{"response":{"docs":[{"id":"bcas_bcmss0837_869","title":"\"Board of Education Committee Meeting Schedule,'' North Little Rock School District","collection_id":"bcas_bcmss0837","collection_title":"Office of Desegregation Management","dcterms_contributor":null,"dcterms_spatial":["United States, 39.76, -98.5","United States, Arkansas, 34.75037, -92.50044","United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, 34.76993, -92.3118","United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, Little Rock, 34.74648, -92.28959"],"dcterms_creator":null,"dc_date":["1991"],"dcterms_description":null,"dc_format":["application/pdf"],"dcterms_identifier":null,"dcterms_language":["eng"],"dcterms_publisher":["Little Rock, Ark. : Butler Center for Arkansas Studies. Central Arkansas Library System"],"dc_relation":null,"dc_right":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC-EDU/1.0/"],"dcterms_is_part_of":["Office of Desegregation Monitoring records (BC.MSS.08.37)","History of Segregation and Integration of Arkansas's Educational System"],"dcterms_subject":["Little Rock (Ark.)--History--20th century","North Little Rock School District","School board members","School boards","Meetings","School management and organization","Education--Arkansas","Educational planning"],"dcterms_title":["\"Board of Education Committee Meeting Schedule,'' North Little Rock School District"],"dcterms_type":["Text"],"dcterms_provenance":["Butler Center for Arkansas Studies"],"edm_is_shown_by":null,"edm_is_shown_at":["http://arstudies.contentdm.oclc.org/cdm/ref/collection/bcmss0837/id/869"],"dcterms_temporal":null,"dcterms_rights_holder":null,"dcterms_bibliographic_citation":null,"dlg_local_right":["Available for use in research, teaching, and private study. Any other use requires permission from the Butler Center."],"dcterms_medium":["documents (object genre)"],"dcterms_extent":["30 pages"],"dlg_subject_personal":null,"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":"\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n\n\n\n   \n\n\n\n\n   \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n  \n\nThe transcript for this item was created using Optical Character Recognition (OCR) and may contain some errors.\nNOV 1 9 1991 Office of DesagregaiionM onitoring BOARDO F EDUCATION/COMMITMTEE TINGS CHEDULE SEE ATTACHMEN3 T Attachment 3 Welcome to a meeting of your School Board. I Board of Education Members Zonel Mable Mitchell 5006 Glenview Blvd. North Little Rock, AR 72117 945-2431 (September, 1989 - September, 1992) Zone2 Prentice Dupins 2623 Lincoln Ave. North Little Rock, AR 72114 945-4570 (September, 1991 - September, 1994) Zone3 Reverend J.W. Johnson 2201 Franklin North Little Rock, AR 72114 771-4506 (September, 1991 - September 1994) Zone4 Emily Denton 2416 South Drive North Little Rock, AR 72118 753-7396 (September, 1990- September, 1992) Zones Dixie Harrison 1 Shady Valley Court North Little Rock, AR 72116 753-1461 (September, 1990- September, 1993) Zone6 Pat Blackstone 3409 Bunker Hill Drive North Little Rock, AR 72116 753-5128 (September, 1990- September, 1993) Zone7 Lynn Hamilton 4103 Arlington North Little Rock, AR 72116 758-2209 (September, 1991 - September, 1994) James Smith, Superintendent 6315 Navajo Trail North Little Rock, AR 72116 835-3036 (Appointed by Board of Education July, 1989) North Little Rock School District P.O. Box 687  2700 Poplar St. North Little Rock, Arkansas 72115 501-771-8000 Welcome ... ... to a meeting of the North Little Rock Board of Education. We are glad you are here. Your Board of Education believes that involved, informed parents and citizens are necessary for ensuring that your schools meet your expectations. We encourage you to attend board meetings often, to stay informed and to become active in school affairs. We believe that children will benefit. Board Responsibilities The Board's responsibilities include the formation and adoption of policies consistent with state and federal laws, with regulations set by the Arkansas Depanment of Education and with the considered interest of the community. The board is not an administrative body\nadministration is delegated to the board's executive officer (superintendent) and the administrative staff of the district. Other board responsibilities include securing money for operational needs, authorizing major expenditures, authorizing the purchase or sale of school property and adopting the annual operating budget. The board selects and employs the superintendent of schools and gives final authority for the hiring and discharging of all district personnel, upon the superintendent's recommendation. Board members review and evaluate all phases of the district's instructional programs. The board serves as final appeal for students, teachers, principals and patrons. The Agenda Items of action are listed on an agenda, prepared by the board president and superintendent. Agendas are available to patrons at the door of the Board Room on the afternoon of regular meetings. A majority of the board must vote in favor of an item in order for it to pass. No official action (other than adjournment) may be taken unless at least four members are present. Organization of the Board The board was reorganized in 1989 from a sixmember board with all positions elected at-large to a seven-member board with each position representative of a geographic zone. The reorganization will occur during a four-year period. Members elected before 1989 will continue to serve as at-large members until a scheduled election is held for the zone he or she represents. Positions are for alternating threeyear terms, and elections are held each September. Board officers include a president, vice president and secretary for one-year terms. The president presides at all meetings and performs other duties as prescribed by law. Officers are elected annually. About Board Meetings Regular meetings are held the fourth Tuesday of each month at 5 p.m. at the District Administration Building, 2700 Poplar Street. Special meetings are called as needed to take action to meet a deadline, to deal with an emergency situation or to discuss an urgent matter. All meetings are open to the public except when the board convenes for an executive session. An executive session may be called to discuss personnel, student, legal or other matters prescribed by law which require a high degree of confidentiality. Actions regarding all issues are made in open session and become public record. Reports of Board Actions All actions of the board are recorded in official minutes and kept on file in the Superintendent's Office. Minutes are available to anyone making a legitimate request during office hours. Members of the news media regularly attend board meetings. Their reports of board business usually appear on evening televisions news broadcasts or in the following day's newspaper editions. Addressing the Board To encourage public participation in decisions, the board provides opportunities for individuals or delegations to speak on matters of their concern after board adjournment of official business. In respect for those in attendance, presentations should be as brief as possible. Topics for Citizen Input Patrons may address the board on subjects within board authority. The board does not, however, participate in debates on issues and usually defers any action on items discussed until subsequent meetings. The board is not obligated to consider any matter unless it receives notice with information on the matter in writing at least one week in advance of the meeting. In order to address the board formally and to be placed on the agenda, a written request must be submitted to the Office of the Superintendent by 5 p.m. on the Tuesday preceding the meeting date. The request should include the name, address and telephone number of the speaker and group, if any, he or she represents plus a brief summary of the topic to be discussed. District Administration James Smith Superintendent of Schools Bobby Acklin Assistant Superintendent for Student Affairs Mable Bynum Assistant Superintendent for Desegregation Gene Jones Assistant Superintendent for Instruction Donald Watkins Assistant Superintendent for Business Services Guidelines for Addressing the Board To ensure that all persons have an opportunity to be heard and that meetings are conducted in an orderly, efficient manner, the board requests that speakers abide by the following guidelines: I. Each speaker is requested to use the lectern and microphone, to provide personal identification and to identify the group, if any, he or she represents. 2. Questions, suggestions, proposals or criticisms which have been presented verbally are more effective when also submitted in writing and signed by the individual or signed by the group's representative appearing before the board. 3. Persons appearing before the board are reminded, as a point of information, that members of the board are without authority to act independently on official matters. Questions may be directed to the board, but answers must be deferred pending consideration by the board. 4. Speakers may offer such objective criticism of school operations and programs as concern them\nbut in public session the board will not hear personal ' complaints about school personnel or about any person connected with the school system. All concerns should be addressed first at the school or district level, according to proper procedures for resolving problems, before referral to the board. 5. Speakers are requested to refrain from using inappropriate language and from engaging in any form of personal abuse. Need more information? Please call the Office of Information Services. 771-8013 I SCHOODLI STRICTSB OARDOSF DIRECTORS -i}LcJ. (c ... ___,,j _ Lc.,l\\ . r  .. . COlnfIYO F PULASKI )..1J.CC:\\il('-1-t,__:-),1 1/ i\n,,ui:i\" 1992 - 1993 tt,\u0026lt;,l.).-l-(2-c 3-vear terms i.ITTLER OCK* **43.9 Mills Dr. C. M. Mac Bernd1 Su12t. 1 810 West tlarkham1 LR 72201 324-2000 J. G. Jacovelli 6622 Gold Court 117 1994 :1resident Little Rock, AR 72209 568-7585 (H) John Moore 12015 Pleasant Tree Dr. 374-6535(W) /IS 1993 'lice President Little Rock, AR 72211 223-2297(H) ?atricia Gee 8409 Dowan Drive 569-2498(W) 116 1994 Secretarv Little Rock, A..1- 72209 562-0571 (H) 0orsey W. Jackson 2901 N. Fillmore 375-3275(W) 113 1994 1ember Little Rock, AR 72207 664-2393(H) Jr. Katherine P. Mitchell 1605 Welch St. 374-6305(W) ltl 1993 ::-1ember Little Rock AR 72206 375-9377(H) John A. Riggs 3600 Foxcroft 570-3528(W) 114 19921' ~-1ember Little Rock. AR 72207 223-8916(H) 3ill D. Hamilton 306 Arthur Drive 661-2590(W) 112 1992\"' :1ember Little Rock, AR 72204 664-8727(H) ,',1992 LRSD school election postponed--when rescheduled, those elected shall serve to 1995 Hamilton was previously elected, and RiQQ\"ws as anoointed to serve the unexpired term ~,JORTLHIT ILE ROCK**336 . Mills ~Ir. James Smith, Supt., P.O. Box 687, J:,.n. . R 72ll5 771-8000 ~~:ableM itchell 5006 Glenview Blvd. Ill 1995 President North Little Rock, AR 72117 945-2431 (H) ?at Blackstone 3409 Bunker Hill 116 1993  :-ice President North Little Rock, AR 72116 753-5128(H) ~)rentice Dupins 431 McCain Blvd., F-23 112 1994 :'iecretarv North Little Rock, AR 72116 791-0267(H) ~1ru1 Hamil ton 4103 Arlington 117 1994 :1ember North Little Rock, AR 72116 758-2209(H)\n)ixie Harrison One Shady Valley Court 115 1993 '1ember North Little Rock, AR 72116 753-1461(1-I) ,~. W. Johnson 437 West Fourth St. 113 1993 _iember North Little Rock AR 72114 771-4 506 (H) '1arty Moore 4417 Central 114 1995 ,lember North Little Rock, AR 72118 758-318l(H) ~f-vear terms ':llJLASKCIO UNTSYP ECIAL**43.9M ills Mr. Bobby Lester, Supt. P.O. Box 1:3601L, .R. 72216 490-200( .,lr. Gene Goss 29 Narragansett Dr. !,fl 1994 .'resident North Little Rock1 A.~ 72120 835-8176(H) :'.r. Jim Burgett 35 Fairfield Drive 115 1994 _rice President North Little Rock. AR 72120 835-13ll(H) :\"1r. Reedie Ray 414 East Valentine Rd. 117 1996 .Secretary Jacksonville AR 72076 982-5650(H) -~-I.r Doyan Matt hews 5422 Elizabeth Lane 113 1996 -1ember North Little Rock AR 72118 851-2097(H) Yrr. Mack NcAlis ter P.O. Box 956 982-449l(W) 1!6 1995 : 1iember Jacksonville, AR 72076 :irs. Mildred Tatum 11405 Highway 365 Ill 1995 :'1ember Little Rock, AR 72206 897-4842(H) .. :~.rs. Ruth White Tucker 19001 Kanis Road 112 1993 .1ember Little Rock, AR 722ll 821-3224(H) ~repared by Ms. Debbie Crownover, Secretary !\".'\"\"1~~,...,,l'l~\n,:,::,~ ?ULASKCI OUNTBYO ARDO F EDUCATION u::.~~.\n:~) . .?: ~t~~ :J~~ : .~~ i~.~~-' ,0/16/92 372-7800 OCT i 9 1992 .. (5-year tenns) Mr. Cecil Bailey President Mr. Thomas Broughton Vice President Dr. George HcCrary Member Mr. E. Grainger Williams Member *1992 election postponed, Dr. Martin Zoldessy Member Ms. Debbie Crownover Secretary to the Board PULASKCIO UNIB'YO ARODF EDUCATION 1992 - 1993 5805 Eagle Creek North Little Rock, AR 72116 4602 W. 23rd Little Rock, AR 72204 t/2 Crestview Plaza Jacksonville, AR 72076 P.O. Box 366 372-4181 (W) tll NLRSD 1995 835-7104 (H) 664-6577(W) t/3 LRSD 199t 664-65 77 (H) South 982-455l(W) t/2 PCSSD 199'. North 372-3056(W) 115 LRSD 199,  Little Rock, AR 72203 666-8697(H) North position is currently at-large, but will be Zone 5 LRSD/No. 11601 Rodney Parham Little Rock, AR 72212 504 E. Devon Shen,ood, AR 72116 224-0200(W) //4 PCSSD 223-0lOO(H) South 372-7800(W) 835-9347(H) Secretary sine 1985 NO\\ 1 9 , 1 omcoef o BOARDO F EDUCAffOB/COIIMITrAEGEE NDAASN DH IBUTES See Attaclments (August, Septellher, October, 1991) Attachment A toring NORTH LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT Office of the Superintendent AGENDA REGULAR MEETING, BOARD OF EDUCATION Administration Building, 2700 Poplar Street Tuesday, August 27, 1991, 5 p.rn. I. CALL TO ORDER, Lynn Hamilton, President II. INVOCATION, Doyne Ward, Director-Purchasing III. FLAG SALUTE IV. ROLL CALL OF MEMBERS Lynn Hamilton, President Mable Mitchell, Vice President Dixie Harrison, Secretary Pat Blackstone, Member Emily Denton, Member Prentice Dupins, Member J. w. Johnson, Member V. RECOGNITION OF PEOPLE/EVENTS/PROGRAMS A. Classrnates--s. Bolling . Southwestern Bell Yellow Pages . NLR Elementary Schools VI. DISPOSITION OF MINUTES OF PRIOR MEETING(S) A. Tuesday, July 23, 1991, 5 p.rn. (Regular) PAGE A-1 B. Tuesday, August 6, 1991, 5:30 p.m. (Special) PAGE A-8 VII. ACTION ITEMS--UNFINISHED BUSINESS A. Consider Recommendation on School Resource Officer and High School Crime Stoppers Program--Smith PAGE C-1 B. Consider Requests for Use of ~ine--J. Smith .. Agenda, Regular Board Meeting page 2 ,,, Tuesday, June 25, 1991, 5:00 p.m. VIII. ACTION ITEMS--NEW BUSINESS A. Consider Policy Changes--Policy CCC, Salary Deductions\nCEA, Sick Leave\nCEAA, Sick Leave Bank\nCEE, Military Leave\nCFEA, Compensatory Time for Teachers\nCFF, Substitute Teachers\nCFR, Tobacco Use by Employees\nCGF, Notification to Teachers\nand DBBB, Secondary Organization--Resulting from Negotiations--Smith (First Reading) PAGE H__ B. Consider Policy Changes on FAC, Attendance Requirements\nand CEJ, Holidays--Smith (First Reading) PAGE 8-24 c. Consider Policy CFS--Drug Testing--Smith (Second Reading) D. Consider Textbook Adoption--G. Jones E. Consider Energy Grant--J. Massey F. Consider Employment of Personnel--Morris G. Consider Items on Bid List-~Ward A. Television Equipment H. Consider Requests for Use of Buildings PAGE 8-28 PAGE I-1 PAGE E 1 PAGE P-1 PAGE R-1 PAGE S-1 I. Consider Adoption of School Budget for 1991-92-D. Watkins J. Consider Payment of Regular Bills--Watkins K. Consider Monthly Administrative Reports-Watkins IX. INFORMATIONAL ITEMS A. Report on Negotiations B. Report on Summer School--Jones X. CALENDAR OF EVENTS PAGE T-1 PAGE T-6 PAGE I-2 A. Next Regularly Scheduled Board Meeting-~Tuesday, September 24, 1991, 5:00 p.m., ) XI. ADJOURNMENT XII. VISITORS NORTH LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT Office of the Superintendent MINUTES REGULAR MEETING, BOARD OF EDUCATION Administration Building, 2700 Poplar Street Tuesday, July 23, 1991, 5 p.m. The regular meeting of the North Little Rock Board of Education was held on Tuesday, July 23, 1991, 5 p.m., in the Board Room of the Administration Building, 2700 Poplar Street, North Little Rock, Arkansas. The meeting was called to order by the Chairman, Lynn Hamilton. The invocation was given by James Morris, Director of Personnel, with the flag salute following. Present Absent Others Present Votes Needed Agenda Changed Roll Call Lynn Hamilton, President Mable Mitchell, Vice President Pat Blackstone, Acting Secretary Emily Denton, Member J. w. Johnson, Member Dixie Harrison, Secretary Prentice Dupins, Member James Smith, Superintendent/Treasurer of the District\nBobby Acklin, Assistant Superintendent for Student Affairs\nMable Bynum, Assistant Superintendent for Desegregation\nGene Jones, Assistant Superintendent for Instruction\nDonald Watkins, Assistant Superintendent for Business Services\nJames Morris, Director of Personnel\nDoyne Ward, Director of Purchasing\nseveral other staff members\nmembers of the CTA\npatrons of the District\nmembers of the press\nand Bettye Albright, Secretary to the Superintendent, were also present. Mr. Hamilton called attention to two members of the Board being absent and four votes being needed for passage of any motion made by the Board. Mr. Hamilton asked that the two items listed under reports: July 15 Federal Court decision and use of Pine be changed as action items under unfinished business in order for the Board to act on these items if they wished. This was mutually agreed to by the other members of the Board. A-1 Minutes, Regular Board Meeting page 2 Tuesday, July 23, 1991, 5 p.rn. Disposition of Minutes YEAS: NAYS: Report by Attorney Board Discussion Recommendation Motion to Appeal YEAS: NAYS: Use of Pine/ Public Hearing A-2 Mr. Hamilton called for the dispcsition of the minutes of the regular meeting of Tuesday, June 25, 1991, 5 p.m. As there were no corrections, Mrs. Denton moved to accept the minutes as presented. Mrs. Mitchell seconded the motion. Elackstone,Denton,Hamilton,Johnson,Mitchell None (Dupins,Harrison absent) Mr. Hamilton called on Steve Jones, District attorney, to present a report and recommendation on the July 15 court decision. Mr. Jones explained that the North Little Rock District was recognized by Judge Wright as not being part of the plan, but might wish to appeal in order to be a part of the future planning. He reported that the other three parties--the Joshua Intervenors, Little Rock, and Pulaski County had filed an appeal. Mr. Jones felt North Little Rock could live with the July 15 order, but the cost of the appeal would be minimal--a few hundred dollars--for a coattail brief. He mentioned the fact that since no one was on the other side of the opinion, North Little Rock could be considered an appellee by the courts if not involved in the appeal. He also spoke of the importance of unity among the parties. Board discussion included reversal of opinion, cost to District, revisions allowed by the settlement agreement\nopinion of Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals1 nonfundamental issue1 relationship with other parties\nagreement among parties when modifying plan1 parameters needed for changes agreed upon1 pros and cons on appealing1 results if win or lose1 article in paper mentioning consensus of Boards\nand and wishes of patrons in the District. Mr. Jones recommended that the Board join in the appeal as he thought unity among the parties was important. Mrs. Denton moved to join with other parties in the appeal of the July 15 court decision. Mrs. Mitchell seconded the motion. Blackstone,Denton,Hamilton,Johnson,Mitchell None (Dupins and Harrison absent) Mr. Hamilton asked Mrs. Mitchell to report on the item for the use of the Pine Elementary building. Mrs. Mitchell reported on the number attending the public hearing July 16 at Pine for the purpose of hearing from the community on what services they wanted from the group using the building. She referred to the meeting being Minutes, Regular Board Meeting page 3 ~ Tuesday, July 23, 1991, 5 p.m. Use of Pine continued Motion to Defer YEAS: NAYS: Proposals Audit Recommendation Motion YEAS: NAY: Student Truancy Supt.' s Report taped for the Board members who had not attended the meeting. She reported on the decision to asked for written proposals from those wishing to lease the building with a deadline set for August 14. She explained that the press release had gone out from the Superintendent's office on July 19, and that it was hoped that action would be taken by the Board at the regular meeting in August. Rev. Johnson moved to defer action until the August Board meeting. Mrs. Blackstone seconded the motion. After discussion by the Board, it was decided that this item would be tabled until all necessary information was received by the Board in order for action to be taken. Blackstone,Denton,Hamilton,Johnson,Mitchell None (Dupins and Harrison absent) Rev. Johnson requested that copies of the submitted proposals be sent to the Board the week-end following the deadline. Mr. Hamilton called on Mr. Smith to make his recommendation to the Board resulting from the 1989-90 audit. Mr. Smith explained that with the Board's direction at the last regular me~ting, he had talked with Mr. Mike Cobb, the District's auditor, and felt the best procedure was to hire Mr. Cobb on an hourly basis to work with and advise the bookkeeping department before decisions are reached on its future needs. Mr. Smith reported that Mr. Cobb had estimated he would need to work two weeks'now with another fifty hours spr~ad throughout the year as a maximum, with his rate at $45 per hour. He recommended approval by the Board. Rev. Johnson so moved with Mrs. Mitchell seconding the motion. Blackstone,Denton,Hamilton,Johnson,Mitchell None (Dupins and Harrison absent) Action Items-New Business First item to consider under new business was action on student truancy--Act 867 of 1989\". Mr. Hamilton called on Mr. Smith for his recommendation. Mr. Smith referred to the recommendations from the discipline committee in which one was for truant officers, so the District had decided to enter into an agreement with the North Little Rock Police Department (under Act 867 of 1989) for the purpose of trying to curtail student truancy. He called attention to a memo from Dana Chadwick, Director of Secondary Education, con-taining procedures for the implementation of plans to A-3 Minutes, Regular Board Meeting page 4 Tuesday, July 23, 1991, 5 p.rn. Student Truancy continued Supt.' s Recommendation Motion Board Supt.'s Report YEAS: NAYS: Drug Testing YEAS: NAYS: ASBA Fees YEAS: NAYS: A-4 keep the students in school. He referred to the police checking students seen out of school during reaular school hours\nand if do not have a pass, being~trar.sported to a designated location, such as the alternative school. Mr. Smith explained that the procedures will be looked at and possibly defined, but that action needed to be taken by the Board in order for the information to be included in the student handbook. He recommended that the North Little Rock School District enter into an agreement with the Police Department for the purpose of curtailing student truancy with future refining procedures. Rev. Johnson so moved with Mrs. Mitchell seconding the motion. Discussion by the Board included plans for vehicles driven by the students apprehended\nparents who work accompanying students\nphoto I.D.\ngetting the information into the handbooks and to the newspapers. Mr. Smith reported that cameras for taking photos for I. D. had been donated to the District\nthat he would be making recommendations concerning truant officers to the Board in the near future\nand that he had discussed these plans with the police department. Blackstone,Denton,Hamilton,Johnson,Mitchell None (Dupins and Harrison absent) Next item concerned drug testing for employees driving school vehicles. Mr. Smith asked that the Board approve the concept with the view of approving a policy at a later meeting for preemployment testing for transportation, maintenance, and operation staff. He explained that random testing would be considered for those already employed by the District. Mrs. Denton moved to accept the Superintendent's recommendation to secure a policy for drug testing those driving District vehicles. Mrs. Blackstone seconded the motion. Blackstone,Denton,Hamilton,Johnson,Mitchell None (Dupins and Harrison absent) Mr. Smith asked the Board to consider the 1991-1992 membership fees in the Arkansas School Boards Association. He called attention to the amount due, $1,210, as listed in the agenda. He, recommended approval. Rev. Johnson so moved with Mrs~ Mitchell seconding the motion. Blackstone,Denton,Hamilton,Johnson,Mitchell None (Dupins and Harrison absent) Minutes, Regular Board Meeting page 5 ~ Tuesday, July 23, 1991, 5 p.m. Purchasing Program YEAS: NAYS: Personnel Report YEAS: NAYS: Bids YEAS: NAYS: New Format Next, Mr. Hamilton called on Doyne Ward to explain the cooperative purchasing program for Board consideration. Mr. Ward called attention to the recent action taken at the 1991 session of the Arkansas Legislature enacting Act 759, creating a new recycling purchasing program for all cities, counties, and school districts for paper products. He explained that no fee was required for membership in the Cooperative Purchasing Program, and the District would not be obligated to purchase from the State Purchasing Program if a cheaper price was found. He recommended Board approval of the Resolution to comply with Act 749. Rev. Johnson so moved with Mrs. Mitchell seconding the motion. Blackstone,Denton,Hamilton,Johnson,Mitchell None (Dupins and Harrison absent) Mr. Hamilton called upon James Morris, Director of Personnel, to present the personnel report and to include all recommendations for certified and classified changes at one time. Mr. Morris called attention to the certified and classified resignations, certified, administrative, and classified transfers\nand new staff members. He recommended approval of the personnel report. Rev. Johnson so moved, with Mrs. Denton seconding the motion. Blackstone,Denton,Hamilton,Johnson,Mitchell None (Dupins and Harrison absent) Mr. Hamilton asked Mr. Ward to present the bids. Mr. Ward called attention to those listed in the agenda, plus one additional bid for ramps and walks at the stadium from Hollis Construction Company in the amount of $11,600. The other bids included Xerographic paper, video equipment\ndistrict handbook\ndistrict forms\nchain link fence\nand the excavation/fence removal. Mr. Ward recommended Board approval of the specified bid. (The bids will be included with permanent minutes.) Rev. Johnson moved to accept the recommendation of Mr. Ward on the specified bids. Mrs. Mitchell seconded the motion. Blackstone,Denton,Hamilton,Johnson,Mitchell None (Dupins and Harrison absent) Mrs. Mitchell expressed appreciation for the new format for reporting the bids. A-5 Minutes, Regular Board Meeting page 6 Tuesday, July 23, 1991, 5 p.rn. Use of Buildings YEAS: NAYS: Monthly Bills Questions About Bills YEAS: NAYS: Monthly Reports YEAS: NAYS: Letter of Congrats Discipline Report A-6 Mr. ward presented one request for the use cf buildings-Junior League of North Little Rock requesting use of East Campus auditorium for the Red Stocking Follies of 1992, April 22 through April 25. He recommended Board approval. Mrs. Mitchell so moved, with Mrs. Denton seconding the motion. Blackstone,Denton,Hamilton,Johnson,Mitchell None (Dupins and Harrison absent) Mr. Hamilton called on Donald Watkins to present the bills for Board consideration. Mr. Watkins called attention to the listing in the agenda submitted for Board consideration. He recommended Board approval. Rev. Johnson so moved, with Mrs. Denton seconding the motion. Questions by the Board included the bill of $6,550.54 to the Excelsior Hotel, which was for an Outstanding Student Recognition Program, sponsored by the State Department of Education, paid through the District\nand the bill to the Lit~le Rock School District for Magnet Schools and students, $307,398.84. Blackstone,Denton,Hamilton,Johnson,Mitchell None (Dupins and Harrison absenl) Next, Mr. Watkins submitted the regular monthly administrative reports for the Board's approval. He called attention to the minus figure shown under Instruction: Materials and Other--$425,051--on the Expenditure Report. He explained that this had resulted from the purchase of textbooks\nthe comped program\nand the schools changing format for spending funds. Mrs. Denton moved to accept the reports a.s presented. Mrs. Blackstone seconded the motion. Blackstone,Denton,Hamilton,Johnson,Mitchell None (Dupins and Harrison absent) Information Items Mr. Hamilton called attention to the letter from Governor Clinton congratulating Elizabeth Fulton, a high school teacher, for being selected as a state-level awardee in the Natio~al Science Foundation. Mr. Hamilton called on Bobby Acklin to present the discipline report for 1990-91. Mr. Acklin called attention to a handout compiled to comply with a court order, including the number of incidents (suspensions, etc.), and the number of students involved by school. Minutes, Regular Board Meeting page 7 Tuesday, July 23, 1991, 5 p.m. Meetings of Board Motion to Adjourn YEAS: NAYS: Adjourr.ment Mr. Hamilton called attention to the next regularly scheduled meeting on Tuesday, August 27, 1991, 5 p.m., and the budget workshop set for Tuesday, August 6, at 5:30 p.m. As this concluded the business of the agenda, Mr. Hamilton called for a motion to adjourn. Mrs. Mitchell so moved, with Mrs. Denton seconding the motion. Blackstone, Denton,Hamilton,Johnson,Mitchell None (Dupins and Harrison absent} Mr. Hamilton declared the meeting duly adjourned at 6:10 p.m. Lynn Hamilton, President Pat Blackstone, Acting Secretary Visitors ' Mr. Hamilton opened the meeting for anyone in the audience wishing to address the Board. No one approached the Board. A-7 NORTH LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT Office of the Superintendent MINUTES SPECIAL MEETING, BOARD OF EDUCATION Administration Building, 2700 Poplar Street Tuesday, August 6, 1991, 5:30 p.~. A special meeting of the North Little Rock Board of Education was held on Tuesday, August 6, 1991, 5:40 p.m., in the Board Room of the Administration Building, 2700 Poplar Street, North Little Rock, Arkansas. The meeting was called to order by the Chairman, Lynn Hamilton. Present Absent Others Present Purpose of the Meeting Food Service Budget ROLL CALL Lynn Hamilton, President Mable Mitchell, Vice President Dixie Harrison, Secretary Emily Denton, Member  Prentice Dupins, Member J. w. Johnson, Member Pat Blackstone, Member James Smith, Superintendent and Treasurer of the District\nBobby Acklin, Assistant Superintendent for Student Affairs\nMable Bynum, Assistant Superintendent for Desegregation\nGene Jones, Assistant Superintendent for Instruction\nDonald Watkins, Assistant Superintendent for Business Services\nseveral other staff members, members of the press, and Bettye Albright, Secretary to the Superintendent, were also present. Mr. Hamilton called attention to the purpose of the special meeting--consideration of proposed food service budget for 1991-92\nconsideration of proposal for engineering studies for energy grant applications\nand consideration of the proposed policy for pre-employment drug testing. He asked that one item be added--an executive session to hear a personnel matter. This was mutually agreed to by the other members of the Board. Mr. Hamilton called upon Superintendent Smith to present the proposed food service budget for 1991-92. Mr. Smith called attention to the budget as prepared by James Pearson, Director of School Food Services. He explained that action A-8 Minutes, Regular Board Meeting page 2 Tuesday, August 6, 1991, 5:30 p.m. Budget continued Question by Board YEAS: NAYS: Engineering Studies YEAS: NAYS: Preemployment Drug Testing Policy YEAS: NAYS: Executive Session was needed due to the time factor in getting forms printed and information to patrons concerning the price increase proposed for next school year. Mr. Smith recommended approval of the budget including the price increases for lunch and breakfast. Mrs. Harrison so moved with Mrs. Denton seconding the motion. Upon questioning by the Board, the Administration reported that the reasons for the price increases was for salaries and an increase in commodities. Denton,Dupins,Hamilton,Harrison,Johnson,Mitchell None (Blackstone absent) Next, Mr. Smith presented proposals from the maintenance department for engineering studies necessary to apply for energy grants. He explained that the previous engineering studies had been used for previous applications. He called attention to the two proposals with the low quote from Goodman Engineers, Inc. being recommended. Mrs. Denton moved to accept the proposal as presented. Mrs. Harrison seconded the motion. Denton,Dupins,Harnilton,Harrison,Johnson,Mitchell None (Blackstone absent) Mr. Hamilton asked Mr. Smith to present the proposed policy for pre-employment drug testing. Mr. Smith called attention to the material from the District's attorney, Steve Jones, concerning a policy for pre-employment drug testing, with plans for random testing for those already employed by the District who drive District vehicles-transportation, maintenance, operation, and the Superintendent of Schools--in the future. Mr. Smith recommended Board approval of the suggested policy/procedures. Mrs. Harrison moved to accept the plans as presented. Mrs. Denton seconded the motion. Denton,Dupins,Hamilton,Harrison,Johnson,Mitchell None (Blackstone absent) At 5:45 p.m., Mr. Hamilton adjourned the meeting into executive session to consider a personnel matter. Open Session The Board reconvened into open session at 6:40 p.m. Motion to Adjourn YEAS: NAYS: As no action was taken, Mrs. Mitchell moved to adjourn. Mrs. Harrison seconded the motion. Denton,Dupins,Hamilton,Hatrison,Johnson,Mitchell None (Blackstone absent) t Minutes,. Regular Board Meeting page 3 Tuesday, August 6, 1991, 5:30 p.m. Adjournment Mr. Hamilton declared the meeting adjourned into workshop session at 6:45 p.m. Lynn Hamilton, President Dixie Harrison, Secretary A-10 I. II. III. IV. v. NORTH LITTLE ROCK SCHOO~ DISTRICT Office of the Superintendent AGENDA REGULAR MEETING, BOARD OF EDUCATION Administration Building, 2700 Poplar Street Tuesday, September 24, 1991, 5 p.m. CALL TO ORDER, Lynn Hamilton, President !~\"VOCATION, Justin Green, Sixth Grade Student from Park Hill, son of Tommy and Deborah Green FLAG SALUTE ROLL CALL OF MEMBERS Lynn Hamilton, President Mable Mitchell, Vice President Dixie Harrison, Secretary Pat Blackstone, Member Emily Denton, Member Prentice Dupins, Member J. w. Johnson, Member RECOGNITION OF PEOPLE/EVENTS/PROGRAMS A. North Little Rock's 1991-92 Teacher of the Year-Judy Pierson, Baring Cross CCE Coordinator B. Superintendent's Honor Roll--S. Bolling  Greg Daniels, Director, Computer Services . Liz Fulton, Teacher, NLRHS WEST Campus  Suzie Patrick, NLRHS Volunteer VI. DISPOSITION OF MINUTES OF PRIOR MEETING(S) A. Tuesday, August 27, 1991, 5:00 p.m. (Regular) PAGE A-1 B. Thursday, September 5, 1991, 5:30 p.m. (Spec.) PAGE A-11 VII. ACTION ITEMS--UNFINISHED BUSINESS None Agendp, Regular Board Meeting  page 2 ., Tuesday, September 24, 1991, 5:00 p.m. VIII. ACTION ITEMS--NEW BUSINESS A. Consider Reorganization'of the Board--Chairman Hamil ton PAGE C-1 B. Consider Designation of the Superintendent as Treasurer of the District--Chairman PAGE C-1 c. Consider Designation of the Assistant Superintendent for Business Services as Ex Officio Financial S~cretary-- Chairman PAGE C-1 D. Consider Policy Changes--Policy CCC, Salary Deductions\nCEA, Sick Leave\nCEAA, Sick Leave Bank\nCEE, Military Leave\nCFEA, Compensatory Time for Teachers\nCFF, Substitute Teachers\nCFR, Tobacco Use by Employees\nCGF, Notification to Teachers\nand DBBB, Secondary Organization--Resulting from Negotiations--Smith (Second Reading) PAGE 8-1 E. Consider Policy Changes on FAC, Attendance Requirements\nand CEJ, Holidays--Smith (Second Reading) PAGE B-24  F. Consider Approval of Special Education Budget Application--D. Watkins PAGE D-1 G. Consider Textbook Adoption Cornmittee--G. Jones PAGE I-1 H. Consider Chapter I Improvement Plan--Jones PAGE I-2 I. Consider Approval of Teacher of To~~orrow Concept--Bynurn J. Consider Employment of Personnel--Morris K. Consider Items on Bid List--D. Ward A. Stack Chairs L. Consider Requests for Use of Ruildings--Ward M. Consider Revision of Building Fee Schedule-Ward PAGE P-1 PAGE -R--1- FAGE S-1 PAGE S-4 N. Consider Administrative Salary Schedule and Classified Salary Schedule--Smith o. Consider Payment of Regular Bi11s--Watkins P. Consider Monthly Administrative Reports-Watkins PAGE T-1 PAGE T-11 Agenda, R~gular Board Meeting page 3 Tuesday, September 24, 1991, 5:00 p.m. IX. INFORMATIONAL ITEMS A. Letter notifying Liz Fulton, Biology Teacher at the West Campus, of being selected for Presidential Award for Excellence in Science and Mathematics Teaching. PAGE 2:l_ B. Letter from STEP, Inc. PAGE .kl_ c. Letter frcm Representative Ray Thornton on ?reject Even Start Grant. PAGE .J.:L D. Annual Report to Public on Standards--Jones X. CALENDAR OF EVENTS A. Next Regularly Scheduled Board Meeting--Tuesday, October 22, 1991, 5:00 p.rn. B. Fall Regional Meeting of ASBA at HLRHS East Campus on Thursday, October 3, 1991, 6:30 p.m. c. The National Co~mittee for School Desegregation Region VI Conference at the LR Hilton October 31-November 1. XI . ADJOURNMENT XII. VISITORS .. . ., NORTH LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT Office of the Superintendent MINUTES REGULAR MEETING, BOARD OF EDUCATION Administration Building, 2700 Poplar Street Tuesday, August 27, 1991, 5 p.m. The North Littl~ Rock Board of Education met in regular session on Tuesday, August 27, 1991, at 5 p.m., in the Board Room of the Administration Building, 2700 Poplar Street, North Little Rock, Arkansas. The meeting was called to order by the Chairman, Lynn Hamilton. The invocation was given by Doyne Ward, Director of Purchasing, with the flag salute following. Present Absent Others Present Agenda Changed Roll Call Lynn Hamilton, President Mable Mitchell, Vice President , Dixie Harrison, Secretary Pat Blackstcne, Member Emily Denton, Member Prentice Dupins, Member J. w. Johnson, Member None Mr. James Smith, Superintendent/Treasurer of District\nMable Bynum, Assistant Superintendent for Desegregaticn\nBobby Acklin, Assistant Superintendent for Student Affairs\nGene Jones, Assistant Superintendent for Instruction\nDonald Watkins, Assistant Superintendent for Business Services\nJames Morris, Director of Personnel\nDoyne Ward, Director of Purchasing\nJerry Massey, Dire-:tor of School Plant Services\nDana Chadwick, Director of Secondary Education\nseveral other staff members, members of the CTA\npatrons of the District\nmembers of the press, television stations\nand Bettye Albright, Secretary to the Superintendent, were also pre~ent. Mr. Hamilton asked for a change in the agenda--thc item under informatior.al items for a report on negotiations to be placed undez action items--unfinished business--as item B.l. This was mutually agreed to by the members of the Board. A-1 Minutes, Regular Beard Meeting page 2 Tuesday, August 27, 1990, 5 p.rn. Classmates Update on Program New Partners Minutes of 7/23/91 and 8/6/91 Approved YEAS: NAYS: School Resource Officer Program Report on Trip A-2 Mr. Hamilton returned to the printed crder of the agenda, asking Scharmel Bolling, Coordinator of Information Services, to present the new classmates for the District. Ms. Bolling updated the Board on the classmates program in the District, reporting that since 1986, starting with two partners, it had grown to 34. She also reported on the total number of hours given and the monetary assistance received by the District through the program. Ms. Bolling introduced two representatives from Southwestern Bell and Ms. Esther Crawford, Director of Elementary Education, on the new classmates program with the Yellow Pages for grades two through six. Rev. Johnson presented certificates to those involved. Disposition of Minutes Mr. Hamilton called for the disposition of the minutes for the regular m~eting on Tuesday, July 23, 1991, 5 p.m. and the special meeting on Tuesday, August 6, 1991, 5:30 p.m. As there were no correct..ions, Mrs. Harrison moved to accept both sets of minutes as printed in the agenda. Mrs. Mitchell seconded the motion. Blackstone,Denton,Dupins,Hamilton,Harrison,Johnson,Mitchell None Action Iterns--Unfinished Business Mr. Smith presented the Administration's recommendation for a school resource officer at the two high school campuses for a high school crime stopperb program. He reported on a trip taken by several city representatives, including members of the police department, along with schooi representatives--the two high school principals and the director of secondary education--to Grand Prairie and Arlington, Texas, to view a similar program at the schools tht~re. Mr. Smith called on Dana Chadwick to report on the trip. Mr. Chadwick explained the purpose of the trip and the planned program as a type of pro activity measure--that two officers had been selected by Chief Nolan--Gary Canady and Frank White--who, it was felt, would work well with the young people on the campuses. He reported that this would be the first progr~ of its kind in Arkansas if approved by the Board. Mr. Chadwick referred to the job description listed in the agenda, citing safety and citizenship, for goals of the program. Minutes, Regular Board Meeting .. p'age 3 Tuesday, August 27, 1990, 5 p.m. Supt.' s Meetings Mayor/ Chief of Police Approval Board Questions Chief/ Mayor's Responses Board Discui.\nsion on Funds Race of Officers Discussed Supt.'s Recommendation/ E:\u0026lt;ecutive Session Mr. Smith reported on his meeting with Chief Nolan and Mayor Hays and a meeting held with students, parents, community leaders, and Board member, Mable Mitchell, who all had indicated positive feelings about the program . .Mayor Hays endorsed the program concept and also the two officers chosen for the positicns. Chief Nolan felt the prcgram would present a positive image for the police officers to the students and the public, as the crime stoppers program had been which was started to aid the police department during the past year. Chief Nolan also brought up the possibility of a new program DARE (drugs, etc.) for the lower grades in the future. He reported to the Board that the two officers would report to Captain Johnson of the police department and the school principal. Questions by the Board included whether or not the officers would be in uniform, would carry a gun, and the funding. Chief Nolan explained that it would be optional whether the officers wore a uniform or not, but that it was necessary for them to carry firearms at all times. Mayor Hays explained that it was hoped that the City and the District could share the cost on an equal basis  for the two officers' salary. The Board asked Mr. Smith if the money was available, and Mr. Smith explained that he felt the program was important enough to try and secure funds through a grant\nor if necessary, he \\,\nOuld solicit the necessary money from the community. It was asked by the Board if both officers being white would be objected to by the black community. Mrs. Mitchell, who had met with the group, reported en this being discussed, but that she had been assured that the two officers being recommended had no bias and were veteran officers who appeared would be a~le to handle the program regardless of race or gender. Other members of the Board expressed concern for this situation and the sensitivity of the officers in charge. Mr. Smith recommended approval of the program. Mr. Dupins asked fer the Board to adjourn into executive session to consider a personnel mutter. The Board went into executive session at 5:40 p.m. and returned at 5:55 p.m. Mr. Hamilton called for a motion concerning the crime stoppers program and resource officers at the high school campuses as recommended by Sup~rintendent Smith. A-3 Minutes, Regular Board Meeting page 4 Tuesday, August 27, 1990, 5 p.m. Motion YEAS: NAYS: Use of Pir,e Recommendation Eoard Discussion STEP'S Withdrawal Board Response Question YEAS: NAYS: Negos. A-4 Rev. Johnsen moved to accept the recommendation from Superintendent Smith with the proviso that, at the end of the semester, the program would be evaluated to see if the District wished to continue. Mrs. Blackstone seconded the motion. Blackstcne,Denton,Dupins,Hamilton,Harrison,Jchnson,Mitchell None Next item for Board consideration was the use of Pine Elementary Building. Mr. Smith reminded the Boord that the public hearing had been held and proposals had been received and sent to the Board for consideration. He asked that Mrs. Mitchell make her recommendation to the Board. Mrs. Mitchell reported on studying the proposals, tolking with the people in the Eastgate area, holding meetings, to see what is wanted by the people of the area, as directed by Judge Wright. She recommended that the three groups, who had presented proposals to the Board, meet with the Administration to work out a compromise on the use of Pine, Rev. Johnson seconded th~ motion, with the stipulation that the District attorney be involved in the finalization of the agreement with the groups. Board discussion involved concern of the three groups being able to utilize the sam~ building without conflicts\nspace consideration\nservices rendered by the grcups\nduplication of services\nequal distribution of the school\ndiversity of community over services available to different groups and ages\nconcern about Administr~tion working on the compromise\nand possibility of STEP not wanting to be included under these conditions. Mr. Hamilton asked the representative of STEP if they were still opposed to sharing the facility, and Mrs. Sevier said they would not be interested under the conditions of the recommendation. The Board regretted STEP's decision to not share in the use of the building, but that if others requested to be included in the future, it would be considered. Mr. Dupins called for the question. Denton,Dupins,Hamilton,Harrison,Johnson,Mitchell Blackstone Mr. Hamilton called upcn Mr. Smith to make a repcrt on the progress of negotiations on salaries. Minute:,, Regular Board Meeting .. page 5 Tuesday, August 27, 1990, 5 p.m. Report by Supt. Board Discussicn Deadline Motion on Impasse Beard Discu5sion 'l'rust F'und Law CTA Remarks Board Direction Motion Withdrawn Break Mr. Smith regretted the misinformation that had gctten out concerning salaries. He reported the two negotiating teams were close to solving the problem, and hoped to resolve the situation in a short period of time. Board members discussed the teachers not having raises and contracts by the time school started\ngoing to impasse\nbad coromunications with people not being informed\nnegotiating in good faith\nCTA representing all teachers by the Agreement with the Board\nintention of the law to get the trust fund money to the teachers as soon as possible\nboth teams completing the negotiation process as quickly as possible\nsetting a deadline to complete negotiations or go to impasse\nand teachers, teaching, not worried about finances. Mr. Hamilton discussed setting a deadline for the salary negotiations to be completed. Mrs. Denton moved that the Board declare impasse one week frcrn tonight if agreement has not been reached by the two teams ready to bring to the Board for approval. Seconded by Mrs. Blackstone. Additional discussion by the Board included allowing the two teams to continue negotiations in good faith\nclarification cf the trust fund money and its distribution\nand negating the negotiations process. Superintendent Smith referred to the law which states that the money will be distributed equally unless the majority of the teachers and Board vote otherwise. He felt the teams were close to agreement. Ms. Sheehan also agreed that the teams were close\nthat the meeting today had been ccngenial\nthat the held up was looking at cost figures by both groups\nand asked for faith in the teams. The Board directed the Board team to negotiate in good faith and asked the CTA team to do the same and to come to an agreement without going to impasse. Mrs. Denton withdrew her motion, and Mrs. Blackstone withdrew her second. The Board took a ten minute break, reconvening at 7:05 p.m. A-5 Minutes, Regular Board Meeting page 6 Tuesday, August 27, 1990, 5 p.m. Policy Changes Policy Changes thru Negos./ First Reading Motion Discussion on Policy CFR CTA Response Board nesponse CTA' s Question on CFF Question YE/\\S: NAYS: Two Additional Policy Changes/ First Reading YEAS: NAYS: A-6 Action Items--New Business Mr. Hamilton culled upon Hr. Smith to present recomrnended policy changes resulting from negotiations. Mr. Smith present the following policies for Board approval on the first reaoing: CCC, Salary Deductions\nCEA, Sick Leave\nCEAA, Sick Leave Bank\nCEE, Military Leave\nCFEA, Compensatory Time for Teac_hers\nCFF, Substitute Teachers\nCFR, Tobacco Use by Employees\nCGF, Notification to Teachers\nand DBBB, Secondary Organization. Rev. Johnson moved to approve the recommended changes for the policies listed for the first reading. Mrs. Blackstone seconded the motion. Discussion involved Policy CFR, Tobacco Use by Employees. Mr. Smith explained to the Board that this was a negotiated item, but if it was not workable, it could be brought back to the table another time. Ms. Sheehan reported on the survey taken and the results studied by a committee before a recommendation was made. Board discussed the number involved\na compromise\nif all employees were involved\nt=xtreme measures of policy, and support. Ms. Sheehan called attention to Policy CFF, Substitute Teachers, in that it was not like the one signed off on by the two teams. It was explained that the only other change had been a requirement from the Federal Government. Vote was called for. Blackstone,Denton,Dupins,Hamilton,H~rrison,Johnson,Mitchell None Next item for consideration was two additional policy changes--FAC, Attendance Requirements, and CEJ, Holidays. Mr. Smith explained that the age limit had been changed from 17 to 18 for school attendance and that Martin Luther King, Jr.'s birthday had been added to the policy for  District-wide observance. He recommended Board approval on the first reading. Rev. Johnson so moved with Mrs. Harrison seconding the motion. Blackstone,Denton,Dupins,Hamilton,Harrison,Johnson,Mitchell None Minut~s, Regular Board Meeting .. p'age 7 Tuesday, August 27, 1990, 5 p.m. Policy CFS/ Second Reading YEAS: NAYS: Textbook Adoption YEAS: NAYS: Energy Grant Discussion YEAS: KAYS: Personnel Vacancies YEAS: NAYS: Next, Mr. Smith presented Policy CFS--Drug Testing--for Board approval on the second reading. Mrs. Harrison mcved to accept Policy CFS--Drug Testing--as presented by Superintendent Smith en the second reading. Mr. Dupins seconded the motion. Blackstone,Denton,Dupins,Hamilton,Harrison,Johnson,Mitchell None Mr. Hamilton called on Gene Jones to present the recommended textbook adoption. Mr. Jones reminded the Board that at the time other secondary textbooks had been adopted, the committee delayed a decision on the Arkansas History Textbook, because only one textbook was available for review. He explained that the Committee met on August 20 and selecttd those listed in the agenda. He recorornended Board approval. (These will be included with permanent minutes.) Blackstone,Denton,Dupins,Hamilton,Harrison,Johnson,Mitchell None Mr. Hamilton called on Jerry Massey, Director of School Plant Services, to present his recommendation on an energy grant. Mr. Massey explained that the funcs would be spent at the East Campus Main Building, Lakewood Middle, and Rose City Middle Schools, with $114,000 for in-kind labor for the District. Mrs. Harrison moved to approve the energy grant as presented by Mr. Massey. Mrs. Mitchell seconded the motio~. Discussion included the possibility of applying for a loan from the Revolving Loan Fund for the District's cash part of this project, $162,888\nthe energy savings the District would receive in less than five years\nand the age of the buildings involved. Blackstone,Denton,Dupins,Hamilton,Harrison,Johnson,Mitchell None Mr. Hami:~ton called on James Morris to present the personnel report for the Board's consideration. Mr. Morris called attention to the resignations, new hires, and the transfer~. He also reported on two vacancies--one certified and one classified, which he felt would be filled quickly. He recommended Board approval of the various activities of the personnel departme:nt. Mrs. Blackstone so moved with Mrs. Denten seconding the motion. Upon questioning by the Board, Mr. Morris reported that the certified position was a special education spot at Ridgercad Middle School and the classified spot was at Rose City Middle School for an aide. Blackstone,Denton,Dupins,Hamilton,Harrison,Johnson,Mitchell None A-7 Minutes, Regular Board Meeting page 8 Tuesday, August 27, 1990, 5 p.m. Bids YEAS: NAYS: Use of Equipment Use of Facilities YEAS: NAYS: School Budget Concerns of Board Supt.' s Remarks Questicn YEAS: NAYS: A-8 Mr. Hamilton called on Doyne Ward to present the items on the bid list. Mr. Ward called attenticn tc one bid on television equipment, recommending the low bid on all items. Rev. Johnson so moved with Mrs. Mitchell seconding the motion. Blackstone,Denton,Dupins,Hamilton,Harrison,Johnson,Mitchell None It was asked what the equipment would be used for, and Mr. Ward reported for TV broadcasting. Mr. Ward presented one request for use of District facilities--UALR to use West Campus for the Off-Campus Credit Program. He recow.mended Board approval. Mrs. Denton so moved with Mrs. Harrison seconding the motion. Blackstone,Denton,Dupins,Hamilton,Harrison,Jchnson,Mitchell None Mr. Hamilton called on Donald Watkins to present the school budget for 1991-92. Mr. Watkins called attention to the budget material being sent to the Board prior to the meeting. He explained that some areas had been reduced and transferred since the budget workshop, such as desegregation, instruction. etc. The proposed budget showed receipts of $35,630,385 and expenditures of $36,203,434. Mr. Watkins warned the Board of the seriousness of the tight budget. Rev. Johnson moved to approve the budget as presented by Mr. Watkins. Mrs. Denton seconded the motion. Concerns expressed by the Board were elementary music books\ncopying machines in the schools\nreduction of contingency fund\nmillage rededication acted on by the Courts\nand being covered on the appeal for millage rededication. Mr. Smith talked of money being earmarked\nenrollment for the year being down again--loss of 7 4 stud~nts, which will affect the district next year with a revenue loss of approximately $150,000\nand the need for maintenance on several school buildings. Mr. Hamilton called for the vote on acceptance of the school budget for 1991-92. Blackstone,Denton,Dupins,Hamilton,Harrison,Johnson,Mitchell None Minutes, Regular Beard Meeting page 9 Tuesday, August 27, 1990, 5 p.m. Monthly Bills YE1'.S: NAYS: Monthly Reports New Format YEAS: NAYS: Summer Schoel ROPES Opening of School Calendar/ Motion to Adjourn YEAS: NAYS: -- - ------- Mr. Hamilton called on Mr. Watkins to present the monthly bills for the Board's consideration. Mr. Watkins called attention to the listing in the agenda, and recorr.mended approval. Mrs. Harrison so moved with Rev. Johnson seconding the motion. Blackstcne ,Denton ,Dupins, llumil ton, Harrison, Johnson ,Mitchell None Next, Mr. Watkins called attention to the regular monthly administrative reports, citing a mistake on the summary of expenditures of over $800,000 on Capital Outlay item. He reported that this money had not been spent as shown. He submitted the reports for Board approval. Rev. Johnson so moved, and Mrs. Harrison seconded the motion. Upon questioning by the Board, Mr. Watkins explained that the new format for reporting will be used at the September meeting. Blackstone,Denton,Dupins,Hamilton,Harrison,Jchnson,Mitchell None Mr. Hamilton called on Gene Jones to make a report on the summer school activities. Mr. Jones reported that over 1,000 students attended the various summer schools~-Chapter I for first and third grade students at North Heights, kindergarten at Pike View, and a pre-kindergarten program at six elementary schools\nsecondary surr.mer programs at the West Campus and Ridgeroad Middle Scheel, with a seventh grade transition program at each middle school. He e::plained that a report on the QUES'r program for gifted and talented students will be presented at a 1ater time. Mr. Jones called attention to several pictures on the wall showing students participating in the Ferndale 4-H ROPES Course. This was part of the transition program held at each midale school for seventh grade students. The Board e,:pressed appreciation to Mr. Jones for a good well done. Superintendent Smith reported on the beginning of school expressing appreciation to the staff for a smooth opening. Mr. Hamilton called attention to the next regular meeting set fer Tuesday, September 24, 1991, 5 p.m., and called for a motion to adjourn. Rev. Johnson so moved with Mr. Dupins seconding the motion. Blackstone,Denton,Dupins,Aamilton,Harrison,Johnson,Mitchell NcnE:! A-9 Minutes, Regular Board Meeting page 10 Tuesday, August 27, 1990, 5 p.m. AdjournmE.nt Mr. Hamilton declared the meeting duly adjcurr,ed at 8:00 p.m. Lynn Hamilton, President D1::i1: Har:r i son, Secretary Visitors A-10 Mr. Hamilton opened the meeting up to those in the audience wishing tc address the Board. No one approached the Board, but Mrs. Blackstone remarked about the cooperation between the East and West Campuses and the use cf the TV stations. NORTH LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT Office of the Superintendent MINUTES SPECIAL MEETING, BOARD OF EDUCATION Administration Building, 2700 Poplar Street Thursday, September 5, 1991, 5:30 p.m. A special meeting of the North Little Rock Board of Education was held on Thursday, Septen~er 5, 1991, 5:30 p.m., in the Board Room of the Administration Building, 2700 Poplar Street, North Little Rock, Arkansas. The meeting was called to order by the Chairman, Lynn Hamilton. Present Absent Others Present Purpcse of Meeting Salary Schedule CTA' s Position Roll Call Lynn Hamilton, President Pat Blackstone, Acting Secretary Emily Denton, Member (arrived 5:40 p.m.) Prentice Dupins, Membe.r J. w. Johnson, Member Mable Mitchell, Vice President Dixie Harrison, Secretary James Smith, Superintendent/Treasurer of Di5trict\nBobby Acklin, Assistant Superintendent for Student Affairs\nMable Bynum, Assistant Sup~rintendent for Desegregation\nGene Jones, Assistant Superintendent for Instruction\nDonald Watkins, Assistant Superintendent for Business Services\nJames Morris, Director of Personnel\nDoyne ward, Director of Purchasing\nseveral other staff members, representatives cf the CTA\nmembers of the press\nano Bettye Albright, Secretary to the Superintendent, were also present. Mr. Hamilton explained that the purpose of the special board meeting was to consider the teachers salary schedule for 1991-92. Mr. Hamilton called upon Superintendent Smith to make his recommendation. Mr. Smith called attention to the salary schedule negotiated between the CTA and Board teams. He recommended Board approval. Mr. Hamilton called upon Nancy Sheehan, President of the North Little Rock Classrocm Teachers Association. Mrs. Sheehan referred to a letter hand-delivered during the day to the Board and the Superintendent stating that the contract language and 5alary schedule had been ratified by the general membership of the CTA. A-11 Minutes, Regular Board Meeting page 2 Thursday, September 5, 1991, 5:30 p.m. Vote of Teachers CTA Disagreed Supt.' s Remarks Motion Board Member Statement A-12 Mr. Smith called attention to the law concerning the distribution of the trust fund money in that a vote of the teachers was required. He reported on talking with the attorney from the State Department of Education and the attorney from the Arkansas School Boards Asscciation who both said that the District needed to have a vote of ~he majority of the teachers on the recommended salary schedule involving the trust fund money and its distribution if done uneq~ally. Ms. Sheehan disagreed about a vote being necessary~ legal counsel for the CTA said where a negotiation agreement is used, it is not required--only where the district's use a personnel policy committee. Mr. Smith again restated the advice he had been given and stated that the Legislature had stipulated the distributicn of the trust fund money would be agreed to by a majority vote of teh teachers. He felt docu mentation would be needed later on when the District was audited. He felt the outcome would be the same, so suggested the schedule be adopted at this time and the matt~r of the vote be considered before the end of the year. Mrs. Denton moved to accept the proposed salary schedule as presented by Superintendent Smith. Rev. Johnson seconded the motion. Mr. Dupins asked for clarification of the motion in that it was for the printed schedule presented to the Board. Mr. Hamilton agreed that this was the intent of the motion. Mrs. Blackstone asked to make a statement concerning the trust fund money so that it would appear in the record. She felt the money was intended to be spread across the board so that all teachers would get approximately $4,000 raise, and that it was done that way in districts that do not have a Negotiation:, Agre,.?ment. She W3~ concerned that the District already had one of the lowest starting salaries in the state and with this schedule it would be difficult to recruit new minority teachers, and to be competitive with the other districts in Pulaski County, Mrs. Blackstone also expressed concern about the press the District received during negotiations and the derogatory remarks made bY, the CTA. She also expressed concern about not being able to listen to the tapes in order to hear the ses~ions and to know personally what took place in the meetings. Minutes, Regular Board Meeting pcge 3' Thursday, September 5, 1991, 5:30 p.rn. Bd. Member Statement continued Question YEAS: NAYS: Impasse Items Supt.'s Remarks Motion to Adjourn Adjournment Mrs. Blackstone explained that she was pleased about those receiving the good raises but would have liked to have seen more put at the beginning level. As there were no other remarks by the Board of the CTA, Mr. Hamilton called for the question. Blackstone, Denton, Dupins, Hamilton, Johnson None (Harrison and Mitchell absent) Mr. Hamilton called attentien to the impasse items from the CTA and the Beard, and asked Mr. Smith to comment. Mr. Smith reported that the impasse items from the CTA included salary schedules (CCA)\ntuition reimbursement for teache1:s (CDI)\npersonal leave (CEB)\nextracurricular duties of teachers (CFEB)\nteacher authority (CHA)\nand working hours for instructional staff (CFA)\nand from the Beard Blue  Cross/Blue Shield Insurance. He explained that since these had not been resolved during the negotiations sessions that the procedure listed in the Professional Negotiation for an Advisory Board consisting of three individuals to help resolve these items would be appointed as soon as possible. Mr. Smith reported that the teachers would receive their raises in the October 1 pay check and that a recommendation on the administrators and classified employees salaries would be made some time next week. Mrs. Blackstone moved to adjourn, and Mr. Dupins seconded the motion. Mr. Hamiltcn declared the meeting adjourned a~ 5:55 p.m. Lynn Hamilton, President Pat Blackstone, Acting Secretary A-13 ' I' ,. NORTH LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT Office of the Superintendent AGENDA REGULAR MEETING, BOARD OF EDUCATION Administration Building, 2700 Poplar Street Tuesday, October 22, 1991, 5 p.m. I. CALL TO ORDER, Mable Mitchell, President II. INVOCATION, Alexia Glover, 5th Grade Student from Redwood, Grandmother, Mrs. Alexander III. FLAG SALUTE IV. ROLL CALL OF MEMBERS Mable Mitchell, President Prentice Dupins, Vice President . Pat Blackstone, Secretary Emily Denton, Member Lynn Hamilton, Member Dixie Harrison, Member J. W. Johnson, Member V. RECOGNITION OF PEOPLE/EVENTS/PROGRAMS A. Special Presentation--M. Mitchell B. Superintendent's Honor Roll--S. Bolling . Suzie Patrick, NLRHS Volunteer . . Maria Bryant, Second Grade Teacher, Crestwood . Cornelius Burton, Worker, NLR Stadium VI. DISPOSITION OF MINUTES OF PRIOR MEETING(S) A. Tuesday, September 24, 1991, 5 p.m. (Regular) PAGE A-1 B. Monday, October 7, 1991, 5:30 p.m. (Special) PAGE -A-10 VII. ACTION ITEMS--UNFINISHED BUSINESS J A. Consider Revision of Building Fee Schedule-- D. Ward PAGE -S-2 VIII. ACTION ITEMS--NEW BUSINESS A. Consider Superintendent's Salary--M. Mitchell Agenda, Regular Board Meeting page 2 Tuesday, October 22, 1991, 5 p.m. IX. x. B. Consider Application for Revolving Loan-D. Watkins c. Consider Employment of Perscnnel--J. Morris D. Consider Items on Bid List--Ward E. F. G. A. Furnaces B. Computers Consider Requests for Use of Buildings--ward Consider Payment of Regular Bills--Watkins Consider Monthly Administrative Reports-Watkins INFORMATIONAL ITEMS A. Student Enrollment B. Report from Impasse Committee--G. Jones c. Report on Chapter II--Jones D. Report on Student Test Results--Jones CALENDAR OF EVENTS PAGE -B-1 PAGE -P-1 PAGE -R-1 PAGE~ PAGE -T-1 PAGE -T-20 PAGE -Z-1 A. Next Regularly Scheduled Board Meeting--Tuesday, November 26, 1991, 5 p.m. XI. ADJOURNMENT XII. VISITORS , . NORTH LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT Office of the Superintendent MINUTES REGULARM EETING, BOARDO F EDUCATION Administration Building, 2700 Poplar Street Tuesday, September 24, 1991, 5 p.m. The North Little Rock Board of Education met in regular session on Tuesday, September 24, 1991, 5 p.m., in the Board Room of the Administration Building, 2700 Poplar Street, North Little Rock, Arkansas. The meeting was called to order by the Chairman, Lynn Hamilton. The invocation was given by Justin Green, sixth grade student from Park Hill, with the flag salute following. Present Absent Others Present Teacher of Year Supt.'s Honor Roll Roll Call Lynn Hamilton, President Mable Mitchell, Vice Pr~sident Dixie Harrison, Secretary Emily Denton, Member Prentice Dupins, Member J. w. Johnson, Member Pat Blackstone, Member Mr. James Smith, Superintendent/Treasurer of District: Mable Bynum, Assistant Superintendent for Desegregation: Bobby Acklin, Assistant Superintendent for Student Affairs: Gene Jones, Assistant Superintendent for Instruction: Donald Watkins, Assistant Superintendent for Business services: James Morris, Director of Personnel: Doyne Ward, Director of Purchasing: several other staff members, members of the CTA: patrons of the District\nmembers of the press: and Bettye Albright, secretary to the Superintendent, were also present. Recognition of People/Events/Programs Scharmel Bolling, Coordinator of Information Services, introduced Judy Pierson, Baring Cross CCE Coordinator, as North Little Rock's 1991-92 Teacher of the Year. Rev. J. w. Johnson presented Judy with red roses, and Dixie Harrison presented her a 'plaque. Next, Ms. Bolling presented a new recognition program-Superintendent's Honor Roll. Greg Daniels, Director of Computer Services, who was recommended by the Lakewood A-1 Minutes, Regular Board Meeting page 2 Tuesday, September 24, 1991, 5 p.m. Supt's Honor Roll continued 8/27/91 \u0026amp; 9/5/91 YEAS: NAYS: Reorgan. of Board-President YEAS: NAYS: Changing of Chairs Vice President YEAS: NAYS: A-2 Middle School, was the first to be introduced. Mrs. Denton presented Greg with a plaque. The next recipient was Liz Fulton, a science teacher from the West Campus, who had also been selected for a Presidential Award for Excellence in Science and Mathematics, with Mrs. Mitchell presenting her plaque. (Suzie Patrick, a NLRHS volunteer had also b~en recommended, but could not attend the Board meeting. ) Disposition of Minutes Mr. Hamilton called for the disposition of the minutes of the regular meeting on Tuesday, August 27, 1991, 5 p.m. and the special meeting of Thursday, September S, 1991, 5:30 p.m. As there were no corrections, Mrs. Denton moved to approve the minutes as presented. Mrs. Harrison seconded the motion. Denton,Dupins,Harnilton,Harrison,Johnson,Mitchell Non~ (Blackstone absent) Action Items--Unfinished Business None Action Items--New Business Mr. Hamilton explained that the first order of business was the reorganization of the Board. He entertained nominations for president, explaining that the new president would chair the remainder of the meeting. Mrs. Harrison nominated Mable Mitchell for president of the North Little Rock Board of Education. Rev. Johnson seconded the motion. As there were no other nominations, the vote was called for. Denton,Dupins,Hamilton,Harrison,Johnson None (Blackstone absent) Mr. Hamilton presented Mrs. Mitchell with the gavel. Mrs. Mitchell expressed her appreciation to the other members of the Board for the confidence placed in her as Chairman of the Board. Mrs. Mitchell called for nominations for Vice President. Mrs. Denton placed in nomination for Vice President, Prentice Dupins. Mrs. Harrison seconded the nomination. As there were no other nominations, a vote was called for. Denton,Hamilton,Harrison,Johnson,Mitchell None (Blackstone absent)  M\"i nutes, Regular Board Meeting page 3 Tuesday, September 24, 1991, 5 p.m. Secretary YEAS: NAYS: Parlimen. Treasurer Designated YEAS: NAYS: Ex Officio Financial Sec'y YEAS: NAYS: Policies Amendment to Motion YEAS: NAYS: Mrs. Mitchell called for nominations for secretary of the Board. Mrs. Harrison nominated Pat Blackstone. Mr. Hamilton seconded the nomination. As there were no other nominations, the vote was called for. Denton,Dupins,Hamilton,Harrison,Johnson,Mitchell None (Blackstone absent) Mrs. Mitchell asked that Rev. Johnson serve as parlimen~ tarian for another year. He agreed to do so. Next item of business was to consider the designation of the Superintendent as treasurer of the District. Rev. Johnson moved that the Superintendent of the School District be designated as Treasurer. Mrs. Harrison seconded the motion. Denton,Dupins,Hamilton,Harrison,Johnson,Mitchell None (Blackstone absent) Next, Mrs. Mitchell asked the Board to consider the designation of the Assistant Superintendent for Business Services as th~ ex officio financial secretary of the District. Rev. Johnson so moved with Mr. Dupins seconding the motion. Denton,Dupins,Hamilton,Harrison,Johnson,Mitchell None (Blackstone absent) The next item to consider was the second reading for the policy changes resulting from negotiations. Mrs. Mitchell asked the Superintendent for his recommendation. Mr. Smith requested Board approval of the listed policy changes: CCC, Salary Deductions\nCEA, Sick Leave\nCEAA, Sick Leave Bank\nCEE, Military Leave\nCFEA, Compensatory Time for Teachers\nCFF, Substitute Teachers\nCFR, Tobacco Use\nand DBBB, Secondary Organization. Mr. Hamilton so moved with Mrs. Harrison seconding the motion. Mrs. Denton moved to amend the motion by removing policy CFR, Tobacco Use, and accepting all others. Mr. Dupins seconded the amendment. Discussion included reason for omitting Policy CFR\nquestion about negotiations item\nclarification of motion\nand intent of motion. Denton,Dupins,Hamilton,Ha~rison,Johnson,Mitchell None (Blackstone absent) A-3 Minutes, Regular Board Meeting page 4 Tuesday, September 24, 1991, 5 p.m. Original Motion YEAS: NAYS: Motion to Approve Discussion by Board CTA Remarks Board Direction  Motion Withdrawn/ New Motion Discussion YEAS: NAYS: A-4 Action on original motion to accept the policies as presented with the exception of the one policy, CFR, Tobacco Use, which was removed by the amended motion, was called for. Denton,Dupins,Hamilton,Harrison,Johnson,Mitchell None (Blackstone absent) Mrs. Harrison moved to accept CFR, Tobacco Use, as negotiated and pxesented in the agenda on the second reading. Mr. Hamilton seconded the motion. Discussion followed on the pros and cons of tobacco use at school district buildings--the extreme action of the policy\nthe need for a place out of the weather for those who smoke\nthe survey results\nsmoking allowed on the campuses but not in the buildings or vehicles\nareas properly ventilated for smokers\ncost factor\nand a program for those wishing to stop smoking. Mrs. Sue Simmons, a member of the committee on smoking, responded about the survey's results, and Ms. Nancy Sheehan, President of the CTA, talked about the cost. factor\nproblem of ventilation in the buildings\nand those expressing an interest in a program to help those wishing to stop smoking. The Board directed the Superintendent to look into developing a program to help those who wish to stop smoking. Mr. Hamilton suggested an amendment to the original motion to include in the motion a plan for a program to help people to quit smoking at no cost to the District and to ban smoking completely, from all school district property, effective by August 1, 1992. (Mrs. Harrison withdrew the origi~al motion, with M\n. Hamilton withdrawing his second.) After Board discussion, Mr. Hamilton moved to accept policy CFR as written and in addition to what is written in the policy, instruct the Administration to offer a program to the smokers to help them quit smoking, at no cost to the District, with a ban on smoking on all school district property to begin on August 1, 1992. Mrs. Harrison seconded the motion. Discussion by the Board ~ncluded extreme measures of original and newly suggested policy\ndifficulty of enforcement of such a policy\nsmoking at football games and other after school activities\nand the message , being sent to the school children seeing adults smoking. Question called for by the Chairman. Hamilton,Harrison,Johnson,Mitchell Denton, Dupins (Blackstone absent) .. Minutes, page 5 Tuesday, Regular Board Meeting September 24, 1991, 5 p.m. Policies YEAS: NAYS: Spec. Educ. Budget YEAS: NAYS: Textbook Committee Discussion YEAS: NAYS: Chapter I Improvement Plan YEAS: NAYS: Next, Mrs. Mitchell asked the Superintendent to present the additional policies being recommended on the second reading. Mr. Smith called attention to FAC, Attendance Requirements\nand CEJ, Holidays. He recommended Board approval. Mrs. Denton so moved with Mr. Dupins seconding the motion. (Rev. Johnson called attention to two typing errors.) Denton,Dupins,Hamilton,Harrison,Johnscn,Mitchell None (Blackstone absent) Mr. Watkins presented the special education budget application for Board consideration. He recommended Board approval., Mrs. Harrison moved to accept the special education application/budget as presented by Mr. Watkins. Rev. Johnson seconded the motion. (The application/budget will be included with permanent minutes.) Denton,Dupins,Hamilton,Harrison,Johnson,Mitchell None (Blackstone absent) Mr. Jones presented the elementary language arts textbook adoption committee for Board consideration. He called attention to the need for a teacher from the seventh grade and a minority parent to serve on the committee before it is complete. He recommended Board approval of the committee. Mr. Hamilton moved to accept the adoption committee, and Mrs. Harrison seconded the motion. It was asked by the Board when the two vacancies would be filled, and Mr. Jones reported before the process began, and he offered to bring the two additional membt!rs back to the Board for approval. No directive given on this suggestion. Denton,Dupins,Hamilton,Harrison,Johnson,Mitchell None (Blackstone absent) Mrs. Mitchell asked Mr. Jones to present his recommendation on the Chapter I Improvement Plan. Mr. Jones called attention to three schools not making the District's goal-Amboy, Glenview, and Pike View, which will be involved in this plan. He called attention to the accelerated prograir. at Amboy as previously reported to the Board and the reading recovery project at Pike View. He recommended Board approval. Mrs. Harrison so moved with Rev. Johnson seconding the motion. , Denton,Dupins,Hamilton,Harrison,Johnson,Mitchell None (Blackstone absent) A-5 Minutes, Regular Board Meeting page 6 Tuesday, September 24, 1991, 5 p.m. Teacher of Tomorrow Concept Discussion YEAS: NAYS: Personnel YEAS: NAYS: Bids YEAS: NAYS: Use of Buildings A-6 Mrs. Mitchell called on Mable Bynum to present the Teacher of Tomorrow concept to the Board for consideration. Mrs. Bynum called attention to the proposal given to the Board by the Superintendent, which stresses the critical shortage of minority teachers. She reported on the proposal of a teacher training academy as a means to address the shortage in the Pulaski County area, with sev~n educational institutions involved~-UAPB, UCA, UALR and Henderson State along with the three school districts in Pulaski County. She asked that the Board approve such a concept in order for funds to be applied for in order to comply with the Legislative mandate. Mrs. Harrison so moved with Rev. Johnson seconding the motion. It was asked by the Board if there was plans for one academy in the area for all districts or for one for each district. It was reported that the proposal was for one for all three districts. The graduation requirements were discussed as well as the entrance grade. It was also brought out that the district where the academy was located might have 2\"r1 advantage in recruiting. Denton,Dupins,Hamilton,Harrison,Johnson,Mitchell None (Blackstone absent) Mr. Morris presented the personnel report for the Board's consideration, calling attention to all vacancies being filled. He recommended Board acceptance of the resignations and Board approval of the new certified and classified staff. Rev. Johnson so moved with Mrs. Denton seconding the motion. Denton,Dupins,Hamilton,Harrison,Johnson,Mitchell None (Blackstone absent) Mrs. Mitchell called on Doyne Ward to present the bids on the stack chairs. Mr. Ward called 'attention to the bids listed, recommending the low bid from Vireo Manufacturing Corporation in the amount of $3,197.40, with the chairs being used at various elementary schools. Mrs. Harrison so moved with Rev. Johnson seconding the motion. Denton,Dupins,Hamilton,Harrison,Johnson,Mitchell None (Blackstone absent) Mr. Ward next presented three requests for use of building: Park Hill Baptist Church to use East Campus auditorium on April 7-9 and 11-12, 1992, for an Easter Pageant\nArkansas Odyssey of the Mind Association to use East Campus for annual state competition on April 11\nand Cornerstone Bible Fellowship to use Indian Hills \"Minutes, Regular Board Meeting page 7 Tuesday, September 24, 1991, 5 p.m. Use of Bldgs. continued YEAS: NAYS: Fees for Use of Facilities Discussion Action Postponed YEAS: NAYS: Adm. Salary Schedule YEAS: NAYS: Monthly Bills YEAS: NAYS: Elementazy School cafeteria on Sunday, December 15 for Christmas banquet. He recommended Board approval. Rev. Johnson so moved with Mr. Dupins seconding the motion. Denton,Dupins,Hamilton,Harrison,Johnson,Mitchell None (Blackstone absent) Next item on the agenda for the Board's consideration was the fee schedule for school facilities. Mr. Ward called attention to an increase in several areas, recommending Board approval. Mrs. Harrison so moved with Rev. Johnson seconding the motion. Board discussion included if proposed increase was enough\nchanges for admission and non-admission groups\nutilities\nand personnel needed. Mrs. Harrison moved that action be postponed until next meeting, with Mr. Ward securing information on the rent charges for facilities in other districts. Mr. Hamilton seconded the motion. Denton,Dupins,Hamilton,Harrison,Johnson,Mitchell None (Blackstone absent) The next item was to consider the administrative salary schedule and classified salary schedule. Mrs. Mitchell called upon Superintendent Smith to make his recommendation. Mr. Smith reported that the classified salary scale was not ready but should be by the latter part of October. He referred to the teachers receiving 14.86 percent as approved by the Board at the 1ast meeting\nthat it was hoped to place 5 percent in the classified scale\nand recomm~nded 9.7 percent to be placed in the administrative scale. He recommended Board approval of the presented salary schedule for administrators. Mr. Hamilton so moved with Mrs. Denton seconding the motion. (The salary schedule will be included in permanent minutes.) Denton,Dupins,Hamilton,Harrison,Johnson,Mitchell None (Blackstone absent) Mrs. Mitchell called on Donald Watkins to present the monthly bills for the Board's consideration. Mr. Watkins called attention to the listing of the bills in the agenda, and submitted them for approval of the Board. Mr. Hamilton moved to accept the bills as presented by Mr. Watkins. Rev. Johnson seconded the motion. Denton,Dupins,Hamilton,Harrison,Johnson,Mitchell None (Blackstone absent) A-7. Minutes, Regular Board Meeting page 8 Tuesday, September 24, 1991, 5 p.m. Monthly Reports Motion to Approve YEAS: NAYS: Letters of Congrats., etc. Annual Progress Student Enrollment Bd.'s Cert. Filed October Meeting/ ASBA/ NSD Region Conference A-8 Next, Mr. Watkins presented the regular monthly administrative reports, calling attention to a new activity account summary format and handing out a new, corrected copy. After a question about the funds from vending machines, Mrs. Harrison moved to approve the administrative reports with the addition of the hand-out. Mr. Hamilton seconded the motion. Denton,Dupins,Hamilton,Harrison,Johnson,Mitchell None (Blackstone absent) Informational Items Mrs. Mitchell asked Superintendent Smith to respond to the letters included in the agenda. Mr. Smith called attention to the letter concerning Liz Fulton, biology teacher at the West Campus, being selected for a Presidential Award for Excellence in Science and Mathematics Teaching. He reported that she was the third teacher in the District.during the past three years to win this award. He called attention to the letter from STEP, Inc., and a letter from Representative Thornton on the Project Even Start grant received by the District. Mr. Smith congratulated Jim Dyer, Jann Pharo, and Nova Staggs for their work in securing the grant. Next, Mr. Jones reported on the Annual Report of progress on the District's priorities and a progress report on meeting the State's standards. He called attention to a printed progress report which had been given to the Board prior to the meeting. (This annual report will be included in the permanent minutes.). Student enrollment was asked about and a copy was given to the Board members, which showed a total of 9,247 for the month of September. Rev. Johnson called attention to the three newly elected Board members' certificate being on file in the Superintendent's office. Calendar of Events Mrs. Mitchell called atteption to the next regularly scheduled Board meeting on Tuesday, October 22, 1991, 5 p.m.