{"response":{"docs":[{"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","Little Rock (Ark.). Office of Desegregation Monitoring"],"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":null,"dcterms_medium":["documents (object genre)"],"dcterms_extent":null,"dlg_subject_personal":null,"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":"\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n\n\n\n   \n\n\n\n\n   \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n  \n\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_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":null,"dcterms_medium":["documents (object genre)"],"dcterms_extent":null,"dlg_subject_personal":null,"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":"\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n\n\n\n   \n\n\n\n\n   \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\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_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":null,"dcterms_medium":["documents (object genre)"],"dcterms_extent":null,"dlg_subject_personal":null,"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":"\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n\n\n\n   \n\n\n\n\n   \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n  \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_280","title":"Budget, court filings","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":["1992/1998"],"dcterms_description":null,"dc_format":["application/pdf"],"dcterms_identifier":null,"dcterms_language":["eng"],"dcterms_publisher":["Little Rock, Ark. : Butler Center for Arkansas Studies. Central Arkansas Library System."],"dc_relation":null,"dc_right":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC-EDU/1.0/"],"dcterms_is_part_of":["Office of Desegregation Monitoring records (BC.MSS.08.37)","History of Segregation and Integration of Arkansas's Educational System"],"dcterms_subject":["Little Rock (Ark.)--History--20th century","Little Rock School District","Education--Arkansas","Educational law and legislation","Education and state","Education--Finance"],"dcterms_title":["Budget, court filings"],"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/280"],"dcterms_temporal":null,"dcterms_rights_holder":null,"dcterms_bibliographic_citation":null,"dlg_local_right":null,"dcterms_medium":["documents (object genre)"],"dcterms_extent":null,"dlg_subject_personal":null,"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":"\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n\n\n\n   \n\n\n\n\n   \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n  \n\nIN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT\"'''^'- EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION y: LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT PLAINTIFF V. NO. LR-C-82-866 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, ET AL. DEFENDANTS i MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL. INTERVENORS KATHERINE W. KNIGHT, ET AL. INTERVENORS ORDER On November 14, 1991, the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit remanded the cause to the Court to review the parties' proposed modifications [May submissions] to the 1989 plans. 1 Little Rock School District, et al., Nos. 91-2640EA, 91- 2648EA, 91-2655EA, 91-2683EA, slip op. (8 th Cir. November 14, 1991) . In response to the order of the Eighth Circuit, the Court scheduled a hearing to begin on December 18, 1991. It informed the parties involved that. prior to reviewing their proposed modif ications, it would ask. the Pulaski County Special School District [PCSSD] to report on its financial situation and hear a ^The three school districts involved. Little Rock School District [LRSD], Pulaski County Special School District [PCSSD], and North Little Rock School District [NLRSD], and the Joshua Intervenors submitted proposed modifications to the settlement plan approved by the Eighth Circuit in Little Rock School District v. Pulaski County Special School District No. 1, 921 F.2d 1371 (Sth Cir. 1990).report from the Office of Desegregation Monitoring on the budgetary processes for desegregation expenditures which are employed by the three school districts involved in the matter. The Court determined that before it could consider proposed modifications to the settlement plans, it needed to learn whether there are district budgetary processes in place which will enable the Court to monitor the implementation of the plans. At the conclusion of the second day of the hearing, the Court expressed concern about its ability to effectively monitor the settlement plan without budgets that reflect the three school districts' intentions. goals, and priorities regarding their desegregation efforts. The Court specifically mentioned the state of the Little Rock School District's [LRSD] budgetary process. In its opinion approving the settlement plans of the three districts, the Eighth Circuit noted the parties have committed to \"solemn undertakings\" and stated: We accept these undertakings, again with the reminder that compliance with them will be closely monitored. If the District Court becomes convinced in the future that money is being wasted, and that desegregation obligations contained in the settlement plans are being flouted, it will be fully authorized to take appropriate remedial action. Little Rock School District v. Pulaski County Special School District No. 1, 921 F.2d 1371, 1390 (Sth Cir. 1990). The Eighth Circuit further directed the Court to \"monitor closely the compliance of the parties with the settlement plans and the settlement agreement, to take whatever action is appropriate, in its discretion, to ensure compliance with the plans and agreement. -2-and otherwise to proceed as the law and the facts require.\" Id. at 1394. The Court monitors the use of settlement monies through the Office of Desegregation Monitoring [ODM]. In October 1991, the ODM informed the LRSD 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 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. a [Document # 1517] Pursuant to the directives from and the considerable latitude and discretion given the Court by the Eighth Circuit, the Court finds that the LRSD's current budgetary process does not meet the above requisites and that it is necessary for the LRSD to submit revised cost figures to the Court. 2 Therefore, (1) The LRSD must submit a revised 1991-92 budget which is directly correlated to the specific provisions of the settlement plan and which are reflected on updated implementation timelines contained in the plan. 2 In a note to its May submissions, the LRSD indicated that the cost figures originally submitted with its desegregation plan were outdated and it would provide revised cost figures in a separate desegregation budget. To date, the Court is unaware of any such revised figures having been submitted or filed. -3-a (2) The LRSD must submit a long-range budget projection on per annum basis which covers all anticipated desegregation expenditures over the entire term of the desegregation agreement. (3) The LRSD must submit.a long-range revenue projection covering the same period of time, which includes revenues anticipated not only from the settlement monies and settlement loan, but also from state and millage revenues and any other money sources. This long-term projection will provide a clear picture of the district's financial future and, thereby, enable the LRSD to predict with accuracy if and when a millage increase will be needed. The amount and time of any anticipated millage increase is to be indicated along with the date when the district will present a millage increase to the voters. (4) The LRSD has maintained that a significant portion of desegregation expenditures are \"start up.\" The district must specifically identify which desegregation costs are \"start up\" and when these start up costs will terminate. (5) The revised budget shall be prepared in consultation with the Office of Desegregation Monitoring and shall be submitted to the Court within thirty (30) days after the Court rules either from the bench or in a written order on the proposed modifications. - By this Order, the Court confirms its oral approval of the construction of the interdistrict school at the Crystal Hill site. Further, the Court confirms oral instructions made to the parties to explore alternative sites for the construction of King -4-Interdistrict School along the 1-630 corridor. DATED this ^/^^dav of January, 1992. '1^. trNlTED STATES DISTRICT J JUDGE r : OtJ ,PL!A\n2V...,^. - -- .. 1-,3-h '1?^ BHEET IN i) FRCP -5-4- oirsidTSSaSBAs IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT may -1 199\nEASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION 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 The Court held hearings on the parties' proposed modifications (May submissions) to the 1989 settlement plans on December 18-19, 1991\nJanuary 21-23, 27-28, 1992\nand February 6-7, 1992. This Order addresses those proposed changes. In its order approving the individual 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 (Sth Cir. 1990). The Court rejected the parties' May submissions. finding that they exceeded the authority granted by the Eighth Circuit. Little Rock School District V. Pulaski County Special School District No. 1, 769 F. Supp. 1483 (E.D. Ark. 1991).4 The parties' motion for reconsideration was denied. Little Rock School District v. Pulaski County Special Schools District No. 1, 769 F. Supp. 1491 (E.D. Ark. 1991). remanded the case and stated: On appeal, the Eighth Circuit The 1989 settlement which we approved last year should indeed be a benchmark for the future path of this case. The parties are not authorized to modify it at will Further, we agree, for the most part, that any changes approved should be concerned only with the details of plan, affecting it only at the margin, so to speak, wish to dispel, in particular, any notion that asserted lack of funds on the part of any of the three school districts would justify a reduction i.. commitment to desegregation represented in the 1989 plan . . . The desegregation obligations undertaken in the 1989 plan are solemn and binding commitments. The essence and core of that plan should not be disturbed. in particular, the We an in their The If a question is truly one only of detail, not affecting the major substantive commitments to desegregation. District Court has the authority to consider it. such changes, for example, as the District Court noted? may have merit, either because they advance desegregation, or for other reasons. they the Some Even 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. It may be helpful for us to state those elements of the 1989 plan that we consider crucial, and with respect to which no retreat should be approved. They are as follows. (1) double fundinc for stuHont'c: arronH-i-nrr retreat should be approved. They are as . funding students attending the incentive (virtually all-black) schools\nincentive (virtually all-black) schools\n(2) operation of the a^eed number of magnet schools according to the agreed timetable\n(3) operation of the agreed number of i^terdist.-ict schools according to the agreed timetable\n(4) intradistrict desegregation of PCSSD according to the agreed timetable\n(5) the agreed effort to eliminate achievement disparity between the races\n(6) the agreed elements of early-childhood education, at least in the incentive schools\nand (7) appropriate involvement of parents. Appeal of Little Rock School District, Pulaski County Special -2-School District No. 1, North Little Rock School District, cLnd Mrs. Lorene Joshua, 949 F.2d 253, 255-56 (Sth Cir, 1991) , In remanding the case to the District Court, Circuit further stated: the Eighth The parties' agreement should be upheld if 1^ constitutional, workable, and fair to class members, vu the other hand, the application of this test is affected by the new procedural context in which we now find the The 1989 settlement is a benchmark. if it is On case. xue xaay Although changes can be made, the District Court and we must take into account the potential for confusion, that constant change creates. ' even chaos, , - The parties and the public deserve a period of stability. Changes in details, or aeserve a period of stability. Changes in details, or at the margin, will not seriously interfere with this goal. Changes of greater significance, however, may well do so, and that fact must be taken fully into when such changes are proposed and considered. goal. account We recognize that the language somewhat general. of this opinion is It leaves a considerable degree of latitude District Court. That Court must determine in the first instance, using criteria we have suggested, what changes are mere details and what changes are outside that category. 7^ --_ _i__ ____ its own best judgment, what changes should be~approved\"\" notwithstanding their going beyond the level of detail* because they would advance desegregation or for other- sound reasons. The District Court should proceed with that discretion and flexibility that characterizes courts of equity. . . .[W]e will give a healthy measure of deference to the reasoned choices made by the District Court. to the That It must also determine, in Id. at 257. With this background in mind, the Court addresses the parties' proposed modifications. The changes that the Court approves will not be enumerated or addressed, for the most part. The Court comments on changes it approves subject to certain conditions and discusses in detail the substantive changes it will not approve, generally following the order of the provisions and their section -3-headings as they are found in the plans. are attached to the Order. INTERDISTRICT PLAN Baker and Harris Elementary Schools The 1989 plans require the Pulaski The plans as approved County Special School District (PCSSD) to establish interdistrict schools at Baker Elementary School and Harris Elementary School. The PCSSD now proposes to modify the settlement plan and eliminate Baker Elementary as thematic interdistrict school with expanded seating. According to the proposed modifications, the 200 a additional seats originally planned for Baker the new interdistrict school at Crystal Hill. would be placed at The PCSSD proposes to eliminate Harris Elementary as an interdistrict school and establish a new interdistrict school to be built along the Highway 67/167 corridor. The PCSSD claims that Baker has been desegregated without having to convert it into an interdistrict school,  the reason for its becoming an interdistrict school. thus obviating However, the Court finds that Baker's designation as an interdistrict school was intended not only to desegregate that school but also to aid in the desegregation of three additional elementary schools: Romine in the Little Rock School District (LRSD) and Lawson and 1, Other changes such as historical background and context, timelines, changes to correct language discrepancies and inconsistencies, and other changes which contribute to clarity or support intent, are not discussed. language discrepancies -4-Robinson in the PCSSD. Testimony and figures presented at the bearings indicate that failure to designate and promote Baker as an interdistrict school as originally planned may be impacting desegregation negatively in schools having difficulty achieving or maintaining compliance with the minimum required racial balance of their student enrollment. Because of the Court's concern about difficulties with racial balance at Baker, Romine, Lawson, and Robinson, and in the interest of adherence to the agreed number of interdistrict schools, the Court finds that Baker should interdistrict school. remain an The Court requires the district to look carefully at the quality of the programs at Baker, particularly the extended day program which was intended to attract students who would promote desegregation of the school. The extended day program must be expanded as necessary to accommodate additional students, particularly those transferring from the Romine area as emphasized in the plan. As promised in the original language of the plan. the PCSSD shall continue to provide its full compensatory education program at Baker so long as 35 or more black students have transferred from LRSD to Baker. The Court approves that portion of the modification that deletes the required addition of 200 seats at Baker. regard to Harris, testimony at the hearings convinced the Court that deleting the designation of Harris Elementary as an 2 PCSSD Superintendent Mr. Bobby Lester stated at the hearings that Baker is considered to be an interdistrict school. -5-interdistrict school and establishing instead a new interdistrict school in an easily accessible location is wise decision. a Because the Court finds that this proposed change will likely advance desegregation, it adopts the modification but delays until a later date ruling the PCSSD ^s motion to postpone for five years the construction of the new interdistrict school. The Eighth Circuit ordered in November 1991 that the agreed number of interdistrict schools be operated according to the agreed timetable. However, in a number of instances it was impossible to adhere to that order. For example, under the 198 9 plan. Crystal Hill was scheduled to open in 1990-91. It is now scheduled to be ready for the 1992-93 school year. Romine did not meet the original date but it is now open. As with the new interdistrict school to take the place of Harris, the dates for the establishment of Stephens and King are the subject of a pending motion and will be determined at a later date. PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT As with the interdistrict plan, the Court determines that the ^^jority of the modifications proposed by the PCSSD are concerned with details and. therefore. are approved. However, certain modifications the Court finds substantive of two of the primary goals of the and student achievement. case. and unsupported in light i.e. racial integration PATWICK The PCSSD proposes to eliminate PATWICK, a program established -6-to enable parents to meet and work activities designed to aid their cooperatively with teachers in children's progress in school. Dr. Bobby Altom, the PCSSD's Assistant Superintendent for Instruction, testified that other parental involvement programs are being planned but are not identifiable at this time, of the Eighth Circuit's emphasis on parental involvement. In light the Court determines that PATWICK should remain in the plan until the district has designed, and the Court has parental involvement program that holds approved, a comparable promise of meeting the goals PATWICK was expected to achieve. Special Education The parties propose to delete certain language in the plan regarding the reduction of disparity between black and white students and the elimination of disproportionality within races in special education. While the Court approves the addition of new language regarding the relationship between disproportionality in special education. social deprivation and the original language regarding long-range goals must remain in order for the Court to monitor progress toward the goal of reducing achievement disparity between the races and reducing over representation of black students in special education classes. In the plan section dealing with special education screening and internal monitoring. changes have been proposed that would eliminate the requirement for a central office review committee. thereby reducing from three to two the levels in a screening process intended to prevent black students from being referred for -7-special education indiscriminately. At the hearing, a PCSSD witness testified that meaningful changes in the referral process should come from involvement at the local school level and that building practitioners should bear the burden of responsibility and accountability for the initial special education screening and review. The witness stated that the district will require those schools with over representation of black special education students to submit plan for correcting the placement disproportion. The Court is reluctant to condone alteration of a process which should prevent special education placement problems and obviate the need for process to correct such problems after they have materialized. However, the Court agrees that site-based decision-making may encourage accountability and responsibility at the local school level by increasing the involvement of those closest to the children. The Court approves the change in the number of review levels from three to two with the may require the district to restore the third\ncaution that it review level if monitoring reveals ineffective efforts to eliminate special education placements. disparity in Information/Special Services The parties propose to strike references to each school having programs which include school volunteers. parent advisory committee. parent/teacher/student discipline committee. a a a a a school/community partnership arrangement, and \"any other organized structures which the principals and their respective communities feel necessary for positive schoolcommunity relations. Because -8-the Eighth Circuit considers parental involvement crucial to the success of the desegregation plan, the Court does not allow the change. Parent and community involvement in education must be enthusiastically invited and carefully managed throughout the district to sustain the interest and continued activities of parents, business people, retirees, and others in the schools. The district must strive to maintain positive relations with the public, supporting those efforts through such organized groups and programs as school/community partnerships. school volunteers. parent advisory committees, Biracial Committees, in the plan. and others named Secondary School Curriculum Coordinators The parties propose a modification that reduces the number of PCSSD secondary curriculum coordinators from thirteen to six.^ The 1989 plan promised that an instructional coordinator would be provided to support every discipline and that every teacher would have a coordinator to provide materials, demonstration teaching. instructional supervision, moral support, of each school's program effectiveness. and an annual assessment The Court is concerned that testimony regarding the curriculum coordinators indicated that the figure of thirteen was placed in the plan even though the PCSSD failed to consult with the district's assistant superintendent for instruction. In addition. Dr. Altom testified that the PCSSD did not believe that by was Testimony at the hearing was that seven and one-half curriculum coordinators presently were employed by the PCSSD. -9-describing thirteen positions in the plan it was committing to always having thirteen coordinators in place, testimony is combined with that heard during\nWhen Dr. Altom's a hearing on August 7, 1991, on the parties' joint motion for partial stay pending appeal, the Court is particularly disturbed. In August 1991, the PCSSD lawyer stated that the PCSSD did not intend for the number of curriculum coordinators to be a component of the settlement plan and that the district was merely \"loading\" its plan. In spite of the discrepancy between the plan language and subsequent testimony, the Court approves the reduction in the number of secondary curriculum coordinators from thirteen to six in light of Dr. Altom's testimony that the reduction was made in the firm belief that removal of the positions would not result in substantial change in student performance as measured by the district's standardized tests. the exit exams at the secondary a level, and the MPT exams at the third. sixth, and eighth grade levels. However, the Court recognizes the significant role of curriculum coordinators in providing important services to teachers and in the development, implementation, and maintenance of quality academic programs. When a reduction in the number of coordinators results in shifting many duties to a smaller group of employees. there is a danger that the increased administrative and supervisory responsibilities will yield inadequate support for personnel and programs that directly impact student performance. If disparity in student achievement does not improve or if test scores decline. the Court may require that the full number of curriculum -10-coordinator positions be restored. The Court also notes that the parties propose to delete in the Compensatory Education section the full time instructional specialist at the elementary level and assign the specialist duties to the assistant principal or Chapter 1 coordinator at schools where black student enrollment exceeds 40%. ] the instructional specialist position at each Elsewhere in the plan, elementary school has been deleted and the assistant principal is referred to as assistant principal/Chapter coordinator or assistant principal/instructional specialist, Once again, the parties seek 1 to saddle one individual with multiple duties and accept the risk that all duties will not get done. While the Court approves the modifications, it will carefully monitor student achievement and the district may be required to restore the Minority Facilitator Recruitment Program deleted positions. The PCSSD also proposes to change certain features of the Minority Facilitator Recruitment Program, a program designed to recruit black teachers as facilitators in the district's Talented and Gifted Program. As the Court understands it, the proposed changes concern that portion of the program which offers tuition assistance for black teachers who work for the district and who are interested in completing graduate courses which will qualify them to teach gifted and talented students (TAG and ALPHA programs). The program provides that for every one year that the teacher works for the school district. the PCSSD will fund six hours of coursework. If the teacher does not maintain a certain grade point -11-average, he or she must refund the money. Also, if the teacher does not complete the program, the debt must be repaid. The PCSSD proposes to lower the grade point average (GPA) these black teachers must maintain from a 3.0 to a 2.8 on a four-point scale and to forgive the debt for black teachers who are fired. The Court is troubled by these proposed modifications and declines to approve them. Lowering the GP.z^ requirement for black teachers receiving district-subsidized tuition for the gifted education courses they take sets a separate and inferior standard of performance for black teachers. The proposed change suggests that minority teachers either will be unable to maintain a 3.0 grade average or will be attracted to the program by a substandard achievement requirement. In addition, at a time when national and local emphasis is focused on higher expectations for student performance and the importance of educators as role models responsible for leading children to meet those increased expectations, it is inappropriate to lower the achievement standard for any group of teachers. of debt for teachers who Furtheirmore, the proposed forgiveness fired is illogical and inconsistent with the requirement that the tuition money be repaid the district by any teacher who chooses not to continue the program or who fails to fulfill the obligation to work in the district for one year for every six hours of coursework funded by the district. Air Force ROTC Program The parties proposed in the 1989 settlement plans to move the PCSSD's Air Force ROTC program from Jacksonville High School to -12-North Pulaski High School. In its modifications, the PCSSD deleted the proposed transfer and stated in hearings that the Air Force refused to grant pemission to move the program. In this Court's Stay Order of August 22, 1991, transfer of the ROTC program was \"stayed pending appeal, effective upon receipt by the Court of documentation of the PCSSD's efforts to move the program and the Air Force's denial of that move.\" To date, the Court has not received the information requested last August, obligated to furnish the required documentation Early Prevention of School Failure Program The parties remain to the Court. The Court approves the modification of language concerning measurement of the effectiveness of the Early Prevention of School Failure (EPSF) program and agrees that the Biracial Committee may have the opportunity to review and make recommendations regarding the effectiveness of such programs. Any decision regarding the effectiveness of the EPSF program is a curriculum issue, however. and not one within the exclusive province of the Biracial Committee. Furthermore, the Court understands that EPSF is a nationally validated program which is based upon young children's developmental stages. Any program which might replace EPSF, in whole or in part. must be comparable in validation scope and developmental grounding. Biracial Committee The Court notes that the parties have included a new plan subsection describing in some detail the composition and role of the PCSSD Biracial Committee. The Committee is to have 14 members -13-who are representatives of the district 's population and geography with each election zone to have two representatives, one black and one \"other member. The parties have agreed that the Joshua Intervenors will appoint half (seven) of the Committee members, four of whom will be black. In another area of the plan, new language regarding the Biracial Committee has been introduced. providing for a 30 day period for the \"advise and consent\" of the Biracial Committee regarding unresolved desegregation grievances. While the Court approves the changes concerning the Biracial Committee, it understands that the primary role of this volunteer group is to monitor the progress of the district toward the goals of the desegregation plan. If the Committee is asked to take on additional duties. the members must be recruited with full knowledge of the scope of their responsibilities and the time required to fulfill them. the Biracial Committee with new duties and allowing a 30 day period for the group's action must not be allowed to detract from the basic monitoring function of the Committee. LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT Four-Year-Old Program Long-Term Plan Under the terms of the 1989 plan, all schools in the LRSD were to implement a four-year-old program by the 1993-94 school year. The May submission deletes that commitment and proposes to replace it with provisions contained in a long-range implementation plan which was filed with the Court on October 1, 1991, and discussed -14-in the February 6 hearing. During the hearing the Court expressed specific concerns with certain of the modifications proposed in the LRSD Four-Year-Old Program Long-Term Plan (Long-Term Plan) and questioned the impact upon the implementation of early childhood education programs, a provision of the desegregation plan which the Eighth Circuit has identified as a crucial feature. The Court agrees with the parties that four-year-old programs are both compensatory and desegregatory in nature since they impact disparity of academic achievement by better kindergarten and also act to attract white preparing children for children to the public schools. The parties have convinced the Court that, as a desegregation tool, it is wise to place four-year-old programs in those schools or areas which have Therefore, the LRSD will not be proved difficult to desegregate, required to place four-year-old programs in every elementary school. However, the parties have made solemn promises regarding early childhood education. The Court views the four-year-old program as a substantive component of the settlement plan which holds achievement disparity between black promote racial balance in the schools. great promise to reduce and white children and to The Long-Term Plan does not satisfy the original intent of the parties regarding the scope of the four-year-old program. The Court will not release the parties from serving the number of children who would have been served had every school offered a four-year-old program as agreed in the 1989 plan. Also, the Long-Tenn Plan contemplates converting Ish incentive school to an early childhood center. The Eighth Circuit -15-has said that the incentive schools are crucial and stressed the importance of a period of stability. Closing an incentive school altering the function of such a school is a highly disruptive event which the Court would be reluctant to approve absent compelling evidence that such a change would better of desegregation. serve the goals The LRSD Four-Year-Old Program Long-Term Plan is not approved. The parties are required to refine the provisions of the Long-Term Plan and again petition the Court for approval within 30 days of this Order. The revised Long-Tera Plan must: 1) identify the precise number of children to be served by the LRSD using the standard of 18 classroom, as agreed by the parties\nstudents per 2) accommodate in four-year-old programs a number of children which equals or exceeds the number which would have been included if all schools in the district had a four-year-old program as originally planned\n3) place four-year-old programs in locations which will best further the goals of disparity reduction and racial balance\n4) eliminate the closing of an incentive school\n5) follow a time schedule in which implementation of four-year-old programs is completed by 1994-95, completion date identified in the Long-Term Plan\nthe and 6) limit reliance on four-year-old programs that are provided through agencies, such as Head Start, which the -16-district does not control and the goals of which do not parallel the settlement agreement goals of program scope, racial balance, location. and so forth. While the district IS encouraged to continue its cooperative relationship with agencies such as Head Start and the Cii.y of Little Rock Day Care Center, the parties may not shift to such programs the obligation the parties themselves assumed when they wrote the Special Programs 1989 plan. The LRSD proposes to eliminate Little Rock Job Corps Alternative Program from the settlement plan. Mr. James Jennings, LRSD Associate Superintendent for Desegregation Monitoring and Community Services, testified that the Job Corps Center no longer offers the Alternative Program and that there are other programs in place that deal with high school students who are at risk of dropping out of school: the LRSD Alternative Learning Center in the old Carver building, the JTPA Summer Learning Program, and a Changing Directions program. Additionally, Mr. Jennings and Mrs. Estelle Matthis, Associate Superintendent for Educational Programs for the LRSD, mentioned programs such as New Futures for Little Rock Youth and the Cornerstone Project with which the district collaborates to provide various services which promote student success. The district also proposes to delete the Homework Telephone Hotline for English, math. establishment of a science, and social studies. (This phone service is not the same homework hotline -17-which the district is required to provide for incentive school students.) Mr. Jennings testified that the funding for this Hotline, which was to be provided by the business community, had not materialized. Instead, some students who attend the four LRSD junior highs involved in the New Futures program can phone a recorded homework assignment message and can participate in an after school tutorial program. There is also a corporate-sponsored state telephone homework line which Little Rock students The Court approves the changes regarding the Little may use. Rock Job Corps Alternative Program since Job Corps no longer offers the program. However, the district must continue to provide students who are experiencing attendance or disciplinary problems with other programs similar to the Job Corps Alternative Program, such as this may wax and wane but the district remains Programs obligated to assure that there are ongoing comprehensive and effective services for students needing specialized support. The district is expected to make wise use of all available community resources. to maintain strong coalitions with such organizations as Job Corps, New Futures, and Cornerstone, and to seek new resources to take the place of those no longer available. The Court will carefully monitor the district's use of community resources and the LRSD's programs, policies, and practices which are designed to enable students to remain in school, promote their academic success, alleviate behavior problems. and The requirement for the Homework Telephone Hotline, other than the homework phone line which serves incentive school students. may -18-be removed from the plan because similar services are being provided by other organizations. However, the Court may restore the requirement for the district to implement a homework hotline if comparable services become unavailable elsewhere and students are not receiving adequate help with homework through hotlines other means. or New Futures The 1989 plan contains certain references to operations of the New Futures program which largely have been deleted in the May submission. The Court understands that the program as originally described in the plan is now outdated, operations of the program have changed. as certain features and At the hearings, several references were made to New Futures by two district witnesses. This testimony indicated that the district continues to depend upon New Futures, especially in four junior high schools, to provide such services as after-school tutoring centers, phone recordings of homework assignments, and extended day programs. Also, LRSD financial statements contain New Futures budget allotments and debits which attest to the district's ongoing relationship with the program. It IS incongruous to remove plan references to New Futures while continuing to rely heavily upon New Futures as a partner. The Court will not approve deleting from the plan language which describes New Futures' functions in LRSD schools at the time the plan was written until the parties provide the Court updated information which will replace the obsolete description of New Futures and its role in the LRSD schools. -19-Academic Support Programs In the 1989 plan, the LRSD approach to academic remediation was largely embodied within a program known as Program for Accelerated Learning (PAL). When PAL was incorporated into the plan, there was general understanding among the parties as to what the program entailed because the LRSD had developed an extensive written description of PAL and had begun widespread inservice training on its implementation. Mrs. Matthis testified at the January 23, 1992 hearing that there has been dissatisfaction with the results of PAL as it has existed and that the district desires to modify PAL and change the district's overall approach to remediation. The parties proposed to delete PAL from the language of the plan, replacing it with generic reference to an a unspecified number of unnamed \"LRSD academic support (remediation) programs.\" The Court is convinced that PAL as it has been implemented is an inadequate approach to remediation and does not wish the district to continue investing resources in an ineffective program\nyet the Court cannot sanction a complete abandonment of PAL or deletion of all references to it in the plan until the parties are able to replace it with an interrelated, programmatic approach to remediation that is sufficiently detailed for the Court to monitor. Therefore, the parties must submit within 60 days a written plan for the entire academic support program that is proposed to replace PAL. The plan must include the following\n1) the name and location of each academic support program\n-20-2) Clearly stated goals and objectives for each program\n3) a comprehensive description of each program's components and activities, including those which may be \"extended day\" in nature\n4) an overview of how all the individual academic support programs will be coordinated for continuity of services to children and efficient use of resources\n5) the number of students targeted for participation in each program by school and grade level\n6) the number of teachers or other staff (identified by position) responsible for delivering each of the academic support programs\n7) 8) implementation time lines\nanticipated costs\n9) an overview of the necessary staff training by content, by year, and by number of training participants\n10) evaluation criteria that will indicate how effectively teachers are implementing new instructional approaches. an element termed \"critical\" by the LRSD witness at the hearings\nand 11) evaluation criteria that will measure the degree to which each academic support program is successful in meeting its particular programmatic goals and objectives of remediating student achievement and contributing to the overall reduction -21-of disparity between black and white students/ According to LRSD financial data, materials and personnel for PAL have been underwritten by millions of dollars in settlement money. The district must salvage to the extent possible what has been invested in the PAL remediation approach. Staff positions, computer hardware, software programs. and other equipment and materials previously devoted to PAL should be properly reallocated toward the new approach to remediation. Additionally, in the LRSD remediation programs designed to address students' learning deficiencies, the parties propose to delete science and social studies as \"core areas\" through which requisite skills are maintained and reinforced at the secondary level. In their joint motion for partial stay pending appeal and during the hearing on the motion. the parties contended that science and social studies were deleted from the list of discrete academic support programs in order to emphasize remediation in the areas of English, reading, and math rather than \"diluting\" the program by including science and social studies.- At the hearing in January 1992, Mrs. Matthis indicated that removing students from class for remediation in social studies and science as well as for reading and math would result in increasing the isolation of students from the regular classroom, decreasing the cooperative *If it appears that the Court is being too particular in setting forth required components of proposed programs such as the academic support programs and the Four-Year-Old Program Long-Term Plan, it is because the parties have failed to provide the Court with well thought out, comprehensive program plans which can be closely monitored. -22-learning interaction among regular students and those participating in remediation programs, and decreasing the ability of these students to complete the number of courses required for graduation. (See Exhibit 19A, attached.) Mrs. Matthis also testified that remediation in math and reading would benefit student achievement in both science and social studies since math and reading skills are prerequisites to success in other curricular areas. She stressed that it is \"critical\" that the district provide the staff development necessary to ensure that teachers are able to assume greater responsibility for the total educational experience of students rather than only specific subject-oriented content. The Court allows the change regarding science and social studies as proposed and requires the district to provide all teachers with ongoing training to meet students' need for academic remediation in the most inclusive setting and comprehensive manner possible. The Court will closely monitor student progress on test scores in social studies and science. If students fail to progress in these areas or if improvement is not made in reducing overall achievement disparity between black and white students, the Court may require changes in the plan. The parties propose to modify the plan by adding language that gives the LRSD an option of merely informing parents rather than actively involving them in each identified phase of the remediation programs in which their children participate: individual assessment, individual improvement planning, formative assessments. -23-workshops, and. summative evaluations. Given the Eighth Circuit's emphasis on parental involvement, the Court denies the modification. Focused Activities Testimony indicated that approximately 8 0% of the black elementary students in Little Rock do not attend an incentive or magnet school but are educated instead in area schools. In order to advance desegregation and reduce achievement disparity among the large number of students served by area schools, the plan gives each area school the option of developing a program of focused activities which may center around a theme. The goals of focused activities are to promote a community of learning among parents, staff and students\nto provide enrichment opportunities at the schools\nand to ensure equitable opportunities for participation in the area schools. The parties also wish to continue a related program. the Academic Progress Incentive Grant Program for the area schools. The Academic Progress Incentive Grant Program provides up to $75,000 for each area school over a three year period to fund programs which will improve the education of all students and reduce student achievement disparity. The Court approves continuing the Academic Progress Incentive Grant Program, which the district will evaluate for continuation at the end of the 1992-93 school year. However, the Court recognizes the grant program as a complementary addition to, but not a replacement of. the original focused activities feature of the plan. Focused activities will -24-continue to be an option for area schools, may center around a theme, and will operate according to the original plan which provides for community and parental involvement and allocation of funds. an annual Junior High Schools The parties propose to eliminate from language concerning the possible construction the settlement plan of a new junior high school, leaving only \"planning\" for additional junior high capacity. Evidence presented at the hearing indicates that the LRSD is experiencing serious capacity problems at its junior high schools, with four of the district's eight junior highs at or above 100% capacity. (See Exh. # 27, attached). When this case began. there were three junior high schools located in the eastern or central sections of Little Rock: Booker, Dunbar, and Mann. Within the last few years, all of these schools have been converted to magnet schools. Dunbar and Mann have remained junior highs and Booker is an elementary magnet. Consequently, those children (most of whom are black) living in the east and central city have been largely displaced from that area's junior highs and must bear an unequitable burden of transportation to attend high schools in the western sections of town. nonmagnet junior Moreover, when capacity of the junior high schools is inadequate for the number of children eligible to attend them and the buildings become overcrowded, these schools are rendered unattractive to parents who hesitate to place their children in an environment that offers less than optimal learning conditions. -25-The Court does not approve the modification. The language of the plan does not require the LRSD to build immediately a new junior high school but it does obligate the parties to conduct careful review of junior high capacity and its immediate and long term impact on programmatic needs and/or intradistrict and M-to- M needs, If results of the study, based on current and complete information, indicate that construction of a new LRSD junior high school is necessary, the Court will require the district construction timGlinss and. procGdurss  Incentive Schools to submit Reserved Seating and Parent Recruitment - The parties propose change in the plan that would allow the district to place black children in vacant seats which had been reserved for white children at the kindergarten and pre-kindergarten levels in the incentive schools. Mr. James Jennings testified that the district now fills a a any unclaimed reserved seats after the first week of school. The Court is concerned about the impact of this change. When seats intended for white children are instead filled with black children, desegregation at the incentive schools is seriously impeded. No matter how successful subsequent recruitment might be, once seats at a particular grade level are filled with a racially imbalanced enrollment, the imbalance tends to persist at that grade level as those students matriculate from one year to the next. The parties have pledged to desegregate the incentive schools with aggressive and sustained recruitment of white children, including the strategy of targeting geographic neighborhoods for recruitment -26-to a specific incentive school and stressing group preference as an assignment option. In order for this type of group recruitment plan to work, there must be seats available at the incentive schools. In their June 1990 Joint Brief for Appellants, the parties explained to the Eighth Circuit that the incentive schools would be desegregated in phases \"through combination of white recruitment into the Incentive Schools. and by reserving a a ^.siqnated number of seats in each incoming kindergarten class for the enrollment of white students. Joint Brief for Appellants at 36, Little Rock School District V. Pulaski County Special School District No. 1, 921 F.2d 1374 (Sth Cir. 1990)(Nos. 89-2288, 89- 2289, 89-2352 to 89-2354, 90-1165 to 90-1167, 90-1579 and 90- 1580) (emphasis original). First of all, the number of black students identifiable schools will be reduced in racially automatically through the plan. Our target is to reserve fifty percent of the seats in the incentive schools for white students each year, beginning with next year's kindergarten class. A certain number of those seats will be reserved whether or not the white students show up. And that number, we have discussed in the past with the Joshua Intervenors. The fifty percent target will work if all of our schools are allowed to go forward with the construction schedule of inter-district schools. If not we would still retain, at least, the district average of whi\u0026lt;.e students who would reserve, at least, that many seats throughout the entire six years, so that if, three or four years from now, a group of white students decided to go to the fourth grade at Rockefeller School, would be available for that purpose. That is our target. show up. If not. seats Id. at n.64. Provisions of the interdistrict plan target the ideal racial balance of the various types of LRSD schools: interdistrict schools -27-at 50 percent black/white with a variance of 60 to 40 percent of either race\nmagnet schools at between 50 and 55 percent black\nand area schools at an enrollment of 55 percent black and 45 percent white with a variance of 5 percent. While the plan does not identify a specific target racial balance in the incentive schools, the parties' representations to the Eighth Circuit require that a racial balance at the incentive schools be 50 percent of each race, at least in the pre-kindergarten and kindergarten levels. This proportion is to guide the district in the number of seats which are initially reserved for pre-kindergarten and kindergarten students. The Court will reluctantly allow seats reserved for white students to be released after a reasonable period only if timely. vigorous, and sustained recruitment efforts to fill the seats with white children are unsuccessful. These recruitment efforts must be thoroughly documented by the districts to the extent that the Court can determine that--the parties are diligently trying to recruit white students to the incentive schools before any reserved seats. releasing The parties also propose to modify their plan language so as to limit the LRSD's incentive school recruitment efforts to potential kindergarten students. Such a change would allow the _ ^The Court, recognizes that the Eighth Circuit has defined racially identifiable black elementary school in LRSD as\nelementary school that is 81% or more black (rounded in LRSD \"a any uuc is ex-5 or more black (rounded up or down to the nearest whole number) .\" _ Little Rock School District v. Pulaski County Special School District No. 1, 339 f 2d 1296 1988) . ' 1307 (Sth Cir. -28-LRSD to diminish efforts to recruit students into grades one through six and the four-year-old program in the incentive schools. Such a restriction would place a heavy burden for desegregating an entire school upon only one grade level. Given the plan's emphasis upon desegregating the incentive schools and the parties' representations to the Eighth Circuit of the plan's \"automatic\" desegregation features, the Court does not approve restricting recruitment to potential kindergarten students. The Court is mindful that all parties have made firm commitments to assist the LRSD in desegregation of the incentive schools. Although the Court will carefully monitor interdistrict collaboration in support of desegregation of all schools, it will pay close attention to the efforts directed toward the incentive schools and particularly scrutinize the LRSD's efforts to carry out diligently the incentive school recruitment activities as outlined in the plan and detailed in the LRSD Incentive School Marketing Plan, a strategic plan referred to by Mr. James Jennings at the hearing. The Court encourages the parties to implement any additional recruitment measures that will aid desegregation of the incentive schools as a whole. The Court is pleased to note that marked progress is being made in desegregating Rockefeller where the school's overall student enrollment is 31% white for the current year. Also encouraging is the present racial balance of the four- year-old classes (48% white) at Franklin. Progress at these two schools holds forth promise that desegregation of the incentive -29-schools ultimately can be achieved or at least significantly increased. The Court encourages the district to analyze the success factors that are contributing to the desegregation of these two schools to enhance desegregation of the remaining incentive schools. Pupil-teacher ratio and classroom aides ~ The plan describes in detail a wide range of special features which are unique to the incentive schools. These enhanced programs, activities, support systems, and funding levels are compensatory and remedial in that they are intended to help children overcome past discrimination and boost student achievement. They also are designed to promote racial desegregation by attracting white children to these predominately black schools. The Eighth Circuit has underscored the importance of the many special incentive is important for the settlement plans to be school aspects: \"It scrupulously adhered to and here we have in mind especially the kinds of programs that the plan contemplates for the Incentive Schools...\" 921 F.2d at 1386. Among the distinctive incentive school features is a pupilteacher ratio that is lower than that of other LRSD schools. In the 1989 plan, the parties promised that the incentive schools would have a maximum pupil-teacher ratio of 20 to one. This ratio is consistent with the February 9, 1988 opinion of the Eighth Circuit which states that \"the most important element of the compensatory and remedial programs should be the reduction of class size in the racially identifiable black elementary schools to 20 -30-pupils per teacher,\" Little Rock School District v- Pulaski County Special School District No. 1, 839 F.2d 1296, The low incentive school pupilteacher ratio 1307 (Sth Cir. 1988) . was again stressed by the Eighth Circuit in its order of December 12, 1990: \"A salient feature of these [incentive schools] would be a maximum effective student-teacher ratio of twenty to one.  921 F.2d at 1379. The school district has used this reduced ratio in marketing the incentive schools, promising a \"low pupil/teacher ratio: small classes of 20:1 which provide more time for teacher interaction with students\" in a LRSD recruitment brochure which was used to attract new students to the incentive schools for the 1990-91 school year. The LRSD's Incentive School Strategic Marketing Plan for 1992-1997, published in May 1991, enumerates the many strengths and benefits of the incentive schools, listing among them smaller class sizes, lower student-adult ratios. and an instructional aide for every classroom. Clearly the LRSD has represented to the courts and to the community that incentive school students. teachers, principals, and parents could expect that the children would be taught in smaller classes with pupil to teacher ratios lower than that of other schools, indeed lower than that by state accreditation standards. required Yet language in the plan creates confusion about the twenty to one ratio and the number of students that actually will be seated in a classroom. The 1989 plan states that \"there may be more than 20 students per classroom. however, there will be certified aide in each class and possibly a second teacher in those -31- aclasses.\" (LRSD Proposed Desegregation Plan, May 1, 1991, p. 256) In their June 1990 Joint Brief to the Eighth Circuit, the parties reaffirm their commitment to a \"specific and detailed\" plan for the incentive schools and state that \"Incentive Schools would have a maximum effective pupil/teacher ratio of 20:1 by placing a second teacher or certified instructional aide in each class with more than 20 pupils (where classes of that size were permitted by state law).\" Joint Brief for Appellants at 43, n.76. Little Rock School District V. Pulaski County Special School District No. 1, 921 F.2d 1374 (Sth Cir. 1990)(Nos. 89-2288, 89-2289, 89-2352 to 89-2354, 1165 to 90-1167, 90-1579 and 90-1580). 90- Earlier, in its Objections to the Findings and Recommendations of the Special Master, filed with the district court in May 1989 and included in the Joint Designated Record on Appeal, the LRSD had addressed the ambiguity of the plan that promised a 20 to 1 pupilteacher ratio but also allowed more than 20 students to a classroom: The Special Master expressed concern at an off-the- record conference that the pupil/teacher ratio was beina rnanrrorl 4_____ . _ . . changed to twenty-five to though the maximum class one. LRSD explained that even size would be twenty-five students, the pupil/teacher ratio would remain at twenty to one. LRSD provided the example of four classrooms with twenty-five students and one full-time teacher in each classroom. A full-time language arts teacher would be assigned to work with those four classrooms, overall ratio of one hundred students to five teachers or twenty to one. The Special Master indicated that such an arrangement would be acceptable provided that teachers and not certified aides were used to achieve the to one ratio. for an twenty Joint Designated Record, Vol. II at 2767, Little Rock School -32-District V. Pulaski County Special School District No. 1, 921 F.2d 1374 (Sth Cir. 1990)(Nos. 89-2288, 89-2289, 89-2352 to 89-2354, 1165 to 90-1167, 90-1579 and 90-1580). 90- At the January 1992 hearings on proposed 1989 plan revisions, this Court noted Eighth Circuit orders which specifically refer to the twenty to one ratio. Responding to this Court's concern about what the parties had represented to the Eighth Circuit regarding the incentive school pupil-teacher ratio, the LRSD lawyer indicated that the Eighth Circuit's order of December 1990 was based in part upon oral arguments made before the judges in June 1990 when the parties explained the difference between a class with a maximxim of 25 students and a pupil-teacher ratio of twenty to one. The lawyer stated that \"Judge Arnold is not a judge to waste words in an opinion, and the issue was before him concerning the difference between class size and pupil-teacher ratio. And we explained that we would have a class size with a maximxim of 25 students but an effective pupil-teacher ratio based on a total staff devoted to those students of 20 to one.\" However, this Court's review of the Eighth Circuit's own audio tapes of those oral arguments reveal that. while there was discussion of double funding and other aspects of the incentive schools, there was no reference whatever to the size of incentive school classes nor the pupil-teacher ratio. The numerous extraordinary features of the incentive schools have been represented to the Court and the of substance and not of mere semantics. community as a matter This Court finds that -33-sBBsasiQ^sssEaEgB^e^s^E Si providing a smaller-than-usual class size in the incentive schools was intended in the settlement agreement as a means to promote both academic achievement and racial balance in the schools. The Court notes that to have anticipated placing up to 25 students in each incentive classroom would have been a violation of Arkansas accreditation standards which permit an average of 25 students per elementary classroom only in the fourth, fifth, and sixth grades. Recognizing that language in the settlement plan allows for more than twenty children in a classroom. the Court orders that the maximum individual classroom enrollment at incentive schools will be as follows: 18 students in four-year-old classes. as agreed by the parties\n20 students in kindergarten, 23 students in grades one through three. and 25 students in grades four through six. class sizes which are consistent with certain of the state's accreditation standards. fi This Court is mindful of the Eighth Circuit's emphasis on the reduction of class size in the incentive schools to 20 pupils per teacher and that Court's caution about reducing the number of instructional aides in the incentive schools without significant justification. In order to effect a low pupilteacher ratio as provided in the settlement plan, the Court orders that there be at least one full time instructional aide per incentive school classroom in those schools where any classroom contains more than 6 The table on page 254 of the LRSD Proposed Desegregation Plan concerning capacity at incentive schools is being modified in accordance with this Order. -34-20 students. the district should choose to reduce class size to a maximum of 20 students in kindergarten through sixth grade classroom in an entire incentive school, the Court will allow that school to have two instructional aides for every three K-6 classrooms. In any case, an appropriate number of supervision aides will be provided at each incentive school, regardless of whether there is one instructional aide per classroom or, in those schools which elect to have no more than 20 children per K-6 classroom, two instructional aides per every three K-6 classrooms. Infomnation presented at the hearings indicated that over half of all incentive school classrooms presently have more than 20 students. The Court is sensitive to the tremendous disruption that changing schools causes for children and their parents. In adjusting to reduced class size for the 1992-93 school year. the Court will not require that students currently enrolled in the incentive schools be transferred mandatorily to some other school. Children attending an incentive school during the 1991-92 school year may remain at that school until they move on to junior high or voluntarily transfer to another school. No new student shall be enrolled in an incentive school if that student's enrollment would cause the ordered class size limits to be exceeded. However, the Court is willing to permit an exception if the new student's enrollment would improve racial balance. Academic Programs - Given the importance of parental involvement. the Court does not approve a change that would remove the requirement for the district to develop a parent component model -35-and incorporate it into the district's four-year-old program. The Court will approve a proposed change in the four-year-old program content model from the designated High/Scope Curriculum only if the shift is to comparable developmentally appropriate curriculum model which continues to foster the active and independent of each child. learning The Court is not convinced that school themes at the incentive schools should be deleted from the 1989 plan and does not approve their elimination. The Eighth Circuit has stressed the importance of parental involvement. School themes, developed at the local level by parents and staff, provide an important avenue for community participation. Themes have proven their value in magnet schools as successful desegregation tools which offer a focus for enrichment activities. help give schools an identity and individuality, and provide parents with more options for their children's education. Moveover, considerable money, materials, and personnel already have been invested in thematic development at the incentive schools\nit will be a wise use of resources to continue to build on the thematic foundation which has already been laid. The parties propose to modify the plan to allow science laboratories to be either mobile or permanent. The modification would release the district from the requirement to have traditional laboratory in separate room reserved for that purpose. The district has cited lack of adequate space for housing permanent laboratories in some of the incentive schools as the basis of this proposed change. The Court is reluctant to approve a a a -36-modifications in the plan that stem from lack of planning foresight on the part of the parties, as is evident with the science laboratories, but will allow mobile science laboratories in those incentive schools where adequate space for a full size permanent science lab is not available. The mobile labs must be fully equipped so that students using them receive the same range and high quality of experience as students who are taught in permanent labs. At the August 1991 hearing on the motion for partial stay. LRSD Superintendent Dr. Ruth Steele stated that preparation of Parent Home Study Guides was linked to the completion of the district's new Computer Managed Instructional Technology and related cxirriculum reform. The Court allows the modification to delay development of Parent Home Study Guides. However, the guides must be completed and ready for parental use at or before the beginning of the 1993-94 school year, the date the district has indicated it will complete the guides. The LRSD seeks to eliminate its commitment to establish foreign language laboratories at each incentive school. Because children cannot be expected to achieve a degree of foreign language proficiency without the practice and reinforcement afforded by a language laboratory, the modification is not allowed. The Court notes language contained in the parties' joint brief filed in June 1990, enumerating the wide array of activities, enhanced programs, and support mechanisms that would be available at the incentive schools. The Eighth Circuit has emphasized the importance of the -37-incentive schools and this Court will not allow the district to diminish the scope and quality of the schools' instructional programs and enrichment activities. Year Round School The 1989 agreement offered year round school and summer school at all incentive schools. The parties propose to modify the settlement plan by replacing year round school with an extended-year program and providing summer school at possibly only one site. The Court approves the change but notes that there is a significant difference between a traditional summer school which emphasizes academic remediation and an extended-year program which may include remediation but also adds a variety of enrichment opportunities that enhance and extend children's learning beyond the regular school year. The parties remain obligated to provide incentive school children with summer learning experiences that go beyond the customary basic curriculxim of an ordinary summer remedial school. The extendedyear program for incentive school students must be located in a facility or facilities with \u0026lt; sufficient to accommodate all of the eligible students who attend the program. capacity wish to Washington Attendance Zone - The parties propose to add language offering certain incentive school educational services, such as extended day activities, extended year activities. and a scholarship program, to students who reside in the Washington attendance zone but cannot attend that school. The parties' July 25, 1991 stipulation indicates that these services are available to students who are enrolled in Washington. The parties' positions -38-are unclear. Before the Court will approve the modification, the parties must provide more details, such as: 1) the status of the LRSD's plan to include these newly- eligible children in the incentive school extended-year, and scholarship programs\nextended day, 2) whether the LRSD has budgeted the money to underwrite incentive school services for additional students. e.g., transportation. after-school snacks. materials and supplies, additional personnel to satisfy the staffing requirement for Homework Centers, and so forth\nand 3) how communication will be coordinated among the staff at Washington, staff at the incentive schools. and parents in order to develop individual Student Education Plans and otherwise assure continuity of services for the Washington students who elect to take advantage of proposed provision. this The Court will not approve the modification until details are forthcoming. Camp Pfeifer - Provisions throughout the parties' plans obligate , them to make use of community resources (such as New Futures and the Cornerstone Project, discussed above) which aid overall progress toward desegregation goals. Camp Pfeifer is a type of residential alternative program for children needing additional assistance in order to be successful students. The parties propose to add wording to the effect that district students will participate provided the funding of the Camp Pfeifer continues and -39-the program meets the needs of the students. The Court allows the new language with the understanding that the change does not relieve the parties from their obligation to manage their relationship with community agencies in all good faith with careful attention to maintaining ongoing communication, cooperative teamwork, and complementary support. The parties are wise to join with the community in strong working partnerships to build a solid support network for children. The Court will monitor changes which the parties may wish to make in their relationship with such community resources as Camp Pfeifer, New Futures, Cornerstone, and others to determine the impact of those changes on desegregation. In further considering the parties' reliance on various community resources, the Court notes that the parties have added language making the continuation of several programs contingent on the availability of outside funding. For example, in the Interdistrict May submissions (p. 415) and in the LRSD Proposed Desegregation Plan (pp. 10, 41, 46, 166, 304) , programs and services provided through such agencies as JTPA, HIPPY, Camp Pfeifer, and local cable education access channel are to continue only if other funding is available. The Court allows the modifications but stresses that funding availability refers only to the particular programs. The parties' obligation to provide comparable services is not negated by the unavailability of other funding. -40-Program Specialists and Other Recommended Positions - The parties propose to delete the positions of specialist for alternative classroom and program specialist and to base the position of assistant principal on enrollment. The Court disapproves the deletion of the program specialist in each incentive school as the position is necessary to support the thematic emphasis required in each school. In addition, the Court does not approve the language which would make student enrollment the sole determining factor for including an assistant principal as part of an incentive school's staff as there are other indicators of a school's need for the position. The district must place an assistant principal, or any other staff position which has been recommended in the plan. in accordance with equitably meeting the identified needs of the staff and students in a particular school. For example, an assistant principal may be needed to help with the additional documentation. services. and enhancements that are required at the incentive schools. An assistant principal can serve as a classroom observer and program monitor to assure the sustained quality of the incentive schools. As stated in the plan, positions recommended for each school are not all inclusive since additional or different positions may be identified during the needs assessment process. The district must make decisions regarding recommended staff positions based upon criteria linked to a current needs assessment of an individual school. this vein, the Court does not approve removing an alternative classroom specialist from the list of recommended staff and requires the district to determine the need -41-altsmativs classrooms and establish them where necessary to serve students who will benefit from the specialized alternative setting. staff Development - The parties propose to create at each incentive school a staff development committee composed of Instructional Resource Center specialists, teachers, parents, principals, and other administrators as appropriate. Because there is great value in parents' taking active part in all aspects of the incentive schools, the Court approves the school-based staff development committees. This change will provide an avenue for frequent parent input into the operation of the schools since the plan requires the committees to meet on a monthly basis to plan activities related to meeting the needs of students who are achieving below acceptable levels of mastery. The functioning of these school committees will be supported by the incentive school coordinator and staff development department which must ensure that there is a smooth transition from the LRSD Staff Development Planning Committee as originally provided in the plan to the individual development committees. school staff Incentive School Curriculum - The Court allows the deletion of the requirement to develop curriculum specific to the incentive schools. but if the regular core curriculum is used in the incentive schools, it must be amplified as necessary to properly incorporate and support the thematic emphasis of each incentive school. It will be appropriate for the district to seek parent. teacher. and other school staff input into the development of -42-curriculum that will incorporate individual school themes and serve the specific needs of students attending the incentive schools. Consultant/Monitor The original plan called for the Special Master to appoint a consultant/monitor to make quarterly- evaluations and recommendations to the Special Master. changes replacing the Special Master with The Court approves the the Court. It does not approve the language requiring the Court's Monitor, who directs the Office of Desegregation Monitoring (ODM), to make at least quarterly visits to all schools in the three districts nor to report to the Court on a quarterly basis. The ODM is an arm of the Court which is responsible only to the Court. Its schedule and activities are not determined by the parties. None of the language in the plan's Consultant/Monitor section shall be construed as a comprehensive description of the appropriate function of the Monitor nor shall it limit the activities of the ODM. Such determinations are reserved for the Court. NORTH LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT The Court determines that the modifications proposed by the North Little Rock School District (NLRSD) the guidelines set forth by the Eighth are in conformity with Circuit. The changes concern details and adapt the original plan to existing circumstances. The Court notes, however, that the NLRSD plan makes reference to and includes a voluminous appendix. While the Court -43-questions the current significance of some of the documents included in the appendix, the NLRSD plan attached to this Order includes the appendix as presented by the parties modified plan. as part of their SUMMARY The Court hereby approves the revised plans as attached to this Order. The Little Rock School District is ordered to file with the Court, within 3 0 days from the date of entry of this Order, a Four-Year-Old Program Long-Term Plan. It is further ordered to file within 60 days from the date of entry of this Order a plan for the entire academic support program that is proposed to take the place of PAL. In addition, as this Court previously ordered on January 21, 1992, the LRSD must submit within 30 days from the date of entry of this Order a revised budget. The parties must file any motions for clarification and/or modification of this Order by May 14, 1992. DATED this 29th day of April, 1992. JNITED STATES DISTRICT JI UNITED JUDGE -44-TO: FROM: LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 810 WEST MARKHAM STREET LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS December 18, 1991 Ruth S. Steele, Superintendent of Schools Estelle Matthis, Associate Superintendent for Educational Programs SUBJECT: Remediation - Reading/English, Math, Science, and Social Studies Provided is additional information to suppon our argument for providing remediation within the regular classrooms and reducing pull-out programs 9 . Students educational programs should not be implemented in isolation. . Facilitates the reinstitution of tracking of students by their supposed academic potential as most remedial classes are more than 90% black. . Proposal institutes more cooperative learning among groups of young people with varying abilities. . Allow teachers to team teach in more flexibly-designed curriculum blocks that integrate several disciplines rather than presenting students with disconnected, rapidly separated 50-minute subjects. . Train teachers to acquire a repertoire of teaching strategies that will enable students to acquire skills in learning how to learn, problem solving, and communication skills. . Existing staffing decisions and the program deliver/ model need to be reviewed and revised in accordance with our revised curriculum. . Existing compensatory and remedial programs rarelv teach the development of higher-order skills. . The amount of time recommended in each content area bv ADE and National Association for Accredited Schools is prohibitive to student mobility in completing course requirements for graduation (20 credits) as well as devoting recommended time in each elementary discipline. EXHIBIT 19 ARemediation - Reading/English, Math, Science, and Social Studies Page 2 . Students are prevented from benefiting from panicipation in electives. Remediation becomes punitive and is resisted by students and their parents. Remedial and compensatory education services must be provided as additions, otherwise, providing remedial services in lieu of would be considered supplanting by our accrediting agencies (ADE and NCA). SCHEDULES Elementary Level Subject Recommended Time Grades 1-3: Language Arts Mathematics Social Living (science, geography, history, economics, health/safety Creative Recreation (art, music, P.E.) 180 min. daily - 900 weekly 45 min. daily - 225 weekly 60 min. daily - 300 weekly 45 min. daily - 225 weekly Total 330 min. daily - 1,650 weekly Grades 4-6: Language Arts Mathematics Social Studies Science Creative Recreation 150 min. daily - 750 weekly 60 min. daily - 300 weekly 45 min. daily - 225 weekly 30 min. daily - 150 weekly 45 min. daily - 225 weekly Total 330 min. daily - 1,650 weekly Secondary Level A minimum of 50 minutes per class is required with the exception of some vocational courses. Most of our classes are 55 minutes in length. Students must acquire a minimum of 20 credits to graduate and, by ADE statute, must exit school by age 21. The amount of time allocated to complete course work will not allow pull-out programs in all core areas.TO\nFROM: SUBJECT LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 810 WEST MARKHAM STREET LITTLE ROCK, AR 72201 July 11, 1991 Ruth Steele, Superintendent Long Range_Building Planning Committee James Jennings, Associate Superintendent BradyGadberry, Labor Relations Specialist Sterling Ingram, Director, Chip Jones, Manager of Planning, Support Services Research \u0026amp; Eval : ucng Range Building Planning Coanittee As we have considered the building dis.._c. schools, recommended uses of vacant buildincs. and secondary capacity. of buildings, X . School Sites The District currently owns-- four properties pouentia_ as sites for new or expanded schools, have Deen held with Philander that have fifth site. Smith College for Discussions a possible (a) One site is located at th e present Westside camous. Westsioe property is only a few blocks from 1-630 areas of the City and County acjacent to Arkansas Childrc ' \"   - accessible to all t: ve and o (b) c: ,inc-n\ns\\ already expressed located near them. xs xas en's Hospital (ACK). AC.H r enthusiastic support for a school support for xOr joint use of the prooertv develop a partnership to needs of children. They also would like to develom olans _ sc that LRSD and AC.H  serve educational and health , . P-p-iininary site plans indicate that f a capacity of 656 K-6 students and 40 four-year-olds for a total located on the sit two-story building with e. use of space, but offers exiting facility. w 11 or 696 students can be This plan will require efficient the potential for a unique Rockefeller School is located on a tract well-suited for expansion. and of land that is Ample space is available for P-vide seats for students , school is also easily accessible and has been successful in attracting student Citv. east s from all over the EXHIBIT 27Ruth Steele June 25, Page 2 1S9 1 ! II. (C) (e) The current Stephens site is adequate to support a school for approximately 656 K-6 students and 40 four- students for a total of 696 students. The year-old current Stephens building would be replaced with a new structure. Rebuilding Stephens on the current site enables a site significant number of black students .to attend school without being bussed out of the neighborhood. to The site the former Kinc/Oakhurst physically attractive location situated east of Field . fortner School is a of Curran- Conway Field. The King site is also large enouch to accommodate approximately 840 K-6 students and 40 feur- .year-olds .fo-r a total of S80 students. The King site is also attractive because of its proximity to Curran-Conway Field. The District would seek to enter into a joint-use agreement with the City so that the students will develop interests in a variety of extra-curricular activities. Field. st In order to populate a school on the King site, it be necessary to transport some black students from predominately black will one attendance zone to predominately black attendance zone which would i the burden of busing-for-black students. another ncrease Philander Smith College has expressed an interest in developing a model teacher education training orocram and would like to develop a partnership with the District. They have rejected cur proposal to build a school on their campus, but we should continue to plan to develco cooperative efforts with Philander Smith'. Attendance Zone Data - Elementary Schools This section will address the attendance zone changes that are needed to objectives. First, King phens Schools will be rebuilt in the 1-630 Corridor. \u0026lt;St comply with two First, and schools will become interdist These Ct schools, and they will have a racial balance of 60 percent blac.k and 40 percent white. The white population in these schools will come primarily f^cm PCSSD. Second, bussing the District on zones as possible. is seeking to reduce the burden black students by eliminating as of many satellite The fulfillment of this objective is restricted by the minimum black percentage that is required in tul elementary area schools. As a result, some schools in all west satellite Little Rock must maintain some, if zone blocks in order to comply desegregation requirements. not all, of their with court-ordered c:\\fnemos\\: . wodRuth Steele June 25, 1991 Page J two objectives x..ese zwo cojectives are interrelated. The construction projects will make it possible for students who live attendance zone of incentive/interdistric in the --- schools to attend these These projects will also, to some reduce the burden of bussing on black students. schools. extent, A zotal of 2190 students currently reside in the attendance zones of the incentive schools. The total capacity of the seven incentive schools is 2405, r*' of 1:25. Although 215 vacancies will The total 1:25. using a teacher/pupil ratio exist if all azzendance zone students attend the incentive schools, of the vacancies can be filled by students who currently nearby satellite.