions to our mission and objectives.  We will design a comprehensive staff development system to best achieve the mission and objectives in the Strategic Plan.  We will construct a delivery system that allows us to plan and implement individualized educational goals for all LRSD students that does not predetermine or limit options at an early age.  We will develop and implement plans to establish financial stability and achieve the strategic objectives of the district  We will develop and implement plans to restore public confidence in the safety and security of our schools.  We will integrate appropriate technology to help achieve our objectives, as well as effectively operate the district.  We will redesign our educational system, its organizational structure and decisionmaking processes to best achieve the mission and objectives of the Strategic Plan. (No action team necessary, due to dependency on the other strategies.)DRAFT/UNOFFICIAL k Little Rock School District 1996-97 Budget Planning Worksheet as of January 17, 1996 BEGINNING FUND BALANCE(7/1/96) $ 1,270,000 REVENUES: Local Sources County Sources State Sources-Settlement Funds States Sources-other Other Sources-Bond Transfer Fd Other Sources-other $71,860,000 $ $ 70,000 683,000 $50,609,000 $ 1,000,000 1,280,000 $125,502,000 EXPENSES: Salaries Benefit Plans Materials \u0026amp; Supplies- Other Purchased Services Bus Contract Capital Outlay-Ex Buses New Special Ed. Buses Other Objects Debt Service $73,710,000 $22,250,000 $20,734,000 $ $ $ $ s. 416,000 2,000,000 375,000 5,349,000 7,574,000 ($132,408,000) NET LOSS IS. 5,636,000) DEFICIT BEFORE ADDITIONAL ITEMS Potential Additional Revenue Sources: Re-appraisal (Dec) Millage Increase Deseg Loan Settlement Draw ($ 5,636,000) $ ??? ??? 3,500,000 Potential Additional Expenses: Payroll Step Increases Payroll Structure Increase 1996-97 Business Cases (NET) Desired Ending Fund Balance NET POSITIVE BALANCE/LOSS REDUCTION Options to Balance Budget: Educational Programs Reductions School Facilities Reconfiguration Non School Level Program/Personnel Reductions Optimize Student/Staff Ratios BALANCED BUDGET (State law requires LRSD to have a balanced budget.) OVER ($ ($ ($ $ 1 1,600,000) 0 200,000) 1,000,000) 4,936,000) ??? ??? ??? ??? 0Document format prepared by Van N. Light. Data taken from 1/17/96 financial documents given to Financial Advisory Committee members and to Dr. Williams and LRSD Board. The Best Guess Scenario figures are used in this document.BUILDING INFORMATION Little Rock School District - Facilities Master Plan Study School Name Mifekiel I Street Address RECBfVBO Surveyor Site Size Date acres AUG 2 1999 Permanent Buildings Building Identification Building Identification Building Identification Building Identification Building Identification Building Identification Firs l AddiTirm OFFICE OF DESEGREGATION MONITORING Gross Square Footage Gross Square Footagei Year Constructed Year Constructed Portable Buildings Building Id. Building Id. Building Id. Building Id. Building Id. Building Id. Building Id. Building Id. L7I Condition Codes: c? dlOt.^^firooryi CouPcTer i Gross Squ^e Footage Gross Square Footage Gross Square Footage Gross Square Footage Gross Square Footage Gross Square Footage Gross Square Footage Gross Square Footage Gross Square Footage Gross Square Footage Gross Square Footage Gross Square Footage 4 - good. 3 - fair, 2 - poor, I - dead Year Constructed Year Constructed Year Constructed Year Constructed 'o+clI 900 195 3 59 J 30 a Year Constructed Year Constructed Year Constructed Year Constructed Year Constructed Year Constructed Year Constructed Year Constructed Number of Rooms Number of Rooms Number of Rooms Number of Rooms Number of Rooms Number of Rooms Number of Rooms Number of Rooms SB Condition Condition Condition Condition Condition Condition Condition ConditionI Little Rock School District Facilities Master Plan 3D/I I Facility Summary I I School Address Area Site Capacity Central High School 1500 South Park Street 266,823 SF 16.5 Acres 2256 Pupil Stations I f 1 Summary: Central High School was originally constructed in 1926, with the additions of: Quigley Stadium in 1937, the field house in 1950, dressing rooms in 1965, the library in 1969, and the choral room in 1973. Central High School is listed as a National Historic Landmark Building and is a uniquely imposing structure. The interior functioning plan, however, is complex and in places lacks the quality and finesse that the exterior holds. This building does not appear to have been well maintained, particularly in the mechanical areas. \u0026lt;f Due to the magnitude of the physical plant, surveyors approached the Central High School complex in four separate categories: Main Building, Library, Gymnasium, and Quigley Stadium. The evaluation of this facility placed Central High School fifth among the five high schools surveyed. 3 fl Main Building The most urgent needs and the greatest amount money are in the main instructional building. Surveyors found general deterioration of all plaster walls and ceilings, particularly on exterior walls where through-wall moisture seepage occurs. Renovation and repair work includes: removal and replacement of windows including reflashing and sealing, repair and replacement of plaster, new acoustical ceilings, replacement of hardware, repair and replacement of plumbing fixtures and equipment, replace fire alarm system, provide temperature control system. Also, an extensive replacement of fan-coil units, air handling unit bearings and pulleys, new exhaust fans and duct work, and cleaning the existing ductwork system to alleviate air quality concerns are needed. fl fl fl Page 52 I 3 Little Rock School District Facilities Master Plan 3D/I fl fl General refurbishment of all interior surfaces is required. In addition, life safety code requirements need addressing in corridors and stairwells as well as the addition of an elevator system for handicapped access to the various levels of this building. fl fl fl 0 fl fl fl Library Renovation work in this area includes repair of plaster, painting of interior surfaces, replacement of lighting fixtures, new toilet partitions and accessories, replacement of the fire alarm system, and the addition of exit lighting. The exterior of the building needs to be spray washed, and cleaning and pointing of brick work is required. Gymnasium Renovation of the gymnasium includes: repair/replacement of hardware, replacement of toilet partitions and accessories, resealing floor drains, replacement of showers, replacement of fire alarm system. Replacement of lights in locker room, new heating^ ventilating, and air conditioning throughout, as appropriate in this structure, and a general upgrade of interior finishes is needed. Quigley Stadium Renovations include: repair of plaster walls\nnew toilet partitions and accessories: fl replacement of plumbing fixtures and equipment\nreplacement and refinishing of lockers\nreplace, reflash, and reseal windows\nreplacement of overhead doors\nand general refurbishment if interior surfaces and materials in finished spaces as c appropriate, needed. Repainting brackets and replacing seat boards at stadium are also fl The exterior work associated with this building requires replacement of barbed wire fencing, replacement of running track along with new curb, and spray washing all exterior surfaces along with repairing concrete walls. Page 53 I Little Rock School District Facilities Master Plan 3D/I I I I General Conditions Generally, restrooms are inadequate, classrooms vary in size and are rated poor to fair, music is in the basement, science facilities need upgrading to be state-of-the-art, faculty rooms are small and disbursed, traffic and parking conditions are poor, tennis courts are not useable, and the wooden structure previously used as the Tiger Den needs to be removed. Boiler capacity, producing steam, is currently oversized to produce domestic hot water and should be reviewed for a more cost efficient method using hot water and point of source heaters. I I The last-place ranking of this facility indicates the extent of work required, which when completed, may not serve the district as a high school of the 1990s. Priority #5includes expensive retrofitting of this fine old structure with over a half-million dollars for technology updates. With the history of this building, its current outstanding academic reputation, and its landmark status, regardless of its rating, closure is not an option. For purposes of this report, a complete renovation continuing its current mission is recommended. f A unique alternate use, however, could well be the establishment of Little Rocks first community college. With this use, history would be preserved, and the building, which now requires extensive supervision could be renovated for a more mature student base and adult education programs. A second alternative would be a super magnet high school for accelerated programs and adult continuing education opportunities. I Based on these observations, renovation and improvements are recommended to update this facility to acceptable standards and architectural study is recommended to solve code and engineering problems. H II I Bitt i ran - t* \u0026lt; '\u0026lt;^91 Page 54I I I 1 I 1 I I a Little Rock School District Facilities Master Plan 3D/I FauulLy improvements and deficiency corrections have been prioritized and are summarized in this volume under the tab Cost Factors as well as complete details in Priority summaries are as follows: Facility subsequent volumes under the school tab. Main Building Priority #1 Priority #2 Priority #3 Priority #4 Priority #5 Total (without escalation) $2,942,332 $922,092 $172,319 $ -0- $753,466 $4,790,209 Library Priority #1 Priority #2 Priority #3 Priority #4 Priority #5 Total (without escalation) $51,905 $10,158 $3,618 $ -0 - $135,580 $201,263 Gymnasium Priority #1 Priority #2 Priority #3 Priority #4 Priority #5 Total (without escalation) $77,225 $172,597 $7,328 $33,467 $ -0- $290,617 Quigley Stadium Priority #1 Priority #2 Priority #3 Priority #4 Priority #5 Total (without escalation) $153,017 $69,536 $162,128 $ -0- $96,948 $481,629 Total Central High School Property Priority #1 Priority #2 Priority #3 Priority #4 Priority #5 $3,224,480 $1,174,383 $345,393 $33,467 $985,994 Total (without escalation) $5,763,718 Page 55 IOffice 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 \u0026gt;371-0100 March 12, 1996 Douglas C. Eaton Director Facility Services Department Little Rock School District 810 West Markham Little Rock, AR 72201 Dear Doug: I recently received the supplement to the LRSD Facilities Master Plan Study Executive Summary, and my review has left me with some questions regarding the capacity figures used in the study. I hope you can help me with an explanation or definition of some terms, as they are used in the study. My questions and the areas for which I need further clarification are outlined below. If you could send me a response, in writing, I would not only be better informed, but I could also file your explanations with our copy of the study. This should ensure more accurate interpretation of the data. Questions regarding the LRSD capacity figures used in the Facilities Master Plan Study\nHow do you define \"pupil stations\" as used in the 3DI study? What does the term \"current operational capacity mean in the 3DI study? Please explain how the two differ. The terms capacity and pupil stations are used synonymously in Volume I of the executive summary, but they seem to differ in Table ES-3 of the update. What causes this discrepancy? Explain the step-by-step procedures used by 3DI to calculate capacity for each LRSD school. Thank you for assistance in explaining the study. Sincerely, Melissa Guldin Associate MonitorOffice 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) 3710100 March 12, 1996 Douglas C. Eaton Director Facility Services Department Little Rock School District 810 West Markham Little Rock, AR 72201 Dear Doug: I recently recived 'the supplement to the LRSD Facilities Master Plan Study Executive Summary, and my review has left me with some questions regarding the capacity figures used in the study. I hope you can help me with an explanation or definition of some terms, as they are used in the study. My questions and the areas for which I need further clarification are outlined below. If you could send me a response, in writing, I would not only be better informed, but I could also file your explanations with our copy of the study. This should ensure more accurate interpretation of the data. Questions regarding the LRSD capacity figures used in the Facilities Master Plan Study: How do you define \"pupil stations\" as used in the 3DI study? What does the term \"current operational capacity\" mean in the 3DI study? Please explain how the two differ. The terms capacity and pupil stations are used synonymously in Volume I of the executive summary, but they seem to differ in Table ES-3 of the update. What causes this discrepancy? Explain the step-by-step procedures used by 3DI to calculate capacity for each LRSD school. Thank you for assistance in explaining the study. Sincerely, Melissa Guldin Associate MonitorMEMORANDUM Date: March 6, 1996 From: Polly and Melissa To: Ann Subject: LRSD Capacity Figures After reviewing the desegregation plan, the 1995-96 capacity figures furnished by Russ Mayo, Volume I of the Facilities Study, and Table ES-3 in the LRSD Facilities Master Plan Study Supplement to the Executive Summary, we find that we need more information before attempting to draw any conclusions regarding the various capacity figures. When we compared the figures in the various reports, we did not find constant capacity figures for individual schools. Even the figures furnished by 3DI in the update do not match the original figures in Volume 1. Below is a list of questions promoted by these reports. We can address these issues in a letter to Doug Eaton, or perhaps the new LRSD Citizens Desegregation Committee will be seeking this information as it delves into desegregation issues. If you want us to pursue these queries further, just let us know. Question regarding LRSD capacity figures used in the Facilities Master Plan: How do you define \"pupil stations\" as the term is used in the 3DI study? What does the term \"current operational capacity\" mean in the 3DI study? Explain how the two differ. The terms capacity and pupil stations are used synonymously in Volume I of the executive study, but they seem to differ in Table ES-3 of the update. What causes this discrepancy? Explain the step-by-step procedures used by 3DI to calculate capacity for each LRSD school.Date: March 6, 1996 From: Polly and Melissa MEMORANDUM To: Ann Subject: LRSD Capacity Figures After reviewing the desegregation plan, the 1995-96 capacity figures furnished by Russ Mayo, Volume I of the Facilities Study, and Table ES-3 in the LRSD Facilities Master Plan Study Supplement to the Executive Summary, we find that we need more information before attempting to draw any conclusions regarding the various capacity figures. When we compared the figures in the various reports, we did not find constant capacity figures for individual schools. Even the figures furnished by 3DI in the update do not match the original figures in Volume 1. Below is a list of questions promoted by these reports. We can address these issues in a letter to Doug Eaton, or perhaps the new LRSD Citizens Desegregation Committee will be seeking this information as it delves into desegregation issues. If you want us to pursue these queries further, just let us know. Question regarding LRSD capacity figures used in the Facilities Master Plan: How do you define \"pupil stations\" as the term is used in the 3DI study? What does the term \"current operational capacity\" mean in the 3DI study? Explain how the two differ. The terms capacity and pupil stations are used synonymously in Volume I of the executive study, but they seem to differ in Table ES-3 of the update. What causes this discrepancy? Explain the step-by-step procedures used by 3DI to calculate capacity for each LRSD school.IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKTINSAS WESTERN DIVISION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT PLAINTIFF V. LR-C-82-866 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, ET AL RECEJVE9 FEB 2 9 1996 DEFENDANTS MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL INTERVENORS KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL Office of Desegregaiion Monttonnjjj-jjipgRvgjjoRs NOTICE OF FILING The Little Rock School District hereby gives notice of the filing of the attached \"Little Rock School District Facilities Master Plan Study Supplement to Executive Summary. II ( frlej I'n /i krar 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 Helled Bar No. 81083 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I certify that a copy of the foregoing Notice of Filing has been served on the following people by depositing copy of same in the United States mail on this 28th day of February 1996: Mr. John Walker JOHN WALKER, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72206 Mr. Sam Jones WRIGHT, LINDSEY \u0026amp; JENNINGS 2200 Worthen Bank Bldg. 200 West Capitol Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Steve Jones JACK, LYON \u0026amp; JONES, P.A. 3400 Capitol Towers Capitol \u0026amp; Broadway Streets Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Richard Roachell Roachell and Streett First Federal Plaza 401 West Capitol, Suite 504 Little Rock, AR 72201 Ms. Ann Brown Desegregation Monitor Heritage West Bldg., Suite 510 201 East Markham Street Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Timothy G. Gauger Office of the Attorney General 323 Center Street 200 Tower Building Little Rock, AR 72201 Christopher Heller k.i K j'! h '1' C .1 02^^ 20 lO\n002 I I* \u0026lt; I i V I i! !i 'f' :! ri' DATE j TO\n) 't 't .  I FROM j REi : t 1. UJ- : i .  fi t!  i FA.X 'i:U: I  \u0026gt;1 \n :jFelirjaMy M 4916 -' .j\nblKiSWts .S?tip^Cos(taiitt^ . IVafibahu W.tZ^ l0|c|ttar, Pl^tibe ItHy Ctmv^ittae !i- H At the ^10 resthted^ oM chip^ * Emoa 4H tinuttjutho I J b 'I\ng: I: il :l\nio 'fl ylt 4:' facitilBW'  1 I Se*ac4\u0026gt;fti I i1ions Input tor Facilities Stu4\\' Cowt^e r 4s- r Li4^:|Mf^ti*.^Wedi \\ FetMiMwy 14. 1996, the cenwuittee 4ediM| t|e WsIb a to-|:feiar fttnnat, one chair from tl commulaty sn4 j : f rifloteri ah a cOChair representing the crwninurtty end EMka S*tt)) 4*9 ico-chpir: \" |1 k^ottsil vemether *li 7)..  s i :iton op P ?hruary 14th, a tacditatoT t* to be ideatiiikd aMd } UibeMeiupttig I omnuttee goais^ scope, decisitn dnwiin* and J d tpc^ons wt re compiled at this meeting \"htey ant eddoswliflp 1 WWfross or cjonoctOns. These queationi wU be giwo to du I ip: I f ' ill , l#i .':  .!i iI v-  i j\ni 1 4.  *r Hi !ill\". !}Si5 Hi, each P * i Kill .11 |o the assB^ance oi'a facilitator for a timiaed time ad aaa.\nI-cootd nude )tV. ill , ., ill\n\" 111 hi- MDsm^i^ are .at ateelRHl^hy the a fiWfcodi WMs!Mj*kddatBJjf,J!rre^^rMnf0rs^T 1199^^ ihh. : ibid ^iOwdaP tirne, i sti4gi|it0w3 wbe re^wJM T^i^M ost 2 comnuiiee workshops uf up to (br howi* j of rhe week I contacted as aruay of ypu aa t j ivatKe of this memo Two suggeatHicfi have btm :ince we are asiur^ candidates to votontm llmhi|i bees fvth|a ly \u0026lt;*ll Ifue provide a short proHk One sU sug^estimBt haste [diB by loti er/phone/fax with nwnes and jjtroffles. Vou toil ice and/or express concern about a candidate li 'll cot Ttwnk \"t^ fia!}\ni^qr MjR'hot mgotlited: IritDtui.r.^.!- -a--a---d. aa iL .  . :S . tor the tupi isBOfts but help us to formulate or \u0026gt; i w?e inenbera to make theHet isioiM \" 3 t . 111 iiil ai o* *ip0rt \ni\n! I /  1 ft I' I  I V : !:  fl- I 1 i .ihi I I . r  i . 1 t. i .1 i if ! I t i ir! i t ii:\n !i it 11.: I I i\n5 f f 1  : 1 ! S !  i I i '* I i\n) ( i : ! i' 'i t -\ni\nI '5 J' I ) I 1 r 1 i It : Tt i 10 003 ] 1 I a:  I'' I : J FACauimiESfCOMMlTTEE :j, Il tiM Diitritt {.  t 15 CritSfialjOtiestioBs i! , (' J . Ui it 1 i i\nI I. 2 3, ' 1.  ' I I -, ' IWI lit 'acqatej^o^tb# nw il^isiung i^l to (amjhsee isei fbtth a planing framework for itself with goals Ii0 i'  1' ' \u0026gt; ! i' 1 1 I 4. 5 6 7.  8 SiJ^ici and members J |ll^ ^|lg tejweb ofltnt il*M a\nbix)| district within committee. '5^ s0tt(^ autioommti 9 ! j . H\n! 10 11 i 12 15. illf 14. 15 16 i nr : \u0026lt; :es'? ti|b\u0026lt;{!9t|n4itt|e.' eeanpoqttm] and ntembers- n^0to.! iQiiiun tfcoifaosiities study as a piece to begin decision inakisig? 3iiil iitwke a  fesentaboii ') flidwidiejfc^^ a jwt iM'ihty stutfy within aonimatec. ^felsinw^-lQcliaii:' ^ntifijed schools within recoiTMTiBBdationB get  i j(io mJ cototifcuiiictlrtt interoaty witbm the committee ajd with and Oli i? I Qi W?\nH 11 i 1 ' f t j . i !  I! i !( J\nU I  t '1 I 1\nV' 1 i- ii 1 goit^ t\u0026amp; aMhbMmica^e cirnimritee decisions Io tie gca} pst#^? '' ' i I'' i J'--\n.-- 1{ I - '* I '! I ( ). 1 1 I I I J .L': I ,1 ! ! I !\u0026lt; i! 1 f 1 ill 1 i I J Il ri 'iiiT I'liirrii wiiiwii.-WJroirTtliiiM/' ' r\u0026lt;i.\\\u0026lt;^l''' \"\u0026gt;  1 ?. . uR^D RDMirL BULDING '\"J..-. J^' Fax:1-501-32^-2052 Jan 12 06 16:42 i's*  ' Little Rock School District Media Advisory P.02/02- . jlft 7, ^5 January 12,1995 For more information: Suellen Vann, 324-2020 ^Members of the Little Rock School District (LRSD) Facilities Study Committee will hold a community forum Saturday. Januan-13, 1995. The discussion will focus on the status of the LRSD facilities study and how the studys recommendations will impact local schools. The meeting will be held at 10:00 a.m. at the Adult Leisure Center, 6401 West 12th Street. ao' '3*1-.J ( 1 Media Note: Little Kock School Board members have been invited to this event. A special meeting situation exists if more than one Little R(x:k School Board member attends the same meeting. i7^ I- . i-' \u0026lt;\u0026gt; 4*-'' .'lO .RSUR.J\u0026gt;!n 810 West Markliain Street  Little Rock.,Arkansas 72201  (501)824-2000 UUBt. I3IQ (p a PUBLIC Office Ft- j J 1996 I Oesegfegation f^oiiiteimg SCHOOLS at the CROSSROADS Sponsored By: Outreach Subcommittee, LRSD Facilities Study Committee 5,000 Vacant Seats ! Income Cut Millions ! YOU will decide Its YOUR tax dollar and YOUR vote! a Leam More - Invite a Speaker to YOUR civic club, business, church, etc. Call Kathy Wells, 374-7269, Nancy Lowe, 666-2061, Bob Hightower, 664-7724, Charles Johnson, 565-5715, fax 565-5395, Rohn Muse, 663-3368September 26, 1995 Little Rock School District News Release For more information: Suellen Varm, 324-2020 LRSD Facilities Study Completed The comprehensive facilities study ordered by the Little Rock School District (LRSD) Board of Directors has been completed. The study Is critical In determining the future needs of the school district and the best allocation of resources to meet those needs. The facilities study focused on four main components: 1. Assessment of facilities and the cost of Implementation of recommendations\n2. Assessment of demographic changes In populations and enrollment: 3. Analysis of all school capacities with current and projected utilization\nand, 4. Consideration of the Implications of the desegregation plan. The study firm (3/D International) visited and studied conditions In every school building. Demographic data, student enrollment/assignment Information, policies, and financial Information were gathered and included In the study. Several recommendations were developed, with one of the recommendations consisting of three options. These options relate to utilizing existing facilities, closing some schools. (more) 810 West Markham Street  Little Rock, Arkansas 72201  (501)824-2000LRSD Facilities Study Page 2 of 3 expanding some schools, building new schools, and redrawing school attendance zones. The recommendations are: 1. Establish a preventive maintenance program. 2. Establish a capital program through the sale of bonds supported by a millage Increase. 3. Develop a database of school-aged children In the district which Is maintained on an annual basis. 4. Appeal to the court for unitary status based on continuing the quality of education supported by Improved, equitable facilities. 5. Close seven elementary schools and one Junior high school along with four additional elementary schools slated for alternate uses by the district and community. Select one of three options, all of which consist of closure or expansion of existing schools and construction of new facilities. Option M - maintains current attendance zone boundaries with minor modifications. Option T - recommends aligning the current attendance blocks and current and new schools Into a zoning system aligned with federal census tracts. Option C - recommends new attendance zones based on a corridor approach. This would allow students to attend an elementary school within a reasonable distance from their homes and reduce the burden of busing. 6. Implement Option C based on considerations of the school experience for children, more favorable opportunity for parent participation, development of community Identities, diminished burden of busing, least expense to the district, and lowest cost to the public. 7. Notwithstanding recommendation 6, form a committee to consider each option and effect the one which best serves the children of Little Rock. (more)LRSD Faculties Study Page 3 of 3 8. 9. Take Initiatives to reverse decreasing enrollment pattern. Also, form committee to plan for use of closed facilities. Encourage a group of business leaders and other citizens to become Involved In the activities of the district In Its guidance of the education process and policies and continue the development of community awareness. The LRSD Board of Directors will discuss the facilities study findings at Its monthly meeting on Thursday, September 28, 1995. The meeting will be held at 6:00 p.m. In the Board Room of the LRSD Administration Building at 810 West Markham. ###LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT FACILITIES STUDY Data Drawn from Study Prepared by 3D/ International - August 30,1995 - by Outreach Subcommittee of the LRSD Facilities Study Com. Those proposed to be closed are marked with a C - Those proposed to be re-used for other purposes are marked with an R School Renovation Cost Sq.Ft. Cost Sq.Ft. of School #of Classrms. Value Score Anl. Oper. Budget Excess Seats #of Students Elem. Sch. Badgett Bale Baseline Booker Brady Carver Chicot Cloverdale D. O. Dodd Fair Park-C Forest Park Franklin Fulbright Garland- C Geyer Spgs. Gibbs Ish-C Jefferson-C M.L. King. McDennott Mabelvale-R Meadowcliff-R Mitchell-C Otter Creek Pulaski Hgts.-R Rightsell-R Rockefeller Romine Terry Wakefield-C Washington Watson Western Hills Williams Wilson-R Woodruff-C $ 666,504 1,200,466 1,111,915 892,564 476,919 378,889 28.48 35.70 22.04 11.98 13.15 6.14 Total ELEM. 481,989 954,119 714,626 752,687 1,845,175 484,019 1,373,658 321,017 215,003 656,776 1,814,531 239,042 689,136 1,568,674 1,138,095 579,516 674,313 1,389,146 645,652 399,444 1,660,421 498,742 1,238,092 313,822 937,532 850,067 723,963 933,698 212,098 14.49 20.43 24.76 23.58 26.94 7.24 35.56 7.68 5.77 20.65 41.67 3.19 14.35 28.23 30.82 14.78 18.45 23.85 17.16 6.19 39.24 11.01 33.11 3.49 17.41 20.24 15.34 25.18 5.58 23,404 33,626 50,455 74,430 36,259 61,695 59,687 33,263 46,712 28,867 31,914 68,500 66,892 38,632 41,780 37,237 31,802 43,546 75,000 48,020 55,568 36,931 39,200 36,551 58,252 37,630 64,561 42,314 45,312 37,395 89,800 53,846 41,991 47,200 37,075 38,000 14 21 Open 38 24 31 Open 18 Open 12 19 42 26 25 17 18 22 23 38 25 28 25 15 20 21 19 30 28 26 23 46 25 21 25 24 23 Acceptable Acceptable Acceptable Acceptable Acceptable Acceptable $ 704,527 1,081,655 972,972 2,342,801 1,147,571 2,134,430 $29,032,310 Acceptable Acceptable Needs repair Acceptable Acceptable Acceptable Needs repair Acceptable Acceptable Needs repair Needs repair Highly Satisf. Acceptable Acceptable Acceptable Needs repair Acceptable Acceptable Acceptable Acceptable Acceptable Acceptable Needs repair Highly Satisf. Acceptable Acceptable Acceptable Acceptable Needs repair 1,107,190 916,524 924,020 1,130,600 1,838,099 1,544,004 1,246,993 823,012 1,320,131 1,572,822 1,437,864 1,773,977 1,322,150 1,343,716 1,144,114 1,242,719 938,437 1,004,237 1,029,820 1,955,387 1,364,597 1,363,947 1,178,781 2,258,943 1,202,740 926,227 1,873,461 1,159,664 735,334 42 26 74 68 37 10 20 42 71 58 -2 29 23 15 21 48 -57 83 16 53 37 11 8 -40 35 23 86 -33 111 95 64 23 27 76 73 210 347 327 604 394 629 452 453 294 270 435 431 518 255 310 307 0 501 531 487 460 400 257 339 406 219 406 302 536 429 656 444 315 508 384 254LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT FACILITIES STUDY Data Drawn From Study Prepared by 3D/ International - August 30,1995 - by Outreach Subcommittee Of LRSD Facilities Study Com. Those proposed to be closed are marked with a C - Those proposed to be re-used for other purposes are marked with an R School Renovation Sq.Ft. Cost Cost Sq.Ft. of School #of Classrms. Value Score Anl. Oper. Budget Excess Seats #of Students High Sch. Central Hall Parkview J. A. Fair McClellan $ 5,763,718 2,182,064 837,872 1,725,309 3,489,032 $21.60 14.32 5.03 13.11 29.46 266,826 152,340 166,477 131,628 118,425 111 59 61 49 48 Needs Repair Acceptable Acceptable Acceptable Acceptable $ 4,998,321 3,233,040 3,678,656 3,041,886 3,366,982 615 354 191 289 260 1,591 928 855 905 904 Vo-Tech Sch. Metropolitan 3,488,367 26.93 129,546 55 Acceptable 1,334,595 0 Jr. High Cloverdale Dunbar Forest Hgts. Henderson Mabelvale-C Mann Pulaski Hgts. Southwest 687,389 3,855,668 2,410,310 845,431 2,263,241 1,414,500 1,620,183 1,483,632 8.39 38.79 34.37 8.19 37.73 12.52 22.13 17.88 81,894 99,397 70,137 103,212 59,981 113,013 73,216 82,968 37 41 35 51 27 51 36 44 Acceptable Needs repair Acceptable Needs repair Poor Needs repair Needs repair Needs repair 1,957,408 2,287,694 2,464,108 3,049,193 2,162,579 3,264,881 2,323,492 2,133,841 353 339 488 304 152 90 184 361 609 732 759 792 491 847 781 612 Alt. Learn. A. L. Ctr. 1,183,270 17.88 37,360 27 Poor 445,144 Admin. Admin. Bldg. Annex Cashion Transportn. Plant Serv. Purchasing Security 597,648 539,715 117,330 247,707 498,984 272,004 387,874 22.31 20.54 18.28 11.84 23.85 45.33 19.89 26,790 26,273 6,418 20,914 20,914 6,000 19,500 Subtotal Elem. Total Other Grand Total 35,911,178 29,032,310 15,111,221 (Roofs, Asbestos Removal, Disability Facilities, Inflation factor) $ 80,054,709 5,255School Elem. Sch. Badgett Bale Baseline Booker Brady Carver Chicot Cloverdale D. O. Dodd Fair Park-C Forest Park Franklin Fulbright Garland- C Geyer Spgs. Gibbs Ish-C Jefferson-C M.L. King. McDermott Mabelvale-R Meadowcliff-R Mitchell-C Otter Creek Pulaski Hgts.-R Rightsell-R Rockefeller Romine Terry Wakefield-C Washington Watson Western Hills Williams Wilson-R Woodniff-C LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT FACILITIES STUDY Data Drawn from Study Prepared by 3D/ International - August 30,1995 - by Outreach Subcommittee of the LRSD Facilities Study Com. Those proposed to be closed are marked with a C - Those proposed to be re-used for other purposes are marked with an R Attendance Zone Population: % White % Black Today Today % White Option M % Black Option M % White Option T % Black Option T % White Option C % Black Option C 35 35 27 65 65 73 36 35 24 64 65 76 27 15 73 85 18 36 44 82 64 56 53 47 56 44 98 02 85 15 30 15 45 46 66 05 70 85 55 54 34 95 30 15 45 70 85 55 42 26 41 58 74 59 19 17 49 81 83 51 62 05 38 95 97 08 03 92 72 07 28 93 55 08 21 45 92 79 56 22 44 78 91 22 09 78 89 22 11 78 58 01 64 32 35 03 68 42 99 36 68 65 97 32 01 48 33 36 69 99 52 67 64 19 93 81 07 24 83 46 76 17 54 31 80 20 82 18 73 05 11 08 71 21 02 20 39 27 95 89 92 29 79 98 80 61 75 04 11 08 59 25 96 89 92 41 68 04 23 87 32 96 77 13 41 41 59 59 03 21 39 97 79 61 02 21 47 98 79 53 04 13 15 82 21 13 05 32 96 87 85 18 79 87 95 68 42 58LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT FACILITIES STUDY Data Drawn from Study Prepared by 3D/ International - August 30,1995 - by Outreach Subcommittee of the LRSD Facilities Study Com. Those proposed to be closed are marked with a C - Those proposed to be re-used for other purposes are marked with an R School Attendance Zone Population: % White % Black Today Today % White Option M % Black Option M % White Option T % Black Option T % White Option C % Black Option C High Sch. Central Hall Parkview J. A. Fair McClellan 36 43 64 57 30 44 70 56 30 44 70 56 30 44 70 56 31 19 69 81 33 26 67 74 33 26 67 74 33 26 67 74 Vo-Tech Sch. Metropolitan Jr. High Cloverdale Dunbar Forest Hgts. Henderson Mabelvale-C Mann Pulaski Hgts. Southwest 16 19 36 27 43 32 84 81 64 73 21 20 28 28 79 80 72 72 21 20 28 28 79 80 72 72 21 20 28 28 79 80 72 72 57 68 44 37 56 63 44 37 56 63 44 37 56 63 Alt. Learn. A. L. Ctr.Little Rock School District Facilities Master Plan Study 3D/I ENROLLMENT ANALYSIS 1995 COMPARISON OF JR. vs MIDDLE SCHOOLS LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT Table ES-8 (95) TYPE OF SCHOOL ENROLL OPTIONS NO HIGH SCHOOLS 1 CENTRAL 2 HALL 3 PARKVIEW 4 J,A,FAIR 5 McClellan TOTAL HIGH SCHOOLS TOTAL OPTION #1 6TH-BTH * PK enroll capety delta OPTION #2 7TH-8TH enroll capcty delta OPTIONS P1 4 #2 k-8TH.12 enroll capcty delta 1591 928 855 905 904 5183 45 17 18 15 20 115 ASSUMPTIONS 2172 1286 1149 1216 1202 7026 2256 1389 991 1206 1157 6999 1. If 85% factor is deleted capacity is adequate 83 103 -158 -10 -45 -27 VOCATIONAL TECHNICAL SCHOOL 1 METROPOLITAN TOTALVTS 0 2. If the 151 deduct, is removed from Parkview capacity, capacity exists in all buildings and overall factor = 83,8% 3. Indications are that middle school is possible by 1996 4. 9th grade has been prorated to % of building capacity (all assumptions do not consider class choice loading) JUNIOR HIGH SCHOOLS 1 CLOVERDALE 2 DUNBAR 3 FOREST HEIGHTS 4 HENDERSON 5 MABELVALE 6 MANN MAGNET 7 PULASKI HEIGHTS 8 SOUTHWEST TOTAL JR HIGH SCHOOLS 609 732 759 792 491 847 781 612 5623 652 742 745 770 579 829 805 658 5,778 1000 1046 1268 1221 737 935 955 971 8,134 348 304 523 452 158 107 150 313 2,356 391 485 463 486 309 572 538 387 3,631 1000 1046 1268 1221 737 935 955 971 8,134 609 561 805 735 428 363 417 584 4,503 Table ES-8 Page 1 of 2Little Rock School District Facilities Master Plan Study 3D/1 ^ENROLLMENT ANALYSIS 1995 COMPARISON OF JR. vs MIDDLE SCHOOLS LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT Table ES-8 (95) TYPE OF SCHOOL ENROLL OPTIONS #1\u0026amp; NO ELEMENTARY SCHOOLS TOTAL PK OPTION #1 6TH-8TH enroll capcty delta OPTION #2 7TH-8TH enroll capcty delta OPTIONS #1 \u0026amp;ta k-9TH-12 enroll capcty delta 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 BADGETT BALE BASELINE BOOKER MAGNET BRADY CARVER MAGNET CHICOT CLOVERDALE DAVID O DODD 10 FAIR PARK 11 FOREST PARK 12 FRANKLIN 13 FULBRIGHT 14 GARLAND 15 GEYER SPRINGS 16 GIBBS MAGNET 17 ISH 18 JEFFERSON 19 MARTIN L KING 19 McDermott 20 MABELVALE 21 MEADOWCLIFF 22 MITCHELL 23 OTTER CREEK 24 PULASKI HEIGHTS 25 RIGHTSELL 26 ROCKEFELLER 27 ROMINE 28 TERRY 29 WAKEFIELD 30 WASHINGTON 31 WATSON 32 WESTERN HILLS 33 WILLIAMS 34 WILSON 35 WOODRUFF 36 ALTERNATE LEARNING CNTR TOTAL ELEMENTARY \"210 i 347 327 604 394 629 452 453 294 270 435 431 518 255 310 307 0 501 531 487 460 400 257 339 406 219 406 302 536 429 656 444 315 508 384 254 0 14070 184 293 284 509 343 528 372 407 228 243 382 379 429 210 267 262 0 418 483 413 396 351 213 283 355 199 372 260 454 368 565 396 276 436 319 232 0 12111 18 41 37 95 44 101 58 45 50 27 53 40 82 38 43 45 0 74 48 74 55 49 34 56 51 20 34 32 82 61 87 46 39 72 44 22 0 1797 219 335 400 641 f 445 - 598 523 434 0 369 350 430 472 565 297 I 321 I 341 459 634 510 527 448 283 367 380 264  426 409 526 524 782 491 340 501 421 316 0 1S350 35 ' 42 : 116 I 132 102 I 70 , 151 I 27 -228 126 -32 51 43 355 30 59 . 341 41 151 97 131 97 70 84 25 65 54 149 72 156 217 93 64 65 102 84 0 3239 No of schools| 29 25 TOTAL ALL SCHOOLS] 24,876 Table ES-8 Page 2 of 2Little Rock School District Facilities Master Plan Study 3D/I EDUCATIONAL STUDY The educational study of the Little Rock School District was confined by the contract to those features of the buildings that support the educational process\nthe capacity of each school building and its utilization\nconsiderations of school size\nand the organization of the middle/junior high school grades. As a result of the condition survey, the impact of recommended school closures to attendance zones and ethnic composition were considered. Education and Facility Evaluations The educational facilities survey, examined each building relative to its mission to house and support the educational process. Utilizing a survey process tested for its effectiveness by use in a significant number of projects throughout the United States, building scoring was based on a 1000 point system to generally bracket the facilities into four groups. Group 1 consists of schools with a point value score of 900-1000 and relates to buildings which were highly satisfactory. Group 2 with a point value score of 700-900 relates to buildings that are generally acceptable but require further study of their component parts to establish a level of repair and updating required to meet policy and code standards. Group 3 with a point value score of 600-700 relate to buildings that are in substantial need of rehabilitation and upgrade. The final category. Group 4, with a point value score of 400-600 relates to buildings requiring a complete re-study of the facility before conclusions can be reached. Buildings with score values less than 400 are generally recommended for abandonment. A similar evaluation process based on a 1000 point score was conducted by the facility engineers and architects and addressed a subjective impression from the surveyors during the course of their examination of the building (Evaluation No. 1) as well as a weighted score based on the asset value measured in dollars required to correct the deficiencies found (Evaluation No. 2). The latter utilized the CSI cost format basis through the 16 divisions where the greater the cost and deficiency correction requirements, the lower the score. Both the educational and facility scores were then averaged to develop the rank order for elementary schools, junior high schools, and senior high schools. This rank order was one of the considerations in determining recommendations for school consolidations and alternate uses. While the evaluation guidelines were extensive, they are basically summarized as: Structural Features: Foundations, exterior walls, windows, roof (information supplied by LRSD), floor structure, interior walls, ceilings the operating plan, and appearance. Safety and circulation which included the type, condition, and location of stairs\ncorridors\nnumber of location of exits\nfire protection\nand general safety. Page 1Little Rock School District Facilities Master Plan Study 3D/I Mechanical Features\nAir conditioning and heating (including type and condition of system)\nventilation system\ntemperature and ventilation efficiencies\nmechanical room\nand controls. Plumbing facilities: Toilet room adequacy and conditions\nwater facilities\ndrinking fountains\nindividual room installations\nshowers and special equipment. Electrical Services: Power installation and control\ncommunication and _signal^ystem\n_alarms-and-exit.Jights\n_geneEaJ-and-special room installations\nand electrical safety. Illumination: Number and type of fixtures\nquality and quantity of illumination\ncontrols\nand effect. Educational Features: administrative spaces. Instructional rooms\nspecial rooms\ngeneral areas\nand Operational Features: Suitability for educational program\nflexibility\neconomy of effort (circulation, supervision, and access)\ngeneral and instructional storage\npupil lockers\nacoustical conditions\ncustodial facilities\nenergy systems\nand accommodations for the physically handicapped. Site: Adequacy and development: drainage, lighting, security, recreational equipment, and landscape. Tables ES-1 and ES-2 at the end of this tab provide ranking and evaluation score summaries for individual school buildings. Capacity The operating capacity and its dynamic nature of school buildings is often misunderstood when one considers the school room merely as a space. Factors that govern capacity are: regulatory, grade level, policy, and function. Each of these affect a given area and volume of space. A multi-purpose room, for example, would probably be too small to serve as a gymnasium (in both in area and volume) but too large to meet the needs of a classroom. A classroom space of a given size when functioning as a mathematics class could tolerate a larger capacity than if the same space were converted to a laboratory. A more subtle example is the same given space regulated by the grade level or special education requirements. Thus, the dynamics of classroom use can easily generate a different capacity from year-to-year depending on the program assignments. For the purposes of this study, the accepted procedure for developing a school's capacity begins with the determination of the number of pupil stations assigned in accordance with standards and policy to each and every classroom. Pupil stations occurring in portable/trailer facilities were subtracted from the total number of pupil stations recorded for each school. This procedure produced the number of permanent pupil stations that could be accommodated in the permanent components of the Page 2Little Rock School District Facilities Master Plan Study 3D/I building. The sum of the permanent pupil stations for any given building is then referred to as the buildings capacity. Adjustments have been made for those schools where the desegregation plan has established a maximum. The final step in establishing capacity is to apply the professionally-accepted efficiency percentage factors which provides a contingency. In elementary schools the factor is 95%, in junior and middle schools the factor is 90%, and in high schools the factor is 85%. This contingency factor provides a cushion for selective class placement, marginal overcrowding etc. inherently a part of the class section organization at enrollment Certain single-purpose areas do not contribute the number of total pupil stations. This is easily demonstrated in elementary schools where the student is counted once in the home room (by grade section), and his or her participation in special program areas such as music and auditoriums, libraries, gymnasiums etc. do not contribute to the schools capacity-neither do faculty nor administration spaces. In Forest Park Elementary, for example, there are 468 total pupil stations. Twenty-eight of these students attend classes in the two portable/trailers on site. Thus, the current number of permanent pupil stations is 440, and when factored at 95% the current operational capacity at Forest Park is 418 students. It is interesting to note that in 1994, enrollment was reported as 432 students, indicating the use of that contingency allowance by 14 students. (These students were accommodated in the portables/trailers.) The dynamics of marginal uses, as described, are often why portables/trailers are moved from school to school, as needed. In levels above the elementary school where full or partial departmental scheduling occurs, special program areas, laboratories, music areas, arts and crafts, etc. will add permanent pupil stations with the allowed capacity established by code or by policy. When departmental scheduling is used, each student is counted in each class during the seven period day, and schedules vary from student to student in grade sections. Table ES-3 provides the capacity analysis for elementary, junior high, and senior high schools and is located at the end of this tab. Utilization Space utilization is simply a record of a percentage of a classroom day that a particular classroom is in use. Experience has demonstrated that when space is in demand the optimum utilization of pupil stations can approach 85% in high schools, 90% in middle schools, and 95% in elementary schools which is termed operational capacity. Recognizing that LRSD is considering the formation of the middle school system, the capacity and utilization factors become important in the reuse of existing or constnjction of new facilities. Table ES-4 provides utilization ratios for existing facilities. Table ES-5 is the distribution of the M to M students based on the 1994 school year. With one exception (Martin Luther King) these reserved positions are assumed to be handled within the contingency utilization factor. Page 3Little Rock School District Facilities Master Plan Study 3D/I Schoci Size 1 The number of individual school buildings needed in the Little Rock School District, is a direct result of the method used to organize grade levels and the desired size of schools in the elementary, junior high (or middle school), and the senior high schools. How big should any school be? This is an unresolved question that continues to be debated by planners. The optimum size for any specific school building will vary according to the programs offered, organization of grade levels, and the unique policies of the district. Other local factors to be considered in determining the size of school buildings include\ndensity of population, geography and availability of sites, and the cost of transportation. Local history and tradition will also have bearing on sizes of the separate school buildings. There is, however, general agreement among educators that a school building should be large enough to take advantage of operational economies, but should remain small enough to avoid an institutional atmosphere. There are definite improvements in educational efficiency and economy of operation as the size of school buildings increases to approximately 300 pupils. From 300 to 500 pupils, advantages of economy of operation tend to be offset by educational disadvantages, and beyond approximately 500, the disadvantages of large size become more apparent.  Although educational opportunities may increase slightly in secondary schools with enrollments in excess of 800, there is little evidence of a further decrease in operational costs with building enrollments of more than 1000 students. Any further increase in size beyond this point may be offset by educational and psychological disadvantages. In an effort to combine the efficiency of operation found in large facilities with the advantages of a smaller atmosphere that enhances the learning environment, the concept of schools within schools is being developed. Almost every teacher believes that students perform better in smaller classes. As a result, parent groups and state legislatures are pushing for regulations that limit class size, especially in elementary schools. The ideal class size is probably around 20 pupils, although guidelines in some states allow for c/asses of up to 30. The impact on school design is clear Schools [the buildings] have to get bigger. ...One design response that shows promise is creating schools within schools, shaping smaller environments within larger institutions. Whether the architect does this by breaking down a school into various houses,\" each with its own identity and sometimes even its own entrance), or by some other means may be less important than the general response itself. student's perception of size. The lesson is that design approaches do exist that can mitigate numbingly anonymous one. A large school does not necessarily have to be a 2 ' 1994 Guide for Planning School Plants by the National Council on School Construction. 2 Ben E. Graves\nMcGraw-Hill, Inc., New York, 1993 Page 4Little Rock School District Facilities Master Plan Study 3D/I How large should the Little Rock schools be? The answer depends on the kind of school desired, the surrounding community, the age of the students, and a multitude of other considerations. The decision on the minimum and maximum sizes of schools for LRSD should be supported by a district policy based on well-defined educational reasons, economic realities, and features unique to this district. With the fluid definition of what a school size should be described above, we are presenting three organizational structures for consideration. Tables 1, 2, and 3 display the number of school buildings that will be needed for various grade level organizations ..based-on_the-projected_enrQllments..- Table.d jBflects-tbe-current grade -organizations {PK-6\n7-9\nand 10 - 12), the Table 2 grade organization reflects a middle school with grades 7 and 8 (PK-6\n7-8\nand 9-12), and the Table 3 grade organization presents a middle school with grades 6, 7, and 8 (PK-5\n6-8\nand 9-12). Projected enrollment figures are taken from Table 4. The category of ungraded in this table represents those students who are in special education or similar programs and who are not assigned to a specific grade. Tables 1, 2, and 3 have assigned these numbers to the appropriate schools levels. The tables emphasize the amount of excess space that exists in the Little Rock School District and implies, of course that some school consolidations need to be taken into account. The space needs will, of course, change as the maximum size of a school is either lowered or raised. In rating the Little Rock School District facilities, 13 of the elementary schools received good to excellent value scores of over 800, and Chicot (a new school) is scheduled to open soon and will be rated very high. Nine more elementary schools received scores of 750 - 800. These represent schools that are in good condition but need some attention. These 23 schools are presented on Table 5 but do not have adequate capacity to meet projected enrollment capacity. Table 6 lists 7 additional schools with average scores of 700 - 750 which require somewhat more attention. With the capacity added by these 7 schools, if fully utilized, will meet the projected enrollments beginning with the year 1996 and appear adequate when projected through 2005. These categories provide the district with 30 elementary schools that should provide a good educational environment with completion of the recommended capital program. Table 7 presents 6 elementary schools with value scores of less than 700 that have been recommended for closure or alternate use. Ish Elementary has been previously closed and is serving only as an interim facility to house students during the reconstruction of Chicot. A 7th anticipated closure would be Garland Elementary, even though the educational value score is relatively high. Neither facility scores nor the cost of improvements has been considered in preparation of these tables. This information is available elsewhere in this report. As the recommendation for consolidation of various schools is considered, factors that will impact decisions include\n1. The existing condition of the facility. Page 5Little Rock School District Facilities Master Plan Study 3D/I 1 I 2. Its ability to accommodate the desired enrollment and programs with minimal remodeling and addition of space. 3. The location of the site. It is apparent that the LRSD has a facility inventory that should be capable of adequately housing enrollments well into the next century, independent of the grade organization that may be selected. It is highly recommended that the grades for the young adolescent be organized into small units of 300 to 500 students. .Even at a.large .school of 1000, this can be accomplished by organizing into smaller units with shared common spaces. One design innovation that accomplishes marrying the economy of a larger size with the desirability of the smaller school units consists of a single administrative core that houses office functions, cafeteria, auditorium, library, and gymnasium with separate annexes that will house the desired number of students. This strategy may be particularly appropriate for Little Rock School District and should be considered closely where, consolidations of existing schools or new construction is recommended. The high schools will present a challenge. The district will have to decide if it is feasible to keep five schools with an average enrollment of 1000 to 1200 students. If a maximum of three high schools is decided, average enrollments will be 1800 students by the year 2005. School Assignment The following tab Attendance Zones presents three scenarios dealing with optional attendance zone configurations. These options have each assumed the closure or alternate use of elementary schools set out in Table 7. In addition to the elementary schools. Mabelvale Jr. High School has been considered as a facility recommended for closure or alternate use. impact of Middle School Organization The impact of District decisions relative to the organization of the middle school grade levels should be studied very carefully by grade section as the capacity of the remaining seven junior high schools are maximized under the middle school concept. This impact tends to create a condition of additional surplus capacity in the remaining elementary schools if the 6th grade is removed, but utilizes the junior high schools at their maximum capacity. If this concept is implemented, the closure of Mablevale may not be feasible without an added space to one or more of the remaining junior highs. Moving the 9th grade into the high school organization, on the other hand, appears to be very feasible due to the excess capacity available in the five senior high schools. A position paper on the feasibility of the middle school concept follows this section. Page 6December 21,1994 re m 3 Little Rock School District Second Quarter Comparison 1994-95 To 1995-96 December 19,1995 Difference Page 1 Central HS\" Fair HS Hall HS McClellan HS** Parkview HS* Sub-Total w/o Magnets Cloverdale JH DunbarJH** Forest Heights JH Henderson jh* * Mabelvale JH MannJH* Pulaski Heights jh southwest JH Sub-Total w/o Magnets 1Q2O[ 5351 620\n266 6461 310' 671! 197 O \"sT 6' 38' 13! a o re CD 422! 3411 37 3379! 1649 145 2957 1308 108 16061 63.51% 892 i 69.51% 9941 64.99% 881! 76.16% 800 ! 52.75% Badgett Bale Baseline Booker* Brady carver* Chicot Cloverdale Dodd Fair Park Forest Park Franklin* Fulbright Carland* Ceyer Springs Gibbs* Jefferson king- Mabelvale McDermott Meadowcliff Mitchell* Otter Creek Pulaski Heights Rightsell* Rockefeller* Romine ~ Stephens* Terry Wakefield Washington - Watson Wes^rr^^is____ Williams* Wilson Woodruff_____ Special Schools Sub-Total w/o Magnets Grand Total w/o Magnets 530 464 573 654 411 452 426 498 4008 3556 136 222 236 303 254' 313 344 312 189 195 205 394 244 241 215 I 1101 204 186' 210 152 356 317 7 11 22 27 7 21 6 HTa 19 1648 120 5173 4373 647 679 781 891 570 829 749 630 65.32% 67.62% 81.92% 68.34% 73.37% 73.40% 72.11% 54.52% 56.88% 79.05% o (B m 1021 639 613 741 444 3458 o I 530 222 260 159, 364 1535 0  6 47 9 a o 1292! 991 4947 5776! 69.39% i 44! 15 40 isT 30141 11711 115 158^ 215 287 48 78 74 235 119 2681 122 72 96 103' 227 36 290 9' 69' 129 280' 0 8 4 20 14 14 8 7 7 6 6 12 21 27 7 13 6 184 308 314 558 387 71.88% 73.91% 72.08% 75.16% 54.30% 65.63% 5951 52.61% 224! 21 3561 133: 2471 226i 294 256' 1^ 115! 6! 191! 198! 198 224! 226 4! 123 69, 231! 307 329! 70 9 474 391 292 304 438 442 555 277 291 300 501 532 498 490 410 72.57% 79.80% 64.73% 64.14% 46.80% 89.14% 43.96% 87.00% 73.88% 52.67% 42.91% 53.95% 71.49% 50.41% 71.71% 4, 8 15 3: 16! Closed 30! 15 266! 96.24% 3601 44.72% 411 231 397 311 48.18% 96.97% 65.49% 72.67% 5421 437 593 630 377 450 442 493 3964 3514 176 240 248 321 246 324 346 387 188 211 203 415 254 238 243 165 219 289 312 262 306 250 137 209 213 254 211 77 281 164 143 129 377 325 80 18 22 16 21 5 22 10 17 1598 870 917 915 848 5148 4300 637 740 773 794 511 849 777 590 (0 m 63.89% 73.45% 66.85% 80.98% 52.36% 67.17% 70.09% 85.09% 59.05% 76.71% 79.35% 73.78% 53.00% 56.89% 83.56% 431! 208! 27 325. 205! 96! 97 249i 216 269! 140 15 80, 84, 21\" 10! 8: 10 9 8\n568! 40.67% 414! 79.47% 666! 64.71% 431 : 75.41% 3101 66.13% 475 52.42% 358 , 75.14% 232 60.34% 36 41.67% 244 370 1576 131 1199 109 5671 69.90% 8879 4723 405 14007 63.39% 7841 3854 348 12043 65.11% 16266 8020 670 24956 1 65.1% 14354 6454 I 555,21363 67.19% 42 79 69 253 118 287 92 57 86 54 222 16 256 1 68 130 280 252 123 197 91 5 188 207 4 126 83 265 35 199 73 2 22 6 31 25 19 12 10 7 8 8 14 10 18 7 15 7 16 11 25 6 2 8 16 6 22 18 4822 220 341 323 605 389 630 450 454 281 273 433 445 520 257 318 310 506 72.87% 80.00% 70.38% 76.78% 53.06% 63.24% 51.43% 76.89% 85.24% 66.90% 77.29% 46.88% 93.26% 48.85% 92.61% 76.42% 53.23% 43.28% 5571 51.89% 446 484 403 257 333 432 69.96% 54.13% 75.93% 97.28% 41.14% 48.38% 223 i 95.52% 402I 63.18% 312! 67.63% X o re =\u0026amp; 1 19 -33 70 22 79 57 12 -27 20 -24 -34 -2 16 -5 -44 -42 40 18 12 18 -8 11 2 75 -1 16 -2 21 10 -3 28 7 4 2 -44 15 12 -6 -24 11 -11 -6 -15 o A -5 -44 -50 -38 23 -114 -137 -33 77 -22 -67 -23 21 8 -33 -72 -93 -6 1 -5 18 -1 19 -30 -15 -10 -49 -5 -20 -34  -8 -1 1 0 28 -10 -29 -24 -1 -3 9 0 J 14 e -4 3 6 2 3 10 a o o n m -8 -22 -77 34 48 -25 7\\ -73 11 11 -6 -6 -2 1 4 -2 11 10 2 14 2 11 11 5 4 3 0 2 2 2 -11 -9 ~0 2 1 -5 2 8 5 -2 0 T 3 8 2 -10 61 -8 -97 -59 20 28 -40 -105 -125 36 33 9 47 2 35 -24 63 -11 -31 -5 3 -35 -20 27 10 5 25 -52, -6' -9 -27 21 -8 5 1 0.38% 3.94% 1.86% 4.82% -0.39% 1.85% 2.47% 3.17% -9.28% 3.35% 5.94% 1.67% -1.52% 0.01% 4.51% 0.51% 0.99% 6.09% -1.70% 1.62% -1.24% -2.39% -1.18% 4.32% 5.45% 2.18% 13.14% 0.08% 4.12% 4.88% 5.60% 2.53% 0.56% 0.37% -2.06% -1.53% 3.72% 4.22% 1.04% -3.58% 0.20% -1.45% -2.31% -5.04% o \u0026lt;0 a o . 18911 954' 1291 ' 1199' 1000' * o n Q. (0 _S2. -293 -84 -374 -284 -152 63351 -1187 53351 -1035 868 812 858 w Tu 850 745, 737 6391 5541 257 401 390 656 467 613 558 492 328 351 399 434 540 298 328 353 492 728 515 517 465 298 351 374 258 469 487 -231 -72 -85 -113 -103 -1 32 -147 -720 -719 -37 -60 -67 -51 -78 17 -108 -38 -47 -78 34 11 -20 -41 -10 -43 14 -171 -69 -33 -62 -41 -18 58 -35 -67 -175 Closed -51 -34 8 14 Closed 251 231 38! 8: 419' '37^ 2111 31 264, 230i 19\n3061 159! 17 104! 63! 721 2^ 13 8' 0 534 428 656 453 45.69% 86.45% 63.87% 82.12% 318: 66.35% 513 51.46% 3821 80.10% 239! 66.53% 46! 36.96% 13 41 -12 47 6 15 37 19 2 -42 -35 -9 -23 7 14 -17 -12 8 11 -2 -5 9 4 0 0 -10 22 8 38 24 7 10 9229 4456 488 14173 65.12% 8138 3527 404 12069 67.43% 16651,7567\n774 24992 66.63% 14666 ! 5897 628 21191 ! 69.21% 350!-267 83! 166 297!-327! 56! 26 385[-453!104! 36 312!-557 ! 731-172 5.02% 6.98% -0.84% 6.71% 0.22% -0.96% 4.97% 6.18% -4.71% 1.73% 2.32% 3.45% 2.02% 515 492 836 492 328 517 394 324 19 -64 -180 -39 -10 -4 -12 -85 46 15717 -1544 13578 -1509 28443 -3451 24454 -3263 Office of Student Assignment5 LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT STRATEGIC PLAN 1996-2001 ADOPTED BY LRSD BOARD OF DIRECTORS NOV 16,1995 Mission Statement The mission of the LRSD is to equip all students with the skills and knowledge to realize their aspirations, think critically and independently, learn continuously and face the future as productive contributing citizens. This is accomplished through open access to a diverse, innovative and challenging curriculum in a secure environment with a staff dedicated to excellence and empowered with the trust and support of our community. Beliefs We believe....  All people have equal, inherent worth.  Every individual can learn.  Higher expectations coupled with effort stimulate higher levels of performance.  Attitude always influences behavior.  