\nthe Fall Regional meeting of the ASBA at the East Campus cafeteria on Thursday, October 3, 1991, 6:30 p.m.\nand the National Committee for School Desegregation Region VI Conference at the Little Rock Hilton on October 31 through November 1. Minutes, Regular Board Meeting page 9 Tuesday, September 24, 1991, 5 p.m. Calendar continued Motion to Adjourn YEAS: NAYS: Mr. Dupins extended an invitation to the other members of the Board to attend the National Committ~e for School Desegregation conference at the Little Rock Hilton on October 31. Mrs. Mitchell told the Board that Mrs. Bynum would be getting in touch with them about making reservations for the meeting. Rev. Johnson moved to adjourn, and Mrs. Harrison seconded the motion. Denton,Dupins,Hamilton,Harrison,Johnson,Mitchell None (Blackstone) Adjournment Mrs. Mitchell duly adjourned the meeting at 6:25 p.m. Mable Mitchell, President Emily Denton, Acting Secretary Visitors CTA Mrs. Mitchell open the meeting for anyone in the audience wishing to address the Board. She explained that in the future, the Board and Administration will set a time limi~ for those addressing the Board. Ms. Sheehan, president of the CTA, addressed the Board. A-9 NORTH LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT Office of the Superintendent MINUTES SPECIAL MEETING, BOARD OF EDUCATION Administration Building, 2700 Poplar Street Monday, October 7, 1991, 5:30 p.m. A special meeting of the North Little Rock Board of Education was held on Monday, October 7, 1991, 5:30 p.m., in the Board Room of the Administration Building, 2700 Poplar Street, North Little Rock, Arkansas. The meeting was called to order by the Chairman, Mable Mitchell. Present Absent Others Present Purpose of Meeting Classified Salary Scale Roll Call Mable Mitchell, President Pat Blackstone, Secretary Emily Denton, l-Iember Lynn Hamilton, Member Dixie Harrison, Member Prentice Dupins, Vice President J. w. Johnson, Member James Smith, Superintendent/Treasurer of District\nMable Bynum, Assistant Superintendent for Desegregation\nBobby Acklin, Assistant Superintendent for Student Affairs\nGene Jones, Assistant Superintendent for Instruction\nDonald Watkins, Assistant Superintendent for Business Services\nJames Morris, Director of Personnel\nseveral other staff members, members of the press, and Bettye Albright 1 secretary to the Superintendent, were also present. Mrs. Mitchell called attention to the purpose of the special meeting--to consider the classified salary schedule. She called on Superintendent Smith to make his recommendation. Mr. Smith called attention to the informatiou being sent to the Board prior to the meeting for study. He explained that in the past, five separate salary schedules had been used for the classified employees but had been combined into the one being recommended. He reported on the difficulties of the transition, but felt it would work well in the future, after the initial problems have been worked out--that what affected one group would affect all classified employees. He explained that the administratots were in the process of explaining the new format A-10 Minutes, Regular Board Meeting page 2 Monday, October 7, 1991, 5:30 p.m. Classified Salary continued Questions by Board Motion to Approve YEAS: NAYS: Board Comments Supt.'s Remarks Motion to Adjourn YEAS: KAYS: Adjournment to the staff involved--that, over-all, a little over five percent had been placed in the schedule, with some staff receiving more and some less. (The scale will be ir.cluded with permanent minutes.) A question from the Board cor.cerned where the increment step for secretaries began and where the percentage for the Professional Standards was based. Mr. Hamilton moved to accept the salary schedule as presented and recommended by Superintendent Smith. Mrs. Harrison seconded the motion. Blackstone,Denton,Hamilton,Harrison,Mitchell None (Dupins and Johnson absent) The Administration was commended by the Board for the consolidation of the salary schedules\nfelt it was a positive step for the classified employees. Mr. Smith explained that mistakes are probable with the beginning of a new scale but that these will be corrected as discovered. Mrs. Harrison moved to adjourn, and Mr. llarnilton seconded the motion. Blackstone,Denton,Harnilton,Harrison,Mitchell None (Dupins and Johnson absent) Mrs. Mitchell declared the meeting duly adjourned at 5:35 p.m. Mable Mitchell, President Pat Blackstone, Secretary A-11\nThis project was supported in part by a Digitizing Hidden Special Collections and Archives project grant from The Andrew W. Mellon Foundation and Council on Library and Information Resoources.\n   \n\n   \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n   \n\n \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n \n\n  \n\n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n   \n\n \n\n\n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n\n\n  \n\n\n\n "},{"id":"bcas_bcmss0837_287","title":"Care Program Staff manual and other documents","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":["1991/1999"],"dcterms_description":null,"dc_format":["application/pdf"],"dcterms_identifier":null,"dcterms_language":["eng"],"dcterms_publisher":["Little Rock, Ark. : Butler Center for Arkansas Studies. Central Arkansas Library System"],"dc_relation":null,"dc_right":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC-EDU/1.0/"],"dcterms_is_part_of":["Office of Desegregation Monitoring records (BC.MSS.08.37)","History of Segregation and Integration of Arkansas's Educational System"],"dcterms_subject":["Little Rock (Ark.)--History--20th century","Little Rock School District","Education--Arkansas","Educational planning","School-age child care","Student assistance programs"],"dcterms_title":["Care Program Staff manual and other documents"],"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/287"],"dcterms_temporal":null,"dcterms_rights_holder":null,"dcterms_bibliographic_citation":null,"dlg_local_right":["Available for use in research, teaching, and private study. Any other use requires permission from the Butler Center."],"dcterms_medium":["documents (object genre)"],"dcterms_extent":["74 pages"],"dlg_subject_personal":null,"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":"\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n\n\n\n   \n\n\n\n\n   \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n  \n\n*-M 1 CA\u0026gt; CARE Program Rockefeller School 700 E. 17 Little Rock, AR 72206 Child's Name Child's Doctor or Clinic - Doctor or ClinicAddress- Hospital Preference Phone ------------------ Describe medical conditions, physical or mental problems, etc. the CARE staff should know about your child: In case of emergency, I auorize the C ARE Program to arrange for medical/dental care and transportation to the hospital or doctor of my choice or the hospital nearest to the school. CARE cannot assume financial liability for injuries, student accident insurance is available through the school office. I have read and understand the Care Program Discipline Plan. I accept responsibility for paying tuition charges according to CARE policies and procedures. Date Signature of Parent or Guardianf y CARE Program F Little Rock School District The CARE Program is anon-profit, self-supporting program of child care provided for elementary-age students and parents of the Little Rock School District. The program operates before and after school and all day on most school holidays. The CARE Program provides a structured program of creative activities and recreation in a nurturing environment. Varied group and independent activities are planned according to the students' ages and interests. The goals of the CARE PROGRAM are:  to provide a safe environment for students before and after school  to offer a wide variety of creative and recreational activities  to help create a positive school attitude  to encourage acceptable social and play skills - to help each child develop a positive self image LOCATIONS A CARE Program is located in LRSD elementary schools where there are a minimum of 15 participants between the ages of 5 -12 years and at selected schools for 4 year olds. received in the CARE Office on or before the 15th of each month for the upcoming month. example: October payment is due September 15th ilications are available for reduced rates at Incentive Schools HOURS Each program operates from 7:00 A.M. until school opens and from the close of school until 5:30 P.M. (6:(X) P.M. at Incentive School\u0026lt;J (y\u0026gt;^^^nklin, Garland, Ish,Mitchell, Rightsell, Rockefeller, Stephens), requirements are based on family size and income. on regular school days. During most school lol 's, from 7:00 A.M. to 5:30 P.M. at specified schools. The CARE Program is also open at several accessible schools when LRSD schools are closed due to severe weather. When school is closed for any reason before the normal dismissal time, CARE begins operation at the earlier time. FOOD SERVICES CARE provides a nuiritous breakfast and snack prepared by the LRSD Food Services Department Registration Fee J Full-time (5 days @ wk.) Part-time (4 days @ wk.) Part time (3 days \u0026lt; wk.) Part time (2 days @ wk.) Part time (1 day @ week) 3 Day Drop-in @$4.50 @day Holiday (reservations required) \"Snow\" Day 6.00 69.25 @ month 56.00 @ month 42.00 @ month 28.00 @ month 14.00 @ month 13.50 @ card 7.00 @ day 7.00 @ day SUPERVISION The CARE Program is supervised by a certified leacher/supervisor. A ratio of one adult instructor to every 18 children is maintained at each site. COST Monthly payments for regular school days, not including holidays, are averaged over nine equal payments. These payments must be REGISTRATION To register, return the completed registration form to the CARE Program Office with the $6.00 registraticn fee and 1st month tuition. The program will be available at schools with a minimum of 15 children participating on a monthly basis. If CARE is not offered due to an insufficient number of participants at a school, fees will be refunded. For further information, please call the CARE Program Office at 324-2395. $ CARE PROGRAM REGISTRATION TO REGISTER for 1991-92, mail $6.00 registration fee, 1st month tuition and completed form (front and back) to: ATTENDANCE AND FEES (Check one): Full-time and part-time fees are due two weeks in advance. example: October payment is due September 15 CARE Program 700 E. 17th Little Rock, AR 72206 Telephone: 324-2395  Full-time (5 days @ wk.)  Part-time (4 days @ wk.) . Part-time (3 days @ wk.) - Part-time (2 days @ wk.) - Part-time (1 day @ week) -3 Day Drop-in @ 4.50 @ day -Holiday (reservations required) -Snow\" Day $ 69.25 @ month 56.00 @ month 42.00 @ month 28.00 @ month 14.00 @ month 13.50 @ card 7.00 @ day 7.00 @ day Child's Name. Date Of Birth School Grade Date To Enter Care Mothers Name Fathers Name. Address- Zip Address Zip Phone (Home). (Woric) .Work Hours. Phone (Home) (Worit). .Work Hours_____ Emergency Information: Name, address and telq)hoDe numbers of persons to contact other than parent/guardian (2 required). Name. Address Plione (Home) (Work) Name Address Phone (Home) (Work) Persons Authorized to Pick Up Child: How/where did you first hear about the CARE Program? (check one) school friend/relative previously enrolled other COMPLETE AND SIGN OTHER SIDE OF FORM4 [Arkansas Democrat  SUNDAY, APRIL 18, 1999 { LR district tests waters on program The Little Rock School District will offer a before-school and afterschool care program at its eight new middle schools beginning next fall if there is sufficient parent interest District officials this week mailed notices asking parents of pupils in grades five through seven to preregister their children for the senice by Friday, A minimum of 15 full-time participants will be needed to open and operate the care program at each of the schools. To preregister, parents must complete a form and pay a $50 nonre- fundable deposit The district offers child care at its elementary schools but not at the ju- The care program fees include a $20 registration and charges ranging from $20 a month for one day of care a week to $100 a month for five days a week. nior highs for students in grades seven through nine. As part of plans to convert the junior highs into middle schools for sixth-, seventh- and eighthgraders, some parents had asked for an e.xpansion of the care program. The program is to provide creative and recreational time for students. The cai-e program fees include a S20 registration and charges ranging from J20 a month for one day of care a week to $100 a month for five days a week. The program hours will be 7 a JU. until the start of classes and from school dismissal until 6 p.m. More information or a preregistration form is available at the districts C.ARE progi'am office at 100 S. Arch Si or from the office at 324-2395. The schools planning to offer the program include Cloverdale. Dunbar. Forest Heights, Henderson, Mabel- vale, Mann, Pulaski Heights, and Southwest schools\nall will be middle schools next year.Office of Desegregation Monitoring United States District Court  Eastern District of Arkansas Ann S. Brown, Federal Monitor 201 East Markham, Suite 510 Heritage West Building Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 (501)376-6200 Fax (501) 371-0100 Date: To: From: Re: April 20, 1999 Junious Babbs, Brady Gadberry, Bonnie Lesley, Sadie Mitchell Ann Bro,wnlk(4^___^ Request ror Information Im sending this memo to all of you hoping that it will increase the odds that I can get a small but critical bit of information. Does anyone know for sure what hours Dunbar Middle School will operate next year' Heres an overview of my plight: As the parent of an elementary school child who will be a 7' grader at Dunbar Middle School next year, I recently received in the mail a brochure for the new CARE Program in the middle schools, including a pre-registration form (copy enclosed). The literature explains that CARE will be available from 7 a.m. until school startup and from school dismissal until 6 p.m.\" and invites me to send a non-refundable $50 deposit to secure a place for my child. Ive used CARE for my children since its inception almost 20 years ago, so Im very familiar with the program. I know that my familys need for CARE depends on the time that school starts in the morning and lets out in the afternoon. Moms got the morning covered, and if school is over late, like 3:50 p.m.. Dad can pick up child and we dont need CARE. But if schools over early, say 2:30 p.m., thats another story and we need CARE. What a simple criterion: to determine whether or not to sign up for CARE, all I have to know is what hours middle school classes will operate. But guess what: no one can tell me! Not only do the school startup and school dismissal hours not appear on the CARE brochure, my phone calls to several offices (including that of CARE, Student Registration, Dunbar, and an associate superintendent) uncovered no one who could tell me with certainty what hours the middle schools will operate. How can the district expect parents to plunk down a non-refundable $50 and sign up tor a program four months in advance without having such a basic piece of information? Not only is a non-refundable $50 deposit outrageous (its way out of line with the programs price history, it isnt clear if it covers or is in addition to the $20 pre-registration fee, and is it still non- refundable if the minimum 15 students dont sign up?), its just plain bad business to expect parents to make a hefty non-refundable down payment on a service they may or may not need depending on school hours that no one can disclose at the time parents are being asked to pre-register. Given these circumstances, it wont be surprising if CARE isnt overwhelmed with sign-ups for its maiden venture into the middle schools. But will any dearth of pre-registration indicate a lack of need or rather parents unwillingness to risk losing fifty bucks on a service that may prove to be unneeded depending on the elusive school hours?Paoe Two April 20, 1999 In asking for your help in learning what hours Dunbar Middle School will operate next year, Im also asking that you carefully examine the scope, quality, and consistency of the customer service processes that need to be in place to effectively support those who are most directly affected by the transition to middle schools, namely parents, students, and teachers. As a parent. Ive already had very unhappy, frustrating experiences trying to navigate the shoals of a decidedly customer-unfriendly course selection process for middle schools. Now Im exasperated by the unsolved mystery of the middle school hours. And Ill bet Im not the only one. Enc.TO\nFROM: fJECHVIED MAY 1339 OFFICE OF DESEGREGATiONMOfllTOfii^'G Ann Brown, Federal Monitor, Office of Desegregation Monitoring T\"^Martha Rogers, CARE Program Supervisor DATE: April 26, 1999 RE: Middle School Hours Ann, I received a copy of your memo and I can understand your frustration. I apologize if our office was partly responsible. The response from the parent survey regarding CARE for middle schools, did not indicate a need for CARE. In order to try to pursue the concept. The Little Rock School District felt that we could better determine a need if parents were asked to make a commitment by requiring a non- refundable deposit. The intention was that if it was determined that there was a need, and a CARE site opened, the deposit would be used for the registration fee and pan of the tuition fee. If CARE did not open at a particular school, the money would be refunded. If a site opened and based on the number of students interested, the staff would be hired and supplies and equipment would be purchased, those parents who withdrew from those programs would not be refunded the deposit. We stated in the middle school brochure that CARE hours would be from 7:00 a.m. until the start of school and from school dismissal until 6:00. Again I apologize that I was unable to confirm the middle school hours for you. If 1 can be of help in the future, please dont hesitate to call me.LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT PUPIL SERVICES DEPARTMENT Hay 3, 1999 TO: Ann Brown, Fed^al Honitor, ODH FROM: Jo Fvalyn Blstoity Director ot Pupil services SUBJECT: Follow-up: \"Reguest for information\" 1999 Junious forwarded to me a copy of your memo dated April 20, 1999, regarding guestions and concerns you have about opening and closing times for district middle schools for 1999-2000 and the CARE program deposit for middle school students. First, let me respond to your comments regarding the hours of CARE alluded to in the CARE Middle School registration information that was sent out. Since no information regarding a change in the opening and closing times for junior high/middle schools had been distributed from the District, we made the assumption that the hours would be the same or with only a slight modification. Consequently, we thought it would be safe to indicate that the CARE hours from \"7:00 a.m. until school start-up and from school dismissal until 6\n00 p.m. would PeJR. n capture any minor deviations from the current school schedule if changes in school opening and closing times were subsequently made. If we are to be The reason we made the decision to require a deposit for CARE at Middle Schools is because of our need to determine staffing requirements for 19992000 based on the number of students registered for CARE at specific school locations. _______________ ready to open CARE in new sites in August, staff will have to be recruited and trained, as well as furnishings and equipment purchases made before school starts. This deadline really forces us to have firm participation intentions, early on before this school year ends because of the front-end start-up expenses that would have to be obligated. The In our view, a deposit would indicate a firm intent on the part of parents to participate in the CARE program. The deposit would be credited toward the first months tuition, so it would not be lost. However, if we do not receive the minimum of twelve students to open a CARE site, the deposit would be refunded to the parent. The deposit would only be \"non refundable\" if the parent failed to fill his/her reserved slot. Conditions for a refundable or non refundable deposit were not addressed in the CARE registration information that was distributed. Me apologize tor any confusion or inconvenience this may have caused. Please feel free to call ae if we need to discuss further.STAFF MANUAL REVISED 1991-92 RECEIVED CARE PROGRAM STAFF MANUAL OCT 2 8 1991 TABLE OF CONTENTS Office of Desegregation Monitoring I . Introduction 1 II . III. A. B. Program Description Program Goals...... Personnel Policies A. B. C. D. E. F. G. H. I . J. K. L. M. N. 0. Employee Dual ifications..... Organizational Relationships Selection of Personnel...... Performance Responsibilities Staff Training and Support.. Licensing Requirements...... Conditions of Employment.... Terminations and Due Process Grievances................... Compensation.................. Hours of Work....... Fringe Benefits.............. Service Records.............. Change of Address........... Guidelines for Site Staff... Program Policies 1 1 .4 .4 .4 . 5 .6 .6 .6 .7 .9 .9 .9 10 10 10 10 13 A. B. C. D. E. F. 6. H. I . J . K. L. M. N. 0. Office Check-in...................... Payrol 1 Time Sheets........... Attendance............................. Tuition........................ Late Fees................................ Field Trips. ......................... Parent Sign-Out Sheets.............. Injuries and Accidents............... Medications............................ Inventory and Supply Requests....... Food Service Requirements............ Building Pass. . ........................ Confidentiality. ............. Suspected Child Abuse or Neglect.... Fire, Tornado, and Earthquake Drills 14 14 14 14 14 15 15 15 15 16 16 16 17 17 17 IV. Daily Site Procedures 19 A. B. C. D. Staff Arrival....... Check-In of Children Snack Time........... Active Play......... 20 20 21 22E. P . 6. H. Activity Time H ree P1ay . . . Sign Cut of Children........... Close Down and Staff Departure V. Discipline A. B. C. D. E. Philosophy of CARE Discipline Plan... Discipline Plan........................ Guidelines for Staff................... How to Communicate with CARE Children Handling Common Behavior Problems.... 26 27 29 29 29 VI . Programming with Children A. B. C. D. E. F. Activities....................................... Daily Schedule................................... Time Schedule for Regular School Days....... Time Schedule for Long Days/Holidays........ Activity Ideas...............................   Procedures for Inclement Weather Conditions. 34 34 35 36 36 371 CARE PROGRAM I . INTRODUCTION A. Program Description As a school-age child care service, the CARE Program B. provides an informal and unique environment for children of different, ages to live and learn together. maintains CARE structured environment to insure order and safety, yet provides children with opportunities to make choices and activities. become involved in both group and independent The program includes a wide range of social. recreational, and creative opportunities. Program Goals a The CARE Program staff strives to achieve the following goals: -to provide a safe environment for students before and after school, -to offer a wide variety of creative and recreational activities, -to help children feel good about themselves and develop positive attitudes toward school, growth in -to encourage relationships and social skills.! ! b ''r\u0026gt;'^0^ I : P HOITOUaORlk!! . I no J. J-q XI3 590 (nftipo'-i-i -A 'Ti/\nipo-i'H HflAO sr!?- .ejxvias ns T ta I: X ri 3HA3 jTismno'tx vnti biis . 3gfi J 9po3 3op.iri(j bi!\u0026gt;. !:\u0026gt; I x d r\u0026gt; 9jjw-1 ijijri 7 i \u0026amp;i'\nr'!c\u0026gt;+ni ri\u0026amp; isb3o STu^nx ot in as? b fife  3 \u0026amp; aA 3bxvoiq I znsiTn-io'i 4 S.iaiT! ul 2sxt xnjjJ loqqq I n jn .tnsbnsqsbnx bos quo-e n.tc-d . Xsxnoa to. gpctsTi abii'j fs S'- tl oj- s-spfi .J-ns-'isttib to I s b s 'i).''t ,-j \\i ' J- e i'4stbi.x.\u0026gt;l.:i nX bSVJOxri..\nssox vo'-iq smopsd s api st nifim J SV .,y-tstB'a b(ia esboi onx . esx 4 xri4jd-ioqqc svx\niTifc-irJ'... 'iq scl S3.f..i-1'^ si.\") fi a3.j bn\u0026amp; . : iKnaxJ\u0026amp;s-iqs^ S.(so8 l!iS-ip.~J-)S Q I* o Qnxwgllot Slid ovsxriq?:- ot .egviita tsda fnanpo-i*^' 3\u0026gt;1AO srlT :aXsop tana, slotsd adnsbuda 101 .tnsi'nno'^.xvn\"' sta.a sbxvoiq a:J - I siio.xdssT 39-1 bnfe S'\u0026lt; X j6S\"13 to Yd'3 iiav qo/svsb tans as'x Isamsrid xuods bopp isst H loorioxi staxw 6 isdtfe istirj od , .as'xd xvxdoe- .all .h-de Xsxpoa iaort.oa b36(/i{p.:J nai b I X d 3 q I sd od-. asbudxdda bns aq cd.anaxd-s X S'l svld xapq :ix dfwaip spa-dijoona od- . .iij.^.i.iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii|i mil III II ..-iL_iL.LII.I.II. Jinn, III II |i I.iiiiiilll|^|^ . n.im 1 iiiimnriioiiMnGTjiOT I I4 II. PERSONNEL POLICIES A, Employee Qualification The following minimum qualifications are required of CARE Program site staff members: 1. High school diplofpa or GFiD and background of successful, practical experience in groups of children. working with Genuine 1 ove and respect for young children and strong motivation to work with them. Pleasant personality. 4. Minimum age of 13 years. 5. Understands the positive approach to discipline and student behavior management. Willing to learn the policies and procedures of the CARE Program and the Little Rock School District. 7. Desire to work within school philosophy. the framework of a specific 8. Willing to share any special talents and interests with the children. B. Organizational Relationships CARE staff members are employees of the Little Rock School District and: Work under the supervision of the Supervisor of the CARE Program. Work under the cooperating supervision of the building principal. C. Selection of Personnel 6. 1. 1. All applicants for CARE positions must complete and submit a written application form to the Supervisor who will review forms. interview qualified persons. and recommend applicants for employment. Three personal reference and information regarding the application previous employment are required on form. References and previous employment will be checked by telephone or written reference form.5 4 . 5. D. All employee information will be filed in a confidential permanent personnel record maintained in the LRSD Personnel Office. Applicants recommended for employment must be approved by the LRSD Board of Education. Each employee will receive a contract showing salary, contract length. and other pertinent information. Performance Responsibilities of Site Staff 1. Site staff are responsible for planning and implementation of the daily program. a. Plan and implement a weekly schedule of developmentally appropriate experiences for the school-age children attending CARE. 4. 5. b. c . Provide supervision and leadership in a positive manner to children engaged in CARE activities. Participate in activities with children, encouraging them to become increasingly responsible for their behavior and choice of activities. Follow procedures in safeguarding the health and safety of children at all times and in handling emergency situations. Organize and maintain all CARE equipment, and space\nsupplies, order additional material as needed. Communicate appropriate information to parents. teachers, principal, cafeteria manager. and supervisor/coordinator concerning the children and program. (Lead) Perform the administrative functions of the programs a. Complete the time sheet each day and mail to CARE office in time for preparation of payroll. b. Complete and mail all reports and forms to CARE Office when requested (bi-weekly payroll sheets, monthly student attendance, orders, etc.) supply inventory and Di tributer notices to parents as requested by CARE Office staff. d . Keep accurate records of each student's attendancee f . 9- in the roll book and mail the CARE Main tain business cl 6 copy of attendance Office at the end of each month. record of current addresses, phone numbers, numbers for each child. to home and and emergency telephone Provide cafeteria manager with information regarding number of children eating breakfast each day\nupdate afternoon snack count based on number of children attending. Follow instructions for drop-in procedures section D. average p. 14 E. Staff Training and Support CARE employees are required to attend 10 hours of in-service training yearly to increase skills and learn about creative and enrichment activities. The following staff support and training will be provided: 1. Orientation session before school begins each fal 1 . Periodic workshops and resource materials on developmentally appropriate experiences for school-age children. Frequent personal contact with CARE coordinator and supervisor. F . B. 4. Annual written evaluation of performance with continuous oversight and positive suggestions for improvement. Licensing Requirements 1. Annual skin test for tuberculosis is required by Arkansas day care licensing regulations. Ten hours of in-service training or outside workshop attendance regarding child care practices are required each year and will be documented in personnel records. Conditions of Employment 1. For the first year of continuous employment, persons shall be employed on a probationary basis and may be discharged at any time'they are not needed or when their work. unsatisfactory. IS After employees have worked for one year and been4 . 7 contracted for the second year, permanent emp1oyees \u0026gt; they shall become Job performance will be evaluated annually in writinig by the CARE Supervisor- A recommendation will be made for continued employment, dismissal , or reassignment of the employee. Employees will be assigned by the Supervisor to a specific CARE site on the basis of the number of full-time participants and the needs of the program. 5. Permanent employees may be discharged for inefficiency, repeated absence or late arrival on the job, for conduct unbecoming an employee of the LRSD, or other reasons believed to be detrimental to the best interests of the program. A. Permanent employees may be laid off due to a lack of work or financial circumstances of the program. An employee desiring to terminate employment should submit a written resignation at least two S. weeks in advance. Additional regulations regarding termination and due process for permanent employees can be found in the LRSD \"Non-Organized Support Staff Employee Handbook\" available in the LRSD Office of Human Resources and school offices. H. Terminations and Due Process for Permanent Employees In order to maintain a good working environment, all employees are expected to conform to reasonable standards of performance and conduct. When an employee demonstrates an inability or unwillingness to maintain these standards, the supervisor will take necessary corrective action. This action is directed toward resolving personal and work-related problems which interfere with the employee's effectiveness. When all reasonable efforts to correct employee deficiencies are exhausted, it is necessary that this person be terminated. There are occasions when persons, because of the nature of their misconduct, recommended for immediate termination. must be suspended and 1. Following are examples of offenses for which an employee will be recommended for immediate termination. These offenses may include. but arenot 1imited to: cl n Lonvic tion, felony or m.i a t a t. r i a 1 court 8 level, of I s demeanor which is manifestly inconsistent with the safe and efficient operation of CARE. C. F i g fl t i. n g , threaten ing, bodily injury to an Bodily injury an or attempting to do employee or student. means physical pain, illness 9 or impairment of physical condition. Carrying weapons. A weapon is any object that could cause injury to another person and is not. required to be in the possession of the employee in the normal course of the job. d. Stealing or misappropriation of property of employees of the LRSD. e f . 9  Malicious mischief\nthe abuse, misuse, or deliberate destruction or damaging of property, tools, or employees of the LRSD. equipment of other Altering or tampering with time sheets, sign in/out rosters, or other reporting documents relative to attendance, promptness, departure. or Drinking alcoholic beverages on the job during working hours\nintroduction of, any alcoholic or the possession beverage or of , on or LRSD property at any time. This also includes reporting alcohol. to work while under the influence of h. Use of narcotics and/or the use, possession. or transmitting on school premises of drugs or substances capable of modifying mood and/or behavior. i . Insubordination, including refusal or failure to perform work assigned and/or refusal to obey orders of supervisors. k. Disorder1y, disruptive, school premises. The making of or or ma1ic ious or immoral conduct on publishing of false. vicious, tatements concerning employees j . of the LRSD. 1 . Falsification of personnel or other officialm, n. o. 9 school or insurance records, or making false statements when applying for employment. Falsifying or refusing to give testimony concerning incidents which are being investigated. Harboring a disease which, through carelessness, may endanger .the health of fellow workers. Failure to observe or purposefully disregarding school district or CARE Program policies or procedures. I , Grievances 1. Employees have the right to present grievance and shall be assured of freedom from restraint, interference, discrimination, and reprisal. Employees are encouraged to pursue an informal approach through their immediate supervisor to resolve a grievance. result in a satisfactory solution Should this approach not J the employee should then follow the Grievance Procedure as outlined in the \"Non-Organized Support Staff Employee Handbook available in the LRSD Office of Human Resources. J . Compensation 1. The CARE Program salary schedule is based on job responsibilities and years of experience. Each employee will receive a contract indicating a specific school assignment and salary level. Overtime work shall be avoided insofar as is possible, but may be required in the interest of efficient and safe operation. Overtime hours causing a LRSD employee to work more than' 40 hours in a regular work, week will be paid at the current overtime rate. K. Hours o'f Work Hours of worker shall be determined by the supervisor and shall be designed to facilitate the most efficient operation o'f the CARE Program on a self-supporting basis. Before-school assignments will be for 1 or 2 hours and after-school assignments will be for no more 3-1/4 hours depending upon the specific school site and program needs.L. Fringe Benefits 10 1 . Permanent CARE Program employees who are regularly employed in the LRSD for- 25 hours or more per week are eligible to receive LRSD employee benefits (health, life, dentcal , and disability insurance) . providing they have worked in the position for one year. Enrollment procedures and information concerning the various policies can in the \"Non-Organized Support Staff Employee Handbook available in the LRSD Office of Human Resources. M. Service Records A service record is maintained in the LRSD Office of Human Resources for every employee and contains all information pertinent to employment. N. Change of Address Any change of address or telephone number must be reported to the CARE and Human Resources Offices. O. Guidelines for Site Staff 1. BE ON TIME! If you are sick or an emergency arises, call the supervisor to arrange for a substitute. ARRIVING LATE FOR WORK, AND THEREBY LEAVING CHILDREN UNSUPERVISED, IS GROUNDS FOR TERMINATION OF EMPLOYMENT. NEVER leave a child or a group of children unsupervised even for a brief time period. Always tell a co-worker if you must leave a group of children briefly. Make sure another person will be temporarily supervising your children. 4, Eat and drink only with the children. 5. Constant and effective supervision of the children is required. while supervising Sitting or standing in one location activities is not a safe or acceptable practice. must move around the area, To effectively supervise, you continuously scan the 6. group, by an adult. and make sure every child is being observed The school telephone may not be used for personal calls during CARE, It may be used only for emergency purposes related to the children or to contact the CARE Office.8. 9, 10. 11. 13. 14. 11 Always handle yourself in a professional manner when dealing with children, parents, and school staff. YOU are a representative of the LRSD! Use good language and correct. English in the presence of the children. Never use paddling. or physical punishment (spanking. sarcastic pinching, hitting, poking, etc.), verbal threats. remarks in CARE. Know what children are capable of at each age level. Hold them to a standard they are capable of achieving. Respect individual differences. Everything should have a special place in the CARE area. Help children learn to return each thing to its place. Care area must be kept clean. Show affection to all children alike\nwith respect. hurt feelings. treat them Never say anything that might cause Children need to experience success most of the time. Guide them appropriately\nplan for success! Dress appropriately for your job in clothes that look neat and clean. are safe for interacting with the children on the playground. and are comfortable in the heat or cold. Remember, all schools have rules for the appearance of their staff. If shorts are worn in very hot weather. the shorts must be \"long\" (no shorter than \" above the knee) and loose fitting.12 I1314 H  Office Cheek I n CARE Program staff members are arrival to check the CARE mail box for messages. required upon This lets the CARE B. C. D. E. teacher receive daily. reports and messages from the CARE office Payroll Time Sheets staff attendance will be mailed A time sheet for recording i.,._= of the time period and will be The lead staff person should record to each school in advane kept in the cabinet. the a.m./p.m. attendance of each person on a daily basis. do not include time Record only time actually worked\nmissed due to arriving late or leaving before the end of the CARE day. At the end of the payroll period, each the time sheet and verify the accuracy to arriving late or person should sign The amount of the payroll checks will of their hours. based on these hours records. Daily Attendance in be and the CARE Office substitute Roll Books\nAttendance records on each child are required for both a.m. and p.m. participation. Specific instructions for recording attendance are of the roll book. Tuition Fees\nlocated on the inside front cover the Parent Handbook are Monthly tuition charges listed in full on the 15th of the preceding month. due in The fee must be paid before the child may continue participation in the program on the 1st of the month. Please call the CARE Office (uncertain about whether a child shoulcT^e'^Tdwfed to continue attending. .1st program is supported completely by parent fees, fees must be paid in advance at the CARE Office. and long days are prepaid, parents purchase drop-in The and the Drop-in or Care teachers will long day cards in the CARE office. record all drop-ins according to instructions and will long day card to equal the value of that punch parent's day. Parents must sign a drop-in or long day attendance form Late Fees\nThe CARE Program concludes at 5 0 p.m. each day (6\n00 at Incentive Schools). the late charge for arriving after closing time late) and an is $ .50 for arriving by 5 5 (1-5 minutes additional $1.00 for each additional five minute period. This charge must be paid directly to the CARE teacher upon picking up the child. Since CAREF. B. H. I . employees and af ter work , school custodian CARE reserves the program when Field Trips\nparents are According to LRSD policy. is required away 15 have other obligations the right to remove a child from late over three times. a signed parent permission form for each child for any trip, from the school. When a field trip copies of this permission form should be the CARE Office and completed in advance Parents should be notified in writing of by foot or car, is planned, requested from b'y the parents, the destination of the field trip and the time of departure and return. In addition, the school secretary and the CARE Office should be advised of your plans. LRSD buses are usually unavailable in the afternoon for CARE Program field trips. possibility of transportation. If you should wish to check the complete the field trip form and mail it to the CARE Office at least three weeks in advance of the field trip date. Parent Sign-Out Sheets\nOn regular school days children come directly from their class to the CARE area. Each parent should be asked to sign his/her name on the computerized Sign-Out Sheet upon picking up a child. It is important to make sure that each child is dismissed only to the parent, specified on the registration card, permission from the parent. On holidays or Teacher Workdays, both sign person or person with written parents are expected to in and out, providing the CARE staff with an emergency telephone number for the day. Inj uries and Accidents\nRecord the occurrence of bumps. received by children in CARE in sc rapes, and scratches the spiral bound injury log. This is to provide information about the injury and its treatment should it be needed at a the instructions on Report more serious later date. Fol low the inside cover of the injury log. injuries to the Supervisor and send her a completed accident form, CARE staff. signed by both parent and Medications CARE staff are to follow the procedures of LRSD Health Services Department regarding medication to be given to chiIdren. On regular school days medicine is given only by the school nurse or principal.16 J . K. L. On long days in CARE, CAKE staff may (jive medicine provided the parent brinijs with directions Keep the in a n d medic\nine in locked cabinet. it in the prescription bottle completes a written permission form, the school office or on a high shelf Inventory and Supply Requests\nAn annual inventory should be completed for each CARE site in the spring. This will indicate which materials need to be replenished before the beginning of school To request supplies or proj ec t, call or send a request in August. items needed for a specific craft Food Service Requirements\nBreakfast\nby our children. CARE is charged for You are asked for the Cafeteria Manager, to the CARE Office. every breakfast consumed to fill out a daily form children eating breakfast that day. indicating the number of Please be accurate, since we will be billed for these breakfasts. Sn ac k\nafternoon The Cafeteria Manager will prepare and leave the nack for CARE based on the number of children and staff regularly attending. Please monitor the leftover snacks carefully and reduce the snack, count when your enrollment or attendance declines. expenses within the budgeted amount, To keep food we have to monitor our snack costs closely and not waste money. Leftover Food\nIf there is extra food, you may divide it among children wanting a second serving. Put remaining food in trash can and return uncut fresh fruit on tray to the kitchen. Do not take left, over food home. The Cafeteria Manager will use several forms each day to exchange information with you. Fill them in daily and leave them on the tray. Use the comments section to adjust the snack number and communicate concerns. Food Not Left\nIf you are unable to find the afternoon snack, call the cafeteria manager at home to see if the snack was prepared. If find it or come to school to locate it, emergency peanut butter and crackers. he is unable to tell you where to you may serve your Let the CARE Office know to send you more emergency food the next day. Buildinq Pass\nA child requesting permission to return to the building to use the restroom must take a CARE \"building pass\". This pass must be returned to the same adult. ' Observe closely the length of time the child is in the building. If the child is away from the playground or CARE area for more than 3 or 4 minutes. an adult needs to check on the child.17 M. Confidentiality\nAlways maintain confidentiality about information related to CARE children. Do not discuss a child or provide written information about him to persons other than his parents or per ons needing the specific information to care for the child. Do not discuss or .give information about a child to the parents of another child. This also includes late charge forms. emergency cards, roll book, and communications from parents or our office. Any requests from other than CARE or school office staff should be referred to the Supervisor. N. Suspected Child Abuse or Neglect: 0. A CARE employee who suspects a child's physical or mental health and/or welfare may be adversely affected by abuse or neglect., shall report these concerns to the school principal. The principal will then contact SCAN. staff is unable to report to the school principal, If CARE she should contact the CARE Supervisor who will contact the appropriate authorities for an investigation. Fire Dri11, Tornado Drill, and Earthquake Drill\nFIRE DRILLS MUST BE HELD MONTHLY! 1. Assign a student to be line leader, if necessary. Announce fire drill in a loud, clear voice. Have the children walk quickly and quietly in a single file to the designated area on the playground. If possible, one adult should be at the front of the line and one at the back. 4. The last adult in line should make sure that all children are out of the building, including restrooms. 5. Take the roll book with you. and check, to make sure every child is out of the building. 6. After accounting for every child, return to the building in an orderly and controlled manner. 7 . Practice and discuss this procedure with your children every month and on all long days in CARE. TORNADO DRILL: Practice monthly Follow steps in fire drill procedure, except go to area in the building specified by the principal. Children shouldface the wall, h?ads to protec t Do riot pract.ice kneel, and place drills on the procedures .18 the.ir arms over the.ir from falling debris. Avoid window areas. fire drill, same day because in the event of tornado drill, and earthquake chiIdren may be confused on a rea 1 emergency. EARTHQUAKE DRILL\nPractice Monthly Be prepared to anticipate and avoid dangers, the following procedures. Prac tice INSIDE\n1. Move away from windows. heavy objects that can fall. brick wal1, shelves and Take cover under table, desk or counter. cover head with elbows clasp hands firmly behind neck. If notebooks or jackets are handy hold over head for added protection from flying debris and glass. Evacuate area as soon as possible away from the building as far as possible and away from power 1ines. OUTSIDE\n1. On playground, move to an open space, away from buildings and overhead power lines. Lie down or crouch close to the ground. looking around for danger movement. that may demand Keep) Remain down until shaking stops! Emergency drill procedures MUST be conducted according to the following schedule. 1. FIRE DRILL First Monday of each month. TORNADO DRILL Second Monday of each month. EARTHQUAKE DRILL Third Monday of each month.19H . TAFF arrival 1. Arrival T imes s_ All CARE Program substitute hould arrive in 20 staff members the CARE area c\\n d 15 minutes before school dismissal. Office Check-In\nCARE mail box in The lead staff member should check the school office to pick up the the mail and for the day (may messages about absences or bookkeeping include supplies or messages procedures). Before the children arrive, Site Check and Set-U\u0026amp;j- staff should complete the following steps: the a. Set up all administrative supplies for book, sign-out form, parent handouts). the day (roll Be organized! b. Set up snack and activity supplies for the day. c . Conduct a d . NOTE\nI B. I I I I to be utilized brief site check of the area cafeteria or gym). by CARE (restrooms, playground. Prepare for the arrival of the children. CARE staff should not disturb any on-going classes. All staff are school personnel or reminded that traffic congestion urrounds every school at dismissal time. inside the CARE area Staff should arrange to arrive time. Strictly follow all regulations regarding patrol guards, and parking Strictly follow traffic flow. areas. on CHECK-IN OF CHILDREN 1. Arrival of Children\nAll children should report to the dismissal from their classroom. CARE area immediately upon During the first week, of school, CARE staff should use list and meet the kindergarten children door. In larger programs, kindergartners met in their wing o* hiiilriino all vear by a CARE staff member. the first week, of school. at their classroom In larger programs. f the building all year by a . Storage of Children's Belgnginas a. b. c . are Each child's personal belongings designated place bookbag or backpack in stool, cubby. locker, a bin ) . Staff should assist children in belongings. After children's belongings should not should be stored in a (cafeteria storing their are stored. the children return to the storage area Without staff approval and supervision.21 C. Roll Call a. b. c. d. e. f . All children must tae seated during roll call. Roll call must be conducted by the CARE staff, usually the lead staff member. Every child must be accounted for within the first 15 minutes after school dismissal (present in CARE, from school today, dismissed early, etc . ) absent When a child does not arrive in CARE as scheduled and cannot be accounted for at the school, the following steps should be taken: 1. 4. Check, with school secretary and teacher to see if the child was absent or dismissed early. Call to inform parent of child's absence in CARE and ask for information concerning the child. Notify the school principal and search the school and school grounds for the missing child. Discontinue the search and inform the parent. principal, located. and CARE Office that the child cannot be When a child not enrolled in CARE arrive on the site, follow these steps: 1. Call the CARE Office for any information. If the child has not been enrolled in CARE, return the child to the school office immediately. Following roll call, daily announcements should be made regarding activities for the day, and rules/procedures that need review. special events. SNACK time The afternoon snack will be left by the cafeteria staff. usually in the refrigerator in or near the kitchen. Fol low these steps for serving snack\n1 . Children should be taken to wash their hands. Upon returning, children should be seated during the serving and eating of snack. All staff should wash their hands before serving snack and use the rubber glove provided on tray.Snack cause should be served the in an efficient manner that does not 1 4 . D. E. F. children to wi^it for a long pt- methods are ef fective s children arrive, use \"iod  Sever 1 put snacks sn ac k. he 1 per s out on to pass table before snack out, or have children walk in table. All children a 1 ine to pick u p snack from cart or should remain seated until snack is finished CARE staff should supervise the clean-up after snacks, helping the children as needed. a. b. c . d . ' NOTE\n6. Have children dispose of uneaten food and paper. Examine paper the floor and clean any spills with broom or towe1s. Wipe tables. Return tray to kitchen. for small group Snack, time is a quiet time should never participate in conversations. Children or move physical activities around the room while eating. ACTIVE PLAY TIME is required every day... Outside play\nraining, below freezing or it is Unless the temperature is should be outside each afternoon for such as the children active play. Four Square, Include both free play and group games. kickbal1, basketba11, etc . Active Play for Bad Weather\nUse the \"Indoor/Outdoor Game Book\" inside in bad weather. for active games to play Use the You may also include group exercising, War Ball, and beachball volleyball. on paper plates to music. \"iceskating\" ... Be creative and in control. include a daily be creative, and be varied. Avoid limiting the activity to crayons or markers and paper day after day. ACTIVITY TIME should be planned in advance, opportunity to be creative, and be varied. or Use aciivi c y LU L.I oy -------------   ' x and weekly and seasonal themes, pecxal_xn-cabinet children, and ideas from your art. resource book, in FREE PLAY should be included in the daily schedule for a specific time. Children should be closely supervised and provided with adequate and varied game Children s/toys/art materials. SIGNOUT 1. Each child must be signed out by a parent/guardian or person listed on tudent registration form or person authorized in writing by parent. to you to show their It is good to require a person not. known driver's 1icense. If an unauthorized person comes to pick, up a child, dismiss the child to them unless you can contact a do not parent to4. H. get verbal permission, identity. Check the driver's license to verify Children authorized by a parent, to leave CARE and walk home or go to a class should have written permission days/time and sign themselves out. Distribute indicating communications from the CARE Office to parents as These communications should be kept they sign out, confidential and may include memos and financial statements. NOTE\nA child may never be checked out by an unauthorized person or allowed to leave on his own without permission from parent. CLOSE DONN AND STAFF DEPARTURE 1. Site Close Downs following steps should be followed: During the last 15 minutes of the day, the a. Return all equipment and supplies neatly to the cabinet. b. Make a final check of areas used by CARE to be sure materials are secured in cabinet, toilets have been flushed. area is clean, and Staff Departure Time a . One staff (Tiember must remain until last child has been picked up, even if parent arrives after closing time. Parent may be charged late fee for arriving past closing b. time. other staff time. hoLild work until their assigned closing c Staff will be paid for working assigned hours. If staff members leave early on any day, they will be paid only for time actually worked. iiM2425V nfSCIPLINE A. Phi 1 ospphv of sc ipline Plan The discipline policy of the CARt rrogram is based on th_ belief that each child is for his own Discipline in CARE should focus teaching, positive reinforcement, rather than punishment, are taught the standards of behavior expected in for misbehavior. of the CARE Program responsible behavior. in CARE on learning, and reinforcement, taught the standards Children CARE and the consequences to handle stressful or They are encouraged to find an acceptable way and to learn from mistakes. difficult situations activity is used to give the child time Time out from group to calm down. reflect on his behavior, consider the consequences, and evaluate alternatives. CARE staff are expected to request parents help with behavior problems that cannot be solved by time out. the right to suspend a We also reserve the right to suspeiiu . child from CARE for a designated amount of time, or to expel a child from the program for an indefinite period of time. or an if all positive i 1 UI U y I CT n I I -u-r. ------- . efforts are made and the child cannot conform required behavior. to the and hitting) of any .child_is Corporal punishment (spankinq never allowed in the CARE Proqram under any------- Threatening, hitting, or spanking a child are immediate suspension and recommendation for termination of employment in the LRSD. Only the means of discipline Ixste ^the CARE discipline plan (time out, behavior documents) permitted in controlling student behavior in CARE. If have followed this plan and a child's behavior continues allowed in circumstances. or and recommendation the LRSD. in the CARE discipline pian (time out, are CARE, you have followed this plan and a child's behavior to be disruptive, you need to request assistance.  ' to redirection t_ children will respond positively activity, discussion of the problem behavior, generous praise for efforts to improve. discussion praise for The aim of discipline is The aim of punishment is NOTICE THE DIFFERENCE! to another time out, and to help children build good habits, to break the child of a bad habit.Il B. Discipline Plan for CARE Program Behavior rules for students! 1. Follow directions of CARE teachers. No cursing, teasing, or 4. 5, 6. Show respect to others\nof all students. Return all materials to Keep hands, threatening. respect the rights and property their proper place. feet and objects to self. Leave assigned area with permission only. Positive consequences may include\nVerbal praise and immediate feedback Positive comments to parents Sood citizen display or individual recognition Ribbons, treats Special group activities, proj ec ts, rewards Negative consequences for breaking the CARE rules\nLevel 1\nFor the first infraction an individual conference between student and staff will be held to discuss the child's behavior, from group activities. Child may receive time out Level Behavioral document or note to parent to be signed and returned. Child will lose a play or recreational privilege in CARE for 1-2 days. Level Second behavioral document to parent. Conference between student, parent, and staff required to discuss behavior. Child will lose a play or recreational privilege in CARE for 3-5 days. Level 4\nShort term suspension of 35 days from CARE, refund of money paid for these days. No Level 5\nExpulsion from CARE Program, paid for remainder of month. No refund of money Severe Clause\nendangers the safety of others, suspended from the CARE Program, between parent and staff. If a student is severely disruptive or he/she will be immediately pending a conference Note\nCorporal punishment (paddling) will not be used in disciplining children in the CARE Program.28 C. (3 u i d alines f o r S t a f f .1 . Consistency of discipline is more important than severity. 2. Any penalty imposed should be the natural outcome of the For example^ if a child gets out of hand while misbehavior, I ----, playing Connect Four, he should be removed from the game to area and allowed back when ready to behave he s another appropriately. Correction misbehavior should be made as close to the time of the as possible and with the child s full understanding of why it. is imposed. 4. State expectations for child's behavior in positive terms, what the child can't do breeds rebellion. Emphasis on resentment, and feelings of frustration. as \"no\", \"don't do that\", etc., emphasizes the negative and rather than what Using words such 6, 7. 8. \"no\" , \"don't do that\", teaches the child what should not be done, he should do. Good discipline allows the child to feel that his side of the case has been heard, that his point of view is understood. administering Good discipline also requires that the person it understand what caused the misbehavior and remove the causes if possible. People are always more cooperative if they feel liked. When a child is frustrated, help him accepted and relaxed, understand his feelings and find appropriate ways PUNISHMENT JUST ADDS TO THE CHILD'S with these feelings. FRUSTRATION. to deal Correction of a child should never be made out of a feeling of anger or on a personal basi evident when we say help with snack. Punitive feelings are she doesn't deserve to play a game. etc. \" or \"if he does this to me, then I will do that to her. around.\" for She can't get away with that while I'm Likewise, good behavior should never be bargained Praise for - \"I'll give you a present if you are good.\" than punishment or good behavior is much stronger motivation bribes. Time out from group activities allows the child to consider his unacceptable behavior and how he could have better handled the situation to stay within Total isolation is not necessary or appropriate. Time out should be limited to three to five minutes for less serious the CARE rules. more than five to ten minutes for more offenses and no -- _ offenses (actions that might cause harm to another serious person).29 D. How to Communicate with CARE Children CARE staff should realize the importance of communication in relation to guidance. The fallowing suggestions will be helpful as you work with the children and try to guide them toward acceptable behavior. 1. RECOGNIZE THAT GOOD COMMUNICATION IS.THE KEY TO GETTING COOPERATION. A conscious effort must be made to learn to communicate effectively with children. ACCEPT THE CHILD'S NEED TO CONTROL YET EXPRESS HIS ANGER, natural. One must help children learn that anger is It i feelings in outward. healthy and wise to express these acceptable ways instead of keeping them pent up. being destructive, or hurting others. LEARN TO LISTEN WITHOUT PRECONCEIVED OPINIONS IN ORDER TO UNDERSTAND WHAT IS BEING SAID. Hear the children out completely. Listen to them from their points of view in order to avoid short-circuiting the lines of communication. 4. STAY TUNED IN WITH THE RIGHT TONE OF VOICE. Sarcasm, preaching, and unpleasant tones of voice turn off communication. LEARN TO SPEAK TO THE CHILD'S FEELING, NOT TO THE WORDS. Strive always to decode the underlying message. He 1 p the child find his own answers by asking questions in return. 6. KEEP PRIVILEGED COMMUNICATION CONFIDENTIAL. Do not 7. E. laugh at or belittle the child. Do not discuss the child's concerns with others. LEARN FROM MISTAKES. ALL OVER AGAIN. LEARN TO LAUGH, LOVE, AND BEGIN Handling Common Behavior Problems\nChild is angry Causes: Being told \"no\", \"stop\", or \"don't too often. Prevented from doing something he wanted to do. Demands beyond child's achievement level. Do Not: Become angry yourself. Do: Use time out to calm the child. Try to reason or talk with him after he is calm.0 Ch_i l_d_ Causes\nTreated unfairly or another child. New baby in family. Peer Pressure. Lin f a i r comparison made to Do Not\nShame him. Do: Try to help child improve his self-image. Help him express his feelings. Chi Id demands attention Causes: Is bored. Feels left out, insecure. Do Not\nRidicule or shame. Ignore or isolate. Scold or punish. Do: Try to help child improve his self-image. Help him express his feelings. I I Child uses bad language Causes\nTrying to get attention. Imitating others. Letting off steam I I 1 Do Not: Do\nBet exited or Make an show shock or embarrassment. issue of it. Calmly tell child to stop. Suggest substitutes for the word. healthy outlet for his feelings. Offer Child is destructive Causes: Feels jealous, bored. Wants attention. Desires excitement. Do Not: Tell him he is bad or preach at him. Sco1d, yel1, or shout. Punish, spank, or hit him. Do: Provide an adequate space for wear and tear on equipment. play and expect some Substitute something else destroyed. Provide things to pound. for cut., what is being and tear.Child won't share Causes: Do Not: Do: 31 Needs experience in owning and sharing. Snatch things away from him. Scold him or tell him you do not like him. Be fair in settling children's arguments over things. As much as possible let children settle their own arguments. Child hurts other children Causes\nIs troubled or angry about something. Do Not\nPunish or hurt him. Make him feel Act angry. II bad\" . Insist that child apologize. Do: Quietly separate the children. Divert his attention and take away the hurting object, calmly and firmly. Teach him there are some things we do not do. Help child to feel good about himself. Ask that he try to be more tolerant in the future. Child does not tell the truth Causes: Fear of punishment. Likes to exaggerate, Is seeking attention. imitate. Do Not\nPunish or shame or reject. Make him apologize. Do\nProvide him with opportunities for enriching his imagination. Help him discover the difference between fact and fantasy. Tell him the truth. Give positive strokes when he tells the truth under stress.'I l ! I I I J'\u0026lt;4 VI . PROGRAMMING WITH CHILDREN A. Ac tivities The CARE Program much more than babysitting. 11 is a B. school-age child care program of activities that are: '* Planned! Every day has a written plan. * Exciting and fun. * Varied, not the same thing day after day. * Developmental - ones that challenge children to grow, ones learn and try new things. where staff can interact * Done in a small group with children. not just supervise. To help you plan the program for your CARE site, the CARE ideas for activities supervisor and coordinator will provide and games on a monthly. addition, resources in your this section of the staff manual. CARE cabinet include In addition. resources the Indoor/Outdoor Games Book, LRSD Recreation manual and the Art Book. theme for a Activities can be organized around a specific (Me, Friends, Fall, Thanksgiving, Space, etc.) OR around a special event (September week or a month, Insects, Birds, Thanksgiving, birthdays. Circus Day, Have fun! etc.). Keep spicing up the program! staff meeting should be held to plan the Every week a --- activities for the next week, and supplies must be ordered Remember to have alternate plans for bad in advance. weather days when outdoor play is not possible. Daily Schedule The CARE day is planned around the following times\nSnack Time\nWhat's after-school play without a snack? Outdoor Time\nActive game and free play to use lots of Indoor Time\nClean-Up Time\nphysical energy. Large group. activities card games. games, This small group, and independent including art, construction housekeeping, is a time table games, materia1s, active d rama, homework, etc . to create 3 learn a new sk ill, and just have fun. Time to mess, play game put away materials, clean up with a *5! mall group, any and have contact with individual parents as they arrive.\u0026gt;? C. J i b' 35 rIME SCHEDULE FOR REGULAR SCHOOL DAYS (f z L. C| I..' \\ 'll , J I i i -I , I !'  J.i rk.'s ! j' I- \\ I .. bJ 9 .-J-bH tfJ V I , ':3.i Slum , snifi,-ib 3S i-.. q.'J fifislb 3sx:f-.ivjr.j bs yti 1 q  \u0026lt;3S'if fa rife .'.I (i-j I. .l-'jj iJ-'lJifiC-J '/ \u0026gt;5 ( 1 rl.'-inul ?t\nJ i JbO , :11OO 'I ' bi'.iiT J 9 ) ).)\u0026lt; \"q .:\u0026lt; Ef i up yj f. vi V '1 9 n.) \"t fc I 1 7 fl 1.H ' . s v ri '(O I- i I f-\"Orl .-t 1.1  10 11 'I ul.i LisJ uO -i^Oi.id V'lod ) esii iv j J uA \u0026gt;S ( . b.i'a ,. \"uds + cjS SQiTiiO' quo-iU .1 i e-inS toH\" H b 'Ub'fi 3d+. no Cl u i e i m\ni b b.iif qu nsbIC 'y t bd Ifi X ,i esd.unim LJ' sidd 3 n f. p'iid c.i , fa J\nlaris. Id fed S 3f-!d tu .d.., Vb.i-fl 1 3(d li.(j.ir. . (13 1.f X r!3 X 1'aqij : pn.t I. .3Ufe J 3V ZIAHHU fed X V X .d fl fe ,E3MAa nx loxi.d Xxidqferl .c- d'.i.iuf:\u0026gt; arid noi. fz: -t dag Ct J fa if* r I rife J C-I f\n-i 3au3M0ii! Qd gdfiboi ud x.n.rpi * I.) i s\n.n.( Ci.d 3 I (life vrj'n\n\u0026gt;\"i\ni  O.rP-. \u0026lt;1-: 3rM *7? ID. TIME SCHEDULE OR I ONG DAY /'HOL .[DAY 5N0w DAY NOTE\nU S ? this C\nl!E?Puli' ai:i\u0026gt; a 51 a r t i i'l g poin t E. 36 cArtcJ cAcipL it tcc* meet the 7!00-B 0 needs of your children. 0 ,0-9:00 9:OO-1O:OO 10:00-1.1. ! 15 1.1:15-12:00 12 s 00-1\n00 1:00-2 30\no 00 00-4\n45 4:45-5 0 ACTIVITY IDEAS Activi ties Arrival of children Independent Activitie games, free play) 15 (card games, board Breakfast and clean up Creative Activity (art project, puppet construction Outside Play Restroom, and use. drama, music, etc. ) lunch and clean up Quiet Time -kindergartners -Others rest or must.  n p ** have quiet activities Choice of creative activity ?\u0026lt; free play Snack\nrestroom Outside Play Small Group Games ?\u0026lt; Activities (story book ?\u0026lt; record, \"Hot Potato\", etc.) Clean up and dismissal should be ready to begin immediately upon the arrival of the children. Staff should use the 15 before school is dismissed to get supplies out of cabinet and ready to use for planned activities. GAMES, minutes the Labeling CREATIVE the tables with removable signs (HOMEWORK, AREA, ART PROJECT, etc.) has proven to be a helpful tool in sure to locate the quiet organizing the CARE area. Be activities away from the ones action. encouraging conversation and The following pages have many ideas for active play and creative projects you will want to include in your CARL session plans.37 F. PRCCEDURES FOR EMFRPFNCY OR INCLEMENT NEITHER CONDI TJCjNS\nPLAN A\nEARLY CLOSINC Subject: When schools are dismissed early due to increasingly 'bad weather, CARE WILL BE IN OPERATION from the time school is dismissed until 5:30 P.M. (6:00 extended day sites). When schools are 0 Time: CARE staff will report at the time school is dismissed and will remain until the last child is picked up (no later than the usual closing time). Parents are urged to pick up their children as soon as announcements are made about hazardous driving conditions, streets that, become dangerous Some of the schools are on and are closed to traffic at an early time. PLAN B\nLRSD SCHOOLS CLOSED Subj ec t\nWhen school is dismissed for the entire day due to bad weather. CARE WILL BE IN OPERATION IN SPECIFIED SCHOOLS from 8s00 A.M. to 5 0 P.M. If CARE has to be closed due to extremely hazardous road conditions, made on radio and TV stations. announcements will be Charge s There is a $7.00 fee for each emergency day to be paid There will be no additional fee upon signing in your child. charged for snow days added to the school calendar in since these days were paid for in a prior month. Child Needs: June, A sack lunch and drink, for the noontime meal. Breakfast and snacks will be provided. Kindergartners and four year olds need to bring a rest mat and time. towels for nap Location\nCARE will be in operation at specified schools. Parents may use any one of these schools. Upon arrival parents must write their name and daytime phone number The CARE office will be closed on these on the signin sheet, days. Special Staff Instructions: Work schedule for days when LRSD schools are closed for emergency or bad weather will be sent to all staff and a copy will be kept at each snow site. When schools are closed early or before school opens for the day this staff schedule goes into effect. ***0FFICIAL ANNOUNCEMENTS ABOUT EARLY DISMISSAL AND/OR CLOSING OF SCHOOLS WILL BE MADE ON KARN RADIO AND TV STATIONS 4, 7, 11***CARE Program CS Little Rock School District CB CARE Program Rockefeller School 700 East 17th St. Little Rock, AR 72206 (501) 324-2395 RECEIVED OCT 2 8 1991 TABLE OF CONTENTS Office of Desegregation Monitoring Introduction 1 Program Description 1 Enrolling Your Child Hours and Days of Operation Payment of Fees Payment of Fees (Drop-In) Fee Schedule Multiple Enrollment Within Family Holiday Attendance Late Pickup Charge 4 Returned Checks 4 Extended Absences 4 Parent Communications 4 Release of Children 4 Food Services 4 Inclement Weather Plans 5 Health Forms 5 Student Accident Insurance 5 Illness in CARE 5 Medication 5 Discipline 6 Parties and Special Occasions 6 Appendix As Inclement Weather Procedures...? Appendix Bs CARE Payment Schedule/Calendar . . 8 Appendix C\nDiscipline Plan 9B EH 1 Introduction The CARE Program is a non-profit. self-supporting program of child care provided for elementary-age students and parents of the Little Rock School District. The LRSD Board of Education authorised the development of the program for the 1980-81 school year. Based on a survey of district needs, CARE was initially offered in thirteen primary schools. The program continues to strive to meet the needs of district patrons by offering CARE in elementary schools with a minimum of fifteen participants. The CARE Program provides a continuation of important elements in the child's educational environment: a well-known, comfortable place. with a friendly staff, and other children they already know. The program eliminates parental concerns about children being transported to 'J another location for child care. This manual explains the CARE policies and operational procedures. suggestions. Parents are encouraged and volunteer to share to observe, make their skills and interests with the CARE children. Program Description As a school-age child care service. the CARE Program provides an informal and unique environment for children of different ages to live and learn together. CARE maintains a structured environment to insure order and safety, yet provides children with opportunities to make choices and become involved in both group and independent activities. The program includes a wide range of social, and creative opportunities. recreational, The CARE Program is based on the following goals: -to provide a safe environment for students before and after school, -to offer a wide variety of creative and recreational activities, -to help children feel good about themselves and develop positive attitudes toward school. -to encourage growth in skills. relationships and socialE n r Q11 i. n q Y o u r C h i 1 ci A child may be enrolled in the CARE Program on a \"full-time, drop-in, or part-time ( 1 , 1 3, or 4 days per week) basis. To register a child, return with the $6.00 registration the completed registration form fee to the CARE Program Office, Rockefeller School, 700 E. 17th, Little Rock, AR. 06. The first monthly payment must be made before your child' first day of attendance in CARE. (324-2395) / Hours and Days of Operation Each program operates from 7:00 A.M. from the close of school until 5\no P.M. until school opens and (6:00 at Incentive Schools) on regular school days and FROM 7:00 A.M.-5 50 P.M. on most school holidays. 8:00 A.M.-5\n0 P.M. On \"Snow days, CARE is open from at specified schools. When a school site is closed before the normal dismissal time, CARE begins operation at the earlier time. CARE is closed on all legal holidays and other holidays when the school sites are unavailable for use. Payment of Fees Full-time and part-time tuition payments are due in the CARE Program Office on the 15th of the month (two weeks in advance) and must be paid in full by th first of the month in order for your child to participate in the CARE Program. A $5.00 late payment fee will be charged for payments received after the 1st day of the month, payment schedule. See appendix B for Reservations for holiday CARE and payment of the $7.00 per day fee are due in the CARE office prior to the holiday. No refunds can be made in event your child does not attend on the holiday. Payment of Fees (Drop-In) A drop-in card must be purchased at the CARE office for any regular school day. 3 days in a month. the card each time the child attends. The cost is $4.50 per day not to exceed Care teachers will punch out one day on accepted on holidays. Drops-ins are not. refer to Holiday Care page 3. Fee Schedule Monthly fees for regular school days, not holidays, are averaged over nine advance each month. including equal payments and due in There is an additional $7.00 charge per day for CARE at specified sites on holidays. Mail or deliver payments and Rockefeller School, reservations to the CARE Office 700 East 171 h, Little Rock, at '7 06. Ar. /There will be a $7,00 charge per child for attending CARE on a \"Snow Day.\" your child. Snow Day fees must be paid when you sign in Applications are available for free or reduced rates at Incentive Schools (Franklin, Garland, Rightsei 1, Rockefeller, Stephens,). Ish, Mitchel 1, Eligibility requirements are based on family size and income. The following fees are charged for participation: Categories Fees \"Annual Registration Fee Ful1-time Part-time Part-time Part-time (5 days @ week) (4 days @ week) (3 days @ week) (2 days @ week) Drop-In (up to 3 days @ month) Holiday (reservations required) \"Snow\" Day Late Payment Fee Late Pickup Charges (1-5 minutes) (Each additional 5 minutes) 6.00 69.25 @ month 56.00 @ mon t h 42.00 @ month 28.00 @ month 13.50 @ card 7.00 @ day 7.00 Q day 5.00 @ month .50 daily 1.00 daily Multiple Enrollment t*lithin Family If one family enrolls three or more children in the CARE Program, the charge for the third child and every child thereafter will be one-half the normal rate. to a one-family unit with all children under the guardianship of the parent making payments. This applies Holiday Attendance Parents will be notified in advance of the schools which will be open for CARE from 7:00 A.M.5 Teacher Workdays and school holidays. 30 P.M. during Reservations for child care at one of these schools and payment of the $7.00 fee for each day must be received in the CARE Office by the reservation deadline in order for your child to attend. Hiring of staff and purchasing of food/supplies for the children must be done in advance on the basis of the paid reservations received by this date. issued to parents upon receipt of payment. A long day card will be No refunds can be made in the event your child does not attend CARE on the hoiiday. $ The CARE Program is closed on all legal holidays and other holidays when chool sites are unavailable for use.4 Late Pickup Charge CARE concludes at 5 O P.M. each day. The late charge for arriving after this time is $.50 for arriving 1-5 minutes late and an additional $1.00 for each additional five minute period. This charge must be paid directly to the CARE teacher upon picking up your child. In addition, you will also be charged for any overtime pay required for the school custodian to remain until your arriva1. A record will be kept of the dismissal time for your child. Since CARE employees and school custodians have other obligations after work, the CARE Program reserves the right to remove a child from the program when parents are late over three times. Returned Checks . A $5 service charge will be assessed for all checks returned due to insufficient funds. In the event a check is returned, future payments must be made in cash. money order, or cashier's check. Extended Absences If your child is out of CARE for 5 or more consecutive days. please notify the CARE Office (324-\n95) upon your child's return and request a credit toward your month. fees for the next Parent Communications Please notify the CARE staff (324-:\np5) of any changes in important information relating to your child (telephone numbers, emergency numbers, address, allergies. etc . ) If your child is sick or will be out of town, would appreciate notification. the CARE staff Release of Children A child will be dismissed from CARE only to his/her parents or persons authorised on the registration form to pick up the child. Each child must be signed out with CARE staff on a daily basis before leaving the CARE site. Food Services CARE students are offered breakfast and snack during the hours of operation. The food is prepared by the LRSD Food Services Department and meets the federal breakfast program guidelines, consideration guide1ines. The snack menu given to IS planned by CARE staff with nu t r i t i ona 1 con ten t and cost.5 inclement weather are explained The CARE Program plans for .in Appendix A. When school .is closed due to inclement Appendix A. weather, CARE will be open at. specified schools unless road conditions are extremely hazardous. This decision will be made by the LRSD Superintendent and based on involved for staff and students to reach the school the safety risk building. CARE will be open from 8\noo A.n.-o\nw r. ri. at. specified schools (Refer to Appendix A). In the event CARE is closed, announcements will be made on radio, Channel 4, and local TV stations. There will be a $/.00 8:00 M.