{"response":{"docs":[{"id":"bcas_bcmss0837_279","title":"Business cases","collection_id":"bcas_bcmss0837","collection_title":"Office of Desegregation Management","dcterms_contributor":null,"dcterms_spatial":["United States, 39.76, -98.5","United States, Arkansas, 34.75037, -92.50044","United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, 34.76993, -92.3118","United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, Little Rock, 34.74648, -92.28959"],"dcterms_creator":null,"dc_date":["1995/1996"],"dcterms_description":null,"dc_format":["application/pdf"],"dcterms_identifier":null,"dcterms_language":["eng"],"dcterms_publisher":["Little Rock, Ark. : Butler Center for Arkansas Studies. Central Arkansas Library System."],"dc_relation":null,"dc_right":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC-EDU/1.0/"],"dcterms_is_part_of":["Office of Desegregation Monitoring records (BC.MSS.08.37)","History of Segregation and Integration of Arkansas's Educational System"],"dcterms_subject":["Little Rock (Ark.)--History--20th century","Little Rock School District","Education--Arkansas","Education--Finance","Educational law and legislation"],"dcterms_title":["Business cases"],"dcterms_type":["Text"],"dcterms_provenance":["Butler Center for Arkansas Studies"],"edm_is_shown_by":null,"edm_is_shown_at":["http://arstudies.contentdm.oclc.org/cdm/ref/collection/bcmss0837/id/279"],"dcterms_temporal":null,"dcterms_rights_holder":null,"dcterms_bibliographic_citation":null,"dlg_local_right":null,"dcterms_medium":["documents (object genre)"],"dcterms_extent":null,"dlg_subject_personal":null,"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":"\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n\n\n\n   \n\n\n\n\n   \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n  \n\nRECEfVFo OCT 2 4 1995 Office of ^^^^d^egation ^omioring LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT BUSINESS CASE ALTERNATIVES TO IMPROVE CUSTODIAL/GROUNDS \u0026amp; MAINTENANCE SERVICE c August 24, 1995LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT BUSINESS CASE ALTERNATIVES TO IMPROVE CUSTODIAUGROUNDS \u0026amp; MAINTENANCE SER VICE EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Aging facilities, limited resources and the need to prioritize assets are all conunon problems faced by school districts. Our specific challenge is how to keep our need in balance and provide adequate, safe and suitable facilities to meet our educational needs and do it a reasonable cost. The situation that the Little Rock School District faces, with regard to its facilities and custodial program, is not unlike that of most other school districts in the United States. Support Services functions have often had their budgets reduced to support academic programs. The emergence on the market of firms who specialize in school district support management have certainly added a boost to the overall appearance and professionalism of the way school districts conduct their support programs. Many of these firms offer programs that allow school districts to leverage limited resources in ways not available to districts to improve the overall quality of service in custodial and maintenance functions. The history particular to the Little Rock School District shows a school system which has expanded over the last twelve (12) years, but not kept up with the finances necessary to support this expansion. The backlog of maintenance and repair in the Little Rock School District are projects beyond the capability of the in-house work force or a small management company to complete. Committing the district at this time to reorganizing our assets commensurate with our financial and physical abilities is a prudent management step. It is necessary to reassess our programs and assets on a continual basis to ensure that they are meeting the districts educational goals. Outside influences regarding the way that the Little Rock School District does business, such as the Desegregation Plan, expanding State and Federal laws, monitoring groups and parent committees all play a role in analyzing this problem.The administration recommends forming a partnership with a firm which will provide the expertise to allow the district to better utilize its assets and will add the additional resources necessary to meet the objective of cleaner, safer schools utilizing existing available funds. Forming a partnership with a management firm would give this district a boost in resources and capital investment and would jump start the custodial and maintenance program. PROBLEM DEFINITION The Little Rock School District has a need to improve the appearance and overall visual condition and cleanliness of its facilities so as to enhance its recruitment and educational programs and to minimize long term damage due to neglect or non repair. BACKGROUND The Custodial and Grounds aspects of the Maintenance Program of the Little Rock School District are duties which are assigned the custodial staff of the various facilities. The custodians receive technical assistance in broad terms from the Plant Services Department but work directly for the individual principals. There is a long history of actions that have been taken regarding custodial service in this District which must be closely examined. Another major aspect of the Plant Services Department is the Maintenance and Repair Program. The Maintenance and Repair Program also has undergone significant changes in the last several years which are additionally provided as general background information. Each of these two (2) subjects will be addressed individually. Custodial and Grounds In 1986, the Little Rock School District had approximately 216 full time equivalent positions to maintain its custodial mission. This was an average of one (1) FTE per each 11,672 square feet. During that year, the Administration proposed to the Board a Plan to use an outside contractor to perform the cleaning duties of the Little Rock School District. It was estimated that the District could save over $250,000 annually by using a contract cleaning service. The proposal was not approved\nhowever, the Board instead charged the Plant Services Department with making cuts in custodial staffing, supplies and training to save $250,000 annually. The custodial staff reduction was achieved and a partial formula for staffing was adopted as a guideline for future staff planning. The full time equivalents rose to one (1) custodian for each 17,700 square feet or approximately 200 custodians. A plan known as the Omaha Formula was considered the most plausible and was applied generally throughout the District\nhowever, certain exceptions were made in Magnet and Incentive 2Schools. The plan also called for the custodial staff of each facility to report directly to an on-site supervisor, normally the principal. It was this on-site supervisor that made the final selection for hiring replacements and handled disciplinary action and recommended termination. In order to provide assistance to the on-site supervisors in managing custodial activities, the Plant Services Department employed four (4) custodial supervisors and recommended a custodial manager. Except dtiring summer months when the on-site supervisor was absent from the building, the custodial supervisors were not responsible for direct supervision of the custodial staff, but rather provided technical assistance, training, inspections, job site assistance, recommendations to the on-site supervisor and general persormel management functions. This program was recommended in the draft Desegregation Plan\nhowever, budget cuts in 1989 precluded this entire process from being implemented. Custodial supervisors were hired but the custodial manager to oversee the program and provide general technical expertise in custodial matters was never funded. To supplement absences in custodial staffing during the normal school year, a substitute program was implemented whereby the District would hire individuals\npay them at minimum wage and with minimum training would be assigned to the schools to assist the custodial staff. This proved to be very costly, both in dollars and in resources and was modified in December of 1991 when the Plant Services Department instituted a custodial position request procedure and a substitute custodial program. The substitute custodial program deleted another $250,000 from the custodial training program so that these funds could be used for higher district priorities. It established a priority system whereby substitutes would be pulled from a minimum pool of 25 custodians and sent to schools on a priority basis. Additionally it provided the six (6) temporary personnel to augment the ground capabilities of the Plant Services Department to compensate for the lack of training, expertise and abilities of the substitute custodians to do grounds work. The procedure was put in place in 1992. In August of 1992, during the beginning of the budget cycle for the following year, $220,000 was cut from the Plant Services Departftients custodial budget. It should be mentioned that a complete analysis was done at that time of the entire custodial program by the department. It was determined that over staffing against the Omaha Formula and leveling the staff to meet the needs of that formula would save approximately $150,000. This redistribution of custodial assets had previously been recommended by the Little Rock School District Curriculum Review (1990) which recommended equitable staffing among all schools. However, to meet the remaining goal of $220,000, additional cuts came by not filling custodial supervisory vacancies. As a result, the four (4) custodial supervisors were reduced to three (3). The remaining savings came from custodial supplies. In October of 1992, custodial supervisory responsibilities were realigned so as to ensure all schools and administrative buildings were covered to a minimum degree. In August of 1993, after testimony was given in court to these procedures, an evaluation was done of the custodial reductions of 1992 and recommendations were made to the superintendent to make adjustments. A Business Case was written and submitted and certain adjustments were made to the Omaha Formula throughout the district. The evaluation was provided to the Federal 3Court in January of 1993, along with a history of staff changes from 1991 through 1993. In 1993 and 1994, due to further staff reductions, two (2) of the three (3) remaining custodial supervisors were deleted. This left a staff of one (1) custodial supervisor, whose primary concern was to manage the Substitute Custodial Program with very limited training and custodial advising. New requirements, such as HAZMAT training and asbestos training has been picked up by the Plant Services Department and have fallen under the job description of the Environmental Coordinator. General overall training of the custodial staff has fallen tremendously due to the result of budget cuts in the supervisory functions to administer this program. The present situation is that custodians work for the principals, as has been the case since 1986. The Plant Services Department provides only minimal training and assistance due to the lack of management personnel. From the program initiated in 1991, where the Plant Services Department had full responsibility for training, scheduling and technical assistance, we have a program now where this is only provided on a minimal basis. Grounds allocations have been made, such that immediate responsibility close into the building is the responsibility of the custodial staff and the mowing of major areas and open fields, to include athletic fields, is the responsibility of Plant Services. Maintenance and Repair Throughout this budget cutting scenario from 1986 to the present time, the maintenance side of the program has had to adjust constantly to decreasing resources. Prior to 1986 and the transfer of the southwest Little Rock schools from PCSSD, the ratio of maintenance workers to square foot responsibility was 1:48,000. When the schools were transferred to LRSD control the ratio changed to 1:72,500 sf. At the time the transfer occurred, no additional manpower was given to the maintenance department to compensate for this additional workload. The installation of an Energy Management Program in 1988 to monitor facilities energy consumption, the installation of an automated maintenance management program in 1991 to keep track of costs, scheduled work and assisting in the prioritization of work has helped the maintenance program make some improvements. The establishment of priorities for all work assigned to the Plant Services Department which was put in place in early 1992, has aided in ensuring that the work necessary for the health safety and operational support of ongoing programs is accomplished and that work necessary to support new programs is prioritized against the needs of the new program and long range and deferred work is treated appropriately as funds become available. Budget cuts in the maintenance program over the last: five (5) years have amoimted to over $750,000. Part of this has been offset by a better utilization of the energy monitoring system, which has allowed the district to save over $450,000 in the last five (5) years. This money was not directed back into the maintenance program to offset the loss of normal budget cuts, but rather into the general pool and used by the administration against all of the Little Rock school District priorities. 4Supplementing the custodial effort at the schools, there are twelve (12) building engineers at: the larger secondary schools and administration buildings to assist in doing minor maintenance. The building engineers work for the principals arid receive supplies and technical support from the Plant Services Department. The overall condition of our schools indicates an array of buildings that generally meet minimal needs of our academic program. However, there is need for improvement. Conelating this background to our problem definition gives rise to the questions on how to enhance our facilities and to sustain our maintenance and custodial operations with diminishing resources. ALTERNATIVES AND ANALYSIS Leading up to this business case, the administration made contact with several providers of management firms to learn of the benefits of their programs. Information was secured from firms which provide management services in custodial and maintenance areas by issuing a request for information in early 1995. This request for information was responded to by three (3) companies. A committee reviewed the three (3) proposals and agreed that discussions would be held with ServiceMaster to determine whether or not management plan could be put together in such a way that management services could be secured and funded from increased productivity. The end result would be a more organized and systematic support system of custodial and maintenance services to our schools. Information regarding comments and analysis dealing with management services were derived over a three (3) month period with ServiceMaster during May through July. Four (4) different alternatives have been considered. Alternative Number One - Do Nothing. Doing nothing must be considered an alternative. It implies that the cunent situation would remain as is and that forces impacting this alternative, such as reductions or enhancements in FTEs, supplies, equipment would be subject to the normal budget process of the District. The Custodial \u0026amp; Maintenance Program would fall in line with all other District priorities, and funds would be appropriated based on budget needs. The budget would not allow for enhancements in the Custodial or Maintenance Programs, but sustain them at the current level. Alternative Number Two - Add Resources/Reorganization. Additional resources are assuredly needed by the custodial and maintenance staff to enhance our facilities. But simply adding resources will not suffice, A cursory review of our program indicates that most of these resources are needed not in additional personnel, but in equipment, training and programs that could raise the stature and expertise of our custodial staff. Additional resources would most assuredly have to be made in the area of custodial supervisors and a custodial manager. The implications of cleanliness goes well beyond maintaining clean floors and clean bathrooms. Our need to maintain facilities that are safe from airborne diseases, rodents, insects, and to support indoor air quality programs coupled with laws requiring training and protection in hazardous material handling, asbestos and chemicals, 5and the need to understand new cleaning methods and materials on the market make additional resources mandatory regardless of which alternative is chosen. Reorganization would consist of realigning the custodial staff, the infusion of trained managers to run this program, the realignment of building engineer assets to make the grounds and preventive maintenance programs more effective, and a plan to coordinate all the different functions. This can be done initially out of personnel assets presently assigned to the district, but would require the addition of a number of managers at an approximate cost of $160,000 and at least $300,000 in capital equipment. However, a considerable amount of time would have to be given to the Plant Services Department to put together a viable reorganization plan to ensure that all facets of the custodial and maintenance program could be supported. It is estimated that this would take approximately two months to study and analyze, and another 12 -24 months to implement. The biggest disadvantage to this option in addition to the need for more resources and time for implementation is that there are no guarantees of success. Alternative Number Three - Contract Out. Contracting out normally refers to the situation where a company, expert in a specific area, comes into an organization and takes over all aspects of that function to include personnel. It would mean that a company would provide all levels of management of not only the subject area, such as custodial and maintenance, but areas such as engineering, financial supplies, etc. Employees would be members of that firm and not of the school district, and the school district would pay a set amount each year for this contract. Contract management can bring to a district a large and fast infusion of equipment and expert training, which is needed to jump start a program. However, the pay back is usually costly and over a long period of time, such that the management firm can amortize their costs. Many times when a district buys a \"Management Package\" it is forced to buy the entire package to include elements of the program that they may already be providing to be able to get the portions of the programs that they actually want. Alternative Number Four- Professional Management Services. In this concept our school district would enter into a partnership with a firm that would agree to provide the resources and expertise that is unavailable to the district due to budget constraints. By combining the skills and abilities of district staff with the technology and resources of an experienced provider of professional management services, we would be able to improve the delivery of custodial and maintenance services without having to spend any additional dollars. The aforementioned three month study and discussion with ServiceMaster has led to a specific management plan which has been custom designed to achieve district objectives of better maintained schools, employment procedures and practices continued (Employees will continue to work for LRSD with existing wages and benefits), and no increase in current fiscal year budget. An appendix of additional information has been provided as an attachment to this business case. 6Advantages  Cleaner and better maintained schools  Faster implementation of resources  Better coordination of custodial and maintenance services  Provides for additional capital investment  Provides for training of LRSD personnel Disadvantages  Perception that LRSD management cannot provide cleaner schools without outside assistance  Possibility of conflict over ServiceMaster recommendations RECOMMENDATION It is the recommendation of administration to choose alternative four (4) which is to form a partnership with ServiceMaster which will allow Plant Services to reorganize and regroup its assets and add the additional resources necessary to meet the objectives of cleaner and safer schools. This envisioned five-year contract (which will contain a 90-day cancellation clause) program will help the district to compensate for decreases in resources over the years, and provide a tailored program to meet LRSD needs. The most significant difference from previous attempts at improvements is that the cost and length of time factors that limited our success in the past will be removed as obstacles through the partnership with ServiceMaster. This course of action can be implemented much more quickly, with greater impact and less cost than the other alternatives. OBJECTIVE OF RECOMMENDATION The overriding objective of this recommendation is to improve the overall appearance of school site environment by maintaining cleaner and safer school buildings without increasing current budgetary resources. It is believed that the implementation of the above recommendation will provide the LRSD the most cost effective method of achieving the stated objective. IMPACT ANALYSIS The facility services program of custodial and maintenance can have both a positive and negative impact on this districts image and ability to perform its primary mission. A 7well executed custodial and maintenance program that results in better looking facilities with groomed and manicured grounds and better maintained buildings could foster new enrollment and the expansion of the Little Rock School District. Needless to say, the further detriment of the maintenance program could have the exact opposite effect. RESOURCE ANALYSIS In summary, the district will pay approximately $700,000 for management fees and $300,000 for equipment and supplies to ServiceMaster annually. The fees will be funded through productivity improvement savings and reductions in positions by attrition over time. No employees will be laid off. If Savings do not occur, ServiceMaster fees will be deferred until savings are produced. The attached financial summary provides additional information relating to fees. FORCE FIELD ANALYSIS Attractive, well maintained facilities would obviously be accepted by all of the Little Rock School District students and staff and the general public. We must strive to make our schools acceptable to the people that we serve and it must be done, in part, by making them visually appealing, safe and as well maintained as our resources will allow. There is no known contingent that would object to the betterment of our schools. IMPLEMENTATION PLAN Should this recommendation be approved, it is expected that implementation would take place on or about October 1, 1995. 8APPENDIX Appendix A ServiceMaster Proposal Appendix B Program Overview Appendix C Financial Analysis Appendix D ServiceMaster OverviewAppendix A ServiceMaster ProposalService Master Proposal To Little Rock School DistrictServices Provided To LRSD EHRBRE i bi * iin 111 r r 1111 rii rii v bcm* b  ri!ri!RiriBiRaBiBMBaBaiBaiKBHasB\u0026gt;naaMRaBaiMM  Management Services  Systems approach to maintaining buildings  Technical expertise  Administrative Services  Training of LRSD personnel  Capital investment  Cleaner \u0026amp; better maintained schoolsAnnualized Cost To District m unmminiiiiiHiiiiiHiiiHiiUHiuiBiniiiPUMniniiMflu  $700,000 management fees  $300,000 Materials \u0026amp; SuppliesCost Will Be Paid BY  Productivity improvement savings  Position reductions over time through attrition  21 FTE Custodians  14 FTE Building Engineers/others  Substitutes  If savings do not occur, ServiceMaster fees will be deferred until savings are produced  Potential for savings in excess of SM feesContract Requirements nonBBnraaBBBHHBBNnnHBinflHaMM imnunoiKimnBmaHmiMHiwamsBvmanmwviiBaevflmiMM  Will include maximum LRSD expenditures  LRSD will not pay fees to SM that will cause the district to exceed current budget  Expenditure amounts will be defined in terms of function \u0026amp; object codes  Service Standards  Provision for 90-day termination of contract if standards are not met  No payment of deferred feesBsesme tiiannMwiiiiTmismiiiiuruHriiiiiitiiaiMiiiijnBiiHiiiniwiatMa Board Action Requested Authorize the district administration to enter into contract Negotiation with ServiceMaster. Once mutual agreement has been reached regarding terms, the Board will be asked to authorize the execution of the contract.Appendix B Program OverviewPROGRAM OVERVIEW GENERAL OVERVIEW OF PROGRAM A. Professional Management Services for Little Rock School District By Whom ServiceMaster is the leading provider of Professional Management Service to the education industry, serving in over 520 school and universities worldwide. ServiceMaster has reached this position through personal individualized service to education executives. Program Concept Little Rock School District and ServiceMaster have an opportunity to work together in a new and unique way. The education industry is facing new and most challenging times. We are both being asked to provide a higher standard of quality, with greater customer focus, and to do so at a lower cost. To accomplish these objectives, we are proposing a new, more effective organizational structure and a unique combination of the School District and ServiceMaster resources. The success of this program depends on Little Rock School District and ServiceMasters people working closely together. This proposal describes a new relationship between us in which we will work together to increase the effectiveness of all services, merging them into a single, responsive service organization. ServiceMasters resources are very significant, and our commitment to the success of this program at Little Rock School District is complete. By combining ServiceMasters systems, technical resources, and resident department management leadership with the skills and abilities of Little Rock School District people, we will: * significantly improve and maintain quality levels as measured by formal quality assessment procedures.\u0026lt; provide the Little Rock School District a return on investment projected to be in excess of $2 million dollars over the life our Agreement. be responsive and accountable to your administration, to your teachers, and to your students. Together, we will apply good sound common sense and business judgment to all decisions affecting our entire responsibility. Your decision to join with us in this venture is one which reflects your agreement that together we can accomplish more and accomplish it faster. We look forward to working with you to begin this exciting new program. B. Program Benefits Our objective is to work in the shadow of your School District supporting Administration in every way possible to achieve its goals and objectives. The Administrative team will benefit from: 1) 2) 3) 4) 5) A quality level of service much higher than previously experienced, achieved through the latest developments in process engineering, productivity improvements, and Human Resource Development techniques. The addition of a professional supporting management team headed by high caliber, highly motivated managers, able leaders of personnel. They will also have a true understanding of the education community, facilities management, and modem engineering practices. Additional levels of supporting management through an operational backup team consisting of a Director of Operations, Customer Support Representative and Vice President for Operations, as well as a Technical Support Team consisting of Technical Specialists, Process Engineers and others. Greater management control over the Maintenance Department while reducing your time involved in the day-to-day operation of the department. Establishment of a climate of meaningful motivation to the employees that will challenge them in their job for achievement, responsibility, growth, earned recognition and the work itself through initial and continuous training and development programs.6) Improved employee morale through enlightened management and supervisory practices, assistance to administration in reflecting the basic safety and social needs to these employees, for identifying with the School District, for belonging. They, in turn, will be recognized as being part of the education team. 7) Positive feedback from customers (students, teachers, community and staff) generated from the impact of the ServiceMaster Professional Management Program. 8) Flexibility to meet the changing needs of your School District. 9) Protection of your investment in the buildings accomplished through the technical back-up and research, laboratory, and manufacturing facilities of the ServiceMaster organization together with the consulting support of ServiceMaster Professional Engineers, Chemists, Bacteriologists and Training Specialists whenever needed (see organization chart). 10) Thoughtful and careful coordination of Environmental Service duties and personnel with other District personnel and departments improving both communications and harmony of operation throughout the District. 11) Reduced equipment maintenance and replacement costs accomplished through the implementation of the systematic \"Computenance Plus\" Preventive and Corrective Maintenance Program. 12) Minimized risks to students, employees and staff throughout the District accomplished through the implementation of a Casualty Prevention and Control Program. 13) A performance oriented program. 14) Protection of m^jor pieces of capital equipment is realized through ServiceMasters Guaranteed Equipment Life Program. 15) Minimized Liability, Improved Service, and Reduced Costs - Is realized through the establishment of ServiceMasters in-house Maintenance Management System. 16) Provision of a program which fully complies with. Federal, State and Local Regulatory Agencies.ServiceMasters record of service in and long-standing relationship with the education marketplace makes us uniquely qualified to assess the management of support services at Little Rock School District and to propose solutions. A team of ServiceMaster professionals spent firam 2-4 weeks surveying the District. During the on-site survey process our engineering teams assessed your needs by reviewing the cost of payrolls, purchased services, supplies, utilities and capital expenditures. We toured every building inspecting cleaning surfaces, mechanical equipment, ventilation systems, roofing systems and grounds conditions. Interviews were held with administrators, principals, staff, and those involved with related functions. Safety, training, quality control, and operational methods were thoroughly reviewed. With great care and detail an implementation plan has been specifically and uniquely prepared for the Little Rock School District. Features of the program can be classified into six (6) major categories. 1) 2) 3) 4) 5) 6) Leadership and Organization Education and Development Technology and Systems Corporate Resources Total Quality Management Financial Performance Following is a brief outline of these sections and features provided as a ready reference overview. 1) Leadership and Organization Integral to the success of ServiceMaster programs is the full-time involvement of professional ServiceMaster managers in the organization. Our managers are trained extensively in processes and procedures, labor relations, management skills, financial skills, and human relations. ServiceMaster Will Provide\nA. B. A full-time, on-site, resident ServiceMaster management team which will be integrated carefully with the current management team to maximize existing skills. A proposed organization that would include the appropriate number of full-time equivalent custodial/grounds personnel, and full-time equivalent maintenance personnel, and clerical personnel, all of whom will remain employees of Little Rock School District.2) c. Continuous Management Development Programs held on-site, regionally, and nationally. Education and Development Much of the success of ServiceMaster programs is due to our ongoing commitment to provide the very best training, education, and development programs for the employees we are privileged to lead. ServiceMaster Would Provide: A. One-on-one training programs to be accomplished with all department staff and documented as such every six (6) months. B. Alternating with the above training, audiovisual reinforcement training accomplished semi-annually. C. Monthly group meetings with all staff containing discussion on informational/motivational topics. These would include special guest speakers and would be designed to encourage the staff as an important part of the school family. D. Special annual programs such as \"Pride Day,\" \"Open House,\" and \"Award of Excellence\" held to help build pride and professionalism among the staff. E. Special career development opportunities to include development in maintenance skills and technology, G.E.D. certification, and similar programs to help staff members enrich their lives and further their careers. F. Certification seminars held regionally on such topics as carpet care, gym floor care, athletic turf, track maintenance, and playground equipment. G. Leadership development programs for those expressing the interest and talent to advance to leadership roles. H. Job descriptions, standards of performance, and performance evaluation tools implemented and utilized as a regular part of operations. 1. Risk management and safety programs for all personnel. These would include required training courses for \"Right to Know\" and Asbestos Safety. J. Specific Recruitment Strategies for reducing turnover and absenteeism and improving performance.3) Technology and Systems Effective management of the custodial, maintenance, and grounds functions of a district requires an ongoing program of research and development. New technology, innovative techniques, and effective procedures and methods are constantly being developed by ServiceMaster to meet the challenges presented by todays education environment. ServiceMaster Would Provide: A. Maintenance 1. A fully computerized state-of-the-art maintenance program. 2. Preventive maintenance for all electrical and mechanical systems. 3. Casualty prevention and control programs for all equipment and buildings. 4. Life expectancy reports for all electrical and mechanical equipment. 5. Formalized maintenance summaries to include schedules, actions completed, cost analysis, and productivity reports. 6. Establishment of a complete cost accounting system for maintenance activities including parts, labor, and services. 7. Monitoring of all correctivd maintenance activities structuring and planning tasks. 8. Provision of a complete technical reference library concerning methods and skills. 9. Computerization of work order processes and systems. 10. Tracking of all minor construction activities to include parts, services, and labor costs. 11. Provision of employee education and training as required under the Asbestos Hazard Emergency Response Act. 12. A program designed to alert the school to any potential problems related to lead in drinking water and possible solutions.13. A program designed to expose any potential hazards related to underground storage tanks and recommendations regarding actions required to meet EPA standards. 