{"response":{"docs":[{"id":"bcas_bcmss0837_1292","title":"'Preliminary Educational Equity by Joshua Intervenors,'' the Monitoring staff of John W. Walker, attorney","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":["Joshua Intervenors"],"dc_date":["1992-05-28"],"dcterms_description":null,"dc_format":["application/pdf"],"dcterms_identifier":null,"dcterms_language":["eng"],"dcterms_publisher":["Little Rock, Ark. : Butler Center for Arkansas Studies. Central Arkansas Library System"],"dc_relation":null,"dc_right":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC-EDU/1.0/"],"dcterms_is_part_of":["Office of Desegregation Monitoring records (BC.MSS.08.37)","History of Segregation and Integration of Arkansas's Educational System"],"dcterms_subject":["Little Rock (Ark.)--History--20th century","Little Rock School District","North Little Rock School District","Pulaski County Special School District","Education--Arkansas","Education--Evaluation","Office of Desegregation Monitoring (Little Rock, Ark.)","Educational law and legislation","School integration"],"dcterms_title":["'Preliminary Educational Equity by Joshua Intervenors,'' the Monitoring staff of John W. Walker, attorney"],"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/1292"],"dcterms_temporal":null,"dcterms_rights_holder":null,"dcterms_bibliographic_citation":null,"dlg_local_right":["Available for use in research, teaching, and private study. Any other use requires permission from the Butler Center."],"dcterms_medium":["documents (object genre)"],"dcterms_extent":["32 pages"],"dlg_subject_personal":null,"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":null},{"id":"bcas_bcmss0837_804","title":"Desegregation: ''Desegregation Plan,'' 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":["1992-04-29"],"dcterms_description":null,"dc_format":["application/pdf"],"dcterms_identifier":null,"dcterms_language":["eng"],"dcterms_publisher":["Little Rock, Ark. : Butler Center for Arkansas Studies. Central Arkansas Library System"],"dc_relation":null,"dc_right":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC-EDU/1.0/"],"dcterms_is_part_of":["Office of Desegregation Monitoring records (BC.MSS.08.37)","History of Segregation and Integration of Arkansas's Educational System"],"dcterms_subject":["Little Rock (Ark.)--History--20th century","North Little Rock School District","Education--Arkansas","Educational law and legislation","Educational planning","School employees","School facilities","School improvement programs","School integration","Student assistance programs","School discipline"],"dcterms_title":["Desegregation: ''Desegregation Plan,'' 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/804"],"dcterms_temporal":null,"dcterms_rights_holder":null,"dcterms_bibliographic_citation":null,"dlg_local_right":["Available for use in research, teaching, and private study. Any other use requires permission from the Butler Center."],"dcterms_medium":["documents (object genre)"],"dcterms_extent":["194 pages"],"dlg_subject_personal":null,"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":"\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n\n\n\n   \n\n\n\n\n   \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n  \n\nThe transcript for this item was created using Optical Character Recognition (OCR) and may contain some errors.\nDESEGREGATION PLAN North Little Rock School District April 29, 1992 North Little Rock School District Desegregation Plan Table of Contents History of NLRSD Desegregation Plan Introduction Section 1: Student Assignment Plan Section 2: Staff Recruitment Plan Section 3: Special Education Plan Section 4: Compensatory Education Section 5: Compensatory Programs Aimed at Dropout Prevention Section 6: Extracurricular Activities Section 7: Discipline, Expulsions and Suspensions Section 8: Gifted and Talented Education Section 9: School Construction and Inadequate Facilities Section 10: Desegregation Monitoring Page 1 Page 5 Page 7 Page 12 Page 16 Page 24 Page 37 Page 39 Page 41 Page 43 Page 46 Page 48 HISTORY OF NLRSD DESEGREGATION PLAN The desegregation plan approved by the Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit in its decision in Little Rock School Dist. v. Pulaski County Special School Dist. on December 12, 1990 (hereinafter \"NLR Plan'') is actually to be found in several documents beginning with its original submission in March, 1986 and culminating with the stipulation regarding compensatory education filed on October 25, 1989. The purpose of this document is to consolidate all the elements of the Plan into a single document for ease of reference. The NLR Plan was initiated by the filing on March 17, 1986 of the ''Plan for Implementing the Remedial Order of the Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit as It Applies to the North Little Rock School District\" (hereinafter \"March Plan''). The purpose of this initial submission was to address the interdistrict violations addressed by the Court of Appeals in LRSD v. PCSSD. The district court, however, required the NLRSD to provide a plan to address its intradistrict violations as well, and in response the NLRSD filed on October 14, 1986, its \"Supplement to Plan for Implementing the Remedial Order of the Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit as It Applies to the North Little Rock School District\" (hereinafter \"October Supplement''). In its Order of February 27, 1987, the district court approved the NLR Plan as described in these two documents. Subsequently, some modifications to the NLR Plan were made either by petition to and approval by the district court or by operation of the settlement among the parties which has now been approved. The first modification occurred as a result of the NLRSD's motion of July 21, 1987 to add an addendum to the NLR Plan to address the impact of Acts 624 and 762 of 1987 which was approved by the district court by its Order of July 27, 1987. Copies of the Addendum and the district court's order have been attached as Addendum lE to Section 1 of the NLR Plan which addresses student assignment. The next modification occurred as a result of the NLRSD's \"Petition to Modify NLRSD Student Assignment Plan and to Close Central Junior High School\" filed on July 20, 1988 (hereinafter ''NLR Secondary Reorganization'') and approved by the district court by its Order of September 1, 1988. This modification provided for the reorganization of NLRSD secondary Page 1 schools beginning in the 1990-91 school year and resulted in a single high school for the NLRSD with grades 9-10 at the former Northeast High School campus and grades 11-12 at the former Ole Main campus. Additionally, Central Junior High School was closed and the student assignment zones for the remaining three junior high schools for grades 7 and 8 redrawn to ensure comparable racial balance. These modifications were implemented at the beginning of the 1990-91 school year, i.e., August, 1990. The remaining modifications occurred as a result of the settlement among the parties. First, the parties agreed to the NLRSD's \"Petition to Modify NLRSD's Desegregation Plan\" (hereinafter \"NLR 2/ 89 Petition') submitted to the Special Master in February, 1989 and incorporated into the parties' ''Interdistrict Desegregation Plan\". The provisions of the Petition dealing with interim efforts to desegregate Lakewood Junior High School pending the secondary reorganization to be implemented in the 1990-91 school year were satisfied and are no longer applicable since the secondary reorganization has now been accomplished. The other provisions of the Petition have now been incorporated into the NLR Plan. The final modification of the NLR Plan occurred as a result of the \"Stipulated Compensatory Education Programs to be Implemented by the NLRSD with Settlement Monies\" (hereinafter ''NLR Comp. Ed. Stip.') filed on October 25, 1989 which satisfied paragraph VIII D. of the Pulaski County School Desegregation Case Settlement Agreement, March, 1989 (as revised September 28, 1989) requiring a description of the compensatory education programs to be implemented by the NLRSD with funds to be received from the Settlement Agreement. This Stipulation also gave effect to and now supersedes that portion of the original NLR Plan which described additional compensatory education programs which could be implemented only with additional State funds. In organizing the original NLR Plan and these modifications into a single plan document, the March Plan has been used as the base document. Thus, Sections 1, 2 and 3 of the October Supplement, which involve the same topics as Sections 1, 2 and 3 of the March Plan, have been relabeled Sections IA, 2A and 3A and placed immediately after Sections 1, 2 and 3 respectively of the March Plan language. Sections 4 through 9 of the October Supplement have then been added as Sections 4 through 9 of this consolidated plan document. The addenda which immediately followed the respective sections of the March Plan and October Supplement have been moved to a separate volume for attachments. Commentary is included through the use of footnotes or parentheticals. Page 2 These steps were taken to minimize the amount of editorial change and to retain as much of the original language as possible since that is the language approved by this Court and the Court of Appeals. Page 3 PLAN FOR IMPLEMENTING THE REMEDIAL ORDER OF THE COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT AS IT APPLIES TO THE NORIB LITILE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT Page 4 INTRODUCTION In its decision of April 13, 1984, this Court found the North Little Rock School District (NLRSD) to have committed the following segregative acts: 1. The NLRSD constructed and renovated schools in a manner which sought to preserve the racial identification of North Little Rock neighborhoods. 2. Blacks were underrepresented on the administrative staff and teaching faculties of the NLRSD schools. 3. Whites were underrepresented in schools south of Interstate 40 and blacks were underrepresented in schools north of Interstate 40. 4. The NLRSD has failed to have blacks coaching at the senior high school level. 5. Blacks were significantly overrepresented in special education classes and no valid testing procedure could explain it. Furthermore, the NLRSD classified white students as '1earning disabled\" while blacks were classified as \"mentally retarded.\" 6. Blacks were underrepresented in the NLRSD's gifted and talented program. 7. A disproportionate number of blacks drop out of school. 8. Blacks were disproportionately expelled from school. 9. The NLRSD does not provide adequate compensatory education programs for black students. 10. A disproportionate number of black students were bussed in the NLRSD with 1ess than satisfactory desegregation results.\" However, only four of these violations were found to have had a continuing interdistrict effect. Specifically, the NLRSD \"(a) failed to assign blacks to its central administration or to high school principalships and coaching positions\n(b) concentrated whites in schools north of Interstate 40 and blacks in schools south of it\n(c) assigned students to special education classifications on a discriminatory basis\nand (d) failed to apportion the burdens of transportation equally on black and white students.\" Id. at 353, Paragraph 10. The NLRSD's remedial plan, submitted as NLRX R-1, was directed toward remedying those segregative acts determined to have interdistrict segregative effects and did not address those violations which were intradistrict in their effect under the assumption that remedial Page 5 efforts directed to intradistrict violations would be addressed in proceedings in Davis v. Board of Educ. of NLRSD. The Court, however, directed that North Little Rock supplement its remedial plan in the present case to address the intradistrict violations that were not determined to have an interdistrict effect and that is the purpose of this document. Page 6 SECTION 1: STUDENT ASSIGNMENT PLAN History of Storm Plan Elementary students within the District are assigned according to the Storm Plan in grades 1-6. The Storm Plan pairs a school in a predominately black area with one or more schools in a predominately white area. These schools are grouped so that each group's racial make-up represents the racial make-up of the District. This plan is based on two primary premises: first, that it accomplish total integration and, second, that it is the least discriminatory method possible in that no area of the District can be considered to be favored in any way. In order to be as fair as possible, students were initially selected at random for transportation. The following procedure was used: all letters of the alphabet were placed in a container and an alphabet was drawn from the container. Beginning with that letter of the alphabet the student body in each school was divided into groups of appropriate size. When the end of the alphabet is reached, the process starts over and the District continues to regroup alphabetically. Elementary Schools The North Little Rock School District desegregation plan, approved by the Court of Appeals, see Davis v. Board of Ed., (8th Cir. 1971) and revised with the approval of the district court, see Davis v. Board of Ed., Order (May 12, 1978), incorporates the following features': 1. Since the total student population of the elementary schools in the North Little Rock School District is approximately 42 percent black and 58 percent non-black students, each elementary school in the district must have a student population which approximates as nearly as is feasible these percentages. 2. To assure that each school will have a student population which is composed of approximately 42 percent black students and 58 percent non-black students, schools are placed in groups so that students within each group can be assigned to schools in such numbers as is necessary to achieve the desired racial composition in each school. See Addendum lA. 3. Children entering the first grade after May 1, 1978, as well as all children entering the district from another school district after May 1, 1978, will enter the District pupil assignment plan according to the last name of the child shown on his official 1Statistics in this section reflect the school population of the NLRSD in the 1985-86 school year since this part of the Plan was submitted in March, 1986. As of October 1, 1990, the elementary student population in the NLRSD was 492% black and 50.8% non-black. Page 7 birth certificate (or his previous school record if he is entering from another school district) and will continue in the rotation cycle under that name. 4. Kindergarten students are assigned to their neighborhood schools and are not transported for purposes of racial balance. This was approved by the court in Davis v. Board of Ed .. 5. Black students living in predominately white areas and white students living in predominately black areas are not bussed or transferred. The questions and answers concerning the District's student assignment plan (Addendum lB) are published in August of each year and mailed to all patrons of the North Little Rock School District. The decision of the Court of Appeals directs that the student population in the District have a racial composition within 25% of the racial composition of the District as a whole. The NLRSD has 4,620 elementary students of whom 2,467 (57.9%) are non-black and 1,793 (42.1 %) are black. Thus, in order to meet the . 25% standard, each school must have a non-black population between 42.4% and 73.4%, i.e., 57.9% ._ 155%. All the elementary schools in the District were in compliance with this standard when the Court approved the NLR Plan in 1987: LRSD v. PCSSD, 659 F Supp 363,367 (E.D. Ark. 1987). Junior High Schools Junior high schools, grades seven and eight.2 are also assigned by zones. Each junior high school reflects the racial make-up of the District. These zones will be changed, if and when necessary, to maintain the racial balance within the District. Senior High Schools For twenty years, the NLRSD had two senior high schools - Northeast and Ole Main. Beginning in the 1990-91 school year, however, these schools were consolidated into a single school - North Little Rock High School - with two campuses. All students grades 9-10 are assigned to the east campus (formerly Northeast High School) and all students grades 11-12 are assigned to the West campus (formerly Ole Main). Voluntary Transfers Between NLRSD and PCSSD 2As a result of the NLR Secondary Reorganization, 4 JDR 910, Central Junior High School was closed. The remaining three junior high schools were converted to grades 7-8 rather than 8-9 and their attendance zones were redrawn to ensure racial balance. The language of this subsection has been modified to reflect these changes. Page 8 To aid in the desegregation of NLRSD and PCSSD schools, the North Little Rock School District and the Pulaski County Special School District will cooperate in each other's efforts to recruit black students from the NLRSD to attend PCSSD schools and white students in the PCSSD to attend NLRSD schools on a voluntary basis provided no transfer negatively affects the desegregation status of any NLRSD or PCSSD school. Communication of Anticipated School Enrollments Further, the parties desire that any shifts in the racial composition of schools that might fall outside the Court-approved standard be identified and addressed before the beginning of a school year. To this end, the North Little Rock School District agrees it will prepare an estimate of the anticipated school enrollment of each of its schools on or before July 1 for the coming school year. If it is determined that any school is within two percentage points of the limit approved by the Court, the Court and other parties will be notified and appropriate action, if any, will be determined and taken prior to the commencement of the academic year. Interdistrict Transfers of Teachers' Children In the 1987 Legislative Session, the Arkansas General Assembly passed two Acts which either directly affect or could affect the desegregation efforts of the North Little Rock School District. Act 762 of 1987, copy attached as part of Addendum lE, 3 directs that no school district may permit or accept transfers of students from other school districts if either school district is under a desegregation order and the transfer would negatively affect the racial balance of the district subject to the desegregation order. This policy is consistent with the established policy of the NLRSD and the District will continue to adhere strictly to these requirements. However, the Legislature also passed Act 624 of 1987, copy attached as part of Addendum lE, which states that \"the children or wards of anyone who is a public school teacher in one school district ... and a resident of another school district ... shall be entitled ... to attend school in either ... district ... \". This is seemingly inconsistent with the \"no transfer\" requirements of Act 762, and, as a result, the Attorney General was asked for an opinion regarding this apparent conflict. 3While Addenda lC and lD have been deleted, this has been designated lE to avoid any possible confusion. Page 9 In Opinion No. 87-190, copy attached as part of Addendum lE, the Attorney General opined that a child living in one district who was enrolled, pursuant to Act 624, in another district was not a transfer subject to the provisions of Act 762 since the child was statutorily entitled to attend school in either district. In light of the Attorney General's opinion, the NLRSD has no discretion regarding the admission of the children or wards of non-resident teachers and this situation could result in an interdistrict segregative effect on the racial composition of the LRSD and NLRSD. Specifically, the NLRSD has 578 teachers of whom 141 live in the LRSD, the great majority of whom are white.4 Thus, if a significant number of these teachers enrolled their children in the NLRSD, it would result in a negative impact on the racial composition of the LRSD student body. To date, the number of applications for such interdistrict enrollment of teachers' children has been minimal and the race of those applying has been so balanced as to have no adverse effect on either school district involved. However, to protect against the potential adverse interdistrict effect that such enrollment makes possible, the NLRSD will report to the Court annually regarding the number and race of teacher's children who are being enrolled in the district where the teacher is employed rather than in the district in which they reside. Should a problem develop, the NLRSD will ask the Court for relief. Until that time, however, the NLRSD will adhere to the requirements of Acts 624 and 762 as interpreted by the Attorney General's Opinion No. 87-190. 4These numbers were accurate as of July, 1987 when the Addendum was submitted to the court for approval. Page 10 SECTION IA: STUDENT ASSIGNMENT Section 1 of NLRX R-15 addressed issues relating to student assignment and established a plan for assigning students in the NLRSD which remediated any concentration of whites and blacks north and south of Interstate 40 and achieved a racial balance in each school well within the standard of plus or minus one fourth of the District-wide racial make-up. These student assignment provisions were not criticized at trial or in the proposed findings submitted by the parties and the NLRSD believes these provisions fully remediate the effects of any violation related to student assignment.6 5NLRX R-1 is the March Plan. 6The Court held in LRSD v. PCSSD, 659 F. Supp. 363, 367 (E.D. Ark. 1987) that all deficiencies related to student assignment had been corrected. Page 11 SECTION 2: STAFF RECRUITMENT PLAN The Eighth Circuit directed the North Little Rock School District to develop a plan to comply with earlier decrees regarding increasing the representation of blacks as principals and administrators in the North Little Rock School District. To ensure that a greater number of black applicants are attracted to teaching positions which would improve the pool of qualified applicants for administrative positions, and in order to meet the standards set by applicable law, the North Little Rock School District proposes the following components of a comprehensive recruitment plan for furthering the number of black administrators. Internal Activities 1. The District will develop a budget that anticipates activities related to all components of the plan and provides the necessary funding for these activities. 2. North Little Rock School District personnel will be notified of vacancies in administrative and principal positions and will be encouraged to apply. 3. Periodically, the North Little Rock School District will conduct an interest survey among its teachers and administrators with the purpose of identifying those individuals who would be interested in advancement to administrative or principal positions. College and University Contacts Colleges and universities are perhaps the best source of qualified applicants for teaching positions. Therefore, the District will contact these institutions for the purpose of recruiting qualified black applicants. 1. The District will identify regional colleges and universities which have strong teacher education programs with significant black enrollment. 2. The District will identify regional universities having post graduate education programs with significant black enrollment for the purpose of soliciting black applicants for administrative positions. 3. The district will contact those institutions identified in paragraphs 1 and 2, as well as others, using a letter of introduction (Addendum 2A) and will provide them with a brochure containing brief information about the District, occupational opportunities and employee benefits\nan Equal Opportunity Employer statement\nand a kit containing other pertinent information. 4. District personnel will visit those teacher training institutions expressing interest, with special emphasis on established career days or special events sponsored by the Page 12 institutions and with special attention given to institutions that have historically produced greater numbers of black educators. 5. District personnel will attend visitation seminars at interested institutions at times agreed upon by the institution and the District. Prearrangements and announcements would be made through the appropriate officials at the institutions. 6. The District will develop appropriate materials for distribution to institutions and their interested students, including an introductory letter (Addendum 2B)\na description of employee benefits (Addendum 2C)\na District brochure (Addendum 2D)\nan application\nspecific informational items on teaching, coaching, and administrative positions\nnotices on current job vacancies\na schedule of visitations and seminars\nand the brochure described in paragraph 3 above. Community Activities Another excellent source for recruitment can be found in community programs and activities. To this end, the District will ensure that its participation in community programs and activities is consistent with its commitment as an equal opportunity employer. 1. Black community leaders will be invited to talk with the North Little Rock School District concerning the employment of black administrators. 2. The District will also contact community organizations, such as the Urban League of Greater Little Rock, which provide employment referrals for black professionals. Professional Associations Placement services provided by professional associations for their members is an additional method of recruitment. 1. The District will identify those educational organizations which could serve as a source of black applicants for administrative positions. 2. The District will contact those organizations which provide employment information and will provide them with relevant materials regarding employment with the NLRSD. 3. Where appropriate, District personnel will attend regional or national conferences sponsored by professional associations for the purpose of recruiting administrative personnel. Other Outside Activities 1. Recruitment activities will be administered by those fully aware of the District's nondiscrimination and equal employment opportunity policies. Page 13 2. Recruitment programs may be held in hotel/ motel conference rooms in cities considered a promising source of applicants - for example, Memphis, Tennessee\nJackson, Mississippi\nBaton Rouge, Louisiana. Such programs would be preceded by extensive local publicity. 3. It will be the policy of the North Little Rock School District to notify in writing all recruitment sources and to state in all recruiting materials, including newspaper advertisements, that it is an \"Equal Opportunity Employer\". 4. The District will produce a 10-minute slide show or videotape presentation describing the District and occupational opportunities in the District for use at recruitment sites. 5. When appropriate, the District will advertise teaching and administrative vacancies in newspapers and other media in communities that have colleges and universities targeted for recruitment efforts. Page 14 SECTION 2A: STAFF RECRUITMENT PLAN In Section 2 of NLRX R-17 the NLRSD enumerated the steps it will take to improve the recruitment and selection of black faculty and staff. Included in these are job posting and an employee interest inventory intended to improve promotional opportunities for black employees, with particular emphasis on placing blacks in administrative and principal positions. These efforts are all related to remediating violations 2 and 4 which related to the underrepresentation of blacks in administrative, teaching, principal and coaching positions. At trial, there was criticism of the failure to provide for numerical goals and timetables. In the NLRSD's Proposed Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, the District addressed this criticism by incorporating requirements that the District develop numerical goals and timetables. A labor economist will be employed to conduct an analysis of the pool of qualified applicants in the relevant labor market for each job classification.8 In addition, the vacancies in the District for the last five years, anticipated new positions and positions it is anticipated will be eliminated will be considered in determining the vacancies reasonably anticipated in the future. The availability data and vacancy information will be utilized in developing reasonable goals and timetables for each classification. When fully implemented, the NLRSD believes these recruitment efforts and selection goals will fully remediate any violations related to the underrepresentation of blacks in administrative, teaching, principal or coaching positions. 7The March Plan. 8This labor market analysis was completed in 1988 and submitted to the Special Master. See 5 JDR 1451-78. Page 15 SECTION 3: SPECIAL EDUCATION PLAN Introduction The Court of Appeals has ordered the North Little Rock School District to adopt a \"racially neutral plan evaluating and placing students requiring special education.\" In addressing this directive, the NLRSD remains cognizant of several important factors. First, the District is obligated by State and federal law to provide every handicapped child with a free and appropriate education. While classifying black children as in need of special education when, in fact, they do not need it, could be discriminatory and, thus, a violation of the Constitution, the failure to provide special education to a black child who did need it would be a violation of Public Law 94-142 and Arkansas Act 102 of 1973. Recognizing the tension between these important public policies, the District considers that the emphasis of its special education plan must be on ensuring the accuracy of its evaluation programs and the elimination of any masking influence caused by cultural or socioeconomic biases. Second, the District recognizes that the Court of Appeals' primary concern is with the classification of black students as educably mentally retarded (EMR) and has, therefore, focused specifically on the evaluation, placement and instructional practices related to its mental retardation programs. Third, the District also notes that the evidence giving rise to the Court's findings arose from data collected in 1976 and 1980. Since 1980, however, significant changes have been implemented in the State and federal regulations governing evaluation and placement in special education programs, many of which were specifically aimed at safeguarding against the misclassification of students as needing special education. See generally, Referral, Placement and Appeal Procedures: For Special Education and Related Services (Ark. Dept. of Educ. 1985), hereinafter referred to as \"Referral Procedures\", and Program Standards and Eligibility Criteria for Special Education (Ark. Dept. of Educ. 1985, hereinafter referred to as \"Program Standards\". With these factors in mind, the North Little Rock School District proposes the following plan for implementing a race neutral special education program. Strict Adherence to Procedural Safeguards Required by State Guidelines The Arkansas Department of Education, and the Regulatory Agency Responsible for the enforcement of the Education of the Handicapped Act of 1975, PL. 94-142, has issued detailed regulations governing the operation of special education programs in Arkansas public schools. These detailed guidelines were first issued in 1981 and were updated and reissued in 1985. See \"Referral Procedures\" (1981) and ''Program Standards\" (1981) contained in NLRX 28. Page 16 These guidelines incorporate provisions which specifically act as safeguards against improper evaluation and placement. Due Process Protections In ''Referral Procedures\" (1981 and 1985), the Department of Education adopted detailed requirements for due process designed to safeguard against the misevaluation of a child and to ensure that the best educational interests of the child were of paramount importance. The North Little Rock School District complied with these requirements by implementing due process procedures consistent with the State regulations. A copy of the NLRSD's due process procedures are attached hereto as Addendum 3C. For a complete understanding of all the details of these procedures, one is referred to the procedures themselves. A summary of some of the more important features follows: 1. Parents must be notified of every step in the referral, evaluation and placement process and given the opportunity to attend and participate in all meetings and conferences. 2. Parents must give their consent before any formal evaluation or testing of the child maybe done. 3. The parent has the right to be represented by the person of their choice at all proceedings. While not required by State or federal regulations, the NLRSD provides the parents of children being evaluated with a list of independent agencies who provide assistance to parents in this process. See Addendum 3D. 4. No child can be placed in a special education program without either parental consent or court order. 5. The parent may request an independent professional evaluation from a list of twenty-four approved agencies. See Addendum 3E. While the NLRSD is required to pay for such an evaluation only in the event the District's evaluation is found to be incorrect, the NLRSD has nonetheless paid for every independent evaluation requested in the past even though its evaluations have never been found to be incorrect. The NLRSD will continue this practice to the extent its budget permits. 6. Finally, the parent has the right to appeal any evaluation or placement decision to a hearing officer, who conducts a formal evidentiary hearing, and ultimately to a court of competent jurisdiction. 7. In any appeal, the burden of proof as to any placement is upon the school district. Page 17 8. The NLRSD advises parents of these rights in writing at the beginning of the referral and evaluation process. Safeguards Against Improper Use of Test Instruments In addition to the procedural safeguards discussed above which are designed to ensure an open process involving fully informed parents having access to independent review of any decision, the State regulations first adopted in 1981 also require the incorporation of specific safeguards in the assessment process. The most important of these safeguards are as follows: 1. Tests and other evaluation materials: a. Have been validated for the specific purpose for which they are used\nand b. Are administered by trained personnel in conformance with the instructions provided by their producer. c. Include materials tailored to assess specific areas of educational need and not merely those which are designed to provide a single general intelligence quotient. 2. No single procedure is used as the sole criterion for determining an appropriate educational program for a child. 3. The evaluation is made by a multidisciplinary team or group of persons, including at least one teacher or other specialist with knowledge in the area of suspected disability. 4. The child is assessed in all areas related to the suspected disability, including, where appropriate, health, vision, hearing, social and emotional status, general intelligence, academic performance, communicative status, and motor abilities. 5. Intellectual ability must be measured by an individual intelligence test appropriate to the student and such testing may only be done by a certificated educational examiner, licensed psychologist or licensed psychological examiner. State Regulations Specify Which Tests May be Used in Mental Retardation Assessment In furtherance of the requirement that tests must have been validated for the purpose for which they are used, the Arkansas Department of Education, in its ''Program Standards\" specifies by name, which tests may be validly used for what purpose. This is done for each handicap category. The provisions relating to mental retardation assessment are found at pages 13-1 through 13-7 of the \"Program Standards\" (1985). Page 18 The North Little Rock School District is in compliance with these regulations. It uses no test not specifically approved in these regulations in making final evaluation and placement decisions and will continue to adhere to this practice. Adoption of Alternative Assessment Procedures and Instructional Practices Specifically Designed to Avoid Overrepresentation of Minority Students in EMR Programs In addition to maintaining its compliance with all State and federal regulations governing special education, particularly those provisions designed as safeguards against the misclassification of individuals as being mentally retarded, the North Little Rock School District will engage in an on-going effort to identify and study new assessment and evaluation techniques which are designed to address the problem of overrepresentation of minority children in EMR programs. Cantalician Study9 In 1984, the Cantalician Foundation, published a booklet entitled \"Technical Assistance on Alternative Practices Related to the Problem of the Overrepresentation of Black and Other Minority Students in Classes for the Educably Mentally Retarded\" (Cantalician Foundation, Inc.: 1984). (Addendum 3F\nhereinafter referred to as \"Cantalician Study\"). This publication was commissioned by the Office of Civil Rights, United States Department of Education in an effort to provide technical assistance to state and local educational agencies in the reduction of the overrepresentation of minority students in EMR programs. As a result of its study, the Cantalician Foundation identified six alternative instructional practices, two alternative referral practices and two alternative assessment practices which appeared to be effective in reducing minority placement in EMR classes. The alternative instructional practices were endorsed by the Foundation because, if implemented successfully, they would enable some students at risk of EMR placement to improve their performance to the extent that referral for special services would not be necessary. The six practices identified were: 1. Direct Instruction with DIST AR 2. Exemplary Center for Reading Instruction 3. Precision Teaching 9Source: March Plan, 2 JDR 123. Page 19 4. Peer Tutoring 5. Adaptive Learning Environment Model 6. Computer Assisted Instruction 10 At page 7-8 of its March Plan, the NLRSD committed to implement the six alternative instructional practices recommended by the Cantalician Foundation in its report in 1984. Three of these practices have been implemented - DISTAR, Peer Tutoring and Computer Assisted Instruction. The contents of the Exemplary Center for Reading Instruction (ECRI) and Adaptive Learning Environment Model (ALEM) have been implemented through other programs although not necessarily in the form specifically described by the Cantalician Foundation in its report. The parties recognize that the purpose of the Cantalician Report was to provide school districts with exemplary programs which could be adapted to each district's curriculum and needs. It was never suggested that the programs could be effective only if implemented exactly as described in the Report. Thus, because the North Little Rock School District has adopted various programs such as PACIR, TESA and Classroom Management as well as DIST AR and Computer Assisted Instruction which implement the educational content and elements of ECRI and ALEM, the District has acted consistent with the intent of the Cantalician Report. Therefore, the parties agree that the North Little Rock School District should not be required to implement the Adaptive Learning Environment Model and the Exemplary Center for Reading Instruction alternative practices except as is already being done through other programs. (See Addendum 3J). The sixth proposed alternative instructional practice was Precision Teaching. This has been very effective in teaching the profoundly handicapped but even the Cantalician Foundation warned that there was as yet no evidence of its efficacy in teaching non-handicapped students. The North Little Rock School District has made several attempts to obtain information regarding the effectiveness of this method in teaching non-handicapped students but has been unable to obtain such information. The District will continue to seek this information but the parties agree that the North Little Rock School District should not be required to implement the Precision Teaching Model as an alternative instructional practice until such supporting data 10 A detailed description of these practices is contained in the Cantalician Study attached hereto as Addendum 3F and will not be repeated here. Page 20 is forthcoming. The District will assess the use of Precision Teaching when data is supplied supporting its efficacy for non-handicapped students.11 Cantalician Study - Alternative Assessment Practices The Cantalician Foundation also recommended four alternative referral and assessment practices: 1. Pupil Appraisal Assessment Program 2. Rapid Exam for Early Referral and Classroom Learning Screening 3. Reclassification and Declassification 4. Interactive Model for Professional Action and Change for Teachers The alternative referral and assessment practices listed above will be closely studied by the NLRSD. If there are critical attributes within the above referenced practices that are not currently in use in the North Little Rock School District and the addition of these attributes will lower referral and placement rates in the District without compromising educational quality, these attributes will be added or used to replace current practices. Other Alternative Practices In addition to the alternative instructional practices endorsed by the Cantalician Foundation, the NLRSD has also implemented a Chapter I Project for Elementary schools designed to identify children in grades K-2 who lack the basic learning skills necessary for successful performance in the regular classroom. Teacher aides are assigned to the regular classroom specifically for the purpose of working with the students in this program and provide these students with intensive, individualized instruction designed to develop the learning skills needed. When successful this program avoids the need to place a student in a special education program and permits advancement through the normal curriculum. A more detailed description of this program is contained in Addendum 3G, entitled \"North Little Rock Public Schools: A Chapter I Project for Elementary schools\". Increased Review by Independent Parties State regulations provide that the Department of Education will conduct a review of each school district's special education program at least once every three years to determine \"Source: NLR Petition, 8 JDR 1741-43. Page 21 compliance with all State and federal regulations. The North Little Rock School District's last compliance review was completed on April 18, 1984 and the District was found to be in compliance. See NLRX 30 \"Monitoring Checklist and Compliance Letter\" attached as Addendum 3H. All suggested improvements were implemented by January 31, 1985. See Letter to Ark. Dept of Education dated 1/ 31/ 85 attached as Addendum 31. In addition to this regularly scheduled compliance review, the District will invite the following organizations to conduct in-service training and/ or periodic review of the district's policies, practices and procedures related to special education. 1. Child Advocacy Services, Inc. 2. Bureau of the Educationally Handicapped 3. Parents' Coalition for the Handicapped 4. Federal Office of Special Education 5. Arkansas Department of Education 6. Office of Civil Rights, U.S. Department of Education As a further effort to open the District's assessment process to outside review and constructive criticism, child advocates will be invited to attend conferences where children's needs are being discussed, subject to parental approval where necessary. The Superintendent of the North Little Rock School District will also appoint a committee whose members will include, but will not be limited to, parents, patrons, students, teachers, licensed examiners, counselors, principals, speech therapists and special education administrators which committee will be charged with reviewing student records and special education procedures and whose members will be asked to attend student conferences. Additionally, this committee will be asked to monitor all phases of the District's special education program and its compliance with State and federal regulations at least every 18 months. Page 22 SECTION 3A: SPECIAL EDUCATION The provisions of the NLRSD's plan for remediating violations related to the overrepresentation of blacks in special education programs is fully set forth in Section 3 of NLRX R-1. In its Proposed Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, the NLRSD did provide that the District would maintain records sufficient to identify and tabulate separately the total number of students by race in each school and grade level and by type of placement who are (a) referred for consideration for placement in a special education program\n(b) evaluated for such placement\nand (c) actually placed in a special education program. This data will be maintained in the central administrative offices although separately from each student's individual file. This data is to be reviewed by the central administrative staff and reported to the Court annually. Furthermore, it is suggested that the Arkansas Department of Education monitor compliance with all classification procedures and safeguards on an annual basis rather than once every three years. Also, the NLRSD would establish an intradistrict review committee to monitor the District's special education programs and, particularly, its classification procedures. The Joshua Intervenors may appoint a representative to this committee. Page 23 SECITON 4: COMPENSATORY EDUCATION The North Little Rock School District believes that each student can learn and encourages each student to achieve according to his or her best abilities. Careful appraisal, frequent evaluation, and flexible grouping ensure that each student will receive instruction according to identified strengths and needs. The curriculum in the elementary schools places primary emphasis on the basics of reading, spelling, language, mathematics, writing, social studies, science and health. Students also participate in music, art, and physical education activities. Mastery of skills in each subject is stressed, and career awareness is a component in many of the basic subjects. The junior high program provides a period of transition from the elementary school to senior high school. The transition covers all areas of school life: academic, co-curricular, and social. At the junior high level, continued emphasis is placed on the individual and on basic skills instruction, while a wider scope of instructional programs and co-curricular activities is introduced. In addition to basic disciplines,junior high students may select electives in modern foreign languages, industrial arts, home economics, exploratory business, art, communications, choral music, and band. Introduction to competitive athletics, student government, spirit clubs, and special interest organizations encourage self-\u0026lt;levelopment and preparation for high school. The senior high schools provide a comprehensive course of study based on the District's commitment to providing a classical college preparatory curriculum and career preparation programs. A strong basic academic program and a wide-range of electives in fine arts, foreign languages, forensics, business, and vocational-technical skills offer a multitude of options to high school students. The District recognizes, however, that the regular curriculum is often insufficient in aiding disadvantaged students, particularly disadvantaged minority students suffering the effects of centuries of societal discrimination, to achieve mastery of basic skills. Therefore, within the framework of a comprehensive curriculum which meets and exceeds state standards and which is structured to meet the varying individual needs of all students, the North Little Rock School District must address identified remedial needs of disadvantaged minority students. The District also recognizes that achievement disparity does exist between the black and white student population. Addressing the disparity issue may start with the development of disparity plans at each campus unit. Page 24 The following compensatory programs and compensatory components of programs will be provided to help students overcome the segregative effects of a nonunitary school system. Like the Little Rock School District, however, the North Little Rock School District lacks sufficient resources to implement all the compensatory programs it would like to have available and still provide a regular program of instruction which is educationally adequate. The District is aware that Little Rock contends that the State is obligated, pursuant to the Court of Appeals decision in this case, to provide additional funds to all three school districts for additional compensatory education. The NLRSD does not necessarily share this interpretation but should Little Rock's position be the correct one, there are compensatory programs beyond the District's present means which should be implemented if the State is obligated to provide the additional funding. Because of this ambiguity in the availability of resources, the NLRSD has provided two lists of compensatory programs. The first lists these programs which the District has implemented or will implement from its present funding base and without additional funding from the State. The second lists those compensatory programs the District would like to implement but cannot without additional State aid. Programs Implemented Without Additional State Assistance Early Childhood Program Kindergarten programs will be implemented at each elementary school with a District goal of 100 percent attendance by all eligible students. Two diagnostic tests, the Boehm-R Test of Basic Concepts and the Early Prevention of School Failure Test, will be administered to all kindergarten children at the first of each school year. The Boehm test assesses student understanding of fifty basic concepts which are fundamental to understanding verbal instruction and are essential for early school achievement. Teachers will use the data from these two tests to design a prescriptive learning program for each child. They will assume the responsibility for implementing the instructional learning programs. Intensified Instruction At levels kindergarten through second grade, teacher aides will be assigned to assist teachers in providing learning experiences for selected students who exhibit deficiencies in reading, language, and basic concepts. Third grade students in selected schools will also receive special instruction from paraprofessionals. Page 25 The paraprofessional will provide supplemental compensatory instruction for selected students. Instruction will occur in small groups and on a one-to-one basis. The instructional lessons provided by the paraprofessional will be correlated with the instructional lessons provided by the teachers. Basic Skills Instruction The curriculum in grades K-7 places primary emphasis on the mastery of the basic skills in reading, language arts, and mathematics. Careful appraisal, frequent evaluation, and flexible grouping ensure that each student will receive instruction according to identified strengths and needs. In grades 8-12, continued emphasis will be placed on the individual student and on basic skills instruction within the framework of a comprehensive secondary curriculum. 1. PACIR By the end of the 1991-92 school year, a curriculum renewal project for Mathematics and Language Arts called Practical Approach to Curriculum and Instructional Renewal (PACIR) will be developed to insure that classroom learning meets the expectations of parents and students. In this program, objectives will be developed\nstudents' progress will be measured\nstudents' needs will be identified\nand programs, practices, and resources will be adjusted. Through this emphasis on the mastery of the basic skills, the North Little Rock School District will continue to focus on the remediation of identified deficiencies in reading, language arts, and mathematics. 2. Early Childhood Program By the end of the 1991-91 school year, first and second grade students, as well as third grade students in selected schools, who have identified reading deficiencies will receive supplemental reading instruction as described in the Early Childhood section. This instruction will be in addition to the regular reading instruction and will be planned and directed by the classroom teacher. The program will include one-to-one tutoring by a trained paraprofessional. 3. Additional Reading Instruction Generally, District elementary students will be involved in only one small group classroom instructional reading lesson per day. Selected elementary students will be involved in an additional reading instructional lesson per day. Students who are reading Page 26 below grade level and who are experiencing difficulty in reading will be prime candidates for this additional instruction. 4. Academic Skills Development Plans State Minimum Performance Tests will be administered to students at the third, sixth, and eighth grade levels. Teachers will work in cooperation with principals, parents, and counselors to develop and implement Academic Skills Development Plans for all students who do not pass the Minimum Performance Tests. Each individual student plan will include a list of the basic skills which were not mastered by the student and strategies for remediation of these deficiencies. Teachers will be required to indicate the date when mastery of each skill has been reached. 5. Remedial Reading at the Junior High School Level Remedial reading classes will be provided at each junior high school for students with deficiencies in reading. The classes will be staffed by reading specialists. Special emphasis will be placed on the following skills: comprehension, word recognition, communication, study skills and survival reading skills. Pupil Services In addition to the opportunities for academic achievement provided by the core curriculum, the District will provide specialized programs and services to diagnose and meet the particular educational needs of all students and to foster their individual physical, social, intellectual, and emotional growth. The special needs of identified disadvantaged and minority students will be met in a variety of ways. 1. Guidance Services A guidance program will be provided in each school to aid students in educational, personal, social, and vocational development. All students will have access to a guidance counselor. The ratio for secondary schools will be one counselor for every 450 students. For elementary schools, the ratio will be one counselor for every 600 students. Particular attention will be paid in this program to the needs of minority and disadvantaged students. 2. Diagnosis and Prescription A comprehensive assessment program will permit the District to identify students who are having academic problems and to provide opportunities for them to experience Page 27 success. The assessment program will include standardized tests in grades 2-10\nMinimum Performance Tests in grades 3, 6, and 8\naptitude tests\nsubject area mastery tests\ndiagnostic tests, such as the Boehm Test\nteacher-made tests\npsychological tests\nand health screening. Test data will be used in planning appropriate compensatory programs and services for students. Again, particular emphasis will be placed on the needs of minority and disadvantaged students. 3. Social Work A half-time social worker will provide services for students who have serious problems with school adjustment. The social worker will serve as a link between school, home, and community and will assist students in overcoming academic, social, and behavior problems. 4. Homebound Services Students with medical conditions which require them to be absent from school for four or more consecutive weeks will be provided instruction by a certified teacher. Learning Resources 1. Library/Media Program The library/ media program is a key component of the instructional program. The District Instructional Materials Center and the individual school media centers are extensions of classroom instruction as books, films, videotapes, and other instructional materials are utilized to expand and enrich the curriculum. The media specialist, recognizing students' unique learning abilities, performance levels, learning styles, and interests, prescribes appropriate curricular and special interest learning materials. This service is extremely beneficial to educationally disadvantaged students as their specific learning needs are matched to appropriate learning materials. 2. Computer Assisted Instruction For those students whose instructional needs require reteaching and additional drill and practice to achieve mastery in reading, language, and mathematics, computer assisted instruction will be provided. Computer activities will be integrated into the instructional program so that classroom instruction will be reinforced by concentrated on-task learning on the computer. All schools will use computers and computer assisted instruction and computer managed instruction software. Page 28 3. Basic Skills Computer Laboratories Basic Skills Computer Laboratories have been established at Argenta Elementary School, Central Junior High School, and Rose City Junior High School. The basic skills computer laboratories provide supplementary computer assisted and computer managed instruction in reading, language, and mathematics for all students on a regularly scheduled basis. Utilizing IMPAC software and course materials, the supplemental instruction is geared to the individual student's needs. The educationally disadvantaged student will benefit greatly from this individualized program. Summer Learning Experiences To extend students' opportunities for the mastery of the basic skills and for enrichment, a program of summer learning experiences will be established. 1. Summer School for Secondary Students A summer school program will be offered on a tuition basis for students in grades 9-12. Students may elect to take remedial or enrichment courses. 2. Pilot Project for Eighth Grade Students During the summer of 1987, a pilot summer program funded by JTPA (Job Training Partnership Act) will be conducted to remediate the learning deficiencies of eighth grade students who did not pass the Minimum Performance Test. The procedure will be to assess learning deficiencies, plan for and provide individualized instruction, and utilize the best learning approaches available in a concentrated time frame. Transportation will be provided for the students. If the pilot project is successful and if JTPA continues to fund the project, the eighth grade summer school will be implemented each summer. Parental/ Community Involvement Parents will be encouraged to become informed about the District's educational program and involved in their children's instructional program. Opportunities for involvement will include: PT A\nChapter 1 Parent Advisory Committee\nDistrict committees such as Curriculum, Textbook, Discipline, Gifted, Special Education, and Six-Year Planning\nand local school committees such as Six-Year Planning, PTA, and NCA SelfStudy. Steps will be taken to assure that there is biracial participation in this committee work. Page 29 A part-time coordinator will work with Volunteers in Public Schools (VIPS) which serves as a vehicle to involve parents directly in the instructional process. Parents will serve as resource persons, do one-to-one tutoring for students not achieving mastery of the basic skills, and perform other volunteer tasks. Parents will be kept well-informed of their children's progress in school. Conferences will be scheduled at least twice each year for parents of elementary students and at least once each year for parents of secondary students. This parental involvement, while important for all students, is extremely critical to the success of many disadvantaged and minority students, and special attention will be paid to these students. Report cards will be issued at the end of each nine week grading period. Written interim progress reports will be sent home to parents if a student is making unsatisfactory progress. Parents will be asked to confer with teachers throughout the year concerning the student's progress. For minority students who are participating in other compensatory education programs extra steps will be taken to involve parents or guardians in the student's educational experiences. Through the Classmates Program, the business community will become more informed about and more involved in the educational process. Efforts will be made to extend Classmates, which provides the opportunity for a business and a school to become community partners, to all North Little Rock schools. Staff Development The North Little Rock School District Staff Development Program is designed to assist each staff member in performing at his/ her optimum level in every area of the total teaching act. The District programs which will impact greatly on compensatory education are the Program for Effective Teaching (PET) and Classroom Management Training. 1. Program for Effective Training The Program for Effective Training (PET) teaches the teacher the key elements which must be present in any instructional lesson if student mastery is to occur. A training cycle consists of: seven full days of instruction for the teacher\nfive practice lessons taught by the teacher while being observed by a trained observer\nand follow-up conferences by the observed and teacher. Since all present staff members have completed PET training, new teachers will receive the training each spring. Page 30 Students with learning deficiencies will profit as the instructional proficiency of teachers is increased. 2. Classroom Management Training In the training sessions, Classroom Management is approached as a matter of preparation, organization, and instruction. The program stresses that effective classroom managers are successful, not so much because they are more effective in responding to problems of inattention or disruption, but because they are more effective in preventing such problems. Each training cycle consists of two days of training for each teacher and three classroom observations. Following each observation, the trained observer confers with the teacher to commend areas of strength and to provide assistance in overcoming deficiencies in classroom management. All elementary teachers have completed this training. New elementary teachers and all secondary teachers will receive Classroom Management Training. Since many students who are encountering learning problems are often inattentive or disruptive, this program impacts positively on these students as teachers learn to manage classrooms more efficiently and effectively. Page 31 STIPULATED COMPENSATORY EDUCATION PROGRAMS TO BE IMPLEMENTED BY NORm UTILE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT Wim SETTLEMENT MONIES The programs listed below will be implemented with settlement monies pursuant to the Pulaski County School Desegregation Case Settlement Agreement, March, 1989, as amended. The District cannot presently implement these programs without funds from the Settlement Agreement due to the financial condition of the District. In its October, 1986 Supplement to Plan for Implementing the Remedial Order of the Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit as it Applies to the North Little Rock School District, approved by the Court in its Order of February 27, 1987 the NLRSD described in Section 4: Compensatory Education, certain educational programs needed to address achievement disparity of black students which could be implemented only with additional funding from the State. With the settlement monies from the State, the NLRSD will now be able to implement those programs as described below. SETILEMENT PLAN FOR COMPENSATORY EDUCATION Programs to be Implemented with Settlement Monies I. Leaming Resources Goal: Provide technology based remedial basic skills instruction to reduce the achievement disparity between black and non-black students. A. Basic Skills Computer Laboratories The first priority of this Settlement Plan is to establish a twenty-eight station Basic Skills Computer Laboratory in each elementary school to assist students in mastering the basic reading, language and mathematics skills. Settlement funds, federal funds and other available funds will be utilized to fund the computer laboratories. The first priority will be to increase the size of existing computer laboratories at Redwood, Boone Park, Amboy, Glenview and Rose City elementaries to twenty-eight station labs. Computer laboratories would then be added to all other elementary schools in priority based upon the largest number of economically deprived students as determined by the eligible participants in the free/ reduced lunch program. Page 32 The expansion of labs at these five schools will occur the first year of the Plan and additional schools will be equipped with a computer laboratory starting the second year of the Settlement Plan and completing that installation process by the end of the fourth year of the Settlement Plan. B. Diagnostic and Prescription Diagnostic and prescriptive services will be available to each grade 1-8 student and teacher in reading, language and mathematics through locally developed PACIR objectives with prescriptive test and the use of the Curriculum Management software that IBM has under development or some comparable alternative. 12 The North Little Rock School District has requested that IBM Corporation allow North Little Rock School District to participate in the pilot of this software this year. Through the use of P ACIR objectives and diagnostic tests using the Curriculum Management software, individual education plans (IEP) will be made available for students. As technology progresses, the District goal is to provide individual educational plans to teachers and parents as a guide to enhance the students achievement level. These services will be available during the fourth year of the Plan provided IBM Corporation has developed and releases the Curriculum Management software in early 1990. II. Pupil Services (and Program Monitoring) Goal: To assess student achievement and monitor the reduction of achievement disparity between black and non-black students. Diagnosis and Prescription Standardized achievement testing will be extended to grade 1 and grade 11 in order to provide more sequential and comprehensive data for curriculum assessment and individual student mastery. Achievement data by race will be developed for each school by grade. These data will be analyzed each year to determine program efficacy and in developing achievement components of each school's annual School Improvement Plan. 12IBM has withdrawn the Curriculum Management software and the status of its development and likelihood of release is unknown. The NLRSD is presently seeking a suitable alternative. Page 33 Beginning in year one of the Settlement Plan, the District will provide up to $5,000.00 to assist disadvantaged youth in paying for college entrance testing such as the SAT and ACT. m. Staff Development Goal: Provide teachers with additional skills and awareness which will more greatly involve minority students into the mainstream of classroom activities and reduce teacher preconceptions which might hinder learning by black students. A. Teacher Expectations and Student Achievement (TESA} Extensive research shows that teacher interaction with students perceived as low achievers is less motivating and less supportive than interaction with students perceived as high achievers. Research also shows that high achievers receive more response opportunities and are given more time to respond to questions. This has particular application to educating minority and disadvantaged students. The Teacher Expectation and Student Achievement Program (TESA) deals with these important research data. It addresses the effects of teacher expectations on student achievement. In the program, teachers learn to increase specific motivating and supportive interactions with low achievers. Fifteen interactions are presented in the program. The training program consists of five workshop sessions and five classroom observations per teacher. The TESA program will begin implementation the first year of the Plan, and all teachers will have received TESA training by the end of the sixth year of the Plan. IV. Early Childhood Goal: To better prepare disadvantaged and minority four and five year old students for school success. A. Pre-Kindergarten Program To better prepare disadvantaged and minority students for school success, a HIPPY program will be established in lower socio-economic elementary attendance zones such as Redwood, Pine, Boone Park, Argenta, Glenview and Seventh Street. This program will focus on academic and social skills necessary for school success. Parent involvement in the learning process of the students is a component of the program. Page 34 One attendance zone will be added each year beginning in 1989-90 school year and continuing until all identified schools' programs are made operational. Funds outside the settlement funds will be utilized until after year four of the Settlement Plan. V. Summer Learning Experiences Goal: Provide tuition grants and transportation to low socio-economic students to attend summer school. A. Summer School for Secondary Students To meet the summer school needs of educationally disadvantaged students, tuition scholarships and transportation will be provided to those students who would be unable to attend without assistance. Regulations governing the free and reduced lunch participants will be the guide in awarding scholarship tuition and transportation for secondary summer school. Tuition scholarships and transportation will be made available the second year of the implementation plan. B. Summer School for Elementary and Junior High School Students Goal: To enable low achieving students the opportunity to receive small group remedial instruction. Summer learning opportunities will be provided for selected elementary and junior high school students who have not mastered the basic skills curriculum. Each year the instructional department will carefully review and analyze Metropolitan Achievement Test data and the data from the Minimum Performance Tests to determine the content areas and grades in greatest need of remediation services. The curriculum would provide remedial and enrichment activities in large and small group settings through both computer assisted and teacher directed instruction. Summer school activities are currently on-going for grades 1, 3, 6 and 8. An evaluation and review of each program is made each summer. Continued review and evaluation will continue with consideration given for program expansion for the second year of the implementation plan. VI. Basic Skills Instruction Goal: Provide remedial instruction for basic skills mastery to reduce achievement disparity between black and non-black students Page 35 A. Remedial Reading Laboratories at the Senior High School Level Remedial reading instruction will be provided at each senior high school for students with deficiencies in reading. Instruction would be provided jointly through computer assisted and teacher directed by a reading specialist. Special emphasis would be placed on the following skills: comprehension, word recognition, communication and survival reading skills. These services will be implemented beginning with the fifth year of the Settlement Plan and continuing through year seven. B. Remedial Reading and Mathematics Supplementary Instruction at the Elementary Level Remedial reading and/ or remedial mathematics supplementary instruction will be provided in the elementary schools serving students who score below the twentieth percentile in grades 1, 2 and 3. The Metropolitan Achievement Test (MA T-o) will be used as the evaluative instrument for grades 2 and 3. An appropriate standardized instrument will be selected for evaluation of grade 1 students prior to implementation date. Grades 4, 5 and 6 will be served as funds become available. The supplementary instructional program will be staffed by itinerate (floating) reading and/ or mathematics specialists who will be assigned to schools as needed to deliver instruction to students who score below the twentieth percentile on diagnostic instruments described above for grades 1, 2 and 3. The learning experiences would be in addition to classroom instruction, but will be correlated with classroom programs. The supplementary instructional services will be provided the fifth, sixth and seventh year of the settlement plan. VII. The implementation of the District's compensatory education programs will also be monitored by the State pursuant to Section III A of the Settlement Agreement and nothing in this plan is intended to limit that monitoring responsibility. Page 36 SECTIONS: COMPENSATORY PROGRAMS AIMED AT DROPOUT PREVENTION In North Little Rock, as in any urban school district today, at least 25 percent of the students could be categorized as potential dropouts. Characteristics of these \"at risk\" students may include: poor self-concept, a high degree of frustration with school work, possession of values that are in direct conflict with those of the school, and difficulties in verbal and nonverbal communication. All compensatory programs address those symptoms, even at the early elementary level\nhowever, if the problems have not been corrected as the student enters the secondary schools, the risk of dropout intensifies. A number of intervention programs which address the \"at risk\" student will be implemented. Win Program The WIN Program (We Intervene Now), designed to identify and modify student behaviors which interfere with educational progress, is being piloted at Lakewood Junior High School during 1986-87. If the program is successful, it will be implemented in other secondary schools. The intent of the program is to provide an intervention process that involves the student, parent, and school personnel. This intervention process will be especially beneficial for disadvantaged students. Student Assignment Classes (SAC) Student Assignment Classes (SAC) will be established for on-campus suspension of secondary school students. Students involved in this program will continue academic work under the supervision of the SAC teacher during the time of suspension. Alternative School Suspension to the North Little Rock Boys Club is an alternative to out-of-school suspension that will be provided for selected secondary school students. This program will be available for students whose behavior is unmanageable both at school and at home and who cannot function in the on-campus suspension program. Students involved in this program will continue their academic work, and receive counseling services at the Boys Club Alternative School. Vocational Services Compensatory services in the area of vocational education will also be provided through the Carl Perkins Project, which is specifically targeted for students who are potential dropouts. Page 37 An individualized written vocational plan will be completed for each student identified for inclusion in this program. Services will include the assessment of interests, learning modes, and individual needs by a vocational education evaluator and the use of a computerized Job Opportunity Based Search System to place students in the most appropriate vocational courses. Student Attendance When possible, parents of senior high school students will be notified each day that a student is absent from one or more classes. To aid in this effort, an automatic phone calling system will be installed in each of the senior high schools. A computer will call the home of each absentee at night and ask for a response from a parent. Follow-up calls will be made the next day by school personnel. Page 38 SECTION 6: EXTRACURRICULARA CTIVITIES The North Little Rock School District recognizes that clubs and student organizations are an important part of the total educational experience for students. All clubs and student organizations shall operate under the direction of the principal and shall be under the supervision of a staff member appointed or approved by the principal. Membership in student organizations and clubs shall not be restricted on the basis of race, sex, national origin, or other arbitrary criteria. Further, entry shall not be by decision of the current membership of the organization. Eligibility requirements for participation in cheerleading, drill teams and athletic activities are determined by the Arkansas Activities Association. Other extracurricular activities and/ or organizations related to special interests or subject areas do not have a minimum grade requirement, except those clubs and organizations that are governed by charters from parent organizations. In order to assure greater participation by minority students the following actions will be taken: 1. Principals, counselors, sponsors, and teachers will inform and encourage minority students to become more active in all extracurricular activities. 2. Schools will publicize and inform minority students and their parents well in advance of the selection process so that they will know what to expect and when to apply. 3. All selection committees will be biracial in make-up. 4. The District recognizes that one impediment to minority participation in extracurricular activities is the lack of transportation before or after normal school hours. Unfortunately, the NLRSD lacks the resources to provide extracurricular transportation for its students and, therefore, has requested that the Court direct the Department of Education to provide such transportation, not only for majority-to-minority transfer students but for all students. Absent funding by the State, however, the NLRSD will be unable, with its present resources, to provide such additional transportation and still provide a regular program which is educationally adequate. 5. Principals and sponsors will monitor participation in all extracurricular activities and, where such participation is racially identifiable, special efforts will be made to promote minority participation in any such racially identifiable clubs and/ or organizations. Page 39 6. The District will annually review try-out procedures and eligibility requirements to identify and eliminate any practices that discourage or adversely affect minority participation. 7. Each school will prepare a summary report for all clubs, organizations and other extracurricular activities reflecting the racial composition of the officers in each activity, the total membership, and all those who tried out or sought membership. This report will be prepared in April of each year which provides sufficient lead-time to permit planning, publication and recruitment of minority participation for the following year. See Addendum 6A. These reports will be compiled in a District summary for all extracurricular activities which will be completed and presented to the Board of Education at its May meeting each year. Page 40 SECTION 7: DISCIPLINE, EXPULSIONS AND SUSPENSIONS Disciplinary polices are periodically reviewed to ensure fundamental fairness and the absence of bias. In this effort all District policies relating to student conduct and discipline were revised in the 1985-86 school year. See Addendum 7 A. To ensure that parents and students are advised of expected student conduct, bases for discipline and all disciplinary procedures including any right of appeal, District-wide handbooks were developed in the 1985-86 school year and given to each student. Students are annually required to have their parents read the handbooks and sign a statement acknowledging that both the parents and the student have read the handbook. Additionally, the handbook is reviewed with the students in all schools during class time. Suspensions The NLRSD student population is 40% black and 60% white.13 In the 1985-86 school year 48% of those students suspended were black. While the District does not believe this is significantly disproportionate, it has taken additional steps to ensure fairness and the absence of bias. First, as discussed above, it has revised its policy to provide clear standards of expected behavior as well as guarantees of due process including the right of appeal. Second, each suspension is reviewed by the Assistant Superintendent for Student Affairs and the Superintendent to ensure that District policies are followed.- Third, a summary of suspensions showing the number and race of students suspended in each school will be compiled by the Assistant Superintendent for Student Affairs and will be provided to the Board of Education at its July meeting each year. A review of all suspensions will be conducted for any school that has a disproportionate number of suspensions of minority students to ensure that race has not been a factor in the suspensions. Expulsions The North Little Rock School District has expelled only twenty students during the last three years. 14 Of this number ten have been black. Seventeen of these expulsions have been because of serious offenses relating to drugs or the possession and/ or use of weapons. Given 13This was the population in 1985-86. 14The data in this section were accurate as of the 1985-86 school year. Page 41 the very small number of expulsions and the extreme seriousness of the offenses involved, the District believes that any violation relating to expulsions has been corrected. Further, all expulsions are made by the Board of Education and then only after a hearing. Page 42 SECTION 8: GIFTED AND TALENTED EDUCATION The Court based its determination that the NLRSD denied black students access to its program for gifted and talented students on data from 1980. Since that time, significant changes have been made in the District's identification procedures designed specifically to improve the identification of gifted minority students. These efforts, which are detailed below, have been described by Dr. Emily Stewart, an expert in gifted and talented education, as comparing favorably with the state of the art for identifying minority gifted students. She also testified that the referral and placement of minority children in the NLRSD gifted program for the 1983-84 school year, were consistent with the national norm and were reflective of a concerted effort to identify gifted minority students. Callahan/ Treffinger Study During the 1982-83 school year, the District's concern was the identification of all gifted students, but an overriding concern was the identification of the culturally disadvantaged. Through a Title IV-C Grant, the District was afforded the opportunity to hire two consultants in the field of gifted education, Dr. Donald Treffinger from State University College at Buffalo, New York, and Dr. Carolyn Callahan, University of Virginia. The plan was to develop a methodological case-study/ placement procedure. The case-study method provides information from a variety of sources and also summarizes strengths and weaknesses for instructional programming. Dr. Callahan evaluated the District's case-study placement procedures. She found that although the identification of minority students was uneven across the District, the selection of minority students had increased by43% districtwide. Recommendations in Dr. Callahan's study were used by the District to implement other strategies to increase identification and selection of culturally different students as well as to even out the process across the District. Creative Positives for Identifying Disadvantaged Youth During the same year, the District utilized the \"Creative Positives of Disadvantaged Youth and Children,\" by E. Paul Torrence. See Addendum 8A. The District also adopted the Torrence Test of Creative Thinking. This test has been even more useful in discovering giftedness among the culturally different. The District continues to use the test, and special scoring of strengths is used in the creativity test for purposes of screening and identification of culturally disadvantaged students. Page 43 Multiple Referral Sources As a safeguard against bias, nominations for placement in the gifted program are sought from a wide variety of sources including parents, other students, and the individual student himself or herself as well as from teachers and principals. This ensures that everyone who might see a different facet of the nominated student perhaps not seen by others is encouraged to nominate that student if he or she feels the student might be gifted. Multiple Placement Criteria Student placement decisions are based on multiple criteria. See Addendum 8B. No single criterion or cut-off score is used to exclude a student from placement. Teacher ratings may override poor test scores\nhowever, good normative information may outweigh negative teacher ratings. Creative Positives Among the Culturally Different by E. Paul Torrence is used to assist in identification of the culturally different. Group Decision-Making Another safeguard against bias and a further assurance that no student is overlooked lies in the fact that no single individual makes a placement decision. Each school has a case study/ placement committee made up of the principal or assistant principal, counselor, resource teacher for gifted and talented, and two classroom teachers. On the elementary level, one teacher is primary\nthe other is intermediate. On the secondary level, one classroom teacher is a current teacher of the student being referred. The principal is responsible for the total process and serves as chairman of the case study/ placement committee. The resource teacher of gifted and talented will be actively involved in the committee work. The supervisor of gifted and talented assists as needed. No single person can decide to place or not to place a student. Parental Involvement and Appeal Parents are involved throughout the referral and placement process. They are invited to refer their children for placement. They are required to complete the Parent Questionnaire, Addendum 8C, which is an important source of information not obtainable by other means. They meet with the case study/ placement committee concerning placement recommendations. Finally, parents have the right to appeal the decision of the case study/ placement committee to the Director of Elementary or Secondary Education. The Director and the Supervisor of the Gifted and Talented Program then review all identification instruments, Page 44 Addendum 8B, and meet with the parents to review all placement criteria. If an error has occurred an appropriate correction will be made. Monitoring and Intervention Reports are submitted to the Central Administration showing the race and grade of all students referred and placed in the gifted programs in each school. Where there is an unevenness of nominations, referrals, and placements of the culturally disadvantaged students, the permanent folders are carefully examined by the Supervisor for Gifted and Talented Education. As a result of such additional reviews, minority students who might be gifted are identified and follow-up procedures are initiated to observe and document the student's actions which would justify referral, evaluation and possible placement. Also, additional in-service training regarding the use of the creative positives in identifying minority gifted students is conducted for teachers in those schools. Page 45 SECI10N 9: SCHOOL CONSTRUCTION AND INADEQUATE FACILITIES The North Little Rock School District was established in 1901 with all students housed in a single building. As the population increased during the next several years, schools were added to accommodate student growth. The District made an early commitment to neighborhood schools as evidenced by the relatively small size and geographic location of school buildings. Such commitment prevailed until recent times. Constructed in the 1950's, the Belwood Elementary School, for example, contains only seven classrooms and small spaces for library, offices, and cafeteria. Most elementary schools were originally designed to house two hundred or less pupils. Almost all of the existing school facilities have been expanded since their original construction. Although facility expansion has increased pupil capacity in most North Little Rock Schools, the neighborhood school concept has remained evident in the location of elementary schools. No elementary pupil within the District is assigned to a home school which is located two or more miles from his place of residence. From its inception in 1901 until the 1969-70 school year, student population grew at a steady rate until reaching the all-time high of 14,000. Since the 1969-70 school year, student population has, consistently declined. The October, 1986, enrollment was 9,686 students, an overall decrease of 4,414 since 1969-70. Through its history, various school facilities have come into and gone out of existence. During the 1970-71 school year, elementary and secondary students attended school on twentyeight separate school campuses. Twenty-three regular schools and two special schools currently serve students in the twenty-six square mile district. Beginning with the 1972-73 school year, all North Little Rock schools have been fully integrated in accordance with the \"Storm Plan\" approved by the Federal District Court (Judge Henley). Attendance zones have been established and racial quotas established to ensure that the racial composition in all elementary and secondary schools is within plus or minus twentyfive percent of the percentage of the minority school population. Beginning with the rebuilding of Amboy Elementary School (fire) in 1970, the North Little Rock School District has sought Court approval of all openings, closings, and additions to school facilities. The most recent such action was a request (granted) to close the Levy Elementary School prior to the 1985-86 school year. Page 46 In light of the declining to stable student population, it does not appear likely that new school construction will be necessary in the near future. If new facilities or additions to existing facilities become necessary in the future, the District shall rely on the standards contained in Swann v. Charlotte-Mecklenburg Bd. of Educ. (1977). The overall condition of school facilities in the North Little Rock School District is excellent. A rather well-financed maintenance program has kept facilities in a very serviceable and attractive condition. This is evidenced by the fact that since the 1982-83 school year every school in the District has been reviewed as part of the ongoing North Central Accreditation process and all have satisfied NCA standards. No building is in need of major renovation. All buildings are well ventilated and heated. Over fifty percent of the students attend school in airconditioned facilities. The overall condition of buildings shows only minor variations throughout the District. Certainly, no building condition bears a relationship to its geographical location within the District. Page 47 SECTION 10: DESEGREGATION MONITORING 1. It will be the responsibility of the District's Desegregation Team to monitor progress toward accomplishment of tasks included in the District's Desegregation Plan. 2. The District Desegregation Team will consist of the Superintendent, Assistant Superintendents, and one member of the local Board of Education appointed by the President and approved by the Board. 3. The Assistant Superintendent for Personnel will serve as Chairman of the District Desegregation Team. 4. The District Desegregation Team will meet at least once each month to review specific tasks included in the District's Desegregation Plan. 5. All administrators assigned responsibilities for implementing the desegregation plan will regularly report to the District Desegregation Team .  6. The District Desegregation Team will design a detailed reporting/ monitoring system describing the information to be collected and reported, the format of reports and the frequency of reports. 7. Each school will establish a desegregation team to review campus desegregation activities. 8. School Desegregation Teams will consist of the principal, teachers, patrons (and students at the secondary level.) 9. School Desegregation Teams will meet at least once each quarter and report their findings to the District team. 10. The District Desegregation Team will routinely review all monitoring reports and will report to the School Board the status of the District's plan. 11. The District Desegregation Team will seek advice from the Arkansas Department of Education, other agencies and individuals when problems necessitate technical assistance. Page 48 Addendum lA Addendum 1B Addendum lE Addendum 2A Addendum 2B Addendum 2C Addendum 2D Addendum 3C Addendum 3D Addendum 3E Addendum 3F Addendum 3G Addendum 3H Addendum 3I Addendum 3J Addendum 6A Addendum 7A Addendum BA Addendum 8B Addendum BC APPENDIX TABLE OF CONTENTS NLRSD Racial Count as of 10/1/85 Questions and Answers Addendum to Section 1 Notice Regarding Applicants Notice Regarding Positions. Schedule of Benefits NLRSD Brochure Due Process Steps for Appraisal . NLRSD Special Services Dept. List of Agencies 63 Cantilician Study 69 . Chapter I. Project 101 A.D.E. Monitoring Checklist Letter to Arkansas Dept. of Educ. Recommendations Activities Report Policies and P=ocedures Gifted/Talented Program Instruments of Identification Parent Questionnaire . . . . . .. 1050 1051 1054 1064 1065 1066 1069 1080 1112 1113 1119 1151 1168 1191 1197 1198 1200 1228 1238 1239 SCHOOLS GROUP A LAKEWOOD CRESTWOOD BELWOOD PINE TOTALS GROUP B PIKE VIEW ARGENTA TOTALS GROUP C GLENVIEW LYNCH DRIVE TOTALS GROUP D AMBOY INDIAN HILLS SEVENTH STREET BOONE PARK TOTALS GROUPE PARK HILL NORTH HEIGH'l'S REDWOOD TO'fALS GROUP F MEADOW PARK ROSE CITY TOTALS BARING CROSS* DISTRICT TOTALS NORTH LITTLE ROCK ELEMENTARY SCHOOLS RACIAL COUNT AS OF OCTOBER 1, 1985 EXCLUDING KINDERGARTEN STUDENTS NONBLACK No. ( % ) 143 (63.6) 100 (57.l) 61 (55.0) 93 (53.1) 397 (57.9) 234 (60.6) 97 (53.9) 331 (58.5) 104 (58.8) 123 (51.0) 227 (54.3) 172 (58.l) 209 (63.5) 169 (57.1) 239 (54.8) 789 (58.1) 116 ( 61. 7) 238 (63.2) 133 (54.1) 487 (61.0) 117 (56.5) 116 (53.5) 233 (55.0) 3 (30.0) 2,467 (57.9) BLACK No. ( % ) 82 (36.4) 75 (42.9) 50 (45.0) 82 (46.9) 289 (42.1) 152 (39.4) 83 (46.1) 235 (41.5) 73 (41.2) 118 (49.0) 191 (45.7) 124 (41.9) 120 (36.5) 127 (42.9) 197 (45.2) 568 (41.9) 72 (38.3) 127 (34.8) 113 (45.9) 312 (39.0) 90 (43.5) 101 (46.5) 191 (45.0) 7 ( 70. 0) 1,793 (42.1) ADDENDUM lA TOTALS 225 175 111 175 686 38 6 180 566 177 2 41 418 29 6 3 29 296 436 1357 188 365 246 799 207 217 424 10 4,260 *Baring Cross was created as an alternative to placing severely handicapped children in state institutions. The only students assigned to this school are those who are profoundly and multiply handicapped. QUESTIONSA NDA NSWERS ADDENDUM 18 CONCERNINTGH E REVISEDE LEMENTARSYC HOOLD ESEGREGATIOPNL AN FOR THE NORTHL ITilE ROCKS CHOOLD ISTRICT 1. Q. What about children in the same family who have different names? A. A child who enters the School District after May 1, 1978, as a first grader or as a newcomer to the district on any grade level will be placed in the pupil assignment rotation according to his/her last name as it appears on the official birth certificate. Special consideration cannot be given to families whose members have different last names. 2. Q. After the number of assignments have been made in the spring to achieve the proper racial balance, what provisions will be made to protect that balance from losses resulting from moving during the summer? A. An additional 10 percent will be selected as a standby list. 3. Q. Will the elementary schools continue to operate on a staggered time schedule? A. Yes, this is necessary to prevent st~dents from having t0 wait at school longer than is desirable. It should be noted that no child will be transported more than 7.5 miles one way\ntherefore, the staggered time schedule causes only slight differences in school schedules. 4. Q. Can a student avoid being transported if he/she attend~ a private school during the year(s) he was assigned to a school outside his neighborhood? A. Any movement within the District will place the student in the rotation plan or assignment presently in effect in the attendar.ce zone where he will be residing. If a student attends a private school during the years(s) he is to be bused he is auto~aticallv buse~ ~hen ~e ret~,~s to the ~orth Little Rock Puhlic Schools. S. Q. Where do students attend school who enroll after the school year begins? A. Students will be assigned according to their place in the alphabetical rotation system. 6. Q. Are the loading and unloading of buses used to transport children supervised? A. Yes, principals and teachers supervise the loading and unloading of each bus. 7. Q. Where do buses load and unload? A. The neighborhood elementary school will be the pick-up point for all children being transported. 'No stops will be made to receive or discharge pupils at any other point. It is the parent's responsibility to deliver children to the neighborhood school\nit is the district's responsibility to return the children to the neighborhood school in the afternoon. In case the student is late and does not board the bus at the neighborhood school, it is the responsibility of the parent to transport the child to the school he/she attends. 8. Q, When this plan was revised, were any changes made in the elementary attendance zones? A. Yes, minor changes were made to alleviate crowding in two schools. The zones were revised so that some students who would have attended Crestwood Elementary will now attend Indian Hills, Some students who would have attended Crestwood will now attend Lakewood, and some students who would have attended Seventh Street will now attend Redwoor.. 9. Q. How were the groupings of schools determined? A. Using the percentages of 42 percent black and 58 percent nonblack students as a goal for each groupings, factors such as the racial composition of attendance zones, the present enrollment of each school and the capacity of each school were considered. 10. Q. Will any student be exempt from assignment outside their neighborhood? A. Yes, kindergarten students and students who live in an elementary zone with a racial composition such that their race is in the minority. Also, there may be instances where some handicapped children will not be transported although it is the general policy of the district to include special education students in the pupil assignment plan. There are children whose handicapping condition requires a particular special education program which may not be available in every school. It is also necessary to consider the number of students who can be accommodated in a particular program in a school since it is essential that enrollment in special education classes be small enough to allow for as much individual attention as is needed for each child. Exceptions may also be made for children with a medical disability if the situation warrants. These must be considered on an individual basis. . ADDENDUMlE FILED U.S. DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT ARKANSAS JUL 211987 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COl.IB:\\RRL. BRENTSC LERK EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS ' WESTERN DIVISION Sy: _____ :-:--:--- orP.cLrRK LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT PLAHlTifF vs. NO. LR-C-82-866 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT, et al ADDENDllM TO STUDENT ASSIGNMENT PROVISI01'1S OF SECTION 1 OF THE PLAN FOR IMPLEMENTI~G THE REMEDIAL ORDER OF THE COURT OF APPEALS FOB THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT AS IT APPLIES TO THE ~ORTH LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT (NORTH LITTLE ROCK FLAfl) In the 1987 Legislative Session, the Arkansas General Assembly passed two Acts which either directly affect or could affect the desegregation efforts of the North Little Rock School District. Act 762 of 1987, copy attached' as Exhibit \"A\", directs that no school district may permit or accept transfers of students from other school districts if either school district is under a desegregation order and the transfer would negatively affect the racial balance of the district subject to the desegregation order. This policy is consistent with the established policy of the NLRSD and the District will continue to adhere strictly to these requirements. However, the Legislature also passed Act 624 of 1387, copy attached as Exhibit \"B\", which states that \"1:.he chilclxen cir wards of anyone who is a public school teacher in one school district ... and a resident of another school district shaJ.J. 03-1)1)9 be entitled This is requirements to attend school in either ... district seemingly inconsistent with the no tr?nsfer of Act 762, and, as a result, the Attorney General was asked for an opinion regarding this apparent c0nflict. In Opinion No. 87-190, copy attached as Exhibit \"C\", ths Attorney General opined that a child living in one district who was enrolled, pursuant to Act 624, in another district was not a transfer subject to the provisions of Act 762 since the child was statutorily entitled to attend school in either district. In light of the Attorney General's opinion, the IILRSD has no discretion regarding the admission of the children or wards of non-resident teachers and this situation could rssult in an interdistrict segregative effect on the racial coroposition 0f the LRSD and NLRSD. Specifically, the NLRSd has 578 teachers of whom 141 live in the LRSD, the great majority of whom are white. Thus, if a significant number of these teachers enrolled their children in the NLRSD, it would result in a negativs impact on the racial composition of the LRSD student body. To date, the number of applications for such interdistrict enrollment of teacher's children has been minimal and ihe race of those applying has been so balanced as to havs nc adverse effect on either school district involved. However, to protect against the potential adverse interdistrict effect that sDch enrollment makes possible, the NLRSD will report to the Court -2- 03-009 annually regarding the number and race of teacher's children who are being enrolled in the district where the teacher is employed rather than in the district in which they reside. Should a problem develop the NLRSD will ask the Court for ielief. Until that time, however, the NLRSO will adhere to the requirements of Acts 624 and 762 as interpreted by the Attorney General's Opinion No 87-190. July 21, 1987 Respectfully submitted, JACK, LYON \u0026amp; JONES, P.A. 3400 Capitol Tower Capitol at Broadway Little Rock, AR 72201 (501) 375-1122 JONES, Attorneys Little Rock School District CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that a true and correct copy 0f the foregoing Addendum was mailed to the attached. list C!f counsel on this 21st day of July, 1987. -3- 0 3-0() 9 State of Arkansas ACT7 6 2 l~d7 A Bill 76th General Assembly Regular Session, 1987 HOUSE BILL 1790 2 3 By: Reps. Townsend, I. Brown, Walker For An Act To Be Entitled \"AN ACT TO ALLOW THE TRANSFER OF CHILDREN FROH ONE SCHOOL DISTRICT TO ANOTHER\nAND FOR OTHER PURPOSES.\" 4 BE IT ENACTED BY THE GENERAL ASSEHBLY OF THE STATE OF ARKANSAS: 5 6 SECTION 1. Upon the petition of a student residing in one school 7 district (resident district), to transfer to another school district (receiving 8 district)\nthe Board of Directors of the resident district may enter into an 9 agreement with the Board of Directors of the receiving school district trans- 1O ferring the student to the receiving district for purposes of education. 11 Forms for use in transferring children from one school district to another 12 shall be provided by the State Department of Education. After the petition 13 has been approved by the Board of Directors of th,e resident district and the 14 Board of Directors of the receiving district, copies of approved transfers 15 shall be filed by the receiving district with the office of the County Clerk, 16 with the administrative offices of the respective school districts, and with 17 the State Department of Education. This legal transfer of a student from one 18 district to another places the responsibility for the education of the student 19 on the receiving district and permits the receiving district to count these 20 children in average daily membership for state aid purposes. This section 21 does not transfer the local tax money from the resident district. 22 . ' 23 SECTION 2. Boards of Directors of local school districts are prohibi\\ed 24 from granting legal transfers in the following situations: J\\'-~.\\ 25 (a) where eith_er the resident or the receiving district is under.a ~ 26 desegregation related court order or h2s ever been under such a court o~e ~ 27 and ~. \\ 28 (b) the transfer in question would negatively affect the racial ba~, .. 29 of that di~trict which is or reen unn ~uch a court order. \\ '::,- J0/4/lrt ~~~IBIT _ A , ,, mih227 \\, H.B. SECTION 3. Each form filed with the State Department or Education 2 reporting a legal 3tudent tran3fer mu3t be accompanied by an affidavit 3igned 3 by each member of both 3Ch~ol board3 ~tating that the tran3fer doe3 not ~ violate the prohibition 3et forth in Section 2. 5 6 SECTION~- The Arkan3as Department of Education 3hall w~thhold 3tate aid 7 in an amount equal to that to be generated by the 3tudent in question in the 8 re3pective distri.ct3 from each dhtrict, if the tran3fer fail3 to comply with 9 Section 3. 10 11 SECTION 5. (a) Any di3trict not currently unde~ a de3egregation related 12 court order but which has been under 3uch a court order in the past may apply 13 for a waiver of the prohibition set forth in Section 2. 1~ (b) The State Board of Education may grant such a di3trict a \\.laiver from 15 the provisions of Section 2 if it is determined that the district's desegrega- 16 tion status would not be adversely affected by al)owing a legal transfer which 17 would negatively affect the district 13 racial balance. 18 19 SECTION 6. Act 275 of 1959 as amended, the,same being Arkansas Statutes 20 80-1518.1, 80-1518.2 and 80-1525 through 80-1528, is hereby specifically 21 repealed along with all other laws or par ,of laws in conflict with this Act. =., :~77/8\n-,PROVEBDY State of Arkan1a1 ACT6 24 1987 76th ~neral M embly A Bill kgular Se11ion, 1987 ROUS\"B ILL1674 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 !y: Representative Thomason For An Act To Be Enlltled \"AN ACT TO PROVIDE !HAT nn: CHILDREN OR \\lARDS OF A PERSON WHO IS A PUBLIC SCHOOLT EACHER1 N ONE SCHdbL DISTRICT AND A RESIDENT OF ANOTHERS CHOOLD ISTRICT SHALL! E DiTITLED TO ENROLL IN AND ATTEND SCHOOL rn EITHER nn: DISTRICT rn VHICH THE PARENTO R GUARDIANR ESIDES OR I.N 11Il: DISTRICT Ill VHICH THE PARENTO R GUARDIANT E.ACHESA\nND FOR OTHERP URPOSES.\" 8 BE IT ENACTEDB Y THE GENERALA SSEMBLYO F IBI STATE OF ARKANSAS: 9 10 ) SECTION 1. The children or vards of any person vho is a public  chool 11 teacher in one school district in this State and a resident of another school 12 district in this State shall be entitled to be enrolled in and to attend 13 \u0026amp;chool in either the district in ~hich the parent or guardian resides or the 14 district in vhich the parent or guardian ia a public  chool teacher. 15 16 SECTION 2. All la~s and parts of la~s in conflict vi.th this Act are 17 18 19 20 23 24 25 '26 17 30 EXHIBlT B  // A I - . i ' ,- JE CLARK STATE OF ARKANSAS OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL 201 EAST MARKHAM STREET HERITAGE WEST BUILDING ATT iEY GENERAL LITTLE ROCK. ARKANSAS 72201 (501) 371-2007 I Opinion No. 87-190 May 29, 1987 The Honorable John Ward Representative, District 65 2705 Donaghey Drive North Little Rock, AR 72116 Dear Representative Ward: This is in response to your opinion request wherein you posed the following inquiries ~hich appear to result from the apparent conflicts between Act 624 and Act 762 of 1987, to-wit: 1. By virtue of Act 624, is a school district required to enroll the children of teachers who reside in other districts and whose children have been attending in another district if the receiving district is currently under a desegregation order? 2. Would it be considered a \"transfer\" under Act 762 for children who have been attending another district to enroll in another under the provisions of Act 624? 3. Would it be considered a \"transfer\" under Act 762 for the receiving distriet to enroll children of teachers who reside in other districts (by virtue of Act 624) which children have not been enrolled in any district (e.g., first graders)? Act 624 of 1987 provides in pertinent part as follows: SECTION 1. The children or wards of any person who is a public school teacher in one school district in this State and a resident of another school district in this State shall be entitled to be enrolled in and to attend school in either the district in which the parent or guardian resides or the district in wnich the parent or guardian is a public school teacher. rate x:,c, .. , ,, Representative John Ward May 29, 1987 - Page 2  t ctt lt X ... ,,.,) .... Act 762 of 1987 limits legal transfers among school districts to those situations where such transfer would not adversely impact the racial balance of either the sending or receiving district if one of the districts were under a court ordered desegregation plan. Because Act 624 of 1987 entitles children of public school teachers to attend school in either their resident district or the district wherein their parent or guardian teaches, it is the opinion of this Office that such children are not transfers and would not come under the limiting provisions of Act 762 of 1987. Thus, in response to your question 1, the school district wherein the parent or guardian teaches would be required to accept the child of the parent or guardian. As stated above, the answer to your question 2 is that a child coming under the provisions of Act 624 would not be considered a transfer under Act 762. And, new students (e.g., first graders) availing themselves of the special provisions of Act 624 would also not be considered transfers under Act 762. The foregoing opinion, which I hereby approve, was prepared by Assistant Attorney General C. Randy McNair III. JSC: CRM: jk IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT OJURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVIS ION FILED U.s. DISTfll tASTRN 0\nCT COURT STRICT ARXANSA!' JUL 2 'l 1987 LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT PLAINTIFF V. NO. LR-C-82-866 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT, et al DEFENDANTS ORDER The North Little Rock School District (NLRSD) has requested this Courts approval of an addendum to its desegregation plan which was approved in the Order of February 27, 1987. The NLRSD has expressed the concern that Arkansas Act 624 of 1987, which provides that teachers residing in one school district but teaching in anothe~ have the right to enroll their children in either district, could have an interdistrict segregative effect on student enrollment in the Little Rock School District (LRSD). Since 141 of the NLRSD1 s 578 teachers live in the LRSD and most of these teachers are white, these concerns are legitimate although the problem is merely prospective and no such interdistrict segregative effect has occurred to date. In its plan addendum, the NLRSD comnits to report to this Court annually regarding the number and race of students being enrolled in the NLRSD from other districts and in other districts from the NLRSD. No furthe1 action is contemplated unless a segregative effect actually occurs at which time this Court will --2 30 be asked for appropriate relief. The scope of the NLRSD1 s proposed addendum to its desegregation plan is appropriate in light of the speculative nature of the problem. The NLRSD proposes to comply with the ,tate law until such time that this compliance actually results in a segregative effect. Until that time it will keep the Court apprised of the impact of Act 624. Such reporting compromises no partys rights and is entirely consistent with rulings of this court and the Court of Appeals requiring the school districts in this case not only to remediate past interdistrict segregative effects but also to avoid further such effects. For these reasons, the NLRSD1 s Motion to Approve Plan Addendum is approved and it is directed to report to the Court on an annual basis the number and race of children enrolled in the NLRSD or removed from the NLRSD and enrolled in other districts pursuant to Arkensas Act 624 of 1987. IT IS SO ORDERED this ,J._7 day of July, 1987.  ,-- ADDENDUM 2A ADMINISTRATIVEO FFICES 2700 POPLAR STREET January 14, 1986 MEMTOO : Officers of Teacher Training Institutions FROM: Doyle Crownover, Assistant Superintendent for Administration SUBJECT: Employment Applications The North Little Rock Public Schools seeks to staff its schools with the best teachers available. To be able to do this, we covet opportunities to consider your teacher candidates. Toward this end we have prepared material that gives prospective teacher applicants information concerning employment in the District. We are eager to have this information placed in the hands of all potential teachers, and solicit your assistance in this effort. We would welcome calls or visits from your teacher candidates, and would be happy to visit your campus to talk with groups of prospects if it appears this would be mutually beneficial. NORTHLI TTLER OCKS CHOODLI STRICTIS ANE QUAOL PPORTUNIETMY PLOYER P.O. BOX 687, NORTH LITTLE ROCK, AR 72115/0687 501/758-1760 ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICES 2700 POPLAR STREET The North Little Rock (Arkansas) School District is seeking an opportunity to consider for employment the most outstanding teaching and administrative candidates available. If you desire to be a part of the professional staff of a public school district that is recognized as being a state leader in learning opportunities and student performance, we earnestly solicit your application. We ask you to examine the enclosed materials to acquaint you with the advantages and desirability of employment with tr~ North Little Rock School District. If becoming associated with this District appeals to you, we encourage you to complete and return the application form. P.O. BOX 687, NORTH LITTLE ROCK, AR 72115/0687 501/758-1760 ADDENDUM 2B Salary NORTHLI TTLER OCKS Cl~OLD ISTRICT North Little Rock, Arkansas Benefits of Teaching in North Little Rock School District ADDENDUM 2C Teachers are paid on an indexed salary scale that recognizes training and experience. Increments are provided for each 12 hours of graduate study beyond the Bachelor's Degree, and for each 15 hours beyond the Master's, and for each year's experience up to eight years at the Bachelor's Degree level, and up to 15 years at the Specialist's Degree level. For the 1985-86 school year the salary for a regular classroom teacher of 187 days of employment with a Bachelor's Degree and no previous experience is $14,530. A teacher with a Specialist's Degree and 15 years experience receives $25,611. Fringe Benefits Each teacher is provided a fully paid Blue Cross-Blue Shield Major Medical Coverage, a dental insurance coverage, and a hospital indemnity plan, with the option of having family members included through payroll deduction. We provide $21,000 life insurance coverage on each teacher. Each teacher is provided an amount of $15.83 per month which may be applied to the cost of family coverages, or for additional life insurance. The total value of these coverages is $91.93 per month. All teachers must be members of the Arkansas Teacher Retirement System. Beginning on July 1, 1986, they 1vill have the option of joining the contributory plan (6% of salary) or non-contributory plan (0% of salary). Those choosing the contributory system will qualify for a greater annuity upon retirement. Deferred tax options are also available for retirement planning. Teachers also participate in the Social Security retire1ilent system. Sick Leave Teachers in the North Little Rock system receive nine days per year sick leave for the first four years in the District. These days per year then increase for each of next six years until 20 days per year are awarded for the tenth year and thereafter. Unused sick days are accwnulated up to 100 days. Personal Leave Teachers of the District are awarded one day per year of leave for personal reasons. There is an accumulation provision for these days if they are unused. p~ge 2 (Benefits of Teaching in North Little Rock School District) Inservice Training The North Little Rock School District maintains an ongoing, indepth program for increasing the competency of its staff. The program is constantly revised and adapted to the needs of the staff. Professional Leave Upon approval of request, teachers are granted professional leave for a wide variety of activities. ADDENDUM 2D NORTH LITTLE ROCK PUBLIC SCHOOLS-- moving in the right direction, helping every child achieve From the Superintendent ' We are pleased that you want to know about public schools in North Little Rock. This brochure will give you some basic facts about our schools, students, teachers and educational programs. We hope you will also visit our schools to see for yourself why we have one of the state's best school systems. Quality education has been a standard in the North Little Rock School District since the first school door opened in 1901. Since then, the District has grown to approximately 30 square miles with 25 schools serving nearly 9,500 students, the fourth largest in Arkansas. Along with growth in size and enrollment, the District has also grown in educational stature to become a recognized leader in learning opportunities and student performance. To ensure individual student growth, school curriculum is broad in scope while emphasizing basic skills in reading, communication and computation. All schools have earned accreditation status by the North Central Accreditation Association, and all are rated \"A\" by the State of Arkansas. Public support for our schools is reflected through Parent Teacher Associations (PT A), the District PT A Council, advisory committees and other groups. The District enjoys the help of patrons through the Volunteers in Public Schools program. Through these and other efforts, community members are involved in the education of our children. The School Board and the staff agree with the public that schools are places for learning, and they believe in strong, fair discipline in the schools. The result is the lack of serious disciplinary problems that disrupt the educational process. We like to think of our district as responsive to community needs. Please feel free to call upon me, our principals or any of our staff for information or to express your concerns. I believe that when schools and homes work together, life improves for everyone within school district bounqaries. I urge you to examine our schools and join us in support of our public school system and our community. Sincerely, Joe Austin, Ed.D. Superintendent of Schools m~\n.~~~::\n~. ~:-~-~~~:~~~ l_\n ,\" -~~=2::~~~~- ~ Twelve ways we help children achieve .  a comprehensive, coordinated curriculum that stresses basic skills in reading, communication and computation  an experienced, highly trained and dedicated staff, nearly half of whom hold master's degrees  a regular program of curriculum renewal and textbook evaluation  guidance and counseling services at all elementary and secondary schools  a gifted and talented program for elementary and junior high children  computer assisted instruction projects with more than 300 microcomputers available to students  a range of high school course offerings for vocational, college-bound and handicapped student~  a range of speciai education services with mdividual education pl:rns  advance placement classes for secondary students  active parent involvement through PTA's, PTA Council, advisory committees and booster clubs  an effective disciplinary program ~ith parental input  low student/teacher ratios and high per-pupil expenditures for effective classroom learning . . moving 1n the right direction, helping every child achieve Educational Programs North Linle Rock teachers believe that all children may learn - the vocational student, the coUegebound student, the student with special gifts and the handicapped student. They recognize that each child has an individual learning pattern, and they encourage each to progress according to his or her best abilities. Careful appraisal, frequent evaluation and flexible grouping ensure that each child will receive instruction according to identified strengths and needs. The curriculum at seventeen elementary schools places primary emphasis on the basics of reading, spelling, English, mathematics, writing, social studies, science and health. Children also participate in music, an and physical education activities. Mastery of learning skills in each subject is stressed, and career awareness is a component in many of the basic subjects. The junior high provides a period of transition from the elementary school to senior high schools. The transition covers all areas of school life: academic. ce\u0026gt;-\u0026lt;:urricular and social. All seventh-grade students atlend Central Junior High. Three other junior high schools serve students in grades eight and nine. At the junior high level, continued emphasis is placed on the individual and on basic skills instruction, while a wider scope of instructional programs and co-curricular activities is introduced. In addition to basic disciplines, junior high .students may select electives in modern foreign languages, industrial arts, home economics, exploratory business, an, communications, choral music and band. Introductions to competitive athletics, student-government, spirit clubs and special interest organizations encourage self-development and preparation for high school. Two high schools serve students in grades ten through twelve with a comprehensive course of study based on the district's commitment to providing a classical college preparatory curriculum and career preparation programs. A strong basic academic program and a wide range of electives in fine arts, foreign languages, forensics, business and vocationaltechnical skills offer a multitude of options to high school students. A teaching staff of more than 550 classroom instructors provides for an effective average teacherstudent ratio of one to seventeen. moving zn the right direction, helping every child achieve Gifted Education More than 500 students participate in special programs for gifted and talented children in kindergarten through grade nine. Placement is based on case studies of students who demonstrate outstanding intelligence, ability, creativity and task commitment. Pla\nement is documented by test data, teacher input and parent input. Gifted elementary students are assigned to regular classrooms for basic instruction and receive additional instruction from a gifted/talented resource teacher. Junior high students are placed in cluster classes usually in the areas of English, mathematics, science and social studies. Additional instruction is also available from resource teachers, and a separate gifted math program provides auxiliary opportuni: ties for elementary and junior high students two evenim:: sessions per \\'.:ek. Se-:ondary students at the junior and senior high leveb may be placed tn honors classes based on grades, teacher recommen\u0026lt;l\n,.rion~ and ~tandardized test scores. The tOlal gifted program ensures the mastery of basic skills while offering flexibility, independent inquiry, enrichment, ac1:eleration and higher level learning a:.:tivities. Special Education Special education services enable approximately 1,500 handicapped students to receive maximum educational benefits through individual programs. Learning needs are detennined by a trained staff of special education teachers and school psychologists. They work closely with students and parents to develop individual education plans. The North Little Rock schools are dedicated to the proposition that the student with special needs should not be isolated from peers. Handicapped students are placed in special classes or regular classes, depending on the be:\nt interest of the students. Placement is based on handicapping conditions and \u0026lt;1ccompanyin2 educational deficits. Every effort is made to ensu\ne students feel a part of the school environment. A wide range of programs includes classes for students with learning disabilities, behavior adjustment classes, classes for mer.tally handicapped students, servil:es for orthopedically handicapped students and speech therapy classes. Handicapped students may attend the Skills Center, a separate facility -.,,ich vocational programs sening secondary students in halfday sessions. Children ages 5 to 21 with multiple handicaps who cannot function in the regular classroom are served at the Baring Cross Center, where functional academic instruction includes a focus on \\ ocational preparation. Students whose medical .:onciition-. require inqru,tion at home are sen ed by a h1,mc:bounJ t.:8,hcr. Computer Education Recognizing the tremendous impact of computer technology on learning styles, teaching techniques, occupational skills and career choices, the district is committed to a comprehensive program of computer education. More than 300 microcomputers are available to students districtwide. Computer literacy in grades kinderganen through twelve introduces students to the fundamental skills necess:iry to live and w0rk in a high-tc-:h SlX:it:t\\'. Cvmputer litt:racy is developed through seconda\n,, ,curses in computer science, as well as computer-assisted instruction ir. a:.::ide:n::a: reas a, all grade le,e:5. Computer science courses include instruction in computer languages and programming skills. They prepare students for post-secondary experiences in computer-related fields through college edui:ation, vocational education or on-the-job training. Computer assisted and computer manal!ed instruction are viewed as vital assets in many cu\nricular areas. Microcomputers assist students in masten of basic skills in mathematics, ...reading and lang~age arts. Computer assisted instruction supplements regular classroom activities but does not replace basic instruction, classroom test~ or homework. As a result of the district's commitment to computer instruction, a No((h Little Rock junior high was selected as a site for a two-year pilot program throu11h the \\1i,r0computer Proiect for Arkama~ Cla,,roL,\n1, \u0026lt;I \\11'.-\\CJ. ,1p.:1: rnni\nunJ,,, fin,111-1~a1l\n, 111,. Vocational Education Vocational education is another way Nonh Little Rock schools prepare students for life after graduation. Educators believe that those students who seek employment after high school should have entry-level job skills to accompany their basic academic knowledge. The combination bener prepares them for productive citizenship. Students may elect to attend vocational education courses in business education, home economics, marketing and industrial arts. Practical arts courses include computer oriented accounting, intensive office laboratory, shonhand, typewriting, marketing, merchandising, child care, home economics, auto mechanics, construction, electronics, graphic ans and power mechanics. Exploratory courses begin at the junior high school level. Cooperative programs, involving on-the-job training, are featured at the high school level. Th~e include cooperative office education, marketing. distributive education, occ11pMional home economics and industrial cooperative training. Athletics Athletics for both boys and girls are an imponant pan of school life in Nonh Little Rock. Secondarv students may participate in football, ba\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_421","title":"'Desegregation Plan, 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":["1992-04-29"],"dcterms_description":null,"dc_format":["application/pdf"],"dcterms_identifier":null,"dcterms_language":["eng"],"dcterms_publisher":["Little Rock, Ark. : Butler Center for Arkansas Studies. Central Arkansas Library System"],"dc_relation":null,"dc_right":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC-EDU/1.0/"],"dcterms_is_part_of":["Office of Desegregation Monitoring records (BC.MSS.08.37)","History of Segregation and Integration of Arkansas's Educational System"],"dcterms_subject":["Little Rock (Ark.)--History--20th century","Little Rock School District","Education--Arkansas","Educational planning","Education--Evaluation","School integration","School improvement programs"],"dcterms_title":["'Desegregation Plan, 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/421"],"dcterms_temporal":null,"dcterms_rights_holder":null,"dcterms_bibliographic_citation":null,"dlg_local_right":["Available for use in research, teaching, and private study. Any other use requires permission from the Butler Center."],"dcterms_medium":["documents (object genre)"],"dcterms_extent":["7 pages"],"dlg_subject_personal":null,"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":"\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n\n\n\n   \n\n\n\n\n   \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n  \n\n I I r' I DESEGREGATION PLAN \u0026gt;! 9 Little Rock School District April 29, 1992Bl  Little Rock School District Desegregation Plan Table of Contents 'I* 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. Commitment to Desegregation Leadership Early Childhood Education Special Programs Summer Learning Program Asset Program School Operations Program for Accelerated Learning/ Academic Support Programs Gifted Education Multicultural Curriculum 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 1 18. Focused Activities Parkview Science Magnet School McClellan Community School Recruitment of Private School Students Federal Programs Vocational Education Page Page Page Page Page Page Page Page Page Page Page Page Page Page Page Page 1 2 4 20 21 24 28 48 58 63 81 86 93 95 96 98 i 19. 20. 21. 22. 23. 24. 25. 26. 27. 28. Library Media Services Special Education Staff Development Support Services Parent Involvement/ Community Linkages Student Assignments Facilities Incentive School Program Educational Equity Monitoring Computerized Transportation System Tentative Timeline 1989 Data Processing Page 106 Page 111 Page 124 Page 129 Page 131 Page 139 Page 146 Page 149 Page 224 Page 227 Page 229 Page 230 A COMMITMENT TO DESEGREGATION IN THE LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT The Little Rock School District is committed to a comprehensive desegregation plan which focuses on the total learning environment. The method of assigning students is merely the first step toward creating school and classroom environments that foster academic achievement and improve race relations among students and staff members. The next step involves a commitment to quality desegregated education by the District, parents and the community. Of course, real commitment always requires a plan of action. To that end, the Little Rock School District Board of Directors is committed to the following: 1 A. B. The belief that all children can learn. The elimination of achievement disparity between black and white students on norm-referenced and criterion-referenced tests. C. D. E. F. G. H. Improving educational quality and student academic performance in all schools and doubling the financial resources in schools identified in the court-approved desegregation plan as enhanced/ incentive schools. Improving race relations among students and staff members. Ensuring that equity occurs in all phases of school activities and operations (i.e. school, class and staff assignments\nparticipation in extracurricular activities\ndistribution of resources\netc.) Promoting positive public reaction to desegregation. The effective use of interdistrict and intradistrict recruitment strategies to meet the desegregation requirements in all schools and to avoid resegregation. The development and infusion of multicultural education in all areas of the curriculum. 1. Ongoing staff development activities to equip teachers, administrators, and other staff with the skills needed to achieve quality desegregated education. In summary, the Little Rock School District Board of Directors is committed to having quality desegregated education in all schools.. Quality desegregated education will result in long-term stability and growth for the city of Little Rock and Pulaski County. It also will provide all Little Rock School District students with the academic and social skills needed for successful experiences in the future. The Little Rock School District Board of Directors hereby acknowledges its commitment to quality desegregated education and respectfully invites parents and community leaders to make the same commitment. Such a commitment has to occur in order to ensure stability in our schools and ultimately achieve unitary status. Page 1 XLEADERSHIP Central to any school desegregation plan should be a clear focus and understanding of the kinds of goals to be achieved. It is insufficient to establish as a goal the physical movement of bodies and the rearrangement of boundary lines so that students can be brought together in ways that provide different racial distributions in different settings. r 1 4 n The mere physical movement of children does little to guarantee any changes in the quality of education\nin school achievement patterns\nin interpersonal relationships\nor in the variety of patterns of ethnic plurality. No plan should settle for the mere mixing of youngsters. The plan should have as its primary focus an educational environment encouraging academic and human growth for all students based upon their individual needs and talents. A vital factor in successful school desegregation is clear, coherent, and consistent leadership for change from the superintendent and Board of Directors. The superintendent together with the Board of Directors must set specific guidelines for behavior from their subordinates, and model that behavior for the community. The Board of Directors and the superintendent will assert their leadership in the following:  School boards should represent the multicultural backgrounds of the population that they serve.  The school board and superintendent are responsible for providing equitable and direct means for keeping the local citizenry informed about the schools and for keeping self and the staff informed about the needs and wishes of community. p  The school board and the superintendent will clearly delineate the Districts desegregation mission to the staff and to the community.  The school board and superintendent will utilize the desegregation mission as a guide for the development of policies and will set expectations for the superintendent to implement the policies. i  The school board will expect the administrative staff to provide structured, clearly articulated leadership and modeled behavior for an effective desegregated school setting.  The superintendent and school board must examine the racial makeup of all categories of employees including the administrative, teaching and support staff so that future recruitment and placement of persons to fill positions will be done on an equitable basis. Page 2 Ji The school board and superintendent will adopt a budget which will provide the resources necessary for an effective, desegregated school system. Budgetary decisions will be consistent with District desegregation policies in terms of buildings, staff, materials and equipment.  The school board and staff will be involved in ongoing staff development to better respond to the needs of a desegregated school system.  