-5:30 P.M. and stations. Cab 1 e This charge per child for attending CARE on a \"Snow day\". '  Breakfast and fee is to be paid upon signing in your child. snack will be furnished by CARE, and each child should bring a sack, lunch and drink. Four year olds and kindergartners need to bring a rest mat and two towels, pick up your children as soon as possible. We urge you to School days missed due to snow will be added to the CARE calendar, and your child may attend CARE on those days with no additional charge. Health Forms section of the Parents must, complete the health information registration form for each child. The form will be on file at the CARE site and should This form for each child. be kept current. information is extremely important in the event your child needs medical or emergency attention. Student Accident Insurance The LRSD CARE Program cannot assume liability for Parents are encouraged to financial injuries received by students. apply for the low-cost student accident insurance offered each year through the school district. Enrollment forms are available in the school office. Illness in CARE ) ill and unable to participate in CARE If your child becomes _____________ a parent will be requested to pick, up the child. Should the staff be unable to reach parents or guardians. activities, emergency persons listed on child's records will be called. Medication to a child must be authorized by Any medication to be given written statement from the physician and/or parent and a given be in by the the school nurse or principal. original container. All medication must with the child's name, type and date of prescribed medication, dosage. amount, and time ofWhen medication nurse for proper is required, storage, completed by the parent. Discipline it is to be given to the school and a medication sheet must be The CARE Program's discipline plan is outlined in Appendix C. In CARE children are expected to be responsible'for their own behavior and respect the rights of others. Time-out from group activities may be used to encourage a child to calm down and reflect on his/her behavior. Parental help will be requested for behavior problems that cannot be solved by time-out. suspend a child for 3-5 days, We reserve the right to or to expel a child from the program, after appropriate efforts to correct the behavior problems have been made and the child is still unable to conform to the required behavior. A child may be immediately suspended for severely disruptive behavior or endangering the safety of others. Parties and Special Occasions Parties may be held throughout the year on special occasions and holidays, appreciated, Although parental help with parties is parents are under no obligation. Parties are organized entirely on a volunteer basis. Arrangements for parties and special celebrations may be made through the CARE staff.7 Appendix A CARE Program INCLEMENT WEATHER PROCEDURES Plan A\nSubj ect: When schools are dismissed early due to increasingly bad weather, CARE WILL BE IN OPERATION from the time school is dismissed until T ime: Plan B\n5 \u0026lt;) P.M. Staff will report to CARE at the time school is dismissed. We urge you to pick up your children as soon as announcements are made about hazardous driving conditions, since some of the schools are on streets that become dangerous and are blocked to traffic at an early time. Subj ect: When school is dismissed for the entire day due to bad weather, CARE WILL BE IN OPERATION in selected schools. We urge you to make early pick ups. Time: 8:00 A.M. to 5\no P.M. Charge: $7.00 fee to be paid upon signing in your child. Bring : Sack lunch and a drink for noontime meal. Rest mat ?\u0026lt; two towels for 4 year olds ?\u0026lt; Kinder gartners. (Breakfast ?\u0026lt; snack furnished by CARE) Location: CARE will be open at the following schools which are the most accessible during ice and snow\nBrady Chicot Forest Park Gibbs Magnet 7915 W. Markham (near Mississippi) moo Chicot Rd. 1600 North Tyler (off Cantrell) 1115 W. 16th (near Chester) You may take your child to any of these schools. bring your child each morning, When you telephone number on the sign-in sheet. write your name and daytime This procedure will enable the CARE staff to contact you in an emergency. CARE has to be closed due to extremely hazardous road If conditions, announcements will be made on. Cable Channel 4, local radio and TV stations. ** OFF IC I AL ANNOUNCEMENTS ABOUT EARLY DISMISSAL ?\u0026lt; CLOSING OF SCHOOLS WILL BE MADE ON RADIO AND TV STATIONS**8 Appendix B CARE Payment Schedule TUITION PAYMENTS ARE DUE ON THE FOLLOWINS DATE: August 15, 1991- September 16, 1991 October 15, 1991 November 15, 1991- December 16, January 15, 1991-- 1992---- February 14, 1992 March 16, 1992--- April 15, 1992 Aug/Sept. Tuition - October Tuition November Tuition December Tuition January Tuition February Tuition March Tuition April Tuition May/June Tuition All payments received ten (10) days after the due date will be accessed a $5.00 late charge. CALENDAR August 26, 1991 September 2, 1991 September 23, 1991 September 30, 1991 October 21, 1991 October 31, 1991 November 1, 1991 November 7-8, 1991 November 28-29, 1991 December 23, 1991 January 6, 1992 January 20, 1992 January 23, 1992 January 24, 1992 March 2, 1992 March 26, 1992 March 27, 1992 March 30-April 3, 1992 May 25, 1992 June 5, 1992 First Day for Students Labor Day (School Closed) Staff Development Day Parent Conference Day Staff Development Day End of First Quarter (45 Days) Work Day (Records Day) AEA (Inservice Days) Thanksgiving Holidays Christmas Vacation Classes Resume Martin L. King Holiday End of Second Quarter (44 Days) Work Day (Records Day) Parent Conference Day End of Third Quarter (43 Days) Work Day (Records Day) Spring Break Memorial Day (School Out) Last Day for Students9 CARE Program Discipline Plan Appendix C Eiehavior rules for students: 1. Follow directions of CARE teachers. No cursing, Show respect to others\nteasing, or threatening. respect the rights and 4. 5. 6. property of all students. Return all materials to their proper place. Keep hands, feet and objects to self. Leave assigned area with permission only. Positive consequences may include: Verbal praise and immediate feedback. Positive comments to parents Good citizen display or individual Ribbons, treats recognition Special group activities. proj ec ts, rewards Negative consequences for breaking the CARE rules\nLevel 1\nFor the first infraction an individual conference between student and staff will be held to discuss the child's behavior. Child may receive time-out from group activities to consider his/her actions. Level Behavioral document or note to parent to be signed and returned. Child may lose a play or recreational privilege in CARE for 1- days. Level Second behavioral document to parent. Conference between student, parent, and staff required to discuss behavior. Child may lose a play or recreational privilege in CARE for 3-5 days. Level 4\nShort term suspension of 3-5 days from CARE, refund of money paid for these days. No Level 5\nExpulsion from CARE Program, paid for remainder of month. No refund of money Severe Clause: endangers the safety of others. If a student is severely disruptive or he/she will be immediately suspended from the CARE Program, pending a conference between parent and staff. Note\nCorporal punishment (paddling) will not be used in disciplining children in the CARE Program.\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_288","title":"Classroom Teachers Association","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":["1991/2006"],"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","Parents' and teachers' associations","Teachers","Educational law and legislation"],"dcterms_title":["Classroom Teachers Association"],"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/288"],"dcterms_temporal":null,"dcterms_rights_holder":null,"dcterms_bibliographic_citation":null,"dlg_local_right":["Available for use in research, teaching, and private study. Any other use requires permission from the Butler Center."],"dcterms_medium":["documents (object genre)"],"dcterms_extent":["272 pages"],"dlg_subject_personal":null,"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":"\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n\n\n\n   \n\n\n\n\n   \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n  \n\nRECEIVED May 5 1991 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION . Filed us. DISTRICT COURT 'TC^M rMO'^Djr-r Ar!L/AM rr-aM ni*?jr.T ^ckansA^ LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT No. LR-C-82-86^ fi. E Sy\n----------- MAY 01 1991 PLAINTIFF StNTS, CLEFih i' PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, et al. DEFENDANTS MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, et al. INTERVENORS KATHERINE KNIGHT, et al. INTERVENORS LITTLE ROCK CLASSROOM TEACHERS ASSOCIATION'S OBJECTIONS TO LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT'SPROPOSED DESEGREGATIONPIJ^N Little Rock Classroom Teachers Association (\"LRCTA\"), one of the Knight. Intervenors, presents the following objections to the May 1, 1991 Litrle Rock School District Desegregation Plan: I. PARTICULAR OBJECTIONS 1. In Volume II, Incentive Schools, page 292, Re: 02267, vs. the Support Programs are described. The Little Rock Classroom Teachers Association (\"LRCTA\") objects to the section of the plan which denies LRCTA the right to negotiate. Pursuant to the Professional Negotiations Agreement, Article II, Subsection A and the Educational Support Personnel (\"ESP\"), Article III, LRCTA is authorized to negotiate \"salaries. teaching conditions. class size, teacher load and other conditions of employment. II Such authorization includes the extra hour(s) of the school day and Office of Desegregation Monitoringextra day of the school year for Incentive School personnel, certified and uncertified. The Little Rock School District imposed the extra hour and the additional pay for Incentive School personnel during 1990-91 school refusing to negotiate despite the demand from LRCTA. Further, LRCTA demands the right to negotiate the stipend for Homework Centers certified personnel and instructional aides described in Volume II, page 292-E, Re\n02268. II. STAFF RECRUITMENT 2. In Volume II, Incentive Schools Staffing, page 318, Re: 02270, LRCTA objects to the lack of clarity in this section calling for staff recruitment with specific experience showing tl a commitment to working in an urban district.\" Will past teaching experience in the Little Rock School District be sufficient evidence of a commitment to working in an urban district? 3. In Volume II, Incentive School Staffing, Section H, Page 322, Re: No. 02296, 02297, LRCTA objects to the denial of the right to appoint members of the committee although LRCTA represents all staff. Pursuant to the Professional Negotiations Agreement, Article XXXV, LRCTA asserts the right to appoint members to this committee as outlined in that section of the PNA for joint committees.Respectfully submitted, MITCHELL and ROACHELL 1014 West Third Street Post Office Box 1510 Little Rock, AR 72203 01) 378-. By: (da Barr Langford, 89 Attorneys for Knight In' 171 rvenors L CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE On May 1, 1991, a true and correct copy of the foregoing was mailed to the following: H, William Allen Allen Law Firm 1200 Worthen Bank Building Little Rock, AR 72201 John W. Walker John Walker, P.A. 1723 South Broadway Little Rock, AR 72201 Christopher Heller Friday, Eldredge \u0026amp; Clark 2000 First Commercial Building Little Rock, AR 72201 M, Samuel Jones III Wright, Lindsey \u0026amp; Jennings 2200 Worthen Bank Building Little Rock, AR 72201 Stephen W. Jones Jack, Lyon \u0026amp; Jones 3400 TCBY Tower Little Rock, AR 72201 Ann Brown Office of Desegregation Monitoring P. 0. Box 687 No. Little Rock, AR 72115B 09/11/92 18:04 501 324 2032 L R School Dlst ODM @002/003 Little Rogk School District PRESS release Superintendent Bernd Comments on Teacher Contract Agreement Friday, September 11,1992 For more information, contact Dianne G. Woodruff, 324-2020 E\u0026gt;r. Mac Bemd, superintendent of the Little Rock School District, today thanked teachers in the District and their leadership for working together toward a contract agreement for the 1992-93 school year. Teachers ratified at a 4:30 p.m. meeting today the tentative agreement reached by the District and the Classroom Teachers Association teams late Thursday. The agreement provides that senior teachers who have reached the last step of their salary schedule by the start of the 1992-93 school year will receive $200 each on August 1, 1993, as a non-recurring payment if at the close of the District's 1992-93 fiscal year, total operating receipts, excluding loans, exceed total operating expenses by no less than $100,000. The new contract will expire August 1,1993. Other than these provisions, the new contract, which now must be ratified by the LRSD Board of Directors, is the same contract as the successor contract that expired Tuesday. The Board will consider the proposal at a special board meeting set for 5 p.m. Monday, September 14. -more-09?'ll/92. 18:05 501 324 2032 L R School Dlst ODM @003/003 Page 2 LRSD Contract Comments \"I sincerely appreciate teachers being understanding, reasonable and cooperative in light of District finances and other circumstances. The negotiation process was a fruitful effort overall,\" Bernd added. \"Ultimately, it is most important to underscore that all parties have had the best interests of all the children and all our patrons and staff at heart in reaching the agreement. Dialogue and open communication are paramount if we are to work together to improve teaching and learning. H 'We heard loud and clear the teachers' concerns about classroom discipline and we believe they heard our concerns about the importance of the role supervision plays toward improved safety and security. We know that most teachers volunteer much more than the minimum time proposed for supervision and we believe that they are committed to work cooperatively with us to assure that all schools are equally safe and secure,\" Bernd said. Bemd said he would direct principals to work with their individual staffs to develop building-specific discipline management plans that match need to available supervision time under the contract. \"We know that anytime there is change, there is frustration involved. A lot of things have changed in the District this year. We have a new computer system and a new curriculum supported by a computerized management system to enhance teachers ability to meet individual needs of students. And they are dealing with a new administration. That's a full plate and understandably teachers are concerned and somewhat frustrated with the beginning of a new year. I pledge to work closely with them to make the changes as smooth as possible and to address their concerns,\" Bemd said. -more-Office of Desegregation Monitoring United States District Court  Eastern District of Arkansas Ann S. Brown, Federal Monitor 201 East Markham, Suite 510 Heritage West Building Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 (501)376-6200 Fax (501) 371-0100 Date: October 5, 1994 To: Frank Martin From: Aj/'Ann Brown Subject: Reassignment of IRC Personnel I enjoyed our chat today and look forward to talking with you further on October 18. Thanks for agreeing to look into the situation regarding Leola Scoggins and Pearl Jackson, two IRC aides whose reassignments have made these two CTA members very unhappy. They met with me before school started and I suggested that they talk with you to determine the status of their complaint. Heres a copy of what I received from Leola, which you may already have in your files. 1 appreciate your looking into e matter and letting Leola and Pearl Icnow what next steps to anticipate. They both feel pretty helpless, but perhaps the situation isnt hopeless. Although theres probably not much I can do, please let me know how I can help. Thanks very much.July 20, 1993 Brady Gadberry Labor Relations Specialist 810 West Markham Little Rock, AR 72201 RE: IRC Position Dear Brady: I would like to reiterate my desire to be reinstated to Aides position at the Instructional Resource Center. I understand that some aides position might be restored and I would like one of them. I have worked at IRC for several years and in the Little Rock School District for 19 years. Your positive consideration of this request will be greatly appreciated. Sincerely, eoIaTCScog' Leola Scoggins August 6, 1993 QUALIFICATIONS: 1. High school diploma: Monticello Arkansas/College Beebe Junior College (3 accredited hours) 2. Demonstrates creative/artistic ability: I demonstrate creative/artistic ability, been apart of this staff for more than 10 Having years our duties consist of creating and designing activities for class room use for students, teachers, and administrators. 3. Experience in computer/typing: amount o experience in'computer/typing. I have a limited But I am eager to learn and I now have a computer system at home that will allow me to enhance my computer/typing skills. 4. Evidence of strong organizational and positive interpersonal skills: I have strong organizational and positive interpersonal skills. Working at IRC for some ten years I always had an excellent relationship with my co-workers, supervisor, administration, and students. I always have a positive outlook once I know the direction I cun to For three years I have been the supervisor and organizer for Home Health Care. I'm in total go. control of daily operations which include the scheduling of vacations and the keeping of payroll records. 5. Ability to understand and carry out oral and written instructions independently and efficiently: This is a daily requirement. 6. Ability to be flexible with work schedule: able to have a flexible work schedule. I am 7. Evidence of a strong commi'tment to quality desegregated education: I see people as who they I have always had an open mind regarding desegregation. are. student regardless of race. I want only the best for each BASIC PERFORMANCE RESPONSIBILITIES:1. 2. I have the ability to assist in the creation and preparation of activities that correlate with curriculum objectives, pre-kindergarten - grade 12. I know that together we can develop a system for working with duplicating materials for several departments in order to have the materials ready for workshops or meeting in a timely manner. 3. If given time I will learn the curriculum the area in which I will assist. 4 . content of I have the knowledge to assist with duties such as video distribution, laminating materials, processing resource materials. 5. I can and will participate in inservices and staff meetings. 6. I can and will report to and complete the daily work schedule as assigned 7. I can and will perform other duties best of my ability. as assigned to theOffice of Desegregation Monitoring United States District Court  Eastern District of Arkansas Ann S. Brown. Federal Monitor 201 East Markham, Suite 510 Heritage West Building Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 (501)376-6200 Fax (501) 371-0100 Date: February 9, 1995 To: LRCTA, NLRCTA, and PACT Managers From: Ann Brown Subject: Monitoring Schedules Enclosed is our schedule for upcoming site-monitoring of some schools in all three districts. I realize this is late notice for the dates that are coming up so soon next week, and I apologize for having inadvertently neglected to inform you before now. However, we have already notified the school districts and building principals that we will be in their schools on those days, so our visit won't come as a surprise to them. 1 want to be true to my commitment to keep you posted on our monitoring schedule, and will notify you as we continue to develop our calendar. Unfortunately, I have had very limited success in trying to coordinate monitoring schedules among the various groups. For example, I did not receive ADE's monitoring schedule until after they had almost completed their visits. I have their commitment to notify me before they begin spring monitoring. As for Joshua, counsel has told me that he presently has no monitoring scheduled, although he may decide to do some at the spur-of-the moment. If so, he is to notify me. We have recently discovered that many PCSSD teachers believe that ODM or the Court has required them to color highlight their plan books to indicate such emphasis as multicultural lessons. Neither ODM nor the Court requires or expects any type of color-coding. As a matter of fact, as we discussed last fall, ODM monitors never even look at teacher plan books. The color highlighting is a request from internal PCSSD monitoring teams, who have no relationship to ODM or the Court. If you have any questions or comments, please don't hesitate to call me. I'll be glad to hear from you.Scheduled ODM Monitoring Visits Date School Monday, February 13, 1995 LRSD Alternative School Tuesday, February 14, 1995 NLRSD Alternative School Thursday, February 16, 1995 PCSSD Alternative School Wednesday, February 22, 1995 Rightsell Incentive School Tuesday, February 28, 1995 Rockefeller Incentive School Thursday, March 2. 1995 Garland Incentive School Friday, March 3, 1995 Franklin Incentive School Tuesday, March 7, 1995 Mitchell Incentive SchoolOffice 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 April 25, 1995 Mrs. Betty L. Mitchell Pulaski Heights Junior High School 401 No. Pine Street Little Rock, AR 72205 Dear Betty: Congratulations on your election to the presidency of the Little Rock Classroom Teachers Association! The post is very challenging and important, and 1 know youll bring energetic leadership to the organization. Id like to invite you to visit my office at your convenience so we can get to know each other better. Tlte ODM staff would love to meet you and answer any questions you may have. Wed be happy to give you a tour of our offices and to explain our monitoring philosophy and approach. We also have a number of monitoring reports on the Uttle Rock School District that wed be pleased to share with you. As you look forward to your presidency, 1 wish you the very best and hope you will not hesitate to let me know whenever 1 may be of assistance. Please let me know when youd like to come by. My colleagues and 1 would welcome the opportunity to visit with you. Sincerely yours, Ann S. Brown cc: Frank Martin 1 AUG 14 1995 August 10, 1995 Office of Desegregdiicn ?\u0026lt;ion'!oriP9 Betty Mitchell Little Rock Classroom Teachers Association 1500 West 4th Street Little Rock, Ar 72201 Dear Ms. Mitchell: The CTA membership of Metropolitan is appointment of Mr. MMiicchhaaeell Peterson concerned over recommendation of the teacher/parent interview the about the unanimous j-euuuunenaarion or the teacher/parent interview team and the recommendation of the Director of Vocational Education for the Little Rock District. Mr. Peterson interviewed. neither applied for the position. He also has no vocational background. nor was he Because of the unique situation of vocational education we urgently need stronger and more experienced vocational leadership for our facility. We realize that the appointment of Mr. Peterson has not been voted on or approved by the Board. T\" 12 _ __ 1_\n_ ___J_____ _ timely response to our inquiry before such action is taken. We would appreciate an immediate and Respectfully, CTA Membership cc: School Board ODM/Ann Brown Frank Martin Revolutionizing Education in Arkansas .4 one-day workshop for Arkansas citizens who want our state's schools revitalized and our children s educational performance optimized. Friday, January 26th, Excelsior Hotel, Little Rock Presented by the Arkansas Policy Foundation Featured Keynote Comments By: Denis Doyle of the Heritage Foundation in Washington D.C. Mr. Doyle currently serves as a Senior Fellow in Education at the Heritage Foundation and since 1980 has written e.xtensiveiy on education reform. Among his recently published books are Winning rhe Brain Race, A Bold Plan to .Slake Our Schools Competitive and Reinventing Education: Entrepreneurship in America's Public Schools. His free- markei, competition based ideas concerning schools have captivated leading reformers around the nation. Michael Williams, former U.S. Assistant Secretary of Education Mr. Williams, a prominent black attorney from Fort Worth. Te-xas, served as Assistant U.S. Secretary of Education under Lamar .Alex.'indcr and Lauro Cavazos. His e.xperience as head of the Department of Education's Civil Rights Division provided him unique knowledge of both school choice reforms and desegregation issues. Fannie Lewis, Cleveland Ohio City Councllwoman/Educatlon Activist Ms. Lewis, a black liberal democrat from Cleveland, Ohio, joined forces with Ohio's white conservative Governor, and together they are revolutionizing Cleveland's schools. Her experiences in school reform should be instructive for Little Rock and any other school districts facing similar challenges. Other special work and information sessions will include... 1. New developments on the legal front that could expedite the lifting of court-monitored desegregation plans...of particular interest to Little Rock School Districts. 2. The dangers of Outcome Sased Education (OBE) and what to do about them. 3. A preview of an innovative new privately funded voucher program in Little Rock. The Children's Educational Opportunity Foundation {CEO program). currently benefiting almost 400 parents and children. 4. A comprehensive overview of bold new education reform initiatives across the states. Also...The Great Debate on School Choice and Voucher Issues! Grainger Ledbetter of the Arkansas Education Association (AEA) vs. Jeanne Allen with the Center for Education Reform SPACE LIMITED...PLAN TO ATTEND NOW!! FRIDAY, JANUARY 26TH, EXCELSIOR HOTEL, LITTLE ROCK 10:00 am until 4:00 PM...($15.00 conference fee includes lunch) I Call Donna Watson at 501-227-4815 by Jan. 19th, 1996. The Arkansas Policy Foundation, 8201 Cantrell Road, #325, Little Rock, Arkansas 72227re: Rnoo . rrsi ra TAI \u0026gt; FEB January 30, 1996 Office of Oesesreaaicn M 5018 Country Club Blvd. Little Rock, AR 72207 Betty Mitchell LRCTA 1500 West 4th, Suite 305 Little Rock, AR 72201 Dear Ms. Mitchell, I would like to be appointed to the new Desegregation Planning Committee. I talked with Ms. Pondexter about it today. She suggested that I write the request to you. I am qualified to serve for several reason. My son will graduate next year from Central High School. He has attended the Little Rock public schools since he entered kindergarten. I have taught school for the Little Rock School District for twenty-five years. I taught at the Kramer Project for ten years. For the next fifteen years I have worked at the Rockefeller Early Childhood Magnet/Incentive School. I have taught four-year olds since 19888, I was a member of the Early Childhood Committee that was begun by Mr. Reviile in 1989. Since I have been a strong supporter of the L.R.S.D. and early childhood education, as well as teaching at an incentive school. 1 feel I would be an asset to your committee. Thank you for your consideration. Sincerely yours, Beth Foti cc\nLinda Pendexter I*Ln-TLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 810 WEST MARKHAM STREET LITTLE ROCK, AR 72201 TO. Bvidrd of Directors FROM: THROUGH: SUBJECT\nFebruary' 1996 bred L. Smith. Manager of Support Services Henrv^ Superintendent of School.? I SenbeeMaster (jtuestions he toiiowing informatio! is being provided in response to concerns raised by M? Gee (list snacheii\nand .Ms. Pondexte., Section 6.6 of'he ServiceMaster contract is attached. Item s2 of Ms. Gees list - ServiceMaster will receive no more than the contract amount Any additional savings below the 510.8 million budget amo'unt will remam wmh the District Item ot Ms. Gees list - It was agreed that withi.n 40 days no adjustment to the 1995-96 budget would be made since we would only be charged a pro-rated amount for the first year of tiie contract  Item 01 M.\u0026lt;. Gees list - Four (4) payments have oeen made to Se'wiceMaster for the months of October. 1995, tnrough January, 1^96.  Item 45 of Ms. uees h$t - The S'.G.213 per monli: is Lite amount to satisfv the auarantes since ServiceMaster is required to provide actual documentation to support the supplies and equipment cost  Item 46 of Ms. Gees list - Based on actual expenditures for the past several ye.ars, the 1995- 96 budget amount provides a realistic baseline. item ^7 of Ms. Gees list - .^.nached is a schedule that shews the $10 8 million. With respect to the energy savings, the effect of the energy savings orograms has alrcadv be?-, includea m the 1995-96 budget. It is true that a mild winter would have a positive i -noact guarantee compliance. The converse is also true impact on guarantee compliance. on \\ harsh wmter would have a nesatn. 1JC  hem ot Ms. Crees iis' - h is probably not possible to list all potential points of concern However we eo have a detailed budget and Exhibit A is a part of the contract.  Item #9 ol Ms. Gees list - 'fhe OEM system would only enhance, not conflict with, the Districts system. cc. Doug Eaton Jerr/ Compton FLSxa3  Little Rock Schoo! District 1995-So Biidsel Ana'ysis FuncSon ,-tncno.i Jesaiphon 2639 Other Faciiities Acq 3Co 2542 Upkeep or Suildings 2641 Service .Area Oirecuoi 2544 Upkeep of Squipmerii 2545 VePicie Maintenance 26-10 Asbesios rrogra.m \\1agnet SctipoiG Sooeptuies A.^nojn! '$240,213 8.924.431 201.085 12,800 S3.20C 61,338 1.076.370 2'30,000 Tata $10,779,937Office 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 June 26, 1997 Ms. Betty Mitchell 107 Detonti Drive Little Rock, AR 72113 Dear Betty: As you leave the presidency of the LRCTA and return to the classroom, 1 want to tell you how very much my colleagues at ODM and I have enjoyed working with you during your tenure. You brought your level head and steady hands to the helm during a time when the Little Rock School District was (once again) navigating troubled waters. Despite the turbulence, you never failed to keep your balance, perspective, and on-target grasp of the facts: you could always penetrate the rhetorical fog and see what was really going on. (More than once, your knowing glance inspired me to hang in at yet another tong meeting!) But no matter how great the challenge or vexing the circumstances, you never failed to maintain your congenial, down-to-earth demeanor that has always made me glad to see you. You have earned my respect, gratitude, and affection, Betty, and all of us at ODM will certainly miss you. However, I know where to find you, and Ill look forward to catching up with you at the flea markets. All best wishes for a happy return to the classroom. Sincerely yours, 'Ann S. BrownLRCTA PN UPDATE $$$Big Bucks$$$ for Central Office Chicken Feed for School Employees After months of excuses and delays the District finally presented its salary offer to the Association last night. Rarely have promising negotiations taken so drastic a nose dive. Despite the lavish raises Dr. Camine showered on his favorite administrators, (excluding the superintendent, the highest paid LRSD administrative position jumped 13% from $64,831 to $90,000) there is precious little in the cookie jar for the folks in the trenches. The Districts three year offer is a clear indication of just where teachers and support persoimel figure on the Districts priority list. 1st Year ( 3% of last Years Sth Circuit money) NO NEW MONEY 2nd Year 1.75% 3rd Year 1.75% To sweeten this deal the District threw in a paltry $200 increase in the senior stipend and raised the District contribution on the insurance to $174. To Add Insult To Injury...this so-called offer is withdrawn if\n The property tax amendment passes and the property tax is abolished.  The Sth Circuit money turns out to be less than 7 million for any of the three years.  The Arkansas Legislature changes the funding formula to little Rocks detriment. The question on the mind of every hardworking teacher and ESP should be... Why does the District always find big bucks for top level administrators and only nickels and dimes for the employees who actually work with students? DISCIPLINE: The two teams are at loggerheads on this critical issue. Our priority is safe and orderly classrooms, the Districts seems to be safeguarding the authority of its principals. WERE MILES APART..BUT WERE STILL TALKING.... The Districts proposal on the supplemental salary schedule is a good beginning but a three year deal with little or no money is impossible. The contract has been extended to the day before students arrive and we believe a settlement is still possible. Any real progress depends on Dr. Camine and his Administration understanding that we need more than lip service on discipline and that our salaries are every bit as important as the salaries of his downtown administrators!!! TRANSFERS \u0026amp; VACANCIES..The District has bungled transfers and vacancies this year even more than usual. If you believed you have been unjustly denied a position, moved or surplused without just cause, call the office ASAP. QUOTE OF THE YEAR.. On July 22, in the Arkansas Democrat, Dr. Camine was quoted as saying that he tried to limit administrators pay raises to 10 percent. Needless to say he was not successful.8' i^nrki \"?, I*-- a: 2201 (5GVittle Rock Classroom Teachers Associafioi\u0026gt; Update RECEIVED NOV 2 3 1988 November 17, 1998 OFFICE OF DESEGS3EGAT10N MONITORING As you well know, the Association has ratified an agreement that includes a 4.5% raise, more than $500.00 added to tlie topped - out stipend for those not receiving an annual increment, increases for stipend work and many other new items in the contract. One of tlie more frustrating aspects of the negotiation was trying to fix a date when we could start collecting the new raises (as well as the 3% raise still due under last years contract). Because the money needs to be released by the Federal District Court, everyone it seems has been pointing the finger there as the cause of the problem. However, our inquiries to the Office of Desegregation Monitoring has indicated that the blame rests with the Little Rock School District and the Pulaski County Special School District, who have been ordered to negotiate a settlement between their differences over how much each district is to receive from the court. Well, those negotiations have broken down and the court now is required to conduct a hearing on the matter before rendering a decision. That date is January 4,1999. No one expects the decision from that hearing to be delayed in any way so as soon as a decision is rendered, then our agreement with the Little Rock School District calls for payment under the contract to begin within thirty (30) days. The court decision will not affect the negotiated agreement in any way. But it will result in the payment being postponed until early 1999.AN OPEN LETTER TO THE MEMBERSHIP OF LRCTA Lou Ethel Nauden 4400 West 22 nd Street Little Rock, AR 72204 November 19, 1998 Willie Givens, President Little Rock Classroom Teachers Association 1500 West 4\nh Street Little Rock, /irkansas 72201 Dear Mr Givens: This letter is written confirmation of my verbal resignation of my membership in the Little Rock Classroom Tt'achers .Association effective for the 1998-99 School 'f ear. I am convinced that the Association vdth its current STAFF and LEADERSHIP is no longer working in the best interest of the tear hets of the Little Rock School l.)istrict. I have spent many years v/orking in the Association with man) different presidents and numerous elected leaders. 1 have agreed and disagreed philosophically with a number of them, however, I was convinced, that all of them v/ere committed to serving in the best interest of the membership. 1 no longer sense that commitment on the part of the current staff and leadership. It saddens me to see how truly self-serving 'the leadership has become. I he lack of staff competence and commitment further troubles me. As I worked 1 dreamed of seeing tfie LRCTA Logo on our owtj building in tine city of Little Rock, and of an organization so strong that we could have a major i mpact ori educational issues in this commiinily. I guess it was just an unrealistic dream. I directed all of my resources toward w\u0026lt;\n-rki ng in the local association, never seeking state or national elective office, because I knew our members were primarily concer ned with issues thiat impacted them in their immediate enviromnent, the Little Rock School Distric t and the state of Arkansas. My tenure as president of the Association, my seivice as a board member, and my many years of w orking with the PN Team as a member and as chairperson were all services rendered unselfishly. There are tho le who hasten to criticize my decision to resign with the\nspurious argument that when the ball game is not played my way, 1 take my ball and go home To those critics I say, You are play ing with my ball - my thirty-two years of service to the organization. And more importantly, yon are not playing the game well. A parapjV'ise of.some advice from the poet, Kipling, expresses my teelings clearly. I CANNOl and WILL NOT be led by a company of fools. Sincerely, Lou Ethel NaadenI I 10B  ARKANSAS DEMOCRAT-GAZETTE  SATURDAY, JUNE 13, I I A long way to go as LRSD, CTA open contract negotiations BY CYNTHIA HOWELL Democrat-Gazelle Staff Writer In the first teacher contract negotiating session of the year, Little Rock School District representatives Friday pro Elimination of hospital indemnity, short-term disability, long-term disability or life insurance coverage for employees by the district. The district would contribute $17.06 posed cutting the work years employee'per month' for the length next year, freezing teacher salaries and reducing insurance benefits. Representatives of the school district and the Classroom Teachers Association met for about 30 minutes Friday afternoon to exchange economic proposals. state health plan coverage and $13.44 per employee per month for dental insurance. The dis- trict now pays the entire portion of the individual em- The meeting, which was closed to the public, marked the beginning of negotiations on the 1992-93 teachers contract. The three-year contract now in effect is due to expire Sept. 8. Jim Moore, an attorney who represents the school district, and Eleanor Coleman, CTA president, would not disclose the terms of the contract proposals made by their negotiating teams Friday. We have a long way to go, Coleman said. A very long way. A source who asked not to be identified told the Arkansas Democrat-Gazette that the CTA is asking for a 10 percent salary increase for next year. In addition, the source said the district - which is facing a $7.7 million budget deficit next year - is asking for.numerous reductions in employee benefits, including:  A five-day reduction in the work year, which could result in less pay for employees. It was not clear Friday if the reduction would affect all certified employees or just those who have annual contracts for 9'/2 months or longer.  No overall salary raises and no incremental increases for an additional year of experience. District teachers have generally received 3 percent increases for experience along with a general pay raise. ployee health insurance coverage not paid by the state. This year, the state pays $71 per employee and the district pays $122.  An increase in student instruction time for elementary and secondary teachers. Secondary teachers, for example, could eventually be required to teach as much 5% hours a day if the proposal is adopted. That compares with the current limit of 5 hours a day.  A reduction in teacher planning time from 270 minutes to 230 minutes a week.  Teachers may be required to supervise pupils in the lunchroom for an average of one day per week. The current contract gives teachers a duty- free 30-minute lunch period. If the proposal is approved, teachers also could be assigned to supervise children on the playground without extra pay. Now, teachers who volunteer for playground duty are paid $10 an hour. According to the source, the CTA in its proposal has asked for an additional day of personal leave. payment for unused sick leave, a teacher retirement incentive and direct deposit of paychecks. No date was set Friday for the next negotiations session. The negotiations are done by team.s representing the district and the teachers. Any agreement the teams reach must be submitted to the ' school board and the CTA membership for ratification.Aricansas Democrat (gazette SATURDAY, AUGUST 22, 1992 = I B Tough issues take CTA, LRSD through day of talks Representatives of the Little Rock School District and the Classroom Teachers Association worked for about eight hours Friday on the 1992-93 teachers contract without reaching a settlement. The two negotiating teams will resume their talks at 4:30 p.m. Monday  the day most dis- trict teachers will return to' ered by the terms of the 1991-92 contract, which does not expire until Sept. 8. The negotiating sessions are closed to the public, and spokesmen for both teams have declined to give any specific details about the issues in dispute. Frank Martin, executive director of the CTA, said the teams spent Friday holding long discussions on a couple of issues that have disturbed both teachers and administrators for many years. He called them tough issues and said the districts team is asking for concessions from the teachers that the district cant buy. In June, the CTA asked for 10 percent raises, plus an annual 3 percent incremental raise for -- - V.1 yc3r of experience. The district proposed freezing salaries and increments. Since that time, however, the district included the incremental experience raises in the 1992-93 budget. Teachers who are the most experienced and are at the top of the salary schedule are not eligible for the incremental raises. The negotiating teams met each day this week.LRSD, CTA attain tentative agreement Arkansas Democrat \"CSazettc FRIDAY, SEPTEMBER 11, 1992. BY CYNTHIA HOWELL Democrat-Gazene Staff Writer Negotiating teams for the Little Rock School District and the Classroom Teachers Association reached a tentative agreement on the 1992-93 teacher contract about 10:40 p.m. Thursday after five hours of negotiations. A.W. Mille, a mediator with the Federal Mediation and Conciliation Service, said no details of the tentative agreement would be released before a CTA membership meeting set for 4:30 p.m. today at Hall High School. Mille said he thought it best not to divulge details so that rumors wouldnt hurt the agreement. He said it was best if all teachers heard the agreement at the same time. We think it is a mutually satisfying agreement, Jim Moore, an attorney for the district, said. Eleanor Coleman, CTA president, said, Weve pushed hard to get a decent settlement. The old contract expired at I midnight Tuesday, Teachers vot-ed earlier this week to take a strike vote Sept. 17 if an agreement was not reached. The big issues in the talks had been the districts request for additional supervision time from teachers and teachers concerns about a lack of enforcement of the student discipline policies. The district team declared an impasse Tuesday, prompting the two teams to call in the mediator. Mille carried proposals back and forth between the teams Wednesday and Thursday nights. 'The teams never met until after the tentative agreement was reached Thursday night. About 1,600 of the districts teachers are expected to get an average 2.8 percent pay raise for their additional year of experience. The remaining teachers are ineligible for an experience increment. The CTA and the Little Rock School Board must ratify the Agreement to make it official. -ARKAN^S DEMOCRAT-GAZETTE  SATURDAY, SEPTEMBER 12, 1992  LR teachers union ratifies contract, keeps contror of workday BY CYNTHIA HOWELL mocrat-Gazdfle Start Wmtr The Little Rock Classroom Teachers Association on Friday ratified a 1992-93 teacher con- traclf that virtually is identical to the 1991-92 contract, which e.xpired at midnight Tuesday. The new agreement calls for npuiew teacher supervision duties, no shorter preparation periods or longer workdays, all of which were proposed early in the negotiations by the Little Rock School District. The new agreement does alter the expiration date of the contract so ' that future negotiations wont occur while school is in session. It was moved from Sept. 8 to Aug. I. Host discrict teachers will get an average 2.3 percent pay increase for their additional year of experience. However, about 350 teachers are ineligible for an experience increment The new agreement says that if district revenues exceed expenditures bjf $100,000 this year, senior teachers will get a S200 onetime payment by Aug. 1. \"I feel like an abused senior citizen, one teacher of 20 years quipped after the CT.A. membership meeting at Hall High School. 1 don't know how they can justify not giving raises to those of us who have dedicated our lives to the district\" About 500 of the districts 2,000 teachers attended the meeting. The beginning teacher salary will remain at $19,489. A teacher with 20 years of experience and a masters degree plus 30 hours of additional college credit will earn $39,485. See CONTRACT. Page 18A Teachers  Continued from Page 1A We're pleased to have an agreement.\" Eleanor Coleman, CTA president, said. \"Some of the teachers are not totally pleased and that is understandable. We were not able to get what we wanted for our senior teachers. I am one of them. I won't get a single penny more this year.' Coleman said the CT.A will be able to work with administrators to improve student discipline through a standing ad hoc committee that exists in the contract. During the contract negotiations. the CTA members complained that district administrators were lax in enforcing student discipline policies. Most teachers interviewed Friday were philosophical about the status quo contract, the first in many years that did not provide across-the-board raises, Its acceptable. I can live with it, Jake Tidmore, a teacher at Southwest Junior High School, said. We didnt get a raise. That was the bad news. The good news was we didnt give up anything. Its acceptable. I can live with it. We didnt get a raise. That was the bad news. The good news was we didnt give up anything. Im all right about it for one year, Patsy Campbell, a district employee of more than 30 years, said about the lack of a raise. I think the cuts (made in July by the board) were real. The board cut $10.7 million in expenses this year to balance the district budget. We didnt want to go on strike or disrupt the students, Linda Jones, a teacher at Hall High School, said. But she also said she was disappointed with Superintendent Mac Bernd for creating an adversarial relaSTUDYING THE CONTRACT  Sue Buffalo, a counselor at the Alternative Learning Center in the Little Rock School District, examines Friday a copy of the 1992-93 contract negotiated by the district and the Little Rpck Classroom Teachers Association. Teachers ratifiediti agreement Friday afternoon at Hall High School. tionship with teachers and for reducing the number of counselors in the district. Representatives of the CTA and the school district reached a tentative contract agreement late Thursday night with the assistance of A.W. Mille, a mediator with the Federal Mediation and Conciliation Service. The terms of the agreement were not released until Fridays meeting. Before the agreement becomes final, the school board must approve it. A special meeting to vote on the pact, as well as to decide the process for filling a vacant board seat and to discuss the feasibility of Saturday morning football games, is set for 5 p.m. Monday at the administration building at 810 W. Markham St. \"I sincerely appreciate teachers being understanding, reasonable and cooperative in light of district finances and other circumstances, Bernd said at a news conference Friday afternoon. The negotiations process was a fruitful effort overall. He said district administrators heard \"loud and clear Bernd said he would direct principals to work with their staffs to develop discipline management plans at the schools. He also acknowledged the change that teachers face this -4 ZJ Arkansas Oamocrat-Gazena/Oavid GoOschaik teachers concerns about classroom discipline. We believe they heard our concerns about the importance of the role supervision plays toward improved safety and security. We know that most teachers volunteer much more than the minimum time proposed for supervision and we believe they are are committed to work cooperatively with us to assure that all schools are equally safe and secure. 1 year as the result of a new I sincerely appreciate teachers being understanding, reasonable and cooperative in light of district finances and other circumstances. riculum, a new computer system and a new administration. Thats a full plate and understandably teachers are concerned and somewhat frustrated? ... I pledge to work closely with them to make the changes as smooth as possible and to address their concerns, Bernd said. Bernd said he plans to appoint a joint committee as allowed by the contract to study the feasibility of increasing the instructional day. Increasing instructional time was part of the districts original proposal in the contract negotiations, but was withdrawn. He alio called on teachers to assist district administrators in appealing for help from the state Legislature to curb escalating costs of employee health benefits. j The district pays KW percent of the costs of the benefits for individual employees. The district absorbed a $1.4 million increase in insurance costs this year.Arkansas Democrat Y azcttc FRIDAY. FEBRUARY 12. 1993 Copyright C 1993. Little Rock Newspapers, 1nc. Bernd urged to settle pact with CTA Board members ask about 93-94 budget Little Rock School Board members Dorsey Jackson and John Moore urged Superintendent Mac Bernd on Thursday to meet with the Classroom Teachers Association and settle the 1993-94 teacher contract as soon as possible. The topic came up during the boards monthly agenda meeting. The board members asked when the 1993-94 budget would be ready for board action. Bernd has said that expenses would have to be cut for next year by about S5.2 million. Two committees, one made up of district residents and another of employees, are reviewing district expenses and will make a report to Bernd in early March about ways to save money and operate more efficiently- Bernd said he plans to present the proposed budget to the board by late March or early April. Jackson said it would be good to have employee contracts settled by that time, and he recommended that negotiations begin soon so that outdated contract provisions could be discussed and eliminated. Gary Jones, the districts manager of resources and school support, said he has met with eight different employee groups, but only the teachers have a contract for the current year. He said that negotiations are drawing to a close on a two-year contract for district bus drivers and custodians. He estimated that those settlements could be reached within two to four weeks. Were very close, he said.Arkansas Democrat '^(i^azelte SUNDAY, MARCH 14. 1993 Copyright 0 1993, Little Rock Newspapers. Inc. M T . Arkansas Democrat ^(fjazette Ledbetter outpolls 2, wins AEA presidency BY JERRY DEAN Democrat-Gazette Staff Writer Grainger Ledbetter, 36, an English teacher in the Little Rock School District, was chosen Saturday as president of the Arkansas Education Association. About 9,100 AEA members statewide gave Ledbetter 55.1 percent of the vote over candidates Kay Williams, 50, of Greene County Ledbetter Tech in Paragould and Carolyn Jones, 43, of Watson Education Center in El Dorado. Those results mean a runoff wont be necessary in the AEAs general elections April 19-27. Pat Jones, an AEA spokesman, said the AEA Elections Committee will have to certify results of the election to Sid Johnson, a Fort Smith teacher who is the current AEA president, on Monday. Ledbetter, who begins serving his two-year term Aug. 1, said he had campaigned extensively for the office. He thanked his campaign chairman, Eleanor Coleman, and congratulated his opponents on an issues-oriented race. Im going to try to build a unified association that can face tough issues that arent getting any easier, Ledbetter said. Those issues include re-examining health insurance bidding and costs, educational reforms, and collective bargaining efforts aimed at improving teachers salaries and working conditions statewide, he said. Ledbetter, who most recently taught English at Henderson Junior High, promised to remain an outspoken advocate sonnel. He is now on a leave of absence to complete his masters degree in history. Ledbetter, now serving on the AEA Executive Committee and the executive committee of the National Council of Urban Education Associations, has taught in Little Rock public schools 11 years. Ledbetter has been president of the AEA local organi-zation, the Little Rock Classroom Teachers Association,' for four years. ' He is best known for haVing led a districtwide teaghers strike that closed schoojs.for six days, and for having Ipd a strike of the districts school bus drivers. AEA presidents are. restricted to serving no more, than two two-year terms as president. for teachers and support per- I WEDNESDAY, JULY 14,1993  3B CTA will consider renegotiating raises\nBY DANNY SHAMEER Democrat-Gazette Education Writer The Little Rock School District will approach the teachers union Monday to discuss a num- ber of matters  including whether teachers are willing to renegotiate part of their 3 percent raises. Estelle Matthis, interim superintendent, said Tuesday she will bring up the matter of the raises next week when she meets with Little Rock Classroom Teachers Association President Eleanor Coleman and CTA Executive Director Frank Martin. The CTA office is closed until Monday. Matthis meeting with the CTA also will deal with other matters involving the upcoming school year. The federal judge who oversees the desegregation case ordered the Little Rock School Board to pare down its $140 million budget and left it up to the district on how to do it. ! The board met in a workshop session last Friday, when it asked the district administration to look at about $3 million in cuts and outlined four other general areas to consider. The board wants to know if the CTA would be willing to con-' : sider giving up part of the 3 per-: i cent teacher raise for the 1993-: 94 academic year.  ? Other areas the board asked the district to look at included\nreducing expenses in services, supplies and equipment\nstaffing efficiency\nhow to phase in teacher training sessions on a new system to track student learning and the impact of possibly closing Ish Elementary School, a decision that would be made by a federal court. U.S. District Judge Susan Webber Wright has given the district until 6 p.m. Aug. 2 to submit a revised 1993-94budget. Hearings on the revised bud-\nget are set for Aug. 12-13.  :How to kill a city (And how to build one) Neighborhood rivalries, petty jealousies, suspicions and turf wars . . . all can combine to kill a community. One was reminded of that ugly possi- iility just this week, when the director of one museum in Little Rock issued a public statement attacking plans to build a new, large-screen theater in connection with another museum in town. A different and better spirit was shown by a couple of other items in the news:  The union of classroom teachers in Little Rock agreed to reconsider  not give up. mind you, just rethink  part of the 3 percent raise the teachers are due next school year. For a group that got no raise this last school year, thats civic spirit. The union has recognized the bind that the Little Rock School District has got itself into. Its willingness to cooperate with the school board shows a spirit of cooperation. It also shows a warranted respect for the federal judge overseeing the district. The judge, Susan Webber Wright, has told the district it shouldnt be budgeting money thats going to run out for expenses that will keep recurring  like teachers salaries. Thats sound, if obvious, advice. The teachers willingness to think about this shows sound judgment  and good will. You can build a lot on those qualities.  ACORN, whose local chapter would much prefer electing all city directors by ward, nevertheless has come out in favor of the proposal on the ballot Tuesday to elect only seven directors by ward, and elect another three city-wide. Thats the plan proposed by the Future-Little Rock project after long sessions and considerable effort. By supporting the plan on Tuesdays ballot. .ACORN is accepting the popular will\na plan to elect all directors by ward was turned down by the voters just last year. ACORN is is now ready to accept half a loaf. Or rather seventenths of a loaf, since seven of the ten directors would be elected by ward, while all are elected at-large now. To quote .ACORNs spokesman, The Future-Little Rock proposal is not perfect, but we do believe it is better tian the system we have now. Such an approach shows a talent for compromise and a capacity for good will. Both qualities will be needed if Little Rock is to thrive in the years ahead. Little Rock can work if all its people work together. Arkansas Democrar Established 1871 Arkansas azeUe Established 1819 Arkansas Democrat (gazette Arkansas' Newspaper Walter E. Hussman, Jr., Publisher Griffin Smith, jr. Ejcecubve Editor Paul Greenberg Editoriai Page Editor Paul R. Smith V.P. / General Manager Lynn Hamilton V.P. / Operations John Mobbs Advertising Director Larry Graham Circulation Director Estel Jeffery, Jr. Director of Promotions 6B  SATURDAY, JULY 24, 1993   Copyright 9 1993 UWe Rock Newsoaoers. Inc.Arkansas Democrat (gazette\n SATURDAY, APRIL 23,1994 Copyright  tittle Rock Newspapers, Inc. LR teachers seek 6 percent raise BY CYNTHIA HOWELL Democrat*Gazette Educatkxi Writer The Little Rock Classroom Teachers Association wants a 6 percent across-the-board raise next year, although The CTAs initial proposal school officials initial contract proposal would freeze salaries. Negotiating teams for the Little Rock School District and the CTA met for the first time Monday and Tuesday to clarify their proposals for changes in the 1994-95 teachers contract. There are about 60 proposals on the table. Frank Martin, CTA executive director, and Brady Gad- berry, district labor relations director, said they would like to complete negotiations for next year by the end of May, Martin and Gadberry are the chief negotiators for their teams, which are scheduled to meet at least two afternoons a week until May 23. If the teams reach a tentative agreement on a contract, it must be submitted to the school board and the CTA membership for final approval. calls for a 6 percent raise for all teachers, plus an incremental raise of about 3 percent for each eligible employee for experience. Longtime employees who have reached the top of the salary schedule are ineligible for the experience increment. The district has proposed reductions of two days in the teacher work year, a reduction in fringe benefits, and a cap on William Broadnax. Besides Martin, the CTA the districts contribution to employees health insurance team includes CTA President coverage. Currently, the state and the district pay the employees insurance, although employees must pay for coverage fortheir spouses and chil- dren. -\n, Also on the table is the experience increment, which is now a $2 million provision in the districts 1994-95 budget j proposal but has been proposed as a cut to balance the budget. Besides Gadberry, Little Rock district negotiating team members include Mark Mil- hoilen, manager of support services\nDr. Richard Hurley, director of human resources\nAssistant Superintendent Lan7 Robertson\nFranklin Incentive School Principal Franklin Davis\nDodd Elementary School Principal Patty McNeil\nand Henderson Junior High School Assistant Principal i 1 I Eleanor Coleman and teachers Katherine Wright Knight Betty Mitchell, Don Williams, Clementine Kelley, Deborah DesJardin and Johnny Gross. The next two sessions are set for 4:30 p.m. Monday and Tuesday. hArkansas Democrat '^(Gazette ' FRIDAY, MAY 13,1994 Rival teacher union to fight job cuts Group says LRSD broke law by not sending letters earlier BY CYNTHIA HOWELL Democrat-Gazette Education Writer A small and little-known , group of teachers affiliated with the American Federation of i Teachers and the AFL-CIO will challenge the Little Rock School Districts decision to eliminate 80 teaching positions next year. The Federation of Metropolitan Teachers, which says it has about 200 members, will send a letter to the school district alleging the district violated the Arkansas Teacher Fair Dismissal Act. Larry Buck, a teacher at Henderson Junior High School, said 'Thursday the district didnt notify all affected teachers by May 1 of its plans to eliminate their jobs or to discontinue the supplemental pay about 400 teachers get for extra duty. Extra duty includes coaching, sponsoring student activities or supervising students before or after school. The Fair Dismissal Act auto- matically renews the contracts of certified teachers and administrators if the employees arent notified of changes in their working conditions by May 1. May 1 was a Sunday. Buck, chairman of the federations legal services committee, said some of the affected teachers got their letters April 30, a Saturday\nothers didnt get them until the next Monday, May 2. So all affected teachers and supplemental pay contracts should be reinstated. Buck said. He said it would be unfair to employees to only reinstate those teachers who received notices May 2. un- Brady Gadberry, director of labor relations for the district, said all the notices were sent by certified mail April 29, in compliance with the law. He said the significant date is the postmark, not the date the teacher got the letter. Buck said he hopes the dispute can be resolved within the district. Asked if the federation would sue the district, he said that decision would have to be made later. The district is cutting positions as a cost-saving measure. The supplemental pay contracts are being reviewed and many will be reinstated once district officials have determined what extra duty positions are needed based on student enrollment for next year and teacher job signments. as- The federation is affiliated not only with the AFL-CIO but with the Arkansas Federation of Teachers, which has about 2,500 members. Buck said. The AFT and its Arkansas affiliates are rivals of the National Education Association and its affiliates, the Arkansas Education Association and the Little Rock Classroom Teachers Association.I Arkansas Democrat W^azcttTI TUESDAY, AUGUST 2, 1994 Copyright  UWe Rock Newspapers, Jnc. LRSD teachers to decide today on new contract\nOK predicted Little Rock School District teachers will vote today on a proposed contract that would give most of them incremental pay raises in the coming school year for experience. The district and the Classroom Teachers Association tentatively agreed to a contract July 18. The contract doesnt include an across-the-board raise for teachers. The Little Rock School Board also must approve the contract. Frank Martin, CTA executive director, said he expects the teachers to approve the contract. The CTA, which has about 2,000 members, will vote at 4:30 p.m. at Hall High School. The tentative contract includes the incremental raise traditionally paid to eligible teachers for their extra year of That increment experience. will be $803 per teacher this year. The districts most senior teachers, those with 20 or more years of experience, are ineligible for the increment and wont get a raise.WEDNESDAY, WTTW Copyngnt O UWe Rock Newspapers, inc. LRSD teachers approve new contract BY CHRIS REINOLDS Democrat-Gazette Start Writer Little Rock School District teachers grudgingly approved a contract for the 1994-95 school year Tuesday that includes a pay increase for teachers with less than 20 years experience, but no across-the-board raise, No ones coming out of here very happy, Frank Martin, executive director of the Classroom Teachers Association, said after the vote. The teachers are not going to continue to subsidize the districts mismanagement. Martin said the approximate-ly 280 teachers in attendance voted for the contract in a voice  vote. Officials said the turnout teacher at Fair Park Elemen-was low  the district employs tary, said she voted against the about 1,700 teaches  because contract because 20-year veter-many teachers were on vacation ans wont get raises and smok-or at work, ing is now banned on school The contract includes the grounds. raise traditionally paid to eligi Ive been smoking since the ble teachers for their extra year of experience. That increment will be $803 per teacher this year. About 400 of the districts most senior teachers, those with 20 or more years of experience\n, are ineligible for the increment. Gail Delozier, a first-grade eighth grade and I wasnt bothering anybody, Delozier said, Its the only filing I can do to get a release, See TEACHERS, Page 7B BALLOT BROWSING  Little Rock School District schoolteachers Gail Delozier (left) and Malinda Martin look over the ballot before the Little Rock Classroom Teach- Arkansas Defnocrat-Gazstta/DavKl Gottschalk ers Associations vote Tuesday night on the 1994-95 teachers contract. Those present approved the pact reluctantly. Teachers  Continued from Page IB Faye Parker, a teacher at the Little Rock Adult Education Center, said she voted for the contract, We didnt lose any benefits, Parker said. District officials and the Classroom Teachers Association tentatively agreed to the contract July 18, but it required approval by the teachers union and the school board. The school board hasnt voted on the contract. The CTA negotiating team made a plea directly to Superintendent Henry Williams for an increase or bonus for the senior teachers. But Williams said granting that request would deplete the districts pool of reserve money. Other terms of the contract include:  No changes to the 1993-94 salaiy schedule for 1994-95. The starting salary for a beginning teacher will remain at $20,074 for the second straight year.  A new contract expiration date of June 30, 1995, The 1993- 94 contract expired Monday.  Creation of a teacher-administrator committee to clarify ambiguous language in the , contract.  An increase in allowances for travel expenses to conform with changes made for the district administrators and school board members.  Clarification of the longterm leave policies for teachers. FRIDAY, AUGUST 26,1994  7B LRSD board tables motion on teacher bonuses BY SHAREESE HAROLD Democrat-Gazette Staff Writer Tenured teachers in the Little Rock School District will have to wait until the next school board meeting to find out if they will receive a salary bonus this school year. The board voted Thursday to table a proposal that would have given at the end of the school year a bonus to teachers at the top of the pay schedule who are not receiving raises this year. Earlier this month, the board ratified teacher contracts for the 1994 1995 school year that did not include salary increases for those who have taught 20 or more years in the district. Board member Linda Pon- dexter, a Little Rock educator for 26 years, said she felt slighted by district administrators who waited until Thursday to explain that her proposal might cause snags in the districts federal desegregation case. Pon- dexter initiated the proposal three weeks ago. But isnt it strange, she said, that a letter from our attorney, dated with todays date, was sent to us explaining the potential legal problems we could have with this motion? Jerry Malone, one of the districts desegregation attorneys, urged the board to consider how the court would view an action to compensate teachers by a method not spelled out in the budget policy handbook it gave the court. Board member Kevin OMalley moved to table the issue until the legal problems are addressed. I can support the philosophy behind this motion, OMalley said, but there are problems with it now. The board voted unanimously to discuss the issue at its next meeting. It also voted to consider Pendexters proposal to use excess state funds the district might receive this year once student enrollment figures are tallied to compensate the teachers. I think this action is necessary to give those who have served this district the longest a shot in the arm, Pondexter said. About 520 teachers and education support staff members could be alTected by the bonus. Pondexlers motion would direct the districts labor negotiators to settle the bonus amount with the teachers union negotiators. In other business, the board rejected on the first reading a revised employee nepotism policy that would have allowed distant relatives of board members and the superintendent to work in the district. It also voted to sell the Eastside Junior High School building at 14th and Scott Streets. Adult education courses now being held at that school will be moved to Forest Heights Junior High School at University Avt enue and Evergreen Street. The 47-year-old structure is in the citys historical district and has not been used as a junior high school since 1964.1 Arkansas Democrat '^(j?azcltg SATURDAY_, APRIL. 22,1995 Special ed teacher to lead association Betty Mitchell, a special education teacher at Pulaski Heights Junior High School, was recently elected president of the Little Rock Classroom Teachers Association. She defeated John Gross, CTA vice president and a teacher at Dunbar Magnet Junior High, for the position. Mitchell will take office Aug. 1, following Eleanor Coleman, an elementary school counselor who was the union president for four years. I want to maintain the strength and unity that the CTA has always had and exhibited, Mitchell said when asked about the goals for her two-year term. Its imperative that we continue to have stability at a time when the Little Rock School District is unstable because of its finances and the discipline problems in the schools.Arkansas Democrat ^(j^azette THURSDAY, JUNE 15, 1995 LR teachers push for mediation BY CYNTHIA HOWELL Dernocrat-Gazette Education Writer Contract negotiators for the Little Rock School District and the Classroom Teachers Association want help  and fast  from the Federal Mediation and Conciliation Service. Brady Gadberry, the districts director of labor relations, and Frank Martin, CTA executive director, agreed Friday to ask the mediation service to select an outside fact-finder who can come into the district this month to recommend terms of a settlement on the 1995-96 teachers contract. Recognizing that difficult bargaining was ahead, negotiators for the two organizations agreed weeks ago to use a fact-finder to help them resolve their differences. The fact-finder from Texas selected by the negotiators couldnt come to Little Rock until mid-August. Martin said Friday the teams cant wait that long. The contract expires the first of August. The two teams of administrators and teachers have been meeting regularly to negotiate changes in the contract language, but theyve set aside some potentially explosive salary issues. Officials in the financially strapped school district have recommended a two-day cut in the teacher work year and an accompanying cut in pay to help avoid a budget deficit next year. The district also has recommended freezing all employee salaries and not distributing the annual 3 percent increment that many teachers traditionally get for their additional year of experience. The CTA opposes those proposals.I Arkansas Democrat (gazette FRIDAY, JUNE3O, 1995 Arbitrator selected to help teachers, LRSD come to terms BY CYNTHIA HOWELL playgrounds and lunchrooms. Democrat-Gazette Educabon Wnter jjjg school district is trying Officials for the Little Rock to cut as much as $9 million in School District and the Classexpenses for the year. The room Teachers Association will school board has already voted turn to a federally appointed to eliminate a deputy superinfact-finder today for help in re- tendents position, close two el- solving disputes in teacher contract negotiations. Francis X. Quinn, an arbitrator based in Tulsa, will listen to arguments by the district and the CTA at a session set for 9 a.m. ementary schools and turn over transportation to a private company. One of the first items to be Most of the contract disputes center on the districts efforts to cut discussed will be an extension of the 1994-95 teachers con- expenses. District tract, Frank Martin, CTA execu- officials have orooosed tive director, said Thursday. proposea The contract for the districts shortening the school more than 1,500 teachers is to expire today, the last day of the districts fiscal year. Most of the contract disputes center on the districts efforts to cut expenses. District officials have proposed shortening year by two days and cutting employee salaries accordingly. The Federal Mediation and the school year by two days and Conciliation Service appointed cutting employee salaries ac- Quinn at the request of Martin cordingly. and Brady Gadberry, the dis- Also, the district has offered tricts director of labor rela- no incremental increases to tions. teachers for their added year of After hearing the presenta- experience. In the past, most tions today, Quinn will have teachers got incremental in- about 20 days to prepare sug- creases of about 3 percent a gestions for resolving the dis- year. Other disagreements con- agreements. The bargaining groups can cern the districts proposals to accept Quinns recommenda- cap health insurance benefits tions, reject them or use them for employees and to require as a basis for further negotia- teachers to handle some supervision of students in such areas tions. Quinn charges $600 a day for outside their classrooms as his arbitration services.Arkansas Democrat TUESDAY, JULY 18, 1995 Copyright O little Rock Newspapers, Inc, Fact finder recommends teacher raise, shorter year BY CYNTHIA HOWELL Denxiciat-Gazette Education Writer nonbinding. The district or the CTA can accept reject or modify A fact finder hired to help re- them. solve contract disputes between Its basically a good recommen- the Little Rock School District and dation, said Brady Gadberry, the the teachers union has recommended that most teachers get a districts director of labor rela- tions. As with any arbitrators decision, there are things you like better than others. Frank Martin, executive direc- pay raise this year for their extra year of teaching experience. But Francis X. Quinn of Tulsa ------------ also recommended a two-day re- tor of the CTA, said he was pieced duction in the 192-day teacher that Quinn recommended continu- work year, which could partly off- ing the incremental pay raise that set any raise. teachers traditionally get for an exRepresentatives of the school tra year of experience. He also district and the Classroom Teach- liked toat Quinn recommended ers Association will meet at 1 p.m. $810 stipends for many of the dis- Wednesday to decide whether tricts most senior teachers. Quinns recommendations can be But the reduction of the fyro used to settle the 1995-96 teacher contract Quinns reconunendations are days will give us some trouble, Martin said, questioning whether it See TEACHERS, Page 5B Teachers schedule and are ineligible for an the shorter year. automatic experience increment A teacher at the top of the Little  Continued from Page 1B would be legal. Quinn also recom- experience but less than hours mended reducing the pay rate for of credit above the bachelors deteachers who choose six periods gree. But Quinn omitted from the pool Rock salary schedule earns $41,051 of teachers eligible for the stipend a year. If Quinns recommendation those who have at least 16 years of was adopted, the teacher would per day instead of five. The district earn an $810 stipend but would lose $427.60 if two work days were cut A beginning teacher who earns has paid teachers 20 percent of those teachers could get paid more their daily rate of pay for the sixth by acquiring more education. The class. -Acting on an administrative district traditionally pays teachers Gadberry said Quinn felt that $20,262 would get the $810 incre- ment but would lose $211.06 if the two days were cut The overriding assumptions in proposal, Quinn dropped that pay not only for their years of expert- this fact-finding were that the 1995- rate to 10 percent. Quinn issued his written recommendations Friday after hearing ence, but also for their extra edu- 96 expenditures would not exceed cational hours. Quinn accepted the districts projected 94-95 expenditures, Quinn wrote. However, we con- presentations from district and proposal that the teacher work eluded, based on the evidence subunion representatives June 30. The year be cut by the two days in No- mitted, that a modest salary in- CTA and the district had asked the vember when teachers attend the Federal Mediation and Concilia- Arkansas Education Association tion Service for a fact finder to rec- convention. In the past, schools ficiency. crease was possible and necessary to maintain morale and teacher ef ommend a resolution to their con- were closed to students on those tract disputes. Most of the disputes days, but teachers were paid to center on money and the districts participate in training programs. efforts to cut up to $9 million in expenses for the coming school year. Martin and Gadberry said Monday they would check with Quinn to The teachers who give their life of service of education to this student generation should be re^ warded on a par with others who render valuable service to the com- Specifically, Quinn recommend- make sure he intended that the two munity, he concluded. ed that the teacher salary schedule AEA days be unpaid days, because remain unchanged but that each teacher move one step on the schedule, making teachers eligible for an $810 increment. Last years teacher contract exit was only implied and not written pired June 30, leaving teachers, in the recommendation. who are supposed to return to work _ The district hopes to save about in mid-AugusL without a contracC- $700,000 this year by reducing the The CTA has a policy against' Teachers who have 17 to 20 work year by two days for teachers years of experience and 24 or more hours of college credit beyond a and three days for administrators. teachers working without a coU'' tract Gadberry said the district is Five employee groups, including continuing to honor the terms of bachelors degree should also get bus drivers, aides, custodians, se- the expired contract in hopes of. an $810 stipend, Quinn said. Those curity officers and food service teachers are at the top of the salary workers would be unaffected by quickly reaching a settlement on a new contractArkansas Democrat (j^azdte  FRIDAY, JULY 28, 1995   LR teachers association will meet to discuss contract negotiations several years ago stating that they programs sponsored by the Arkan- _  ._! __TT, At A MM A/tAn Little Rock Classroom Teach- several years ago stating that they prop-ms sponsoreo oy me mi ,'ScE will report .III not work without a contract sak ^Kat.on l''me''HS's?h.!'oDtrTc^^ \"Tb\"o ncgotlntloB teams met yeuby twdays and the admuiis- i  Mmbe? Eip mcS a 5 WeSwSThurrfa, and will mUe i Sn o\" Aug sTn ttie Pa'rkview resume tnte at.a m. today ld save the district about TrK5CT\"ve ad'tt.\"lsS Sd k Ser this month, a tederally director, said Thursday the meet- teams were optimistic that a r SC'i'wOTkdOTbreteed :5tS'rEe::ua^,'?B^^^^ ssasscSte^ErSiucEts ?uSS-Wd.he SsVeS^ S'E:\ns*'%e7cSeS\"bSith: S\nrrlddS. Lfc im?mh?r?SS u2 proposal as their salarms also experience. The ejsenence inc,^ the meeting to decide what to do if would be reduced by two days, there is no contract settlement by proAug 14 the day that most teachers posal are days in November that are scheduled to return to work schools are traditionally closed so for the 1995-96 school year. that teachers can attend profes- CTA members passed a policy s------ --------------- The two negotiating teams met year by two days and the adminis- Wednesday and Thursday and will trative work year by three days resume talks at 10:30 a.m. today. v. c Jd  \"\" Spokesmen for both the CTA $7(W,0(W. ...................... and the school district said the teams were optimistic that a set- The days affected by the pro- ment amounts to $810 per teacher. District officials said they would accept the fact-finders recommendations, but the CTA balked, say- uiai VC. -__________ W that they were being asked to sional conferences and training fund their own salary increases.L Arkansas Democrat C^azcttc SATURDAY, JULY 29 iqqc\nCoDvnm, o Unio Teachers slate contract session The Little Rock School District and the Classroom Teachers Association will try to reach a contract settlement Thursday morning, just hours before teachers meet at 5 p.m. to decide whether to return to work without contracts. Brady Gadberry, the districts chief negotiator, said after a bargaining session Friday that the negotiating teams appeared close to an agreement and he hopes the talks next week will produce a settlement that the CTA officials can carry to their membership meeting for approval. The teams will present their best and final offers at the Thursday session, Gadberry said. He is optimistic that those proposals will be so similar that a tentative agreement can be reached quickly. The main contention between the teams is a district proposal to discontinue paying teachers for attending two days of professional conferences and training sessions sponsored each November by the Arkansas Education Association. Those two days have been considered work days for teachers in past years, although students do not attend classes on those days. Other unresolved issues include new provisions on enforcing school district discipline policies and an anticipated increase this year in employee insurance premiums.THURSDAY, AUGUST 3, 2000  District, teachers sign tentative pact for coming 3 years LR School Board, union members may OK contract with 7.25% and 5% raises next week BY CYNTHIA HOWELL ARKANSAS DEMOCRAT-GAZETTE Most Little Rock School District teachers can expect total pay increases of 7.25 percent this year and more than 5 percent in each of the next two years, according to a tentative contract signed Wednesday by district and teacher leaders. The three-year agreement must be ratified by the Little Rock School Board and the membership of the Classroom Teachers Associ- perience increment traditionally paid eligible teachers for their additional year of work - *** As a result, a majority of teach- ation to become final. That is expected to happen next week. The teachers association has scheduled a membership meeting at 5 p.m. Tuesday, the day before most teachers start work for the 200001 school year. The meeting to act on the contract proposal will be at the Arkansas Education Association building, 1500 W. 4th St. As of late Wednesday, the School Board had not scheduled a time to consider the newly inked agreement but has a special meeting set for 530,p.m. Tuesday on a different matter. 