14. Education for the maintenance staff on the potential dangers of Radon Gas, and recommendations regarding necessary actions to reduce any potential health risks. B. Custodial 1. New special and patented custodial chemicals for all building locations and processes. 2. New state-of-the-art ServiceMaster patented custodial equipment providing greater efficiency and productivity. 3. A complete technical library of custodial processes and procedures on-site for department use. 4. Documented standardized cleaning schedules developed and utilized for each building and situation. 5. Proven ServiceMaster processes for all job tasks put into place and documented as such. 6. New ServiceMaster developments in cleaning technology to each school as appropriate. C. Grounds Provisions 1. Implementation of standardized grounds care procedures for all grounds functions. 2. Structure and planning for all grounds-care tasks to include pruning, fertilization, pesticide, herbicide, and fungicide application. 3. Planned balanced mowing routines. 4. Regular inspections of playground equipment. 5. A complete library of grounds care procedures and reference materials. 6. Inclusion of specified new grounds equipment.D. Energy Management 1. Implementation of a comprehensive operational energy management program. 2. Produce monthly analysis, by school, of energy cost and consumption. 3. Assist Administration in the analysis of existing energy management system to enhance energy control. 4. More efficient plant system that reduces energy consumption. 5. Through our energy shared-savings program we have over $100 million to invest in state-of-the-art energy efficient units to replace your outdated and inefficient systems. 4) Corporate Resources Perhaps the greatest benefits provided by ServiceMaster is the addition of resources and support far greater than anything otherwise available to the District. Nowhere else can the District find the extensive experience, proven record of performance, and vast corporate resources provided by ServiceMaster. ServiceMaster Would Provide: A. An implementation team during the initial phases of the program accomplishing indexing of equipment, initial training, schedules, gener^ program installation, and other tasks related to the start of services. B. Additional management support by Director of Operations and Customer Support Representative visits, monthly or more frequently, if necessary. These visits insure program completeness and effectiveness. C. Engineering teams and individual engineers providing ongoing consulting support in the area of Plant Operations and Maintenance. D. ServiceMaster Systems Managers providing ongoing consulting support in the area of custodial services. E. Grounds specialists with expertise in turf management providing grounds consulting and on-site support.F. The corporate resources of ServiceMaster made available to the school to include Research and Development laboratories. G. National discount programs on a wide range of maintenance, custodial and grounds products and services. H. Immediate information resources through 1-800-SM-KNOWS. 5) Total Quality Management ServiceMaster Quality Assurance/Quality Management Programs are of importance to the District in that they provide assurance that the quality standards promised are the quality standards delivered. Scheduled inspections are designed to guarantee that acceptable levels of department quality are reached and maintained. These inspections provide for positive learning experiences and recognition for work done well, resulting in heightened morale. ServiceMaster Would Provide: A. Daily supervisor inspections made on-site by the supervisor at the facility. B. Maintenance daily rounds logs and routines established and documented. C. Weekly inspections of quality taken by the resident manager in the company of a school designee. D. Monthly meetings with school Administration to insure proper program direction. E. Quarterly inspections taken by the ServiceMaster Customer Support Representative with findings reported to Administration. F. Teacher interviews conducted with approximately 10% of the teachers each month to assess program effectiveness. G. Annually a formal report to the Little Rock School District detailing accomplishments for the past year. H. Long-term benefits in extended building and equipment life.6) Financial Comparison ServiceMasters contract amount will guarantee to the District the cost of management, school labor, custodial equipment, custodial supplies, training and materials, etc., whUe providing assurance of quality performance throughout the operation. ServiceMaster Would Provide: A. An investment in new labor efficient custodial equipment. B. An investment annually in custodial supplies and materials. C. An investment in grounds equipment. D. Potential replacement of some electromechanical equipment and grounds equipment. E. Long-term benefits in extended building and equipment life. F. A program to guarantee the life of major capital equipment by agreement to pay the financial penalty for premature failure. G. Total Maintenance and Custodial Program projected to be budget-neutral in the first full year of implementation. Long-term savings or the return on investment over the life of the agreement is projected to be greater than $2 million. A complete financial analysis is attached.ServiceMaster Management Team for Little Rock School District Corporate Support Bacteriologist Education and Training Regulatory Compliance 1-800-SM-KNOWS Little Rock School District Administration Operational Support Vice President Director of Operations Coordinating  Manager Customer Support Representative zXssistant Director Custodial Director * Systems Manager Assistant Director Principals * Responsible for coordination of training, computer systems, preventive maintenance, regulatory compliance, operational energy management, level I maintenance, grounds, and customer support. Appendix C Financial AnalysisFINANCIAL ANALYSIS OF SERVICEMASTER PROGRAM AMOUNT Management Team Custodial System Grounds Equipment Computerization Salaries and Benefits Capital Equipment is Annualized ($106,389) Annualized Amount Includes Hardware, Software, Customer Programming, and Support $332,188 265,584 22,600 11,163 Vehicles (4) Direct Investment 30,000 Indirect Invesment Profit and Taxes TOTAL Special Project Personnel Specialty Training Seminars Relocation Expense for Managers Start-up and Implementation Personnel Travel and Staff Expenses Safety Programs In-service Programs Motivational Programs Recruitment Strategies Program Customer Service Hot-line (1-800-SMKNOWS) Divisional Education Support Division Manager Area Operations Manager Vice President of Operations Audit and Control Direct Expense Total Labor Relations Education and Training Program Support Insurance Process Engineering Equipment Research and Development Chemical Research and Development Systems Research and Development Quality Control Finance Control Program Improvement Clerical Support Legal Support Service Administration Plant and Facilities Overhead Indirect Expense Total 259,417 122,945 140.011 Sl,183,908FINANCIAL ANALYSIS - FOOTNOTES LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT (1) Non-budgeted but utilized amount for substitutes. (2) Amount spent on custodial supplies developed from information provided by Plant Services and Procurement. (3) Line item #. (4) Line item #. (5) Salary for custodial supervisor. (6) Amount estimated that is spent on disposable supplies such as tissue and trash can liners not provided as part of custodial system. (7) Analysis of ServiceMaster program amount provided separately.Appendix D ServiceMaster OverviewServiceMaster Overview  Number of K-12 School Districts Currently Served  Number of Employees ... 370 Over 30,000ServiceMaster The Company Pursuing quality and exceIlencc...Treating people with dignity and pridc...Being driven by service to our customers...Growing profitably...these are all part of the goals and objectives of ServiceMaster. ServiceMaster continues to expand our technical resources and customer base in an atmosphere that fosters innovation, creativity and development. Long before the concept of \"total quality management\" was fervently discussed among businesses and learning institutions, ServiceMaster had committed itself to the objective of \"Pursuing Excellence.\" In the early 197O's, Kenneth T. Wessner, then Chairman of the Board of Directors, wrote: \" Our company accqjts the responsibility to continually seek better methods to render current and new services to its' customers at a better value. Our trademarks and service marks stand for excellence...The pursuit of excellence is a never-ending process, the continuing search for a better way. It requires a strong commitment and an understanding that a job, a career  life itself is never completed, but is in a continual stage of change and growth.\" It is this philosophy that has continued to guide management and support employees. By listening to customers' needs and remaining focused on the business of providing quality services, ServiceMaster has grown from a small mothproofing business in the early 194O's to a $3.0 billion international company that provides a network of services to consumers, businesses, health care systems and education customers. In 1962, at the request of hospital administrators, the first Housekeeping Management Support Program was introduced. Based on findings from the American Hospital Association, health care professionals and additional research, ServiceMaster designed a program to improve overall cleanliness while reducing costs and management burdens. I In 1971, through a series of discussions with school administrators, the company learned of the unique demands and challenges encoimtered in maintaining school buildings and groimds. As a result, a separate division of the company was started in order to better focus on the specific concerns of educators. Now, over 20 years later, ServiceMaster education resources include four specific divisions nationwide, staffed with operations, sales and support professionals dedicated to handle all aspects of school and college facilities management. In addition, corporate resources are committed to technical research and development, management and support employee training, motivational program development, and hiring professionals with expertise in the education market. ServiceMaster The Company (continued): Today, as the world's leading provider of support management services to education customers, ServiceMaster continues to serve our first education customer as well as 500 additional colleges, universities and school districts. ServiceMaster is the only company in the world that can provide maintenance, custodial, groimds, energy management, food service, pest control, capital retrofit and asbestos programs all through a single source provider.ServiceMaster Sponsored Programs ServiceMaster continues to demonstrate our education commitment by providing corporate sponsorship and leadership support to a number of different education organizations and programs including:  The AASA National Superintendent of the Year Program  ServiceMaster is proud to have initiated, fimded and developed, along with the American Association of School Administrators, this prestigious program. The National Superintendent of the Year recognizes and honors the important contribution that superintendents of America's public schools make to our youth and the preservation of our society.  Education Research and Development Institute (ERDI)  ERDI is a unique organization whose goal is to bring together iimovative leadership in education and business from around the country. Initiated, funded and developed by ServiceMaster, ERDI provides a \"think tank\" atmosphere for Fortune 500 companies.... a forum for progressive educators to share and exchange ideas, and funding for education research and development.  Flag of Learning and Liberty -The Flag of Learning and Liberty, developed in 1985 by the National School Public Relations Association (NSPRA), symbolizes the link between education and the American democratic way of life. ServiceMaster continues to provide funding and support to promote this important education symbol.  ASBO International Eagle Service Award Program - The Eagle Service Award was developed by ServiceMaster and the Association of School Business Officials International to recognize business officials who demonstrate outstanding service to their school, community and the profession. In addition, ServiceMaster was named as one of President Bush's 1,000 Points of Light for providing the opportunity and funding for over 200 ServiceMaster employees to mentor elementary students. ServiceMaster also provides funding and support for the Council of Great City Schools and sponsors over 100 student scholarships nationwide. / REFERENCE School District Name of Client: Richardson Independent School District Location: Richardson, Texas Services Provided: Maintenance, Custodial, Grounds, Technology Management Employees on payroll of: District Contract Start Date: October 1990 Total Square Feet/Sites: 5,008,318 sq. ft./63 Buildings Students: 33,000 Contact Personfsl/Phone: Mr. Vernon Johnson, Superintendent Mr. Jack Huffman*, Director of Physical Plant Services 214/301-3333 * Reference Contact ServiceMASTER REFERENCE School District Name of Client: Polk County Schools Location: Bartow, Florida Services Provided: Custodial Management Employees on payroll of: District Contract Start Date: November 1986 Total Square Feet/Sites: 7,828,000 sq. ft./109 Buildings Students: 68,000 Contact Person(s)/Phone: Dr. John A. Stewart, Superintendent Mr. Denny Dunn*, Deputy Superintendent 813/534-0500 * Reference Contact ServiceMASTER / REFERENCE School District Name of Client: Memphis City Schools Location: Memphis, Tennessee Services Provided: Custodial, Maintenance, Grounds Management, Energy Employees on payroll of: District Contract Start Date: June 1993 Total Square Feet/Sites: 16,000,000 sq. ft? 1,884 Acres Students: 106,000 Contact PersonfsJ/Phone: Dr. Gerry House, Superintendent 901/325-5444 ServiceMASTER. REFERENCE School District Name of Client: Kansas City Missouri School District Location: Kansas City, Missouri Services Provided: Maintenance, Custodial, Grounds Management Employees on payroll of: District Contract Start Date: August 1991 Total Square Feet/Sites: 7,629,101 sq. ft./102 Buildings Students: 35,000 Contact Person(s)/Phone: Dr. Walter Marks, Superintendent Mr. William M. Threatt*, Associate Superintendent 816/871-7814 * Reference Contact ServiceMASTER I REFERENCE School District Name of Client\nDistrict of Columbia Public Schools Location\nWashington, D.C. Services Provided\nCustodial, Preventive Maintenance Management Employees on payroll of\nDistrict Contract Start Date\nJanuary 1993 Total Square Feet/Sites\n14,000,000 sq. ft? 198 Buildings Students\n81,000 Contact PersonfsJ/Phone\nDr. Franklin Smith, Superintendent Mr. William McAfee*, Director of Facilities Management Division 202/724-4222 * Reference Contact ServiceMASTER. B4112802 08/09/1400 LRSD BUDGET ACTION SUMMARY FY 95-96 This document is an ODM staff working paper which contains the following material: 1. Chart of Business Cases. This is a listing of all business cases known by ODM, and contains a cumulative summary of actions taken by the LRSD on those business cases. 2. Chart of Shortfall Strategies. This is a listing of all shortfall strategies known by ODM, and contains a cumulative summary of actions taken by the LRSD on those strategies. If a shortfall strategy had a business case prepared, then the strategy was moved into the Chart of Business Cases. 3. Chart of Budget Issues. This is a listing of budget related issues that should be addressed somewhere in the LRSD budget. 4. Mooneys Brainstorming List of Possible Cost Cutting Measures. This is an informal brainstorming list of possible measures for cutting the budget or improving services. We have not determined the feasibility of the items, nor have we run cost/benefits. The menu is made up of things that might be considered with no judgement made on value. These items in no way should be construed as ODMs position, recommendation, or suggestion. NOTE: Please help keep this paper updated by letting Mooney know of budget actions or suggested changes. 1LRSD CHART OF BUSINESS CASES BUDGET FY 95-96 NOTE: The items in bold print headings are active. The items with regular print headings are not active. 1. Academic Progress Incentive Grant. *  * * * * * * * * * 11/7/94 Board Work Session. 1/5/95 Extended Program Evaluation list. Shows up on the evaluation list as Sequence # 14, Academic Incentive. An extended program evaluation will be prepared. 1/17/95 Joint ODM/LRSD staff meeting handout. Tentative business case list shows program sequence #14 will have a business case. It will be prepared by Gremillion and Mitchell. 1/26/95 Board meeting material. New Extended Evaluation list recommends sequence # 14, Academic Incentive, for modification or deletion. 2/15/95 Business Case book to Board and ODM. APIG and Focused Activities deletions. Would require a Deseg Plan modification. Savings of $445,000. 2/22/95 Board Work Session. General discussion. 3/8/95 Board Work Session. Magness wanted to know why the district can cut this program in light of the Court Order. Williams says a plan modification will be required. This item is on the Budget Consideration list, and the savings will be reflected in the proposed budget. 3/16/95 Special Board Meeting and Work Session handout. Item still included in the proposal for a savings of $445,000. 3/22/95 Proposed Budget, dated 3/14/95. Item was deleted from the budget for a savings of $445,000. 3/31/95 Technical assistance meeting. Smith and Mooney meet with Matthis and Ingram to discuss the technical aspects of a proposed modification to the business case. 4/3/95 Court Submission. Revised business case reduced the savings from $455,00 down to $290,000. * 4/6/95 Board Work Session. General discussion of revised business case. No action taken.  * * 4/10/95 LRSD Budget Hearing. Detailed testimony by Matthis concerning the business case. No action taken. 4/12/95 Board Work Session. The Board approved continuing APIGS/FA and funded it at $20 per student for each area elementary school. The approved cost is now approximately $171,000, making the savings approximately $274,000. LRSD estimates savings as $261,000 on the summary table from the Board meeting. 5/26/95 Tentative Budget Document. Tentative Budget Document reflects the program 25 * modifications for a savings of $261,100. A new business case was submitted with the budget document. 7/24/95 Final Budget Document. Final Budget Document reflects the program modifications for a savings of $261,100. Academic Support Program. 2. 3. 4. 5. * * * * 1/5/95 Extended Program Evaluation list. Shows up on the evaluation list as Sequence # 03, Academic Support. An extended program evaluation will be prepared. 1/17/95 Joint ODM/LRSD staff meeting handout. Tentative business case list shows program sequence # 03 will have a business case. It will be prepared by Glasgow, Parker, and Adams. 1/26/95 Board meeting material. New Extended Evaluation list recommends sequence # 03, Academic Support, for modification or deletion. 2/15/95 Business Case book to Board and ODM. Was not included in this package, which would indicate this is a dead proposal. Data Processing. * * * * 1/5/95 Extended Program Evaluation list. Shows up on the evaluation list as Sequence # 23 and 24, Data Processing. An extended program evaluation will be prepared. 1/17/95 Joint ODM/LRSD staff meeting. Williams indicates he wants to give Beason some time on the job before considering Outsourcing data processing services. 1/17/95 Joint ODM/LRSD staff meeting handout on tentative business cases. Program sequence # 24 and 230, will be prepared by Beason. 2/15/95 Business Case book to Board and ODM. Becomes feeder for # 33. District Wide Facilities Study (School Closings). * * * * * * * 11/7/94 Board Work Session. 1/5/95 Extended Program Evaluation list. Shows up on the evaluation list as Sequence # 33, Facilities. An extended program evaluation will be prepared. 1/17/95 Joint ODM/LRSD staff meeting handout. Tentative business case list shows District wide Facilities Study (program sequence # in error) will have a business case. It will be prepared by Mayo. 1/27/95 Arkansas Democrat Gazette article. Article quotes Mayo as saying that Badgett and Fair Park are at the top of a possible closing list. Mayo says closing both would save $900,000. 1/31/95 Community meeting held at Fair Park to discuss recommended closure. 2/7/95 Community meeting held at Badgett of discuss recommended closure. 2/15/95 Business Case book to Board and ODM. Becomes feeder for # 22 and # 23. Pupil Transportation Services. * * 11/7/94 Board Work Session. 1/5/95 Extended Program Evaluation list. Shows up on the evaluation list as Sequence # 223, Pupil Transport. An extended program evaluation will be prepared. 3* * 1/17/95 Joint ODM/LRSD staff meeting handout on tentative business cases. Program sequence # 223, will be prepared by Cheatham. 2/15/95 Business Case book to Board and ODM. Becomes feeder for # 25. 6. Family Life Education/New Futures. * * * * 1/5/95 Extended Program Evaluation list. Shows up on the evaluation list as Sequence # 231, Family Life/New Futures. An extended program evaluation will be prepared. 1/17/95 Joint ODM/LRSD staff meeting handout. Tentative business case list shows program sequence # 231 will have a business case. It will be prepared by Young and Carson. 1/26/95 Board meeting material. New Extended Evaluation list recommends sequence # 231, Family Life/New Futures, for modification or deletion. 2/15/95 Business Case book to Board and ODM. Assign FLE teaching responsibilities to * nurses, counselors and science teachers, modification. Savings of $77,000. 2/22/95 Board Work Session. General discussion. Would not require a Deseg Plan * 3/8/95 Board Work Session. No discussion. This item is on the Budget Consideration * * list, and savings will be reflected in the proposed budget. 3/16/95 Special Board Meeting and Work Session handout. Item still included in the proposal for a savings of $77,000. Also included an action deadline of 4/15/95. 3/22/95 Proposed Budget, dated 3/14/95. Item was deleted from the budget for a savings of $77,000. * 4/12/95 Board Work Session. The Board approved the business case as submitted by the * * superintendent. Savings at $77,000. 5/26/95 Tentative Budget Document. Tentative Budget Document reflects a savings of $77,000. 7/24/95 Final Budget Document. Final Budget Document reflects the program modifications for a savings of $77,000. 7. New Futures. * * * * * * 1/5/95 Extended Program Evaluation list. Shows up on the evaluation list as Sequence # 13, New Futures. An extended program evaluation will be prepared. 1/17/95 Joint ODM/LRSD staff meeting handout. Tentative business case list shows program sequence # 13 will have a business case. It will be prepared by Young. 1/26/95 Board meeting material. New Extended Evaluation list recommends sequence # 13 New Futures, for modification or deletion. 2/15/95 Business Case book to Board and ODM. Implement Language Arts Plus in lieu of Learning Foundations\nreturn to 6 period day. Would not require a Deseg Plan modification. Savings of $669,900. 2/22/95 Board Work Session. General discussion. 2/23/95 Board Work Session. Board deleted the Learning Foundations course in the New Futures Junior Highs. This seems to lay the foundation for elimination of the 7 period day. Savings of $669,900. 4* * * * * * 3/8/95 Board Work Session. Magness noted amount of savings dropped to $626,848. Difference is that this amount is based on actual salaries vice averages. This item is on the Budget Consideration list, and the savings will be reflected in the proposed budget. 3/16/95 Special Board Meeting and Work Session handout. Item still included in the proposal for a savings of $626,848. Also included an action deadline of 4/15/95. 3/22/95 Proposed Budget, dated 3/14/95. Item was deleted from the budget for a savings of $626,848. 4/10/95 LRSD Budget Hearing. Detailed testimony by Young concerning the business case. Mainly centered on cutting the 7th period. No action taken. 4/12/95 Board Work Session. Motion to accept the business case as submitted by the superintendent failed. No action taken. 5/26/95 Tentative Budget Document. In response to the failed business case. New Futures funding of $626,848 added back into the Tentative Budget Document. No savings now reflected. 8. Four-Year-Old-Program. * * * * * * *   * * * 11/7/94 Board Work Session. 1/5/95 Extended Program Evaluation list. Shows up on the evaluation list as Sequence # 02, 4-Year-Old. An extended program evaluation will be prepared. 1/17/95 Joint ODM/LRSD staff meeting handout. Tentative business case list shows program sequence # 02 will have a business case. It will be prepared by Price. 1/26/95 Board meeting material. New Extended Evaluation list recommends sequence # 02, 4-Year-Old, for modification or deletion. 2/1/95 flyer to parents. The pre-registration material sent to parents around the first week of February contained a flyer on the 4-year-old program. The flyer said that due to projected budget cuts the program may not be available in many of the schools. The final decision will be made by the Board in the near future. 2/15/95 Business Case book to Board and ODM. Eliminate program except at the Incentive Schools. Would require a Deseg Plan modification. Savings of $ 1,321,520. 2/22/95 Board Work Session. General discussion. Many board members voice opposition. 2/28/95 Board Work Session. Magness states that the Board does not want to cut the 4 year old program, and the administration should look elsewhere. 3/8/95 Board Work Session. This item has been dropped from consideration on the Budget Consideration list, and the savings will not be reflected in the proposed budget. 3/16/95 Special Board Meeting and Work Session handout. Item shown as defened and on hold. Still shows possible savings of $1,321,520. Also included an action deadline of 4/15/95. 3/22/95 Proposed Budget, dated 3/14/95. Item was included in the budget as a program cost of $1,321,520. 4/6/95 Board Work Session. Board formally approved leaving the program in the budget. No cuts will be made in the program. Now a dead issue. 5 5/26/95 Tentative Budget Document. Tentative Budget Document reflects no cuts and no savings. 9. Guidance Services, * * * 1/5/95 Extended Program Evaluation list. Shows up on the evaluation list as Sequence # 213, Guidance Services. An extended program evaluation will be prepared. 1/17/95 Joint ODM/LRSD staff meeting handout. Tentative business case list shows program sequence #213 will have a business case. It will be prepared by Elston. 1/26/95 Board meeting material. New Extended Evaluation list recommends sequence # 213, Guidance Services, for modification or deletion. * 2/15/95 Business Case book to Board and ODM. Reduce positions but maintain Arkansas * Public School Accreditation Standards, modification. Savings of $125,268. 2/22/95 Board Work Session. General discussion. Would not require a Deseg Plan * 3/8/95 Board Work Session. No discussion. This item is on the Budget Consideration * * * * * list, and the savings will be reflected in the proposed budget. 3/16/95 Special Board Meeting and Work Session handout. Item still included in the proposal for a savings of $125,268. Also included an action deadline of 4/15/95. 3/22/95 Proposed Budget, dated 3/14/95. Item was deleted from the budget for a savings of$125,268. 4/12/95 Board Work Session. The Board approved the business case as submitted by the superintendent. 5/26/95 Tentative Budget Document. Tentative Budget Document reflects the cut and the savings of $125,268. 7/24/95 Final Budget Document. Final Budget Document reflects the program modifications for a savings of $125,268. 10. Health Services. * * * * * * * * * 11/7/94 Board Work Session. 1/5/95 Extended Program Evaluation list. Shows up on the evaluation list as Sequence # 215, Health Services. An extended program evaluation will be prepared. 1/17/95 Joint ODM/LRSD staff meeting handout. Tentative business case list shows program sequence #215 will have a business case. It will be prepared by Efird. 1/26/95 Board meeting material. New Extended Evaluation list recommends sequence # 215, Health Services, for modification or deletion. 2/15/95 Business Case book to Board and ODM. Reduction in nursing positions while maintaining services. Cut 19 nurses from area schools. Would not require a Deseg Plan modification. Savings of $560,000. 2/22/95 Board Work Session. General discussion. Many board members voice opposition. 2/24/95 Mooney meets with Riggs to discuss alternatives in health services. 2/24/95 Brown/Morgan/Mooney meet with Magness/Mayo to discuss alternatives in health services. 3/8/95 Board Work Session. No discussion. This item has been dropped from 6* * * * consideration on the Budget Consideration list, and the savings will not be reflected in the proposed budget. 3/16/95 Special Board Meeting and Work Session handout. Item shown as deferred and on hold. Still shows possible savings of $560,000. Also included an action deadline of 4/15/95. 3/22/95 Proposed Budget, dated 3/14/95. Item was included in the budget as a program cost of $560,000. 4/6/95 Board Work Session. Board formally approved leaving health services in the budget. No cuts will be made in the program. Now a dead issue. Williams indicates the district is now working with the Dept of Health on some new ideas for health services. 5/26/95 Tentative Budget Document. Tentative Budget Document reflects no cuts and no savings. 11. HIPPY.  *  * * * *  * * *  * * 11/7/94 Board Work Session. 1/5/95 Extended Program Evaluation list. Shows up on the evaluation list as Sequence # 01, HIPPY. An extended program evaluation will be prepared. 1/17/95 Joint ODM/LRSD staff meeting handout. Tentative business case list shows program sequence #01 will have a business case. It will be prepared by Shead. 1/26/95 Board meeting material. New Extended Evaluation list recommends sequence # 01, HIPPY, for modification or deletion. 2/15/95 Business Case book to Board and ODM. Eliminate HIPPY program except for parents within Incentive Schools. Would require a Deseg Plan modification. Savings of $185,828.18. 2/22/95 Board Work Session. General discussion. Many board members voice opposition. 2/28/95 Board Work Session. Magness requested some service numbers, asked about duplication of services, and possibilities of combining with other programs. 3/8/95 Board Work Session. Magness, Mitchell, and Pondexter voiced concerns about cutting this item. If cut, savings have been increased to $223,769. This item is on the Budget Consideration list, and the savings will be reflected in the proposed budget. 3/16/95 Special Board Meeting and Work Session handout. Item still included in the proposal for a savings of $223,769. Also included an action deadline of 5/15/95. 3/22/95 Proposed Budget, dated 3/14/95. Item was deleted from the budget for a savings of $223,769. 3/24/95 LRSD Budget Hearing. Williams says they are recommending the cut in the HIPPY program because of the deficit. The proposed cut is not final at this time, since the Board has not voted. Other programs can deliver this service. Matthis says HIPPY will remain in the incentive schools and schools in southwest Little Rock. Cuts will remove about 50% of the kids served. 4/6/95 Board Work Session. General discussion of the proposal. No action taken. 4/12/95 Board Work Session. A number of Board motions failed. No action taken. 5/26/95 Tentative Budget Document. Tentative Budget Document reflects the HIPPY 7expenditures added back at $223, 769, and now shows no savings. Removed from the actual list. 12. McClellan Community School. * * * * * * * 11/7/94 Board Work Session. 1/5/95 Extended Program Evaluation list. Shows up on the evaluation list as Sequence # 15, McClellan Community School. An extended program evaluation will be prepared. 1/17/95 Joint ODM/LRSD staff meeting handout. Tentative business case list shows program sequence # 15 will have a business case. It will be prepared by Carter. 1/26/95 Board meeting material. New Extended Evaluation list recommends sequence # 15, McClellan Community School, for modification or deletion. 2/15/95 Business Case book to Board and ODM. Deletion of program, with Business Department delivering the program. Would require a Deseg Plan modification. Savings of $170,000. 2/22/95 Board Work Session. General discussion. 2/28/95 Board Work Session. Magness asked questions about advisory board involvement. Williams directed Carter to go back to the advisory board for more input. * 3/8/95 Board Work Session. General discussion concerning involvement of the Advisory Council. Board wants more input from Advisory Council and additional information from the staff. This item is on the Budget Consideration list, and the savings will be reflected in the proposed budget. * * * * * * * * 3/16/95 Special Board Meeting and Work Session handout. Item still included in the proposal for a savings of $130,000. Also included an action deadline of 4/15/95. 3/22/95 Proposed Budget, dated 3/14/95. Item was deleted from the budget for a savings of $130,000. 4/6/95 Board Work Session. General discussion of the proposal. No action taken. 4/10/95 LRSD Budget Hearing. Detailed testimony by Matthis concerning the business case. No action taken. Administration considering counter-proposal (business case) by the McClellan Advisory Board. 4/12/95 Board Work Session. The Board approved the revised business case as submitted by the superintendent. The Community School will be funded at $40,000 (plus earnings of about $50,000), for a total savings of $130,000. 4/27/95 Special Board Meeting. General discussion on the business case developed by the Advisory Committee\nthe committee did what they were supposed to do. No action taken. 5/26/95 Tentative Budget Document. Tentative Budget Document reflects savings still at $130,000. 7/24/95 Final Budget Document. Final Budget Document reflects the program modifications for a savings of $130,000. 13. Staff Development. * * 11/7/94 Board Work Session. 1/5/95 Extended Program Evaluation list. Shows up on the evaluation list as Sequence # 8* * * 21, Staff Development. An extended program evaluation will be prepared. 1/17/95 Joint ODPvI/LRSD staff meeting handout. Tentative business case list shows program sequence # 21 will have a business case. It will be prepared by Woods. 1/26/95 Board meeting material. New Extended Evaluation list recommends sequence # 21, Staff Development, for modification or deletion. 2/15/95 Business Case book to Board and ODM. Was not included in this package, which would indicate that this is a dead proposal. 14. Substitute Teachers. * * *  * * * * * * 1/17/95 Joint ODM/LRSD staff meeting handout on tentative business cases. Program sequence # NA, will be prepared by Gadberry and Hurley. 