All citizens share the responsibility to ensure that quality education is available to the children of our community.  Excellence in education and fairness for all (equity) are both compatible and inseparable.  The family is a primary influence on the development of a child.  Educated and involved citizens are necessary to sustain the health of a democracy.  Accepting and utilizing cultural and racial diversity enrich and strengthen the community.  Education can enhance every aspect of a person's life.  With every right comes a responsibility.  Actions speak louder than words.  Self-worth allows each individual to aspire to excellence and develop his/her unique capabilities.  Every individual is responsible for contributing to the general welfare of the community. Objectives  By the year 2001, average student performance for every identified sub group (race, gender) will be at or above the 75th percentile as measured by standardized tests.  No later than the year 2001, no fewer than 9 out of 10 students will meet or exceed LRSD standards of performance identified in the core curriculum.  Each student will set and achieve challenging educational goals tailored to his or her interests, abilities and aspirations related to meaningful work, higher learning, citizenship or service to others.Parameters  No new program or service will be accepted unless it is consistent with the Strategic Plan, benefits clearly exceed costs, and provisions are made for staff development and program evaluation.  No program or service will be retained unless benefits continue to exceed cost and it continues to make an optimal contribution to the mission.  School-based decision making will always be consistent with the Strategic Plan as well as the Desegregation Plan.  We will not tolerate behavior that diminishes the dignity or self-worth of any individual.  We will maintain a positive fund balance in the operating budget  We will not tolerate ineffective performance by any employee. * Contractual items will be subject to negotiation. Strategies  In partnership with our community, we will establish standards in the core curriculum (reading/language arts, mathematics, science, and social studies) at each appropriate level, as well as develop the means of assessing whether students have met these standards.  We will develop the means to successfully implement or modify the Desegregation Plan in order to achieve unitary status as well as the objectives in the Strategic Plan.  We will develop and implement a broad range of alternatives and interventions for students scoring below the 50th percentile on standardized tests or who are at serious risk of not achieving district standards in the core curriculum.  We will design and implement internal and external communication plans to improve public trust and community support  We will build strong partnerships with other commuruty agencies and organizations to address external issues that are interfering with our students' learning.  We will develop and implement personnel policies and procedures to ensure all employees are making optimal contributions to our mission and objectives.  We will design a comprehensive staff development system to best achieve the mission and objectives in the Strategic Plan.  We will construct a delivery system that allows us to plan and implement individualized educational goals for all LRSD students that does not predetermine or limit options at an early age.  We will develop and implement plans to establish financial stability and achieve the strategic objectives of the district  We will develop and implement plans to restore public confidence in the safety and security of our schools.  We will integrate appropriate technology to help achieve our objectives, as well as effectively operate the district  We will redesign our educational system, its organizational structure and decision- making processes to best achieve the mission and objectives of the Strategic Plan. (No action team necessary, due to dependency on the other strategies.)11/07/95 13:32 501 324 2023 LRSD COMMUNICATI ODM 002/002 I k i 1 i Little Rock School District News Release SPECIAL BOARD MEETING I I November 1,1995 11\n45 a.m. For more information\nDina Teague, 324-2020 Li t I LE ROCK ~ The Little Rock School District Board of Directors will hold a special board meeting this evening at 5:30 p.m. to review the facilities study recently prepared by 3/D International. Currently there are no other items on tonight's agenda. t The meeting will be held in the board room of the administration building at 810 W. Markham. I I I t I 1 ### I  1 ! i tRECEIVED SEP 7 1995 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION Office of Desegregation Monitoring LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT PLAINTIFF V. LR-C-82-866 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, ET AL DEFENDANTS MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL INTERVENORS KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL INTERVENORS NOTICE OF FILING The Little Rock School District hereby gives notice of the filing of the Little Rock School District Facilities Master Plan Study Executive Summary and the Little Rock School District Facilities Master Plan Study Demographic Survey. i 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 Hei Bar No. 81083 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I certify that a copy of the foregoing Notice of Filing has been served on the following people by depositing copy of same in the United States mail on this 26th day of September 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 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 2Mr. Timothy G. Gauger Office of the Attorney General 323 Center Street 200 Tower Building Little Rock, AR 72201 ristopher Helle: 2 Office of Desegregation Monitoring United States District Court  Eastern District of Arkansas Ann S. Brown. Federal Monitor 201 East Markham, Suite 510 Heritage West Building Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 (501) 376-6200 Fax (501) 371 -0100 Date\nSeptember 11, 1995 To: Hank Williams From: Brown Subject: LRSD Facilities Study In both written and oral representations to the Court, the LRSD Facilities Study was scheduled for completion by August 31, 1995. Please forward a copy of the completed study to me. If the study is not yet finished, please let me know the firm completion date. Thank you very much.-  -LRSD ADMIN. BULDING Fax:1-501-324-2032 Sep 26 95 16:28 P. 02/04 W September 26, 1995 Little Rock School District New* Release For more Information\nSuellen Vann, 324-2020 LRSD PaciUtles Study Completed The comprehensive facilities study ordered by the Little Rock School District (LRSD) Board of Directors has been completed. The study Is critical In determining the future needs of the school district and the best allocation of resources to meet those needs. The facilities study focused on four main components: 1. Assessment of facilities and the cost of implementation of recommendations\n2. Assessment of demographic changes in populations and enrollment\n3. Analysis of all school capacities with current and projected utilization: and. 4. Consideration of the Implications of the desegregation plan. The study flrm (3/D International) visited and studied conditions In every school building. Demographic data, student enrollment/asslgnment Information, policies, and financial information were gathered and Included in the study. Several recommendations were developed, with one of the recommendations consisting of three options. These options relate to utilizing existing facilities, closing some schools. (more) 810 West Markham Street  Little Rock, Arkanena 73301  (501)334-3000-  LRSD ADMIN. BULDING Fax:1-501-324-2032 Sep 26 95 16:29 P.03/04 LRSD Facilities Study Page 2 of 3 expanding some schools, building new schools, and redrawing school attendance zones. The recommendations are: 1. Establish a preventive maintenance program. 2. 3. Establish a capital program through the sale of bonds supported by a millage increase. Develop a database of school-aged children In the district which Is maintained on an annual basis. 4. Appeal to the court for unitary status based on continuing the quality of education supported by Improved, equitable facilities. 5. Close seven elementary schools and one Junior high school along with four additional elementary schools slated for alternate uses by the district and community. Select one of three options, aU of which consist of closure or expansion of existing schools and construction of new facilities. Option M - maintains current attendance zone boundaries with minor modlflcatlons. Option T - recommends aligning the current attendance blocks and current and new schools Into a zoning system aligned with federal census tracts. Option C  recommends new attendance zones based on a corridor approach. This would allow students to attend an elementary school within a reasonable distance from their homes and reduce the burden of busing. 6. Implement Option C based on considerations of the school experience for children, more favorable opportunity for parent participation, development of community identities. diminished burden of busing, least expense to the district, and lowest cost to the public. 7. Notwithstanding recommendation 6, form a committee to consider each option and effect the one which best serves the children of Little Rock. (more). . LRSD ADMIN. BULLING Fax:1-501-324-2032 Sep 26 95 16:29 P.04/04 LRSD Facilities Stuify Page 3 of 3 8. 9. Take Initiatives to reverse decreasing enrollment pattern. Also, form committee to plan for use of closed facilities. Encourage a group of business leaders and other citizens to become Involved In the activities of the district in its guidance of the education process and policies and continue the development of community awareness. The LRSD Board of Directors will discuss the facilities study findings at Its monthly meeting on Thursday. September 28. 1995. The meeting will be held at 6:00 p.m. In the Board Room of the LRSD Administration Building at 810 West Markham. ###LRSD ADMIN. BULDING Fax:1-501-324-2032 Jul 24 95 9:48 P.02/02 ECEHB Little Rock School District News Release July 24, 1995 For more information: Suellen Vann, 324-2020 Consultants for the Little Rock School District (LRSD) are completing work on a comprehensive long-range facilities study. The firm, 3/D International, has been working for six months on the study which is designed to provide recommendations for school buildings and building locations. This fall 3/D International will present Its results to the LRSD Board of Directors. Prior to finalizing the study. 3/D International will meet with community residents on Monday, July 31, 1995. at 6:00 p.m. In the Board Room of the LRSD Administration Building. This meeting wUl allow for additional community Input regarding school building needs for the district. The community is invited to attend the meeting which will be broadcast live on the LRSD cable channel 4. ### Note: School Board membere have been invited to attend the July 31 meeting. A special meeting situation exists when two or more school board members attend the same event.'WMtes Little Rock School District OFFICE OF THE SUPERINTENDENT RECEfW^ July 21. 1995 1995 Office of Dasegrsgabon Mo.m^ f J Ann Brown Office of Desegregation Monitoring Heritage West Building 201 East Markham Suite 500 Little Rock, AR 72201 Dear Ms. Brown: The Little Rock School District is studying its current facilities and planning its facility needs for the future. This comprehensive facilities study is critical to the future of the school district. 1 invite you to attend a community meeting on Monday, July 31, 1995, at 6:00 p.m. to leam more about this study and to provide you an opportunity to participate in this process. The meeting will be held in the Board Room of the Administration Building at 810 West Markham. Your input is vital as we finalize this comprehensive study and prepare recommendations regarding our facilities needs. Sincerely, Henry P. Williams Superintendent of Schools 810 West Markham Street  Little Rock, Arkansas 72201  (501) 824-2000 received JUL 1 8 1995 LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT Office of Desegregation SUPERINTENDENTS OFFICE 810 West Markham Little Rock, AR 72201 Moniionngi Date: July 14, 1995 To: Interested Parties From: Henry P, , Superintendent Re: Draft Policy - Naming Facilities At the suggestion of Board Member Judy Magness, I am forwarding a copy of a policy that will be considered for first reading at the meeting of the Board on Thursday, July 20, 1995. If you would like to make any suggestions for revision of this policy, please feel free to contact me or Mrs. Magness. Thank you for your time and interest.Code: NAMING FACILITIES The Board of Education shall approve the official names of all school buildings. In selecting names for new buildings, recommendations will be considered from the superintendent of schools, interested citizens, students, or staff. Proposed names may be submitted by the superintendent to the school staff, students, and interested citizen groups for reaction. The final recommendation shall be forwarded by the superintendent to the Board of Education for approval. The following guidelines shall govern the naming of facilities: 1. 2. 3. Schools shall be named for persons identified with public education or who have rendered some other distinguished public service locally, nationally or internationally. When possible, the group making the nomination should agree to provide appropriate recognition for that school in the form of a plague, portrait, marker or in some other way. The nomination shall be presented in a brief three paragraph statement which shall contain: a. b. c. Appropriate biographical data about the person The significant contribution made by the person A statement of why the school should be named after the person The attached form shall be used by persons nominating names for facilities. Also, the Board at its discretion may name portions of a building, such as the library or auditorium. Guidelines listed above shall apply in such cases. In all cases, care should be taken to avoid similarities with the names of existing schools. Once a person's name has been proposed, written authorization shall be secured by the superintendent from the closest relative to the third degree of the descendant before any official action is taken by the Board.Following the adoption of the official naming (or renaming) of a new school building or program housed within the building, the administrative officers of the Board will be authorized to give public notice of such action and to modify existing records and other legal documents as may be necessary. Bie official names of all schools will be approved or altered only by motion of the Board. Request for renaming facilities will follow the format listed below: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. State the proposed name Identify the facility location or building location Provide biographical or historical data supporting request Describe significant\ncontribution of individual for which considered Offer a rationale for naming or renaming school naming is RENAMING FACILITIES 'P deemed unusual or appropriate, the Board may take steps to rename school fact ities, or portions thereof. Schools named for a person will retain that persons name as long as the facility is used for instructional purposes by the District. Exceptions to this may be made by the Board. In renaming the facility, or portions thereof, the provisions set forth above shall be followed. Recommendations for new names or name changes shall be received anytime during the year, and shall be referred to the administration for obtaining comments and input from the school community involved. The Board shall review all such proposals and input at Its May work session and shall vote on any recommendations to the full Board at its first June Board meeting. Proposed changes must be submitted prior to April 1 to be included in that year\"s consideration process. A school building name, other than the name of a person, may be considered in naming new school buildings. Names may be recommended using the following guidelines: 1. 2. A school name may be recommended considering its geographical location. A school name may be recommended considering its function. A distinction may be made between the building name and the official name of the program(s) housed in the building. Buildings will retain the names they were given at the time of the dedication by the Board of Education, such as, hypothetically, Instructional Resource Center at Lee School\". The superintendent shall use the same procedure as outlined for naming schools after persons in securing reactions to other suggested names.PUBLIC DEDICATION New school buildings and major additions to these facilities shall be dedicated in a public and formal ceremony. There shall be a program or open house to which the Board, citizens, parents, and students are invited. All plans for the public or formal opening of any school shall be made in cooperation with the schools principal. Detailed procedures for dedication ceremonies shall be furnished by the principal to the Superintendent.NAMING AND RENAMING FACILITIES I propose that the (Designation of building and/or location) (Address) be named for I. Biographical Data: IL HL The Nominee's significant contribution is: I believe the facility should be named for this person because: (Signature) (Date) This form should be submitted by persons nominating names for new facilities to the Board of Education prior to July 15, for consideration during the period between July 15 through August 1.CM. April 17, 1995 Little Rock School District il APR 2 0 1995 Ms. Melissa Guildin Office of Desegregation Monitoring Heritage West Building, Suite 510 201 East Markham Street Otfise of Oesegregisiiuii ,-.-y Little Rock, AR 72201 R / Dear Melissa: Pursuant to your request, please find enclosed a copy of the Preliminary Facilities Study which I completed in March of 1995. Should you have any questions concerning this, please feel free to call. Sa^ncerely yours. al C. Eaton DIRECTOR PLANT SERVICES DEPARTMENT DCE/rlh/mg Encl. 810 West Markham Street  Little Rock, Arkansas 72301  (501)834-2000TO: ac. COMMUNICATIONS DEPARTMENT LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 810 West Markham Street Little Rock, Arkansas March 31, 1995 receive /^PR 5 1995 Memorandum OHice of Desegregation Monitoring Little Rock School District Parents FROM: Suellen Vann, Director of Communications SUBJECT: Facilities Study Survey The Little Rock School District is studying the condition of all of the school buildings in the district. This study wiU help us determine which buildings require maintenance and which schools should be replaced with new facilities. As part of this study, we are doing a survey to get your input on the condition of the school your child attends. If you have children in more than one Little Rock public school, please fill out a survey for each school. The survey is on the back of this letter. Please fill out the survey and return it to your child's school by Friday, April 7, 1995. Thank you for helping us as we plan future improvements to our schools. cc: Dr. Russ Mayo Estelle Matthis Sadie Mitchell Margaret Gremillion Sterling Ingram Dennis Snider Leon ModesteLITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT FACILITIES SURVEY The school I will address with my responses is: Select one only (related to school listed above): Parent of child at this school ____ Employee at this school live near this school, but no children attending this school 1. This school is an asset to the community. Yes No 2. The overall appearance of this school is: Excellent Good Fair Needs Improvement 3. This school needs improvement in the following areas: (Check all that apply) Site: Handicapped accessibility Playground Bus loading zone (at school) Parking Security (outside building) Drainage Traffic flow Location 4. 5. Maintenance: Building exterior Building interior Grounds Special Areas: Handicapped facilities Cafetorium Restrooms lutsnoi: ______ Floors Ceilings ______ Carpet ______ Walls Lighting Paint Equipment Telephone Equipment Furniture Security (inside building) In general, classroom/building conditions at this school are: Excellent Good Fair Poor Additional Comments: THANK YOU VERY MUCH FOR YOUR HELP IN COMPLETING THIS SURVEY.'t Jt. LRSD SUPPORT SERVICES Fax:1-501-324-2032 Apr 5 95 7:53 P. ,02/02 f. - I' a 1 4 '2 li h'-  .  \u0026lt;'\u0026lt;'00 1 -'7 '2V 'ft'.. LrntE Rock School District ' -.a: News Release April 4,1995 For more information: Suellen Vann, 324-2020 *4 ' . The bitle Rock School District (IRSD) is evaluating school buildings through a i }.\u0026lt; ?  r a 5=1  iff 1^:'^ B\n.1. s\u0026gt;i comprehensive fadlltles study. The study wlU cover a 10 year period and U1 assist school officials in making decisions regarding school closings, repair of existing schools, new construction, and consolidation of existing facilities. Doug Eaton. IKSD Director of Plant Services, said, \"Any prudent school district does a facilities study to project its long range needs. This study will tell us whether the district is meeting the educational needs of the city based on the way the city is expandtas.\" Eaton added. \"The study will look at the demographics of our dlsmcl, ihe and eondidon of our schools, desegregation plan obligations, snideot populations, age II city planning and zoning factors, and costs to implement recommendations.' 3/D International of San Antonio. Texas has been hired to develop the facilities study. 3/D is coordinating its efforts with an architectural and engineering firm, a demographics corapanj\nand educational specialists to develop a set of recommendations. The study should be\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_387","title":"Finance Analysis Model by Coopers \u0026 Lybrand","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"],"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"],"dcterms_title":["Finance Analysis Model by Coopers \u0026 Lybrand"],"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/387"],"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":["194 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\nB5032J02 Date: March 23, 1995 To: Fred Smith From: Bill Mooney Subject: Finance Analysis Model We both know that the financial situation of the district makes sound decision-making critical to the future. As resources become increasingly strained, decision-makers operate with less margin for error. The chance of making a good decision is increased by having useful information readily available. The main purpose of the Program Budget Document is to link program accomplishments with program expenditures so we would have better information to guide the district. We must always seek better ways of collecting data and analyzing it into useful information. One of the better ways might be the Finance Analysis Model. I want to share the attached pamphlet with you, and get your thoughts into further investigation of this model. Since the model is PC-based, it could probably run in our existing environment. Such a tool might assist the administration. Board, and community in making better decisions. The model has something of a history around Little Rock. Last year, Ann Brown and I encouraged Gene Wilhoit to look into using the models forerunner, the Micro-Finance Model, statewide. Additionally, one of the authors of the model, Sheree Speakman, was the lead person on the Coopers \u0026amp; Lybrand study conducted for the district. I would bet she used some of her experience from that project as material for the model. Please read the pamphlet, then let me know what you think. I will be glad to help you in any way I can. Copy to: Ann Brown Hank WilliamsLRSD a6MIN. BULDING Fax:1-501-324-2032 Aug 31 95 15:17 P.02/02 W-' '5' 2^ 53 Little Rock School District Media Advisory August 31, 1995 For more information: Suellen Vann, 324-2020 The Board of Directors of the Little Rock School District (LRSD) will hold two special meetings beginning at 6:00 p.m. tonight. August 31, 1995. The purpose of the first meeting is to complete LRSD business which was not finished at the regular monthly meeting on August 24. The second meeting, which will immediately follow the first meeting, will be held to discuss a proposal from Service Master to manage custodial operations of the LRSD. The meetings will be held in the Board Room of the LRSD Administration Building at 810 West Markham, ### iiAiAiiiiAiialRsd admin, bulding Fax:1-501-324-2032 Dec 6 95 9:43 P.02/02 Little Rock School District 1 s Media Advisory December 6,1995 For more information: Suellen Vann, 3242020 Little Rock School Board member Judy Magness is participating in Leadership Greater Little Rock. As part of her leadership project, she will be interviewing Shorter College president Dr. Katherine Mitchell, who also serves on the Little Rock School Board. The interview will take place at 8:30 a.m. today at Shorter College. This advisory is being sent since a special meeting situation exists. 810 West Markham street  Little Rock, Arkansas 72201  (501)824-200012/06/95 } 10:21 501 324 2023 LRSD COMMUNICATI ODM 002/002 I 1 y ( Little Rock School District Media Advisory I I Technology Donation for School December 6,1995 For more information: Dina Emfinger, 324-2020 , LITTLE ROCK  The Association of Black Engineers in Arkansas will present computer software worth more than $550.00 to their Partner in Education, Romine Computer Science \u0026amp; Basic Skills Interdistrict Elementary School, today at 12:00 noon in the Ubrary of the school. I ABEA hopes their gift will promote development of math, science, and technology skills in female and minority students and will encourage them to pursue related careers. ### I I r j I I \u0026lt; i I IThe Finance Analysis Model is a cooperative effort of Coopers \u0026amp;Lybrand Coopers \u0026amp; Lybrand L.L.P. a professional services firm and the CENTER FOR WORKFORCE PREPARATION Letter from Coopers \u0026amp; Lybrand L.L.P. and the Center for Workforce Preparation Coopers \u0026amp; Lybrand L.L.P. and the U.S. Chamber of Commerce's Center for Workforce Preparation are pleased to announce a cooperative effort to enhance the public's understanding of the school operating framework that supports education. Our goal is simple: to enhance the information communicated on school finance. To this end, Coopers \u0026amp; Lybrand and the Center are combining their considerable resources and know-how to support the nation's schools in effective reporting to the public on the budgets and costs that make education  and education reform  possible. Each of our respective organizations already makes a substantial annual commitment to support local community efforts to improve teaching and learning. Since 1985, Coopers \u0026amp; Lybrand has encouraged employees to participate in a unique volunteer outreach program. Supporting Youth Education. In the 1993-94 school year alone, 3,000 participating partners and staff contributed 55,000 hours of teaching and tutoring to secondary schools nationwide. Committed to serious involvement in local education programs. Coopers \u0026amp; Lvbrand offices nationwide provide school districts across the country with technical and financial assistance. The Center for Workforce Preparation assists 3,000 state and local chambers of commerce nationwide with education reform efforts by supporting the U.S. Department of Education s satellite town meetings, distributing information on effective practices in school-to-work transition, parent involvement in education and other critical education issues. Our effort is directed toward disclosing information on education today so that community members can know udth certainty how much it costs to run schools, how dollars are directed to the teaching and learning of children V and the results of these efforts. We believe the sharing of information help\nIS communities implement a shared vision of the best way to support the needs of local students and helps ensure that all who sit at the table of education reform equally informed. are The result of our coUaboration is the Finance Analysis Model , an information tool for schools that works at both the district level and at individual school sites. Our model provides a new reporting system for districts that are committed to site-based management. Our shared vision  starting with this model  is to bring best practices to American education, integrating processes developed by the business, education and financial communities into solutions that are delivered locally. We would like you to join us in bringing this new approach for sharing information to your local schools. Nicholas G. Moore Chairman Coopers \u0026amp; Lybrand Edwin Lupberger Chairman Entergy Corporation and the Center for Workforce Preparation Executive Summary Coopers \u0026amp; Lybrand L. L.P. and the U.S. Chamber ofCommerce's Center for Workforce Prepara tionhave joined efforts to createamodelforschool finance and management reporting based on each organization's school finance research. \"The Finance AnaIy-7 sis Model is a technology-based information tool that operates on a standard } personal computer. As a technology, school districts can use it from one year to the next to determine Ion?- o grange patterns in e.xpenditures. The product is designed to analyze 100 percent of a school district's general i ledger. In addition to collecting information expenditures, it analyzes information at individual school on the districf s budget or actual sites. School-bv- school data allow community leaders to view how schools within the same district compare on spending patterns, and whether some schools investi resources in teaching and learning more efficiently than others.' The Finance Analysis Model consists of a series of multi-dimensional, spreadsheets that compile information on district and school expend!-  tures. The three basic dimensions include: ? ,4 1 a functional dimension showing expenditures and budgets that comprises / 100 percent of the district's funds into one of five categories  Instruction,^ Instructional Support, Operations, Other Commitments and Leadership,-:/ 3 a program dimension that provides community leaders with accurate infor- / mation on the costs of educational programs such as special education,/ gifted and talented, bilingual, chapter 1 \u0026amp; 2, summer school, general / education and other programs\nI 1 a grade level dimension that allows school districts to determine the costs of / functions and programs in the district's elementary, middle and higb} schools, alternate schools and all other schoolsj The model is organized to present expenditures in five functions so that communities can search for the proper balance between instructional spending and other costs. Working with community leaders, school districts can use management information to identify where resources can be directed to enhance student perfor- mance.Introduction Generations of Americans have believed that the American dream of prosperity could be achieved with a sound, basic education. As the year 2000 approaches, however, parents, business and community leaders, educators and children alike are openly debating if today's education system continues to improve young minds, and whether or not the system still provides students with the skills needed to remain competitive in the work place. In the last decade of this centurv, the debate to reform the nation s education system has been influenced by both positive and negative pressures: Goals 2000 and state reform initiatives, irate taxpayers, critical reviewers, the accountability movement, funding shortfalls, \"seed grants,\" government, individuals and philanthropy. As federal and state programs continue to recognize individual schools and teachers of excellence, critics wonder why three decades of constant attempts to improve education have only resulted in higher costs, burdensome regulations and increases in student achievement. more controls without realizing significant Continuous increases in funding for education have led to one conclusion  funding does not guarantee enhanced student performance. In fact, as more federal, state and local funding o agencies have run out of options for P' providing new resources to schools, school decision-makers are having^ to do much more with the same or fewer dollarslToday it is more critical than ever to find and apply comprehensivesolutionstotheproblems facing schools  allocating scarce education dollars efficiently. A new technol- ogy, the Finance Analysis Model, being developed by Coopers \u0026amp; / Lybrand L.L.P. and the U.S. Chamber of Commerce's Center for Workforce Preparation supports community efforts to redefine education. ' ' The product organizes a school s financial records into one report that can be easily understood by teachers, parents, business leaders and students alike. The model in and of itself will not solve a school districts problems, but in the hands of citizens, school and business leaders, teachers and parents, the process assures that all members of the community can make mformed decisions to improve education for the community's children. Why is the time right for the Finance Analysis Model? First, pressure has mounted since the groundbreaking 1983 report A Nation at Risk alerted the country to declining education standards. A Nation at Risk made the most convincing argument, U.S. children must learn more math and science, embrace technology and learn how to communicate more effectively if this nation is to remain competitive in the global marketplace. The President and the nation's governors responded to this national education crisis in 1989 with a bipartisan \"Education Summit,\" resulting in the introduction of the National Education Goals. Today, the groundwork established at the summit continues to support community efforts to improve local education through Goals 2000. Second, schools continue to face problems that directly impact learning: helping S children who live in extreme poverty and deprivation: providing services to students who face physical or mental challenges\ncounseling students who have substance abuse problems\ncoping with crime in the schools and a steady increase in children having children. Many students arrive at the schoolhouse hungry and tired. They sometimes sleep through class, cut school, miss their lessons and fall further behind their peers. Mustering all conceivable resources to support the bodies and minds of children is an everyday reality for many schools. To further complicate matters, the pupil population is growing again for the first time in 12 years, particularly in major urban areas that are already under financial pressure. Third, school finance issues continue to demand the attention of many state legislatures. Traditionally, state and local governments direct funds to each school district. The district then has the responsibility to report to the state on the results of budgeting of funds and subsequent financial activity. Even with the volumes of data i these reports entail, few legislators understand how funds are actually spent in, individual schools and on students themselves. The lack of data obstructs states'  efforts to manage shortfalls in tax revenue and cutbacks in public funding. There-? fore, not only has it been difficult for states to adjust allocation patterns across? districts, but in periods of austerity, school decision-makers find it difficult to predict just how cuts would affect the student-teacher ratio, course offerings and the ? teaching and learning of students. ? In essence, educators are expected today to work miracles: to do more, for more students, under more pressure  within the same budget. Yet this pressure serves catalyst to bring about important break-throughs and visible signs of progress education reform. The time is now. Since 1983, the conditions for meaningful school improvement have all emerged. Models have been tried and refined. States and school districts have shown a real interest in reform, and key stakeholders have all come to agree that unless schools adopt better financial management and accounting techniques, school leaders will face challenges in making informed decisions. 4A Perfect Team Systemic Reform and Management Reporting Nationwide, a concerted movement toward real education improvement  often called systemic reform  is taking shape. \"Systemic reform\" is a critical concept. It rests on the belief that all levels and groups with a stake in education must be involved. The Educational Resources Information Center (ERIC) reviewed the growing efforts for systemic reform and concluded: Systemic education reform is an ambitious movement to improve education from the \"top down\" and \"bottom up\" through state policies that support change at the local level. It involves coordinated change in the whole education system, particularly in four areas: standards, curricu- ' lum, performance assessment, and teacher development. . . Sys- temic reform is unique in emphasizing that change tn one aspect of education requires change in all the other aspects. (ERIC Review, 1994, p. 2). S Despite the importance of systemic reform, few address the economic consequences of reform. How can a national effort of systemic reform for 50 million students in 15,025 school districts, and more than 111,000 schools occur without information on activities, costs, practices and outcomes? The nation^s schools need a new standard of information that is supportive of systemic reforms, a standard related to current accounting, budgeting, auditing and testing. Clear, accessible information is a key to empowering all facets of the community. Data are numbers and words\nbut information is organized data  organized to solve a problem or spotlight a concern. For example, data show test results\ninformation indicates which students took the test, and how well they did this term. Data should be the starting point, not the stumbling block, of all good education decisions. To accomplish this, information must be accurate, accessible and provide a common basis for action. Systemic reform can not survive with data that divides community leaders. The Need for School Finance Management Reporting Educators and business leaders share much in common. Both want and need the best opportunities for children to learn. Both benefit from students with access to quality learning environments that lead to results. When it comes to finance and informa- j tion, however, schools can learn from long-standing business practices, jBusinesses are customer driven\ncompanies either respond to the wants and demands of consumers, or face financial ruin. Businesses also make a concerted effort to run their operations efficiently in order to maximize profits. Companies r~ -. etficiently with management reporting tools that show their leaders how funds spent, which portions of the organization perform better than others run more are and areas in which thecompanycanreduceexpenditureswithoutaffectingoveraU performance. Similarly, companies communicate when clear-cut information exits. more effectively with employees and investors In today's tight financial environment, schools have responsive to  the taxpayer. While school districts a new customer they must be information on demographics and expenditures must report detailed to state education agencies, few are required to provide its shareholders, the local citizens, with financial information that clearly defines the cost of education. School budgets are so large and complex that the community can not understand calls for mcreased spending. This lack of community trust undermines the school district's attempt to provide sufficient resources for instruction and every facet of education, j The Move Toward Information It was not until the 1980s that educators and legislators focused on a system-wide concept of school-site management and decision-making. With this move came a need forschool-based infonnation, on-going assessments of school-by-school achievement and the patterns of spending in those same schools. Despite this need, researchers continued to focus on district-level revenue and expense analysis, which duplicated data already available. Consequently, those districts involved inschool- based management programs have been forced into unchartered territory as they attempt to organize around the development and implementation of information useful to school-based leaders and educators. Any school district, regardless of its position on school-based management, caro benefit from tools that analyze expenditures school-by-school^ The aUocahons records of school systems - including both their yearly budgets and their actual expenditures  are the financial expression of the education priorities of the commumty, its board of education and senior administrative staff. As such, one of the objectives of financial accounting for a school system is to provide reports to the public as a basis for judging past, present and future decision-making. When taxpayers are demanding better information about how fiscally-tight spent, it is important that the school district provide clear. resources are concise and timelyinformation to all interested in local education. The public simply wants to know\n^ t How much money is spent to run a school districts E How much money is distributed to each school site? } E How much money is directed to classroom instruction and pupils? I E How much money is used for pupil, teacher and program support? E How much money is allocated for operating schools and the central office? j E How much money is used on school leadership and administration at each # school and at the central office? E To what extent do tax payers get value for their tax dollars? ) When answers to these basic questions are available, then school boards and community residents can better determine how best to use or modify resources to meet district and state education goals. The need, therefore, is not to make the financial reporting system more complex but rather to construct a simplified, common sense financial reporting procedure. Early Efforts 'o' a*. In 1989, Drs. Bruce Cooper and Bob Sarrel began a study that sparked interest in school-site analysis. Cooper and Sarrel developed the so-called \"cascade\" model to analyze funding directed to New York City's 123 high schools. The cascade model traced funding at the central office, ^^39 to the high school and finally to classrooms. The Center for Workforce iSW Preparation (the Center) engaged Cooper and Sarrel in a two-year project, to expand their research. With a grant from the Lilly Endowment, Inc, th^ Center, Cooper and Sarrel developed a school-site financial analysis model. The resultant work was known as the Micro-Finance Model, The model allocated all costs to one of five functions, including Administration (Aa)J Operations and Facilities (Bb), Staff Development (Cc), Pupil Support (Dd) anc, Classroom Instruction (Ee). Second, the Micro-Finance Model separated costs, incurred at the central officeA,B,C,D,E  from those incurred at the school level,  a,b,c,d,e  and distributed expenditures school-by-school by grade level,(elementary, middle and high schools). The model also permits cost comparisons^ across functions, such as A+a (Central and School Administration), and B+b\n(Central and School Operations). To date, 54school districts in 14 states have applied i the Micro-Finance Model to over 2,200 individual schools. 1 While work was underway on the Micro-Finance Model, Coopers \u0026amp; Lybrand directed a senior partner, Sheree T. Speakman? to investigate how school districts manage information using the volumes of data produced. Speakman created a small team of individuals from business, education and academia to create a new management reporting model for education. The team began work in New York Citv in 1994 to construct a technology that would provide the public with concise information. The result of their work was the School District Budget Model, a new technology that reorganizes data found in a school district's general ledger into managements information readily understood by all. The software product defined 100 percent? of the school districts expenditures by function, program and grade level (eiemen- tary, middle and high schools). As a technology, the School District Budget ModeC provided the school district with a tool that can be used from year to year to create-\u0026gt; a long-term analysis of the district's expenditures. ? Coopers \u0026amp; Lybrand's process and tools translated bodies of current data into a document easily understood by the individuals who participate in education  parents, taxpayers, elected officials, educators and administrators  providing them access to an evenhanded portrayal of the resources that support the teaching and learning of children. The New Model -The Cento Md Coopers \u0026amp; Lybrand have joined efforts to integrate the\nA best qualities and features of the Micro-Finance Model and the School^ District Budget Model into one comprehensive management reporting f tool, the Finance Analysis ModeBIt is now being tested at the district and state levels with the full cooperation of local political, education and business leadership. The Finance Analysis Model is a technology-based management infor- ? mation tool that operates on a standard personal computed Since it is technologybased, districts can use the model yearly to develop a long-range portrait of district spending. It presents information in a format that answers the finance questions most commonly asked of superintendents, school boards, administrators and members of the community. Whether presented at board meetings, community forums or in written communications, the model can provide a common and ongoing financial language for school and community conversations. 3I What does the Finance Analysis Model do? It is designed to analyze 100 percent of a school district's general ledger. The district can choose to analyze budget figures* or actual spending, depending on the districf s accounting cycle. Since the product ' can analyze either budget or actual expenditures, school leaders can use it for both ' to determine if the district is meeting budget targets. In addition to collecting, information on the district s budget or actual expenditures, it also analyzes informa- t tion at individual school sites. School-by-school data allows community leaders to ? view how schools within the same district compare on spending patterns, and t whether some schools are more efficient than others, i iSf' The model consists of a series of multi-dimensional spreadsheets that compile 5 information on district and school expenditures. The three basic dimensions in- * dude\nlie c a functional dimension of expenditures and budgets that categorizes* 100 percent of the districts funds into one of five categories  Instruction,  Instructional Support, Operations, Other Commitments and Leadership\n I S a program dimension that provides community leaders with accurate information on the costs of educational programs such as special education^ gifted and talented, bilingual, chapter 1 \u0026amp; 2, summer school, general education and other programs\no \u0026amp; a grade level dimension that allows school districts to determine the costs of? functions and programs in the district's elementary, middle and high / schools, alternate schools and all other schools. The product provides a detailed record of the data included in each of the categories of information presented in the new model. School-by-school comparisons are made easier as the model provides percentage breakdowns for each schools expenditures. By cross-referencing these three dimensions, communities can begin to explore and explain school costs. 1 The Five Functions The five functions: Instruction, Instructional Support, Operations, Other Commitments and Leadership represent a vital process in education, starting with the core principle of schoolingteaching and learning (see Appendices I, II, \u0026amp; III for an illustration). Without all five functions, the district would fail to achieve its mission. Obviously, a school district can not operate without buildings, buses, materials, management and high quality leadership. To date, however, education has not developed a system for determining the best ratio of instructional expenses to other costs that support instruction. In the absence of real data, the argument often comes down to \"the more in the classroom and less in overhead, support, and other costs, the better.\" However, the \"perfect\" system is NOT one in which zero dollars are used for administration and supervision and 100 percent in the classroom. Yet, in the absence of real information on the need for and cost of administration in education, the arguments about spending will grow louder. The Finance Analysis Model is not anti-administration or anti-leadership. It acknowledges that each level supports, sustains and leverages the level above as part of the education process. The model is organized to BaBSV' present expenditures for all five functions so that communities can search for the proper balance between instructional spending and other * costs. Identifying and addressing this balance will not be the same for all children, for all communities, for all geographic locales or for all types of schools. What is common is that all five functions alwavs exist in every school and in every school district. Any attempt to make schools better will definitely involve manipulating the functions and costs of Instruction, Instructional Support, Operations, Other Commitments and Leadership in a svstemic way. As information from the model becomes available, trends in allocations will begin to emerge. It is hoped that lessons will be drawn, developing \"benchmarks\" on effective ratios of spending between Instruction and Instructional Support. Rural, urban and suburban districts may have different benchmarks for the value and efficiency of non-instructional resources as measured against the value of instructional spending. Taking demographics into account may demonstrate that certain children use more \"pupil support services\" than others to compensate for poor home nutrition, health and other conditions. Some districts have more costs associated with operations than others: distances from schools, heating and cooling costs, security and control needs. To act on the model's information, a thorough understanding of its five functions is critical. The five functions are as followsri Instruction^ the very foundation of education  capturing a student's interest inf learning, understanding and applying new knowledge. The model interprets in^ struction as face-to-face teaching, irrespective of whether the setting is a science labf or a field trip. Most costs of classroom instruction pertain to teachers (their salaries,^ benefits, pension), their helpers (instructional paraprofessionals, substitutes) andj materials (textbooks, tests, technology, software, workbooks, lab books, telescopes^ microscopes, paper and pencils).! Instructional Support covers all aspects of student and teacher services unrelated^ to teaching. Guidance counseling, mental and physical health, media, curriculum development, program development and library services are considered Instructional Support. Extracurricular activities, such as sports and clubs, fall within this function also. Expenditures for teacher staff development appear in this category as well. AU short- and long-term programs that support general instruction faU into this category. Instructional Support does not include the senior district administrators who are not involved in the daUy deUvery of programs to students\nthey are categorized under the Leadership function. Together, the Instructional Support function is best understood as making possible improved instruction through a better prepared and trained staff and students who are physicaUy and psychologi- cally well and are ready to learn. Hence, the support function is critical to enhancing the instructionai function., o Operations includes the infrastructure needs of schools. These needs include non- instructional pupil services (transportation, food services and safety), school facilities, non-school fadhties and business services such as payroll, human resources, finance and accounting. School and non-school facilities include maintenance costs, utilities, custodial services and groundskeeping. The senior district staff who are not involved in the daily delivery of these services are included in the Leadership hmction. I Other Commitments covers items that are not considered part of a school's day-to-day operations. Other Commitments can fluctuate significantly from one school district to the next, even within the same-\n^^|^B^^H^ state. School administrators could not make accurate comparisons with districts of similar size if Other Commitments were accounted for throughout every program and function. By allocating these obliga-, / tions to a separate category, the model makes it possible to compare* expenditures from district to district across the country. School districts and states, like other businesses, have expenses related to borrowing money (debt obligations) that must be retired, costs of pensions, other fringe benefits and incentives for early retirement. Under federal and state programs, some funds \"flow through\" the district books, such as school district children who attend school. outside the district or for eligible students in private and parochial schools who receive Chapter 1 services paid for through the district. Often, these costs are excluded from cost analyses. The goal of the model, however, is to capture all relevant costs by state, district and school to permit a full analysis of real costs. Leadership is the primary driving force in any organization: those people and functions that make plans, direct goals and oversee that the mission of the district and its schools is implemented. T^e foundation of the Finance Analysis Model is the direction given by creative, active leadership, who give shape to the use of facilities i and operations, who see that students and staff receive adequate support and that the classroom is the center of the system. Thus, the model identifies all the costs! related to managing the school system. Costs here will often include the superinten- i dent, assistants and deputies, senior administrators, legal affairs and the schoof board. Leadership also includes principals and assistant principals.. Using the Model for District and Statewide Reform The model is a first step, not a solution, to strengthening education in local communities. It provides critical information on expenditures within the school system that can guide the school board and district management in improving the flow of resources to the schools. However, education leaders and the community must work together to determine if the Finance Analysis Model report reflects the community^s education priorities. Why should the community be involved in this\nprocess? Each representative group within the community brings a different per- 41 spective to the table on how best to affect change in education. This rich texture of experience and advice can strengthen efforts to implement changes based on the report. A parent representative should be invited to review the report so that parents can understand what measures have been taken to support their children in school. A business leader should offer input on what future generations of workers need to meet employer standards, and whether those standards are reflected in the report. A school principal and a teacher need access to the report to assure that recommendations for change take into consideration the individual schools. Open participation in the Finance .Analysis Model review process can help the district avoid confrontations once decisions are made. Cotninunity leaders can take positive steps toward changing local education with the process as it provides information on central and school-site expenditures by function, program and grade level. It also can help districts: J Calculate costs by type of school\nelementary, middle, high school and other schools\nJ Establish costs accross functions, such as Instruction costs at aU schools and at the central office\n1 Set the efficiency of each school by building a ratio of direct student services to the cost of getting those resources to students (Operations, Leadership and Support at both the central office and at the schools)\nC Separate costs by program (bilingual, special and categorical education versus regular education)\nr Begin to build productivity functions to help see if more resources, applied directly to students for learning and growth, would indeed make schools work better and help students learn. Just as the model can help communities determine new directions in education, it can assist states in determining whether there is a link between funding and student performance. Statewide implementation of the process can provide state leaders with concise information on 1 every school and school district in the state, which can lead to better decisions on education funding priorities. Ultimately, information is power: it gives those using the Finance Analysis Model the chance to inform themselves and others of school x- district allocations and through comparisons suggests ways to improve the use of school resources. Comparisons made through the model can affect every school in the district, every district in the state and every state in the nation. Conciusion Coopers and Lybrand L.L.P. and the Center for Workforce Preparation have developed the Finance Analysis Model to enhance education for all children. It provides community leaders and concerned citizens with clear and accurate information on a local school districts spending by location, by program and by grade level. With this information, business leaders, parents and educators can determine if the district's spending reflects the community's education priorities. Through the model, the community can decide if funding levels are appropriate for instruction, support services and operations, as well as school and district leadership. With detailed information, decisions can be made to change the balance of resources to maximize student performance, staff development, educational facihties or any educational need. Community representatives with access to better information have the power to make better decisions. That power is available today through the Finance Analysis Model. Use the model to make bettter decisions for today's students  our future.Coopers a Lybrand L.L.P. / Center for Workforce Preparation Finance Analysis Model for Education INSTRUCTIONAL Kaaricdon: AU nghcs st jse ind reproduction reserved. Keoroductions of this publiciton, or exploicdcion of its concents. prohibited. m dtfhoie ar n pm. wichouc the prior wnccen permission of Coopers Lybrsnd is strictly Copyngnc Coopers Lybrand. LLP. Coopers A Lybrand L.L.P. / Center for Workforce Preoaritton FINANCE ANALYSIS MODEL FOR. EDUCATION 'TQ'Tfi,}. SPENDING: BUDGET OR EXPENDITURES rUNCTiOTJS SUB-FUNCTIOtlS DETAIL FUNCTIONS INSTRUCTION instructional SUPPORT operations OTHER COMMITMENTS LEADERSHIP FACE-TO-FACE teaching CLASSROOM materials PUPIL SUPPORT TEACHER SUPPORT program SUPPORT non-instructional PUPIL SERVICES SCHOOL FACILITIES non-school facilities BUSINESS SERVICES RETAINED EARNINGS DEBT SERVICE CASH CAPITAL OUTLAYS OUT-OF-OISTRICT OBLIGATIONS 4 CONTRACTS legal OBLIGATIONS SCHOOL LEADERSHIP PROGRAM management LEADERSHIP SERVICES 1994 4 Lybrand L.L.P instructional TEAC-ERS SUSSTTUTES instructional ?4RAPROF=SSIONALS PUPIL-USE TEC-^NClOGY \u0026amp; SOFTWARE INST RUCTION AL .MATERIALS. TESTS  SUPPUES I guidance a COUNSEJNG LIBRAR'^a mCqia EXTP AC -RRICU LAP STl DEN- he alt- CURRICL.J*' DEVElOR'^ENT IN-SERVICE a S~ASg DsvElD*-NT SABBA-^iCALS RROGRa'** ZEVELOR^EnT PERSONAL ATTENDANTS. SOCIAL WORKERS. therapists. PSYC'^C.OGISTS a EVALUATORS \"RanSpORTaT^qn B - Hx- NON-SCHOOL SUILD'NGS UTIL'^'IES a M AINTEN ANCE DA- A PR QC ESSIN G BUSINESS OPERATIONS I RESERVE\"  SPEClFiC UNRESERVED i PRINCIPALS assistant PRINCIPALS DEPUTIES. SENIOR ADMINISTRATORS. RESEARCH  PROGRAM EVAtUATORS SUPERINTENDENT 4 SC-OOL 8OARC legal DEPARTMENTAcknowledgements Publishers: Coopers \u0026amp; Lybrand L.L.P. 203 North La Salle Street Chicago, Illinois 60601-1296 Center for lA'orkforce Preparation 1615 H Street. NW Washington. D.C. 20062-2000 Telephone (312) 701-5500 Facsimile (312) 701-5714 Telephone (202 ' 46S-55 Facsimile (202' 46' 730 Finance Analysis Model Team\nBruce Cooper Brian Glass Hunt Holsomback Jay May Bob Sampieri Sheree T. Speakman Mike Zuntag Jeff Joseph Larry .Malones Rae .Nelson Authors\nBruce Cooper Bob Sampieri Sheree T. Speakman Editors\nLarry Maloney Jay May Sheree T. Speakman Design and Layout: Black Cat Design G Illustration\nSpecial Thanks to: David Chen Herman Badillo, Fischbein, Badillo, Wagner, Itzler Mary Fulton, Education Commission of the States Bruce Hunter, American Association of School .Administrators John T. MacDonald, Council of Chief State School Officers Martin Orland, The Finance Project Nancy Prothero, Educational Research Service Glen Robinson, Educational Research Service Tom Shannon, National School Boards Association  1995 Coopers \u0026amp; Lybrand L.L.P. and the Center for Workforce Preparation. All rights resets cd 1 QH|nn*\u0026amp;tj|landLXJ?Z Canterfar Workfotca Preparation and I Fih^ce Analy^ Model .j fdr^Educatioii I L state District School Instruction / I I - . 