The school board and administration will conduct an annual, self evaluation of their commitment to a quality desegregated education in the following areas: Board/Superintendent Relations Board/ Community Relations Board Member Interrelations Board/Administration Relations to Other Staff Members Board/ Administration Relations in Fiscal Management Board Relations to Instructional Programs As the plan for desegregation and ultimately unitary status for the Little Rock School District is evolving, the superintendent and the Board of Directors will ensure the restructuring of the school system so that all vestiges of discrimination, segregation, or unfair treatment have been eliminated. Further, the District will ensure that the schools and learning experiences throughout the school system are organized so that school practices, policies and procedures prevent unfair treatment or denial of opportunity for any child because of his or her race, culture, religion or economic status. Page 3EARLY CHILDHOOD EDUCATION ai-i 1 I When they enter school, children who are economically disadvantaged and who are members of a minority racial or ethnic group are less likely to perform as well as their middle-class peers. The economically disadvantaged and minority children have not developed the skills, habits, and attitudes to the extent expected in the primary school years. The lack of developmental and educational experiences is often evidenced by low scores on tests of intellectual and scholastic ability, which can result in unnecessary placement in special education, retention in grade, low scholastic achievement, and, eventually, dropping out of high school. Poor children who attend good preschool child development programs become better prepared for kindergarten and the primary grades. In addition, preschool programs hold the potential for greater academic achievement, less at-risk behavior in the teen years, and enhanced educational opportunity for all children regardless of economic background. The National Governors Association has identified preschool education as the key investment in education for state governments. The greatest hope for change in the lives of children in need is through the investment at the beginning of the formal education process. Since the pioneering studies of Benjamin Bloom on the need for education for 3- and 4-year-olds, additional studies have continued to document the academic and social success of those who have been involved in early education programs. The 1986 findings of the High/Scope Educational Research Foundation verify that successful early childhood programs affect childrens later success in school. This research links student achievement in high school and beyond with the home and school as powerful influences on the intellectual development of young children. Today, enrollment in pre-primary programs (i.e., public and private programs, prior to entry in grade one) is at an all-time high and expected to increase during the 199Os. According to Department of Education estimates, nearly 65 million children are enrolled in pre-primary programs today, with an estimated four million enrolled in public schools programs. Although there have been significant enrollment increases, a large number of children still need access to preschool programs, particularly those children from low-income families. The Childrens Defense Fund (1987) reports that Head Start currently serves only 16 percent of the 25 million children who need early childhood education services. This lack of affordable Page 4  programming leaves over two million children of the nations most disadvantaged children unserved. In Pulaski County (Arkansas), the Head Start and City of Little Rock Early Childhood Programs serve a small percentage of the eligible disadvantaged. Poverty continues to be a problem for young children:  Twenty-five percent of all 4- and 5-year-olds today are poor (Childrens Defense Fund, 1987).  One in six of all 4- and 5-year-olds today lives in a family where neither parent has a job (Childrens Defense Fund, 1987).  Poor children are only half as likely to be enrolled in preschool programs as children from affluent families (Childrens Defense Fund, 1987). Current national and local social, demographic, and economic trends tell us that todays lack of accessible early childhood programs will become even more severe, especially for the poor, and the need for programs will continue to rise for all socioeconomic levels. Little Rock School District proposes the expansion of existing early childhood programs and the development of new ones to meet the needs of at-risk students and to remediate racial achievement disparities. These programs will have three components: I. HIPPY - The Home Instructional Program for Preschool Youngsters (HIPPY) (4- and 5-year olds) will focus initially on children in families who live in the attendance zones of the incentive schools in the Little Rock School District. This home-based program, which complements the school-based program operative in the schools, recognizes the mother as the first significant teacher of the child. n. Four-Year-Old Program - The Districts preschool curriculum model, which is developmentally appropriate and fosters the active and independent learning of each child, will be implemented in all incentive schools and other selected schools in the Little Rock School District. Effective the 1990-91 school year, this model will be an integral part of the effort to improve the academic achievement of minority and economically disadvantaged children and to attract white students to the schools. HI. City-wide Early Childhood Education Program Page 5Rj A. HOME INSTRUCTION PROGRAM FOR PRESCHOOL YOUNGSTERS (HIPPY) Overview During the fall of 1986, the Little Rock School District implemented the Home I  Instruction Program for Preschool Youngsters to serve educationally-disadvantaged children in the community where high-risk children were identified. Developed at Hebrew University in Jerusalem, Israel, by Dr. Avima Lombard, this international program identified parents (primarily mothers) as the first teacher of their children. The specifically-designed curriculum of the home-based program trains aides (mothers) from the target community to instruct mothers of four- and five-year-old children in teaching their children at home. This program has proven to be a successful model in Israel, with evaluation results showing that participants were less likely to repeat grades, less likely to be identified as needing special education, less likely to drop out of school, and were overall successful school pupils. Although enrollment has increased in early childhood programs, the needs of many children of low-income and minority families are not being met. The Little Rock School District HIPPY Program depends on external funding sources. The HIPPY Program cannot be continued at present levels without the continued receipt of JTPA and Chapter 2 funds. I B. Areas of Collaboration The home-based program and the four-year-old school-based program will collaborate in the areas of parental involvement and teacher training. The Little Rock School and Pulaski County School Districts will collaborate and coordinate the on-going implementation of the HIPPY Program. C. Evaluation and Monitoring Evaluation using the Early Prevention of School Failure or a similar model which is comparable in validation scope and developmental grounding, will be conducted on the HIPPY participants as they enter and exit kindergarten. A standardized achievement test will be given to each child at the end of the third grade level. These tests will provide data indicating the success of the HIPPY Program as an early childhood intervention strategy. Page 6 FOUR-YEAR-OLD PROGRAM A- Overview A four-year-old school-based program was implemented during the fall of 1988. The High/ Scope Program curriculum, or a comparable developmentally appropriate and validated curriculum, forms the core of the four-year-old program. A fundamental premise of the curriculum is that children are active learners who learn best from activities they plan and carry out themselves. Children learn by the scientific method of observation and inference, at a level of sophistication corresponding to their development. The curriculum complements the home-based curriculum of the Home Instruction program. Educationally-disadvantaged and lower socioeconomic children often enter the formal education setting without the prerequisite skills and experiences needed for academic success. Although usually highly motivated, these youngsters must be provided additional learning time and structured experiences to enable them to develop their potential. Research and pre-kindergarten program practices have demonstrated that early education experiences can increase the opportunity for success and also increase the self-concept of participants. 1 B. Areas of Collaboration The Little Rock School District and the Pulaski County Special School District will collaborate on parental involvement, inservice and training for teachers and aides. Each district is committed to ensuring that all staff members are prepared to fulfill the Districts expectations for a quality Early Childhood Education Program. The curriculum provides a useful framework to guide teachers in conducting the classroom program. Key experiences help the teacher encourage and extend childrens selfchosen activities by providing developmentally appropriate learning experiences to develop each childs ability to: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. Make choices and decisions about what to do and how to do it, using his or her own time and energy effectively. Identify, pursue, and complete self-chosen goals and tasks with originality and responsibility. Work with other children and adults in group planning and cooperative efforts with shared leadership. i s Express thoughts, ideas, and feelings\nto speak about, dramatize, and graphically represent experiences in order to communicate them to others. Comprehend others spoken, written, dramatic, and graphic representations. Page 79 C. D. 6. 7. 8. Apply his or her reasoning abilities to a wide range of situations using a variety of malcrials. Expand knowledge of objects, skill in the arts, and comfort with physical movement. Expand creativity, initiative, spirit of inquiry, and openness to knowledge and other peoples viewpoints. Evaluation 1. 2. 3. 4. Information from inservice evaluations will be summarized. Student assessment data will be analyzed to determine if measurable growth in student achievement has occurred. The Planning, Research and Evaluation staff will assist with analysis of summative evaluation data. The management information system developed by LRSD will have the capability to compare students who did and did not participate in the four-year-old program. These comparisons will begin at the end of the kindergarten year of each class of four-year old-students. Expected Outcomes I During the 1988-89 school year, the Four-Year-Old Program was implemented in three incentive schools. By the 1991-92 school year, the program will be implemented in the schools listed below: .1 ''i Badgett Franklin Garland Ish Mitchell Rightsell Rockefeller Romine Stephens Washington Woodruff Other schools in the District will implement the Four-Year-Old Program by the 1994-95 school year according to the provisions of a long-range implementation plan developed for additional four-year-old classes and approved by the Court. The long-range plan will address demographic, instructional, and structural needs. LRSD will continue to use the four-year-old program as a means to meet the needs of disadvantaged students and desegregate schools that are difficult to desegregate. Page 8 Il CITYWIDE EARLY CHILDHOOD EDUCATION PROGRAM The citywide early childhood education program will address three objectives\n(1) to provide parenting education for the parents of early childhood students\n(2) to provide quality childcare arrangements for low-income parents which stress social development and school readiness\nand (3) to provide a quality pre-school program for disadvantaged students. The Little Rock School District currently operates early childhood programs in seven buildings. Plans are underway to open four additional sites in 1991-92. Several Head Start centers are presently in operation within the boundaries of the Little Rock School District. The Head Start program is administered by COPE of Pulaski County and additional centers are expected to open. The City of Little Rock Day Care Center program has two early childhood centers. The purpose of the citywide early childhood education program is to combine the efforts of these three entities, along with other entities that may emerge in the future, to provide quality early childhood experiences to as many disadvantaged students in the city of Little Rock as possible. Research clearly indicates that effective early intervention is one of the best strategies to combat academic achievement disparity and the poor academic performance of minority students. In addressing the objectives of the citywide early childhood education program, the three entities cited in this section have attempted to avoid duplication of services, to the extent possible, and use every opportunity possible to share resources. The following is a brief summary of each of the three programs: Head Start Program A. B. C. D. E. F. G. H. I. Children must meet eligibility requirements Training provided for parents Medical, social, and health services provided Mandated to involve parents in decision-making (Policy Control) Teachers are not required to be certified or have degrees Serves three- and four-year-old students Three centers in boundaries of LRSD - old King School, Highland Court, and Hollingsworth Court Staff development throughout the year Uses aides City of Little Rock Day Care Program A. Teachers are required to have degrees B. Teachers have participated in PET and EPSF training Page 9 J 1 c. D. E. F. G. H. Two sites - East Little Rock Community Center Complex and South Little Rock Recreation Center For working parents only Not required to have parent involvement - parent involvement program held twice a year Site used by LRSD HIPPY program for staff training No plans for expansion Uses assistant teachers Little Rock School District A. B. C. D. E. F. G. H. Teachers must be certified Seven sites in 1990-91 school year Must comply with desegregation requirements Rockefeller is the only school with pre-four year old students Parent involvement program Ongoing staff development Plans for expansion in 1991-92 and beyond Uses aides In regard to the three objectives cited earlier, the three entities have agreed to the following: Parent Involvement - The entities will exchange calendars for parent involvement activities. To the extent possible, these activities will be available to parents outside of the sponsors program. The entities will share resources in publicizing these activities. For instance, the Little Rock School District has a cable channel that can be used to announce activities to the public. Districtwide and school newsletters are sent to parents on a regular basis. Likewise, the Model Cities program has access to a cable television station. Staff Development - The entities will exchange calendars for staff development activities and, to the extent possible, the sponsor of the staff development activity will allow representatives from other parties to participate. Considerable collaboration is expected to occur between the Little Rock School District and Head Start since both programs currently use the same curriculum. The staff development activities will be geared to the needs of aides as well as teachers. Student Referrals - The early childhood programs will use a student referral system. This system will allow parents on a waiting list for one program to know about vacancies in another early childhood program. Representatives from each program will meet as needed to review vacancies and identify referrals. Page 10 I  -Il I I Student Assignment Process - The three entities recognize the need for disadvantaged parents to understand the assignment process for kindergarten in the Little Rock School District. In the past, disadvantaged parents have not taken advantage of the kindergarten preregistration opportunities that are available. Traditionally, these parents wait until mid-August or after the opening of school to register their children. A representative from the Little Rock School District Student Assignment Office will meet each year with parents from both programs to review the kindergarten assignment process. In addition to neglecting kindergarten registration, it is apparent that some disadvantaged parents are not taking advantage of magnet school opportunities in their neighborhoods. The annual sessions on kindergarten registration will also be used to provide information on magnet school opportunities. Long-Term Monitoring - the real success of any early childhood program depends on the long-term effects of pre-school intervention efforts. It is important that early childhood agencies have some means of following the progress of their clients during the early years of regular schooling. Beginning in the 1990-91 school year, a list will be compiled of all graduates from the three early childhood programs. These students will be identified in the Little Rock School District mainframe computer system according to their respective programs. At the end of each year for grades K-3, these students will be monitored on the basis of standardized tests, criterion-reference tests, EPSF screening, or any other academic measures that are available and applicable. The entities will review these results on an annual basis, prior to the beginning of the following school year, and make programmatic changes, individually and collectively, as needed. These students will be compared to a control group in order to isolate the effectiveness and/or deficiencies of the various early childhood programs. Facilities - The largest Head Start center is located in a building owned by the Little Rock School District. The Little Rock School District anticipates the abandonment of I 1 additional buildings in the future. If this occurs, additional lease arrangements with Head Start will be explored. The parties will continue to share facilities for training programs, recreational activities, etc. Page 111 ROCKEFELLER EARLY CHILDHOOD MAGNET SCHOOL \"J' The Rockefeller Early Childhood Magnet Program will be available to children from ages six weeks to four years old. The program will serve as a model for improving the academic achievement of disadvantaged students and attracting students to comply with desegregation requirements. All students will be assigned by the Little Rock School District Student Assignment Office. Little Rock School Districts Rockefeller Elementary School is considered separately because it provides a unique opportunity to explore and develop excellent early childhood education service to children and parents, models of early childhood education programs, and training opportunities. With a physical plant built to house the continuation of the Kramer Project begun in the late 196Os, Rockefeller contains the only early childhood education program in Pulaski County providing complete continuity of education and childcare (\"educare\") from early infancy through grade six. Parent devotion to the program is almost legendary with at least one family having had children enrolled in the program for 16 consecutive years. The following will apply to the early childhood education program at Rockefeller School: 1. Capitalize upon the schools high quality early childhood education as a I 1 K desegregation tool. Coupled with the schools other excellent programs, early childhood education can help to achieve racial balance by attracting white children as well as by helping any disadvantaged children achieve an equitable education. Parents have noted that the early childhood education program at Rockefeller is presently more racially integrated than the schools elementary grades. 2. Designate Rockefeller as a Cooperative Early Childhood Education Demonstration Magnet between UALR and other area colleges, and the Little Rock School District. As a demonstration center. Rockefeller will be used for training college students as well as for inservice observation and training for the countys teachers, administrators, aides, HIPPY, and daycare program workers. Special emphasis will be given to developing and piloting innovative approaches to the education of young children. Parents and educational professionals from UALR and other area colleges will advise the Rockefeller and Little Rock School District staffs on all aspects of planning and implementation of the early childhood program. Page 12 J3. 4. 5. 6. 1 7. Include the early childhood education program at Rockefeller as an integral part of the whole school, and not a separate or \"add-on\" program. It must receive the same attention as to supervision, support, staff development, resource allotment, accountability, monitoring, and evaluation as grades K through six. Allow the early childhood education three-year-old students to continue on into the schools four-year-old program, kindergarten, and beyond. Siblings of early childhood education students will be allowed to attend Rockefeller (sibling preference) in order to help retain children in the school. Explore developing Rockefeller as a year-round, full day school for children from infancy through sixth grade, working with a biracial group of parents, teachers, administrators, and experts from area colleges and universities to assess the desirability and feasibility of such a program. A year-round program will promote continuity of services to children, alleviate the learning losses often experienced by young students over the long three-month summer vacation, and provide opportunities for enrichment not ordinarily included in the regular nine-month school year. Re-evaluate Rockefellers early childhood education policies in terms of their impact on desegregation and educational goals. In order for early childhood education to serve as a viable desegregation tool at Rockefeller, to remain competitive with private schools and daycares, and to hold both its private paying and Title XX students, early childhood education policies on private pay rates, lunch charges, vacation days, enrollment age, and sick days for long illnesses must be evaluated by the parent committee on early childhood education. The early childhood education curriculum and daily activities will be b2ised upon young childrens interests and styles of learning, emphasize developmentally appropriate learning, and appeal to childrens sense of curiosity and eagerness in order to help them experience the joy of learning. There will be a full spectrum of activities to stimulate children at various levels of development. The curriculum will be multicultural in focus and sensitive to the cultural and ethnic heritages of children. LRSD will work cooperatively with local colleges and universities to enhance and support the Rockefeller Early Childhood Magnet Program. i i I f Page 13 J LRSD DESEGREGATION PLAN IMPLEMENTATION TIMELINE AREA: Early Childhood Education Objectives Strategies/ Activities Beginning Date Ending Date Responsibility Evaluation 1. To promote the HIPPY program. 1.1 To compose and mail Public Service Announcement for local radio stations and Channels 14 and 16 flyers. July Annually July Annually Mailed letters Appear on show 2. To select HIPPY aides. 2.1 Interview and select fourteen (14) aides. August Annually August Staff By applicants response 3. Initial training of aides and staff. 3.1 Arrange logistics with state for the initial training. Annually Annually Supervisor Pay the bill 4. To enroll families into program. 4.1 5. To recruit families. 5.1 Conduct home interview and enroll families into program. Compose and mail correspondence to community churches to recruit families and instructional aide trainees. September Annually September Annually Supervisor Coordinators 6. To determine service of coordinators. 6.1 Identify families to be served by each coordinator. 7. To assign families to be serviced by aides. 7.1 Identify families to be served by each aide. 8. To organize instructional material. 8.1 Print curriculum material. 9. To familiarize aides of the HIPPY implementation in LRSD. 9.1 Conduct three (3) day workshop. (B 00 o 10. 11. Obtain material for program. To orientate enrolled families to the Hippy program. 10.1 11.1 Order material. Conduct orientation meeting. August Annually September Annually September Annually September Annually September Annually September Annually September Annually October Annually October Annually October Annually September Annually September Annually September Annually September Annually Certification of aides Supervisor Coordinators Coordinators Secretary of HIPPY Supervisor Coordinators Supervisor Supervisor Coordinators Printing completed Agenda/ Receive material Receive materials Families enrolled in program fl LRSD DESEGREGATION PLAN IMPLEMENTATION TIMELINE AREA: Early Childhood Education (continued) Objectives Strategies / Activities Beginning Date Ending Date Responsibility Evaluation 12. Identify meeting sites of group meetings. 12.1 Secure meeting sites for group meeting. October Annually November Annually Coordinators Confirmation of site 13. To schedule implementation of HIPPY curriculum. 14. To provide parents with information that will assist them with their children. 15. To evaluate aide trainees mid point (15th week). 16. To determine program success. 17. 122 13.1 132 13J 13.4 14.1 15.1 16.1 Mail out notification of meeting sites. Schedule aides weekly home visits and group. Schedule area group meeting - print flyers. Schedule weekly service for aides. Schedule aides first teaching with (own child). Schedule workshop for parents and aides, mail out and print materials. To evaluate each aide trainee. Conduct survey of parents - print materials. ca OQ fl) 18. Oct-Nov Annually October Annually October Aimually October Annually November Aimually December Annually January Annually November Annually November Annually November Aimually October Annually November Annually December Annually January Annually Supervisor Coordinators Coordinators Coordinators Supervisor Supervisor Coordinators Supervisor Coordinator Coordinators Supervisor Coordinators Receive materials Received materials Completion of survey Began second-part of programs implementation. Evaluation of aides. 17.1 18.1 Implement second part of HIPPY curriculum: a. print material b. print flyers c. mass mail out Evaluate aides. February Annually March Annually May Annually March Annually Supervisor Coordinators Coordinators Participation of parents Materials completed Completed 1' ^,1 maI LRSD DESEGREGATION PLAN IMPLEMENTATION TIMELINE AREA: Early Childhood Education (continued) Objectives Strategies / Activities Beginning Date Ending Date Responsibility Evaluation 19. Provide parents with information to be successful with their children. 19.1 Obtain a site and speaker and schedule a lecture for parents. March Annually March Annually Supervisor Consultant fee paid 20. Build the aides children self esteem. 20.1 Activity. April Annually April Annually Staff Consultant fee paid 21. Graduation of HIPPY children and aides reception. 21.1 Staff will organize. June Annually June Annually Staff Completion of program 22. Evaluate aides. 22.1 Schedule final evaluation of trainees in the program. June Annually June Annually Coordinators 23. Staff in place. 23.1 To begin implementation of HIPPY program. July Annually June Annually Staff began implementation of program 24. Maintain regular staff. 24.1 Secretary. July Annually June Annually Supervisor To assist in the implementation of program 25. To assist in traveling eiqiense. 25.1 Aides made home visit. July Annually June Annually Aides Pay stipend P3 no o oiWleeb WMiiW LRSD DESEGREGATION PLAN IMPLEMENTATION TIMELINE AREA: Early Childhood Education - Four-Year-Old Programs Goal I: To implement the Four-Year-Old Program in selected schools. Objectives Strategies/ Activities Beginning Date Ending Date Responsibility Evaluation 1. Identify and assign new four-year- old program participants in the incentive schools. 1.1 Provide pre-registration inservices to elementary principals. Second Semester February Annually Student Assgn Office Communications Dept Principals Applications returned to Student Assignment 2. Recruit teachers and aides as needed. 3. Obtain curriculum materials, suppUes, and furniture as needed. 4. Train teachers and aides in the implementation of E.CJE. curriculum. 5. Familiarize parents with Four- Year-Old Program. 12 1.3 2.1 3.1 4.1 42 5.1 tu no n\u0026gt; 52 Conduct media publicity for preregistration. Assign four-year-old students. Interview interested teachers and aides as needed. Complete and send orders to vendors. Conduct orientation and inservices. Conduct monthly inservices. Conduct parent orientation meeting and parent conference. Include four-year-old children in Master Schedule-students receive services of counselors, music teachers, school nurses, librarians, physical education and art teachers. January Annually April Annually May Annually June Annually August Annually September Annually August Annually July Annually April Annually Ongoing Ongoing Ongoing Ongoing Ongoing June Annually Principals Student Assgn Office Communications Dept Supervisors Human Resources Dir Principals Principals Supervisors Supv/ Staff Dev Supv/Staff Dev Classroom teachers Principals Participants identified A list of qualified applicants Materials available Agenda Agenda Number of parents attending Parent/ Teacher Conference Master schedules s LRSD DESEGREGATION PLAN IMPLEMENTATION TIMELINE AREA: Early Childhood Education - Four-Year-Old Program Goal I: (continued) Objectives Strategies/ Activities Rt^nning Ending Date Date 5. (continued) 5.3 Ensure key experiences occurring in the classroom. August Annually June Annually 6. Evaluate effectiveness of the Four-Year-Old Program. 6.1 Administer appropriate evaluation to four-year-olds. Annually 62 Analyze Student Assessment test data and prepare report for LRSD Board of Directors. June Annually July Annually 6.3 Utilize results for program improvement. As needed but no less frequent than annually Responsibility Principals Classroom teachers Supervisors Classroom teachers Assoc Supt Supervisor Evaluation Curriculum checklist Evaluation results Evaluation report TS ta 00 I 00 i pj TO ft VO 17 . .* mmhc Ml LRSD DESEGREGATION PLAN IMPLEMENTATION TIMELINE AREA: Early Childhood Education Goal: To cooperatively develop a plan for the implementation of a city-wide comprehensive early childhood program. Objectives * 2. 3. Strategies/ Activities Rr^inning Date Ending Date Responsibility Evaluation 1.4 To receive a letter of support from each agency desiring to participate. May 1989 May 30,1989 Key representatives from each agency File record of letters To develop a pbn for planning a city-wide early childhood program. To initiate the planning for the implementation of a citywide early childhood program. 2.1 22 2.3 3.1 32 3.3 3.4 To establish pbnning procedures and identify key committees and chairpersons needed for the pbiming process. To identify appropriate additional representatives form each participating agency for each committee. To delineate the goals to be addressed and the tacks to be accomplished by each committee, including approprbte timelines to be met. To conduct periodic meetings to review progress of each committee. To identify resources needed by identified by each committee, including monetary. To review the first draft of the comprehensive plan and to make recommendations for refinement. To submit the final draft for approval to all participant Boards of Directors (where applicable). June 15, 1989 July 15, 1989 Sept 1, 1989 Sept 1989 Sept 1, 1989 January 1989 Feb 1990 June 15, 1989 July 30, 1989 Sept 30, 1989 Dec 1990 Sept 30, 1989 Feb 1990 March 1990  Objective 1 and Strategies 1.1 - 13 were not filed as part of the original document submitted to the Court. Key representatives from each agency Key representatives from each agency Key representatives from each agency Assoc Supt for Educational Programs Assoc Supt for Educational Programs Assoc Supt for Educational Programs Assoc Supt for Educational Programs Structured plan for plaiming on file Record of committee members Record of committee members Minutes of meeting Identification of committee Submission of first draft Draft submitted to Board 1 A II SPECIAL PROGRAMS The Little Rock School District has developed and will continue to develop special programs for meeting the needs of its students. Several such programs are described below. The Asset Program, the JTPA/HIPPY Program, and the Summer Learning Program are described elsewhere in this Plan.  New Futures/Little Rock School District Homework Program: The Homework Program will provide Homework Centers in selected junior high schools throughout the city. I 1  Little Rock School District/Arkansas Power and Light Company Summer Science Institute: This is a one-week summer enrichment program which provides science activities and experiences designed to generate an interest in the study of science. 1 The Little Rock School District recognizes the need to expand educational opportunities for all of its students. Business, civic, professionals, and other organizations will be an ongoing resource for special programs that are designed to provide remediation and motivational experiences. LRSD and the Joshua Intervenors will be involved in discussions with representatives of various business organizations in order to secure summer jobs for LRSD students who will participate in a summer program which will combine academics and job opportunities. I  II t I I I c Page 20 J SUMMER LEARNING PROGRAM I. Overview The Job Training Partnership Act/Summer Learning Program was initiated during the summer of 1987 to provide educational assessment and remediation in the areas of reading and mathematics for youth employed for the Summer Youth Employment Training Program. Students assessed as deficient in either area are required to participate in a six-week half-day summer tutorial program that has the following characteristics: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. A small class size with a pupil-teacher ratio of 12:1 and certified math and reading teachers. Counseling services provided through two (2) JTPA counselors. Motivational and enrichment sessions conducted on a weekly basis. Computer-assisted instruction with appropriate software in reading and mathematics skills. Positive interactions between teachers and students with high expectations for student academic performance and behavior. To meet the needs of underachieving students (ages 14-21) the Summer Learning Program should be expanded to increase the number of student participants. If not filled by those students who are JTPA eligible, participant slots should be allotted to any student in the Little Rock School District who is having difficulty in reading or mathematics. All classroom participant slots should be filled in both the morning and afternoon sessions with JTPA certified participants. The counseling staff should be increased by two-one male and one female. In addition, a psychologist would be contracted to assist those students who are having serious problems. College students will be hired as instructional assistants, with one (1) assistant available for each teacher and three (3) clerical aides will be added to the program. The college-age instructional assistants must be returning students or twelfth grade graduates who are college bound. This program model has demonstrated its potential for increasing student performance. A significant factor has been the utilization of highly motivated, competent, and caring staff members. This program model has been effective because all of the components have been carefully blended. I Page 21 JIL Goals By the year 1993-94, the number of Summer Learning Program participants will increase to 350 students who will show significant growth gains as a result of their participation. III. 1 Evaluation Pre- and post-test results will be used to assess student gains. Follow-up data will be used to determine the transfer effects of the program. Programs and individual components will be continued if JTPA funding is available. I d'\n- I 1 : V  I i i 1 lit  I I ') 1 I. 'll I .'J' Page 22 J 1I1 LRSD DESEGREGATION PLAN IMPLEMENTATION TIMELINE AREA: Summer Learning Program Objectives Strategies/ Activities Beginning Ending Responsibility Evaluation 1. To identify students in need of remedbtion. 1.1 To test all students between the ages of 14-21 that are certified by the City JTPA Summer Programs to determine the number of students that would have to enroll in the program for reading and/ or math. 2. To individualize instruction to meet the needs of students. 2.1 Group students according to test scores, i.e., slow learners together. 3. 22 2.3 2.4 2.5 Date April Date June Director will oversee the overall program. Administrative Assistant will assist the Director and handle all office duties and manage the office. Submit pre-test results. Ongoing evaluation is done to teachers every two weeks on standard JTPA evaluation form which is kept by the City of Little Rock and our office to JTPA. Ca OQ n Give students faith in his/her ability to learn. 3.1 32 Provide a tutor to help students with greatest needs. Schedule cbss time so that teachers have time to work with each student on a one-to-one basis. Use classroom instruction, training, and the computer bb in the learning process to address remedbl needs. Properly motivate the students to encourage him/her to want to learn. Sponsor a luncheon where students could perform and express talents. Set up field trips of cultural events, childrens shows, the art center, and visits to other sites of interest of young people. Counselors will setup sessions for individual counseling with students that are having problems. Contact parents when necessary. Work closely with teachers. Help setup group counseling sessions. Teachers work with students to help them improve in reading and math. Motivate and encourage them in the learning process. Tutors will assist the teachers in the cbssroom, help the slow learners. Assoc Supt Deseg Assoc Supt Educational Programs To post-test at the end of program to see the growth differences gained by each student. Teachers will keep daily or weekly evaluation reports on each student in a personnel folder. Students will be permitted by teachers to review their evaluations, discuss, sign, date and write any comments that they might have. 1I ASSET PROGRAM / 4^ I. Overview Initiated during the 1986-87 school year, the Job Training Partnership Act/After School Special Enrichment Tutorial Program (JTPA/ ASSET) provides educational support services to junior high school youngsters who need assistance beyond what is available during the regular school day. Participants meet individually and in small group sessions to receive concentrated assistance in reading and mathematics. Peer tutors who are JTPA certified (lower socioeconomic youth) work under the supervision of certified teachers. A motivation component is integrated into the instructional model. Well-planned instructional activities are complemented with a variety of multiethnic and audio visual materials. During the 1988-89 school year, the program activities will be implemented at four (4) junior high schools. The program model has been revised to include more non-certified students to participate. However, a significant number of students (grades 7-9) in need of academic skills improvement will not have the opportunity to participate. To be totally successful in preventing its marginal students from becoming dropouts and in increasing the academic and social skills of every \"at risk\" secondary student in the District, the program should be expanded to address the following needs: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. three existing junior high populations are not receiving remedial assistance\nthe location of the remediation sites prevents access by some students to the services\nt I I the \"at risk\" students need life-coping and life-planning skills essential for success\nthe \"at risk\" populations is not restricted to students only in grades seven, eight, and nine, but \"at risk\" students in grades ten, eleven, and twelve are not receiving the needed services\nthe lack of wide-spread parental involvement in the program prevents the occurrence of the critically needed home reinforcement. I IL Goals By the end of the 1993-94 school year, the JTPA/ ASSET Program is expected to achieve the following: The services of the program will be available to all \"at risk\" junior high populations. The program will be offered at sites easily accessible for students needing the services. Page 24^1? m. 'I 1 1 Students involved in the program will demonstrate improvement in academic achievement as evidenced by standardized test scores and grade reports. Participating students will demonstrate an increase in self-concept, school/social adjustment, and goal orientation. The services of the program will be available through easily accessible sites to \"at risk\" high school students. Students participating in the program will receive needed reinforcement at home through increased parental involvement. The degree of \"risk\" - low academic achievement, high absenteeism, poor self-concept, lack of goal orientation, and low motivation - for all participating students will be reduced. The on-the-job training received by the economically disadvantaged tutors will improve their academic achievements, self-concept, and goal focus, and thus, increase their opportunities for future employment. Evaluation and Monitoring The activities of the JTPA/ ASSET Program, will be monitored by the Districts Office of JTPA/ ASSET Program and the Division of Curriculum and Instruction, and yearly evaluation of the Program will be made, using the following data\nA. B. C. D. E. F. G. The number of identified \"at-risk\" students grades 7-12, needing the services compared to the number participating\nStandardized test results of the participating students\nAcademic performance in regular classrooms according to nine-weeks grade reports\nAbsentee records from the home schools of participating students\nNumber of school drop-outs\n1 1 Follow-up reports concerning employment and educational activities of participating students who exit the program\nThe number of parents involved in parental/ home reinforcement activities. Programs and individual components will be continued if JTPA fimding is available. Page 25 I 4 J k1 -li*'! 'itaaMMkl LRSD DESEGREGATION PLAN IMPLEMENTATION TIMELINE AREA: JTPA ASSET Program/Extended Tutorial Program Goal: To eiqjand the JTPA ASSET Program to include the program in all junior high schools except Mann Magnet. Objectives Strategies / Activities Beginning Date Ending Date Responsibility Evaluation 1. To continue JTPA-ASSET Program in existing four junior high schools to provide remediation in reading, mathematics, and computer-assisted instruction. 1.1 12 1.3 1.4 IJ 1.6 2. To implement the above program through remaining non-magnet junior high schools. 2.1 22 2.3 2.4 Identify students needing services. Advertise and employ counselors. Advertise and employ teachers. Advertise and employ tutors. Order materials/supplies. Schedule/ Implement home transportation. Identify students needing services. Advertise and employ counselor. Advertise and employ teachers. Advertise and employ tutors. Sept 1, 1989 Sept 1, 1989 Sept 1, 1989 Sept 1, 1989 Sept 1, 1989 Sept 1, 1989 Sept 1, 1989 Sept 1, 1989 Sept 1, 1989 Sept 1, 1989 Sept 30, 1989 May 31, 1990 May 31, 1990 May 31, 1990 Ongoing Ongoing Sept 30, 1989 May 31, 1990 May 31,1990 May 31, 1990 Local school counselors Director of Personnel Director of Personnel Director of Personnel Director of JTPA/ ASSET Director of Transportation Local school counselor Director of Personnel Director of Personnel Director of Personnel Class rosters Signed contracts Signed contracts Signed contracts Materials received Busing schedule completed Ctass rosters Signed contracts Signed contracts Signed contracts xJ OQ n KJ 2.5 2.6 Order materials and supplies. Schedule/ Implement home transportation. Sept 1, 1989 Sept 1, 1989 Ongoing Ongoing Director of JTPA/ ASSET Director of Transportation Materials received Busing schedule completed L LRSD DESEGREGATION PLAN IMPLEMENTATION TIMELINE AREA: JTPA-ASSET Program/ Extended Tutorial Program Goal\nTo expand the counseling components. Objectives Strategies / Activities Beginning Date Ending Date Responsibility Evaluation ta 00 n 1. To provide more indepth and group session counseling. 1.1 12 1.3 Advertise and employ additional counselors. Revise existing counseling progress to include emphasis on life-coping and life-planning skills. Implement above skills. Sept 1,1989 Sept 1, 1989 Sept 30, 1990 May 31, 1990 Sept 30, 1990 Ongoing Director of Personnel Director of JTPA-ASSET Counselors Signed contract Development of program outline Student involvement in identified activitiesSCHOOL OPERATIONS The LRSD Office of Desegregation will be responsible for monitoring the implementation of the LRSDs desegregation plan with respect to the following goals: 1. To ensure an organizational structure which provides equal opportunity and access for parents, students and all staff. 2. To provide a climate in each school which is based on the belief and expectation that all children can learn and to provide resources necessary to support that belief. 3. To develop and implement policies which influence school climate and improve discipline and student attendance while also meeting individual student needs and learning styles. The student hearing officer will be responsible for developing and monitoring plans to reduce the disparity of disciplinary actions. 4. To provide guidance and counseling service which address students needs, are supportive of strategies and interventions to enhance student success and expectations, and provide communication to families of students. 5. To provide guidance and counseling which makes students aware of their options and to assist students in acquiring habits and attitudes necessary for success in school and in later life. 6. To monitor student class ratios and instructional practices to ensure equal opportunities for all students. 7. To provide and ensure opportunities and encouragement to all students to participate in extracurricular and co-curricular activities and to assess the results of school practices, paying special attention to their impact on minority and disadvantaged students. 8. I I 1 i I I-i\nr I a 9. To assess the results of school practices, paying special attention to their impact on minority and disadvantaged students. I II 1 To review and assess testing practices, formats and results in order to better address the needs of all students while providing special intervention for disadvantaged students. 10. To give school principals sufficient authority to improve schools and to advocate for students, and to hold them accountable for results and opportunities for all students. II Il 11. To review staffing patterns and staff assignments in all schools and district offices for equity. 12. To establish recruitment programs for representation of minorities in all positions in the District. Page 28 1 I 13. I 14. 15. 1^ H) To ensure schoolwide planning and individual academic achievement\nto address disparities, individual needs and student success\nand to provide staff development on an ongoing basis. To provide information to parents in regard to topics relevant to increasing student access to educational and extracurricular opportunities. To collaborate with PCSSD and NLRSD in regard to aspects of the plan which will facilitate and enhance desegregative efforts. LRSD will establish programs as described in the following timelines to accomplish the goals set forth above. Page 29 ,1 p J ! 1 1, I, I J LRSD DESEGREGATION PLAN IMPLEMENTATION TIMELINE AREA: School Operations Goal I: To ensure an organizational structure w4iich provides equity of opportunity and of access. Objectives Strategies / Activities Beginning Date Ending Date Responsibility Evaluation 1. To review organizational structure in schools and central office to ensure sufficient support for students and staff success and for implementation of the desegregation pbn. 1.1 12 1.3 2. To provide inservice to raise staff awareness/ expectations of equity concerns for students. 2.1 3. To provide programs which raise parental awareness of district structure, poUcy and programs and ways to access them. 3.1 4. Appoint school based biracial committees to monitor implementation and data. A districtwide biracial committee will monitor districtwide desegregation efforts and data. Establish a reporting system. Inservice cycles for existing and new staff including: a. b. c. d. teacher expectations working with parents at-risk youth learning styles Mini-seminars at PT A meetings and in the community. June-July Annually June Annually August Annually June Annually Ongoing Ongoing Ongoing Ongoing Principals Associate Supt Associate Supt of Educational Programs Associate Supt of Desegregation Assistant Supts Appropriate Assoc Supts and Staff of District State Dept of Education District Staff PTA Council (local and area) Survey of staff and patrons Report of the biracial committees Roster of teachers/ participating staff Data based Improvement in targeted student schools Calendar showing programs held Rosters of attenders *13 P3 OQ rt CP o To monitor school standards to ensure high quality education for all students. 4.1 42 Review of data. School monitoring visits. Annually Ongoing Assoc Supt Principals Asst Supts Planning, Research and Evaluation Calendars of visits Monitoring reportsLRSD DESEGREGATION PLAN IMPLEMENTATION TIMELINE AREA: School Operations Goal II: To provide a climate in each school with is based on the belief and expectation that all children can learn and to provide resources necessary to support and effect that belief. Objectives Strategies / Activities Beginning Date Ending Date Responsibility Evaluation 1. Provide education to staff and patrons regarding school culture and positive school climate. 1.1 12 2. Monitor school climate and resource allocation. 2.1 22 2.3 3. *13 ta 00 O To work with schools to help them design programs vdiich meet the specific needs of their students. 3.1 32 32 PTA Board and general meetings to have educational components re: climate and expectations. Use of cable Channel 4 to carry brief messages to staff re: e:q\u0026gt;ectations, working with at-risk and disadvantaged students\nand creating positive climate. Monitor facility, staff morale, student achievement, status of media center books and materials. Enhance equipment, supplies and materials in buildings. Provide staff development and intervention plans as needed. Provide resource assistant to school staffs. Provide planning time and formats to school staffs. Develop school profiles which show complete data pictures. Set goals for improvement. Annually Annually Annually Annually Annually Annually Annually Ongoing Ongoing Ongoing Ongoing Ongoing Ongoing Ongoing District personnel as designated by the Assoc Supt Asst Supts Principals Media Supervisor Asst Supts Principals Media Supervisor Asst Supts Principals Media Supervisor Identified district staff Educational Programs Educational Programs School Principals and Staffs Agendas of meetings Measurable improvements on individual school climates Reports of Supervisors, Asst Supts Staff development rosters Quality of education survey results Completion of program designs School profiles and monitored building plans aiiiBi J MM. LRSD DESEGREGATION PLAN IMPLEMENTATION TIMELINE AREA: School Operations Goal II: (continued) Objectives Strategies/ Activities Beginning Date Ending Date Responsibility Evaluation 4. Establish a program to familiarize parents with school ejqiectations and to build a partnership with them. 4.1 Share schools objectives, discipline policy, standards for testing, placing and promoting students. Annually Ongoing Principals Staff Development of and sharing of school based objectives, discipline poUcies, etc. 42 Involve parents as full partners in planning at schools for students' growth and success. Annually Ongoing Principals Staff PT A Board Patrons Statistical improvement in student behavior and achievement ta Cto o to I lanLRSD DESEGREGATION PLAN IMPLEMENTATION TIMELINE AREA: School Operations Goal 111: To develop and implement policies which enhance school chmate and improve student discipline and attendance while also meeting individual student needs and learning styles. Objectives Strategies/ Activities Beginning Ending Date Date Responsibility Evaluation 1. Provide inservice training to district personnel on discipline in a desegregated setting. 1.1 Conduct inservice training on discipline management in all local schools. As Needed Director of Pupil Services Building principals Asst Supt 2. Provide inservice to district personnel on behavioral styles and learning styles of. students and divergent backgrounds. 3. Provide a committee to review attendance and discipline policies and data on an ongoing basis to ensure equity of policy and policy administration. 4. Appoint joint committee with PCSSD and NLRSD. 12 2.1 3.1 32 4.1 Provide follow-up training for new staff on a regular basis. Provide training for school based improvement teams (to involve staff and parents) v4io will train staff at the school site with annual maintenance. Committee and sub-committees to include principals, staff, patrons, students (on the secondary levels) and at least one (1) Board member to review data and recommend modifications to meet students needs and district needs. Revise student handbooks as needed. Review attendance and disciplinary policies and consequences. Annually Annually Annually As Needed Ongoing Ongoing Ongoing Ongoing m n U) CP Building principal Director of Pupil Services Associate Supts Staff Development Staff Identified Staff Associate Supts Principals Teachers Director of Pupil Services Patrons Asst Supts Appointed staff 3 districts (see Tri- District component) Review and revision of tri-district attendance and disciplinary policies I I i i h. JLRSD DESEGREGATION PLAN IMPLEMENTATION TIMELINE AREA: School Operations Goal III: (continued) Objectives Strategies/ Activities Beginning Ending Responsibility Evaluation 5. Put in place alternatives to suspension across the district with at least one such intervention to be pbced at each school. 5.1 Develop school based discipline plans to be reviewed at district level and to include suspension alternates. 52 6. Establish a school based student discipline and attendance incentive system at each school. 6.1 Effectiveness of these alternatives to be regularly assessed. Review research and develop rewards program such that recognition and incentives will be individual to the school. 7. Provide counseling intervention for students with chronic disciplinary and/ or attendance problems. 7.1 Activate discipline/ attendance intervention teams at school. Mandate the pupil services team to do monitoring and involve the counselor with students who have discipline/ attendance problems. 72 Involve parents in the team process regarding their children through meetings/ conferences. Date Ongoing Fall 1991 Annually Annually Date Ongoing Ongoing Ongoing Ongoing *10 co 00 n Asst Supts Principals School Based Staffs Principals/ Staff Asst Supts VIPS Patrons Principals Guidance Depts Director of Pupil Services Building Staffs School Health Services Coor Principal PTA Officer PTA Council Counselors Pupil Serv Teams School Health Services Existence of alternative plan in each building Statistical data to support validity of plan and improvement in discipline and behavior Records of counseling intervention Records of parent/ team involvement Statistical decrease in student attendance/ disciplinary referrals J b.LRSD DESEGREGATION PLAN IMPLEMENTATION TIMELINE AREA: School Operations Goal IV: To provide guidance/counseling services -wdhich address individual student needs\nare supportive of strategies and interventions to enhance student success and expectations\nand provide communications to families of students. Objectives Strategies/ Activities Beginning Ending Responsibility Date Date 1. Inform students of all opportunities available to them and encourage them to take advantage of these opportunities. 1.1 12 2. Make parents partners in education of their children - by making information accessible to them and keeping them informed. 2.1 22 3. To make students aware of educational and post educational opportunities. 3.1 4. Evaluation Publish a document annually which lists financial aid, vocational and higher education opportunities for all students. Encourage students to take advantage of opportunities open to them. Hold a community educational meeting each year during the spring to inform parents of curriculum and student opportunities (to include co-curricular opportunities). Provide written information to parents regarding curriculum and student skills. Skills and employment fair to be held annually in conjunction with business community. Summer 1990 Annually Spring 1990 Annually Annually Ongoing Annually Ongoing Ongoing p 00 o\u0026gt; CM Create community linkages to assist students in need of special services. 4.1 Through Ford Collaborative, New Futures Initiation, city, courts, pubUc and private service providers, provide school linkages with guidance staff for student special needs interventions. Ongoing Counselors Director of Pupil Services Vocational Director Principals Counselors Director of Guidance Assoc and Asst Supts Educational Programs Building principals Communications Department Vocational teachers Counselors Volunteers in Schools PTA Counselors LRSD New Futures Liaison Assoc/ Asst Supts Dir of Pupil Services Deputy Supt Publication of document Statistical increase in number of students, particularly minority students, receiving financial aid and proceeding into post secondary education Rosters of meetings Employment Fair Student attendance Established community linkages MMi LRSD DESEGREGATION PLAN IMPLEMENTATION TIMELINE AREA: School Operations Goal IV\n(continued) Objectives Strategies/ Activities Spinning Ending Date Date 5. Create academic intervention strategies on a school basis. 5.1 Each school to put into its annual plan a designed set of interventions to help increase student academic success, i.e., Peer Tutoring, Volunteer Tutors. Annually Ongoing Responsibility Evaluation 0o0 o\\ Principals Staffs of Buildings Assistance from Educational Programs Assoc/Asst Supts Annual plan and annual evaluation report comparisons J 9 B fl 5 5 li I AREA: School Operations LRSD DESEGREGATION PLAN IMPLEMENTATION TIMELINE Goal V: To provide guidance/counseling which assists students to acquire habits and attitudes necessary for progress in school and in bter life. Objectives Strategies/ Activities Beginning Date Ending Date Responsibility Evaluation 1. Provide minicourses for students in study halls, testing skills, and precareer skills in a sequenced program beginning in grade four and through high school. 1.1 12 2. Raise awareness of student or future career options. 2.1 Minicourses to be developed in sequence beginning with grade four. Provide teacher staff development in the use of curriculum of these areas. Use of resource volunteers in classes and assembUes beginning in elementary schools to address career options. Annually Ongoing Classroom teachers VIPS Guidance counselors Development of minicourses 1991-92 School Year Ongoing Ongoing As needed *13 co (W o Curriculum staff Staff Development Director Teachers-gr 4-12 Student participatioi in these (comparative numbers) Rosters of volunteers I I J k iiBImhmiJ Hm an !  S B ! LRSD DESEGREGATION PLAN IMPLEMENTATION TIMELINE AREA: School Operations Goal VI: Monitor student class ratios, instructional and teaching practices to ensure equity for all students. Objectives Strategies/ Activities Beginning Ending Date Date 1. Achieve equity in class structures by grade and by subject area. 1.1 Review class ratios by subject, by class, by teacher on a semester basis. Annually Ongoing 2. Achieve equity in student instructional practices. 3. Achieve equity in teaching methods. 12 1.3 2.1 22 3.1 Responsibility Evaluation Address disparities with intervention activities. Remove barriers to equitable participation of students. Review grade distributions by subject, by cbss, by teacher on a semester basis. Address disparities with intervention activities. Provide inservice assistance to principals and teachers in reference to variant learning styles and effective methods. Annually 1989-90 School year Ongoing Ongoing As needed Principals Asst Supts Assoc Supt Principals Asst Supts Assoc Supts Staff Development Human Resources Principals Asst Supts Assoc Supts Monitoring of ratios* and student outcomes Monitoring of master schedules Attendance at inservice Classroom Visitations fl w OQ f UI 00  Ratios are not to be construed as quotas. The intent is for all barriers preventing full participation in classes and programs to be removed. JB B I ! LRSD DESEGREGATION PLAN IMPLEMENTATION TIMELINE AREA: School Operations Goal VII\nProvide and ensure opportunities and encouragement to all students to participate in extracurricular and co-curricutor activities^ Objectives Strategies/ Activities Beginning Date Ending Responsibility Evaluation 1. Inform all students and patrons of co-curricubr/ extracurricubr activities avaibble for students and of participation requirements. 1.1 12 1.3 1.4 2. Staff recruitment of students to participate. 2.1 22 3. Increase student participation, particubrly minority student participation in co-curricubr activities. 3.1 32 3.3 4. Use of media and press. Send printed information to parents. Make clear public address system announcements to students. Use community agencies such as churches to assist with recruitment. Individual staff contacts with students encourage involvement. Staff shall specifically recruit from among students who do not typically participate in particubr activities. Profile student involvement in each club or activity. Disaggregate participation data. Annually Annually Annually Annually Annually Annually Date Ongoing Ongoing Ongoing x) 03 00 n CP Remove all barriers to equitable participation of students who wish to participate in extracurricubr activities. 4.1 Develop school based recruitment pbns. Provide a district transportation program for student transportation when necessary to assure equitable participation for students participating in district sanctioned extracurricubr activities. Annually Ongoing 42 Provide a program for student access to equipment/uniforms etc. needed for participation at minimal cost. Annually Ongoing Communications Dept Principals Staff PTA Board Educational Programs School based Dir of Extracurricubr Activities Log of announcements, media usage, other community student contacts Individual staff members Principal Staff Asst Supt Directors of Extracurricubr Activities Manager of Support Services Asst Supts Assoc Supt Deseg Principals Comparative review of data regarding numbers of applicants and participants by race Yearly analysis of participation data and comparative profiles Yearly analysis of participation data and comparative profiles J AREA: School Operations Goal VII\n(continued) Objectives 5. Develop school profiles which provide overview of school success or its impact on students so that changes and/ or interventions can take place as needed. co OQ O) B 9 B M  LRSD DESEGREGATION PLAN IMPLEMENTATION TIMELINE Strategies/ Activities Beginning Date Ending Date Responsibility Evaluation 5.1 52 52 Profile school by: a. grade distribution b. attendance Annually Ongoing c. d. e. f. disciplinary outcomes test scores student involvement in school related activities course enrollments/ special program enrollments Data to be disaggregated by race. Provide for development of and implementation of intervention strategies to address disparate situations with specific steps for improvement. Assoc and Asst Supts Principals School Staffs Use of data based school profiles Yearly comparative students Production of improvement plans to address disparities Outcomes evaluation  imlaiMH LRSD DESEGREGATION PLAN IMPLEMENTATION TIMELINE AREA: School Operations Goal VIII: Review and assess testing practices, formats and results in order to better address the needs of all students while providing special interventions for disadvantaged students. Objectives Strategies/ Activities Beginning Date Ending Date Responsibility Evaluation 1. Visits to school by testing/ evaluation monitoring team to assess validity and reliability of testing procedures and strategies employed to prepare students for test taking. 1.1 12 1.3 1.4 2. Disaggregation of test results by grade, by race for review and assessment for intervention purposes. 2.1 12 2.3 Meetings with principals, teachers. Informal classroom visits by monitors. Compilation of comparative data by school. Evaluation of data with recommendations for changes/ improvements. School analysis of test results by grade, teachers, race and subject area. Development of comparative data to assess disparity areas, if any. Preparation of intervention pbns to address specific student needs. Spring Atmually Annually Annually Annually Annually Annually Ongoing Ongoing ofrao D Planning, Research and Evaluation Asst Supts Principals/ Staff Educational Programs Monitoring visits and reports Principals Principals Asst Supts Testing/ Evaluation Principals/ Staff Assoc/ Asst Supts Data assessment Documented interventions as needed Report of outcomes Existence of plans A J AREA: School Operations J LRSD DESEGREGATION PLAN IMPLEMENTATION TIMELINE Goal K: To give local schools sufficient authority to improve and to advocate for students, and to hold them accountable for results. Objectives Strategies/ Activities Beginning Ending Date Date 1. Develop/enhance site-based management at designated schoob. 1.1 12 IJ 2. 3. Provide support to revitalize school environments to make it conducive to student learning and to order. Respond to principal requests for assistance in a timely manner. 2.1 3.1 Staff development for principals. Revision of district procedures to provide central office technical support rather than strict control. Enhance principal accountability for program at the building. Plan of district school renovation to meet programmatic and student popubtion needs. Set up format for technical assistance with assigned personnel to work with individual schoob. Annually Annually Annually Annually Immediately Ongoing Ongoing Ongoing Ongoing As needed Responsibility Assoc/Asst Supts Support Services Assoc/Asst Supts Educational Programs Curriculum Directors, Supervisors, and Coordinators ISa M SB Evaluation Conduct of staff development Principal feedback Asst Supt evaluations of school climate and programs and principal management of these Completion of task Principal evaluation of pbn T3 ca 00 n 6 I B H LRSD DESEGREGATION PLAN IMPLEMENTATION TIMELINE AREA: School Operations Goal X: Review staffing patterns and staff assignments on all schools and district division for equity. Objectives Strategies/ Activities Beginning Date Ending Date Responsibility Evaluation 1. Update review of recruiting needs by age, race, sex and seniority in positions in the district to ascertain projected needs. 1.1 Review of all current staffing with identification of staff by sex, race and subject area wdio will be retiring to project needs. Annually Ongoing Semiannual Director of Human Resources Completion of tasks 2. Review of position assignments related to racial equity such that all races are represented in every position and job description in the district. 12 2.1 22 f1a0 enra 6 Projection of student population on two year basis to validate expected needs. Development and assessment of school and divisional staffing patterns. Recruitment of support and nonteaching staff to reflect equitable racial representation in all positions. Spring Ongoing Assoc Supt-Deseg Aimually Summer 1989 Ongoing Director of Human Resources Building principals Division heads Principals Director of Human Resources Assoc Supts Completion of tasks Enhance racial balance in all positions J LRSD DESEGREGATION PLAN IMPLEMENTATION TIMELINE AREA: School Operations Goal XI: Establish recruitment programs for representation of minorities in all positions in the district. Objectives Strategies/ Activities Beginning Date Ending Date Responsibility Evaluation \"13 (W o 1. Create pool of currently certified teacher applicants and of students pursuing certification. 1.1 12 1.3 1.4 Share applicant pools with PCSSD/NLRSD (see collaborative). Share with NLRSD/ PCSSD recruitment processes at local, state and regional schools with particular concentration on schools with populations of minority students. Establish \"in school\" recruitment procedures for junior and senior high school students who evidence an interest in the teaching profession. Provide internship programs at district schools for aspiring teachers and aspiring administrators. Fall Aimually Spring Annually Annually Spring 1992 Ongoing Ongoing Ongoing Ongoing Human Resources Directors-three districts Human Resources Directors-three districts Practicing teachers (3 districts) on a voluntary basis Principals Human Resources Office Teacher Sponsor of FTA Collaborative effort with local universities Human Resources Office Educational Programs Completion of task Preparation of and implementation of sharing plan Implementation of procedures Increase in pool of teacher/ administrator applications for LRSD JLRSD DESEGREGATION PLAN IMPLEMENTATION TIMELINE AREA: School Operations Goal XII: Ensure schoolwide planning for programmatic excellence and individual student achievement. Objectives Strategies/ Activities Beginning Ending Responsibility Evaluation 1. Provide school based pbnning based on analysis of all available data\na specific format for addressing school racial, gender, SES disparities. 1.1 12 1.3 1.4 IJ 1.6 1.7 Date Date hd to ere (D Ln Formulate guidelines for school improvement plans which will lead to specific achievement increases and interventions to assist students. Via disaggregation of data rebtive to: a. student performance b. discipline c. attendance d. participation in school activities e. pbcement in cbsses Train staff to deal with data and implementation of strategies. Evaluation of outcomes of interventions via milestone reports and final yearly reports. Reassessment of and modification of objectives and strategies. Creation of final plan and strategies. Atmual assessment of outcomes of yearly plan. FaU Annually Annually Annually Annually Annually Ongoing Ongoing Ongoing Ongoing Ongoing Ongoing Educational Programs Committee of principals Planning, Research and Evaluation School Staff/Principals Sch Improvement Teams Educational Programs Planning, Research and Evaluation Principals/ School Staff Sch Improvement Team Asst Supts Principals/ Staff Principals/School Staff Deputy/ Assoc and Asst Supts Principals/ Staffs Sch Improvement Teams Formulation of guidelines, plans and interventions Disaggregated outcome based data Outcomes evaluations conducted on a comparative basis Assessment process and remediation plans for areas in need of improvement I LRSD DESEGREGATION PLAN IMPLEMENTATION TIMELINE AREA: School Operations Goal XIII: Provide staff development on an ongoing basis to staff and information to parents relative to student success. Objectives Strategies/ Activities Beginning Ending Responsibility Evaluation Date Date 03 00 Q 1. To update skills of all district staff on a regular basis and to keep all staff abreast of developments in their field of endeavor. 1.1 12 IJ Provide selections of staff development opportunities for individual staff and entire faculties to include but not limit to: a. TESA b. PET c. Classroom Management d. School Management Send selected staff to professional development sessions in order to increase the number of available trainers and in return for a commitment to assist with collegial staff development. Provide districtwide program of staff development. Annually Annually Annually HI Ongoing Ongoing Ongoing with maintenance Assoc Supt-Educ Programs Asst Supts Director-Staff Dev State Dept of Ed Assoc Supt-Educ Programs Asst Supts Director-Staff Dev State Dept of Ed Assoc Supt-Educ Programs Asst Supts Director-Staff Dev State Dept of Ed Provision of staff development Evidence of enhanced classroom instruction with improved student performances LRSD DESEGREGATION PLAN IMPLEMENTATION TIMELINE AREA: School Operations Goal XIV\nCollaborate with contiguous districts regarding aspects of the plan which wiU facilitate and enhance and desegregative efforts. Objectives Strategies/ Activities Beginning Date Ending Date Responsibility Evaluation 1. To create a collaboration whereby all students in all schools in the three districts (LR, NLR and PCSSD) will benefit from a mutual set of beliefs and expectations for success for all students and equity for all students and staff. 1.1 Contained in the 'Interdistrict Desegregation Plan\". See Interdistrict Plan See Interdistrict Plan Superintendents and staff of three districts Successful implementation of collaborative plan Positive, measurable outcomes for students, staff and the three districts in areas addressed I T) ta era n 1 I PROGRAM FOR ACCELERATED LEARNING/ACADEMIC SUPPORT PROGRAMS 1. Overview The Program for Accelerated Learning (PAL) and other LRSD academic support - 1. L (remediation) programs provide learning experiences to remediate and address a students deficiency while minimizing the removal of the student from the regular classroom setting. PAL and other support programs are available for all grade levels, K-12. These programs provide maintenance and reinforcement for the student in need of this kind of support while enabling the student to experience success within the regular classroom setting. Pal and other support programs are transition programs that are designed to assist students in learning the requisite skills necessary for instruction and success in reading and mathematics at the elementary level and with emphasis on the core areas of English, reading, and math at the secondary level. PAL and other support programs are planned to be fast-paced, high-interest, high expectations, and individualized. These programs will have specified time frames by which students will meet performance criteria. These programs must have the specific written approval of the parent or guardian before students may be placed in them. Even then, pullouts will be a last resort and will be kept at a minimal level. Technology assisted instruction is used to provide remediation/academic support and intervention learning/ teaching strategies for targeted students. Computers, video discs, VCRs, and appropriate software support the instructional needs of each student, and instruction, utilizing technology, incorporates cooperative learning strategies. In the PAL/ elementary computer component, the goal is for targeted students to attend the computer lab for at least 70 instructional minutes per week. Normally, this yields 35 or more minutes a week in both math and reading. PAL specialists, at the elementary level, in mathematics and reading work closely with the computer component to monitor student data. They investigate student difficulties pinpointed by the computer and assist the student as needed. A non-certified instructional aide (lab attendant) supervises and assists the students as they participate in the individualized state-of-the-art instructional program administered by the computer. The eventual goal is to add a computerized management component to provide (1) annual pre and post criterion- referenced tests for most grades including grading and reporting, (2) computerized scoring of I 1 Page 48 i: 11 J5'. ^1' J unit tests for mastery and (3) the automation of record keeping to provide the teacher with more time to work with students and better data with which to approach that task. PAL/ Academic support programs are cooperatively planned and developed by the staff for students. The staff offers a stimulating, multi-cultural, and inter-disciplinary approach to learning, with a language (oral and written) base for emphasis in each central core area. Staff members use a variety of instructional strategies and utilize both in-district and community resources for motivating students. Parents are actively involved in each phase of PAL, including individual assessment, individual improvement planning, formative assessments, workshops, and summative evaluations. Each parent signs a written agreement, along with school representatives, identifying the responsibilities of the parents, school staff, and students. n. Areas of Collaboration Possible areas of collaboration among the three Pulaski County school districts are as follows: A. Information/ Resource Sharing, especially related to planning for \"at-risk\" students r- B. Cooperative development of programs and assistance (based on results of MPT and student needs, etc.) c. Establishment of complementary sites for summer schools and other programs D. Joint applications for funding by grants, foundations, etc. III. Expected Outcomes A. Elementary and Secondary Programs for Accelerated Learning (PAL) as well as other elementary and secondary support programs have the following goals: 'll 1. To identify educationally-disadvantaged students through appropriate assessment procedures. I' 2. To develop a profile on each educationally disadvantaged student that identifies his/her strengths and weaknesses. The profile may include information from the following: EPSF Screening, Arkansas Minimum Performance Skills Tests, MAT-6, CRTM, letter grades, teacher/parent anecdotal records, etc. I I 3. To utilize the student profile in developing an Academic Skills Improvement Plan based on the assessed need(s). The plan must be cooperatively developed and implemented by the regular and PAL/ support teachers. 11 a. The individual school will initiate plans to remediate skills not mastered. I I I p 4I  I I I I Page 49 J b. For area(s) which the student failed, the school will list unmastered objectives on the Improvement Plan(s). c. After this initial information is entered on the Improvement Plan(s) the plans will be attached to the Needs Identification Form. d. The Needs Identification Form and partially completed Improvement Plan will be placed in the permanent records of the student. it 3 4. To provide a fast-paced, multicultural, technology assisted, language-based, individualized instruction program for educationally disadvantaged elementary students. 5. To set academic performance/achievement timelines for each student in the program 6. To actively involve parents in the development and implementation of the Academic Skills Improvement Plan for the student. 7. To provide ongoing assessments (formative and summative) to ensure student progress in meeting the expectations of the academic improvement plan. B. Secondary Program for Accelerated Learning (PAL): In addition to the goals outlined above, the secondary support programs including the Program for Accelerated Learning (PAL) has the following goals for the secondary level: 1. To provide transition/support programs for students who need assistance in developing the competencies needed for functioning effectively in the regular English and math classrooms. 2. To identify and provide placement of students who may need instructional support for functioning within the regular classroom setting. A profile of students will include the following: former placement level, Arkansas Minimum Performance Skills Tests, MAT-6, CRTM, letter grades, teacher/parent anecdotal records, etc. 3. To utilize the profile information to identify student strengths and weaknesses and to develop an Academic Skills Improvement Plan based on the assessed need(s). i 4. To provide a fast-paced, multicultural, inter-disciplinary, language-based, individualized instruction program for students placed in the program. 5. To set performance/achievement timelines for each student in the program. I Page 50 J 6. To actively involve parents in the development and implementation of the skills improvement plans for the child. 7. To provide ongoing assessments to ensure movement of students in meeting the expectations of the skills improvement plan. C. PAL/ Academic Support Programs - Grades 7-12 I IV. 1. To include a wide range of strategies and programs to assist students with basic communication skills of reading, writing, speaking, and listening. 2. To provide learning and study skills as an integral program component. 3. To include a diagnostic/prescriptive approach which will include direct instruction in the areas of word-attack, vocabulary, comprehension, and application of reading and study skills. 4. To involve the PAL and other academic support teachers in developing, implementing, and evaluating the Academic Skills Improvement Plan for all students assigned to their program. 5. To cooperate with regular classroom or core area teachers to provide reinforcement and support for students. 6. To adhere, as appropriate, to the goals and procedures outlined for PAL and other support program. Evaluation and Monitoring A. Student: Evaluation (formative and summative) of the student is based on the Academic Skills Improvement Plan. Parents are provided information during each grading period on the students progress in meeting the performance goals in the Academic Skills Improvement Plan. B. Program: The program is monitored and evaluated based on student improvement/achievement outcomes in accordance with District and other regulatory standards. An Evaluation Design and Checklist have been developed to provide program evaluation data. Page 51 I I iJ n n Ki B B B BBbhBBBB LRSD DESEGREGATION PLAN IMPLEMENTATION TIMELINE AREA: Educational Programs - Compensatory/Remedial Education Goal: To refine the overaU implementation of the Little Rock School District Program for Accelerated Learning (PAL), Objectives Strategies/ Activities Beginning Date Ending Date Responsibility Evaluation 1. Refine the program implementation of the Program for Accelerated Learning (PAL) and Academic Support Programs. Ll 12 1.3 1.4 1.5 1.6 1.7 1.8 \u0026lt;fwt tzi Reconvene the ad hoc committees: Junior High, High School and a steering committee with representatives from each committee. Review program goals, objectives, guideUnes, and findings of reviews and audits of Board Committee. Recommend modifications for effective program implementation during 1988-89 with responses to needs of individual schools and program levels. Refine criteria/preferred quaUties for teacher selection. Refine pbcement criteria (secondary level). Refine exit criteria (secondary level). Obtain recommendations for student placement in PAL and complete academic skills needs assessment. Develop improvement plans for students who did not achieve mastery on the Arkansas Minimum Performance Test (grades three and six) and for eighth-grade \"at^isk\" students. FaU 1988 FaU 1988 FaU 1988 FaU 1988 FaU 1988 FaU 1988 FaU 1988 Spring-FaU 1988 Ongoing Ongoing Ongoing Ongoing Ongoing Ongoing Ongoing Ongoing Superintendent List of committee members Assoc Supt-Educ Progs Assoc Supt-Educ Progs Assoc Supt-Educ Progs Assoc Supt-Educ Progs Assoc Supt-Educ Progs Principals Principals Documentation Committee meeting agenda Recommendation Criteria for teacher selection Placement criteria Exit criteria Student registration Completed Improvement Plans I i ww LRSD DESEGREGATION PLAN IMPLEMENTATION TIMELINE AREA: Educational Programs - Compensatory/Remedial Education Goal: (continued) Objectives Strategies/ Activities Beginning Date Ending Date Responsibility Evaluation 1. (continued) 1.9 Implement Learning Lab curriculum guide and continue revision of program as needed. FaU 1988 Ongoing Supervisors of Reading, Math, and EngUsh Classroom monitoring documentation 1.10 Develop list of suggested material and suppUes that wiU address students specific skills deficiencies. FaU 1988 Ongoing Supervisors of Math, Reading, and EngUsh Suggested list 1.11 Order needed materials and suppUes. August 1988 Ongoing Supervisors of Math, Reading, and English Purchase of materials and suppUes 2. Design and implement effective staff development to ensure equity. 2.1 22 Plan and conduct inservice for Central Office staff. Plan and conduct inservice for teachers. Inservice should focus on the foUowing activities: a. b. c. d. FaU 1988 Ongoing Assoc Supts Agenda FaU,1988 Ongoing Assoc Supts Agenda (*a0 efrsa Ul LU e. f. 8- Ensure heterogeneous grouping in regular math and EngUsh classes Schedule math and EngUsh PAL teachers with simultaneous cbsses Review faculties crlterb Review pbcement criterb for: (1) Learning Lab (2) Specbl Education (3) Math/EngUsh PAL Cbssroom Review personnel selection criterb Select and order suppUes and materbb Provide training on administering TABE (pre/post) Test. Supervisors of Reading, Math, and EngUsh I S S 5 KM Hi LRSD DESEGREGATION PLAN IMPLEMENTATION TIMELINE AREA: Educational Programs - Compensatory/ Remedial Education Goal: (continued) Objectives Strategies/ Activities Beginning Date Ending Date Responsibility Evaluation 2. (continued) 2.3 Plan and conduct buildmg4evel inservice for entire faculty. Fall 1988 Ongoing Principals Agenda 2.4 Continue monthly inservice meetings (six per year) at IRC for elementary reading and math PAL teachers and elementary principals. Also include computer personnel when appropriate. Fall 1988 Ongoing Supervisors of Math, Reading, and EngUsh Agenda 25 Implement preschool inservice (five days) for secondary PAL teachers and address the following activities: a. Obtain class rosters b. Gather student profiles c. Identify skill needs for each student d. Cluster students within classrooms and among PAL teachers according to need August, Sept 1988 Ongoing Assoc Supt - Educ Progs Agenda 2.6 Paired teachers will develop instruction schedules (English/ math) according to student needs and class periods. Alternatives may include: a. instruction on alternate days b. mini-class periods (25 minutes per period within each period) c. team teaching (by content area) 1989 *p0 ToO\u0026gt; y ri Ml LRSD DESEGREGATION PLAN IMPLEMENTATION TIMELINE AREA: Educational Programs - Compensatory/ Remedial Education Goal: (continued) Objectives Strategies/ Activities Beginning Date Ending Date Responsibility Evaluation 2. (continued) 2.7 Plan individualized instruction based on each students assessed needs. A common pbn may be used for students who have similar deficits. Instructional strategies should be outlined on profile sheet and/ or attached on sheets as needed. This profile then becomes the pbn. a. b. c. d. e. Identify approprbte materbls/ resources Determine approprbte instructional strategies Determine method/means for student mastery evaluation(s) Begin to develop daily lesson pbns that reflect the above procedures and information Identify strategies for simultaneous instruction 2.8 Assist secondary PAL teachers with incorporating motivational strategies into the instructional program. 2.9 1988 Fall 1988 Ongoing Ongoing Teachers Plan tc era n CA UA Assist secondary reading teachers to become more involved in the PAL program by scheduling one day of inservice with the English and math ALP teachers. August 1988 Ongoing Secondary principals and supervisors of Reading, Math, and English Supervisor of Reading Classroom observation and documentation Agenda LRSD DESEGREGATION PLAN IMPLEMENTATION TIMELINE AREA: Educational Programs - Compensatory/ Remedial Education Goal: (continued) Objectives Strategies/ Activities Beginning Date Ending Date Responsibility Evaluation 3. Provide equity in program facUities. 3.1 Develop criterb for facilities to address cbssroom: a. attractiveness b. lighting c. ventUation d. accessibUity e. essentbl space Ongoing Assoc Supts Criteria 4. Employ approprbte personnel to implement an equitable and effective program. 5. Provide ongoing program evaluation to ensure educational equity. 32 3.3 4.1 42 5.1 52 53 Provide bcUities criterb to buUding principals (refer to 22). Monitor adherence to facUities criteria. IdentUy regubr substitutes for computer bbs. Train computer bb substitutes. Develop a PAL evaluation design after considering recommendations from the committee. Design evaluation instruments. FaU 1988 FaU 1988 FaU 1988 FaU 1988 FaU 1988 FaU 1988 Ongoing Ongoing Ongoing Ongoing Ongoing Ongoing Assoc Supt for Ed Progs Assoc Supt for Ed Progs Assoc Supt for Ed Progs Supv of Instr Tech Evaluation and Testing Director of Evaluation and Testing Agenda item Visitation documentation List of identified substitutes Agenda for training sessions Completed evaluation design Evaluation instrument V 03 OQ Ul Monitor PAL cbssrooms and evaluate PAL Program. FaU 1988 Ongoing Director of Evaluation and Testing Assoc Supt-Educ Progs Supervisors of Reading, Math and EngUsh Annual Board Report Documentation MMN 5 LRSD DESEGREGATION PLAN IMPLEMENTATION TIMELINE AREA: Instructional Technology Objectives Strategies/ Activities Rt^ginning Date Ending Date Responsibility Evaluation Implementation of PAL Computer Program Replacement of lab attendants as needed June 1 Aug 30 Redistribute computers based on enrollments Sept 1 Sept 8 Schedule initial update and reriew inservice and new staff training August 1 Aug 15 Director-Human Resources Supv-Instructional Technology Staff Contracts Internal Base Pre-school agenda Conduct initial inservice August 22 Sept 1 Staff Pre-school agenda Conduct new staff inseiA'ice Conduct and field test systems Develop schedule Select target students Input student names Conduct student orientation Complete computer basic skills placement Notify Math/ Reading Specialists of placement results Conduct individualized instructional assessment per schedule Provide reports, intervention modes and files Monitor students progress and change placement as appropriate on classroom teachers recommendation Process installment payments for hardware and software Monitor program Repair equipment as needed August 24 Sept 12 Staff Weekly reports Sept 8 Sept 8 Sept 8 Sept 8 Sept 11 Sept 8 Sept 12 Sept 10 Oct 1 Oct 1 Oct 1 Sept 8 August 1 Sept 12 Sept 8 Sept 14 Sept 18 Sept 18 Oct 1 Oct 1 Ongoing Ongoing Ongoing Nov 1 Ongoing Ongoing SUff Lab attendant Lab attendant Lab attendant Lab attendant Lab attendant Lab attendant Lab attendant Lab attendant Lab attendant, Math, Reading Specialists Supv-Instr Technology Staff Staff Pre-school agenda On file Listing Printouts Schedule Report Report Monitoring Monitoring Documentations and approval Copy of reports Visitations and weekly reports Invoices P 90 O Ul Input students \"pre\" data Input studenu \"post\" data Complete school \"Gain\" report Complete district \"Gain\" reporU August 23 April 13 June 1 June 6 Feb 1 June 1 June 8 June 22 Lab Attendant Math/ Reading Supv Lab Attendant Math/ Reading Supv Lab Attendant Staff Monitoring Monitoring Report Report II II GIFTED EDUCATION II I. II a Overview The Little Rock School District Gifted Program offers services to its students through design that consists of observation and enrichment for all students in grades K-2. Resource II II II rooms and indirect services are provided for grades 3-6 and special classes for students in grades 7-12 are offered. The program operates in compliance with the Arkansas Department of Educations Gifted and Talented Program Approval Standards. The Standards provide the framework for establishing equitable criteria for the identification of gifted and talented students. Services are provided to these students by teachers (specialists and facilitators) who have completed or who are pursuing graduate credits in gifted education. II II. Areas of Collaboration In the Gifted and Talented Program Approval Standards issued by the Arkansas II II II II II II II Department of Education, gifted and talented children and youth are defined as \"... those of high potential or ability whose learning characteristics and educational needs require qualitatively differentiated educational experience and/ or services.\" The criteria for placement into gifted and talented programs shall be above average intellectual ability and creative ability. To the extent that task commitment and/ or motivation may be objectively determined, they too may be utilized as criteria for identification and placement. No one criterion shall be used if the result has a disparate impact upon either racial group within the District. Moreover, special attention shall be devoted to the identification and placement of black students and students from low ind middle socio-economic levels. While the program models and the special needs and strengths of the gifted and talented program in each district differ, all three districts are committed to foUowing the best practices in the field of gifted education in identification, curriculum, and program evaluation. In order to strengthen the programs in all three districts and to further desegregation, all three districts agree to collaborate in the foUowing areas: (1) curriculum, (2) staff development, and (3) research and administration whenever possible and/or feasible. Page 58 Js LRSD DESEGREGATION PLAN IMPLEMENTATION TIMELINE AREA: Gifted and Talented Education Goal I: To establish collaborative efforts in terms of research and in the administration and/or operation of Gifted Programs. Objectives Strategies/ Activities Beginning Date Ending Date Responsibility Evaluation *13 {C no n LA VO 1. To share research and/or findings in the operation and/or administration of gifted programs. 2. To investigate the feasibility of initiating a tri-district effort to establish a model program to identify and educate socio-economically disadvantaged gifted children. 1.1 12 2.1 Establish a schedule of regular meetings of the tri-district gifted supervisors. Establish a procedure to inform and/ or involve other administrative personnel and/ or staff of research and/ or iimovative procedures. Participate in Project Promise through the University of Arkansas at Little Rock (one junior high school in initial group). November 1988 November 1988 November 1990 Ongoing November 1992 December 1992 LRSD Supv and PCSSD/NLR G/T Supervisors LRSD, PCSSD, NLR Supvs for Gifted Programs LRSD Supervisor and PCSSD/NLR Gifted Coordinators Minutes of meetings Copies of reports and/ or data Records of Program participation AREA: Gifted Education \u0026amp; LRSD DESEGREGATION PLAN IMPLEMENTATION TIMELINE Goal II: To collaborate staff development efforts in gifted education. Objectives Strategies/ Activities Beginning Date Ending Date Responsibility Evaluation 1. To share the cost of outside consultants to the gifted programs whenever feasible and possible if funds are available. 2. To plan and implement tri-district inservices conducted by the tri-district staff on identification, curriculum, and program evaluation if funds are available. 1.1 Supervisors meet to discuss individual program needs and to determine if consultants can be shared. 2.1 Supervisors meet to plan tri-district inservices and tri-district inservices are held. September, 1989 September, 1989 Ongoing Ongoing LRSD and PCSSD/NLR Supervisors LRSD and PCSSD/NLR Supervisors Minutes of meeting Minutes of meeting, workshop agenda, participate registration, tri-district developed evaluation form fa (re Ol 8 I Mrim ' s  LRSD DESEGREGATION PLAN IMPLEMENTATION TIMELINE AREA: Gifted and Talented Education Objectives Strategies/ Activities Beginning Date Ending Date Responsibility Evaluation 1. To introduce, explain and train all teachers/ facilitators, specialists in the tri-district gifted programs on the use and implementation of the existing tri-districts gifted scope/ sequence instrument. 1.1 Conduct gifted staff meetings in each district each fall for teachers/facilitators new to the program. Ongoing Ongoing LRSD and PCSSD/NLR Gifted Coordinator and Supervisor Roster of participants Participants questionnaire 2. To refine and to complete the Scope and Sequence Instrument. 2.1 Appoint a tri-district curriculum committee to refine and to complete the document. Oct. 1989 Oct. 1989 LRSD and PCSSD/NLR Gifted Coordinators Roster of participants and completed documents *13 nno OS 1 ri SSb S S B AREA: Gifted Education Objectives 1. To implement all objectives relating to the LRSD refinement/ restructuring implementation plan in terms of identification, curriculum and staff development. LRSD DESEGREGATION PLAN IMPLEMENTATION TIMELINE Strategies/ Activities Beginning Date Ending Date Responsibility Evaluation (aXJ 00 o\u0026gt; os 1.1 To implement all strategies/activities delineated in the refinement/ restructuring plan in accordance to their objectives. Aug 1988 Fall, 1992 Superintendent, Assoc Supt and Special Programs and Staff Development. Assoc Supt Division of Schools, Coordinators Gifted programs\nNational consultants\ndistrictwide committees\nprincipals and school teams. Communications Office. Arkansas Dept of Education. College professor Implementation and monitoring of the gifted program I II MULTICULTURAL CURRICULUM I. Overview and Sununary of Background Information It II The use of multicultural curricula is an important factor for effective school desegregation. LRSDs approach to multicultural curriculum development will include the following areas of concentration: 1. Il The multicultural approach will be integrated into the subject areas and courses (Example: Historical and/or social events will be viewed from several racial, cultural, and ethnic perspectives. These studies will be incorporated into rather than added on to the regular curriculum). tl 2. A multicultural focus will permeate the total school environment: materials, libraries, assemblies, textbooks, bulletin boards and other displays, holiday observances and extracurricular activities. tl 3. Students will be provided opportunities to develop better self-esteem. II 4. Multicultural curriculum and a multicultural approach to education will be in place in each school. tl 5. Students will have opportunities to examine the artistic, musical, scientific, literary, social and political accomplishments of many ethnic groups. Il II fl The Little Rock School District shall use its Office of Educational Programs to ensure equity and excellence in all areas of curriculum and programs, including, but not limited to, the following:  instructional methodology appropriate for a diverse population  teacher/ student interaction behaviors 11  quality multicultural materials and supplies El  seek textbooks free of race, ethnic and gender bias fl  organization for instruction (within schools and within classrooms and in classroom seat assignments)  special activities  development of objective and non-discriminatory criteria for student placement in enriched/honors and advanced placement classes Page 63 B II  inservice training ::  staffing The Office shall integrate human relations activities for the individual classroom into the curriculum by promoting:  the use of multicultural textbooks and instructional materials.  role-playing and group projects,  discussions of race relations and ethnicity as they relate to the classroom, the school and the society. A speakers bureau will be developed to promote a better understanding of multicultural education in the schools and throughout the community. n. Areas of Collaboration The three districts in Pulaski County will work cooperatively in examining, developing ll and implementing a multicultural curriculum. Each district will retain its own general ll El curriculum approach, but will join the other districts in the following areas of collaboration: A. Annual Multicultural Materials Fair: During the summer of 1988, Little Rock School District hosted a Multicultural Materials Fair with representation by approximately forty (40) vendors. North Little Rock had a smaller exhibit. Both projects were very well received by staff and vendors. ll The need for the review and purchase of books, materials, posters and other multicultural instructional aids will be ongoing. Annual Fairs will be cooperatively planned and implemented to meet this need. If 11 B. Inservice Training: Training for staff on the appropriate selection and use of multicultural resources will be an integral part of the tri-district staff development model and will be provided through a variety of strategies/ activities. C. Access to Higher Education Training Opportunities: The three districts will ll ll cooperatively access information on courses/seminars related to multicultural curriculum development and ethnic studies in higher education institutions in Arkansas. This information will be shared with staff members in the schools, and strategies will be developed to motivate teachers to take the identified courses. Page 64m. Expected Outcomes LRSD expects to achieve the following goals through the processes set forth in the attached timelines: By September 30, 1989, the curriculum for pre-school through grade 6 will reflect a multicultural approach. 1. By September 30, 1993, the curriculum for grades 7-12 will reflect a multicultural approach. IV. 2. By September 30,1991, a curriculum review/revision cycle will be established. Evaluation and Monitoring Each building principal is responsible to ensure that the multicultural curriculum II permeates the school environment as required by this Plan. A section on multicultural curriculum will be added to the LRSD monitoring checklist. II II II II II II n 11 fl Page 65 LRSD DESEGREGATION PLAN IMPLEMENTATION TIMELINE AREA: Multicultural Curriculum Objectives Strategies/ Activities Beginning Date Ending Date Responsibility Evaluation O\u0026gt;Q13 fl 8^ 1. To provide teacher learning opportunities through formal course training. 2. To develop a districtwide multicultural audiovisual resource catalogue. 1.1 12 1.3 2.1 22 2.3 2.4 25 Contact local colleges and universities to obtain information on proposed course offerings related to ethnic studies for the summer and fall, 1991. Receive and advertise course offerings to aU certified staff, including opportunities for tuition reimbursement and/or salary credit. Identify participants in summer and faU courses. Review and catalogue present audiovisual materials related to multicultural curriculum. Purchase additional audiovisual materials from the 1988-89 budget. Identify and catalogue other resources for multicultural audiovisual materials, i.e., AR Dept of Education, LR Public Library, AR Library Commission. Revise, print and distribute multicultural audiovisual resource catalogue for the LRSD. Pbce initial supplemental order for multicultural audiovisual materials from the 1989-90 budget. FaU 1988 Spring AnnuaUy January 1989 Summer and FaU 1990 FaU 1989 FaU 1989 Spring 1989 Summer 1989 July 1989 February 1989 Ongoing April 1989 October 1990 April 1990 April 1990 May 1989 August 1989 (Pre-school conference) July 1989 Assoc Supt-Educ Programs Dean of Grad Sch Academic Deans Assoc Supt-Educ Programs Office of Human Resources Employees Supv of Media Services Supv of Media Services Supv of Media Services Supv of Media Services Media Specialists List of college offerings Copy of information provided Copy of Academic Course completion on file in Personnel Office (Office of Human Resources) Current catalogue fisting Requisition material Completed catalogue Distribution of catalogue Requisitions submitted LRSD DESEGREGATION PLAN IMPLEMENTATION TIMELINE AREA: Multicultural Curriculum (continued) Objectives Strategies/ Activities Beginning Ending Date Date 3. To plan and implement the Instructional Materials Fair (Multicultural). 3.1 Involve a team of parents, community resources, and teachers in detailed planning for the Fair-specific dates, time, place and format-to be held as a component of 1988-89 pre-school conference. Fall 1988 April 1989 32 Identify national and local vendors of multicultural instructional materials. Spring 1989 April 1989 3.3 Establish pre-school conference dates and extend invitation to vendors. Spring 1989 End of May 1989 3.4 Confirm Fair participants. End of May 1989 End of June 1989 35 Acquaint principals and central office staff with plans and Fair relationship to desegregation efforts. Spring 1989 June 1989 3.6 Conduct media campaign for Fair to staff and parents. July 1989 July-August 1989 Responsibility Assoc Supt for Educational Programs Assoc Supt for Educational Programs Executive Staff Assoc Supt for Educational Programs Supv of Media Services Assoc Supt for Deseg and Schools Supv of Media Services, Dir of Communications Evaluation Implementation Plan Completion of mailing list Conference scheduled Confirmation Staff agenda Publicity fD 00 n 3.7 Host tri-district \"Instructional Materials Fair\". August 1989 August 1989 (Preschool Conference Assoc Supt of Educational Programs working with committee Validate Fair participation aw LRSD DESEGREGATION PLAN IMPLEMENTATION TIMELINE AREA: Multicultural Curriculum (continued) Objectives Strategies/ Activities Beginning Date Ending Date Responsibility Evaluation 4. To develop criteria for textbook review and adoption. 4.1 Revise Board pohcy for textbook adoption. FaU 1988 Sept 1991 Oct 1988- Dec 1991 Assoc Supt for Educational Programs Approved criteria 42 Identify an ad hoc committee to review criteria presently being used in LRSD and other districts for textbook adoptions (10 members). September 1988-1991 Oct 1988- Dec 1991 Assoc Supt for Educational Programs Roster of committee members 4.3 Conduct staff development training on avoiding sex and race bias and stereotyping in textbooks. July 1991 December 1991 Assoc Supt for Educational Programs Schedule of meeting and agenda 4.4 Submit revised poUcy and criteria to the Board of Directors for first reading. November 1989-1991 November 1989-1991 Superintendent Assoc Supt for Ed Progs Board agenda 4.5 Adopt policy on textbooks. November 1989-1991 December 1989-1991 LRSD Board of Directors Board agenda 4.6 UtUize a local consultant to train staff on 'Avoiding Sex and Race Stereotyping in Textbooks.\" FaU 1989 December 1989 Assoc Supt for Educational Programs Monitoring 4.7 Select and recommend to Board for adoption of textbooks (elementary and secondary) based on criteria for adoption. Ongoing FaU AnnuaUy Ongoing Assoc Supt for Educational Programs Board approval hO 03 OQ n 00 LRSD DESEGREGATION PLAN IMPLEMENTATION TIMELINE AREA: Multicultural Curriculum (continued) Objectives Strategies/ Activities Reginning Date Ending Responsibility Evaluation 5. To develop and implement a multicultural curriculum for prekindergarten through grade 6. 5.1 Plan and host at least three (3) public meetings to receive suggestions from patrons on areas to be included in a multicultural curriculum. FaU 1988 52 Identify and retain the services of a national e:q)ert in multicultural curriculum development (lead consultant for two (2) year contract). FaU 1988 FaU 1988 5.3 In cooperation with the lead consultant, the Division of Educational Programs will issue a detailed curriculum development timeline for the year, including a checklist for task completion. FaU 1988 5.4 Develop expectations for members participating on multicultural curriculum committee. FaU 1988 5.5 Identify curriculum committee members and contract for services: Date October 1988 October 1988 October 1988 October 1988 October 1988 P3 00 rt O\\ VO 5.6 Assoc Supt for Educ Prog Assoc Supt for Desegregation Assoc Supt for Educational Programs Lead Consultant Assoc Supt for Educational Programs Lead Consultant Assoc Supt for Educ Programs Assoc Supt for Educational Programs Transcript of suggestions Contractual commitment for the 1988-89 school year TimeUne/ checklist Ejqjectations Identification of committee members 8 - Health/Science 5 - Music 14 - Reading/ Language Arts 3 - Art 4 - Social Studies 4 - Libraries 38 Obtain multicultural curriculum units from models used in other cities. FaU 1988 End of Oct 1988 Assoc Supt for Educational Programs Copies of multicultural materials distributed to committee members LRSD DESEGREGATION PLAN IMPLEMENTATION TIMELINE AREA: Multicultural Curriculum I continued) Objectives Strategies/ Activities Beginning Date Ending Date Responsibility Evaluation 5. (continued) 5.7 Develop expectations for use of local resource consultant in multicultural curriculum development. FaU 1988 October 1988 Assoc Supt for Educational Programs List of expectations 5.8 Secure the services of six (6) local resource consultants to serve on the districtwide curriculum development committee. FaU 1988 October 1988 Assoc Supt for Educational Programs Contract services of consultants 5.9 Conduct inservice session on \"Methods for Developing Multicultural Teaching Strategies\" to include (a) understanding the rationale, trends, and goals multicultural . curriculum, (b) developing a conceptual framework for multicultural curriculum, and (c) establishing procedures for developing a multicultural curriculum. 5.10 Conduct task completion monitoring as identified in timeline. 5.11 Operationalize the curriculum development timeline (monthly meetings with specific dates developed in cooperation with committee members). 5.12 Review and edit the comprehensive guides in each content area at each grade level. 00 o 5.13 Type and print aU guides. November 1988 Ongoing FaU 1988 Spring 1989 Summer 1989 November 1988 (first two weeks) Ongoing May 1989 June 1989 July 1989 Assoc Supt for Educational Programs Div of Educational Programs Assoc Supt for Educational Programs Assoc Supt for Educational Programs Assoc Supt for Educational Programs Participants written evaluation Implementation of monitoring instrument Agenda of each meeting Implementation of guides Guides completed LRSD DESEGREGATION PLAN IMPLEMENTATION TIMELINE AREA: Multicultural Curriculum I continued) Objectives Strategies/ Activities Bpginning Date Ending Date Responsibility Evaluation 5. (continued) 5.14 Conduct inservice for all elementary principals and teachers. Summer 1989 August 1989 Principals Institute and Teacher Pre-school Conference Assoc Supt for Educational Programs Agenda 5.15 Involve principals and teachers in ordering multicultural materials from local building budgets: a. Make available materials catalogues to building level principals. b. Order and acquire materials based on curriculum to be taught. 5.16 Extend inservice through scheduled district level regular elementary cluster meetings (reading, language arts, social studies, science, art, and music). 5.17 ta OQ O Host three (3) education meetings for parents of elementary children to provide an overview of the comprehensive multicultural curriculum. Summer 1989 Summer 1989 Ongoing Fall 1989 August 1989 September 1989 Ongoing 1989-90 school year End of Sept 1989 Assoc Supt for Educational Prog Elem Teachers Principals Principals Assoc Supt for Educational Programs Division of Educational Programs Acquisition of materials Program and roster of participants (hBa 0r0e KJ a a a MR MR MR LRSD DESEGREGATION PLAN IMPLEMENTATION TIMELINE AREA: Multicultural Curriculum (continued) Objectives 6. To develop and implement a multicultural curriculum for grades 7-12. Strategies/ Activities Beginning Date Ending Date Responsibility Evaluation i1!! 6.1 62 6.3 6.4 6 Ji Verily second year contract of national expert in multicultural curriculum. In cooperation with the lead consultant, the Division of Educational Programs will issue a detailed curriculum development timeline for the 1989-90 school year, including a checklist for bst completion. Pbn and hold at least three (3) pubhc meetings to receive suggestions from patrons in areas of multi-curriculum and programming. Develop eiqjectations for member participation on multicultural curriculum committee. Identify secondary curriculum committee members and contract for services: 4 Reading 4 Librarbns 4 Math 4 Science 12 EngUsh 12 Socbl Studies 4 Music 4 Art Spring 1989 Spring 1989 FaU 1989 Spring 1989 Summer 1989 June 1989 June 1989 September 1989 September 1989 September 1989 Div of Educational Programs Assoc Supt for Educational Programs Assoc Supt for Educational Programs Assoc Supt for Educ Programs Assoc Supt for Desegregation Assoc Supt for Educ Programs Assoc Supt for Desegregation Contractual commitment entered into for second year Timeline completed Suggestions received, reviewed, and considered List of eitpectations Contractual implementation for each committee member ta era ft B B 5 5 LRSD DESEGREGATION PLAN IMPLEMENTATION TIMELINE AREA: Multicultural Curriculum (continued) Objectives 6. (continued) Phase in Multicultural and learning (social studies, music, and art). Strategies/ Activities Beginning Date Ending Date Responsibility Evaluation 6.6 6.7 6.8 6.9 Obtain multicultural curriculum units from models used in other districts. Develop expectations for use of local resource consultants in multicultural curriculum development. Identify secondary social studies, music, and art committee: 1991: 1992: 1993: 19 teachers: 11 teachers: 11 teachers: 7 social studies 6 music 6 art 3 social studies 4 music 4 art 3 social studies 4 music 4 art Secure the services of eight (8) local resource consultants to serve on the districtwide curriculum development committee. 6.10 Conduct inservice session or \"Methods for Developing Multicultural Learning Strategies\" to include (a) understanding the rationale, trends, and goals of multicultural curriculum and (b) establishing procedures for developing a multicultural curriculum. Summer 1989 Summer 1989 Spring 1991 Summer 1989 FaU 1989 AnnuaUy End of Sept 1989 Sept 1989 Spring 1993 Sept 1989 Oct 1989 (first two weeks) Spring 1993 Assoc Supt for Educ Programs Assoc Supt for Educ Programs Assoc Supt for Educ Programs Supervisor of Social Studies Assoc Supt for Educational Programs Assoc Supt for Educational Programs Supervisor of Social Studies Secure multicultural curriculum units for committee members Develop ejqjectations Roster of committee Contract for services agreement entered into Roster of participants 03 00 o a a LRSD DESEGREGATION PLAN IMPLEMENTATION TIMELINE AREA: Multicultural Curriculum (continued) Objectives 6. (continued) Strategies/ Activities Beginning Date Ending Date Responsibility Evaluation 6.11 6.12 6.13 6.14 6.15 6.16 6.17 Conduct bst completion monitoring as identified in timeline. Operationalize the curriculum development timeline (monthly) meetings with specific dates developed in cooperation with committee members. Review and edit the comprehensive guide for each content area at each grade level (social studies, music, and art). Type and print all guides for social studies, music, and art. Conduct inservice for all secondary administrators and teachers. Involve principals and teachers in ordering multicultural materials from local building budgets: (a) Make available materials catalogues to building level principals (b) Order and acquire materials based on curriculum to be taught Monitor the use of curriculum guides. Ongoing Fall, annually Monthly Ongoing Spring Annually Annually Annually August 1990 August Annually Ongoing April 1990 Spring 1993 May 1990 Summer 1993 July 1990 1993 Aug 1990 1993 August 1990 Spring 1993 Assoc Supt for Educ Programs Supervisor of Social Studies Assoc Supt for Educational Programs Assoc Supt for Educ Programs Supv-Soc Studies Assoc Supt for Educ Programs Assoc Supt for Educational Programs Principals Area Supervisors Tasks completed in accordance with timeline Meetings held according to timeline Review and edit guides Guides typed and printed Monitoring of inservice Materials purchased Schedule/ Documentation \u0026gt;13 P 00 fS 9 9 B LRSD\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_490","title":"Incentive Schools: ''Economic and Market Assessment for the Goals Policy Program for the City of Little Rock,''","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":["Tischler \u0026 Associates, Inc."],"dc_date":["1992-02"],"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","Municipal government"],"dcterms_title":["Incentive Schools: ''Economic and Market Assessment for the Goals Policy Program for the City of Little Rock,''"],"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/490"],"dcterms_temporal":null,"dcterms_rights_holder":null,"dcterms_bibliographic_citation":null,"dlg_local_right":["Available for use in research, teaching, and private study. Any other use requires permission from the Butler Center."],"dcterms_medium":["documents (object genre)"],"dcterms_extent":["9 pages"],"dlg_subject_personal":null,"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":"\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n\n\n\n   \n\n\n\n\n   \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n  \n\nr It Tischler \u0026amp; Associates, Inc. 4701 Sangamore Road Suite N210 Bethesda. MD 20816 (301) 320-6900 Fax: (301)320-4860 I  i 211 S. Manhattan Pl. Suite 3 Los Angeles, CA 90004 (213) 382-4800 Fax: (213) 382-4858 i 145 Columbia St.. West Suite IB Waterloo. ONT. N2L 3L2 (519) 888-7437 Fax: (519)888-6382 (800) 424-4318 Economic and Market Assessment for the Goals Policy Program for the City of Little Rock February, 1992 Prepared by: Tischler \u0026amp; Associates, Inc. Fiscal Impact Analysis Capital Facility Analysis Impact Fee Systems iwth Policy Planning Economic and Market Analysis MONIES. FISCALS \u0026amp; CRIM Fiscal impact systems tailored (or each community II II Table of Contents n II II n n n Section I Executive Summary.............................. PURPOSE ............................................................................................ ECONOMIC AND DEMOGRAPHIC CONTEXT Employment........................................................................ Population ........................................................................... Age and Sex Characteristics.................................... Racial Distribution . . ................................................. Personal Income............................................................ Housing Characteristics ........................................... Retail Trade Profile..................................................... DEVELOPMENT TRENDS............................................... Housing Market Trends........................................... Retail Development Trends ................................. Office Space Development Trends.................... Other Employment and Development............. DEVELOPMENT ISSUES.................................................. Prevailing Development Trends........................... Opportunities and Constraints.............................. I-l I-l I-l 1-2 1-2 1-6 1-6 1-9 1-9 1-9 I-IO I-IO I-ll I-ll 1-12 1-13 1-13 1-14 Section EL Economic and Demographic Context............ ILA.EMPLOYMENT......................................................................................... 1.General MSA Employment Trends........................................ 2.Projected Employment by Sector and County................. n.B.POPULATION PROJECTIONS .................................................. l.MSA Population and Household Projections ................. 2.Population and Household Projections by County . . . 3.Projccted Population Changes for Little Rock Vicinity ILC.RACE, AGE, AND SEX CHARACTERISTICS.............. l.Age and Sex Characteristics........................................................ 2.Racial Distribution ............................................................................ ILDJNCOME, HOUSING, RETAIL TRADE.............................. 1.Household Income ............................................................................ 2.Housing Characteristics.................................................................. 3.Retail Trade Profile............................................................................ 1 n-1 n-i n-2 n-4 n-ii n-ii n-13 n-18 n-26 n-26 n-28 n-34 n-34 n-41 n-44 Tischler \u0026amp; Associates. IncI Table of Contents (Ccntinued) I Section EQ Development Trends.................................... in.A.HOUSING MARKET TRENDS........................................... 1.Residential Sales Activity ..................................................... 2.Residcntial Building Permits .............................................. 3.Projected Households and New Housing.................... in.B.RETAIL DEVELOPMENT TRENDS.............................. l.Retail Sales Trends: 1982-1987 ....................................... 2.Retail Development Trends ................................................. 3.Projected Retail Market Support .................................... 4.Development and Employment Potential................. in.C.OFFICE SPACE DEVELOPMENT TRENDS . . . 1.Market Inventories .................................................................. 2.0ffice Space Market Demand ........................................ in.D.OTHER EMPLOYMENT AND DEVELOPMENT 1.Medical Employment ............................................................ 2.Warehouse Space...................................................................... 3.Transportation, Construction, Utilities....................... I I I I Section IV Development Issues .............................. IV.A PREVAILING DEVELOPMENT TRENDS IV.B OPPORTUNITIES AND CONSTRAINTS Opportunities ...................................................................... Constraints............................................................................ in-1 in-1 m-i in-3 in-8 m-io III-11 ni-14 in-16 in-19 in-20 in-20 in-25 ni-30 in-30 ni-30 in-32 IV-1 IV-1 IV-4 IV-5 IV-6 ! I I 1 I I ii I Tischler \u0026amp; Associates, 1 1II II List of Tables II II Table S-1 Table S-2 Table S-3 Table S-4 Projected Employment Change Pulaski County\n1990-2010 .. . . Components of Population Change\n1980-1990 ........................................ Population Changes by Analysis Area\n1980-2010 ................................. Racial Distribution\n1980 and 1990 ..................................................................... 1-2 1-3 1-4 1-7 II II II II II Table 1 Table 2 Table 3 Table 4 Table 5 Table 6 Table 7 Table 8 Table 9 Table 10 Table 11 Table 12 Table 13 General MSA Employment Trends.............................................. Projected Employment by Sector and County.................... MSA Population And Households Projections.................... Components of Population Change\n1980-1990 ................. Projected Population' and Households by County . . . . Population Change By Analysis Area\n1990-2010 . . . . Age, Sex and Racial Distribution ................................................. Racial Distribution\n1980 and 1990 ............................................. Pulaski County Personal Income by Source\n1980-1986 Personal Household Income by Analysis Area\n1980 . . Characteristics of Housing Units\n1980 ................................... Housing Starts 1960-1985 .................................................................... Retail Sales Distribution....................................................................... n-3 n-6 n-12 11-14 n-16 n-19 n-27 n-29 11-35 n-36 n-42 11-43 n-45 11 II II n B Table 14 Table 15 Table 16 Table 17 Table 18 Table 19 Table 20 Table 21 Table 22 Table 23 Table 24 Table 25 Residential Sales Activity\n1990-1991 in-2 Little Rock Area Residential Building Permits\n1989-1991 .... I1I-5 Projected Change in Number of Households . .. Retail Sales\n1982 \u0026amp; 1987 .................................................. MSA Retail Development Trends................................. Projected Retail Market Support................................ OfTice Market Summary\nFall 1991 .......................... Office Space Inventory........................................................... Office Occupancy and Rent Rates ............................. Distribution of Rentable Office Space Inventory Projected Office Space Market Support............. Pulaski County Warehouse Space............................. in-9 in-12 in-15 in-17 in-21 in-22 in-24 in-26 in-28 in-31 iii Tischler \u0026amp; Associates. IncList of Exhibits Exhibit S-1 Exhibit S-2 Projected Population Change Map\n1990-2010 Non-White Numeric Change Map\n1980-1990 1-5 1-8  I k Exhibit 1 Exhibit 2 Exhibit 3 Exhibit 4 Exhibit 5 Exhibit 6 Exhibit 7 Exhibit 8 Exhibit 9 Exhibit 10 Exhibit 11 Exhibit 12 ' Exhibit 13 Exhibit 14 Exhibit 15 Exhibit 16 Exhibit 17 Exhibit 18 Exhibit 19 Exhibit 20 MSA Labor Force and Employment........................................ Projected Employment Growth .................................................. Regional Employment Distribution........................................... Population, Households \u0026amp; Employment\n1980-2010 . . Projected Population and Households by County . . . Projected Population Change 1980-2010 ............................. Population Change Map - Pulaski County\n1980-1990 n-3 n-8 n-10 n-12 11-17 n-19 n-22 I Population Change Map - Little Rock Vicinity\n1980-1990 .... 11-23 Projected Population Map - Little Rock Vicinity\n2010 n-24 Population Change Map - Little Rock Vicinity\n1990-2010 .... 11-25 Non-White Racial Distribution Map\n1980 .......................... Non-White Racial Distribution Map\n1990 ........................ Non-White Racial Numeric Change Map\n1980-1990 . Non-White Racial Percentage Change Map\n1980-1990 Pulaski County 1980 Median Houseliold Income Map n-30 n-31 n-32 n-33 n-37 Little Rock Vicinity 1980 Median Household Income Map . . . 11-38 Central Area 1980 Household Income Below $10,000 Central Area 1980 Household Income Over $35,000 Housing Starts 1960-1985 ............................................................... Retail Sales Capture ......................................................................... n-39 n-40 n-43 n-47 I I I  I Exhibit 21 Exhibit 22 Exhibit 23 Exhibit 24 Exhibit 25 Exhibit 26 Residential Sales Activity........................................................ Number of Residential Permits Map\n1989-1991 . Average Value per Residential Permit\n1989-1991 Retail Sales Trends\n1982 - 1987 . . ................................. Retail Development Trends 1987-1990 . ................... Office Space Trends - Available (Vacant) S.F. . . in-4 m-6 in-7 in-13 in-15 in-24 I    I I iv Tischler \u0026amp; Associates. Iri II II II B Section I Executive Summary II PURPOSE The City of Little Rock has undertaken preparation of a Growth Policy Plan as part of fl an overall initiative aimed al directing growth and development for the 1990 s and beyond. This effort is being made at an important time in the citys development history. nj A significant amount of new development is occurring on the outer edges of the city, and in the adjoining counties. While a major-pan of this \"new development is occurring HI II II II r II f n within city boundaries, older, core-area pans of the city are experiencing population loss and commercial disinvestment. This Markel and Economic Assessment establishes an underlying \"fact base\" of imponant economic, demographic, and development trend data which can be used in all subsequent analytical effons. Following this Executive Summary. Section II provides a review of basic demographic and economic trends and projections. Section Id comments on the development outlook for each major sector of activity, including housing development, retail market support, office space development, and related trends in employment and complementary development Finally, Section IV addresses the significance of the statistical analyses, and frames issues for discussion in funire tasks. II IB ECONOMIC AND DEMOGRAPHIC CONTEXT Section II of this report contains overview assessments of key economic and demographic trends. Significant observations from this assessment are summarized as follows.  I-l Tischler \u0026amp; Associates. Inc II Employment During the 1980s, total non-agricultural wage and salary employment in the region increased by 51,500 jobs, an average of 5,150 per year (The region, or MSA, is defined as Pulaski, Saline, Faulkner and Lonoke Counties.) The services sector, which includes medical activities, was responsible for all net growth in the region s employment. TA anticipates a lower increase in employment for about the fust half of this decade and then a recovery so that the total increment of growth through the year 2010 will be consistent with the trends during the 1980s. M  Within the region, Pulaski County will continue to be the dominant location of employment for the region. The Countys share will decrease slightly from nearly 83 percent to 79 percent by 2010. While the rest of the region will increase by about 28,000 jobs over the next 20 years (about 1,400 new jobs per. year), Pulaski County employment will increase by about 69,000 jobs over the same time period (about 3,500 per year). While manufacturing jobs in the County will decrease, TA projects several categories will increase in the following manner between 1990 - 2010. H H Table S-1 Projected Employment Change Pulaski County\n1990 - 2010 I I  Industrial Category Projected Increase Percent Increase I Manufacturing Transp. \u0026amp; Utilities Trade Finance, Insurance \u0026amp; Real Estate Services Government -6,000 6,000 15,000 5,000 42,500 6,000 (26.9%) 43.6% 29.1% 40.0% 78.3% 20.5%  Total: 69,000 35.6% I  Population  Jobs have a strong relationship to population. The jobs per household in the region increased from 1.104 in 1980 to 1.197 in 1990, an 8 percent increase over 10 years. As 1-2 Tischler \u0026amp; Associates. irj\n^II II discussed in the text, the ratio is projected to increase to 1.282 jobs per household as of 2,000 and 1.257 by 2010 (an increase of 13 percent from 1990). II indicates the components of metropolitan population change from 1980 - II The table below . 1990 The population increased more in Saline County as in Pulaski County. More teUing is that after accounting Cnnntv actuallv exnerienced a loss of nearly 23,000 in population (6.7 percent of it County actually experienced a loss of nearly 23,000 well as Faulkner County than for natural increase, Pulaski population) in out-migration. Of this loss. Little Rock accounted for 67 percent, with an estimated net out-migration of over 15,400 based on 1980 city boundaries. II Table S-2 Components of Population Change II II 1990 Population | 1980 Populationj MSA Total 513,117 474,468 Pulaski County Little Rock Balance Saline County Faulkner County Lonoke County 156.282* 158.915 193.378* 181.682 64,183 53.161 60,006 46.192 39.268 34.518 II Change 80-90 II II II Percent of Total Births Deaths Natural Increase Net Migration Est Households* Nous: 38.649 100.0% 80.292 39.790 40.502 -1,853 -700 -2.633 -6.8% 11.696 30.3% 11,022 28.5% 13.814 35.7% 4,750 12.3% 24.393 11.598 12.795 -15,428 -7,078 36,590 17,399 19.181 -7,485 -1,588 7.276 3.894 3.382 7,640, 2,888 6.710 3.660 3.050 10,764 4,070 5.323 3.239 2.084 2,666 1,008 1990 Little Rock population adjusted downwards from 1990 Census ntmbCT of 175,795 fw annexations occurring between 1980 and 1990. Areas annexed by Lttde R^ ov account for 19.513 persons. Data above includes these persons m the Balance of County category, permitting a comparison to consistent 19M city boundaries. Source: U.S.Ceiisus MSA and county-total births and deaths as estimated by Arkansas Bureau of Vit^ Stausucs and Division of Demographic Rese^ch. UALR. Alloc^ion -d Lillie Rock and Planning. balance of Pulaski County provided by Department of Neighborhoods and on MSA-wide average household Estimated household net migration calculated by TA, based ____ size, averaged between 1980 and 1990. Group quarters populauon assumed not to contribute significantly to migration. 