^ zones.   reside in satellite these zones allow the respective attendance zone A total of 281 students that can be eliminated reside in currently and s i 1 1 0 minimum desegregation schools to comply with This requirements. situation is complicated by the fact that 200 of the 281 satellite students live near the Stephens/Garland area. Ar her se azzendance zone. rious problem involves the Washington Magnet School Washington is the only elementary magnet zone,- This zone was drawn initiallv to accommodate 1050 incentive school students. school with an attendance converted to a Desegregation Plan. magne school The Diszric under the The school^was Tri-Distric,t recently received czu^z oval to continue to operate Washington as a magnet school. T..e attendance zone for Washingzon is too large to accommodat an of e the black students. Washington's capacity is are 892 black students who reside in the Washington The desegregation requirement for Washingt,.. As a result, only 60 percent '(488) of the black- a zendance zone studenzs nay attend Washington. 404 students must reassigned to non-attendance schools.  from eas e Washington's azzendance zone. is 60% black. 404 mus be 814 . ^n to The remaining zone These reassignments usually involve busing students t Little Rock to southwest Little Rock. Most of the 404 students from the Washington attendance (235 studenzs) reside on the northeast edge of the District. The closest elementary schools to these students are Carver- Magnet School, Booker Magnet School, and Rockefeller Incentive School.  zone The magnet shadow preferences for Carver and Booker (25 percent of building capacity) are too small to accommodate these students. percen the are small c: \\fnemos\\blscf\u0026gt;r.2. wpdRuth Steele June 25, 1991 Page 4 Ill. Attendance Zcne Data Secondary Schools In a separate process, calculate capacities for from' fomnula has a formula been developed secondary schools. to It is apparent .the study that very little capacity exists currently che junior high level and a significant amount of caoac at  , . - -----wt caoacitv exisus the highs. However, the District seems ti n.aye reached the peak of junior high enrollment in 1990-91 and that enrollment will decrease for a couple of years begin to increase again slightly in 1993-94. indicate that senior high enrollment will in the senior highs. However of the Distric and then IV. 'ext five years but not to the extent . The projections increase over the is required. required in 1992-93 that additional capacity However, adjustments to attendance zones mav be iQ-)Lno _'_______ or subsequent years. (See Attachment 1) While educational trends indicate that articulation between seventh grades, eighth to ninth grades, and ninth to sixth o tenth grades is best with a grade s 9-12, appears that the it District ucture of K-6, changing its secondary grade struc secondary capacity problems. should not 7-S, and consider re as a means for solvin Junior high enrollment will range, from 93% without the additional seats for' the juni 90% to 94% rest r to 102% of capacity .------- junior high schoois\"an,d with the proposed construction. Heights is expected to exceed the The enrollment a ... - - -- ----- -- current building capacity in 1993-94 and continue to increase in 1994-95 1995-96. Tne enrollment will range from capacity with the proposed construction. At The 37% to 97% and of Southwest Junior gh iu appears' that replacing 4 portable classrooms, 2 classrooms, . , - - ----------, adding and utilizing 3 classrooms in.the PDC will be the maximum advisable construction and-will provide additional space for attendance zone students. The other junior high school that should be expanded is Mabelvale. - -  Replacing the pori.able c...assrooms and building 4 new classrooms will provide adequate space for Mabelvale and southwes much of the growth is occurring. Little Rock, where 1990 Census The Office of Desegregation is presently involved in analyzing A map overlay has been prepared that black/white population count for each census tract. The 1980 Census data will be added to the facilitate comparisons of data by race and each census tpact. the 1990 Census data. map overlay to tn a total population in Preliminary comparisons the population trends that expected to continue. were evident seem to indicate In particular, in 1930 can be the. population in c: \\memos\\i:l dcomZ. updRuth Steele June 25 Page 5 1991 central and east Little Rock will continue to decline, and the population in portion of southwest and northwest Little Rock will continue to increase. it 1 did was recently announced that the original 1990 census count include 5.3 million ..persons. Our analysis of the no original census data for Little Rock Our analysis seems to confirm that ese figures are too low. We are in the process of obtaining e revised census counts. It should be noted, however, that e revised counts have not been.,approved by the U. Bureau. S. Census Further analysis,\nwill be needed to identify trends in specific geographic areas. each census block. The next step is to analyze the data for several census blocks. (Note: Each census tract is made uo of The census block data report * has approximately 700 pages.) In addition to examining census block data, another map overlay will be drawn for the attendance zones. There will probably be numerous discrepancies between the boundaries for the census tracts and the boundaries for the attendance zones. In such cases, the census block data will be usedto determine the exact number V. of students in a particular attendance zone. T.ne census map for 1990 is not the same as the census 1930 . Most of the changes in map for he boundaries for the census tracts occurred in southwest Little Rock and the western edce of the City. These differences will have to be reconciled in order to be able to make valid comparisons. Professional Development Cente For many years, SU I oort tie the District's instructional specialists and functions have been spread across Little Rock with chance for a coordinated instructional management The Math, Reading, Science, Staff Development, Social and English Departments are currently located in the former Lee School Building, now called the Instructional system. Studies, Resource Special Education, Gifted and Talented, Pupil Services, and the Student Hearing Officer, are located in the District's Annex Building on West Markham, and Library Media Services is currently located at Franklin School. Center (IRC). Health Services, Markham, c: \\mcmos\\blscom2 . upd Ruth Steele June 25, Page 6 1991 For several years, the District has been concerned about the physical condition of the IRC building, but the District has not bad opportunity to provide a satisfactory solution^ Trr Dictritt Desegregation Plan In the Tri-District    i I f d Magnet was proposed for Southwest Junior High. a University Lab -  . . -  As a result of ...IS proposal, the District chose the Southwest site for a new professio.nal development center that would provide state-of- the-art administrators. drawings of instructional space for students, teachers, and An architect for the District has develooed students, VI. provide a two-level 45,000 s\u0026lt;^are foot building which will - uf instructional specialists, a space for all of the multiple purpose auditorium, ctional specialists, . a professional library, wcrk/production r^ooms for teachers, classrooms, instructional classrooms, generous techrtology labs,\"an instructional management - . center, and many Ou.'er functions. The professional development center will be located south of Southwes er functions. Street. facility (PDC) Junior High along Sryant The District considers the construction of critical to improving the potential this new ,  -  r--------- for sLal cevelopment for the District's teachers and administrators. (The PDC has been designed so that it \u0026lt;__ additional junior high seatsif necessary. Dcr-.-icus currently occupies Services School. can be converted three classrooms The relocation of Library Media to Library Media at Franklin Services to the Professional Development Center will'allow Franklin's caoacitv to increase by 75 students.) Other Properties The^ District currently has several buildings that are not suited to meet the instruction goals of .the District, buildings or sites that do not fit several buildings tha The into the long range plans of the  are the former Gillam School, Eastside ' Auditorium, the former King/Oakhurst School, and the fonaeT- Lee School (the current IRC).  he orium, District School, and the (a) Gillam School - The District currently leases of the building to Watershed, Inc. a majority . - - Rental income oavs approximately 66% of the operating cost of the building. The is located on Confederate Boulevard in Little Rock. Preliminary Requests for Proposals being developed to attempt to sell the property to site Preliminary Requests east are profit agency. a non( b) Eastside Auditorium - The auditorium a Eastside has not ysed^ for many years. The other portion of the building is used primarily for Adult Education. The auditorium is in very poor condition and is not been for Adult Education. of without significant and very expensive habitable renovation.Ruth Steele June 25, 1991 Page 7 Eastside Rockefeller. is located near 1-630 and 1-30, not far from (c) Lee School^ (IRC) - The Lee School Building is in very condition, and the District should find new the staff housed there as soon as The site would not be appropriate for a school because of traffic congestion and its limited poor facilities possible. VII. Recommendations  1) Direc - The Lee School Building is the District housed find soon size. our attorney to prepare stipulations to proceed .with rebuilding Stephens School at its present location and new King school at the old Westside site (14th Marshall Streets). and Stephens will have a capacity of 696 (including 40 four-year old students). addition to the present attendance area of zone blocks 0573, 0441, 0572, 0574, 0583, part of the McDermott lite zone (zone block 0562) will be added Stephens School. During the construction of the students four-year old In 0441, 0574 , 0583 , part 0562) Stephens, the const current students reassigned to the closest schools will to new be available. temporarily The new attendance zone for Stephens will have approximately.. 370 K-6 students. The new King School will have a capacity of 69 6 students (including 40 four-year old students) .* zone for King School will The attendance blocks: consist of the following zone 0442, 0443, 0445, 0446, 0459, 0458, (from the current Mitchell attendance zone). 0444, 0457 0439 (from the current Rightsell attendance zone) 0438 (from the current Jefferson satellite zone) The boundaries for the new King School are 12th, High, 16th, and State attendance zone Streets. The new attendance zone for King School will have approximately 380 K-6 students. In order to comply with the racial balance requirement for interdistrict schools, 40 percent of the seats at the ' r    ..w s, (,.1C new Stephens and the new King Schools have been reserved for white students.. This primary responsibility for recn at each school. means that PCSSD will have ting 40% of PCSSD will have he stude recruitment efforts to meet t' to s goa 1 . implement In addition s ma] or toRuth Steele June 25, Page 8 1991 recruitment to interdistrict schools, PC serious attention to the recruitment of PCSSD needs to give 2) the elementary magnet ipulation allows PCSSD to fill current s schools. more students to The magnet elementary magnet seats. 33.7 percent of the During the 1990-91 school year, PCSSD represented 23 percent of the total elementary magnet population. students percent the If PCSSD is unsuccessful the District will Garland school(s). in fulfilling its obligation, recomme^id closing Rightsell afford to reseirve seats The Distric will and/or not be able to for more than a year once the new _sc..ools .are* constructed. The number of seats to be reserved is approximately 500. The number of If PCSSD sends 500 M to M students to LRSD, approximately $2.0 million of will be generated to pay for school coeraticns. tesezrved seats are not filled by MtoM students. District will not be able to schools when school. seats are revenue If the the afford operating separate available to absorb an entire When the new King School is close Ish School and Mitchell and Rightsell. revise available for occupancy, the attendance. zones_^for The new attendance zones for Mitchell will be the following zone blocks: 0472, 0485 0451, 0452, 0453, 0476, 0477, 0479 , 0430, The boundaries' for 'the new Mitchell School attendance zone are 28th, Wolfe, 37th, and State Streets. Also, small area bounced by Roosevelt Road, Battery, 29th, High Streets, and a small area bounded by 22nd Street, a and Howard Street, Roosevelt Road, and High Street. ' attendance zone for Mitchell School will approximately 340 K-6 students. The new have The new attendance following zone blocks: zone for Rightsell will be the 0448, 0450, 0449, 0454, 0464, 0473 The boundaries of the new Rightsell 16th, High, 28th, and State Streets. a zone students. for Rightsell will have ttendance zone are The new attendance approximately 282 .X-6 Assign zone block 0553 to Jefferson and zone block 0552 to Forest Park.Ruth Steele June 25, Page 9 1591 4) Add approximately 270 seats to Rockefeller classroom addition. Move zone blocks 0210, and 0121 from the Washington with an 11 5) 6) 7) 8). 9) . Rockefeller attendance attendance 0111, zone 1 to 0112, the zone. The boundaries for this area are the Arkansas River, Interstate 30, part of East 13 Street, and part of East 6th Street. This area has approximately 135 K-6 students. ill be districts. filled by white The remaining 135 seats students from the three During the construction of the new Stephens, the curre students will be temporarily reassigned to the closest ,available.schools . For the schools that are vacated or for sites no longer utilized by the district, we will issue offering circulars to established non-profit organizations to seek we issue competitive proposals for the buildings. tr.d intended use -  Offering price 2nd of the property will be among the evaluation factors. The sites that should be offered immediately _ for sale or lease are Gillam School, Lee School (subject to court ^approval for building the FDC) and Pankey. * ors.  among the Direct attorney to prepare stipulations approval for a building replacement at Forest Junior High (as previously submitted to the Court) with a net increase of 6 classrooms, a 6 classroom addition to Southwest Junior High to replace 4 portable classrooms :or a net increase of 2, and a classroom addition, with a net increase of 4 classrooms to Mabelvale Junior High. our prepare seeking Heights ted to the Court) wi Direct attorney to prepare a stipulation approval the construction of a professional development center near Southwest Junior High. our for a a seeking LRSD, the other parties, and the Magnet Review Committee will study the of shadow preference for Booker, Carver, Consideration will be given to reducing the number of neighborhood students who are displaced by the current assignment process used for use and Gibbs. will be given students who these schools. assignment process usedMann jr.it i\u0026gt;iaoN4\u0026gt; P-.a*K K\u0026gt;\nnt6 Ss-iiwes\nM am Cemal UsCella.') r aif\\-e* Cent! al Fair Kall McC)i:an Parkvt* Aeiossaae Cioacify 733 959 59* 692 702 *50 S.656 67 653 959 i,7\u0026lt; 692 603 751 *50 6.C39 1.691 934 1.218 1.085 5.5*6 1.891 90* 1.216 1.065 450 400 5.9*6 LRSO long-Sange Ar.encance Zone Pi Conaifwo^n 0\u0026lt; Nw Seal* 1W2-93 1993*M 795 74 9 1.C21 M9 702 631 764 0 5.SS1 795 7*9 1.C21 6t9 7Z2 -/A 831 764 0 5,551 1.751 918 1.088 1.221 0 *.966 1.751 918 1.066 0 4.966 1 C2 1 CJ 1 0 1 ifi 1 01 1.C2 0.00 0.96 0.93 0.56 1.06 1.C2 1.01 1.03 1.02 0.39 0.92 74 7*2 977 641 679 BM 605 0 5.5*9  Cl , Cl 1 02 ns 0.96 1.2 1.07 0.00 0.96 f? 799 1 C?3 Ml MS 914 627 0 5.701 CcMiucJier Ne* Statt 781 7*2 977 681 679 66* ks 0 5.\u0026lt;37 0.91 0.67 1.02 1.01 0.96 1.10 1.07 c.oo 0.90 612 799 1.023 661 665 91* 627 0 - 5.701 VAihout Conciruetion ot A\u0026gt;o*eact Snio( H^h Sctiooit C.93 1.C2 0.69 1.13 e.c: 0.90 0.93 1.02 0.89 1.13 0.00 0.90 1.825 1.C2 1.916 985 1.09 1.C26 1.069 1.339 5.338 5.90 1.23 5.00 0.96 1.0*3 l.*C2 0 5.38* Win Conatrueiion ol Aiopaee Snor Hifh Senoo)* 1.925 1.02 1.916 965 1.09 1.C26 1.389 1.339 0 5.338 - Sai.o on cu.i.nt ntoUm.nn 0. an.noanc. ion. (so,, noi \u0026gt;.ll.ct .nioUmani, Oy icnool). - S.ai, lo\u0026gt; Im.ioiatnot Uagn.i Scnoo at. count.d in io\u0026lt;al caoacily. Out no .luo.nt. at. .non lot in, - No .iio.anc. Ka, o..n mao. lo. u-io-u iiancl.i, a iniiaamtnci o.\u0026lt;.g..gatK\u0026gt;n i.an.l.... =age 1 0.90 1.23 0.00 0.96 1.0*0 1.402 0 0 5.36* 'jec'.icns  09 1 C7 C.9 1.30 0.00 1.01 5.95 1.07 0.96 0.9 1.10 c.oo 0.94 1.01 1.13 0.5S 1.29 c.oc 0.97 1.01 1.13 0.86 1.29 0.00 0.00 0.91 1.C35 *53 697 919 634 0 5.759 634 1.C35 653 657 919 0 5.759 1.530 1.439 0 5.451 1.561 1.030 1.021 1.439 0 0 5.451 995-S t C3  .C 1.0* 1.13 1 Cl 0.00 1.02 C.96 1 06 0.97 1.01 c.oo 0.95 1.C4. C.F* 1.33 5.03 0.98 1.0* 1.1* 0.6* 0.00 0.00 0.92 1.X7 1 35 6*3 7C3 6*9 612 0 5.M9 626 1.0C7 5*3 703 6*9 612 0 5.\u0026amp;9 1.973 1.03* 1.573 1.034 1.001 0 0 5.4*9 1 Zt 1 Z2 0.00 1.00 C '^7 0.95 1 22 1.38 C.9* 0 2 0.58 0.62 0 00 0 05 ) achooi* \u0026amp;cau they n* nc aiienaance\none.XiX. Timeiifies Litiie Hock School District Building Plan Timeline Court AppfcvaJ qI Building Plan AMtgn arehiiectc RockalatUr Stephan* King Fores Haighla Southwest Mabalvala POC Working Drawings Prepared Aockelaiiar r Stepheng Xing Forest Heiphts Southwest MaOeiviJa POC Cpoiracts Awarded Rockaiallar Sephans King ....... Fores\nHeights Southwest Mabalvaia Relocation of Saphang' Sudanis Consinjclioo Phaea Rockelailar Saphans King Forest Haights Southwest MaPalvaia POC Occupancy Rockefeller Saphans King Forest Heights Souihwast Mabaivilia POC Spring Fail Winiw XXX XXX  XXX XXX XXX XXX XXX XXX XXX XXX XXX XXX XXX XXX XXX 1M1 XXX XXX XXX XXX  XXX XXX XXX 1M2 XXX XXX XXX XXX XXX XXX XXX XXX XXX XXX XXX XXX XXX Spring 1602 XXX XXX XXX XXX XXX Summer 1M2 XXX XXX XXX XXX Fll 1002 XXX XXX XXX XXX XXX XXX XXX XXX \\Vinier 1003 XXX XXX XXX Spring 1003 XXX XXX XXX Sommor 1003 XXX XXX . Fall XXX XXXIN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION 93 JU 30 PH 5: IP LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT CAPL : HTS.CL.\n: PLAINTIFF V. BY_ _ _ _ LR-C-82866 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, ET AL DEFENDANTS MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL INTERVENORS KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL INTERVENORS NOTICE OF FILING The Little Rock School District (LRSD) hereby gives notice of the filing of the following budget documents required by the Court's June 15, 1993 Order: 1. An updated 1993-94 tentative LRSD budget document which includes: A. By school or department, budget detail showing function code, object code, and FTE that incudes any changes from the 1992-93 budget as to additions. deletions. and i reinstatements\nB. Also by school or department, 1991-92 actual expenses. the 1992-93 budget, 1992-93 unaudited actual expenses. and the 1993-94 budget\nC. Any other summaries and budgets shown in the table of contents of the tentative budget document. 2. A LRSD budget summary projecting revenues and expenses for each of the next five fiscal years which reflects annual incoming settlement monies (and any settlement loan funds the district anticipates drawing). The summary must also include anticipated yearly M-to-M revenues. Respectfully submitted, LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT FRIDAY, ELDREDGE \u0026amp; CLARK 2000 First Commercial Bldg. 400 West Capitol Street Little Rock, AR 72201 (501) 376-2011 Bar No. 8108 .ristopher CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I certify that a copy of the foregoing Notice of Filing has been served on the following people by depositing copy of same in the United States mail on this 30th day of June, 1993: Mr. John Walker JOHN WALKER, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72206 Mr. Sam Jones WRIGHT, LINDSEY \u0026amp; JENNINGS 2200 Worthen Bank Bldg. 200 West Capitol Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Steve Jones JACK, LYON \u0026amp; JONES, P.A. 3400 Capitol Towers Capitol \u0026amp; Broadway Streets Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Richard Roachell Roachell and Streett First Federal Plaza 401 West Capitol, Suite 504 Little Rock, AR 72201 Ms. Ann Brown Desegregation Monitor Heritage West Bldg., Suite 510 201 East Markham Street Little Rock, AR 72201 ristopher Hell . -X ' * .it'- IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION AUG 3 1592 Offics of Qessgi yui !n Mor:'ior-t'} LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT PLAINTIFFS V. NO. LR-C-82-866 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, ET AL DEFENDANTS MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL DEFENDANTS KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL INTERVENORS NOTICE OF FILING On January 21, 1992, this court ordered the Little Rock School District to submit certain information concerning its desegregation budget. The required budget information was filed on June 1, 1992. The budget projections which were previously submitted have now been revised based on current information. The revised budget projections are attached to this Notice of Filing. Respectfully submitted. LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT FRIDAY, ELDREDGE \u0026amp; CLARK 2000 First Commercial Bldg. 400 West Capitol Street Little Rock, AR 72201 (501) 376-2011 By: Christopher Helfer Bar No. 81083 kaihyiNoticB of FilialCERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I certify that a copy of the foregoing Notice of Filing has been served on the following by depositing copy of same in the United States mail on this 31st, day of July, 1992: Mr. John Walker JOHN WALKER, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72206 Mr. Sam Jones WRIGHT, LINDSEY \u0026amp; JENNINGS 2200 Worthen Bank Bldg. 200 West Capitol Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Steve Jones JACK, LYON \u0026amp; JONES, P.A. 3400 Capitol Towers Capitol \u0026amp; Broadway Streets Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Richard Roachell #15 Hickory Creek Drive Little Rock, AR 72212 Ms. Ann Brown Heritage West Bldg., Suite 510 201 East Markham Street Little Rock, AR 72201 Christopher He knihy'Noikx of Filing 2 LRSD Projected Revenue and Expense 1992/93 - 1996/97 Revised 7-30-92 Response to Federal Court Order Dated January 21, 1992 Assumptions/Notes: 1. The years of the projection and the formats used were done through consultation Monitoring (ODM). with the Office of Desegregation Although the LRSD implemented the TriDistrict Plan and double funded the incentive schools in 1990- 91, these figures are not included. 2. These projections are estimates based on current information. Although the LRSD committed to the programs of Desegregation Plan, these figures should not be viewed is 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. the as precise commitments of funds. it is our hope that the objectives of the Plan can be met in more costeffective ways. It The LRSD is in the process of negotiating labor contracts with teachers and support personnel at this time. Consequently, projection of any salary costs starting with 1992-93 cannot be Consequently done with certainty. For the purpose of these projections, it is assumed that annual step and experience increases will be provided to all employees. We have also used a factor of 1% for inflationary increases in non-salary costs. The LRSD Board of Directors adopted a balanced budget for 1992-93 on July 23, 1992. None of the budget reductions will prevent LRSD from implementing its Desegregation Plan. modifications to the Desegregation Plan proposed by LRSD and The approved by the Court for Henderson and McClellan, however, will have to be adjusted in order to implement the proposed budget reductions at those schools. At this time, the LRSD takes no position as to the necessity for a millage increase. The reasons for taking this position are as follows: A) B) C) It is not practical to rely on a millage increase in the near future to balance the budget. The LRSD's ability to fund long-range capital improvement projects is linked to the issue of extended millage. The LRSD Board of Directors must set its priorities and develop a long-range plan priorities. and budget around these It is assumed that capacity for the incentive schools will be limited to a ratio of 20 students to 1 teacher. The projections show in summary the revenue and expense of the most significant federal programs.LRSD Projected Revenue and Expense Page 2 8. Another program that will grow further is the 4-year old program. This has been projected based on the requirements of the Desegregation Plan and previous submissions. 9. Any required new construction will be paid for with capital improvement funds from previous bond issues. We believe most of this is planned for. covered with second-lien issues possible extended millage. Any additional improvements will be or from bonds secured by 10. The 1993-94 reduction 11. 12. 13. Programs, equipment. reflects in program Some funding the completion #10, Academic Support is maintenance of this equipment. added of payments for PAL for replacement and The Desegregation Plan includes certain programs that require funds but are not provided separate accounting codes at this time. This means that cost information for implementation must be extracted from other budget line items. The opening dates of the new King and Stephens Schools shown as approved by the Court. are The fifth and sixth positions (from the left) of the LRSD standard account code desegregation expenses. will be used for identifying The Desegregation program numbers shown on the spread sheets are the codes to be used. 14. The Order specifies that start-up costs be identified, known \"start up\" costs are as follows: The A. Academic Support Program $1.0 million ends in 1992-93 B. Data Processing $.25 million in 1992-93 and $.50 million in 1993-94 through 1996-97 C. Four-Year Old Programs $34,500 for five new programs and $30,000 for playground equipment No other significant \"start up\" costs are projected. 15. Because of the new reporting codes used for 1992-93, reconciliation between 1991-92 and 1992-93 program budgets is The District will provide any specific answers which may arise because of the change in accounting coding imperfect. structure.Desegregation Budgeting Description - Future Year Procedures A. A list of Desegregation programs with 2-digit program numbers and a description of costs to be charged to each program will be prepared. B. The program number will be coded in the fifth and sixth positions of the account number so that costs may be charged to a Desegregation program from various operating units and functions for various objects and using money from various fund sources. C. Each budget manager will submit a proposal for spending allotted funds. These proposals will be conjunction with the Desegregation Plan audit. reviewed in Once specific plans for spending have been proposed, the Superintendent will prepare a proposal for Board approval. In addition the Superintendent will prepare a process for requiring Board approval for changes in planned expenditures above a to-be determined spending authority. Once the types of expenditures have been programmed, the Purchasing Department will not be authorized to issue a purchase order except for those items programmed and approved. D. The Superintendent will immediately begin directing a process for Board involvement in the long-range planning and budgeting process. E. The Superintendent will direct the new administration team to conduct a proposals. Desegregation Plan audit and related budgetLITTLE FIOCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 1992-97 REVENUE PROJECTION AND BUDGET SUMMARY 07-29-92 1991-92 1992-93 1993- 94 1994-95 1995-96 1996-97 REVENUE - LOCAL SOURCES CURRENT TAXES 40% PULLBACK DELINQUENT TAXES EXCESS TREASURERS FEES DEPOSITORY INTEREST REVENUE IN UEU 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 39,088,120 21,694,578 4,250,186 140,000 300,000 224,667 461,000 300,000 100,857 40,093,227 22.453,744 4,577,692 144,200 309,000 226,914 484,050 309,000 102,874 41,416,117 23,196,645 4,615,022 148,526 318,270 229,183 508,253 318,270 104,932 42,786,512 23,966,307 4,753,473 152,982 327,818 231,475 533,665 327,818 107,030 44,206,276 24,718,335 4,896,077 157,571 337,653 233,789 560,348 337,653 109,171 TOTAL 64,998,181 66,559,408 68,700,700 70,855,217 73,187,080 75,556,873 REVENUE - COUNTY SOURCES COUNTY GENERAL SEVERANCE TAX 73,419 15,350 73,419 11,000 73,419 11,000 73,419 11,000 73,419 11,000 73,419 11,000 TOTAL 88,769 84,419 84,419 84,419 84,419 84,419 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 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 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 28,394,849 8,094,112 73,419 1,500,000 903,594 240,873 3,000 3,300,000 575,436 3,600,000 718,517 29,814,591 6,042,591 73,419 1,545,000 993,953 252,917 3,000 3,564,000 604,207 5,200,000 740,072 31,305,321 3,829,942 73,419 1,591,350 1,093,349 265,563 3,000 3,849,120 634,418 5,460,000 762,274 32,870,587 683,125 73,419 1,639,091 1,202,683 278,841 3,000 4,157,050 666,139 5,733,000 785,143 TOTAL 48,670,683 46,367,563 47,403,799 48,833,751 48,867,755 48,092,076 REVENUE - OTHER SOURCES PUBLIC LAW 874 TRANSFER FROM FED GRANTS TRANSFER FROM BOND ACCT 9,385 129,428 394,675 40,000 262,000 600,000 35,000 272,480 400,000 30,000 283,379 300,000 25,000 294,714 200,000 20,000 306,503 100,000 TOTAL 533,488 902.000 707,480 613,379 519,714 426,503 TOTAL REVENUE OPERATING 114,291,121 113,913,390 116,896,398 120,386,766 122,658,968 124,159,872UTTLEFIOCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 1992-37 REVENUE PROJECTION AND BUDGET SUMMARY 07-29-92 1991-92 1992-93 1993-94 1994- 95 1995- 96 1996-97 REVENUE-FEDERAL GRANTS CHAPTER I CHAPTER II TITLE VI B OTHER 3,272,693 224,423 558,810 1,076,226 4,474,288 215,020 569,986 1,097,751 4,563,774 219,320 581,386 1,119,706 4,655,049 223,707 593,014 1,142,100 4,748,150 228,181 604,874 1,164.942 4,843,113 232,745 616,971 1,188,240 TOTAL 5,132,152 6,357,045 6,484,186 6,613,869 6,746,147 6,881,070 REVENUE-MAGNET SCHOOLS 13,887,841 14,165,654 14,448,967 14,737,946 15,032,705 15,333,359 TOTAL REVENUE 119.423.273 120.270.435 123.380.584 127.000.636 129.405.115 131.040.941LITTLE KICK SCHOOL DISTRICT 1992-97 REVENUE PROJECTION AND BUDGET SUMMARY 072992 1991-92 1992-93 1993- 94 1994- 95 1995 - 96 1996- 97 EXPENSES SALARIES BENEFITS DESEGREGATION SERVICES, SUPPLIES, EQUIP. DEBT SERVICE CONTINGENCY 65,368,035 8,020,788 15,997,240 15,267,935 7,950,100 0 65,063,011 9,162,732 17,013,029 14,536,674 9,597,115 500,000 66,364,271 9,208,546 19,148,407 14,972,774 9,090,123 600,000 67,691,557 9,254,588 22,515,161 15,421,957 8,845,248 700,000 69,045,388 9,300,861 23,246,037 15,884,616 8,258,921 800,000 70,426,296 9,347,366 23,732,324 16,361,155 8,041,468 900,000 TOTAL OPERATING EXPENSES 112.604,098 115,872,561 119,384,121 124,428,511 126,535,823 128,808,608 EXPENSES-FEDERAL GRANTS 5,132,152 6,357,045 6,484,186 6,613,869 6,746,147 6,881,070 EXPENSES-MAGNET SCHOOLS 13,887,841 14,165,654 14,448,967 14,737,946 15,032,705 15,333,359 TOTAL EXPENSES 131,624,091 136,395,260 140,317,274 145,780,327 148,314,675 151,023,037 INCREASE (DECREASE) IN FUND BALANCE 1,687,023 (1,959,171) (2,487,723) (4,041,745) (3,876,855) (4,648,736) BEGINNING FUND BALANCE 634,842 2,321,865 362,694 (2,125,029) (6,166,774) (10,043,629) ENDING FUND BALANCE 2.321.865 362.694 (2.125.0291 (6.166.7741 (10.043.6291 (14.692.3651 FUND BALANCE ANALYSIS BEGINNING FUND BALANCE 2.321.865 362.694 3.874.971 5,833.226 6.956.371 INCREASE(DECREASE) IN FUND BALANCE RECORD LOAN REVENUE BUDGET REDUCTIONS (1.959.171) (2.487,723) 3,000,000 3,000,000 (4,041,745) 3,000,000 3,000,000 (3,876,855) 2,000,000 3,000,000 (4.648.736) 3.000.000 ENDING FUND BALANCE 362.694 3.874.971 5.833.226 6.956.371 5.307.635 * $1.5CX3.OOO recorded as revenue in 1992-931105 1110 FOUR YR OLD PROGRA KINDERGARTEN 1120-99 REGULAR PROGRAMS 1210-99 SPECIAL ED PROGRAM 1320-99 VOCATIONAL PROGRAM 1410-99 ADULT EDUCATION 1510-99 COMPENSATORY ED 1910 GIFTED \u0026amp; TALENTED 2110-90 PUPIL SUPPORT 2210-99 STAFF SUPPORT SERVI 2310-20 ADM SUPPORT SERVIC 2410 PRINCIPAL'S OFFICE 2510-99 BUSINESS SUPPORT 2610-99 CENTRAL SUPPORT 3000'S 4000 5100 LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT EXPENDITURES BY FUNCTIONAL AREA 1991-92 TEACHER SALARY 138,077.08 2,760,904.00 28,381,519.29 3,989,261.59 4,023,283.53 1,013,772.90 1,143,799.80 2,570,622.02 2,667,369.46 198,491.86 3,895,984.12 287,255.96 COMMUNITY SERVICES NON PROGRAMMED BONDED INDEBTEDNESS OPERATING FUND 79,415.14 347,089.07 6,024,779.24 1,354,685.45 1,158,370.16 697,588.87 253,127.76 183,211.79 1,174,153.77 1,631,966.93 446,175.31 1,983,094.66 19,318,518.35 2,161,066.34 740,723.24 32,450.45 7,950,100.01 DESEG 94,937.48 6,072,099.95 10,538.70 107,559.18 35,631.06 1,589,524.16 309,073.21 1,479,959.60 441,244.35 107,262.02 1,041,101.85 465,561.53 504,079.83 3,738,667.07 TOTAL FEDERAL GRANTS MAGNET SCHOOLS TOTAL 302,717.88 338,788.30 130,394.89 3,123,267.62 55,541.49 371,072.25 301,061.72 88,318.56 429,905.44 8,567,902.51 276,198.03 592,044.13 5,333.69 181,901.87 658,847.84 414,539.17 4,792.23 302,192.60 114,004.58 1,207,390.15 1,050,413.66 503,364.75 51,070,341.61 45,536,516.54 15,997,239.99 5,132,152.12 13,887,841.24 312,429.70 3,537,898.51 49,046,300.99 5,933,401.65 6,220,045.30 863,614.82 5,985,026.13 1,564,454.95 5,083,769.09 6,494,896.88 1,174,230.08 7,193,730.95 21,414,826.09 2,913,883.83 1,546,995.67 7,950,100.01 131,624,091.50Prg # Pa# Description 1 5 2 5 5 28 6 28 7 39 Hippy 4 Yr Old Programs Student Hearing Officer Office of Desegregation Extra-Curricular 8 44 Teacher Recruiter 9 46 10 48 12 63 13 82 Staff Development Academic Support Multicultral Programs Incentive Grants 14 86 15 114 16 129 17 129 18 143 19 148 21 148 22 224 24 227 25 1-9 Original Magnets Sp Ed Learning Center Security Data Processing System M-to-M Magnet Schools King School Stephens School Monitoring Activities Computerized Transp Romine Theme 26 93 27 34 28 35 Community School In-School Suspension Job Fair 29 28 32 106 33 1-56 34 131 35 125 Testing Assistance Library Services Parent Recruiting VIPS - Recruiting Prejudice Reduction Plant Services 49 00 To Be Allocated Incentive Schools: 51 149 Office of Incentive Schools 52 152 53 153 Writing To Read Science Labs 54 153 55 153 56 153 57 154 59 158 61 171 64 172 Computer Labs Foreign Language Computer Loan Program Extended Day/Week Field Trips Transportation Instructional Aides 65 172 Extended Year 66 176 72 190 73 193 74 194 75 153 Incentive/Recognition Staffing Staff Development TeK:her Stipends Other Academic Programs SUB-TOTAL INCENTIVES GRAND TOTAL SETTLEMENT PLAN BUDGET Unaudited 91-92 92-93 93-94 94-95 95-96 96-97 214,295 278,772 284,347 290,034 295,835 301,751 811,591 88,332 452,998 31,072 45,924 400,069 2,846,490 164,490 658,575 3,738,667 56,291 703,830 200,727 354,920 0 0 373,686 0 17,267 295,276 914,101 4,063 0 588,441 22,367 62,714 0 268,247 0 13,314,433 261,482 1,096,193 1,325,132 2,682,807 15,997,240 1,202,033 1,238,094 1,520,236 1,810,843 1,847,060 99,087 101,069 103,090 105,152 107,255 433,133 441,796 450,632 459,644 468,837 0 0 0 0 0 42,204 43,048 43,909 44,787 45,683 447,446 456,395 465,523 474,833 484,330 2,785,221 1,840,925 1,877,744 1,915,298 1,953,604 240,315 320,000 3,800,000 110,307 617,038 411,583 721,442 0 0 391,495 10,000 85,816 115,000 748,258 1,500 11,350 716,504 27,000 65,863 5,000 200,000 13,886,365 63,147 15,000 15,000 15,000 7,500 5,000 863,000 37,500 20,000 549,695 260,000 21,500 914,823 59,500 225,000 55,000 3,126,664 17,013,029 245,121 320,000 3,876,000 112,513 629,379 773,930 543,085 2,603,300 0 399,325 10,200 87,532 115,000 763,223 1,530 11,577 730,834 27,540 67,180 5,000 200,000 15,927,943 65,041 15,450 15,450 15,450 7,725 5,150 868,890 38,625 20,600 566,186 267,800 22,145 942,267 61,285 231,750 56,650 3,220,464 19,148,407 250,024 255,024 260,125 320,000 320,000 320,000 3,953,520 4,032,590 4,113,242 114,763 117,058 119,400 641,967 654,806 667,902 789,409 805,197 821,301 553,947 565,026 576,326 2,655,366 2,707,000 407,311 10,404 89,283 115,000 778,487 1,561 11,809 745,451 28,091 68,524 5,000 200,000 19,198,082 66,993 15,914 15,914 15,914 7,957 5,305 915,557 39,784 21,218 583,171 275,834 22,809 970,535 63,124 238,703 58,350 3,317,078 22,515,161 2,708,473 2,761,140 415,457 10,612 91,068 115,000 794,057 1,592 12,045 760,360 28,653 69,894 5,000 200,000 19,829,446 69,002 16,391 16,391 16,391 8,195 5,464 943,023 40,977 21,855 600,666 284,109 23,494 999,651 65,017 245,864 60,100 3,416,591 23,246,037 2,762,643 2,816,363 423,767 10,824 92,890 115,000 809,938 1,624 12,286 775,567 29,226 71,292 5,000 200,000 20,213,235 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 3,519,088 23,732,3243 NOV IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION filed NOV 0 51992 0iiiC3 CARL R. BRENTS, CLERK By.. DEP. 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 MEMORANDUM AND ORDER On May 26, 1992, the Magnet Review Committee (\"MRC\") submitted to the Court for review and approval a budget for the 1992-93 school yeeir for the six original magnet schools. (Document #1609.) On July 31, 1992, the Little Rock School District (\"LRSD\") filed a Special Status Report setting forth its operating budget for 1992- 93. (Document #1649.) At a hearing on August 3, 1992, the Court heard testimony on budget reduction proposals by the LRSD in its 1992-93 operating budget. Some of those cutbacks resulted in staff reductions at the magnet schools. The Court, with some exceptions. approved the LRSD's proposed reductions in an order filed on August 4, 1992. On September 28, 1992, the MRC wrote the Court, expressing its concern about certain LRSD budget cuts. It also addressed staffing changes at two of the magnet schools which resulted in a white principal and assistant principal at Gibbs International Studies Magnet Elementary School and a black principal and assistant principal at Washington Basic Skills/Math-Science Magnet ElementarySchool. (Document #1693.) The MRC complains that the LRSD failed in its obligation to work with the MRC prior to implementing reorganization or budget reduction plans that would affect the programming or staff at the magnet schools. The LRSD filed a response to the MRC's letter, basically arguing that the role of the MRC has changed since the establishment of the magnet schools during a period of the \"controlled choice desegregation plan. It contends that the MRC's role now is to recommend policy decisions which must be communicated in writing to the par\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\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_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":null,"dcterms_medium":["documents (object genre)"],"dcterms_extent":null,"dlg_subject_personal":null,"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":"\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n\n\n\n   \n\n\n\n\n   \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n  \n\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_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":null,"dcterms_medium":["documents (object genre)"],"dcterms_extent":null,"dlg_subject_personal":null,"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":"\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n\n\n\n   \n\n\n\n\n   \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n  \n\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":null,"dcterms_medium":["documents (object genre)"],"dcterms_extent":null,"dlg_subject_personal":null,"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":"\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n\n\n\n   \n\n\n\n\n   \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n  \n\n  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 "},{"id":"bcas_bcmss0837_271","title":"Cheerleaders","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":["1992/1993"],"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","Student activities","Educational law and legislation","Race discrimination"],"dcterms_title":["Cheerleaders"],"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/271"],"dcterms_temporal":null,"dcterms_rights_holder":null,"dcterms_bibliographic_citation":null,"dlg_local_right":null,"dcterms_medium":["documents (object genre)"],"dcterms_extent":null,"dlg_subject_personal":null,"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":"\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n\n\n\n   \n\n\n\n\n   \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n  \n\nJOHN w. Walker, I.A. A'iTORNEY At Law 172.3 Broadway LirrLE Rtx'K. Arkansas 7T.JIII\nTelephone (.'loi) 371-37.58 EAX {.5(H) 371-1187 JUN 2 5 1992 .JOHN W. WALKER RALIII WASHINOTON MARK RllRNl'.Tl'E WILEY A. URANTON. .JR. AUSTIN IORTER..JR. * Alsfi t Irarlin- in Ihr Dislrict if Office of Desenre-iPfirn \u0026gt;. Monitoring June 24, 1992 The Honorable Susan Webber Wright United Stated District Judge United States District Court 600 West Capitol 72201 Little Rock, Arkansas Dear Judge Wright: Relief and I have filed a Motion for Preliminary Injunctive I would like to have the Court expedite All parties have been given notice other relief in this case. this matter if at all possible. and'the entirely new party, Mr.' Ralph Hoffman a Summons. issued out of an abundance of caution to insure he has This Summons was actual notice of the proceedings. Of course, I expect him to be represe nted by LRSD counsel. Very truly yours, ,// V j6hn W. Walker JWW:Im Office of Desegregation Monitoring cc: All Counsel Mr. Ralph HoffmanJohn W. Walker, p.a. received ArniuNEY At Law 1723 Broadway Lm-LE Rook. Arkansas 72-jihi Telephone (501) 374-37.58 FAX (501) 374-4187 JUN 2 S OHice ot Desegrogafon Monitoong  lollN W. WALKER liALI'll WASHINUION MAUK miUNElTE WILEY A. IIHANTON. IH. AUSTIN IOHTKIL -IK.  Alw iiilniiHi-ii l' I'tiirlin in tiv Iislricl \u0026lt;f \u0026lt; H|iiiiil\u0026lt;i:i June 24, 1992 Chris Heller, Esq. FRIDAY, ELDREDGE \u0026amp; CLARK, P.A. 2000 First Commercial Bldg. 400 West Capitol Little Rock, AR 72203 Re: LRSD v. PCSSD Dear Chris: to Intervene and for other I am enclosing a copy of the Motion relief which I am today filing against the Little Rock School District and Principal Ralpli Hoffman of Pulaski Heights Jr. High School. Please accept this letter as evidence of service of the relief which I am Please accept this Complaint, i.e.. Motion. and in Inasmuch as Hoffman is not a defendant at this time, that Dr. Mac Bernd has not been substituted as a party defendant and is not yet a party, I am taking the liberty of also serving Dr. Bernd and Mr. Hoffman with copies of the Motion. Please note that I am also seeking to have Dr. Bernd adhere to the Desegregation has started off by violating through his plan of Please note that Plan which he reorganization. I am In that the Motion seeks preliminary injunctive relief, hereby advising that I will ask Judge Wright to advance this matter so that it may be considered in a timely fashion. I am also serving each board member with a copy of the Motion by leaving same at the office of Mr. Bernd so that he may have them available for the board members when they come to the meeting scheduled for this evening. If you advise. have any questions regarding this matter, please Very trul yours, J' h W. Walker '^7 JWW:ImChris Heller, Esg. June 24, 1992 Page 2 cc: Office of Desegregation Monitoring All Counsel P.S. A Memorandum will follow later on today.s CEiVEO IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION JUN 2 5* 1592 Office of Desegregafion Monitoring LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT, ET AL. PLAINTIFFS V. NO. LR-C-82-866 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT, ET AL. DEFENDANTS MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL. INTERVENORS KATHERINE W. KNIGHT, ET AL. INTERVENORS MOTION TO INTERVENE AND MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION Come the Joshua Intervenors and respectfully move the Court: a. to allow the intervention of the named minor children below through their parents and next friends\nand b. for declaratory, preliminary and permanent injunctive relief on behalf of said children with respect to their being allowed to participate without discrimination in the cheerleading activity at Pulaski Heights Junior High (hereinafter PHJH) in the Little Rock School District (LRSD). The intervenors submit the following allegations and legal contentions in support of their prayer for relief. The legal basis for their intervention and for their right or entitlement to relief is set forth in the attached memo of points and authorities. 1. The intervenors in application (hereinafter \"intervenors\") are as follows: A. Jennifer Mays, as next friend of Tiffany Mays\nB. Charles Perry, as next friend of Kimberly Perry\nC. Annette Jones and Carlos Jones, as next friends ofShannon Jones\nand D. Mary Lacey and Riccardo Lacey, as next friends of Riccarda Lacey. All of the intervenors are citizens of the United States and reside in the Little Rock School District. Each minor plaintiff will be in either the Sth or 9th grade at Pulaski Heights Jr. High School during the 1992-93 school year. Each minor is a member of the class of black students certified herein. The defendants in this limited proceeding are the LRSD\nCloyde McKinley Bernd, Superintendent of Schools of the LRSD\nand 2. Ralph Hoffman, Principal of PHJH. Defendant Bernd is sued in his official capacity and is being substituted with appropriate leave of the Court for Dr. Ruth Steele, the immediate past Superintendent of the LRSD. Mr. Hoffman is named for purposes of this proceeding alternately in his individual and official capacities. 3. This is proceeding to declare and define the legal a rights and other legal relations of the parties herein with respect to certain treatment which the minor intervenors contend they have suffered at PHJH during the 1991-92 school year and which they stand to have perpetuated upon during the 1992-23 school year. This is a motion for preliminary injunctive relief which requires the defendants to alter or modify the process and results thereof involved in cheerleader selection at PHJH in April 1992 for the 1992-93 school year. This is also a proceeding to enjoin the defendants from allowing certain discriminatory or unfair practices which provide 4 . 2at least the appearance of partiality and racial motivation to accompany the process of participation in extra-curricular activities at PHJH School. 5. This is also a proceeding to cite the LRSD for contempt of court for failing to supervise the process of student participation closely and carefully at PHJH and for allowing the extra-curricular activities at PHJH to remain substantially segregated without a written plan for remediation thereof. Preliminary Statement 6. The Joshua Intervenors in good faith entered into a Settlement Agreement with the LRSD the purpose of which was to forthwith eliminate all vestiges and effects of racial discrimination. All parties agreed that extra-curricular activities would be altered or modified to provide for the equitable, if not proportional, participation of both primary races in all school activities and programs. The spirit of the Agreement was to promote an environment wherein all youngsters who attended the LRSD public schools came to feel that the schools were being operated for all children and that inclusion of both races, rather than exclusion, was the objective in all activities. The School District took ultimate responsibility for implementing this expectation. Indeed, the District has formulated policies and other writings designed to provide for the elimination of vestiges of discrimination. Those procedures must be followed. at the least, if the relief promised to black children is to be provided. This action is essential because the conduct of defendants. 3especially Principal Hoffman and his staff, is egregious, and because the school district board has not seen fit to hold Principal Hoffman to the standard which the District itself has set for racial inclusivity. Court intervention is the last resort as provided in the Settlement Agreement. 7. During the 1990-91 school year. the PHJH operated a number of extra-curricular programs and activities. Program data generally demonstrate racial patterns of participation. See Exhibit \"A\", pages 1 and 2 hereto. This exhibit. inter alia. demonstrates that in 1991-92, of twenty-six cheerleaders only two were black. while on the other hand. out of sixteen drill team members, only three were white. The enrollment of PHJH during 1991-92 was 761 students of whom 468 or 61% were black. 8. PHJH maintained other vestiges of discrimination as well. The resource room was 96% black (42 of 45) , while gifted and talented students were overwhelmingly white. In the remedial and compensatory education classes, 157 (97%) of the 162 pupils were black. Furthermore, the statistics on suspensions and expulsions demonstrate gross disparity. Black male youth, especially. are suspended and recommended for expulsion for reasons as vague as wearing \"gang colors\" and giving II gang signs. II In reaching these consequences, the administration is deliberately set up to provide the appearance of racial inclusivity in decision making. Accordingly, a black assistant principal, James Mosby, is put into all situations involving the discipline and treatment of black students. Mr. Mosby so routinely validates teacher recommendations 4and other racial adversities that this may be regarded as condition of his employment or his job description. 9. The minor intervenors in this action complain about the process which Defendant Hoffman and the LRSD utilized in the selection of cheerleaders at PHJH for the 1992-93 school year as being racial in effect if not purpose. The facts which they a specifically allege are as follows: a. During the cheerleader tryouts for 1991-92 which were held in April of 1991, approximately thirty-six black pupils applied out of a total of fifty applicants. There were twelve applicants selected of which two were black. In other words, black applicants were initially selected at the rate of one out of eighteen while white applicants were initially selected at the rate of six out of seven. On information and belief, this disproportionate effect discouraged many would be black applicants from applying to participate in the cheerleading program for the 1992-93 school year. b. While the cheerleading program at PHJH has become labeled as intended for white pupils, the drill team has become labeled as intended for black children. Consequently, all sixteen of the dream team applicants who completed the application process during 1990-91 either were selected to participate on the drill team or to serve as managers for it. The three white students who had the temerity to apply for the drill team also served. During the cheerleader tryouts in April, 1992 for the c. 51992-93 school year, only eleven black pupils applied. Seventeen white pupils applied. Of the eleven. only one was chosen, Intervenor Shannon Jones. [Her specific contentions will be addressed, infra.] Of the seventeen white students, eleven were chosen. d. The selection process has the appearance of being intended to effect a specific purpose. On information and belief. Mrs. Terry Bridges, Cheerleading Sponsor at PHJH school, selected judges for cheerleaders. She did so by selecting two white and two black judges. The two white judges were a mother and her daughter while one of the two black judges was an employee of the white mother and daughter. The second black judge was from out of the city. Mrs. Bridges has refused to disclose the name of the judges. Moreover, Mrs. Bridges, with the knowledge and consent of Mr. Hoffman and in violation of cheerleading rules, allowed her own mother to participate in the process as a non-voting member. Thus, Mrs. Bridges was in ultimate initial control of the process. On April 27, 1992, the one black judge from outside the community wrote a letter, \"To Whom It May Concern,\" indicating that the selection process. in her opinion. was unfair and recommended that the \"situation should be viewed again. II See Exhibit It 1. II To date. no LRSD official has inquired into her e. f. reasons for believing the process to have been tainted. g- Other adult applicants for intervention have sought to appeal the process and results of the cheerleader tryout through 6Principal Hoffman and Dr. Ruth Steele, Superintendent effective until June 26, 1992. On May 11, 1992, they sent a letter to Dr. Steele with their complaint herein. See Exhibit II 2. II h. In adult intervenors' meeting with Defendant Hoffman, he was rude and non-communicative to them. Moreover, he refused to allow them to view data on which he based his decision and which he placed into the files of their children. Hoffman also refused to disclose the names of the judges or to share with the parents the criteria utilized. the weights attached to each criterion and the ultimate consequences as reported by the individual judges. 1. On information and belief. Dr. Ruth Steele passed this matter on to Assistant Superintendent, Dr. Angela Sewell, for investigation and recommendation. Dr. Sewell, again on information and belief, verbally requested Defendant Hoffman to review the situation again and give her a report. All of this happened subsequent to May 11, 1992. There has been no response to date to the applicants in intervention from either the District or Mr. Hoffman. Dr. Sewell has not provided a written recommendation or report to her superiors. On information and belief, Mr. Hoffman sought to adjust the situation by naming Javanna Moss, a black junior high j  school student, as an alternate. Ms. Moss' parent was one of the signers of the letter dated May 11, 1992 , Exhibit This \"2. \" increased the black probability of participation to 8%. k. During the 1991-92 school year, however. Principal 7Hoffman removed one of the two black cheerleaders from the squad. That left Shannon Jones as the lone black cheerleader at PHJH during the 1991-92 school year. The tradition or past practice at PHJH is that a 9th grade student who served as a cheerleader the preceding year would be selected as one of four captains of the cheerleading squad. Shannon Jones was one of seven returning cheerleaders selected for the 1992-93 school year. Only four persons manifested an interest in being captain or co-captain of the 9th graders who returned. Shannon was one of them. Ms. Bridges manipulated the process to exclude the possibility of Shannon serving as captain or co-captain. Consequently, each returning white child who wished to serve in these roles did so, while the only black child who wanted to serve in that role was not allowed to do so. 1. During the 1991-92 school year, the one black child excluded from the cheerleading group. Christie Love, had been assigned to PHJH. A parent of the rejected white applicant complained that Ms. Love may not be eligible to attend the LRSD the next year because of her new residence in the county. Upon that event. the rejected child of the complaining white parent. was appointed to the squad by Defendant Hoffman. m. Ms. Love's application for permission to remain at PHJH was disallowed. n. The minor intervenors were both qualified and eligible to participate as cheerleaders. Kimberly Perry tried out during both 1990-91 and 1991-92 school years. The adult 8intervenors and other black parents were never given reasons by Defendant Hoffman for the alleged rejections or for the almost unanimous selection of competing white youngsters. 10. On page 1 of the LRSD Desegregation Plan, the District has committed to: E. of Ensuring that equity occurs in all phases school activities school, class and and operations (i.e. staff assignments\nparticipation in extracurricular activities\ndistribution of resources\netc.) added for emphasis] [underlining I. equip staff Ongoing staff development activities to teachers, with the administrators, skills needed and to other achieve 11. quality desegregation education. On page 28 of the LRSD Desegregation Plan, the goal of the District is set forth as being inter alia: \"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 students. Exhibit It on II 3\" , minority and disadvantaged [underlining added for emphasis] 12. On page 39 of the LRSD Desegregation Plan Implementation Timeline, the goal is stated as follows: 13 . It [to] provide and ensure opportunities and encouragements to all students to participate in extracurricular and co-curricular activities. II Exhibit \"4 II for emphasis. [underlining added Furthermore, the District commits to a yearly II analysis II of participation data. The responsibility is that of the Assistant Superintendents, the Associate Superintendent for Desegregation and the Manager for Support Services. [In this respect. Superintendent 9Bernd proposes to change the desegregation responsibilities within the plan by his proposed reorganization plan. He has neither sought nor obtained Court approval of his plan.] There has been no written \"analysis\" by the defendants as provided by the plan, however. 14. The foregoing allegations are serious indications of this school district's failure to \"ensure\" non-discrimination at PHJH. Moreover, it is an indication that the District will not follow its own desegregation plan when the effect is to deny or limit participation of white students or to afford it to black students in certain activities. such as the Beta Club, Cheerleading, the Yearbook and the Y-Teens organization. 15. The District has made strong verbal and written a commitment to desegregation. implementing race relations 1. e. , among students and staff members\nensuring equities in all phases of school activities and operation\nand requiring the promotion of \"positive public reaction to desegregation\". This commitment is the first page of the LRSD Plan. See Exhibit \"5\" hereto. 16. The effective though paraphrased definition of equity as utilized in this case, is \"participation. not mere access.\" 17 . By the foregoing allegations, it is evident that the LRSD continues to treat one group of youngsters as inferior and another as superior. Principal Hoffman and his staff clearly engage in these practices in myriad ways. It is thus evident that the practices complained of constitute business as usual, racial prejudice, insufficient \"inservice\" training, or lack of awareness 10of the desegregation plan expectations on the part of Hoffman and his staff. The minor intervenors have been deprived of due process and equal protection of the laws. They have also been injured psychologically by their unequal treatment and by the exclusionary practices of Defendant Hoffman and the Little Rock School District. These injuries affect their attitudes about race, adult integrity, studying, their future and their self concepts. It says to them that they are not of value equal to white students. It also says that when they do seek to follow the reasonable rules of the district and when they do meet all the District's requirements for participation, they will still be treated differently due to their race or color. 19. Principal Hoffman has not prepared a written plan for eliminating or remediating racial disparities at PHJH, nor has he himself been properly \"inserviced\" by the District in such a way to avoid manifestation of furthering the interests of white students at the expense of and despite the needs of black students. 20. The minor intervenors and their parents have exhausted all reasonable remedies which they have for redress of their grievances in the school system. They have no other recourse than 18. to pray the Court for preliminary and permanent injunctive relief under the implementation promises of the desegregation plan and under the law. Their alleged treatment is violative of the Constitution, the Desegregation Plan, 42 U.S.C. Sections 1981 and 1983 and other commitments of the District. This action is 11therefore their only effective recourse. WHEREFORE, intervenors pray (a) for preliminary and appropriate injunctive relief as may be determined to be within the equity powers of the Court\n(b) for a declaratory judgment that the defendants have deprived the intervenors of equal protection and due process of laws\n(c) for mandatory II inservice training\" for Defendant Hoffman\n(d) for a mandatory requirement that all staff members at PHJH read, be tested upon and thereafter implement the Desegregation Plan in good faith\n(e) for elimination of selfserving, suspect selection criteria and procedures and staff\nand (f) that the district be held strictly accountable for meeting the objectives, goals and timetables of the Desegregation Plan with respect to all programs and activities. Intervenors also pray for an Order which substitutes Dr. Cloyde McKinley Bernd as a party defendant in place of Dr. Ruth Steele. Intervenors further request an Order requiring defendants to show cause why they should not be cited for contempt of court for their conduct alleged herein\nand for an Order requiring Superintendent Bernd to adhere to the approved plan herein with respect to lines and positions of authority, which are set forth therein. Applicants for intervention also pray for their costs including reasonable counsel fees. Respectfully submitted. 12JOHN W. WALKER, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR (501) 374-3758 72206 i 4. / ri'* z/ John W. Walker, Bar No. 64046 Mark Burnette, Bar No. 88078 J .! I Wiley A. pranton, Jr. Bar No. 90053 Norman Chachkin, Esq. NAACP Legal Defense Fund 99 Hudson Street New York, New York (202) 212-1900 10013 13CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing has been mailed, postage prepaid to the counsel of record listed below on this day of ChristophtHeller, Esg. Friday, Eldredge \u0026amp; Clark 2000 First Commercial Building Little Rock, AR 72201 Sam Jones, Esq. Wright, Lindsey \u0026amp; Jennings 2200 Worthen Bank Building Little Rock, AR 72201 Steve Jones, Esq. Jack, Lyon \u0026amp; Jones, P.A. 3400 Capitol Towers Capitol \u0026amp; Broadway Streets Little Rock, AR 72201 Richard Roachell, Esq. #15 Hickory Creek Drive 7 Little Rock, AR 72212 j azmotion Jofrn W. Walker 14 f' if i _  EXHIBIT 1  Whoni cih / l^lea/f ti- ifwtz , fva^ one. /fy-aMs ~4I? l/l'ijl ' -'^\u0026gt;1? i Ihig Qhieti\u0026amp;\nc/i/^ Swad l^' IL 5^W4/z/ d/^saribLl cvm\n'S-lui-lum hMc(li f/iiy, mQ. ii'ri^/ i:if 041/ iMat \\ Al bl i'la \\-^ I .t '^ ],.\ny^in/, ~nic ^WO '^\\fihiied\u0026amp;7/^t'^M/^ o/r nMie\u0026lt; MMrlein LeiiddfiLiiJ and 'i-h^e ()liitiK' LMiiz I^Milf Cvaz. 'Ai^/in' . ernpitii^, ! LnL 'TTii /n^)lfit.ic CL ^iLLdl Sia/fd cbf- 44! (^ ') hc\u0026gt;/^//7a Oh  i ^1^05 \u0026lt;UAa^ oh^e^ .  QC/bVihi^i^tyc : iti OfUtri klbbV^ m. -hif Min. liA^mee/ UdMyitf dif\nIh^ AIkiL 53I\u0026amp;^ , J: nuitztvi LA's-)- Ihiy (Aum Lci^  zi- undc/^f^^ '^L\u0026amp;i in 4405. MM /i\u0026gt; U/ibit/M/i'ad i aria Cifiii^bia! . bud Ihe \\ialiijL i \"ziMli'ai MkiM. L. \u0026gt; . / f'n C(/lb/V/O//}dw( ! ^hl5 ITO: Dr. Ruth Steel Superintendent,LRSD EXHIBIT 2 May 11,1992 MEMORANDUM From: M. Lacey, J. Mays, K. Perry, J. Moss Parents of students at Pulaski Heights Junior High Re: Cheerleader Tryouts Process were Varsity cheerleader tryouts at Pulaski Heights Junior High held during the week of April 20-24. Our children participated in the tryout process primarily because they were requested to do so by teacher(s) and assistant principle(s) of the school. _ , The tryout process and outcome are of major concern to ua. We\n___Ji_______i ___ -'ith r. Ralph Hoffman, princip'le, Ms have discussed our concerns with Mr. Bridges, superintendent. teacher/sponsor and The results of productive as needed. therefore, Mrs. our your E. Mathis associate discussions were not as involvement is the next option to be explored. We meit with Mr. Hoffman initially on Monday April At ---4.1--------------------- *1 outcome of,^racial eleven were Caucasian that time we verbalized these concerns: 1. compositioi(^ of the twelve to be selected, and one african-american. '' The total number to tryout were ten african-americans and approximately 28 Caucasians. Even though the current desegregation plan does not address the racial composition of partici^nts in extracurricular activities, it does suggest that the school district will facilitate opportunities and provide an environment for motivation. 2. To further encourage egual access the school district has suggested that the judges involved be racially balanced. which relationship of three of was the the case at PHJH, however. the judges to each strongly suggest Two of the four judges were opportunities for improprieties. a mother and her daughter and the third judge (who was a minority) reported to the mother relationship. and/or daughter in an employment In addition the mother of the cheerleader sponsor. Ms Bridges, sat at the table with the judges and was allowed to carry completed judging forms from the judges to the tally table. The fourth judge was duly concerned as noted in a fax copy to me (attachment 1). The process was also a major concern to us, in that the constitution for cheerleaders in the Little Rock School District ma j or was disregarded without conscious. This document clearlyKe identifies the process for cheerleader tryouts at all schools. noted these inconsistencies: 1. Pre-tryout conference with parents and candidates was not held. 2. Candidates did not receive a copy of the constitution and the judging matrix prior to Tryouts were held for three days as opposesto the five 2 . tryouts. 