4 Instructional Support I Operations I I I / I i I / I / \\ Site-Based Reporting / for\nSito-Based Management i Copyright ^934^ Coopers \u0026amp; Lybrand LLP. I Coopers \u0026amp; Lybrand L.L.P. I Canter for Workforce Preparation and Quality Education Finance Analysis Model for Education *1 ill r INSraOCnOMAL OPBlATiaNS I    COMMITMENTS Restriction: All rights of use and reproduction reserved. Reproductions of this publication, or exploitation of its contents, in whole or in part, without the pnor written permission of Coopers \u0026amp; Lybrand is strictly prohibited. Copyright 1994 Coopers \u0026amp; Lybrand, L.L.P. I Coopers \u0026amp; Lybrand L.L.P. / Canter for Workforce Preparation and Quality Education FINANCE ANALYSIS MODEL FOR EDUCATION TOTAL^^aiNGt BUOGErOREXPENOnURES I INSTRUCTION INSTRUCTIONAL SUPPORT OPERATIONS OTHER COMMITMENTS LEADERSHIP SU\u0026amp;RJNCnONS EnMLHJNCnONS 1 FAC-TO-FACE TEACHING CLASSROOM MATERIALS PUPIL SUPPORT TEACHER SUPPORT PROGRAM SUPPORT NON-INSTRUCTIONAL PUPIL SERVICES SCHOOL FACILITIES NON-SCHOOL FACILITIES BUSINESS SERVICES RESERVES DEBT SERVICE CASH CAPITAL OUTLAYS OUT-OF-OISTRICT INSTRUCTIONAL TEACHERS SUBSTITUTES INSTRUCTIONAL FARAPROFESSIONALS PUPIL-USE TECHNOLOGY i SOFTWARE instructional MATERIALS. TESTS \u0026amp; SUPPLIES GUIDANCE i COUNSELING LIBRARY S MEDIA extracurricular STUDENT HEALTH CURRICULUM DEVELOPMENT IN-SERVICE i STAFF DE/ELCPMENT SABBATICALS PROGRAM DEVELOPMENT personal attendants, social workers. THERAPISTS, PSYCHOLOGISTS 4 EVALUATORS I TRANSPORTATION FOOD SERVICE SAFETY SCHOOL SUILDINGEJT^E^^AINTENANC^^^^^^H NON-SCHCOL3UILOING^iTTUTTE^^AINraANC^^^^^B DATA PapCESSING BUSINESS OPERATIONS^^^^^^^^^^H OBLIGATIONS 4 CONTRACTS LEGAL OBLIGATIONS SCHOOL LEADERSHIP PROGRAM management LEADERSHIP SERVICES  RESERVES - DESIGNATED RESERVES - UNDESIGNATED principal 4 INTEREST CURRENT CAPITAL PURCHASES parochialarivate^harte^^^^^^^^^H SCHCOL PASS-THROUGHS__________ RETIREE BENEFITS 4 OTHER SCHOOL MANAGEMENT CONTRACTS^^^^^^^^J LITIGADON AND SETTLEMENTS^^^^^^^^J  PRINCIPALS ASSISTANT PRINCIPALS DEPUTIES. SENIOR ADMINISTRATORS^^^^^^^^f RESEARCH i PROGRAM EVALUATORS superintendent^^^^^^^^^^^^B i SCHCOL BOARD_______________ legal department Copyright 1994 Coopers 4 Lybrand L.L.Pi\nKeporruaro ............ Stater Ave rages-.'  National test results from 1993-94. to 1994-95 iHr Stanfonl * xoroawi 25aioerc8noJe 2O. 22.0% atxM TStiriiercentilBf Sdts(a ACT cwnoosite score Of 19(xaoove 59.K SLM SOURCE: Artan Owamwir Arkansas Democrat^(gazette [ _ , , SATURDAY? DECEMBER 2,1995 scoring ucuc, i\u0026lt;naitmcuab*ean\u0026gt;\u0026gt;.n, education officials have marveled at this statistic because usually  Continueo from Page 1A when the pool of students fairing a- 312 school districts. It covers 16 test widens, scores drop- .,i . j In 1989-90,585 percent of those i categories, including dropout and attendance rates, teacher salaries faking the ACT scored above 19.  and scores on the nationally ad- Last year, 813 oercenLaLtheJest-l ministered Stanford .Achievement .. ' .. - Test and .American College Test Each school district receives a icopy of the document, which also takers scoi^'aboTe la Ute top score is 361 is available from the Education jansas0eniocraM:aBzL2i!0BBns\nDepartment ! Since 1991-92, Stanford Pupil scores disappoint agency chief 6th repon card shows state faces lot of work 3Y SUSAN ROTH Oemocrat-GazBilB Education Writar -Achievement Test scores have improved. School districts administer the tests co fourth-, seventh- and tenth-graders. Over time, fewer students are scoring at the low end of the scale. But since last year. Stanford scores declined. More students scored below the 25th percentile this year chan last year. The 50th percentile is considered the national average. More than half of .Arkansas pupils continue to score below the 50th percentile. Officials d they also were pleased, with the inereasing popularity of- Advanced Placement courses and., exams. Usually offered to top secondary students, .. the courses allow high achievers to tackle college-level work in high school and receive credit for it when they go on to college. This means more and more youngsters are going into college at higher levels, Wilhoit said. Its a very, very positive message for our parents,\" -Also troubling on the report Arkansas public school stu- card is an increase in the dropout dents are- still not peri'onning rate. In 1989-90. the statewide well enough to satisty the head of dropout rate was 4 percent. The the state Department of Educa- tion. The departments sucth annual school district repon card, released Friday, showed that students have improved in some ar- teeas this year, such as on American College Test scores. But pupils failed to show consistent gains in several other areas, such RQNMi card statistics. 1 Pago 12A. as on standardized achievement tests. Gene Wilhoit director of the de- ---------------partments General Education Division, refused to give the state's schools an overall grade, but he is not pleased. There is still a lot of work to do,  Wilhoit said at a Friday news conference at the department offices in Little Rock, He said he is particularly concerned about student mastery of mathematics, which has been a department focus since 199L We know right now from talking to employers that they need people with math competence and not just basic competence  Wilhoit said, They need to have a mastery of algebra, of geometrical concepts, of probability concepts. They have to know how to think mathematically on the job and solve problems. The 643-page report card compares educational achievement and demographics in the states See SCHOOLS, Page 13A rate dropped to 3 percent in 1991- 92. But in 1993-94. it was bac.k up to 3.9 percent. For individual districts, higher dropout rates correlated with higher numbers of students scoring below the 25th percentile on the Stanford .Achievement Tests, department officials said. One area showing continuous improvement was teacher salaries, which will jump again this year because of a new state law setting a minimum salary of S20,000. Other optimistic categories involved college-bound students. More students are taking the : .ACT. which is required for college ' admission. They are also steadily tArkansas Democrat ^^azctte f SATURDAY, DECEMBER '\"*-*\"** I ll. 2, 1995 T ^0809rs. Inc. LK summer programs given mediocre grade Report calls effort poorly organized and staffed BY CYNTHIA HOWELL Dernocrat-Gazette Education Writer Summer programs desi?noH Pogrom. Teachers were unable ..i.i. resigned use computers at the schools to provide remediation and 7 Aciiieuiduon and en- to children ex- in Little Rock s five incentive elementary schools were inadequately staffed and poorly organized according to a report re- leased Friday. The incentive schools in central and east Little Rock get extra funding for programs to raise the achievement levels of black thn ahroct whites to the schools. The districts deseg- ''*ros the district to offer a summer program at one or more of the schools no charge to the pupils. The remediation program was 5\"^Rockefelllr Incen- Uye Elementary last The enrichment music, writing and held in five dis- summer. programs, in- trict schools. *** Ninety-five incentive school e Drown, who heads the amended enrichment ac- federal Office of Desegregation vities at five sites. ^omtoring, said Friday that n, additional 10.9 percent of while there were bright spots in ^e incentive school pupils me summer program, it nvpra 11 muaed a state-mandated summer program. The state program is for pupils who are performing below grade level and would other- Desegregation that were bright spots in J  program, it overall rifv mediocrity that has been typical in the scho5s\" incentive Ju-T? federal monitors said chiIdren in the remediation pro- Inn* Rockefeller did not have access to the school library or the science laboratory. There were no counselors, social work 6rs, librarians or computer \u0026lt; ''**080913. Inc.   aides hired to assist with the to . -------- v V**V OVllUUlb i gain access to pupil records, f Teachers also reported prob- lems with pupil attendance and failure by the parents to take summer school grades seriously. Still another weakness cited by the monitors was the districts apparent failure to determine whether the pupils made any academic progress as the result ot the program. In the four years that ODM has monitored the incentive schools, evidence has been con- sistent that the schools have not lived 1  up to their promise, the in- monitors said in the report. Of 1,629 pupils who attend ir. ?no tive schools, 6.6 percent, or 108 pupils, attended the voluntary remediation program at Rockefeller. at- yis^ promoted to the next f grade. The monitoring office did I not report on the quality of the state program. jJ  j J^N^ENTlVS. uhOOL noTLINt 1 \u0026lt;' 'S Gcci'^i^ \u0026gt;'}CiiCc\u0026gt;f.5 J i ' ) Sr/iKi f : JJ/r : f / WU i 2 H   t f : r f SrDDics ifiT mi r~ J f! W I'll { 'G t^- Hfl  I / Ifl '\\ 'j Hll f//( { Uir ff IHi // //// J /7 /I If 1 i f /) }l Uli U! f C---' /o 1! Jifr/ 0 ^'1 XU r II w kz\u0026gt;_ /^ utr u 1/0 H' i Ip I 2d- IQ^ISa ,t *  JU )|t )K !|t )(! 11 DATE START SENDER FEB- 6 11:58 501 374 7609 TRANSACTION REPORT RX TINE PAGES TYPE P.Ol FEB- 6-91 WED 11:59 NOTE r 37\" 2 RECEIVE OK 1! K JU X j((  iK X\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_425","title":"Hall High School kindergarten class, closing","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"],"dcterms_description":null,"dc_format":["application/pdf"],"dcterms_identifier":null,"dcterms_language":["eng"],"dcterms_publisher":["Little Rock, Ark. : Butler Center for Arkansas Studies. Central Arkansas Library System"],"dc_relation":null,"dc_right":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC-EDU/1.0/"],"dcterms_is_part_of":["Office of Desegregation Monitoring records (BC.MSS.08.37)","History of Segregation and Integration of Arkansas's Educational System"],"dcterms_subject":["Little Rock (Ark.)--History--20th century","Little Rock School District","Education--Arkansas","School management and organization","Education, Elementary","Education, Secondary"],"dcterms_title":["Hall High School kindergarten class, closing"],"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/425"],"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":["24 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\nCorrespondence objecting to closing of kindergarten at Hall High\n WEDNESDAY. APRIL 19, 1995 Halls kindergarten defended Supporters appeal to keep high school program in budget BY CYNTHIA HOWELL Democrat-Gazette caucation Writer .\\dvocates for the kindergarten program at Hall High School appealed Tuesday to one kindergarten class where students enrolled in Child De- velopment and Superintendent Henrj classes help with the kindergartners. Parenting one school. must be based on what is good for the entire district, not just \"We can save pieces of pro- Williams to presen-e what they described as a popular high- quality program beneficial to the children as well as to high school students who work with them.  \"The Hall High kindergarten is the best kindergarten program in the district, public or private.\" Suzanne Hamilton, a district patron, said at a Little Rock School District community forum Tuesday night at the University Par.k Adult Center. She said the district appeared to decide to end the program without publicizing the issue or getting advice and reaction from staff and parents. .Of the districts high schools, all but Fair High have at least grams here and pieces there, Williams said that while his but the district could collapse staff had discussed eliminating around us.\" he said. I dont the kindergarten classes, no enjoy this. I feel like Ive been decisions had been made. He assigned the job of the hooded said the proposal hadnt even a.x man. All I do is cut.\" Vic Wright, husband of a kindergarten teacher, said the high school students who help been presented to the school board as a possible budget-cut- ting option. He said he didnt know how in the kindergarten classes much money might be saved by benefit from the program by eliminating the classes, but learning to raise children and the savings could include the possibly develop careers in salaries of teachers in those child care and teaching. He classes. Students could be in- pointed out that converting the into corporated existing kindergarten classrooms into kindergarten classes at the el- rooms appropriate for high ementary schools, he said. The district is facing cuts district money. and adjustments of up to S9 school classes would cost the Williams said that he didnt million to balance next years doubt the value of the program budget. but the school district lacks the resources to address all of so- Williams told the parents that tough budget decisions cietys problems.' *4 - Tra ij 07^ April 17. 1995 APR 2 6 1995 0! '\u0026gt;i(k uesegretiauci! nWijit.....j \\ Dear Mrs. Brown, The decision by the cabinet to eliminate the kindergarten program in the high schools for the coming year and beyond is met with disappointment and sadness. It seems unusual to close a program without requesting input from those directly involved. Pat Price, the Early Childhood Coordinator, and the building principals were unaware of the decision until it had basically been finalized. Additionally, kindergarten teachers in the high schools, high school students currently selecting the course and parents were overlooked as valuable resources in the decision making process. This seemingly demonstrates a lack of meaningful parental and community involvement in the decision making process. The persons omitted from the discussion are the very ones who have first-hand knowledge of this successful kindergarten program. Since a specific rationale for the deletion of the kindergarten program has not been provided, I am unable to address the concerns of the cabinet. However, I have been involved in the program as a student when a senior, as a parent of two sons who attended Parkview's kindergarten and now as a teacher. From my perspective, the merits far outweigh any disadvantages. Please find below a summary of the benefits of the kindergarten program for both the high school students and the five^ear olds. BENEFITS FOR FIVE-YEAR OLDS 1. Optimum \"adult\" to child ratio allowing for increased \"hands on\" time as well as more observation of positive role models. 2. Unique opportunities afforded by a high school setting: * Enriching cultural experiences including speakers and performances from the community as well as from within the school. (Recent examples include a motivational talk by Mr. Darrell Brown, a Territorial Restoration stage production, and our own drama department production of \"Snow White.\") * Kindergarten students further benefit from opportunities offered within the building through cross-departmental interaction. (Examples of this are pumpkin painting with the art class, science projects with biology lab and physics, and cooperative writing assignments with English classes.) * Music and foreign language instruction is provided weekly by teachers certified in those areas.* There are many multi-cultural opportunities. This year the presence and influence of We Fulbright exchange teacher from Russia is felt as she spends many hours instructing the kindergarten students. Due to the enrollment of several foreign exchange students at Hall each year, multi-culturai opportunities are natural as well as numerous. * Beginning the first month of school, kindergartners attend computer lab, while most kindergarten students do not have such an opportunity until second semester. * Finally, the actual physical plant/facility, specifically the gym. allows for daily gross motor development regardless of the weather. BENEFITS FOR HIGH SCHOOL STUDENTS 1. The Child Development/Parenting course allows high school students a lab setting in which to observe, participate, and monitor children in addition to studying theoretical situations. First-hand experience provides additional understanding and continuity. 2. Life skills and, more specifically, positive parenting skills are taught modeled and reinforced daily. If indeed we are as a nation to be successful in reaching by the year 2000 the national education goal identified as school readiness, \"Every child will start school ready to learn,\" is It not imperative that we \"break the cycle\" of poor parenting or the absence of parenting? 3. At the same time these students, often college-bound, have the opportunity to work and plan with children in order that they be better able to assess whether teaching and/or the general field of education is their best career choice. In other words, the course allows for a training ground not only for future parents, but also for future educators. 4. Since acceptance into this program is based on recommendations which assess dependability, attendance, and attitude, it offers the opportunity for success measured by something other than G.PA a 5. Almost universally, an Increase in the self-esteem of the high school students is _ result of the admiration expressed by the kindergarten students. Also contributing to their sense of selFworth are the high expectations set very early in the program. Students respond positively to these expectations and from this experience, they realize they can. meet those expectations and they carry the value of this achievement with them as they take on the roles of adults, parents, or teachers. Thank you for your time and consideration of these things which I find to be significant to the education of our young people. Sinurely, garten Teacher - 'J Q_^ hlji. uywi 't/uu coMay 1, 1995 Antje Nordman 2204 East Meadowbrook Bryant, AR 72022 Dear Ms. Nordman: Thank you for writing to our office to express your concern regarding the Hall High School kindergarten class. I worked as a kindergarten teacher for many years and, at one time, served as the coordinator for all kindergarten classes in the Little Rock School District (LRSD). I have visited Liz Wright's classroom many times and know what an excellent program she offers. I am also aware of the tremendous amount of parental support for the Hall kindergarten\nhowever, the decision whether or not to eliminate high school kindergarten classes is not up to those of us at the Office of Desegregation Monitoring (ODM). The surprise announcement regarding the high school kindergarten classes came Ifom the LRSD administration. As you may have read in the newspaper, the superintendent discussed the decision at a public forum held about a week ago, and he indicated that the move was being considered as part of the budget reduction efforts. The federal district court closely monitors the district's budget cutting strategies. Two budget hearings have been held this spring, and more are scheduled for the summer. To date, the LRSD has filed no documents with the Court that call for the elimination of the high school kindergartens as one of their budget cutting measures. The Court has repeatedly reminded the district to keep their cuts as far away from the children as possible. Our office will closely monitor all proposed reductions to ensure that the district follows the terms of the desegregation plans and court orders. If you have additional comments or suggestions, please feel free to write or call. Sincerely, Melissa Guldin Associate MonitorOffice of Desegregation Monitoring United States District Court  Eastern Distnct 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 May 1, 1995 Sharon Baugh 3009 Breckenridge Drive Little Rock, AlR 72207 Dear Ms. Baugh: Thank you for writing to our office to e.xpress your concern regarding the Hall High School kindergarten class. I worked as a kindergarten teacher for many years and, at one time, served as the coordinator for all kindergarten classes in the Little Rock School District (LRSD). I have visited Liz Wright's classroom many times and know what an excellent program she offers. I am also aware of the tremendous amount of parental support for the Hall kindergarten\nhowever, the decision whether or not to eliminate high school kindergarten classes is not up to those of us at the Office of Desegregation Monitoring (ODM). The surprise announcement regarding the high school kindergarten classes came from the LRSD administration. As you may have read in the newspaper, the superintendent discussed the decision at a public forum held about a week ago, and he indicated that the move was being considered as part of the budget reduction efforts. The federal district court closely monitors the district's budget cutting strategies. Two budget hearings have been held this spring, and more are scheduled for the summer. To date, the LRSD has filed no documents with the Court that call for the elimination of the high school kindergartens as one of their budget cutting measures. The Court has repeatedly reminded the district to keep their cuts as far away from the children as possible. Our office will closely monitor all proposed reductions to ensure that the district follows the terms of the desegregation plans and court orders. If you have additional comments or suggestions, please feel free to write or call. Sincerely, Melissa Guldin Associate MonitorRECE?V^D MAY 1 1 1995 Office of Desegregation Monitoring April 18, 1995 TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN: HAVING TAUGHT AT HALL HIGH SCHOOL FOR NEARLY 20 YEARS AND BEING FAMILIAR WITH THE KINDERGARTEN PROGRAM, I WOULD BE VERY DISAPPOINTED TO SEE THIS PROGRAM ENDED. IT OFFERS MANY UNIQUE OPPORTUNITIES TO BOTH THE 5 YEAR OLDS AND THE HIGH SCHOOL STUDENTS. DURING THE TIME I TAUGHT SCIENCE AND I INVOLVED MY STUDENTS IN WORKING DIRECTLY WITH THE SCIENCE INSTRUCTION OF THE KINDERGARTEN STUDENTS. SOME OF THESE STUDENTS WENT ON TO MAJOR IN ELEMENTARY EDUCATION WITH CERTIFICATION IN THE SCIENCE FIELD, SOMETHING DESPERATELY NEEDED IN ELEMENTARY EDUCATION. ALSO, PARENTS OFTEN PUT THEIR CHILDREN IN THIS PROGRAM WITH THE INTENT TO MOVE THEM TO PRIVATE EDUCATIONAL FACILITIES AFTERWARD BUT REALIZING HOW MUCH MORE WAS PROVIDED IN PUBLIC EDUCATION, DECIDED TO REMAIN IN THE PUBLIC SCHOOL PROGRAM. I DO NOT KNOW HOW SUCCESSFUL THIS PROGRAM IS AT THE OTHER HIGH SCHOOLS IN LITTLE ROCK, BUT I KNOW THAT THE PROGRAM AT HALL IS AN EXCEPTIONAL ONE. IT HAS A DEDICATED TEACHER WITH THE ABILITY TO COORDINATE THE TWO LEVELS OF STUDENTS TO PROVIDE VARIED AND OUTSTANDING EDUCATIONAL EXPERIENCES. I FEEL THAT EACH HIGH SCHOOL PROGRAM SHOULD BE LOOKED AT INDIVIDUALLY TO DETERMINED ITS EFFECTIVENESS AND ON THAT BASIS DETERMINE WHICH SCHOOLS SHOULD BE ABLE TO RETAIN THEIR PROGRAMS. ASSET TO THE LR SCHOOLS. PLEASE DO NOT DESTROY SUCH AN RESPECTFULLY YOURS, SHARON BAUGH RECEitycn APR 26 1995 s- district JUDGE(ZJZ.: UKI? U i! 1 UniCC April 18, 1995 TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN: HAVING TAUGHT AT HALL HIGH SCHOOL FOR NEARLY 20 YEARS AND BEING FAMILIAR WITH THE KINDERGARTEN PROGRAM, I WOULD BE VERY DISAPPOINTED TO SEE THIS PROGRAM ENDED. IT OFFERS MANY UNIQUE OPPORTUNITIES TO BOTH THE 5 YEAR OLDS AND THE HIGH SCHOOL STUDENTS. DURING THE TIME I TAUGHT SCIENCE AND I INVOLVED MY STUDENTS IN WORKING DIRECTLY WITH THE SCIENCE INSTRUCTION OF THE KINDERGARTEN STUDENTS. SOME OF THESE STUDENTS WENT ON TO MAJOR IN ELEMENTARY EDUCATION WITH CERTIFICATION IN THE SCIENCE FIELD, SOMETHING DESPERATELY NEEDED IN ELEMENTARY EDUCATION. ALSO, PARENTS OFTEN PUT THEIR CHILDREN IN THIS PROGRAM WITH THE INTENT TO MOVE THEM TO PRIVATE EDUCATIONAL FACILITIES AFTERWARD BUT REALIZING HOW MUCH MORE WAS PROVIDED IN PUBLIC EDUCATION, DECIDED TO REMAIN IN THE PUBLIC SCHOOL PROGRAM. I DO NOT KNOW HOW SUCCESSFUL THIS PROGRAM IS AT THE OTHER HIGH SCHOOLS IN LITTLE ROCK, BUT I KNOW THAT THE PROGRAM AT HALL IS AN EXCEPTIONAL ONE. IT HAS A DEDICATED TEACHER WITH THE ABILITY TO COORDINATE THE TWO LEVELS OF STUDENTS TO PROVIDE VARIED AND OUTSTANDING EDUCATIONAL EXPERIENCES. I FEEL THAT EACH HIGH SCHOOL PROGRAM SHOULD BE LOOKED AT INDIVIDUALLY TO DETERMINED ITS EFFECTIVENESS AND ON THAT BASIS DETERMINE WHICH SCHOOLS SHOULD BE ABLE TO RETAIN THEIR PROGRAMS. ASSET TO THE LR SCHOOLS. PLEASE DO NOT DESTROY SUCH AN A a.i^y r,-\nRESPECTFULLY YOURS, / I SHARON BAUGH kOffice 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 May 1, 1995 Ange Nordman 2204 East Meadowbrook Bryant, AR 72022 Dear Ms. Nordman: Thank you for writing to our office to express your concern regarding the Hall High School kindergarten class. I worked as a kindergarten teacher for many years and, at one time, served as the coordinator for all kindergarten classes in the Little Rock School District (LRSD). 1 have visited Liz Wright's classroom many times and know what an excellent program she offers. I am also aware of the tremendous amount of parental support for the Hall kindergarten\nhowever, the decision whether or not to eliminate high school kindergarten classes is not up to those of us at the Office of Desegregation Monitoring (ODM). The surprise announcement regarding the high school kindergarten classes came from the LRSD administration. As you may have read in the newspaper, the superintendent discussed the decision at a public forum held about a week ago, and he indicated that the move was being considered as part of foe budget reduction efforts. The federal district court closely monitors foe district's budget cutting strategies. Two budget hearings have been held this spring, and more are scheduled for the summer. To date, the LRSD has filed no documents with the Court that call for the elimination of the high school kindergartens as one of their budget cutting measures. The Court has repeatedly reminded foe district to keep their cuts as far away from foe children as possible. Our office will closely monitor all proposed reductions to ensure that the district follows the terms of the desegregation plans and court orders. If you have additional comments or suggestions, please feel free to write or call. Sincerely, Melissa Guldin Associate Monitor ( Dear Mrs. Brown, AP? 2 1995 Office of /.lonjiOfiiTg I am a parent of two children who have had the wonderful experience of having participated in the Hall High School Kindergarten. The kindergarten at Hall High is such a positive experience for so many people that I am extremely concerned and saddened by the decision to have it closed. Students in this kindergarten learn not only the educational requirements, but have a role in our high school community. They learn manners, rules, vocabulary beyond their expected level, caring for other people, as well as becoming friends with officer Vint, our on-campus policeman. Our kindergarten students at Hall have been able to be exposed to the Russian language and culture from our Russian exchange teacher this year. In the past, our upper level Spanish students have taught these young people Spanish and they recieve music lessons from our music teacher. The children have also been able to participate in and observe assemblies. The Child Development/Parenting course at Hall would also suffer greatly without the kindergarten program. Students who feel that they might like to work in or run a daycare or be an elementary teacher or aide would no longer get first hand experience. Some of our students at Hall are parents who learn valuable parenting skills by participating in this program. Children in the kindergarten are proud to be a part of Hall High School. Some of the children have big brothers and/or sisters who are able to see that these children get to their class and home safely. One young man likes to check on the progress of his older brother in his high school class. Liz Wright, the kindergarten teacher, does so much more at Hall than instruct kindergarten. She has been an intregal part of our SAP (Student Assistance Program) meeting the increasing need their special needs and problems. to communicate with high school kids about she cares about all of our students, of our faculty's social committee. She is there to listen and She is also in charge Dr. Anderson has stated that at the end of a difficult day he enjoys an occasional visit to the kindergarten class to see the happy little faces and perhaps to get a little hug. Please reconsider this decision to close our kindergarten program at Hall, benifit. We need our happy little faces and they, too, Sincerely, Antj e Nordman Hall High Schoolr.' \"1 May 4, 1 995 Dr. Henry Williams, Superintendent Little Rock School District 810 Markham Street Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 0/  995 '^ Dear Dr. Williams: It is quite disturbing to find that, once again, the Little Rock School District is attempting to eliminate the high school kindergarten programs. My child participated in the program during the 1989-1990 school year and still fondly recalls the wonderful experiences the program provided her. I was extremely involved in the program myself, serving as Mrs. Wrights room mother. I spent countless hours directly involved in the classroom assisting with activities. I feel most qualified to defend the good qualities this program has. I am an elementary teacher myself who has spent eight years teaching in the classroom and another two years substitute teaching. These ten years experience have been in Georgia, Louisiana. Arkansas, and now Michigan. The system my children are now in is in a suburb of Detroit, Novi, and is most impressive. However, I have yet to find any kindergarten program that comes anywhere near the quality of your high school kindergarten programs. First and foremost is the benefit the program offers to the young children. This is such a sensible way to 'wean\" children from their mother's one-on-one care. They are in smaller groups, enabling them to see that others around them also have needs, but not yet overwhelming them with high pupil-teacher ratios. The high school students can help nurture their needs and guide their activities. With the additional help of the high school kids, the teacher can plan activities that are impossible in the traditional kindergarten setting. The high school itself provides countless opportunities for the children through their art. drama, music, foreign language, and physical education departments. It is lagniappe that this program benefits the high school students also. Many teenagers today see pregnancy and children as a 'way out* of their existing circumstances or simply as the \"cool* thing to do. This program shows them how very patient and well prepared you must be to be a parent. It also shows them how rewarding it can be to work with children. The affection shown to the high school students is so beneficial to their positive self-esteem ! The memory is still vivid in my mind of a six-foot young man saying 'good-bye* to his 'students' on his last day of high school with tears rolling down his cheeks. Another asset of the program is that, hopefully, many young people would find teaching to be the profession of their choice. In conclusion, I feel it sad that every five year-old in the country cant have the opportunity to be involved in such a rewarding program. Please strongly consider leaving this program in place. Let it be a shining star in the Little Rock School District\nsomething unique that other systems throughout the state or the country do not offer. Dont allow this program to fall victim to the mediocrity we see in so many public school systems. Sincerely. Patricia B. Holt 4S4O9 Addington Lane Novi, Michigan 48374 cc: E. Wright S. Wright A. Brown R. Mayo K. Mitchell K. O'Malley J. Magness J. Riggs L, Poindexter P. Gee S. JohnsonDear Dr. Williams, My name is Sarah Holt. Five years ago I was In Hall High School for kindergarten. It was different than other schools in good ways. One way was how the teenagers came In and helped us. One of those teenagers ended up being a great role model for me at that time. I really looked up to everyone who came In to help us. Since Mrs. Wright had so much help from the high school students, she could plan activities that were very involved. We couldn't have done those activities in larger groups. Mrs. Wright was an exceptionally good teacher. She always had fun activities planned and gave me a great beginning in my education.! know if I feel this way the high school kids do too. it would be awful if you shut It down because then other kids would miss out on the fun. Sincerely, Sarah K. HoltC/.' . ''-i-  May 4.. 1 99S I Dr. Henry Williams. Superintendent Little Rock School District 810 Markham Street Little Rock. Arkansas 7 2201 '95 if Dear Or. Williams: It is quite disturbing to find that, once again, the Little Rock School District is attempting to eliminate the high school kindergarten programs. My child participated in the program during the 1989-1990 school year and still fondly recalls the wonderful experiences the program provided her. I was extremely involved in the program myself, serving as Mrs. Wrights room mother. I spent countless hours directly involved in the classroom assisting with activities. I feel most qualified to defend the good qualities this program has. I am an elementary teacher myself who has spent eight years teaching in the classroom and another two years substitute teaching. These ten years experience have been in Georgia. Louisiana. Arkansas, and now Michigan. The system my children are now in is in a suburb of Detroit. Novi, and is most impressive. However. I have yet to find any kindergarten program that comes anywhere near the quality of your high school kindergarten programs. First and foremost is the benefit the program offers to the young children. This is such a sensible way to 'wean' children from their mother's one-on-one care. They are in smaller groups, enabling them to see that others around them also have needs, but not yet overwhelming them with high pupil-teacher ratios. The high school students can help nurture their needs and guide their activities. With the additional help of the high school kids, the teacher can plan activities that are impossible in the traditional kindergar'ten setting. The high school itself provides countless opportunities for the children through their art. drama, music, foreign language, and physical education departments. It is lagniappe that this program benefits the high school students also. Many teenagers today see pregnancy and children as a \"way out\" of their existing circumstances or simply as the -cool\" thing to do. This program shows them how very patient and well prepared you must be to be a parent. It also shows them how rewarding it can be to work with children. The affection shown to the high school students is so beneficial to their positive self-esteem ! The memory is still vivid in my mind of a six-foot young man saying \"good-bye' to his 'students' on his last day of high school with tears rolling down his cheeks. Another asset of the program is that, hopefully, many young people would find teaching to be the profession of their choice. In conclusion. I feel it sad that every five year-old in the country cant have the opportunity to be involved in such a rewarding program. Please strongly consider leaving this program in place. Let it be a shining star in the Little Rock School District\nsomething unique that other systems throughout the state or the country do not offer. Dont allow this program to fall victim to the mediocrity we see in so many public school systems. Sincerely. Patricia B. Holt 45409 Addington Lane Novi, Michigan 48374 cc: . Wright S. Wright A. Brown R. Mayo K. Mitchell K. O'Malley J. Magness J. Riggs L. Poindexter P. Gee S. JohnsonDear Dr. Williams, My name is Sarah Holt. Five years ago I was in Hall High School for kindergarten. It was different than other schools In good ways. One way was how the teenagers came in and helped us. One of those teenagers ended up being a great role model for me at that time. I really looked up to everyone who came in to help us. Since Mrs. Wright had so much help from the high school students, she could plan activities that were very Involved. We couldn't have done those activities in larger groups. Mrs. Wright was an exceptionally good teacher. She always had fun activities planned and gave me a great beginning in my education.! know if I feel this way the high school kids do too. It would be awful if you shut It down because then other kids would miss out on the fun. Sincerely, Sarah K. Holt'i'\u0026gt;\u0026lt;-( C'^ I ) V ifK'-'i'lc I I i N6'\u0026gt;6| mt (/K37q I 4 PH  ' I Mf /?\u0026lt;a6 MI DCR #4 ( iC GIqi r5. Br\u0026lt;Oior\u0026gt; Of-Pice ofj'ilbni-k)\n}0\\ (V)art^vz/-/)i S-j- SttiMSlO LJ-Hle i2bcB 'At (V)art ^vz/-/) i S-j- Wd I HncOffice of Desegregation Monitoring United States District Court  Eastern District of Arkansas Ann S. Brown, Federal Monitor May 9, 1995 201 East Markham, Suite 510 Heritage West Building Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 (501)376.6200 Fax (501) 371-0100 Penny Johnson 9812 Satterfield Dr. Little Rock, AR 72205 Dear Ms. Johnson: Thank you for writing to our office to express your concern regarding the Hall High School kindergarten class. I worked as a kindergarten teacher for many years and, at one time, served as the coordinator for all kindergarten classes in the Little Rock School District (LRSD). I have visited Liz Wrights classroom many times and know what an excellent program she offers, and I well remember Virginia Minors tenure at Hall as well. I am aware of the tremendous amount of parental support for the Hall kindergarten\nhowever, the decision whether or not to eliminate high school kindergarten classes is not up to those of us at the Office of Desegregation Monitoring (ODM). The surprise announcement regarding the high school kindergarten classes came from the LRSD administration. As you may have read in the newspaper, the superintendent discussed the decision at a public forum held about a week ago, and he indicated that the move was being considered as part of the budget reduction efforts. The federal district court closely monitors the districts budget cutting strategies. Two budget hearings have been held this spring, and more are scheduled for the summer. To date, the LRSD has filed no documents with the Court that call for the elimination of the high school kindergartens as one of their budget cutting measures. The Court has repeatedly reminded the district to keep their cuts as far away from the children as possible. Our office will closely monitor all proposed reductions to ensure that the district follows the terms of the desegregation plans and court orders. If you have additional comments or suggestions, please feel free to write or call. Sincerely, Melissa Guldin Associate MonitorMay 8, 1995 Mrs. Ann Brown Office of the Desegragation Monitoring 201 East Markham St., Ste. 510 Little Rock, AR 72201 Dear Mrs. Brown: Recently I read in the District was considering newspaper that at Hall High School. 5~tt *\u0026lt;r 9 W95 d^-o-**^*^** the Little discontinuing the kindergarten Rock School Approximately twenty years ago my twin attended this particular kindergarten. program sons My only regret was that I had not been aware of the program for my two older sons. The individual attention afforded the children by the high school students invaluable. They were taught the basics to prepare them the contact with the senior high students made of the school in general. They had role help but think it also prepared the senior desired. for was invaluable, first grade but models. them feel a part I cannot e.!! the senior general. high students to become educators and parents, if they so It is hard at this point to recall specific details of the year at kindergarten but my sons have good, positive memories. They planting peanuts in the spring and harvesting One now teaches at Catholic High School. can still recall them in the fall. sons good, positive have encountered some of their high years and are always pleased to be remembered. school teachers They over the I hope that you will reconsider this decision. program is a vital and f ive important part The kindergarten of the education of the especially year old but more specifically for the high school students in this time when high. If importance we can of good make these parenting the teen-age pregnancy rate is so young and education. people think about the it will school district and state more money than it will cost. save the Sincere1 Penny on 9812 Satterfield Dr. Little Rock, AR 72205 BAY- 9-95 TUE 15:30 SUSAN W WRIGHT FAX NO. 5013246576 P. 07 May 8, 1595 District Judge Susan tf. Wright 600 West Capitol Little Rock, AR 72201 Dear Judge Wright: REC^ \"Vi may 9 1995 Office of Desegregation Monitoring Recently l read in the newspaper that the Little Rock School *'^-^i^ti-hg..d.iscpntinuin5_ th.e_ kindergar_ten program at Hall High School. Approximately twenty years ago mv twin sons'\" newspaper that the Little - Approximately twenty years ago my twin sons atvended this particular kindergarten. My only regret was that I had not been aware of the program for my two older sons. My only regret was that I The individual attention afforded the children by the high school students was Invaluable. They were taught the basics to prepare them for first grade but the contact with the senior high students made them feel a part of the school in general. They models. I cannot help but think it also prepared the high students to become educators and parents, if they so for had role senior desired. the senior general. It is hard at this point to recall specific details of the year _ sons have good, positive memories, recall planting peanuts in the spring and harvesting f_ll. One now teaches at Catholic High School. have encountered some of their high school teachers over the years and are always pleased to be remembered. at kindergarten but my can still them in the fall. the They school teachers They hope that you will reconsider this decision. I nope mat The kindergarten program is a vital and Important part of the education of the year old but more specifically for the high school students especially =- - *- five the education of high. If in this time when importance we of can make the teen-age pregnancy these young people ' think rate is so good parenting and education, it will school district and state more money than it will cost. about the save the nee r el. \"(1 '5 cm ns Penny _______ 9812 Satterfield Dr.\"' nson Little Rock, AR 72205 /9g5 Us.Office of Desegregation Monitoring United States District Court  Eastern District of Arkansas Ann S. Brown, Federal Monitor May 9, 1995 201 East Markham, Suite 510 Heritage West Building Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 (501) 376.6200 Fax (501) 371.0100 Paula K. Wood 3007 Alameda Drive Little Rock, AR 72204 Dear Ms. Wood\nThank you for writing to our office to express your concern regarding the Hall High School kindergarten class. I worked as a kindergarten teacher for many years and, at one time, served as the coordinator for all kindergarten classes in the Little Rock School District (LRSD). I have visited Liz Wright's classroom many times and know what an excellent program she offers. I am also aware of the tremendous amount of parental support for the Hall kindergarten\nhowever, the decision whether or not to eliminate high school kindergarten classes is not up to those of us at the Office of Desegregation Monitoring (ODM). The surprise announcement regarding the high school kindergarten classes came from the LRSD administration. As you may have read in the newspaper, the superintendent discussed the decision at a public forum held about a week ago, and he indicated that the move was being considered as part of the budget reduction efforts. The federal district court closely monitors the district's budget cutting strategies. Two budget hearings have been held this spring, and more are scheduled for the summer. To date, the LRSD has filed no documents with the Court that call for the elimination of the high school kindergartens as one of their budget cutting measures. The Court has repeatedly reminded the district to keep their cuts as far away from the children as possible. Our office will closely monitor all proposed reductions to ensure that the district follows the terms of the desegregation plans and court orders. If you have additional comments or suggestions, please feel free to write or call. Sincerely, PrkjMyn Melissa Guldin Associate Monitorcc: Paula K. Wood 3007 Alameda Drive Little Rock, AR 72204 Phone: 562-9445 May I 1995 Mrs. Ann Brown Office of the Desegregation Monitoring 201 East Markham St., Suite 510 Little Rock. AR 72201 Of/ics Ct 06^83.-931,on Jvjonitonn: April 27, 1995 Dear Mrs. Brown, I recently learned that the kindergarten classrooms in LRSD High Schools are to be discontinued. I dont know who made this decision, however I am certain that this decision must have been made by someone who has not invested any time observing these programs. I am a teacher at Hall High School. I also co-sponsor a student assistance group for young mothers at our school. Having a kindergarten class coordinated with a child development class may be one of the most important programs our schools can offer. It is evident that many young parents do not know how to care for a small child or know what behaviors are normal for growing children. Many teenagers have unrealistic expectations for their children and use punishment for managing behavior rather than positive reinforcement of good behaviors. Much of the child abuse and neglect in our society is a result of ignorance. The kindergarten program provides, for some of these students, the only positive parenting role models and hands-on experience they will ever have. I teach a Community Based Instruction class, which is made up of students with varying disabilities. Some of my students have worked one period a day in the kindergarten. 11 is good for the kindergarteners to learn about people with disabilities, and even better for my students self confidence and esteem to be able to help others Please revisit this issue. I would be happy to discuss any questions you may have if it would be helpful. I am sure that no one would purposefully discontinue a program that is such a success with so many people. Sincerely, Paula K. WoodMay 9, 1995 Penny Johnson 9812 Satterfield Dr. Little Rock, AR 72205 Dear Ms. Johnson: Thank you for writing to our office to express your concern regarding the Hall High School kindergarten class. I worked as a kindergarten teacher for many years and, at one time, served as the coordinator for all kindergarten classes in the Little Rock School District (LRSD). I have visited Liz Wright's classroom many times and know what an excellent program she offers, and I well remember Virginia Minor's tenure at Hall as well. I am aware of the tremendous amount of parental support for the Hall kindergarten\nhowever, the decision whether or not to eliminate high school kindergarten classes is not up to those of us at the Office of Desegregation Monitoring (ODM). The surprise announcement regarding the high school kindergarten classes came from the LRSD administration. As you may have read in the newspaper, the superintendent discussed the decision at a public forum held about a week ago, and he indicated that the move was being considered as part of the budget reduction efforts. The federal district court closely monitors the district's budget cutting strategies. Two budget hearings have been held this spring, and more are scheduled for the summer. To date, the LRSD has filed no documents with the Court that call for the elimination of the high school kindergartens as one of their budget cutting measures. The Court has repeatedly reminded the district to keep their cuts as far away from the children as possible. Our office will closely monitor all proposed reductions to ensure that the district follows the terms of the desegregation plans and court orders. If you have additional comments or suggestions, please feel free to write or call. Sincerely, Melissa Guldin Associate MonitorOffice 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 May 12, 1995 Liz Wright 506 Hall Drive Little Rock, AR 72205 Dear Liz\nAnn asked me to respond to your letter. Thank you for writing to our office and expressing your views on the importance of the high school kindergartens. Our office has received many letters and calls of support for the Hall kindergarten program. As a teacher, I know how gratifying it is to have parents recognize your efforts. It is a shame that this outpouring of sincere support was prompted by the surprise announcement to eliminate the program. As you noted, district official apparently made this decision without any input from the parents or community. Both the District Court and the Court of Appeals have placed great emphasis on parent involvement. Our office closely monitors the districts efforts, or lack thereof, to involve the community in decision making. The Court is also concerned about the districts budget and budgeting process\ntherefore, we closely scrutinize activities in those areas. Since the LRSD superintendent described the elimination of the high school kindergarten classes as a budget decision, any efforts to go forward with such a recommendation will also result in careful scrutiny of the financial implications. Weve known each other a long time, Liz, and Ive visited your classroom at Hall (and before that at Central) many times. I know what an excellent job you do with both your kindergarten and high school students. Many of my friends have children who have been in your classes, and they rave about the education you provided for their children. Personally, I do not believe that the district should abandon such a successful and popular program. While it seems that any plans for immediate change have been abandoned, you can expect that our office will keep watch on future developments. Sincerely, Melissa Guldin Associate MonitorI CP April 17,1995 RECHVEO MAY 1 1 1995 26 ,995 Office of Desegregatioii Moi.iiOiing Dear Judge Wright The decision by the cabinet to eliminate the kindergarten program in the high schools for the coming year and beyond is met with disappointment and sadness. It seems unusual to close a program without requesting input from those directly involved. Pat Price, the Early Childhood Coordinator, and the building principals were unaware of the decision until it had basically been finalized. Additionally, kindergarten teachers in the high schools, high school students currently selecting the course and parents were overlooked as valuable resources in the decision making process. This seemingly demonstrates a lack of meaningful parental and community involvement in the decision making process. The persons omitted from the discussion are the very ones who have first-hand knowledge of this successful kindergarten program. * Since a specific rationale for the deletion of the kindergarten program has not been provided, I am unable to address the concerns of the cabinet. However, I have been involved in the program as a student when a senior, as a parent of two sons who attended Parkview's kindergarten and now as a teacher. From my perspective, the merits far outweigh any disadvantages. Please find below a summary of the benefits of the kindergarten program for both the high school students and the five^ear olds. BENEFITS FOR FIVE-YEAR OLDS 1. Optimum \"adult\" to child ratio allowing for increased \"hands on\" time as well as more observation of positive role models. 2. Unique opportunities afforded by a high school setting: * Enriching cultural experiences including speakers and performances from the community as well as from within the school. (Recent examples include a motivational talk by Mr. Darrell Brown, a Territorial Restoration stage production, and our own drama department production of \"Snow White.\") * Kindergarten students further benefit from opportunities offered within the building through cross-departmental interaction. (Examples of this are pumpkin painting with the art class, science projects with biology lab and physics, and cooperative writing assignments with English classes.) * Music and foreign language instruction is provided weekly by teachers certified in those areas.There are many multi-cultural opportunities. This year the presence and influence of the Fulbright exchange teacher from Russia is felt as she spends many hours instructing the kindergarten students. Due to the enrollment of several foreign exchange students at Hall each year, multi-cultural opportunities are natural as well as numerous. Beginning the first month of school, kindergartners attend computer lab, while most kindergarten students do not have such an opportunity until second semester. * Finally, the actual physical plant/facility, specifically the gym, allows for daily gross motor development regardless of the weather. BENEFITS FOR HIGH SCHOOL STUDENTS 1. The Child Development/Parenting course allows high school students a lab setting in which to observe, participate, and monitor children in addition to studying theoretical situations. First-hand experience provides additional understanding and continuity. 2. Life skills and, more specifically, positive parenting skills are taught, modeled and reinforced daily. If indeed we are as a nation to be successful in reaching by the year 2000 the national education goal identified as school readiness, \"Every child will start school ready to learn,\" is it not imperative that we \"break the cycle\" of poor parenting or the absence of parenting? 3. At the same time these students, often college-bound, have the opportunity to work and plan with children in order that they be better able to assess whether teaching and/or the general field of education is their best career choice. In other words, the course allows for a training ground not only for future parents, but also for future educators. 4. Since acceptance into this program is based on recommendations which assess dependability, attendance, and attitude, it offers the opportunity for success measured by something other than G.P.A. 5. Almost universally, an increase in the self-esteem of the high school students is a result of the admiration expressed by the kindergarten students. Also contributing to their sense of self-worth are the high expectations set very early in the program. Students respond positively to these expectations and from this experience, they realize they can meet those expectations and they carry the value of this achievement with them as they take on the roles of adults, parents, or teachers. Thank you for your time and consideration of these things which I find to be significant to the education of our young people. Sin rely, Liz Hal ght \"111: [uh Kindergarten Teacher RECEIVE April 17, 1995 APR 2 6 1995 Office of Desegregation Moniiu.,..j \\ Dear Mrs. Brown, The decision by the cabinet to eliminate the kindergarten program in the high schools for the coming year and beyond is met with disappointment and sadness. It seems unusual to close a program without requesting input from those directly involved. Pat Price, the Early Childhood Coordinator, and the building principals were unaware of the decision until it had basically been finalized. Additionally, kindergarten teachers in the high schools, high school students currently selecting the course and parents were overlooked as valuable resources in the decision making process. This seemingly demonstrates a lack of meaningful parental and community involvement in the decision making process. The persons omitted from the discussion are the very ones who have first-hand knowledge of this successful kindergarten program. Since a specific rationale for the deletion of the kindergarten program has not been provided, I am unable to address the concerns of the cabinet. However, I have been involved in the program as a student when a senior, as a parent of two sons who attended Parkview's kindergarten and now as a teacher. From my perspective, the merits far outweigh any disadvantages. Please find below a summary of the benefits of the kindergarten program for both the high school students and the five^ear olds. BENEFITS FOR FIVE-YEAR OLDS 1. Optimum \"adult\" to child ratio allowing for increased \"hands on\" time as well as more observation of positive role models. 