1-3 Tischler \u0026amp; Associates. ln\u0026lt; n n n  1 3 3 ]From 1990 - 2010, the metropolitan population is expected to increase by about 86,550\nPulaski will increase by about 18,000\nSaline will increase by 26,650\nand Faulkner s population will rise by 29,650. Lonoke Countys population increase will be about 5,000. The population change within the Little Rock analysis area indicates that the city has experienced losses from 1980 - 1990 in all areas except northwest, west and far west. TA projects this to continue from 1990 - 2010 unless there are intervention strategies. The changes are shown in Table S-3 while the 1990 - 2010 change is shown on the map on the next page. The westward population movement within and outside of the city is likely to negatively affect housing and nonresidential development within the other parts of the city. Il I Table S-3 Population Change By Analysis Area\n1980-2010 1980 Actual 1990 2000 Projected 2010 Pulaski County 340,597 349,660 350,497 367,664 Percent Change 80-*90 90-00 OO-IO 2.7% 0.2% 4.9% Little Rock Vicinity 194,421 192,192 184,542 186,042 -1.1% -4.0% 0.8%  Downtown Central Blast Northwest Midtown Southwest West Far West 2,439 16,063 18,007 47,830 36,973 39,757 18,478 14,874 1,777 12,892 15,035 49,944 31389 36,414 18,811 25,930 1,277 9,642 12,035 51,444 24,739 32,664 18,811 33,930 1,027 7,892 10,035 53,444 18,739 29,164 19,811 45,930 -27.1% -19.7% -16.5% 4.4% -15.1% -8.4% 1.8% 74.3% -28.1% -253% -20.0% 3.0% -21.2% -10.3% 0.0% 30.9% -19.6% -18.1% -16.6% 3.9% -243% -10.7% 5.3% 35.4% I I Balance Of Pulaski County 146,176 157,468 165,955 181,622 7.7% 5.4% 9.4% I 1-4 Tischler \u0026amp; Associates. In'Projected Population Change 1990 Little Rock Vicinity 2010 Fl 20000 (Z n o \u0026gt; (/I (A 8 0) \u0026lt;0 Midtown iwe-j Soulhwc9 J 5000 0 -6000 -12650 Age and Sex Characteristics The age and sex characteristics of Pulaski County indicate that the population as a whole is aging. This is consistent with national trends as the \"baby boom\" generation advances into middle age. In 1980, Pulaski County population between the ages of 35-59 years, and 60 years and above comprised 25 percent and 13.7 percent of the population respectively. By 1990, the 35-59 age group had grown to 30 percent, and the 60 and over group had increased to 15.3 percent of total county population. As of 1990, Black children and teenagers comprised a higher-ihan-average percentage of these age groups in Pulaski County compared to the total population. While the county as a whole has approximately 35% Black population. Black female children and teenagers through age 19 comprise 37.4 percent, and Black male children and teenagers comprise 44.1 percent of this age bracket. Of particular note has been the apparent out-migration of younger white children from Pulaski County. As of 1980, Pulaski County had 36,253 white children of 0 to 9 years of age. However, ten years later in 1990, this same population group, now aged 10-19 years, was only 29,359, a decline of 6,894, or about 19 percent of the corresponding 1980 population group. By contrast, Black children have maintained their relative total between 1980 and 1990. As of 1980, Black children aged 0-9 years were 19,237. As of 1990, the corresponding age group, now 10-19 years old, was nearly the same at 19,034. Racial Distribution Racially, Little Rock remained about one-third non-white from 1980 - 1990 (31.4 percent and 34.7 percent respectively). The city showed a decrease of about 8,000 white and an H increase of almost 6,000 non-white during this period. As reflected in the map on the following page, there were decreases in white population in all subareas except the northwest and far west. There were decreases in nonwhite population in the downtown, central, east and midtown areas. The three greatest decreases in white population occuned in the southwest (9,000), midtown (4,100) and west (3,200). The only area of increase exceeding 1,000 was the far west (10,300). The three greatest areas of nonwhite decrease were the cast (2,300), central (2,150), and midtown (1,400). The areas increasing more than 1,000 in nonwhite population were southwest (6,200), west (3,500), and northwest (1,400). The figures indicate a net loss of white and nonwhite in the downtown, central, east and midtown areas. The biggest swing in racial distribution occurred in the southwest between white and nonwhite. The above figures indicate that the eastern part of the city is losing population while only the far west is experiencing significant increases, primarily of whites. It is assumed that the loss in white population in the city is a major factor in the demand for housing outside the city. 1-6 Tischler \u0026amp; Associates. INon-White Racial Change\n1980 - 1990 Change I n Isjon-White Numeric Population By Area 6222 ion 2 0 \u0026gt; vi in 8 y s 3 n 'iXo/n. \u0026lt;) 1500 0 -1500 -2298 1980 analysis AREA Downtown Central East Northwest Midtown Southwest West Total Population White 2,439 1,214 16,063 18,007 47,830 36,973 39,757 18,478 3,573 7,301 45,685 14,039 34,481 13,444 V, r\u0026gt; (D Far West 14,874 13,707 Tables-4 Racial Distribution 1980 and 1990 by Study Area Non- White 1^25 12,490 10,706 2,145 22,934 5,277 5,034 1,167 1990 Percent Non- White 50.2% 77.8% 59.5% 43% '62.0% 13.3% 273% 7.8% Total Population White Non- White Percent Non- White Change in Percent 1980-90 1,777 752 1,025 57.7% 7J% 12,892 15,035 49,944 31,389 36,414 18,811 25,930 2,552 6,627 46,388 9,927 24,915 10,259 2A.0Q\\ 10,340 80.2% 2.4% 8.408 3,556 21,462 11,499 8,552 1'929 55.9% 7.1% 68.4% 31.6% 45.5% -l.A% -33% 2.6% 63% 183% 183% -0.4% Po \u0026gt; (/\u0026gt; 1/1 8 s f? VI STUDY AREA TOTAL i\nU.S, 194,421 133,444 60378 31.4% 192,192 125,421 66,771 34.7% 3.4% nsus\nTischler \u0026amp; Assoc. Inc.II Personal Income II II II II II U.S. Census data as of 1990 for personal income has yet to be released as of this writing. The observations noted below relate to 1980 census dau. As of 1980, personal income distribution indicated a pattern of affluence for particular areas, with much of the rest of the immediate Little Rock vicinity having very low personal incomes. Of note is the relative affluence of the northwest and far west areas compared to the rest of Little Rock. As of 1980, these areas had 23 and 29 percent of their households respectively with incomes of $35,000 or more, compared to no higher than 8.6 percent for any other area. 1980 Median household incomes were $21,059 for the northwest area and $24,817 for the far west area, with no other area higher than $17,290. Concentration of low-income households was, naturally, a reverse pattern of affluence. Between 76 and 80 percent of all households in the downtown and central city areas had incomes less than $10,000 in 1980. II Housing Characteristics II II From 1980 to 1990, vacant housing units in Pulaski County increased from 6.2 percent to 9.5 percent of the total housing stock. This is in contrast to the adjoining three counties for which vacancy rates either remained about the same, or in fact declined over this same period. Rental units in Pulaski County have narrowly increased their share of total occupied units during the 1980s, growing from 37.6 percent in 1980 to 39.7 percent in 1990. A similar, marginal increase in housing units with Black householders was experienced over this same period, increasing from 20.0 percent in 1980 to 22.0 percent in 1990. As of 1990, the median owner-occupied housing value was $61,300 and the median monthly rent for rental units was $303 for all of Pulaski County. Housing starts data has been estimated for both Pulaski and Saline Counties over a period from 1960 to 1985, based in part on secondary dau sources for unincorporated areas where no building permits arc issued. This dau indicates that for the 25 year period from 1960 to 1985, multi-family housing starts comprised over 43 percent of the two countytotal. This proportion is much higher than the proportion of multi-family building permits issued by the City of Little Rock over the most recent three years. Realtors and developers have also indicated that the Little Rock area is very strongly oriented to single-family housing, and that very little in the way of multi-family housing has been initiated within Little Rock in recent years. Retail Trade Profile As of 1989, total sales for Little Rock esublishments were estimated at S1.95 billion, with an additional $1.29 billion estimated for the balance of Pulaski County, combining for total county-wide sales of $3.24 bilbon. Sales in each of the other three MSA counties 1-9 Tischler \u0026amp; Associates. Inc M n n 0 kwere dramatically low'cr at $242 million, $325 million, and $135 million for Saline, Faulkner and Lonoke Counties respectively. These sales estimates indicate that Little Rock establishments accounted for nearly half (49.5 percent) of total regional sales, with the balance of the county (i.c. North Little Rock and adjoining areas) accounting for nearly one third (32.6 percent) of the regional total. While Little Rock is therefore capturing the greatest share, establishments in the northern pan of the county arc capturing a sales share which is much higher than this areas share of regional population. This can be attributed to several of the regions larger retail centers and areas being located in the nonhern pan of the county, and that these locations tend to seiA'e as \"intercepts\" to some degree for the Faulkner County market funher to the nonh.  1 Comparing the sales from establishments within each jurisdiction to the expenditures from the same jurisdiction indicates whether sales are being \"imported\" or \"exported\". Overall, sales for establishments in Little Rock are estimated as being equivalent to about 116 percent of expenditures from city residents, thus indicating that a significant increment of sales is coming from residents living outside of the city. Little Rocks sales are consistently higher than expenditures from the citys residents for each category, with the one very notable exception of general merchandise. For this category, stores within the , city are capturing only 74 percent of the expenditures generated by city residents. These sales arc being captured by stores in the Nonh Little Rock area which is estimated as having a market capture equal to 174 percent of the expenditures generated just from within this area. The overall observation from this data is that retailing in Linle Rock generally enjoys good competitive positioning and is able to command a significant share of the regions sales and expenditures. DEVELOPMENT TRENDS Section HI of this report provides market assessments and projections of demand for major sectors of future development The findings of these analyses are summarized as follows. Housing Market Trends Analyses provided in Section HI in the report results in the projected changes in the number of households shown in Table S-4. This projection indicates that five of the eight analysis areas may experience a net loss of households over the next ten years, if current prevailing trends continue without alteration. The northwest, west and far west areas are shown as experiencing a net gain of 5,099 households, absorbing outmigration from the eastern portions of the city, as well as attracting new-arrivals to the region. While Pulaski County is indicated as increasing by 6,183 households over the next 10 years, most of this will occur outside of the city, such as in Maumelle and other I-IO Tischler \u0026amp; Associales. IniII north-county communities. The city as a whole is shown as experiencing a net loss of 521 households over the next 10 years. II II The predominance of the western areas, and the type of housing being developed in these areas suggests that the growth anticipated in these areas will continue to be strongly oriented to single-family-detached development. Very little multi-family development may occur within the city, although some may be constructed in the north county communities. n II The projections seen in Table S-4 indicate that only three areas, west, northwest and far west, arc anticipated as having any positive net growth in the number of households through the rest of the decade. Based on building permit data over recent years and our own survey of the market areas, TA believes new housing development in these areas will be strongly, if not exclusively, oriented to single-family-detached units. II Retail Development Trends n M The retail sales projections provided in Section III for the year 2000 indicate total sales of just over $2.0 billion for Little Rock retailers. Within this total, the four largest store categories arc projected as automotive ($500 million), general merchandise ($380 million), food stores ($375 million), and eating and drinking establishments ($244 million). II n n These projections of future sales support indicate market support for between 463,0CX) and 514,000 square feet of new retail development within the city of Little Rock through the year 2(X)0. Some portion of this projected growth has probably already been absorbed by retail development which may have already occurred within the city since 1987. Total additional retail employment for Little Rock is estimated at 1,533 new jobs added within the city between 1987 and 1990. II Office Space Development Trends II  B Between 1984 and 1987, a tremendous increment of office space was added to the inventory of office space in both outlying and downtown locations. The downtown inventory increased from 2.7 million square feet in 1984 to 4.0 million square feet, a gain of 1.3 million, during this period. No significant expansion has occurred in the downtown area since 1986, however. The suburban area also increased by 1.0 million square feet between 1984 and 1986. For the subsequent four years, expansion continued at a modest pace, gaining an additional 873,000 square feet, or about 218,000 square feet per year. Since 1987, the suburban office markets have begun to recover. Downtown, however, has not yet absorbed this additional inventory, and the amount of vacant space is roughly the same today as it was five-to-six years ago. I-ll Tischler \u0026amp; Associates. ln\u0026lt;The analyses of office space market support indicate that occupied floor area in downtown is expected to increase from 3.36 million square feet as of 1990 to 3.44 million by 1995, and 3.61 million by 2000. This represents total increase over 1990 of nearly 252,000 occupied square feet in the downtown market area. Should this occur in the absence of any new significant development, it would have the effect of increasing occupancy rates to a more desirable level of 84.3 percent (16.7 percent vacancy). The related implication of this projection is that no new additional multi-tenant office development will likely be demanded by the marketplace within downtown in the immediate future. These projections assume no change in status for existing State agency offices. At the same time, occupied space in the suburban market area is shown as increasing from 3.0 million square feet at present to 4.45 million square feet by 2000, a gain of 1.48 million square feet. If a 10 percent vacancy level is deemed acceptable, then total suburban space inventory could expand'to4.94 million square feet by 2000, and increase of 1.2 million square feet over the 1990 inventory. Total city-wide occupied office space is projected as increasing by 1.866 million square feet between 1990 and 2000, attaining 8.63 million square feet of occupied space by the ' end of the decade. The citys share of total office employment growth would be about 5,500 new office jobs city-wide, growing from 29,000 estimated as of 1990 to 34,500 by 2000. Other Employment and Development Medical Employment Discussions with officials of the areas major hospitals has determined that some moderate scale expansions are in the final planning stages. These might bring approximately l,00U - 1,500 new medical facility jobs during the 199Os. Wholesale Trade, Warehousing and Distribution Wholesale trade employment in Pulaski County is estimated at 15,500, and is projected to increase by about 1,800 workers county-wide by the year 2000. If this were to be distributed in proportion to the occupied floor area of the countys warehouse space, then 60 percent of the expected increase, or about 1,080 jobs might be accommodated within Little Rock. While the city may gain roughly 1,000 wholesale trade workers, the current vacancy rate in die citys warehouse space inventory and the inventory tax situation indicates to us that no expansion of warehouse development is imminent. 1-12 Tischler \u0026amp; Associales. III Transportation, Construction, Utilities II II Growth in transportation and utility employment is projected to be approximately 2,000 jobs county-wide between 1990 and 2000. A substantial majority of this job growth may be administratively based within Little Rock, but is likely to be physically allocated more to the developing suburban portions of the county. By the very nature of this employment, few building-type, tax-ratable developments are likely to be associated with this employment growth. II II County-wide construction employment is forecast as declining slightly by 250 jobs between 1990 and 2000. This is deemed likely as more construction activity becomes oriented to the adjoining surrounding counties. No significant direct development impacts (i.e demand for additional offices, warehouses, etc.) arc anticipated from thisrmoderatc-constmetion employment. II n n DEVELOPMENT ISSUES Section IV of this report discusses overall development issues which have emerged from this assessment of economic and market trends. These are summarized as follows\nII Prevailing Development Trends n n The regions environment, quality of life, existing base of modem and technologically oriented industries, and relatively lower labor costs will all tend to keep the Little Rock region competitive for future economic growth. n The three counties adjoining Pulaski County are. already assuming a more significant role in the regions economy, and this trend will likely become even more pronounced in some sectors over the next twenty years. II  Pulaski County itself appears to be in the midst of a major, continuing, and long term suburbanization trend. A substantial part of this \"suburban\" development is in fact falling within city limits, and the city is thus still capturing and retaining this tax base. Prevailing suburbanization trends are characterized by a gradual east-to-west movement. Downtown and adjoining residential areas are now on the eastern edge of this gradual retreat, and these areas are exhibiting disinvestment and in some cases, abandonment. As residential builders continue to add inventory in surrounding counties and in outlying parts of Pulaski County, intown housing is likely to decline. Total 1-13 Tischler \u0026amp; Associates, inrexisting inventory and inventory growth has provided a sufficient margin so that alternative choices are available. And, given perceptions as to crime, quality of public education, and the trend of jobs moving towards the outer edge of the city, the alternatives are becoming increasingly popular. Also contributing to the availability of choices is the expressway system and relative case of driving. Between 1984 and 1987, a tremendous increment of office space was added to the inventory of office space in both outlying and downtown locations. Since 1987, the suburban office markets have begun to recover. Downtown, however, has not yet absorbed this additional inventory, and the amount of vacant space is roughly the same today as it was five-to-six years ago. Retailing in Little Rock has generally maintained its relative competitive position, with only a modest erosion of market share. The primary source of competition is from the northern part of Pulaski County which is positioned to intercept the growing middle class residential market emerging in Faulkner County. Downtown has retained its role as a white collar employment center. However, even this role is being diminished as more financial, insurance and real estate operations move to the west. Another potential pressure is the possibility of consolidating state governmental administrative functions to new facilities outside of the downtown coipmercial core. Opportunities and Constraints Some of the more significant opportunities and constraints affecting development and growth for Little Rock identified from this assessment include the following: Opportunities 1. 2. Much of the citys fiinge commercial development is within the city limits, thus capmring this tax-ratable development. The city can continue to reinforce these locations as viable development nodes to capture and/or retain businesses which might otherwise locate outside of the city. An investigation may be desirable to determine if a consolidated administrative complex for State agency facilities could be created and located so as to reinforce the downtown area. Rather than passively waiting for a \"negative\" event to occur, a pro-active and cooperative approach may be able to address the needs of both downtown and the Sute administration. 1-14 Tischler \u0026amp; Associates. Ini3.  Despite the recent defeat of the \"Diamond 2000\" initiative, the conceptual goal of encouraging downtown vitality is basically correct. An opportunity may exist to fonnulate an improved package of destination /attraction elements with a revised funding approach which might depend less on direct public financial support.  4. I The disinvestment which has occurred in some central city neighborhood areas needs to be firmly addressed. Short-term depressions in market prices may provide an enire for renewal, if such efforts are strategically reinforced with a set of clear, single-purpose policies and action programs. I Constraints  1.  Prevailing suburbanization trends will be difficult to alter to any substantial degree by any unilateral actions by the City of Little Rock. The City may be constrained to simply making the best out of a relatively constant economic base. 2.    The most significant constraints related to the viability of the core areas of Little Rock may have nothing to do with physical planning initiatives. Our interviews and review of prevailing conditions have identified perceptions of lower quality public education and higher crime rates in the core areas to be important factors contributing to current out-migration trends. Targeting sustained initiatives to significantly improve conditions in these two areas should be seen as a strategic measure to reinforce the fundamental economic viability of the city.  3. The continuing development of outlying planned communities is very much a factor in demand and support for quality housing environments for central city neighborhoods. The citys policies for residential i neighborhood reinforcement needs to recognize the continuing expansion of these communities.  4.  Finally, a general constraint, in our opinion, is the lack of an overall strategic vision. Reactive approaches, which try to respond to a wide array of interest and requests are frequently too dispersed and too minimal to have major corrective impacts. If more concentrated, more effective, and better funded initiatives could be implemented on just a few key projects, resources would be concentrated and have greater impact. An organized, goal-setting process has been delineated as a parallel effort to this statistical assessment, and can be a key element in articulating such a strategic vision. The absence of a clear set of priorities is, in our opinion, a significant constraint to efforts for future improvement. 1-15 Tischler \u0026amp; Associates, incSection 11 Economic and Demographic Context This section reviews various economic and demographic statistics to establish a data base for identifying and evaluating long term development trends. This includes a summary of data made available from local governmental agencies, including the Department of Neighborhoods and Planning, Metroplan, and U.S. Census Data, but also includes analyses and projections by TA. These assessments represent our best professional judgement of the probably development future assuming no substantive intervention by governmental agencies, or pronounced changes in market conditions. The analyses which follow focus initially on employment. We have taken this as a -starting point in that the nature and locations of jobs tend to focus overall development patterns. The quality, quantity, and type of jobs affect income and labor force characteristics. At a regional or county level, the location of jobs also tends to act as a significant determinant for residential migration patterns. The assessment of employment is followed by analyses of population and household trends, which are then further described in terms of demographic characteristics. ILA. . EMPLOYMENT Employment is taken as a starting point in assessing long term trends. Employment tends to set the overall volume and pace of development. Should household formation exceed employment by a significant margin over an extended period, persons will tend to move to seek other opportunities. Employment further indicates the level of money being processed by a regional economy, and indirectly sets market size parameters for dependent sectors such as retail and retail-services. The chans on the following pages first examine the total volume of employment for the region as a whole, and then makes allocations to counties, and then to sub-areas in the Il-l Tischler \u0026amp; Associates, Inl I immediate Little Rock vicinity. A similar process is conducted for projecting population and households. 1. General MSA Employment Trends Table 1 and Exhibit 1 show employment trends for the Little Rock - North Little Rock MSA for 1980 through 1990'. This employment is further allocated to non- agricultural wage and salary employment, and within this, \"goods producing\" and \"services producing\" allocations are made. These first data indicate a gradual pace of growth during the mid-to-late 198Os, following a period of stagnation in the first years of the decade. Between 1980 and 1983, total non-agricultural wage and salary employment increased by less than 3,000 jobs, and had actually declined marginally until 1982. Since 1983, total non-agricultural wage and salary employment has increased from 204,500 to 253,100 by 1990. This represents an increase of 48,600 jobs over 7 years (averaging 6,942 per year). For the entire decade, total non-agricultural wage and salary employment increased by 51,500 jobs, averaging 5,150 new jobs a year. Goods-related production (primarily manufacturing and other product-oriented sectors) has very slowly, but consistently, declined over this time, which is in keeping with national economic trends. Between 1980 and 1990, goods producing employment declined by 4,500 jobs, from 48,800 to 44,300, a contraction of about nine percent from 1980. Services employment (in this context, comprising the balance of non-goods-related employment) has significantly exceeded the decline in goods related employment, and is responsible for all net growth in the regions employment. This, too, is consistent with national economic trends. Services related employment increased by 56,000 jobs from 152,800 in 1980 to 208,800 in 1990, an average of 5,600 per year. Increases were particularly strong between 1986 and 1989 during which service-related employment was increasing at a rate of nearly 7,000 jobs a year. ' The Lillie Rock - North Lillie Rock Meiropoliian Siaiisiical Area (MSA) is comprised of Pulaski, Saline, Faulkner and Lonoke Counties. 11-2 Tischler \u0026amp; Associates. InTable 1 General MSA Employment Trends  Labor Force Non-Ag Wage \u0026amp; Sal Emplmnt Goods Producing Services Producing 1980 1981 1982 1983 1984 1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 * 1991 229,450 236,600 237,400 239,225 242,575 246,400 252,800 257,100 262,400 268,975 268,750 267,214 201.600 200,300 198,000 204.500 214.200 221.200 225.200 229.600 237,600 245,200 253,100 256,000 48,800 46.900 43.300 43.300 45,400 45,800 44,300 43,300 43,300 43,400 44,300 44,200 152,800 153,400 154,700 161.200 168.800 175,400 180,900 186,300 194,300 201,800 208,800 211,800 I I MSA Labor Force and Employment 1980- 1990 \u0026lt;/3 o  (/) 3 O 6 280 r 260' 240' 220' 200' 180' 160' 140 120 100 80 60 40 20 0 1980 1981 1982 1983 1984 1 1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 T A T * SGoods Empl. 0Services Empl. Labor Force Note: * 1991 Daia is average thru 6rsl nine months Source\nArkansas Employment Security Dept. Tischler \u0026amp; Associates. li\nI I 2. Projected Employment by Sector and County I I Table 2 shows TAs projections of future employment by major industrial sector and by county. The data shown here arc for \"covered\" employment (included in the States workmens compensation system) which is a slightly different base than seen in the first charts. (For example, total covered employment is estimated at 233,921 in 1990, vs. 253,100 for \"all\" non-agricultural wage and salary employment seen in the previous tables.) I I The projections seen here arc a result of a \"boiiom-up, top-down\" process. This procedure first examined growth rates by evaluating mathematical trend lines of employment in each sector and in each county, and extends the rates of growth for future increments of 1990-1995, 1995-2000, and 2000-2010. a a a a I The future rates of employment growth used in this analysis reflect TAs evaluation of general economic conditions for the Little Rock region and the industrial sectors represented here. We believe that, compared to many other metropolitan regions nationwide, Little Rock is very competitive. Chief among its assets is a skilled and relatively moderate cost labor force, a base of communications, transportation, and consumer-oriented industries which are positioned well for new expansion in the 199Os and beyond, and a very attractive natural environment. Even so, the current national economic downturn will undoubtedly affect economic growth in Little Rock over the short term, but these effects should be relatively moderate, and the area should be poised for full recovery thereafter. Based on this overall evaluation, rates of growth were varied slightly to represent overall economic conditions for the respective sectors, and the context of each sector within each county. Generally, growth rates were a a anticipated to be modest over the next five years, but then recovering so that the total increment of growth through the year 2010 would be consistent with the trends experienced over the last ten years. The 198Os decade is therefore taken as a model of the areas growth potential at a very general level, having experienced both modest growth in the first few years, with accelerating growth for the last seven years. a a The next part of the process examined shift-shares by county and by sector, examining the allocation each county might capture of future growth. Total employment was projected forward based on annual growth rates in the manner described above. This total employment was then distributed by industrial sector for each projection year, and then by county for each sector. The percentage distribution factors used were selected so as to be consistent with the ten-year trend experienced from 1980 to 1990, both by industrial sector and by county share. For example, a shift from a 20 percent to a 22 percent share over ten years would mathematically lead to a projected share of 24 percent for ten years in the future. Professional judgement was used to assure that the indicated mathematical II-4 Tischler \u0026amp; Associates. Incprojection was in fact appropriate and logical for each combination of industrial sector and county. This process resulted in two alternative preliminary sets of projecrions for each sector and county: one based on individual growth rates for each sector and county (bottom-up) and another based on allocations from an overall total (top- down). A series of reconciliation adjustments were then applied to the individual sector/county growth rates. These adjustments were made so that both the pace of growth for each sector, and the shift-share of employment by sector and county would be internally consistent, and consistent with both long term trends seen historically, and TAs general assessment of the overall economic outlook for each major sector and county. The reconciliation process thus provides a \"check-and- balance\" recognizing both future potential and historical patterns of growth. The results of this process are shown in Table 2 which shows projected future employment for each major industrial sector and by county within the MSA region. Selected key trends are funher depicted in a series of graphs in Exhibits 2 and 3. Several significant observations can be drawn from these projections:  Services are expected to continue to be the major area of economic expansion, growing at an average rate of 2,042 jobs per year between 1990 and 2000 throughout the MSA. The data indicates that services has just surpassed trade as the largest major sector as of 1990. By 2010, the two largest employment sectors are expected to be services with 112,208 and trade with 84,138 jobs. I I I Pulaski County will continue to be the dominant location of employment for the region, although its share of total employment may decline from nearly 83 percent of the regional total employment at present to just over 79 percent by 2010. Services and Finance, Insurance and Real Estate (F.I.R.E.) are expected to retain a strong presence within Pulaski County. These two sectors, together, are projected to increase by 19,500 jobs between 1990 and 2000, and an additional 28,500 jobs over the following ten years. By 2010, Pulaski County is expected to still provide over 86 percent of a region- wide services employment and close to 88 percent of all F.I.R.E. employment. If current trends continue, Pulaski and Saline Counties may lose 4,5CX) manufacturing jobs over the next ten years, and an additional 1,750 manufacturing jobs over the subsequent ten years. These losses may possibly be partially offset by a net gain of 3,250 manufacturing jobs in Faulkner County. I I I II-5 I Tischler \u0026amp; Associates. ITable 2 PROJECTED EHPLOYMEHI BY SECOR AND COUNIY 1980  20,0 1980 1905 Projected Employment Total Change Share o( HSA Total 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 80-'90 '90-'00 00 10 1980 1990 2000 2010 in O (b PP J\u0026gt; (/\u0026gt; U) O Q O) (b in  PULASKI COUNTY Manufacturing Construction Trans, t, Util. Trade F.I.R.E Servicea Coverrment Other SALINE COUNTY Manufacturing Construction Trans. 6 Util. Trade f.I.R.E Services Coverrment Other FAULKNER COUNTY Manufacturing C\u0026lt;xistructl\u0026lt;xi Trans. I Util. Trade F.I.R.E Services Coverrment Other LOKOKE COUNTY Kanufacturlng Conatructlon Trans, t Util. Trade f.I.R.E Services Goverrment Other TOTAL HSA Manufacturing Construction Trans. 6 Ut11. Trade f.I.R.E Servicea Coverrment Other 155,666 26,700 0,766 11,307 60,013 11,166 30,936 26,533 337 170,616 23,337 9,613 11,600 66,659 13,150 39,007 27,061 309 193,666 22,316 8,447 13,751 51,635 13,766 56,267 29,265 281 202,166 19,016 7,967 14,251 54,135 14,246 61,747 29,745 261 218,916 260,791 18,314 8,197 15,751 57,635 15,746 71,767 31,265 281 17,316 0,322 17,751 62,135 17,696 06,267 33,265 281 262,666 16,314 0,447 19,751 66,635 19,246 96,74 7 35,245 201 37,820 (6,396) (319) 2,566 11,622 2,500 25,311 2,712 (56) 25,250 (4,000) (250) 2,000 6,000 2,000 17,500 2,000 0 63.750 (2.000) 250 6.000 9.000 3.500 25.000 6,000 0 83.4X 71.OX 02.7X 96.5X 07.6X 93. OX 89.9X 79.2X 32.7X 82.8X 81.6X 67.5X 78.8X 9A.0X 86.6X 92.6X 88.5X 78.,X 37.3X 61.5X 76.5X 91.7X 82.5X 91.2X 87.BX 76.9X 58.5X 79.6X 56.OX 68.2X 88.SX 79.2X 87.6X 66.2X 75.6X 38.5X 11,104 3,995 732 0 1,810 290 1,076 2,746 447 13,633 6,681 851 60B 2,534 267 1,762 3,076 54 5,915 2,214 250 0 1,294 187 648 1,129 193 186,698 37,598 10,599 11,795 65,659 11,910 36,622 33,686 1,031 10,112 2,399 639 0 2,412 353 ,1,349 2,606 354 12,198 2,662 720 616 3,176 352 1,901 3,061 132 12,660 1,962 770 516 3,551 352 2,151 3,061 107 16^390 1,962 965 816 6,301 652 2,526 3,311 107 16,998 2,067 1,195 1,189 5,301 577 3,026 3,536 107 19,598 2,192 1,645 1,566 6,301 702 3,526 3,761 107 1,096 (1,553) (12) 616 1,358 62 025 315 (315) 2,200 (500) 225 600 1,125 100 625 250 (25) 5,200 250 500 750 2,000 250 1,000 650 , 0 6.OX 10.6X 6.9X O.OX 6.OX 2.6X 3.IX 8.2X 63.6X 5.2X 7.4X 6.7X 2.OX 5.2X 2.4X 3.IX 0.2X 17.5X 5.6X 6.5X 8.6X 6.7X 6.2X 2.6X 3.IX 8.2X 16.7X 5.9X 7.5X 11.7X 7.OX 7.5X 3.2X 3.IX O.OX 16.7X 16,535 5,792 1,140 424 3,122 603 2,294 3,207 73 20,572 6,222 1,208 659 6,363 658 6,059 3,735 88 21,997 6,597 1,308 659 6,593 658 6,559 3,935 68 26,672 7,672 1,558 559 5,593 708 6,059 6,635 08 32,022 8,672 1,758 686 6,663 1,083 8,059 5,035 83 37,572 9.472 1,950 009 0,093 1,650 10,059 5,635 08 6,939 1,561 357 51 1,809 191 2,297 659 36 5,900 1,250 350 100 1,250 250 2,000 700 0 11,100 2,000 600 250 2,500 750 6,000 1,200  0 7.3X 12.5X 6.OX 3.5X 5.5X 2.2X 5.IX 9.2X 5.2X 8.6X 18.BX 11.3X 3.IX 7.IX 3.IX 6.6X 10.OX 11.7X 9.9X 25.IX 14.IX 1.3X 8.OX 4.IX 7.tX 10.9X 12.IX 11.6X 31.3X 15.8X i.bX 9.6X 6.6X 9.OX 12.OX 12.IX 6,523 2,306 250 0 1,562 216 839 1,183 189 7,485 2,200 338 0 1,909 285 1,076 1,424 253 7,460 2,000 208 0 2,009 285 1,176 1,449 253 8,360 2,050 338 50 2,309 360 1,376 1,626 255 9,635 2,150 638 125 2,709 660 1,626 1,876 253 10,910 2,250 538 200 3,109 560 1,876 2,126 253 1,570 (14) B8 0 615 98 428 295 60 075 (150) 0 50 600 75 300 200 0 2,550 200 200 150 800 200 500 500 0 3.2X 5.9X 2.6X O.OX 2.BX 1.6X 1.9X 3.6X 18.7X 3.2X 6.6X 3.2X O.OX 3.IX 1.9X 1.8X 3.OX 33.6X 3.IX 6.9X 3.IX 0.3X 3.3X 2.IX 1.7X 6.OX 34.7X 3.3X 7.4X 4.3X 0.9X 3.7X 2.5X 1.7X 4.5X 34.7X 203,786 233,921 33,034 11,642 11,024 53,735 14,120 43,569 34,137 925 33,178 10,713 16,626 61,063 16,041 61,203 37,465 754 266,071 30,353 10,313 15,226 66,208 15,341 69,633 30,190 729 260,146 299,446 ---- 30,003 29,770 11,030 17,176 69,030 17,266 01,700 60,615 729 11,713 19,769 76,908 19,616 96,958 63,690 729 330,746 30.220 12,380 22,326 04,130 21,966 112,200 46,765 729 47,623 (4,620) 116 2,629 15,604 2,931 26,061 3,901 (277) 34,225 (3.400) 325 2,550 0,775 2.425 20,625 3,150 (25) 62,600 450 1,350 5,150 14,300 4,700 30,500 6,150 0 100.ox 100.ox 100.ox 100.ox 100.ox 100.ox 100.ox 100.ox 100.ox 100.ox 100.ox 100.ox 100.ox 100.ox 100.ox 100.ox 100.ox ,00.ox ,00.ox ,00.ox ,00.ox ,00.ox ,00.ox ,00.ox 100.ox ,00.ox 100.ox 100.ox 100.ox ,00.ox ,00.ox ,00.ox ,00.ox ,00.ox ,00.ox ,00.ox Inc.Exhibit 2 Discussion The data from Table 2, as illustrated in Exhibit 2, indicates that employment is expected to continue growing for Pulaski County. The most significant growth is shown as occurring in the trade and services sectors. Trade is expected to increase from 51,635 as of 1990 to 66,635 in 2010. Over this same twenty-year period, services are projected as increasing by 42,400 jobs, from 54,247 to 96,747. Manufacturing is expected to decline within Pulaski County by 6,000 jobs, although about half of these losses may be offset by moderate gains in Faulkner County, and subsequent gains after 2000 in Saline and Lonoke Counties. Trade (including wholesale and retail) and services will continue to comprise the largest employment segments for all counties. Pulaski County is expected to retain most of its present share of services and F.I.R.E. employment. This is seen as continuing the present status of the immediate Little Rock vicinity, including both downtown and the 1-430 corridor, as the dominant financial and services employment center in the region. Employment gains are also expected in the adjoining three counties of the MSA region. F.I.R.E. employment is expected to increase (significantly in percentage terms) in Faulkner County as suburban residential development activity and related financial and real estate services respond to this trend. If prevailing trends continue, Faulkner County is expected to increase employment at a significantly faster pace than Saline County. Manufacturing will tend to stabilize and even modestly increase after 2000 in the surrounding counties. Increases in trade and services, similar to those anticipated for Pulaski County, will also occur in the adjoining counties. Trade is projected as increasing by a total of 8,075 jobs for all three counties between 1990 and 2010, and services may grow by 8,425 jobs over this same period. Total employment outside of Pulaski County in the MSA is shown as increasing by nearly 28,000, from 40,258 in 1990 to 68,080 in 2010, a relative growth of nearly 70 percent over twenty years. In contrast, Pulaski county employment is estimated to increase by 69,000 jobs over this same period. 11-7 Tischler \u0026amp; Associates. II II n II II II n n II II II II II a aExhibit 2 Projected Employment Growth IQ Pulaski County With ihe exception of manufacturing, Pulaski County is expected to continue to experience employment growth for the forseeable future. Approximately 42,500 new jobs are expected in scn'iccs and 15,000 additional jobs arc expected in trade (both wholesale and retail) over the next 20 years through the year 2010, Manufacturing, is statistically projected to decline by an additional 6,000 jobs over this same period. DB IQ nH H fl Balance of MSA Employment growth in the balance of the MSA, however is expected to occur at a higher relative pace. As in Pulaski County, most of the increase is expected in trade and services which is expected to grow by 16,500 jobs between 1990 and 2010 outside of Pulaski County. In terms of total employment, the balance of the region is expected to increase by 27,800 jobs from 1990 to 2010. H H Sounx: AHun\u0026amp;ti Employment Security Dept.*. Tuchler AitooAiei. Inc. Tischler \u0026amp; Associates, Ir Exhibit 3 Discussion At present, the three adjoining counties account for only 17.2 percent of the regions employment, but arc projected as accounting for between 26 and 30 percent of future employment growth between 1990 and 2010. This will result in a relative shift of some proportion of employment from Pulaski County to the adjoining three counties. The relative amount of this shift is foreseen as being very minimal in the financial and services sectors, but may be more pronounced in the manufacturing, construction and trade sectors. Exhibit 3 depicts these trends in three selected key sectors. With manufacturing employment declining in Pulaski County, but stabilizing and even increasing in surrounding counties after 2000, Pulaskis share of manufacturing employment is expected to decrease from 67.3 percent to 54.0 percent of the regional total by 2010. The greatest offsetting increase in manufacturing, assuming a continuation of prevailing trends, will occur in Faulkner County, which should increase its share of regional manufacturing employment from 18.8 percent as of 1990 to 31.3 percent by 2010. Pulaski County should remain competitive with surrounding counties in services, generally maintaining its present share, between 86 and 88 percent of the regional total. Regional increases in this sector should distribute geographically in roughly the same proportion as the existing employment, resulting in a only modest changes in geographic distribution. Pulaski Countys share of trade employment is expected to decline moderately from about 85 percent at present to just over 79 percent by 2010. This can be attributed to retail trade following population growth in the adjoining counties, and wholesale trade preferring outlying locations which may not be subject to an inventory tax. 11-9 Tischler \u0026amp; Associates. li II II n I! II II n II II II  aII II Exhibit 3 Regional Employment Distribution Employment is expected to grow by a greater percentage in the surrounding counties of the MSA than in Pulaski County. Faulkner County is expected to experience the greatest increase in relative share of emplojincnt within the region. Trends in three key sectors are shown below. Manufacturing  PROJECTED MAXUFACTURJNG EMPLOYMENT Pulaski Countys share of manufacturing emplojinent is expected to decline from 67.3% to 54.0% between 1990 and 2010. Faulkner Countys share is expected to increase from 18.8% to 31.3% over this same period.  Services I fl fl fl 100% 90% S0% 70% 60% S0% PROJECTED SERXnCES EMPLOYMENT 1910 1915 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 gPuluU QStUae BLosoke Pulaski County will continue to be the predominent location for services employment, declining only slightly from 88.5% to 86,2% from 1990 to 2010.  fl Trade fl 100% 90% to% 70% 60% 50% PROJECTED TRAM EMPLOYMENT Sourec: Ai^x Employmoii Seoirity Dq*-\nTucWtf A Aixoeitti. Ine. Piitaelri County is expected to experience a decline in relative share of trade employment from 84.6% to 79.2% between 1990 and 2010. Over this same time, Faulkner County is projected to increase from 7.1% to 9.6%, and Saline County is expected to increase from 5.2% to 7.5% of areas total trade emplojTtienL Tischler \u0026amp; Associates. Inc II II.B. POPULATION PROJECTIONS TA has made a series of population and household projections for the region, Pulaski County, and Little Rock through the year 2010. We have done this so as to show that trends experienced within the immediate Little Rock Vicinity are in fact but a sub-part of broader regional trends towards substantial suburbanization. Our process starts with regional totals, based on ratios to projected employment, and then refines these totals so as to estimate how the immediate Little Rock vicinity will function within these broader trends. II II II II 1, MSA Population and Household Projections II Table 3 and the related chart on the following page presents MS A-wide projections of population and households. II In making these projections, we anticipate that long term trends will continue in terms of the relationship between jobs and households. That is, if jobs were to grow significantly faster than households and population, in-migration would occur as persons from other areas sought employment opportunities in the Little Rock region. Alternatively, if households and population were to increase more than employment over an extended time, out-migration would likely occur. II II The ratio between jobs and households has not been constant in the past, and has not been assumed to be constant in the future. The far right column in Table 4 shows the historical trend in this ratio from 1.104 jobs per household 1980 gradually increasing to 1.197 jobs per household as of 1990. Several factors have contributed to this increase, including an increasing frequency of two-income households, mdividuals working part-time at second jobs, and adult children remaining with their primary household during and after completing education. This ratio has then been projected forward through the year 2010, extending along a consistent rate of change as seen over the last decade. These projections therefore illustrate the likely relationships if currently prevailing trends continue without significant intervention or alteration. As seen in the far right column of Table 3, this ratio is projected as 1.282 jobs per household as of 2000, and 1.357 jobs per household by 2010. II II II n n These ratios arc then applied to the projected total regional employment, as derived from Table 2, to produce projections of households for the years 1995, 2000 and 2010. Households are a focal point in this analysis, in that employment, house purchasing and relocation decisions tend to operate at the household level. As seen in Table 3, this calculation of the jobs/household ratio against projected   II-ll Tischler \u0026amp; Associates.Table 3 MSA Population And Households Projections 1980 1984 1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1995 2000 2010 MSA Population (1) 474,468 497,409 500,198 502,646 505,228- 507,858 510,528 513,117 522,490 532,408 599,667 MSA Households (2) 168,943 182,913 185,005 186,992 189,053- 191,156 193,300 195,437 199,745 209,177 243,749 Avg, Hshld Size 2.78 2.69 2.67 2.66 2.64 2.63 2.61 2.60 2.55 2.48 2.40 Covered Employment 186.498 197,461 203,786 207,878 211,405 219,207 227,010 233,921 244,071 268,146 330,746 Jobs/Hshld Ratio 1.1039 1.0795 1.1015 1.1117 1.1182 1.1467 1.1744 1.1969 1.2219 1.2819 1.3569 Noles: (1) Adjusted from Metroplan data, based on 1990 Census, expansion of MSA in 1984, and change in Meiroplan csiimating methodology for intermediate years between 1980 and 1990 Census data. (2) Based on U.S. Census for 1980 and 1990. Intermediate years based on MSA population estimates and estimated average household size. Exhibit 4 Population, Households \u0026amp; Employment MSA Totals\n1980-2010 650 600 Actual Projected S'  3 O  550 500 450 400 350 300 250 200 150 ------- e- 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010  Population -I- Households O Employment  Source\nMeiroplan\nU.S. Ceniui\nAik. Emp. Sec. Dept\nTiichlci \u0026amp; Attodiut, Inc. Tischler \u0026amp; Associates. In MSA-wide employment indicates 209,177 households as of 2000, and 243,749 households as of 2010. Average household size has been declining nationwide, as well as in the Little Rock area. The historical decline in household size is shown in the center column in Table 3, and has been projected forward through 2010 based generally on this rate of change with some mitigation anticipated. The mitigation represents our judgement that with the \"baby-boom\" generation now at prime child-bearing ages, and with emerging trends of adult children remaining in households and constraints in housing affordability, household sizes will not be declining as rapidly in the future as they have in the past, and in certain locations and sectors, may even increase. As seen in the center column of Table 3, average household size throughout the MSA has contracted from 2.78 in 1980 to 2.60 in 1990. Based on the factors cited above, household size is projected as declining to 2.48 by 2000, and to 2.40 by 2010. Total population has been projected based on the estimated number of households (based on employment ratios) and projected household size^ The left column in Table 3 indicates region-wide population projected as growing from 513,117 in 1990 to 532.408 by 2000 and 599,667 by 2010. The results of this process may also be seen in the accompanying graph. This shows a slight slowing of household and population growth at present, with an increased pace of growth beyond 1995 and 2000. The total trend from 1980 to 2010 is comparable in pace to the ten-year trend from 1980 to 1990, averaging approximately 4,000 population growth annually throughout the region. As seen at the bottom of Table 3, and at the right side of the graph in Exhibit 4, total regional population is expected to reach about 600,000 persons by 2010, with nearly 244,000 households and over 330,000 jobs in \"covered\" wage and salary employment. 2. Population and Household Projections by County With the total future growth for the region estimated in the previous table, the next step is to determine how much of this growth will likely occur in Pulaski County, and then to estimate the geographic distribution patterns within the immediate Little Rock study area.  l fl fl fl  The projected population figures shown in Table 3 further allow for group quarters population. Group quarters population has increased very slightly from 1980 to 1990. 11-13   Tischler \u0026amp; Associates.II II II At the county level, it is useful to first consider the components of population change. These wpre calculated by Metroplan in its May/June 1991 newsletter, and are summarized below. II Table 4 Components of Population Change MSA Total Pulaski County Little Rock' Balance' Saline County Faulkner County Lonoke County II 1990 Population' 513,117 156,282* 193,378* 64,183 60,006 39,268 1980 Population 474,468 158.915\n 181,682. 53,161 46,192 34,518 Change 80-90 Percent of Total 38,649 100.0% -2,633 -6.8% 11,696 30.3% 11,022 28.5% 13,814 35.7% 4,750 12.3% II II II II Births 80,292 24,393 36,590 7,276 6,710 5,323 Deaths 39,790 11,598 17,399 3,894 3,660 3,239 Natural Increase Net Migration EsL Households* Notes: 40,502 12,795 19,181 3,382 3,050 2,084 1,853 -15,428 7,485 7,640 10,764 2,666 700 7,078 1,588 2,888 4,070 1,008 1990 LitUe Rock population adjusted dowTiwards from 1990 Census number of 175,795 for annexations occurring between 1980 and 1990. Areas annexed by Little Rock over this period account for 19,513 persons. Data above includes these persons in the \"Balance of County\" category, permitting a comparison to consistent 19^ city boundaries. M d 1 II J Source: U.S.Census 3 d MSA and county-total births and deaths as esimaied by Arkansas Bureau of Vital Statistics and Division of Demographic Research, UALR. Allocation of births and deaths between Little Rock and balance of Pulaski County provided by Department of Neighborhoods and Planning. d Estimated household net migration calculated by TA, based on MSA-wide average household size, averaged between 1980 and 1990. Group quarters population assumed not to contribute significantly to migration. d 11-14 Tischler \u0026amp; Associates, inc feII The data above indicates that all of the regions net growth in population and households is attributed to natural increase from within the region, and that the MSA actually lost 1,853 population, roughly equivalent to 7(X) households, from net migration. By county, however, this trend is even more pronounced. After accounting for natural increase, Pulaski County actually experienced a loss of nearly 23,000 population in out-migration. Most of this, 15,428 persons is estimated to have come from within 1980 Little Rock city boundries. The remainder, 7,485 persons, is estimated to have come from the Balance of Pulaski County. This is roughly equivalent to nearly 8,700 households leaving Pulaski County with about 8,000 households moving into the adjoining counties. Of further note is that net in-migration for Faulkner County (10,764 population) was about 41 percent more than Saline County (7,640), further indicating Faulkner as the fastest growing county in the Little Rock region. II II Projections of future population growth have been estimated by TA for each county through 2010, and these may be seen in Table 5 on the following page. These projections are based on \"bottom-up, top-down\" process similar to that used for employment projections. That is, each countys growth rate was calculated forward, and then compared to an alternative projection based on a shift-share of regional totals. Adjustments were then made so that both growth rates and percentage allocations were internally consistent, and consistent with the 1980- 1990 overall trends and the MSA-wide projections as estimated in Table 3. Group quarters population was assumed to increase modestly in proportion to 1980-90 changes, and trends in the decline in average household size were assumed to decline, although not as rapidly as has been experienced over the last decade. II II fl n B  B Table 5 displays net population and household growth. This reflects the combined effects of natural increase, household formation, and net migration. Table 5 shows that Pulaski County is expected to increase in both population and households over the next twenty years, although at a modest pace. Population is expected to grow from 349,660 in 1990 to 367,664 by 2010, an increase of just over 18,000 over 20 years. This overall pace, averaging 900 population growth annually, is virtually the same rate of growth as experienced from 1980 to 1990. From the pattern seen in components of population change data, all of this growth will likely be the result of natural increase with net out-migration still occurring. The adjoining counties are expected to experience much greater increases in population and households, particularly Faulkner County. Of the total MSA-wide net population growth of 86,550 projected between 1990 and 2010, 79.2 percent, or 68,548 is expected to occur in the adjoining counties, increasing the total population in the adjoining counties to about 232,000 persons. This rate of growth, just over 3,400 persons per year, is about 3.8 times the average rate of increase anticipated for Pulaski County. By the year 2010, Pulaski County is expected to comprise 61.3 percent of the regions population, down from 68.1 percent as of 1990 and 71.8 percent as of 1980. 11-15 Tischler \u0026amp; Associates. III II II Table 5 Projected Population and Households By County 1980 - 2010 1980 1990 2000 2010 Number Prcnt Number Prcnt Number Prcnt Number Prcnt II II If n 0 0 Total MSA Population Households Net Growth Population Households Pulaski Population Households Net Growth Population Households Saline Population Households Net Growth Population Households Faulkner Population Households Net Growth Population Households 474.468 100% 168,943 100% 513,117 100% 195,437 100% 532,408 100% 209,177 100% 599,667' 100% 243,749 100% 340,597 713% 124,516 73.7% 53,161 ' 11.2% 17,572 ' .4%* 46,192 9.1%'- 15.485 r9.2%'. 38,649 , 100%' 26,494 100% 349,660 68.1% 137,209 70,2% 9,063 23.4% 12,693 47.9% 64.183 123%' 23,037 113% 11,022'283%'' 5.465'20.6%' 60.006'..U.7%\n21.325\ni019%\n13.814 35.7%\n5.840 225% 19,291 - 100% 13,740 300% 67,260 100% 34,572 , 100% ! 350,497 -65.8%. 143,392 68.6% 367,664 613% 158,085 645% 837 43% 6,183 Js.0% 17,166'253% 14,693 423% 71,390 \u0026gt;13.4%' 25.922 2,885 '2L0%* 68,061 42.8%'\n24,622 j 11^%^ 8,055 :413%-^ 3,297 '24^%\n' 90,853 153% 33,528,13.8% 19,463 285% 7,606 22.0% 89.658  155% 33,266 116%  21,597 r 32.1% 8.643  25.0% Lonoke Population Households 34,518 7.3% 11,370 6.7% 39,268 7.7% 13,866. 7.1% 42,460 8.0%' 15.240 13^' 51,493 18,870 8.6% 7.7% Net Growth Population Households 4,750 323% 2,496 9.4%' 1,374 ' 7.1%- 1,374 10.0%- 3,630 5.4% 3,630.103% Source: U.S. Census\nTischler \u0026amp; Associaies, Inc. Tischler \u0026amp; Associates Inc hExhibit 5 Projected Population and Households By County 1980 - 2010  I Population Growth By County Net increase in population for Pulaski County is expected to be relatively modcsL Numerical growth projected for both Saline and Faulkner Counties wUl be significantly more than Pulaski. I II I I Percent of MS A Total With net household and populadon growth occuring at a faster relative pace in Faulkner and Saline Counties. Pulaski Countys share of MSA total population will decline. I 100% 90% 80% 70% 60% 50% 40% I I I I Scunx: U3. Cenixu\nTiichief A AiiodMcj, Inc, Tischler \u0026amp; Associates, ir^    These trends in net population growth are further depicted in the graphs in Exhibit 5, which show population growth and population distribution by county through 2010. As seen in this graph and in Table 5, most of the projected net population growth is expected to occur in Faulkner County, increasing from 60,006 in 1990 to 89,658 by 2010, a total net growth of about 29,650 persons. Saline County is anticipated as increasing by a similar amount, 26,670 persons, over this same period, from 64,183 persons as of 1990 to 90,853 by 2010. 3.  Projected Population Changes for Little Rock Vicinity With population changes estimated for all of Pulaski County, we have further attempted to determine the likely- geographic.distribution of population within Pulaski County, particularly focussing on the immediate Little Rock vicinity.  Changes in population between 1980 and 1990 have been examined by census tract for all of Pulaski County. These data have been further summed for eight analysis areas comprising the Little Rock vicinity. These changes may be seen in the two left columns in Table 6, and in the first two of the following maps. I  M I M We have then illustrated the effects of what would likely occur if these statistical trends would continue for the next twenty years without significant intervention. This process has looked at the rates of change for each of the analysis areas, and the trend shift-share allocations over time. The respective growth rates for each area were adjusted to be consistent with the overall county-wide projection established in the previous tables, and with the trend in allocated shares of population by area over time. The result of this process can be seen in the projections of population for the years 2000 and 2010. We emphasize that this is a statistical process which extends historical trends, and docs not necessarily recognize any specific announced development plans or possible future land use policies within any given area. As seen in Table 6, only the far west, west, and northwest areas are anticipated M as having a positive population change between now and 2010, with all other areas of the Little Rock vicinity losing population. The balance of the county, comprising mainly the rural west and the \"north-of-river\" portions, is expected to increase by 21,154 persons between 1990 and 2010. The eight analysis areas comprising the immediate Little Rock vicinity arc shown actually losing population from 192,192 in 1990 to 184,542 by 2000 but recovering slightly to 186,042 by 2010. n-18 tischler \u0026amp; Associates, inTable 6 Population Change By Analysis Area\n1980-2010 1980 Actual 1990 2000 Projected 2010 Pulaski County 340,597 349,660 350,497 367,664 Percent Change *80-90 90-00 OO-IO 2.7% 0.2% 4.9% Little Rock Vicinity 194,421 192,192 184,542 186,042 -1.1% -4.0% 0.8% Do^^ntoM'n Central East Northwest Midtown Southwest West Far West 2,439 16,063' 18,007 47,830 36,973 39,757 18,478 14,874 1,777 12.892-  15,035 49,944 31,389 36,414 18,811 25,930 1,277 9,642  12,035 51.444 24,739 32,664 18,811 33,930 1,027 7,892 10,035 53,444 18,739 29,164 19,811 45,930 -27.1% -19.7% -16.5% 4.4% -15.1% -8.4% 1.8% 74.3% -28.1% -25.2% -20.0% 3.0% -21.2% -10.3% 0.0% 30.9% -19.6% -18.1% -16.6% 3.9% -24.3% -10.7% 5.3% 35.4% Balance Of Pulaski County 146,176 157,468 165,955 181,622 7.7% 5.4% 9.4% Source: U.S. Centur\nTudJtr \u0026amp; Anociuej. Inc. Tischler \u0026amp;_Associates. h I a  a a The most pronounced growth is foreseen in the far west and northwest analysis areas. Population growth in just these two areas is projected to be 23,500 persons between 1990 and 2010. This further indicates that the remainder of Little Rock may loose 29,650 population over this same twenty-year period. The graph accompanying Table 6 shows population changes for the remaining six analysis areas, the combined total for just the far west and the northwest areas, and the balance of Pulaski County. This chan illustrates the effect of continuation of the pronounced suburban migration which has been occurring in the Little Rock area. These trends are also depicted in the following series of maps\na. b. c. Pulaski County Population Change by Census Tract\n1980 - 1990 Numeric changes in population which have occurred between 1980 and 1990 are shown for every census tract county-wide. The two lowest ranked shadings in this map show population loss, while the two higher ranked shadings indicate net population gain. In addition to the far-west Little Rock areas, the Maumelle and the far northeastern portion of the county are shown as experiencing the greatest population growth, between 2,000 and 9,044 persons in any given census tract. Little Rock Vicinity Population Change 1980 - 1990 This map is a sub-set of the prior map, showing actual numeric change in population for each of eight analysis areas comprising the immediate Little Rock vicinity. This map shows a dramatic loss of population between 3,000 and 5,585 persons for the central, midtown, and souwest portions of the city, and population declines of up to 3,000 persons for downtown and the eastern areas. Population growth, between 0 and 2,500 persons occurred in the west and northwest areas, while total population growth of up to 11,056 persons occurred in the far west area- Projected Population for Little Rock Vicinity\n2010 This maps shows the projected in-place population which may be anticipated as of 2010, reflecting a continuation of prevailing trends. Downtown and the central city area are shown as having less than 10,000 population, while the cast, midtown and west areas arc shown as having between 10,000 and 25,000 population each. As of 2010, the northwest and far west areas arc indicated as having between 40,000 and 53,444 population. 11-20 Tischler \u0026amp; Associates, tnc kd. Projected Population Change, Little Rock Vicinity\n1990 - 2010 The last map of this series indicates the increment of population change projected between 1990 and 2010. As in the second map, significant population losses are expected in the downtown, midtown, central and southwest portions of the city, while gains of 0 to 5,000 population are expected in the west and northwest areas, and up to 20,000 are foreseen for the far west area. I I I 11-21 I Tischler \u0026amp; Associates, In,Popo lotion Change 1980 - 1990 Pulaski County Census Tracts (/) n zr rt) C* \u0026gt; tn UI O O co' a\u0026gt; (/t  9044 2000 0 -500 -1699 Population Change 1980 - Little Rock Vicinity 1990 (/) n 5 Qo \u0026gt; \u0026lt;/ \u0026lt;Z) O o O) (D 2500 Fj Mldlown 0 -3000 -5584 1 1056 Southw6sI Projected Population 2010 Little Rock Vicinity twMown jntrol 53444 40000 25000 10000 n * 2 po \u0026gt; (/) 8 OJ (?  n 1027 FProjected Population Change Little Rock Vicinity 1990 2010 20000 5000 in o zr 2 c tn 8 Q) V) 3 Midtown 0 -6000 -12650 Fl SoulhweaI I     fl fl ILC. RACE, AGE, AND SEX CHARACTERISTICS Beyond ihe quantities of population and households are primary descriptive characteristics, including consideration of age, sex, racial distribution. The following data reviews changes which have occurred in these characteristics over the 1980-1990 decade. 1. Age and Sex Characteristics Table 7 shows race, age and sex distributions for Pulaski County as of 1980, 1990 and the changes which have occurred over this period. These data indicate that the population as a whole is aging. This is consistent with national trends as the \"baby boom\" generation advances into middle age. In 1980, Pulaski County population between the ages of 35-59 years, and 60 years and above comprised 25 percent and 13.7 percent of the population respectively. By 1990, the 35-59 age group had grown to 30 percent, and the 60 and over group had increased to 15.3 percent of total county population. As of 1990, Black children and teenagers comprised a higher-than-average percentage of these age groups in Pulaski County compared to the total population. While the county as a whole has approximately 35% Black population. Black female children and teenagers through age 19 comprise 37.4 percent, and Black male children and teenagers comprise 44.1 percent of this age bracket. Of particular note has been the apparent out-migration of younger white children (and their families) from Pulaski County. As of 1980, Pulaski County had 36,253 white children of 0 to 9 years of age. However, ten years later in 1990, this same population group, now aged 10-19 years, was only 29,359, a decline of 6,894, or about 19 percent of the corresponding 1980 population group. By contrast, Black children have maintained their relative total between 1980 and 1990. As of 1980, Black children aged 0-9 years were 19,237. As of 1990, the corresponding age group, now 10-19 years old, was nearly the same at 19,034. This may be seen as another indication of the out-migration trends discussed earlier for the population as a whole. It is probably also indicative of the perception of lower quality of schools in Pulaski County and Little Rock, as white families with school age children have moved to other jurisdictions. n-26 Tischler \u0026amp; Associates. IrMale Co o 5 (?n \u0026gt; \u0026lt;/\u0026gt; tn 8 Q) S tn Tabic 7 Age by Sex and Race Pulaski County\n1980 \u0026amp; 1990 Numeric Distribution 1980 1990 1980 Female Male Female Male Percent Distribution Female Male 1990 Female Total Population Under 5 yn Yean 5-9 Yean 10-19 Yean 20-34 Yean 35-60 Yean 60-74 Yean 75 + White Population Under 5 yn Yean 5-9 Yean 10-19 Yean 20-34 Yean 35-60 Yean 60-74 Yean 75 + Black Population Under 5 yn Yean 5-9 Yean 10-19 Yean 20-34 Yean 35-60 Yean 60-74 Yean 75 -e Other Races Under 5 yn Yean 5-9 Yean 10-19 Yean 20-34 Yean 35-60 Yean 60-74 Yean 75 -e 162,475 14,611 14,158 27,475 46,819 40374 14394 4,454 178,138 13,680 13,959 27,442 50,487 44,730 19,110 8,730 166,462 13,421 13358 25,065. 43,684 49,865 15,685 5,485 183,198 12,965 12,648 24,081 46363 54.466 20,972 11302 100.0% 9.0% 8.7% 16.9% 28.8% 25.0% 8.8% 2.7% 100.0% 7.7% 7.8% 15.4% 28.3% 25.1% 10.7% 4.9% 100.0% 8.1% 8.0% 15.1% 263% 30.0% 9.4% 33% 100,0% 7.1% 6.9% 13.1% 25.4% 29.7% 11.4% 63% 122,628 9,420 9319 19,048 35,834 34,105 11356 3346 132,069 8,483 9,031 18,866 36,988 36368 15384 7,049 121,513 8,758 8337 15,075 32,607 39,417 13,135 4384 131,041 8.406 7,781 14384 32,740 41,402 17,109 9319 100.0% 7.7% 7.6% 15.5% 29.2% 27.8% 9.47. 2.77. 100.0% 6.4% 6.8% 14.3% 28.0% 273% 11.6% 5.3% 100.0% 73% 6.8% 12.4% 26.8% 32.4% 10.8% 33% 100.0% 6.4% 5.9% 10.9% 25.0% 31.6% 13.1% 7.1% 37,804 4,967 4,618 7,968 10309 6,077 2,680 1,085 43,603 4,941 4,711 8338 12,499 7,936 3,638 1,640 42,737 4,475 4,797 9356 10,497 9,781 2,448 1,183 49,463 4344 4,647 9,478 12,966 12,170 3,707 2,151 100.0% 13.1% 12.2% 21.1% 27.3% 16.1% 7.1% 2.9% 100.0% 113% 10.8% 18.9% 28.7% 183% 83% 3.8% 100.0% 103% 113% 234% 24.6% 239% 5.7% 2.8% 100.0% 8.8% 9.4% 193% 263% 24.6% 73% 43% 2,043 224 221 459 676 392 58 23 2,466 256 217 338 1,000 526 88 41 2,212 188 224 434 580 667 102 18 2,694 215 220 319 857 894 156 32 100.0% 11.0% 10.8% 235% 33.1% 19.2% 2.8% 1.1% 100.0% 10.4% 8.8% 13.7% 40.6% 21.3% 3.6% 1.7% 100.0% 83% 10.1% 19.6% 263% 30.1% 4.6% 0.8% 100.0% 8.0% 83% 11.9% 31.8% 333% 5.8% 13% Cenim: MctroptnI 2. Racial Distribution Table 8 examines racial distribution for analysis areas comprising the immediate Little Rock vicinity. As of the 1990 census, just over one-third of the entire Little Rock Area population was non-white. All but two of the analysis areas were at I I I  least 31 percent non-white, and four of the eight analysis areas had non-white majority populations. This comparison of 1980 and 1990 census data shows that non-white population has increased significantly in the southwest and western sectors, with the percent of non-white population increasing by over 18 percentage points in both of these areas. As of 1990, the midtown and central areas had 68.4 and 80.2 percent non-white population respectively. The lowest non-white population was just over seven percent in the northwest and far west areas. In both the far west and the eastern areas, the proponion of non-white population actually declined slightly, while increasing in all other areas. Of further note is the dramatic contrast between the areas of lowest concentration (nonhwest and far west) and all other areas which have at least 31 percent non-white population. I Changes in racial distribution are funher depicted in a series of maps. These show, in order: fl fl a. b. c. d. Percent Non-White Population as of 1980 Percent Non-White Populauon as of 1990 Numeric change in Non-White Population, 1980-1990 Change in the Non-White Population Percent, 1980-1990 Example: fl a change of 20 percent to 30 percent white population is shown as a net change of plus-10 percentage points. fl fl fl These maps and dau indicate that non-white population is also following the general east-to-west. movement of general population, although to date it is primarily focussed towards the west and southwest sectors rather than the far west As with total population, non-white population is declining and vacating the eastern portions of the Little Rock vicinity, including the east, central, midtown and downtown sectors, and moving into the west and southwest sectors. The result has been a marked increase in the proportion of non-white population in the west and southwest areas. The northwest and far west areas remain predominantly oriented to white population. fl 11-28 Tischler \u0026amp; Associates, inr1980 ANALYSIS AREA Downtown Central East Northwest Midtown Southwest West Total Population White 2,439 1,214 16,063 18,007 47,830 36,973 39,757 18,478 3,573 7301 45,685 14,039 34.481 13,444 \u0026lt;/, o 2 rt\u0026gt; Far West 14,874 13.707 Table 8 Racial Distribution 1980 andl990 by Study Area Non- White 1,225 12,490 10,706 2,145 ' 22,934 . 5377 5,034 1.167 1990 Percent Non- White 50.2% 77.8% 59.5% 4.5% 62.0% 13.3% 27.2% 7.8% Total Popul.Ttion White Non- White Percent Non- Whitc Change in Percent 1980-90 1,777 12.892 15,035 49,944 31.389 36,414 18,811 25,930 752 1,025 57.7% 73% 2,552 6,627 46,388 9,927 24,915 10,259 24.001 10,340 80.2% 2.4% 8,408 3,556 21,462 11,499 8,552 1,929 55.9% 7.1% 68.4% 31.6% 45.5% 7.4% -33% 2.6% 63% 183% 183% -0.4% C \u0026gt; (/) (/\u0026gt; o o S) CD (/) STUDY AREA TOTAL 194,421 133,444 60,978 31.4% 192,192 125,421 66,771 34.7% 3.4% 'qutcc: U.S. Census\nTischler \u0026amp; Assoc. Inc.Non-White Racial Distribution\n1980 Percent Non-White Population By Area \u0026lt;Z) O \u0026gt; VI oO oi (T) tn  o NorIhweaI Fir West 78 60 30 10 5 J I Non-Wh i t e Roc i a I Distribution\nPercent Non-White Population By 1990 Area . 80 NorIhweaI FAr Wes I +own' 60 30 10 n G) \u0026gt; i/i O n Q) (D f/t 7Non-White Racial Change\n1980 - 1990 Change in Non-White Numeric Population By Area )n I r o I rz East 6222 1500 -1500 o 2 c c\u0026gt;/) \u0026lt;/\u0026gt; Q a 63 o tn  a -2298 O ' 5y 0 J Non-White Racial Change\n1980 - 1990 Change in Non-White Population Percentage By Area () Fir Wes I wn- I y V Eos t 18 10 5 0 (Z) O \u0026gt; O O 0) W  -4I II.D. INCOME, HOUSING, RETAIL TRADE 1. Household Income Table 9 displays data compiled by Metroplan as to the source of personal income for residents of Pulaski County from 1981 through 1986. This data confirms the trend data seen in the earlier discussion of employment, in that under earnings by industry, the services sector is the single largest source of personal income within the region, and is growing faster than any other sector. This is consistent with trends in many other pans of the country. Table 10 displays ihe distribution of personal household income by analysis area within the immediate Little Rock vicinity. Of note is the relative affluence of the northwest and far west areas compared'to the rest of Little Rock. As of 1980, these areas had 23 and 29 percent of their households respectively with incomes of S35,000 or more, compared to no higher than 8.6 percent for any other area. 1980 Median household incomes were $21,059 for the northwest area and $24,817 for the far west area, with no other area higher than $17,290. Concentration of low-income households was, naturally, a reverse pattern of affluence. Between 76 and 80 percent of all households in the downtown and central city areas had incomes less than $10,000 in 1980. fl fl 11-34 Tischler \u0026amp; Associates. InTable 9 Personal Income For Pulaski County By Major Sources\n1981-1986 1981 1982 1983 1984 1985 1986 Personal Income by Place of Residence Total Personal Income Nonfarm Personal Income Farm Income 3,583,443 3,574,112 9,331 3,816229 3,810237 5,992 4,115,434 4,111,466 3,968 4,425,573 4,418,193 7.380 4,785,672 4,776,861 8,811 5,0924 5,0892'C-v 3,345 V Population (Thousands) 2/ Per Capita Personal Income (Dollars) 343.1 510,444 345.3 511,050 347.6 511,839 350.9 512,613 353.7 513,530 356.3 514292 Derivation Of Total Personal Income Total Earnings By Place Of Work Less\nPersonal Coni. For Social Insur. 3/ Plus: Residence Adjustment 5/ Equals: Net Earnings By Place Of Residence Plus: Dividends, Interest and Rent 5/ 6/ Plus: Transfer Paymenis 3.145.850 184.358 (382,294) 2,579,198 480,920 523,325 3,363,664 205,515 (426,652) 2,731,497 516,951 567,781 3.673.001 226.886 (479.827) 2.966.288 537.938 611208 3,990 241 246,428 (533,969) 3,209,844 591,479 624,250 4,325,898 280,123 (589,304) 3,456,471 648,684 680,517 4,614,072 302,736  (613,707j 3,697,629 683.974 710.970 I I I Earnings by Place of Work Components of Earnings Wages and Salaries Other Labor Income Proprietors Income 7/ Farm 5/ ' Nonfarm 2,676,807 248,556 220,487 7229 213,258 2,868,238 280,774 214,652 3,571 211,081 3,121,890 307,261 243,850 1,633 242,217 3,389,461 319,130 281,650 5,083 276,567 3,670,770 336,913 318215 6,482 311,733 3,912,893 352201 348,978  l,001*' 347,977 I Earnings by Industry Farm Nonfarm Private Ag.Sc' .J^orestiy.2ish..And Other 8/ Mining Construction Manufacturing Non-durable Goods Durable Goods Transportation Wholesale Trad\nRetail Trade Finance, Insurance, and Real Estate Services Government and Government Enterprises Federal, Civilian Military State and Local 9,331 3,136,519 2,474264 7,663 14,099 200,574 456,797 197,929 258,868. 349,384 272,152 324,673 239464 609458 662255 177279 108,347 376,629 5,992 3,357,672 2,636,057 8,199 14,470 203,494 446,605 201,765 244,840 371418 285,365 340,442 279,018 686,946 721,615 187,818 123.394 410,403 3,968 3,669,033 2,902,035 9,848 14,652 215,740 473470 211426 262244 399434 305,063 381,902 337,068 764,858 766,998 202,163 129240 434,895 7,380 3,982,861 3,141,939 10444 14,007 246,472 505,764 226,611 279,153 425,527 346,317 405,524 349,726 838,058 840,922 222,729 141,925 476268 8,811 4,317,087 3,404,310 9,341 16,422 266,019 514,777 230,881 283,896 455210 370408 439,861 401465 930,807 912,777 235,703 150,314 526,760 3.345 4,610,7 3,648,1 II 10,951 16,472 521,\\9- 241.707 285,48 493,18 381,692 467,43' 457,831 1,019,69\"' 962208 23821* 153,9d* 569441   (D) Not tbowu tc avoid diiclosure of ccofidcntiaJ infonnaocn. 1/1981-86 Baaed co 1972 SIC 2/ U.S. Bureau of the Ccoiua Eatimaict 3/ Penonal Cooiribuucnt for Social Ini. are included in eaminti by type and jnduiuy but excluded frem perional income. 5/ 1978-83 Fann Pro. \u0026amp; Rental Income and Rcridenee Adj. reflect reviiico which have not been made for petvioui yeara. 6/ Includca the C,. jilal Coniumptioo Adj. for Rental Incrxnc of Peraoni. 77 Includci the Inventory Valuation and Capital Coniumpdoo Adjuitmenti. 8/ Other - Wagea and Salariei cd U.S. Reaidoju working for International organiiationi in the U3. a a Sounx: Lcxad Area Pereonil Income, Volume A  Southeait Retion, 1981-1986\nU.S. DeptruneiU of Conunenx. Bureau of Economic Analyiix\nJuly. 1988. Tischler \u0026amp; Associates. IdI Table 10 Personal Household Income by Analysis Area\n1980 I Total ANALYSIS - Nilin, of. Under AREA Hshlds- $5,000 $5,000 to $7,499 $7,500 to $9,999 $10,000 $15,000 $20,000 $25,000 to to to to $14,999 $19,999 $24,999 $34,999 DoxsTitown 1,274- 323 245 173 273 145 44 53 Central ^,459 1,914 914 926 1,177 635 399 233 East 5,694 1,259 631 623 1,102 665 584 585 Northwest 21,026, 1,323 1,033 1,444 3,243 2,943 2,486 3,752 Midtown 2,451 1,322 1,375 2,637 1,963 1,251 1,184 Southwest '' (4,660 1,219 1,108 1,498 2,594 2.103 2,237 2,319 West  7.017 777 463 574 1,167 1,151 1,057 \\.221 Far West 377 191 293 566 515 525 1,012 S3S,000 $50,000 to $49,999 194 181 2,597 345 788 490 790 and ' Higher 18 64 2,205 Median $8^496 $8,583 $31i514 $21,059 120 ' $12,228 194 111 621 $16,684 $17,290 $24317 n 12,648 7r  V , 4,896, 0 Percent Distribution Downtown Central East Northwest Midtown Southwest West Far West 100.0% 25.4% 100.0% 29.6% 100.0% 22.1% 100.0% 6.3% 100.0% 19.4% 100.0% 8.3% 100.0% 11.1% 100.0% 7.7% 19.2% 14.2% 11.1% 4.9% 13.6% 14.3% 10.9% 6.9% 10.5% 10.9% 7.6% 6.6% 3.9% 10.2% 8.2% 6.0% 21.4% 18.2% 19.4% 15.4% 20.8% 17.7% 16.6% 11.6% 11.4% 9.8% 11.7% 14.0% 15.5% 18.4% 16.4% 10.5% 3.5% 6.2% 10.3% 11.8% 9.9% 15.3% 15.1% 10.7% 4.2% 3.6% 10.3% 17.8% 9.4% 15.8% 17.5% 20.7% 0.0% 3.0% 3.2% 12.4% 2.7% 5.4% 7.0% 16.1% 1.4% 1.0% 1.1% 10.5% 0.9% 1.3% 1.6% 12.8% Cumulative Percent fl Downtown Central East Northwest Midtown Southwest West Far West 25.4% 29.6% 22.1% 6.3% 19.4% 8.3% 11.1% 7.7% 44.6% 43.8% 33.2% 11.2% 29.8% 15.9% 17.7% 11.6% 58.2% 58.1% 44.1% 18.1% 40.7% 26.1% 25.9% 17.6% 79.6% 76.3% 63.5% 33.5% 61.6% 43.8% 42.5% 29.1% 91.0% 86.2% 75.2% 47.5% 77.1% 62.2% 58.9% 39.7% 94.4% 92.4% 85.4% 59.3% 87.0% 77.5% 73.9% 50.4% 98.6% 96.0% 95.7% 77.2% 96.3% 93.3% 91.4% 71.1% 98.6% 99.0% 98.9% 89.5% 99.1% 98.7% 98.4% 87.2% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% Souree: U.S. Ccnjuj. 1960\nTiidJcr \u0026amp; Aiioc., Inc. Tischiet \u0026amp; Associales. in ICentral Area 1980 Median Household Income Ch 24817 (/\u0026gt; o Q C* \u0026gt; i/i Q n Q V  Fj dttnlown inlrol 15000 10000 8496 i I 20000 Centro I Percent Areo 1980 Housenuiu Income of Households with $10,000 Household Income or Less 58 Northwest () 45 Fir West 51 (/ o 2 c*\u0026gt; \u0026gt; (/) (n O g 0) Q (Z)  30 20 18 J Central Area 1980 HousehoId Income Percent of Households with $35,000 Income or More Fl ---------- Midtown C I own\njnlrol idy V 28.9 20.0 10.0 5.0 1 (?\u0026gt; n 2 c* \u0026gt; Vi O ow V) Eosl 1 . 4   2. Housing Characteristics A summary of housing tenure and occupancy data is presented in Table 11. This data lists tenure type (seasonal, owner occupancy, rental occupancy) and racial occupancy by tenure for each county of the MSA as of the 1980 and 1990 census. I I  f From 1980 to 1990, vacant housing units in Pulaski County increased from 6.2 percent to 9.5 percent of the total housing stock. This is in contrast to the adjoining three counties for which vacancy rates either remained about the same, or in fact declined over this same period. Rental units in Pulaski County have narrowly increased their share of total occupied units during the 1980s, growing from 37.6 percent in 1980 to 39.7 percent in 1990. A similar, marginal increase in the portion of rental units was also experienced in the three adjoining counties, each increasing between one-half to nearly two percentage points.  I H In Pulaski County, a small increase the proportion of housing units with Black householders was experienced over this same period, increasing from 20.0 percent in 1980 to 22.0 percent in 1990. This is the highest proponion of any of the MSA counties. Black householders actually declined slightly in Lonoke County, and increased from 1,024 (6.6 percent) to 1,506 (7.1 percent) in Faulkner County. Saline County has remained predominently oriented to white householders at 97.6 percent, with only 364 Black householders county-wide as of 1990. As of 1990, the median owner-occupied housing value was S61,300 and the median monthly rent for rental units was $303 for all of Pulaski County. These values were the highest of the MSA Counties. Median ownership values for Saline County were $59,000, and were $55,400 for Faulkner County as of 1990. Table 12 summarizes a tabulation of housing starts compiled by Metroplan, It should be noted that for H covering both Pulaski and SaEne Counties. unincorporated areas, no building permit data was avaEable, and indirect data sources (such as U.S. Postal data and uEEty company data) have been used to estimate housing starts. These data indicate that for the 25 year period from 1960 H to 1985, multi-family housing starts comprised over 43 percent of the two countytotal. As will be seen later in Section HI, this proportion is much higher than the proportion of multi-family building permits issued by the City of Little Rock over the most recent three years. Realtors and developers have also indicated that the Little Rock areas is very strongly oriented to single-family housing, and that very little in the way of multi family housing has been initiated within Little Rock in recent years. 11-41 Tischler \u0026amp; Associates. IncTOTAL HOUSING UNITS Vacant Housing Units Table 11 Characteristics Of Housing Units\n1980 \u0026amp; 1990 Pulaski Saline , 1-aulkncr Lonoke 1980 1990 1980 1990 1980 1990 1980 1990 132,810 151,538 18,854 24,602 16,814 23,397 12,442 15,009 Vacant, Seasonal \u0026amp; Migragory Units 8,294 6.2% 131 14,329 9.5% 275 1,282 6.8% 100 1,56.5 6.4% 171 1,32.5 7.9% '72 2,072 8.9% 424 1,034 8.3% n 1,14,3 7.6% 77 OCCUPIED HOUSING UNITS 124,516 100.0% 137,209 100.0% 17,572 100.0% 23,037 100.0% 15,489 100.0% 21,325 100.0% 11,408 100.0% 13,866 100.0% TENURE CHARACTERSITICS While Householder 98,348 79.0% f 105,475 76.9% .\n' 17,142 97.6% 22,494 97.6% 14,38.3 92.9% 19,638 92.1% 10,173 89\n2%\n12,668 91.4% Black Householder 24,871 20.0^ 30,245 22\n09^^'. 334 1.9% 364 1.6% 1,024 6.6% 1,506 7.1% 1,17.3 10.3% 1,107 8.0% Other Races 1,297 1.0%,\n. 1,489 .1.1%4C\" 96 0.5% 179 0.8% 82 0.5% 181 0.8% 62 0J% 91 0.7% Owner Occupied 77,678\n62.4% 82,772 .60.3%\n' 14,244 81.1% 18,563 80.6% 11,220 72.4% 15,027 70.5% 8,564 75.1% 10,319 : 74.4% Renter Occupied V! o 3\" 5 c*\u0026gt; \u0026gt; v\u0026gt; O n 5 (V (/) 46,838 3 j.6% 54,437 39.7%\n3,328 18.9% 4,474 19.4% 4,269 27.6% 6,298 29.5% 2,844 24.9% 3,547 25.6% VALUE AND RENT Median Value Median Contract Rent $40,100 $174 $61,300 $30.3 $37,100 $130 $59,000 $241 $37,100 $139 $55,400 $247 $33,200 $106 $52,700 $217 Source: U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the CensusTable 12 Housing Starts*, 19601985 Pulaski and Saline Counties Total Starts Single Family Starts Prcnt Multi-Family Starts Prcnt 1960 1961 1962 196.3 1964 1965 1966 1967 1968 1969 1970 1971 1972 197.3 1974 1975 1976 1977 1978 1979 1980 1981 1982 1983 1984 1985 Total\n1,011 1,212 2372 2,427 2,653 3,690 1,885 2,020 1,712 1,591 3,144 4,708 4,35.3 4,117 2,258 1,776 2390 2,685 2,645 2,810 1,949 1,341 2337 3,908 3,936 3,091 68,221 928 1,085 1,749 1,858 1,922 1,814 1,141 1,178 1,299 ' 1,122 1,321 1,986 2,067 1,718 1,384 1,587 1,84,3 1,998 1,808 2,0.37 1,27.3 607 488 1,282 1,471 91.8% 893% 73.7% 76.6% 72.4% 49.2% 60.5% 583% 75.9% 70.5% 42.0% 42.2% 473% 41.7% 613% 89.4% 77.1% 74.4% 68.4% 723% 653% 453% 192% 32.8% 37.4% 50.1% 83 127 62.3 569 7.31 1,876 744 842 413 469 1,823 2,722 2,286 2,399 874 189 547 687 8.37 77.3 676 734 2,049 2,626 2,465 1,542 8.2 10.5 263 23.4 27.6 50.8 .39.5 41.7 24.1 293 58.0 57.8 523 583 38.7 10.6 22.9 25.6 31.6 273 .34.7 54.7 80.8 672 62.6 49.9 38,515 56^% 29,706 43^ Metroplan estimates for incorporated and unincorporated areas. Source: Metroplan Tischler \u0026amp; Associates, Ini 3. Retail Trade Profile II I The most recent profile data for retailing may be drawn from Sales and Marketing Magazine. (U.S. Census of Retail Trade data is only available through 1987.) Estimated retail sales as of 1989 arc shown in Table 13 for the MSA region, for each county, and specifically for Little Rock. All dollar figures shown in Table 13 are expressed in thousands of 1989 year values. The top half of Table 13 shows the estimated sales, and the percentage distribution of these sales for establishments by jurisdiction. I I As of 1989, total sales for Little Rock establishments were estimated at SI.95 billion, with an additional $1.29 billion estimated for the balance of Pulaski County, combining for total county-wide sales of $3.24 billion. Sales in each of the other three MSA counties were dramatically lower at $242 million, $325 million, and $135 million for Saline, Faulkner and Lonoke Counties respectively. These sales estimates indicate that Little Rock establishments accounted for nearly half (49.5 percent) of total regional sales, with the balance of the county (i.e. North Little Rock and adjoining areas) accounting for nearly one third (32.6 percent) of the regional total. While Little Rock is therefore capturing the greatest share, establishments in the northern part of the county are capturing a sales share which is much higher than this areas share of regional population. This can be attributed to several of the regions larger retail centers being located in the northern part of the county, and that these locations tend to serve as \"intercepts\" to some degree for the Faulkner County market further to the nonh. Another factor highlighting this condition is that while Little Rock establishments captured about half of the regions sales overall, general merchandise stores in Little Rock (i.e. depanment stores, mass merchandise stores) in Little Rock accounted for less than one-third of the regional total for this category, with north-county establishments accounting for over half (56.2 percent) of these sales.    I    The bottom half of this table estimates market capture, or market penetration. Estimated market demand is calculated by pro-rating total sales in proportion to personal income, indicated as \"Effective Buying Income\". This indicates what the residents of each jurisdiction are likely to spend, regardless of the location of stores. That is, if expenditures are made in proportion to the supply of buying income in each jurisdiction, then residents of Little Rock would be expected to have generated $1.68 billion in market demand. Residents of the rest of Pulaski County are estimated to have generated $1.27 billion in estimated demand as of 1989, with residents of the three adjoining counties generating nearly $1.0 billion together. Comparing the sales from establishments within each jurisdiction to the expenditures from the same jurisdiction indicates whether sales are being \"imported\" or \"exported\". Overall, sales for esublishments in Little Rock are estimated as being equivalent to about 116 percent of expenditures from city residents, thus indicating that a significant increment of sales is coining from visitors or residents living outside of the city.    IW4 Tischler \u0026amp; Associates. I' a Table 1.3 Retail Sales Distribution (Dollar values in $000s) MSA Effective Buying Income $6,277,292 % Distribution 100.0% Pulaski Total Little Rock $4,708,747 $2,683,822 75.0% 42.8% Balance $2,024,925 32.3% Saline $590,377 9.4% Faulkner $645,074 103% Lonoke $333,094 5.3% I TOTAL SALES Food Stores Eat \u0026amp; Drink Gen Mdse Fumy Api. Automotive Drug AU Other SALES CAPTURE Total Sales Food Stores Eat \u0026amp; Drink Gen Mdse Fumy Api. Automotive Drug All Other $3,944,461 723,295 .345376 610,018 180,043 1,006,480 78,700 1,000,549 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% $3,241,219 $1,954,152 540,208 289,878 5.36,.350 153,180 843300 58,601 819,702 329,73.3 193,440 193,440 107,218 504,447 37,850 588,024 $1,287,067 210,475 96,438 342,910 45,962 338,85.3 20,751 231,678 $242,300 68,001 16,306 25,385 8,880 65,026 7,138 51,564 $325,186 73,540 .31,851 34,65.3 14,515 66,520 7,400 96,707 $135,756 41,546 7341 1.3,6.30 3,468 .31,6.34 5,561 .32,576 82.2% 74.7% 8.3.9% 87.9% 85.1% 83.8% 743% 81.9% 49.5% 45.6% 56.0% 31.7% 59.6% 50.1% 48.1% 58.8% 32.6% 29.1% 27.9% 56.2% 25.5% 33.7% 26.4% 232% 6.1% 9.4% 4.7% 4.2% 4.9% 63% 9.1% 53% 8.2% 10.2% 9.2% 5.7% 8.1% 6.6% 9.4% 9.7% 3.4% 5.7% 2.1% 23% 1.9% 3.1% 7.1% 33% ESTIMATED DEMAND Total Sales Food Stores Eat \u0026amp; Drink Gen Mdse Fumy Api. Automotive Dmg AU Other $3,944,461 723,295 345376 610,018 180,043 1,006,480 78,700 1,000349 $2,958,835 542361 259,075 457389 135,055 754,985 59,035 750336 $1,686,433 309,241 147,664 260,810 76,976 430315 33,648 427,779 $1,272,402 233320 111,411 196,779 58,078 324,670 25387 322,756 $370,975 68,026 32,482 57372 16,933 94,659 7,402 94,101 $405,345 74328 35,492 62,687 18302 103,429 8,087 102,820 $209306 38380 18327 32370 9354 53,407 4,176 53,092 market CAPTURE Total Sales Food Stores Eat \u0026amp; Drink Gen Mdse Fumy Api. Automotive Drug All Other 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 1093% 99.6% 111.9% 1173% 113.4% 111.7% 993% 1093% 115.9% 106.6% 131.0% 74.2% 1393% 1173% 1123% 1373% 1013% 903% 86.6% 1743% 79.1% 104.4% 81.7% 71.8% 653% 100.0% 503% 443% 52.4% 68.7% 96.4% 54.8% 803% 98.9% 89.7% 553% 783% 643% 913% 94.1% 64.9% 1083% 40.1% 42.1% 363% 593% 1333% 61.4% Source: 1990 Sales \u0026amp; Marketing Magazine\nTischler \u0026amp; Associates, Inc. Tischler \u0026amp; Associates, inI Saline, Faulkner and Lonoke counties, however, are shown as having sales equal to only 65.3, 80.2, and 64.9 percent of their residents expenditures respectively, thus indicating that a margin of sales are being lost to establishments in other jurisdictions, in this case, Little Rock and norther Pulaski County.  Little Rocks sales are consistently higher than expenditures from the citys residents for each category, with the one very notable exception of general merchandise. For this category, stores within the city are capturing only 74 percent of the expenditures generated by city residents. These sales are being captured by stores in the North Little Rock area which is estimated has having a market capture equal to 174 percent of the expenditures generated just from within this area. I I  These rates of sales capture and market expenditure capture are further depicted graphically in Exhibit 20. I The overall observation from this data is that retailing in Little Rock generally enjoys good competitive positioning and is able to command a significant share of the regions sales and expenditures. However, a very obvious departure from this overall picture is in regards to department stores and mass merchandise stores, as noted above.  I I I     11-46 Tischler \u0026amp; Associaies. Inc IExhibit 20 Retail Sales Capture Sales Capture This chart shows sales for Little Rock esublishments as a percent of toul sales for Pulaski County, and the MSA region. Types of stores capturing the largest share of sales include furniture, furnish-ngs and appliance stores, and eating and drinking esublishments. General merchandise (department) stores have a very low share, capturing only .36 % of county sales and 32 % of MSA sales. Little Rock Sales Cipture City Sales as % of Region. Couoty Sales so% 70% 60% 50% 30% 20% 10%e d 0% % of Region % of County Food \u0026amp; Drug SS Eat \u0026amp; Drink ^3 Gen Mdse Hum. i Applnc Automotive Other Markel Penetration The chart below shows sales for Little Rock establishments as a percent of the estimated total expenditures generated by residents throughout the MSA, and in just the county and city. Figures above 100% indicate sales in excess of local resident demand, attracting expenditures from surrounding areas. Again, general merchandise lags far below other types of establishments. Little Rock Market Penetration City Sales as % of Market Demand I 150% r 140%  130% ' 120% 110% 100% 90% S0% 70% 60% 50% 40% X)% 20% 10% 0% Regional Demand County Demand City Demand XX X [ S Food \u0026amp; Drug S Ell \u0026amp; Drink EOenMdie S Furn. \u0026amp; Apploe 1^ AulODOtive 1^ Other Souree\n1990 Sales \u0026amp; Markeiing Magaiinc\nTischler \u0026amp; Associates, Inc. Tischler \u0026amp; Associates. Inc I Section HI Development Trends I The previous section has laid a foundation of general background data depicting economic and demographic conditions and trends. In this section, we will review current trends in development, and will make generalized projections as to development quantities in several major sectors. II I I in.A. HOUSING MARKET TRENDS A general assessment of housing market conditions and trends has been completed and is presented in this section. This begins with a review of recent sales and construction activity, and then projections are made as to likely future demand within the immediate Little Rock area. H H II 1. Residential Sales Activity I Table 14 presents summary indicators of recent activity in home sales for the Little Rock area, and immediately adjoining areas. This data is based on summary statistics for the first nine months in both 1990 and 1991 from the Central Arkansas Multiple Listing Service. The nature of this data is strongly oriented to sales of existing homes, although some new homes, particularly in the areas of new developing communities, may be included. I I The data in Table 14 show about the same level of activity in both 1990 and 1991, with total unit sales in the first nine months of each year at just under 1,500 closed sales. For both years, the areas with the highest activity were the far west and northwest areas, with more than 500 sales each in both years. The next most active area was southwest, with roughly half this level of sales, 282 in 1990 and 217 in 1981. No other area had more than 100 sales.   For all of Little Rock, reported closing (sales) prices were about 3.5 percent higher in 1991, at $93,969, than in 1990, averaging then at $90,801. The highest average sales prices were reported in the far west area, indicated at nearly $125,000 in 1991. Only one other area, northwest, had average prices close to $100,000 ($98,848). Much lower average prices were reported in all other areas, with the downtown/central city area, southwest and west all indicating prices close to $50,000 and two areas, cast and midtown indicating very low average reported  I III-l Tischler \u0026amp; Associates. ILillie Rock Downtown/Cenlral City East \u0026amp; Airport Midtown Northwest, Hillcrest Southwest West Far West Soulhwesl Corridor Bryanl Benton Otter Creek North Pulaski County Table 14 Residential Sales Activity\n1990-1991 Number of Sales 1990 1991 1,472 1,481 Average Selling 1990 $90,801 Price 1991 $93,969 % of Listing Price Received Avg. Days of Listing Time 1990 1991 1990 1991 94.4% 94.2% 131.8 132.6 33 7 56 50,3 282 59 532 41 9 46 531 217 92 545 47,462 23,342 33,346 96,622 50,090 50,072 121,017 53,307 . 26,101 26,460 98,848 49,1.5,5 47,626 124,759 90.4% 91.9% 91.8% 93.9% 95.1% 95.6% 94.9% 93.8% 99.2% 88.8% 92.8% 95.4% 95.1% 95.4% 181.7 129.7 134.9 1203 140.6 150.4 132.7 20L,5 177.1 161.1 138.8 141.9 12.3.2 116.3 379 388 $66,410 $68,457 95.3% 95.7% 119.7 130.1 18,3 167 29 182 161 45 67,081 61,942 87,90.5 67,398 64,87,3 85,562 95.2% 95.5% 94.3% 96.0% 95.5% . 95.6% 112.6 114.9 192.7 128.1 138.9 106.7 1,238 1,261 $70,998 $70,768 95.1% 95.0% 115.6 127.8  wi o 2 ffo \u0026gt; tn (/\u0026gt; O g Q\u0026gt; to North Lillie Rock Maumcllc/Cryslal Hills Jacksonvillc/Cabot Sherwood Source: Central Arkansas MLS 347 267 422 202 379 299 376 207 79,744 73,349 61,36,5 72,993 75,131 74,54.5 60,264 76,401 94,1% 95.8% 95.5% 95.3% 94.0% 95.2% 95.9% 94.8% 128.6 126.7 103.3 104.5 137.5 128.7 116.7 128.7 II prices near $26,000. With the exception of midtown at 88 percent, most areas within the city indicated receiving selling prices in the mid-90 percent range of their listing prices. (This may not necessarily account for seller-authorized reductions in listing prices.) II The far west and west areas had the shortest average listing times in 1991 of 116 and 123 days respectively. At the other end of the scale was downtown/central city with an average 201 day listing period. I I The unit sales volumes and average prices seen in Table 14 are also graphically represented in Exhibit 21. This exhibit clearly shows the margin by which both the number and the value of home sales in the far west and northwest areas surpass all other areas of the city. 2. II H Residential Building Permits Resideniial building permits have been summed for the past three years, 1989 through 1991, and allocated to the eight analysis areas defined for this study. The results of this tabulation are shown in Table 15 on the following page, as well as in the subsequent two map exhibits. n I Over the last three years, a total of 870 single family building permits were issued by the City of Little Rock, an average of 290 per year. This contrasts sharply with the total of 6 duplex (attached unit) permits, and one multi-family permit (not shown on the table) granted over this same period. Over 65 percent of the residential permits were for sites in the far west area. Only the west (at 145) and the northwest (at 90) had any significant level of activity. Average building cost values as reported on the permit applications were generally consistent with the values seen in the realtor sales activities. The far west area had an average building cost of close to $130,000. The northwest area was the next highest, at $155,620. No other area had an average cost higher than $60,000, and two areas, midtowq and central city, had average costs less than $40,000. n n n n The concentration of building activity and the orientation of higher values to the western portion of Little Rock can also be seen in the maps shown in Exhibits 22 and 23. Exhibit 22 shows the number of permits in ranges of 0-10, 10-100, 100- 150, and higher than 150, which in this case, refers only to the 568 units permitted in the far west area. Exhibit 23 funher relates average costs to location within the city. Here, again, the downtown, central, east and midtown areas are shown as having very low unit costs, all averaging less than $51,224, while higher values are found in the western sectors. The west and southwest area are shown with average costs between $51,224 and $59,874, with the nonhwest and far west areas having costs between $59,874 and $155,620. n a a III-3 Tischler \u0026amp; Associales. In* 1Unit Volume Exhibit 21 Residential Sales Activity Number of Home Sales Units Sold TTirough MLS I Average Sales Price Source: Central Arkansas NtLS Tischler \u0026amp; Associales. Inc Table 15 Little Rock Area Residential Building Permits\n1989 - 1991 ANALYSIS AREA ClfVViTDE' AvgJPennit  \u0026gt; DOTVNTOWN Avg7Permit CENTRAL AvgyPennit EAST Avg7Permit MIDTOWN Avg7Perm!( NORTHWEST AvgJPermit 4VESt\u0026lt; -i -I Avgz'Permit SOUTHWEST AvgJPennit FAR33'EST Xvg7Prmll F Duplex Res. No. Total Vai Single Fam. Res. No. Agg Vai 6 0 2, ' 1 3 0 0\n$245300 , $40333 so $0 , ' $80.000 $40,000 $25,000 $25,000 $140,000 $4^,667 870 0 7 7 8 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 \"w* Ts :5X^ zy'J 90 ji* A $99^jr87 $I14,76fi so SO $230,090 $32370 $384,790 $54,970 $307,190 $38399 $14,005,810 $155,620 45 S'5\u0026lt;58^ % Source: Lisle Rock Dcpu of Keishboihoods St Planning\nTischler \u0026amp; Assoc., Inc. t$8.681^^ \u0026gt; SS9.874 $2300325 $55361 s^s'zM              Tischler \u0026amp; Associates, In aLittle Rock Area Building Permits 19891991 Number of Residential Permits 568 Fj /dJo/n. 150 lown jnlrol i lly \u0026lt;5- 100 10 o rr 2 \u0026gt; (Z) V) O a  Cast 0 I tn o Q Qo \u0026gt; tn tn O o O) Q tn Little Rock Area Building Permits 1989-1991 Average Value per Res i dent i a I Permit, Fl I own Mill nWAJT ZZ Zv/owm jnlrol ilfe 155620 59874 51224. 54454 03. Projected Households and New Housing Demand Both the data from realtor sales, and the data from new residential building permits quantify several factors, which are widely recognized throughout the community: The far west and nonhwest areas are preferred by far in terms of number of new units\nThe residential values in the far west and northwest areas are significantly higher than any other ponion of the city, and\nThe eastern and core areas arc experiencing only very nominal, if any, residential-construction-aetivity,'and have average values which are severely depressed, compared to the rest of the city. In assessing how future housing demand may operate over the next ten years, we have examined both the permit and sale activity, as well as longer term trends in population and household movement, as previously seen in Section H. To assess potential future demand, we have drawn on the population projections by analysis area, as seen previously in Table 6, Section n, and have applied average household sizes to the population data from that data to estimate the implied changes in the number of households. For 1985, the average household sizes varied from 1.6 in the downtown area, to 3.2 in the far west area, and were set so as to be consistent with the household size data adopted earlier for Tables 5 and 6 in Section n. Applying individual household size data to the projected population changes for each area from Section II results in the projected changes in the number of households shown in Table 16. This projection indicates that five of the eight analysis areas may experience a net loss of households over the next ten years, if current prevailing trends continue without alteration. The northwest, west and far west areas are shown as experiencing a net gain of 5,099 households, absorbing outmigration from the eastern portions of the city, as well as attracting new-arrivals to the region. While Pulaski County is indicated as increasing by 6,183 households over the next 10 years, most of this will occur outside of the city, such as in Maumelle and other north-county communities. The city as a whole is shown as experiencing a net loss of 521 households over the next 10 years. in-8 Tischler \u0026amp; Associates. Inc  Table 16 Projected Change in Number of Households  1990 2000 Change ^90-00 Average Per Year Pulaski County 137,209 143,392 6,183 618.3 Little Rock Vicinity 78,369 77,849 . . (521) (52.1) Dountown 1,185 982 (202) (20.2) Central 7,162 6,026 (1,136) (113.6) East 9,397 8,023 (1374) (137.4) Northwest 18,498 20,174 1,676 167.6      Midtown 14,268 11,780 (2,487) (248.7) Southwest 13,487 13,066 (421) (42.1)  West 6,270 6,487 216 21.6 Far West 8,103 11310 3,207 320.7 Balance Of Pulaski County 58,840 65,543 6,703 6703 Source: Tischler \u0026amp; Associates, Inc. Tischler \u0026amp; Associates. Inf   I I a  This projection indicates that, should trends continue as they have over the prior decade, the western portion of the city will continue to experience growth and expansion, while eastern portions of the city will likely see even more disinvestment, high rental vacancy rates, and outright abandonment more than has occurred to date. The predominance of the western areas, and the type of housing being developed in these areas, suggests that the growth anticipated in these areas will continue to be strongly oriented to single-family-detached development. Very little multifamily development may occur within the city, although some may be constructed in the north county communities. I I The average sales values from realtor listings shown previously in Table 14 tend to be weighted b.y a .significant.number of older properties. New development values typically are higher than resale values, and can be significantly higher if new \"product\" is being introduced at a much higher level of amenity than the existing base. This seems to be the case, for example, in the northwest area. By contrast, the building permit data seen in Table 15 focusses on the most recent new construction, but also tends to understate current total values in that these costs include additions and panical improvements, and do not include land costs or indirect (\"soft\") costs associated with the development process. The projections seen in Table 16 indicate that only three areas, west, northwest and far west, are anticipated as having any postive net growth in the number of households through the rest of the decade. Based on building permit data over recent years and our own survey of the market areas, TA believes new housing development in these areas will be strongly, if not exclusively oriented to singlefamily-detached units. Allowing for land and indirect costs, and based on the average building permit values seen in Table 15, TA anticipates that future new housing unit market values for the three areas projected to have net housing growth will tend to range as follows: Area Average Market Values West Far West Northwest S 60,000 - S 80,000 S150,000 - 5170,000 5185,000 - 5200,000 I m.B. RETAIL DEVELOPMENT TRENDS Retail sales and retail development has enjoyed relatively good occupancies and sales through at least 1990, contrary to many other metropolitan areas. Sales, relative to 111-10 Tischler \u0026amp; Associates. Inc  regional total income, is comparatively high, suggesting that some importation of sales from beyond the four-county MSA region is occurring. As reviewed briefly in Section n. Little Rock has maintained a generally competitive position in retailing. The two primary retail areas in the county are west-central Little Rock, and the north county mall locations. With plans now indefinite for proposed mall developments along 1-430, some slight further erosion in market share may continue for the next ten years, although growth in market size should be sufficient to compensate for this. This part of the report looks more closely at retail sales trends, and provides a general projection of the potential for further retail development within the city. 1.  H Retail Sales Trends: 1982-1987 Retail sales data for 1982 and 1987 (the latest available data from the Census of Retail Trade) are shown in Table 17 for the MSA region, Pulaski County, and Little Rock. The sales data in Table 17 are expressed in thousands of current dollar values, that is, the amounts reported as collected as of the respective year. On a current dollar basis, total sales for Little Rock establishments increased from   $1.13 billion in 1982 to $1.59 billion in 1987. As of 1987, the three highest I sales categories by store type were automotive ($406 million), general merchandise ($406 million), and food stores ($256 million). I To more accurately portray a trend in the 1982 and 1987 sales levels, it is first necessary to convert these current dollar values to constant dollars. This has been done, based on the consumer price index (CPI) for the southern region of the United States. This calculation results in the trends seen in the top graph of Exhib\nThis project was supported in part by a Digitizing Hidden Special Collections and Archives project grant from The Andrew W. Mellon Foundation and Council on Library and Information Resoources.\n   \n\n   \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\u003cdcterms_creator\u003eTischler \u0026amp; Associates, Inc.\u003c/dcterms_creator\u003e\n   \n\n \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n \n\n  \n\n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n   \n\n \n\n\n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n\n\n  \n\n\n\n "},{"id":"bcas_bcmss0837_1200","title":"Little Rock School District, school board meeting minutes","collection_id":"bcas_bcmss0837","collection_title":"Office of Desegregation Management","dcterms_contributor":null,"dcterms_spatial":["United States, 39.76, -98.5","United States, Arkansas, 34.75037, -92.50044","United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, 34.76993, -92.3118","United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, Little Rock, 34.74648, -92.28959"],"dcterms_creator":["Little Rock School District"],"dc_date":["1992-01-16/1992-12-17"],"dcterms_description":null,"dc_format":["application/pdf"],"dcterms_identifier":null,"dcterms_language":["eng"],"dcterms_publisher":["Little Rock, Ark. : Butler Center for Arkansas Studies. Central Arkansas Library System"],"dc_relation":null,"dc_right":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC-EDU/1.0/"],"dcterms_is_part_of":["Office of Desegregation Monitoring records (BC.MSS.08.37)","History of Segregation and Integration of Arkansas's Educational System"],"dcterms_subject":["Little Rock (Ark.)--History--20th century","Little Rock School District","Education--Arkansas","Educational planning","School board members","School boards","School management and organization","Meetings"],"dcterms_title":["Little Rock School District, school board meeting minutes"],"dcterms_type":["Text"],"dcterms_provenance":["Butler Center for Arkansas Studies"],"edm_is_shown_by":null,"edm_is_shown_at":["http://arstudies.contentdm.oclc.org/cdm/ref/collection/bcmss0837/id/1200"],"dcterms_temporal":null,"dcterms_rights_holder":null,"dcterms_bibliographic_citation":null,"dlg_local_right":["Available for use in research, teaching, and private study. Any other use requires permission from the Butler Center."],"dcterms_medium":["documents (object genre)"],"dcterms_extent":["172 pages"],"dlg_subject_personal":null,"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":"\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n\n\n\n   \n\n\n\n\n   \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n  \n\nThe transcript for this item was created using Optical Character Recognition (OCR) and may contain some errors.\n  LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 810 WEST MARKHAM STREET LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS Board of Directors Special Meeting January 16, 1992 AY 1 \\992 Ollice of Desegregado11 Mo .. 1tcnng The Board of Directors of the Little Rock School District met in a lawfully called special meeting at 6:27 p.m. on January 16, 1992, in the Board Room of the Administration Building, 810 West Markham Street, Little Rock, Arkansas. The president, Mrs . o. G. Jacovelli, presided. MEMBERS PRESENT: Mrs. o. G. Jacovelli Mr. John Moore Ms. Pat Gee Dr. Katherine Mitchell Mr. Willie D. (Bill) Hamilton Mrs. Robin Armstrong Mr. Dorsey Jackson MEMBERS ABSENT: None EX OFFICIO MEMBERS PRESENT: Mrs. Merlyn Watson, Teacher Ex Officio ALSO PRESENT: Dr. Ruth Steele, Superintendent of Schools Mrs. Pat Kumpuris, Recorder of the Minutes Mr. Don Umfleet, Audio Specialist CALL TO ORDER ROLL CALL The president called the special meeting to order at 6:27 p.m. The roll call revealed the presence of all seven Board members. PURPOSE OF SPECIAL MEETING: The chair announced that the special meeting had been called for the purpose of considering a Resolution Authorizing Application for School Assistance in Federally Affected Areas\nto consider the Refinancing of Bonds\nto conduct student disciplinary hearings\nand ,. to have an executive session to discuss personnel matters. RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING APPLICATION FOR SCHOOL ASSISTANCE IN FEDERALLY AFFECTED AREAS: Dr. Steele directed the Board members' attention to the Resolution previously sent to them and recommended that it be adopted by the Board. Mr. John Moore moved the Superintendent's recommendation. Mr. Bill Hamilton seconded the motion, and it carried unanimously. CONSIDERATION OF REFINANCING OF BONDS: The Superintendent explained that the District would realize as much as $970,000 in savings by refinancing the District's bonds dated June 1, 1987. She directed the Board's attention to the Notice of Intention to Issue Refunding Bonds and recommended that the Board adopt the Resolution which reads: \"This School Board will authorize Stephens Inc. to file application with the State Board of Education to issue bonds in the estimated amount of $7,350,000 for the purpose of refunding the District's bond issue dated June 1, 1987. The sale of the proposed issue is subject to determination by the Board that the savings generated is adequate to justify the issuance of the refunding bonds.\" Mrs. Robin Armstrong moved the Superintendent's recommendation for adoption of the Resolution. Mr. Dorsey Jackson seconded the motion, and it carried unanimously. STUDENT DISCIPLINARY HEARINGS: Mr. Rudolph Howard presented the following students for noncontested long-term suspensions: Johnny Brown, Marlon Bunting, T. J. Dunnick, Michelle Fagan, Tonya Harrell, Deloris Hubbert, Billy Hume, Marcus Jackson, Carla Jones, Angela Lee, Stephanie McClain, Sam Roberts, Jermaine Simmons, Rayna Stephens, Robert Tenpenny, Tasha Williams, and Tenika Williams. Mr. Dorsey Jackson moved that the above students be suspended long-term. Mrs. Robin Armstrong seconded the motion, and it carried unanimously. Mr. Howard presented Deon Sheard's and Britt Vickers' petition for reinstatement. Dr. Steele recommended that these students be reinstated under strict probation. Mrs. Robin Armstrong moved the Superintendent's recommendation. Mr. Dorsey Jackson seconded the motion, and it carried with six (6) affirmative votes. Mr. John Moore dissented. The Board held a hearing in connection with Bridgette Bynum's petition for reinstatement to school. After hearing testimony concerning Bridgette's readiness to return to school, the Superintendent recommended that the Board reinstate her on strict probation for the second semester of the 1991-92 school year at the Alternative Learning Center. Mr. Jackson moved the Superintendent's recommendation. Mrs. Armstrong seconded the motion, and it carried with six affirmative votes. Mr. John Moore dissented. The Board held a hearing in connection with a recommendation for the expulsion of Jackie Keener. Jackie was represented by Mr. Austin Porter. The District was represented by Mr. Tommy Meeks. After hearing testimony and questioning by Board members and the Superintendent, Dr. Steele recommended that Jackie be returned to J. A. Fair High School but that Mr. Howard work with the parents and faculty to provide some kind of community service activities for ten (10) hours per month involving people who are younger than he, working with them to reflect on this event and what it has meant to him. Mrs. Armstrong moved the Superintendent's recommendation. Mr. Jackson seconded the motion, and it carried with five (5) affirmative votes. Mr. Moore and Mrs. Jacovelli dissented. EXECUTIVE SESSION: Ms. Pat Gee moved that the Board retire into executive session to discuss personnel matters. Mrs. Armstrong seconded the motion, and it carried unanimously. The Board retired into executive session at 8:16 p.m. and reconvened at 9:47 p.m. Upon reconvening, the Board president announced that no action was taken. ADJOURNMENT: Mrs. Armstrong moved to adjourn. motion, and it carried unanimously. Dr. Mitchell seconded the There being no further business to come before the special meeting of the Board of Directors, the meeting adjourned at 9:48 p.m. ovelli, President Ms. Pat Gee, Secretary APPROVED: ~/-\n,,.7 /9\n.._ ---\"'-,~--,.______.'----- LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 810 WEST MARKHAM STREET LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS Board of Directors Special Meeting January 17, 1992 MAY 1 '992 omce of Desegregation Monitoring The Board of Directors of the Little Rock School District met in a lawfully-called special meeting at 1:12 p.m. on January 17 , 1992, in the Board Room of the Administration Building, 810 West Markham Street, Little Rock, Arkansas. The president, Mrs. o. G. Jacovelli, presided. MEMBERS PRESENT: Mrs. o. G. Jacovelli Mr. John Moore Ms. Pat Gee Dr. Katherine Mitchell Mr. Willie D. (Bill) Hamilton Mrs. Robin Armstrong Mr. Dorsey Jackson MEMBERS ABSENT: None EX OFFICIO MEMBERS PRESENT: Mrs. Merlyn Watson, Teacher Ex Officio Member ALSO PRESENT: Dr. Ruth Steele, Superintendent of Schools Mrs. Pat Kumpuris, Recorder of the Minutes Ms. Susan Jernigan, Search Consultant Mrs. Jan Cummings, Search Consultant CALL TO ORDER: ROLL CALL: Mrs. Jacovelli called the meeting to order at 1:12 p.m. The roll call revealed the presence of all seven (7) Board members. PURPOSE OF SPECIAL MEETING: The chair announced that the special meeting was called to conduct a work session with the search consultants. Board of Directors Special Meeting January 17, 1992 2 Mrs. Jacovelli introduced Ms. Susan Jernigan, a consultant with Sockwell \u0026amp; Anderson from Charlotte, North Carolina\nand Ms. Jan Cummings, President of C-Net, from Coral Springs, Florida. The Board members and the consultants engaged in dialogue concerning the professional and personal characteristics the Board members would like to have in a new superintendent. They discussed what would be happening in the District a year from now for the Board to feel the Superintendent was successful. Among the items mentioned was (1) that the desegregation plan would be successfully working\n(2) that there would be fewer private school students\n(3) that there would be a marked increase in student achievement\n(4) that the management of the District would address the needs of students and understand that well over 50 percent of the students are living in households below the poverty level and 65 percent are black\n( 5) that there would be a marked increase in M to M transfers\n(6) that we would be seeing some white students entering the incentive schools\n(7) that we would have a balanced budget\n(8) that the management of the District would be proactive rather than reactive\n(9) that the Board could have data showing that remedial programs are working and those not working would be discontinued\n(10) that the new superintendent would be recognized by the community as an effective leader\n(11) that the new superintendent would be able to bring the Board together\n(12) that the new administration would practice open communications districtwide\n(13) that trust and confidence would be established between the District and the community\n(14) that the schools would be safer\n(15) that it would be easier for patrons to work through the bureaucracy. Other discussion centered around the evaluation process -that of the superintendent and of programs. Further discussion centered on the biggest obstacles a new superintendent would face. Board members mentioned the budget as an obstacle\nthe lack of management flexibility because of court orders, union contracts, and fear of additional litigation. Some Board members told the consultants that they would not mind having a \"non-traditional\" superintendent or chief executive. Others indicated that they felt it was important for the new superintendent to have experience as a building principal. Others said it was important that the new superintendent has progressed through various positions in education. Others said it was important that the new superintendent have experience in an urban school district and have a \"track record.\" In a discussion on management style, Board members indicated that they would like a superintendent who manages from the \"bottom up\" and who would move the District toward site-based management, Board of Directors Special Meeting January 17, 1992 particularly in items like hiring and budget. 3 During the discussion about compensation, the Board members indicated that they would like to leave the salary negotiable or $120,000 tops. The president asked for action on the contract with the consultants. Mr. John Moore moved that the Board enter into the contract with the co-consultants Jernigan and Cummings. Mr. Dorsey Jackson seconded the motion, and it carried unanimously. ADJOURNMENT: There being no further business to come before the special meeting of the Board of Directors, the meeting adjourned at 2:50 p.m. upon motion by Ms. Pat Gee, a second by Mr. John Moore, and unanimous approval of the Board. Mrs. O. G. Jovelli,President Ms. Pat Gee, Secretary APPROVED: ---\",'---b- -'7,/ 9~ .-2. --- LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 810 WEST MARKHAM STREET LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS Board of Directors Regular Meeting January 23, 1992 Office of Desegregation Monitoring The Board of Directors of the Little Rock School District met in its regularly scheduled monthly meeting at 5:59 p.m. on January 23, 1992, in the Board Room of the Administration Building, 810 West Markham Street, Little Rock, Arkansas. The president, Mrs. o. G. Jacovelli, presided. MEMBERS PRESENT: Mrs. o. G. Jacovelli Mr. John Moore Ms. Pat Gee Dr. Katherine Mitchell Mrs. Robin Armstrong Mr. Willie D. (Bill) Hamilton Mr. Dorsey Jackson MEMBERS ABSENT: None EX OFFICIO MEMBERS PRESENT: Ms. Merlyn Watson, Teacher Ex Officio Miss Beverly Tolliver, Student Ex Officio ALSO PRESENT: I. Dr. Ruth Steele, Superintendent of Schools Mrs. Pat Kumpuris, Recorder of the Minutes Mr. Don Umfleet, Audio Specialist ACTION: CALL TO ORDER ROLL CALL The Board president called the meeting to order at 5:59 p.m. The roll call revealed the presence of all seven (7) Board members. II. ACTION: READING OF THE MINUTES The chair directed the Board members' attention to the Board of Directors Regular Meeting January 23, 1992 2 minutes of the special meeting on December 2, 1991\nthe special meeting on December 12, 1991\nand the regular meeting on December 19, 1992. Mr. Dorsey Jackson moved that the minutes be approved as submitted. Mrs. Robin Armstrong seconded the motion, and it carried unanimously. III. CONSENT: CONSENT ITEMS Dr. Steele recommended that the Board approve the new partnership between McDonald's of Little Rock and Mitchell Elementary School. Mrs. Robin Armstrong moved the Superintendent's recommendation. Dr. Katherine Mitchell seconded the motion, and it carried unanimously. A check for $28,000 was presented to the District by Mr. Bob Mason, Executive Director of the Little Rock Housing Authority, for a payment in lieu of taxes. Mr. Mason thanked the Board for the cooperative relationship the Housing Authority and the District enjoy and noted that both entities work with the same students. IV. PRESENTATIONS A. Superintendent's Comments Dr. Steele presented a Superintendent's Citation to the Friends of the Central Arkansas Library System (FOCAL) for their generous donation of $4,000 to the District's Reading is Fundamental (RIF) program. Mr. Rod Lorenzen, President of the FOCAL group, accepted the Citation. A Superintendent's Citation was also presented to the Greater Little Rock Optimist Club and the Christmas tree chairperson, Mr. Bob Jones, in recognition and appreciation for the Club's donation of Christmas trees to the District's elementary schools. Dr. Steele also saluted the school nurses in celebration of National School Nurse Week, January 20-24. Superintendent's Ci tat ions were also presented to the Board's teacher and student ex officio members for the month of January: Ms. Merlyn Watson, a teacher from Badgett Elementary, and Miss Beverly Tolliver, a student at Parkview Arts \u0026amp; Science Magnet. B. Citizens Committees None reporting. Board of Directors Regular Meeting January 23, 1992 c. Board Members 3 Ms. Pat Gee expressed appreciation for the citizens who took time to attend the various meetings conducted last Saturday with the Superintendent's search consultants. Dr. Katherine Mitchell expressed her thanks for the people who have encouraged her to remain on the Board and said she would continue to pray about her decision and asked that her friends pray with her. Dr. Mitchell also encouraged the teachers and principals in the buildings who are preparing for AfricanAmerican history month during February. She expressed support for paying tribute to African-Americans who have contributed a great deal to the development of our country but whose contributions have been omitted from the history books. In response to an article in one of the weekly newspapers in which student performance in the Little Rock School District was compared with students in private schools, Mr. John Moore enumerated the outstanding accomplishments of students in the District and cited other advantages of education in the Little Rock School District that are unavailable in private schools. He also reminded the audience that there are in excess of 20,000 students in the District that did not bring a gun, be expelled, suspended or even had to go to the principal' s office. He commended the dedicated employees who work diligently to help children. V. REMARKS FROM CITIZENS Mr. Gene Remley told the Board that children in the Little Rock School District are learning about guns and knives, gangs, food fights, drugs, gambling, and racism. He related an incident in which his daughter was sprayed with dog mace and that he was not satisfied with the way discipline was handled. He asked that the Board evaluate its policies because a lack of discipline was robbing children of their education. Mr. Robert Hall said he represented a core parents from Terry, Fulbright, and McDermott, who are about the leadership, safety, and racial balance at Junior High School, their attendance zone junior high. the Board to do everything possible to get approval health/science magnet. group of concerned Henderson He urged for the Mr. Terrence Cain, a member of the Council for AfricanAmerican Progress, a partner with Garland Elementary School, explained the background of the Kwanzaa celebration for which the principal at Garland was reprimanded. He asked that District Board of Directors Regular Meeting January 23, 1992 4 policy be changed to allow administrators to deal with partners directly. He said the personnel action against Mr. Robert Brown, principal at Garland Elementary School, was a result of a lack of communication and understanding and a lack of respect for the partnership. Mr. Dale Charles spoke in support of Mr. Robert Brown and agreed that the personnel action was unwarranted. He told the Board that Mr. Brown is a role model for kids and that he has been punished for something he did not do. He asked that the Board investigate this issue and if there is something wrong that it be reversed. Mr. Jimmy Cunningham, a member of the Council of AfricanAmerican Progress, challenged the Board to come out on Saturday mornings and assess the deficiencies the children at Garland have concerning their heritage. He alleged that this is a result of institutional racism and asked that the District allow the Portland Baseline Essays to be included in the curriculum and to support the notion of Afro-Centric materials being included throughout the curriculum. VI. ACTION: ACTION ITEMS A. Donations Dr. Steele recommended that the following donations be approved by the Board: 1. Improvements to the athletic practice field to allow for baseball to be played at Hall High School by the Hall High Baseball Booster Club\n2. $2,155 to purchase mini-blinds for ten classrooms at Williams Magnet School by the Williams PTA\n3. One large cookie cutter, one set of upper case alphabet, and one large apple to Western Hills Elementary School by the Western Hills PTA\n4. An IBM PC printer to Henderson Junior High School by Mr. Edwin Conway, a patron\n5. Photographic equipment to Parkview Arts/Science Magnet High School by Dr. Virginia Vollmer. Ms. Pat Gee moved the Superintendent's recommendation. Mrs. Robin Armstrong seconded the motion, and it carried unanimously. Board of Directors Regular Meeting January 23, 1992 B. student Calendar for 1992-93 School Year 5 Dr. Steele explained the way in which the calendar was established and recommended that the Board approve it as submitted in the printed agenda. Dr. Mitchell moved the Superintendent's recommendation. Mr. Bill Hamilton seconded the motion. Following discussion, the motion carried with six affirmative votes. Mrs. Robin Armstrong dissented. C. Nomination for Biracial Advisory committee Discussion ensued concerning the ability to recruit members to the Committee to represent southwest Little Rock and to keep a full committee operating. Dr. Steele recommended approval of Terry Root to serve on the Biracial Advisory Committee. Mrs. Armstrong moved the recommendation. Mr. Hamilton seconded the motion, and it carried unanimously. D. School Restructuring Dr. Steele recommended that based on discussions with the Board, the Board would participate in training designed to enhance the roles and relationships of entities working with school reform, possibly scheduling two evening sessions for such a purpose. Mr. Jackson moved the superintendent's recommendation. Dr. Mitchell seconded the motion, and it carried unanimously. E. Personnel Changes Dr. Steele recommended that the Board approve the resignations/terminations, employment of new staff, retiree, those returning from leave, and those asking for leaves of absence as reflected in the printed agenda. Mrs. Armstrong moved the Superintendent's recommendation. Mr. Jackson seconded the motion, and it carried unanimously. F. Financial Reports Dr. Steele recommended approval of the financial reports as submitted in the printed agenda and the budget revision as presented on the slip sheet. Mrs. Armstrong moved the Superintendent's recommendation. Dr. Mitchell seconded the motion, and it carried six (6) to one (1). Mrs. Jacovelli dissented. Board of Directors Regular Meeting January 23, 1992 VII. REPORT: REPORTS OF SUPERINTENDENT A. Update on Desegregation 6 Discussion ensued with Mr. James Jennings concerning a method of tracking the progress of incentive schools, the attendance policy and the method of referring students to the Department of Finance and Administration, and the method of marketing the new magnet programs. B. Update on No More Excuses: A Plan to Increase Learning Discussion ensued concerning testing, the PAL program, and costs for the program hardware. Mrs. Matthis briefly reported on the progress of the curriculum committees. c. Report on Compliance with AP and Honors Guidelines There was a discussion on what steps the administration is using to assure compliance with the guidelines for placing students in gifted and talented classes. Additional discussion centered around Advanced Placement classes and whether to require students in AP to take the AP test. VIII. AUDIENCE WITH INDIVIDUALS OR GROUPS None IX. STUDENT AND/OR EMPLOYEE DISCIPLINARY RECOMMENDATIONS None ADJOURNMENT: There being no further business to come before the regular meeting of the Board of Directors, the meeting adjourned at 7:55 p.m. upon motion by Mrs. Armstrong, a second by Mr. Hamilton, and unanimous approval of the Board members. Pr\"ident ~#JLev Secretary LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT RECe:,,,,e.o 810 WEST MARKHAM STREET i.,\n.::b'I~ LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS Board of Directors Special Meeting January 30, 1992 The Board of Directors of the Little Rock School District met in a lawfully called special meeting at 5:03 p.m. on January 30, 1992, in the Board Room of the Administration Building, 810 West Markham Street, Little Rock, Arkansas. The president, Mrs. o. G. Jacovelli, presided. MEMBERS PRESENT: Mrs. o. G. Jacovelli Mr. John Moore Ms. Pat Gee Dr. Katherine Mitchell Mr. Willie D. (Bill) Hamilton Mr. Dorsey Jackson MEMBERS ABSENT: Mrs. Robin Armstrong ALSO PRESENT: Mr. Tony Wood, Acting Superintendent Mrs. Pat Kumpuris, Recorder of the Minutes Mr. Don Umfleet, Audio Specialist CALL TO ORDER ROLL CALL: The president called the special meeting to order at 5:03 p.m. The roll call revealed the presence of six (6) Board members. PURPOSE OF SPECIAL MEETING: The chair announced that the special meeting had been called for the purpose of conducting an employee hearing and several student disciplinary hearings. EMPLOYEE HEARING: - In a closed session, an appeal hearing was held at the request of John Wallace in connection with a recommendation for termination Board of Directors Special Meeting January 30, 1992 2 as a bus driver for the District. After hearing all testimony and evidence presented during the hearing and after questioning by Board members, the Acting Superintendent, Tony Wood, recommended that the Board uphold the termination recommendation. Mr. John Moore moved the Acting Superintendent's recommendation. Ms. Pat Gee seconded the motion, and it carried five (5) to one (1), with Dr. Katherine Mitchell casting the dissenting vote. STUDENT HEARINGS: In an closed session, an appeal hearing was held at the request of Allenza Johnson in connection with a recommendation for expulsion from school. After hearing all testimony and evidence presented during the hearing and after questioning by Board members, Mr. John Moore moved that the Board find that the facts as presented by the administration in the summary by Mr. Rudolph Howard are true and in accordance with the testimony held in the appeal hearing. Mrs. o. G. Jacovelli relinquished the chair to Mr. Bill Hamilton and seconded the motion. The motion carried four (4) to two (2) with Mr. Hamilton and Dr. Mitchell casting the dissenting votes. Following the finding of fact, the Acting Superintendent, Mr. Tony Wood, recommended that the Board support the administration's recommendation for expulsion. Mr. John Moore moved the administration's recommendation. Mrs. Jacovelli relinquished the chair to Mr. Hamilton and seconded the motion. Following discussion, the motion failed with a tie vote, three (3) to three (3). Mrs. Jacovelli, Mr. Moore, and Ms. Gee voted in favor of the motion. Dr. Mitchell, Mr. Hamilton, and Mr. Jackson voted in opposition to the motion. Following the failed motion, Mr. Tony Wood told the Board that based on its decision made tonight, it would be appropriate to consider some other alternative to sending the student back to Henderson Jr. High School. Mr. Hamilton moved that Allenza Johnson be assigned to the Alternative Learning Center and that he come back before the Board before he can go to any other school. Mr. Dorsey-Jackson seconded the motion, and it carried four (4) to two (2). Mr. Moore and Mrs. Jacovelli dissented. Following the vote, Mr. Moore left the meeting at 7:43 p.m. and asked that the record reflect his leaving and commented that the action just taken by the Board had placed the Little Rock public schools in a very grave situation. Mrs. Jacovelli stated that she hoped it would not take one of our students getting killed Board of Directors Special Meeting January 30, 1992 until we get the message that this can't go on. 3 With five (5) Board members remaining, in a closed session, the Board conducted an appeal hearing in connection with the expulsion recommendation of Shane and Shawn Crutchfield. After hearing testimony and examining the evidence and questioning by Board members, Mr. Tony Wood, Acting Superintendent, told the Board that its policy was quite clear concerning gang membership and that it left him no alternative except to recommend expulsion consistent with the policy. Mr. Dorsey Jackson recommended that Shane and Shawn Crutchfield be enrolled in the Alternative Learning Center\nthat they be enrolled in Changing Directors and be placed on strict probation for the balance of this school year and then appear back before the Board for reinstatement to Forest Heights Jr. High next year. The motion died for lack of a second. Mr. Bill Hamilton moved that Shane and Shawn Crutchfield be allowed to return to one of our junior high schools other than Forest Heights Jr. High or the Alternative Learning Center. Dr. Katherine Mitchell seconded the motion, and it carried unanimously. Mr. Wood directed the Board members' attention to the noncontested expulsion recommendations of Tyrone Devlin, Cassandra Jones, and Jeneya Van. He also pointed out the non-contested recommendations for long-term suspension recommendations of Antonio Beasley, Alvin Brown, Eric Dailey, Clifton Frye, Anarian Jackson, Steven King, Kendrick Land, and Patrick Olive. Mr. Dorsey Jackson moved approval of the non-contested expulsion and long-term suspension recommendations. Mr. Bill Hamilton seconded the motion, and it carried unanimously. ADJOURNMENT: There being no further business to come before the special meeting, Ms. Gee moved to adjourn. Mr. Hamil ton seconded the motion, and it carried unanimously. 0 . 0, . ~~ covelli,President Ms. Pat Gee, Secretary APPROVED: _ __..~._,._,-=-:...,?,-/---'~~~- LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 810 WEST MARKHAM STREET LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS RC AUG 1 1f 1992 Board of Directors Special Meeting February 10, 1992 Office of Desegregation Monitoring The Board of Directors of the Little Rock School District met in a lawfully-called special meeting at 5:16 p.m. on February 10, 1992, in the Board Room of the Administration Building, 810 West Markham Street, Little Rock, Arkansas. The president, Mrs. o. G. Jacovelli, presided. MEMBERS PRESENT: Mrs. o. G. Jacovelli Mr. John Moore Ms. Pat Gee Dr. Katherine Mitchell Mrs. Robin Armstrong Mr. Dorsey Jackson MEMBERS ABSENT: Mr. Willie D. (Bill) Hamilton ALSO PRESENT: Dr. Ruth Steele, superintendent of Schools Mrs. Pat Kumpuris, Recorder of the Minutes Mr. Don Umfleet, Audio Specialist CALL TO ORDER: ROLL CALL: The president called the meeting to order at 5:16 p.m. The roll call revealed the presence of six (6) Board members. PURPOSE OF SPECIAL MEETING: The chair announced that the special meeting was called for the purpose of hearing a recommendation on security measures in our schools. RECOMMENDATION OF SECURITY MEASURES: Dr. Ruth Steele expressed concern that the District has experienced an increase in the number of weapons and serious incidents on our school campuses and recommended that the Board approve two proposals, effective immediately, to enhance security in our secondary buildings: 1) the use of metal detectors in the secondary schools and at athletic events\nand 2) an increase in security personnel. She explained that the metal detectors will be used as a deterrent for those entering our buildings and athletic events with weapons and that they will be used in both random and planned searches. Mrs. Robin Armstrong moved the Superintendent's recommendation. Mr. John Moore seconded the motion, and following discussion and a demonstration of the metal detector, the motion carried five (5) to one (1), with Dr. Katherine Mitchell dissenting. ADJOURNMENT: Mrs. Robin Armstrong moved to adjourn. Mr. Dorsey seconded the motion. There being no further business within the call for the special meeting, the motion unanimously, and the meeting adjourned at 5:40 p.m. Jackson to come carried covelli, President Ms. Pat Gee, Secretary APPROVED: lj ... J 3 _. 'J \"l.,. LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 810 WEST MARKHAM STREET LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS Board of Directors Special Meeting February 13, 1992 AUG 1 4 19~2 Office of Desegregation Monitoring The Board of Directors of the Little Rock School District met in a lawfully called special meeting at 5:22 p.m. following the Board Committee meeting on February 13, 1992. The special meeting was conducted in the Board Room of the Administration Building, 810 West Markham Street, Little Rock, Arkansas. The president, Mrs. o. G. Jacovelli, presided. MEMBERS PRESENT: Mrs. o. G. Jacovelli Mr. John Moore Ms. Pat Gee Dr. Katherine Mitchell Mrs. Robin Armstrong Mr. Dorsey Jackson MEMBERS ABSENT: Mr. Willie D. (Bill) Hamilton ALSO PRESENT: Dr. Ruth Steele, Superintendent of Schools Mrs. Pat Kumpuris, Recorder of the Minutes CALL TO ORDER ROLL CALL: The president called the special meeting to order at 5:22 p.m. The roll call revealed the presence of five (5) Board members. PURPOSE OF SPECIAL MEETING: The president announced that the special meeting was called for the purpose of considering student disciplinary recommendations. NON-CONTESTED EXPULSIONS AND NON-CONTESTED LONG-TERM SUSPENSIONS: Mr. Rudolph Howard directed the Board members' attention to the recommendation for expulsion of Jermaine Glass, Nathaniel Lewis, Latonia Smith, and Jermaine Thomas. He also directed the Board members' attention to the recommendations that the following students be suspended long-term: Edgar Corneau, Tamika Dailey, Chris Eason, Randy Goodlow, Robert Hill, Gerald Hood, Brian Mccuien, Naketa McKinney, Keyon Neely, Ryan Parker, Mercedes Sims, and Latonya Strain. Mr. Dorsey Jackson moved the administration's recommendation on the non-contested expulsions and long-term suspensions. Mrs. Robin Armstrong seconded the motion, and it carried unanimously. Dr. Katherine Mitchell joined the meeting at 5:35 p.m. HEARINGS ON CONTESTED EXPULSION RECOMMENDATIONS: In a closed session, a hearing before the Board was conducted at the request of Timmy Morrison. After hearing testimony and questioning of witnesses by the Board members, Dr. Steele recommended that Timmy Morrison be expelled for eleven (11) days and withdrawn from the Little Rock School District, exit code 27, as recommended by the hearing officer and that he be required to reappear before the Board before re-entpring next year. Ms. Pat Gee moved the Superintendent's recommendation. Mrs. Robin Armstrong seconded the motion, and it carried unanimously. In a closed session, a hearing before the Board was conducted at the request of Derrick Brown. After hearing testimony and questioning of witnesses by the Board members, Dr. Steele recommended that the expulsion be modified to a long-term suspension from January 28 to February 21 and that his reinstatement be on strict probation for the remainder of the 1991- 92 school year. Mr. John Moore moved that Derrick Brown be reinstated, having served a length of time equal to a long-term suspension and that he be allowed to return to school this next Monday. Mr. Dorsey Jackson seconded the motion. The motion failed three (3) to three (3). Mr. Moore, Mr. Jackson, and Mrs. Armstrong voted in favor of the motion. Ms. Jacovelli, Dr. Mitchell, and Ms. Gee voted in opposition to the motion. Mr. Dorsey Jackson moved to accept the administration's recommendation for a long-term suspension until February 21, 1992. Mrs. Armstrong seconded the motion, and it carried with four affirmative votes. Mr. John Moore voted in opposition to the motion, and Dr. Katherine Mitchell abstained from the vote. HEARINGS ON CONTESTED LONG-TERM SUSPENSIONS: In a closed session the Board held a hearing at the request of Harold Brown. After hearing testimony and questioning of witnesses by the Board, Dr. Steele recommended that Harold Brown be suspended long-term for the remainder of this school year. Mr. Jackson moved the administration's recommendation. Mrs. Armstrong seconded the motion, and it carried unanimously. In a closed session the Board held a hearing at the request of Herman Conley. After hearing testimony and questioning of witnesses by the Board, Mr. Dorsey Jackson moved to accept the administration's recommendation for a long-term suspension for the remainder of the 1991-92 school year. The motion carried four (4) to two (2), with Ms. Gee, Mrs. Jacovelli, Mrs. Armstrong, and Mr. Jackson voted in favor of the motion. Mr. Moore and Dr. Mitchell cast the dissenting votes. In a closed session the Board held a hearing at the request of Michael Gray. After hearing testimony and questioning of witnesses by the Board, Dr. Steele recommended that the Board uphold the administration's recommendation for a long-term suspension for the remainder of this school year. Mrs. Robin Armstrong moved the Superintendent's recommendation. Ms. Pat Gee seconded the motion, and it carried with five (5) affirmative votes. Mr. Dorsey Jackson left the meeting prior to the vote on Michael Gray. Mr. John Moore left the meeting at 7:55 p.m. In a closed session the Board held a hearing at the request of Patricia Scarver. After hearing testimony and questioning of witnesses by the Board, Dr. Steele recommended that the Board uphold the administration's recommendation for a long-term suspension for the remainder of this school year. Mrs. Armstrong moved the Superintendent's recommendation. Ms. Gee seconded the motion, and it carried unanimously. REINSTATEMENT OF MICHAEL HEARNE: Dr. Steele directed the Board's attention to the case of Michael Hearne, who was expelled by the Board on October 24, 1992. She explained the mitigating circumstances concerning this student and recommended that the Board reinstate him and deal with the case correctly under the law. Ms. Pat Gee moved the Superintendent's recommendation. Or. Mitchell seconded the motion, and it carried unanimously. APPEARANCE BY MICHA WILLIAMS Micha Williams appeared before the Board as a condition of his re-entering the school system. The Board wished him success as he re-enters school. LONG-TERM SUSPENSION RECOMMENDATION OF DON MALLORY: In a closed session, the Board conducted a hearing at the request of Don Mallory. After hearing wi~nesses, examination by the administration and the attorney for Mr. Mallory, Austin Porter, and questioning by Board members, Dr. Steele recommended that you uphold the recommendation of the hearing officer for a long-term suspension. Mrs. Robin Armstrong moved the Superintendent's recommendation. Ms. Pat Gee seconded the motion, and it carried unanimously. DEFERMENT OF ACTION ON QUASH! GAMBRELL: Quashi Gambrell was scheduled for an appeal hearing but did not appear. The Board deferred action on the administration's recommendation for long-term suspension until Mr. Howard can determine the cause of Quashi's absence. ADJOURNMENT: Mrs. Robin Armstrong moved the Super intendant's recommendation. Ms. Pat Gee seconded the motion, and it carried unanimously. o. G. Jacolli,President Pat Gee, Secretary APPROVED: __ 4_/4,-:.o_i_f_9_z. _ I I LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 810 WEST MARKHAM STREET LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS EC V Board of Directors AUG 1 4 l~IJ2 Special Meeting February 20, 1992 Oltice of Desegregation Monitoring The Board of Directors of the Little Rock School District met in a lawfully called special meeting at  6:17 p.m. immediately following the Board Committee meeting. The special meeting was conducted in the Board Room of the Administration Building, 810 West Markham street, Little Rock, Arkansas. The president, Mrs. o. G. Jacovelli, presided. MEMBERS PRESENT: Mrs. o. G. Jacovelli Mr. John Moore Ms. Pat Gee Dr. Katherine Mitchell Mr. Dorsey Jackson MEMBERS ABSENT: Mrs. Robin Armstrong Mr. Willie D. (Bill) Hamilton EX OFFICIO BOARD MEMBERS PRESENT: Ms. Leigh Underwood, Teacher Ex Officio Miss Latisse Mays, Student Ex Officio ALSO PRESENT: Dr. Ruth Steele, Superintendent of Schools Mrs. Pat Kumpuris, Recorder of the Minutes Mr. Don Umfleet, Audio Specialist CALL TO ORDER: ROLL CALL: The president called the meeting to order at 6:17 p.m. The roll call revealed the presence of five (5) Board members. PURPOSE OF SPECIAL MEETING: The chair announced that the special meeting was called for the purpose of approving a Resolution Approving the Issuance of Tax and Revenue Anticipation Promissory Notes (TRANS), and to consider a personnel matter. RESOLUTION APPROVING THE ISSUANCE OF TAX AND REVENUE ANTICIPATION PROMISSORY NOTES. Dr. Steele directed the Board members to the Resolution Approving the Issuance of Tax and Revenue Anticipation Promissory Notes (TRANS), and recommended that the Board adopt the Resolution. Discussion ensued with Mr. Mark McBryde of Stephens, Inc., the underwriter for the TRANS. Following discussion concerning the District's relationship with Stephens, Inc., the ratings of the notes, and the procedure Mr. McBryde will use to complete the transaction, Dr. Katherine Mitchell moved adoption of the Resolution. Mr. Dorsey Jackson seconded the motion, and it carried unanimously. Mr. John Moore left the meeting at 6 p.m. prior to the vote. RESIGNATION OF LORNA WELLS: The Superintendent directed the Board members' attention to the resignation of Lorna Wells and recommended that it be accepted. Mr. Jackson moved the Superintendent's recommendation. Ms. Gee seconded the motion, and it carried unanimously. ADJOURNMENT: There being no further business to come before the special meeting, Mr. Jackson moved to adj ournt. Ms. Gee seconded the motion, and it carried unanimously. o. G. Jacov~President Pat Gee, Secretary APPROVED: LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 810 WEST MARKHAM STREET LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS AUG 1 4 19Y~ Board of Directors Regular Meeting February 27, 1992 Office of Desegregation Monitoring The Board of Directors of the Little Rock School District met in its regularly scheduled meeting at~ p.m. on February 27, 1992, in the Board Room of the Administration Building, 810 West Markham Street, Little Rock, Arkansas. The president, Mrs. o. G. Jacovelli, presided. MEMBERS PRESENT: Mrs. o. G. Jacovelli Mr. John Moore Ms. Pat Gee Dr. Katherine Mitchell Mrs. Robin Armstrong Mr. Dorsey Jackson MEMBERS ABSENT: Mr. Willie D. (Bill) Hamilton EX OFFICIO MEMBERS PRESENT: Ms. Leigh Underwood, Teacher Ex Officio ALSO PRESENT: Dr. Ruth Steele, Superintendent of Schools Mrs. Pat Kumpuris, Recorder of the Minutes Mr. Don Umfleet, Audio Specialist I. ACTION: CALL TO ORDER ROLL CALL The president called the meeting to order at 6 p.m. The roll call revealed the presence of five (5) Board members. Dr. Katherine Mitchell joined the meeting shortly after roll call. II. ACTION: READING OF THE MINUTES Mr. Dorsey Jackson moved approval of the minutes of the special meeting on November 14, 1991\nthe special meeting on November 19, 1991\nthe special meeting on January 16, 1992\nthe Board of Directors Regular Meeting February 27, 1992 special meeting on January 17, 1992\nthe regular meeting on January 23, 1992\nand the special meeting on January 30, 1992. III. CONSENT: CONSENT ITEMS New Partnerships Dr. Steele recommended that the Board approve the following partnerships: Metropolitan National Bank and Watson Elementary School\nand Waste Management of Arkansas (North) and Baseline Elementary School. Mr. John Moore approved the Superintendent's recommendation. Ms. Pat Gee seconded the motion, and it carried unanimously. Certificates were presented to representatives of the new partnerships and the schools' respective principals commemorating the formation of the partnerships. IV. PRESENTATIONS: A. superintendent's citations Dr. Steele recognized Mr. James Washington, assistant principal at Hall High School, for his courage, thoughtfulness, and prompt action in his response to an incident involving a student with a weapon which averted a possible tragedy. The superintendent presented a Superintendent's Citation to the Junior League of Little Rock commemorating 70 years of service to the city and especially its service to the Little Rock School District. Mrs. Mary White Thomas, the 1992 president, accepted on behalf of the Junior League. 