3. days mandated in the constitution to exclude mock tryouts and Person(s) other than school district personnel were present during tryouts (Ms Bridges' mother). tryouts. 4. The constitution indicates that only school district personnel, judges, and the candidate should be present during tryout. Mr. Hoffman indicated he discussed these issues with Mr. Mosby assistant principj^ (attachment 2) and no reports of irregularities were concede. however. as a District prohibits a junior side issue, the Little Rock School varsity cheerleader organization. Pulaski Heights Junior High has such an organization - the other On the surface it appears as though junior high schools do not. this junior high school is exempt from compliance with the good faith guidelines established by the school district. review the matrix of our individual We also requested to Childs' performance along with their total score. On Monday April 27th we were denied access, both Ms Bridges and Mr. Hoffman stated it was against school policy to allow access to this information. This issue was discussed with Mrs.Mathis, who assured us that the requested information would be made available. On May 1st Mr. Hoffman provided each parent a score written on a memo (attachment 3) . This behavior inhibits evaluation of areas of needed improvement. Enclosed is information provided to candidates regarding Mr. Hoffman tryouts and Mr. Hoffmans' written communication to us. was asked who if any one on the administrative level participated in the formulation of his conclusions. out of line\". He stated the \"question was Even though this comment was perceived as an attempt to block further communication about this issue a rationale for the question concerns. was provided,ie.,with whom to further explore these Mr. Hoffman re-emphasized that the question was out of line, and suggested Dr. Sewell be spoken with next. Mathis is over cheerleaders and had already been However, Mrs. spoken with regarding parents not being allowed to see their childs' scoring matrix. At that time we requested that she allow Mr. Hoffman an opportunity to investigate and address our concerns. 1. Expand the We suggested these solutions to Mr. Hoffman: cheerleader squad to include at least four african-american candidates. 2. Conduct a second tryout and replace the teacher squad 2 . sponsor. the --. To our knowledge neither of these were considered. In view of your- resignation and the remaining four weeks in school year, we would appreciate feedback related to this matter as soon as possible. CC: Estelle Mathis Ann BrownEXHIBIT 3 H ' SCHOOL OPERATIONS .i'- 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 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. for parents, students and all staff. 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. To develop and implement policies which influence school climate and improve and student attendance while also meeting individual student needs and discipline----------------------- - . , learning styles. The student hearing officer will be responsible for developing and monitoring plans to reduce the disparity of disciplinary actions. To provide guidance and counseling service which address students needs, are supportive of strategies and interventions to expectations, and provide communication to families of students. enhance student success and 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. To monitor student class ratios and instructional practices to ensure equal opportunities for all students. TOVidT'and ehsure 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. To^ssess the results of school practiccs, paying special attention to their impact on minority and disadvantaged students. 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  . \u0026lt; . _1.__II! n11 xtx/lAntp students, and to hold them accountable for results and opportunities for all students. 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 28h lEA: School Operations LRSD DESEGREGATION PLAN IMPLEMEPTTATION TIMELINE 5?  I w oal VII: Provide and ensure opportunities and encouragement to all students to participate in extracurricular and co\u0026lt;urricubr activities. Objectives Strategies/ Activities Beginning Date Ending Responsibility Date Evaluation 1. Inform all students and patrons of co-curricular/ C extracurricular activities available for students and of participation requirements. Staff recruitment of students to participate. Increase student participation, particularly minority student participation in co- curricul Remove all barriers to equitable participation of students who wish to \\ participate in extracurricular activities. 1.1 12 1.3 1.4 2.1 22 3.1 32 3.3 4.1 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 particular activities. Profile student involvement in each club or activity. Disaggregate participation data. Develop school based recruitment plans. Provide a district transportation program for student-transportation when necessary to assure equitable participation for students participating in district sanctioned extracurricular activities. 42 Provide a program for student access to equipment/ uniforms etc. needed for participation at minimal cost. Annually Annually Annually Annually Annually Annually Annually Annually Ongoing Ongoing Ongoing Ongoing Ongoing Communications Dept Principals Staff PTA Board Educational Programs School based Dir of Extracurricular Activities Individual staff members Principal Staff Asst Supt Directors of Extracurricular Activities Manager of Support Services Asst Supts Assoc Supt Deseg Principals Log of announcements, media usage, other community student contacts 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 profdes w X w wEXHIBIT 5 COMMITMENT TO DESEGREGATION IN THE LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 4 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: j! 1 5 Vj I 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. J II 1 3 \"i 1 C. Improving educational quality and student academic performance in all schools and doubling the financial resources in schools identified in the court-approved D. E. 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\n4 distribution of resources\netc.) F. Promoting positive public reaction to desegregation. G. The effective use of interdistrict and intradistrict recruitment strategies to meet the desegregation requirements in all schools and to avoid resegregation. J i 2 r H. The development curriculum. and infusion of multicultural education in all areas of the I. Ongoing staff development activities to equip teachers, administrators, and other 8 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 m order to ensure stability in our schools and ultimately achieve unitary status. w Page 1 ireceived JUN 2 6 1992 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION OHice of Desegregation Monitoring LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT, ET AL. PLAINTIFFS V. NO. LR-C-82-866 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT, ET AL. DEFENDANTS MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL. INTERVENORS KATHERINE W. KNIGHT, ET AL. INTERVENORS I. BRIEF IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO INTERVENE AND MOTION FOR A PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION LIMITED INTERVENTION MUST BE AVAILABLE TO STUDENTS WHO ARE ADVERSELY AFFECTED BY THE PARTIES' FAILURE TO MEET THEIR DESEGREGATION OBLIGATIONS The Joshua intervenors and the applicants for intervention jointly seek permission from the court to join the additional named intervenors to this proceeding pursuant to Rule 24(b), Fed. R. Civ. P. Throughout this litigation, the role of the Joshua intervenors has been to ensure that the remedy in this case resulted in enforceable commitments from the other parties on behalf of minority students in the three districts. That goal has been accomplished through the approval by the Court of the parties settlement agreement and the three school districts* individual and joint plans for desegregation. These commitments are now enforceable by the Joshua intervenors through this court. enforcing the agreements. but in the real beneficiaries will often be individual students rather than the entire class of minority students. After all, individual students come into daily contact with the districts in entirely unique sets of circumstances, buteach student has a right to enforce the remedial obligations as it affects them in their daily interaction with the parties. Although the Joshua intervenors are diligent in their attempts to monitor the districts and to insist on compliance, ultimate responsibility for enforcement is in the court. Therefore, as the real beneficiaries of very specific remedial obligations, minority students in the district must have access to this court on their own behalf. Since it is actually the individual applicants' right to fair treatment under the parties' ettlements which the Joshua intervenors are seeking through this s limited proceeding for preliminary injunction, the applicants for intervention should be allowed to intervene for the limited purpose of enforcing the settlement as it relates to their particular participation in extra-curricular activities at Pulaski Heights Junior High School. II. INTERVENORS ARE ENTITLED TO IMMEDIATE RELIEF The present motion is styled \"Motion for Preliminary Injunction,\" but intervenors are essentially seeking enforcement of the parties' prior settlement agreements and desegregation plans. Consequently, this motion might also be considered a motion for contempt and enforcement. Either approach justifies a quick hearing on the claims raised. A. Preliminary Injunction Intervenors will be irreparably harmed if the LRSD is not enjoined from implementing the cheerleader selection results which intervenors claim are racially biased and out of compliance with the districts obligations for desegregation of extra-curricularactivities. The selection of cheerleaders for Pulaski Heights Junior High, PHJH, occurs once a year, usually in April. This selection process has occurred and it has presumably determined the cheerleader participation for the 1992-93 school year. That participation begins during the summer. however, through the summer training camps which the school sends its cheerleaders to. Only students that attend PHJH may participate. Consequently, the minor intervenors will be ineligible for participation in the summer cheerleading camps nor in the future because they will presumably move on to the next grade and a different school after the 1992-93 school year. Therefore, relief must come swiftly, if it is to come at all. The damage to the intervenors' self esteem and their disillusionment with the educational system that will result from their denial of fair participation will also irreparably harm them in their future educational processes. The benefits of fair and equitable participation are cumulative and cannot be restored after the fact. Intervenors are likely to succeed in obtaining the relief they seek. Pursuant to the Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit, LRSD V.PCSSD, 921 F.2d 1371 (Sth Cir. 1990), remedial orders have already been entered in this case pursuant to the parties \"settlement agreements\" and \"settlement plans\". The LRSD plan for desegregation has recently been resubmitted and represents enforceable commitments by LRSD to the intervenors. (See Desegregation Plan Little Rock School District April 29,1992\n11 relevant portions of which are attached to Intervenor's Motion) The intervenors reserved the right to seek enforcement of these plans through this court. (See Settlement Agreement, p. 19.) Under the LRSD Desegregation Plan, the District has committed to: Ensuring that equity occurs in all phases. of school activities and operations (i.e. school, class and staff assignments, participation in extracurricular_Bctiv.ities, distribution of resources\netc.) [underlining E. activities added for emphasis] \"Equity,\" in this situation, means \"participation. If in meaningful numbers, not merely the right to access. There should ordinarily be some semblance of proportional participation. at least proportional to the numbers that try out for a particular activity. Here the disparities in participation are so overwhelming as to be patently unfair and ludicrous. (Eleven out of seventeen white applicants were selected, while only one out of eleven black applicants were selected\nin the previous year. an even more disparate selection ratio occurred.) The district also has a binding commitment to: I. Ongoing staff development activities to equip teachers, administrators, and other staff with the skills needed to   , (LRSD Plan, p. 1) Ongoing and achieve quality desegregation education. commitments to c. Encourage positive attitudes and commitments to the desegregation plan by taking a team approach to promoting it, involving school staff, administrators,--parents,--- volunteers. (INTERDISTRICT DESEGREGATION PLAN, p.65) The district has failed to meet its obligation to develop these commitments in their staff and volunteers. Their failure is egregiously obvious in the disparities in these extra-curricular and\nactivities. In addition, the ability to improve is built into the process through the school's participation in summer training camps for their cheerleading squads. Furthermore, the District has committed to a yearly \"analysis\" of participation data. The responsibility is that of the Assistant Superintendents, the Associate Superintendent for Desegregation and the Manager for Support Services. These monitoring activities must occur in timely fashion so that they can be translated into corrective policies throughout the school year. Yet, nothing has been said or done by the administration to address the miscarriage of the district's obligations in regard to the extra-curricular activities complained of herein\nnot even a response to the intervenors. The district has obligations in all of these areas pursuant to their own Desegregation Plan. There is little doubt that it has not met these obligations and that intervenors will secure the relief they seek. In contrast. there can be no injury to the defendants by enforcing their obligations under the settlement plans\nthey are already obliged to take these remedial steps. After providing the proper training to the staff and judges. the district will be obliged to contact all of the students who tried out. reschedule try-outs and remake these decisions. This can hardly be considered enough of a harm to counter-balance the harm to the intervenors. In contrast. the public interest will be best served by enjoining the district and enforcing the defendant's desegregation plan. The public interest is best served when the public seesactivities. In addition, the ability to improve is built into the process through the school's participation in summer training camps for their cheerleading squads. Furthermore, the District has committed to a yearly \"analysis\" of participation data. The responsibility is that of the Assistant Superintendents, the Associate Superintendent for Desegregation and the Manager for Support Services. These monitoring activities must occur in timely fashion so that they can be translated into corrective policies throughout the school year. Yet, nothing has been said or done by the administration to address the miscarriage of the district's obligations in regard to the extra-curricular activities complained of herein\nnot even response to the a intervenors. The district has obligations in all of these areas pursuant to their own Desegregation Plan. There is little doubt that it has not met these obligations and that intervenors will secure the relief they seek. In contrast. there can be no injury to the defendants by enforcing their obligations under the settlement plans\nthey are already obliged to take these remedial steps. After providing the proper training to the staff and judges. the district will be obliged to contact all of the students who tried out. reschedule try-outs and remake these decisions. This can hardly be considered enough of a harm to counter-balance the harm to the intervenors. In contrast. the public interest will be best served by enjoining the district and enforcing the defendant's desegregation plan. The public interest is best served when the public sees faithful adherence to the school's procedures and conimitinents to desegregation. CONCLUSION Wherefore, the LRSD has failed to meet it obligations to intervenors under the terms of the parties settlement agreement and desegregation plans, and should be enjoined as intervenors have prayed for in the accompanying Motion for Preliminary Injunction. Respectfully submitted, JOHN W. WALKER, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR (501) 374-3758 72206 /.V, John W. Walker, Bar No. 64046 I ILA  A Mark Burnette, Bar No. 88078 7 Wiley A. Braiiton, Jr. Bar NoZ 90053 Horman Chachkin, Esq. NAACP Legal Defense Fund 99 Hudson Street New York, New York (202) 212-1900 10013CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing has been mailed, postage prepaid to the counsel of record listed below on this ---- day of j 19 Christopfier Heller, Esq. Friday, Eldredge \u0026amp; Clark 2000 First Commercial Building Little Rock, AR 72201 Sam Jones, Esq. Wright, Lindsey \u0026amp; Jennings 2200 Worthen Bank Building Little Rock, AR 72201 Steve Jones, Esq. Jack, Lyon \u0026amp; Jones, P.A. 3400 Capitol Towers Capitol \u0026amp; Broadway Streets Little Rock, AR 72201 Richard Roachell, Esq. #15 Hickory Creek Drive Little Rock, AR 72212 7. (I Mark Burnettefaithful adherence to the school's procedures and commitments to desegregation. CONCLUSION Wherefore, the LRSD has failed to meet it obligations to intervenors under the terms of the parties' settlement agreement and desegregation plans, and should be enjoined as intervenors have prayed for in the accompanying Motion for Preliminary Injunction. Respectfully submitted, JOHN W. WALKER, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR (501) 374-3758 72206 f'-y- 1,^ John W. Walker, Bar No. 64046 / ark Burnette, Bar No. 88078 Mark .0\nWiley A. Brarfton, Jr. rfton, Jr. Bar ^Jo-/ 90053 Norman Chachkin, Esq. NAACP Legal Defense Fund 99 Hudson Street New York, New York (202) 212-1900 10013JUL-15-02 WED 13:27 U.S. DIST. CT. LR ARK. FAX NO. 7406096 P.Ol JOHN W. WALKER, P.A. Attorney At Law 1723 Broadway Little Rock, Arkansas 12205 Telephone (501) 374-37.58 FAX (501) 374-4187 JOHN W. WALKER RAJ .PH WA.^inNGTON MARK BURNOTE WILEY A. BRANTON, .JR. AUSTIN PORTER. JR. * AUu w Pru/tiae in Georgia  the DiUhcb af Cjlujrbla. July 15, 1992 The Honorable Susan Webber Wright United States District Judge United States District Court 600 West Capitol Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Re: LRSD V. PCSSD Dear Judge Wright: The Joshua Intervenors filed a Motion with respect to the cheerleader situation and related matters at Pulaski Heights Jr. High School in Little Rock on June 24, 1992. not answered nor otherwise formally responded. The defendants have Moreover, we have not worked\" the matter out as encouraged by the Court. therefore. consideration. submitting I would respect to this matter. a proposed Order for the I am. Court's appreciate your early directions with incerely, ohn W. Walker JWW:Ira Enclosure cc: All Counsel Mr, Ralph Hoffman JuL-15-92 WED 13:27 U.S. DIST. CT. LR ARK. FAX NO. 7406096 P. 02 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT, ET AL. PLAINTIFFS V. NO. LR-C-82-866 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT, ET AL. DEFENDANTS MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL. INTERVENORS KATHERINE W. KNIGHT, ET AL. INTERVENORS ORDER On June 24, 1992 the Joshua Intervenors prayed for certain relief for minor class members who were allegedly denied equal opportunity to participate in the cheerleader activity at Pulaski Heights Jr. High (PHJH) School. The LRSD has not responded to the Joshua Petition and prayer which was filed and served upon the defendants and other named individuals on June 24, 1992, within eleven (11) days as required by Rule 20 of the local rules of the Court for Motions and within twenty (20) days as required by the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure regarding response time and answer to a civil Complaint. IT IS, THEREFORE, the Order of the Court that: 1. Dr. Cloyde McKinley Bernd shall be and is hereby substituted as a party defendant for Dr. Ruth Steele in his official capacity as Superintendent of Schools of the LRSD\n2 . Mr. Ralph Hoffman, Principal of Pulaski Heights Jr. High School in the LRSD, shall be and is hereby added as a named defendant herein personally and in his official capacity\n3. The defendants. by their conduct as alleged in theJUL-15-92 WED 13:28 U.S. DIST. CT. LR ARK. FAX NO. 7406096 P. 03 Complaint and Motion, have deprived the named class members- intervenors, who are represented by the Joshua Intervenors, of equal protection and due process of laws with respect to inclusion in or exclusion from the cheerleader activities at PHJHS for the 1992-93 school year and by failing to comply with the letter and spirit of the Court approved Desegregation Plan herein\n4. The defendants shall be required to implement a remedial plan upon which the parties may agree. In the event of their failure to reach an appropriate agreement, a remedial plan shall be developed by the Court's Office of Desegregation Monitoring. The parties shall have seven (7) days from the date of this Order to develop such a remedial plan as set forth herein. In the event that the parties do not reach a written agreement, Joshua shall immediately advise the ODM. The ODM shall then, within three (3) days, present to the parties and the Court an appropriate remedial plan which the defendants shall implement. 5. The defendants shall be, and are mandatorily, enjoined to affirmatively implement the nondiscrimination requirements of the plan in all respects with the Court's admonition that failure hereafter to implement the plan shall cause the Court to give serious consideration to holding the defendants in contempt of Court\n6. Defendant Hoffman and all certified staff members at PHJHS are hereby directed to read with understanding the Desegregation Plan herein and to be capable. thereafter, of providing appropriate responses, thereto, if and when called upon to demonstrate knowledge about same by or from parents or patrons-   JUL-15-92 WED 13:28 U.S. DI ST. CT. LR ARK. FAX NO. 7406096 P. 04 of the parties hereto in appropriate circumstances. Moreover, the defendants shall provide \"inservice training\" for Defendant Hoffman and for all other staff members pursuant to an accepted model, to be determined by the ODM, for same\n7 . The LRSD shall be and is hereby reminded that it is to be held strictly accountable for meeting the objectives, goals, and timetables of the Desegregation Plan in all aspects\nT. plaintiffs are entitled to their legal fees and costs for the ccessful prosecution of this action. These parties are encou^ged t seek voluntary resolution of this issue within fo. teen (14) days of this Order. UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE DATEJOHN w. Walker, p.a. A'ITORNEY At Law 1723 Broadway Li'itle R(xk. Arkansas T^axi Telephone (501) 374-37,58 FAX (501) 374-4187 RECEIVED JUN 7 MJ JOHN W. WALKER RALPH WASHINGTON MARK BURNETTE WILEY A. BRANTON. JR. AUSTIN PORTER..JR. * Aadmitted tn frartice in (ieonria \u0026amp; the District of Cniumhia. June 4, 1993 Office of Desegregation Monitoring Dr. Mac Bernd Superintendent Little Rock School District 810 West Markham Little Rock, AR 72201 Re: Pulaski Heights Jr. High School Dear Dr. Bernd: It has come to my attention that Pulaski Heights Jr. High School has been conducting junior varsity cheerleader clinics since Tuesday, June 1, 1993 in preparation for the selection of twelve (12) junior varsity cheerleaders. This is illegal according to the district's constitution and accords a select group of students unfair advantage over the general student population which is discriminatory. If you recall, we had similar problems last year and all principals were told they could not have junior varsities, but pep squads where all who came out could participate, with no special selection process. It appears that Mr. Hoffman continues to do as he pleases contrary to Also, there is the question of how the person coordinating the activity is being district policy. compensated inasmuch as there is no line item in the budget for a junior varsity sponsor. Hopefully, you will look at this matter as soon as possible. Please let us know your findings of fact. Thank you in advance for your continued cooperation. Sincerely, I n W. Walker JWW:Im\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_464","title":"Early childhood enrollment","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":["1992/1996"],"dcterms_description":null,"dc_format":["application/pdf"],"dcterms_identifier":null,"dcterms_language":["eng"],"dcterms_publisher":["Little Rock, Ark. : Butler Center for Arkansas Studies. Central Arkansas Library System."],"dc_relation":null,"dc_right":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC-EDU/1.0/"],"dcterms_is_part_of":["Office of Desegregation Monitoring records (BC.MSS.08.37)","History of Segregation and Integration of Arkansas's Educational System"],"dcterms_subject":["Little Rock (Ark.)--History--20th century","Little Rock School District","Education--Arkansas","Education--Evaluation","Educational planning","Childhood development","School enrollment"],"dcterms_title":["Early childhood enrollment"],"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/464"],"dcterms_temporal":null,"dcterms_rights_holder":null,"dcterms_bibliographic_citation":null,"dlg_local_right":null,"dcterms_medium":["documents (object genre)"],"dcterms_extent":null,"dlg_subject_personal":null,"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":"\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n\n\n\n   \n\n\n\n\n   \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n  \n\nTO: FROM: SUBJECT: Little Rock School District J anuary 27 , 1992 KJ \u0026amp; --- OiUca 3 ' Ann Brown, Office of Desegregation Monitoring James Jennings, Associate Superintendent for Desegregation Monitoring and Community Services Rockefeller Early Childhood Enrollment 1989/90 and 1990/91 In response to your request, please find listed below the enrollment figures for the Early Childhood Education Program, at Rockefeller School (Infant through Three Year Old) for 1989/90 and 1990/91: 1989/90: White Black Other Total %Black Infant/Toddler 2 Year Old 3 Year Old 1 3 2 6 10 12 0 0 0 7 13 14 8 6% 7 7% 8 6% Total 6 28 0 34 8 2% 1990/91: Infant/Toddler 2 Year Old 3 Year Old 4 6 6 4 10 8 0 0 0 g 16 14 50% 63% 57% Total 16 22 0 38 58% 810 West Markham Street Little Rock, Arkansas 72201  (501)374-3361...  - A. i. . , ? z Little Rock School District January 27, 1992 TO: FROM: SUBJECT: GiViC3 Cl iCli Ann Brown, Office of Desegregation Monitoring J.aines Jennings, Associate Superintendent 1 'r}^2 J for Desegregation Monitoring and Community Services o Rockefeller Early Childhood Enrollment 1989/90 and 1990/91 In response to your request, lease find listed below the enroll- ment figures for the Early Childhood Education Program at Rockefeller School (Infant through Three Year Old) for 1989/90 and 1990/91: 1989/90: White Black Other Total %Black Infant/Toddler 2 Year Old 3 Year Old 1 3 2 6 10 1 o 0 0 0 7 13 14 3 6% 77% 8 6% Total 6 28 0 34 82% 1990/91: Infant/Toddler 2 Year Old 3 Year Old 4 6 6 4 10 8 0 0 0 o 16 1 i 14 50% 63% 57% Total 16 22 0 33 58% 810 West Markham Street Little Rock, Arkansas 72201  (501)374-33617 r IS h '2 { f M c  s ------ 10/27/93 c (  u 17 IS 19 10 12 ^5 Ja2LL'S^PJfS a*'7 s?\n14:09:17 Uni versa! Student ID Student last name 'i^.' c\u0026gt;F' t Student f i rst name 94_Q229^MCJ5JR 950636 939845 939949 STIEL WALESZONIA WALESZONIA 939Blih MASSERY 950018 950050 940025 939949 AXELSON OMALLEY TOWNSEND MEVAWALA BAILEY 939617 MORRIS 939750 940131 939'93 940015 9 4 0 0 5 7 WINKLER GILBERT NOBLE HOLLIS THOM AS SSMT3 ^REEN\" CHRISTINE ZACHARY BRANDON WjSSST\" CHRISTOPHE PATRICK ANDREW GEORGE ARIEL \"KSHte*  LATASHA COLTON CODY CLARENCE TROY CAictON as\no g?-.^1 O r'  LAST YEAR SCHOOL LAST YEAR CLASS Ethnic Group,. Sex Current class year 1 Current school no. ( 017, jL PA P4 P4 P4 w P4 P4 P4 P4 P4 w P4 P4 P4 P4 w 3ZL 940206 939944 951404 940070 FINIGAN MARTINEZ LAY JONES 9^0107 TYGART hQ2T7 940109 93979 93 994 1 939946 940082 950209 939? 13 ^^99 9 o o o o T CLOUGH GRAY KELLEY WILLIAMS AHOPRSOH' SHOCKLEY SORKINS g pnwM B pnwM SHEENA NICOLE AMBER JENNIFER ^eSAM\"\" TIMOTHY MATTHEW kEnyatTa TERICA NIKITA NVSHIA----- SHAYLA RICKITA \"ASHLEY KEENO^!E 019 P4 P4 PU P4 T P4 P4 T4 PU P4 TT P4 P4 TT P4 01 01 01 r 01 .01. 01 01 02, \"TF 02 02 tr Q2 02 F, F M M TM M M M F \"r F M IT M M IT K 01? __________ 017 Moved out of District Moved out of District inr 017 01? 020 018 \"557 043 002\n1577 017 017 irrr a: }\u0026lt; . X ' J] a c o   (J ( I 01 01 01 01 UT 01 01 QT 02 02 DT ' 02 02 07 02 F F F F TM M T F F TF FV M K Moved out of District (Cabot) 019 019 03\u0026amp;^ WT 019 038 i-fa)l4{iLlY \u0026amp;! (.y O Assigned Ulg - ufiTnot enroll 019 019 THT 019 027*, QTcr 019 S( 67 68 59 7( 71 72 73 e 75 f r t t ( 12 13 ' IS ts N Q 10 u 1  I. n o 1 1 9 ? 9 9 5 \" Qcn1QC o ? a e f. n 940255 O OB 1 o 939700 93991? 939933 o A n n o B 950174 940054 939918 950217 939779 10/27/93 ^'ICH'\"L? WILLIAM? MnOOTC RIG Y MTCI CCM SILKWOOD CALHOUN HELMICK MURDOCH WA.IJCC TORRES E RATTON AUSTIN JACOBS CRAIG U:09: 1? Uni versa! Student ID Student last name 025 LAUREN c A e AU c A o A LAURA HARRISON JUSTIN DIRK . TIMOTHY ROBERT KYLE JOSEPH KYLE JOSEPH Student first name LAST YEAR SCHOOL 939872 939797 939950 939912 93S86? 939868 950290 939910 939839 CARVER CLOUD STRIQEL DANESHMANDI YACKETT WASHINGTON WASHINGTON \"KRE IE CONWAY PERKINS 9398S9 5KTH' 939959 940057 90 0 6 5 940089 950045 HERBERT BOZEMAN PARKER DAVIS SEAVERS 640115 JSftoAfT 9^0056 939865 939650 939901 929905 JONES THOMAS DEAN r A w A n Y 933835 PEOPLES 939870 939970 94 *^ 02 9 940054 940058 540090 94009? 940152 54 0'153 940305 95001 WHITE CALDWELL \"T'AMBD Cl_|....... MQnpc JOHNSON DAvrs...... BOYKINS DAVIS M ACKIN!RUSH MrpOTHF WILLIAM? TIMOTHY MATTHEW WILLIAM KEVIN TSES------ CLAY CLINT ALfex SHANTESA YANITRA JA2MIHe MINNELLI CHENAIDA AMBER ERICA PRECIOUS EftXiGK-------- JAMES JR ANTHONY JAMES JAMAL LONDON WICHAEL ANTHONY CORRELL wv JOHN JR ANTONIYO L'tUHIC---- TEORICK JOKEEMO PHILLIP WILLIAM TAv,A RONE 04 R4 P4 P4 P4 P4 P4 Ph P4 Ph P4 P4 pT P4 P4 LAST YEAR CLASS b\u0026amp; P4 T5 pk P4 l\u0026lt; P4 Ph VK P4 Ph P4 P4 rti Ph P4 75 P4 P4 TC------ Ph Ph T5 P4 . P4 in\n P4 P4 Tli--- P4 Ph m\n Ph Ph 0 1 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 0 1 01 01 0 1 F T c F F m\" M M M M M M M M K 025 Wivate^cfeol *1. Moved to North Little Rock Moved to,Texa^ 020 625 025 PAGE 2 3 5 K 12 i  r n o n K ,  e Ethnic Group 01 TT 01 01 ot 01 TTT 02 02 IJT 02 02 TTT 02 02 02 02 TTT 02 02 Tfr 02 02 UT 02 02 irr 02 02 irr 02 02 Sex M TT M M TT M M TT F F T' F F -p- F F \"T\" M M JT M M TT M M TT M M TT M M R M M Current class year Current school no. 1} t1 31 31 3: U ( ( K 02? TTW 038 Qh.7  Qhl 025 025 725--------- 025 025 775 025 025 025 025 77S--------- 025 025 -------------- 026 025 -025--------- 025 025 1725--------------------- 025 025 C\n31 ti 0 St  K M S SI K 6! u SJ u M S u M N n n n c. (. C I c ! I i O ! o cI 0 9 neoo 9 ' 0 5 5 950055 950055 UUTTP \u0026lt;2 A c r T A MAUAMHIIP GANGOSO nUTi I Tp, SARAH ______________________ PA PA Pk Pfi 02 OA 05 M F M 10 93975  950936 9 3 9 7 A 7 939952 939953 939553 939709 93 9 77,0 9397A9 939955 MAAMCV HOOP.E JORDAN HERBERT BLUE CARRICK LEE JORDAN BULLOCK LINDSEV CHRISIma JEREMY SELENA SHANNON NICOLE STEVEN KENNETH DEVIN MELVIN STEVEN 1$ 025 Untold, PA PA PA PA PA PU PA PA PA PA 01 01 02 02 02 02 02 02 02 02 F M F F F M M M H H K ( c c c ( 12 (  43 i* 47 lQ/27/9a UzOOlt? Uni versal Student ID Student 1 sst name Student f i rst name 7 ^kQQit2 9A0039 9500A0 WHITE NANCE HASLAUER 4j96i8 iSJWJStSOtt 9A0010 939899 939820 9A0189 9518A2 MYERS CASH KOONE BEUMEL EPPERSON 939980 COLLIHS 939770 939S60 9A0037 9A0 1 99 939635 939696 939963 9A0005 950301 939533 XZAVI.ER JR LAST YEAR SCHOOL LAST YEAR CLASS Ethnic Group Sex Current class year 026 PA 035 038 0A8 021 (5^ f 026 026 Private School 026____________ 026 026 026 PAGE  3   Current school no. o , '9 20 u WILLIAMS BAKER WAYNE FLENOY jqwmson WATMRS ROSS BREWER MARTINEZ KATELYN CARA RESAN  MEAGAN HUBERT DANIEL WILLIAM MATTHEW BRITNEY CANDACE LAUREN AMANDA LARENZO RALPH DOMINIQUE SERREUL KORDARRELL OASARIS ~S. 031 02 M K 026 BERRY 3 9609 HLW6R 9528A2 9A0199 3{tQ233 9A0053 BAGGETT MC5RIER HICKS PREWIT ROBINSON 939S55 DICKERSOM 939878 9A005S 939979 93987? 9 A 0 0 A 9 CLARK FORD LEONARD WILLIAH S HCCUIN LEAH COREY ERIC TOMMY \"J'VSTIN WESLEY TIFFANY whitMey MORGAN WHITNEY CALVIN JR HARRISON GRECOP'^ 03A Pk Pk PA PA PA PA PA PA ..PA PA PA PA PA PA PA PA 01 01 w 01 .01 01 01 01 02 02 02 02 02 02 02 JU. 03 F F T F ..M. M M M T F F F M M M M :K F K c 046 \u0026gt;1 Moved to Bryant 03 1 031 . 03 1 , , : (  1 031 03 1 022\n028 031 031 03 1 017 51 ULW t. a J PA w Pk Pk TT PA PA TC PA PA PA PA PA .i) l\u0026gt; 5 01 TST 01 01 UT 01 02 02 02 02 02 ft 7 F TT M M TT M F T F F M M M K 033 033 H Q3k' 03 5. . .iL, 0A8h 002 I TO5~ 03A 03A 03A 03 4 d u u 751 ra10 12 13 14 li 17 ( \u0026gt;0 90 2 1 9^000? o. n n 7 c 9U0155 950125 9 U 0 1 2 6 9U0292 93U205 9U0973 9U0137 9399U3 f M B C \" c ( u u M 9 lOl 12 IJ ' 45 ^L \u0026amp;21 hl UAUOTriM J_ C T I A GARRISON ZIMMERMAN SCHLUETER MOTLEY MUAWAD FISHER HARE WEYANO SELLS 10/27/93 U\nO3:17 Uni versa! Student IO student 1 ast name A D l_ Tn4.| A^!D^EA cvo^isy MTDAMnA ANDREA VICTORIA MEGAN CHRISTINE EVELYN HAILE BRANDY EMILY Student f i rst name'^' 03 6 LAST YEAR SCHOOL Pit PU PU PU PU PU PU PU PU PU PU LAST YEAR CLASS 03 02Q 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 Ethnic Group F F F F F F F F F Sex K K Current class year Returned to home district (NLl ') I Returned to home district (NLRSD) Returned to home district (NLRSD) -Returned to home district (NLRSD) oovlSluSz^ 006 U 036^  * .  g 036 PASE A Current school no. 8 1 3 -3C- ^39993 9396UU 939882 MANN  KIRBY LAWHON MA.RY . JOCELYN BRET 036 n PU PU PU 01 01 01 F T M K 0U7_ OUS Moved d to Janson\nsonvine 3! J7 939916 HAa5' \"ST \"Jr r c. c 9U0O69 95012U 9U0179 939992 950086 9501U8 ELLIS HIPPS PAGE STRAWN HARPER STEADMAN 9399A5 .LOCKER 950122 950099 939623 HALLENBECK JOHNSON SMITH 939636 TURNER ANDREW . STEVEN PATRICK ERIC_________ NICKOLAS KYtE .SPENCER JOSHUA JACKEE DES22ARRAY 9396U2 939652 939669 939983 939995 MAXWELL JACKSON BUCKLEY BERRY LEE 939995 COOkSeV 9U0106 9U0155 9 U 0 1 5 6 9U019U 9 U 0 2 2 2 HOLMES ELLIS ELLIS NASH MEYERS 9A0270 CASkEft 9500U1 9500U2 GLASS BERRY RakETA CLAUDIA SHAVONDA VICTORIA BRITTANY WHITNEY TAsmine KRYSTAL SHARHONOA DASHONDA SARESSA TIFFANY CEODIS TAMARA AMBER .PU. PU PU PU PU PU PU PU PU PU W PU PU Tr PU PU TV PU PU \"Pu PU PU PU PU .QJ 01 01 01 9 5 2 3 9 '4 onwDv eu/^^TMIcrc PU 01 01 01 57 02 57 02 02 77 02 02 77 02 02 77 02 02 77 02 02 02 M M M M M M M M F F T F F T F F T F F 7 F F T F F K Hoved to Conway : ci Returned to home district (NLRSD)  ooBfied^ 036 oW 036 03 8: 0U3 J ill ' F Pit lioved to North Little Rock 036 THT 036 036 TST 036 036 THT 036 036 OTT 036 036 OTF 038 038 036 13 72 o o e( \u0026lt; r c ( h 1\" 4( Iz M E 1 1 030707 030700 9 A 0 0 7 Q. n e 9A 0 11 9 9 F^ 0 2 9500A3 950255 950525 9396A0 93982? \"96 025 3 939802 939927 10/27/93 CTCWAPT CM $TEVE!SON in.i 17 s MCCOY ANDERSON WATSON THOMAS CP.OOK BUTLER PAMPLIN SAILEY BAYAA MAOTTM 1'4:09: 17 L'ni versal Student ID Student last name 93933A BitOO33 951518 939930 STOOTS WILKERSON KEMP ELLIS 9388*1 I7ET 939921 939811 9398i\u0026lt;3 940302 9i.0303 PERKINS KENDLE ROSBY CLARK CLARK 939823 HOUSE 9A0125 95002A 950025 9509AU CONEY BEASLEY LONG MARSHALL 951030 SHWnr 950577 951551 ?5'2'560 9526SA 95159? 95O8A5 9A0032 9A018A \"grg'2'0'1' 950003 939665 939593 939705 9AQ035 9A 0203 WAID tnHNtCAM ARNOLD SI K E Y ALLEN KaRshall ' LEWIS SMITH -frwT------------------ HART WASHINGTON TTTTV------------- NATION BROWN -------- otnn 1 u A o\\/c V jrin Tu Afci cuceuAXi TERRANCE C ?. R L TON VOTCTOOUCO ALEX KELSEY AARON DANNY WILLIAM Of, PA PA PA PA PA PA PA PA PA 02 02 02 02 02 02 .\u0026amp; 02 02 06 M M M M M M H M M K 036 036 035 036 036 036 036 036 038 036 ! c 3 LESLIE ILIA LINA MELISSA Student first name MICHELLE 'S'umm Af^' TIFFANY BRENT TOST\"-------- HADIYAH ELISHIA , LORA LEANNA KEANNA WILFRED JR NICHOLAS lakelanC TERA ----- CHRISTOPHE CLEO T'R'Avrs---------- SHAWN BRANDON CLAY IOH--- NICHOLE TAELOR ^79^----------------- JONATHAN MICHEAL MVCHALL-------- KENDRIC JOHNNY -JR --------------- CASSANDRA Q37 LAST YEAR SCHOOL Q37 tT 039 11 0^0 PA PA PA PA 01 01 01 01 F F F F K ? Moved \u0026gt; 006 037 037 2 19 ZD 21 23 n 2\u0026lt; J LAST YEAR CLASS 'VaM^ PAGE 5 o o r* Ethni c Group Sex Current class year Current school I no. PA PA w PA _PA PA PA PA 'W PA PA PV PA TT PA PA W PA PA TF PA PA PTT PA PA PIT PA PA TF Pt^ -0- 01 rr 01 01 ST 02 02 02 02 02 757 02 02 Try ot irr 01 01 \"OT 01 01 TIT 02 02 UT 02 02 TT 02 02 TT Q 1 F T F M HZ F F F F F IT H M TT F T\" M M TT M M S F F T M M TT M M R\" c K K 037 TTST-------------- 037 037 037 ~ O2T.{^f4U 037 037 037 037 TTJT---------------- 03? 03? 0T7 0*2 yii\niRroi .Assigned Fled toTj\u0026lt; 03 5^^1 040 MW'Jb c ( ( lakefield-did not enr 035 k5F^ 039.' Trrg^------------------- 035  075n------------ 035. | 039 TTIT*------------------ 65 61 6i 6! n Z1 7? ZJ Z4i Z6^ IS Moved out of district - Crossett c. u l_I O'S OPT g Q-J PC O Qcnn 1 3 939745 940092 Q 6 n n 9 /, ^hQQ99 ShQ^QQ 950001 950095 934195 939720 940084 940085 939737 SADC'ULY KIRKWOnn TUnOMTAM M'^ATT PERKINS lYORDLOlY HARRIS E ROWN HARRISON VEASLEY 'YELLS uTrve DAVIS DAVIS TURNER htACTACCTJl MAU CATHERINE SPEl'ICER NE AH LARONDA Jasmine DESHANNA SRANOIACE E RI K_* LEWCIOUS nAooci I -PETER PAUL TONY f c c ( It 13' M H K n M II o IS r Uni versa! Student ID 952339 95297 940167 940060 940143 94023? 1? Student 1 ast name Student first name LAST YEAR SCHOOL Hoees DONALD SUMMERVILLE DAVIS PEOPLES HARRIS ?9ii00f8 BEASLEV 940039 940066 940163 saoGas 039987 939928 902fj4 MATLOCK TOLBERT EASTER BENSON MARTIN NOBLE DANIELS 9feo\u0026lt;27 RAyr 940240 950121 939647 939649 939690 939901 939921 939927 9 4 0 1 5 1 95029 950529 939669 939637 939508 030910 939920 OPPOPC SNIEGOCKI KALKBRENNER A EDINGTON MILLARD Xmers6n HALE GUTHRIE YOCQUE GEARY SHUDAK DANN BALL BOOTH HE A on W5MOTA(4 PHIL LIPS -EVELYN DAVID ERICA JASMINE BRITTANY JESSICA AHOREK  CALION JAMES CORY JR PA 1 LADONNA 942 P4 P4 P4 P4 P4 P4 P4 P4 P4 P4 P4 P4 P4 PU Pk LAST YEAR CLASS P4. P4 P4 P4 P4 P4 P4 PU P4 PU T 01 01 0 1 01 02 02 02 02 02 02 02 02 02 06 Ethnic Group QJ 01 02 02 02 02 02 02 02 02 F F F M F F F F F M M M M M Sex F_ M F F y F M. M M M I Current class year K X._____________ 040 040 040 040 040_______________________ 040 040 040 040 040_______________________ 040- 2 9 la PAGE Current school 6 no. 3 020 032 04 1 q?? 04 1 P18 04 r 041 04 1 o r c 4 3* SARAH MICHELLE SYDNEY CAROLZME RENEE KYLE REID ANDREW MICHAEL BRIAN HOUSTON JAME-S JOSHUA BUSTER PARKER COD.Y KEIORA CAPMEN DESTINEY VICTOeity P4 01 F 7 P4 P4 P4 W PU P4 TT P4 P4 TV Ph Ph P4 P4 TV P4 P4 TV P6 Pti 01 01 01 TT 01 01 TT 01 01 7T 01 01 *CT 01 01 TT 01 03 T7 02 02 F F F T F M TT M M IT M M V M M V M F TT F K Trrr 042 042 GTS\" i 020 i 042 042 G5T' Qh2 042. 042 04 2 iWiy It- G go 048 V 042 Tpr2-------------- 042 042 ?i( ( f C ( ,^o' M t: IS u E \u0026lt;5 h 4 p bl be Q oo n 950029 ocnno? 93 oeec 9399 1 1 o? no 1 c 939923 939929 940029 940243 950079 oc no on 950092 940290 10/27/93 cMccn TfJpMCD CMnru HEARD mvMco COUChT SMITH LUSTER u H u p u p c y ROSS JENNY LAWRENCE ROQI^ 14:09\n17 'Jni versa! Student 10 Student last name ai978tt. .BROOKS 939786 939788 939942 940193 940004 COFFMAN COFFMAN CAMPBELL SKINNER WILDER 933795 BRYANT 939632 940294 940295 939526' 939698 939775 940 1 14 OSOO* ROBERTS RAINEY RAINEY gaTlij? WASHINGTON HAMPTON W.\u0026lt;Li\u0026lt;ER GILLIAM CR''STAL DERICK rAWCOAtil E^SIE KWAME PICKV FRANK MARION ROLANDO p T r V e V HAL JAPE student first \"name CARRIE CHERRie WILLIAM LARRY LADONNA _ NATAISHA TARA TASHA Jhgel^ KENDALt STEVEN REGINALD EDWARD 044 LAST YEAR SCHOOL j(. P4 P4 P4 P4 P4 P4 P4 P4 P4 P4 P4 P4 P4 4 77^ LAST YEAR CLASS P4 P4 P4 \u0026gt;4 pit _Ptt pit P4 P4 P4 P4 P4 P4 02 0? 02 02 02 02 02 02 02 02 02 02 02 01 Ethnic Group ,01 01 01 01 01 01 02 02 02 02 02 02 02 c T M M M M M ' M M M M M  Sex _F F F F M M F F F F TT M M M M Current class year A Qt2 Q\u0026gt;t2 042 042 042 042 042 042 042 042 042 042 04 2 I J -OAZ.ItaJ.d PAGE 7 Current school no. .0_44_____ 044 044 044 Private school 044 044 044 Qlttt 044 044 044 :Jo IS 11 70 2t a n l:  2\n2! X - 31 K x )\u0026lt; X X  J} s X L (. ( 939961 940158 939716 939958 950096 939800 940154 939612 939956 939960 940164 940239 940288' 950072 939952 O 3 Q o c , 939799 o o 7 WRAY TYLER KERR GRADY GOODNIGHT FENTON CLEM'dNS OGBULAFOR HADLEY S T U 5 P S FACEN HARRIS CROCKETT JAMES NEWTON TgAl'IgR--------- CHIDAMBARAM CTMrtCD ^ARA MARCIA CATHERINE RACHEL JENNA MATTHEW ^ONES JASMINE AMBER LAUREN TIFFANY MARISSA kRYSTIAN CARLOS KEVIN PREETHI 045 li  P4 P4 P4 P4 P4 Z ^4 P4 P4 P4 P4 P4 ^P4\" P4 Pit PIT Pit _____94. 'J 01 01 cyi 01 01 irr 02 02 02 02 02 15T Q2 02 sr 04 JiS_ T F F F F M z F F F F F T M M IT TT Moved out of district - Perryvill enroll 04S 045 045 d4S --------- 045 045 -------------------------------------------------------- 045 045 ------------------------------------------------------------ 030 l\\ Qlt3 X M ' iJ  K . K 91 92 U ' 65 W c 252\n045 no? k. (j \"I N? 13 c c i c (, k 4 \u0026gt;0 S3| \u0026amp;4I H\" \"o C 1 O T O 0 5 1 ij ,j 9 Q9oocn 940030 9 4 0 ^7'' 940200 950057 940020 939679 939709 939965 940215 950336 10/27/93 Jackson WAJ-TriM BUS noAOco WT I I HUDSON PHILLIPS HOOD AL5RIGH'' CHAM2 E RS HICKS MILAM GLOVER 14:09:17 Uni versa! Student IO Student last name 950059. flASSAS 940161 940235 940258 940132 940186 940229 952419 94014? nt o DAVISON BROWN RATLIFF ' tWTOOhSSr DAWSON BROWN HUTSON BAILEY PERRY nous BLACK 940195 940218 940^^^ 1 TOWNSEND PARKER 5llI^0M END 0 F SHAQUITA r Api_yM KHAY^tA RAYLE BRITTNI DONNIE FRED CORNELIUS BRITTANY JESSICA JACKLYN Student f 1 r st name SHERIEF JUSTIN TRE-Y KEVIN \"JOTIS------- SHATERRICA pOMINUftijE REGINA^ AMANDA KEVIN VSR------------ DEANTRE COURTNEY FTOAiT REPORT   * 052 LAST VEAR SCHOOL OSi It PA PA PA PA TT PA PA PA PA Pft P4 PA LAST YEAR CLASS .P4_ P4 P4 P4 'RF P4 P4 Ta\" P4 PA PA PA Tr 0 ' 01 02 02 02 02 02 02 02 02 01 01 01 Ethnic Group 01 01 01 01 w 02 02 \"CT 02 02 VC 02 02 TT T F F F F F F M M M F F F Sex M M H M T F F r F M TT M M TT K Current class year K Assigned to King-did not 035 OTT 035 035 575* 035 033 035 035 K -7--------------- Moved out of district 052 Current school 028 052 052 052 3 no. 052 m- 052 052 1157 052 052 IHT to 2d 21 21 23 SI N a c o ( ( ( c ri M u 1/Arkansas Deinocrat (gazette SATURDAY, AUGUST 27, 1994 Cnnwri^ O I IttlA ROCk NOWSOapefS. IflC. Give black 4-year-olds seats, district asks BY CYNTHIA HOWELL Democrat-Gazette Education Writer The Little Rock School District has 129 vacant seats  onetenth the number of children on the waiting list  in its early- childhood education program for 4-year-olds. The problem, district officials explained this week in documents submitted to U.S. District Judge Susan Webber Wright, is that the vacant seats in the program are reserved for white children, and the waiting list consists mostly of black children. In the court briefs, school district administrators said they had vigorously recruited white children last spring for the program, but would now like permission to release the unfilled, reserved seats to black children on the waiting list. The vacant seats represent almost 18 percent of all the seats in the free, full-day program. Since seats still remain vacant as the 1994-95 school year gets under way, the district submits that the vacant seats should now be released to black students who can benefit from the educational opportunities that will be provided, the legal brief said. The districts early-childhood education program is a component of its desegregation plan. The program was designed to attract both black and white children to 20 schools that have been difficult to desegregate and to prepare children for kindergarten and elementary school. The program has the capacity to serve 720 children in classes of 18 children each. So far, the district has enrolled 357 black children and 234 white children in the program. The districts goal was to racially balance each of the classes. But not enough white children signed up for all the available seats at 15 of the schools. The following elementaries had the largest number of vacancies: Badgett, 23\nBaseline, 12\nCloverdale, 14\nFranklin, 16\nGarland, 8\nMitchell, 9\nRightsell, 8\nWashington, 12\nand Watson, 12. The district has 1,120 black children and 84 white children on the waiting lists for the early- childhood program. The white children are on the waiting lists for schools that have filled all their allotted seats.SEP 61994 Otiico 01 DoiogfC-gaiion Mortorii'g IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION r I  U.S- St? C1 LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT. ET AL. PLAINTfFI y. NO. LR-C-82-866 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT, ET AL. DEFENDANTS MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL. INTERVENORS KATHERINE W. KNIGHT, ET AL. INTERVENORS JOSHUA INTERVENORS RESPONSE TO LRSDS MOTION TO RELEASE KINDERGARTEN SEATS AND FOUR YEAR OLD PROGRAM SEATS AND OPPOSITION TO LRSDS RECRUITMENT EFFORTS The LRSD filed with the Court on or about August 25, 1994 its motion requesting release of kindergarten and four year old program seats. In response to the LRSDs motion, Joshua states first that we have qualified opposition to the conditional release of said seats for the 1994 school term only and agrees that the vacant seats should be released to eligible black students\nbut, second, the LRSD is retreating from the Plan. Therefore, Joshua prays that the Court limit its possible approval to this year only and further prays for sanctions for this reason and the others which follow. The recruitment efforts by LRSD have been misrepresented. The district simply engaged in a proforma effort to obtain or recruit white eligible pupils for the program. Moreover, the Associate Superintendent for Desegregation, Dr. Russ Mayo, neither c:\\wp60\\lrsd.pledeveloped nor required the development of a recruitment plan which was tailored to address white enrollment in these schools. The districts non-directed efforts were therefore neither \"sustained,\" \"vigorous,\" nor \"out of the ordinary.\" Joshua prays for a hearing to establish these points on a bad faith contention against the LRSD. Furthermore, the district's plan proposes to enhance the racial imbalances in the schools as the upper grade levels become affected by the promotions. This factor will also be evidenced thereafter as the children in these schools in the form of racial percentages even higher than at present. WHEREFORE, the Joshua Intervenors pray that the Court set the matter for hearing and thereafter impose sanctions against the LRSD officials who are official responsible for the misrepresentations made, and for other appropriate relief. Respectfully submitted. JOHN W. WALKER, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72206 (501) 374-3758 By: ^John ' / W. Walker, Bar No. 64046 V c:\\wp60\\lrsd.ple 2CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE was I, John W. Walker, do hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing plqs^g forwarded to all counsel of record, by U.S. Mail, postage prepaid, on this cz-^z^ay of September, 1994. John W. Walker T c\n\\wp60\\lrsd.ple 3CO: (%/\u0026gt;/ Little Rock School District December 6,1994 TO: From: Thru: Subject\nMEMORANDUM Ann Brown, Federal Monitor Audrey Lee, Coordinator of SA information Dr. Russell Mayo, Associate Superintendent (A received DK 1 5 iqq^ Office of Desegregit'  '\u0026gt; Filling spaces in the Rockefeller infants and Two year program 1. The capacity and number of vacancies in the infant and Two-year old program are as follows\nInfant capacity Two-year old 10 17 Current vacancies Current vacancies 1 6 2. The length of time the vacancies have been open are as follows: The infant vacancy occurred in November 1994. The Two-year old vacancies occurred in September 1994 with seven vacancies, in October we enrolled (3) two-year olds and dropped (3). In November (2) seats were filled , in December (2) seats were filled and (11) two-year olds are currently enrolled. 3. The timeline for filling vacancies is as follows: Since the program is functioning on a 12 month cycle we are continuously offering seats from the waiting list on a monthly basis. Our goal is to keep the enrollment at capacity at all times. 4. Why Infant and Two-year-old programs have been running at less than capacity is as follows: The Infant and Two-year old Caucasian capacity is maximized . The remaining seats have been consistently offered to African American families from the waiting list. The cost has been the primary reason for these families declining the seats. The Department of Human services offers assistance, but it is my understanding that the list has a two-year waiting period. 1 810 West Markham street  Little Rock, Arkansas 72301  (501)324-20005. The current placement policies and practices are as follows\nFirst preference, is given to students who live in the attendance zone and have sibling attending the school. Second, is given to students who live in the attendance zone. Third, is given to students who do not live in attendance zone but have sibling attending the school. Fourth, is staff preference. Fifth, is desegregation transfer. 6. How and when we will modify the policies and practices to expedite student placement is as follows: Starting the month of December we have began to telephone parents and offer seats where vacancies exist. After the parent is called, a follow-up letter is sent to confirm the parent's response. 7. The date as each of the current vacancies are filled. Since we have started the telephone procedure we have filled the (1) infant seat and (5) two-year-old seats. These seats were filled 12/5- 12/8/94. 2z\u0026gt; February 3,1995 To: From: Thru: Subject: Little Rock School District receive^ Memorandum Ann Brown, Federal Monitor Audrey Lee, coordinator of SA information Dr. Russell Mayo, Associate Superintendent Rockefeller Early Childhood Programs FEB 8 1995 C' S J As Of January 19, 1995 the enrollment in the early childhood programs are as follows: infant (Pl) Two-year old(P2) 10 enrolled 15 enrolled Three-year old (P3) 11 enrolled 0 vacancies 2 vacancies 7 vacancies E 5 6 7 MB 5 9 4 e Students were assigned to the Two and Three-year-old programs from January 9 through January 17,1995. At the present time there are no two-year olds on the waiting list. There are no nonblack students on the Three-year-old waiting list to fill the five available seats. The two black vacancies in the Three-year program have been offered and we are waiting for a response from the parents. 810 West Markham Street  Little Rock, Arkansas 72201  (501)324-3000z Ci FiLSD U.S OIS75 uASTcRM OiST JCT COURT RiCT ARKANSAS IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION st? - 7 1995 JAMES Bv: lORiMACK, CLERK I P CLERiT 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 AI. INTERVENORS KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL INTERVENORS ORDER The Little Rock School District (\"LRSD\") has filed a motion and supplemental motion seeking permission to release to black students those unfilled seats in the incentive schools that the district had reserved for white kindergarten students and those unfilled seats reserved for white four-year-olds at both incentive and area schools. The LRSD stated it engaged in vigorous recruitment efforts for the programs for the 1995-96 school year, and that while these recruitment efforts yielded some positive results, a large number of seats remained vacant. More--than- once. the Court has expressed its reluctance to condone releasing_ seats set aside for white students because relinquishing those seats will make desegregating the schools more difficult. especially the incentive schools. The Court has addressed the long-term effects of this course of action in previous order dated September 7, 1994 and will not repeat that a analysis here. [Doc. # 2304.] From a review of the recent record, the Court is not convinced that the district's efforts satisfy the 2 5 13requirement for recruitment that is timely, vigorous, and sustained. The Court is particularly concerned that, during the pre-school registration period early last spring. the district informed parents by means of brightly colored flyers that the availability of the four-year-old' program might be reduced during the 1995-96 school year due to projected budget cuts. As a result. parents could not be confident of their access to the program, and doubtless some were thereby dissuaded from enrolling their children. Furthermore, in this year's filings, which are virtually identical to last  motion and brief to release seats. the LRSD once again has cited its quarterly program planning and budgeting document status reports and its monthly project management tool as sources of additional recruitment documentation. In last year's Order granting the motion to release seats, the Court noted that the nature of the project management tool is such that it does not contain additional information on recruitment. Such is still the case. The data supplied through exhibits illustrates that the district will fall far short of its desegregation goals if the seats reserved for white kindergarten students in the incentive schools go to black children instead. The percentages will be 94% black at Franklirr. 100% at Garland, 100% at Mitchell, 98% at Rightsell, and 70% at Rockefeller if the current vacancies are filled with black students. The LRSD would also fall short of its racial balance goals for four-year-old assignments in 14 of the 20 schools which offer the program if seats reserved for white 2students are filled by black students. Those schools outside the range would be Badgett (81% black), Baseline (81%), Brady (61%), Chicot (67%), Cloverdale (83%), Franklin (93%), Garland (72%), King (63%), Mitchell (89%), Rightsell (83%), Rockefeller (54%), Romine (78%), Watson (78%), and Wilson (61%). Exhibits filed by the LRSD on September 7, 1995 offer information indicating the LRSD has reserved the targeted number of seats for white four-year-old students in the incentive, interdistrict. and area schools. However, the data shows that Rightsell is the only incentive school in which the district reserved half of the seats for white kindergarten students. If the number of currently empty kindergarten seats were filled with white students, in addition to those whites already enrolled. the proportions would be 53% black at Franklin, 63% at Garland, 73% at Mitchell, and 67% at Rockefeller. These numbers indicate that the district either has already released seats to black children or never reserved them for whites in the first place. Even though the LRSD has failed to reserve all of the requisite number of seats and despite the inadequate job LRSD has done in recruiting white children for these programs, the Court recognizes that another major goal of the programs, in addition to racial integration. is to assist in increasing the achievement of black students. The parties previously have agreed that vacant seats reserved for white children will not remain unfilled. (LRSD Except for Mitchell and Rockefeller, these proportions are an improvement over those noted last year. 3Desegregation Plan, pg. 140.) Since the school year is underway, and the release of the seats will benefit black children, motion is granted. the The Court once again directs the LRSD to reserve half of all incentive school kindergarten seats for 1996-97 and subsequent school years for white children and to continue to reserve the targeted number of seats for four-year-old students in all schools with a four-year-old program. Also, the district is to remain mindful of the target racial balance in the other elementary schools so as to recruit and assign students accordingly. The Court will continue to require the LRSD to seek court permission before releasing any reserved seats in future school years. Also, the Office of Desegregation Monitoring (ODM\") is to continue closely monitoring the LRSD's recruitment of white children for the seats reserved for them in the four-year-old and kindergarten classes in the incentive schools and in the four-year-old programs at the other schools. IT IS SO ORDERED this 7-- day of September 1995. UNITED STATES /DISTO ISTRICT JUDGE docket aKrrjN Y 4 4n o kJ CL LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT ROCKEFELLER EARLY CHILDHOOD PROGRAM OCTOBER 2, 1995 ENROLLMENT Clam Black Male Black Female Total Black White Male White Female Total While Other Male Other Female Total Other Total Count Black white % Other % Min.% Black Uax.% Black Mu. Cap K 18 24 42 4 9 13 0 3 3 S8 72.4 22.4 S.2 50.0 50.0 60 s: :z. CD cn tn Ld Q O I (f) Q tn CE 00 c^ CM CM cn S) If) o ID If) CP CP P1 P2 P3 P4 TOTAl 4 2 6 2 2 4 0 0 0 10 60.0 40.0 .0 50/1 50.0 10 2 4 6 4 4 8 0 0 0 14 42.9 57.1 .0 50.0 50.0 17 5 4 9 4 3 1 1 2 18 50.0 38.9 11.1 50.0 50.0 18 13 12 25 14 9 23 0 3 3 51 49.0 45.1 5.9 50.0 50.0 54 42 46 88 28 27 55 1 7 B 151 58.3 36.4 5.3 159 (S10/17/1995 16:04 5013242281 LRSD STUDENT ASSIGNM PAGE 02 LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT STUDENT ASSIGNMENT OFFICE 501 SHERMAN ST. LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS 72202 MEMORANDUM TO: Melissa Guldin, Associate Monitor FROM: Nancy Acre, Director of Student Assignment DATE: October 17, 1995 SUBJECT\nEariy Childhood Enrollment Report/Capacity Figures Attached is the report you requested on the Rockefeller Early Childhood Program. In response to your October 12 memo to Dr. Mayo, the capacity figures we are currently using are those found on our October 2 enrollment count that you received. Let me know if we can be of further assistance. NA\npt Attachment c: Dr. Russ Mayo, Associate Superintendent, 10/17/1995 16:04 5013242281 LRSD STUDENT ASSIGNM PAGE 01  DiRECTOR of SwdENT AssiqNMENT  UniE Rock School Dismicr \"501 ShcRMAN Link Rock, AR 72202 TdephoNE 501-5 24-2109  Fax 501J 24-2281 eo'^ss. MTl TO - 0 I - 0 / o 0 fncf^ St^EClAL INSTBUCnONS NUMBEK OF PAG^ INCLUOING COyEB 3 MEMORANDUM TO: FROM: DATE: LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT STUDENT ASSIGNMENT OFFICE 501 SHERMAN ST. LITTLE ROCK ARKANSAS 72202 Melissa Guldin, Associate Monitor Nancy Acre, Director of Student Assignment October 17, 1995 OCT 1 3 1995 Office of Desegrsvatiai iV'lV! J SUBJECT: Early Childhood Enrollment Report/Capacity Figures Attached is the report you requested on the Rockefeller Early Childhood Program. In response to your October 12 memo to Dr. Mayo, the capacity figures we are currently using are those found on our October 2 enrollment count that you received. Let me know if we can be of further assistance. NA:pt Attachment c: Dr. Russ Mayo, Associate SuperintendentClass K PI P2 P3 P4 TOTAL Black Male 18 4 2 5 13 42 Black Female 24 2 4 4 12 46 Total Black 42 6 6 9 25 88 White Male 4 2 4 4 14 28 White Female 9 2 4 3 9 27 LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT ROCKEFELLER EARLY CHILDHOOD PROGRAM OCTOBER 2, 1995 ENROLLMENT Total White 13 4 8 7 23 55 Other Male 0 0 0 1 0 1 Other Female 3 0 0 1 3 7 Total Other 3 0 0 1 3 8 Total Count 58 10 14 18 51 151 Black % 72.4 60.0 42.9 50.0 49.0 58.3 White % 22.4 40.0 57.1 38.9 45.1 36.4 Other % 5.2 .0 .0 11.1 5.9 5.3 Min.% Black 50.0 50.0 50.0 50.0 50.0 Max.% Black 50.0 50.0 50.0 50.0 50.0 Max. Cap. 60 10 17 18 54 159CF - 3 High School Kindergartens The Little Rock School District has maintained kindergartens in the high schools for a number of years. Originally they served a purpose by being associated with high school Child Development offerings or family life classes. As that kind of class offering has changed in the district the high school kindergartens have been used to place children that enrolled too late to get into their attendance zone school. It is time to re-examine the roll that these kindergarten sections play in the school district. The Little Rock School District has not given sufficient attention to the provisions of its Desgregation Plan Citywide Early Childhood Education Program that says it will address three objectives. (Page 9) (1) to provide parenting education for the parents of early childhood students\n(2) to provide quality child care arrangements for low income parents which stress social development and school readiness\nand (3) to provide a quality pre-school program for disadvantaged students. These objectives are not being met in the high school kindergarten setting. Further the use of these high schools as a placement of last resort shows the plan provision on page 11 calling for assistance to  disadvantaged parents in the kindergarten pre-registration process is ineffective or non-existent and the available magnet school seats indicate that the provision also on page 11 to make these parents aware of magnet opportunities in their neighborhoods is not working. The kindergartens in the elementary schools offer more than the high schools can provide. One of the advantages is the association in the building with other children. They can get a glimpse of the educational opportunities of the first grade and can begin to develop those behaviors that will make them successful. In high schools they dont get to participate in school assemblies, dont get a chance to participate in the team building activities that all the elementary schools offer and dont get the staff services that are available to their peers. There is no counseling service available, no social worker, no music teacher, no P. E. instruction, no oversight by an elementary principal, and no elementary health services. In private, elementary principals will say that they see problems that high school kindergartners have in adjusting to regular school settings. Eighty seven percent of these children are black and most come from impoverished backgrounds. The kindergarten experience for them should be a needed leg up instead of a boot. In addition, at the high school kindergartens, five out of seven classes or three of the five schools are racially isolated with all black classes. In the school system a lack of white students may result in some cases of racial isolation and the eighth circuit court tolerated some isolation in the incentive schools but these children do not have the advantages offered by incentive schools to compensate for isolation and at the beginning of these childrens school experience this isolation should not be tolerated. There appears to be adequate space available in existing class sections to accommodate the high school kindergarten children. Consideration might also be given to new sections at interdistrict and stipulation magnet schools to reduce the competition for seats at the kindergarten level and perhaps attract white parents that might otherwise opt for private school. It also would help solve the difficulty in recruiting to fill the three additional seats in first grade. (Class size standards are 20 for kindergarten and 23 for first grade so assuming all 20 kindergartners move on to first grade 3 seats are available for recruiting). A chart is attached showing potential available seats and the attendance zone schools of high school kindergartners. Significant savings could be realized by reducing the number of kindergartens offered while still keeping within standards and shifting more shidents into the magnet schools transfers the cost from the operational budget to the magnet budget where half the cost is paid by the state. District administrators might want to look into the use of the kindergarten space to be used as day care for school age mothers as an attempt to assist them in completion of their high school work.Kindergarten Enrollment School Name Badgett Bale Baseline Booker Brady Carver Chicot Cloverdale Elem Dodd Fair Park Forest Park Franklin Fullbrig ht Garland Geyer Springs Gibbs Jefferson M.L King Mablevale Elem McDermott Meadowcliff Mitchell Otter Creek Pulaski Heights Rightsell Rockefeller Romine Terry Wakefield Washington Watson Western Hills Williams Wilson Woodruff Grand Total Grade K Black 12 28 42 38 43 31 35 45 29 28 22 98 32 33 29 17 23 57 49 24 37 36 12 30 37 31 33 29 42 53 44 29 31 35 26 1220 63% Ethnic White 8 14 14 33 30 29 22 13 9 11 38 9 45 6 11 17 38 38 12 31 18 1 27 28 1 21 16 49 16 25 15 10 29 11 7 702 37% K Total Grand Total Potential Available Seats In High School Kindergarten 20 42 56 71 73 60 57 58 38 39 60 107 77 39 40 34 61 95 61 55 55 37 39 58 38 52 49 78 58 78 59 39 60 46 33 1922 20 42 56 71 73 60 57 58 38 39 60 107 77 39 40 34 61 95 61 55 55 37 39 58 38 52 49 78 58 78 59 39 60 46 33 1922 0 0 4 9 7 0 3 2 2 1 0 0 3 1 0 6 0 5 0 5 5 3 1 2 2 8 11 2 2 2 1 1 0 14 7 109 3 2 3 5 7 1 4 2 2 10 5 5 '9 4 4 1 2 5 2 5 6 24 3 3 117 + 2 NozoneKindergarten Enrollment in High Schools Count of Studio Grade K I Ethnic K Total Name Central Fair Hall McClellan Community High Sch Parkview Grand Total Black 50 12 7 20 14 103 White 0 3 13 0 0 16 50 15 20 20 14 119Paerficus? Hore + - RECEIV^'^ FEB 1 ? 1996 Office of Desesregaiion Monitorinfl OILPS' P.kSE 1 sQffli COWS ey school l9S6/02/i2 SOfiCl: 06 raEFELLES SCSfraE SCHOOL C15SS Slack Black Other Other Total Hint HaxJ Hax Count Percent Camt Percent Count Black Black Capacity 06 06 30 2k ?5.01 i2.n 10 9 26.01 ll.n ko ko. eo.ot 3 kO.OJ 60.01 kO kO Total 260 6).rt 165 so.-n k06 F2=Screen leit F=Exit F6=Tcp line F9=Retrieee F!0=Top Fll^Bottae Ft2=Break f!k=yieK PI P2 P3 P4 Class Black 37 6 8 8 21 Total 80 ROCKEFELLER ECE ENROLLMENT As Of 2/11/96 White Total Change since last report % Black Maximum Capacity 20 57 0 65 60 4 8 9 29 70 10 16 17 50 150 0 0 -1 +2 +1 60 10 50 47 42 53 17 18 54 159Class Black K 37 P1 5 P2 9 P3 a P4 21 Total 80 ROCKEFELLER ECE ENROLLMENT As of 3/7/96 White 20 5 8 9 28 70 Total Enrollment % Black Maximum Capacity Difference (plus or minus) in total enrollment since last report 57 65 60 No change 10 17 17 49 150 50 53 47 43 53 10 17 18 54 159 No change +1 No change -1 No changePowerHouse QDIZ .'1 LPSO PAGE SCHOOL COUHIS eV SCHOOL 1 HOOL\n036 ROCKEfELLEf INCENTIVE SCHOOL Class Slack Slack Other Count Percent Count Other Percent Total Count Hin t Black i\u0026gt;^ 1 RC.'- Oilice ot Desegtegalicn Monitonna Hor? + 1996/03/O? Max i Black Hax Caoacity k Pl P2 P3 P4 SP 01 02 03 04 33 5 9 S 21 0 3? 33 25 21 64.9$ 50.0$ 52.9$ 4?.!$ 42.9$ .0$ 64.9$ ?8.6$ 56.8$ 53.8$ 20 5 5 9 28 0 20 9 19 18 35.1$ 60.0$ !i?.l$ 52.9$ 5?.l$ .0$ 35.1$ 2t.ii$ 43.2$ 46.2$ 5.' 10 1? 1? 49 0 5/ 42 44 39 50.0$ 50.0$ 50.0$ 50.0$ 50.0$ .0$ 40.0$ 40.0$ 40.0$ 40.0$ 50.0$ 50.0$ 50.0$ 50.0$ 50.0$ .0$ 60.0$ 60.0$ 60.0$ 60.0$ 60 10 1? 18 54 0 60 60 60 60 F2=Scpeen salt F3=Exit F6=Top line F9=Setrie/e F10=Top FlbBotto ?t2=Sre3k FU=Vies PoserHous? QUIZ Hore + - OlficQ ^996 Of Di 29. .'! LRSD PACE 2  CHOOL: SCHOOL COONTS 6? SCHOOL 036 gOCKEFELLEg IHCLNTIVE SCHOOL i' 1 a c c Black Count Black Other Othff Total Percent Count Percent Count Hin J Black Hax S Black 1996/03/0? Hax Capacity 05 06 30 26 ?6.QS ?5.0S 10  25.OS 25.OS 60 32 60.01 60.OS 60.OS 60.OS 60 60 Total 250 61.9J 156 38.H POP 2=Screen e/ait =12=8reak F3=Exit Ft6=l?ie P6=Too line F9=Retrieve F10=Top FlbBottoiauz. GRADE AF AM Pl 0 1 P2 0 1 P3 1 1 P4 7 0 GRAND TOTAL\n8 3 Rockefeller October 1, 2001 BF BM HF HM NF NM WF WM TOTAL 3 5 7 0 15 2 0 0 0 0 3 3 12 3 9 11 25 0 0 0 0 4 3 16 0 0 0 0 5 7 30 1 I 0 0 0 7 8 34 0 0 0 19 21 92\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_429","title":"Election zone","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","School board members","Educational law and legislation","Elections"],"dcterms_title":["Election zone"],"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/429"],"dcterms_temporal":null,"dcterms_rights_holder":null,"dcterms_bibliographic_citation":null,"dlg_local_right":null,"dcterms_medium":["documents (object genre)"],"dcterms_extent":null,"dlg_subject_personal":null,"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":"\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n\n\n\n   \n\n\n\n\n   \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n  \n\nFrom the desk of Debbie Crownoverr MR. CECIL BAILEY, PRESIDENT MR. THOMAS BROUGHTON. VICE PRESIDENT (dou nli^ tf^oarcl Education ROOM 300. PULASKI COUNTY ADMINISTRATION BUILDING 201 S. BROADWAY LITTLE ROCK. ARKANSAS 72201 TELEPHONE 372-7800 Ai\" DR. GEORGE A. McCRARY MR. E. GRAINGER WILLIAMS DR. MARTIN ZOLDESSY SECRETARY TO THE BOARD Debbie Crownover \u0026gt; MEMO TO: Members, Pulaski County lard of Education RECEIVED FROM: DATE: Ids. Debbie Crovmover,^Secretary December 21, 1992 DEC 2 2 1992 SUBJECT: Minutes of 12/15/92 2nd Quarterly Meeting Office of Desegregation Monitoring Enclosed, please find the following: 1. 2. Minutes from the 12/15/92 regular second quarterly meeting Copy of Order to Pulaski County Treasurer concerning CD investment Please review the minutes and let me know if you feel changes need to be made prior to the next meeting. Special Called Meeting scheduled for Tuesday, December 29, I MMZ- ar I ( Ml p M T-n -Pl ____________________ z\u0026lt;,  1992, at 1:00 P.M. in the 3rd floor conferenc: room, 201 So. Broadway, L.R. ihis meeting was scheduled for the purpose of the Board to choose a proposal from those presented, to formally present to Judge Susan Webber Wright for her consider- atim to set the new boundaries of the Little Rock School District school board member election zones. Please let me know in advance of this meeting if you will be unable MEIRRY CHRISTMAS to you all, and I'll see you on the 29th. to attend. cc: Larry Vaught, P.C. Attorney Chris Heller, Attorney, LRSD John Walker, Attorney Jim McKenzie, Metroplan 7DATE 12/15 2nd Qtr. County Board 09 of Education _________________IP ________________________________ KINO or MIKTIWa ,T.Mr,_Cccil Iki.i.ley, ITe.y. 201 So. Broadway, Ste. 300 Little Rock, AR PAGE_ 1 Mr. Cecil Bailey__ Dr. George.McCrary, Klember -Vice Pxcs.___ MKM ahskn , None Mr. Thnnwff RTOfrp.hton (part) Mr. Grainger Mi 11 jams. Member Dr. Martin Zolde.s.sy, Member__ OTHEnS PRESENT. Mr, T .A i Mr. Chris Heller SD --Cynthia. Howell.,. Ark^Democrat^Gazext. Dehhip \" . others: Crnwnnvpr, RnarH .Spprpt-flry __ See attached sign-in sheet INDEX NOTATIONS MINUTES Board of Education met, for its regular second quarterly meet- ing of the 1992/93 school year, on Tuesday, December 15, 1992, at 1:00 o.m. in the 3rd floor conference room of the Pulaski County Administration Bldg. All members were present to conduct business and Mr. President, called the meeting to order. Cecil Bailey, the Board Minutes of the 9/15 regular first quarterly meeting and of the 10/6 and 11/6 special called meetings were previously mailed to each Board Member for Copies of the minutes from the 11/30 and 12/7 public hearings ers for review. review. . ---------od were in their fold- Mr. Bailey asked for a motion to accept the minutes Mr. Williams so moved to ... - seconded the motion. --------- as approved. approve the minutes of all five meetings. Mr. Broughton It was voted and passed unanimously. Call to Order Minutes approved: 9/15, 10/6 11/6, 11/3 12/7/92 After some discussion Mr. Bailey asked for\n1 as to the current balances in the County Common School Fund, a motion to approve the distribution of the 2nd quarter allotment of State Apportionment money to the school districts. . ,, J --  ....... Ms. Crownover An Board the budgeted $3.00 per ADM had been reduced by the State Dent .s9 Qft Fiflr AHM ____________________T______T __________ . . , _ . - H  no r- pel nyu naa oeen reouced by the State Dept, to $2.98 per ADM for the current school year. She said she would adjust to balance with the actual distribution at the June, 1993 distribution. State App. allocation $41,935.50 distribute the $41,935.50 to the schools as soon as the allotment is received from the state funds.   ... Mr. Broughton seconded the motion. It was voted and approved. Next, feUey asked for a motion to approve the distribution of $2.00 per ADM AT* Sill K / H (Ml T mm ny-,,n__________r'i_____. ... . or $111,828.00 from the County Common School Fund to the school districts, was asked whether or not the funds were available before the end of the Crownover said that a little over $6,000.00 would still be the distribution. It year. Ms. seconded the motion. -----  in the account after Mr. Williams moved to distribute the money now. Mr. Broughton :. It was voted and unanimously approved. The prepared financial statement (as of 11/31/92) showed Cf. ZT ------------------------------- 3 current balance of \u0026lt;17 O9A County Common School Fund (with today's distributions), and _^7_^026.88 in the Special limd County Board of Education. These two accounts will cashed CD's plus interest at the end of December\n$300,000.00 and $200,000.00 respectively. ------------------ These two accounts will Mr. Bailey discussed with the Board the status of the $500,000.00 invested into CD s. The County Treasurer is to cash them in and deposit the funds plus interest into the proper accounts at maturity. After some discussion, Mr. Broughton steo- npH Tn na Proc 4 z-1 f- S v-.  n____ . i . . __ ped in as President in order for Mr. Bailey to make a motion, invest $500,000.00 as follows: He moved to re- $300,000.00 from the County Comnon School Fund $200,000.00 from the Special Fund, County Board of Education invested, by the Pulaski County Treasurer, Pat Tedford for the PiJaski County Board of Education, in 90-day CD's or T-Bills, whichever would yield the highest interest. \u0026gt;-- At maturity, the Treasurer is to deposit the ^oi^ts invested and interest earned back into the respective accounts. Ul'l I I 1 mmi-i X. 1 * Williams seconded the motion. Mr. It was voted and approved and Mr. Bailey resumed his position as President for the duration of the meeting. Cnty. Cmn. School Fnd $111,828.0( Financial statement Reinvest $500,000.0(DATE, 12/15 i_92 PAGE. 2 BIND OP MIKTIND PNiaiDINO OPPICBR OTHERS PRESENTi. INDEX NOTATIONS Second Quarterly Meeting, County Board of Education (Continued) Mr. Bailey then asked Ms. Crownover to report on the GED testing for 1992. With statistics in through 12/9/92, the following figures were noted for this test center (#0601): the GED testing for 1992 Total pre-tested---------------------- (31% of those 284 scheduled) Total taking actual test--------- Total passing actual test------- 87 75 47 or 63% Total falling actual test---------------------------28 or 37% The Board discussed the \"no-shows\" of those scheduled to take the laxoL-Lioocu une nu-snows oi tnose scneOuled pre-test. Ms. Crownover said it is quite a problem in scheduling, because of limited testing days and limited seating space. F''-     - - * day to make up for the no-shows. up on She said she already over-books\" each pre-test She felt one reason some don't bother to show their scheduled day is because Arkansas doesn't charge for any part of the testing, so they don't have anything to lose when they don't show up. All those who are scheduled for the actual test have already taken and passed the 1 fsTw x* 1.1 !