1/26/95 Board meeting material. New Extended Evaluation list recommends sequence # none. Substitute Teachers, for modification or deletion. This item did not appear on the 1/5/95 Extended Evaluation List, but was on the 1/17/95 tentative business case list. 2/15/95 Business Case book to Board and ODM. Place a cap on professional leave. Would not require a Deseg Plan modification. Savings of $50,000. 2/22/95 Board Work Session. General discussion. 3/8/95 Board Work Session. No discussion. This item is on the Budget Consideration list, and the savings will be reflected in the proposed budget. 3/16/95 Special Board Meeting and Work Session handout. Item still included in the proposal for a savings of $50,000. 3/22/95 Proposed Budget, dated 3/14/95. Item was deleted from the budget for a savings of $50,000. 4/12/95 Board Work Session. The Board approved the business case as submitted by the superintendent. 5/26/95 Tentative Budget Document. Tentative Budget Document reflects the $50,000 savings. 7/24/95 Final Budget Document. Final Budget Document reflects the program modifications for a savings of $50,000. IS. Vocational Education. *  * * * 11/7/94 Board Work Session. 1/5/95 Extended Program Evaluation list. Shows up on the evaluation list as Sequence # 08 and 204, Vocational Education. An extended program evaluation will be prepared. 1/17/95 Joint ODM/LRSD staff meeting handout. Tentative business case list shows program sequence # 08 and 204 will have a business case. It will be prepared by Green. 1/26/95 Board meeting material. New Extended Evaluation list recommends sequence # 08/204, Vocational Education, for modification or deletion. 2/15/95 Business Case book to Board and ODM. Eliminate Exploring Industrial Technology education programs at two junior high schools\neliminate low demand courses. Would not require a Deseg Plan modification. Savings of $182,783.90. 9* * * 2/22/95 Board Work Session. General discussion. 3/8/95 Board Work Session. Magness noted the savings had been reduced to $98,462. Smith says this is the result of fine tuning. This item is on the Budget Consideration list, and the savings will be reflected in the proposed budget. 3/16/95 Special Board Meeting and Work Session handout. Item still included in the proposal for a savings of $98,462. Also included an action deadline of ASAP. * 3/22/95 Proposed Budget, dated 3/14/95. Item was deleted from the budget for a savings of $98,462. * 4/12/95 Board Work Session. The Board approved the business case as submitted by the superintendent. * 5/26/95 Tentative Budget Document. Tentative Budget Document reflects the $98,462 cut * and savings. 7/24/95 Final Budget Document. Final Budget Document reflects the program modifications for a savings of $98,462. 16. Safety and Security, * *  * 1/5/95 Extended Program Evaluation list. Shows up on the evaluation list as Sequence # 25 and 225, Safety and Security Services. An extended program evaluation will be prepared. 1/17/95 Joint ODM/LRSD staff meeting handout. Tentative business case list shows program sequence # 25 and 225 will have a business case. It will be prepared by Jones. 1/26/95 Board meeting material. New Extended Evaluation list recommends sequence # 25/225, Safety and Security, for modification or deletion. 2/15/95 Business Case book to Board and ODM. Becomes a feeder for # 31. 17. Discipline Management. * * 1/17/95 Joint ODM/LRSD staff meeting handout on tentative business cases. Program sequence # NA, will be prepared by Mitchell, Robertson, Marshaleck. 2/15/95 Business Case book to Board and ODM. Was not included in this package, which would indicate that this is a dead proposal. 18. Alternative Education.  * * * * 1/17/95 Joint ODM/LRSD staff meeting handout on tentative business cases. Program sequence # NA, will be prepared by Elston, Anderson, and Glenn. 2/15/95 Business Case book to Board and ODM. Pilot program of alternative classrooms at Southwest Junior High and Cloverdale Junior High. Would not require a Deseg Plan modification. Additional cost of $34,965. 2/23/95 Board Work Session. General discussion. 3/8/95 Board Work Session. No discussion. This item is on the Budget Consideration list, and the additional cost will be reflected in the proposed budget. 3/16/95 Special Board Meeting and Work Session handout. Item still included in the proposal for an additional cost of $34,965. 10* 3/22/95 Proposed Budget, dated 3/14/95. Item was added to the budget for an additional * * cost of $34,965. 4/12/95 Board Work Session. No action taken. 5/26/95 Tentative Budget Document. Tentative Budget Document reflects the addition of $34,965. * 7/24/95 Final Budget Document. Final Budget Document reflects the program addition of $34,965. 19. Incentive School Program Modification. * * * * * * * * * * * * * 12/22/94 Project Management Tool, task 217. Develop business case for incentive schools program modifications for submitting to Superintendent and Council. 2/15/95 Business Case book to Board and ODM. Revise staff configuration\nimprove staff efficiency. Would require a Deseg Plan modification. Savings of $607,250. 2/22/95 Board Work Session. General discussion. 2/28/95 Board Work Session. Magness requested more numbers and better justification. More general discussion. 3/8/95 Board Work Session. Magness noted the savings amount had been reduced to $608,250. The difference is cutting 38 vice 45 positions. This item is on the Budget Consideration list, and the savings will be reflected in the proposed budget. 3/16/95 Special Board Meeting and Work Session handout. Item still included in the proposal for a savings of $608,250. Also included an action deadline of 4/15/95. 3/22/95 Proposed Budget, dated 3/14/95. Item was deleted from the budget for a savings of $608,250. 3/31/95 Technical assistance meeting. Smith and Mooney meet with Matthis and Ingram to discuss the technical aspects of a proposed modification to the business case. 4/3/95 Court Submission. Revised business case reduced savings from $608,250 down to $211,250. Personnel cuts not as severe\nfrom 45 FTE down to 10.5 FTE. 4/7/95 Court Submission. LRSD submits corrections to the revised business case. No change to the bottom line savings of $211,250. 4/10/95 LRSD Budget Hearing. Detailed testimony by Ingram on the business case. Detailed testimony by Brooks, Donovan, and Buchanan. No action taken. 4/12/95 Board Work Session. The Board approved the revised business case as submitted by the superintendent. Savings at $211,250. 5/26/95 Tentative Budget Document. Tentative Budget Document reflects savings still set * at $211,250. 7/24/95 Final Budget Document. Final Budget Document reflects the program modifications for a savings of $211,250. 20. Middle School Concept. * * 12/22/94 Project Management Tool, task 218. Explore, gather, and assess data relative to the transition to the Middle School concept. 2/15/95 Business Case book to Board and ODM. Was not included in this package, which would indicate this is a dead proposal. However, the 1/30/95 Project Management 11Tool indicates the district is 100% complete on exploring, gathering, and assessing data relative to such a transition. 21. Beacon School Concept. * * * * * * 11/11/94 letter from Williams to Brown. Letter indicates that planning has been completed and the district is moving ahead without the benefit of a business case. 2/15/95 Business Case book to Board and ODM. Implement Beacon School concept at Cloverdale Junior High. Would not require a Deseg Plan modification. Additional cost of $12,000. 2/23/95 Board Work Session. General discussion. The $12,000 is for custodial costs. Program would run year round. Gee suggests looking for a grant. 3/8/95 Board Work Session. No discussion. Budget cost still shows $37,000. This item is on the Budget Consideration list, and the additional cost will be reflected in the proposed budget. 3/16/95 Special Board Meeting and Work Session handout. Item still included in the proposal for an additional cost of $37,000. 3/22/95 Proposed Budget, dated 3/14/95. Item was included in the budget for an additional cost of $37,000. * 4/6/95 Board Work Session. General discussion on proposal. No action taken. * * * * * 4/10/95. LRSD Budget Hearing. Brief discussion about the Beacon School concept in relation to the McClellan Community School business case and recommended cuts. No action taken. 4/12/95 Board Work Session. Williams says the amount can be lowered to $18,500 additional. The board tabled the addition. 4/27/95 Special Board Meeting. Since only about $20,000, Riggs suggests waiting on this issue until later in the year when the programs are about ready to start up\naround 12/95. No action taken by the Board. 5/26/95 Tentative Budget Document. Tentative Budget Document reflects the addition of $18,500. 7/24/95 Final Budget Document. Final Budget Document reflects the program addition of $18,500. 22. Badgett School Relocation. * * * * * * See feeder item #4. 1/27/95 Arkansas Democrat Gazette article. Article quotes Mayo as saying that Badgett and Fair Park are at the top of a possible closing list. Mayo says closing both would save $900,000. 2/7/95 Community meeting held at Badgett to discuss recommended closure. 2/15/95 Business Case book to Board and ODM. Closing Badgett School. Would require a Deseg Plan modification. Savings of $523,000. 2/22/95 Board Work Session. General discussion. 2/28/95 Board Work Session. Magness asked questions about keeping all the students together in any move. Riggs supported the idea. 12* * * * * * * * * 3/8/95 Board Work Session. This item has been dropped from consideration on the Budget Consideration list, and the savings will not be reflected in the proposed budget. 3/16/95 Special Board Meeting and Work Session handout. Item shown as deferred and on hold. Still shows possible savings of $523,000. Also included an action deadline of 4/15/95. 3/22/95 Proposed Budget, dated 3/14/95. Item was included in the budget for an additional cost of $523,000. 4/12/95 Board Work Session. Motion to close Badgett failed. Funding will stay in the budget. 5/26/95 Tentative Budget Document. Tentative Budget Document reflects the school still open, with no savings in the budget. 6/15/95 Newspaper Article. Article reported that a 6/14/95 Special Board Meeting to vote on the closing of Badgett/Fair Park would be postponed. 6/22/95 Special Board Meeting. Board approved closing the school without discussion. The decision rescinded a Board vote in April that allowed the school to remain open. 7/3/95 LRSD Court Submission. Filed a revised business case and a motion to modify the desegregation plan in relation to closing the school. 7/7/95 Special Summit Meeting of the Parties. In striking this special deal among the parties, the Board (without formal vote) agreed to leave Badgett and Fair Park open for the next year. 23. Fair Park School Relocation. * * * * * * * * See feeder item #4. 1/27/95 Arkansas Democrat Gazette article. Article quotes Mayo as saying that Badgett and Fair Park are at the top of a possible closing list. Mayo says closing both would save $900,000. 1/31/95 Community meeting held at Fair Park to discuss recommended closure. 2/15/95 Business Case book to Board and ODM. Closing Fair Park School. Would require a Deseg Plan modification. Savings of $637,000. 2/22/95 Board Work Session. General discussion. 2/28/95 Board Work Session. Magness requested the amount of money to repair Fair Park if it were kept open. Figures were not available. 3/8/95 Board Work Session. This item has been dropped from consideration on the Budget Consideration list, and the savings will not be reflected in the proposed budget. 3/16/95 Special Board Meeting and Work Session handout. Item shown as deferred and on hold. Still shows possible savings of $637,000. Included an action deadline of 4/15/95. * 3/22/95 Proposed Budget, dated 3/14/95. Item was included in the budget for an additional * cost of $637,000. 4/12/95 Board Work Session. Motion to close Fair Park failed. Funding will stay in the budget. 13* * * * * 5/26/95 Tentative Budget Document. Tentative Budget Document reflects the school remaining open, with no budget savings. 6/15/95 Newspaper Article. Article reported that a 6/14/95 Special Board Meeting to vote on the closing of Badgett/Fair Park would be postponed. 6/22/95 Special Board Meeting. Board approved closing the school without discussion. The decision rescinded a Board vote in April that allowed the school to remain open. 7/3/95 LRSD Court Submission. Filed a revised business case and a motion to modify the desegregation plan in relation to closing the school. 7/7/95 Special Summit Meeting of the Parties. In striking this special deal among the parties, the Board (without formal vote) agreed to leave Badgett and Fair Park open for the next year. 24. Elementary Music Teacher StafTing. * * 2/15/95 Business Case book to Board and ODM. Revision of current elementary music teacher assignments. Would not require a Deseg Plan modification. Savings of $161,000. 2/22/95 Board Work Session. General discussion. * 3/8/95 Board Work Session. No discussion. This item is on the Budget Consideration * * * * * list, and the savings will be reflected in the proposed budget. 3/16/95 Special Board Meeting and Work Session handout. Item still included in the proposal for a savings of $161,000. Also included an action deadline of 4/15/95. 3/22/95 Proposed Budget, dated 3/14/95. Item was deleted from the budget for a savings of$161,000. 4/12/95 Board Work Session. The Board approved the business case as submitted by the superintendent. 5/26/95 Tentative Budget Document. Tentative Budget Document reflects the cut and savings of $161,000. 7/24/95 Final Budget Document. Final Budget Document reflects the program modifications for a savings of $161,000. 25. Improving Student Transportation.   * * * * * See feeder item #5. 1/17/95 Joint ODM/LRSD staff meeting. Williams says the LRSD is coming back with a recommendation to outsource transportation. 1/17/95 Joint ODM/LRSD staff meeting handout. Tentative business case list shows program sequence # 223 will have a business case. It will be prepared by Cheatham. 1/26/95 Board meeting material. New Extended Evaluation list recommends sequence # 14, Pupil Transportation, for modification or deletion. 2/15/95 Business Case book to Board and ODM. Outsourcing transportation. Would not require a Deseg Plan modification. Savings of $100,000. 2/22/95 Board Work Session. General discussion. Some opposition, but not as much as last time. 2/28/95 Board Work Session. Magness requested material from last year. Numerous 14 questions on the mechanics of outsourcing, but staff did not answer. * 3/8/95 Board Work Session. No discussion. This item is on the Budget Consideration * * * * * * *  list, and the savings will be reflected in the proposed budget. 3/16/95 Special Board Meeting and Work Session handout. Item still included in the proposal for a savings of $100,000. Also included an action deadline of 4/15/95. 3/22/95 Proposed Budget, dated 3/14/95. Item was deleted from the budget for a savings of $100,000. 4/6/95 Board Work Session. Williams says RFP ready to go. No action taken. 4/12/95 Board Work Session. RFP issued on 4/7/95. The Board tabled the item. On hold. 4/27/95 Special Board Meeting. General discussion with numerous questions. Issue still tabled. 5/26/95 Tentative Budget Document. Tentative Budget Document reflects the item remaining deleted from the budget for a savings of $100,000. 6/15/95 Newspaper article. Article reported that a 6/14/95 Special Board Meeting to vote on outsourcing contract would be postponed. 6/22/95 Special Board Meeting. After a presentation by Laidlaw, the Board approved a * three year, $19,500,000 contract. 7/24/95 Final Budget Document. Final Budget Document reflects the program modifications for a savings of $100,000, and the line item transfers for the outsourcing contract. 26. Parkview Commercial Art Class. * * * 2/15/95 Business Case book to Board and ODM. Implement Commercial Arts I course to expand magnet arts program and satisfy state standards. Would not require a Deseg Plan modification. Savings of $0.00. 2/22/95 Board Work Session. General discussion. 2/23/95 Board Work Session. Board approved this item. Unknown building renovations may be expensive. 27. Arkansas Crusades. * * * * * 2/15/95 Business Case book to Board and ODM. Equipment and teacher training to support the Math, K-4, and Science Crusades. Would not require a Deseg Plan modification. Additional cost of $30,000. 2/23/95 Board Work Session. General discussion. Will support about 30 teachers. Mostly for equipment at 50% match for implementation of programs. Have done this in the past. No evidence that it is successful at this point. 3/8/95 Board Work Session. No discussion. This item is on the Budget Consideration list, and the additional costs will be reflected in the proposed budget. 3/16/95 Special Board Meeting and Work Session handout. Item is still included in the proposal for an additional cost of $30,000. 3/22/95 Proposed Budget, dated 3/14/95. Item was included in the budget for an additional cost of $30,000. 4/12/95 Board Work Session. The Board approved the addition as submitted by the 15* * superintendent. 5/26/95 Tentative Budget Document. Tentative Budget Document reflects the addition of $30,000. 7/24/95 Final Budget Document. Final Budget Document reflects the program addition of $30,000. 28. Mann Magnet Additional Clerical Position. * * 2/15/95 Business Case book to Board and ODM. Provide assistance to bookkeeper and assistant principal. Would not require a Deseg Plan modification. Additional cost of $3,000. 2/23/95 Board Work Session. General discussion. * 3/8/95 Board Work Session. This item was dropped from the proposal. It was solved with staff realignment. It will be dropped from the proposed budget. 29. New Comers Center. * * 2/15/95 Business Case book to Board and ODM. Designate selected schools to serve increasing needs of LEP students. Would not require a Deseg Plan modification. Additional cost of $52,117. 2/23/95 Board Work Session. General discussion. Would have 4 centers at elementary schools, 2 centers at junior high schools, and 1 center at a senior high school. The funding is mainly for staff development for teachers. * 3/8/95 Board Work Session. No discussion. The budget considerations list shows that the additional cost has been revised down to $12,117. This item is on the Budget Consideration list, and the additional costs will be reflected in the proposed budget. * 3/16/95 Special Board Meeting and Work Session handout. Item still included in the * proposal for an additional cost of $12,117. 3/22/95 Proposed Budget, dated 3/14/95. Item was included in the budget for an additional cost of $12,117. * 4/12/95 Board Work Session. The Board tabled this issue. * * * 4/27/95 Special Board Meeting. The board approved the recommendation. Will add the $12,117. 5/26/95 Tentative Budget Document. Tentative Budget Document reflects the addition of $12,117. 7/24/95 Final Budget Document. Final Budget Document reflects the program addition of $12,117. 30. Reading Recovery/Early Literacy Pilot Program. *  * 2/15/95 Business Case book to Board and ODM. Provide early intervention strategies to reduce later remediation. Would not require a Deseg Plan modification. Additional cost of $30,000. 2/23/95 Board Work Session. General discussion. Would pilot reading recovery in grade 1. Funding is for training, materials, and supplies. 2/28/95 Board Work Session. Gee asked questions about the number of students served. 16Magness clarified that the actual amount of new money required is really only $10,614, and not the full $30,000 cost. * 3/8/95 Board Work Session. General discussion. This item is on the Budget * * * * * * Consideration list, and the additional cost will be reflected in the proposed budget. 3/16/95 Special Board Meeting and Work Session handout. Item still included in the proposal for an additional cost of $10,614. 3/22/95 Proposed Budget, dated 3/14/95. Item was included in the budget for an additional cost of $10,614. 4/12/95 Board Work Session. The Board tabled this issue. 4/27/95 Special Board Meeting. Board approved the recommendation. Will add the $10,614. 5/26/95 Tentative Budget Document. Tentative Budget Document reflects the addition of $10,614. 7/24/95 Final Budget Document. Final Budget Document reflects the program additions of$10,614. 31. Security Officers to Work on Safety and Security Issues. * * * *  * * *  * * See feeder item #16. Two additional security officers to deal with security related problems/issues. Would not require a Deseg Plan modification. Additional cost of $36,500. 2/23/95 Board Work Session. General discussion. Officers would be used mainly in the bus areas. Outsourcing transportation would not impact this request. 2/28/95 Board Work Session. Mitchell asked questions about the two officers that would be hired. Williams says they would be police officers that could fill in for the Resource Officers. Magness questions whether they are security officers or resource officers. Matthis says security officers. 3/8/95 Board Work Session. No discussion. This item is on the Budget Consideration list, and the additional costs will be reflected in the proposed budget. 3/16/95 Special Board Meeting and Work Session handout. Item still included in the proposal for an additional cost of $36,500. 3/22/95 Proposed Budget, dated 3/14/95. Item was included in the budget for an additional cost of $36,500. 4/12/95 Board Work Session. The Board tabled this issue. 4/27/95 Special Board Meeting. Board approved the recommendation. Will add the $36,500. 5/26/95 Tentative Budget Document. Tentative Budget Document reflects the addition of $36,500. 7/24/95 Final Budget Document. Final Budget Document reflects the program additions of $36,500. 32. Social Studies Curriculum Revision. * 2/15/95 Business Case book to Board and ODM. Form committee to revise Social Studies curriculum to correlate with new state frameworks\nrevise curriculum guides. Would 17* not require a Deseg Plan modification. Additional cost of $13,200. 2/23/95 Board Work Session. General discussion. * 3/8/95 Board Work Session. Magness had questions. Williams dropped this item from the proposal. It will come out of Matthis budget. This item has been dropped from the Budget Consideration list, and the additional costs will not be reflected in the proposed budget. 33. Information Services. * * * * See feeder item #3. 1/17/95 Joint ODM/LRSD staff meeting handout. Tentative business case list shows program sequence # 24 and 230 will have a business case. It will be prepared by Beason. 1/26/95 Board meeting material. New Extended Evaluation list recommends sequence # 24/230, Data Processing, for modification or deletion. 2/15/95 Business Case book to Board and ODM. Convert district to a PC-based architecture with LANs. Multi-year project will lower costs in out-years. Would not require a Deseg Plan modification. Additional cost of $317,500. * 2/28/95 Board Work Session. Beason makes presentation. Cites significant technological problems. General discussion on costs. OMalley brings up outsourcing, but Williams says this year is not the time. Williams talks about the need for fiber optics.  3/8/95 Board Work Session. No discussion. This item is on the Budget Consideration * list, and the additional costs will be reflected in the proposed budget. 3/16/95 Special Board Meeting and Work Session handout. Item still included in the proposal for an additional cost of $317,500. * 3/22/95 Proposed Budget, dated 3/14/95. Item was included in the budget for an additional * * * * cost of $317,500. 4/6/95 Board Work Session. Williams pushes for the addition of funds based on being able to access archived documents from 7 years ago. No action taken. 4/12/95 Board Work Session. The Board approved the business case and addition as submitted by the superintendent. 5/26/95 Tentative Budget Document. Tentative Budget Document reflects the addition of $317,500. 7/24/95 Final Budget Document. Final Budget Document reflects the program addition of $317,500. 34. Cloverdale Junior High School. * * 2/15/95 Business Case book to Board and ODM. Name change to academy, and other program changes. Case did not receive Do Pass from Superintendent. 2/28/95 Board Work Session. Magness wanted to know why this was turned down. No one could remember. Magness wants more information. 35. Incentive School Principals, * 2/15/95 Business Case book to Board and ODM. Pay increase and back pay for Incentive 18* School Principals. Case did not receive Do Pass from Superintendent. 2/28/95 Board Work Session. Magness initiates a general discussion. 36. Rockefeller Incentive School  Alternative Room Specialist. * 2/15/95 Business Case book to Board and ODM. Add a teacher to be the alternative room * specialist. 1 FTE. Case did not receive Do Pass from Superintendent. 2/28/95 Board Work Session. Magness initiates a general discussion. 37. Seventh Grade Expansion of the Alternative School. * 2/15/95 Business Case book to Board and ODM. Add two 7th grade classes. 4 FTEs and equipment. Case did not receive Do Pass from Superintendent. 38. Reduction in Administrators. * * * * * * Moved from strategy listing. 3/8/95 Board Work Session. This item was added to the budget considerations handout. It calls for a $300,000 reduction in administrative positions. Although not specific, Williams says he has identified some positions. This item is on the Budget Consideration list, and the savings will be reflected in the proposed budget. 3/16/95 Special Board Meeting and Work Session handout. Item still included in the proposal for a savings of $300,000. Positions still identified. Also included an action deadline of 4/15/95. 3/22/95 Proposed Budget, dated 3/14/95. Item was deleted from the budget for a savings of $300,000. 4/12/95 Board Work Session. Williams says he will propose cutting 10 or 12 positions in the central office, not at the building level. The Board tabled the issue awaiting additional information. 4/27/95 Special Board Meeting. Proposed savings increased from $300,000 to $400,000. Actual cut list has not been published at this time. Numerous rumors\nno facts. Board passes the $400,000 cut without the specific cuts. * 4/29/95 Democrat Gazette article. Listed the cuts. Staff attorney plus secretary, $88,520. Deputy Superintendent, $93,969. Associate to the Deputy, $72,439. G/T Coordinator, $52,671. HIPPY Coordinators (2), $48,118. Plant Services * * * (EPA/const mgr), $49,127. Instructional Technology, $42,056. Math Supervisor, $55,942. Displaced principals, $125,288. Total cut package of $628,130. The $228,130 difference between the total and the approved cut amount of $400,000 would be additional new positions yet to be identified or approved. 5/17/95 Special Board Meeting. Meeting held to listen to patron pleas to retain (not cut) the G/T Coordinator position. No other administrative reductions were discussed. No action taken. 5/26/95 Tentative Budget Document. Cuts still at $400,000, but no description of the $228,130 for new positions. Business case included in the Tentative Budget Document. Business case undated. 7/24/95 Final Budget Document. A newly modified business case was submitted with the 19Final Budget Document. Final Budget Document reflects the program modifications for a gross savings of $566,312\nless a contingency add-back of $150,000, for a net savings of $416,312. 20LRSD CHART OF SHORTFALL STRATEGIES BUDGET FY 95-96 NOTE: The items in bold print headings are active. The items with regular print headings are not active. 1. Outsourcing other services. 11/7/94 Board Work Session. 1/17/95 Joint ODM/LRSD staff meeting. Williams indicates the LRSD is not looking at any other Outsourcing opportunities at this time. 2/9/95 Board agenda/special meeting. ServiceMaster makes a presentation on managing custodian, maintenance, and landscaping services. Representative says they can do it within the current budget, but no details given on how the dollars will be handled. Board does not take any action. ServiceMaster will provide more information. See item #13. 2. Clerical Support. 11/7/94 Board Work Session. 3. IRC - Staffing/Use. 11/7/94 Board Work Session. 4. Federal Programs. 11/7/94 Board Work Session. 1/5/95 Extended Program Evaluation list. Shows up on the evaluation list as Sequence # 07, Federal Programs. An extended program evaluation will be prepared. 1/26/95 Board meeting material. New Extended Evaluation list recommends sequence # 07, Federal Programs, for continuation without modification or deletion. 2/15/95 Business case Book to Board and ODM. This item was NOT included in the business case Book, which would tend to indicate this may be a dead issue. 5. Staffing Efficiencies/RIF. 11/7/94 Board Work Session. * * * * * * * * * * * 6. New Futures/In-School Suspension. * 11/7/94 Board Work Session. 7. Facilities Usage. 21* * 11/7/94 Board Work Session. 1/17/95 Joint ODM/LRSD staff meeting. Mayo says the LRSD has completed a preliminary status report on the facilities study for input into the needs assessment. All area elementary schools were rated for possible closing. The top four are Badgett, Fair Park, Baseline, and Woodruff. A business case will be done on the closing recommendations. 8. Student Assessment. * * * 11/7/94 Board Work Session. 1/26/95 Board meeting material. New Extended Evaluation list recommends sequence # none. Student Assessment, for continuation without modification or deletion. 2/15/95 Business case Book to Board and ODM. This item was NOT included in the business case Book, which would tend to indicate this may be a dead issue. 9. Fringe Benefit Package. * 11/7/94 Board Work Session. 10. 11. 12. 13. Contract Lengths.  * * 11/7/94 Board Work Session. 4/12/95 Board Work Session. Pondexter initiates request for more information. Item becomes active after five months. 7/24/95 Final Budget Document. No action was taken, and the budget reflects on change. Millage Election. * * * * * * 11/7/94 Board Work Session. 4/12/95 Board Work Session. Pondexter urges the Board to consider going for a 5 mil tax increase. 4/13/95 Board agenda meeting. Board voted to put the subject of a millage election on the agenda for the next meeting. 5/11/95 Board Agenda Meeting. Board held general discussion on a possible millage election. Williams says they will need between 8 and 12 mils. 7/8/95 Newspaper Article. Board decided not to go for a millage increase this year. 7/24/95 Final Budget Document. No action was taken, and the budget reflects on change. Spending Freeze. * * 11/7/94 Board Work Session. 1/26/95 Board meeting. Gee suggests a purchasing freeze as part of a freeze package (hiring, wage increase, purchasing, travel). Voted down by the Board. Custodian services\nconsulting by ServiceMaster. * * 1/17/95 Joint ODM/LRSD staff meeting. Williams says the district is coming forth with a recommendation on ServiceMaster serving as a consultant on custodian services. 3/16/95 Special Board Meeting and Work Session. ServiceMaster offices make 22presentation. Williams says district would have to bid the work, but could save about $600,000 per year going with ServiceMaster. * 7/24/95 Final Budget Document. No action was taken, and the budget reflects on change. 14. Communications Services. * * 1/5/95 Extended Program Evaluation list. Shows up on the evaluation list as Sequence # 227, Communications Services. An extended program evaluation will be prepared. 1/26/95 Board meeting material. New Extended Evaluation list recommends sequence # 227, Communications Services, for continuation without modification or deletion. 2/15/95 Business case Book to Board and ODM. This item was NOT included in the business case Book, which would tend to indicate this may be a dead issue. 15. Computerized Transportation. * * * 1/5/95 Extended Program Evaluation list. Shows up on the evaluation list as Sequence # 23, Computerized Transportation. An extended program evaluation will be prepared. 1/26/95 Board meeting material. New Extended Evaluation list recommends sequence # 23, Computerized Transportation, for continuation without modification or deletion. 2/15/95 Business case Book to Board and ODM. This item was NOT included in the business case Book, which would tend to indicate this may be a dead issue. 16. Contingencies. * * * * * * * * * 1/5/95 Extended Program Evaluation list. Shows up on the evaluation list as Sequence # 233, Contingencies. An extended program evaluation will be prepared. 1/26/95 Board meeting material. New Extended Evaluation list recommends sequence # 233, Contingencies, for continuation without modification or deletion. 2/22/95 Board Work Session. Eliminating contingencies introduced in handout during meeting. Would save an estimated $1,000,000. No discussion. 3/8/95 Board Work Session. No discussion. This item is on the Budget Consideration list, and the contingency amounts will be deleted from the proposed budget. 3/16/95 Special Board Meeting and Work Session handout. Item still eliminated from the proposal for a savings of $1,000,000. 3/22/95 Proposed Budget, dated 3/14/95. Item was deleted from the budget for a savings of$l,000,000. 4/27/95 Special Board Meeting. Superintendent reminded the Board that they still must take action on this item. No action taken. 5/26/95 Tentative Budget Document. The Tentative Budget Document does not reflect any contingency funds, thus saving the originally budgeted $1,000,000. 7/24/95 Final Budget Document. The Final Budget Document does not reflect any contingency funds, thus saving the originally budgeted $1,000,000. 17. Gifted and Talented. * 1/5/95 Extended Program Evaluation list. Shows up on the evaluation list as Sequence # 207, Gifted and Talented. An extended program evaluation will be prepared. 23* * 1/26/95 Board meeting material. New Extended Evaluation list recommends sequence # 207, Gifted and Talented, for continuation without modification or deletion. 2/15/95 Business case Book to Board and ODM. This item was NOT included in the business case Book, which would tend to indicate this may be a dead issue. 18. Human Resource Services. * * * 1/5/95 Extended Program Evaluation list. Shows up on the evaluation list as Sequence # 228, Human Resource Services. An extended program evaluation will be prepared. 1/26/95 Board meeting material. New Extended Evaluation list recommends sequence # 228, Human Resource Services, for continuation without modification or deletion. 2/15/95 Business case Book to Board and ODM. This item was NOT included in the business case Book, which would tend to indicate this may be a dead issue. 19. Planning and Evaluation. * * * 1/5/95 Extended Program Evaluation list. Shows up on the evaluation list as Sequence # 226, Planning and Evaluation. An extended program evaluation will be prepared. 1/26/95 Board meeting material. New Extended Evaluation list recommends sequence # 226, Planning and Evaluation, for continuation without modification or deletion. 2/15/95 Business case Book to Board and ODM. This item was NOT included in the business case Book, which would tend to indicate this may be a dead issue. 20. Plant Services. * * * 1/5/95 Extended Program Evaluation list. Shows up on the evaluation list as Sequence # 222, Plant Services. An extended program evaluation will be prepared. 1/26/95 Board meeting material. New Extended Evaluation list recommends sequence # 222, Plant Services, for continuation without modification or deletion. 2/15/95 Business case Book to Board and ODM. This item was NOT included in the business case Book, which would tend to indicate this may be a dead issue. 