2 In honor of the work AP\u0026amp;L is doing with the District, the Superintendent presented a citation to the company for its outstanding contribution to public education. Mr. Doug Castleberry accepted the citation on behalf of AP\u0026amp;L. Dr. Steele also honored the recipients of the AP\u0026amp;L Challenge Grants by presenting them a Superintendent's Citation. The recipients were Shelly Oliver of Brady Elementary\nFrances Cawthon of Jefferson Elementary\nClell Watts of Mabelvale Jr. High School\nMichael Oliver of McDermott Elementary\nJerry Worm of Meadowcliff Elementary\nKay Loss of Pulaski Heights Elementary School\nAnne Mangan, of Rockefeller Incentive School\nCharity Smith of Southwest Junior High School\nand Dr. Diana Glaze of Watson Elementary School. The Superintendent also honored two schools Board of Directors Regular Meeting February 27, 1992 that did not make the top 15 sleeted by the five-member panel 3 this year but were awarded $500 grants: Teresa Courtney accepted for carver Magnet School\nand Dr. Victor Anderson accepted for Hall High School. Dr. Steele thanked the teacher and student ex officio Board members for the month of February and presented Leigh Underwood and Latisse Mays a Superintendent's Citation in appreciation for their service. On behalf of Angel Wilson, Mrs. Gwen Ziegler accepted a Superintendent's Citation in recognition of Angel winning the \"My Southwestern Bell Yellow Pages Wish\" contest which resulted in her school getting computers from Southwestern Bell Telephone. B. Citizens Committees None reporting. c. Board Members Mrs. Robin Armstrong commended Pat Gee for suggesting that metal detectors be put in the schools. She also commended the Department of Safety and Security. I Mr. Dorsey Jackson reminded the Board and audience that March 3 is Teacher Appreciation Day and expressed appreciation to teachers for their work with our children. Dr. Katherine Mitchell recognized Dunbar's Math Counts team for winning the Central Arkansas Region Math Counts contest. She also noted that Mann won third place. Ms. Pat Gee expressed disappointment that the Board did not know about the meeting at Gibbs Magnet School in which the proposed new school site was discussed with members of the community. She urged that trust be established by communications within the District and expressed hope that we can begin building trust. Mrs. Armstrong commended the Pulaski Heights Junior High mock trial team and noted that the 9th grade team defeated Mount st. Mary's Academy and McClellan High School. She indicated that the 9th grade team will be competing with J. A. Fair High School in the next round. Dr. Mitchell commended the schools she has visited on their Black History Month presentations and said she looked forward to the day when African-Americans' contributions are Board of Directors Regular Meeting February 27, 1992 4 included in our curriculum and there won't be a need to set aside a month to learn about it. V. REMARKS FROM CITIZENS: Mr. Jimmy Cunningham urged the Board to infuse Afrocentric materials into the curriculum. on behalf of the Council for African-American Progress, he asked for a response before next Board meeting. Mr. Terrence Cain urged the Board to implement the Portland Baseline Essays as a supplement to the current multiethnic curriculum. Mr. Frank Martin said the administration has not scheduled a single bargaining session on behalf of the ESP units who voted on December 3 to have Little Rock Classroom Teachers Association represent them. He told the Board that there is a growing restlessness among these workers. He also reminded the Board that the custodians have never had their pay restored from several years ago when their hours were cut. He told the Board that the security personnel had shown an interest in organizing and asked that the District make public the report on sexual harassment at the Transportation Department. I Ms. Lela Brown showed the Board a student's art work that was made into a placemat and used at the PTA Founders Day celebration. She told the Board that the art work illustrated that poor image that black children have of themselves and their people. She urged the Board to alleviate this poor self image through teaching of black history and the positive contributions of African-Americans. Rev. Daniel Bowman urged that the Board employ a black superintendent and that the District teach more black history in our schools. VI. ACTION: ACTION ITEMS A. Donations Dr. Steele recommended that the Board approve the donation to Meadowcliff Elementary School by the school's PTA of a Cookie Cutter Set, Alphabet/Decorative Dies and Laminex Laminator. She also asked that the Board approve the donation of a 26'' Color TV and VCR to Meadowcliff by the AP\u0026amp;L Grant and Sam's Club and a portable electric typewriter by Sam's Club. In addition, Dr. Steele recommended the approval of a donation of a piano to Fair Park Elementary School by Blue Board of Directors Regular Meeting February 27, 1992 5 Cross/Blue Shield of Arkansas, and that the Board approve the donation of National Geographic Magazines to Carver by Dr. Aubrey Hough. Mr. John Moore moved the Superintendent's recommendation. Mrs. Robin Armstrong seconded the motion, and it carried unanimously. B. Conveyance of Pankey Property Dr. Steele recommended that the Board authorize the execution of the deed of the Pankey property to the Pankey Community Improvement, Inc. as reflected on the deed specimen in the printed agenda. Dr. Katherine Mitchell moved the Superintendent's recommendation. Mrs. Robin Armstrong seconded the motion, and it carried unanimously. c. First Reading on Policy and Regulations on Sexual Harassment The Superintendent recommended that the Board for first reading the Policy on Sexual Harassment. Mr. Jackson moved approval of the policy for first reading. Katherine Mitchell seconded the motion, and it carried unani'm ous 1 y. I approve Dorsey Dr. D. Proposal for Pilot Program at Washington Math/Science Magnet School: \"Unlocking Words with Latin Program\" Dr. Steele recommended that the Board approve the pilot program at Washington Math/Science Magnet School called \"Unlocking Words with Latin Program.\" Ms. Pat Gee moved the Superintendent's recommendation. Dr. Katherine Mitchell seconded the motion, and it carried unanimously. E. Application for New or Expanded Vocational Education Programs for School Year 1992-93- Exploring Industrial Technology Education at Southwest Junior High School Dr. Steele explained that this program replaces the old Industrial Arts and Practical Arts for 7th grade and Mechanical and Construction Exploration for the 9th grade and completes the phase-in of these programs. She recommended that the Board approve this program for Southwest Jr. High School. Mr. Jackson moved the Superintendent's recommendation. Mrs. Armstrong seconded the motion, and it carried unanimously. Board of Directors Regular Meeting February 27, 1992 F. Proposed Changes to the Student Rights and Responsibilities Handbook Dr. Steele explained that our legal counsel had issued a legal opinion that the Board could institute an expulsion requirement for certain violations so long as proper notice was given to the rule change. Discussion ensued with Board members expressing views in favor and in opposition to the rule change. Mr. Chris Heller discussed the legal implications of the rule change. The Board recessed for a break at 7:21 p.m. and reconvened at 7:35 p.m. After returning from recess, the issue was withdrawn from consideration. G. Approval of Deed and Temporary Construction Easement 6 The Superintendent recommended that the Board authorize the administration to execute the necessary documents to convey to the City of Little Rock a 69,000 square foot piece of property along and in front of Romine School for the purpose of street improvements. Mr. John Moore moved th~ Superintendent's recommendation. Mrs. Robin Armstrong seconded the motion, and it carried unanimously. H. Personnel Changes Dr. Steele recommended that the Board approve the personnel changes in the printed agenda including a request for a sabbatical leave for Mary Jane Cheatham. Mr. Dorsey Jackson moved the Superintendent's recommendation. Mrs. Robin Armstrong seconded the motion, and it carried unanimously. I. Financial Reports, 1990-91 Audit, and Contract Extension for Auditors Dr. Steele recommended that the financial reports be approved as published. Mr. Dorsey Jackson moved the Superintendent's recommendation. Dr. Katherine Mitchell seconded the motion, and it carried five (5) to one (1). Mrs. Jacovelli cast the dissenting vote. Dr. Steele recommended that the Board approve the 1990- 91 audit by Thomas \u0026amp; Thomas. Mr. Dorsey Jackson moved approval of the audit. Dr. Katherine Mitchell seconded the motion, and it carried unanimously. Board of Directors Regular Meeting February 27, 1992 Dr. Steele recommended that the contract of Thomas \u0026amp; Thomas be extended for one year. Mr. Jackson moved the Superintendent's recommendation. Dr. Mitchell seconded the motion, and it carried unanimously. VII. REPORT: REPORTS OF SUPERINTENDENT A. Update on Desegregation Mr. James Jennings answered questions from Board 7 members concerning the First Monitoring Report on All Schools and the principals' responses. There was extensive discussion concerning the desegregation plan's requirements for certain percentages in staffing and participation in extracurricular activities as opposed to \"goals and strategies\" to remove barriers to equitable staffing and participation in activities. B. Update on Advanced Placement Testing There was no discussion on the report\nhowever, there was an inquiry about the fine arts credit earned at Mann Magnet School being recognized as a graduation credit for fine arts. C. Update on Salary Study I Mr. Ivey reported that he had spent some time with Dr. Louise Miller, and she had approved the study approach. He further reported that he is trying to get the Chamber of commerce Management Task Force members lined up to lend guidance to the study. VIII. AUDIENCE WITH INDIVIDUALS OR GROUPS None The Board recessed for a break at 8:37 p.m. and reconvened at 9:07 p.m. Mr. John Moore left the meeting. IX. STUDENT AND/OR EMPLOYEE DISCIPLINARY RECOMMENDATIONS In a closed session, the Board held a hearing in connection with the petition of Kwan Cummings for reinstatement to school. After hearing all testimony, Dr. Steele recommended that Kwan Cummings' petition for reinstatement be denied. Mr. Dorsey Jackson moved the Superintendent's recommendation. Mrs. Robin Armstrong seconded the motion, and carried with four (4) affirmative votes. Dr. Katherine Mitchell abstained from the vote. Board of Directors Regular Meeting February 27, 1992 In a closed session, the Board held a hearing in connection with the petition of Cedric Reeves for reinstatement to school. After hearing all testimony, Dr. Steele recommended that Cedric be expelled for the remainder of this school year. Mr. Dorsey Jackson moved the Superintendent's recommendation. Mrs. Robin Armstrong seconded the motion, and it carried unanimously. 8 In a closed session, the Board held a hearing in connection with the expulsion recommendation of Sylvester Carter. After hearing all testimony, Dr. Steele recommended that the Board accept the finding of fact as indicated in the background material previously furnished to the Board, statement 4, a) through i). Mrs. Armstrong moved the Superintendent's recommendation. Mr. Jackson seconded the motion, and it carried four (4) to one (1). Dr. Katherine Mitchell cast the dissenting vote. Following the finding of fact, Dr. Steele recommended that Sylvester Carter be expelled for the remainder of the school year. Mrs. Armstrong moved the Superintendent's recommendation. Mr. Jackson seconded the motion, and it carried four (4) to one ..LlJ_. Dr. Mitchell cast the dissenting vote. In a closed session, the Board held a hearing in connection with the expulsion recommendation of Cory Whitmore. After hearing all testimony, Dr. Steele 1recommended that Cory Whitmore be returned to school under strict probation. Mrs. Armstrong moved the Superintendent's recommendation. Ms. Pat Gee seconded the motion, and it carried unanimously. In a closed session, the Board held a hearing in connection with the expulsion recommendation of Phillip Smith. After hearing all testimony, Mr. Dorsey Jackson moved that Phillip Smith be expelled by the Little Rock School District but allowed to return to school at the completion of his treatment program and based upon a favorable recommendation from the physician at Baptist Hospital and upon receiving a report from Mr. Howard that such a favorable recommendation has been received. Dr. Katherine Mitchell seconded the motion, and it carried unanimously. In a closed session, the Board held a hearing in connection with the expulsion recommendation of Marcus Waters. After hearing all testimony, Dr. Steele recommended that Marcus Waters be allowed to return to school and that if he would be happier at another school that he work with Mr. Howard to effect a different school assignment. Mrs. Armstrong moved the superintendent's recommendation. Ms. Gee seconded the motion, and it carried unanimously. Board of Directors Regular Meeting February 27, 1992 In a closed session, the Board held a hearing in connection with the expulsion recommendation of Tony Gibson. After hearing all testimony, Dr. Steele recommended that Tony Gibson be expelled for the remainder of the school year. Mr. Jackson moved the Superintendent's recommendation. Mrs. Armstrong seconded the motion, and it carried four (4) to one ..LlJ_. Dr. Katherine Mitchell cast the dissenting vote. The Board reviewed the recommendations for expulsions and long-term recommendations which are not contested. Dr. Steele recommended that the Board expel the following students: Arthur Abraham, James Hughes, Roshanda Marbley, and Don Molden. Dr. Steele also recommended that the Board long-term suspend the following students: Chris Bell, Derrick Bowman, Lenika Brown, Andrew Clendening, Thomas Grantham, Tywan Green, James Gurley, Donald Haire, Lawrence Jackson, Jerry Johnson, Brian Maxwell, Demond McElrath, Tremell McIntosh, Mark Nance, Felicia Parker, Brian Shields, Mark Smith, William Teague, Terrance Waits, Ali Webster, and Terrance Williams. Mrs. Armstrong moved the superintendent's recommendation. Mr. Jackson seconded the motion, and it carried unanimously. ADJOURNMENT 9 There being no further business to come before the regular meeting of the Board of Directors, the meeting adjourned at 11:50 p.m. upon motion of Mrs. Armstrong, a second by Ms. Gee, and unanimous approval of the Board members. lli, President Pat Gee, Secretary APPROVED: _tfL.-._. ..\n..\n..~--3_-_i_.,.'l_,___ LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 810 WEST MARKHAM STREET LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS Board of Directors Special Meeting March 5, 1992 AUG 1 4 1992 Office of o. . esogregat,on Monitoring The Board of Directors of the Little Rock School District met in a lawfully called special meeting on March 5, 1992. The special meeting was conducted in the Board Room of the Administration Building, 81 o West Markham Street, Little Rock, Arkansas. The Board president, Mrs. o. G. Jacovelli, presided. MEMBERS PRESENT: Mrs. o. G. Jacovelli Dr. Katherine Mitchell Mr. Willie D. (Bill) Hamilton Mr. Dorsey Jackson MEMBERS ABSENT: Mr. John Moore Ms. Pat Gee EX OFFICIO MEMBER PRESENT: Ms. Lois Tyler, Teacher Ex Officio ALSO PRESENT: Dr. Ruth Steele, Superintendent of Schools Mrs. Pat Kumpuris, Recorder of the Minutes CALL TO ORDER: ROLL CALL: The president called the meeting to order at 5:01 p.m. The roll call revealed the presence of four (5) Board members. PURPOSE OF SPECIAL MEETING: The chair read a letter of resignation from Mrs. Robin Armstrong and announced that the special meeting was called for the purpose of accepting the resignation and considering a process for filling the vacant Board position. RESIGNATION OF MRS. ARMSTRONG: After the chair read the letter of resignation from the Board of Directors from Mrs. Robin Armstrong, Mr. Dorsey Jackson moved that the Board accept the resignation. Mr. Willie D. (Bill) Hamilton seconded the motion, and it carried unanimously. PROCESS FOR FILLING VACANCY: Mr. Hamilton moved that the Board use the same process to fill the Board vacancy that it had used in the past. Ms. .Jackson seconded the motion, and it carried unanimously. Discussion ensued concerning the timeline for taking applications. Mr. Jackson moved that applications and resumes be received for the Board vacancy until March 17, 1992. Mr. Hamilton seconded the motion, and it carried unanimously. ADJOURNMENT: There being no further business to come within the call for the special meeting, the meeting adjourned at 5:10 p.m. upon a motion by Mr. Jackson, a second by Mr. Hamilton, and unanimous approval of the Board members present. o. G. Jaco~, President Pat Gee, Secretary Approval: __V ..__-~-=---=3\"--_9--\"-\n)_ _ LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 810 WEST MARKHAM STREET LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS Board of Directors Special Meeting March 19, 1992 AUG 1 4 19)~ The Board of Directors of the Little Rock School District met in a lawfully called special meeting following the Board Committee meering at 6:05 p.m. on March 19, 1992, in the Board Room of the Administration Building, 81 0 West Markham Street, Little Rock, Arkansas. The president, Mrs. O. G. Jacovelli, presided. MEMBERS PRESENT: Mrs. o. G. Jacovelli Mr. John Moore Ms. Pat Gee Mr. Willie O. (Bill) Hamilton Mr. Dorsey Jackson MEMBERS ABSENT: Dr. Katherine Mitchell ALSO PRESENT: Dr. Ruth Steele, Superintendent of Schools Mr. Tony Wood, Deputy Superintendent Mr. Don Umfleet, Audio Specialist CALL TO ORDER: ROLL CALL: The president called the meeting to order at 6:05 p.m. The roll call revealed the presence of five (5) Board members. Dr. Mitchell and Mr. Moore joined the meeting in progress. PURPOSE OF SPECIAL MEETING: The chair announced that the special meeting was called for the purpose of interviewing candidates for the zone 4 Board vacancy and to conduct student hearings. INTERVIEWS OF CANDIDATES FOR ZONE 4 BOARD VACANCY: The Board interviewed John Maginn, Julian Palinski, Kathy Wilkins, L. N. Hudson III, George Cannon, Daniel Medlock, and Sue Ball for possible appointment to the Board as a representative of Zone 4 to fill the vacancy created by the resignation of Robin Armstrong. Following the interviews, Ms. Pat Gee moved that the Board appoint Dr. George Cannon to fill the unexpired term of zone 4. Mr. Dorsey Jackson seconded the motion, and it carried unanimously. STUDENT DISCIPLINARY RECOMMENDATIONS: Upon motion of Mr. Dorsey Jackson, a second by Mr. Bill Hamilton, and unanimous approval of the motion, the Board approved the non-contested expulsion recommendations of Chevee Avery, Michelle Fagan, Marquis Frazier, and Tony Williams. Included in the motion was the approval of the non-contested long-term suspensions of Lorenzo Brent, Andrew Clendening, Andrew Coleman, Terrance Dixon, Orlando Goss, Lamar Holmes, Calvin Hunt, Marcus Johnson, Torry Johnson, Sharletta Lambert, Latesha Lewis, Anthony Oliver, Corey Perkins, Marshall Phillips, Daricko Porter, Antoine Robinson, Terrance Saulsbury, Jonathan Shackleford, Eric South, James Thomas, Kevin West, Charles Williams, Lance Woodard, and Bobby Jones. The Board considered the contested reinstatement petition of Phillip Smith. The administration's recommendation was to reinstate Phillip to the Alternative Learning Center. Ms. Pat Gee moved the administration's recommendation. Mr. Dorsey Jackson seconded the motion, and it carried unanimously. The Board considered a recommendation from the administration that Micha Williams be enrolled in the Alternative Learning Center in lieu of expulsion. Mr. Bill Hamilton moved the administration's recommendation. Ms. Pat Gee seconded the motion, and it carried unanimously. Mr. John Moore joined the meeting. The Board held a hearing in connection with an expulsion recommendation of Candice Godrey. After hearing testimony and considering all evidence, the administration recommended that the charges be upheld but that Candice be suspended to time served and be enrolled in the Alternative Learning Center for the remainder of this school year on strict probation. Mr. Dorsey Jackson moved the administration's recommendation. Ms. Pat Gee seconded the motion, and it carried unanimously. The Board conducted a hearing in connection with a recommendation that Donnie Graham be suspended long-term. After hearing testimony and considering all evidence, Mr. Dorsey Jackson moved that the hearing officer's recommendation be upheld -- that he be expelled for the remainder of the year. Mr. John Moore seconded the motion. Discussion ensued concerning procedure. Mr. Jackson withdrew his motion and Mr. Moore withdrew his second. Mr. Tony Wood recommended that Donnie Graham be suspended long-term until the end of the school year. Mr. Dorsey Jackson moved the administration's recommendation. Mr. John Moore seconded. The motion carried unanimously. In an open session, the Board conducted a joint hearing in connection with a recommendation that Ynotha Carroll and Orande Holmes be suspended long-term. After hearing testimony from both students and considering all the evidence, Mr. Tony Wood recommended that Ynotha Carroll be allowed .to return to school on the next Monday but that another school assignment be made based upon the recommendation of the principal. Mr. John Moore moved the adminstration's recommendation. Mr. Bill Hamilton seconded the motion, and it carried unanimously. Discussion ensued concerning the discipline sanction of Orande Holmes. Mr. Tony Wood, recommended that Orande Holmes be admitted to another school other than Mabelvale Jr. High to start the fourth nine weeks. Ms. Pat Gee moved the administration's recommendation. Mr. Hamilton seconded the motion, and it carried unanimously. In a closed session, the Board conducted a hearing in connection with the expulsion recommendation of Anthony Alexander. After hearing testimony and considering the evidence of the case, the administration recommended that Anthony be allowed to attend the Alternative Learning Center when the first available slot is present on strict probation. Ms. Gee moved the administration's recommendation. Mr. Jackson seconded the motion, and it carried unanimously. ADJOURNMENT: Mr. Dorsey Jackson moved to adjourn. Mr. Bill Hamilton seconded the motion, and it carried unanimously. i,President Pat Gee, Secretary APPROVED =-~~-'-~-3_ -_- \u0026amp;_ )_'1.- _ LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 810 WEST MARKHAM STREET LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS AUG 1 4 l~l'J2 Board of Directors Regular Meeting March 26, 1992 Ofrice of Desegregation Monitoring The Board of Directors of the Little Rock School District met in its regularly scheduled meeting at 6 p.m~ on March 26, 1992, in the Board Room of the Administration Building, 810 West Markham Street, Little Rock, Arkansas. The president, Mrs. o. G. Jacovelli, presided. MEMBERS PRESENT: Mrs. o. G. Jacovelli Mr. John Moore Ms. Pat Gee Dr. George Cannon Mr. Willie D. \"Bill\" Hamilton Mr. Dorsey Jackson MEMBERS ABSENT: Dr. Katherine Mitchell (Joined the meeting at 6:15 p.m.) EX OFFICIO MEMBERS PRESENT: Mrs. Lois Tyler - Teacher Representative Miss Taneesa Edge - student Representative ALSO PRESENT: Dr. Ruths. Steele, Superintendent of Schools Mrs. Norma Rodgers, Acting Recorder of Minutes Mr. Don Umfleet, Audio Specialist I. ACTION: CALL TO ORDER: ROLL CALL: The president called the meeting to order at 6 p.m. The roll call revealed the presence of six (6) Board members. II. ACTION: READING OF MINUTES: Because of the illness of the Recorder, Mrs. Pat Kumpuris, approval of the minutes was deferred until the April Board Meeting. Board of Directors Regular Meeting March 26, 1992 III. CONSENT: CONSENT ITEMS New Partnerships 2. Dr. Steele recommended that the Board approve the following new partnerships: Arkansas Power and Light and Rockefeller Magnet Elementary School\nHou Win McDonald's and Rockefeller Magnet Elementary School\nBabcock and Wilcox St. Company and Pulaski Heights Jr. High Mom's Corner Market and Watson Elementary School Our Neighborhood Newspaper and Baseline Elementary Alpha Kappa Alpha Sorority, Inc., Beta Pi Omega Chapter and Southwest Jr. High School College of Arts, Humanities and Social Sciences, University of Arkansas at Little Rock and McClellan Community High School Dr. George Cannon moved approval of the partnerships. Mr. Dorsey Jackson seconded the motion\nand it carried unanimously. Certificates were presented to each of the partners and representatives of the school commemorating the new partnerships. IV. PRESENTATIONS: A. Superintendent's Citations Dr. Steele presented a Superintendent's Citation to Angel Wilson, a 6th grader at Wilson Elementary School,. for being a winner in the \"My Southwestern Bell Yellow Pages Wish\" contest. A Citation was also presented to Nathan Scott Clements, a Parkview Arts senior, who placed second in our State's Good Citizen essay contest which was sponsored by the Arkansas Society, Daughters of the American Revolution. A Citation was presented to Robbie Dennie, McClellan\nJennifer Lee Edwards, McClellan\nCameron Jones, Hall\nBrandi Jones, J.A. Fair\nAdam Kirby, Central\nJulian Lacey, Parkview\nLatisse Mays, Central\nand David Luke Smith, Hall. These students were recognized as the recipients of the Ward, Cundiff and Aaron Memorial teacher and student awards which is made possible by the Pulaski Heights Lions Club. The students were selected to receive Board of Directors Regular Meeting March 26, 1992 3. the awards if they had a grade-point average of at least 3.5, had demonstrated community leadership, and had participated in extracurricular activities. Teachers receiving these awards were selected on the basis of excellence in teaching, community involvement and volunteer time spent working with students. These teachers were Carolyn F. Davis, 3rd grade teacher at Williams Magnet: Laverne G. Goldsby, counselor at Cloverdale Jr. High\nJudy B. Goss, Speech/ Drama instructor, Parkview\nShirley Krannichfeld, first grade teacher at Wilson Elementary\nand Helen Tate, mathematics instructor, Forest Heights Jr. High. Superintendent's Citations were presented to the Central Arkansas MATHCOUNTS COMPETITION winners. In the regional competition, the four-member team from Dunbar placed first among 24 schools in the 11-county Central Arkansas region. Third place honors went to Mann Magnet. Members of the team, Mike Lubansky, Fletcher Foti, Brian Chen and Annika Walters were honored. In the State Competition, Dunbar placed second and Mann placed third. Brian Chen won 2nd in overall state competition and will go to Nashville to compete later in the year. Anita Leung from Henderson placed 3rd in overall competition .. Martin Davis, Mann Magnet placed in the top 10. Lenora Murray, Mathematics instructor and sponsor for the MATHCOUNTS Competition was also recognized. Also recognized and thanked were the student ex-officio board member, Taneesa Edge from J. A. Fair and Lois Tyler our teacher ex-officio member from Parkview. Additionally, Jackie Boykin was given a Citation for the Food Services Department in recognition of their outstanding services to the District and their contribution to the state. A Superintendent's Citation was given to the Communications Department for the outstanding brochure for which they developed and distributed to the Realtors in the Greater Little Rock area. B. Citizens committees Mr. Benny Smith, Chairperson of the Biracial Advisory Committee reported to the Board on the findings of the Committee. Board of Directors Regular Meeting March 26, 1992 4 . Ms. Gail Quinn, Aerospace Curriculum Specialist from Long Beach, California spoke to the group stating that she has been employed by the Aerospace Museum/School Committee to help develop a grant to fund the Aerospace School. Ms. Quinn told the Board that funding would be sought through the U. S. Department of Education. c. Board Members Mrs. Jacovelli recognized Robin Armstrong, former Board Member who recently resigned from the Board, with a plaque. Each Board Member thanked Robin for her service to the District. v. Remarks from Citizens In looking at the long list of patrons who had signed up to address the Board, Mrs. Jacovelli reminded the Board of the policy the Board had adopted in November in which it stated that ... \"citizens who had signed up to speak would be required to state the subject of their remarks prior to the convening of the meeting. The Board may vote to set time limitations or require representatives to speak for large groups whose interests are similar. Persons speaking about issues on the agenda for Board action will be given priority during the \"Remarks from citizens\" section. If additional time is required for citizens or employee remarks or if there is a large delegation wishing to address a single issue not on the agenda, the Board may vote to defer their comments to the \"Audience with Individuals or Groups\" section in order to complete the pending agenda in a timely manner.\" In keeping with the policy, Mr. Moore suggested they hear the subcontracting issues first. Mr. Jackson suggested hearing from three individuals on the subcontracting issue at this segment of the meeting and hear from the remainder at the end of the meeting in \"Audience with Individuals or Groups. Mr. Hamilton moved they hear from all individuals at this time and give each person three minutes in which to speak, seconded by Dr. Mitchell, and the motion failed with Dr. Mitchell and Mr. Hamilton voting \"yes\" and Mrs. Jacovelli, Mr. Moore, Mrs. Gee, Mr. Jackson and Dr. Cannon voting \"no.\" Mr. Moore then moved that they hear from all the patrons and employees who had signed up to speak on the subcontracting issue and then hear from two or three people who had signed up to speak on each of the individual issues, including Afro-Centric Curriculum. Dr. Cannon seconded the motion and it passed 5-2 with Mr. Hamilton and Dr. Mitchell casting the dissenting vote. Eleanor Coleman, President - Little Rock Classroom Teachers Association\nMs. Net~ie Nichols, bus driver\nand Mr. Frank Martin Board of Directors Regular Meeting March 26, 1992 5. Executive Director of the Classroom Teachers Association spoke to the Board urging them to not go to contracted services. Nettie Nichols presented a petition to the Board which included 53 names asking for a special meeting of the Board to talk about contracted services. Mr. Donald Foster, Custodian, urged the Board to think about the individuals who have given many years of service to the District. He asked them to consider the vital part they play in keeping the education of the children going. Mr. Daniel Trotter, Custodian, told the Board the group has people who have been in the District for 25 or 30 years. He told the Board they need their jobs. Mr. Robert Jones spoke to the group about repairs that needed to be done at the Incentive Schools. Mr. Jimmy Cunningham, Mr. Allen Thompson, Ms. Odette Woods, Ms. Lavern Gipson, Mr. Louis Carlock, Ms. Gloria Aboagye, and Terrance Cain expressed concern that the curriculum in the elementary schools is inadequate to teach the children about Black History. He urged the Board to make changes in the Curriculum by adding Afrocentric Education. 1 VI. ACTION: ACTION ITEMS: A. Donations of Property Dr. Steele directed the Board members' attention to the donation requests in the printed agenda as follows: Meadowcliff Elementary, $500 toward purchase of Quiz Bowl materials donated by Metropolitan National Bank\nMcDermott PTA asks to donate curtains to the cafetorium and sod, plants, and bushes for landscaping to McDermott Elementary School. Enhanced Training Opportunity Program, Inc. is asking to donate twelve (12) AT\u0026amp;T personal computers to Adult Education Department. carver PTA is asking to donate an industrial size weed eater to Carver Magnet School. Mr. Jackson moved the acceptance of these donations, Mr. Hamilton seconded the motion, and it carried unanimously. Board of Directors Regular Meeting March 26, 1992 B. Contracted Services 6. Mr. Jackson expressed concern that the document on contracted services had been misunderstood. He is recommending a feasibility study to be done by the people in the District. He told the Board that a study needs to be conducted on all persons in the District from the bottom up. Mr. Jackson moved that the administration conduct a feasibility study during a thirty day timeline from this date. Mr. Moore seconded the motion. After much discussion, the president called for a ten minute break. Upon returning from a break, Mr. Jackson amended his motion stating that the Board set a timeline of January 1, 1993 to have the feasibility study completed, but in the meantime he wishes to direct the administration to bring a balanced budget to the April Board Meeting for the 1992-93 school year. Mr. Moore seconded the motion and it passed 6-1 with Dr. Mitchell casting the dissenting vote. At 8 : 2 5 p. m. Mr. Moore moved that the Board go into Executive Session, Mr. Jackson seconded the motion and it passed 6- 1 with Ms. Gee casting the dissenting vqte. The meeting reconvened at 8:45 p.m., with the President announcing that no action was taken. Mr. Moore stated that Mr. Jackson had left the meeting. c. School Uniforms Dr. Steele recommended that upon verification by an independent survey of kindergarten parents at Williams Magnet School that uniforms are supported, that the school be authorized to proceed with use of uniforms for the 1992-93 kindergarten class. This recommendation does not include any use of public school funds for the purchase of uniforms. Mr. Moore moved approval of the Superintendent's recommendation, seconded by Ms. Gee and it passed unanimously. D. Second Reading on Policy and Regulation on Sexual Harassment Upon review of the policy and regulation on sexual harassment, the Superintendent recommended its approval on a second reading. Mr. Hamil ton moved approval of the superintendent's recommendation, seconded by Dr. Cannon and it passed unanimously. Board of Directors Regular Meeting March 26, 1992 E. State Recognition Program Grant 7. The Superintendent reported that the Alternative Learning Center has received a $1,000 State Recognition Grant called PAY: \"Program for At-Risk Youths.\" Ms. Gee moved approval of the superintendent's recommendation, seconded by Mr. Hamilton and it passed unanimously. F. Proposed Course Additions - Dunbar International studies Magnet School The Superintendent recommended the addition of at least one International Studies course be placed in each of the core disciplines at Dunbar International studies Magnet School. This would ensure an international emphasis throughout each department, while at the same time provide students who have specific curriculum interests an opportunity to be exposed to international themes and concepts through discipline other than social studies. Mr. Hamil ton moved approval of the Superintendent's recommendation, seconded by Dr. Cannon and it passed unanimously. G. Secondary Language Arts Textbook Adoption Recommendation 1 The Superintendent recommended the Language Arts Textbook Committee's selection of the D. c. Heath and Company Heath Grammar and Composition series for grades 7-12. Mr. Hamil ton moved approval of the Superintendent's recommendation, seconded by Dr. cannon and it passed unanimously. H. Phase II - IMPAC ILS Project Consideration for 1992-93 School Year The Superintendent recommended approval of the IMPAC ILS Project application for the 1992-93 school year. After much discussion Dr. Cannon asked if we could have the lab without it being a pull-out model. Dr. Steele amended her recommendation to accept this project if we can install these in classrooms in groups and not have another pull-out program in our schools. Ms. Matthis explained to the Board that at this time the school selection has not been made. Mr. Moore moved approval of Dr. Steele's amendment, seconded by Dr. Cannon and it passed 5-1 with Ms. Jacovelli casting the dissenting vote. Board of Directors Regular Meeting March 26, 1992 I. AP Chemistry 8. The Superintendent recommended approval of offering AP Chemistry at all five senior high schools starting with the 1992-93 school year. AP Chemistry is currently being offered only at J. A. Fair High School. Mr. Moore moved approval of the Superintendent's recommendation, seconded by Mr. Hamilton and passed with a 5-1 vote with Dr. Mitchell casting the dissenting vote. J. Policy on School Year The Superintendent recommended approval of the revised policy on School Year for first reading. This revision is recommended in order to conform to our current school calendar and state law stating that \"student-teacher\" contact time shall be for a minimum of 178 days or as prescribed by law. 11 Mr. Moore moved approval of the superintendent's recommendation, seconded by Mr. Hamilton and it passed unanimously. K. Biracial Advisory Committee Nomination The Superintendent recommended approval of the nomination of Paul Austin to the Biracial Advisory Committee. Mr. Austin's application was presented for review. Mr. Hamilton moved approval of the superintendent's recommendation, seconded by Mr. Moore and it passed with 5 11yes 11 votes and Ms. Gee abstaining. L. Resolution Authorizing the Issuance and Sale of Arkansas Tax and Revenue Anticipation Promissory Notes (TRAN) The superintendent recommended approval of the resolution as submitted and authorize the administration to proceed with execution of final documents on the sale of Arkansas Tax and Revenue Anticipation Promissory Notes. Dr. Mitchell moved approval of the Superintendent's recommendation, seconded by Mr. Moore and it passed unanimously. NOTE: Mr. Mark McBryde was present and told the Board that a sale had been executed on this date at 4 1/8 percent. M. Personnel Changes The Superintendent recommended approval of the personnel items as presented on the agenda. Mr. Hamilton moved approval of the personnel items, Dr. Mitchell seconded the motion and it passed 5-1 with Dr. Mitchell casting the dissenting vote. Board of Directors Regular Board Meeting March 26, 1992 N. Financial Reports 9. The superintendent recommended approval of the Financial Reports as submitted on the agenda. Mr. Hamilton moved approval of the reports, seconded by Mr. Moore and it passed 5-1 with Ms. Jacovelli casting the dissenting vote. VII. REPORT: Report of Superintendent A. Update on Desegregation In the absence of Mr. James Jennings, Ms. Hart asked the Board if there were any questions on the report as submitted. There was a brief discussion. Ms. Hart asked permission to address the Board on the report from the Biracial Committee. She stated that both she and Mr. Jennings were appalled at the report because \"it was not an up-to-date report.\" Dr. Mitchell asked that the report be reviewed by Ms. Hart, Ms. Gill and Mr. Jennings. VIII. AUDIENCE WITH INDIVIDUALS OR GROUPS I Ms. Gloria Riggs, Mr. David Dotson, Mr. Timothy Flowers and Ms. Demetris Boyland addressed the Board on the implementation of Afro-Centric Instruction into the curriculum. Because Mr. Shawn Ricks had to leave the meeting, he had asked Mr. Jimmy Cunningham to address the Board again asking the Board to meet with Members of the African-American Progress Council. IX. STUDENT AND/OR EMPLOYEE DISCIPLINARY RECOMMENDATIONS Employee Hearing Mr. Brady Gadberry, Labor Relations Specialist, represented the Board in a closed employee hearing with Ms. Monica O'Neal appealing a recommendation from Mr. Dick Johnson, Director of Transportation that she be terminated. After information presented from Mr. Gadberry and an opportunity for Ms. O'Neal to speak, the administration recommended her termination. Mr. Moore moved the approval of the administration's recommendation, seconded by Dr. Cannon and it passed unanimously.  ' Board of Directors Regular Meeting March 26, 1992 Student Disciplinary Recommendations 10. Mr. Rudolph Howard presented the following non-contested disciplinary recommendations: Caffey, Derrick - Expulsion Richey, Haden - Expulsion . Brown, Robert - Long-Term Suspension Dillard, Fred - Long-Term Suspension Green, Avery - Long-Term Suspension Houston, Daron - Long-Term Suspension Woodruff, Kia - Long-Term Suspension Mr. Moore moved the administration's recommendations on the noncontested expulsions and long-term suspensions. Dr. Cannon seconded the motion and it carried unanimously. The Board considered the expulsion recommendation of Britt Vickers in a closed session. considerable discussion ensued. Mr. Moore moved approval of the administration's recommendation, seconded by Mr. Hamilton and it carried with a 5-1 vote with Ms. Gee casting the dissenting vote. ADJOURNMENT Mr. Moore moved to adjourn. Dr. Cannon seconded the motion, and it carried unanimously. There being no further business to come before the regular meeting of the Board of Directors, the meeting adjourned at 10:35 p.m. Pat Gee, Secretary APPROVED: , LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 810 WEST MARKHAM STREET LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS AUG 1 4 IY92 Special Meeting April 7, 1992 Office of Deseg regatiu. :i :. ioni.t oring The Board of Directors of the Little Rock School District met in a lawfully-called special meeting at 5:15 p.m. on April 7, 1992, in the Board Room of the Administration Building, 810 West Markham street, Little Rock, Arkansas. The president, Mrs. o. G. Jacovelli, presided. MEMBERS PRESENT: Mrs. o. G. Jacovelli Ms. Pat Gee Dr. Katherine Mitchell Mr. Willie D. (Bill) Hamilton MEMBERS ABSENT: Mr. John Moore Mr. Dorsey Jackson Dr. George Cannon ALSO PRESENT: Mr. Tony Wood, Deputy Superintendent Mrs. Pat Kumpuris, Recorder of the Minutes Mr. Brady Gadberry, Labor Relations Specialist Mr. Richard Johnson, Director of Transportation CALL TO ORDER: ROLL CALL: The president called the special meeting to order at 5:15 p.m. The roll call revealed the presence of four (4) Board members, which constituted a quorum. PURPOSE OF SPECIAL MEETING: The chair announced that the special meeting was called for the purpose of conducting three (3) employee hearings. EMPLOYEE HEARINGS: Mr. Brady Gadberry announced that the first hearing was scheduled at the request of Valarie Graves but that she has not shown up at the appointed time. He told the Board that notification was given to Ms. Graves by certified mail. J since the employee did not show up for the hearing, the administration recommended that the Board uphold the recommendation of the Director of Transportation for termination for insubordination and inappropriate behavior effective immediately. Ms. Pat Gee moved the administration's recommendation. Ms. Jacovelli relinquished the chair to Mr. Hamilton and seconded the motion. The motion carried unanimously. In a closed session, the Board conducted a hearing at the request of Dietrice White in connection with a recommendation for termination for a positive drug test. After hearing testimony and considering all evidence, Ms. Pat Gee moved the administration's recommendation for termination because of .a positive drug test. Mr. Bill Hamilton seconded the motion, and it carried unanimously. In a closed session, the Board conducted a hearing at the request of Carolyn Thomas in connection with a recommendation for termination for a positive drug test. After hearing testimony and considering all evidence, Mr. Pat Gee moved the administration's recommendation for termination based on the information provided to the Board that Ms. Thomas had tested positive for an illegal drug. Mr. Bill Hamilton seconded the motion, and it carried with three affirmative votes. Dr. Katherine Mitchell abstained from the vote. Following the hearing for Ms. Thomas, discussion ensued with Ms. Thomas concerning a separate dispute concerning back pay. After an informal discussion, the administration indicated that it would take a look at the whole situatiqn and report back to the Board. ADJOURNMENT: There being no further business to come within the call for the special meeting, Ms. Pat Gee moved to adjourn. Mr. Bill Hamilton seconded the motion, and it carried unanimously. The meeting adjourned at 6:45 p.m. Mrs. o. Ms. Pat Gee, Secretary APPROVED: __t/: _'_.,\"~3_-_,_2-_ LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 810 WEST MARKHAM STREET LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS AUG 1 4 1992 Board of Directors Special Meeting April 15, 1992 Oliic of Deseg .. 9::.10:1 Monitoring The Board of Directors of the Little Rock School District met in a lawfully called special meeting at 5:02 p.m. on April 15, 1992, in the Board Room of the Administration Building, 810 West Markham Street, Little Rock, Arkansas. The president, Mrs. o. G. Jacovelli, presided. MEMBERS PRESENT: Mrs. o. G. Jacovelli Ms. Pat Gee Dr. Katherine Mitchell Mr. Willie D. (Bill) Hamilton Mr. Dorsey Jackson MEMBERS ABSENT: Mr. John Moore Dr. George Cannon ALSO PRESENT: Mr. Tony Wood, Acting Superintendent Mrs. Pat Kumpuris, Recorder of the Minutes Mr. Don Umfleet, Audio Specialist CALL TO ORDER: ROLL CALL: The president called the meeting to order at 5:02 p.m. The roll call revealed the presence of four (4) Board members. Dr. Katherine Mitchell joined the meeting at 5:12 p.m. PURPOSE OF SPECIAL MEETING: The chair announced that the special meeting was called for the purpose of naming a person to be responsible for the Surrogate Parent Program and to conduct student hearings. SURROGATE PARENT PROGRAM: Mrs. Estelle Matthis explained that the Surrogate Parent Program is for special needs students who are living with foster parents or who are wards of the State. She further explained that volunteers are recruited to represent these children and the District is required to name a person to implement the program. The administration recommended that Dr. Patty Kohler be named the person responsible for implementing the surrogate Parent Program. Mr. Dorsey Jackson moved the administration's recommendation. Mr. Bill Hamilton seconded the motion, and it carried unanimously. EXPULSIONS: The chair directed the Board members' attention to the list of non-contested expulsion recommendations of Eric Allen, T. J. Dunnick, Darrell Freeman, Shanda Alexander, _Bara Nichols, Jeramauld Todd, William Wadlington, and Sean Phillips. Mr. Dorsey Jackson moved to accept the hearing officer's recommendation to expel these students. Mr. Bill Hamilton seconded the motion, and it carried unanimously. STUDENT HEARINGS: In a closed session the Board conducted a hearing at the request of Ryan Yant in connection with the administration's recommendation for expulsion. After hearing all testimony and considering the evidence presented during the hearing, Mr. Tony Wood, Acting Superintendent, recommended that Ryan Yant be enrolled at the Alternative Learning Center for the remainder of this school year on strict probation as soon as space is available. Ms. Pat Gee moved the administration's recommendation. Mr. Dorsey Jackson seconded the motion, and it carried wi1th three (3) affirmative votes. Mr. Bill Hamil ton voted against the motion, and Dr. Katherine Mitchell abstained. In a closed session the Board conducted a hearing at the request of Jerry Bagwell in connection with the administration's recommendation for expulsion. After hearing all testimony and considering the evidence presented during the hearing, Mr. Tony Wood, Acting superintendent, recommended that Jerry Bagwell be admitted to the Alternative Learning Center when space is available on strict probation. Mr. Dorsey Jackson moved the administration's recommendation. Ms. Pat Gee seconded the motion, and it carried with four (4) affirmative votes. Dr. Mitchell abstained. In a closed session the Board conducted a hearing at the request of Melissa Holleman in connection with the administration's recommendation for expulsion. After hearing all testimony and considering the evidence presented during the hearing, Mr. Tony Wood, Acting Superintendent, recommended that Melissa Holleman be enrolled at the Alternative Learning Center as soon as possible when space is available on strict probation for the remainder of this school year. Mr. Jackson moved the administration's recommendation. Mr. Hamilton seconded the motion. During discussion of the motion, Mr. Jackson amended the motion to include the provision that if the District cannot find space for all three of the students (Ryan Yant, Jerry Bagwell, and Melissa Holleman), then they would be admitted in reverse order as space is availaole (Melissa Holleman, Jerry Bagwell, Ryan Yant). Mr. Hamilton agreed to the amendment. The motion carried with four (4) affirmative votes. Dr. Katherine Mitchell abstained. RECESS The Board recessed at 7:15 p.m. for a break and reconvened at 7:35 p.m. Upon reconvening, the Board conducted a hearing in a closed session at the request of Freddie Lee in connection with the administration's recommendation for expulsion. After hearing all testimony and considering the evidence presented during the hearing, Mr. Tony Wood, Acting Superintendent, recommended that another placement be considered for Freddie Lee and that he be allowed to continue his education on strict probation. Dr. Katherine Mitchell moved the administration's recommendation. Mr. Bill Hamilton seconded the motion, and it carried unanimously. In a closed session the Board conducted a hearing in a closed session at the request of Shawn Porch in connection with the administration's recommendation for expulsion. After hearing all testimony and considering the evidence presented during the hearing, Mr. Tony Wood, Acting Superintendent, recommended that Shawn Porch be expelled for the remainder of the 1991-92 school year. Mr. Jackson moved the administration's recommendation. Ms. Gee seconded the motion, and it carrie? three (3) to (2). Mr. Hamilton and Dr. Mitchell cast the dissenting votes. ADJOURNMENT\nThere being no further business to come before the special meeting of the Board, the meeting adjourned at 9: 40 p.m. upon motion by Mr. Jackson, a second by Ms. Gee, and unanimous approval of the Board members. o. G. Jacoveli, President Pat Gee, Secretary APPROVED: LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 810 WEST MARKHAM STREET LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS Board of Directors AUG 1 .., 1'192 Special Meeting April 16, 1992 Office of o . esegregat,on Monitoring The Board of Directors of the Little Rock School District met in a lawfully-called special meeting at 5:17 p.m. in the Board Room of the Administration Building, 810 West Markham Street, Little Rock, Arkansas. The president, Mrs. o. G. Jacovelli, presided. MEMBERS PRESENT: Mrs. o. G. Jacovelli Mr. John Moore Ms. Pat Gee Dr. Katherine Mitchell Mr. Willie D. (Bill) Hamilton Mr. Dorsey Jackson Dr. George Cannon MEMBERS ABSENT: None EX OFFICIO BOARD MEMBERS: Ms. Angela Nunn, Teacher Ex Officio Mr. Cameron Jones, Student Ex Officio ALSO PRESENT: Dr. Ruths. Steele, superintendent of Schools Mrs. Pat Kumpuris, Recorder of the Minutes CALL TO ORDER: ROLL CALL: The president called the meeting to order at 5:17 p.m. The roll call revealed the presence of all seven (7) Board members. Mrs. Jacovelli introduced the ex officio teacher and student Board members and welcomed them to the meeting. PURPOSE OF SPECIAL MEETING: The president announced that the special meeting was called for the purpose of hearing an update on the superintendent's search and to consider a personnel recommendation. UPDATE ON SUPERINTENDENT'S SEARCH: Mrs. Jacovelli introduced Mrs. Susie Jernigan, one of the Search Consultants working for the District in searching for qualified candidates to fill the position of Superintendent of Schools. Mrs. Jernigan reported that she and Jan Cummings had been working for almost 15 weeks and had made over 300 contacts concerning the LRSD superintendency. Mrs. Jernigan further reported that they had about 18 serious candidates, 10 of which are sitting superintendents, six are deputy superintendents, associates, or assistant superintendents, one is a senior administrator, and one is a \"non-traditional\" candidate. She told the Board that the candidates come from districts in size of from 8300 students up to 77,000. Seventeen of the candidates are men\none is female\nseven are African-American\nthe others are AngloSaxon. Mrs. Jernigan reviewed the process for narrowing the field of candidates to 5 or 6 semi-finalists and the process for bringing the candidates to Little Rock on the weekend of May 1 to meet with the Board of Directors and the public. Board members asked questions about the candidates and the process to be used from this point to the final selection of a superintendent. By common consensus the Board decided to have the semi-finalist candidates bring their spo4ses to Little Rock on the weekend of May 1. PERSONNEL ITEM: Dr. Steele reminded the Board that she had written last week about the need to employ an assistant principal for Romine Interdistrict School. She explained that the assistant principal is needed now to assist with recruiting for the next school year to help the school be successful as an interdistrict Computer Science/ Basic Skills School. She reviewed the credentials of Barbara Anderson and recommended that the Board employ her as the Assistant Principal at Romine Interdistrict School effective April 17, 1992. Dr. Katherine Mitchell moved the Superintendent's recommendation. Mr. Dorsey Jackson seconded the motion. Discussion ensued. The motion carried four (4) to three (3). Dr. Mitchell, Mr. Jackson, Mr. Hamilton, and Mr. Moore voted in favor of the motion. Mrs. Jacovelli, Ms. Gee, and Dr. Cannon voted in opposition to the motion. ADJOURNMENT: Mr. Bill Hamilton moved to adjourn. Mr. Dorsey Jackson seconded the motion, and it carried unanimously. The meeting adjourned at 6:29 p.m. o. G. Jacovei, President Pat Gee, Secretary APPROVED =-1Y1~0.. 1.... ~-'M ~l,_..l. .7.... -'-9\"-~-- .. LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 810 WEST MARKHAM STREET LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS Board of Directors Regular Meeting April 23, 1992 Office of Desegregafo, Mon1toring The Board of Directors of the Little Rock School District met in its regularly scheduled monthly meeting at 6:05 p.m. on April 23, 1992, in the Board Room of the Administration Building, 810 West Markham Street, Little Rock, Arkansas. The president, Mrs. o. G. Jacovelli, presided. MEMBERS PRESENT: Mrs. O. G. Jacovelli Mr. John Moore Ms. Pat Gee Dr. Katherine Mitchell Mr. Willie D. (Bill) Hamilton Mr. Dorsey Jackson Dr. George Cannon MEMBERS ABSENT: None ALSO PRESENT: Dr. Ruth Steele, Superintendent of Schools Mrs. Pat Kumpuris, Recorder of the Minutes Mr. Don Umfleet, Audio Specialist I. ACTION: CALL TO ORDER ROLL CALL The president called the meeting to order at 6:05 p.m. The roll call revealed the presence of all seven (7) Board members. II. ACTION: READING OF THE MINUTES The chair directed the Board members' attention to the minutes of the special meeting on February 10, 1992\nthe special meeting on February 13, 1992\nthe special meeting on February 20, 1992\nthe regular meeting on February 27, 1992\nthe special meeting on March 5, 1992\nthe special meeting on March 19, 1992\nthe regular meeting on March 26, 1992\nand the special meeting on April 7, 1992. Mr. Willie D. (Bill) Hamilton moved approval of the minutes as submitted. Dr. Katherine Mitchell seconded the motion, Board of Directors Regular Meeting April 23, 1992 and it carried unanimously. III. CONSENT: CONSENT ITEMS New Partnerships 2 Dr. Ruth Steele, Superintendent of Schools, recommended that the Board approve the new partnership between The Willis Group, Inc. and McClellan Community High ~chool\nMarkham Parkway McDonalds of Little Rock and Ish Incentive School\nand Pediatric Physical Therapy Services and Otter Creek Elementary School. Ms. Pat Gee moved the Superintendent's recommendation. Mr. John Moore seconded the motion, and it carried unanimously. IV. PRESENTATIONS A. Superintendent's Comments Dr. Steele recognized the Watson Elementary School \"Hot Stuff\" team who won first place in the District and third place in the state in the Arkansas Democrat-Gazette stock Market Game. She presented a Superintendent's citation to the students who made up the team: Deundra Baker, Laprisha Bennett, Neitrisha Buchanan, and Brandi Greer. Dr. Steele also recognized the team's teacher, Ms. Mary Ann Forrest, who is the gifted and talented coordinator at Watson Elementary School. Dr. Steele asked Mrs. Ellen Abney to make a presentation on behalf of McDonald's on Broadway. Mrs. Abney presented the McDonald's Secondary Assistant Principal of the Year Award to Dr. Anne Hanson, assistant principal at Parkview Arts/Sciences Magnet High School. The Superintendent also presented a citation to the April student ex officio Board member, Cameron Jones, and the teacher ex officio Board member, Ms. Angela Munns. B. Citizens Committees None Reporting. c. Board Members Mrs. Jacovelli stated that she asked Dr. Steele to convene a meeting with the Council of African-American Progress to share with members of the Council the work that has been done on a multi-cultural curriculum and expressed hope that this meeting will be a productive exchange of ideas and that the meeting will be held in early June. Board of Directors Regular Meeting April 23, 1992 3 Mr. Dorsey Jackson thanked Mrs. Kumpuris for the new policy manual and commended James Jennings for getting a $10,000 grant on his own initiative. He also expressed the hope that the Biracial Advisory Committee and the administration could have communication with all the groups because a lack of communication creates more work, conflict, and a lack of harmony. Dr. Katherine Mitchell commended Mrs. Catherine Gill and the parents who atterlded the incentive sch9ol parents' breakfast. She also commended the CTA for receiving the Human Relations Award and for conducting workshops in improving human relations skills. V. REMARKS FROM CITIZENS Mr. Allen Thompson told the Board to recognize that the typical African-American suffers from family and heritage deprivation and urged that this be addressed in his educational system through the use of the Portland Baseline Essays. Ms. Sharl Hill told the Board that she is disheartened about the curriculum and that African-American history should be included in all months, not just one month of the year. She said that there is a nationwide movement to include Afro-centric curriculum in the schools and that the Portland Baseline Essays are an excellent model. Mr. Patrick Oliver told the Board that African-American kids have not learned to appreciate their heritage and asked the Board to improve the education of children concerning their African heritage. Ms. Odette Woods spoke in favor of infusing AfricanAmerican history into the Little Rock School District and requested that the Board meet with representatives of the Council and hold a special meeting to address this issue. Mr. Christopher Woods urged the Board to start teaching more about African heritage. Mr. Bernard Murray told the Board that the Little Rock School District and the Pulaski County Special School District had been a source of alienation and frustration for black people and urged them to add African history to the curriculum. Mr. R. J. Williams encouraged the Board to take a look at what the school system is offering the children and to implement an Afro-central curriculum today. Ms. Rita Johnson asked the Board to implement an Afrocentric curriculum. Board of Directors Regular Meeting April 23, 1992 4 Mr. Pele Shonowo urged the Board to implement an Afrocentric curriculum so the children can learn about their heritage. Mr. Terrence Cain spoke in favor of supplementing the curriculum with African-American curriculum. Mr. Jimmy Cunningham suggested that the Board make sure the new superintendent is sensitive to an Afro-Centric curriculum. He asked Mrs. Jacovelli to submit in writing the material she wants from the Council for African-American Progress. Mr. Ricardo Davis spoke of the need for all kids to have pictures of people in their school books that look like them. Mr. Dale Charles spoke in favor of a Afro-Centric curriculum and urged that the new superintendent be sensitive to an Afro-Central curriculum. VI. ACTION: ACTION ITEMS A. Journalism Textbook Adoption Dr. Steele recommended tha~ the Board adopt for Journalism I: Understanding Mass Media, National Textbook Company, publisher: and for Journalism II: Press Time, Prentice-Hall, Inc., publisher. Dr. Katherine Mitchell moved the Superintendent's recommendation. Mr. Dorsey Jackson seconded the motion, and it carried unanimously. B. Communications Textbook Adoption The Superintendent recommended that the Board adopt communications textbooks as outlined in the printed agenda. Mr. Dorsey Jackson moved the Superintendent's recommendation. Mr. Bill Hamilton seconded the motion, and it carried unanimously. c. Policy on School Year - Second Reading Dr. Steele recommended that the Board adopt the Policy on School Year on second reading. Mr. Bill Hamil ton moved the superintendent's recommendation. Mr. Dorsey Jackson seconded the motion, and it carried unanimously. D. Personnel Items Mr. Pat Gee moved to go into executive session to discuss personnel matters. Mr. Hamilton seconded the motion, and it carried unanimously. Board of Directors Regular Meeting April 23, 1992 5 The Board retired into executive session at 7:10 p.m. and reconvened at 7:50 p.m. Upon reconvening the chair announced that the Board had been discussing personnel matters and that no action was taken. Dr. Steele recommended that the Board approve the personnel changes listed in the printed agenda, including the reelection of certified personnel as outlined in Attachment I through VI of the printed agenda. Dr. Katherine Mitchell moved the Superintendent's recommendation. Mr. Bill Hamilton seconded the motion, and it carried six (6) to one (1). Mr. Dorsey Jackson cast the dissenting vote. E. Financial Reports The Superintendent recommended approval of the financial reports as presented. Mr. John Moore moved the Superintendent's recommendation. Dr. Katherine Mitchell seconded the motion, and it carried five (5) to two (2) with Mrs. Jacovelli and Ms. Gee casting the dissenting votes. SUSPENSION OF THE RULES: Dr. Steele asked the Board to ~uspend the rules and vote on the ABC grant application and adopt a Resolution in support of the millage vote by the Pulaski County Special School District. Mr. Hamil ton moved to suspend the rules for the two purposes outlined by the Superintendent. Dr. Mitchell seconded the motion, and it carried unanimously. ABC GRANT: Dr. Steele directed the Board members' attention to the ABC Grant application and explained the this will be the second year for funding of the grant and asked that the Board approve submission of the grant application in the amount of $154,402.50, which is a five percent increase over last year's grant. Dr. Mitchell moved the Superintendent's recommendation. Mr. Jackson seconded the motion, and it carried unanimously. RESOLUTION: The Superintendent explained that the Pulaski County Special School District's financial stability is very important to the Little Rock School District and recommended that the Board approve a Resolution in support of the Pulaski county Special School District's efforts to pass an 8 mill tax increase. Mr. Dorsey Jackson moved adoption of the Resolution. Dr. George Cannon seconded the motion, and it carried unanimously. Board of Directors Regular Meeting April 23, 1992 VII. REPORT: REPORTS OF SUPERINTENDENT A. Report on 1992-93 Budget 6 Dr. Steele reviewed the schedule of meetings that have been set with employee groups to get cost-saving suggestions from them. She explained that the District is looking at a $7,654,000 budget deficit and will be looking for ways to cut the budget to offset the deficit. Discussion ensued con9erning the deficit. B. Update on Desegregation Mr. James Jennings answered questions concerning the report that was slip-sheeted into the agenda. Mr. Chris Heller gave the Board an overview of the recent United states Supreme Court rulings having to do with school districts reaching unitary status. He pointed out that the u. s. Supreme Court decisions could be used as a guide to us as we work toward unitary status except that there is one important difference: that we are operating under a desegregation settlement agreement. He also reviewed the most recent motions of the Little Rock School District to (1) implement the McClellan program in phases over three years\nand (2) asked to re-schedule the construction of King and Stephens. c. curriculum Revision Update There were no questions concerning this report. VIII. AUDIENCE WITH INDIVIDUALS OR GROUPS None. IX. STUDENT AND/OR EMPLOYEE DISCIPLINARY RECOMMENDATIONS Mr. Rudolph Howard directed the Board members' attention to the recommendation for a non-contested expulsion of Candace Jones and the non-contested long-term suspension of Chris Alexander, Landa Burns, Pamela Burns, Chester Dickerson, Ricky Epperson, Cameron Franklin, Shajuanna Harris, Talmadge Johnson, Darnell Lancaster, Jason Perkins, Tommy Phillips, Eddie Pride, Billy Robinson, Keven Summers, and James Thomas. The Superintendent recommended that the Board approve the non-contested expulsion and long-term suspensions as recommended. Mr. Bill Hamilton moved the Superintendent's recommendation. Mr. Dorsey Jackson seconded the motion, and it carried unanimously. STUDENT HEARINGS: Mr. Tony Wood assumed the role of Acting Superintendent for the remainder of the Board meeting. Board of Directors Regular Meeting April 23, 1992 7 The Board scheduled a hearing at the request of Aundra Ganaway\nhowever, she did not appear at the appointed time and action was deferred. The Board considered the expulsion recommendation of Lashedric Dailey, but it was decided that it would be appropriate for Lashedric to enroll in the Alternative Learning Center with the approval of the hearing officer, the school officials, and the Board of Directors. Mr. Tony Wood recommended that Lashedric be assigned to the Alternative Learning Center on strict probation. Mr. Jackson moved the Acting Superintendent's recommendation. Dr. Mitchell seconded the motion, and it carried unanimously. Mrs. Pat Gee left the meeting at 10:12 p.m. The Board held a hearing on behalf of Jeremiah Haney. After hearing all testimony and witnesses, Mr. Tony Wood, Acting Superintendent, recommended that Jeremiah be expelled for the balance of the 1991-92 school year. Mr. Dorsey Jackson moved the Acting Superintendent's recommendation. Dr. George Cannon seconded the motion, and it carried unanimously. ADJOURNMENT: Mr. Jo h n Moore moved to adJ' oIu rn. Mr. Dorsey Jackson seconded the motion, and it carried unanimously. There being no further business to come before the regular meeting of the Board, the meeting adjourned at 10:56 p.m. overli, President Pat Gee, Secretary APPROVED: ?ih~ a-x J /'J:9d-- f LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 810 WEST MARKHAM STREET LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS Board of Directors Special Meetings May 1, 1992 and May 2, 1992 AUG 1 4 19,c:'. Office of Desegregation Mo.:itoring The Board of Directors of the Little Rock School District met in a lawfully-called special meeting on May 1 and 2, 1992, in the offices of Huckabay, Munson, Rowlett and Tilley, P.A., 1900 First Commercial Building, Little Rock, Arkansas. The president, Mrs. o. G. Jacovelli, presided. MEMBERS PRESENT: Mrs. o. G. Jacovelli Mr. John Moore Ms. Pat Gee Dr. Katherine Mitchell Mr. Willie D. (Bill) Hamilton Mr. Dorsey Jackson Dr. George cannon MEMBERS ABSENT: None CALL TO ORDER: ROLL CALL: The president called the special meeting to order at 1:26 p.m. The roll call revealed the presence of all seven (7) Board members. PURPOSE OF SPECIAL MEETING: The special meeting was called for the purpose of interviewing candidates for the superintendency of the Little Rock School District. EXECUTIVE SESSION: Upon motion by Mr. John Moore, a second by Dr. George Cannon, and unanimous approval of the Board, the Board went into executive session at 1:27 p.m. to interview the candidates. Upon reconvening from executive session, the president announced that the Board had interviewed Dr. Michael Woodall and - Dr. Levi McIntosh and that no action was taken. RECESS: The Board recessed the meeting until 10 a.m. on May 2, 1992. RECONVENE: The Board reconvened the special meeting at 10:20 a.m. on May 2, 1992. EXECUTIVE SESSION: Upon reconvening, Ms. Pat Gee moved for an executive session to interview the remaining candidates for the superintendency of the Little Rock School District. Dr. Katherine Mitchell seconded the motion, and it carried unanimously. Upon reconvening from the executive session the president announced that the Board had interviewed Dr. Sam Wooten, Dr. Henry Williams, and Dr. Cloyde Bernd and that no action was taken. AJOURNMENT: Ms. Pat Gee moved that the special meeting adjourn. Dr. Katherine Mitchell seconded the motion, and it carried unanimously. The meeting adjourned at 4:30 p.m. o. G. Jacove i ,President Pat Gee, Secretary LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 810 WEST MARKHAM STREET LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS Board of Directors Special Meeting May 3, 1992 AUG 1 4 1992 Oifice of Desci, sgc.t1c.n :ilo:11 or1r:g The Board of Directors of the Little Rock School District met in a lawfully-called special meeting at 3:06 p.m. on May 3, 1992. The president, Mrs. o. G. Jacovelli, presided. MEMBERS PRESENT: Mrs. o. G. Jacovelli Mr. John Moore Ms. Pat Gee Dr. Katherine Mitchell Mr. Willie D. (Bill) Hamilton Mr. Dorsey Jackson Dr. George Cannon MEMBERS ABSENT: None PURPOSE OF SPECIAL MEETING: The chair announced that the special meeting was called for the purpose of conducting an executive session to discuss the employment of a superintendent. EXECUTIVE SESSION: Mr. Dorsey Jackson moved to retire into executive session to discuss personnel matters. Dr. George Cannon seconded the motion, and it carried unanimously. The Board retired into executive session at 3: 07 p.m. and reconvened at 5 p.m. Upon reconvening from executive session the president announced that the Board had been discussing the information they had gleaned from their initial meetings with the candidates with whom they had spent the weekend, and no action was taken. She indicated that the Board had tentatively agreed to meet again on Tuesday evening, May 5. ADJOURNMENT: Mr. Jackson moved to adjourn. Mr. Moore seconded the motion, and it carried unanimously. The special meeting adjourned at 5:07 p.m. O. G. Jacove 1 Pat Gee, Secretary APPROVED: flb.1 U, / 99\n., ,.t LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 810 WEST MARKHAM STREET LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS Board of Directors Special Meeting May 4, 1992 Oti:ce of Desegregation Monitoring The Board of Directors of the Little Rock School District met in a lawfully-called special meeting at 5:25 p.m. on May 4, 1992, in the Board Room of the Administration Building, 810 West Markham Street, Little Rock, Arkansas. The vice-president, Mr. John Moore, presided. MEMBERS PRESENT: Mr. John Moore Ms. Pat Gee Mr. Willie D. (Bill) Hamilton Dr. Katherine Mitchell MEMBERS ABSENT: Mrs. o. G. Jacovelli Mr. Dorsey Jackson Dr. George Cannon ALSO PRESENT: Dr. Ruth Steele, Superintendent of Schools Mrs. Pat Kumpuris, Recorder of the Minutes Mr. Don Umfleet, Audio Specialist CALL TO ORDER: ROLL CALL: The vice-president, Mr. John Moore, called the meeting to order at 5:25 p.m. The roll call revealed the presence of three ( 3) Board members, which did not constitute a quorum. Dr. Katherine Mitchell joined the meeting at 5:35 p.m., thereby constituting a quorum. PURPOSE OF SPECIAL MEETING: The chair announced that the special meeting was called in response to a petition signed by more than 50 citizens. . . CONCERNS: The following citizens addressed the Board and spoke of their opposition to the proposal to sub-contract services currently being delivered by custodians, bus drivers, aides, food service workers, and secretaries: Ms. Linda Pondexter Ms. Betty Floyd Mr. Willie Givens Ms. Debbie Vail Mr. REginald Gooden Ms. Charlcie Gibbs Ms. Gwen Porter Ms. Eleanor Coleman Mr. Frank Martin Ms. Neddie Nichols Mr. William Tayes Mr. Mike Campbell Ms. Marilyn Moore Ms. Thretha Jackson. The Board listened to the individuals' concerns and viewpoints. ADJOURNMENT: There being no further business to come within the special meeting, Ms. Gee moved to adjourn. seconded the motion, and it carried unanimously. meeting adjourned at 6:35 p.m. the call for Dr. Mitchell The special Mrs. o. G. ,J.acovelli, President APPROVED: ~ .u' {9' '?k } Ms. Pat Gee, Secretary LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 810 WEST MARKHAM STREET LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS Board of Directors AUG 1 4 b,~ Special Meeting May 8, 1992 Office of Desegregation l.,\n:,,1110,ing The Board of Directors of the Little Rock School in a lawfully-called special meeting at 7:52 a.m. on in the Board Room of the Administration Building, 810 Street, Little Rock, Arkansas. The president, Jacovelli, presided. MEMBERS PRESENT: Mrs. o. G. Jacovelli Mr. John Moore Ms. Pat Gee Dr. Katherine Mitchell Dr. George Cannon MEMBERS ABSENT: Mr. Willie D. (Bill) Hamilton Mr. Dorsey Jackson ALSO PRESENT: Mrs. Pat Kumpuris, Recorder of the Minutes CALL TO ORDER: ROLL CALL: District met May 8, 1992, West Markham Mrs. o. G. The president called the meeting to order at 7:52 a.m. The roll call revealed the presence of five (5) Board members. PURPOSE OF SPECIAL MEETING: The chair announced that the special meeting was called for the purpose of extending an employment offer to a candidate for the superintendency. EXECUTIVE SESSION: Mr. John Moore moved that the Board retire into executive session to discuss personnel matters. Dr. George Cannon seconded the motion, and it carried unanimously. Board of Directors Special Meeting May 8, 1992 The Board retired into executive session at 7: 53 a.m. and reconvened into public session at 8:12 a.m. Upon reconvening the chair announced that no action was taken. EMPLOYMENT OFFER: Mr. John Moore moved that the Board offf?r the Superintendent's position to Dr. Cloyde McKinley Bernd conditioned upon the parties being able to negotiate a contract. Ms. Pat Gee seconded the motion, and it carried unanimously. After the vote Dr. Katherine Mitchell stated that as a member of the Board she was disappointed and embarrassed over the story that appeared in yesterday's newspaper. Further, she stated that she thought it was misleading to the public to say that no qualifications were considered and that it was misleading to say Dr. Williams was offered the position only because he is black. ADJOURNMENT: There being no further business to come before the special meeting, Dr. George Cannon moved to adjourn. Mr. John Moore seconded the motion, and it carried uyanimously. The meeting adjourned at 8:15 a.m. o. G. Jacov~li, President Pat Gee, Secretary 2 LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 810 WEST MARKHAM STREET LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS Board of Directors Special Meeting May 5, 1992 The Board of Directors of the Little Rock School in a lawfully-called special meeting at 7:08 p.m. on in the Board Room of the Administration Building, 810 Street, Little Rock, Arkansas. The president, Jacovelli, presided. MEMBERS PRESENT: Mrs. o. G. Jacovelli Mr. John Moore Ms. Pat Gee Dr. Katherine Mitchell Mr. Willie D. (Bill) Hamilton Mr. Dorsey Jackson Dr. George Cannon MEMBERS ABSENT: None. ALSO PRESENT: Mrs. Pat Kumpuris, Recorder of the Minutes Ms. Dianne Woodruff, Director of Communications CALL TO ORDER: ROLL CALL: District met May 5, 1992, West Markham Mrs. o. G. The president called the special meeting to order at 7:08 p.m. The roll call revealed the presence of six (6) Board members. Mr. John Moore joined the meeting at 7:11 p.m. EXECUTIVE SESSION: Ms. Pat Gee moved to go into executive session to discuss personnel matters. Mr. Dorsey Jackson seconded the motion, and it carried unanimously. The Board retired into executive session at 7:11 p.m. and reconvened at 1 o: 5 4 p. m. Upon reconvening, the president announced that the Board had been discussing personnel matters but that no action was taken. ADJOURNMENT: There being no further business to come before the special meeting of the Board of Directors, Ms. Pat Gee moved to adjourn. Mr. Bill Hamilton seconded the motion, and it carried unanimously. The special meeting adjourned at 10:55 p.m. ovelli, President Ms. Pat Gee, Secretary APPROVED: LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 810 WEST MARKHAM STREET LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS 72201 Board of Directors Special Meeting May 19, 1992 0111 SEP 1 1992 01 De uJeg on Monronng The Board of Directors of the Little Rock School District met in a lawfully-called special meeting at 5:11 p.m. on May 19, 1992, in the Board Room of the Administration Building, 810 West Markham Street, Little Rock, Arkansas. The vice president, Mr. John Moore, presided. MEMBERS PRESENT: Mr. John Moore Ms. Pat Gee Dr. Katherine Mitchell Mr. Dorsey Jackson Dr. George Cannon MEMBERS ABSENT: Mrs. o. G. Jacovelli Mr. Willie D. (Bill) Hamilton ALSO PRESENT: Mr. Tony Wood, Acting Superintendent Mrs. Pat Kumpuris, Recorder of the Minutes Mr. Don Umfleet, Audio Specialist CALL TO ORDER: ROLL CALL: The vice president called the meeting to order at 5:11 p.m. The roll call revealed the presence of five (5) Board members. PURPOSE OF SPECIAL MEETING: The chair announced that the special meeting was called for the purpose of considering student disciplinary recommendation and hearings. STUDENT DISCIPLINARY RECOMMENDATIONS AND HEARINGS: Mr. Tony Wood, Acting Superintendent, directed the Board members' attention to the non-contested expulsion recommendations of Letitia Bohanan, Robert A. Brown, Adrian Calvin, Phillip Conway, Tywuan Green, Allenza Johnson, Roderick Johnson, Kiloe Page, Calvin Perry, Willie Shavers, Deangelo Smith, Keith Walker, and Derrick Williams. He recommended that the Board uphold the expulsion recommendations. Mr. Dorsey Jackson moved the Acting Superintendent's recommendation. Ms. Pat Gee seconded the motion, and it carried unanimously. Mr. Wood directed the Board members' attention to the uncontested long-term suspension recommendations of Martinez Adams, Brent Armstrong, Chris Bell, Remont Brister, James Burton, Marvin Collins, David Ester, David Fudge, Eric Gaines, Aundra Ganaway, Latasha Grantham, Melody Grantham, Tywuan Green, Dewey Hatley, Tim Henderson, Shawn Henson, Ramantiney Johnson, Rashawn Landers, Rashawn Landers, Robert Lewis, Calvin Long, Chris Martin, Vick Norman, Gene Powell, Mack Rogers, Keven Sims, Stacie swiggins, Tekia Thompson, Bradley Washington, Brian Watts, Yashika Young, and Edward Nelson. Mr. Dorsey Jackson moved the Superintendent's recommendation. Dr. George Cannon seconded the motion, and it carried four (4) to one (1). Ms. Pat Gee cast the dissenting vote. Mr. Tony Wood directed the Board members' attention to the reinstatement petitions of Shandra Alexander, Jermaine Glass, and Candace Jones. He recommended that the Board afford these students an opportunity to be reinstated to school on strict probation and that the administration go ahead and schedule the three-day Changing Directions Program. Mr. Wood recommended that Shandra Alexander be allowed to attend the Alternative Learning Center for the 1992-93 school year. Ms. Gee moved the Acting Superintendent's recommendation. Dr. Mitchell seconded the motion, and it carried unanimously. Mr. Wood recommended that Jermaine Glass Alternative Learning Center for the 1992-93 Katherine Mitchell moved the Acting recommendation. Mr. Dorsey Jackson seconded carried unanimously. be enrolled at the school year. Dr. Superintendent's the motion, and it Mr. Wood recommended that Candace Jones be allowed to return to school and have the opportunity to attend summer school in 1992. Ms. Gee moved the Acting Superintendent's recommendation. Dr. Mitchell seconded the motion, and it carried unanimously. The Board conducted a hearing on the contested long-term suspension of Chris Runnells. Mr. John Moore excused himself from the hearing because of a conflict of interest. Ms. Pat Gee assumed the chair.  Mr. Runnells' father addressed the Board and indicated that he j ust wanted to express some concerns over the procedure. He indicated that he is not contesting the suspension itself. Following his statement to the Board, the Acting Superintendent recommended that the Board approve the long-term suspension of ... .. Chris Runnells. Mr. Dorsey Jackson moved the Acting Superintendent's recommendation. Dr. Katherine Mitchell seconded the motion, and it carried unanimously. The Board had scheduled a hearing for Anthony White but he did not appear for the hearing. The Board conducted a hearing on the contested long-term suspension recommendation of Alim Qaasim. Following the hearing, the Acting Superintendent recommended that the Board uphold the long-term suspension recommendation. Mr. Dorsey Jackson moved the Superintendent's recommendation. Dr. Katherine Mitchell seconded the motion, and it carried unanimously. The Board conducted a hearing on the contested expulsion recommendation of Leon Funchess. Following the hearing, the Acting Superintendent recommended that the Board uphold the expulsion recommendation. Mr. Dorsey Jackson moved the Acting Superintendent's recommendation. Dr. Katherine Mitchell seconded the motion, and it carried unanimously. ADJOURNMENT: There being no further business to come within the call for the special meeting, Mr. Dorsey Jackson moved to adjourn. Dr. George Cannon seconded the motion. The meeting adjourned at 5:55 p.m. Pat Gee, Secretary APPROVED: -~?_,,_cl,_7_-_9-_2_- ___ LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 810 WEST MARKHAM STREET LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS Special Meeting May 21, 1992 SEP 1 1992 Office of De gr gat,c,n Monitoring The Board of Directors of the Little Rock School District met in a lawfully-called special meeting at 5:50 p.m. on May 21, 1992, in the Board Room of the Administration Building, 810 West Markham Street, Little Rock, Arkansas. The special meeting followed the regular Board Committee meeting. The vice-president, Mr. John Moore, presided. MEMBERS PRESENT: Mr. John Moore Mrs. Pat Gee Dr. Katherine Mitchell Mr. Willie D. (Bill) Hamilton Mr. Dorsey Jackson Dr. George Cannon MEMBERS ABSENT: Mrs. O. G. Jacovelli ALSO PRESENT: Dr. Ruth Steele, Superintendent of Schools Mr. Tony Wood, Deputy Superintendent Mrs. Pat Kumpuris, Executive Asst. to the Superintendent Mr. Don Umfleet, Audio Specialist CALL TO ORDER: ROLL CALL: The vice-president called the meeting to order at 5:50 p.m. The roll call revealed the presence of six (6) Board members. RATIFICATION OF BOND SALE: Dr. Steele directed the Board members' attention to the breakdown of the proceeds from the refunding issue previously authorized by the Board of Directors. She recommended that the Board approve the Resolution approving the sale. Mr. Dorsey Jackson moved the Superintendent's recommendation. Dr. George Cannon seconded the motion, and it carried unanimously. SUPERINTENDENT'S CONTRACT: Mr. John Moore, the Board's vice president, directed the Board members' attention to the proposed Superintendent's contract previously provided to each Board member. Mr. Dorsey Jackson moved that the Board retire into executive session to discuss personnel matters. Dr. George Cannon seconded the motion, and it carried unanimously. The Board retired into executive session at 5:55 p.m. The Board reconvened from executive session at 6:02 p.m. and the chair announced that no action had been taken during executive session. Mr. Dorsey Jackson moved that the Board enter into a contract with Dr. Cloyde McKinley (Mac) Bernd beginning July 1, 1992. Mr. Bill Hamilton seconded the motion, and it carried unanimously. Following the vote it was announced that\nThis project was supported in part by a Digitizing Hidden Special Collections and Archives project grant from The Andrew W. Mellon Foundation and Council on Library and Information Resources.\n   \n\n   \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\u003cdcterms_creator\u003eLittle Rock School District\u003c/dcterms_creator\u003e\n   \n\n \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n \n\n  \n\n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n   \n\n \n\n\n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n\n\n  \n\n\n\n "},{"id":"bcas_bcmss0837_182","title":"ABACUS Insturmental Management System (a computer software project)","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":["1992/1995"],"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","Software","Education--Arkansas","Office of Desegregation Monitoring (Little Rock, Ark.)"],"dcterms_title":["ABACUS Insturmental Management System (a computer software project)"],"dcterms_type":["Text"],"dcterms_provenance":["Butler Center for Arkansas Studies"],"edm_is_shown_by":null,"edm_is_shown_at":["http://arstudies.contentdm.oclc.org/cdm/ref/collection/bcmss0837/id/182"],"dcterms_temporal":null,"dcterms_rights_holder":null,"dcterms_bibliographic_citation":null,"dlg_local_right":["Available for use in research, teaching, and private study. Any other use requires permission from the Butler Center."],"dcterms_medium":["documents (object genre)"],"dcterms_extent":["17 pages"],"dlg_subject_personal":null,"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":"\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n\n\n\n   \n\n\n\n\n   \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n  \n\nJob Description Abacus Project The purpose of this project is to determine the extent to which the ABACUS software is being used for its intended purpose as represented in the desegregation plan, as ordered in court orders or as represented in testimony and to report on our findings Activities: Provide your personal knowledge of information sources Help prepare the interview questionnaire that will supply the following information plus additional items to be determined: Knowledge of the purpose of ABACUS Level of training Skill level Extent of use i .e. test questions only Availability of terminal Availability of help Availability of encouragement or helpful hints Feedback from the system Mechanism to provide feedback on system problems or shortcomings Is ABACUS helping this teacher to manage the class to the curriculum? Observe use and conduct interviews based upon the instrument and personal knowledge Help compile and analyze the data and draft the report including recommendations Time Needed Schedule calls for instrument development by 11/15, data collection done by 12/16 and report in rough form by 1/27/95ABACUS INSTRUCTIONAL MANAGEMENT SYSTEM The ABACUS Instructional Management System can provide: * Continuous monitoring of individual student progress. * Diagnostic placement for ability grouping. * Increased individual attention. * Detailed reports for conferences. * Immediate feedback of test results with diagnostic information. * Comprehensive library of learning resources. * Individualized education plans. ABACUS INSTRUCTIONAL MANAGEMENT SYSTEM The Standard report formats: * Objectives and Correlated Objectives * Instructional Resources * Test Items * Student, Class, School, and District Objective Mastery Analysis and SummaryABACUS INSTRUCTIONAL MANAGEMENT SYSTEM The system can create, store and print tests. Tests can be cataloged for future use\non recall, test can be altered, if desired. After scoring a test, the system provides analysis reports. Test types includes: * Multiple Choice * Teacher Observable * Matching * Primary K-3 (large print) * Class Mastery * Sub-Test ( Provides up to 8 different tests)ABACUS INSTRUCTIONAL MANAGEMENT SYSTEM STUDENT: * Provide individualized student learning plans. * Provide assessment of mastery according to learning objectives and instructional goals. * Provide a rich and stimulating instructional resource bank, including computerized courseware appropriate for various methods of learning: - Tutorial - Simulation - Enrichment - Exploration - Problem Solving - Practice - Drill /iBACUS INSTRUCTIONAL MANAGEMENT SYSTEM PARENT: The ABACUS Instructional Management System provides ways to help make the parent an integral part of their students learning process. It Will: * Provide reports showing the learning objectives and Instructional goals to be mastered. * Provide regular and timely update reports showing current progress toward those instructional goals. * Clearly show parents which learning objectives have not been mastered or not attempted. * Provide suggested instructional resource listings which the parent can use to supplement classroom instruction in areas where the student needs help. * Enhance parent/teacher cooperation.REPORTING REPORT MENUS INSTRUCTIONAL MANAGEMENT SYSTEM Report Menu 1 Little Rock School District Fl F2 F3 F4 F5 F7 F8 F9 F10 Fil F12 Objective Report Correlated Object! ve Report - Test Report Class objective Mastery Report Student Mastery Report Students by Objective Report Student Mastery Log Report Student Norm Referenced Testing Reports Composite Cless Mastery Sinmary Report - Composite Objective Mastery Report  Composite Student Mastery Report F15 F16 Next Report Selection Menu Exit _ Help Instr Rsrc Test H t P Score Tests Stu Mastery Reporting I.E.P. Roster Curriculum Registration Print Queue Main Menu Quit INSTRUCTIONAL MANAGEMENT SYSTEM Report Menu 2 Little Rock School District Fl F2 F3 F F5 F7 F8 F9 Test Item Suimary Report Test Heading Report Media Resources by Sub-Curriculum Report Media Resources by Objective Report Media Reference Report Location Mastery Report District Mastery Report Location Mastery Period Report F15 F16 Hext Report Selection Menu Exit _ \u0026gt;Help Instr Rare Test M t, P Score Tests \u0026gt;Stu Mastery Reporting I.E.P. Roster \u0026gt;Currlculum Registration Print Queue Main Menu Quit INSTRUCTIONAL MANAGEMENT SYSTEM Report Menu 3 Little Rock School District Fl F2 F3 F4 F5 F7 F8 F9 Control Hester Report * Location Report - Curriculm Report Sub'Curriculua Report Instructor Report Course Report Student by Course/Section Report Student Report FU Exit _ \u0026gt;Help Instr Rare Test H t P Score Tests Stu Mastery Reporting I.E.P. Roster \u0026gt;Curricutini \u0026gt;Registration Print Queue Main Menu Quit I 6.2 CHAPTER 6: REPORT MENUREPORTS Fl F4 F5 F7 FIO Fil F12 F9 F3 * Not demonstrated in class OBJECTIVE REPORT - This report will give a listing of all objectives in a range or for an individual objective. It may be printed in long or short form and can be used for long range planning. CLASS OBJECTIVE MASTERY REPORT - This report will summarize student mastery performance by objective for a specified group of students. This report will give the teacher a quick synopsis of the class progress by student. Note: (With the current program, the system is unable to select a range\ntherefore, it prints the entire sub-curriculum.) STUDENT MASTERY REPORT - This report will list mastery performance by objective, one student per page. This report is effective in student/teacher/administrator conferences. STUDENTS BY OBJECTIVE REPORT - This report will list, by specified objective, those students who have not mastered the objective and those who have not attempted the objective. The teacher may use this report to survey MPT and S8 mastery. COMPOSITE CLASS MASTERY SUMMARY REPORT - This report will show objectives mastered, objectives not mastered, and objectives not attempted for either the current class (FLOW CHART #5) or for a specific student (FLOW CHART #4). This report is a useful tool to help monitor progress of a specific class or an individual on MPT and S8 objectives. COMPOSITE OBJECTIVE MASTERY REPORT - This report will summarize the NUMBER of students who have mastered selected objectives. These objectives may be within a single subcurriculum OR various curriculum areas. This report can be used to determine objectives which need to be retaught. COMPOSITE STUDENT MASTERY REPORT - This report wUl provide mastery performance for each student on the list of objectives chosen in a single sub-curriculum OR various curriculum areas. This report may be used when information is needed on description and mastery of several objectives for at-risk students. OBJECTIVE LIST - This list is a compiled list of objectives under a unique LIST NAME. This list is accessed from F8-Main Menu. * This storage of objectives saves time by not having to retype the list of objectives each time. INSTRUCTIONAL RESOURCES - This list of instructional resources is shown by objective, sub-curriculum and media (book, AV, etc.) -----------------------  FLOW CHARTS #7,#8 02/25/93 16:10:22 CM320100 LRSD SAMPLE DATA SET OBJECTIVE REPORT FEBRUARY 25, 1993 PAGE LA-04OB Language Arts Grade 4 Objective Description M-% TI GL i LA~040B-001 Demonstrate Positive Attitude Toward Self LA-04OB-002 Read Silently For Increased Periods Of Time LA--04OB-003 Read For Variety Of Purposes LA-04OB-004 Develop Criteria For What Makes Reading Enjoyable/Useful LA-04OB-005 Demonstrate Use Of Functional Print LA-04OB-006 Demonstrate Appropriate Use Of Informational Sources LA-04OB-007 Read And/Or Write For Social Interaction LA-04OB-008 Exhibit Increasing Awareness Of Reading Choices LA-04OB-009 Develop Awareness Views Of Sexism/Racism In Literature LA-04OB-010 Develop Skills To Become Consumers Of Information LA-04OB-011 Work Cooperatively With Peers LA-04OB-012 Use The Library Regularly LA-04OB-013 View Reading As A Meaning-Getting Process LA-04OB-014 Self-Correct When Meaning Is Not Clear LA-04OB-015 Revise Thinking When Predicitons Are Unsatisfactory LA-04OB-016 Generate Clarifying Questions LA-04OB-017 Use A Variety Of Comprehension And Study Strategies LA-04OB-018 Set Own Purpose For Reading And Adjust Rate Accordingly LA-04OB-019 Evaluate Own Performance LA-04OB-020 Give Directions/Explanations 75% 75% 75% 75% 75% 75% 75% 75% 75% 75% 75% 75% 75% 75% 75% 75% 75% 75% 75% 75% 04 04 04 04 04 04 04 04 04 04 04 04 04 04 04 04 04 04 04 0410/14/92 16:14:50 CM320800 LRSD SAMPLE DATA SET CLASS OBJECTIVE MASTERY REPORT OCTOBER 14, 1992 PAGE Location : 003 Instructors 100 Sub-Curriculums Abacus Elementary DeFrogue\nKermit Course/Sectlont 3001 0 MA-04OB Mathematics Grade 4 -Objective Numbers Brandew\nJess Clayton\nEsther Fernandes\nShiela Fish\nJamie Jackson\nKenneth Johnson\nChris Jones\nSamuel Masterson\nJulie McKenna\nJennifer OMalley\nKatie Patton\nWilliam Rohr\nTerris Taylor\nDenise Yocum\nCeryl 001-040 +++--- 001-040 +++++++- 001-040 +++-+++++ -+++ 001-040 +-+++-+-+-+..,, 001-040 ++++++++-+++--1 001-040 +++-+++-, 001-040 +4-+++++++^.-+^ 001-040 ++++..----- 001-040 ++++++4-+++\u0026gt;4.+++ 001-040 +++-++++...... 001-040 +++4-+++++++4.+^._ 001-040 +-++++---. 001-040 ++++++++++++++1\n001-040 +++++++ * Masi Objective Mastery Summary Objective Mastery Percentages 001-040 11111111 423030106666532 001-040 1 089797774444321 063131913333614 (+)-Objective Mastered {-)=Objectlve Not Mastered 15.( 55.( 40.( 35.( 55.( 35.( 65.( 20.( 75.{ 35.C 70.C 25.C 70.C 40.G (.)-Objective Not Attempted\\ 10/14/92 16:29:20 CM320900 LRSD SAMPLE DATA SET STUDEWT MASTERY REPORT OCTOBER 14, 1992 PAGE 1 Student: 301 Johnson\nChris Grade: 04 Location: 003 Abacus Elementary Sub-Curriculum: MA-04OB Mathematics Grade 4 1+j-Objective Mastered (-)-Objective Wot Mastered +001 Solve Won-Routlne Problems + 002 Solve Real-Life Problems (.)-Objective Wot Attempted + 003 Use Problem Solving Strategies - 004 Discuss Thinking About Mathematical Ideas + 005 Participate Productively In Group Dlscusslons/Projects + 006 Present Oral Reports + 007 Read And Discuss Stories + 008 Write And Share Word Problems  009 Write About Mathematics . 010 Show The Meaning Of A Concept- 10/19/92 14:25:49 CM321200 LRSD SAMPLE DATA SET STUDENTS BY OBJECTIVE REPORT OCTOBER 19, 1992 PAGE 1 Location Instructor\nIQQ Abacus Elementary DeFroque\nKermit MA-04OB-006 Present Oral Reports Course/Section\n3001 __________Grade\n04 01 reports on results of Individual activities or projects. LL\nD OU\n2 or group AMPT\nS8:\n003 Students Who Have Mastered the Objective 305 306 310 302 313 Clayton\nEsther Jackson\nKenneth Jones\nSamuel O'Malley\nKatie Taylor\nDenise 303 301 308 312 311 Fernandez\nShlela Johnson\nChris McKenna\nJennifer Patton\nWilliam Yocum\nCeryl Students Who Have Not Mastered the Objective 314 309 Brandew\nJess Rohr\nTerrle 304 Fish\nJaftile 307 Students who Have Not Been Tested On the Objective Masterson\nJulie Report Summary Students Mastering the Objective Students Not Mastering the Objective Students Not Yet Tested 10 3 1 Total Students Reported 1402/25/93 15:13:26 CM322100 LRSD SAMPLE DATA SET COMPOSITE STUDENT MASTERY REPORT FEBRUARY 25, 1993 PAGE 1 Location : 003 Abacus Elementary Grade: 04 Minimum: .0% Student : 301 Johnson\nChris Mastery: 50.0% - LA-04OB-004 Develop Criteria For What Makes Reading Enjoyable/Usefu . LA-04OB-006 Demonstrate Appropriate Use Of Informational Sources . LA-04OB-010 Develop Skills To Become Consumers Of Information + MA-04OB-001 Solve Non-Routlne Problems + MA-04OB-002 Solve Real-Life Problems + MA-04OB-007 Read And Discuss Stories {+)=Objective Mastered (-)=Objective Not Mastered (.)=Objective Not AttemptedIntroduction This report was prepared by the Office of Desegregation Monitoring (ODM), an arm of the United States District Court. ODM is responsible for assisting the court in monitoring the three Pulaski County school districts compliance with the desegregation plans that form the basis of their settlement agreements. Report Purpose and Information Sources This report examines the use of Computer Managed Instructional Technology (CMIT) in The Little Rock School District. CMIT is another descriptor for some assessment tools. We gathered information for this report by interviewing principals and teachers, administration staff such as curriculum specialists and associate-superintendents, and the staff responsible for the operation and management of the system. The district also provided information on finance and hardware and the Abacus extended program evaluation written as a part of the current year budget cycle was a source of information. The president of the software firm supplying the district with CMIT also provided product information and demonstrated the product. Overview What is Abacus? The supplier of the Computer Managed Instructional Technology software the Little Rock School District chose is Abacus Instructional Management Systems(AIMS). It is to be used as a tool to improve the delivery of the curriculum and provide a way to assess the mastery of curriculum objectives by students. Instead of creating a unique district acronym for the system or using the letters A-I-M-S the brand name Abacus has been used to denote the system. Abacus is a computer software product that runs on the district IBM AS/400 computer with input through personal computers and data scanners. The Abacus system has three data banks: The Instructional Objectives - Contains the objectives established for each subject area The Test Items - Stores questions that relate to the instructional objectives The Instructional Resources - Contains references to materials that can supplement teaching a subject or objective. How the System Works The system accumulates information on each students mastery of assigned objectives. Test 1answers and teacher observed assessments of mastery are usually recorded in the system through scan sheets. The record of mastery information can be provided in a variety of report formats. Some reports are run on a nine-week basis that give a composite of the level of mastery for each of the objectives which is then distributed to the associate superintendents and principals. Teachers can request reports run by student or by class. Equipment Used with Abacus Each elementary school has an IBM PS/2 Model 25 computer, an IBM 4029 printer and a scanner. Washington and Carver Schools each have two such sets of equipment. When using the scanner, information from documents, i.e., tests to be scored or teacher observables, is stored on the PS/2. When all the information for a class has been accumulated, the computer makes a telephone line connection with the central office system and sends its collected data to it. For other operations such as selecting test questions the PS/2 acts as a direct terminal to the central computer. Printouts or test questions go directly from the central computer to the school IBM 4029 printer. Background The Need for Assessment To operate in a logical manner, an organization must have a process of assessing needs, developing goals, implementing programs, and evaluating results. The process helps organizations adapt to changing conditions and to improve effectiveness and efficiency. The use of assessment tools is an integral part of all the programs, techniques, and strategic planning guides used to implement real change in the education process. For example, test data is a forceful assessment tool for program improvement when it reflects the student performance goals described in the written curriculum. Recognizing the need for an outside evaluation of its process, the Little Rock School District board of directors commissioned The National Curriculum Audit Center to assess the services and programs of the district. The center team conducted an on-site audit and submitted their findings in a December 1990 Curriculum Audit Report. A curriculum audit reveals the degree to which the officials of the Little Rock School District and professional staff have developed and implemented a sound, valid and operational system of curriculum management. Such a system would enable the Little Rock School District to make maximum utilization of its human and financial resources in the education of its students. If such a system were implemented and fully operational, it would also ensure the Little Rock School District taxpayers and the State of Arkansas, that their financial support had been well used under the conditions in which the school district functioned. (Curriculum Audit Pages 2-3) The model for the audit indicated that the Little Rock School District curricular quality control 2should reveal the presence of a written curriculum which is in turn taught and measured through tests or other assessment. Audit Findings Among the five standards used in examining the Little Rock School District, one indicated that auditors expected to find that the school district had established clear and valid objectives for students. What the team found was a voluminous, incongruous collection of curriculum guides, most of which were inadequate for instructional use and the district had no systematic plan in place for development and revision of the curriculum. Another standard examined the adequacy of the assessment program in the district to cause change of ineffective practices or programs. Considering this standard, the audit team found that the testing program did not yield enough information for a demanding evaluation of programs or practices and that the assessment program lacked sufficient quality to provide adequate data for decision-making. Actions Taken The findings of the Curriculum Audit, while pointed in their criticism of the district, did not reveal new information. The district had already included some corrective steps in the desegregation plan which had gone to the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals earlier in 1990. In the plan, which was approved by the Eighth Circuit Court in December of 1990, the district made 99 promises and representations about Computer Managed Instructional Technology. Subsequent to the curriculum audit, the superintendent of the Little Rock School District, presented to the board and community No More Excuses: A Plan to Increase Learning for All Students in the Little Rock School District. In No More Excuses, she addressed the identification of problems and issues affecting learning in the district and outlined a plan to allow all students to become successful learners. The problems and issues addressed are national in scope but also appropriate to the Little Rock district. The superintendent emphasized two things that she felt had to be done as the beginning to improve learning outcomes. First, to review, revise and improve board policies with accountability placed on all employees. Second, the curriculum should be reviewed, revised and developed with an appropriate scope and sequence and should have written educational objectives. An Associate Superintendent was reassigned with the task of designing the new curriculum. No More Excuses detailed 16 actions to be authorized by the board with a timetable for implementation. One of the actions was authorization by the board to develop a comprehensive 3grade level assessment program to determine the extent to which students are mastering the curriculum. Another was the implementation of an Instructional Management System by the 1992-93 school year that would enable the district to track individual progress and provide assistance to improve learning. The backing by the board to revise the curriculum which standardized the mastery objectives by grade, and the plan to assess the extent of curriculum mastery, is the genesis of the Abacus system in the Little Rock School District. Requirements The Desegregation Plan of the Little Rock School District addresses CMIT in the following manner. The eventual goal is to add a computerized management component to provide (1) annual pre and post criterion- referenced tests for most grades including grading and reporting, (2) computerized scoring of unit tests for mastery and (3) the automation of record keeping providing the teacher with more time to work with students and better data with which to approach that task. (LRSD Plan, Page 48-49) Parent Home Study Guides will be developed by the beginning of the 1993-94 school year in each core subject area for each grade (1-6). (LRSD Plan, Page 153) Computer Managed Instructional Technology will be used for continuous tracking of student progress by the beginning of the 1992-93 school year. (LRSD Plan, Page 153) Criterion-Referenced Testing - formative criterion-referenced tests will be computer generated for the ongoing assessment of students. (LRSD Plan, Page 153) Successful use of the Abacus Instructional Management software would satisfy these desegregation plan requirements. Findings Abacus in The Little Rock School District With board approval in March of 1991, the district began immediate curriculum revision and officials started to look for a product that would meet the promises of the newly approved desegregation plan and the goals that had been advanced in No More Excuses. The district gathered information on available products that would address a range of district requirements including an instructional management component. After soliciting vendor proposals for a complete data processing system with software for student accounting, financial management and instructional management, district officials entered into the necessary contracts. Installation of the hardware started almost immediately after the contract award, in order to get as 4much preparatory work done as possible, and to allow operation to start at the beginning of the fiscal year. Training for administrators and principals was held in February of 1992 and by May a training schedule for teachers had been established and training started. Work on the curriculum progressed. Before all plans were solidified and executed for the use of the hardware and software the superintendent announced her retirement from the Little Rock School District. The Manager of Support Services who functioned as the project leader on the computer and software installation also left the district. The board hired a new superintendent, but coordination was very difficult, and hopes for a smooth transition to a new way of doing things faded. When the new superintendent arrived in Little Rock in July, he was under pressure from teachers who felt beset upon having to start teaching a new curriculum and also become familiar with computer operation. Accordingly, he made a decision to delay the implementation of the Abacus project district wide. Instead he proposed use Abacus in fewer schools than initially planned, and schools in the pioneer group responded enthusiastically. Twenty-three schools were chosen to participate in the first year use of Abacus. To ease the effort of startup, the schools were divided into two groups for training and implementation. For the other schools inservice provided strategies and techniques that could be used as alternative assessment methods to determine mastery of curriculum objectives by students, until the time that they could start using Abacus. The Use of Abacus The LRSD was successful in getting the new curriculum completed and ready for the start of school. In order to save the time of creating all new questions and to have the Abacus system ready, the district purchased a test item bank (collection of questions) that were to be identified with the corresponding curriculum objectives and loaded into the Abacus system. The curriculum staffhad a great deal of work to do in correlating the objectives and curriculum. They found many of the test questions to be inappropriate for the curriculum but they made an effort to add and delete questions in order to have test items that accurately reflected what was being taught. During the first year of operation, teachers became frustrated as they were implementing the new curriculum, taking Abacus training, and trying to find how best to include it in their daily routines, while still doing their primary task of instructing their classes. Despite the proliferation of personal computers, many people, teachers among them, are not only computer illiterate but have a genuine fear of computers that no one recognized or acted upon early enough to get resolved. There was little help or opportunity for experimentation to explore the possibilities of Abacus and as response times lengthened patience with the system became increasingly shorter. The district conducted an evaluation to determine the success of Abacus during the first year and made some decisions based on that evaluation. One decision was to delay Abacus for the secondary schools until the elementary schools were fully operational and another was to place technical people in the schools to assist the teachers. The computer interaction in many of the buildings has been completely assumed by the technical assistants relieving many of the frustrations teachers had due to 5poor computer response time and lack of familiarity with computer procedures. Reports The Abacus system is capable of producing reports by district, school, class, or individual that show the level of mastery of all objectives, tested or observed objectives or specific objectives. In addition, the data can be used to create comparisons of the level of mastery by individuals with their class, school, or the within the district. Reports can help teachers plan their lessons by providing a sequence of objectives, questions associated with those objectives and instructional resources to assist in the lesson. The individual test reports show the student name, the test question and the students answer. Abacus has the capability to provide a diagnostic comment for wrong answers but to date this district has not used that feature. A sample report sent to principals in February showed every objective on grade level that is tested on the Stanford 8. The report indicated the mastery or non-mastery of those objectives by students in that class. Principals were encouraged to request the report for each teacher in their building. This kind of reporting could be a tremendous asset in preparation for the Stanford 8. In addition the report could be used to correlate Stanford 8 results to the curriculum and make adjustments to the curriculum as required, or identify additional instructional resources that might be used to reenforce teaching of a particular objective. How much the Abacus data is translated into individual student action plans is difficult to determine. As more information is obtained on the mastery of objectives it should result in revised teaching techniques and/or clarity of objectives. For example, if across all fourth grade classes an objective is only being mastered by 45% of the students, then the associate superintendents, principals and curriculum professionals should determine how critical that objective is overall, and perhaps devise a plan to increase the mastery of that objective, or accept that level of mastery. The same kind of approach is true of individual students, but in fact it is difficult to try to administer 20-25 individual plans. Some schools however, report success with Individual Education Plans (lEPs). At parent conferences teachers can use mastery information to illustrate just how well a student is doing. Instead of relating test scores, the parent can be told the specific skills the child has or has not acquired, and can be told the specific help they might give at home. Training All elementary school principals and teachers in the district have received Abacus training. In some schools, aides have been trained to scan or prepare tests for teachers. As new teachers for the district are hired, they are scheduled for training on Abacus at the Instructional Resource Center. Staff Development and Computer Central personnel alternate in providing the training. Principals have been cooperative in identifying teachers that need additional training and encouraging them to get it. All elementary schools have flyers that offer after school voluntary refresher training. Refresher sessions conducted by staff development last for two hours and are designed to build on specific skills such as scanning or test creation. 6Status of the Curriculum During the summer of 1993, staff revised the Math and Language Arts curriculum and entered it into Abacus. They aligned objectives and test items, added new questions and entered references to those items that are part of the state of Arkansas ffameworksas well as those that are included on the Sanford 8 standardized test During the summer of 1994, the district added revised mathematics and language arts objectives to the Abacus system along with additional test items correlated to the revised objectives. District personnel have not completed the task of aligning the instructional resources for math and language arts with the objectives. The revision of science objectives is scheduled for the summer of 1995 for use starting in the fall, to be followed by social studies in 1996. The Evaluation Process The associate superintendents have included Abacus in their school reviews, and principals have made using Abacus as an assessment tool a priority. The Abacus system was included in the extended evaluation process of February 1995 which was a comprehensive report with observations and recommendations and included teacher responses and suggestions on the use of Abacus during the 1993-94 school year. These responses were far ranging and included all that the monitor encountered in teacher interviews. The extended evaluation notes that district personnel did not act on teacher feedback from 1993-94 because of time and budgetary restraints. We found no indication that the extended evaluation itself has been recognized as information that is useful. If the administration does not intend to act on evaluative data how can it possibly adapt to change of any kind? All elementary schools use Abacus as the record keeping system to varying degrees of success Some schools are also using portfolios as an assessment tool and the state mandates multiple assessment. Abacus can be used as the repository of data for all types of assessment, and it can provide composite information from portfolios. Dedication to Assessment The Little Rock School District has recently embarked upon a Strategic Planning Process and has published its new objectives and twelve strategies to attain the objectives. Three of the strategies seem to reaffirm the decision to use Abacus. The very first of its strategies calls for standards in the curriculum and a means for assessing whether students have met these standards. The third strategy calls for alternatives and interventions for students with poor performance on the standardized tests or who are not meeting the district standards that demonstrate mastery of the core curriculum. Another strategy calls for the planning of individual student goals. All three of these strategies can be executed using Abacus as a tool. 7Financial The Little Rock School District has provided most of the information for the summary of the costs associated with Abacus. Many of the costs are estimates because of a lack of specificity in the district accounting system. Future year projections are only estimates and do not represent budgeted amounts or any obligation on the part of the district except for the hardware cost. The hardware expense represents the lease purchase payment that the district is contractually obligated to pay through 1996-97. In fiscal years 95-96 and 96-97 the district will have expenses for technicians, stipends, training and printing, and other ongoing expenses. Little Rock School District Abacus Financial Summary 1992-93 1993-94 1994-95 1995-96 1996-97 Hardware $102,659.00 $102,659.00 $103,297.00 $102,659.00 $102,659.00 Technicians $32,826.20 $35,926.96 $37,000.00 $38,000.00 Data Processing $36,082.48 $36,572.80 $38,000.00 $39,000.00 School-based Stipends $19,377.00 $18,838.75 $19,000.00 $19,500.00 Forms $18,000.00 $5,201.63 $2,800.00 $2,900.00 $3,000.00 Training-Substitutes $13,471.00 $12,207.51 $1,900.00 $5,000.00 $5,000.00 Training-Stipends $8,073.75 $2,381.40 $5,000.00 $5,000.00 Staff Development $37,087.08 $25,428.18 $25,000.00 $25,000.00 Travel Printing $2,400.00 $2,176.00 $750.77 $901.55 $1,000.00 $1,000.00 Software \u0026amp; Maintenance $108,075.00 Test Item Bank $89,500.00 Custom Progranuning $9,295.15 Data Entry Services $10,235.00 Training by Consultants $18,000.00 Total $474,294.15 $256,441.42 $228,046.64 $235,559.00 $238,159.00 8Recommendations 1. Until such time as the district finds another district-wide approach that can be used, the administration should communicate to the district and community that it takes its commitment to assessment seriously, and that Abacus remains the vehicle for implementing that commitment. Through its strategic planning process, the district has promised to have in place a means to assess whether students have met the established standards. 2. Communicate to teachers that accountability is not blame, and that the reason for an assessment program is to provide feedback to them and to improve the quality of education. Speculation, rumors, frustration, lack of demonstrated support and a myriad of other ills have persistently been attached to the Abacus system. Certainly changes must be made to the use of this tool. Nevertheless the district has come so far and the district administration should quell any unwarranted speculation on the immediate future of Abacus. 3. Concentrate attention on making use of Abacus more user-friendly. Many teachers have volunteered useful ideas that should be incorporated into daily practice. A move to standardize tests and prepare them in advance would relieve much of the frustrations teachers experience 4. No formal feedback mechanism exists to resolve problems. Most problems could be resolved quickly if only they were ultimately referred to the right person. We found no formal and only basic informal feedback from teachers to Abacus administration. As a result, problems that teachers encounter with the system such as poorly stated or inappropriate questions, poor grammar in questions or lack of enough questions in an area' do not get fixed readily. Little helpful information from administration goes to teachers to help them use the system. No regular meetings are held, when assessment is the sole topic, of curriculum administrators, abacus administration, the two associate superintendents and the administrator in charge of the curriculum. ' One teacher reported only ten questions available on the entire human body when there should have been ten questions on each of the bodys systems. 9LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 810 WEST MARKHAM STREET LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS January 25, 1993 MEMORANDUM TO: Bob Morgan FROM: Estelle Matthis, Associate Superintendent for THROUGH: Curriculum and Learning Improvement Mac Bernd, Superintendent of Schoolst^^^^V^^^^ SUBJECT: Status Report - Abacus Instructional Management System ABACUS TRAINING The Little Rock School District remains committed to providing teachers and principals with the training and technical support necessary to ensure that the Abacus system is used by teachers as a viable instructional management tool. In order to fulfill this commitment using District resources currently available, all principals were trained during the first semester (see attachment), but the original plan for training all K-12 core-area teachers during the 1992-93 school year has been modified and, thus, the initial schedule for training has been modified. During the 1992-93 school year, the Abacus system is being implemented in a limited number of schools. All K-9 core area teachers, specialists, and administrators in these schools will be trained and will use the system for management of instruction in core content areas of the revised curriculum. Because of the large number of schools applying for the limited spaces available in the pilot project, the District decided to conduct two (2) cycles of the pilot training in order to include more schools in the project. The schools chosen to participate in each cycle are as follows: Cycle I Mabelvale Jr. High Southwest Jr. High Baseline Carver Dodd Geyer Springs Gibbs Mitchell Rightsell Romine Terry Cycle II Badgett Booker Chicot Forest Park Ish Jefferson Meadowcliff Otter Creek Pulaski Heights El. Watson Williams WoodruffStatus Report - Abacus Page 2 Each cycle has been divided into two phases of training: the first phase consisted of K-9 core-area teachers in each pilot school attending two half-day training sessions\nthe second phase will consist of individual technical assistance conducted by the Staff Development Specialists at the local pilot schools. Additional training for the teachers trained this past summer will also be provided. Attached are schedules for Cycle I and Cycle II pilot schools that are participating in this project. After teachers have completed the two training sessions, the Staff Development Specialists will spend four to six (4-6) days in each school providing Phase II training which will consist of individual technical assistance to the teachers as they use the Abacus system. This assistance will be provided according to a schedule developed cooperatively by each teacher and the Staff Development Specialists. Following completion of the in-school technical assistance, additional class sessions and/or further in-school training will be scheduled and conducted according to the needs of the participants. Several optional Abacus review/refresher workshops have been scheduled for those teachers who were originally trained this past summer at the IBM center. These workshops were conducted at Metropolitan, Room 213 (these days were during the AEA Convention): Session 1 - November 5, 1992 -- 8:30 - 11:30 a.m. Session 2 - November 5, 1992 -- 12:30 - 3:30 p.m. Session 3 - November 6, 1992 -- 8:30 - 11:30 a.m. Each session was limited to 20 participants per session. The remaining schools will be targeted for initial training next fall. The process to be used for further training and the schedule will be developed after the process used for training this year has been evaluated. STUDENT ASSESSMENT The new LRSD curriculum offers core content area teachers flexibility in making the best uses of an almost infinite number of assessment possibilities. Teachers realize that assessing student progress is an ongoing part of the instructional process, and most teachers incorporate a variety of assessment strategies into the daily teaching/learning routine. With the new core curriculum, teachers can ensure that students are mastering the grade level objectives by correlating their assessment methods, along with their instructional strategies, to the identified objectives. Since teachers have the freedom to arrange the objectives so that they fit the learner needs and the teacher style, they must also choose how to assess. Teachers will continue to use standardized chapter tests and other similar mass- produced assessments with caution. The new curriculum has been designed by LR teachers for LR teachers. The objectives in all core areas are linked to specific learner outcomes, and any assessment must reflect individual student progress consistent with the aims of those outcomes.Status Report - Abacus Page 3 To assist teachers in the assessment process, inservice during cluster meetings has provided strategies and techniques that can be used as alternative assessment methods to determine mastery of content. The enclosed suggestions and/or guidelines for alternative assessment methods were sent to building principals. Reading and math \"trifolds\" are no longer used in the District as the skills identified on the checklists are not aligned with the revised curriculum\ntherefore, such trifolds are no longer appropriate to track student progress and/or mastery. Alternative Assessment The mastery of many objectives can be measured directly through standard objective tests\nhowever, a number of objectives may be best assessed through alternative means. Alternative assessment allows the teacher to judge student performance in two areas: completion of a product and observation of a process/demonstration of a skill. Products can be such things as:  charts  graphs  models  projects  stories or poems  journals  written reports Some products directly related to curriculum objectives should be kept in folders or portfolios\nothers, however, because of size and/or instability, are not suitable for folders. The other area of alternative assessment is less tangible. Teachers will observe either a process or demonstration of a skill. Examples of this type of objective can be such things as:  reading  writing process  speaking  listening  counting  measuring  classifying  using a piece of equipment  working in a group  discussing a topic or issue  investigating a problem  using a calculator  using manipulatives or modelsStatus Report - Abacus Page 4 Teacher observable computer forms for each of the four core subject areas will be available to students in the project pilot schools. Teachers will bubble in student mastery for each of the observable objectives. Student performance may be judged as pass-fail, mastery-nonmastery, successful participation-unsuccessful participation, etc. Each school will determine criteria on which this evaluation will be made. PARENT HOME STUDY GUIDES To further enhance the Districts instructional program, Parent Home Study Guides will be developed and ready for use by parents by the beginning of the 1993-94 school year. Guides will support the delivery of instruction in the revised curriculum (core areas) by empowering parents to become active school partners in their childs education.ABACUS TRAINING FOR PRINCIPALS Principals were scheduled to attend Abacus training at Metropolitan, Room 213, from 8:30 to 11:30 a.m. on the days identified below: October 14 \u0026amp; 22 Central Fair Hall McClellan Parkview Cloverdale Jr. Dunbar Forest Heights Henderson Mabelvale Jr. October 15 \u0026amp; 23 Mann Pulaski Hgts. Jr. Southwest Badgett Bale Baseline Booker Brady Carver Chicot October 16 \u0026amp; 27 Cloverdale El. Dodd Fair Park Forest Park Franklin Fulbright Garland Geyer Springs Gibbs Ish October 20 \u0026amp; 28 Jefferson Mabelvale El. McDermott Meadowcliff Mitchell Otter Creek Pulaski Hgts. El. Rightsell Rockefeller Romine October 21 \u0026amp; 29 Stephens Terry Wakefield Washington Watson Western Hills Williams Wilson WoodruffCYCLE I TRAINING SCHEDULE Cycle I of the Abacus training schedule involved the following: All K-6 and 7-9 core area teachers and assistant principals at the following schools: Mabelvale Jr. Southwest Jr. Baseline Carver Dodd Geyer Springs Gibbs Mitchell Rightsell Romine TerryTIME: CYCLE I DATES: 7:45 A.M. Sharra Akers Susan Scott ABACUS PILOT PROJECT SCHEDULES NOVEMBER 30, X992, AND JANUARY 11, 1993 10:45 A.M. Baseline Baseline 1st 1st TIME: 11:45 A.M. 2:45 P.M. Patty Hardesty - Baseline 2nd Mary Black - Carver Linda Glenn Carver Carolyn Biome - Gibbs Pamela Newsome - Gibbs 1st 1st - 1st - 1st Anita Lamb - Eunice Skubal Julie Curtis Baseline - Carver - Carver 2nd 1st 2nd Carol Shufelberger - Gibbs Beatriz Kimball - Gibbs - - 2nd 3rd Valerie Hare Julie Meeks Dodd Dodd 1st 1st Wanda Huie Dodd 2nd Joyce Alley - Terry - 1st Georgia Hoffman - Terry - 1st William Sheridan - Dodd - 3rd Ann Moore - Terry - 1st Thelma Chesser - Terry - 2nd DATES: TIME: 7:45 A.M. \u0026gt; 10:45 A.M. DECEMBER 1, 1992, AND JANUARY 12, 1993 TIME: 11:45 A.M. - 2:45 P.M. Stacey Young - Baseline - Marilyn James - Baseline - Claudia Hamilton - Carver Carolyn Jefferson - Carver Caryn Taulbee - Gibbs - 3rd Susie Robinson - Gibbs - 4th 1st K - 2nd - 2nd Donna Marshaleck - Baseline Maria Mitchell Lisa Mack - Carver Baseline 2nd K K Susan Childers Dodd Marie Sprinkle - Dodd 4 th 4 th Bryana Kelley - Carver Patricia Luzzi - Gibbs Nancy Foster - Gibbs - Elizabeth Conder - Dodd Yvette Denton Dodd - 3rd - Sth 6 th - Sth Sth Beth Samler - Terry - 2nd Sherry Smelko - Terry - 2nd Margaret Harris - Terry - 3rd Linda Mellberg - Terry - 3rd DATES: TIME: 7:45 A.M. DECEMBER 2, 1992, AND JANUARY 13, 1993 10:45 A.M. TIME: 11:45 A.M. - 2:45 P.M. Kristi Hartman - Geyer Sp. 1st Nita Hightower - Geyer Sp. - 1st Bobbie Govan - Mitchell - 1st Barbara Banks - Mitchell - 2nd Stephanie Bentiven-Rightsell-lst Rosalyn Zeigler - Rightsell - 1st Patsy Douglas - Geyer Sp. Dolores Hill - Geyer Sp. - Teresa Hamilton - Mitchell 2nd 2nd - 2nd Linda Fleming - Carver Andrew Bennett Carver 6th 6 th Jimmy Calhoun - Mitchell - 3rd Sharon Bryant - Rightsell - 2nd Barbara Fincher - Rightsell - 2nd Vannetta Thomas Carver 6th DATES: TIME: 7:45 A.M. Paula Bettis - Carver K DECEMBER 3, 1992, AND JANUARY 14, 1993 10:45 A.M. TIME: 11:45 A.M. 2:45 P.M. Barbara Hamrick - Baseline - Keith House - Baseline - 4th Glen Camper - Baseline - 6th 3rd Letitia Brooks - Baseline Betty Deaton - Baseline - Sth Sth Dianne Langleys - Carver Priscilla Penn - Carver Timothy Goetz - Gibbs - - 3rd - 3rd 6 th Lynda White - Gibbs Cynthia Wilson - Carver Rhonda Smith Carver Asst. Prin. Kayren Grayson - Gibbs - 6th Malinda Hamilton - Dodd Vickye Mitchell - Dodd  6th K Belinda Price - Gibbs Shirley Talley - Gibbs Susan Blue Dodd K Jennifer Strange - Terry - 3rd - 3rd 4th K K Theresa Courtney - Carver Dale Dennis - Terry - 4th Asst. Prin.DATES: TIME: 7:45 A.M. DECEMBER 8, 1992, AND JANUARY 15, 1993 10:45 A.M. TIME: 11:45 A.M. 2:45 P.M. Tamara Gingerich - Geyer Sp. Patty Miller - Geyer Sp. Charlotte Guin Mitchell Dazzle Mattison - Mitchell Melanie Hale - Mitchell - 3rd 3rd - 4th K 3rd Rebecca Bohra - Geyer Sp. 4 th Evelyn Stubblefield - Geyer Sp. Gertrude Stubblefield - Mitchell Brenda Hipp - Mitchell 6th 4 th 6th Ann Sanders - Rightsell - 3rd Sue Palmer-Walker -Rightsell-4th Nancy Daily - Rightsell - Sth Jacque Kesler - Rightsell - 4th DATES: TIME: 7:45 A.M. DECEMBER 9, 1992, AND JANUARY 19, 1993 10:45 A.M. TIME: 11:45 A.M. 2:45 P.M. Lisa Gwin - Geyer Sp. Sandra Lee - Geyer Sp. K K Carolyn Doxes - Geyer Sp. 6th Ladonna Falls - Rightsell - 6th Catherine Johnson-Rightsell - Sth Patricia King - Romine - 1st Mary Washington - Romine - 1st Brenda Croft - Rightsell - K Frenzella Dodson - Rightsell - K Janet Gall - Romine 2nd Angela Doyne - Carver K Kathleen Harrison - Carver K Helen Gestaut - Romine - 2nd Mary Martha Roberts - Carver K DATES: TIME: 7:45 A.M. - 10:45 A.M. DECEMBER 10, 1992, AND JANUARY 20, 1993 TIME: 11:45 A.M. 2:45 P.M. Julie Henry - Carver 4 th Estella Nesmith - Carver - Cindy Powell - Terry - 4th 4 th Virginia Rowland - Carver Betty Glenn - Carver Sth 4 th Jeanette Robinson - Terry - 4th Cindy Mason - Romine -3rd Ardelia Walker - Romine - 3rd Melonie Osborne - Romine - 3rd Rose Graham - Terry - Sth Yana Scott - Terry - Sth Gloria Owens - Romine - 4th Janet Powell - Romine - 4th Barbara Anderson - Romine - Asst. Prin. DATES: TIMEX 7:45 A.M. - 10:45 A.M. DECEMBER 15, 1992, AND JANUARY 21, 1993 TIME: 11:45 A.M. - 2:45 P.M. Christi Oliver - Carver Sth Teata Pace Carver Sth Mary Anne Williams - Carver Melody Hammer - Terry - 6th Linda Ford - Terry - K Ann Lineberry - Terry - K Deborah Byrd - Carver - Nona Grubbs - Terry - K Sth 6th Tahliba Ali - Romine 6 th Joyce Willingham - Romine - 6th Karen Lagrone-Abe - Terry - K Tyrone Harris - Terry - Asst. Prin. Gwendolyn Glasgow - Romine - K Noa Robinson - Romine - K DATE: TIME: 7:45 A.M. -\u0026gt; 10:45 A.M. DECEMBER 16, 1992 TIME: 11:45 A.M. - 2:45 P.M. Sharon Sims Baseline - 2nd Dianne Glason - Baseline 3rd Yoriko Perritt - Carver - Sc. Sp. Meredith Chase-Spann - Carver-G/T Carolyn Huffman - Baseline Delwin Smith - Baseline - - 4th 6th Annie Raines Dodd Anita Henriksen - Dodd. 2nd 3rd Dorothy Peterson - Geyer Sp. Karen Campbell - Carver - Curr. Sp. Patricia Killingsworth - Carver - Math Sp. Brenda Riddle Dodd 6th Sue Rogers - Dodd - Librarian 6th Mildred Jones - Geyer Sp. - 4 yr. old Josephine Dumas -Geyer Sp.