_ uAiXV4. die pre test so 1UU% of them show up. No action was required by the Board on this subject. The next item on the agenda was for the Board to discuss the current Little Rock School District election zone lawsuit. Tlie Board had said, in the last public hearing, that they would not be making a decision on which proposal to present IlinOQ ClIC'OT-i LTnkkr, T.7w-4 *- _ _ __1 ~ Judge Susan Webber Wright, at this regular meeting. to Pulaski County Attorney, Mr. Larry Vaught, reminded the Board that all parties involved, including Mr. Walker, had agreed to the 1986 Federal Court order assigned the current LRSD election zone boundaries. The zones, at that time comported with the Voting Rights Act. Mr. Heller informed the Board that, even though the Board discussed allowing Mr. Walker more time to prepare a compromise proposal, the LRSD was not interested in any compromise that would be based on rac Mr. Heller asked the Board to pick one of Metroplan's proposals and present it to Judge Wright as quickly as possible, so the postponed election could be reschedule He said that April and May of 1993 would be a crutial time for LRSD because of budgeting, so they would like to have the election as soon as possible. that GED test update LRSD election zone discussion Vaught/ Heller on rac :. 1. Mr. Vaught warned the Board that if they make race a factor in their choice t\" nmr r.fi 1 1 .J . ii. they will run the risk of Judge Wright telling them they did not do what she askec. Since there has been no prior finding of discrimination with regard to the school] election, race should not be considered, just the one-man/one-vote concept. Mr. Vaught told the Board Judge Wright would probably hold a hearing after the proposal was presented to her, and that, at that time, Mr. Walker could submit hi' proposal to her if he wished to do so. Mr. Heller said he felt Judge Wright woulc expedite her ruling so the election could be underway. After more discussion, the Board President set a Special Called meeting for Tues. December 29, 1992, at 1:00 p.m. for the purpose of the Board to choose a proposal of new election zones to present to Judge Wright. Mr. Bailey will meet with Mr. Nagel prior to that date and get copies of any compromised changes in Mr. Walker's proposal, to the Board members prior to the 12/29 meeting. Special Called meeting 12/29 to choose proposalDATE 12/15 .9^ HINO or UKIYIM4 M PAGE. HRvatoiNO orrictn 3 J OTHER* PRESENTt INDEX NOTATIONS Second Quarterly Meeting, County Board of Education (Continued) Next, Ms. Crownover told the Board she would have 1992 Code of Ethics forms pared for each member to review and sign, at the 12/29 meeting. preparea tor As soon as they sign their forms, Ms. Crownover will notarize their signature and file the forms with the County Clerk after January 1, 1993 and before January 31, 1993. Code of Ethics After the Special Called meeting of 12/29/92, the next regular third quarterly meeting is scheduled for Tuesday, March 16, 1993, at 1:00 p.m. There being no other business to discuss, Mr. Broughton made a motion to adjourn tthhee mmeeeettiinngg.. Dr. McCrary seconded the motion and the meeting stood adjourned. PULASKI COUNTY BOARD OF EDUCATION Mr. Cecil Bailey, President Ms. Debbie Crownover, Secretary December 21, 1992 Date Next reg. meeting 3/16/93 f^ufaiLi Cdoun iSoaJ of ^ducation MR. CECIL BAILEY. PRESIDENT MR. THOMAS BROUGHTON. VICE PRESIDENT ROOM 300. PULASKI COUNTY ADMINISTRATION BUILDING  201 S. BROADWAY LITTLE ROCK. ARKANSAS 72201 TELEPHONE 372-7800 MEMO DR. GEORGE A. McCRARY MR. E. GRAINGER WILLIAMS DR. MARTIN ZOLDESSY SECRETARY TO THE BOARD Debbie Crownover TO: Members, Pulaski County Board of Education FROM: Ms. Debbie Cro\\mover\u0026lt; Secretary SUBJECT: DATE: Minutes of the 12/29/92 Special Called Meeting/ Code of Ethics/ Metroplan-4 Proposal Submitted to Judge Wright January 6, 1993 Enclosed is your copy of the minutes from the Special Called Meeting of 9Q Tom. Please review them and let me know if you see any changes that need to be made. December 29, 1992. Pulaski County Attorney, Mr. Larry Vaught, has subnitted the proposal to Federal Judge Susan Webber Wright this 6th day of January, 1993. .(See attached) Please let me know if you have any questions concerning this matter, informed as to the Board's next step. I will keep you Also enclosed is your copy of your recorded Code of Ethics form. T copy of this with your records in this office should you ever need another I also have a copy. cc: minutes only Mr. Larry Vaught, Pulaski County Attorney Mr. Chris Heller, Attorney, LRSD Mr. Jolin Walker, Attorney \\/llrs. Ann Brown, ODM Mr. Jim McKenzie, Metroplan RECESVED JAN 8 1993 Office of Desegregation MonitoringDATE. 12/29/ ,a_92 Special Called 201 So. Broadway Suite 300 Meeting, County _________ Bd. of Education L.R., AR 72201 KINO OP HCKTIN4 \"1 MEMBER* rREENTMr. Cecil Bailey^ Prp tfc, Thomas Broughton Vice Pre: Dr. George McCrary, Member __Mr. Grai nger Wi11i aws_________ Dr. Martin Zoldessy--------- .q .q WHCNC HILO MEMBERS ABSENT_______ PAGE___L Mr. Cecil Bailey PNiaiDiNO OPFicin Mr. Tarry Vaught, Attorney,? Mr. John Walker, At-tnmpy ___________ iir. Chris Heller. Attorney, LRSD______ Mrs, Ann Brown, PPM OTHERS PRESENT] Cyiitliia ifowell\nAik. DeiiiucraL-Gazetcs Channel 4-Eyewitness News Ms. Debbie Crownover, Secretary OTHERS: ~ ' See attached MINUTES pie Pulaski County Board of Education met in a Special Called Meeting. Tuesdav December 29, 1992, at 1:00 P.M. in the office boardroom. The purpose of the mating was for the Board to make their decision on which presented proposal of  uiicj-x UCI.XOXUU uii wiixcn presenceu proposal, new election zones for the Little Rock School District, to present to Federal Judge Susan Webber Wright. All members were present to conduct business, called the meeting to order. Mr. Bailey, the Board President, Mr. Bailey gave the Board some extra time to study a new proposal (Walker-4) that was received earlier that morning. The new Walker-4 proposal had 3 predominantly INDEX NOTATIONS Call to Order black zones, 4 predominently white zones, all incumbents were within the boundarie\nof a separate zone, and the geographically. zones were numbered similarly to the current zones. Mr. Bailey then read the Federal court mandates ordered by Judge Wright rir. Ddrxey Luen leau cne reoerai .Judge Wright. He also _ listed the criteria the Board set for Metroplan when they were requested to studv m irronf' TDCH a1 _________3 ____i_____ t f \\ ' the current LRSD election zones and submit a proposal(s) if the current found to be out of compliance with the one-man/one-vote concept. ones were A discussion followed about the various proposals that were submitted. If Pro- Summary Federal Court Orde \u0026amp; eight proposals posal Walker 4 or any one of the four Metroplan proposals is chosen, the reschedul id l^ction would be for zones 2 \u0026amp; 4 only, as would have been the case had the repula  L992 election for the LRSD not been postponed. Mr. Thomas Broughton made a motion for the Board to submit the Walker-4 proposal to Judge Wright for approval. Mr. Bailey asked for a second to the motion, was made\nthe motion died. Walker-4 motion die None Mr. Grainger Williams made a motion for the Board to submit both Walker-4 and 1 Metroplan-4 proposals to Judge Wright. Dr. McCrary seconded the motion. The Boan asked Mr. Vaught if presenting two proposals to Judge Wright would be acceptable , practice. Mr. Vaught said the order was somewhat unusual because there weren't i many guidelines added. He said there was nothing in the Order that would point to the fact that Judge Wright anticipated more than one proposal would be submitted to her\nhowever, neither was that action prohibited. would be a call for the Board to make. Mr. Broughton said he felt strongly that the Board should make their decision and present only one proposal, even if it was not one he favored, because he felt that was the Board's job and that the Board should not ask Judge Wright to make up their minds for them. Walker-4 \u0026amp; Metro.-4 combomotion fai. Mr. Vaught said it A vote' was called. The motion failed 3 to 2. Williams and Dr. McCrary, voting voted no to break the tie. Voting for the motion was Mr. no was Dr. Zoldessy and Mr. Broughton. Mr. Baileyi DATE. 12/29/ ,9_92 PAGE_ 2 I KIND OF MEETINa MCMDCRS FRE8CNT WHERE HELD MEMSCRS ABSENT _ FRESiOINO OFFICER OTHERS PRESENTi Special Called Ifeeting, Pulaski County Board of Education (continued) Dr. Zoldessy then made a motion to present the Metroplan-4 proposal to Judge Wright. Mr. Williams seconded the motion. The motion passed 3 to 1. Voting were Dr. Zoldessy, Mr. Williams and Dr. McCrary. Mr. Broughton cast the no vote. Mr. Bailey asked Mr. Vaught to prepare the necessary documents to present to Judge Wright. Mr. McKenzie said metroplan would draw up a packet of their proposal-4 to present to Judge Wright. As soon as Mr. Vaught gets the material from Metroplan, he and Mr. Bailey will meet to go over the presentation material. Mr. Bailey reminded the Board to review their Code of Ethics form, which were in their folders, and sign them, if approved, and submit to Ms. Crownover. She will notarize them and file them with the Pulaski County Clerk after January 1, 1993, and before January 31, 1993. The President asked for a motion to adjourn. Dr. Zoldessy so moved, seconded by Mr. Broughton. It was voted and approved and the meeting stood adjourned. PULASKI COUNTY BOARD OF EDUCATION Mr. Cecil Bailey, President Ms. Debbie Crownover, Secretary Date January 5, 1993 INDEX NOTATIONS ietroplan-4 notion aasses Code of Ethics. JAN-,7-93 THU 14:35 PUL. CO. ASSESSOR FAX NO. 5013776009 P.Ol * { IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKAliSAS !/ WESTERN DIVISION FILED H. Ow-ur InT\nau I.TTiI.?: ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT : i! O', JAN ! 3 : L H. bUL-N i o, CI. lPi'K PLAINTIFF V NO.\nLR-C-82-866 PUI.ASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1., et al. I S' DEFENDANT,S MI^S. LORENE JOSHUA, et al. INTERVENOl^S KATHERINE W, KNIGHT, et al. INTERVENORS KJLASKI._CQUNTY board of EDUCATION'S PLAN FOR KL'MCTION.. ZONES__TN THE ijlTLE ROCK SCHOOL DIST'RTCT The Pulaski County Board of Education, through the Pulaski County Attorney, submits the following pursuant to the order of the Court dated September 24, 1992, and Ark. Code Ann. 6-13-607\n1. The Court's order instructs the Pulaski County Board of Education to \"determine whether the zones are out of compliance with the 'one man - one vote' principle. and if they are [to] I\nrezone the Little Rock School District accordingly.\" 2. The Board has determined that the zones are out of compliance with the one man - one vote principle as set forth in the Analysis of Little Rock School District's School Election Zones, attached hereto as Exhibit A. 3. On December 29, 1992, the Board adopted the proposed Little Rock School District Election District as set forth in Exhibit A in which the zone vary from 0.59' Ct to 3.G4% from the ideal. WHjKREFORE , the Pulaski County Board of Education has compliedJAN- 7-93 THU 14:36 PUL, CO. ASSESSOR FAX NO. 5013776009 P. 02 with the order of the Court, the Court\nthe Board further and it prays the plan be approved by prays it be dismissed from this case. Respectfully Submitted,  S-L larry d? I VAUGHU PULASKI COUNTY ATTORNEY 201 So. Broadway, Suite 400 Little Rock, AR (501) 377-6285 72201 Arkansa\nBar No. 79129 SBRJTFICATE of srrviqe copy of the f^regoi^ng ^d^ocumeirt hT\u0026lt;-^be^^ correct to Mr. Christopher Viler Commercial Building, 400 West Capitol Lit?? 2000 First MMrr.. John Walker, .ioi-m w XrT ^pitol, Little Rock, AR 72201 and AR John walker, oJnO HthHiWa. .W.AAL_K_E_R__ _dpa ya ' 1771 Rock, 72206 on thiis P.A. Larry o. Vauglit Analysis of Little Rock School Board Election Zdhel Pulaski County Board of Education METKOFLAN January 1993METROPLAN. A COUNCIL OF LOCAL GOVERNMENTS January 5, 1993 Mr. Cecil Bailey, President Pulaski County Board of Education Room 300, Pulaski County Administration Bldg. 201 S. Broadway Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Dear Mr. Bailey: At the request of Pulaski County Judge Buddy Villines, Metroplan has assisted the Pulaski County Board of Education in analyzing the election districts of the Little Rock School Board. Enclosed is our final report. The current election districts were analyzed and six of the seven were foimd to be out of compliance with the \"one man, one vote\" standard of plus or minus five percent from the mean. The current districts are mapped over a base of election precincts and a summary table is provided herein. In addition, we have included two maps of the alternative alignment the Board selected, as well as a summary table for that alternative. The first map is over a street base and the second map is over the voting precinct base. Both maps show the proposed zones in color and the existing boundaries with a heavy black line so that it is easy to identify the changes. It has been a pleasure working with the Board and with your very competent staff. If Metroplan may be of further assistance in this matter, pleasure feel free to call on us. Sincerely yours, im Ix^utive Director McKenzie Heritage West Building  201 East Markham  Suite 450  Little Rock, Arkansas 72201  (501) 372-3300 Election District 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 School District Total Ideal CURRENT SCHOOL DISTRICT ELECTION ZONE BOUNDARIES Total Population 20,901 Population Variance -3,910 Percent Variance -15.76% Total White Population 3,194 Total Black Population 17,629 Percent Black Pop. 84.35% Total Other Population 78 Percent Other Pop. 0.37% 20/15 24,989 31,057 30,810 22,382 23,120 173,674 24811 -4,396 -17.72% 4,906 15,306 74.97% 203 0.99% 178 6,246 5,999 -2/29 -1,691 0.72% 22,107 2,529 10.12% 353 1.41% 25.18% 24.18% -9.79% -6.81% 28,967 22,974 15,582 15,159 112,889 Table prepared by Metroplan using 1990 U.S. Census data. November, 1992 1,550 7,346 6,390 7,688 58/38 I -  4.99% 23.84% 28.55% 33.25% 33.65% 540 490 410 273 2,347 1.74% 1.59% 1.83% 1.18% 1.35%Election District 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 School District Total Ideal RECOMMENDED SCHOOL DISTRICT ELECTION ZONE BOUNDARIES Total Population 25,533 Population Variance 722 Percent Variance 2.91% 25,764 24,578 24,216 24/56 24,663 24/64 173,674 24,811 953 -233 -595 -355 -148 -347 3.84% -0,94% -2.40% -1.43% -0.59% -1.40% Total White Total Black Percent Total Other Percent Population 5,018 Population 20,380 Black Pop. 79.82% Population 135 Other Pop. 0.53% 10,084 15,300 59.39% 380 1.47% 23,161 22,518 19,325 15,550 17,233 112,889 Table prepared by Metroplan using 1990 U.S. Census data. November, 1992 1,112 1,239 4,681 8,767 6,959 58/38 4.52% 5.12% 19.14% 35.55% 28.45% 33.65% 305 459 450 346 272 2,347 1.24% 1.90% 1.84% 1.40% 1.11% 1.35%JAN- 7-93 THU 14:35 - PUL, CO. ASSESSOR FAX NO, 5013776009 P. 01 U' S' i ^1? I R ' is L IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT i-xyir.-\u0026lt;i?i s\n'.'.: 4!- EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKAliSAS WESTERN DIVISION\nau I ': j I i,.TTrr.,e rock school district CAi-ft n.E\u0026gt;nLi\\ M I 3, Ci..L-F(|( PLAlNTlFF NO.\nLR-C-82-8b6 OCP.Ci\n-: 7K PUJASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT HO. 1., et al. I I DEFENDANT,S MRS. LORENE JOSilL'A, et al. INTERVENORS KATHERINE W. KNIGHT, et al. INTERVENORS I'-HI^^..CQyiflY . BOARD OF EilUCATION 'S PI,AN FOR I'.MCT.1.ON.. ZONEg_JW THE I,ITTLE_ ROCK SCllOQT. DISl'RTCT The Pulasxi County Board of Education, through the Pulaski County Attorney, submits the following pursuant to the order of the J Court dated September 24, 1992, and Ark. 1. Code Ann. 6-13-607: The Court's order instructs the Pulaski County Board of Education to H determine whether the zones are out of compliance with the ' one man one vote' principle. and if they are [to] rezone che Little Rock School District accordingly. H 2. The Board has determined that the zones are out of compliance with the one man - one vote principle as set forth in the Analysis of Little Rock School District's School Election Zones, attached hereto as Exhibit A. 3. On December 29, 1992, the Board adopted the proposed Little Rock School District Election District as set forth in Exhibit A in which the zones vary from 0.59% to 3.84% from the ideal. WHEREJORE, the Pulaski County Board of Education has complin 1 I IJAN- 7-93 THU 14:36 PUL, CO. ASSESSOR FAX NO. 5013776009 P. 02 with the order of the Court, the Court\nthe Board further and it prays the plan be approved by prays it be dismissed from this Case. Respectfully Submitted, ) LAK ay D. VAUGHuT PULASKI COUNTY ATTORNEY 201 So. Broadway, Little Rock, AR (501) 377-6285 Suite 400 72201 Arkansas Bar No. 79129 QERTXFIQATE QF_SERVice I, Larry D, Vaught, dvj iierer copyjjf the foregoing document ha\ntt . Christopher Heller, do hereby certify that to Mr. Commercial Building, 400 West Capitol, Mr. John Walker, JOHN W. WALKER P A AR 72206 on thi.s day of Janua , - a true and correct been served by regular U.S Friday, eldredge \u0026amp; clark, Rock, AR ma i 1 2000 First 72201 and  ^^23 Broadway, Little Rock, day of January, 1993, Larry DD. Valuigghhtt P. 03 AUTOMATIC COVER SHEET DATE\nJAN- 7-93 THU 14:36 TO\nFAX It\n93710100 FROM I I PUL. CO. ASSESSOR FAX #\n5013776009 03 PAGES WERE SENT (INCLUDING THIS COVER PAGE) B* X X )K i * :tt [ * * DATE START SENDER JAN- 1 14:31 5013776009 TRANSACTION REPORT RX TIME PAGES TYPE P.Ol JAN- 7-93 THU 14:33 NOTE 1'36\" 3 RECEIVE OK X X % )K X )K XiSsi J Submitted: January 10, 1995 Before RICHARD S. Filed: June 5, 1995 ARNOLD, Chief Judge, HEANEY, Judge, and WOLLMAN, Circuit Judge. Senior Circuit RICHARD S. ARNOLD, Chief Judge. Two appeals' involving the Little Rock School District (LRSD) are consolidated for our review. In the first case. African- American voters^ appeal the District Court's^ order dismissing their claim under the Voting Rights Act of 1965,  2, as amended. 42 U.S.C.  1973, against LRSD. In the second case, the Joshua Intervenors appeal the District Court's August 10, granting LRSD's motion to close Ish Incentive School, both cases. 1994 , order We affirm in I. We review first Charles's claim that the LRSD's election-zone plan adopted by the Pulaski County Board of Education (PCBE) and initially. three appeals were consolidated. In the third case, the Joshua Intervenors appealed the District Court's order of September 27, 1994, rejecting the present site of Stephens School as a possible location of the new Stephens Interdistrict School. That appeal has been dismissed by agreement of the parties. _______ Rock School District v. Pulaski County Special School District No. Little 1, No. 93-3592 (Sth Cir. Jan. 19, 1995) (per curiam). Diane Davis, ^Plaintiffs Dale Charles, Robert L. Brown, Sr., Gwen Hervey Jackson, and Raymond Frazier, are African-American residents of Little Rock who live within the Little Rock School District. ................... We shall refer to these parties as \"Charles.\" The Hon. Susan Webber Wright, United States District Judge for the Eastern and Western Districts of Arkansas. -7-IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT o\\^ EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION By:, i LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT V. NO. LR-C-82-866 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, ET AL. MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL. KATHERINE W. KNIGHT, ET AL. ORDER FSLED U.S. DISTRICT COURT _ 1TE?.?J DISTRICT ARKANSAS EB 1 2 1993 .ENTS, CLERK PLAINTIFF DEFENDANTS INTERVENORS INTERVENORS On September 24, 1992, the Court ordered the Pulaski County Board of Education to determine whether the election zones in the Little Rock School District were out of compliance with the principle of II one man one vote\" and to redraw the zones if A 0^ necessary to comply with that principle. On January 6, 1993, the Pulaski County Board of Education, after determining that the zones were out of compliance. filed a plan for election zones in the Little Rock School District. Should any party have objections to the plan. those objections, along with citations of authority, must be filed no later than February 26, 1993. Any responses to objections must be filed no later than March 18, 1993. Should the Court determine that a hearing is necessary in this matter, it will be held Monday, March 29, 1993. SO ORDERED this /day of February, 1993. I I* ti jN r o T SHEET IN HD/OR ^(s) FRCP r.: JUDGE 1 FEB 2 2 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION McjfiiiOf'fHJ OHtoa of Desegfeeal'O LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT, ET AL. PLAINTIFFS V. NO. LR-C-82-866 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT, ET AL. DEFENDANTS MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL. INTERVENORS KATHERINE W. KNIGHT, ET AL. INTERVENORS PLAINTIFFS' OPPOSITION TO PULASKI COUNTY BOARD OF EDUCATION'S MOTION FOR APPROVAL OF ELECTION ZONES The plaintiffs oppose the Motion. The County Board of Education has not prepared a plan which comports with the Voting Rights Act or which meets the prayer made by plaintiffs to the Court to allow citizens of African American descent to have a fair and reasonable opportunity to elect representatives of their choice to the Little Rock School Board. The Board has simply refused to address the Voting Rights issues. The case is therefore not ripe for consideration and requires a period for discovery and development. The plaintiffs will otherwise delineate their objections. as required by the Court, by February 26, 1993. Respectfully submitted. W. Walker I JOHN W. WALKER, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72206 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing has been mailed, postage prepaid to the counsel of record listed below on this day of February 19, 1993. Larry D. Vaught Pulaski County Attorney 201 So. Broadway, Suite 400 Little Rock, AR 72201 Steve Jones, Esq. Jack, Lyon \u0026amp; Jones, P.A. 3400 Capitol Towers Capitol \u0026amp; Broadway Streets Little Rock, AR 72201 Christopher Heller, Esq. Friday, Eldredge \u0026amp; Clark 2000 First Commercial Building Little Rock, AR 72201 Sam Jones, Esq. Wright, Lindsey \u0026amp; Jennings 2200 Worthen Bank Building Little Rock, AR 72201 Richard Roachell, Esq. #15 Hickory Creek Drive Little Rock, AR 72212 Ann Brown, Monitor Office of Desegregation Monitoring 210 East Markham Little Rock, AR 72201 J' ^^hW^ LG. WalkerJOHN W. WALKER RALPH WASHINGTON MARK BURN EITE WILEY A. BRANTON, JR. AUSTIN PORTER, JR. * Alsu admittol In Practice in (.eorKia \u0026amp; the District of Columbia. John w. walker, p.a. Attorney At Law 1723 Broadway Little Rock. Arkansas 72206 Telephone (501) 374-3758 FAX (501) 374-4187 February 19, 1993 Larry D. Vaught Pulaski County Attorney 201 So. Broadway, Suite 400 Little Rock, AR 72201 Re: LRSD V. PCSSD USDC No. LR-C-82-866 Dear Mr. Vaught: Enclosed please find a received FEB 2 2 1993 Of?ico of Desegregation MonitOiHig copy of Plaintiff's Opposition to Pulaski County Board of Education's Motion for Approval of Election Zones which has been filed in the above matter. Sincerely, John W. Walker JWW:Ip Enclosure cc: All counsel of Record Linda Meiissa Poiiy Margie Return to: 5* FEB 2 2 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION C!!iC3 Ct CeseG^scar-cn ilV* LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT, ET AL. PLAINTIFFS V. NO. LR-C-82-866 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT, ET AL. DEFENDANTS MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL. INTERVENORS KATHERINE W. KlIIGHT, ET AL. INTERVENORS PLAINTIFFS' OPPOSITION TO PULASKI COUNTY BOARD OF EDUCATION'S MOTION FOR APPROVAL OF ELECTION ZONES The plaintiffs oppose the Motion. The County Board of Education has not prepared a plan which comports with the Voting Rights Act or which meets the prayer made by plaintiffs to the Court to allow citizens of African American descent to have a fair and reasonable opportunity to elect representatives of their choice to the Little Rock School Board. The Board has simply refused to address the Voting Rights issues. The case is therefore not ripe for consideration and requires a period for discovery and development. The plaintiffs will otherwise delineate their objections. as required by the Court, by February 26, 1993. Respectfully submitted. n W. Walker JOHN W. WALKER, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72206CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing has been mailed, postage prepaid to the counsel of record listed below on this day of February 19, 1993. Larry D. Vaught Pulaski County Attorney 201 So. Broadway, Suite 400 Little Rock, AR 72201 Steve Jones, Esq. Jack, Lyon \u0026amp; Jones, P.A. 3400 Capitol Towers Capitol \u0026amp; Broadway Streets Little Rock, AR 72201 Christopher Heller, Esq. Friday, Eldredge \u0026amp; Clark 2000 First Commercial Building Little Rock, AR 72201 Sam Jones, Esq. Wright, Lindsey \u0026amp; Jennings 2200 Worthen Bank Building Little Rock, AR 72201 Richard Roachell, Esq. #15 Hickory Creek Drive Little Rock, AR 72212 Ann Brown, Monitor Office of Desegregation Monitoring 210 East Markham Little Rock, AR 72201 4 JoS hn W. LO. WalkerIN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT cou^^^i?A(d'?s^c^^ EASTER DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 3y:. h. 6 7953 tJn.JPLAINTIFF ' \u0026lt;j Z I ~ V. NO. LR-C-82-866 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, ET AL. received DEFENDANTS MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL. mar 1 1993 INTERVENORS KATHERINE W. KNIGHT, ET AL. Ottice of Desegregation Monitoring INTERVENORS PLAINTIFFS' OBJECTIONS, RESPONSE AND MEMORANDUM REGARDING THE COURT'S ORDER OF FEBRUARY 16, 1993 (THE ORDER WAS APPARENTLY ENTERED BY THE COURT ON FEBRUARY 12, 1993) The Court has entered an Order which was entered on the docket February 16, 1993, requiring the parties to list any objections which they may have to the submission filed on January 6, 1993 by the defendant Pulaski County Board of Education. The plaintiffs submit the following objections to the plan. 1. The plan does establish seven districts of legally acceptable size. In that respect, plaintiffs have prevailed in causing the defendants to adapt and otherwise redraw the school election zones. 2. The January 6, 1993 submission does not address the voting rights issues raised by the lawsuit. 3. On information and belief, the County Board of Education acknowledged that it would redraw a different plan had it not felt limited by the Court's Order simply to redraw the lines in accordance with the \"one man-one vote\" principle. The County Board has failed to provide the Court with sufficient basis for a determining the voting rights issues.4 . The County Board of Education was divided along racial lines on the propriety of submitting an alternative which addressed the voting rights issues. 5. The only plan which addressed the voting rights issues and the \"one man-one vote\" issue was those developed by the plaintiffs. It is submitted herewith as Exhibit \"A. II 6. The plan submitted by the County Board of Education does not take into account the concept of \"packing, II nor demographic changes which have reduced the percentage of white population in the school' district in the last decade, nor the fact that African American citizens do not have in this racially polarized community an opportunity to elect sufficient number of representives of a their choice. 7. The Pulaski County School District, which has a much lower African-American population ratio than the Little Rock School District, has a plan which provides for two majority-minority districts each approximately 57% minority. North Little Rock is likewise situated and as a result of a voting rights action before this Court, three of the seven board members'therein are of the minority race. Little Rock, as plaintiff in the case against the County, et al., (and is still a plaintiff in part of this action) can surely provide and seek no less minority representation than the Pulaski County Board of Education, which was the defendant that Little Rock sued for, among other things, the right of broader minority representation on the school board. The authority of the voting rights relief is the Voting Rights Act itself, 42 U.S.C. 1973 (j) as amended, Thornburgh v. 8.Jingles, 478 US 30 (1986)\nHarvell v. Ladd, 958 F2d 226\nWilliains V, City of Texarkana, FSupp , USDC, W.D. of Ark, decided February 19, 1993\nSmith v. Clinton, 687 FSupp 1310 (ED Ark 1988), Aff'd 488 US 988 (1988) . These cases are but few in a litany which require full relief for minority citizens in voting rights cases. The Court has not ruled upon the Motions to Dismiss herein. WHEREFORE, objections considered, the plaintiffs respectfully request that: 1. The Court overrule the Motions to Dismiss\nThe Court require the defendants to answer the Complaint herein\nThe Court require the defendants to develop appropriate plans which address the voting rights issues raised by plaintiffs or. in the alternative, show cause v/hy the plans submitted by the plaintiffs are inapposite to relieve the voting rights issues and the \"one man-one vote\" issue raised by the plaintiffs\nRespectfully submitted, JOHN W. WALKER, P.A. 1723 Broadway LittJe Rock, AR 72206 By: (50, ^4-3758 y ihn^W. Walker, Bar No. 64046 9. 2. 3. fCERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing has been mailed, postage prepaid to all counsel. ,ay of February, 1993.-2 6 n ) 7 3 4 1 VV poa .'S_7LlO I ?3CZO ^133 G 'l^07(7 I 3 L(2 3 O i^3^o I 8o~J /29 2 I27\u0026lt;^ z. B 7, ^4, 7 6 I -.1 2 0 So 'S-~! iSZ^l Z(,.O 3s43S 33,6 P' Z V ! 313 788 3 4 \"? 4\u0026lt; 4^3 3S\u0026amp; 23 47 z4'Z'5g\u0026gt; i-7 ,-3. -0.^. -'?.3 Z. X Z .^C' * '^. - 3 Z3e3^ - 3.? Z\u0026amp;Z^zr +3'.? I -7 34 7.4- sREU 1 W95 OUtoe oi DesegfeS^**'^'^  filed IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COUR^STErnSCT^^^^^ EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS \u0026gt;'hkansas mar 2 9 1993 WESTERN DIVISION CARLh. twitwrb, CLERK By:------------------------- LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT DEP. CLERK 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 motions to dismiss filed by the Little Rock School District and the Pulaski County Board of Education in the matter of the election zones for the Little Rock School District Board of Directors are denied. The Court hereby orders the defendants to respond to plaintiffs' amended complaint by Friday, April 2, 1993. DATED this 29th day of March, 1993. united states district jui JUDGEFILED US. 0131- i\u0026gt;'. iiiuar EASTERN OTSt,-CT ARKANSAS IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT APR 1 2 1993 EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION CARL a. CLERK By: LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT, ET AL. CE?. CLERK PLAINTIFFS V. NO. LR-C-82-866 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT, ET AL. DEFENDANTS MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL. INTERVENORS KATHERINE W. KNIGHT, ET AL. INTERVENORS PROPOSED FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 1. This voting rights case also involves three questions, (i) whether the present plan by which school directors are elected in the Little Rock School District are significantly imbalanced to such an extent as to require creation of new zone lines to bring them into compliance with the \"one-man one-vote\" requirements of law, (ii) whether the 1986 zones currently result in a dilution of minority voting strength, and (iii) whether the remedial plan presented by the Pulaski County Board of Education will result in a violation of the Voting Rights Act,  1973, as amended. 2. The parties to this action are the class of school children represented by the Joshua Intervenors and Plaintiffs Dale Charles, Robert L. Brown, Sr., Gwen Hervey, Diane Davis and Raymond Frazier. These adult plaintiffs are citizens of the United States who claim that their rights under the 14th Amendment and the Voting Rights Act of 1973, as amended, are adversely affected by the present and proposed plan for electing school board members. The adult plaintiffs raise basic voting rights issues which aresufficiently similar to or related to the remedial needs of the class to cause the Court to consolidate the cases. See Order of Consolidation [date], 3. The defendants are the members of the Board of Education of the Little Rock School District, individually and in their official capacities\nCloyd \"Mac\" Bernd, in his capacity as Superintendent of Schools of the Little Rock School District\nand the members of the County Board of Education of Pulaski County, in their offficial capacities as members of the County Board of Education. 4 . The Pulaski County Board of Education (hereafter \"the County Board\") is an agent, generally, for the three Pulaski County School Districts including the Little Rock School District with respect to certain functions that it provides or performs. It is specifically delegated by Ark. Code Ann.  6-13-607, the function of drawing or redrawing school district school election zones for the Little Rock School District. Although it has had this responsibility by statute since 1986, it has never performed this function. The Little Rock School District performed the function in 1986 and the District Court approved the District's plan. 5. In 1986, pursuant to the annexation of certain areas of the Pulaski County School District to the Little Rock School District, the Little Rock School District proposed and the Court accepted a redistricting plan by which school zone lines were drawn. It was a single-member election zone plan by which seven zones, of approximate equal populations were created. Two of the PAGE 2zones created were majority African American. 6. The complaint herein was filed by Dale Charles and the other plaintiffs on July 23, 1992. The complaint was amended on August 18, 1992. 7. The Little Rock School District, on or about July 31, 1992, moved to postpone the school district election and to reform the Little Rock School District election zones. In that motion. Little Rock also urged that the zone lines be reformed in a way that does not \"abridge or deny the rights of minorities to vote.\" 8. On or about July 31, 1992, the school district also moved to dismiss, stating, in effect. \"that relief should not be granted to the plaintiffs because it would upset relief provided by Court Order herein on December 18, 1986 and that relief would punish the school district for implementing a plan which was approved by the Court. It The school district further argued that the complaint should be dismissed because it failed to state a claim upon which relief could be granted. 9. On August 18, 1992, this Court entered a Stipulated Order postponing the school elections until further Orders of the Court. On August 18, 1992, the Joshua Intervenors and plaintiffs filed an opposition to the school district's Motion to Dismiss arguing that Little Rock created the zones presently in use and that the zones had in effect become significantly imbalanced both from a race and \"one-man one-vote\" perspective. 10. On or about September 1, 1992, the County Defendants moved to dismiss because they did not wish to be forced to \"violate PAGE 3the Order of December 18, 1986, in a separate suit. 11. On September 24, 1992, the Court Ordered the County Board to determine whether the election zones were out of compliance with the \"one-man one-vote\" principle and to redraw the lines if necessary. 12. The County Board proceeded to address that issue. It determined that the lines were out of compliance after directing or commissioning the Metropolitan Area Planning Commission (Metroplan), a public planning agency for the various governmental units within Pulaski County to investigate that allegation. The County Board also directed or commissioned Metroplan to devise a remedial plan pursuant to the Court Order of September 24, 1992. 13. The County Board was directed by the September 24, 1993 Order to \"be mindful of LRSD school attendance zones\" should the County Board \"find it necessary to redraw the zones.\" The County Board never agreed upon what was meant by this language of the Court and, also, never sought clarification. 14. The County Board developed criteria to guide Metroplan in its redistricting work. Those criteria included\n(a) minimum change of existing zone lines\nand (b) keeping voting precincts together. 15. The County Board did not direct Metroplan to consider the voting rights questions raised by the lawsuit. 16. On November 30, 1992, December 7, 1992, and December 29, 1992, the County Board held public meetings regarding the plan revisions. The plaintiffs' representatives were present at each PAGE 4meeting. Little Rock School Board members were also present although none were present for all of the meetings. 17. The plaintiffs presented plans to the County Board at each meeting which purported to address both the \"one-man one-vote\" and voting rights concerns of the plaintiffs. School Board members Dorsey Jackson and Bill Hamilton were perhaps the most vocal Little Rock School Directors to address the issue. Jackson took the view, as he has taken in Court, that the plaintiffs and the African American community already have nearly proportional representation in that 28.3% of the Board is of their race while their population is 33% His argument is that with time and demographic change, a third majority African American zone could evolve. Hamilton's view was directly opposite, i.e., the numbers favor a third majority African American district now and that, due to the concerns and needs of that population segment, equality and equity concerns would fare better with a third minority district. He also pointed out that a creation of an African American district does not necessarily mean that that community will elect a member from that racial group to the board. A major difference between the two perspectives focused upon the concept of \"stability,\" with Jackson arguing, in effect. for a plan which did not result in changing the present board membership. His argument is essentially an argument which provides some degree of protected status to incumbents. 18. On December 29, 1992, the County Board voted to present one plan for bringing the present zone lines into balance. The PAGE 5vote was along racial lines in that the four white County Board members voted for it while the one African American Board member voted against it. 19. On February 16, 1993, the County Board submitted its proposed new election zone plan to this Court. On or about February 19, 1993, the plaintiffs filed their opposition to the County Board of Education's approval of these election zones. 20. The plaintiffs contend that the remedial plans devised at the request of the County Board do not address the voting rights issue\nthe defendants agree. In fact the County Board has never addressed the voting rights question other than to say that to do so would violate the 1986 Court Order herein. 21. The Little Rock School Defendants urge that they have no role in this matter other than as an observer and that they have no duty under the statute or otherwise to address the voting rights issues. Therefore, although they deny the voting rights allegations, if their position is accepted they have no standing to assert a defense of the voting rights issue. If that is the case, the defense of the voting rights issues must be made, if at all, by the County Board and that board does not address the issue as it has been presented by the present complaints except to plead res judicata, i.e., the 1986 Court Decision. 22. Both the County Board and the Little Rock School Board and their members have failed to respond to the voting rights issues raised herein on the basis of the evidence and allegations raised by plaintiffs. PAGE 623. The plaintiffs sought to establish the \"one-man one-vote\" violation by showing significant imbalance in the population of the 1986 zones. The II ideal II zone would be approximately 24,800. The 1986 zones range from approximately 8,600 below the norm to approximately 7,500 above the norm of 24,800. Defendants admit these population disparities. 24. The plaintiffs have assumed the burden of bringing these violations to light and remedy. They are the prevailing party. therefore, with respect to their allegations regarding \"one-man one-vote. It They are also the prevailing parties with respect to the voting rights violations because of both the proof which they presented to the Court and the legal position or lack of legal position which has been taken by the defendants. The Court will proceed to address the proof of the violations. 25. The plaintiffs have also demonstrated that the present zones lines are significantly racially imbalanced. Zone One (1) is 85% African American and Zone Two (2) is 77.5% African American. This significant imbalance demonstrates that African Americans are \"packed\" into Zones One (1) and Two (2). Of approximately 58,000 African American citizens, approximately 31,000 of them are concentrated in the two zones where they have an opportunity to elect representatives of their choice. The other 27,000, about an equal number, are all dispersed so that they have no effective opportunity to significantly influence director election in any of the remaining five zones. It is clear that were the five majority white zones standing alone in an at-large system, African American PAGE 7voters could not elect a single director of their choice provided, of course, they could not show the other requirements of law. Onefourth (^) of the population ought reasonably be able to elect at least one of five directors in these zones. Thus, African American voters are submerged within these zones just as surely as they would be in a purely at-large system. 26. The plaintiffs contend that Zones 3 through 7 of the present system are analogous to an at-large election system because those zones, as they are constituted, effectively dilutes their vote. They further contend that the State cannot dilute African American voting strength by either concentrating it in the form of \"packing\" or by having it dispersed so as to be ineffective within the context of a polarized voting system. 27. The plaintiffs further sought to establish liability by addressing the other \"senate factors\" relevant to a vote dilution claim. See Thornburg v. Ginqles. 478 U.s. 30, ___ 106 S.Ct. 2752 (1986). The District, itself, has been continuously under Court Orders to desegregate since 1957. Most recently in 1984, this Court entered an Order, partially on the motion of the school district, finding that the District had not extricated itself from its segregated history and that many of its continuing practices violate the law. Pursuant to the liability findings of the Court, the Little Rock School District entered into a settlement with African American plaintiffs and the two other school districts whereby it committed by a specific plan to cease practices of discrimination and to eliminate vestiges of discrimination. This PAGE 8Court has repeatedly, and recently, expressed its concern that the district was not implementing its desegregation plan in good faith. Indeed, several of the board members have shown disregard for the plan and lack of commitment to it. Those findings are incorporated into this record by reference. 28. The plaintiffs have also shown that the school board has not had a public discussion of the voting rights case to this date. This is an indication that the school board does not view the concerns of the plaintiffs seriously. This is consistent with this Court's earlier findings of bad faith on the part of the Little Rock School District. Good faith requires that the school board take seriously the issues which are raised by the minority community and reply to them even though the reply may not be in the form, content or result which the minority prefers. These are facts showing a lack of responsiveness to the particular concerns of the minority voters. 29. School board members have also acknowledged this lack of responsiveness to minority concerns. See the testimony of Dorsey a Jackson and Willie Hamilton. There is no contrary evidence. 30. The school district's plan of desegregation recognizes the existence of significant educational achievement disparities between students of African American descent and others. This is an area of inquiry on the subject of responsiveness. The district has not effectively addressed the issue of remediation of achievement disparities. That failure indicates that the board either does not wish to do so or has not implemented the plan as PAGE 9expected and promised. 31. Moreover, the Board of Education was the initial moving party and plaintiff in the desegregation case. It sought to promote a plan which involved the other two school districts in the county which maximized student exchange, interdistrict assignments, and other desegregation programs. It was held to be the prevailing party by this Court. As a moving party in this case, insofar as the students are concerned, the Little Rock School District has been derelict. The Court has spent far more time addressing the concerns which it has regarding plan implementation with the Little Rock School District than it has with either of the two other school districts. The Court here notes that the other two school districts have also abandoned or changed their method of either school directors from at-large to single districts. North Little Rock has seven single-member districts, of which Zones 1 and 2 are 58.8% and 59.9%, respectively. The North Little Rock district is between 45-50% African American while the Pulaski County African American population is between 30-35%. African American students, it has been contended by both plaintiffs and the Little Rock School District, stand in greater need of more and more effective advocates on their behalf. Therefore, it follows not only that should Little Rock be held to no lower standard in determining the number of African American election districts, but there is a compelling reason for having more, i.e.. the very need urged by the school district to the Court. Board representation of those interests by persons of their choice is the PAGE 10most effective form of advocacy. 32. The plaintiffs have presented further evidence of the circumstances that underlie the basis for a different kind of a plan. The City of Little Rock has a population of approximately 175,795, of which as of 1990, 59,742 were African American. This is closely analogous to the school district population which is 173,674, of which 58,438 are African American. See Plaintiffs' Exhibits and The school age population, however, in the City of Little Rock, is roughly 30,500, of which roughly 52% are African Americans. Virtually all of the African American children attend the public school system while approximately 60% of the \"other\" population does so. See Plaintiffs' Exhibit The per capita income of African Americans within the City of Little Rock is $7,559 while it is $19,395 for others. In other words, the African American per capita income is approximately 40% of the average income for other persons who are primarily white. The poverty status is determined by that number of persons who have an income below or above a certain figure. Of the white population, of approximately 111,600, only 7.1% were below that figure in 1990. Of the 58,553 persons of African American descent, 28.9% were below poverty. The conclusion to be drawn from these statistics is that the African American poverty rate is at least 4 times that of the white poverty rate. Moreover, when poverty is assessed more carefully by family type and the presence of children, one of the principle concerns of the class represented PAGE 11by Joshua, the poverty rate of African American female heads of households is nearly 50%. See Plaintiffs' Exhibit 33 . The statistics show that African Americans are more likely to be unemployed or not in the labor force. African Americans are less likely to have vehicles available, a factor which relates to their employability now that Little Rock has expanded and taken jobs far westward and away from areas of African American concentration. See Plaintiffs' Exhibit 34 . There is little likelihood that these disparities will be alleviated or relieved under present circumstances. Moreover, it reasonable to infer that official racial discrimination is a major contributing factor in causing these disparities. See Jeffers v. Clinton, 730 F.Supp. 196, 204, Eastern District of Arkansas 1989. Furthermore, the African American population is increasing by one- third percent ('M) each year while the white population is decreasing by that same figure. The likely consequence is that the African American population by the year 2000 will be at least 36%. See Plaintiffs' Exhibit Under the circumstances, it is evident that the social and economic factors indicate that African American persons are in serious disadvantage insofar as the relevant indices set forth above are concerned. 35. The plaintiffs also demonstrated that statistically significant racially polarized voting exists in this community. They did this by showing that in recent elections which pitted candidates of African American ancestry versus white candidates. PAGE 12white voters usually voted for the white candidate, and African American voters voted for the African American candidate. The correlation coefficients showing racially polarized voting in the relevant Little Rock elections range from .7 See to . 9 Plaintiffs' Exhibit There were no exceptions. Moreover, it is evident that African Americans do not seek to compete in those races for which they have only a miniscule chance of success. Thus, they have not sought election in any of the majority white zones in Little Rock nor have they sought election in any of the majority white zones. 36. There is no contrary evidence regarding the plaintiffs' proof on polarized voting. 37. Plaintiffs have also demonstrated that it is possible to create at least three districts each of which has a substantial majority of African American citizens without \"packing\" any particular district. Dilution of African American voting interests is thus averted. See Plaintiffs' Exhibit The total percentages of the three districts (Nos. 1, 2, and 6) are 64.7%, 64.0%, and 61.7%, respectively. The voting age population within these three districts would be approximately 57 to 60% and would in each instance be slightly greater than the voting age populations of North Little Rock and Pulaski County. 38. The plan submitted by plaintiffs represents compact and continuous districts which have been characterized by Jim McKinzie of Metroplan as the plan that he would accept as addressing the voting rights issue. Metroplan is the agency which devised the PAGE 13County Board's plan to alleviate and remediate the \"one-man one- vote\" deficiencies. When Mr. Cecil Bailey, Chairman of the County Board was asked, Q. \"I understand. were you aware that Metroplan - - of the position that Metroplan took with respect to the plans which were developed by Mr. Nagel as plans which could be implemented in compliance with the voting rights act. He answered as follows: A. \"I remember one time a discussion with Mr. McKenzie subsequent to the second forum, (sic), the second public forum that we had. that if we consideration were per going to take that into se. that Mr. Nagel's proposal would probably be the best one to use. \" (Bailey Deposition, pp. 34-35.) The County Board vote was along racial lines to reject all plans other than one which strictly numerically equalized each voting district. See Plaintiffs' Exhibit ___ (Board Minutes of December 29, 1992 wherein Thomas Broughton, an African American citizen. cast the only negative vote. The other members of the board are white). 39. For the record, Little Rock has a long history of electing two African American persons to the Board of Directors out of a total of seven. 40. Little Rock School Board members Dorsey Jackson and Pat Gee, publicly opposed changing the zone lines to increase the opportunities for selection of African American board members. Jackson did so, however, on the basis that percentage-wise, African Americans were 28 of the population and they had about their fair share of representation. This was satisfactory for him. See PAGE 14Jackson Deposition, pp. 16-17. However, for purposes of this hearing, Mr. Jackson has stated that he is not opposed to the creation of three majority African American zones. See Jackson Deposition, pp. 32-33. 41. For purposes of this case. no school board member of either board has stated opposition to the creation of three majority African American zones in the Little Rock School District. 42. The approach taken by the Little Rock School Board has been to do nothing and take no vote with respect to the voting rights issues but, by the Court's talley, the majority of the school board is unopposed to the changes requested by the plaintiffs' in this action. Moreover, the County Board members have construed the Court's Order narrowly and have not addressed the voting rights issue. There appears. however. to be no opposition by the County Board to the creation of three minority zones. 43. The defendants have offered no defense and introduced no evidence by which to controvert the plaintiffs' prima facie case. Indeed, the County Board, has never considered the voting rights issue. The County Board has offered no evidence in opposition to the voting rights proof proffered by plaintiffs. Since the County Board is the responsible party and if the County Board is the agent of the Little Rock School District for this purpose by statute. (drawing election zones) , then there must be a finding by the Court of liability against the County Board of Education, and it is so found. PAGE 1544. The LRSD Board, like the County Board, has not addressed the issue in a public forum or by public vote. No school board member has appeared to oppose the relief prayed for by plaintiffs. Based upon the Answer of the defendants. the issue has been controverted so that the Court has to accept the position that the defendants oppose the relief sought. But they have presented no proof in support of their position other than, like the County Board, their reliance upon the Order of this Court which created zones on the motion of the school district at the time of the Court Ordered annexation of certain parts of the Pulaski County Special School District. 45. I examine that position. First, the school district was the moving party in the case at the time. However, it had no standing to raise voting rights issues as such. Second, the Joshua Intervenors were not the moving parties in that they did not petition the Court at that time for voting rights relief and when the issue was presented to the Court in 1984, they were not parties with full status. See Docket, 5-2-84. Therefore on the basis of the Voting Rights Act, the res judicata argument is unavailable. While the Court made mention of the Voting Rights Act in its 1986 Order, the Court views those comments as dicta. They were not pertinent otherwise for the following additional reasons. Although that Order was entered in 1986, the population of the district had already materially shifted and had become more polarized. Finally, there was no hearing on the issue and there was no formal stipulation that froze the lines ad infinitum. PAGE 16address. The present circumstances are what the Court must It is highly unlikely that more than a third of District One would have moved from that district between 1986 and 1990. Thus the district was never equal in size. Moreover, its racial percentage was far greater in 1986 than in 1980 by simple demographic logic. Whites were moving out of the district at a high rate and were not being replaced by whites. It is thus likely that the district was more than 85% in 1986. It is now clearly possible to create three districts, each of approximately the same approximate proportion which are of African American majority. At the time of the 1986 Order, the population figures were less reliable than they are one year after the census report was issued for the 1990 census. That census shows that the African American population has increased substantially although its voice by way of representation has remained constant in the form of two majority election districts. 46. The school district which urges a greater voice in governance for its minority population cannot oppose it when it counts - now - and simply because it counts. If the district takes the position of increasing that voice and representation in governance, then it is evident bad faith to oppose it in this Court without substantial legal proof in support of its position. 47. The Voting Rights Act represents Congress' intention that citizens votes not be diluted or adversely affected due to their race or color, through any practice, procedure or electoral scheme. This includes the \"packing\" votes of one race in unreasonably high PAGE 17proportions into one or more zones. \"Districts with a black majority greater than 65% 70% necessary to (the percentage opportunity to ensure elect blacks candidates choice) may evidence \"packing.\" considered reasonable of their Ketchum v. Byrne, 740 F.2d 1398, 1407-8, n. 7 (7th Cir. 1984 and Elections see of Rybicki v. State Board the State of Illinois, of 574 F.Supp. 1082, 1120-21 (N.D. Ill. 1982) (three judge panel) (Rybicki I). a Moreover, \"packing\" has a tendency to promote and reinforce the idea that there is an official intent to limit access to the political process of African American citizens. On the other hand. the creation of majority African American districts of the proportions presented by plaintiffs. does not guarantee that persons of African American descent will in fact win those positions. These alternative districts merely eliminate the dilution of the votes in the current plan. 48. In that plaintiffs have made a prima facie case and that the defendants have not rebutted that case, the Court must find in favor of the plaintiffs and order relief. 49. The plaintiffs are the only party to present a remedy to the Court. The County Board of Education just simply failed to address this issue because it misperceived the Court's Order. The school district. on the other hand. has not even submitted the issue in a public forum for consideration, and therefore, ignored the complaint of plaintiffs herein. It's proof herein is absent\non the other hand, the school board majority does not oppose the relief sought. Indeed, three members strongly favor it. 50. The plaintiffs' plan is the only plan before the Court PAGE 18which will not result in constitutional or Voting Rights Act violations. There are no substantial objections to that plan raised by the defendants. The objections raised by the defendants relate to compactness and contiguity but they are insubstantial. First, the same objections could be raised to the plan proposed by the County Board in purported remediation of the \"one-man one-vote\" deficiencies. Second, the lines are the lines and there is no requirement that they be rectangular. triangular. oval, or otherwise. The only requirement is contiguity. That means continuous in geography or geography which abuts continuously. The plaintiffs' plan meets that requirement. The compactness requirement has to be viewed in the context of the \"one-man one- vote\" consideration where the first mandate is to combine geographic population areas in such a way as to be of equal size for each district. That is done here. The plaintiffs' plan meets the \"one-man one-vote\" requirement and it does not substantially vary from the 5 o figure which is the usual range of variance in these cases. 51. The plan developed by Metroplan does not meet or otherwise satisfy the Voting Rights Act requirements. Nor does it pretend to. Its author candidly admits that that was not its purpose. Under the circumstances, therefore, there is no legitimate objection to the plan presented by the plaintiffs'. 52. Under ordinary circumstances, the Court would defer to defendants who are public representatives, at least to the extent of affording them an opportunity to present a remedial plan to PAGE 19address the liability found by the Court. In this case, that is unnecessary because both defendants had the opportunity to do so and the County Board was directed to do so by specific Order of the Court and did not do so. Moreover, Jim McKenzie of Metroplan testified that he would have addressed the issue in the same manner as Jack Nagel of the plaintiffs' law firm, who worked with the County Board on these matters. Therefore, it would be a waste of time and money to the parties and to the Court and an exercise in futility because any plan which creates three majority African American districts would be substantially similar to the one presented by the plaintiffs. 53 . It is therefore the finding of this Court that the plaintiffs have met their burden of proof in the case as a whole and that they are entitled to the relief prayed. It is, therefore, ORDERED, ADJUDGED and DECREED that judgment be rendered for plaintiffs and that the Defendant County Board of Education be, and it is hereby instructed. to implement the plan proposed by plaintiffs for the election of school directors to the Little Rock School Board of Directors at an election to be held within forty- five (45) days from this date. The election is to, as far as possible, comply with the requirements of Arkansas law and is to be conducted for all seven positions at the same time. After the election and at the first meeting of the newly constituted school board, the members shall draw by lot to determine the length of terms of members. There will be no other election for school directors PAGE 20until the regular school elections in 1994 for the election of school board members. This will mean that the first directors will serve at least one year in addition to the time between the date of the election and the September, 1994 regular school election date. 54. It is the further Order and Judgment of the Court that plaintiffs are the prevailing party herein and that they are entitled to their costs and reasonable counsel fees. UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE PAGE 21RECEIVED IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION APR 1 3 1993 Office of Desegregation Monitoring DALE CHARLES, ROBERT L. BROWN, SR., GWEN HEVEY JACKSON, DIANE DAVIS, and RAYMOND FRAZIER PLAINTIFFS V. NO. LR-C-92-476 O.G. JACOVELLI, Individually and As President of the Board of Education of the Little Rock School District, PATRICIA GEE, DR. GEORGE CTU^NON, JOHN MOORE, DORSEY JACKSON, DR. KATHERINE MITCHELL and W.D. \"BILL\" HAMILTON, Individually and In Their Official Capacities as Members of the Board of Education of the Little Rock School District, A Public Body, Individually and In Their Official Capacities and THE LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT, A Public Body Corporate\nCECIL BAILEY, THOMAS BROUGHTON, DR. GEORGE McCRARY, DR. MARTIN ZOLDESSY, and E. GRAINGER WILLIAMS, Individually and In Their Official Capacities as members of the Pulaski County Board of Education\nand THE PULASKI COUNTY BOARD OF EDUCATION, A Public Corporate DEFENDANTS I. TRIAL BRIEF INTRODUCTION Plaintiffs have challenged the redistricting plan for the Little Rock School District (\"LRSD\") Board of Directors adopted by the Pulaski County Board of Education (\"PCBE\"), claiming it violates  2 of the Voting Rights Act, 42 U.S.C.  1973, and the Fourteenth and Fifteenth Amendments of the United States Constitution. This Court ordered the Pulaski County Board ofEducation to develop a plan in light of the 1990 census to bring the LRSD districting plan in compliance with the one man, one vote requirement of the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution. All of the parties agreed that the old plan, which had been in effect by order of Judge Henry Woods since December of 1986, was not in compliance with the one man, one vote requirement when judged by 1990 census information. Now that the PCBE has adopted a new districting scheme. Plaintiff's allegations that the old plan violated the Voting Rights Act have become moot. Growe V, Emison. 61 U.S.L.W. 4163, 4167 (February 23, 1993). In order to prevail on their claim that the new districting scheme violates  2 of the Voting Rights Act, Plaintiffs bear the burden of proving that they will have less opportunity under the plan just adopted by the PCBE to participate in the political process and less opportunity to elect representatives of their choice than under the plan approved by Judge Woods in December of 1986. Chisom V. Roemer, 501 U.S. ___, 115 L.Ed.2d 348, 364 (1991)\nTurner v. State of Arkansas. 784 F.Supp. 553, 573 (E.D.Ark. 1991), aff'd 119 L.Ed.2d 220 (1992). In order to prevail on their constitutional claims, the Plaintiffs must show that there existed a purposeful intent to discriminate on the part of the PCBE. City of Mobile v. Bolden. 446 U.S. 55 (1980). Plaintiffs will be unable to meet their burden with regard to both their  2 and constitutional claims. The relief sought must be denied. 2II, DUTY OF COUNTY BOARD OF EDUCATION Before discussing whether the districting scheme adopted by the PCBE violates the Voting Rights Act, it should be noted that the PCBE was not required by the Act to create the maximum number of majority-minority districts. The Voting Rights Act is not an affirmative action statute, and it \"is not violated by a state legislature simply because that legislature does not enact a districting plan that maximizes black political power and influence.\" Turner. 784 F.Supp. at 573. The court in Turner explained\nCongress did not intend to provide minority voters with 'maximum feasible minority voting strength.' Ginqles. 478 U.S. at 94, 106 S.Ct. at 2789 (O'Conner, J., concurring). The maximum minority voting strength would be tantamount to proportional representation, which is expressly prohibited by the language of the statute. Turner. 784 F.Supp. at 577. The mandate of the Voting Rights Act is fl you shall not harm\" rather than II you shall help.\" Jeffers v. Clinton. 730 F.Supp. 196, 241 (E.D.Ark. 1989)(Eisele, J., concurring and dissenting). Consequently, the contention in Plaintiffs' complaint that the Voting Rights Act required the County Board to create another majority-minority district should be rejected. This Court may not substitute its judgement for that of the County Board. The Supreme Court has held it is error for a federal district court not to defer to state efforts to redraw legislative districts. Growe. 61 U.S.L.W. at 4167-68\nsee also 3Voinovich v. Quilter. 61 U.S.L.W. 4199, 4202 (March 2, 1993). Likewise, the Fifth Circuit has noted that, \"the federal district court is precluded from substituting even what it considers to be an objectively superior plan for an otherwise constitutionally and legally valid plan that has been proposed and enacted by the appropriate state governmental unit.\" Seastrunk v. Burns. 772 F.2d 143, 151 (5th Cir. 1985). See also Turner v. State of Arkansas. 784 F.Supp. 585, 589 (E.D.Ark. 1991). Therefore, this Court may not alter or amend the districting scheme adopted by the PCBE absent finding a violation of federal law. Finally, this Court should recognize as a legitimate consideration the County Board's attempt to maintain to the extent possible the prior boundary lines of the districts. See. 6^3,., Wyche v. Madison Parish Police Jury. 635 F.2d 1151, 1162 (5th Cir. 1981). A new districting plan which tracks as closely as possible the prior plan decreases voter confusion and apathy. Seastrunk v. Burns. 772 F.2d 143, 146 n.6 (5th Cir. 1985). Preservation of existing boundary lines is a legitimate goal of the County Board. The plan approved in Turner was based upon an express preference for II a plan which departs as little as possible\" from the previous court-approved plan. Turner. 784 F. Supp. at 556. III. VOTING RIGHTS ACT The Voting Rights Act of 1965 was originally passed to enfranchise blacks in the south by tearing down obstacles to 4registration and voting. Jeffers v. Clinton. 730 F.Supp. 196, 227 (E.D.Ark. 1989). The Act provides that no state may impose a standard, practice or procedure \"which results in a denial or abridgement of the right of any citizen of the United States to vote on account of race or color . . II 42 U.S.C.  1973(a) (Supp. 1992). Subsection (b) of the Act describes how a violation of the proscription contained in subsection (a) is established: A violation of subsection (a) of this section is established if, based on the totality of the circumstances, it is shown that the political processes leading to nomination or election in the State or political subdivision are not equally open to participation by members of a class of citizens protected by subsection (a) of this section in that its members have less opportunity to participate in the political process and to elect representatives of their choice. The extent to which members of the protected class have been elected to office in the State or political subdivision is one circumstance which may be considered: Provided, That nothing in this section establishes a right to have members of protected class elected in numbers equal to their proportion in the population. 42 U.S.C.  1973(b) (Supp. 1992) (emphasis in original). In interpreting the language of  2 of the Voting Rights Act, the Supreme Court has made it clear that in order to prevail on a  2 claim a plaintiff bears the burden of proving both less opportunity to participate in the political process and less opportunity to elect representatives of their choice. In Chisom. supra, the Supreme Court stated: [T]he inability to elect representatives of their choice is not sufficient to establish a a 5violation unless, under the totality of the circumstances, it can also be said that the members of the protected class have less opportunity to participate in the political process. The statute does not create two separate and distinct rights. It would distort the plain meaning of the sentence to substitute the word \"or\" for the word \"and.\" Such radical surgery would be required to separate the opportunity to participate from the opportunity to elect. Chisom. 115 L.Ed.2d at 364. See Turner. 784 F.Supp at 574 n. 20. The Turner court provided guidance for determining whether plaintiff will \"less opportunity\" to participate: \"Less opportunity\" by any fair interpretation means \"less opportunity\" than such black voters had immedicately before the impostion or application of the challenged standard practice or procedure\nnot \"less opportunity\" than they would have, had the legislature seized the opportunity to help them by maximizing their political influence. Turner. 784 F.Supp. at 573. The Senate has identified a number of factors which II may\" * * * be relevant to a  2 claim: 1. 4. The history of voting related discrimination in the State or political subdivision\n2 . The extent to which voting in the elections in the State or political subdivision is racially polarized\n3 . The extent to which the State or political subdivision has used voting practices or procedures that tend to enhance to opportunity for discrimination against the minority group, such as unusually large election districts, majority vote requirements, and prohibitions against bullet voting\nThe exclusion of members of the minority group from the candidate slating process\n65. The extent to which minority group members bear the effects of past discrimination in areas such as education, employment, and health, which hinder their ability to participate effectively in the political process\n6. The use of overt or subtle racial appeals in political campaigns\nand. 7. The extent to which members of the minority group have been elected to public office in the jurisdiction. Ginqles, 478 U.S. at 30, 44-45 (1986). In addition, the Senate Report notes that evidence demonstrating that elected officials are unresponsive to the particularized needs of the members of the minority group and that the policy underlying the State's or political subdivision's use of the contested practice is tenuous may have probative value. Ginqles. 478 U.S. at 45. The Senate, in enumerating these factors, recognized that they may not be relevant in all  2 cases. Id. Consideration of the Senate Factors in determining whether a violation of  2 exists has been criticized because the factors often take attention away from the real issue. In this regard, the court in Whitfield v. Democratic Party of Arkansas, 686 F.Supp. 1365 (E.D.Ark. 1988), aff'd 902 F.2d 15 (8th Cir. 1990) wrote: Having reviewed the Senate Report factors and some of the proof relating thereto, the Court must determine whether its positive findings with respect to many of those factors make it more probably true than not true that the challenged run-off provision makes the political processes not \"equally open to participation\" by blacks in that blacks have \"less opportunity than whites to participate in the political process and to elect representatives of their choice.\" It should be apparent by now that most of the positive findings with the respect to the 7Senate Report factors have no tendency to prove, or disprove, that proposition. ' truth is that focusing on some of those The factors serves more as a distraction than a useful tool for evaluating the cause and effect operation of the challenged runoff laws. 686 F.Supp. at 1387. See also, Jeffers, 730 F.Supp. at 232. Likewise, in the case at hand, an evaluation of the Senate Report factors adds little to the inquiry of whether, under the new districting scheme adopted by the County Board for the LRSD Board of Directors, Plaintiff's have \"less opportunity than other members of the electorate to participate in the political process and elect representatives of their choice.\" 42 U.S.C.  1973(b) (Supp. 1992). Consequently, an extensive discussion of each factor is not justified. Factors will be discussed where relevant to the issue being analyzed. A. Less Opportunity to Participate in the Political Process. The first question in analyzing a  2 claim is whether the challenged standard, practice or procedure results in the plaintiff having \"less opportunity than other members of the electorate to participate in the political process . . II 42 U.S.C.  1973(b) (Supp. 1992)\nChisom. 115 L.Ed.2d at 364. In the case at hand. Plaintiffs must prove that the districting scheme adopted by the County Board results in their having less opportunity to participate in the political process than under the prior districting plan. See Whitfield. 686 F.Supp. at 1375. In this regard. Plaintiffs may look to Senate Report factor 8number five concerning the residual effects of past discrimination. As the court stated in Whitfield. \"Because there are no legal barriers remaining to the opportunity for blacks to participate in the political process, plaintiffs have naturally emphasized the 'socioeconomic' factors.\" Whitfield. 686 F.Supp. at 1384. See al^, Turner. 