2. Unique opportunities afforded by a high school setting: * Enriching cultural experiences including speakers and performances from the community as well as from within the school. (Recent examples include a motivational talk by Mr. Darrell Brown, a Territorial Restoration stage production, and our own drama department production of \"Snow White.! Kindergarten students further benefit from opportunities offered within the building through cross-departmental interaction. (Examples of this are pumpkin painting with the art class, science projects with biology lab and physics, and cooperative writing assignments with English classes.! Music and foreign language instruction is provided weekly by teachers certified in those areas.There arc many multi-cultural opportunities. This year the presence and influence of the Fulbright exchange teacher from Russia is felt as she spends many hours instructing the kindergarten students. Duc to the enrollment of several foreign exchange students at Hall each year, multi-cultural opportunities are natural as well as numerous. * Beginning the first month of school, kindergartners attend computer lab, while most kindergarten students do not have such an opportunity until second semester. * Finally, the actual physical plantffacility, specifically the gym, allows for daily gross motor development regardless of the weather. BENEFITS FOR HIGH SCHOOL STUDENTS 1. The Child Developmenl/Parenting course allows high school students a lab setting in which to observe, participate, and monitor children in addition to studying theoretical situations. First-hand experience provides additional understanding and continuity. 2. Life skills and. more specifically, positive parenting skills are taught modeled and reinforced daily. If indeed we are as a nation to be successful in reaching by the year 2000 the national education goal identified as school readiness, \"Every child will start school ready to learn,\" is it not imperative that we \"break the cycle\" of poor parenting or the absence of parenting? 3. At the same time these students, often college-bound, have the opportunity to work and plan with children in order that they be better able to assess whether teaching and/or the general field of education is their best career choice. In other words, the course allows for a training ground not only for future parents, but also for future educators. 4. Since acceptance into this program is based on recommendations which assess dependability, attendance, and attitude, it offers the opportunity for success measured by something other than G.P.A. 5. Almost universally, an increase in the self-esteem of the high school students is a result of the admiration expressed by the kindergarten students. Also contributing to their sense of self-worth are the high expectations set very early in the program. Students respond positively to these expectations and from this experience, they realize they cap meet those expectations and they carry the value of this achievement with them as they take on the roles of adults, parents, or teachers. Thank you for your time and consideration of these things which I find to be significant to the education of our young people. Sin^rcly, J \\X\u0026gt; garten Teacher L'}y\\jtcL \u0026lt;1^ C))^ i'll - -J 4/^ uw\\\u0026lt; 6V (JU(JKj Lcz \\baaliL. 'tluu co -^TKJ r 5^^ May 15, 1995 Dear It recently came to my 6 1995 attention that there is some discussion concerning the elimination of the kindergarten program at Hall High School. As a parent, former teacher with the Little Rock School District, and the mother of a child who attended kinder-garten at Hall, I um deeply concerned about the possibility of eliminating this fine program. My son , Will Trice, couldn't have gotten off to a better start in school due to his exceptional year at the Hall High kindergarten. It was a tremendous advantage for him to be in a kindergarten program withing a high school setting, high school students and their programs The interaction between and activities^ and the kindergarten children provided enrichment that could not have been matched in any other setting. The music and drama programs. the communication with foreign exchange students, the availability of the computer lab and media center, the activities with the applied arts department are just a few advantages for the kinder-garten students in a high school setting. There is an obvious advantage for high school students to work with small children as they gain special skills that will help them to become better parents in the future. Please consider, carefully, before eliminating a program that has proved itself over many years. This is one program that works! 3Jiic.y Tri, ! r  I fi ^0 I Office of Desegregation Monitoring United States District Court  Eastern District of Arkansas Ann S. Brown, Federal Monitor 201 East Markham, Suite 510 Heritage West Building Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 (501) 376-6200 Fax (501) 371 -0100 May 19, 1995 Mary Mayeaux 614 North Taylor Little Rock, AR 72205 Dear Mary: It was good to talk to you on the telephone last week. I appreciate you taking time to write Judge Wright to express your concerns about the Hall High kindergarten and the Little Rock School District. It is also nice to hear from a member of the public who thinks the Office of Desegregation Monitoring performs a needed function. It seems a shame that our visits are usually prompted by some type of crisis in the school district. Evidently, the district will not make any changes in the high school kindergartens for 1995- 96. I know what a great experience Hall has been for David, and I hope he and Mark both enjoy being together at Gibbs next year. Lets keep in touch. Sincerely, Melissa Guldin Associate Monitorex A R n-*S Cr ' B 1995 ^'iCT JCCGE i^lp -?a.. I 1^3^06 if /] t 7^iSli:-^ ( 'P hyWL /^ ''9 A/yy. 'fi /I -7- I 7U. jc-*- 6'^ a  /l (6 y- .L 1/ t.{ XL^-t'^ I .'b\u0026lt;. z CctlJ-d- '7 'b''L. / yXj ^Uyj/C''^ !^\u0026lt;--l^at^Lci'\\^ _.^^yr7n -n t i My .GtjJ Vzy zy^- X u \u0026gt;CC7^ /- c^.^^ulzL __^\u0026lt;)__iU/Kafy:. ...Mz:^_ V ^vL^riyTyZ 'n^^ . ,n /.ly. _. z^!': fn,' (Z'l^JbbU^J .7 4' t, 1 __ ... .CC'^'C^ . XX^ J [ b yXLCiX'1^ 16\u0026gt; ^7 . X XXch /X. /. ' I 'I A., / ,1 ^\u0026gt; tr- X^Li. :^X..X\u0026gt;C~- 1/ /KjzjlXjX .LAKl.^ ^J\u0026gt; . X^yuL. clL(J,dJ^TX-. /pJ^y^L. _____ ox-XX liduL u\u0026gt;\u0026lt;bL,. 4\u0026gt; czy^^ ^cW-i . -..Xyi\u0026amp;C(y^--'___ xU-' ^y. a\u0026amp; J . 1 '^LA /odJi y^ry^ \u0026gt;') 7 ff' L-'\u0026gt;y. zl /^c\u0026lt;^ tyu/L __________\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_22569","title":"Harry B. Dunbar individual file","collection_id":"bcas_p15728coll3","collection_title":"Butler Center for Arkansas Studies Documents Collection","dcterms_contributor":["Dunbar, Harry B."],"dcterms_spatial":["United States, 39.76, -98.5","United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, 34.76993, -92.3118","United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, Little Rock, 34.74648, -92.28959","United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, Little Rock, Dunbar High School, 34.73231, -92.28654"],"dcterms_creator":null,"dc_date":["1995"],"dcterms_description":["This folder contains documents and photographs donated by Harry B. Dunbar.","This project was supported in part by a Digitizing Hidden Special Collections and Archives project grant from The Andrew W. Mellon Foundation and Council on Library and Information Resources."],"dc_format":["image/jpeg"],"dcterms_identifier":null,"dcterms_language":["eng"],"dcterms_publisher":["Little Rock, Ark. : University of Arkansas at Little Rock Center for Arkansas History and Culture"],"dc_relation":null,"dc_right":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC-EDU/1.0/"],"dcterms_is_part_of":["National Dunbar Alumni Association historical collection, 1880-2016 (UALR.MS.0021)","History of Segregation and Integration of Arkansas's Educational System"],"dcterms_subject":["African American--History--Arkansas","African Americans--Arkansas--Little Rock","Dunbar High School (Little Rock, Ark.)","Education--Arkansas--History","Education--Arkansas--Little Rock","Education, Secondary","School integration--Arkansas--Little Rock","Segregation in education--Arkansas--Little Rock"],"dcterms_title":["Harry B. Dunbar individual file"],"dcterms_type":["StillImage"],"dcterms_provenance":["Butler Center for Arkansas Studies"],"edm_is_shown_by":null,"edm_is_shown_at":["http://arstudies.contentdm.oclc.org/cdm/ref/collection/p15728coll3/id/22569"],"dcterms_temporal":null,"dcterms_rights_holder":null,"dcterms_bibliographic_citation":null,"dlg_local_right":null,"dcterms_medium":["documents (object genre)"],"dcterms_extent":null,"dlg_subject_personal":null,"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":null},{"id":"bcas_bcmss0837_480","title":"Incentive Schools: Enrollment registration","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","Educational statistics","Education--Evaluation","School enrollment"],"dcterms_title":["Incentive Schools: Enrollment registration"],"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/480"],"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":["79 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\nSchool Enrollment Summary Year Black White Total %Blk Mitchell 1989-90 220 19 239 92 1990-91 183 24 207 88 1991-92 285 27 312 91 Six Year Comparison: 1989-90 to 1994-95  14% increase in total enrollment  37% decrease in white enrollment  18% increase in black enrollment 1992-93 232 32 264 88 1993-94 215 15 230 93 1994-95 260 12 272 96 Two Year Comparison: 1993-94 to 1994-95  18% increase in total enrollment  20% decrease in white enrollment  21 % increase in black enrollment Rightsell 1989-90 194 17 211 92 1990-91 191 2 193 99 Rockefeller Stephens Total 1991-92 1992-93 1993-94 1994-95 1989-90 1990-91 1991-92 1992-93 1993-94 1994-95 1989-90 1990-91 1991-92 1992-93 1993-94 1994-95 1989-90 1990-91 1991-92 1992-93 1993-94 1994-95 282 239 184 225 215 195 282 250 240 248 225 190 235 202 141 1,643 1,455 1,962 1,690 1,261 1,372 7 10 5 4 35 76 121 111 100 122 1 12 10 7 4 180 215 273 247 193 224 289 249 189 229 250 271 403 361 340 370 226 202 245 209 145 1,823 1,670 2,235 1,937 1,454 1,596 98 96 97 98 86 72 70 69 71 67 99 94 96 97 97 90 87 88 87 87 86 Six Year Comparison: 1989-90 to 1994-95  9% increase in total enrollment  76% decrease in white student enrollment  16% increase in black enrollment Two Year Comparison: 1993-94 to 1994-95  21 % increase in total enrollment  20% decrease in white enrollment  22% increase in black enrollment Six Year Comparison\n1989-90 to 1994-95  48% increase in total enrollment  249% increase in white enrollment  15% increase in black enrollment Two Year Comparison: 1993-94 to 1994-95  9% increase in total enrollment  22% increase in white enrollment  3% increase in black enrollment Note: LRSD closed Stephens Incentive School after the 1993-94 school year. Six Year Comparison: 1989-90 to 1994-95*  12% decrease in total enrollment  24% increase in white enrollment  16% decrease in black enrollment Two Year Comparison: 1993-94 to 1994-95*  10% increase in total enrollment  16% increase in white enrollment  9% increase in black enrollment Note\nThe 1993-94 totals do not include Ish School, which closed after 1992-93, and the 1994-95 totals do not include Stephens School, which closed after 1993-94 SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS RECOMMENDATION 1. Page 2B0BSSPE1.XLS Four Year Old 94-95 Unit 17 18 19 22 23 25 26 28 31 34 35 36 37 39 40 42 44 45 46 52 Unit Name Bale__________ Brady_________ Badgett Baseline_______ Fair Park______ Franklin_______ Garland_______ Chicot________ Cloverdale Elem Mitchell_______ M.L. King______ Rockefeller Geyer Springs Rightsell_______ Romine_______ Washington Wilson________ Woodruff______ Mablevale Elem Watson Sum of Budget 89606.43 57360.21 102110.61 99862.73 62893.73 155681.3 57293.21 59221.35 160067.69 41192.09 174301.09 295636.85 104416.85 45360.01 90299.61 151496.77 50190.04 96522.58 48403.04 102784.66 $2,044,700.85  k  Page 1LRSD INCENTIVE SCHOOL DOUBLE FUNDING 1990-91 1991-92 1992-93 1993-94 1994-95 (Budgeted) 1995-96 Ajea School Actual Per-Pupil Expenditure (Previous Year) Inflationary Adjustment (when actual budget unknown) Projected Area School PerPupil Expenditure Double Funding Obligation Incentive School Projected Per-Pupil Expenditure Incentive School Enrollment (Previous Year) Projected Obligation Based Upon Prior Year Enrollment Actual Enrollment Actual Obligation Based Upon Oct. 1 Enrollment Actual Expenditure Over or Under $1,887.46 (X) 6% (=) $2,000.71 (+) $1,887.46 (=) $3,888.17 IXL 1,375 (=) $5,346,233.75 1259 $4,895,206.03 $6,833,005.68 $1,937,799.65 * Based upon 1994-95 area school budget 1993-94 area school enrollment Per-pupil expenditure (area school) $2,249.24 m 5.8% (=) $2,379.70 (+) $1,887.46 (=) $4,267.16 1,259 (=) $5,372,354.44 2235 $9,537,102.60 $9,242,255.96 ($294,846.64) $2,602.66 (X) 8% (=) $2,758.82 (+) $1,887.46 (=) $4,646.28 2,235 (=) $10,384,435.80 1937 $8,999,844.36 $9,418,773.90 $418,929.54 $2,678.60 $2,678.60 (+) $1,887.46 (=) $4,566.06 IXL 1,750 {=) $7,990,605.00 1454 $6,639,051.00 $8,642,246.81 $2,003,195.81 $24,151,934.95 8,994 $2,685.34 Page 58 *$2,685.34 ' \u0026gt; $2,685.34 (+) $1,887.46 (=) $4,572.80 IXL 1,454 $6,648,851.20 Budgeted Amt: $6,664,904.48 $1^3.28 4(^'3, 3%\u0026gt;7n.aft 6[KV1 Expenditures and Budgets Used for Double Funding Calculations School Name Actual 93-94 Utilities Actual 93-94 Less Utilities Per Pupil Budget 94-95 Utilities Budget 94-95 Less Utilities Enrollment Octi 1993 Per Pupil Bale Brady Badgett Baseline Fair Park Chicot Western Hills Cloverdale Dodd Meadov^liff Geyer Springs Wilson Woodruff Mablevale Wakefield Watson $1,165,211.25 $1,121,638.48 $686,853,56 $1,046,959.92 $910,017.61 $1,619,203.18 $909,702.70 $1,036,001.67 $852,795.10 $989,665.59 $834,274.19 $1,209,887.38 $745,465.03 $1,225,013.15 $1,141,353,36 $1,230,108.91 $16,724,151,08 $33,346.45 $44,615.10 $27,966.77 $57,504.03 $47,536.23 $63,894.53 $48,623.98 $36,545.84 $42,876.89 $37,882.58 $38,985.56 $48,834.66 $31,985.17 $49,333.45 $38,500.04 $57,731.80 $706,163.08 $1,131,864.80 $1,077,023.38 $658,886.79 $989,455.89 $862,481.38 $1,555,308.65 $861,078,72 $999,455.83 $809,918,21 $951,783.01 $795,288.63 $1,161,052.72 $713,479.86 $1,175,679.70 $1,102,853.32 $1,172,377.11 $16,017,988.00 $3,735.53 $2,712.91 $3,486.17 $2,884.71 $3,279.40 $3,055.62 $2,593.61 $2,589,26 $2,773.69 $2,193.05 $2,761.42 $3,279.81 $3,023.22 $2,409.18 $2,467.23 $2,652.44 $2,808.70 $1,056,119.49 $1,082,673.15 $711,871.49 $954,238.93 $904,418.87 $1,665,024.95 $895,302.85 $1,062,880.57 $792,569,26 $1,030,111.70 $889,186.41 $1,143,942,77 $812,668.36 $1,333,783.30 $1,096,024,44 $1,264,399.71 $16,695,216.25 $35,610.00 $41,500,00 $28,900,00 $57,100.00 $71,000.00 $69,900.00 $41,400.00 $65,000.00 $38,050.00 $35,400.00 $36,500.00 $46,900,00 $34,700,00 $60,100.00 $37,000.00 $55,400.00 $754,460.00 $1,020,509.49 $1,041,173.15 $682,971.49 $897,138.93 $833,418.87 $1,595,124.95 $853,902.85 $997,880.57 $754,519.26 $994,711.70 $852,686.41 $1,097,042.77 $777,968.36 $1,273,683.30 $1,059,024.44 $1,208,999.71 $15,940,756.25 303 397 189 343 263 509 332 386 292 434 288 354 236 488 447 442 5703 $3,368.02 $2,622.60 $3,613.61 $2,615.57 $3,168.89 $3,133.84 $2,572.00 $2,585.18 $2,583.97 $2,291.96 $2,960.72 $3,098.99 $3,296.48 $2,610.01 $2,369.18 $2,735.29 $2,795.15 Forest Park Otter Creek Terry Pulaski Heights McDermott Jefferson Fullbright $1,081,979.30 $877,709.48 $1,327,023.54 $1,051,634.65 $1,367,742,56 $1,386,166.54 $1,400,551.11 $8,264,285,31 $46,347.16 $53,082.86 $53,402.20 $42,695.45 $54,475.66 $47,023.44 $62,419.36 $359,446.13 $1,035,632.14 $824,626.62 $1,273,621.34 $1,008,939.20 $1,313,266.90 $1,339,143.10 $1,338,131.75 $8,133,361.05 $2,261.21 $2,418.26 $2,270,27 $2,535.02 $2,580.09 $2,657,03 $2,573.33 $2,471.40 $1,061,390.39 $906,899.29 $1,359,572.17 $1,046,741.59 $1,323,527,09 $1,400,384,59 $1,482,113,58 $8,580,628,70 $43,500.00 $52,700.00 $47,900.00 $50,250.00 $62,100.00 $54,000.00 $59,000.00 $369,450.00 $1,017,890.39 $854,199.29 $1,311,672.17 $996,491.59 $1,261,427,09 $1,346,384.59 $1,423,113.58 $8,211,178.70 458 341 561 398 509 504 520 3291 $2,222,47 $2,504.98 $2,338.10 $2,503.75 $2,478.25 $2,671.40 $2,736.76 $2,495.04 M.L. King Romine Washington $1,902,991,37 $1,273,786,59 $2,182,962,72 $5,359,740.68 $87,371.46 $52,418.95 $79,736.42 $219,526.83 $1,815,619.91 $1,221,367.64 $2,103,226.30 $5,140,213.85 $3,283.22 $3,656.79 $2,917.10 $3,196.65 $1,780,160,90 $1,294,178.25 $2,288,685.19 $5,363,024.34 $70,845.00 $58,500.00 $73,700.00 $203,045.00 $1,709,315,90 $1,235,678.25 $2,214,985.19 $5,159,979.34 553 334 721 1608 $3,090.99 $3,699.64 $3,072.10 $3,208.94 Franklin Garland Ish Mitchell Stephens Rightsell Rockefeller $1,607,057.54 $1,489,885.73 $0.00 $1,333,678.59 $1,242,640.87 $1,182,801.44 $2,113,811.34 $8,969,875.51 $60,278.63 $31,198,45 $0.00 $54,797.53 $35,595,51 $40,955,33 $104,803,25 $327,628,70 $1,546,778.91 $1,458,687.28 $0.00 $1,278,881.06 $1,207,045.36 $1,141,846.11 $2,009,008.09 $8,642,246.81 $4,483.42 $7,115.55 $5,560.35 $1,532,787.86 $1,198,522.28 $0.00 $1,157,109.41 $8,324.45$ 3.00 $6,041.51 $5,908.85 $5,943.77 $1,149,130.10 $1,915,554,83 $6,953,104.48 $58,500.00 $34,600.00 $0.00 $56,300.00 $0.00 $41,100.00 $97,700.00 $288,200.00 $1,474,287.86 $1,163,922.28 $0.00 $1,100,809.41 $0.00 $1,108,030.10 $1,817,854.83 $6,664,904.48 345 205 0 230 145 189 340 1454 $4,273.30 $5,677.67 $0.00 $4,786.13 $p.oo $5,862.59 $5,346.63 $4,583.84 ALLELEM.XLSSheetl Area Scool Per Pupil Double FUnd $ $ $ 2,698.87 1,887.46 4,586.33 1416 $6,494,243.28 $6,069,741.02 $ 424,502.26 Page 1fflAPK^P 353 H I \u0026lt;^1 r /7 3 y 1'^ /^ I I n l\\0ci6fLFeuC(C I IQ-T- /(^ O o 73*6 152^ __ s ! 51^ ^'3 /S Ci /y/c. IWG 'The under-enrollment resulted in increased costs for educating each child in the incentive schools for this reason: Every school has fixed costs that represent a sizable overhead\nbut at the incentive schools, desegregation plan staffing and program requirements impose an exceptionally high overhead burden that is not directly proportional to enrollment. If an incentive school operates at 75 percent of capacity, for example, the cost to the district is essentially the same as operating that school at 100 percent of capacity. This means that, by diligently recruiting eligible children to each school up to the maximum permissible class size, there would be no increased cost to the system to have a fully populated school rather than one only three-quarters enrolled. Secondly, although the incentive schools have offered a host of special programs and services, the district has made little effort to evaluate the effectiveness of these features with an eye to refining, enhancing, eliminating, or otherwise making needed changes in the schools' offerings. To allot resources to programs that yield a high return on the investmentespecially when measured in terms of success for childrenis defensible, even laudable\nbut to spend high dollars without constantly monitoring and evaluating the extent of \"the bang for the buck\" is inconsistent with solid management principles as well as with the intent of the desegregation agreements. Thirdly, the district has also missed opportunities to effect significant efficiencies in the incentive schools. For example, it is possible to combine two very small classes into one which still meets the guidelines for pupil-to-teacher ratios. The district could also evaluate the educational merit and relative cost of enlarging classes somewhat and adding more classroom aides, rather than maintaining very small classes that are staffed with additional teachers. SUMMARY and CONCLUSIONS In 1993-94, the LRSD spent more than two million dollars over its incentive school double funding obligation. The district did not fill the schools to capacity, neglected to evaluate programs and adjust them accordingly, and failed to exercise stringent administrative oversight to contain costs. Consequently, during a time of severe budget constraints, the district spent far more money in the incentive schools than it was obligated to invest. When the LRSD overspends in the incentive schools, less monies are then available for other schools, buildings which serve the majority of LRSD black students, the class for whom the desegregation settlements were to specifically benefit. In sum, the district has not positioned itself to try to achieve appropriate economies in the incentive schools while still providing the promised level of financial support and concomitant outcomes for students. RECOMMENDATIONS ODM makes no new recommendations\nthe district remains obligated to follow all court orders and to fulfill the commitments in its desegregation plans. Page 107Including four-year-olds 1990-91 1991-92 1992-93 1993-94 1994-95 (Budgeted) Area School Actual Per-Pupil Expenditure (Previous Year) Inflationary Adjustment (when actual budget unknown) Projected Area School PerPupil Expenditure Double Funding Obligation Incentive School Projected PerPupil Expenditure Incentive School Enrollment (Previous Year) Projected Obligation Based Upon Prior Year Enrollment Actual Enrollment Actual Obligation Based Upon Oct. 1 Enrollment Actual Expenditure $1,887.46 $2,249.24 $2,602.66 $2,678.60 *$2,698.87 Over or Under (X) 6% (X) 5.8% (X) 6% (=) $2,000.71 (+) $1,887.46 (=) $3,888.17 1,375 (=) $5,346,233.75 ____________ $4,895,206.03 $6,833,005.68 $1,937,799.65 (=) $2,379.70 (+) $1,887.46 (=) $4,267.16 1X1 1,259 (=) $5,372,354.44 2,235 $9,537,102.60 $9,242,255.96 ($294,846.64) (=) $2,758.82 (-r) $1,887.46 (=) $4,646.28 2,235 (=) $10,384,435.80 1j937 $8,999,844.36 $9,418,773.90 $418,929.54 $2,678.60 (+) $1,887.46 (=) $4,566.06 1X1 1,750 (=) $7,990,605.00 1,454 $6,639,051.00 $8,642,246.81 $2,003,195.81 $2,698.87 (-r) $1,887.46 (=) $4,586.33 1X1 1,454 $6,668,523.82 1,596 $7,319,782.68 Budgeted Amt: $6,664,904.48 ($654,878.20) * Based upon 1994-95 area school budget 1993-94 area school enrollment Per-pupil expenditure (area school) $23,118,495.03 8,566 $2,698.87 There is no 1995-96 projection made because this report is made far earlier in the budget cycle than previous years. No reliable budget or enrollment data is currently available. \u0026gt; Including four-year-olds 1990-91 1991-92 1992-93 1993-94 Area School Actual Per-Pupil Expenditure (Previous Year) Inflationary Adjustment (when actual budget unknown) Projected Area School PerPupil Expenditure Double Funding Obligation Incentive School Projected Per-Pupil Expenditure Incentive School Enrollment (Previous Year) Projected Obligation Based Upon Prior Year Enrollment Actual Enrollment Actual Obligation Based Upon Oct. 1 Enrollment Actual Expenditure 1994-95 (Budgeted! $1,887.46 (X) 6% (=) $2,000.71 (-\u0026gt;) $1,887.46 (=) $3,888 17 1,375 (=) $5,346,233 75 ___________1,259 $4,895,206.03 Over or Under $6,833,005.68 $1,937,799.65 Based upon 1994-95 area school budget 1993-94 area school enrollment Per-pupil expenditure (area school) $2,249,24 $2,602.66 $2,678.60 *$2,698.87 (X) 5.8% (X) 6% (=) $2,379.70 (+) $1.887.46 (=) $4,267.16 1,259 (=) $5,372.354.44 ___________2,235 $9,537,102.60 $9.242,255.96 ($294,846.64) $23,118,495.03 8,566 $2,698.87 (=) $2,758.82 (+) $1.887.46 (=) $4,646.28 IXL 2,235 (\") $10,384,435.80 ____________1J37 $8.999,844.36 $9.418,773.90 $418,929.54 $2,678.60 (\u0026lt;) $1,887 46 $2,698.87 (+) $1,887.46 (=) $4,566.06 1,750 () $7,990,605 00 ___________1,454 $6,639,051.00 $8,642,246.81 $2,003,195.81 () $4,586.33 (X) 1,454 $6,668,523.82 _______V596 $7,319,782.68 Budgeted Amt: $6,664,904.48 ($654,878.20) Page 78FTE 94-95 projection 25 26 34 36 39 41 49 Franklin Garland Mitchell Rockefeller Rightsell Stephens Ish 62 50 50 72 44 46 Projected Enrollment 343 202 219 380 189 324 1333 1454 Budget 1993-1994 1,567,895.13 1,408,766.60 1,311,925.15 1,764,565.20 1,264,255.01 1,271,662.69 42,611.25 8,631,681.03 Actual 1993-1994 1,546,778.91 1,458,687.28 1,278,881.06 2,009,008.09 1,141,846.11 1,207,045.36 Budget 1994-95 1,470,801.12 1,155,781.08 1,067,628.08 1,772,486.00 1,094,589.52 Per Student Cost 4,288.05 5,721.69 4,875.01 4,664.44 5,791.48 Utilities have been removed from these budget \u0026amp; actuals______|_________ Budget dated 7/26/94 is the source I Budget 93-94 8,642,246.81 5943.77 Obligation 5918.55 8605571.70 36,675.11 8605580.93 6,561,285.80 $6,648,851.20 (87,565.40) Page 1 4,922.19 4572.80Elementary School 1994-95 Budget Bale Brady Badgett McDermott Baseline Fair Park Forest Park Chicot Western Hills Jefferson Cloverdale Elem Dodd Meadowcliff Geyer Springs Pulaski Heights Wilson Woodruff Mabelvale Terry Fulbright Otter Creek Wakefield Watson Total Area Sch Budget Area Sch Per Pupil Expenditure Total Utilities $ 1,056,119.49 $ 1,082,673.15 $ 711,871.49 $ 1,323,527.09 $ $ 954,238.93 904,418.87 $ 1,061,390.39 $ 1,665,024.95 $ 895,302.85 $ 1,400,384.59 $ 1,062,880.57 $ 792,569.26 $ 1,030,111.70 $ 889,186.41 $ 1,046,741.59 $ 1,143,942.77 $ 812,668.36 $ 1,333,783.30 $ 1,359,572.17 $ 1,482,113.58 $ 906,899.29 $ 1,096,024.44 $ 1,264,399.71 $ 25,275,844.95 $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ 35,610.00 41,500.00 28,900.00 62,100.00 57,100.00 48,500.00 43,500.00 69,900.00 41,400.00 54,000.00 33,500.00 38,050.00 $ 35,400.00 $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ 36,500.00 50,250.00 46,900.00 34,700.00 60,100.00 47,900.00 59,000.00 52,700.00 37,000.00 55,400.00 $ 1,069,910.00 Elementary Area Schoo 1993-94 Enrollment Budget 1995-96 Budget 1994-95 Enrollment 4-Year-Old Program $ $ Total 4-Yr-Old Total Utilities 4-Year-Old Program Total 4-Yr-Old 89,606.43 57,360.21 $ 102,110.61 $ $ $ 303 397 189 509 18 17 16 99,862.73 62,893.73 59,221.35 $ 160,067.69 $ 104,416.85 $ $ $ 343 263 458 509 332 504 386 292 434 288 398 31 15 18 40 18 50,190.04 96,522.58 48,403.04 $ 102,784.66 $ 1,033,439.92 23,172,495.03 354 236 488 561 520 341 447 442 8994 2,576.44 17 15 0 16 221 $ 1,083,387.59 $ 1,149,455.90 $ 705,780.58 $ 1,324,461.87 $ $ 974,549.40 925,563.40 $ 1,132,508.11 $ 1,619,962.49 $ 927,759.48 $ 1,440,461.57 $ 1,108,921.38 $ 918,043.56 $ 1,146,039.01 $ 824,349.76 $ 1,005,827.72 $ 1,161,523.47 $ 736,629.81 $ 1,346,067.80 $ 1,366,303.23 $ 1,546,659.74 $ 940,017.05 $ 1,180,715.44 $ 1,204,877.93 $ 25,769,866.29 $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ 35,610.00 41,500.00 28,900.00 62,100.00 57,100.00 48,500.00 43,500.00 34,950.00 41,400.00 54,000.00 33,500.00 38,050.00 35,400.00 36,500.00 50,250.00 46,900.00 34,700.00 60,100.00 47,900.00 59,000.00 52,700.00 37,000.00 55,400.00 $1,034,960.00 $ 108,257.56 309 35 $ $ $ $ $ 60,127.84 93,566.33 99,836.65 51,435.59 59,275.80 $ 146,846.13 $ 105,151.88 $ $ $ $ 51,031.96 88,158.77 49,432.29 97,699.79 $1,010,820.59 23,724,085.70 408 177 494 326 282 432 503 317 502 392 298 411 300 420 345 243 474 559 542 359 413 427 8933 2,655.78 17 25 36 36 18 47 37 18 36 18 36 359I INCENTIVE SCHOOL DOUBLE FUNDING As a part of the 1989 settlement agreement, the Little Rock School District agreed to double fund each incentive school. The commitment to this enhanced financial support appears in both the Interdistrict Plan and Little Rock School District Desegregation Plan. The explanation of incentive school double funding belowfirst appeared in the 1992 ODM Incentive School Monitoring Report. We have added current year findings. REQUIREMENTS Funding for the incentive schools shall be set at two times the level for the elementary area schools to ensure that the children who are in racially-isolated settings are provided meaningful opportunities for desegregated experiences and activities. (Interdistrict. Plan, pg. 4) The Little Rock School District Board of Directors is committed to improving educational quality and student academic performance in all schools and doubling the financial resources in schools identified in the Court-approved desegregation plan as incentive schools. (LRSD Plan, pg. 1) BACKGROUND None of the desegregation plans nor the financial settlement agreement specifically defines double funding, but in oral arguments before the Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit on June 21, 1990, counsel for the LRSD explained double funding as a dollar amount twice the average per-pupil expenditure in the district's area schools, not including transportation and administrative costs. The lawyer cited $2000 as the approximate extra amount that would be spent on each incentive school student above what is spent for each area school student. During those June 1990 oral arguments, the judges expressed pointed concern about the great amount of money such a double funding obligation would represent, but the LRSD attorney was firm in the district's commitment and ability to double fund the incentive schools. However, there was no discussion of what effects any increases in the district's average per-pupil expenditure in area schools might have upon double funding. Since that time, the district's basic per-pupil expenditure has risen substantially because of increases resulting largely from the successful millage campaign in 1990 and Arkansas Act 10. To control incentive school costs, the LRSD has tied its double funding obligation to the \"base year\" of 1989- 90. The LRSD computed the base year average per-pupil expenditure by dividing the total 1989-90 instructional expenses for all area schools by the October 1, 1989 total enrollment. This calculation yielded a base year per-pupil expenditure of $1,887.46, the amount the district uses as the fixed double funding obligation. For each subsequent year, the district multiplies the previous year's actual per-pupil expenditure by an inflation factor. This amount then becomes a projected per-pupil expenditure to which the double funding obligation is added. The sum is then multiplied by the number of incentive school students who have been recorded as the previous year's October 1 enrollment data (not including the children enrolled in classes for infants through three-year-old's at Rockefeller), resulting in the floor amount the district is obligated to spend. This year, the four-year- Page 75 olds were excluded from the obligation calculation. The rational for excluding them is that they are not included in any other allocation of funds, such as MFPA. There is no state funding for the four- year-old program, it is paid for by the district on the basis of actual expense and not enrollment. This section of the monitoring report was prepared prior to the end of the 1994-95 fiscal year, so we calculated the districts 1994-95 double funding obligation by using budgeted figures. In past years, the actual expenditures have exceeded the budgeted amounts. The following table shows the history of double funding and the double funding projection for 1994- 95, excluding the four-year-olds, all based on figures supplied by the LRSD. LRSD INCENTIVE SCHOOL DOUBLE FUNDING 1990-91 1991-92 1992-93 1993-94 1994-95 (Budqeted) Area School Actual Per-Pupil Expenditure (Previous Year) Inflationary Adjustment (when actual budget unknown) Projected Area School PerPupil Expenditure Double Funding Obligation Incentive School Projected Per-Pupil Expenditure Incentive School Enrollment (Previous Year) Projected Obligation Based Upon Prior Year Enrollment Actual Enrollment Actual Obligation Based Upon Oct. 1 Enrollment Actual Expenditure Over or Under $1,887.46 $2,249.24 $2,602.66 $2,678.60 *$2,698.87 (X) 6% (X) 5.8% (X) 6% (=) $2,000.71 (+) $1,887.46 (=) $3,888.17 1,375 (=) $5,346,233.75 T259 $4,895,206.03 $6,833,005.68 $1,937,799.65 (=) $2,379.70 {+) $1,887.46 (=) $4,267.16 (X) 1,259 (=) $5,372,354.44 2J35 $9,537,102.60 $9,242,255.96 ($294,846.64) (=) $2,758.82 (+) $1,887.46 (=) $4,646.28 2,235 (=) $10,384,435.80 1,937 $8,999,844.36 $9,418,773.90 $418,929.54 $2,678.60 (+) $1,887.46 (=) $4,566.06 1,750 (=) $7,990,605.00 1,454 $6,639,051.00 $8,642,246.81 $2,003,195.81 $2,698.87 (+) $1,887.46 (-) $4,586.33 1,454 $6,668,523.82 1,416 $6,494,243.28 Budgeted Am1: $6,069,741.02 ($424,502.26) 1X1 * Excluding four-year-olds: Based upon 1994-95 area school budget 1993-94 area school enrollment Per-pupil expenditure (area school) $23,118,495.03 8,566 $2,698.87 There is no 1995-96 projection made because this report is made far eartier in the budget cycle than previous years. No reliable budget or enrollment data is currently available. FINDINGS The LRSD double funds the incentive schools through implementation of the settlement plan features. Many, but not all, of the special programs, activities, personnel, and equipment described in the incentive school section of the desegregation plan are in place. This year, the per-pupil budgeted amount is $4,286.54, an amount that is 6.5% below the double funding obligation. Because actual expenditures usually exceed the amount budgeted, the LRSD will probably meet the double funding obligation. Page 76Despite the closing of Stephens, according to the October 1 official enrollment report, the remaining incentive schools had 35 more children in the four-year-old program and 107 more enrolled in K-6 than in 1993-94. Enrollment increased at each one of the incentive schools. As pointed out in last years report, under enrollment results in increased costs for educating each child because of the fixed costs. The efforts of the district to increase the enrollment while holding the line on expenditures resulted in cost contaitunent and better use of the dollars spent. SUMMARY and CONCLUSIONS In 1993-94, the LRSD spent more than two million dollars over its incentive school double funding obligation. This year, although the chart shows they are not double funding the incentive schools, they are closer to meeting their double funding obligation. As stated in the finding, because the time we monitored the incentive schools was much earlier than last year, actual expenditures could not be obtained. Therefore, we used budgeted figures, which usually are smaller than actual expenditures. If actual expenditures are larger than the budgeted amount, the district may or may not meet its double funding obligation. Continued monitoring and evaluation of the programs and services in the incentive schools is necessary to get the greatest return on the programs that are determined to be effective in improving the success of children. RECOMMENDATION ODM makes no new recommendations\nthe district remains obligated to follow all court orders and to fulfill the commitments in its desegregation plans. Page 77Including four-year-olds 1990-91 1991-92 1992-93 1993-94 1994-95 (Budoeted) Area School Actual Per-Pupil Expenditure (Previous Year) Inflationary Adjustment (when actual budget unknown) Projected Area School PerPupil Expenditure Double Funding Obligation Incentive School Projected Per-Pupil Expenditure Incentive School Enrollment (Previous Year) Projected Obligation Based Upon Prior Year Enrollment Actual Enrollment Actual Obligation Based Upon Oct. 1 Enrollment Actual Expenditure Over or Under $1,887.46 (X) 6% (=) $2,000.71 (+) $1,887.46 (-) $3,888.17 1,375 (=) $5,346,233.75 1,259- $4,895,206.03 $6,833,005.68 $1,937,799.65 * Based upon 1994-95 area school budget 1993-94 area school enrollment Per-pupil expenditure (area school) $2,249.24 $2,602.66 $2,678.60 *$2,698.87 (X) 5.8% (X) 6% (=) $2,379.70 (+) $1,887.46 (=) $2,758.82 (+) $1,887.46 $2,678.60 (+) $1,887.46 $2,698.87 (-r) $1,887.46 (=) $4,267.16 (- 11 (=) $4,646.28 (=) $4,566.06 'sA ) (=) $4,586.33 (X) 1,259 (=) $5,372,354.44 2,235- $9,537,102.60 $9,242,255.96 ($294,846.64) $23,118,495.03 8,566 $2,698.87 (X) 2,235 1X1 1,750 1,454 (=) $10,384,435.80 223^ (=) $7,990,605.00 1,454 $6,668,523.82 1,596 $8,999,844.36 $9,418,773.90 $418,929.54 $6,639,051.00 $8,642,246.81 $2,003,195.81 $7,319,782.68 Budgeted Amt: $6,664,904.48 ($654,878.20) Jf - S'! .^1'^ There is no 1995-96 projection made because this report is made far earlier in the budget cycle than previous yearn. No reliable budget or enrollment data is currently available. I 1^*^ _ I J. , o Page 7829 that may be raised by the Court. And I would think that if it's raised by ODM, then it would be -- and not resolved by the parties, then it would somethinc appropriate for the Court. 't THE COURT: Well, let me tell you my side. have a substantial concern. I really do. I de And even if Joshua and all the other parties agree to amend these racial balance guidelines, I don't want you to believe that if the Court approves the amendment, that the Court is in any way absolving the district of its obligation to continue to recruit students of both races to meet it's racial balance goals as set forth in the plan. And I think that if the Court should agree to the guidelines that are set forth in the student assignment handbook, that at least sends the message tc the community and to the district, particularly, that the Court is no longer concerned with the recruitment obligations that the district undertook to recruit. again, students of both races to meet those guidelines in the schools in the district. I realize the argument that the district has is sometimes that these goals as set forth in the plan are really unattainable in given situations. And I realize that's true, because the numbers -- the students just are not there in the right proportions. plan. But if you ask the Court to amend the I want you to re-enforce to the Court your continuing commitment to reach those goals that are set CANDACE MATTHEWS, CCR, CVR (501) 227-6779eg 30 forth in the plan. Othezrwise, I don't believe, in gooc faith, I could approve the amendment. And does the 0D^' understand that. I have not discussed this with her ir this direct term, but you understand what I'm saying? MS. BROWN: Yes, ma'am, I believe I do. THE COURT: So, when you talk to the parties, keep in mind that if the Court goes along with the amended racial balance guidelines, I don't want to absolve the district in any way of its obligation to continue tc recruit students of both races to desegregate these schools. because that's that is what you have committed to. Another thing that I brought up, last hearing, was modification of your interdistrict school assignment policy, which allows you to place only about 9 percent Bl- of your own interdistrict interdistrict schools. white students in What have you decided to de with respect to this, Mr. Heller? Or do you have a witness on this. Does anyone -- is Dr. Mayo here? MR. HELLER: Honor. that. Dr. Mayo is out of the state, your And there has been no official action yet to de That's been discussed among the counsel members. but there has not yet been a proposal presented to the Board. THE COURT: Let me say this: In discussing -- Dr. Williams, did you want to say something about this? CANDACE MATTHEWS, OCR, CVR (501) 227-6779DR. WILLIAMS: Yes, ma'am. 31 I just wanted to say that we agreed that we would allow more students tc attend. THE COURT: You would allow more you've set another ceiling on the number of interdistrict white students? DR. WILLIAMS: We're working on it. THE COURT: You are. You plan to set a ceiling, though. DR. WILLIAMS: Yes, ma'am. THE COURT: I want to emphasize. I know that you have stated, on the record, that you are reluctant just to open the doors to white students in your owr district and these interdistrict schools, really for a couple of reasons. One is the plan requires you tc recruit whites from the county. And the other, is you do get the M to M transfer money. One thing I have not done, and I mentioned this to the monitors, I have not really sat down with the monitors to assess the financial impact of your receiving or not receiving N to M money in these interdistrict schools. Keep ir mind that you're obligated to continue to desegregate these schools no matter whether the students come fron Pulaski County, which is where you want them to come from, or Little Rock. I am interested in seeing these interdistrict Little Rock Schools desegregated. I realize that the plan calls. first, for them to be CANDACE MATTHEWS, CCR, CVR (501) 227-6779 T 32 recruited from the whites to be recruited from the county. If that is not fully successful, it would satisfy the Court to see them recruited from those schools in the western reaches, northwest Little Rock, that are predominately white. s And I'm very interested in seeing this modification. And furthermore, I would like the monitors to take look at what is the a financial impact. It might not be as much as yon think. It really might not be. Because you have tc pool your M to M money now in any event with the county. And when you don't educate one of yours and send one of yours off, I know you get money. But yon also get extra money for keeping -- I mean for bringinc them in from the county. So, I just really don't know what the -- have you ever done an analysis of that on a per-pupil basis, Mr. Heller, to your knowledge? MR. HELLER: Your Honor, the only analysis we did was back when we first proposed the incentives or the interdistrict schools to the special master. And we did an analysis which showed that at the ideal composition by districts, those schools would generate enough M to M transfer money to fund them --to nearly fund them. But we haven't done an individual impact of the difference between having a Little Rock student enrolled or having a Pulaski County student enrolled recently. THE COURT: But you don't get minimum foundation CANDACE MATTHEWS, CCR, CVR (501) 227-677933 money from students you send. The receiving district gets that. Yet you do get M to M money for the students you send\nis that not correct? MR. HELLER: Well, the receiving district is supposed to receive the full cost of educating the student. The sending district gets one-half of its table rate. THE COURT: But no MFPA money? MR. HELLER: Well, I guess that is it. The table rate they would otherwise get for a student remaininc in the district. they get half of that. When the students I THE COURT: Oh. So, it is just half and not -- knew that you got something for sending a student. But in any event, I know that the district has said that this is its reason that -- I want to emphasize that, tc me. it's more important that you desegregate these schools than it is that you get the M to M money. Which, of course, is very much to your advantage. Anc there are a lot of empty seats in these in. say, King, right now. Ml MR. HELLER: Your Honor? THE COURT: Yes, sir. MR. HELLER: Our concern has also been. your Honor, the impact on the sending schools. But I think that's something that might be a more appropriate limitation than just an overall percentage limitation. CANDACE MATTHEWS, CCR, CVR (501) 227-677934 THE COURT: Well, I certainly agree that we want to watch the impact on descending schools. But I de believe that the figures that the monitors supplied last time will show that some of these schools car benefit by sending whites to central Little Rock, if we can persuade them that it would be to their benefit tc attend. And by setting the 9 percent ceiling, there were parents who, reportedly, were upset by that. And I don't like to upset parents. I know - I recognize that there are some faces in the audience who I believe } are the faces of parents. Because I haven't seen you here before. And I assume that that's why you're here. Mr. Walker, I'm sorry -- I won't I haven't let me ask -- I'll ask you this, first, and then I'll ask about Clinton about the not the President, the school. You indicted that you would provide the Court with a proposed Order on the Stephens matter. Are you still intending to do that, or do you want the Court tc prepare the Order? Keep in mind, I know whose duty it is to prepare it. It's mine. MR. WALKER: No, your Honor. I do intend to de so. And you'll have one before the end of the day. THE COURT: All right. Fine. Well, that will  give us something to work on. In a case like this, I almost never sign off on the draft counsel prepares. It's very unusual for counsel to prepare a draft. I know it is usual or customary in state court for this CANDACE MATTHEWS, OCR, CVR (501) 227-677935 sort of thing to be done. But we do have we are blessed with somewhat greater resources, and I have an excellent staff. So, I will look forward to getting it. What is the status on recruitment of black students for the Clinton, the William J. Clinter Interdistrict School, that the county is building? MR. BOWLES: Your Honor, we, at this time, have about 98 students registered for Clinton from the Little Rock School District. There is some informatior that's going to be going out to the students' residence jointly with Little Rock. We are making preparations to recruit those students who will be at Stephens if. in fact, Stephens is closed. And we have some other recruitment tools that we're using jointly with the Little Rock School District to increase that number tc as close to the 200 as possible. THE COURT: How many of the 98 are from Stephens, or do you know? MR. BOWLES: At this point, I don't know, your Honor. That information can be obtained, but we've not cycled it by schools at this point. They may have that in the Little Rock School District. THE COURT: Well, I believe you can count on Stephens being closed. That's what these everyone had asked the Court to do. and I said. \"Fine.\" stopped short of signing off on the stipulation. I CANDACE MATTHEWS, CCR, CVR (501) 227-6779Office 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 (SOI) 371-0100 Date: April 18, 1995 To: Russ Mayo \\ aU From: Brown Subject: Registration Figures According to your March 30, 1995 Desegregation Update to the Board of Directors, all student assignment letters were scheduled for mailing by April 17, 1995. Since that date has now passed, please immediately forward to me the following information, current to date: . 1. The number of students who have registered for the 1995-96 school year, including new students, returning students, M-to-M transfers, intradistrict transfers, and magnet assignments. Include all kindergartens, four-year-old programs, and other early childhood classes. 2. The number of students by school, grade level, race, and gender. 3. For magnet schools (the original, six stipulation magnets), registration by sending district and the number of vacant magnet seats still remaining by district and by grade level. 4. The number of vacant seats currently remaining at each LRSD school by grade level. 5. The number of attendance zone students who still have not registered for next year, by school attendance zone and grade level. 6. Tlie extent to which the number of students attending school in their home attendance zones has changed up or down from last year, by both number and percentage, for each schools attendance zone. (List and compare the figures for both 1994-95 and 1995-96.) In addition. Id appreciate your clearing up some confusing information that appears on page two of the March 30, 1995 Desegregation Update. Item #1 reads, 'Two years ago by this time, about 1,200 kindergartners registered. Last year, it was 1,400, and this year it is 1,490. We are doing a better job with advertising pre-registration...\" Yet, the chart immediately following does not reflect the narrative numbers for 1994-95, so the initial impression the table gives is that kindergarten registration is considerably below that of last year. Perhaps the chart mixes the final first-day total kindergarten enrollment for 1994-95 with the preliminary February registration numbers for 1995-96? Please explain.Page Two April 18. 1995 Also on the same page in tlie Update, the chart depicting four-year-old applications for the 1995- 96 school year does not contain a comparison to 1994-95 numbers from a similar time during last years recruitment period. Therefore, please provide me the total number of black children and white children who had applied for the four-year-old program for the 1994-95 school year at the conclusion of the pre-registration period last year (or at the date which most closely corresponds to the date of the four-year-old information in the Update. Please designate the date of the preliminary 1994-95 numbers as well as those for 1995-96.) Thank you very much.Attachment 3 LRSD Enrollment v. Attendance Zone Attendance Zone Summary May 2, 1995 Attachment 3 April 27, 1995 Central HS\" FairHS Hall HS McClellan HS Sub-Total Cloverdale JH\" Dunbar JH Forest Heights JH Henderson JH Mabelvale JH Pulaski Heights JH Southwest JH Sub-Total u n CD 842 493 422 648 2405 415 384 349 478 267 265 341 2499 u n CD Z 3 o c 01 I o 366 176 165 161 868 tT 69 131 124 103 269 110 877 1208 669 587 809 3273 486 453 480 602 370 534 451 3376 c lU W5 869 945 857 4246 643 679 789 860 574 733 624 4902 N \u0026lt; _c 5! c December 2, 1994 76.70% 76.99% 62.12% 94.40% 77.08% 75.58% 66.72% 60.84% 70.00% 64.46% 72.85% 72.28% 68.87% JO u ra m 864 489 428 661 2442 440 409 335 496 281 301 363 2625 o n CD Z 387 182 176 157 902 81 79 156 176 107 308 112 1019 c 2 o 1251 671 604 818 3344 521 488 491 672 388 609 475 3644 \u0026lt;u E o c lU 1646 915 917 943 4422 613 736 720 917 527 830 570 4913 N \u0026lt; c 0) u c V o IC 5 April 27,1995 76.00% 73.33% 65.87% 86.74% 75.64% 84.99% 66.30% 68.19% 73.28% 73.62% 73.37% 83.33% 74.17% -0.7% -3.7% 3.8% -7.7% -1.4% 9.4% -0.4% 7.4% 3.3% 9.2% 0.5% 11.1% 5.3% \u0026lt;u u c  0) c Q ot 43 2 17 9 71 35 35 11 70 18 75 24 268 Badgett Bale Baseline Brady Chicot Cloverdale Dodd Fair Park Forest Park Franklin Fulbright Garland Geyer Springs Jefferson Mabelvale McDermott Meadowcliff Mitchell Otter Creek Pulaski Heights Rightsell Rockefeller Terry Wakefield Watson Western Hills Wilson Woodnjff Sub-Total Grand Total 70 112 141 104 171 212 83 105 61 241 138 141 135 75 200 102 173 163 69 50 166 113 105 230 246 96 142 52 2405 ^09 46 53 52 85 91 37 78 55 191 9 242 15 37 245 113 189 109 3 194 180 0 13 277 66 75 90 68 36 2649 4394 116 165 193 189 262 249 161 160 252 250 380 156 172 320 313 291 282 166 263 230 166 126 382 296 321 186 210 88 634? 12994 180 300 309 377 454 382 286 283 422 445 546 269 285 483 486 478 414 256 356 407 225 388 551 391 422 304 347 230 10276 19424 64.44% 55.00% 62.46% 50.13% 57.71% 65.18% 56.29% 56.54% 59.72% 56.18% 69.60% 57.99% 60.35% 66.25% 64.40% 60.88% 68.12% 64.84% 73.88% 56.51% 73.78% 32.47% 69.33% 75.70% 76.07% 61.18% 60.52% 38.26% 61.75% 66.90% 70 132 154 103 189 262 86 99 63 227 157 146 140 86 202 130 172 162 74 55 153 113 101 258 265 111 158 44 3912 8979 32 52 52 93 76 33 62 49 210 8 263 17 37 277 102 203 90 2 186 189 5 15 299 52 61 88 76 40 2669 4590 102 184 206 196 265 295 148 148 273 235 420 163 177 363 304 333 262 164 260 244 158 128 400 310 326 199 234 84 6581 13^ 163 316 305 368 439 415 275 256 441 428 565 267 274 505 434 493 392 256 351 441 220 420 550 391 426 286 353 220 10250 \"lO^ 62.58% 58.23% 67.54% 53.26% 60.36% 71.08% 53.82% 57.81% 61.90% 54.91% 74.34% 61.05% 64.60% 71.88% 70.05% 67.55% 66.84% 64.06% 74.07% 55.33% 71.82% 30.48% 72.73% 79.28% 76.53% 69.58% 66.29% 38.18% 64.20% 69.29% -1.9% 3.2% 5.1% 3.1% 2.7% 5.9% -2.5% 1.3% 2.2% -1.3% 4.7% 3.1% 4.2% 5.6% 5.6% 6.7% -1.3% -0.8% 0.2% -1.2% -2.0% To^ 3.4% 3.6% 0.5% 8.4% 5.8% -0.1% 2.5% 2.4% -14 19 13 7 3 46 -13 -12 21 -15 40 7 5 43 -9 42 -20 -2 -3 14 -8 2 18 14 5 13 24 -4 236 575 Secondary numbers are based on May 2, 1995 data. Elementary numbers are based on December 2, 1994 94_95AZ.XLS Office of Desegregation 5/3/95Attachment 2 1995-96 STIPULATION MAGNET SEAT SUMMARY/MAY 1, 1995 LRSD ALLOCATION VACANCIES AS OF 5/1/95 STUDENTS ON WAITING LIST BOOKER # VAC. 80 29 18 47 12 11 23 34 34 26 24 26 33 32 25 10 10 10 12 12 12 11 69 84 52 81 70 65 84 52 81 70 65 CARVER 60 21 14 35 50 54 GIBBS WILLIAMS 15 32 10 21 14 14 40 12 17 11 60 15 15 13 12 14 21 14 16 11 23 35 80 82 20 68 52 54 29 48 58 40 65 67 74 38 63 69 36 57 40 55 89 82 23 69 13 12 11 54 53 76 80 65 47 41 65 66 37 59 61 40 65 69 74 92 116 145 116 122 87 96 little Roch School DmItkI K 1 2 3 4 5 6 K 1 2 3 4 5 6 K 1 2 3 4 5 K 1 2 3 4 5 6 B 4 4 4 6 5 4 3 8 2 6 3 3 2 4 0 7 8 6 6 1 2 1 3 3 1 1 3 3 3 W T B W T B 0 6 6 6 6 7 5 2 8 2 5 3 3 9 2 0 1 2 1 0 2 1 1 2 2 1 2 4 4 6 5 2 5 3 6 6 4 9 7 (19 0 0 0 0 0 9 4 0 5 4 6 6 4 0 2 4 2 3 5 2 2 5 5 4 5 9 0 T 0 0 4 0 3 1 2 0 1 0 0 0 1 2 1 3 0 0 0 1 0 0 2 1 1 9 3 0 0 1 3 0 0 0 1 2 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 1 6 1 2 1 4 0 0 0 2 4 1 3 0 0 0 2 0 1 3 0 3 . 1 8 3 0 0 2 01995-96 STIPULATION MAGNET SEAT SUMMARY/MAY 1,1995 LRSD ALLOCATION VACANCIES AS OF 5/1/95 STUDENTS ON WAITING LIST PARKVIEW SCIENCE # VAC. B W T B T B T 10 100 30 29 59 0 0 0 115 47 162 11 18 4 4 8 4 4 8 149 0 150 12* 24 5 6 11 5 6 11 104 0 105 PARKVIEW ARTS Band 10 46 14 13 27 41 42 11 13 63 63 12 15 56 56 0 0 0 1 4 3 7 4 3 7 0 2 5 7 2 - 5 7 0 Dance 10 39 13 10 23 35 41 11 14 57 57 12 16 40 40 0 0 0 6 4 4 8 4 4 8 0 2 6 8 2 6 8 0 Speech/ Drama 10 56 17 18 35 76 25 101 11 11 114 119 12 66 69 0 0 0 2 3 5 2 0 5 0 6 2 1 3 2 0 3 0 Orchestra 10 14 4 4 8 0 1 1 5 0 5 11 4 1 1 6 1 2 1 2 6 0 12 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8 0 8 Visual Arts 10 39 12 11 23 53 27 80 11 94 103 12 43 43 0 0 0 1 1 0 1 1 0 1 9 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Vocal Music 10 37 11 11 22 0 0 0 38 11 49 11 10 2 2 4 2 4 68 0 68 12 11 T 3 5 2 3 5 41 0 41 Students should have completed Chemistry and Algebra II iittlr Roell School District1995-96 STIPULATION MAGNET SEAT SUMMARY/MAY 1,1995 LRSD ALLOCATION VACANCIES AS OF 5/1/95 STUDENTS ON WAITING LIST MANN ARTS # VAC. 200 58 58 116 229 33 262 251 38 289 285 31 326 B w T B W T B W T 7 8 6 1 1 2 9 6 1 1 2 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 2 MANN SCIENCE 7 8 9 100 29 29 58 187 47 234 10 202 232 37 26 239 258 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 2 4 1 2 3 little R\u0026lt;xk School OitIrkI/} Little Rock School District MEMORANDUM {995 To: Ann Brown, Federal Monitor From: Russ Mayo, Associate Superintendent kUtjiT fviOfittcrin^ Date: May 3, 1995 Subject: Registration Information Requested 4-18-95 In response to your memo dated 4-18-95 requesting information regarding registration, I have enclosed several documents that will explain the questions you have. 1. The number of students who have registered for the 1995-96 school year, including new students, returning students, M-to-M transfers, intradistrict transfers, and magnet assignments. Include all kindergartens, four-year-old programs, and other early childhood classes. Response: Attachment 1 This is a current counts reports that will show the actual number of all students registered for the 1995-96 school year. This includes new students, returning students, M-to-M transfers. intradistrict transfers, and magnet assignments. It also includes all kindergartens, four-year-old programs, and other early childhood classes. 2. The number of students by school, grade level, race, and gender. Response: Attachment 1 This report indicates the number of students registered by race and gender by school and grade level. 3. For magnet schools (the original, six stipulation magnets), registration by sending district and the number of vacant magnet seats still remaining by district and by grade level. Response: Attachment 2 This is a magnet seat summary for the original six stipulation magnets as of 5-1-95 for the 1995- 96 school year. Please note that this is only information from LRSD. This information also includes information on the number of students on Waiting Lists, which might be useful. Information on other districts has not been made available to us. I am uncertain on whether or not they have completed their registration process.Ann Brown Response May 3, 1995 2 4, The number of vacant seats currently remaining at each LRSD school by grade level. Response: Attachment 1 The counts reports show the total number of students assigned and the total capacity per grade level. The vacant seats may be determined by simply subtracting the number assigned from the capacity. Waiting lists are currently being worked to fill vacancies for the 1995-96 school year. At Booker Arts Magnet (55.3%) black students are being placed when they can be matched with white students. 5. The number of attendance zone students who still have not registered for next year, by school attendance zone and grade level. Response: Currently we have no way of determining the exact number of students living in each attendance zone of the Little Rock School District. Therefore, we cannot determine the number of students who have not registered for the 1995-96 school year in their attendance zone. We are open to your suggestions. 6. The extent to which the number of students attending school in their home attendance zones has changed up or down from last year, by both number and percentage, for each schools attendance zone. (List and compare the figures for both 1994-95 and 1995-96) Response: Attachment 3 The Enrollment v. Attendance Zone chart represents the number of students registered for their attendance zone schools in 1994-1995 and projected for 1995-96 by race. This chart also indicates the percentage and the change (+ or -) for the 1995-96 school year. Concerning your comments on the March 30, 1995 Desegregation Update, your conclusion is accurate. The table below represents the data you requested on the four-year-old program registration: Four-Year-Old Applicants Date 3-14-94 2-21-95 Black \"6^ 586 White 173 139 Total \"837 725 % Black 79% 81% C: Dr. Henry P. Williams, SuperintendentDate: May 8. 1995 To: Melissa and Bob From: Subject: LRSD registration information Russ Mayo has finally sent me the registration information I requested last month. Polly has a copy of the letter I sent Russ and the data we received. Id like the two of you to collaborate on reviewing the information. Please let me know by next week (after the Abacus Report is into the team editing stage): 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. Whether the information is complete, i.e., are my questions all answered? Both the good and bad news embedded in the data. Be specific. Where the district is compared to last year, especially as far as racial balance and filling the schools goes. Anything the district needs to clarify, expand, or revise. Your suggestions for any follow up communication you think I need to initiate. Anything else I should know or think about. Tlianks very much. ( 05/09/1995 13:50 5013242281 LRSD STUDENT ASSIGNM PAGE 02 / Little Rock School District MEMORANDUM To: Board of Directors Through: From\nDate: Russ Mayo, Assd May 8,1995 hs. Superintendent date Superintendent Subject\nDesegregation Update May. The attached information represents the desegregation update for the month of05/69/1995 13:50 5013242281 LRSD STUDENT ASSIGNM PAGE 03 Little Rock School District Desegregation Update Board of Directors Meeting May 25,1995 LRSD Btracial Committee The Bi-racial committee began monitoring on May 2,1995. The monitoring visits to all Incentive Schools will be completed by May 31,1995. LRSD Tool/Board Action Required ACTION Board review of tentative budget Conduct Board Work Session tentative budget on SCHEDULED START 5-25-95 5-29-95 SCHEDULED FINISH 5-25-95 5-31-95 LRSD Pre-Registration Counts by School SCHOOL Central 'Hall Parkview Fair McClellan Mann Punbar________ Forest Heights Pulaski Heights Southwest______ Henderson Cloverdale Mabelvale Booker Bale ~ Brady Badgett McDermott Carver Baseline________ Fair Park Forest Park Franklin________ Garland Gibbs Chicot__________ Western Hills BLACK 1057 632 404 665 735 444 495 513 484 444 624 507 392 298 228 228 127 251 318 228 184 199 385 232 164 318 192 205 as of May f WHITE ~ 548 261 364 243 190 388 226 191 346 107 180 94 131 221 79 121 35 232 278 71 64 238 26 9 127 105 91 T 299 r ,1995 OTHER 47 28 33 _______7 14 21 14 22 7 20 26 8 3 19 10 18 0 19 17 5 7 8 14 27 14 6 ~~..... 