-Reading Renee Kovach - Geyer Sp. Jeanne Whitesell - Gibbs - 2nd Mary Jones - Gibbs - Sth Wilhelmina Lewellen - Gibbs 4 th Math Vicki Gonterman - Gibbs - SpecialistDATE\nTIME: 7:45 A.M. DECEMBER 17, 1992 10:45 A.M. TIME: 11:45 A.M. 2:45 P.M. Joann Hestir Mitchell Najmah Cooksey - Mitchell Patricia Ross - Mitchell 1st - 5th K Mildred Walker Linda Hamlet - - Mitchell Mitchell - - 5th 6th Joe Hollins - Rightsell - 3rd Nell Page - Rightsell - Math Eva Fairchild - Rightsell - 6th Deborah Lawson Romine Patricia Henry - Romine 1st 2nd Debbie Jackson - Terry - 5th Rachel Grosserode - Terry - 6th Delores Banks - Romine Sabra Shelby - Romine 5th 5th Martha Shirrell - Terry - 6th Rita James - Terry - Math DATES: TIME: 8:30 A.M. JANUARY 5, 11:30 A.M. 1993, AND FEBRUARY 2,1993 TIME\n12:30 P.M. 3:30 P.M. Pat Crommet Mvale Jr. Soc. St. Linda Kamara - Mvale Jr. Steve Quattlebaum-Mvle Jr.-Soc.St. Robert Ward - Mvale Jr. Sharron Cannon Leslie Jones - - Mvale Jr. - Eng. Mvale Jr. - Eng. Soc. St. Soc. St. Dawn Terry - Mvale Jr. - Eng. Roger Henson - SW Jr. Alice Bolden - SW Jr. Soc. St. Soc. St. Dorothy Jones - Mvale Jr. - Eng. Robert McDonald - Mvale Jr. - Eng. Clarke Nalley - Mvale Jr. -Sc. Bettie Williford-SW Jr.-Soc. St. Mary Coleman - SW Jr. Ovid Lamb - SW Jr. - Leon Carson SW Jr. - Eng. Robert Fleming - SW Jr. - Soc. St. Soc. St. Soc. St. Betty Crawford - SW Jr. - Eng. Colleen Ferguson - SW Jr. - Eng. Cedric Finley - SW Jr. - Eng. DATES: TIME: 8:30 A.M. JANUARY 6, 1993, AND FEBRUARY 3, 1993 11:30 A.M. TIME: 12:30 A.M. - 3:30 P.M. Joseph Briscoe - Mvale Jr. Sc. Lisa Bryant - Mvale Jr. Sc. Kathleen Dunbar - Mvale Jr. - Math Merry Zakrzewski - Mvale Jr.- Math Virginia Lindberg -Mvale Jr.- Math Cheryl Aboul-Enein - Mvale Jr. Melissa Duncan - Mvale Jr. - Sc. Rodney White - Mvale Jr. - Sc. Ladonna Atkins -Mvale Jr.-Soc. St. Rodney White - Mvale Jr. Math Terri Phillips - SW Jr. Sherry Keaton - SW Jr. Sc. Sc. Gloria Jones SW Jr. Sc. Cassandra Mason-SW Jr.-Asst. Pr. James Privitt - SW Jr. - Math Mavis Green - Mvale Jr. Asst. Prin. DATES: TIME: 8:30 A.M. JANUARY 7, 11:30 A.M. 1993, AND FEBRUARY 4, 1993 TIME: 12:30 P.M. 3:30 P.M. Sheila Hudson Mvale Jr. - Math Stella Cameron - Mvale Jr. - Eng. Gloria Billingsley - Mvale Jr. - Soc. St. Sherry Lack - SW Jr. - Eng. Kimberly Gilbert - SW Jr. - Connie Green - Mvale Jr. Sc. Jerome Tidmore Charles Moore Tara Weaver - - SW Jr. - SW Jr. SW Jr. - Math  Math Math Annie Morgan - SW Jr. - Math Christopher Kline - SW Jr. - Math Sc. Jacqueline Falls - SW Jr. - Susan Middlebrooks - SW Jr. Sc. - Sc. John Robinson-Mvale Jr.-Asst. Pr. Elizabeth Willingham - SW Jr. - Eng. Jim Fullerton - SW Jr. Asst. Prin.CYCLE II TRAINING SCHEDULE Cycle II of the Abacus training schedule for the second semester will involve the following: All K-6 core-area teachers, math teachers, reading teachers, special education teachers, gifted/talented teachers, and assistant principals at the Cycle II schools: Badgett Booker Chicot Forest Park Ish Jefferson Meadowcliff Otter Creek Pulaski Heights El. Watson Williams Woodruff All reading, math, special education, and gifted/talented teachers at the Cycle I schools: Mabelvale Jr. Southwest Jr. Baseline Carver Dodd Geyer Springs Gibbs Mitchell Rightsell Romine TerryCYCLE II ABACUS PILOT PROJECT SCHEDULES TIME: DATES: 7:45 A.M. - MARCH 2. 1993, AND APRIL 29, 1993 10:45 A.M. TIME: 11:45 A.M. 2:45 P.M. Dori McGowan - Badgett, 1st Ann McLennan - Badgett, 2nd Berthena Walker - Booker, 1st Tammy Higdon - Booker, 1st Annita Bogard - Chicot, 1st Deborah Moix - Chicot, 1st Alvin Turner - For.Pk., 1st Carolyn Wenger - For. Pk., 1st Edna Wiley - Ish, 1st Cleveland Ellis - Ish, 2nd Patricia Singer - Badgett, 5th Sandra Childs - Badgett, 6th Cheryl Parks - Booker, 1st Alicia Solomon - Booker, 1st Linda Neal - Chicot, 1st Steve Toran - Chicot, 1st Patricia White - For.Pk., 1st Maple Kearney - For.Pk., 2nd Laura Smith - Ish, 2nd Cleta Harp - Ish, 3rd DATES: TIME: 7:45 A.M. - 10:45 A.M. MARCH 3, 1993, AND APRIL 30, 1993 TIME: 11:45 A.M. 2:45 P.M. Rejeana Albert - Badgett, 5th Janet Barge - Booker, 2nd Rose Marie Karp - Booker, 2nd Sylverene Eans - Chicot, 2nd Debra Johnson - Chicot, 2nd Janet Machen - For.Pk., 2nd MaryLee Robinson - For.Pk Yvonne Jackson - Ish, 3rd Hazel Hicks - Ish, 4th Elaine Self - Ish, K 2nd  Crystal Wood - Badgett, K Lois Kelley - Booker, 2nd Merilyn Burruss - Booker, 3rd Shirley Morgan - Chicot, 2nd Jeannie Wells - Chicot, 2nd Rebecca Jenkins - For.Pk., 3rd Tajuana Russell - For. Pk., 3rd Boyce Pearson - Ish, 6th Yolanda Redwood - Ish, K Willie Morris - Chicot, Asst.Prin. DATES: TIME: 7:45 A.M. - 10:45 A.M. MARCH 4, 1993, AND MAY 3, 1993 TIME: 11:45 A.M. - 2:45 P.M. Loretta Ellington - Booker, 3rd Dishoungh White - Booker, 3rd Judy Hollingsworth - Chicot, 3rd Brenda Martin - Chicot, 3rd Carolyn Clements - For.Pk., 4th Debbie Capps - For.Pk., Sth Leigh Cooper - Jeff., 1st Meg Holmes - Jeff., 1st Edna Armstrong - Meadcl., 1st Joyce Mason - Meadcl., 1st Martha Armstrong - Booker, 4th Clara Austin - Booker, 4th Sara Rose - Chicot, 3rd Pamelon Isbell - Chicot, 4th Annie Holmes - For.Pk., Sth Yulonda Wallace - For.Pk., 6th Sunny Hawk - Jeff., 1st Mary Burrough - Jeff 2nd  ! Kathryn Thomas - Meadcl., 1st Lois Bishop - Meadcl., 2nd DATES: TIME: 7:45 A.M. - 10:45 A.M. MARCH 5, 1993, AMD MAY 4, 1993 TIME: 11:45 A.M. - 2:45 P.M. Cassandra Harding - Booker, 4th Carolyn Taylor - Booker, 4th Elizabeth Kesterson - Chicot, 4th Erma Williams - Chicot, 4th Lisa Faulkner - For.Pk., K Marietta Hunt - For.Pk., K Betty Muench - Jeff., 2nd Ann Walker - Jeff., 2nd Karen Burgess - Meadcl., 2nd Myrna Williams - Meadcl., 2nd Denise Clark - Booker, Sth Clementine Kelley - Booker, Sth Jorge Johnson - Chicot, Sth Beth Shanks - Chicot, Sth Cynthia Moore - For.Pk K Vera Robinson - Jeff., Asst.Prin. Cheryl Crutcher - Jeff., 3rd Lana Dove - Jeff., 3rd Katherine Goodwin - Meadcl., 3rd Mary Wetzel - Meadcl., 3rdDATES: MARCH 8, 1993, AND APRIL 13, 1993 TIME: 11:45 A.M. 2:45 P.M. NO SUBSTITUTES NEEDED DATES: DATES: DATES: A A A A AA A A A A AA AA Sallie Snowden - Badgett, Math Dixie Fair - Chicot, Math Docia Jones Dodd, Math Sandra Thompson - Jefferson, Math Gloria White - Booker, Math Janice Lewis - Mitchell, Math Mary McDonald - Romine, Math MARCH 9, 1993, AND APRIL 14, 1993 TIME: A* 11:45 A.M. - 2:45 P.M. NO SUBSTITUTES NEEDED AA AA AA AA AA AA AA Peggy Williams - Baseline, Math Yvonne Davis - Chicot, Math Donna Stiles - For.Pk., Math Mary Torrence - Gibbs, Math Tina Brown - Booker, Math Barbara Hicks Pul.H. El., Math Janet Adans - Watson, Math MARCH 10, 1993, AND APRIL 15, 1993 TIME: ** 11:45 A.M. - 2:45 P.M. MO SUBSTITUTES NEEDED ** AA AA AA AA AA AA AA Margo Rowe - Badgett, Reading Kaye Dickerson - Booker, Reading Cindy Maddox - Chicot, Reading Janet Chant - For.Pk., Reading Juanita Washington - Ish, Reading Mary Balenko - Meadcl Reading Susan Hester - Mitchell, Reading Debbie Finkbeiner - P.H.El., Reading Karen Sebourn - Romine, Reading John Burgin - Watson, Reading MARCH 11, 1993, AND APRIL 16, 1993 TIME: 11:45 A.M. 2:45 P.M. NO SUBSTITUTES NEEDED AA AA AA AA AA AA AA Bill Smith - Baseline, Reading Judy Fletcher - Booker, Reading Carolyn Steelman - Dodd, Reading Ann Hurd - Gibbs, Reading Emma Miller - Jefferson, Reading Sherry Norrell - Meade., Reading Ann Averitt ~ Otter Cr., Reading Ada Keown - Rightsell, Reading Harriette Mazzanti - Terry, Reading Martha Couch - Watson, ReadingDATES: MARCH 16, 1993, AMD APRIL 20, 1993 TIME: 11:45 A.M. 2:45 P.M. NO SUBSTITUTES NEEDED DATES: DATES: TIME: DATES: 7:45 A.M. - ** ** A* ** ** Mary McMorran - Booker, Sp. Ed. Shirley Walker - Carver, Sp. Ed. Kay Hicks - Chicot, Sp. Ed. Carrie Moore - Chicot, Sp. Ed. Marcus Moore - Dodd, Sp. Ed. Janice Gordon For.Pk., Sp. Ed, Jean Gilbert - Geyer Springs, Sp. Millicent Fowler - Baseline, Sp.Ed. MARCH 17, 1993, AMD APRIL 21, 1993 TIME: ** 11:45 A.M. 2:45 P.M. NO SUBSTITUTES NEEDED AA AA AA AA AA AA AA AA AA Nancy Mitchell - Gibbs, Sp. Ed. Terri Finkbeiner - Jeff., Sp. Ed. Katie Pace - Mitchell, Sp. Ed. Gwen Stone Otter cr., Sp. Ed. Carol Blann - Pul.H.El., Sp. Ed. Kathy Joubert - Pul.H.El., Sp. Ed. Carolyn Robinson - Terry, Sp. Ed. Ruth Berry - Watson, Sp. Ed. Linda Curry - Williams, Sp. Ed. MARCH 18, 1993, AND APRIL 22, 1993 TIME: ** 11:45 A.M. -* 2:45 P.M. MO SUBSTITUTES NEEDED ** ** ** A* AA AA AA AA AA AA Carolyn Rand - Terry, G/T Beverly Kinneman - Otter Cr., G/T Sylvia Tyler - Watson, G/T Nancy Matlock - Chicot, G/T Phill Davis - Dodd, G/T Carolyn Huie - Booker, G/T Dorothy Phillips - Williams, G/T Michelle Kavanaugh - Williams, G/T Kaye Bateman ~ Gibbs, G/T Patricia Phillips - Romine, G/T MARCH 19, 1993, AND APRIL 23. 1993 10:45 A.M. Gayla Pruitt - Badgett, Sp. Ed. Brenda Johnson - Chicot, Sp. Ed. Laura Bedow - Chicot, Sp. Ed. Viki Love - Chicot, Sp. Ed. Richard Horton - Romine, Sp. Ed. Margaret Thomas - Romine, Sp. Ed.TIME: OATES: 7:45 A.M. - MARCH 22, 1993, AND MAY 5, 1993 10:45 A.M. TIME: 11:45 A.M. 2:45 P.M. Denna Lehnhoff - Booker, Sth Paula Hampton - Booker, 6th Sarah Fike - Chicot, 6th Paula Kerr - Chicot, K Debbie Sabo - Chicot, K Daisy Wheeler - Jefferson, 3rd Carolyn Itzkowitz - Jefferson, 4th Suzanne White - Meadcl., 3rd Verdia Hence - Meadcl., 4th Doris Broyles - Otter Cr., 1st Daryl Newcomb - Booker, Sth Nancy Weir - Booker, 6th Sandra Mims - Chicot, K Katie Murph - Chicot, K Edna Wilson - Jefferson, 4th Terri Hammond - Jefferson, Sth Thelma Shorter - Meadcl., 4th Bertha Washington - Meadcl., 4th Shirley Hall - Otter Cr., 1st TIME: DATES: 7:45 A.M - MARCH 23, 1993, AND MAY 6, 1993 10:45 A.M. TIME: 11:45 A.M. 2:45 P.M. Wilma Bonds - Booker, K Sonya Burnett - Booker, K Kristianna Pittenger - Jeff., Sth Rosie Williams - Jefferson, Sth Helen Burr - Meadcl., Sth Sharon Cox - Meadcl., Sth Dee Ann Morgan - Meadcl., K Tammi Dockett - Otter Cr., 2nd Laurine Hayes - Otter Cr., 2nd Tracy DeClue - Pul.H.El., 1st Vearlon Jeffries - Booker, K Bobbie Walls - Booker, K Joann Williams - Jefferson, 6th Kathleen Brotherton - Jeff., K Nancy Hudson - Meadcl., Sth Mary Butts - Meadcl., K J.J. Lacey - Booker, Asst.Prin. Rebecca Kessinger - Otter Cr., 2nd Debra Flores - Otter Cr., 3rd Lisa Roberts - Pul.H.El., 1st DATES: TIME: 7:45 A.M. - 10:45 A.M. MARCH 24, 1993, AND MAY 7, 1993 TIME: 11:45 A.M. - 2:45 P.M. Kim Pennington - Jefferson, K Marie Pringle - Otter Cr., Sth Patsy Reese - Otter Cr., Sth Joynelle Baker - Pul.H.El.,2nd Eva Maeweather - Pul.H.El., 2nd Alisa Gray - Watson, 1st Mary Lawson - Watson, 1st Patricia Breece - Williams, 1st Ella Mobley - Williams, 1st Sandra Register - Jefferson, K Margaret Cannon - Otter Cr., 6th Ettatricia Clark - Otter Cr., K Toni Skarda - Pul.H.El.,2nd Terrie Davis - Pul.H.El., 3rd Joyce Watson - Watson, 1st Doris Bratton - Watson, 2nd Kathleen Reddoch - Williams, 1st Carmelia Crawford - Williams, 2nd DATES: TIME: 7:45 A.M. - 10:45 A.M. MARCH 25, 1993, AND MAY 11, 1993 TIME: 11:45 A.M. - 2:45 P.M. Venita Hall - Otter Cr., K Rodney Wallace - Pul.H.El., 3rd Jodi Coffelt - Pul.H.El., 4th Karen Ditto - Watson, 2nd Jeanette Nail - Watson, 2nd Karen Latch - Williams, 2nd Barbara Martin - Williams, 2nd Irma Routen - Woodruff, 6th Alphia Finn - Woodruff, K Rebecca Palinski - Williams, K Anna Tatum - Watson, Asst.Prin. Vivian Gentry - Pul.H.El., 4th Nathalie Hufford - Pul.H.El., 6th Brenda Harper - Watson, 3rd Janice Anderson - Watson, Sth Ardeen Bryant - Williams, 3rd Carolyn Davis - Williams, 3rd Dorothy Howard - Woodruff, K Deborah Mitchell - Williams,Asst.Pr.DATES: TIME: ** 7:45 A.M. - 10:45 A.M. NO SUBSTITUTES NEEDED MARCH 26, 1993, AMO MAY 12, 1993 Eunice Smith Ish, Sp. Ed. Francella Calvin - Jefferson, Sp. Ed. Margaret Fava - Mitchell, Sp. Ed. Patsy Lewis - Dodd, Sp. Ed. Lorraine Mosby - Geyer Springs, Sp.Ed. ** Betty Nelson - Badget, Sp. Ed. TIME: DATES: 7:45 A.M. - MARCH 29, 1993, AMD MAY 13, 1993 10:45 A.M. TIME: 11:45 A.M. 2:45 P.M. Peggy Collins - Pul.H.El., K Jamie Neal - Pul.H.El., K Luverda Clay - Watson, Sth Phyllis Johnson - Watson, Sth Marcia Wood - Williams, 3rd Zora Frazier - Williams, 4th Henry Nesby - Williams, 6th Margaret Kinder - Pul.H.El., K Rebecca Chambers - Watson, 6th Margaret Dawson - Watson, 6th Lisa Thomason - Williams, 4th Sharon White - Williams, 4th Mary Bradberry - Williams, K DATES: TIME: 7:45 A.M. - 10:45 A.M. MARCH 30, 1993, AMD HAY 14, 1993 TIME: 11:45 A.M. 2:45 P.M. Karen Worsham - Watson, 6th Sara Brown - Watson, K Thresia Edwards - Williams, Sth Roberta Kemp - Williams, Sth Terri Swan - Woodruff, 1st Shirley Rolax - Woodruff, 2nd Karen Luker - Williams, 6th Ruby Jackson - Watson, K Pamela Jones - Watson, K Mary Weindorf - Williams, Sth Thelma Bloom - Williams, 6th Tom Ford - Woodruff, 4th Kay Smith - Woodruff, 3rd Floretta Babbs - Williams, K TIME: DATES: 8:30 A.M. * 11:30 A.M. MARCH 31, 1993, AMD MAY 10, 1993 TIME: 12:30 P.M. - 3:30 P.M. ** MO SUBSTITUTES MEEDED Beckie Jones - Mabelv.Jr., Reading Susanne Moor SW Jr., Reading Jeffery Ellington - Mabelv.Jr., Math Nelda Tarbet - SW Jr., Reading Betty Harris - SW Jr., Sp. Ed. Rosalie Patton - Mabelv. Jr., Sp.Ed. ** ** Diane Kunowski - SW Jr., Math Vera Weller - SE Jr., Sp. Ed. Pamela Wallace Mabelv. Jr., Sp.Ed. Donna Singh - Mabelv. Jr., Reading Susie Robinson - SW Jr., Reading Walter Rowe - SW Jr., Sp. Ed. Sue Smith - Mabelv. Jr., Sp. Ed. Gloria Jones - SW Jr., Sc. ** Janet Kay Holland - Mblv. Jr.Sp.Ed. ** Renita Wilborn - Mblv. Jr., Sp.Ed. ** Lorene Ellis - Mblv. Jr., Sp.Ed. ** Tamera Lott - SW Jr., Sp. Ed. ** Tony Castile - SW Jr., Sp. Ed. DATE: APRIL 26, 1993 TIME: 7:45 A.M. - 10:45 A.M. TIME: 11:45 A.M. 2:45 P.M. Carole Austin - Watson, 3rd Linda Corrigan - Watson, 4th Anna L. Maddox - Williams, Math Diane Goodfellow - Williams, 6th Lisa Cunningham - Woodruff, 1st Cathy Goss - Woodruff, Sth Nancy David - Watson, 3rd Jana Wells - Watson, 4th Nancy Morton - Williams, Curr.Sp. Lynn Haney - Williams, Reading Linda Berman - Woodruff, 6th Nona Whittaker - Baseline, G/TTIME: DATE: 7:45 A.M. APRIL 27, 1993 10:45 A.M. TIME: 11:45 A.M. 2:45 P.M. Ethel Campbell - Badgett, 3rd Vivian Dooley - Booker, 2nd Mayrean Johnson - Booker, Sth Suellen Dimassimo - Chicot, Ida Pettus - Chicot, 6th Sth Cynthia Collins - For.Pk., 4th Nettie Lemle - For.Pk., 6th Ronald Tarkington - Ish, Sth Cherry Norman - Ish, Librarian Kathleen Traylor - Badgett, 4th Jo Ann Abbott - Booker, 3rd Susan Colford - Booker, 6th Ora Mallett - Chicot, 6th Vicki Gershner - Chicot, Reading Gloria Wilson -For.Pk., Sth Buenah Combs - For.Pk., G/T Marva Pearson - Ish, 6th Madelyn Meaney - Ish, Aide TIME: DATE: 7:45 A.M. APRIL 28, 1993 10:45 A.M. TIME: 11:45 A.M. - 2:45 P.M. Betty Trimble - Badgett, 6th Annie Ross - Jefferson, 4th Becky Ramsey - Jefferson, 6th Marsha Hunter - Meadcl.,G/T Lisa Lewis - Meadcl., 6th Laura Beth Arnold - Pul.H.El., G/T Ann Freeman - Otter Cr., 3rd Lucille O'Keefe - Otter Cr., 4th Toni Honts - Pul.H.El., Sth Natalie Smith - Pul.H.El., 6th Kristin Compton - Jefferson, 6th Karin Kvaternik - Jefferson, G/T Elizabeth Pruss - Meadcl., 6th Deborah Craig - Meadcl., Math Melissa Bearden ~ Otter Cr., 4th Virginia Dolle - Otter Cr., 6th Barbara Patty - Pul.H.El., SthDate: February 3, 1993 To: Estelle Matthis, Associate Superintendent Little Rock School District From: Bob Morgan, Associate Monitor Subject: Status Report - Abacus Instructional Management System I appreciate receiving your report on the Abacus System, however, I expected to have more in the way of \"status\" information. For example, if Abacus is predicated on the new curriculum, is the new curriculum fully implemented? If not, at what grade levels and/or subject areas and at what schools is it implemented? What are the dates that you expect to have it implemented? What is the phase-in schedule by grade, subject, and school? If the curriculum is fully in place, what are preliminary results? What are the benefits that you are realizing? What unforeseen problems have been encountered? What is the plan to work around those problems? Your memo refers to two \"cycles\" for implementation of Abacus, but only mentions training schedules. When was cycle one started and what is being done with the system? How many students are affected? When will cycle two begin? When will the remaining schools be put on the system? What is being done to record student achievement in the non-pilot schools? As I stated in my original request, a lengthy report is not required\nbut I would like to know exactly where this project stands. cc: Mac BerndLITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 810 WEST MARKHAM STREET LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS February 4, 1993 MEMORANDUM TO: Bob Morgan, Associate Monitor, Office and Desegregation Monitoring FROM: Estelle Mattms, Associate Superintendent for Curriculum and Learning Improvement THROUGH: Mac Bernd, Superintendent of Schools Cl SUBJECT: Status Report - Abacus Instructional Management System This communication is to provide additional information and clarification regarding the status of implementation of the revised curriculum in core areas: language arts, science, social studies, and mathematics. The physical education, business education, and gifted/talented curriculum were also revised. Provided is an update on the implementation of Abacus. REVISED CURRICULUM Is the new curriculum fully implemented? The revised curriculum is being fully implemented in all of the districts 49 schools, excluding Metropolitan Vocational-Technical Education Center. The following curriculum courses are now being implemented beginning with the 1992-93 school year: Course/Subject Area Grade Level Language Arts English Language Arts K-6 7-12 Science Regular Science Integration of Life, Earth, and Physical Science Physical Science Biology Chemistry Physics K-6 7-8 9 10 11 12Mathematics Regular Math Regular Math Pre-Algebra Algebra Geometry Algebra II Trigonometry and Advanced Algebra K-6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Social Studies Social Studies Arkansas History History and Geography of the World Part I History and Geography of the World Part II Arkansas and American History Civics American Government American History World History World Geography Arkansas Studies K-6 4-5 6 7 8 9 10-12 10-12 10-12 10-12 10-12 Gifted/Talented All subject areas are used to deliver the gifted/talented curriculum K-12 Physical Education K-6 7-12 Business Education Keyboarding Word Processing 1 and 2 Computer Tech 8-10 10-12 8-12 BTutf are preliminary results? What are the benefits that LRSD is realising from the revised curriculum? The revised curriculum is new, and it will take several years for the district to provide qualitative and evaluative data that will demonstrate its effectiveness. As the revised curriculum has been properly scoped and sequenced by K-12 teachers, students must matriculate upward grade wise in order for us to observe and assess substantial objective data that can show an increase in student achievement. 2There are qualitative indicators that are now evident as we implement the revised curriculum. The findings identified in the 1990 Curriculum Audit have been addressed in the following areas: Policies have been established and approved by the Board of Directors. Such policies dictated the process and procedures for revising the curriculum. The revised curriculum is predicated on Board policies. Preliminary Benefits and Results Science  Quality inservice provided to science teachers has been very effective as evidenced by teacher evaluation of inservice. Teachers appear to be pleased with the revised science curriculum.  Teachers are more competent and knowledgeable to deliver quality instruction.  More student involvement in active learning is now taking place in classrooms. Heavier emphasis has been placed on providing students quality hands-on experiences in science.  With 2-3 years of quality exposure to this curriculum that has been properly scoped and sequenced, we filled in the gaps that existed in the past for most of the difficult concepts. Students will be now be able to master content. Such concepts are now introduced earlier as developmental skills/objectives. Providing prior experiences with difficult concepts will minimize and reduce the failure rate for students who have not had rich and challenging experiences outside of their schools. Life. Earth, and Physical Science have been integrated at grades 7 and 8. Such integration focuses on assisting students in mastering of state (AMPT) and national expectations. Biology - Teacher involvement (K-12) in revising the curriculum eliminated the overlap of life science in grades 7-10. The content is now properly scoped and sequenced. Science curriculum is properly articulated, thereby correcting problems identified in the Curriculum Audit. Prerequisite concepts are acquired before 10th grade. Teachers adequately plan and address science at each grade level. 3Chemistry - Physical Science (9th grade) articulation scheme ensures that prerequisites are in place when students approach chemistry. Such instruction should narrow the gap. All students eventually will enter chemistry having acquired the necessary required skills needed to be successful learners in science. Mathematics  More student involvement in active learning is evident.  Teachers appear to be really excited about the curriculum and anxious to select and use the newly-adopted math textbooks. Teachers are anxious to purchase and use the resources that are needed to support the curriculum. (Newly-adopted textbooks and materials will not be available until the 1993-94 school year.)  Students are writing more and using an integrated approach of infusing math into other content areas.  Teachers are utilizing student teams in approaching active learning of their students. Social Studies  Teachers now have a clearer knowledge and understanding of what is to be taught and the appropriate grade level to teach certain objectives and content.  The social studies curriculum has been properly scoped and sequenced providing continuity and acquisition of skills from one grade level to another grade level.  Greater infusion of multiculturalism and a de-emphasis on the teaching of isolated skills/content in multicultural and overall social studies content are evident.  The social studies curriculum is more challenging and focused. Such focus is on acquiring higher-order thinking skills and less regurgitation of factual knowledge. American History, World History, and World Geography classes are now more challenging as the courses require a focus on application, synthesis, and evaluation of knowledge rather than comprehension of content. Information is not as repetitive. Students are applying their knowledge of geography and history to worldwide issues and the environment. 4Language Arts Reading, English, spelling, and writing have been combined and integrated into one core area called language arts.  Teachers are now able to incorporate and integrate multiple skills in teaching and learning. This is a more effective and efficient use of their time.  Students are more actively involved in the learning process.  There is greater flexibility to incorporate more resources and materials from other content areas into the language arts curriculum.  Heavier emphasis on writing begins with our kindergarten students, such as responding to use of literature in analyzing characters and writing stories, and continues through grade twelve. Language Arts Grades 7 and 8 More student engagement is noted in the junior high schools particularly, as well as in some of our high school language arts classrooms. Students are viewed as workers in the classroom.  Teachers are exercising greater freedom to make choices about how and when to deliver instruction, such as clustering objectives.  Teachers are making choices in selecting literature including authentic reading experiences, such as finding ways to use the newspaper, periodicals, etc.  Development of thematic units is evident and extend English experiences into other content areas. Gifted and Talented K-12 The revised curriculum is not subject-area based\nhowever, subject areas are used to deliver the curriculum.  Teachers are excited about a very challenging and creative curriculum. 5 All schools have the same gifted/talented curriculum, preventing duplication and repetition of content from grade level to grade level and school to school.  Students are more involved in active learning and participation.  Parents at the elementary level are excited and pleased to see an innovative curriculum in place that is readily understood by parents. Physical Education K-12 The physical education curriculum was revised by K-12 teachers. This curriculum has been properly scoped and sequenced to address issues raised in the Curriculum Audit.  Teachers are pleased and excited as they now have a written, articulated curriculum.  Teachers now understand what is expected of them as they plan and deliver the curriculum.  Appropriate resources and materials have been identified for teachers use in physical education courses. Business Education Courses revised: Keyboarding, Grades 8-10\nWord Processing 1 and 2, Grades 10-12\nand Computer Tech, Grades 8-12.  Curriculum is properly scoped and sequenced. Repetitive skills have been eliminated.  More aligned with \"high tech\" equipment wise.  Teachers are excited and pleased with the curriculum.  Students have increased hands-on experiences. iVhat unforseen problems have been encountered? What is the plan to work around these problems? Problems associated with District-wide implementation of Abacus became apparent in the early stages. Such problems appear to be attributed to: user resistance to new technology, hardware problems associated with CIMS, unforseen delay in customization 6of the test item banks, and the need to provide additional staff development for a large number of reluctant users. Given these concerns, the District decided that it was better to pilot the program (Abacus) in 11 schools. Schools were asked to volunteer to participate in the pilot. The response for volunteers was very positive and 23 schools agreed to participate. All 23 schools will participate in the project-11 in Cycle I and 12 in Cycle II. Gary Jones has submitted a report regarding the problems associated with the hardware. The test item bank is now operative and available to teachers in Cycle I schools. Cycle II schools will have access to the test item bank upon completion of their training for utilizing Abacus. When was Cycle I started? All principals (49) trained - October 14 - 29, 1992. Cycle I - November 30, 1992 - February 4, 1993 Schools No. of Core Area Teachers No. of Asst, Principals Total Mabelvale Jr. Southwest Jr. Baseline Carver Dodd Geyer Springs Gibbs Mitchell Rightsell Romine Terry 23 25 17 22 15 15 15 14 14 17 22 25 27 17 23 15 15 15 14 14 18 23 Total trained Cycle I 206 2 2 1 1 1 7When will Cycle II begin? Cycle II - March 2 - May 14, 1993 Schools No. of Core-area Teachers No. of Asst. Principals Total Badgett Booker Chicot Forest Park Ish Jefferson Meadowcliff Otter Creek Pulaski Heights Elem. Watson Williams Woodruff 9 28 24 18 13 21 20 15 16 20 22 10 1 1 1 1 1 9 29 25 18 13 22 20 15 16 21 23 10 Some of the following are assigned to more than one school: Math Specialists for Cycle I and Cycle II Schools Reading Specialists for Cycle I and Cycle II Schools Special Education Teachers for Cycle I and Cycle II Schools Gifted/Talented Teachers for Cycle I and Cycle II Schools 22 28 40 16 Total Trained in Cycle II 327 Total Trained in Cycle I and Cycle II 533 Total for Principals Cycle I and Cycle II 582 What is being done with the system? Following the training, teachers use the Abacus system for making tests, grading tests, recording mastery, and managing instruction. 8How many students are affected? Cycle I School No. of Students Mabelvale Jr. Southwest Jr. Baseline Carver Dodd Geyer Springs Gibbs Mitchell Rightsell Romine Terry 667 695 339 598 304 264 336 240 234 344 541 Sub total 4562 Cycle II Badgett Booker Chicot Forest Park Ish Jefferson Meadowcliff Otter Creek Pulaski Heights Elem. Watson Williams Woodruff 185 621 535 444 175 483 440 353 379 434 502 218 Sub total 4769 Grand Total 9331 9a^ien will the remaining schools be put on the system? The remaining schools will be put on the system during the 1993-94 school year. Designated remaining school staff and Cycle I and II schools will be involved in determining the process to be used for training staff members not involved in the 1992-93 Abacus training. The schedule will be developed by the Districts Staff Development Department in conjunction with suggestions from the affected schools. What is being done to record student achievement in non-pilot schools? Provided are charts that indicate how all schools are recording student mastery of objectives. Secondary schools did not have trifolds during the 1991-92 school year and have not been affected in the same manner as elementary schools. 10HOW SCHOOLS ARE RECORDING MASTERY OF OBJECTIVES OF THE REVISED CURRICULUM SECONDARY SCHOOLS School Central Form(s) of Recording Mastery Mastery recorded in the same manner as last year J. A. Fair Hall Parkview Magnet Dunbar Forest Heights Pulaski Heights Maim Magnet Cloverdale Matrix Henderson Magnet Mabelvale Checklist Southwest McClellan Combination: Abacus and same manner as last year Combination: Abacus and same manner as last year Combination: Checklist and same manner as last year 11How Schools Are Recording Mastery of Objectives of the Revised Curriculum Margaret Gremillion February 1993 Dodd School Fair Park Form(s) of Recording Mastery Matrix and checklist off the objectives (highlighted) Grid Forest Park Grid Fulbright Mabelvale Elem. Matrix to check off, ABACUS objective report McDermott Grade books and matrix system Short form objective report using checks and minuses Meadowcliff Pul. Heights Elem. Romine Matrix with checks and minuses - only doing what each child needs to master right now Matrix, individual sheets, curriculum guide Matrix Terry- Wakefield Watson Western Hills Condensed form of the ABACUS objectives, charts, checklists Checklists and objectives crossed out when mastery achieved_____________________________ Matrix, charts, individual portfolio system, ABACUS objectives Math aids and checklists Wilson Woodruff Matrix using checks and minuses Matrix grid which shows the curriculum and child's name 12How Schools Are Recording Mastery of Objectives of the Revised Curriculum Incentive Schools February 1993 School Franklin Form(s) of Recording Mastery Grade books Garland Ish Mitchell Grade books (1st semester) Short form objective for each child with checks and minuses, grids, grade books Checklist Rightsell Rockefeller Setting up a matrix system Checklists Stephens Objectives copied on matrix, checked when mastered and skill mastered highlighted 13Little RockSchoolDistrict SchoolOperationsand Climate 810 West Markham Little Rock,AR 72201 February 4, 1993 MEMORANDUM TO: Mrs. Estelle Matthis, Associate Superintendent FROM: Larry S. RobertsonP^: ssistant Superintendent SUBJECT: How Mastery of Objectives of the Revised Curriculum is Recorded The information requested from my assigned schools are as follows: SCHOOL HOW MASTERY IS RECORDED Badgett Charts and Roll Book Bale Charts Baseline Matrix Booker Magnet Matrix Brady Charts and Grade Book Carver Magnet Matrix Chicot Charts Cloverdale Charts and Matrix Geyer Springs Gibbs Magnet Jefferson Otter Creek Matrix Matrix Charts Charts and Roll Book Washington Magnet Williams Magnet Charts Charts 14Office 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 Ms. Estelle Mathis Deputy Superintendent Little Rock School District 810 Markham St Little Rock, Arkansas November 7, 1994 Dear Estelle, The 1994-95 ODM Monitoring Priorities have been distributed and you probably noted that Computer Managed Instructional Technology is on the list. This is to inform you that I will be doing the monitoring review of the Abacus system. I intend to start this review immediately and ask for your cooperation and support. My understanding is that, at the onset. Abacus would be a tool to insure a consistent curriculum across the district and would help to improve achievement by identifying those areas that needed attention to realize a higher degree of mastery. The purpose of this review is to determine if the Abacus system is being used to its potential and, where appropriate, to make recommendations for improvement. My monitoring plan is to first interview Betsy Choate and Lucy Lyons at the IRC to get an overview of Abacus and then go out to schools to observe on-site use. Principals at the selected schools will be notified in advance, and I don't anticipate that there will be any interference with class activities. If you have any questions or concerns regarding the monitoring process, please do not hesitate to call our office. Thank you very much for your assistance. Sincerely, Bob Morgan Associate Monitor cc: Ann Brown Hank WilliamsOffice 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 Ms. Estelle Mathis Deputy Superintendent Little Rock School District 810 Markham St Little Rock, Arkansas November 7, 1994 Dear Estelle, The 1994-95 ODM Monitoring Priorities have been distributed and you probably noted that Computer Managed Instructional Technology is on the list. This is to inform you that I will be doing the monitoring review of the Abacus system. I intend to start this review immediately and ask for your cooperation and support. My understanding is that, at the onset. Abacus would be a tool to insure a consistent curriculum across the district and would help to improve achievement by identifying those areas that needed attention to realize a higher degree of mastery. The purpose of this review is to determine if the Abacus system is being used to its potential and, .where appropriate, to make recommendations for improvement. My monitoring plan is to first interview Betsy Choate and Lucy Lyons at the IRC to get an overview of Abacus and then go out to schools to observe on-site use. Principals at the selected schools will be notified in advance, and I don't anticipate that there will be any interference with class activities. If you have any questions or concerns regarding the monitoring process, please do not hesitate to call our office. Thank you very much for your assistance. Sincerely, Bob Morgan Associate Monitor cc: Ann Brown Hank WilliamsLAB TECHNICIANS STAFF DEVELOPMENT DATA PROCESSING SCHOOL BASED STIPENDS TRAINING- SUBSTITUTE COST TRAINING- STIPENDS TRAINING- CONSULTANTS HARDWARE SOFTWARE \u0026amp; MAINTENANCE TRAVEL PRINTING FORMS DATA ENTRY SERVICES CUSTOM PROGRAMMING TEST ITEM BANK TOTAL COST TO DATE YEAR 1 YEAR 2 YEAR 3 $371,995.15 $256,441.42 $228,046.64 $856,483.21 LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT ABACUS COST SUMMARY JANUARY 26, 1995 YEAR 1 1992-93 $13,741.00 $18,000.00 $102,659.00 $108,075.00 $2,400.00 $18,000.00 $10,325.00 $9,295.15 $89,500.00 $371,995.15 YEAR 2 1993-94 $32,826.20 $37,087.08 $36,082.48 $19,377.00 $12,207.51 $8,073.75 $102,659.00 $2,176.00 $750.77 $5,201.63 $256,441.42 YEAR 3 1994-95 $35,926.96 $25,428.18 $36,572.80 $18,838.75 $1,900.00 $2,381.40 $103,297.00 $901.55 $2,800.00 $228,046.64 YEAR 4 1995-96 $102,659.00 $102,659.00 YEAR 5 1996-97 $102,659.00 $102,659.00Enrollment in Magnet Schools by Zone School and Race Booker Carver Gibbs Zone School Garland Stephens Mitchell Franklin Otter Creek Rightsell Watson Baseline Dodd__________________________ Jefferson Chicot Rockefeller Western Hills Meadowcliff Cloverdale Elem Geyer Springs Bale Badgett Mablevale Elem Wilson Wakefield Forest Park Fullbright McDermott Brady Terry Woodruff Pulaski Heights Elem Fair Park M.L. King______________________ Romine Washington Legal Transfer Nozone North Little Rock Pulaski County Grand Total Capacity/Total Enrollment Racial Percentage Percent of Capacity/ Available Seats Black 1 1 4 6 2 9 8 16 _____7 ____15 5 7 3 7 11 5 7 6 5 6 8 4 8 4 1 4 1 1 4 17 4 26 1 2 41 48 305 660 54% 86% White 0 0 1 1 1 0 2 4 5 4 3 2 3 2 9 3 5 5 7 9 it 2 9 7 10 9 0 3 5 0 0 2 0 1 45 93 263 568 46% 92 Black 1 0 4 5 1 ____2 9 3 5 39 6 2 4 6 5 0 4 1 6 9 4 3 8 4 ____1^ 6 0 ____3 3 2 10 ___33 0 8 53 61 311 613 53% 96% White 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 0 1 1 2 0 0 3 4 0 4 1 0 10 3 d 9 8 6 20 1 3 6 0 0 0 1 7 65 122 280 591 47% 22 Black 2 2 10 5 2 23 ____ 2 0 4 4 3 4 2 5 3 4 1 0 2 3 4 2 0 3 1 1 1 1 13 3 4 0 0 22 20 157 351 55% 81% + Williams White ! Black 0 0 0 1 01 1 ' 1 ' o' 0 5 1 2 0 3 0l 2 3 o' 0 5 1 3' 4' 41 61 2 5 13 6 0 0 0 0 4 21 361 129 286 45% 1 3 2 11 6 1 8 4 11 0 5 1 3 6 3 1 11 1 2 17 4 1 5 8 15 10 1 1 7 0 22 4 0 2 25 44 246 515 53% 651 91% White 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 7 0 0 2 2 0 0 3 0 2 2 0 5 6 5 12 8 0 1 43 0 0 0 0 5 34 85 222 468 47% 47 Grand Total 5 6 21 29 12 39 29 29 29 75 26 17 19 31 37 14 41 15 22 60 34 22 51 40 54 ____OT 9 26 75 32 39 69 2 29 306 509 1913 226 Grand Total Black 5 6 20 27 11 35 26 25 23 58 20 13 14 21 24 9 26 9 13 34 19 12 23 16 20 21 3 6 15 32 39 67 1 12 141 173 1019 White 0 0 1 2 1 4 3 4 6 17 6 4 5 10 13 5 15 6 9 26 15 10 28 24 ____ 39 6 20 60 0 0 2 1 17 165 336 894 Black % of Total 100% 100% 95% 93% 92% 90% 90% 86% 79% 77% 77% 76% 74% 68% 65% 64% 63% 60% 59% 57% 56% 55% 45% 40% 37% 35% 33% 23% 20% 100% 100% 97% 50% 41% 46% 34% 53%School Capacity LRSD Enrollment Showing Available Seats and Excess Capacity Black White 93-94 93-94 Total 93-94 93-94 Black B/ack White Total 94-95 Black Percent 94-95 94-95 94-9S Percent Available Seats Percent of Capacity Acceptable Balance Otter Creek Jefferson Terry Forest Park Fulbright Pulaski Fits. McDermott 351 492 515 399 540 374 517 3188 141 213 243 200 233 190 262 1482 200 291 318 258 287 208 247 1809 341 504 561 458 520 398 509 3291 41.35% 42.26% 43.32% 43.67% 44.81% 47.74% 51.47% 45.03% 154 218 234 198 235 197 241 1477 205 284 325 234 307 225 253 1833 359 502 559 432 542 422 494 3310 42.90% 43.43% 41.86% 45.83% 43.36% 46.68% 48.79% 44.62% -8 -10 -44 -33 -2 -48 23 -122 102% 102% 109% 108% 100% 113% 96% 104% Out of Balance Woodruff Mablevale Dodd Western Hills Brady Meadowcliff Chicot Badgett Geyer Springs Wilson Wakefield Bale Fair Park Baseline Watson Cloverdale 324 515 328 328 467 465 558 257 328 394 492 401 351 390 492 492 6582 147 311 189 215 263 306 356 132 208 263 337 225 200 265 353 304 4074 89 177 103 117 134 128 153 57 80 91 110 78 63 78 89 82 1629 236 488 292 332 397 434 509 189 288 354 447 303 263 343 442 386 5703 62.29% 63.73% 64.73% 64.76% 66.25% 70.51% 69.94% 69.84% 72.22% 74.29% 75.39% 74.26% 76.05% 77.26% 79.86% 78.76% 71.44% 148 340 193 215 254 279 344 133 223 254 327 214 204 245 340 312 4025 95 134 105 102 152 132 151 44 77 91 86 95 78 81 87 80 1590 243 474 298 317 406 411 495 177 300 345 413 309 282 326 427 392 5615 60.91% 71.73% 64.77% 67.82% 62.56% 67.88% 69.49% 75.14% 74.33% 73.62% 79.18% 69.26% 72.34% 75.15% 79.63% 79.59% 71.68% 81 41 30 11 61 54 63 80 28 49 79 92 69 64 65 100 967 75% 92% 91% 97% 87% 88% 89% 69% 91% 88% 84% 77% 80% 84% 87% 80% 85% Incentive Franklin Garland Mitchell Stephens Rightsell Rockefeller 544 346 346 298 346 425 2305* 300 181 215 141 184 240 1261 45 24 15 4 5 100 193 345 205 230 145 189 340 1454 86.96% 88.29% 93.48% 97.24% 97.35% 70.59% 86.73% 393 246 260 50 36 12 225 264 1388 4 139 241 443 282 272 0 229 403 1629 88.71% 87.23% 95.59% 0.00% 98.25% 65.51% 85.21% 101 64 74 117 22 378 81% 82% 79% 0% 66% 95% 71% Interdistrict Washington King Romine 939 692 487 2118 451 357 247 1055 270 196 87 553 721 553 334 1608 62.55% 64.56% 73.95% 65.61% 443 309 234 986 244 242 89 575 687 551 323 1561 64.48% 56.08% 72.45% 63.16% 252 141 164 557 73% 80% 66% 74% Magnet Booker Williams Carver Gibbs 656 517 613 353 2139 321 257 325 170 1073 274 215 270 129 888 595 472 595 299 1961 53.95% 54.45% 54.62% 56.86% 54.72% 305 250 309 160 1024 268 224 279 133 904 573 474 588 293 1928 53.23% 52.74% 52.55% 54.61% 53.11% 83 43 25 60 211 87% 92% 96% 83% 90% Incentive school capacities reflected In the 1992 Desegregation Plan rotate for Elementary Scho Below Capacity Seats \u0026amp; 16332 2456 8945 5072 14017 86% 63.82% 8900 2289 5143 14043 86% Prepared by the Office of Desegregation Monitoring based upon information supplied by the Little Rock School DistrictElementary Schools Enrollment, Available Seats, Budget and Per Pupil Cost School Area Schools Terry_________ Forest Park Pulaski Hts. Otter Creek Meadowcliff Cloverdale Brady________ Dodd McDermott Wakefield Fulbright______ Jefferson Mablevale Western Hills Baseline Watson Geyer Springs Fair Park Wilson Chicot Woodruff Bale Badgett Principal Capacity Black White Total 4 Year Olds Incentive Schools Franklin Mitchell Garland_________ Rockefeller Rightsell La Dell Looper Virginia Ashley Lillie Carter Carolyn Teeter Jerry Worm______ Frederick Fields Betty Raper______ Pattie McNeil Mike Oliver Willie Morris Mac Huffman Francis Cawthon Dr. Ed Jackson Scott Morgan Lonnie S. Dean Teressa Courtney Eleanor Cox Dr. Samual Branch Franklin Davis Otis Presler Pat Higgenbotham Barbara Anderson Mary Golston Area Total 515 399 374 351 465' 492 467 328 517 492 540 492 515 328 390 492 328 351 394 558 324 401 257 9770 234 198 197 154 279 312 254 193 241 327 235 218 340 215 245 340 223 204 254 344 148 214 133 5502 325 234 225 205 132 80 152 105 253 86 307' 284 134 102 81 87 77 78 91 151 95 95 44 3423 559 432 422 359 411 392 406 298 494 413 542 502 474 317 326 427 300 282 345 495 243 309 177 8925 47 17 18 36 36 37 36 18 18 36 35 25 359 No 4 Year Olds in Total 559 432 422 359 411 345 389 298 494 413 542 502 456 317 290 391 263 246 327 477 207 274 152 8566 Available Seats -44 -33 -48 -8 54 100 61 30 23 79 -2 -10 41 11 64 65 28 69 49 63 81 92 80 990 School Budget Per Pupil Cost Julie Davenport Faith Donovan Karen Buchanan Anne Mangan Sharon Brooks Incentive Total Interdistrict Schools King______ Washington Romine Tyrone Harris Gwen Zeigler Sharon Davis Interdistrict Total Other than Magnet Schools Total Magnet Schools Carver_________ Williams_______ Booker Gibbs Diane Barksdale Mary Menking Dr. Cheryl Simmons Marjorie Bassa Magnet Total Grand Total 544 346 346 425 346 2007 728 836 487 2051 13828 613 517 656 353 2139 15967 393 260 246 248 225 1372 50 12 36 122 4 224 443 272 282 370 229 1596 72 19 18 53 18 180 371 253 264 317 211 1416 101 74 64 55 117 411 309 443 234 986 242 244 89 575 551 687 323 1561 66 52 36 154 485 635 287 1407 177 149 164 490 7860 4222 12082 693 11389 1891 309 250 305 160 1024 8884 279 224 268 133 904 588 474 573 293 1928 588 474 573 293 1928 25 43 83 60 211 5126 14010 693 13317 2102 Budget figures do not include the utilities or the cost of the four year old program Available seats includes the four year old program $1,311,672 $1,017,890 $996,492 $854,199 $994,712 $837,813 $983,813 $754,519 $1,261,427 $1,059,024 $1,423,114 $1,346,385 $1,225,280 $853,903 $797,276 $1,106,215 $748,270 $770,525 $1,046,853 $1,535,904 $681,446 $930,903 $580,861 $23,118,495 $1,318,607 $1,059,617 $1,106,629 $1,522,218 $1,062,670 $6,069,741 $1,535,015 $2,063,488 $1,145,379 $4,743,882 $33,932,118 $1,921,659 $1,700,584 $2,136,788 $1,263,200 $7,022,231 $40,954,349 $2,346 $2,356 $2,361 $2,379 $2,420 $2,428 $2,529 $2,532 $2,553 $2,564 $2,626 $2,682 $2,687 $2,694 $2,749 $2,829 $2,845 $3,132 $3,201 $3,220 $3,292 $3,397 $3,821 $2,699 $3,554 $4,188 $4,192 $4,802 $5,036 $4,287 $3,165 $3,250 $3,991 $3,372 $2,979 $3,268 $3,588 $3,729 $4,311 $3,642 $3,075 4/20/95 Prepared by the Office of Desegregation Monitoring based upon information supplied by the LRSDI de: LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 810 WEST MARKHAM STREET LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS February 23, 1995 To: Board of Directors From: Subject: Henry P. Williams, Superintendent of Schools Discussion of ABACUS Attached for discussion is a report on the cost of ABACUS for the past three years. I ( i { t i I I t 1LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT ABACUS COST SUMMARY JANUARY 26, 1995 T YEAR 1 1992-93 YEAR 2 1993-94 YEARS 1994-95 YEAR 4 1995-96 YEAR 5 1996-97 LAB TECHNICIANS (5) $32,826.20 $35,926.96 STAFF DEVELOPMENT (3) $37,087.08 $25,428.18 DATA PROCESSING (1) $36,082.48 $36,572.80 SCHOOL BASED STIPENDS $19,377.00 $18,838.75 TRAINING- SUBSTITUTE COST $13,741.00 $12,207.51 $1,900.00 TRAINING- STIPENDS $8,073.75 $2,381.40 TRAINING- CONSULTANTS $18,000.00 HARDWARE $102,659.00 $102,659.00 $103,297.00 $102,659.00 $102,659.00 SOFTWARE \u0026amp; MAINTENANCE $108,075.00 TRAVEL $2,400.00 $2,176.00 PRINTING $750.77 $901.55 FORMS $18,000.00 $5,201.63 $2,800.00 DATA ENTRY SERVICES $10,325.00 CUSTOM PROGRAMMING $9,295.15 TEST ITEM BANK $89,500.00 1 TOTAL $371,995.15 $256,441.42 $228,046.64 $102,659.00 $102,659.00 COST TO DATE YEAR 1 YEAR 2 YEAR 3 $371,995.15 $256,441.42 $228,046.64 $856,483.21LRSD SORTS OFFICE I CL  OUO-ZZM-MSi Z) noi 292 P02 MftR 08 95 11:55 A JiACUS INSTRUCTIONAL MANAGEMENT SYSTEM REFERENCES Dr. Sandra Darling Principal Clearview Elementary 7310 Highway 24 Clear Lake, MN 55319 (612) 743-2241 Fran Sitton IMS Coordinator Gaston County Schools 366 W, Garrison Blvd, Gastonia, NC 28053 (704) 866-6273 Ms. Judy Heiney EMS Coordinator Lucia Mar School District 602A Orchard Street Arroyo Grande, CA 93420 (805) 473-4390 M. Sharon McEuen (Technical) Ms. Becky Shelton (Curriculum) LeanderISD 501 S. Hwy 183 Leander, TO 78641 (512) 259-6890 - Sharon (512) 259-6578 - Becky Dr. Marie Pickel Superintendent North Mason School District K, 50 N. Mason School Road Belfair, WA 98528 (206) 275-2881 Mr. Mike Lindley Superintendent New Buffalo Schools 222 S. Whittaker Street New Buffalo, MI 49117 (616) 469-2682 Mr. CliffHueoergard Director of Special Services Nonh Mason School District E. 50 N. Mason School Road Belfair. WA 98528 (206) 275-2881 Mr. Dennis Smith Washington County Board of Education Springfield Middle School 334 Sunset Ave, Williamsport, MD 21795 (301) 791-4200 Dr. John Leland Otsego Public Schools 310 W. Allegan St Otsego, WI 49078 (616)694-9904 NCS ABACUS, Inc. 921 SW Washington St, Suite 410 Portland, Ongon 97265\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_1034","title":"Aerospace Technology Magnet School, grant","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, Little Rock, 34.74648, -92.28959"],"dcterms_creator":null,"dc_date":["1992"],"dcterms_description":null,"dc_format":["application/pdf"],"dcterms_identifier":null,"dcterms_language":["eng"],"dcterms_publisher":["Little Rock, Ark. : Butler Center for Arkansas Studies. Central Arkansas Library System"],"dc_relation":null,"dc_right":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC-EDU/1.0/"],"dcterms_is_part_of":["Office of Desegregation Monitoring records (BC.MSS.08.37)","History of Segregation and Integration of Arkansas's Educational System"],"dcterms_subject":["Little Rock (Ark.)--History--20th century","Little Rock School District","Education--Arkansas","Education--Finance","Educational planning","Educational law and legislation","Magnet schools","Aviation Education Programs (U.S.)"],"dcterms_title":["Aerospace Technology Magnet School, grant"],"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/1034"],"dcterms_temporal":null,"dcterms_rights_holder":null,"dcterms_bibliographic_citation":null,"dlg_local_right":["Available for use in research, teaching, and private study. Any other use requires permission from the Butler Center."],"dcterms_medium":["documents (object genre)"],"dcterms_extent":["103 pages"],"dlg_subject_personal":null,"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":"\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n\n\n\n   \n\n\n\n\n   \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n  \n\nThis transcript was created using Optical Character Recognition and may contain some errors.\n. ., .,,. ,:.- \"  -. . . . . . , , ~ \"\": .\"'~: ..... ,: . ~~-11~1\n~!?'\n. 4:~::~ .,~:-..: ,W,.-.-.:.... -\"\n,. _ _... -\u0026gt;~ _ w-- ~.\n.,.,\n.  . I. ' ! I ' . ..... .. ~ ~. ..~ ~ .. =. /. .: .-~,\n~ .... -, \"':!' \u0026gt;-.. ~ . .f',\"'', , .... ~~ ::=,/ :\"1..  \" I .... . .... , .... , . ,  ,- , ' ,~,   ..  ,.. ' ..: ~ \\ l f  \\:? . : '. -. F~ Jtepatw / VQl. 57, No. 159 / W~eY, Au\nut U. Dl2 (Prol)olfe11f ~  ..... , 3837: . . .. . ' ,\n... - ' ..  !' ' , ,. . ' ,, ... .,, ., I ____ .................. _ .......... . .. .. ... ------------- -  - \"'----- - ------------ : , ~.\n, 1 , ,~ .. .. .... ----- .......... ---  Quality of Project Design The project includes the fdlCl\\Ning topics: A Overview: The Aerospace Techndogy Cunirulum 1. Applied Science and Science Lal:xratay 2. Applied Mathematics 3. Computer Technology and the Computer Tedmdogy Laboratcry 4. Fa-eign Languages 5. Engineering Techndogy 6. Aviation 7. SCANS Know-How 8. Work-Based and Wa-k-Site Learning and Experience B. Aerospace Technology in Grades Seven and Eight (Junior High Level) 1. Content Knowledge in Mathematics 2. Content Knowledge in Science 3. Content Knowledge in Canputer Techndogy 4. The Techndogy Lab 2000 Cunic.ulum Integration Center 5. Infa-matioo and Guidance C Aerospace Technology in Grades Nine and Ten 1. Content Knowledge in Mathematics, Sden~ and Computer Technology 2. Content Knowledge in Engineering Techndogy 3. The Techndogy Lab 2000: Scientific Literacy Center 4. Content Knowledge in Airway Science 5. Workplace Readiness and Industry/ Business Internships D. Instructiooal Approaches and Assessment of Student Performance 1. Learning in Context 2. Product Develq.,ment Teams/Cooperative Learning 3. The Pa-tfdio 4. Perfananc:e-Based Assessment E. Teacher and Student Organizaticn F. Aexible Scheduling G. The Aviation Museum Educatioo Department Docent Program 1. Courses ct Instructicn 2. The Library 3. School Visitaticn Program 4. Planetarium 5. !max Theater The Aerospace Technology Curriculum -----------. Applied Mathematics Aerospace Mathematics (7) Applied Mathematics I (8)  Applied Mathematics II (9) Descriptive Geometry (10 Technical Algebra II ( 11) Quantitative Literacy for Aerospace (12) Technical Algebra I (8) Descriptive Geometry (9) Technical Algebra II (10) Advanced Algebra/ Trigonometry (11) Calculus (12) Aviation Airway Science Intro. AeronauticsA.ab* (9) or General Aviation (9) or Machine Shop Technology (9) Prograrrvning Language (10) or Aircraft Systems Theory (10) or Powerplant Theory \u0026amp; Maintenance (10) Powerplant Theory ( 11) or Electrical Circuit Analysis ( 11) Fortran.Cobol ( 11 ) or Aviation SafetyA.egislation/Air Transportation (11) Private Pilot Cert.A.ab* (12) Powerplant Systems (12) or Air Traffic Control* (12) or Assembler Language \u0026amp; Operating Systems Internship I, II (11, 12) Aerodynamics \u0026amp; Performance (12)  Classes will be instructed in Museum of Aviation History - Computer Technology Integrated Software Applications and Logowriter Robotics (7) Hypercard/Hypermedia and Aerospace Pre-CAD(8) Hi-Tech Presentations (9, 10) Applied Communication (English) (12) I Foreign Language Japanese or Russian or French or Spanish or German Magnet Course Sequences Grades 7-12 Title Ill  Magnet Schools Assistance, Sec. 3003: Statement of Purpose (2)  Courses of instruction to substantially strengthen academic subjects and the tangible/ marketable vocational skills. --- Applied Science Aerospace Science I (7) Aerospace Science II (8) Aerospace Biology (9) Aerospace Physical Science (10) I Chemistry (10) Aerodynamics and Meteorology (11) Physics (11) Descriptive Astronomy \u0026amp; Physical Geology ( 12) Engineering Technology Intro. Concurrent Engineering (9) or Intro. Computer Science (9) Computer-Aided Design Applications (10) or Manufacturing Engineering Technology I, II (10, 11) Electronics Engineering Technology.CAD I, II (10, 11) Advanced Computer-Aided Design Applications ( 11) Programming for Engineering Majors (12) Fabrication Design Projects ( 12) or Mechanical Systems DP (12) or Manufacturing Design Project (12) Internship I, II (11, 12) - .. CATHERINE JOHNSON AND ASSOCIATE ' @J ........ _______ 721111 150/J .lil -J.l.11 .. TO: FROM: Catherine Johnson DATE: 10 f=/J/9.c. ___ Pages, including this cover Special ._ Instructions: 'Drd.C ~2 ~ b\"ci{ I q ll ut O - ftVl ( 1t?t? ' PLEASE CALL 501-371-0331 IF A PROBLEM OCCURS DURING TRANSMISSION. AEROSPACE TECHNOLOGY MAGNET PROGRAM FINAL PLANNING SCHEDULE OF MEETINGS FOR NOVEMBER 10, 1992 November 10. 1992 1. Dr. Mac Bernd Gall Quinn 2. Marie Parker 3. Individual Meetings With Curriculum Spooi:ilists 4. Board Work~hop Planning: 5. Cail Ouinn, Sterling Ingram, Estelle, Dianne, Dennis .I.lm.a. 9:00  10:00 am 10:00 - Noon 1 :00  2:00 pm (Dennis Glasgow) 2:00 - 3:00 pm (Dianne Wood) 3:00 - 4:00 pm (Estelle, Dianne, Dennis) 4:00  4:30 pm  Please have material ready November 11 1992 Ilm.e. 6. Judy Harrison, 8:30  9:30 am Jerry Robln~on, Doug Dodds, Lyle Lane SAU-TECH \u0026amp; Henderson University 7. Chuck Stevens 9:45 - 10:45 am 8. Dr. Bernd 12:00 Noon 9. Dr. John Gilmore, 3:00 - 4:00 pm Eddie Branch. UArB 10. Dr. Bernd, Gall Quinn 4:30 - 5:00  Please have draft written agreement ready Pl1cuu100 Board of Education Workshops (See Agenda) New School Planning Modification of lnterdistrict Desegregation Plan Timeline Magnet Program Continuation Magnet School enrollmQnt numbers and student assignment plan Comprehensive plan for recruitment Board Workshop Course Outline Review and Instructional Approach  (I.e. Sciencg For All Americans) Agonda Finali2ing, Handouts Stanford Achievement Performance Objective PISCYSSIPD Articulation Agn,ements  Board of Education Workshop Plannlnc Articulation Agreements Llttle Rock Club Articulation Agreements Finalizing C3oard of Education Workshop AEROSPACE TECHNOLOGY MAGNET PROGR/\\M SCHEDULE PAGE TWO H0vemh1u 12 1992 .Ilm.l. 11. Ray Richey . Gail Quinn 8 :30 - 11 :30 am CBM Office 12. Roy Richey, Ed Riddick 1 :00 - 3:30 pm Doug Eaton, Gary 13.Board of Education Workshop November 13, 1992 14. \"Wrapping up loose ends\" morning 01,cuufon Equipment/Software Budget The New School T'ichnology Requirements, etc LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL plSTRICT BOARD OF EDUCATION WORKSHOP DRAFT AGENDA NOVEMBER 12, 1992 I. Title Ill - Magnet Schools Gail Quinn II. II I. IV. V. Assistance , P.L. 100-297 (MSAP) .. Stahiment of Purpose, Goals and the American 2000 Strategy  Application Requirements  Uses of Funds Selection Criteria and the Scoring of Applications  Special Consideration (Extra Points) - Recentness of approved Desegregation Plan  Involvement of minority group chlldren  Need for Assistance  Degree of Achievement  Collaborative Efforts LRSD Magnet Project Design and Innovation Group Gall Quinn . Estelle Math. Dianne Woodruff, Dennis GlasijOW, Judy Harrison  SAU Tech, JQrry RobiMon - Henderson State University , U of A Q.t Pina Bluff Representative Program Components  Articulated CourM Se~uences - Applie(l Mathematics and Scienee  Technology Requirements  Artlculatlon Agreements  Staff Training \" Student and Teach Organization Flexible Scheduling M8.isuring Stud8nt Outcomes Relevant to Gail Quinn MSAP Goals Modification of lnterdistrict Desegregation Plan Gall Quinn And Need for Board Aesolution 11.A:HiA P~rkAr Meeting Commitment and Capacity Gail Quinn Requirements for Program Continuation Dr. Mac Bernd tvEM) TO: FROM: DATE: SUBJECT: Dr. Mac Bernd Gail Quinn October 29, 1992 Grant Preparation SchGdule and material for Board members and staff review Mac, onclosQd are the new proposed re9ulations (soon to be final) for the US Department of Education Magnet Schools Assistance Program (Title Ill  P.L. 100-207), a tentative Board workshop agenda, and planning schedule for my next visit the week of November 10-13. Please distribute the Federal Register material to Board members and staff indicated on the schodulo for their review prior to the Board presentation. I wilt contact you on Thursday, October 29 to discuss the planning schedule and notification of meetings, Aerospace Technology Magnet Instructional Program Grades 7-12 Elective Elective Integration Core Integration Aerospace Science Applied Airway Mathematics Engineering Science Applied Communication Technology Computer Technology I n t e g r a t i 0 n ...  Technology Lab 2000  SCANS Know-How  TOM  Worksite Leaming Experience  Occupational Certification  Authentic Assessment Aerospace Technology Program Magnet Course Sequence ~ Junior High School Grade7 Aerospace Mathematics* Aerospace Science Integrated Software Applications (.5) Logowriter Robotics* (.5) Grades Applied Mathematics I or Technical Algebra*  Aerospace Science* Hypercard/Hypermedia*  Aerospace Pre-CAD* (.5) Career Development (.5) High School Grade9 Applied Mathematics II or Descriptive Geometry* Aerospace Biology  Intro Aeronautics Lab a Intro. to Computer Science a Intro. to Concurrent Engineering or Machine Shop Technology  Hi-Tech Presentations  Computer Facilities Grade 10  Descriptive Geometry or Technical Algebra II  Aerospace Physical Science or Chemistry Computer-Aided Design Applications or Programming Language I, II or Aircraft Systems Theory or Powerplant Theory \u0026amp; Maintenance  Workplace Readiness (.5) Grade 11 Technical Algebra 11 or Advanced Algebra/ Trigonometry  Aerodynamics (.5) \u0026amp; Meteorology (.5) or Chemistry Japanese, German, Russian, Spanish, or French 1, 2 Manufacturing Engineering Tech.* or Electronics Engineering Technology,CAD* or Advanced Computer-Aided Design Applications or Powerplant Systems or Powerplant Theory or Fortran,Cobol Aviation Safety Legislation/Air Transportation Airway Science or Engineering Technology Internship I (Industry-based) Grade 12  Quantitative Literacy for Aerospace* or Calculus Descriptive Astronomy \u0026amp; Physical Geology  Applied Communications  Japanese or German or Russian or Spanish or French 3, 4 Intro. to Aeronautics Lab \u0026amp; Private Pilot Cert. Air Traffic Control or Electric Circuit Analysis or Programming for Engineering Majors or Fabrication Design Project or Mechanical Systems DP or Manufacturing Design Project or Assembler Language \u0026amp; Operating Systems Airway Science or Engineering Technology Internship II (Industry-based) Aerospace Technology Magnet Program Organization Stengthening the Knowledge of Academic Content and Marketable Technical Skills C A. Academic B. Work-Based C. Worksite D. Information \u0026amp; Instruction Learning Experience  Guidance 0 M  Applied Mathematics  Occupation Specific  Achievement of  Advising Students of Knowledge, Skills, Academic Occupational p  Applied Science Abilities Requirements Opportunities and Career Path at Three 0  Applied  SCANS Workplace  Achievement of Levels Communication Competencies Work-based Learning N Requirements  Occupational  Work Samples \u0026amp; Certification E Written Reports  Airway Science \u0026amp; Engineering  The Postsecondary N Technology Articulated Career Internships Path T  Assessing  Job Descriptions s Performance in the Workplace l Badground lnfmmatia1 A Greater Metrq,olitan Little Rock Greater Little Rock's foor ca.mty Metrq,olitan Statistical area (MSA) is the center cf the secrnd fastest growing region in the United States. Its central location is within 550 miles of fcrty percent of the United States buying pawer and pq,ulatirn. The $1.3 billion dollar Arkansas Navigatirn System, ooe cf the natirn's largest water develq,ment prqects, is a 445 mile waterway prCJ\\/iding year-ro.md access to ports en the Arkansas River frcrn the Mississippi River to Tulsa, Oklahcrna. The 1,500 acre part with its industrial harlxr Fcreign Trade Zrne - 14, and the United States Customs Pert of Entry are an indication d the increasing impcrtance cf Little Rock's linkage to perts wcrldwide. All are in close prodmity to Adams Field, Little Rock's airpcrt. The city's rich mixture cf historic architecture and new devefopment is attracting new residents. Little Rock is seeing grCM'th and revitalization unparalleled in the city's history. Little Rock is en the mCJ\\/e. Fueling this revitalizatioo are the aerospace industries, the Arkansas Aviation Histcrical Society, the Governor's Aera\npace Task Force, and institutirns cf higher educatioo. Sane cf the world's most successful aerospace ccmpanies are located here McDonnell Dooglas, Rohr Inc., Arkansas Aerospace (a subsidiary cf British Aera\npace), Falccn Jet awned by the French-based Aviens Dassaut Brequet Aviation, MidCoast, and Central flying Service. Numeroos private and caporate aircraft dealers such as Aero-Commander, Piper, Beechcraft, and Cessna have facilities at the Little Rock Regienal Airpcrt. Little Rock Airferce Base is hcrne to the largest C-130 aircraft training and airlift facility in the wcrld. A number cf majer educational institutiens serve Little Rock's MS.A By far, the largest cf these is the University cf Arkansas at Little Rock (UALR), enrolling mere than 11,000 students in seventy-five undergraduate and forty-two graduate degree programs induding .Associate, Bachelcr and Masters of Science Degrees in Engineering Technology. The Graduate Institute cf Technology (GIT) hoosed in the new Engineering Technology Center cifers courses in mechanical, ccmputer scien~ electrical and manufacturing engineering. Industries utilize GIT facilities fer advanced research and graduate study. In 1991, the Arkansas Space Grant Censortium, under the leadership cf GIT at UALR, received a foor-year training grant award fran the NASA Natienal Space Grant College and Fellawship program The primary purpose cf the program is to educate and familiarize faa.11ty and undergraduate and graduate students with aerospace fundamentals and NASA's research programs and q,portunities. A seccrtdary oqective is to motivate K-12 students to excel in math and science ca.irses necessary fer entrance into aera\npace programs at the universities and high tech positions in industry. Hendersoo University, in coordinatioo 1 with Central Flying Setvice, Clllducts ooe d the few aviation degree programs in the nation. The University's Department d Aviation pravides   four-year programs in Airway Science Management, Airway Ccmputer Scien~ Professiooal Pilct, and Aircraft Systems Management. The Arkansas Aviatioo Histaical Society serves the entire state as the focal for the involvement d Arkansas' aerospace industries in community affairs, education, and eca1anic development. In 1989, the Society, exerutives of aercspace rompanies, the Little Rocle Schad District, and UALR came together to fam the Aerospace Educaticn Center Campaign Leadership. The unprecedented public/private partnership has planned an Aerospace Education Center. As the architect's drawing illustrates, the Center ccmbines a museum of aviaticn history with an Aercspace Technology c.\n}1- , JI Magnet High School en a 19.8 acre tract at the Little Rod\u0026lt; Regional Airpai ~ adjacent to the main tenninal, Falccn Jet, and Arkansas Aerospace. The facility will a:Ner 200,000 square feet, induding cx:mmrn areas used by bcth the museum and high school such as the library, cafeteria, and theatre/ auditaium The upper level of the museum will functirn as an educational resoorce f cr adult programs, and outreach for schools, state and natienwide throogh a satellite televisirn uplink prcwided by the Arkansas Electric Coc.peratives. The most cx:mprehensive and largest technical and histaical aviatien and aerospace lilrary collecticn outside d the Smithsonian's Natirnal Air and Space Museum was acquired for the Arkansas Museum d Aviaticn Histcry. Virtually every civil and military aircraft, rctocraft, and spaceship designed and ccrtstructed throughoot the world is represented in the cdlection by technical specificaticns, photographs, and histaical descriptive infamatien. There are well ewer 5,000 books, 50,000 joomals, 200,000 phctographs and transparandes, hundreds d rare collecta1:fo items signed by famous pilots and aviatirn personalities, aiginal paintings, scale aircraft models, and unique aircraft parts. The Society has raised over five millicn dollars in gifts and pledges to.vard ccrtstructirn of the aviatioo histay museum The Little Rock School District has hldgeted six million dollars for the constructicn of the Aercspace Technology Magnet High School fran funds apprcwed by voters at a property tax electicn in 1990. The Aercspace Educaticn Center Campaign Leadership believes that Greater Little Rod\u0026lt;'s future rests en the vitality d its puliic educatioo system At all levels of the puliic educaticn system, educators and industry must develq, programs which give students the knowledge and skills that enable them to reach their full eronornic potential. Vv'hile the Center will prepare students for aerospace careers, it will also focus the Central Arkansas ccmmunity rn oommitment to excellence in educaticn. 2 In March 1819, Arkansas became a territcry and the Arkansas Past, the state's first permanent settlement, became its capital. The little French village was sooo deemed unsuitable mainly because cf its location in the Mississippi Valley, far from the center ci the territcry. A year later the legislature moved the capital to Little Roel\u0026lt;. Tcx:iay with a metropolitan area spanning a seventy-mile radius\nGreater Little Rod\u0026lt; MSA is home to over 513,000 people In the last quarter century, the Greater Little Rock MSA has almost doob15 its populatirn - approaching 1,200,000. Today, Ncrth Little Rock, the third ,}. (IY\\, largest canmunity with a population ci 62,000, and Little Rock af'e joined--sy' ~ the Arkansas River in Pulaski Ca.mty. Twenty-seven percent ci the MSA's p,OW,,v' population is under 18 years of age Forty-foor percent of the populatirn is ~la,~ within the 18-44 age range. Accxrding to the 1990 Census, the populatirn was ------percent Black, -------percent white. B. Little Rock Sdlool District The Llttle Rod\u0026lt; Sdlod District, encompassing an area in excess ci 100 square miles, is the largest school district in the state in terms cf enrollment. Enrdlment in the sdiods has increased fran cai .. pupils inq 1-- to 26,055 pupils in January 1992. This increase is expected to continue and result in a total enrdlment of 'by the year 2000. 16,439 pupils cr 64% ci the total district minority enrollment is Black. The percent Black student populaticn exceeds the District 64% average in grades 4-9. The highest percent Black student enrollment is 70% in grade 8. Of the District's fcrty-nine ( 4, schools, thiry-six enrdl pre-kindergarten cr kindergarten throogh grade o students, eight enrdl grades 7-9 students, and five enrdl grades 10-12 students. Educatiooal program/sdiool chcices include elementary Incentive Schools, grade K-12 Interdistfict Magnet Schools, and elementary area schools. Olart A ootlines the number and type ci schod programs. The text below Olart A defines each type of school and the raticnale fcr selecting certain schods for this prqect. 1 3 Cllart A - The Orpli7.aliaial Plan fa litfle Rode Sdmds n = number of schros gie School andlor ucalionProwam Bemmhly, ~es PrH:: or -6 JwiorHi~, s,-ades 1-igh School~ s,-ades 10-1 n n n a) Area SJ'ld Feeder Schools 22 6 3 b) hcenti\\e Schools 7 NIA NIA c) lnteiois~ot MBQnet Schools 6 2 2 d) hterdis~ot Nonmagnet Schools 1 NIA NIA Total 36 8 5 a) Area Schools - The elementary school that is the LRSD school fer where a student lives is called an Area Schad. F.ach Area School feeds into a partirular junicr high and senicr high schod. The instructional program focuses on language arts, mathematics, science, and social studies. b) Incentive Schools - Incentive Schros are Pre K-Grade 6 elementary schools located within the immediate davmtown area The percent Black student enrcilment fcr Incentive Schools ranges from 85tl to 97~. These schools receive double financial resources to provide a teac er-student ratio cf 1:20, additional instructional aides, permanent sub.stitute teachers, and. extended day-week-year learning oppcrtunities. An individual learning plan is developed fcr each student based an the district K-6 cxre curriculum Ccmputer-assisted instructirn, a student homework hotline, a parenting skills center, and a program fcr faur-year cids are additional features that distinguish incentive frcm area elementary schools. c) Interdistrict Magnet Schools - As Olart A illustrates, Interdistrict Magnet Schools have been established at all three school levels -elementary, junicr high, and senior high. Althoogh operated by the Little Rock School District, students frcm Ncrth Little Rock School District and Pulaski Co.tnty Special School District (PCSSD) are eligible for enrollment in accord with the desegregation plan. As Olart A illustrates, there are ten Interdistrict Magnet Schools. These schools provide, in addition to the regular care program, coorsework based en a special curricular theme. The desegregatirn section faund on page ---- further desaibe the purpa.e and thematic focus for these schools. Olart A indicates there are 31 area and feeder schools. Some of these area/feeder schools are located in racially isciated areas of the school district. This project will establish a new grade 7-12 interdistrict magn:} 1 cf three junicr high schools, and the new grade 9 - 12 Aerospace Magnet , High School. 4 ( C Each of the three junier high schools exreeds the 64 percent district-wide average fer black students. White students will be recruited from across district lines, primarily fran North Little Rock and Pulaski County Special Schcol Districts to racially balance the three junicr high schcols. The new Aerospace Magnet High School wilt begin magnet program operation fer ninth andtenth graders the secrnd year of the prqect. The grade 9 and 10 1 enrollment will consist ci 600 vduntary student transfers fran this _ - magnet's junicr high enrdlment. This prqect, therefere, will establish the first Pulaski County Interdistrict Magnet ca,tinuatioo program in four sea:mdary level schcols consisting ci grades 7-9 the first project year and grades 7-10 the secood prqect year. In sub\nequent non-project years, the Aerospace Technology High School will add grade 11 in 1995-96 and grade 12 in 1996-97 through ncrmal magnet grade level enrollment each year. An Aerospace Techndogy Magnet has been designed in croperatia, with the Aerospace Educatia, Center Campaign Leadership, the University ci Arkansas at Little Rock, and Hendersrn State University to attract this magnet's enrollment ci 1,200 students. Students who attend each ci the four junicr high schcols will also be eligible to participate in the magnet. The tctal grade 7 -10 aerospace magnet enrdlment will be 2,887 pupils. The 1::reakdawn in }o enrollment by schcol level is: Incoming In attendance  4.00 grade 7-9 students  2,187 grade 7-9 students  300 grade 10 students Tc.tat: 2,887 students By the 1996-97 the Aerospace Magnet High School grade 9-12 enrdlment will be at capacity which is 1,200 pupils. The high schcol enrollment ca.1pled with the grade 7-9 junicr high enrdlment means the aerospace magnet has the pctential to serve 3,500 pupils. The magnet enrollment will reduce black isdatirn in three junier high schools. Interdistrict and Intradistrict Desegregatioo Measures 1. Backgroond Infcrmation on the Court Order The only image that sane people have ci Little Rock is the one fcrmed in the Fall ci 1957 when Governer Orval Fauoos defied a federal mandate and tried to use the Arkansas National Guard to keep nine black students fran entering Central High School. In CcXlper vs. Aarrn (1958), the Supreme Coort stated that \"public oppositia, to desegregation of the 5 races, no matter how deeply entrenched, could nct be allowed to interfere with the full realizatioo d the ronstitutiooal rights d black citizens.\" Twenty-fa.tr years later (1982), the Little Rock Schcxi District brooght suit against Naih Little Rock and Pulaski County Special School District, /l ~ claiming that the Coostitution canpelled the consolidation of the three v\\J\\:I districts into one governmental unit. This claim was rejected by the courts in 1985 and again in 1986\nhowever, the coorts held that interdistrict ca1stitutiooal violatioos had cx:a.tred and must be remedied. Over the course of the next three years, varioos remedial orders were entered and further appeals were taken to court. Then, in 1988 and 1989, in a sharp departure from the adversary bitterness that had marked this rontroversy fa- over thirty years\nthe parties, including the Joshua intervenors representing the injured class d black schoolchildren and citizens, LRSD, the Nath Little Rock School District (NLRSD), the Pulaski County Special School District (PCSSD), and the State of Arkansas (Arkansas State Board ~tion), agreed to settle th~e case. They submitted to the District Co~rt four JJmprehensive agreements covering bd:h interdistrict anct.,j!)tradistrict desegregatioo measures -- agreements referred to by the parties as the \"settlement plans.\" They also suanitted a separate but related document, called the \"settlement agreement,\" settling the financial liability of the State cf Arkansas. ~ The United States Court of /\\ppeals for the Eighth Circuit reversed~ t judgement on June 27, 1989, and directed the District Court to adjust the ~ between the LRSD and PCSSD, to revise student attendance within each district to reflect the racial canpositioo d the district, to maintain PCSSD's percent black student enrollment within the range cf plus cr minus 25% d the districtwide average of blacks by organizaticnal levels\nand to limit busing, one-way, to forty-five minutes. 2. The LRSD Desegregatioo (Settlement) Plan (1989) The following description is from the reccrd of the United States Court cf Appeals fa- the Eighth Orel.lit: \"Eight d the 31 nm-magnet elementary schcxis will be designated Incentive Schcxis. Initially they will be all black. These schcxis will receive compensatory-educatioo programs and two times the level cf funding for six years. The plan includes a detailed and volumous desaiption of the kinds d programs that would take place at the Incentive Schcxis. A salient featured these sdlools is a maximum effective student-teacher ratio of twenty to one. Twenty-two of the twenty-three remaining elementary sdlcxis will be called Elementary Academies. These schcxis will have prqected student ratios d between 50 and 62 6 Wi.,etlul\u0026lt;u,.., ~ IN~ (ki,t~ ~ percent black. The other elementary school, Romine, would be an interdistrict school. Any white student can elect to attend an Incentive School, and a black student living in an IncentiveSchool attendance area can opt to attend ooe ci the Elementary Academies.\" 3. Interdistrict Desegregation Plan The Interdistrict Desegregation Plan is designed to achieve racial balance in the schools and districts of Little Rock, Nai:h Little Rock, and Pulaski Country Special School District through voluntary movement primarily to magnet programs. The Little Rock Schad District reports quarterly the number and percent ci students enrolled by racial backgroond in each ci the district's 49 schools. The above data is also summarized in terms of ~ the total district (Pre-K-12). The district defines a school \"balanced\" when its percent black student populatioo is between fifty-five to sixty-five percent and the percent white student enrollment is between thirty-five and fcrty-five percent. Interdistrict magnets are used to attract a specific student populatioo frc:rn ootside ci the district and from within the original district to racially balance the school and district. Participation in a magnet is through student/parent chcice. The Magnet Review Cc:rnmittee (MRO, created by the Eight Orcuit Court ri Appeals in September, 1986, oversees the implementation and ope~~moo d the' interdistrict magnet schods. Canprised of representatives frc:rn each ci the three districts, the Committee makes policy rn issues such as magnet enrollment, tr,/msfers, building capacities, and operating funds. /{fov- S-ffj_!f:}\n')6:,/,.,t.v(. The Magnet Educatirnal Team (MET) is the recruitment arm of the MRC, and is responsible fer public infamation and recruitment strategies and activities. In the Little Rock School District, six elementary schools, three junier high schools, and two high schools have magnet programs (refer to 01art A). Six (6) Interdistrict magnets (4 elementary, 2 junier high, 1 senior high) were created in Little Rock in ccmpliance to the 1985 court opinion. Since 1987, five mere interdistrict magnets have been established in the Little Rod\u0026lt; School District. Magnets enhance the district's c:cre a.irriculum The specially designed curria.ila is the \"hook\" fer attracting students across district lines. Individual interdistrict magnet school brochures provide a program description. 01art B summarizes the eleven interdistrict magnets in the LRSD by theme and number ci schools participating at each school level. 7 Cll3lt B - LRSD lnlerdislrid Magnet Pmgaans Theme School Level and # of Schools Elementary Junior High High School 1. Early Education 1 2. Basic Skills 1 3. Basic Skills/Math-Science 2 ~~ 4. Arts 1 ~ 5. Arts and Sciences 1 1 6. International Studies 1 1 1 Subtotal 6 2 2 Total Magnets - 10  This is a PreK magnet housed in an Incentive School. The majority ct LRSD Interdistrict Magent Programs have been in cperatioo since the 1986-87 school year. Magnet enrollment that year was 3,647 pupils. This year it is 6,919 pupils. The number ct pupils enrolled in LRSD individual magnets has increased 53%. The most successful magnets acccrding to c:cmmunity /staff/ student responses and magnet waiting lists are ------------------, -----------------------, -------------------------. (Expand en waiting list.) The Interdistrict Desegregatcn Plan is mere than just magnets. The Pulaski County M-to-M (Majaity to Minority) Transfer allo.vs a student to transfer fran a district and schoo where his/her race is in the majority to a district and schoo where his/her race is in the minority. This means that black students in the LRSD may transfer to schoos in North Little Rcx:k and the Pulaski County Special Schoo Districts, and white students in NLRSD er Pulaski County SSD may transfer to a Little Rock School District school. The Aera\npace Techndogy Magnet will advance the vduntaty desegregatioo etfais ct the Settlement Plans. The district ccmmits that it will \"maintain the facilities en a racially integrated basis into perpetuity.\" (Refer to 2/4/91 Amendment in Appendix.) The Little Rock Schoo District Desegregation Plan, the Pulaski County Special Schad District Permanent Desegregation Plan, the North Little Rock School District Desegregation Plan, and the Interdistrict 8 Desegregatia, Plan hdd excellent premise fcr achieving unitary school systems in these three districts. (Exerpted frcm text of Settlement Plans - refer to Appendix.) 4. The Settlement Agreement The Settlement Agreement provided for payments by the State to the three school districts fer desegregatia, purposes cnly. Under the agreement, the state makes payment to LRSD, NLRSD, and PCSSD totalling $107,723,175 over the next ten years. The state legislature and the Governcr expended these funds withoot a coort order. Mcreover, the State also agreed to lend LRSD up to $20,000,000 over the next ten years. [  The loans are to be forgiven if by December 31, 2000, the existing gap in achievement between black and white pupils in LRSD has been reduced to ()Jfa~ ~ ~ Cl} p/t' The settlement plans and the settlement agreement do not limit the (1 C ID t District Cwrt's ability to require the creatia, of additional interdistrict '--\"{ 1\nt, schools. They limit cnly hem new schods may be funded. This funding { ~ \\ may indude payments by the State for majcrity-to-minority transfers, but o- ) it may not include the impositioo en the State of a shared the capital casts c:i these new facilities. The aglb::iili:ill does nd: bar 1he crmlim cl additimal interdislrid sdtods\nit simply povides 1hat,, wher1 aeah:d, 1hE:f will nd: be funded in 1he same way as the six stipilalicm magnets. (Refer to entire text c:i Settlement Agreement in Appendix.) The District Cwrt mandated the creatia, c:i the Office of Desegregatia, Mooitoring staffed by a Monitor to supervise compliance t.6 the foor Settlement Plans and the Settlement Agreement. ( wv.1L 9 Il Needs Assesslnent The Little Rock Schcd District, in coojunctioo with Nath Little Rock School District and Pulaski County Special School District, is implementing a ca.trt-monitcred desegregatioo plan ci which magnet programs and M-to-M transfers are a voluntary cptioo to integrate the three individual schcd districts. _J. Although Little Rock has achieved racial balance throogh the creatioo ci __ () 6}I interdi strict magnet programs in once racial] y isolated sch eds, therp/are still --5~ '. -.A schods whose percent black to white enrollment exceed the distri~-45% : H. J1Sf'I\"\"' approved range. The district wants to establish mere across district volunta ~ /k-movement of junior high students to bing racially-isolated schools within the ) r)J balanced range. Acccrding to the 1992 LRSD Enrollment Survey, there are three junior high schools that meet this aiteria Three ci the junicr high schcds have been targeted to attract white students primarily fran school districts ci the Interdistrict (Tri-District) Desegregatioo Plan, ct:her school districts within close proximity ci the Little Rock school districts, and private schools. This plan prcrnct:es desegregatirn. It increases the grade 7-9 white student enrollment at each grade level ci three racially (1:fack)-isolated junior high schcds. The hook to attain this prqect's desegregation goals and objectives is the Aerospace Technology curriculum Since 1900, the United States has becane wealthy and powerful 1:rf expldting the rapid changes taking place in technology, wcrld trade, and the internatiooal political crder. New developments in technology, !ntematirnal competition, demography, and other factcrs have altered the natirn's ecaiomic and social landscape. There will be few jobs for those who lack adequate science/technical knowledge and who cannot read, follow directions, or use mathematics. Higher skill requirements of the economy suggest that schools must impave the preparatirn of the natirn's youth in crder to eroncrnically compete in the global marketplace. This can only be acccrnplished if the schools have excellence in technology educatirn, communications, problem-solving, and scientific and technological literacy. This district believes it is absolutely necessary to help students understand their technological future if they are to functirn as respmsible, productive members ci a competitive society. This district also believes this endeavcr must be a coq::ierative and concentrative effcrt with this area's prime employers, the aerospace/ aviation industry, the State Department ci Educatioo, the University ci Arkansas, and Hendersoo State University. The aerospace technology educatirn magnet has lrng range impact for desegregatirn in the Little Rock School District. First, it involves further voluntary movement ci nm-district white students to prevent the progressive, increasing isolation ci predcrninantly 1:fack junicr high schools. Serond, this prgect has carefully planned fer a nevv racially balanred high schcd. Finally, this district is 10 coofident that the aerospace magnet will attract a new enrollment of 1,300 grade 7-10 students while maintaining the current enrollment. 'I These are the reasons: 1~a-' 1. \"Aerospace Technology\" is a statewide public education and economic development effort in accordance with the Arkansas Aerospace Task Force and its a-eaticn of the Arkansas Aviatioo and Aerospace Cornmissicn throogh passage of State Senate Bill 35. Their missi en is to provide \"the knowledge and skills that will allow students to reach their full ea:manic 2. potential.\" -~l The Stipulaticn and Consent Order of February 1991 amended the LRS~ ~ticn Plan to include the Aerospace Technology :Magnet Sch (s) anumaintenance as racially integrated facilities. 3. 4. The putlic and private rontributicns of funds for up to 6.5 millirn dollars to coostruct the aviation histcry museum which will implement curricular activities during and after magnet schod hoors in coordinatioo with the magnet's specialized curriculum A successful millage campaign apprc,.,ed by voters for six million dollars to ~ coostruct the Aerospace Magnet High Schad. 5. The Aerospace employment need fer a skilled workforce is well known in \"1 Central Arkansas. # specially-trained employees are required to meet new  ccntracts for aira-aft and the employment vacancies listed by the Little Rock Airport Commission. Technology education is addressed in cnnjunctioo with the study of mathematics and physical science. Mere science and mathematics has been ruilt into the existing curriculum The academic and technology-integrated currirulum begins in grade seven to better prepare the minority student fer future employment, cdleg~ and success in finding his/her niche in a tedmdogical society. Because c::J the stroog aerospace industry and university linkage, and the hands-oo problem solving approach used to learn the rurricula, the district fcresees the indusioo c::J some Little Rock elementary schools in the near future. / /--t~ (n Need t The Reduction and Pre,entim cf Minority Group Isolatim /~ '/) fo1 There is a need to estatlish a new interdistric:t magnet at the junier high level to 01 racially balance three schods. An end-c::J-prqec:t enrdlment c::J 2,887 will enatle each c::J the aerospace magnet schools and total magnet enrollment to reflect the district's percent racial avera e. 11 The goal reflected ~ the% black figure in Table 1 is to reduce racial isolatirn ~ increasing the number ci white pupils in three Little Rock junier high schcds. This wi111 1:ring the junier high schcd % black student enrollment mere in line with the district-wide percent black figure cr 64%. TABLE 1 Redice Now Endd Prqed: Kea!iving Sdl\u0026lt;ds 'I. Bin 'I. Bid 1. Ooverdale JH 70.2 60.0 2. Fcrest Heights JH 70.6 60.0 3. Southwest JH 77.0 60.0 The goal reflected ~ the percent black figure in Table 2 is to prevent black groop isolation in the new high schod. This will be accanplished throogh voluntary movement of (1) grade eight and nine pupils from three aera\npace magnet junicr high schools, (2) new M-toM transfers-from NLRSD, PCSSD, an~her school districts not a part ci the ~district Magnet Desegregation P~and (3) LRSD grade 9 pupils provided such movement does net negatively mpact the racial balance cr the sending junicr high school. This will racially balance the new high school in ac:ccrdance with the racial demographics fer the senior high level. TABLE 2 ,,.., f. End d Prqed: Kea!iving Sdl\u0026lt;d Bin 'I, Bladt New High School 70.0 58.0 based rn the % black student enrollment average fer the desegregated sending junior high schools located in the attendance area of the new high school. Plugtan Goal t: To reduce or prevent rad al isolatirn in the Little Rock School District Objective 1.a: By September, 1993, the district will reduce racial isolation throogh recruitment of white students fran oot-cr-district to aerospace magnet programs. The aera\npace magnet program will be balanced when the percent black to white 12 figure is within the 6ef 40% balanced ra11g .Redu\u0026lt;E ~ Minaity ~ Minmty Magnet Sdlod Before After 1. OCNerdale JH 70.2 60.0 2. Ferest Heights JH 70.6 60.0 3. So.lthwest JH 75.0 60.0 Objective 1.b: By September, 1994 the district will racially balance the new high schod through vduntary transfers fran the grade 9 ccntinuing magnet enrdlment and M-to-M transfers. The new high schod will reflect the racial balance ci the district's senior high schools indicated in Olart B: CHART B Magnet SdKJcj New High Schod PreVl!nt ~ Minaity Before 70.0 Need 2a 1: Strengthening the Knowledge ci Academic Cootent Fer the past two decades in America, the low level of academic achievement in our seccndaty schc:xi has spelled disaster for our yooth and fer oor ea:nany. The statistics are alarming: a. Ninety-three percent ci 17-year dds do nd have the capacity to apply mathematical operaticns in a variety of problem settings. An increasing number ci the natirn's students are ill-prepared fer cdlege cnirses or jobs that require technical skills. (Naticnal Assessment of Educational Progress 1988, p.# 2) b Fer generaticns traditirnal prejudices have encouraged mathematics achievement in only a pc:rticn ci the student pcpulaticn - middle class white males. Females and mincriti~with the exceptirn ci Asian-Americans\nWere perceived as bdh \"less capable\" d learning mathematics, and \"needing'' it less. (Mathematics Education - Wellspring ci U.S. Industrial Strength, December 1988.) 13 c. In lxth participation and achievement, American students in science and mathematics are lagging behind previoos years and other ca.mtries. (Science and Engineering lndictors, Natiooal Science Board, 1990.) ct. Only about twenty percent ci 10th graders believe that biology, chemistry, physics, er geanetry are needed to qualify fer their first chace occupatioo. Only twenty-eight percent believe they need algebra. ( Lrngitudinal Survey ci American Yooth, 1988.) e \"Schools must imprave their science instructioo to alla.v the nation to base its ea::nany oo high technology. New programs must be developed and strategies reexamined to achieve the sharp focus required.\" (The Triangle Coalitirn fer Science and Technology Education, 1988.) According to the results ci the National Science Foundatirn's nationwide study, students are not receiving enoogh hands-oo labcratery experience. f. The 1.25 grade-level -equivalent decline in the academic achievement ci high schod seniors la.vered the natioo's productivity by $86 1:illirn in 1987 and will lower it by more than $200 allioo annually by the year 2010 (Joornal ci Currirulum Studies, 1989). Studies demoostrate that canpetence in reading, writing, mathematics, science, and problem solving are strongly related to productivity in almost all jobs. At the histaic \"education summit,\" September 1989, President Bush and the natioo's gaverncrs agreed to six national perfermance goals in educatioo to be achieved by.the year 2000. These two impcrtant goals were among those adcpted: Goal IV - Science and Mathematics U.S. Students will be first in the world in science and mathematics achievement. The pocr standing ci U. 5. students en intematiooal assessments ci mathematics and science achievement is no accident, says a new ASCD task ferce repcrt. It results from systemic problems in the quality ci rurrirulum and instruction in the United States, the unequal cppcrtunities afferded different students, and pervasive rultural beliefs that do little to support high mathematics and science achievement. The ASCD task fcrce repcrt cites four majer factors rontributing to la.v U.S. student achievement in mathematics and science. These are: 1) Relativdy few students take murses that indude high-levd oonl:ent in malhemalic:s and sdence Fewer than half of students take a chemistry er algrel:ra II course and fewer than ooe in five ever take a course in physics, trigonanetry, analysis/precalculus, er calculus. Mcreover, the ,. Assoqation for Supervisioo and Curriculum Devel\u0026lt;\nJ?IDent , Raising Our Sights: lmprroving U.S. Achievement in Mathematics and Scence, December 1991, p. 6 14 widespread tracking of students means many pupils - particularly minorities - are never required to learn high-level ~ntent. 2) Mathematics andsdenre anrimlUID!\\. as well as the tedlo~s and aa w uals linked to them. fail to reflect the llfrontiers d knowledge'\" about how children learn best. U.S. mathematics and science curriculums \"sacrifice depth fer coverage, doo't take advantage d technologies .. .fail to make connectioos amoog the disciplines, and generally ignere the real-life experiences and cognitive development of students.\" In general, students assume a passive role, with teamer talk, textl:xx)ks, and worksheets predcrninating. The Natiooal Center fer Educatioo Statistics study recently documented the percentage c:i 8th graders whose science teamers conducted scientific experiments. Bcth Catholic and private - other religious and nm-religious schools - science teachers surpassed public smcds science teachers en frequency -- \"Once per day, and ooce per week\" -- fer providing experimentaticn in science (Educatioo Week, September 1992). 3) lnslrudiai does nd tdlect the need fer al students to maslEr malenging CXDtent. The training and suppcrt affcrded teachers too c:iten fail to reflect the mallenge c:i delivering high-level content. Teamer preparaticn and inservice suppcrt, class size and teaching load, and teachers' oppcrtunities fer collalxration and decision making all hinder the delivery c:i pctent instruction. 4) OJltural values and olher fadors a:ntn\"bute to the belief that,, fer many slu~ high adnevement in malh and science is not wath striving fa er is unattainable. Exrept fer a small number of high! y mctivated students, many pupils appear to be swayed cy discouraging wltural attitudes tCM1ard math and science prc:iiciency. In additicn, the United States is one of very fe.v industrialized democracies that does net provide stroog incentives (such as better joh\n) to students who do well in tough high school math and science courses. The Naticnal Science Board and the ASCD Panel urged that all students should be required to take math and science a full foor years in grades 9-12. The National Council of Teachers of Mathematics, the Natiooal Science Teachers' Assodatirn, and the American Assodatirn fer the Advancement c:i Science also stated that math and science curriculums should cx:nnect learning to wcrk, integrate principles frcrn the two fields and other disciplines, and take better advantage d technologies. Similarly, grouping students cy ability and tracking should be eliminated. Natirnwide research en tracking suggests that being placed in a 1cm ability track effectively slams the gate on any pa\nsibility that a student can take coorses leading to cdlege (Natirnal Education Lrngitudinal Study c:i 1988). 15 Goal III - Student Achievement and Citizenship American students will leave grades foor, eight, and twelve having demrnstrated ccmpetency in challenging subject matter including English, mathematics, science, histcry, and geography\nand every schc:ol in America will ensure that all students learn to use their minds well so they may be prepared fer responsible citizenship, further learning, and productive employment in our modem eccnomy. In respcnse to Goal IIL the Secretary ct Latx:r's Canmissicn en Achieving Necessary Skills ( SCANS) issued its initial report, What Werk Reqires of Schools. This repcrt identified a three-part foundatirn - basic skills, thinking skills, and personal qualities - that will be at the heart of job perfamance ooth fer students gcing directly to werk and those planning further educaticn. The SCANS three-part foondation and the ASCD panel's science and curriculum recommendations including mere credit hoors will be ina:rperated into the project design. In March 1992, representatives frcrn the fdlCM'ing Arkansas educaticn and industry groops met to discuss the knCM'ledge and academic competencies that students shoold possess to succeed in preparing fer aerospace/aviaticn careers:  Aerospace industry exerutives  Aerospace Educatirn Center Campaign Leardership  Aviation Historical Society  State Department ci: Educatirn Mathematics and Science Consultants, and the Associate Director fer Instructional Programs in Vocational and Technical Education  FAA Air Traffic Manager  LRSD Superintendent of Schools  UALR Schad ct Science and Engineering Essentially, the magnet will strengthen the academic achievement ct magnet work-bound or college-ln.md students in mathematics, science, techndogy, and canmunicatirn ccmpetencies in coorses equivalent to college preparatcry curriculum. Aditions to rurrent typical fereign language oourse ci:ferings will include Russian, Japanese, and German. The planned magnet program d studies wil11 be based en the Arkansas Plan fer Tech Prep, 2+4+2+2 (February, 1992). Industry representatives pointed oot that \"traditirnal coorses\" in general science and mathematics, gecmetry, algerra, trigrncrnetry, and English do nct emphasize enoogh practical applicatirns ci: content, especially those related to the high-tech \"know-how,\" \"atility-to-do\" required in industry. It is imperative that industry and the public schods werk together to wild strong, relevant science/math/ canmunicatirn/technology stand into the curriculum. Relevant curriculum 16 means the connectedness between wcrk and the magnet's specialized curricula. The magnet program must also articulate co.irse content and a career ladder frcrn LRSD to UALR in Engineering Technology and LRSD to Henderson State University in Aviatim. 1. State ct Arkansas Basic Skills Testing The Arkansas Minimum Performance Testing Program is the mandated state effai fcr reporting the number and percent of grade 3, 6, and 8 students displaying mastery in reading, mathematics, language arts, science, and soda] studies. LRSD minimum perfcrmance testing results for all students and for students categcrized by race (Black and White) dCXl.lment national mathematics and science findings locally, and also confirm the opinion held 1:7.\u0026gt;' industry on content tested. Tatie 3, foond m the opposite page, displays what basic skills are tested in mathematics and science. An analysis of what is tested and hO\\N is indicated in the conducting statements belO\\N Table 3. This information is pcrtrayed to shOIN the need fcr a rigcroos mathematics and science linked program 17 TABLE 3 - The Arkansas Minimum Perfcrmance Testing Program - Grade 8 Basic Skills A. Mathematics Numeration  ldent. whole num. place value  Recog. whole num./word name  Round whole numbers  Recog. dee. word name/std. fm  Compare decimals Whole Numbers  Add whole numbers  Subtract whole numbers  Multiply whole numbers  Divide whole numbers  Solve Reading Problems B. Science . Earth History  Define Earth History terms  Identify evidence which supports theory of plate tectonics Matter and Earth Materials  Identify characteristics of matter, rock types, minerals  Identify particles of nucleus/energy levels of atom  Define pH Earth Processes  Define earth processes terms  Identify agents of erosion 18 Rational Numbers  Change Fraction/equivelent  Add/subtract fractions  Change Fraction to Decimal  Add/subtract decimals  Multiply decimals  Divide dee. by whole number  Write percent as decimal Measurement  Select metric/custom meas  Determine line seg. length Geometry  Identify Shapes  Find perimeter Probability/Statistics  Inter. charts/tables/graphs Meteorology  Define meteorology terms  Identify major cloud types, layers of atmosphere/gases used, air pollutants and their sources, four types of precipitation  Identify weather instruments  Identify lightning causes  Interpret data from a temperature graph Oceanography and Watercycle  Define Oceanography terms  Identify water cycle  Identify causes of water pollution Universe/Astronomy  Define universe/astronomy terms Energy/Natural Resources  Define environmental terms  Identify/classify natural resources as renewable/non-renewable Test items fer science and mathematics reflect knowledge and skills typical of an upper elementary grade program Measurement and geometry is minimal. Testing ci physical science crncepts is limited Test items indicated by the werds recognize, identify, determine, select, define, ask students to recall informatirn, the lowest level cf thinking per Blc:x:m's Taxonomy. mterdistrict and distrct ma ents are, by the year 2000, to leave grade -S- havmg demrnstrated competen'3/ in challenging sugect matter, then this interdistrict magnet must provide the fdlowing:  The applicatirn cf mathematical skills in science throogh a hands-rn industry-relevant program which measures student ootcanes throogh perfermance-based assessment.  Academic c:cntent strengthened by camecting concepts fer earth, life, and physical sciences to engineering tedmdogy and aviatirn, and teaching fer crnceptual understanding.  An instructional approach with 100% utilizatirn d the sd ence process skills and experimental design.  The use cf technology as an instructional tad in crnjunction with canputer simulations and applications fer reccrding and interpreting data. Table 4 repcrts the percentage cf grade 8 students (ct the Aerospace Magnet junier high schools) passing the Arkansas Minimum Perfamance Testing Program by race and gender catagcries as canpared to the percent passing fer all students in the district. TABLE 4 - The Arkansas Minimum Perfcrmance Testing Program - Grade 8 Academic Area Junior High School/District Percent Passing All Students White Students Bl ackStudents SCIENCE Male Female Male Female District  Coverdale JH 64 95 79 70 48  Forest Heights JH 62 83 96 49 53  Southwest JH 46 77 33 46 35 MATHEMATICS District  Cloverdale JH 86 95 89 83 85  Forest Heights JH 80 87 93 70 81  Southwest JH 75 87 76 69 73 19 Results clearly sh(Jl,\\I there is a disparity in mathematics and science performance between white and black students. Major differences in the percent passing rate occur between black and white males in ooth suqect areas, and white and black females in science. The wide race-gender perfamance gap suhstantiates the need to strengthen how science is taught to ensure equal aa:ess t(Jl,\\lard progress in the a:re curriculum 2. Stanford Achievement Test. Eighth Editic\n11 Students in the Little Rock School District also take the Stanford Achievement Test each Spring. Stanford assesses achievement in all crntent areas - Reading, Mathematics, Language, Listening, Science, and Social Science. The Science subtest reflects the natirnal trend in science curriculum tOl,\\lard emphasizing crncepts ci science rather than isolated facts. HOl,\\lever, Stanford uses the traditirnal divisirns - physical science, aological science, and earth/space science as the vehicles fcr testing skills and understanding ci basic cx:mcepts. The prq)(rticns in which the areas of science are represented en the subtest reflect the emphasis each receives natirnally. In mathematics, Stanford has three suqects: Crncepts of Number, Mathematics Computatirn, and Mathematics Applicaticns. Special soores in using Infamation and Thinking Skills are derived from an evaluatirn ci responses students make to items embedded in several subtests such as Mathematic. Applicaticns, Science, Scx:ial Science, Language, and Reading Comprehension. Grade ~ght and nine belOl,\\I nam percentile sa:res for students enrolled in the three magnet junior high schools are sh(Jl,\\ln on the next page in Table 5 fer Mathematics, Science, Using Informatirn, and Thinking Skills. Results are expressed as the percent of students in quartiles rne and two who sa:red at er bel(Jl,\\I a specified percentile sa:re Tctal district percentile sa:res are used as a basis fer a:rnparisrn to individual school results. ~Ju~ ~.~~f k /1f'1-))__ C ~ 111...1) 20 G R A D E 8 9 8 9 8 9 8 9 Content Area by Quartiles DISTRICT N = 1669 N = 1625 SCHOOLS Cloverdale JH N =214 N = 199 Forest Heights JH N =205 N =210 Southwest JH N = 167 N = 183 TABLE 5 - Stanfcrd Achievement Test Spring 1992 Grades 8 and 9 Percentile Sccres Mathematics Science Usi~lnfo. Percentile score Percentile score Perce I e score 01 02 01 02 01 02 17 35 23 40 22 41 13 29 27 45 28 46 15 28 21 36 17 35 13 23 27 39 26 43 15 31 21 40 20 38 18 30 30 50 31 51 13 23 21 36 20 35 9 21 24 36 26 43 Quartile 2 - 50% c::i students sccred at er below these sccres Quartile 1 - 25% cf students sccred at cr'\u0026lt;-below these sccres Thinklnff Skills Percenti e score 01 02 20 40 23 41 17 34 21 55 15 35 22 43 17 28 20 36 Results indicate, except in rne inst~ that proposed magnet schools have sccres lower than the distrid:i~~ntrast to the Arkansas Minimum Proficiency Testing, students faired better in science than in mathematics. Spring 1992 was the first time the LRSD has given the Stanford Achievement Test. The percentile sccres shcmn in Table 5 will serve as baseline data fer develcping this magnet's student performance objectives in the academics. Need 2a2: The Underrepresentation c:i Mincrities in Science and Math The Congressirnally established Task Fcrce en Wcrnen, Mincrities, and the Handicapped in Science and Technology report, \"Olanging America: The New Face c::i Science and Engineering, N found that Blacks, who oomprise 12% of the U.S. pcpulation, make up just 2% cf all scientists and engineers. The findings are especially 21 unsettling considering changing demographics. Prqectirns indicate that by the year 2000, Blacks and Hispanics canbined will make up 47% of the American students enrdlment. As a result it is imperative that the naticn and local school districts take extraordinary steps to prepare minorities for greater levels d participatioo in scien~ math, and engineering. The Quality Educatirn for Mincrities Plan for improving science and mathematics instructioo nationally calls for quadrupling the number of minority students receiving bachelor's degrees in the sciences and engineering from 17,000 in 1987 to 68,000 by 2000 (Education Week, April 1992). In the Little Rock Schad District 68% of the grade 7-9 enrollment is Black. This is a 7% increase over 1987 figures. LRSD anticipates ca1tinued gains in the number/ percent d Black students. The critical issue of underrepresented minorities, i.e. Blacks, and the need to bing Blacks up to parity in performance and graduaticn rates, and in college enrdlment J is a goal d the LRSD as evidenced in the Pulaski Coun_!y Schg\n\u0026amp;D esegi-egation ~ ~ Case Sett! ement ans and Agreement: - fi.{j\n \"If any d the Incentive Schools remains racially identifiable (80% or more Black) after six years, LRSD has explicitly committed itself to continue providing compensatay and enhancement funding\" (refer to page 4).  \"If at any time between the date of this agreement and December 31, 2000, the c:anpa\nite scores d LRSD Black students (excluding special educatioo students) en a standardized test are 90% or greater of the composite scores of LRSD white students (excluding special educatioo students), the escrowed funds will be paid to LRSD and any ootstanding loans will be fa-given. The intent is that LRSD will rereive 20 millicn ddlars plus any accrued interest if its goal of increasing student achievement is reached and that the State will be repaid in full amoont d all loans plus interest if the LRSD does nct reach its goal (September 1989).\" * The magnet enrolls 1,571 Black students. Curriculum focuses ai math/science crntent as related to careers in the Aerospace industry. Additiooally, the magnet provides the student with nine (9) career ~tioos articulated to university programs. This magnet was putposefully designed to lay the foondation for later academic performance and interest in math and science related fields. Included in the design is career counseling. Career counseling will stress in the student selfworth, motivatirn, and commitment to accanplish personal goals in learning and in Aerospace career preparation. The schod district, industry, and higher educatioo believe this collaborative effort to devel~ a high tech, marketable skills magnet will cxntribute significantly to raising Black student acheivement in mathematics and science, and to increasing the number d black students receiving associate and bachelor degrees in engineering techndogy and airway science 22 Need 2b Developing Marketable Technical Skills \"America's once-rommandtng lead in the aitical technologies drivjng eccJ1cmic growth and natirnal sea.irity is seiously threatened by f ereign cx:mpetiters,\" the Council rn Competitiveness said in its repert Gaining New Ground: Technolqgy Pricrities fer America's Future. The term High-Tech is used to describe a wide variety d businesses and industry which include: aerospace, canputers and software, telecommunications, electrrnic comprnents, medical technology, instruments fer measuring and cootrolling manufacturing processes, energy, environmental, phctographic, lasers and optical, and data processing services. The Natirnal Center for Advanced Technologies (NCAD of the Aerospace Industries Associatirn (AIA) Key Technologies fer the Year 2000 Program have indentified these high-pricrity technologies:  Computatirnal Science  Sdtware Development  Advanced Metallic Structures  Advanced Composites  Superconductivity  Ultra- Reliable Electrrnic Systems  Artificial Intellegence  Airbreathing Propulsirn  Rocket Propulsion  Optical Information Processing  Advanced Sensors These technologies represent a shared view of U.S. technology requirements. Gitical technologies in Engineering Proouctirn and Electronic Canponents where the United States is falling behind cr will net have a presence are represented in Table 6 on the next page. ,. U.S. Departments of Commerce and Defen~ Wute House Office of Sdeice and Tromology (Refer to Appendix for definitions and list of contributing organizations. 23 TABLE 6: Technologies in Which the United States is Weak, La\ning Badly, or HAS LOST f F.ngineering and Pnxluctiai Tedmdcwes  Design for Manufacturing  Design ci Manufacturing Processes  Flexil::xe Manufacturing  High-Speed Machining  Precisioo Machining and Faming  Integratioo ci Research, I:Rsign, and Manufacturing  Integrated Orcuit Fabricatioo and Test Equipment  Robotics and Autc:mated Equipment  Tctal Quality Management Eedladc:Canp\u0026lt;Dents  Mem0ty Olips  Printed Circuit Board Technology  Optical Infcnnatioo Sterage  Multichip Packaging Systems  Liquid Ctystal Displays  Electro Statics Soorce: Camcil oo Canpetitiveness\npartial listing This infamation has implicatirns fer the need ci this magnet to - teach industrial relevant technology skills in state-of-the-art technology laboratories - place a heavy focus rn the application ci scientific kno.vledge - use engineers and technicians frcrn industry as instructors - provide industry-based learning experiences for students. Students in this magnet are primarily being trained as technicians. Technicians working with automated equipment must be familiar with beth software and hardware used by computers and microprocessers. The development, design, installatioo, calilYation, manufacture, assembly, and fabrication processes using sophisticated equipment, tools, machines, and ccmputers require a combination ci knowledge and skills extending far beyood the simple fail -safe mechanical devices ci a few decades ago The aera\npace industry and its array cf suppliers and sub-ccntracters are among tha\ne that will increasingly require technologically literate entty level werkers. The American Vocatiooal Association (AV A) and the Center fer Occupatiooal 24 Research and I:Rvelq:,ment (CORD) point out that technicians currently being prepared for entry in tancrrow's wcrk fcrce should possess several important characteristics. A few d these are highlighted bela.v because they have ramificatirns on the curriculum described later. 1. A BROAD KNOWLEDGE BASE: They must possess fundamental academic skills in reading, ccrnmunicating, computing, and applied science 2. COMPUTER LITERACY: Many high tech processes are ccmputerized. Thus workers should pa.sess a basic understanding d romputers and their applicatirns in manufacturing and management infamatirn systems. At base, students should have the kna.vledge necessary to access and use microprocesscrs er intelligent romputer terminals using canmerdally available sdtware packages. 3. AWARENESS OF A RAPIDLY CHANGING WORK ENVIRONMENT: Develq:,ments in CAD (ccrnputer aided design) and CAM (computer aided manufacturing) alrng with advances in teleccrnmunicatirns, integrated circuits, laser/ q:,tics and other ccrnputer applicatirns assure that techndogy will continue to grow and expand. Thus, technical wcrkers require a broad base in technical and mathematical kna.vledge so that they can learn new techndogies and assimilate new infamatirn after they are employed. 4. UNDERSTANDING OF A SYSTEMS ORIENTATION: Modern manufacturing techniques are canprised d ccrnplex inter-related systems of electriq:tl, electrcnic, pneumatic, hydraulic, thermal, and optical devices. People who wcrk with such equipment need a broad understanding d such systems. Specialists in each d these fields will still be required, but a grasp d the overall systems d prcxiuc:tirn will be impcrtant. This grasp calls fer an interdisciplinary approach to training. Ji L v-  ~I.,(, \\..A-1 1 l v- v-,,p With the diversity of high technologies, the need fer new courses is great. This l_.,wl ,1r_ will require LRSD to integrate technologies and new rontent into existing courses .) ~\\?, 7 as well as create specialized courses of study. Some examples in this magnet are \u0026gt;(C,.,.V\u0026lt;/ . Computer-aided Design (CAD) Applications, Lego Logo Robotics, High Tech Presentatirns, Airway Science Curriculum, and Quantitative Literacy fer Aerospace Althoogh LRSD has prepared course descriptions and outlines (refer to appendix), additirnal ccntent outlining lalxratcry and design prqects need to be develq:,ed with aera.pace/ aviatirn representatives and the university. Flight and space ccncepts need to be infused into the new science curriculum thus creating the aerospace science course of study. In additirn, course rontent needs to be incxrporated into an assessment design that measures actual student performance In academic and work-based learning requirements. 25 r Need 2c: Emplqyment and Training Needs in the Aerospace Industry Today in oor coontry there is a critical need for highly-skilled state-ct-the-art technicians in the aeraspac:e industry. Acccrding to testimrny by the Arkansas Aerospace Task Ferce, \"The greatest challenge is to create an educated workferce able to rapidly meet the needs ci the-industry. Although there will always be a need fer specialized training, in the Ieng term much can be dene to better prepare students fer employment. Education is our largest investment in Arkansas and that investment prcperly focused can be oor most significant advantage CNer other states.\" This statement parallels the disturl:ing finding of the U.S. Laoor ~partment's Secretary's Commission en Achieving Necessary Skills (SCANS): \"Mere than half ct all yoong pecple leave schcd withoot the skills needed fer productive employment. These yoong people will face the bleak prospect ct dead-end job after dead-end job interrupted only by periods ci unemployment\" (Education Wee\u0026lt;, May 1992). Acccrding to the Naticnal Center rn Educaticn and the Eca1crny, the average skill level ci graduates not boond fer cdlege is the functirnal equivalent ct aoout a 7th er 8th grade achievement level. M,st at risk are students in the so-called general and vocational \"tracks.\" Because employers generally aren't interested in the CX)Urses job applicants have taken er the grades they have earned, these students have little incentive to take toogh academic dasses er to earn high marks. As a result, high schcx:i beccrnes a holding tank fer those not gang rn to cdlege. Researchers ~dying the werkferce pant to an crninoos sign: good jobs - the kind that cifer reasonable pay and the cppcrtunity to advance aloog a career ladder - are gradually being shut off to students fresh oot ci school. The most prominant explanation fer such findings is that while the skill and knowledge requirements fer entry and advancement in the werkf erce are rising, graduates are not being prepared to meet increased demands. \"New werkers must be creative and responsible problem solvers and have the skills and attitudes en which employers can ooild,\" ac:ccrding to the SCANS Commission. \"Traditicnal jobs are changing and neo.v jobs are created everyday. High paying, but unskilled jobs are disappearing. What the Cornmissien calls \"high-perfcrmance\" werkplaces are mere flexible and custcrner oriented. Schcds must teach the skills peq,le need to be productive and adaptable werkers.\" A commitment to meet this challenge was adopted in a resolutien by the Board of Directers ct the Oty ci Little Rock to use eccncrnic develcpment funds to develcp an Aerospace Museum and Educatien Center. Resolutirns pertinent to the employment and training need fer this magnet are stated below: Wh~ the city c1 little Rak has maintained an eamanic develqxnenl fund so that the city can enmurage and punch: the mainhnanm d jd:B\nand 26 Whereas cities and stales throughout DD' natiaa am:inue to use funds fer eamanic dew:iq:xueul to parde the aealiai and maintenancE d jdls\nand Whereas, the df through its F.ananic Develq:xaa:nl Rmd made avail.tie S3 rnilliai to faalilale the aeali\u0026lt;n d nue 1han 300 jdJs at Alkansas h1n\npac E: .and Whereas_ dtizens and busines.,gs have j\u0026lt;ined qelher to plan fer an .MNifa::E wauseum and the little Km .Akt\"iMP 1\"edmdogy Magnet Smod (ailectivdy the ABOSifMP Cenla1 as part d the little Km .Aitpml area cxnp~ and Whereas_ the df will benefit and he strengthened by an Ae11t5_1ae Center to enable \u0026lt;Dr dtizens to be trained fer jdJs in the relaled aeu asiae industry which is growing in little Rock.. Two SCANS repc:rts outline the skills students should be taught and what needs to be done to effectively teach them. In additirn to the foundation skills (refer to page 5), there is a set ci five canpetencies that are at the core of job perfamance. Acea-ding to SCANS these will be needed ci all graduates, both the college-bo,md and those directly entering the werkferce. The five werkplace competencies are described below:  Resain::es Employees need to be able to identify, organize, plan, and all~te resources (such as time, mcney, materials and facilities, and human resoorces).  lnh:iperscnal skills.. Employees should be able to werk effectively with others. Examples are the abilities to participate as a member ci a team, teach others new skills, serve clients or rustomers, exercise leadership, negotiate, and werk with diverse people  Informal:iai.. Employees need to be able to acquire, evaluate, interpret, and canmunicate informatirn, as well as to use ccmputers to process information.  Systems. Employees must understand how social, erganizational, and techndogical systems werk and cperate effectively within them They must mc:niter and ccrrect performance, improve the quality ci products and services in existing systems and develcp new er alternative systems.  Tedmdqw. Employees must be able to judge which sets of procedures, tools, er machines, including ccmputers and their programs, will produce the desired results. They must be able to set up and cperate ccmputers and their programming systems as well as maintain and troobleshoot techndogy. 27 The Ccmmissioo's plan as detailed in America's Oloice High Skills cr Low Wages also reccmmends that: All students must meet a natiaial slandd d educalicmal exa!lleDJe by age 16 er som thaeaftei. Sludents passing a series d pedamanoe-based asM\n,smenls that retied: the slandard would receive a Certificate d Initial M.may. Nier receiving the c:ntificm\n. sludents would moa\ne to go to work. enter a a:flege-ptp pog,aa-, er sludy fer a technical er pdessicmal astificale.. In this magnet's prqect design, the SCANS ccmpetendes will be inrorpcrated into the mathematic., science and technical courses of stupy as well as the design for measuring student performance and the attainment d this magnet's program oqectives. The change this magnet envisions will require additiooal resoorces through the funding of this prqect. Amrng the most impcrtant will be investments in curriculum writing, teacher training, technology and instructional material including oomputer-based and multimedia material. To address the employment and technical training needs, Little Rod\u0026lt;'s Aeraspace Campaign Leadership and Industry has turned to LRSD, UALR, and Hendersoo State University to develc:p a better student. With the assistance of the United States Department of Educatioo and the Little Rode Aeraspace Campaign Leadership and industries, LRSD beleives it can provide a state-a-the-art technology-driven Mathematics, Airway Science and Engineering Magnet Program which meets the purpases, pricrities, and special CCJ1sideratioos d the MSAP as well as addresses the national imperative to maintain a wcrldwide ccmpetitive lead in techndogy. Progtan Goal 2 To strengthen the knowledge d Academic Ccntent and to develc:p marketable technical skills d students in project magnet schools. Objective 2.a1: Perfcrmance Assessment: Aerospace Science/ Applied Mathematics Integration By the condusioo d the prqect period at least 80% of the grade 7-12 students enrolled in the magnet school program will have ccmpleted with minimum ccmpetencya the LRSD Performance Based Assessment administered the first week d May. a Minimum ccmpetency will be defined as an average d at least 70% 28 Objective 2.a.2: Performance Assessment By the conlusioo cf the prqect period in 1995, at least 80% of the grade 7-12 students enrolled in the magnet program will sccre at or aoove an established proficiency sccre oo each ct two (2) LRSD/SCANS Know-How Performance Based Assessment repc:rts. The extent to which this objective is met will be determined by teacher reccrds and verified by the site magnet Assistant Principal. aMinimum proficiency will be defined as at least a 2 for each Airway Science and Engineering Techndogy course using the fdlowing scale: Proficiency Level Performance Benchmark 1. Preparatory 2. Werk-ready 3. Intermediate 4. Advanced 5. Specialist Objective 2.~ Pcrtfdio Assessment By the condusicn cf the project period, 80% ci the grade 7-12 students enrdled in the magnet schod program will sccre at er abo,.,e an established oompetencya sccre en each cf foor ( 4) teacher and student selected SCANS Integrated Assignments. One repcrt cr assignment must be selected fran each of the four (4) major areas. The extent to which this objective is met will be determined by teacher records and verified by the site magnet Assistant Principal. aMinimum canpetency will be defined as an average ci at least 2 oo each repcrt using the fdlo.ving scale: 4 Well beyond expectatirns fcr grade level\nextracrdinary. 3 Does better than expectaticns fcr grade level\nc:cmpetent/fluent. 2 At level er average performance fcr grade level\nappears canfcrtable with demands ci prc,ect. 1 Approoching average performance for this grade level\nsome skill/ comprehensicn acquired. 0 Novice\nno evidence of relevant skill/ ccmprehension 29 Computer Technology 1. Word Processing/ Keyboarding - Using proper keyboarding and editing skills to produce documents. 2. Graphic Design: Using the graphic program to produce graphics. 3. Communicaticns: Using speaking, writing, video a- hypermedia to express an idea. 4. Programming: Being able to write a set ci instructicns in the hypermedia or LEGO/ LOGO environments. and Technd CJSY Lab 2000 1. 2. 3. 4. and Aerospace Science 1. Scientific Method - Experimental Design: Given a questicn or a problem, students will fcrmulate a hypcthesis, design an experiment, observe and draw a:nclusions frcm the data 2. Process Skills: Canparing, organizing, categcrizing, relating, inferring, applying. 3. Computer Technology fa- Scientific Purpa\nes: Having a product that reflects the use ci computers, laser discs, VCR's, calatlators, and science equipment. 4. Self-Assessment/Self-Esteem: Student and teacher selected wcrk will be placed in individual student pcrtfdias. and Airway Science 1. 2. 3. 4. 30 or Engineering Techndogy 1. 2. 3. 4. Objective 2.c: Program Effectiveness During June d each prtject year, at least 80% d the parents, students, and teachers will rate the fdlowing items \"effective'' oo a locally developed survey:  breadth d curria.1lum  program quality  parent training  teacher training  use of community resources  program ccntributions to career options  improved student achievement  positive ccntributioo to student career plans 31 Quality of Project Design The project includes the fdlawing topics: A Overview: School, Program and Curriculum Organizaticn 1. The Visicn of the Redesigned Junia- High and High School 2. Teacher and Student Organizatirn 3. Flexil:ie Scheduling 4. SCANS KnCJW-How Integratirn 5. Applied Mathematics, Scienre, and Communication Skills 6. Computer Technology and the Computer Techndogy Laboratcry 7. Engineering Techndogy 8. Airway Science 9. Work-Based and Wcrk-Site Learning and Experience 10. Infcrmaticn and Guidance B. Aerospace Technology in Grades Seven and Eight (Junior High Level) 1. Content Knowledge in Mathematics 2. Content Knowledge in Scienre 3. Content KnCJWledge in Canputer Techndogy 4. The Techndogy Lab 2000 Curriculum Integration Center 5. Career Development C Aerospace Technology in Grades Nine Throogh Twelve (High School) 1. Content Knowledge in Mathematics, Science, Canmunicatirn, and Canputer Techndogy 2. Content Knowledge in Engineering Techndogy 3. The Techndogy Lab 2000: Concurrent Engineering 4. Content Knowledge in Airway Science 5. Workplace Readiness and Industry/ Business Internships D. The Aviatirn Museum Educatia, Department Docent Program 1. Courses d Instructia, 2. The Libraty 3. School Visitatia, Program 4. Planetarium 5. Imax Theater E. Instructirnal Approaches and Assessment of Student Performance 1. Learning in Context 2. Product Development Teams/Cooperative Learning 3. The Pcrtfdio 4. Perfcmance-Based Assessment F. The Staff Training Plan G. The Aviation Museum Educatiooal Resoorre Center fa- Teachers H. The Planning Canpooent to Develcp Aera.pace Technology Magnet Curriculum fer the High Sd1od I. Bringing Students Fran Different Backgroonds Together J. Staff Experience in and Kncmledge d Curriculum Development and Desegregation Strategies K Addressing Educatiooal Needs Appropriate to Students Enrdled L Parental Decisirn-Making and Jnvdvement Each tcpic is described in detail after the CJ11erview to this sectioo. I n t e g r a t i 0 n  Technology Lab2000  SCANS Know-How  TOM  Worksite Leaming Experience  Occupational Certification  Authentic Assessment Aerospace I echnology Program Magnet Course Sequence Junior High School Grade7 Aerospace Mathematics Aerospace Science Japanese, German, Russian, Spanish, or French  Integrated Software Applications (.5)  Logowriter Robotics (.5) Grade8 Applied Mathematics I or Technical Algebra I  Aerospace Science Japanese, German, Russian, Spanish, or French Hypercard/Hypermedia  Aerospace Pre-CAD (.5)  Career Development (.5) High School Grade9 Grade 10 Grade 11 Grade 12  Applied Mathematics II  Descriptive Geometry Technical Algebra II  Quantitative Literacy for or Descriptive or Technical Algebra II or Advanced Algebra/ Aerospace or Calculus Geometry Trigonometry  Aerospace Physical  Descriptive Astronomy \u0026amp; Japanese, German, Science or Chemistry  Aerodynamics (.5) \u0026amp; Physical Geology Russian, Spanish, or Meteorology (.5) or French Japanese, German, Physics Applied Communications Russian, Spanish, or Aerospace Biology French Japanese, German, Japanese or German or Russian, Spanish, or Russian or Spanish or Intro Aeronautics/Lab Computer-Aided French French a Design Applications Intro. to Computer or Manufacturing Engineering Private Pilot Cert/Lab Science Manufacturing Tech. II a Engineering or Air Traffic Control Intro. to Concurrent Technology I Electronics Engineering or Engineering a Technology.CAD II Powerplant Systems or Electronic Engineering or or Machine Shop Technology.CAD I Advanced Computer- Aerodynamics + Perf. Technology a Aided Design Applications a a Programming or Programming for  General Aviation Language I, II Aircraft Systems Theory Engineering Majors or or or  Hi-Tech Presentations Aircraft Systems Theory Aircraft Powerplant Theory Fabrication Design or or Project Powerplant Theory Fortran.Cobol or \u0026amp; Maintenance a Mechanical Systems DP Electric Circuit Analysis or  Workplace Readiness Manufacturing Design (.5) Aviation Safety Project Legislation/Air or  Hi-Tech Presentations Transportation Assembler Language \u0026amp; Operating Systems  Airway Science or Engineering Technology Airway Science or Internship I Engineering Technology (Industry-based) Internship II (Industry-based) Little Rock School District Aerospace Technology Magnet Program Prepared by Gail Quinn October 1992 The Little Rock School District's Magnet Schools Assistance grant applicaticn presents a dynamic plan fcr implementation of a grade 7-12 Aerospace Technology Magnet Program in three (3) junior high schcds and the new Aerospace Educatioo Center. The Center comhnes a museum of aviaticn histcry with a grade 7-12 Aerospace Technology School en a 19.8 acre tract at the Little Rock Regicnal Airpcrt adjacent to the main terminal, Falcon Jet, and Arkansas Aerospace. Collabcratively develcped with the Aerospace industriesa\u0026gt; and Campaign Leadershipb\u0026gt;, four universitiesc\u0026gt; and the U.S. Department d Educaticn Federal Aviaticn Adrninistraticn (FAA), this magnet program targets the readying of students fcr immediate employment and/ er postsecondary education in either engineering technology cr airway science. As illustrated belON, students are provided a wide range cl choices fer career develcpment in ooe of nine areas at an entry, technician, cr prciessional level: Aerospace Engineering Technology Aviation Airway Science (FAA)  Manufacturing  Airway Canputer Science  Computer Science  Airway Science Management  Mechanical  Aircraft Maintenance  Electronics  Aircraft Systems  Professional Pild: Majcr Arkansas aerospace employers and the FAA have identified technological occupaticns and the skill base students need for future employment. LRSD has incorpcrated the skill base into a highly integrated program/course sequence ccnsisting d Academic lnstructioo, Work-Based Leaming, Wcrksite Experience, and Information and Gui dance. All magnet students will take a canmon academic ccre of sequenced courses which indude six years d applied mathematics and science (more than required for graduation) keyed to product engineering and flight/space roncepts, two er more years d a language significant to our global canpetitive marketplace such as Japanese er German\nand Applied Canmunication. In canputer netwcrked laboratcries, students will access and control content, applicaticns, and infcrmaticn in the areas d robotics, bio astronautics, systems simulatioo, CAD/ CAM, publishing, wcrd processing, telecommunications, material science, and aerodynamics. Students will produce presentaticn material try importing soond, graphics, digitized phctographs to hypercard er laserdisc stacks cl their CM'n creatioo. In Science, students will conduct hands-on investigations, manipulate scientific instruments, and collect/ analyze data a) Arkansas Aa-ospac~ Rohr Industries, Falcon Jet, Midcoast, Cmtral Hying Service b) tv1embership attached c) Universities of Arkansas at Little Rock and Pine Bluff, Hmderson State University, Southern Arkansas Unive-sity TECH. using the critic.al thinking skills ct observatioo, canmunicating, wmparing, crdeting, c.ategorizing, relating, inferring, and applying. Specialized curricula related to each ct the nine career opticns has been developed to meet oca.tpation specific kno.vledge and emerging techndogy requirements. Students will be trained on the job throogh partidpatioo in industry and airpcrt-based internship programs. All students will be educated to higher levels than ever betcre. The vehicle for occupaticnal certificatirn is achievement ct the U.S. Department of Labcr's SCANS (Secretary's Canmissirn ct Achieving Necessary Skills) five workplace ccrnpetencies, e.g. Resources, Interperscnal Skills, Infcrmation, Systems, and Technology\nand the earning of Certificates ci Initial Mastery (CIM). An assessment system based en SCANS Kno.v-Ho.v and cumulative resume, which reports results, will be the permanent reard ct genuine student attainment of CIM and future employment. In addition, program canpletion in a cnosen oc:cupaticnal majcr will enatle students to receive advance university credit and ca,tinuatirn of the engineering er airway science c.areer track throogh associate ct science and baccalaureate degree programs. As yoo ca,sider the fine merits of this highly cdlaoorative magnet program, please keep in mind the thoosands ct students it will enable to gain state-of-the-art techndogic:al skills, enca.1rage to cootinue their education throogh Artirulaticn Agreements, and to fill key manufacturing and FAA jobs so vital to the future ct this nation to canpete in the wcrld market. Student Progression in the Aerospace Technology Magnet \"Linking the Curricular Path to Work\" Level I - Aerospace Education Center Grades 7-12  Engineering Technology or  Airway Science \u0026amp; Professional Pilot Level II - Advanced \u0026amp; Specialized Training  Southern Arkansas University TECH - Associate of Applied Science Degree and/or Advanced Certificates (one year after Associate Degree) - Aviation Maintenance  UALR - Electronics Engineering Technology - Mechanical Engineering Technology Level Ill - Baccalaureate Programs  UALR - Manufacturing Engineering - Computer Engineering  Henderson State University - Aircraft Systems Management  - Professional Pilot - Airway Science Management - Airway Computer Science Entry-Level Employment  Support Analyst  Quality Analyst  CAD Operator  Hazardous Material Specialist Technical Careers  Associate Engineer  Tool Designer  Quality Technician  Hazardous Material T earn Leader Professional Careers  Production Engineer  Manufacturing Engineer  Liaison Engineer  Design Engineer  Quality Engineer  Environmental Engineer Quality of Project Design The project includes the fdlowing topics: A Oveiview: The Aera\npace Techndogy Currirulum 1. Applied Science and Science Labcratcry 2. Applied Mathematics 3. Computer Technology and the Computer Tedmdogy Laboratcry 4. Fcreign Languages 5. Engineering Techndogy 6. Aviation 7. SCANS Know-HCJN 8. Work-Based and Werk-Site Leaming and Experience B. Aerospace Technology in Grades Seven and Eight (Junior High Level) 1. Content Knowledge in Mathematics 2. Content Knowledge in Science 3. Content l\u0026lt;nCJNledge in Canputer Techndogy 4. The Techndogy Lab 2000 Cunirulum Integration Center 5. Infcrmatioo and Guidance C Aerospace Technology in Grades Nine and Ten 1. Content KnCJNledge in Mathematics, Science, and Computer Technology 2. Content l\u0026lt;nCJNledge in Engineering Techndogy 3. The Techndogy Lab 2000: Scientific Literacy Center 4. Content Knowledge in Airway Science 5. Workplace Readiness and Industry/ Business Internships D. Instructiooal Approaches and Assessment of Student Performance 1. Leaming in Context 2. Product Develcpment Teams/Cooperative Leaming 3. The Pcrtfdio 4. Perfanance-Based Assessment E. Teacher and Student Organizatioo F. Flexible Scheduling G. The Aviatioo Museum Educatioo Department Docent Program 1. Courses d Instructioo 2. The Library 3. School Visitatioo Program 4. Planetarium 5. Imax Theater H. The Staff Training Plan 1 The Aviation Museum Educaticnal Reso..irce Center fer Teachers J. The Planning Canpcnent to Develcp Aerospace Techndogy Magnet Curriculum fer the High School K Bringing Students Fran Different Backgra.mds Together L. Staff Experience in and Knowledge ci Curriculum Development and Clesegregation Strategies M Addressing Educatiooal Needs Appropriate to Students Enrdled N. Parental ~sioo-Making and Involvement Each tcpic is described in detail after the overview to this secticn. A Overview What fdlows is a comprehensive summary ci the Aerospace Technology curridum As sho.vn in the crganizaticnal chart below, the Aerospace Techndogy Magnet is crganized into two occupational program majers of nine career tracks and an interrelated academic and techndogy core of requirements oonsisting of Applied Mathematics and Science, and Canputer Techndogy. The Aerospace Technology Curriculum Elective Elective Integration Core Integration Aviation Applied Engineering  Airway Science Science Technology Airway Computer  Manufacturing Engineering Science Applied Technology Airway Science Mathematics Management * *  Electronics Engineering Aircraft Systems Computer Technology Management Technology  Computer Engineering Aviation Maintenance Technology  Professional Pilot Foreign Language  Mechanical Engineering Technology 2 A structured sequence ci courses has been specifically designed fer each ci the three curricular canponents to enhance participants' prospects for immediate emplayment er continued education following high sch-ool graduation. All magnet students in grades seven through ten will participate in applied mathematics and science, and a::mputer technology roursework each year. This means that magnet students will take one mere year ct math and two more years of science than is required for high schod graduation. All magnet students have the optim of beginning f ereign language instructim in grade 7, 8, er 9 in me language ci their chace. This allOvVs for six years of coocentrated study ct a global language. Magnet students will select either the Aviatim er Engineering Techndogy Occupational Magnet program majer and a career track within the selected occupational area upm entering grade nine. The magnet student will then fdlOIN the specialized coorse sequence throogh grade 12, thereby rompleting the program in his/her cx:cupational program majer. The chart m the cpposite page ootlines the curriculum bf camprnents and grade levels fer the entire grade 7-12 aera\npace magnet. Grade 7-10 coorse sequences wi111 be implemented during the two year MSAP prqect period (1993-95). Grade 10 students will cootinue the curricular path as eleventh graders in 1995-96 and as twelfth graders in 1996-97. The latter two years (1995-97) are not MSAP prqect years fer this particular application, theref er~ rourses intrcx:iuced during these two years will be desaibed in the Canmitment and Capacity section of this application. The magnet's articulated coorse sequences in Mathematics and Science, Aviation, and Engineering Techndogy are designed fer students to romplete in advance some requirements tOvVard receipt ct Federal Aviatirn Administration (FAA) certificates, and/ er Associate ct Applied Science or Bachelor ct Science degrees. 