21. Purchasing Services. * * * 1/5/95 Extended Program Evaluation list. Shows up on the evaluation list as Sequence # 224, Purchasing Services. An extended program evaluation will be prepared. 1/26/95 Board meeting material. New Extended Evaluation list recommends sequence # 224, Purchasing Services, for continuation without modification or deletion. 2/15/95 Business case Book to Board and ODM. This item was NOT included in the business case Book, which would tend to indicate this may be a dead issue. 22. Rockefeller Early Childhood. * * 1/5/95 Extended Program Evaluation list. Shows up on the evaluation list as Sequence # 79, Rockefeller Early Childhood. An extended program evaluation will be prepared. 1/26/95 Board meeting material. New Extended Evaluation list recommends sequence # 79, Rockefeller Early Childhood, for continuation without modification or deletion. 2/15/95 Business case Book to Board and ODM. This item was NOT included in the 24business case Book, which would tend to indicate this may be a dead issue. 23. Romine Interdistrict School. * * * 1/5/95 Extended Program Evaluation list. Shows up on the evaluation list as Sequence # 78, Romine Interdistrict School. An extended program evaluation will be prepared. 1/26/95 Board meeting material. New Extended Evaluation list recommends sequence # 78, Romine Interdistrict School, for continuation without modification or deletion. 2/15/95 Business case Book to Board and ODM. This item was NOT included in the business case Book, which would tend to indicate this may be a dead issue. Special Education. 24. 25. 26. n. * * * 1/5/95 Extended Program Evaluation list. Shows up on the evaluation list as Sequence # 203, Special Education. An extended program evaluation will be prepared. 1/26/95 Board meeting material. New Extended Evaluation list recommends sequence # 203, Special Education, for continuation without modification or deletion. 2/15/95 Business case Book to Board and ODM. This item was NOT included in the business case Book, which would tend to indicate this may be a dead issue. Special Education/Learning. * * * 1/5/95 Extended Program Evaluation list. Shows up on the evaluation list as Sequence # 05, Special Education/Learning. An extended program evaluation will be prepared. 1/26/95 Board meeting material. New Extended Evaluation list recommends sequence # 05, Special Education/Learning, for continuation without modification or deletion. 2/15/95 Business case Book to Board and ODM. This item was NOT included in the business case Book, which would tend to indicate this may be a dead issue. Freeze on Hiring. * 1/26/95 Board meeting. Gee suggests a hiring freeze as part of a freeze package (hiring, wage increase, purchasing, travel). Voted down by the Board. Freeze on Wage Increases. * 1/26/95 Board meeting. Gee suggests a wage increase freeze as part of a freeze package (hiring, wage increase, purchasing, travel). Voted down by the Board. 28. Freeze on Travel. * 1/26/95 Board meeting. Gee suggests a travel freeze as part of a freeze package (hiring, wage increase, purchasing, travel). Voted down by the Board. 29. Eliminate Purchase of Buses. * * 2/22/95 Board Work Session. Introduced in handout during meeting. Would save an estimated $1,000,000. No discussion. 3/8/95 Board Work Session. No discussion. This item is on the Budget Consideration 25 * * *  * list, and the additional costs will not be included in the proposed budget. 3/16/95 Special Board Meeting and Work Session handout. Item still eliminated from the proposal for a savings of $1,000,000. 3/22/95 Proposed Budget, dated 3/14/95. Item was deleted from the budget for a savings of$l,000,000, 4/27/95 Special Board Meeting. Superintendent reminded the Board that they still must take action on this item. No action taken. 5/26/95 Tentative Budget Document. Item still eliminated from the Tentative Budget Document for a svaings of $1,000,000. 7/24/95 Final Budget Document. This may get confusing. The district was budgeted to spend $1,000,000 on buses during 94-95. The buses were not purchased, only ordered, in 94-95, so the money was not spent and was reflected in the year end carryover. The bus purchase will actually occurred in 95-96 so most of the money, about $991,000, is now added into this budget to pay for those previously orderd buses. Therefore, no savings are reflected. 30. Eliminate Increment for Employees. * * * * * * 2/22/95 Board Work Session. Introduced in handout during meeting. Would save an estimated $2,000,000. No discussion. 3/8/95 Board Work Session. Pondexter opposed to cutting or freezing pay. Savings reduced to $1,500,000. This item is on the Budget Consideration list, and the additional costs will not be reflected in the proposed budget. 3/16/95 Special Board Meeting and Work Session handout. Item still eliminated from the proposal. Unable to determine the estimated savings since this item is lumped in with other items totaling $3,500,000. 3/22/95 Proposed Budget, dated 3/14/95. Item was deleted from the budget for a savings of$l,500,000. 5/26/95 Tentative Budget Document. Tentative Budget Document reflects this as an item still under consideration at $1,500,000, but does not reflect any savings at this time. 6/15/95 Newspaper Article. An article in the Democrat Gazette stated that eliminating the increment was still being negotiated in the contract talks. 31. Shorten School Year by Two Days.  * * * * 2/22/95 Board Work Session. Introduced in handout during meeting. Would save an estimated $750,000. No discussion. 3/8/95 Board Work Session. No discussion. Savings reduced to $702,000. This item is on the Budget Consideration list, and the savings will be reflected in the proposed budget. 3/16/95 Special Board Meeting and Work Session handout. Item still included in the proposal for a savings of $702,000. Also included an action deadline of 4/15/95. 3/22/95 Proposed Budget, dated 3/14/95. Two days were deleted from the budget for a savings of $702,000. 3/24/95 LRSD Budget Hearing. Williams says that cutting two days pay is for all 26 * * * * * employees, not just teachers. 4/12/95 Board Work Session. Gadberry says the cut would be from all employees of the district. The Board decided to wait to consider this item until after contract negotiations. 4/27/95 Special Board Meeting. Williams says the rules have changed on this proposal. Bus drivers, custodians, and security not affected. Administrators would take a 3 day cut, teachers would take a 2 day cut. Savings amount changed to $699,546. 5/17/95 Special Board Meeting. General discussion on proposal. Board awaiting Attorney Generals opinion on the number of hearings required. No action taken. 5/26/95 Tentative Budget Document. Tentative Budget Document reflects a successful negotiation outcome with the savings of $699,546. 6/15/95 Newspaper article. An article in the Democrat Gazette stated that eliminating the increment was still being negotiated in the contract talks. 32. Move IRC to Fair Park. * * * * * * * 2/22/95 Board Work Session. Introduced in handout during meeting. Would save an estimated $161,800, but would also have a first year expense of $50,000 for utilities and $270,000 for renovations. This would result in a net first year cost of $158,200. Depends upon the closing of Fair Park School. No discussion. 2/28/95 Board Work Session. Magness asked what options were available for moving the IRC if Fair Park was left open. Williams says they need to look at the whole picture of school closings and usage. 3/8/95 Board Work Session. The preliminaiy decision to not close Fair Park precludes this move. This item has been dropped from the Budget Consideration list, and the savings and additional costs will not be reflected in the proposed budget. 3/16/95 Special Board Meeting and Work Session handout. Item still shown as deferred and on hold. Shows a net savings of $111,800. Also included an action deadline of 4/15/95. 3/22/95 Proposed Budget, dated 3/14/95. $161,800 in savings was not shown in the budget since the decision has been defened on closing the school. 4/12/95 Board Work Session. Cant move the IRC if not closing down Fair Park. Pondexter wants information on moving the IRC to Oakhurst. 5/26/95 Tentative Budget Document. Tentative Budget Document reflects no move and no savings. 33. Reduction in Debt Service if Stephens is not Rebuilt. *  * 2/22/95 Board Work Session. Introduced in handout during meeting. Would save an estimated $300,000. No discussion. 3/8/95 Board Work Session. OMalley says building has not been dropped, only being delayed. This item is on the Budget Consideration list, and the savings will be reflected in the proposed budget. 3/16/95 Special Board Meeting and Work Session handout. Item still included in the proposal for a savings of $300,000. Also included an action deadline of 4/15/95. 27* 3/22/95 Proposed Budget, dated 3/14/95. Item was deleted from the budget for a savings * * * * of $300,000. 3/24/95 LRSD Budget Hearing. Williams says the rebuilding of Stephens has been delayed. No date has been set for when it will be rebuilt. 4/12/95 Board Work Session. The Board approved delaying the rebuilding of Stephens for the 95-96 school year. 5/26/95 Tentative Budget Document. Tentative Budget Document reflects the delay and the savings of $300,000. 7/24/95 Final Budget Document. Final Budget Document reflects the delay and the svaings of $300,000. 34. Combine administration of the 4 Year Old Program and the HIPPY Program. * 2/22/95 Board Work Session. Suggested by Pondexter as an alternative cost savings measure. No commitment by the administration. 35. Green Factors. * * *  2/9/95 agenda/special Board meeting. The superintendent proposed spending about $105,000 (7 committees at $12,000-$ 15,000 each) for Green factors study committees. The money would come from the legal object code. Since the projected report delivery deadline is well within this fiscal year, all of the cost should accrue to the current year reducing the year end carry-over. No business case was prepared, thus no options were identified or analyzed. 2/23/95 Board Work Session. Board will not authorize the Green factor committees or the money to fund them until they have an on-the-record conference with Judge Wright. Deleting this action would avert spending about $105,000 in the current fiscal year for incentive payments proposed by the superintendent. 3/9/95 Court Conference. Judge says Green factors will not get you home in this case. The Plan is the law. 3/24/95 LRSD Budget Hearing. Williams says he recommended paying $100,000 to look at the factors. Would have paid out of the legal fees line item. Board did not approve the proposal. 36. Reduction in Administrators. * Moved to business case list. 37. Closing High School Kindergartens.  * 4/19/95 Democrat Gazette article. At a Town Hall feedback meeting on 4/18/95, Williams said the district was now considering the closing of the high school based kindergarten programs. No business case has been prepared. No short fall strategy proposal. No discussion before the Board. 7/24/95 Final Budget Document. No action was taken, and the budget reflects on change. 2838. Utilities for IRC at Fair Park. * 5/26/95 Tentative Budget Document. Tentative Budget Document reflects a cost of $50,000, but shows no savings since this has not been approved by the Board. 29LRSD CHART OF BUDGET ISSUES BUDGET FY 95-96 1. Buses for transportation. According to the October, 1994, business case, the district will be 95 buses short on current year and will need 29 more to make their replacement schedule. Therefore, some buses should be added into the 95-96 budget as an expense item. The decision to outsource transportation makes this issue moot. 2. Appeal of M-to-M pooling. If the appeal is not heard by budget time, the pooling money must be added into the LRSD budget. Order was reversed. LRSD does not have any additional pooling money in the budget. The other pooling funds were never paid to PCSSD, but rather put in an escrow account for the winner of the case. 3. Workers Compensation. Court Order of 1/13/95 ruled in favor of the district. Additional money should be included in the budget. Based on ADE calculations of 4/14/95, the amount will be $167,111. 4. Loss Funding. Court Order of 1/13/95 ruled in favor of the district. Additional money should be included in the budget. Based on ADE calculations of 4/14/95, the amount will be $238,824 for FY93-94, and $472,718 for FY94-95\nfor a total payment of $711,542. 5, Arkansas Public School Computer Network Court Order of 1/13/95 ruled in favor of the district. According to the revised ADE calculations of 5/4/95, the money available to LRSD for computer related expenses would be $176,483. 6. Rebuilding Stephens School. Money to rebuild Stephens School should be included in the capital budget if plans are to move forward. Board made the decision to delay the rebuilding of Stephens. 7. Rebuilding Chicot School. Revenue and expense should be included in the budget to show any rebuilding, insurance revenue, and total building expense. At the agenda/special Board meeting of 2/9, the Board approved rebuilding Chicot with walls for an additional cost of $150,000 over the insurance. The money is in the bond fund. No business case was prepared. 8. Loan payback LRSD/ADE negotiations regarding achievement disparity and the loan payback. What is the status of the negotiations, and what contingency is being planned for the payback of the 30loan. 9. Facilities Study. The cost of the facilities study needs to be included in the budget. Some will be current year, but the final payoff will probably be in the next fiscal year. As of the joint ODM/LRSD staff meeting on 2/21/95, the facilities study is now in three phases: the first is due soon and will cover everything needed by the Judge\nthe second will be delivered on 8/15/95 and will cover what is needed by the District\nthe third will be due sometime after 8/15/95 and will be even more comprehensive than the second phase. 10. Magnet School budget. The calculations for the Magnet School budget need to be changed to reflect the changes pointed out by Bob. 11. Middle Schools. Check and annotate the budget for expenditures being added for middle schools. 12. ServiceMaster. At the agenda/special board meeting on 2/9/95, ServiceMaster made a presentation to take over the management of the districts custodian, maintenance, and landscaping services. It was projected that no additional costs would be required, however, nothing was mentioned on how the dollars would be handled. No business case was prepared. 13. Green factors. At the agenda/special board meeting on 2/9/95, the superintendent proposed spending about $105,000 (7 committees at $12k-$15k each) for Green factors study committees. The money would come from the legal object code. Since the projected report delivery deadline is well within this fiscal year, all of the cost should accrue to the current year reducing the year end carry-over. No business case was prepared. Locate and annotate expenditures for the Green Factor committees. Verify Board approval. No business case was prepared. Board action made this a dead issue. 14. Superintendent incentives. At the agenda/special board meeting on 2/9/95, Riggs proposed an incentive package for the superintendent. The cost of the package was not given. No business case was prepared. How the money will be handled was not discussed, but there were indications that the district wanted to pay it from the remainder of the deseg loan. Locate and annotate projected budget expenditures for incentive payments. The Board put this on hold for the year. 15. Beacon Schools. Check and annotate the budget for expenditures being added for beacon schools. A business case has been submitted for the additional funds, and the funds have been added to the Final Budget Document. 16. Great Expectations. Check and annotate the budget for expenditures being added for Great Expectations. 31No money was identified in either the Tentative or Final Budget Documents. 17. Outsourcing Transportation. If the district fails in the outsourcing attempt, what is the contingency plan and what will it cost? This is a done deal. 18. New Futures. Locate and annotate expenditures for the New Futures funded Board retreat and Strategic Planning effort. Identify the fiscal year. Identify follow-on expenses. New Futures cuts were added back into the budget. 19. Administrative Positions. The Board approved a $400,000 cut in administrators. The cuts recommended by Williams total $628,130. A difTerence of $228,130 has not been approved. Williams said that will be taken by the addition of new positions. No new positions have yet been identified. Those positions should have business cases, should be approved by the Board, and should be included in the tentative budget. The Final Budget Document had a revised business case with the following numbers\na gross savings of $566,312, with an add-back contingency of $150,000 and a net savings of $416,312. 32MOONEYS BRAINSTORMING LIST OF POSSIBLE COST CUTTING MEASURES Mooneys Brainstorming List of Possible Cost Cutting Measures. This is an informal brainstorming list of possible measures for cutting the budget or improving services. We have not determined the feasibility of the items, nor have we run cosuTienefits. The menu is made up of things that might be considered with no judgement made on value. These items in no way should be construed as ODMs position, recommendation, or suggestion. * * * * * * * * * * * * Performance based pay. Benchmark Cincinnati Public Schools plan for administrators. Negotiate with the union. Stipends. Stop advance payments on payroll\nproblems stopped and one-time windfall Salary evaluation and overall review Salary freeze\nfreeze administration first for buy-in Salary rollback. Reduce the number of school days. Reduce the hours of certain staff. Purge positions over $35,000. Freeze all hiring of replacements in non-teaching positions. Consolidate classes Purge all vacant positions from the budget * Car allowance. * Cellular phones. * Vacation days policy revision. * Review sick leave policy. * Cafeteria plan\nbetter education and selling. * Revise travel reimbursement procedures and amounts. * Look at alternative health care plan with eye to maintain benefits at less cost\nthird party arrangements. * Employee suggestion program. * Get suggestions from transportation workers. * TQM initiatives. * Review monitoring functions of the parties for possible coordination/consolidation. * Review reporting generated by PRE. * All secretaries must demonstrate proficiency in WordPerfect and Excel. * Incentive program for attendance\npreferably non-monetary 331 * Incentive program for accident free driving\nboth monetary and non-monetary * Six period day. * * * * * * * *  Flatten administrative organization\nremove some layers Get 10% to 15% from each administrative department General layoffrRIF Give transportation to someone else. Outsourcing\ntransportation, custodial, accounting, data processing, human resources, or all support services in a bundle. Serious program evaluation. Begin benchmarking campaign nation-wide to identify cost saving targets. Reorganize and downsize Federal Programs office. Bus driver recommendation to combine certain routes. * Lease purchase refinancing. Food Service transfer. * Insurance fund transfer. * Transfer of positions and expenses from operating funds to federal funds. * Settlement Loan draw-down. * Grants which would defray operating costs for programs. * Get computer company to volunteer training staff on PC's. * Combine AS400 operations into one. * Work with APSCN to find low cost, long term computer solution. * Implement the Finance Analysis Model immediately, and try to retro-fit for the last two years for possible cut analysis * Check actual expenditures against budgeted for targets of opportunity. * Control and crack down on substitutes. * Cut athletic programs. * Combine recruiting efforts (teacher, parent, VIPS, private school) * Increase Medicaid reimbursement for health services * No cost contract for all health services with A.C.H.\nuse Westside as chip. * Approach State about picking up the Medicaid match portion. * Social work reimbursement from DHS * Reject paying for th\nThis project was supported in part by a Digitizing Hidden Special Collections and Archives project grant from The Andrew W. Mellon Foundation and Council on Library and Information Resoources.\n   \n\n   \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n   \n\n \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n \n\n  \n\n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n   \n\n \n\n\n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n\n\n  \n\n\n\n "},{"id":"usm_hmp_mus-m357-0115","title":"Complimentary ticket to Freedom Riders; January 1995","collection_id":"usm_hmp","collection_title":"Historical Manuscripts and Photographs","dcterms_contributor":null,"dcterms_spatial":["United States, 39.76, -98.5"],"dcterms_creator":["Youth Performance Company (Minneapolis, Minn.)"],"dc_date":["1995-01-01"],"dcterms_description":["From the Dahl (Kathleen) Freedom Summer Collection. Complimentary ticket for performance of a play, Freedom Riders, written by Jacie Knight and Lester Purry, to be performed by Youth Performance Company at Howard Conn Fine Arts Center, Minneapolis, in January 1995.","Electronic version made available through a National Leadership Grant for Libraries from the Institute of Museum and Library Services.","This item is part of the Civil Rights in Mississippi Digital Archive."],"dc_format":["image/jpeg","application/pdf"],"dcterms_identifier":null,"dcterms_language":["eng"],"dcterms_publisher":null,"dc_relation":null,"dc_right":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/CNE/1.0/"],"dcterms_is_part_of":["M357 Dahl (Kathleen) Freedom Summer Collection","Box 3, Folder 5"],"dcterms_subject":["Plays"],"dcterms_title":["Complimentary ticket to Freedom Riders; January 1995"],"dcterms_type":["StillImage","Text"],"dcterms_provenance":["University of Southern Mississippi. Libraries"],"edm_is_shown_by":null,"edm_is_shown_at":["https://usm.access.preservica.com/uncategorized/IO_287b19fd-af27-41e3-9598-eadd2ff9f49f"],"dcterms_temporal":null,"dcterms_rights_holder":null,"dcterms_bibliographic_citation":null,"dlg_local_right":["University Libraries provides access to these materials for educational and research purposes. Use of materials from this collection beyond the exceptions provided for in the Fair Use and Educational Use clauses of the U.S. Copyright Law may violate federal law. When possible, we have provided information regarding the copyright right status of an item; however, the information we have may not be accurate or complete. Obtaining permissions to publish or otherwise use is the sole responsibility of the user."],"dcterms_medium":["documents (object genre)"],"dcterms_extent":null,"dlg_subject_personal":null,"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":null},{"id":"bcas_bcmss0837_931","title":"Discipline: ''Analysis of Disciplinary Actions, District Level,'' North Little Rock School District","collection_id":"bcas_bcmss0837","collection_title":"Office of Desegregation Management","dcterms_contributor":null,"dcterms_spatial":["United States, 39.76, -98.5","United States, Arkansas, 34.75037, -92.50044","United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, 34.76993, -92.3118","United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, Little Rock, 34.74648, -92.28959"],"dcterms_creator":null,"dc_date":["1995/1996"],"dcterms_description":null,"dc_format":["application/pdf"],"dcterms_identifier":null,"dcterms_language":["eng"],"dcterms_publisher":["Little Rock, Ark. : Butler Center for Arkansas Studies. Central Arkansas Library System."],"dc_relation":null,"dc_right":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC-EDU/1.0/"],"dcterms_is_part_of":["Office of Desegregation Monitoring records (BC.MSS.08.37)","History of Segregation and Integration of Arkansas's Educational System"],"dcterms_subject":["Little Rock (Ark.)--History--20th century","School districts--Arkansas--North Little Rock","Education--Arkansas","Education--Evaluation","Educational statistics","School discipline"],"dcterms_title":["Discipline: ''Analysis of Disciplinary Actions, District Level,'' North Little Rock School District"],"dcterms_type":["Text"],"dcterms_provenance":["Butler Center for Arkansas Studies"],"edm_is_shown_by":null,"edm_is_shown_at":["http://arstudies.contentdm.oclc.org/cdm/ref/collection/bcmss0837/id/931"],"dcterms_temporal":null,"dcterms_rights_holder":null,"dcterms_bibliographic_citation":null,"dlg_local_right":null,"dcterms_medium":["documents (object genre)"],"dcterms_extent":null,"dlg_subject_personal":null,"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":"\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n\n\n\n   \n\n\n\n\n   \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n  \n\nThe transcript for this item was created using Optical Character Recognition (OCR) and may contain some errors.\nDate: NORTH LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT Behavior Document --------------- Class Period:- ----- Notice#: Teacher: Student: ------ --------------- ---------------- Reason for Behavior Document: [ ] Class tardiness [ ] Excessive talking [ ] Lack of class materials [ ] Sleeping in class [ ] Eating in class [ ] Cutting class Action Taken: [ ] Student conference [ ] Parent conference [ ] Parent contact [ ] Counseling [ ] Disrespect for teachers [ ] Disrespect for students [ ] Improper care of school property [ ] Disobedience to classroom rules [ ] Overdue library book - second notice [ ] Not doing assignments [ ] Other: _______ _ [ ] Privileges denied [ ] Detention hall [ ] Other Parent's signature: _______________________________ _ Student's signature: ______________________________ _ White copy - Parent Canary copy - Principal Pink copy - Teacher 1995-96 B-15 REF: DlS()211? Disciplin.:1ry B~ferral--Sururuary of Suspensions u/201~2 Sui\nPc:ILf\nion::\nfor 1881 - 1992 ' :'3chol\n~- ---SAC--- --HOME--- BOYS. CLOE --TOTAL-- B NB B NB B NB B NB n 1 2 l~C1l~TLllT TTLE f\u0026lt;OC'K HlGH :.\nc 112 62 12 2 29 6 153 7 (J n 1:., Wlli'l'H LITTLE ROCK HIGH SC :\no 1 lUl 15 9 32 ~ 348 119 U'.24 RIDGEf-\u0026lt;OAMDI DDLE SCHOOL 144 117 18 7 23 10 185 134 U2b LAKEWC10M1JI DDLE SCHO(iL 198 33 i:i 4 41 r~ 245 43 020 [\u0026lt;USE CITY MIDDLE SCHOOL 284 166 12 2ti 8 322 175 0:30 BAl-dNG Ch:OSS CENTER 1 1 031 AMHUYb :LEMENTARSYC HOOL 22 ~i 22 3 032 LAKEWOCiEDL EMENTARYSC HOO 5 1 6 11 1 033 H,lUI-IEl- 'ARK ELEMENTARYSC H 4 [l ,,-, 12 5 03r\u0026gt; :::iEVENTH:3 Thh:ET ELEMENTARY 13 13 037 LYNCHD HIVE ELEMENTARYSC 1 8 ~~ 8 3 038 CENTi\u0026lt;AL b:LEMENTARY 3 10 4 13 4 040 Mi:AJJOWP ARK ELEMENTARYSC 7 2 7 r, ,\u0026lt;. 041 NCRTHH EIGHTS ELEMENTARY 3 1 16 8 19 10 042 r.1-\u0026lt;ESTWC1EuLDh :MENTAl:\u0026lt;SYC HO 3 1 17 1 20 2 043 PARK HILL ELEMENTARYSC HO 9 b 9 8 044 p JKl!: vu:w b:LEMENTAl:\u0026lt;SCYH O 4 1 9 13 1 04t.\u0026gt; BcLWCJ(Jib\":JL b:MENTAHSYC HOOL 3 \"-:,  3 3 046 GLENVIEWE LEMENTARYSC HOO 11 1 11 1 047 f, (J:~ b: CITY ELEMENTARYSC HO 5 21 7 26 7 048 fNDlAN HT LL:~ ELEMENTARYs 2 4 l 6 1 048 l-\u0026lt;EUWCiOELDE MENTARYSC HOOL 8 l 8 l Dl3Tl:\u0026lt;ll:'l' TUTAL.~ 1039 479 96 27 320 87 1455 5~3 EXPULSIONS FOR 1991-92 SCHOOL YEAR SCHOOL GRADE/RACE/SEX OFFENSE Ridgeroad Md. 7 Black/Male wt.:apon Ridgeroad Md. 7 Black/Mi6le weapon Rose City Md. 8 Black/Male weapon l~LRH-East 9 Black/Female weapon NLRH-East 10 Black/Male Prohibited Conc:luct BLK/WHT DISTnICT POLICY 1 0 :E'BJ 0 0 FBM 0 0 FBO 4 0 FBP PROHIBITED CONDUCT DEMONSTRATIONS AND DISORDERLY ACTIVITIES DRUGS AND ALCOHOL WEAPONSA ND DANGEROUSIN STRUMENTS 5 0 Total: 5 INCIDENT# ______ _ NORTH LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT CALL DATE. ____ _ INC. DATE ______ _ CRIMINAL INCIDENT REPORT CALL TIME. ____ _ I Location or Inc: I Address or Inc: I Phone# CQMPLJJ.STN.lC'tlM.:mr.OiiMA,t{()~QT'W'.2':.c?oNM'.1':.t\n.A::lNet'.Je'/wVtIwC\u0026lt;'l' IM:.~JU\\t\nAn,Q,~f'.\n::t\ny::2Lust Name: I Fint: I Ml: Last Name: I First: I Ml: Address: Address: Phone: I DUSSN: Phone: I Dl.JSSN: DOD: / / I Race: I Sex: DOB: T Race: l Sex: Hair Color: Eyes: Hehtht: Wet: Hair Color: Ens: Hl!t: W2t: Plwsical Descriution: Ph\\'Sical Descriotion: Em1loyee: I I Student: I I Other: I Emnlo,ee I I Student I I Other I SUSPltct'JDUltNb.ANTiiNPORMATlONM.%M@.%t@:SAU'WSMPWEC.t'l'I/ DEJl'ENDAN1JmokMAnoNWl@tH1iH@MLast Name: I First: I MI: Last Name: I First: I MI: Address: Address: Phone: I DUSSN: Phone: l DUSSN: DOB: / / I Race: I Sex: DOB: / I Race: I Sex: Hair Color: Eyes: Hel2ht: W2t: Hair Color: Eves: H2t: W2t: Phnical Decsrh,tion: Phvsical Descriution: Emulo,ee: I I Student: I I Other: I Emnlovee I I Student I I Other I wrtNtSSffillORMATION%.tii?).:\n.g\nj\u0026lt;.'\n.'.i\u0026amp;i4~(.F.'./?~:~:w:-1~m.f.is2s\n:\nitflfN%F1~O .itMATiON:~.\n:~\nh~L.:J12\n,_::..\n: :\n\n:S\u0026gt;:Last Name: I First: I Ml: Last Name: I First: I MI: Address: Address: Phone: I DUSSN: Phone: I DUSSN: DOB: / / I Race: I Sex: DOB: / / I Race: I Sex: Hair Color: Eyes: I Hel2ht: W2t: Hair Color: Ens: He:t: W2t: Ph:-!sicaDl escri11tion: Phvsical Descrintion: Emulovee: I I Student: I I Other: I Emulovee I I Student I I Other I Make/Model: I Year: Color: License No: Pro1\u0026gt;ert~D amae.e I I Gane Incident I Personal Iniurv I I Tbcft/Robberv I School Pro11erty Dama2e I I Dru2s I Wca11ons Violation I I Other I \\::\n::\n:::::::\n~:(::::=/f:f-t:)A::\n~0~1tC~-\n-~t1~\n.?~:-~\n\\\\?)~~\n.:~rtt?l:Jt)=A.:.~t f~t\\i~::/fb:l~tA~:thtsSY-iO:~F:f-fJ~NitC::Jdl~)lfl~tt~:}::J:t~:.::}::\\.f:~::~-:~::\n:_=.. . . \u0026lt;'''''  w,::g:i\u0026gt;.:::r,-.J.w i:  + w m@+%1.ao111JrtV1\u0026gt;AMAc.:Nvo.tvE.::a@wtwA:\u0026gt;w neYwm,igw@wiI+@::M#\u0026gt;Descri11tlon: Cost: Serial/ID: Police I I Suuerlntendent I I School I I Safctv/Securitv Office I I Other I Form Pre11nred B,: I Date: I Time: WlilTE COPY -NLR POUCE DEPARTMENT PINK COPY - SCHOOL PRJNCIPAL GOLDENROD COPY - STUDENf AFFAIRS omCE INCIDENT# ______ _ NORTH LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT CALL DATE_. ____ _ INC. DATE_. _____ _ CRIMINAL INCIDENT REPORT CALL TIME._ ____ _ I Location of Inc: I Address of Inc: I Phone# coMPLAtNTMCTJMilNFOaMA'tlQNMIM!MMiW::tOid~/Ml.AMlN!@'t'IfVfWICW'l' IMUWOlU\\fA'rlQN-@d:\\N'\\tMWMMMFiMl\\ Lust Name: First: I Ml: Last Name: I First: I MI: Adtlress: AtldreH: Phone: I DUSSN: Phone: I DUSSN: DOD: / I Race: I Sex: DOB: Race: I Sex: Hair Color: Eves: Hei2ht: Wirt: Hair Color: Ph~sical Descriution: Phnical Descriution: Emulovee: I I Student: I I Other: Em11lo1ee I 1 Student l l Other SUSPECT/DJ:PBNDANl\\ffiia'ORMA.TlONiiWA@dMtM.iMSUMSMP#EfaCifT /DEFENfiMtr:mroRMAttoN:MtiM\u0026amp;t%%WMW%Last Name: First: I Ml: Last Name: I First: I Ml: Address: Address: Phone: I DUSSN: Phone: I DUSSN: DOB: / / I Race: I Sex: DOB: / / Race: I Sex: Hair Color: Eves: Heleht: Wirt: Hair Color: Eves: Hl!t: Wirt: Ph\\'Sical Decsriution: Phvsical Descrintion: Em11lo1ee: I I Student: I I Other: Emnloyee I T Student I I Other Last Name: First: I Ml: Last Name: I First: I Ml: Adtlress: Atltlress: Phone: I DUSSN: Phone: I DUSSN: DOB: I I I Race: I Sex: DOB: / T Race: I Sex: Hair Color: Eves: Heieht: Wl!t: Hair Color: Ens: Het: Wirt: Ph'\\sical Descri11tion: Phvsical Descrintion: Emnlo,ee: I I Student: I I Other: Emnlovee I I Student I I Other    .. i :\n:\u0026lt; s\" 5 t!TP\\ + \u0026gt;TJA hN Y : 'llli'. Make/Model: I Year: Color: License No: . \u0026lt;\u0026lt; , x \n.= ,,,~ . .,v~.n: i\u0026gt;h,\u0026lt;= ~j I' NEIH .. t,1/:?  i +\u0026amp;\u0026lt;\"'  \n,\\\n.\n:,,_:\n::'.:''''''-i~c,:i::~:\"\"~}Pro11ert1D ama2e Gan2I ncident Personal lniurv Thcft/Robberv School Pro11erty Dama2e Drues Weanons Violation Other \" 'Ii ,,,,.,myy, \"'\"\"?-l'KI!'JH,%%\"::1:'==r = rxwvn.,,x. :M'.\",. .. ,.   ,.... mu------\"\"'+nI ,.,.,.,.,.,, :::\ntn:At:\u0026gt;\\ '.\n-:t:'?JIT:7. ....\" ..\". .' , Descrh,tion: Cost: Serial/ID: Police I I Su11erlntendent I I School I I Safetv/Securitv Office I Other Form Pre11nred Bv: I Dnte: I Time: WlUIE COPY -NLR POLICE DEPAIITMENf PINK COPY - SCHOOL PRINCIPAL GOLDENROD COPY - STUDENT AFFAIRS OFFICE INCIDENT# ______ _ NORTH LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT CRIMINAL INCIDENT REPORT CALL DATE. ____ _ INC. DATE ______ _ CALL TIME. _____ _ I Location of Inc: I Address or Inc: I Phone# COMPI.Al8'l'NIC'tlMfflll'Ot(MA}1y'lrOn:N2\u0026lt;Y'\u0026gt;.YEfW '.'2:c\\o}M PllAlNTNIC'flf.{:tmt()JtMA'l2'lON\\? :?::ES:rnt:\u0026lt;Lust Name: First: I MI: Last Name: ( First: I MI: Address: Addreu: Phone: I DIJSSN: Phone: I DUSSN: DOB: / / I Race: I Sex: DOB: / / Race: I Sex: Hair Color: Eyes: Heieht: Wet: Hair Color: Ens: Wet: Phnical Descrintion: Phvsical Descrintion: Emnlovee: I I Student: I I Other: Emnlovee I l Student l l Other SUSPECTIDEFBND.ANtriiNWRMATJON{ii\u0026amp;.M:HWM:!@SUMS\\tP%E%CMT/fDf EJi'ENfiANT'INFORMATION\\WMMNK@WHLast Name: First: I Ml: Last Name: I First: I MI: Address: Address: Phone: I DIJSSN: Phone: I DIJSSN: DOB: / / I Race: I Sex: DOB: / / Race: I Sex: Hair Color: Eves: Heleht: Wet: Hair Color: Eves: Hl!:t: Wet: Ph~sical Decsrintion: Phvsical Descrintion: Em11lo,ee: I I Student: I I Other: Emnloyee I l Student l l Other WITNESSJN li'OitMATIONMt@\u0026lt;c tt\u0026lt; (j: ':~ EL'.\u0026gt;L':SfW\nrtNESSI NFOIU\\IA'.tlO'N. { 't\u0026gt;\u0026gt; ::ttLt::nnxLttW\u0026lt;\nY Last Name: First: I Ml: Last Name: I First: I Ml: Address: Address: Phone: I DUSSN: Phone: I DIJSSN: DOB: / / I Race: I Sex: DOB: / I Race: I Sex: Hair Color: Eves: Heleht: Wl!:t: Hair Color: Phnical Descri11tion: Phvsical Descriution: I I Student: I I Other: Emnlovee I I Student I I Other E\n:.,.,\n.}S\u0026lt;\n:/A? \\bi,/C{hi .\\ VltntCLI.JNl()R.MA'J'iQN\"',., ,.,,,fr~, \\tt:Le,,,-~ . .. .\n,:..,. ,. ..:.: Make/Model: Color: License No: M  ~ \" )\u0026lt;.wWiX \u0026lt;.:\u0026lt;  / ~  -~ Prouert,D ama2e Gnni!I.n cident Personall niurv Theft/Robberv School Pro1,ertv Damaee Drues Weanons Violation Other Descrintlon: Cost: SeriaVID: Police I I Suuerlntcndent I I School I I Safctv/Sccuritv Office I I Other Form Prei,nred By: I Dnte: 1 Time: WlilTE COPY -NLR POLICE DEPARTMENT PINK COPY - SCHOOL PRINCIPAL GOLDENROD COPY - STIJDENT AFFAIRS OFFICE NORTH LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT District Suspension Student's Name _________________ Student ID# ____________ _ School ______________ Grade ___ _ Date ---------------- Address of Parent or Guardian: _____________________________ _ Dear ____________ _ Your child has been involved in the following incident: ----------------------- This letter is to infonn you that the following disciplinary action has been taken concerning your child. Beginning ___________ , your child will be assigned to the following program for ____ day(s):      Boys/Girls Club Suspensions for students in grades seven through twelve will be served at the North Little Rock Boys/Girls Club located at 13th and Main Streets directly across the street from the Alternative School. Classes begin at 8:30 a.m. and dismiss at 3:30 p.m. Transportation to the Boys/Girls Club Suspension program is the family's responsibility. Elementary Alternative School Suspensions for students in grades Kindergarten through six will be served at: School:_ ___________ Location: ____________ _ Time: __________ . Transportation to the Alternative School suspension class is provided. See attached bus schedule. Saturday School Suspensions for students in grades four through twelve will begin at 8:00 a.m. and will dismiss at 12:00 noon. This assignment is effective only on the date shown above. Failure to attend Saturday School will result in further disciplinary action. See attached Saturday School infonnation sheet. Student Assignment Class Suspensions/SAC classes for students in grades seven through twelve are located on each secondary school campus. The class will begin and dismiss within the school's nonnal bell schedule. Home suspensions will be served in the students' homes. If a suspension exceeds four (4) days (not counting today), then it will be reviewed, if a parent or guardian so requests, by the Assistant Superintendent for Student Affairs. A copy of the policies of the Board of Education pertaining the suspensions and expulsions is available for examination at each school and at the Administrative Office .  