784 F.Supp. at 577, quoting Jeffers. 730 F.Supp. at 204 (\"There are no presently existing legal barriers to voting by black citizens in Arkansas, and therefore they have just as much opportunity to participate in the political process as anyone else.\")\nLeadership Roundtable v. City of Little Rock. 499 F.Supp. 579, 584 (E.D.Ark. 1980) (\"Since 1965, there has been no legal impediment in Arkansas to voting by Blacks.\"). This argument is based on the assumption that the young, poor and uneducated do not participate in the political process in the same proportions as the old, rich and educated. Plaintiffs may argue that the minority group has the former characteristics in greater proportion than the majority group. See Whitfield. 686 F.Supp. at 1385. Even so, consideration of the residual effects of past discrimination provides no insight into the issue of whether the districting scheme adopted by the County Board provides the Plaintiffs less opportunity to participate in the political process than under the previous plan. Regardless of where the district lines are drawn, the Plaintiffs will have the same socioeconomic status. If the lines were drawn as the Plaintiffs request, would their opportunity \"to participate\" be any 9different? Clearly not. It is not the line drawing by the County Board which \"results\" in Plaintiffs having less opportunity\nrather, it is the diminished socioeconomic status. Section 2 does not purport to provide a remedy on the latter basis. See Jeffers. 730 F.Supp. at 237, 238. Therefore, because Plaintiffs will be unable to prove that have less opportunity to participate in the political process under the districting plan adopted by the County Board, the Plaintiffs' Voting Rights Act claim must fail. B. Less Opportunity to Elect Representatives of Their Choice. The second element of a Voting Rights Act claim which Plaintiffs have the burden to establish is that they have less opportunity to elect representatives of their choice under the districting scheme adopted by the County Board than under the former districting plan. The Supreme Court has identified three 11 necessary preconditions\" for a districting scheme to impair minority voters ability to elect representatives of their choice: First, that it is sufficiently large and geographically compact to constitute a majority in a single-member district, is not, as would be the case in a If it substantially integrated district, the multimember form of the district cannot be responsible for minority voters' inability to elect its candidates. [citations omitted]. Second, the minority group must be able to show that it is politically cohesive. If the minority group is not politically cohesive, it cannot be said that the selection of a multimember electoral structure thwarts distinctive minority group interests. [citations omitted]. Third, the minority 10must be able to demonstrate that the white majority votes sufficiently as a bloc to enable it  in the absence of special circumstances, such as a minority candidate running unopposed . . . usually to defeat the minority's preferred candidate. [citations omitted]. In establishing this last circumstance, the minority group demonstrates the submergence in a white multimember district impedes its ability to elect representatives of its chosen representation. Ginqles, 478 U.S. at 50-51. These \"necessary preconditions\" will be discussed in turn. 1. Geographically Compact. More than mere numerical superiority needs to be considered in determining whether Plaintiffs constitute a sufficient majority in a single-member district to elect representatives of their choice. Plaintiffs must be more than a simple majority in order to ensure that they have the opportunity to elect candidates of their choice. As the Court explained in Smith v. Clinton. 687 F.Supp. 1361 (E.D.Ark. 1988): A guideline of 65% of total population is frequently used, and is derived by supplementing a simple majority with additional 5% to offset the fact that an minority population tends to be younger than that of whites, 5% for the well-documented pattern of low voter registration, and 5% for low voter turnout among minorities. Smith. 687 F.Supp at 1363. See also Fletcher v. Golder. 959 F.2d 106, 110 (8th Cir. 1992). Therefore, in order to create a \"safe\" minority district, the district must have at least 65% minority population. In the case at hand. Plaintiffs are arguing that three majority black districts should be created. However, as the 11Plaintiffs own proposal reveals, three \"safe\" majority black districts cannot be created. Plaintiffs may argue that black voters will be able to elect representatives of their choice with a black majority of less than 65% because of white \"crossover\" votes, but this argument by Plaintiffs only goes to show that Little Rock does not suffer racially polarized voting, another \"necessary precondition\". Hence, either way, the Plaintiffs' Voting Rights Act claim must fail. 2 . Politically Cohesive. To establish political cohesiveness. Plaintiffs must come forward with proof with regard to the voting patterns in each individual district. The Supreme Court warned in Ginqles that \"courts must not rely on data aggregated from all the challenged districts in concluding that racially polarized voting exists in each district.\" Ginales, 478 U.S. at 59. Even the Senate factor on racially polarized voting directs the inquiry to voting behavior of the particular \"State or political subdivision\" at issue. See Senate Report Factor No. 2, supra. In addition, Plaintiffs should be reguired to show that districting plan adopted by the County Board is drawn in such a way that it has resulted in the packing or fragmenting of prior existing cohesive black groups. Jeffers, 730 F.Supp. at 196. If the plan adopted by the PCBE in no way decreases or curtails the effectiveness of black participation by packing or fragmenting prior existing cohesive black groups, the PCBE's plan does not \"result\" in Plaintiffs having less opportunity to elect 12representatives of their choice. Consequently, Plaintiffs have not proved a violation of the Voting Rights Act. 3. White Bloc Voting. In general, \"a white bloc vote that normally will defeat the combined strength of minority support plus white 'crossover' votes rises to the level of legally significant white bloc voting.\" Gingles. 478 U.S. at 56. This situation simply does not exist in Little Rock. In 1980, Judge Eisele, after careful contemplation of a voluminous amount of data, concluded that Little Rock does not have racially polarized voting. Leadership Roundtable v. Little Rock. 499 F.Supp. 579 (E.D.Ark 1980). This Court should take judicial notice of the findings of fact in Leadership Roundtable. In the Court's consideration of Plaintiff's evidence of white bloc voting, the Court should consider evidence that factors other than race determine the outcomes of elections. This evidence is relevant to determine whether \"bloc voting by white voters will consistently defeat minority candidates.\" Gingles, 478 U.S. at 100 (0,Conner, J., Concurring). It also \"would suggest that another candidate, equally preferred by the minority group, might be able to attract greater white support in future elections.\" Id. Therefore, Plaintiff should be required to set forth proof that other factors usually determinative of political success (i.e., the candidates' platforms and policies. their ability as speakers, their \"track records\" in the community, their name recognition, and their financial support. 13etc.) were not the factors which attracted white voters. See Jeffers, 730 F.Supp. at 246 (Eisele, J., concurring and dissenting). 4. Vote Dilution. If the Court should find that Plaintiffs have satisfied the \"necessary preconditions\" discussed above, the Plaintiffs still have the burden of proving that under the districting plan adopted by the County Board they have less opportunity to elect representatives of their choice than under the prior districting scheme. Plaintiffs argue that three majority black districts could have, and therefore should have, been created by the County Board. In the terminology of  2, Plaintiffs claim vote dilution due to \"packing\", i.e. blacks were packed into two districts with overwhelming black majorities preventing a third majority black district. However, a comparison of the districting plan adopted by the County Board with the prior plan reveals that more \"packing\" existed under the prior plan.' Moreover, the prior plan, when adopted by Judge Woods and held to be in compliance with the Voting Rights Act, had greater \"packing\" than the plan adopted by the County Board. In fact, if Plaintiffs' concern is \"packing\". 'Under the prior districting scheme, the two majority black districts had 84.35% and 74.97% black population according to the 1990 census. Under the plan adopted by the County Board, the two majority black districts have 79.82\" ' ----------* * '   Q, and 59.39% black population. ^The plan adopted by Judge Woods in December of 1986 had two majority black zones with 81.50% and 68.90% black population, compared with 79.82% and 59.39% in the PCBE plan. Judge Woods' finding that his plan was in compliance with the Voting Rights 141 they are better off under the plan adopted by the County Board than they have ever been since the LRSD Board of Directors have been elected by single-member districts. Therefore, Plaintiffs will be unable to prove any vote dilution resulting from the districting scheme adopted by the County Board, and consequently. they will be unable to show they have less opportunity under the County Board districting plan to elect representatives of their choice than under the prior districting plan. C. Conclusion. Plaintiffs will be unable to prove either element of a Voting Rights Act claim. The PCBE plan does not result in less opportunity to participate in the political process based on the socioeconomic effects of past discrimination because these socioeconomic factors are present regardless of where the district lines are drawn. Plaintiffs cannot establish the \"necessary preconditions\" in order to show less opportunity to elect representatives of their choice. Moreover, even if they could make such a showing, the Plaintiffs claim fails because the districting scheme adopted by the County Board has less \"packing\" than the prior plan currently has and than the prior plan had when it was adopted by Judge Woods in 1986 and held to be in compliance with the Voting Rights Act. For all the above reasons, the relief sought by Plaintiffs under the Voting Rights Act should be denied. Act was not appealed, and remains the law of the case. 15IV. CONSTITUTIONAL VIOLATIONS In order to establish that the districting scheme adopted by the County Board is unconstitutional, Plaintiff must prove that the plan was adopted with the purposeful intent by the members of the County Board to discriminate against Plaintiffs. City of Mobile V. Bolden. 446 U.S. 55 (1980). It is impossible to speculate what evidence of discriminatory intent Plaintiffs will bring forward because none exists. It will suffice to say that Plaintiffs will be unable to prove any constitutional violations. Respectfully submitted, Christopher Heller John C. Pendley FRIDAY, ELDREDGE \u0026amp; CLARK 2000 First Commercial Bldg. 400 West Capitol Street Little Rock, AR 72201 (501) 376-2011 By: Christopher Heller Bar No. 81083 16 4 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I certify that a copy of the foregoing Trial Brief has been served on the following counsel by depositing copy of same on this 12th day of April, 1993. Mr. John Walker JOHN WALKER, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72206 (HAND DELIVERED) Mr. Sam Jones WRIGHT, LINDSEY \u0026amp; JENNINGS 2200 Worthen Bank Bldg. 200 West Capitol Little Rock, AR 72201 (MAILED) Mr. Steve Jones JACK, LYON \u0026amp; JONES, P.A. 3400 Capitol Towers Capitol \u0026amp; Broadway Streets Little Rock, AR 72201 (MAILED) Mr. Richard Roachell Roachell and Streett First Federal Plaza 401 West Capitol, Suite 504 Little Rock, AR 72201 (MAILED) Mr. Larry Vaught County Attorney Pulaski County Board of Education 201 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72201 (HAND DELIVERED) Ms. Ann Brown Heritage West Bldg., Suite 510 201 East Markham Street Little Rock, AR 72201 (MAILED) 17 u. jLED IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION JUN 2 J 1993 LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT V. NO. LR-C-82-866 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, ET AL. MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL. KATHERINE W. KNIGHT, ET AL. MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER In this action. which is part of the a. SRENTS, CLERK ---- OHP. Cli PLAINTIFF DEFENDANTS INTERVENORS INTERVENORS continuing case concerning the desegregation of the school districts of Pulaski County, Arkansas, plaintiffs challenge the existing zones used to elect members of the Little Rock School District Board of Directors as well as the new zones adopted by the Pulaski County Board of Education. Plaintiffs allege violations of the Voting Rights Act, 42 U.S.C. 1973 (Supp. 1992), and the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution. They argue that the present plan violates the one-man one-vote principle and dilutes minority voting strength, and that the new plan packs the black voting age population into two zones even though blacks are numerically large and geographically compact to constitute a third majority black zone. This case was tried to the Court on April 13 and 14, 1993. The Court makes the following findings of fact and conclusions of law required by Fed.R.Civ.P. 52. Any other statement in this opinion which may be deemed a finding of fact is also adopted as such. FINDINGS OF FACT 1. The named plaintiffs, Dale Charles, Robert L. Brown, Sr., Gwen Hevey Jackson, Diane Davis, and Raymond Frazier (\"Charles plaintiffs\"), are black adult residents of the Little Rock School District. The Charles plaintiffs' amended complaint has been consolidated with Case No. LR-C-82-866, Little Rock School District V. Pulaski County Special School District. The Charles plaintiffs bring this action 2. to reform the single member district school zone lines which are utilized by the defendants in school elections for the purpose of electing school directors. also an action to ensure that This is such reformation is pursuant to and consistent with the Voting Rights Act of 1965, as amended. Plaintiffs seek to have the district refomned into single member districts of approximately equal population pursuant to a plan that allows of African American descent the seven (7) citizens opportunity to maximize their opportunity to participate in the political process and to elect representation of their choice. Defendants are the Little Rock School District (\"LRSD\"), the members of the Board of Directors of the LRSD, the Pulaski County Board of Education (\"PCBE\"), and the members of the PCBE. 3. Pursuant to Ark. Code Ann. 6-13-607 (Michie 1991), the PCBE has the responsibility to divide school districts which have an average daily attendance in excess of 24,000 students into zones for the purpose of electing members to that school district's board of directors. 4. The present LRSD election zones were established by order of the court on December 18, 1986, after certain areas of the Pulaski County Special School District were annexed to the LRSD. Followingthe annexation, the LRSD presented a proposal for zone elections to Judge Henry Woods. That proposal was the subject of a December 9, 1986 pretrial conference. LRSD Exhibit 1. On December 10, 1986, the LRSD Board of Directors voted unanimously to approve the zone proposal. Charles Exhibit 36. The zones adopted in 1986 had the following populations and racial compositions according to the 1980 Census data: Zone 1 - 25,399 total population\n81.50% black\nZone 2 - 25,295 total population\n68.90% black\nZone 3 - 25,210 total population\n7.83% black\nZone 4 - 24,844 total population\n2.96% black\nZone 5 - 25,016 total population\n18.30% black\nZone 6 - 25,107 total population\n17.30% black\nZone 7 - 25,043 total population\n14.10 black. In adopting the above zones in 1986, the court found that the \"seven (7) contiguous zones with comparable populations comports with the one-man one-vote principle required by the constitution\" and that \"the Little Rock School District's redistricting plans are in compliance with the mandate of 2 of the Voting Rights Act (codified as 42 U.S.C. 1973) and does not abridge or deny the right of minorities to vote.\" See document 719\nCharles Exhibit 13. 5. After the filing of this complaint, all the parties agreed that the 1986 plan was not in compliance with the one-man one-vote principle when judged by the 1990 census figures. The Court postponed the September 1992 school board elections and directed the PCBE to determine whether the zones were out of compliance with -3-the one-man one-vote principle and to redraw the lines if necessary.' 6. The PCBE, through the Pulaski County judge, commissioned the Metropolitan Area Planning Commission (\"Metroplan\") , a governmental planning and research organization composed of local government entities in the Central Arkansas area, to address the issue and to devise a remedial plan if necessary. The PCBE instructed Metroplan to examine the one-man one-vote issue and draw three or four alternate plans, keeping the zones compact and contiguous and as close to the present zones as possible in order to support stability in the LRSD. 7. The PCBE determined that the 1986 plan should be used as the starting point for any new plan. It did not instruct Metroplan on the voting rights issue because it understood that the 1986 plan was in compliance with the Voting Rights Act. 8. Mr. Jim McKenzie, executive director of Metroplan, contacted Mr. James R. Lynch, a senior research specialist at the University of Arkansas at Little Rock's Arkansas Institute of Government, and requested additional criteria that should be considered in rezoning cases. Mr. Lynch provided him with a two-page summary which Mr. McKenzie used in developing the alternative plans presented to the PCBE. The factors listed by Mr. Lynch were: adherence to the one- man onevote doctrine\navoidance of diluting minority political expression\ncompact and contiguous districts\nrecognizable district 'The Court also postponed the PCBE Zone 5 election. -4-boundaries\nand use of existing political boundaries. Charles Exhibit 24. 9. The Metroplan staff drafted four proposed zoning plans and Mr. McKenzie reviewed the plans to see if they met Mr. Lynch's criteria. Mr. McKenzie presented the proposals to the PCBE at a public meeting on November 6, 1992. The PCBE then held two public hearings on November 30, 1992 and December 7, 1992 to answer questions about the plan revisions. Charles Exhibits 9 and 10. 10. During the public hearings, the issue of a third majority black district was raised. Mr. John W. Nagel, Jr. presented a plan he had drawn up for the Charles plaintiffs which included three majority black districts. Mr. McKenzie testified that Metroplan could have drawn a plan with three majority black zones but the criteria of compactness and minimum change in present zones would have been sacrificed. 11. On December 29, 1992, at a specially called meeting, the PCBE selected Metroplan's Proposal No. 4 as its plan for bringing the present zones into compliance. The vote was three to one, with the three white members voting for Proposal No. 4 and the one black member voting against it. Charles Exhibit 12. 12. Mr. McKenzie testified that Proposal No. 4 looks more to the future in terms of growth and shifts in population than the other proposals. In Proposal No. 4, the areas of the City of Little Rock ^The Charles plaintiffs argue that the PCBE did not legally adopt Metroplans Proposal No. 4 but merely voted to submit it to the Court, thereby abandoning its duty to adopt a plan. The Court Ends that the PCBE adopted Proposal No. 4 pursuant to Ark. Code Ann. 6-13-607. -5-that are projected for growth have a negative variance from the mean while the areas that are projected to lose population have positive variance. a 13. On February 16, 1993, the PCBE submitted its approved plan to the Court, and the Charles plaintiffs filed objections to the plan. 14. There was no racially discriminatory motive. intent. or purpose involved in the adoption by the PCBE of the districting plan at issue in this case. The Charles plaintiffs presented no evidence from which this Court can conclude that the plan adopted by the PCBE was the result of purposeful racial discrimination. The PCBE adopted its plan after two public hearings at which the merits of the various plans before the PCBE were discussed. The plan eventually adopted by the PCBE was drawn according to generally accepted criteria provided by the Charles plaintiffs' expert in this case, Mr, Lynch. 15. The City of Little Rock is approximately 65% white and 34% black. Charles Exhibit 25. The voting age population of the City of Little Rock is approximately 70% white and 29% black. Charles Exhibit 26. coterminous. The City of Little Rock and the LRSD are nearly The significant exceptions are the Granite Mountain area, which is a predominantly black area within the City of Little Rock but not within the LRSD, and Cammack Village, a predominantly white area which is within the LRSD but not within the City of Little Rock. 16. The plan adopted by the PCBE has the following characteristics: -6-Zone 1 - 25,533 total population\n79.82% black\nZone 2 - 25,764 total population\n59.39% black\nZone 3 - 24,578 total population\n4.52% black\nZone 4 - 24,216 total population\n5.12% black\nZone 5 - 24,456 total population\n19.14% black\nZone 6 - 24,663 total population\n35.55% black\nZone 7 - 24,464 total population\n28.45% black. See Attachment A. 17. The plan presented by the Charles plaintiffs has the following characteristics: Zone 1 - 23,704 total population\n64.7% black\nZone 2 - 24,870 total population\n64.0% black\nZone 3 - 24,230 total population\n5.3% black\nZone 4 - 25,380 total population\n5.1% black\nZone 5 - 23,839 total population\n8.7% black\nZone 6 - 25,635 total population\n61.7% black\nZone 7 - 26,016 total population\n25.8% black. See Attachment B. 18. The plan proposed by the Charles plaintiffs does not conform to the standard proposed by their expert, Mr. Lynch, that the zones be compact and contiguous. 19. There are no significant barriers to participation in the political process in the LRSD. In order to run for the LRSD Board The Court notes that the plan filed as Plaintiffs Exhibit A with the Charles plaintiffs \"Objections, Response and Memorandum Regarding the Court s Order of February 16, 1993,\" (doc. #1762) has the same boundary lines as Attachment B but some of the zones are numbered differently. (See Attachment C.) -7-of Directors, a candidate is required to gather twenty signatures on a petition. Ark. Code Ann. 6-14-111 (Michie 1991) . There is no filing fee. There was no testimony that there exist any legal barriers to participation in the political process by black candidates. 20. No evidence was presented to show that black citizens have less opportunity to participate in the political process under the plan adopted by the PCBE than they do under the present plan. Mr. Lynch, expert witness for the Charles plaintiffs, testified that the opportunity for black citizens to participate in the political process is the same under the present plan and the plan adopted by the PCBE. 21. Black citizens do not have less opportunity to elect representatives of their choice under the plan adopted by the PCBE than they do under the present plan. Mr. Lynch testified that the opportunity for black citizens to elect representatives of their choice is the same under the plan adopted by the PCBE and the present plan. 22. In Thornburg v. Gingles, 478 U.S. 30 (1986), the Supreme Court referred to factors listed in the Senate Judiciary Committee report accompanying the 1982 amendments to 2 of the Voting Rights Act as being relevant to a 2 claim. The Court makes the following findings in accordance with those factors: A. The extent of any history of official discrimination in the state or political subdivision that touched the right of the members of the minority group to register, to vote, or otherwise to participate in the democratic process. -8-While the Charles plaintiffs presented no evidence of a history of official discrimination, the Court will take judicial notice that there has been a history of official discrimination in voting. Jeffers v. Clinton, 730 F. Supp. 196, 210 (E.D.Ark. 1989). The Charles plaintiffs presented no evidence, other than demographic information which shows socio-economic differences between blacks and whites, that the history of official discrimination in Arkansas has resulted in black citizens having less opportunity to participate in the political process and to elect representatives of their choice under the plan proposed by the PCBE. This demographic evidence does not prove or disprove that the district lines drawn in 1986 or 1992 resulted in blacks having less opportunity to participate in the political process and to elect representatives of their choice. The history of official discrimination is remote in time to the preparation of the PCBE plan and will therefore be given little weight. B. The extent to which voting in the elections of the state or political subdivision is racially polarized. The evidence presented by the Charles plaintiffs tends to indicate that black voters constitute a politically cohesive unit. Mr. Lynch showed that a significant number of minority group members usually vote for the same candidates. He presented evidence of a correlation between black voting age population and the percentage of votes received by black candidates. The Charles plaintiffs failed to prove that white bloc voting normally will defeat the combined strength of minority support plus -9-any white cross-over vote for black candidates. The evidence was insufficient to show that white voters tend to group together to defeat black candidates. The evidence indicates that black candidates have achieved considerable success against white candidates. Charles Exhibits 32 and 33 show ten elections (nine at large\none zone) since 1986 in which black candidates opposed white candidates. In six of those elections, the black candidate was successful. Only two of the elections involved the LRSD. In both the at-large 1986 LRSD race and the LRSD Zone 2 1989 race, the black candidate defeated the white candidate. In the 1988 race for municipal judgeship in the City of Little Rock, the black candidate was successful. The black candidates were also a successful in three of the seven at-large elections for a position on the Little Rock City Board of Directors. Charles Exhibit 35 shows the results of twenty-five elections between 1962 and 1992 in which black candidates sought positions on the Little Rock City Board of Directors. The black candidates were successful in ten of those elections. The Court finds that there does not exist in Little Rock a sufficient white bloc vote to usually defeat the candidate preferred by minority voters. Although there was some evidence that a significant number of minority group members usually vote for the same candidate, the Court finds that legally significant racially polarized voting does not exist in the City of Little Rock or the LRSD. -10-C. The extent to which the state or political subdivision has used unusually large election districts, majority vote requirements, anti-single shot provisions, or other voting practices or procedures that may enhance the opportunity for discrimination against the minority group. There is no evidence that the LRSD has adopted any practice or procedure that may enhance the opportunity for discrimination against the minority group. The State of Arkansas has adopted a majority vote requirement which applies to school district elections. Ark. Code Ann. 6-14-121 (Michie 1991). There is no evidence that the majority vote requirement has had any impact on the success or failure of any black candidate in a school district election. D. If there is a candidate slating process, whether the members of the minority group have been denied access to that process. The process of slating plays no part in races for the LRSD Board of Directors. Nominations are not made by committee or convention. Anyone who wants to run simply files as an individual in the election. There is no filing fee. A petition signed by twenty qualified registered voters is sufficient to get a candidate on the ballot. Mr. Bill Hamilton and Mr. Thomas Broughton, both of whom are black and have been elected to the LRSD Board of Directors, testified that there are no impediments to ballot access. Mr. Lynch testified that the \"white power structure\" throws its support to certain candidates. This does not constitute slating as that term has been used by the courts in considering the Senate factors. See, e.g. Jeffers, 730 F.Supp. at 212. -11-E. The extent to which members of the minority group in the state or political subdivision bear the effects of discrimination in such areas as education, employment, and health, which hinder their ability to participate effectively in the political process. Census data, which indicates that in the City of Little Rock blacks are poorer, less educated, have fewer vehicles, and have a higher percentage of households headed by single females than the general population, convinces the Court that minorities in the Little Rock area have suffered the disadvantages of past discrimination. Charles Exhibits 27, 28, 29, 30, and 31. These socio-economic factors have an impact upon the ability of blacks to participate effectively in the political process. For example, while blacks comprise 34% of the population of Little Rock, they comprise only 29% of the voting age population. Mr. Lynch testified that blacks also suffer lower voter registration and lower voter turnout among registered voters than whites. F. Whether political campaigns have been characterized by overt or subtle racial appeals. The Charles plaintiffs presented no evidence of overt or subtle racial appeals in LRSD election campaigns. Mr. Bill Hamilton testified that in 1973 he actively supported a white school board candidate, Lucy Abraham, and that in 1983 he received wide support from the white community. G. The extent to which members of the minority group have been elected to public office in the jurisdiction. The Charles plaintiffs presented evidence of only two LRSD elections. Black candidates won them both. They presented evidence on one election for the position of municipal judge, and -12-that race was won by a black. As noted above under subparagraph B, the plaintiffs presented evidence of twenty-five elections for the position of Little Rock City Board of Directors from 1962 to 1992 in which black candidates participated. Black candidates won ten of the twenty-five races in which one or more blacks participated. Charles Exhibit 35. LRSD Exhibit 2 shows that in 1983 two black candidates ran at-large races for positions on the LRSD Board of Directors, each opposing a white candidate. Black candidates Bill Hamilton and Katherine Mitchell received 70% and 34% of the vote, respectively. According to LRSD Exhibit 5, Mr. Hamilton received 82% of the vote against white candidate Frederick Lee in the 1989 LRSD Zone 2 election. LRSD Exhibit 4 shows that white candidate Charles Young defeated black candidate Lawrence Hampton in the 1987 Zone 6 race by a slim margin, 250 to 218 votes. Zone 6 was then a 72% white zone. The percentage of black representation for at least the last ten years on both the LRSD Board of Directors and the City of Little Rock Board of Directors has been 28.5% compared with a citywide black population of 34% and a black voting age population of 28%. Mr. Hamilton testified that it only takes about 300 votes to win an election within the present LRSD election zones. His testimony is borne out by LRSD Exhibits 4 and 5. The minimum black population in an election zone in the plan adopted by the PCBE is 1,112. PCBE Exhibit 1, p. 2. The five most heavily black zones range from 4,681 to 20,380 black population. There exists in at -13-least five of the zones adopted by the PCBE, if not all of them, sufficient black population from which to draw the number of votes usually necessary to elect a black candidate to the LRSD Board of Directors. H. Whether there is a significant lack of responsiveness on the part of elected officials to the particularized needs of the minority group. Mr. Dale Charles, president of the Little Rock Chapter of the NAACP, testified that he had raised several issues at LRSD board meetings and had received no written response from the Board. However, there was no testimony that the Board usually provides a written response or that whites who presented issues to the Board received written responses. Mr. Charles admitted that he had never sought to discuss any LRSD issue with his zone representative, who is white. because he assumed his representative would be a antagonistic to him. Mr. Charles further testified that he had made presentations to the Board on several occasions. Dr. Mitchell and Mr. Hamilton testified generally that the Board was not as responsive as it could be to some issues of concern to the black community, but that any two members of the Board could call a public meeting to discuss any issue of concern to those two members. Board member Patricia Gee testified that she lives in a racially mixed neighborhood (her zone is presently 28.55% black) and that she works as hard to resolve issues brought to her by black constituents as she does to resolve issues brought to her by white constituents. -14-I. Whether the policy underlying the state or political subdivision's use of prerequisite to voting, procedure is tenuous. such or voting standard. qualification, practice or The Court finds that the adoption by the PCBE of the election zones prepared by Metroplan is not a practice that can be described as \"tenuous.\" The starting point for the development of the plan adopted by the PCBE was a plan adopted by the court in 1986 which the court found to be in compliance with the Voting Rights Act. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 1. The Charles plaintiffs claim the 1986 redistricting plan violates the one-man one-vote principle and the Voting Rights Act. They also challenge the redistricting plan for the LRSD Board of Directors adopted by the PCBE, claiming it violates 2 of the Voting Rights Act, 42 U.S.C. 1973, and the Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution. This Court ordered the PCBE to develop a plan in light of the 1990 census to bring the LRSD districting plan into compliance with the one-man one-vote requirement of the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution. All of the parties agreed that the old plan, which had been in effect by order of Judge Henry Woods since December of 1986, was not in compliance with the one-man one-vote requirement when judged by the 1990 census information. Now that the PCBE has adopted a new districting scheme, the plaintiffs' allegations that -15-the 1986 plan violated the Voting Rights Act have become moot/ See Grove v. Emison, 507 U.S. ___, 113 S.Ct. 1075, 122 L.Ed.2d 388 (1993). 2. This Court may not substitute its judgment for that of the PCBE. The Supreme Court has held it is error for a federal district court not to defer to state efforts to redraw legislative districts. Voinovich v. Quilter, 507 U.S. 113 S.Ct. 1149, 1157, 122 L.Ed.2d 500, 513, 61 U.S.L.W. 4199, 4202 (1993). See also Turner v. State of Arkansas, 784 F. Supp. 553, 573 (E.D.Ark. 1991), aff'd 119 L.Ed.2d 220 (1992). Therefore, this Court may not alter or amend the districting plan adopted by the PCBE absent finding a violation of federal law. 3 . In order to prevail on their claim that the new districting plan violates 2 of the Voting Rights Act, the plaintiffs must prove that they will have less opportunity under the plan adopted by the PCBE to participate in the political process and less opportunity to elect representatives of their choice than under the plan approved by Judge Woods in December of 1986. Chisom V. Roemer, 501 U.S. , 111 S.Ct. 2354, 2365, 115 L.Ed.2d 348, 364 (1991)\nTurner, 784 F. Supp. at 589. In order to prevail on their constitutional claim, the plaintiffs must show that there existed a purposeful intent to discriminate on the part of the PCBE. City of Mobile v. Bolden, 446 U.S. 55 (1980). Plaintiffs ^The issue of whether the doctrine of res judicata or collateral estoppel preclude the Charles plaintiffs from challenging the 1986 plan was raised during these proceedings. The Court finds it unnecessary to address the issue because it determines that challenges to the 1986 plan are arguably moot but, as noted below, the Court will give effect to the 1986 plan as the law of the case. -16- have not met their burden as to either their 2 claim or their constitutional claim. 4. The PCBE is not required by the Voting Rights Act to create the maximum number of majority black districts. The Act is not an affirmative action statute, and it \"is not violated by a state legislature simply because that legislature does not enact a districting plan that maximizes black political power and influence.\" Turner, 784 F. Supp. at 573. The Turner court explained: Congress did not intend to provide minority voters with the \"maximum feasible minority voting strength.\" Singles, 478 U.S. at 94, 106 S. Ct. at 2789 (O'Connor, J., concurring). The maximum minority voting strength would be tantamount to proportional representation, which is expressly prohibited by the language of the statute. Turner, 784 F. Supp. at 577. The mandate of the Voting Rights Act is II you shall not harm\" rather than \"you shall help.\" Jeffers, 730 F. Supp. at 241 (Eisele, J., concurring and dissenting). Thus, the Voting Rights Act does not require the PCBE to create another majority black district. 5. In Jeffers, 730 F. Supp. at 2 05, the court discussed vote dilution claims in the single-member district context. It stated: If lines are drawn that limit the number of majorityblack single-member districts, and reasonably compact and contiguous majority-black districts could have been drawn, and if racial cohesiveness in voting is so great that, as a practical matter, black voters' preferences for black candidates are frustrated by this system of apportionment, the outlines of a Section 2 theory are made out. Whether such a claim will succeed depends on the particular factual context. including all of the factors that Thornburg^ Smith, and the legislative history of Section 2 say are relevant. -17-6. Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act, 42 U.S.C. 1973, as amended in 1982, provides: (a) No voting qualification or prerequisite to voting or standard, practice, or procedure shall be imposed or applied by any State or political subdivision in a manner which results in a denial or abridgment of the right of any citizen of the United States to vote on account of race or color. or in contravention of the guarantees set forth in section 1973b(f)(2) [of this title], as provided in subsection (b) [of this section]. 7. A violation of subsection (a) of this section is if, based upon the totality of the circumstances, it is shown that the political processes leading to nomination or election in the State or political subdivision are not equally open to participation by members of a class of citizens protected by subsection (a) of this section in that its members (b) established if. have less opportunity than other members of the electorate to participate in the political process and to elect representatives of their choice. The extent to which members of a protected class have been elected to office in the State or political subdivision is circumstance which may be considered: Provided, one That nothing in this section establishes a right to have members of a protected class elected in numbers equal to their proportion in the population. It is clear that in order to prevail on their 2 claim. plaintiffs must prove both less opportunity to participate in the political process and less opportunity to elect representatives of their choice. In Chisom, the Supreme Court stated: [T]he inability to elect representatives of their choice is not sufficient to establish a violation unless, under the totality of the circumstances, it can also be said that the members of the protected class have less opportunity to participate in the political process. The statute does not create two separate and distinct rights. * * * It would distort the plain meaning of the sentence to substitute the word \"or II for the word \"and. II Such radical surgery would be required to separate the opportunity to participate from the opportunity to elect. -18-Chisom, 501 U.S. at 111 S.Ct. at 2365, 115 L.Ed.2d at 364. See Turner, 784 F. Supp. at 574 n.2O. The Turner court provided guidance for determining whether a plaintiff will have \"less opportunity\" to participate: (I Less opportunity\" by any fair interpretation means \"less opportunity\" than such black voters had immediately before the imposition or application of the challenged procedure\nnot \"less opportunity\" than they would have, had the legislature seized the opportunity to help them by maximizing their political influence. Turner, 784 F. Supp. at 573. 8. As previously noted, the Senate has identified a number of factors which may be relevant to a 2 claim: 1. the extent of any history of official discrimination in the state or political subdivision that touched the right of the members of the minority group to register, to vote, or otherwise to participate in the democratic process\n2. the extent to which voting in the elections of the state or political subdivisions is racially polarized\n3. the extent to which the state or political subdivision has used unusually large electi\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_449","title":"Election zone","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","School boards","Educational law and legislation","Elections"],"dcterms_title":["Election zone"],"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/449"],"dcterms_temporal":null,"dcterms_rights_holder":null,"dcterms_bibliographic_citation":null,"dlg_local_right":null,"dcterms_medium":["documents (object genre)"],"dcterms_extent":null,"dlg_subject_personal":null,"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":"\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n\n\n\n   \n\n\n\n\n   \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n  \n\n1 1 e F P 0 M J 0 H H W . tU W L K E P P . TO 6 214 7 P . 0 2 received SEP 1 5 LEGAL DESCRIPTION FOR THE LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT BOARD OF DIRECTORS SEVEN ZONE PLAN Oiiice oi Desegregation Monitoring ZONE 1 367 intersects Interstate Begin at the point where Hwy. 3Q, Follow the Little Rock School District's southern boundary east to the Arkansas River then follow the river northwest to the drainage ditch under Cantrell Road at Gill Street thence west along straight l_..c Street a line intersecting the northern boundary of the Arkansas School for the Deaf then west to the end of Lee Avenue then follow a straight imaginary line due north to Fairfax At Fairfax Terrace go west to Martin Street Terrace. thence north on Martin to I, west on I to Midland, south on Midland to H, west on H to Oak, Kavanaugh, west on Kavanaugh to Walnut, south on Oak to south on Walnut to west Markham, east on West Markham to Elm, south on Elm to Interstate 630, east on 630 to Brown Street, south on Brown to 14th, east on 14th to Cross, south on Cross to Wright Avenue, east on Wright Avenue to Ringo, south on Ringo to Swagerty Creek, Swagerty creek south to Fouche Creek, Fouche Creek southwest to Interstate 30. ZONE 2 Begin at the intersection of Fouche Creek and Interstate 30 follow Fouche northwest to Swagerty Creek, Swagerty Creek north to Ringo, Ringo north to Wright Avenue, Wright Avenue west to Cross, Cross north to 14th, 14th west to Brown, Brown south to 22nd, 22nd west to Pine, Pine south to Asher, Asher southwest to 29th, 29th west to Washington, Washington north to 28th, 28th west to Adams, Adams north to 24th, 24th west to Filmore, Filraore north to 19th, 19th west to University Avenue, University south to 53rd Street, 53rd east to Geyer Springs, Geyer Springs north to Maureen Drive, Maureen Drive east to 50th, 50th east to Meyers, Meyers north to 49th, 49th east to Pike, Pike north to Fouche Creek, Fouche Creek east to the western boundary of Benny Craig Park, said boundary south to Rosemore, Rossmore southeast to Union Pacific Railroad Tracks, Tracks southeast to Koerner, Koerner east to Scott Hamilton, Scott Hamilton south to Interstate 30, 30 west to Geyer Springs, Geyer Springs south to Baseline, Baseline west to Verbena Drive, from there follow an imaginary line due south intersecting Warren Drive, Warren Drive south to Mabelvale Cutoff, Mabelvale Cutoff west to Chicot, Chicot south to the school district and also city limits boudary line, follow this boundary line northeast around a private airfield to the point of origin.0 1 1 F. 2 4 F R 0 M I 0 H n W . 1.1 P L K E P P . A . TO 2 14 7 P . 0 3 ZONE 3 Begin at the intersection Follow Brown street north of Brown and 22nd Street. to 1-630, 630 west to West Jonesboro, west Jonesboro south to I2t\nn, 12th west to University, University north to 630 west to Mississippi, Mississippi south to Rodney Parham, Rodney Parham southeast to Kanis, Kanis west to Shackleford, West 12th, 630, Shackleford south to Panther Branch Creek, then follow an imaginary line due south to the northern end of Talley Road, then follow an imaginary line due west to west 44th street, 44th street east to Weldon, Weldon south to 46th, at 46th follow an imaginary line due south to Colonel Glenn, follow Colonel Glenn east to Barrow, follow Barrow north to 28th, 28th east to Boyle Park Road, Boyle Park southeast to Rock Creek, Rock Creek south then east to Colonel Glenn, Colonel Glenn east to University, University north to 19th, 19th east to Filmore, Filmore south to 24th, 24th east to Adams, Adams south to 28th, 28th east to Washington, Washington south to 29th, 29th east to Asher, Asher east to Pine, Pine north to 22nd, 22nd east to the point of origin. ZONE 4 Begin at the Intersection of Scott Hamilton and 1-30. Follow 1-30 west to Geyer Springs, Geyer Springs south to Baseline, Baseline west to Verbena then follow on imaginary line south intersecting Warren Drive, Warren Drive south to Mabelvale, Mabelvale west to Chicot, Chicot south to school district boundary, school district boundary southwest, then west, then around the Alexartder City limits. then north. east. then north southeast to 1-430, to McHenry then east. Creek, then north, then 430 south to Fouche Creek, McHenry Creek Fouche Creek northeast to University, University south to 53rd, 53rd east to Geyer Springs, Geyer Springs north to Maureen Drive, Maureen east to 50th, 50th east to Meyers, Meyers north to 49th, 49th east to Pike, Pike north to Fouche Creek, Fouche Creek east to the western boundary of Benny Craig Park, Benny Craig Park boundary south to Rosemore, Rosemore south to U.P. Railroad, Railroad south to Hoener, Hoener east to Scott Hamilton, Scott Hamilton south to the point of origin. ZONE 5 Begin at a point where McHenry Creek inters^ts the western most boundary of the school district. this boundary north to west Marldiam. Follow At this point follow an imaginary line north to Loyola Drive. At this point turn east on imaginary line to Napa Valley Drive, Napa Valley north to Hinson Road, Hinson east to an Green Mountain, Green Mountain south to Rainwood,I I f f I C? Cl ?  I 1 i t F P 0 M J 0 H N 1.4 . W H L IC E P P . H . TO Rainwood east to Grassy Flat Creek, 2 14? P . 0 -I Grassy Flat Creek east to 1-430, 430 north to Rodney Parham, Rodney Parham southeast to Grassy Flat Creek, Grassy Flat Creek generally east to Reservoir Road, Reservoir north to the southern boundary of Reservoir Park, go east along the southern boundary of Reservoir Park to Windy Drive. Follow an imaginary line south at the intersection of Windy Drive and the southern boundary of Reservoir Park Follow Grassy Flat Creek south to to Grassy Flat creek. an imaginary point due east of Arrow Ridge Court. Go east along this imaginary line to Gillett Drive, north on Gillett to Leewood, east on Leewood to Mississippi, south on to Mississippi to Rodney Parham, south on Rodney Parkham Kanis, west on Kanis to Shackleford, south on Shackleford to at Panther Branch creek. Panther Branch Creek follow an imaginary line due south to the northern tip of Talley Road, at this point turn east, follow an imaginary line to the interesection of west Romine Road and 44th. Follow 44th east to Weldon and go south on Weldon to 46th, at this point. follow an imaginary line south to Colonel Glenn Road, go east on Colonel Glenn Road to Barrow Road, turn north on Barrow Road to 28th street, follow 28th east to Boyle Park Road, go south on Boyle Park Road to Rock Creek, follow Rock Creek south and then east to Colonel Glenn Road, go east on Colonel Glenn to University, then south on University to Fouche Creek, follow Fouche Creek generally southwest to Interstate 430, go north on 430 to McHenry Creek, then follow McHenry Creek west to the point of origin. ZONE 6 Begin at the intersection of the western school district boundary line and west Markham. Follow the boudary line generally northwest turning to the east along the Little Maumelle River, follow the Little Maumelle River to the Arkansas River, follow J imerson the Arkansas River to Jimerson Creek, Creek south to Keightley, follow Keightley south to Hwy. 10, follow Hwy. 10 west to the eastern boundary of Reservoir Park, follow this boundary south then east then south then west to Reservoir Road, follow Reservoir Road to stoney Flat Creek, follow Stoney Flat Creek southwest to Rodney Parham Road, follow Rodney Parham northwest to 1-430, 430 south to Stoney Flat Creek, Stoney Flat northwest to Rainwood Drive, follow Rainwood west to Green Mountain, Green Mountain north to Hinson Road, Hinson Road west to Nappa Valley, Nappa Valley south to Mara Lynn Road. At this point follow an imaginary line west to Loyola Drive, at this point follow an imaginary line south to the point of origin.1 1 F P 0 N J 0 H H 14 . M H L K E P P . w . TO 2 14 7 P . y 5 I ZONE 7 Begin at the intersection of Jimerson Creek and the Arkansas River, follow Jimerson Creek south to Keightley, 10, go west on Hwy, part south to the southetn^bo^^^^^^^^^^^ EeBe--t PatK^, 2 imaginary line south east along the an Windy Drive, at this point follow +-O fitonev Flat Creek, follow Stoney to Stoney Flat Creek Flat Creek south to imaginary point follow an due west of Lyric Lane, : Lane and Gillett an pon\"-  imaqinary line from this point to Lyric follow Leewood Drive, follow Gillett north to Leewood, to Mississippi, follow Mississippi south to ' ?S!oi%?0 eaVt i?Sni\nKy\nfollow university south to 12th street, follow 12th street east to West Jonesboro West Jonesboro north to 1-630, follow I 630 e^st follow Elm Street north to Markham, follow to Elm Street, follow L-...------ Markham west to Walnut, follow Walnut north to Kavanaugh, follow Oak north to H, follow Kavanaugh east to Oak, follow H east to Midland, follow Midland north to I Street, follow I east to Martin Street, follow Fairfax Terrace east to follow Martin south to Fairfax Terrace, Luxxv^ --- -- line perpendicular to the east end of Lee an imaginary line perpendicular to tne ease enu Street, follow this imaginary line south to the northern boundary of the Arkansas School for the Blind, follow the northern boundary of the School for the Blind to the eastern boundary of the School for the Blind, at this point follow an imaginary line east to Cantrell Road and follow Cantrell Road to the Gill Street at this at this point, bUi btreei Bridge, follow the drainage ditch under the Gill Street Bridge to the Arkansas River, northwest to the point of origin. follow the Arkansas River I 7 0 T w L P . ? 5 1a PT c?  Pl p 1 /r63i 62,6 8 \" (S, 4 Z IS71 8 ^L3 3 ) :r (9 7^ -z4/^7 ' 3, 7 4- :8 8'=^o 'Z I, 8 2 00 I o 2 -S(^ o\u0026lt;? ^Z.o 373 2 4-39d - 6 2 4^-r4 i- o, 7 Io 3 S 4.0 2, 47o f 2 r \"^46 S'Siiz 3X I 11-74^T' I S'a IIReport to the Pulaski County Board of Education on Little Rock School Board Election Zones Metroplan November 4, 1992SUMMARY TABLES  Existing Boundaries  Proposals 1 through 4 ' yMl ^4Va^(^2. \" H (uu) 1 w - c r% |W O/ik \"Iv, i(^ y-OJlCURRENT DISTRICT BOUNDARIES CEIectdIst 1 2 j4 5 1 TotSD Totpop 20901 20415 24989 31057' 30810 22382 23120 173674 PopVor -3910 -4396 178 6246 5999 -2429 -1691 0 7oVar -15.76% -17.72% 0.72% 25.18% 24.18% -9.79% -6.81% 0.00% White 3194 4906 22107 28967 22974 15582 15159 112889 Ideal 24811 LRSD.XLS Block 17629 15306 2529 1550 7346 6390 7688 58438 %BP 84.35% 74.97% 10.12% 4.997o 23.84% 28.55% 33.25% 33.657o Other 78 203 353 540 490 410 273 2347 7.OP 0.37% 0.99% 1.41% 1.74% 1.59% 1.83% 1.18% 1.35% PROPOSAL#! Electdlstl 1 2 4 5 _6 7 TotSD Totpop 23710 24509 25229 25380 25319 24705 24822 173674 PopVor -1101 -302 418 569 508 -106 11 0 %Var -4.44% -1.22% 1.69%' 2.30% 2.05% -0.43% 0.05% 0.00% White 5201 7163 23772 23620 18978 16674 17481 112889 Block 18408 17097 1092 1296 5891 7585 7069 58438 %BP 77.64% 69.76% 4.33% 5.11% 23.27% 30.70% 28.48% 33.65% Other 101 249 365 464 450 446 272 2347 7oOP 0.43% 1.02% 1.45% 1.83% 1.78% 1.81% 1.10% 1.35% Ideal 24811 PROPOSAL #2 Electdlstl 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 TotSD Tot pop 25431 24479 25229 25380 25319 23714 24122 173674 PopVor 620 -332 418 569 508 -1097 -689 0 %Var 2.50% -1.34% 1.69% 2.30% 2.05%' -4.42% -2.78% 0.00% White 5321 7837 23772 23620 18978 14757 18604 112889 Block 20007 16320 1092 1296 5891 8592 5240 58438 /oBP 66.67% 4.33% 5.11% 23.27% 36.23% 21.72% 33.65% Other 103 322 365 464 450 365 278 2347 %OP 0.41% 1.32% 1.45% 1.837o 1.7Q% 1.54% 1.15% 1.35% Page 1LRSD.XLS Ideal 24811 PROPOSAL #3 Electdistl 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 TotSD Totpop 25533 24397 25091 23691 25339 25501 24122 173674 PopVar 722 -414 280 -1120 528 690 -689 0 %Var 2.917o -1.67% 1.13% -4.51% 2.13% 2.78% -2.78% 0.00% White 5018 9083 23646 22201 18908 15429 18604 112889 Black 20380 14973 1116 1064 5979 9686 5240 58438 %BP 79.82% 61.37% 4.45% 4.49% 23.60% 37.98% 21.72% 33.65% Other 135 341 329 426 452 386 278 2347 %OP 0.53% 1.40% 1.31% 1.80% 1.78% 1.51% 1.15% 1.35% Ideal 24811 PROPOSAL #4 Electdistl 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 TotSD Totpop 25533 25764 24578 24216 24456 24663 24464 173674 PopVar 722 953 -233 -595 -355 -148 -347 0 7oVar 2.91% 3.84% -0.94% -2.40% -1.43% -0.59% -1.40% 0.00% White 5018 10084 23161 22518 19325 15550 17233 112889 Black 20380 15300 1112 1239 4681 8767 6959 58438 7oBP 79.82% 59.39% 4.52% 5.12% 19.14% 35.55% 28.45% 33.65% Other 135 380 305 459 450 346 272 2347 %OP 0.53% 1.47% 1.24% 1.90% 1.84% 1.40% 1.11% 1.35% Ideal 24811 Page 2n 725B-O CURRENT DISTRICT BOUNDARIES Record _______ _______72 ______ 53 ______ ______ _______W _______ _______55 _______7_^ 79 7^ _______ 58 _______7^ 46 ______ ______ ______64 102 ______ ______ 54 49 ______50 44 57 _____13 _____12 _____15 _____12 34 24 33 40 vpdlst 557K 567J 657H 6671 687D-O 687J-a 687K 697G 957B 957E 957H 9571 957K 967C 967D 997A 4751 476J-a 486K-a 5661-0 567J-a 587L 686A 687B 687C 687D 687J 2461 246J-a 246K 246L 3751 3751-0 475B 475H 475H-b 4751-0 total jx\u0026gt;p _______277 2406 609 3724 _______ 357 2579 _______112 2786 1546 _________0 501 1536 2455 600 1126 1738 276 522 321 968 1539 3454 4559 3081 2236 1721 609 1400 __ 3274 1426 _______252 261 1058 1686 736 680 white pop ___1^ 22 52 1065 ___0 ___5 81 34 193 13 0 12 1071 584 25 36 998 260 487 90 320 75 1486 494 296 280 120 606 1390 3136 1352 243 261 982 1635 677 649 blackjsop ________276 2377 ________556 2637 ________ ________ 2489 77 2583 _______1532 __________0 489 458 _______1855 ________ 1087 ________ 11 _________28 ________ ________ _______1^ 1922 4060 2770 1943 1599 __________0 __________3 111 _________ __________4 __________0 _________ 15 48 13 %BP 99.64% 98.79% 91.30% 70.81% 100.00% 98.60% 96.51% 68.75% 92.71% 99.09% #DIV/0! 97.60% 29.82% 75.56% 95.67% 96.54% 39.30% 3.99% 5.36% 66.98% 63.33% 95.00% 55.65% 89.05% 89.91% 86.90% 92.91% 0.00% 0.21% 3.39% 4.70% 1.59% 0.00% 6.33% 0.89% 6.52% 1.91% VP.XLS other_pop 0 7 1 22 ________0 0 9 1 10 1 ________0 0 7 ________16 1 3 57 ________5 _________7 16 35 ________2 _______ 5 15 13 2 ________3 1 _______ _________1_ ________5 ________0 ________9 36 11 18 %OP 0.00% 0.29% 0.16% 0.59% 0.00% 0.00% 0.35% 0.89% 0.36% 0.06% #DIV/0! 0.00% 0.46% 0.65% 0.17% 0.27% 3.28% 1.81% 1.34% 4.98% 3.62% 0.13% 1.33% 0.11% 0.49% 0.58% 0.12% 0.49% 0.50% 0.82% 0.49% 1.98% 0.00%' 0.85% 2.14% 1.49% 2.65% celdist 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 2 ? 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 3 3 3 2 3 3 3 _3 3 20901 -3910 -15.76% 20415 -4396 -17.72% 3194 4906 17629 15306 84.35% 78 0.37% 74.97% 203 0.99% Page 1VP.XLS 30 35 27 103 41 29 105 42 100 43 1 2 3 28 4 10 5 12 9 14 18 \u0026amp; 19 6 32 7 16 23 31 86 36 39 48 20 22 25 26 38 476C 476D 476E 476E-a 476F 476G 476G-a 676E 687D-b 687F 135E 135J 245A 245G 246B 246C 246D 246E 246H 2461-a 246J 246L-a 275F 355A 355H-a 356B 475A 475B-a 475H-a 1251 135G 245G-a 335E '335J 355C 355D 355F |355G 355H 1974 1565 1747 866 2628 1004 1880 329 100 1514 50 5709 2415 1689 2103 1850 1757 4222 828 182 1323 7 140 2203 1164 2211 1624 1267 313 2365 535 640 2088 1615 1480 3230 3196 2801 1669 1914 1506 1625 623 1675 749 1700 174 57' 1153 50 5110 2236 1419 2053 1804 1717 3837 825 182 1218 7 139 2148 1102 2126 1596 1085 313 2232 499 604 1965 1496 1391 2957 2783 2565 1489 23 40 107 240 912 216 124 149 41 349 0 460 138 232 24 28 14 282 0 0 89 0 1 22 57 43 9 151 0 119 25 29 89 80 52 201 329 198 144 1.17% 2.56% 6.12% 27.71% 34.70% 21.51% 6.60% 45.29% 41.00% 23.05% 0.00% 8.06% 5.71% 13.74% 1.14% 1.51% 0.80% 6.68% 0.00% 0.00% 6.73% 0.00% 0.71% 1.00% 4.90% 1.94% 0.55% 11.92% 0.00% 5.03%' 4.67% 4.53% 4.26%| 4.95% 3.51% 6.22% 10.29% 7.07% 8.63% 37 19 15 3 41 39 6 12 0 139 41 38 26 18 26 103 3 0 16 0 0 33 5 42 19 31 0 14 11 7 34 39 37 72 84 38 36 1.87% 1.21% 0.86% 0.35% 1.56% 3.88% 2.98% 1.82% 2.00% 0.79% 0.00% 2.43% 1.70% 2.25% 1.24% 0.97% 1.48% 2.44% 0.36% 0.00% 1.21% 0.00% 0.00% 1.50% 0.43% 1.90% 1.17% 2.45% 0.00% 0.59% 2.06% 1.09% 1.63%, 2.41% 2.50%' 2.23% 2.63% 1.36% 2.16% 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 24989 178 0.72% 22107 2529 10.12% 353 1.41% Page 2 31057 6246 25.18% 28967 1550 4.99% 540 1.74%VP.XLS 21 71 52 59 65 59 93 101 101 94 70 68 11 81 92 69 88 84 91 82 87 99 85 ' 80 90 100 95 18 91 83 98 96 356B-a 535D 555A 565B 565C 725A 725B 726E-a 726K-a 526 476J 486K 565E 566G 566H 5661 7171 726F 756G 757H _ 956F 957G 725B-O 726D 726E 726J 726K 166C 816B 817C 817D 826A I 784 313 3533 1787 3435 785 550 _____0 4 45 564 1359 3045 1964 2125 1370 1103 3143 3852 1837' 1402 573\n___24 926 3227 4007 2073 ____24 4011 3999 1846 2983 173674 704 266 1391 672 868 543 545 0 4 45 428 903 1567 1704 1658 704 959 2773 2723 1130 619 369 ____23 530 2361 3465 1536 _____8 2611 1749 903 1973 112889 ___ 44 2092 1094 2543 239 ____3 0 ___g ___g 127 410 1422 242 446 607 128 321 1084 670 737 196 ___g 385 842 492 507 ___16 1342 2205 925 974 58438 8.29% 14.06% 59.21% 61.22% 74.03% 30.45% 0.55% #DIV/0! 0.00% 0.00% 22.52% 30.17% 46.70% 12.32% 20.99% 44.31% 11.60% 10.21% 28.14% 36.47% 52.57% 34.21% 0.00% 41.58% 26.09% 12.28% 24.46% 66.67% 33.46% 55.14% 50.11% 32.65% 33.65% 15 3 50 21 24 3 2 0 ___0 ___0 9 46 56 18 21 59 16 49 45 37 46 ___8 ___1_ 11 24 50 30 ___0 58 45 __18 36 2347 1.91% 0.96% 1.42% 1.18% 0.70% 0.38% 0.36% #DIV/0! 0.00% 0.00% 1.60% 3.38% 1.84% 0.92% 0.99% 4.31% 1.45% 1.56% 1.17% 2.01% 3.28% 1.407o 4.17% 1.19% 0.74% 1.25% 1.45% 0.00% 1.45% 1.13% 0.98% 1.21% 1.35% 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 _5 6 6 6 6 _6 _6 6 _6 _6 6 7 J_ 1 1_ 1 7 J_ 1 1 1 30810 5999 24.18% 22974 7346 23.84% 490 1.59% 24811 Page 3 22382 -2429 -9.79% 15582 6390 28.55% 410 1.83% 23120 -1691 -6.81% 173674 15159 112889 76881 33.25% 58438 273 2347 1.18%VP.XLS Proposal #1 Record ______103 75 ______ ______ ______ 53 ______ 42 51 100 ______ ______ ____ ______ _______ _______ _______ 7^ _______ _______ _______73 46 ____ 41 ______ M ______ ______ ______ M ______ ______ M ______ 57 _______ 5 _______ 9 ______ 13 14 vpdist 476E-a 557K 567J 657H 6671 676E 687D-a 687D-b 687F 687J-a 687K 691Q 957E 957H 9571 957K 967C 967D 4751 476F 476J-a 486K-a 565B 567J-a 587L 686A 687B' 687C 687D 687J 246D 246H '2461 '2461-a' total_pop I 1 866 277 2406 609 3724 329 287 100 1514 357 2579 112 2786 1546 ___ 0 501 1536 2455 600 1126 1738 2628 276 522 1787 968 1539 3454 4559 3081 2236 1721 1757 828 609 182 white_pop ________ 1 _________22 52 1065 174 0 _________ 1153 5 ______ 81 34 193 _________ 13 0 _________ 12 _______1071 ________584 ________ 25 ________ 36 _______ 998 1675 _______ 487 672 ________320 75 1486 494 ________296 280 120 1717 825 606 182 black_pop ________ 276 2377 ________ 2637 149 287 _________ 41_ ________ ________ 352 2489 77 2583 1532 0 ________ ________ _______ 1855 ________ 1087 ________ 912 ______ n 28 1094 ________ 613 1462 _ 1922 4060 2770 1943 1599 _________ 14 __________ 0 0 0 %BP 27.71% 99.64% 98.79% 91.30% 70.81% 45.29% 100.00% 41.00% 23.05% 98.60% 96.51% 68.75% 92.71% 99.09% #DIV/0! 97.60% 29.82% 75.56% 95.67% 96.54% 39.30% 34.70% 3.99% 5.36% 61.22% 63.33% 95.00% 55.65% 89.05% 89.91% 86.90% 92.91% 0.80% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% other_pop 3 07 1 22 6 ________ 0 ________ 2 _____ 12 ________ 0 ________ 91 10 _________1_ 0 ________ 0 ________ 7_ 16 ______ 1 ________ 3 _______ 41 ________ 5 7 _______ 35 2 _______ 5 _____ 15 13 2 _______ ________ 3 ________ 3 0 %OP 0.35% 0.00% 0.29% 0.16% 0.59% 1.82% 0.00% 2.00% 0.79% 0,00% 0.35% 0.89% 0.36% 0.06% #Dh//0! 0.00% 0.46% 0.65% 0.17% 0.27% 3.28% 1.56% 1.81% 1.34% 1.18% 3.62% 0.13% 1.33% 0.11% 0.49% 0.58%' 0.12% 1.48% 0.36% 0.49% 0.00% eldistl 1 1 1 111 1 1 11 11 2 1 111 1 1 1 2 2 222 2 22 2 22 2 23 23 23710 -1101 -4.44% 5201 18408 77.64% 101 0.43% Page 4 24509 -302 -1.22% 7163 17097 69.76% 249 1.02% i B  B  VP.XLS 18 17 15 11 8 34 24 23 33 31 40 30 35 27 29 105 12 3 28 4 10 12 19 6 32 7 16 37 36 39 48 20 22 25 26 38 246J 246J-a 246K 246L 246L-a 3751 3751-a 475B__ 475B-O 475H 475H-a 475H-b 4751-a 476C 476D 476E 476G 476G-O 135E 135J 245A 245G 246B 246C 246E 275F 355A ~ 355H-a 356B 475A 135G ' 245G-a '335E 335J 355C '355D 355F '355G '355H 1323 1400 3274 1426 ___ 7 252 261 1058 1267 1686 313 736 680 1974 1565 1747 1004 1880 50 5709 2415 1689 2103 1850 4222 140 2203 1164 2211 1624 535 640 2088 1615 1480 3230 3196 2801 1669 1218 1390 3136 1352 ___ 7 243 261 982 1085 1635 313 677 649 1914 1506 1625 749 1700 50 5110 2236 1419 2053 1804 3837 139 2148 1102 2126 1596 499 604 1965 1496 1391 2957 2783 2565 1489 \u0026amp;9 3 111 61 04 0 67 151 15 0 48 13 23 40 107 216 124 0 460 138 232 24 28 2821 22 57 43 __ 9 25 29 89 80 52 201 329 198 144 0.21%' 3.39%' 4.70%' 0.00% 1.59%' 0.00% 6.33% 11.92% 0.89% 0.00% 6.52% 1.91% 1.17% 2.56% 6.12% 21.51% 6.60% 0.00% 8.06% 5.71% 13.74% 1.14% 1.51% 6.68% 0.71% 1.00% 4.90% 1.94% 0.55% 4.67% 4.53% 4.26% 4.95% 3.51% 6.22% 10.29% 7.07% 8.63% 16 7 27' 7 __o' 5 09 31 36 0 11 18 37 19 15 39 56 0 139 41 38 26 18 103 0 33 5 42 19 11 1 34 39 72 84 38 36 1.21% 0.50% 0.82%' 0.49% 0.00%' 1.98%' 0.00% 0.85% 2.45% 2.14% 0.00% 1.49% 2.65% 1.87% 1.21% 0.86% 3.88% 2.98% 0.00% 2.43% 1.70% 2.25% 1.24% 0.97% 2.44% 0.00% 1.50% 0.43% 1.90% 1.17% 2.06% 1.09% 1.63% 2.41% 2.50% 2.23% 2.63% 1.36% 2.16% 1 3 3' 3' 2 2 3' 3 33 3 _3 2 2 2 2 24 4 4444 4444 4 4 55 55 5 5 5 5 5 25229 418 1.69%' 23772 1092 4.33% 365 1.45% Page 5 25380 569 2.30% 23620 1296 5.11% 464 1.83% VP.XLS 21 71 52 65 94 70 68 77 81 92 69 102 88 84 91 82 98 87 99 86 89 93 85 80 90 101 100 95 101 78 97 83 96 356B-O 535D 555A 565C 526 476J 486K 565E 566G 566H 5661 5661-a  7171 726F 726F-a 156G 156G-Q 817D 956F 957G 1251 725A 725B 725B-a 726D 726E 726E-a 726J 726K 726K-a 766C 816B 817C 826A 784 313 3533 3435 45 564 1359 3045 1964 2125 1370 321 1103 1778 1365 3581 271 1837 2002 1402 573 2365 785 550 24 926 3227 0 4007 2073 4 24 4011 3843 2983 173674' 704 266 1391 868 45 428 903 1567 1704 1658 704 90 959 1637 1136 2527 196 1130 1002 619 369 2232 543 545 23 530 2361 0 3465 1536 4 8 2611 1650 1973 112889 65 44 2092 2543 ____ 0 127 410 1422 242 446 607 215 128 113 208 1010 74 670 980 737 196 119 239 3 0 385 842 0 492 507 0 16 1342 2150 974' 58438' 8.29% 14.06% 59.21% 74.03% 0.00% 22.52% 30.17% 46.70% 12.32% 20.99% 44.31% 66.98% 11.60% 6.36% 15.24% 28.20% 27.31% 36.47% 48.95% 52.57% 34.21% 5.03% 30.45% 0.55% 0.00% 41.58% 26.09% #DIV/0! 12.28% 24.46% 0.00% 66.67% 33.46% 55.95% 32.65% 33.65% 15 3 50 24 09 46 56 18 21 59 16 16 28 21 44 1 37 20 46 8 14 321 11 24 0 50 30 0 0 58 43 36 2347 1.91% 0.96% 1.42% 0.70% 0.00%, 1.60% 3.38% 1.84% 0.92% 0.99% 4.31% 4.98% 1.45% 1.57% 1.54% 1.23% 0.37% 2.01% 1.00% 3.28% 1.40% 0.59% 0.38% 0.36% 4.17% 1.19% 0.74% #DIV/0! 1.25% 1.45% 0.00% 0.00% 1.45% 1.12% 1.21% 1.35% 5 5 5 5 6 6 66 6 6 6 666 66 66 6677777 77 777 17 1 1 25319 508 2.05% 18978 5891 23.27% 450 1.78% 24811 I Page 6 24705 -106 -0.43% 16674 7585 30.70% 446 1.81% 24822 11 0.05% 17481 7069 28.48% 272 1.10% 173674 112889 58438 2347 3 S S VP.XLS I Proposal #2 Record 103 ______ ______ 72^ ______ 56 ______ 53 42 51 100 ______ ______ ______ ______ W 45 55 _______7_^ 7^ 76 ______ ______ M 7^ ______ ______ 47 ______ !_ 62 ______ M ______ ______ 69 102 ______ ______ ______ 54 ______ 49 ______ M 44 _______ 5 9 vpdlst 476E-a 557K 567J 657H 6671 676E 687D-a 687D-b 687F 687J 687J-Q 687K 697G 957B 957E 957H 9571 957K 961C 967D A15\\ A,76? A76^-a 486K-a 565B 5661 5661-0 567J-a 587L 686A 687B 6Q7C 687D 246D 246H total_pop 866 277 2406 609 3724 329 287 _______ 100 1514 1721 357 2579 112 2786 1546 0 501 1536 2455 600 1126 1738 2628 276 _______ 522 1787 1370 321 _______ 968 1539 3454 4559 3081 2236 1757 828 .. white_pop ________ 1 22 ________ 52 1065 174 0 57 1153 ________120 _________ 5 ________ 8i 34 193 _________13 0 12 _______1071 _______ ________ 25 ________ 998 _______1^ 260 _______ 487 672 704 _________90 320 75 1486 _______ _______ 296 280 _______1717 825 black_pop ________ 276 _______ 2377 ________ 556 2637 149 ________ 287 _________ 41_ ________W 1599 ________ 352 2489 77 2583 _______ 1532 o' 489 ________ 1855 ________ 574 1087 ________ 912 11 _________ 28 _______ 1094 607 215 ________ _______ 1462 _______ 1922 4060 2770 1943 _________ 14 0 %BP 27.71% 99.64% 98.79% 91.30% 70.81% 45.29% 100.00% 41.00% 23.05% 92.91% 98.60% 96.51% 68.75% 92.71% 99.09% #DIV/0! 97.60% 29.82% 75.56% 95.67% 96.54% 39.30% 34.70% 3.99% 5.36% 61.22% 44.31% 66.98% 63.33% 95.00% 55.65% 89.05% 89.91% 86.90% 0.80% 0.00% olher_pop ________ 3 07 1 22 6 0 ________ 2 _______ 12 2 ________ 0 ________ 9 1 10 1 ________ 0 0 ________ 7 16 ________ 1_ ________ 3 67 41 5 7 21 59 16 35 2 46 ________ 5 _______ 15 13 _______ 26 3 7oOP 0.35% 0.00% 0.29% 0.167o 0.59% 1.82% 0.00% 2.00% 0.79% 0.12% 0.00% 0.35% 0.89% 0.36% 0.06% #DIV/0! 0.00% 0.46% 0.65% 0.17% 0.27% 3.28% 1.56% 1.81% 1.34% 1.18% 4.31% 4.98% 3.62% 0.13% 1.33% 0.11% 0.49% 0.58% 1.48% 0.36% eldist2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 11 1 1 1 1 111 1 1 11 1222 22 22 2 2 22 22 3 3 25431 620 2.50% 24479 -332 -1.34% 5321 7837 20007 16320 78.67% 103 0.41% 66.67% 322 1.32% Page 7 VP.XLS 13 14 18 17 15 11 8 34 24 23 33 31 40 30 35 27 29 1051 2 3 28 4 10 12 19 6 32 7 16 37 36 39 48 20 22 25 2461 2461-0 246J ,246J-a 246K 246L 246L-a 3751 3751-0 475B 4758-0 475H 475H-O 475H-b 4751-0 476C 476D 476E 476G 476G-a 135E 135J 245A 245G 2468  246C 246E 275F 355A 355H-a 3568 475A 135G 245G-O 335E 335J 355C 355D 355F 609 182 1323 1400 3274 1426 7 252 261 1058 1267 1686 313 736 680 1974 1565 1747 1004 1880 50 5709 2415 1689 2103 1850 4222 140 2203 1164 2211 1624 535 640 2088 1615 1480 3230 3196 606 182 1218 1390 3136 1352 7 243 261 982 1085 1635 313 677 649 1914 1506 1625 749 1700 50 5110 2236 1419 2053 1804 3837 139 2148' 1102 2126 1596 499 604 1965 1496 1391 2957 2783 00 89 3 111 67 04 0 67 151 15 0 48 13 23 40 107 216 124 0 460 138 232 24 28 282 __ 1_ 22 67 43 9 25 29 89 80 52 201 329 0.00% 0.00% 6.73% 0.21% 3.39% 4.70% 0.00% 1.59% 0.00% 6.33% 11.92% 0.89% 0.00% 6.52% 1.91% 1.17% 2.56% 6.12% 21.51% 6.60% 0.00% 8.06% 5.71% 13.74% 1.14% 1.51% 6.68% 0.71% 1.00% 4,90% 1.94% 0.55%' 4.67% 4.53% 4.26% 4.95% 3.51% 6.22% 10.29% 3 0 16 7 27 7 0 5 0 9 31 36 0 11 18 19 15 39 56 0 139 41 38 26 18 1030 33 5 42 19 11 7 34 39 37 77 84 0.49% 0.00% 1.21% 0.50% 0.82% 0.49% 0.00% 1.98% 0.00% 0.85% 2.45% 2.14% 0.00% 1.49% 2.65% 1.87% 1.21% 0.86% 3.88% 2.98% 0.00% 2.43% 1.70% 2.25% 1.24% 0.97% 2.44% 0.00% 1.50% 0.43% 1.90% 1.17% 2.06% 1.09% 1.63% 2.41% 2,50% 2.23% 2.63% 3 3 3 33 33 3 33 333 3 3 3 33 3 3 44444 444 4444 55 5 55 5 5 25229 418 1.69% 23772 1092 4.33% 365 1.45% Page 8 25380 569 2.30% 23620 1296 5.11% 464 1.83% VP.XLS 26 38 21 71 52 65 94 70 68 77 81 92 88 91 82 83 98 87 99 86 89 93 85 80 90| 101 84 100 95 101 78 97 96 355G 355H 356B-a 535D 555A 565C 526 476J 486K 565E 566G 566H 7171 756G 756G-a 757H 817C 817D 956F 957G 1251 725A 725B 725B-a 726D 726E 726E-a 726F 726F-a 726J 726K 726K-a 166\u0026lt;Z 816B 826A 2801 1669 784 313 3533 3435 45 564 1359 3045 1964 2125 1103 3581 271 1837 3999 1846 1402 573 2365 785 550 ____ 926 3227 0 1778 1365 4007 2073 4 24 4011 2983 173674 2565 1489 704 266 1391 868 45 428 903 1567 1704 1658 959 2527 196 1130 1749 903' 619 369 2232 543 545 23 530 2361 0 1637 1136 3465 1536 4 8 2611 1973 112889 198 144 65 44 2092 2543 0 127 410 1422 242 446 128 1010 74 670 2205 925 737 196 119 239' ____ 3 0 385 0 113 208 492 507 0 16 1342 974 58438 7.07% 8.63% 8.29% 14.06% 59.21% 74.03% 0.00%, 22.52% 30.17% 46.70% 12.32%! 20.99% 11.60%' 28.20% 27.31% 36.47% 55.14% 50.11% 52.57% 34.21% 5.03% 30.45% 0.55% 0.00% 41.58% 26.09% #DIV/0! 6.36% 15.24% 12.28% 24.46% 0.00% 66.67% 33.46% 32.65% 33.65% 38 36 15 3 50 24 0 9 46 56 18 21 16 44 1 37 45 18 __ 8 14 32 1 11 24 0 28 21 50 30 00 58 36 2347 1.36% 2.16% 1.91% 0.96% 1.42% 0.70% 0.00% 1.60% 3.38% 1.84% 0.92% 0.99% 1.45% 1.23% 0.37% 2.01% 1.13% 0.98% 3.28% 1.40% 0.59% 0.38% 0.36% 4.17% 1.19% 0.74% #DV/0! 1.57% 1.54% 1.25% 1.45% 0.00% 0.00% 1.45% 1.21% 1.35% 5 55 5 5 5 6 66 66 6 6 6 6 66 66 67 77 77 7 Tj 7| 7 7 7 1 1 J 1 25319 508 2.05% 18978 5891 23.27% 450 1.78% 24811 Page 9 23714 -1097 -4.42% 14757 8592 36.23% 365 1.54% 24122 -689 -2.78% 173674 18604 5240 21.72% 278 1.15% 112889 58438 2347  n 725B-fl I VP.XLS Proposal #3 Record 75 72 67 56 53 42 ____ 51 100 43 57 ______ 63 45 55 74 79 ______ 76 66 ______ 58 ______ 73 46 38 ______ 41 29 ______ 64 69 102 ______ 54 49 50 44 _______ 59 vpdist 557K 567J 567J-a 657 H 6671 676E 687D-O 687D-b 687F 687J 687J-a 687K 697G, 957B 957E 957H 9571 957K 961C. 967D  355H 4751 476F 476G 476J-a 486K-a 5661 5661-a 5871 686A 687 B 687C 687D 246D 246H total pop -+ - 277 2406 968 609 3724 329 287 100 1514 1721 357 2579 112 2786 1546 0 501 1536 2455 600 1126 1669 1738 2628 1004 276 522 1370 321 1539 3454 4559 3081 2236 1757 828 white pop 1 22 320 52 1065 174 0 57 1153 120 5 81 34 193 __ 13 0 __ 12^ 1071 584 25 36 1489 998 1675 749 260 487 704 90 75 1486 494 296 280 1717 825 black_pop 276 2377 613 556 2637 149 287 41 349 1599 352 2489 77 2583 1532 0 489 ________ 458 1855, 574' 1087 144 683 912 216 11 28 607 215 _______ 1^ 1922 4060 2770 1943 14 0 %BP 99.64% 98.79% 63.33% 91.30% 70.81% 45.29% 100.00% 41.00% 23.05% 92.91% 98.60% 96.51% 68.75% 92.71% 99.09% #DIV/0! 97.60% 29.82% 75.56% 95.67% 96.54% 8.63% 39.30% 34.70% 21.51% 3.99% 5.36% 44.31% 66.98% 95.00% 55.65% 89.05% 89.91% 86.90% 0.80% 0.00% otherjaop 0 7 35 1 22 6 0 2 12 2 0 91 10 1 0 07 16 1 3 _______ _______ 57 41 39 5 7 59 16 2 46 5 15 13 26 3 7oOP 0.00% 0.29% 3.62%, 0.16% 0.59% 1.82% 0.00% 2.00% 0.79% 0.12% 0.00%i 0.35% 0.89% 0.36% 0.06% #DIV/0! 0.00% 0.46% 0.65% 0.17% 0.27% 2.16% 3.28% 1.56% 3.88% 1.81% 1.34% 4.31% 4.98% 0.13% 1.33% 0.11% 0.49% 0.58% 1.48% 0.36% eldist3 11 1 1 111 11 1 1 11 1111111 12 22 222 2222 22 2 3 25533 722 2.91% 5018 20380 79.82% 135 0.53% Page 10 24397 -414 -1.67% 9083 14973 61.37% 341 1.40% VP.XLS 13 14 18 17 15 11 8 34 24 23 33 31 2461 2461-0 246J 246J-a 246K 246L 246L-a 3751 3751-0 475B 475B-a .7,  ' 40 30 35 27 103 10512 34 10 12 19 6 32 1 16 37 28 36 59 48 20 22 25 475H 475H-a 475H-b 4751-0 476C 476D 476E 476E-a 476G-a 735E 135J 245A 246B 246C 246E 275F 355A 355H-a 356B 475A 135G 245G 245G-a 335E 335J 355C 355D 355F 609 182 1323 1400 3274 1426 ___ 7 252 261 1058 1267 1686 313 736 680 1974 1565 1747 866 1880 50 5709 2415 2103 1850 4222 140 2203 1164 2211 1624 535 1689 640 2088 1615 1480 3230 3196 606 182 1218 1390 3136 1352 ___ 7 243 261 982 1085 1635 ~ 313 611 649 1914 1506 1625 623 1700 50 5110 2236 2053 1804 3837 139 2148 1102 2126 1596 499 1419 604 1965 1496 1391 2957 2783 00 89 3 111 67 04 0 67 151 15 0 48 13 40 107 240 124 0 460 138 24 28 282 1 22 57 43 9 25 232 29 89 80 52 201 329 0.00% 0.00% 6.73% 0.21% 3.39% 4.70% 0.00% 1.59% 0.00% 6.33% 11.92% 0.89% 0.00% 6.52% 1.91% 1.17% 2.56% 6.12% 27.71% 6.60% 0.00% 8.06% 5.71% 1.14% 1.51% 6.68% 0.71% 1.00% 4.90% 1.94% 0.55% 4.67% 13.74% 4.53% 4.26% 4.95% 3.51% 6.22% 10.29% 3 0 16 7 21 1 0 5 09 31 36 0 11 18 ?,1 19 15 3 56 0 139 41 26 18 103 0 33 5 42 19 11 38 7 34 39 37 12 84 0.49% 0.00% 1.21% 0.50% 0.82% 0.49% 0.00% 1.98% 0.00% 0.85% 2.45% 2.14% 0.00% 1.49% 2.65% 1.87% 1.21% 0.86% 0.35% 2.98% 0.00% 2.43% 1.70% 1.24% 0.97% 2.44% 0.00% 1.50% 0.43% 1.90% 1.17% 2.06% 2.25% 1.09% 1.63% 2.41% 2.50% 2.23% 2.63% 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 J 3 3 3 3 3 3 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 Page 11 25091 280 1.13% 23646 1116 4.45% 329 1.31% 23691 -1120 -4.51% 22201 1064 4.49% 426 1.80% VP.XLS 26 21 71 52 65 94 70 68 59 77 81 92 88 91 82 83 98 87 99 86 89 93 85 80 90 101 84 100 95 101 78 97 96 355G 356B-a 535D 555A 565C 526 476J 486K 565B 565E 566G 5661-1 7171 756G 756G-a 757H 817C 817D 956F 957G 1251 725A 725B 725B-a 726D 726E 726E-a 726F 726F-a 1255 726K 726K-a 155C 816B 826A 2801 784 313 3533 3435 45 564 1359 1787 3045 1964 2125 1103 3581 271 1837 3999 1846 1402 573 2365 785 550 24 926 3227 0 1778' 1365 40071 2073 4 24 4011 2983 173674 2565 704 266 1391 868 45 428 903 672 1567 1704 1658 959 2527 196 1130 1749 903 619 369 2232 543 545 23 530 2361 0 1637 1136 3465 1536 4 8 2611 1973 112889 198 65 44 2092 2543 0 127 410 1094 1422 242 446 128 1010 74 670 2205 925 737 196 119 239 3 0 385 842 0 113 208 492 507 0 16 1342 974 58438 7.07% 8.29% 14.06% 59.21% 74.03% 0.00% 22.52% 30.17% 61.22% 46.70% 12.32% 20.99% 11.60% 28.20% 27.31% 36.47%' 55.14% 50.11% 52.57%, 34.21%| 5.03% 30.45% 0.55% 0.00% 41.58% 26.09% #DIV/0! 6.36% 15.24% 12.28% 24.46% 0.00% 66.67% 33.46% 32.65% 33.65% 38 15 3 50 24 0 9 46 21 56 18 21 16 44 1 37 45 18 46 8 14 3 2 1 11 24 0 28 21 50, 30 0 0 58 36 2347 1.36% 1.91% 0.96% 1.42% 0.70% 0.00% 1.60% 3.38% 1.18% 1.84% 0.92% 0.99% 1.45% 1.23% 0.37% 2.01% 1.13% 0.98% 3.28% 1.40% 0.59% 0.38% 0.36% 4.17% 1.19% 0.74% #DIV/0! 