1. Applied Science and Science Labcrata:y Aerospace Science cootent will be presented in coonectirn with its applications in aviation/space, design and production technology, and environment protection. This will be accomplished throogh the recrganization ct the district's science curriculum and the aerrnpace science applications (refer to Appendix) to themes. Themes are ideas that integrate the crncepts of different scientific disciplines. Camecting the impcrtant science cmcepts between existing curriculum and aerospace science with science themes will improve students' al:ility to make more meaningful the relatiooships between science ccncepts and other related disciplines. Amrng the majer themes that will be used are thrne discussed in Science Fer All Americans: * Chapter 11, Common Themes, p. 155. See Appendix. 3  Systems  Constancy  Patterns ct Change  Scale  Model  Evolution Table 1 represents a pattern fer a crntent matrix that will be filled in with crncepts and thematic ideas. Table 1 - A Pattern for a Content Matrix Grade 7 8 9 10 Physical Science General Science Earth Science Life Science Aerospace Science A vlatlorv Product Enviamar1al Space Engineering Issues Unifying Concepts Theme(s) Subconcepts The magnet's science teacher specialists will use the pattern fer a ccntent matrix to design the sccpe and sequence ct the Aerospace Science rurriculum (grades 7-8) Aerospace Biology (grade 9) Aerospace Physical Science (grade 10) in ccnjunction with the district's General Science and Biology curriculum. Building the matrix will require that magnet teacher specialists have a ccncentrated peticxi ct time free from teaching responsibilities. This application asks for curriculum writing time during the summers and after school hours to develop the matrix in collabcratioo with the universities and industry. Implementation of the matrix will be enhanced ~ student investigatioo and experimentatioo in a lalx\u0026gt;ratoty setting. This program also requires a science labcratcry at each magnet site for students to experience hands-oo activities keyed to the matrix. The lab:\u0026gt;ratcry will be set-up to indude scientific equipment and materials, fifteen ccrnputers and canputer interface ooxes, probeware, and software packages that will allo.v students to simulate experienres and use ccmputer utilities (spreadsheet, graphing programs, database, wcrd processing). The district is asking fer magnet program assistance to enable its tiack students and inccming white students to participate together in these specially-designed experiences. The lab will be staffed by a prtject-hired science teacher specialist who will be a member cf ooe of the magnet's Science/Math/TECH instructional teams. This instructiooal team will direct each ci its four teams of 30 magnet students in the labcratcry per the flexible schedule described oo page __ . To determine impcrtant aspects of lalxratory implementatioo major goals have been estaliished. These are student attainment cf: Manipulative and ccmmunicative skills to indude the manipulation of materials and equipment, and the collecticn/organizatioo/canmunication cf information fran labcratcry experiments and activities Ratiooal and creative thinking prcx:esses throogh observing and ca1ducting statistical procedures, through collecting, classifying, and measuring oqects\nthrough indentifying and ccntrdling variables in ca1trolled experiments This goal invdves students in learning the scientific precesses cf observing, ccmmunicating, ccmparing, crganizing, relating, and applying. The district envisioos the follo.ving scenario as to ooe way magnet students will learn in the special science laooratory: The Aerospace science teacher specialist prC1vides an interactive video disc presentation describing gravity as fcrce. Because it is hooked to a ccmputer program, the infcrmatioo on the disk will be acressed in a variety cf ways (e.g., nm-linear). Throughout the viewing cf the video, students will disruss gravity and fcrmulate answers to fellow students' questions alx\u0026gt;ut gravity oo ether planets in our solar system. To prC1vide them with additiooal infcrmatioo, the stuaents will have acx:ess to 1) the Aerospace Educatioo Center films, 2) university programs, and 3) a variety d ether infcrmaticn sources availa}je through satellite canmunicatioos netwcrks. Werking in teams, students will use a variety d ccmputer programs to simulate gravity in various envircnments, logging infcrmation about each envircnment into a spreadsheet using the graphing functicn. They will use a werd processcr to reccrd and analyze their observatirns. Students will use teleccmmunicaticns sdtware to seek advice from a NASA scientist aoout findings fran their simulation studies and the relationship between these simulations and actual NASA expediticns. They will prepare a 1:rief video presentaticn, desaihng their experiences, to help other students understand gravity. The skills to implement videodisc instructicn and authcring programs will be taught in the Integrated Sdtware Applicaticns and Hypermedia canputer rourses. 2. Applied Mathematics As displayed in the Applied Mathematics box of the chart on page ---, all grade 7 magnet students will take Aera\npace :Mathematics. Beginning in grade 8, two course sequence routes are depicted: A Applied Mathematics I (8) Applied :Mathematics II (9) Descriptive Geometry (10) Technical Algetra (11) Quantitative Literacy fer Aerospace (12) ~ Technical Algebra I (8) Descriptive Geanetry (9) Technical Algetra II (10) Advanced Algebra/Trigonanetry (11) Calculus (12) Course sequence A was devised fer learners who have generally an eighth-grade, pre-algetra mathematics canpetency level. Course sequence B captures the student whose perfamance indicates readiness fer algel:ra in grade 8. Beth ca.trses ccntain required ccntent knowledge which is supplemented by engineering er aviation related skills and activities. The engineering and aviaticn applications have been developed with industry and university persrnnel, are relevant to careers emphasized in this program, and are linked to the Aerospace Science and occupational curriculum Coorse content is described en pages __ . 3. Computer Technology and the Computer Technology Laooratory Course ccntent in Integrated Sdtware Applicaticns, Logowriter Robotics, Hypercard/Hypermedia, J\\eraspace Pre-CAD, and Hi-Tech Presentaticn will give students the background of knowledge and skills needed to be competent computer users in the Engineering Technology and Airway Science CCA.Jrsevvork\nin the Technology Lab 2000\nand at the worksite. Ccmputer CCA.Jrse content reflects a sequential program d skill development and task cornplexity involving the learning of sdtware applications, specific programs, and multimedia equipment. To implement the CCA.Jrsework, this magnet program requires a canputer laboratory at the individual magnet sites. Ccmputer coorsework will require ooe cornputer per student in a class. To accanodate the typical grade 7-10 class size, 30 ~dntosh LC Irs, 3 Laserwriter H's and 2 Imagwriter Ir s, Telecanmunications hardware/scttwar~ a Macintosh Quadra file server system, and Appletalk Network (Ethernet) hardware will be needed for each lab. All programs will be stored en the Quadra fileserver. Printers, the Quadra file server, and individual Macintosh computers will be crnnected together into a network system. Via the network, students will ac:ce$ and crntrd cootent, applications, and infamatioo in the areas d systems simulatioo, word processing, Lego LogQ rolxrtics, and puliishing. They will produce their own presentatioo material by importing soond, graphics, digitized phctographs to hypercard or laserdisc stacks d their own c:reatioo, and receive supporting visual imagery oo adjacent video menitors. The local network will allow teachers and students to share files, sdtwar~ and printers. In additioo, classrooms within the school, the foor magnet schools, and the museum will be tied in together to the Prgect Directcr's Office allowing for additional network services like electronic mail and database sharing that will be widely utilized for collaborative projects amoong the Aerospace Magnet Schools. Educational benefits of the Aerospace ~gnet Network include:  Group document editing and management (student and teacher prgects).  Screen sharing giving the Project Director and teacher the capal:ility to view any Macintosh monitor en the network.  Central database fer sdtware documents, and aerospace magnet information.  Calendaring fer magnet and museum events.  Electronic Mail to speed up communicatioo and reduce paper. Hypermedia, Hi-Tech Presentatioo CCA.Jrse hardware requirements indude an Apple One Scanner, Apple CD 150, Videodisc Player, Mac:reccrders, Video recorders, Camccrders, Video Digitizer, Roster Opps Board, and speakers. This hardware will be erganized en teacher and student werkstations. The cornputer curriculum goals and objectives statements found en page ---, and project ootlines located in the appendix illustrate how students will apply knowledge/skills attained within the district and aerospace technology curriculum in multimedia, team projects. The lessoo design and project ootlines spell out the suqect area a:mcepts er skill extensioos, the sdtware program and applicatioo, student team activities, and product. Fer example, 7 students will use ccmputer applicatirns in spreadsheets to answer \"What If?\" questioos, to test hypctheses, and to ca,struct fa-mu las pertaining to mathematical and logical functirns. Students will express ideas via wcrd processing and create simulatioos ci varioos situatioos using hypercard. In progamming, students will produce output in text, graphics, and robct actioos. They will use numeric and variables, arithmetic operates, and design appropriate erra- tapping rootines. Instruction in the canputer coursewa-k and integrated curricular team projects will cane fran a Canputer Tedmdogy Specialist who will be a TECH member ci the Science/ Math/TECH lnstructa- Team Canputer Techndogy Specialists will use a single canputer with a large TV as a demoostratioo device. They will preplan lessons en the canputer and will reccrd the lessa, using the VCR The lessa, will be presented to students to actively invdve them in disrovery learning. Lesson segments may be replayed a- stepped as needed for discussicn and clarificaticn. Video benefits students' conceptual understanding ci mathematics and science applicaticns. Real object or events can be shown fran several angles, perspectives, a-ders ci magnification and pcints ci view, such as flipping and rctating shapes in geanetty. Video animation lessoos and canputer graphics will especially be used to introduce, explain, er reinfa-ce roncepts. Prier lessen planning using the canputer, TV screen, and VCR enable the teacher to better mcnita- and adjust the learning fa students and to give individualized help as needed during the lessoo. The canputer techndogy instructicnal schedule will consist cl eight, 50-60 minute periods that will interface with the magnet block \"flexible\" schedule ootlined on page ---. The romputer lal:xratrny will be cpened fa students to use befa-e schod and at lunch. After schod the romputer lab will be used fer parent education. The Macintosh Product Registry (September 1992) program descriptioos, (in crnsultatioo with expert users), was used to identify software utility programs. All software programs prier to purchase will be previewed by magnet teacher specialists in crnjunction with the Aera\npace Techndogy curriculum. Scitware evaluation forms specially-designed for this prqect will be ccmpleted to document curriculum relevance and prcblern-sdving capablities. 4. Fa-eign Language Japanese, Russian, German, French, and Spanish will be cifered beginning in grade 7. Currently, the rore curriculum for grades seven and eight does net emphasize foreign language. The high school currirulum requires 2 years of the same language The Aera\npace Techndogy Curriculum, thereto-~ is providing students with the cppatunity to start a modem language early to h,M,ulU1i:11\\\nLi.,1 o iyt oou ,1 a u p ::\nec1an1es LRSD Occupational Areas of Focus Computer-Aided Design/Drafting Product Engineering Environmental Quality Assurance Job Descriptions Product Engineering Definition: The Implementation ot all phases of manufacturing  product and tooling design, eost, detail production and operation plans, systems and procedureshnethods, quality a11urance methods, materials and process specificatlons, and problem resolution. Job Description: Production Engineers administer tool and manufacturing practices for a major project and/or product lines. At the technical level emphasis Is on design analysis, performance analysis, systems and procedures reviews, general problem investigation, and materials and prooen Investigations. At the entry lewl, efforts are directed to audit and control support. Entry-level  Support Analyst Technlcal Associate Engineer Profelonal Produc:tlon Engineer  Manufacturing Engineer Uaison Engineer Computer Aided Design Appllcationa Definition: Computer Aided Design applications include the use of advanced computer tools to create the unique geometry of the product as well u special tool use (CAE) to determine the adequacy of that design under specific oonditions. Job Description: CAD~AE Engineers utilize computerized workstations to create unique designs of or associated with product geometry. These staff members are usually skilled design engineers who create the product design In real time on the system. The position for this entry level effort Is related to copying or repeating existing product designs using this same workstation. The operator wiN also be trained In the use ol a CAE tool to perform analysis of design articln and gather critical  design data. All of this work Is under the direction of senior design engineers and submitted to them for approval. Entry~evel  CAD Operator Specialist Technical Protslonal Tool Designer  Design Engineer Quality Asaurance Definition: The degree ot conformance by an Item to governing criteria specifications reflect company or contractual inspection requirements for specific materials, parts, or assemblies. Job Description: To provide manufacturing or engineering support tasks in accordance with customer, company, or government product quality specifications and requirements. Entry-MY91  Quality Analyst Environmental Technical Ouaity Technician ProfNelonal  Quality Engineer Definition: Compliance with Federal, state, local, and company safety, health, and environmental regulations. Job Description: Environmental Engineers assist, In development of environmental protection programs and operations as well u enhancement of employee and management awareness of environmental needs and objectives. They provide llalson for organizational representatives to the community and Industry on environmental activities. Al the technical and entry level efforts are directed to plant-wide hazardous waste handling and associated documentation regarding transporting, storing, containment, cleanup and processing of hazardous wastes. Entylewl Technlcal Protelonal  Hazardous Material Hazardous Environmental Specialist Material Team Engineer Leader enable them to achieve oral and written language fluency and proficiency aver a period ct six years. Magnet foreign language ctferings will be scheduled as part ct the eight class period day crntained within the block schedule An instructer pool will be created among the university magnet partners. This magnet's foreign language teachers will be selected from the pool. 5. Engineering Technology The Engineering Technology occupaticnal program majcr will prepare students for entry into tomorrONs manufacturing engineering environment and postsecnndary programs. As the diagram oo the opposite page illustrates, four demand manufacturing engineering areas and the entty level technical and prctessiooal career path have been identified in rollal:xration with state aera\npace industries: product engineering, CAD, Quality Assurance, and Envircnmental. Additonally, industry has defined job titles and respoosibilities. These are also stated in the diagram The University ct Arkansas at Little Rock (UALR) and Salthem Arkasas University TECH have aligned critical occupatioo needs with four engineering technology programs ct study - Mechanical, Manufacturing, Canputer, and Etectrooics. A ccmmcn a:re ct engineering technology courses which permeate these foor programs, and specialized courses pertinent to individual programs have been arranged into grade 9-12 rourse sequences. Students ccmpleting grade 9-12 coorse sequences with a grade ct C er better will receive up to 15 advance credits when crntinuing in one engineering technology program at UALR The Mechanical and Electronics Engineering Technology Programs are two or foor year programs fer which a student may earn either an Associate ct Science or Bachelor ct Science degree Manufacturing Engineering Technology and Computer Engineering Tedmotogy are four-year Baccalaureate programs. Be!ON is a sample f!ON chart based oo the Arkansas Plan for TECH PREP, 2+4+2+2  which displays the Engineering Technology grade 9-12 sequence. The entire course sequence is sho.vn here in relatioo to graduaticn requirements to facilitate canprehensicn of the entire program Pages --- describe crntent kn(M!Jedge fer grades 9 and 10 roursewerk. The Commitment and Capacity sectioo, page ---, explains rontent knowledge fer grades 11 and 12 coorse-vvcrk. Grades 9 10 11 12 The Engineering Technology Flow Chart Courses= 1 unit unless shown as .5 unit m = Aerospace Technology Magnet Academic Core Mechanical, Electronic, Manufacturing Eng. Tech. Math (m) Science (m) World History Intro. to Concurrent Engineering English Physical Ed. (.5) Health (.5) Math (m) Science (m) Computer-Aided Design (CAD) Applications or Government (.5) Manufacturing Eng. Tech. I or Global Studies (.5) Electronics Eng. Tech . ..CAD I English Workplace Readiness (.5) Fine Arts (.5) Math (m) Advanced CAD or Science (m) Manufacturing Eng. Tech. II or American History Electronics Eng. Tech . ..CAD II English Internship I Foreign Language (m) Math (m) Science (m) Fabrication Design Project or Applied Communica Manufacturing Design Project or tion (m) Mechanical Systems Design Project Foreign Language (m) Internship II Speech Elective Computer Eng. Tech. Intro. to Computer Science Computer-Aided De sign Applications Electronics Eng. Tech . ..CAD I Programming for Engineering Majors  Arkansas State Board of Education standards for Accreditation (1984) state that students will take 3 units of sci ence and 2 units of mathematics or 3 units of mathematics and 2 units of science to meet high school graduation re quirements. ID There are three requirements with this coursewcrk: a) Students must take the engineering technology rourses related to their engineering program majcr, i.e. manufacturing, computer, mechanical, electrooics. b) Courses must be taken in the sequence shown oo the flow chart. c) Four units (years) each d mathematics and science are mandated fer attainment of Engineering Technology perfcrmance standards. This magnet will reflect current practices used in industry, including those d emerging technologies. These indude canputer numerical control (CNQ machinery, ccmputer-aided drafting and manufacturing(NCCAD/ NCCAM) software, tooling, robotics systems, printed circuit boad equipment, scanners, and plotters. The goal is fer students to werk in teams and experience real prcx.iuctioo, ooe which requires them to plan for, design, and produce a product, inccrpcrting the elements d quality and envirrnment protectioo. A netwcrked CAD labcratory d 30 Macintosh Quadras, three Laserwriter II printers, three plotters, and two scanners will be set-up in a specially-designed facility that also includes drafting tables with track drafting mechanisms. The manufacturing and electrrnics facilities will each house fifteen (15) netwcrked Macintosh Quadras, 2 Laserwriter printers, a scanner, and an integrated manufacturing cell of NC equipment and robotic systems with ccrnputer link-ups. Additional instructional materials and equipment requirements include industrial measuring instruments, pneumatic and hydraulic canpooents, and mechanisms trainers. Ccntent knowledge is described in the next sectioo. Engineering Technology instructcrs will cane fran the program's university partners, industry, the school district, and the Metropolitan Vocatirnal-Technical Education Center. These instructors will also be assigned to a Math/Science/TECH Instructer Team and will teach classes per the block schedule described on page ---. 6. Aviation The Aviation program majers will be implemented in collabcration with Hendersoo State University, Southern Arkansas University TECH, the Federal Aviaicn Administratioo, and Central Flying Service. There ae five artirulated, curricular paths depicted en page --- and delineated in the grade 9-12 flow chart shown oo the opposite page 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. The Aviation Flow Chart Program Major 9 10 11 12 Aviation  General Aviation  Powerplant  Electric Circuit  Powerplant Maintenance  Machine Shop Theory \u0026amp; Analysis Systems and Technology Maintenance Components Airway  Introduction to  Programming  Fortran/Cobol  Assembler Computer Aeronautics + Language Language and Science lab Operating Systems Airway Science  Introduction to  Programming  Aircraft Systems  Air Traffic Control Aeronautics + Language Theory lab Aircaft Systems  Introduction to  Aircraft Systems  Aircraft  Aerodynamics + Aeronautics + Theory Powerplant Performance lab Theory Professional  Introduction to  Aircraft Systems  Aircraft  Private Pilot Pilot Aeronautics + Theory Powerplant Certification \u0026amp; lab Theory lab  All students take the same math, science, cnnputer technology core as the Engineering Technology program students.  Students ccntinue Aviatioo Maintenance curriailar path at Southern Arkansas University- TECH. Coursevvcrk for all other Airway Science and Professiooal Pilot program majcrs cc:ntinue at Hendersoo State University.  All students will take a ooe year Aviatirn course regarding Aviation Safety I Legislati oo / Transportation.  All students will have flight training ccnducted by certificated flight instructcrs under the guidelines ci Federal Aviatioo Regulatioos, parts 141 and 61.  All Aviation coursevvork will be taught at the Museum ci Aviatirn Histaty by Southern Arkansas University TECH and Hendersoo State University instructcrs in cocrdination with Central Flying Service and the Federal Aviatioo Administratirn. lnstructcrs will share the same students as members c:i Math/Science/TECH Instructor teams.  Students will receive advance credits from the two universities for canpleting the Aviatioo Magnet program. Cooditions and stipulations fer advance credit receipt are outlined in Articulatirn Agreements. 12 This program has an infcrmation and guidance component that will be implemented with industry, the universities, and the Aerospace Technology career counselcrs. Through a counseling team made-up d professionals fran each crganization, students will be advised d the eccnomic and educational benefits related to the engineering technology and aviation career path. This will enable students to make sound career decisions about which area to select as a program major. A six week, four hoor summer session will be held at the three magnet juniahigh sch\u0026lt;X\u0026gt;ls in 1994, and in all magnet sites in 1995. Any student attending the Aerospace Magnet site during the regular school year, incaning distict seventh graders to the magnet sites, and out-d-district white students will be targeted fcr Summer Sch\u0026lt;X\u0026gt;l enrollment. Summer magnet site enrollment will be within the 60 (black) - 40 (white) balanced range. Summer magnet enrollees will be required to sign an agreement concurring with attendance stipulatioos. 7. SCANS Know-Ho.v SCANS America 2000 ccmpetendes (as described oo pages 27-28) will be integrated across the Aerospace Technology curriculum and aligned with the Accountability System d measures and standards of performance fcr this magnet program. Students will learn the SCANS Know-How throughout mathematics, science, ccmputer, and occupatiooal content\nand in the more specialized contexts d the technology laboratories and industry-based wcrk. Every student, therefcr~ will canplete the magnet junior high school with an introductirn to wcrkplace Know-How. By age 16, magnet students will attain initial mastery in the SCANS Kno.v-Ho.v and be sufficiently prdident upoo canpleticn d this magnet program in grade 12. The instructional strategy employed fer attaining prdidency is learning ccntent while solving realistic problems. Students and teachers will learn and apply knCM1ledge in real-life situatioos, for exampl~ by participating in this magnet's industry internship program Little Rock School District Aerospace Technology Magnet Program Prepared by Gail Quinn October 1992 Aerospace Technology Magnet Program Organization Stengthenlng the Knowledge of Academic Content and Marketable Technical Skills C A. Academic B. Work-Based C. Worksite D. Information \u0026amp; Instruction Learning Experience Guidance 0 M  Applied Mathematics  Occupation Specific  Achievement of  Advising Students of p Knowledge, Skills, Academic Occupational  Applied Science Abilities Requirements Opportunities and Career Path at Three 0  Applied  SCANS Workplace  Achievement of Levels Communication Competencies Work-based Learning N Requirements  Occupational  Work Samples \u0026amp; Certification E Written Reports  Airway Science \u0026amp; Engineering  The Postsecondary N Technology Articulated Career Internships Path T  Assessing  Job Descriptions s Performance in the Workplace Absilad The Little Rock Schad District's Magnet Schools Assistance grant applicatirn presents a dynamic plan fer implementation of a grade 7-12 Aeraspace Techndogy Magnet Program in three (3) junior high schoos and the new Aerospace Educatirn Center. The Center comtines a museum of aviatirn histcry with a grade 7-12 Aeraspace Technology Schad rn a 19.8 acre tract at the Little Rock Regirnal Airpcrt adjacent to the main terminal, Falca, Jet, and Arkansas Aerospace. Collabcratively develcped with the Aerospace industries!\u0026gt; and Campaign Leadershipb\u0026gt;, frur universitiesc\u0026gt; and the U.S. [)epartment ct Educatirn Federal Aviatirn Administratirn (FAA), this magnet program targets the readying of students fer immediate employment and/ er pa\ntsecondary education in either engineering technology er airway science. As illustrated belCMI, students are prCNided a wide range ct choices fer career develcpment in rne of nine areas at an entry, technician, er prctessirnal level: Aerospace Engineering Technology Aviation Airway Science (FAA)  Manufacturing  Airway Canputer Science  Computer Science  Airway Science Management  Mechanical  Aircraft Maintenance  Electronics  Aircraft Systems  Professirnal Pilot Majer Arkansas aerospace employers and the FAA have identified techndogical occupatirns and the skill base students need for future employment. LRSD has incorperated the skill base into a highly integrated program/ COJrse sequence cx:nsisting ct Academic Instructirn, Work-Based Leaming, Werksite Experience, and Information and Gui dance. All magnet students will take a a:mmrn academic are of sequenced coorses whim indude six years ct applied mathematics and science (mere than required for graduation) keyed to product engineering and flight/space roncepts, two a- more years ct a language significant to our global a:mpetitive marketplace sucn as Japanese er German\nand Applied Canmunication. In a:mputer netwerked laboratcries, students will access and ca,trd oontent, applicatirns, and infa-matirn in the areas ct roootics, bio astronautics, systems simulatirn, CAD/CAM, publishing, werd processing, telec:cmmunicatirns, material science, and aerodynamics. Students will produce presentatirn material by importing srund, graphics, digitized photographs to hypercard er laserdisc stacks ct their o.vn creatirn. In Science, students will cx:nduct hands-on investigatirns, manipulate scientific instruments, and collect/ analyze data a) Arkansas Ae-ospac~ Rohr lrdustries, Falcon Jet, Midcoast, Cmtral Aying Savice b) Membership attached c) Universities of Arkansas at Little Rock and Pine Bluff, Hmderson State University, Southern Arkansas Unive-sity TECH. using the critical thinking skills ct cbservatioo, a:mmunicating, cnmparing, crdering, categorizing, relating, inferring, and applying. Specialized curria.lla related to each d the nine career q,tioos has been developed to meet OC0.1pation specific kno.vledge and emerging techndogy requirements. Students will be trained on the job through partidpatioo in industry and aitpcrt-based internship programs. All students will be educated to higher levels than ever betae. The vehicle for cx:c:upatiaial certificatia, is achievement d the U.S. Department of Lalxr's SCANS (Secretary's Canrnissioo a Achieving Necessary Skills) five workplace a:mpetendes, e.g. Resources, Interpersaial Skills, Infamation, Systems, and Technology\nand the earning of Certificates d Initial Mastery (CIM). An assessment system based oo SCANS Kno.v-Ho.v and cumulative resume, which reports results, will be the permanent reccrd d genuine student attainment of CIM and future employment. In addition, program c:cmpletion in a dla\nen occupatia,al maja will enal:ie students to receive advance university a-edit and ccntinuatia, of the engineering a airway science career track thrwgh ~cx:iate ci science and ba~aureate degree programs. ,A.s you a:nsider the fine merits a this highly cdlaoorative magnet progrcll1\\ please keep in mind the thousands a students it will enable to gain state-of-the-art techndogical skills, encn.trage to ccntinue their education through Articulatia, Agreements, and to fill key manufacturing and FAA jobs so vital to the future d this nation to c:cmpete in the wald market. Student Progression in the Aerospace Technology Magnet \"Linking the Curricular Path to Work\" Level I - Aerospace Education Center Grades 7-12  Engineering Technology or  Airway Science \u0026amp; Professional Pilot Level II - Advanced \u0026amp; Specialized Training  Southern Arkansas University TECH - Associate of Applied Science Degree and/or Advanced Certificates (one year after .. Associate Degree) ....lili... - Aviation Maintenance ...,..  UALR - Electronics Engineering Technology - Mechanical Engineering Technology Level Ill - Baccalaureate Programs  UALR - Manufacturing Engineering - Computer Engineering  Henderson State University - Aircraft Systems Management - Professional Pilot - Airway Science Management - Airway Computer Science Entry-Level Employment  Support Analyst  Quality Analyst  CAD Operator  Hazardous Material Specialist Technical Careers  Associate Engineer  Tool Designer  Quality Technician  Hazardous Material T earn Leader Professional Careers  Production Engineer  Manufacturing Engineer  Liaison Engineer  Design Engineer  Quality Engineer  Environmental Engineer Quality of Project Design The project includes the fdlawing topics: A Overview: The Aera\npace Techndogy Curriculum 1. Applied Science and Science Lalxratay 2. Applied Mathematics 3. Computer Technology and the Computer Tedmdogy Laboratay 4. Fcreign Languages 5. Engineering Techndogy 6. Aviation 7. SCANS Know-HON 8. Work-Based and Werk-Site Leaming and Experience B. Aerospace Technology in Grades Seven and Eight (Junior High Level) 1. Content Knowledge in Mathematics 2. Content Knowledge in Science 3. Content Kna.vledge in Canputer Techndogy 4. The Techndogy Lab 2000 Curriculum Integration Center 5. Infcrmaticn and Guidance C Aerospace Technology in Grades Nine and Ten 1. Content KnONledge in Mathematics, Scien~ and Computer Technology 2. Content KnONledge in Engineering Techndogy 3. The Techndogy Lab 2000: Scientific Literacy Center 4. Content Knowledge in Airway Science 5. Workplace Readiness and Industry/Business Internships D. Instructicnal Approaches and ~essment a Student Performance 1. Leaming in Context 2. Prcxiuct Develcpment Teams/Cooperative Leaming 3. The Pcrtfdio 4. Perfananc:e-Based Assessment E. Teacher and Student Organizatia, F. Flexible Scheduling G. The Aviaticn Museum Educaticn Department Docent Program 1. Courses ci Instructicn 2. The Library 3. School Visitaticn Program 4. Planetarium 5. Imax Theater The Aerospace Technology Curriculum ----------. Applied Mathematica Aerospace Mathematics (7) Applied Mathematics I (8) Technical Algebra I (8)  Applied Mathematics II (9) Descriptive Geometry (9) Descriptive Geometry (10 Technical Algebra II (11) Quantitative Literacy for Aerospace (12) Techlical Algebra II (10) Advanced Algebra/ Trigonometry (11) caJculus (12) Aviation Airway Science Intro. AeronauticsA.ab (9) or General Aviation (9) or Machine Shop Technology (9) Programming Language (10) or Aircraft Systems Theory (10) or Powerplant Theory \u0026amp; Maintenance (10) Powerplant Theory ( 11) or Electrical Circuit Analysis ( 11) Fortran.Cobol (11) or Aviation SafetyA.egislation/Air Transportation (11) Private Pilot CertA.ab (12) ' Powerplant Systems (12) or Air Traffic Control\" (12) or Assembler Language \u0026amp; Operating Systems Internship I, II (11, 12) Aerodynamics \u0026amp; Performance (12)  Classes will 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 "},{"id":"bcas_bcmss0837_1006","title":"Aerospace Technology Magnet School, grant","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, Little Rock, 34.74648, -92.28959"],"dcterms_creator":null,"dc_date":["1992/1993"],"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","Educational law and legislation","Magnet schools","Aviation Education Programs (U.S.)","Educational statistics","Education--Finance"],"dcterms_title":["Aerospace Technology Magnet School, grant"],"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/1006"],"dcterms_temporal":null,"dcterms_rights_holder":null,"dcterms_bibliographic_citation":null,"dlg_local_right":["Available for use in research, teaching, and private study. Any other use requires permission from the Butler Center."],"dcterms_medium":["documents (object genre)"],"dcterms_extent":["24 pages"],"dlg_subject_personal":null,"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":"\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n\n\n\n   \n\n\n\n\n   \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n  \n\nThis transcript was created using Optical Character Recognition and may contain some errors.\n~ ~~Ct ~~ fJ 2-~ i -+- 'L-I 1/n 1 uu.~/{_ r t,\n}t 'NJJ c_ u~~rJJ {t\ntihf ?ti- ~a ft\\ 1 ~ J,\n'Jo C?~ \\~ -Ct Z.. - 3ID/ sc\nf-(\n1?3 .(U'/,tz ,Los- JJ a,4v:t'?)Q_ ( 1 \\0-,\u0026amp; ~~ 9tv( ~~ vvlCvt,1.- FRIDAY, ELDREDGE \u0026amp;. CLARK HERSCHEL H. FRIDAY , P.A. ROBERT V . LIGHT . P. A . WILLIAM H . SUTTON, P. A . JAMES W. MOORE A PARTNERSHIP OF INDIVIDUALS AND PROFESSIONAL ASSOCIATIONS ATTORNEYS AT LAW BYRON M . EISEMAN. JR . , P. A . JOE 0. BELL , P.A. JOHN C . ECHOLS . P.A. JAMES A . IUTTRY, P. A . FREDERICK. 8 . URSERY . P. A . H . T. LARZELERE, P. A. OSCAR E. DAVIS , JR. JAMES C. CLARl, JR . , P . A . THOMAS P. LEGGETT, P. A . JOHN DEWEY WATSON , P.A. PAUL B . IENHAM Ill, P. A . LARRY W. IURlS, P.A . A . WYClllFF NISIET , JR. , P.A. JAMES EDWARD HARRIS , P. A . J . f\"HILLIP MALCOM. P. A . JAMES M . SIMPSON, P .A. MEREDITH P. CATLETT, P .A. JAMES M . SAXTON, P.A . J . SHEPHERD RUSSELL 111 DONALD H . IA.CON, P. A . WILLIAM THOMAS BAXTER , P. A . WAL TEA A. PAULSON II , P. A . BARRY E. COl\"LIN, P . A . RICHARD D. TAYLOR, P' . A . JOSEPH 8 . HURST, JR . , P . A . ELIZABETH J . ROBBEN, P. A . CHRISTOPHER HELLER , P. A . LAURA HENSLEY SMITH, P . A . ROBERTS. SHAFER, P.A. WILLIAM M . GRIFFIN Ill , P.A . THOMAS N . ROSE , P . A . MICHAEL S MOORE DIANE S MACKEY , P . A WAL TER M EB EL Ill . P .A 2000 FIRST COMMERCIAL \u0026amp;UILDINQ 400 WEST CAPITOL LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS 722013413 TELEPHONE 1501-378-2011 FAX NO. 601-378-2147 December 7, 1992 The Honorable Susan Webber Wright United States District Judge Post Office \u0026amp; Courthouse 600 West -Capitol Little Rock, AR 72201 DEC 9 1~2 IC.EVIN A. CRASS. P.A . WILLIAM A . WADDELL, JR . , P. A . CLYDE TA.  TURNER, P.A . CALVIN J . HALL, P. A . SCOTT J . LANCASTER, P.A . JERRY L . MALONE, P. A . M . GAYLE CORLEY . P. A . ROBET I . IEACH, JR .  P' . A . J. LEE IROWN, P . A . JAMEi C . IAI.ER, JR . , P' . A . H. CHARLES GSCHWEND, JR ., P.A . HARRY A . LIGHT, P'.A . ICOTT H . TUCKER JOHN CLAYTON RANDOLPH GUY Al TON WADE PRICE C . GARONER THOMAS F . MEElS J. MICHAEL PICKENS TONIA P. JONES DAVID D . WILSON JEFFREY H. MOORE T . WESLEY HOLMES ANDREW T . TURNER SARAH J . HEFFLEY JOHN RAY WHITE DAVID M. GRAF PAMELA D . CORKER CARLA G . SPAINHOUR JOHN C . FENDLEY , JR. COUNH WILLIAM J . SMITH WILLIAM A . ELDREDGE , JR. , P. A . 8 . S . CLARl WILLIAM L. TERRY WILLIAM L. PATTON , JR ., P. A . WII I TUI'  OUUCT NO. 15011 370 - 1506 D Re: LRSD v. PCSSD Office of Desegregation Monitoring Dear Judge Wright: I am writing to provide a status report concerning LRSD's efforts to secure a grant to establish an Aerospace magnet school. The LRSD Board of Directors has adopted a resolution to establish such a school subject to the following conditions: 1. That the district receives from the Magnet School Assistance Fund Grant a minimum of $8,000,000.00 over a two year term\n2. that funds to defray the cost of operating the school will be obtained from public or private sources for a period of five years beginning with the date the school opens. Construction will begin when the five year commitment of operating funds is identified\n3. that the district can demonstrate to the Court that the school will compliment its desegregation plan and receive approval from the Court to modify its plan to include the construction and implementation of the Aerospace school. Al though the board voted to pursue the grant subject to these conditions, several members made it clear that they would vote to reject the grant if, at the time the grant is announced, it appears that sufficient funds are not available for LRSD to effectively implement its desegregation plan, meet its other obligations and establish the Aerospace magnet school. Finally, I have been informed by grant writer Gail Quinn that the deadline for the grant application will probably be extended to early February. I do not yet have a final grant application to share with the Court and the parties, but I will provide one as soon as it is completed. CJH/k cc: All Counsel Ann Brown Gail Quinn *** ****************************************************************************************************** P.01 * * TRANSACTION REPORT * * ------- DEC- 8-92 TUE 14: 33 * ** DATE START SENDER RX TI ME PAGES TYPE NOTE ** * ---------------------------------- * * DEC- 8 14:31 501 324 2032 11 39\" 2 RECEIVE OK * * * ************** ***************************'************************************************************* 12 / 08 / 92 15:J  '6'501 324 2032 LR School Dist   OD~ ..-~ LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT DATE TO FROM SENDER'S PHONE# SUBJECT Special Instructions 810 WEST l\\1/\\RKHAM STREET LITTLE ROCK, AR 72201 FAX (501) 324-2032 ~ ~ 1 141001 / 002 Number of Pages (incluM cover page) j__ Fax Phone Number___ Speed dial r__..---- FOR COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE USE ONLY Transmitted By ---------Date --------Time ---- 12/ 08/ 92 15 : 44 '0'501 324 2032 LR School Dist  ODM December 8, 1992 TO: Ms. Ann Brown Mr. Dick Holbert Mr. Chris Heller FROM: Mac Bernd, Superintendent of School~ SUBJECT: MAGNET SCHOOLS ASSISTANCE GRANT FOR AEROSPACE SCHOOL l4J 00 2/002 To keep you updated on the status of the grant application, you need to know that we received a telephone call yesterday from Gail Quinn explaining that she is having problems getting the grant application printed and will possibly be required to re-format to another computer program. She was optimistic, however, that she would be able be overnight mail the grant last evening. We have not talked with her this morning and have not yet received the grant. cc: Board of Directors DEC 9 19Y2 Office of Desegregation Monitoring Little Rock School District Aerospace Technology Magnet Program Ahsb.-.t The Little Rock Schoo District's Magnet Schools Assistance grant applicatia, presents a dynamic plan fer implementation of a grade 7-12 Aera\npace Techndogy Magnet Program in three (3) junior high schoos and the new Aera\npace Educatia, Center. The Center combnes a museum of aviatia, histcry with a grade 7-12 Aera\npace Technology Schoo oo a 19.8 acre tract at the Little Rock Regirnal Airpai adjacent to the main terminal, Falcoo Jet, and Arkansas Aerospace. Collabcratively develc.ped with the Aerospace industnesi\u0026gt; and Campaign Leadershipb\u0026gt;, foor universitiescl and the U.S. Department ci Educatirn Federal Aviatia, Administratia, (FAA), this magnet program targets the readying of students fer immediate employment and/er postsecondary education in either engineering technology er aitway science. As illustrated belON, students are prCNided a wide range ci choices fer career develc.pment in ooe of nine areas at an entry, technician, er prdessiaial level: Aerospace Engineering Technology Aviation Airway Science ( FAA)  Manufacturing  Airway Canputer Science  Computer Science  Airway Science Management  Mechanical  Aircraft Maintenance  Electronics  Aircraft Systems  Professiooal Pilct Majer Arkansas aeraspace employers and the FAA have identified tec:hndogical ocaJpatioos and the skill base students need for future employment. LRSD has incrnpcrated the skill base into a highly integrated program/cairse sequence coosisting ci Academic lnstructioo, Work-Based Leaming, Wcrksite Experience, and Information and Guidance. All magnet students will take a a:mmrn academic ccre of sequenced cairses which include six years ci applied mathematics and science (mcre than required for graduation) keyed to prcxiuct engineering and flight/space ooncepts, two cr more years d a language significant to oor global a:mpetitive marketplace such as Japanese er German\nand Applied Canmunication. In c:anputer netwcrked laboratcries, students will access and a:ntrd content, applicaticns, and infamatirn in the areas ci rcbotics, bio astronautics, systems simulatioo, CAD/CAM, publishing, wcrd proces.sing, teleccmmunicatirns, material science, and aerodynamics. Students will produce presentatioo material by importing soond, graphics, digitized phctographs to hypercard er laserdisc stacks ci their c,,vn creatioo. In Scien~ students wilt cooduct hands-on investigatirns, manipulate scientific instruments, and cdlect/ analyze data a) Arkansas Aerospac~ Rohr Industries, Falcon Jet, Midcoast, Ce,tral Flying Servic:2 b) Membership attached c) l 'niversities of Arkansas at Little Rock and Pine Bluff, He,derson State University, Southern Arkansas University TECH. using the critical thinking skills d observatirn, canmunicating. cnmparing. a-deting. categotizing. relating. inferring. and applying. Specialized curricula related to each d the nine career cptia,s has been developed to meet ocrupation specific kno.vledge and emerging techndogy requirements. Students will be trained on the job throogh partidpatioo in industry and airpa-t-based internship programs. All students will be educated to higher levels than ever befae. The vehide for cx:::aipaticnal artificaticn is achievement d the U.S. Department of Labcr's SCANS (Secretary's Canmissicn d Achieving Necessary Skills) five workplace canpetendes, e.g. Resources, Interpersaial Skills, lnfa-mation, Systems, and Technology\nand the earning of c.ertificate3 d Initial Mastery (CIM). An assessment system based a, SCANS Kno.v-Ho.v and cumulative re3ume, which reports re3ults, will be the permanent reccrd ci genuine student attainment of CIM and future employment. In addition, program ccmpletion in a chosen cx:cupaticnal maja will enat:ie students to receive advance university credit and cootinuatia, of the engineering a airway science career track thrcugh associate ci science and baccalaureate degree programs. As ycu c:cnsider the fine merits of this highly cdlabJrative magnet progrc3Jl\\ please keep in mind the thcusands a students it will enable to gain state-of-the-art techndogical ski11s, enoourage to cootinue their education thraigh Artla.ilatta, Agreements, and to fill key manufacturing and FAA jd:ls so vital to the future a this nation to ccmpete in the wald market. Student Progression in the Aerospace Technology Magnet \"Linking the Curricular Path to Work\" Level 1- Aerospace Education Center Grades 7-12  Engineering Technology or  Airway Science \u0026amp; Professional Pilot Level II - Advanced \u0026amp; Specialized Training  Southern Arkansas University TECH - Associate of Applied Science Degree and/or Advanced Certificates (one year after Associate Degree) ..ar.. -Aviation Maintenance __,,..  UALR - Electronics Engineering Technology - Mechanical Engineering Technology Level Ill - Baccalaureate Programs  UALA - Manufacturing Engineering - Computer Engineering  Henderson State University .. - Aircraft Systems Management - Professional Pilot - Airway Science Management - Airway Computer Science Entry-Level Employment  Support Analyst  Quality Analyst  CAD Operator  Hazardous Material Specialist Technical Careers ,  Associate Engineer  Tool Designer  Quality Technician  Hazardous Material Team Leader Professional Careers  Production Engineer  Manufacturing Engineer  Liaison Engineer  Design Engineer  Quality Engineer  Environmental Engineer I. Background Information A. Greater Metropolitan Little Rock Greater Little Rock's four county Metropolitan Statistical area (MSA) is the center of the second fastest growing region in the United States. Its central location is within 550 miles of forty percent of the United States buying power and population. The $1.3 billion dollar Arkansas Navigation System, one of the nation's largest water development projects, is a 445 mile waterway providing year-round access to ports on the Arkansas River from the Mississippi River to Tulsa, Oklahoma. The 1,500 acre port with its industrial harbor Foreign Trade Zone -14, and the United States Customs Port of Entry are an indication of the increasing importance of Little Rock's linkage to ports worldwide. All are in close proximity to Adams Field, Little Rock's airport. The city's rich mixture of historic architecture and new development is attracting new residents. Little Rock is seeing growth and revitalization unparalleled in the city's history. Little Rock is on the move. Fueling this revitalization are the aerospace industries, the Arkansas Aviation Historical Society, the Governor's Aerospace Task Force, and institutions of higher education. Some of the world's most successful aerospace companies are located here: McDonnell Douglas, Rohr Inc., Arkansas Aerospace (a subsidiary of British Aerospace), Falcon Jet owned by the French-based Avions Dassaut Brequet Aviation, MidCoast, and Central Flying Service. Numerous private and corporate aircraft dealers such as Aero-Commander, Piper, Beechcraft, and Cessna have facilities at the Little Rock Regional Airport. Little Rock Airforce Base is home to the largest C-130 aircraft training and airlift facility in the world. A number of major educational institutions serve Little Rock's M.S.A. By far, the largest of these is the University of Arkansas at Little Rock (UALR), enrolling more than 11,000 students in seventy-five undergraduate and forty-two graduate degree programs including Associate, Bachelor and Masters of Science Degrees in Engineering Technology. The Graduate Institute of Technology (GIT) housed in the new Engineering Technology Center offers courses in mechanical, computer science, electrical and manufacturing engineering. Industries utilize GIT facilities for advanced research and graduate study. In 1991, the Arkansas Space Grant Consortium, under the leadership of GIT at UALR, received a four-year training grant award from the NASA National Space Grant College and Fellowship program. The primary purpose of the program is to educate and familiarize faculty and undergraduate and graduate students with aerospace fundamentals and NASA's research programs and opportunities. A secondary objective is to motivate K-12 students to excel in math and science courses necessary for entrance into aerospace programs at the universities and high tech positions in industry. Henderson University, in coordination 1 with Central Flying Service, conducts one of the few aviation degree programs in the nation. The University's Department of Aviation provides four-year programs in Airway Science Management, Airway Computer Science, Professional Pilot, and Aircraft Systems Management. The Arkansas Aviation Historical Society serves the entire state as the focal for the involvement of Arkansas' aerospace industries in community affairs, education, and economic development. In 1989, the Society, executives of aerospace companies, the Little Rock School District, and UALR came together to form the Aerospace Education Center Campaign Leadership. The unprecedented public/private partnership has planned an Aerospace Education Center. As the architect's drawing illustrates, the Center combines a museum of aviation history with an Aerospace Technology Magnet High School on a 19.8 acre tract at the Little Rock Regional Airport adjacent to the main terminal, Falcon Jet, and Arkansas Aerospace. The facility will cover 200,000 square feet, including common areas used by both the museum and high school such as the library, cafeteria, and theatre/ auditorium. The upper level of the museum will function as an educational resource for adult programs, and outreach for schools, state and nationwide through a satellite television uplink providea by the Arkansas Electric Cooperatives. The most comprehensive and largest technical and historical aviation and aerospace library collection outside of the Smithsonian's National Air and Space Museum was acquired for the Arkansas Museum of Aviation History. Virtually every civil and military aircraft, rotocraft, and spaceship designed and constructed throughout the world is represented in the collection by technical specifications, photographs, and historical descriptive information. There are well over 5,000 books, 50,000 journals, 200,000 photographs and transparancies, hundreds of rare collectable items signed by famous pilots and aviation personalities, original paintings, scale aircraft models, and unique aircraft parts. The Society has raised over five million dollars in gifts and pledges toward construction of the aviation history museum. The Little Rock School District has budgeted six million dollars for the construction of the Aerospace Technology Magnet High School from funds approved by voters at a property tax election in 1990. The Aerospace Education Center Campaign Leadership believes that Greater Little Rock's future rests on the vitality of its public education system. At all levels of the public education system, educators and industry must develop programs which give students the knowledge and skills that enable them to reach their full economic potential. While the Center will prepare students for aerospace careers, it will also focus the Central Arkansas community on commitment to excellence in education. In March 1819, Arkansas became a territory and the Arkansas Post, the state's first permanent settlement, became its capital. The little French village was soon deemed unsuitable mainly because of its location in the Mississippi Valley, far from the center of the territory. A year later the legislature moved the capital to Little Rock. Today with a metropolitan area spanning a seventy-mile radius, Greater Little Rock MSA is home to over 513,000 people. In the last quarter century, the Greater Little Rock MSA has almost doubled its population - approaching 1,200,000. Today, North Little Rock, the third largest community with a population of 62,000, and Little Rock are joined by the Arkansas River in Pulaski County. Twenty-seven percent of the MSA's population is under 18 years of age. Forty-four percent of the population is within the 18-44 age range. According to the 1990 Census, the population was ------percent Black, -----percent white. B. Little Rock School District The Little Rock School District, encompassing an area in excess of 100 square miles, is the largest school district in the state in terms of enrollment. Enrollment in the schools has increased from 25,975 pupils in 1989 to 26,212 pupils in October 1992. This increase is occuring at the junior high level. 16,538 pupils or 64% of the total district minority enrollment is Black. The percent Black student population exceeds the District 64% average in grades 5-9. The highest percent Black student enrollment is 69% in grade 8. Of the District's forty-nine (49) schools, thiry-six enroll pre-kindergarten or kindergarten through grade 6 students, eight enroll grades 7-9 students, and five enroll grades 10-12 students. Educational program/ school choices include elementary Incentive Schools, grade K-12 Interdistrict Magnet Schools, and elementary area schools. Chart A outlines the number and type of school programs. The text below Chart A defines each type of school and the rationale for selecting certain schools for this project. Chart A - The Organizational Plan for Little Rock Schools n = number of schools ~ie School andlor ucati on Pro IJ'llfll Bern mblry, ~es Pre-IC or -6 JwiorHi~, grades Hgh School~ grades m-1 n n n a.) Area. Md Feeder Schools 22 6 3 b) hcenti-.e Schools 7 NIA NIA c) lntetdistrict ~net Schools 6 2 2 d) h llerdistrict N onm~ net Schools 1 NIA NIA Total 36 8 s a) Area Schools - The elementary school that is the LRSD school for where a student lives is called an Area School. Each Area School feeds into a particular junior high and senior high school. The instructional program focuses on language arts, mathematics, science, and social studies. b) Incentive Schools - Incentive Schools are Pre K-Grade 6 elementary schools located within the immediate downtown area. The percent Black student enrollment for Incentive Schools ranges from 85% to 97%. These schools receive double financial resources to provide a teacher-student ratio of 1:20, additional instructional aides, permanent substitute teachers, and extended day-week-year learning opportunities. An individual learning plan is developed for each student based on the district K-6 core curriculum. Computer-assisted instruction, a student homework hotline, a parenting skills center, and a program for four-year olds are additional features that distinguish incentive from area elementary schools. c) Interdistrict Magnet Schools - As Chart A illustrates, Interdistrict Magnet Schools have been established at all three school levels - elementary, junior high, and senior high. Although operated by the Little Rock School District, students from North Little Rock School District and Pulaski County Special School District (PCSSD) are eligible for enrollment in accord with the desegregation plan. All Interdistrict Magnet Schools are racially balanced within the acceptable range of 55-59 percent black to 41-45 percent white. As Chart A illustrates, there are ten Interdistrict Magnet Schools. These schools provide, in addition to the regular core program, coursework based on a special curricular theme. The desegregation section found on page 8 further describes the purpose and thematic focus for these schools. Chart A indicates there are 31 area and feeder schools. Some of these area/feeder schools are located in racially isolated areas of the school district. This project will establish a new grade 7 -12 inter district magnet 4 of three junior high schools, and the new grade 10 - 12 Aerospace Magnet High School. Each of the three junior high schools exceeds the 64 percent district-wide average for black students. White students will be recruited from across district lines, primarily from North Little Rock and Pulaski County Special School Districts to racially balance the three junior high schools. The new Aerospace Magnet High School will begin magnet program operation for tenth graders the second year of the project. The grade 10 enrollment will consist of 300 grade 9 voluntary student transfers from this magnet's junior high enrollment who will be continuing the magnet curricular career path at the new Aerospace Magnet High School. This project, therefore, will establish the first Pulaski County Interdistrict Magnet continuation program in four secondary level schools consisting of grades 7-9 the first project year and grades 7-10 the second project year. In subsequent non-project years, the Aerospace Technology High School will add grade 11 in 1995-96 and grade 12 in 1996-97 through normal progession of the magnet's grade level enrollment each year. An Aerospace Technology Magnet has been designed in collaboration with the Aerospace Education Center Campaign Leadership, the Universities of Arkansas at Little Rock and Pine Bluff, Henderson State University, and Southern Arkansas University-TECH to attract this magnet's enrollment of 1,200 students. Students who attend each of the three junior high schools will also be eligible to participate in the magnet. The total grade 7 -10 aerospace magnet enrollment will be 2,797 pupils. The breakdown in enrollment is illustrated below: Incoming From outside of LRSD From within LRSD  270 grade 7-9 white students  630 grade 7-9 students  90 grade 10 white students  210 grade 10 students Subtotal: 1,200 Magnet students In-Attendance Enrolled in Magnet Junior High Schools  1597 grade 7-9 students Total: 2,797 students fl By the 1996-97 the Aerospace Magnet High School grade 10-12 enrollment will be at capacity which is 1,800 pupils. The high school enrollment coupled with the grade 7-9 junior high enrollment means the aerospace magnet has the potential to serve 4,597 pupils. The magnet enrollment will reduce black isolation in three junior high schools. C. Interdistrict and Intradistrict Desegregation Measures 1. Background Information on the Court Order The only image that some people have of Little Rock is the one formed in the Fall of 1957 when Governor Orval Faubus defied a federal mandate and tried to use the Arkansas National Guard to keep nine black students from entering Central High School. In Cooper vs. Aaron (1958), the Supreme Court stated that \"public opposition to desegregation of the races, no matter how deeply entrenched, could not be allowed to interfere with the full realization of the constitutional rights of black citizens.\" Twenty-four years later (1982), the Little Rock School District brought suit against North Little Rock and Pulaski County Special School District, claiming that the Constitution compelled the consolidation of the three districts into one governmental unit. This claim was rejected by the courts in 1985 and again in 1986\nhowever, the courts held that interdistrict constitutional violations had occured and must be remedied. Over the course of the next three years, various remedial orders were entered and further appeals were taken to court. Then, in 1988 and 1989, in a sharp departure from the adversary bitterness that had marked this controversy for over thirty years\nthe parties, including the Joshua intervenors representing the injured class of black schoolchildren and citizens, LRSD, the North Little Rock School District (NLRSD), the Pulaski County Special School District (PCSSD), and the State of Arkansas (Arkansas State Board of Education), agreed to settle the case. They submitted to the District Court four comprehensive agreements covering both interdistrict and intradistrict desegregation measures - agreements referred to by the parties as the \"settlement plans.\" They also submitted a separate but related document, called the \"settlement agreement,\" settling the financial liability of the State of Arkansas. The United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit reversed this judgement on June 27, 1989, and directed the District Court to adjust the boundary between the LRSD and PCSSD, to revise student attendance within each district to reflect the racial composition of the district, to maintain PCSSD's percent black student enrollment within the range of plus or minus 25% of the districtwide average of blacks by organizational levels\nand to limit busing, one-way, to forty-five minutes. 2. The LRSD Desegregation (Settlement) Plan (1989_) The following description is from the record of the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit: \"Eight of the 31 non-magnet elementary schools will be designated Incentive Schools. Initially they will be all black. These schools will receive compensatory-education programs and two times the level of funding for six years. The plan includes a detailed and volumous description of the kinds of programs that would take place at the Incentive Schools. A salient feature of these schools is a maximum effective student-teacher ratio of twenty to one. Twenty-two of the twenty-three remaining elementary schools will be called Elementary Academies. These schools will have projected student ratios of between 50 and 62 percent black. The other elementary school, Romine, would be an interdistrict school. Any white student can elect to attend an Incentive School, and a black student living in an Incentive School attendance area can opt to attend one of the Elementary Academies.\" 3. Interdistrict Desegregation Plan The Interdistrict Desegregation Plan is designed to achieve racial balance in the schools and districts of Little Rock, North Little Rock, and Pulaski Country Special School District through voluntary movement primarily to magnet prpgrams. Interdistrict schools are \"to obtain a ratio of between 60 percent and 40 percent of either race with the ideal goal of these schools to be 50 percent black/white.\" The Little Rock School District reports biannually the number and percent of students enrolled by racial background in each of the district's 49 schools. The above data is also sum~arized in terms of the total district (Pre-K-12). Interdistrict magnets are used to attract a specific student population from outside of the district and from within the original district to racially balance the school and district. Participation in a magnet is through student/parent choice. The Magnet Review Committee (MRC), created by the Eight Circuit Court of Appeals in September, 1986, oversees the implementation and operation of the interdistrict magnet schools. Comprised of representatives from each of the three districts, the Committee makes policy on issues such as magnet enrollment, transfers, building capacities, and operating funds. The Magnet Educational Team (MET) is the recruitment arm of the MRC, 7 and is responsible for public information and recruitment strategies and activities. In the Little Rock School District, six elementary schools, three junior high schools, and two high schools have magnet programs (refer to Chart A). Six (6) Interdistrict magnets (4 elementary, 1 junior high, 1 senior high) were created in Little Rock in compliance to the 1985 court opinion. Since 1987, five more interdistrict magnets have been established in the Little Rock School District. Magnets enhance the district's core curriculum. The specially designed curricula is the \"hook\" for attracting students across district lines. Individual interdistrict magnet school brochures provide a program description. Chart B summarizes the eleven interdistrict magnets in the LRSD by theme and number of schools participating at each school level. Chart B - LRSD Interdistrict Magnet Programs Theme School Level and # of Schools Elementary Junior High High School 1. Early Education* 1 2. Basic Skills 1 3. Basic Skills/Math-Science 2 4. Arts 1 5. Arts and Sciences 1 1 6. International Studies 1 1 1 Subtotal 6 2 2 Total Magnets -10  This is a Pre-K magnet housed in an Incentive School. The majority of LRSD Interdistrict. Magent Programs have been in operation since the 1986-87 school year. Magnet enrollment that year was 3,647 pupils. This year it is 7,250 pupils. The number of pupils enrolled in LRSD individual magnets has increased 50%. The Interdistrict Desegregaton Plan is more than just magnets. The Pulaski County M-to-M (Majority to Minority) Transfer allows a student to transfer from a district and school where his/her race is in the majority to a district and school where his/her race is in the minority. This means that black students in the LRSD may transfer to schools in North Little Rock and the Pulaski County Special School Districts, and white students in NLRSD or Pulaski County SSD may transfer to a Little Rock School District school. The Aerospace Technology Magnet will advance the voluntary desegregation efforts of the Settlement Plans. The district commits that it will \"maintain the facilities on a racially integrated basis into perpetuity.\" (Refer to 2/4/91 Amendment in Appendix.) The Little Rock School District Desegregation Plan, the Pulaski County Special School District Permanent Desegregation Plan, the North Little Rock School District Desegregation Plan, and the Interdistrict Desegregation Plan hold excellent promise for achieving unitary school systems in these three districts. (Exerpted from text of Settlement Plans - refer to Appendix.) 4. The Settlement Agreement The Settlement Agreement provided for payments by the State to the three school districts for desegregation purposes only. Under the agreement, the state makes payment to LRSD, NLRSD, and PCSSD totalling $107,723,175 over the next ten years. The state legislature and the Governor expended these funds without a court order. Moreover, the State also agreed to lend LRSD up to $20,000,000 over the next ten years. The loans are to be forgiven if at any time between the date of the agreement and December 31, 2000 the composite scores of LRSD black students (excluding special education students) on a standardized test agreed upon by the State and LRSD are 90% or greater of the composite scores of LRSD white students (excluding special education students). The settlement plans and the settlement agreement do not limit the District Court's ability to require the creation of additional interdistrict schools. They limit only how new schools may be funded. This funding may include payments by the State for majority-to-minority transfers, but it may not include the imposition on the State of a share of the capital costs of these new facilities. The agreement does not bar the creation of additional interdistrict schools\nit simply provides that, when created, they will not be funded in the same way as the six stipulation magnets. (Refer to entire text of Settlement Agreement in Appendix.) The District Court mandated the creation of the Office of Desegregation Monitoring staffed by a Monitor to supervise compliance to the four Settlement Plans and the Settlement Agreement. II. Needs Assessment The Little Rock School District, in conjunction with North Little Rock School District and Pulaski County Special School District, is implementing a court-monitored desegregation plan of which magnet programs and M-to-M transfers are a voluntary option to integrate the three individual school districts. Although Little Rock has achieved racial balance through the creation of interdistrict magnet programs in once racially isolated schools, there are still schools whose percent black to white enrollment exceed the 60%-40% ratio. The district wants to establish more across district voluntary movement of junior high students to bring racially-isolated schools within the balanced range. According to the 1992 LRSD Enrollment Survey, there are three junior high schools that meet this criteria. Three of the junior high schools have been targeted to attract white students primarily from school districts of the Interdistrict (Tri-District) Desegregation Plan, other school districts within close proximity of the Little Rock school districts, and private schools. This plan promotes desegregation. It increases the grade 7-9 white student enrollment at each grade level of three racially (black)-isolated junior high schools. The hook to attain this project's desegregation goals and objectives is the Aerospace Technology curriculum. Since 1900, the United States has become wealthy and powerful by exploiting the rapid changes taking place in technology, world trade, and the international political order. New developments in technology, international competition, demography, and other factors have altered the nation's economic and social landscape. There will be few jobs for those who lack adequate science/technical knowledge and who cannot read, follow directions, or use mathematics. Higher skill requirements of the economy suggest that schools must impove the preparation of the nation's youth in order to economically compete in the global marketplace. This can only be accomplished if the schools have excellence in technology education, communications, problem-solving, and scientific and technological literacy. This district believes it is absolutely necessary to help students understand their technological future if they are to function as responsible, productive members of a competitive society. This district also believes this endeavor must be a cooperative and concentrative effort with this area's prime employers, the aerospace/ aviation industry, the State Department of Education, the Universities of Arkansas, Henderson State University, and Southern Arkansas University-TECH. The aerospace technology education magnet has long range impact for desegregation in the Little Rock School District. First, it involves further voluntary movement of non-district white students to prevent the progressive, increasing isolation of predominantly black junior high schools. Second, this project has carefully planned for a new racially balanced high school to prevent racial isolation in the existing high schools. Between October, 1987 and October, 1992, the Black enrollment increased by 9% from a 51 % Black average to a 60% Black 10 average. The increase will continue due to the progression of the junior high enrollment (69% black average) through the grades. Finally, this district is confident that the aerospace magnet will attract and retain a new enrollment of 360 grade 7-10 white students while maintaining the current enrollment. These are the reasons: 1. \"Aerospace Technology\" is a statewide public education and economic development effort in accordance with the Arkansas Aerospace Task Force and its creation of the Arkansas Aviation and Aerospace Commission through passage of State Senate Bill 35. Their mission is to provide \"the knowledge and skills that will allow students to reach their full economic potential.\" 2. The Stipulation and Consent Order of February 1991 amended the LRSD Desegregation Plan to include the Aerospace Technology Magnet School(s) and their maintenance as racially integrated facilities. 3. The public and private contributions of funds for up to 6.5 million dollars to construct the aviation history museum which will implement curricular activities during and after magnet school hours in coordination with the magnet's specialized curriculum. 4. A successful millage campaign approved by voters for six million dollars to construct the Aerospace Magnet High School. 5. The Aerospace employment need for a skilled workforce is well known in Arkansas. Specially-trained employees are required to meet new contracts for aircraft and the employment vacancies listed by the Little Rock Airport Commission. Technology education is addressed in conjunction with the study of applied mathematics and physical science. More science and mathematics have been built into the existing curriculum. The academic and technology-integrated curriculum begins in grade seven to better prepare the minority student for future employment, college, and success in finding his/her niche in a technological society. Because of the strong aerospace industry and university linkage, and the hands-on problem solving approach used to learn the curricula, the district foresees the inclusion of some Little Rock elementary schools in the near future. Need 1: The Reduction and Prevention of Minority Group Isolation There is a need to establish a new interdistrict magnet at the junior high level to racially balance three schools. An end-of-project enrollment of 2,797 will enable each of the aerospace magnet schools and total magnet enrollment to reflect a 11 black/ white ratio of between 60 and 40%. The goal reflected by the% black figure in Table 1 is to reduce racial isolation by increasing the number of white pupils in three Little Rock junior high schools. This will bring the junior high school% black student enrollment in line with the Interdistrict Desegregation Plan goal of 50% black/white. TABLE 1 Reduce Now End of Project Receiving Schools % Black % Black 1. Cloverdale JH 73.7 50.0 2. Forest Heights JH 70.4 50.0 3. Southwest JH 75.3 50.0 The goal reflected by the percent black figure in Table 2 is fo prevent black group isolation in the new high school. This will be accomplished through voluntary movement of grade nine pupils from the three aerospace magnet junior high schools. The grade nine enrollment includes M-toM transfers from NLRSD, PCSSD, and other school districts not a part of the Interdistrict Magnet Desegregation Plan\nand LRSD pupils provided such movement does not negatively impact the racial balance of the sending junior high schools. This will racially balance the new high school in accordance with the Interdistrict Desegregation Plan. TABLE2 Receiving School New High School Now % Black 70.0* End of Project % Black 50.0 *based on the % black student enrollment average for the desegregated sending junior high schools located in the attendance area of the new high school. 12 Program Goal 1: To reduce or prevent racial isolation in the Little Rock School District Objective 1.a: By September, 1993, the district will reduce racial isolation through recruitment of white students from out-of-district to aerospace magnet programs. The aerospace magnet program will be balanced when the percent black to white figure is within the 60%-40% balanced range or is 50% black/white. Reduce % Minority % Minority Magnet School Before After 1. Cloverdale JH 73.7 50.0 2. Forest Heights JH 70.4 50.0 3. Southwest JH 75.3 50.0 Objective 1.b: By September, 1994 the district will racially balance the new high school through voluntary transfers from the grade 9 continuing magnet enrollment. The new high school will reflect a 50% black/white ratio. Magnet School New High School Prevent % Minority Before 70.0 % Minority After 50.0 Need 2a.1: Strengthening the Knowledge of Academic Content For the past two decades in America, the low level of academic achievement in our secondary school has spelled disaster for our youth and for our economy. The statistics are alarming: a. Ninety-three percent of 17-year olds do not have the capacity to apply mathematical operations in a variety of problem settings. An increasing number of the nation's students are ill-prepared for college courses or jobs that require technical skills. (National Assessment of Educational Progress 1988, p.# 2) b. For generations traditional prejudices have encouraged mathematics achievemmt in only a pcrtioo ct the student pq,ulatia, - middle class white males. Females and minaities with the exceptioo a Agan-Americans were 13 perceived as beth Niess capalie\" cf learning mathematics, and needing\" it less. (Mathematics Education - Wellspring cf U.S. Industrial Strength, December 1988.) c. In lxxh participation and achievement, American students in science and mathematics are lagging behind previous years and ether countries. (Science and Engineering Indictors, Natienal Science Board, 1990.) d. Only aboot twenty percent ct 10th graders believe that bidogy, chemistry, physics, er gecmetry are needed to qualify fer their first chcice occupatiert Only twenty-eight percent believe they need algebra ( Lengitudinal Survey ct American Yooth, 1988.) e. Schods must imprC1o1e their science instructim to allo.v the nation to base its ecmcrny en high technology. New programs must be developed and strategies reexamined to achieve the sharp focus required. (The Triangle Coolitien fer Science and Techndogy Education, 1988.) Acccrding to the results ct the National Science Foundatien's nationwide study, students are net receiving enoogh hands-a, labcratcry experience. f. The 1.25 grade-level-equivalent decline in the academic achievement cl high schod seniors to.vered the natien's productivity by $86 altien in 19'ir1 and will tower it by more than $200 altien annually by the year 2010 (Journal ct  Currio.ilum Studies, 1989). Studies demcnstrate that ccrnpetence in reading, writing, mathematics, science, and proolem solving are strongly related to productivity in alma\nt all j~ At the histcric education summit, September 1989, President Bush and the natim's gC1o1emors agreed to six national perlcrmance gools in educatim to be achieved by the year 2000. These two impcrtant goals were among those adq,ted: Goal IV - Science and Mathematics U.S. Students will be first in the wortd in science and mathematics achievement The pocr standing ct U.S. students en intematicnal assessments ct mathematics and sdence achievement is no accident, says a new ASCD task fcrce repcrt.  It results frcrn systemic proliems in the quality ct o.irric:ulum and instruction in the United States, the unequal cppcrtunities afferded different students, and peivasive o.iltural beliefs that do little to support high mathematics and science achievement The ASCD t~ fcrce repcrt dtes foor majcr factors a,nttibuting to lo.v U.S. student achievement in mathematics and science. These are: 1) Rdalivdy few :stadmls take uxases that indude high-tevd a..th:id in malhmaalics and sdence Fewer than half c:A students take a chemistry er algrel:ra n course and fewer than ooe in five Erv'er take a rourse in physics, trigonanetry, analysis/precalo.ilus, er calo.ilus. Mcreover, the  Aasl'i!'iCll fq 'i!$11'1Y11iw and Cynja,lwn Pevelq,nwtt. Raising Our Sights Jrrp-rovtng u.s. AchieYa'IW!t tn Mathematics and SdenC!f, DlarnlB' 1991, p. 6 14 widespread tracking a students means many pupils - partirularly minaities - are never required to learn high-level content. 2) Wlwaallcs and sdenm rmrimlmn\\ as wdl as the ledt-11:s and as!lll!S!IDr\"'l!lll!!lldslS tinted tollwm. fail torefted 811: '\"flu.tiers d knowledge\" about how ddl~ lean best. U.S. mathematics and sdence rurrirulums saa\nftce depth fer coverage, dm't take advantage c:J techndogies ... fail to make camectims amcng the disdplines, and generally ignere the real-life experiences and oognitive develq,ment of students. In general, students assume a passive rde, with teamer talk, textbooks, and worksheets predcrninating. The Natimal C.enter fer Educatim Statistics study recently documented the percmtage a 8th graders whose science teamers ronducted sdentific experiments. Bdh Catholic and private - other religious and ncn-religioos schods - science teachers sutpassed public sdlcds science teachers m frequency -- ance per day, and mce per week - fer prCNiding experimentatim in sdence (Educatim Weelc, September 1992). 3) lr.sbudi..a does Id reflect the need fir all stud1:11ts to llliti1lel c:hailengin\u0026amp; cudeiiL The training and suppcrt afferded teachers too aten fail to retlect the mallenge a delivering high-level cx:ntent Teamer preparatim and inservice suppcrt, dass size and teaming Iced, and teachers' oppcrtunities fer crllal:x:ration and dec:isicn making all hinder the delivery a pdent instruction. 4) Odtur.ai values and dher fa.tms antn\"bule to the belief._, fa many sludenls. high addc.:wtid in malh and sienm is not wafh slrMng for ats unallalnalJle. Except fer a small number a highly mctivated students, many pupils appear to be swayed by di~raging rultural attitudes toward math and science prctidency. In additim, the United States is ooe a very feN industrialized demcx:rades that does nct proode strmg incmtives (such as better jcb\n) to students who do well in tough high sdlcd math and science coorses. The Natimal Science Board and the ~D Panel urged that all students should be required to take math and science a full four years in grades 9-12. The Natiooal Crundl a Teachers a Mathematics, the Natimal Science Teachers' Assodaticn, and the American Associaticn fer the Advanament a Science also stated that math and science rurrirulums should cx:nnect learning to werk, integrate principles frcrn the two fields and other disciplines, and take better advantage a technologies. Similarly, grooping students by ability and tradcing shoold be eliminated. Natimwide research m tradcing suggests that being placed in a low ability track effectively slams the gate oo any passil:ility that a student can take ro.irses leading to cdlege (Natimal Educatioo Lmgitudinal Study a 1988). 15 Gaal III - Student Adtievement and Otizenship American students will leave grades foor, eight, and twelve having demcnstrated canpetency in challenging subject matter induding English, mathematics_ science, histcry, and geography\nand every schcxi in America witl ensure that all students team to use their minds wett so they may be prepared fa responsilie citizenship, further learning, and productive employment in our mcx1em ecmany. In respmse to Goal ni the Secretary ct Labcr's Canmissioo oo Achieving Necessary Skills (SCANS) issued its initial report, What Werk Reqires of Schools. This repcrt identified a three-part foundatioo - oosic skills, thinking skills, and personal q.ialities - that witl be at the heart ct jd:\u0026gt; pertcrmance both fa students gang directly to wak and those planning further educatioo. The SCANS three-part foondatioo and the ASCD panel's science and curriculum recommendations indudtng mere aedit hoors wilt be inarpcrated into the project design. In March 1992, representatives fran the fdlo.ving Arkansas educatioo and industry grrups met to discuss the knowledge and academic ampetendes that students shootd possess to sucx::eed in preparing fer aeraspace/aviatioo careers:  Aerospace industry executives  Aerospace Educatioo Center Campaign Leardership  Aviation Historical Society  State Department ct Educaticn Mathematics and Science Consultants, and the Associate Director fer Instructional Programs in Vocational and Technical Education  FAA Air Traffic Manager  LRSD Superintendent a Schods  UALR Schcrl ct Science and Engineering Essentially, the magnet witl strengthen the academic achievement ct magnet work-bamd or cr.itege-1::n.md students in mathematics_ science, techndogy, and ammunicatioo \u0026lt;D'llpetendes in oourses equivalent to cr.itege preparatcry curriculum. Aditions to rurrent typical faeign language oourse ctferings witt indude Russian, Japanese, and German. The planned magnet program ct studies wittt be based oo the Arkansas Plan fer Tech Prep, 2+4+2+2 (February, 1992). Industry represEntatives pointed rut that traditiooat oourses\" in general science and mathematics_ gecrnetry, algel:ra, trigooanetry, and English do nct emphasize enoogh practical applicatioos ct a:,ntent, especially these related to the high-tech 9know-how,  atility-t\u0026lt;Xio\" required in industry. It is imperative that industry and the public schods wcrk together to hlild strong, relevant science/math/ ammunicatioo/techndogy stand into the curriculum. Relevant curriculum 16 TABLE 3 - The Arkansas Minimum Perfcrmance Testing Pr~am - Grade 8 Basic Ski11s A. Mathematics Numeration  ldent. whole num. place value  Recog. whole num./word name  Round whole numbers  Recog. dee. word name/std. fm  Compare decimals Whole Numbers  Add whole numbers  Subtract whole numbers  Multiply whole numbers  Divide whole numbers  Solve Reading Problems B. Science Earth History  Define Earth History terms  Identify evidence which supports theory of plate tectonics Matter and Earth Materlala  Identify characteristics of matter, rock types, minerals  Identify particles of nucleus/energy levels of atom  Define pH Earth Process  Define earth processes terms  Identify agents of erosion 18 Rational Numbers  Change Fraction/equivalent  Add/subtract fractions  Change Fraction to Decimal  Add/subtract decimals  Multiply decimals  Divide dee. by whole number  Write percent as decimal Measurement  Select metric/custom meas  Determine line seg. length Geometry  Identify Shapes  Find perimeter ' Probablllty/Statlstlca  Inter. charts/tables/graphs Meteorology  Define meteorology terms  Identify major cloud types, layers of atmosphere/gases used, air pollutants and their sources, four types of precipitation  Identify weather instruments  Identify lightning causes  Interpret data from a temperature graph Oceanography and Watercycle  Define Oceanography terms  Identify water cycle  Identify causes of water pollution Universe/Astronomy  Define universe/astronomy terms Energy/Natural Resourc  Define environmental terms  Identify/classify natural resources as renewable/non-renewable means the ccnnectedness between wcrk and the magnet's specialized cunicula The magnet program must also articulate oourse ccntent and acareer ladder fran LRSD to UALR in Engtneertng Techndogy and LRSD to Henderscn State University in Aviattm. 1. State cl Arkansas Basic Skills Testing The Arkansas Minimum Performance Testing Program is the mandated state effa1 fer repcrting the number and percent of grade 3, 6, and 8 students displaying mastery in reading, mathematics, language arts, scien~ and sod al studies. LRSD minimum perfcrmance testing results fer all students and fer students categcrized by race (Black and White) dOCllment national mathematics and science findings locally, and also ccnfirm the opinion held ty industry on ccntent tested. Tal:ie 3, frund m the cppa\nite page, displays what basic skills are tested in mathematics and science An analysis a what is tested and how is indicated in the ccnduding statements below Table 3. This informattm is pcrtrayed to show the need fer a rigcroos mathematics and science linked program 17 Test items fer science and mathematics reflect kna.vledge and slcills typic.al of an upper elementary grade program Measurement and gecmetry is minimal. Testing ct physic.al science CX11cepts is limited. Test items indicated by' the werds recognize, identify, determine, select, define, ask students to recall infonnattcn, the la.vest level ct thinking per Ilcx:m's Taxcnomy. Conduding Needs Statements It interdistrict and district magnet students are, by the year 2000, to leavt. grade 8 having demcnstrated ccmpetency in challenging suqect matter, then this interdistrict magnet must provide the fdlowtng:  The applicaticn ct mathematic.al skills in science thrrugh a hands-en industry-relevant program which measures student ruta:mes thrrugh perfcrmance-based assessment.  Academic antent strengthened by' ccnnecting ooncepts fa earth, life, and physical sciences to engineering tedmdogy and aviattcn, and teaching fer a:nceptual understanding.  An instructiooal approach with 100% utilizaticn ct the science process slct11s and experimental design.  The use ct technology as an instructicnal tod in anjuncticn with ccmputer simulatioos and applicatioos fer rearding and interpreting data. TaHe 4 repats the percentage ct grade 8 students (ct the Aerospace Magnet junicr high schools) passing the Arkansas Minimum Perfamance Testing Program by race and gender catagaies as ccmpared to the percent ~ng fer all students in the district. TABLE 4 - The Arkansas Minimum Perfamance Testing Program - Grade 8 Academic Area Junior Hlah SchooUDlatrfct Percent Passlna All Students White Students BlackStudents SCIENCE Male Female Male Female District  Coverdale JH 64 95 79 70 48  Forest Heights JH 62 83 96 49 53  Southwest JH 46 n 33 46 35 MA THEMATICS District  Cloverdale JH 86 95 89 83 85  Forest Heights JH 80 87 93 70 81  Southwest JH 75 87 76 69 73 19 Results dearly sho.v there is a disparity in mathematics and sdence perfcrmance between white and 1:iack students. Major differences in the percent passing rate occur between 1:iack and white males in ooth sut\nect area5i and white and 1:iack females in sdenc:e. The wide race-gender perfcrmance gap substantiates the need to strengthen how sdence is taught to ensure equal aa:ess to.vard progress in the cxre curriculum 2. Stanford Achievement Test. Eighth Editim Students in the Little Rock School Ilstrict also take the Stanford Achievement Test each Spring. Stanford assesses achievement in all cxntent areas - Reading, :Mathematics, Language, Listening, Science, and Social Science. The Science Sllrtest reflects the natimal trend in science curriculum to.vard emphasizing a:ncepts ct science rather than isolated facts. HONever, Stanford uses the traditimal divisims - physical science, 1:idogical sdenc:e, and earth/space science as the vehicles fa testing skills and understanding ct basic oona?pts. The prqxrtims in which the area.5 a science are represented m the Sllrtest retied the emphasis each receives natimally. In mathematics, Stanford has three Sllqec:ts: Cmrepts a Number, :Mathematics Computaticn, and :Mathematics Applicatims. Special soores in using Jnfamation and Thinking Skills are derived fran an evaluatim ct responses students make to items embedded in several Sllrtests such as Mathemati~ Applicatims, Science, Scx:ial Science, Language, and Reading Canprehension. Grade eight and nine beio.v nam percentile scxres fa students enrdled in the three magnet junior high schods are sho.vn on the next page in Tatie 5 fa :Mathematics, Science, Using Jnformaticn, and Thinking Skills. Results are expressed as the percent ct students in q.iartiles me and two who scxred at a beiON a specified percentile scxre. Taal district percentile scxres are used as a basis fa cx:mparism to individual schod results. 20 G R A D E 8 9 8 9 8 9 8 9 Content Area by Quartiles DISTRICT N = 1669 N = 1625 SCHOOLS Cloverdale JH N =214 N = 199 Forest Heights JH N=205 N =210 Southweat JH N = 167 N = 183 TABLE 5 - Stanferd Achievement Test Spring 1992 Grades 8 and 9 Percentile Sa:res Mathematica Science Us~n Info. Pcentffe ecore Pcer1tlle ecore P  ecore 01 02 01 02 01 02 -  I 17 35 23 40 22 41 13 29 27 45 28 46 15 28 21 36 17 35 13 23 27 39 26 43 15 31 21 40 20 38 18 30 30 50 31 51 13 23 21 36 20 35 9 21 24 36 26 43 Quartile 2 - 50% cl students sccred at er beiow these sares Quartile 1 - 25~ cl students sccred at er beiow these sares Thlnklnff Skills Pcer111  ecore 01 02 20 40 23 41 17 34 21 55 15 35 22 43 17 28 20 36 Results indicate, e,ccept in a,e instan~ that prcposed magnet schods have sares lower than the district. In oontrast to the Arkansas Minimum Protidency Testing, students faired better in sdence than in mathematics. Spring 1992 was the first time the LRSD has given the Stanferd Achievement Test The percentile sares shown in Table 5 will serve as baseline data fer devEicping this magnet's student performance oojectives in the academics. Need 2a2: The Underrep-esentation cl Mincrities in Science and Math The Congres.5iaially estaliished Task Ferce a, Wanen, Mincrities, and the Handicapped in Science and Technology report, 0tanging Amaica: The New Face ct Science and Engineering, fwnd that Blacks, who romprise 12% ct the U.S. pqrulation, make up just 2~ ct all sdentists and engineers. The findings are especially 21 unsettling considering changing demographics. Prqectia,s indicate that by the year 2000, Blacks and Hispanics a:rnl:ined will make up 47% a the American students enrdlment. As a result it is imperative that the naticn and local school districts take extraordinary steps to prepare minorities fa- greater levels a partidpatia, in science, math, and engineering. The Quality F.ducatia, fa- Mina-ities Plan fa- improving sdence and mathematics instructia, nationally calls for q.iadrupling the number c:i mina'ity students receiving bachela-'s degrees in the sciences and engineering from 17,000 in 1987 tt, 68,000 ~ 2000 (F.ducatia, Week, April 1992). In the Little Rock Sd\\cxi Ilstrict 68% c:i the grade 7-9 enrollment is Black. This is a 7% inaease over 1987 figures. LRSD anticipates a:ntinued gains in the number/ percent a Black students. The aitical issue c:i underrepresented minorities, i.e. B1acks, and the need to 1:ring Blacks up to parity in perfa-mance and graduaticn rates, and in cdlege enrdlment is a goa1 a the LRSD as evidenced in the Pulaski County School Desegregation Case Settlement Plans and Agreement:  If any a the Incentive Schcrls remains rada11y identifialie (80% or ma-e Blade) after six years, LRSD has explicitly a:mmitted itself to cn1tinue pr~ viding a:rnpensata-y and enhancement funding (refer to page 4).  1t at any time between the date c:i this agreement and December 31, 2000, the a:rnfX]Site sares a LRSD Blade students (exduding special educatim students) a, a standardized test are 90% a- greater a the cxmpa\nite scores a LRSD white students (exduding special educatia, students), the esaONed funds will be paid to LRSD and any wtstanding loans wi11 be fa-given. The intent is that LRSD wi11 receive 20 millicn ddlars plus any accrued interest if its goa1 c:i in~ing student achievement is reached and that the State will be repaid in fu11 amwnt a all loans plus interest if the LRSD does nd reach its goal (September 1989). The magnet enrolls 1,571 Blade students. Curria.tlum focuses a, math/science cn1tent as related to careers in the Aera\npace industry. Additimally, the magnet provides the student with nine (9) career cpticns artiallated to university programs. This magnet was purposefully designed to lay the fwndation fa- later academic perfamance and interest in math and science related fields. Induded in the design is career cnmseUng. Career camseling will stress in the student selfworth, motivaticn, and a:rnmitment to accxmplish personal goals in learning and in Aera\npace career preparatirn. The sdlcxi district, industry, and higher educatim believe this ailaborative etfm to develcp a high tech, marketalie skills magnet wi11 a:nttibute significantly to raising Black student acheivement in mathematics and science, and to increasing the number a blade students receiving associate and 1:adlelor degrees in engineering tedmdogy and airway science. 22 Need 2h ~etc.ping Marketarie Technical Skills  America's on~axnmanding lead in the aitical techndogtes driving ea:nanic growth and natialal security is selwsly threatened by faeign ampetitas,  the Coondl al Competitiveness said in its repcrt Gaining New Grwnd: Technd~ Ptiatties fa America's Future. The term High-Tech is used to describe a wide variety c:i rosinesses and industry which indude: aercspace, a:mputers and software, telecx:1rn11unications, electralic compments, medical technology, instruments fa measuring and cxntrolling manufacturing proces.5es, energy, environmental, phctographic, lasers and cptical, and data processing services. The Natialal Center fa Advanced Techndogies (NCAn a the Aerospace Industries Asscx:iatial (AIA) Key Techndogies fa the Year 2000 Program have indentifted these high-priaity techndogies:  Ccrnputatialal Science  Satware ~elcpment  Advanced Metallic Structures  Advanced Composites  Superconductivity  tntra-Reliarie Electralic Systems  Artificial lntellegence  Airtreathing Prcpulsial  Rodcet Prcpulsion  Optical Information Processing  Advanced Senscrs These techndogies represent a shared view a U.S. technology requirements. Gitical technologies in Engineering Prcxiudial and. Electronic Canponents where the United States is falling behind a will net have a presence are represented in Tatie 6 al the next page.  U.S. Departmens of Comnerce anl W'ense\nW.te House Clflce of SdCIICe and Ta::hnology (Refer to Appendix for defintions anl list of CX\u0026gt;nlributing orgarizali0111.  23 TABLE 6: Tedmd~es in Which the United States is Weak, Losing Badly, er HAS LOST Engineering and Pnxbilc:n Tedmdqpes  Design for Manufacturing  Design a Manufacturing Processes  Aexilie Manufacturing  High-Speed Machining  Predsim Machining and Perming  lntegratim c:J Research, Design, and Manufacturing  Integrated Orwit Fabricatim and Test Equipment  Rolx)tiQ\nand Autanated Equipment  Tctal Quality Management Eediud~ G.up.ai.erds  Memory Cllips  Printed Orcuit Board Techndogy  Optical lnfcrmatim Sterage  Multichip Packaging Systems  Liquid Crystal Displays  Electro StatiQ\nSwrce: Ca.mdl m Canpetitiveness\npartial listing This infcrmation has implicatims fer the need a this magnet to - teach industrial relevant technology skills in state-of-the-art technology laooratories - place a heavy fcx:us m the application c:J scientific knowledge - use engineers and technicians fran industry as instructors - provide industry-msed learning experiences for students. Students in this magnet are primarily being trained as technicians. Technicians working with autcmated equipment must be familiar with lxth software and hardware used by a:,mputers and miaoprcx:es\u0026amp;rs. The development, design, installatim, calil:ratioo, manufacture, assembly, and fabrication processes using sophisticated equipment, tools, machines, and canputers require a roml:ination a knowledge and skills extending far beymd the simple fail-safe mechanical devices c:J a few decades ago The aera\npace industry and its array c:J suppliers and sub-cxntracters are among those that will increasingly require techndogically literate entry level werkers. The American Vocatimal As\u0026amp;x:iation (AV A) and the Center fer Oc:cupatimal 24 Research and I:evelcpment (CORD) pcint wt that technicians currently being prepared for entry in tana-row's werk ferc:e shwld possess several important characteristics. A fei.v ci these are highlighted belo.v because they have ramificatiais on the curriculum desaibed later. 1. , 3. 4. A BROAD KNOWLEDGE BASE: They must possess fundamental academic skills in reading, cxrnmunicating, computing, and applied science. COMPUTER LITERACY: Many high tech processes are cxrnputerized. Thus workers shwld pa\n~ a basic understanding ci a::mputers and their applicaticrts in manufacturing and management infamatia, systems. At base, students should have the kno.vledge necessary to ~ and use miaopr~s er intelligent computer terminals using cxrnmerdally available scitware packages. AWARENFSS OF A RAPIDLY CHANGING WORK ENVIRONMENT: Develq:,ments in CAD (cxrnputer aided design) and CAM (computer aided manufacturing) alaig with advances in telea::rnmunicatiais, integrated circuits_ laser/c:ptics and ether computer applicatims assure that techndogy will continue to grow and expand. Thus, technical werkers require a broad base in technical and mathematical kno.vledge so that they can learn nei.v techndogies and assimilate nei.v infa-matia, after they are employed. UNDERSTANDING OF A SYSfEMS ORIENTATION: Modern manufacturing techniques are cxrnprised ci a:mplex inter-related systems of electrical, electraiic, pneumatic, hydraulic, thermal, and q:\u0026gt;tical devices. People who werk with such equipment need a broad understanding ci such systems. Specialists in each ci these fields will still be required, but a grasp ci the overall systems ci produdia, will be impcrtanl This grasp calls fer an interdisciplinary approach to training. 'With the diversity a high technologies, the need fer new \u0026lt;XJJrses is great. This will require LRSD to integrate techndogies and new content into easting \u0026lt;XJJrses as well as aeate specialized \u0026lt;XJJrses a study. Some examples in this magnet are Computer-aided Design (CAD) Applications_ Lego Logo Rdxxics_ High Tech Presentatiais, Aitway Science Olrriculutl\\ and Quantitative Literacy fer ~ Althwgh LRSD has prepared \u0026lt;XJJrse desaiptions and wtlines (ref er to appendix), additicrtal a:Jltent outlining labcratcry and design prqects need to be develq:\u0026gt;ed with aera.pace/aviatia, representatives and the university. Hight and space cmcepts need to be infused into the new science curriculum thus aeating the aerospace science \u0026lt;XJJrse a study. In additia,, \u0026lt;XJJrse content needs to be incaporated into an assessment design that measures actual student performance in academic and werk-based learning requirements. 25 Need 2c Empl~t and Training Needs in the Aera\npace Industry Tcxiay in our country there is a aitical need for highly-skilled state-a-the-art technicians in the aeraspace industry. Aaxrding to testimeny by the Arlcansas Aerospace Task Face, Tue greatest chattenge is to aeate an educated workface able to rapidly meet the needs a the industry. Although there witt always be a need fa spedalized training, in the Ieng term mudl can be dene to better prepare students fa emplOjtnerlt Education is our largest investment in Arkansas and that investment prq,erty focused can be our ma\nt significant advantage CNer ether states. This statement parallels the disturting finding a the U.S. Labor IRpartment's Secretary's Canmission en Achieving N~ Skills (SCANS): Mae than half a all young peq,le leave schoo without the skills needed fa prcxiuctive empl~t. These young pEq)le witt face the tieak prospect a dead-end jdJ after dead-end jdJ interrupted only by periods a unemployment\" (Education Week, May t 992). Aax:rding to the Natienal Center en Educatien and the E\u0026lt;Dtany, the average skill level a graduates net lnmd fa cxilege is the functienal ecp.livalent a about a 7th a 8th grade achievement level. ~ at risk are students in the so-called general and vocational \"tracks. Because employers generally aren't interested in the oourses jdJ applicants have taken a the grades they have earned, these students have little inCEntive to take tough academic dasses a to earn high marks. As a result, high schod becanes a hdding tank fa tha\ne not gcing en to cxilege. Researdlers studying the wcrkface pcint to an aninous sign: gcx:x:i jct\u0026gt;s - the kind that ctfer reasonatie pay and the cppcrtunity to advance aleng a career ladder - are gradually being shut ctf to students fresh out a school. The ma\nt prominant explanation fa such findings is that while the skill and knowledge requirements fa entry and advancement in the wakf ace are rising, graduates are nd: being prepared to meet inaeased demands. New wakers must be aeative and respa-lsible proolem solvers and have the skills and attitudes on whidl employers can b.lild,  acxxrding to the SCANS Canmissicn \"Traditienal jct\u0026gt;s are changing and new job, are created everyday. High paying, b.lt unskilled jct\u0026gt;s are disappearing. What the Commissien calls '\"high-perfamance\" wakplaces are mae flexitie and rustaner aiented. Schcds must teadl the skills pocple need to be productive and adaptable wa-kers. A commitment to meet this challenge was adopted in a resolutia, by the Board ct Directa-s a the Oty a Little Rc:x:k to use ea:nanic develcpment funds to develq:\u0026gt; an Aerospace Museum and f:ducatien Center. Resduticns pertinent to the empl~t and training need fa this magnet are stated below: '\"Whe:eas. the dfy' d litlle Rak bas mailllained an eamanlc ceMqxueul fund so that the city Cilll enwmage .illld pUide lhe llliilllnlal3II d j~ and 26 'Whel zm dties and stales thmaghoat rm-naUcn cudinue lo me funds fa- eacn::ullc develcp:te4 to ptDde the amllon and ~ d ~ and \\\\k:ca. the d9 llwgh tis lmillDi~ Dewlqm.ad lbnd made availalJle S3 miOicn to fadlffale the aealim d mere than 3111 jdJs al Alkansash-iiifMI\n...t va...ca. dtiZl!IIS and bushrm have janm lcgellNS toplan fa ... ... ., .. e UliiSi:illll and the lit8e Rim Jtwg. iifMP \"fedmdogy Mag11et Sd1DCl (aflnfl'Ulty ti-. \u0026gt;en ,a e Cenlaj as part d the litOe Rim Abpn arm cnrp~ and \\WK.ca. the di wiD beudit .ind be slrmglhened by .. Jw-1 -,ae r..m11rtoaliitie rm- dtizms to be tralrel fajdJs in therelaled a,1-,:ae hdistrywhic:h is gt\u0026lt;Mingin little Ra:k.. Two SCANS repats outline the slcills students should be taught and what needs to be done to Effectively teach them. In additirn to the fourydatirn skills (refer to page 5), there is a set a five cx:mpetendes that are at the oore a jci:\u0026gt; pertcrmance. Acarding to SCANS these will be needed a all graduates, 1:xlth the cdlege-ba.md and those directly entering the wakfcrce. The five wakplace rompetendes are desaibed below:  Resam:es Fmployees need to be able to identify, organize, plan, and allocate resources (such as time, mrney, materials and facilities, and human resources).  hdapa50iwl stills. Employees should be able to wak effectively with ethers. F.xamples are theabilities to participate as a member a a team, teach ethers new slcills, serve dients or custaners, exercise leadership. negotiate, and wak with diverse people  lnfmmallm. Employees need to be able to acquir~ evaluate, interpret, and ccmmunicate informatirn, as well as to use amputers to process infcrmatia,.  Sy:stma. Employees must understand how social, aganizational, and techndogical systems wak and cperate effectively within them They must tllCllita and arred perfcrmance, improve the quality a prcx:1ucts and services in existing systems and develq\u0026gt; new a alternative systEms.  Tedwdcgy. Employees must be al:ie to judge which sets of prcx:edu~ tools, a machines, induding amputers and their programs, will prcx:1uce the desired results. They must be al:ie to set up and q,a-ate amputers and their programming systems as well as maintain and troubleshoot techndogy. 27 The Canmissirn's plan as detailed in America's Choice High Skills or Low Wages also reccmmends that: All students must meet a nalicnal slandard d educaticnal eca.tlena: by age 16 or SCDt themaftel'. Students passing a series d perfmnanm-based zu:\n:a:uls that reffed: the standard waild reaive a Certificale d Initial Maslesy. Nier t\u0026amp;Eiving the amfi~ sludmts waild diuaie to go to wak_ enter a ailegep1t, pttan, a study fa a tedmical or pde!liiicnal amfiClle. In this magnet's prqect design, the SCANS ccmpetencies will be inrotpcrated into the mathematics, science and technical crurses of study as well as the design for measuring student performance and the attainment d this magnet's program oqectives. The change this magnet envisions will require additirnal resoorces through the funding of this prgect. Amrng the most impcrtant will be investments in curriculum writing, teacrer training, technology and instructional material including oomputer-based and multimedia material. To address the employment and technical training needs, Little Rock's Aera\npace Campaign Leadership and Industry has turned to LRSD, UALR, and Hendersoo State University to develcp a better student. With the assistance of the United States Department of Educatirn and the Little Rod\u0026lt; Aera\npace Campaign Leadership and industries, LRSD beleives it can provide a state-a-the-art technology-driven Mathematics, Airway Science and Engineering Magnet Program which meets the purpa\nes, priaities, and special ccnsideratirns d the MSAP as well as addresses the natirnal imperative to maintain a wcrldwide canpetitive lead in techndogy. Progaan Goai 2 To strengthen the kno.vledge a Academic Crntent and to develcp marketable technical skills a students in project magnet schools. Oqective 2.a 1: Performance Assessment: Applied Science/Mathematics/Techndogy Integraticn with SCANS Wcrkplace Competencies and the Occupatioo Program Majors By the condusicn a the prqect period at least 80% of the grade 7-10 students enrolled in the magnet schoo program will have attained the Wcrk-Rea'f,Y Proficiency Levela en the LRSD-SCANS Perfamance-Based Assessment administered the first week d May. a What Wcrk Requires d School, a SCANS Report for America 2000, p. 24-29 (U.S. Department d Labor Secretary's Ccmmission rn A~ieving Necessary Skills. 28 b Perfamance Standards will be set the first prgect year when actual baseline data beccmes available. O1:-\nective 2.a2: Performance Assessment: Certificates ci Initial Mastery (CIM) By the a::nlusion of the prgect period in 1995, at least 90% ci the grade 10 students in the magnet program will have achieved a Certificate ci Initial Masterya as repaied on the student's Cumulative Resume and verified by the site magnet Assistant Principal. ac1M is defined as the attainment ci an overall standard. The overall standard will be estatiished by the end ci the first prgect year in relatirn to student ootcx:rnes repaied for d.Jjectives 2.a 1 and 2.b, and the Cumulative Resume. The Cumulative Resume will show prcticiency levels fcr the wcrkplace cx:rnpetencies and Aerospace Techndogy courses completed based on evaluatirn results reflected in Pcrtfdias and Perfa-man~Based Assessment materials. Leaming a Living: A Blueprint fcr High Perfcrmance. A SCANS Repcrt fcr America 2000, pages 60-68. Objective 2.b: Pcrtfdio Assessment By the ca,dusirn ci the project period, 80% ci the grade 7-12 students enrdled in the magnet schcxi program will scx:re at cr aoove an established competene,ya sare oo each ci foor ( 4) teacher and student selected SCANS Integrated Assignments. One repai cr assignment must be selected fran each of the four (4) major areas. The extent to which this d.Jjective is met will be determined by teacher records and verified by the site magnet Assistant Principal. aeanpetency will be defined as an average ci at least 2 on each report using the follCJNing scale: 4 Well beyond expec:tatirns fcr grade level\nextracrdinary. 3 Does better than expectatirns fcr grade level\ncx:rnpetent/fluent. 2 At level cr average performance fcr grade level\nappears cx:rnfaiable with demands ci prgec:t. 1 Approaching average pertcrmance for this grade level\nsome skill/ comprehensirn acquired. 0 Novice\nno evidence of relevant skill/ cx:rnprehension Computer Technology 1. Word Processing/ Keyboarding - Using proper keyboarding and editing skills to produce documents. 2. Graphic Design: Using the graphic program to produce graphics. 3. Communicatirns: Using speaking, writing, video cr hypermedia to 29 express an idea. 4. Programming: Being able to write a set d instruc:t:ioos in the hypermedia or LEGO/ LOGO environments. and Technology Lab 2000 1. 2. 3. 4. and Aeros_pace Science 1. Scientific Method - Experimental Design: Given a questicn er a prol::iem, students will fcrmulate a hypcthesis, design an experiment, observe and draw ca,dusions fran the data 2. Process Skills: Canparing, erganizing, categcrizing, relating, infening, applying. 3. Computer Technology fer Scientific Purpcses: Having a product that reflects the use ct computers, laser discs, VCR's, cala.tlators, and science equipment. 4. Self-Assessment/Self-Esteem: Student and teacher selected werk will be placed in individual student pcrtfdias. and Airway Science 1. 2. 3. 4. or Engineering Technology 1. 30 I 2. 3. 4. olective 2.d Program Effectiveness During June ci each prqect year, at least 80% ci the parents, students, and teachers will rate the fdlowing items \"effective\" oo a locally develc:ped survey:  breadth ci curriClllum  program qua! ity  parent training  teacher training  use of community resources  program ccntributions to career c:ptions  improved student achievement  pcsitive ccntributioo to student career plans By the conclusion of the project in 1995, the percent of Aerospace School students scoring in the second, third and fourth quartiles on the Stanford Achievement Test : in mathematics and science will exceed the percent of students scoring in the sec~nd, third and fourth  quartile~. in other LRSD schools_ in grades 8, 9 and 10. 31 I : Quality of Project Design The project includes the f dlowing topics: A OJerview: The Aera\npace Techndogy Curriwlum 1. Applied Science and Science Labcratay 2. Applied Mathematics 3. Computer Technology and the Canputer Tedmdogy Laboratay 4. Faeign Languages 5. Engineering Techndogy 6. Aviation 7. SCANS I\u0026lt;now-Ho.v 8. Work-Based and Wak-Site Leaming and Experience B. Aerospace Technology in Grades Seven and Eight (Junior High Level) 1. Content Knowledge in Mathematics 2. Content Knowledge in Sdence 3. Content I\u0026lt;no.vledge in Canputer Techndogy 4. The Techndogy Lab 2000 Cuniwlum Integrattoo c.enter 5. Infamatioo and Guidance  C Aerospace Technology in Grades Nine and Ten 1. Content I\u0026lt;no.vledge in Mathematics, Sden~ and Computer Technology 2. Content l\u0026lt;nONledge in Engineering Techndogy 3. The Techndogy Lab 2000: Scientific Uterac.y Center 4. Caltent Knowledge in Airway Science 5. Workplace Readiness and Industry/ Business Internships 0 . Instruc:ticnal Approaches and ft\u0026amp;essment a Student Perfamance 1. Learning in Caltm 2. Product Development Team.1/Cooperative Leaming 3. The Patfdio 4. Perfanance-Based Assessment E. Teacher and Student Organizatioo F. flexible Scheduling G. The Aviatiat Museum Educaticn Department Docent Program 1. Courses a Instruc:tioo 2. The Library 3. School Visitatiat Program 4. Planetarium 5. Imax Theater ! l The Aerospace Technology Curriculum ---------.... Applied Mathematica Aerospaoe Mathematics (7) Applied Mathematics I (8)  Applied Mathematics II (9) Oescnptive Geometry (10 Technical Algebra II (11) Ouant,tallve Literacy lot Aerospace (12) Technical Algebra I (8) Descriptive Geometry (9) Tecmical Algebra II (10) Advanced Algebra/ Trigonometry ( 11) Calcuus (12) Aviation Airway Science Intro AeronauticsA.ab (9) or General Aviation (9) or Machine Shop Technology (9) Programming Language (10) or Aircraft Systems Theory (10) or Powerplant Theory \u0026amp; Maintenance (10) Powerplant Theory (11) Of Electncal Circuit Analysis ( 11) Fortran..Cobol ( 11) or Av1at1on SaletyA..egislation/Air Transportation (11) Pnvate Pilot Cert.A.ab (12) Powerplant Systems (12) or Air Traffic Control\" (12) or Assembler Language \u0026amp; Operating Systems Internship I, II (11 , 12) Aerodynamics \u0026amp; Performance (12)  Classes w,11 be instructed ,n Museum of Aviation HistOfy - Comput Technology Integrated Software Applications and Logowriter Robotics (7) Hypercard.tiypermedia and Aerospaoe Pr9-CAO(8) HI-Tech Preeentationl (9, 10) Applied Comnulicallon (English) (12) I Foreign Language Japaneee or RuNian or~ or Spanish or German Magnet Course Sequences Grad 7-12 Title Ill  Magnet Schools Asaistance, Sec. 3003: Statement of PurJ)098 (2) - Courses of instruction to substantialy strengthen academe subjects and the tangible/ marketable vocational skills. --- Applied Science Aeroepaoe Science I (7) Aeroapece Science II (8) Aeroepace Biology (9) ~ Phyaical Science (10) I Chemistry (10) Aerodynamcs and Meteorology (11) Physics ( 11) Deea1)tive Mtro11omy \u0026amp; Physical Geology (12) Engineering Technology Intro. Concurent Ens\nneering (9) or km\u0026gt;. eon,,ue. Sc:lence (9) Coquer-Alded O.V, Appbtons (10) or Marulldwing E11gl11wtng Technology I, II (10, 11) E1ec:nl lice Engineer' ig TectuologyCAD I. II (10, 11) AdvMOed Con1)Ullr-Aided Design Applications (11) Progran'ln'ing tor Englneer:.ig Majors (12) Fabrication DNis,l Prqecta (12) or Mechanical Systems DP (12) or Manufacturing Design Project (12) Internship I, II (11, 12) - - H. The Staff Training Plan L The Aviation Museum Educaticnal Reswrce Center fer Teachers J. The Planning Canpcnent to Develc:p Aera\npace Tochndogy Magnet Curriculum fer the High Schoo K Bringing Students Fran Different Backgroonds Together L Staff Experience in and Knowledge d Curriculum Development and Desegregation Strategies M Addressing Educaticnal Needs Appropriate to Students Enrdled N. Parental Decisicn-Making and Involvement Each tc:pic is desaibed in detail after the averview to this secticn. A Overview What fdlows is a oomprehensive summary cl the Aera\npace Technology c:urridum As shown in the erganizaticnal chart below, the Aerospace Techndogy Magnet is erganized into two cxx:upatiooal program majers d nine career tracks and an interrelated academic and tedlndogy cxre of requirements ansisting of Applied Mathematics and Science, and Canputer Techndogy. The Aerospace Technology Curriculum Elective Elective Integration Core Integration Aviation Applied Engineering  Airway Science Science Technology Aitway Coml)IUf  Manufadl.ling Engineering Sa.nee Applied Technology A:lrway Science Mathematica Management * *  Electronics Engineering Alo-craft Systems Computer Technology Management Technology  Computer Engineering Aviation Maintenance Tedinology  Professional Pilot Foreign Language  Mechanical Engineering Tedinology A structured sequence ci courses has been specifically designed fcr each ci the three curricular canponents to enhance participants' prospects fcr immediate employment cr continued education following high school graduation. All magnet students in grades seven through ten will participate in applied mathematics and science, and a:mputer technology roursework each year. This means that magnet students will take one mere year d math and two more years of science than is required for high schoo graduation. All magnet students have the optirn of beginning f ereign language instructia, in grade 7, 8, er 9 in a,e language d their chcice. This allCMts for six years of c:x:ncentrated study d a global language. Magnet students will select ether the Aviatia, er Engineering Techndogy Occupational Magnet program majer and a career track within the selected occupatia,al area upa, entering grade nine. The magnet student will then fdlCMt the specialized course sequence throogh grade 12, thereby rompleting the program in his/her occupational program majer. The chart a, the cpposite page ootlines the curriculum by' a::rnprnents and grade levels fer the entire grade 7-12 aera\npace magnet. Grade 7-10 course sequences willl be implemented during the two year MSAP prqect period (1993-95). Grade 10 students will ccntinue the curricular path as eleventh graders in 1995-96 and as twelfth graders in 1996-97. The latter two years (1995-97) are not MSAP prqect years fer this particular application, theref er~ courses intrcx:iuced during these two years will be desaibed in the Canmitment and Capacity sectia, of this application. The magnet's articulated course sequences in Mathematics and Science, Aviation, and Engineering Techndogy are designed fer students to romplete in advance some requirements to.vard receipt a Federal Aviatirn Administration (FAA) certificates, and/ a Associate d Applied Science or Bachelcr a Science degrees. 1. Applied Science and Sdence Lal:xratg:y Aerospace Science ccntent will be presented in ccnnectia, with its applicatirns in aviatioo/space, design and production technology, and envirrnment protection. This will be aa::omplished throogh the reaganization a the district's science curriculum and the aera\npace science applications (refer to Appendix) to themes. Themes are ideas that integrate the ccncepts of different scientific disciplines. Crnnecting the impatant science ccncepts between existing curriculum and aerospace science with science themes will improve students' ability to make more meaningful the relatirnships between science c:x:nc:epts and ether related disciplines. Amrng the maja themes that will be used are tha\ne discussed in Science Fer All Americans: * Chapter 11, Common Themes, p. 155. See Appendix.  Systems  Coostancy  Patterns c:i O,ange  Scale  Model  Evolution Table 1 represents a pattern fer a a:ntent matrix that will be filled in with a:ncepts and thematic ideas. Table 1 - A Pattern for a Content Matrix Grade 7 8 9 10 Phyalcal Science General Science Earth Science Aerospace Science LHe Aviatlorv Product erw, a 11 a El Science Spece Engln..,ing .... Unifying Concepts Theme(a) Subconcepts The magnet's science teacher specialists wi11 use the pattern fer a a:ntent matrix to design the sa:pe and sequence d the Aerospace Science curriculum (grades 7-8) Aerospace lidogy (grade 9) Aerospace Physical Science (grade 10) in cxnjunctia, with the district's General Science and lidogy airticulum. Building the matrix will require that magnet teacher specialists have a cxncentrated pericxi d time free from teaching respcnsibilities. This applicatim asks for cuniculum writing time during the summers and after school hrurs to develop the matrix in collabcratim with the universities and industry. Implementatim of the matrix will be enhanced by student investigatim and experimentatia, in a laboratory setting. This program also requires a science labcratcry at each magnet site for students to experience hands-a, activities keyed to the matrix. The lal::x:lratcry will be set-up to indude scientific equipment and materials, fifteen canputers and canputer interface boxes, probeware, and software pad\u0026lt;ages that will allow students to simulate experiences and use canputer utilities (spreadsheet, graphing programs, database, wcrd processing). The district is asking fer magnet program assistance to enable its 1:fack students and incaning white students to participate together in these specialty-designed experiences. The lab will be staffed by a prqect-hired science teacher specialist who will be a member ci a,e of the magnet's Science/Math/TECH instructirnal teams. This instructia,al team will direct each ci its four teams of 30 magnet students in the labcratcry per the flexible schedule desaibed a, page __ . To determine impcrtant aspects of lal:xratory implementatia, major goals have been established. These are student attainment ci: Manipulative and canmunicative skills to indude the manipulation of materials and equipment, and the cdlectioo/ organizatioo/ canmunication ci information fran lalx:ratcry experiments and activities Ratiooal and aeative thinking precesses throogh obsetving and ccnducting statistical procedures, through cdlecting, dassifying, and measuring oqects\nthroogh indentifying and ccntrdling variables in ccntrolled experiments This goal invdves students in learning the scientific precesses ci cbserving, canmuni~ting, canparing, crganizing, relating, and applying. The district envisioos the fdlowing scenario as to ooe way magnet students witl learn in the special science laboratory: The Aerospace science teacher specialist prOv'ides an interactive video disc presentation desaihng gravity as fcrce. Because it is hooked to a canputer program, the infcrmatioo on the disk will be accessed in a variety ci ways (e.g., noo-linear). Throughoot the viewing ci the video, students will disa.iss gravity and fcrmulate answers to fellow students' questions about gravity a, ether planets in oor sdar system. To protide them with additiooal infcrmatioo, the students will have acx:ess to 1) the Aerospace Educatioo Center films, 2) university programs, and 3) a variety d other infcrmaticn sources available throogh satellite canmunicatirns netwcrks. Werking in teams, students will use a variety d canputer programs to simulate gravity in various envirrnments, logging infamation aboot each envirrnment into a spreadsheet using the graphing fundioo. They will use a wcrd processcr to reard and analyze their observatirns. Students will use telec:cmmunicatirns sdtware to seek advice from a NASA scientist atout findings frcrn their simulation studies and the relationship between these simulations and actual NASA expeditirns. They will prepare a aief video presentatirn, desaiang their experiences, to help other students understand gravity. The skills to implement videcxiisc instructirn and authcring programs will be taught in the Integrated Scttware Applicatirns and Hypermedia ccmputer cuurses. 2. Applied Mathematics As displayed in the Applied Mathematics box of the chart on page---, all grade 7 magnet students wiJt take Aera\npace Mathematics. Beginning in grade 8, two cuurse sequmce routes are depicted: A Applied Mathematics I (8) Applied Mathematics II (9) Desaiptive Geomeay (10) Technical Algetra (11) Quantitative Literacy fer Aerospace (12) n Technical Algebra I (8) Descriptive Geaneay (9) Technical Algetra II (10) Advanced Algebra/Trigonanetry (11) Calculus (12) Ca.irse sequence A was devised fer learners who have generally an eighth-grade, pre-algetra mathematics a:mpetency level. Coorse sequmce B captures the student whose perfcrmance indicates readiness fer algetra in grade 8. Beth CDJrses antain required antent knowledge which is supplemented ~ engineering er aviatirn related skills and activities. The engineering and aviatirn applications have been develq:,ed with industry and university persamel, are relevant to careers emphasized in this program, and are linked to the Aerospace Science and occupational curriculum Coorse antent is desaibed rn pages __ . 3. Computer Technol~y and the Computer Techndogy Latoratay Course crntent in Integrated Scttware Applicatirns, Logo.vriter Rolxtics, Hypercard/ Hypermedia, Aerospace Pre-CAD, and Hi-Tech Presentatirn will give students the backgroond of knONledge and skills needed to be competent a:mputer users in the Engineering Techndogy and Airway Science COJrsewcrk\nin the Techndogy Lab 2000\nand at the wcrksite. Canputer COJrse content reflects a se::iuential program d skill development and task ccmplexity invdving the learning of sdtware applications, specific programs, and multimedia equipment. To implement the OJUrsewcrk, this magnet program requires a ccmputer labcratay at the individual magnet sites. Canputer cwrsewcrk will require ooe ccmputer per student in a class. To accanodate the typical grade 7-10 class size, 30 Macintosh LC Ifs, 3 Laserwriter Ifs and 2 Imagwriter Ifs, Telea:rnmunications hardware/scttware, a Macintosh Quadra file server system, and Appletalk Netwerk (Ethernet) hardware will be needed for each lab. All programs will be stered oo the Quadra fileserver. Printers, the Quadra file server, and individual Macintosh ccmputers will be c:a,nected together into a network system. Via the network, students will acces.s and c:a,trd cx:ntent, applications, and infamatioo in the areas ci systems simulattoo, wcrd processing, Lego Logq rd:xJti~ and publishing. They will produce their own presentatioo material by importing so.md, graphi~ digitized phctographs to hypercard or laserdisc stacks ci their CJINn creatioo, and receive suppcrting visual imagery oo adjacent video mooiters. The 1~ netwerk wilt allow teachers and students to share files, scitware, and printers. In additioo, dassrcx:ms within the school, the fair magnet schools, and the museum will be tied In together to the Prqect Directer's Office allowing for additional netwerk services like electronic mail and database sharing that will be widely utilized fer ccilalxrative prqects amo.ing the Aerospace Magnet Schcds. Educational benefits of the Aerospace Magnet Netwcrk include:  Group document editing and management (student and teacher prqects).  Screen sharing giving the Prqect Director and teacher the capaality to view any Macintosh mooiter oo the netwerk.  Central database fer scitware documents, and aerospace magnet information.  Calendaring fer magnet and museum events.  Electronic Mail to speed up ccmmunicaticn and reduce paper. Hypermedia, Hi-Tech Presentatioo cwrse hardware requirements indude an Apple One Scanner, Apple CD 150, Videodisc Player, Macreccrders, Video recorders, Cama:rders, Video Digitizer, Roster Opps Board, and speakers. This hardware will be erganized Cl'\\ teacher and student werkstations. The ccmputer curriculum goals and oojectives statements found en page ---, and project o.itlines located in the appendix illustrate hew students will apply knowledge/skills attained within the disttid and aerospace techndogy curriculum in multimedia, team projects. The lessoo design and project ootlines spell rut the suqect area concepts er skill extensioos, the scttware program and applicaticn, student team activities, and product. Fer example, students will use canputer applic.atirns in spreadsheets to answer \"What If?\" questirns, to test hypctheses, and to ca1struct famulas pertaining to mathematical and logic.al functirns. Students will e,cpress ideas via wcrd processing and create simulatirns cr variws situatioos using hypercard. In progamming, students will prcx:iuc:e output in text, graphics, and rdxt actioos. They will use numeric and variables, arithmetic operates, and design appropriate errcr tapping rwtines. Instruction in the canputer coorsewak and integrated rumcular team projects will cane fran a Canputer Techndogy Specialist who will be a TECH member cr the Science/Math/TECH lnstructa Team Canputer Techndogy Specialists will use a single canputer with a large TV as a derna,stratioo device. They will preplan lessons a, the canputer and will reccrd the Jessa, using the VCR The Jessa, will be presented to students to actively invdve them in disoovery learning. Lesson segments may be replayed cr stepped as needed for disrussia, and darificatiai. Video benetits students' conceptual understanding cl mathematics and science applicatioos. Real cbject or events can be sha.vn fran several angles. perspectives, aders cl magnification and pcints cl view, such as flipping and rctattng shapes in geanetry. Video animation 1~ and canputer graphics will especially be used to introduce, explain, a reinface ooncepts. Ptia lessen planning using the canputer, TV saeen, and VCR enable the teacher to better JT\\Cllita and adjust the teaming fa students and to give individualized help as needed during the Jessa,. The canputer techndogy instructiaial schedule will oonsist cl eight, 50-60 minute periods that will interface with the magnet block fJexibte schedule ootlined a, page ---. The cx:mputer labcratory will be cpened fa students to use befae schcd and at lunch. After schcd the a:mputer lab will be used fa parent education. The Madnt~ Product Registry (September 1992) p-ogram desaiptims, (in cx:x,sultatim with expert users), was used to identify software utility programs. All satware programs pia to purchase will be previewed by magnet teacher specialists in cx:x,junctfon with the Aeraspac:e Techndogy 0.1rrt0.1lum Scttware evaluatia, fains specially-designed for this p-qect will be a:rnpleted to dcx:ument 0.1rrt0.1tum relevance and prcblem-sdvtng capa}jlities. 4. Faeign LaniYap Japanese, Russian, German, French, and Spanish wilt be clfered beginning in grade 7. Currently, the CXJl\"e rurria.llum for grades seven and eight does net emphasize foreign language The high school a.miailum requires 2 years of the same language. The Aerospace Techndogy Currirulutl\\ thereta~ is providing students with the cppatunity to start a modern language early to  L ' ... ,. -  - ~ - -    \nI'  I ..., ... - ...... ,.\n I g I I w .\n:) u t,J tJ u\nl .:\u0026gt; f.Jt \\., I d I ll t:: :::\nLRSD Occupational Areas of Focus Computer-Aided Design/Drafting Product Engineering Environmental Quality Assurance Job Descriptions Product Engineering DefWllon: The llnplementalion ol all ~ of manufacturing  product and ll0ollng delign, COit, deCal P,odUCllon and ope,allan plant, ayatema and procedurNhnlthodt, qualty aaurance mlthodt, meteriall and procna apeclflcaliona, and problem rwoMion. Job Description: Production EnginMta adm.,..., tool Ind manufactlmg P,actlcN for. rna\no, projecl ~ ptOduc:t ..... At the tectinlcal level emphult It on dNlgn analytil, performance analyllt, 1Y11MM and p,ooedurN mlNI, geneaa1 problem lnvNlglon, and maleflalt and PfOCNa IIMeligldona. AJ. ll'le eriry lewl, .nons .. dlr9Cled to ad and con1n11 ~- ~ ...........  Produclan e...,  MlnllaclUtlng e...,  UlltanEnginNr Compuw Aided 0..lgn Appllcatlona Definition: Computer Aided DNigrl appl:1ll111 lndude the UM ot advanced computar tools to a.A Ille unique geomeay ol Ille product at W9I a lpeclal tool UN (CAE) to delannine the adequacy ol Iha deelgn ll'ldlr apecllc GDlldlbii. Job DNcrlpllon: CA0,4CAE Engineen utlllza OOffltMrlzed work1tallon1 to create unique daalgna of Of ueocillacl wlttl product geometry. TheN ltaff 1Mfflber9  uaually nilled clNign englnNrt who er ... the product claligll In ,_, time on the tyllaffl. The potltion tor !hit encry 1ew1 .non 11 '9lalad to copying or repaallng Hitting product datiglll Uling 1h11 181M workat.ion. The open,or wll allo ba trained In ttle UN ol a CAE tool to perform analyllt ot dNlgn a,1lclN and glllMt crltical dnlgn data. All or thil _,,. II under the dlrecllon ot aenlor dNign 919,_,. and IUbmlaed to ll'lern for approval. Entry...i  CAO e\u0026gt;p.alor Speciallat Tedlnlcal Profeaalonal  T~I Oeeipr  Dnlgn EnglnNr QuaUty Auuranc1 DefNllon: The degrM ol contormance by an item to governing crtena apec11caaoru, tellact company or oontractual Inspection ~tortpaefflc:,,..,._, pana, or atNmblN. Job DNcrtpclon: To provide manufacturing or englnMring aupport tulrt In accordance with customer, company, or pe,1w1 p,aduca qually apecllca\u0026amp;lona Ind requirements. ~  0ualty Engineer Environmental Definition: Compliance with i:.cs.,.,, - local, -,ct company NNty, healtl, and enwotlMfllal regulallont . Jab DNcr1plo... ~ Englnaart--. In dlwlopment of anvtrol..,... p,cuction prog,ama and Operalona U w.11 U anhancement of a,nployae and management awarenftl of ~-,... and objec:INN. They prowie lal90n for organizallonal ~ to the OClfflffll.llil and lncMtry on enwoi.,... aahllt!N. M the tac:fln6oll and antry 1eYe1 eflorta a,e dlrec:lad to plant-wide tl\u0026amp;nrdout wute handllng and aaodated documentation regantl119 tranaportlng, llorlng, 0111i1M111.a.c, clwlup n prOONlfng d haZlrdout w.  Hmfdcul Mlllrlal  Hazlrdout S9ecia1i11 Matertal TNm LNdlr  Enwoni'MIUII EngiMer enable them to achieve oral and written language fluency and proficiency 0v1er a period d six years. Magnet fcreign language cifetings will be scheduled as part d the eight class period day cxntained within the block schedule. An instructcr pod will be created among the university magnet partners. This magnet's fcreign language teachers will be selected fran the poo. 5. Engineering Technotqsy The Engineering Technology occupatirnal program majcr will prepare students for entry into tomcrrCM1s manufacturing engineering envirooment and postserondary programs. As the diagram a, the opposite page illustrates, four demand manufacturing engineering areas and the entry level technical and prctessiaial career path have been identified in rollabcration with state aerospace industries: product engineering, CAD, Quality Assurance, and Envirrnmental. Additonally, industry has defined jd:\u0026gt; titles and respa,sialities. These are also stated in the diagram The University ct Arkansas at Little Rock (UALR) and Scuthern Arkasas University TECH have aligned aitical cx:cupatia, needs with four engineering technology programs ct study - Mechanical, Manufacturing, Canputer, and Electrrnics. A a:mma, ccre ct engineering technology courses which pEmleate these fwr programs, and specialized courses pertinent to individual programs have been arranged into grade 9-12 CDUrse sequences. Students a:mpleting grade 9-12 course sequences with a graded C er better will receive up to 15 advance credits when a:ntinuing in one engineering technology program at UALR The Mechanical and Electraiics Engineering Technology Programs are two a fa.ir year progra~ fa which a student may earn either an Associate ct Science a- Bachelor ct Science degree. Manufacturing Engineering Technology and Canputer Engineering Technology are four-year Baccalaureate programs. Belo.v is a sample flo.v chart based a, the Arkansas Plan fa- TECH PREP, 2+4+2+2  which displays the Engineering Technology grade 9-12 sequence. The entire course sequence is sho.vn here tn relattrn to graduatia, requirements to facilitate a:mprehensicn a the entire program Pages --- desaibe a:ntent kno.vledge fa grades 9 and 10 coursewa-k. The Canmitment and Capacity secticn, page --, explains a:ntent knowledge fa- grades 11 and 12 coursewa-k. Grades 9 10 11 12 The Engineering Technology Flow Chart Courses= 1 unit unless shown as .5 unit m = Aerospace Technology Magnet Academic Core* Mechanical, Electronic, Manufacturing Eng. Tech. Math (m) Science (m) World History Intro. to Concurrent Engineering English Physical Ed. (.5) Health (.5) Math (m) Science (m) Computer-Aided Design (CAD) Applications or Government (.5) Manufaduring Eng. Tech. I or Global Studies (.5) Electronics Eng. Tech . .CAD I English Wor1\u0026lt;place Readiness (.5) Fine Arts (.5) Math(m) Advanced CAO or ' Sdence(m) Manufacturing Eng. Tech. II or American History Electronics Eng. Tech . .CAD II English Internship I Foreign Language (m) Math (m) Science (m) Fabrication Design Project or Applied Communica- Manufaduring Design Project or lion (m) Mechanical Systems Design Project Foreign Language (m) Internship II Speech Elective Computer Eng. Tech. Intro. to Computer Science Computer-Aided De-sign Applications Electronics Eng. Tech . .CAD I Programming for Engineering Majors  Arkansas State Board of Education standards for Accreditation (1984) state that students will take 3 units of science and 2 units of mathematics or 3 units of mathematics and 2 units of science to meet high school graduation requirements. ' There are three requirements with this COJrsewcrk: a) Students must take the engineering techndogy rourses related to their engineering program majer, i.e. manufacturing, computer, mechanical, electrrnics. b) Ca.trses must be taken in the sequence shown oo the flo.v chart. c) Foor units (years) each cf mathematiQi and science are mandated fer attainment of Engineering Technology perfcrmance standards. This magnet will reflect current practices used in industry, including tha\ne cf emerging techndogies. Th~e indude ccmputer numerical contrd (CNQ machinery, cx:rnputer-aided drafting and manufacturing( NCCAD/ NCCAM) software, todtng, robotics systems, printed circuit bead equipment, scanners, and plotters. The goal is fer students to wak in teams and e\u0026lt;perience real productioo, ooe which requires them to plan for, design, and produce a product, inccrpcrting the elements cf quality and envirooment prctectirn. A netwaked CAD labcratory cf 30 Madnta\nh Quadras, three Laserwriter II printers, three platers, and two scanners will be set-up in a specially-designed facility that also includes drafting tables with track drafting mechanism\n. The manufacturing and electrrnics facilities will each house fifteen (15) netwaked Macintosh Quadras, 2 Laserwriter printers, a scanner, and an integrated manufacturing cell of NC equipment and robotic systems with a::mputer link-ups. Additional instructional materials and equipment requirements include industrial measuring instruments, pnaimatic and hydraulic ccmpooents, and mechanisms trainers. Ccntent knCM'ledge is described in the next sectirn .. Engineering Technology instructers will ccme fran the program's university partners, industry, the schcd district, and the Metrcpditan Vocatirnal-Technical F.ducation Center. These instructors will also be assigned to a l\\1ath/ Science/TECH Instructa Team and will teach classes per the bloc:k schedule desaibed on page---. 