'P Brady Gadberry, special assis- tant to die superintendent and the ence will be $50,363, compared districts chief negotiator, said the   * three-year proposal is significant because it will contribute to longterm stability and enable the district and community to concen- trate on attaining release from . crease percentages as nonrestrict- federal court monitoring of the districts desegregation efforts. The districts 1998 Revised Desegregation and Education Plan establishes procedures for court release by next June. Wednesdays agreement is actually Uie second three-year pact between the district and the teachers union, Gadberry said. But the first agreement, in 1989-90, was concluded after teachers went for almost an entire school year without a contract. As a result, the first year of the three-year contract was retroactive. According to terms of the agreement, all teachers will get a 4.25 percent pay increase this year and a minimum increase of 2.875 percent in each of the next two years, which amounts to a 10 percent raise over three years. The annual raises are coupled with the average 3.03 percent ex- ers should see a 7.25 percent increase this year and well over 5 , percent in the next two years. ' Teachers who have the most experience in the district and have reached the top of the salary schedule are ineligible for the 3.03 percent increment. But they do get a $1,500 stipend. -*  TTie salary for a beginning teacher with a bachelors degree will go from $23,135 in 1999-2000, to $24,118 this year. The top salary for a teacher with 20 years of experi- with $48,372 last year. .. The contract proposal establishes a minimum salary increase for the second and third years.but also establishes a procedure'to in- ed revenues to the district increase. Gadberry said there was a strong probability that pay increases will exceed the minimum. The contract language takes into accoimt the possibility of teacher raises enacted by state lawmakers when the Arkansas General Assembly convenes in January. Gov. Mike Huckabee and others have See TEACHERS, Page 5B V s 7: i )* iit' Icn, a __ f Arkansas Democrat-Gazette/STEVE KEESEE Teachers  Continued from Page IB indicated that raising teacher salaries will be a priority during the legislative session. The Little Rock contract proposal includes adjustments in the salaiy schedule, beginning with the 2001-02 school year, as a way to raise beginning salaries and entice new teachers to the district. According to the proposal, salaries paid first-time teachers this year will be eliminated for 2001-02. This years salaries for all second-year teachers will become the first-year salaries in 2001-02 and a new second-year salaiy level has been developed. Players in the contract negotiations, which began in earnest last June, were reluctant Wednesday to reveal the terms of the proposal until after it could be presented to the teachers. that she felt very positive about the The teams used Francis X. Quinn, a labor relations specialist from Oklahoma, on both Tuesday and Wednesday to complete tlie negotiations. Quinn has been employed by the district and the association at different times in the past as an arbitrator or fact finder in employee and contract disputes. He was in the Little Rock School District this week for matters not related to the contract negotiations when he was called on : to help, Gadberry said. Other changes in the contract for this year include the creation of a sick bank that will enable em-proposal and deferred other com- pigyees to donate unused sick days ments until after next week^s mem-\n    .......... bership meeting. Gadberry released the pro-posed terms to the Arkansas to be used by other critically ill employees. Signing in Heather Passmore stands beside her children, Emily, 4, Eric, 6, and Andrew, 8, at Little Rock's Carver Magnet Elementary School during registration Wednesday. Registration for all Little Rock School District schools will go on3rom 10 a.m.-7 p.m.today. The two older children will be first- and third-graders. Classes start Tuesday at Mabelvale, Woodruff and Stephens. Other Little Jtock schools start classes Aug. 21. and no experience in 2001-02 will, be $25,803. A second-year teacher newspaper submitted a Freedom of Information Act request for the with the same degree will earn $26300. A third year teacher will earn $26,796. In the final year of the contract, . information. The states Freedom of Information Act states that all records maintained in public offices or by public employees with-the beginning salary will be $26,835, i n t-j ie sco.p e of their emplo-y me,nt the second-year salary will be ure presunied to be public records. $27351, and the third-year teacher And according to the law, any citi-with a bachelors degree will be ^^n of the state may inspect and paid ^,687. The top salary in the coPV public records. district that year will be $53,777. Gadberry said his reluctance to Players in the contract negotia- release the information was in def-tions, which began in earnest last erence to the union. June, were reluctant Wednesday to The negotiating teams met most reveal the terms of the proposal of Tuesday and for a few hours until after it could be presented to Wednesday to find acceptable lan-the teachers. guage on the restructuring of the Clementine Kelley, president of salary schedule beginning with the teachers association, said only 2001-2002. , Arkansas Democrat | FRIDAY, AUGUST 4, 1995 CoDvritfrt O.Uttle Rock Newsoaoera. Inc. Teachers send negotiators back to table with orders to hang tough on contract BY CYNTHIA HOWELL Democrat-Gazette Education Writer Members of the Little Rock Classroom Teachers .Association sent their officers back to the contract negotiating table Thursday with instructions not to accept less than current benefits and salaries. The CT.A and the Little Rock School District are negotiating a 1995-96 teacher contract. The major remaining hurdle is a proposal to shorten the teacher work year by two days, with an accompanying cut in salaries. We wanted to get a feel from the membership about whether there was room for compromise. We got a resounding no.'  Frank .Martin, executive director of the Classroom Teachers Association, said after the closed union meeting. Their message to us was that they have given and given and given, and they dont want to give any more. About 300 teachers attended the late-aftemoon meeting at Parkview Magnet High School. Martin said. About 85 percent of the districts almost 2,000 teachers belong to the CTA. The negotiating teams have another week to reach an agreement. Teachers, now without contracts, are scheduled to begin work Aug. 14. Students return Aug. 21. The CTA has a no-contract, no-work policy. Martin said he expects the district and CTA negotiating teams to meet again soon, possibly as early as today. The teams met briefly Thursday morning, when they were scheduled to present their best and final offers. But the CTA team wanted to delay making an offer until it had a chance to confer with the membership. .As a result, the district team decided to withhold its offer until the CTA was prepared. Brady Gadberry, the districts chief negotiator, refused to disclose the terms of the districts offer. But he did say the offer represented a significant change from the districts previous positions and should move the parties close to a settlement. A federally appointed factfinder called in by the teams last month recommended giving most teachers an incremental pay increase of $810 for their additional year of teaching experience. But he also recommended the two-day work-year reduction, which would cost teachers $220 to $447. While the district was willing to accept the fact-finders recommendations. the CTA balked, saying that teachers would end up paying their own increases through the two-day loss. Those two days are the ones when teachers attend professional conferences and training sessions sponsored by the .Arkansas Education Association in November. Martin said teachers objected Thursday to having district-paid health insurance premiums capped in exchange for keeping the two workdays. The district and the state pay the premiums, but the district recently was told those costs will increase this year by as much as $250,000.Arkansas Democrat [ TUESDAY, AUGUST 8,1995 Copvrifjht  Little Rock Newspepers. Inc. M I 11111 ! rOll % V? i iiriss? Arkansas Democial-GazeMe/STEVE KEESEE administration office at 810 W. Markham St. while district and union officials tried to negotiate a contract. NEGOTIATIONS STALL  Qordon McIntyre, a teacher al Brady Elementary School, makes his position plain as he and about 30 fellow Little Rock teachers picket outside Flap over picketers cancels contract talks BY CYNTHIA HOWELL Democfftt-Gazetle EdtJcaHon Writer Contract negotiations between quiet, the Little Rock School District terview in a room off the lobby. Gadberry asked the teachers to be Though the leachers were weland the Classroom Teachers Asso- c--o-m---e- t-o-- -s-i t in the lobby. Gadberi.y. ciation ended before they got said he asked them to take their started Monday, thanks to a confrontation over picketing teachers them, he said. in the Administration Building signs outside. That upset some of Frank Martin. CTA executive lobbv. director, said the organization s The negotiating teams will try again today to bargain, as dead-line. s for reaching a settlement ap proach. The CTA has a member ....... ship meeting at 4:30 p.m. Thursday against continuing the talks lor at Hall High School to ratify a con- -' tract proposal or decide what to do if there is no contract by next Monday  the day most teachers nothing, Martin .said, arc supposed to report to work..................................... . ....... Mondays dispute centered on the picketing teachers. The CTA liad organized about 30 members to picket outside the Administration Building while contract talks took place on the building's third negotiating team became angry about the lobb.v exchange and asked Gadberry to apologize, but he didn't. The C'l'A team decided the day. District administrators overreacted and made a big to-do about If we were going to storm the Bastille, we would do it wiUi more than 30 people.\" Martin said. Despite the dispute and the escalating tensions between the district and the CTA, Gadberry said Boor. Hot, humid weather forced some of the teachers indoors at 2 p.m. for water and a chance to cool off. he is optimistic that the teams can reach an agreement. Martin said the side issue.s arc distracting to the contract talks, but the teams still have time to reach a settlement. Brady Gadberry, the districts The teams arc to meet again at chief negotiator, said the teachers 9 a.iii. today. Teachers are expcct-were noisy and disturbed a job in- eedd ttoo rreessuumee ppiicckkeettiinngg.. 2B  FRIDAY, AUGUST 9. 1996 LR teachers warn district that strike may be imminent BY CYNTHIA HOWELL Democrat-Gazette Education Wnter With Monday looming as the first day of work for Little Rock teachers, , union leaders warned the school board Thursday that the districts last salary offer in contract negotiations wont be acceptable, This puts us in a very, verj' dangerous position, Frank Martin, executive director of the Classroom Teachers .Association, told board members Thursday night as he reminded them of the unions longstanding 'no-contract, no-work policy. '.The last best offer that was made to us. in the opinion of my team and my executive board, will be insufficient to get ratified by the membership, Martin told the board. Union leaders are planning a membership meeting this weekend to d^ide exactly how to proceed if there is no contract. Most of the dis- tricSs more than 1,500 teachers are supposed to report to work Monday for.-Jhe new school year. Students are5cheduled to start classes a week later, on Aug. 19. want to remind you that we ar^'not advocating or looking for trouble. Martin said. We have had enOiigh crises in the 12 years that I haydbeen here to last us more than a d^ple of lifetimes. ^iven the good will that has beeji built up in this community, it wouid be an absolute disaster to be priced in a position of having to disrupt the services of the schools to the-students. jtertin asked the board to expand the boundaries in which dis- trietiadministrators are working to seftib the 1996-97 contract. He said it appeared that the districts negotiating team had little authority to bargain over salaries and other money issues. But Dr. \"Vic Anderson, the assistant superintendent overseeing day-to-day district operations in the absence of a superintendent, said administrators are acting appropriately, given district finances, 'Our work force is very impor- , tant to us, Anderson added, We ! value them greatly. We want all our j employees to be satisfied with the i best package that we can provide to i them. We also have a responsibility j to leave the district in a financially j sound condition. We can't give away i that we do not have to revenue give.' Teachers initially sought a 5 percent across-the-board raise, plus cent aLTus5-uie-uu\u0026lt;uu loiac, piuo the incremental raises that some  teachers get for each additional year of experience. Representatives of the two negotiating teams declined Thursday to give any specifics about the districts most recent offer. Skip Rutherford, a public relations company executive who serves with Anderson on the team that is supervising the districL assured the board that administrators are working to resolve the contract disputes. No one in this city wants a work stoppage, Rutherford said. But he said that administrators have to be concerned about the districts future. What we do in August of 1996 may force a school board in August 1997 or August 1998 to make some very painful cuts out of very important programs, Rutherford said.IjVrkansas Democrat THURSDAY, AUGUST 10,1995 \"      IV, .CoovTiffht  Little Rock Newspapers, Inc. LR teachers, district talk into night BY CYNTHIA HOWELL ..... .......................-- AND SANDRA COX Democral-Qazette Staff Writers Negotiating teams representing the Little Rock School District and the Classroom Teachers Association continued talks late Wednesday in an effort to reach a contract Without disclosing details, Marwithout disclosing details. Mar- .solved. The teams have worked con tin said the association had offered sisteiitly to find ways around the its last proposal. settlement and avert a union vote today on a possible teacher strike. Frank Martin, CTA executive director, said he thought the two We think we can make a settlement, he said. The C'JA has set a membership meeting for 4:30 p.m. today at Hall High School. Teachers are expected to either vote on a settlement agreement or decide what to do if hurdles, he said. there is no contract by the time they  . . are supposed to report to work groups were \"relatively close to a Monday. settlement. yiie established a no con- Gadberry and Martin refused to reveal the terms of the proposals. The teams have been negotiating for much of the summer. In July, a federally appointed fact finder recommended a settlement that called for the district to pay teachers an extra $810 for their extra year of work experience. He also ei-s attend professional conferences . and training sessions sponsored by' the Arkansas Education Association. The Little Rock School District has about 2,000 teachers. About 85 percent of the teachers belong to the CTA. As of 10:40 p.m., the two groups were still meeting behind closed doors at the district Administration Building. recommended cutting the two workdays  which would mean cuts in salary ranging from .$200 to rp. .. , , MOO -- and reducing the pay for The negotiating teams began teachers who teach six periods a meeting shortly afier 1 p.m............................. Wednesday, prepared to go until midnight or later if needed to reach tract, no-work policy several years ago. But about 9:30 p.m., after the association took a dinner break lasting more than an hour, Frank Martin, CTA executive director, said the group and the district were still beriy, chief negotiator for wrestling over two issues: proposals ....................... to cap employee insurance benefits and eliminate two workdays. a settlement. p.m. Earlier in the day. Brady Gad the school district, said he hoped an agreement would be reached, but stubborn issues remained to be re- day instead of the traditional five. The school district was willing to accept the fact finders report. But the CTA balked, saying that by cutting the two workdays, they were paying for their own incremental raises. The workday.s at issue are the two day-s in November when teach-Arkansas Democrat ((jazeltcJ FRIDAY, AUGUST 11.1995 LR teachers wrap up $810, new contract BY SUSAN ROTH AND CYNTHIA HOWELL Democrat-Gazette Education Writers Little Rock teachers have a new contract, four days before most return to school for the 1995- 96 year. And in a year when the district had to close a $9 million budget gap, they managed to keep all 192 workdays, fully paid health insurance and step increases of $810 for all teachers. The increases are for stepping up a year in employment but normally stop after a number of years. The district had sought to cut the step increases and two days from the teacher contract to save more than $1 million. Administrators also tried to cap the health CTA  Continued from Page 1B Tied the settlement after only 15 minutes behind closed doors. Frank Martin, executive director of the teachers union, said he believed that the teachers quickly approved the pact because they  knew we would make no great progress this year. The teachers initially asked for a 5 percent raise besides the $810 step increment across the board. The school district, meanwhile, proposed no raise.s or increments for the teachers. Instead, the district would have cut tlieir pay by reducing the school year by two days to 190. A federally appointed fact-finder recommended last month that the district pay all teachers the $810 step increase but cut the two work- ' insurance plan: collectively teachers would have had to pay an extra $200,000 for insurance. Union officials saw the settlement as a clear victory. Administrators and school board members viewed it as a mixed bag  some gains but losses on some of big-ticket items. The negotiating teams, which started talks in February, tentatively agreed to the settlement just before midni^t Wednesday, \"rhe new contract is retroactive to July 1. We had a real show of support from the membership, said Betty Mitchell, president of the Classroom Teachers Association, after the teachers voted 'Thursday afternoon. 'The message was clear Dont give an inch. As in any negotiations, both sides got some of what they wanted and left the bargaining table wishing they had gotten a few more things, Brady Gadberry, the districts chief negotiator, told school board members Thursday evening as he asked them to approve the agreement By a 54) vote, the board gave it the nod with little discussion. At the teachers meeting in Hall High School auditoriiun, about 350 members of the 1,47^ member CTA unanimously rati- See CTA, Page 5B days. The district liked the recommendation, but the CTA objected. Union officials were particularly pleased that teachers at the top of the salary schedule would also receive the ^10. Top-level teachers earned $41,061 last year. Tliey received no increment or pay raise last year. The teachers did agree to two cuts proposed by the district. Junior and senior high teachers who teach six classes every day instead of the standard five will receive an extra 10 percent stipend, down from 20 percent. Teachers who lose preparation time because they must travel between schools will receive a maximum of $2,000. They used to receive a stipend amounting to 20 percent of their salaries. Those two items wilt save the district $150,000, officials said. Partly as a result of the settle- ment, the district will draw on a $20 million state desegregation loan to cover its expenses this year. U.S. District Judge Susan Webber Wright, who monitors the districts compliance with its desegregation plan, has objected in the past to using the nonrecurring loan ftinds to finance recurring expenses. IArk,ansas Democrat (gazelle J _ MONDAY, AUGUST 12, 1996 LR teachers ro leaders: Keep talking .^ay raises, insurance .\u0026lt;ey sticking points BY CYNTHIA HOWELL Democrat-Gazerte tducation Wrner Members of the Little Rock Tlassroom Teachers Association .iirected their representatives Sunday to continue negotiating vith school district officials over a 1996-97 teacher contract and re-oort back to the membership Thursday. About 250 teachers marked heir last day of summer vacation Sunday afternoon by attending the closed Classroom Teachers Association meeting in the Hall High School media center. Most of the districts teachers will return to work today to prepare for the See TEACHERS, Page 3B Teachers I 1 A 4 1^ Forest Heights Junior High School teachers Patricia Wilkerson (right center) and Meny Zakrzewski (left center) discuss contract  Continued from Page 1B start of school Aug. 19. We wanted to give teachers the status of negotiations,\" said Frank Martin, Classroom Teachers Association executive director. They directed us to go back to the table to get the best settlement we can get.\" The teachers also instructed union leaders to establish a crisis committee, which is routinely formed when tensions in the contract negotiations escalate. The committee supports the union negotiating team in ways ranging from painting signs for informational picket lines to communicating with the membership and the public. Negotiating teams for the Classroom Teachers Association and Little Rock School District met almost everj day last week, but broke for the weekend despite union objections. The teams are scheduled to resume talks at 4 p.m. today. We'd like to get this wrapped up by Wednesday, Martin said, adding that the union membership will meet again at 4:30 p.m. Thursday at Hall for another update. Thursday is also the day inter- Robert.s starts work, adding a new player to the negotiations process. The Classroom Teachers Association has a standing no-contract. no-work policy, which is generally interpreted to mean teachers won't work when schools open for students if the employees do not have a contract. Little Rock teachers have gone on strike only once, in 1987, but have teetered on the brink in other years. 5 V I TS, 'tSCY im Superintendent Dr. Don ri ArXansas Democral-Gazene/BENJAMIN KRA demands Sunday pnor to a meeting at Hall High School. Abe 250 teachers from the Little Hock School District pardcipated. assume at least a share of the cost of the premiums for individual insurance coverage, a cost the district has heretofore paid entirely. Teachers said Sunday that they feared any raises they get will be offset by the cost of the insurance. Another issue deals with providing stipends for senior teachers. Last year, because no across-the- board raises were paid and the senior teachers were ineligible for an incremental raise, the Martin said the union team is employees got an $810 stipend, prepared to negotiate until the The district team has proposed start of school next Monday to get paying that same stipend, but a settlement. over two years' time, resulting in The 1995-96 teacher contract the teachers getting only about expired June 30. $400 each year. Union and school district offi- Sundays union meeting was cials have declined to reveal de- primarily informational. Howev-tails of their contract talks. But, teachers who attended the meeting Sunday indicated that the district is offering an across-the-board 2 percent raise plus the incremental increases many teachers traditionally get for their additional year of experience. The increment is between 2 and 3 percent, but as many as 400 of the districts most experienced teachers er, teachers expressed frustration over the lack of a contract and the possibility they will not get satisfactory raises. Weve had more superintendents in the last five years than we have had raises, quipped one teacher as she left the meeting. Once the two teams reach a tentative settlement, the agree-ment must be ratified by both the have reached the top of the pay Classroom Teachers Association scale and are ineligible for the incremental increases. One of the sticking points in the negotiations is insurance. membership and the Little Rock School board. The district has more than 1,500 teachers, the majority of teachers said Sunday. The district whom are Classroom Teachers team is proposing that teachers Association members. Arkaniias Democrat FRIDAY. AUGUST 16, 1996  3B LR school year wont be tardy: Teacher contract talks settled BY CYNTHIA HOWELL Democrat-Gazette Education Wnter The Little Rock School District and its teachers averted a possible strike next week by agreeing Thursday to a contract that gives teachers a 2.46 percent across-the-board raise plus an $830 increase for each additional year of experience. Bargaining teams representing the district and the Classroom Teachers Association negotiated all night Wednesday. They arrived at a tentative agreement just minutes before an association membership meeting at 4:30 p.m. Thursday at Hall High. Several hundred members quickly ratified the agreement as did Little Rock School Board members a few minutes later. Some teachers will get salary increases of almost $2,000 under the new contract \"This will get the school year off to an excellent start Betty Mitchell, teacher association president said. \"This is the first time in three years that teachers have gotten a raise.' she added, although most teachers did get step increases for their years of experience during that time. All in all. its a very good package. Brady Gadberry, the districts director of labor relations, told the school board Thursday. Negotiations on the contract began last spring but intensified last week as the beginning of school year drew closer. The teacher association has a standing \"no-con- tract, no-work policy that threatened to keep schools closed Monday. The bargaining teams began negotiating Wednesday at 9:30 a.m. ____ and kept at it until 7:30 a.m. Thurs- payment by the district day, when they declared an impasse. After lunch, administrators asked to meet again. The teams ________ reached a one-year, tentative each employee for the next two agreement about 4:15 p.m. years. If the premium is less than The major points in the talks centered on salary increases and insurance. In the past, the district and the state have paid each employees insurance premium for individual coverage  $155 per person this past year. The districts negotiating team initially wanted the employees to assume part of the insurance costs, but the teacher association insisted on 100 percent As a result of Thursdays agreement, the district will apply S164 a month to insurance coverage for the monthly allowance, the employee can apply the excess to coverage for a spouse or dependents. If any employee has insurance from a source other than the district and does not want to participate in any of the school insurance programs, he will get a $550 stipend. Also as part of the agreement the district and the teachers agreed to drop the districts longterm disability insurance coverage. That will save $533,000. which will be returned to the teacher salary fund. The agreement gives all teachers the 2.46 percent general raise. The beginning salary for a teacher-, with a bachelors degree will ba\u0026gt; S20.760 this year. The districts top.' salary will be $42,870 for teachers with a masters degree plus 36 ad-\nditional college hours and 21' - years of experience. Most teachers also will get $830\nfor each additional year of experi-' ence. Teachers at the top of the salaiy schedule and ineligible for that experience increment will get an $810 stipend! -Also, a teacher may get $100 a semester for perfect attendance,-. Teachers with perfect attendance, all vear are eligible for a total of $300.Arkansas Den: ?crat (gazette  TUESDAY, AUGUST 25,1998  ( LR teachers, district narrow differences over pay raises Union, schools may reach tentative accord today, director says BY CYNTHIA HOWELL ARKANSAS DEMOCRAT-GAZETTE Differences over salary increases for teachers kept representatives of the Little Rock School District and the Classroom Teachers Association at the bargaining table late Monday. Teams negotiating a 1998-99 teacher contract traded proposals for more than nine hours as they worked into the night to reach a tentative agreement before a union membership meeting at 4:30 p.m. today at the Hall High School auditorium. The teams stood 1.5 percentage points apart on a salary agreement, representatives from the teams confirmed shortly before 11 p.m. Neither side would reveal details about the salary offers. Teachers had asked for a 7 per-  cent raise plus the traditional increment of 2.7 percent to 3 percent for their extra year of teaching experience. District officials have expressed a willingness to raise employee salaries but said they cant pay the increases until a federal court rules on the amount of money that the state must reimburse the district for past teacher retirement and health insurance. Classroom Martin, Frank Teachers Association executive director, said the teachers team will present the membership today with a tentative agreement or the districts final offer. The Classroom Teachers Association membership has rarely approved a district offer that lacks the Classroom Teachers Association negotiating teams stamp of approval. If it has no tentative agreement to present today, the teachers team will likely have to recommend alternatives to the membership. But no decisions about alternatives had come Monday. There has been no threat or discussion of a teacher strike. The teams have reached tentative agreements on parts of the contract. Brady Gadberry, the chief negotiator for the district, said the teams had agreed to insurance and stipend provisions. He said he wont describe the agreements until all negotiations are complete. Martin said the teams also had reached a consensus on contract language that would let a teacher appeal to a building or district committee if he thought a principal had failed to enforce student discipline. The Little Rock district the largest in the state, has about 1,800 teachers\nabout 85 percent belong to the association. Besides Martin, the teachers negotiating team includes Classroom Teachers Association President Grainger Led- I better and district teachers. Gadberrys team included the districts financial managers, principals and administrative representatives. 'The Little Rock School Board and the Classroom Teachers Association members must ratify any tentative agreement between the district and the Classroom Teachers Association.' Atluuisas Ueniocrat T^XlifrazclU' |  WEDNESDAY, AUGUS f 26. 1998 Teachers unhappy with raises send negotiators back to table UY CYN IJ llA HOWELL ARJGXNSAS nE.M(X KAI-GAZErii: Dissatisfied with a proposed 4.5 percent raise contingent on a federal court order, member.$ of the Little Ilock Classroom Teachers administrators in the district got raises of 10 percent or more earlier this Slimmer. 'rherc i.s no money in IkhkI and too many *ifs tied to (Ik* promises. teacher IJcmy Ne.sby said after the meeting. Nesby is a contiaclI l\u0026lt; alIlcIs' wiuthT school d*i.'s..t.r.i.c. t g*ocl*ia\u0026gt;tibnegr otefa tmhe. teachers union ne-icpresenlalives. Despite the lack of a contract agreement in what is teachers h,nue KOCK Association told their negotiating team Tuesday to resume 1998-99 The teachers reviewed the sala^ issue during a l'A-hour ......... vn,uu..,enuu5iaiK \"'^filing at Hall High School. They of any kind has been heanl of a asked their negotiating team to re-  port back to them within HI days. About 400 teachers attended district Uie private late-altemoon meeting. Afterward, several teachers grumbled about having to wait for deferred raises fon the second straiglit year when seven top-level third week of work, no serious talk job action, such as a strike. Representatives of the school and the association worked for almost 11 hours Monday to reach a tentative contract agreement before the teachers upion membership meeting. The Teachers \"Continued from Page 1B teams broke up shortly after midnight with tentative agreements on everything except salary and teacher workload. The teams differed by 1.5 percentage points on a salary increase. At the membership meeting, the teachers union team presented teachers with tlie dislricts and the associations respective final salary offers. The district's offer included: .  A total increase of 7.5 percent, consisting of a 4.5 percent across-the- board raise coupled with an increment of 2.7 percent to 3 percent traditionally paid teachers for their additional year of experience. The 4.5 percent increase, however, would be contingent on finalization of a federal court decision expected to reimburse the district for millions of dollars for teacher retirement and health insurance costs that the slate was supposed to pay.  A $1,180 stipend to the districts most experienced teachers who are no longer eligible for the cx- See TEACHERS, Page 3B I? ft if?: 1 V o I Little Rock sclioolleacliers Eleanor Colotnan (left) and Gait Delozier look over contract proposals before a teachers meeting Tuesday to discuss negotiations between the Afknusns Dcmocrnl-G.izclte.CHniS JOHNSON Classroom Teachers Association and the school district. The teachers voted to send their representatives back to the bargaining table. perience increment. would begin Oct. 1. Payment  An increase in the monthly insurance contribution from $164 to $178. beginning Sept. 15. That  would pay the premiums for two of the least expensive health plans available to individual employees.  An increase in the supplemental pay distributed to coaches and other teachers who take on extra duties, such as supervising tracurricular activities. ex- The amount of the increase, beginning this year, would mirror the percentage increase in the base salary. The teachers union salaiy proposal differs only in that it calls for pajinent of the 4.5 percent across-the-board raise plus an additional 1.5 percent if the reini- ' bursement of state fund.s for 1996- 1 98 exceeds $13.4 million. I All totaled, the teachers union . is seeking 6 percent plus the tra- ! ditional increment, as compared to the districts 4.5 percent plus the increment. In addition to tho salary proposals for this year, teachers employed by the district in 1997-98 will eventually get a retroactive 3 percent raise negotiated last school year but deferred until the district won its court case against the stale. As a result, many teachers could eventually see their nav increase by 10.5 percent this year. A beginning teacher would make $22,625 this year, $2,510 more than a beginning teacher last year, under the districts proposal and with the deferred 3 percent from last year. A teacher with 19 years of experience and a masters degree plus 30 hours would make $4,092 more than last year. Frank Marlin, executive director of the teacliers association, said Tuesday that the teachers want a better salary offer and theyre mad because they've had to wait for increases. But, he said, the two negotiating teams agree on the increase in the insurance benefit, the supplemental pay increase and the experience increment. T'he teams also have tentatively agreed on new contract language that makes teachers and principals equally responsible for enforcing student discipline policies. A discipline supcrvisoiy committee will be established with the authority to review disci-plinaiy actions taken by princi-pahs that are inconsistent with a school's discipline plan and district policy. We think weve put an exceptionally good offer on tlie table already, Brady Gadbeny. the districts chief negotiator, said after the association meeting, rm not sure I understand how wo can put anything else on the table, but 1 don't want to foreclose on the possibility of a scUlcincnt agreement. Gadbeny said this years offer of 7.5 percent is belter than last year's package of 725 percent, including the deferred 3 percent, that teachers adopted. Iliis year's benefits offer includes an 8.6 percent increase in the district's contribution to employee Insurance preiniunis, he said. There is no schedule for ob-taining a decision on (he reimbursement of state funds to Uie^ Little Rock district. A federal peals court ruled in July that the-district was entitled to the money. The appeals court directed U.S. District Judge Susan Webber Wright to decide exactly how much money is owed to tlic district. The stale has proposed a formula by which Little Rock would  get about $15 million. At the same time, the stale has asked the 8tb- U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals- to recon.sider its order. :  Arkansas Democrat '^(iS^azcll^  WEDNESDAY, SEPTEMBER 2/1^^ Teachers to get word on LR contract talks The Little Rock Classroom teachers Association has scheduled a membership meeting for L30 p.m. Thursday at the Hall High School auditorium to consider the outcome of negotiations over a 1998-99 teachers' contract. Contract negotiations scheduled for Tuesday afternoon between Little Rock School District administrators and the teachers' association were postponed until this afteimoon because a negotiator was ill. Last week, the two bargaining teams tentatively agreed to virtually all provisions of a contract except salarv\nThe teams were 1.5 percentage points apart in talks over salan- increases. Teachers sought a 6 per- cent increase plus the traditional 3 percent given for an additional year of experience. The district offered 4.5 percent plus the experience increment. Both proposals hinged on the district receiving reimbursement 01 millions of dollars in state funds for 1996-98 shortfalls in the states contribution toward teacher re- tiiement and health insurance re- costs. The association has since changed its position and is asking for a 2 percent across-the-board salary- increase by Oct. 1 and a 4 percent increase later, when the district gets the state funding.I Arkansas Democrat T^djirtzclle ]  THURSDAY, SEPTEMBER 3, 1993 District declares impasse Schools seek mediator to solve salary dispute BY CYNTHIA HOWELL AHKANSAS MCMlMKARiAZI: I! T. Representatives of the Little Rock School District declared an impasse Thursday in salaiy negotiations with the Classroom Teach- Impasse  Continued from Page 1B teacher retirement and health insurance costs for 1996-98. The 0.75 percent brings the possible raise to 5.25 percent. The district asked for the 107 percent reimbursement in federal court last month.  An increase in health insurance contributions, from $164 to $178 a month, and in the stipend paid teachers for extra duty. Coupled with the experience increment and contingent on the court order, the district is offering a total increase of 7.5 percent to 8.25 percent. Gadberiy said that until the impasse is resolved, the district will operate under the terms of last years contract and will proceed , ... , ., ,, with plans to pay teachers the tra- ers Association and said they ditional 2 7 percent to 3 percent in- ,.,i,i ....11 p ii r.  r,...i experience. Teachers at mediator. the top of the salary schedule who Distiict teachers will consider are ineligible for that increment the latest development in tlie 1998- will get a stipend of $980, just as 99 teacher contract tatks at an as- they did last year. sociation membership meeting set The district also will continue for 4:30 p.m. today at Hall High last years payment of $164 a month would call for help from a federal School. Frank Martin, executive director of the association, said district olTicials declared an impasse after the association asked for a 1.5 percent across the-board raise by Oct. 1, plus a 4..5 percent raise when the state reimburses the district for shortfalls in state funding. Coupled with the traditional increase for experience, the association is seeking a total pay increase of about 9 percent. Brady Gadberiy, the districts chief negotiator, said he was disappointed by the impasse. But tlie call for a mediator became necessary when the association team retreated from its earlier salary position to a more entrenched position, he said. Gadberiy said the distr ict cannot give teachers an across-the- board raise until the state reimburses it for 199G-98 teacher retirement and health insurance costs. The district is awaiting a federal court order on how the state debt to the district must be calculated. Also contingent on the court order is a 3 percent salaiy increase for teachers defeired from last year. The teniis of the districts last salaiy oiler included:  The traditional 2.7 percent to 3 percent increase for a teachers additional year of experience.  A $1,130 stipend to teachers at the top of the salaiy schedule who are ineligible for the experience increment.  A 4.5 percent across-the-board raise once the district gets the state funding.  An additional 0.75 percent raise if the district is awarded state funding equal to 107 percent of its See IMPASSE,Page 3B tentatively agreed on virtually every aspect of the contract except salary and a question of whether teachers must be paid extra to teach more than five class periods a day. The teams were 1.5 percentage points apart, with teachers seeking 6 percent and the district offering 4.5 percent. Both proposals hinged on receipt of the court-ordered state funding. The teachers team presented the district's offer to the association membership meeting Aug. 25. About 400 of the district's 1,800 | teachers attended and directed their team to resume negotiations. The existing teacher contract calls for a mediator if the two teams reach an impasse in contract talks. Martin and Gadbeny will write to the Federal Mediation and Conciliation Seivice for a list of potential mediators. Once a mediator is agreed on. that person will attempt to help the teams settle their disputes. If that fails, the contract provides for a federal fact finder, who would conduct a hearing on the disputed issues and within 20 days prepare a insurance premiums. Last week, the negotiating teams issues. I FRIDAY. SEPTEMBER 4, 1998 OB-J I I LR teachers association president resigns BY CYNTHIA HOWELL ARKANSAS UEMOIKAI-UAZE I I E Grainger Ledbetter, a longtime teacher union leader, is resigning as president of the Little Rock Classroom Teachers Association to work for the Labor Education Program at the University of Arkansas at Little Rock He announced his resignation, effective today, in a letter to teachers and repeated it at an association membership meeting Thursday during which teachers received a status report on efforts to negotiate a 1998-99 contract witli the Little Rock School District. Willie Givens, association vice president and head custodian at Central High School, will assume the presidents duties as prescribed in the associations constitution. Givens has been employed by the Little Rock School District for more than 23 years and has been active in the teachers association and Arkansas Education Association since 1983. It unclear Thursday was whether Givens would serve the full year remaining in Ledbetters two-year term. He said he expects to fulfill the term, but there was some talk among teachers about possibly calling a special election to select a teacher. That decision will be up to the associations executive board and its representative council. The Classroom Teachers Association has about 1,800 members, said Frank Martin, its executive director. As many as 800 are educational support personnel, including custodians, aides, bus drivers and security guards. Ledbetter, 41, a Little Rock School District employee since 1^1, will be a labor education specialist at UALR. The 25-year-old labor program is a division of the Institute for Economic Advancement and provides research, educational services and training programs for public and private-sector labor organizations and workers. Training sessions cover topics such as collective bargaining, stewardship, arbitration, labor and employment law and workplace safety. Ledbetter said his resignation was in no way the result of anger or frustration with the organization or the prolonged teacher contract negotiations this summer with school district officials. District officials declared an impasse in those contract talks earlier this week. A fed- oral mediator will be called in to assist the teams in reaching a settlement Im not resigning out of pique and Im not upset Ledbetter said. Its just tliat this is an opportunity that will allow me to spend more time with my family, continue union work, and I get to live in Little Rock. I had hoped to have a (teacher] contract signed, sealed and delivered before I took the new position, but that didnt tuni out to be possible. Ledbetter and his wife, Slieny CuiTy, have three young children and are part of a prominent Little Rock family. Uis father. Cal Ledbetter, a fonner state legislator, is a professor emeritus of political science at UALR. His motlier, Brownie Ledbetter, is a longtime community activist with the Arkansas Fairness Council, a tax reform organization. A junior high teacher, Ledbetter first seived as teacher association president in 1987-91. During his tenure, the teachers and bus drivers went on strike against tlie district. He then served two terms as president of the 17,006-member Arkansas Education Association before returning to the teachers association presidency last year. 1' Lcdbetter attended his last membership meeting Thureday afternoon at Hall Higli. He urged tlie approximately 250 teachers pre-, sent to give tlie mediation a chance i 1 to work. And he told them hebe\nlieved teachers will wind up witli' a.',  better financial settlement thaij the ' 7.5 percent- 8.25 percent raise\ntlie  district is offering. More than half.\nof the raise is contingent upon .the'' state paying the district milliops of\ndollars for 1996-98 shortfalls in I 11 teacher retirement and health in--\nsurancepayments.  . Teachers are seeking 9 percent . J increases for tlie year, including an  incremental raise for an additional : year of teaching experience. , i Ledbetter warned against a \" premature strike, saying that the- two negotiating teams are relatively close to an agreement and liave li long agreed to the use of media-  tion and fact finding should talks stall. t He criticized Superintendent': Les Camine for sending teachei's a J, letter earlier Thursday outlining:\nsome of the issues in the negotia- tions. He called tlie letter a clumsy attempt to influence teachers and said it could derail tlie negotiating . process. I' WEDNESDAY, SEPTEMBER 16.1998  Arkansas Democrat (Bazcttc LR teachers, district select Tulsa mediator BY CYNTHIA HOWELL ARKANSAS DEMOCRAT-GAZETTE Negotiators for the Little Rock School District and the Classroom Teachers Association have tentatively selected a Tulsa-based mediator to assist them in completing negotiations on the 1998-99 teacher contract Frank Martin, executive director of the Classroom Teachers Association, and Brady Gadberry, special as\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_353","title":"Cost per pupil","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":["1991/1996"],"dcterms_description":null,"dc_format":["application/pdf"],"dcterms_identifier":null,"dcterms_language":["eng"],"dcterms_publisher":["Little Rock, Ark. : Butler Center for Arkansas Studies. Central Arkansas Library System"],"dc_relation":null,"dc_right":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC-EDU/1.0/"],"dcterms_is_part_of":["Office of Desegregation Monitoring records (BC.MSS.08.37)","History of Segregation and Integration of Arkansas's Educational System"],"dcterms_subject":["Little Rock (Ark.)--History--20th century","Little Rock School District","Education--Arkansas","Education--Finance","Educational statistics"],"dcterms_title":["Cost per pupil"],"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/353"],"dcterms_temporal":null,"dcterms_rights_holder":null,"dcterms_bibliographic_citation":null,"dlg_local_right":["Available for use in research, teaching, and private study. Any other use requires permission from the Butler Center."],"dcterms_medium":["documents (object genre)"],"dcterms_extent":["273 pages"],"dlg_subject_personal":null,"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":"\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n\n\n\n   \n\n\n\n\n   \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n  \n\nPer Pupil Expenditure by School 1992-1993 Actual School Number School Name Actual 91-92 Expenditure Budget 92-93 Actual 92-93 Enrollment Black % Per Pupil Expenditure Octi 1992 Octi 1992 92-93 Actual 51 47 46 24 33 48 50 31 52 18 20 38 29 37 22 42 30 45 28 32 40 17 44 19 23 25 36 39 34 26 49 41 Wakefield Terry Mablevale Forest Park Meadowcliff Fullbrig ht Otter Creek Cloverdale Watson Brady McDermott Pulaski Heights Western Hills Geyer Springs Baseline Washington Jefferson Woodruff Chicot Dodd Romine Bale Wilson Badgett Fair Park Franklin Rockefeller Rightsell Mitchell Garland Ish Stephens $1,080,201.67 $1,201,389.07 $1,206,535.14 $981,517.03 $1,076,269.43 $1,330,115.51 $851,542.87 $934,944.01 $1,131,452.56 $1,041,098.68 $1,317,443.02 $839,547.56 $877,344.34 $707,928.80 $885,849.79 $2,162,216.22 $1,304,570.79 $649,511.89 $1,486,051.76 $849,570.99 $1,103,629.12 $1,013,230.42 $1,111,388.63 $697,035.45 $883,765.97 $1,575,718.57 $1,637,994.32 $1,162,902.06 $1,208,845.13 $1,289,211.46 $1,011,279.63 $1,163,545.97 $1,019,654.16 $1,160,444.45 $1,147,518.12 $869,050.69 $1,002,625.92 $1,324,804.26 $802,665.92 $923,339.89 $1,112,392.78 $990,898.05 $1,222,557.18 $903,190.50 $821,912.41 $719,345.29 $808,448.36 $2,223,513.84 $1,274,108.81 $639,833.62 $1,455,057.31 $809,999.85 $1,231,028.03 $1,029,374.87 $1,131,098.45 $641,908.51 $872,728.18 $1,801,195.82 $1,707,964.33 $1,284,635.19 $1,280,639.42 $1,317,830.72 $1,160,352.63 $1,274,741.49 $1,041,513.36 $1,175,147.95 $1,127,149.24 $1,009,041.26 $1,051,067.36 $1,317,057.53 $879,354.11 $919,636.35 $1,136,159.29 $1,009,510.96 $1,291,407.88 $969,181.35 $870,983.22 $755,680.79 $915,687.59 $2,242,772.97 $1,340,589.71 $669,017.57 $1,532,460.98 $872,462.96 $1,147,564.73 $1,040,097.06 $1,196,557.69 $724,769.38 $873,357.37 $1,733,066.85 $1,758,362.40 $1,238,081.45 $1,319,496.71 $1,384,930.53 $1,021,284.19 $1,255,977.41 500 541 500 444 440 530 353 366 451 398 509 379 335 282 339 822 483 234 535 304 361 321 355 202 243 411 361 249 264 256 187 209 69 44 56 45 66 42 41 80 74 69 54 52 62 63 77 59 42 63 65 60 77 77 75 76 79 86 69 96 88 91 97 97 $2,083.03 $2,172.18 $2,254.30 $2,272.62 $2,388.79 $2,485.01 $2,491.09 $2,512.67 $2,519.20 $2,536.46 $2,537.15 $2,557.21 $2,599.95 $2,679.72 $2,701.14 $2,728.43 $2,775.55 $2,859.05 $2,864.41 $2,869.94 $3,178.85 $3,240.18 $3,370.59 $3,587.97 $3,594.06 $4,216.71 $4,870.81 $4,972.21 $4,998.09 $5,409.88 $5,461.41 $6,009.46 Note: FTE is from the 1993-1994 budget and does not reflect changes due to enrollment losses Prepared by the Office of Desegregation Monitonng Based Upon Information Supplied by the Little Rock School District UnauditedPer Pupil Expenditure by School 1993-1994 Budget School Number School Name Actual 91-92 Expenditure Budget 92-93 Actual 92-93 Enrollment Black % Per Pupil Budget 93-94 Expenditure Oct 1 1992 Oct 1 1992 92-93 Actual FTE Enrollment Black % Per Pupil Oct 1 1993 Oct 1 1993 93-94 Budgeted 47 24 46 33 51 20 38 50 48 29 30 52 37 18 31 45 35 22 32 28 42 44 23 17 19 40 25 36 34 39 26 41 49 Terry Forest Park Uablevale Meadowcliff Wakefield McDermott Pulaski Heights Otter Creek Fullbright Western Hills Jefferson Watson Geyer Springs Brady Cloverdale Woodruff M.L. King Baseline Dodd Chicot Washington Wilson Fair Park Bale Badgett Romine Franklin Rockefeller Mitchell Rightsell Garland Stephens Ish $1,201,389.07 $981,517.03 $1,206,535.14 $1,076,269.43 $1,080,201.67 $1,317,443.02 $839,547.56 $851,542.87 $1,330,115.51 $877,344.34 $1,304,570.79 $1,131,452.56 $707,928.80 $1,041,098.68 $934,944.01 $649,511.89 $1,160,444.45 $869,050.69 $1,147,518.12 $1,002,625 92 $1,019,654.16 $1,222,557.18 $903,190.50 $802,665.92 $1,324,804.26 $821,912.41 $1,274,108.81 $1,112,392.78 $719,345.29 $990,898.05 $923,339.89 $639,833.62 $885,849.79 $849,570 99 $1,486,051.76 $2,162,216.22 $1,111,388.63 $883,765.97 $1,013,230.42 $697,035.45 $1,103,629.12 $1,575,718.57 $1,637,994.32 $1,208,845.13 $1,162,902.06 $1,289,211.46 $1,163,545.97 $1,011,279.63 $808,448.36 $809,999.85 $1,455,057.31 $2,223,513 84 $1,131,098.45 $872,728.18 $1,029,374 87 $641,908.51 $1,231,028.03 $1,801,195.82 $1,707,964.33 $1,280,639.42 $1,284,635.19 $1,317,830.72 $1,274,741.49 $1,160,352.63 $1,175,147.95 $1,009,041.26 $1,127,149.24 $1,051,067.36 $1,041,513.36 $1,291,407.88 $969,181.35 $879,354.11 $1,317,057.53 $870,983.22 $1,340,589.71 $1,136,159.29 $755,680.79 $1,009,510.96 $919,636.35 $669,017.57 $25,501.31 $915,687.59 $872,462.96 $1,532,460.98 $1,196,557.69 $873,357.37 $1,040,097.06 $724,769.38 $1,147,564.73 $1,733,066.85 $1,758,362.40 $1,319,496.71 $1,238,081.45 $1,384,930.53 $1,255,977.41 $1,021,284.19 541 444 500 440 500 509 379 353 530 335 483 451 282 398 366 234 339 304 535 822 355 243 321 202 361 411 361 264 249 256 209 187 Note: FTE is from the 1993-1994 budget and does not reflect changes due to enrollment losses 44 45 56 66 69 54 52 41 42 62 42 74 63 69 80 63 77 60 65 59 75 79 77 76 77 86 69 88 96 91 97 97 $2,172.18 $1,201,978.91 $2,272.62 $1,034,064.02 $2,254.30 $1,149,041.07 $2,388.79 $1,044,336.95 $2,083.03 $1,101,790.19 $2,537.15 $1,314,256.17 $2,557.21 $1,049,040.22 $2,491,09 $911,092.87 $2,485.01 $1,392,965.59 $2,599.95 $894,632.77 $2,775.55 $1,360,887.52 $2,519.20 $1,195,073.02 $2,679.72 $784,275.30 $2,536.46 $1,090,136.40 $2,512.67 $1,091,282.28 $2,859.05 $687,642.24 0 $1,658,864.16 $2,701.14 $1,031,401.85 $2,869.94 $880,215.87 $2,864.41 $1,617,845 51 $2,728.43 $2,369,300.33 $3,370.59 $1,200,696.51 $3,594.06 $918,162.06 $3,240.18 $1,158,843.33 $3,587.97 $737,551.85 $3,178.85 $1,329,911.36 $4,216.71 $1,636,195.14 $4,870.81 $1,877,365.19 $4,998 09 $1,370,625.10 $4,972.21 $1,278,754.99 $5,409.88 $1,444,866.58 $6,009.46 $1,318,562.68 $5,461.41 $70,411.25 45 37 46 33 41 42 40 30 47 34 45 43 34 43 42 27 4 41 35 64 90 40 32 43 28 45 62 72 50 44 50 46 561 458 488 434 447 509 398 341 520 332 504 442 288 397 386 236 553 343 292 509 721 354 263 303 189 334 345 340 230 189 205 145 43 44 64 71 75 51 48 41 45 65 42 80 72 66 79 62 65 77 65 70 63 74 76 74 70 74 87 71 93 97 88 97 $2,142.56 $2,257.78 $2,354.59 $2,406.31 $2,464.86 $2,582.04 $2,635.78 $2,671.83 $2,678.78 $2,694.68 $2,700.17 $2,703.79 $2,723.18 $2,745.94 $2,827.16 $2,913.74 $2,999.75 $3,007.00 $3,014.44 $3,178.48 $3,286.13 $3,391.80 $3,491.11 $3,824.57 $3,902.39 $3,981.77 $4,742.59 $5,521.66 $5,959.24 $6,765.90 $7,048.13 $9,093.54 Prepared by the Office of Desegregation Monitoring Based Upon Information Supplied by the Little Rock School District UnauditedLRSD 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 Actual Expenditures 1993-1994 2,233,736.11 705 3,168.42 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 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 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 I I I $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ Enrollment based upon Oct. 1, 1992 \u0026amp; 1993 iz i - r Prepared by The Office of Desegregation Monitoring based upon information supplied by the LRSDPupil/Staff Ratios Highest to Lowest Per Pupil Certified Pupil/Staff Budget Enrollment Cost Staff Ratio Elementary Schools Terry Pulaski Hts Jefferson McDermott Forest Park West Hills Wakefield Meadowcliff Geyer Springs Fulbright Cloverd Elem Wilson Brady Mablevale Elem Otter Creek Woodruff Watson Baseline Dodd ML King Bale Romine Chicot Fair Park Washington Badgett Garland Franklin Rockefeller Mitchell Rightsell $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ 1,366,303 1,005,828 1,440,462 1,324,462 1,132,508 927,759 1,180,715 1,146,039 824,349 1,546,660 1,108,921 1,161,523 1,149,456 1,346,068 940,017 736,630 1,204,878 974,549 918,043 1,776,722 1,083,388 1,322,365 1,619,962 925,563 2,262,546 705,781 1,188,474 1,840,649 1,971,799 1,224,438 1,038,383 537 422 506 484 434 320 426 402 278 509 402 366 374 429 332 202 423 284 284 488 307 277 430 242 602 185 237 377 314 243 205 $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ 2,544 2,383 2,847 2,736 2,609 2,899 2,772 2,851 2,965 3,039 2,759 3,174 3,073 3,138 2,831 3,647 2,848 3,432 3,233 3,641 3,529 4,774 3,767 3,825 3,758 3,815 5,015 4,882 6,280 5,039 5,065 31 26 32 31 28 21 28 27 19 35 28 26 27 31 24 15 32 22 22 39 26 24 39 22 55 17 22 36 ,34 27 24 17.32 16.23 15.81 15.61 15.50 15.24 15.21 14.89 14.63 14.54 14.36 14.08 13.85 13.84 13.83 13.47 13.22 12.91 12.91 12.51 11.81 11.54 11.03 11.00 10.95 10.88 10.77 10.47 9.24 9.00 8.54 Elementary Totals 38,395,240 11321 $ 3,392 870 13.01 Junior High Schools Dunbar Forest Hts Southwest Pul Hts Henderson Clov Jr Mablevale $ $ $ $ $ $ $ 2,291,519 2,467,869 2,137,196 2,327,556 3,060,661 1,960,786 2,166,389 732 759 612 781 792 609 491 $ $ $ $ $ $ $ 3,130 3,251 3,492 2,980 3,864 3,220 4,412 52 57 49 63 66 52 52 14.08 13.32 12.49 12.40 12.00 11.71 9.44 Totals $16,411,976 4776 $ 3,436 391 12.21 High Schools Central Hall Fair McClelland $ $ $ $ 5,006,526 3,238,721 3,046,831 3,372,519 1546 889 849 878 $ $ $ $ 3,238 3,643 3,589 3,841 101 71 70 79 15.31 12.52 12.13 11.11 Totals $14,664,597 4162 $ 3,523 321 12.97 Secondary Totals $31,076,573 8938 $ 3,477 712 12.55 Grand Total $69,471,813 20259 $ 3,429 1582 12.81 Prepared by Bob Morgan Unaudited Black Area School Enrollment LRSD Schools u (Q m Maiority Black Area Schoofs Wakefield Clo'rerdale Watson Wilson Badgett Faw Park Chicot M^dowctiff Baseline GeyerSpnngs Bale Mabelvale Woodruff Western Hills Dodd Brady SilsTotai 368 384 353 304 166 211 345 305 247 231 243 318 170 208 190 250 4293 Maiorrty White Ares Schoofs Forest Park Fuibngtit Jefferson McOermott Ferry Otter Creek P'jJeski Heights Sub*Tolal Total For Area Schools 205 255 210 259 239 139 189 1496 5789 4) 5 o n o u CO u (9 (aQ. o o \u0026lt;0O o \u0026amp; O Incentive Schools Frenklin'' Garland'' Mitchell'' RightselF' Rockefeller'' Sub-Total Interdistrict Schoofs Os Romine- Washington- 400 235 250 210 259 1354 A Sub-Total Magnet Schoofs Booker' Carver* Gibbs Williams 289 213 422 924 Sub-Total Special Schools Bementary Sub-Total 316 326 165 264 1071 17 9155 Magnet ** Magnet Program *Incenttve - inlerdistnct 51 64 84 72 44 53 99 93 75 71 85 139 81 106 97 124 1338 222 254 285 213 279 193 207 1653 2991 24 2 7 6 131 170 230 80 210 520 267 290 132 232 921 29 4631 10 5 7 8 0 6 3 2 5 8 19 3 3 1 7 20 112 8 9 6 15 18 7 10 73 185 7 18 0 3 16 44 12 9 24 45 21 13 10 12 56 0 330 429 453 444 384 210 270 452 400 327 310 347 460 254 315 294 394 5743 435 518 501 487 536 339 406 3222 8965 431 255 257 219 406 1568 531 302 656 1489 604 629 307 508 2048 46 14116 85.78% 84 77% 7950% 79.17% 7905% 78.15% 76.33% 76.25% 7554% 74 52% 70.03% 69.13% 86 93% 66.03% 64.63% 63.45% 74.75% 4713% 49.23% 41.92% 53.18% 44.59% 41.00% 46.55% 46 43% 6457% 92.81% 92.16% 97 28% 95.89% 63.79% , 86 35% 54.43% 70.53% 64.33% 52.06% 52.32% 51 83% 53.75% 51 97% 52.29% 36.96% 64.86% 432 492 492 394 257 351 558 465 390 328 401 515 324 328 328 467 6582 399 540 492 517 SIS 351 374 3188 9770 434 298 298 258 469 1757 728 487 836 2051 656 613 353 517 2139 15717 -63 -39 -48 -10 -47 -81 -106 -65 63 -18 -54 -55 -70 -13 -34 73 839 36 22 9 -30 21 -12 32 -64 -903 -3 -43 -41 39 -63 -189 -197 -185 -180 -562 -52 16 -46 -9 107 1761 Distribution Of Black Children By Type of School - Bem \u0026gt; Total 9138 Magnet Schools- 1071 12% Interdlstnct Schools-924 10% Incentive Schools^ 1354 15% Area SchooJs-S789 63% 87% 92% 90% 97% 82% 77% 81% 86% 84% 95% 87% 89% 78% 96% 90% 84% 87% 109% 96% 102% 94% 104% 97% 109% 101% 92% 99% 86% 86% 85% 87% 89% 73% 62% 78% 73% 92% 103% 87% 98% 96% Prepared by Bob Morgan Unaudited Area Schools to Show a Relationship Between Per Pupil Cost, Capacity and Pupil/Staff Ratio January Percent Per Pupil Certified Pupil/Staff Budget Enrollment Capacity of Capacity Cost Staff Ratio ' Area Schools 23 Fair Park 19 Badgett 28 Chicot 45 Woodruff 17 Bale 22 Baseline 32 Dodd 44 Wilson 46 Mablevale Elem 18 Brady 48 Fulbright 37 Geyer Springs 29 West Hills 33 Meadowcliff 52 Watson 30 Jefferson 50 Otter Creek 51 Wakefield 31 Cloverd Elem 20 McDermott 24 Forest Park 47 Terry 38 Pulaski Hts $ $ 925,563 705,781 $ 1,619,962 $ 736,630 $ 1,083,388 $ $ 974,549 918,043 $ 1,161,523 S 1,346,068 $ 1,149,456 S 1,546,660 $ $ 824,349 927,759 $ 1,146,039 $ 1,204,878 $ 1,440,462 $ 940,017 $ 1,180,715 $ 1,108,921 $ 1,324,462 $ 1,132,508 $ 1,366,303 $ 1,005,828 242 185 430 202 307 284 284 366 429 374 509 278 320 402 423 506 332 426 402 484 434 537 422 351 257 558 324 401 390 328 394 515 467 540 328 328 465 492 492 351 492 492 517 399 515 374 69% $ 72% $ 77% $ 62% $ 77% $ 73% $ 87% $ 93% $ 83% $ 80% $ 94% $ 85% $ 98% $ 86% S 86% $ 103% S 95% S 87% $ 82% $ 94% $ 109% $ 104% $ 113% $ 3,825 3,815 3,767 3,647 3,529 3,432 3,233 3,174 3,138 3,073 3,039 2,965 2,899 2,851 2,848 2,847 2,831 2,772 2,759 2,736 2,609 2,544 2,383 22 17 39 15 26 22 22 26 31 27 35 19 21 27 32 32 24 28 28 31 28 31 26 11.00 10.88 11.03 13.47 11.81 12.91 12.91 14.08 13.84 13.85 14.54 14.63 15.24 14.89 13.22 15.81 13.83 15.21 14.36 15.61 15.50 17.32 16.23 Totals Non Area Schools 36 Rockefeller 39 Rightsell 34 Mitchell 26 Garland 25 Franklin 40 Romine 42 Washington 35 ML King $ 25,769,864 8578 9770 88% S 3,004 609 14.09 Totals Grand Totals $ 1,971,799 $ 1,038,383 $ 1,224,438 S 1,188,474 $ 1,840,649 $ 1,322,365 $ 2,262,546 $ 1,776,722 $ 12,625,376 38,395,240 Effect of Adding 46 Students to Baseline 22 Baseline - Before Baseline - After $ $ 974,549 974,549 Effect of Closing Two Schools Totals - Before Fair Park Badgett Totals - After $ 25,769,864 $ $ 925,563 705,781 $ 24,138,520 314 205 243 237 377 277 602 488 469 258 298 298 434 487 836 728 67% $ 79% $ 82% $ 80% $ 87% $ 57% $ 72% $ 67% $ 6,280 5,065 5,039 5,015 4,882 4,774 3,758 3,641 34 24 27 22 36 24 55 39 9.24 8.54 9.00 10.77 10.47 11.54 10.95 12.51 2743 3808 72% $ 4,603 261 10.51 11321 13578 83% $ 3,392 870 13.01 Effect of Increasing Staff By One @$40,000 Wakefield - Before Wakefield - After $ 1,180,715 $ 1,220,715 284 330 390 390 73% $ 85% $ 3,432 2,953 22 22 12.91 15.00 8578 8578 9770 351 257 9162 88% $ \\6//$ ^72/$ 94% $ 3,004 3,825 3,815 2,814 609 22 17 570 14.09 11.00 10.88 15.05 426 426 492 87% $ $ 2,772 2,866 28 29 15.21 14.69 Prepared by Bob Morgan UnauditedArea School Per Student Costs Area School Per Student Costs School BADGETT ________ BALE ______ _____ B^aiNE________________ BRADY CENTRAL CHICOT_____________________ CLOVERDALE ELEMENTARY CLOVERDALE JR HIGH________ DODD_____________________ DUNBAR____________________ FAIR FAIR PARK . FOREST HEIGHTS . . _ FOREST PARK FULBRIGHT_________________ GEYER SPRINGS______________ HALL________________________ HENDERSON_________________ JEFFERSON__________________ MABELVALE ELEMENTARY______ MABEL VALE JR HIGH MCCLELLAN COMMUNITY HIGH MCDERMOTT________________ MEADOWCLIFF______________ OTTER CREEK PULASKI HEIGHTS INT__________ PULASKI HEIGH.TSJR_HIGH Benefits Capital Outlay SOUTHWEST TERRY WAKEFIELD WATSON WESTERN HILLS WILSON WOODRUFF .5 o A T $331.53 _ $0.90__ Materials Supplies Other Objects ___ $330.82 ___ $311.49 $302.14 $307.58 $386.99 $259.14 $313.39 $340.81 $300.01 $343.41 ____ $33118^ ____$317,94 $268.34 ___ $311.84 $285.96 $342.83 $375.60 $282.11 $315.97 $434.35 ___ $362.48. $275.29 $292.36 $282.38 $248.69 J298W $363.36 $266.11 $285.29 J270.77 $292.22 $309.04 $328.51 $1.60 $0.00 $0.00 $6.16 $1.11 $0.00 $1.69 $3.49 116.15 $7.55 $0.00 142.52.1 $43.97 ____$3.38_____ $3.92 J$3.03 $3.85 $5.19 $56.31 $0.99 $1.51 $5.94 J2B.29___ $2.07 $1.24 $2.32 $0.71 $6.45 $5.11 $4.10 $0.87 $0.88 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $51.85 137.33 $57.90 $42.63 $38.63 $52.90 $35.39 $32.73 $51.53 J32.68 $47.40 __ $51.68 $45.66 $34.58 $56.26 $51.31 $53.85 $32.00 .... 170,14 $51.95 $50.80 $56.22 $49.37 $30.95 $32.76 $50.26 $48.08 $47.58 $52.37 $46.35 $54.74 $0.00 $038 $0.00 J0.89 $0.00 ! $0.07 ! J Purchased Servic^ JISO CXY . $2.71 $0.00 $0.00 $0.96 $0.55 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.22 $0.00 JO.26 $0.00 $0.14 $0.00 $0.00 $118.47 $192.37 $112.82 $140.96 $82.95 $89.65 $173.53 $135.74 $162.79 $177.24 -_$l?P.7? . $157.2k $102.19 $119.55 $131.09 $190.40 $171.91 $107.72 _1141.98 $131.98 $215.26^., $128.82 $90.80 $159.34 $122.33 $100.07 $167.12 $89.66 $88.97 $130.61 $131.56 $129.62 $165.72 Salaries $2,668.63 __ $2,613.12 $2,464.07_ $2,464.58 J2,672.65 $3,Q62.99_ $2,051.08 $2,580.18 ___ $2,699.61 $2,583.80 $2,977.79 ___ 12,767,88. _ $2,697.98 $2,187.63 __ $2,552.53 $2,174,63 ___ $3,001.20 $3,238.85 $2,410.27 $2,504.78 $3,685.61 . $3,079,21 $2,278.37 $2,415.64 $2,331.12 $1,962.38 $2,567.56 $3,072.53 $2,134.19 $2,348.42 $2,186.51 ___ $2,423.10 $2,539.79 $2,572.34 tA^-^ Sheetl TOTAL # OF STUDENTS ALL HIGH SCHOOLS 5,068.00 \" IN DOLLARS PERCENT COST PER STUDE % OF TOTAL RECEIVER DEC 1 , 1995 CENTRAL OFFICE ALLOCATION SCHOOL ACTUAL____________ TOTAL BUDGET 1 1 $ 11,352,320.00 17,845,851.00 29,198,171.00 39% 61% 100% $ $ $ 2,240.00 3,521.28 5,761.28 100% Office Of Desegregation hionitoring INSTRUCTION____________________ CENTRAL OFFICE ALLOCATION SCHOOL BUDGET_____________ TOTAL ___________ $ $ $ 737,901.00 12,071,325.00 12,809,226.00 6% 94% 100% $ $ $ 145.60 2,381.87 2,527.47 44% INSTRUCTIONAL SUPPORT________ CENTRAL OFFICE ALLOCATION SCHOOL BUDGET____________ TOTAL ____________ $ $ $ 1,044,413.00 2,012,601.00 3,057,014.00 34% 66% 100% $ $ $ 206.08 397.12 603.20 10% OPERATIONS______________________ CENTRAL OFFICE ALLOCATION SCHOOL BUDGET TOTAL _______________ 1 1 $ 5,551,285.00 2,102,065.00 7,653,350.00 73% 27% 100% $ $ $ 1,095.36 414.77 1,510.13 26% OTHER COMMITMENTS CENTRAL OFFICE ALLOCATIONS SCHOOL BUDGET_____________ TOTAL 1 $ $ 2,769,966.00 2,769,966.00 100% 0% 100% $ $ $ 546.56 546.56 9% J. LEADERSHIP CENTRAL OFFICE ALLOCATIONS SCHOOL BUDGET______________ TOTAL _________________ 1 $ $ 1,248,755.00 1,659,860.00 2,908,615.00 43% 57% 100% $ $ $ 246.40 327.52 573.92 10% Page 1 Ba ESheetl TOTAL # OF STUDENTS CENTRAL OFFICE ALLOCATION SCHOOL ACTUAL TOTAL BUDGET INSTRUCTION___________________ CENTRAL OFFICE ALLOCATION SCHOOL BUDGET____________ TOTAL INSTRUCTIONAL SUPPORT CENTRAL OFFICE ALLOCATION SCHOOL BUDGET____________ TOTAL OPERATIONS CENTRAL OFFICE ALLOCATION SCHOOL BUDGET____________ TOTAL OTHER COMMITMENTS CENTRAL OFFICE ALLOCATIONS SCHOOL BUDGET_____________ TOTAL LEADERSHIP CENTRAL OFFICE ALLOCATIONS SCHOOL BUDGET______________ TOTAL PARKVIEW HIGH SCHOOL 837.00 IN DOLLARS $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ PERCENT COST PER STUDE % OF TOTAL 1,874,880.00 3,404,231.00 5,279,111.00 121,867.00 2,366,077.00 2,487,944.00 172,489.00 332,984.00 505,473.00 916,816.00 460,107.00 1,376,923.00 457,471.00 457,471.00 206,237.00 245,063.00 451,300.00 36% 64% 100% 5% 95% 100% 34% 66% 100% 67% 33% 100% 100% 0% 100% 46% 54% 100% Page 1 $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ 2,240.00 4,067.18 6,307.18 145.60 2,826.85 2,972.45 206.08 397.83 603.91 1,095.36 549.71 1,645.07 546.56 546.56 246.40 292.79 539.19 100% 47% 10% 26% 9% 9%Sheetl MCCLELLAN HIGH SCHOOL TOTAL#OF STUDENTS 884.00 IN DOLLARS PERCENT COST PER STUDE % OF TOTAL CENTRAL OFFICE ALLOCATION SCHOOL ACTUAL TOTAL BUDGET $ $ $ 1,980,160.00 3,348,363.00 5,328,523.00 37% 63% 100% $ $ $ 2,240.00 3,787.74 6,027.74 100% INSTRUCTION CENTRAL OFFICE ALLOCATION SCHOOL BUDGET TOTAL $ $ $ 128,710.00 2,129,169.00 2,257,879.00 6% 94% 100% $ $ $ 145.60 2,408.56 2,554.16 42% INSTRUCTIONAL SUPPORT________ CENTRAL OFFICE ALLOCATION SCHOOL BUDGET____________ TOTAL $ $ $ 182,175.00 503,058.00 685,233.00 27% 73% 100% $ $ $ 206.08 569.07 775.15 13% OPERATIONS CENTRAL OFFICE ALLOCATION SCHOOL BUDGET____________ TOTAL OTHER COMMITMENTS CENTRAL OFFICE ALLOCATIONS SCHOOL BUDGET TOTAL LEADERSHIP CENTRAL OFFICE ALLOCATIONS SCHOOL BUDGET TOTAL 968,298.00 413,802.00 1,382,100.00 483,159.00 483,159.00 217,818.00 302,334.00 520,152.00 70% 30% 100% 100% 0% 100% 42% 58% 100% Page 1 $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ 1,095.36 468.10 1,563.46 546.56 546.56 246.40 342.01 588.41 26% 9% 10%Sheetl HALL HIGH SCHOOL TOTAL # OF STUDENTS 911.00 IN DOLLARS PERCENT COST PER STUDE % OF TOTAL CENTRAL OFFICE ALLOCATION SCHOOL ACTUAL____________ TOTAL BUDGET $ $ $ 2,040,640.00 3,193,915.00 5,234,555.00 39% 61% 100% $ $ $ 2,240.00 3,505.94 5,745.94 100% INSTRUCTION___________________ CENTRAL OFFICE ALLOCATION SCHOOL BUDGET____________ TOTAL $ $ $ 132,642.00 2,160,160.00 2,292,802.00 .6% 94% 100% $ $ $ 145.60 2,371.20 2,516.80 44% INSTRUCTIONAL SUPPORT CENTRAL OFFICE ALLOCATION SCHOOL BUDGET____________ TOTAL $ $ $ 187,739.00 308,865.00 496,604.00 38% 62% 100% $ $ $ 206.08 339.04 545.12 9% OPERATIONS CENTRAL OFFICE ALLOCATION SCHOOL BUDGET____________ TOTAL $ $ $ 997,873.00 377,932.00 1,375,805.00 73% 27% 100% $ $ $ 1,095.36 414.85 1,510.21 26% OTHER COMMITMENTS CENTRAL OFFICE ALLOCATIONS SCHOOL BUDGET_____________ TOTAL $ $ $ 497,916.00 497,916.00 100% 0% 100% $ $ $ 546.56 546.56 10% LEADERSHIP________________________ CENTRAL OFFICE ALLOCATIONS SCHOOL BUDGET______________ TOTAL $ $ $ 244,470.00 346,958.00 591,428.00 41% 59% 100% $ $ $ 268.35 380.85 649.21 11% Page 1Sheetl TOTAL # OF STUDENTS FAIR HIGH SCHOOL 890.00 ' IN DOLLARS PERCENT COST PER STUDE % OF TOTAL CENTRAL OFFICE ALLOCATION SCHOOL ACTUAL____________ TOTAL BUDGET $ $ $ 1,993,600.00 3,001,845.00 4,995,445.00 40% 60% 100% $ $ $ 2,240.00 3,372.86 5,612.86 100% INSTRUCTION CENTRAL OFFICE ALLOCATION SCHOOL BUDGET____________ TOTAL $ $ $ 129,584.00 1,986,456.00 2,116,040.00 6% 94% 100% $ $ $ 145.60 2,231.97 2,377.57 42% INSTRUCTIONAL SUPPORT CENTRAL OFFICE ALLOCATION SCHOOL BUDGET____________ TOTAL $ $ $ 183,411.00 348,495.00 531,906.00 34% 66% 100% $ $ $ 206.08 391.57 597.65 11% OPERATIONS CENTRAL OFFICE ALLOCATION SCHOOL BUDGET____________ TOTAL $ $ $ 974,870.00 310,114.00 1,284,984.00 76% 24% 100% $ $ $ 1,095.36 348.44 1,443.80 26% OTHER COMMITMENTS CENTRAL OFFICE ALLOCATIONS SCHOOL BUDGET_____________ TOTAL $ $ $ 486,438.00 486,438.00 100% 0% 100% $ $ $ 546.56 546.56 10% LEADERSHIP CENTRAL OFFICE ALLOCATIONS SCHOOL BUDGET______________ TOTAL $ $ $ 219,296.00 356,780.00 576,076.00 38% 62% 100% $ $ $ 246.40 400.88 647.28 12% Page 1Sheetl TOTAL # OF STUDENTS CENTRAL OFFICE ALLOCATION SCHOOL ACTUAL____________ TOTAL BUDGET INSTRUCTION CENTRAL OFFICE ALLOCATION SCHOOL BUDGET____________ TOTAL INSTRUCTIONAL SUPPORT CENTRAL OFFICE ALLOCATION SCHOOL BUDGET____________ TOTAL OPERATIONS CENTRAL OFFICE ALLOCATION SCHOOL BUDGET____________ TOTAL OTHER COMMITMENTS CENTRAL OFFICE ALLOCATIONS SCHOOL BUDGET_____________ TOTAL LEADERSHIP________________________ CENTRAL OFFICE ALLOCATIONS SCHOOL BUDGET______________ TOTAL CENTRAL HIGH SCHOOL 1,546.00 IN DOLLARS $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ PERCENT COST PER STUDE % OF TOTAL 3,463,040.00 4,897,497.00 8,360,537.00 225,098.00 3,429,463.00 3,654,561.00 311,674.00 519,199.00 830,873.00 1,693,427.00 540,110.00 2,233,537.00 844,982.00 844,982.00 380,934.00 408,725.00 789,659.00 41% 59% 100% 6% 94% 100% 38% 62% 100% 76% 24% 100% 100% 0% 100% 48% 52% 100% Page 1 $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ 2,240.00 3,167.85 5,407.85 145.60 2,218.28 2,363.88 201.60 335.83 537.43 1,095.36 349.36 1,444.72 546.56 546.56 246.40 264.38 510.78 100% 44% 10% 27% 10% 9%Sheetl ALL JUNIOR HIGH SCHOOLS TOTAL # OF STUDENTS 5,623 IN DOLLARS PERCENT COST PER STUDE % OF TOTAL CENTRAL OFFICE ALLOCATION SCHOOL ACTUAL TOTAL BUDGET 12,595,520 19,446,132 32,041,652 39% 61% 100% $ $ $ 2,240.00 3,458.32 5,698.32 100% INSTRUCTION CENTRAL OFFICE ALLOCATION SCHOOL BUDGET____________ TOTAL _______________ INSTRUCTIONAL SUPPORT________ CENTRAL OFFICE ALLOCATION SCHOOL BUDGET TOTAL ZZZZZZZZZZZ OPERATIONS CENTRAL OFFICE ALLOCATION SCHOOL BUDGET____________ TOTAL OTHER COMMITMENTS______________ CENTRAL OFFICE ALLOCATIONS SCHOOL BUDGET ~ TOTAL LEADERSHIP CENTRAL OFFICE ALLOCATIONS SCHOOL BUDGET ~ TOTAL ______________________ 818,708 13,033,196 13,851,904 1,158,888 2,612,328 3,771,216 6,159,560 2,063,725 8,223,285 3,072,942 3,072,942 1,385,508 1,756,883 3,142,391 6% 94% 100% 31% 69% 100% 75% 25% 100% 100% 0% 100% 44% 56% 100% Page 1 $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ 145.60 2,317.84 2,463.44 206.10 464.58 670.68 1,095.42 367.01 1,462.44 546.50 546.50 246.40 312.45 558.85 43% 12% 26% 10% 10%Sheetl MABELVALE JUNIOR HIGH SCHOOL TOTAL # OF STUDENTS 491.00 IN DOLLARS PERCENT COST PER STUDE % OF TOTAL CENTRAL OFFICE ALLOCATION SCHOOL ACTUAL____________ TOTAL BUDGET $ $ $ 1,099,840.00 2,166,387.00 3,266,227.00 34% 66% 100% $ $ $ 2,240.00 4,412.19 6,652.19 100% INSTRUCTION CENTRAL OFFICE ALLOCATION SCHOOL BUDGET____________ TOTAL $ $ $ 71,490.00 1,449,519.00 1,521,009.00 5% 95% 100% $ $ $ 145.60 2,952.18 3,097.78 47% INSTRUCTIONAL SUPPORT CENTRAL OFFICE ALLOCATION SCHOOL BUDGET____________ TOTAL $ $ $ 101,185.00 317,267.00 418,452.00 24% 76% 100% $ $ $ 206.08 646.16 852.24 13% OPERATIONS CENTRAL OFFICE ALLOCATION SCHOOL BUDGET____________ TOTAL OTHER COMMITMENTS CENTRAL OFFICE ALLOCATIONS SCHOOL BUDGET_____________ TOTAL LEADERSHIP CENTRAL OFFICE ALLOCATIONS SCHOOL BUDGET______________ TOTAL 537,822.00 170,629.00 708,451.00 268,361.00 268,361.00 120,982.00 228,972.00 349,954.00 76% 24% 100% 100% 0% 100% 35% 65% 100% Page 1 $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ A 1,095.36 347.51 1,442.87 546.56 546.56 246.40 466.34 712.74 22% 8% 11%Sheetl TOTAL # OF STUDENTS HENDERSON JUNIOR HIGH SCHOOL 792.00 IN DOLLARS PERCENT COST PER STUDE % OF TOTAL CENTRAL OFFICE ALLOCATION SCHOOL ACTUAL TOTAL BUDGET $ $ $ 1,774,080.00 3,060,661.00 4,834,741.00 37% 63% 100% $ $ $ 2,240.00 3,864.47 6,104.47 100% INSTRUCTION CENTRAL OFFICE ALLOCATION SCHOOL BUDGET TOTAL $ $ $ 115,315.00 2,191,564.00 2,306,879.00 5% 95% 100% 1 1 $ 145.60 2,767.13 2,912.73 48% INSTRUCTIONAL SUPPORT CENTRAL OFFICE ALLOCATION SCHOOL BUDGET____________ TOTAL $ $ $ 163,315.00 273,988.00 437,303.00 37% 63% 100% 1 $ 206.21 345.94 552.15 9% OPERATIONS______________________ CENTRAL OFFICE ALLOCATION SCHOOL BUDGET TOTAL OTHER COMMITMENTS CENTRAL OFFICE ALLOCATIONS SCHOOL BUDGET TOTAL LEADERSHIP CENTRAL OFFICE ALLOCATIONS SCHOOL BUDGET TOTAL 867,525.00 344,752.00 1,212,277.00 432,511.00 437,876.00 195,149.00 250,357.00 445,506.00 72% 28% 100% 99% 0% 100% 44% 56% 100% Page 1 $ $ $ $ $ $ 1 $ $ 1,095.36 435.29 1,530.65 546.10 552.87 246.40 316.11 562.51 25% 9% 9%Sheetl MANN JUNIOR HIGH SCHOOL TOTAL # OF STUDENTS 847.00 IN DOLLARS PERCENT COST PER STUDE % OF TOTAL CENTRAL OFFICE ALLOCATION SCHOOL ACTUAL____________ TOTAL BUDGET $ $ $ 1,897,280.00 3,054,156.00 4,951,436.00 38% 62% 100% $ $ $ 2,240.00 3,605.85 5,845.85 100% INSTRUCTION CENTRAL OFFICE ALLOCATION SCHOOL BUDGET____________ TOTAL $ $ $ 123,323.00 2,122,129.00 2,245,452.00 5% 95% 100% $ $ $ 145.60 2,505.47 2,651.06 45% INSTRUCTIONAL SUPPORT CENTRAL OFFICE ALLOCATION SCHOOL BUDGET____________ TOTAL $ $ $ 174,550.00 404,376.00 578,926.00 30% 70% 100% $ $ $ 206.08 477.42 683.50 12% OPERATIONS CENTRAL OFFICE ALLOCATION SCHOOL BUDGET____________ TOTAL OTHER COMMITMENTS CENTRAL OFFICE ALLOCATIONS SCHOOL BUDGET_____________ TOTAL LEADERSHIP________________________ CENTRAL OFFICE ALLOCATIONS SCHOOL BUDGET______________ TOTAL 927,770.00 292,498.00 1,220,268.00 462,936.00 462,936.00 208,701.00 235,153.00 443,854.00 76% 24% 100% 100% 0% 100% 47% 53% 100% Page 1 $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ 1,095.36 345.33 1,440.69 546.56 546.56 246.40 277.63 524.03 25% 9% 9%Sheetl SOUTHWEST JUNIOR HIGH SCHOOL TOTAL # OF STUDENTS 612.00 IN DOLLARS PERCENT COST PER STUDE % OF TOTAL CENTRAL OFFICE ALLOCATION SCHOOL ACTUAL____________ TOTAL BUDGET $ $ $ 1,370,880.00 2,137,196.00 3,508,076.00 39% 61% 100% $ $ $ 2,240.00 3,492.15 5,732.15 100% INSTRUCTION CENTRAL OFFICE ALLOCATION SCHOOL BUDGET____________ TOTAL $ $ $ 89,107.00 1,442,640.00 1,531,747.00 6% 94% 100% $ $ $ 145.60 2,357.25 2,502.85 44% INSTRUCTIONAL SUPPORT CENTRAL OFFICE ALLOCATION SCHOOL BUDGET____________ TOTAL $ $ $ 126,121.00 258,188.00 384,309.00 33% 67% 100% $ $ $ 206.08 421.88 627.96 11% OPERATIONS______________________ CENTRAL OFFICE ALLOCATION SCHOOL BUDGET____________ TOTAL OTHER COMMITMENTS CENTRAL OFFICE ALLOCATIONS SCHOOL BUDGET_____________ TOTAL LEADERSHIP________________________ CENTRAL OFFICE ALLOCATIONS SCHOOL BUDGET______________ TOTAL 670,360.00 230,628.00 900,988.00 334,495.00 334,495.00 150,797.00 205,740.00 356,537.00 74% 26% 100% 100% 0% 100% 42% 58% 100% Page 1 $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ 1,095.36 376.84 1,472.20 546.56 546.56 246.40 336.18 582.58 26% 10% 10%Sheetl FOREST HEIGHTS JUNIOR HIGH SCHOOL TOTAL # OF STUDENTS 759.00 IN DOLLARS PERCENT COST PER STUDE % OF TOTAL CENTRAL OFFICE ALLOCATION SCHOOL ACTUAL TOTAL BUDGET $ $ $ 1,700,160.00 2,467,868.00 4,168,028.00 41% 59% 100% $ $ $ 2,240.00 3,251.47 5,491.47 100% INSTRUCTION CENTRAL OFFICE ALLOCATION SCHOOL BUDGET_____________ TOTAL $ $ $ 110,510.00 1,620,096.00 1,730,606.00 6% 94% 100% $ $ $ 145.60 2,134.51 2,280.11 42% INSTRUCTIONAL SUPPORT CENTRAL OFFICE ALLOCATION SCHOOL BUDGET____________ TOTAL $ $ $ 156,415.00 346,791.00 503,206.00 31% 69% 100% $ $ $ 206.08 456.91 662.99 12% OPERATIONS CENTRAL OFFICE ALLOCATION SCHOOL BUDGET____________ TOTAL OTHER COMMITMENTS CENTRAL OFFICE ALLOCATIONS SCHOOL BUDGET_____________ TOTAL LEADERSHIP CENTRAL OFFICE ALLOCATIONS SCHOOL BUDGET______________ TOTAL 831,378.00 278,393.00 1,109,771.00 414,839.00 414,839.00 187,018.00 222,588.00 409,606.00 75% 25% 100% 100% 0% 100% 46% 54% 100% Page 1 $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ 1,095.36 366.79 1,462.15 546.56 546.56 246.40 293.26 539.67 27% 10% 10%Sheetl TOTAL # OF STUDENTS CLOVERDALE JUNIOR HIGH SCHOOL 609.00 IN DOLLARS PERCENT COST PER STUDE % OF TOTAL CENTRAL OFFICE ALLOCATION SCHOOL ACTUAL____________ TOTAL BUDGET 1 $ $ 1,364,160.00 1,960,787.00 3,324,947.00 41% 59% 100% $ $ $ 2,240.00 3,219.68 5,459.68 100% INSTRUCTION CENTRAL OFFICE ALLOCATION SCHOOL BUDGET TOTAL 1 $ 88,670.00 1,193,161.00 1,281,831.00 7% 93% 100% 1 S $ 145.60 1,959.21 2,104.81 39% INSTRUCTIONAL SUPPORT CENTRAL OFFICE ALLOCATION SCHOOL BUDGET TOTAL ~ 1 A $ 125,503.00 311,767.00 437,270.00 29% 71% 100% 1 $ 206.08 511.93 718.01 13% OPERATIONS CENTRAL OFFICE ALLOCATION SCHOOL BUDGET TOTAL OTHER COMMITMENTS CENTRAL OFFICE ALLOCATIONS SCHOOL BUDGET TOTAL LEADERSHIP CENTRAL OFFICE ALLOCATIONS SCHOOL BUDGET TOTAL 667,074.00 267,894.00 934,968.00 332,855.00 332,855.00 150,058.00 187,965.00 338,023.00 71% 29% 100% 100% 0% 100% 44% 56% 100% Page 1 1 $ 1 $ 1 $ $ 1,095.36 439.89 1,535.25 546.56 546.56 246.40 308.65 555.05 28% 10% 10%Sheetl PULASKI HEIGHTS JUNIOR HIGH SCHOOL TOTAL # OF STUDENTS 781.00 IN DOLLARS PERCENT COST PER STUDE % OF TOTAL CENTRAL OFFICE ALLOCATION SCHOOL ACTUAL____________ TOTAL BUDGET $ $ $ 1,749,440.00 2,327,557.00 4,076,997.00 43% 57% 100% $ $ $ 2,240.00 2,980.23 5,220.23 100% INSTRUCTION CENTRAL OFFICE ALLOCATION SCHOOL BUDGET TOTAL $ $ $ 113,714.00 1,555,741.00 1,669,455.00 7% 93% 100% $ $ $ 145.60 1,991.99 2,137.59 41% INSTRUCTIONAL SUPPORT CENTRAL OFFICE ALLOCATION SCHOOL BUDGET____________ TOTAL $ $ $ 160,948.00 361,519.00 522,467.00 31% 69% 100% $ $ $ 206.08 462.89 668.97 13% OPERATIONS CENTRAL OFFICE ALLOCATION SCHOOL BUDGET____________ TOTAL OTHER COMMITMENTS CENTRAL OFFICE ALLOCATIONS SCHOOL BUDGET_____________ TOTAL LEADERSHIP CENTRAL OFFICE ALLOCATIONS SCHOOL BUDGET______________ TOTAL 855,476.00 199,892.00 1,055,368.00 426,863.00 426,863.00 192,438.00 210,405.00 402,843.00 81% 19% 100% 100% 0% 100% 48% 52% 100% Page 1 $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ 1,095.36 255.94 1,351.30 546.56 546.56 246.40 269.40 515.80 26% 10% 10%i Sa^.u^ Incentive Schools Cost per Student $600 Cost per Student $500 $400 VI ro o Q $300 $200 $100 $0  Jb 'hy- Incentive Schools 11 IIBs w Ave rag ^Rockefeller Costs for 1993-1995 IFranklin Rightsei Garland Ish IIMitchel Stephens SCHOOL STEPHENS GARLAND RIGHTSELL MITCHELL ROCKEFELLER FRANKLIN ROMINE WASHINGTON KING GIBBS WILLIAMS BOOKER CARVER STEPHENS GARLAND NEW STEPHENS LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT FACT SHEET STEPHENS /GARLAND JUNE 7,1994 BUDGET 1993/94 1,273,272.88 1,408,766.58 1,238,154.99 1,311,925.10 1,764,565.19 1,567,895.14 1,267,911.36 2,278,100.33 1,588,019.16 1,390,795.00 1,800,998.00 2,254,707.00 2,048,463.00 94/95 (1,316,770.51) 95/96 (1,316,770.51) ENROLLMENT 1993/94 145 205 189 230 340 345 334 721 553 299 472 595 595 PER PUPIL 8,781.19 6,872.03 6,551.08 5,704.02 5,189.90 4,544.62 3,796.14 3,159.64 2,871.64 4,651.49 3,815.67 3,789.42 3,442.79 INTEREST/CONST FUNDS PARKIN/RENT/UTILIT GARLAND TO IRC 231,559.00 96/97 (1,316,770.51) (1,350,530.66) 2,100,000.00 231,559.00 (107,872.00) 75,000.00 TOTAL (3,950,311.53) (1,350,530.66) 2,100,000.00 463,118.00 (107,872.00) 75,000.00 TOTAL SAVINGS (1,316,770.51) (1,085,211.51) (368,614.17) (2,770,596.19) CONSTRUCTION FUNDING FUNDS AVAILABLE INCLUDING INTEREST SECOND LIEN BONDS 3,701,624.01 2,615,300.00 7 TOTAL PROJECTED COST TO CONSTRUCT 6,316,924.01 C/W I F\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":"ndd_holsaertfaith_r4x63bc0q","title":"Dear Ms. Klekota, 1991","collection_id":"ndd_holsaertfaith","collection_title":"Faith Holsaert Papers 1950-2011","dcterms_contributor":["Holsaert, Faith"],"dcterms_spatial":["United States, Georgia, Dougherty County, Albany, 31.57851, -84.15574"],"dcterms_creator":null,"dc_date":["1991"],"dcterms_description":null,"dc_format":["application/pdf"],"dcterms_identifier":["fhpst01002","https://repository.duke.edu/iipsrv/iipsrv.fcgi?IIIF=/srv/perkins/repo_deriv/multires_image/d/6/06/d60600e9-446b-41eb-ab85-ab96b21c1464/fhpst01002001.ptif/full/!350,350/0/default.jpg"],"dcterms_language":["eng"],"dcterms_publisher":null,"dc_relation":null,"dc_right":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/UND/1.0/"],"dcterms_is_part_of":["Faith Holsaert papers"],"dcterms_subject":["Holsaert, Faith","Feminism","Civil rights","Social justice","Women political activists","Women's rights"],"dcterms_title":["Dear Ms. Klekota, 1991"],"dcterms_type":["Text"],"dcterms_provenance":["Duke University. Library"],"edm_is_shown_by":null,"edm_is_shown_at":["https://idn.duke.edu/ark:/87924/r4x63bc0q"],"dcterms_temporal":null,"dcterms_rights_holder":null,"dcterms_bibliographic_citation":null,"dlg_local_right":["Duke has not determined the copyright status of this item. Regardless of its status, we have made a good faith determination that online access through the Duke Digital Repository is an acceptable fair use and otherwise permitted under U.S. copyright law. For more information, see our page on copyright and citations: https://library.duke.edu/rubenstein/research/citations-and-permissions."],"dcterms_medium":["documents (object genre)"],"dcterms_extent":null,"dlg_subject_personal":null,"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":null},{"id":"bcas_bcmss0837_364","title":"Desegregation and education plan","collection_id":"bcas_bcmss0837","collection_title":"Office of Desegregation Management","dcterms_contributor":null,"dcterms_spatial":["United States, 39.76, -98.5","United States, Arkansas, 34.75037, -92.50044","United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, 34.76993, -92.3118","United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, Little Rock, 34.74648, -92.28959"],"dcterms_creator":null,"dc_date":["1991/2001"],"dcterms_description":null,"dc_format":["application/pdf"],"dcterms_identifier":null,"dcterms_language":["eng"],"dcterms_publisher":["Little Rock, Ark. : Butler Center for Arkansas Studies. Central Arkansas Library System"],"dc_relation":null,"dc_right":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC-EDU/1.0/"],"dcterms_is_part_of":["Office of Desegregation Monitoring records (BC.MSS.08.37)","History of Segregation and Integration of Arkansas's Educational System"],"dcterms_subject":["Little Rock (Ark.)