7 total 1652 921 801 915 939 853 735 726 837 571 830 609 _526 538 317 367 162 502 613 304 255 445 425 268 305 429 290 511 % BLACK 64.0% 68.6% 50.4% 72.7% 78.3% 52,1% 67.3% 70.7% 57.8% 77.8% 7S.2% 83.3% 74.5% 55.4% 71.9% 62.1% 78.4% 50,0% 51,9% 75.0% 72.2% 44.7% 90.6% 86.6% 53.0% 74.1% 66.2% 40.1%05/09/1995 13:50 5013242281 LRSD STUDENT ASSIGNM PAGE 04 i Des^ngation Update Board of Directors Meeting 2 SCHOOL Cloverdale Dodd Meadowcliff Mitchell King___________ Rockefeller Geyer Springs Pulagkt Heights Rightaell_______ Romine Waahington Williams Wilson Woodruff Mabelvale Terry Fulbright______ Otter Creek Wakefield Watson TOTAL BLACK 343 174 283 243 306 260 203 213 207 218 451 251 259 135 306 217 254 153 328 335 16,096 WHITE 65 89 100 8 229 142 69 215 8 75 213 226 87 77 119 311 299 191 50 79 7,917 OTHER 8 7 0 3 16 18 3 15 4 14 26 14 8 11 11 30 16 7 14 8 661 TOTAL 416 270 383 254 553 420 275 443 219 307 690 491 354 223 438 558 569 351 392 422 24,674 % BLACK 82.5% 64.4% 73.9% 95.7% 55.7% 61.9% 73.8% 48.1% 94.5% 71.0% 65.4% 51.1% 73.2% 60.5% 70.3% 38.9% 44.6% 43.6% 83.7% 79.4% 65.2% LRSD Desegregation Transfers Attached you will find the information requested regarding the Secondary Desegregation Transfers.J 05/09/1995 13:50 5013242281 LRSD STUDENT ASSIGNM PAGE 05 Rationale for Junior High Desegregation Transfers 19HM Ttie Student assignment office received (208) desegregation transfer applications for Junior high schools. 46% of the applications were granted for a total of 96 students. 78 seventh grade students, 40 seventh grade students were granted transfers to PHJH, 29 to FHJH, 3 to MJH, 5 to hjh and 1 to SWJH. 10 eighth grade students, 4 to fhjh, 4 to phjh and 2 to HJH. 8 ninth grade students were granted transfers, 1 to FHJH, 6 to PHJH and 1 to hjh. Black students from the Cloverdate and southwest attendance zones received the majority of Junior high transfers because the transfers benefited the sending and receiving schools where racial balance Is a concern. Pulaski Heights JR High could have received more black students because of their racial balance, but capacity is limited. Transfers were granted to all students except, where racial balance would not remain constant or Improve. Therefore, 16 eighth grade applicants and 5 ninth grade applicants were denied. Racial balance before and after transfers were as follows\nSCHOOL Cloverdile Forett Heightt Hentlerson Mabelvale Pulaski Heights Southwest^^ $ 83.3% 71.3% 737% 74.4% 55.5% 76 3% I 1 832% 71.3% 75.0% 74.5% 58.0% 77.6%J 05/09/1995 13:50 5013242281 LRSD STUDENT ASSIGNM PAGE 06 LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 1995-96 DESEGREGATION TRANSFER APPLICATION SUMMARY JUNIOR HIGH SCHOOLS 7TH GRADE: 8TH GRADE\nSTH GRADE: TOTAL APPUCATIONS RECEI\\KD: Total 169 26 18 208 Black 12S 23 10 1S8 MTl/ta 44 3 3 50 %Blk 74% 88% 77% 76% II# OF REQUEST TO SCHOOL OF REQUEST FROM SCHOoH GRADE 8th TOTAL BLACK 0 0 2 1 0 5 2 10 WHITE 0 0 2 0 0 1 0 3 TOTAL 0 0 4 1 0 6 2 13 SCHOOL CLOVERDALE DUNBAR FOREST HEIGHTS HENDERSON MABELVALE PULASKI HEIGHTS SOUTHWEST BLACK 1 2 4 1 0 0 2 10 WHITE Q 0 0 2 0 0 1 3 TOTAL \"l 2 4 3 0 0 3 13 GRADE BTH TOTAL SLACK 1 0 6 4 0 8 4 23 WHITE 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 3 TOTAL 1 0 6 4 0 11 4 26 SCHOOL CLOVERDALE DUNBAR FOREST HEIGHTS HENDERSON MABELVALE PULASKI HEIGHTS SOUTHWEST SLACK 2 4 3 3 4 0 1 23 WHITE 0 1 0 2 0 0 . 0 3 TOTAL 2 5 3 5 4 0 7 26 GRADE 7TH TOTAL SLACK 12 0 26 5 8 66 6 125 W1ITE 1 0 13 4 7 18 1 44 TOTAL 13 0 41 9 15 84 7 169 SCHOOL CLOVERDALE DUNBAR FOREST HEIGHTS HENDERSON MABELVALE PULASKI HEIGHTS SOUTHWEST ALACK 24 12 9 16 21 0 43 125 WHITE 4 4 6 18 2 0 10 44 TOTAL 28 16 15 34 23 0 S3 169 95-W DC5BG JH TRANSFERS Pige 1t M/'as/nsa 15.58 3815242281 LR5B STUBCNT ^55151-114 PA5C 8? 199S-S6 SmraOR HIGH PBSEgRKGATION TRAWSPBRS TOTAL APPLICATIONS RECEIVED: lOTH GRADE IITH GRADE 12TH GRADE 176 21 4 APPLICATIONS GRAOTED: lOTH GRADE IITH GRADE 12TH GRADE 119 21 4 percentage of total applications granted 71.6* APPLICATIONS DENIED: 10TH GRADE IITH GRADE 12TH GRADE 57 0 0 RATIONALE All 11th and 12th grade applications were granted because space was available and the number of applicants was so small as to not impact the racial balance at any of the four schools. Racial balance inhibited the movement of 57 10th grade  The racial percentages of each school's 10th grade class before applicants. were as follows: Central Hall Fair McClellan considering desegregation transfers 59.4% 73.8% 73.6% 83.1% Therefore, any black students who requested a transfer out of Central to Hall, to Fair, or to McClellan were denied. Likewise, any white students who requested a transfer out of McClellan were denied. Two black students, one at Hall and one at Fair, who requested transfers to McClellan, also were denied.05/09/1995 13:50 5013242281 LRSD STUDENT ASSIGNM PAGE 08 LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 10TH GRADE DESEGREGATION TRANSFERS IjO OF REQUEST TO SCHOOL 1| II# OF REQUEST FROM SCHOOL^ GRADE 10th TOTAL BLACK 2Q 54 51 7 138 WHITE 13 11 14 0 38 TOTAL 39 65 65 7 176 SCHOOL Cwrtnl Fair Hall MeCMIan BLACK WHITE YofAL 52 13 16 57 I 138 22 2 11 3 38 7A 15 27 60 176Sheets Chart 4 LRSD Elementary Enrollment Years Page 1\nThis project was supported in part by a Digitizing Hidden Special Collections and Archives project grant from The Andrew W. Mellon Foundation and Council on Library and Information Resoources.\n   \n\n   \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n   \n\n \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n \n\n  \n\n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n   \n\n \n\n\n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n\n\n  \n\n\n\n "},{"id":"bcas_bcmss0837_491","title":"Incentive Schools: Facilities","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"],"dcterms_description":null,"dc_format":["application/pdf"],"dcterms_identifier":null,"dcterms_language":["eng"],"dcterms_publisher":["Little Rock, Ark. : Butler Center for Arkansas Studies. Central Arkansas Library System"],"dc_relation":null,"dc_right":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC-EDU/1.0/"],"dcterms_is_part_of":["Office of Desegregation Monitoring records (BC.MSS.08.37)","History of Segregation and Integration of Arkansas's Educational System"],"dcterms_subject":["Little Rock (Ark.)--History--20th century","Little Rock School District","Education--Arkansas","School facilities","Education--Finance"],"dcterms_title":["Incentive Schools: Facilities"],"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/491"],"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":["87 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\niSFgS! TO: Henry FROM: 1: SUS J: DATE: LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT PLANT SERVICES 3601 SOUTH BRYANT STREET LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS (501) 570-4020 'i TJ -i amg -h 72204 J99S \u0026lt;3 Superintendent C. Eaton, Director, Plant Services Special Report on Incentive Schools September 22, 1995 OCT J 0 199j Office Of Desesregaii if I am forwarding to you information on the action taken by Facility Services, with regard to recommendations in the May 17, Incentive Schools Monitoring Report. 1995, Essentially all of the actions recommended in that report have been acted upon, some still remiain to be done because of scheduling of higher priority work in other schools. The charts accompanying this Directorate and this District schools at a higher priority. \u0026lt; of all of our other schools. report go to verify that this continue to keep their incentive Our per capita cost far exceeds that DCE/apl/ris cc : Dr. Russ Mayo, Associate Superintendent, Desegregation Mr. Sterling Ingram, Director of Staff Development OBFRANKLIN ELEMENTARY SCHOOL 1. RECOMMENDATION\nentire building. To carry through on promises to paint the ACTION: Franklin Elementary School has been completely painted and was finished during the summer of 1995. Facility Services has a long range plan I should point out that and facilities are scheduled for painting as far as eight (8) to ten (10) years in advance. is a bad term to use with regard to scheduled work. scheduled for 1995 and was painted in 1995. Promise ten (10) 2 . Franklin was REC OMMENDATION: Continue to repair roof leaks as they occur. ACTION: At the present time, there are no roof leaks reported at Franklin, nor have there been in the past three (3) months. This Directorate has an on-going program through the use of private contracts and roofing consultants to continually inspect all of our roofs and repair them as necessary 3 . RECOMMENDATION: Replace the damaged unsightly metal plates with new ceiling tiles. ceiling tiles and ACTION: The replacement of damaged ceiling tiles was necessitated by old roof leaks. Once the roof was repaired, the ceiling tiles are normally replaced. repaired. However, in buildings such as Franklin the ceiling tile design is quite old and replacement tiles are almost impossible to find. that match as closely We use a method of replacing tiles with tiles as possible. If these tiles are not available or if the area is too large to be replaced with small tiles, then we use a method such as may be seen in the cafeteria at Franklin. This method is to use sheets of waterproof board and then paint the sheets so as to match the existing ceiling color. It 13 considered an adequate and appropriate repair for ceiling tiles. It is 4 . RECOMMENDATION: stocked. Ensure that all restrooms are clean and fully ACTION\nI have discussed this issue with the principal and have personally visited the restrooms on two (2) or three (3) occasions over the past couple of months. Each time I found the restrooms to be clean and to have the required paper materials as necessary. GARLAND ELEMENTARY SCHOOL 1. Remove custodial clutter from public space and increase the attention given to general cleanliness. RECOMMENDATION: ACTION: two (2) months. I have inspected Garland at least twice within the last I found that building to be quite clean and thecustodial area has been rearranged and cleaned so as to present an uncluttered appearance. However, please be advised that this does require continuous monitoring on the part of the principal. 2 . RECOMMENDATION\nReplace the damaged exterior doors. ACTION: The exterior doors at Garland were inspected and those requiring replacement were replaced. to be in good condition and secure. The doors are now considered MITCHELL ELEMENTARY SCHOOL 1. Survey the entire system of gutters and roof drainage to assess their current condition. RECOMMENDATION: damaged gutters making sure appearance of the originals. the replacement gutters Repair or replace all match the ACTION: We have recently renewed our roofing contract effective September of this year. Within the next sixty (60) days, gutters will be assessed and will be replaced. r Mitchell Elementary School,, we will attempt to replace gutters that match as closely as possible\nhowever, gutters matching exactly are impossible to find because of the age of the facility. the Due to the age of 2 . RECOMMENDATION: Repaint the exterior trim. ACTION: Repainting the exterior trim at Mitchell Elementary School is a very low priority right now. It has not been scheduled. The It has not been scheduled. interior of the building has been repainted within the last two (2) years. The cost to scaffold the front of that building and paint the exterior trim is disproportionate to the benefit that we would receive by doing this. If resources allow and sufficient funds are available, we will attempt to contract and paint portions of the exterior of the building later on this year. 3 . RECOMMENDATION: Find the cause of the persistent leaks that plague the south stair hall and eradicate the problem, taking to preserve the decorative metal ceiling in the area. care ACTION: The leaks that persist in the south stair hall are due to children intentionally stopping up the drains in the urinals and sinks and flooding the floor. When this happened, seals in the plumbing system, which are quite old, have a tendency to leak, principal has taken necessary action to ensure that children are The monitored when they attend the restroom. The leaks have been repaired and we anticipate painting the ceiling within the next thirty (30) days. 4 . RECOMMENDATION: Evaluate the condition of the floor in the main hall and repair or replace all loose and missing floor tiles.ACTION: have been replaced as identified as being loose, but at any given time, will work their way loose. Floor tiles wooden floor which has been covered The floor at Mitchell is they have been additional tiles an in lay Wooden floors have a over with a form of plywood. weather. This is As this happens, tendency to expand and shrink with the the tiles will work their way free. a common occurrence in any facility where tiles have been placed over wooden floors. We will periodically monitor this and have provided tiles and glue to the custodial staff to replace them as they become loose. We should point out that only one (1) color is now available in that size tile. we 5. Repair and repaint the damaged and discolored ceilings in the cafeteria, reading room and math classroom. RECOMMENDATION: ACTION: The damaged and discolored ceilings in the reading and math The cafeteria ceiling is scheduled to be painted within the next thirty (30) days. classroom have been repainted. 6. Replace the missing covers and light fixtures throughout the building. RECOMMENDATION: We are ACTION: We are in the process of counting the light fixtures requiring covers and are attempting to find a company which will provide covers only for that type fixture. this will be It is anticipated that completed within the third quarter. RIGHTSELL ELEMENTARY SCHOOL 1. Redirect the down spout that continues to cause a moisture problem in the basement. RECOMMENDATION: ACTION: The down spout that has caused problems in the basement has been corrected. 2 . RECOMMENDATION: Repair the damaged walls in the basement. ACTION: After a period of drying out, have been repainted. the walls in the basement We will reinspect them this year to see if some sort of finish can be applied which would smooth out the plaster. However, these are the original old walls of the building and repairs to them are sometimes costly and hard to achieve. 3.  Evaluate the condition of old books, furnishings and the carpet in the media center and replace those damaged beyond repair. RECOMMENDATION: ACTION: The media center has been re-carpeted and the furnishings have been inspected and deemed serviceable. 4. Correct the problem of low water pressure in restrooms to ensure hygienic conditions. RECOMMENDATION: ACTION: One sink There was no problem with low pressure in the restrooms. recjuired a washer to be replaced. This has been completed. 5. RECOMMENDATION: Ensure that all restrooms are supplied with soap and paper goods. ACTION: I have visited Rightsell on numerous occasions and have found the restrooms to be supplied adeguately for the children. ROCKEFELLAR ELEMENTARY SCHOOL 1. RECOMMENDATION: Replace the broken door glass on the west side of the building. ACTION: This door glass has been replaced RECOMMENDATION: Install a school sign facing the Interstate 630 to help publicize the prime location of the school. ACTION: school sign was installed on the east side of Rockefeller Elementary School. REC OMMENDATION: Replace all worn and frayed carpet. ACTION: Rockefellar is scheduled for carpet replacement in 1997. However, adequate funding has delayed our carpeting projects by at least two (2) years. All schools are evaluated constantly and the worst carpet in the district receives the highest priority, will continue to employ this procedure in determining which of our We facilities will need carpet replacement that is commensurate with our funding. 2 . 3 . AGENERAL INFORMATION During 1995, expenditures in the incentive schools, basis.  . on a per capita outweigh expenditures in all other elementary schools. As the chart shows, the average expense per capita in our elementary schools was $196.00 dollars, our per capita expense in the incentive schools was $355.00 dollars, in the magnet schools, $166.00 dollars and in the areas schools $171.00 dollars. The cost in upkeep of the incentive schools, due to the age and condition of the buildings and our need to keep these schools as looking as good as possible to support our desegregation effort, has always been a higher priority with this Directorate. years. The second chart indicates the average spending per school for each of the incentive schools over the last three (3) years. I think that these charts support the statements that the incentive schools continue to be a higher priority within this district. DCE/apl/raIncentive Schools Cost per Student $600 Cost per Student $500 $400 \u0026lt;/) co o Q $0 $200 $100 i $300 Incentive Schools ^verag  Rockefeller Costs for 1993-1995 IFranklin Rightsei Garland Ish pMitchel I Stephens LRSD School Cost Elementary Schools 1995 s $0 I I $100 Avg $200 $300 $400 glncentiv ^Magnet \nAreaC,\nAfy Entire Life Is A Series Of Lists \u0026amp; Notes For example, this one. 5- V. 17'M fl (/AA,i^\u0026lt;ZAZ Uu :5:- wlUuj ' 'S^' l*\u0026gt;s^ si CP27PN  PMooe* PwMT*. I 212\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_467","title":"Incentive Schools: ''Foreign Languages, Culture Activities for K-6 Classroom Teachers,'' Office of Communications, English, ESL, Foreign Languages, and Reading, 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"],"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","Student activities","English language--Study and teaching--Foreign speakers","Education--Curricula"],"dcterms_title":["Incentive Schools: ''Foreign Languages, Culture Activities for K-6 Classroom Teachers,'' Office of Communications, English, ESL, Foreign Languages, and Reading, 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/467"],"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":["65 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\nJ ] Attachment A-2 ] ] FOREIGN LANGUAGES CULTURE ACTIVITIES FOR K-6 CLASSROOM TEACHERS 1 1 ] 1 1 1 1 Prepared for Incentive Schools Office of Communications, English, ESL, Foreign Languages, and Reading Little Rock School District J RECEIVED FEB 2 4 1995 Office of Desegregatioa iv ...ujfe ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] SUGGESTED TOPICS FOR ALL LEVELS 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. Alphabet Numbers 1-10 Classroom items Calendar Seasons Weather Clothes Food Family Colors Days of the Week Transportation Adjective Comparisons Animals Rooms of the House Body Parts Types of Buildings Action Verbs Reflexive Verbs How to .] ] FOREIGN LANGUAGES CULTURE ACTIVITY ] ] Title: Children's Story Book Author: Elizabeth McFadden Topic: Writing ] objective: Students are to create at least a 10-page illustrated children's story book or \"How to\" book in the target language. ] ] Level: Novice (K-4) (NOTE: Intermediate (5-8) Advanced (9-12) At primary and interaediate levels, activities must be conducted mostly in English.) Length: 5 days Materials: ] 1. 2. 3. notebook paper typing paper markers or crayons 4. 5. textbook children's books ] ] Pre Activity\nBring to class samples of basic children's books (ABC's, Dr. Seuss, Alphaber, etc.) for students to use as tools for brainstorming topics of interest. \\ttached.) (See 1 1 Activity: DAY 1: Divide students into pairs. Some students may prefer to work independently. and drawings. Spend time brainstorming simple ideas for stories DAYS 2-3\nStudents will work on and turn in their scripts to be proofed and approved by the teacher. DAYS 3-4: After final revisions are made , students may rewrite onto the typing paper the script, then add and color their illustrations. Post Activity: DAY 5: Students will share with the class their completed stories and show their illustrations. Suggested Assessment: Points may be assigned using the following rubric: . 50 points 1. 2. 3 . 4. originality presentation vocabulary usage adherence to assignment 15 points 25 points 10 points TOTAL: 100 points] ] FOREIGN LANGUAGES CULTURE ACTIVITY Title\n1 Day of the Dead Celebration (To be used with the activity titled \"Bread of the Dead.\") Author: Suzanne Caldwell Jopic\nSpanish Holidays Objective: Students will gain cultural and self understanding through participation in a celebration of a typical Spanish holiday. Level\nNovice (K-4) (NOTE\nIntermediate (5-8) Advanced (9-12) At novice and intermediate levels, activities must be conducted mostly in English.) ength: 30 minutes Materials: picnic or table cloth fake tombstone made of poster board artificial or real flowers favorite foods brought by students [reparation: A few days before, the teacher should tell students that they may bring a treat to eat in class (or ask room mothers to provide snacks). ^itudents to bring a few real or artificial flowers. Also asl\u0026lt; \u0026gt; Activity: Teacher asks questions to review the United States's customs of celebrating 1! alloween: b. T d. What day is October 31? How do we celebrate this day? Is there anything scary about this holiday (to elicit responses that it has to do with ghosts, dead people, etc.)? What does this tell us about the way people in the U.S. feel about death? Is this the way you feel about death and dead people? Activity: 1. 1 Teacher will explain Latin American attitudes toward death and the Latin American holiday that is a counterpart to Halloween. [While the North American avoids or tries to disguise death, the Hispanic finds death to be just another aspect or side of life. One Mexican woman explained that a family member who is dead is as close and as real as if he were merely asleep in the next room. In all the Latin American countries, the Day of the Dead is celebrated with visits to the cemetery. in memory of their dead friends and family members. The people put flowers and candles on the grave Many times, the visits last several hours during which the family eats, drinks, and chats beside the grave of a loved one. In many parts of the world, the people believe that the souls of the dead return to their houses on October 31 or November 1. While in North America a dead person is considered scary or gruesome, the Hispanic dead person is received like a lost friend. In some countries,, the family puts some of the favorite food or drink of the dead person on the grave or in some corner of the house.] The teacher will then tell the students to bring the favorite foods or snacks that have been brought or provided to a place in the classroom set aside as a grave, marked with the headstone. The teacher could have students decide ] ] 4. 1 1 1 1 1 11 collectively on a name and identity of the dead person. The name, dates, epitaph, etc., could be written on the poster board tombstone. The students will spread a cloth beside the grave and share the treats. A special plate will be prepared for the dead person. The students or teacher can place flowers on the grave if desired. name and identity of the dead person. ] ] 1 - -------- They will then sit and tell \"stories\" about the person when he/she was alive. To end the ceremony, the teacher can taste the treat left on the plate of the dead person and declare that he must have come and eaten, because the flavor has gone from the food. The students then say good-bye to the dead person and return to their seats for closure. Post Activity: pe teacher will draw out reactions to this 4iem to examine their own feelings. new custom from the students and help 1. 1 How are the two celebrations of this holiday similar? (time of year, treats, association with death) How are the two celebrations of this holiday different? dead person, setting, slightly different date) How do you feel about the way people from Hispanic countries celebrate this holiday? (attitude toward How do you think a person from an Hispanic country would feel about our treatment of this holiday? Has this activity affected the way you feel about Halloween? about Hispanic people? about death? '^ggested Assessment: J'ite a short paragraph describing the Hispanic celebration of the Day of the Dead. Include your feelings. 1 I J J I I 1] ] FOREIGN LANGUAGES CULTURE ACTIVITY 'itle: Bread of the Dead ] ] Author: Cindy Wage Topic: Spanish Holiday Food 1 objective: Students will make and sample \"Bread of the Dead\" while studying the holiday. ] Level: Novice (K4) Intermediate (5-8) (NOTE: Advanced (9-12) At novice and intermediate levels, activities must be conducted mostly in English.) 3 Length: 1 class period I Materials: ] 1. 2 . one loaf of frozen bread dough one orange peel, grated I J Pre Activity: This activity may be combined with the activity which describes the customs and rituals associated with the \"Day of the Dead.\" J Activity: On All Saints' Day, November 1, Mexicans prepare \"bread of the dead\" or Pan de los Muertos. Use this simple recipe to make the bread in class: Let the dough thaw about 1 hour, until workable. dough the size of a tennis ball and reserve. Break off piece of into a large ball, grated orange peel. Shape the rest of the dough Flatten the large ball slightly and sprinkle with Now use the reserve dough to shape a skull and crossbones or a cross for the top of the loaf. Bake at 375 for 25 minutes or until there is a slight hollow sound when the golden crust is tapped. Post Activity: N/A J Suggested Assessment: N/A J I 1 o I 1] 1 FOREIGN LANGUAGES CULTURE ACTIVITY Title: Greetings and Greeting Customs 1 Author: Jennifer Lusk Topic: Greetings and Greeting Customs Objective: Students will use appropriate greetings and greeting customs in a variety of situations. ] Level\nNovice (K-4) (NOTE: Intermediate (5-8) Advanced (9-12) At primary and intermediate levels, activities must be conducted mostly in English.) Length: 3-5 minutes Materials: Teacher, door sign, other students optional ]Pre Activity: Students should be thoroughly familiar with the target language greetings before this activity is used. -- . .. (If not there will be a major pile-up of Students should learn not only greeting vocabulary, but appropriate gestures, forms of address, etc. students at the door!) ctivity\nBefore class I put a sign on the door telling who I am. Students must come in and give me an appropriate greeting in the target language. (This is J a great way to check if the students know the difference between formal and informal greetings. It also gives me the chance to see if students know am. appropriate greeting gestures. . , For example, Germans give firm handshakes and look one another in the eye when greeting one another.) This activity takes just a few moments to complete while the students entering the room. are 1 ] ] ] J I J 1 J Post Activity\nYou can use the same \"Meet them at the door\" technique to drill the students on other basic information. (For example, ask the students their ages in the target language, ask them their names in the target language, etc.) J Suggested Assessment: After we have practiced greetings at the door, I give students a short I pop quiz (worth 5-10 points) practicing. (You can quickly go around the room giving students a different in the same manner in which they have been 1 J arson to greet each time.) JFOREIGN LANGUAGES CULTURE ACTIVITY Title\nHispanic Food Author\nCindy Wage Topic\nFood ] Objective\nStudents will prepare and sample two typical Hispanic foods: Paella and Caribbean drink. ] Level\nNovice (K-4) Intermediate (5-8) Advanced (9-12) ] (NOTE: At primary and intermediate levels, activities must be conducted mostly in English.) Length\n] Materials\n] See attached recipes. ] Pre Activity: Discussion of Spanish foods. Begin with a brainstorming activity where students talk about foods that they think are \"typically Spanish.\" (As you know, most students will come up with food that is either Tex-Mex or Mexican -| in origin. The teacher might want to then explain the differences in Spanish I nd Mexican foods.) The information in Appendix 2 might help to generate some * -iiscussion. Teacher might also want to mention the importance of the banana ] as a staple food in Caribbean countries such as Puerto Rico, Dominican Republic. Cuba, and the J Activity: Making of Paella should be assigned to one or more groups of students, dish should be prepared at home and brought to class on day assigned. This The (You may want to get Caribbean drink can be prepared in class by students. They could also bring in a I XiJUcCi.ll LlXXilA. t^CLll UC C^Cll. Cm Xll J students to bring ingredients on voluntary basis, few extra blenders!) ? All preparations for drink can easily be done in class. J J Post Activity\nIn school library, look in a cookbook and find more information about Prepare a brief list of dishes that you would like 1. Hispanic cuisine. 2. to taste or try to make. See if you can get all the ingredients. Choose a recipe. Find out how J much it will cost to make the recipe with a friend.  J Suggested Assessment: This activity lends itself more to a participation grade than any other form You may want to use the following rubric to grade the final of assessment, product: resentation: ' J .dherence to recipe: (Is the food attractively presented?) (Did students follow recipes and use all 10 Student Participation: ingredients listed?) ' J Total Points: 05 10 25 r k] APPENDIX 1 ] SPANISH PAELLA ] ] ] 2 cups rice (arroz) 1 cup diced chicken breast (polio) 1 cup sliced link sausage (chorizo) 1 cup fresh shrimp (Camerones) 1 bell pepper (Pimentos verdes) Green olives, 10-12 or small can (olivas verdes) 1 small onion, chopped (cebolla) 1 can tomatoes (tomates) 2 Tbs. olive oil (aciete de oliva) 2 cups water (agua) ] ] Chop chicken, slice sausage, and peel shrimp, tomatoes, and peppers in olive oil. sausage, Saute onions, for 10 minutes. baking dish. Add chicken and shrimp and cook Add sliced sausage, rice, and olives. Put into and olives. Pour water over rice mixture and bake % hour or until water is absorbed. ] CARIBBEAN DRINK ] J 3 bananas (platanos) 1 cup milk (leche) \\ teaspoon lemon juice (jugo de limon) teaspoon vanilla \\ cup sugar (azucar) Ice (hielo) J Peel and chop bananas, well. Put all ingredients into blender and blend J J J J J J J] 3 APPENDIX 2 3 COMPARISON OF SPANISH AND MEXICAN COOKING 3 Many people do not have a clear idea of the differences between 3 Spanish and Mexican cooking. Because of the similarity in the languages, people assume that the foods are equally similar, truth is that the two cuisines are very different. The 3 Spanish foods are based on very basic, simple tastes. to shy away from overly spicy foods. Spaniards tend ingredients as olive oil, Their foods are based on such garlic, and parsley. Almonds appear 3 frequently both raw and in sauces, main dishes, and desserts. In coastal areas there is a huge abundance of fresh fish and shellfish. Eggs and egg yolk sweets are also used in a great variety of dishes. 3 3 Because of Spain's physical geography, the land is not really suitable for dairy or cattle grazing. It is, however, ideal for raising olives, grapes, and small animals. The Spanish have (naturally!) developed a taste for eggs, pork, lamb, veal, and olive oils. Vegetables and fruits are eaten accordina to recion and the land It is, animals. season. Vegetables and fruits are eaten according to region and Cured ham, green and red peppers, and garlic are other. equally popular ingredients. Because of the reliance on small 3 animals, cheeses are usually made from goat's or sheep's milk. 3 Mexican cooking, on the other hand, is based on cilantro (spice), tomatillos, tomatoes, and hundreds of varieties of chilies. a heavy reliance on corn in Mexico as well. There is J used in tamales. The ears and husks are the stalks are used as cattle feed. the corn silk is used to make medicinal teas, and utilized! Every part of the corn plant is Mexican food often uses lard for frying. The basic J ingredient common to most Mexican recipes would have to be chilies. They range in flavor from mild to very hot and are used fresh, dried, and crushed. The difference in the two cuisines can be seen best in the dish tortilla. In Spain a tortilla is an omelet. It is often eaten as a 3 part of tapas (a variety of appetizers eaten near midday). Mexico, the tortilla is a flat bread made from ground corn. used in soups. In It is as a wrapper for a great many dishes. integral part of many traditional main dishes. and as an I3 ] FOREIGN LANGUAGES CULTURE ACTIVITY Title: ] Mexican Market (We suggest that you use the following activities to create and operate a simulated Mexican market.) 1 Author: Cindy Wage Topic: Crafts and Markets Objective: Students will make various crafts and display them in a simulated Mexican market. Level: Novice (K-4) (NOTE: Intermediate (5-8) Advanced (9-12) At primary and intermediate levels, activities must be conducted mostly in English.) Length: 4-5 Periods ] Materials\n(See following individual exercises.) Pre Activity: Teacher will ask students: 1. 2. 3. 4. Where do you buy your food? Where do you buy your clothes? Where do you buy household items? furniture? decorative items? 5. Have you ever been to a farmer's market? Were there items other than food? What were they selling? Have you ever been to a flea or craft market? there? What did they sell Teacher tells students: A Mexican Market is like a cross between a craft fair, a flea market, and a farmer's market. It is very popular in Hispanic countries. in small towns, it may be the only place to shop. In fact, Activity\nMake craft items following directions on the attached sheets, display items as in a farmer's market. Students Post Activity: A unit on numbers and bargaining would be a reasonable extension of this Spanish vocabulary can be used in foreign language classes. activity. L,.----- ---------------- -------- I students may buy and sell with fake pesos. The the value varies from country to country. Exact values are not important as Suggested Assessment: You may want to use the following rubric to grade the final product: Creation of 4 craft items: Presentation: Attractiveness of craft items Booth set-up 60 points (15 pts. per item) 10 points 10 points Attentiveness and cooperation: 20 points Total Points: 100 points ] ] J J J J J] ] FOREIGN LANGUAGES CULTURE ACTIVITY itle: Rebozo/Mexican Shawl (We suggest that you use the following activity to create and operate a simulated Mexican marlcet.) Author\nCindy Wage Topic\nCraft Objective\nStudents will malce a rebozo and learn the history and current uses of the shawl. ] Level\nNovice (K-4) (NOTE\nIntermediate (5-8) Advanced (9-12) At primary and intermediate levels, activities must be conducted mostly in English.) Length\n60 Minutes Materials\n] 3. 4. unbleached muslin or bed sheet cut 1 yard by 2^ yards crayons 2 brown paper saclcs iron Pre Activity\nJ ''ell the students about the rebozo and show a real one or a picture of one. J Activity\nMa)ce a rebozo by using the above materials. Choose a pattern and color, as representative of your group, just as each region of Mexico has its own rebozo . Everyone participates in coloring the muslin or sheet to complete the J chosen design. material with a paper saclc over which a hot iron is placed. style. Crayons provide the color, which is then set by covering the The iron will melt the crayons ! appearance. slightly. which will give the rebozo more finished a q Post Activity\nJ Role play the short slcit attached to demonstrate the uses of a rebozo. Suggested Assessment\nAssess students by asJcing questions about the history and the uses of the rebozo. I J This craft may be included in the Mexican mar)cet. I [ J] Skit #1 ] (Group of four students a purchase Speaker #1\nLook at this. ] everyone. (Holds up a shawl} I roK/^r^ T_ _ . _ ' ] tt2: I have seen many of the Indian them. It must be women wearing a typical part of Mexican attire. ] #3: Oh, yes. It is worn as a coat, a purse a hat anH would you believe it? A baby ' and carrier! ] #4: How do they carry their babies in a shawl? ] tfl: I don t know. (Hands shawl you show us? to Speaker #3} Can ] #3: 'J Now let me see. (Ties it in this placed around shoulders i   She carries the child on her back with the shawl as support for the little snawl manner: shawl with large knot in front) one. #2\nJ May I show you howfj have hat. (Places the right end Thiv\nb\n7o\"S at^V^o bec\"^^^^ I a turban. ] #4\nThis is all very interesting. And I hearing something about the remember 1 rebozo. Dark-colored tradition of the time, but on holidays and ones are worn most of the special occasions. J can expect to see the prettiest colors you thof u Nreitiest colors and desiPTT? that can be made. You can even tell by tL Sgn region of Mexico the wearer is and colors what from. J] REBOZO ] ] ] The Mexican shawl (rebozo) (pronounce ra-bo-so) has historical significance as a Mexican tradition that has survived since the Spaniards first settled in present-day Mexico. Spanish students find the rebozos origin an intriguing one, and the style and use of the shawl will instruct in the regional traditions of the country. ] J 1 When the Moors occupied Spain, their beliefs regarding the modesty of women were evident in shawls worn about heads and faces. Spanish women disapproved of the required face covering, so they changed the style to a more feminine version called the mantilla (man-te-ya). Spanish priests considered the Moorish tradition a rather sensible one, and upon their arrival in Mexico, introduced the covering. Their shock at the limited clothing worn by the Mexican Indians made them all the more adamant that the covering (which they called a rebozo) be used. The rebozo is still worn today and its uses have made it essential to village women. J J The rebozd, which is worn draped about the shoulders as a shawl, about the head like a turban, or tied around the back to carry infants, identifies the womans region. Natives can quickly identify a woman's home region simply by noting^the weave, pattern, color, and fringe of her rebozo. Some are gaily embroidered, but others are somewhat drab. Simple patterns are used for everyday utility, and the bright rebozos are kept for fiesta and holiday wear. On Sundays in church you can witness the village women wearing their best rebozos, displaying a tradition that spans the centuries. J \"I J ] J J J1 ? REBOZO ] h Once you have studied the rebozo tradition, you are ready to begin the project itself. You will need ] J, J material cut to be 1 yd. by 274 yds. (unbleached muslin or an old bed sheet) crayons (You will want a large variety of colors.) 2 paper sacks (grocery-store type) an iron Having assembled the above-listed materials, you can begin work on the rebozo. Working with fellow students, choose a pattern and color, as representative of your group, just as each region of Mexico has its own rebozo style. Everyone can easily participate in coloring the bedsheet or muslin material to complete the chosen design. Crayons provide the color, which is then set by covering the material with a paper sack over which a hot iron is placed. The iron will melt the crayons slightly,'which will give the rebozo a more finished appearance. \" J J J J 1 11^ F' JI ^!l W vi JSkS A *ll 11 J' J , ]  J L:] ] FOREIGN LANGUAGES CULTURE ACTIVITY Title: J Author: Ojos De Dios (We suggest that you use the following activities to create and operate a simulated Mexican market.) Cindy Wage ' Topic: Craft Objective: Students will make a God's Eye, typical of the Mexican Indians. Level: Novice {K-4) Intermediate (5-8) Advanced (9-12) At primary and intermediate levels, activities must be conducted mostly in English.) (NOTE\nIntermediate (5-8) Length\n1 class period Materials\n1. r- unsharpened pencils, popsicle craft sticks, or 3/4 inch dowels cut in nine inch lengths several colors of yarn - u Pre Activity\n3 Explain the history of the craft. t: Indians of Mexico and Central American for hundreds pattern is the symbol of the eye of God. -entral diamond are said to symbolize t 1 i: ^ye. The ojo de dios has been made by the of years. The diamond The bands of color around the the wisdom and light coming from the J Activity\nEach student will need two dowels and approximately 3 yards of yarn for the I center color, 10 to 20 for the middle color and let them work off the skeins J Of yarn for their last color and the pom poms. This will prevent waste. Try to vary the color and lengths of the yarn so that each student's project will . be unique. Make a cross with the two dowels. With one end of the yarn, tie i the cross in place using square knots. This will prevent waste. With one end of the yarn, tie Start winding the yarn around the crossed sticks beqinninq yarn arouna tne crossed sticks beginning at the bottom center of the cross and moving in a clockwise direction winding yarn around J each stick once then moving to next stick. Hold the yarn fairly tight as you Wind it. J Keep winding around the sticks. yarn before it. The yarn should lie in neat rows. To change colors, put the end of the first color and the beginning of the second color of the sticks. Hold the two yarns in place with your thumb, the second color. As you wind, lay each yarn down next to the The yarn should lie in neat rows. J yarn behind one J Start winding After you have wound the second color around twice yarn ends will be held in place. ' the J Keep winding the yarn on and making patterns with the colors. C before you get to the end of the sticks, approximately 1*'. om poms on the ends of the four sticks or just the bottom. To make the pom pom, wrap the yarn around a 2\" piece of card board or three fingers about 6 to 7 times and tie in the middle, leaving enough yarn to tie on the sticks. stop winding a You can tie 11 J I hSI '] ] Post Activity: Have a market and let the children ] aake up play pesos for the children to \"sell\" their crafts. use as currency. You may even want to Suggested Assessment: ] This activity really lends itself well to a participation grade. If __i..^o to be awarded, they should be awarded on the basis of the number of \"God's 1\" completed or on how well the students paid attention - - - - directions. are Eyes ! If points and followed r ] ] J 1 [ L J J J J [J J I J J hI 1 iMj Ojo de Dios , t5S| 2 Lft-ck ^ol L .''A J. 5. Keep winding the yarn on and making patterns with the colors. Stop winding a little before you get to the end of the sticks, approximately -1\". You can tie pom poms on the ends of the four sticks or just the bottom.'. To make the pom pom wrap the yarn around ' a 2\" piece of card board or three fingers about 6 to 7 times, tie in the middle, leave enough yarn to tie on the sticks. ]  1 ach student will need two dowels and , J iximately 3 yards of yarn tor the center or, 10 to 20 for the middle color and let . ioj' wcirr\u0026lt;.oil-ol f^'f sksins-for thoir Uist-coio! he pom f\u0026lt;.ns, lh\u0026gt;. will prevent waste. /\"lO vary the color and lengths of the yarn that each students project will be unique. 1 \u0026gt; a cross with the two dowels. With one , .J \u0026gt;1 the yarn, tie the cross in place, using uare knots. 3. Keep winding around he sticks. As you wind, l-y each yarn down next to the yarn  bsfore it:-The-yam shouldIn nnatjowc. pr P' 1 I 4. To change colors, put the end of the first color and the beginning of the second color yarn behind one of the sticks. Hold the two yams in place with your thumb. Start winding the second color. Alter you have wound the second color around twice, the yarn ends will be held in place. '7 jtart winding the yarn around the crossed .icks. Following the winding pattern in the ram below. Hold the yarn fairly tight as wind it. I J J J J J Title: FOREIGN LANGUAGES CULTURE ACTIVITY Spanish Fans and Their Uses Author: Suzanne Caldwell L Topic: Gestures 1 ] Objective: Level: Students will communicate using typical gestures from Spain. Novice (K-4) 1 Intermediate (5-8) Advanced (912) primary and intermediate levels, activities must be conducted mostly in English.) (NOTE: Advanced (9-12) Length: 30 to 50 Minutes Materials: ] 1. 2. colored construction markers or crayons paper or plain white paper Pre Activity\n1 Teacher will generate a discussion using the following script: communicating other than speaking and writing ] 2. are they? Are some more acceptable than others? What 3 . Can you tell me the following things without speaking: good-bye\nI'm hungry\nI'm choking\nHe's crazy\nI'm cold\nBe quiet? J . ------------' 3i 111 uuiu\nDe quiet.' Gestures in target language countries may vary just as the language varies, in Spain especially, women used to communicate with their fans. The fans usually had pictures painted finished with lace. may vary just as the language J'- in the summer? At one time, on them, and sometimes they were Why would a fan be a common accessory, especially the rules of polite society would not allow younq ladies and gentlemen to communicate freely, and so they developed a system of J gestures using this common accessory. Today you will make a fan and practice some of the old signals between sweethearts. accessory. Activity: J^- Ta)ce a sheet of paper. J'- J ... draw a design on it that means something to you, sheet of paper in an accordion-like manner, pinch the folds together at one end, and you have a fan. Here are some gestures to practice, learned from an Sevilla who remembered using them in her youth: Open the fan and hold it chest high with the design facing This means \"I love you.\" Then fold the sheet of some gestures to practice elderly lady in a. b. outward. J c. d. J Turn the fan around and hold it chest high with the design facinc inward. This means \"I don^t love you. Close the fan and touch the opposite shoulder with it. \"I will meet you later.\" Close the fan and hold it down by your side, talk to you now\nmy mother is watching.\" ost Activity: J  2 . With a partner, meanings. This means This means \"I can't make a list of 15-20 North American gestures and their J 3 . With the same partner, make up some new, logical gestures with the fan These may be shared with the class. IL ] 4 , The fans should be displayed on the bulletin board school. or somewhere in the L Suggested Assessment: Students can be graded merely on participation lists and the appearance of their fans. or on the quality of their ] ] ] ] ] J J J J J J J J J ] fe] Title\nFOREIGN LANGUAGES CULTURE ACTIVITY Where in the World? ] Author: Pat Singer Topic: Geographical location of Hispanic countries Objective: Students will locate Hispanic countries by continents using a world map. L Level: Novice (K-4) I ] (NOTE: Intermediate (5-8) Advanced (9-12) At primary and intermediate levels, activities must be conducted mostly in English.) ] Length: 1-2 hours Materials: J 1. 2. 3. 4. transparency and copies of \"Continents of the World\" transparency and copies of \"The Hispanic World\" crayons attached list of Hispanic countries L ] Pre Activity: 1. 2. J Display transparency of \"Continents of the World.\" As)c students the following guestions\n(Cover -the title.) L J J J J J J J J 3. a. b. c. d. e. If What is this? (world map) What do you thinJc the circles represent? How many are there? (7) (continents) What are the names of the continents? (Africa, Australia, Antarctica, Europe, Asia, North America, South America) Who would lilce to write a #1 on the continent of ____? until all are labeled.) more review is needed. 'Continents of the World.\" or simply desired. numbers and write a matching )cey. Activity\n1. 2. 3 . 4. 5. 6. (Continue distribute copies of Students can label the continents with (#1 = Africa, etc.) Display transparency of \"The Hispanic World.\" As)c students to identify the continents or partial continents. America, South America, Europe, Africa) Explain that 3 of these continents contain Hispanic countries. \"Which ones are they?\" (North America, South America, Europe) Elicit from students the definition of a Hispanic country. whose official language is Spanish) Distribute copies of \"The Hispanic World\" and crayons. (North Aslc, (A country Focusing on one continent at a time, identify the names and locations of the Hispanic countries. students before supplying it yourself. Elicit as much information as possible from As each Hispanic country is named and located, it should be colored both on the individual copies and on the transparency. **NOTE: (See attached list of Hispanic countries.) countries that are not Hispanic should not be colored. The discussion can be extended by taDcing about neighbors to the north. south. east. seacoast, etc. and west\nbodies of water\ncountries with/without a J II  Conti nenis O-P the V/orldi 1 o \\ I I I I r4 1 I, 0, 6^ I I C/The. ni'spa.nie V/orld ] :] J iJ J J J J J 1 FOREIGN LANGUAGES CULTURE ACTIVITY Title\nLollipop Colors in Spanish 1 Author: Susana Smith ] ] ] Topic: Colors Objective\nLevel: Length: Students will identify colors in target language. Novice (K-4) Intermediate (5-8) Advanced (9-12) At novice and intermediate levels, activities must be (NOTE: conducted mostly in English.) 30-50 minutes Materials: 1. - 3. wooden tongue depressors or popsicle sticks glue scissors 4 . 5. 6. crayons white paper or cardboard pattern for 235-3\" circle 1 Pre Activity\nJ 1. Teacher will ask class \"What is your favorite color?\" and write responses 1 J ifferent on board. Teacher i will tell class that people in other areas of world give ] 3. names to the same colors. Teacher will write the names of the chosen colors in the target language beside the English names of the same colors. ] Activity\n1. Teacher will hold up crayon and say name of color in Spanish, using the phonetic guide if needed. (Underlined syllable is stressed.) J L. red blue green pink purple rojo azul . verde rosado morado (ro ho) (ah sool) (bear day) (ro sah tho) (mo rah tho) ] 3. Students will trace and cut out 5 circles each, circle one of the five specified colors. They will color each Glue sticks to circles to make lollipops in the 5 specified colors. Post Activity\n1. Teacher will ask class to hold up the lollipop in their favorite color. Teacher will ask all students whose favorite color is \"rojo\" J the lollipop that is rojo. colors. to hold up She will do the same with the other four J Suggested Assessment: eacher can ask students individually to hold up each color of lollipop. This activity can be used J comfortable. with whatever language the teacher feels] J Title: ] Author: ] FOREIGN LANGUAGES CULTURE ACTIVITY Crepe or Tissue Paper Flowers (We suggest that you use the following activities to create and operate a simulated Mexican market.) Cindy Wage Topic: Craft for the Market ] Objective: Students will make brightly colored which may be purchased from vendors paper flowers like the ones on the streets of Mexico. Level: Novice (K-4) Intermediate (5-8) Advanced (9-12) primary and intermediate levels, activities must be conducted mostly in English.) (NOTE: Advanced (9-12) Length: 30 to 60 Minutes Materials: 1. h: thin floral wire, 6\" and 12 pieces colored crepe or tissue paper floral patterns (attached) Pre Activity: Brightly colored flowers are often sold in Mexican markets, flowers are not always of the fresh-cut variety, inner plates, made out of red, yellow for sale. ' However, these Huge flowers, as big as m J----------- or pink tissue paper are also offered Today we are going to make some flowers out of tissue paper. J Activity: Gather petals and loop 6\" wire tightly around base to hold petals IXS middle, also held in place with the 6 wire. The 4-,^ 12\" Wire around the completed flower and twisting to hold in place. Now cover the stem with Remember -and secure it in place with tape or glue. crepe or tissue paper Post Activity: \"iThi Jals This craft can also be another item sold and displayed in the market also be used for decoration for a holiday fiesta. It can ^Suggested Assessment: This activity lends itself more to a participation grade than -Of assessment. any other form ] ] ] 1 1 J J J I I] ] nou. ] ] Cut one from crepe paper for flowers center. Roll edges of petals by placing edge between thumb and forefinger and rolling slightly. ] Cut 10 petals ] ] ] ] ] Rouo OATweR uec^ -J. ] 4 ] 4 4 4 I1 L.  Title: 1 Author: 1 1 Topic: 1 2 FOREIGN LANGUAGES CULTURE ACTIVITY Mexican Pottery (We suggest that you use the following activities to operate a simulated Mexican market.) Cindy Wage create and Craft Objective: Students will make Mexican pottery from 1 of 3 claymaking methods. Level: Novice (K-4) Intermediate (5-8) Advanced (9-12) At primary and intermediate levels, activities must be conducted mostly in English.) (NOTE: Intermediate (5-8) Length: 30 to 50 Minutes J Materials:  1. 2. cornstarch clay salt clay edible clay (i cup cornstarch, 2 cups baking soda, 1^ cups water) (2 cups flour, 1 cup water, 1 cup salt) (1 18 oz. jar of peanut butter, 2^ cups non-fat dry milk) Pre Activity: I Show clay pottery (Mexican pottery if available). ___ _____ _______ Mexicans use clay pots, cups and plates Vvery'^day? Once a week in the markets, villagers offer clay creations of toys, ' ' Mexican pottery is made for J and elaborate candlesticks. artwork, .ctivity: Make the clay using one of the three recipes. JCprnstarch Clay: stir the above ingredients for cornstarch clay in a sauce pan. r-----j-i-j-.- -  . ^Cornstarch Clav: J Remove thick mixture from pan and pour into bowl to When cool enough to handle, knead the clay with hands until smooth and pliable. cool. Salt Clav: I.. Edible Clav: J Stir until thick, with tempera paints. Knead clay and shape. Let dry and paint Combine the above ingredients for edible clay and stir until thick and well mixed. Shape and enjoy. This clay will not harden. Shape and enjoy. iPost Activity: JThis craft can be used in the simulated market, along with the other craft projects described on other sheets. 1  Suggested Assessment: This activity lends itself more to a participation grade than any other form of assessment.1 u. FOREIGN LANGUAGES CULTURE ACTIVITY Capitals and Calendars } chor: Pat Singer Topic\nThe Spanish calendar \"Jbjective: Students will compare and contrast the English and Spanish calendars. ^Bvel: Novice (K-4) (NOTE: Intermediate (5-8) Advanced (9-12) At novice and intermediate levels, activities must be conducted 1 length\nI 3 . mostly in English.) 2 hrs. (includes Post Activity) terials: attached script copies of English calendar copies of Spanish calendar 4 . 5. copies of translation key transparency of Spanish calendar 3re Activity\n1. 1 Elicit from students capitalization rules (see attached). Teacher writes on board or overhead as students respond. Activity: J Distribute to students a copy of the Spanish calendar and translation key. Students skim over these I J information. Students follow these commands:  Touch the days of the week.  Touch the name of the month.  Touch the word for Tuesday. pages to familiarize themselves with the (Continue until all the days have been J: 6 . J touched.) Immediate feedback can be supplied with overhead transparency of Spanish calendar as teacher or students touch the correct word. Distribute a copy of English calendar to each student. Students scan both calendars, looking for similarities and differences. Elicit these similarities and differences from students and make a list on board or overhead (see attached). Post Activity: Distribute copies of blank Spanish calendar. ] he current month on board (see script). Teacher writes the Spanish word for Students make a current month's alendar, Spanish style. week. Be sure students do not capitalize months or days of the Be sure the dates are lined up properly since Monday is the first day of Ine Spanish calendar week. -display students' work. Students could color and illustrate any holidays. juggested Assessment: udents identify the differences and similarities of the English and Spanish endars. 1] ] SCRIPT Capitals and Calendars ] Pre Activity: 1 Among all the capitalization rules that are elicited, be sure the following two are included:  Months of the year are capitalized.  Days of the week are capitalized. ] Activity: ] #6 - Differences to be noted: The month is not capitalized in the Spanish calendar. The days of the seek are not capitalized in the Spanish calendar. The Spanish calendar week begins with Monday instead of Sunday. ] Similarities to be noted: 1 The major format is the same, with the month at the top and days of the week below. - - . Numerals designate the dates. 1 Post Activity: Months of the Year\n(The underlined syllable is the stressed syllable.) J enero ay nay row febrero - fay bray row J marzo abril mar so ah breel J J mayo - my oh junio - hoon yo julio - hool yo agosto - ah ghost oh septiembre - sept vaim bray octubre - oak two bray noviembre - knowv yaim bray diciembre - dees vaim bray J J J J I I] SPANISH CALENDAR TRANSLATION KEY ] Monday lunes loo nace ] Tuesday martes mar tace ] 3 3 3 3 Wednesday miercoles *me vair ko lace Thursday jueves hwav base Friday viernes *bee vair nace Saturday sabado sah bah though Sunday domingo doe mean go 3 *The first two syllables should be pronounced as one syllable. The underlined syllable is the stressed syllable. J J J J 3 J I J 1 1 IJ tthfo I mo-rtes )es V/ernes 3 dofnm^o - L_ I0 1 8 10 II IS. IS ^0 S7 1^ IS/ 6\u0026gt; 17 13 17 SI S3 S(7- 55\" 2b S3 S7 30June Sunday Monday Tuesday Wednesday Thursday Friday Saturday 1 1^ /3 / 8 5 3 \"A I ^9 /o n 1/ /7 ^0 ^3 (p ^3 301 1.. FOREIGN LANGUAGES CULTURE ACTIVITY Title: Let's Go Shopping! 1 Author: Pat Singer Topic: The Mexican Market 1 Obj ective\nThe students will be exposed to seven typical items sold in a Mexican market and make their own individual markets. 1 Level: 1 Novice (K-4) Intermediate (5-8) Advanced (9-12) At primary and intermediate levels, activities must be conducted mostly in English.) (NOTE: Intermediate (5-8) Length: 1^ to 2^ hours or perhaps 3 sessions each 45 minutes 1 Materials: 1. 2. P- J 4. 5. script for Mexican market information copies of Pronunciation Key copies of illustrated market items with item names 1 crayons, scissors, glue copies of activity sheet \"Welcome to the Mexican Market\" Pre Activity: ] 1. Elicit from students the names of stores in their community where one can buy clothing? toys? blankets? food? craft items? kitchen items? Tell students what the Mexican market is like. food? (use script) J Activity: 1. J J 2. 3. 4. J J J Je: Distribute copies of Pronunciation Key of 7 typical items sold in Mexican markets. Read together. Distribute copies of illustrated market items. Read each of the following descriptions and ask students to touch that drawing. -The sombrero is a wide-brimmed hat. -The poncho is a kind of a sleeveless blanket coat worn by men, and has a slit in the middle to slip over the head. -The re^ozo, a shawl worn by women, is a piece of material which, when folded in half, often forms a triangle. -The sarape is a blanket that is folded to form a narrow rectangle and is worn by men over one shoulder. The mananita is a sleeveless blanket coat worn by women and is slit open in the front. -The cobija is a blanket. -The pj^nafea is a pot, covered with papier mache, decorated, and filled with goodies to be hung and broken at pairties. Students color these items using bright colors and lots of designs. Distribute copies of \"Welcome to the Mexican Market.\" \"  Have students fold J so the doors meet at the center and, when opened, display the market stalls. 1I 1 The Mexican Market Pre-Activity 1 (Continued) 3 1 8. Following the attached example, students cut and paste the market items in the stalls as they desire. The end results is that the items appear to be hanging. (Note\nWhen pasting the poncho, cobija, mananita, and rebozo, fold in half and paste back half onto paper, only the top of the pinata and sombrero. the 3-D effect! sarape, Paste Students will be delighted with Students cut and paste the item names in the boxes below each item, sure they are matched appropriately. Be I Post Activity: * Display students' markets as a bulletin board, Mexican Market.