6. Aviation The Aviation program majas will be implemented in cdlabaation with Hendersa, State University, Southern Arkansas University TECH, the Federal Aviairn Administratioo, and Central Aying Service. There ae five artiwlated, curricular paths depicted a, page --- and delineated in the grade 9-12 flON chart shown a, the oppa\nite page: The Aviation Flow Chart Program Major g 10 11 12 1. Aviation  General Aviation  Powerplant  Electric Circuit  Powerplant Maintenance  Machine Shop Theory \u0026amp; Analysis Systems and Technology Maintenance Components 2. Airway  Introduction to  Programming  Fortran/Cobol  Assembler Computer Aeronautics + Language Language and Science Lab Operating Systems 3. Airway Science  Introduction to  Programming  Aircraft Systems  Air Traffic Control Aeronautics + Language Theory lab 4. Aircaft Systems  Introduction to  Aircraft Systems  Aircraft  Aerodynamics + 5. Aeronautics + Theory Powerplant Performance lab Theory , Professional  Introduction to  Aircraft Systems  Aircraft  Private Pilot Pilot Aeronautics + Theory Powerplant Certification \u0026amp; Lab Theory lab  All students take the same math, science, a::mputer techndogy oore as the Engineering Techndogy program students.  Students ccntinue Aviatic::n Maintenanc:2 a.mirular path at Sa.lthem Arkansas University- TECH. Cwrsewak for all ether Aitway Science and Professic::nal Pilct program majas ccntinue at Hendersc::n State University.  All students will take a c::ne year Aviatic::n course regarding Aviation Safety I Legislati en/ Trans.portation.  All students will have flight training ccnduded by certificated flight instrudas under the guidelines c:i Federal Aviatic::n Regulatic::ns, parts 141 and 61.  All Aviation coorsework will be taught at the Museum c:i Aviatioo History ~ Southern Arkansas University TECH and Hendersoo State University instrudas in a:xrdination with Central flying Servic:2 and the Federal Aviatioo Administratic::n. Instrudas will share the same students as members c:i Math/Science/TECH Instructor teams.  Students will receive advance credits from the two universities for canpleting the Aviatic::n Magnet program. Cooditions and stipulations faadvance credit receipt are outlined in Artirulatic::n Agreements. This program has an infcrmation and guidance romprnent that will be implemented with industry, the universities, and the Aera\npace Technology career camselcrs. Through a camseling team made-up d professirnals frcrn each crganizatirn, students wilt be advised CJ the eca,omic and educaticnal benefits related to the engineering technology and avi atia, career path. This witl enable students to make soond career decisirns aoout which area to select as a program major. A six week, four hoor summer session wilt be held at the three magnet junicr high schods in 1994, and in all magnet sites in 1995. Any student attending the Aerospace Magnet site during the regular school year, inc:cming distic:t seventh graders to the magnet sites, and oot-CJ-district white students will be targeted fer Summer Schad enrollment. Summer magnet site enrollment will be within the 60 (~ack) - 40 (white) 'oa}anced range. Summer magnet enrollees will be required to sign an agreement c.cncurring with attendance stipulatirns. 7. SCANS Know-Hew SCANS America 2000 cxrnpetencies (as desaibed rn pages 27-28) will be integrated aC\"OSs the Aeraspace Technology curriculum and aligned with the Accountal:ility System CJ measures and standards ot performance fer this magnet program. Students will learn the SCANS Know-How throughout mathematics, science, cxrnputer, and occupatirnal c.cntent\nand in the more specialized oontexts a the technology laboratories and industry-oosed wcrk. Every student, therefcr~ will ccrnplete the magnet junior high school with an intrcx.1uc:tirn to wcrkptace Know-How. By age 16, magnet students will attain initial mastery in the SCANS Kna.v-Ha.v and be sufficiently praicient upa, canpletirn a this magnet program in grade 12. The instructional strategy employed fer attaining praidency is learning c.cntent while solving realistic proolems. Students and teachers will learn and apply kna.vledge in real-life situatirns, for exampl~ by participating in this magnet's industry internship program .. From: QUALITY CONNECTION SERVICES PHONE No. 310 598 5773 ,o, 'tv\\o.c... ~ d, ~n 9-,v-ow'r'\"\"'I Q Lc..-\\L \\--te \\ ~ y Dec.10 1992 2:12PM P01 M. e...,s ::, ,\"---1-e. \\ K'e~W\\-0\\.~ r  (.,} } r, ~-1.--t C.ar/1~ P\"-Je,, o.,f~.. .. e.e  \\kfA \"\"I K,.~ 9   Dec. 10 1992 2 : 12PM P02 bm : QUALITY CONNECTION SERVICES PHONE Mo. 310 598 6773 ~~ 1996-97 the Aerosp~l\u0026lt;l.i\\ll\"et l-ligh School gcade 10-12 enrollment wlll be n.l capaclly which is ~pupils. The high s~houb\u0026lt;.?nrollmcnt c-uupleU with the grade 7-9 junior high enrollmen'Fe'!.'?.s the aerospace magnet has the potential lo serve 4,597 pupils. The magnet enrollment will reduce black isolation in three junior high schools. C. Interdistrict and Intradistrict Desegregation Measures 1. Background Information on the Court Order The only image that some people have of Little Rock is the one formed in the Pall of 1957 when Governor Orval Paubu!S defied a feut!ral manuatt! a1,d tried to use the Arkansas National Guard to keep nine black students from entering Central High School. In Cooper vs. Aaron (1958), the Supreme Court stated that \"public opposition to desegregation of the races, no matter how deeply entrenched, could not be allowed to interfere with the full realization of the constitutional rights of black citizens.\" Twenty-four years later (1982), the Little Rock School District brought suit against North Little Rock and Pulaski County Special School District, claiming that the Constitution compelled the consolidation of the three districts into one governmental unit. n,is claim was rejected by the courts in 1985 and again in 1986\nhowever, the courts held that interdistrict constitutional violations had occured and must be remedied. Over the course of the next three years, various remedial orders were entered and further appeals were taken to court. Then, in 1988 and 1989, in a sharp departure from the adversary bitterness that had marked this controversy for over thirty years\nthe parties, including the Joshua intervenors representing the injured class of black schoolchildren and citizens, LRSD, the North Little Rock School District (NLRSD), the Pulaski County Special School District (PCSSD), and the State of Arkansas (Arkansas State Board of Education), agreed to settle the case. 'they submitted to the District Court four comprehensive agreements covering both interdistrict and inttadistrict desegregation measures -- agreements referred to by the parties as the \"settlement plans.\" They also submitted a separate but related document, called the \"settlement agreement,\" settling the financial liability of the State of Arkansas. The United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit reversed this judgement on June 27, 1989, and directed the District Court to adjust the boundary between the LRSD and PCSSD, to revise student attendance within each district to reflect the racial composition of the district, to maintain PCSSD's percent black student enrollment within the range of plus or minus 25% of the districtwide average of blacks by organizational FRIDAY, ELDREDGE \u0026amp; CLARK HERSCHEL H. FRIDAY. P .A . ROBERT V. LIGHT, P.A. WILLIAM H. SUTTON, P.A. JAMES W. MOORE A PARTNERSHIP OF INOIVIOUALS ANO PROFESSIONAL ASSOCIATIONS ATTORNEYS AT LAW BYRON M . EISEMAN, JR., P . A . JOE 0. BELL , P .A. JOHN C . ECHOLS, P.A. JAMES A . BUTTRY, P.A. FREDERICKS. URSERY, P . A . H . T. LARZELERE, P .A. OSCAR E. DAVIS, JR . JAMES C. CLARK, JR . . P.A. THOMAS P . LEGGETT. P.A. JOHN DEWEY WATSON, P . A . PAUL 8. BENHAM Ill, P . A. LARRY W. BURKS, P . A. A. WYCKLIFF NISBET, JR., P.A. JAMES EOWARO HARRIS, P.A. J. PHILLIP MALCOM. P .A. JAMES M. SIMPSO N , P .A. MEREDITH P. CATLETT, P . A . JAMES M , SAXTON, P .A. J. SHEPHERD RUSSELL Ill DONALO H. BACON, P .A. WILLIAM THOMAS BAXTER, P .A. WALTER A . PAULSO N II, P.A. BARRY E. COPLIN, P.A. RICHARDO. TAYLOR, P . A . JOSEPH B . HURST, JR., P .A . EL I ZABETH J . ROBBEN, P.A. CHRISTOPHER HELLER, P.A. LAURA HENSLEY SMITH, P . A . ROBERTS. SHAFER , P.A . WILLIAM M . GRIFF IN 111 , P. A. THOMAS N. ROSE , P.A. MICHAELS . MOORE DIANE S. MACKEY, P.A. WALTER M . EBEL Ill, P.A. Mr. Sam Jones 2000 FIRST COMMERCIAL BUILOINO 400 WEST CAPITOL LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS 72201-3493 TELEPHONE 601-378-2011 FAX NO . 601 -376 - 2147 December 9, 1992 DEC 1 0 \\992 01.. o' -uo~er,.-r.aticn Monitoring ('.Ctl I .,., ~~ cl Mr. Steve Jones WRIGHT, LINDSEY \u0026amp; JENNINGS 2200 Worthen Bank Bldg. JACK, LYON \u0026amp; JONESt P.A. 3400 Capitol Towers 200 West Capitol Capitol \u0026amp; Broadway Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. John Walker JOHN WALKER, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72206 Ms. Ann Brown Heritage West Bldg., Suite 510 201 East Markham street Little Rock, AR 72201 Re: Grant Application Dear Counsel and Ms. Brown: Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Richard Roachell MITCHELL \u0026amp; ROACHELL, P.A. 1014 West Third Little Rock, AR 72201 .:EVIN A . CRASS , P. A . WILLIAM A . WADDELL . JR., P.A. CLYDE TAB TURNER, P. A. CALVIN J . HALL. P . A . SCOTT J. LANCASTER, P .A. JERRY L. MALONE, P . A . M . GAYLE CORLEY, P . A . ROIERT I .  EACH , JR., P .A. J. LEE IJROWN , P . A . JAMES C. I.A.KER , JR ., P. A . H . CHARLES GSCHWENO, JR .. P.A . HARRY A . LIGHT, P . A . SCOTT H . TUCKER JOHN CLAYTON RANDOLPH GUY ALTON WAD E PRICE C. GARONER THOMAS F. MEEKS J . MICHAEL PICKENS TONIA P. JONES DAVID D. WILSON JEFFREY H. MOO RE T . WESLEY HOLMES ANDREW T. TURNER SARAH J . HEFFLEY JOHN RAY WHITE DAVID M . GRAF PAMELA 0. CORKER CARLA G. SPAINHOUR JOHN C. FENDLEY, JR. COUNIH WILLIAM J, SMITH WILLIAM A. ELDREDGE, JR., P .A. B.S. CLARK WILLIAM L. TERRY WILLIAM L. PATTON. JR., P . A . WRITER'S DIRECT NO. (501) 370-1506 370-1506 I have enclosed a copy of the grant application I received today from Gail Quinn. CJH/k Enc c-v DEC 1 0 1~2 Office of Desegregaiion Monitoring Little Rock School District Aerospace Technology Magnet Program Absbad The Little Rock Schoo District's Magnet Schools Assistance grant applicatia, presents a dynamic plan fer implementation of a grade 7-12 Aerospace Techndogy Magnet Program in three (3) junior high schoos and the new Aeraspace Educatirn Center. The Center combnes a museum of aviatirn histcry with a grade 7-12 Aerospace Technology Schoo a, a 19.8 acre tract at the Little Rcx:k RegirnaJ Airpcrt adjacent to the main terminal, Falca, Jet, and Arkansas Aerospace. Collabcratively develcped with the Aerospace indusmes-1\u0026gt; and Campaign Leadershipb\u0026gt;, foor universitiescl and the U.S. Department ci Educatia, Federal Aviatia, Administratirn (FM), this magnet program targets the readying of students fer immediate employment and/er pa\ntsecondary education In either engineering technology er airway science. As illustrated belc,.v, students are prooded a wide range ci choices fer c.areer develcpment in a,e of nine areas at an entry, technidan, er prdessirnaJ level: Aerospace Engineering Technology Aviation Airway Science (FM)  Manufacturing  Airway Canputer Science  Computer Science  Airway Sciente Management  Mechanical  Aircraft Maintenance  Electronics  Aircraft Systems  Protessiaial Pilct Majer Arkansas aerospace employers and the FM have identified techndogical occupatia,s and the skill base students need for future empl~ent. LRSD has inoorperated the skill base into a highly integrated program/ ca1rse sequence ccnsisting ci Academic lnstructicn, Work-Based Leaming, Werksite Experience, and Information and Guidance. All magnet students will take a CXJTlmal academic cxre of sequenced a,.irses whidl include six years ci applied mathematics and science (mere than required for graduation) keyed to prcx:1uc:t engineering and flight/space cmcepts, two er more years ci a language significant to our glcbal arnpetitive marketplace sudl as Japanese er German\nand Applied Canmunication. In CXlllpUter netwerked laooratcri~ students will access and a:rttrd oontent, applicatirns, and infcrmatia, in the areas ct robotics, bio astrooautics, systems simulatia,, CAD/CAM, publishing, werd pr~ing, teleccmmunicaticns, material science, and aercx:1ynamics. Students will produce presentatia, material ~ importing soond, graphics, digitized phctographs to hypercard er laserdisc stacks ci their c,.vn creatiai. In Science, students will ccnduct hands-on investigatia,s, manipulate scientific instruments, and cdlec:t:/ analyze data a) Arkansas Aer~ Rohr Industries. Falaxt Jet, Midmast. Ca,tral Flying Service b) Membership attached c) l'niversities of Arkansas at Little Rock and Pine Bluff, Hatderson State University, Southern Arkansas University TECH. using the critical thinking skills d cbservatioo, canmunicating, comparing. crdering, categorizing. relating. inferring. and applying. Specialized curricula related to each ci the nine career cpticns has been developed to meet OCOJpation specific kno.vledge and emerging tec:hndogy requirements. Students will be trained on the job throogh partidpatioo in industry and aitpcrt-based internship programs. All students will be educated to higher levels than ever betae. The vehide for OCOJpattcnal certiftcattai is achievement ci the U.S. Department of Labcr's SCANS (Seaetary's Canmissia, ci Achieving Necessary Skills) five workplace ccmpetendes, e.g. Resources, lnterperscnal Skills, Infamation, Systems, and Technology\nand the earning of C.ertificates ci Initial Mastery (CIM). An assessment system based en SCANS Kno.v-Ho.v and cumulative resume, which reports results, will be the permanent recxrd a genuine student attainment of CIM and future employment. In addition, program c:anpletion in a chosen cxx:upatiaial majcr will enatie students to receive advance university aedit and ccntinuatia, of the engineering a airway science career track throogh associate a science and baccalaureate degree programs. As yoo cx:nsider the fine merits a this highly cx:ilabcrative magnet program, please keep in mind the thoosands a students it Will enable to gain state-of-the-art techndogical skills, en~rage to ccntinue their educatim thra.agh Articulatia, Agreements, and to fill key manufacturing and FAA jc:bs so vital to the future ct this nation to c:anpete in the wald market. I. Background Informati_on A. Greater Metropolitan Little Rock Greater Little Rock's four county Metropolitan Statistical area (MSA) is the center of the second fastest growing region in the United States. Its central location is within 550 miles of forty percent of the United States buying power and population. The $1.3 billion dollar Arkansas Navigation System, one of the nation's largest water development projects, is a 445 mile waterway providing year-round access to ports on the Arkansas River from the Mississippi River to Tulsa, Oklahoma. The 1,500 acre port with its industrial harbor Foreign Trade Zone - 14, and the United States Customs Port of Entry are an indication of the increasing importance of Little Rock's linkage to ports worldwide. All are in close proximity to Adams Field, Little Rock's airport. The city's rich mixture of historic architecture and new development is attracting new residents. Little Rock is seeing growth and revitalization unparalleled in the city's history. ' Little Rock is on the move. Fueling this revitalization are the aerospace industries, the Arkansas Aviation Historical Society, the Governor's Aerospace Task Force, and institutions of higher education. Some of the world's most successful aerospace companies are located here: McDonnell Douglas, Rohr Inc., Arkansas Aerospace (a subsidiary of British Aerospace), Falcon Jet owned by the French-based A vions Dassaut Brequet Aviation, MidCoast, and Central Flying Service. Numerous private and corporate aircraft dealers such as Aero-Commander, Piper, Beechcraft, and Cessna have facilities at the Little Rock Regional Airport. Little Rock Airforce Base is home to the largest C-130 aircraft training and airlift facility in the world. A number of major educational institutions serve Little Rock's M.S.A. By far, the largest of these is the University of Arkansas at Little Rock (UALR), enrolling more than 11,000 students in seventy-five undergraduate and forty-two graduate degree programs including Associate, Bachelor and Masters of Science Degrees in Engineedng Technology. The Graduate Institute of Technology (GIT) housed in the new Engineering Technology Center offers courses in mechanical, computer science, electrical and manufacturing engineering. Industries utilize GIT facilities for advanced research and graduate study. In 1991, the Arkansas Space Grant Consortium, under the leadership of GIT at UALR, received a four-year training grant award from the NASA National Space Grant College and Fellowship program. The primary purpose of the program i:\nto educate and familiarize faculty and undergraduate and graduate students with aerospace fundamentals and NASA's research programs and opportunities. A secondary objective is to motivate K-12 students to excel in math and science courses necessary for entrance into aerospace programs at the universities and high tech positions in industry. Henderson University, in coordination with Central Flying Service, conducts one of the few aviation degree programs in the nation. The University's Department of Aviation provides four-year programs in Airway Science Management,Airway Computer Science, Professional Pilot, and Aircraft Systems Management. The Arkansas Aviation Historical Society serves the entire state as the focal for the involvement of Arkansas' aerospace industries in community affairs, education, and economic development. In 1989, the Society, executives of aerospace companies, the Little Rock School District, and UALR came together to form the Aerospace Education Center Campaign Leadership. The unprecedented public/private partnership has planned an Aerospace Education Center. As the architect's drawing illustrates, the Center combines a museum of aviation history with an Aerospace Technology Magnet High School on a 19.8 acre tract at the Little Rock Regional Airport adjacent to the main terminal, Falcon Jet, and Arkansas Aerospace. The facility will cover 200,000 square feet, including common areas used by both the museum and high school such as the library, cafeteria, and theatre/ auditorium. The upper level of the museum will function as an educational resource for adult programs, and outreach for schools, state and nationwide through a satellite television uplink provided by the Arkansas Electric Cooperatives. The most comprehensive and largest technical and historical aviation and aerospace library collection outside of the Smithsonian's National Air and Space Museum was acquired for the Arkansas Museum of Aviation History. Virtually every civil and military aircraft, rotocraft, and spaceship designed and constructed throughout the world is represented in the collection by technical specifications, photographs, and historical descriptive information. There are well over 5,000 books, 50,000 journals, 200,000 photographs and transparancies, hundreds of rare collectable items signed by famous pilots and aviation personalities, original paintings, scale aircraft models, and unique aircraft parts. The Society has raised over five million dollars in gifts and pledges toward construction of the aviation history museum. The Llttle Rock School District has budgeted six million dollars for the construction of the Aerospace Technology Magnet High School from funds approved by voters at a property tax election in 1990. The Aerospace Education Center Campaign Leadership believes that Greater Little Rock's future rests on the vitality of its public education system. At all levels of the public education system, educators and industry must develop programs which give students the knowledge and skills that enable them to reach their full economic potential. While the Center will prepare students for aerospace careers, it will also focus the Central Arkansas community on commitment to excellence in education. In March 1819, Arkansas became a territory and the Arkansas Post, the state's fir\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 "},{"id":"bcas_bcmss0837_284","title":"Budget cuts","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":["1992/2002"],"dcterms_description":null,"dc_format":["application/pdf"],"dcterms_identifier":null,"dcterms_language":["eng"],"dcterms_publisher":["Little Rock, Ark. : Butler Center for Arkansas Studies. Central Arkansas Library System"],"dc_relation":null,"dc_right":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC-EDU/1.0/"],"dcterms_is_part_of":["Office of Desegregation Monitoring records (BC.MSS.08.37)","History of Segregation and Integration of Arkansas's Educational System"],"dcterms_subject":["Little Rock (Ark.)--History--20th century","Little Rock School District","Education--Arkansas","Education--Finance","Educational law and legislation"],"dcterms_title":["Budget cuts"],"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/284"],"dcterms_temporal":null,"dcterms_rights_holder":null,"dcterms_bibliographic_citation":null,"dlg_local_right":["Available for use in research, teaching, and private study. Any other use requires permission from the Butler Center."],"dcterms_medium":["documents (object genre)"],"dcterms_extent":["13 pages"],"dlg_subject_personal":null,"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":"\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n\n\n\n   \n\n\n\n\n   \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n  \n\nGibbs Magnet School PTA 1115 West 16th Street Little Rock, Arkansas 72206 324-2490 'Working Together for a Better Future received May 25, 1993 JUN 3 '3 The Honorable Susan Webber Wright Federal Court P. O. Box 3316 Little Rock, Arkansas OliiCS of Desegregation Moiwcnng 72203 Dear Judge Wright: The patrons of the Gibbs International Magnet School very concerned about the proposed elimination of the computer lab attendant position from our school. are Since our teachers do not have time to assume the responsibilities of the computer lab, this decision could result in an inferior program in which our children might not receive the full benefits of the lab. The computer lab attendant is the heart of our computer progreun. Therefore, we strongly urge you to reject the district's proposal to eliminate the computer lab attendant position. At a recent meeting, several of our patrons wanted to show their support by signing a petition urging the Little Rock School Board to reject the proposal, your information. A copy is attached for Thank you for your time and consideration in this matter. Sincerely, Willie J. les Co-Pres iaent Attachment Annette Thomas-Jones Co-President Wright 7993 judge Petition to the Little Rock School Board y^e, the undersigned patrons of Gibbs Intenaationat Magw\u0026lt; urge the Little Rock School Board to reject the districts proposal to eliminate the computer lab attendant position from our school. We feel that the computer lab is a valuable asset to our students, and we fear that the program will greatly suffer without a computer lab attendant. , / // -^d-kjLay\u0026lt; JMWk C^C^C lat the pe / -7/'. tk / d c, I Sil ?\\ 1aj~^ r (X\\aA$s.4jrCi ^2Zz2 L/'7\\J.^'k ' dub/ ,- ut^ ahA^ j2p2DE54 'J^^g-TUr Cdcbczl7\u0026gt; -XH-Jk-\" -- A-k fe Ax' / Petition to the Little Rock School Board y^e, the undersigned patrons of 6ibb lateniational MagneC Schaol, urge the Little Rock School Board to reject the district's proposal to eliminate the computer lab attendant position from our school. We feel that the computer lab is a valuable asset to our students, and we fear that the program will greatly suffer without a computer lab attendant. c :iCi. .4- I ,1 r C' /\u0026lt; t A- 1 fX / MJU, -\"P-' F 2. ~n.Lj^^ ( \"r fzt,46^S\u0026lt;(y nK:: 'i ,7 Petition to the Little Rock School Board SI y\\/e, the undersigned patrons of Gibbs In^ai'natiawai Magnet School, urge the Little Rock School Board to reject the district's proposal to eliminate the computer lab attendant position from our school. We feel that the computer lab is a valuable asset to our students, and we fear that the program will greatly tr without-a computer lab attendant. i n 64\u0026lt;.z^ \u0026lt;1 O/iAPetition to the Little Rock School Board y^/Q, the undersigned patrons of Gibbs International Magnet Scbool, urge the Little Rock School Board to reject the districr's proposal to eliminate the computer lab attendant position from our school. We feel that the computer lab is a valuable asset to our students, and we fear that the program will greatly suffer without a computer lab attendant. .I f.Office of Desegregation Monitoring United States Oistrict Court  Eastern District of Arkansas Ann S. Brown, Federal Monitor 201 East Markham, Suite 510 Heritage West Building LftHe Rock, Arkansas 72201 (501)376-6200 Fax (501) 371-0100 June 16, 1993 Mr. Willie Jones and Ms. Annette Thomas-Jones, Co-Presidents Gibbs PTA Gibbs Magnet School 1115 West 16th Street Little Rock, Arkansas 72206 Dear Annette and Willie, I hope you both remember me. I taught kindergarten at Franklin when your older daughter was in Louise Carpenters room, about ten years ago. Of course, I also remember Annette from the AEA, during years I was active in the LRCTA. I recently received a copy of the letter you sent Ann Brown and she asked me to respond to your concerns regarding the elimination of the computer lab attendant position at Gibbs. I realize this response may not reach you until the opening of school, since the above is the school address. I sincerely regret the delay. Any budget cuts the district recommends for the magnet schools must be made in consultation with the Magnet Review Committee (MRC). Im sure you remember the attempt to eliminate Gibbs music teacher last year, and the later reversal of that decision. This years proposed budget reduction will also be given close scrutiny by the court and. Im sure, the MRC. A budget hearing is scheduled for early July and the eliminated positions will be discussed. We appreciate receiving your input and the attached petition from other concerned patrons. Thank you for taking the time to speak out. Sincerely, Melissa Ripling Guldin Associate Monitor122 P02 SEP 03 93 13:08 LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 810 WEST MARKHAM LITTLE ROCK, AR 72201 MEMORANDUM DATE: TO\nFROM: SUBJEC July 29, 1993 A Estelle Mathis, Interim Superintendent, LRSD ^m\u0026lt;ala :T.^- 93-9 Daggett, Community Education 93-94 Budget Cuts Thank you for requesting my input and for your willingness to negotiate regarding the amount of cuts in the Community As I explained over the phone, we Education 93-94 budget. have planned our 93-94 programs in relation to our originally budgeted amount of $220,000. For that reason, X wanted to talk with the CE staff to determine whether or not we would need to cut programs if we cut $50,000 as you requested. I reported to you that we could probably make it fine if the cuts ranged from $30,000-$40,000. However, we discovered just yesterday afternoon that about $14,000 worth of purchase orders approved in 92-93 have been charged to our 93-94 budget. I have spoken with Mark Milhollen regarding these charges, and he assured me as did you that you all would cover us on these shortfalls. I appreciate your support. cc: McClellan Community High School Advisory Council Jodie Carter, McClellan PrincipalSeptember 28, 1993 SUSAN JRBCEIVso SEP 3 0 1933 Judge Susan Webber Wright Federal Building Fifth and Gaines Street Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 us. district judge Dear Judge Wright: This letter expresses the sentiments of nurrierous LRSD employees..Even'though'we feel it would be unwise to sign our names, please do not let the lack of signatures lessen the attention that you give to the matter. We are aware that you conducted budget hearings and directed the LRSD Board of Directors to review its proposal and determine if additional cuts could be made, which indeed was possible. However, we are not aware if you have given your approval to a final budget for 1993-94, thus the basis for this letter. In the spring of 1993, teachers and all administrators except 12 month administrators, were given three percent raises. package: 1, Twelve month administrators received the following 2. 3, 4. 5. Contract days per year extended from 240 days to 250 days Pay raise set at 1 1/2% instead of 3% Paid vacation days granted on the basis of: 0-7 years experience - 15 paid vacation days per year 8-14 years experience - 20 paid vacation days per year 15+ years experience - 25 paid vacation days per year Sick leave days may be accumulated equivalent to the total number of contract days. When/if the 12 month administrator leaves the district, he/she will be compensated for any accumulated vacation days. We think that you should know that by granting the above package to 12 month administrators, they become the only employee group in the LRSD to receive even one paid hoiiday/vacation. Every other group is paid solely on the basis of days worked - NO PAID HOLIDAYS, NO PAID VACATION DAYS. Furthermore, the fact that they received a 1 1/2% raise instead of a 3% raise was almost immediately made up for by the provision for paid vacation days\nbecause, with the high salaries they receive, it will only take three or- TUE 11'27 SUSAN W WRIGHT FAX in luiyyibbib four days onehalf percent. for most of them to recoup the other one and we strongly feel^ administrators LRSD employees and bears a copletely district, costly granted to 12 month  . __4 ^,4 of that the package unfair to the 1 total lack of equity. . for the _ district, m good remainder of the It is also wellbeing -- conscience, grant such a , monetarily speaking -  How can this benefit to these financial administrators. investigate this package Please . fAirfip.^s and finfinc J:ilS S indebted to you for your i.l intel and question pubHcly the a rtftr.ision, of such decision. this matter.  Sincerely, A CONCERNED GROUP OF EMPLOYEESRECEIVED FSLED U.S. DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT ARKANSAS NOV 1 8 ^993 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS NOV 1 S1993 Office of Desegregation Monitoring WESTERN DIVISION CARL H. BRENTS, CLERK By: CEPTeLERK LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT PLAINTIFF vs. No. LR-C-82-866 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT No. 1, ET AL DEFENDANTS MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL INTERVENORS KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL INTERVENORS ORDER During a budget hearing on July 8, 1993, representations were made by certain members of the Little Rock School District Board of Directors to the effect that they understood the financial peril of the district. specifically an anticipated $11,000,000 deficit despite a budget that was technically balanced, and that the board would take steps to deal with the problem. It was suggested by one member that the board would need to know by Christmas 199 3 what budget cuts to make in order to address this problem. In addition. there was a discussion concerning the board having to approve $25,000 line item budget transfers before such transfers were made. A partial transcript of the budget hearing during which these representations were made is attached hereto. Because it is not clear if the board has begun to consider specific budget cuts or if it is in fact approving $25,000 line item budget transfers, the Court hereby orders the board to file with the Court a report on how they are being more involved in the 3 0 2 0budgeting process, how they are preparing themselves to make specific budget decisions, how their approval is being sought and received, and which specific line item budget transfers the board has approved since the 1993-94 budget was finalized in August 1993. This report must be filed with the Court on or before December 3, 1993, at 5:00 p.m. IT IS SO ORDERED this /6 day of November 1993. UNITED STATES DISTR^zCT J JUDGE mis DOCUMENT ENTERED ON DOCKET SHEET IN COMPLIANCE WITH RULE 58 AND/OR 79/a) FRCP ON lANCE Wl WITH RULE 58 AND/QR 79(a) FRCP BY -2-NOV- 5-93 FRI 14:49 FAX NO. 5013710100 p.02 but I just wanted to point out that what was submitted, and, of course, it s not July 30th yet - THE WITNESS\nI understand. a THE COURT\n- what was submitted was not what the Court had in mind, and I do think that it would be very beneficial if you talk to the monitors, specifically to Mr. Mooney, and flesh this out  MR. MALONE: Right. THE COURT: - as to what we meant. MR. MALONE: And - and, your Honor, but we have, in fact, had some of those conversations and well continue to have those, and thats what were planning to do when we meet with them and talk with them next week is to continue that dialogue regarding an action plan and the budgetary process and what it should be. THE COURT\nI know that Dr. Bernd also indicated last summer that he was going to include the board in these budget decisions to a greater extent than they had been. In other words, in the budget process to a greater extent than the board had been included previously. What action has been taken on that front? Is there now a policy in place so that the board considers certain budgetary actions as part of this process other than just approving the whole document? MR. MALONE: Your Honor, I wouldnt say that there is a policy. leant speak to that, but I do know that the outline contains certain things that will occur or proposals about what will occur in terms of cabinet work session and board work sestons and how that will be worked Into the process. And, also, in the discussions weve had regarding the budgetary process in general, theres some ideas about how that process ought to work. Some of these things as the Court noted that there are some stipulations at one of the board meetings about certain things being on hold until certain business cases were presented to the board. I think that is the start of  of the board involvement in the entire process, and I think thats some - all of what will be worked out in March, THE COURT: All right. MR. MALONE: Mr. Milhollen had some comment. THE WITNESS: There - there was one policy that was  was instituted recently, and I - I cant quote it exactly, but it has to do witli when budget managers want to have funds transferred between budgets, and there is now a dollar limit thats been set that exceeds that dollar limit, and I believe it's $25,000. It must come before the board and be approved before the transfer can be effected. So, that is one policy change that - that has been made, THE COURT\nAll right. I dont have any of the board members on tlic stand right now, but Mr. Jackson has been very kind about offering what he remembers. And 1 know that Mr. Jackson Is an accountant. Mr. Jackson, how do you see this problem of the current budget being balanced with funds that are nonrencwable and with having expenses that are recurring? Do you have any professional opinion on that or a particular concern? MR. JACKSON: I - Ive got a lot of concerns and I think Ive expressed diose concerns publicly and privately in our meetings. And Mr. Riggs has continually pointed out that the budget that we have this next year whereas it reflects a balanced budget, inNOV- 5-93 FRI 14:49 FAX NO. 5013710100 P. 03 truth, is $11 million worth of deficit spending. And I think these programs going forward  you asked him, Mr. MilhoUcn, what would you do if you put - I believe no mills but with cuts. If you look at his five mills with cuts, he simply adds position program cuts and starting in 94-95 of 4 million, and it increases up to 10 million in 98-99. Essentially, what 1 think with no mills and cuts for 1990 - for 1994-95, you have to have $15 million in cuts. In *95-96, another 16 or $17 million in cuts. But I think  I think my position is that there has to be cuts and - and substantial cuts, made and, you know, we can we can spend the next three weeks in court here talking about each of these little 100,000, $200,000 line item cuts that have been made or that are proposed to be made if you want to establish a record, but it  it, quite frankly, is not going to solve the problem. THE COURT: Right. MR. JACKSON: And - and so, you know, what - what I think is a better use of our time and a better use of this staffs time is that they be over at 810 West Markham figuring out what these programs are and where we can make these cuts. I think one of the things - one of the actions we took at our last board meeting, and that had to do with the labor contracts in terms of getting board involvement, is that that the board insisted that those persons responsible for the labor contract get witli the board, that we have both private as well as - as a group sessions looking at what we see in those contracts that needs to be changed, and there has to be some changes made. You cannot continue under the status quo. Now, having said all that, I -1 think it is unrealistic for the district to think - and this is my personal opinion - unrealistic for the district to think that we will be able to accomplish all of this simply with cuts. We will have to ask for a millage increase. But I dont think that the district or this commun  the district and the people that support this district are capable of selling that millage increase until we, in fact, make some cuts and some serious cuts and establish some degree of accountability. THE COURT: Thank you, I appreciate everything youve said. I do wish that I could recess this and send you all away to make your own budget cut decisions. I feel that under the mandate from the Eighth Circuit I have to monitor what you are doing. Another problem I have is that Dr. Bernd did promise a year ago that he was going to do these things, and they have not been done, and, meanwhile, you have been receiving the desegregation money from the state, the settlement money, and it is being spent. And as a result, I feel that I cannot give you any slack any more. He was a new superintendent and he made these representations and I gave him time to what he said he was going to do, and he was not able or did not or some otherwise just didnt accomplish it. And so, now, here we are a year later, and without a permanent superintendent. And I appreciate the boards concern and tlte recognition of the seriousness of this problem. And I do hope that you are able to get together and I hope you will listen to the advice that Mr. Mooney gives you. I hope the board would be willing to sit down wth him and listen to some of his constructive suggestions to get you out of this hole. Il will take some working together, j^d I know that if the board does it on its own, the community will be much more receptive to it than if the Court has to do it. And thats what ought to happen.NOV- 5-93 fRI 14:50 FAX NO. 5013710100 P. 04 1 regret that were tn this lawsuit. I wish we didnt have to have it, but the constitution requires that these schools be desegregated and the Eighth Circuit has said that they are not. Theyre not up to constitutional standards yet and the Plan will make them that way if you follow it. , And so, thats why were here. And, of course, the ultimate beneficiaries are the school children, I hope. Thats what we want, quality educational for all of our children. And so, we will make every effort to comply with this Plan and to squeeze this budget where it can be. But I appreciate your remarks. And, Mr. Riggs, do you have any that you might like to make to the Court at this time? MR. RIGGS: Well, I - the question, your Honor, and the whole issue is going to come down to this is  is really political courage. The board knows it  you know, I mean, by state law, we got to cut unless we go into receivership. Either you take us in or we go in through one of the chapters. I tliink Mr, Milhollens analysis is fairly accurate from what - what Ive seen today and what Mr. Mooney and Mr. Morgan and I have discussed at length. So, it  it really is going to come down to a - you know, this year, theres a paper balance, but its $11 million deficit. Next year, theres going to be an actual deficit. The question is does the board have the political courage to do something about it. If they dont, well, we could close the schools early, you take us over, we go into receivership. That's really what It comes down to. Now, along those lines where  where Mr. Mooney is going to be of great value is - is the process. Were going to have to have this process developed over - and - and implemented, like, as quickly as we can so that by - in my opinion, by December, by Christmas, wc know what budget cuts that have to be made next year and have to be made over the next two or three years, and whether - as Mr. Jackson says, whether were going to have to have a millage increase, which I believe hes right. We re going to have to do it. And hes right about  were not going to be able to sell them unless we can get our house in order. So, thats where  where Mx. Mooney and Mr. Morgan both are going to, in my opinion, help the district to get the process and the procedures on line and going. Now, its up to the board co hold the administrators accountable for that process. If anything where weve been lax, we havent done a good job. Obviously, youre up here talking about what Dr. Bernd has promised over the last year and, you know, in my opinion, one of the reasons ho aint here today in that chair is because he made promises and didnt do anything about it. He decided to leave on his own, but he could easily have left because of some other reasons, some of them being that - that he was making promises wc knew he wasnt going to keep to the Court and to us. So, if we - if we get the process developed, if we implement that process and if we have the political courage to to take the bullet  to bite the bullet and do those things, cut the programs that may be programs that patrons like but dont have anything to do with desegregation, thats going to be up to us. And if we cant do it, then Im sure as Ive said before, were going to have to put the keys on the table and somebody else is going to have to lock up and turn off the lights. THE COURT: Well, I might add, once you have a superintendent in place andNOV- 5-93 FRI 14:51 FAX NO. 5013710100 P. 05 once you have thia budget process ongoing and the Desegregation Plan audit in place and working and administrators in place who are answerable to the board, then the Court will not require the presence of the board at these hearings. But I have felt that there has been a vacuum in this district as to who's accountable and whos responsible, a leadership vacuum, and that is why the ult^ate people - you are ultimately responsible, the board members, and thats why youve had to be here and thats why you will continue to have to come until this thing gets in order. But I do appreciate your attention to this and your wilhngness to face up to these hard decisions that must be made, and I do hope the board does have that poll deal courage you refer to because that is what the community will accept is your political courage. A community is very reluctant to accept whatever a federal judge does, and 1 know that. But I will do it. It is my job. And if necessary, I will do it. I dont want to. MR. RIGGS: Well, I guess a lot of it - THE COURT: And- , . MR. RIGGS: - your Honor, too. gets back to the community putting pressure on the board to have the courage to do the right thing, and - and Its my opinion is that the community needs to put that pressure on this board to get our house in order or the community loses the right to  to guide their ship and  THE COURT: Thats correct, MR. RIGGS: - then thats when you have to step in and - and guide the ship. THE COURT: That is correct. And the community did not elect me and they cant take me out of office and I am answerable to the constitution and to this country. But federal judges are never popular. They are always resented. I understand why, and I dont want to play that role of running your district. I want you to run it and I want you to make these veiy difficult decisions that you must make, and I dont want to tell you precisely each one. Those are your decisions, but theyre going to be very hard ones. MR. RIG GS: Y oure right. THE COURT: And I appreciate your being here today. I only wanted to ask him one more question. Are you going to be the planner for this? I havent looked at this. Is he the chief planner at this point, Mr. Milhollen? THE WITNESS'. Im not sure thats been determined yet. THE COURT\nOh. MR. MALONE: No, and thats - and thats - THE COURT: All right. , MR, MALONE: And thats what we were saying, with the state we re in, there were going to be - once those cabinet discussions are held and - and t^e place, some decisions can be made at that point as to who the  the go-to person will be. THE COURT: All right. MR. HAMILTON: Your Honor? THE COURT: Yes, sir. Mr. Hamilton. Im sorry. You and Ms. Gee are both welcome to say anything you - MR. HAMILTON: Right. I thought maybe one of us would be next. I certainly wanted to have some comments. THE COURT: Well, those two have been more eager to talk, and so that s the reason. I didnt want to pick on people. So, go ahead, Mr. Hamilton.Office of Desegregation Monitoring United States District Court  Eastern District of Arkansas Ann S. Brown, Federal Monitor December 3, 1993 201 East Markham, Suite 510 Heritage West Building Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 (501)376-6200 Fax (501) 371-0100 Dr. Henry P. Williams, Superintendent Little Rock School District 810 West Markham Street Little Rock, AR 72201 Dear Hank: At last Augusts hearing on the LRSD 1993-94 budget, the Court reviewed the budget and numerous related business cases. The Court closely questioned LRSD about the business case that reduced the districts Communication Assistant to a part-time position. Judge Wright advised the district that the Court would particularly watch this staff reduction because it appeared to be a retreat from the Interdistrict Plan which requires the districts to search for ways to increase the number of staff responsible for public relations programs. In its August 26, 1993 order, the Court expressed strong concerns about the Communications staffing change because it represented a reduction that created the potential for negatively affecting desegregation progress: \"The Court questions the effect that losing a full-time Communications Assistant will have on the districts ability to meet its plan obligations.\" I understand that, although it was approved by both your Board of Directors and Judge Wright several months ago, the Communications Assistant position still remains open. Even though you have been in the process of reorganizing your staff, leaving this half-time position vacant for so long a time (the fiscal year is now half gone) is particularly troubling in light of the Courts pointed concern that a part-time position may not be enough to help the district meet its desegregation obligations. 1 also understand that the Communications director recently has been charged with coordinating the districts recruitment efforts, a new responsibility that inevitably leaves her less time to spend on regular communication duties and creates yet another void in the Communications office. Please let me know the date by which the Court can expect the Communication Assistants position to be filled. Also, will this position still be part-time or will it be full-time in light of the directors increased responsibilities? Thank you for your immediate attention to this matter. Sincerely yours, Ann S. Brown LRSD Junior High Budgets, Enrollments and Per Pupil Expenditure Dunbar Jr High Enrollment Per pupil Expenditure Actual Expenditures 1991-1992 2,177,871.82 691 3,151.77 Actual Expenditures 1992-1993 2,233,736.11 705 3,168.42 Actual Expenditures 1993-1994 2,375,356.69 701 3,388.53 Budget 1994-1995 Dated 8/08/94 2,215,349.31 $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ Cloverdale Jr High Enrollment | Per pupil Expenditure 2,012,575.56 745 2,701.44 2,162,862.55 775 2,790.79 2,197,345.54 701 3,134.59 2,072,735.61 Forest Hts. Jr. High Enrollment | ~~ Per pupil Expenditure 2,320,122.47 765 3,032.84 2,365,925.57 787 3,006.26 2,424,252.56 788 3,076.46 2,494,614.11 Henderson Jr. High Enrollment | Per pupil Expenditure 2,464,130.70 859 2,868.60 2,836,387.32 914 3,103.27 3,049,192.92 915 3,332.45 2,961,683.42 Mablevale Jr. High Enrollment | Per pupil Expenditure 1,918,244.33 665 2,884.58 2,047,442.02 667 3,069.63 2,097,826.14 654 3,207.69 2,053,420.97 Pulaski Hts. Jr. High Enrollment Per pupil Expenditure 2,337,373.84 761 3,071.45 2,484,029.31 774 3,209.34 2,493,182.82 790 3,155.93 2,391,960.24 I I I I $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ Southwest Jr. High Enrollment | ~ Per pupil Expenditure 2,124,034.56 704 3,017.09 2,299,448.03 695 3,308.56 2,150,663.98 679 3,167.40 2,068,377.82 Mann Magnet Jr. High Enrollment | Per pupil Expenditure 3,055,026.00 872 3,503.47 2,896,401.00 849 3,411.54 3,157,632.00 851 3,710.50 3,195,685.00 I $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ Totals Avg. Per Pupil Expenditure 18,409,379.28 6062 3,036.85 19,326,231.91 6166 3,134.32 19,945,452.65 6079 3,281.04 19,453,826.48 $ $ $ $ I $ $ $ Enrollment based upon Oct. 1, 1992 \u0026amp; 1993 (J i-* if I Prepared by The Office of Desegregation Monitoring based upon information supplied by the LRSDOffice 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: November 16, 1994 From: Melissa Guldin, 1, Ass Isociate Monitor To: Gwen Efrid, Little Rock School District Health Services Coordinator Subject: LRSD Nursing Staff Our office recently received some information from the Little Rock School District regarding possible budget cutting strategies. The list of budget reduction possibilities included the substitution of Licensed Practical Nurses (LPNs) for the Registered Nurses (RNs) currently working in the schools. I understand that there are important differences in training, experience, and qualifications between LPNs and RNs. Since the issue of RN versus LPN is sure to be debated in the months ahead, I would like some information on the current status of the LRSD nursing staff. This data should help me be better informed regarding the districts nursing program. Please send me a list of all LRSD schools that currently receive nursing services, the number of days (or hours) per week that each site is served by a nurse, whether that nurse is an RN or LPN, and each nurses race and gender. If you have any additional information that you think would be helpful or informative, I would welcome receiving that also. I would like to become more familiar with the scope of the nursing program, before the district makes budgetary decisions. When the monitors visited the incentive schools, we were impressed with the wellness clinics serving the students, staff, and patrons of the incentive schools. The clinics myriad of health services and eligibility for Medicaid reimbursement help ensure that area residents and LRSD staff have increased access to quality health care. In addition to the staffing information requested, would you please send me a list of all the schools with wellness clinics that have been approved for medicaid reimbursement. Thank you for your help in providing this information. Please call me if you have any questions or concerns.Lntite 3Scfe PTA Comcill D 0 FF5 2 A 1995 February 20, 1995 iJiciGiOi.nq Dear Dr. Williams and Little Rock School District Board of Directors: The Little Rock PTA Council is gravely concerned about the administrations proposed budget cuts pertaining to the school nurses. The decision to eliminate 19 registered nurses is quite shocking in view of the 1994-95 Little Rock School Board Priorities compiled just last September. 1994. in which Quality Nursing Services ranked third highest in priority. The PTA Council feels that the level and quality of nursing health care and services received by all students would be greatly diminished under this proposal and in the area schools would be virtually non-existent. Although it appears that most magnet and incentive schools would retain their school nurse positions, in reality these nurses probably would frequently be pulled to work at other schools that have no nurses. Consequently, the PTA Council feels that, ultimately, all our schools are at risk of losing the professional health care and services currently rendered to our children by the school registered nurses. The PTA Council is also extremely concerned about possible future plans to consider replacing the RNs (registered nurses) with LPNs (licensed practical nurses) and/or health aides. The knowledge and skills base of a registered nurse is significantly more appropriate in the school based setting in comparison to a licensed practical nurse. Neither an LPN nor a health aide possesses the specialized skills, judgment or knowledge necessary in providing the types of nursing care and services needed in our schools for our children. No parent wants his child to suffer the consequences or risks of mismanaged care given by inadequately trained personnel. During the process of identifying student health needs and intervening however necessary to meet those needs, school nurses provide innumerable types of professional services. In many cases, registered nurses are the only persons legally authorized under state public health regulations to complete the myriad of referral and evaluation forms for students needing special services. Consequently, the PTA Council feels that replacing RNs with LPNs and/or health aides would be comparable, theoretically, to replacing our classroom teachers with instructional aides. Many parents are greatly concerned about the continued assurance of basic nursing services received daily by their children such as administering medications and making pertinent observations, giving specific medical treatments, providing mental health observation and intervention, and providing observation and care for acute and chronic health conditions, such as diabetes, asthma, and head or other traumatic injuries. Every student has the right to a physically safe and emotionally secure environment in our schools, but will this right be severely compromised or. at worst, denied under this proposal? It must be noted that children in the lower socio-economic strata of our student population will undoubtedly stand to suffer greatly under this plan, because the school nurse is their only source of medical care for their health needs. The number of children in this category ranges from 100 to 150 per day. Currently, there are 1260 students in the LRSD served each day for acute illnesses and injuries, and over 1200 individual doses of medication are given daily. School nurses serve an extremely important function as health educators and advocates. As positive role models in developing permanent healthy lifestyles, they promote good health habits and illness prevention, carry out many health education programs, and work closely with students, parents and teachers regarding special health needs. Oftentimes the school nurse is the first and foremost person in whom a student will confide concerning personal problems and needs. Therefore, the nurses play a key role in providing support and intervention and handling the daily crises that arise. Therefore, the PTA Council strongly holds that in order for students to function at their highest learning ability and to have a successful educational experience, they must have access to the health services and education necessary to promote optimal levels of wellness. The PTA Council firmly takes the stand for maintaining health services as they are presently delivered and preserving the school nurse positions that we currently have. Thirty schools are covered daily with nurses while twenty schools are not covered\ntherefore, it would appear that the LRSD should consider adding school nurse positions rather than eliminating them. We also feel strongly that budget cuts should be made further away from the children, because school nurses directly serve 100% of the students in our district. At the last PTA Council meeting the members voted to make known to the LRSD Administration and the School Board of Directors our position on the proposed budget cuts affecting school nurses. Attached is a list of those members in attendance and the schools they represent. These individuals represent more than 13,000 PTA members in the LRSD. At a time when we are striving for safe schools, this situation certainly acquires a chilling perspective if we are to lose our school nurses and, as parents, suddenly feel that our children are truly in an unsafe environment The Little Rock PTA Council sincerely hopes that you will give strong consideration to our viewpoints regarding this issue and will not make any changes in the current school nurse program in the proposed budget cuts. Sincerely, MU Debbie Glasgi Glasgow, President(y Barbara Mills and Debbie Velez, Council Representatives Little Rock PTA Council cc: Honorable Judge Susan Webber Wright Ann Brown, ODM LRSD Administrators Gwen Efird and School Nurses PTA PresidentsName - A L y/iU/ Little Rock PTA Council DATE\nliM '^5' School/PTA Office Home Address/Phone /-^ryf A^AUsyPh {^20 '^nrck'^iAr/ I'i'iz ? cQ. / K 2. TU ao r 1 : \u0026gt; c r i' 1 y \u0026lt;1, !\\.lli-: T I3l( /Csa rl rk '1 \u0026lt;)/.. OTu^az-- A? -VA^ S , 3L ICv1UL4/l l\\ ft X ^f. n /UcC\\^U C6Ur,c3 po.y 77 -'lA,.. i /\\ I f 21 6 (3 }yidjc ) 'I I J 3 0 ') '\u0026gt; C-  'h\nflCOName CjLivv/yixZ ~Wy\u0026gt;d^ 1 't Little Rock PTA Council DATE=_a^^/y^,//7, /ggs School/PTA Office Home Address/Phone id ^'fWiV^ki S^'AfNS____ ______ V\\a5\u0026gt; '(1 CL^r^l Q'Dgc^ m^- lx ^A^CA I jL.^ \\ .d (^1 /I A W-^P -----Vc^A -^\"/u b I xt V. 9dzxi C ~7 \u0026lt;9 3^0 Kuh b/Q- L. r2 6 (Muisl (1/- 2i^ L^r- I \u0026lt; I7^ LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 1390-96 REVENUE AND EXPENDITURE PROJECTION {DRAFT 2} 02:-22-35 ACTUAL 1990-91 ACTUAL 1991-92 ACTUAL 1992-93 ACTUAL 1993-94 BUDGET 1994-95 PROJECTED 1994-95 BUDGET 1995-96 REVENUE - LOCAL SOURCES CURRENT TAXES 40% PULLBACK DELINQUENT TAXES EXCESS TREASURERS FEES 31,899,357 20,601,593 3,214,974 [depository INTEREST iREVENUE IN LIEU OF TAXES IMISC. AND RENTS !interest on INVESTMENTS [ATHLETIC RECEIPTS I L TOTALl ' REVENUE - COUNTY SOURCES [county GENERAL ! SEVERANCE TAX I [ REVENUE - ST A TE SOURCES iMFPA______________________ jSETTLEMENT PROCEEDS SETTLEMENT LOAN APPORTIONMENT VOCATIONAL HANDICAPPED CHILDREN EARLY CHILDHOOD ORPHAN CHILDREN TRANSPORTATION COMPENSATORY EDUCATION M TO M TRANSFERS ADULT EDUCATION WORKERS COMPENSATION TOTAL REVENUE - OTHER SOURCES PUBLIC LAW 874 TRANSFER FROM OTHER FUNDS TRANSFER FROM BOND ACCT TRANSFER FROM MAGNET FUND TOTAL [TOTAL REVENUEQPgflATHHe: 118,998 I 317,646 I 120,412 I 317,978 I 141,376 I 91,322 ?5,823,6S6 73,971 I 16,232 [ 90,203 j ! 22.037,764 10,356,778 6,000,000 73,971 1,265,710 602,063 0 8,820 2,885,960 609,943 1,007,481 624,119 46,472,6I 28,585 95,588 613,166 737.339 103,123,807 38,196,979 21,081,833 ' 4,250,186 ' 140,858 241,476 224,667 I 406,878 ! 354,446 I 100,857 64,998,180 73,419 i 15,350 [ 88,769 39,701,855 22,220,949 4,293,380 145,690 360,734 245,162 574,918 208,519 37,005 67,838 212 73,428 18,031 91,459 27,264,460 i 25,275,221 8.637,482 4,500,000 73,426 1,513,699 824,870 147,050 3,000 2,379,879 858,743 1,770,486 697,589 0 8,926,606 1,500,000 72,694 1,261,451 1,139,235 234,403 3,540 3,198,252 563,602 2,127,216 799,544 0 48,670,884 45,101,764. 9,385 129,428 394,675 503,365 1,036,853 114,794,488 40,866 171,006 ______0 458,905 670,777 113,702,212 39,625,387 22,011,928 5,666,289 146,379 333,970 182,353 I 194,465 I 265,622 j 38,600,327 21,420,949 4,802,692 145,000 325,000 ' 180,000 ' 220,892 ' 322,232 I 40,330,355 I 41,330,355 21,420,949 i 21,742,264 i 4,802,692 ! 4,700,000 i 154,473 i 368,6527 157,385 220,892 335,000 74,416 102,005 80,000 I 155,000 ' 385,000\n139,000 ' 230,000 [ 375,000 : 85,000 : 68\nSQ3\n809 66,119\nO97 67,870-398 63\nT41\n619 I I 73,210 I 17,749 I 90,959 73,419 18,000 91.419 24,710,980 I 26,162,235 8,094,112 I 6,042,591 ________0 i 1,600,000 0 ! 1,382,418 1,282,804 263,992 3,198 3,553,095 517,260 2,720,581 792,081 0 _______0 1,320,000 1,344,499 233,992 3,198 3,700,000 580,435 3,100,000 797,893 367.319 43,320,521 45,252,162 108,747 18,000 -126,747 100,000 i 18,000 i I 26,156,074 i 26,526,188 , 6,042,591 i 1,600,000 _______0 1,320,000 1,344,499 233,992 6,984 3,788,805 543,922 2,764,143 790,466 367.319 44,958,795 29,969 1,228,696 _______0 348,725 1,607,390 38,000 500,000 900,000 716,116 2.154,116^ 113,519,679 jl 13,616,794 38,000 500,000 900,000 685.103 2,123,103 115,079,043 3,829,942 0 i 0 j 1,100,000 I 1,444,499 i 235,000 j 7,000 I 3,850,000 ! 580,435 [ 2,800,000 I 808,523 j 375,000 I 41,556.587 30,000 500,000 250,000 685,103 i 1,465,103 1 jl2iS3^r i LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 1^-96 REVENUE ANO expenditure PROJ ECTION (DR AFT 2) O2-22-9S ACTUAL 1990-91 ACTUAL 1991-92 ACTUAL 1992-93 ACTUAL 1993-94 BUDGET 1994-95 PROJECTED 1994-95 /REVENUE-FEDERAL GRANTS BUDGET 1995-96 I CHAPTER I jCHAPTER II TITLE VI B OTHER I TOTAL i revenue-magnet SCHOOLS ISTATE'LOCAL I TOTAL TOTAL REVENUE I EXPENSES SALARIES BENEFITS ^PURCHASED SERVICES MATERIALS \u0026amp; SUPPLIES CAPITAL OUTLAY OTHER OBJECTS DEBT SERVICE [contingency RESERVE FOR ENCUMBRANCES total OPERAT)NGXPa\u0026lt;SESiS EXPENSES-FEDERAL GRANTS EXPENSES-MAGNET SCHOOLS total expenses INCREASE (DECREASE) IN fund BALANCE BEGINNING FUND BALANCE FEDERAL OPERATING ENDING FUND BALANCE FEDERAL OPERATING TOTAL :  2,886,618 227,900 468,964 974,090 4,557,572 12,571,785 12,571,786 120.253.16* 3,275,099 ' 224 423 558.810 I 1,164,511 i 4,288,755 215,020 589,011 1,221,200 4,286,192 122,666 624,024 ' 1,230,084 I 4,299,095 177,262 628.560 1.003.005 I 5,222,843 6,313,98 6,262,966 6,107,922 I j i 13,887,841 13.887,841 133.905,170 65,192,947 I 73,191,21-3 8,032,967 10,457,140 3,613,450 3.628,473 5,036,791 6,646,769 0 iia2iSQ8.537-\n4,190.920 12.571.785 119,371,242 881,922 185,838 119,574 552,490 634,844 13,089,529 I 13,301.449 13.0^.629 13.301,449 i33\ni{^^' 133iog4\na94^ 14.236.418 14.236.418 133.961.134 11S.Q79.043 i 112,281,309 : 71,912,128\n75,079,647 1 73 .341,-179 8,992,742 i 9,908,175 _________________ 9,305,313 I 10,338.888 jj00,718 I 9,534,751 I 11,369.363 i I.3i7nqn.3 4.010.761 2.973,788 3,959,731 I 2,954.394 5,402,198 7,950,100 0 5,076,338 9,554,535 T13\n:J07i46ai _________0 714,896 TT2\nS29\nQ0iS?:\u0026lt; 3,420,371 1,704,608 ' 4,537,917 ' 8,903,285 0 I T14.320,SO4i 5.132.152 5,922.798 6.688.267 13.887,841 1,777,714 552,490 634,844 643,181 2,321,867 13.089.529 131,641,33g 1,464,395 643.181 2,321,867 1,034,369 3,395,074 TTg^SS*^ 2,9^,0481- 4,429,443 13.301.449 134.310,220 (1,226,126) 1.034,369 4.985,188 609,068 4,184,363 4,793.431 74.566,029 76,619.818 i 3,273,118 2,644,992 5,504,406 8,533,631 0 10,422,322 12,000,000 3,000,000 2,600,000 I 10,361,349 12,300,000 . 3,300,000 j 2.900,000 i 5,200,000 I 5,900.000 ' 8,533,631 0 8,532,296 1,000,000 116i807.3J7 :\n116i^1,982 121,413,465 ( 6.711.620 14.236.418 137.755^55^ 116,321,982 121,413,465 (3.794,221) (1,242,939) (9,132,156) I i 609.068 4.184.363 609,068 609,068 4,184,363 I 2,941,424 5.370 993,840 i ^210T^ 609.068 2.941,424 609,068 ! (6,190,732)1B5022802 MEMORANDUM Date: February 28, 1995 To: Hank Williams From: Bill Mooney Subject: Mooneys Brainstorming List of Possible Cost Cutting Measures As a result of my phone conversation this morning with you and Ms. Brown, I wanted to take this opportunity to share with you some information on the list of ideas entitled Mooneys Brainstorming List of Possible Cost Cutting Measures. I have kept a running list of possible budget reduction and improvement ideas since about June, 1992. I also track every shortfall strategy, business case, and other budget initiative through the entire budget cycle. Most of the people 1 regularly work with in the district are aware of these habits and have seen various versions of my notes from time to time. I have found the need to keep them since the district does not capture a comprehensive, running history of budget initiatives\ninformation I find useful in planning for the fijture. With the submission of the districts final budget in August, 1994,1 began a new cycle. This means I rolled over the list of ideas, and started anew tracking the shortfall strategies, business cases, and other initiatives for the fiscal year. In the joint LRSD/ODM staff meeting on November 22, 1994, we discussed the budget cycle and specifically shortfall strategies. During the discussion of shortfall strategies, I mentioned I had a long list of ideas. Since no one responded, I detected no interest. On December 20, 1994, Bob Morgan and I met with Fred Smith to introduce ourselves and offer our assistance. During that meeting, I mentioned the list of ideas, and Fred said he would like to see it. Attachment A is a copy of the document I sent Fred on January 6, 1995. During small talk at the beginning of a budget meeting on February 3, 1995, Fred acknowledged he had received the list, and said the district had already thought of some of the items. The district had the list. Another thing of importance. The list of ideas is just that. They are not ODM recommendations, they are not proposals. They are just ideas which I, were I in your shoes, would seriously research as a possible strategy. Some may be good, some may be bad, some might not be feasible. I felt the need to emphasize the point with a strange title, lest anyone attempt to use the list as an official mandate. If you read Attachment A, you will note that statement on each and every page. If you ask, I am confident Mr. Riggs and Ms. Magness will confirm I made essentially the same qualifier when they asked for the list. Keeping ideas secret has no value to me. I will share my thoughts with anyone willing to listen. Fred asked, and I shared them. Mr. Riggs and Ms. Magness asked, and I shared them. Had you asked, I would have shared them with you. I have been trying to share my ideas with the LRSD for two years\nsome have listened and some have not. However, getting people to listen gets harder with each passing month. If you want any of my ideas, ask and I will share them with you. If you want me to give them to you first, hire me. Copy to: Ann BrownB4112803 1/5/95 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. * School Closings. \\ Outsourcing transportation. \\ 11/7 Board Work Session. CHART OF SHORTFALL STRATEGIES BUDGET FY 95-96 11/7 Board Work Session. * Outsourcing other. * 11/7 Board Work Session. Delivery of Nursing Services. * 11/7 Board Work Session. Staff Development. * 11/7 Board Work Session. Clerical Support. * 11/7 Board Work Session. IRC - Staffing/Use. * 11/7 Board Work Session. Federal Programs. * 11/7 Board Work Session. Staffing Efficiencies/RIF. * 11/7 Board Work Session. New Futures/In-School Suspension. * 11/7 Board Work Session. Facilities Usage. * Academic Incentive Grants. * 11/7 Board Work Session. I i 11/7 Board Work Session. ATTAtHHeMT 13. Student Assessment. * 11/7 Board Work Session. 14. Vocational Education Delivery.  11/7 Board Work Session. 15. Four-Year Old Programs. * 11/7 Board Work Session. 16. HIPPY. * 11/7 Board Work Session. 17. Fringe Benefit Package. * 11/7 Board Work Session. 18. Contract Lengths. * 11/7 Board Work Session. 19. Community Education. * 11/7 Board Work Session. 20. Millagoe Election. * 11/7 Board Work Session. 21. Spending Freeze. * 11/7 Board Work Session. MOONEYS ADDITIONAL LIST OF POSSIBLE SAVINGS * Performance based pay * * * * * * * * * * 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 J * * * * * * Car allowance. Cellular phones. Vacation days policy revision. Review sick leave policy. Cafeteria plan\nbetter education and selling. Revise travel reimbursement procedures and amounts. * 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. * Incentive program for accident free driving. * Six period day. * * * * * * Flatten administrative organization. Get 10% to 15% from each administrative department General layoff/RIF Give transportation to someone else. Outsourcing\ntransportation, custodial, accounting, data processing, human resources, all support services in bundle. Serious program evaluation. * 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 PCs. * Check actual expenditures against budgeted for targets of opportunity. * Control on substitutes. * Cut athletic programs. * Combine recruiting efforts (teacher, parent, VIPS, private school) * Increase Medicaid reimbursement for health services * Social work reimbursement from DHS * Building rentals. 9 * Sell vacant properties. * Trash compactor\nCOMPAX 101. * Long-term computer (PC) leasing contract. * Revised energy audit with follow-on program * Flags from Secretary of State, legislators, American Legion, VVA of Arkansas * Reduction in materials and supplies. * Diesel bus change out * Relocate IRC and Annex to cheaper places. * Major recycling campaign. * Participate in the A APT Driver Workshops ($70/$350) * * Ask Union to give some contract back. Retrieval bargaining with the Unions * Revision of MFPA formula with the State. * Negotiations with State on forgiveness of loan payback. * Revise method of calculating the magnet per pupil cost (see Bob) * Work deal with the ADE on computer costs under the APSCN funding. * Litigation on Workers Compensation Insurance Program. * Pooling agreement appeal. S~ 4-'  l!JLi^ !? *7^^ n *  : \" '*r   TO: LRSD ADMINISTRATION AND BOARD OFFICE OF DESEGREGATION MONITORING FR: AREA SCHOOL PARENTS AND PATRONS MAR 8 1995 OKlcs ot Desegrsgalicn Mon\nMarch 6,1995 Area School Parents and Patrons collected approximately 430 signatures (in less than a 24-hour period) protesting the proposed 1995-96 Budget Cuts by the LRSD Administration. Area School Parents and Patrons feel that most of these cuts were addressed in the March 1993 petition to the Court, which was accepted into the Court record. We simply feel outraged and betrayed by this Administration's blatant disregard of the primary needs of the children in the majority of the LRSD'S schools, which were addressed in that March 1993 petition. And AGAIN, we ask the Administration and the Court not only to listen to our concerns, but also to act responsibly by making cuts which DO NOT AFFECT THE PRIMARY NEEDS OF OUR CHIT DRFN 'T / / fjB5030602 MEMORANDUM Date: March 6, 1995 To: Hank Williams From: Bill Mooney fiM Subject: Latest Revision to Brainstorming List As you requested, I am sending you a copy of the latest revision to the brainstorming list. The attached copy is up to date as of today, March 6, 1995. The next revision will be around the end of the week. Copy to: Ann Brown-7-- SSGEsV 'iQ-. LRSD ADMINISTRATION AND BOARD OFFICE OF DESEGREGATION MONITORING MAR 5 1995 FR: A CONCERNED PARENT WHO HAS TALKED WITH MANY P.ARESjTS O^segregaKca March 8,1995 Area School Parents and Patrons are dazed at the prospect of the Administration's attempt to cut the Area Schools' Academic Progress Incentive Grants and the Focused Areas of Activities allotted monies, especially in light of the the Office of Desegregation Monitoring's report of December, 1994. This Administration's latest Business Case on these monies is so poorly yvritten and difficult to understand( besides the fact that it is filled vith inaccurate and incomplete information) that it simply should be rejected by the Court. The Court should demand that the LRSD give these monies to the AREA SCHOOLS in a timely and efficient manner, and should hold The LRSD accountable for its lack of concern for the Area Schools. It is difficult to try to figure out if this Administration deliberately writes such incredulously vague reports to confuse the people, or if this Administration is simply too incompetent to write clear, concise informational reports. Area School Parents and Patrons are adamantly opposed to cutting nurses in the Area Schools. It is this type of cut which makes the patrons of LRSD reel with feelings of rage, lack of trust, and abandonement. We demand MORE NURSES, NOT FEWER, IN OUR AREA SCHOOLS. Area School Parents and Patrons demand that the LRSD have a logical, workable plan of action in order to consider the closing of any schools. We believe that the LRSD has no workable plan for children who would be left without a school. The suggestions previously made by this district are illogical and unworkable. How dare the district ^^g^st that students be placed in already filled-up, overcrowded and underserved Area Schools. We do NOT support the closings of Fair Park and Badgett. Area School Parents and Patrons are fervently opposed to cutting any Counseling or Music services to our Children. AREA SCHOOL PARENTS AND PATRONS DO NOT SUPPORT ANY CUTS WHICH DIRECTY AFFECT THE PRIMARY NEEDS OF OUR CHILDREN. J a'MOONEYS 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 costhenefits. 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 * 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 S35,000. * Freeze all hiring of replacements in non-teaching positions. * Consolidate classes * Car allowance. * Cellular phones. * Vacation days policy revision. * Review sick leave policy. * Cafeteria plan\nbetter education and selling. * Revise travel reimbursement procedures and amounts. * 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 * Incentive program for accident free driving\nboth monetary and non-monetary * Six period day. 20* * * * * * Flatten administrative organization\nremove some layers Get 10% to 15% from each administrative department General layofE'RIF Give transportation to someone else. Outsourcing\ntransportation, custodial, accounting, data processing, human resources, or all support services in a bundle. Serious program evaluation. * 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. * Check actual expenditures against budgeted for targets of opportunity. * Control 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. * Approvach State about picking up the Medicaid match portion. * Social work reimbursement from DHS * Reject paying for the Green Factor committees * Reject any costs for the strategic planning action plan committees * Eliminate high school kindergartens. * Building rentals. * Sell vacant properties. * Sell the Annex. * Sell the administration building\nconsolidate all administration in less expensive quarters. * Trash compactor\nCOMP AX 101. * Long-term computer (PC) leasing contract. * Revised energy audit with follow-on program * Flags from Secretary of State, legislators, American Legion, VVA of Arkansas * Reduction in materials and supplies. * Diesel bus change out * Relocate IRC and Annex to cheaper places. * Major recycling campaign. 21* Participate in the AAPT Driver Workshops ($70/5350) * Dont rebuild Stephens, and change the facilities use pattern. * Ask Union to give some contract back. * Retrieval bargaining with the Unions * Revision of MFPA fonnula with the State. * Negotiations with State on forgiveness of loan payback. * Revise method of calculating the magnet per pupil cost (see Bob) * Work deal with the ADE on computer costs under the APSCN funding. * Litigation on Workers' Compensation Insurance Program. * Pooling agreement appeal. * Set up education endowment fund and seek contributions. 22B5030702 MEMORANDUM Date: March 7, 1995 To: Hank Williams From: Bill Mooney Subject: LRSD Program Development Summary Spreadsheet Attached is the most recent version of a spreadsheet which I developed to help track budget actions. I am just now working the bugs out of it, so let me know if you have any recommendations. This tracking tool will be updated only when actions occur. Copy to: Ann BrownSheet! Page 1 Sheetl 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 204 8 Substitute Teacher_____________ Voc Ed (non-deseg)_____________ Voc Ed (deseg)________________ Badgett School Relocation_______ Fair Park School Relocation Incentive School Staffing Elementary Music Teacher Staff Improving Student Transport Parkview Commercial Art Proposal Alternative Education Arkansas Crusades Beacon School Mann Magnet Clerical Add_______ New Comers Center Reading Recovery/Literacy Pilot Security Officers_______________ Social Studies Curriculum Rev. Information Services Eliminate purchase of buses______ Eliminate contingency___________ Eliminate increments____________ Shorten year by 2 days__________ Move IRC to Fair Park Reduction In Debt Service-Stephen Utilities for IRC at Fair Park Renovation at Fair Park - IRC EE EE/BC EE/BC EE/BC BC BC BC BC BC BC BC BC BC BC BC BC BC BC BC BC BC___ BC BC SS SS SS SS SS SS O O N N N N Y Y I A M D D M M M A M M A A M M M Y M D M M M M M M GROSS TOTALS $ 28,943.00 $ 620,000.00 NET POSITION Page 2 N N Y Y Y N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N NSheetl $ 77,000.00 Y N $ 1,321,520.00 Y Y $ $ $ 125,268.00 560,000.00 185,828.18 $ $ Y YY N NY 170,000.00 669,900.00 Y Y ! 1  Y N Page 3 Sheetl $ $ 50,000.00 182,783.90 Y Y I 1 N N $ $ $ $ $ 523,000.00 637,000.00 607,250.00 161,000.00 100,000.00 $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ 34,965.00 30,000.00 12,000.00 3,000.00 52,117.00 30,000.00 36,500.00 13,200.00 $ 317,500.00 $ $ $ $ $ $ 1,000,000.00 1,000,000.00 2,000,000.00 750,000.00 161,800.00 300,000.00 $ 50,000.00 $ 270,000.00 Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y N N N N Y y Y Y Y Y Y Y $ Y Y Y Y N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N $ 849,282.00 $ 11,027,350.08 $ $ $ 10,178,068.08 $ Page 4B5031301 MEMORANDUM Date: March 13, 1995 To: Hank Williams From: Bill Mooney Subject: Latest Revision to Brainstorming List The attached document is the latest revision to the Brainstorming List. It is effective as of March 10, 1995. The next revision will be around the end of this week or first of next week. Copy to: Ann BrownMOONEYS 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 cost^enefits. 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 * 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 * Car allowance. * Cellular phones. * Vacation days policy revision. * Review sick leave policy. * Cafeteria plan\nbetter education and selling. * Revise travel reimbursement procedures and amounts. * 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 * Incentive program for accident free driving\nboth monetary and non-monetary * Six period day. 21* * * * * * * Flatten administrative organization\nremove some layers Get 10% to 15% from each administrative department General layofEZRIF 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. * 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. * 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 the Green Factor committees * Reject any costs for the strategic planning action plan committees * Eliminate high school kindergartens. * Building rentals. * Sell vacant properties. * Sell the Annex. * Sell the administration building\nconsolidate all administration in less expensive quarters. * Trash compactor\nCOMP AX 101. * Long-term computer (PC) leasing contract. * Revised energy audit with follow-on program * Flags from Secretary of State, legislators, American Legion, WA of Arkansas * Reduction in materials and supplies. 22* Diesel bus change out * Relocate IRC and Annex to cheaper places. * Major recycling campaign. * Participate in the AAPT Driver Workshops ($70/$350) * Dont rebuild Stephens, and change the facilities use pattern. * Ask Union to give some contract back. * Retrieval bargaining with the Unions * Revision of MFPA formula with the State. Negotiations with State on forgiveness of loan payback. * Millage increase. * Revise method of calculating the magnet per pupil cost (see Bob) * Work deal with the ADE on computer costs under the APSCN funding. * Litigation on Workers' Compensation Insurance Program. * Pooling agreement appeal. Set up education endowment fund and seek contributions. 23BO3I5O3 Date: March 15, 1995 To: Hank Williams From: Bill Mooney Subject: LRSD Program Development Summary Spreadsheet Attached is a revised copy of the LRSD Program Development Summary spreadsheet which I have been keeping. It is up to date as of March 13, 1995. I have yet to include the Proposed Budget information, but will do so late next week. When I get that done, I will send you an update. If you have any questions, please feel free to give me a call. Copy to\nAnn BrownSheetl Page 1 Sheetl 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 204 8 Substitute Teacher_____________ Voc Ed (non-deseg)_____________ Voc Ed (deseg)________________ Badgett School Relocation Fair Park School Relocation Incentive School Staffing________ Elementary Music Teacher Staff Improving Student Transport Parkview Commercial Art Proposal Alternative Education Arkansas Crusades Beacon School_________________ Mann Magnet Clerical Add_______ New Comers Center Reading Recovery/Literacy Pilot Security Officers_______________ Social Studies Curriculum Rev. Information Services Eliminate purchase of buses______ Eliminate contingency___________ Eliminate increments____________ Shorten year by 2 days__________ Move IRC to Fair Park Reduction in Debt Service-Stephen Utilities for IRC at Fair Park______ Renovation at Fair Park - IRC Reduction in Administrators EE EE/BC EE/BC EE/BC BC BC BC BC BC BC BC BC BC BC BC BC BC BC BC iBC ^BC BC BC SS SS SS SS SS SS O O O N N N N Y Y I A M D D M M M M M A, M A M M Y M D M M M M M M D GROSS TOTALS $ 28,943.00 $ 620,000.00 NET POSITION Page 2 N N Y Y Y N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N NINCR COST DECR COST DO PASS INCR COST Sheetl ' 9 DECR COST DO PASS REC SUBMIT APPROV $ 445,000.00 Y $ 445,000.00 Y $ 77,000.00 Y $ 77,000.00 N $ 1,321,520.00 Y $ N Y $ $ $ 125,268.00 560,000.00 185,828.18 Y Y Y $ $ 170,000.00 626,848.00 Y y I $ $ $ 125,268.00 185,828.18 N $ $ 170,000.00 626,848.00 I N N Y Y N Page 3Sheetl $ $ 50,000.00 98,462.00 Y Y I $ $ 50,000.00 98,462.00 1 N N $ $ $ $ $ 523,000.00 637,000.00 608,250.00 161,000.00 100,000.00 $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ 34,965.00 30,000.00 37,000.00 12,117.00 10,614.00 36,500.00 $ 317,500.00 $ $ $ $ $ $ $ 50,000.00 $ 270,000.00 $ $ 798,696.00 1,000,000.00 1,000,000.00 1,500,000.00 702,000.00 161,800.00 300,000.00 300,000.00 $ 10,652,976.18 $ 9,854,280.18 Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y N Y Y Y N Y N N N N Y Y Y Y Y y Y Y Y $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ 34,965.00 30,000.00 37,000.00 12,117.00 10,614.00 36,500.00 $ 317,500.00 $ $ $ 478,696.00 $ $ $ $ $ N N 608,250.00 161,000.00 100,000.00 Y N N Y Y Y N N N N N N N N N N N $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ 1,000,000.00 1,000,000.00 1,500,000.00 702,000.00 300,000.00 300,000.00 7,449,656.18 6,970,960.18 Page 4 N N N N N N N N N N N N N N NB5032301 Date: March 23, 1995 To: Hank Williams From: Bill Mooney li^ Subject: LRSD Program Development Summary Spreadsheet Attached is a revised copy of the LRSD Program Development Summary spreadsheet. It is up to date as of March 23, 1995. If you have any questions, please feel free to give me a call. Copy to: Ann BrownSheetl LRSD PROGRAM DEVELOPMENT SUMMARY FNAME: LREEBC01 REVISED: 3/22/95 ITEM SEQ# PROGRAM NAME METHOD PLAN MOD INCR COST DECR COST B/C REC A/D/M PLAN MOD 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 21 28 29 14 3 227 23 233 24 230 33 Academic Progress Inc Grants 231 Family Life/New Futures 2 [^FourVea r^3ldProgmm 2Q1 213 Guidance Services 215 Health Services/Nursing Services 1 HIPPY 15 McClellan Community School 13 New Futures 226 222 223 224 ____79 ____78 251225 5 203 21 EE/BC EE EE EE EE EE EE EE EE/BC EE EE/BC EE EE/BC EE/BC EE/BC EE EE/BC EE/BC EE EE___ EE EE___ EE EE EE iEE jEE EE___ SEE Y N Y N Y Y N Page 1 $ 445,000.00 $ 28,943.00 $ 175,000.00 Y Y N N N Y Y Y Y N Y D Y M M N Y Y Y Y Kzi: X Y N N Y N N N Y Y N N Y M M M D M N N Y Y NSheetl 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 204 8 Substitute Teacher Voc Ed (non-deseg)_____________ Voc Ed (deseg)_________________ Badgett School Relocation_______ Fair Park School Relocation Incentive School Staffing________ Elementary Music Teacher Staff Improving Student Transport Parkview Commercial Art Proposal Alternative Education Arkansas Crusades Beacon School New Comers Center Reading Recovery/Literacy Pilot Security Officers Information Services Eliminate purchase of buses Eliminate contingency___________ Eliminate increments____________ Shorten year by 2 days__________ Move IRC to Fair Park___________ Reduction in Debt Service-Stephen Utilities for IRC at Fair Park Renovation at Fair Park - IRC Reduction in Administrators EE EE/BC EE/BC EE/BC BC BC BC BC BC BC BC BC BC BC BC BC BC SBC___ [bc tec BC tec BC SS SS SS SS SS SS o o o N N N N Y Y I A M D D M M M A M M A M A M M Y M D M M M M M M D GROSS TOTALS $ 28,943,00 $ 620,000.00 NET POSITION Page 2 N N Y Y Y N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N NSr INCR COST DECR COST DO PASS INCR COST Sheetl * DECR COST DO PASS REC SUBMIT APPROV $ 445,000.00 Y $ 445,000.00 Y $ 77,000.00 Y $ 77,000.00 N $ 1,321,520.00 Y $ N Y $ $ $ 125,268.00 560,000.00 223,769.00 Y Y Y $ $ 130,000.00 626,848.00 Y Y j $ $ $ $ $ 125,268.00 223,769.00 130,000.00 626,848.00 Page 3 N I N N Y Y NSheetl $ $ 50,000.00 98,462.00 Y Y 1 $ $ 50,000.00 98,462.00 I N N $ $ $ $ $ 523,000.00 637,000.00 608,250.00 161,000.00 100,000.00 $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ 34,965.00 30,000.00 37,000.00 12,117.00 10,614.00 36,500.00 $ 317,500.00 $ $ $ $ $ $ 1,000,000.00 1,000,000.00 1,500,000.00 702,000.00 161,800.00 300,000.00 $ 50,000.00 $ 270,000.00 $ 300,000.00 Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y N Y Y Y N Y N N N N Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y $ $ $ $ II $ $ $ $ $ 798,696.00 $ 10,650,917.00 $ 9,852,221.00 34,965.00 30,000.00 37,000.00 12,117.00 10,614.00 36,500.00 $ 317,500.00 $ $ $ 478,696.00 $ $ $ $ $ N N 608,250.00 161,000.00 100,000.00 Y N N $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ 1,000,000.00 1,000,000.00 1,500,000.00 702,000.00 300,000.00 300,000.00 7,447,597.00 6,968,901.00 Page 4 N N N Y Y Y N N N N N N o N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N NOffice of Desegregation Monitoring United States District Court  Eastern District of Arkansas Ann S. Brown. Federal Monitor 201 East Markham, Suite 510 Heritage West Building Little Rock. Arkansas 72201 (501)376-6200 Fax (501) 371-0100 DATE : ^/cl7S TO: PAT Cree' TAK it FROM: Bit-L HgPAfgy NUMBER OF PAGES INCLUDING COVER SHEET MESSAGE: AS pec\u0026gt;cf^sTeD. iS Tf/e- LAresr i/siIs/oaP, TT X CAA Se- At/Y AeiJ\u0026gt;. FeeL FP.ee To cacl.. X X Kt k: X X Kt Kt P.Ol DATE START RECEIVER APR- 6 13:35 5692476 TRANSACTION REPORT APR- 6-95 THU 13:38 TX TIME PAGES TYPE NOTE 2'28\" 4 SEND OK X X X X X X X XMOONEYS 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 cosPbenefits. 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. * 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 * 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 * Incentive program for accident free driving\nboth monetary and non-monetary * Six period day. 24* * * * * * * * Flatten administrative organization\nremove some layers Get 10% to 15% from each administrative department General layofTRIF 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. * 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. * Check actual expenditures against budgeted for targets of opportunity. * Control and crack down on substitutes. * Cut athletic programs. * Combine recruiting efforts (teacher, parent, VTPS, 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 the Green Factor committees * Reject any costs for the strategic planning action plan committees * Eliminate high school kindergartens. * Building rentals. * Sell vacant properties. * Sell the Annex. * Sell the administration building\nconsolidate all administration in less expensive quarters. * Trash compactor\nCOMP AX 101. * Long-term computer (PC) leasing contract. 25* Revised energy audit with follow-on program * Flags from Secretary of State, legislators, American Legion, WA of Arkansas * Reduction in materials and supplies. * Diesel bus change out * Relocate IRC and Annex to cheaper places. * Major recycling campaign. * Participate in the AAPT Driver Workshops ($70/5350) * Dont rebuild Stephens, and change the facilities use pattern. * Ask Union to give some contract back. * Retrieval bargaining with the Unions Revision of MFPA formula with the State. * Negotiations with State on forgiveness of loan payback. * Millage increase. * Revise method of calculating the magnet per pupil cost (see Bob) * Work deal with the ADE on computer costs under the APSCN funding. * Litigation on Workers' Compensation Insurance Program. * Pooling agreement appeal. * Set up education endowment fund and seek contributions. 26MAY- 9-95 TUE 8:58 SUSAN W WRIGHT FAX NO. 5013246576 P. 02 District Judge Susan Webber Wright 600 West Capitol Street Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 C.'-6 CF 335 03 , Dear Sir\nI am writing as a concerned citizen of the Little Rock area, the personnel matters that have faced LRSD in the last months, have been taxing to me, and the friends who are employed in the district. The tremendous amount of stress and uncertainty imposed upon the districts employees is absolutely ridiculous. Listed below you will find some additional factors to consider for budget cuts: 1. 2. 3. Why do they project budget cuts just before the students take the test? (the teachers, supervisors, and directors are usually stressed and the FEELINGS carry over to the students in the classroom.) They want to pay Worthen Bank the money instead of bring the TEST SCORES UP. Did the Superintendent, Special Asst, to the Supt,, Assoc. Superintendent of Desegregation, Director of Human Resources, and Planning Research and Evaluation Directors take a cut in days, or give the district 5 or 10 thousand dollars from their salaries to balance the budget? The reason the Incentive Schools are not operation effectively is because of the incompetent,insensitive,unqualified instructional leaders who are trying to educate the urban Afro-American student, the principals are at Mitchell, Franklin, and Rockefeller Incentive Schools. Don't allow them to continue to DAMAGE the Afro-American students, place them in a west Little Rock school,my- 9-95 TUE 8:58 SUSAN M WRIGHT FAX NO. 5013246576 P. 03 SO they won't corrupt the inner city students in the Little Rock Area. 4. 5. The GANGS are infested in the schools because of the tremendous amount of HATE exhibited by the teachers who are only in the teaching profession in the LRSD area to obtain a pay check. So much hate is exhibited from the principals and teachers that the students join gangs, to feel human and the ability to have some self worth.(a lot of teachers come from small town outside of Little Rock, but stay in the system to obtain the monetary benefits.) Why are the Afro-American directors and supervisors the first ones to be eliminated, or to cut the extra personnel in their departments\nwhile the European-Americans maintain their departments, and are allowed to add additional personnel QUIETLY. These are some important factors to consider when you go to court concerning the LRSD Desegregation Case, and why so many of the ideas in the case have not worked. The LRSD Administration office is INFESTED with Institutional Racism, until this FACTOR is eliminated LRSD will never integrate, or effectively educate the students in the Little Rock area. ^aa ^^acx d . 3 MAY 3 1995 Oifice of Desegregaiioii Moniioring PROPOSED ADMINISTRATIVE CUTS Legal Services (Staff Attorney and Secretary) Deputy Superintendent $ 88,520 VACANT (2) $ 93,969 E, Matthis Associate to the Deputy Gifted \u0026amp; Talented Coordinator $ 12,\u0026gt;1,33 S. Ingram $ 52,671 D, Rynders HIPPY Coordinators (2) Plant Services (EPA or Construction Mgr.) Instructional Technology (was D. Omfleet 1993-94) $ 48,118 A. Roper J. Richardson $ 49,127 $ 42,056 VACANT Supervisor of Math (was J. Trowell 1993-94) $ 55,942 VACANT Displaced Principals (2) $125,288 $628,130 POSSIBLE ADMINISTRATIVE ADDITIONS Administrative Program Supervision $228,130 Net Administrative Savings $400,000 Plant Services current^has these two positions funded, but one recently became vacant, and the other may become vacant The two positions will bo combined and the rcsponsifciliiieswili be employee. met by one CTrrcntJy has three schools with acting principals (King, Carver, Henderson), be filled nArmAnntIv fk,* 1Qe Q_1__1 permanently for the 1995-96 school year. which will A We have five principals who are considered'displaced,\" Three of these individuals will be reassigned as butldmeonnanak in IQOS-OA anri ____.-ii v. , ... *u uo i cjssignea as building principal in 1995-96 and two positions will be eliminated, which two people will be eliminated as principals at this time. It has not been determined THE BOARD DID NOT VOTE ON THE INDIVIDUALS OR ON THE POSITIONS LISTED ABOVE, BUT ONLY ON THE ELIMINATION OF 5400,000 IN ADMINISTRATIVE EXPENSES,B5O5O5O1 MEMORANDUM Date: May 5, 1995 To: Hank Williams From: Bill Mooney Subject: Latest Revision to Brainstorming List The attached document is the latest revision to the Brainstorming List. It is effective as of May 5, 1995. The next revision is dependent on district budget action. Copy to: Ann BrownMOONEYS 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 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. * * * * * * * * * * * * 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 28* Incentive program for accident free driving, both monetary and non-monetary * Six period day. * * * * * * *  Flatten administrative organization\nremove some layers Get 10% to 15% from each administrative department General layofTRIF 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. * 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, VTPS, private school) * Increase Medicaid reimbursement for health services * No cost contract for all health services with A.C.H., use Westside as chip. * Approach State about picking up the Medicaid match portion. * Social work reimbursement from DHS * Reject paying for the Green Factor committees * Reject any costs for the strategic planning action plan committees * Eliminate high school kindergartens. * Begin phased chartering of existing schools that volunteer. * Strong phased effort to site-based management 29* Building rentals. * Lease existing available building space rather than build new school buildings. * Sell vacant properties. * Sell the Annex. * Sell the administration building\nconsolidate all administration in less expensive quarters. * Trash compactor\nCOMPAX 101. * Long-term computer (PC) leasing contract. * Revised energy audit with follow-on program * Flags from Secretary of State, legislators, American Legion, WA of Arkansas * Reduction in materials and supplies. * Diesel bus change out * Relocate IRC and Annex to cheaper places. * Major recycling campaign. * Participate in the AAPT Driver Workshops ($70/S350) * Dont rebuild Stephens, and change the facilities use pattern. * Ask Union to give some contract back. * Retrieval bargaining with the Unions * Revision of MFPA formula with the State. * Negotiations with State on forgiveness of loan payback. * Millage increase. * Revise method of calculating the magnet per pupil cost (see Bob) * Work deal with the ADE on computer costs under the APSCN funding. * Litigation on Workers' Compensation Insurance Program. * Pooling agreement appeal. * Set up education endowment fund and seek contributions. 30B5O5O5O2 Date: May 8, 1995 To: Hank Williams From: Bill Mooney Subject: LRSD Program Development Summary Spreadsheet Attached is a revised copy of the LRSD Program Development Summary spreadsheet. It is up to date as of May 5, 1995. If you have any questions, please feel free to give me a call. Copy to: Ann BrownSheetl Page 1 Sheetl 30 31 32 3^ 35 36 37~ 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 \"59 60 61 Substitute Teacher 204 Voc Ed (non-deseg) 8 Voc Ed (deseg) Incentive School Staffing________ Elementary Music Teacher Staff Improving Student Transport_____ Parkview Commercial Art Proposal Alternative Education___________ Arkansas Crusades Beacon School New Comers Center__________ Reading Recovery/Literacy Pilot Security Officers Information Services Eliminate purchase of buses Eliminate contingency_____ Eliminate increments _____ Shorten year by 2 days EE/BC EE/BC EE/BC BC__ BC___ BC BC BC BC___ BC BC BC BC BC BC BC BC BC BC BC SS SS SS SS fes Reduction in Debt Service-Stephen |SS Reduction in Administrators O O O GROSS TOTALS NET POSITION N N $ 28,943.00 $ 620,000.00 Page 2 N N Y Y A M N N I D D M M jy A M M A A M a M M Y M D M M pMMMD Y Y Y N N N N N N N N N N N N NN N N NN Sheetl $ : ft  \"  S  INCR COST DECR COST DO PASS INCR COST DECR COST DO PASS REC SUBMIT APPROV $ 445,000.00 Y $ 261,000.00 Y Y ACT $ 77,000.00 Y $ 77,000.00 Y N $ 1,321,520.00 Y $ N Y N N $ $ $ 125,268.00 560,000.00 223,769.00 Y Y Y $ $ $ 125,268.00 223,769.00 Y N PB N N Y N N ACT $ $ 130,000.00 626,848.00 Y Y $ $ 130,000.00 626848.o6 Y PB N ACT Page 3Sheetl $ $ 50,000.00 98,462.00 Y Y I $ $ 50,000.00 98,462.00 Y Y I N N $ $ $ $ $ 523,000.00 637,000.00 608,250.00 161,000.00 100,000.00 $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ 34,965.00 30,000.00 37,000.00 12,117.00 10,614.00 36,500.00 $ 317,500.00 $ $ $ $ $ $ 1,000,000.00 1,000,000.00 1,500,000.00 702,000.00 161,800.00 300,000.00 $ 50,000.00 $ 270,000.00 $ 300,000.00 Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y N Y Y Y N Y N N N N Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y $ $ $ $ II $ $ $ $ $ 798,696.00 $ 10,650,917.00 $ 9,852,221.00 34,965.00 30,000.00 18,500.00 12,117.00 10,614.00 36,500.00 $ 317,500.00 $ $ $ 228,130.00 $ 688,326 00 $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ 211,250.00 161,000.00 100,000.00 1,000,000.00 1,000,000.00 1,500,000.00 699,546.00 300,000.00 400,000.00 6,964,143.00 6,275,817.00 Page 4 N N Y Y I Y PB Y H N Y Y Y N Y Y Y Y N N N N N N o N N N N ACT N Y N N Y N N N N N N N N N N N NB5080701 Date: August 7, 1995 To: Ann Brown From: Bill Mooney Subject: Mooneys Brainstorming List of Possible Cost Cutting Measures After the LRSD budget hearings on August 1-2, 1995, you requested that I put together information concerning the times I had contact with LRSD concerning the list known as the Mooneys Brainstorming List of Possible Cost Cutting Measures. This memo contains the occasions on which I have some record. In addition to this listing, there were several other instances where staff or board members requested another copy which I provided without note. I have kept a running list of possible budget reduction and improvement ideas since about June, 1992. I also track every shortfall strategy, business case, and other budget initiatives through the entire budget cycle. Most of the people I regularly work with in the LRSD are aware of these habits and have seen various versions of my notes from time to time. I have found the need to keep them since the LRSD does not capture a comprehensive, running history of budget initiatives, information I find useful in planning for the future. The brainstorming list of ideas is just that. They are not ODM recommendations, they are not proposals. They are just ideas which I have gathered from many sources. Some may be good, some may be bad, some might not be feasible. I felt the need to emphasize that point with a strange title, lest anyone attempt to use the list as an official mandate. Also, keeping ideas secret has no value to me. The list is no good unless decision-makers think about it, and this memo will show they had ample opportunity to use these ideas. With the submission of the LRSDs final budget in August 1994,1 began a new cycle. This means I rolled over the list of ideas, and started anew tracking the shortfall strategies, business cases, and other initiatives for the fiscal year. I am about to close out the 94-95 fiscal year by adding the final budget information to the list. The brainstorming list is contained as the last section of the comprehensive document\nLRSD BUDGET ACTION SUMMARY. This document was updated numerous times during the fiscal year, mainly after some significant budget action by the LRSD Board. Attachment A is the most recent version, dated 6/30/95. It will be updated one final time. NOTE: the items in bold print represent the two times I got direct feedback on the shortfall strategies. 8/4/94 I had lunch with John Riggs, and we discussed the budget and several shortfall strategies on the brainstorming list. 8/16/94 11/22/94 12/20/95 1/6/95 2/3/95 2/3/95 2/24/95 2/24/95 2/28/95 2/28/95 3/6/95 3/7/95 3/13/95 I provided Mark Milhollen with the latest revision to my lists. In a joint ODM/LRSD staff meeting, I mentioned the brainstorming list which I was maintaining. I noted some research had already been done on some of the items, and that the list was pretty long. No one from LRSD responded\nHank Williams was present. Bob Morgan and I met with Fred Smith to introduce ourselves. During the meeting 1 mentioned the list of shortfall strategies, and volunteered a copy to Fred Smith. I sent Fred Smith an annotated copy of the brainstorming list, explaining the material. During a meeting with Mark Milhollen and Fred Smith, we discussed the shortfall strategies on the list. During a casual conversation at the beginning of a budget meeting, Fred Smith and I discussed the list. Fred Smith said the district had already thought of some of the items. I had breakfast with John Riggs. We discussed the budget and some of the shortfall strategies on the brainstorming list, specifically health services. I provided him an updated copy of the brainstorming list. Ann Brown and I met with Judy Magness and Russ Mayo. We discussed budget matters, and specifically shortfall strategies and health services. I provided Magness an updated copy of the shortfall strategies. I was brought in on a phone call between Hank Williams and Ann Brown. Hank Williams was complaining that he was not given any of the shortfall strategy information. I pointed out the 11/22/94 staff meeting and the 1/6/95 copy provided Fred Smith. I said I would send him personal copies in the future. I sent a memorandum to Hank Williams providing him a copy of the brainstorming list, and explaining its history and purpose. This was in response to the phone call of 2/28/95. I sent Hank Williams an updated copy of the brainstorming list, as of 3/6/95. 1 sent Hank Williams an updated copy of the LRSD Program Development Summary spreadsheet which 1 used to track all shortfall strategies actually acted upon by LRSD. I sent Hank Williams an updated copy of the brainstorming list, as of 3/10/95.3/15/95 3/22/95 3/23/95 4/6/95 5/5/95 5/8/95 7/14/95 8/2/95 I sent Hank Williams an updated copy of the LRSD Program Development Summary spreadsheet, as of 3/13/95. I sent Hank Williams an updated copy of the brainstorming list, as of 3/22/95. I sent Hank Williams an updated copy of the LRSD Program Development Summary spreadsheet, as of 3/23/95. I sent a facsimile copy of the brainstorming list, updated 4/3/95, to Pat Gee. I sent Hank Williams an updated copy of the brainstorming list, as of 5/595. I sent Hank Williams an updated copy of the LRSD Program Development Summary spreadsheet, as of 5/5/95. Fred Smith, Mark Milhollen, and I met to discuss the shortfall strategies on the brainstorming list. Fred Smith had prepared a matrix showing some of the strategies down the left side, and obstacles across the top. Fred Smith did most of the talking, and I got the impression the purpose of the meeting was to show Bill Mooney why strategies were not undertaken. I hand delivered a copy of the brainstorming list, update 6/30/95, to Linda Pondexter in court.B4112802 06/30/1400 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 2modifications for a savings of $261,100. A new business case was submitted with the budget document. 2. Academic Support Program. * * * * 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. 3. 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. 4. 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. 5. 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. 1/17/95 Joint ODM/LRSD staff meeting handout on tentative business cases. Program sequence # 223, will be prepared by Cheatham. 3* 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. Would not require a Deseg Plan * * * * * * 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 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. 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. 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. 4* 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. * 3I22I9S 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 deferred 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. 5/26/95 Tentative Budget Document. Tentative Budget Document reflects no cuts and no savings. 9. Guidance Services. 5* * * * 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. Would not require a Deseg Plan * * *  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 $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. 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 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 6* * 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 expenditures 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 # 7* * * * * * * *  * * * * 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. 13. Staff Development.  * * * 11/7/94 Board Work Session. 1/5/95 Extended Program Evaluation list. Shows up on the evaluation list as Sequence # 21, Staff Development. An extended program evaluation will be prepared. 1/17/95 Joint ODM/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. 814. 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. 15. 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. 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. 9 5/26/95 Tentative Budget Document. Tentative Budget Document reflects the $98,462 cut and savings. 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. * 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. 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. 10* * * * * * *  * * 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, from 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. 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 Tool 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. 11* * * * * * 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. 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. 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. 23. Fair Park School Relocation. 12* * * * * 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. 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. 24. Elementary Music Teacher Staffing. * * * * * * * 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. 1325. 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\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_281","title":"Budget cuts","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":["1992/2002"],"dcterms_description":null,"dc_format":["application/pdf"],"dcterms_identifier":null,"dcterms_language":["eng"],"dcterms_publisher":["Little Rock, Ark. : Butler Center for Arkansas Studies. Central Arkansas Library System"],"dc_relation":null,"dc_right":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC-EDU/1.0/"],"dcterms_is_part_of":["Office of Desegregation Monitoring records (BC.MSS.08.37)","History of Segregation and Integration of Arkansas's Educational System"],"dcterms_subject":["Little Rock (Ark.)--History--20th century","Little Rock School District","Education--Arkansas","Education--Finance","Educational law and legislation"],"dcterms_title":["Budget cuts"],"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/281"],"dcterms_temporal":null,"dcterms_rights_holder":null,"dcterms_bibliographic_citation":null,"dlg_local_right":["Available for use in research, teaching, and private study. Any other use requires permission from the Butler Center."],"dcterms_medium":["documents (object genre)"],"dcterms_extent":["79 pages"],"dlg_subject_personal":null,"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":null},{"id":"bcas_bcmss0837_274","title":"Budget process","collection_id":"bcas_bcmss0837","collection_title":"Office of Desegregation Management","dcterms_contributor":null,"dcterms_spatial":["United States, 39.76, -98.5","United States, Arkansas, 34.75037, -92.50044","United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, 34.76993, -92.3118","United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, Little Rock, 34.74648, -92.28959"],"dcterms_creator":null,"dc_date":["1992/1994"],"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":["Budget process"],"dcterms_type":["Text"],"dcterms_provenance":["Butler Center for Arkansas Studies"],"edm_is_shown_by":null,"edm_is_shown_at":["http://arstudies.contentdm.oclc.org/cdm/ref/collection/bcmss0837/id/274"],"dcterms_temporal":null,"dcterms_rights_holder":null,"dcterms_bibliographic_citation":null,"dlg_local_right":["Available for use in research, teaching, and private study. Any other use requires permission from the Butler Center."],"dcterms_medium":["documents (object genre)"],"dcterms_extent":["28 pages"],"dlg_subject_personal":null,"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":"\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n\n\n\n   \n\n\n\n\n   \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n  \n\nJUL 1 7 FILED U S. CiSTRICT COURT ASTcpN aokansas JUL 1 5 1992 CARL f!. 3i By: -1/ NTS. CLERK UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION UEfX\nLE^K LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT PLAINTIFF vs. LR-C-82-866 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, ET AL. DEFENDANTS ORDER Pursuant to telephone notice provided to counsel on this 15th day of July, 1992, the hearings to be held on the Little Rock School District budget process previously scheduled for July 17, 1992 are hereby rescheduled to begin at 9:30 a.m. on Monday, August 3, 1992. It is so ordered this /-\u0026gt; day of July, 1992. iJn^ted States District J^ddggee THIS DdOoCcuUMmEeNnTt eEnN ti terMcedu on DOQCS\nSJgiN ''OMPLIANCE WITH RULE 56 AND/OR 7S(a) FHLa\" ,1N RECEIVED FILEDcr\u0026gt;\u0026lt; fOT JAM IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION 0EC 3 0 1992 BY^ ' 'i.vucH Office of Desegregation Monitoring OEP CLERK LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT PLAINTIFF V. NO. LR-C-82-866 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, ET AL. DEFENDANTS MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL. INTERVENORS KATHERINE W. KNIGHT, ET AL. INTERVENORS On August 3, MEMORANDUM AND ORDER 1992, at a hearing scheduled to address the budgetary process of the Little Rock School District (\"LRSD), the Court heard testimony on reductions in the LRSD 1992-93 operating budget. The Court entered a brief order on August 4 finding that many of the reductions have an impact on the desegregation plan. Nevertheless, with the exception of eliminating the seventh period at McClellan High School, the Court approved the reductions for the 1992-93 academic year and ordered that certain reductions be restored for the 1993-94 academic year. In this Order, the Court addresses in more detail the reductions made by the LRSD in its 1992-93 operating budget. Music Teachers The LRSD Board of Directors approved the reduction of 22.8 FTE music teacher positions. the effect of which is to require the classroom teachers to provide the required music instruction. In its August 4th Order, the Court allowed the reduction of music teacher positions for the 1992-93 school year, but ordered that BQ those positions be restored for the 1993-94 academic year.* Music is very much a part of the LRSD's desegregation plan. For example, four-year-olds are to \"receive the services of counselors, music teachers\" and others (LRSD Plan at 17)\n\"Students will have opportunities to examine the artistic, musical. scientific, literary, social and political accomplishments of many ethnic groups.\" (LRSD Plan at 63.) Although it appears that the LRSD will comply with state standards regarding music education, it is guestionable whether. without full-time music teachers, it can maintain a music program with quality high enough to boost desegregation efforts. For example, one of the goals of the four-year-old program is to acclimate young children to the school environment by including them in the total school community through involvement in the broad spectrum of the school's activities. Music teachers help facilitate this assimilation process by working with all grade levels on joint projects such as special programs and presentations. Eliminating the music specialist hinders such coordination and may impede young students' integration into the school community and slow their ability to achieve feelings of \"belonging.\" Four-year-old programs have proven to be a successful desegregation tool, attracting students to the public schools and also serving important functions of both remediation and t In a separate Memorandum and Order filed last month, the Court ordered the LRSD to restore 3.9 FTE positions at the magnet schools, including the full-time music teacher at Gibbs International Studies Magnet Elementary School, for the 1992- 93 school year. -2-prevention-of-failure. The four-year-old program's quality is directly linked in part to the varied services, such as music teachers and counselors, that the LRSD desegregation plan has promised these very young children will receive. Another result of reducing the number of teachers with highly specialized music skills is decrease in the variety of a instructional options available to classroom teachers and their students. The settlement plan implicitly recognizes that music also sharpens listening skills. teaches group cooperation. commitment to task, and gives children multicultural experiences through the musical traditions of other cultures and countries. Because the Court finds that the reduction of 22.8 FTE positions for music teachers will negatively affect the district's desegregation plan, the Court has ordered the LRSD to restore all 22.8 FTE music teachers in the 1993-94 academic year. Elimination of Seven-Period Dav at Henderson Junior High School Even though the Court believes that eliminating the sevenperiod day at Henderson Junior High School for the 1992-93 school year will impair the success of the magnet program, it approved the proposal for this school year only and ordered the LRSD to restore the seventh period for the 1993-94 academic year. Henderson Junior High School is now the only secondary magnet school with a six-period day. The success of secondary level magnet programs is closely related to the degree of freedom students have to take the elective courses offered as part of the program. At the junior high level, it can be particularly 3-difficult to operate an effective magnet program within a six- period day given the need for students to fulfill certain graduation requirements. The Court made it clear when it granted permission to establish the Henderson and McClellan magnets that the LRSD must maintain distinctive, high quality programs to maintain the public's favorable perception of, and participation in, the magnet concept. Closely related to the quality of Henderson's program is the public's perception of this program compared to those at other magnet schools. The LRSD originally proposed the Henderson magnet program in hopes of reversing five-year decline in white a enrollment. (According to the district's figures, almost a third of the district's vacant junior high seats have been at Henderson.) A magnet program seen as only partially operational would only exacerbate Henderson's image problem, making it more difficult to recruit students and desegregate the school. Gifted and Talented Programs The LRSD reduced the number of its gifted and talented specialists to 16 FTE positions. While the Court did not disapprove this cut for the 1992-93 school year, it is concerned that the staff reductions may make it more difficult to maintain the required level of services to students, faculties, and parents. If this should prove to be the case. these cutbacks will be contrary to both the letter and spirit of desegregation agreements. The LRSD desegregation plan strongly commits the district to gifted and talented education. In a section entitled Gifted -4-Education, the district promises a superior program implemented by teachers with specialized training and experience: 'Services are provided to these [gifted and talented] students by teachers (specialists and facilitators) who have completed or who are pursuing graduate credits in gifted education.\" (LRSD Plan at 58.) Also, \"all three districts are committed to following the best practices in the field of gifted education in identification. curriculum, and program evaluation.\" (LRSD Plan at 58.) The desegregation plan assures that black children will not be underrepresented in gifted education: \"[SJpecial attention shall be devoted to the identification and placement of black students and students from low and middle socio-economic levels.\" (LRSD Plan at 58.) This plan provision relates to the fact that minority students and those from low socio-economic backgrounds may not exhibit their \"giftedness\" in traditional ways that are more readily discerned by a teacher inexperienced in identifying exceptional children. Therefore, gifted and talented program cutbacks may result in fewer minorities participating in the gifted program. The cutbacks may not only affect black and poor children, but also may hinder the academic progress of all children whose unusual gifts and talents can be adequately nurtured only through quality, specialized learning opportunities. The desegregation plan contains numerous other provisions that reinforce the district's commitment to gifted education. For example, the LRSD obligated itself to seek federal funds to help support a long list of programs that includes gifted and talented -5-education. (LRSD Plan at 97.) The incentive schools are to offer such specialized programs as gifted and talented \"during the core instructional day, with reinforcement activities available through the extended-day, week, or year programs.\" (LRSD Plan at 154.) The LRSD even made gifted and talented education a programmatic emphasis at the Dunbar Junior High International Studies/Gifted and Talented Magnet School to attract a diversified student body to this hard-to-desegregate school. The magnet program began in 1990 and the school is now within racial balance guidelines. Clearly, the LRSD has promised parents, teachers, students, and the courts that it will advance desegregation by providing a comprehensive, quality gifted and talented program that is attractive to parents and meets the needs of all children. The Court also notes that the State of Arkansas requires and strongly supports gifted and talented programs. The state has specific standards regarding these programs, including requirements relative to teacher-student ratios and the amount of weekly time children spend in gifted learning activities. Cutbacks in the LRSD gifted programs may place the district at risk of violating state standards. The Court will not condone any programmatic or staffing change that would result in the district's breaching state educational standards, including Arkansas Department of Education guidelines for programs such as gifted and talented. Because changes in the gifted and talented program may jeopardize desegregation, the Court will closely monitor the impact of reducing the gifted and talented staff and concomitant program -6-modifications. If the Court determines that the changes detract from the quality or appeal of the gifted and talented programs and magnet features, hinder the participation of all eligible children, or otherwise result in failure to fulfill desegregation plan commitments, the Court may require the LRSD to restore the number of gifted and talented specialists to previous levels or to make other adjustments in the program. Plant Services The LRSD 1992-93 operating budget cut 10 FTE custodial positions, citing an \"Omaha Formula\" as the basis for allotting custodial staff. The Court warns the district of its responsibility to ensure that all schools are clean and in good repair. with particular emphasis on maintaining the incentive schools and other hard-to-desegregate buildings. The district has recognized that maintenance and facility attractiveness are important to the incentive schools' ability to draw new students. Furthermore, schools with special programs (such as Rockefeller where the early childhood program serves children as young as six weeks of age) may have unusual cleaning needs that the district must not neglect. If school maintenance declines due to the decrease in custodial services. the Court may require a return to previous staffing levels. To facilitate monitoring, the Court requires the district to submit a written description of the \"Omaha Formula\" and an explanation of how it is being used to determine staffing levels. The district must also furnish, within 30 days from the -7-date of entry of this Order, a complete list of the number of custodians by building, indicating where staffing changes have been made between the last school year and the current one. Teaching Vacancies In an effort to reduce the number of teaching positions, the LRSD decided to eliminate small classes by strictly adhering to a minimum class size of fifteen students. The Court cautions the district about the possible negative impact of dropping small classes, especially in magnet schools where specialized classes are a part of those schools' unigue appeal. Moreover, most of the district's secondary schools offer certain specialized or advanced level courses, such as those in mathematics and foreign languages. These courses have magnetic appeal that helps promote a desegregation. The Court encourages the district to find ways to augment enrollment in specialized classes through recruitment or combining groups so that children will not be denied an opportunity to participate in special learning experiences because a certain class has low enrollment. The Court will monitor the schools to determine what classes are dropped due to the district's fifteenstudent enrollment minimum. If the quality. scope. or desegregative appeal of academic or magnet programs are compromised by the withdrawal of previously offered courses due to low class enrollment, the Court may require the district to reinstate deleted courses. -8-Counselor Department Positions and Elimination of the Pupil Personnel The LRSD's 1992-93 budget reduced the number of FTE counselors by 19 and eliminated the entire Pupil Personnel Department, a district administrative division that was responsible for coordinating and supporting school counseling and other pupil services. The LRSD desegregation plan is replete with examples of guidance and counseling services that it is obligated to furnish the children. (See LRSD Plan at 2829 for a number of district goals related to availability of such services.) There are also incentive school features that specifically require the direction and support of counselors: the Career Skills Development Program, Attendance and Behavior Guidelines, College/Post Graduation Awareness, Individual and Group Counseling, and Study Skills. Additionally, several of the desegregation plan's incentive school implementation timelines list the Pupil Personnel Department as responsible for helping to ensure that incentive school children receive assistance cataloged under two discrete desegregation goals: \"To create a program of counseling/social work to provide extra support to students to ensure them opportunity for success\" (LRSD Plan at 183) and \"[t]o more closely and thoroughly monitor incentive schools in order to develop a clearer picture of student achievement at these buildings.\" (LRSD Plan at 186.) Eliminating the Pupil Personnel Department is a cause for great concern. One of the main responsibilities of this department's director was to coordinate guidance and counseling -9-services throughout the entire school district. Arkansas Act 908 of 1991 establishes over thirty responsibilities for student services coordinators and names the position of Student Services Coordinator, which is analogous to that of the LRSD Pupil Personnel Department director. Act 908 requires counselors to provide a number of specific services, mandating that they devote at least 75% of their work time to direct counseling services and not more than 25% of their time to administrative activities. The Court fears that, with the reduction in the number of counselors and the lack of direction and support from the Pupil Personnel Department, the district may not fulfill the guidance and counseling functions required by the desegregation plan and state law. If monitoring determines that the district is unable to provide the full range of required services, the Court may direct the district to restore eliminated positions. Non-certified Vacancies The LRSD determined to reassign four instructional aides from the Instructional Resource Center (\"IRC\") to existing vacancies in the schools. These aides have enabled the IRC to provide a range of instructional support because the aides' assistance helps IRC specialists deliver academic and desegregation-related services directly to teachers in the schools. The desegregation plan casts the IRC in important supporting roles in all the schools. For example. IRC specialists are obligated to furnish inservice and any needed special assistance to principals and teachers in order to promote student achievement and -10-growth (LRSD Plan at 127.) The plan heavily commits IRC specialists to supporting the incentive schools through such means as staff development, participating on special committees, assisting new teachers and those experiencing difficulty. and (See LRSD Plan at 192-93, 194, 201, and 204.) While the LRSD has not cut the number of IRC specialists, the Court is nevertheless concerned that, without their experienced helpers, the specialists will be forced to curtail the extent of school-based assistance they are able to give. Such support is especially critical this year because the district has adopted an expansive new curriculum that impacts teachers in all grade levels. There has been much fanfare about this new curriculum, which the LRSD developed in response to an extensive 1990 curriculum audit, a part of the case record. In the audit report, there are numerous references that go to the heart of instructional problems which the IRC staff shares great responsibility for alleviating. For example, in a report finding entitled \"Line of authority and direction of the district's curriculum management function is disordered and fragmented\", the auditors noted that: \"Teachers and parents lamented the inadequate support given to improvement of the quality of instruction... Some principals took uneven notice of ineffective and inadequate classroom patterns and teaching activities. Observed teaching activities [included those] which reflected very low power teaching techniques and feeble and ineffectual instructional activities...\" (LRSD Curriculum Audit at 13.) Distressingly, the report goes on -11-to state that \"learning is not likely to get any better, and it could continue to get worse, unless administrative direction. expertise, and intervention is provided in the educational programs of the Little Rock School District.\" (LRSD Curriculum Audit at 14.) The desegregation plan plainly represents the IRC as an intervention resource for all schools with emphasis on applying IRC expertise to the incentive schools. As the schools adjust to the new curriculum, working to ensure that learning does indeed get better instead of worse, there will doubtless be greater demand for all types of support services, especially those from the IRC which has for many years been the district's seat of curriculum guidance and support. In paring its budget by eliminating services that so closely affect the children. the district risks undermining its own desegregation plan. Once again, the Court reminds the LRSD that the Court will closely monitor these changes to determine their affect upon the district's ability to live up to its desegregation promises. Material, Supply, Equipment, and Substitute Budgets The Court is concerned about the reductions the LRSD 1992-93 budget lists in 44 departmental budgets, and the potential impact these cuts have on desegregation. The Court particularly notes that the reduction in the McClellan Community School budget is so large that it likely will have a direct effect on program delivery. The district must be mindful of the language in its desegregation -12-plan which states that a McClellan Community School planning committee (now called the McClellan Community High School Advisory Council) is a means for promoting community involvement and input so that whatever changes are proposed for the school will reflect the community's needs and wishes. This council must be meaningfully involved in all changes at McClellan, including budget planning and adjustment. It is within the scope of the committee's responsibilities to help the district monitor the effect of the budget cuts on the community school program, recommend any appropriate changes that will enable the program to achieve its goals economically but effectively, and to work with the district in planning the 1993-94 community school program budget. The LRSD's $25,000 parent recruiting budget cut may jeopardize the district's pledge to recruit white students through activities and events outlined in the desegregation plan. numerous During the process of revising and updating the desegregation plans, the parties chose to incorporate the public relations section from the Tri-District Desegregation Plan into the current interdistrict plan. This addition obligated the districts to aggressive public relations activities that directly affect the ability to attract parents and their children to the public schools and keep them there. Because the work of parent recruiters is crucial to public relations and the recruitment process, the recruiters have tremendous responsibility for the desegregation plan's success. The LRSD desegregation plan explicitly assigns the parent recruiters a long list of responsibilities (see LRSD Plan at 95, -13-216, and 218-22) in addition to those implicit in the interdistrict plan. The district must provide for effective parent recruitment. Furthermore, the district is well aware that it must double fund any incentive school for as long as the school remains racially identifiable. Since recruiting white students to desegregate the incentive schools is a primary job of the parent recruiters. the district must provide the Court with specific details about how it intends to cut $25,000 from the parent recruitment budget and yet maintain the recruitment level necessary to fulfill its obligations under the plan. Utility Costs The district intends to reduce its utility costs by adjusting the start-up temperatures for activating heating and air conditioning systems in the schools and other buildings. Such a step is a reasonable cost-containing measure\nhowever, the Court advises the district against operating the temperature control systems only while students are in the buildings. If heating and cooling units operate only when children are present. the new utility policy can have a negative effect on staff. School staff frequently remain in their building. after children have been dismissed. for a variety of reasons. including instructional planning, classroom preparation, meetings, conferences, tutoring sessions, and inservice. Many buildings do not have windows that can be opened for ventilation. In hot weather. lack of a ventilation makes it impossible for individuals to work comfortably and productively in buildings once the climate control system has -14-been turned off. Staff should not be expected to swelter or freeze while they donate after-school time on behalf of the district. Conclusion The Court will not tolerate budget cuts inhibiting the full, on-schedule implementation of the desegregation plan. It has ordered the LRSD to restore for the 1992-93 academic year the seventh period at McClellan High School. The Court has ordered that 22.8 FTE music teacher positions and the seventh period at Henderson Junior High School be restored for the 1993-94 academic year. The effect of the other budget reductions: gifted and talented specialists reduced to 16 FTE positions\ncustodial positions cut by 10 FTE\nFTE counselors cut by 19\nelimination of the Pupil Personnel Department\nreassignment of 4 instructional aides from the IRC\nreductions in the budgets for material, supply, equipment, and substitutes\nand the strategy to reduce utility costs, will all be monitored closely and may have to be restored if the Court determines the cuts are having a negative impact on the district's desegregation efforts. The Eighth Circuit Court has been emphatic about how it will view budget cuts and the district's commitment to desegregation: We wish to dispel, in particular. any notion that an asserted lack of funds on the part of any of the three school districts would justify a reduction in their commitment to desegregation represented in the 1989 plan, even if such a reduction were agreed to by the Joshua Intervenors, an eventuality which, in any event, seems to us most unlikely. The desegregation obligations undertaken in the 1989 plan are solemn and binding commitments. are The essence and core of that plan should not be disturbed. -15-Even [plan] changes that go beyond the level of detail, moreover, could be approved, but only if the parties affirmatively establish good reasons (not including lack of funds) for them. Appeal of the Little Rock School District, 949 F.2d 253, 256 (Sth Cir. 1991). In its opinion extending the millages, the Court stated: The district court appears to suggest in its opinion that the scope of the remedy can be limited to reflect the loss of the anticipated funds. We cannot accept the suggestion that a remedy can be so limited once this court has found it to be constitutional. Such a course would be contrary to what we said in the opinion and contrary to law. Little Rock School District V. Pulaski County Special School District, 971 F.2d 160, 165 (Sth Cir. 1992). The success of the desegregation plans depends upon the schools' ability to attract and hold white students and to lower the achievement disparity between black and white children. The Court will find it hard to tolerate any budget cuts that jeopardize the district's ability to do exactly that. This is why the Court is concerned about the district's decisions to tamper with popular programs like gifted and talented, music, magnet features, and eliminating staff at schools that are successful (such as the established magnets) and those schools trying to be successful (such as the incentive schools and the new magnets, McClellan and Henderson). The district must be mindful of the many commitments it made in the public relations section of the interdistrict plan. a -16-section which the parties themselves chose to transfer in its entirety from the TriDistrict Desegregation Plan. Recognizing that desegregation will succeed only so far as the community supports and participates in it, this section presents an encouraging picture of energy. creativity, and renewal that promises to build a strong and positive relationship between the school districts and the community. The section stresses that dependability, credibility, and integrity are basic to the success of the desegregation plan and that public trust depends upon the districts' fulfilling their commitments. The Court cannot stress too strongly that it will be impossible to build and sustain public confidence and participation if the communityincluding school employeesperceive that they cannot count on the school districts to keep the promises they make. The Court also worries about the impact of the budget changes on teacher morale. The interdistrict plan specifically recognizes the strong relationship between staff morale and successful desegregation, calling on school staff to serve as ambassadors to the community and to share responsibility for recruiting and sustaining desegregated student enrollment. (Interdistrict Plan at 64-66.) Classroom instruction. especially as related to eliminating achievement disparity, is greatly affected by morale\nit is also impacted by what the district requires of its teachers and the amount and scope of support the district provides so the teachers can fulfill those requirements. District personnel are having to deal with many significant changes this year resulting -17-from a new superintendent and other top administrators, the effects of the budget cuts, curriculum changes, and desegregation plan requirements. For example: school staff must implement the extensive new curriculum\nthey must learn how to use the new computer instruction and achievement tracking system, and find the time to feed the required information into the system\nthey must compensate for the cutbacks in gifted and talented specialists by assuming an additional instructional load\nmost elementary teachers must incorporate music instruction into their classroom routine without the benefit of music teachers or even a music supervisor as a resource\nand teachers' remediation responsibilities have increased due to changes in the district's academic support program (previously known as PAL.) The staff who are most directly responsible for helping ensure children's academic success are having to make many difficult adjustments this year, and the Court is concerned about the effects these adjustments will have on desegregation. The Court does not sanction changes that will have the effect of putting the LRSD at risk of non-compliance with state standards or statutes. The Court will closely monitor the effect of the budget changes and many reductions may have to be restored if the Court determines that the desegregation plan is being impeded by the changes. The Court understands that Superintendent Bernd did not have many options open to him when he joined the district last July, but the Court trusts that he will make choices for 1993-94 and beyond that are as far away from the children and the  18 desegregation plan as possible. Should the LRSD anticipate making any changes, the LRSD must submit these changes to the Court and must not implement them prior to the Court's approval. DATED this -^0 day of December, 1992. _________ UNITED States DISTRICT JUDGE I -19-On January 21, 1992, the United States District Court ordered the LRSD to make certain submissions in order that ODM could determine that the LRSDs budgetary process would meet the following requisites: (1) accurately and comprehensively accounts for the expenditure of settlement funds\n(2) demonstrates the link between the districts legal requirements and the fiscal underwriting of those requirements\n(3) describes a desegregation budgeting process that can be demonstrated, justified, and verified\nand (4) enables the district to determine what adjustments might be necessary in order to align finances with desegregation obligations. The LRSD filed its reply to that order on June 1, 1992 and began an ongoing process to satisfy the request of the court. By incorporating into the general ledger a code structure that ties the districts general ledger to the desegregation plan, a link has been established between the districts legal requirements (the desegregation plan) and its fiscal commitment (the budget). The district has committed to maintaining the code structure and to provide reports to the ODM for monitoring. The district has incorporated the new codes into the 1992-93 budget. The ODM continues to have concerns about the budgeting process that is used in the LRSD and its capability to determine its financial status. The LRSD is a multi million dollar enterprise. It is the states largest school district and should set an example of strong fiscal management. Yet, the district operates its financial affairs like the smallest of school districts that have simplistic needs. The Arkansas Department of Education provides Handbook II as the basis for school district accounting and within the code structure there is ample flexibility to measure any aspect of school finance. The LRSD Policies and Procedures Manual has very little in the way of board policy relative to financial matters. There is no requirement for board approval of major expenditures. Therefore, major financial obligations are undertaken without full public disclosure committing the District to, not only current year obligations, but also to future payments. Examples include the purchase of computer equipment for the CMIT project and the expenditure of millions on the PAL program, as well as the open ended \"double funding\" of the incentive schools. The Board has not required, as a matter of policy, that new or changed needs that require substantial outlays be funded in the budget, and that the sources of the funds be identified. For example, if additional funds are needed for security personnel, which item in the budget will have to give up the money. The current financial system is essentially an accounting system that produces the accounting reports required by state law. However, it does not generally satisfy the high priority needs of the District itself. Major unmet needs include an improved ability to generate systematic short- and long-term expenditure projections, as well as an improved ability to allocate resources according to explicit District priorities, especially in relation to academic programs.In December 1990, a report submitted by a team from the National Curriculum Audit Team and commissioned by the LRSD Board stated in Finding 5.3 \"School management practices show inadequate control of district resources.