--History--20th century","Little Rock School District","Education--Arkansas","Educational planning","School integration"],"dcterms_title":["Desegregation and education plan"],"dcterms_type":["Text"],"dcterms_provenance":["Butler Center for Arkansas Studies"],"edm_is_shown_by":null,"edm_is_shown_at":["http://arstudies.contentdm.oclc.org/cdm/ref/collection/bcmss0837/id/364"],"dcterms_temporal":null,"dcterms_rights_holder":null,"dcterms_bibliographic_citation":null,"dlg_local_right":["Available for use in research, teaching, and private study. Any other use requires permission from the Butler Center."],"dcterms_medium":["documents (object genre)"],"dcterms_extent":["88 pages"],"dlg_subject_personal":null,"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":"\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n\n\n\n   \n\n\n\n\n   \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n  \n\n10/07'94 12:46 301 324 2032 L R School Dlst @002 DESEGREGATION REQUIREMENTS ACCEPTABLE RACIAL RANGE 1994-95 AREA ELEMENTARY: 40:00% - 60.00% AREA JUNIOR HIGH SCHOOLS: 51.25% - 76.88% AREA SENIOR HIGH SCHOOLS: 49.11%-73.67% ORIGINAL MAGNETS (BOOKER, CARVER, GIBBS, WILLIAMS, MANN, PARKVIEW) 50% - 55% INTERDISTRICT MAGNET PROGRAMS (CENTRAL \u0026amp; MCCLELLAN) (HENDERSON) (DUNBAR) 49.11%-73.67% 51.25%-76.88% 40% - 60% INTERDISTRICT (KING, WASHINGTON, ROMINE) 40% - 60%*4 Desegregation Requirements/Acceptable Racial Ranges The minimum black percentage for each elementary attendance zone school will be 40 percent. The maximum bhck percentage for each elementary attendance zone school will be 12 1/2 percent above the district-wide black percentage at the organizational level. The minimum black percentage for each secondary (junior and senior high) attendance zone school will be 25 percent below the distnet-wide black percenuge at each organizational level. The maximum black percentage will be 12 1/2 percent above the district-wide black percentage at each organizational level. The rmnirnum and maximum black percenuges constitute the desegregation requirement (or acceptable range) for attendance zone schools. re- The Student Assignment Office and all building principals will be held accountable for complying with desegregation requirements. In addition to complying with desegregation requirements, building principals will be expected to assign students to classes in an equitable manner, to the greatest extent possible. The building principal should not allow resegiegation to occur in classrTOms. School desegregation requirements and equiuble classroom assignments will be monitored by the LRSD Offices of Desegregation. School based biracial advisory committees will also monitor compliance in these areas. 'S The accepuble range is listed below: .5\nElementary Junior High Senior High 40.00% . 73.75% 52.50% . 78.75% 49.25% - 73.75% 1 1ES59S (}\\0/i ^'^fjze^ fc.UArkansas Democrat (l^azcllc |  MONDAY, APRIL S. 2000 Judge gets revised school plan Desegregation report a trial run, and nioie, LR officials say I RvrvNTifiA HOWELL more than that. We wanted to as- One provision of the plan cal'.- - U!K,VNS.VS ni-Mn( i\u0026lt;AT.o,\\zr.rrr. sc.s.s our progress and to show the for hiring a The Little Rock School District lin the ongoing 1982 school .ton e.xpert to -oik with staff on has issued a report aimed at reassuring the public and a federal judge that it is moving swiftly and in good faith to carry out its revised desegregation plan. parties tin the ongoing 1982 school desegregation lawsuit] and the community our good faith conipli- ance. he said. The 1998 plan, which is 24 The 129-page compliance report. sent to Chief U.S. District Judge Susan Webber Wright, describes the School Board policies. academic programs and staff vised plan training efforts now in place in response to the 1998 Revised Desegregation and Education Plan. pages, was negotiated by representatives of the district and the Joshua intervenors, the class of black students in the three Piilas- ki County school districts. The re- cum- bersome plan of more than 200 pages in use since the late 1980s. policies and programs, as well as on desegregation or discrimina- This year's report, available for review at all schools, is a preview of a document the district must submit to Wright next spring. That second report is a prerequisite for the district's anticipated release in June 2001 from federal court supervision. lion problems. The district has retained two experts: Terrence Roberts, now a California psychologist, who was one of the nine black students to integrate Central High in 1957\nand Stephen Ross, an education policy researcher at the University of Memphis. Roberts has advised administrators on policies dealing with achievement, parent involvement, counseling, student discipline and use of conimunitj' volunteers. He developed a two-day workshop for school administrators and others on \"Learning to Cope with Differences. Brady Gadberry. special assistant to the superintendent and co- .........-,rtn author of the report, said this aware of it. failure to report non- compliance also may result in disciplinary action being taken.\" year's voluntary report is a practice run for the 2001 report. But. ' School '  Continued Iron Page 1B The compliance report describes efforts to give school prin- XUMva --------- . cioals and the new (juupus U'ad- The philosophy of the revised plan permeates the activities ol the district, Gadberiy and Associate Superintendent Junious Babbs wrote in the new report's introduction. Employees are fully expected to comply with the Revised Plan. To ensure compliance. it is the responsibility of all ..............- ------- - - , employees to report instances of tional programs and the develop- non-compliance when they arc '''''vsiem.s a Expanding the number of 4- vear-nids in preschool program.-\" from 720 to 880 in 27 schools. a I 'onverting junior higiis to middle .schools for gi'ades six IInmigii eight. Ross has focused on instruc- mcnt of new systems to measure student progi'ess and hold schools accountable for achievement. I See SCHOOL, Page 3B I ership Teams of teachers, parents and community members the au- a Establishing alternative education programs throughout the city, a Adding a double-period of English and language arts instruction in middle and high schools. thority to develop and cany out school improvement plans. The report details the new Col- ....................... _ Icctivc Responsibility Plan, which school stndent.s can get credit sets student achievement goals on ............... \" ' ' which each school will be cvaluat-  Establishing the Hall High University program in which high from the University of Arkansas at ed bv the district and state. The collective responsibility I plan, when completed, will de- I scribe the technical assistance to ' schools that fall short of I heir Little Kock. H Constructing the new Stephens lilemcntaiy School, which open.- in January. Also, the district has initiated\ni scholarship program for pupils who graduate from a Little Rock high school after attending incentive elementary schools. Incentive ' goals and lav out the consequences of failure. Those conse- ' quences could include replacing eiemenu.i.s .............- the .school .s principal and up to .m apt pxl ra funding for pro- ' percent of the staff. oranis to help raise student i The district has enacted puli Ihe nas tnatieu pui- I cies to increase minimum gradua- arams achievement. I tion requirements to 24 units and I to increase the number of slii- , dents, particularly black students, taking pre-Advanced Placement i and Advanced Placement courses. I according to the compliance re- I port.\nAdvanced Placement courses 1 are rigorous courses developed by  the national College Board that I enable students to gel college i credit for Inch school coursework. i The district offers 80 Advanced ' Placement courses. ' The district has loosened admis- 1 Sion requirements to the courses, allowing students who make C's or belter to take the Advanced Placement courses without getting Administrators periodicall.v collect data on 10 factors related to scliool resources. The factors include the pupil-teacher ratio at each school, the percentage ol teachers with master's degrees and nine year.s of experience, the number of new teachers, the number of computers per student, the per onpil expenditure in discre- tionaiv funds and the number of volunteer hours per student, among others. Each factor is assigned a numerical value, and those numbers are totaled for each school and compared to the district mean. Resources can be added to schools that vary from the mean. I teacher recommendations. I The compliance report de- i scribes all components of the dis- . - ...........I lii/iPnPT' j trict's new elemenlaiw literacy iriClS Uc vrujuuuiMi I program and produces details of a ! m 11111 inuIfI1 nt* Mnt.ional Sci* I multiinilliun-dollar National Sci- i ence [oundalioii grant to revise science and mathematics courses and increase student numbers in upi\u0026gt;er-level classes. ?\\s a result. most ninth-graders are now re- quired to take physics. 1 Other initiatives addressed in ' the compliance report inclurle: SATURDAY, JANUARY 27, 2001  LR schools, state near deal on desegregation funds BY CYNTHIA HOWELL ARKANSAS DEMOCRAT-GAZETTE Attorneys for the state and Little Rock School District are moving closer to settlii^ school-funding and desegregation issues that might otherwise cost the state millions and complicate district efforts to end federal court supervision. They are negotiating: The Little Rock districts possible payback of a $20 million state loan.  Continued state funding of Little Rock magnet schools and other desegregation-related programs worth $15 million to $20 million a year to the district.  The impact of a recent tax increase in Little Rock on the states funding obligations to other Arkansas school districts. Little Rock officials would like to settle issues with the state and other parties before the district submits a March 15 desegregation compliance report to a federal judge who oversees the 18-year-old Pulaski County school-desegregation case. If there are no objections to the compliance report or if there is no proof that the district is out of compliance with its desegregation plan, then the district could be declared desegregated at the end of this school year and released from federal court monitoring. The word I get is that the negotiations are in the final stages\nthat we may have a deal that everyone is goiiig to agree to, Sen. Jim Argue, D-Little Rock, said Friday. Argue is one of three state senators who wrote to Gov. Mike Huckabee, Little Rock Superintendent Les Gamine, state Department of Education Director Ray Simon and Attorney General Mark Pryor in September 2000 urging that the state and Little Rock address several issues as a package and avoid relying on the courts to resolve them. Argue served as an informal facilitator at some of the earlier meetings with the leaders from the agencies and the parties in Little Rocks school desegregation lawsuit. On Friday, Argue said he didnt know the specifics of an emerging agreement. I do get the sense that both sides have given some and won some, he said, adding that the talks are now in the hands of Chris Heller, an attorney for the Little Rock district, and 'Rmothy Gauger, an assistant attorney general. Heller said Friday that he and Gauger talk almost daily and, while they do not have a final draft of an agreement to take to their respective clients, he said there exists at least the nucleus of an agreement. The Little Rock lawyer also said the district faces deadlines for resolving the issues and We need to know within a week or two whether there is substantial agreement Michael Teague, a spokesman for the attorney generals office, declined to comment at length about the negotiations but called Hellers comments an accurate assessment of the talks. Simon said Friday that he was See SCHOOLS, Page 3B ' Schools  Continued from Page 1B fhistrated by the slowness of the talks between the attorneys but optimistic about an ultimate agreement. He said he may have something to report to the state Board of Education at its Feb. 12 meeting. Simon said earlier this month that the attorneys had listened to the discussions of others involved in the issues and were now attempting to put into writing a possible agreement that all the interested parties could endorse. Asked specifically whether district and state representatives have agreed to a method for determining whether Little Rock must repay a $20 million loan, Simon said, Were close. A proposal should be forthcoming A 1989 agreement between the state and district said the district would not have to repay the loan if the composite scores earned by Little Rock black students on a nationally standardized test reached 90 percent or better of the average scores earned by white students by Dec. 31,2000. In the intervening years, the district and the state never formally ' agreed on the test to be used. Heller said Friday that the focus of the talks now is not so much on the $20 million as it is on developing a process for determining whether the loan should be for^ven. He said the process described in the 1989 agreement proved to be unworkable. He also said the district and Education Department administrators have desi^ated experts to make recommendations to negotiators about possible measures of student achievement. 'Those advisers are Steven Ross, a faculty member at the University of Memphis and an educational consultant to Little Rock School District\nand Douglas Reeves, a national consultant to the Education Department on several issues. One of the most pressing of the deadlines faced by the negotiators is related to the 5-mill tax increase Little Rock voters approved last year. The district must complete scheduling the sale of bonds that will be financed with the money generated by the tax increase. The longer the district delays selling the bonds and incurring new debt, the greater the districts wealth. That poses a problem for state officials because all school districts are legally guaranteed at least 80 percent of the money that Little Rock raises in state and local money per student, excluding that money that goes to pay debts. Depending on how Little Rock officials structure the debt they incur, the state would have to increase aid by $40 million to $140 million, according to preliminary projections last year. Until the debt structure and states obligation to other districts are known, legislators could be hindered in setting appropriations for state services for the next two fiscal years. Another critical issue in the school talks is whether the state will attempt to stop subsidizing Little Rocks desegregation efforts if the district is declared unitary, or a fully desegregated school system, later this year. The state pays close to $20 million a year for desegregation-related programs, including magnet schools, student transfer programs,\ntransportation, and teacher retirement and health insurance costs. We think it helps everybody if the Little Rock School Board is free to consider unitary status without having to worry about potentially disastrous financial consequences, Heller said. Hopefully we can reach an agreement that will work for everybody./via,Ie4 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, 1999 Dr. Les Carnine, Superintendent Little Rock School District 810 West Markham Street Little Rock, AR 72201 Dear Les: Thank you for your recent letter in response to our August 1999 report on the districts preparations for this school year. Im glad to hear that you and your staff have read the document, and we hope you have found it helpful. I appreciate the additional information that you provided in your letter. As for your speculation that the information may not have been available at the time of our research. I want to emphasize what our reports introduction notes: LRSD staff members who had contributed to our research (either through direct interviews or by providing documentation) received the rough draft of our findings a few days before our report was finalized and published. On August 3 we hand delivered the drafts, invited your staff to offer corrections or updated information, and picked up their written comments on August 5. We reviewed those comments, made appropriate changes in the report, and then filed the completed document less than a week later on August 1 f. This advance review of our findings is designed to assure the accuracy and completeness of our reports. How successfully we reach that goal depends in great part on the accuracy and completeness of the information upon which we base our reports. I believe that we afforded your staff a fair opportunity to help us get this report right. Sincerely yours, Ann S. BrownI IIssm Little Rock School District OFFICE OF THE SUPERINTENDENT RECEIVES) August 24. 1999 AUG 2 1399 OFHCEGr DESEGREGATION MONITORING Ann Brown, Federal Monitor Office of Desegregation and Monitoring 201 E. Markham - Suite 510 Little Rock, AR 72201 Dear Mrs. Brown\nThe August 11 Office of Desegregation Monitoring (ODM) report examining LRSD preparation to implement our Revised Desegregation and Education Plan provides a solid barometer of reference as we enter the 99-2000 school year. In keeping with LRSD plan commitment, careful consideration and review of this report document has been enacted in each division / department area, addressing preparation activities toward compliance and provisions of the revised plan. In an attempt to offer additional information that may not have been available at the time of report findings, the following is provided\n Overall Alternative Education Program seats for 99-2000 are being expanded. Greater student opportunity and success has been recorded for the 98-99 school year, resulting in increased student / school retention and reduced suspension / dropout numbers. Periodic assessment of performance indicators will be monitored toward necessary program adjustment and/or revision.  Revised School Profile Report documentation is being compiled. Expanded information is to include Equitable Allocation of Resource equity indicators and participation data for all extracurricular and AR Activities Association (AAA) sanctioned activities.  The LRSD Talent Development Committee will explore potential funding sources for AVID and/or programs unique to LRSD, especially for the high schools. 810 West Markham Street Little Rock, Arkansas 73301 (501) 834-8000 August 24, 1999 Page 2  A training of trainers model to deliver cultural sensitivity training is being established. Dr. Terrence Roberts will help in reviewing training on prejudice reduction and cultural sensitivity.  Determination for future utilization of Garland and Mitchell Elementary Schools is one of the 99-2000 LRSD priorities.  Approved funding sources for new Stephens Elementary School Construction have been determined (03/11/99 board action).  Long term expenditure projections for Stephens Elementary have been developed.  Possible location, funding and construction of the new west LR school is one of the 99-2000 priorities. An immediate timeline has been established. At present, the school is not anticipated to be built prior to the 2000-2001 school year after LRSD issues a 3/15/01 report indicating the state of compliance with the revised plan.  Personnel Recruitment goals and procedures are being enacted where African- Americans are under represented.  LRSD ombudsman role clarification was provided in the 8/05/99 Principals Nuts and Bolts inservice session. Training activities are being scheduled. After more than a year of intense planning and training, numerous changes and program initiatives have been put in place as we now enter this 99-2000 school year. Recognizing that substantial efforts must be provided toward obligations set forth in the revised plan, it constitutes a work in progress. The Office of Desegregation Monitoring serves as an important resource whose expertise, insight and direction is appreciated and continually sought. Sincerely, Superintendent of Schools Date: August 26, 199 To: All Associates From: Re: .espouse from Carnine Attached is a copy of the letter I received from Les Carnine yesterday. As you will see, he purports to be adding information to our transition report that \"may not have been available at the time of report findings. Please find those points in the letter that were covered (or not) in the section of the report you wrote. Then write me a brief note telling me your comments on Dr. Carnines point. For example, he says that funding sources for Stephens were determined in the March 1999 board meeting\nhe asserts that the role of the ombudsman was clarified in early August. Do you agree? If so, is this what the report said? Who at the LRSD reviewed that finding? Did he or she agree or disagree with the way we handled that information? And so on. 1 may respond to Les to emphasize that his staff read our findings and had the chance to correct or update them. Your comments will help me decide how much to say to him. Thanks very much.Date: September 3, 1999 To: All Associates From: Re: Response from Carnine 2^1^ A week ago Thursday (August 26) I asked for your comments on Carnines letter about our report. If you havent already done so, please get me that information in writing immediately. If your sections of the report werent touched upon by Carnine, just say so in a note to me. Thanks.Memo To: Ann From: Margie Subject: Carnine Response Date: August 27, 1999 Alternative education program seats: Nothing new. We complimented the district for expanding alternative education. No disagreement. Ombudsman role: Notice that training occurred week before report published. The clarification recommended in our report was not for the administrators as much as it was for the ombudsman. 1 have received several visits from the ombudsman and, although 1 didnt quote him, it was clear to me that he was not sure of the exact nature of his role. In fact, his role is still being defined. He informed me last week that the duty of dropout prevention had been added to his job description. He still has not been formally trained for the position. He mentioned that he was going to apply for a training session designed for ombudsmen being held in Canada. I am curious as to what the inservice traiing on 8/5/99 entailed. I dont disagree with with Carnine. 1 figure his comment was more in the nature of an update.Memo To: From: Date: Ann Brown Skip Marshall Septembers, 1999 Subject: Comments on Carnine response to Transition Report I found none of his responses were directed to any portion of the report to which I made a contribution. To: Ann X From: Gem As I read it, Les Carnines letter regarding the recent ODM report did not touch on any of the topics I wrote for the report. Accordingly, I wrote no comments on his letter.To: Ann Brown From: Horace Smith Re: Response to Dr, Carnines Observations Talent Development Committee I am glad that the district is formally researching ways to fund AVID and related approaches to develop minority academic talent. I had pointed out to Bonnie during our early discussions that the district seemed to have few contingencies for funding some very ambitious and expensive programs. Cultural Sensitivity Training I am encouraged by the news that Dr. Terrence Roberts will be helping the district implement a training of trainers model for cultural sensitivity. I talked to Marian Woods regarding the training this week. No one mentioned this model or Dr. Roberts involvement during my research for the report. I talked to both Kathy Lease and Marian Woods while preparing the report. Kathy even reviewed our findings and did not take issue with the fact that we said that the district had not identified a training model for cultural sensitivity. My one continuing concern remains whether the district will: A) Evaluate specific needs regarding cultural sensitivity B) Tailor types of training to those building needs C) Develop and implement a process for evaluating the degree of change in attitude and behavior in the school environment. Personnel Recruitment If the district is preparing recruitment goals and procedures for areas in which African Americans are underrepresented, that is great. Again, the district representative, Dick Hurley, reviewed our report findings and did not indicate that goals and procedures were being enacted.To: Ann From: Melissa Re: Carnine Memo Date: September 7,1999 I highlighted the items that deal with my section on school construction. The information presented in the report was as accurate as I could make it and reflected the facts as given me by Mark Milhollen, Sadie Mitchell, and Doug Eaton. All three of these individuals also reviewed the report prior to filing. Sorry for the delay!I K Little Rock School District OFFICE OF THE SUPERINTENDENT RECEnrss August 24, 1999 AUG 2 S 1359 OFHCfcCr DESEGREGATION MONITORING Ann Brown, Federal Monitor Office of Desegregation and Monitoring 201 E. Markham - Suite 510 Little Rock, AR 72201 Dear Mrs. Brown: The August 11* Office of Desegregation Monitoring (ODM) report examining LRSD preparation to implement our Revised Desegregation and Education Plan provides a solid barometer of reference as we enter the '99-2000 school year. In keeping with LRSD plan commitment, careful consideration and review of this report document has been enacted in each division / department area, addressing preparation activities toward compliance and provisions of the revised plan. In an attempt to offer additional information that may not have been available at the time of report findings, the following is provided:  Overall Alternative Education Program seats for '99-2000 are being expanded. Greater student opportunity and success has been recorded for the 98-99 school year, resulting in increased student / school retention and reduced suspension / dropout numbers. Periodic assessment of performance indicators will be monitored toward necessary program adjustment and/or revision.  Revised School Profile Report documentation is being compiled. Expanded information is to include Equitable Allocation of Resource equity indicators and participation data for all extracurricular and AR Activities Association (AAA) sanctioned activities.  The LRSD Talent Development Committee will explore potential funding sources for AVID and/or programs unique to LRSD, especially for the high schools. 810 West Markham Street Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 (501) 824-2000 August 24, 1999 Page 2  A training of trainers model to deliver cultural sensitivity training is being established. Dr. Terrence Roberts will help in reviewing training on prejudice reduction and cultural sensitivity.  Determination for future utilization of Garland and Mitchell Elementary Schools is one of the 99-2000 LRSD priorities.  Approved funding sources for new Stephens Elementary School Construction have been determined (03/11/99 board action).  Long term expenditure projections for Stephens Elementary have been developed.  Possible location, funding and construction of the new west LR school is one of the 99-2000 priorities. An immediate timeline has been established. At present, the school is not anticipated to be built prior to the 2000-2001 school year after LRSD issues a 3/15/01 report indicating the state of compliance with the revised plan.  Personnel Recruitment goals and procedures are being enacted where African- Americans are under represented.  LRSD ombudsman role clarification was provided in the 8/05/99 Principals Nuts and Bolts inservice session. Training activities are being scheduled. After more than a year of intense planning and training, numerous changes and program initiatives have been put in place as we now enter this 99-2000 school year. Recognizing that substantial efforts must be provided toward obligations set forth in the revised plan, it constitutes a work in progress. The Office of Desegregation Monitoring serves as an important resource whose expertise, insight and direction is appreciated and continually sought. Sincerely, ,e^e V. amine Superintendent of Schools I IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COU^ LED EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSASU.S. DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DIVISION EASTERN DISTRICT ARKANSAS JAN 2 11993 LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT JAMES W By\n,C5 V. LR-C-82-866 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, ET AL DEFENDANTS MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL INTERVENORS KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL INTERVENORS JOINT MOTION OF LRSD AND JOSHUA FOR APPROVAL OF LRSD'S REVISED DESEGREGATION AND EDUCATION PLAN Plaintiff Little Rock School District (\"LRSD) and the Joshua Intervenors (\"Joshua\") for their Joint Motion For Approval of LRSD's Revised Desegregation and Education Plan state: 1. Joshua and LRSD move for tentative and, ultimately, final approval of LRSD's Revised Desegregation and Education Plan dated January 16, 1998 (attached hereto as Exhibit A) On September 26, 1997, LRSD submitted and reguested 2. approval of LRSD's Revised Desegregation and Education Plan dated September 18, 1997. Following submission, LRSD and Joshua engaged in extensive negotiations in an effort to develop a revised plan which both parties could support. Those negotiations resulted in LRSD's Revised Desegregation and Education Plan dated January 16, 1998 (\"January 16 Revised Plan\"). On that date, counsel for Joshua confirmed in writing Joshua's agreement to support approval of the January 16 Revised Plan. See Exhibit B. Also on that same date. the LRSD Board of Directors approved the January 16 Revised Planand authorized submission of the plan to this Court for approval. 3. LRSD and Joshua stipulate to the following facts in support of this Motion\na. that the record in this case supports modification of LRSD's desegregation obligations\nb. that the January 16 Revised Plan is an appropriate modification of LRSD's desegregation obligations\nc. that the January 16 Revised Plan is constitutional, workable and fair to Joshua class members\nand, d. that, if LRSD substantially complies with its obligations under the January 16 Revised Plan during its term and implements in good faith the programs, policies and procedures related thereto, LRSD will be unitary with regard to all aspects of school operations at the end of the 2000-01 school year. 4. As a part of the compromise and settlement between LRSD and Joshua, Joshua has agreed that they will request that the Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit hold their two pending appeals in abeyance, and LRSD and Joshua have further agreed that they will attempt to resolve Joshua's past, present and future claims for attorneys' fees and costs by mediation. 5. LRSD and Joshua recognize that their compromise and settlement cannot be approved by this Court without notice to Joshua class members. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(e). Accordingly, LRSD and Joshua propose dissemination of the notice attached hereto as Exhibit C. This notice shall be published no less than thirty (30) days before a deadline established by this Court for Joshua 2class members to submit written objections to approval of the January 16 Revised Plan. LRSD shall bear all costs associated with publication of the notice. LRSD shall cause the notice to be published in the Arkansas Democrat-Gazette\nshall print and distribute copies of the notice to teachers\nshall prominently post the notice at all school\nand shall cause the notice to be broadcast over the cable television channel controlled by LRSD. 6. In light of their agreement, LRSD and Joshua respectfully request that the hearing currently scheduled for the week of February 2, 1998 be cancelled. 7. LRSD and Joshua have prepared for the Court's consideration an Order (attached hereto) granting the relief sought in this Motion. WHEREFORE, LRSD and Joshua pray that this Court tentatively approve LRSD's Revised Desegregation and Education Plan dated January 16, 1997, pending the filing of objections filed by Joshua class members\nthat the notice attached hereto as Exhibit C be published at least thirty (30) days the deadline for Joshua class members to submit written objections\nthat the hearing currently scheduled for the week of February 2, 1998 be cancelled\nand that this Court finally approve LRSD's Revised Desegregation and Education Plan dated January 16, 1997 upon consideration of any objections filed by Joshua class members. Respectfully submitted. LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT THE JOSHUA INTERVENORS 3FRIDAY, ELDREDGE \u0026amp; CLARK First Commercial Bldg., Suite 2000 400 West Capitol Little Rock, AR 72201-3493 (501) 376-2011 John W. Walker, P.A. 1723 S. Broadway Little Rock, AR 72201 (501) 374-3758 BY: BY: Christopher Walker CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I certify that a copy of the foregoing has been served on the following people hy-depositing a copy of same in the United States mail on this day of January, 1998. 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. 425 W. Capitol, Suite 3400 Little Rock, AR 72201-3472 Mr. Richard Roache11 Mr. Travis Creed Roachell Law Firm First Federal Plaza 401 West Capitol, Suite 504 Little Rock, AR 72201 Ms. Ann Brown HAND DELIVERED Desegregation Monitor Heritage West Bldg., Suite 510 201 East Markham Street Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Timothy G. Gauger Office of the Attorney General 323 Center Street 200 Tower Building Little Rock, AR 72201 Kristopher' Heller^ 4 Little Rock.School District Revised Desegregation and Education Plan January 16, 1998 SECTION 1: Prior Agreements and Orders. 1.1. This Revised Desegregation and Education Plan (\"Revised Plan\") shall supersede and extinguish all prior agreements and orders in Little Rock School District v. Pulaski County Special School District, U.S.D.C. No. LR-C-82-866, and all consolidated cases related to the desegregation of the Little Rock School District (\"LRSD\") with the following exceptions: a. The Pulaski County School Desegregation Case Settlement Agreement as revised on September 28, 1989 (\"Settlement Agreement\")\nb. The Magnet School Stipulation dated February 27, 1987\nc. Order dated September 3, 1986, pertaining to the Magnet Review Committee\nd. The M-to-M Stipulation dated August 26, 1986\nand, e. Orders of the district court and court of appeals interpreting or enforcing sections a. through d. above to the extent not inconsistent with this Revised Plan. 1.2. This Revised Plan does not affect the Joshua Intervenors' (\"Joshua's\") right to enforce the Interdistrict Desegregation Plan with respect to the Pulaski County Special School District (\"PCSSD\") and the North Little'Rock School District (\"NLRSD\"). 1.3. Although this Revised Plan supersedes the Interdistrict Desegregation Plan, LRSD expects to continue to work cooperatively with PCSSD and NLRSD in the areas addressed by the Interdistrict Desegregation Plan. * EXHIBIT I f i ASECTION 2: Obligations. 2.1. LRSD shall in good faith exercise its best efforts to comply with the Constitution, to remedy the effects of past discrimination by LRSD against African-American students, to ensure that no person is discriminated against on the basis of race, color or ethnicity in the operation of LRSD and to provide an equal educational opportunity for all students attending LRSD schools. 2.1.1. LRSD shall retain a desegregation and/or education expert approved by Joshua to work with LRSD in the development of the programs. policies and procedures to be implemented in accordance with this Revised Plan and to assist LRSD in devising remedies to problems concerning desegregation or racial discrimination which adversely affect African-American students. 2.2. LRSD shall implement programs, policies and/or procedures designed to ensure that LRSD hires, assigns, utilizes and promotes qualified African-Americans in a fair and equitable manner. 2.2.1. LRSD shall maintain in place its current policies and practices relating to the recruitment of African- American teachers which have allowed LRSD to maintain a teaching staff which is approximately one-third African-American. 2.2.2. LRSD shall implement programs, policies and/or procedures designed to increase the number of African-American media specialists, guidance counselors, early childhood teachers. primary grade teachers and secondary core subject teachers. including offering incentives for African-American teachers to obtain certification in these areas, and to assign those teachers 2to the LRSD schools where the greatest disparity exists. 2.2.3. LRSD shall establish a uniform salary schedule for all positions within the district, including a salary range for director and associate and assistant superintendent positions, designed to provide compensation in accordance with qualifications and to minimize complaints of favoritism. 2.2.4. LRSD shall implement policy for the centralized hiring and assignment of teachers by the LRSD Human Resources Department designed to provide an equitable distribution of teaching resources and to prevent nepotism and preselection by a school principal. 2.2.5. LRSD shall implement a policy of promotion from within which shall include procedures for notifying district employees of open positions. 2.2.6. LRSD shall implement programs, policies and/or procedures designed to ensure that the teaching staffs at all LRSD schools are substantially similar with regard to average years of experience and percentage of teachers with advanced degrees. 2.2.7. LRSD shall negotiate with the Knight a Intervenors to establish a procedure for the mandatory reassignment of teachers as necessary to enable LRSD to meet its obligations under Section 2.2 of this Revised Plan. 2.3. LRSD shall implement student assignment programs, policies and/or procedures designed to ensure the desegregation of LRSD schools to the extent practicable, including but not limited to Sections 3 and 4 of this Revised Plan. 32.4. LRSD Shall implement programs, policies and/or procedures designed to ensure that there is no racial discrimination in the referral and placement of students in special education or in other programs designed to meet special student needs. 2.5. LRSD shall implement programs, policies and/or procedures designed to ensure that there is no racial discrimination with regard to student discipline. 2.5.1. LRSD shall strictly adhere to the policies set forth in the Student Rights and Responsibilities Handbook to ensure that all students are disciplined in a fair and equitable manner. 2.5.2. LRSD shall purge students' discipline records after the fifth grade and eighth grade of all offenses, except weapons offenses, arson and robbery, unless LRSD finds that to do so would not be in the best interest of the student. 2.5.3. LRSD shall establish the position of \"ombudsman the job description for which shall include the following responsibilities\nensuring that students are aware of their rights pursuant to the Student Rights and Responsibilities Handbook, acting as an advocate on behalf of students involved in the discipline process, investigating parent and student complaints of race-based mistreatment and attempting to achieve equitable solutions. 2.5.4. LRSD shall work with students and their parents to develop behavior modification plans for students who exhibit frequent misbehavior. 2.6. LRSD shall implement programs, policies and/or procedures 4designed to promote participation and to ensure that there are no barriers to participation by qualified African-Americans in extracurricular activities, advanced placement courses, honors and enriched courses and the gifted and talented program. 2.6.1. LRSD shall implement a training program during each of the next three years designed to assist teachers and counselors in identifying and encouraging African-American students to participate in honors and enriched courses and advanced placement courses. 2.6.2. LRSD shall implement programs to assist African-American students in being successful in honors and enriched courses and advanced placement courses. 2.6.3. LRSD shall provide transportation to students othei-wise eligible for transportation to school to allow those students to participate in after-school activities required for participation in an extra-curricular activity. 2.7. LRSD shall implement programs, policies and/or procedures designed to improve and remediate the academic achievement of African-American students, including but not limited to Section 5 of this Revised Plan. 2.7.1. LRSD shall assess the academic programs implemented pursuant to Section 2.7 after each year in order to determine the effectiveness of the academic programs in improving African-American achievement. If this assessment reveals that a program has not and likely will not improve African-American achievement. LRSD shall take appropriate action in the form of 5either modifying how the program is implemented or replacing the program. 2.8. LRSD shall implement programs, policies and/or procedures during each of the next three years designed to promote and encourage parental and community involvement and support in the operation of LRSD and the education of LRSD students. 2.9. LRSD shall implement programs, policies and/or procedures designed to ensure an equitable allocation and/or reallocation of financial, technological and educational resources to LRSD schools. 2.9.1. Within 60 days of the district court's approval of this Revised Plan, LRSD, after consultation with Joshua, will develop a process or standard for assessing the equitable allocation of resources. 2.9.2. Within 180 days of the district court's approval of this Revised Plan, LRSD shall report by school the results of its assessment of the allocation of resources. 2.10. LRSD shall implement programs. policies and/or procedures designed to ensure the equitable maintenance and repair of LRSD facilities. 2.11. LRSD shall implement programs. policies and/or procedures designed to ensure that there is no racial discrimination in the provision of guidance and counseling services. 2.11.1. Guidance counselors shall work with students in an effort to provide for more equity in academic honors, awards and scholarships. 62.12. LRSD shall implement programs, policies and/or procedures designed to ensure that every LRSD school provides its students a learning environment free from discrimination. 2.12.1. LRSD shall implement a training program through the United States Department of Justice, the Arkansas Department of Education and/or the National Conference of Christians and Jews in prejudice reduction and cultural sensitivity. 2.12.2. LRSD shall implement policies and procedures for investigating the cause of racial disparities in programs and activities and developing remedies where appropriate. 2.13. LRSD shall implement programs. policies and/or procedures designed to ensure LRSD substantially complies with its obligations under this Revised Plan. 2.13.1 The LRSD Superintendent shall be responsible for overseeing LRSD's compliance with this Revised Plan in accordance Section 6. SECTION 3: Student Assignments. 3.1. Attendance Zones. While this Revised Plan does not require any sudden or drastic changes to the present student assignment plan, LRSD attendance zones may be redrawn in accordance with the following guidelines: 3.1.1. Satellite Zones. LRSD may eliminate satellite attendance zones where the impact would be to reduce the transportation burden on African-American students\n3.1.2. Neighborhood Schools. LRSD may assign students 71 to area elementary and junior high/middle schools based on reasonably compact and contiguous attendance zones drawn to create as many truly desegregated schools (from forty to sixty percent African-American) as reasonably practicable, except as provided in Section 3.1.3. below\n3.1.3. Exception. Where a reasonably compact and contiguous attendance zone will result in an elementary or junior high/middle school which is less than twenty percent African- American, LRSD reserves the right to either: a. Draw the attendance zone at less than full capacity to allow for the voluntary transfer of African-American students to the school\nor. b. Create one or more satellite attendance zones of primarily African-American students. If a satellite zone is established, it shall be of sufficient size to ensure substantial desegregation at the school. 3.1.4. High Schools. LRSD may assign students to area high schools based on attendance zones drawn so that the percentage of African-American students at each high school shall be within plus or minus twenty percentage points from the percentage of African-American students for high schools as a whole and so that. to the extent practicable, a stable and predictable feeder pattern exists from LRSD junior high/middle schools. 3.2. Voluntary Student Transfers. Beginning in the 1998-99 The term \"area\" school shall refer to all LRSD schools except magnet and interdistrict schools. 8school year. the following guidelines shall govern voluntary student transfers: 3.2.1. Desegregation Transfers. LRSD students whose race constitutes more than sixty percent of the population at their attendance zone school shall be permitted to transfer to another LRSD area school where their race constitutes less than forty percent of the student population subject to capacity limitations and to reasonable requirements established by LRSD\n3.2.2. Racial Isolation Transfer. LRSD students whose attendance zone school is a one race, African-American school (\u0026gt; 90% African-American) shall be permitted to transfer to a racially balanced LRSD area school subject to capacity limitations and to reasonable requirements established by LRSD\n3.2.3. Magnet Program Transfer. LRSD students shall be permitted to transfer to another LRSD area school to participate in a designated magnet program subject to capacity limitations and to reasonable requirements established by LRSD\n3.2.4. Employees'.Child Transfer. LRSD employees who reside in the LRSD may choose to have their children attend the same school or campus at which the employee works, not including Magnet schools, subject to capacity limitations and to reasonable requirements established by LRSD\n3.2.5. Special Circumstances Transfer. Upon a showing of a special need arising out of circumstances unique to a particular student, a student may, at the sole discretion of LRSD, be permitted to transfer to another LRSD area school subject to 9capacity limitations and to reasonable requirements established by LRSD\n3.2.6. Outside Students. LRSD schools shall be open to students who reside outside Pulaski County where the acceptance of the transfer will improve the racial balance of the district as a whole and of the school to which the student wishes to transfer and subject to capacity limitations and to reasonable requirements established by LRSD\nand. 3.2.7. Transportation. LRSD shall provide transportation to voluntary transfer students with the following exceptions: (i) employee's child transfers, (ii) special circumstances transfers, and (iii) transfers from outside Pulaski County. 3.3. Magnet Programs. The designated magnet programs at this time are the following: a. Rockefeller Early Childhood Program\nb. King High Intensity Learning Program\nc. Washington Math Science Program\nd. Henderson Health Science Program\ne. Dunbar International Studies/Gifted and Talented Program\nCentral International Studies Program\nand, g- McClellan Business Communications Program. LRSD reserves the right to modify or discontinue designated magnet programs and to establish new magnet programs. However, LRSD f. agrees that during the term of this Revised Plan it will not modify 10or discontinue a magnet program which is successful. 3.4. Middle Schools. LRSD shall establish a schedule for the orderly conversion of some or'all of its junior high schools to middle schools for grades six, seven and eight and move the ninth grade to high schools. As a part of this conversion, LRSD reserves the right to change the grade level structure at all of its schools, including magnet schools. 3.5. Ninth Grade Schools. Because of limited capacity at LRSD's high schools, it may be necessary as a part of the orderly conversion to middle schools to establish two or more schools composed entirely of ninth grade students. If so, LRSD shall assign students to the ninth grade schools based on attendance zones drawn so that the percentage of African-American students at each ninth grade school shall be within plus or minus ten percentage points from the district-wide percentage of ninth grade African-American students. 3.6. School Construction/Closina. LRSD shall construct at least two new area elementary schools, one in west Little Rock and one at the site of the former Stephens school. When the new Stephens Elementary opens, it shall receive additional funding as described in Section 5.5 of this Revised Plan and one or more of the schools identified in Section 5.5 will be closed. When a school identified in Section 5.5 is closed, LRSD shall exercise its best efforts to find a community or educational use for the property. Otherwise, LRSD shall not seek to close schools in African-American neighborhoods solely because of age or poor 11maintenance except when a new school will be located in the same general area. 3.7. Modification Standard. During the term of this Revised Plan, LRSD shall not recommend modifications to attendance zones or grade level stiructure or the construction, enlargement or closing of a schools other than as provided in this Revised Plan unless: 3.7.1. Such action would further the goal of desegregating LRSD or eliminating the vestiges of past discrimination to the extent practicable\nor. 3.7.2. The LRSD Board of Directors determines (i) that the educational benefits expected from such action substantially outweigh any adverse effects of the proposed action, (ii) that no practical alternative to the proposed action exists which will accomplish the educational objective, and (iii) that to the extent practicable measures will be initiated to counteract any adverse affects of the proposed action. 3.8. Racial Balance. This Revised Plan recognizes that the desegregation of LRSD to the extent practicable does not require that every LRSD school be racially balanced. Accordingly, nothing in this Revised Plan shall be construed as requiring a particular racial balance at every LRSD school or as obligating LRSD to recruit students to obtain a particular racial balance in every LRSD school. 3.9. Housing. LRSD and Joshua commit to promote housing desegregation within segregated neighborhoods. They pledge to work together and use their best efforts to dismantle, and prevent 12recurrence of, segregated housing patterns. SECTION 4: Interdistrict Schools. LRSD and PCSSD shall operate Interdistrict Schools in accordance with the following: 4.1. PCSSD Interdistrict Schools. PCSSD shall operate Baker Elementary, Clinton Elementary, Crystal Hill Elementary and any new elementary school constructed in Chenal Valley as Interdistrict Schools\n4.2. LRSD Interdistrict Schools. LRSD shall operate King Elementary, Romine Elementary and Washington Elementary as Interdistrict Schools\n4.3. Racial Composition. The ideal composition at interdistrict schools shall be as close to 50%-50% as possible with the majority race of the host district remaining the majority race at the Interdistrict School\n4.4. Reserved Seats. PCSSD shall reserve at least 200 seats at Clinton Elementary and up to 399 seats at Crystal Hill Elementary for interdistrict transfer students from LRSD\n4.5. Recruitment. LRSD and PCSSD agree to implement programs at Interdistrict Schools designed to attract interdistrict transfers and to work cooperatively to recruit interdistrict transfers to Interdistrict Schools\n4.6. Outside Students. Interdistrict Schools shall be open to students who reside outside Pulaski County where the acceptance of the transfer will assist the Interdistrict School in achieving its ideal racial composition\nand, 13^.1. Transportation. Transportation shall be provided by the home district for interdistrict transfers from Pulaski County to Interdistrict Schools. SECTION 5: Student Achievement. 5.1. Early Childhood Education. LRSD shall implement an early childhood education program which shall include a HIPPY program and a four year-old program with no less than 720 seats. LRSD contemplates that the four year- old classes will remain at their present sites or in the same general location. 5.2. seajii33aZldacaua3e Ats. 5.2.1. Primary Grades. LRSD shall implement at least the following strategies to improve the academic achievement of students in kindergarten through the third grade: a. Establish as a goal^ that by the completion of the third grade all students will be reading independently and show understanding of words on a page\nb. Focus teaching efforts on reading/language arts instruction by teaching science and social studies content through reading/language arts and mathematics experiences\nc. Promote thematic instruction\n^The identification of specific goals in this Revised Plan is not intended to create an obligation that LRSD shall have fully met the goal by the end of the plan's term. LRSD's failure to obtain any of the goals of this Revised Plan will not be considered a failure to comply with the plan if LRSD followed the strategies described in the plan and the policies, practices and procedures developed in accordance with the plan. 14d. Identify clear objectives for student mastery of all three reading cueing systems (phonics, semantics and syntax) and of knowing-how-to-learn skills\ne. Monitor the appropriateness o f teaching/learning materials to achieving curricular objectives and the availability of such materials in all classrooms\nf. Establish uninterrupted blocks of time for reading/language arts and mathematics instruction\ng- Monitor student performance using appropriate assessment devices\nh. Provide parents/guardians with better information about their child's academic achievement in order to help facilitate the academic development of the students\n1. Provide pre-kindergarten, kindergarten and first grade learning readiness experiences for students who come to school without such experiences\nj- Train teachers to manage successful learning for all students in diverse, mainstreamed classrooms\nk. Use the third and/or fourth grade as a transition year from focused reading/language arts and mathematics instruction to a more traditional school day\nand. 1. Provide opportunities for students to perform and display their academic training in a public setting. 5.2.2. Intermediate Grades. LRSD intends to implement at least the following strategies to improve the academic achievement of students in grades four through six: 15a. Adopt as a goal that by completion of the sixth grade all students will master and use daily higher level reading comprehension skills for learning in all subject areas, for making meaning in real life experiences and for personal growth and enjoyment\nb. Promote thematic instruction\nc. Establish uninterrupted blocks of time for reading/language arts, mathematics, science and social studies instruction\nd. Monitor the appropriateness o f teaching/learning materials to achieving curricular objectives and the availability of such materials in all classrooms\ne. Monitor student performance using appropriate assessment devices\nf. Provide parents/guardians with better information about their child's academic achievement in order to help facilitate the academic development of the students\ng- Train teachers to manage successful learning for all students in diverse, mainstreamed classroom\nand. h. Provide opportunities for students to perform and display their academic training in a public setting. 5.2.3. Secondary Schools. LRSD intends to implement the following strategies to improve the academic achievement of students in grades six through twelve\nLRSD recognizes that the sixth grade was previously included as an intermediate grade. The sixth grade is also 16a. Adopt as a goal that upon graduation all students will read independently with comprehension in all subjects areas and be proficient in language arts, as necessary to be successful workers, citizens and life-long learners\nb. Establish specific reading comprehension learning objectives for the language arts, mathematics, science and social studies curricula\nc. Revise the language arts curriculum to include greater emphasis on reading for meaning and on expressing comprehension of reading through writing and speaking\nd. Expand the use of a second Language Arts class at all secondary grade levels and establish procedures for identifying eligible students' and. where practical. assigning students to their regular Language Arts teachers\ne. Provide appropriate training to secondary teachers for implementation of these strategies\nf. Monitor student progress and achievement using appropriate assessment devices. 5.3. Mathematics. LRSD shall implement the following strategies to improve mathematics instruction: 5.3.1. Revise the mathematics curriculum to include a smaller number of concepts at each level, the use of manipulatives and problem solving and critical thinking and train teachers on its implementation\nincluded here since there will be a period of transition into middle schools. 175.3.2. Develop appropriate assessment devices for measuring individual student achievement and the success of the revised curriculum\n5.3.3. Provide resources for early intervention with students with mathematical problems and for training teachers on early intervention\nand, 5.3.4. Revise the mathematics curriculum to increase the nximber of students successfully completing Algebra I and higher level mathematics courses. 5.3.5. Adopt as a goal that all students in regular classes will complete Algebra and Geometry by the end of their eleventh grade year and that students will be proficient in mathematics by graduation. LRSD shall provide assistance to those students experiencing difficulty with Algebra and Geometry. 5.4. Computer Literacy. LRSD shall adopt as a goal that all primary grade students f- will be trained in the use of computers and upon graduation shall be computer literate. 5.5. Incentive Schools. LRSD shall continue to provide double funding to Franklin, Garland, Mitchell, Rightsell and Rockefeller elementary schools, in accordance with the current formula as described in August 16, 1995 report of the Office of Desegregation Monitoring (\"ODM). These schools shall be renamed and refocused. The plant services department shall provide the maintenance and upkeep necessary to preserve the comparable physical equality of these schools. 185.6. Alternative Education. 5.6.1. LRSD shall provide alternative educational opportunities to the extent practicable for those students unable to succeed in a traditional learning environment. 5.6.2. LRSD shall implement programs, policies or procedures designed to ensure equity in the facilities, staff and resources provided for alternative education. 5.7. Parental and Community Involvement. LRSD shall establish a \"^parental and community relations linkage system to facilitate parental and community involvement in LRSD schools and the operation of LRSD. 5.8 Scholarships. Within one calendar year from the date of the district court's approval of this Revised Plan, LRSD shall establish or participate in a program for providing college scholarships to designated schools for LRSD students who graduate from an LRSD high school after having attended a racially identifiable elementary school. This program shall be maintained at least until graduation of the class that begins kindergarten during the 2000-01 school year. SECTION 6: LRSD Compliance Program. LRSD shall implement a desegregation compliance program which shall include the following components: 6.1. Compliance standards and procedures reasonably capable of reducing the prospect of noncompliance\n6.2. Oversight of compliance with such standards and procedures by the Superintendent\n196.3. Communication of compliance standards and procedures to all employees\n6.4. Utilization of monitoring and auditing systems reasonably designed to detect noncompliance\n6.5. Utilization of a reporting system whereby employees can report noncompliance without fear of retribution\n6.6. Enforcement of compliance standards and procedures through appropriate disciplinary mechanisms, including the discipline of individuals responsible for compliance and individuals responsible for any failure to report noncompliance\nand, 6.7. After noncompliance has been detected, implementation of all reasonable steps to correct past noncompliance and to prevent further noncompliance, including modification of the compliance program as necessary to prevent and detect further similar noncompliance. SECTION 7: Plan Modification Process. Before filing with the district court a proposed modification of this Revised Plan, LRSD shall follow the procedure set forth below: 7.1. Notice. LRSD shall submit to the other parties and to the ODM its proposed modification along with an explanation of the circumstances justifying modification and the educational and financial impact of the proposed modification. 7.2. Comment Period. Along with its notice of the proposed modification, LRSD shall establish a reasonable period of time (no 20less than ten days) for the parties and ODM to submit comments, recommendations or suggestions related to the proposed modif ication. Joshua shall be entitled to receive from LRSD the information which LRSD believes supports its request for modification. 7.3. Recommendation and Response. After the close of the comment period, LRSD shall file with the district court and serve on the parties its recommended modification and, at LRSD's discretion, a response to comments made by the parties and ODM. 7.4. Hearing. Absent good cause shown, no party shall be permitted to raise an issue in opposition to LRSD's recommended modification unless that issue was raised by the party during the comment period. SECTION 8: Continuing Jurisdiction. 8.1. General Rule. The district court shall have continuing jurisdiction to address issues regarding compliance with and modifications of this Revised Plan during its term. Nothing in this Revised Plan shall affect the district court's jurisdiction to enforce the Settlement Agreement in the manner required by the Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit. 8.2. Process For Raising Compliance Issues. Before requesting the district court exercise its jurisdiction with regard to a compliance issue, the party seeking to raise the issue shall follow the procedure set forth below: 8.2.1. The party shall as soon as reasonably 21practicable give the LRSD Superintendent or his designee specific written notice which includes the following\na. the paragraph(s) of this Revised Plan at issue\nb. the names of all students involved, if any\nc. the names of all LRSD agents or employees involved, if any\nd. all facts of which the party is aware relevant to the compliance issue\nand, , e. a copy all documents in party's possession relevant to the compliance issue. 8.2.2. The written notice is intended to provide LRSD with all relevant information related to the compliance issue known to the party so that LRSD can assess its compliance on the same basis the party. 8.2.3. LRSD shall conduct a reasonable investigation of the alleged noncompliance and shall provide the party a written response within a reasonable amount of time not to exceed fifteen (15) days from receipt of written notice from the party or such later time as agreed. 8.2.4. If the party is unsatisfied with LRSD's response, the party shall within fifteen (15) days of receipt of LRSD's response submit the compliance issue to ODM or the district court's designee for facilitation of an agreement between the parties. 8.2.5. If the compliance issue remains unresolved after good faith attempts at facilitation by ODM or the district 22court^s designee, the party may seek resolution of the issue before the district court. 8.2.6. Unless and until ordered to do otherwise by the district court, LRSD shall be free to implement the programs. policies and procedures the party alleges fail to comply with this Revised Plan. 8.3. Programs, Policies and/or Procedures. Compliance issues subject to enforcement in accordance with Section 8.2 shall include LRSD's implementation of the programs. policies and/or procedures developed in accordance with this Revised Plan. Before the end of the transition period, LRSD shall develop and/or identify the programs, policies and/or procedures to be implemented in accordance with this Revised Plan and provide them to Joshua. Joshua shall have a right to invoke the process described in Section 8.2 if LRSD fails to adopt programs, policies and/or procedures required by this Revised Plan\nadopts facially deficient programs. policies and/or procedures\nor. fails to implement the programs, policies and/or procedures adopted in accordance with this Revised Plan. SECTION 9: Term. The term of this Revised Plan shall be three (3) school years beginning the 1998-99 school year and ending on the last day of classes of the 2000-01 school ^'ear. SECTION 10: Transition. The 1997-98 school year and the first semester of the 1998-99 school year shall be a transition period in preparation for 23implementation of this Revised Plan. During this transition period, LRSD shall implement the May 1992 Desegregation Plan and Interdistrict Desegregation Plan to the extent they are consistent with this Revised Plan. However, there shall be no ODM monitoring or litigation concerning LRSD's implementation of the May 1992 Desegregation Plan or the Interdistrict Desegregation Plan. Rather, ODM shall monitor LRSD's preparation for implementation of this Revised Plan and act as a resource for LRSD in that process. SECTION 11: Unitary Status. At the conclusion of the 2000-01 school year, the district court shall enter an order releasing LRSD from court supervision and finding LRSD unitary with regard to all aspects of school operations provided that LRSD has substantially complied with its obligations set forth in this Revised Plan. In anticipation of release, LRSD shall issue a repprt on March 15, 2001 indicating the state of LRSD's compliance with the Revised Plan. Any party challenging LRSD's compliance bears the burden of proof. If no party challenges LRSD's compliance, the above-described order shall be entered without further proceedings. 24John w. Walker, P.a. Attorney At Law 1723 Broadway- Little Rock, Arkansas 72206 Telephone (501) 374-3758 FAX (501) 374-4187 JOHN W. WALKER RALPH WASHINGTON MARK BURNETTE AUSTIN PORTER, JR. Via Fax January 16, 1998 Mr. Christopher Heller Friday, Eldredge \u0026amp; Clark 2000 First Commercial Bldg. Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Re: Little Rock School District Dear'Mr. Heller\nThis is to advise that counsel for the Joshua Intervenors agree that we have reached an accord or agreement with respect to the revised Desegregation and Education Plan which is dated January 16, 1998, You may advise your board of this fact and that we look forward to working with you and with the administration to develop the contemplated programs, policies and procedures required by the plan for implementation. We also look forward to working with the board through counsel in the implementation phases through ombudsperson, the expert and our continued monitoring of the district. The latter will be in the vein of cooperation. The role of the state with respect to facilitating and furthering the goals herein remains to be addressed and I am sure that counsel for the district and for Joshua will approach that matter on a cooperative basis which is consistent with providing the best education possible for children of the Little Rock School District with special emphasis upon those children who are the lowest from the norm in terms of student achievement and treatment. bhn W. Walker incerely, JWW:lp J, EXHIBIT S IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT PLAINTIFF V. LR-C-82-866 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, ET AL DEFENDANTS MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL INTERVENORS KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL INTERVENORS NOTICE TO THE JOSHUA CLASS: ALL PAST, PRESENT AND FUTURE BLACK OR AFRICAN-AMERICTkN PUPILS WHO RESIDE IN PULASKI COUNTY, ARKANSAS, AND WHO ATTEND, HAVE ATTENDED, WILL ATTEND, OR WHO ARE ELIGIBLE, WERE ELIGIBLE OR WILL BE ELIGIBLE TO ATTEND THE PUBLIC SCHOOLS OF ONE OF THE THREE PULASKI COUNTY SCHOOL DISTRICTS (LITTLE ROCK, NORTH LITTLE ROCK OR PULASKI COUNTY), THEIR PARENTS AND/OR NEXT FRIENDS WHO CLAIM, HAVE CLAIMED, OR MAY CLAIM THAT THEY HAVE BEEN DENIED EQUAL PROTECTION OF THE LAWS, OR WHO CLAIM, HAVE CLAIMED OR MAY CLAIM THAT THEY HAVE BEEN OR WILL BE THE VICTIMS OF RACE DISCRIMINATION IN EDUCATION BY ONE OR MORE OF THE THREE PULASKI COUNTY SCHOOL DISTRICTS AND/OR BY THE STATE OF ARKANSAS. This action arises out of efforts beginning in 1956 to desegregate the Little Rock, North Little Rock and Pulaski County school districts. In 1989 a settlement was reached and approved in which the Little Rock School District (\"LRSD\") agreed to implement the LRSD Desegregation Plan and the Interdistrict Desegregation Plan. On September 26, 1997, LRSD submitted and requested approval of LRSD's Revised Desegregation and Education Plan dated September 18, 1997. Following submission, LRSD and counsel for the Joshua Intervenors (hereinafter \"Joshua\") engaged in extensive negotiations in an effort to develop a revised plan which both  EXHIBIT i iparties could support. Those negotiations resulted in LRSD's Revised Desegregation and Education Plan dated January 16, 1998 (\"January 16 Revised Plan\"). On January 21, 1997, LRSD and Joshua filed a joint request with the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Arkansas, the Honorable Susan Webber Wright, for approval of the January 16 Revised Plan. The January 16 Revised Plan basically provides as follows: Section 1: Prior Agreements and Orders. The January 16 Revised Plan will replace the current LRSD desegregation plan, the Interdistrict Desegregation Plan and all existing agreements and court orders with some exceptions.  It will have no effect on the September 28, 1989 Settlement Agreement\nthe Magnet School Stipulation dated February 27, 1987\nthe district court's order dated September 3, 1986, pertaining to the Magnet Review Committee\nand, the M-to-M Stipulation dated August 26, 1986. Section 2: Obligations. same LRSD's basic desegregation obligations remain essentially the under the January 16 Revised Plan as under the current desegregation plan. The obligations are clearly and simply stated and cover every aspect of school operations. The January 16 Revised Plan includes an even stronger commitment to an equitable distribution of faculty by race, education and experience. Although some specifics are included, the January 16 Revised Plan contemplates that during the transition period the district will identify and/or develop programs, policies and procedures related to each obligation. An expert selected by the district and approved by Joshua will assist the district in this process. Section 3: Student Assignments. Under the January 16 Revised Plan, the emphasis moves from racial balance to quality education. During the term of the plan, elementary and junior high/middle school attendance zones may be redrawn to create neighborhood schools with as many of those neighborhood schools being desegregated as practical. High school attendance zones may be redrawn to achieve racial balance within plus or minus twenty percentage points from the percentage of African-American students for high schools as a whole and, to the 2extent practicable. maintain a consistent feeder pattern. Volunta^ intradistrict transfers will continue to be allowed under rules similar to the current student assignment plan. The student assignment plan also provides for the conversion of all LRSD junior high schools to middle schools for grades six, seven and eight. Because of capacity limitations at LRSD's High Schools, the conversion to middle schools may require the creation of two ninth grade schools. Finally, the January 16 Revised Plan calls for the construction of at least two new area elementary schools, one in west Little Rock and one at the site of the former Stephens school. When the new Stephens Elementary opens, one or more the Incentive Schools will be closed. Section 4: Interdistrict Schools. Interdistrict schools will continue to operate as they did under the Interdistrict Desegregation Plan. Section 5: Student Achievement. The January 16 Revised Plan is founded on the belief that providing every student a quality education is the most promising means to the long-term desegregation of LRSD. It outlines LRSD's basic strategy for ensuring its students receive a quality It includes an early childhood education program, education. a revised reading/language arts curriculum emphasizing the primary grades, a revised mathematics curriculum, an alternative education program and parental and community involvement program. Another important piece of the student achievement section is a college scholarship program all students who attend :  \"* for identifiable elementary schools. racially Section 6\nLRSD Compliance Program. LRSD will implement a comprehensive compliance program to ensure it substantially complies with its desegregation obligations and its other legal and ethical obligations. Section 7: Plan Modification Process. The January 16 Revised Plan includes a process for plan modification designed to facilitate cooperation and discourage LRSD will submit proposed plan modifications to the litigation. other parties who will have an established time frame for comments and suggestions. LRSD will then submit its recommended plan modification for court approval. Parties would generally be prohibited from raising issues before the district court not raised during the comment period. 3Section 8: Continuing Jurisdiction. The district court shall have continuing jurisdiction to address issues regarding compliance for three years. The plan establishes a process for addressing compliance issues again designed to facilitate cooperation and discourage litigation. compliance issues will first be submitted to LRSD. All If no agreement is reached, the issue will be submitted to ODM for facilitation. Only if ODM's efforts at facilitating an agreement fail would the issue be submitted to the district court for resolution. Section 9: Term. The term of the Revised Desegregation and Education Plan will be three school years beginning the 1998-99 school year and ending on the last day of classes of the 2000-01 school year, court supervision will end at that time, Federal Section 10: Transition. The 1997-98 school year and the first semester of the 1998-99 school year will be a transition period in preparation for full implementation of the January 16 Revised Plan. Section 11: Unitary Status. If LRSD substantially meets its obligations under the January 16 Revised Plan, LRSD will be unitary at the conclusion of its term and released from court supervision. The above is not intended to be a full, detailed statement of the January 16 Revised Plan. The January 16 Revised Plan, along with the current LRSD Desegregation Plan and Interdistrict Desegregation Plan, will be made available to Joshua class members during regular business hours at LRSD's administrative offices at 810 W. Markham, Little Rock, Arkansas. The purpose of this notice is to advise Joshua class members of the January 16 Revised Plan and to give them an opportunity to show cause or to provide written objections which demonstrate why the January 16 Revised Plan should not be approved by the District Court. Joshua Class members have until the day of 4, 1998 to file written comments or objections with Mr. James McCoirmick, U.S. District Court Clerk, U.S. Courthouse, 600 W. Capitol, Little Rock, Arkansas 72201. All Joshua class members will be bound by the District Court's decision approving or rejecting the January 16 Revised Plan. Absent good cause shown. there will be no hearing on the whether the January 16 Revised Plan should be approved. Accordingly, this Notice provides Joshua class members their only opportunity to object to approval of the January 16 Revised Plan. UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT, EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS, WESTERN DIVISION 5IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT PLAINTIFF V. LR-C-82-866 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, ET AL DEFENDANTS MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL INTERVENORS KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL INTERVENORS ORDER Upon consideration of the Motion by LRSD and Joshua for Approval of LRSD's Revised Desegregation and Education Plan, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT: 1. The LRSD's Revised Desegregation and Education Plan dated January 16, 1998 is tentatively approved pending the Court's consideration of written objections filed by Joshua class members on or before the ___ day of , 1998\n2. LRSD is hereby directed to provide notice to Joshua class members as described in the Motion by LRSD and Joshua for Approval of LRSD's Revised Desegregation and Education Plan\nand. 3. The hearing currently scheduled for the week of February 2, 1998 is hereby cancelled. On this ___ day of , 1998. UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGEO *^)iwaisss^\\ ..\u0026lt;4ssssssiississ^.^\u0026lt;^^^ I Little Rock School District OFFICE OF THE SUPERINTENDENT RECB?V'S August 24, 1999 AUG 2 \u0026gt; ^353 OFRCtOr DESEGREGATION MONITORING Ann Brown, Federal Monitor Office of Desegregation and Monitoring 201 E. Markham - Suite 510 Little Rock, AR 72201 Dear Mrs. Brown: The August 11* Office of Desegregation Monitoring (ODM) report examining LRSD preparation to implement our Revised Desegregation and Education Plan provides a solid barometer of reference as we enter the 99-2000 school year. In keeping with LRSD plan commitment, careful consideration and review of this report document has been enacted in each division / department area, addressing preparation activities toward compliance and provisions of the revised plan. In an attempt to offer additional information that may not have been available at the time of report findings, the following is provided\n Overall Alternative Education Program seats for 99-2000 are being expanded. Greater student opportunity and success has been recorded for the '98-99 school year, resulting in increased student / school retention and reduced suspension / dropout numbers. Periodic assessment of performance indicators will be monitored toward necessary program adjustment and^r revision.  Revised School Profile Report documentation is being compiled. Expanded information is to include Equitable Allocation of Resource equity indicators and participation data for all extracurricular and AR Activities Association (AAA) sanctioned activities.  The LRSD Talent Development Committee will explore potential funding sources for AVID and/or programs unique to LRSD, especially for the high schools. 810 West Markham Street Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 (301) 824-2000 August 24, 1999 Page 2  A training of trainers model to deliver cultural sensitivity training is being established. Dr. Terrence Roberts will help in reviewing training on prejudice reduction and cultural sensitivity.  Determination for future utilization of Garland and Mitchell Elementary Schools is one of the 99-2000 LRSD priorities.  Approved funding sources for new Stephens Elementary School Construction have been determined (03/11/99 board action).  Long term expenditure projections for Stephens Elementary have been developed.  Possible location, funding and construction of the new west LR school is one of the 99-2000 priorities. An immediate timeline has been established. At present, the school is not anticipated to be built prior to the 2000-2001 school year after LRSD issues a 3/15/01 report indicating the state of compliance with the revised plan.  Personnel Recruitment goals and procedures are being enacted where African- Americans are under represented.  