\" entitled \"Welcome To The 1 Suggested Assessment: This activity might lend itself best to a participation grade. However, you J could have students match the name of each market item with the appropriate description, as in \"Activity #4.\" ] ] J J J ] J J J J JT 1 SCRIPT LET'S GO SHOPPING 1 Pre-Activity: Mexican Market Information 1 1 In Spanish speaking countries, open-air markets are yery common and are much more likely to be found than are shopping malls. Almost anything a family would need is sold at these markets. They are very similar in appearance to what we know of as craft fairs or farmers' markets, where each vendor sets up his/her own booth or stall. Also, it is a very common sight to see the items for sale hanging in the stall area. 1 1 1 ] ] J THE MEXICAN MARKET PRONUNCIATION KEY J J ] el poncho el pown cho el sarape el sah rah pay el rebozo el ray bow sow la mananita lah mahn ya knee tah la pinata lah pean yah tah el sombrero el sowm bray row J la cobija lah koh bee ha J Note: The underlined syllable is stressed. J J JX ** Fold on dotted lines I el poncho t I el sarape Cut out slit in center el rebozo la mananita la pinata I el sombrero la cobija I I I fd the. Marke't Weleonne. Mexican o 0 1 r 1 T1 ] T\nAl T\u0026lt; 01 L( 1 L: I I I I 1 ] Le He I I 1. I 2. IJ:' 1 5, Pl 1. I ]  Sh Dr 3. 1  1 Ac Me 1. 2. 0* ? cf CU 1 Pc Da de 1. 1- Su ITh SU  J J 1 n h a D (i I 1 I I I 1 I I i I I I I I Welcome. Mexican 0 fo the. Mcrkei' Q 6y I I I1' ] ] ] PRE ACTIVITY: Mexico's Independence Day SCRIPT - LONG LIVE INDEPENDENCE (Part I) biggest and noisiest of the holidays. on September 15th \u0026amp; 16th. seen, green/white/red. i\" throughout Mexico\"*^ L 1 -----3--------- are decoratQf-'oHo---- 2 street corners, vendors sell flags and other\nStalls are set up to sell food and handmade Churches and marketplaces are decorated. Pinatas hang from tree limbs. Fireworks, and dancing can be seen and heard everywhere! crafts. , - . . ----------* Pinatas hang from tree limbs parades, mariachi bands, r  '  iiiws. IThis holiday commemorates the day, r go), a priest, called for the people to rebel acrainst their Snanitih ^lers and become independent. On that date, at 1^:00 p m , rlir HiSi ItS? helrd FJther^Hidai?*h'V'^ of Dolores. As the townspeople came running, M Hidalgo shouting that it was time to fight for their liberty from^pai?^^''* independence started a long fight for freedom doll go), a priest September 15, 1810, when Father Hidalgo (ee bo 4-.S i-_i ggainst their Spanish Today in Mexico, . . , Father Hidalgo is remembered independence. Each year, on that date. as the Father of Mexican .UI. u Hidalgo's plea for independence throughout Mexico. The celebrations begin on ar ii\noo p.m., r~ - is read in town Iseptember 15th, i _____ ____ uuj Hidalgo's famous words, know as \"el grito,\" the sh^t continue into the night and following day! \"Viva la Independencia! '   The celebrations begin cn as the President publicly proclaims Father Then the festivities I Viva la libertad! idependence, long live liberty, long live Mexico!) Everywhere you hear echoes of, Viva Mexico!\" (Long live J LEGEND OF THE MEXICAN FLAG 'he Mexican flag is green, white, and red. symbol of Mexico. -^1 .  ..In the center of the flag is the eagle perched on a cactus with a snake in its According to the legend, the Aztecs looked for the xiiy uu cue xegeno, me Aztecs looked for the symbolic eagle for n Abonb TJn looking for a place to settll down. n about 1300 A.D., the Aztecs are said to have found such c... __   ------------the middle of Lake Texcoco in the vallev of exico. There they built their capital citv. They had canals for streets^and on a cactus on an island an eagle, perched hexi ^loa There they built their capital city. Tney naa loating gardens upon which they planted their crops. T_l ov.r.r^/e. bullt OU top of tho iTulns of the famous ztecs. Mexico's capital. Today, Mexico City, r city of the J J 1V SCRIPT - LONG LIVE INDEPENDENCE (Part I) ACTIVITY: Instructions for Making Party 'Favors\" ] NOISE-MAKERS I You will need: 1 coke can per student copies of paper pattern crayons, scissors, glue, masking tape pebbles or dried beans 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 I J J J J 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. Rinse out coke cans and let dry. Students color the paper pattern as follows: 1 red circle, 1 green circle rectangle - green/white/red (Make sure the white stripe is the middle one.) Students write their name with a black marker on one circle. Students cut out pattern pieces. Glue rectangle around body of coke can. Drop some pebbles or dried beans inside each coke Cover hole in top with masking tape. Students glue a circle on each end of the coke When dry, shake and celebrate! SMALL MEXICAN FLAGS You will need: 1. 2. 3 . 4 . can. can. copies of flag (choose the size you prefer) crayons (green, red, brown) scissors, glue craft popsicle sticks Students color the flag as follows: - Left stripe is green. - Center stripe is white. - Right stripe is red. - Eagle is brown. - Snake is green. - Cactus is green. - Blooms on cactus are red. Students cut out the flag. Glue each flag to a popsicle stick. When dry, wave them as you parade around the room! PENNANTS You will need: 1. 2. 3. construction paper (green, white, red) markers (green, black, red) scissors, glue very thin dowels (1 for each pennant) suggested slogans written on board for students to copy Draw a triangle on each paper so the shape will resemble that of pennant. Whatever size you prefer will be great. a Students choose the color pennant they desire. Students copy the slogan they prefer onto the pennant, using markers. - red/green pennants - use black markers - white paper - use red/green markersI Instructions for Making Pennants (Continued) 1 SLOGANS 1 1 Long Live Independence! Long Live Liberty! Long Live Mexico! Padre Hidalgo - Father of Mexican Independence Mexican Independence Day - September 15th \u0026amp; 16th 4. 5. 1 Students cut out the pennants and attach to thin dowel. When dry, wave and have fun! 1 POST ACTIVITY: Instruction for making party decorations LARGE BANNERS 1 I - t 1 You will need: long white paper - the size you desire for banner markers (red, green, black) suggested slogans (same as for pennants) 1. 2. Copy slogan of choice onto banner. 3. Decorate, if desired, with drawings pertinent to the holiday, such garland, flowers, fireworks, Mexican flag, etc. Mexico's national colors, plus black.) Hang finished banners in classroom and/or school hallways. as (Be sure to use only I i 1 1 LARGE MEXICAN FLAGS You will need: 16\"x36\") copies of emblem for large flag white paper the size of finished flag (possibly large construction paper - red \u0026amp; green (12\"xl6\") scissors, glue 1 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. Color emblem, following directions in ACTIVITY \"Small Flags.\" Glue 12\" X 16\" green construction paper onto left side of large (16\" X 36\") white paper. Glue 12\" X 16\" red construction paper onto right side of the same white paper. Cut out finished emblem and glue in the middle of the center white strip. Display finished flags in classroom and hallways! J I ** TISSUE PAPER FLOWERS J Instructions for making these flowers can be found in the culture activities packet dealing with crafts in the Mexican market, sure to use only green, white, and red tissue paper. However, be J  J i1 tJoiSQ - 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 I I I J J (! III ] ] 1 1 1 1 1 ] ] ] ] J ] .. .............................. \"HI Illi I ESC IWTfTlBI J J r J 1 FOREIGN LANGUAGES CULTURE ACTIVITY ] Author: Long Live Independence! (Part II) Pat Singer Topic: Mexico's Independence Day *] Objective: Students will celebrate Mexico's Independence Day with a skit and appropriate food. 1 -* Level: Novice (K-4) Intermediate (5-8) Advanced (9-12) At primary and intermediate levels, activities must be conducted mostly in English.) (NOTE: Intermediate (5-8) Length: 45 to 60 Minutes 1  1. jMaterials: information script about Mexico's Independence Day (see Part I) props for skit (detailed below) food (detailed below) 2. cassette tape of Mexican music (if available) ^Pre Activity: 1. ] 1 3. If Part I was npi done, share with students information from the attached sheet about Mexico's Independence Day. If Part I w^ done, review by eliciting from students information about this holiday. ] The Mexican flag has 3 colors, green/white/red. Have students guess what each color might represent. Then explain that green represents hope, white represents peace, and red represents liberty, shed blood of those who fought for it.) (It was won by the Activity: Have a party and celebrate! ? ] Begin with re-enacting father Hidalgo's famous shout. turned off to simulate night time. Set an alarm clock to go off, and as it does, shine a flashlight on a hanging cardboard clock showing 11:00. Then, Father Hidalgo emerges wearing a black poncho, chair ringing a bell and shouting! Lights can be He stands on a ] Father Hidalgo Townspeople (class) \"It's time to fight for independence!\" \"Long live independence!\" J Father Hidalgo Townspeople (class) \"It's time to fight for liberty!\" \"Long live liberty!\" 1 Father Hidalgo Townspeople (class) \"It's time to fight for independence!\" \"Long live independence!\" \"Long live liberty!\" \"Long live Mexico!\" 1 1 Townspeople should shake noise-makers and wave flags and pennants if these articles were made in Part I.p 1 1 ACTIVITY: Mexico's Independence Day - Part II (Continued) I p- 1 1 1 ] Enjoy food that represents the 3 national colors students bring in the food, excitement! Per Class (2) 2-3 large bags 2-3 containers 2-3 containers 2-3 containers 2 gallons of Mexico! Have They love it and it adds to their Menu Item tortilla chips avocado dip (green) picante sauce (red) sour cream (white) red fruit punch Play a tape of Mexican music (if available) during the \"fiesta.\" Post Activity: ompare and contrast the celebration of Mexico's Independence Day with our (The similarities are numerous. The main 2^fferences are the national colors, the history leading to independence, and the use of pinatas. Add any additional ones you notice.) T celebrations of July 4th. J dif f ATAnnOS -1  1 Add any additional ones you notice.) Suggested Assessment: You may want to give the student a comprehension test covering the information J ntroduced, reviewed, and experienced in these activities. The test format ^multiple choice, true/false, open-ended, fill in the blank) will depend upon the level of the students. J L J 1 Li J J J JI 1 1 1. Title: FOREIGN LANGUAGES CULTURE ACTIVITY Mexican Fifteenth Birthday 1 Author: Pat Singer Topic: Family Birthday Celebrations 1 Objective: Students will be exposed to the Mexican Fifteenth Birthday Celebration. L 1 Level: 1 1 Novice (K-4) Intermediate (5-8) Advanced (9-12) At primary and intermediate levels, activities must be conducted mostly in English.) (NOTE: Intermediate (5-8) L 1 Length: 1 to 1^ hours Materials: I 1. P J 3. copies and/or transparency of photograph copies and/or transparency of photograph with translated announcement script of reference material on Mexican Fifteenth Birthday Pre Activity: Elicit from students different occasions that families celebrate (births, J birthdays, weddings, anniversaries, good report card, winning a baseball game, etc.) 3. J Make list on board or overhead. Which of these occasions can you commonly read about in the newspaper? Which of these usually have photographs to accompany the newspaper article? J Activity: 1. 2. J- 7- Distribute copies or display transparency of photograph only. Explain that this is an authentic photograph from a newspaper in Mexico. Referring back to occasions discussed during the pre activity, aak students which occasion they think this photograph might represent and why. (They will probably guess a wedding.) ask Tell students that this is not a wedding photograph, but rather a very special birthday photograph. Discuss with students which birthdays, if any, special in their families or in our culture. are considered extra 6. etc.) (possibly \"sweet 16\", 21st, J- Distribute copies or display transparency of photograph with translated announcement. J Read together and ask comprehension questions, such as: is it? (Cindy Alaniz), How old will she be? (15), going to be held? (at the V.F.W.), Whose birthday Where is the party (May 25), Who is invited? (friends and family), What's the date of the celebration? Who is Maria Alicia J Alaniz? (Cindy's mother) Share with students the information about the Mexican Fifteenth Birthday. (Use the script of reference material.) J1 1 Mexican Fifteenth Birthday (Continued) ost Activity\n1 Students compare and contrast the Mexican Fifteenth Birthday Celebration with a wedding celebration. (see script) 1 Suggested Assessment: Students write 10 facts about the Mexican Fifteenth Birthday. (see script) ] ] ] ] J J L J JJ J J J J J JI 1 SCRIPT - MEXICAN FIFTEENTH BIRTHDAY 1 1 1 1 ACTIVITY\nREFERENCE MATERIAL ON MEXICAN FIFTEENTH BIRTHDAY In Mexico the celebration of a young lady's fifteenth birthday is a very big It marks the point at which she formally enters society and passes from childhood to adulthood. and special family celebration. Family and friends celebrate this event by first gathering together in church special service. The young lady wears an elegant white, or pastel 1 long gown, with a beautiful headpiece. They give thanks to God that J she has overcome the obstacles and challenges of childhood and pray for wisdom, strength, and blessings in the years to come. The young lady wears an elegant white, j From the church,\n\"  The young lady enters the ] all go to a home or hotel ballroom for a formal reception, room accompanied by 14 couples, all dressed in She and her father dance the first dance, which is a Strauss The next two dances are waltzes also, regional or popular music. formal attire. waltz. Then, the music changes to There is much food, drink, dancing, and merriment. -| Although this is a very expensive event, J celebrate similarly. this family event! families at all income levels They save for many years because of the importance of J POST ACTIVITY: J IMILARITIES .1 1. 2. 3. J'- 5. 6. Friends and family members celebrate in a church service and then enjoy a reception at a home or hotel ballroom. Invitations are sent out. A photograph and article appear in the local newspaper. The young lady wears an elegant and formal white or pastel colored Iona gown.  7. There are attendants to the young lady who are formally attired. The first dance is reserved for the young lady and her father, lady and her husband at a wedding.) It is expensive! (Young IDIFFERENCES 1. J'\nThe reason for the celebration. The age of the young lady. Some traditional wedding activities such flowers, garter, etc. as throwing the bouquet of JsUGGESTED ASSESSMENT: Facts about Mexican Fifteenth Birthday ^3. 7. |8. 9. Young lady wears a long white or pastel colored gown. The celebration begins with a church service. The reception is at a home or hotel ballroom. Young lady has 14 attendants, formally attired. The first dance is for the young lady and her father. The first three dances are waltzes. Then popular music is played. Formal invitations are sent out. It is expensive. Many families save for years for the event.J J J ] \u0026gt; Mayo 16\n1991 J ] ] ] ] W! *\u0026gt;ra\nBHB   W V *?'\u0026gt; :.tJS\u0026gt;S' i \u0026lt; -'?r-ir' .4.. .. * 1 tui \u0026lt; * 4-1 - JV-  s'i -i' , x\" y y .fe- ^l-' ] ] ] ] ] 1 ^^Mayct\n165^1991 1 ] 1 ] ] ] ] 1 .T-if ^4^ i ] FIFTEENTH BIRTHDAY 1 ] with great enthusiasm, details are being finalized for the Fifteenth Birthday Celebration of the beautiful Miss Cindy Alaniz, beloved daughter of Mrs. Maria Alicia Alaniz. The party ] is scheduled for May 25th, and friends and family members are receiving elegant invitations for the dance to be held at the V.F.W. Congradulations, and may it be an unforgettable day for Cindy! ] ]\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_469","title":"Incentive Schools: ''Little Rock School District Incentive School Survey Report,'' Planning, Research, and Evaluation Department","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"],"dcterms_description":null,"dc_format":["application/pdf"],"dcterms_identifier":null,"dcterms_language":["eng"],"dcterms_publisher":["Little Rock, Ark. : Butler Center for Arkansas Studies. Central Arkansas Library System"],"dc_relation":null,"dc_right":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC-EDU/1.0/"],"dcterms_is_part_of":["Office of Desegregation Monitoring records (BC.MSS.08.37)","History of Segregation and Integration of Arkansas's Educational System"],"dcterms_subject":["Little Rock (Ark.)--History--20th century","Little Rock School District","Education--Arkansas","Education--Evaluation","Educational planning","School improvement programs","School integration"],"dcterms_title":["Incentive Schools: ''Little Rock School District Incentive School Survey Report,'' Planning, Research, and Evaluation Department"],"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/469"],"dcterms_temporal":null,"dcterms_rights_holder":null,"dcterms_bibliographic_citation":null,"dlg_local_right":["Available for use in research, teaching, and private study. Any other use requires permission from the Butler Center."],"dcterms_medium":["documents (object genre)"],"dcterms_extent":["62 pages"],"dlg_subject_personal":null,"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":"\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n\n\n\n   \n\n\n\n\n   \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n  \n\n-,.4 littlE ROCK school district i'- RECEIVED SEP 2 0 1995 Office of Desegregation Monitoring INCENTIVE SCHOOL SURVEY REPORT Spring 1995 PLANNING, RESEARCH, AND EVALUATION DEPARTMENT Little Rock, Arkansas August 1995 I f i f I LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT PLANNING, RESEARCH, and EVALUATION DEPARTMENT INCENTIVE SCHOOL SURVEY REPORT SPRING 1995 The Little Rock School District Desegregation Plan of April 29, 1992, contains numerous provisions, directives, suggestions. and mandates concerning the operation of the district's incentive schools. One of the directives is that \"...every staff member has a duty to provide a climate conducive to learning and should hold and model high expectations for all students (LRSD Plan. Item \"D\", 177).\" Additionally, the Plan calls for student evaluators \"...to complete evaluations relative to the school. its climate and their educational experience... (LRSD Plan. Item \"E\", 177).\" To that end, a survey instrument was developed by the LRSD to collect data concerning programs offered at the incentive schools and to seek students' opinions regarding their educational experience. Curriculum, parental involvement, classroom instruction, the guidance program, extracurricular activities, and the extended day program were among those areas for which opinions were sought i via the Incentive School Survey. The survey instrument consisted of 44 items for which students were given the option of choosing I \"Always\", \"Usually\", \"Sometimes\", \"Rarely\", or \"Never\" as an answer for each item. I The questionnaire was distributed to 481 of the 541 fourth. fifth, and sixth grade students enrolled in the incentive schools in March of 1995\nthus, 89% of the enrolled students had an opportunity to serve as student evaluators. All of the students (481/481) to whom the survey was distributed completed andreturned it. LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT INCENTIVE SCHOOL SURVEY REPORT SPRING 1995 Page 2 This report presents a summary of the findings. More than two-thirds of the students responded \"Always\" or \"Usually\" to 16 of 44 items on the survey. Eleven additional items received an \"Always\" or Usually\" response from between 50% and 65% of the respondees. It is clear that numerous students highly regarded their incentive school experience. Items which received the highest ranking from students, along with the percentage of students responding \"Always\" or \"Usually\", are listed below. HIGHEST RANKING ITEMS RANK 1 1 3 3 5 6 6 8 9 10 10 SURVEY ITEM % My tests are about lessons taught in class._______ The counselor teaches students about feeling good about themselves.__________________________________ Test-taking skills are taught in my classroom. My daily homework is about lessons my teacher has taught.____________________________________________ I have all the books and materials I need to learn.__________________ Listening skills are taught in my classroom._____ Study skills are taught in my classroom.__________ My parent/guardian provides a place for me to study at home._____________________________________ I attend the computer laboratory at least two times each week.___________________________________ African and African-American history and culture are taught at this school._______________________ My teacher gives me a chance to answer questions. 86 86 82 82 80 78 78 76 75 72 72LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT INCENTIVE SCHOOL SURVEY REPORT SPRING 1995 Page 3 In addition to pointing out areas with which many students were pleased, the survey also provided information regarding areas that presented some problems. The ten items listed below indicate that either a program had not been fully implemented or that students viewed the activity stated in the questionnaire as being unsatisfactorily fulfilled. Of the 44 items on the survey, items which received the lowest ranking from students, along with the percentage of students responding \"Rarely\" or \"Never\", are listed below. lowest ranking items RANK SURVEY ITEM % 44 43 42 41 40 39 38 38 36 35 I participate in the take-home computer program.______________________________________ I participate in the Boy Scout or Girl Scout troop in this school. I use the foreign language laboratory. I work in the science lab at school. Students are rewarded for after-school peer tutoring. I attend Saturday school. My parent/guardian volunteers to help at school.______________________________________ My parent/guardian attends PTA meetings. I use the homework center.__________________ Extended Day helps me learn better in my classroom. 75 68 66 56 55 53 49 49 38 36LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT INCENTIVE SCHOOL SURVEY REPORT SPRING 1995 Page 4 When the responses from individual schools were analyzed, a relatively consistent pattern of student opinions was apparent. More than 75% of the students in each incentive school indicated that daily homework was about lessons that had been taught and that tests also covered material taught in class. Additionally, a high percentage of student evaluators from all of the incentive schools expressed the opinion that their counselors taught them about feeling good about themselves\nthe \"Always\" and \"Usually\" responses to this item ranged from 80% to 93%. In each school, a majority of the students who responded to the survey also indicated that they were receiving instruction in test-taking skills, study skills, and listening skills. The above examples indicate that all of the incentive schools are successfully implementing many of the provisions of the desegregation plan. According to the student evaluators, numerous desegregation obligations are being met by the incentive schools. However, responses reveal that there are some areas of concern that are identical in most the schools. Following are examples of some of these areas. One problem obviously regards the use of foreign language laboratories. The item on the questionnaire which concerned these laboratories was one of the items receiving the lowest ranking. \"Rarely\" and \"Never\" responses to the use of foreign language laboratories ranged from 94% of the students at Rightsell not using such a laboratory to 42% at Rockefeller and 41% at Garland. Another area which evidently needs attention isLITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT INCENTIVE SCHOOL SURVEY REPORT SPRING 1995 Page 5 the home computer program\nin each of the incentive schools, approximately 70% of the responding students indicated that they rarely or never participated in this program. The survey clearly showed that participation in Boy Scouts or Girl Scouts was limited\nMitchell and Franklin had higher levels of participation than the other incentive schools. Another area which demonstrated a need for improvement was parental involvement, either in the form of attending PTA meetings or in volunteering at school. The survey also indicated that the item concerning attendance at Saturday school was one of the lower ranking items. The foregoing examples of questionnaire items which received a high percentage of \"Never\" and \"Rarely\" responses from student evaluators provide Little Rock School District administrators and other interested parties with information regarding practices and/or programs in need of improvement. A complete reporting of student responses to the Incentive School Survey items is included in the appendix. Information derived from this report should prove useful in making decisions concerning different aspects of the incentive school program. IAPPENDIXLittle Rock School District Incentive School Survey - Frequency Report All Incentive Schools - Spring 1995 4th Sth Sth Total Enrolled 197 167 177 541 Distributed 184 140 157 481 Reponses 184 140 157 481 I tike the programs at this school. Always 164 32% Usually 94 20% Sometimes 191 40% Rarely 21 4% Never 21 4% Missing 1 I attend extended day. 235 49% 59 12% 78 16% 14 3% 93 19% 3 Extended day acttvrties are fun. 451 32% 91 19% 136 28% 6% 76 16% 4 My homework is completed during extended day. Extended day helps me team better in my classroom. My daily homework is about lessons my teacher has taught. My homework is graded. 89 19% 96 20% 158 33% 27 6% 109 23% 3 My homework is returned to me. I am rewarded for doing good work. My teacher gives me a chance to ask questions._______ My teacher gives me a chance to answer questions. My tests are about lessons taught in class. t work tn groups with other students. I work alone when completing some assignments. ____________ My parent/goardian signs homework papers._______\n......................................... My parent/guardian helps with homework. My parenVguardian attends PTA meetings. 113 24% 66 18% 107 22% 56 12% 114 24% s 316 66% 79 16% 66 14% 13 3% 6 1% 2 256 63% 82 17% 106 22% 27 6% 0 2% 138 29% 74 16% 136 29% 38 8% 90 19% 6 106 22% 72 15% 169 36% 60 1t% 79 17% r 252 53% 80 17% 94 20% 24 5% 22 5% 10 215 45% 120 27% 100 21* 20 4% 14 3% 4 349 73% 62 13% 46 10% 12 3% 9 2% 4 84 18% 172 36% 128 27% 242 51% 61 13% 66 14% 134 28% as 12% 81 17% 11% 227 48% 117 25% 131 28% 95 20% 126 27% 59 12% 40 6%  28 6% 24 5% 7 SO 11% ftO 23% 7 24 5% 36 8% 4 68 12% 177 37% s 1 ILittle Rock School District Incentive School Survey - Frequency Report All Incentive Schools - Spring 1995 My parenVguardian volunteers to help at school. My parent/guardian provides a place for me to ^dy at home. The counselor visits my classroom to help the students. The counselor teaches students about feeling good about themselves. I participate in the Boy Scout or Girt Scout troop in this school. i attend Saturday school Always 81 17% Usually 54 11% Sometimes 109 23% Rarely 66 14% Never 166 35% Missing 6 My teacher reads to the class. 1 have creative writing assignments. African and African-American history and culture are taught at this school. Role models/mentors visit this school. Lessons about other cultures are taught in my classroom. Field trips help me to learn. I use the foreign language laboratory. Students are rewarded for after school ^p6er.futoriftg\u0026gt;.............................................i My school work is placed on the bulletin board in the classroom or hallway. I use Uie homework center. I am encouraged to use correct grammar. Test taking skills are taught hi my class- room. Listening skills are taught in my classroom. Study skBls are taught in my classroom. 295 62% 67 14% 53 11% 29 4% 43 9% 4 208 43% 95 20% 133 28% 27 6% 16 3% 3 358 75% 54 11% 42 9% 11 2% 14 3% 3 93 19% 79 17% 134 28% 1S1 32% 246 52% 199 42% 181 38% 5 24% 56 12% 73 16% 162 34% 160 34% 276 59% 293 62% 291 61% 276 19 4% 42 9% 21 4% 305 64% 2 IM 11% 102 21% 97 21% : 96 20% 96 20% 113 24% 194 22* 41 9% 64 12% 103 22% 62 13% 58 12% 97 20% 82 17% 94 20* 92 19% 159 33% 148 31% 84 18% 117 25% 130 27% 136 29% 65 14% 78 17% 145 30% 73 15% 68 14% 61 13% 63 13% 70 15% 30 6% 41 9% 46 10% 40 8% 34 7% 27 6% 51 11% 41 9% 46 10% 30 6% 36 8% 32 7% 13 3% 25 5% 23 5% 226 47%  4 40 8% 31 7% 10 2% . 31 6% 22 5% 66 14* 268 57% 297 45% 36 8% 144 30% 35 7% 11 2% 16 3% 12 3% 6 a 6 % 9 to 11 24 6 7 13 7 5 7 2 ILittle Rock School District Incentive School Survey - Frequency Report All Incentive Schools - Spring 1995 Always Usually Sometimes I am taught to solve story problems in mathematics. I attend the computer laboratory at least two times each wedt. . I have all the books and materials I need to learn. I participate in the lake home computer program. I work in the science lab at school. 230 49% 89 19% 107 23% Rarely 25 5% Never 22 5% Missing 9 322 68% 300 63% 58 12% 89 19% 33 7% 82 17% IK 5% 3S 7% lol 11% 53 11% 45 9% 85 18% 27 6% 17 4% 32 7% 60 13%  9% 23 5% 323 88% 205 43% is 7 4 8 I have teamed new words because I have studied Latin. I have talked with my teacher or counselor about what I want to do when I become an adult. t76 37% 74 18% 58 12% 28 8% 138 29% e 174 37% 71 15% 122 26% 33 7% 76 16% 6 3Little Rock School District Incentive School Survey - Frequency Report Franklin - Spring 1995 4th Sth Sth Total Enrolled 39 37 37 113 Distributed 35 38 36 109 Reponses 35 38 36 109 I like the programs al this school. Always 38 a3% Usually 16 t?% Sometimes 48 Rarely 5 5% Never ? 6% Missing 0 I attend extended day. 59 54% 15 14% 13 12% 4 4% 18 17% 0 Extended day activities are fun. 40 37% 18 t7% 20 27% 6 5% 17 16% My homework is completed during extended day. Extended day helps me learn better in my classroom. My daily homework is about lessons my teacher has taught. My homewtirk Is graded. 19 17% 20 18% 43 39% 5 5% 22 20% 0 My homework is returned to me. I am rewarded for doing good work. My teacher gives me a chance to ask questions. My teacher gives me a chance to answer questions. My tests are about lessons taught in class. I work In groups with other students. I work alone when completing some assignments. My parenWsjuafdlan signs homework papers. My parent/guardian helps with homework. 22 20% 84 77% 62 57% 39 36% 24 22% 70 65% 0 56% 85 78% 21 19% 42 39% 17 1.6% 59 54% 15 14% 21 19% 20 18% at 28% 0 12 11% 16 ts% 16 15% 15 14% 16 15% 25 23% 6 6% 18 17% 30 28% 11 10% 15 14% 11 10% 21 19% 34 32% 38 36% 16 15% 20 19% 12 11% 53 49% 22 21% 23 22% 17 16% 2 2% 0 0% 0 10 0% 0 0% 6 6% 8 8% 5 5% 3 3% 4 4% S 6% 7 7% 10 18% 8 7% 12 11% 22 21% 0 0% 0 0% 2 2% 11 10% 6 6% IIOs 34% 10 9% 2 2 2 1 0 1 2 0 0 4Little Rock School District Incentive School Survey - Frequency Report Franklin - Spring 1995 My parent/guardian attends PTA meeting XAvays 16 15% Usually 10 9% Sometimes 20 18% Rarely 6 7% Never 51% Missing 0 My parent/guardian volunteers to help at school. My parent/guardian provides a place for metostifdyatbome. The counselor visits my classroom to hel the students. The counselor teaches students about feeling good about themselves. I participate in the Boy Scout or Girl Scou troop in this school. 1 attend Saturday school. 26 24% 13 12% 21 19% 15 14% 33 31% 1 My teacher reads to the class. I have CTeative writing assignments. African and African-American history and culture are taught at this school. Role modets/mentors visit this school. Lessons about other cultures are taught in my classroom. Field trips beip ma to team. I use the foreign language laboratory. Students are rewarded for after school peer tutoring. My school work is placed on the bulletin board in the classroom or hallway. I use the homework center. I am encouraged to use correct grammar. Test taking skills are taught in my class- room. . Listening skills are taught in my classroom. 67 62% 47 44% 7S 69% 37 34% 28 26% 37 35% 33 31% 50 47% 45 42% 44 41% 33 31% 7 7% 11 11%  38 36% 37 35% 53 50% 66 62% 68 64% 14 13% 17 16% 14 13% 3 3% 18 17% 16 15% 17 16% 24 22% 25 23% 21 20% 25 24% 3 3% 13 13% 19 18% 13 12% 19 18% 22 21% 17 16% 13 12% 30 28% 12 11% 9 8% 23 22% 32 30% 31 30% 19 18% 25 23% 29 27% 28 27% 14 13% 21 20% 29 28% 16 15% 14 13% 11 10% 10 9% 8 7% 6 6% t 8 7% 6 6% 1 2 2%  5% t 4 4% 4 4% 8 8% 11 11% 11 10% 6 6% 5 5% 16 10% 2 2% 12 12% 8 8% 8 8% 11 10% 2 2% 7 7% 56 51% 34 32% 14 13% 13 12% 3 3% 6 6% 8 8% 9 9% 79 75% 47 46% 11 11% 33 31%  10 9% 5%  5 5% 0 2 2 4 2 2 2 4 4 5 4 2 2 a 2 5Little Rock School District Incentive School Survey - Frequency Report Franklin - Spring 1995 Always Study stulls are taught in my classroom. I am taught to solve story problems in mathematics. I attend the computer laboratory at least two limes each week. I have all the books and materials I need to learn.___________________________ I participate in the take heme computer program. I work in the science lab at school. I have learned new words because 1 have studied talin.________________________ I have talked with my teacher or counselo about what I want to do when I become a adult. 63 59% 57 54% 66 62% 68 64% 17 16% 14 13% 48 4S% 39 37% Usually 22 21% Sometimes 13 12% Rarely 5 5% Never 3 3% Missing 3 19 18% 16 15% 3 3% 10 10% 4 8 8% 16 15% 6 6% 8 8% 12 t1% 11 10% 6 14 13% 12 11% 11 10% 31 29% 17 16% 33 31% e e% 6 6% 7 7% 17 16% 9 9% 5 5% 13 12% 5 5% 66 82% 36 34% 20 19% 18 17% 1 2 3 3  3 Little Rock School District Incentive School Survey - Frequency Report Garland - Spring 1995 4th Sth Sth Total Enrolled 31 38 36 105 Distributed 31 36 35 102 Reponses 31 36 35 102 f like the programs at this school. Always 30 29% Usually 21 21% Sometimes 42 41% Rarely 4 4% Never 5 5% I attend extended day. 43 43% 8 8% 22 22% 5 5% 23 23% Missing 0 1 Extended day activities are fun. 35 34% 18 18% 27 26% 4 4% 15 18% e My homework is completed during extended day.______________________ Extended day helps me learn better in my classroom. My daily homework is about lessons my teacher has taught. My homework is graded. 19 19% 14 14% 30 30% 4 4% 34 34% 1 My homework is returned to me. 1 am rewarded for doing good work. My teacher gives me a chance to ask questions. My teacher gives me a chance to answer questions.________________ My tests are about lessons taught in class. 1 work in groups with other students. I work alone when completing some assignments. _____________ My parent/guardian signs homework papers.____________________________ My parent/guardian helps with homework. My parent/guardian attends PT A meetings. 21 21% 74 73% 44 43% 22 22% 30% 59 60% 53 52% 73 72% ts 18% 38 38% 30 23% 50 50% 6 6% 19 19% 12 12% 15 15% 10 10% 14 14% 16 16% 20 20% 13 13% 13 13% 25 25% 10 13% 13 13% 9 8% 26 26% 10 10% lo 26% t 13 13% 34 33% 30 30% 42 42% 19 19% 21 21% 10 10% 46 46% 25 25% 39 36% 21 21% 30 30% 1 1% 2 2% 0 6 6% 3 3% 0 10 10% 29 29% 1 7 7% 8 8% t 3 3% 2 2% 3 3 3% 4 4% t 3 3% 2 2% 1 13 13% 8 9% 3 6 6% 6 6% 2 9 9% 5 5% 16 16% 11 11% 12 12% 40 40% 0 1 t 7Little Rock School District Incentive School Survey - Frequency Report Garland - Spring 1995 Always My parent/guardian volunteers to help at school. My parent/guardian provides a place for me to study at home. The counselor visits my classroom to help the students. The counselor teaches students about fe^Big good about themselves, I participate in the Boy Scout or Girl Scout troop in this school. I attend Saturday school. 8 8% 64 53% 38 37% 74% 19 19% to 10% My teacher reads to the class. 23 23% I have creative writing assignments. 29 2^ Usually 11 11% 14 14% 17 17% 9 9% 3 3%  7% 21 21% 20 20% Sometimes 18 18% 12 12% 31 30% 10 10% 8 8% 19 t9% 33 33% 34 33% Rarely 12% 5 5% 8 8% 3 3% 2 2% 4 4% 12 12% 14 14% Never 53 52% 1? t7% 8 8% 3 5% 70 69% 62 61% 12 12% 5 6% Missing 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 e African and African-American history and culture are taught at this school. Role models/mentors visit this school. 59 58% 18 18% 15 15% 6 6% 3 3% 1 24 24% 23. 23% 32 31% 13 13% 10 10% 0 Lessons about other cultures are taught in my classroom. Field flips help me to leam. 40 40% 19 19% 31 31% 6 6% 5 5% 1 I use the foreign language laboratory. Students are rewarded for after school peer tutoring. My school work is placed on the bulletin board in the classroom or hallway. I use the homework canter. I am encouraged to use correct grammar. Test taking skills are taught in my classroom. Listening skills are taught in my classroom. Study skills are taught In my classroom. to 19% 30 30% 21 23% 49 48% 29 29% 55 55% 67 66% 56 55% 19 19% 13 13% 9 9% 11 11% to 10% 7 7% 19 19% 24 24% 2t 2t% 32 31% 10 10% 22 22% e 16 16% 14 14% 27 27% 2 10 11% 26 25% t3 13% 27 27% 12 J 2% 15 15% 14 14% ? 8% 6 6%  5% 4 4% 2 2% 5 5% 2 2% 46 60% 10 10% 43 43% 7 7% 2 2% 2 2% S 0% to 0 2 2 0 0 0 8Little Rock School District Incentive School Survey - Frequency Report Garland - Spring 1995 I am taught to solve story problems in mathematics. I attend the computer laboratory at least two times each week. I have all the books and materials I need to learn. {participate tn the take home computer prograttt. I work in the science lab at school. I have teamed new words because I have studied Latin, I have talked with my teacher or counselor about what I want to do when I become an adult. Always Usually Sometimes Rarely Never Missing 45 44% 18 18% 26 25% 8 8% 5 5% 0 59 58% 71 70% t9 19% 16 16% 34 33% 29 29% 9 5 5% 9 9% 3 3% 9 9% 19 19% 15 15% 1? 17% 14 14% ? 7% 0 11 11% 9 9% 12 12% 13 13% 21 21% 4 4% 9 9% 12 12% 7 7% 4 4% 7 7% 1% 53 52% 29 28% 32 32% 0 0 0 0 1 Little Rock School District Incentive School Survey - Frequency Report Mitchell - Spring 1995 4th Sth Sth Total Enrolled 43 36 35 114 Distributed 43 14 32 89 Reponses 43 14 32 89 like the programs at this school. Always 25 28% Usually 14 16% Sometimes 43 46% Rarely 3 3% Never 4 4% Missing 0 I attend extended day. 42 46% 14 16% 15 17% 3 3% 14 16% 1 Extended day activities are fun. 31 35% IS 17* 24 27% 7 0% 11 13% i My homework is completed during extended day. ______________ Extended day helps me ieam better in my dassroom. My daily homework is about lessons my teacher has taught. My homework Is graded. 16 18% 16 18% 30 34% 8 9% 18 20% 1 My homework is returned to me. l am rewarded for doing good work. My teacher gives me a chance to ask questions. My teacher gives me a trance to answer questions, My tests are about lessons taught in class. I work in groups with other students. 1 work alone when completing some assignments. My parent/guardian signs homework papers._____________________________ My parent/guardian helps with homework. My parent/guardian attends PTA meetings. 10 22% 62 70% 49 56% 19 21% 11 13% 38 43% 32 36% 65 74% 22 25% 29 33% 1'7 20% 45 51% 11 13% 10 21 24% 13 15% 13 1S% 10 11% 11 13% 15 17% 26 29% 15 17% 0 9% 20 22% 10 11% 17 19% 2 2% 18 21% 11 12% 21 24% 24 27% 30 34% 16 18% 22 26% 6 7% 39 44% 25 28% 26 30% 19 21% 27 31% 10 12% 16 21% 2 2% 1 1% 0 4 4% 2 2% 0 7 8% 11 13% 9 10% 111 3% 1 1% 10 11% 9 10% 6 9% 2 2% 10 11% 29 33% 24 26% 10 11% 0 7% 1 1% 10 11% 6 7% 26 30% 6 7% 38 43% 0 1 0 1 0 0 2 0 tI I Little Rock School District Incentive School Survey - Frequency Report Mitchell - Spring 1995 My parent/guardian volunteers to help at school. _________ My parent/guardian provides a place for me to study at home.__________________ The counselor visits my classroom to help the students. ____________________ Tha counselor teaches students about feeling good about themselves._________ I participate in the Boy Scout or Girl Scout troop in this school. i attend Saturday school. My teacher reads to the class. Il have creative writing assignments. African and African-American history and culture are taught at this school. Role models/mentors visit this school. Lessons about other cultures are taught in my classroom. _____________ Raid trips help me to team. I use the foreign language laboratory. Students are rewarded for after school i peer tutoring.______________________ My school work is placed on the bulletin board in the classroom or hallway. I use the homework center. I am encouraged to use correct grammar. Test taking skills are taught in my class- room.......................................... .......... Listening skills are taught in my class- room._____________________________ Study Skate are taught in my classroom. Afways 16 18% Usually 10 11% Sometimes 22 25% Rarely 9 10% Never 30 34% Missing 2 53 60% 18 22% 8 9% 1 1% 7 8% 30 34% 21 24% 27 31% 8 9% 2 2% 1 58 66% 19 21% 17 19% 25 29% 29 34% 36 41% 22 25% 27 32% 14 16% 6 7% 6 7%' 28 32% 33 38% 56 66% 58 64% 51 58% 48 55% 11 12 14% 11 13% 4 5% 3 3% 9 10% 11 12% 6 7% 44 49% 0 8 9% 19 22% 13 15% 19 22% 12 14% 21 25% 17 20% 7 8% 7  6% 18 20% 7 8% 10 12% 11 13% 9 10% 13 15% 20 23% 31 36% 30 35% 24 28% 33 38% 27 32% 28% 4 5% 7 8% 30 34% 19 22% 8 9% 15 17% 14 16% 20% 7 8% 6 7% 6 7% 8 9% 8 9% 5 6% 13 15% 8 9% 7 8% 4 5% 9 10% 6 7% 2 2% 7 8% 6 7% 36 41% 6 7%  9% 0 0% 12 14% 5 6% 17 20% 61 71% 56 67% 8 9% 19 22% 5 6% 3 li 7 8% A 3% 2 3 2 5 4 a 3 6 1 2 4 1Little Rock School District Incentive School Survey - Frequency Report Mitchell - Spring 1995 Always Usually Sometimes Rarely Never Missing I am taught to solve story problems in mathematics. 44 50% 15 17% 23 26% 1 1% 5 6% 1 I attend the computer laboratory at least two times each yveelc. I have all the books and materials I need to learn. I participate in the take home computer program,..... I work in the science lab at school. es 72% 48 56% 8 9% 3 3% 7 8% 8 9% 2 2% 8 9% . 1 . 16 19% 13 15% 3 3% 6 7% 3 2 2% 8 9% 8 9% \u0026amp;2 7\u0026lt;Xlr 1 12 14% 4 5% 60 70% 3 I have learned new words because I have studied Latin, I have talked with my teacher or counselor about what I want to do when I become an adult. 23 26% 18 21% 12 14% 3 3% 31 36% K 29 33% 14 16% 27 31% 11 13% 7 8% 1 12Little Rock School District Incentive School Survey - Frequency Report Rightsell - Spring 1995 4th Sth Sth Total Enrolled 40 19 36 95 Distributed 36 18 28 82 Reponses 36 18 28 82 Always f like the programs al this school. 22 27% Usually 17 21% Sometimes 36 44% Rarely S 7% Never 1 1% Missing  0 I attend extended day. 43 52% 8 10% 11 13% 0 0% 20 24% 0 Extended day activities are fun. 21 26% 19 23% 15 19% 4 5% 22 27% 1 My homework is completed during extended day. 15 18% 15 18% 27 33% 5 6% 20 24% 0 Extended day helps me learn better In my ci assroom._____________________ My daily homework is about lessons my teacher has taught. _______________ My homework Is graded. 23 28% 50 61% 46 59% My homework is returned to me. 31 39% I am rewarded for doing good work. 17 21% 14 17% 13 16% 13 16% 9 11% 17 21% IS 22% 14 17% 13 16% 21 26% 27 33% s 6% 4 5% 4 5% 5 6% 13 16% 22 27% 1 1% 3 4% 14 18% 6 10% 0 0 t 2 0 My teacher gives me a chance to ask questions._________________________ My teadier gives me a chance to answer questions,__________________________ My tests are about lessons taught in class. _____________ 1 work In groups with other students. 44 54% 15 19% 16 20% 2 2% 4 5% 1 37 45% 59 73% 9 11% 24 29% 13 16% S 6% 3 4% 0 9 11% 8 10% 3 4% 2 2% 1 8 10% 42 51% 17 21% 6 7% 0 I work alone when completing some assignments. ________________ My parent/guardian signs homework My parent/guardian helps with homework. 32 40% 17 21% 44 54% My parenl/guardian attends PTA meetings. 16 20% 13 25 31% 15 19% 4 5% 4 5% 2 a 10% 23 28% 5 6% 28 35% t 14 17% 15 19% 4 5% 4 5% 1 1S 19% 24 30% 3 10% 17 21% 4Little Rock School District Incentive School Survey - Frequency Report Rightsell - Spring 1995 My parenVguardian volunteers to help at school. _____________ My parent/guardian provides a place for me to study at home.___________ The counselor visits my classroom to help the students. _______________ The counselor teaches students about felling good , about themselves. I participate in the Boy Scout or Girl Scout troop in this school. I attend Saturday school. My teacher reads to the class. ! have creative writing assignments. African and African-American history and culture are taught at this school. Role models/mentors visit this school. Lessons about other cultures are taught in my classroom. __________________ Field trips iiefp me to learn. I use the foreign language laboratory. Students are rewarded for afterschool peer tutoring................................. ...... My school work is placed on the bulletin board in the classroom or hallway. 1 use the homework center. I am encouraged to use correct grammar. Test taking skills are Uught in my dass- room.____________________________ Listening skills are taught in my class- room. ____________________________ Study skills are taught In my classroom. Always 14 18% Usually 8 10% Sometimes 15 19% Rarely 16 20% Never 27 34% Missing 2 58% 29 35% 88 80% 8 10% 12 15% 22 27% 26 32% 43 52% 42 51% 31 38% 31 38% 1 1% 14 18% 27 33% 28 34% 48 60% 52 64% 53 65% 55 69% 14 a 10% 13 18% 5 8% a 10% t 21 26% 31 38% 1 1% 0 0% 0 It 13% 4 5% 1 1% 0 0% 0 1 1% 2 2% 2 2% 68 84% 1 11 t3% 23 26% 7 0% 29 % 0 14 17% 29 35% 10 12% 7 9% 0 16 20% 28 32% 1t 14% 2 2% 15 18% 18 22% 21 26% 17 21% 2 2% It 14% 17 21% 14 17% 11 14% 13 16% 12 15% 12 15% 14 17% 8 10% 2 2% 0 ts 18% 21 26% 21 26% 2 2% t3 25 30% to 12% 8 10% 14 17% 11 14% 8 10% 5 fray VW 2 2% 0 7 9% 2 2% 0  e% T 9% 4 5% 72 89% 1 10 13% 9 11% 8 10% 7 9% s 3 4% 4 5% 32 40% 4 5% 22 27% 6 8% d 0% 2 2% t 1% 0 C 2 t 1 .2,I I Little Rock School District Incentive School Survey - Frequency Report Rightsell - Spring 1995 I am taught to solve story problems in mathematics. I attend the computer laboratory at least two times each week, I have all the books and materials I need to learn. ___________________ t participate in the take home computer progranii,....'........................................ I work in the science lab at school. t have learned new words because I have stixiled Latin............................ ..... I have talked with my teacher or counselor about what I want to do when I become an adult. __________________________ Always 45 57% Usually 14 18% Sometimes 15 19% Rarely 4 5% Never 1 1% Missing 3 60 74% 50 62% 11% 8 10% 28 34% 31 38% 15 4 5% 5 % 1 1% It 14% t 17 21% 9 11% 2 2% 3 4% 1  7% 3 4% 7 9% 14 17% 6 10% 13 16% 11 13% 20 24% Ml 5% 18 22% 5 % 8 10% S9 67% 39 48% 31 38% 9 11% 0 1 0I I Little Rock School District Incentive School Survey - Frequency Report Rockefeller - Spring 1995 4th Sth Sth Total Enrolled 44 37 33 114 Distributed 39 34 26 99 Reponses 39 34 26 99 like the programs at this school. Always At 41% Usually 24 24% Sometimes 27 27% Rarely 3 3% Never 4 4% Ulssing 0 1 attend extended day. Extended day activities are fun. My homework is completed during extended day. Extended day helps me leam better in my classroom.__________ My daily homework is about lessons my teacher has taught. ______________ My homework is graded. My homework is returned to me. I am rewarded fordoing good work. My teacher gives me a chance to ask questions._______________ My teacher gives me a chance to answer questions,................................................... My tests are about lessons taught in class. I work in groups with other students. 1 work alone when completing some assignments.________________________ My parent/guardian signs homework My parent/guardian helps with homework. My parent/guardian attends PTA meetings. 48 48% 14 14% 17 17% 2 2% 18 18% 0 .24.. 24% 21.. 21% 41 42% 2 2% 18 10% 1 20 20% 31 31% 28 28% 5 5% 15 15% 0 28 29% 46 47% S3 54% 27% 23 23% 41 42% 34% 67 68% 14 14% 31 31% 47 47% 44 45% 12 12% 16 17 17% 29 30% 25 25% 29 29% 15 15% 18 19% 34 35% 19 19% 13 19% 34 34% 14 14% 22 12'^ 17 17% 24 24% t1 11% 16 18% 1 17 17% 17 17% 27 27% 32 33% 27 28% 24 24% 10 10% 47 48% 30 30% 20 20% 23 23% 27 27% 4 4% 2 2% 1 3 2% 1 1% e 10 10% 11 11% 5 5% 8 6% 1 1% 14 14% 2 2% 9 9% 5 5% 16 18% 6 6% 17 17% 6 6% 1 1% 2 2% 4 4% 2 2% 9% 4 4% 27 27% 0 1 2 1 0 1 0 e 1 0Little Rock School District incentive School Survey - Frequency Report Rockefeller - Spring 1995 My parent/guardian volunteers to help at school. My parent/guardian provides a place for me to stiKlyatheme,_________ The counselor visits my classroom to help the students._________________________ The counselor teaches students about feeling good about themselves._________ I participate in the Boy Scout or Girl Scout troop in this school. 1 attend Saturday school. Always 17 17% Usually 12 12% Sometimes 33 33% Rarely 14 14% Never 23 23% Missing 0 My teacher reads to the class. have creative writing assignments. 74 75% 64 65% 84 85% 10 10% 12 12% 27 27% 34 34% 12 12% 19 19% 8 8% 3 3% 7 7% 32 32% 31 31% 7 7% 1 1% 5 % 0 14 14%  5% 12 12% 7 -7% 34 34% 27 27% 2 2% 0 0% 0 1 1% 1 1% 0 7 7% 8 8% 5 5% 4 4% 67 68% 65 88% 1 1% 3 3% 0 a 0 0 African and African-American history and culture are taught at this school. Role models/mentors visit this school. Lessons about other cultures are taught in my classroom. _______________ Field trips help me to learn. I use the foreign language laboratory. Students are rewarded for after school i peer tutoring.______________________ My school work is placed on the bulletin board in the classroom or hallway. 1 use the homework center. I am encouraged to use correct grammar. Test tailing skills are taught in my classroom^___________________ Listening skills are taught in my class-room.__________ Study skills are taught in my classroom. 58 59% 20 20% 12 12% 7 7% 2 2% 0 66 .67% 18 18% 12 12% 2 2% 1 1% 0 39 40% 31 32% 22 22% 4 4% 2 2% 1 18 18% 12 12% 21 21% 20 20% 33 .33% 64 66% 52 53% 63 64% Ml 45% 17 28 27% 30 31% 13 13% 11 11% t 16 16% 29 29% 13 13% 29 29% 0 15 15% 27 27% 10 10% 26 28% 0 38 35 3 3 0 38% 35% 3% 3% 18 . 18% 18 18% 6 8% 27% a 11 11% 11 11% 4 4% 7 7% 2 32 32% 20 20% 28 26% a 9% S 5% 1 1% 0 13 13% 17 17% 3 3% 0 0% 0 8 6% 5 5% 0 II Little Rock School District incentive School Survey - Frequency Report Rockefeller - Spring 1995 Always Usually Sometimes I am taught to solve story problems in mathematics. I attend the computer laboratory at least two yrrt^eai^ week._______ _ I have all the books and materials I need to Ieam. 1 participle in the take home computer program. I work in the science lab at school. I have teamed new words because t have stadied Latin._______________________ _ I have talked with my teacher or counselor about what I want to do when I become an adult. 39 39% 23 23% 27 27% Rarely 9 9% Never 1 1% Missing 0 74 75% 63 64% 3 3% 48 48% 45 46% 46 46% 18 9 9% 9 9% 4 4% 3 3% 9 24 24%  5% 8 8% 18 18% 17 17% 8 8% 9 9% 17 17% S 'S% 21 21% 2 2% 2 2% 0 4 4% 9 9% 4 4% 5 5% 7 79% 17 17% 27 27% 10 10% 0 0 G 0 I Gender Female Male No Response School Total Female Male No Response School Total GendeeOi Female_____ Male No Response School Total Gender Female Male_______ No Response School Total Gender Female Male No Response School Total Little Rock School Distict Incentive School Survey - Reponse Report Spring 1995 FRANKLIN Sth I p. 0 I 35 54% 46% 0% N 17 21 0 38 % 45% 55% 0% N 17 19 0 36 % A,l% 56% 0% Total N 53 56 0 109 % 48.6% 51.4% 0.0% 100.0% GARLAND N 14 17 0 31 4th * 45% 55% 0% M 28 15 0 43 65% 35% 0% Ml 22 17 0 39 % 56% 44% 0% n 17 19 0 36 ^7% 53% 0% 5i MM Gender Female Male No Response Total ....N \" i 100 84 0 I 184 % 54% 46% 0% N 15 21 0 36 hl 5 7 2 14 K 42% 58% 0% MITCHELL 5th A 36% 50% 14% ROCKEFELLER 6th N 16 18 0 34 % 47% 53% 0% RIGHTSELL Sth N 8 10 0 18 % 44% 56% 0% hl 15 20 0 35 % 43% 57% 0% N 44 58 0 102 Total K 43.1% 56.9% 0.0% 100.0% m N 16 16 0 32 N 16 10 0 26 N 14 14 0 28 Total 50% 50% 0% I 62% 39% 0% 8th' % 50% 50% 0% ALL INCENTIVE SCHOOLS Stt) 6th N 49 38 2 89 N 54 45 0 99 *\n55.1% 42.7% 2.2% 100.0% Total % 54.5% 45.5% 0.0% 100.0% ' -hxlar N 39 43 0 82 % ^7.6% 52.4% 0.0% 100.0% Total N 61 77 2 140 * 44% 55% 1% 19 N 78 79 0 157 * 50% 50% 0% hl 239 240 2 481 * 49.7% 49.9% 0.4% 100.0%\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_481","title":"Incentive Schools: Monitoring","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--Evaluation","School improvement programs"],"dcterms_title":["Incentive Schools: Monitoring"],"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/481"],"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":["105 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\nIncludes ''1995-1996 Incentive School Monitoring Guide,'' Office of Desegregation and Monitoring\nDate\nMarch 5, 1996 To: Incentive School Principals From: Ann Brown, Melissa Guldin, Gene Jones, Skip Marshall, Margie Powell, and Horace Smith Subject: Documentation Needed During the ODM On-Site Monitoring Visits During our visit to your school, we will need to interview you and conduct classroom observations. We will also need a workspace and a copy of the following 1995-96 records that we can take with us.                  School Map (5 copies) Discipline, Suspension, and Expulsion data by race and gender Building-level discipline plan Parent Center Committee by race, gender, and position (e.g. parent, teacher) Parent Center recommendations and an indication of the suggestions incorporated into the center The name, race, gender, and position of the parent trained to operate the center List of parent meetings including topic, time, location, and sign-in sheets A description of the mechanism designed to ensure that parents regularly sign homework List of community meetings and activities by topic, time, location, and sign-in sheets List of three key communicators by race, gender, and position Speakers Bureau roster by name, gender, race, and position, along with a list of speaking engagements including the time, location, and participant sign-in sheets Recruitment Team roster by race, gender, and position Recruitment Plan, including a list of all recruitment strategies implemented and planned Copy of the parent and student Extended Day survey, and the results of the survey Extended Day schedule Extended Week schedule Data on Saturday program participation In addition, the following records should be available for our review the day of the monitoring visit. You do not need to copy these records since we wont need to take them with us.         Documentation of staff development activities related to classroom management approaches Theme implementation plan Field Trips Building-level guidance and counseling plan An example of the monthly communications packets distributed by the Parent Center The total number of home visits conducted as of March 1996 The number of signed contracts and a description of follow-up procedures Individual student and class test profilesDate: March 5, 1996 To: From: Subject: Sterling Ingram, LRSD Director of Staff Development Ann Brown, Melissa Guldin, Gene Jones, Skip Marshall, Margie Powell, and Horace Smith Documentation Needed for the 1995-96 Incentive Schools Monitoring While most of the documentation we need can be obtained from the building administrators, we will need the following information from the districts central administration. Please furnish the following documentation by March 29, 1996.  Description of the current incentive school parent program, including program goals, objectives, timelines, and the person responsible for this program  Documentation of parent workshops including the topic, date, time, location, evaluation results, and the number of participants by race, gender, and childs school  Volunteer documentation including the number of volunteers by race, gender, and the number of hours volunteered at each school  Documentation of the mentor program including a brief description of the types of activities shared by mentors and students, the number of participants by race and gender, and the number of hours volunteered  Records of training the district conducted for mentors  List of community meetings including time, location, and copies of sign-in sheets  List of identified parent pick-up points for school functions, and an explanation of how the district publicizes this service to parents  Current membership roster for the Parent Council with members identified by race, gender, and the organization each represents  Copies of the current Parent Council monitoring instrument (highlighting any revisions made since the 1994-95 school year), 1995-96 meeting minutes, and quarterly reports  List of the Biracial Committee members by race, gender, and high school zone  Copies of the Biracial Committee meeting minutes, and monitoring schedule for 1995-96 and the current monitoring instrument (highlighting any revisions made since the 1994-95 school year)Incentive School Documentation Cont.)  Copies of the 1995-96 Planning, Research and Evaluation quarterly reports of the Biracial Committees monitoring visits  A list of all recruitment activities planned and implemented for the 1995-96 school year, including copies of any printed material distributed, lists of meetings held, tours conducted, the persons responsible for each recruitment activity, cost of individual activities, and an explanation of how you are tracking the results of all recruitment effortsMAY U6 '96 14: P. 1 Pulaski County Special School District 925 East Dixon Kcao Lrrnj: Ro\u0026lt;2\u0026lt;, AxiccJSAS 72206 (5b I \u0026gt;490-2000 Post OmS\"Box 8601 LnTu Rccx, Mkansas 72216 FAX (501) 490-0483 I.IIQ.VI: \"4\"\u0026gt;:\"'\u0026lt; 1 1 ''' 1 v' '' y' Date\nTime: zn '\"i!