Parent: Please retain this copy for your records. If you have further questions, please contact the school at Principal Assistant Principal/Administrative Assistant Whitec opy-Parentc opy Yellow copy-Studenct opy Pink copy-Officec opy Goldenrodc opy-StudentA ffairsO ffice 1995-96 B-16 I 1 l ,. 1~93 NORTH LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT ANALYSIS OF DISCIPLINARY ACTIONS DISTRICT LEVEL 1995-96 FRANCICAL J. JACKSON DIRECTORO F STUDENTA FFAIRS Ref: DIS032 flat .. , r./1 /o, Time: 15:26:38 Analysis of Disciplinary Actions r\u0026gt;Tn'l'n (\"'I' r.~r. Prom AUGUST Through MAY l 9 9 4 - 9 5 ===============a======= -----BM------ -----BP------ -----NBM----- -----NBP----- # REP PCT/TOT # REP PCT/TOT # REP PCT/TOT # REP PCT/TOT # STU # STU # STU # STU ======--------aaaacaaaaa==E=ccmccaaasacc============= 09 S.A.C. 869 46.6\\ 460 24.7\\ 411 22.0\\ 126 6.8\\ 1866 429 252 231 76 988 10 HOME SUSP. 236 50.8\\ 106 22.8\\ 103 22.2\\ 20 4.3\\ 465 166 73 78 17 334 11 BOYS CLUB 133 61.6\\ 44 20.4\\ 31 14.4\\ 8 3.7\\ 216 95 36 28 8 167 12 E. I. C. 178 57.6\\ 68 22.0\\ 58 18.8\\ 5 1.6\\ 30~ 123 55 41 5 224 17 EXPULSION 7 87.5\\ 0 .0\\ 1 12.5\\ 0 .0\\ 8 7 0 1 0 8 ================-------====------====--=-------------------~---=-=== 1 9 9 5 - 9 6 -----BM------ -----BP------ -----NBM----- -----NBP----- # REP PCT/TOT # REP PCT/TOT # REP PCT/TOT # REP PCT/TOT # STU # STU # STU # STU ==m============== 09 S.A.C. 1043 51.2\\ 445 21.8\\ 410 20.1\\ 140 6.9\\ 2038 450 232 224 89 995 10 HOME SUSP. 141 61.8\\ 42 18.4\\ 42 18.4\\ 3 1.3\\ 228 99 32 31 2 164 11 BOYS CLUB 371 66.1\\ 102 18.2\\ 75 13.4\\ 13 2.3\\ 561 214 67 53 13 347 12 E. I. C. 1540 59.3\\ 489 18.8\\ 498 19.2\\ 71 2.7\\ 2598 554 231 209 42 1036 17 EXPULSION 2 40.0\\ 1 20.0\\ 0 .0\\ 2 40.0\\ 5 2 l 0 2 5 ================------------------------------------------------------------ COMPARISON ===========================a============ -----BM------ -----BP------ -----NBM----- -----NBP----- # REP PCT(+/-) # REP PCT(+/-) # REP PCT(+/-) # REP PCT(+/-) # STU # STU # STU # STU ====================~-----====---------=-=----------------------------------=- 09 S.A.C. 174 20.0 \\ 15- 3.3-\\ 1- .2-\\ 14 11.l \\ 172 21 20- 7- 13 7 10 HOME SUSP. 95- 40.3-\\ 64- 60.4-\\ 61- 59.2-\\ 17- 85.0-\\ 237- 67- 41- 47- 15- 170- 11 BOYS CLUB 238 178.9 \\ 58 131.8 \\ 44 141. 9 \\ 5 62.5 \\ 345 119 31 25 5 180 12 E.I.C. 1362 765.2 \\ 421 619.l \\ 440 758.6 \\ 66 1320.0 \\ 2289 431 176 168 37 812 17 EXPULSION 5- 71. 4-\\ l 100.0 \\ 1- 100.0-\\ 2 200.0 \\ 3- 5- l 1- 2 3- Ref: Date: Time: DIS032 6/12/96 15:26:49 09 S.A.C. 10 HOME SUSP. ll BOYS CLUB 12 E.I.C. 17 EXPULSION 09 S.A.C. 10 HOME SUSP. ll BOYS CLUB 12 E.I.C. 17 EXPULSION Analysis of Disciplinary Actions HIGH SCHOOLS From AUGUST Through MAY l 9 9 4 - 9 5 -----BM------ # REF PCT/TOT # STU 510 243 80 57 89 57 0 0 5 5 53.9\\ 60.6\\ 7l.8\\ .o, 83.3\\ -----BF------ # REF PCT/TOT # STU 207 128 12 ll 21 19 0 0 0 0 21.9\\ 9.l\\ 16.9\\ .o, .o, l 9 9 5 - 9 6 -----BM------ # REF PCT/TOT # STU 470 220 20 18 207 116 0 0 2 2 50.2\\ 60.6\\ 7l.l\\ .o, 66 .7\\ -----BF------ # REF PCT/TOT # STU 189 105 7 5 41 31 0 0 l l 20.2\\ 2l.2\\ 14 .l\\ .o, 33.3\\ COMPARISON -----NBM----- # REF PCT/TOT # STU 180 109 36 32 9 8 0 0 l l 19.0\\ 27 .3\\ 7.3\\ .o, 16.7\\ -----NBM----- # REF PCT/TOT # STU 192 ll0 4 3 36 28 0 0 0 0 20.5\\ 12.l\\ 12.4\\ .o, .o, -----NBF----- # REF PCT/TOT # STU 49 31 4 4 5 5 0 0 0 0 5.2\\ 3.0\\ 4.0\\ .o, .o, -----NBF----- # REF PCT/TOT # STU 85 52 2 l 7 7 0 0 0 0 9.l\\ 6.l\\ 2.4\\ .o, .o, 946 511 132 104 124 89 0 0 6 6 936 487 33 27 291 182 0 0 3 3 ====================--------------=--=--=-----------===--=----------------= -----BM------ -----BF------ -----NBM----- -----NBF----- # REF PCT(+/-) # REF PCT(+/-) # REF PCT(+/-) # REP PCT(+/-) # STU # STU # STU # STU =================--=---=-=-====--======-------------=-------------------= 09 S.A.C. 40- 7.8-\\ 18- 8.7-\\ 12 6.7 ' 36 73.5 ' 10- 23- 23- l 21 24- 10 HOME SUSP. 60- 75.0-\\ 5- 4l. 7-\\ 32- 88.9-\\ 2- 50.0-\\ 99- 39- 6- 29- 3- 77- ll BOYS CLUB 118 132.6 ' 20 95.2 ' 27 300.0 ' 2 40.0 ' 167 59 12 20 2 93 12 E.I.C. 0 .0 ' 0 . 0 ' 0 .o ' 0 .o ' 0 0 0 0 0 0 17 EXPULSION 3- 60.0-\\ l 100.0 ' l- 100.0-\\ 0 .0 ' 3- 3- l l- 0 3- Ref: DIS032 Date: 6/12/96 Time: 15:26:46 Analysis of Disciplinary Actions MIDDLE SCHOOLS From AUGUST Through MAY 1 9 9 4 - 9 5 -----BM------ # REF PCT/TOT # STU -----BF------ # REF PCT/TOT # STU -----NBM----- # REF PCT/TOT # STU -----NBF----- # REF PCT/TOT # STU ====-======---------------------------=------------------------========= 09 S.A.C. 359 39.0% 253 27.5% 231 25.1% 77 8.4% 920 186 124 122 45 477 10 HOME SUSP. 106 43.3% 75 30.6% 49 20.0% 15 6.1% 245 68 49 30 12 159 11 BOYS CLUB 44 47.8% 23 25.0% 22 23.9% 3 3.3% 92 38 17 20 3 78 12 E.I.C. 0 .0% 0 .0% 0 .0% 0 .0% 0 0 0 0 0 0 17 EXPULSION 2 100.0% 0 .0% 0 .0% 0 .0% 2 2 0 0 0 2 1 9 9 5 - 9 6 -----BM------ -----BF------ -----NBM----- -----NBF----- # REF PCT/TOT # REF PCT/TOT # REF PCT/TOT # REF PCT/TOT # STU # STU # STU # STU ===================---------------=-------------------------------==-----==== 09 S.A.C. 573 52.0% 256 23.2% 218 19.8% 55 5.0% 1102 230 127 114 37 508 10 HOME SUSP. 5 41. 7% 4 33.3% 3 25.0% 0 .0% 12 5 4 3 0 12 11 BOYS CLUB 164 60.7% 61 22.6% 39 14.4% 6 2.2% 270 98 36 25 6 165 12 E.I.C. 0 .0% 0 .0% 0 .0% 0 .0% 0 0 0 0 0 0 17 EXPULSION 0 .0% 0 .0% 0 .0% 2 100.0% 2 0 0 0 2 2 aa:asaa:cca=c=aaca:caDaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaac COMPARISON -----BM------ -----BF------ -----NBM----- -----NBF----- # REF PCT(+/-) # REF PCT(+/-) # REF PCT(+/-) # REF PCT(+/-) # STU #STU #STU #STU ========================--===------------------------------------=-= 09 S.A.C. 214 59.6 \\ 3 1.2 \\ 13- 5.6-\\ 22- 28.6-\\ 182 44 3 8- 8- 31 10 HOME SUSP. 101- 95.3-\\ 71- 94.7-% 46- 93.9-% 15- 100.0-% 233- 63- 45- 27- 12- 147- 11 BOYS CLUB 120 272.7 % 38 165.2 % 17 77 .3 \\ 3 100.0 \\ 178 60 19 5 3 87 12 E.I.C. 0 . 0 % 0 .o % 0 . 0 \\ 0 .o \\ 0 0 0 0 0 0 17 EXPULSION 2- 100.0-% 0 .o \\ 0 . 0 \\ 2 200.0 \\ 0 2- 0 0 2 0 Ref: Date: Time: DIS032 6/12/96 15:26:42 Analysis of Disciplinary Actions ELEMENTARY K-6 From AUGUST Through MAY l 9 9 4 - 9 5 ====-==========--=---=-----======--------=------------=-----------= -----BM------ -----BF------ -----NBM----- -----NBF----- # REF PCT/TOT # REF PCT/TOT # REF PCT/TOT # REF PCT/TOT # STU # STU # STU # STU ===================----------=--------=-==--====================== 09 S.A.C. 0 .0\\ 0 .0\\ 0 .0\\ 0 .0\\ 0 0 0 0 0 0 10 HOME SUSP. so 56.8\\ 19 21. 6\\ 18 20.5\\ l l.l\\ 88 41 13 16 l 71 11 BOYS CLUB 0 .0\\ 0 .0\\ 0 .0\\ 0 .0\\ 0 0 0 0 0 0 12 E.I.C. 178 57.6\\ 68 22.0\\ 58 18.8\\ 5 1.6\\ 309_ 123 55 41 5 224 17 EXPULSION 0 .0\\ 0 .0\\ 0 .0\\ 0 .0\\ 0 0 0 0 0 0 l 9 9 5 - 9 6 ========================-------------------------------=-------------------= -----BM------ -----BF------ -----NBM----- -----NBF----- # REF PCT/TOT # REF PCT/TOT # REF PCT/TOT # REF PCT/TOT # STU # STU # STU # STU =================-=----------------------------------------------------------= 09 S.A.C. 0 .0\\ 0 .0\\ 0 .0\\ 0 .0\\ 0 0 0 0 0 0 10 HOME SUSP. 115 63.2\\ 31 17.0\\ 35 19.2\\ 1 .5\\ 182 75 23 25 1 124 11 BOYS CLUB 0 .0\\ 0 .0\\ 0 .0\\ 0 .0\\ 0 0 0 0 0 0 12 E.I.C. 1539 59.3\\ 489 18.8\\ 498 19.2\\ 71 2.7\\ 2597 553 231 209 42 1035 17 EXPULSION 0 .0\\ 0 .0\\ 0 .0\\ 0 .0\\ 0 0 0 0 0 0 =============-=-=-------=------------------------------------------------- COMPARISON ===================s============================ -----BM------ -----BF------ -----NBM----- -----NBF----- # REF PCT(+/-) # REF PCT(+/-) # REF PCT(+/-) # REF PCT(+/-) # STU # STU # STU # STU ==================a===s 09 S.A.C. 0 .o \\ 0 .0 \\ 0 .0 \\ 0 .0 \\ 0 0 0 0 0 0 10 HOME SUSP. 65 130.0 \\ 12 63.2 \\ 17 94.4 \\ 0 .o \\ 94 34 10 9 0 53 11 BOYS CLUB 0 .0 \\ 0 .0 \\ 0 .o \\ 0 .0 \\ 0 0 0 0 0 0 12 E.I.C. 1361 764.6 \\ 421 619.1 \\ 440 758.6 \\ 66 1320.0 \\ 2288 430 176 168 37 811 17 EXPULSION 0 . 0 \\ 0 .0 \\ 0 .0 \\ 0 . 0 \\ 0 0 0 0 0 0 DIS0325 'ate: 6/13/96 1me: 15: 56: 21 chocl: 012 Analysis o~ Disciplinary Actions by School From AUGUST Through MAY NORTH LITTLE ROCK HIGH SCHOOL - 11/12 --------------------=-======================================-----------========= i 9 9 4 - 9 5 --------------=--================================================================ -----BM------ # REF PCT/TOT w STU -----BF------ # REF -PCT/TOT w STU -----NBM----- # REF PCT/TOT w STU -----NBF----- # REF PCT/TOT w STU -=============================================================-----============= 5.\n,, - 163 58. bi. 51 18. 3i. 54 19. 4% 10 3. 6i: 278 87 41 36 7 171 . \\_' HOMi:: Si.}SF 21 70. 0 .,,. 1 3. 3'1/. 7 23. 3i: 1 - ,.j_ .~..\",,'. 30 19 1 7 1 28 BOYS CLUB 41 -91. 1.,,. 2 'L 47. 2 4.4'1/. 0 . 0'1/. 45 21 2 \"2 0 25 E I. ,-_ -. 0 . Oi: 0 . Oi~ 0 . 0% 0 . Oi. 0 0 0 0 0 0 -\n- EXPi_,iL.5 I ON 4 100_ 0'1/. 0 . O't. 0 . 0'1/. 0 . 0% 4 4 0 0 0 4 ======~========================================================================= 1 9 9 5 - 9 6 .: --==:..:=---================-=========================================================== -----BM------ -----BF------ # REF PCT/TOT # REF PCT/TOT # STU # STU -----NBM----# REF PCT/TOT # STU -----NBF----# REF PCT/TOT # STU --=====~=-====~~=======-==-======================================================= S. ~,.. - 192 59. 6'1/. 40 12_ 4'1/. 76 23. 6'1/. 14 4. 3i. 322 98 30 46 1 i 185 HCH'1:= s:_1s~ s: 81. 8% i 9. 1i': 1 9_ n: 0 0% 11 - 1 1 0 9 B ~\n-:UJE iOi 82. 8% 5 4. 1 '1/. 15 12. 3% 1 Bi. 122 5i 5 10 1 67 E. J.. C 0 O,.\n0 0% 0 0'1/. 0 0% 0 - 0 0 0 0 0 E::\u0026lt;PU\n_SIQt--1 50. 0% 1 50. 0 .,,. 0 0% 0 0% 2 1 i 0 0 2 ------------------------------------------=--=---------------------------------- COMPARISON : -==-=========================================================================== ------Bn------ -----BF------ -----NBM----- -----NBF-----  REF PCT(+/-l # REF PCT(+/-)# REF PCT(+/-l # REF PCT\u0026lt;+/-) # STU # STU # STU # STU =----=~======~=====--=--======================================================== f-. ,.. ~- 29 17. 8 I, 11- 21. 6-% 22 40. 7 I. 4 40. 0 i. 44 11 1 i- 10 4 14 HOM.:: SUSP. 12- 57. 1-i\n0 0 i\n6- 95_ 7-'1/. 1- 100. 0-' 19- 12- 0 6- 1- 19- BOV=: Cl.-LiB 60 146. 3 i: 2 150. 0 I, 13 650. 0 I. 1 100. 0 .,,. 77 ..... ,.:,_~, 3 8 1 42 - 0 0 I, 0 - ~ ~ - 0 i: 0 0 I. 0 0 i: 0 - 0 0 0 0 0 EX?ULSiON ~- 75. 0-i: l 100. 0 I, 0 0 i: 0 0 i\n2- 3- 1 0 0 2- .ef: DIS0325 AnEol1Jsis of Disc ip l ina'T'IJ Actions 6/13/96 by School 15:56:25 From AUGUST Through MAY chool 013 NORTH LITTLE ROCK HIGH SCHOOL - 09/10 ---==========================================-==--==========--------------====== l 9 9 4 - 9 5 =---------=-======================--======--==--=-----=-==-----------------====== -----BM------ -----BF------ # REF PCT/TOT # REF PCT/TOT # STU # STU -----NBM----# REF PCT/TOT # STU -----NB'F----# REF PCT/TOT # STU -------------=-===============================================------========----- S. A C 347 51. 9% 156 23. 4% 126 18. 9% 39 5. 8'Y. 668 i58 88 73 24 343 HDl'ic SUSF. 58 e~ .., I. 4'i. 1i iO. 9% 29 28. 7,\n3 3. O'Y. 10i 37 iO 25 3 75 BOYS CLUB 48 60. 8' 19 24. 1 ' 7 8. 9' 5 6. 3' 79 36 17 6 5 64 E. ' .-. 0 0% 0 0' 1 0' 0 Oi'\n0 0 0 0 0 0 EiP:JL..5lON 1 50. 0% 0 0% i 50. Qi'\n0 0% 2 l 0 1 0 2 ====~=========================================================================== i 9 9 5 - 9 6 ---=================--=-=====================================--------============ -----BM------ -----BF------ # REF PCT/TOT # REF PCT/TOT # STU # STU -----NBM----# REF PCT/TOT # STU -----NBF----- # REF PCT/TOT # STU --~====================-==========================================-=-============ S. H , 278 45. 3'i. 149 24.3% 116 18. 9 71 11. 6'1/. 614 12~ 75 65 42 305 HDMi:: SvSF 1 3~. 3'i. i 33. 3 1 33. 3 0 . O 3\nL 1 1 0 3 BOYS CLUB 68 6i. 3% 21 18. 9 17 15. 3'1/. 5 4. 5' 111 5.-, C. 17 15 5 89 E I.C 0 . Oi: 0 . 0'1/. 0 . Oi: 0 . O 0 0 0 0 0 0 EXPULSION 1 100. O't. 0 . 0% 0 . O 0 . 0'1/. 1 1 0 0 0 1 - ---===:====-=--------============================================================ COMPARISON ~~==================-==========================================================-----BM------ -----BF------ -----NBM----- -----NBF----- # REF PCT(+1-l # REF PCT(+/-) # REF PCT(+/-) # REF PCT(+/-) # STU # STU # STU # STU ____\n ======-=-------------=================================================--=- 5 A C. 69- 19. 9-i'\n7- 4. 5-'1/. 10- 7. 9-'1/. 32 82. 1 '1/. 54- 35- 13- 8- 18 38- HOM:: SI_ISP 57- 98. r:_\n~ ,. 10- 90. 9-' 28- 96. 6-'1/. 3- 100. 0-'Y. 98- 36- 9- 24- 3- 72- BOr~ C:...\\.'F 2c, 41 7 I. ~, 10. 5 ., ,:.. ,. 10 142. 9 'Y. 0 0 r. 32 le 0 9 0 25 - ' ... 0 (, I. 0 0 'Y. 0 0 /. 0 0 '1/. 0 ' 0 0 0 0 0 EXPULSION 0 0 ,\n. 0 0 % 1- 100. o- 0 0 'Y. 1- 0 0 1- 0 1- DIS032S Analysis of Disciplinary Actions 6/13/96 by School ,ime: 15: 56:25 From AUGUST Through MAY _ch oo l 020 NLRHS-WEST ANNEX M-0W'\\fr b=-==================================\ni,~========================================= 1 9 9 4 - 9 5 -=-----------============================:ac=:===================================== -----Br-1------ # REF PCT/TOT # STU -----BF------ # REF PCT/TOT # STU -----NBM----# REF PCT/TOT # STU -----NEF----# REF PCT/TOT w STU -===========================================================--==--==========:=== 5. A C. 0 0'1/. 0 O 0 O 0 0'1/. 0 0 0 0 0 0 HDr1i:: SUSP. 0 0.,, . 0 0 .,, . 0 0% 0 0'1/. 0 0 0 0 0 0 l BOVS CLUB 0 0 0 0 0 O 0 O'l. 0 0 0 -o 0 0 E. I. C. 0 0'1/. 0 O 0 O' 0 0% 0 0 0 0 0 0 - EiPU-SIOr-i 0 O' 0 O 0 O 0 0% 0 0 0 0 0 0 -~====~========================================================================= 1 9 9 5 - 9 6 =-===========-================================================--------============ -----BM------ ~ REF PCT/TOT # STU -----BF------ # REF PCT/TOT # STU -----NBM----# REF PCT/TOT # STU -----NBF----# REF PCT/TOT # STU ================================================================================ 5. A r 0 . 0% 0 . O'Y. 1 100. 0% 0 . O'Y. 1 0 0 1 0 1 HOM:i: 3USC:1 11 50. o\n,: 7 31. 8'1/. 4 18. 2i: 0 . Ot. 22 11 5 3 0 19 BOYS C1-.UB 38 60. 3'Y. 20 31. 7'1/. 4 6. 3'Y. 1 1. 61. 63 25 14 4 1 44 E - { .L. ~ 0 . O'Y. 0 . O'Y. 0 . Ot. 0 . Ot. 0 0 0 0 0 0 EXP!JL.SION 0 . 01. 0 . O'Y. 0 . O'Y. 0 . O 0 0 0 0 0 0 --=-=====~~--------===========================================================-- COMPARISON ~~==~=~========================================================================~ -----EM------ -----BF------ -----NBM----- -----NBF----- # REF PCTC+/-l # REF PCTl+/-l # REF PCT(+/-) # REF PCT(+/-) # STU # STU # STU # STU -=---==~==============-=--=========================================================== s F-.\n., 0 .0 I. 0 .0 % 1 100. 0 - 0 .0 '1/. 1 C, 0 1 0 1 HLil'iE SU3P 11 1100. 0 ,: 7 700.0 'Y. 4 400.0 'Y. 0 .0  22 11 5 3 0 19 BC!YS ,: ... iJE 38 3800. 0 I. 20 2000. 0 ,: 4 400. 0 I. 1 100.0 t. 63 25 14 4 1 44 -- - '-. 0 .0 '1/. 0 .0 I. 0 .0 - 0 .0 I. 0 0 0 0 0 0 r:x\n:uLSION 0 .0 I. 0 .0 I. 0 .0 t. 0 .0 I. 0 0 0 0 0 0 ~ef: DIS0325 :\u0026gt;ate: 6/ !3/96 ,ime: 15: 56: 30\nc hool: 024 Analysis of Disciplinary Actions by School From AUGUST Through MAY RIDGERDAD MIDDLE SCHOOL =--------------========================================------------------=----=~ i 9 9 4 - 9 5 ---------------=============================================--================== -----BM------ # RE'F PCT/TOT # STU -----BF------ # REF PCT/TOT # STU -----NBM----- # REF PCT/TOT # STU -----NIF ----# RE'F PCT/TOT # STU ===========================================================---------============ :9 S. A C. 131 30. Oi:. 128 29. 4'Y. 122 28. Oo/\n55 12. 6'1/. 436 73 57 53 32 215 ~0 HOi'i:i:: SUSF. 72 39. 81: bi 33. 7'Y. 34 18. 8'1/.. 14 7. n\n181 4i 38 19 11 109 11 BOVS CLUB 18 54. 5 4 12. 1 'Y. 8 24. 2'Y. 3 9. 1 'Y. 33 16 4 7 3 30 . ~- E. I. c. 0 . O'Y. 0 . O'Y. 0 - O'Y. 0 . O'Y. 0 ~ 0 0 0 0 0 ..:.7 ~X?ULSIO~-. i 100. Qi'\n0 . O'Y. 0 . O'Y. 0 . O'Y. i i 0 0 0 i ======~==============:=========================================================== 1 9 9 5 - 9 6 ~=======================================================-==--------============= -----BM------ -----BF------ # REF PCT/TOT # REF PCT/TOT # STU # STU -----NBM----# REF PCT/TOT # STU -----NBF----- # REF PCT/TOT # STU ~====~=========================================================================== _-r 5 f-. --. 2'?5 50. 4'1/. 158 27. 0'1/. 99 16.9% 33 5.61, 585 . ,J .V\"C..., 67 48 ,,,, \"-\"- 242 :i.0 HOME. SUSP. 1 100. Qi\n0 . 01o 0 . 0% 0 . O 1 1 0 0 0 1 BOVS CLUB 71 54. 6% 39 30. 0% 16 12.3 4 3. 1% 130 42 22 11 4 79 , ,.., ..:..:.. E . I C 0 . Or. 0 . 0% 0 . Oi. 0 . O' 0 0 0 0 0 0 :7 EXPULSI  f\\, 0 . Oi. 0 . Oi: 0 . O 1 100.0i. 1 0 0 0 1 1 =~~==~========================================================================== COMPARISON\n~~=~--~~============~=========================================================== -----B~------ -----BF------ -----NBM----- -----NBF----- # REf PCT(+/-) # REF PCT(+/-)# REF PCTi+/-) # REF PCT(+/-) # STU # STU # STU # STU ~=====~========================================================================= - ~- A C. 164 125. 2 /a 30 23. 4 /a 23- 18. 9- 22- 40. 0- 149 32 10 5- 10- 27 . '\nHOr-i= SUSP 71- 98. 6-'1/. 61- 100. 0- 34- 100. 0-'1/. 14- 100. 0- 180- 40- 38- 19- 11- 108- BC::,:\nCL...UB 53 294. 4 ,\n. 35 875. 0 '1/. 8 100. 0 '1/. 1 33. 3 /a 97 - 26 18 4 1 49 -- - :i: - 0 0 '1/. 0 0 % 0 0 'Y. 0 0 'Y. 0 - 0 0 0 0 0 . EiPUL.SION 1- 100. 0-i': 0 0 ' 'Y. 0 0 '1/. 1 100. 0 'Y. 0 1- 0 0 1 0 .e-f DIS0325 6/13/96 ime 15:56:31 ~hool: 025 Analysis of Disciplinary Actions by School From AUGUST Through MAY LAKEWOOD MIDDLE SCHOOL ======================--=-===================================================== i 9 9 4 - 9 5 ~=====:==========-===-------===================================================== -----Br-1------ 4' REr PCT/TOT # STU -----BF------ # REr PCT/TOT # STU -----NBM----# REr PCT/TOT # STU -----NBF----# REF PCT/TOT # STU =====~================----===========--===------============-====--============ S. A. ~. \\..,. 96 51. 6'1/. 47 25. 3'1/. 41 22. 0'1/. 2 1. 1' Y. 186 55 3i 29 2 117 .. HOM:C: SiJSP. 8 42. io/. 4 21. 1o/. 6 3i. 6% i 5. 3% 19 8 3 6 1 18 BOYS CLUB 8 27. 6'1/. 14 48. 3 7 24. 1 0 0'1/. 29 5 8 6 0 19 2 E. I. -- 0 0o/. 0 0'1/. 0 0% 0 O'l: 0 0 0 0 0 0 EXPULSIOr-.i 0 0'1/. 0 Oo/. 0 07: 0 0% 0 0 0 0 0 0 -=====================~=====================================------------======== i 9 9 5 - 9 6 ======~========================================--======-===--------------====== -----Bt.\n------ # REF PCT /TOT # STU -----BF------ # REF PCT/TOT # STU -----NBM----# REF PCT/TOT # STU -----NBF----- # REF PCT/TOT # STU --===~====================--==================================================== S. A .-. 135 63. 1 ., ,. 36 16. 8% 39 18. 2% 4 1. 9% 214 71 28 27 3 129 HOMi: susr=. l 50. Oi\n1 50. 0% 0 . 0% 0 . 0% 2 i 1 0 0 2 BO'{~ C1-UE 47 79. 7i: 5 8. 5'1/. 7 11. 9' 0 . 0o/. 59 28 4 5 0 37 E. I C 0 . 0% 0 . 0% 0 . Oi: 0 . 0'1/. 0 0 0 0 0 0 EXPUi_S ION \\ . .\u0026gt; . 0o/. 0 . 0% 0 . 01 1 100.07. 1 0 0 0 1 1 ::.. :===.:=========================================================================== COMPARISON ===========================================================================~== -----B~------ -----BF------ -----NBM----- -----NBF----- # RE~ PCT(+/-) # REr PCTI+/-} # REF PCT(+/-} # REF PCT(+/-} # STU #\"STU # STU # STU ~~===~=~========================================================================= '\"\" ~- r- 39 40. 6 '1/. 11- 23. 4-% 2- 4. 9-o/. 2 100. 0  28 16 3- 2- 1 12 - HOM:: SUSF 1- 87. 5-'1/. 3- 75. 0-'1/. b- 100. 0- 1- 100. 0- 17- 7- 2- b- 1- 16- BOY.=. C:...JJ\n3q 487. 5 ,\n. 9- 64. 3-'1/. 0 0 o/. 0 0 t. 30 23 4- 1- 0 18 - - - ~. C C, /. 0 0 /. 0 0 o/. 0 0  0 - -- 0 0 0 0 0 EXPULSION 0 0 I. 0 0 I. 0 0 '1/. 1 100. 0 '1/. 1 0 0 0 1 1 Ref: L\u0026gt;IS032S Date: 6/13/96 Time: 15: 56: 33 School. 026 ROSE Analysis of Disciplinary Actions by School From AUGUST Through MAY CITY MIDDLE SCHOOL ================================================================================ i 9 9 4 - 9 5 ======:========================================================================= -----BM------ -----BF------ -----NBM----- -----NBF----- # REF PCT/TOT # REF PCT/TOT * REF PCT/TOT # REF PCT/TOT # STU 4i STU * STU * STU ====================---==========--========------==-=======----================= Q9 S. A. C. 132 44. 3' 78 26. 2'Y. 68 22. B'Y. 20 6. 7 .,,. 298 bi 37 42 11 151 10 HOM:i:. SUBP. 26 59. i'Y. 9 20. 5 9 20. 5' 0 O'Y. 44 20 8 6 0 34 11 BOYS CLUB 18 60. O'Y. 5 16. 7 7 23. 3'Y. 0 O'Y. 30 17 5 7 0 29 i2 E. I. C. 0 O'Y. 0 O'Y. 0 O'Y. 0 . o~~ 0 0 0 0 0 0 - E\n,(Pi.JLSIOl\\i i 100. O'Y. 0 O'Y. 0 O'Y. 0 O'Y. i 1 0 0 0 1 i 9 9 5 - 9 6 -===========================================--====-=========----================ -----BM------ -----BF------ # REF PCT/TOT # REF PCT/TOT # STU # STU -----NBM----# REF PCT/TOT # STU -----NBF----- # REF PCT/TOT # STU --=====--===--=--==--------===============----==============-==-================ ,:,~ 5. A - i43 47. 4% 62 20. 5 79 26. 2'Y. 18 6. 0% 302 63 36 38 12 149 10 HOME susi:_ ~- C: 66. 7 .,,. 0 0 .,, . 1 33. 3'1/. 0 O'Y. 3 2 0 1 0 3 11 BOY::i CLUB 46 60. 5 12 15. B'Y. 16 21. 1' 2 2. 6'Y. 76 29 8 9 2 48 12 E. I. G 0 O 0 O'Y. 0 0'1/. 0 0'1/. 0 0 0 0 0 0 17 EXPULSION 0 0% 0 O'Y. 0 0'1/. 0 0'1/. 0 0 0 0 0 0 ============================================================================~=-= COMPARISON ---=-:=-====------==-============================================================= -----BM------ -----BF------ -----NBM----- -----NBF----- # REF PCT(+/-i # REF PCT(+/-i # REF PCT(+/-) # REF PCT(+/-) # STU # STU # STU # STU ----------------------------================================================---- )S -- A -:. 1i 8. 3 ,.\n:\n, 16- 20. 5-'1/. 11 16. 2 '1/. 2- 10. 0-'Y. 4 c~.. . 1- 4- 1 2- ~o HDME SUSP. 24- 92. 3-~~ 9- 100. 0-'Y. 8- 88. 9-'Y. 0 0 'Y. 41- 18- 8- 5- 0 31- - l BOYS c:...uB 28 155. 6 'Y. .I. . 140. 0 'Y. 9 128. 6 '1/. 2 200. 0 '1/. 46 12 3 2 2 19 l2 - I ,,. 0 0 '1/. 0 0 'Y. 0 0 '1/. 0 0 'Y. 0 0 0 0 0 0 ,- !. ' E1.F-..it..SI ON 1- iOO. 0-'Y. 0 0  0 0 'Y. 0 0 'Y. 1- 1- 0 0 0 1- .ef: DIS032S Analysis of Disciplinary Actions 6/13/96 by School 15: 56:33 From AUGUST Through MAY 030 BARING CROSS CENTER ----------==================================================---=----------====== 1 9 9 4 - 9 5 ======================================================================-========= ----- B t\"i------ # REF PCT/TOT # STU -----BF------ -----NBM----- # REF PCT/TOT # REF PCT/TOT # STU # STU -----NBF----- # REF PCT/TOT # STU ============================================================---=----============ S. A. C. 0 . 0'1/. 0 . O' 0 . 0' 0 . 01. 0 0 0 0 0 0 HOMi:: SUSP. 1 50. Oi'~ 1 50. O 0 . o,: 0 . 0/~ 2 1 1 0 0 2 BOYS CLUB 0 . 0% 0 . 0% 0 . O' 0 . 0% 0 0 0 0 0 0 E. I. C. 0 . O 0 . O 0 . O' 0 - . 0'1/. 0 0 0 0 0 0 EXPULSION 0 . o,~ 0 . 01. 0 . Oi~ 0 . 01. 0 0 0 0 0 0 --================--------======================================-=-==--========= l 9 9 5 - 9 c, -----=~---------------------====----===------------=--==----------------======== -----BM------ # REF PCT/TOT # STU -----BF------ # REF PCT/TOT # STU -----NBM----- # REF PCT/TOT # STU -----NBF----# REF PCT/TOT # STU ----===-~-=====-================================================================== 5. A .-- 0 . 0'1/. 0 . 0'Y. 0 . 0'1/. 0 . 0'Y. 0 0 0 0 0 0 HOME SUSF 0 . Ot. i 33. 3'Y. 0 . 0'Y. 2 66. 7 3 0 1 0 1 2 BDYS CLUB 0 . 0'Y. 0 . 0% 0 . 0'Y. 0 . 0'Y. 0 0 0 0 0 0 E. I C 0 . 0'Y. 0 . 0'Y. 0 . 0'1/. 0 . O'Y. 0 0 0 0 0 0 EXPULSION 0 . O 0 . 0'Y. 0 . 0'Y. 0 . O'Y. 0 0 0 0 0 0 ---============================================================================== COMPARISON =~===:========================================================================== -----BM------ -----BF------ -----NBM----- -----NBF----- # REF PCT(+/-1 # REF PCT(+/-i # REF PCT(+/-) # REF PCT(+/-) # STU # STU # STU # STU ------------------------======================================================== S. A. C. 0 .0 i. 0 .0 i: 0 .0 I 0 .0 I 0 0 0 0 0 0 HOME SUSP 1- 100. 0-i: 0 .0 I, 0 .0 I, 2 200.0 I, 1 1- 0 0 1 0 . , BOYS CL..UB 0 .0 i: 0 .0 I, 0 .0 I 0 .0 I, 0 0 0 0 0 0 l 2 ~ I - 0 .0 i\n0 .0 i~ 0 .0 la 0 .0 i\n0 0 0 0 0 0 ~7 EXPULSION 0 .0 ,. 0 .0 I, 0 .0 I 0 .0 I 0 0 0 0 0 0 ef: DIS0325 6/13/96 15:56:34 ::hool: 031 AMBOY Analysis of Disciplinary Actions by School From AUGUST Through MAY ELEMENTARY SCHOOL =============================================================================== 1 9 9 4 - 9 5 - ---------=========================-=========-=----=====-==-----------------===== -----BM------ # RE'F PCT/TOT # STU -----BF------ # REF\" PCT/TOT # STU -----NBH----# REF PCT/TOT # STU -----NBF----# REF PCT/TOT # STU ============================================================-------============ B. A. C. 0 . Or. 0 . Or. 0 . Or. 0 . Or. 0 0 0 0 0 0 HOME SvSP. ..\ni 75. Oi: 0 . Oi: 1 25. Oi: 0 .Oi: 4 2 0 1 0 3 BOYS CLUB 0 . Ot. 0 . Or. 0 . Or. 0 . O't. 0 0 0 0 0 0 E. I. C. 9 34. bi: 9 34. 6Y. 0 30. 8 0 . O't. 26 9 6 6 0 21 E\u0026gt;::PUL.SION 0 . 01. 0 . 01 0 . Qi\n0 . Oi: 0 0 0 0 0 0 -=====~========================================================================= l 9 9 5 - 9 6 -------------------------------========------==================-=---============== -----EM------ # REF PCT/TOT # STU -----BF------ # REF PCT/TOT # STU -----NBM----# REF PCT/TOT # STU -----NBF----- # REF PCT/TOT # STU -----------------------------==========----===--=============-================== S. ,=... ... 0 0'1/.. 0 0'1/. 0 0'1/. 0 0'1/. 0 0 0 0 0 0 HOMt: S:JSP 10 l-:.j-.. ..:,. 3o/. i 8. 3'1/. i 8. 3'1/. 0 O'Y. 12 iO i 1 0 12 BOYS CLUB 0 01: 0 0% 0 0'1/. 0 O'Y. 0 0 0 0 0 0 E. I. C Se 57. 1 % 13 13. 3'Y. 25 25. 5t. 4 4. 1'Y. 98 38 7 18 4 67 EXPULSION 0 01. 0 Or. 0 O'Y. 0 Or. 0 0 0 0 0 0 ------------==:-==========================================================------ COMPARISON -------------------=======================================================------ -----Bt1------ -----BF------ -----NBM----- -----NBF----- # REF P:T1+/-i # REF PCT(+/-i # REF PCT(+/-) # REF PCT(+/-) # STU # STU # STU # STU ==-----==------------=========================================================== s . M. r 0 .0 /. 0 .0 t. 0 .0 t. 0 .0 t. 0 0 0 0 0 0 HOMi:: SiJSP. 7 233. 3 i\n1 100. 0 Y. 0 .0 Y. 0 .0 ., lo 8 8 1 0 0 9 BC:VS CL..UB 0 .0 i: 0 .0 ,. 0 .0 ,. 0 .0 i: 0 0 0 0 0 0 - I C 47 .0 i: 4 .0 i\n17 .0 i~ 4 .0 'Y. 72 5 0 17 4 46 Ex.PU ...S.. IOl'l 0 .0 - 0 .0 ., 0 .0 ., ,. ,. 0 .0  0 0 0 0 0 0 ~ef: DIS032S Date: 6/13/96 Time: 15: 56: 34 3chool: 032 Analysis of Disciplinary Actions by School From AUGUST Through MAY LAKEWOOD ELEMENTARY SCHOOL =------------------------=---=-====================-------------------------==== 1 9 9 4 - 9 5 -------------=-----==-=-====================================--=========-======== -----E t4------ -----BF------ -----NBM----- -----NBF----- # REF PCT/TOT # REF PCT/TOT # REF PCT/TOT # REF PCT/TOT # STU * STU * STU # STU ======================= =================================================== -:\n,c S. f1. '~. 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 . 0% 0 0 0 0 0 0 ,0 HOME' SUSP. 9 75. 0% 2 16. 7.,, . 1 8. 3.,, . 0 0% 12 b 2 1 0 9 1 i BOYS CLUB 0 0% 0 . Oo/. 0 0% 0 0% 0 0 0 0 0 0 ~ ., 4,:\n_ E. I. C. 3 37. Si. 4 50. 0% 0 12. 5' 0 0% 8 3 4 1 0 B ~ / EXPU!...SION 0 o , 0 . O'Y. 0 Oi. 0 Oi'~ 0 0 0 0 0 0 ======~======================================================================~== i 9 9 5 - 9 6 ~=============================================================================== -----BM------ # REF PCT/TOT # STU -----BF------ # REF PCT/TOT # STU -----NBM----- # REF PCT/TOT # STU -----NBF----# REF PCT/TOT # STU ================================================================================ ,:,c: S. A ~ 0 . 0'1/. 0 . 0'1/. 0 . O'Y. 0 . 01. 0 0 0 0 0 0 10 HOME SIJSP. 6 66. 71. ~. C. 22. 2% 1 11. 1 '}~ 0 . 01. 9 3 1 1 0 5 11 i3OYS CLUE 0 . 0'1/. 0 . 0'1/. 0 . O'}~ 0 . 01. 0 0 0 0 0 0 i2 E. I C 23 47.9% 7 i4.6% 18 37. St. 0 . 0%. 48 . .., 17 3 7 0 27 Ei(PUL.SION 0 . 0% 0 . 0% 0 . 0% 0 . 01. 0 . : 0 0 0 0 0 ====~======================================================================COMPARISON --====~======--=-==-============================================================ -----Bl'-1------ -----B'F------ -----NBM----- -----NBF----- # REF PCT(+/-) # REF PCT(+/-) * REF PCT(+/-) # REF PCT(+/-) # STU # STU * STU # STU ~===~======~==================================================================== 09 S. A C 0 0 I. 0 0 i. 0 0 i. 0 .0 I. 0 0 0 0 0 0 10 HOME SIJSP. 3- 33. 3-1. 0 0 'Y. 0 0 'Y. 0 0 I. 3- 3- 1- 0 0 4- 11 BDY::, Ci...UB 0 0 i: 0 0 'Y. 0 0 i. 0 0 'Y. 0 0 0 0 0 0 l.2 r:::. :i: - 20 0 i. 3 0 '1/. 17 0 '1/. 0 0 lo 40 7 1 17 0 19 4. EXPiJt..SION 0 0  0 0 'Y. 0 0 i. 0 0 lo 0 0 0 0 0 0 .ef: DIS032S ate: 6ii3/96 15: 56:37 chool: 033 BOONE Analysis of Disciplinary Actions by School From AUGUST Through MAY PARK ELEMENTARY SCHOOL ==============================================================--=---=--======== 1 9 9 4 - 9 5 ~================================================-===========--====-----======== -----BM------ w REF\" PCT/TOT # STLI -----BF------ # REF\" PCT/TOT # STU -----NBM----- -----NBF----# REF PCT/TOT # REF PCT/TOT # STU # STU ===============================================================--=-============ S. A. C. 0 . 0'1/. 0 . O 0 . 0'1/. 0 . 0'1/. 0 0 0 0 0 0 HOME SUSP 3 75. 0'1/. 0 . O 1 25. O' 0 . 0/~ 4 3 0 1 0 4 BOYS CLUB 0 . O'l. 0 . O 0 . 0' 0 . O'l. 0 0 0 0 0 0 E. I. C. 12 66. 7 2 11. 1 0 22. 2' 0 . 0% 18 9 1 4 0 14 EXPULSION 0 . O'l. 0 . O 0 . o,: 0 . 0'1/. 0 0 0 0 0 0 ================================================================================ i 9 9 5 - 9 6 --====~==========-===========================================-==-=============== -----BM------ -----BF------ # REF PCT/TOT # REF PCT/TOT # STU # STU -----NBM----# REF PCT/TOT # STU -----NBF----- # REF PCT/TOT # STU -=============================================================================== 5. A. C. 0 . O' 0 . 0'1/. 0 . O' 0 . O'l. 0 0 0 0 0 0 HOM= s, JC\n~ 1i 47.8'1/. 2 8. 7 10 43. 5 0 . O 23 6 2 4 0 12 BOYS CLUB 0 . 0'1/. 0 . O' 0 . O 0 . O 0 0 0 0 0 0 t:.. I. C 25i 52.8 105 22. 1 ,105 22. 1 14 2.9 475 72 40 27 9 148 EXPULSION 0 . 0'1/. 0 . 0'1/. 0 . O 0 . O 0 0 0 0 0 0 ~~==~=======-=================================================================== COMPARISON -:=========~===================================================================== -----BM------ -----BF------ -----NBM----- -----NBF----- # REF PCTl+/-l # REF PCT(+/-) # REF PCT(+/-) # REF PCT(+/-) # STU # STU # STU # STU .\n_-----==-====-------------===============================================-------- S. A ~ 0 0 '1/. 0 0 I. 0 0 I 0 0  0 0 0 0 0 0 i-iOM:: SUSP. 8 266. 7 i: 2 200. 0 I 9 900. 0 .,,. 0 0  19 3 2 3 0 8 BOY:: :L..UE 0 0 'l. 0 0 i: 0 0 ., 0 0 ., ,. ,. 0 (i 0 0 0 0 .:. r - -. 239 0 % 103 0 ' 101 0 'l. 14 0 I 457 20 52 101 14 134 E\u0026gt;..PULSION 0 0 ,. 0 0 ., 0 0 ., 0 0 ., ,. ,. ,. 0 0 0 0 0 0 ef: DIS032S 6/13/96 i1me: 15: 56: 37 chool 035 Analysis of Discipline~y Actions by School From AUGUST Through MAY SEVENTH STREET ELEMENTARY SCHOOL =====================================================================-==-====== i 9 9 4 - 9 5 ======~========================================================================= -----BM------ # RE'F PCT/TOT # STU -----BF------ # REF PCT/TOT # STU -----NBM----# REF PCT/TOT # STU -----NBF----- # REF PCT/TOT # STU -------===============================---=------------=-==-------------=======- S. A. C. 0 0% 0 01/. 0 0% 0 O 0 0 0 0 0 0 HOri:i:: SuSP. 3 37. Si'.: 0 O 5 62. 5~~ 0 Oi'.: 8 3 0 3 0 6 i BOYS CLUB 0 0% 0 0% 0 o,~ 0 O 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 E. I. C. 5 62. 5 0 0% 0 37. 5% 0 0 8 5 0 1 0 6 EiPULSIOi\\i C, 0% 0 0% 0 0 0 o~~ 0 0 0 0 0 0 -~============================================================================== i 9 9 5 - 9 6 ~============~================================================================= -----BM------ # REF PCT/TOT # STU -----BF------ # REF PCT/TOT # STU -----NBM----# REF PCTiTOT # STU -----NBF----# REF PCT/TOT # STU -=======:======================================================================= . .,. - I-. ,- 0 . Oi~ 0 . 0% 0 . O 0 . 0% 0 0 0 0 0 0 . c, HOME SUSP . c:: 28. 6\n~ 3 42. 9% c:: 28. 6 0 . 0 7 2 3 1 0 6 BOYS CLUB 0 . 01. 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . Oi. 0 0 0 0 0 0 E. I C. 51 55. 4,\n19 20. 7 22 23.91. 0 . Ot. 92 33 11 13 0 57 EXPUi...SION 0 . Oi: 0 . Oi. 0 . Oi\n0 . O 0 0 0 0 0 0 =-~===::.:=-========:======================================================s======-==--- COMPARISON ~~===~=~=:====================================================================== -----BM------ -----BF------ -----NBM----- -----NBF----- # REF PCTI+/-) # REF PCT(+/-) # REF PCT(+/-) # REF PCT(+/-) # STU #- STU # STU # STU ~~====~========================================================================= ~-- A C 0 0 % 0 0 % 0 .0 % 0 .0 % 0 0 0 0 0 0 !-iOl\"t:c SUSF- i- 33. 3-i'~ 3 300. 0 ~\n3- 60. 0-'1/. 0 .0 i. 1- 1- 3 2- 0 0 BCvs CLUB 0 .0 '1/. 0 .0  0 .0  0 0 % 0 0 0 0 0 0 - I i.. 4b .0 /. 19 0 I. 19 .0 ,. 0 .0 % 84 q 19 19 0 51 EXPULSION 0 .0 I. 0 0 % 0 .0 % 0 .0 % 0 (I 0 0 0 0 ~ Ref: DIS032S Analysis of Disciplinary Actions\n:,ate: 6/13/96 by School Time: 15.56:38 From AUGUST Through MAY School 037 LYNCH DRIVE ELEMENTARY SCHOOL ============================================================---===-===-----===== 1 9 9 4 - 9 5 ================================================================================ -----BM------ -----BF------ -----NBM----- -----NBF----- # RE'F PCT/TOT # REF PCT/TOT # REF PCT/TOT w REF PCT/TOT # STU # STU # STU # STU ---==---------====================-=======----------====-==---------============ :,9 S. A. C. 0 0.,,. 0 01. 0 0% 0 01. 0 0 0 0 0 0 l\\.J HOME SUSP. 3 25. 0'1/. 5 41. 71. 4 33. 3/: 0 0.,, . 12 3 2 4 0 9 11 BOYS CLUB 0 0 .,,. 0 O' 0 Oo/. 0 01. 0 0 0 0 0 0 -\n_2 E. I. C. 8 44. 4'1/. 7 38. 9% 0 16. 7% 0 0% 18 6 7 2 0 15 :: 7 EXPU!...SION 0 0 .,, . 0 o,\n0 0 .,,. 0 0% 0 0 0 0 0 0 ======~~======================================================================== i 9 9 5 - 9 6 ================================================================================ -----BM------ # RE\"F PCT/TOT # STU -----BF------ * REF PCTiTOT # STU -----NBM----* REF PCT/TOT # STU -----NBF----# REF PCT/TOT # STU ================================================================================ :)c\n, s ,:._ C 0 0% 0 . 01. 0 . 0% 0 . 0% 0 0 0 0 0 0 10 HOl'E SUSF. i5 65.2% 5 2i. n\n3 13. 0o/. 0 . 0o/. 23 i2 3 3 0 18 l .i. B  vs CL.UB 0 0% 0 . 0'Y. 0 . 0 0 . O'Y. 0 0 0 0 0 0 12 E. 7~ - ,r._ 120 63. 2% 36 18.9 31 16. 3'Y. 3 1. 6'Y. 190 59 27 21 2 109 17 EXPUt...SIOt~ 0 . 01. 0 . O 0 . 0% 0 . O' 0 0 0 0 0 0 =~==========================================================================~=== COMPARISON =~===~=======:==============================================================-----BM------ -----BF------ -----NBM----- -----NBF----- # REF PCTI+/-) # REF PCT(+/-) # REF PCT(+/-) # REF PCT(+/-) # STU # STU # STU # STU =~==========================================================================~=== )9 ::,_ 1-c ,- - 0 .0 i: 0 0 'l. 0 .0 % 0 .0 'Y. 0 C, 0 0 0 0 1.0 HOME SiJSP. 