LRSD ombudsman role clarification was provided in the 8/05/99 Principals \"Nuts and Bolts inservice session. Training activities are being scheduled. After more than a year of intense planning and training, numerous changes and program initiatives have been put in place as we now enter this 99-2000 school year. Recognizing that substantial efforts must be provided toward obligations set forth in the revised plan, it constitutes a work in progress. The Office of Desegregation Monitoring serves as an important resource whose expertise, insight and direction is appreciated and continually sought. Sincerely, Superintendent of Schools S01J7441tf-' UALKhK LAW KIKM /ay HUL AUb -.b 'yy lb:L4 JOHN W. walker Ralph Washington MARK BLTiNETTE AUSTIN PORTER. JR. Attorney at Law 1723 Broadway Little Rock, Arkansas 72206 Telephone (501) 374-3758 FAX (501) 374-4187 Auguoi jvnii AXZ IXfATVirn OA J Tnuivuix* A Mr. Larry' Berkley President Little Rock School Soard 810 west Markham Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 , Dear Mr. Berkley\nUtank vou for vour call of a minutes ago wherein you informed me that you had receiveo mformafion from District souixes that we (Joshua) have had a fair opportunity to p^icipate in the devisation of the policies which arc on your agenda for consideration tonight. That means IDC QcVlSaUOIl Ui iiJC rM*w** .m \u0026lt; j w  . 5 v c a A That you choose not believe me and Ms. Springer when we told you that we had not been afforded an opportunity to participate in the process pnor to any ccnsiderauon by the Boar  requfred by the re'^sed desegregation plan. In that you choose not to credit our representaiions and that you plan to proceed despite our objections, I believe that your decision is inconsis^t of and that you plan to proceed despite------------- , . ,  . the direction of the Board during the July regular meeting and the August agenda meeting that we be meaningfully included as parties in the process. We have document^ our requests and ^e M  _____i...2.L...,..-,tUartkantArAArttrtffnnrt prepared to demonstrate that we have sought to work 'svith you rather than to resort to court action. I am still hopeful that this will be the path that the Board takes. In the meantime. however, I renew my request including adoption of the Chamber of Comme\u0026lt; that the Board defer further action with respect to plan revision management study until we have had full and fair opportunity to share our views at the pertinent administrative level before the Board is presented recommendations. I also renew my request that no policies be developed in a vacuum by Ms. Lmda Young. 'Ns have repeatedly stated our objection to her involvement in the devisation of pohetes, plans and procedures that purport to be in the interest of African Amencan chUdren. Our objecuon is further lughlighted that this task and her job were not posted and that she has no e^enence objective qualification for addressing the needs, curricular and r.----- or non-curricular, of the class, which we represent. Mr. Berkley, your position and that of Dr. Carnines with respect to a definition of participation in the process leaves us in a position where we must seriously consider whether we must seek a different method and forum for addressing our concerns.5013744187 walker LAW FIRM 789 P05 AUG 2b 99 15:25 The letter which we just received dated August 20, 1999 is a good example of the administrations bad faith. Today is the board meeting, I just received a draft of administrative regulations KF and KLG-R from Dr. Anderson. Please note that they are presented for our review and comment. Review and comment is far removed from the process leading up to these documents. Good faith was the premise of our revised plan. It is not evident fiom the writings or from the note dated August 20, 1999 as an example which we just received on August 26, 1999 at 2:00 p.m. I am addressing a copy of this letter to each Board member and others listed below. Sincerely, fohn W. Walker rWW:js cc: Ms. Ann Brown Chris Heller Members of the Board: Dr. Katherine Mitchell Mr. Mike Daugherty Ms. Judy Magness Mr. R Baker Kumis Mr. Mike Kumpuris Ms. Sue H. Strickland P.S. ODM has now issued two reports in the last month or so. They have not been placed on the agenda for discussion leaving the impression that the Board as a Board ignores and disregards the Court of which ODM is its official arm. That seems to be rather contemptuous.. /fn. Little Rock School District 810 W. Markham Little Rock, AR 72201 TO: Board of Education FROM\nDr. Kathy Le:\nas^^: ssistant Superintendent, PRE il' THROUGH: ^es Gamine, Superintendent '. Bonnie Lesley, Associate Superintendent DATE\nAugust 24, 1999 SUBJECT\nLRSD Assessment Program The Planning, Research and Evaluation Department has spent a year studying e modifications needed in the Little Rock School Districts assessment plan in order to adequately address e requirements of the various documents that are guiding our work. The primary document that impacts the development of a comprehensive assessment plan for the district is the Revised Desegregation and Education Plan (RDEP). There are fourteen sections of the RDEP that impact assessment planning. One component of assessment is the evaluation of instructional programs. Section 2.7.1 of the Revised Desegregation and Education Plan states: LRSD shall assess the academic programs implemented pursuant to Section 2.7 after each year in order to determine the effectiveness of the academic programs in improving African-American achievement. If this assessment reveals that a program has not and likely will not improve African-American achievement, LRSD shall take appropriate action in the form of either modifying how the program is implemented or replacing the program. A very critical part of any assessment program is parmering with parents to facilitate student success. Section 2.8 of the RDEP states, LRSD shall implement programs, policies and/or procedures during each of the next three years designed to promote and encourage parental and community involvement and support in the operation of LRSD and the education of LRSD students. Assessments will be more frequent in the proposed plan, thus facilitating frequent communication with parents and fostering strong partnerships in the support of students. Section 5.2.1. of the RDEP sets up four expectations for the Primary grades that impact assessment: 1) 2) By the completion of the third grade, all students will be readin: independently and show understanding of words on a page\n3) 4) Clear objectives for student mastery of all three reading cueing systems (phonics, semantics, and syntax) and of knowing-how-to-leam skills will be identified\nStudent performance must be monitored using appropriate assessment devices\nand Parents or guardians must be provided with better information about their childs academic achievement in order to help facilitate the academic development of the students. ig The intermediate grades are addressed in Section 5.2.2. These goals include the mastery and daily use of higher level reading comprehension skills for learning in all subject areas, for making meaning in real life experiences, and for personal growth and enjoyment by the end of the sixth grade. This section also requires that student performance be monitored using appropriate assessment devices, and that parents/guardians get better information about their childs academic achievement in order to help facilitate academic development. Secondary schools are addressed in Section 5.2.3. This section requires that the district, adopt a goal stating that upon graduation, all students will read independently with comprehension in all subject areas and be proficient in language arts, as necessary to be successful workers, citizens and life-long learners. Once again, there is a requirement to Monitor student progress and achievement using appropriate assessment devices (5.2.3.f.). Section 5.3.2. addresses the requirement to, Develop appropriate assessment devices for measuring individual student achievement and the success of the revised (mathematics) curriculum. The districts Strategic Plan also states some very specific criteria that must be measured by the assessment plan. By 2003, at least 9 out of 10 students will meet or exceed LRSD standards of performance identified in the core curriculum. By 2003, at least 65% of students in every identified sub-group of race and gender will perform at or above the national average in reading and mathematics on standardized tests\nat least 30% will perform at the highest quartile in reading and mathematics on standardized tests\nand no more than 10% will perform at the lowest quartile in reading and mathematics on standardized tests. One of the strategies set forth in the Strategic Plan states, We will construct a delivery system that allows us to plan and implement individualized educational goals for all LRSD students and that does not predetermine or limit options at an early age. In addition to the documents guiding the work of our district, the State Board of Education has adopted the Arkansas Comprehensive Testing, Assessment and Accountability Program (ACTAAP). This plan carries specific requirements to participate in norm-referenced testing for grades 5, 7, and 10, and criterion- referenced testing for grades 4, 6, 8, and end of course exams in Algebra I, geometry, and literacy. The State has implemented the Smart Stan Initiative to provide specific strategies and resources to ensure a successful start K-4. Smart Start will be expanded in future years to higher grades. In researching options for a comprehensive assessment program for LRSD, various members of the PRE staff and the Curriculum and Instruction staff met with representatives from a variety of testing companies. We also visited with Dr. Steven Ross (University of Memphis), and Dr. Sean Mulvenon and Dr. Ronna Turner (University of Arkansas) to explore feasible options for Little Rock. Drs. Mulvenon and Turner also met with Drs. Carnine, Williams, and Lease to discuss assessment proposals. Once information was obtained about the various options, I met with Dr. Ross and Dr. Lesley to determine the criteria that would guide the decision-making. After considering all proposals, coordinating with the state assessment plan, reviewing the requirements of our guiding documents, and considering our budget, the following K-12 Assessment Plan is being proposed for your approval\nKindergarten Grade, and 2\"** Grade Pre-and post-assessments using Marie Clays Observation Survey of Early Literacy Achievement will be administered to all kindergarten, first, and second grade students. These individual assessments are in line with the States Smart Start Initiative. A meeting was held with all district kindergarten teachers to gather input on what kind of assessment they preferred. They overwhelmingly opted for individual assessments at this age. 2\"** Grade (spring) During the spring semester, 2\"^ graders will be screened for the districts Gifted and Talented Program. A nationally normed and locally designed criterion referenced test provided through consultation with Northwest Educational Association (NWEA) will be used as one indicator in the G/T identification n process. Identified 2\"* graders will also take the Raven, a non-verbal intelligence test. Grades 3-11 Beginning with the 3'* grade, we will administer a pre- and post- criterion- referenced test developed to align with our curriculum. We are proposing a partnership with NWEA to develop these assessments. Our students will be assessed in reading, language arts, and math. By using pre-and post-tests, we will be able to monitor the growth of every student. We can calculate the value-added growth of attending a particular school over time, or simply determine the amount of growth in one year. The use of these assessments gives us an opportunity to track longitudinal data to monitor student achievement. In addition to these pre- and post-tests developed with teachers and curriculum staff with the assistance of NWEA, we will utilize released items from the state's criterion referenced tests to develop additional assessments that can be administered during the second and third nine weeks. These assessments will be developed with teachers and can be incorporated into a students grade within a course. State Assessment Program The state accountability program designates the following assessments (not fully implemented until 2003)\nCriterion-Referenced Primary Benchmark Intermediate Benchmark Middle Level Benchmark End-of-CourseAlgebra I End-of-CourseGeometry End-of-CourseLiteracy Grade 4 Grade 6 (not complete) Grade 8 When completed When completed Grade 11 April April April Jan/April Jan/April Jan/April Norm-Referenced SAT-9 Grades 5, 7, 10 September We believe this program of varied assessments affords the Little Rock School District the greatest opportunity to have timely measures of student achievement. We will be able to monitor student achievement, offer enrichment or remediation as needed, and plan for the success of each of our students. Both the Curriculum and Instruction Division and Planning, Research, and Evaluation appreciate your endorsement of this proposal.Section: Commitment to Desegregation (pg. 1) Goals and Objectives This section contains an overview of the districts plan of action for providing quality desegregated education in aU schools, and features nine beliefs or commitments, beginning with 1) The belief that all students can learn\n 2) eliminating achievement disparity\n3) improved educational quality and academic performance, including double funding for incentive schools\n4) improving race relations, 5) equity in all phases of school activities and operations\n6) promoting positive public reaction to desegregation\n7) inter and intradistrict recruiting\n8) infusion of multicultural education into the curriculum\nand 9) ongoing staff development for all district personnel. Progress Note: Areas in this section are also addressed elsewhere in this review: see achievement, discipline, recruitment, incentive schools, public relations, and staff development. 1. The district has a history of demonstrating that it believes that all students can learn, and has an inclusive academic program. That program includes an alternative learning program that, the record shows, needs much improvement. 2. Achievement disparity between the races is still a problem and has not improved. 3. Incentive schools have a mixed history. Double funding has sometimes fallen short, but mostly the district has unnecessarily exceeded the double funding level. In some instances incentive school students are out-performing those in area schools, but the record contains no evidence that correlates student performance with double funding (although that s a major purpose of double funding). The record does show that implementation of many incentive school features has been slow and uneven. 4. The LRSD has a history of generally positive race relations overall, although racial incidents no doubt occur. Some inservice training on race relations has occurred, but generally it has been hit- and-miss. 5. Equity in all phases of school activities and operations is hard to measure and neither ODM nor the record has made this call. However, we are aware of no policies that are uinately inequitable nor aim to tolerate inequities\nyet some practices appear to be inequitable, such as the disproportionate disciplinary sanctions received by black students.. 6. The extent to which the district has promoted positive public reaction to desegregation is also hard to measure. Persistent squabbling (for example, among school board members and between the parties, along with the districts tendency to blame desegregation and the Court for its woes, doesnt present a positive record in this area. 7. The districts student recruitment record is uneven, both intra- and interdistrict. The numbers that each district gives us on M-to-M transfers conflict, but generally show that PCSSD has more M- to-M students than the LRSD. However, we dont know whether the PCSSD or LRSD was responsible for promoting the transfers (they each claim that they did it). 8. The district has been released from Court supervision in the area of multicultural education. 9. Staff development is directed by the LRSD department so named, but inservice is scattershot and often poor. ODM has not done a report that focuses solely on inservice, but we have touched on it in our reports on the incentive schools, Alternative Education, McClellan, and Four-Year-Old Programs. In these reports we found that inservice was often inconsistent or altogether absent\nwhen it was offered, it was frequently inadequate.Conclusions The record shows that the LRSD has had mixed results in meeting the objectives of this section. Most notably, the gap in achievement between the races has not narrowed. The district did a good job of infusing multicultural education and has been released in this area. Bottom Line The goals and objectives in this section are reasonable and worthy, but none of them has been fuUy met (except in multicultural education), due to various factors that include foot-dragging, poor planning, and inept follow-through.Area: Achievement Disparities (LRSD Plan, pg. 1\nInterdist. Plan, pg. 6) Goals and Objectives To eliminate the educational achievement disparities between black and white students on normreferences and criterion-referenced test. Progress Little. See ODM report: Status on Achievement Disparity: LRSD, NLRSD, PCSSD (1994). Issues Many forces affect achievement, such as socio-economic status, ineffective teaching strategies, racism, and low expectations. Many of these factors are outside the control of the district. However, our report was clear: the district promised equitable education for its students. We pointed out that assessing the links between programs, process, and results had to occur in order to evaluate program and service concepts, determine the scope, quality, and consistency of implementation, and made informed decisions about where to make changes. Conclusions A laudable but very difficult goal to reach. The gap will not be narrowed to the extent named in the Settlement Agreement, especially utilizing current assessment standards. However, the district can do much more to improve minority achievement. Our report on achievement was clear about the kinds of approaches that could help the districts make gains in narrowing the achievement gap.Section: Leadership (pgs. 2-3) Goals and Objectives To provide coherent and consistent leadership for change from the superintendent and board of directors. The primary thrust of this section is to delineate that: the school board is representative of the populations it serves the superintendent and board is answerable to its public and should keep the public informed about the schools  the superintendent and board members should model the behavior of an effective desegregated school setting the superintendent and school board should provide clearly articulated leadership the district promises equitable hiring practices and budgetary decisions that will be consistent with desegregation policies the board and staff are to participate in ongoing staff development that responds to the needs of a desegregated school system the board and staff are to conduct annual self evaluations in six areas that mostly deal with relations (board, superintendent, community, staff, fiscal management, and instructional programs). the district promises to end all vestiges of discrimination, segregation, or unfair treatment, and promises to ensure that all students have a fair chance to learn. Progress The history of the district had been discord and dissension among many of its board members, superintendents, and employee groups, as illustrated by telecasts of the board meetings and board minutes (which arent an official part of the Court record, but ODM attends all board meetings and reads the minutes of them.) Superintendents seemed to do everything except try to implement the plan\nthe record contains little evidence that the have superintendents articulated or demonstrated their beUef in the plan. The record shows that the objectives in this section have been only partially met. Other indicators of the extent of comphance arent on the record, although we know about it. (For example, they havent done the annual self evaluations for several years. Evidently the evaluations stopped after responsibility for them was transferred to Ed Jackson from Sterling Ingram. We dont know why.) Conclusions The objectives of this section make sense, but the record indicates mixed results, partly because of changing superintendents, multiple agendas, and inept leadership. Except for recent history under Don Roberts (which largely isnt in the record because of the moratorium), the superintendents and board have a miserable history of working together. The LRSD Strategic, under Williams, does show evidence of an attempt at collaboration, but that plan was never filed with the court, so technically isnt part of the record. Don Roberts was able to mobilize the district for some concerted action as demonstrated by the moratorium and motion for plan modification. The board and superintendent worked through Task Forces with staff, parents, community members, and ODM to develop some of the ideas that Roberts has said will underpin plan. However, the districts submission doesn t reference the extent to which the work of the Task Forces will be used. Bottom Line The objectives of this section are fine, but none of them has been completely realized. On-the-record documentation of their failures in these areas will be spotty. Section: Early Childhood Education (pgs. 4-5)The Eight Circuit ruled that early childhood education, at least in the incentive schools, is crucial and that no retreat should be approved. Goals and Objectives This section is an introduction to the broad area of early childhood education. The authors speak to the importance of early educational experiences, quote from expert sources, and cite statistics related to the need for school-sponsored early childhood education. The section proposes expanding of existing early childhood programs developing new programs to meet the needs of at-risk students and to remediate racial achievement disparities. These programs will have three components: -HIPPY -four-year-old program -City-wide Early Childhood Education Program. Progress Since this section is little more than an introduction to early childhood education, it is not an area where we would appropriately measure the districts progress. In reviewing the following four sections, we can examine the progress made by the LRSD.Section: Home Instruction Program for Preschool Youngsters (HIPPY) (pgs. 6, 14-16) HIPPY is part of the early childhood education program. The Eighth Circuit stated that, at least in the incentive schools, ECE is crucial. Goals and Objectives The HIPPY program targets parents of economically deprived children and works with mothers to help them teach their four- and five-year-old children at home. The plans states that the HIPPY cannot be continued at present levels without the continued receipt of JTPA and Chapter program  2 funds. The LRSD and PCSSD are to collaborate on HIPPY\nHIPPY and the school-based four-year-old program are to collaborate in the areas of parental involvement and teacher training. Early Prevention of School Failure (EPSF) screening (or a comparable model) will be conducted on HIPPY participants as they exit kindergarten and a standardized test will be given at the end of third grade. These measures will be used to judge the success of HIPPY as an early childhood intervention strategy. Progress . The district has had a HIPPY program since the 1986-87 school year. To save money, the district proposed in a March 1995 business case to drop the program from all schools except the incentive schools. The proposal failed for lack of board approval. In August 1995 the district filed for unitary status in the area of HIPPY. However, during the hearing on unitary status, testimony was not given on HIPPY because the director was ill and couldnt attend the hearing. The districts 1994-95 extended evaluations claimed that, based on the SAT-8 scores earned by some former participants, HIPPY was helping to reduce achievement disparity. The districts claim could not be substantiated from the data presented. Test results for students in 1989-90 and 1990-91 were presented, but these results were not compared to a control group or to the district average for all students of the same age. Conclusions Nationally and internationally HIPPY has a proven track record and a sterling reputation. Its implementation in the LRSD has long left much to be desired. The 1994-95 extended evaluation of the program was poorly done and says little for the competence and professionalism of the staff. Bottom Line HIPPY functions as described in the LRSD Plan, but it effectiveness has not been measured by the districtSection: Four-Year-Old Program (pgs. 7-8, 17-18) The Eight Circuit stated that early childhood education, at least in the incentive schools, is crucial and no retreat should be approved. Goals and Objectives The program for four-year-olds was designed as a means to meet the educational needs of disadvantaged students and to help racially balance schools that had been difficult to desegregate. This section of the plan contains several provisions that have been modified by subsequent District Court orders. The plan originally required that the district locate a four-year-old classroom in each of the elementary schools. The May 1992 Order of the District Court required the district to establish the number of classes needed to serve at least as many students as would have been served under the original scheme, but the district could locate the classes where they were most likely to serve desegregation and reduce achievement disparities. (This requirement equates to a capacity of 720 students.) This section also addresses the need for developmentally appropriate curriculiun, areas of collaboration with PCSSD, and program evaluation. Progress ODM has published two reports on the four-year-old program (7-31-92 and 5-26-95). In both instances, we found the instructional program offered in the LRSD to far surpass the educational offerings usually available to children of this age. In ODMs monitoring report that covered the 1995-96 school year, we examined the following areas\nenrollment, recruitment, staffing, curriculum and instruction, parent involvement, staff development, program evaluation, and facilities. Several of these areas are not part of this section of the plan, but requirements in these areas emanate from court orders or other section of the LRSD or Interdistrict Plan. The district is meeting both the letter and the spirit of the early childhood section of the plan. The four-year-old classes are evaluated annually by outside experts using a standardized observation form. Trained evaluators visit each classroom for a full day. Ratings compiled from the annual assessment continually rank the LRSD classes well above the score needed to be termed a quahty child care program, and in some areas the district composite score is at the very top of the rating scale. Conclusions The district has done a fine job in early childhood education. In the last five years, they have met their deadlines for establishing new classrooms and have created a high quality program. Our only wish would be for more programs to accommodate the high demand for ECE.Section: Citywide Early Childhood Education Program (pgs. 9-11,19) The Eight Circuit stated that early childhood education, at least in the incentive schools, is crucial and no retreat should be approved. Goals and Objectives This section deals with developing a coordinated early childhood effort between the LRSD, the City of Little Rocks child care program, and Head Start. Much of this sections narrative is devoted to a description of the program requirements for the three entities. The plan also sets forth ways that the three entities will work together in: parent involvement, staff development, student referrals, student assignment, long-term monitoring, and facilities. Progress During the 1991-92 plan modification hearings, the LRSD submitted a long-range plan for early childhood education that would have relied on outside agencies such as Head Start to fulfill part of the districts requirement to provide early childhood education. The May 1992 Order of the District Court instructed the LRSD to limit reliance on four-year-old programs that are provided through 95 agencies, such as Head Start, which the district does not control and the goals which do not parallel the settlement agreement goals of program scope, racial balance, location, and so forth. For a year or two after the May 1992 order, the LRSD concentrated its efforts more on meeting the terms of the plan related to the school-based four-year-old classes rather than making extensive efforts related to the Citywide program. In recent years, the district has demonstrated good-faith efforts working with outside agencies that deal with early childhood issues. Representatives of a variety of other agencies are included on the LRSD early childhood council and in training activities. Conclusions Many portions of this section are dated. The LRSD currently collaborates with more agencies than the two mentioned here, and some of the activities described in this section may no longer be the most practical approach to ensuring quality early childhood education. In this area, the district has made some good-faith efforts. The LRSD and the city leaders now appear to work cooperatively on a variety of projects. The relationship between the district and city hall has changed positively but could also change again depending upon the districts and citys leadership. Although were aware of this information through board meetings and the public record, including newspaper articles, the official court record will be essentially bare in this area. Bottom Line This section is out-of-date.Section\nRockefeller Early Childhood Magnet School (pgs, 12-13) The Eight Circuit stated that early childhood education, at least in the incentive schools, is crucial and no retreat should be approved. Goals and Objectives This section of the plan evolved from the Tri-District Plan. The early childhood program was designed to foster both desegregation and academic achievement and to provide excellent early childhood education while enhancing training for early childhood professionals. The school was to serve as a model for cooperation between the public schools and the community and as a demonstration site for area educators. Progress ODM has examined the progress being made in the Rockefeller early childhood program in each of the last four incentive school reports (December 1993, December 1994, May 1995, July 1996). During the period between the 1992-93 and 1995-96 schools years, the LRSD made great progress in meeting the terms of this section of the plan. Both the May 1995 and July 1996 reports found substantial evidence of good faith in implementing the Rockefeller program and substantial con^liance with the terms of the desegregation plans. Diuing the period that the LRSD had been under a hiatus from ODM monitoring, the district created a new early childhood specialist position for the Rockefeller program. This is a position that ODM recommended several years ago and the hiring of such an individual addresses one of the chief parent concerns of a lack of certified personnel on staff during the summer months. Unfortunately, the individual hired for this position (a personal friend of the principal) has created a firestorm of dissension and sharply divided the ECE staff against the principal. This isnt a matter of record, but of Ann Browns intimate knowledge of what goes on at Rockefeller. Conclusions The district has made great strides in this area since 1992-93 and has been largely complying with the terms of the desegregation plans since 1994-95. An area in which the program falls short of the promises in the plan is innovative practices. The Rockefeller program does not really develop any early childhood innovations, but this shortcoming can be overlooked when you consider that innovative education and sound practices are not always mutually inclusive. Also, the program is only minimally used as a demonstration site for the county school districts.Section: Special Programs (pg. 20) Goals and Objectives The plan describes the AP\u0026amp;L summer science institute as a one-week enrichment program designed to generate interest in the study of science. Progress The sponsoring company (AP\u0026amp;L) dropped the funding about five years ago, causing the program to be discontinued after ten years of success. Conclusions The AP\u0026amp;L summer science program apparently was in existence at the time the plan was being written and was included to pad the list of desegregation strategies. Bottom Line The summer science program should have no bearing on LRSDs plan modifications.Section: Summer Learning Program (pg. 21) Goals and Objectives The summer learning program was the six-week Job Training Partnership Act tutorial program which provided instruction in math and reading for a maximum of 350 underachieving secondary students employed by JTPA. Progress LRSD successfully conducted the program for several years but intermittent funding has weakened it recently. LRSD requested release from court supervision in this area and presented impressive testimony in support of the request, but dropped it, apparently in favor of other strategies including plan modification. Conclusions LRSD has an impressive record regarding the JTPA program. Recent funding issues beyond the districts control are the only flaw. Bottom Line The summer learning program should have no bearing on LRSDs plan modifications.Section: Asset Program (pgs. 24-27) Goals and Objectives The Asset Program is described in the plan as an after school tutorial program for at-risk junior high school students. Slated for four of the districts junior high schools in the 1988-89 school year, the program was to be expanded to include all junior highs by the 1993-94 school year. Progress According to LRSD personnel, Asset was discontinued about five years ago because of the loss of funding. Conclusions LRSD operated Asset as long as JTPA funding was available but discontinued it when funding ended. Bottom Line The Asset Program should have no bearing on LRSDs plan modifications.Section: School Operations (pgs. 28-47) Goals and Objectives This section of the plan consists of one and a quarter pages of narrative and 19 pages of timelines. The narrative portion of the section describes the monitoring responsibilities of the LRSD Office of Desegregation. The office is responsible for monitoring 15 areas that cover the full spectrum of school operations from staffing to school climate, student services, and beyond. Progress Any record in this area would relate to the individual areas the Desegregation Office is to monitor, but as far as we know (but not as part of the court record), any type of oversight by the LRSD Office. of Desegregation ended when Russ Mayo left in June of 1996. Nancy Acre, who serves as director of student assignment, concentrates her efforts exclusively on issues related to assignment and enrollment. The Associate Superintendent of Desegregation has been an unfilled position throughout Dr. Roberts tenure. Recently the position has been advertised, but we have no word that a person has been selected to fill the position. The monthly desegregation update that is included in the LRSD Boards agenda is yeiy brief\nit deals only with enrollment or the bi-racial committee, and is prepared by an admimstrative assistant. This worries us, as it indicates a profound shift away from the previous focus on desegregation. Conclusions During Dr. Roberts tenure, he seemed to take the lead in issues related to desegregation. Dr. Roberts did not focus on issues related to enforcement or compliance with the April 1992 Desegregation Plans. Instead he seemed to concentrate his attention to the work groups and developing the new, very abbreviated plan that was filed with the court on September 26, 1997. Bottom Line The Desegregation Office has lacked leadership for nearly two years. It seems logical to conclude that this vacancy has resulted in a diminished focus on issues related to the current plans. Because of the moratorium, we have no official record of what the district has done recently.Area: Discipline (LRSD Plan, pg. 28) Goals and Objectives to develop and implement polices that improve discipline to reduce the disparity of disciplinary actions. Progress The districts own monitoring reports indicate a continuing disparity in disciplinary sanctions. Past policies of zero tolerance and strict adherence to discipline policies have only served to exacerbate the problem. ODM has received numerous complaints from teachers, parents, and Joshua concerning unfair discipline practices, and while informal investigations have not proven the allegations, neither have they disproved them. ODM staff has provided the LRSD with many workshops that focused on working with minority youth and cultural differences. A major problem has been teachers who do not relate well to minority students, especially black males. Additionally, minority students ( black males in particular) have taken advantage of the teachers who fear them or who were uncomfortable with them. ODM has not published a report that solely focuses on discipline, but it has been considered in our reports on the incentive schools and alternative school. The LRSD has done a major overhaul of its discipline policies. The new pohcies provide a great deal of flexibihty at the building level and contain provisions for addressing schools that have high discipline statistics. The new approach should make a big difference. The changes on not in the record. Conclusions The district has a long way to go in solving its discipline problems, but safe and orderly schools are essential for community confidence in them. Some of the districts pohcies and practices have worked against minority youth, as has the lack of understanding between white teachers and minority students. Cultural sensitivity training in the LRSD has been spotty at best.Section: Program for Accelerated Learning/Academic Support Program (pgs. 48-57) This program was replaced pursuant to a Court order dated May 1, 1992. The new program is entitled Academic Support Program (filed with the Court on March 24, 1993). Goals and Objectives The objectives are to provide equitable language arts and mathematics learning experiences to improve achievement and decrease disparity among students. The plan proposes to identify and serve at-risk students, prescribe personalized intervention plans, reduce pull-out programs, and provide parents with the skills needed to assist their children at home. Services are provided indirectly, whereby math and reading speciaUsts assist the regular classroom teachers with implementing remedial services, and directly, whereby students identified with severe reading problems attend reading classes designed to assist them with reading skills. Schools could opt for indirect, direct, or a combination of delivery services. All remediation programs fall under the Academic Support Program (ASP) umbrella. Progress Initially, the program started with a bang. AU of the schools in the district participated in the ASP. Two ODM associate monitors visited several of the programs and felt that they were being implemented sufficiently. In the 1994-95 school year, the LRSD combined the language arts specialist and math specialist positions into one position at the elementary level. This measure was intended to be a budget cutting device. However, the district did not submit the change to the Court. Conclusions The LRSD took three steps forward and two steps back. The original model seemed to work well and, since the schools could modify the ASP to meet their needs, the program was very user fiiendly. But language arts specialists are not math teachers. Math scores on the standardized tests were showing improvement prior to the elimination of the math specialists\nhowever, overaU math scores for aU students have declined in the last two years. Ironically, language arts scores have improved, but reading scores have fallen. Issues The ASP was never designed specifically for black students\nhowever, as a group, black students stood to gain the most from the program, simply because a greater percentage of black students needed remedial help in math and language arts. The district should assist schools with developing site-based ASPs, utilizing a variety of services provided by the district. Bottom Line The results are mixed. Students are doing better in language arts, poorer in math.Section: Gifted Education (pgs. 58-62) Goals and Objectives While the plan indicates that the district operates in compliance with the ADE gifted and talented standards, the plan also commits to devoting special attention to the identification and placement of black students and students from low and middle socio-economic levels. The plan further commits to collaborate with the other two districts on curriculum, staff development, and research and administration. Progress Gifted and talented education in the LRSD is still fairly new. Except for trying to eliminate a coordinators position and reducing the number of specialists (both of which did not occur), the program has continued to grow and develop. The LRSD does a good job of identifying potential G/T students, especially minority students. Conclusions The LRSD has to follow federal and state guidelines in G/T placements. To our knowledge the district has never been cited for any violations in placement. The quality of G/T education is another matter. The program is still weak and has trouble enrolling and keeping some students, particularly minority students at the secondary level. G/T education in the LRSD is more often than not more work, not better, challenging, or interesting work. The program often lacks originahty. The G/T coordinators in the three districts do meet at least twice a year and participate in joint inservice programs. While they may collaborate on showcasing promising models and programs, they are very protective of their students and have been reluctant to recommend gifted programs in each others district to potential M-to-M students. Issues The biggest number of complaints we hear are from black parents whose children cannot attend one of the magnets, especially Dunbar. Since G/T education is offered in all LRSD schools, theoretically, it shouldnt matter where children attend school as long as they are enrolled in a G/T program\nbut in reality, all G/T programs are not created equal. Bottom Line The record is sparse on G/T. We have not done an independent report on it, but have referred to it in some reports, primarily those on incentive schools. We testified in a hearing that to eliminate the G/T coordinator would negatively affect the program. The information above is what we know through our experiences. We believe that what is in the plan for G/T is fine, and the district is meeting the letter of its obligations in G/T education, but could do so much better where quality and equitable inclusion are concerned. This is an area in which Mr. Walker is very interested.Section: Multicultural Curriculum (pg. 63) Goals and Objectives The districts approach to multicultural curriculum includes\n1) integration into all subject areas\n2) a focus which permeates the entire school environment\n3) opportunities for students to develop self- esteem\nand 4) opportunities for students to examine the accomplishments of varied cultural groups. Progress The district was released from court supervision and monitoring of multicultural curriculum.Section: Focused Activities and Academic Progress Incentive Grants (pg. 81) Goals and Objectives The goal here was to promote each elementary area school as a community of learning among parents, students, and staff by providing various enrichment activities at the building level. Supported by annual allocations, each area elementary school was to develop a focus or thematic emphasis which would be unique to that school. In addition to enriching the curriculum, the focus would also act as a recruitment tool for desegregation. The district also committed to provide\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_819","title":"Desegregation: District Desegregation Team, minutes, North Little Rock School District","collection_id":"bcas_bcmss0837","collection_title":"Office of Desegregation Management","dcterms_contributor":null,"dcterms_spatial":["United States, 39.76, -98.5","United States, Arkansas, 34.75037, -92.50044","United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, 34.76993, -92.3118","United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, Little Rock, 34.74648, -92.28959"],"dcterms_creator":null,"dc_date":["1991/2002"],"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 (Ark.)--History--21st Century","North Little Rock School District","Education--Arkansas","Educational planning","School integration","Meetings"],"dcterms_title":["Desegregation: District Desegregation Team, minutes, North Little Rock School District"],"dcterms_type":["Text"],"dcterms_provenance":["Butler Center for Arkansas Studies"],"edm_is_shown_by":null,"edm_is_shown_at":["http://arstudies.contentdm.oclc.org/cdm/ref/collection/bcmss0837/id/819"],"dcterms_temporal":null,"dcterms_rights_holder":null,"dcterms_bibliographic_citation":null,"dlg_local_right":["Available for use in research, teaching, and private study. Any other use requires permission from the Butler Center."],"dcterms_medium":["documents (object genre)"],"dcterms_extent":["32 pages"],"dlg_subject_personal":null,"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":"\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n\n\n\n   \n\n\n\n\n   \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n  \n\nThe transcript for this item was created using Optical Character Recognition (OCR) and may contain some errors.\n / Attachment I - Nll NORTH LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT North Little Rock, Arkansas Minutes of the District Desegregation Team Meeting on March 11, 1991. The North Little Rock School District Desegregation Team met on Monday, March 11, 1991, at 1:30 p.m., in the Board Room of the Administration Building. The following team members attended the meeting: Mr. James Smith, Mrs. Mable Bynum, Mr. Gene Jones, Mr. Bobby Acklin, Mr. Donald Watkins, Mr. Jim Morris, Mr. Greg Daniels, Mrs. Mable Mitchell, and Ms. Scharmel Bolling. Mrs. Bynum opened the meeting and furnished copies of the agenda. (See copy attached.) The first matter discussed was the comparison of disciplinary referrals for first semester 1989/90 and 1990/91. The total number of disciplinary referrals reflected an increase of 4.4% and disciplinary actions reflected a 17% overall increase in suspensions. Current year expulsions reflected a 44% decrease. Fewer expulsions and the establishment of an elementary suspension program at the Boys Club were cited as factors contributing to increased suspensions. Mr. Smith noted that far fewer referrals related to misbehavior on buses even though approximately twenty buses had been added by the Transportation Department. Mr. Smith questioned what percentage of the total referrals reflected individual students with several referrals. Mr. Daniels explained that the Computer Services Department could generate information to address this concern in an easy-to-read format. Mrs. Bynum requested that such a format be used for all monthly reports in the future. Mrs. Bynum expressed concern about the accuracy of coding disciplinary referrals. She requested Mr. Acklin to address this concern with Principals at the next Administrator's meeting. Ms. Bolling expressed concern with the number of students ref~rred for possession of dangerous objects. She requested clarification of the District's Policy, noting a difference between the number of students referred for this infraction and the number actually expelled. Mr. Acklin explained that each incident is examined on an individual basis as he personally reviews every reported incident of possession of a dangerous object. Depending on the circumstances, some of the students are suspended rather than expelled. Mrs. Mitchell expressed appreciation for the use of discretion in recommending expulsions. Mr. Acklin also mentioned that all expelled students are referred to the Juvenile Courts School in order for student to continue earning academic credits. Unfortunately, some students elect not to attend. These students are not given the option of attending the Alternative School. .. It was noted that the West Campus has not recommended any students for expulsion. Mrs. Mitchell inquired as to why there have been more expulsions on the East Campus. Mr. Smith noted that the age of the students more than the size of enrollment was a major factor in the number of expulsions. Mrs. Bynum mentioned that often situations arising in the community result in campus misbehavior. Mr. Jones requested statistics from the West Campus regarding the incidences of older students electing to withdraw from school to avoid expulsion. Mr. Smith noted that next year all students must remain in school until age eighteen or graduation, therefore, an Alternative School Program will be significant in the District. Mr. Morris mentioned that District administrators had anticipated some increase in disciplinary problems due to the secondary school reorganization, which necessitated changes in assignments for many students and staff members. Mrs. Bynum added that we had been concerned about the large number of suspensions on the seventh grade campus last year, however, the number of current year suspensions for seventh and eighth grade students show a marked decline. We will continue to monitor disciplinary referrals for these groups of students, also. Mrs. Mitchell expressed appreciation for the East Campus staff, and confidence that they were working to ensure a safe educational environment for all students. She was concerned, however, about counselors needing more time to work directly with students experiencing difficulties. Mr. Jones questioned the need for a disciplinary referral category for the Bi-District Alternative School. Mr. Acklin advised the group of the school not being a suspension program, instead one designed for students with unique needs such as inability to cope with school, poor school attendance, or habitual tardiness. Ile stressed the importance of making this factor known in order to benefit students enrolled in this program. The next matter discussed was how to best provide information that monitors need to compare academic achievement of black students with that of white students. The lack of this information was cited by most first semester school teams. A procedure is needed to encompass disaggregated achievement test data, grades and graduation information. Mr. Jones will assemble a committee to address this concern and provide this team a report on findings and plans next month. Several members discussed the need to follow-up on the performance of students removed from basic classes. The team also discussed reviewing the performance of students assigned to teachers who have completed specific inservice programs such as TESA and Cooperative Learning. Elementary grade distribution sheets must be prepared by hand due to the absence of on-site computer terminals. This process requires more time. There is a need for standardization in relation to the secondary schools. Mr. Daniels stated tl1at he was eager to bring elementary schools into the computer network. Mrs. Bynum acknowledged the District's financial situation, but stressed the fact that data collection is such a critical part of monitoring, therefore, constant accumulation of data will prove to be very cumbersom without adequate computer terminals. We next reviewed and discussed first semester School Monitoring Reports. Mr. Morris expressed the need for principals to correctly code building expenditures in order to document purchases of materials and supplies for each department. Other areas of concern discussed were those related to student discipline, one-race classes, parental involvement, and seating patterns for students, with the team making note to stress the importance of school personnel encouraging interaction between various ethnic groups. The team stressed the importance of Principals sharing the Monitoring Reports with their staffs so they can see the critical concerns, as well as how other schools are handling certain matters as reflected in the numerous positive comments offered by the teams. Mrs. Bynum shared reports prepared by Principals as responses to monitoring teams concerns. The final matter discussed was the Success Through Outstanding Role Models Program (S.T.O.R.M.). There are approximately fifteen North Little Rock High School-West Campus students who completed training February 25, and returned required paperwork. The three pilot elementary schools, Argenta, Pine and Redwood, have identified approximately twenty students for participation. An equal number of participants will be chosen from each school. Mentors will work with the mentees during school time, after school, and much telephone contact will be involved. Each child's needs will be unique and each mentor will convey to his mentee a message of being on his side. Plans call for mentors and mentees to have been paired prior to the March 17 meeting of the Di-racial Committee. There has been long term interest from this committee for the development of such a program and some members have indicated an interest in meeting some of the mentors. Mrs. Bynum mentioned a plan to add tenth grade students prior to the end of the school year. These students could become replacement mentors for graduating participants. Ms. Dolling noted that Classmates for each school might be interested in helping with the STORM program by providing things for them to do or incentives for accomplishments of goals. Mrs. Mitchel expressed pleasure with the initiation of the program and advised the team that she would like to see a program started for female students at some future time. The meeting adjourned at 3:30 p.m. N (0)J E'F IBII LIITTILJE JE(Q)CIBC:J PTIJiffiIIILC C CCIH (ID )( D)I L ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICES 2700 POPLAR STREET RECEIVED NOV 9 1992 July 29, 1992 Office of Deseg\negtliN1 Monitoriilg Minutes of Administrators' Meeting on July 29, 1992 The Central Office Administrators and Principals of the North Little Rock School Dis~rict met with Steve Jones, District Attorney, on July 29, 1992, at 9:00 a.m., in the Board Room of the Administration Building. The following perscnnel attended: Mr. James Smith, Mrs. Mable Bynum, Mr. Gene Jones, Mr. Bobby Acklin, Mr. Donald Watkins, Ms. Esther Crawford, Mr. Dana Chadwick, Dr. Steve Phaup, Mr. Jim Morris, Mrs. Jo Stt!wart, Mr. Eugene Wise, Mr. Gary Goss, Dr. Jess Walker, Mrs. Letitia Martin, Mr. Doyne Ward, Mrs. Barbara Gilkey, Mrs. Ann Kincl, Mr. Gregg Thompson, Mr. Ken Kirspel, Mrs. Ginny Wiseman, Mr. Arthur Tucker, Mrs. Kathy Ccok, Mrs. Jane Ford, Mrs. Susie Jackson, Mrs. Pat Siegel, Mrs. Kaye Lowe, Mrs. Linda Wilson, Mr. Harold Allen, Mrs. Portia Power, Mrs. Beverly Kelso, Mr. James Zeigler, Mrs. Fran Jackson, Miss Dana Snowden, Mrs. Diane Crites, Ms. Linda Chancellor, Ms. Katherine Tweedle, Mrs. Marsha Paul and Mr. Johnny Kellar. The objective of the meeting was to increase staff's awareness of the Desegregation Plans (North Little Rock School District and Interdistrict) as approved April 29, 1992. Mr. Smith opened th~ meeting by explaining that Attorney Steve Jones would go through the plans with them so they would be familiar enough to follow through with implementation and be capable of making their building staffs aware of the District's responsibilities in meeting these mandated orders. Mrs. Bynum furnished copies to each person and informed the group that a copy of the plans would be placed in the media centers of each school. Mr. Smith went on to say that Judge Wright always remind\u0026amp; us that \"this is r.ot my plan, it is yours,\" so we all have to be well informed of its content and meet our responsibilities in seeing that every phase of the plan is carried out. Attorney Jones gave a brief explanation cf how our plan evolved and its development. He explained that our plan AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER p: 0. BOX 687, NORTH LITILE ROCK, AR 72115/0687 501/771-8000 evolved around the original \"Storm Plan\" developed in 1973. He said that he did not feel that the North Little Rock School District contributed to the segregation problems of the Little Rock School District, but the Eighth Circuit Court had the last word and we have to live with it. The NLR Plan was initiated by the filing on March 17, 1986 of the \"Plan for Implementing the Remedial Order of the Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit as It Applies to the North Little Rock School Dist:rict.\" The purpose of this initial submission was to address the interdistrict violations add:tessed by the Court of Appeals in LRSD v. PCSSD. The district court required the NLRSD to provide a plan to address its intradistrict violations as well, and in response the NLRSD filed on October 14, 1986, its \"Supplement to Plan for Implementing the Remedial Order of the Court of Appeal~ for the Eighth Circuit as It Applies to the North Little Rock School District.\" Scme modification occurred either by petition to and approval by the district court or by operation of the settlement among the parties which has now been approved. Attorney Jones explained that our District was the only one of the three districts that had a plan approved in 1987. He stressed that our plan draft gave us enough flexibility that would allow us some leadway in implementation, where the other two districts bogged down in not leaving themselves flexibility to change without going back to the court for approval. He commented that our District was accomplishing more with the sn1all amount of desegregation money awarded in the settlement than the other two districts. lie said that all of our money is going into compensa~ory education (slightly more than $500,000. each year). He went on to say that the over-riding element was that we are doing what we said we would do and much more than our pian requires. He said that we could be very proud of our District's sovereignty. He said the court commends us. He also commended us in the smooth implementation of our restructuring process and the fact that implementation of our Reduction in Force policy for the 1992-93 school year had left all the compensatory programs intact. He said that our efforts to involve the community, patrons, students and employees in making decisions for both of these changes was a credit to our District. Attorney Jones complimented Mr. Gene Jones for being instrumental in securing funding to implement additionul programs that our desegregation money would never have covered. He reminded the group that both Master McCutheon and Mr. Reville both said that desegregation is a state of mind. Mr. Smith reminded the group that the District was receiving $500,000. per year for seven years to fund the implementation of the mandated orders. He went on to say that we must keep in mind that we are now in the fourth year of this funding. The first item of the plan discussed by the group was Section 1: Student Assignment Plan. Attorney Jones gave a short explanation of M-to-M transfers and student transfers to magnet schools. He explained the concept used for elementary student assignment where schools in a predominately black area are paired with one or more schools in a predominately non-black area. Each elementary school in the district must have a student population which approximates as nearly as is feasible a racial balance of 42 ptrcent black and 58 percent non-black students. To assure each school will have a student population composed of these percentages, schools are placed in groups so that students within each group can be assigned to schools in such numbers as is necessary to achieve the desired racial composition. Kindergarten students are assigned to their neighborhood schools and are not transported for purposes of racial balance. The next item discussed was our special education program. ~ir. Smith said that we need to look closely at new students entering. Be said that we have a very good evaluation system in identifying special education students, but we do have over representation of blacks in special education. Mrs. Fran Jackson questioned if we over identify special education students, what impact this would have on M-to-M transfers? Attorney Jones could not give an immediate answer to this. He said the District did not guarantee a racial balance in special education. He said that our compensatory programs were in place to help us in this area and we have already seen some good results from the programs. Mr. Smith commented that we are closely monitored by the State Department of Education in special education. They come each year to closely scrutinize our program. Mr. Thompson questioned transfer of a student \"in geed standing\" from one district to another. It was brought out that a student caught with a gun in a Little Rock school could be transferred to the North Little Rock School District. Mr. Watkins asked if Attorney Jones could see us reaching a deadline of M-to-M transfers. Attorney Jones responded that he did not. Mr. Thompson asked for a brief description of the \"School Choice Act.\" Attorney Jones responded that the Act 762 did have its limitations in that a student residing in one school district can transfer to another school district, the Board of Directors of the resident district may enter into an agreement with the Board of Directors of the receiving school district trar1sferring the student to the receiving district for purposes of education. Boards of Directors of local school districts are prohibited from granting legal transfers in the following situations: (a) where either the resident or the receiving district is under a desegregation relatea court order or has ever been under such a court order\nand (b) the transier in question would negatively affect the racial balance of that district which is or has been under such a court order. Attorney Jones discussed Act 624 of 1987 which states that \"the children or wards of anyone who is a public school teacher in one school district and a resident of another school district shall be entitled to attend school in  either district  \" Mr. Goss brought up a short discussion of transportation of students for extra curricular activities. Attorney Jones pointed out that our District had provided transportation for extra curricular activities even though the plan did not mandate that we do so. The state finances the cost for transportation of M-to-M transfer students. Attorney Jones said the District is to be commended for an equitable process in achieving a racial balance in our schools. At this time a ten minute break was called. The next item discussed after return from break was Section 2: Staff Recruitment Plan. Attorney Jones commented that this was the most difficult part of the plan. He went on to say that the North Little Rock School District had made great strides in correcting the racial imbalance of Central Office Administrators, Principals and coaches, but has had a problem in recruiting black teachers. He went on to explain that there has been a tremendous drop in black teacher applicants since 1970. He said that many blacks have opted to go into other areas of employment that would offer greater financial security than is offered in the teaching area. He also stressed that our District faced vicious competition just in the i~.rnediate area, since the other two districts in our area are able to offer a higher salary. He commented that we have had a good record of retaining the black teachers we have been able to hire. He said the pool of qualified black applicants continues to shrink, and we do compare favorably with the shrinking pool of applicants. He pointed out that when attending recruitment fairs, we will offer a commitment on the spot to a good black teaching applicant. Mr. Morris brought up a discussion of transferring staff to achieve racial balance. Attorney Jones responded that we certainly could involuntariiy transfer non-black teachers to other schools whose staff is racially imbalanced. Attorney Jones suggested skipping over Secticn 3: Special Education Plan, since it was largely dictated by the State Department of Education. He reminded the group that emphasis should be placed on the evaluation process to identify special education students and constant scrutiny of the process. A short discussion of Section 8: Gifted and Talented Education was the next item. Attorney Jones commented that the same consideration applies to Gifted \u0026amp; Talented Education, in that it is dictated by the State Department of Education. He pointed out that we do have better participation of minorities than the ether two districts. Ann Kincl spoke to th6 problem of getting more black students and black teachers in ~he G/T program. She also said that she would like to see our principals more involved in the program. The next item discussed was Section 4: Compensatory Education. Attorney Jones explained that many new programs had alread~ been implemented and others are in the making. He said that many of our teachers had complained about requirements in having to participate in the training program, \"Teacher ExpE,ctations and Student Achievement\" ('l'ESA). This training consists of five workshop sessions and iive classroom observations per teacher. In the program, teachers learn to inciease specific motivating and supportive interactions with low achievers. He also said that teachers had complained about the project, \"Prac~ical Approach to Curriculum and Instructional Renewal\" (PACIR). In this program, objectives are developed\nstudents' progress is measured\nstudents' needs identified\nand programs, practices and resources adjusted. Attorney Jones said that the North Little Rock School District will continue to focus on remediation of identified deficiencies in reading, language arts and mathematics. He commtanted that \"it was just to bad if teachers did not like it - it is a part of our desegregation plan and we do not have ar. option.\" He went on to say that we could not deviate from the plan. Mr. Smith referred the group to page 36. Mr. Gene Jones explained that the District had hired compensatory a.:.aes and extended day personnel to concentrate efforts toward remedial ~eading and remedial mathematics supplementaty instruction for elementary stuoents in grades 1, 2 and 3. He said we have gone beyond this by employing Remedial Reading teachers. He went on to say other options were being looked at for grades 4, 5 and 6. Ms. Crawford spoke up to say that emphasis in elementary is on grades 1, 2 and 3, and other programs developed for 4, 5 and 6 are our own option. In looking at Section 5: Compensatory Programs Aimed at Dropout Prevention, Attorney Jones pointed out that we have moved far beyond what we have committed to. He used as example our Alternative Education Center - an alternative program for cut-of-school suspensions. The commitment was to provide for selected secondary school students, but has already been expanded to include elementary students. The center will provide services to grades K-12 during the 1992-93 school year. The program is available for students whose behavior is unmanageable both at school and at home and who cannot function in the on-campus suspension program. Students continue their academic work and receive counseling services. The next item discussed was Section 6: Extracurricular Activities. Attorney Jones explained that the Joshua Intervenors had filed \u0026amp; suit against the District challenging the process in selection of spirit groups. He said that we had followed our plan and could not see that in any way the process was unfair. He went on to say that the extra curricular activities were constantly scrutinized and we encourage participation. The district pays for uniforms and transportation because we recognized these were problems that kept some students from participation. Mrs. Bynum reminded the principals at elementary level to closely monitor the awards, committees, etc. to be sure they were racially equitable. Mr. Goss brought up a discussion of the athletic selection process, in that the coaches decide who participates. Attorney Jones said that we certainly have a higher black representative in sporting activities, but it is not a legal matter at this time. Mr. Morris pointed out that coaches have to be certified, but spirit group sponsors do not, although all the district sponsors are certified personnel. Mrs. Wisen,an questioned if the suit was against people or process. Attorney Jones was adamant that the district used a process instead of setting quote\n\"pick a certain number.\" Mr. Thompson said we should have a written plan to address each extra curricular activity, the same as we do for curriculum. Attorney Jones suggested that principals keep recvrds of all activities and keep aware of what is going on, when prcblems arise, make plans to correct them. Mrs. Bynum said that principals should look at their School Profiles from the monitori~g process. She suggested they call their staffs' attention to the extra curricular activities, and ask for their input and assistance in monitoring these activities. She also said they might want to look back at the Joshua monitoring reports for their schools. Attorney Jones said that if a problem was seen, we should immediately look for ways to eliminate any disproportionate process in selection of committees, etc. Mrs. Bynum said the key factor was communication to students and parents . The next item discussed was Section 7: Discipline, Expulsions and Suspensions. Attorney Jones said there were three factors to consider for any infraction: (1) communication, (2) consistency, and (3) documentation. He said that documentation will vary commensurate with infraction. He went on to say that we were the first of the three districts to ke~p students in school --- expulsion only for possession of weapon. He said we did not think it was good to put students out on the street, we want to make sure that discipline referrals are in school. A very brief discussion of Section 10: Desegregation Monitoring followed. Attorney Jones commented that he was sure that everyone was familiar with the school based monitoring process, and we were more concerned with the Joshua monitoring. Mrs. Wilson said the Joshua monitoring team was very thorough --- even looking at teachers' lesson plans. Attorney Jones commented that we have to understand their role and be courteous and cooperativew Attorney Jones called attention to pages 1 and 2 of the Interdistrict Desegregation Flan. He informed the group that he had written the introduction and that our role was very limited in the Interdistrict Plan. Mrs. Bynum said she hoped that the overview gave the group a better understanding ot our Desegregation Plan and would enable them to answer questions, and to keep their building staff informed. Meeting was adjourned at 1~:00 p.m. ~ ov 9 1?9 NORTH LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 0:1 .a of 1:er.c~')':-'i:,, I 'J,.::\n1g North Little Rock, Arkansas Minutes of District Desegregation Team Meeting on September 14, 1992 The North Little Rock District Desegregation team met on September 14, 1992, at 1:30 p.m., in the Board Room of the Administration Building, with the District Attorney, Members from the Federal Courts Office of Desegregation Monitoring and Members of the Joshua Intervenors Monitoring team. Persons attending the meeting were: Ann Brown, Federal Monitor - ODM Horace Smith - Associate Monitor - ODM Ms. Joy Springer - Joshua Intervenors Mrs. Lorene Joshua - Joshua Intervenors Mrs. Delois Sikes - Joshua Intervenors Ms. Debbie Parker - Joshua Intervenors Mr. Kirke Herman - Joshua Intervenors Steve Jones, Attorney - NLRSD Mr. James Smith - Superintendent of Schools - NLRSD Mrs. Mable Bynum - Asst. Supt.-Desegregation - NLRSD Mr. Gene Jones - Asst. Supt.-Instruction - NLRSD Mr. Bobby Acklin - Asst. Supt.-Student Services - NLRSD Mr. Donald Watkins - Asst. Supt.-Business - NLRSD Mr. Jim Morris - Director-Personnel - NLRSD Mr. Greg Daniels - Director-Computer Services - NLRSD. Steve Jones opened the meeting by expressing concern that information required for internal monitoring as well as requests for additional information from the Office of Desegregation Monitoring and the Joshua Monitoring Team could become a tremendous task for our District Desegregation Office. He stressed a need to come up with a schedule of reports and information to be provided to both ODM and Joshua, thus lessening the voluminous paper work involved. He also said that some of the information requested by the Joshua team was impossible to provide prior to their visits due to the early date. He pointed out that we did not allow our internal monitoring teams to interrupt the educational process in the classrooms and that last year some of our teachers had felt intimidated during Joshua's monitoring visits. Ms. Springer responded that they had already agreed that they would go about the process somewhat differently from last year. A discussion then pursued relating to individual data on students. Steve Jones reminded everyone that students records were protected by the Educational Privacy Act\ntherefore, individual records could only be viewed with written permission from the parents of students. Mr. Gene Jones explained that aggregated test data was compiled and could be furnished to them for perusal. Ms. Springer responded that their team just wanted to be sure that the tests were being given and data kept for each student. Steve Jones replied that the data was available in Principals' offices, and with written permission from parents, individual student data could be made available to them. The next item discussed was the Joshua team's request to view teachers' plan books. Steve Jones requested their rationale for this request? Ms. Springer responded that they wanted to know what was going on in the classroom and to make sure the multicultural curriculum was being included in the classrooms. Steve Jones pointed out that teachers' plan books were as varied as the individual teachers themselves, and a lesson plan would not always reflect a true picture of the learning process of a particular class, or the many facets of a particular lesson. Steve Jones used an example of an instructor he had in college that lectured without notes, but to him represented one of the best instructors he had. Mr. Herman responded that although he had been out of the educational field for some time, that teachers always used an organization plan. Ms. Springer commented that the group looked at teachers' lesson plan books last year and did not understand why this was a problem now. Further discussion continued on this issue. Steve Jones explained that he had thought Joshua monitors were asking to collect all the teachers' plan books for scrutiny. Mr. Morris commented that it would be a problem for one of the team members to look at a plan book and understand it without a teacher to explain the contents. Ms. Springer and Mr. Herman agreed that they would be upset if they did not find a plan book \"up to date,\" asking how a teacher's lessons could be evaluated. Mr. Gene Jones pointed out that principals confer with teachers about plan books to evaluate what is occurring in the classroom. He went on to say that there are two formal observations of each teacher in the classroom every year and this is used by the principal in evaluating the teacher. Mr. Acklin commented that not only are there two formal observations, there are also many informal observations occurring in the schools, in the way of walk through observations of classes by principals, but that it would be impossible to document everything. Mrs. Brown agreed that monitoring during a class session could be made very intimidating to a teacher. Mr. Horace Smith spoke to the issue of multicultural education. He said that it is not necessarily that which is highlighted in a \"plan book,\" but observations and conferences with the principal regarding multicultural infusion into the curriculum and activities occurring in the schools would assure the monitoring groups that multicultural education is being included in the educational procccc cf the schools in our area. Steve Jones again reiterated that the District does not want its teachers to worry about monitoring so much that the educational process will be hindered in any way. A discussion between Steve Jones and Ms. Springer continued. Mr. Jones pointed out that it would be best for monitoring teams to talk with teachers during breaks and preparation periods. He stressed that the monitoring process should not be observed as a process to place the blame on any one, but should be as constructive as possible for the teachers and principals. Ms. Springer responded that their team would like to spend more time in the classroom this year. The next item discussed was the possibility of the District Desegregation Office forwarding the same or similar information to the Court, the Office of Desegregation Monitoring and the Joshua Intervenors, instead of having to gather different information for each. Steve Jones pointed out that at least a fifty percent change occurs during any one school year and gathering the data in the many ways requested by the different groups was becoming such a tremendous task that it was hard to carry on the regular business required of the Desegregation Office. He also commented that a clear cut assignment of students was not completed for at least two weeks after the opening of school and then it was constantly changing. A discussion between Ms. Springer and Mrs. Bynum concerning the School Profiles was the next item. Mrs. Bynum responded that October 1 enrollment and assignments were usually the basis for the profiles, so the profiles would not be ready until sometime in October. Mrs. Brown reported that her office had been studying materials used by schools in Cleveland, Ohio, and they would decide if some of the methods and forms used there could be useful in this area. She said they would furnish all three districts a survey form to be used to audit all reports and information generated. The Office of Desegregation Monitoring could then make its requests for information match the district's schedule. Format and appropriate dates for reports were discussed. Once these are agreed upon, the Compute~ Services Departments in all three districts could generate information for transmittal to the Office of Desegregation Monitoring and Joshua Intervenors. Mrs. Brown commented that there was great redundancy in information, including the school monitoring process. She indicated a need to coordinate team visits and collaboration of our efforts to avoid such redundancy. Ms. Springer brought up a discussion of the Desegregation Plan relating to the Special Education section. She asked if we had a Special Education Committee. Steve Jones responded that the committee was in place and Dr. Steve Phaup was in charge of thi~ committee. Mrs. Bynum pointed out that she had invited Joshua Intervenors through Attorney John Walker last spring to inform the District of its appointee to the Special Education Review Committee. Mrs. Bynum said that she was not aware if the committee had met yet this year, but Dr. Phaup would know and could answer any concerns they would have about our Special Education Program. The next item discussed was the compensatory education programs that have been implemented by the District. Steve Jones commented that we should not be surprised if these classes are racially disproportionate. Ms. Springer asked whether we knew if the compensatory education programs were working? Mr. Gene Jones said that the program goals are being monitored closely, and thus far had shown a definite improvement\nhowever, some of the programs are too new for much analysis. Ms. Springer questioned criteria for classroom aides. Mr. Gene Jones responded that it depends on the number of Chapter I students and criteria is set to meet the needs. He went on to say that the District increased the number of these positions last year and uses computer lab aides at the elementary and middle school levels. He stressed that needs vary greatly in different elementary schools\nhowever, each elementary school has a half-time compensatory aide in addition to those associated with the Chapter I and computer labs. Ms. Springer questioned the use of social workers in the District. Mr. Jones responded that Barbara Gilkey does work in this capacity and heads up our HIPPY Program. He went on to say we had added a position of Social Case Worker, whose responsibility is to work with pregnant students and students who have young children of their own. Social workers receive referrals for assistance from school personnel. Steve Jones praised the District's efforts in compensatory education programs, stressing the expansion of our HIPPY Program which is now serving at least 200 families. Several aides are working in this program which helps to give home instruction to students who might not otherwise get the pre-school attention they need. Mrs. Joshua voiced a concern about the nature of the bussing plan for some of the students in the Gribble Addition and Boone Park areas. Mr. Acklin explained that all elementary students living more than two miles from their school were provided transportation. A discussion concerning this practice ensued. Mrs. Joshua was concerned that some of these students lived more than two miles from school and were not being transported. Mr. Acklin assured her this was not the case. Mr. Acklin reported that the State does not require student transportation, but if a District chooses to transport students, reimbursement is made for students being transported two miles or more. He also pointed out that we furnish transportation by choice for the benefit of our students, but the District could not afford to transport all students. He reiterated his intention to review the areas of concern with a commitment to fairness in approving any new bus routes. The next item discussed was class size. Mrs. Bynum addressed this concern by reporting that classes are kept within the maximum student limit, but stressing that at both the elementary and secondary levels student counts above 25 are allowed. Mrs. Bynum questioned Mrs. Brown concerning the forms she would furnish to the District. Mrs. Brown responded that a master schedule would be developed that we could all work with. Steve Jones thanked the group for their attendance, and Mrs. Bynum requested that the regular District Desegregation Team members remain for further discussion. Mrs. Bynum questioned Steve Jones about what we should do about the quarterly reports. Steve Jones responded that he thought we should continue to submit the reports, since much of the instructional information submitted in the reports was not available in any other complete report. It was agreed that we would continue to compile information to be submitted for July, August and September. Comparison data of achievement disparity was discussed. Steve Jones said that the achievement disparity in our District had been impacted by some factors beyond our control\nhowever, we continue to do many things to address the issue. We discussed the need to keep follow through data on students who remain in our District for all of their education. We could then compare that data with that collected on students that come and go from the District. Meeting was adjourned at 3:20 p.m. Respectfully submitted, f:::w~~ NORTH LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT North Little Rock, Arkansas Minutes of District Desegregation Team Meeting on September 14, 1992 The North Little Rock District Desegregation team met on September 14, 1992, at 1:30 p.m., in the Board Room of the Administration Building, with the District Attorney, Members from the Federal Courts Office of Desegregation Monitoring and Members of the Joshua Intervenors Monitoring team. Persons attending the meeting were: Ann Brown, Federal Monitor - ODM Horace Smith - Associate Monitor - ODM Ms. Joy Springer - Joshua Intervenors Mrs. Lorene Joshua - Joshua Intervenors Mrs. Delois Sikes - Joshua Intervenors Ms. Debbie Parker - Joshua Intervenors Mr. Kirke Herman - Joshua Intervenors Steve Jones, Attorney - NLRSD Mr. James Smith - Superintendent of Schools - NLRSD Mrs. Mable Bynum - Asst. Supt.