\" and in Finding 5.1 \"the district may be not exercising appropriate stewardship such as in management of programs and personnel.\" The auditors found that \"the budget was not used as a comprehensive planning document driven by curriculum needs. Visible and tangible linkages between budget priorities and curriculum priorities were not apparent\" Neither is the desegregation plan used daily as an instrument to guide implementation of district policy. There is a disparity between the promise of the plan and reality yet there is no evaluation of the programs the school district offers to see \"what works\", and no changes are made to cut ineffective programs. In effect, the school district seems to have a large slump hole into which it pours money. In no way can the district offer that they have shown good faith efforts to improve the quality of the educational process. The lack of program orientation and other truly useful financial information may impede the Districts efforts to provide an equitable and productive distribution of resources to all students. Program budgeting has the characteristic of a primary focus on the purpose for which funds are intended, e.g., McClellan Magnet Program, PAL Program, Alternative Programs, Gifted and Talented, etc., rather than on object code line items, e.g., textbooks, supplies, certified salaries, etc., or organizational units. When budget documents are presented to the board and public, there should be a comprehensive overview of each program and all of the resources allocated to them. The accounting codes used by the school district provide for the use of a function code which could be defined as program categories in a program budgeting system. School districts provide educational services to students in the form of academic programs such as reading, mathematics, science, social science, etc. Parents, teachers, and students view progress and achievement in the same terms. The financial and human resources to accomplish all of this in the LRSD are accumulated, budgeted, allocated, analyzed and reported in terms of funds, schools, functions and objects, but not the primary programs which embody the reasons for the districts existence. Thus, neither the public education constituencies nor the administrators themselves can readily discern the priorities of the district as reflected in the allocation of resources. The curriculum audit pointed this out to the district in its Recommendation 12: \"Move toward greater involvement in budgeting with curriculum linkages.\" That recommendation is especially valid considering the need to balance budgets with revenues in an effective and equitable manner. The recommendation identifies the major steps, found on pages 119-120 of the curriculum audit, necessary to install programmatic budgeting. Instead of concentrating their management efforts on improvement of internal processes and developing basic management information, the district has continued to ignore the direction of the court and its own commissioned audit. The Board of Directors at the direction of the previous administration renewed contracts for all personnel effective May 1, 1992 and passed responsibility to provide a balanced budget to the new superintendent. As a result, sweeping cuts were made to the budget that were inappropriate. At the time of the cuts. Superintendent Mac Bernd made promises to improve the financial process in order to be in better position for the next year. He stated in the budget document transmittal Once this budget is adopted, the budgeting process will not end. We must begin to restructure the budgeting process so that full attention and resources are directed at improving student achievement rather than providing so many different programs which ultimately distract the Districts focus to the other issues. It is my goal to place the entire District in the position of being accountable for improving student achievement. This will be done by concentrating our attention first on the core curricular areas. Next, programs which are designed to improve instruction and achievement in these areas will be linked to particular expected outcomes and goals. If a program does not have this linkage, I will be recommending in the Spring of 1993 that personnel contracts in these areas not be renewed for the next fiscal year. Finally for the district to operate efficiently and effectively it will be necessary to streamline the administration. Because contracts have been renewed for 1992-1993, this cannot happen this year. On the other hand, the District has several cost centers where investment in personnel might produce savings or generate revenues for the District. All of these items will be considered in the coming months. Now as the District approaches May 1, 1993, history seems to be repeating itself. The district is projecting large deficits for the next year yet has little good information on which to base cuts or deployment of personnel. Again, the plea of \"wait until next year\" is heard. We can no longer continue down this path. The administration was aware of problems and has not put adequate resources to correct them. The position control system does not reflect the authority for each position or the person assigned to that position. How can a district cut personnel when it cant even determine what positions it has? Where is the plan for allocating personnel to the needs of the children?John w. Walker, P.A. Attorney At Law 1723 Broadway Little Rock, Arkansas 72206 Telephone (501) 374-3758 FAX (501) 3744187 'i-m 5\n1\n' (F 3 y U !1 iSroa 8 V *.r. ' FEB 2 1993 JOHN W. WALKER RALPH WASHINGTON MARK BURNETTE WILEY A. BRANTON. JR. AUSTIN PORTER, JR. * Also admitted to Practice in Georgia \u0026amp; the District of Columbia. February 1, 1993 Dr. Mac Bernd, Superintendent Little Rock School District 810 West Markham Little Rock, AR 72201 -.ng Dear Dr. Bernd: I would like to have the names, addresses, telephone numbers and race of all the members of the advisory committee on budget _ J. also like to have a about which you spoke this afternoon. copy of their minutes of each meeting held thus far along with their agenda and any reports they have made today. I would like to pick this information up by the end of business on February 2, 1993. Thank you for your attention to this matter. Very truly yours. U). John W. Walker JWW:Ip cc: Ms. Ann Brown Mr. Christopher Heller Mr. Richard Roachell tHase CHRISTOPHER HELLER FRIDAY, ELDREDGE \u0026amp; CLARK A PARTNEHSHI? OF INDIVDUALS AND PROFESSIONAL ASSOCIATIONS ATTORNEYS AT LAW 2000 FIRST COMMERCIAL 3LTLDING 400 WEST CAPITOL LITTLE ROCC, ARKANSAS 22201-3493 Tritphone (501) 375-2011 Fix No. (501) 375-2147 DiicetNo. 370-1506 TO: MEMORANDUM LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT BOARD OF DIRECTORS DR. MAC BERND, SUPERINTENDENT DATE: FEBRUARY 22, 1993 I am writing to provide you a repon about the significant developments in this case since the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals approved our desegregation plans and settlement agreement and to advise you about matten which are pending before the District Court. In its order approving the settlement plans and settlement agreement submitted by the parties, the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals noted that\" [i]t may be necessary, in order to make a smooth transition, for the details of the settlement plans to be adjusted to produce an appropriate fit between their future application and existing circumstances.\" Little Rock School District V. Pulaski County Special School District. 921 F.2d 1371, 1394 (8th Cir. 1990). All three school districts proposed modifications to the settlement plans. The District Court issued a forty-four page order on May 1, 1992 approving some of the proposed modifications and rejecting others. The four desegregation plans presently in effect (one for each of the three school districts and the interdistrict desegregation plan) have been revised to include the modifications authorized by the May 1, 1992 order. The following documents define the desegregation obligations of the Little Rock School District and the other parties to this case, and are available to each of you at the Administration Building if you do not have a personal copy: 1, Pulaski County School Desegregation Case Settlement Agreement - March, 1989 (as revised September 28, 1989)2. Desegregation Plan - Little Rock School District - April 29, 1992 (there was an order filed on June 1, 1992 which corrects four typographical errors found in the bound volume) 3, Desegregation Plan - Pulaski County Special School District - April 29, 1992 4. Desegregation Plan - North Little Rock School District - April 29, 1992 5. Interdistrict Desegregation Plan - April 29, 1992 The orders WWW which have been issued by the District Court since the publication of the desegregation plans have been mailed to each of you. A complete collection of court orders is maintained at the Administration Building, Jerry Malone (370-1553) and I (370-1506) are always available to answer any questions or concerns you may have about this case or about our district's implementation of our desegregation plan. The most pressing issues now before the Court concern the structure of the Little Rock School District's budget and the implementation of its desegregation plan. In October 1991, the Office of Desegregation Monitoring informed the Little Rock School District that it must be able to provide the Court with information which: \"(1) Accurately and comprehensively accounts for the expenditure of settlement funds\n(2) demonstrates the link between the district's legal requirements and the fiscal underwriting of those requirements\n(3) describes a desegregation budgeting process that can be demonstrated, justified, and verified\nand (4) enables the district to determine what adjustments might be necessary in order to align finances with desegregation allegations,\"* On January 21, 1992, the District Court found that \"the LRSD's current budgetary process does not meet the above requisites\" and ordered the Little Rock School District to \"submit a revised 1991-92 budget which is directly correlated to the specific provisions of the settlement plan' together with a long range budget projection and a long range revenue projection. It On May 1, 1992 the District Court ordered the Little Rock School District to submit a revised budget. The Little Rock School District filed on June 1, 1992 a document titled \"LRSD Projected Revenue and Expense - 1992/93 - 1996/97\". The Little Rock School District revised its budget projections based upon then current information and supplied the revised budget projections to the District Court on July 31, 1992. The Little Rock School District also filed a special status report which contained the budget proposal for the 1992-93 school year which had been approved by the Board. Following an August 3, 1992 hearing to discuss the Little Rock School District budget, the District Court issued an order on August 4 approving the proposed reductions except the elimination of a seventh period at McClellan Community High School. The 24 Court also notified the Little Rock School District that it would require that music teacher positionsTn the seventh period at Henderson Junior High School be restored for the 1993-94 academy year. The Court promised that a more detailed order which would explain the Court's reasoning would follow. The detailed order was filed on December 30, 1992. The December order explained that the budget reductions made for the 1992-93 school year \"will all be monitored closely and may have to be restored if the Court determines the cuts are having a negative impact on the district's desegregation efforts\". The Court required the Little Rock School District to submit any future proposed budget changes to the Court and directed the Little Rock School District not to implement any changes prior to the Court's approval. The Court provided some insight into how future budget reduction proposals will be reviewed. For example, the Court expressed concern \"about the district's decisions to tamper with popular programs like gifted and talented, music, magnet features, and eliminating staff at schools that are successful (such as the established magnets) and those schools trying to be successful (such as the incentive schools and the new magnets, McClellan and Henderson).\" The Court also expressed concern about the impact of budget proposals on teacher morale and reductions which put the Little Rock School District at risk of non-compliance with State standards or statutes. The District Court also entered an order on November 5 concerning the impact of the 1992-93 budget reductions upon the magnet schools. The Court directed Little Rock School District to reinstate certain positions of the magnet schools and to present to the Court prior to pre-registration any changes in the magnet schools contemplated for the 1993-94 school year. Following the Board's decision on January 28, 1993 not to pursue a grant application to fund an Aerospace Technology School, the District Court notified the Little Rock School District that the hearing scheduled for February 1, 1993 to consider the Aerospace grant would instead be directed toward \"other issues of concern to the Court\". At that hearing, the Court expressed concern about the Little Rock School District's commitment to comElying with its desegregation aooui me utue kock scnooi comm: plan. The Court was particularly concerned that our budget mal^i^ difficult to discern budget priorities and to monitor spending on implementation of the desegregation plan. The Court emphasized the need for good faith compliance with the desegregation plan in order for the Little Rock School District to eventually be released from District Court supervision and also emphasized that the Little Rock School District should make clear to the community that the desegregation plan is something to which we are committed. The result of the hearing is that the District Court will take a more active role in directing and monitoring the budget process and that the Little Rock School District will be required to hire one additional person to work on the budget. I have ordered a transcript of the hearing and you are all welcome to review it once it has been prepared, all previous hearings if anyone would like to review them). (I have transcripts of almost 3X 1\no There will be a hearing at 9:30 a.m. on Friday, March 19, 1993 to review the effects of the Little Rock School District 1992-93 budget cuts which were addressed by the District Court in its December 30, 1992 order. The has Court asked me to remind you of its continuing concern about the Little Rock School District's budget process and to encourage you to attend the March 19, 1993 hearing. It would be helpful to review in advance of the hearing the budget cuts adopted by the Board this summer, together with the District Court's August 4 and December 30, 1992 orders concerning those cuts. I will continue to forward all orders to Dr. Bernd as soon as I receive them for immediate distribution to the Board. I will also provide periodic written reports to the Board concerning the legal proceedings in this case. 4 FEB-23-93 TUE 15:03 SUSAN W WRIGHT FAX NO. 5013246576 P. 02 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT PLAINTIFF V. NO. LR-C-82-866 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, ET AL. DEFENDANTS MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL. INTERVENORS KATHERINE W. KNIGHT, ET AL. INTERVENORS ORDER On February 1, 1993, the Court held a hearing to determine, among other things, what progress the Little Rock School District (\"LRSD\") was making with respect to conforming its budgetary process to that outlined in earlier orders of the Court. Having considered the testimony and exhibits presented at the hearing, the Court determines that the LRSD needs assistance in developing a budget that complies with the Court's requirements for a budgeting process and document that can be effectively monitored. The Court first notified the LRSD of its concern about the LRSD's budgetary process over a year ago. During hearings on the parties' proposed modifications to their settlement plans. the Court expressed concern about its ability to monitor the parties' compliance with the settlement plans absent budget documents that clearly reflect the districts' allocation of resources in relation to both short-range and long-range planning to meet desegregation plan goals, programs, and priorities. The Court specifically addressed its remarks to the LRSD, and followed up its comments FEB-23-93 TUE 15:04 SUSAN W WRIGHT FAX NO. 5013246576 P.03 with an order filed on January 21, 1992, directing the Lrsd to submit a revised 1991-92 budget, prepared in consultation with the Office of Desegregation Monitoring (\"ODM). The Court ordered the LRSD to make certain submissions so the Court could determine that the LRSD's budgetary process would meet the following requisites\n1) accurately reflect and comprehensively account for expenditure of settlement funds\n2) demonstrate the link between requirements and the fiscal requirements\nthe and link the the underwriting district's of legal those 3) describe a desegregation budgeting demonstrated, justified, and verified\n4) enable the district to determine what adjustments might be necessary in order to desegregation obligations. process that can be and align finances with The LRSD filed its response to the Court's order on June 1, 1992, \"LRSD Projected Revenue and Expense - 1992/93-1996/97,' A revised version of this document was filed on July 31, 1992. Among the changes and additions in the revision's section entitled \"Desegregation Budgeting: Description - Future Year Procedures\" were new statements that \"[t]he Superintendent will immediately begin directing a process for Board involvement in the long-range planning and budgeting process\" and \"[t]he Superintendent will direct the new administration team to conduct audit and related budget proposals.\" a Desegregation Plan Additionally, in the budget document presented to the Court on July 31, 1992, which was the subject of an August 3, 1992 hearing. LRSD Superintendent Bernd, stated: who had come on board July 1, 1992, Once this budget is adopted, the budgeting process will not end. T- -------- We must begin to restructure the budgeting -2- FEB-23-93 TUE 15:04 SUSAN W WRIGHT FAX NO. 5013246576 P. 04 so process so that full attention and resources are directed at improving student achievement rather than providing many different programs which ultimately distract the District's focus to other Issues. It is my goal to place the entire District in the position of being accountable for improving student achievement. This will be done hv Next, , This will be done by concentrating attention first on the core curricular areas. programs which are designed to improve instruction and achievement in these areas will be linked to particular expected outcomes and goals. If a program does not have this linkage, i will be recommending in the Spring of 1993 that personnel contracts in these areas not be renewed for the next fiscal year. Finally, for the District to operate efficiently effectively, it will be --------  and administration. necessary to streamline the Because contracts have been renewed for 1992-93, this cannot be fully accomplished this year. C*, the other hand, the District has several cost centers where investment in personnel might produce savings or generate revenues for the District. All of these items Will be considered in the coming months. On All of these items Document # 1649. In December 1990, the LRSD Board of Directors received a Curriculum Audit it had commissioned the National Curriculum Audit Center to conduct. This report is a part of the case record. In Finding 5.3, the report found that show inadequate control of district \"school management practices resources.\" In Finding 5.1, the auditors stated\n'[T]he district may be not exercising appropriate stewardship such as in management of programs and personnel.\" The auditors found that \"the budget was not viewed as a comprehensive planning document driven by curriculum needs. Visible and tangible linkages between budget priorities and curriculum priorities were not apparent . , 11 Finding 5.4. The Court finds that this continues to be the case. -3- FEB-23-93 TUE 15:05 SUSAN H WRIGHT FAX NO. 5013246576 P. 05 Despite the persistent urging of the Court, there is no indication that a budget process of the type sought by the Court is or will be forthcoming from the LRSD. During the February i, 1993 hearing at which budget matters were discussed, the Court asked Superintendent Bernd when the district would have a budget that would meet the requirements of the Court's previous Orders. Dr. Bernd replied that he believed the district and a half away.\" was \"at least a year The Court has been patient. It encouraged the LRSD to work with the ODM on the district budget, but, despite ODM's diligent efforts to assist, the LRSD has not produced a budget process that enables the Court to meet its obligation to monitor desegregation plan compliance. The Court, thus, finds it is necessary to assist the LRSD by appointing a person or persons to work with the LRSD at LRSD expense to prepare a budget document that will make it possible for the Court to monitor the myriad of programs the LRSD agreed to conduct in its desegregation settlement plan. The Court is concerned not only with the LRSD's expenditure of desegregation money but also with all the state, local, and federal funds the district uses to finance its entire operation. The LRSD must achieve a budgeting process, develop a budget document, and demonstrate budget management that fully reflect the district's careful planning for meeting its desegregation obligations over the full span of the settlement plans. The person or persons employed will be paid by the LRSD but will report to the Office of Desegregation Monitoring. The LRSD is -4-0 23 93 14: 4B 301 324 2032 L R School DIst ODM @001 '001 Little Rock School District February, 25, 1993 Ann S. Brown Federal Monitor Office of Desegregation Monitoring United State District Court 201 East Markham, Suite 510 Heritage West Building  Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Dear Ann: 1 am writing this letter to confirm our telephone conversation of yesterday in which 1 indicated that we were satisfied with our recent interview of Bill Mooney and would consider him acceptable for the position articulated in the orders of February 23, and 24, of 1993. Should your office have other names or persons to interview we would be most happy to talk to them as well. In addition to the above matter, I also would like to reinforce the need for the School District and the Office of Desegregation Monitoring to meet as soon as possible so that agreement can be reached as to the description and format of the budget document that will satisfy the requirements of the Court. The School District wishes to comply with the directives of the Court in as rapid a manner as possible. In order to do this, we must have a clear picture of the outcomes associated with this project. Agreement on these specifics will allow us to begin work immediately. 1 appreciate your assistance in this regard. I'll give you a call later today or tomorrow to set up a meeting. I expect that Chris Heller, Gary Jones and myself will attend as well as the person who occupies the position we are discussing herein. Sincerely, Mac Bernd cc. Gary Jones Chris Heller LRSD Board of Directors FEB-23-93 TUE 15:06 SUSAN W WRIGHT FAX NO, 5013246576 P. 06 expected to treat the employee or employees like its other fulltime employees for purposes of benefits and will provide adequate work space, equipment, and materials along with full access to information and support. The Court, after consultation with the person or salaries. persons and the LRSD, The employment will not be will determine appropriate permanent but will continue for as long as it takes to get the job done, as determined by the Court. The Court will not consider the task complete until the LRSD demonstrates that it understands that budgeting procedures. and the resulting budget documents, are not static, but an integral part of the district's on-going planning and evaluation processes. DATED this day of February, 1993. -5- UNITED STATES DISTRT TCT JUDGE, 0 23-93 14:46 \"S'5111 324 2032 L R School Dist  ODM @001/001 Little Rock School District February, 25, 1993 Ann S. Brown Federal Monitor Office of Desegregation Monitoring United State District Court 201 East Markham, Suite 510 Heritage West Building  Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Dear Ann\n1 am writing this letter to confirm our telephone conversation of yesterday in which 1 indicated that we were satisfied with our recent interview of Bill Mooney and would consider him acceptable for the position articulated in the orders of February 23, and 24, of 1993. Should your office have other names or persons to interview we would be most happy to talk to them as well. In addition to the above matter, I also would like to reinforce the need for the School District and the Office of Desegregation Monitoring to meet as soon as possible so that agreement can be reached as to the description and format of the budget document that will satisfy the requirements of the Court The School District wishes to comply with the directives of the Court in as rapid a manner as possible. In order to do this, we must have a clear picture of the outcomes associated with this project. Agreement on these specifics will allow us to begin work immediately. I appreciate your assistance in this regard. I'll give you a call later today or tomorrow to set up a meeting. I expect that Chris Heller, Gary Jones and myself'will attend as well as the person who occupies the position we are discussing herein. Sincerely, Mac Bernd cc. Gary Jones Chris Heller LRSD Board of DirectorsNTF March 2, 1993 TC with Mac about his Feb. 25, 1993 letter re meeting with the new budget person to define what we are looking for.\" 1 told him we would not mandate a format, rather let the process dictate the format\nthat I was not so concerned with format, but with the relationships between the plan and the budget, and how it could be used as a tool to help measure progress\nthat 1 had developed a list of \"characteristics\" from the orders that would guide us. Assured him that we would talk to, in his words, \"pin down a moving target.\"Little Rock School District February, 25, 1993  t ,1 Ann S. Brown Federal Monitor Office of Desegregation Monitoring United State District Court 201 East Markham, Suite 510 Heritage West Building Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 FEB 2 b ^993 ,,T h'lonitciing C!f\nc3 of D03S=0*3G Dear Ann: I am writing this letter to confirm our telephone conversation of yesterday in which I indicated that we were satisfied with our recent interview of Bill Mooney and would consider him acceptable for the position articulated in the orders of February 23, and 24, of 1993. Should your office have other names or persons to interview we would be most happy to talk to them as well. In addition to the above matter, I also would like to reinforce the need for the School District and the Office of Desegregation Monitoring to meet as soon as possible so that agreement can be reached as to the description and format of the budget document that will satisfy the requirements of the Court. The School District wishes to comply with the directives of the Court in as rapid a manner as possible. In order to do this, we must have a clear picture of the outcomes associated with this project. Agreement on these specifics will allow us to begin work immediately. I appreciate your assistance in this regard. I'll give you a call later today or tomorrow to set up a meeting. I expect that Chris Heller, Gary Jones and myself will attend as well as the person who occupies the position we are discussing herein. Sincerely, Mac Bernd cc. Gary Jones Chris Heller LRSD Board of Directors 810 West Markham Street Little Rock, Arkansas 72201  (501)324-2000 FILED U.S, OlST.^IGT C JURT EASTERH O!S7?:CT ARKANSAS mar 3 1993 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION MAR - i 1993 Office of Desegregation Monitoring CARL LERK DEP.CLEft. LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT PLAINTIFF V. NO. LR-C-82-866 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, ET AL. DEFENDANTS MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL. INTERVENORS KATHERINE W. KNIGHT, ET AL. INTERVENORS ORDER The Court hereby orders the members of the Little Rock School District Board of Directors to be present at the March 19, 1993, hearing, which will begin at 9:30 a.m. in Room 305 of the United States Post Office and Courthouse Building. The Court had previously requested that they be present but upon further reflection has determined that their presence is required. DATED this 1st day of March, 1993. UNTTED states DISTRICT' JJUUTDGE THIS DOCUMENT ENTERED ON CCC:\u0026lt;ET SHEET IN COMPLIANCE WTH RULE 53 ANO/OR 79(a) FRCP ON p A J IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COl^JC EASTER DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION '^ARL R. 2 6 1993 CLSflK LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT PLAINTIFF V. NO. LR-C-82-866 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, ET AL. DEFENDANTS MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL. 1 1993 INTERVENORS KATHERINE W. KNIGHT, ET AL. Office ot WonAon'^9 INTERVENORS RESPONSE OF THE JOSHUA INTERVENORS TO COURT ORDER OF FEBRUARY 24, 1993 On February 24 1993, the Court entered an Order advising the parties that she would appoint at least one person to assist the Little Rock School District in developing a budget from the district and she invited resumes of potential nominees by March 1, 1993 . The Joshua Intervenors respectfully respond as follows: 1. They wish to be helpful to the court in helping to develops an appropriate applicant pool for the position and accordingly respectfully reguest the court to set forth the criteria that the Court intends to apply in filling the position. Without such guidance from the Court, Joshua cannot be very helpful. Por this reason, Joshua ask the Court to specify such criteria and extend the time for submission of resumes for an additional five (5) days from the date of such specification. 2. The Joshua Intervenors are concerned that the prospected pool of applicants-considerees be sufficient to increase the possibility of an African-American being the designee. This is very important to Joshua because (a) the school district has shown no inclination to respect the minority interests in the budgetprocess, and (b) by having the person assigned to the Office of Desegregation Monitoring an additional white staff person will cause that already racially imbalanced office to be further imbalanced. We have previously brought this concern to the Court and the Court has indicated that it is mindful of it. (Of eight (8) full-time employees, only two (2) at present are of African American descent.) concern Joshua would also bring to the Court's attention their about the propriety of a member of the ODM staff being an official participant in any Little Rock policy making, programming or budgeting. We do not object to their being helpful to the parties in an advisory capacity, but they should not have actual membership in any of the committees. Otherwise, their neutrality may be compromised and their impartiality reasonably questioned. In filling the budget position, Joshua asks the Court to take great pain to determine that such designee not be an idealogue or other person with particular agenda that is 3 . 4 . a a independent of the task being performed or objective of the Court. 5. On Thursday, February 25, 1993, the Little Rock School District gave notice to the community that they objected to the Court's Order, \"to expend funds, to hire another person to develop a budget...[because it] does nothing to improve the performance of students in the classroom. This is just more make work. tl The board member making this statement was Mr. Dorsey Jackson. See Exhibit A. Board President, Mr. John Moore, concurred in this view. Although there has been no formal pleading filed in objection, we wish to advise the court that the argument submittedby Mr. Moore, 1. e. \"I don't think I can, in good conscience, spend another $50,000.00 or $60,000.00 for someone to count numbers. It misses the point. This person is not a II numbers counter. If although the job description is not set forth by the Court. The position is essential to the development of a budget to which the District can be held accountable. Moreover, the district. without Court approval and without involvement of a public proceeding and without following its own bid procedure, has entered into an additional contract, open-ended in amount, to hire additional local counsel to supplement the work of Mr. Christopher Heller. That action was taken without official board action and without costs consideration. It was done by Superintendent Bernd and Assistant Superintendent Bernard and Court approval was not sought. Surely if the Superintendent or a staff member can take it on themselves to enter into employment contracts without Board or Court approval, which are open-ended in costs, the objections by the board and its president to the approval of an additional monitor type staff member are inappropriate. WHEREFORE, premises considered. the Joshua Intervenors respectfully request that the court allow the parties an additional five (5) days after specifications in writing of the employment criteria and task to be performed in which to submit resumes\nthat the Court give serious consideration in filling the position to the overall racial composition of the ODM full-time staff\nand that the court disregard the objections of the Board of Directors of the Little Rock School District with respect to the budget position. Respectfully submitted.By: JOHN W. WALKER, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR (5 Jo\n72206 Bar No. 64046 ) CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing has been mailed, postage prepaid to all counsel, on his 26th day of February, 1993. co H-h - cm 55- .i: 0. \na FRIDAY, FEBRUARY 26,1993  3 to\n^'dr4er,niandating 'bud^tnpdlt BY CYNTHIA in the had beei pStientybut would ap-\" who'have worked dniientirin '/whenihJjob is completer.- DO int ATIA AT* tit AT*Q T3AAa1a Ta Ha XX b . , .  . . _ _ I}! J Democrat-GazetiB Educaiion ww  classcoom,. board member point one or more people to do '/.-..'Little.Rock Sch'ql Board-^.-Tiorsey Jackson said-at the - the job:''~------ . classcoom,. board member members 'bbjecte'd'Tijrsday to - \"boards.meeting. .This is jusf T7 f T..J more make-workdl.'-..^-.-^..:.,-.\n.,,,,-:... U-.S.yDistrict Judge.-Si|an 'Wetn- ber'i'Wright^s'.ordep'^i'ng she' . X.---------- - .--x'Wright\nsaidj'during.a\nFeii\n-T would-appoint atJeaj\u0026amp;rie per-'-c cdurt hearing andin anbrderis- son to_develop a budg|^tl.t.h.. '  cahtise to monitor-thiaistricts that she dese^egation planctapliance.  ..i.7.To'expendTuh'd's'Uhire an- 1 other\", person to..a.ey'elp a budt get does nothing tqj'OTove the $ 'sii'edtruesday.that she had re- pe'atedlyaskedthedistrict fora '.budgedthat.wp'uld.link the dis- atrict's're'yeh'iijes.'and'expendi- t tui'esltqJUyiese^egatibh-p rot. .igram,-Qbn'gatiousJShe'said she- T\u0026gt; J -f, ' Board.member-Katherin the'iob-'^=-''-c5-\u0026gt;-A/- ... A-t:-Board President John Moore Mitchell asked if the distric Will be temporary\nt-he jud^ said. , . ..Jackson said hecould under- the budget. He saidjt was un-.\n,ge . why the Office of Desegregation . UI jjczcsiegaLiun. ' $500,000 for the federal Office of ... Monitoring couldnt prepare the i Desegregation Monitoring  r . - ^.document:.  ....................- I dont think I can-in good  --Y s '   i- can-in gooa suggested tnat anynew . conscience spend another . menL Eireiat5maAufac.i ihmh ii . stand that.theldistrfct hadidest- ao vuubui-\ned the judge_spatience7but^^e  tents so the district wouldnt pay h',^ \"i\"\"\n.?-.^i^^.?l?5-.?Si?.'?lSimstratprs' . _\nunemplqvment compensation\ndoesnt help desegregation:\n  . v , . , . I w V 4iw s. xx,*.* vv aUVbUCi employees be.hired as consul- M $50,000 or $60,000 for someone to^\ncount numbers, he' said .That J- ' Members discussed the feas bility of anLappearand.'Bern said he would pass themember:  concerns to the districts atto\nney, Chris Heller. .The nextcou: hearing isMarch.ig.-hr.'if-iaztiT- A- tu-iiigijiiwxLoai aaj J.7.\u0026lt;\nfu\n-o:2\u0026gt;2^Vle ! wiir misslISansaS' { I Lflr\n- I^I iSmtGwoiSeSlsi Jjhe Associated Press . 07,1. aT :-h?o. edi.-lu:\n1 -Arkahsans would .fare.'bettet '.] than many other Americans unf der President'Ciintons'eco- I ri higher .taxes for th'ejrich'and'a: ener^tajtto-be^shjMedbv'all. He'said'the'enM^taxBit would average-ra'b'but'?:$17 nomic package, Rep. ^yjrhom-,\n. . ton,'D\nArk.,'said.Thursday. ?i 'Thdrntonaisbgave'Clintdn-'a'-, ': good chance of selling the plan''''\nthe.nation, and to .Congress,. . ! if the.president emphasizes'\"''  spending cuts and applies tax- es fairly. . month. -^1  Ti r A CTT* o yn  t e' T, 1-a n. .Thejob^JroK^fs^htend 'ed.to'.md.ye j,eopTepu^df-w fare ahd'ihto wbrkLfar'e\n.^'fc ton said.\n.Peop,le:i.n-^Mkansa like that i'dea? c.lf/t-'.M\n!-'-''' y\" 13 [is, oi \"\"Zll iiB. The reaction that Im getting is that, if we do the cuts first, make sure that leads the list and the people can see that were se- ' Arkansas,' a rui^ state wher motorists drive more miles'tiia: many more-urbanized state\nwill still take a'softer hit fror. Clintons energy tax because th plan taxes energy in Britis\nthermal.units, the amount c Li- .' rious about cutting expenditures and ivaste in government, ,..pp ...x\n. . 1 it s going to have a pretty. ..- perature of 1 pound.of wate: J goon chance of passing,? Thom-' \\ degTeeFah\"renh'eit.r.\nt a-.'j.\n- heat required to raise the teirRECEIVED FILED MAR 3 1993 MSB*' Office of Desegregation Monitoring IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION MAR -1 1993 .zARL HyOni^i uuhr.K OS. CLERK LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT PLAINTIFF V. NO. LR-C-82-866 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, ET AL. DEFENDANTS MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL. INTERVENORS KATHERINE W. KNIGHT, ET AL. INTERVENORS ORDER Before the Court is the response of the Joshua Intervenors to the Court's Order of February 24, 1993, inviting the parties to submit resumes of potential nominees for appointment to assist the LRSD in developing a budget document. Even though the Court set a March 1 deadline and the Court continues to regard this matter as urgent, the Court will accept applications through March 5, 1993. Attached to this Order is a description of qualifications for the position. DATED this 1st day of March, 1993. UNITED States distrIicCtT JUDGE ynis documfnt rule 53 ANO/Ol BY ITV 79(a) FRCP Goal: Special Position To work in collaboration with the Little Rock School District on a short-term project to meet the Court's requirements to develop and implement budgeting processes, budget documents, and budget management procedures and practices that institutionalized are to be as an integral part of the LRSD's ongoing planning, appropriating, monitoring, and evaluating processes to ensure the district fulfills its desegregation obligations. Qualifications: 1. Excellent skills and extensive experience in planning, organization, research, monitoring, and evaluation in a large organization. 2. Strong background in public or private sector administration (public preferred), with specific experience in budget development, management, and evaluation. 3. Expertise in designing and implementing staff position allocation. control systems and resource 4. Expertise in developing internal financial controls. 5. Proven ability to direct and support others to accomplish specific goals and objectives. 6. Strong oral, written, and 7. 8. communication skills. interpersonal Coraputer word management skills. processing and database Minimum of a administration, bachelor's degree educational in public administration, business administration or related field.RECEIVE!^ FILED U.S, DISTSIGT COURT, EASTERh D!St=:CT ARKANSAS MAR 3 1993 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION MAR -1 1993 CARL B. clerk Office of Desegregation Monitoring DEF.CLER. LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT PLAINTIFF V. NO. LR-C-82-866 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, ET AL. DEFENDANTS MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL. INTERVENORS KATHERINE W. KNIGHT, ET AL. INTERVENORS ORDER The Court hereby orders the members of the Little Rock School District Board of Directors to be present at the March 19, 1993, hearing, which will begin at 9:30 a.m. in Room 305 of the United States Post Office and Courthouse Building. The Court had previously requested that they be present but upon further reflection has determined that their presence is required. DATED this 1st day of March, 1993. ST'A.KTS'EE.SS DDIISSTTRRIICCT' JJUUEDGE THIS DOCUMENT ENTERED ON DOCKET SHEET IN COMPLIANCE WITH RULE 53 AND/OR 73(a) FRCP ON HHHE ef ' f' Little Rock School District March 4, 1993 c a MAR 4 1993 Mr. Bob Morgan Office of Desegregation Monitoring Heritage West Building, Suite 510 Office of Dessgregciion Mcniforing 201 East Markham Little Rock, AR 72201 Dear Mr. Morgan: Enclosed for your review is a draft outline of the Little Rock School District budget process and a draft of the revised budget document. Please respond in writing if these documents meet your approval. We cannot proceed with budget development until we have your approval. Sipfcere^, Ga 7)Jones Manager of Resources and School Support Enclosures cc: Ms. Ann Brown (w/enclosures) c:\\budget\\drafts.wpd 810 West Markham Street Little Rock, Arkansas 72201  (501)374-3361 LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT SSSSS: ANNUAL BUDGET 1993 -19941993-94 BUDGET PROCESS DATE December December January - February February - March April June July TASK Revenue and Expenditure Forecast School/Department Budget Requests \u0026lt; Staffing Levels Materials and Supplies Evaluation of Prior Yei RESPONSIBILITY Business Manager Principals Department Managers earns (1992-93) Principals Academic Program Administrators Proposed Bi Submit P ? lent iludget to the Board Make Budget Revisions Adopt Budget Business Manager Controller Superintendent Business Manager Controller Board of DirectorsBUDGET SUMMARYLITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT OPERATING BUDGET REVENUE PROJECTION FOR THE PERIOD ENDING JUNE 30, 1993 Actual (Unaudited) 1991-92 Budget 1992-93 REVENUE - LOCAL SOURCES CURRENT TAXES 40% PULLBACK____________ DELINOUENT TAXES EXCESS TREASURERS FEES DEPOSITORY INTEREST REVENUE IN LIEU OF TAXES MISC. AND RENTS_________ INTEREST ON INVESTMENTS ATHLETIC RECEIPTS 38,196,979 21,081,833 4,250,186 140,858 241,476 224,667 406,878 354,446 100,857 64,998,181 REVENUE - COUNTY SOURCES COUNTY GENERAL__________ SEVERANCE TAX 39,088,120 21,694,578 4,250,186 140,000 300,000 224,667 461,000 300,000 100,857 66,559,408 REVENUE - STATE SOURCES MFPA____________________ SETTLEMENT PROCEEDS SETTLEMENT LOAN________ APPORTIONMENT VOCATIONAL______________ HANDICAPPED CHILDREN EARLY CHILDHOOD________ ORPHAN CHILDREN________ TRANSPORTATION_________ COMPENSATORY EDUCATION M TO M TRANSFERS________ ADULT EDUCATION o T 73,419 15,350 88,769 73,419 11.000 84,419 REVENUE - OTHER SOURCES PUBLIC LAW 874____________ TRANSFER FROM FED GRANTS TRANSFER FROM BOND ACCT TOTAL REVENUE 27,264,460 8,637,482 4,500,000 73,426 1,513,699 824,870 147,050 3,000 2,379,879 858,743 1,770,486 697,589 48,670,683 27,042,713 8,926,606 1,500,000 73,419 1,341,887 821,449 229,403 3,000 2,692,563 548,034 2,490,900 697,589 46,367,563 9,385 129,428 394,675 533,488 114,291,121 40,000 262,000 600,000 902,000 113,913,390 I k LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT OPERATING BUDGET EXPENSE PROJECTION FOR THE PERIOD ENDING JUNE 30, 1993 EXPENSES SALARIES BENEFITS DESEGREGATION SERVICES, SUPPLIES, MATERIALS,~EQi DEBT SERVICE \" ~ CONTINGENCY TOTAL OPERATING EXPENSES 1 Actual (Unaudited) 1991-92 65,368,035 8,020,788 15,997,240 15,267,935 L... u 112,1 i!ioo 0 ^OM INCREASE (DECREASE) IN FUND BALANCE BEGINNING FUND BALANCE ENDING FUND BALANCE 1,687,023 634,842 2,321,865 Budget 1992-93 65,063,011 9,162,732 17,013,029 14,536,674 9,597,115 500,000 115,872,560 (1,959,170) 2,321,865 362,695UNE ITEM SUMMARY (OBJECT)I u I u I Object X 'oiio 0115 !0117 I 0120 0121 ,0124 0130 0135 0140  0145 LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 1991-1994 BUDGETS OBJECT SUMMARY SALARY, OPERATING,. \u0026amp; DEBT FUNDS Description Budget 1991-92 Actual 1991-92 CERTIFIED SALARIES Regular Certificated Cert. Instr. Assist. Stipends________________ TOTAL CERTIFIED_______ NON-CERTIFIED SALARIES Regular Non-Certified Maitenance______________ Clerical Overtime Substitute Teachers-Short SubSt. Certied Long Ter Subst Non-Certified-Short SubSt. Non-Certified Long Budget 1992-93 Budget 1993-94 TOTAL NCN-CERTIFIED EMPLOYEE BENEFITS 0210 [Fringe Benefits______________ 0250 Unemployment Compensation 0290 [Other Employee Benefits_____ ! I TOTAL EMPLOYEE BENEFITS i 0310 0311 0312 0313 0314 0316 0318 0319 0322 0324 0325 0326 0327 0328 0329 PURCHASED SERVICES Professional \u0026amp; Technical Instruction Services Instructional Prog Improv Pupil Services Staff Services__________ Data Processing Services Board of Ed Services Other Professional \u0026amp; Tech Budget Control Cleaning Services Carpentry Repairs-Equipment Rental of Land \u0026amp; Building Rental of Equipment \u0026amp; Veh Other Property Services 50,811,617 0 853,790 51,665,407 15,077,845 989,280 0 1,049,784 7,799,115 165,000 80,405 8,044,520 477,139 13,540 1,015,363 46,031 3,790 7,961 488,334 140,306 3,507,346 0 605,058 592,938 95,007 31,325 169,000 53,889,627 8,213 1,224,330 55,122,169 53,991,696 ________0 1,703,640 55,695,336 15,076,555 1,129,828 91,813 871,099 32i 141 k21\n54\n96 8,783,594 153,797 60,097 8,997,489 327,016 13,309 1,052,785 44,070 40 7,529 57,238 91,162 3,388,097 0 ( 519,413 470,552 50,771 23,214 126,364 16,818,714 0 _____0 900,000 _____0 350,000 0 8,068,714 9,768,728 160,000 73,462 10,002,190 586,390 1,000 691,900 _______0 2,000 _______0 366,862 70,000 3,865,000 15,000 501,558 596,964 42,000 18,464 275,500PROGRAM SUMMARY BUDGET (FUNCTION)-T  FUNC. 1105 1110 1120 1125 1129 1130 1135 1137 1140 1145 1146 1151 1152 1154 1155 1156 1157 1158 1190 1193 1195 1199 1210 1220 1230 1240 1290 1292 1321 1322 1331 1332 1333 1341 1351 LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 1991-1994 BUDGETS FUNCTION SUMMARY SALARY, OPERATING, \u0026amp; DEBT FUNDS DESCRIPTION I BUDGET 1991-92 INSTRUCTIONAL PROGRAMS Early Childhood Education Kindergarten______________ Elementary Elementary Magnet_________ Specialty Program Middle/Junior High School Junior High Magnet_________ Junior High Restructuring High School High School Magnet High School Standards Boys Athletics_____________ Girls Athletics ___________ Football/Minor Sports Volleyball Basketball Track,Tennis.Golf \u0026amp; Swimming Baseball__________________ Other Regular Traveling Teachers Accelerated Learning Substitutes Instruction Itinerant Instruction Resource Room____________ Special Class Homebound and Hospital_____ Other Extended Year Hand. Service Marketing/Dist Ed-Coop______ Marketing/Dist Ed-Expl Business Ed Coop__________ Business Ed Expl Business Ed-Skill Tr_________ Health Coop_______________ Trade \u0026amp; Ind-Coop 1,219,666 2,731,343 19,917,085 51,500 ________0 7,723,977 73,000 644,196 7,970,557 18,700 28 H ^^0 n - 7,^0 45,540- 12,960 9,000 240,394 20,000 2,362,712 1,049,184 889,800 1,975,166 1.279,727 132,161 729,405 12,390 174,719 0 170,853 54^,280 945,875 46,336 170,559 ACTUAL 1991-92 BUDGET 1992-93 BUDGET 1993-94 1,243,379 3,107,993 18,969,162 24,950 978,337 8,134,325 71,943 429,685 7,895,831 14,219 ____2,301 5^53 ^33 p,490r 42,794* 9,067 8,947 64,549 21,043 2,278,158 1,393,302 943,193 2.065,294 1,253,040 255,077 823,730 14,152 197,722 2,869 191,121 853,848 970,157 58,755 193,755 1,479,804 3,253,399 21,975,945 265,892 ________0 8,635,782 212,864 492,021 8,407,541 273,096 ________0 44,620 13,230 49,680 7,200 45,540 11,160 10,800 37,697 12,000 2,275,181 1,096,370 901,880 2,189,284 1,296,583 240,566 435,287 0 194,886 ________0 190,480 57^,814 965,542 50,996 189,221 PROGRAM BUDGET (OBJECT WTTHIN FUNCTIONS)Object Description  Func ti 1105 ___ 0110 0117 0120 0130 0140 0210 0311 0312 0327 0332 0333 Regular Certificated Stipends Regular Hon-Certlfled Substitute Teschers-Short SubSt Hon-Cortifiod-Short Social Security Tax Instruction Services Instructional Prog Isgjrov Rental of Lend 6 Building Travel-Payroll Travel 0342 0380 0410 0416 0540 0548 0630 Postage Food Services Materials and Supplies Supplies - Supply Center Bqulpsisnt-Personal Proper Bquipnent - Supply Center Dues  Fees  Subtotal   Func I: 1110 0110 0210 0410 0412 0416 0417 Regular Certificated Social Security Tax Hatarlale and Supplies local Supplies Sp Trackin Supplies - Supply Center Supplles-Supply Center * Subtotal ** * Func *\u0026gt;..11120' 0110 0115 0117 0120 0140 0210 0290 0310 0312 0326 0331 0333 0342 0350 Regular Certificated Cart. Instr. Assist. Stipends Regular Boa-Certifled Subet Bon-Certified-Short Social Security Tax Other lagsloyea Beneflte Professional * Technical Instructioaol Prog isgtrov Bepaira-Bgalpeaaat Pupil Transportation Travel Fostoig* A*rtielnq Little Rock School District Object Within Function 1991-1994 Craft Actual 1991-92 .508923.06 133.50 484704.68 417.58 6847.68 144785.75 195.00 650.00 150.00 0.00 4773.60 1074.23 7150.24 74990.71 0.00 8492.60 0.00 2760904.00 318950.86 15123.15 13015.06 0.00 0.00 3107993.07 14477326.70 8212.70 3124.01 1517618.15 44534.64 1997265.51 17.85 I I I 0.00 1486.50 6809.32 87961.35 0.00 6479.16 5574.58 Budget 1992-93 623446.00 0.00 549439.67 0.00 0.00 204639.64 500.00 0.00 0.00 1000.00 1000.00 1500.00 2123.00 40800.00 5200.00 38656.00 11500.00 0.00 1479804.31 2848548.00 370123.91 10182.00 12968.00 9592.00 1985.00 3253398.91 16554844.8b 0.00 422103.36 1496690.80 0.00 2295506.03 0.00 0.00 400.00 16050.00 119250.00 0.00 750.00 0.00 Budget 1993-94 I i DEPARTMENT BUDGETLittle Rock School District Operating Budget Detail 1993-94 DRAFT Object Function Budgeted ABaount * Buget Unit! 0001  Certified Regular Certificated Regular Certificated Regular Certificated Regular Certificated Regular Certificated Regular Certificated Regular Certificated Regular Certificated Regular Certificated Regular Certificated Regular Certificated Regular Certificated Regular Certificated Regular Certificated Regular Certificated Regular Certificated Stipends Stipends  Subsubtctal  Kindergarten High School High School Magnet Resource Room Special Class Marketlng/Dist Ed-Coop Business Ed Coop Business*' Ed-Skill Tr Trade t Ind-Coop Trade 4 Ind-Bxpl Cons/Rmkg Coord Career-Coop Compensatory Education Guidance Services School Library Services Offi High High I I 01 00 40 1110 0001 0110 01 00 40 1140 0001 0110 01 13 10 1145 0001 0110 01 20 40 1220 0001 0110 01 20 40 1230 0001 0110 01 00 40 1321 0001 0110 01 00 40 1331 0001 0110 01 00 40 1333 0001 0110 01 00 40 1351 0001 0110 01 00 40 1352 0001 0110 01 00 40 1362 0001 0110 01 00 40 1392 0001 0110 01 00 40 1595 0001 0110 01 00 40 2120 0001 0110 i I 01 00 40 2222 0001 0110 2410 0001 0110 1140 0001 0117 1140 0001 0117 II  Hon-Certified Regular Non-Certlfled Regular Hon-Certified Regular Hon-Cartlfled Regular Hon-Certifled Regular Hon-Cartlflad Regular Hon-Certified Regular Hon-Cartlfled * Subsubtotal  High School Accelerated Learning nursing Services School Library Services Office of the Principal Upkeep of Buildings Safety S Security I 02 00 40 1140 0001 0120 02 13 10 1195 0001 0120 02 00 40 2134 0001 0120 02 00 40 2222 0001 0120 02 00 40 2410 0001 0120 02 00 40 2542 0001 0120 02 13 16 2587 0001 0120 ' Benefits Social Security Tax Social Security Tax Social Security Tax Social Security Tax Social Security Tax Social Security Tax Social Security Tax Social Security Tax Social Security Tax Social Security Tax Social Seeorlty Sax Kindergarten High School High School High School Magnet Accelerated Learning Resource Room Special Class Marketing/Dlst Id-Coop Business Kd Coop Business Id-Skill Tr Trade 4 Ind-Coop 01 00 40 1110 0001 0210 01 00 40 1140 0001 0210 02 00 40 1140 0001 0210 01 13 18 1145 0001 0210 02 13 10 1195 0001 0210 01 20 40 1220 0001 0210 01 20 40 1230 0001 0210 01 00 40 1321 0001 0210 01 00 40 1331 0001 0210 01 00 40 1333 0001 0210 01 00 40 1351 0001 0210 =llLittle Rock School District Operating Budget Detail 1993-94 DRAFT Object Function Budgeted Amount I ** Buget Unit! 0036 t I  Certified Regular Certificated Regular Certificated Regular Certificated Regular Certificated Budget Control Budget Control Regular Certificated Regular Certificated Regular Certificated Regular Certificated Regular Certificated Regular Certificated Stipends Budget Control Budget Control  Subsubtotal * * Hon-Cortifled Regular Hon-Certified Regular Hon-Certified Regular Hon-Certified Regular Hon-Certlfled Regular Hon-Certified Regular Hon-CertlfIsd Regular Hon-Certlfled Regular Hon-Certified * Subsubtotal  Pour Year Old Program Kindergarten Elementary Blemontary Elementary Elementary Itinerant Instruction Resource Room Gifted 6 Talented Guidance Services School Library Services Office of the Principal Blementary Blementar' Elementar' 0036 0117 0036 0117 Pour Year Old Program Elementary Blesasntary Accelsratad Learning Hurling Services School Library Services Office of the Principal Opkeep of Buildings 1 01 13 02 1105 0036 0110 01 00 20 1110 0036 0110 01 00 20 1120 0036 0110 01 13 72 1120 0036 0110 01 13 65 1120 0036 0110 01 13 57 1120 0036 0110 01 20 20 1210 0036 0110 01 20 20 1220 0036 0110 01 00 20 1910 0036 0110 01 00 20 2120 0036 0110 01 00 20 2222 0036 0110 01 00 20 2410 0036 0110 01 00 20 1120 0036 0117 I 02 13 02 1105 0036 0120 02 00 20 1120 0036 0120 02 13 64 1120 0036 0120 02 13 10 1195 0036 0120 02 00 20 2134 0036 0120 02 13 32 2222 0036 0120 02 00 20 2410 0036 0120 02 00 20 2542 0036 0120 I i I  Benefits Social Security Tax Social Security Tax Social Sscurity Tax Social Sscurity Tax Social Security Tax Social Security Tax Social Security Tax Social Security Tax Social Seourity Tax Social Seourity Tax Pour Tear Old Program Pour Tear Old Program Kindergarten Elementary Blementary Elementary Elementary Accelsratad Lsarning Itinerant Instruction Resource Room 01 13 02 1105 0036 0210 02 13 02 1105 0036 0210 01 00 20 1110 0036 0210 01 00 20 1120 0036 0210 01 13 72 1120 0036 0210 02 00 20 1120 0036 0210 02 13 64 1120 0036 0210 02 13 10 1195 0036 0210 01 20 20 1210 0036 0210 01 20 20 1220 0036 0210 I i IFEDERAL PROGRAMSa :X.x\u0026lt;x5:\nyv  f- ^'' -^* ** ^xa-xj^sss X4a S'tBiMA'RYfjBR Federal Proi ................\" \u0026gt; \u0026gt;*  ***wwa^ggaagBM 92-93 rams IgU SnlQrios 93-94 Sularfes-'^^ CERTIFIED STAFF Fringe Benefits(20) \u0026gt;bcsx?dx wvwxx 1 TOTAL CERTIFIED SALAR 0.0 $0 0.0 $0 SUPPORT STAFF 1 r C' Fringe Benefit5(20) TOTAL SUPPORT SALARY xxxxxsx 0.0 $0 ixxxxxsxj $0 TOTAL (l(I\u0026gt;20} XSXCTCSI \u0026gt; Furchased SERVICES (30) TOTAL (30) xxoaxxl xttxxxxl xxxxxxxl .wrciMl l^TERIALS, SUPPLIES (40) XXTO0CS| xxxxxxx [ CAPITAL OUTLAY (SO) OTHER (60) I TOTAL (40) TOTAL (50) xxsxxxx xxxxxxx xgcxxy xxxxxxx xxxxxxx xxxxxxx xxxxxxs xxxxxxx IBkxxxx {XXXXXXX $0 Ixjwcpcx ___________(KXWOK jsxxxxxx fxxxxxxx $0 TOTAL (60) \u0026gt; TOTAi\np0-60) TOTAL (10-60) xjcDcca yobdax JQDCXXXX KVXXXXX 0.0 GRAND TOTAL XXXXX-\\X .KXXXXX.X jxxxxxxx Isxwcxx {XXXXXXX twccpgc ~$0 Iwiyxxx |sxxx^ txxxxxxx h \"so I $0 IXXX-WCX \" ', $0 [xxxxxxx 0.0 so |x.xxxxxx -:-----tuuun $0 jxxxxxxx $0 $0 $0 12= $0 $0 $0row 92-93 Chapter 1 9$\nSlarteg-'W^ 93-94 FTJ^ Sal^rfti^ CERTIFIED STAFF Fringe Benefit5(20) TOTAL CERTIFIED SALAR xxsoda 0.0 $0 xxxxxxx 0.0 $0 SUPPORT STAFF __________Fringe Benefits(20) jTOTAL SUPPORT SALARY TOTAL (10-20) ~~ xxsocct 0.0 KSDCDOn so . $0 iXXXXMCt 0.0 xxxxsxx $0 SO::. PURCHASED SERVICES (30) xxxxxxs XXDtXSLX ^ocDoca xxxxxxx xxxxxxx xxxxxxx T xxxxccx TOTAL (30) xxxxxxs $0 xxxxsxx $0 MATERIALS, SUPPLIES (40) xxxxxxx xxxxxxx xxxxxxx xxxxxxs LXXXXXXX SXXXXXX' xxxxxxx xxxxsxx TOTAL (40) xxxxxxx $0 xxxxxxx $0 CAIITAL OUTLAY (50) I TOTAL (50) xxxxxxx xwcxxx xicxxxxs: xxxxxxx so sxxxxxv iXXXXXXX xxxxxxx xxxxxxx $0 OTHER (60) XXDtXXX xxxxxxx xxo TOTAL (60) TOTAL (30-60)~ TOTAL (10-60) xxxxxxx XXXXX-XX 0.0 xxxxx.\\x GRAND TOTAL xxxxxxx SO $0 so so $0 xx,xxxxxl 0.0 ! xxxxxxxl x.xxxxxxi SO SO SO SOMAGNET SCHOOL BUDGET t1992-33'Bddget Proposal sumMa^VTor magnet schools^ * \\x 1991-92 1992-93 CERTIFIED STAFF SUPPORT STAFF Principal__________________________ Asst. Prin.________________________ Specialists________________________ Counselors_______________________ Media Spec.______________________ Art-Perf./Prod.___________________ Music_____________________________ Foreign Lang.____________________ Vocational________________________ Special Education________________ Gifted____________________________ Classroom_______________________ Substitutes_______________________ Other-Kindergarten______________ _______________Fringe Benefits(20) TOTAL CERTIFIED SALARY Secretaries_______________________ Nurses____________________________ Custodians_______________________ Paraprofessionals-Chptr 1_______ Paraprofessionals-Other'________ Other-Aides F.T.E. 6.0 10.0 Salaries $346,537 $456,057 37.4 I $1,274,519 12.4 7.0 0.0 0.0 ' 0.0 14.0 8.8 5.0 181.4 0.0 14.0 xxxxxxx 296.0 18.0 5.4 29.5 0.0 5.0 39.5 _______________Fringe Benefits(20) TOTAL SUPPORT SALARY xxxxxxx TOTAL (10-20) PURCHASED SERVICES (30) Utilities___________________ Travel____________________ Maintenance Agreements Other 97.4 XXXXXXX XXXXXXX BGkxx $444,641 $218,210 $0 $0 $0 $507,273 $248,275 $163,550 $5,308,868 $153,813 $407,561 $1,068,359 $10,597,663 $301,141 $148,859 $346,330 $0 $108,103 $316,035 $185,965 $1,406,433 $12,004,096? $601,780 F.T.E. 6.0 10.0 36.2 9.0 7.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 12.6 8.8 3.5 177.6 0.0 14.0 XXXXXXX 284.7 17.0 5.4 29.5 0.0 6.0 39.5 XxXx)6o(?' 97.4 XXXXXXX xxxxxxx wrxxxxx xxxxxxx Salaries $356,933 $481,040 $1,267,906 $332,407 $224,756 $0 $0 $0 $489,528 $255,724 $121,175 $5,215,774 $158,428 $419,788 $1,185,445 $10,508,904 $310,176 $153,326 $356,721 $0 $111,191 $325,514 $227,463 $1,484,391 ??$W93i2S5:? $627,700 MATERIALS, SUPPLIES (40) ____________TOTAL (30) Principal's Office Regular Classroom Media Other xxxxxxx TOTAL (40) MS if 6^0 ^38,28 CAPITAL OUTLAY (50) Equipment Building Repair, etc. Other xxxxXxx XxXxxXx xxxxxXx xxxxxxx JObOOCMt xxxxxxx xxxxxxX $343,433 $56,509 XXXXXXX? x\u0026gt;x \u0026lt;xxx XWdoiX?? xxxxx)\n?' $195,093 $822,793 $399,942 $111,824 xxXXxxx?? xxXxxxX? xXicxxxX XxxxxxX? $379,717 $59,072 $438,789 $120,394 OTHER (60) TOTAL (50) Dues and Fees Other xxxxxxx Joaxxxx xxxxxxx TOTAL LINE ITEJ ____________TOTAL (60) __________TOTAL (30-60) __________TOTAL (10-60) MS - (SECOND PAGE) GRAND TOTAL xxxxxxx Xldexxxx 393.4 xxxxxxx xxxxxxx $111,824 $8,358 xXxxxxXs Wxxxxx XXXXXJCC XWOOOC: $120,394 $5,895 $8,358 $1,288,412 $13,292,508 $595,333 $13,887,841 XXXXXXX XXXXXXX xxxxxxx 382.1 xxxxxxx XSOOCXXX $5,895 $1,387,871 $13,381,166 $531.886 $13,913,052CAFETERIA FUNDCERTIFIED STAFF I SUPPORT STAFF i ,!..Fnnri SprvicP (92-93\n93-94 'few __________Fringe Benefits(20) TOTAL CERTIFIED SALAR wxxxxx 0.0 $0 S3CXYXXX 0.0 i $0 Fringe Benefits(20) xxxxxxx iTOTAL SUPPORT SALARY '' \\' TOTAL \u0026lt;10-20} PURCHASED SERVICES (30) 0.0 I jawaxi\nxvxxxxsl XXSjQCOtl xwcoocl xxobcfil so $0^ jSXXgLgd 0.0 $0 $0 TOTAL (30) MATERIALS, SUPPLIES (40) TOTAL (40) c CAITTAL OUTLAY (50) OTHER (60) TOTAL (50) TOTAL (60) TOTAL (10-60) GRAND TOTAL xxxsxxsl xxxxxxx xxsxxxx XXXJOCXX xxxxx^a xxxxxxx xxsxxxx XKXXXSX JOCXXXXX xxxxxxx xxxxxxx rxxx}^ xxxxxxs XXTOXX 0.0 xxxxxxx .VXXXX.XX $0 $0 $0 (XXXXXXX xxxxsxxl XX-XXXXXj xxxxxxx! xxxxxxx $0 $0 $0 ' , $0 $0 $0 xxxxxxx sxxxxxx xxxiaxx XWODOt XX-VKXXX 0.0 xxxxxxx $0 jxXXXXXKi $0 $0 $0 $0 M $0CAPITAL PROJECTS FUNDEXPEN Dmj RES UTTLE HOCK SCHOOL DISTRICT BOND ACCOUNT BEG BALANCE 07-01-92 ACCOUNT CODE PRIOR BOND ISSUES PLANT SERVICES SUSTOTXL 32,467.82 32,467.82 03.00.00.2542.0088.0590 7.\u0026amp;40.000 BOND ISSUE AEROSPACE MAGN PURCHASING CARVER CONTINGENCY SUSrOTAL 2,750.00 95.425.80 185.97 4.426.69 102,788.46 03.06.00.2536.0124.0590 03.06.00.2536.0085.0590 03.06.20.2536.0021.0541 03.06.00.2536.0080.0590 5,400.000 BOND ISSUE ENERGY GRANT SUBTOTAL 63.413.03 63,413.03 03.08.00.2533.0088.0319 8,164,100 BOND ISSUE DUNBAR ASBESTOS ENERGY GRANT MT WATER TOWER CONTINGENCY SUBTOTAL 139,833.50 541.84 196,120.00 55,114.00 1,264,140.62 1,655,749.96 03.10.30.2536.0007.0570 03.10.00.254Z 0088.0570 03.10.00.2533.0088.0319 03.10.00.2539.0088.0570 03.10.00.2536.0088.0590 16,900,000 BOND ISSUE CENTRAL METROPOLITAN BOOKER DUNBAR FAIR PULASKI HGTS SOUTHWEST SOUTHWEST MCCLELLAN ALT LEARNING CEN CLOVERDALE JR CLOVERDALE ELEM MABELVALE BRADY BADGETT MCDERMOTT BASELINE FAIR PARK FOREST PARK GARLAND GIBBS WESTERN HILLS WESTERN HILLS DODD GEYER SPRINGS PULASKI HGTS ELE WILSON WOODRUFF MABELVALE ELEM 9,209.59 16.725.08 12,463.96 10,279.42 54,236.08 47,866.50 D ^50, 83,823.61 EQUIP 453,697.23 102.50 29,744.43 144,154.27 13,684.67 1,016.56 6,160.02 20.944.74 10,467.20 11,684.73 20,441.21 975.52 2,247.19 4,200.00 6,122.91 EQUIP 27,043.80 2,942.49 85,020.81 8,766.18 56,419.93 67,727.73 59,056.84 T 700 70 a 170 -.0570 1.0570 03.11.30.2536.0007.0570 03.11.40.2536.0008.0570 03.11.30.2536.0010.0570 03.11.30.2536.0011.0540 03.11.30.2536.0011.0570 03.11.40.2536.0012.0570 03.11.30.2536.0014.0570 03.11.30.2536.0015.0570 03.11.20.2536.0031.0570 03.11.30.2536.0016.0570 03.11.20.2536.0018.0570 03.11.20.2536.0019.0570 03.11.20.2536.0020.0570 03.11.20.2536.0022.0570 03.11.20.2536.0023.0570 03.11.20.2536.0024.0570 03.11.20.2536.0026.0570 03.11.20.2536.0027.0570 03.11,20,2536.0027:0540 QO3.I 03.11.20.2536.0029.0570 03.11.20.2536.0032.0570 03.11.20.2536.0037.0570 03.11.20.2536.0038.0570 03.11.20 2536.0044.0570 03.11.20 2536.0045.0570 03.11.20 2536.0046.0570DESEGREGATIONNAME DESCX Early ChiIdiood BUDGET CONTROL OSRAM 10:05 NAME: STUDENT NEARING OFFICER Hearing Officer Hearing Officer Hearing Officer Hearing Officer Hearing Officer BUDGET CONTROL STAFF STAFF STIPENDS STIPENDS OSRAM ID:06 NAME: OFFICE OF DESEGREGATION Assoc. SURSt-Equity Assoc. Supt-Equity Assoc. Supt-Equity Assoc. Supt-Equity Assoc. Supt-Equity Assoc. Supt-Equity LITTLE ROCX SCHOOL DISTRICT desegregation budget 1992-93 DESEGREGATION DESEGREGATION BUDGET CONTROL - DESEGREGATION CUSTODIANS STAFF STAFF STIPENDS STIPENDS OSRAM 10:08 NAME: TEACHER RECRUITER Hunan Resources Hunan Resources BUDGET CONTROL - I TEACHER RECRUITER DESEGREGATI OBJECT SALART/AMOUNT 27,000.00 1,044,606.00 16,420.00 19,927.00 50,041.00 168.00 3,639.00 90,195.00 38,240.00 6,870.78 115,018.80 221,932.00 900.00 5,100.00 ,1.51 BENEFITS 0.00 157,426.62 0.00 3,024.68 5,548.24 14.08 304.95 8,891.95 0.00 1,429.30 12,348.18 30,791.10 75.42 427.38 TOTAL 27.000.00 1,202,032.42 16,420.00 22,951.68 55,589.24 182.08 3,943.95 99,086.05 33,240.00 8,300.08 127,366.98 252,723.10 975.42 5,527.38 ACCOUNT CODE 02-13-02-1105-0132-0300 02-13-05-2212-0121-0300 02-13-05-2212-0121-0120 01-13-05-2212-0121-0110 02-13-05-XXXX-0121-0120 O1-13-O5-XXX3(-O121-O11O 02-13-06-2326-0064-0300 02-13-06-2542-0064-0120 01-13-06-2326-0064-0110 02-13-06-2326-0064-0120 02-13-06-XXXX-0064-0120 01-13-06-XXXX-0064-0110 OSRAM ID:09 MAME: STAFF DEVELOPMENT Staff Development Staff Development Staff Development Staff Development BUDGET CONTROL - DESEGREGATION STAFF STAFF STIPENDS OGRAM 10:10 NAME: ACADEMIC SUPPORT PROGRAMS Central Hall Hall Dunbar Dunbar Fair Fair Forest Heights Forest Heights Forest Heights Pulaski Heights Pulaski Heights COMPUTER LAB ATTENDANT ACADEMIC SUPPORT TEACHER COMPUTER LAB ATTENDANT ACADEMIC SUPPORT TEACHER COMPUTER LAB ATTENDANT ACADEMIC SUPPORT TEACHER COMPUTER LAB ATTENDANT ACADEMIC SUPPORT TEACHER COMPUTER LAB ATTENDANT JR HI RESTRUCTURE COMPUTER LAB ATTENDANT JR HI RESTRUCTURE is. low 3, 433,132.96 10,000.00 02-13-08-2642-0081-0300 32,204.08 02-13-08-2642-0081-0120 38,464.00 3,740.08 42,204.03 122,363.00 21,066.00 263,596.00 6,534.81 413,559.81 9,960.00 23,302.00 9,466.00 82,061.00 9,960.00 28,680.00 9,466.00 31,069,00 9,713.00 102,915.00 9,054.00 129,004.00 0.00 3,120.13 30,218.14 547.62 33,885.89 2,189.45 3,307.51 2,148.05 10,941.11 2,189.45 3,758.18 2,148.05 3,958.38 2,168.75 14,043.48 2,113.53 17,584.54 122,363.00 02-13-09-2212-0059-0300 24,186.13 02-13-09-2212-0059-0120 293,814.14 01-13-09-2212-0059-0110 7,082.43 O1-13-O9-XXXX-0059-0110 447,445.70 12,149.45 02-13-10-1195-0001-0120 26,609.51 01-13-10-1195-0002-0110 11,614.05 02-13-10-1195-0002-0120 93,002.11 01-13-10-1195-0007-0110 12,149.45 02-13-10-1195-0007-0120 32,438.18 01-13-10-1195-0008-0110 11,614.05 02-13-10-1195-0008-0120 35,027.38 01-13-10-1195-0009-0110 11,881.75 02-13-10-1195-0009-0120 116,958.48 01-13-10-1137-0009-0110 11,167.53 02-13-10-1195-0010-0120 146,588.54 01-13-10-1137-0010-0110 REFERENCE DATA 1Prog 9 P.O.* OMOrtphon 2 5 6 7 8 9 10 12 13 14 16 16 17 18 19 21 22 24 25 28 27 28 29 32 33 34 35 49 Inoantfva Sctioeta: 61 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 61 64 66 66 72 73 74 75 5 6 28 28 38 46 48 63 82 86 114 129 129 143 148 146 234 227 1-9 93 34 35 28 106 I-56 131 125 00 149 152 153 153 153 153 154 158 171 172 172 176 190 193 t94 153 H'ppy 4 Yr Old Pfograma Sludant Haa/lng Otlfcpe Ofitea Oaaagragallon Ertra-Currlcular Taachar Rac'uhar Stall Davalopmani Acatfamie Support Uulticuhral Programa Incanl^a Granta Original Magnata $p Ed Laaming Cantar Saeurliy OU Procaaaing S/alam U-ip-U Magnai Schoela King School Staphana School Uoniiorlng ActMtiaa ComputarUad Tranap Aomina Thania Community School In-Schooi Suapanalon Jeb Fair Tatting Aatlatanea Library Sarvieaa Param Bacruiting VIPS - Recruiting Prejudice Reduction Plant Servlcea To Ba AJlocatad OlHca inoantiva Schoela Writing To Raad Science Labt Computer Laba Foreign Language Computer Loan Program Extended Oay/Week Field Tripe Trantportabon Inatructienal Aides Extended Yai tn ca n tfva/Reoeg n i t Ion Stalling Stall Daveiopmant Teacher Siipenda Other Academic Programi sus-total incentives QRANO total SETTLEMENT PLAN BUDGET Unaudited BI-0S 92-03 93-04 04-06 06-96 96-07 2H.29i 2'9.772 287.135 295.749 334.621 313.760 795.690 99.232 462.998 31.072 46.824 400.069 2.848.723 164,490 668.575 3,783.217 66.291 703,830 200.727 354,920 0 0 373,986 0 17.267 588.441 22,367 62.714 0 266.247 0 13,347,824 261.482 1.096,148 1,291.788 2.649 416 15.997.246 1.2C2.033 1.238.094 1.275.236 1.313,493 1.352.898 99.087 102.060 105,121 108.275 111.523 433.133 446.127 459.511 473.296 487.495 0 0 0 0 0 42.204 43.470 44.774 46.118 47.501 447.446 490.869 474.695 488.936 603.604 2.785.221 1.868,777 1.024.841 1.062.586 2.042.063 240,316 249.928 259,926 270.322 261,136 320,000 320,000 320.000 320,000 320,000 3.800,000 3,914,000 4.031.420 4.152.363 4.276.933 110.307 113.616 117,024 120,53$ 124.151 617.038 635.550 654.616 874.256 694.482 411.583 721.442 0 0 391.495 10.000 85,816 1.500 1,350 718.604 27.000 85.863 5.000 200.000 13,886,365 63.147 15,000 15,000 15.000 7,603 6,000 863.000 37,500 20.000 549.695 260.000 21.500 914.823 59,500 225.C00 55,C00 3,126,664 17.0,3.020 773.930 543.08$ 2.633,300 0 403.240 10,300 89.248 116,000 r73.739 1.545 11.691 737.999 27.810 67,839 5,000 200,000 16.040.317 65.041 15,450 16,450 15,450 7.726 6.150 888,890 38,625 20.600 566.186 267.800 22.145 042.267 61.285 231.750 56.656 3^20,464 '9 260.78, 1.147.148 1,531.563 1.927.610 669.378 576.159 623.444 2.681,399 2,707.000 419.369 10,609 92,818 116.000 793.827 1.591 12.041 760.139 28,644 69.874 6,000 200.000 19,566,751 66.993 15.914 15,814 16.914 7.967 5.305 915,557 38,784 21,218 583,171 275.834 22.809 970.536 63.124 236,703 58.350 3.3,7,078 22.883.829 2.761.841 2.788,210 436.144 10.927 99.531 115.000 817.542 1.639 1^402 782.943 29,504 71,970 $.006 2C0.000 20,492.274 69.002 16.391 18,381 16,391 8.196 6.494 943,023 \u0026lt;0.877 21.855 600.666 284.109 23.4M 999.651 65.017 245,864 60,100 3.416.591 23,908.865 2.844,696 2,871,856 453,590 11,255 100.392 116,000 642,171 1,668 12,775 806,432 30.389 74.129 5.000 200,000 21,445.873 71.072 16,883 16,883 16,883 8.441 5.628 971.314 42.207 22.510 618.686 292,632 24.198 1.029.641 66.968 253.239 61.903 3.510.088 24.964.U61 03/17/93 16:03 0501 324 2032 L R School Dlst ODM 002/002 i Little Rock School District NEWS RELEASE March 17, 1993 For more information: Jeanette Wagner, 324-2020 LRSD HOLDS BUDGET STUDY COMMITTEE MEETING The Little Rock School District will hold, a public meeting Thursday, March 18, at 6 p.m. for the purpose of presenting the preliminary recommendations of the Budget Study Committee. The meeting will be held in the media center at Hall High, 6700 H Street. The committee was formed by Superintendent Dr. Mac Bernd and was comprised of a cross section of volunteers from throughout the community. ###03--17/93 16:03 0-501 324 2032 L R School Dlst ODM El 002 -002 'Ka i *1 Little Rock School District NEWS RELEASE March 17, 1993 For more information: Jeanette Wagner, 324-2020 LRSD HOLDS BUDGET STUDY COMMITTEE MEETING The Little Rock School District will hold a public mparing Thursday, March 18, at 6 p.m. for the purpose of presenting the preliminary recommendations of the Budget Study Committee. The meeting will be held in the media center at Hall High, 6700 H Street. The committee was formed by Superintendent Dr. Mac Bernd and was comprised of a cross section of volunteers from th rough out the community. ###-------* JOHN W. W,\\LKER RAI.PM WASHINGTON M.\\RK BVRNRTIE WILBY A, RR ANTON. JR. AUSTIN PORTER. .JR. John w. walker, p.a. ArroRNEY At Law 1723 Broadway Little Rock. Arkansas 72206 Telephone (501) 374-3758 FAX (501) 374-4187 P. 02  A' adniittfi M Pnu.tn-e in 4 '\u0026gt; Dintnff '\u0026gt;t 'v 'J'nbni. delivered via facsimile March 17, 1993 Chris Heller, Esq. c/o Little Rock School District 810 West Markham 72201 Little Rock, AR i 4 I I i irl Re\nLRSD V. PCSSD Dear Mr. Heller\nexhibits that you would you kindly provide me with any new , plan to use hnHofAt hearina on Friday. I would also like to know who you plan to call as at the budget hearing on Friday. _ . v witnesses and a brief summary of their testimony. Thank you for your cooperation. Sincerely, Ciehh 0V\u0026lt;A,' John W. WalkeiH ' .n JWW:Ira TOTAL P.0203/17/1993 17:11 FROM JOHN U.UflLKER P.fi. TO 3710100 P. 02 JOHN W. WALKER, P.A. Attorney At Law 1723 Broadway Little Rock, Arkansas Telephone (.501) ^^58 FAX (501) 374418/ JOHN W. WALKER RALPH WASHINGTON markbvrnettc WILEY A. RR ANTON. -JR- AUSTIN PORTER. -JR- , .. .. delivered via F_ACSIMI1.-E March 17, 1993 Chris Heller, Esq. Little Rock School District c/o 810 West Markham Little Rock, AR 72201 u  ii 'r Re\nLRSD V. PCSSD Dear Mr. Heller\nWould you plan to use at know who you plan to call as kindly provide me with any new Jto the budget hearing on Friday. I would also like to witnesses and a brief summary of their testimony. Thank you for your cooperation. Sincerely, o\u0026amp;hn OVA' Jolin W. WalkeiH^ JWW: lin I 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 March 22, 1993 Ti Roher 1024 North Palm Little Rock, AR 72205 Dear Ti: Thank you very much for your interest in serving as a specialist to assist with the Little Rock School District budgeting process. My associates. Bob Morgan and Margie Powell, especially enjoyed having the opportunity to get to know you. The Court received many applicants for the specialist position. You and several of the candidates were exceptionally well qualified, making the decision difficult. After carefully considering candidates background, specific knowledge and experiences, performance record, and availability. Judge Wright chose Bill Mooney to fill the position. Mr. Mooney has an advanced degree in public administration with a long and successful history in both public and private sector budget planning, management, and evaluation. Margie and Bob told me that you might be willing to volunteer some time to work on the school districts budgeting process. I truly appreciate your offer and will not hesitate to take you up on it. Ill let Mr. Mooney know that youre willing to help and have him contact you after he gets his bearings in his new job. Please accept my sincere thanks, and that of Judge Wright, for the time, care, and thoughtfulness you invested in exploring the possibility of working with us at ODM. We all appreciate the many ways you support our communitys schools. Very truly yours, Ann S. Brown 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 March 22, 1993 Clarence L. Horn, Jr. 1911 Rice Street Little Rock, AR 72202 Dear Mr. Horn: Thank you very much for your interest in serving as a specialist to assist with the Little Rock School District budgeting process. My associates. Bob Morgan and Margie Powell, enjoyed having the opportunity to get to know you. The Court received many applicants for the specialist position. You and several of the candidates were exceptionally well qualified, making the decision difficult. After carefuUy considering candidates background, specific knowledge and experiences, performance record, and availability. Judge Wright chose Bill Mooney to fill the position. Mr. Mooney has an advanced degree in public administration with a long and successful history in both public and private sector budget planning, management, and evaluation. Please accept my sincere thanks, and that of Judge Wright, for the time, care, and thoughtfulness you invested in exploring the possibility of working with us at ODM. Very truly yours, Ann S. Brown 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 March 22, 1993 Glenn A. Spung 24 Rocky Valley Cove Little Rock, AR 72212 Dear Mr. Spung: Thank you very much for your interest in serving as a specialist to assist with the Little Rock School District budgeting process. My associates. Bob Morgan and Margie Powell, enjoyed having the opportunity to get to know you. The Court received many applicants for the specialist position. You and several of the candidates were exceptionally well qualified, making the decision difficult. After carefully considering candidates background, specific knowledge and experiences, performance record, and availability. Judge Wright chose Bill Mooney to fill the position. Mr. Mooney has an advanced degree in public administration with a long and successful history in both public and private sector budget planning, management, and evaluation. Please accept my sincere thanks, and that of Judge Wright, for the time, care, and thoughtfulness you invested in exploring the possibility of working with us at ODM. Very truly yours, Ann S. BrownOffice 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 March 22, 1993 Elizabeth Thalheimer 5005 Crestwood Little Rock, AR 72207 Dear Libby: Thank you very much for your interest in serving as a specialist to assist with the Little Rock School District budgeting process. The Court received many applicants for the specialist position. You and several of the candidates were well qualified, making the decision difficult. After carefully considering candidates background, specific knowledge and experiences, performance record, and availability. Judge Wright chose Bill Mooney to fill the position. Mr. Mooney has an advanced degree in public administration with a long and successful history in both public and private sector budget planning, management, and evaluation. Please accept my sincere thanks, and that of Judge Wright, for the time, care, and thoughtfulness you invested in exploring the possibility of working with us at ODM. We all appreciate the many ways you work to support our communitys schools. Very truly yours, Ann S. Brown 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 March 22, 1993 Richard B. Steinkamp First Commercial Building, Suite 1700 400 West Capitol Avenue Little Rock, AR 72201 Dear Richard: Thank you very much for your interest in serving as a specialist to assist with the Little Rock School District budgeting process. The Court received many applicants for the specialist position. You and several of the candidates were well qualified, making the decision difficult. After carefully considering candidates background, specific knowledge and experiences, performance record, and availability. Judge Wright chose Bill Mooney to fill the position. Mr. Mooney has an advanced degree in public administration with a long and successful history in both public and private sector budget planning, management, and evaluation. Please accept my sincere thanks, and that of Judge Wright, for the time, care, and thoughtfulness you invested in exploring the possibility of working with us at ODM. We all appreciate the many ways you work to support our communitys schools. Very truly yours, Ann S. BrownOffice 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 March 22, 1993 Clarence A. Hamilton P.O. Box 4555 North Little Rock, AR 72116 Dear Al: Thank you very much for your interest in serving as a specialist to assist with the Little Rock School District budgeting process. There were many applicants for the specialist position. You and several of the candidates were exceptionally well qualified, making the decision difficult. After carefully considering candidates background, specific knowledge and experiences, performance record, and availability. Judge Wright chose Bill Mooney to fill the position. Mr. Mooney has an advanced degree in public administration with a long and successful history in both public and private sector budget planning, management, and evaluation. Please accept my sincere thanks, and that of Judge Wright, for the time, care, and thoughtfulness you invested in exploring the possibility of working with us at ODM. Very truly yours, Ann S. BrownOffice 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 March 22, 1993 Edward N. Rolle 63 Sunset Lane Cabot, AR 72023 Dear Mr. Rolle: Thank you very much for your interest in serving as a specialist to assist with the Little Rock School District budgeting process. The Court received many applicants for the specialist position. The candidates were exceptionally well qualified, making the decision difficult. After carefully considering candidates background, specific knowledge and experiences, performance record, and availability. Judge Wright chose Bill Mooney to fill the position. Mr. Mooney has an advanced degree in public administration with a long and successful history in both public and private sector budget planning, management, and evaluation. Please accept my sincere thanks, and that of Judge Wright, for the time, care, and thoughtfulness you invested in exploring the possibility of working with us at ODM. Very truly yours, Ann S. Brown 1 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 March 22, 1993 David Jameson 1421 N. University Avenue, #S320 Little Rock, AR 72207 Dear Mr. Jameson: Thank you very much for your interest in serving as a specialist to assist with the Little Rock School District budgeting process. The Court received many applicants for the specialist position. The candidates were exceptionally well qualified, making the decision difficult. After carefully considering candidates background, specific knowledge and experiences, performance record, and availability. Judge Wright chose Bill Mooney to fill the position. Mr. Mooney has an advanced degree in public administration with a long and successful history in both public and private sector budget planning, management, and evaluation. Please accept my sincere thanks, and that of Judge Wright, for the time, care, and thoughtfulness you invested in exploring the possibility of working with us at ODM. Very truly yours, Ann S. Brown March 22, 1993 M. xxxxxxx xxxxxxxxxx xxxxxxxxxx Dear xxx\n5\" Thank you very much for your interest in serving as a specialist to assist with the Little Rock School District budgeting process. The Court received many applicants for the specialist position. The candidates were exceptionally well qualified, making the decision difficult. After carefully considering candidates background, specific knowledge and experiences, performance record, and availability. Judge Wright chose Bill Mooney to fill the position. Mr. Mooney has an advanced degree in public administration with a long and successful history in both public and private sector budget planning, management, and evaluation. Please accept my sincere thanks .for the time, care, and thoughtfulness you invested in exploring the possibilitiee of worlgi Very truly yours. .aidui uic uiiic, Ldic, diiu uiuu^iiuuiiicdd yuu iii rl^g with us at ODM. (zW Ann S. Brown. FEB-25-93 THU 17:38 SUSAN W WRIGHT FAX NO. 5013246576 P. 10 1421 N. University #3320 Little Rock, Ar 72207 February 25, 1993 Honorable Susan Webber Wright P.O. Box 3316 Little Rock, Ar. 72203 Dear Judge Wright, I note you are seeking a person to develop a Little Rock School District budget that will permit monitoring compliance with the court-approved desegregation plan. Please accept this letter, and the enclosed resume, as my application for that position. I have been a banker for many years. president, including service as chief operating officer and chief financial officer of banks as large as $700 million in assets. My specialty in banking has been planning, founding and managing new financial institutions. This work has involved development of new financial systems from scratch. including business plans. budgets, general ledger accounting systems, data processing hardware and software, and complete operating systems. I would have no problem in quickly understandin District budget and accounting system, the Little Rock School preparing a budgeting system that meets your requirements, and implementing such a system. Due to unusual personal circumstances. I can be available on one days notice, and for any period of time up to approximately one year. I would welcome an opportunity to discuss this position with you. My telephone number is 664-8363. Bincerelv yours. David Jameson received CHAMBERS OF SUSAN WEEWBRr-IG---H--T-FEB 25 1993 U. S. DISTRICT JUDGE . FEBt25-93 THU 17:38 SUSAN W WRIGHT FAX NO. 5013246576 P, 11 RESUME: DAVID JAMESON 1421 N. University Ave., #S320 Little Rock, Ar 122Q1 (501) 664-8363 WORK EXPERIENCE: 1990- Employed as senior officer of a 501(c)3 non-profit international development organization operating in 34 countries. Annual budget of $9 m i 1 1 1 An non-prof i t Annual budget of $9 million. 1987-1990 Ogg. Nat Iona 1 Bancshares, Inc, , Little Rock, Ar. Senior Vice President/Senior Investment Officer $500 million multi-bank holding company of million multi-bank holding company. Chairman of Investment and Asset-Liability Management tVl m 1  * Ci r\\ n C*  .. 4. 2 _____! . Committees. Executive Committee. 1983-1986 Bre_n_twood_Bank of California. Los Angeles, Ca. President and Chief Executive Officer, three-year contract, planned, founded. Under a iniee-yw contract, planned, founded, staffed and managed this successful new bank for a group of local investors. - third year. Reached $100 million in assets in 19811983 American National Bank. Bakersfield, Ca. Executive Vice President/Chief Operating Officer and Chief Financial Officer, Directed all line and staff departments in this $700 million bank with 30 branch offices. 1980-1981 National Cooperative Bank,Washington, Director of Lending and Investment, Planned, founded, staffed and initiated operation of the lending and treasury divisions of this national development bank created by Act of Congress with initial capital of $130 million. D.C. 1974-1979 QPEQrtuaity Funding Corporation. Washington, D.C. Senior Vice President for Program Development. Regional Director - Southern United States. Washington Managed venture capital and Ioan programs supporting regional and local development organizations in twenty states. -  state, Designed, developed and managed the primary national capital support program for minority-owned financial inst i tut ions. Inc_^, Little Rock 1976-1979 (concurren Cooperative Assistance Fund. New York, N.Y. t) Managing Director of this venture capital fund created from the pooled program-reIated investment funds of ten major national foundations including Ford, Rockefeller, Rockefeller Brothers, Mott,FEB-25-93 THU 17:39 SUSAN W WRIGHT FAX NO. 5013246576 P. 12 RESUME DAVID JAMESON Page 2 19731974 u. s. 1970-1973 1969-1970 1968-1969 1965-1968 Small Business Administration, Honolulu, Worked under a two-year contract tq init iate U.S. government lending and development programs in Micronesia, Guam, and American Samoa. Trained commercial banks, government agencies and local business groups in credit criteria and processing requirements for federal programs. Central Banking Svstem, Inc., Oakland, Ca, Administrator of Affiliate Banks, Inc Planned and directed operation of six community banks owned by this multi-bank holding company. Concurrently company. served as Chief Operating Officer and Chief Financial Officer of affiliate banks located in Livermore and Fresno, Ca. Deposit National Bank, Mobile, Al, President/CEO under a three-year contract to turn- around and sell this failing bank. Successful, Union National Bank, Little Rock, Ar. Commercial Loan Officer and Assistant to chairman. Wells Fargo Bank, San Francisco, Ca. Loan Officer and Regional Loan Supervisor. Completed bank management and loan training program with #1 ranking in group of 48. MILITARY SERVICE\n1960-1963 United States Army, _ Stationed at The White House COjnniuni cat ions Agency, Washington, D.C, specialist in communications security and intelligence at The White House, Served as EDUCATION: 1963-1965 University of Arizona, Tucson, Arizona. Bachelor of Arts in Liberal Arts, with Honors. 1960 University of Poitiers, France. 1958-1960 Princeton University, Princeton, N.J. Received National Scholarship based on high school record and SAT scores. PERSONAL: Born 1940 in Missouri. One son, 18 years old. Hi.FEB--25-93 THU 17:34 SUSAN W WRIGHT FAX NO, 5013246576 P. 02 February 24, 1993 The Honorable Susan Wright U.S. District Judge 600 W. Capitol Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Dear Judge Wright: I recently moved to Arkansas after completing my military service and have watched with interest the process and progress of the court in effecting an accecptable measure of desegregation in the LRSD. Todays article in the Democrate- Gazette suggests a further intrusion into the District's operations is forthcoming. Perhaps my background and experience would be useful to you in these endeavors. I have attached a resume and experience history for your perusal. I would add that I still have the energy, initiative and integrity of my previous office and I am politically unencumbered. I am available at your convenience. Sincerely, Colonel, nited States Arra\u0026gt;-Retired ?ECiE(VSD OF WJS.AS WR/gHT FEB 25 1993 IJ. S. DfSTRlCT JUDGE FEB-25-93 THU 17:34 SUSAN W WRIGHT FAX NO. 5013246576 P. 03 Background Executive Management Project Management Resource Management Operations Training Development Evaluation Personnel Management Education Personal Edvard N. Rolle 63 Sunset Lane Cabot, Arkansas (501) 843-2474 72023 EXECUTIVE MANAGEMENT Over fifteen years in fast paced, demanding Executive, Project and Resource management positions. ___1. experience in operations, training development and evaluation, personnel management and administration. Extensive As deputy chief of a large office within the Operations Directorate of the National Security Agency, coordinated, defined and evaluated operational intelligence activities, improved resource allocation and programming processes, chaired promotion and awards boards and supervised out year planning. As the chartered Project Manager, directed a $120 million Department of Army integrated intelligence automation project in South Korea supporting both senior US and Korean commanders. Defined, acquired, installed and supported widely dispersed networked system of 3 mainframes and 122 terminals. Formulated major modification resulting in a more responsive user friendly system simultaneously avoiding over $1.5 million costs. Project was on-time, within budget with the system 98% operationally available. Effectively managed multi-million dollar long term system oriented fiscal program for the Director of Operations, The National Security Agency. Devised methodologies for system integration leading to the elimination of duplication. Presented, defended and justified program through to congressional submission. cross Revamped and streamlined operational and exercise intelligence support provided to worldwide deployed military forces. Eliminated cumbersome and inefficient decision layers which resulted in a responsive, competent and motivated staff. Conceived, initiated, and contracted a revised, comprehensive training program for automation system users. Reduced training time by 30% through expanded on-site training programs. Measured user performance and tailored training accordingly. more Measured user performance and tailored Highly successful record in selecting and developing staffs, motivating and leading individuals or groups to accomplishing organization'\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_275","title":"Chapter 1 Programs of Public Law, 100-297","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":["1992/1995"],"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","Arkansas. Department of Education","Educational planning","Student assistance programs"],"dcterms_title":["Chapter 1 Programs of Public Law, 100-297"],"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/275"],"dcterms_temporal":null,"dcterms_rights_holder":null,"dcterms_bibliographic_citation":null,"dlg_local_right":["Available for use in research, teaching, and private study. Any other use requires permission from the Butler Center."],"dcterms_medium":["documents (object genre)"],"dcterms_extent":["170 pages"],"dlg_subject_personal":null,"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":"\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n\n\n\n   \n\n\n\n\n   \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n  \n\n  SLIP SHEET FOR REGULAR MEETING ON JUNE 25, 1992 LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 810 WEST MARKHAM STREET LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS June 25, 1992 RECEIVED JUN 2 6 1992 Otfice of Desegregation Monitoring TO: Board of Directors FROM: Estelle Matthis, Associate Superintendent for Educational Programs THROUGH: Ruth S. Steele, Superintendent of Schools SUBJECT: Program Application, Chapter 1 of Public Law 100-297 The ESEA Chapter 1 Application is being prepared for submission to the Arkansas Department of Education by the June 30, 1992, due date. Please fine attached a copy of the Program Abstract. When completed, copies of the Application will be provided for your review. The 1992-93 allocation is $4,376,161, which is based on a total of 10,164 eligible students. This represents an increase in funding in the amount of $1,001,279. The additional funds will be used to provide added services to our secondary students. The largest portion of Chapter 1 money will be utilized for paying the salaries for reading and mathematics teachers. We are continuing to work toward the completion of the Chapter 1 Application. It is recommended that you authorize the administration to submit the 1992-93 Chapter 1 Application to the Arkansas Department of Education.CHAPTER 1 APPLICATION FOR 1992-93 SCHOOL YEAR PROGRAM ABSTRACT The purpose of assistance under the Chapter 1 Program is to improve the educational opportunities of educationally-deprived children by helping such children succeed in the regular program of the local educational agency, attain grade-level proficiency, and improve achievement in basic and more advanced skills. These purposes shall be accomplished through such means as supplemental education programs, schoolwide programs, extended day/week, and the increased involvement of parents in their childrens education. Based on the annual needs assessment, which included a program survey, it was determined that our program should be expanded to the secondary level and provide remedial services in the areas of reading and mathematics. To this end, the greater portion of the program budget will be earmarked for paying the salaries for reading and mathematics teachers. While the major part of the budget will cover these personnel, other authorized activities include the following:  Acquisition of equipment and instructianal materials Employment of special instructional personnel, school counselors, and other pupil services personnel  Extended day/extended week tutorial services  Parental involvement activities A major change in Chapter 1 regulations in recent years is the increased emphasis on allocation of resources and the selection of students for the program. Chapter 1 guidelines specify that districts must utilize uniform criteria for selecting and serving students of greatest need. Utilizing the normal curve equivalent scores (NCEs) for each student, we are able to identify appropriate students to be served in a manner that is comparable from school to school. The process used to identify students to be served for the 1992-93 school year will allow the Little Rock School District to be in compliance with Chapter 1 guidelines. This Program Abstract should provide you a summary of the 1992-93 Chapter 1 Application. The Application will be forwarded to you for your review in the very near future.I ' Arkansas Democrat (gazette  THURSDAY, MARCH 3,1994 Coovncnt /S Little Rock Newsoaoe^- Application errors by LRSD hold up\n$4.2 million in aid One problem remains to be solved been resolved, Lovell said. Information on the final issue is e.xpected to be delivered to the Education De- BY CYNTHIA HOWELL Democrai-Gazene Education Writer State officials have withheld more than $4.2 million in federal compensatory education money for the Little Rock School District because of problems with the application. The districts initial Chapter I apolication had incomplete of conflicting information when it was submitted to the department in August 1993, said Clearance Lovell, associate director for fed^al programs in the state Department of Education. Federal Chapter I money partment this week. The final issue centers on Woodruff Elementary School and whether it is eligible for a schoolwide Chapter I pro- is used by districts to supplement mathematics and reading instruction. The ject. Lovell said Wednesday the department has problems , with the Little Rock district s application yearly, but the problems have not been^se- rious enough to cause the district to lose its funding. The district is one of two' in the state that has not re- j ceived its funding this Y^^r- The other is the Earle School District in east Arkansas.. I monVyts allotted based on The Little poverty rates of the families grant is the largest Chapter of children in a school. How- I grant awarded by the state. eUf seMces are provided Lovell said he doesn t be to any individual pupil based lieve the size of thedistnjit on academic need and not so- or the gra Rocks cioeconomic status. All Lit- shou d cause Little Rock s tie Rock elementary schools problems, since the ann 1 get at least some Chapter I grant money, although not all funds to pay administrati buildings have schoolwide costs. In addition to the Chapter I application problems, the Education Department had problems with the Little Rock districts accreditation report earlier this school year. As a result, the department was delayed in mining whether Little Rock schools complied with state education standards. The reporting problems were cor- a projects. . The fact the district had not received its money for this year became public last Friday during a federal court hearing on the Little Rock districts budget. Superintendent Henry Williams said the services are being provided to pupils despite the lack of funding. All but one of Little Rocks application problems have rected..-.i- * Arkansas DEPARTMENT of EDUCATION FEDERAL PROGRAMS 4 STATE CAPITOL MALL  LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS 72201-1071 . (501) 682-4475 GENE WILHOIT. Director, General Education Division fl n n *^771-^ id' SEP 9 1994 MEMORANDUM Oifics oi L TO\nFROM: Ms. Ann Brown, Office of Desegregation Anita R. Farver, Program Advisor, Chapter 1 DATE: September 7, 1994 SUBJECT\nLittle Rock School District Please find enclosed a copy of the letter dated July 25, 1994, that was sent to the Little Rock School District concerning their cancellation of Chapter 1 school improvement meetings. STATE BOARD OF EDUCATION\nChiinnin . ELAINE SCOTT, Little Rock  Vice Oiaiman  RICHARD C SMITH JR.. Tillar Membera: CARL E BAGGETT, Rogers  WILLIAM B. FISHER, Paragould a JAMES M. LLEWELLYN, JR, Fort Smith  JAMES A McLARTY III, Newport a RAE RICE PERRY. Arkadelphia a SHERRY WALKER, bttle Rock a NANCY M. WOOD. Little Rock An Equal Opponunicy Empioyer I Arkansas DEPARTMENT of EDUCATION FEDERAL PROGRAMS 4 STATE CAPITOL MALL . UTTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS 72201-1071  (501) 682-4475 GENE WILHOIT, Director, General Education Division July 25, 1994 J 1 -^RX LEA Code No: 60-01 SEP 9 iqqa Mr. Leon Adams, Coordinator Little Rock School District 810 West Markham Street iHico of :r\nLittle Rock, AR 72201 Dear Mr. Adams: Mrs. Farver and I were disappointed to hear that the Chapter 1 school improvement meetings planned for July 27-29 have been cancelled by your district. Unfortunately, we will not be able to reschedule these meetings until late September. This of course means that Chapter 1 funds will not be available to the Little Rock School District until those plans are submitted and approved. In addition, the law is clear that these plans must be in place when school starts so delaying them any longer could cause problems. Sincerely, Elizabeth Gaston Program Advisor Chapter 1 )r- EG/mbm cc: Estelle Mathis Bob Kerr Clearance Lovell STATE BOARD OF EDUCATION\nOuirron  ELAINE SCOTT, Little Rock  Vee Ouimun  RICHARD C SMITH JR.. Tillar Members CARL E BAGGETT, Rogen  WILLIAM E HSHER, Paragould  JAMES M. LLEWELLYN, JE, Fort Smith  JAMES A McLARTY III, Newport  RAE RICE PERRY, Arkadelphu  SHERRY WALKER, Uttle Rock  NANCY M. WOOD, Little Rock * 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 September 9, 1994 Anita R. Farver, Chapter 1 Program Advisor Arkansas Department of Education 4 State Capitol Mall Uttle Rock, AR 72201-1071 Dear Anita: Thank you for your memo letting me know that the Uttle Rock School District cancelled its summer Chapter 1 school improvement meetings. 1 am very concerned about both the financial and educational consequences of the districts action, and will follow up immediately. I very much appreciate your keeping me informed. Sincerely yours, Ann S. Brown 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 (SOI) 376-6200 Fax (501) 371 -0100 September 12, 1994 Mark Milhollen Manager for Support Services Little Rock School District 810 West Markham Street Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Dear Mark: I have just become aware that the Chapter 1 funds will not be available to the Little Rock School District until the district complies with the federal regulations regarding them. Apparently the scheduled July 27-29 1994 school improvement meetings that are a prerequisite for approval were not held. Recalling the late approval process that the district went through last fiscal year I am sure that you will give this matter your prompt attention. If this office can assist you please call upon us. Sincerely yours, Bob Morgan Associate Monitor 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 September 12, 1994 Mark Milhollen Manager for Support Services Little Rock School District 810 West Markham Street Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Dear Mark: I have just become aware that the Chapter 1 funds will not be available to the Little Rock School District until the district complies with the federal regulations regarding them. Apparently the scheduled July 27-29 1994 school improvement meetings that are a prerequisite for approval were not held. Recalling the late approval process that the district went through last fiscal year I am sure that you will give this matter your prompt attention. I will be calling you soon to discuss your plans. Sincerely yours, Bob Morgan Associate Monitor Encl: Itr. Elizabeth Gaston to Leon Adams July 25,1994 /] * \u0026gt; 1 . I DENI IrI CAT I OU: a. LEA: t). c. 2 . 3. NU I !Gh OF GRANT AWARD FOR AN APPROVED PROGRAM UNDER CHAPTER 1 OF TITLE I, ESEA AS AMENDED Little Rock School District Name of Applicant Agency 60-01 LEA Code No. 801 West Markham Address Grant: Source 61 Class 4411 Program\nCONDITIONS: 6 f\nNOV 1 0 1994 Office of Desegregation Monitoring Little Rock, Arkansas C i ty State 72201 Zip Code Amount $ 4,456,721.23 Term - From July 1,1994 to June 30,1995 Program No. 93-3 Effective Dates F rom Approval Period July 1, 1994 to June 30, 1995 August 15, 1994 to June 30, 1995 Approval No. 95-293 Ihe above local educational agency (LEA) is hereby awarded a grant of funds under Chapter I of Title I of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965, as amended for the purpose of providing assistance to meet the special needs of educationally deprived children served by it. The award is made to the LEA on the condition that it be used to support the program identified above and described in its original application and approved The applicant must develop and implement the program and projects described in its applications in accordance with the Assurances it has made to support its applications and in compliance with the provisions of Chapter I of Title I and the federal regulations and state policies for administration of amendments thereto. Chapter I. The amount of the grant identified above includes Chapter 1 funds as follows: A1 I Cash on Hand All Allotment Balance F rom $ $ Reallocation Funds $ From the 1995 Allotment . 168,511.23 25,212.00 -0- $ 4,262,998.00 AUTHORIZATION: Authorization for the above grant is based upon the information contained in the LEA's application relating to the above identified program which applications have been reviewed and determined to be in compliance with all applicable laws and regulations\nhowever, neither the approval of the applications by the State Education Agency nor the issuance of this grant shall in any way relieve the ITA of its responsibility to comply with all applicable requirements. In confirmation of the foregoing, we attest by signature. Recommended by: Approved by: Coordinator, Chapter 1 Pjblic Law No. 100-297\n20 use 2701 ' Date ssociate F Ass ate Director for Federal Programs ADE Form No. FED-01-00-014 ////^ /! Date 6-91Office 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: September 13, 1994 To: Hank Williams CONnODniAL From: Subject- m Brown Delays in Chapter 1 funds to the LRSD I wanted to let you know that 1 recently received a copy of the attached fetter from ADE. Although Mrs. Elizabeth Gaston signed the letter, it was a supervisor, not Mrs. Gaston, who forwarded the letter to me. Bob Morgan is \"formally\" following up the delayed Chapter 1 funds with Mark Milhollen, but I wanted to privately make sure that you knew about this. 1 dont know why the meetings were cancelled, but I cant imagine circumstances that should have resulted in their cancellation and the resulting m.oney delays. Enc.I Arkansas DEPARTMENT of EDUCA.T1ON FEDERAL PROGRAMS 4 STATE CAPITOL MALL  UTTLE ROCK. ARKANSAS 72201-1071 . (501) 682-4475 GENE WILHOIT, Director. General Education Division July 2S, 1894 7^33 i 7 LEA Code No: 60-01 SE? 9 iQOi Mr. Leon Adams, Coordinator Little Rock School District 310 West Markham Street Little Rock, .AR 72201 of i Liear Mr. Adams: Mrs. Far'/er and I were disappointed to hear that the Chapter 1 school improvement meetings planned for July 27-29 have been cancelled by your district. Unfortxxnateiy, we will aox. be able to reschedule these meetings until late September. This of course means that Chapter 1 funds will not be available to the Little Rock School District until those plans are submitted and approved. In addition, the law is clear that these plans must be in place when school starts so delaying them any longer could cause problems. Sincerely, Elizabeth Gaston Program Advisor Chapter 1 ,1^ EG/mbm cc: Estelle Mathis Bob Kerr Clearance Lovell STATE BOARD OF EDUCATION: Chiinnin  ELAINE SCOTT, Little Rock . Vm Ouirnuti  RICHARD C SMITH JR, TllUr Membax CARL E BAGGETT. Root . WILLIAM B. FISHER. Paragould . JAMES M. LLEWELLYN. JR, Fort Smith  JAMES A MclARTY HL Newport(c: .s: Arfonsas DEPARTMENT of EDUCATION FEDERAL PROGRAMS 4 STATE CAPITOL MALL  LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS 72201-1071  (501) 682-4475 GENE WILHOIT, Director, General Education Division September 14, 1994 Dr. Henry P. Williams Superintendent of Schools Little Rock School District 810 W. Markham Street Little Rock, AR 72201 received SEP 1 6 1994 Dear Dr. Williams: Ofiics CI usascrcgaiion Moi Thank you for your letter of September 2, 1994, and your expression' of appreciation. The Chapter 2, ESEA, staff has been working in a spirit of cooperation with the Little Rock School District by approving your district's requests to waiver excessive carryover in fiscal years 1989 ($84,386.54), 1990 ($41,061.03), 1991 ($55,438.79) and 1992 ($55,914.25). I., il__ 1 district was cautioned (see attached letter dated September 3, 1992) that excessive carryover could not be approved for a fifth consecutive year. In fiscal 1993, the 3, At the end of fiscal 1993, the Little Rock School District had balance of $90,919.70. - - ___ a carryover This was $69,767 over the 10% limit allowed. TLa Handbook for Chapter 2, ESEA, page 4, #7 states: \"Excess balance will be defined as ten percent of the LEA grant or $2,500, whichever is greater. voiiuequentxy, * , fxscal 1994 Grant Allotment of $192,433.00 was decreased to a Grant Award of $122,666.00. Even with that reduction in monies and a May, 1994 expenditure of nearly $6,000 in Professional Development tapes, the Little Rock School District has an excessive balance for fiscal 1994. The t Consequently Annual Financial Report is $39,354.59. percent limit. The total carryover reported on the Thia is $20,111.29 over the allotted ten The sig- nificant carr.y over f-o-r - sixth\" consecutive year, even after a $69,767 reduction xn fiscal 1994 grant monies a tt reauctxon xn fxscal 1994 grant monies, appears to indicate that the district needs less money to operate its Chapter 2, ESEA, programs. Your letter stated you ^Te \"putting into place strategies that will prevent thia situation from takxng place in the future.\" Our office recognizes the Little Rock District's problems and will evaluate another waiver request if you will detail these strategies for fiscal 1995 and tell how they are different from past, unsuccessful efforts to reduce the excessive carryover. ESEA, programs. 1995 how they are different If you have any questions or if I can be of further help, please call the Chapter 2 office at 682-4278. Sincerely, Bernadine Hoffman Program Administrator Chapter 2, ESEA BH:rh attachment cc: Ann Brown STATE BOARD OF EDUCATION\nChainmn  ELAINE SCOTT, Link Rock  Vice Chaintun  RICHARD C SMITH JR.. Tillar Memub er. /C'AADRIL nE n A  B. FISHER---.- --P---a-ri^mKuouniwd w.k J AM 'E S M . LLEWEUYN, JR. Fo r(t\\ iSLm,niAthA .U J AMOEMS I A1 n. M I tctL,A lRllTUYr HI. Newport lAnonsas_____________________ DEPARTMENT of EDUCATION FEDERAL PROGRAMS 4 STATE CAPITOL MALL  LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS 72201-1071  (501) 682-4475 Burton L. Elliott, Director, General Education Division September 3, 1992 Mr. Leon Adams Project Director Little Rock School District 310 W. Markham Street Little Rock, AR 72201 Dear Mr. Adams: Records in the Chapter 2 office verify that for the past five years. the Little Rock School District has extenuating circumstances and submitted a letter stating policy relating to excessive carryover. ESEA, pg. 4, #6 and #7 state: tl requesting a waiver on Chapter 2 The Handbook for Chapter 2, When an LEA has been determined to have excess balance on hand, payment from the current grant will be delayed until assurances are received as to the disposition of the balance. 6 . 7. Excess balance will be defined as ten percent of the LEA grant or $2,500, whichever is greater. letter will serve to notify the Little Rock School District a all monies in excess of 10% of the district's allocation as of June 30, 1993, will be withheld from current (1993-94) grant. If you have questions, please call the Chapter 2 office at 682-4276. Sincerely, Glenda Peyton Coordinator Chapter 2, ESEA GP:rjb cc: C. M. Bernd Superintendent An Equal Opportunity Employer cr Aikansas DEPARTMENT of EDUCATION FEDERAL PROGRAMS 4 STATE CAPITOL MALL . LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS 72201-1071 . (501) 682-4475 GENE WILHOIT, Director, General Education Division RECEJVPO October 3, 1994 OCr 7 f994 Dr. Henry P. Williams Superintendent of Schools Little Rock School District 810 West Markham St. Little Rock, AR 72201 Office of Desegregation Monitoring Dear Dr. Williams: Thank you for your letter of September 29, 1994. The Chapter 2, ESEA, appreciative of your efforts to meet federal guidelines in the expenditure of your Chapter 2, ESEA, grant In your letter you have outlined some viable steps which agree will reduce the carryover balance at the end of office is 1994. monies. your 2 we ayxee reouce tne the fiscal Completion of the strategies mentioned in the letter will indeed guarantee that monies are spent in a timely manner. Therefore, we are pleased to be able to approve the entire fiscal 1994 carryover of $39,354.59. carried into your year. the strategies current fiscal year. This money is to be fiscal 1995 project for expenditure in the Sincerely, Program Administrator Chapter 2, ESEA BH:rjh cc: Ann Brown BOARD OF EDUCATION: Chairman  ELAINE SCOTT, Little Rock  Vice Chairman  RICHARD C. SMITH JR. Tillar Members: CARL E BAGGETT, Rogers . WILLIAM B. FISHER, Paragould . JAMES M. LLEWELLYN, JR, Fort Smith . JAMES A. MclARTY III Newport  RRAAEF RRIICCEF PPEFRRRRYV, AArrLkta./d4eal\u0026gt;plnhkiua * ScHuEcRdRdYv uWzA a Lr KveEnR , Little Rocik . vN, Aa NCY aM e. WOOiD lU, L, iitNtlCeW RpoOcrtk An Equal Opportunity Employer (PC.' LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT Planning, Research and Evaluation TO: Ms. Estelle Matthis, Deputy Superintendent Dr. Russell Mayo, Associate Superintendent Mr. Dennis Snider, Assistant Superintendent, Secondary Dr. Richard Hurley, Director of Human Resources y Ms. Ann Brown, Office of Desegregation Monitoring Mr. Jerry Malone, LRSD Attorney Mr. John Walker, Joshua Intervenors Attorney RECEIVED FROM/ r. Robert Glowers, Director APR 7 1995 RE: Chapter 1 Information for Secondary Schools from School Profiles OtIiCQ of Oosogrcgalion Monitoring DATE: April 6, 1995 Enclosed is the Chapter 1 enrollment information for those LRSD secondary schools tliat have Chapter 1. (Some secondary schools do not have Chapter 1 programs). As you may recall, Chapter 1 information for secondary schools was not available on February 20, 1995, when the school profiles for the second semester were provided to you. This data is current as of the printing date of March 17, 1995. As you know, the eru'ollment for these programs is constantly changing, and updates are made periodically as the information becomes available from the schools. If you have any questions regarding this data, please contact Dr. Paul J. Smith at 324-2120. RLC:pjs Enclosure cc: Dr. Elenry P. Williams SchoPr 2.Doc01 LRSD GIFTED , CHAPTER/PROGRAMS ENROLLMENT 03/17/95 SCHOOL\n007 DUNBAR INT'L STUDIES MAGNET JH Program Black Male Black White White Other Other Total Female Male Female Male Female Count % Black Gifted/Talented 38 50 39 77 5 3 212 41.5% Chapter 1 Reading 78 49 6 3 1 0 137 92.7%01 LRSD GIFTED S, CHAPTER/PROGRAMS ENROLLMENT 03/17/95 SCHOOL: 009 FOREST HEIGHTS JR HIGH SCHOOL Program Black Male Black White White Female Male Other Other Female Male Total Female Count % Black Gif ted/Talented 34 65 22 15 0 2 138 71.7% Chapter 1 Reading 58 55 2 5 0 0 120 94.2%01 LRSD GIFTED \u0026amp; CHAPTER/PROGRAMS ENROLLMENT 03/17/95 SCHOOL: 010 PULASKI HEIGHTS JUNIOR HIGH Program Black Male Black White White Other Other Female Male Total Female Male Female Count % Black Gi fted/Talented 36 51 69 85 3 0 244 35.7% Chapter 1 Reading 72 54 4 0 0 0 130 96.9%01 LRSD GIFTED \u0026amp; CHAPTER/PROGRAMS ENROLLMENT 03/17/95 SCHOOL: on SOUTHWEST JUNIOR HIGH SCHOOL Program Black Male Black White White Female Male Other Other Female Male Total Female Count % Black G1fted/Talented 30 37 4 10 2 0 83 80,7% Chapter 1 Reading 45 55 5 2 3 3 113 88.5%01 LRSD GIFTED \u0026amp; CHAPTER/PROGRAMS ENROLLMENT 03/17/95 SCHOOL: 013 HENDERSON JUNIOR HIGH SCHOOL Program Black Male Black White White Other Other Female Male Total Female Male Female Count % Black Gifted/Talented 62 73 34 31 3 4 207 65.2% Chapter 1 Reading 77 55 3 0 1 0 136 97.1% I01 LRSD GIFTED \u0026amp; CHAPTER/PROGRAMS ENROLLMENT 03/17/95 SCHOOL: 015 CLOVERDALE JUNIOIt HIGH SCHOOL Program Black Male Black White White Other Other Female Male Total Female Male Female Count % Black Gi f ted/Talented 21 35 9 2 0 0 67 83.6% Chapter 1 Reading 87 68 11 5 0 0 171 90.6% - i IR LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 810 W. MARKHAM STREET LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS Jlii 19' June 29, 1995 Cffics ci Dassgi tVjor p.c MEMORANDUM TO\nTitle I (Chapter 1) Reading and Math Specialists FROM: Dr. Rici iuri^ Director of Human Resources SUBJECT: ELIMINATION OF CHAPTER 1 SPECIALISTS POSITIONS Due to changes in regulations regarding ESEA, Title I (Chapter 1) funding, the delivery of services will also change. As a result, the District has eliminated Title I reading and math specialists positions and established a new job title and job description under which these services win be provided by persons who are qualified to teach both reading and math.. The job description and a copy of the position announcement is attached. If you wish to be considered for this position, send a letter to Shirley Ridgel, Office of Human Resources, no later than the July 7 deadline. If you do not wish to be considered, or if you are not selected for a new position, you will be placed in a pool of teachers to be reassigned. On Tuesday, July 18, 9:00 a.m., in the Board Conference Room, you will be able to choose, by seniority , from a list of known vacant elementary teaching positions in the District.PLEASE POST LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 810 WEST MARKHAM STREET LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS 72201 PLEASE POST June 30, 1995 The Little Rock School District is now accepting applications for the following positions for the 1995-96 school year: POSITIONS\nTitle I Instructional Specialists - Thirty-Seven (37) Positions QUALIFICATIONS\n1. A bachelor's degree in elementary education. 2. Must meet Arkansas certification requirements. 3. 4. Minimum of three (3) years successful teaching experience with specific emphasis in the content area of teaching reading or mathematics. Consideration will be given to applicants with Chapter 1 experience. Evidence of successful teaching experiences with computers in a classroom or lab setting. 5. Evidence of successful experience in working with curriculum development and implementation. 6. Evidence of a strong commitment to quality desegregated education. 7. Evidence of strong interpersonal skills and a record of successful interaction with students, teachers, parents, and supervisory personnel. 8. Evidence of knowledge and skills in integrating reading and mathematics with each other and with other subject areas using an experimental approach. (K-4 Crusade Completion is desired). 9. Evidence of successful academic intervention with educationally disadvantages students. 10. Evidence of experience in working with other teachers as a trainer, coach, or mentor. note\nAPPLICANTS MUST BE PREPARED TO SHOW EVIDENCE OF THESE QUALIFICATIONS IN THE INITIAL SCREENING INTERVIEW.Title I Instructional Specialists REPORTS TO\nPrincipal JOB GOAL: To provide direct instruction to Title I students in reading and mathematics, to provide assistance to students in the District's instructional computer program, and to conduct staff development at the building level. BASIC PERFORMANCE RESPONSIBILITIES: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. Provides academic support to target students in reading and mathematics. Plans and uses effective teaching strategies for Title I students in reading and mathematics - focus on use of reading and mathematics technology, manipulatives, cooperative team learning. Shows an understanding of early childhood practices in reading and math. Assesses the accomplishments of students on a regular basis, and provides progress reports as required. Maintains Title I records on target students in assigned schools. Guides the learning process toward the achievement of instructional obj ectives. Conducts staff development for teachers through building level inservice meetings, demonstration lessons, team teaching, and joint lesson planning. Attends District level inservice on successful strategies for teaching reading and mathematics and serving students with educational needs in these areas. SALARY AND TERMS: Salary based on a teacher's nine and one-fourth (9.25) month salary schedule, plus benefits package. EVALUATION\nPerformance of this job will be evaluated annually in accordance with provisions of the Board's policy on Evaluation of Professional Personnel.Title I Instructional Specialists APPLICATION DEADLINE\nJuly 13, 1995, or any time later until a satisfactory applicant is recommended and approved. SEND WRITTEN LETTERS OF INQUIRY TO\nDr. Richard E. Hurley Director, Human Resources Little Rock School District 810 West Markham Street Little Rock, AR 72201 NOTE: INDIVIDUALS WHO ARE INTERESTED IN THE ABOVE POSITION MUST COMPLETE A VERY RIGOROUS SELECTION PROCESS. THEREFORE, BECAUSE AN INDIVIDUAL APPLIES FOR A POSITION DOES NOT NECESSARILY MEAN THAT AN INTERVIEW WILL BE CONDUCTED. The Little Rock School District is an Equal Opportunity Employer. Equity concerns may be addressed to the Associate Superintendent for Desegregation. It is the policy of the Little Rock School District not to discriminate on the basis of age, sex, race, color, religion, national origin, or disability in its educational programs, activities or employment practices.VACANT7.XLS i Elementary scools vacancy list 6/16/95 3/4 EXCESS EXCESS I TITLE lAUX PS I ELEM. - (ELEM.-1ST lELEM. - 1ST I ELEM. - IST I ELEM. - 1ST I ELEM. - 1ST I ELEM. - 2ND I ELEM. - 2ND !ELEM. - 2ND I ELEM. - 2ND I ELEM.-2ND iELEM.-2ND I ELEM. - 3RD (ELEM. - 3RD I ELEM. - 3RD (ELEM. - 3RD (ELEM. - 3RD (ELEM.-3RD (ELEM.-3RD (ELEM.-3RD (ELEM. - 3RD (ELEM.-4TH (ELEM.-4TH (ELEM.-4TH (ELEM. -4TH (SCHOOL (MITCHELL (CLOVERDALE - (BALE_________ (BRADY CHICOT FULBRIGHT GEYER SPRINGS EXCESS ELEM. - STH ELEM. - STH ELEM. - STH IELEM.-STH_________ (ELEM.-STH_________ IELEM. - STH_________ (ELEM. - STH_________ (ELEM. - STH/6TH (ELEM.-STH_________ IELEM. - STH_________ (ELEM. - STH lELEM.-STH_________ (ELEM. - ART_________ IELEM. - ART_________ lELEM.-K___________ IELEM. -K___________ (ELEM.-LIFE SCIENCE (BOOKER_________ (CARVER (DODD (FULBRIGHT (MITCHELL (RIGHTSELL (BOOKER (MEADOWCLIFF (PULASKI HEIGHTS (RIGHTSELL (ROCKEFELLER 'TERRY (WAKEFIELD (WASHINGTON (WOODRUFF (DODD (FRANKLIN (MABELVALE (GARLAND________ I BOOKER (FAIR PARK (GARLAND (GEYER SPRINGS (MEADOWCLIFF (ROCKEFELLER (WOODRUFF {forest PARK I BALE (CARVER_________ IFOREST PARK (WASHINGTON M.L.KING RIGHTSELL IFOREST PARK WATSON WASHINGTON |G \u0026amp; T__________ ' LIBRARIAN (LIBRARIAN (LIBRARIAN [math spec (.20) (MATH SPEC (.20) (MABELVALE/BADGETT (BADGETT___________ (ROCKEFELLER (WOODRUFF_________ [garland (JEFFERSON Page 1VACANTT.XLS MATH SPEC (.30) MATH-CHAPTER 1 MATH-CHAPTR 1 MATH-CHPTR 1 (.60) MUSIC MUSIC____________ ORCHESTRA READ CHPTR 1 READ - CHPTR 1 READING READING (.40) I READING (.40) EXCESS EXCESS READING (.40) SPE LD (.20) SPE-LD SPE-MP/HND SPEC EDUC SPEC EDUC N-CATEG SPEC EDUC N-CATEG SPEECH (.50) FOREST PARK FULBRIGHT BRADY/PUL.HGTS. WESTERN HILLS CHICOT GEYER S/WDRUFF BOOKER CHICOT TERRY GARLAND BRADY RIGHTSELL M.L.KING PUL. HEIGHTS ELEM MABELVALE WILSON GARLAND/McDERM BADGETT CARVER BASELINE BASELINE BASELINE WASHINGTON Page 2July 5, 1995 Shirley Ridgel Office of Human Resources Little Rock School District Little Rock, Arkansas Dear Ms. Ridgel: I wish to submit my letter to be considered for the job of Title I Instructional Specialist. I have been a teacher in the LRSD for 22 years, been a Chapter I - Math Teacher for 8 years. I have Thank you for your consideration of my request. Sincerely Janet Adams cc: LRCTA 929 W. Colonel Glenn Rd. Little Rock, AR 72210 821-2173\nThis project was supported in part by a Digitizing Hidden Special Collections and Archives project grant from The Andrew W. Mellon Foundation and Council on Library and Information Resoources.\n   \n\n   \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n   \n\n \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n \n\n  \n\n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n   \n\n \n\n\n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n\n\n  \n\n\n\n "}],"pages":{"current_page":51,"next_page":52,"prev_page":50,"total_pages":362,"limit_value":12,"offset_value":600,"total_count":4341,"first_page?":false,"last_page?":false},"facets":[{"name":"educator_resource_mediums_sms","items":[{"value":"worksheets","hits":2},{"value":"bibliographies","hits":1}],"options":{"sort":"count","limit":16,"offset":0,"prefix":null}},{"name":"type_facet","items":[{"value":"Text","hits":4079},{"value":"StillImage","hits":389},{"value":"MovingImage","hits":1}],"options":{"sort":"count","limit":16,"offset":0,"prefix":null}},{"name":"creator_facet","items":[{"value":"Connor, Eugene, 1897-1973","hits":567},{"value":"South Carolina Council on Human Relations","hits":246},{"value":"Federal Bureau of Investigation","hits":186},{"value":"Arkansas. Department of Education","hits":112},{"value":"Little Rock School District","hits":106},{"value":"Scholarship, Education and Defense Fund for Racial Equality","hits":75},{"value":"McCain, James T.","hits":66},{"value":"United States. Federal Bureau of Investigation","hits":57},{"value":"Student Nonviolent Coordinating Committee (U.S.)","hits":52},{"value":"Mississippi Freedom Democratic Party","hits":50},{"value":"Huckaby, Elizabeth","hits":41}],"options":{"sort":"count","limit":11,"offset":0,"prefix":null}},{"name":"subject_facet","items":[{"value":"Education--Arkansas","hits":824},{"value":"Little Rock School District","hits":615},{"value":"Little Rock (Ark.)--History--20th century","hits":575},{"value":"Birmingham (Ala.)--Officials and employees--Biography","hits":567},{"value":"Birmingham (Ala.)--Politics and government--20th century","hits":567},{"value":"Civil rights movements--Alabama--Birmingham","hits":567},{"value":"Politicians--Alabama--Birmingham","hits":567},{"value":"Civil rights workers","hits":507},{"value":"African Americans--Arkansas","hits":455},{"value":"Civil rights--Arkansas","hits":454},{"value":"Race discrimination--Arkansas","hits":454}],"options":{"sort":"count","limit":11,"offset":0,"prefix":null}},{"name":"subject_personal_facet","items":[{"value":"Connor, Eugene, 1897-1973","hits":567},{"value":"McCain, James T.","hits":259},{"value":"Huckaby, Elizabeth","hits":89},{"value":"Simpson, John Milton Bryan, 1903-1987","hits":89},{"value":"King, Martin Luther, Jr., 1929-1968","hits":79},{"value":"Davis, L. O.","hits":78},{"value":"Hayling, Robert Bagner","hits":74},{"value":"Bryant, Farris, 1914-2002","hits":52},{"value":"Phillips, Vel, 1924-2018","hits":42},{"value":"Stuart, Virgil","hits":39},{"value":"Mizell, M. Hayes","hits":35}],"options":{"sort":"count","limit":11,"offset":0,"prefix":null}},{"name":"name_authoritative_sms","items":[{"value":"Connor, Eugene, 1897-1973","hits":566},{"value":"Simpson, John Milton Bryan, 1903-1987","hits":89},{"value":"Davis, L. O.","hits":78},{"value":"King, Martin Luther, Jr., 1929-1968","hits":77},{"value":"Hayling, Robert Bagner","hits":74},{"value":"Bryant, Farris, 1914-2002","hits":52},{"value":"Phillips, Vel, 1924-2018","hits":42},{"value":"Stuart, Virgil","hits":39},{"value":"Ashmore, Harry S.","hits":34},{"value":"Brown, Robert R. (Robert Raymond), 1910-1994","hits":30},{"value":"Heiskell, John Netherland, 1872-1972","hits":30}],"options":{"sort":"count","limit":11,"offset":0,"prefix":null}},{"name":"event_title_sms","items":[{"value":"Little Rock Central High School Integration","hits":246},{"value":"Freedom Summer","hits":167},{"value":"Martin Luther King, Jr.'s Nobel Prize","hits":77},{"value":"Housing Act of 1961","hits":7},{"value":"Ole Miss Integration","hits":5},{"value":"Civil Rights Act of 1964","hits":3},{"value":"Freedom Rides","hits":2},{"value":"Integration of Clemson University","hits":2}],"options":{"sort":"count","limit":11,"offset":0,"prefix":null}},{"name":"location_facet","items":[{"value":"United States, Arkansas, 34.75037, -92.50044","hits":1644},{"value":"United States, 39.76, -98.5","hits":1603},{"value":"United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, 34.76993, -92.3118","hits":1212},{"value":"United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, Little Rock, 34.74648, -92.28959","hits":1146},{"value":"United States, Alabama, Jefferson County, Birmingham, 33.52066, -86.80249","hits":567},{"value":"United States, Mississippi, 32.75041, -89.75036","hits":439},{"value":"United States, South Carolina, 34.00043, -81.00009","hits":409},{"value":"United States, Florida, 28.75054, -82.5001","hits":373},{"value":"United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, Little Rock, Dunbar High School, 34.73231, -92.28654","hits":206},{"value":"United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, Little Rock, Central High School, 34.73683, -92.29895","hits":189},{"value":"United States, Mississippi, Forrest County, Hattiesburg, 31.32712, -89.29034","hits":86}],"options":{"sort":"count","limit":11,"offset":0,"prefix":null}},{"name":"us_states_facet","items":[{"value":"Arkansas","hits":1728},{"value":"Alabama","hits":573},{"value":"Mississippi","hits":569},{"value":"South Carolina","hits":504},{"value":"Florida","hits":375},{"value":"Wisconsin","hits":84},{"value":"Georgia","hits":74},{"value":"New York","hits":42},{"value":"District of Columbia","hits":9},{"value":"Virginia","hits":9},{"value":"","hits":7}],"options":{"sort":"count","limit":11,"offset":0,"prefix":null}},{"name":"year_facet","items":[{"value":"1964","hits":957},{"value":"1963","hits":664},{"value":"1965","hits":513},{"value":"1962","hits":472},{"value":"1957","hits":462},{"value":"1960","hits":456},{"value":"1966","hits":444},{"value":"1961","hits":440},{"value":"1967","hits":440},{"value":"1995","hits":429},{"value":"1959","hits":420},{"value":"1994","hits":409},{"value":"1958","hits":401},{"value":"1996","hits":397},{"value":"1993","hits":384},{"value":"1969","hits":383},{"value":"1968","hits":359},{"value":"1992","hits":357},{"value":"1991","hits":355},{"value":"1999","hits":347},{"value":"1997","hits":344},{"value":"2000","hits":333},{"value":"1998","hits":326},{"value":"2001","hits":323},{"value":"1970","hits":319},{"value":"1990","hits":308},{"value":"1971","hits":295},{"value":"2002","hits":292},{"value":"1956","hits":278},{"value":"2003","hits":278},{"value":"1989","hits":277},{"value":"1972","hits":268},{"value":"1955","hits":259},{"value":"2004","hits":256},{"value":"2005","hits":237},{"value":"1954","hits":230},{"value":"1981","hits":225},{"value":"1974","hits":221},{"value":"1987","hits":215},{"value":"1988","hits":214},{"value":"1975","hits":205},{"value":"1973","hits":203},{"value":"1984","hits":203},{"value":"1986","hits":202},{"value":"1985","hits":201},{"value":"2006","hits":201},{"value":"1977","hits":197},{"value":"1980","hits":197},{"value":"1982","hits":197},{"value":"1983","hits":197},{"value":"1979","hits":195},{"value":"1976","hits":189},{"value":"1978","hits":189},{"value":"2007","hits":189},{"value":"1952","hits":158},{"value":"2010","hits":157},{"value":"1951","hits":156},{"value":"1953","hits":156},{"value":"2009","hits":154},{"value":"2008","hits":153},{"value":"2011","hits":153},{"value":"1950","hits":148},{"value":"2012","hits":144},{"value":"1948","hits":142},{"value":"2013","hits":142},{"value":"2014","hits":141},{"value":"1947","hits":139},{"value":"1945","hits":134},{"value":"1946","hits":134},{"value":"1944","hits":133},{"value":"1949","hits":133},{"value":"1943","hits":127},{"value":"1942","hits":121},{"value":"1934","hits":120},{"value":"1940","hits":120},{"value":"1932","hits":119},{"value":"1936","hits":119},{"value":"1937","hits":119},{"value":"1939","hits":119},{"value":"1933","hits":118},{"value":"1935","hits":117},{"value":"1941","hits":117},{"value":"1930","hits":116},{"value":"1938","hits":116},{"value":"1924","hits":113},{"value":"1931","hits":113},{"value":"1929","hits":99},{"value":"1921","hits":96},{"value":"1928","hits":93},{"value":"1923","hits":92},{"value":"1926","hits":92},{"value":"1927","hits":92},{"value":"1922","hits":91},{"value":"1925","hits":91},{"value":"1909","hits":89},{"value":"1918","hits":89},{"value":"1919","hits":89},{"value":"1920","hits":89},{"value":"1908","hits":88},{"value":"1911","hits":88}],"options":{"sort":"count","limit":100,"offset":0,"prefix":null},"min":"1061","max":"2036","count":27224,"missing":0},{"name":"medium_facet","items":[{"value":"documents (object genre)","hits":4341},{"value":"correspondence","hits":288},{"value":"notes (documents)","hits":97},{"value":"lists (document genres)","hits":89},{"value":"memorandums","hits":84},{"value":"postcards","hits":56},{"value":"programs (documents)","hits":47},{"value":"reports","hits":39},{"value":"agendas (administrative records)","hits":38},{"value":"pamphlets","hits":38},{"value":"essays","hits":37}],"options":{"sort":"count","limit":11,"offset":0,"prefix":null}},{"name":"rights_facet","items":[{"value":"http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC-EDU/1.0/","hits":1880},{"value":"http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/CNE/1.0/","hits":1168},{"value":"http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC/1.0/","hits":654},{"value":"http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/UND/1.0/","hits":604},{"value":"http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/NoC-US/1.0/","hits":35},{"value":"http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC-NC/1.0/","hits":5}],"options":{"sort":"count","limit":11,"offset":0,"prefix":null}},{"name":"collection_titles_sms","items":[{"value":"Office of Desegregation Management","hits":830},{"value":"Historical Manuscripts and Photographs","hits":764},{"value":"Theophilus Eugene ‘Bull’ Connor Papers, 1959-1963","hits":566},{"value":"Land of (Unequal) Opportunity: Documenting the Civil Rights Struggle in Arkansas","hits":454},{"value":"Butler Center for Arkansas Studies Documents Collection","hits":447},{"value":"Civil Rights Library of St. Augustine","hits":372},{"value":"James T. McCain papers, 1957-1972","hits":257},{"value":"New insights in the American civil rights movement: South Carolina Council on Human Relations records","hits":249},{"value":"Judy Richardson Papers 1963-2014","hits":92},{"value":"March on Milwaukee: Civil Rights History Project","hits":85},{"value":"Faith Holsaert Papers 1950-2011","hits":45}],"options":{"sort":"count","limit":11,"offset":0,"prefix":null}},{"name":"provenance_facet","items":[{"value":"Butler Center for Arkansas Studies","hits":1279},{"value":"University of Southern Mississippi. Libraries","hits":765},{"value":"Birmingham Public Library (Ala.)","hits":567},{"value":"University of South Carolina. Libraries","hits":549},{"value":"University of Arkansas, Fayetteville. Libraries","hits":454},{"value":"Proctor Library","hits":372},{"value":"South Caroliniana Library","hits":321},{"value":"Duke University. Library","hits":137},{"value":"Golda Meir Library. Special Collections","hits":85},{"value":"Stuart A. Rose Manuscript, Archives, and Rare Book Library","hits":49},{"value":"Valdosta State University. Odum Library. Archives and Special Collections","hits":15}],"options":{"sort":"count","limit":11,"offset":0,"prefix":null}},{"name":"class_name","items":[{"value":"Item","hits":4326},{"value":"Collection","hits":15}],"options":{"sort":"count","limit":100,"offset":0,"prefix":null}},{"name":"educator_resource_b","items":[{"value":"false","hits":4335},{"value":"true","hits":6}],"options":{"sort":"count","limit":100,"offset":0,"prefix":null}}]}}