- To: t p) From\niJdli Number of Pages (including cover sheet):  i! Message 11 11 .1 li II 1! IHI b I H r 1 ( h r Jilll 3^11^, MAY 06 '96 14 P,2 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT 925 East Dixon Road/P.O. Box 8601 Little Rock. Arkansas 72216-8601 (501) 4S0-2O00 1995-96 STUDENTS attending LRSD INCENTIVE SCHOOLS May 6, 1996 School 1 P-2 P-4 K 1st 2nd 3rd 4th 5th 6'1111 Total Franklin 0 0 0 V 0 0 0 0 Garland 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Mitche1\" 0 C 0 0 0 1 1 Righcse.ll 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 *Kockefeller 1 1 G 3 1 0 1 0 20 *Therp are 6 hiack? at Rockefeller 1 each in the following grades: K, isr, Ord , 4th, 5th and 6th. 1 Date: June 25, 1996 MEMORANDUM From: To: Subject: Melissa Ann 1995-96 Incentive School Report After having reviewed your comments attached to the incentive school report, I thought I should explain why some topics addressed in the 1994-95 report were not covered this year. The CARE program was one of the topics omitted. Since the incentive school section of the desegregation plan makes no reference to CARE, this program has only been included based on teacher comments. Monitors have never observed the CARE program. During 1994-95, some of the procedures used in CARE at Rockefeller were revised. During that monitoring visit, the teachers reported an improved, but not perfect, program. We did not have any teacher complaints regarding CARE this spring. As a result, CARE was not included in the current report. A similar situation existed regarding instructional aides. During the 1994-95 school year, we saw several instances of aides behaving badly towards students, and those episodes were reported. This past spring we did not find the same poor behaviors. The aides may not be any better on the whole, but we did not see or hear inappropriate behavior. Lacking any evidence in that regard, we did not review aide conduct in this report. On the other hand, information regarding the ongoing CDA training for the aides in the four-year-old program is pertinent and was reported.R E T N I MEMO OFFICE To: From: Subject: Date: Gene Horace Extended Day and Week June 28, 1996 Welcome Back!! I hope you had a wonderful time during your vacation. By the time you read this memo I will hopefully be in Colorado - far away from the incentive school report. Speaking of the incentive school report, there were some concerns that Ann had regarding the extended day and Saturday program sections. She felt that the findings needed more detail. I hope you dont mind, but I took the liberty of adding to the Saturday program findings based on some of her remarks and the data contained in the accompanying chart. Please feel free to make any changes to those findings as you see fit. I also tried to contact Sterling Ingram to ask some questions about the districts evailuation of both programs, but he was out of the office for the week. You might want to check with him to see if he might be able to help address Anns questions. Sorry to intrude on your post-vacation euphoria. Thanks for your help. E-S. Aon cAtjo nenl-ionecS, tuiJer drJ-\u0026lt; 1- .rccV 4hct oo oJrtenci.G.nc. i^oGcdcL. ba lo-b^e, Ticrn cd-iAerii-^c \u0026amp;\u0026gt;)\u0026gt;\u0026lt;. i'POprcha'irivc. Shs. tCC-G oE into +^-4 IccV X. b ppcrcM iINCENTIVE SCHOOLS MONITORING QUESTIONS THESE QUESTIONS WILL APPLY TO ALL FIVE SCHOOLS 1. INCENTIVE SCHOOL PROGRAM PARENTS COUNCIL. A. B. C. D. NAMES AND PHONE NUMBERS OF ALL MEMBERS BY SCHOOL. MINUTES OF MEETINGS INDICATING THE DATE AND LOCATION OF THE MEETING, WHICH MEMBERS ATTENDED AND SUBJECTS DISCUSSED. DATES AND TIMES COUNCIL MEMBERS REPORTED TO LRSD BOARD OF DIRECTORS AND THE JOSHUA INTERVENORS. WHAT SPECIFIC MONITORING ACTIVITIES HAVE TAKEN PLACE? 2 . DEVELOP AN INCENTIVE SCHOOL PLAN FOR EACH SCHOOL, A. B. HAS A PLAN BEEN DEVELOPED FOR EACH SCHOOL FOR THE 95-96 SCHOOL YEAR? WHO IS RESPONSIBLE FOR THE DEVELOPMENT AND IMPLEMENTATION OF THE PLAN? 3 . DEVELOP CURRICULUM SPECIFIC TO THE INCENTIVE SCHOOLS. A. HAS THERE BEEN AN UPDATED CURRICULUM FOR THE 95-96 SCHOOL YEAR? 4 . ENSURE THE AVAILABILITY OF ADEQUATE RESOURCES TO MAINTAIN ACADEMIC PROGRAMS. A. B. HOW MUCH MONEY IS BUDGETED TO UPDATE BOOKS, MATERIALS AND OTHER RESOURCES FOR THE INCENTIVE SCHOOLS? DISTRICT LEVEL AND SCHOOL LEVEL. WHAT SPECIFIC PLAN HAS BEEN DEVELOPED FOR THESE BUDGETS? WHAT IS CURRENT STATUS ON SPENDING TO FULFILL THIS PLANS? 5 . STAFF DEVELOPMENT ACTIVITIES. A. WHO IS RESPONSIBLE FOR THE DEVELOPMENT OF STAFF DEVELOPMENT PLANS FOR EACH INCENTIVE SCHOOL? HOW ARE PEOPLE SELECTED FOR STAFF DEVELOPMENT ACTIVITIES AT EACH SCHOOL? HOW MUCH MONEY HAS BEEN BUDGETED FOR INCENTIVE SCHOOL STAFF DEVELOPMENT? AT THE DISTRICT LEVEL AS WELL AS THE SCHOOL LEVEL? 6 . WRITING TO READ AND SCIENCE LABS. A. WHAT IS THE CURRENT STATUS AT EACH SCHOOL? HOW MANY CHILDREN ARE PARTICIPATING IN EACH PROGRAM AT EACH SCHOOL? WHO STAFFS THESE PROGRAMS AT EACH SCHOOL, BY NAME AND NUMBER OF HOURS PER DAY/PER WEEK. HOW IS THE7 . 8 . 9. 10 . PROGRESS OF EACH STUDENT MEASURED? FOREIGN LANGUAGE PROGRAMS. A. WHAT IS THE STATUS OF THIS PROGRAM AT EACH SCHOOL? HOW MANY STUDENTS ARE INVOLVED. HOW IS THE PROGRESS OF EACH STUDENT MEASURED? HAS A BUDGETING PLAN BEEN IMPLEMENTED TO DETERMINE HOW TO BEST SPEND THE MONEY? HOW MUCH MONEY IS BUDGETED TO MAINTAIN THIS PROGRAM? AT THE DISTRICT LEVEL AND THE SCHOOL LEVEL? EXTENDED DAY/WEEK PROGRAMS. A. B. WHAT IS THE STATUS OF THIS PROGRAM AT EACH SCHOOL? DO EACH OF THE SCHOOL PROVIDE A HOMEWORK CENTER? WHAT SPECIAL PROGRAMS ARE BEING OFFERED AT EACH SCHOOL? HOW MANY PEOPLE ARE INVOLVED IN EACH PROGRAM AT EACH SCHOOL? HAS A BUDGET PLAN BEEN DEVELOPED FOR EACH PROGRAM? HOW MUCH MONEY HAS BEEN BUDGETED FOR EACH PROGRAM? AT THE DISTRICT LEVEL AND THE SCHOOL LEVEL? HOW MANY STUDENTS PARTICIPATE IN EACH PROGRAM. WHAT PARENTAL INVOLVEMENT PROGRAMS ARE NOW FUNCTIONAL IN EACH SCHOOL? HOW M7\\NY PARENTS ARE INVOLVED ON A REGULAR BASIS? FIELD TRIPS. A. B. C. D. WHAT SPECIFIC FIELD TRIPS HAVE BEEN PLANNED FOR THE 1995-96 SCHOOL YEAR BY SCHOOL? WHAT EDUCATIONAL AND/OR CULTURAL EXPERIENCES ARE ANTICIPATED BY EACH FIELD TRIP? WHAT BUDGETING PLAN HAS BEEN DEVELOPED FOR FIELD TRIPS FOR EACH SCHOOL. HOW MUCH MONEY HAS BEEN BUDGETED FOR EACH AT THE DISTRICT LEVEL AS WELL AS THE SCHOOL LEVEL? WHO CO-ORDINATES THE FIELD TRIP PROGRAM AT EACH SCHOOL? HOW IS THE TRANSPORTATION EXPENSE HANDLED? INSTRUCTIONAL AIDES A. B. C. D. E. F. HOW MANY AIDES ARE LOCATED AT EACH SCHOOL? HOW MANY ARE FULL TIME? WHAT ARE THE QUALIFICATIONS OF EACH AIDE? WHO IS RESPONSIBLE FOR SUPERVISING EACH AIDE? IS THERE A PEER TUTORING PROGRAM WORKING AT EACH SCHOOL? HOW MANY STUDENTS ARE INVOLVED? HOW MUCH TIME DO THEY SPEND TUTORING? HOW MANY AIDES PER STUDENT ARE IN EACH SCHOOL? WHAT BUDGETING PLAN HAS BEEN WRITTEN FOR EACH SCHOOL TOG. IMPLEMENT THE STUDENT SUPPORT PROGRAMS? IE: INSTRUCTIONAL AIDE TRAINING,PEER TUTORING ETC. HOW MUCH MONEY IS BUDGETED FOR THESE PROGRAMS AT THE DISTRICT LEVEL AND THE SCHOOL LEVEL? 11. INCENTIVE AND RECOGNITION PROGRAMS A. WHAT PROGRAMS ARE ACTIVE IN EACH SCHOOL? HOW MANY STUDENTS ARE INVOLVED? WHAT GUIDELINES ARE USED TO DETERMINE HOW STUDENTS ARE SELECTED? WHO MAKES THE SELECTION? 12. STUDENT ACHIEVEMENT A. WHAT ARE THE RESULTS OF EACH STUDENT'S ACHIEVEMENT OVER HIS/HER ATTENDANCE IN EACH SCHOOL? HOW DOES THIS PERFORM7\\NCE MEASURE UP TO OTHERS IN SAME SCHOOL? AND OTHER INCENTIVE SCHOOLS. 13 . STAFFING A. USE ODM REPORTS. 14 . ATTITUDES/MORALE A. WHAT IS THE OVERALL FEELING OF STAFF, PARENTS, STUDENTS, AND COMMUNITY ABOUT EACH SCHOOL? AND WHY? 15 . TEACHER STIPENDS/INCENTIVES A. INCENTIVE SCHOOL TEACHERS WERE EXPECTED TO REPORT BACK TO WORK FIVE DAYS EARLIER FOR INSERVICE TRAINING? WHO RECEIVED THAT TRAINING? WHO DID NOT? ARE ANY PLANS BEING MADE TO PROVIDE TRAINING FOR THOSE THAT MISSED IT? WHAT PLAN WAS DEVELOPED TO BUDGET THE STIPENDS FOR EACH SCHOOL? HOW MUCH MONEY HAS BEEN BUDGETED BY THE DISTRICT AND THE SCHOOL? WHO CONTROLS THE SELECTION OF THE PERSON(S) TO RECEIVE A STIPEND? IS THERE AN ADDED CONTRACT BETWEEN THE DISTRICT AND THE INDIVIDUAL THAT SPELLS OUT THE TERMS SUCH AS THE AMOUNT OF MONEY TO BE PAID OUT, THE DURATION OF THE CONTRACT, RESULTS EXPECTED, ETC? WHAT IS THE PURPOSE OF THIS METHOD OF PROVIDING INCENTIVES? WHAT ARE THE RESULTS? 16. OTHER INCENTIVE SCHOOL ACADEMIC ACTIVITIES. A. HAVE ALL OF THE STUDENTS BEEN INVENTORIED IN THE LEARNING STYLES INVENTORY AT ALL SCHOOLS? HOW ARE THEY BEING USED BY THE CLASSROOM TEACHER?B. C. PARENT HOME STUDY GUIDES HAVE BEEN DEVELOPED AND ARE DISTRIBUTED? WHAT ARE THE RESULTS OF THESE HOME STUDY GUIDES? AND WHY? HAS A PARENT CENTER BEEN ESTABLISHED AT EACH SCHOOL? WHAT IS THE PURPOSE OF SUCH A CENTER? WHAT ARE THE RESULTS OF THE CENTER AT EACH SCHOOL? HOW DO YOU MEASURE THE RESULTS? 17. PARENT INVOLVEMENT. A. WHAT PROGRAMS ARE AVAILABLE AT EACH SCHOOL TO INVOLVE PARENTS? WHAT IS THE PURPOSE OF EACH PROGRAM? HOW ARE THE PROGRAMS TO BE MEASURED FOR EFFECTIVENESS? WHAT ARE THE RESULTS? AND WHY? 18. SOCIAL AWARENESS. A. WHAT PROGRAMS ARE BEING UTILIZED TO ALLOW EACH STUDENT TO GROW IN THEIR AWARENESS OF ACCEPTABLE BEHAVIOR AND THE ABILITY TO LIVE 7\\ND WORK WITH OTHER PEOPLE? HOW ARE THESE PROGRAMS MEASURED FOR EFFECTIVENESS? WHAT ARE THE RESULTS AND WHY? 19. SPECIFIC QUESTIONS ON BUDGETS A. FRANKLIN 1) . 1120-0110 REGULAR CERTIFICATED 2) . 3) . 4) . 5) . ACTUAL 94/95= BUDGET 95/96= $608,517 $512,101 20.00 FTE 18.00 FTE 1120-0117 STIPENDS ACTUAL 94/95= BUDGET 95/96= $24,731 $46,881 1120-0120 REGULAR NON-CERTIFICATED ACTUAL 94/95= BUDGET $94,180 $47,918 1120-0416 SUPPLIES-SUPPLY CENTER ACTUAL 94/95= BUDGET 95/96= $10,676 $24,064 1195-0120 REGULAR NON-CERTIFICATED ACTUAL 94/95= $84,195 BUDGET 95/96= $116,617 12.00 FTE 6.00 FTE 1.00 FTE 11.80 FTE 95 y6 = REGARDING THE INCREASE IN THE BUDGET FOR THE STIPENDS ANDTHE SUPPLIES, IS THERE A WRITTEN PLAN TO DEFINE WHERE AND HOW THIS MONEY WILL BE SPENT AND WHAT FOR? IN DETAIL? REGARDING THE REGULAR NON-CERTIFICATED BUDGETS FOR BOTH 1120 AND THE 1195 CODES. HOW MANY OF THESE ARE INSTRUCTIONAL AIDES AND HOW MANY ARE SUPERVISION AIDES? ARE THERE ENOUGH INSTRUCTIONAL AIDES TO MEET THE MINIMUM REQUIREMENTS BUDGETED? B. GARLiAND 1) . 1120-0117 STIPENDS ACTUAL 94/95= BUDGET 95/96= $40,734 $60,000 IS THERE A WRITTEN PLAN TO DESCRIBE IN DETAIL HOW, WHEN AND TO WHOM IS THIS AMOUNT OF MONEY GOING TO BE PAID? THE ENROLLMENT AT GARLAND FOR THIS CURRENT YEAR IS 255 STUDENTS INCLUDING THE FOUR YEAR OLD PROGRAM AND KINDERGARTEN. THIS IS JUST SLIGHTLY OVER $235 PER EACH STUDENT. C. MITCHELL 1) . 2) . 1120-0110 REGULAR CERTIFICATED ACTUAL 94/95= $405,164 BUDGET 95/96= $436,618 12.00 FTE 16.67 FTE 1120-0120 REGULAR NON-CERTIFICATED ACTUAL 94/95= BUDGET 95/96= $123,187 $ 94,919 18.60 FTE 10.50 FTE 1120-0311 INSTRUCTION SERVICES ACTUAL 94/95= $ 0 BUDGET 95/96= $ 13,791 1120-0331 PUPIL TRANSPORTATION ACTUAL 94/95= BUDGET 95/96= $ 19,328 3,750 1120-0410,-0416 SUPPLIES ACTUAL 94/95= BUDGET 95/96= $ 17,413 $ 25,206 THERE APPEARS TO BE SOME MAJOR SWINGS IN THE BUDGETS FOR THIS YEAR AND THE SPENDING OF THE PREVIOUS YEAR. IS THERE A WRITTEN PLAN WITH THE DETAILS TO SUPPORT THESE BUDGET ITEMS? ROCKEFELLER 3) . 4) . 5) . D) . $1). 1120-0117 STIPENDS AGTUAL 94/95= BUDGET 95/96= $ 71,219 $ 23,781 2) . 1120-0120 REGULAR NON-GERTIEIGATED AGTUAL 94/95= BUDGET 95/96= $173,108 $180,618 17.40 FTE 19.50 FTE APPEARS TO BE A SHIFT FROM THE FOUR YEAR OLD PROGRAM TO THE ELEMENTARY PROGRAM 3) . 1120-0331 PUPIL TRANSPORTATION AGTUAL 94/95= BUDGET 95/96=\n$ 31,723 $ 11,350 4) . 1120-0410/-0416 SUPPLIES AGTUAL 94/95= BUDGET 95/96= $ 40,344 $ 50,263 5) . 1195-0120 REGULAR NON-GERTIFIGATED AGTUAL 94/95= BUDGET 95/96= $ 23,474 $ 38,101 1.00 FTE 3.80 FTE ARE THERE WRITTEN DETAILED PLANS TO SUPPORT THESE BUDGETED NUMBERS? E. RIGHTSELL 1120-0110 REGULAR GERTIFIGATED AGTUAL 94/95= BUDGET 95/96= $346,684 $335,187 15.00 FTE 12.00 FTE 2) 1120-0117 STIPENDS AGTUAL 94/95= BUDGET 95/96= $ 39,054 $ 17,621 1120-0120 REGULAR NON-GERTIFIGATED AGTUAL 94/95= BUDGET 95/96= $ 62,046 $ 31,844 5.50 FTE 3.50 FTE 1) . 3) . 4) . 1120-0331 PUPIL TRANSPORTATION AGTUAL 94/95= $ 10,767 BUDGET 95/96= $ 13,1005) . 1120-0410/-0416 SUPPLIES ACTUAL 94/95= BUDGET 95/96= $ 18,763 $ 24,450 ARE THERE ANY WRITTEN DETAIL PLANS THAT SUPPORT THESE BUDGETED ITEMS?07/15/1996 15:05 501324' SI LFSD  STUE'ENT ASSISNM PAGE 02 : Tkihft, \\/l ~'/olunh^r /-/Burx. Sc/\\nl bP 5 'V UALR ScX\u0026lt;fli\nl tz-T Let t-iJ \u0026lt; 1 5Xc/U\u0026lt; Ce) H_ C?-\u0026lt;x{\u0026lt;A-C \"hj^v/Tl p/Vt e ij iCi^-z\\ ^S'A Fvfst CAtt^^h- bP\u0026lt;-'\\kUvA\n\u0026gt;C Om^p^^A ps^ P^\\ iaie7n\u0026lt;'^ D lAr^ U It s4 Fbl I ^h'is4( Alp Ha Phi Alph^ Xj//i 1 ^bek Pclice, zArSSC, A^pVxA. Alphp\\ fvvIvF^ Vo- T^cK I. PsK Ccv\u0026gt;^oAl SS =''-''\\07/15/1'396 15:05 5013'24:\n81 LRSD STUDENT ASSIGN RAGE 02 W5 111^.0^ UAIR Z'-f' Lc:\\ (\\cj^ leav'd FnJa ) SXc/Ix/' Ic^ 'Fi'v't^ L4/VlR Co IV'C ).. c/ ^c[ \"b\u0026gt;6tt2!l 'RDe''S SxfS-f E)/Tp-hs4 Pic-aHU/tcC W S ^sVzlL \u0026lt;. tAitcb.lL 31^.^'i) I \" f^C ps\u0026gt; Pb'^ fiieTHp- \n3 \u0026amp;dqA(f 30Ci.2i iAr\u0026gt; Fbl i.s4 Xw,/ia/-\\, I AiphA Ph\nAipP^ feVxck 'Poiice f AlpVxA. ^App-rv. AlpX^i f'O^^vc \\Jo ~ 'Te cL c, I .o The report contains lots of good work. Many of the subjects are covered very thoroughly and are well written. 1 really like what youve done to present a more longitudinal view of the districts progress, with attention to what weve found in previous years compared to what we see now. Wlien we do that, were getting to some of the things Orfield noted the district wasnt doing for itself. Were getting better, but some of the old syntax problems still crop up: for example, tense inconsistency, wordiness, using overuse of certain words (a pox on \"observed!\"), redundancies, some awlcward sentence construction. Dont overuse the semicolon, and also dont use it when a colon is really correct. Check with one of our punctuation guides to clarify. Wlien it makes sense, keep the format consistent from one years report to the next. Even style and wording in charts should remain the same as along as it still works. In the intro, keep the wording we worked out in the last staffing report on the July 10, 1992 Court Order on our 1992 report. Also, unless the order of the table of contents needs to be changed, maintain that from year to year. The role of the social workers and how effectively they are being used is not addressed in this report. We supported the fight to get them into these schools, and weve noted problems with their integration into the schools in past reports. Why are they essentially ignored in this report? Tills omission needs to be corrected. Weve also noted several problems the aides in the past, and have made recommendations about them. Last year we especially noted some problems at Mitchell. Yet the aides are mentioned primarily only in conjunction with whether or not they are present in their proper numbers. What gives? Fix it please. What happened to comments about CARE? Weve had quite a bit to say about that in the past, especially at Rockefeller, but this year it was completely ignored. Please add it. Keep the findings in the same order as the requirements that precede them. (See the first page in Programs and Operations for an example.) Some sections, notably parent involvement, are very brief and dont cover all the aspects of the requirements. Some provide a stark contrast to what was more thoroughly covered last year. Much will have to be fleshed out in this section. Also, especially in parent involvement, the recommendations cover aspects of district actions-or lack of action--that arent noted in the findings. Some parts of some requirements arent addressed in the findings. No part of a requirement should ever be ignored. In some places comments appear in the summary and conclusions that are not predicated by con'esponding information in the findings.Ive notated in the Programs and Operations section my concerns about the wording on the headings, and also about setting up an organization expectation through strict segmentation. Im not convinced that the way the summary and conclusions are done in the parent involvement section is going to work. The format only serves to highlight the skimpiness of certain subsections. Id go with strict narrative. Tense consistency remains a continuing problem, especially in some sections. Tlie word \"observed\" is overused ad nauseam, \"monitored.\" \"Incentive school\" is also overdone as is1994-95 INCENTIVE SCHOOLS MONITORING GUIDE Office of Desegregation Monitoring United States District Court Heritage West Building 201 East Markham Little Rock, Arkansas Ann S. Brown, Federal MonitorEnrollment  The incentive program is successfully desegregating each incentive school. (LRSD Plan, pg. 149) Discipline, Suspension, and Expulsion  Disaggregate data related to student discipline and review student data to address issues of racial disparity. (Interdis. Plan, pg. 27)  Carefully collect discipline data and closely monitor the discipline program to make modifications that are indicated by formative, as well as summative, information. The district would be wise to analyze the factors that contribute to some schools having fewer overall discipline problems and less disparity in discipline between black and white students. Identifying and emulating these factors and closely scrutinizing progress should result in interventions that reduce the number of students suspended or expelled, as well as the disproportionate number of black students referred for disciplinary action. (ODM 1992 Report, pg. 23)  Attendance and behavior guidelines include time-out rooms that are staffed with trained personnel. (LRSD Plan, pp. 175,184)  Students help develop school-based management rules and receive help with problem solving. (LRSD Plan, pp. 175, 184)  Staff, parents, and students cooperatively design discipline policies. (ODM 1992 Report, pg. 23)  Discipline policies and procedures are well publicized, clearly indicate what is appropriate and inappropriate behavior, and spell out consequences for infractions. Policy enforcement is fair and consistent. (ODM 1992 Report, pg. 23)  Classroom management approaches are appropriate for the work being done. (ODM 1992 Report, pg. 32) Facilities  The district will provide clean and safe facilities and make all repairs fundamental to maintain the incentive schools. (LRSD Plan, pg. 129)  All seven incentive schools would benefit aesthetically from the addition of attractive landscaping. Once plantings are installed, train the custodial staff in proper plant care to prevent loss of plantings to improper pruning or under-watering. (ODM 1992 Report, pg. 43) Programs and Operations  The four-year-old program uses High Scope or a comparable curriculum model and incorporates a parent component into the program. (LRSD Plan, pg. 152) Four-year-old enrollment is limited to 18 children per class. (ODM 1992 Report, pg. 10)  The Early Childhood Education Task Force is an avenue for parent, teacher, and community input. (ODM 1992 Report, pg. 17)  Parents and staff at each school develop school themes which are integrated into the curriculum. (LRSD Plan, pg. 153)  Fresh, imaginative themes are established based upon each school's unique strengths. (ODM 1992 Report, pg. 20)  Students in grades 3-6 have access to either mobile or permanent science labs with adequate materials that allow children to execute long-term experiments and study science in the fullest sense. (LRSD Plan, pg. 153\nODM 1992 Report, pg. 15)  Each building operates foreign language labs with appropriate equipment and materials. (LRSD Plan, pg. 153)  The curriculum at each school incorporates foreign language instruction using the foreign language lab and the \"total physical response\" method of instruction. Emphasis is on basic vocabulary, conversation, and cultural materials. (LRSD Plan, pg. 156)  Parent Home Study Guides in each core subject area for each grade (1-6) will be available by the 1993-94 school year. (LRSD Plan, pg. 153)  Physical education (PE) and health are included in the total elementary curriculum with emphasis on wellness, lifelong leisure skills, nutrition, and respect for those with disabilities. (LRSD Plan, pg-156)  Social skills are taught, when appropriate, through the core instructional program. The total school staff serves as models of positive social interaction. Social skills instruction includes such programs as Rites of Passage, Role Models, and Mentoring. (LRSD Plan, pp. 156-157)  The schools use local, state, and national field trips to enhance learning and broaden cultural experiences. Trips provide community access and racially desegregated experiences and activities for incentive school students together with other LRSD students. Exhibits and performances are also brought to the schools, and students participate in shadowing activities. (LRSD Plan, pp. 158, 173, 181\nInterdis. Plan, pg. 4)  The schools use a Career Skills Development Program to develop career choices using written information, guest speakers, films, and interest inventories. (LRSD Plan, pp. 172,180)  The schools schedule Special Skills Programs during the time designated for extended day activities. Scheduling for extended day meets the needs of students and includes the homework center, special skills training, and leisure time activities. Students finishing activities early report either to the homework center, CARE, or leave the campus at the request of a parent or guardian. (LRSD Plan, pp. 173, 174, 181, 184) Page 2 The district surveys parents and students to determine the most appealing extended day activities. (ODM 1992 Report, pg. 25)  The extended day program, which is based on information gleaned from SEP'S, school staff, parents, and students, reinforces and extends the SEP to meet individual needs. (ODM 1992 Report, pg. 25)  Cumulative records document both host and guest school's participation in Saturday programs. (ODM 1992 Report, pg. 25)  Saturday programs will be developed to enhance learning. These programs will include but shall not be limited to field trips, enrichment activities, tutoring, parent/child make-and-take sessions, book fairs, and physical education activities. (LRSD Plan, pg. 179)  Study skills training enhances skills in test-taking, listening, and studying. Test-taking skills are being taught and students practice test-taking. (LRSD Plan. pp. 153, 176, 183\nODM 1992 Report, pg. 32)  Regular tracking of student attendance, behavior, discipline, and achievement is systematic and assessed at least quarterly. Individual and class profiles are utilized. Individual student plans and interventions are based on needs determined through ongoing data review. (LRSD Plan, pp. 176, 186)  Disaggregate test results to enable an assessment of the short- and long-term correlation between test performance and such variables as how long a student has been enrolled at a particular school, behavior and attendance records, and participation in such programs as early childhood and extended day, week, and year, (ODM 1992 Report, pg. 32)  Students receive individual and group counseling and are taught conflict resolution. The school uses peer facilitators. (LRSD Plan, pp. 176, 184)  The staff has developed written building guidance plans to address personal growth, social development, career awareness, and educational development. (ODM 1992 Report, pg. 27) Parent and Community Involvement  A Parent Center in each school provides resources and materials, recommended by a parent and staff committee, that can be loaned to parents. A parent has been trained to operate the center, which is to be the source of a monthly communications packet that is distributed to parents. (LRSD Plan, pp. 206, 208)  The schools actively seek parent recommendations for resources to be housed in the Parent Centers, incorporating as many of their suggestions as possible. The school documents the degree to which parents use the center and its resources. (ODM 1992 Report, pg. 39)  The schools offer parent workshops to assist parents in understanding and carrying out school expectations. The workshops include such topics as study skills, discipline, time management. Page 3 pre-reading skills, financial management, and developmental learning skills. (LRSD Plan, pg. 209)  Document parent training activities by topic, time, and location along with the number of participants by race, gender, and the child's school. Regularly collect and analyze participants' feedback on how well the session was conducted and their perception of the potential helpfulness of the training. (ODM 1992 Report, pg. 39)  Complete documentation of all parent meetings and activities is maintained, including sign-in sheets that reflect parents' race, gender, and the school their child attends. (ODM 1992 Report, pg- 38)  Develop and expand the parent volunteer programs and school/business partnerships. (LRSD Plan, pg. 132)  Recognition is used as a tool for community and parent involvement. The school recognizes parents and the community at monthly PTA meetings, displays awards, gives school lunch vouchers to award winners, and involves students in the recognition selection process. (LRSD Plan. pp. 209-210)  The school makes parent and volunteer recognition an integral, ongoing, and highly visibly part of school life. (ODM 1992 Report, pg. 38)  Require at least two or more home visits. (LRSD Plan, pp. 206, 211)  The staff documents the number and date of visits to each student's home, along with who made the visit, to determine if each family is visited at least twice yearly. (ODM 1992 Report, pg. 38)  Each school provides community role models and a mentoring program. (LRSD Plan, pg. 157)  The district has mounted an intense mentor recruitment campaign. (ODM 1992 Report, pg. 29)  Individual school volunteer mentoring programs are coordinated with VIPS and all volunteers are screened and trained prior to being matched with students. (ODM 1992 Report, pg. 29)  The school maintains mentor-student records that include the race, gender, participation hours, and types of activities shared by the mentors and their students. Records of training participants by race, gender, and classification (i.e. student, mentor, parent, teacher) are also maintained. (ODM 1992 Report, pg. 30)  Parents sign contractual commitments prior to enrolling their child in an incentive school. (LRSD Plan, pg. 211)  The schools have follow-up procedures to remind parents of the commitments they made in the contracts they signed at registration. (ODM 1992 Report, pg. 38)  A speakers bureau on education issues for community groups exists in school zones. Each school has identified three key communicators. The school staff coordinates events to promote Page 4neighborhood pride. These strategies work together to raise the trust level between the school and the community. (LRSD Plan, pp. 210, 213)  The Incentive School Program Parent Council functions as a districtwide council of incentive school parents. Membership includes two parents from each incentive school and four appointed by Joshua. The Council monitors all activities related to the incentive school program and reports quarterly to the LRSD Board of Directors and the Joshua Intervenors. (LRSD Plan, pg. 151)  The districtwide Biracial Committee, whose members represent various geographic areas of the community, will monitor the incentive schools quarterly. (LRSD Plan, pp. 224,225)  The Biracial Committee will fiimish copies of their monitoring reports to the incentive school principals and various district officials. The Office of Planning, Research and Evaluation (PRE) will prepare quarterly reports that summarize all monitoring visits. The superintendent will share the PRE document with the Board of Directors at their regularly scheduled meetings. The Associate Superintendent for Desegregation is responsible for eliminating any noted deficiencies in a timely manner. (LRSD Plan, pg. 225)  The Biracial Advisory Committee, with the advice of marketing and advertising experts, will serve as the steering committee for incentive school recruitment. The committee will review bimonthly recruitment reports from the desegregation office, evaluate the program quarterly and recommend needed changes to the Board of Directors. (LRSD Plan, pp. 217, 223)  Before July 1 of each year, the district will convene a committee to revise the instrument used to monitor the incentive schools, ensuring that it conforms with the expectations set for the program. The review committee shall consist of: incentive school principals, the superintendent's senior management team, specialists from PRE, and six members of the Biracial Committee (two of whom must be Joshua appointees). Any resulting revisions must be submitted to the LRSD Board and Joshua by August 15. (LRSD Plan, 225)  The Biracial Committee's monitoring instrument will include a recruitment assessment. (ODM 1992 Report, pg. 5) Parent Recruitment  The district will inform the community about the incentive schools and their special features by providing informational sessions to special interest and community groups, including churches. Additional strategies will include conducting Saturday information booths at malls and neighborhood stores, securing special media coverage, and developing an incentive school telephone hotline. The district will distribute highlight sheets to all elementary parents and local businesses. (LRSD Plan, pp. 215, 218-219)  Recruitment will be an ongoing process with each incentive school establishing a parent recruitment team to encourage voluntary assignments that enable the schools to comply with desegregation requirements. (LRSD Plan, pp. 132, 135, 215\nInterdis. Plan, pg. 57) Page 5 The district's recruitment strategies will include public service announcements, billboards, a media blitz, videocassette recordings, flyers, open houses, targeted neighborhood blitzes, small group tours, a special designation from the Arkansas Department of Education (ADE), and celebrity endorsements. Each school will establish a speakers bureau and help the district develop a brochure highlighting their school. Meetings will be held with NLRSD and PCSSD parents and PTA groups to encourage M-to-M transfers. (LRSD Plan. pp. 215-216, 220-222)  Parent recruiters will focus on recruiting white students to desegregate the incentive schools and conduct recruitment activities. (LRSD Plan, pp. 216,222)  All parties have made firm commitments to assist the LRSD in desegregating the incentive schools. (May 1992 Order, pg. 29)  The LRSD will establish a strategic plan, based on the recruitment section of the desegregation plan, that reflects a well-thought-out, interrelated process\npresent a firm timetable in its recruitment plan and strictly adhere to it\ndevelop a tracking system to determine the success of particular awareness and recruitment efforts, especially with identified geographic areas and specific groups\nincrease the number and variety of specifically targeted recruitment activities. (ODM 1992 Report, pp. 4, 5) Rockefeller Early Childhood Magnet School  The Rockefeller Early Childhood Magnet Program will be available to children from six weeks to four years of age. The program will serve as a model for improving the academic achievement of disadvantaged students and attracting white students to comply with desegregation requirements. (LRSD Plan. pg. 12)  The early childhood program is an integral part of the whole school, not a separate or \"add-on' tl program. It receives the same attention as to supervision, support, staff development, resource allotment, accountability, monitoring, and evaluation as grades K through six. (LRSD Plan, pg. 13)  The LRSD designated Rockefeller as a Cooperative Early Childhood Education Demonstration Magnet between UALR and other area colleges. The district works cooperatively with local colleges and universities to enhance and support the program. (LRSD Plan, pg. 12)  At Rockefeller, the district gives special emphasis to developing and piloting innovative approaches to the education of young children. (LRSD Plan, pg. 12)  The countys teachers, administrators, aides, HIPPY (Home Instruction Program for Preschool youngsters), and daycare program workers use Rockefeller as a demonstration center for training. (LRSD Plan, pg. 12)  Parents and educational professionals from UALR and other area colleges advise the school and district staffs on all aspects of planning and implementation of the early childhood program. (LRSD Plan, pg. 12) Page 6 Evaluate Rockefeller's early childhood education policies in terms of their impact on desegregation and educational goals. The parent committee on early childhood education is to evaluate policies (including private pay rates, lunch charges, vacation days, enrollment age, and sick days) for their impact on the early childhood program's viability as a desegregation tool, its competitiveness with private schools and daycares, and its ability to retain both its private paying and Title XX students. (LRSD Plan, pg. 13)  The district allows students who attend the Rockefeller program for three-year-olds to continue on into the program for four-year-olds and the grades beyond. Siblings of students already in the early childhood program may attend Rockefeller in order to help retain children in the school. (LRSD Plan, pg. 13)  Explore developing Rockefeller as a year-round, full-day school for children from infancy through sixth grade. A biracial group of teachers, parents, administrators, and experts from local universities and colleges works with the district to assess the feasibility of such a program. (LRSD Plan, pg. 13) Double Funding  Funding for the incentive schools shall be set at two times the level for the elementary area schools to ensure that the children who are in racially-isolated settings are provided meaningful opportunities for desegregated experiences and activities. (Interdistrict. Plan, pg. 4)  The Little Rock School District Board of Directors is committed to improving educational quality and student academic performance in all schools and doubling the financial resources in schools identified in the Court-approved desegregation plan as incentive schools. (LRSD Plan, pg- 1) Page 71995-96 INCENTIVE SCHOOLS MONITORING GUIDE OFFICE OF DESEGREGATION MONITORING Heritage West Building 201 East Markham, Suite 510 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Ann S. Brown, Federal MonitorENROLLMENT  The incentive school program is successfully desegregating each incentive school. (LRSD Plan, pg. 149) 1DISCIPLINE, SUSPENSION, and EXPULSION  Data related to student discipline is disaggregated and reviewed to address issues of racial disparity. (Interdis. Plan, pg. 27)  Discipline data is carefully collected and the discipline program closely monitored in order to make modifications that are indicated by formative as well as summative information. The district analyzes the factors that contribute to some schools having fewer overall discipline problems and less disparity in discipline between black and white students. The district identifies and emulates these factors and closely scrutinizes progress toward reducing the number of students suspended or expelled as well as the disproportionate number of black students referred for disciplinary action. (ODM 1992 Report, pg. 23)  Attendance and behavior guidelines include time-out rooms that are staffed with trained personnel. (LRSD Plan, pp. 175, 184)  Students help develop school-based management rules and receive help with problem solving. (LRSD Plan, pp. 175, 184)  Staff, parents, and students cooperatively design discipline policies. (ODM 1992 Report, pg. 23)  Discipline policies and procedures are well-publicized, clearly indicate what is appropriate and inappropriate behavior, and spell out consequences for infractions. (ODM 1992 Report, pg. 23)  Classroom management approaches are appropriate for the work being done. (ODM 1992 Report, pg. 32)  Regular tracking of student attendance, behavior, discipline, and achievement is systematic and assessed at least quarterly. Individual and class profiles are utilized. Individual student plans and interventions are based on needs determined through ongoing data review. (LRSD Plan, pp. 176, 186) 2GUIDANCE AND COUNSELING  Social skills are taught, when appropriate, through the core instructional program. The total school staff\" serves as models of positive social interaction. Social skills instruction includes such programs as Rites of Passage, Role Models, and Mentoring. (LRSD Plan, pp. 156-157)  The schools use a Career Skills Development Program to develop career choices using written information, guest speakers, films, and interest inventories. (LRSD Plan, pp. 172, 180)  Study skills training enhances skills in test-taking, listening, and studying. Test-taking skills are being taught and students practice test-taking. (LRSD Plan, pp. 153, 176, 183\nODM 1992 Report, pg. 32)  Students receive individual and group counseling and are taught conflict resolution. The school uses peer facilitators. (LRSD Plan, pp. 176, 184)  The staff has developed written building guidance plans to address personal growth, social development, career awareness, and educational development. (ODM 1992 Report, pg. 27) 3FACILITIES  The district provides clean and safe facilities and makes all repairs fundamental to maintaining the incentive schools. (LRSD Plan, pg. 129)  All of the incentive schools would benefit aesthetically from the addition of attractive landscaping. Once plantings are installed, train the custodial staff in proper plant care to prevent loss of plantings to improper pruning or underwatering. (ODM 1992 Report, pg. 43) 4PROGRAMS AND OPERATIONS  The four-year-old program uses High Scope or a comparable curriculum model, and a parent component is incorporated into the program. (LRSD Plan, pg. 152)  Four-year-old enrollment is limited to 18 children per class. (ODM 1992 Report, pg. 10)  The Early Childhood Education Task Force is an avenue for parent, teacher, and community input. (ODM 1992 Report, pg. 17)  Parents and staff at each school develop school themes which are integrated into the curriculum. (LRSD Plan, pg. 153)  Students in grades 3-6 have access to either mobile or permanent science labs with adequate materials that allow children to execute long-term experiments and study science in the fullest sense. (LRSD Plan, pg. 153\nODM 1992 Report, pg. 15)  The curriculum at each school incorporates foreign language instruction using the foreign language lab and the \"total physical response\" method of instruction. Emphasis is on basic vocabulary, conversation, and cultural materials. (LRSD Plan, pg. 156)  Each building operates foreign language labs with appropriate equipment and materials. (LRSD Plan, pg. 153)  Parent Home Study Guides in each core subject area for each grade (1-6) will be available by the 1993-94 school year. (LRSD Plan, pg. 153)  Physical education (PE) and health are included in the total elementary curriculum with emphasis on wellness, lifelong leisure skills, nutrition, and respect for those with disabilities. (LRSD Plan, pg- 156)  The schools use local, state, and national field trips to enhance learning and broaden cultural experiences. Trips provide community access and racially desegregated experiences and activities for incentive school students together with other LRSD students. Exhibits and performances are also brought to the schools, and students participate in shadowing activities. (LRSD Plan, pp. 158, 173, 181\nInterdis. Plan, pg. 4)  The schools schedule Special Skills Programs during the time designated for extended day activities. Scheduling for extended day meets the needs of students and includes the homework center, special skills training, and leisure time activities. Students finishing activities early report either to the homework center, CARE, or leave the campus at the request of a parent or guardian. (LRSD Plan, pp. 173, 174, 181, 184)  The district surveys parents and students to determine the most appealing extended day activities. (ODM 1992 Report, pg. 25) 5 The extended day program, which is based on information gleaned from SEP's, school staff, parents, and students, reinforces and extends the SEP to meet individual needs. (ODM 1992 Report, pg. 25)  Cumulative records document both host and guest schools participation in Saturday programs. (ODM 1992 Report, pg.25)  Saturday programs are developed to enhance learning. These programs include but arent limited to field trips, enrichment activities, tutoring, parent/child make-and-take sessions, book fairs, and physical education activities. (LRSD Plan, pg. 179) 6PARENT AND COMMUNITY INVOLVEMENT  A Parent Center in each school provides resources and materials which are recommended by a parent and staff committee, that can be loaned to parents. A parent has been trained to operate the center, which is to be the source of a monthly communications packet that is distributed to parents. (LRSD Plan, pp. 206, 208)  The schools actively seek parent recommendations for resources to be housed in the Parent Centers, incorporating as many of their suggestions as possible. The school documents the degree to which parents use the center and its resources. (ODM 1992 Report, pg. 39)  The schools offer parent workshops to assist parents in understanding and carrying out school expectations. The workshops include such topics as study skills, discipline, time management, pre-reading skills, financial management, and developmental learning skills. (LRSD Plan, pg. 209)  Parent training activities are documented by topic, time, and location along with the number of participants by race, gender, and the child's school. Participants feedback on how well the session was conducted and their perception of the potential helpfulness of the training is regularly collected and analyzed. (ODM 1992 Report, pg. 39)  Complete documentation of all parent meetings and activities is maintained, including sign-in sheets that reflect parents race, gender, and the school their child attends. (ODM 1992 Report, pg 38)  Parent volunteer programs and school/business partnerships are developed and expanded. (LRSD Plan, pg. 132)  Recognition is used as a tool for community and parent involvement. The school recognizes parents and the community at monthly PTA meetings, displays awards, gives school lunch vouchers to award winners, and involves students in the recognition selection process. (LRSD Plan, pp. 209-210)  The school makes parent and volunteer recognition an integral, ongoing, and highly visibly part of school life. (ODM 1992 Report, pg. 38)  At least two or more home visits are required. (LRSD Plan, pp. 206, 211)  The staff documents the number and date of visits to each student's home, along with who made the visit, to determine if each family is visited at least twice yearly. (ODM 1992 Report, pg. 38)  Each school provides community role models and a mentoring program. (LRSD Plan, pg. 157)  The district has mounted an intense mentor recruitment campaign. (ODM 1992 Report, pg. 29)  Individual school volunteer mentoring programs are coordinated with VIPS and all volunteers are screened and trained prior to being matched with students. (ODM 1992 Report, pg. 29) 7 The school maintains mentor-student records that include the race, gender, participation hours, and types of activities shared by the mentors and their students. Records of training participants by race, gender, and classification (i.e. student, mentor, parent, teacher) are also maintained. (ODM 1992 Report, pg. 30)  Parents sign contractual commitments prior to enrolling their child in an incentive school. (LRSD Plan, pg. 211)  The schools have follow-up procedures to remind parents of the commitments they made in the contracts they signed at registration. (ODM 1992 Report, pg. 38)  A speakers bureau on education issues for community groups exists in school zones. Each school has identified three key communicators. The school staff coordinates events to promote neighborhood pride. These strategies work together to raise the trust level between the school and the community. (LRSD Plan, pp. 210, 213)  The Incentive School Program Parent Council functions as a districtwide council of incentive school parents. Membership includes two parents from each incentive school and four appointed by Joshua. The Council monitors all activities related to the incentive school program and reports quarterly to the LRSD Board of Directors and the Joshua Intervenors. (LRSD Plan, pg. 151)  The districtwide Biracial Committee, whose members represent various geographic areas of the community, will monitor the incentive schools quarterly. (LRSD Plan, pp. 224, 225)  The Biracial Committee furnishes copies of their monitoring reports to the incentive school principals and various district officials. The Office of Planning, Research and Evaluation (PRE) prepares quarterly reports that summarize all monitoring visits. The superintendent shares the PRE document with the Board of Directors at their regularly scheduled meetings. The Associate Superintendent for Desegregation is responsible for eliminating any noted deficiencies in a timely manner. (LRSD Plan, pg. 225)  The Biracial Advisory Committee, with the advice of marketing and advertising experts, serves as the steering committee for incentive school recruitment. The committee reviews bimonthly recruitment reports from the desegregation office, evaluates the program quarterly, and recommends needed changes to the Board of Directors. (LRSD Plan, pp. 217, 223)  Before July 1 of each year, the district convenes a committee to revise the instrument used to monitor the incentive schools, ensuring that it conforms with the expectations set for the program. The review committee consists of: incentive school principals, the superintendent's senior management team, specialists from PRE, and six members of the Biracial Committee (two of whom must be Joshua appointees). Any resulting revisions must be submitted to the LRSD Board and Joshua by August 15. (LRSD Plan, 225)  The Biracial Committee's monitoring instrument includes a recruitment assessment. (ODM 1992 Report, pg. 5) 8PARENT RECRUITMENT  The district informs the community about the incentive schools and their special features by providing informational sessions to special interest and community groups, including churches. Additional strategies include conducting Saturday information booths at malls and neighborhood stores, securing special media coverage, and developing an incentive school telephone hotline. The district distributes highlight sheets to all elementary parents and local businesses. (LRSD Plan, pp. 215, 218-219)  Recruitment is an ongoing process with each incentive school establishing a parent recruitment team to encourage voluntary assignments that enable the schools to comply with desegregation requirements. (LRSD Plan, pp. 132, 135, 215\nInterdis. Plan, pg. 57)  The district's recruitment strategies include public service announcements, billboards, a media blitz, videocassette recordings, flyers, open houses, targeted neighborhood blitzes, small group tours, a special designation from the Arkansas Department of Education (ADE), and celebrity endorsements. Each school establishes a speakers bureau and helps the district develop a brochure highlighting their school. Meetings are held with NLRSD and PCSSD parents and PTA groups to encourage M-to-M transfers. (LRSD Plan, pp. 215-216, 220-222)  Parent recruiters focus on recruiting white students to desegregate the incentive schools and conduct recruitment activities. (LRSD Plan, pp. 216, 222)  All parties have made firm commitments to assist the LRSD in desegregating the incentive schools. (May 1992 Order, pg. 29)  The LRSD maintains a strategic plan, based on the recruitment section of the desegregation plan, that reflects a well thought-out, interrelated process\npresents a firm timetable in its recruitment plan and strictly adheres to it\ndevelops a tracking system to determine the success of particular awareness and recruitment efforts, especially with identified geographic areas and specific groups\nincreases the number and variety of specifically targeted recruitment activities. (ODM 1992 Report, pp. 4, 5) 9ROCKEFELLER EARLY CHILDHOOD MAGNET SCHOOL  The Rockefeller Early Childhood Magnet Program is available to children from six weeks to four years of age. The program serves as a model for improving the academic achievement of disadvantaged students and attracting white students to comply with desegregation requirements. (LRSD Plan, pg. 12)  The early childhood program is an integral part of the whole school, not a separate or \"add-on\" program. It receives the same attention as to supervision, support, staff development, resource allotment, accountability, monitoring, and evaluation as grades K through six. (LRSD Plan, pg. 13)  The LRSD designated Rockefeller as a Cooperative Early Childhood Education Demonstration Magnet between UALR and other area colleges. The district works cooperatively with local colleges and universities to enhance and support the program. (LRSD Plan, pg. 12)  At Rockefeller, the district gives special emphasis to developing and piloting innovative approaches to the education of young children. (LRSD Plan, pg. 12)  The county's teachers, administrators, aides, HIPPY (Home Instruction Program for Preschool youngsters), and daycare program workers use Rockefeller as a demonstration center for training. (LRSD Plan, pg. 12)  Parents and educational professionals from UALR and other area colleges advise the school and district staffs on all aspects of planning and implementation of the early childhood program. (LRSD Plan, pg. 12)  Rockefeller's early childhood education policies are evaluated in terms of their impact on desegregation and educational goals. The parent committee on early childhood education evaluates policies (including private pay rates, lunch charges, vacation days, enrollment age, and sick days) for their impact on the early childhood program's viability as a desegregation tool, its competitiveness with private schools and daycares, and its ability to retain both its private paying and Title XX students. (LRSD Plan, pg. 13)  The district allows students who attend the Rockefeller three-year-old program to continue on into the four-year-old program and the grades beyond. Siblings of early childhood students may attend Rockefeller in order to help retain children in the school. (LRSD Plan, pg. 13)  The district will explore developing Rockefeller as a year-round, full-day school for children from infancy through sixth grade. A biracial group of teachers, parents, administrators, and experts from local universities and colleges works with the district to assess the feasibility of such a program. (LRSD Plan, pg. 13) 10FINANCE AND BUDGETING The district ensures that those who are responsible for managing programs and budgets have a working knowledge of the process and are completely involved in it throughout the year. (October 1994 Court Order, pg. 5) 111995-96 INCENTIVE SCHOOLS MONITORING GUIDE OFFICE OF DESEGREGATION MONITORING Heritage West Building 201 East Markham, Suite 510 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Ann S. Brown, Federal MonitorENROLLMENT The incentive school program is successfully desegregating each incentive school. (LRSD Plan, pg. 149) 1DISCIPLINE, SUSPENSION, and EXPULSION ' Disaggregate data related to student discipline and review student data to address issues of racial disparity. (Interdis. Plan, pg. 27) Carefiilly collect discipline data and closely monitor the discipline program to make modifications that are indicated by formative^s well as summative, information. The district would be wise to analyze the factors that contribute to some schools having fewer overall discipline problems and less disparity in discipline between black and white students. Identifying and emulating these factors and closely scrutinizing progress should result in interventions that reduce the number of students suspended or expelled,as well as the disproportionate number of black students referred for disciplinary action. (ODM 1992 Report, pg. 23) Attendance and behavior guidelines include time-out rooms that are staffed with trained personnel. (LRSD Plan, ^5, 184) Students help develop school-based management rules and receive help with problem solving. (LRSD Plan, pp. 175, 184) '* Staff, parents, and students cooperatively design discipline policies. (ODM 1992 Report, pg. 23) Discipline policies and procedures are well-publicized, clearly indicate what is appropriate and inappropriate behavior, and spell out consequences for infractions. (ODM 1992 Report, pg. 23) Classroom management approaches are appropriate for the work being done. (ODM 1992 Report, pg. 32) Regular tracking of student attendance, behavior, discipline, and achievement is systematic and assessed at least quarterly. Individual and class profiles are utilized. Individual student plans and interventions are based on needs determined through ongoing data review. (LRSD Plan, pp. /77 186) 2GUIDANCE AND COUNSELING Social skills are taught, when appropriate, through the core instructional program. The total school staff serves as models of positive social interaction. Social skills instruction includes such programs as Rites of Passage, Role Models, and Mentoring. (LRSD Plan, pp. 156-157) The schools use a Career Skills Development Program to develop career choices using written information, guest speakers, films, and interest inventories. (LRSD Plan, pp. 172, 180) Study skills training enhances skills in test taking, listening, and studying. Test taking skills are being taught and students practice test taking. (LRSD Plan, pp. 153, 176, 183\nODM 1992 Report, pg. 32)  Students receive individual and group counseling and are taught conflict resolution. The school uses peer facilitators. (LRSD Plan, pp. 176, 184) The staff has developed written building guidance plans to address personal growth, social development, career awareness, and educational development. (ODM 1992 Report, pg. 27) 3FACILmES The district will provide clean and safe facilities and make all repairs fundamental to maintain the incentive schools. (LRSD Plan, pg. 129) All seven incentive schools would benefit aesthetically from the addition of attractive landscaping. Once plantings are installed, train the custodial staff in proper plant care to prevent loss of plantings to improper pruning or underwatering. (ODM 1992 Report, pg. 43) 4PROGRAMS AND OPERATIONS The four-year-old program uses High Scope or a comparable curriculum model and a parent component is incorporated into the program. (LRSD Plan, pg. 152) Four-year-old enrollment is limited to 18 children per class. (ODM 1992 Report, pg. 10) The Early Childhood Education Task Force is an avenue for parent, teacher, and community input. (ODM 1992 Report, pg. 17)  Parents and staff at each school develop school themes which are integrated into the curriculum. (LRSD Plan, pg. 153) * Students in grades 3-6 have access to either mobile or permanent science labs with adequate materials that allow children to execute long-term experiments and study science in the fullest sense. (LRSD Plan, pg. 153, ODM 1992 Report, pg. 15)  The curriculum at each school incorporates foreign language instruction using the foreign language lab and the \"total physical response\" method of instruction. Emphasis is on basic vocabulary, conversation, and cultural materials. (LRSD Plan, pg, 156) Each building operates foreign language labs with appropriate equipment and materials. (LRSD Plan, pg. 153)  Parent Home Study Guides in each core subject area for each grade (1-6) will be available by the 1993-94 school year. (LRSD Plan, pg. 153)  Physical education (PE) and health are included in the total elementary curriculum with emphasis on wellness, lifelong leisure skills, nutrition, and respect for those with disabilities. (LRSD Plan, pg- 156) The schools use local, state, and national field trips to enhance learning and broaden cultural experiences. Trips provide community access and racially desegregated experiences and activities for incentive school students together with other LRSD students. Exhibits and performances are also brought to the schools, and students participate in shadowing activities. (LRSD Plan, pp. 158, 173, 181\nInterdis. Plan, pg. 4) The schools schedule Special Skills Programs during the time designated for extended day activities. Scheduling for extended day meets the needs of students and includes the homework center, special skills training, and leisure time activities. Students finishing activities early report either to the homework center, CARE, or leave the campus at the request of a parent or guardian. (LRSD Plan, pp. 173, 174, 181, 184) The district surveys parents and students to determine the most appealing extended day activities. (ODM 1992 Report, pg. 25) 5The extended day program, which is based on information gleaned from SEP's, school staff, parents, and students, reinforces and extends the SEP to meet individual needs. (ODM 1992 Report, pg. 25) Cumulative records document both host and guest schools participation in Saturday programs. (ODM 1992 Report, pg.25)  Saturday programs will be developed to enhance learning. These programs will include but shall not be limited to field trips, enrichment activities, tutoring, parent/child make-and-take sessions, book fairs, and physical education activities. (LRSD Plan, pg. 179) 6PARENT AND COMMUNITY INVOLVEMENT A Parent Center in each school provides resources and materials, recommended by a parent and staff committee, that can be loaned to parents. A parent has been trained to operate the center, which is to be the source of a monthly communications packet that is distributed to parents. (LRSD Plan, pp. 206, 208) The schools actively seek parent recommendations for resources to be housed in the Parent Centers, incorporating as many of their suggestions as possible. The school documents the degree to which parents use the center and its resources. (ODM 1992 Report, pg. 39)  The schools offer parent workshops to assist parents in understanding and carrying out school expectations. The workshops include such topics as study skills, discipline, time management, pre-reading skills, financial management, and developmental learning skills. (LRSD Plan, pg. 209)  Document parent training activities by topic, time, and location along with the number of participants by race, gender, and the child's school. Participant's feedback on how well the session was conducted and their perception of the potential helpfulness of the training is regularly collected and analyzed. (ODM 1992 Report, pg. 39)  Complete documentation of all parent meetings and activities is maintained, including sign-in sheets that reflect parents race, gender, and the school their child attends. (ODM 1992 Report, pg. 38) ' Develop and expand the parent volunteer programs and school/business partnerships. (LRSD Plan, pg. 132)  Recognition is used as a tool for community and parent involvement. The school recognizes parents and the community at monthly PTA meetings, displays awards, gives school lunch vouchers to award winners, and involves students in the recognition selection process. (LRSD Plan, pp. 209-210) The school makes parent and volunteer recognition an integral, ongoing, and highly visibly part of school life. (ODM 1992 Report, pg. 38) Require at least two or more home visits. (LRSD Plan, pp. 206, 211) \" The staff documents the number and date of visits to each student's home, along with who made the visit, to determine if each family is visited at least twice yearly. (ODM 1992 Report, pg. 38) ' Each school provides community role models and a mentoring program. (LRSD Plan, pg. 157) The district has mounted an intense mentor recruitment campaign. (ODM 1992 Report, pg. 29)  Individual school volunteer mentoring programs are coordinated with VIPS and all volunteers are screened and trained prior to being matched with students. (ODM 1992 Report, pg. 29) 7The school maintains mentor-student records that include the race, gender, participation hours, and types of activities shared by the mentors and their students. Records of training participants by race, gender, and classification (i.e. student, mentor, parent, teacher) are also maintained. (ODM 1992 Report, pg. 30) Parents sign contractual commitments prior to enrolling their child in an incentive school. (LRSD Plan, pg. 211) The schools have follow-up procedures to remind parents of the commitments they made in the contracts they signed at registration. (ODM 1992 Report, pg. 38) A speakers bureau on education issues for community groups exists in school zones. Each school has identified three key communicators. The school staff coordinates events to promote neighborhood pride. These strategies work together to raise the trust level between the school and the community. (LRSD Plan, pp. 210, 213) The Incentive School Program Parent Council functions as a districtwide council of incentive school parents. Membership includes two parents from each incentive school and four appointed by Joshua. The Council monitors all activities related to the incentive school program and reports quarterly to the LRSD Board of Directors and the Joshua Intervenors. (LRSD Plan, pg. 151) The districtwide Biracial Committee, whose members represent various geographic areas of the community, will monitor the incentive schools quarterly. (LRSD Plan, pp. 224, 225) \u0026lt; The Biracial Committee will furnish copies of their monitoring reports to the incentive school principals and various district officials. The Office of Planning, Research and Evaluation (PRE) will prepare quarterly reports that summarize all monitoring visits. The superintendent will share the PRE document with the Board of Directors at their regularly scheduled meetings. The Associate Superintendent for Desegregation is responsible for eliminating any noted deficiencies in a timely manner. (LRSD Plan, pg. 225) The Biracial Advisory Committee, with the advice of marketing and advertising experts, will serve as the steering committee for incentive school recruitment. The committee will review bimonthly recruitment reports from the desegregation office, evaluate the program quarterly and recommend needed changes to the Board of Directors. (LRSD Plan, pp. 217, 223) Before July 1 of each year, the district will convene a committee to revise the instrument used to monitor the incentive schools, ensuring that it conforms with the expectations set for the program. The review committee shall consist of: incentive school principals, the superintendent's senior management team, specialists from PRE, and six members of the Biracial Committee (two of whom must be Joshua appointees). Any resulting revisions must be submitted to the LRSD Board and Joshua by August 15. (LRSD Plan, 225) The Biracial Committee's monitoring instrument will include a recruitment assessment. (ODM 1992 Report, pg. 5) 8PARENT RECRUITMENT The district will inform the community about the incentive schools and their special features by providing informational sessions to special interest and community groups, including churches. Additional strategies will include conducting Saturday information booths at malls and neighborhood stores, securing special media coverage, and developing an incentive school telephone hotline. The district will distribute highlight sheets to all elementary parents and local businesses. (LRSD Plan, pp. 215, 218-219) Recruitment will be an ongoing process with each incentive school establishing a parent recruitment team to encourage voluntary assignments that enable the schools to comply with desegregation requirements. (LRSD Plan, pp. 132, 135, 215\nInterdis. Plan, pg. 57)  The district's recruitment strategies will include public service announcements, billboards, a media blitz, videocassette recordings, flyers, open houses, targeted neighborhood blitzes, small group tours, a special designation from the Arkansas Department of Education (ADE), and celebrity endorsements. Each school will establish a speakers bureau and help the district develop a brochure highlighting their school. Meetings will be held with NLRSD and PCSSD parents and PT A groups to encourage M-to-M transfers. (LRSD Plan, pp. 215-216, 220-222)  Parent recruiters will focus on recruiting white students to desegregate the incentive schools and conduct recruitment activities. (LRSD Plan, pp. 216, 222)  All parties have made firm commitments to assist the LRSD in desegregating the incentive schools. (May 1992 Order, pg. 29) The LRSD will establish a strategic plan, based on the recruitment section of the desegregation plan, that reflects a well thought-out, interrelated process\npresent a firm timetable in its recruitment plan and strictly adhere to it\ndevelop a tracking system to determine the success of particular awareness and recruitment efforts, especially with identified geographic areas and specific groups\nincrease the number and variety of specifically targeted recruitment activities. (ODM 1992 Report, pp. 4, 5) 9ROCKEFELLER EARLY CHILDHOOD MAGNET SCHOOL The Rockefeller Early Childhood Magnet Program will be available to children from six weeks to four years of age. The program will serve as a model for improving the academic achievement of disadvantaged students and attracting white students to comply with desegregation requirements. (LRSD Plan, pg. 12) The early childhood program is an integral part of the whole school, not a separate or \"add-on\" program. It receives the same attention as to supervision, support, staff development, resource allotment, accountability, monitoring, and evaluation as grades K through six. (LRSD Plan, pg. 13) The LRSD designated Rockefeller as a Cooperative Early Childhood Education Demonstration Magnet between UALR and other area colleges. The district works cooperatively with local colleges and universities to enhance and support the program. (LRSD Plan, pg. 12) At Rockefeller, the district gives special emphasis to developing and piloting innovative approaches to the education of young children. (LRSD Plan, pg. 12) The county's teachers, administrators, aides, HIPPY (Home Instruction Program for Preschool youngsters), and daycare program workers use Rockefeller as a demonstration center for training. (LRSD Plan, pg. 12) Parents and educational professionals from UALR and other area colleges advise the school and district staffs on all aspects of planning and implementation of the early childhood program. (LRSD Plan, pg. 12) Evaluate Rockefeller's early childhood education policies in terms of their impact on desegregation and educational goals. The parent committee on early childhood education is to evaluate policies (including private pay rates, lunch charges, vacation days, enrollment age, and sick days) for their impact on the early childhood program's viability as a desegregation tool, its competitiveness with private schools and daycares, and its ability to retain both its private paying and Title XX students. (LRSD Plan, pg. 13) The district allows students who attend the Rockefeller three-year-old program to continue on into the four-year-old program and the grades beyond. Siblings of early childhood students may attend Rockefeller in order to help retain children in the school. (LRSD Plan, pg. 13)  Explore developing Rockefeller as a year-round, lull-day school for children from infancy through sixth grade. A biracial group of teachers, parents, administrators, and experts from local universities and colleges works with the district to assess the feasibility of such a program. (LRSD Plan, pg. 13) 10OFFICE OF DESEGREGATION MONITORING Heritage West Building 201 East Markham, Suite 510 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 1993-94 INCENTIVE SCHOOL MONITORING GUIDE Monitors GuideSIX YEAR ENROLLMENT COMPARISON School 88-89 89-90 90-91 91-92 92-93 93-94 FramMio Elwn Stack 364 343 428 352 300 Whto 28 72 S9 71 SO 40 Olh\u0026amp;f 12 S: 8 8 Garland Elem Ish Elem CIftsad after 1992*93 school yaf. Mitchell Elem Rij^ttsell E)etn: Rockefeller Elem Stephane Bem Tolaf\n% Qk Black White Other Total % BIk Black White Other Total % BIk Black White Other Total % BIk Blade White Other Total %Sik Black White Other Total % BIk Slack: White Other Total %Slk: 442 94 276 23 299 92 178 19 197 i90 220 41 261 84 196 45 241 81 255 45 300 85 227 8 233 97 448 507 8^ 345 81 83 84 88 87 268 211 262 233 181 15 18 15 17 3 2 11 2 6 21 285 240 279 256 205 94 88 94 91 88 157 142 188 182 7 4\n5 0 3 0 164 146 200 187 96 97 94 9 220 133 285 232 215 19 24 27 28 12 0 0 0 4 3 239 207 312 264 230 92 88 91 88 93 194 191 282 2391 184 16 a 92 215 33 2 250 86 226 0 :1i 226 100 1 6 4 iil! 1935 99 HI 289 ill 240 189 195 71 5 271 72 190 12 0 202 94 98 96 97 282 250 240 116 104 93 5 7 7 403 361 340 70 69 71 235 202 141 9 7' 3 1 0 245 209 98 97 in 145 97 Grand Total Black White 1,766 207 1,643 162 1,455 189 1,962 253 1,690 220 1,261 155 Other 0 18 26 20 27 38 Total % BIk 1,973 90 1,823 90 1,670 87 2,235 88 1,937 87 1,454 87 The incentive program is successfully desegregating each incentive school. (LRSD Plan, pg. 149) Make recruiting white students to the incentive schools among district priorities, focusing the energy and resources necessary to ensure that the incentive schools become fully desegregated.  