-Desegregation - NLRSD Mr. Gene Jones - Asst. Supt.-Instruction - NLRSD Mr. Bobby Acklin - Asst. Supt.-Student Services - NLRSD Mr. Donald Watkins - Asst. Supt.-Business - NLRSD Mr. Jim Morris - Director-Personnel - NLRSD Mr. Greg Daniels - Director-Computer Services - NLRSD. Steve Jones opened the meeting by expressing concern that information required for internal monitoring as well as requests for additional information from the Office of Desegregation Monitoring and the Joshua Monitoring Team could become a tremendous task for our District Desegregation Office. He stressed a need to come up with a schedule of reports and information to beprovided to both ODM and Joshua, thus lessening the voluminous paper work involved. He also said that some of the information requested by the Joshua team was impossible to provide prior to their visits due to the early date. He pointed out that we did not allow our internal monitoring teams to interrupt the educational process in the classrooms and that last year some of our teachers had felt intimidated during Joshua's monitoring visits. Ms. Springer responded that they had already agreed that they would go about the process somewhat differently from last year. A discussion then pursued relating to individual data on students. Steve Jones reminded everyone that students records were protected by the Educational Privacy Act\ntherefore, individual records could only be viewed with written permission from the parents of students. Mr. Gene Jones explained that aggregated test data was compiled and could be furnished to them for perusal. Ms. Springer responded that their team just wanted to be sure that the tests were being given and data kept for each student. Steve Jones replied that the data was available in Principals' offices, and with written permission from parents, individual student data could be made available to them. The next item discussed was the Joshua team's request to view teachers' plan books. Steve Jones requested their rationale for this request? Ms. Springer responded that they wanted to know what was going on in the classroom and to make sure the multicultural curriculum was being included in the classrooms. Steve Jones pointed out that teachers' plan books were as varied as the individual teachers themselves, and a lesson pl~n would not always reflect a true picture of the learning process of a particular class, or the many facets of a particular lesson. Steve Jones used an example of an instructor he had in college that lectured without notes, but to him represented one of the best instructors he had. Mr. Herman responded that although he had been out of the educational field for some time, that teachers always used an organization plan. Ms. Springer commented that the group looked at teachers' lesson plan books last year and did not understand why this was a problem now. Further discussion continued on this issue. Steve Jones explained that he had thought Joshua monitors were asking to collect all the teachers' plan books for scrutiny. Mr. Morris commented that it would be a problem for one of the team members to look at a plan book and understand it without a teacher to explain the contents. Ms. Springer and Mr. Herman agreed that they would be upset if they did not find a plan book \"up to date,\" asking how a teacher's lessons could be evaluated. Mr. Gene Jones pointed out that principals confer with teachers about plan books to evaluate what is occurring in the classroom. He went on to say that there are two formal observations of each teacher in the classroom every year and this is used by the principal in evaluating the teacher. Mr. Acklin commented that not only are there two formal observations, there are also many informal observations occurring in the schools, in the way of walk through observations of classes by principals, but that it would be impossible to document everything. Mrs. Brown agreed that monitoring during a class session could be made very intimidating to a teacher. Mr. Horace Smith spoke to the issue of multicultural education. He said that it is not necessarily that which is highlighted in a \"plan book,\" but observations and conferences with the principal regarding multicultural infusion into the curriculum and activities occurring in the schools would assure the monitoring groups that multicultural education is being included in th1: 1::d.ucationa1p:\n::-ocess cf the schools in our area. Steve Jones again reiterated that the District does not want its teachers to worry about monitoring so much that the educational process will be hindered in any way. A discussion between Steve Jones and Ms. Springer continued. Mr. Jones pointed out that it would be best for monitoring teams to talk with teachers during breaks and preparation periods. He stressed that the monitoring process should not be observed as a process to place the blame on any one, but should be as constructive as possible for the teachers and principals. Ms. Springer responded that their team would like to spend more time in the classroom this year. The next item discussed was the possibility of the District Desegregation Office forwarding the same or similar information to the Court, the Office of Desegregation Monitoring and the Joshua Intervenors, instead of having to gather different information for each. Steve Jones pointed out that at least a fifty percent change occurs during any one school year and gathering the data in the many ways requested by the different groups was becoming such a tremendous task that it was hard to carry on the regular business required of the Desegregation Office. He also commented that a clear cut assignment of students was not completed for at least two weeks after the opening of school and then it was constantly changing. A discussion between Ms. Springer and Mrs. Bynum concerning the School Profiles was the next item. Mrs. Bynum responded that October 1 enrollment and assignments were usually the basis for the profiles, so the profiles would not be ready until sometime in October. Mrs. Brown reported that her office had been studying materials used by schools in Cleveland, Ohio, and they would decide if some of the methods and forms used there could be useful in this area. She said they would furnish all three districts a survey form to be used to audit all reports and information generated. The Office of Desegregation Monitoring could then make its requests for information match the district's schedule. Format and appropriate dates for reports were discussed. Once these are agreed upon, the Computer Services Departments in all three districts could generate information for transmittal to the Office of Desegregation Monitoring and Joshua Intervenors. Mrs. Brown commented that there was great redundancy in information, including the school monitoring process. She indicated a need to coordinate team visits and collaboration of our efforts to avoid such redundancy. Ms. Springer brought up a discussion of the Desegregation Plan relating to the Special Education section. She asked if we had a Special Education Committee. Steve Jones responded that the committee was in place and Dr. Steve Phaup was in chu~gc of this committee. Mrs. Bynum pointed out that she had invited Joshua Intervenors through Attorney John Walker last spring to inform the District of its appointee to the Special Education Review Committee. Mrs. Bynum said that she was not aware if the committee had met yet this year, but Dr. Phaup would know and could answer any concerns they would have about our Special Education Program. The next item discussed was the compensatory education programs that have been implemented by the District. Steve Jones commented that we should not be surprised if these classes are racially disproportionate. Ms. Springer asked whether we knew if the compensatory education programs were working? Mr. Gene Jones said that the program goals are being monitored closely, and thus far had shown a definite improvement\nhowever, some of the programs are too new for much analysis. Ms. Springer questioned criteria for classroom aides. Mr. Gene Jones responded that it depends on the number of Chapter I students and criteria is set to meet the needs. He went on to say that the District increased the number of these positions last year and uses computer lab aides at the elementary and middle school levels. He stressed that needs vary greatly in different elementary schools\nhowever, each elementary school has a half-time compensatory aide in addition to those associated with the Chapter I and computer labs. Ms. Springer questioned the use of social workers in the District. Mr. Jones responded that Barbara Gilkey does work in this capacity and heads up our HIPPY Program. He went on to say we had added a position of Social Case Worker, whose responsibility is to work with pregnant students and students who have young children of their own. Social workers receive referrals for assistance from school personnel. Steve Jones praised the District's efforts in compensatory education programs, stressing the expansion of our HIPPY Program which is now serving at least 200 families. Several aides are working in this program which helps to give home instruction to students who might not otherwise get the pre-school attention they need. Mrs. Joshua voiced a concern about the nature of the bussing plan for some of the students in the Gribble Addition and Boone Park areas. Mr. Acklin explained that all elementary students living more than two miles from their school were provided transportation. A discussion concerning this practice ensued. Mrs. Joshua was concerned that some of these students lived more than two miles from school and were not being transported. Mr. Acklin assured her this was not the case. Mr. Acklin reported that the State does not require student transportation, but if a District chooses to transport students, reimbursement is made for students being transported two miles or more. He also pointed out that we furnish transportation by choice for the benefit of our students, but the District could not afford to transport all students. He reiterated his intention to review the areas of concern with a commitment to fairness in approving any new bus routes. The next item discussed was class size. Mrs. Bynum addressed this concern by reporting that classes are kept within the maximum student limit, but stressing that at both the elementary and secondary levels student counts above 25 are allowed. Mrs. Bynum questioned Mrs. Brown concerning the forms she would furnish to the District. Mrs. Brown responded that a master schedule would be developed that we could all work with. Steve Jones thanked the group for their attendance, and Mrs. Bynum requested that the regular District Desegregation Team members remain for further discussion. Mrs. Bynum questioned Steve Jones about what we should do about the quarterly reports. Steve Jones responded that he thought we should continue to submit the reports, since much of the instructional information submitted in the reports was not available in any other complete report. It was agreed that we would continue to compile information to be submitted for July, August and September. Comparison data of achievement disparity was discussed. Steve Jones said that the achievement disparity in our District had been impacted by some factors beyond our control\nhowever, we continue to do many things to address the issue. We discussed the need to keep follow through data on students who remain in our District for all of their education. We could then compare that data with that collected on students that come and go from the District. Meeting was adjourned at 3:20 p.m. Respectfully submitted, ~w~~ rmv 9 t992 NORTH LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT Of/leec ,f0 ~~\\1~a:l!ioMro. nitoring North Little Rock, Arkansas Minutes of District Desegregation Team Meeting on October 12, 1992 The North Little Rock District Desegregation team met on October 12, 1992, at 1:30 p.m., in the Board Room of the Administration Building. The following persons attended the meeting: Mrs. Mable Bynum, Mr. James Smith, Mr. Gene Jones, Mr. Donald Watkins, Mr. Jim Morris, Ms. Scharmel Bolling and Mr. Greg Daniels. Mrs. Bynum opened the meeting by reminding the members that she had furnished copies of a memo from the Office of Desegregation Monitoring regarding a survey/information audit. She pointed out that she had furnished a list of forms and information previously required from each particular department and asked that the administrator responsible feel free to add to or revise the list. Ms. Bolling questioned \"date available.\" Mrs. Bynum responded if it was information or report due periodically that an approximate date could be used. Ms. Bolling stated that she usually FAXed a copy of any information from her office to the Federal Monitor's office. Mr. Jones commented that the items listed for instruction were not nearly as comprehensive as his regular quarterly status update. He mentioned that vocational assessments, extended day program and the summer transition program were not shown on his list. Mrs. Bynum agreed that these items should be included since they pertain to our compensatory education program. Mrs. Bynum inquired about the personnel department's responsibilities. Mr. Morris responded that he thought his list was complete. Mr. Daniels questioned the instructional requirement of interim grades/report cards. Mrs. Bynum stated that we could only report the dates that interim grades/report cards were issued. She pointed out that the Joshua team had reported in its findings that we were only doing interim reports for the first quarter. We discussed the practice that Lakewood Middle School has made to furnish parents/guardians a copy of the students' interim grades as part of their MGAP project. Mrs. Bynum reiterated that the list she had prepared was only a start to give each administrator an idea to expand upon, and if they would make her aware of any and all information/reports issued from their offices or other offices under their respective area, she would then pass the information on to the Federal Monitor's Office. She reminded them that this information is due on October 19th. Mr. Jones reported that our annual school report to the State Department of Education is due on October 15, 1992. We discussed the fact that this is reported from Computer Services in the form of a disk which could be furnished to other sources if requested. Mrs. Bynum informed the team of our student enrollment statistics for the 1992-93 school year. She reported that we have 9,251 students enrolled with 48.3 percent black as compared with 46.9 percent during the 1991-92 school year. Mrs. Bynum noted that we have several elementary schools with more than 50 percent black students. Mrs. Bynum reported that the District has 295 black M-to-M transfers from the Little Rock District and we have 143 non-black M-to-M transferring to the Little Rock District. The District also has 545 students enrolled in Magnet Schools (276 non-black and 269 black). It was also pointed out that our District has 57 black students going to Oak Grove and only 7 non-black coming to our District from Oak Grove. It was further noted that under the School Choice Act we had only one black student going to Pulaski County Special School District, while 81 non-black from Pulaski County attend North Little Rock Schools. Mr. Morris asked if we report on home schooling? Mr. Jones responded that the parents notify us of the home schooling and from there it was handled through the State Department of Education. He pointed out that there seemed to be an increase in home schooling each year. Mrs. Bynum asked Mr. Jones if he had any information on the Special Education Committee? Mr. Jones responded that the committee was in place and had met once thus far. He reported that Mr. Prentice Dupins had been appointed to the committee. Mrs. Bynum commented that the Joshua t~am had inquired about the committee and that she had sent a copy of her earlier letter inviting them to appoint a member to serve on the committee, but Joshua had not responded to the invitation at this time. Mr. Morris furnished copies of the staffing percentages by race and gender for 1992-93. He reported that we had made some progress in that we now have a black teacher placed in the Gifted/ Talented program. He pointed out that we did have a glaring need for black teachers at Baring Cross, but that the enrollment was down this year at the school, therefore, no new staff were hired. Ms. Bolling inquired if the courts have set down a specific quota we must meet for staffing. Mr. Morris responded that state legislation says we should have the same percentage black teachers as students. We discussed the relevant labor market as compared to our district's accomplishment in recruiting black teachers and agreed that we were ahead in percentages as compared to the applicants available as represented by the labor market statistics. Mr. Morris commented that the district had offered contracts to four black teachers that had turned us down this year. We discussed our inability to compete in salaries with the other two districts in our area with our budget. Mr. Morris reported that he would start next week visiting colleges/universities in recruitment efforts for the 1993-94 school year. Recruitment packets have been sent to all major colleges in Arkansas and surrounding states in preparation of recruiting. Mr. Watkins reported that in budget comparisons from last year, some pre-school money was added from the desegregation budget for supplies and equipment. He further explained that some of the cost was paid under the Chapter I program. The next discussion concerning \"Project Promise\" was led by Mr. Jones. He explained that this program is targeted at black students for our Gifted/Talented program. He reported that we have employed three persons to work part-time as home visitors. Mrs. Bynum commented that we also have non-black students with the same needs. Mr. Jones reported that $25,000 had been allocated for band instrument purchase in an effort to recruit students that would not otherwise participate in band because of lack of funds for instruments. Mrs. Bynum inquired about the status of the pre-school program scheduled to open at Redwood Elementary. Mr. Jones responded that materials had been ordered and plans were to get the program in operation during the month of November. Further discussion of the pre-school program continued. Mr. Jones explained that funding for teachers was provided by Chapter I and that the Arkansas Better Chance Program (ABC) provided funding for the paraprofessionals. He said that we also used some desegregation money for supplies and materials. Mr. Jones reported that the program required that a separate fenced play area be provided for these students. Mr. Morris asked if the ABC funds were recurring? Mr. Jones responded that it could be a very competitive process, but he felt sure that it will continue. The next item discussed was staff development. Mrs. Bynum asked if plans were being implemented for secondary TESA training. Mr. Jones said we would prefer the teachers participate in the training after regular work hours and pay them a stipend. He expressed assurance that we will conclude total staff training in areas mandated by the court order by the time required. Mr. Jones asked that we discuss a problem he has seen in the compensatory education program. He reported that he thinks there is an erosion of the extended day program in some of our elementary schools. He said that we needed to decide if we were going to continue this program as a part of our disparity reduction plan and if so, we had to come up with a definite plan or face continued erosive process in the program. He pointed out two problems with the program: (1) transportation and (2) some principals' attitudes. Ms. Bolling asked if we had shown any improvement in students' test scores? Mr. Jones said we had seen about a three point gain on test scores from the participating students. He said that schools in Oklahoma City had used this program and it had proved to be very effective. Mr. Jones reported that three of our elementary schools are now using the compensatory aides to provide services to at risk students in other ways than the extended day program. Mrs. Bynum responded that if they are operating successfully in some schools, we should have them in all schools. She went on to say that she liked the idea and hoped we would be able to impact the test scores, but also we should be able to see some behavior improvement from these students. Mr. Jones agreed to address this issue with elementary principals. The next item discussed was the positive effect we are seeing in the HIPPY program. We discussed the differences in the extended day program and HIPPY program. It was agreed that the personnel involved and the attitudes displayed make the difference in the programs effectiveness. Mr. Jones announced a pre-school parents' meeting at Central Elementary School scheduled for tonight and encouraged the other administrators to attend. Ms. Bolling brought up a discussion of the district's participation in services offered to students eligible for medicaid assistance for a new dental/vision clinic that has offered its services. Ms. Bolling reported that we were getting some resistance from principals in releasing students for the services. The clinic personnel are responsible to furnish a signed statement from the parents for release of the students. Mr. Jones responded that there was some employee concerns about the clinic's operation being questionable, as to whether it is offering medical treatment or merely providing medicaid screenings. He further stated that the district has approximately 600 students that would be eligible for the services. He also pointed out that the district does some screening and we could possibly bill medicaid for those. All agreed that efforts should be made to help students to be physically fit for learning. Mrs. Bynum reminded the team members to submit quarterly desegregation status update information by October 30, 1992. Respectfully submitted, ~Wo~~ ' NLRSD Dese re ation Team Meetin s Year Dates Attendance (13) Proof Number Percent 2002-03 7 54% Minutes 2001-02 11 85% Minutes 9/11/01 Canceled Notice 4/9/02 Notice 3/02 Canceled Note 2/12/02 Notice 1/02 Canceled Note 12/11/01 Canceled Notice 11/28-29/01 ??????? Notice 11/13101 Notice 2000-01 3/12/01 10 77% Minutes 5/8/01 Canceled 10/10/00 Notice 1999-00 3/14/00 11 85% Minutes 2/8/00 8 62% Minutes 1/11/00 Notice 12/14/99 Canceled Notice 11/9/99 11 85% Minutes 10/12/99 11 85% Minutes 1998-99 10 77% Minutes 9 69% Minutes 11/10/98 10 77% Minutes 1997-98 5/12/98 Canceled Notice 14/14/98 12 92% Roster 3/10/98 Canceled Notice 2/10/98 12 92% Minutes 1/13/98 10 77% Roster and 12/9/97 11 85% Roster and 11/11/97 12 92% Roster and 10/14/97 10 77% Roster f9~9l 4=,~, 1995-96 4 31% Minutes 1994-95 r 1993-94 1992-93 12/14/92 8 62% Minutes NLRSD Desegregation Team Meetings Year Dates Attendance (13) Proof I Number Percent 2002-03 3/18/03 t 7 54% Minutes - 2001-02 ~ 10/9/01 11 85% Minutes 9/11/01 Canceled Notice 4/9/02 Notice 13/02 Canceled Note 12/12/02 Notice -- - 1/02 Canceled -- Note 12/11/01 Canceled Notice 11/28-29/01 ??????? Notice - 11/13/01 Canceled 1 Notice - 2000-01 3/12/01 10 77% Minutes 5/8/01 10/10/00 Notice 1999-00 3/14/00 11 85% Minutes - 2/8/00 8 62% Minutes 1/11/00 Notice 12/14/99 Canceled Notice 11/9/99 11 85% Minutes - -, 10/12/99 11 85% Minutes - 1998-99 2/9/99 10 77% Minutes -, - ~ 12/8/98 9 69% Minutes I- - -11/10/98 - 10 77% Minutes 1997-98 5/12/98 Canceled Notice ~ -, - 4/14/98 12 92% Roster \u0026gt;-- - 3/10/98 Canceled Notice -2/10/98 12 92% Minutes 1/13/98 10 77% Roster and agenda - -12/9/97 11 85% Roster and agenda - - - 11/11197 12 92% Roster and agenda ~ -10/14/97 - 10 77% Roster 1996-97 1995-96 7/13/95 4 31% Minutes - 1994-95 -- - I- 1993-94 c--- 1992-93 12/14/92 8 62% Minutes E SEP 1 9 2003 OFFIOCFE DESEGREGMAOTNIOITNO Rl,IG NORTH LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 2700 Poplar Street North Little Rock, Arkansas 72114 Minutes of the District Desegregation Team Attachment 1 a The North Little Rock School District Desegregation Team met on Tuesday, March 18, 2003, at 1:30 p.m., in the Conference Room of the Administration Building. The following members were present: Bobby Acklin, Greg Daniels, Kaye Lowe, Jerry Massey, )viable Mitchell, Danny Reed, and Donald Watkins. Mr. Acklin started the meeting off with appreciation to the Desegregation Team for attending the first meeting of the school year. With everyone covered up in work and showered with things to do, we have not sat down and talked about what's going on with the different departments. Mr. Acklin reported the Biracial Committee resumed meeting, and he shared his appreciation to the Desegregation Team for attending those meetings as well. It helps us keep informed on what each department is doing. Mr. James Smith and Mr. Dana Chadwick may be 15 minutes late to the meeting due to their presence required at the Monitoring Exit Meeting in the District. Mr. Acklin reported monitoring is in progress, as we do every year. Monitoring is designed to help improve the schools. To the best of his knowledge, no one else has monitored and each year it gets a little less and less. Office of Desegregation Monitoring could have been in the first week of school, but he does not recall. That is not to say we are doing everything right, but he thinks someone recognizes that we are trying to do things right. He mentioned that as we work through desegregation, we will never get it perfect because it is based on individuals\nand, individuals are not perfect\nwe will always make mistakes. Our monitoring is to catch those mistakes\nthings we might be doing wrong or could do differently\nmake it better for the students and then we can change it. He hopes that monitoring fits into a part of what the schools are doing rather than something that's viewed with apprehension. The final monitoring reports have been turned in from the schools. These reports will be compiled in booklet form, and you will receive a copy. Mr. Acklin stated he has not had a chance to analyze the discipline to report to the Desegregation Team. Mrs. Jackson is still ill, but she is doing better. He announced Thursday, March 20, 2003, at the School Board Meeting, four students will be recommended for expulsion for drugs\nsmoking marijuana\nsecond offense. There will be two students from the NLRHS-East Campus and two students from the NLRHS-West Campus. Mr. Acklin informed the Desegregation Team that he has started working on student assignments early this year to assure this task is accomplished, and he will make adjustments as he goes. He is in the process of getting the elementary student assignments completed and sent to Computer Services to be entered in the computer, so that printouts could be sent to the schools to check for accuracy. He stated that we have students coming and going from every direction in the District, in which special attention is given. Page 2 Minutes of the District Desegregation Team Mr. Acklin asked Mr. Massey if the capacity of the schools had changed from last year. Mr. Massey explained that nearly every school would change slightly, if the staffing at that school changed. Nothing significant - opts to be less than twenty-change anywhere in the last year. Mr. Acklin stated we would work with him on the capacity of the schools as we move through the assignments. Mr. Acklin announced the Student Handbook Committee would convene in April. As directed by the School Board, the committee will consist of the same number of teachers and Administrators. In addition, parents and high school students will be part of this committee. The Committee will proceed through the handbook to see if there are any changes needed. The School Board wanted this done by a certain time, and we are starting it early to get it done. Mr. Acklin asked if the members had any questions regarding the before mentioned. There was no response from the committee. Mr. Acklin asked if the members had any information that they wanted to share with the committee. Mr. Reed reported Special Education Monitoring would take place the week of May 15, 2003. Regarding Personnel\nMr. Reed reported recruiting efforts are underway, going to colleges and universities\nThursday recruitment will take place at the Chambers of Commerce. One concern Mr. Reed had was the number of college graduates sliming down this year, which would impact recruitment of minority applicants. He reported a number of recruitment activities planned: Grambling State University, Louisiana Tech, University of Arkansas at Pine Bluff, Arkansas Tech and U of A at Fayetteville. Mrs. Lowe reported interviewing twenty-plus applicants for elementary schools. Mrs. Mitchell requested a copy of the minutes so she could share the information with the other members of the School Board. Mr. Acklin explained that everything we do is connected to Desegregation\nsomehow, someway\nand each and every day, he realizes more and more the truth to that statement. \"Doing the right things right\", that is what desegregation is. Mr. Acklin advised that the next meeting will be next month at the same time and hopes Mrs. Jackson will be back to report on the discipline. Mr. Acklin thanked the team members for their participation and adjourned the meeting. Respectfully Submitted, .ci,:11~\n1 d 2003 - vrf\\C0F G O, t 'rti:GATAIOO~N l10ffitl NORTH LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRIC1 North Little Rock, Arkansas Minutes of the District Desegregation Team Attachment 1 b 2DOI - Z. The North Little Rock School District Desegregation Team met on Tuesday October 9, 2001, at 1: 30 p.111.i, n the Conference Room of the Administration Building. The following members were present: Bobby Acklin, Dana Chadwick, Esther Crawford, Greg Daniels, Fran Jackson, Letitia Martin, Mable Mitchell, Jim Morris, Danny Reed, James Smith, and Donald Watkins. Mr. Acklin opened the meeting by introducing Letitia Martin. Letitia Martin, Director of Federal Programs. New to the table, she was invited to give the Desegregation Team input anytime. Mr. Acklin repo1t the Desegregation Monitoring Team Training has commenced this morning. Only training new monitors, it was an enthusiastic group from across the district. Mr. Acklin shared information to the new monitors to help them in the monitoring process. Mr. Acklin stated that this is the main monitoring becau e it is a self-monitoring and we are not trying to hide anything from ourselves. We are trying to improve upon the areas we are not doing well in, but that is the purpose of self monitoring to find what we are doing well in and build on that and then where we are not doing well we could identify those areas and move forward. Mr. Acklin encouraged the committee not to cover up problems but to note the problem areas and we will try to correct it. The Desegregation Monitoring Team Training make-up session will be this evening from 5:00 p.m. to 7:00 p.m. for those who could not make this morning's session. Monitoring perimeter dates have been given to the principals\nafter October 15 to a day in January. Any day during that time, they could have the monitoring team come in and monitor. The principals are to notify Mr. Acklin of their monitoring date. Mr. Acklin reported on State Monitoring. He received a letter from Desegregation Monitoring and Accountability Office\nwe are continuing Monitoring, \"we are continuing our meetings\nthat will help the State revamp their monitoring program when they come out to the schools.\" Mr. Acklin will be asking some of the Desegregation Team members to see if the North Lillie Rock School District stands are the same or make changes. We ask the State for help in discipline and staff development. If the State could help us with closing the disparity between black and non-black, we welcome them to come in. Mr. Acklin stated that sometime we close in on orth Little Rock but the problem is not this small it is like this everywhere\nwe may not be doing as bad as we think we are in discipline. Mrs. Jackson reported the Times ewspaper has requested a breakdown of discipline by - reason and actions. In addition, the Times wanted to know about the alternative Minutes, Desegregation Team Meeting Page 2 Tuseday, October 9, 2001 programs. Mrs. Jackson talked with the reporter, Matthew Hodges, about the Shorter Now Program for the 16 and 17 year old youngsters\nThe Adult Program for the 18 year old\nArgenta\nArgenta After School Program\nPulaski Alternative Learning Academy, Step One Program, Water Shed Program, The on-handicap BIA Classroom, and the Incentive Programs in the schools. It has been a concentrated effort to look at the needs of the children and place them in the appropriate placement as we do this then we have a decrease in suspensions. Mrs. Jackson stated that  North Little Rock had fewer suspensions this year than the previous year.  North Little Rock Administrators in the schools are doing a terrific job.  North Little Rock is blessed because we have many alternative programs and we can fit the need of the child with the program.  Overall, the data on discipline is showing an improvement. Mr. Acklin informed the members he had received a Jetter from Mr. John Walker's office asking for statistic information on black males as principals and assistant principals. We did provide that information to his office. We have not heard anything back from them. They requested this information after we hired the principal at Poplar Street Middle School. Mrs. Mitchell added she had received calls regarding this situation as well. She referred the callers to the North Little Rock School District's Personnel Office. Mr. Morris stated he had no one to contact him about this situation. Mr. Acklin believes someone who interviewed for the principal position at Poplar Street Middle School felt he/she should have been hired for the position. There were people who applied who had a higher academic degree but no experience. Mr. Acklin remarked that Mrs. Cooley, from John Walker's Office, requested all of the North Little Rock School District committees that a parent could serve. We listed the about 16 committees that parents could serve on and sent the list to Mrs. Cooley. Mr. Acklin reported that he had a visit from Horace Smith from the Office of Desegregation Monitoring regarding the cost of Spirit Group uniforms. He wants to speak with the secondary principals. Mr. Acklin stated we do not have enough in the Desegregation Office budget to help but we do. There was a discussion around the table regarding budgeting Spirit Group uniforms. Some children cannot do fund raising because they do not have an outlet. (Locations and non-working parents). Mr. Acklin mentioned a concern came to his attention regarding a Social Studies Committee that was one-race. Investigating this concern, we found no committee with just one race. Mr. Acklin asked the members to inform him immediately if the members hear of any one-race committees. We are committed to bi-racial committees. .. Minutes, Desegregation Team Meeting Page 3 Tuseday, October 9, 2001 Mr. Acklin brought to the table a personnel issue that may turn into a lawsuit. A teacher felt they were being treated differently than another teacher, based on their degrees\na degree outside of the educational area. This teacher feels like the other teacher is being paid for their degree and he/she is not. We have thoroughly investigating this and cannot find any records where someone is being paid for a doctrine outside of the educational field and someone is not being paid for a doctrine outside of the educational field. We try to do things fair and we are within policy. We have sent the disgruntled teacher a letter explaining this. Mr. Daniels asked for clarification. There was a discussion with Mr. Chadwick, Mr. Acklin, Mr. Morris and Mrs. MitcheJl with explanation and clarification. Mr. Acklin asked the members if they had anything to share. Mr. Daniels mentioned the school profile information would be provided next week. Mr. Reed informed the members that we have not set the Special Education State Monitoring date. We will have a Special Education advisory meeting in November. Mr. Acklin thanked those in attendance and adjourned the meeting. Respectfully Submitted, ,----/..1.. . ,, . ~I \\ ./  /2--nd~_ f1/l-C//2( ,.{\n,  Sandy Juckett, Secretary Sandy Juckett 10/09/01 09:03 AM To: Shara Brazear/NLRSD@NLRSD, Dana Chadwick/NLRSD@NLRSD, Esther Crawford/NLRSD@NLRSD, Greg Daniels/NLRSD@NLRSD, Francical J Jackson/NLRSD@NLRSD, Jerry Massey/NLRSD@NLRSD, Jim Morris/NLRSD@NLRSD, Danny Reed/NLRSD@NLRSD, James Smith/NLRSD@NLRSD, Donald Watkins/NLRSD@NLRSD, Letitia Martin/NLRSD@NLRSD cc: Bobby Acklin/NLRSD@NLRSD Subject: Desegregation Meeting Desegregation meeting today at 1:30 p.m. in the conference room. .N. ., 0 0 U)  0 ' 00 -z 0 ., ... ::r r :::0 0 r,,. .. ..., N I.Jt 0 ' 00 ...... Vl 0 0 0 0 September 28, 2001 Memo To: From: Subject: Shara Brazear, Communication Specialist Dana Chadwick, Administrative Director of Secondary Education Esther Crawford, Administrative Director of Elementary Education Greg Daniels, Director of Computer Services Letitia Martin, Director of Federal Programs Francical Jackson, Director of Student Affairs Jerry Massey, Director of Plant Services Mable Mitchell, School Board Member Jim Morris, Assistant Superintendent for Personnel Danny Reed, Director of Special Services James Smith, Superintendent of Schools Donald Watkins, Assistant Superintendent for Business Affairs Bobby Acklin, Assistant Superintendent for Desegregation Desegregation Team Meeting Just a reminder ... Desegregation Team Meeting, Tuesday, October, at 1:30 p.m. in the conference room of the Administration Office. Please note the next seven meeting,\n0n vour calendar. November 13, December 11, January 8, February 12, March 12, April 9, May 14, 1 \"-----\n., ~mnlnvPr. www.nlrsd.kl2,ar.us Sandy Juckett 09/28/01 12:59 PM Sandy Juckett North Little Rock School District To: Shara Brazear/NLRSD@NLRSD, Dana Chadwick/NLRSD@NLRSD, Esther Crawford/NLRSD@NLRSD, Greg Daniels/NLRSD@NLRSD, Francical J Jackson/NLRSO@NLRSD, Jerry Massey/NLRSD@NLRSD, Jim Morris/NLRSD@NLRSD, Danny Reed/NLRSD@NLRSD, James Smith/NLRSD@NLRSD, Donald Watkins/NLRSD@NLRSD, Letitia Martin/NLRSD@NLRSD cc: Bobby Acklin/NLRSD@NLRSD Subject: Desegregation Meeting Secretary to the Assistant Superintendent of Desegregation Mr. Acklin would like to remind all of you about the upcoming desegregation meeting on October 9, 2001 at 1:30 p.m. in the conference room. Please note the next seven meetings on your calenciclr. November 13, December 11, January 8, February 12, March 12, April 9, May 14, Sandy Juckett 09/11/01 10:20 AM Sandy Juckett North Little Rock School District Secretary To: Shara Brazear/NLRSD@NLRSD, Dana Chadwick/NLRSD@NLRSD, Esther Crawford/NLRSD@NLRSD, Greg Daniels/NLRSD@NLRSD, Francical J Jackson/NLRSD@NLRSD, Jerry Massey/NLRSD@NLRSD, Jim Morris/NLRSD@NLRSD, Danny Reed/NLRSD@NLRSD, James Smith/NLRSD@NLRSD, Donald Watkins/NLRSD@NLRSD, Letitia Martin/NLRSD@NLRSD cc: Bobby Acklin/NLRSD@NLRSD Subject: Desegregation meeting scheduled for today has been canceled. Sandy Juckett 09/07 /01 02:47 PM To: Shara Brazear/NLRSD@NLRSD, Dana Chadwick/NLRSD@NLRSD, Esther Crawford/NLRSD@NLRSD, Greg Daniels/NLRSD@NLRSD, Francical J Jackson/NLRSD@NLRSD, Jerry Massey/NLRSD@NLRSD, Jim Morris/NLRSD@NLRSD, Danny Reed/NLRSD@NLRSD, James Smith/NLRSD@NLRSD, Donald Watkins/NLRSD@NLRSD, Letitia Martin/NLRSD@NLRSD cc: Bobby Acklin/NLRSD@NLRSD Subject: Desegregation Meeting Mr. Acklin would like to remind all of you about the upcoming desegregation meeting on September 11, 2001 at 1 :30 p.m. in the conference room. Please note the next eight meetings on your calendar. October 9, November 13, December 11, January 8, February 12, March 12, April 9, May 14, I I - 04/08/02 05:27 PM  Sandy Juckett To: Bobby Acklin/NLRSD@NLRSD, Dana Chadwick/NLRSD@NLRSD, Danny Reed/NLRSD@NLRSD, Darlene Holmes/NLRSD@NLRSD, Donald Watkins/NLRSD@NLRSD, Esther Crawford/NLRSD@NLRSD, Francical J Jackson/NLRSD@NLRSD, Greg Daniels/NLRSD@NLRSD, James Smith/NLRSD@NLRSD, Jerry Massey/NLRSD@NLRSD, mablejbm@sbcglobal.net, Jim Morris/NLRSD@NLRSD, Letitia Martin/NLRSD@NLRSD cc: Subject: Meeting Just a reminder .... Deseg. mtg.  Tue. April 9 1:30 p.m. cont. rm. Sandy Juckett, Secretary North Little Rock School District 2700 Poplar Street, P.O. Box 687 North Little Rock, AR 72115-0687 501 771-8050 Fax: 501 771-8001 March 2002 meeting cancelled Esther Crawford 02/06/02 01:59 PM To: Sandy Juckett/NLRSD@NLRSD cc: Subject: Re: Desegregation Meeting Tuesday, February 12, 2002 Sandy, I will be out of town on Tuesday and will not be able to attend the meeting. Sorry.Esther Sandy Juckett Sandy Juckett 02/06/02 12:29 PM Please respond to Sandy Juckett To: Bobby Acklin/NLRSD@NLRSD, Dana Chadwick/NLRSD@NLRSD, Danny Reed/NLRSD@NLRSD, Darlene Holmes/NLRSD@NLRSD, Donald Watkins/NLRSD@NLRSD, Esther Crawford/NLRSD@NLRSD, Francical J Jackson/NLRSD@NLRSD, Greg Daniels/NLRSD@NLRSD, James Smith/NLRSD@NLRSD, Jerry Massey/NLRSD@NLRSD, mablejbm@sbcglobal.net, Jim Morris/NLRSD@NLRSD, Letitia Martin/NLRSD@NLRSD cc: Subject: Desegregation Meeting Tuesday, February 12, 2002 There will be a meeting of all members of the desegregation team on Tuesday, February 12, 2002 at 1:30 p.m. in the conference room. N \"\" 0 0 \"0 en  \"d 0 0::, 0 \u0026gt;\u0026lt; z 0.. ..,. ::r ...., N ,... ..... \\J\\ 0 ' 00 ....,  VI 0 ...., ~ 00 0 0 0 Februruy 6, 2002 Memo To: Shara Brazear, Communication Specialist Dana Chadwick, Administrative Director of Secondary Education Esther Crawford, Administrative Director of Elementary Education Greg Daniels, Director of Computer Services Letitia Martin, Director of Federal Programs Francical Jackson, Director of Student Affairs Jerry Massey, Director of Plant Services Mable Mitchell, School Board Member Jim Morris, Assistant Superintendent for Personnel Danny Reed, Director of Special Services James Smith, Superintendent of Schools Donald Watkins, Assistant Superintendent for Business Affairs From: f1f'- Bobby Acklin, Assistant Superintendent for Desegregation Subject: Desegregation Meeting Just a reminder .. . Desegregation Team will meet on Tuesday, February 12, 2002 at 1:30 p.m. in the conference room of the Administration Office  A- ,:\n,,,.,1 n,,nnrtunitv Emolover  www.nlrsd.k12.ar.us January 2002 meeting cancelled Sandy Juckett 12/11/01 11:30 AM To: Bobby Acklin/NLRSD@NLRSD, Dana Chadwick/NLRSD@NLRSD, Danny Reed/NLRSD@NLRSD, Darlene Holmes/NLRSD@NLRSD, Donald Watkins/NLRSD@NLRSD, Esther Crawford/NLRSD@NLRSD, Francical J Jackson/NLRSD@NLRSD, Greg Daniels/NLRSD@NLRSD, James Smith/NLRSD@NLRSD, Jerry Massey/NLRSD@NLRSD, mablejbm@sbcglobal.net, Jim Morris/NLRSD@NLRSD, Letitia Martin/NLRSD@NLRSD cc: Subject: Today's Meeting has been canceled. No Deseg Meeting today. Thank you! N -.J 0 0 \"O 0 \"O (fl 0 t:d 0 X ' 00 -.J '.0., . . :,- 0 -.J N .... .... \"' 0 ' 00 -.J \"' 0 -.J -.J ' 0 0 November 20, 2001 Memo To: Shara Brazear, Communication Specialist Dana Chadwick, Administrative Director of Secondary Education Esther Crawford, Administrative Director of Elementary Education Greg Daniels, Director of Computer Services Letitia Martin, Director of Federal Programs Francical Jackson, Director of Student Affairs Jerry Massey, Director of Plant Services Jim Morris, Assistant Superintendent for Personnel Danny Reed, Director of Special Services James Smith, Superintendent of Schools Donald Watkins, Assistant Superintendent for Business Affairs From: /4 Bobby J. Acklin, Assistant Superintendent for Desegregation Subject: Desegregation Plan On November 28 and 29, Steve Jones will meet with us to discuss the desegregation plan revisions. We will meet in the conference room at 1:30 p.m. on November 28 and at 9:00 a.m. on November 29. Please make every effort to attend.  An Equal Opportunity Employer www.nlrsd.kl2.ar.us Sandy Juckett 11/13/01 09:21 AM To: Bobby Acklin/NLRSD@NLRSD, Dana Chadwick/NLRSD@NLRSD, Danny Reed/NLRSD@NLRSD, Darlene Holmes/NLRSD@NLRSD, Donald Watkins/NLRSD@NLRSD, Esther Crawford/NLRSD@NLRSD, Francical J Jackson/NLRSD@NLRSD, Greg Daniels/NLRSD@NLRSD, James Smith/NLRSD@NLRSD, Jerry Massey/NLRSD@NLRSD, Jim Morris/NLRSD@NLRSD, Letitia Martin/NLRSD@NLRSD cc: Subject: Just a reminder to let you know the Deseg meeting is today at 1 :30 p.m. in the conference room. Sandy Juckett 05/08/01 09:03 AM Sandy Juckett To: Shara Brazear/NLRSD@NLRSD, Dana Chadwick/NLRSD@NLRSD, Esther Crawford/NLRSD@NLRSD, Greg Oaniels/NLRSD@NLRSD, Jim OyeriNLRSD@NLRSD, Francical J Jackson/NLRSD@NLRSD, Jerry Massey/NLRSD@NLRSD, Jim Morris/NLRSD@NLRSD, Danny Reed/NLRSD@NLRSD, James Smith/NLRSD@NLRSD, Donald Watkins/NLRSD@NLRSD cc: Subject: North Little Rock School District Secretary to the Assistant Superintendent of Desegregation DESEG MEETING HAS BEEN CANCELLED FOR TODAY. THANK YOU! Greg Daniels 03/13/01 12:31 PM To: Sandy Juckett/NLRSD@NLRSD cc: Bobby Acklin/NLRSD@NLRSD, James Smith/NLRSD@NLRSD Subject: Deseg Sandy, We have a Intranet training scheduled from 1 - 2 pm for elementary secretaries. I will be unable to attend the Deseg meeting. Thanks, Greg Daniels Director-Computer Services Greg.Daniels@mail.nlrsd.kl2.ar.us 501.771.8025 NORTH LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT North Little Rock, Arkansas Minutes of the District Desegregation Team Attachment 1 c The North Little Rock School District Desegregation Team met on Tuesday March 12, 2001, at 1 :30 p.m., in the Conference Room of the Administration Building. The following members were present: Bobby Acklin, Shara Brazear, Dana Chadwick, Jim Dyer, Jerry Massey, Mable Mitchell, Jim Morris, Danny Reed, James Smith, and Donald Watkins. Absent members are Greg Daniels, Esther Crawford, and Fran Jackson Mr. Acklin opened the meeting reminding the members the purpose of the Desegregation Team meetings\nfirst that we said we would have meetings and we are still under a desegregation court order. Mr. Acklin mentioned that Little Rock School District was getting ready to go back in to court to ask for unitary status, which will affect us eventually, depending on what the agreement will be as it relates to Magnet Schools and M to M transfers\nweather or not the State will continue to pay. Mr. Acklin reported that the Desegregation Monitoring is complete. We will get a copy to you shortly and we will go over the Monitoring Report at the next Biracial Committee meeting. There are some things we know we need some improvement. Some are minor things. Mr. Acklin reported that the Desegregation Office is working on the Civil Rights Report. It's a Federal report we get periodically from Washington. It is a long drawn-out extensive report and we have that completed. We did have to ask for a ten-day extension. Mr. Acklin thanked Mr. Chadwick, Mr. Reed, and Mr. Morris and others who helped gather the information needed. Mr. Acklin reported that our quarterly reports are doing well. Last years is due now and this is the last call we are going to bind what we have and give it to Steve Jones for him to review it and see what is missing, see what we need to included, move around, or make changes. Mr. Jones will mark it up\ngive it back to us\nwe make the corrections\nwe make fresh copies\ngive Mr. Jones ten copies bound\nand Mr. Jones will furnish the different parties a copy. Mr. Morris elaborated on minority teacher recruitment. We actively recruit at Philander Smith, UAPB, Grambling, Jackson State, and Southern. Mr. Morris reminded the committee members that we still have a desegregation plan in effect\nthere has been no changes in recruitment retention, hiring. Mr. Morris mentioned he would like to send a letter out to the principals reminding them that this is still part of our plan and that we have responsibility for that. Mr. Acklin stated that we try to document everything we do in recruitment. Even the number of jobs offered but turned down. Minutes, Desegregation Team Meeting Page 2 March 12, 2001 Mr. Acklin asked the members if they had anything they wanted to share with the committee. Mr. Reed mentioned that the Special Education Annual Monitoring was during the last part of January and we have not gotten the report back yet. As a matter of fact they still have Argenta Academy to do. One piece of information from the Magnet Review Committee was the County School District informed us at the last meeting, Carl Brown and Jim Johnson that they were probably going to change the magnet selection process to lottery. Mr. Chadwick reported we will have, on this board agenda for Thursday night, recommendations for summer school and that includes the summer school for eighth graders and tuition assistance for high school summer school. Last year we help eighty students with partial tuitions, using free and reduce lunches to qualify. Ms. Mitchell reported on Act 326 of 1997. This is teaching Black History all year. Mr. Acklin read a letter from a parent, Victoria Hester. Mrs. Hester would like to compliment Mr. Warren for the outstanding job he does, she stated that Mr. Warren takes care of business in a professional manner with immediate results. She was very happy with the way he handled her problem. Mr. Acklin went on to say that, Mr. Warren works in Transportation and he works on concerns from parents and touches a lot of different people in all areas of town. When we receive input back from parents like this, it helps the North Little Rock School District to keep a good name. Mr. Acklin thanked those in attendance and adjourned the meeting. Respectfully Submitted, y -~~~Iv I -,\n/~..,\nPf f . Sandy Juckett, Secretary N (0)J fiTl.J BII LITTTJLJIEB (O)mCC\n:J FUiffIiL ICI C CCI8 I(D )(OI)L  ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICES 2700 POPLAR STREET March 9, 2001 Memo To: Shara Brazear, Communication Specialist . Dana Chadwick, Administrative Director of Secondary Education Esther Crawford, Administrative Director of Elementary Education Greg Daniels, Director of Computer Services Jim Dyer, Director of Federal Programs Francical Jackson, Director of Student Affairs - Jerry Massey, Director of Plant Services Mable Mitchell, School Board Member Jim Morris, Assistant Superintendent for Personnel Danny Reed, Director of Special Services ,.James Smith, Superintendent of Schools Donald Watkins, Assistant Superintendent for Business Affairs From:,4\u0026amp;, Bobby Acklin, Assistant Superintendent for Desegregation Subject: Desegregation Team Meeting Just a reminder ... Desegregation Team Meeting, Tuesday, March 13, at 1:30 p.m. in the conference room of the Administration Office. AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER Sandy Juckett To: Bobby Acklin/NLRSD@NLRSD, Dana Chadwick/NLRSD@NLRSD, Francical J Jackson/NLRSO@NLRSD, Esther Crawford/NLRSD@NLRSD, Greg Oaniels/NLRSO@NLRSD, Jim Dyer/NLRSD@NLRSD, Shara Brazear/NLRSD@NLRSD, Jerry Massey/NLRSD@NLRSD, Jim Morris/NLRSO@NLRSD, James. Smith/NLRSD@NLRSD, Donald Watkins/NLRSO@NLRSD, Danny Reed/NLRSD@NLRSD cc: Subject: North Little Rock School District Secretary to the Assistant Superintendent of Desegregation Desegregation Meeting, Tuesday, March 13 in the conference room at 1 :30p.m. NCO)~'F IBIJ LJ'IIr 'JrJLJEIff iC O\u0026lt;) Cill : 1P1LJJIBLI I3\u0026lt; C l CCJB (IQ )C OJL) l ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICES 2700 POPLAR STREET October 6, 2000 Memo To: From: Subject: Shara Brazear, Communication Specialist Dana Chadwick, Administrative Director of Secondary Education Esther Crawford, Administrative Director of Elementary Education Greg Daniels, Director of Computer Services Jim Dyer, Director of Federal Programs Francical Jackson, Director of Student Affairs Jerry Massey, Director of Plant Services Mable Mitchell, School Board Member Jim Morris, Assistant Superintendent for Personnel Danny Reed, Director of Special Services James Smith, Superintendent of Schools Donald Watkins, Assistant Superintendent for Business Affairs Bobby Acklin, Assistant Superintendent for Desegregation Desegregation Team Meeting Just a reminder  Desegregation Team Meeting, Tuesday, October 10, at 1:30 p.m. in the conference roon: of the Administration Office. AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER P. 0. UOX 687. NORTH Ll'TVJ'LR ROf:K AR 7?11 r--mi:\ns:n i\nr11177 1 QAr,fl Sandy: Shara Brazear 10/06/00 12:56 PM To: Sandy Juckett/NLRSD@NLRSD cc: Subject: Re: Tf haamn kusn!a ble to attend the meeting as I will be on vacation that day. Shara W( DI)B T IBII LTITTILJEIB (D)CI[ CI P11JIB3CILCT CI CI8 I(Q )C OI)L  ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICES 2700 POPLAR STREET July 15, 2000 Memo To: James R. Smith, Superintendent From: Bobby J. Acklin, Assistant Superintendent of Desegregation Subject: Status Report on Desegregation Plan Provisions SECTION X-MONITORING District Biracial Committee The North Little Rock School District's District-wide Biracial Committee met during this quarter to analyze data and discuss matters related to District programs. (See Attachment X-Al and X-A2.) District Desegregation Team The North Little Rock School District Desegregation Team did not convene during the fourth quarter. School Monitoring School monitorinS?w\nas completed according to the published schedule. Principals were advised cf their ccn11.I111tteers1 nc.1ngs, urenso f conce1.i.iS and suggestions for improvement. Principals were asked to prepare written responses to findings with specific reference to areas of concern. The District's Desegregation Team, the Biracial Committee and member of the North Little Rock School Board of Education (See Attachment X-B) have reviewed schoolmonitoring information. AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER P 0. BOX 687, NORTH LITILE ROCK, AR 72115/0687 501/771-8000 NORTH LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT North Little Rock, Arkansas Minutes of the District Desegregation Team AT'rACHMENTX -B2 The North Little Rock School District Desegregation Team met on Tuesday, March 14, 2000, at I :30 p.m., in the Conference Room of the Administration Building. The following members were present: Bobby Acklin, Shara Brazear, Dana Chadwick, Esther Crawford, Jim Dyer, Francical Jackson, Jerry Massey, Mable Mitchell, Jim Morris, James Smith, and Donald Watkins. Bobby Acklin opened the meeting by announcing three expulsions coming up, one from Belwood Elementary, a male student had a pellet gun and two students from West Campus involved in drug infraction. One was selling and one was buying. Bobby Acklin reported on the Unifonn Committee meeting held on March 13. There was a good turn out with students and adults. There was a long discussion and the majority of the group requested more information. The next Uniform Committee meeting will be April 17. A lengthy discussion on school uniforms followed. Bobby Acklin thanked the team members for their participation and adjourned the meeting. Respectfully Submitted, 0~ Slli1d. . ,..\n'.!.~ . -!\\.\\,,!.'.~ ~\"'~ J.. ... !.dfY NORTH LITTLE ROCK SCHOOi, DlSTRfCT North Little Rock, Arkansas Minutes of the District Desegregation Team The North Little Rock School District Desegregation Team met on Tuesday, February 8, 2000, al I :30 p.m., in the Conference Room oflhe Administration Building. The following members were present: Bobby Acklin, Dana Chadwick, Greg Daniels, Jim Dyer, francical Jackson. Mable Mitchell, Jim Morris, and Donald Watkins. Bobby Acklin opened the meeting by giving an update report on school monitoring. Bobby Acklin informed the Desegregation Team of the new Onifoml Committee. Seventy-nine le11erst o parents and students will go out today requesting they altend a meeting on March 13 lo discuss the possibility of school unifonns. Mable Mitchell asked how were the students and parents selected. Dana Chadwick responded that the secondary principals were asked to give names of two parents and two students, one black and one non-blac\", from each grade level (6-12). The elementary principals were asked to give names of two parents, one black and one non-black, from each grade level (K-5). Every school will have representation. Bobby Acklin asked Fran Jackson lo speak to the Desegregation Team on the new Truancy Law and how the Biracial Committee will satisfy that law. rrnn Jackson handed out a list of the students sited for truancy during the first semester. She slated that each parent/student handbook addressed truancy. She proceeded with a detailed description of the process followed when a violation of the truancy law has been made. Fran Jackson stated that a new law had been implemented that every school district should organize a Community Truancy Board with a new committee or an existing committee with the approval of tha1 committee. The Community Truancy Board concept was presented to the Birncial Com mince and they have agreed to serve as the Community Truancy B011rd. The primary function of the Community Truancy Board is to recommend method:..::.  school a1tendancc. Jim Morris reported on teacher recruitment. Mnble Mitchell remarkedo n Charter chools and asked for feedback from the Desegregation fcam when that moment arises for North Little Rock Schools. Mr. Acklin thanked the tenm members for their participation and adjourned the meeting. Respectfully Submitted, (fi,J~ (J.~Jr  Sandy Juc~tt, Secretary N (0)J ET IEI ILITTTILJEJ E(Q)(Cil l: IPTIJiIfLfiI T(C CClB IC IT(D\u0026gt; )I L ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICES 2700 POPLAR STREET January 14, 2000 Memo To: James R. Smith, Superintendent From~ Bobby J. Acklin, Assistant Superintendent of Desegregation Subject: Status Report on Desegregation Plan Provisions SECTION X-MONITORING District Biracial Committee The North Little Rock School District's Biracial Committee convened monthly during the second quarter. The following officers were elected for 1999 - 2000\nVickie Hendrix, President\nAutreana Battles, Vice President\nand Sue Brummett, Secretary. (See Attachments X-Al, X-A2, and X-A3.) District Desegregation Team The North Little Rock School District Desegregation Team convened twice during the second quarter to analyze information, discuss policies, procedures, activities and programs related to quality desegregated education. Due to other school functions and c-' responsihilitiPs conflictine with the scheduled meeting the December Desegregation Team meeting was canceled. (See Attachments X-Bl, X-B2, X-B3.) School Monitoring Biracial School Monitoring Teams have been named for 1999 - 2000 school year. (See Attachment X-C.) A.~ EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER P. 0. BOX 687, NORTH LIITLE ROCK, AR 72115/0687 501/771-8000 N -.J 0 0 \"C 0 '0 -., ... ... .,... .,.. . \"C 0 1:11 0 ~ ' 00 -.J 0 ...... :,- ...... -.J N .... .... Vl 0 ' 00 -.J  Vl 0 -.J -.J 0 0 January 6, 2000 Memo To: From: Subject: Shara Brazear, Communication Specialist Dana Chadwick, Administrative Director of Secondary Education Esther Crawford, Administrative Director of Elementary Education Greg Daniels, Director of Computer Services Jim Dyer, Director of Federal Programs Francical Jackson, Director of Student Affairs Jerry Massey, Director of Plant Services Mable Mitchell, School Board Member Jirn Morris, Assistant Superintendent for Personnel Danny Reed, Director of Special Services James Smith, Superintendent of Schools Donald Watkins, Assistant Superintendent for Business Affairs Bobby Acklin, Assistant Superintendent for Desegregation Desegregation Team Meeting Just a reminder . .. Desegregation Team Meeting, Tuesday, January 11, at 1:30 p.m. in the conference room of the Administration Office .  An Equal Opportunity Employer www.nlrsd.k12.ar.us Due to other school functions and responsibilities conflicting with the scheduled meeting the Desegregation Team meeting was canceled today, December 14, 1999. 1. Welcome Desegregation Committee Meeting Agenda Items Nov-99 2. First Quarter Status Reports were due October 15 Thank you to: Shara Brazear and Jerry Massey Still waiting on a few - you know who you are ... 3. Mr. Chadwick - \"The Times\" report on Benchmark Scores 4. Mrs. Jackson - Discipline Report 5. Mr. Smith - update \"Uniform Committee\" 6. Next meeting December 14 NORTH LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT North Little Rock, Arkansas Minutes of the District Desegregation Team The North Little Rock School District Desegregation Team met on Tuesday, November 9, 1999, at 1 :30 p.m., in the Conference Room of the Administration Building. The following members were present: Bobby Acklin, Dana Chadwick, Esther Crawford, Greg Daniels, Francical J. Jackson, Jerry Massey, Mable Mitchell, Jim Morris, Danny Reed, James Smith, and Donald Watkins. Mr. Acklin remarked how astonishing it is that Monitoring Training and the funeral of Daisy Bates fell on the same day. Mr. Acklin reported Monitoring Training started today with a good turn out, lively and positive group. He reflects that desegregation does not have the negative condemnation that it once had. Monitoring is for two purposes, one to celebrate the good things we are doing and, second, to improve on the negative. Monitoring in the schools will begin now until January 15, 2000. The monitoring report will be available after compiling the Final Reports. Mr. Acklin reported the Biracial Committee has resumed meeting once a month. At the last meeting there was a tremendous tum out and participation. Seeking suggestions for programs to discuss from month to month at the Biracial meetings, Mr. Acklin made an open invitation. Mr. Morris will be asked to speak on personnel recruitment and perhaps Mr. Daniels could talk about the new web site. Mr. Acklin asked if the members had anything to share. Mr. Massey stated next month the revised Building Capacity Report will be ready. Mr. Daniels mentioned the school profile information went out to the schools last week. 1 \"- r--.,.,::d- informed the members a group had been established to study Understanding Poverty Issues. Mr. Morris spoke on recruiting efforts. The state required recruiting plan has been completed. He stated Friday, November 5, recruiters visited Grambling University and brought back more contacts, then ever before. If adding teachers and building administrators in the recruiting efforts will get more contacts than that is what we want to do. We will continue to identify minority teacher candidates before we go out and make contact at the career fairs. Confident this year with documentation, we will be able to answer questions for ODM. Mrs. Jackson reported due to space at the NLRHS-East Campus, a closure to special education students has been implemented. Mrs. Jackson will contact Mr. Reed before the second semester for any changes. In the way of discipline, Mrs. Jackson reported, there had been no expulsions this year. There is an expulsion recommendation on the table. A black female from Poplar Street Middle School ' \" had a knife at the bus stop. Depending on the pending information, we will send this child to Water Shed. In the Other Placements category, she gave the following information: Black Black White White Proeram Male Female Male Female Total Step One Program 4 1 5 Intervention Step One 0 0 0 0 0 Water Shed 1 1 2 Suspensions for the month of October 1999 is 474, including SAC and Home Suspensions, Boys and Girls Club, and K-6 Suspensions. Last year, October 1998 totaled 582. We had 1,878 referrals out of 1,535 students for the month of October 1999. The major reasons for referrals are 1) disruption, 2) excessive tardiness, 3) disregard for direction of teacher/administrator, and 4) physical abuse of students. We are still experiencing more discipline behavior problems from black children. The percentage of total black referrals is 79.12% and 78.17% students\nnon-black referrals are 20.87% and 21.82% students. The desegregation plan asks to compare to see if we are consistent with consequences and referrals between black and non-black students and we are. In the category Action Taken, from most to fewer\nDetention Hall, SAC, Saturday School, Conferences with Students. Comparing black and non-black, is consistent. Mrs. Jackson reports, she looks for repeat offenders when she reviews the discipline information\nif so, how many suspension days and reason. She visits with the building administrator and decides what program would be best suited for each student. She makes use of all facets to help the children before they need to go before the board. She reports building principals have been doing a good job in looking at students and working with assistants and counselors. Mrs. Jackson briefly explained the procedures for the Water Shed Program and the Step One Program.  '1 .,h reports this year is one of the smoothest we had, and he feels good about what L going on in the buildings. He hopes we can keep it this way. He commented on improvements at Boone Park Elementary School. Ms. Crawford explained the model program at Boone Park. There are six programs like this in the state. To improve reading scores, particularly first grade, one of our first grade teachers went through intensive training this summer, and she now serves as a resource person in that building to help implement the ideal first grade classroom. In January, we will set up another first grade classroom. It is expensive but well worth it. Mr. Acklin thanked the team members for their participation and adjourned the meeting. Respectfully Submitted, ~i:\n:j~ N (0)~ TIBII LTITTILJE~ CO\u0026gt;~CC J PllJiffiILCTCI CCI8 I(Q )(QI)L  ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICES 2700 POPLAR STREET October 15, 1999 Memo To: James R. Smith, Superintendent From~Bobby J. Acklin, Assistant Superintendent of Desegregation Subject: Status Report on Desegregation Plan Provisions SECTION X-MONITORING District Biracial Committee The Biracial Committee did not convene during the first quarter. District Desegregation Team The Desegregation Team did not convene during the first quarter. Sc/zoo[ Monitoring A window of time has been established in which the schools may monitor. The established window of time is November 1, 1999 through January 15, 2000. Iv~v.w.L. 6 .... \u0026amp;lug will be conducted on November 9, from 8:30 a.m. until i l :30 a.m. with an evening session on the same day from 5:00 p.m. until 7:00 p.m. This training will be for the monitors who have never gone through the training before. AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER P. 0. BOX 687, NORTH LITILE ROCK, AR 72115/0687 501/771-8000 ~~e,veo SEP 1 9 2003 omcoEF eoESEGREGAMTIOONNl 10R\\KG NORTH LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRI\u0026lt; North Little Rock, Arkansas Minutes of the District Desegregation Team Attachment 1 d The North Little Rock School District Desegregation Team met on Tuesday, October 12, 1999, at 1 :30 p.m., in the Conference Room of the Administration Building. The following members were present: Bobby Acklin, Shara Brazear, Dana Chadwick, Esther Crawford, Jim Dyer, Greg Daniels, Francical J. Jackson, Jim Morris, Danny Reed, James Smith, and Donald Watkins. Welcoming the committee, Mr. Acklin recommended addressing issues as they arise could help move the meetings along. Mr. Acklin reported receiving a few telephone calls from Seventh Street Elementary parents concerned with one-race classes. He stated that once he has the One-Race Reports from the Principals he would have answers for these parents. He noted when mandatory student assignment was in place, Seventh Street Elementary was racially balanced. He also stated racial interaction among the children does occur between classrooms, field trips, and school assemblies. We look at the whole situation and not just at statistics, but what is best for the children. The next item Mr. Acklin discussed was to direct back to quarterly Status Reports instead of yearly. Mr. Smith mentioned the fact that the Desegregation Plan was outdated and changes have occurred as well as directives from the State Department. Mr. Acklin strongly emphasized the importance of reporting the factual items listed in the Desegregation Plan. Mr. Chadwick informed the members he had received the Eighth Grade Benchmark scores. Mr. Dyer added that the pilot testing was performed in February 1999. Mr. Chadwick reported unfortunate results at Lakewood, Ridgeroad and Rose City Middle Schools, with less than proficient level scores from black students. Mr. Chadwick stated \"The Times\" might release an article on these scores on Thursday, October 14. Mrs. Jackson reported no expulsions for this school year. She spoke on addressing potential problems before they get to the expulsion point by changing student placement, encouraging principals to look at alternative schools, and parent conferences. Mr. Smith asked Mr. Acklin to check with Al McClendon at the Boys Club concerning a request for a school bus to take students from Boone Park Elementary School to the Boys Club in the afternoons for tutoring. Mr. Dyer gave a brief report on the Penn State Project. He stated the project had been completed last year but with carry-over money, he was concluding an evaluation follow-up with student and teacher surveys. The Penn State Project started approximately four or five years ago and currently the North Little Rock School District has approximately sixty-five students throughout the Elementary schools who participate in this project, (with the majority at Boone Park Elementary). Ms Crawford added, the Penn State Project started at Boone Park Elementary and Central Elementary. When Central Elementary closed, those students were disbursed to other schools. Mr. Smith relayed positive responses from staff members at Boone Park Elementary and Seventh Street Elementary pertaining to the reduction of class size. Mr. Smith noted the reduction of class size is certainly part of the desegregation effort. Mr. Daniels stated the whole atmosphere at Boone Park is different from a year ago. Ms Crawford explained, Mavis Cherry, Principal of Boone Park Elementary, hired excellent teachers, a literacy coach and a parent coordinator\nsmaller class sizes and purchased new materials, contributed to the improvements. The classes in kindergarten and first grade are making so much progress due to the smaller class size and the teachers are teaching well. Mr. Acklin mentioned the Biracial Committee meetings have begun and by next month all vacancies should be filled. He stated it was suggested Ann Kincl give a presentation on the Gifted Program. At the next Biracial Meeting we may need to reorganize, have introductions to the new members, discuss objectives and the developmental aspects for the Biracial Committee. Mr. Smith announced a need for a committee to study school uniforms this year. This committee will consist of two parents from each school, (black and non-black), a school representative, and students at the secondary level. He asked Mr. Chadwick and Ms Crawford to get with the principals and secure parents for this committee. Mr. Smith suggested the principal could be the school representative. The procedure will be to make a recommendation to the School Board and if the School Board says no then it will go on the school election ballet next year. Mrs. Brazear mentioned it could be difficult getting uniforms for all the students in the District. Mr. Smith mentioned the committee would only need to meet a few times. Ms. Crawford mentioned the cost issue. So many of our children are on the Free or Reduced Lunch Program. Mr. Acklin requested to remind principals, as they develop committees, that the District is biracial and try to include what we have in our district to obtain opportunities for imput. Mrs. Brazear mentioned a concern she had for the twenty non-black nominees on file for the Superintendent's Honor Roll. Mr. Smith said to go outside the staff and look in the community. Mr. Smith briefly mentioned a concern with the teacher shortage issue. Mr. Morris said the number of applicants this year is down over a hundred from what it was five years ago. Mr. Smith noted the District's application would be placed on the District's website for availability. Mr. Smith commented on the District's new Web Master, Doye Wasson. He said she has made a lot of progress with the District's new website, and she will welcome any information you would like to share concerning your department. Mr. Daniels reported he would release the October 1 count when it has been sent to the State Department. Mr. Acklin thanked those in attendance and adjourned the meeting. Respectfully Submitted, ~~9~ Sandy Jucketr, Secretary NORTH LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT North Little Rock, Arkansas Minutes of the District Desegregation Team Meeting on February 9, 1999 The North Little Rock School District Desegregation Team met on Tuesday, February 9, 1999, at 1 :30 p.m., in the Conference Room of the Administration Building. The following members were present: Bobby Acklin, Shara Brazear, Dana Chadwick, Esther Crawford, Jim Dyer, Francical J. Jackson, Jim Morris, Danny Reed, James Smith, and Donald Watkins. Bobby Acklin opened the meeting by asking Fran Jackson to give the discipline report. Fran Jackson, Discipline Report for January, 1999 REFERRALS Black males: 811 referrals - 672 students, (139 repeat offenders) Black females: 385 referrals - 339 students, (46 repeat offenders) White males: (23 repeat offenders) White females: (9 repeat offenders) Total number of referrals: 1,517 REASONS Black and White males: 1 )Disruption, 2)Disregard for directions, 3)Physical/threatening abuse Black and White females: 1 )Disruption, 2)Tardiness, 3)Physical/threatening abuse ACTION TAKEN Black males: 1 )Detention hall 2)Others 3)SAC 4)Saturday School White males: 1 )Detention hall 2)Saturday School 3)Others 4)SAC Black females: 1 )Detention hall 2)Saturday School 3)Others 4)SAC White females: 1 )Detention hall 2)SAC 3)Others 4)Saturday School West Campus, East Campus, and the Middle Schools are giving out approximately the same number of suspension days. Boys Club, for the most part, is giving out 3 - 5 and 10-day suspensions. HOME SUSPENSIONS: Three at East Campus\n22 at Argenta\n1 at Ridgeroad\n5 at Amboy\n2 at Boone Park\n5 at Seventh Street, 5 at Lynch Drive, 3 at Meadow Park, 7 at North Heights, 8 at Park Hill. Total of 59 suspensions. Keep in mind, some of those schools have self-contained classes and the next step is Home Suspension. If you have a self-contained BA class you look for the number to be higher than other schools where there is not a self-contained BA class, because the next step, when that child is out of control is to send him home. The first thing suggested is a Cool Off Day. If the child is totally out of control, rather than suspending him that first day, and you have had the conference with the parent, a Cool Down Day would be implemented. Start off fresh the next day this shows the parents we are trying to work with them. When SAC is full a home SAC is given. This is not coded in our discipline referrals. Comments received from staff members concerning students sent back to their regular campus from Argenta initiated my memo. On that memo I asked if they would contact me if they were having problems. First of all, work with Nancy and if they were still having problems talk with me so that we could reassign those students back to Argenta. I have spoken with Nancy about leaving a cushion space so those students could go back to Argenta. EXPULSIONS The number of expulsions this year has been down. We have 3 (black males) coming up for this school board meeting. A student at Argenta had drugs for the second time, a student at the East Campus struck at a couple of campus supervisors, and a student at Ridgeroad was in possession of a gun. All three sets of parents are aware we are taking their children before the board. A request from John Walker's office for discipline records for all students in secondary schools for the past two years with the exception of the West Campus. A copy of our yearly discipline report for the last two years should suffice. Mr. Acklin read part ofa letter dated January 22, 1999 addressed to Mr. Smith from John Walker. \"You will recall in a letter to you dated September 30 that I raised the issue rather the District was acting in good faith with respect to its recruitment placement in hiring African American teachers. As I write this letter my concern remains. I now advise that the district was presented with another opportunity to hire a full time, certified, and qualified African American teacher at the second grade level at North Heights Elementary School. Regrettably the district chose to hire a white non-certified long-term substitute. Mrs. Kristine Gatewood applied for this position and was given an interview however, she did not receive notice from central office personnel that she was not selected for the position. In order that I may be assured I do not have incorrect information would you please provide the following:  Applications that qualified for that level  Race and Gender  District Personnel policy that outlines the hiring process  Who was interviewed  Who did Ms. Snowden interviewed and resume'  Copies of the applicants' sore sheets, including objective criteria used by the hiring officials for scoring\" Another letter dated January 28, 1999 from John Walker's office stated they received word that we don't have any minority teachers at Amboy nor Crestwood. \"Would you please advise if this information is correct.\" Mr. Acklin stated we have a minority teacher at Crestwood and at Amboy we have a minority administrator but no minority teacher presently. Mr. Acklin asked for comments or questions around the table. There were none. Meeting was adjourned. Respectfully Submitted, 6~ -C:hotce \\ -~-- ~ _/- .,-_. -,\u0026gt;:-\n_ :,\n~:  -_-__~_- ':- \"-:( , ..J rilr_~.-.~ ,-.,) N -..J 0 0 0 '0 -., \"..'. .., /1) /1)  0 t,:l 0 X ex', -..J 0 .., ... ::,\" t\"\"' ... /1) ::0 0 n :,\n- -..J N .... .... \\Jl 0 ex', -..J  \\Jl 0 -..J -..J -0 0 0 February 3, 1999 Memo To: From: Subject: Shara Brazear, Communication Specialist Dana Chadwick, Administrative Director of Secondary Education Esther Crawford, Administrative Director of Elementary Education Greg Daniels, Director of Computer Services Jim Dyer, Director of Federal Programs Francical Jackson, Director of Student Affairs Jerry Massey, Director of Plant Services Mable Mitchell, School Board Member Jim Morris, Assistant Superintendent for Personnel Danny Reed, Director of Special Services James Smith, Superintendent of Schools Donald Watkins, Assistant Superintendent for Business Affairs Bobby Acklin, Assistant Superintendent for Desegregation Desegregation Team Meeting Just a reminder .. . Desegregation Team Meeting, Tuesday, February 9, at 1:30 p.m. in the conference room of the Administration Office.  