1.57% 1.54% 1.25% 1.45% 0.00% 0.00% 1.45% 1.21% 1.35% 55 5 55 6 6 66 66 66 666 666 6 77 7 77 77 7 77 1 1 17 1 25339 528 2.13% 18908 5979 23.60% 452 1.78% 24811 Page 12 25501 690 2.78% 15429 9686 37.98% 386 1.51% 24122 -689 -2.78% 173674 18604 5240 21.72% 278 1.15% 112889 58438 2347 71 72SB-O VP.XLS Proposal #4 Record _______75 72 ______ 56 M ______ ______ 51 100 43 57 ______ ______ ______ 55 W _______ _______7 ______ ______ 58 _______7^ ______ 46 106 103 ______ 47 107 ______ 1_ 29 ______ ______ ______ M ______ 69 102 ______ 54 ______ 49 50 vpdist 557K 567J 567J-a 657H 6671 676E 687D-a 687D-b 687F 687J 687J-a 687K 697G 957B 957E 957H 9571 957K 967C 967D 997/\\ 3751-0 475H-b 4751 4751-0 476E 476G 476J-O 486K 486K-O 5661 5661-0 587L 686A 687B 687C tOtQljX?P 277 2406 968 609 3724 329 287 _______ 100 1514 1721 357 2579 112 2786 1546 _________ 0 501 1536 2455 600 1126 261 _______ 736 1738 680 2628 1004 276 1359 522 1370 321 1539 3454 4559 3081 whife pop 1 22 320 52 1065 174 0 57 1153 120 ___5 81 34 193 13 ___0 12 1071 584 25 36 261 677 998 649 1675 749 260 903 487 704 90 75 1486 494 296 blackjx\u0026gt;p 276 2377 ________ 556 2637 149 287 41 349 1599 ________ 2489 77 2583 1532 0 ________ ________ _______ 574 _______ 1087 __________ 0 48 6\u0026amp;3 13 912 ________ 226 __________2i 410 _________ ________ ________ 215 1462 iW 4060 2770 %BP 99.64% 98.79% 63.33% 91.30% 70.81% 45.29%' 100.00% 41.00% 23.05% 92.91% 98.60% 96.51% 68.75% 92.71% 99.09% #DIV/0! 97.60% 29.82% 75.56% 95.67% 96.54% 0.00% 6.52% 39.30% 1.91% 34.70% 21.51% 3.99% 30.17% 5.36% 44.31% 66.98% 95.00% 55.65% 89.05% 89.91% otherjaop 07 35 1 22 6 02 12 2 091 10 10 07 16 1 ________ 3 0 11 57 18 41 39 ________ 5 46 7 59 16 2 46 5 15 %OP 0.00% 0.29% 3.62% 0.16% 0.59% 1.82% 0.00% 2.00% 0.79% 0.12% 0.00% 0.35% 0.89% 0.36% 0.06% #DIV/0! 0.00% 0.46% 0.65% 0.17% 0.27% 0.00% 1.49%' 3.28% 2.65% 1.56%' 3.88%' 1.81%' 3.38% 1.34% 4.31% 4.98% 0.13% 1.33% 0.11% 0.49% eldist4 1 1 1 1 1 1 11 1 1 111 11 1 11 11 12 2 2 22 2 2 2 22 2 2 2 2 2 25533 722 2.91% 5018 20380 79.82% 135 0.53% Page 13 . Q Q   = VP.XLS KL i. L' r. J\nI I Si K r. 'p, b it k* I 5 \u0026amp;IK4UllbK\u0026gt;UiS 44 59 13 14 18 17 15 11 8 32 34 24 23 33 31 30 35 27 68 10512 3 4 10 12 19 67 16 37 36 39 48 20 22 25 687D 246D 246H 2461 2461-0 246J 246J-a 246K 246L 246L-a 355H-a 3751 4758 4758-0 475H 475H-a 476C 476D 476E 476E-a 476G-a 135E 135J 245A 245G 2468 246C 246E 275F 355A 3568 475A 135G 245G-a 335E 335J 355C 355D 355F 2236 1757 828 609 182 1323 1400 3274 14267 1164 252 1058 1267 1686 313 1974 1565 1747 866 1880 50 5709 2415 1689 2103 1850 4222 140 2203 2211 1624 535 640 2088 1615 1480 3230 3196 280 1717 825 606 182 1218 1390 3136 1352 7 1102 243 982 1085 1635 313 1914 1506 1625 623 1700 50 5110 2236 1419 2053 1804 3837 139 2148 2126 1596 499 604 1965 1496 1391 2957 2783 1943 14 0 0 0 89 3 111 67 0 57 4 67 151 15 0 23 40 107 240 124 ___0 460 138 232 24 28 282 1 22 43 9 25 29 89 80 52 201 329 86.90% 0.80% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 6.73% 0.21% 3.39% 4,70% 0.00% 4.90% 1.59% 6.33% 11.92% 0.89% 0.00% 1.17% 2.56% 6.12% 27.71% 6.60% 0.00% 8.06% 5.71% 13.74% 1.14% 1.51% 6.68% 0.71% 1.00% 1.94% 0.55% 4.67% 4.53% 4.26% 4.95% 3.51% 6.22% 10.29% 13 26 3 3 0 16 7 7.1 1 05 59 31 36 0 37 19 15 3 56 0 139 41 38 18 103 0 33 42 19 11 7 34 39 37 72 84 0.58% 1.48% 0.36% 0.49%' 0.00% 1.21% 0.50% 0.82% 0.49% 0.00%' 0.43% 1.98%, 0.85%' 2.45%, 2.14% 0.00% 1.87% 1.21% 0.86% 0.35% 2.98% 0.00% 2.43% 1.70% 2.25% 1.24% 0.97% 2.44% 0.00% 1.50% 1.90% 1.17% 2.06% 1.09% 1.63% 2.41% 2.50% 2.23% 2.63% 2 3 3 33 3 3 33 33 33 333 3 333 34 44 4 44 444 44 55 55 5. 5 5 7^1(:A 3.84% 10084 15300 59.39% 380 1.47% nm Page 14 24578 -233 -0.94% 23161 1112 4.52% 305 1,24% 24216 -595 -2.40% 22518 1239 5.12% 459 1.90% VP.XLS 26 ^38 21 71 52 59 89 94 70 65 77 81 92 88 84 108 91 82 98 Q7 99 86 93 85 80 90 101 100 95 101 109 78 97 83 96 355G 355H 356B-O 535D 555A 565B 725A 526 476J 565C 565E 566G 566H 7171 726F 726 F-g 756G 757 H 817D 956F 957G 1251 725B 725B-O 726D 726E 726E-a 726J 72(:,y. 726K-a 756G-O 766C 816B 817C 826A 2801 1669 784 313 3533' 1787 785 45 564 3435 3045 1964 2125 1103 1778 1365 3581 1837 1846 1402 573 2365 550 24 926 3227 ___0 4007 2073 ____4 271 ___24' 4011 ~3999 2983 173674 2565 1489 704 266 1391 672 543 ____ 428 868 1567 1704 1658 959 1637 1136 2527 1130 903 619 369 2232 545 ____ 530 2361 _____0 3465 1536 4 196 _____8 2611 1749 1973 112889 198 144 ___ 44 2092 1094 239 ____0 127 2543 1422 242 446 128 113 208 1010 670 925 737 196 119 ____3 0 385 842 ____0 492 507 ____0 74 ___16 1342 2205 974 58438 7.07% 8.63% 8.29% 14.06% 59.21% 61.22% 30.45% 0.00% 22.52%' 74.03%, 46.70% 12.32% 20.99% 11.60% 6.36% 15.24% 28.20% 36.47% 50.11% 52.57% 34.21% 5.03% 0.55% 0.00% 41.58% 26.09% #DIV/0! 12.28% 24.46% 0.00% 27.31% 66.67% 33.46% 55.14% 32.65% 33.65% 38 36 15 3 50 21 3 0 9 24 56 18 21 16 28 21 44 37 18 46 8 14 2 1 11 24 0 50 30 0 1 0 58 45 36 2347 1.36% 2.16% 1.91% 0.96% 1.42% 1.18% 0.38% 0.00% 1.60% 0.70% 1.84% 0.92% 0.99%' 1.45%' 1.57% 1.54% 1.23% 2.01% 0.98% 3.28% 1.40% 0.59% 0.36% 4.17% 1.19% 0.74% #DIV/0! 1.25% 1.45% 0.00% 0.37% 0.00% 1.45% 1.13% 1.21% 1.35% 5 5 5 5 5 5 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 1 J 1 24456 -355 -1.43% 19325 4681 19.14% 450 1.84% 24811 Page 15 24663 -148 -0.59% 15550 8767 35.55% 346 1.40% 24464 -347 -1.40% 173674 17233 6959 28.45% 272 1.11% 112889 58438 23474^ RECBVi^O APR 2 9 1994 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEAL FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT Office Of Desegrecafon Moniiomig NO. 93-3592 LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT V. PULASKI CTY. SPECIAL SCH. DIST. NO. 93-3469 LORENE JOSHUA V. LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DIST. NO. 93-3594 LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DIST. V. LORENE JOSHUA APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION THE HON. SUSAN WEBBER WRIGHT, DISTRICT JUDGE JOSHUA'S RESPONSE IN OPPOSITION TO LRSD'S MOTION TO REOPEN AND TO SUPPLEMENT THE RECORD Appellants, Lorene Joshua, et al., for their response in opposition to LRSD's motion to reopen and supplement the record state: 1. LRSD has submitted documents to this panel which are potentially prejudicial to the Joshua intervenor's appeal which is based upon the facts as they existed before the trial court. If the documents they submitted were an accurate portrayal of the facts which occurred after the trial of this matter, it would not be so offensive to the procedures of this court and fairness to the appellants. Such is not the case. 2. The alleged election results fail to inform the court of salient facts\nfacts which could not be developed at trialbecause they had not occurred, and facts which the district court was never informed of or ruled on. For instance, the alleged white candidate \"Gonzales \" was a write in candidate, not a registered candidate. His or her alleged defeat by the black candidate, the only candidate to file for the position. is neither surprising or inconsistent with racially polarized voting. In fact, if a white write in candidate can garner nearly 50% of the vote once the majority white voters discover that the only candidate to file is black, then Joshua would submit that that is evidence of a highly motivated racially polarized voting block. As to the other race in which the black candidate was allegedly defeated by a white candidate in a majority black district, Joshua would point out that the vote count in that race was surrounded by a great deal of controversy. One of the black candidates was initially declared the winner. It was later alleged that the vote counts were reversed and that the white candidate garnered the votes initially attributed to the black candidate. The reason that the challenge came so quickly was that most of the original vote attributed to the black candidate came from known white precincts. The white candidate could not believe he lost in the white areas. So he asked for a recount. LRSD has provided nothing but total vote counts. Where is the precinct analysis to show the actual correlation between the race of the voter and the race of the candidate? If the LRSD wants this Court to consider these subsequent races. it should ask for a fair presentation of additional factsand let each side present its witnesses. But that, as LRSD knows, is not the function of an appellate court. Rather, LRSD deliberately sought to prejudice this panel with these allegations of race neutral elections knowing that supplementation of the record at this stage was inappropriate. Judge Wright did not consider either of these elections and neither should this court. Unfortunately, the damage is done. 2. The record on appeal is limited by the Rule 10(a), Fed.R.App.P. , to \"the original papers and exhibits filed in the district court, the transcript of proceedings, if any, and a certified copy of the docket entries prepared by the clerk of the district court.\" Rule 10(e) allows modification and supplementation of the record under very limited circumstances: If anything material to either party is omitted from the record by error or accident or is misstated therein, the parties by stipulation, or the district court, either before or after the record is transmitted to the court of appeals, or the court of appeals, on proper suggestion or of its own initiative, may direct that the omission or misstatement be corrected, and if necessary that a supplemental record be certified and transmitted. 3. There are no provisions under the rules for submitting evidence which a party discovers after trial, or which occurs after trial as LRSD proposes to the court. WHEREFORE, Joshua Intervenors, respectfully prays the Court will deny LRSD's motion to reopen and supplement the record. Respectfully submitted. J'\u0026amp;hn W. Walker Mark Burnette Bar No. 64046 Bar No. 88078UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEAL FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT RECEh^ MAY 9 1994 ci Dssegregaiion Sontori.f\ng NO. 93-3592 LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT V. PULASKI CTY. SPECIAL SCH. DIST. NO. 93-3469 LORENE JOSHUA V. LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DIST. NO. 93-3594 LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DIST. V. LORENE JOSHUA APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION THE HON. SUSAN WEBBER WRIGHT, DISTRICT JUDGE MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME The Joshua Intervenors, for their Motion for an Extension of Time to File Their Reply Brief, states that: 1. The Appellants' Reply Brief in the above referenced consolidated appeals are due on May 10, 1994. 2. Due to the fact that the parties have been trying to reach a settlement on one of the appeals, an additional extension of time of twenty (20) days is necessary in which to file their reply brief. WHEREFORE, the Joshua Intervenors request an extension of time to and through May 30, 1994. Respectfully submitted,Jo! Ma: W. Walker ____________ Bar No. 64046 Burnette'- Bar No, 88078 DAVID SCHOEN, ESQ. P.O. Box 3483 Fayetteville, AR (501) 444-6200 72702 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing has been mailed, postage prepaid to the counsel of record listed below on this 5 day of May, 1994 . Steve Jones, Esq. JACK, LYON \u0026amp; JONES, P.A. 3400 Capitol Towers Capitol \u0026amp; Broadway Streets Little Rock, AR 72201 Christopher Heller, Esg. FRIDAY, ELDREDGE \u0026amp; CLARK 2000 First Commercial Building Little Rock, AR 72201 Sam Jones, Esq. WRIGHT, LINDSEY \u0026amp; JENNINGS 2200 Worthen Bank Building Little Rock, AR 72201 Richard Roachell, Esg. ROCHELL \u0026amp; STREETT 3400 Capitol Towers Capitol \u0026amp; Broadway Streets Little Rock, AR 72201 Ann Brown, Monitor Office of Desegregation Monitoring 210 East Markham Little Rock, AR 72201 John Walker ( U). i'UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEAL FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT NO. 93-3592 LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT V. PULASKI CTY. SPECIAL SCH. DIST. NO. 93-3469 LORENE JOSHUA V. LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DIST. NO. 93-3594 LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DIST. V. LORENE JOSHUA APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION THE HON. SUSAN WEBBER WRIGHT, DISTRICT JUDGE REPLY BRIEF OP APPELLANTS Respectfully submitted, John W. Walker JOHN W. WALKER, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR (501) 374-3758 Bar No. 64046 72206 DAVID SCHOEN, ESQ. P.O. Box 3483 120 West Spring Fayetteville, AR (501) 444-6200 72702pprc 8 y MAY 2 4 1994 REPLY INTRODUCTION Office of Desegregation Monitoring LRSD errs when it claims, \"In this appeal, the Charles Plaintiffs raise for the first time an argument based on the dispersion of black voters.\" Brief for Appellee, p. 13, n. 7. The Charles Plaintiffs raised the \"packing\" and \"dispersion\" arguments in both Plaintiffs' Trial Brief, p. 1-2, and Plaintiffs' Proposed Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law p. 7-8, 15 25-2 6, presented to the Court below at trial. These documents are submitted to this Court in the Addendum to this Reply Brief to clarify that the record below was made on these arguments. LRSD cites Shaw v. Reno 509 U.S. ___, 113 S.Ct. ___, 125 L.Ed.2d 511, 535 (1993) as though only the Charles Plaintiffs' proposed plan \"demands close judicial scrutiny,\" because \"[t]he Charles Plaintiffs advocate racial gerrymandering of the LRSD elections zones to create a third majority black zone.\" Brief for Appellee, p. 13-4. Close judicial scrutiny is required, but it is because the Pulaski County Board of Education (PCBE) and LRSD have II given the racial make-up of the LRSD election zones paramount consideration since at least 1986 when LRSD proposed racially gerrymandered districts approved by Judge Woods. Race has been considered by all the parties in devising their respective alternative election zones. If race had not already been a factor in the PCBE plan - as LRSD might like for this Court to assume in light of its reference to \"the goal of a political system in which race no long matters,\" then close judicial I scrutiny would not be required. But here, race was foremost on the SSRSSBSminds of LRSD in 1986 when it proposed the single member zones approved by Judge Woods. It is precisely that race conscious plan that plaintiffs challenged in this case. Race was foremost on the minds of the \"Metroplan\" staff hired by the PCBE to devise new election zones - the only variable that is reported in the four plans submitted by Metroplan to PCBE was the racial characteristics of the zones. It is precisely because race was such major consideration in PCBE and LRSD's a deliberations and planning that makes close scrutiny of their plans necessary. That is especially true now that the district court has condoned a plan that is retrogressive on minority voting strength relative even to the 1986 plan that plaintiffs originally challenged in this case. I. WHAT IS THE APPROPRIATE STANDARD FOR A \"SUFFICIENTLY LARGE\" MINORITY DISTRICT? The LRSD and the district court ascribe to a \"Catch 22\" standard for what constitutes \"sufficiently large and a geographically compact [minority] to constitute a majority in three LRSD elections zones.\" When it is the Charles Plaintiffs' burden, the district court and LRSD apply a standard of a minimum of 65% minority majority, \"otherwise, the PCBE plan for LRSD election zones cannot be responsible for minority voters inability to elect its candidates.\" Brief for Appellee, p. 16-7. As both amended  2 and its legislative history make clear, in evaluating a statutory claim of vote dilution through districting, the trial court is to consider the \"totality of circumstances\" and to determine, based \"upon a searching practical evaluation of the 'past and present reality' [] whether the political process is equally open to minority voters. This deteraination is peculiarly dependent upon thefacts of each case.\" Thornbugh v. Ginqles. 478 U.S. 79, 106 S.Ct. 2781, 92 L.Ed2 64 (1986). The district Court did not make a searching practical evaluation when it held plaintiffs to a 65% minimum minority population standard. It noted, in fact, that \"one of the zones in the plan adopted by the PCBE has a black population under 65%\" and. \"It is possible that black voters will be able to elect representatives of their choice with a black majority of less than 65% because of white 'crossover' votes, but this argument only goes to show that Little Rock does not suffer from racially polarized voting, another necessary precondition for a successful voting rights claim.\" Memorandum Opinion and Order. P. 25 (emphasis added). The Court's analysis ignores the reality and importance of white cross-over voting even in situations where legally significant racially polarized voting exists because legally significant racially polarized voting is a matter of degree not absolutes: \"[I]n general a white bloc vote that normally will defeat the combined strength of minority support plus white 'crossover' votes rises to the level of legally significant white bloc voting.\" Thornburgh v. Gingles. 478 U.S. 56, 106 S.Ct. at 2770 (emphasis added). To say that white crossover votes \"only goes to show\" that plaintiffs cannot prove legally significant racially polarized voting is erroneous in light of the Supreme Court's recognition of its presence among otherwise disenfranchised minority voters. The Court cannot hold the existing alliances with the few white voters who do not vote with the white bloc vote inthe LRSD against the Plaintiffs without recognizing that their presence also lowers the threshold for establishing a viable minority district. Hence, the existence and reliance on some white crossover voting also \"goes to show\" that a less than 65% minority population in a district may still be a viable minority majority district in the face of otherwise racially polarized voting. No testimony or evidence was presented at trial to dispute Charles Plaintiffs' proof that racially polarized white bloc voting is the norm among LRSD voters. The statistical evidence of the correlation between the race of the voter and the race of the candidate was overwhelming despite the district court's unsubstantiated belief to the contrary. Mr. Lynch's use of correlation coefficients and r- sguare are regression analyses. They are accepted statistical methods without further analysis, see Solomon v. Liberty County Florida. 899 F.2d 1012, 1020, although here, many of the precincts Mr. Lynch relied upon were homogeneous precincts with sufficiently high correlation coefficients to provide the confirmation that the correlation between the race of the voter and the race of the candidate did constitute racial voting in numerous elections over time. His uncontroverted testimony was that there was political cohesion among minority voters and that there was white bloc voting. Mr. Lynch's expertise and opinion was not based solely on statistics however. He is a recognized expert on local government and local elections due to his academic and professional backgroundand his constant participation in local electoral politics. He, more than anyone in this community, knows the voting blocs, patterns and practices in Little Rock. His experience can indeed form the basis for many of the elements of Plaintiff's voting rights claims. Sierra v. El Paso Independent School District. 591 F.Supp. 802 (W.D.Tex. 1983)(Even more persuasive to the court than the testimony of the expert witness, however, was the testimony of the practical politicians who are thoroughly familiar with voting behavior in El Paso County.\") In addition. numerous other politician witnesses testified to the racially polarized voting patterns in Little Rock elections in this case. No one testified to the contrary. Clearly, central Arkansas minority voters have been successful in single member district with less than a 65% majority and the district court should not hold them to a higher standard while giving the PCBE and LRSD the benefit of a lesser standard. However, if a 65% standard is adopted for plaintiffs, defendants should be held to the same standard or the Court will be condoning retrogression of minority voting rights. The 1986 Court Order establishing racially specified election zones is an admission that prior to the adoption of single member districts, the LRSD minority voters had suffered voting rights violations. If not, there would have been no justification for LRSD's use of a race conscious remedy at that point. If a 65% standard is applied, then PCBE's 59% district, which the Court adopted, falls short of the standard and results in retrogression relative to the 1986 plan which was adopted to remedy prior votingrights inequities. The Charles Plaintiffs' alternative plan, with three minority majority districts ranging from 61.7 to 64.7% black population, would provide over 81% of the minority voters a voice on the LRSD board of directors. Far less opportunity to participate in the electoral process and elect representatives of their choice results from the adoption of only two minority districts as approved by the court because less of the minority population is contained in them\nmoreover, in two other zones which the Court adopted, substantial numbers of minority voters will continue to be submerged in 65 and 72% white zones. II. THE CHARLES PLAINTIFFS WERE NOT PARTIES TO THE 1986 ORDER, AND THEREFORE, THE LAW OF THE CASE DOCTRINE DOES NOT APPLY OT THEIR CHALLENGE TO THE ELECTION DISTRICTS By Order of April 17, 1989, Joshua Intervenors represent the class of \"all past, present and future African-American or black public school age children of Pulaski County, Arkansas, and their parents or guardians.\" That Order was entered for the express purpose of approving the settlement then submitted to the court. LRSD Appendix, p. 1. Nothing in the settlement dealt with voting districts. That order, and the Stipulation adding Dale Charles in a representative capacity on March 1, 1889, obviously occurred after the 1986 Order adopting the election zones anyway. At no stage in the LRSD v. PCSSD litigation did Joshua Intervenors purport to represent the class of minority voters in the LRSD. The focus of the Joshua Intervenors has always been the rights of the minorityschool children, not their parents or guardian voting rights. Any representation that Joshua had in the case in 1986 would have been limited to protecting school age children and their parents and that representation does not cover all minority voters because it does not include minority voters who do not have school age children, \"past present or future. I in Pulaski County. What of the voting rights of minority voters with no children? Even if Joshua represented some voters' voting rights. which Joshua have never purported to do, they could never be held to have represented the class of minority voters explicitly excluded by the April 1989 Order. Only the Charles Plaintiffs, by a separate complaint filed on August 12, 1992, have purported to represent the class of minority voters in LRSD. It is absurd to hold all minority voters to an Order entered while they were not parties nor were they represented, and which was drafted and approved by the defendants named in their complaint. The law of the case doctrine simply does not apply to non-parties. It is not meant to restrain non-parties from asserting their rights as the district court has imposed it. The law of the case doctrine is intended to apply \"at subsequent stages of the same case.\" Memorandum and Opinion p. 27. The district court should not be allowed to hold non-parties to a standard set by these defendants simply by consolidating their 1992 action with a pending 1982 case. That, however. is what the district court has done. The whole purpose of the doctrine is to avoid \"re-litigation\" of issues\nbut here, no voting rights issues were ever litigated because no one had asserted a voting rightsclaim in 1986. As stated previously, the very need for the 1986 Order confirms that a voting rights violation existed prior to 1986. If one assumes that the 1986 Order was a necessary remedy to some violation, then it follows that elections prior to 1986 would have constituted voting rights violations. The fact of pre-1986 voting rights violations would be the case notwithstanding the district court's contrary findings in 1993 that there was no racially polarized voting or political cohesiveness among minorities, etc. Needless to say, at least in 1986, LRSD believed that a voting rights violation must have existed prior to 1986, or it would not have made race conscious decisions about the lines it was proposing to Judge Woods. If it did make race conscious decisions absent a voting rights violation, then the lines proposed at that time should be suspect on that basis. Re\ni^e^t JO^N 4? 3/23 - Litt\nectfull submitted WALKER, 1/Broadway bmrtted,\n\u0026gt; \u0026gt; i, P.A. I little Rock, Ar 72206 (501) 374-3758CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that two copies of the foregoing Brief has been hand delivered to the counsel of record listed below on this day of May, 1994. Steve Jones, Esq. Jack, Lyon \u0026amp; Jones, P.A. 3400 Capitol Towers Capitol \u0026amp; Broadway Streets Elizabeth Boyter, Esq. Arkansas Dept..of Education Little Rock, AR 72201 #4 Capitol Mall Little Rock, AR 72201 Christopher Heller, Esq. Friday, Eldredge \u0026amp; Clark 2000 First Commercial Building Jerry Malone, Esq. Little Rock School District Little Rock, AR 72201 810 West Markham Little Rock, AR 72201 Sam Jones, Esq. Wright, Lindsey \u0026amp; Jennings 2200 Worthen Bank Building Little Rock, AR 72201 Richard Roachell, Esq. Roachell \u0026amp; Streett 401 W. Capitol Ave. Suite 504 Little Rock, AR Ann Brown, Monitor Office of Desegregation Monitoring 210 East Markham Little Rock, AR 72201 Tim Humphries, Esq. Attorney General's Office 200 Tower Building 323 Center Street Little Rock, Ar 72201 ---------------7^^' John X. Walker f:\\W\\LRSD\\ARGUE.8THC:\\U\\LRSD\\ARGUE.8TH ADDENDUMIN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT, ET AL. PLAINTIFFS V. NO. LR-C-82866 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT, ET AL. DEFENDANTS MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL. INTERVENORS KATHERINE W. KNIGHT, ET AL. INTERVENORS DALE CHARLES, ET AL. V. LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT, ET AL. PLAINTIFFS* TRIAL BRIEF INTRODUCTION Defendants and the Court have recognized and conceded that the 1986 LRSD single member districts are out of compliance with the one-person one-vote requirement. A corrective plan must be adopted for that purpose in any event. Plaintiffs' will therefore focus on their allegation that the plan in current use, as well as the plan submitted to the court by the Pulaski County Board of Education, result in a violation of section 2 of the Voting Rights Act, as amended, 42 U.S.C. 1973. Courts have recognized two general methods by which minority group voting strength may be diluted: \"Dilution of racial minority voting strength may be caused by the dispersal of blacks into districts in which they constitute an ineffective minorityof voters or from the concentration of blacks into districts where they constitute an excessive majority, [citations omitted].\" Thornburgh v. Singles. 478 U.S. 30, ___, n.ll, 106 S.Ct. 2752, 2764, n. 11, 92 L.Ed.2d. 25 (1986)(The latter version of dilution is commonly called \"packing.\") \"Districts with a black majority greater than 65% - 70% (the percentage considered necessary to ensure blacks a reasonable opportunity to elect candidates of their choice) may evidence \"packing.\" Ketchum v. Byrne, 740 F.2d 1398, 1407-8, n. 7 (7th Cir. 1984)\nand see. Rybicki v. State Board of Elections of the State of Illinois. 574 F.Supp. 1082, 1120-21 (N.D. Ill. 1982) (three judge panel) (Rybicki I). Plaintiffs claim that both forms of dilution are at work under the current system, and alternatively, will continue under the plan submitted by the PCBE\ni.e., black voters are split up in several majority white zones to the extent that their votes are an ineffective minority in those zoned elections 33%, 28.5%, and 23.8% black population in zones 5, 6, and 7, respectively\nand they are overly concentrated in the two minority wards - 84.35% in the current zone 1, and 74.97% in zone 2. In the PCBE's recent submission to the court, zone 1 still retains a packed 79.82% majority black district in zone 1, and minority voters still dispersed in large pockets in zones 5, 6, and 7. I. LEGAL STANDARDS A. Proof Required to Demonstrate a Section 2 Violation: The seminal case for analysis of vote dilution claims under section 2 of the Voting Rights Act is Thornburgh v. Gingles. 478U.S. 30, 106 S.Ct. 2752, 92 L.Ed.2d 25 (1986). In Ginqles. the Court set out a three part test, and its rationale, which plaintiffs must meet to prove their case: First the demonstrate minority that group must be able to it is sufficiently large and geographically compact to constitute a majority in a single member district. If it is not, as would be the case in a substantially integrated district, the multimember form of the district cannot be responsible for minority voter's inability to elect its candidates. [footnote omitted] [citations omitted].. . Second, the minority group must be able to show that it is politically cohesive. minority group is not politically cohesive. If the it cannot be said that the selection of a multimember electoral structure thwarts distinctive minority group interests. [citation omitted] Third, the minority must be able to demonstrate that the white majority votes sufficiently as a bloc to enable it- in the absence of special circumstances, the minority candidate running unopposed. such as see. infra, at 57, and n. 26  usually to defeat the minority's omitted] preferred candidate. [citations In establishing this last circumstance. the minority group demonstrates that submergence in a white multimember district impedes its ability to elect its chosen representatives. 478 U.S. 50-1, 106 S.Ct. 2767, 92 L.Ed.2d 46-7. Besides \"running unopposed,\" the Supreme Court referred to other \"special circumstances\" affecting the third precondition. such as, \"incumbency, or the utilization of bullet voting [to] explain minority electoral success in a polarized context.\" Id. at 57, 106 S.Ct. 2770. It cautioned that \"[t]his list of special circumstances is illustrative, not exclusive.\" Id. at 57, n.26. 106 S.Ct. 2770. The Senate Report expressly states that election of a few minority candidates does not necessarily foreclose the possibility of vote dilution. noting that if it did. the possibility exists that the majority citizens might evade [ 2] by manipulating the election of a safe minority candidate.\" Id., 106s.ct. at 2779. And in a footnote, the Court quoted Zimmer v. McKeithen. 485 F.2d. 1297, 1307 (CA5 1973) with approval\n\"...Such success might. on occasion. be attributable to the work of politicians. who. apprehending that the support of black a candidate would be politically expedient, campaign to insure his election.\" Id., 106 S.ct. at 2780. The appointment of a black board member is comparable to campaigning for that person because in subsequent elections, he gains the benefit of incumbency. a special circumstance which can explain his success. In Gingles, the Court went on to assess the sustained electoral successes in North Carolina House District 23 under the standards it had announced: 1 In some situations, it may be possible for  2 plaintiffs to demonstrate that such sustained electoral success does not accurately reflect the minority group's ability to elect its preferred representative, but appellees have not done so here. Appellees presented evidence relating to black electoral success in the last three elections\nthey failed utterly, though, to offer any explanation for the success of black candidates in the previous three elections. Consecfuentlv, we believe that the District Court erred as a matter of law, in ignoring the sustained success black voters have enioved in House District 23, and would reverse with respect to that District. Id. at ___, 106 S.ct. 2780 (emphasis added). The \"evidence relating to black electoral success in the last three elections,\" which the court refers to, was the fact that each black candidate ran essentially unopposed. See. Gingles V. 1 House District 23 was a three member district in which a black person had been elected in 1972, 1974, 1976, 1978, 1980, and 1982. Holding one seat was essentially proportional representation for black voters in the district.Edmiston. 590 F. Supp. 345, 370 (E.D.N.C. 1984)(\"Black candidate Spaulding ran uncontested in the general election in 1978 and in the primary and general election in 1980. In the 1982 election there was no Republican opposition and the general election was, for all practical purposes, unopposed.\" Id.) However, there was no evidence in the record to explain the success of black candidates in 1972, 1974, and 1976. Had all of the elections been uncontested, the Court presumably would have affirmed the lower court on House District No. 23 as well. It is clear that the Court identified at least three \"special circumstances\" that may satisfactorily demonstrate that sustained success does not accurately reflect the minority's ability to elect its preferred representatives: incumbency, uncontested elections and the utilization of bullet voting. Clearly there are more though. In addition to the three Gingles factors discussed above, the legislative history of  2 enumerated several other objective factors to guide courts in analyzing whether there is a violation of minority voting rights under  2: (1) The extent of any history of official discrimination in the state or political subdivision that touched the right of the members of the minority group to register, to vote. or democratic process\notherwise to participate in the voting in the (2) the extent to which elections of the state or political subdivision is racially polarized\n(3) the extent to which the state or political subdivision has used unusually large election districts, majority vote requirements, anti- single shot practices provisions. or other voting or procedures that may enhance opportunity for discrimination against the minority group\n(4) if there is a candidate slating process, whether the members of theminority group have been denied access to that process\n(5) the extent to which members of the minority group in the state or political subdivision bear the effects of discrimination in such areas as education, employment and health, which hinders their participate effectively in ability to the political process\n(6) whether the political campaigns have been characterized by overt or subtle racial appeals\nmembers of (7) the extent the minority group to have which been elected to public office in the jurisdiction (8) whether there is a significant lack of responsiveness on the part of elected officials to the particularized needs of the minority group and (9) whether the policy underlying the sate or political subdivisions' use of such voting qualifications, prerequisite to voting, standard, practice or procedure is tenuous. S.Rep. No. 417, at 28-9, H.R.Rep.No. 227, at 30, 1982 U.S. Code Cong. \u0026amp; Ad. News at 206-7. In light of these extensive factual underpinnings in vote dilution claims, this Circuit has adopted a stringent requirement for factual and legal reasoning from the lower courts to make its appellate review possible: Because the resolution of a voting dilution claim requires close analysis of unusually complex factual patterns, and because the decision in such a case has the potential for serious interference with state functions, we have strictly adhered to the Rule 52 (a) requirements in voting dilution cases and have required district courts to explain with particularity the reasoning and the subsidiary factual reasoning. conclusions underlying their Buckanaqa v. Sisseton Ind. School District. No. 54-5, South Dakota. 804 F.2d 469, 472 (Sth Cir. 1986) (quoting Velasquez v. Citv of Abilene. 725 F.2d 1017, 1020 (5th Cir. 1984). B. Where the Parties Stand on Remedial Plans\nIf the court finds either a violation of the constitutionalEfl one-person one-vote requirement or section 2 of the Voting Rights Act, then the court ordinarily must give the responsible legislative body an opportunity to adopt a remedial plan for future elections. Reynolds v. Sims. 377 U.S. 533, 586, 12 L.Ed.2d 506, 541, 84 S.Ct. 1362 (1964)). The desire to give \"the appropriate legislative body the first opportunity to devise an acceptable remedial plan\" is traceable to Supreme Court precedent in state legislative reapportionment cases but that deference may be lost or ignored by the \"appropriate governmental agency\": \"reapportionment is primarily a matter for legislative consideration and determination, and [] judicial relief becomes appropriate only when a legislature fails to reapportion according to federal constitutional requisites in a timely fashion after having had an adequate opportunity to do so.\" Id. at 586, 12 L.Ed.2d 506, 541, 84 S.Ct. 1362 (1964)). A court owes no deference, however, if the responsible legislative body fails to act according to its legal authority, or acts without legal authority. East Carroll Parish School Bd. v. Marshall, 424 U.S. 636, 47 L.Ed.2d 296, 96 S.Ct. 1083 (1976). In Wise V. Lipscomb. 437 U.S. 535, 545, 57 L.Ed.2d 411, 420-1, 98 S.Ct. 2493 (1978), Justice White explained summarized the distinction in two cases\n\"In [East Carroll Parish! the District Court instructed the East Carroll police reapportionment plans. jury and school boards to file arrangements which the court adopted. They both submitted multi-member We held that the District Court erred in approving a multi-member plan because \"when United States district courts are put to the task of fashioning reapportionment plans to supplant concededly invalid state legislation, single member districts are to be preferred absent unusual circumstances, [citation omitted]. In reaching this conclusion, however, we emphasized that the bodies which submitted the plans did not reapportion themselves and. furthermore. could purport to not evenlegally do so under federal law because state legislation providing them with such powers had been disapproved by the Attorney General of the United States under section 5 of the Voting Rights Act. Under these circtimstances, it was concluded that the mere act of submitting a plan was not the eguivalent of a legislative act of reapportionment performed in accordance with the political process of the community in guestion. 437 U.S. at 545, 57 L.Ed.2d 420 (White, J.). The situation facing this Court is most like that in East Carroll Parish School Board v. Marshall and can be thoroughly distinguished from Wise v. Lipscomb. The Pulaski County Board of Education (PCBE) has the authority to adopt a plan, but has explicitly refused to do so. It has passed a motion merely to \"submit\" one possible plan to this Court for this Court to approve for implementation and order its adoption. (See \"Minutes of the December 29, 1992 PCSB Meeting Plaintiff's Exhibit And see Pulaski County Board of Education's Motion For Approval of Election Zones. and Pulaski County Board of Education's Response to Plaintiffs' Objections, Response and Memorandum Regarding the Court's Order of February 16, 1993 at 2, paragraph 8\n\"The Board of Education is not an adversary in this proceeding. It is a party only because Ark. Code Ann.  6- 13-607 gives it responsibility to create election zones. That authority was overridden by this Court in 1986, and this Court has the final authority at this time.\") Consequently, PCBE has abandoned its duty and authority to this Court. Plaintiffs do not agree with the PCBE's interpretation that this Court has \"overridden\" its authority, but can only accept its current position as stated in these pleadings that it is not asserting any authority to adopt any plan. The PCSB does notpurport to have reapportioned the LRSD through any legislative authorization. In keeping with this position, PCBE defendants passed no resolutions to indicate that the PCBE adopted this proposed plan. They claim to act merely as agents of the Court, not within their statutory capacities in submitting this proposal. Nevertheless, there are clear statutory methods by which the PCBE, or the LRSD for that matter, could have adopted a legitimate \"legislative\" proposal. Ark. Code Ann.  6-13-607 and -630,2 respectively. But neither has chosen to do adopt a plan even after this Court's September Order directing the PCBE to do so. These are the only ways by which the defendants may legislate an alternative to the current electoral mechanism which plaintiffs allege violates the 14th amendment to the U.S. Constitution and section 2 of the Voting Rights Act. Having failed to produce a validly approved legislative plan. the PCBE's plan can only be viewed as a recommendation of the individual members of the board. See Garza v. County of Los Angeles. 918 F.2d 763, 776 (9th Cir.) cert, denied. Ill S.Ct. 681 (1990)(\"[T]he plan that the Board submitted to the district court could not, under the County's charter, have been considered a Board Redistricting plan, because only three members voted in favor of 2 Ark. Code Ann. 6-13-630 states: \"The board of directors of any school district [] authority to provide by resolution adopted by a majority of the vote Fof the board] that a portion of the board shall be elected by zone, at-large, or a combination thereof... Every such resolution adopted by the board of directors of such district shall adopt a plan of election for members of the board of directors which will cause the selection procedure to be in compliance with the Voting Rights Act of 1965.\"it, not the four required for such matters.\" Id.) Here, the board refused to even adopt the plan according to the statutory authority which this Court cited to indicate that it \"is appropriate for the County Board to address the issue of LRSD zones.\" Thus it does not claim to have adopted a plan at all, but as submits one for the court to adopt. Consequently, PCSB's December 29, 1992, proposal gains legal effect only if this Court orders the implementation of that particular plan through its equitable authority. East Carroll Parish, supra. The Court should evaluate the 1986 zones under the totality of the circumstances because that is only plan currently in effect in LRSD. If it finds a voting rights violation under that plan, then the question is whether the court will have fully remedied the violation if it adopts the PCBE's plan. Plaintiffs submit that that plan will not remedy the current voting rights violations. See Jeffers v. Clinton. 730 F.Supp. 196, 217 (E.D.Ark. 1989): We know, and have found in this opinion, how many [single member districts with a majority black voting age population] can be created, and we also know that their lines can be drawn so as to make them compact and conti' therefore, a sort of presumption that an OUS. There is, Id. II. contain that number of majority black districts. Ian adopted should The law as Applied to the Facts A. The Minority Population is Geographically Concentrated Such That Drawn that Out of Seven Single Member Districts Can be e Majority Black. The plaintiffs will established that black minority voters are sufficiently numerous and geographically compact to constitute amajority in three out of seven single member districts in LRSD. Plaintiffs' demographer, will testify that an alternative districting plan which he drafted based upon 1990 census data creates three districts in which the minority population makes up 64.7%, 64.0 Q, s and 61.7 majorities, respectively. The 1990 census shows that the black voting age population (BVAP) in these districts would be only about 4% lower than the black percentage of the total population. This alternative plan clearly establishes that the Plaintiffs met the first of the three factors the Supreme Court identified in Thornburgh v. Ginqles. Plaintiffs point out that this plan is merely meant to persuade the Court that such districts are feasible. The PCBE would have to draft the actual boundaries of the wards if the court finds a violation of the Voting Rights Act. Of course. the PCBE could agree to accept the plaintiffs construction or a variation thereof. B. Minority Political Cohesiveness and the Usual Defeat of the Minority Preferred Candidates The other two Gingles factors are subsumed in Senate Factors 2 and 7, and will be discussed together. Evidence of racially polarized voting is the linchpin of a section 2 vote dilution claim and is relevant to establish two of the three elements set forth in the Gingles decision - political cohesiveness, and ability of white majority to usually defeat the black preferred candidate. See, Gingles. 106 S.Ct. 2769. The second condition required under Gingles. proof that the minority group is politically cohesive, will be amply demonstrated by Mr. Lynch's analysis of voting results in local elections overa period of the last eight years. \"A showing that a significant number of minority group members usually vote for the same candidate is one way of proving political cohesiveness necessary to a vote dilution claim [citation omitted] and consequently establishes minority bloc voting within the context of  2.\" Gingles. 106 S.Ct. at 2769-70. Plaintiffs will present statistical analysis of election results for Little Rock City Board elections and LRSD elections in which a black candidate ran against a white candidate.^ Numerous courts have recognized the importance and relevance of \"exogenous\" elections when polarized voting cannot sufficiently be shown with the elections in the particular forum being challenged. See, Westwego Citizens for Better Government v. Westwego. 872 F.2d 1201, 1207-10 (5th Cir. 1989)\nand see. Citizens for a Better Gretna v. City of Gretna. 834 F.2d 496 (5th Cir 1987). The Little Rock City Board of Directors elections are particularly relevant elections in this case because these elections are local in nature, they encompass nearly the identical voters who make up the school district electorate, and they confirm the racially polarized voting data obtained in the two school board elections that were appropriate to analyze. Without exception, elections in Little Rock, Arkansas, are characterized by racially polarized voting. Voting in the City of 3 Although it is the minority's preferred candidate that is at issue, none of the courts, including the Supreme Court in Gingles. considered \"whites only\" elections. Therefore, white versus white elections were not analyzed by the plaintiffs in this case, nor should they have been. East Jefferson Coalition v. Jefferson Parish. 691 F.Supp. 991, 1000 (E.D.La. 1988) citing. Smith V. Clinton. 687 F.Supp. 1310, (E.D. Ark 1988).Little Rock Board of Directors races, as well as relevant LRSD races, is extremely racially polarized. In all but one election for which precinct data was available (1986 to present), a statistically significant correlation exists between the support for the black candidate in a precinct group and the percentage of the voting age population in the precinct that is black. The higher the percentage of black voting age population. the higher the vote percent for the black candidate. The analogous correlation exists in the white precincts, indicating white block voting. The higher the white percentage of the voting age population, the higher the vote for the white candidate. Lynch's analysis, a bivariate regression analysis, provides the same detailed statistical basis for a finding of political cohesion that the Supreme Court and other courts have relied upon. Gingles. 106 S.Ct. at 2768 and 2771\nSee also, Campos v. Citv of Baytown, Texas. 840 F.2d 1240, 1245-6, \u0026amp; n.9, aff en banc, 849 F.2d (5th Cir. 1988)(\"r\" values for black voting data ranged from .52 to .90, with a mean of .76, and \"r-squared\" ranged from .27 to 81, with a mean of .61.)\nand see. Citizens for a Better Gretna. 834 F.2d at 499-500, n.7 and 8. The degree of polarization as measured by the \"r\" and \"r-square\" presented for the City of Little Rock and LRSD board of directors elections (\"r\" values for black voting data ranged from ___ to , and \"r-squared\" values range from to ) is comparable to that shown in Gingles and Campos. Because of the high degree of bloc voting by black voters in city and school board elections over an extended period of time.the plaintiffs will have established that the black minority is politically cohesive. This evidence will successfully establish the second of the three Gingles preconditions. The plaintiffs will also meet their burden of proof in establishing the third Gingles condition: \"that the white majority votes sufficiently as a bloc to enable it - in the absence of soecial circumstances. such as the minority candidate running unopposed, see, infra, at 57, 92 L.Ed.2d, 51, and n. 26  usually to defeat the minority's preferred candidate.\" Proof of white bloc voting was equally as strong as black bloc voting. The correlation coefficients and precinct data are overwhelming. Absent special circumstances. only the black candidates that have run in majority black wards have been successful. For instance, Lottie Shackelford, a black city board member. was able to win in city board races, but she was first appointed by an all white board. In elections since then, she has also had the benefit of being an incumbent or running unopposed. The election of black candidates from majority black school district wards are also \"special circumstances\" which explain why these elections are not accurate reflections of the minority voters ability to elect representatives of their choice in LRSD elections. C. Other Relevant Senate Factors 1. The extent of any history of official discrimination in the state or political subdivision that touches the right of the members of the minority group to register, to vote, or otherwise participate in the democratic process\nSince reconstruction, official discrimination has ranged from total disenfranchisement of black voters - to whites only primaries- to poll taxes\nall were designed to severely limit black voting rights. Perkins v. City of West Helena. 675 F.2d. 201, 211 (Sth Cir) aff'd mem.. 459 U.S., 801, 103 S.Ct. 33, 74 L.Ed.2d 47 (1982). As the courts have held, these facts need not be proven anew in each case under the Voting Rights Act. Jeffers v. Clinton. 730 F. Supp. 196, 204 (E.D.Ark.) aff'd mem.. ___U.S. ____, 109 S.Ct. 548 L.Ed.2d 576 (1988) (\"We do not believe that this history of discrimination, which affects the exercise of the right to vote in all elections under state law, must be proved anew in each case under the Voting Rights Act.\" Id. quoting. Smith v. Clinton. 687 F. Supp. 1310, 1317-8 (E.D. Ark. 1988). Therefore, this court should take judicial notice that there is history of racial discrimination in the electoral process in Arkansas which a necessarily inhibits full participation in the political process even today. Id.\nsee also. Smith v. Clinton. 687 F. Supp. 1310, 1317-8 (E.D. Ark. 1988). 11. The extent to which the state or political subdivision has used unusually large election districts, majority vote requirements, anti-single shot provisions, or other voting practices or procedures that may enhance the opportunity for discrimination against the minority group\n\" Legislation from the 1987 Arkansas General Assembly established a majority vote requirement for all school board elections thereafter. Acts 1987, No 845,  1,2, Ark. Code Ann.  6-14-121 (1991 Cum. Supp.) See generally. Jeffers v. Clinton. 740 F.Supp. 585, 594 (E.D.Ark. 1990)(Three Judge panel opinion finding that \"inference of racial motivation is inescapable,\" in that Arkansas municipal run-off statutes from 1975, 1983, and 1989 were directly responsive to black successes in plurality elections andthat \"this series of laws represents a systematic and deliberate attempt to reduce black political opportunity.\" Id. at 595 (Arnold, Richard, J. writing for the majority)). Although a majority vote requirement is not a per se violation of section 2, the potential for dilutive effects is increased when the three Gingles factors exist, as they do here. See, Gingles. 106 S.Ct. 2767. 111. The extent to which the membership of the minority group in the state or political subdivision bear the effects of discrimination in such areas as education, employment, and health, which hinders their ability to participate effectively in the political process\n\" The history of discrimination in education and employment is well known to anyone with a cursory knowledge of the history of the South, and Arkansas in particular. As a hangover of this history. black per capita income in Pulaski County in 1990 was roughly 50% of the per capita income for whites. Disparities in educational achievements are well known to this Couirt, and are traceable to historic discrimination in the public education provided by the LRSD. Poverty rates and income levels in every category also show the present day effects of the history of discrimination on these socio-economic indicia. (See Plaintiffs' Exhibits - ___.) \"Courts have recognized that political participation by minorities tends to be depressed where the minority group members suffer effects of prior discrimination such as inferior education, poor employment opportunities, and low incomes.\" Thornburgh v. Gingles. 106 S.Ct. 2776 (citations omitted). The \"hangover from this history necessarily inhibits full participation in the political process.\" 687 F.Supp. at 1317.CONCLUSION Analyzing the totality of circumstances in LRSD reveals that the political realities do not afford minority voters an equal opportunity to participate and elect representatives of their choice as are afforded white voters. Respectfully submitted, John W. Walker, 64046 Mark Burnette, Bar# 88078 JOHN W. WALKER, P.A. 1723 S. Broadway Little Rock, Ar. 72205 (501) 374-3758IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT, ET AL. PLAINTIFFS V. NO. LR-C82-866 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT, ET AL. DEFENDANTS MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL. INTERVENORS KATHERINE W. KNIGHT, ET AL. INTERVENORS PROPOSED FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF L^ 1. This voting rights case also involves three questions, (i) whether the present plan by which school directors are elected in the Little Rock School District are significantly imbalanced to such an extent as to require creation of new zone lines to bring them into compliance with the \"one-man one-vote\" requirements of law, (ii) whether the 1986 zones currently result in a dilution of minority voting strength. and (iii) whether the remedial plan presented by the Pulaski County Board of Education will result in a violation of the Voting Rights Act,  1973, as amended. The parties to this action are the class of school children represented by the Joshua Intervenors and Plaintiffs Dale Charles, Robert L. Brown, Sr. , Gwen Hervey, Diane Davis and Raymond Frazier. These adult plaintiffs are citizens of the United States who claim that their rights under the 14th Amendment and the Voting Rights Act of 1973, as amended. are adversely affected by the 2 . present and proposed plan for electing school board members, adult plaintiffs raise basic voting rights issues which are The4 sufficiently similar to or related to the remedial needs of the class to cause the Court to consolidate the cases. See Order of Consolidation [date]. 3 . The defendants are the members of the Board of Education of the Little Rock School District, individually and in their official capacities\nCloyd \"Mac\" Bernd, in his capacity as Superintendent of Schools of the Little Rock School District\nand the members of the County Board of Education of Pulaski County, in their offficial capacities as members of the County Board of Education. 4. The Pulaski County Board of Education (hereafter \"the County Board\") is an agent, generally, for the three Pulaski County School Districts including the Little Rock School District with respect to certain functions that it provides or performs. It is specifically delegated by Ark. Code Ann.  6-13-607, the function of drawing or redrawing school district school election zones for I the Little Rock School District. Although it has had this responsibility by statute since 1986, it has never performed this function. The Little Rock School District performed the function in 1986 and the District Court approved the District's plan. 5. In 1986, pursuant to the annexation of certain areas of the Pulaski County , School District to the Little Rock School District, the Little Rock School District proposed and the Court accepted a redistricting plan by which school zone lines were drawn. It was a single-member election zone plan by which seven zones, of approximate equal populations were created. Two of the PAGE 2zones created were majority African American. 6. The complaint herein was filed by Dale Charles and the other plaintiffs on July 23, 1992. The complaint was amended on August 18, 1992. 7. The Little Rock School District, on or about July 31, 1992, moved to postpone the school district election and to reform the Little Rock School District election zones. In that motion. Little Rock also urged that the zone lines be reformed in a way that does not \"abridge or deny the rights of minorities to vote. 11 8. On or about July 31, 1992, the school district also moved to dismiss, stating, in effect. II that relief should not be granted to the plaintiffs because it would upset relief provided by Court Order herein on December 18, 1986 and that relief would punish the school district for implementing a plan which was approved by the Court.\" The school district further argued that the complaint should be dismissed because it failed to state a claim upon which relief could be granted. 9. On August 18, 1992, this Court entered a Stipulated Order postponing the school elections until further Orders of the Court. On August 18, 1992, the Joshua Intervenors and plaintiffs filed an opposition to the school district's Motion to Dismiss arguing that Little Rock created the zones presently in use and that the zones had in effect become significantly imbalanced both from a race and \"one-man one-vote\" perspective. 10. On or about September 1, 1992, the County Defendants moved to dismiss because they did not wish to be forced to \"violate PAGE 3the Order of December 18, 1986, in a separate suit.\" 11. On September 24, 1992, the Court Ordered the County Board to determine whether the election zones were out of compliance with the \"one-man one-vote\" principle and to redraw the lines if necessary. 12. The County Board proceeded to address that issue. It determined that the lines were out of compliance after directing or commissioning the Metropolitan Area Planning Commission (Metroplan), a public planning agency for the various governmental units within Pulaski County to investigate that allegation. The County Board also directed or commissioned Metroplan to devise a remedial plan pursuant to the Court Order of September 24, 1992. 13. The County Board was directed by the September 24, 1993 Order to \"be mindful of LRSD school attendance zones\" should the County Board \"find it necessary to redraw the zones.\" The County Board never agreed upon what was meant by this language of the Court and, also, never sought clarification. 14. The County Board developed criteria to guide Metroplan in its redistricting work. Those criteria included\n(a) minimum change of existing zone lines\nand (b) keeping voting precincts together. 15. The County Board did not direct Metroplan to consider the voting rights questions raised by the lawsuit. 16. On November 30, 1992, December 7,^1992, and December 29, 1992, the County Board held public meetings regarding the plan revisions. The plaintiffs' representatives were present at each PAGE 4meeting. Little Rock School Board members were also present although none were present for all of the meetings. 17. The plaintiffs presented plans to the County Board at each meeting which purported to address both the \"one-man one-vote\" and voting rights concerns of the plaintiffs. School Board members Dorsey Jackson and Bill Hamilton were perhaps the most vocal Little Rock School Directors to address the issue. Jackson took the view, as he has taken in Court, that the plaintiffs and the African American community already have nearly proportional representation in that 28.3% of the Board is of their race while their population is 33 g, *0  His argument is that with time and demographic change, a third majority African American zone could evolve. Hamilton's view was directly opposite, i.e., the numbers favor a third majority African American district now and that, due to the concerns and needs of that population segment, equality and equity concerns would fare better with a third minority district. He also pointed out that a creation of an African American district does not necessarily mean that that community will elect a member from that racial group to the board. A major difference between the two perspectives focused upon the concept of \"stability,\" with Jackson arguing, in effect, for a plan which did not result in changing the present board membership. His argument is essentially an argument which provides some degree of protected status to incumbents. 18. On December 29, 1992, the County Board voted to present one plan for bringing the present zone lines into balance. The PAGE 5vote was along racial lines in that the four white County Board members voted for it while the one African American Board member voted against it. On February 16, 1993, the County Board submitted its proposed new election zone plan to this Court. On or about February 19, 1993, the plaintiffs filed their opposition to the County Board of Education's approval of these election zones. 20. The plaintiffs contend that the remedial plans devised at the request of the County Board do not address the voting rights issue\nthe defendants agree. In fact the County Board has never addressed the voting rights question other than to say that to do so would violate the 1986 Court Order herein. 21. The Little Rock School Defendants urge that they have no role in this matter other than as an observer and that they have no duty under the statute or otherwise to address the voting rights issues. Therefore, although they deny the voting rights 19. allegations, if their position is accepted they have no standing to assert a defense of the voting rights issue. If that is the case, the defense of the voting rights issues must be made, if at all, by the County Board and that board does not address the issue as it has been presented by the present complaints except to plead res judicata, i.e., the 1986 Court Decision. 22. Both the County Board and the Little Rock School Board and their members have failed to respond to the voting rights issues raised herein on the basis of the evidence and allegations raised by plaintiffs. PAGE 623. The plaintiffs sought to establish the \"one-man one-vote\" violation by showing significant imbalance in the population of the 1986 zones. The \"ideal\" zone would be approximately 24,800. The 1986 zones range from approximately 8,600 below the norm to approximately 7,500 above the norm of 24,800. Defendants admit these population disparities. 24. The plaintiffs have assumed the burden of bringing these violations to light and remedy. They are the prevailing party. therefore, with respect to their allegations regarding \"one-man one-vote.\" They are also the prevailing parties with respect to the voting rights violations because of both the proof which they presented to the Court and the legal position or lack of legal position which has been taken by the defendants. The Court will proceed to address the proof of the violations. 25. The plaintiffs have also demonstrated that the present zones lines are significantly racially imbalanced. Zone One (1) is 85% African American and Zone Two (2) is 77.5% African American. This significant imbalance demonstrates that African Americans are \"packed\" into Zones One (1) and Two (2) . Of approximately 58,000 African American citizens. approximately 31,000 of them are concentrated in the two zones where they have an opportunity to elect representatives of their choice. The other 27,000, about an equal number, are all dispersed so that they have no effective opportunity to significantly influence director election in any of the remaining five zones. It is clear that were the five majority white zones standing alone in an at-large system, African American PAGE 7voters could not elect a single director of their choice provided, of course, they could not show the other requirements of law. Onefourth (^) of the population ought reasonably be able to elect at least one of five directors in these zones. Thus, African American voters are submerged within these zones just as surely as they would be in a purely at-large system. 26. The plaintiffs contend that Zones 3 through 7 of the present system are analogous to an at-large election system because those zones, as they are constituted, effectively dilutes their vote. They further contend that the State cannot dilute African American voting strength by either concentrating it in the form of \"packing\" or by having it dispersed so as to be ineffective within the context of a polarized voting system. 27. The plaintiffs further sought to establish liability by addressing the other \"senate factors\" relevant to a vote dilution claim. See Thornburg v. Gingles, 478 U.S. 30, ___ 106 S.Ct. 2752 (1986). The District, itself, has been continuously under Court Orders to desegregate since 1957. Most recently in 1984, this Court entered an Order, partially on the motion of the school district, finding that the District had not extricated itself from its segregated history and that many of its continuing practices violate the law. Pursuant to the liability findings of the Court, the Little Rock School District entered into a settlement with African American plaintiffs and the two other school districts whereby it committed by a specific plan to cease practices of discrimination and to eliminate vestiges of discrimination. This PAGE 8Court has repeatedly, and recently, expressed its concern that the district was not implementing its desegregation plan in good faith. Indeed, several of the board members have shown disregard for the plan and lack of commitment to it. Those findings are a incorporated into this record by reference. 28. The plaintiffs have also shown that the school board has not had a public discussion of the voting rights case to this date. This is an indication that the school board does not view the concerns of the plaintiffs seriously. This is consistent with this Court's earlier findings of bad faith on the part of the Little Rock School District. Good faith requires that the school board take seriously the issues which are raised by the minority community and reply to them even though the reply may not be in the form. content or result which the minority prefers. These are facts showing a lack of responsiveness to the particular concerns of the minority voters. 29. School board members have also acknowledged this lack of responsiveness to minority concerns. See the testimony of Dorsey Jackson and Willie Hamilton. There is no contrary evidence. 30. The school district's plan of desegregation recognizes the existence of significant educational achievement disparities between students of African American descent and others. This is an area of inquiry on the subject of responsiveness. The district has not effectively addressed the issue of remediation of achievement disparities. That failure indicates that the board either does not wish to do so or has not implemented the plan as PAGE 9expected and promised. 31. Moreover, the Board of Education was the initial moving party and plaintiff in the desegregation case. It sought to promote a plan which involved the other two school districts in the county which maximized student exchange, interdistrict assignments. and other desegregation programs. It was held to be the prevailing party by this Court. As a moving party in this case, insofar as the students are concerned, the Little Rock School District has been derelict. The Court has spent far more time addressing the concerns which it has regarding plan implementation with the Little Rock School District than it has with either of the two other school districts. The Court here notes that the other two school districts have also abandoned or changed their method of either school directors from at-large to single districts. North Little Rock has seven single-member districts, of which Zones 1 and 2 are 58.8% and 59.9%, respectively. The North Little Rock district is between 45-50% African American while the Pulaski County African American population is between 30-35%. African American students, it has been contended by both plaintiffs and the Little Rock School District, stand in greater need of more and more effective advocates on their behalf. Therefore, it follows not only that should Little Rock be held to no lower standard in determining the number of African American election districts, but there is a compelling reason for having more, i.e.. the very need urged by the school district to the Court. Board representation of those interests by persons of their choice is the PAGE 10most effective form of advocacy. 32. The plaintiffs have presented further evidence of the circumstances that underlie the basis for a different kind of a plan. The City of Little Rock has a population of approximately 175,795, of which as of 1990, 59,742 were African American. This is closely analogous to the school district population which is 173,674, of which 58,438 are African American. See Plaintiffs' Exhibits and The school age population, however, in the City of Little Rock, is roughly 30,500, of which roughly 52% are African Americans. Virtually all of the African American children attend the public school system while approximately 60% of the \"other\" population does so. See Plaintiffs' Exhibit The per capita income of African Americans within the City of Little Rock is $7,559 while it is $19,395 for others. In other words. the African American per capita income is approximately 40% of the average income for other persons who are primarily white. The poverty status is determined by that number of persons who have an income below or above a certain figure. Of the white population, of approximately 111,600, only 7.1% were below that figure in 1990. Of the 58,553 persons of African American descent, 28.9 were below poverty. The conclusion to be drawn from % these statistics is that the African American poverty rate is at least 4 times that of the white poverty rate. Moreover, when poverty is assessed more carefully by family type and the presence of children, one of the principle concerns of the class represented PAGE 11by Joshua, the poverty rate of African American female heads of households is nearly 50%. See Plaintiffs' Exhibit 33. The statistics show that African Americans are more likely to be unemployed or not in the labor force. African Americans are less likely to have vehicles available, a factor which relates to their employability now that Little Rock has expanded and taken jobs far westward and away from areas of African American concentration. See Plaintiffs' Exhibit 34. There is little likelihood that these disparities will be alleviated or relieved under present circumstances. Moreover, it reasonable to infer that official racial discrimination is a major contributing factor in causing these disparities. See Jeffers v. Clinton, 730 F.Supp. 196, 204, Eastern District of Arkansas 1989. Furthermore, the African American population is increasing by one- third percent (73%) each year while the white population is decreasing by that same figure. The likely consequence is that the African American population by the year 2000 will be at least 36%. See Plaintiffs' Exhibit Under the circumstances, it is evident that the social and economic factors indicate that African American persons are in serious disadvantage insofar as the relevant indices set forth above are concerned. 35. The plaintiffs also demonstrated that statistically significant racially polarized voting exists in this community. They did this by showing that in recent elections which pitted candidates of African American ancestry versus white candidates, PAGE 12white voters usually voted for the white candidate, and African American voters voted for the African American candidate. The correlation coefficients showing racially polarized voting in the relevant Little Rock elections range from .7 to . 9 See Plaintiffs' Exhibit There were no exceptions. Moreover, it is evident that African Americans do not seek to compete in those races for which they have only a miniscule chance of success. Thus, they have not sought election in any of the majority white zones in Little Rock nor have they sought election in any of the majority white zones. 36. There is no contrary evidence regarding the plaintiffs' proof on polarized voting. 37. Plaintiffs have also demonstrated that it is possible to create at least three districts each of which has a substantial majority of African American citizens without \"packing\" any particular district. Dilution of African American voting interests is thus averted. See Plaintiffs' Exhibit The total percentages of the three districts (Nos. 1, 2, and 6) are 64.7%, 64.0%, and 61.7%, respectively. The voting age population within these three districts would be approximately 57 to 60% and would in each instance be slightly greater than the voting age populations of North Little Rock and Pulaski County. 38. The plan submitted by plaintiffs represents compact and continuous districts which have been characterized by Jim McKinzie of Metroplan as the plan that he would accept as addressing the voting rights issue. Metroplan is the agency which devised the PAGE 13County Board's plan to alleviate and remediate the \"one-man one- vote\" deficiencies. When Mr. Cecil Bailey, Chairman of the County Board was asked, Q. \"I understand. were you aware that Metroplan - - of the position that Metroplan took with respect to the plans which were developed by Mr. Nagel as plans which could be implemented in compliance with the voting rights act. He answered as follows: A. \"I remember one time a discussion with Mr. McKenzie subsequent to the second forum, (sic) , the second public forum that we had. that if we consideration were per going to take that into se. that Mr. Nagel's proposal would probably be the best one to use. \" (Bailey Deposition, pp. 34-35.) The County Board vote was along racial lines to reject all plans other than one which strictly numerically equalized each voting district. See Plaintiffs' Exhibit ___ (Board Minutes of December 29, 1992 wherein Thomas Broughton, an African American citizen. cast the only negative vote. The other members of the board are white). 39. For the record. Little Rock has a long history of electing two African Tkmerican persons to the Board of Directors out of a total of seven. 40. Little Rock School Board members Dorsey Jackson and Pat Gee, publicly opposed changing the zone lines to increase the opportunities for selection of African American board members. Jackson did so, however, on the basis that percentage-wise, African Americans were 28% of the population and they had about their fair share of representation. This was satisfactory for him. See PAGE 14Jackson Deposition, pp. 16-17. However, for purposes of this hearing, Mr. Jackson has stated that he is not opposed to the creation of three majority African American zones. See Jackson Deposition, pp. 32-33. 