12 400. 0 I. 0 0 '1/. 1- 25. 0-1. 0 .0 ' 11 9 1 1- 0 9 ~ ... BC:VS C,_Ur\n0 .0 i\n0 0 ., 0 0 % 0 .0 ., ,. ,. 0 0 0 0 0 0 ~.:. ~ I ~ ... 112 0 i\n29 0 i\n28 .0 i: 3 .0 'l. 172 14 4 28 3 94 :i.--\nE\u0026gt;C:\n:,ULSiON 0 .0 I. 0 .0 .,,. 0 .0  0 .0 I. 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ref: DIS032S Analvsis of Disciplinarv Actions Date: 6/13/96 bv School Time: 15:56:40 From AUGUST Through MAY School 038 CENTRAL ELEMENTARY ================================================================================ 1 9 9 4 - 9 5 ================================================================================ -----Bi-1------ # REF PCT/TOT # STU -----BF------ # REF PCT/TOT # STU -----NBM----# REF PCT/TOT # STU -----NBF----# REF PCT/TOT # STU =~============================================================================== v-r S. A. C. 0 . 0% 0 . 0% 0 . 0% 0 . 0% 0 0 0 0 0 0 :.G HOME SUSP 2 66. 7% 0 . 0% 1 33. 3% 0 . 0'1/. 3 2 0 1 0 3 11 BO'fS CLUB 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0'Y. 0 . 0 ,1. 0 0 0 0 0 0 ... _:. E. I. C . 47 73.4% 4 6.3'Y. 0 18.8% 0 1. 6'Y. 64 29 4 6 1 40 17 E)(PUi....SIDN 0 . O'Y. 0 . 0'Y. 0 . 0'1/. 0 . Oi. 0 0 0 0 0 0 =======~======================================================================== i 9 9 5 - 9 6 ================================================================================ -----BM------ -----BF------ # REV PCT/TOT # REF PCT/TOT # STU # STU -----NBM----- # REF PCT/TOT # STU -----NBF----- # REF PCT/TOT # STU --------------==-----------=======--===-======================================== --):\n, E /:,, :... 0 0% 0 0% 0 Oi'~ 0 0% 0 0 0 0 0 0 ~v 1-iCJM: SUSF- :-3.-. ,:\n8 .-. c:.. 1% i 2. 6'i'~ b 15. 4' 0 O' 39 i5 i 4 0 20 l J BOVS CL..iJB 0 0% 0 Oi'~ 0 0% 0 0% 0 0 0 0 0 0 12 c . ... C 145 62. 5,\n. 33 14. 2~: 48 20. 7i'~ 6 2. 6 232 60 20 18 5 103 17 HPULSION 0 0% 0 0% 0 O' 0 0% 0 0 0 0 0 0 =========================================================================-=-=~=- COMPARISON ====~=========================================================================== -----BM------ -----BF------ -----NBM----- -----NBF----- # REF P-:\nT ( +/-i # REF PCT(+/-) # REF PCT(+/-\u0026gt; # REF PCT(+/-) # STU # STU # STU # STU --------------------------==============================================------=- .)9 s A r. 0 0 i: 0 0 i: 0 0  0 0 'Y. 0 0 0 0 0 0 :..:: HOM:: SUSP 30 1500. 0 I. 1 100. 0 'Y. 5 500. 0  0 0  36 13 1 3 0 17 l ! BOY:= CLiJB 0 0 I. 0 0 I. 0 0 ,. 0 0 'Y. 0 0 0 0 0 0 l\n: i:. I ~ 98 0 I, 29 0 I. 36 0  5 0 'Y. 168 2 7 36 5 63 :7 EXPULSION 0 0 i: 0 0 ., 0 0 ., 0 0 ., I, - - 0 0 0 0 0 0 D!S0325 Analysis of Disciplinar~ Actions 6il3/96 by School 15:56:40 From AUGUST Through MAY 040 MEADOW PARK ELEMENTARY SCHOOL ----=================================---=-=--=-----------------------------===== 1 9 9 4 - 9 5 =======~=====================================================-==-===--========== -----B ,\n------ # REF PCT/TOT # STU -----BF------ # REF PCT/TOT # STU -----NBM----# REF P\"CT/T OT # STU -----NBF----# REF PCT/TOT # STU ================================================================----============ S. A C. 0 . 0% 0 . 01o 0 . 01o 0 . Oi'~ 0 0 0 0 0 0 HOME: =\u0026gt;'-'::\u0026gt;~. 0 . Oi\n0 . Oi: 0 .Oi: 0 . Oi: 0 0 0 0 0 0 BOYS CLUB 0 . 01o 0 . 0% 0 . D1o 0 . 0% 0 0 0 0 0 0 E. I. C. 3 21. 4% 7 50.01o 0 28.61o 0 . Oi'~ 14 3 6 3 0 12 EXPU~SIOt 0 . o~,: 0 . 0% 0 . Oi'~ 0 . o~~ 0 0 0 0 0 0 i. 9 9 5 - 9 6 ====~=:=======~================================================================== -----BM------ -----BF------ -----NBM----- -----NBF----- # REF PCT/TOT # REF PCT/TOT # REF PCT/TOT # REF PCT/TOT # STU # STU # STU # STU ================================================================================ :::. F, ' 0 01. 0 01o 0 01o 0 01o 0 0 0 0 0 0 HCiM:C Si,_iSF 0 01. 0 01o 0 0% 0 0% 0 0 0 0 0 0 BOYS CLUB 0 0% 0 01o 0 01. 0 0% 0 0 0 0 0 0 E. I. C 77 42. 31. 37 20. 31o 50 27. 51o 18 9. 91o 182 33 17 14 7 71 EXPULSION 0 0% 0 01. 0 01o 0 0% 0 0 0 0 0 0 :~==~~========================================================================== COMPARISON =======-======================================================================== -----BM------ -----BF------ -----NBM----- -----NBF----- # REF PCT(+/-i # REF PCT(+/-) * REF PCT(+/-) * REF PCT(+/-) # STU # STU # STU # STU =====~~~======================================================================== S. A C 0 0 i: 0 0 'l. 0 0 'l. 0 0 i. 0 0 0 0 0 0 HOMi:: SUSP 0 0 i: 0 0 '1/. 0 0 - 0 0 lo 0 0 0 0 0 0 BOV3 Ct....t.JB 0 0 i~ 0 0 lo 0 0 '1/. 0 0 lo 0 0 0 0 0 0 ~ I C 74 0 i~ 30 0 '1/. 46 0 '1/. 18 0 '1/. 168 25 4 46 18 59 EXPULSION 0 0 i: 0 0 lo 0 0 lo 0 0 lo 0 0 0 0 0 0 '\n-- ..: ~ef: D!S032S t\nate: bi 13/96 Time: 15: 56: 41 '3chool: 041 Anal~sis of Disciplinar~ Actions b~ School From AUGUST Through MAY NORTH HEIGHTS ELEMENTARY SCHOOL ====================================================-=======------============== i 9 9 4 - 9 5 ~====================================================-=====-----=-============== -----i3t\" ------ -----BF------ -----NBM----- -----NBF----- # REF PCT/TOT # REr PCTiTOT # REF PCT/TOT # REr PCT/TOT # STU * STU * STU # STU ================-===-------======--=-----===-====--====---=-----------========== )9 S. A. C. 0 . O'Y. 0 . 0'1/. 0 . 0'i'\n0 . 0'1/. 0 0 0 0 0 0 10 HOME SUSF. 1 100. 0'1/. 0 . 01 0 . 0'1/. 0 . 0'1/. 1 i 0 0 0 1 11 BOYS CLUB 0 . 0i. 0 . 0:1. 0 . 0i. 0 . 0i. 0 0 0 0 0 0 i.2 E. ! . '-.... 26 65. Qi. 8 20. 0i. 0 10. Qi. 0 - 5. 0i. 40 16 7 4 2 29 EXPULSION 0 . O'Y. 0 . 0i. 0 . 0i~ 0 . 0i. 0 0 0 0 0 0 -===~========-====-============================================================= 1 9 9 5 - 9 6 ------------------------------------===--=-=-==--------====--------============= -----BM------ -----BF------ # REF PCT/TOT # REF PCT/TOT # STU # STU -----NBM----# REF PCT/TOT # STU -----NBr----# REF PCT/TOT # STU ---------------------------------======-=======--=================-============= --,,:j, S. A C 0 O'i'\n0 0% 0 O'Y. 0 0'1/. 0 0 0 0 0 0 10 HOM:: SUSF- 1 33. 3'1/. 2 66. 7'Y. 0 0'1/. 0 0i. 3 1 2 0 0 3 11 BOYS CLUB 0 O'Y. 0 0'1/. 0 0'1/. 0 0% 0 0 0 0 0 0 12 ,.. .c.. I. C 121 50. 6'1/. 54 22. 6'Y. 51 21. 3% 13 5. 4i. 239 38 23 23 6 90 i7 EXPULSION 0 0'1/. 0 O'Y. 0 0% 0 0% 0 0 0 0 0 0 COMPARISON --------------------------======================================================= -----BM------ -----BF------ -----NBM----- -----NBF----- # REF PCT(+/-)# REF PCTI+/-) # REF PCT(+/-)# REF PCT(+/-) # STU #-STU # STU # STU -==================================----=------------------=--------------=---==~ :9 C.. .,_{ -. ,-. 0 0 'l. 0 0 'l. 0 0 '1/. 0 0 i. 0 0 0 0 0 0 iO HOME SUSP. 0 0 '1/. ,, 200. 0 ., ~ I, 0 0 '1/. 0 0 '1/. 2 0 2 0 0 2 ~ ! BOVS CL.iJB 0 0 I, 0 0 ., I, 0 0 '1/. 0 0 '1/. 0 0 0 0 0 0 .:..::: E I r. 95 0 '1/. 4o 0 '1/. 47 0 I. 11 0 '1/. 199 4 6 47 11 61 -\nEXPUL.SION 0 0 I, 0 0 ., I, 0 0 la 0 0 i. 0 0 0 0 0 0 = ~ef: DIS032S Analvsis of Disciplinarv Actions Date: 6/13/96 by School Time: 15:56:42 From AUGUST Through MAY 3=hooi 042 CRESTWOOD ELEMENTARY SCHOOL ==================================================================---=----====== 1 9 9 4 - 9 5 ============================================================---=-======--======= -----BM------ # REF PCT/TOT # STU -----BF------ # REF PCT/TOT # STU -----NBM----# REF PCT/TOT # -STU -----NBF----# REF PCT/TOT ,it STU ==================================================================-------======= }'t S. A. C. 0 . 01a 0 . 01a 0 . 01a 0 . o,\n0 0 0 0 0 0 1.G HOME SUSP. 5 55. 6% 4 44. 4% 0 . 0% 0 . 0i: 9 4 3 0 0 7 11 BOYS CLUB 0 . 0i. 0 .Di. 0 . 0% 0 . 01. 0 0 0 0 0 0 .!..:.'. E I. t-, . 24 82. 8% 3 10. 3% 0 6. 9% 0 . 0% 29 16 2 2 0 20 . ' EXPiJLSION 0 . 01. 0 . 0% 0 . 0i: 0 . 01. O 0 0 0 0 0 =======================~=================~c~s================================c= 1 9 9 5 - 9 6 -============================================================-================== -----BM------ -----BF------ ~ REF PCT/TOT # REF PCT/TOT # STU # STU -----NBM----# REF PCT/TOT # STU -----NBF----# REF PCT/TOT # STU -=====~========================================================================= :19 S. A C. 0 . o,: 0 . 01. 0 . 0% 0 . 0i. 0 0 0 0 0 0 .10 HOl'E SUSP. 17 85. 0% 2 10. m~ 1 5. 0% 0 . 0i. 20 . , ii r.:.:.. . 1 0 14 J ~ BOYS CLUB 0 . o\n,\n0 . 0% 0 . o\n,\n0 . 0i. 0 0 0 0 0 0 12 E. I. C 230 75. 2i. 54 17.61. 20 6. 5\n,\n2 . 7i. 306 48 24 10 2 84 17 EXPULSION 0 . 0% 0 . 0i. 0 . 0% 0 . 0i. 0 0 0 0 0 0 =~===~========================================================================== COMPARISON ================================================================================ -----BM------ -----BF------ -----NBM----- -----NBF----- # REF PCT(+/-)# REF PCT(+/-)# REF PCT(+/-)# REF PCT(+/-) # STU # STU # STU # STU ==~==========================================================================m== .:,9 s I-, ,. - 0 0 '1/. 0 0 i\n0 0 la 0 0 i. 0 0 0 0 0 0 10 HOME: SUSP. 12 240. 0 '1/. 2- 50. 0 -,., . 1 100. 0 i. 0 0 i. 11 7 1- 1 0 7 :. 1 BOYS Ct..UB 0 0 :. (I 0 la 0 0 la 0 0 i. 0 0 0 0 0 0 ~:. E I ~ 206 0 '1/. 51 0 la 18 0 la 2 0 la 277 ~ 9 17 18 2 64 17 EXPULSION 0 0 '1/. 0 0 ,. 0 0 ,. 0 0 i. 0 0 0 0 0 0 :Ref: DIS032S 'Date: 6i13/96 1me. 15: 56: 43 School: 043 PARK Analysis of Disciplinary Actions by School From AUGUST Through MAY HILL ELEMENTARY SCHOOL ================================================================================ 1 9 9 4 - 9 5 =======--------=----=-------=====--============================================= -----8 [j-----.. REF PCT/TOT # STU -----BF------ # REF PCT/TOT # STU -----NEM----w REF PCT/TOT # STU -----NBF----# REF PCT/TOT # STU =-============================================================================== -,:.~ S. A. C. 0 Oi. 0 Oi. 0 Oi. 0 O.\n. 0 0 0 0 0 0 i.J HOMc s0s.:. 1 100. Oi. 0 Oi. 0 Oi. 0 0 .,, . 1 1 0 0 0 1 i 1 BOYS CLUB 0 .Oi. 0 Oi. 0 Oi. 0 O'Y. 0 0 0 0 0 0 12 E. I. C. 2 ,,,, c.c:.. 2% 1 11. 1% 0 66. 7.,,. 0 Oi. 9 2 1 3 0 6 ,-  I EXPULSION 0 0.,,. 0 Oi. 0 0% 0 O'Y. 0 0 0 0 0 0 =======~=====================================================================~=1 9 9 5 - 9 6 ----===--------------------===-----=====-=-=------==========--=-----============ -----BM------ # Rl::T PCT /TOT # STU -----BF------ # REF PCT/TOT # STU -----NBM----- # REF\" PCT/TOT # STU -----NBF----- # REF\" PCT/TOT # STU ------------------------------------====-------=-=-===-========================== a ...... HOt-i:C SU2P 11 BOYS CLUB 12:E.I.C l 7 EXPULSION 0 0 0 0 0 100 32 0 0 0'1/. 68.0'1/. 0 0 0 0 0 0 13 8 0 0 0'1/. 0'1/. 0% 8.8 0'1/. 0 0 1 1 0 0 33 15 0 0 0'1/. 100.0% 22.4'1/. 0'1/. 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 0% 0'1/. O't. 7'1/. Oi. 0 0 1 1 0 0 147 Sc 0 0 ================================================================================ COMPARISON ~============================================================================== -----BM------ -----BF------ -----NBM----- -----NBF----- # REF' PCTi+/-) # REF PCTi+/-i # REF PCT(+/-) # REF PCT(+/-) # STU # STU # STU # STU ------------------------------------========================================-=--- = - I-. - 0 0 I. 0 0 I. .o 0 / 0 0 t. 0 0 0 0 0 0 :.C: r-iOMr: SJ3F 1- 100. 0-% 0 0 I. 1 100. 0 / 0 0 i. 0 1- 0 1 0 0 BOY:: :U.iB t) 0 i: 0 0 i: 0 0 i: 0 0 I. 0 0 0 0 0 0 E. !::. .. -- 98 0 I. 12 0 I. 27 0 I. 1 0 i. 138 ' 4~ 12 27 1 50 17 EXPvLSIOt-i 0 0 i: 0 0 ,. 0 0 i. 0 0 i. 0 0 0 0 0 0 DIS0325 Analysis of Disciplinary Actions !:)ate: 6/13/96 b\\j School Time: 15:56:43 From AUGUST Through MAY :3~hool 044 PIKE VIEW ELEMENTARY SCHOOL :~=============================================================================== 1 9 9 4 - 9 5 =~============================================================================== -----BM------ -----BF------ -----NBM----- -----NEF----- # REF PCT/TOT # REF PCT/TOT # REF PCT/TOT # REF PCT/TOT # STU # STU # STU # STU :--=================================-====-===--=-------==--=-----------========== -s. A. C. 0 0 ., 1. 0 0., 1. 0 0'1/. 0 . 0'1/. 0 0 0 0 0 0 ~o HOME SUSP. 1 50. 0 ., I. 1 50. 0'1/. 0 Oi: 0 0'1/. 2 1 1 0 0 2 11 BOYS CLUE 0 0'1/. 0 .-0~ 0 0% 0 O'Y. 0 0 0 O 0 0 ~2 E. I. ,.. \\.,. 15 83. 3'Y. 3 16. 7'Y. 0 0% 0 - O'Y. 18 iO 3 0 0 13 ~7 EXPULSION 0 0% 0 Ot. 0 Ot. 0 0% 0 0 0 0 0 0 =============================================================-==-=============== i 9 9 5 - 9 6 ======~=====================================================-----------========= -----BM------ # REF PCT/TOT # STU -----BF------ # REF PCT/TOT # STU -----NBM----- # REF PCT/TOT # STU -----NBF----- # REF PCT/TOT # STU ================================================================================ 10 H  t-E susi:- ~l BOY~ CLUB ~2.c.:i.C 17 EXPULS:\n:  N 0 0 l 1 0 0 99 30 0 0 . O'Y. 100. 0'1/. . 0'1/. 68.8% . 0% 0 0 0 0 0 0 26 i4 0 0 . 0% . 0% 18. 1% . 0% 0 0 0 0 0 0 19 12 0 0 . 0'1/. . 0% . 0'1/. 13. 2'1/. . 0% 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 . 0'1/. . 0'1/. . Ot. . 0'1/. . O'Y. 0 0 1 1 0 0 144 56 0 0 ~~=============~===========================================================--=~ COMPARISON ==-~=~~====~===================================================================== -----BM------ -----BF------ -----NBM----- -----NBF----- # REF PCTi+/-) # REF PCT(+/-) # REF PCT(+/-) # REF PCT(+/-)  STU # STU # STU # STU =-=====================~========================================================= )C? -- ,\n, :: _ 0 0 % 0 .0 % 0 .0 I 0 .0 I 0 0 0 0 0 0 :0 r-lOMc 2us~ 0 0 'l. 1- 100. 0 -1.. , 0 .0 .1,. 0 .0 .1,. 1- 0 1- 0 0 1- :. l BOYS \\:LUB 0 0 i~ 0 .0 ., 1. 0 .0 I 0 .0 I 0 0 0 0 0 0 . - ~ . C. 84 0 i: 23 .0 ' 19 .0 I 0 .0 'Y. 126 6 8 19 0 43 - E\u0026gt;'.PULSION 0 .0 i~ 0 .0 % 0 .0 '1/. 0 .0 lo 0 0 0 0 0 0 :\n_~ f: DI 8032S Date: 6i13/96 Time: 15: 56 44 3~hool: 045 Analysis of Disciplinary Actions by School From AUGUST Through MAY BELWOOD ELEMENTARY SCHOOL ================================================================----===--======= 1 9 9 4 - 9 5 ~~==========---=======------=------==============--=---========--===-=========== -----Bh------ # REF PCT/TOT # STU -----BF------ # REF PCT/TOT .+ STU -----NBM----# REF PCT/TOT # STU -----NBF----# REF PCT/TOT # STU =============-~==================--==============----=========================== _,...\nS. f,, C. 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0 0 0 0 0 :.,,:, HOME SUSP. 4 50. O'i. 3 37. 5 .,, . 1 12. 5% 0 Qi\n8 4 2 1 0 7 11 BOYS CLUB 0 0% 0 0'1/. 0 0'1/. 0 01. 0 u 0 0 0 0 12 E. I. C. 4 25. 0'1/. 9 56. 3 0 18. Bi. 0 Oi. 16 4 5 2 0 11 , 7 EX.PUL_SION 0 0 .,, . 0 0'1/. 0 0.,, . 0 0 .,, . 0 0 0 0 0 0 ~===~=~=====================================================================c=~= 1 9 9 5 - 9 6 ----------------=--------------==--==============-=============================== -----BM------ -----BF------ # REF PCT/TOT # REF PCT/TOT # STU # STU -----NBM----# REF PCT/TOT # STU -----NBF----# REF PCT/TOT # STU ---------------===---------=--=-=-============================================== :,~ 5. A ,. 0 0'1/. 0 . Ot. 0 . 0'1/. 0 . 0'1/. 0 0 0 0 0 0 .:.c .. HOl'l= SU::iP. 4 80. 0'1/. 0 Oi. i 20. 0'1/. 0 . 01. 5 3 0 1 0 4 l l BOY\nCLUB 0 . 0'1/. 0 . 0% 0 . O'Y. 0 0'1/. 0 0 0 0 0 0 -, r\n\"'- E. I. (. 15 78. 9'1/. 3 15.8% 1 5. 3~~ 0 . 0'1/. 19 4 3 1 0 8 17 EXPULSION 0 . 0'1/. 0 . 0'1/. 0 . O'Y. 0 0% 0 0 0 0 0 0 -===~================================================-------------------===-===- COMPARISON -=:-:========-==-======================================================================-= -----BM------ -----BF------ -----NBM----- -----NBF----- # REF PCT(+/-l # REF PCTI+/-) # REF PCT(+/-) # REF PCT(+/-) # STU # STU # STU # STU -~-----------=------------==================================================--= ...,.,. ::\n~- I'\"\\ - 0 0 i:. 0 0 I. 0 0 lo 0 0 '1/. 0 0 0 0 0 0 ~ : _ ! HOME SUSF'. 0 0 ,. 3- 100. 0 -,.,. 0 0 lo 0 0 4 3- 1- 2- 0 0 3- : l B,--,. ..., =_. C.L .U P 0 0 i:. (\\ 0 i: 0 0 .,, . 0 0 i. 0 0 0 0 0 0 - .::.: , 11 0 ,. 6- 0 - 2- 0 ., ~- - ~. ,. 0 0 I 3 3 1- 2- 0 3- EX:PU:...SIOI', 0 0 i: 0 0 i~ 0 0 ., - 0 0 i. 0 ,. 0 0 0 0 0 'i:ef: DIS032S ]ate: 6/ 13/96 7ime: 15: 56: 44 School: 046 Analysis of Disciplinary Actions by School From AUGUST Through MAY GLENVIEW ELEMENTARY SCHOOL --------=====================================-=----=--====-=----------------==== 1 9 9 4 - 9 5 ----===--=-------------======-================----==---=====-----------------=--- -----BM------ -----BF------ # REF PCT/TOT # REF PCT/TOT # STU # STU -----NBM----# REF PCT/TOT # STU -----Nlff ----# REF PCT/TOT # STU ~==============================================================---------=-====== j~ ~. A. - 0 O'Y. 0 . O'Y. 0 . 0i. 0 . O'Y. 0 0 0 0 0 0 - - Hr\"ii: SiJ3F. 9 69. 2i. 1 7. 71. 2 15. 4'1/. 1 7. n~ 13 - 6 l 2 1 10 '- l, BOYS CLUB 0 . O'Y. 0 . O 0 . 0i. 0 . 0i. 0 0 -o O 0 0 . , E . .- 7 77. Bi. 2 22.2 0 . O 0 . O 9 ~ ... ~. 6 2 0 0 8 . , EXPULSION 0 . O'Y. 0 . O'Y. 0 0 .,,. 0 . o,~ 0 0 0 0 0 0 ~============================================================================== i 9 9 5 - 9 6 ~=====:========================================================================== -----BM------ # REF PCT/TOT # STU -----BF------ # REF PCT/TOT # STU -----NBM----# REF PCT/TOT # STU -----NBF----* REF PCT/TOT # STU ~~====~~======================================================================== :1~ S. A - 0 . o,: 0 . 0'1/. 0 . o\n,.: 0 . O 0 0 0 0 0 0 .\n.~ J HOMES :JSF . 6 46. 2,~ 1 7. 7% 6 46.2% 0 . 0'1/. 13 5 1 5 0 11 -. .' .. B0'y E CLUB 0 . 0i. 0 . O 0 . 0 0 . 0'1/. 0 0 0 0 0 0 . -~, E . I. C 111 59. 7' 29 15. 6i. 43 23. 1' 3 1. 6 186 32 11 16 2 61 17 EXPULSION 0 . 0'1/. 0 . 0'1/. 0 . O 0 . 0'1/. 0 0 0 0 0 0 -=============================================================================== COMPARISON ===============================================================================c -----BM------ -----BF------ -----NBM----- -----NBF----- # REF PCT(+/-)# REF PCT(+/-)# REF PCTC+/-) # REF PCT(+/-) # STU #-STU # STU # STU ================================================================================ :,9 ::\u0026gt;. A C. 0 0 ,. 0 .0 '1/. 0 .0 i. 0 .0 'Y. 0 0 0 0 0 0 ~v HOME SvSP. 3- 33. 3 ., - 0 0 i: 4 200.0 ,. 1- 100.0- 0 1- 0 3 1- 1 11 BOYS Ci_UB 0 0 i\n0 .0 i: 0 .0  0 .0 i. 0 0 0 0 0 0 . .:.: - 104 .0 ' 27 0 % 43 .0 ., ~ - --,. 3 .0 i. 177 ,. 15 14 43 3 53 17 EXc:,ULSION 0 .0 i. 0 0 /a 0 .0  0 .0 ,. 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ref: DIS032S Analysis of Disciplinary Actions Date: 6/13/96 by School Time: 15: 56:45 From AUGUST Through MAY School: 048 INDIAN HILLS ELEMENTARY SCHOOL ================================================================================ 1 9 9 4 - 9 5 =================================================-==--========================== -----Br'.------ -----BF------ -----NBM----- -----NBF----- # REF PCT/TOT # REF PCT/TOT # REF PCT/TOT # REF PCT/TOT # STU # STU # STU # STU =================================-===============-=----====-------==-=========== :9 S. A. C. 0 . 0% 0 . 0% 0 . o~~ 0 . 0% 0 0 0 0 0 0 10 HOtiE SUSF 1 50. Oi: 1 50.0i. 0 0 .,, . 0 .Oi: 2 1 1 0 0 2 11 BOYS CLUB 0 . 01 0 .-0 0 0.,, . 0 . Oi. 0 0 0 o 0 0 i2 E. I. C. 4 44. 4t. 3 33. 3.,, . 0 22.21. 0 . Oi. 9 4 3 2 0 9 .:. / EXPULSION 0 . 0'1/. 0 . Oi. 0 . 0'1/. 0 . O 0 0 0 0 0 0 -----------------=---------=======-================--========--------=========== i 9 9 5 - 9 6 -----------------------------------===----=------------=====-------============= -----BM------ # REF PCT/TOT # STU -----BF------ # REF PCT/TOT # STU -----NBM----# REF PCT/TOT # STU -----NBF----# REF PCT/TOT # STU -----------------------------------====-====-====-=---=========-===============- :l9 S. A (, 0 o,: 0 0% 0 o~: 0 Oi. 0 0 0 0 0 0 10 t-iOME SUSF. 3 42. 9% 4 57. 1 '1/.. 0 01 0 O'. 7 1 3 0 0 4 ..I.. .I. BOYS CL.UB 0 0'1/. 0 0% 0 0'1/. 0 01 0 0 0 \"O 0 0 i2 i::. I. C 8i 66. 4'1/. 25 20. 5% 16 13. 1'1/. 0 01 1~2 46 18 9 0 73 17 EXPULSION 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0'1/. 0 0 0 0 0 0 =-===::==============:\n:=========================================================a: COMPARISON ~~===~=====================================================================-=--- -----BM------ -----BF------ -----NBM----- -----NBF----- # REF PCT(+/-)# REF PCT(+/-)# REF PCT(+/-)# REF PCT(+/-) # STU # STU # STU # STU -===--======================================================================--=== .)9 :::,. I... -~ 0 0 '1/. 0 0 t. 0 0 ,. - 0 0 I 0 0 0 0 0 0 : c._, HOMr: SiJSP. 2 200. 0\n,: 3 300. 0 .. ,. 0 0 I 0 0 '. 5 0 ,., C. 0 0 2 1. ~- BOVE CLUB 0 0 t. 0 0 I. 0 0 ., ,. 0 0 I 0 C, 0 0 0 0 '- .-:. E ! C 77 0 I. 22 0 '1/. 14 0 '1/. 0 0 '. 113 19 7 14 0 64 \"7 EXPULSION 0 0 ., ,. 0 0 t. 0 0 - 0 0 I 0 0 0 0 0 0 . ef: DIS032S 6/13/96 1me: 15: 56: 45 Analysis of Disciplinary Action~ by School From AUGUST Through MAY 049 REDWOOD ELEMENTARY SCHOOL =============================================================================== 1 9 9 4 - 9 5 ================================================================================ -----B ti------ # REF PCT/TOT # STU -----BF------ # REF PCT/TOT # STU -----NBM----# REF PCT/TOT # STU -----NBF----- # REF PCT/TOT # STU -=============================================================================== B. A. C. 0 . 0'1/. 0 . 0'1/. 0 . 0% 0 . 0% 0 0 0 0 0 0 HOM::: SdSP. 0 . Oi\n0 . Oi\n0 .Oi: 0 . o~-\n0 0 0 0 0 0 BOYS CLUB 0 . 0'1/. 0 . 0'1/. .0 . 0% 0 . 0i~ 0 0 0 0 0 0 E. -. ,.~. .. 9 39. 1% 6 26. 1 '1/. 0 26. 1 /, 0 - 8. 7t. 23 .:! 4 5 2 14 EXPULSION 0 . Qi\n0 . 0'1/. 0 .Oi: 0 . 0i: 0 0 0 0 0 0 -=============-===============================================-================== i 9 9 5 - 9 6 -=============================================================================== -----BM------ -----BF------ # REF PCT/TOT # REF PCT/TOT # STU # STU -----NBM----# REF PCT/TOT # STU -----NBF----# REF PCT/TOT # STU ----=========-=========-========================================================== S. A ..-. 0 . 0'1/. 0 . 0'1/. 0 . 0'1/. 0 . 0'1/. 0 0 0 0 0 0 !-iOi'E S:JSF. 8 40. 0'1/. 8 40. 0'1/. 3 15. o,: 1 5. 0'1/. 20 6 4 3 1 14 BDYS C ... UB 0 . 0'1/. 0 . 0'1/. 0 . 0'1/. 0 . 0'1/. 0 0 0 0 0 0 E. l. r. '.., 79 54. 5'1/. 35 24. 1 '1/. 24 16. 61, 7 4. 8'1/. 145 32 13 10 4 59 EXPULSION 0 . Ot. 0 . 0'1/. 0 . 0'1/. 0 . 0'1/. 0 0 0 0 0 0 -----===~=-------=============================================================== COMPARISON ----------------------=========================================================== -----BM------ -----BF'------ -----NBM----- -----NBF----- # REF PCT(+/-) # REF PCT(+/-) # REF PCT(+/-) # REF PCT(+/-) # STU # STU # STU # STU =----==~==-------------========================================================= ~- I-, C. 0 0 I. 0 0 I. 0 0 I. 0 0 t. 0 0 0 0 0 0\n_-,.,\nHC!r1E S\\..JSP. 8 800. 0 i~ a 800. 0 i: 3 300. 0 .,, . 1 100. 0 i: 20 6 a 3 1 14 BD\",.5 CL.VE 0 0 .,, . 0 0 i: 0 0 I, 0 0 ' 0 0 0 0 0 0 - .,_ i:: ., - . - 70 0 i: 2Q 0 i~ 18 0 I, 5 0 I, 122 a 5 18 5 45 EXPULSION 0 0 '1/. 0 0 I, 0 0 t. 0 0 '1/. 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ref: DIS032S Date: 6/13/96 , .. me: 15: 56: 46 S:::::hool 050 Analysis of DisciplinaTy Actions by School From AUGUST Through MAY ROSE CITY ANNEX ================================================================================ i 9 9 4 - 9 5 =~============================================================================== -----BM------ -----BF------ # REF ?CT/iOT # REF PCi/iOT * STU # STU -----NBM----# REF PCT/TOT # STU -----NEF----w REF\" ?CTiTOT ~ STU i\n-~~\n~\n===========o======_ 0%=====0======_ 01 =====0======_ 01 =====0======_ oi=====o 0 0 0 0 O 10 HOME SUSP. 5 55. 6% 2 22.2% 2 22.2% 0 .0% 9 4 2 2 0 8 ll BOYS CLUB O .0% 0 .0% 0 .0% 0 .0% 0 0 0 0 0 0 12 E. I. C. 0 .OX O .0% 0 .OX O .OX 0 0 0 0 0 0 17 EXPU~SION O .0% 0 .0% 0 . 0% 0 .0% 0 0 0 0 0 0 ================================================================================ 1 9 9 5 - 9 6 =~====~=======-==============================================--------============ -----BM------ # REr PCi/TOT # STU -----BF------ # REF PCT/TOT # STU -----NBM----- # REr PCT/TOT # STU -----NBF----- # REF PCi/TOT # STU ~~==~============================================================================ 5 P, --- 0 0'1/. 0 0'1/. 0 o: 0 o: 0 0 0 0 0 0 \"~ i-iOM:: 5.,_j5r=, C 0'1/. 0 0% 0 0'1/. 0 0% 0 0 0 0 0 0 BOYS CLUB 0 o : 0 o : 0 0'1/. 0 0% 0 0 0 0 0 0 :t 2 E. ~- C 0 0'1/. 0 ox 0 0'1/. 0 0% 0 0 0 0 0 0 -. EXPU:._SIOi\\i 0 0'1/. 0 0'1/. 0 Oo/. 0 0% 0 0 0 0 0 0 --~~============================================================================= COMPARISON -= -:.\n:=====================-=========================================================== -----BM------ -----BF------ -----NBM----- -----NBF----- # REF PCT(+/-) # REF PCT(+/-) # REF PCT(+/-) # REF PCT(+/-) # STU # STU # STU # STU ---==~=====~==~================================================================== -, S.\n.., C. 0 0 I. 0 0 % 0 0 X 0 0 lo 0 0 0 0 0 0 HOM~ susr._ 5- 100. 0 ., -.,'II. 2- 100. 0-1. 2- 100. 0-% 0 0 lo 9- 4- 2- 2- 0 8- l3 ClYi= c~uB 0 0 I. 0 0 I. 0 0 ., 0 0 .. I, 0 ,. 0 0 0 0 0 ,. - - '- 0 0 i: 0 0 i~ 0 0 i~ 0 0 X 0 0 0 0 0 0 DPULSIGN 0 0 i: 0 0 i: 0 0 .. 0 0 .. ,. ,. 0 0 0 0 0 0 NORTH LITTLE ROCK PUBLIC SCHOOLS DISCIPLINARY ACTIONS SCHOOL YEAR 95-96 DISTRICT LEVEL NORTH LITTLE ROCK PUBLIC SCHOOLS DISCIPLINARY ACTIONS SCHOOL YEAR 95-96 DISTRICT LEVEL Action 09: S.A.C. Action 10: Home Suspension 1,200 ..--------------~ 1,000 800 94-95 95-96 869 1,043 460 445 NBM 411 410 Action 11: Boys Club Suspension NBF 126 94-95~ 140 95-96L BM BF NBM 236 106 103 141 42 42 Action 12 Elem Intervention Class NBF 20 3 400 ,-----------------, 2,000 ,-----------------, 300 200 100 94-95 95-96 BM 133 371 BF 44 102 NBM 31 75 NBF 8 13 1,500 -- 1,000 BM 94-95 ii 178 95-96 =1 1,540 ------- BF NBM NBF 68 58 5 - --- ---- - 489 498 71 8 6 4 2 0 BM 94-95 7 95-96 2 NORTH LITTLE ROCK PUBLIC SCHOOLS DISCIPLINARY ACTIONS SCHOOL YEAR 95-96 DISTRICT LEVEL Action 17 Expulsion - - BF NBM NBF 0 1 0 1 0 2 R II 600 500 400 300 200 100 -94-95 95-96 510 470 NORTH LITTLE ROCK PUBLIC SCHOOLS DISCIPLINARY ACTIONS SCHOOL YEAR 95-96 HIGH SCHOOLS Action 09: SAC Action 10: Home Suspension ---- BF NBF -207 180 49 189 192 85 40 20 0 94-95~ 95-96C BM 80 20 BF NBM 12 36 7 4 Action 11: Boys Club Suspension Action 12 Elem Intervention Class NSF 4 2 250 ~------------~ 200 _,--,_ __ 150 BM BF NBM NBF 94-95 I\n- 89 21 9 5 95-96 207 41 36 7 0.8 ,___ ____________ - - - 0.6 ---------- - - - -- 0.4 --------- - - - - 0.2- 0--------------------' 94-95 95-96 0 0 BF 0 ----- 0 NBM 0 0 NBF 0 0 NORTH LITTLE ROCK PUBLIC SCHOOLS DISCIPLINARY ACTIONS SCHOOL YEAR 95-96 HIGH SCHOOLS Action 17 Expulsion 6~----------~ 5 4 3 2 0 94-951\\1 95-96nc- BM -5 2 --- - -- ___ __, BF NBM NSF 0 - 1 0 1 0 0 NORTH LITTLE ROCK PUBLIC SCHOOLS DISCIPLINARY ACTIONS SCHOOL YEAR 95-96 MIDDLE SCHOOLS Action 09: SAC Action 10: Home Suspension  600 ~------------~ 500 120 ..-----------------, 400 300 200 100 359 573 253 256 NBM 231 218 Action 11: Boys Club Suspension 77 -- 55 200..---------------, 150 - 100 94-95 i-L 95-96 BM 44 - 164 - - --- BF NBM NSF -23 22 3 61 39 6 100 80 60 40 20 0 Lliii-.1=::i__ BM 94-95 ~ 106 95-96 5 BF NBM 75 49 4 3 Action 12 Elem Intervention Class 0.8 0.6 0.4 0.2 - - - -- - - - - NSF 15 0 0L-----------------' BM BF NBM NBF 94-95 J.\n- 0 ---- 0 - 0 -0 95-96 0 0 0 0 2.5 2 1.5 0.5 0 BM 94-95 2 95-96 0   NORTH LITTLE ROCK PUBLIC SCHOOLS DISCIPLINARY ACTIONS SCHOOL YEAR 95-96 MIDDLE SCHOOLS Action 17 Expulsion -- -- BF NBM NBF 0 0 0 0 0 2 NORTH LITTLE ROCK PUBLIC SCHOOLS DISCIPLINARY ACTIONS SCHOOL YEAR 95-96 ELEMENTARY K-6 Action 09: SAC Action 10: Home Suspension 140.----------------~ 0.8 120 100 ~6 - 00 0.4 - - - -- -- - - 0.2 0'-----------------' 94-95 95-96 0.8 0.6 0.4 0.2 BM 0 0 BF 0 0 NBM 0 0 Action 11: Boys Club Suspension NBF 0 0 o~------------~ 94-95 95-96 BM BF 0 0 --+---- 0 0 NBM NBF 0 0 0 0 40 20 - 0 L....1111111111,1-..L-.E,,i\n,ZIIIL-.....L--14o1-....-'---------' BM BF NBM NBF 94-95ml 50 19 18 1 - 95-96r l 115 31 35 1 Action 12 Elem Intervention Class 2,000 .----------------~ 1,500 1,000 - 94-95il 95-s6n BM 178 1,539 BF - 68 489 NBM NBF 58 5 -- -- 498 71 0.8 0.6 0.4 0.2 NORTH LITTLE ROCK PUBLIC SCHOOLS DISCIPLINARY ACTIONS SCHOOL YEAR 95-96 ELEMENTARY K-6 Action 17 Expulsion o~----------~ 94-95 95-96 BM 0 0 BF 0 0 NBM NBF 0 0 0 0 NORTH LITTLE ROCK-PUBLIC SCHOOLS DISCIPLINARY ACTIONS 5 YEAR TRENDS f'I( Jf~ 1111 .1l r I I r N)(:I, Pl If~,I ( SCIl UOI S I W~\u0026lt;:111\"'1/ \\f~/\\Y/' I l()f\\!f\nri \\( I /\\ I \u0026lt; I f) I f H t\nAction 09: Student Assignment Class (SAC) 1,200 1,000 800 600 400 200 0 ....__..........,.___ 91-920 92-93D - 93-94  --- 94-95  BM 700 920 977 869 95-96LJ 1,043 BF 328 - - - 486 - 529 -~ 460 445 NBM NBF 372 97 _,_ - - - -- - - - -- 492 158 c- - - -- 449 156 - - 4-11 - - 126 410 140 . - ... . ......,,_,,..._!lllllll!IJll ____ \"'l!lllllllllll!llll~l!lllll!l!!II.....-.----- Action 10: Home Suspensions 200 50 0 91-92fi) 92-93D 93-94  94-95  95-96D BM 65 134 231 236 141 BF NBM 24 23 69 58 60 76 106 103 42 42  NBF 2 14 22 -- - --- 20 -- 3 300 200 100 BM 91-920 224 92-930 2- 76 93-94  119 94-95 133 - 95-96n 371 - l( H~1 1111111l1,: or. I\\ FII FHI \u0026lt;:S CH()OLS u1(-\nc)1I1 lf \\J1\\nY/\\( j 1101\\lS r) YI /' I~ I rn I ,ff)~' Action 11: Boys Club BF NBM 70 66 -- -- - - - - - - - - 97 -- -8--7- 39 - - 39 44 31  NBF 11 -- - 10 -- - - 9 8 -- - - - -- - -- -- - - 102 75 13 1,l() I~ 1111 111 1l h'r lCI\\ I )I )[11.I C ~Cl lOUI S I W'1 ,WI 11\\1/\\l~/\\Y(' 11)(I ~~, r) YI /\\n i l\\f NI \")S Action 12: Elementary Assignment Class (E.I.C.) 2,000 ~--------------------~ 1,500 ----- ---- 1,000 500 BM BF NBM NSF 91-92 - 0 - - - --- 0 - - 0 - 0 92-93D 0 0 0 0 ---- -- --- -- - - - - - 93-94 168 - - 54 -- 45 - - 8 94-95  178 68 58 5 95-960 -- -- - - 1,540 489 498 71 I H) f\\ 11l I 111 1I f{ ( JC!\\ I 1[ IHI IC r~c1! 001S I qc.C\n11\" 1 I H\\/I\\ I? Y /\\ C I IOf \\JS r) YI /\\f~ l l~f [,,JU~\nAction 17: Expulsions a~-----------------------. 6 4 2 -- BM BF NBM NSF 91-92  4 1 0 0 92-93D -- - - - - ~- f- - - - - - - 6 3 1 0 93-9411 -- - - - - -- -- 6 4 3 0 94-95 ~--- - --- - - - 7 -- 0 - - -- -1 - - -0 95-96D 2 1 0 2\nThis project was supported in part by a Digitizing Hidden Special Collections and Archives project grant from The Andrew W. Mellon Foundation and Council on Library and Information Resoources.\n   \n\n   \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n   \n\n \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n \n\n  \n\n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n   \n\n \n\n\n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n\n\n  \n\n\n\n "},{"id":"bcas_bcmss0837_392","title":"Dismissal for settlement plan","collection_id":"bcas_bcmss0837","collection_title":"Office of Desegregation Management","dcterms_contributor":null,"dcterms_spatial":["United States, 39.76, -98.5","United States, Arkansas, 34.75037, -92.50044","United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, 34.76993, -92.3118","United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, Little Rock, 34.74648, -92.28959"],"dcterms_creator":null,"dc_date":["1995/1997"],"dcterms_description":null,"dc_format":["application/pdf"],"dcterms_identifier":null,"dcterms_language":["eng"],"dcterms_publisher":["Little Rock, Ark. : Butler Center for Arkansas Studies. Central Arkansas Library System."],"dc_relation":null,"dc_right":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC-EDU/1.0/"],"dcterms_is_part_of":["Office of Desegregation Monitoring records (BC.MSS.08.37)","History of Segregation and Integration of Arkansas's Educational System"],"dcterms_subject":["Little Rock (Ark.)--History--20th century","Little Rock School District","Education--Arkansas","Educational law and legislation","School management and organization","School integration"],"dcterms_title":["Dismissal for settlement plan"],"dcterms_type":["Text"],"dcterms_provenance":["Butler Center for Arkansas Studies"],"edm_is_shown_by":null,"edm_is_shown_at":["http://arstudies.contentdm.oclc.org/cdm/ref/collection/bcmss0837/id/392"],"dcterms_temporal":null,"dcterms_rights_holder":null,"dcterms_bibliographic_citation":null,"dlg_local_right":null,"dcterms_medium":["documents (object genre)","newspaper clippings"],"dcterms_extent":null,"dlg_subject_personal":null,"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":"\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n\n\n\n   \n\n\n\n\n   \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n  \n\nA'/e. IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION FILED district COURT eastern district ARKANSAS DEC 1 2 1995 LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT JAMES W. McMRMACK. CLERK ' OEP CLERK :S,McMRMA ' t PLAINTIFF vs. No. LR-C-82-866 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT No. 1, ET AL MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL RECEIVED DEFENDANTS INTERVENORS KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL DEC I 4 1995 INTERVENORS SERVICEMASTER MANAGEMENT SERVICES, A LIMITED PARTNERSHIP Office of Deseflregatiofi INTERVENOR Montofiiiy ORDER Upon motion of the Joshua Intervenors, and without objection. the time for filing a response to the Little Rock School District's motion for an order of dismissal is hereby extended to and including January 5, 1996. IT IS SO ORDERED this 12th day of December 1995. JUDGE WfS DOCUMENT ENTERED ON DOCKET RWppt i COMPLIANCE WITH RUL IN 2 S 8 8 1 I RECEfVED 1 5 1995 Office of Desegregation ^ASTefOo oisVfICT g'^y^r, '^^kansas Moiuiuimy CH ---------  - _ JAMES W. IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT (^URT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION 2 I99S '^COKMACK. CIERK 'EP CLERK LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT, ET AL. PLAINTIFFS V. LR-C-82-866 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT, ET AL. DEFENDANTS MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL. INTERVENORS KATHERINE W. KNIGHT, ET AL. INTERVENORS MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME Come now the Joshua Intervenors, by and through undersigned counsel, and move the Court for an extension of time within which to file their response to the Little Rock School District's motion for an order of dismissal state: 1. Additional time is needed in which to respond to the motion recently filed by the LRSD. Said motion is not being made for purposes of delay. Counsel for the Little Rock School District does not oppose said extension. WHEREFORE, for the reasons set forth above, Joshua Interevenors respectfully pray the Court for an order extending the time in which they may respond to the LRSD motion to and including January 5, 1996. 2. 3.Respectfully submitted, John W. Walker, P.A. 1723 Br Little/ tway (501) :ohk, AR 72206 By: CBRTIF .TE OF SERVICE 8 I do hereby state that a copy of the foregoing was forwarded to all counsel of record via U.S. mail on December, 1995. ,his day of Jo: Walker IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT RZCEIVED PLAINTIFF V. LR-C-82-866 DEC 1 1995 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, ET AL Office Of Desegregation Woiinonnfl UI ucQ a J DEFENDANTS MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL INTERVENORS KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL INTERVENORS BRIEF IN SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR ORDER OF DISMISSAL Introduction The settlement agreement in this case requires that the case be dismissed with prejudice with respect to LRSD, PCSSD and NLRSD. The settlement agreement was approved by the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals and by this court, but the required order of dismissal was overlooked and has not been entered. In accordance with the terms of the settlement agreement. LRSD, PCSSD and NLRSD are entitled to an order of dismissal. Statement of the Case The \"RELEASE OF ALL CLAIMS AGAINST THE LRSD, I* which was approved by this court and the court of appeals as Attachment B to the settlement agreement, contains the following requirement: \"It is further understood and agreed that the litigation now pending in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Arkansas, Western Division, entitled Little Rock School District v. Pulaski County Special School District No. 1, et al. No. LR-C-82-866 and cases consolidated therein and their predecessors (including, but not limited to. Cooper v. Aaron. Norwood v. Tucker and Clark v. Board of Education of the Little Rock School District) (the II Litigation\") is to be dismissed withprejudice as to the LRSD and the former and current members of its board of education named in the Litigation. This dismissal is final for all purposes except that the court may retain jurisdiction to address issues regarding the implementation of the Plans.