Identify the factors that are working to make Rockefeller a desegregated school and adopt or adapt them for the other incentive schools.STAFFING The selection and support of quality staff members will be critical factors in the success of incentive schools. Carefully planned staff-selection criteria and procedures will provide the quality personnel capable of successfully attaining the goals and implementing the programs and curriculum of these schools. (LRSD Plan, pg. 190) Progress is being made toward racially balancing both the certified and non-certified staff. (ODM 1992 Report, pg. 6) Position Black 1992-93 White Total % Black M F M F Siafh Certified Non-certified Total Percent jE^sssroom Teachers: Early Childhood Primary Intermediate Total Percent  Establish goals and objectives for racially balancing each incentive school staff as part of a comprehensive long-range strategic plan for implementing the incentive school features. In order to focus on racially balanced staffing, the district must have distinct goals, explicitly defined objectives, coordinated strategies, timetables, and benchmarks against which to measure progress. Without a comprehensive but specific plan for hitting its targets, the district will achieve racially balanced staffs only by happenstance. Although many aspects of staffing are beyond the control of administrators and their best laid plans, they can nevertheless make many useful assumptions and forecasts based on such factors as past staff turnover patterns and anticipated retirements.  Exempt incentive schools from being forced to accept any employees that have not been interviewed and recommended by the principal and the schools staffing committee. Although the LRSD must hire new staff and relocate some employees each year, the districts current practice of personnel assignments to the incentive schools is counterproductive to establishing a high quality school staff through a rigorous screening process. No employee should be assigned to an incentive school without first having been informed of the strong commitment and specific responsibilities required of staff at that school. Nor should staff be assigned to an incentive school unless they have been screened and recommended by the building staffing committee and principal. The Incentive Schools Staffing Committee is composed of teachers, parents, supervisors, principals, other administrators, and the Joshua Intervenors. The committee assesses staffing needs, sets criteria, assists in recruiting quality staff, and determines hiring procedures. (LRSD Plan, pg. 190) A staffing needs assessment process determines staff selection based upon the needs and interests of the student population. Factors to be considered include the number of students per grade level, their race and gender, academic achievement needs and interests, disciplinary needs, social interaction needs, and health needs. (LRSD Plan, pg. 190) The district must staff the schools in accordance with equitably meeting the identified needs of the staff and students in a particular school, making decisions regarding plan-recommended staff positions based on criteria linked to a current needs assessment of the individual school. The district is required to determine the need for alternative classrooms and establish them where necessary. (May 1992 Order, pp. 41-42)  Institute staffing needs assessment as an annual process in the incentive schools. The assessment process for determining staffing needs in the incentive schools should be more than a perfunctory exercise in complying with the letter of the desegregation plan. A well designed and conducted needs assessment is an excellent means of determining how best to serve incentive school students while meeting the districts need for fiscal responsibility. Annually assessing the staffing needs in each incentive school will allow the district to stay abreast of the changing needs of each incentive schools population, help indicate the progress made on a comprehensive long-range strategic plan, and support general budgeting processes.  Develop a comprehensive guide for assessing staffing needs which incorporates the factors listed in the plan as well as other relevant archival and anecdotal data. Whatever specific form it takes, the assessment should be a user-fnendly document that guides the staffing committee to certain logical conclusions based on the evidence generated by the assessment document. Data alone does not automatically show a certain need. The key is whether the needs assessors can translate \"data\" into 'information\" that suggests the level of need for certain specific positions.  Train principals and staffing committees in procedures for effectively assessing staffing needs. Training before initiating the staffing needs assessment can mean the difference between task success and failure. Training should include at least the purpose of the assessment process, types of data to be gathered, an orientation to the assessment instrument itself, introducing materials and people available to help in the process, and a \"walk-through\" of the process that includes how to analyze, correlate, and report the results. Involve the LRSD Human Resources Department as an integral part of the assessment process. Given the experience and expertise that should be resident in the districts Hiunan Resources Department (HR), that staff should be involved in the needs assessment process. Ultimately, it is Human Resources that will develop job descriptions and coordinate recruitment and hiring for positions identified by the needs assessment process. Involving HR on the \"front end\" should help ensure smooth continuity of the entire staffing process. Full-time positions recommended in the desegregation plan include classroom teachers, counselor, media specialist, music, art, P.E., social worker, permanent substitute, reading (remediation), math (remediation), computer lab attendant, resource, speech, alternative classroom specialist, media clerk, instructional aides (one per classroom), non-certified supervision aides, program specialist, principal, and assistant principal. (LRSD Plan, pg, 191) The district uses a current needs assessment of each school to determine the plan-recommended positions that should be filled, whether additional or different positions may be needed, and the need for alternative classrooms. (May 1992 Order, pp. 41-42) Each school has an appropriate number of instructional aides, based on a ratio of two aides to three classrooms if no kindergarten through sixth grade class has more than 20 students, or a one- to-one aide-to-classroom ratio if any classroom, K though six, has more than 20 students. (May 1992 Order, pg. 34)  Develop specific, comprehensive job descriptions for instructional and supervision aides. Each incentive school is unique in its expectations of the aides who serve in the building. Written job descriptions will help delineate specific job responsibilities. A clear understanding of job responsibilities will enhance the working relationships between teachers and aides, as well as provide the basis for performance evaluations and developing growth plans.  Make sure all aides receive a thorough orientation to their individual job along with comprehensive, ongoing formal training in areas such as child development, supervision and classroom management, learning styles, and discipline techniques. The training should be pre-service, so aides begin the year well-prepared and confident, as well as ongoing throughout the school year so aides knowledge can expand along with the awareness they gain from their day-to-day experiences. Tailor the training to the district needs of the instructional aides and supervision aides so that both their common and individual job responsibilities and challenges are addressed.  Provide teacher inservice training in the effective use of instructional aides that includes team-building activities for teacher and aide teams. The district must not assume that the act of pairing teachers and aides automatically produces an effective instructional team. Guided team-building activities give teachers and aides an opportunity to discover more about each other, identify and workout areas of potential conflict, and develop mutual understandings. Furthermore, training will familiarize teachers with the appropriate role of the instructional aide so teachers can determine the most effective ways in which their classroom assistants can foster a positive learning environment.TEST DATA The parties shall have as a high priority the elimination of educational achievement disparities between black and white students, and recognize that eliminating disparity may place greater demands on the black students in racially identifiable school than on others. (Interdis. Plan, pg. 6)DISCIPLINE, SUSPENSION, and EXPULSION School Short-term Suspensions Black White Long-term Suspensions Black White Expulsions Sont-Homes Black White Black White M F M F M F M F M F M F M F M F Franklin Garland Ish Mitchell Rightsell Rockefeller Stephens Disaggregate data related to student discipline and review student data to address issues of racial disparity. (Interdis. Plan, pg. 27) Carefully collect discipline data and closely monitor the discipline program to make modifications that are indicated by formative as well as summative information. The district would be wise to analyze the factors that contribute to some schools having fewer overall discipline problems and less disparity in discipline between black and white students. Identifying and emulating these factors and closely scrutinizing progress should result in interventions that reduce the number of students suspended or expelled as well as the disproportionate number of black students referred for disciplinary action. (ODM 1992 Report, pg. 23) Attendance and behavior guidelines include time-out rooms that are staffed with trained personnel. Students help develop school-based management rules and receive help with problem solving. (LRSD Plan, pp. 175, 184) Staff, parents, and students cooperatively design discipline policies. (ODM 1992 Report, pg. 23) Discipline policies and procedures are well-publicized, clearly indicate what is appropriate and inappropriate behavior, and spell out consequences for infractions. (ODM 1992 Report, pg. 23) Policy enforcement is fair and consistent. (ODM 1992 Report, pg. 23)  Make an effort to pair aides and teachers who are compatible with each other, and provide training that will enable instructional aides and classroom teachers to work together as an effective team.  Provide pre-service orientation and training for all aides, and follow-up with regular inservice, on topics that include behavior management techniques and other subjects that will contribute to the aides effectiveness. Classroom management approaches are appropriate for the work being done. (ODM 1992 Report, pg. 32)GIFTED AND TALENTED ENROLLMENT The district devotes special attention to identifying and placing in gifted and talented programs black students and students from low and middle socio-economic levels. (LRSD Plan, pg. 58) Gifted and talented education is tailored to challenge, exercise, and enlarge students individual talents and intellectual aptitudes. (ODM 1992 Report, pg. 18) Black White School Total % Black M F M F Franklin Garland Ish Mitchell Rightsell Rockefeller Stephens  Increase the amount of time the gifted and talented program specialists spend in the incentive schools so they can fully implement the G/T program and spend more time identifying the children whose needs can be met through the program.FACILITIES The district will provide clean and safe facilities and make all repairs fundamental to maintain the incentive schools. (LRSD Plan, pg. 129)  Continue to repair roof leaks at Franklin as they occur. Once a leak is corrected, repair or replace water damaged ceiling tiles and carpet.  Repaint the interior of Ish, if the school remains open. The spot-painting completed during the summer of 1992 improved the appearance of the building, but the walls need a complete paint job.  Repair or replace the leaky roof in Mitchells reading room.  Replace the loose floor tiles in Mitchells hallway.  Develop a schedule of carpet repair or replacement for Rockefeller, Mitchell, and Rightsell.  Repair the floor and wall in Rightsell classroom 3-B, and then replace any damaged carpet.  Take steps to correct the remaining drainage problems at Rightsell, including relocation of any downspout draining toward the foundation.  Make sure all incentive school principals are aware that district funds are available to improve landscaping at their schools if a parent, teacher, or community organization will take maintenance responsibility for plantings. All seven incentive schools would benefit aesthetically from the addition of attractive landscaping. Once plantings are installed, train the custodial staff in proper plant care to prevent loss of plantings to improper pruning or underwatering. (ODM 1992 Report, pg. 43)PROGRAMS AND OPERATIONS The incentive school program promotes and ensures academic excellence in schools that have been difficult to desegregate. The incentive school program compensates the victims of segregation and serves as a tool for promoting meaningful and long-lasting desegregation in these schools and in the entire school district. (LRSD Plan, pg. 149) A comprehensive long-range strategic plan has been developed for implementation of the incentive school program. (ODM 1992 Report, pg. 20) Each district will make a quarterly report to the Office of Desegregation Monitoring. (Interdis. Plan, pg. 6) The four-year-old program uses High Scope or a comparable curriculum model and a parent component is incorporated into the program. (LRSD Plan, pg. 152) Four-year-old enrollment is limited to 18 children per class. (ODM 1992 Report, pg. 10) The Early Childhood Education Task Force is an avenue for parent, teacher, and community input. (ODM 1992 Report, pg. 17)  Include as a member of the Early Childhood Education Task Force at least one instructional aide or teacher from each school having a four-year-old program.  Increase the involvement of area colleges and universities by naming active higher education representatives to the task force. Reading and oral expression are infused throughout all curriculum areas. (LRSD Plan, pg. 152) Reading comprehension and reading for meaning are stressed at every grade level. (ODM 1992 Report, pg. 32)  Base staff development activities on areas of demonstrated need. Some teachers may need more training than others in a given area in order to succeed. Now that the new curriculum has been in place for a full school year, principals should be able to determine which teachers need additional assistance.  Utilize Teacher Assistance Plans (TAP) for those teachers who need the help available through the TAP approach. Teachers who are unable to effectively deliver instruction in any curricular area should get immediate help\nassistance should not be reserved for those in imminent danger of dismissal.  Encourage principals and assistant principals to attend subject area inservice meetings so they, too, are well informed and understand the new curriculum. Parents and staff at each school develop school themes which are integrated into the curriculum. (LRSD Plan, pg. 153)Each school as a program specialist to support the thematic emphasis. (May 1992 Order, pg. 41) Fresh imaginative themes are established based upon each schools unique strengths. (ODM 1992 Report, pg. 20)  Ensure that each school develops and executes a plan for fully implementing its theme by the opening of the 1993-94 school year.  Provide equal treatment for Stephens Incentive School by providing full support for a school theme. Children at Stephens are entitled to every incentive school feature guaranteed them by the Settlement Plans, unless the district should seek, and the Court grant, permission to temporarily or permanently deviate from a particular plan provision.  Establish a schedule of regular meetings among the incentive school program specialists so they can discuss effective theme implementation strategies, share ideas, and review experiences.  Encourage interaction among the incentive school program specialists and those specialists assigned to the magnet schools. Capitalizing on in-house expertise and encouraging cooperation among the schools will help strengthen the districts programs. Students in grades 3-6 have access to either mobile or permanent science labs with adequate materials that allow children to execute long-term experiments and study science in the fullest sense. (LRSD Plan, pg. 153\nODM 1992 Report, pg. 15) The curriculum at each school incorporates foreign language instruction using the foreign language lab and the \"total physical response\" method of instruction. Emphasis is on basic vocabulary, conversation, and cultural materials. (LRSD Plan, pg. 156)  Schedule science inservice training for teachers who need or want help improving their science instruction. Principals should be able to determine which teachers are not fully using the science labs and steer them to staff development sessions devoted to enlivening science in the classroom.  Ensure that the materials needed for all science experiments are available to school staff and make sure teachers are aware of procurement procedures. Each building operates foreign language labs with appropriate equipment and materials. (LRSD Plan, pg. 153)  Capitalize on the districts resident expertise and experience to assist the incentive schools in establishing a foreign language program as an integral part of the overall school program. For some years, the LRSD has maintained a very popular and successful elementary international studies program at Gibbs Magnet School. At every grade level, foreign language instruction is an integral part of this schools program. Administrators and program developers should tap the cumulative expertise of the Gibbs staff to assist the incentive schools. Place as many qualified foreign language teachers as needed to provide Spanish instruction to incentive school students as part of the regular school day instructional program.  Encourage the Spanish teachers to develop a series of Spanish \"mini-lessons\" for each grade level to help the regular classroom teachers reinforce foreign language instruction across the curriculum. The Spanish teachers can develop daily 10 minute lessons to help classroom teachers reinforce the Spanish instruction provided by the foreign language teacher. The minilessons could also include activities centered on cultural materials.  Increase the amount and improve the quality of Spanish language materials available in each school. Once foreign language teachers are employed, they should be able to work with the districts Foreign Language Supervisor and the IRC Incentive School Specialist to acquire a variety of Spanish language materials, including computer software. The quality and quantity of foreign language materials available to schools has increased dramatically in recent years, so the district should have little difficulty locating many fine resources to enhance Spanish instruction. Parent Home Study Guides in each core subject area for each grade (1-6) will be available by the 1993-94 school year. (LRSD Plan, pg. 153) The district uses Computer Managed Instructional Technology (CMIT) to track student progress. (LRSD Plan, pg. 153) The district uses computer-generated criterion referenced tests for student assessment. (LRSD Plan, pg. 154)  Provide sufficient training and support to enable all schools to fully implement Abacus during the 1993-94 school year. The district has had a year to pilot the program and work out some of the bugs. Administrators should be able to design an effective training program and support system that can help each school use the new technology for the purpose intended in the desegregation plan. The school emphasizes a classics reading program and uses the basal reader to augment the classics. (LRSD Plan, pg. 154) Physical education (PE) and health are included in the total elementary curriculum with emphasis on wellness, lifelong leisure skills, nutrition, and respect for those wifti disabilities. (LRSD Plan, pg. 156)  Incorporate leisure time activities, which students can pursue throughout their lifetime, as part of the physical education curriculum.Social skills are taught, when appropriate, through the core instructional program. The total school staff serves as models of positive social interaction. Social skills instruction includes such programs as Rites of Passage, Role Models, and Mentoring. (LRSD Plan, pp. 156-157)  Strengthen efforts to recruit mentors for the students. Having at least one special friend, coach, and encourager can be so important to a childs development that every student who needs or wants a mentor should have one.  Consider a trainer of trainers program or similar means to equip principals or other school staff to train volunteer mentors. New school volunteer recruits are usually highly motivated to help children and want to get \"on the job\" right away without having to wait a lengthy period for a formal group training. Volunteers should not have to delay their service any longer than is absolutely necessary in order to receive training and orientation. Having on-site training available can expedite the period between volunteer sign-up and getting to work. However, because adequate training is so vitally important to the quality of a program and school volunteers success in meaningfully helping children and teachers, under no circumstances should the scope and quality of volunteer training be compromised or circumvented for the sake of expediency. Any job worth doing for kids is worth doing well, and volunteer jobs are no exception. The schools use local, state, and national field trips to enhance learning and broaden cultural experiences. Trips provide community access and racially desegregated experiences and activities for incentive school students together with other LRSD students. Exhibits and performances are also brought to the schools, and students participate in shadowing activities. (LRSD Plan, pp. 158, 173, 181\nInterdis. Plan, pg. 4)  Abandon the practice of limiting three- and four-year-old children to walking field trips and allow them to travel by bus to any appropriate site, with parental approval. Whatever the past misunderstanding that resulted in travel restrictions for young students, ADE should confirm that, with appropriate parent permission, it is lawful to transport children of these ages in public school busses. The schools use a Career Skills Development Program to develop career choices using written information, guest speakers, films, and interest inventories. (LRSD Plan, pp. 172, 180)  Treat and teach career skills development as an integral part of school life. School personnel should consistently point out relationships between all school activities and the world of work. They must also stay informed of changing job markets and have up-to-date labor market information so they can give their students the best possible instruction. Extended year school includes summer remediation and enrichment options at all incentive schools at no cost to students. Summer courses are prescribed for students. (LRSD Plan, pp. 172, 180)Extended year is a continuation of the regular school year. (ODM 1992 Report, pg. 25) Academic enhancements are evident in extended programs. (ODM 1992 Report, pg. 25) Attendance at extended programs is recorded by grade level, race, and gender. (ODM 1992 Report, pg. 25) Cumulative records document both host and guest schools participation in Saturday programs. (ODM 1992 Report, pg. 25) Saturday programs will be developed to enhance learning. These programs will include but shall not be limited to field trips, enrichment activities, tutoring, parent/child make-and-take sessions, book fairs, and physical education activities. (LRSD Plan, pg. 179)  Solicit candid feedback from summer school participants (including staff, parents, and students) about what they most and least valued about the summer school programs. Ask them to identify those elements that enticed them into the program, what facilitated their participation, and any barriers that impeded it.  Ask incentive school parents and students who did not take part in summer school to identify why they did not participate and what would most likely induce them to attend.  Seek broad-based input from incentive school staff, parents, and students to leam what course offerings or other program features make summer school most appealing to prospective participants.  Routinely monitor and evaluate summer school as part of a comprehensive, ongoing process for continuous improvement. Include the incentive school principals, teachers, students, and parents in the assessment, publish and analyze the results, and then act decisively upon what the evaluation reveals.  Mount an aggressive marketing campaign for summer school recruitment, getting ideas from staff, students, and parents and also encouraging them to help recruit.  Maintain thorough and accurate records of all summer school information, including planning, recruitment efforts, surveys or other means of input and feedback, evaluations, a tally of children participating in each program category and individual class, and a record of these students home school. Comprehensive records will enable program planners to track success and make appropriate program modifications as needed.  Consider implementing the recommendations made by the extended year administrative staff in the districts summary report.  Encourage partnered schools to develop some joint projects and co-activities so students will leam how to plan, organize, and cooperate on activities that they develop. Shared ventures could help increase participation in Saturday School activities. The principals should collaborate with each other to provide the necessary resources and to ensure successful projects. Consider pairing Franklin with two smaller incentive schools for Saturday School activities so no incentive school is without a partner to encourage sharing and variety. The schools schedule Special Skills Programs during the time designated for extended day activities. Scheduling for extended day meets the needs of students and includes the homework center, special skills training, and leisure time activities. Students finishing activities early report either to the homework center, CARE, or leave the campus at the request of a parent or guardian. (LRSD Plan, pp. 173, 174, 181, 184) The district surveys parents and students to determine the most appealing extended day activities. (ODM 1992 Report, pg. 25) The extended day program, which is based on information gleaned from SEPs, school staff, parents, and students, reinforces and extends the SEP to meet individual needs. (ODM 1992 Report, pg. 25)  Design the extended day survey to include a description of the skills a student develops while engaged in leisure time activities. This design will help parents and students recognize the importance of a good balance between work and play.  Make sure all extended day students have an opportunity for some fun activities, such as jump rope, board games, or making up and reciting rhymes. Its developmentally and emotionally healthy for students to participate in wholesome activities just for fun. Compacts provide students access to community support programs, such as volunteers and preprofessionals from colleges and universities, and assistance from social agencies. (LRSD Plan, pp. 175, 183) Students have access to a wide spectrum of community-based programs. (ODM 1992 Report, pg- 39)  Consider having VIPS train incentive school principals to serve as instructors for new mentors so these building leaders can conduct their own streamlined, on-site mentor training.  Allow principals to contact and select pre-professionals from institutions of higher education when the opportunity presents itself. Sometimes the best deals occur because of a chance meeting at a seminar or conference. It doesnt make sense for a good opportunity to get lost in bureaucratic wastelands.  Expand contacts with and widen access to the variety of community-based programs designed to support children and families. Study skills training enhances skills in test taking, listening, and studying. Test taking skills are being taught and students practice test taking. (LRSD Plan, pp. 153, 176, 183\nODM 1992 Report, pg. 32) Regular tracking of student attendance, behavior, discipline, and achievement is systematic and assessed at least quarterly. Individual and class profiles are utilized. Individual student plans and interventions are based on needs determined through ongoing data review. (LRSD Plan, pp. 176, 186) Disaggregate test results to enable an assessment of the short- and long-term correlation between test performance and such variables as how long a student has been enrolled at a particular school, behavior and attendance records, and participation in such programs as early childhood and extended day, week, and year. (ODM 1992 Report, pg. 32)  Allow teachers who want to leave the incentive schools to do so with impunity. If staff members wish to transfer elsewhere, they are not necessarily unfit or incompetent\nthey may simply not be suited for the incentive school experience. It cannot be overemphasized that the district should only assign people to the incentive schools who are not only talented, committed, and experienced, and who also want to be there.  Comply with the requirement to develop complete student performance profiles for each child and then use the information to define and guide each students learning path and to help determine the effect of the variables these profiles record. Students receive individual and group counseling and are taught conflict resolution. The school uses peer facilitators. (LRSD Plan, pp. 176, 184) The staff has developed written building guidance plans to address personal growth, social development, career awareness, and educational development. (ODM 1992 Report, pg. 27) The school collaborates with the Arkansas Department of Human Services (DHS) and Department of Health. (ODM 1992 Report, pg. 27)  Make sure that each incentive school has a full-time certified guidance counselor on staff throughout the school year.  Decide each incentive schools need for a social worker, then staff accordingly.  Require incentive school counselors to meet as a group on a regular basis. Such meetings will provide an informal atmosphere in which to discuss problems unique to incentive schools, develop solutions, share ideas and success stories, and to explore ways to expand their resources. Counselors need the support and encouragement they could get from an organized group of peers.PARENT AND COMMUNITY INVOLVEMENT The district will establish an incentive school parent program to equip parents with job skills necessary for employability at all levels within the school. Program objectives and activities include\ndesigning and administrating a needs assessment to determine community interests and needs, adult education opportunities, a parent internship program to recruit and employ neighborhood parents as teacher aides and other positions, and mentorships between parents and teachers. (LRSD Plan, pp. 178, 189, 206, 207)  Assign a district employee the responsibility for fully developing and implementing the plan requirements for a program that will equip parents with job skills necessary for employment at all levels within the incentive schools. Be sure to include program goals, objectives, timelines, persons responsible for each step of implementation, and evaluation criteria.  Follow up to provide appropriate assistance to survey respondents who have expressed interest in receiving specialized help from the district, such as obtaining their GED.  Evaluate the cost effectiveness of using local community resources, such as the Parent Learning Center, as a means for providing education opportunities for parents. A Parent Center in each school provides resources and materials, recommended by a parent and staff committee, that can be loaned to parents. A parent has been trained to operate the center, which is to be the source of a monthly communications packet that is distributed to parents. (LRSD Plan, pp. 206, 208) The schools actively seek parent recommendations for resources to be housed in the Parent Centers, incorporating as many of their suggestions as possible. The school documents the degree to which parents use the center and its resources. (ODM 1992 Report, pg. 39) The schools offer parent workshops to assist parents in understanding and carrying out school expectations. The workshops include such topics as study skills, discipline, time management, pre-reading skills, financial management, and developmental learning skills. (LRSD Plan, pg. 209) Document parent training activities by topic, time, and location along with the number of participants by race, gender, and the childs school. Participants feedback on how well the session was conducted and their perception of the potential helpfulness of the training is regularly collected and analyzed. (ODM 1992 Report, pg. 39)  Evaluate the parent workshops offered to determine if they are meeting the plans goal of helping incentive school parents understand and carry out school expectations.  Ask workshop participants to evaluate each session at its conclusion to make candid suggestions for training improvement and future session topics. Then carefully analyze the feedback to assess the quality and relevancy of the training and make changes accordingly. Recognition is used as a tool for community and parent involvement. The school recognizes parents and the community at monthly PT A meetings, displays awards, gives school lunch vouchers to award winners, and involves students in the recognition selection process. (LRSD Plan, pp. 209-210) The school makes parent and volunteer recognition an integral, ongoing, and highly visibly part of school life. (ODM 1992 Report, pg. 38) Home and school communication is evident at each incentive school. Parents attend school activities and monthly school meetings and serve as volunteers. The staff formulates early indicators and early intervention programs using alert and success cards to update parents on their childs needs and achievements. Parents have access to the school through identified transportation pick-up points within the school community. (LRSD Plan, pp. 174, 176, 183, 184, 188, 206, 210-211) Complete documentation of all parent meetings and activities is maintained including sign-in sheets that reflect parents race, gender, and the school their child attends. (ODM 1992 Report, pg. 38)School 1993-94 Volunteers Hours BM BF WM WF Unidentified Total Franklin Garland Ish Mitchell Rightsell Rockefeller Stephens TOTAL Parents are asked to sign all homework assignments on a daily basis. (LRSD Plan, pp. 174, 183, 210) Mechanisms are established at each school to ensure that parents regularly sign homework. (ODM 1992 Report, pg. 38) Require at least two or more home visits. (LRSD Plan, pp. 206, 211) The staff documents the number and date of visits to each students home, along with who made the visit, to determine if each family is visited at least twice yearly. (ODM 1992 Report, pg. 38) School 1993-94 Home Visits Franklin Garland Ish Mitchell Rightsell Rockefeller Stephens TOTAL Each school provides community role models and a mentoring program. (LRSD Plan, pg. 157) The district has mounted an intense mentor recruitment campaign. (ODM 1992 Report, pg. 29) Individual school volunteer mentoring programs are coordinated with VIPS and all volunteers are screened and trained prior to being matched with students. (ODM 1992 Report, pg. 29) The school maintains mentor-student records that include the race, gender, participation hours, and types of activities shared by the mentors and their students. Records of training participants by race, gender, and classification (i.e. student, mentor, parent, teacher) are also maintained. (ODM 1992 Report, pg. 30)  Standardize the method staff uses to document and report home and school communication to promote data consistency and accuracy. In order to standardize reporting and minimize the burden of documentation, schools could use a simple form identifying the contact date, type of contact (such as parent/teacher conference, home visit, interim or monthly report, phone call, success or alert card), which staff member contacted whom (parent, grandparent, guardian, or other), and a brief description of the results of the contact or any other pertinent information.  Train incentive school principals and staff to serve as trainers for new mentors so they can conduct their own mentor training, if needed, and thereby expedite mentor placement.  Develop transportation policies and procedures, ensiuing that principals are aware of this service, know how to identify parents transportation needs, and understand how to arrange for it to support parent participation where needed. Parents sign contractual commitments prior to enrolling their child in an incentive school. (LRSD Plan, pg. 211) The schools have follow-up procedures to remind parents of the commitments they made in the contracts they signed at registration. (ODM 1992 Report, pg. 38)  Provide parents with current school year contracts to sign when they register their children in the incentive schools. Contracts with old dates and information convey a sloppy message that parents can interpret as a sign that the either the school, the district, or both dont place much value on the contracts or parent commitments. A speakers bureau on education issues for community groups exists in school zones. Each school has identified three key communicators. The school staff coordinates events to promote neighborhood pride. These strategies work together to raise the trust level between the school and the community. (LRSD Plan, pp. 210, 213)  Assign a LRSD employee the responsibility for coordinating the speakers bureaus and assisting the key communicators. Without consistent direction and support, those who volunteer as a speaker or key communicator cant be expected to carry out their responsibilities effectively.  Develop and implement a comprehensive plan for utilizing the services of the speakers bureaus and key communicators that includes specific goals, objectives, the persons responsible, and evaluation criteria to determine success and where changes need to be made.  Develop job descriptions for the speakers bureau and key communicators that clearly identify the job goal, qualifications, performance expectations, the participant and district responsibilities, and the amount of time that will likely be required to successfully perform each job. The Incentive School Program Parent Council functions as a districtwide council of incentive school parents. Membership includes two parents from each incentive school and four appointed by Joshua. The Council monitors all activities related to the incentive school program and reports quarterly to the LRSD Board of Directors and the Joshua Intervenors. (LRSD Plan, pg. 151) Create job descriptions for council members that clearly identify the districts expectations of the council, membership responsibilities, and the amount of service time involved.  Outline the councils organizational structure and its working and reporting relationship to the school board, district administrators, the incentive schools, and other monitoring entities.  Provide a comprehensive orientation for the council at the beginning of each school year so all members will understand their role, district policies and procedures, communication channels, and what district resources and support are available.  Develop and cany out a specific plan for meeting council obligations that includes goals and objectives, tasks, timelines, persons responsible, and evaluation criteria that address the councils desegregation plan obligations.  Develop a monitoring instrument for council use that conelates specifically with desegregation plan and court order requirements. Such an instrument and the information it elicits will facilitate an ongoing assessment of how well the district is complying with its legal obligations.  Help the council develop monitoring and reporting procedures, guidelines, and schedules that provide members clear direction for their monitoring tasks.  Coordinate monitoring activities with other internal monitoring groups including the district biracial committee, school biracial committee, and the Department of Planning, Research and Evaluation. Such coordination will help avoid monitoring gaps and duplication and also help ensure more effective use of time and other resources. The districtwide Biracial Committee, whose members represent various geographic areas of the community, will monitor the incentive schools quarterly. (LRSD Plan, pp. 224, 225) The Biracial Committee will furnish copies of their monitoring reports to the incentive school principals and various district officials. The Office of Planning, Research and Evaluation (PRE) will prepare quarterly reports that summarize all monitoring visits. The superintendent will share the PRE document with the Board of Directors at their regularly scheduled meetings. The Associate Superintendent for Desegregation is responsible for eliminating any noted deficiencies in a timely manner. (LRSD Plan, pg. 225) Before July 1 of each year, the district will convene a committee to revise the instrument used to monitor the incentive schools, ensuring that it conforms with the expectations set for the program. The review committee shall consist of: incentive school principals, the superintendents senior management team, specialists from PRE, and six members of the Biracial Committee (two of whom must be Joshua appointees). Any resulting revisions must be submitted to the LRSD Board and Joshua by August 15. (LRSD Plan, 225)PARENT RECRUITMENT The district will inform the community about the incentive schools and their special features by providing informational sessions to special interest and community groups, including churches. Additional strategies will include conducting Saturday information booths at malls and neighborhood stores, securing special media coverage, and developing an incentive school telephone hotline. The district will distribute highlight sheets to all elementary parents and local businesses. (LRSD Plan, pp. 215, 218-219) Recruitment will be an ongoing process with each incentive school establishing a parent recruitment team to encourage voluntary assignments that enable the schools to comply with desegregation requirements. (LRSD Plan, pp. 132, 135, 215\nInterdis. Plan, pg. 57) The districts recruitment strategies will include public service announcements, billboards, a media blitz, videocassette recordings, flyers, open houses, targeted neighborhood blitzes, small group tours, a special designation from the Arkansas Department of Education (ADE), and celebrity endorsements. Each school will establish a speakers bureau and help the district develop a brochure highlighting their school. Meetings will be held with NLRSD and PCSSD parents and PTA groups to encourage M-to-M transfers. (LRSD Plan, pp. 215-216, 220-222) The LRSD will establish a speakers bureau to target parents of four-year-olds\nidentify a database of four-year-old white residents within Pulaski County by July 1991 for targeted marketing\nand develop a method of identifying and making systematic contact with parents of newborns and children up to three years of age. (Marketing Plan, pp. 8, 10, 11) Parent recruiters will focus on recruiting white students to desegregate the incentive schools and conduct recruitment activities. (LRSD Plan, pp. 216, 222) All parties have made firm commitments to assist the LRSD in desegregating the incentive schools. (May 1992 Order, pg. 29) The LRSD will\nestablish a strategic plan, based on the recruitment section of the desegregation plan, that reflects a well thought-out, interrelated process\npresent a firm timetable in its recruitment plan and strictly adhere to it\ndevelop a tracking system to determine the success of particular awareness and recruitment efforts, especially with identified geographic areas and specific groups\nincrease the number and variety of specifically targeted recruitment activities. (ODM 1992 Report, pp. 4, 5) The LRSD Incentive School Marketing Plan includes the following strategies: implementing a tracking system\nprioritizing target audiences\nholding promotional training sessions at each incentive school\nand developing an open house program. Additional strategies include developing an annual communications program to highlight staff and student achievements\ncreating a communications process between each school and the district to encourage systematic input of newsworthy events\nand pre-testing communication materials prior to production. (Marketing Plan, pp. 5-7, 9, 12, 14, 15-17, 18) The Biracial Advisory Committee, with the advice of marketing and advertising experts, will serve as the steering committee for incentive school recruitment. The committee will review bimonthly recruitment reports from the desegregation office, evaluate the program quarterly and recommend needed changes to the Board of Directors. (LRSD Plan, pp. 217, 223) The Biracial Committees monitoring instrument will include a recruitment assessment. (ODM 1992 Report, pg. 5) Evaluate the means parent recruiters are using to inform the community about the incentive schools hotline, then analyze the findings to determine more effective ways to heighten awareness of this service. For example, district recruiters could distribute the hotline number to patrons as part of presentations about the incentive schools. The number could be featured in television and radio public service announcements\nit could also be placed in brochures or other printed materials to inform parents of the hotline service.  Ensure that prospective parents receive information about the incentive schools by expanding the target audience. Parents and their children are the primary customers of the districts services, so the LRSD must ensure that its message about the incentive schools is reaching the potential consumers. One way recruiters could expand their targeting efforts is by making presentations about the incentive schools to groups that include parents, such as neighborhood associations, churches, civic and social organizations, and the districts Partners in Education.  Assign specific district employees the responsibility and accoimtability for fully developing and implementing all the districts recruitment obligations identified in the desegregation plans, marketing plan, and court orders. The district must demonstrate its commitment to the incentive schools by identifying specific individuals who are responsible for incentive school recruitment, and adjusting job descriptions as necessary to reflect the duties required of these employees. Further, the district should hold these employees strictly accoimtable for implementing recruitment strategies for the incentive schools.  Develop a system to ensure that employees responsible for incentive school recruitment receive all monitoring reports and court orders that deal with the incentive schools. Before employees can be held accountable for the districts legal obligations, workers must know what they are. Employees working with incomplete or outdated information will not be able to do the thorough job that is necessary for successfully desegregating the schools.  Establish parent recruitment teams in each incentive school, staffing the teams according to qualifications and job descriptions that clearly state the team charge, the districts expectations, qualifications (such as skills, experience, or school affiliation), the amount of time involved, and the precise duties anticipated.  Implement an orientation and training schedule for the recruitment teams that utilizes the skills and expertise of parents and district personnel who have a track record of successfully promoting desegregation. The district will be wise to capitalize on the inhouse expertise that abounds in the experiences of parents and employees who have learned what works. These veterans can give suggestions, guidance, and support to others.  Utilize up-to-date enrollment and school capacity data to develop a plan to target specific schools and neighborhoods for recruitment to the incentive schools.The voluntary transfer aspect of the desegregation plan is a strong ally in promoting school racial balance if the district will capitalize on this feature of their plan. For example, parent recruiters and school recruitment teams can target westside schools with high white enrollment, acquainting parents with the featiu'es of the incentive schools that offer special advantages and conveniences for downtown workers who commute from the western areas. Schools having a high percentage of white enrollment, like Otter Creek or Terry for example, could be the focus of a neighborhood blitz.  Survey white parents in LRSD and PCSSD to find out what features they consider when selecting a school and what would prompt them to request a desegregation transfer to an incentive school for their children.  Develop a comprehensive and detailed annual recruitment plan for each incentive school. This plan should reflect each schools individual needs while also capitalizing on the schools strengths. It should take into account districtwide enrollment distribution and survey feedback from parents on what prompts them to choose a certain school for their children. It should include all the districts legal recruitment obligations\nspecify goals, objectives, and timelines\nidentify persons responsible for each step of implementation\nand delineate evaluation criteria. For example, because the best salesperson for any school is a satisfied parent, the district could focus its recruitment strategy on the parent recruitment teams in each building. Then, each team could work with the district to develop a plan that includes the districts legal obligations along with areas of interdistrict collaboration. These teams, along with the biracial committee, could regularly evaluate the effectiveness of the recruitment.  Annually identify specific recruitment goals for each incentive school and regularly track the headway made toward each goal. Each year recruiters ne\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_429870","title":"List of Dunbar graduates related to the Dunbar History Project","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":["List of Dunbar graduates related to the Dunbar History Project"],"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/429870"],"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":38,"next_page":39,"prev_page":37,"total_pages":362,"limit_value":12,"offset_value":444,"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}}]}}