41. For purposes of this case, no school board member of either board has stated opposition to the creation of three majority African American zones in the Little Rock School District. The approach taken by the Little Rock School Board has been to do nothing and take no vote with respect to the voting rights issues but. by the Court's talley, the majority of the school board is unopposed to the changes requested by the plaintiffs' in this action. Moreover, the County Board members 42. have construed the Court's Order narrowly and have not addressed the voting rights issue. There appears, however, to be no opposition by the County Board to the creation of three minority zones. 43. The defendants have offered no defense and introduced no evidence by which to controvert the plaintiffs' prima facie case. Indeed, the County Board, has never considered the voting rights issue. The County Board has offered no evidence in opposition to the voting rights proof proffered by plaintiffs. Since the County Board is the responsible party and if the County Board is the agent of the Little Rock School District for this puirpose by statute, (drawing election zones) , then there must be a finding by the Court of liability against the County Board of Education, and it is so found. PAGE 15The LRSD Board, like the County Board, has not addressed the issue in a public forum or by public vote. No school board member has appeared to oppose the relief prayed for by plaintiffs. Based upon the Answer of the defendants, the issue has been controverted so that the Court has to accept the position that the defendants oppose the relief sought. But they have presented no proof in support of their position other than, like the County Board, their reliance upon the Order of this Court which created zones on the motion of the school district at the time of the Court Ordered annexation of certain parts of the Pulaski County Special School District. 45. I examine that position. First, the school district was the moving party in the case at the time. However, it had no 44 . standing to raise voting rights issues as such. Second, the Joshua Intervenors were not the moving parties in that they did not petition the Court at that time for voting rights relief and when the issue was presented to the Court in 1984, they were not parties with full status. See Docket, 5-2-84. Therefore^ on the basis of the Voting Rights Act, the res judicata argument is unavailable. While the Court made mention of the Voting Rights Act in its 1986 Order, the Court views those comments as dicta. They were not pertinent otherwise for the following additional reasons. Although that Order was entered in 1986, the population of the district had already materially shifted and had become more polarized. Finally, there was no hearing on the issue and there was no formal stipulation that froze the lines ad infinitum. PAGE 16address. The present circumstances are what the Court must It is highly unlikely that more than a third of District One would have moved from that district between 1986 and 1990. Thus the district was never equal in size. Moreover, its racial percentage was far greater in 1986 than in 1980 by simple demographic logic. Whites were moving out of the district at a high rate and were not being replaced by whites. It is thus likely that the district was more than 85% in 1986. It is now clearly possible to create three districts, each of approximately the same approximate proportion which are of African American majority. At the time of the 1986 Order, the population figures were less reliable than they are one year after the census report was issued for the 1990 census. That census shows that the African American population has increased substantially although its voice by way of representation has remained constant in the form of two majority election districts. 46. The school district which urges greater voice in a governance for its minority population cannot oppose it when it counts now - and simply because it counts. If the district takes the position of increasing that voice and representation in governance, then it is evident bad faith to oppose it in this Court without substantial legal proof in support of its position. 47. The Voting Rights Act represents Congress' intention that citizens votes not be diluted or adversely affected due to their race or color, through any practice, procedure or electoral scheme. This includes the II packing\" votes of one race in unreasonably high PAGE 17proportions into one or more zones. \"Districts with a black majority greater than 65% 70% necessary to opportunity to (the ensure elect percentage blacks candidates choice) may evidence \"packing.\" considered reasonable of their Ketchum v. Byrne, 740 F.2d 1398, 1407-8, n. 7 (7th Cir. 1984 and Elections see of Rvbicki v. State Board the State of Illinois, of 574 F.Supp. 1082, 1120-21 (N.D. Ill. 1982) (three judge panel) (Rybicki I). a Moreover, \"packing\" has a tendency to promote and reinforce the idea that there is an official intent to limit access to the political process of African American citizens. On the other hand. the creation of majority African American districts of the proportions presented by plaintiffs, does not guarantee that persons of African American descent will in fact win those positions. These alternative districts merely eliminate the dilution of the votes in the current plan. 48. In that plaintiffs have made a prima facie case and that the defendants have not rebutted that case, the Court must find in favor of the plaintiffs and order relief. 49. The plaintiffs are the only party to present a remedy to the Court. The County Board of Education just simply failed to address this issue because it misperceived the Court's Order. The school district. on the other hand, has not even submitted the issue in a public forum for consideration, and therefore, ignored the complaint of plaintiffs herein. It's proof herein is absent\non the other hand, the school board majority does not oppose the relief sought. Indeed, three members strongly favor it. 50. The plaintiffs' plan is the only plan before the Court PAGE 18which will not result in constitutional or Voting Rights Act violations. There are no substantial objections to that plan raised by the defendants. The objections raised by the defendants relate to compactness and contiguity but they are insubstantial. First, the same objections could be raised to the plan proposed by the County Board in purported remediation of the \"one-man one-vote\" deficiencies. Second, the lines are the lines and there is no requirement that they be rectangular. triangular. oval. or otheiswise. The only requirement is contiguity. That means continuous in geography or geography which abuts continuously. The plaintiffs' plan meets that requirement. The compactness requirement has to be viewed in the context of the \"one-man one- vote\" consideration where the first mandate is to combine geographic population areas in such a way as to be of equal size for each district. That is done here. The plaintiffs plan meets the \"one-man one-vote\" requirement and it does not substantially vary from the 5% figure which is the usual range of variance in these cases. 51. The plan developed by Metroplan does not meet or otherwise satisfy the Voting Rights Act requirements. Nor does it pretend to. Its author candidly admits that that was not its purpose. Under the circumstances, therefore, there is no legitimate objection to the plan presented by the plaintiffs. 52. Under ordinary circumstances, the Court would defer to defendants who are public representatives, at least to the extent of affording them an opportunity to present a remedial plan to PAGE 19address the liability found by the Court. In this case, that is unnecessary because both defendants had the opportunity to do so and the County Board was directed to do so by specific Order of the Court and did not do so. Moreover, Jim McKenzie of Metroplan testified that he would have addressed the issue in the same manner as Jack Nagel of the plaintiffs' law firm, who worked with the County Board on these matters. Therefore, it would be a waste of time and money to the parties and to the Court and an exercise in futility because any plan which creates three majority African American districts would be substantially similar to the one presented by the plaintiffs. 53. It is therefore the finding of this Court that the plaintiffs have met their burden of proof in the case as a whole and that they are entitled to the relief prayed. It is, therefore. ORDERED, ADJUDGED and DECREED that judgment be rendered for plaintiffs and that the Defendant County Board of Education be, and it is hereby instructed. to implement the plan proposed by plaintiffs for the election of school directors to the Little Rock School Board of Directors at an election to be held within fortyfive (45) days from this date. The election is to, as far as possible, comply with the requirements of Arkansas law and is to be conducted for all seven positions at the same time. After the election and at the first meeting of the newly constituted school board, the members shall draw by lot to determine the length of terms of members. There will be no other election for school directors PAGE 20until the regular school elections in 1994 for the election of school board members. This will mean that the first directors will seirve at least one year in addition to the time between the date of the election and the September, 1994 regular school election date. 54. It is the further Order and Judgment of the Court that plaintiffs are the prevailing party herein and that they are entitled to their costs and reasonable counsel fees. UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE PAGE 21fl W8M K'* \u0026lt;M  e ft , * c. 1994 ii--5ijA: c,  4. {994  Ottfce of Desagfegatiof MonilorU^ Office Of Desegresaiicn Moniitjjiiig UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEAL FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT fl NO. 93-3592 LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT V. PULASKI CTY. SPECIAL SCH. DIST. 11 NO. 93-3469 LORENE JOSHUA V. LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DIST. w ^aiia ra W 41IM 1994 NO. 93-3594 LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DIST. V. LORENE JOSHUA Office of Desegregation Moniloriag a APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION THE HON. SUSAN WEBBER WRIGHT, DISTRICT JUDGE II APPELLANTS' REPLY BRIEF Respectfully submitted, John W. Walker Bar No, 64046 II JOHN W. WALKER, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR (501) 374-3758 72206 0 DAVID SCHOEN, ESQ. P.O. Box 3483 120 West Spring Fayetteville, AR 72702 (501) 444-6200 flUNITED STATES COURT OF APPEAL FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT *r\" NO. 93-3592 LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT V. PULASKI CTY. SPECIAL SCH. DIST. RECBIVPD NO. 93-3469 LORENE JOSHUA V. LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DIST. Jlih! 2 I99X NO. 93-3594 LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DIST. V. LORENE JOSHUA Office (rf Desegregation Monitoring 41 APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION THE HON. SUSAN WEBBER WRIGHT, DISTRICT JUDGE H REPLY BRIEF OP APPELLANTS Respectfully submitted, John W. Walker - Bar No. 64046 JOHN W. WALKER, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR (501) 374-3758 72206 n DAVID SCHOEN, ESQ. P.O. Box 3483 120 West Spring Fayetteville, AR (501) 444-6200 72702 ] Il RECEIVED JUN 2 1994 ngiat C^sagrfi^jation Moniioiing 4 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEAL FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT NO. 93-3592 LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT V. PULASKI CTY. SPECIAL SCH. DIST. 4 NO. 93-3469 LORENE JOSHUA V. LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DIST. NO. 93-3594 LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DIST. V. LORENE JOSHUA 4 APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION THE HON. SUSAN WEBBER WRIGHT, DISTRICT JUDGE 4 APPELLANTS' SUPPLEMENTAL APPENDIX 4 4 Respectfully submitted, John W. Walker Bar No. 64046 JOHN W. WALKER, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR (501) 374-3758 72206 4 DAVID SCHOEN, ESQ. P.O. Box 3483 120 West Spring Fayetteville, AR 72702 (501) 444-6200 4 4 ARKANSAS DEMOCRAT-GAZETTE  SUNDAY, AUGUST 23,1992 1 Around Arkansas U.S. DISTRICT JUDGE SU- san Webber Wright on Monday Sept\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_431","title":"Election zone","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","School boards","Educational law and legislation","Elections"],"dcterms_title":["Election zone"],"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/431"],"dcterms_temporal":null,"dcterms_rights_holder":null,"dcterms_bibliographic_citation":null,"dlg_local_right":null,"dcterms_medium":["documents (object genre)"],"dcterms_extent":null,"dlg_subject_personal":null,"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":"\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n\n\n\n   \n\n\n\n\n   \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n  \n\nRECEIVED IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION AUG 3 1592 Office of Desegregation Monitoring DALE CHARLES, ROBERT L. BROWN, SR., GWEN HEVEY JACKSON, DIANE DAVIS, and RAYMOND FRAZIER PLAINTIFFS V. NO. LR-C-92-476 O.G. JACOVELLI, Individually and As President of the Board of Education of the Little Rock School District, PATRICIA GEE, DR. GEORGE CANNON, JOHN MOORE, DORSEY JACKSON, DR'. 'KATHERINE MITCHELL and W.D. \"BILL\" HAMILTON, Individually and In Their Official Capacities as Members of the Board of Education of the Little Rock School District, A Public Body, Individually and In Their Official Capacities and THE LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT, A Public Body Corporate DEFENDANTS MOTION TO DISMISS For their motion, defendants O.G. Jacovelli, Patricia Gee, Dr. George Cannon, John Moore, Dorsey Jackson, Dr. Katherine Mitchell, W.D. \"Bill\" Hamilton and the Little Rock School District (LRSD) state: 1. The stated purpose of this lawsuit is to create new zones from which members of the LRSD Board of Education will be elected \"in accordance with the 'one man one vote' principle and the principles of the Voting Rights Act\". These defendants, however. have no duty and no authority to establish or to reform the boundaries of the zones from which LRSD board members are elected. 'ChMiIcn.MTDThe complaint does not allege that these defendants had a duty or the authority to reform the election zones. 2 . LRSD has an average daily attendance in excess of twenty- four thousand students. Under Arkansas law, it is the duty of the county board of education of each county encompassing a district the size of LRSD to \"divide that school district into zones for the purpose of electing members to that school district's board of directors.\" Ark. Code Ann.  6-13-607. 3 . The present LRSD election zones were established by court order in Little Rock School District v. Pulaski County Special School District, Case No. LR-C-82-866, on December 18, 1986. The plaintiffs should not be allowed to maintain a suit against these defendants which is premised upon defendants' compliance with the December 18, 1986 order of the district court. 4 . In order to resolve all issues concerning the election zones in LRSD expeditiously and in the proper forum, LRSD has filed in Little Rock School District v. Pulaski County Special School District. LR-C-82-866, concurrently with this motion. a motion asking the court to modify its December 18, 1986 order by either relinquishing jurisdiction of this issue so that the Board of Education of Pulaski County can establish appropriate election zones or by establishing a schedule pursuant to which the parties in that case can resolve the issue of appropriate election zones. 5. Both plaintiffs' counsel and the lead plaintiff in this case are also involved in Little Rock School District v. Pulaski County Special School District. LR-C-82-866 and therefore know or kihy\\Charle.MTD 2should know that the present election zones have been established by court order in that prior pending case. Further, an investigation of the facts and the law prior to the filing of this lawsuit would have shown that these defendants are not responsible for redistricting the election zones within LRSD. Plaintiffs have failed to state a claim for which relief can be granted against these defendants and have raised issues which are controlled by a district court order in a prior pending lawsuit. WHEREFORE, for the reason^ set out above, the defendants pray . J \" - for an order dismissing this case with prejudice and for all other proper relief. Respectfully submitted, ( , , O.G. Jacovelli, Patricia Gee, Dr. George Cannon, John Moore, Dorsey Mitchell, Jackson, W.D. Dr. \"Bill Little Rock School District Katherine Hamilton, FRIDAY, ELDREDGE \u0026amp; CLARK 2000 First Commercial Bldg. 400 West Capitol Street Little Rock, AR 72201 (501) 376-2011 By: Christopher Helle Bar No. 81083 tCHLby t tea. MT D 3 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I certify that a copy of the foregoing Motion to Dismiss has been served on John W. Walker, JOHN W. WALKER, P.A. , 1723 Broadway, Little Rock, AR 72201 by depositing copy of same in the United States mail on this 31st day of July, 1992. --------------- .ristopher Heller / ) !. iaihyXChsrlca.MTO 4U 1 'W '5\nV 5X0 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION AUS 3 1992 Office of Desegregation Moniioriuo DALE CHARLES, ROBERT L. BROWN, SR., GWEN HEVEY JACKSON, DIANE DAVIS, and RAYMOND FRAZIER PLAINTIFFS V. NO. LR-C-92-476 O.G. JACOVELLI, Individually and As President of the Board of Education of the Little Rock School District, PATRICIA GEE, DR. GEORGE CANNON, JOHN MOORE, DORSEY JACKSON, DR,'.-KATHERINE MITCHELL and W.D. \"BILL\" HAMILTON-, Individually and In Their Official Capacities as Members of the Board of Education of the Little Rock School District, A Public Body, Individually and In Their Official Capacities and THE LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT, A Public Body Corporate DEFENDANTS BRIEF IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO DISMISS The plaintiffs in this case are African-American residents of the Little Rock School District. The defendants are the Little Rock School District and the members of the Board of Education  the Little Rock School District. The stated purpose of this lawsuit is to create new zones from which members of the LRSD Board of Education will be elected \"in accordance with the 'one man - one vote' principle and the principles of the Voting Rights Act.\" Complaint, p. 5. These defendants, however, have no duty and no authority to establish or to reform the boundaries of the zones from which the LRSD board members are elected. The complaint does lui(hy\\Chr\u0026gt;Bri.MTDnot allege that these defendants have the duty or the authority to reform the election zones. The present LRSD election zones were established by district court order in Little Rock School District V. Pulaski County Special School District. Case No. LR-C-82-866, on December 18, 1986 . That case remains pending in the Eastern District of Arkansas. A copy of the Order which established the present LRSD election zones is attached to this brief as Exhibit A. LRSD has an average daily^attendance in excess of twenty-four thousand students. Under Arkansas law, it is the duty of the county board of education of each county encompassing a district with more than twenty-four thousand students to \"divide that school district into zones for the purpose of electing members to that school district's board of directors.\" Ark. Coc^e Ann.  6-13-607. The complaint does not allege that any elections in LRSD have been conducted in violation of the district court order which established the election zones. Even if the issue of LRSD election zones were not controlled by a district court order in a prior pending case, the responsibility for establishing election zones would rest with the Board of Education of Pulaski County and not with the Little Rock School District or the members of its board of directors. These defendants cannot be held responsible for failing to revise election zones which they had no responsibility to revise. McGruder v. Phillips County Election Com'n.. 850 F.2d 406, 410 (Sth Cir. 1988). laihy\\Char-Bri.MTD 2Both plaintiffs' counsel and the lead plaintiff in this case are also involved in Little Rock School District v. Pulaski County Special School District. Case No. LR-C-82-866 and therefore know or should know that the present election zones have been established by court order in that prior pending case. See Exhibit B to this brief. This lawsuit is unnecessary and frivolous, it raises only issues that are controlled by a court order in a prior pending case, and it states no claim for which relief can be granted against these defendants. It should be dismissed with prejudice. Respectfully submitted. O.G. Jacovelli, Patricia Gee, Dr. George Cannon, John Moore, Dorsey Mitchell, Jackson, W.D. Dr. \"Bill\" Little Rock School District Katherine Hamilton, FRIDAY, ELDREDGE CLARK 2000 First Commercial Bldg. 400 West Capitol Street Little Rock, AR 72201 (501) 376-2011 By: _________ Shristopher Heller Bar No. 81083 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I certify that a copy of the foregoing Brief in Support of Motion to Dismiss has been served on John W. WWaallkkeerr,, JOHN W. WALKER, P.A., 1723 Broadway, Little Rock, AR 72201 by depositing copy of same in the United States mail on this 31st, day of July, 1992. Christopher Hell'^r kaihy \\Char* B ri. MTD 3  'i 'i c^Z2 KxiU '} if IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION AUG 3 1992 Cilice of Dessj.'ogation f,\n! IQ LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT PLAINTIFFS V. NO. LR-C-82-866 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, ET AL DEFENDANTS MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL DEFENDANTS KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL INTERVENORS MOTION TO POSTPONE LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT SCHOOL BOARD ELECTION AND TO REFORM LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT ELECTION ZONES For its motion, the Little Rock School District (LRSD) states: 1. The present LRSD election zones were established by this court on December 18, 1986. The order which established the U a '1 \u0026gt; present zones is attached as Exhibit A to this motion. 2. The LRSD election zones should be reformed on the basis of 1990 census information so that each zone contains a relatively equal population and in a way that does not abridge or deny the right of minorities to vote. 3 . LRSD has an average daily attendance in excess of twenty- four thousand students. Under Arkansas law, the responsibility to divide LRSD into zones for the purpose of electing members to the taihylLRiOVPCSSD.MTPLRSD Board of Education rests with the County Board of Education of Pulaski County. Ark. Code Ann.  6-13-607. 4. The election zones were originally established by this court, but there are no findings in this case concerning any voting rights violations within LRSD. The election zones are not a part of any desegregation plan and the settlement agreement contains no particular requirements concerning election zones. There is no reason that responsibility for redrawing the zones should not now be relinquished to the Board of- Education for Pulaski County pursuant to Arkansas law. 5. In the alternative, the court should establish a schedule for resolution of the LRSD election zone issue in this case. 6. The deadline for filing as a candidate for a position on the LRSD Board of Education is July 31, 1992. The court should therefore order an extension of the filing period and any necessary postponement of the LRSD school board election so that school board members can be elected from zones which have been appropriately adjusted in response to the 1990 census. WHEREFORE, for the reasons set out above, LRSD prays for an order relinquishing responsibility for redrawing the LRSD election zones to the Board of Education for Pulaski County, for any necessary extension of the filing period and postponement of the election so that the next school board election can be conducted 2 k*ihy\\LK5DVPCSSD.MTPwith appropriately adjusted election zones, and for all other proper relief. Respectfully submitted, LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT FRIDAY, ELDREDGE \u0026amp; CLARK 2000 First Commercial Bldg. 400 West Capitol Street Little Rock, AR 72201 7(501) 376-2011 By:' _ Christopher Heller Bar No. 81083 kihy\\LR5DVPC3SD.MTP 3 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I certify that a copy of the foregoing Motion to Postpone Little Rock School District School Board Election and to Reform Little Rock School District Election Zones has been served on the following by depositing copy of same in the United states mail on this 31st, day of July, 1992: Mr. John Walker JOHN WALKER, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72206 Mr. Sam Jones WRIGHT, LINDSEY \u0026amp; JENNINGS 2200 Worthen Bank Bldg. 200 West Capitol Little Rock, AR 72201 zJ. Mr. Steve Jones JACK, LYON \u0026amp; JONES, P.A. 3400 Capitol Towers Capitol \u0026amp; Broadway Streets Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Richard Roachell #15 Hickory Creek Drive Little Rock, AR 72212 Ms. Ann Brown Heritage West Bldg., Suite 510 201 East Markham Street Little Rock, AR 72201 Chri^opher Helled kuhyvUUOVKSSD.MTP 4 07/29/92 13:45 URIGHT,LINDSEY\u0026gt;JEN 501/376-9442 NO. 464 R00i I little vs.  EXHIBIT A Filed THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COUR^ EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION IN THE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. LR-C-82-866 COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL PULASKI --- district no. 1, et al MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, et al - ORDER Pursuant to the directions of conference Board tion U* OIITWCT COURT OSTCRN OHTRtCT ARMARlAt n\n..',K':=96 carc r. brents, cleric By: PLAINT 3?B^ defendants INTERVENORS the court at the pre-Trial of December 9. 1986 the Little of Directors adopted a I i SSi I I I Rock ^school District proposal for the March, 1987 elec- of school board members. Pursuant to the proposal adopted I by the Little Rock School District Board of Directors, the following order is hereby entered: I I 1. The Little Rock School District at the Juno, 1986 I hearing proposed dividing the district into seven (7) school board election zones with the following populations and black compositions: Zone 1 - 25,399 total population\n81.50 % black zone 2 Zone 3 Zone 4 Zone 5 Zone 6 - 25,295 total population\n- 25,210 total population\n- 24,844 total population\n- 25,016 total population\n- 25,107 total population\n68.90 % black 7.83 % black 2.96 % black 18.30 % black 17.30 % black Zone 7 - 25,043 total population\n14.10  black 2. The Court finds that the seven (7) contiguous xonas07/29/92 13:45 UR IGHT.LINDSEY,JEN 501/576-9442 NC. 464 6005 I with comparable populations comports with the pr l^iple required by the constitution. one-man onevote that the Little Rock School Distri The Court further find^ compliance with the mandate of Cts redistricting plans are 'in Act (codified amended 52 of the Voting Rights  42 U.S.C .51973) and does the right of minorities not abridge or deny ' to vote. 3. It is also the intention of I allow incumbents to the election plan to serve the -fetnainder of thei r terms. for that purpose to be In order the seven (7) 4. realized it will be zone election plan. Zone Four (4) residing within the zone. election in March, 1987. necessary to phase ip presently has four (4) incumbents Two of the incumbents will be up for i These two incumbents will gible to run for re-election. not be eli5. In March, 1987, Zones One (1) and Six (6) will be combined for the purpose of electing one school board member to the Little Rock School District Board of Directors. 6. In March, 1987, Zones Five (5) and Seven combined for the (7) will be the Little Rock : purpose of electing one school board School District Board of Directors. member to 7, In March, 1988, the third incumbent Four (4) will be up for election. residing in Zone This incumbent will eligible to not be I 8. run for re-election in March, 1988. Zone Two (2) presently has two (2) incumbents residing within the zone. One of the incumbents will be election in March, 1988. up for This incumbent for re-election in March, 1988. will not eligible to I ru:| 9. Zone Three (3) presently has one (1) incumbent I I i07/29/92 13:46 URIGHT.LINDSEY.JEN 501/376-9442 NO. 464 P004 I ! I i residing within the zone. The incumbent's terra will expire in March, 1988. I' -Ti The incumbent will be eligible to run for eleJtion because re- no other incumbent presently resides in thi a zone. 10. In March of 1988, whichever zone between the two combined zones of one (1) and six (6) and five (5) and did not elect a school board member, seven {7\u0026gt; an election will be held I in that zone at this time. In other words, if the March, 1987 election provides representative from Zone One (1) an election will be held in Zone six (6) in March, 1988. If the March, 1987 election provides representation from Zone Five (5) an election will be held in Zone Seven (7) in March, 1988. By March, 1988 all seven zones will have duly elected representatives. In March, 1989 the terms of the incumbents in Zones Two (2) and Fou .r (4) will expire. The incumbents will be eligible to run for reelection since no other incumbent will reside in those zones. 11. The board member elected from a particular zone must reside within that zone\nonly the electors within a zone will be eligible to vote for candidates from that zone. 12. Howard Dieraer, the Pulaski county elections coordinator, and the. Pulaski County election commission are directed to implement the necessary voting maps, ballots and other necessary steps to insure the election of school board members ir the Little Rock School District pursuant to this Order. IT IS SO ORDERED this day of December, 1986. HBHRYz' U.S. District Judge This dccuraent entered on docket sheet in compliance with1* i I  I j I I I r 07--31z'92 11:31 UR IGHT.LINDSEY\u0026gt; JEN 501z 376-9442 NO, 4S5 P002  FILED _ (i\u0026gt;a\u0026gt;iMereoHV ::h the united states district could EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION MAIU1989 LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT CMC O Byf OBW F. II V. NO. LR-C-82-86e PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT, NO. 1, ET AL. defendants , MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL. INTERVENORS : KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL. INTERVENORS STIPULATED AMENDMENT TO COMPLAINT The partiei submit the following stipulation for Court approval: The Complai\nbe amended in on filed by the \"Joshua intervenors\" herein der to: f nay 1. Ac I d Marcellus Person, Parent and Next Friend of Ameerah Person, as a party plaintiff. Aneerah Person is a black school child whi J*-----------* -------------------------s-i. a  is eligible to attend and who attends the public ' iMmw MtiiHcr I I t J I I I schools of the lulaski County Special School District, defendant herein. The parties further stipulate that Marcellus Person, j I parent and next friend of Aneerah Person, may adopt by reference i all allegations Intervenors\"\nan heretofore made in this proceeding by the \"Joshua j d I I 2. Substitute Dale Charles for Reverend Robert Willingham as Pn al Association li esident of the Little Rock Chapter of the Nation- ! or the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP). I EXHIBIT BI 1 I ) 07/29/92 13:45 UR IGHT,LINDSEY,JEN 501/376-9442 Nu. 464 P002 little V3 . . EXHIBIT A FiLtD IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION COUR?' UA. OHTWCT eOMWT OlTWeT R-o tf.'sses carl r. brents, clerk By\ni i i CT ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. LR-C-82-866 PLAINTIVE'\"*\" ! I I COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL PULASKI --- DISTRICT NO. 1, et al DEFENDANTS I MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, et al  1 INTERVENORS Pursuant conference ORDER to the directions of December 9, 1986, the of the court at the Pre-Trial Little Rock^school District Board of Directors adopted a proposal for the March, 1987 election of school board members. Pursuant to the proposal adopted I by the Little Rock School District Board of Directors, the following Order is hereby entered: 1. The Little Rock School District at the June, 1986 I hearing proposed dividing the district into seven (7) school board election rones with the following populations and black compositions: Zone 1 - 25,399 total population\n81.50 % black zone 2 - 25,295 total population\n68.90 t black Zone 3 Zone 4 Zone 5 zone 6 - 25,210 total population\n- 24,844 total population\n- 25,016 total population\n- 25,107 total population\n7.83 % black 2.96 % black 18.30  black 17.30 % black Zone 7 - 25,043 total population\n14.10 % black 2. The court finds that the seven (7) contiguous zones07/29/92 13: 45 UR IGHT.LINDSEY.JEN 501/376-9442 NG, 454 r00j I with comparable populations comports with the pr H^iple required by the one-man onevote constitution. that the Little Rock School The Court further findls compliance with the mandate of amended 52 of District's redistricting plans are in Act (codified the Voting Rights  42 U.S.C .51973) and does the right of minorities to ,vote. not abridge or deny i 3. It is also the intention allow incumbents to of the election plan to i serve the -remainder of thei for that purpose to be r terms. In order the seven (7) 4. realized it will be zone election plan. Zone Four (4) residing within the zone lotion in March, 1987, gible to\" run for S. t necessary to phase in presently has four (4) incumbents . Two of the incumbei^ts will be up for These two incumbents will not be elire- election. In March, 1987, Zones One (1) and Six combined for the (6) will be purpose of electing one the Little Rock School school board member to 6. District Board of Directo ra, In March, 1987, Zones Five (5) and Seven combined for the (7) will be the Little Rock purpose of electing one school board member to 7, School District Board of Directors. In March, 1988, the third incumbent Four (4) will be up for election. residing in Zone This incumbent will eligible to not be 8. run for re-election in March, 1988. Zone Two (2) presently has two (2) incumbents residing within the zone. One of the incumbents will be election in March, 1988. for re-election in March, This incumbent 1988. 9. Zone Throe (3) up for will not eligible to run Pr..enny one ,1, icu.b.nt 07/29/92 13:46 UR IGHT,L1NDSEY.JEN 501/376-9442 NO. 464 P004 I t i residing within the zone. The incumbent's term will expire in March, 1988. I' -Ti The incumbent will be eligible to elec/tion because no zone. 10. run for re- I I I other incumbent presently resides in thia In Maren of 1988, whichever zone between the two combined zones of did not elect a school board member. one (1) and six (g) and five (5) and seven (7) an election will be held i in that zone at this time. election provides In other words, if the March. 1987 representative from Zone One (1) an election will be held in Zone six (6) in March, 1988. If the March, 1987 election provides representation from Zone Five (5) an election will be held in Zone Seven all seven zones will have . (7) in March, 1988. By March, 1988 ves. In March, 1989 the terms of the incumbents in Zones Two (2) and Pour (4) will expire, election since no The incumbents will be eligibl other incumbent will reside in e to run for re- those zones. 11. The board member elected from a particular zone must reside within that zone\nonly the electors within a zona will be eligible to vote for candidates from that zone. 12. Howard Dieraer, the Pulaski county elections coordinator, and the. Pulaski County election commission are directed to implement the necessary voting maps, ballots and other necessary steps to insure the election of school board members ir the Little Rock School District pursuant to this Order. IT IS SO ORDERED this day of December, 1986. HfiNRy, U.S. District Judge This dccuraent entered on docket sheet In compliance with / J Zif/// iiRECEIVED IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OP ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION AUG 2 1993 Office of Desegregation Moniioring LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT, ET AL. PLAINTIFFS V. NO. LR-C-82-866 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT, ET AL. DEFENDANTS MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL. INTERVENORS KATHERINE W. KNIGHT, ET AL. INTERVENORS DALE CHARLES, ET AL. V. LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT, ET AL. MOTION REQUESTING SEPARATE ENTRY OP JUDGMENT PURSUANT TO RULES 54(B) AND 58, FED.R.CIV.P., ON CLAIMS THAT WERE SUBJECT TO THE ORDER OF THE COURT ENTERED ON JUNE 21, 1993 Come the Charles Plaintiffs/Intervenors by and through their undersigned counsel, and move the Court to make \"an express determination that there is no just reason for delay\" in having a final judgment entered in this case regarding the statutory and constitutional voting rights claims which were the subject of tho Court's Memorandum Opinion and Order entered on June 21, 1993. Plaintiffs herewith submit a brief more fully explaining the need for such an Order and Judgment. Respectfully submitted, ,1 Mark Burnette, Bar# 88078 JOHN W. WALKER, P.A. 1723 S. Broadway Little Rock, Ar. 72205 (501) 374-3758 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing document was mailed, postage,pre-paid, by regular mail, to all opposing counsel this -^O day of . k i (' \u0026lt;__________/ 1993. Mark Burnette, Bar # 880781^ECEED AUG 2 1V93 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION Office of Desegregation Monitoring LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT, ET AL. PLAINTIFFS V. NO. LR-C-82-866 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT, ET AL. DEFENDANTS MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL. INTERVENORS KATHERINE W. KNIGHT, ET AL. INTERVENORS DALE CHARLES, ET AL. V. LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT, ET AL. BRIEF IN SUPPORT OF MOTION REQUESTING SEPARATE ENTRY OF JUDGMENT PURSUANT TO RULES 54(B) AND 58, FED.R.CIV.P., ON CLAIMS THAT WERE SUBJECT TO THE ORDER OF THE COURT ENTERED ON JUNE 21, 1993 On June 21, 1993, the Court filed a document entitled \"Memorandum Opinion and Order\" which recited the pleadings and claims of the Charles Plaintiffs, and went on to set out findings of fact and conclusions of law in compliance with Rule 52(a), FRCP, regarding the \"Charles\" Plaintiffs/Intervenors constitutional and statutory voting rights claims. The clerk of the court marked that Mem. Op. and Order as being \"entered on the docket sheet in compliance with Rule 58 and/or 79(a), FRCP. II The I single entry on the docket of that Mem. Op. and Order does not. however, comply with the \"Separate Document\" requirement of Rule 58. See St. Marv's Health Center v. Bowen. 821 F.2d 493, 496 (Sth Cir. 1987)(stating the separate document requirement)\nands^, Moore v. Warwick Public School Dist., 794 F.2d 322, 325 n.1 (Sth Cir. 1986)(\"We previously have stressed to the district judges that the rule is mandatory and is more than a mere formality in that it plays an important role in making a judgment final for purposes of determining when the time for filing ppst- judgment motions or notice of appeal starts to_run Id. (emphasis added)(citations ommitted). Clearly, the single Order entered by the clerk does not constitute a judgment, and does not constitute compliance with Rule 58, 1 although it does comply with Rule 79(a). Entry of a \"Judgment\" is made pursuant to Rule 58. The first sentence in Rule 58 states however that it is \"Subject to the provisions of Rule 54(b).\" The treatment of the June 21, 1993 Mem. Op. and Order is controlled by the language of Rule 54(b). This action was consolidated by the court with LRSD v. PCSSD on motion by the LRSD plaintiffs. The Court had previously made findings on voting rights issues involved in the case prior to the Charles plaintiffs entry into the case, and may well enter further orders on this issue pursuant to its continuing 1 Charles plaintiffs also point out that the Courtis June 21, 1993 Mem. Op. and Order does not comply with the definition  * \"Judgment\" because it includes a and form requirements of a recital of of the claims and is not a final appealable order. II Judgment 11 as used in these rules includes a decree and any order from which an appeal lies. A judgment shall not contain a recital of the pleadings, a report of a master. or the record of prior proceedings. 11 Rule 54(a), FRCP\nand see. St. Marv's Health Center v. Bowen, 821 F.2d 493, 497 (Sth Cir. 1987).jurisdiction. This case is ongoing and the court has certainly not lost jurisdiction over these parties based upon one order issued on June 21, 1993. If that were the case, this Court would have long lost jurisdiction based upon other similarly entered Orders filed and stamped by clerk with the identical language i.e. \"this document entered in compliance with Rule 58 and/or 79(a). II Because the Court clearly has continuing jurisdiction in this case, Rule 54(b) imposes another requirement before an Order which deals with one issue or issues becomes a final appealable order\nspecifically: When more than one claim for relief is presented in an action ... or when multiple parties are involved ... the court may direct the entry of final judgment as to one or more but fewer than all of the claims or parties only upon an express determination that there is no just reason for delay and upon an express direction for the entry of judgment^ In the absence of such determination and direction, an order or other form of decision, however designated which adjudicates fewer than all the claims or rights and liabilities of fewer than all the parties shall not terminate the action as to any of the claims or parties and the order or other form of decision is subject to revision at any time before the entry of judgment adjudicating all the claims and the rights and liabilities of all the parties. This Court has not ruled on all the rights and liabilities of all of the parties in this consolidated case, and no \"order or other form of decision, however designated. II can make the June 21, 1993 Order a final judgment until the Court makes \"an express determination that there is no just reason for delay and upon an express direction for the entry of judgment.\" This Court has not done that yet. Plaintiffs are now seeking such an \"express determination and direction\" by motion so that the order willbecome an appealable order after entry of Judgment. Reading Rule 58 alone, and thus assuming that the Court's Mem. Op. and Order was an adjudication of all claims as to all parties such that Rule 54(b) were not controlling, then \"the clerk, unless the court otherwise orders, shall prepare, sign. and enter the judgment without awaiting any direction by the court\n\" Rule 58, FRCP. Rule 58 is explicit, and requires that \"Every judgment shall be set forth on a separate document. A judgment is effective only when so set forth and when entered as provided in Rule 79(a).\" The district clerk has not done so in this case. The only document recorded on the clerk's docket sheet is the Court's own Mem. Op. and Order. St. Marvs, supra, and Moore, supra. To fully comply with Rule 58 and 54(b), the Court must further direct the clerk as stated above so that a separate entry of judgment can be entered. Respectfully submitted. M^rk Burnette, Bar# 88078 JOHN W. WALKER, P.A. 1723 S. Broadway Little Rock, Ar. 72205 (501) 374-3758 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing document was mailed, postage pre-paid, by regular mail, to all opposing counsel this 30th day of July, 1993. '/J Mark Burnette, Bar # 88078. n (I n:S' TRICT COUR I i', IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION 1 6 1993\n'a:: :-l ?jT CLERK LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT, ET 2^. ISy: \\J . jYa PLAINTIFFS CHP. CL^ V. NO. LR-C-82-866 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT, ET AL. DEFENDANTS HRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL. INTERVENORS KATHERINE W. KNIGHT, ET AL. INTERVENORS RECEIVED DALE CHARLES, ET AL. V. 4UG 1 7 WJ LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT, ET AL. Office oi Dssegregalion Monitcnng ORDER Defendant, Little Rock School District (\"LRSD\"), has moved for a one week extension of time in which to answer plaintiff's Motion Requesting Separate Entry of Judgment Pursuant to Rule 54 (B) and 58, Fed.R.Civ.P. , on Claims that were Subject to Order of the Court Entered June 21, 1993. Plaintiff has no objection to the Court granting this motion. IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED AND ADJUDGED, that defendant be granted a one week extension of time to answer plaintiff's Motion Requesting Separate Entry of Judgment Pursuant to Rule 54 (B) and 58, Fed.R.Civ.P., on Claims that were Subject to the Order of the Court Entered on June 21, 1993. HONORABLE SUSAN SIGNATURE APPROVED BY: JOHN C. FENDLEY, JR. U' A j THIS DOCUMENT ENTERED ON DOCKET SHEET IN irtMMi lANfc '.vT!-\n\"J' II 1^ c* aNn/OR TWa) FRCP wn\\0orto\\lrW-pcM.er^ ON BY WRIGHT F.Y.I. Date: cs^Ann c/ Bill Boj Connie 53^ Horace Linda Margie Melissa Polly Return to: r TP?.: i!  COUrtV IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION 1 6 1993 /'A y: A 5, CLErK LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT, ET AL. PLAINTIFFS CEP. Gt\nX V. NO. LR\u0026lt;-C-82-866 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT, ET AL. DEFENDANTS MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL. INTERVENORS KATHERINE W. KNIGHT, ET AL. INTERVENORS RECEIVED DALE CHARLES, ET AL. V. 4UG I 7 LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT, ET AL. Office of DessyreQSuCii L-jni.c-ios ORDER Defendant, Little Rock School District (\"LRSD), has moved for a one week extension of time in which to answer plaintiff's Motion Requesting Separate Entry of Judgment Pursuant to Rule 54 (B) and 58, Fed.R.Civ.P. , on Claims that were Subject to Order of the Court Entered June 21, 1993. Plaintiff has no objection to the Court granting this motion. IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED AND ADJUDGED, that defendant be granted a one week extension of time to answer plaintiff's Motion Requesting Separate Entry of Judgment Pursuant to Rule 54 (B) and 58, Fed.R.Civ.P., on Claims that were Subject to the Order of the Court Entered on June 21, 1993. HONORABLE SSUUSSAANN WEBBER WRIGHT SIGNATURE APPROVED BY\nJOHN C. FEJIULEY, JR. A J rwis DOCUMENT ENTERED ON DOCKET SHEET IN lANCt: .A/TM n AND/OR 79/Af FRCP ON BY pc wi I AUG-18-92 TUE 15:18 U.S. DIST. CT. LR ARK. FAX NO. 7406096 p.02 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OP ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION CAf?, Sy. 1992 DALE CHARLES, ROBERT L. BROWN, SR., GWEN HEVEY JACKSON, DIANE DAVIS, and RAYMOND FRAZIER PLAINTIFFS V. NO. LR-C-92-476 O.G. JACOVELLI, Individually and As President of the Board of Education of the Little Rock School District, PATRICIA GEE, DR. GEORGE CANNON, JOHN MOORE, DORSEY JACKSON, DR. KATHERINE MITCHELL and W.D. \"BILL\" HAMILTON, Individually and In Their Official Capacities as Members of the Board of Education of the Little Rock School District, A Public Body, Individually and In Their Official Capacities and THE LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT, A Public Body Corporate DEFENDANTS The STIPULATION parties hereto are in agreement that it would be 'Jr\u0026gt;r appropriate to defer the forthcoming school election in the Little Rock School District until a date to be determined by the Court after the Pulaski County Board of Education has been added as a party defendant hereto. The parties hereto are also in agreement that the school zone lines presently in use do not conform to the requirement of the \"one man one vote\" principle and that adjustments to the existing zone lines may be required a as consequence of the new census and demographic changes within the commun'ty. Pursuant to their stipulation, the parties or either of them, shall be expected to move in a timely fashion to add the Pulaski BAUG-18-92 TUE 15:19 U.S, DIST. CT. LR ARK. FAX NO. 7406096 County Board of Education as a party defendant herein. P.03 It is therefore the Order of the Court that the election for school directors for the Little Rock School District be stayed pending further orders of this Court. It is also the order of this court that the current directors remain in their present positions until new elections are held. This stipulation is filed simultaneously in Charles Vj Jacovelli. No. LR-C-92-476 and LRSD v, PCSSD, No. LR-C- 82'866, without prejudice to defendants' position that Charles should be dismissed. UNITED STATES DISTRICT/JUDGE Approved: ^ohh W. Walker JOHN W. WALKER, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72206 (506) 374-3758 THIS DOCUMENT ENTERED ON DOCKET SHEET IN CCOCMMPPLLIIAANNCCEE WWrIIHRULE 58 AND/\u0026lt;------ ON BY '9(aJ FRCP '  .^^r Heller Christopher Heller FRIDAY, ELDREDGE Se CLARK 2000 First Comnercial Bldg. Little Rock, AR 72201 (501) 376-2011 RECEIVED -i X -'5 C'STPiCT cnicr AUG 19 1992 Office of Desegregation Monitoring IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION m fS92 CARJ. 5v: LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT PLAINTIFFS V. NO. LR-C-82-866 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, ET AL DEFENDANTS MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL DEFENDTkNTS KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL INTERVENORS STIPULATION The parties hereto are in agreement that it would be ( LERK Cth.-t/'' appropriate to defer the forthcoming school election in the Little Rock School District until a date to be determined by the Court after the Pulaski County Board of Education has been added as a party defendant hereto. The parties hereto are also in agreement that the school zone lines presently in use do not conform to the requirement of the \"one man one vote\" principle and that adjustments to the existing zone lines may be required as a consequence of the new census and demographic changes within the community. Pursuant to their stipulation, the parties or either of them. shall be expected to move in a timely fashion to add the Pulaski County Board of Education as a party defendant herein. It is therefore the Order of the Court that the election for school directors for the Little Rock School District be stayed pending lathy\\P'Electkxx.Sd further orders of this Court. It is also the order of this court that the current directors remain in their present positions until new elections are held. This stipulation is filed simultaneously in Charles v. Jacovelli. No. LR-C-92-476 and LRSD v. PC5SD. No. LR-C- 82-866, without prejudice to defendants' position that Charles should be dismissed. UNITED STATES DISTRICT ZTUDGE Approved: Ji J/ Walker IN W. WALKER, P.A. Broadway Little Rock, AR 122Q6 (506) 374-3758 document a ON - c. BY 1 L.-. Christopher Heller FRIDAY, ELDREDGE \u0026amp; CLARK 2000 First Commercial Bldg. Little Rock, AR 72201 (501) 376-2011 ka(l]y\\P-Elect\u0026gt;on.Sd 2 AUG-18-92 TUE 15:18 U.S, DIST. CT. LR ARK, FAX NO, 7406096 P, 02 EAsie, CCU/?r IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION J 71992 dale CHARLES, ROBERT L. BROWN, SR,, GWEN HEVEY JACKSON, DIANE DAVIS, and RAYMOND FRAZIER oep PLAINTIFFS V. NO. LR-C-92-476 O.G, JACOVELLI, Individually and As President of the Board of Education of the Little Rock School District, PATRICIA GEE, DR. GEORGE CANNON, JOHN MOORE, DORSEY JACKSON, DR. KATHERINE MITCHELL and W.D. \"BILL\" HAMILTON, Individually and In Their Official Capacities as Members of the Board of Education of the Little Rock School District, A Public Body, Individually and In Their Official Capacities and THE LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT, A Public Body Corporate DEFENDANTS The STIPULATION parties hereto are in agreement that it would be appropriate to defer the forthcoiaing school election in the Little Rock School District until a date to be determined by the Court after the Pulaski County Board of Education has been added as a party defendant hereto. The parties hereto are also in agreement that the school zone lines presently in use do not conform to the requirement of the \"one man one vote\" principle and that adjustments to the existing zone lines may be required as a consequence of the new census and demographic changes within the community. Pursuant to their stipulation, the parties or either of them, shall be expected to move in a timely fashion to add the PulaskiAUG-18-92 TUE 15:19 U.S, DIST, CT, LR ARK, FAX NO, 7406096 County Board of Education as a party defendant herein. P. 03 It is therefore the Order of the Court that the election for school directors for the Little Rock School District be stayed pending further orders of this Court. It is also the order of this court that the current directors remain in their present positions until new elections are held. This stipulation is filed simultaneously in Charles v. Jacovelli. No. IiR-C-92-476 and LRSD v, PCSSD, No. LR-C- 82-866, without prejudice to defendants' position that Charles should be dismissed. UNITED STATES DISTRICT/JUDGE Approved: John W. Walker JOHN W. WALKER, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72206 (506) 374-3758 THIS DOCUMENT ENTERED ON DOCKET SHEET IN COMPLIANCE W1 RULE 58 AND/(------ ON BY :9(a) FRCP Chri' stoph .eirx HHeelllleerr  FRIDAY, ELDREDGE \u0026amp; CLARK 2000 First Conaaercial Bldg. Little Rock, AR 72201 (501) 376-2011 AUG-18-92 TUE 15:18 U.S. DIST. CT. LR ARK. FAX NO. 7406096 P.02 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS \u0026gt;IS. WESTERN DIVISION CAR, Hy- DALE CHARLES, ROBERT L. BROWN, SR., GWEN HEVEY JACKSON, DIANE DAVIS, and RAYMOND FRAZIER PLAINTIFFS V. NO. LR-C-92-476 O.G. JACOVELLI, Individually and As President of the Board of Education of the Little Rock School District, PATRICIA GEE, DR. GEORGE CANNON, JOHN MOORE, DORSEY JACKSON, DR. KATHERINE MITCHELL and W.D. \"BILL\" HAMILTON, Individually and In Their Official Capacities as Members of the Board of Education of the Little Rock School District, A Public Body, Individually and In Their Official Capacities and THE LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT, A Public Body Corporate DEFENDANTS The STIPULATION parties hereto are in agreement that it would be appropriate to defer the forthcoming school election in the Little Rock School District until a date to be determined by the Court after the Pulaski County Board of Education has been added as a party defendant hereto. The parties hereto are also in agreement that the school zone lines presently in use do not conform to the requirement of the \"one man one vote\" principle and that adjustments to the existing zone lines may be required as a consequence of the new census and demographic changes within the community. Pursuant to their stipulation, the parties or either of them, shall be expected to move in a timely fashion to add the PulaskiAUG-18-92 TUE 15:19 U.S. DIST. CT. LR ARK. FAX NO. 7406096 county Board of Education as a party defendant herein. P. 03 It is therefore the Order of the Court that the election for school directors for the Little Rock School District be stayed pending further orders of this Court. It is also the order of this court that the current directors remain in their present positions until new elections are held. This stipulation is filed simultaneously in Charles v, Jacovelli. No. LR-C-92-476 and LRSD v, PCSSD, No. LR-C- 82-866, without prejudice to defendants' position that Charles should be dismissed. UNITED STATES DISTRICT/JUDGE Approved\n^ohh W.Walker JOHN W. WALKER, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72206 (506) 374-3758 THIS DOCUMENT ENTERED ON DOCKET SHEET W COMPLIANCE WIT^ULE 58 AND/Q^9(a) FRCP ON BBYY vV Chri's toph ^err HHeelllleerr FRIDAY, ELDREDGE Se CLARK 2000 First Comaercial Bldg. Little Rock, AR 72201 (501) 376-2011 RECEIVED tUG 2 4 1993 Ottice o! Dssegregaiion Monitoring IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT, ET AL PLAINTIFFS V. NO. LR-C-82-866 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, ET AL DEFENDANTS MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL INTERVENORS KATHERINE W. KNIGHT, ET AL INTERVENORS DALECHARLES, ET AL V. LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT, ET AL. RESPONSE TO MOTION REQUESTING SEPARATE ENTRY OF JUDGMENT PURSUANT TO RULES 54(B) AND 58 FED.R.CIV.P. ON CLAIMS THAT WERE SUBJECT TO THE ORDER OF THE COURT ENTERED ON JUNE 21. 1993 Defendant, Little Rock School District (\"LRSD\"), for its Response to the Charles Plaintiffs/Intervenors' Motion Requesting Separate Entry of Judgment Pursuant to Rules 54(B) and 58 , Fed.R.Civ. P. , on Claims That Were Subject to the Order of the Court Entered June 21, 1993, states: 1. The Charles Plaintiffs/Intervenors have waived any right to request a separate entry of judgment pursuant to Rule 54(B) and 58 by their filing of a Motion to Alter and Amend the Judgment on June 6, 1993 . It is clear from the Court's June 21, 1993 , Order that the Court intended the Order to constitute a final judgment. -1- cvaifcndleyMrud.rtniThe Charles Plaintiffs/Intervenors treated the June 21, 1993, Order as a final judgment in their Motion to Alter or Amend Judgment filed June 6, 1993 . Moreover, in the long history of the litigation between these parties, a separate order of judgment has usually has not been entered, and the parties in earlier appeals have never raised the District Court's failure to enter a separate judgment. 2. The docket sheet for this case indicates that the parties have not before insisted upon separate judgements and have waived the requirement of a separate entry of judgment in prior appeals. WHEREFORE, LRSD prays that the Charles Plaintiffs/Intervenors' Motion Requesting Separate Entry of Judgment Pursuant to Rule 54(B) and 58, Fed.R.Civ.P., On Claims That Were Subject to the Order of the Court Entered June 21, 1993, be denied. Respectfully submitted. LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT CHRISTOPHER HELLER JOHN C. FENDLEY, JR. FRIDAY, ELDREDGE \u0026amp; CLARK 2000 First Commercial Bldg. 400 West Capitol Street Little Rock, AR 72201 (501) 376-2011 By: i^r No. 92182 Iz -2- eva \\fend ley M rad. runCERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I certify that a copy of the foregoing Motion has been served the following by depositing copy of same in the United States mail on this , day of August, 1993: on Mr. John W. Walker JOHN WALKER, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72205 Mr. Sam Jones WRIGHT, LINDSEY \u0026amp; JENNINGS 2200 Worthen Bank Bldg. 200 West Capitol Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Steve Jones JACK, LYON \u0026amp; JONES, P.A. 3400 Capitol Towers Capitol \u0026amp; Broadway Streets Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Richard Roachell 401 W. Capitol, Suite 504 Little Rock, AR 72201 Ms. Ann Brown Heritage West Bldg., Suite 510 201 East Markham Street Little Rock, AR 72201 -3- evaUendfeyUrad.rtm beceiveo ^Ug 2 1993 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT ,Office ot Desegregation Monitoring EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT, ET AL PLAINTIFFS 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 DALECHARLES, ET AL V. LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT, ET AL. BRIEF IN SUPPORT OF LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT'S RESPONSE TO THE CHARLES PLAINTIFFS/INTERVENORS' MOTION REQUESTING SEPARATE ENTRY OF JUDGMENT PURSUANT TO RULES 54(B) AND 58 FED.R.CIV.P. ON CLAIMS THAT WERE SUBJECT TO THE ORDER OF THE COURT ENTERED ON JUNE 21, 1993 In Sanders v. Clemco Industries, 862 F.2d 161 (8th Cir. 1988), the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals on facts identical to those in the present case held that the Rule 58 separate document requirement had been waived. In that case, the plaintiff, Terry Wayne Sanders, appealed from orders of the District Court granting summary judgment for Clemco Industries and Ingersoll-Rand Company and denying Sanders motion to reconsider and set aside the summary judgment order. -1- eva\\fendleyMnd2.briThe court in Sanders reached the merits of Sanders' appea1 only with regard to the denial of his motion for reconsideration. The court found the appeal with regard to the order of summary judgment was untimely. Although Sanders had filed his notice of appeal with regard to the summary judgment order within thirty days after the District Court had denied his motion for reconsideration, the motion for reconsideration was filed more than ten days after the order for summary judgment, and therefore, that motion did not toll the deadline for the filing of the notice of appeal of the summary judgment order. Sanders. 862 F. 2d at See Fed.R.Civ.P. Rule 59(e) (1993)\nFed.R.App.P. Rule 4(a)(4) (1993)\nSpinar v. South Dakota Board of Regents, 796 F.2d 1060, 1062 (Sth Cir. 1986). In order to preserve his right to appeal the summary judgment order, Sanders had argued that the District Court had never entered a final judgment on a separate document as required by Rule 58 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, and consequently, the time period for filing of a notice of appeal had never begun. The court rejected this argument and determined \"that the parties have waived the separate document requirement.\" Sanders. 862 F.2d at 166. The court identified four factors indicating that the parties waived the separate document requirement during the course of that litigation. One factor was Sanders' motion \"for Reconsideration 164 . and to Set Aside Summary Judgment\" which referred to the District Court's order as \"the court's granting of summary judgment. 11 Likewise in the present case. on June 6, 1993 , the Charles -2- evtifendleyMndZ.briPlaintiffs/Intervenors filed a \"Motion to Alter or Amend Judgment\" referring to the Court's Order entered June 21, 1993. The Charles Plaintiffs/Intervenors in their Brief in Support of the Motion to Alter or Amend Judgment state that \"plaintiffs seek to alter the Judgment\" Brief in Support of Motion to Alter or Amend Judgment, p.l. That the Charles Plaintiffs/Intervenors consider the Court's Order of June 21, 1993, to constitute a final judgment is further evidenced by the fact they requested to be awarded attorneys' fees as prevailing parties based on the Court's Order. See, Motion to Alter or Amend Judgment, p.4. Next, the court in Sanders stated that the trial court's consideration of its summary judgment order as a final judgment provided further support to the conclusion that the parties had waived the separate document requirement. In the present case, the final two paragraphs of this Court's June 21, 1993, Order read as follows: The Court finds that the Complaint should be dismissed and that the proposal adopted by PCBE on December 29, 1992 and submitted to the Court in 1983 should be accepted. and is hereby The Court adopts the plan submitted on January 6, 1993, and sets the election which was postponed from September of 1992 to coincide with the annual school election of September 21, 1993, implemented elections. and for orders that that and the future plan be school Order, June 21, 1993 , p.29. This language clearly evidences the Court's intent that its June 21, 1993 Order constitute the final -3- evaMendfeyUrad2.briX resolution of the claims set forth in the Charles Plaintiffs/Intervenors Complaint. The court in Sanders also found it important that the parties in prior appeals had not raised the District Court's failure to enter a separate judgment. Numerous orders of this Court have been appealed without a separate judgment having been entered or requested in accordance with Rule 58. Hence, the past history of this litigation provides further evidence that the Charles . Plaintiffs/Intervenors waived the separate document requirement of Rule 58. The court in Sanders also noted that neither party had raised the question of noncompliance with Rule 58 prior to the appeal being filed. However, this fact should not distinguish the case at hand. The acts constituting a waiver of the Rule 58 separate document requirement were complete prior to the filing of the Charles Plaintiffs/Intervenors' present Motion. The Charles Plaintiffs/Intervenors should not now be allowed to recover rights already waived. The Charles Plaintiffs/Intervenors will undoubtedly emphasize language from Sanders which indicates that a finding of waiver may be inappropriate when the right of appeal may be lost. However, the Eighth Circuit in Sanders responded to this argument as follows: We recognize that if we remanded for the entry of a separate judgment, Sanders could appeal on the merits of the case, not merely on the question of whether the trial judge abused his discretion in denying reconsideration of his -4- cva\\fendlcy\\lrd2.bri4 order. As we have noted, however, when parties have proceeded in a district court and in this court on two occasions memorandum order constituted as though a as final and appealable judgment, and where the appeal is not entirely lost, we should accept appellate jurisdiction to the extent that we can. Sanders. 862 F.2d at 167. Hence, the court in Sanders recognized that by finding that Sanders had waived the Rule 58 separate document requirement he would be unable to appeal the court's summary judgment order. It noted that Sanders' right to appeal was \"not entirely lost\" because he retained the right to appeal the court's denial of his motion for reconsideration. Similarly, the Charles Plaintiffs/Intervenors could appeal this Court's resolution of its Motion to Alter and Amend Judgment should the Court find that they have waived the separate document requirement of Rule 58. Therefore, it is entirely appropriate that the Court conclude that the Rule 58 separate document requirement has been waived by the Charles Plaintiffs/Intervenors. Respectfully submitted. LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT CHRISTOPHER HELLER JOHN C. FENDLEY, JR. FRIDAY, ELDREDGE \u0026amp; CLARK 2000 First Commercial Bldg. 400 West Capitol Street Little Rock, AR 72201 (501) 376-2011 By: CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE -5- ev\\fer)dky\\Jnd2.bn I certify that a copy of the foregoing Brief is Support has been served on the following by depositing copy of same in the United States mail on this day of August, 1993: Mr. John W. Walker JOHN WALKER, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72205 Mr. Sam Jones WRIGHT, LINDSEY \u0026amp; JENNINGS 2200 Worthen Bank Bldg. 200 West Capitol Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Steve Jones JACK, LYON \u0026amp; JONES, P.A. 3400 Capitol Towers Capitol \u0026amp; Broadway Streets Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Richard Roachell 401 W. Capitol, Suite 504 Little Rock, AR 72201 Ms. Ann Brown Heritage West Bldg., Suite 510 201 East Markham Street Little Rock, AR 72201 L. C. Fendley, Jr. -6- evti\\fendley\\lRd2.bn IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. LR-C-82-866 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, ET AL. MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL. KATHERINE W. KNIGHT, ET AL. JUDGMENT h filed CARL R. By: AUG 2^1993 p: I S, CLER NQSKE.ERX DEFENDANTS INTERVENORS INTERVENORS The claims of the Charles plaintiffs that the election zones for members of the Little Rock School District Board of Directors violate the Voting Rights Act of 1964 and the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution came on for trial before the Court, Honorable Susan Webber Wright, District Judge, presiding. The Court expressly determines that there is no just reason for delay of entry of judgment as to these claims, which are a part of this consolidated case. Fed.R.Civ.P. 54(b)\nFed.R.Civ.P. 58. The issues having been duly tried and a decision having been duly rendered pursuant to the Memorandum Opinion and Order entered in this matter on June 21, 1993, IT IS ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that the Voting Rights Act claims raised in the complaint filed by the Charles plaintiffs, which was consolidated with the above-styled case, be and are hereby, denied. The Clerk is directed to enter the judgment accordingly. DATED this day of August, 1993. V.  UNITED STATES DISTRIOT JJIUDGE THIS DOCUMENT ENTERED ON COMPI ON_^ ULE S Ai EY (OCKET SHEET IN VOR^f^CP 1 9'5 7 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS ' WESTERN DIVISION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT V. NO. LR-C-82-866 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, ET AL. MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL. KATHERINE W. KNIGHT, ET AL. ORDER ',.3 ^L'G o ^993 Sy:. :p. CLep,^ PLAINTIFF DEFENDANTS INTERVENORS INTERVENORS Before the Court is the Charles plaintiffs' motion to alter or amend the Court's Memorandum Opinion and Order of June 21, 1993, and their subsequent motion requesting separate entry of judgment pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 54(b) and 58. Defendants have responded to the motions and the Charles' plaintiffs filed a reply to the Little Rock School District's response to their motion to alter or amend. The Court entered its Memorandum Opinion and Order on June 21, 1993, dismissing the Charles plaintiffs' complaint challenging the election zones for the Little Rock School District Board of Directors. The Charles plaintiffs filed a motion to alter or amend on July 6, 1993 but did not serve the defendants until July 9, 1993 . The defendants contend the Charles plaintiffs' motion is untimely according to Fed.R.Civ.P. 59(e), which requires that such motion must be served not later than 10 days after entry of judgment. The defendants also argue that the motion should be denied on the merits. In reply, the Charles plaintiffs assert the motion is not untimely because no final judgment has been entered. On the same day that they filed their reply to the defendants' response to the motion to alter or amend the judgment, the Charles plaintiffs filed a motion requesting separate entry of judgment pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 54(b) and 58. In response, the defendants contend the Charles plaintiffs waived the Rule 58 separate-document requirement. Having considered the motions, responses, and reply. the Court finds that the motion for separate entry of judgment should be granted and the motion to alter or amend should be denied. In support of their argument that the Rule 58 separatedocument requirement was waived, the defendants cite Sanders v. Clemco Industries, 862 F.2d 161 (8th Cir. 1988). In Sanders, the plaintiff appealed from a Memorandum and Order granting summary judgment and an order denying his motion for reconsideration. The appeals court concluded that the parties waived the separatedocument requirement for several reasons. The court noted that neither party raised the issue of non-compliance with Rule 58 and proceeded as if the Memorandum and Order constituted a final judgment. In addition, the court pointed out that the plaintiff labeled his motion as one 11 for reconsideration and to set aside summary judgment\" and referred to the district court's action as \"granting of summary judgment.\" Next, the court stated that the trial court considered the Memorandum and Order as a final judgment when it denied plaintiff's motion to set aside summary judgment. Finally, the court noted that the parties in prior appeals in the -2- case had not raised the district court's failure to enter a separate judgment. In holding the parties waived the separate-document requirement, the Sanders court stated: \"Although we determine that the parties waived the separate-document requirement in this case, we stress that such a determination is not to be made routinely. Waiver may be entirely inappropriate, and the separate-document requirement enforced, when the right to appeal otherwise would be lost. II Sanders, 862 F.2d at 167. Defendants contend this language should not influence the Court's decision whether to enter separate entry of judgment because the Charles plaintiffs could still appeal this Court's resolution of their motion to alter or amend. In this case. No. LR-C-82-866, the Court's orders are typically in the nature of equitable decrees from which the parties may appeal without the entry of judgment pursuant to Rule 58. However, the claims adjudicated in the Charles' complaint address matters that are separate and distinct from those issues about which the Court routinely enters orders, and which the parties almost as routinely appeal, concerning the settlement plans and agreement. The Charles plaintiffs brought their voting rights claims in a separate lawsuit which the Court consolidated with LR- C-82-866. The facts here are not identical to Sanders and the Court cannot find that the parties waived the requirement for a separate document in this instance. The Court therefore determines that the Charles plaintiffs' claims have been adjudicated and that there is no just reason to -3-delay entry of judgment as to these claims. In accordance with Rule 54(b), the motion requesting separate entry of judgment is granted. In their motion to alter or amend judgment, the Charles plaintiffs argue that the Court erred in finding that the plan adopted by the Pulaski County Board of Education did not violate 2 of the Voting Rights Act when viewed in light of the standards set forth in Thornburg v. Gingles, 478 U.S. 30 (1986) or the standards for retrogression set out in Turner v. State of Arkansas, 784 F.Supp. 553 (E.D.Ark. 1991). They contend the PCBE plan is retrogressive because, applying the 65% minority population benchmark for a \"safe\" district, the number of minority districts is reduced from two \"safe\" districts to one. Additionally, the Charles plaintiff argue the Court misapplied the requirements under Thornburg. The Charles plaintiffs also ask the Court to amend its Order and find that they are the prevailing parties on their claim that the 1986 plan violated the one-man one-vote principle. They contend they are the prevailing parties on the other claims as well because as a result of their lawsuit, regardless of the disposition of the motion to amend or alter, they will be better off under the plan approved by the Court because there is less packing and there is a zone established in which they have a stronger impact as well as a clear chance that the zone will become a third majority minority zone in the future. In Hagerman v. Yukon Energy Corp., 839 F.2d 407, 414 (8th Cir. -4-1988), the court cited with approval a Seventh Circuit case which stated\n\"'Motions for reconsideration serve a limited function: to correct manifest errors of law or fact or to present newly discovered evidence. . . . Nor should a motion for reconsideration serve as the occasion to tender new legal theories for the first time.'