\" Pulaski County Desegregation Case Settlement Agreement, Attachment B, p. 2. The settlement agreement also requires that this case be dismissed with respect to PCSSD and NLRSD. Settlement Agreement, Attachment C, p. 2 and Attachment D, p. 2. The settlement agreement contains the following \"Agreement Regarding Litigation Among Joshua And The Districts\": \"Joshua releases the Districts of all liability for issues which have been raised, or could have been raised, in this Litigation and commits that there will be no further litigation among or between Joshua, Knight and any of the districts, other than proceedings to enforce the terms of this settlement or the terms of the Plans.\" Settlement Agreement, p. 19. This litigation ended with the approval of the settlement agreement except that this court has retained jurisdiction. in accordance with the agreement. to resolve issues related to implementation of the desegregation plans and enforcement of the settlement agreement. An order of dismissal, however, has not yet been entered. Argument The Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals approved the parties' settlement agreement on December 12, 1990. LRSD V. PCSSD. 921 F.2d 1371 (Sth Cir. 1990) . The court of appeals directed the district court, on remand. \"to approve the parties' settlement agreement as written by them.\" Id. at 1394. On January 18, 1991, this court 2ordered that II [t]he parties' settlement agreement is hereby approved as written by them.\" According to the terms of the settlement agreement set forth above, LRSD, PCSSD and NLRSD were entitled to an order of dismissal with prejudice upon this court's approval of the settlement agreement. The order required by the settlement agreement will not affect this court's authority, as described in the settlement agreement, to retain jurisdiction to address issues regarding implementation of the desegregation plans and to conduct proceedings to enforce the terms of the settlement agreement or the desegregation plans. The question of whether a certain component of the settlement agreement should be implemented has arisen once before. In LRSD V. PCSSD. 971 F.2d 160 (Sth Cir. 1992) , the court of appeals confronted the issue of whether the district court was required to extend certain millages in accordance with Item M of the settlement agreement. The district court had \"thought it 'unwise to infer from the court of appeals' approval of the settlement agreement that [the district court was] required to extend the omitted millages. II Id. at 164. The Eighth Circuit said: \"What the district court failed to recognize is that we directed it to 'approve the parties' settlement agreement as written by them.\" \"[A]s written by them,\" the settlement agreement included Item M, which corrected the problem of the omitted millages. The extension of the omitted millages is therefore settled as the law of the case.\" Id. at 165 (citations omitted, emphasis in original). 3One of the reasons the district court had given for declining to implement Item M was that even though the court of appeals had approved the settlement agreement in its entirety, it had not specifically mentioned Item M in its opinion. Id. at 164. The court of appeals made it clear that the parties were entitled to implementation of all of the terms of the settlement agreement: \"The Special Master approved the agreement, including Item M, as did the district court. Most importantly. when the matter came before this court on appeal from the district court, we held that the settlement agreement as drafted by the parties met constitutional standards and directed the district court to approve the settlement agreement as submitted by the parties. therefore. We do not. agree with the district court that it is necessary to infer approval of Item M from our earlier opinion. Our language was clear in its approval of the entire agreement, including Item M.\" Id. at 165. The releases of liability for each of the districts and the dismissal with prejudice of this litigation are important components of the settlement agreement and are at least as significant as the extended millages. The approval by the court of appeals and this court of the entire settlement agreement entitles the three school districts to an order dismissing this case with prejudice. Conclusion This court should enter an order dismissing this case with prejudice effective January 18, 1991. Respectfully submitted. LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 4FRIDAY, ELDREDGE \u0026amp; CLARK 2000 First Commercial Bldg. 400 West Capitol Street Little Rock, AR 72201 (501) 376-2011 Christopher Heller Robert Shafer John C. Fendley By* Christopher Hell Bar No. 81083 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I certify that a copy of the foregoing Brief In Support of Motion for Order of Dismissal has been served on the following by depositing copy of same in the United States mail on this 30th day of November, 1995. Mr. John Walker JOHN WALKER, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72206 Mr. Sam Jones WRIGHT, LINDSEY \u0026amp; JENNINGS 2200 Worthen Bank Bldg. 200 West Capitol Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Steve Jones JACK, LYON \u0026amp; JONES, P.A. 3400 Capitol Towers Capitol \u0026amp; Broadway Streets Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Richard Roachell Roache11 and Streett First Federal Plaza 401 West Capitol, Suite 504 Little Rock, AR 72201 Ms. Ann Brown HAND DELIVERED Desegregation Monitor Heritage West Bldg., Suite 510 201 East Markham Street Little Rock, AR 72201 5Mr. Timothy G. Gauger Office of the Attorney General 323 Center Street 200 Tower Building Little Rock, AR 72201 6 a/'rLuMe-\u0026lt;i- IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT PLAINTIFF V. LR-C-82-8\u0026amp;6 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, ET AL RECE!^ DEFENDANTS MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL DEC I 1995 INTERVENORS KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL Office Of Desearegaiiofi INTERVENORS MOTION FOR ORDER OF DISMISSAL' ' For its motion, the Little Rock School District (LRSD) states: 1. This court approved the parties' settlement agreement in an order filed on January 18, 1991. The January 18, 1991 order dismissed the State of Arkansas as a party to this case pursuant to the terms of the settlement agreement. 2. The settlement agreement also requires that this case be dismissed with prejudice with respect to LRSD, PCSSD and NLRSD. The \"RELEASE OF ALL CLAIMS AGAINST THE LRSD,\" which was approved by this court and the court of appeals as Attachment B to the settlement agreement, contains the following requirement: \"It is further understood and agreed that the litigation now pending in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Arkansas, Western Division, entitled Little Rock School District v. Pulaski County Special School District No. 1, et al, No. LR-C-82-866 and cases consolidated therein and their predecessors (including, but not limited to. Cooper v. Aaron. Norwood v. Tucker and Clark v. Board of Education of the Little Rock School District) (the \"Litigation\") is to be dismissed with prejudice as to the LRSD and the former and current members of its board Litigation. of education named in the This dismissal is final for all purposesexcept that the court may retain jurisdiction to address issues regarding the implementation of the Plans. II Pulaski County Desegregation Case Settlement Agreement, Attachment B, p. 2. The settlement agreement also requires that this case be dismissed with respect to PCSSD and NLRSD. Settlement Agreement, Attachment C, p. 2 and Attachment D, p. 2. The settlement agreement contains the following 3 . \"Agreement Regarding Litigation Among Joshua And The Districts\"\n\"Joshua releases the Districts of all liability for issues which have been raised, or could have been raised, in this Litigation and commits that there will be no further litigation among or between Joshua, Knight and any of the districts, other than proceedings to enforce the terms of this settlement or the terms of the Plans.\" Settlement Agreement, p. 19. 4. LRSD, PCSSD and NLRSD were entitled to an order of dismissal upon this court's approval of the settlement agreement on January 18, 1991. A review of the docket shows that the required order has not been entered. According to the terms of the settlement agreement, the district court should enter an order of dismissal with respect to LRSD, PCSSD and NLRSD effective January 18, 1991. 5. The requested order of dismissal would not affect this court's jurisdiction \"to address issues regarding the implementation of the plans\" or to conduct \"proceedings to enforce the terms of [the] settlement or the terms of the Plans.\" WHEREFORE, for the reasons set forth above and in the accompanying brief. the Little Rock School District moves in accordance with the terms of the settlement agreement for an order 2dismissing this case with prejudice with respect to LRSD, PCSSD and NLRSD as of January 18, 1991, except to the extent the court retains jurisdiction to address issues regarding implementation of the plans and to conduct proceedings to enforce the terms of the settlement agreement or the desegregation plans. Respectfully submitted. LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT FRIDAY, ELDREDGE \u0026amp; CLARK 2000 First Commercial Bldg. 400 West Capitol Street Little Rock, AR 72201 (501) 376-2011 Christopher Heller Robert Shafer John C. Fendley By: Christopher Helle, Bar No. 81083 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I certify that a copy of the foregoing Motion for Order of Dismissal has been served on the following by depositing copy of same in the United States mail on this 30th day of November, 1995. Mr. John Walker JOHN WALKER, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72206 Mr. Sam Jones WRIGHT, LINDSEY \u0026amp; JENNINGS 2200 Worthen Bank Bldg. 200 West Capitol Little Rock, AR 72201 3Mr. Steve Jones JACK, LYON \u0026amp; JONES, P.A. 3400 Capitol Towers Capitol \u0026amp; Broadway Streets Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Richard Roachell Roachell and Streett First Federal Plaza 401 West Capitol, Suite 504 Little Rock, AR 72201 Ms. Ann Brown HAND DELIVERED Desegregation Monitor Heritage West Bldg., Suite 510 201 East Markham Street Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Timothy G. Gauger Office of the Attorney General 323 Center Street 200 Tower Building Little Rock, AR 72201 .ristopher Heller 4 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT V. FILED U.S. DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT ARKANSAS APR - 9 1996 JAMES W McCORMACK, CLERK By. PLAINTIFOEH. CLERK (f PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, ET AL APR 1 2 1996 DEFENDANTS MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL ^Office of Desegregation dsori.'! INTERVENORS KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL INTERVENORS NOTICE OF APPEAL Plaintiff Little Rock School District hereby gives notice of its appeal to the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit from the March 11, 1996 Order which denies the Little Rock School District's Motion to Dismiss this case with prejudice and refuses to reconsider its previous order concerning a contract between the Little Rock School District and ServiceMaster Management Services. Respectfully submitted. LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT FRIDAY, ELDREDGE \u0026amp; CLARK 2000 First Commercial Bldg. 400 West Capitol Street Little Rock, AR 72201 (501) 376-2011 By(' Christopher Heller Bar No. 81083 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I certify that a copy of the foregoing Notice of Appeal has been served on the following by depositing copy of same in the United States mail on this 9th day of April, 1996\nMr. John Walker JOHN WALKER, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72206 Mr. Sam Jones WRIGHT, LINDSEY \u0026amp; JENNINGS 2200 Worthen Bank Bldg. 200 West Capitol Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Steve Jones JACK, LYON \u0026amp; JONES, P.A. 3400 Capitol Towers Capitol \u0026amp; Broadway Streets Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Richard Roachell Roachell and Streett First Federal Plaza 401 West Capitol, Suite 504 Little Rock, AR 72201 Ms. Ann Brown HAND DELIVERED Desegregation Monitor Heritage West Bldg., Suite 510 201 East Markham Street Little Rock, AR 72201 Ms. Elizabeth Boyter Arkansas Dept, of Education 4 State Capitol Mall Little Rock, AR 72201-1071 John C. Everett 3822 N. Parkview Drive P.O. Box 1646 Fayetteville, AR 72702 Joseph S. Mowery 111 Center Little Rock, AR 72201 Christopher 2 Filed U 3, OlSTtsiCT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT ARKANSAS MAR 1 I 1996 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION JAMES By\n3 W McCjORMACK, C U-xJAWa OEP CCLLIERK LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT PLAINTIFF No. LR-C-82-866 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT No. 1, ET AL DEFENDANTS MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL INTERVENORS KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL INTERVENORS SERVICEMASTER MANAGEMENT SERVICES A Limited Partnership INTERVENORS MEMORANDUM AND ORDER Before the Court are a number of motions (listed in the order filed) which the Court now addresses: (1) motion of the Pulaski County Special School District (\"PCSSD\") to withdraw supervision from three discrete areas of the PCSSD plan [doc.#2481]\n(2) motion of the Little Rock School District (\"LRSD\") for partial unitary status [doc.#2483 ]\n(3) motion of the Joshua Intervenors (\"Joshua\") to enjoin the LRSD from entering into a service contract without following bidding procedures, requests for infoirmation and without prior involvement of Joshua [doc.#2506]\n(4) motion of PCSSD to clarify the PCSSD desegregation plan [doc.#2520]\n(5) motion of Joshua for the Court to set forth in detail the continuing vs. Ctev I 3 obligations of the LRSD under the desegregation plan with respect to faculty and staff desegregation [doc.#2544]\n(6) motion of PCSSD for an Order regarding portable buildings [doc.#2546]\n(7) motion of LRSD for an Order dismissing this case without prejudice with respect to LRSD, PCSSD, and the North Little Rock School District (\"NLRSD\") [doc.#2573]\n(8) motion of Joshua for reconsideration of 2 6 4 the Court's Order of December 11, 1995, and for completion of the hearing [doc.#2594]\nand (9) motion of PCSSD regarding the replacement of portable buildings with permanent construction. dated October 25, 1995 [doc.#2612]. I. The Court first addresses PCSSD's motion to withdraw supervision from three discrete areas of the PCSSD plan [doc.#2481] and LRSD's motion for partial unitary status [doc.#2483]. The PCSSD states that it has substantially complied with plan provisions regarding library media services, staff development and counseling services, while the LRSD states that it has substantially complied with LRSD plan provisions regarding Home Instructional Program for Preschool Youngsters (\"HIPPY\"), Rockefeller Early Childhood Program, Parkview Science Magnet Program, and Job Training Partnership Act/Summer Learning Program (\"JTPA\"). Both the PCSSD and the LRSD argue that the Court should withdraw supervision from these areas of the respective plans. The PCSSD's and LRSD's motions were both filed on August 23, 1995. On February 9, 1996, the parties entered into a Stipulation whereby it was agreed that the PCSSD, LRSD, and NLRSD should be released from court supervision and monitoring in certain discrete areas of the desegregation plans. The parties further stated that they are in the process of assessing what additional areas of the desegregation plans are ripe for release from Court supervision and monitoring and to identify what areas of the desegregation plans -2-remain deficient in terms of compliance. The additional hearings that were scheduled to address the motions to withdraw were cancelled at the parties' request as a result of the Stipulation. In light of the Stipulation and subsequent cancellation of the hearings, the Court finds that both the PCSSD's motion to withdraw [doc.#2481] and the LRSD's motion for partial unitary status [doc.#2483] have both been superseded by the Stipulation. Accordingly, these motions are denied as moot. II. On August 31, 1995, Joshua filed a motion to enjoin the LRSD from entering into a service contract without following bidding procedures, requests for information and without prior involvement of the Joshua Intervenors [doc.#2506]. In its motion Joshua argues that (1) the LRSD had not discussed the proposed management services contract with the Joshua Intervenors, (2) the proposed management contract has potential adverse racial effect and impact, (3) the proposed management contract has not been let for bids and is not a part of the program. research and evaluation instrument for the next five years, (4) the proposed management contract has potential adverse monetary effects upon financial resources of the district and has the potential for adversely affecting the ability of the school district to meet its a desegregation obligations, and (5) the proposed management contract was not negotiated at arms' length and was designed to provide special favor to some unknown person in the school district. -3-The Court held a hearing on Joshua's motion on Saturday, October 28, 1995, and again on Friday, December 8, 1995. At the hearing on December 8th, counsel for Joshua tendered into evidence a document entitled \"Settlement,\" which Joshua maintains constitutes a settlement offer by LRSD that was accepted by Joshua with respect to the ServiceMaster contract. Joshua claims that this constitutes an offer by LRSD to settle the matter with Joshua by having the Court enter an Order enjoining the LRSD from entering into the ServiceMaster agreement and terminating the district's liability pursuant to Paragraph 14.12 of the contract. The LRSD, however, contends that this document was not intended as an offer to settle, in that it is stamped \"Draft\" and is not signed by any party or the attorney for any party. On December 11, 1995, this Court issued an Order in which it ruled as follows: This Court declines to rule on whether this 'settlement' constitutes a binding agreement on the district or on whether the board of directors delegated Mr. Malone the authority to enter into it with Joshua. The Court finds that even if Mr. Malone had the authority and even if it was an offer to settle which Joshua accepted, settlement. public This policy 'settlement' prohibits this type of purports to create a situation in which this Court, by agreement of Joshua and LRSD, would by court order declare the agreement to be non-binding on the part of LRSD and would relieve LRSD of any liability. Indeed, Paragraph 14.12 of the ServiceMaster contract provides an \"escape clause\" for LRSD should this Court terminate or ServiceMaster agreement. modify the It provides that LRSD shall have no obligation to appeal decisions affecting the contract. Therefore, it implies that LRSD will in good faith abide by the terms of the contract and will not contract with Joshua or anyone else to procure a court order allowing it to escape liability. It would not be consistent with public policy to permit one party to a -4-contract to escape its obligations unilaterally without a similar provision for the other contracting party. This Court finds that ServiceMaster and LRSD did not intend that this clause would permit Little Rock to escape liability without a ruling on the merits. Therefore, the Court holds that this purported settlement cannot be enforced against ServiceMaster. Order, at 5-6 [doc.#2586]. On December 22, 1995, Joshua filed a motion for reconsideration of the Court's Order of December 11, 1995, and for completion of the hearing [doc.#2594]. Joshua states they have not completed their presentation in support of their initial motion to enjoin the LRSD from entering into a service contract, and they argue the Court has not ruled on the substantive grounds which it has set forth in its motion. The Court has considered the matter and remains convinced that its interpretation of the contract was correct and that it would not be consistent with public policy to permit one party to a contract to escape its obligations unilaterally without a similar provision for the other contracting party. See Order, at 6. Joshua cites Union Nat. Bank v. Federal Nat. Mortg. Ass'n, 860 F.2d 847 (8th Cir. 1988), in support of its motion. The Court finds Joshua's reliance on Union Nat. Bank to be misplaced, however. as that case involved a termination clause between the parties to the contract, see id. 860 F.2d at 849, while the case at Bar involves a purported settlement between a contracting party and a third party allowing the contracting party to escape its obligations unilaterally without a similar provision for the non-settling -5-party. Union Nat. Bank is thus distinguishable and provides no support for Joshua's motion for reconsideration. In any case, even if Joshua is correct that such a unilateral escape from contractual obligations would be permissible under Arkansas law, the parties in this case intended that the contract would be performed in good faith unless this Court issued an Order allowing the LRSD to escape liability pursuant to 5 14,12 of the contract. The Court has not and will not at this time issue such an Order allowing the LRSD to escape liability under the contract. Accordingly, the Court denies that portion of Joshua's motion which asks for reconsideration of the Court's December 11, 1995, Order. With respect to that portion of Joshua's motion which asks for completion of the hearing, the Court finds that this aspect of the motion should be and hereby is denied as moot. The Court notes that the December Sth hearing was not completed because Joshua specifically requested that the matter be continued so that it could file an interlocutory appeal of the Court's Order. Tr. at 92, 97. Indeed, Joshua stated that such an appeal would \"resolve a lot of matters. II Tr. at 90. It was only after Joshua concluded that the Order was not appealable that Joshua now asks that the hearing be completed. However, because the Court's docket is full. the Court is unable to schedule the matter for a hearing in the immediate future. Accordingly, for administrative purposes. and because the Court in any case denies Joshua's motion for reconsideration, the Court concludes that Joshua's motion to enjoin the LRSD from entering into a service contract without following -6-bidding procedures, requests for information and without prior involvement of the Joshua Intervenors [doc.#2506] should be and hereby is denied without prejudice. Joshua may refile the motion to the extent they wish to pursue the matter after reviewing today's order. Should Joshua refile the motion, the Court will schedule the matter for a hearing. III. On September 14, 1995, the PCSSD filed a motion to clarify the PCSSD desegregation plan [doc.#2520]. PCSSD seeks to clarify those parts of the plan and programs that are or were calculated to further desegregate the southeast sector schools within the PCSSD, i.e., the Talented and Gifted Program within the southeast sector. the Fine Arts Program at Landmark, the Specialty Program at Bates Elementary, and Harris Elementary. The Court has considered the motion and finds that it should be and hereby is denied without prejudice. Joshua has not filed a response to the motion even though they would appear to be significantly affected by the matters contained therein. In any case, the status of this motion is questionable given the subsequent motions of PCSSD regarding potential school closings and new construction that would affect the schools in the southeast sector and elsewhere. Should PCSSD refile this motion, Joshua is expected to file a timely response stating their position on the matter. -7-IV. The LRSD moves for an Order dismissing this case without prejudice with respect to the LRSD, PCSSD, and NLRSD as of January 18, 1991, except to the extent the Court retains jurisdiction to address issues regarding implementation of the plans and to conduct proceedings to enforce the terms of the settlement or the terms of the plans [doc.#2573]. The Court finds that the motion for an order of dismissal should be and hereby is denied. Let there be no mistake that, with the entry of the settlement agreement, the claims involved in this ongoing litigation were dismissed. at least as a technical matter. The Court finds. however, that no useful purpose would be served by entering an order of dismissal at this time. The Court of Appeals has instructed this Court \"to monitor closely the compliance of the parties with the settlement plans and the settlement agreement, to take whatever action is appropriate, in its discretion, to ensure compliance with the plans and the agreement. and otherwise to proceed as the law and the facts require.\" Little Rock School List. V. Pulaski County Special School District No. 1, 921 F.2d 1371, 1394 (Sth Cir. 1990) . The LRSD has frequently exhibited indifference or outright recalcitrance towards its commitments and has been slow to implement many aspects of its agreements (although some improvements have been made) . Therefore, the Court finds that an order of dismissal should be deferred in order to ensure compliance with the plans and the agreement. Even had the LRSD acted in good faith throughout the years. the logistics and -8-complexity of this case are such that this Court's monitoring function would be impaired by entering this time. an order of dismissal at V. On October 25, 1995, Joshua filed a motion asking the Court to set forth in detail the continuing obligations of the LRSD under the desegregation plan with respect to faculty and staff desegregation [doc.#2544]. Joshua objects to certain staff and faculty assignment practices of the LRSD and contends that the parties have a material disagreement. Joshua seeks an Order which either defines or interprets the obligations of the LRSD with respect to faculty and staff. The Court has considered Joshua's motion and finds that it should be and hereby is denied without prejudice. The obligations of the LRSD regarding faculty and staff are clearly set forth in both the LRSD Plan and the Interdistrict Plan and need not be repeated here. Moreover, the parties have agreed in their Stipulation that they are in the process of assessing what additional areas of the desegregation plans are ripe for release from Court supervision and monitoring and to identify what areas of the desegregation plans remain deficient in terms of compliance. Should the parties be unable to reach agreement regarding faculty and staff desegregation, Joshua may refile its motion. -9-VI. On October 26, 1995, PCSSD filed a motion for an Order regarding portable buildings [doc.#2546]. In its motion, PCSSD asks for permission to begin construction on one permanent classroom at Jacksonville Elementary, four permanent classrooms at Bayou Meto, seven permanent classrooms at Landmark Elementary, and three permanent classrooms at Pine Forest Elementary. On January 29, 1996, PCSSD filed a subsequent motion regarding the replacement of portable buildings with permanent construction dated October 25, 1995 [doc.#2612]. This latter motion supplements and essentially supersedes the previous motion filed on October 26, 1995. In its supplemental motion, PCSSD seeks permission to begin construction on two permanent classrooms at Cato Elementary, two classrooms at Arnold Drive Elementary, four permanent classrooms at Bayou Meto, seven permanent classrooms at Landmark Elementary, and three permanent classrooms at Pine Forest Elementary. The Court has carefully considered the matter and concludes that PCSSD's request is consistent with the district's long-range plans for replacement of portable buildings. The construction will not increase the capacity of the aforementioned schools, with the exception of Pine Forest Elementary.' Accordingly, the motions for an Order regarding portable buildings are hereby granted. 1 On Sqjtembcr 15, 1995, the Court approved a motion granting the PCSSD permission to add a kindergarten class to improve racial balance at Pine Forest Elementary. The district has represented to the Court that one of the permanent classrooms would reflect the additional capacity resulting from the new kindergarten class. -10-VII. In sum, the Court denies as moot PCSSD's motion to withdraw [doc.#2481], denies as moot LRSD's motion for partial unitary status [doc.#2483], denies that portion of Joshua's motion which asks for reconsideration of the Court's December 11, 1995 Order [doc.#2594], denies as moot that portion of Joshua's motion which asks for completion of the hearing [doc.#2594], denies without prejudice Joshua's motion to enjoin the LRSD from entering into a service contract without following bidding procedures, requests for information and without prior involvement of the Joshua Intervenors [doc.#2506], denies without prejudice PCSSD's motion to clarify the PCSSD desegregation plan [doc.#2520], denies LRSD's motion for an Order of dismissal [doc.#2573], denies without prejudice Joshua's motion for an Order setting forth in detail the continuing obligations of the LRSD under the desegregation plan with respect to faculty and staff desegregation [doc.#2544], and grants PCSSD's motions for an Order regarding portable buildings [doc.#'s 2546 \u0026amp; 2612]. IT IS SO ORDERED this // ^^day of March 1996. 'A DGE PHIS DOCUMt.NT ENTERED ON DOCKET SHEET IN COMPLIANCE WITH RULE 58 AND/OR 79(a) FRCP ON BY -11- 1 J IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT. ET AL. PLAINTIFFS V. NO. LR-C-82-866 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT. ET AL. DEFENDANTS J ! i LORENE JOSHUA ET AL. INTERVENORS THE JOSHUA INTERVENORS' OPPOSITION TO THE LRSD'S MOTION FOR AN ORDER OF DISMISSAL 1 The Joshua intervenors oppose the LRSD's motion for an order of dismissal and i i i urge that it be denied. The Little Rock defendants ignore, among other things: the details of the treatment of the issues of continuing jurisdiction and monitoring by the Court of Appeals, when that Court addressed the proposed settlements in 1990\nthe overall legal context in which the Court of Appeals considered the settlements\nthe differing terms of the \"Pulaski County School Desegregation Case Settlement Agreement\" (September 28.1989) with regard to the State and the local districts\nand the history of this case since the Court of Appeals decision. I. A. The Legal Context: The Doctrine of Continuing Jurisdiction and the Violations To Be Remedied The legal context relevant in considering the LRSD motion begins with the decision in Brown v. Board of Education. 349 U.S. 294 (1955) (Brown II). The Court there began 1by reiterating the holding of Brown. However, the focus of Brown II was \"the manner in which relief [should]... be accorded\" in segregated systems, jd., at 298. The Court recognized that \"the transition to a system of public education freed of racial i discrimination\" might \"require solution of varied local school problems\" (id., at 299) arising in many areas of school administration, id., at 300. The Court held that local district 1 courts could best oversee the required remedial efforts (id., at 299), and directed that those courts retain jurisdiction of cases during the transition period. I The Supreme Court returned to the proper role of a district court in the remedial I 1 phase of a school desegregation case in Raney v. Board of Education of the Gould Sch. I i Dist., 391 U.S. 443 (1968), there confronting a case which had been dismissed. The Court I rejected this approach, identifying the need for a Court to focus in the remedial period on whether \"a constitutionally permissible plan\" \"is operated in a constitutionally permissible fashion....\" ii, at 449. A district court should retain jurisdiction \"until it is clear that disestablishment has been achieved....\" The next relevant part of the legal context is the decision of the Court of Appeals in this case in 1985, addressing, in part, this court's order (then Judge Henry Woods) requiring consolidation of the three local districts. See Little Rock School District v. Pulaski County Special School District. 778 F. 2d 404 (8th Cir. 1985) (en banc), cert, denied. 476 U.S. 1186 (1986). The Court of Appeals \"[held] that the district court's findings on liability [were] not clearly erroneous and that intra- and interdistrict relief [were] appropriate. [The court found], however that the violations [could] be remedied by less intrusive measures than consolidation.\" See 778 F.2d at 408. The Court then set forth in detail \"principles\" to 2govern the required intra- and interdistrict remedies (at 434-36), and \"remanded [the case] to the district court for further action consistent with [its] opinion\" (at 436). B. The Court of Appeals Decision of 1990 Concerning the Settlement On remand, the parties ultimately developed five agreements in an effort to repond to the Court of Appeals' 1985 decision. In its opinion of December 1990, the Court of Appeals described Judge Woods' treatment of these agreements as follows: 'The District Court rejected both the settlement plans and the settlement agreement, as submitted. It purported to modify them and to order the unwilling parties to put them into effect as modified.\" Little Rock School District v. Pulaski County Special School District. 921 F.2d 1371, 1376 (Sth Cir. 1990). The Court of Appeals rejected this general approach (ii)\nhowever, it is vital, with regard to the current motion, to focus with care on the Court's treatment of the question of continuing jurisdiction and monitoring. The Court of Appeals first discussed the standards governing its review of the parties' settlement. See, for example, id., at 1383-85, 1388-89. On the one hand, it emphasized the importance of the parties' agreement and the public policy in favor of settlements. Id, at 1383,1388. The Court also recognized, however, its responsibility to insure that the agreements were not \"unfair to class members...\", or ones inconsistent with the \"[court's] strong interest in not involving itself, along with the prestige of the law, in an ongoing equitable decree vzhich is either manifestly unworkable or plainly unconstitutional on its face.