\" The Court finds that the Charles plaintiffs' motion attempts to re-argue issues already decided by this Court and to raise issues that could have been made at trial. Therefore, it will be denied.* IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the Charles plaintiffs' motion for separate entry of judgment [doc. # 1924] is granted. Their motion to amend or alter [doc. # 1885] is hereby denied. DATED this 'day of August, 1993. UNITED STATES DISTRICT JI X.'JMENT c.NTF ON DOCKET SH' M JUDGE W Pi ,1 02^- ON  UY ' The Charles plaintiffs may renew their argument that they are the prevailing parties when they submit a motion for attorneys fees. -5-'Ot t  \u0026lt;  recesved SEP 2 1993 Office of Desegregation Monitoring IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION FILED U.S. DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT ARKANSAS SEP 0 1 1993 CARL R.BRENTS, CLERK 8z:. R.,BREN7 DlEE PP. .CCLLEERRKlC-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 Clerk is hereby directed to substitute the attached pages. nos. 20, 23, 24, and 26, for the corresponding pages in the Memorandum Opinion and Order entered in this matter on June 21, 1993 as Document No. 1853. The Court directs this action in order to more appropriately cite Thornburg V. Gingles in subsequent references in the opinion. DATED this day of August, 1993. 1 UNITED STAATTEESS DISTRICT' JJUUEDGE rms DOCUMENT ENTERED ON DOCKET SHEET kN COMPLIANCE WITH P ON tE AND/OR 79(a) FRCP ev r' W'W..  been elected to public office in the jurisdiction. Gingles, 478 U.S. at 30, 44-45 (1986). Additional factors that in some cases have had probative value as part of plaintiffs' evidence to establish a violation are unresponsiveness on the part of elected officials to the particularized needs of the members of the minority group and whether the policy underlying the state or political subdivision's use of the contested practice is tenuous. Id. at 45. 9. Consideration of the Senate factors in determining whether a violation of 2 exists has been criticized because the factors often take attention away from the real issue. In this regard, the court in Whitfield v. Democratic Party of Arkansas, 686 F.Supp. 1365 (E.D.Ark. 1988), aff'd 902 F.2d 15 (Sth Cir. 1990) wrote: Having reviewed the Senate Report factors and some of the proof relating thereto, the Court must determine whether its positive findings with respect to many of those factors make it more probably true than not true that the challenged runoff provision makes the political processes not tl equally open to participation\" by blacks in that blacks have \"less opportunity than whites to participate in the political process and to elect representatives of their choice. II It should be apparent by now that most of the positive findings with respect to the Senate Report factors have no tendency to prove, or disprove, that proposition. The truth is that focusing on some of those factors serves more as a distraction than a useful tool for evaluating the cause and effect operation of the challenged runoff laws. Id. at 1386-87. See also, Jeffers, 730 F. Supp. at 232 (federal courts have felt the need to make findings concerning the Senate factors whether or not they have any relevance to the issues at hand). An evaluation of the Senate factors adds little to the -20-to give a remedy solely on the latter basis.\" Jeffers, 730 F. Supp. at 237. Therefore, the Charles plaintiffs have not proved that they have less opportunity to participate in the political process under the districting plan adopted by the PCBE. 11. The second element of a Voting Rights Act claim which the Charles plaintiffs have the burden to establish is that they have less opportunity to elect representatives of their choice under the districting scheme adopted by the PCBE than under the 1986 districting plan. The Supreme Court has identified three \"necessary preconditions\" to a finding that a districting scheme impairs minority voters' ability to elect representatives of their choice: First, that [the minority group] is sufficiently large and geographically compact to constitute a majority in a single-member district. 7\" '' - - - If it is not, as would be the case in a substantially integrated district, the multimember form of the district cannot be responsible for minority voters' inability to elect its candidates. Second, the minority group must be able to show that it is politically cohesive, politically cohesive, it If the minority group is not cannot be said that the selection of a multi-member electoral structure thwarts distinctive minority group interests. Third, the minority must be able to demonstrate that the white majority votes sufficiently as a bloc to enable it  in the absence of special circumstances, such as a minority candidate running unopposed . . . usually to defeat the minority's preferred candidate. In establishing this last circumstance, the minority group demonstrates that submergence in a white multi-member district impedes its ability to elect representation. representatives of its chosen Gingles, 478 U.S. at 50-51. These \"necessary preconditions\" will -23-be discussed in turn.^ 12. More than mere numerical superiority needs to be considered in determining whether the Charles plaintiffs constitute a sufficient majority in a single-member district to elect representatives of their choice. They must constitute more than a simple majority in order to ensure that they have the opportunity to elect candidates of their choice. As the court explained in Smith v. Clinton, 687 F.Supp. 1361, 1363 (E.D.Ark. 1988)\nA guideline of 65% of total population is frequently used, and is derived by supplementing a simple majority with an additional 5% to offset the fact that minority population tends to be younger than that of whites, 5% for the registration, minorities. well-documented and 5% for pattern low voter of low turnout voter among See also Fletcher v. Golder, 959 F.2d 106, 110 (Sth Cir. 1992). Therefore, the minority group must be sufficiently large and geographically compact that one or more zones with at least 65% minority population may be created. The Charles plaintiffs argue that three majority black districts should be created. The zones they propose, however, all fall below the 65% guideline. The Charles plaintiffs' proposed Zone 1 is 64.7% black, but it encompasses an area of declining black population and has an initial population variance of -4.5%. The other two proposed majority black zones are 61.7% and 64% black. The minority group is apparently not sufficiently large and ^Thc Court follows the Gingles preconditions but notes that Gingles addressed alleged voting rights violations in the context of a multi-member structure. In Growe, supra, the Supreme Court held that the Gingles preconditions apply in challenges to single-member districts. -24-In fact, racial polarization may not be shown where, in six of ten races with a black candidate facing a white candidate head to head, the black candidate won. 14. In general, \"a white bloc vote that normally will defeat the combined strength of minority support plus white 'crossover' votes rises to the level of legally significant white bloc voting.\" Gingles, 478 U.S. at 56. This situation simply does not exist in Little Rock. In 1980, Judge Eisele, after careful review of a voluminous amount of data, concluded that Little Rock does not have racially polarized voting. Leadership Roundtable, supra. This Court also concludes that racially polarized voting does not exist in Little Rock. The Court is mindful of Mr. Lynch's testimony that many factors other than race determine the outcomes of elections. This evidence is relevant to determine whether \"bloc voting by white voters will consistently defeat minority candidates.\" Gingles, 478 U.S. at 100 (O'Connor, J., concurring). It also \"would suggest that another candidate, equally preferred by the minority group. might be able to attract greater white support in future elections.\" Id. The Charles plaintiffs have not set forth proof that other factors usually determinative of political success, i.e. the candidates' platforms and policies, their ability as speakers. their II track records\" in the community. their name recognition, their financial support, were not the factors which attracted white voters. See Jeffers, 730 F. Supp at 246 (Eisele, J., concurring and dissenting). -26-SEP-'3-92 THU 10:44 U.S, DIST. CT, LR ARK, FAX NO, 7406096 P, 02 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT' EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION SE^-1 LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT by- V. 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 MOTION TO POSTPONE ELECTION For their motion, the Little Rock School District (LRSD) and the Pulaski County Board of Education (PCBE) state: 1. Members of PCBE are elected both at large and from zones from within the boundaries of the three school districts in Pulaski County, Arkansas. PCBE elections normally coincide with the  wc- r (? regularly scheduled school elections each year. 2. The only PCBE election scheduled for 1992 is in Zone 5, a zone situated entirely within the boundaries of LRSD. The regularly scheduled school elections in LRSD have been postponed by the court. The PCBE . Zone 5 election remains scheduled for September 15, 1992. 3. The incumbent in PCBE Zone 5, Mr. E. Grainger Williams, is unopposed for reelection. He will continue to serve Zone 5 whether or not an election is held on September 15, 1992.SEP- 3-92 THU 10:45 U.S. DIST. CT. LR ARK. FAX NO. 7406096 P. 03 4. LRSD will be required to pay the cost of the PCBE Zone 5 election. There will be no significant additional cost to LRSD if the PCBE Zone 5 election is held at the same time as the LRSD Board of Education election. There will be a significant cost to LRSD if the PCBE election is held as scheduled. The PCBE election should be rescheduled to coincide with the LRSD Board of Education election to avoid a waste of money which will be better spent for education and implementation of LRSD's desegregation plan. WHEREFORE, for the reasons set out above, the Little Rock School District and the Pulaski County Board of Education pray for an order postponing the Pulaski County Board of Education Zone S election until the time of the Little Rock School District 1992 Board of Education election. Respectfully submitted, LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT FRIDAY, ELDREDGE \u0026amp; CLARK 2000 First Commercial Bldg. 400 West Capitol Street Little Rock, AR 72201 (501) 376-2011 By: Christopher Heller Bar No. 81083 PULASKI county BOARD OF EDUCATION PULASKI COUNTY ATTORNEY Pulaski County Courthouse Little Rock, AR 72201 By: L:a.ra\nr?y Vahght kidyVP-PoiipcBB.Eieciiqa 2 SEP- 3-92 THU 10:45 U.S. DIST. CT. LR ARK. FAX NO. 7406096 P. 04 - \\ I CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I certify that a copy of the foregoing Motion to Postpone Election has been served on the following by depositing copy of same in the united states mail on this 1st day of September, 1992\nMr. John Walker JOHN WALKER, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72206 Mr. Sam Jones WRIGHT, LINDSEY \u0026amp; JENNINGS 2200 Worthen Bank Bldg. 200 West Capitol Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Steve Jones JACK, LYON \u0026amp; JONES, P.A. 3400 Capitol Towers Capitol \u0026amp; Broadway Streets Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Richard Roachell #15 Hickory Creek Drive Little Rock, AR 72212 Ms. Ann Brown Office of Desegregation Monitoring Heritage West Bldg  Suite 510 201 East Markham Street Little Rock, AR 72201 \u0026gt; Christopher Heller 3 F\u0026gt; W.w: V T? C,\"- ii ILse Laan FILED U.S. DISJ-RlCT COURT r .r.n , ni/**! e nu'iMOAe SEP 9 1992 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION SEP 04 1992 CARL R. liritft Office of Desesregation Mcnitoring LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT DEW.tlERK INTIFFS V. No. LR-C-82-866 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT No. 1, ET AL DEFENDANTS MRS. LORENE 'fJOSHUA, ET AL INTERVENORS KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL INTERVENORS ORDER On motion of the Little Rock School District (LRSD) and the Pulaski County Board of Education (PCBE), and without objection from any of the parties to this action, the PCBE Zone 5 election currently scheduled for September 15, 1992, is hereby postponed until the time of the LRSD 1992 Board of Education election. IT IS SO ORDERED this 4th day of September, 1992. UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE THIS DOCUMENT ENTERED ON DOCKET SHEET IN :OMPU, ON WITH RULE 58 AND/OR 79(a) FRCP BYRECEIVED RLP.0 SEP 1 0 1992 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT Cj Office of Desegregation Moni'^rjfigTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS SEP 09 1992 im WESTERN DIVISION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT, ET AL. PLAINTIFFS V. NO. LR-C-82-866 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT, ET AL. DEFENDANTS MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL. INTERVENORS KATHERINE W. KNIGHT, ET AL. INTERVENORS RESPONSE TO MOTION TO POSTPONE ELECTION The Little Rock School District and the Pulaski County Board of Education have moved to delay the election for Pulaski County School Board Election Zone 5 until such time as the Court determines Little Rock School Board Elections. The Joshua Intervenors have no objections to an Order granting the requested delay herein. Respectfully submitted. JOHN W. WALKER, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR (501) 374-3758 72206 Joli: Bar No. 64046 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I, John W. Walker, hereby certify that a true and correct copy of the foregoing document has been served upon the following, by placing same in U.S. Mail, postage prepaid, on this 9th day September, 1992: of Christopher Heller, Esq. FRIDAY, ELDREDGE \u0026amp; CLARK 2000 First Commercial Bldq. 400 West Capitol Little Rock, AR 72201 Larry Vauqht Pulaski County Attorney Pulaski County Courthouse Little Rock, AR 72201 Sam Jones, Esq. WRIGHT, LINDSEY \u0026amp; JENNINGS 2200 Worthen Bank Bldg. 200 West Capitol Little Rock, AR 72201 Steve Jones, Esq. JACK, LYON \u0026amp; JONES 3400 Capitol Towers Capitol \u0026amp; Broadway Streets Little Rock, AR 72201 Richard Roachell, Esq. #15 Hickory Creek Drive Little Rock, AR 72212 Ms. Ann Brown Office of Desegregation Monitoring Heritage West Bldg., Suite 510 201 E. Markham St. Little Rock, AR 72201 ohn W. Walker Jobreceived FILED u e oisrnici COURT eastern OISTRIAT ARKANSAS Office OCT 1 1992 of Desegregation Monitofing IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION SEP 24 1992 CARji Ry^ftENTS, CLERK DEP. CLeSt DALE CHARLES, ET AL. PLAINTIFFS V. NO. LR-C-92-476 O.G. JACOVELLI, ET AL. DEFENDANTS LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT PLAINTIFF V. NO. LR-C-82-866V PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, ET AL. DEFENDANTS MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL. INTERVENORS KATHERINE W. KNIGHT, ET AL. INTERVENORS ORDER Pending in both of the above-named cases are motions to consolidate. The motions are granted. The Clerk is directed to close LR-C-92-476 and to transfer any pleadings that are not duplicates to LR-C-82-866. Any further pleadings in LR-C-92-476 should be filed in LR-C-82-866. 1 On August 18,1992, this Court entered a Stipulated Order in LR-C-92-476, postponing the election for school directors for the Little Rock School District (\"LRSD\") until further orders of the Court. The Court also granted the motion of the LRSD and the Pulaski County Board of Education (\"County Board\") to postpone the County Board's Zone 5 election. Upon review of the pleadings filed in both cases concerning the matter of rezoning. the Court The motions to dismiss filed in former Case No. LR-C-92-476 (Doc. HH 3, 11, and 12) arc moot, the case having been consolidated with LR-C-82-866. 0 determines that it is appropriate for the County Board to address the issue of LRSD election zones. By law, the County Board is charged with the responsibility of dividing the LRSD into zones for the purpose of electing members to that District's Board of Directors. Ark. Code Ann. 6-13-607 (Michie 1991). The County Board will determine whether the zones are out of compliance with the \"one mafi* - one vote\" principle, and if they are, will rezone the LRSD accordingly. 3 Should the County Board find it necessary to redraw the zones, the Court asks it to be mindful of LRSD school attendance zones. A IT IS SO ORDERED this / day of September, 1992. UMITOD STATES DISTRICT , JUDGE TMis 00! ON \u0026gt; 1/-C WiTi i Ri 0 ON DOCKET SHENIN 79{a) FRCP BY.______ i: In responseto the LRSDs motion for joinder (Doc. # 1664), the County Board entered an appearancein LR-C-82-866 for the limited purpoic of complying with the orders of this Court to rezone the LRSD. The Court finds this appearance is appropriate and the motion for joinder is granted. in December 1986, the Court approved a proposal adopted by the LRSD dividing the district into seven election zones. Those zones have remained unchanged under the 1986 order of the Court. -2-UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT Eastern District of Arkansas Office of the Clerk P.O. Box 869 Little Rock, Arkansas 72203-0869 September 30, 1993 Mr. Michael E. Gans, Clerk United States Court of Appeals 1114 Market Street St, Louis, MO 63103 Case No. LR-C-82-866 Re: LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT DISTRICT PULASKI COUNTY vs. Dear Sir: Enclosed please find in duplicate, copies of the following in the above case: Notice of Appeal [certified] Docket Entries [certified] Order filed 8/24/93 Judgment filed 8/24/93 Amended Notice of Appeal Sincerely, Carl R. Brents, Clerk Doris Collins, Deputy Clerk cc: w/encs. All Counsel of Record Lois Lambert-Court ReporterFILED U.S. DISTRICT COURT IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COWF'* district Arkansas EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION ,SFP ? ? 1995 CARL R. BRENTS, CLERK LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT, ET AL By: PT.ATNTTFFS DEP. CLERK V. NO. LR-C-82-866 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT DEFENDANTS MRS. LORENE JOSHLA, ET AL. INTERVENORS KATHERINE W. KNIGHT, ET AL. INTERVENORS DALE CHARLES, ET AL. V. LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT, ET AL. NOTICE OF APPEAL Notice is hereby given that the Plaintiffs and the Joshua Intervenors appeal the Judgment of the Court entered herein on August 24, 1993 to the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit. Respectfully submitted. No. 64046 JOHN W. WALKER, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR (501) 374-3758 72206CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing has been mailed. postage prepaid to the counsel of record listed below on this 22nd day of September, 1993. Larry D. Vaught Pulaski County Attorney 201 So. Broadway, Suite 400 Little Rock, AR 72201 Steve Jones, Esq. Jack, Lyon \u0026amp; Jones, P.A. 3400 Capitol Towers Capitol \u0026amp; Broadway Streets Little Rock, AR 72201 Christopher Heller, Esq. Friday, Eldredge \u0026amp; Clark 2000 First Commercial Building Little Rock, AR 72201 Sam Jones, Esq. Wright, Lindsey \u0026amp; Jennings 2200 Worthen Bank Building Little Rock, AR 72201 Richard Roachell, Esq. #15 Hickory Creek Drive Little Rock, AR 72212 Ann Brown, Monitor Office of Desegregation Monitoring 210 East Markham Little Rock, AR 72201 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT UOURT p., EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS' - WESTERN DIVISION ! LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT, ET AL V. NO. LR-C-82-866 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT DEFENDANTS MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, As next Friend of Minors Leslie Joshua, Stacy Joshua\nSARA MATTHEWS\nAs Next Friend of KHAYYAM DAVIS\nALEXA ARMSTRONG\ntARLOS ARMSTRONG\nALVIN HUDSON\nTATIA HUDSON\nMRS. HILTON TAYLOR, As Next Friend of HILTON TAYLOR, JR., PARSHA TAYLOR and BRIAN TAYLOR\nREV. JOHN M. MILES, As Next Friend of JANICE MILES and DERRICK MILES\nNAACP\nand ROBERT WILLINGHAM, Next Friend of TONYA WILLINGHAM INTERVENORS DALE CHARLES, ROBERT L. BROWN, SR., GWEN HEVEY JACKSON, DIANE DAVIS, and RAYMOND FRAZIER PLAINTIFFS V. O.G. JACOVELLI, Individually and As President of the Board of Education of the Little Rock School District, PATRICIA GEE, JOHN RIGGS, III, JOHN MOORE, DORSEY JACKSON, DR. KATHERINE MITCHELL and W.D. \"BILL\" HAMILTON, Individually and In Their Official Capacities as Members of the Board of Education of the Little Rock School District, A Public Body, Individually and in their Official Capacities\nTHE LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT, A Public Body Corporate\nCECIL BAILEY, THOMAS BROUGHTON, DR. GEORGE McCRARY, DR. MARTIN ZOLDESSY, and E. GRAINGER 4 19 8 4 WILLIAMS, Individually and In Their Official Capacities as members of the Pulaski County Board of Education\nand THE PULASKI COUNTY BOARD OF EDUCATION, A Public Corporate DEFENDANTS AMENDED NOTICE OF APPEAL Notice is hereby given that the Plaintiffs, Dale Charles, et al. and the Joshua Intervenors appeal the Judgment of the Court entered herein on August 24, 1993 to the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit. Appellants will request the transcript from the Court Reporter and make arrangements for payment therefor within five (5) days. z-n Respectful/ly submitted ) John alker Bar No. 64046 jo: 17, . WALKER, P.A. Broadway Little Rock, AR (501) 374-3758 72206 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing has been mailed, postage prepaid to the counsel of record listed below on this ___ day of September, 1993. Larry D. Vaught Pulaski County Attorney 201 So. Broadway, Suite 400 Little Rock, AR 72201 Steve Jones, Esq. Jack, Lyon \u0026amp; Jones, P.A. 3400 Capitol Towers Capitol \u0026amp; Broadway Streets Little Rock, AR 72201 Christopher Heller, Esq. Friday, Eldredge \u0026amp; Clark 2000 First Commercial Building Little Rock, AR 72201 Sam Jones, Esq. Wright, Lindsey \u0026amp; Jennings 2200 Worthen Bank Building Little Rock, AR 72201 Richard Roachell, Esq. #15 Hickory Creek Drive Little Rock, AR 72212 Ann Brown, Monitor Office of Desegregation Monitoring 210 East Markham Little Rock, AR 72201 Johhnn^z^. Walker COUNTY ATTORNEY COUNT PULASKI Pulaski County ADMINISTRATION BUILDING 201 SOUTH BROADWAY Lime ROCK, ARKANSAS 72201 501-377-6285 501-377-6282 FAX RECEfVEo CITIES ALEXANDER CAMMACK VILLAGE JACKSONVILLE LITTLE ROCK MAUMELLE NORTH LITTLE ROCK SHERWOOD WRIGHTSVILLE UNINCORPORATED AREA 600 SQUARE MILES MILITARY BASES LRAFB CAMP ROBINSON October 20, 1993 OCr 2 1 1995 Office of Desegregation c Docket Clerk Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals 1114 Market Street St. Louis, MO 63101 Re: Little Rock School District v. PCSSD Eight Circuit No.: 93-3469 Dear Clerk: Nelwyn Davis and I recently filed f\u0026lt;^on!toring entries of appearance in the above appeal on behalf of the Pulaski County Board of Education, an appellee. We received notice from you that the Board was not listed as an appellee. Since the Board is the body that created the zones that are being attacked, and since we defended them in the District Court, I hereby request that the Pulaski County Board of Education be added as a party appellee and be allowed to participate in the appeal. sincerely, Larry D. Vaught Pulaski County Attorney LDV:sd cc: All Counsel of Record COUNTPULASW CITIES ALEXANDER CAMMACK VILLAGE JACKSONVILLE LITTLEROCK MAUMELLE NORTH LITTLEROCK SHERWOOD WRIGHTSVILLE UNINCORPORATED AREA 600 SOUARE MILES MILITARY BASES LRAFB CAMP ROBINSON Pulaski County COUNH ATTORNEY ADMINISTRATION BUILDING 201 SOUTH BROADWAY LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS 72201 501-377-6285 501-377-6282 FAX ED October 20, 1993 OCT 2 J 1993 Of'ics of Desi Docket Clerk Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals 1114 Market Street St. Louis, MO 63101 Re: Little Rock School District v. PCSSD Eight Circuit No-: 93-3469 Dear Clerk: Nelwyn Davis and I recently filed Mcnircring entries of appearance in the above appeal on behalf of the Pulaski County Board of Education, an appellee. We received notice from you that the Board was not listed as an appellee. Since the Board is the body that created the zones that are being attacked, and since we defended them in the District Court, I hereby request that the Pulaski County Board of Education be added as a party appellee and be allowed to participate in the appeal. Sincerely, Larry D. Vaught Pulaski County Attorney LDV:sd cc: All Counsel of Record RECEIVED JiN 2 8 1994 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEAL FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT Office of Desegregation Monitoring NO. 93-3592 PULASKI CTY. LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT V. SPECIAL SCH. DIST. NO. 93-3469 LORENE JOSHUA V. LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DIST. NO. 93-3594 LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DIST. V. LORENE JOSHUA APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION THE HON. SUSAN WEBBER WRIGHT, DISTRICT JUDGE MOTION TO EXPAND PAGE LIMIT FOR APPELLANTS' BRIEF The Appellants Dale Charles, et al., and the Joshua Intervenors, by and through undersigned counsel, for their Motion to Expand the Page Limit for Appellants' Brief, state as follows: 1. Because the three above-referenced appeals have been consolidated, the 50-page limit may be inadequate to permit the Appellants to adequately brief the issues on appeal. 2. A maximum limit of 75 pages would be sufficient. WHEREFORE, Appellants pray that the page limit be increased to / 75 pages. Respectfully submitted. r / / I. DaVid SchoenDAVID SCHOEN, ESQ. P.O. Box 3483 120 West Spring Fayetteville, AR (501) 444-6200 72702 JOHN W. WALKER, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR (501) 374-3758 72206 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing has been mailed, postage prepaid to the counsel of record listed below on this day of January, 1994 . Steve Jones, Esq. Jack, Lyon \u0026amp; Jones, 3400 Capitol Towers P.A. Capitol \u0026amp; Broadway Streets Little Rock, AR 72201 Christopher Heller, Esq. Friday, Eldredge \u0026amp; Clark 2000 First Commercial Building Little Rock, AR 72201 Sam Jones, Esq. Wright, Lindsey \u0026amp; Jennings 2200 Worthen Bank Building Little Rock, AR 72201 Richard Roachell, Esq. #15 Hickory Creek Drive Little Rock, AR 72212 Ann Brown, Monitor Office of Desegregation Monitoring 210 East Markham Little Rock, AR 72201 \\) I / I J' --- David SchoenRECEIVIE?D JAW y 8 1994 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEAL FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT Office of Desegregation Monitoring NO. 93-3592 PULASKI CTY. LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT SPECIAL SCH. DIST. V. NO. 93-3469 LORENE JOSHUA V. LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DIST. NO. 93-3594 LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DIST. JOSHUA V. LORENE APPEAL ] FOR FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT I THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION THE HON. SUSAN WEBBER WRIGHT, DISTRICT JUDGE SECOND MOTION FOR APPELLANTS FOR EXTENSION OF TIME TO FILE THEIR BRIEFS The Appellants Dale Charles, et al., and the Joshua Intervenors, for their Motion for an Extension of Time to File Their Briefs, stated that: 1. The Appellants' Briefs in the above referenced consolidated appeals are due on January 27, 1994 . 2. Due to the press of business in counsels' office. an additional extension of time of two weeks is necessary in which to file the briefs for the Appellants. WHEREFORE, Appellants Dale Charles and the Joshua Intervenors request an extension of time to and through Febiuary 10, Respectfully submitted, 1994.c- ( s. David Schoen DAVID SCHOEN, ESQ. P.O. Box 3483 120 West Spring Fayetteville, AR (501) 444-6200 72702 JOHN W. WALKER, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR (501) 374-3758 72206 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing has been mailed, postage prepaid to the counsel of record listed below on this day of January, 1994. Steve Jones, Esq. Jack, Lyon \u0026amp; Jones, 3400 Capitol Towers P.A. Capitol \u0026amp; Broadway Streets Little Rock, AR 72201 Christopher Heller, Esq. Friday, Eldredge \u0026amp; Clark 2000 First Commercial Building Little Rock, AR 72201 Sam Jones, Esq. Wright, Lindsey \u0026amp; Jennings 2200 Worthen Bank Building Little Rock, AR 72201 Richard Roachell, Esq. #15 Hickory Creek Drive Little Rock, AR 72212 Ann Brown, Monitor Office of Desegregation Monitoring 210 East Markham Little Rock, AR 72201 / ( } -  David Schoen UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEAL FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT RECE!VFS| lO. 93-3592 LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT V. FEB 1 1994 PULASKI CTY. SPECIAL SCH. DIST. NO. 93-3469 LORENE JOSHUA V. LITTLE ROCK Office of Desegre^. SCHOOL DIST. iioring NO. 93-3594 LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DIST. V. LORENE JOSHUA APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION THE HON. SUSAN WEBBER WRIGHT, DISTRICT JUDGE THIRD MOTION FOR APPELLANTS FOR EXTENSION OF TIME TO FILE THEIR BRIEF The Appellants Dale Charles, et al., and the Joshua Intervenors, for their Motion for an Extension of Time to File Their Brief, stated that: 1. The Appellants' Brief in the above referenced consolidated appeals is due on February 10, 1994. This court has previously granted the appellants two extensions. 2. The Appellants Brief is prepared at the office of John W. Walker, one of the counsel for the appellants. A fire at said counsel's office caused the office to be without heat and electricity for a period of one week, created confusion as to the location of documents, and has necessitated noisy and distracting repairs which continue to the present. Such conditions have substantially interfered with completion of the brief.3. The appellants' brief is substantially completed as of the date of this motion, but additional time is needed to prepare the appendix, and to copy, bind and mail the brief and appendix. WHEREFORE, Appellants Dale Charles and the Joshua Intervenors request an extension of time to and through February 15, Respectfully submitted. 1994. David Schoen DAVID SCHOEN, ESQ. P.O. Box 3483 Fayetteville, AR (501) 444-6200 72702 JOHN W. WALKER, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR (501) 374-3758 72206CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing has been mailed. postage prepaid to the counsel of record listed below on this day of February, 1994. Steve Jones, Esq. Jack, Lyon \u0026amp; Jones, P.A. 3400 Capitol Towers Capitol \u0026amp; Broadway Streets Little Rock, AR 72201 Christopher Heller, Esq. Friday, Eldredge \u0026amp; Clark 2000 First Commercial Building Little Rock, AR 72201 Sam Jones, Esq. Wright, Lindsey \u0026amp; Jennings 2200 Worthen Bank Building Little Rock, AR 72201 Richard Roachell, Esq. #15 Hickory Creek Drive Little Rock, AR 72212 Ann Brown, Monitor Office of Desegregation Monitoring 210 East Markham Little Rock, AR 72201 J__ David Schoen L Z)ii't'fr-f Clt,t-1~ ^i-lt-f-i IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS RECEIV* No. 93-3592 NO. 93-3469 NO. 93-3594 No. FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT FEB 2 2 1994 Office of Desegregation Mori,iu,...a LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT V. PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT LORENE JOSHUA V. LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT V. LORENE JOSHUA MOTION FOR PERMISSION TO FILE BRIEF OPT OF TIME For its motion, the Little Rock School District (LRSD) states: 1. The Little Rock School District is an Appellant in Case 93-3592 and an Appellee in the other two of these consolidated cases. 2. LRSD and the Joshua Intervenors both appealed the district court's order of September 27, 1993. LRSD expected to join Joshua's brief in Case No. 93-3592. 3. Upon reviewing Joshua's brief, LRSD determined that its position is somewhat different than that of the Joshua Intervenors and that it would be necessary to file a separate brief. 4 . LRSD has prepared its brief as expeditiously as possible and requests that the clerk file its brief out of time. WHEREFORE, for the reasons set forth above, LRSD moves for permission to file the attached brief out of time. Respectfully submitted. FRIDAY, ELDREDGE \u0026amp; CLARK 2000 First Commercial Bldg. 400 West Capitol Little Rock, AR 72201(501) 376-2011 Attorneys for Appellants Little Roc: School District B \u0026gt;a: J^topher Heller 4no. 81083 CERTIFICATE T SERVICE I certify that a copy of the foregoing Motion For Permission to File Brief Out of Time been served on the following people by depositing copy of same in the United States mail on this 18th day of February, 1994: Mr. John Walker JOHN WALKER, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72206 Mr. Sam Jones WRIGHT, LINDSEY \u0026amp; JENNINGS 2200 Worthen Bank Bldg. 200 West Capitol Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Steve Jones JACK, LYON \u0026amp; JONES, P.A. 3400 Capitol Towers Capitol \u0026amp; Broadway Streets Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Richard Roachell Roachell and Streett First Federal Plaza 401 West Capitol, Suite 504 Little Rock, AR 72201 Ms. Ann Brown Desegregation Monitor Heritage West Bldg., Suite 510 201 East Markham Street Little Rock, AR 72201 Ms. Elizabeth Boyter Arkansas Dept, of Education 4 State Capitol Mall Little Rock, AR 72201-1071 Chri fer Heller ! IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS No. 93-3592 NO. 93-3469 NO. 93-3594 FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT APR 2 0 1994 Cifioa cf Dcsegr\nC.1 LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT V. PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT LORENE JOSHUA V. LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT V. LORENE JOSHUA Appeals From The United States District Court For the Eastern District of Arkansas Western Division Honorable Susan Webber Wright, District Judge BRIEF FOR APPELLEE LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT IN NOS. 93-3469 AND 93-3594 Christopher Heller John Clayburn Fendley, Jr. FRIDAY, ELDREDGE \u0026amp; CLARK 2000 First Commercial Bldg. 400 West Capitol Little Rock, AR 72201 (501) 37602911 Attorneys for Little Rock School DistrictTable of Contents Statement Of The Case 1 I. The Voting Rights Act Issue 1 II. The Desegregation Plan Modification Issue 3 Summary Of Argument 11 Argument 13 I. The District Court's Finding That The Charles Plaintiffs Failed To Establish A Violation Of The Voting Rights Act, 42 U.S.C.  1973, Is Not Clearly Erroneous And Should Be Affirmed .............................................. 13 II. The District Court Properly Approved The Closing Of Ish School And The Assignment Of Ish Students To The New And Integrated King Interdistrict School..............................38 Conclusion 50 iR J i=i rXTTJ q IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS No. 93-3592 NO. 93-3469 NO. 93-3594 FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT APR 2 0 1994 Cifico cf Dcsegr .uCil LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT V. PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT LORENE JOSHUA V. LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT V. LORENE JOSHUA Appeals From The United States District Court For the Eastern District of Arkansas Western Division Honorable Susan Webber Wright, District Judge BRIEF FOR APPELLEE LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT IN NOS. 93-3469 AND 93-3594 Christopher Heller John Clayburn Fendley, Jr. FRIDAY, ELDREDGE \u0026amp; CLARK 2000 First Commercial Bldg, 400 West Capitol Little Rock, AR 72201 (501) 37602911 Attorneys for Little Rock School DistrictTable of Contents Statement Of The Case 1 I. The Voting Rights Act Issue 1 II. The Desegregation Plan Modification Issue 3 Summary Of Argument 11 Argument 13 I. The District Court's Finding That The Charles Plaintiffs Failed To Establish A Violation Of The Voting Rights Act, 42 U.S.C.  1973, Is Not Clearly Erroneous And Should Be Affiraed .............................................. 13 II. The District Court Properly Approved The Closing Of Ish School And The Assignment Of Ish Students To The New And Integrated King Interdistrict School 38 Conclusion 50 1^PH 2 2 'W IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT Oliico oS No. 93-3592 LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT V. PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 93-3469 LORENE JOSHUA V. LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 93-3594 LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT V. LORENE JOSHUA MOTION TO RE-OPEN AND TO SUPPLEMENT THE RECORD Appellees, Little Rock School District (\"LRSD\") and Pulaski County Board of Education (\"PCBE\"), for their motion to re-open and supplement the record state\n1. This appeal concerns the alleged violation of Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act, 42 U.S.C.  1973 (Supp. 1993). Appellants, the \"Charles Plaintiffs,\" contend that the plan for LRSD election zones adopted by PCBE violates Section 2. A trial was conducted on April 13 and 14, 1993. The district court by Memorandum Opinion and Order dated June 21, 1993, held that the Charles Plaintiffs had failed to establish a violation of Section 2. On August 24, 1993, the district court entered judgment dismissing the Charles Plaintiffs' Amended Complaint from which the Charles Plaintiffs appeal. 2. On September 21, 1993, LRSD elections where conducted under the PCBE plan. In that election, a black candidate was elected from a majority white zone, and a white candidate was elected from a majority black zone. T. Kevin O'Malley, who is white, received a majority of the vote and defeated two black opponents in the LRSD Zone 2 election, and Linda Poindexter, who is black, defeated a white candidate in the LRSD Zone 5 election. Zone 2 is 59.4% black, and Zone 5 is 19.1% black. Certified copies of the election results are attached hereto as Exhibit A. 3. In order to establish a violation of Section 2, a minority group must establish racially polarized voting. Thornburg v. Gingles. 478 U.S. 25, 50-51 (1986). The results of the September 21, 1993, LRSD elections provide further support for the district court's finding that LRSD does not suffer from racially polarized voting. 4. At trial, LRSD entered into evidence without objection by the Charles Plaintiffs certified copies of election results from past LRSD election. WHEREFORE, LRSD and PCBE move that the record in this matter be re-opened and supplemented to include the results from the September 21, 1993, LRSD elections. Respectfully submitted, FRIDAY, ELDREDGE \u0026amp; CLARK 2000 First Commercial Bldg. 400 West Capitol Little Rock, AR 72201 (501) 376-2011 Attorneys for Appellants Little Rock School District By: Christopher Helle: Bar No. 81083 \u0026lt;CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I certify that a copy of the foregoing Motion to Re-Open and to Supplement the Record has been served on the following people by depositing copy of same in the United States mail on this 20th day of April, 1994: Mr. John Walker JOHN WALKER, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72206 Mr. Sam Jones WRIGHT, LINDSEY \u0026amp; JENNINGS 2200 Worthen Bank Bldg. 200 West Capitol Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Steve Jones JACK, LYON \u0026amp; JONES, P.A. 3400 Capitol Towers Capitol \u0026amp; Broadway Streets Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Richard Roachell Roachell and Streett First Federal Plaza 401 West Capitol, Suite 504 Little Rock, AR 72201 Ms. Ann Brown Desegregation Monitor Heritage West Bldg., Suite 510 201 East Markham Street Little Rock, AR 72201 Ms. Elizabeth Boyter Arkansas Dept, of Education 4 State Capitol Mall Little Rock, AR 72201-1071 Ms. Nelwyn Davis Pulaski County Attorney 201 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72201 Christopher Heller I LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT The Pulaski County Election Commission hearby certifies the Election held in Pulaski County on September 21, 1993, i i } SCHOOL BOARD MEMBER, ZONE 5 \"D C LINDA PONDEXTER 191 \u0026lt;/)O co CZ5 m re JIM GONZALES 160 um 47 STATE OF ARKANSAS COUNTY OF PULASKI cn WE, VAUGHN MCQUARY, MARY LOUISE WILLIAMS AND BECKY TERRIEN, THE PULASKI COUNTY ELECTION COMMISSION, WITHIN AND FOR PULASKI COUNTY, ARKANSAS ON THIS DAY DO FIND AND HEREBY CERTIFY THE ABSTRACT OF VOTES CAST IN THE 1993 ELECTION HELD IN PULASKI COUNTY ON SEPTEMBER 21, 1993 AS SHOWN BY THE ATTACHED RETURNS. WITNESS OUR HANDS AS CHAIRMAN AND MEMBERS OF SAID BOARD THIS 24TH DAY OF s: lER, 1993. CHAIRMA MEMBER ^MfeMl^ER SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN BEFORE ME. A NOTARY PUBUC, FOR AND WITHIN THE COUNTY AND OF SEPTEMBER, 1993. zM KES I s ( ! I I X LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT FILS 93SEP 30 PM |: 13 The Pulaski County Election Commission heaiby certifies the Election held in PulasH^County^PY COUHTY CLERK on September 21, 1993, PULASKI COUNTY. ARK SCHOOL BOARD MEMBER, ZONE 2 EMMETT WILLIS uO to I 23 T. KEVIN OMALLEY 3'^ DR. ALDA MOORE STATE OF ARKANSAS COUNTY OF PULASKI WE VAUGHN MCQUARY, MARY LOUISE WILLIAMS AND BECKY TERRIEN, THE PULASKI COUNTY ELECTION COMMISSION, WITHIN AND FOR PULASKI COUNTY, ARKANSAS ON THIS DAY DO FIND AND HEREBY CERTIFY THE ABSTRACT OF .\nVOTES CAST IN THE 1993 ELECTION HELD IN PULASKI COUNTY ON SEPTEMBER 21, 1993 AS SHOWN BY THE ATTACHED RETURNS. WITNESS OUR HANDS AS CHAIRMAN AND MEMBERS OF SAID BOARD THIS 24TH DAY OF S\n, 1993. cha: MEMBER o 3:r IMMX 0 MEWB^  SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN BEFORE ME, A NOTARY PUBLIC, FOR AND WITHIN THE COUNTY AND AFORESAID, THIS 24TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 1993. PUBLIC, MY COMMISSION E: I 38t LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 1 '::n ' w J 93 SEP 30 PH n 13 The PulesU County Election Commission hearty certifies the Election held in PulgM Cju^^l^ on September 21, 1993, COUHTY CLERK PULASKI CCJHTY. AR SCHOOL BOARD MEMBER, ZONE 2 EMMETT WILLIS T. KEVIN OMALLEY DR. ALDA MOORE STATE OF ARKANSAS COUNTY OF PULASKI LOUISE WILLIAMS AND BECKY TERRIEN, THE -lire vATTPTiM MCDTIARY MARY LOUISE WILLIAMS AWU uctM , PuaSKI county ELECTioN CO^SSION 7u?akkac nN THIS DAY DO FIND AND HEREBY CERTIFY THE ABSTRACT OF .\nVOTES CAST IN THE 1993 ELECTION HELD IN PULASKI COUNTY ON SEPTEMB 21, 1993 AS SHOWN BY THE ATTACHED RETURNS. :S OUR HANDS AS WITNESS Ab CH? OF SEPTEMK^, 1993. CHAIRMAN AND MEMBERS OF SAID BOARD THIS 24TH 5 chai: MEMBER . \\ , member SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN BEFORE ME, A NOTARY PUBLIC, FOR AND WITHIN THE COUNTY AND THIS 24TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 1993. aforesaid, iX^IRES tfflTARY PUBLIC, MY COMMISSION E: 3eo IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS ..... xsonVwC' \"3 CiViCQ Ct FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT No. 93-3592 LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT V. PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 93-3469 LORENE JOSHUA V. LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 93-3594 LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT V. LORENE JOSHUA MOTION TO RE-OPEN AND TO SUPPLEMENT THE RECORD Appellees, Little Rock School District (\"LRSD\") and Pulaski County Board of Education (\"PCBE\"), for their motion to re-open and supplement the record state: 1. This appeal concerns the alleged violation of Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act, 42 U.S.C.  1973 (Supp. 1993). Appellants, the \"Charles Plaintiffs,\" contend that the plan for LRSD election zones adopted by PCBE violates Section 2. A trial was conducted on April 13 and 14, 1993. The district court by Memorandum Opinion and Order dated June 21, 1993, held that the Charles Plaintiffs had failed to establish a violation of Section 2. On August 24, 1993, the district court entered judgment dismissing the Charles Plaintiffs' Amended Complaint from which the Charles Plaintiffs appeal. 2. On September 21, 1993, LRSD elections where conducted under the PCBE plan. In that election, a black candidate was elected from a majority white zone, and a white candidate was elected from a majority black zone. T. Kevin O'Malley, who is white, received a majority of the vote and defeated two blackopponents in the LRSD Zone 2 election, and Linda Poindexter, who is black, defeated a white candidate in the LRSD Zone 5 election. Zone 2 is 59.4% black, and Zone 5 is 19.1% black. Certified copies of the election results are attached hereto as Exhibit A. 3. In order to establish a violation of Section 2, a minority group must establish racially polarized voting. Thornburg v. Gingles. 478 U.S. 25, 50-51 (1986). The results of the September 21, 1993, LRSD elections provide further support for the district court's finding that LRSD does not suffer from racially polarized voting. 4. At trial, LRSD entered into evidence without objection by the Charles Plaintiffs certified copies of election results from past LRSD election. WHEREFORE, LRSD and PCBE move that the record in this matter be re-opened and supplemented to include the results from the September 21, 1993, LRSD elections. Respectfully submitted. FRIDAY, ELDREDGE \u0026amp; CLARK 2000 First Commercial Bldg. 400 West Capitol Little Rock, AR 72201 (501) 376-2011 Attorneys for Appellants Little Rock School District By: Christopher Helle: Bar No. 81083 \u0026lt; CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I certify that a copy of the foregoing Motion to Re-Open and to Supplement the Record has been served on the following people by depositing copy of same in the United States mail on this 20th day of April, 1994: Mr. John Walker JOHN WALKER, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72206 Mr. Sam Jones WRIGHT, LINDSEY \u0026amp; JENNINGS 2200 Worthen Bank Bldg. 200 West Capitol Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Steve Jones JACK, LYON \u0026amp; JONES, P.A. 3400 Capitol Towers Capitol \u0026amp; Broadway Streets Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Richard Roachell Roache11 and Streett First Federal Plaza 401 West Capitol, Suite 504 Little Rock, AR 72201 Ms. Ann Brown Desegregation Monitor Heritage West Bldg., Suite 510 201 East Markham Street Little Rock, AR 72201 Ms. Elizabeth Boyter Arkansas Dept, of Education 4 State Capitol Mall Little Rock, AR 72201-1071 Ms. Nelwyn Davis Pulaski County Attorney 201 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72201 Christopher Heller !/ t LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT The Pulaski County Election Commission hearby certifies the Election held in Pulaski County on September 21, 1993, I I } SCHOOL BOARD MEMBER, ZONE 5 \"D c: LINDA PONDEXTER 191 t/\u0026gt;O xO co GO m TS JIM GONZALES 160  Cot/'  u C STATE OF ARKANSAS COUNTY OF PULASKI cn WE, VAUGHN MCQUARY, MARY LOUISE WILLIAMS AND BECKY TERRIEN, THE PULASKI COUNTY ELECTION COMMISSION, WITHIN AND FOR PULASKI COUNTY, ARKANSAS ON THIS DAY DO FIND AND HEREBY CERTIFY THE ABSTRACT OF VOTES CAST IN THE 1993 ELECTION HELD IN PULASKI COUNTY ON SEPTEMBER 21, 1993 AS SHOWN BY THE ATTACHED RETURNS. WITNESS OUR HANDS AS CHAIRMAN AND MEMBERS OF SAID BOARD THIS 24TH DAY OF s: ER, 1993. CH ER SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN BEFORE ME, A NOTARY PUBLIC, FOR AND WITHIN THE COUNTY AND .AFORESAID, IN THIS 24TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 1993. j s4 ITARY PUBLIC, MY COMMISSION i/9tr r I The Pulaski County little rock school district PI V 5 n 'r 93 SEP 30 Pf\nH 13 Election Commission hearby certifies the Election held in Pulasla^County[_p on September 21, 1993, COUNTY CLERK PULASKI COUNTY. ARK SCHOOL BOARD MEMBER, ZONE 2 c co co EMMETT WILLIS cn2 T. KEVIN OMALLEY 3^ o I DR. ALDA MOORE STATE OF ARKANSAS COUNTY OF PULASKI czrjco 231-- tm \u0026gt; \u0026gt; cn cn WE VAUGHN MCQUARY, MARY LOUISE WILLIAMS AND BECKY TERRIEN, THE PULASKI COUNTY ELECTION COMMISSION, WITHIN AND FOR PULASKI COUNTY, ARKANSAS ON THIS DAY DO FIND AND HEREBY CERTIFY THE ABSTRACT OF .\nVOTES CAST IN THE 1993 ELECTION HELD IN PULASKI COUNTY ON SEPTEMBER 21, 1993 AS SHOWN BY THE ATTACHED RETURNS. WITNESS OUR HANDS AS CHAIRMAN AND MEMBERS OF SAID BOARD THIS 24TH DAY OF S: ., 1993. cha: MEMBER SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN BEFORE ME, A NOTARY PUBLIC, FOR AND WITHIN THE COUNTY AND AFORESAID, THIS 24TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 1993. PUBUC, MY COMMISSIOONN EElXPIRES 7 38 The Pulaski County LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT I? V 1  93 SEP 20 PH H 13 Election Commission hearby certifies the Election held in P^^^^Couji^lEY on September 21, 1993, COUHT-Y CLERK PULASKI COUNTY. AR SCHOOL BOARD MEMBER, ZONE 2 EMMETT WILLIS T. KEVIN OMALLEY r S' DR. ALDA MOORE STATE OF ARKANSAS COUNTY OF PULASKI WE, VAUGHN LOWSE Wn^S^^^ PULASKI COUNTY rT .PmON COMMISSION, WITHIN AND FOR PULASKI COUNTY, day do find and hereby certify the abstract of . ARKANSAS ON THIS 1993 ELECTION HELD IN PULASKI COUNTY ON SEPTEMBER VOTES CAST IN THE 21, 1993 AS SHOWN BY THE ATTACHED RETURNS. S OUR HANDS AS CHAIRMAN AND MEMBERS OF SAID BOARD THIS 24TH cha: septPeEmM: B^, 11999933. .N MEMBER z M:^EfeR SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN BEFORE ME, A NOTARY PUBUC, FOR AND ^V^rHIN THE COUNTY AND aforesaid, THIS 24TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 1993. Jbhjjr PUBUC, MY COMMISSION E\niXI^IRES 3 /''A Co/Y Jack, Lyon \u0026amp; Jones, p.a. ATTORNEYS AT LAW 3400 TOBY TOWER 425 WEST CAPITOL AVENUE LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS 72201 -3472 (501) 375-1 122 TELECOPIER (501) 375-1027 Nashvill* Office *11 Music Circle South Nashville. Tennessee 37203 (615) 259-4664 Telecopier (61S) 259-4668 April 26, 1994 RECEIVED Ms. Mary Loida Deputy Clerk United States Court of Appeal U.S. COURT \u0026amp; CUSTOM HOUSE 1114 Market Street St. Louis, MO 63101 APR 2 8 tW OfJics of Desegregatioi! Moiiiiuiuig\nRE: Little Rock School District v. Pulaski County Special School District, Appeal Nos. 93-3469 and 93-3594 Dear Ms. Loida: In response to your inquiry, neither the North Little Rock School District nor the Pulaski County Special School District intended to enter an appearance as an appellee in the above referenced appeals which involve respectively the election of members of the Board of Education of the Little Rock School District (No. 93-3469) and the closing of Ish Elementary School in the LRSD (No. 93-3594). Rather, it was our mutual intent only to enter an appearance and file a brief in Case No. 93-3592 which involves the District Court's order of September 27, 1993 ruling out the old Stephens Elementary School site as a potential location for construction of a new Stephens interdistrict school. Please be advised that I have been authorized by the attorney for the PCSSD, Sam Jones, to communicate to the Court the position of the Pulaski County Special School District. I hope this resolves any confusion regarding the appearance of the PCSSD or NLRSD in the above referenced appeals, please do not hesitate to contact me. If you have any questions. SWJ:le Very truly yours. cc: Sam Jones Christopher Heller John Walker Ann Brown Richard Roachell James Smith Elizabeth Boyter Jerry Malone JOHN W. WALKER, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR (501) 374-3758 72206 DAVID SCHOEN, ESQ. 667 Betty Jo Fayetteville, AR (501) 444-6200 72702 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing has been mailed, postage prepaid to the counsel of record listed below on this day of April, 1994. Steve Jones, Esq. JACK, LYON \u0026amp; JONES, P.A. 3400 Capitol Towers Capitol \u0026amp; Broadway Streets Little Rock, AR 72201 Christopher Heller, Esq. FRIDAY, ELDREDGE \u0026amp; CLARK 2000 First Commercial Building Little Rock, AR 72201 Sam Jones, Esq. WRIGHT, LINDSEY \u0026amp; JENNINGS 2200 Worthen Bank Building Little Rock, AR 72201 Richard Roachell, Esq. ROCHELL \u0026amp; STREETT 3400 Capitol Towers Capitol \u0026amp; Broadway Streets Little Rock, AR 72201 Ann Brown, Monitor Office of Desegregation Monitoring 210 East Markham Little Rock, AR 72201 ^rk Burnette M^r' SiLR School Board OKs new election zones As the filing date nears, officials hope redrawn districts will be in place by Sept. 18 BY CHRISTOPHER SPENCER , ' ARKANSAS DEMOCRAT-GAZETTE The Little Rock School Board adopted new election zone boundaries Thursday night, but theres some doubt as to whether the new zones will be in place be-i fore the Sept. 18 School Board elections.  Were operating on the assumption that this process will be complete, based on what our lawyers have told us, Superintendent Ken James said. Redrawing the districts seven election zones is needed so the zones will mirror the demographic data from the 2000 Census, said Clay Fendley, the school districts attorney. Earlier this week, Sandy Dyer, Pulaski County election coordinator, expressed alarm about changing the election zones so close to the Aug. 6 filing date for candidates. I think it will be a very tight squeeze for us to effect all the changes that would be necessary to accomplish a redistricting project six weeks out from a fullblown [School Board] election, Dyer said Tuesday. James told the board he felt the process would work out. During a School Board meeting Thursday night, board member Baker Kurrus questioned Fendley on the status of the by the adoption of the new zones, change. School district officials plan to We have an upcoming elec- contact the Pulaski County Election, I know because Im running. tion Commission today to discuss Do we anticipate these zones be-ing used for the election? Kur- __ _  rus asked. proved the first of three election The election commission is zone plans prepared by the staff responsible for approval. I dont of Metroplan, a council of local know if they anticipate these governments in central Arkansas, changes, Fendley said. in the plan, population loss in Kurrus is an incumbent board 2one 1  the easternmost zone  member running for re-election jg balanced with westward ex-in Zone 4, which encompasses northwest Little Rock. He has become a certified candidate with a petition signed by at least 20 people in his zone, but some of those signatures might be invalidated implementation of the new zones. The board unanimously ap- In pansion. The zone will now take in the Capitol View and Stifft Station neighborhoods. Four of the seven zones will See ZONES, Page 4B Zones  Continued from Page IB be comprised of a majority black population with three majority white zones. The current zone boundaries allow for two majority black zones. Arkansas law requires school districts with black or Hispanic populations of 10 percent or greater to have zoned elections. The plan also calls for the Robinwood and Foxcroft neighborhoods, now in Zone 4, to become part of Zone 3, represented by board member Judy Magness. James said after the meeting that it became apparent soon after he took office in mid-June that the rezoning project, initially begun in April, had become stymied somewhere between the School Board administration and the mayors office. We hit the ground running with this, James said. This needs to be done as soon as possible. Information for this article was contributed by Cynthia Howell of the Arkansas Revised Little Rock School Board Election Zones Little Rock School Board has revised the boundaries of its election zones to make the populations in each of the zones approximately equal based on 2000 U.S. Census data. Population has shifted out of east 3 2 7 6 Little Rock, making it necessary to expand the area encompassed in Zone 1, which set off a \\ chain reaction in the other zones. 1 POPULATION ZOIE Tinu PERCENTAGE 1 3 5 1 24,926 25,994 25,715 26,206 WHTE 22.7% 90.2 71.4 41.3 BUCK 75.1 % 6.7 22.3 ,, 53.5  SATURDAY, MARCH 24, 2001  Gamine told to study census data, need to redraw LR election zones BY CYNTHIA HOWELL before the candidate filing dates ARKANSAS DEMOCRAT-GAZETTE fop the September 2001 school The release of 2000 Census fig- board election. The filing dead- ures means the Little Rock School line is usually in early August. Board election zones may need Sv The seven Little Rock School Board members are elected solely some adjustments. ____________ School Board members this voters who live in the zone week directed Superintendent Les they are running. Gamine and his staff to review the population numbers in each zone to determine whether the zone boundary lines need to be changed to make the populations in each area about the same. There are no at-large positions on i the Little Rock board. The 1992 Little Rock School Board election was delayed a year and combined with the 1993 election after civil rights lawyer John Walker sued in federal court to Early reports from the census show that there has been an in- -------- ------------- .. crease in population in the west- equalize the populations in the ern part of the city and a decline zones. He also asked in the lawsuit in piirts of the citys core. that the zone boundanes be re- Camine said an effort would be drawn so that three of the zones made to complete the review and would have majority black popula- make any necessary recommenda- t----------------------- tions for changes to the board well ed at the time. tions instead of the two that exist-o CM lf\u0026gt; CM Dyer also noted that the filing  deadline for School Board candi- J~ dates is Aug. 6, less than two weeks away, and that the zoning changes could affect who is eligi-oping the boundary proposals. ble to run for two open board seats Walker represented the Nation- in September. .................   ' She said board candidate Bak- Board  Continued from Page 1B Joshua intervenors, before devel- Current Little Rock School District election zones tween Markham Street and Kanis the zones had majority-black popRoad. ulations and five were predomi- D al Association (or the Advance-  ment of Colored People in a 1992 er Kurrus has already become a lawsuit to force changes in the certified candidate on the basis of boundary lines that existed at the a petition signed by at least 20 peo-time. The NAACP had said the pie in his zone. zones should be redrawn on the The candidacy could become basis of updated 1990 population invalid if the zones change and the figures and should in.c..l.u..d..e.. ..t.h ree petition signers no longer live in majority-black election zones instead of two. Kumis zone, she said. Kumis is an incumbent board The lawsuit, which was ulti- m---e-m---b-e--r- r-u--n--n ing for reelection in mately decided by the Sth U.S. Cir- Zone 4, which encompasses north- -cuit Court of Appeals, resulted in west Little Rock. A' one-year delay in what should -A--c-c--o-r-d--i-n-g- to each of the three ive been the 1992 School Board Metroplan proposals, the Robin-lection. News that the School Board is wood and Foxcroft neighborhoods north of Cantrell Road, now in ^7 The Little Rock School Board is considering changes to current School Board election boundaries so that the population in each of the seven zones will be approximately the same. iJbnsidering zone changes for the Zone 4, would become part of Zone , elec.t.i.o..n.. .a..l.a..r..m...e..d.- S an,d y_ D yer, P_u - J 2one 3 is represented on the 'iaski County election coordinator. V I think it will be a very tight ^ueeze for us to effect ^1 the board by Judy Magness. Arkansas law requires school districts that have black or His- Ranges that would be necessary panic populations of 10 percent or Id accomplish a redistricting pro- greater based on the 2000 Census ject six weeks out from a fullblown [school board] election, to have zoned elections. Those new or redrawn zones were sup-ecutive director, said in a letter to Little Rock Superintendent Ken James last week that east Little Rock has lost population over the past decade. As a result, boundaries for Zone 1 which is the school districts eastern most zone  would be expanded westward into the Capitol View or even Stifft Station neighborhoods, setting off a chain reaction of boundary she said Tuesday night posed to be in place by the middle Dyer said neither she nor the of last month. But the law specifi- Pulaski County Election Commis- cally exempts from its require-sion had been approached about ments those school districts such . the possibility of zone changes for as Little Rock that are operating changes tn the other election the election although she believed under federal court desegregation \" \" the Election Commission would orders. have to approve such changes. I Jim McKenzie, Metroplans ex-zones. Zone 2, which encompasses central Little Rock and is repre- Arkansas Democrat-Gazette sented by board member Mike Daugherty, would lose some of its eastern territory to Zone 1. But the western border of Zone 2 would move from Mississippi Street and Boyle Park to Interstate 430 in ail three Metroplan proposals. In two of the three proposals.\nZone 2 would take in the area  north of Markham Street and  south of Rodney Parham Road all I the way to 1-430. In the third proposal, Zone 2 5 would remain south of Markham  Street but extend west to 1-430 be-op \u0026lt;g3 g gc -gS-S si  1 o Ila'S g.-2gg^=l c tfl  mOO*35 a Q Ow Cc/j3 O Besides Kurrus Zone 4 seat, nantly white. The demographic Daughertys Zone 2 seat is the only changes occurred over time in board seat up for election this Zones 8 and 7, which are in south year. Daugherty has not yet filed central and southwestern Little with the Pulaski County clerks of- Rock. The other majority-black flee for re-election but has said he -   -  intends to by the filing deadline. As another example of the changes, the southern border of Zone 5 and the northern border of Zone 7 may be tweaked. In two of the proposals, Zone 5 would take in territory east of Stagecoach Road, almost to Chicot Road, which is contrary to the current zone makeup. zones are 1 and 2. Zones 3,4 and 5 remain predominantly white. The zone populations would range from a low of 24243 to a high of 26,438 depending bn the zone and which of the three plans is selected. Metroplan attempted to balance the populations within an accepted range of plus or minus 5 percent of the average. In each of the three Metroplan The Little Rock district ha.s. .o-p-proposals, four of the seven board erated for about 15 years with a zones would be made up of major- single-member election zone sys-ity black populations and three tent School Board members are would have majority white popula- elected by voters in the zones in tions. When the zones were last re-which they reside. There are no citywide or at-large School Board drawn in the early 1990s, two of positions in Little Rock. 2^ '2.2'2^ I? i.ri.Hri.So 2o *5  (Q g w ojS a i 2 o fl T1 \u0026gt; a \" *9 -n 5 -2 -5 S \u0026lt;3 .. o Ty3 COQ ? MCB b S fl O G fo C3 G W} yoot-'  tfl S fi r* . 2*2 .fl zM cii G -\"M S ^11^ g ^9 W flj  o o .S2-2$SS-2 s g o 73 g a-s I = is I  la \" 0-2 \"S '9  g'-ri'^P g c a SmS -2 - G Q.S 2-5^  y y O 2 d g-G  y G fa \u0026gt;,00 S gy 'aoSG'-\nxs-fi o UnagSea OGyu^ C .2g^x3 -Hy.Otz3s onO.gP coiSyooiao wSSisy 430 \u0026gt;\u0026gt;-.4) 'O --.g' 2 2 w S yni bc Sep Q gyj eg \u0026lt;U t- s .2 -\" e ri 9 if\nS \u0026lt;u a\u0026gt;  2 vi ^5 . o U3 5-. o G g U2 cn c fl \u0026lt;u C \"3 rH O  2 - .99 o OJ CO iX33 Xy5 oO. \u0026lt;O.- QOO .S Si 'o,2i Sis y aj5 S u U O-C gro 6^0 2\n2yfMyOyoo5i ri .G-O S - 2 SS-'s y g g.2 jfl\u0026gt;- G rti a o j3 ts .-^95 S  3 Jh U ^=2 S S \u0026lt;u co 2 S  X3 O 4} - ri g S ri  ffll 2 ..5S3 owt  u G I So^So-hsIs- Saigas! I ssi G .Ss 'isS2  uSuT tSn3 'afl j- . Q) CQ  g S3 cn -ri Si s a-i CQ o 2 cUo. a3 3S iSG' Cco ? 9?   .2 O O M V\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":56,"next_page":57,"prev_page":55,"total_pages":372,"limit_value":12,"offset_value":660,"total_count":4462,"first_page?":false,"last_page?":false},"facets":[{"name":"educator_resource_mediums_sms","items":[{"value":"worksheets","hits":2},{"value":"bibliographies","hits":1}],"options":{"sort":"count","limit":16,"offset":0,"prefix":null}},{"name":"type_facet","items":[{"value":"Text","hits":4200},{"value":"StillImage","hits":387}],"options":{"sort":"count","limit":16,"offset":0,"prefix":null}},{"name":"creator_facet","items":[{"value":"Connor, Eugene, 1897-1973","hits":567},{"value":"South Carolina Council on Human Relations","hits":246},{"value":"Federal Bureau of Investigation","hits":186},{"value":"Little Rock School District","hits":114},{"value":"Arkansas. Department of Education","hits":112},{"value":"Scholarship, Education and Defense Fund for Racial Equality","hits":75},{"value":"McCain, James T.","hits":66},{"value":"United States. Federal Bureau of Investigation","hits":57},{"value":"Student Nonviolent Coordinating Committee (U.S.)","hits":52},{"value":"Mississippi Freedom Democratic Party","hits":50},{"value":"Huckaby, Elizabeth","hits":41}],"options":{"sort":"count","limit":11,"offset":0,"prefix":null}},{"name":"subject_facet","items":[{"value":"Education--Arkansas","hits":893},{"value":"Little Rock School District","hits":640},{"value":"Little Rock (Ark.)--History--20th century","hits":629},{"value":"Birmingham (Ala.)--Officials and employees--Biography","hits":567},{"value":"Birmingham (Ala.)--Politics and government--20th century","hits":567},{"value":"Civil rights movements--Alabama--Birmingham","hits":567},{"value":"Politicians--Alabama--Birmingham","hits":567},{"value":"Civil rights workers","hits":509},{"value":"Civil rights--Arkansas","hits":464},{"value":"African Americans--Arkansas","hits":455},{"value":"Race discrimination--Arkansas","hits":454}],"options":{"sort":"count","limit":11,"offset":0,"prefix":null}},{"name":"subject_personal_facet","items":[{"value":"Connor, Eugene, 1897-1973","hits":567},{"value":"McCain, James T.","hits":259},{"value":"Huckaby, Elizabeth","hits":89},{"value":"Simpson, John Milton Bryan, 1903-1987","hits":89},{"value":"King, Martin Luther, Jr., 1929-1968","hits":79},{"value":"Davis, L. O.","hits":78},{"value":"Hayling, Robert Bagner","hits":74},{"value":"Bryant, Farris, 1914-2002","hits":52},{"value":"Phillips, Vel, 1924-2018","hits":42},{"value":"Stuart, Virgil","hits":39},{"value":"Mizell, M. Hayes","hits":35}],"options":{"sort":"count","limit":11,"offset":0,"prefix":null}},{"name":"name_authoritative_sms","items":[{"value":"Connor, Eugene, 1897-1973","hits":566},{"value":"Simpson, John Milton Bryan, 1903-1987","hits":89},{"value":"Davis, L. O.","hits":78},{"value":"King, Martin Luther, Jr., 1929-1968","hits":77},{"value":"Hayling, Robert Bagner","hits":74},{"value":"Bryant, Farris, 1914-2002","hits":52},{"value":"Phillips, Vel, 1924-2018","hits":42},{"value":"Stuart, Virgil","hits":39},{"value":"Ashmore, Harry S.","hits":34},{"value":"Brown, Robert R. (Robert Raymond), 1910-1994","hits":30},{"value":"Heiskell, John Netherland, 1872-1972","hits":30}],"options":{"sort":"count","limit":11,"offset":0,"prefix":null}},{"name":"event_title_sms","items":[{"value":"Little Rock Central High School Integration","hits":246},{"value":"Freedom Summer","hits":167},{"value":"Martin Luther King, Jr.'s Nobel Prize","hits":77},{"value":"Housing Act of 1961","hits":9},{"value":"Ole Miss Integration","hits":5},{"value":"Civil Rights Act of 1964","hits":3},{"value":"Freedom Rides","hits":2},{"value":"Integration of Clemson University","hits":2}],"options":{"sort":"count","limit":11,"offset":0,"prefix":null}},{"name":"location_facet","items":[{"value":"United States, Arkansas, 34.75037, -92.50044","hits":1714},{"value":"United States, 39.76, -98.5","hits":1676},{"value":"United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, 34.76993, -92.3118","hits":1280},{"value":"United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, Little Rock, 34.74648, -92.28959","hits":1214},{"value":"United States, Alabama, Jefferson County, Birmingham, 33.52066, -86.80249","hits":567},{"value":"United States, Mississippi, 32.75041, -89.75036","hits":439},{"value":"United States, South Carolina, 34.00043, -81.00009","hits":409},{"value":"United States, Florida, 28.75054, -82.5001","hits":373},{"value":"United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, Little Rock, Dunbar High School, 34.73231, -92.28654","hits":206},{"value":"United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, Little Rock, Central High School, 34.73683, -92.29895","hits":189},{"value":"United States, Mississippi, Forrest County, Hattiesburg, 31.32712, -89.29034","hits":86}],"options":{"sort":"count","limit":11,"offset":0,"prefix":null}},{"name":"us_states_facet","items":[{"value":"Arkansas","hits":1797},{"value":"Alabama","hits":573},{"value":"Mississippi","hits":569},{"value":"South Carolina","hits":503},{"value":"Florida","hits":410},{"value":"Wisconsin","hits":84},{"value":"Georgia","hits":74},{"value":"New York","hits":42},{"value":"Missouri","hits":18},{"value":"District of Columbia","hits":9},{"value":"Virginia","hits":9}],"options":{"sort":"count","limit":11,"offset":0,"prefix":null}},{"name":"year_facet","items":[{"value":"1964","hits":954},{"value":"1963","hits":662},{"value":"1965","hits":510},{"value":"1962","hits":470},{"value":"1957","hits":460},{"value":"1960","hits":454},{"value":"1966","hits":441},{"value":"1961","hits":439},{"value":"1967","hits":437},{"value":"1995","hits":428},{"value":"1959","hits":418},{"value":"1994","hits":411},{"value":"1958","hits":399},{"value":"1996","hits":398},{"value":"1993","hits":387},{"value":"1969","hits":380},{"value":"1991","hits":371},{"value":"1992","hits":360},{"value":"1968","hits":356},{"value":"1997","hits":346},{"value":"1999","hits":345},{"value":"2000","hits":332},{"value":"1998","hits":330},{"value":"2001","hits":328},{"value":"1970","hits":316},{"value":"1990","hits":316},{"value":"2002","hits":297},{"value":"1971","hits":292},{"value":"1989","hits":288},{"value":"2003","hits":283},{"value":"1956","hits":276},{"value":"1972","hits":266},{"value":"2004","hits":262},{"value":"1955","hits":257},{"value":"2005","hits":238},{"value":"1954","hits":229},{"value":"1981","hits":224},{"value":"1974","hits":219},{"value":"1987","hits":216},{"value":"1988","hits":216},{"value":"1984","hits":205},{"value":"1986","hits":205},{"value":"1975","hits":203},{"value":"1985","hits":203},{"value":"2006","hits":203},{"value":"1973","hits":201},{"value":"1983","hits":197},{"value":"1982","hits":196},{"value":"1977","hits":195},{"value":"1980","hits":195},{"value":"1979","hits":193},{"value":"2007","hits":190},{"value":"1976","hits":187},{"value":"1978","hits":187},{"value":"1952","hits":156},{"value":"2010","hits":156},{"value":"1951","hits":154},{"value":"1953","hits":154},{"value":"2009","hits":152},{"value":"2008","hits":151},{"value":"2011","hits":151},{"value":"1950","hits":146},{"value":"2012","hits":142},{"value":"1948","hits":140},{"value":"2013","hits":140},{"value":"2014","hits":139},{"value":"1947","hits":137},{"value":"1945","hits":135},{"value":"1944","hits":133},{"value":"1946","hits":132},{"value":"1949","hits":131},{"value":"1943","hits":127},{"value":"1942","hits":121},{"value":"1940","hits":120},{"value":"1936","hits":119},{"value":"1937","hits":119},{"value":"1939","hits":119},{"value":"1934","hits":118},{"value":"1932","hits":117},{"value":"1935","hits":117},{"value":"1941","hits":117},{"value":"1933","hits":116},{"value":"1938","hits":116},{"value":"1930","hits":114},{"value":"1924","hits":111},{"value":"1931","hits":111},{"value":"1929","hits":97},{"value":"1921","hits":95},{"value":"1928","hits":91},{"value":"1922","hits":90},{"value":"1923","hits":90},{"value":"1926","hits":90},{"value":"1927","hits":90},{"value":"1909","hits":89},{"value":"1925","hits":89},{"value":"1908","hits":88},{"value":"1911","hits":88},{"value":"1912","hits":88},{"value":"1907","hits":87},{"value":"1910","hits":87}],"options":{"sort":"count","limit":100,"offset":0,"prefix":null},"min":"1061","max":"2034","count":27042,"missing":0},{"name":"medium_facet","items":[{"value":"documents (object genre)","hits":4462},{"value":"correspondence","hits":288},{"value":"notes (documents)","hits":97},{"value":"lists (document genres)","hits":89},{"value":"memorandums","hits":84},{"value":"postcards","hits":56},{"value":"programs (documents)","hits":46},{"value":"reports","hits":39},{"value":"agendas (administrative records)","hits":38},{"value":"pamphlets","hits":38},{"value":"essays","hits":37}],"options":{"sort":"count","limit":11,"offset":0,"prefix":null}},{"name":"rights_facet","items":[{"value":"http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC-EDU/1.0/","hits":2000},{"value":"http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/CNE/1.0/","hits":1168},{"value":"http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC/1.0/","hits":656},{"value":"http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/UND/1.0/","hits":604},{"value":"http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/NoC-US/1.0/","hits":33},{"value":"http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC-NC/1.0/","hits":4}],"options":{"sort":"count","limit":11,"offset":0,"prefix":null}},{"name":"collection_titles_sms","items":[{"value":"Office of Desegregation Management","hits":904},{"value":"Historical Manuscripts and Photographs","hits":764},{"value":"Theophilus Eugene ‘Bull’ Connor Papers, 1959-1963","hits":566},{"value":"Land of (Unequal) Opportunity: Documenting the Civil Rights Struggle in Arkansas","hits":454},{"value":"Butler Center for Arkansas Studies Documents Collection","hits":447},{"value":"Civil Rights Library of St. Augustine","hits":372},{"value":"James T. McCain papers, 1957-1972","hits":257},{"value":"New insights in the American civil rights movement: South Carolina Council on Human Relations records","hits":249},{"value":"Judy Richardson Papers 1963-2014","hits":92},{"value":"March on Milwaukee: Civil Rights History Project","hits":85},{"value":"Faith Holsaert Papers 1950-2011","hits":45}],"options":{"sort":"count","limit":11,"offset":0,"prefix":null}},{"name":"provenance_facet","items":[{"value":"Butler Center for Arkansas Studies","hits":1353},{"value":"University of Southern Mississippi. Libraries","hits":765},{"value":"Birmingham Public Library (Ala.)","hits":567},{"value":"University of South Carolina. Libraries","hits":549},{"value":"University of Arkansas, Fayetteville. Libraries","hits":454},{"value":"Proctor Library","hits":372},{"value":"South Caroliniana Library","hits":321},{"value":"Duke University. Library","hits":137},{"value":"Golda Meir Library. Special Collections","hits":85},{"value":"Historically Black Colleges and Universities (HBCU) Library Alliance","hits":50},{"value":"Stuart A. Rose Manuscript, Archives, and Rare Book Library","hits":49}],"options":{"sort":"count","limit":11,"offset":0,"prefix":null}},{"name":"class_name","items":[{"value":"Item","hits":4449},{"value":"Collection","hits":13}],"options":{"sort":"count","limit":100,"offset":0,"prefix":null}},{"name":"educator_resource_b","items":[{"value":"false","hits":4456},{"value":"true","hits":6}],"options":{"sort":"count","limit":100,"offset":0,"prefix":null}}]}}