\" Id, at 1383. The context for the Court's 1990 decision, then, had multiple facets. It included legal principles regarding the fundamental importance of continuing jurisdiction until violations 3are cured\nthe need to provide, in this case, remedies for intra- and interdistrict violations of the constitution\nthe parties' agreements\nand the principles regarding review of settlements in class actions, striking a balance between the fact of agreement and important legal standards. The Court's application of these principles produced, we submit, the following holding relevant to the matters raised by the current LRSD motion. The district court must retain jurisdiction of the case with regard to the three local school districts for a considerable time to monitor compliance with the settlement agreements (see, for example. ii, at 1383, 1388)\nand the parties have agreed to this continuing jurisdiction and monitoring, if necessary to secure approval of the agreements. I^, at 1386,1390. The following excerpts from the Court of Appeals decision demonstrate that this interpretation is a valid one. 921 F.2dat1376 We now reverse the judgment of the District Court. In general, we direct that Court, on remand, to approve the settlement plans and settlement agreement as submitted by the parties. We also make certain other directions for the future of the case. 921 F. 2d at 1383 This does not mean that a court must automatically approve anything the parties set before it. In the present case, for example, any remedy will necessarily reguire some judicial supervision -monitoring, at least - for a long time. A court has a strong interest in not involving itself, along with the prestige of the law, in an ongoing equitable decree which is either manifestly unworkable or plainly unconstitutional on its face. In addition, this is a class action, and courts are not obliged (indeed they are not permitted) to approve settlements that are unfair to class members, or negotiated by inadequate class representatives. 921 F.2d at 1386 4The district Court was concerned about the lack of sufficient detail in the plans to guarantee successful implementation. The answer to this concern lies, we think, in the fact, upon which we place a great deal of weight, that the parties have all agreed to continued monitoring. Indeed, such monitoring by the District Court and its agents is essential. It is important for the settlement plans to be scrupulously adhered to - and here we have in mind especially the kind of programs that the plan contemplates for the incentive schools - and it will be the job of the district Court to see that this monitoring is done effectively, and that appropriate action is taken if the parties do not live up to their commitments. 921 F.2d at 1388 As indicated above, this does not mean that the parties will be free of supervision or monitoring. Quite the contrary: a necessary condition of our holding that the plans are not facially unconstitutional is that the parties'compliance with them will be carefully monitored. As we shall make clear at the conclusion of the opinion, when we set out the directions to be followed by the District Court on remand, the office previously known as the Office of the Metropolitan Supervisor will be reconstituted as the Office of Desegregation Monitoring, to be headed by a Monitor appointed by the District Court, with such additional personnel as the District Court shall deem appropriate. 921 F.2d at1390 ....We accept these undertakings [of the districts], again with the reminder that that compliance with them will be closely monitored. If the District Court becomes convinced in the future that money is being wasted, and that desegregation obligations contained in the settlement plans are being flouted, it will be fully authorized to take appropriate remedial action. As the parties agree, the settlement agreement implicitly authorizes the District Court to retain jurisdiction to oversee its implementation. See 14 App. 3466. The approach which we urge is also consistent with the Court of Appeals' summary of its rulings appearing at 921 F.2d 1394. The Court wrote in paragraph (8.): The District Court is instructed to monitor closely the compliance of the parties with the settlement plans and the settlement agreement, to take whatever action is appropriate, in its discretion, to ensure compliance with the plans and the agreement, and otherwise to proceed as the law and the facts require. The Court added, in addressing the issue of a transition to the standards of the 5settlements, that if the parties could not resolve the matter by agreement, \"the district Court [was] authorized to take such action as may be just\" (at 1394, para, 9). To be sure, the Court also wrote: \"On remand, the District Court is directed to approve the parties' settlement agreement as written by them.\" li, at para. 6. However, as the excerpts of the opinion quoted above demonstrate, the Court of Appeals interpreted the \"settlement agreement\" to reflect the parties' agreement to continuing jurisdiction over the local districts and monitoring of the agreements. After all, each release relating to the three districts contained this sentence: 'This dismissal is final for all purposes except that the Court may retain jurisdiction to address issues regarding the implementation of the plans.\" E.g., \"Settlement Agreement,\" Attachment B., at 2. The quoted language from the release also puts to rest the LRSD's reliance on the dismissal of the State in this court's order of January 18,1991. See Motion, at para. 1. The quoted sentence is absent from the release regarding the State. See \"Settlement Agreement\", at Attachment A, p. 2. C. The Court of Appeals Decision Regarding the Modification of the Settlement The opinion of the Court of Appeals in 1991 addressing the standards to be employed by this court in considering proposed modifications to the settlements also warrants brief reference. In describing the manner in which this court should proceed on remand, the Court plainly paraphrased the standard set forth in Brown II, to which we have alluded above. See Appeal of Little Rock School District, 949 F.2d 253, 257 (Sth Cir. 1991). The Court added: \"We ask the District Court, to the extent practicable, to give this 6matter priority on its docket.\" at 258/ D. The History of the Case Since the 1990 Decision The Court of Appeals' reference to this court's docket provides an apt starting point for our final argument. We recently had occasion in the Joshua intervenors' application for a fee award to cite the official case docket - totalling 128 pages for the period from December 11,1989 to September 15,1995 - as evidence of the mammouth effort which has been undertaken by Joshua representatives, during the monitoring period following the Court of Appeals decision at the end of 1990. Roughly 10 days after the filing of our fee petition, and almost 5 years after the proposed dismissal date, LRSD filed the current motion - seeking an order under which the case would be treated as if dismissed for some purposes 5 years ago. We have to wonder if the timing of the motion relates to the Joshua fee petition in some way\nand we can only wonder because the defendants do not inform the parties or the court, by use of examples or otherwise, what would be accomplished by the motion, and what, if any, difference it would make. The court should not lend its power to the requested form of belated wand waving. Conciusion The motion should be denied. Neither the formulation which appears in the motion. at pages 2-3, nor the one in the memorandum, at page 1, is consistent with the language employed by the Court of Appeals in 1990 in reviewing the proposed settlement. The LRSD's argument based upon the opinion of the Court of Appeals concerning the milages does not justify the relief sought here. The 1990 opinion of the Court of Appeals did not address the matter of millages in a manner analogous to the matter of continuing Jurisdiction. 7moving papers are otherwise inadequate at this late date, given the insufficient explanation offered for the proposal. I Respectfully submitted, I JOHN W. WALKER, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, Arkansas 72206 (50U 374-3758 By\n^n W. Walker, Bar No. 64046 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing pleading has been served upon all counsel of record, by placing a copy of the same in the United States Mail with sufficient postage prepaid, on this 18th day of December, 1995. /ohr?W. Walker 7 L 8 Arkansas Democnit ^(Jiazctte 22, 19QS-? Lawyer in case tells s judge not to toss desegregation suit mt XXA-^ BY CYNTHIA HOWELL Ownocrat-Gazette Education Writer r 3 attorney for tlie? District, ask^^\" Wnght Nov. 30 to end toe high-prbr. tile school case but to continue TXT ^sicsauou lawsuii, accnrrting (o at- Hicw Ibe thrM Pulaski CounlY\" toey Joto Walken irto black families m toe case. a u ' All three distncts are entitled-fo\n'\" :miceol ___ .. A federal judge should deny toe toiUe Rock School Districts request to dismiss its 13-year-old school desegregation lawsuit accordi^ to at- uidcx lamuies In a motion submitted to US ''Jabber WnghL Walker said toe districts request for dismissal includes little explanation or justificatioa He ----- said toe district failed to inform toe--------------------------------dismissal ot\". court by toe use of examples what hrjfZ overdue,\nwould be accomplished if the dis- dismissal from toe case as toe  language included in toe' 1989 financial settlement of ther case, Heller said at toe time he sub-^ der is at least four years overdue he said. T' lissal is granted. Heller called his request to tii\u0026amp;. judge both a housekeeping mea-' sure and a symbolic gesture to remind people that toe settlement agreement was supposed to end to^ Walker questioned toe motives of toe district He noted that toe motion for dismissal was filed 10 days after he filed a request for i* -i V -rr~vii/tuuuw~ S8O5.00O in legal fees from the three although toe districts had-'to,' ^^001 districts in- ---------------------- volved in the desegregation ! llQim J _: f 11 ,,,, , ------oJ case. We have to wonder if the timing of toe motion relates to toe Joshua meet specific desegregation obliga^ The Little Rock School Distri^ ^ , -------------xyiouiui -_________ accused Walker in rece\u0026lt;^- some way, said bying to impose new Walker, who represents toe Joshua P^'^bons on toe district  spedf-. ically in regard to the assignment^r  nla/*lr J_V  . intervenors, the class of black chU- dren and their parents in the de- , . ----------- segregation case, and we can only bergarten throu^ three, wonder because toe defendants do ~~~~~~------------ not inform toe parties or toe court by use ot examples or otherwise what would be accomplished by toe rnotiom and what if any difference it would make. The court should not lend its power to toe requested form of belated wand-waving, '* Walker quotes toe Sth U.S. Circuit Com of Appeals at St Louis rei^atedly on Wrights ongoing role in the case as a monitor to ensure that toe distact implements and complies with its desegregation plan. black teachers to jobs in grades' killQCPPSrtPn Mimii/rk 'A^iPublic school patrons should insist parties negotiate issues in good faith I 8Y KRISTEN BABER Special to the A/kansas Democrat-Gazette am the concerned parent of two children in the Little Rock Public Schools. Our school board and the other parties to the desegregation case enter^ into an agreement on a desegregation plan that was approved by the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals in 1991. To some extent we are inextricably bound by that agreement, except where, if changed circumstances justify it, the parties may compromise on modifications to the agreement I have been attending meetings between the parties to the desegregation case. These meetings are held in an attempt to agree on necessary modifications to the dese^egation plan, with minimal court involvement. I began to attend the meetings so I could understand the issues because I believe in public schools. I want to support them and I believe it is vital for our school district to get out from under court supervision. I believe in public schools because, more than any other public institution, they form the core of our communities. Our children receive benefits from attending school with a diverse population and everyone benefits from providing a good education to all. Court supervision is detrimental to the district in two ways: Too much money that should be spent on children is being spent on lasers, court costs and the office of desegregation monitorins and being in court means continued instability. Ail school patrons should attend these meetings and encourage the parties to negotiate in good faith and to get us out of court . The following comments are made to parties in the case.  Linda Pondexter, president of the Little Rock School Board: The meetings between parties have the potential for successful changes in the plan, but the meetings need a neutral chairperson. At the last meeting, Chris Heller, a lawyer representing the school district and John Walker, attorney for the Joshua Intervenors, appeared poised to agree on some issues. However, you were so convinced that Heller and the administration had conspired against you with the suggestion for a changed format for the meetings, you were a hindrance rather than an aid to negotiations. I realized then that we need a neutral chairperson\none who is flexible enough to hear suggestions without feeling threatened.  John Walker I support you in many ways. I want the Little Rock Schools to be integrated\nI want my children to go to school with children of all colors and backgrounds and I want the same for black children. I am afraid that your efforts are going to result in the opposite effect Private schools are gaining more students as this case drags on. Integration alone will cause some Commentary white flight, but your resistance to strong discipline in the schools and your unwillingness to compromise will cause the public schools to lose people who can afford private schools even though, ideally, they would choose an integrated school. You say that it is racial discrimination when the police are called when black children scuffle just as we all scuffled when we were youngsters. We all know that there are more fights now. more violence and certainly more guns and knives found on school property. I dont want children who have nowhere to go to be suspended. but I also dont want children who are chronically antisocial or are violent to be in the classroom with mine. When our schools are not perceived to be safe and well-disciplined, families who can afford private school will leave. The result is that the school system will become one of poor, disadvantaged students. You say that I and other white parents come to the meeting to seek special favors for our children. I doubt if Ill ever convince you otherwise. The only special favor I want for my children is for you to re-examine the perspective from which you view the involvement of white parents and children. Looking at the issues as white versus black will only aggravate, not heal, our wounds. We all need you to help effect a compromise that will allow a stable, s^e, disciplined and integrated school system. --------- .position for those who do not When you are being an advocate for black chil- c L, !**?- dren, remember that you do not stand alone. It {grated schools? That goal will not be reached by is the largely white PTA members at my chil-  drens area school who take children on field trips, provide tutoring and pay for an art teacher. Many of those resources would disappear if Little Rock were to become a one-race school system. I agree with you that it is unfair that so few black children are in the gifted classes in elementap^ schools. All children deserve those opportunities, but the court cases drain on school finances makes it that much harder to provide such opportunities to all children, Mr. Walker, please realize that I am not your enemy and neither are the majority of the white parents that I know. If you want to fight, attack the dragons that lead to more white flight  Ann Brown, desegregation monitor You have stated that factors that will draw white children to the district are on-time bus schedules and good curriculum. I have told you that I believe white parents want cooperation between the school board and the superintendent good curriculum and to be out of court You responded, I could not disagree more. You told me that you do not believe parents care about being in court When I recount that to parents, they laugh. Parents do care about on-time bus schedules, but more importantly they want good curriculum tau^t in a safe and stable environment where their tax dollars are spent on the students and not on lawyers fees nor your salary. The public perception is that there are too many in control of this case who are gaining financially from the ongoing litigation, What your comments reveal to me is that being out from under court supervision is not your primary goal. Does the district court realize that?  Dr. Henry Williams and Dr. Russ Mayo: The district needs to act in good faith, also. At the last meeting Pondexter repeatedly asked whether the district could provide a list of what parts of the desegregation plan had been complied with and what was left to do. Your response was always. Our employees are conducting interviews with a view to the hearing. That is no answer at all. I was surprised to learn that neither the school district nor the desegregation monitor knows which parts of the plan have been complied with. Does the district court realize that? What are the monitors monitoring?  AH members of the Little Rock School Board: None of the parents I know wants to change superintendents again. If Heniy Williams is so bad, convince us with facts. But realize this: the parents want a satisfactory compromise in the desegregation case. We^will rally support for those a members of the schck)l board who help find way to get us out of court and we will rally op-  Joshua intervenors: Is your goal safe, inte- I ArkansaTDemo^ C^azctk ] . SUNDAY, DECEMBER 24, 1995 this protracted court case and uncompromising positions that erode safety and discipline in the schools. Those factors are driving afHuent\npar- ents from the district sj\n*  Black and white parents: Our children-need us to speak up and say we dont want to sperid our tax dollars on lawyers fees and on th'e desegregation monitors salary, especially'when that monitor believes that parents arent concerned about the district remaining in court. What we do want is a school system where children of all colors and backgrounds can learn together. We parents need to remember that-iVis not just up to the court to solve the schools problems: it is also up to the school board we elect and the lawyers we have chosen to represent us. We want our schools to be about good education for all and we want our money spent toward that goal. Walker tells me that the state is constitutionally required to pay for public education and that there is no way the school system could go bankrupt\nbut he must know that if dire tactics are used, such as putting the district in receivership or consolidating the districts, affluent parents will leave in larger numbers than before. Walker also tells me that if I really want to help black youngsters I need to speak out fbr their rights in the community. This is mjc first step. Unless we agree on some modifications-and get out of court, this will be a one-race school \u0026lt; system and the children will be as segregated as ! when this suit was first filed. I Kristen Baber is a lawyer who Hoes in LiOle Rock.r-y TUESDAY, DECEMBER 16, 1997 A I , L.I I I W| I  Cooyr^t O Little Rock Newsoaoers. Inc. j Arkansas Demcxn'at'i^(i^azettc I LR schools win a^eOof (iismissal\"tan suit Although vre can well under- Pulaski County districts and the stand the frustration the district state from the case. The state was BY CYNTHIA HOWELL settlement agreement among the will bring more into focus the fact underetanding ^at compliance ARKAiNSAs DEMocRAT-GAZETm three Pulaslti County districts and that a settlement apeement was monitoring would contmu . . The Little Rock School Distact the state that provided for the dis- reached to end the litigation, smd Wri^had denied the Little court has experienced over the dismi^d several ye^ ago, but The Uttle Rock School District the state mat provmeu lor uie u- 7,: Rod: totricts request for an or- years in carrying out our instate- the districts were not Ody the Litis entitled to be dismissed tom its missal. , ..  Hr nf di.^missai sadng that the tion, we conclude that the districts tie Rock distact raised the issue in .................... ''^T^eoking for the day'  haTbel r^akiSLt in motion should have been grant- 1995, but all three are expected to when all federal jurisdiction ends implementing its desegregation ed. - . der of dismissal, saying that the tion, we conclude that the districts  ------------------ -  1 motion should have been grant- looj, uuu on implementing us aesegregauuu cd, wrote U.S. Circuit Judge benefit tom the latest co^ order. plan. Ordering ffie dismissal could Roger Wollman of Sioux Falls, 15-year-old desegregation lawsuit --------------- ionU^ng^m appeak'rourt pan- matter and a symbolic reminder when dism^rould Roger\"Wollman'of\" Si^ Fails, \"But Woihnan also warned that 81 ruled Monday. that the 1989 settlement agree- and contro of the djstact retunm pl^Orde^me msmissai coma ger all three districts must continue to  A three-judge panel of the Sth ment ended litigation on desegre- usSpurpLe the judge As we held in our 1992 deci- implement desegregation plans 0.8. Circuit Court ofAppeals at St gation issues, leaving the courts to This is a small step m that direc- seivenou purp , j u8 terms of the settlement under Wright's supervision. Louis reversed a 1996 order by monitor and orfy thed^ tiom saim agreement became the law of the As the agreement specifically U-S.pistoct Judge Susan Webber tacts compliance with its desegre- moS the diSs desegrega- cSe, Wollman said. , SdMeXu^sl^^'or'^^^^ aSasSSs* gsaasassa the case despite language in a 1989 of what we do everyday, except it the desegregation lawsuit with the Court_______________________ The settlement agreement provided for the dismissal of all three See DESEGREGATION, Page SB Desegregation  Continued from Page 1B to comply with our instruction), to retain jurisdiction to address issues regarding the implementation of Sie desegregation plans, he wrote. 7 He said the entry of a dismissal order will do nothing to relieve any of the three Pulaski County districts of their continuing desegregation obligations as listed in their plans. Any post-dismissal stance by the districts to the contrary, it i should be made clear, would subject them to appropriate sanctions and the granting of remedial relief to those adversely affected by the districts' refusal to honor their desegregation commitments. Wollman wrote the order on behalf of a panel that also included Chief Circuit Judge Richard S. Arnold of Little Rock and Circuit Judge Gerdld Heaney of Duluth, Minn. Attorneys made oral arguments in the case Feb. 25 in Little Rock.\nThis project was supported in part by a Digitizing Hidden Special Collections and Archives project grant from The Andrew W. Mellon Foundation and Council on Library and Information Resoources.\n   \n\n   \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n   \n\n \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n \n\n  \n\n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n   \n\n \n\n\n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n\n\n  \n\n\n\n "},{"id":"bcas_p15728coll3_424364","title":"Doris Matthis individual file","collection_id":"bcas_p15728coll3","collection_title":"Butler Center for Arkansas Studies Documents Collection","dcterms_contributor":["Matthis, Doris"],"dcterms_spatial":["United States, 39.76, -98.5","United States, Arkansas, 34.75037, -92.50044","United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, 34.76993, -92.3118","United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, Little Rock, 34.74648, -92.28959","United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, Little Rock, Dunbar High School, 34.73231, -92.28654"],"dcterms_creator":null,"dc_date":["1995/1997"],"dcterms_description":["This folder contains documents and photographs donated by Doris Matthis.","This project was supported in part by a Digitizing Hidden Special Collections and Archives project grant from The Andrew W. Mellon Foundation and Council on Library and Information Resources."],"dc_format":["audio/mpeg","image/jpeg"],"dcterms_identifier":null,"dcterms_language":["eng"],"dcterms_publisher":["Little Rock, Ark. : University of Arkansas at Little Rock Center for Arkansas History and Culture"],"dc_relation":null,"dc_right":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC-EDU/1.0/"],"dcterms_is_part_of":["National Dunbar Alumni Association historical collection, 1880-2016 (UALR.MS.0021)","History of Segregation and Integration of Arkansas's Educational System"],"dcterms_subject":["African Americans--Arkansas--Little Rock","Dunbar High School (Little Rock, Ark.)","Education--Arkansas--Little Rock","Education, Secondary","Segregation in education--Arkansas--Little Rock"],"dcterms_title":["Doris Matthis individual file"],"dcterms_type":["Text"],"dcterms_provenance":["Butler Center for Arkansas Studies"],"edm_is_shown_by":null,"edm_is_shown_at":["http://arstudies.contentdm.oclc.org/cdm/ref/collection/p15728coll3/id/424364"],"dcterms_temporal":null,"dcterms_rights_holder":null,"dcterms_bibliographic_citation":null,"dlg_local_right":null,"dcterms_medium":["documents (object genre)"],"dcterms_extent":null,"dlg_subject_personal":null,"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":null},{"id":"bcas_p15728coll3_430096","title":"Dunbar History Project materials","collection_id":"bcas_p15728coll3","collection_title":"Butler Center for Arkansas Studies Documents Collection","dcterms_contributor":null,"dcterms_spatial":["United States, 39.76, -98.5","United States, Arkansas, 34.75037, -92.50044","United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, 34.76993, -92.3118","United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, Little Rock, 34.74648, -92.28959"],"dcterms_creator":null,"dc_date":["1995/1996"],"dcterms_description":["This project was supported in part by a Digitizing Hidden Special Collections and Archives project grant from The Andrew W. Mellon Foundation and Council on Library and Information Resources."],"dc_format":["image/jpeg"],"dcterms_identifier":null,"dcterms_language":["eng"],"dcterms_publisher":["Little Rock, Ark. : University of Arkansas at Little Rock Center for Arkansas History and Culture"],"dc_relation":null,"dc_right":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC-EDU/1.0/"],"dcterms_is_part_of":["National Dunbar Alumni Association historical collection, 1880-2016 (UALR.MS.0021)","History of Segregation and Integration of Arkansas's Educational System"],"dcterms_subject":["African Americans--Arkansas--Little Rock","Dunbar High School (Little Rock, Ark.)","Education--Arkansas--Little Rock","Education, Secondary","Segregation in education--Arkansas--Little Rock","Class reunions"],"dcterms_title":["Dunbar History Project materials"],"dcterms_type":["Text"],"dcterms_provenance":["Butler Center for Arkansas Studies"],"edm_is_shown_by":null,"edm_is_shown_at":["http://arstudies.contentdm.oclc.org/cdm/ref/collection/p15728coll3/id/430096"],"dcterms_temporal":null,"dcterms_rights_holder":null,"dcterms_bibliographic_citation":null,"dlg_local_right":null,"dcterms_medium":["documents (object genre)"],"dcterms_extent":null,"dlg_subject_personal":null,"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":null},{"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":null,"dcterms_medium":["documents (object genre)"],"dcterms_extent":null,"dlg_subject_personal":null,"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":"\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n\n\n\n   \n\n\n\n\n   \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n  \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":null,"dcterms_medium":["documents (object genre)"],"dcterms_extent":null,"dlg_subject_personal":null,"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":"\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n\n\n\n   \n\n\n\n\n   \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n  \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":null,"dcterms_medium":["documents (object genre)"],"dcterms_extent":null,"dlg_subject_personal":null,"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":"\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n\n\n\n   \n\n\n\n\n   \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\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":null,"dcterms_medium":["documents (object genre)"],"dcterms_extent":null,"dlg_subject_personal":null,"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":"\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n\n\n\n   \n\n\n\n\n   \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n  \n\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":null,"dcterms_medium":["documents (object genre)"],"dcterms_extent":null,"dlg_subject_personal":null,"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":"\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n\n\n\n   \n\n\n\n\n   \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n  \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}],"pages":{"current_page":41,"next_page":42,"prev_page":40,"total_pages":372,"limit_value":12,"offset_value":480,"total_count":4462,"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":4200},{"value":"StillImage","hits":387}],"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":"Little Rock School District","hits":114},{"value":"Arkansas. Department of Education","hits":112},{"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":893},{"value":"Little Rock School District","hits":640},{"value":"Little Rock (Ark.)--History--20th century","hits":629},{"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":509},{"value":"Civil rights--Arkansas","hits":464},{"value":"African Americans--Arkansas","hits":455},{"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":9},{"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":1714},{"value":"United States, 39.76, -98.5","hits":1676},{"value":"United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, 34.76993, -92.3118","hits":1280},{"value":"United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, Little Rock, 34.74648, -92.28959","hits":1214},{"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":1797},{"value":"Alabama","hits":573},{"value":"Mississippi","hits":569},{"value":"South Carolina","hits":503},{"value":"Florida","hits":410},{"value":"Wisconsin","hits":84},{"value":"Georgia","hits":74},{"value":"New York","hits":42},{"value":"Missouri","hits":18},{"value":"District of Columbia","hits":9},{"value":"Virginia","hits":9}],"options":{"sort":"count","limit":11,"offset":0,"prefix":null}},{"name":"year_facet","items":[{"value":"1964","hits":954},{"value":"1963","hits":662},{"value":"1965","hits":510},{"value":"1962","hits":470},{"value":"1957","hits":460},{"value":"1960","hits":454},{"value":"1966","hits":441},{"value":"1961","hits":439},{"value":"1967","hits":437},{"value":"1995","hits":428},{"value":"1959","hits":418},{"value":"1994","hits":411},{"value":"1958","hits":399},{"value":"1996","hits":398},{"value":"1993","hits":387},{"value":"1969","hits":380},{"value":"1991","hits":371},{"value":"1992","hits":360},{"value":"1968","hits":356},{"value":"1997","hits":346},{"value":"1999","hits":345},{"value":"2000","hits":332},{"value":"1998","hits":330},{"value":"2001","hits":328},{"value":"1970","hits":316},{"value":"1990","hits":316},{"value":"2002","hits":297},{"value":"1971","hits":292},{"value":"1989","hits":288},{"value":"2003","hits":283},{"value":"1956","hits":276},{"value":"1972","hits":266},{"value":"2004","hits":262},{"value":"1955","hits":257},{"value":"2005","hits":238},{"value":"1954","hits":229},{"value":"1981","hits":224},{"value":"1974","hits":219},{"value":"1987","hits":216},{"value":"1988","hits":216},{"value":"1984","hits":205},{"value":"1986","hits":205},{"value":"1975","hits":203},{"value":"1985","hits":203},{"value":"2006","hits":203},{"value":"1973","hits":201},{"value":"1983","hits":197},{"value":"1982","hits":196},{"value":"1977","hits":195},{"value":"1980","hits":195},{"value":"1979","hits":193},{"value":"2007","hits":190},{"value":"1976","hits":187},{"value":"1978","hits":187},{"value":"1952","hits":156},{"value":"2010","hits":156},{"value":"1951","hits":154},{"value":"1953","hits":154},{"value":"2009","hits":152},{"value":"2008","hits":151},{"value":"2011","hits":151},{"value":"1950","hits":146},{"value":"2012","hits":142},{"value":"1948","hits":140},{"value":"2013","hits":140},{"value":"2014","hits":139},{"value":"1947","hits":137},{"value":"1945","hits":135},{"value":"1944","hits":133},{"value":"1946","hits":132},{"value":"1949","hits":131},{"value":"1943","hits":127},{"value":"1942","hits":121},{"value":"1940","hits":120},{"value":"1936","hits":119},{"value":"1937","hits":119},{"value":"1939","hits":119},{"value":"1934","hits":118},{"value":"1932","hits":117},{"value":"1935","hits":117},{"value":"1941","hits":117},{"value":"1933","hits":116},{"value":"1938","hits":116},{"value":"1930","hits":114},{"value":"1924","hits":111},{"value":"1931","hits":111},{"value":"1929","hits":97},{"value":"1921","hits":95},{"value":"1928","hits":91},{"value":"1922","hits":90},{"value":"1923","hits":90},{"value":"1926","hits":90},{"value":"1927","hits":90},{"value":"1909","hits":89},{"value":"1925","hits":89},{"value":"1908","hits":88},{"value":"1911","hits":88},{"value":"1912","hits":88},{"value":"1907","hits":87},{"value":"1910","hits":87}],"options":{"sort":"count","limit":100,"offset":0,"prefix":null},"min":"1061","max":"2034","count":27042,"missing":0},{"name":"medium_facet","items":[{"value":"documents (object genre)","hits":4462},{"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":46},{"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":2000},{"value":"http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/CNE/1.0/","hits":1168},{"value":"http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC/1.0/","hits":656},{"value":"http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/UND/1.0/","hits":604},{"value":"http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/NoC-US/1.0/","hits":33},{"value":"http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC-NC/1.0/","hits":4}],"options":{"sort":"count","limit":11,"offset":0,"prefix":null}},{"name":"collection_titles_sms","items":[{"value":"Office of Desegregation Management","hits":904},{"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":1353},{"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":"Historically Black Colleges and Universities (HBCU) Library Alliance","hits":50},{"value":"Stuart A. Rose Manuscript, Archives, and Rare Book Library","hits":49}],"options":{"sort":"count","limit":11,"offset":0,"prefix":null}},{"name":"class_name","items":[{"value":"Item","hits":4449},{"value":"Collection","hits":13}],"options":{"sort":"count","limit":100,"offset":0,"prefix":null}},{"name":"educator_resource_b","items":[{"value":"false","hits":4456},{"value":"true","hits":6}],"options":{"sort":"count","limit":100,"offset":0,"prefix":null}}]}}