An Equal Opportunity Employer www.nlrsd.k12.ar.us I  283 NCOIB) ~/IrIIBLII TTTILJE~@ CC~ JPTIJIB3CILCI T C ClB CI O(Q))I L ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICES 2700 POPLAR STREET January 15, 1999 Memo To: James R. Smith, Superintendent From: Bobby J. Acklin, Assistant Superintendent of Desegregation Subject: Status Report on Desegregation Plan Provisions SECTION X-MONITORJNG District Biracial Committee The North Little Rock School District's Biracial Committee convened monthly during the second quarter. The following officers were elected for 1998-1999\nVickie Hendrix, President\nJimmy Maxwell, Vice President\nand Sandy Pryor, Secretary. (See Attachments X-Al, X-A2, X-A3 and X-A4.) The committee has identified targeted items to work on during this school year. Items are as follows: (I) Conflict Resolution (2) Poplar Street Middle School Update (3) Overall Elementary Changes (4) Pal Program (5) Argenta Academy Update ( 6) PT A African American Recruitment (7) Parent/Community Component District Desegregation Team The North Little Rock School District Desegregation Team convene monthly during the second quarter to analyze information, discuss policies, procedures, activities and ( programs related to quality desegregated education. (See Attachments X-Bl and X-B2.) School Monitoring Biracial School Monitoring Teams have been named for 1998-99 school year. Training sessions and site visits have been scheduled for December and January. (See Attachment X-C.) AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER P. 0. BOX 687, NORTH LI'ITLE ROCK, AR 72115/0687 501/771-8000 283 1998-99 Desegregation Team Meetings November JO, 1998 1:30 p.m. Conference Room December 8, I 998 1:30 o.m. Conference Room January 12, 1999 1:30 p.m. Conference Room Februarv 9, 1999 1:30 p.m. Conference Room March 9, 1999 1:30 o.m. Conference Room April 13, 1999 1:30 o.m. Conference Room May 11, 1999 l:30p.m. Conference Room June 8, 1999 1:30 p.m. Conference Room NORTH LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT North Little Rock, Arkansas Minutes of the District Desegregation Team Meeting on December 8, 1998 The North Little Rock School District Desegregation Team met on Tuesday, December 8, 1998, at I :30 p.m., in the Conference Room of the Administration Building. The following members were present: Bobby Acklin, Shara Brazear, Jim Dyer, Jerry Massey, Mable Mitchell, Jim Morris, Danny Reed, James Smith, and Donald Watkins. Mr. Acklin gave the desegregation team an update on North Little Rock School Monitoring. Not all the schools have turned in their monitoring date. Crestwood, Pike View, North Heights, have completed their monitoring and the East Campus is monitoring today. Monitoring is going well and special attention is focused on committee concerns. A brief report was given at the last Biracial Committee Meeting of the monitoring process. Each monitoring report and principal's response will be complied into booklets and distributed to the Biracial Committee, School Board, Attorney John Walker, and the Office of Desegregation Monitoring. January 15 is the final monitoring date. The State Department has asked the courts to postpone their monitoring in February to acquire information from the three districts that would aid the State in compiling pertinent information to benefit the three districts in their monitoring process. So far the three districts have identified five areas: academic disparity, budget, discipline disparity, staff development, and minority staff recruitment. The three districts agreed with the State in obliterating the \"Allen Letter\" and start over with the monitoring plan. Attorney John Walker has filed an objection with the courts for the State to postpone monitoring. In his deposition he indicated the State had not used the time they had wisely in working toward making the changes and the Joshua Intervenors were not involved in the process. We will be meeting again with the State on December 16. Dana Chadwick and Esther Crawford have been involved discussing Smart Start. Donald Watkins will be meeting on the 16th as it relates to budget and next month Jim Morris will be ready to discuss staff recruitment. Mr. Acklin gave the team an update of the last Biracial Committee Meeting. A parent on the Biracial Committee gave a presentation on parent involve ::!.!   '  and focusing on minority parents. It was a program she had been involved with in Rockford, Illinois. She made a good presentation and offered excellent information to take advisement on. The next Biracial Committee Meeting will be a presentation on our alternative school, Argenta Academy. Danny Reed mentioned the Special Education Advisory committee meeting December 10, 1998, Thursday at 5:00 p.m. Jim Morris mentioned the successful UAPB recruitment trip last week. Bobby Acklin dismissed the meeting. Respectfully submitted, SAK. Juckett(l _ /~/- /I c.9(~ -Eut/4 i!Jyodc EfPokd fl)~ a~cg~ Agenda December I, 1998 Opening/Welcome: Vickie Hendrix, President New Member: Vickie Hendrix, President Grace Guajardo School Monitoring: Bobby J. Acklin, Assistant Superintendent for Desegregation Special Speaker: Linda Morgan, Parent \"Parent Involvement\" Agenda Items for Tuesday, January 5, 1999: Vickie Hendrix, President Adjournment: Vickie Hendrix, President SEP 1 9 2003 NORTH LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT North Little Rock, Arkansas DESEGORFEFGIMCAOETNOIOIFT NO MR\"mI NutGes o f t he D1. stnc t De segregat10 n Te arn Meeting on November 10, 1998 Attachment 1 e The North Little Rock School District Desegregation Team met on Tuesday, November 10, 1998, at 1:30 p.m., in the Conference Room of the Administration Building. The following members were present: Bobby Acklin, Shara Brazear, Greg Daniels, Jim Dyer, Fran Jackson, Jerry Massey, Jim Morris, Danny Reed, James Smith, and Donald Watkins. Sandra Juckett recorded the meeting. Esther Crawford and Dana Chadwick were at the Smart Start meeting .. Mr. Acklin opened the first Desegregation Team meeting of the 1998-99 school year by asking Fran Jackson to report district discipline with bottom line figures. He also asked her to report on current issues regarding discipline. Fran Jackson reported from August 1998 through October 1998 a total of 2,193 referrals\nhowever, this reflects a number of students as repeat offenders. The number of referrals is up slightly from last year, but down on black referrals by 2.22%. Disruption is the major reason for referrals followed by excessive tardiness, disregard for direction, and threatening physical abuse. D-Hall is the major action taken on referrals followed by SAC, Saturday School, Conference with Student, and Conference with Student and Parent. Fran Jackson will furnish copies of the Disciplinary Report'to those who so desire. Suspensions are down by fourteen with a total of 542. Major Action taken on suspensions is SAC followed by home suspensions. Fran Jackson explained the different programs available for North Little Rock School District students such as, Argenta Academy, Our Program, Step One Program, Youth Challenge Program, C-Step, and the WaterShed Program. Fran Jackson praised the prosecutor for his stand on truancy. Bobby Acklin discussed a meeting, pertaining to discipline, that Margaret Powell invited him to, along with representatives from the Boys Club, YMCA, Parks and Recreation, CStep Program, Youth Challenge, Fortune 5\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_410","title":"Desegregation plan audit","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":["1991/1994"],"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--Evaluation","Educational planning","School integration"],"dcterms_title":["Desegregation plan audit"],"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/410"],"dcterms_temporal":null,"dcterms_rights_holder":null,"dcterms_bibliographic_citation":null,"dlg_local_right":["Available for use in research, teaching, and private study. Any other use requires permission from the Butler Center."],"dcterms_medium":["documents (object genre)"],"dcterms_extent":["20 pages"],"dlg_subject_personal":null,"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":"\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n\n\n\n   \n\n\n\n\n   \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n  \n\nArkansas Democrat (gazette Judge reassigns desegregation duties U.S. District Judge Susan Webber Wright issued an order Friday allowing the Little Rock- School District to eliminate the position of desegregation facilitator and assign the duties of that position to others. The order also created a new position, director of student as- signment. Wrights order assigns most of the responsibilities of the facilitator to the associate su- perintendent for desegregation. The judge stressed that the\nduties assigned to the facilitator are very important to achieving desegregation goals and must not be neglected. None of the parties in the desegregation case objected to the school districts proposal.New desegregation plaSludJiTfied ! 1 Judge called earlier version sketchy, wrong and hard to read BY CYNTHIA HOWELL Democrat-Gazette Education Writer The Little Rock School District on Monday filed a revised desegregation plan audit that attempts to correct deficiencies U.S. District Judge Susan Webber Wright cited in the first version. some Wright said last month that the districts initial audit  a listing of all the districts desegregation obligations based on desegregation plans and past court orders  was glaringly incomplete, inaccurate and far from user-friendly. The document omitted some obligations and did not include an organizational chart of the districts administration, the judge said. She also said the document was difficult to decipher because it contained no cover or title page, no table of contents, no designation of author or preparer, no introduction, and no other signposts to guide her or any other reader through the more than 206 pages. District officials need the audit system to determine what tasks they need to complete and to serve as a basis for budgeting, Wright said. The revised audit  submitted on the day the judge made the deadline for doing so does have a table of contents, an introduction, and an organizational chart. It also includes a listing of obligations, not only from the districts desegregation plan but also from the interdistrict plan and court -- ---------- xxviii3 i . t.iiuaiiis. ! Tho Acting Associate Superin- i introduction to the re- tendent for Programs and Cur- officials riculum Development Dennis audit Glasgow, the three assistant su- matter to eliminate duplication. The audit is organized like this: The page number of the desegregation plan or court order is listed and then all the obligations listed on that page follow. For example, the audit says language on page 148 of the de- or- segregation plan obligates the district to have a maximum I pupil-to-teacher ratio of 20-to- ! 1 in the districts incentive ele- ! mentary schools. The plan also ! lists what the district must do ' to increase staffing if the ratio ' is exceeded. The audits organizational chart shows that Deputy Superintendent Estelle Matthis, Associate Superintendent for De- segregation Russ Mayo and Sterling Ingram, director of planning, research and evaluation, report directly to Superintendent Henry P. Williams.  f 1 manager for support services 11 report to Matthis. Jeanette Wag- 1 ner, director of communica- ij tions, reports to Mayo. J The district did not have a j deputy superintendent until I Williams recently named ? Matthis to the position.  No court date has been set I for a hearing on the revised au-  dit. I I 1 1 IArkansas Democrar \"^(gazette FRIDAY, OCTOBER 8. 1993 . LRSD document indecipherable, judge says testily . BY CYNTHIA HOWELL\nDemocrat-Gazette Education Writer The federal judge presiding in the Pulaski County school desegregation lawsuit has once again sharply criticized the Little Rock School District for failing to comply with her directives. U.S. District Judge Susan Webber Wright said in a sevenpage order Thursday that a desegregation plan audit submitted to her by the school district Sept. 10 was glaringly incomplete, inaccurate and far from user friendly. She directed the district to correct the deficiencies and submit a completed report by 5 p.m. on Oct. 15. Jerry Malone, an attorney for the district, said Thursday that the district had made a gallant effort to submit the audit to the judge by the Sept. 10 deadline, and it was understandable that changes might be necessary. He had not seen Thursdays order birt said the district would correct the deficiencies listed by the judge. -The districts desegregation plan audit is supposed to list its desegregation obligations, including those contained in the districts court-approved desegregation plan, an interdistrict desegregation plan, past court orders and monitoring reports,\nThe judge found that the document submitted by the district omitted dozens of the desegregation plan requirements and included none of the provisions from the interdistrict plan, .The document also wrongly said that certain desegregation tasks were complete when they are not, she said. Other tasks were listed as one-time projects when they should be recurring. The document does not include the organizational chart she requested, ,'Wright said the districts document was difficult to decipher because it contained no cover or title page, no table of contents. no designation of author or preparer, no introduction, no explanation of the documents format, no clarifying notes, nor any other signpost to guide the court  or any other reader  through the tomes 206 pages in a quest for meaning, The LRSD audit in its present scope and form cannot serve as an adequate foundation for building the districts long-term program and budget planning, Wright wrote, Without a complete and accurate inventory of its legal obligations, the district will not know whether it is doing all that it is required to do, will not be able to determine the extent of implementation, and will not be able to measure its progress toward fulfilling desegregation plan commitments and complying with court orders, And, she said, if the LRSD cant identify what works and what doesnt, it cannot possibly build a case for modifying its de- segregation plan should the district wish to do so. The judge first asked for the audit in February and was told it was under way. She became an- g^ later when she learned that district staff members were not even told to begin the audit until March 22. In a Sept. 8 order, Wright requested the audit to be submitted by Sept. 10. She said if the audit was incomplete, the district should file a plan for completing it. Earlier this year, Wright ordered Little Rock School Board I i members to attend court hear- ! ings because either they did not understand her court orders or they were deliberately ignoring them. She said in June that the district was suffering from repeated and continuous mismanage- \u0026gt; ment. She put the district on notice that its desegregation-related problems could justify the imposition of a receivership.IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT VS. No. LRC82866 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT No. 1, ET AL MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL ORDER u 'awe ) :TC?U37 ''AS OCT 7 1595 cahl \u0026gt;' 2^ .TG^CLSRK PLAINTIFF DEFENDANTS INTERVENORS INTERVENORS On September 8, 1993, the Court issued an Order requiring the Little Rock School District (LRSD) to provide the Court with the completed desegregation plan audit that, according to testimony from LRSD administrators, the district has been working to complete since early 1993. In the alternative, if the audit were still unfinished. the Court required the district to provide information on the audit process that included a list of the complete and incomplete audit steps, the person(s) responsible for each of those steps, a timeline for completing each step, and a firm audit completion and submission date. The LRSD responded by filing, on September 10, 1993, a document referred to in the Notice of Filing as the \"LRSD Desegregation :\np CL! Audit, although the document itself was untitled. The Court has found it difficult to decipher the document because it contains no cover or title page, no table of contents, no designation of author or preparer, no introduction, no explanation of the document's format 3or organization, no key to the item numbering system or its significance, no clarifying text notes. nor any other type of signpost to guide the Court  or any other reader  through the tome's 206 pages in a guest for meaning. The filing appears to be a partial listing of LRSD Desegregation Plan provisions, although the submission lacks any specific document or page references save for occasional \"Comments,\" some of which state \"Taken from Narrative,\" and at least one of which states \"See Court Order,\" although which Court Order is not specified by date or any other identifying reference. The audit, which is to serve as a basis for the district's longterm program and budget planning, was, by Court Order, to comprise a complete inventory of all the district's obligations contained within the desegregation plans and related court directives. Unfortunately, the LRSD Desegregation Audit as submitted is glaringly incomplete. missing literally dozens of provisions from the LRSD Desegregation Plan alone. Some of these omissions are listed by way of example in the attachment to this order. Furthermore, the Court had suggested in a July 8, 1993 hearing that the audit include an organizational chart which reflects accountabilities and designates the administrator responsible for carrying out programs and other aspects of the plan. During the same hearing, the Court also directed the district to include in the audit the requirement for issuing regular quarterly reports to the Court. The next month, during an August 12, 1993 hearing, the Court directed that the audit include the role of the McClellan Community School -2-Advisory Committee in certain budgeting decisions. Yet none of this information is reflected in the audit. Not only are LRSD Desegregation Plan items absent from the audit, but the document appears to contain not a single one of the numerous provisions of the Interdistrict Plan, for which the district is as responsible as it is for the plan which bears its name alone. Moreover, the audit does not include any of the requirements found in Court Orders, nor does it contain any of the recommendations from the Office of Desegregation Monitoring (ODM) June 1992 Incentive School Monitoring Report, all of which were ordered into law July 10, 1992. Yet, to be a tool useful for facilitating comprehensive planning and budgeting as well as for aiding monitoring and evaluation activities, the audit must contain the provisions of all desegregation plans and relevant court orders for which the district is legally obligated. In addition to being incomplete. the audit also contains numerous inaccuracies. For example. it lists an Incentive-wide Parent Internship Program as having been completed prior to 1992-93. Yet, ODM monitoring has confirmed that this program has never been established. The audit lists brochures for each incentive school as completed in 1992-93, but such brochures are still being developed according to ODM. An ongoing media blitz to heighten public awareness of incentive schools appears in the audit as completed in 1992-93, but hearing discussions and ODM monitoring has revealed that no such blitz has taken place. Page 203 of the document lists, in the Incentive Schools section. an item 2.3 as requiring \"special emphasis on school recruiting minority students, adding a \"Comment -3-that \"no need exists.\" The correct provision that appears in the Incentive School section of the plan is that there is to be emphasis on recruiting minority teachers for which a need most certainly exists. Also, a number of items labled in the audit as \"one-time activities\" are actually recurring in nature, such as certain special education inservices, surveying students as needed to determine vocational education awareness, and incentive school staffing and staff development activities. On the other hand, the audit states that the district has not started some activities in the incentive schools that ODM has determined it has. including mini-workshops. requesting that parents pick up report cards, and recognizing parents and community volunteers. These few examples of audit inaccuracies are far from exhaustive. Furthermore, the format and organization of the audit is far from user-friendly, leaving any reader without guidance as to the purpose of the document, what it is based upon or refers to, the scope of its contents, how it is to be read for understanding and accessed for information, its correlation with planning and budgeting activities. and how it will relate to monitoring and evaluation processes. Any document that is not readily understandable as to either its content or its functional context and purpose will not be readily usable and, therefore. will have little or no operative worth. The LRSD audit in its present scope and form cannot serve as an adequate foundation for building the district's long-term program and budget planning and, ultimately, for shaping its future. Without a -4-complete and accurate inventory of its legal obligations, the district will not know whether it is doing all that it is required to do, will not be able to determine the extent of implementation, and will not be able to measure its progress toward fulfilling desegregation plan commitments and complying with court orders. If it cannot measure progress, the district will be unable to identify what programs or other desegregation activities are working. And if the LRSD can't identify what works and what doesn't. it cannot possibly build a case for modifying its desegregation plan should the district wish to do so. The Court is at a loss to understand why the LRSD has failed to produce a complete, accurate, and understandable audit to serve as a basic tool for the district's own planning use. The Court has not imposed stringent conditions about the audit, dictating neither the inventory process, production timeline. format, nor completion deadline. Instead, the Court left all those decisions up to the LRSD, imposing only the basic requirement that the audit include all desegregation plan and court order requirements. However, the Court had also urged the district to finalize the audit with deliberate speed, and, trusting that LRSD administrators had grasped the crucial nature of the audit with its critical link to budget and program planning, the Court also expected the audit to be accurate. Neither has the Court surprised the district by asking  after the audit process dragged on for months  for the completed audit to be filed. Far from it. In numerous hearing discussions, directives from the bench, and Orders, the Court has repeatedly stressed the -5-importance of the audit. In response, the district has repeatedly told the Court since early in the year that the audit was underway, beginning in February 1993 with testimony from Superintendent Mac Bernd that the audit process had begun. However, in a July 1993 hearing, testimony revealed that the audit actually had not even been commissioned until March 22, 1993, but administrators assured the Court that the process was nonetheless nearing completion. Again, at an August 12, 1993 hearing, Mr. Sterling Ingram, the LRSD's lead planning specialist and director of the Planning, Research and Evaluation Department, testified that audit completion was imminent and submitted, as Exhibit 162, a Desegregation Plan Audit Progress Report. But a finished audit did not subsequently appear, so the Court required in its September 8, 1993 Order that the district file the audit immediately if it were complete, laying out alternative steps in the event the audit still remained incomplete, as the Court has now determined that it is. Because the audit must be inextricably linked to an ongoing cycle of planning, tasking, monitoring, evaluation, and financial appropriation, it must meet reasonable criteria for completeness. accuracy, understandability, and usability. The LRSD Desegregation Audit as submitted on September 10, 1993 is wholly inadequate because it is neither complete, accurate. understandable, nor usable. Therefore, the Court requires the district to correct the deficiencies in the audit that have been discussed in this Order and to submit a complete, accurate. and self-explanatory desegregation -6-.. audit no later than 5:00 p.m. on October 25, 1993. IT IS SO ORDERED this 7 ,-X- of October 1993. UNITED SPATES DISTHICT . JUDGE mis DOCUMENT ENTERED ON DOCKET SH^ IN ^OMPLIANCe WITH RULE 58 ANO/OR 79(a) FRCP JN BY -7-.. ATTACHMENT Examples of omissions from the LRSD Desegregation Plan (citing plan section or subsection title and page reference): Commitment to desegregation, pg. 1, lacks Board commitments A through H\nLeadership, pp. 2-3, is missing seven of the commitments listed in that plan section\nSummer Learning Program and ASSET program requirements, pp. 21-22 and 24-25, evaluation\nare bereft of the components that include goals and Multicultural curriculum, pg. 64, is minus the specific ways human relations are to be integrated into the curriculum\nFocused activities, pg. 81, omits the three purposes of these activities\nPrivate school recruitment lacks requirements on pg. 95\ncertain Vocational Education commitments on page 98 and some aspects of special education collaboration, pp. 111-112, are absent\nSome components of the Parent Involvement/Community Linkages section on pp. 131-138 are lacking\nItems from the VIPS timeline. pp. involvement and minority partners do not appear\n134-138, regarding parent Significant portions of the student assignment section, pp. 139- 148, are left out, including school racial balance requirements\nSome provisions under Incentive School Parent Recruitment, pp. 215-223, are not included\nand Educational Equity Monitoring, pg. 226, Desegregation Facilitator position. does not mention the(J c n-'/j?' RECEIVSI5 93 SEP 23 SEP 2 2 IW3 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT Office Of Desgsregaiion Moniiofing\nEASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION BY--------------- ' 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 OF JOSHUA TO THE LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT'S NOTICE OF FILING REGARDING THE LRSD DESEGREGATION PLAN AUDIT The Joshua Intervenors submit to the Court that the school district, in submitting its Desegregation Plan Audit, has failed to address the Incentive School benefits which include scholarship commitments and double funding to Incentive School children. Wherefore, Joshua pray that the Court withhold approval of the school district's desegregation audit until after a hearing is held on the issues raised. The Joshua Intervenors also pray for their costs and reasonable counsel fees for having to reply to this filing and to participate in these proceedings. Respectfully submitted. ^hn W. Walker John W. Walker, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72206CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE has been mailed. I hereby certify that a copy of the foreqging qe prepaid to the counsel of on this -- day of September, postage prepaid 1993. Jbhn W. WalkerTHURSDAY, SEPTEMBER 9.1993 * Wright wants desegregation audit Judge says delay on list impeding other district operations BY CYNTHIA HOWELL Democrat-Gazette Education Writer U.S. District Judge Susan Webber Wright on Wednesday ordered the Little Rock School District to immediately provide her with a desegregation plan audit listing all desegregation obligations. If the audit is not completed, she said, the district must submit an interim report by Friday afternoon telling what steps are being taken to complete the document, who is taking the steps and what schedule will be followed in finishing the work. Wright said the audit is crucial to the districts efforts to make long-term program and budget plans. She said district officials are taking far too long to conclude the document, which is impeding the progress of other district operations. Wright also pointed out that she first asked about the audit in February and was assured repeatedly throughout the year that its completion was imminent. In a second order Wednesday, Wright said a Little Rock district system of funneling information to the Office of Desegregation Monitoring through the superintendents office was unsatisfactory. The office is an arm of the federal court. The judge said the Little Rock system carries too much potential for delay, inaccuracy and laundering. She also said the district has a history of management bottlenecks, stagnated communication and general tardiness, and she will not allow the district to create one more means of slowing itself down..c ii JLED eas?erVctK ARKANSAS IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION 08 1995 LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT vs. No. LR-C-82-866 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT No. 1, ET AL MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL ORDER carl r, ^r- I Sf^^NTS, CLERK OEP, PLAINTIFFS DEFENDANTS INTERVENORS INTERVENORS During a hearing on July 8, 1993, the Court asked the Little Rock School District (LRSD) to provide an update on the status of the district's desegregation plan audit. The Court has repeatedly\nrk expressed concern about this audit because of its crucial relationship to the district's planning and budgeting processes. The audit, which is an inventory of all the district's obligations contained within the desegregation plans and related court orders, is to serve as a basis for the district's long-term program and budget planning. It will enable the district to determine not only what it is required to do, but also to ascertain the status of progress toward implementing each requirement. In response to the Court's inquiry at the July hearing, Mr. Sterling Ingram, Director of the LRSD's Planning, Research and Evaluation Department, testified that he is in charge of conducting the desegregation audit, a task which was assigned him by the superintendent in March 1993. He stated that he expected the desegregation audit to be ready by August 1993. At the hearing, the Court once again stressed the importance of the audit and expressed a I 6 8concern that it would be as late as August before the audit's completion. The Court directed the LRSD to provide the audit as soon as possible to the Court, the LRSD Board of Directors, and the other parties. The Court also directed Mr. Ingram to meet immediately with the Court-appointed Budget Specialist, Mr. Bill Mooney, to discuss information that would expedite audit completion. Again, at a hearing to consider the LRSD budget on August 12, 1993, the Court inquired about the status of the district's desegregation audit. In response. the district offered a memo (Exhibit 164), dated August 3, 1993, documenting that the meeting with Mr. Mooney had taken place. The LRSD also submitted Desegregation Plan Audit Progress Report (Exhibit 162) which had been presented to the LRSD Board of Directors at its regular monthly meeting on July 22, 1993. The progress report indicates that the audit was not yet complete at the time of the board meeting. Mr. Ingram, whom council identified as the district's lead planner. testified that the plan audit was still not complete as of the hearing date, but that he expected to finalize it soon. This important audit process is taking far too long to conclude and is, thereby, impeding the progress of other critical program and budget planning processes. Superintendent Mac Bernd told the Court on February 1, 1993 that the audit was underway, although later evidence revealed that Dr. Bernd did not even commission the audit until March 1993. Now, almost six months later, the audit still is not complete despite assurances from the district in both July and August 1993 that its conclusion was imminent. Even though the Court -2- arecognizes that certain follow-up aspects of the audit will be ongoing, the initial audit must be complete before other aspects of program and budget planning can be developed. During the August 12, 1993 hearing, the Court praised the LRSD for beginning to make planning headway, all the while stressing that the district had only made a beginning and that diligent follow- through and continuous execution would be necessary. The LRSD does not appear to have take that admonition to heart. The Court hereby requires the district to submit immediately the desegregation audit it has promised for so long. If the audit is still incomplete at this time, then by 5:00 p.m. at the end of the second working day from the date of this Order, the district must file the following: (1) a complete and succinct list of the audit process steps that are complete and those that remain to be completed\n(2) the precise timeline for completing each of those unfinished steps\n(3) the person(s) responsible for each of those steps\nand (4) firm a completion and submission date for the audit. The Court reminds the LRSD that it and the other parties are required to provide simultaneously to the Office of Desegregation Monitoring a copy of any submission to the Court. IT IS SO ORDERED this Sth day of September 1993. ^ITED STATES DISTRICT :t judge rms document entered on docket sheet in COMPLIANCE WITH RULE 58 AND/OR 79(a) FRCP -3- CN BYA RECEIVED SEP 1 0 1993 Office of Desegregation Monitoring IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION r\nLITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT PLAIlT^zfF- - PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT No. 1, ET AL DEFENDANTS MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL INTERVENORS KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL NOTICE OF FILING The Plaintiff, Little Rock School District, for its Notice of Filing, states: 1. directing the On September 8, 1993, this Court entered an order Little Rock School District to submit its desegregation audit to the Court by 5 p.m. at the end of the second working day from the date of the order. In accordance with those instructions, attached hereto is the Desegregation Plan audit as commissioned by the Superintendent of the Little Rock School District during the 1992-93 school year. In particular, the Director of the Planning, Research and Evaluation Department of the Little Rock School District was instructed to: In particular. 5tP 10 vs. \"audit\" that indicates . . prepare a report or the status of implementation efforts with respect to each of [the] programs outlined in the [Desegregation] Plan. . . 2. Attached hereto is the LRSD Desegregation Plan audit report dated September 10, 1993. The report includes a narrative providing background information on the audit as well as summary data as revealed by the audit. Thereafter, the audit identifies those programs or activities completed prior to the 1992-93 school year\nthose programs or activities completed during the 1992-93 school year\nthose programs or activities identified as occurring on a one-time basis\nthose programs or activities which are or activities which recurring in nature\nthose programs or activities which are yet to be implemented\nand, those programs or activities which have been deleted. 3. The desegregation audit as presented herewith relates to those programs and activities identified by the court-approved Little Rock School District Desegregation Plan dated April 29,1992, as well as the Interdistrict Desegregation Plan dated April 29, 1992. Although one section of the audit refers to activities which were completed prior to 1992-93 and another section refers to activities completed during 1992-93, the Little Rock School District hastens to point out that many of those programs and activities are recurring in nature. 4. The document as filed herewith constitutes the audit commissioned by the Superintendent. However, the document must still be presented to the Little Rock School District Board of Directors. Wherefore, the Plaintiff, Little Rock School District, submits this desegregation plan audit. FRIDAY, ELDREDGE AND CLARK Attorneys for the Little Rock School District 2000 First Commercial Building 400 West Capitol Little Rock, AR (501) 376-2011 72205 B- J Jerry L. Malone Bar No. I.D. 85096 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I, Jerry L. Malone, do hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing notice of filing has been served upon the following persons by First Class Mail, postage pre-paid: Mr. John W. Walker John Walker, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72206 Mr. Sam Jones WRIGHT, LINDSEY \u0026amp; JENNINGS 2200 Worthen Bank Building 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 -2-Mr. Richard Roachelle First Federal Plaza 401 West Capitol Avenue, Suite 504 Little Rock, AR 72201 Mrs, Ann Brown Heritage West Building, Suite 510 201 East Markham Street Little Rock, AR 72201 L- m aio^ -3- LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT DESEGREGATION PLAN AUDIT REPORT Planning, Research and Evaluation September 10, 1993 LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT PLANNING, RESEARCH AND EVALUATION DESEGREGATION PLAN AUDIT REPORT The Desegregation Plan Audit/Review, as approved by the 1992-93 LRSD Superintendent, required two major tasks: (1) collecting and compiling data to determine the degree to which each program of the Desegregation Plan has been implemented\nand (2) developing a format for reporting the data. Although additional tasks were discovered to be necessary during the process, this document serves as the final report for the project as originally designed. During the development of the project, assistance was sought from Bradley Scott of the Desegregation Assistance Center in San Antonio, Texas\nThelma Cook, Support Program Manager of the Equity Assistance Center, Arkansas Department of Education\nand Bill Mooney, Budget Specialist, Office of Desegregation Monitoring. Additional resources were provided by Diane Barksdale, currently an assistant principal at Carver Magnet School. An audit as conducted in business and education is based on a set of predetermined standards. The standard for this review is the Desegregation Plan. Therefore, program status was tied to the written requirement of the Plan. A review of the Plan's timelines and narratives for each program was conducted by Planning, Research and Evaluation (PRE) staff to deteirmine the requirements of the Plan. When reviewingDesegregation Plan Audit Report Page 2 the narratives, the staff did not attempt to interpret the intent of the original writers. Rather, an effort was made to identify requirements as literally written. The data gathering forms (Attachment 1) were prepared by the PRE staff to include a list of all identified requirements. Program managers were requested to verify all requirements for assigned areas and to identify the status of each requirement. Many of the items identified as completed recur annually, response choice included: The * * Completed prior to 1992-93 Completed during 1992-93 * One-time activity * Recurring activity * Not started * Deleted (deletion approved by Court) * Addition (addition approved by Court) * Comments Supportive evidence to demonstrate completion of each requirement was to be gathered for possible use at any court hearing, as well as to improve, modify or delete programs. Upon receipt of the data gathering forms, the responses from the program managers were tallied according to the choices (Attachment 2) and revealed the following: response * Eighty-six percent of the reported activities had been completed. * Fourteen percent of the reported activities had not been implemented. * Sixty-seven percent of the reported activities identified as recurring activities. were These programs were * Eleven program managers reported completing all activities. However, as previously stated, many of the reported activities recur annually. These programs were Commitment to Desegregation, Summer Learning Program, Job Training Partnership Act (JTPA Program), Program forDesegregation Plan Audit Report Page 3 Accelerated Learning/Instructional Technology, Giii.cd , Talented education. Multicultural Curriculum, Parkview Magnet, Vocational Education, Library Media, Special Education and Staff Development. Gifted and In the Interdistrict Plan, managers for Staff Development, Special Education and Vocational Education reported completing all activities. It should be noted that many of the reported activities in the LRSD Plan and the Inter-district Plan each year. occur In addition, Program Managers identified activities for programs specified in the Desegregation Plan that are to be implemented. A list of programs and number of activities is provided (Attachment 3). Since the audit process was based on self-reporting it was necessary to implement means for ensuring a reasonable level of accuracy. Activities were sorted and printed by category in order to provide the information necessary for further review. During the data gathering and review process, some discrepancies were discovered regarding the status of some activities. Accordingly, adjustments were made during the development of the management plans. A complete list of the responses by category is attached. Each program manager was requested to review the sorting and to develop management plans for recurring activities and activities that are to be implemented. The Program Budget Document (Attachment 4) is the format for developing the management plans. What began as an assessment of the Desegregation Plan has evolved into the formation of the ProgramDesegregation Plan Audit Report Page 4 Budget Document which includes the means for monitoring, reporting and determining the level of success for each program. In the future, auditing of the Desegregation Plan to detexTnine implementation status or effectiveness can be accomplished through reporting process of the Program Budget Document.LITTLE ROCK CHOOL DISTRICT PROGRAM DESEGREGATION PROGRAM IMPLEMENTATION STATUS PROGRAM MANAGER Act ivities COMPLETED PRIOR TO '92-'93 during '92'93 ONE-TIME activity recurring activity HOT STARTED DELETED ADDED COMMENTS I i J I I I \u0026gt; CU n 3- 3 n\u0026gt; deletion Approved by Court JProgram Total Number of Obj ectives 1 . Commitment to Desegregation * Narrative 1. Leadership Narrative 3 . Early Childhood 33 Special Programs Narra tive Sommer Learning - 3 LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT DESEGREGATION PLAN PROGRAM STATUS COMPOSITE TOTAL DY PROGRAM Total Number of Activities Total Humber of Completed Activities Total Number of Activities Not Started I of 3 Total Humber of Recurring Activitie.s 1 9 107 4 8 1 1 80 3 8 0 8 27 1 0 1 J 7] 3 6 6. J I PA Asset Program * 3 31 31 0 31. I . School. O[)erations 41 90 76 14 7 7 8 . A c a d e m i c S11 [i o r t 1  41 38 3 3 5 9. P.A L/1 n s t r uc t i 0na 1 Technology 5  50 50 0 22 LO. C i f ted/TaJen ted Education * 7 13 13 0 1.2 IJ . Multicultural Curriculum * 17 123 123 0 6G 12. Eocused Activities 1 26 17 9 17 Ol r\u0026gt; rr 3 m : ro 13. Parkview Science Macnet * 5 18 18 0 11 L4 . McClellan Community School Narrative 4 3 1 1 * (.ompleted all objectives as identified in the written planProgram Total Number of Obj ectives 15. Recruitment of Pri- va te School Students'!: Narra tive 16. Federal Programs 1 17. Vocational Education* 11 18. Librafy/Nedia 1 19. Special Education * 13 20. Staff Development * 8 21 . Support Services Narrative 1.1. Parent Involvement/ Community Linkage 3 23. Student Assignment Narrative 24. Facilities Narrat ive 25. Incentive Schools 73 26. Educational Equity Mon 1 tor ing 1 27 . Transportation Narrative 28. Data Processing Narrat ive LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT DESEGREGATION PLAN PROGRAM STATUS COMPOSITE TOTAL DY PROGRAH Total Number of Activities Total Number of Completed Activities Total Number of Activities Not Started 2 of 3 Total Number of Recurring Ac tivi ties 8 8 34 34 56 39 2 34 11 8 294 19 23 8 8 7 34 29 56 39 2 28 11 5 240 18 19 8 * Completed all objectives as identified in the written plan 0 1 0 5 0 0 0 6 0 3 54 ]. 4 0 8 6 24 3 53 35 2 25 4 165 21 14 8 cu o zr 3 m ZJ ro a ro1. 2. 3. 4 . 5. 6. 7 . 8. 9. 10. Prograjn Interdistrict Plan Overview S tuden t Choices/Options Summer School Staff Development - School Operations Muit i-Dis tric t Library Media Special Education * Vocational Education* Cuidance and Counseling Parent Involvement/ Community Lin.kages Public Relations TOTAL Total Number of Obj ectives Narrative 11 2 29 5 11 5 Narrative See LRSO Plan Narrative 303 ei\" I i 1' LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT DESEGREGATION PLAN PROGRAM STATUS COMPOSITE TOTAL DY PROGRAM Total Number of Activities Total Number . of Completed Activities Total Number of Activities Not Started 41 4 3 1 54 8 101 10 6 See LRSD Plan : I,.., I : r : 4 6 1421 I I,,, 29 33 1 17 7 101 10 4 See LRSD Plan T : I-' 41 1217 12 10 0 37 1 0 0 1 See LRSD Plan 5 204 3 of 3 Total Humber of Recurring Activities . 26 3 2 1 n 1 90 9 1 See LRSD Plan 40 951 j=\u0026gt; O) n 3 'ro OJNUMBER ACTIVITIES LRSD PLAN IN PLAN COMPLETED OR IN PROGRESS ATTACHMENT 3 TO BE IMPLEMENTED PERCENT OF ACTIVITIES COMPLETED OR IN PROGRESS Leadership 9 1 8 11% Early Childhood Education 107 80 27 75% Special Programs 4 3 1 75% School Operations 90 76 14 84% Academic Support 41 38 3 93% Focused Activities 26 17 9 67% McClellan Community School 4 3 1 75% Federal Programs 8 7 1 88% Facilities 8 5 3 63% Parent Involvement/ Community Linkages 34 28 6 82% Incentive Schools 294 240 54 82% Educational Equity Monitoring 19 18 1 95% Transportation 23 19 4 83% INTERDISTRICT PLAN Overview/Student Choices and Options 41 29 12 71% Summer School 43 33 10 77% School Operations Multi-District 54 17 37 31% Library Media 8 7 1 88% Guidance and Counseling 6 4 2 67% Public Relations 46 41 5 89%ATTACHMENT 4 LRSD FY 93-94 TENTATIVE PROGRAM BUDGET DOCUMENT Program Seq #: Program Name: Page: 2 Revision Date: Progrsm Code: Primary Leader: Program ObJecUve: Secondary Leader: Plan Rclcrcnce Page Number Ob|ccUvea StTBlcglca Beginning Date Completion Date Responsibili ty Evaluation Criteria 3 IRECEIVED SEP 10 1993 - tr\u0026gt;.. Office of Desegregalicn Mcniionng IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION Sep / Q jC,Q? LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT PLAINTIEF  - vs. PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT No. 1, ET AL DEFENDANTS MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL INTERVENORS KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL NOTICE OF FILING The Plaintiff, Little Rock School District, for its Notice of Filing, states: 1. On September 8, 1993, this Court entered an order directing the Little Rock School District to submit Little School to its desegregation audit to the Court by 5 p.m. at the end of the second working day from the date of the order. In accordance with those instructions, attached hereto is the Desegregation Plan audit as commissioned by the Superintendent of the Little Rock School District during the 1992-93 school year. In particular, the Director of the Planning, Research and Evaluation Department of the Little Rock School District was instructed to: In particular . . . prepare a report or \"audit\" that indicates the status of implementation efforts with respect to each of [the] programs outlined in the [Desegregation] Plan. . . 2. Attached hereto is the LRSD Desegregation Plan audit report dated September 10, 1993.\nThe report includes a narrative providing background information on the audit as well as summary data as revealed by the audit. Thereafter, the audit identifies those programs or activities completed prior to the 1992-93 school year\nthose programs or activities completed during the 1992-93 school year\nthose programs or activities identified as occurring on a one-time basis\nthose programs or activities which are recurring in nature\nthose programs or activities which are yet to be implemented\nand, those programs or activities which have been those programs or activities which deleted. The desegregation audit as presented herewith relates to those programs and activities identified by the court-approved Little Rock School District Desegregation Plan dated April 3. 29,1992, as well as the Interdistrict Desegregation Plan dated April Although one section of the audit refers to activities 29, 1992. which were completed prior to 1992-93 and another section refers to activities completed during 1992-93, the Little Rock School District hastens to point out that many of those programs and activities are recurring in nature. the The document as filed herewith constitutes the audit commissioned by the Superintendent. I ' 2_______ still be presented to the Little Rock School District Board of Directors. 4. However, the document must Wherefore, the Plaintiff, Little Rock School District, submits this desegregation plan audit. FRIDAY, ELDREDGE AND CLARK Attorneys for the Little Rock School District 2000 First Commercial Building 400 West Capitol Little Rock, AR (501) 376-2011 72205 B: 7 Jerry L. Malone Bar No. I.D. 85096 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I, Jerry L. Malone, do hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing notice of filing has been served upon the following persons by First Class Mail, postage pre-paid: Mr. John W. Walker John Walker, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72206 Mr. Sam Jones WRIGHT, LINDSEY \u0026amp; JENNINGS 2200 Worthen Bank Building 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 -2-Mr. Richard 'Roachelle First Federal Plaza 401 West Capitol Avenue, Suite 504 Little Rock, AR 72201 Mrs. Ann Brown Heritage West Building, Suite 510 201 East Markham Street Little Rock, AR 72201 m A1oaJ L- -3- 'Pfa LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT DESEGREGATION PLAN AUDIT REPORT Planning, Research and Evaluation September 10, 1993 LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT PLANNING, RESEARCH AND EVALUATION DEPARTMENT Date: August 3, 1993 life lb 0 AUH u 1393 '1 To: Jerry Malone, LRSD Attorney From: Sterling Ingram/ irector Planning, Research and Evaluation Re: LRSD Desegregation Plan Audit Thank you for meeting with Bill Mooney and me on Friday, July 9, 1993, as instructed by Judge Wright on Thursday, July 8, 1993. The audit is well underway. Bill and I have come to an agreement regarding the desegregation plan program inventory which is a necessary component for both the audit and the budgetary process to be developed by us. regarding these matters. I will continue to consult with him The initial survey results have been compiled. will be verified. That information This is being done so that an accurate determination can be made regarding our implementation status. I have conducted several meetings with various program managers to provide assistance in completing the initial tasks. I met with curriculum program managers on July 20, 27, and August 3, 1993. In addition, I met with the program managers for support services on August 2, 1993. I will continue to monitor the development of the documents and provide assistance to those managers who need help. I envision the audit process as an ongoing activity. As such. this should be helpful in the budgetary process to allow continuous program evaluation, modification, revision or elimination/replacement. We will continue the efforts currently underway. bjg cc: Bill Mooney, Budget Specialist Estelle Matthis, Interim Superintendent I^SCEIVSD AUG 4 1993 OWce of Dssg! 3f3\u0026gt;\u0026gt;tioii Monitoring LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT PLANNING, RESEARCH AND EVALUATION DEPARTMENT Date: July 22, 1993 To: Board of Directors From: Sterling Ingram\nDirector Planning, Research^ and Evaluation Through: V*' Kk Estelle MatthisS Interim Superintendent Re: Desegregation Plan Audit Progress Report As requested in the agenda meeting, I am providing a progress report relative to the Desegregation Plan Audit. I am available to answer your questions. bjgATTACHMENTS Attachment 1 Attachment 2 Bernd Memorandum to Ingram Implementation Memorandum Attachment 3 Assessment Memorandum Attachment 4 Program Status Composite Total by Program Attachment 5 Audit/Review ChronologyLittle Rock School District Desegregation Plan Implementation Status Audit/Review Progress Report The Little Rock School District must accept the affirmative responsibility to execute the steps necessary to convert to a unitary school system. Unitary status can be achieved only through good faith implementation of the Plan and attainment of the desegregation goals and outcomes. Identifying the status of the Plan requirements is the first phase in strengthening the desegregation process. In the budget document submitted to the Federal Court in July 1992, the Little Rock School District committed to conduct an audit of the Desegregation Plan. The purpose of the audit was to provide information relative to the implementation of the plan. The task of conducting the audit or review was assigned to the Planning, Research, and Evaluation (PRE) Office on March 23, 1993 (see attachment 1). A review of the Plan's timelines and narratives was conducted by the Planning, Research and Evaluation staff to determine the requirements of the Plan. Data gathering forms were developed and forwarded to each program manager (see attachments 2 and 3). Program managers were requested, to verify all requirements for assigned area and to identify the status of each requirement. Supportive evidence to demonstrate completion of each requirement was to be gathered for possible use at any court hearing, as well as to improve, modify or delete programs. The initial phase of the audit/review is a self-reporting process. An audit as conducted in business and education is based on a set of predetermined standards. For the purpose of this audit/review, the Plan requirements are the audit/review standards.LRSD - Desegregation Plan Implementation Status Audit/Review Progress Report Page 2 The initial review of responses from the program managers revealed that: (See Attachment 4) * Eighty-six percent of the reported activities have been completed. * Fifteen percent of the reported activities have not been implemented. * Sixty-eight percent of the reported activities were identified as recurring activities. * Twelve program managers reported completing all activities. These programs are the Commitment to Desegregation, Summer Learning Program, Job Training Partnership Act (JTPA Program), Program for Accelerated Learning/Instructional Technology, Gifted and Talented Education, Multicultural Curriculum, Parkview Magnet, Recruitment of Private School Students, Vocational Education, Library Media, Special Education and Staff Development. In the Inter-district Plan managers for Staff Development, Special Education and Vocational Education reported completing all activities. It should be noted that many of the reported activities in the LRSD Plan and the Interdistrict Plan occur each year. Program Managers reported a number of activities for programs specified in the Desegregation Plan that are to be implemented. A preliminary list of these unverified programs and number of activities follows:LRSD - Desegregation Plan Implementation Status Audit/Review Progress Report Page 3 NUMBER ACTIVITIES LRSD PLAN IN PLAN COMPLETED OR IN PROGRESS TO BE IMPLEMENTED PERCENT OF ACTIVITIES COMPLETED OR IN PROGRESS Leadership 9 1 8 11% Early Childhood Education 107 80 27 75% Special Programs 4 3 1 75% School Operations 90 76 14 84% Academic Support 42 39 3 93% Focused Activities 27 18 9 67% McClellan Community School 4 3 1 75 tt. *0 Federal Programs 8 7 1 88% Facilities 8 5 3 63% Parent Involvement/ Community Linkages 34 28 6 82% Student Assignment 11 10 1 91% Incentive Schools 294 240 54 82% Educational Equity Monitoring 19 18 1 95% Transportation 23 19 4 83% INTERDISTRICT PLAN Overview/Student Choices and Options 41 29 12 71% Summer School 44 34 10 77% School Operations Multi-District 53 17 36 32% Library Media 8 7 1 88% Guidance and Counseling 6 4 2 67% Public Relations 46 41 5 89%LRSD - Desegregation Plan Implementation Status Audit/Review Progress Report Page 4 Continuing audit/report activities include\n* Verification of self-reporting by PRE staff and Program Managers. Special attention will be given to activities that have not started and those activities that recur each year. Development of management plans for recurring activities and activities that are to be implemented. The plans will include a * reporting cycle for monitoring implementation and program results. Development of assessment plans for each plan component to include identification of results since the 1989-90 school year. * * Integrating court orders into the audit/review process. Integrating data into the planning and budget process.Attachment #1 LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 810 WEST MARKHAM STREET TO: FROM: THROUGH: LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS March 22, 1993 Mr. Sterling Ingrain Mac Bernd C Marie Parker 72201 ! 0 \u0026gt; \u0026lt; s J SUBJECT: DESEGREGATION PLAN ISSUES The purpose of thi memorandum is to direct you to address several priorities associated with the implementation of the Desegregation Plan as rapidly as possible so that we may be sure that we are making good faith effort to address the requirements of the Court with respect to these priorities. 1. Please report in writing any specific programatic assessment processes required by the Desegregation Plan and the status of the implementation of these processes. report please timelines that herein. include outline As a part f this 2. any plans. the assessment systems documents, or processes mentioned Please develop a plan and implementation schedule for any of the above assessments that have not been implemented. Please develop a plan to meet the general requirement that we assess all aspects of the Desegregation plan. This assessment plan should specify each aspect of the Desegregation Plan in terms of two issues: (1) the purpose.of the aspect of the plan being evaluated\nand (2) the measure which will ascertain the fulfillment of said purpose. Please prepare a report or \"audit\" that indicates the status of implementation efforts with respect to each of programs outlined in the plan so that a document for the Federal Court can be developed as soon as possible. You may want to contact Diane Barksdale regarding this matter because she has done considerable work on this issue The as a graduate school project. information she has gathered may be quite useful you prepare your report. o you as 3. , 4 . In conclusion, please make an appointment with me to discuss the issues outlined in this memorandum. I believe all of them are important if we are to correctly implement our Desegregation Plan. c. cc: Cabinet Mr. Chris Heller Date: To: From: Re: Attachment #2 LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 810 WEST MARKHAM LITTLE ROCK, June 15, 1993 ARKANSAS 72201 Selected Administrators Mac Bernd, Superintendent Desegregation Plan Implementation Status In order to implement a more effective system of monitoring progress of the Desegregation Plan, a series of activities will be conducted during the next several months. These activities will help to ensure compliance relative to implementation and program outcomes. Enclosed you will find management timelines that identify required activities for each Plan component. requirements taken from the narrative sections of the Plan, but not contained in the timelines are also included. Additional Each program manager should verify all requirements for his/her area of responsibility and identify the status of each requirement, each activity place an \"x\" in the appropriate column. This For in the appropriate column. status report will go to the Office of Desegregation Monitoring (ODM) and at some later date we will probably participate in a The ODM monitors will expect the district to have supportive evidence to demonstrate our completion of each requirement. It would be helpful if you would begin to secure the supportive evidence so that we can be fully prepared for a court hearing. court hearing. Identifying the status of the Plan requirements is only the first phase in strengthening our desegregation process, determine the degree of effectiveness of each program component. Therefore, it will be necessary to conduct a review to ascertain if programs are working to achieve the expected outcomes that should benefit all students of the Little Rock School District. We must Please return the management timelines to the Planning, : and Evaluation office by June 21, 1993. If you have any questions, contact Sterling Ingram at 324-2124. Research bjg cc: Board of DirectorsPROGRAM LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT DESEGREGATION PROGRAM IMPLEMENTATION STATUS PROGRAM MANAGER I ! I 1 I i Activities COMPLETED PRIOR TO '92-'93 during '92'93 ONE-TIME ACTIVITY RECURRING activity NOT STARTED DELETED ADDED COMMENTS \u0026gt; rf rt 03 O Et 3 fl) 3 rt N3 NJ ' Deletion Approved by Court * A Addition Approved by CourtAttachment #3 LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 810 WEST MARKHAM LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS 72201 Date: June 15, 1993 To: Selected Administrators From: Mac Bernd, SuperintendentCLVVA^.j Re: Desegregation Program Assessment The Little Rock School District must accept the affirmative duty to take all steps necessary to convert to a unitary system. Unitary status can be achieved only through good faith implementation of the Plan and attainment of the desegregation ,,j ~~2. Your assistance is needed to accomplish our task. goals and outcomes. In order to effectively manage attainment of plan outcomes, want to establish consistency in formatting assessment . procedures ~ ' .-_ - we Enclosed you will find forms for reporting your assessment procedure. In addition, we have included a auide - _ In addition, we have included a guide sheet to assist you in completing the form, forms as succinctly as possible. Please complete the All desegregation programs should have a clearly defined goal purpose, objectives, activities and timelines for completion. Measurements should be established that will identify the degre of success relative to the goal or purpose, originate from the Plan section titled or e II Programs should Commitment to Desegregation in the Little Rock School District.\" . ---------------- This section establishes the foundation for all desegregation operations. Please return the assessment forms to the Planning, Research and Evaluation office by August 6, 1993. into a concise evaluation document. The forms will be compiled A follow-up meeting will be scheduled later to clarify your assessment procedures. If you have any questions, contact Sterling Ingram, at 324-2124. If you bjg cc: Board of DirectorsPROGRAM TITLE Guide heet PROGRAH DESEGREGATION GOAE(S) Identify the for inclusion purpose in the Desegregation Plan How will racial inequities be improved I-------------------------------------------------------------- Oupl icale, i f needed. LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT DESEGREGATION PROGRAM assessment plan EXPECTEU OUTCOMES What do achieve When do achieve you expect you expect your goal to to PROGRAM f-lAMAGER EVALUATION PROCEDURES/HEASURE What is the measure success How will gress Staff NECESSARY RESOURCES of you monitor pro- What are the necces- sary items/actions needed to cess . ensure suc- These should items/actions require funding. \u0026gt; to o rr g (t 3 * Co -O tolittle rock school district DESEGREGATION PROGRAM assessment plan PROGRAM TITLE Example PROGRAM ECnegation GOAL(S) PROGRAM MANAGER Staff expected OUTCOME.S evaluation procedures/measures IIECESSAPY RESOURCES I)f Effectiveness: Hard data * Program gains/losses (annual) I *Comparison *Longitudinal study Soft data  Survey *Interviews \u0026lt; etc. Use of outside for review persunnel I Duplicate, if needed. Data collection timeline Reporting Schedule \u0026gt; (u o 3\" 3 re 3 rt * Co T3 CoPROGRAM TITLE Special Education PROGRAM desegregation GOAL(S) 1 . Io reduce the number of minority student enrolled in special education to reflect the District's racial population and to be comparable to national statistics in the ('revision of free, appropriate public education to handi- capped students ( J Oc icaLe, if needed. little rock school district DESEGREGATION PROGRAM assessment plan PROGRAM MANAGER Matthis/Kohler expf.cted OUTCOMES Dy the end of the 1994-95 school year the number of minority students categorized and receiving services as Mentally Retarded will be deduced by 20 percent. Dy the end of the 1994-95 school year all staff members involved in the referral stra te of all process will deinon- underslanding aspects of the referral/placement process as outlined in local, state, and federal legislation. I evaluation PROCEDURES/MEASURES Comparison of 1909-90 MR enrollment to the 1994-95 MR enrollment (race and gender). Annual review of enroll- ment data will be Oucted to monitor gress con- pro- IIECESSARY RESOURCES Staff development relative to referral/ placement procedures \u0026gt; 03 o 3- 3 (0 3 It * to X)PROGRAM TITLE program desegregation GOAL{S) I 1 L Ouplicate, i f needed. LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT desegregation program ASSESSMENT PLAN PROGRAM MAHAGER EXIECTEO OUTCOMES I evaluation PROCEDURES/MEASURES HECE.SSARY RESOURCES \u0026gt; (u o 3 n\u0026gt; 3 * co \u0026gt;0 LnPrograjn Total Number of Obj ectives 1. Commitment to Desegregation * Narrative LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT DESEGREGATION PLAN PROGRAM STATUS COMPOSITE TOTAL BY PROGRAM Total Number of Activities Total Number of Completed Activities Total Number of Activities Not Started 1 1 0 2. Leadership Narrative 9 1 8 3. Early Childhood 34 107 80 27 4. Special Programs Narrative 4 3 1 5. Summer Learning * 5 8 8 0 6. JTPA Asset Program * 3 31 31 0 7. School Operations 41 90 76 , 14 8. Academic Support 5 42 39 3 9. PAL/Ins tructional Technology * 6 50 50 0 10. Gifted/Tal.ented Education * 7 13 13 0 11. Multicultural Curriculum * 17 119 119 0 12. Focused Activities 1 27 18 9 13. Parkview Science Magnet * 5 18 18 0 14. McClellan Community School Narrative 4 3 1 1 of 3 Total Number of Recurring Activities 1 1 70 3 6 31 77 35 22 12 66 17 11 1 * Completed all objectives as identified in the written plan \u0026gt; rt Q\u0026gt; Q tr 3 (D 3 rtProgram Total Number of Obj ectives 15. Recruitment of Private School Students* Narrative 16. Federal Programs 1 17. Vocational Education* 11 18. Library/Media * 1 19. Special Education * 13 20. Staff Development * 8 21. Support Services Narra t ive 22. Parent Involvement/ Community Linkage 5 23. Student Assignment Narrative 24. Facilities Narrative 25. Incentive Schools 7 2 26. Educational Equity Moni tor1 ng 7 27. Transportation Narrative 28. Data Processing Narrative LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT DESEGREGATION PLAN PROGRAM STATUS COMPOSITE TOTAL DY PROGRAJ-I Total Number of Activities Total Number of Completed Activities Total Number of Activities Not Gtartod 8 8 34 17 58 39 2 34 11 8 294 19 23 8 8 7 34 17 58 39 2 28 10 5 240 18 19 3 * Completed all objectives a.s identified in the written plan 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 6 1 3 54 1 4 0 2 of 3 Total Number of Recurring Activities 0 5 24 3 55 35 2 25 4 5 165 21 14 8 \u0026gt; rt 0) O tr 3 o 3 4: -0 to1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. Progreun Interdistrict Plan Overview Student Choices/Options Summer School Staff Development * School Operations Multi-District Library Media Special Education * Vocational Education* Guidance and Counseling 9.- Parent Involvement/ Community Linkages 10. Public Relations TOTAL Total Number of Obj ectives Narrative 11 2 31 5 22 5 Narrative See LRSD Plan Narrative 318 LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT DESEGREGATION PLAN PROGRAM STATUS COMPOSITE TOTAL BY PROGRAM Total Number of Activities Total Number of Completed Activities Total Number of Activities Not Started 41 44 1 53 8 101 19 6 See LRSD Plan 46 1405 29 34 1 17 7 101 19 4 See LRSD Plan 41 1206 86% * Completed all objectives as identified in the written plan 12 10 0 36 1 0 0 2 See LRSD Plan 5 199 1 3 of 3 Total Number of Recurring Activities 26 35 1 15 7 91 9 2 See LRSD Plan 41 956 68% \u0026gt; 0) n tD  4^ O CJMarch 22 ATTACHMENT 5 IMPLEMENTATION/ASSESSMENT PROJECT - CHRONOLOGY Memo from M. Bernd to Ingram April 2 - May 19 Reviewed plan for narrative requirements Developed forms to be included with timelines for implementation and assessment reporting May 24 Requested approval of forms and memo to administrators June 2 Approval of forms received June 2-13 Typing of information on implementation forms completed June 14 Memo and forms sent to cabinet level members Associate Superintendents Manager, Support Services Communications Director Forms forwarded to program managers with instructions to: 1. 2 . 3 . Review plan timelines and narratives Identify activities used to achieve objectives Add activities that have been omitted Forms for School Operations distributed on 6/23/93 June 21 - July 15 Implementation forms returned and reviewed Activities sorted according to the form columnsOFFICE OF DESEGREGATION MONITORING 201 EAST MARKHAM, SUITE 510 HERITAGE WEST BUILDING UTTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS 72201 Date: October 11, 1991 To: BiUy Bowies, PCSSD Mable Bynum, NLRSD James Jennings, LRSD From: Ann Brown Subject: Request for Information Attached is a comprehensive list of basic information which we require at ODM for monitoring purposes. Please forward immediately as many of the listed items as are presently available. If you should need additional time to furnish certain facts or materials, let me know when to expect that data. Meantime, please dont delay forwarding any information that is complete. There are a few starred items which appear at the end of the list This information is of a recurring and/or ongoing nature such as the agendas and minutes of school board meetings. WeU expect to receive this information as appropriate: monthly (e.g. school board agendas and minutes), quarterly (e.g. discipline data), or as produced (e.g. district publications, press releases.) Im aware that ODM has received some of the requested information, so there is no need to send duplicates of data youve already forwarded (October 1 enrollment figures, for example.) By requesting this amount of information at the first of the school year, I hope to minimize the number of separate requests for data that might otherwise be necessary. However, you can expect requests for specialized information from time to time as we monitor certain specific programs and aspects of the desegregation plan. Thank you very much for your assistance.General Information for Office of Desegregation Monitoring Attendance zone maps (as changes occur) ^^Alternative school poIides, procedures, and referral process t-^oard of educatiorVcommittee meeting schedule R J Capacity of each school buildin\nO i-dlAkE manual (LRSD) //Ia/oOaZ District Bi-ratial committee meeting schedule ocr 2 8 1991 u-District Bi-radal committee membership list, induding race and address izEarly childhood education manual (polities, etc.) Office of Dasegragstion Mcnitcnnc / ^{-5arly childhood enrollment by school, txEnrolImeni\nfinal Occober 1 data by s , age level (e.g. four-year-old program), race, gender txEnrolIment\nOctober school, giade, dass, i^, gender /zExtracurricjIar/co\u0026lt;urricular participation by school, acdvity. race, gender /failure and retention rate, by schooL gra^, dass, race, gender tXlifced/talented, AP, enriched, and honors enrollment by school, grade, subject, race, gender Graduation and retention rate for preMous semester by school, grade, race, gender i/filPPY partidpation, induding area served, race, gender i/fnservice dates, schedule, training topics, trainers (by race, gender) for all employee groups o-b'/ M-to-M, magnet, and desegregation transfers by race, grade, sending and receiving school t/Monitoring schedules of all distnct monitoring groups including bi-radal committees vdVIulticuItural education curriculum guides (with revisions as completed) xuz,' ' ex\u0026gt;PTA/PTQ officers and committee membership by school, race, gender PTA/PTO total membership by school, race Policies on extracurricular and co-curricular activities t-^chool improvement plans School profiles v J z-^chool partners in education listing (updated as expanded) ^chool and district PTA/PTO meetings and school open house schedule -*^chool volunteer building coordinator listing, induding ra^g, gender  j^pedal education enrollment, by sdrosl, dassification, rag, gender i^taffing data by position, race, gender (school and central office) Standardized testing results by school, grade, race, gender -Student rights and responsibilities handbooks t-Volunteer training schedule *^oard of education/committee agendas and minutes ^Discipline documentations, suspensions, expulsions, referrals to alternative dass or school by school, g^e, r^e, gender District Bi-radal committee minutes District publications (newsletters, brochures, etc.) Dropouts and reason for withdrawal by school, grade, race, gender Monitoring reports of all district monitoring groups iz^Monthiy calendar of events (special events, meetings, etc.) Press releases Denotes information of a recurring or ongoing nature 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 (SOI) 371 -0100 September 17, 1992 Marie Parker LRSD Student Assignment 501 Sherman LR, AR 72202 Dear Marie: In order to coordinate our information requests during the school year, our office is requesting each district to conduct a report/information audit to determine what data each district produces. This audit win include the title, a brief description, department and contact person responsible, and the date the information is generated. convenience, an audit form and an example are enclosed, districts audit by Monday, October 19,1992. For your Please return a copy of your In addition, please alert our office when new reports, not listed on the audit, are produced. Once we receive LRSDs audit our office will review and request the information we need to monitor compliance with the desegregation plans. It is our hope that this audit will give us a better understanding of each districts available information and reduce the number of separate requests for data. I will call you by September 23 to discuss any questions or suggestions you may have. Thank you for your continued cooperation. Sincerely, Connie Hickman Associate MonitorOffice of Desegregation Monitoring United States District Court  Eastern District of Arkansas Ann S. Brown, Federal Monitor 201 East Markham, Suite 510 Heritage West Building Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 (501)376-6200 Fax (501) 371-0100 September 17, 1992 Mable Bynum NLRSD P.O. Box 687 2700 Poplar Street NLR, AR 72115 Dear Mable: In order to coordinate our information requests during the school year, our office is requesting each district to conduct a report/information audit to determine what data each district produces. This audit will include the title, a brief description, department and contact person responsible, and the date the information is generated. convenience, an audit form and an example are enclosed, districts audit by Monday, October 19,1992. For your Please return a copy of your In addition, please alert our office when new reports, not listed on the audit, are produced. Once we receive NLRSDs audit our office will review and request the information we need to monitor compliance with the desegregation plans. It is our hope that this audit will give us a better understanding of each districts available information and reduce the number of separate requests for data. I will call you by September 23 to discuss any questions or suggestions you may have. Thank you for your continued cooperation. Sincerely, Connie Hickman 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 (SOI) 371.0100 September 17, 1992 BiUy Bowles PCSSD P.O. Box 8601 925 Dixon Road LR, AR 72216 Dear Billy: In order to coordinate our information requests during the school year, our office is requesting each district to conduct a report/information audit to determine what data each district produces. This audit will include the title, a brief description, department and contact person responsible, and the date e information is generated. For your convenience, an audit form and an example are enclosed. Please return a copy of your districts audit by Monday, October 19, 1992. In addition, please alert our office when new reports, not listed on the audit, are produced. Once we receive PCSSDs audit our office will review and request the information we need to monitor compliance with the desegregation plans. It is our hope that this audit will give us a better understanding of each districts available information and reduce the number of separate requests for data. I will call you by September 23 to discuss any questions or suggestions you may have. Thank you for your continued cooperation. Connie Hickman Associate Monitor Title Incentive Schools Latin Program Incentive Schools Spanish Program__ Special Education Enrollment Results of School. Monitoci-ng------- Action Plans for Dvpirpprp\npntati J R REPORT/INFORMATION AUDIT Content Description Update report on approach, methods, an used in participating schools strategie\nUp'date report on approach, methods, and strategie used in participating schools____________________ Enrollment in special education by school, grade, subject, race, gender Corrective action forms on each student in a building receiving.s.pecja1 ediiratinn________ Individual school action plan to remediate defiripnciPS______________________________ OCT PO i9\u0026gt;2 December 1 Child Count Total district special education population by disability, age, race, etCi____________________ Inservice '92-'93 Academic Support Program Educational equit Inservice 1992-93 Purchase Math Manipulatives Academic Support Program Educational Equit' Mui ticultural Purchase Trade Books/Material Dispersed information on multicultural college nffprings\ndevelopment and implementation of multicultural curriculum guides K-12\nidentification and incorporation of multiculatural inDepartment Responsible/Contact Person supervisor oT Communi Date Available dations, English, ESL, \u0026amp; Foreitn Languages Supervisor of Communi English, ESL, \u0026amp; Forei Director Division of Exceptional Children Director Division of Exceptional Children ( ( ations n Languages 10-01-92 09-15-92 12-01-92 Director Division of Exceptional Children/ Pri nci pal Director Division of Exceptional Children Mathematics/Wood Mathematics/Wood Readi ng/Stoval1 Reading/Stoval1 Curriculum and Learning Imurovement, Estelle Matthis 10-15-92 12-15-92 12-01-92 June, 1992 June, 1992 June, 199^ June, 1992Title Multicultural cont'd African/African- American Program\nRites of Passage Program New and Vacant Teaching and Instructional Aice Posi tions for 4- Year-old Classes Classroom Set-Ups For New 4-Year Old Program G/T Enrollment Library Use Report aff Developmen' Staff cHal oque elopmen /Calend REPORT/INFORMATION AUDIT Content Description Department Reaponalble/ Contact Person structional materials into instructional programs\nrecorded multicultural inservice training Progress on Incentive Schools' implementation of African/Atrican-American Program and Rites of Passage Program Teaching and Instructional Aide positinns fur nev Four-Year-Old classes will be submitted to the Dirpctor of Human Rpsniircps for annniincptnpnf on_ the known vacancy list Timeline for ordering materials, supplies and equi pment Enrollment in G/T by school, grade, race and gpndpr______________________________________ Data on use of library by students and teachers, library instruction, circulation District-wide staff development activities r scheduled for the 1992-93 school year_____ SchoQl.Staff Dev Participation Rei . Identification by school, participants, aiid. number of hours of the comiletion of specific staff development activities Date Available Curriculum and Learning Improvement, Estelle Matthis E.ar.Iy...Childhnfid Education Dept. EarlyChildhood Education Dept. 6-Q1-93 5-03-93 G/T Supervisor/Coord. 11-15-92 Instructional Techv coor. Lib services Marvin Zimmerman Staff Develop. Dir. Maryin Zimmetman Staff Dev. 0ir. 25th of each mo. 10-15-92 End of I quarter ea.Title OCTOBER 1 FNROI 1 MERI______ ANNUAL RETENTION REPORT- ANNUAL -DROP-OUT REPORT- QUARTERLY ATTENDANCE REPORT QUARTERLY ENROI I MENT REPORT QUARTERLY MITHDBAWAl REPORT ANNUAL ATTENDANCE REPORT STUDENT ASSIGNMENT HANDBOOK---------- CAPACITIES________ BI-RACIAL COM. M1NUTE.S----------- EQUITY COMPLIANCE REPOB.I------------ BIRACIAL MONITOR ING REPORTS------ Btai REPORT/INFORMATION AUDIT Content Deecriptton Enrollment data by school sorted by r^ace and gender Retentions by school, grade, race and gender Pupils in grades 7-12 who \"dropped-out\" of school. and'did not return hv 10/31---L----------------- . 1-5 Attendance (ADM, ADA) by school, grade and gender wi th Di strict totals ------------------------------------------------------------------ Enrollment last day of qtr. by school, grade and race-------------------------- --------------------------------------------------- Pupils in grades 7-12 who withdrew by school, grade race and gender-------------------------------------------------------- Attendance (ADM, ADA) by school, grade and gender with District totals Includes report of punils who entered from another state and a report of graduating seniors. ---------------------- Published handbook with District procedures for assigning students to schools--------------------------------------------- Capacity listing for each school_______________ Recorded minutes of each hi^-acia.lcommfifttjnt}. Department Reaponaible/Contact Peraon Office of Organizationa learning Equity____ Office of Organization?  I.P^^rii ng Eqiii^ty ,--- ice of Organizational \u0026amp;-Learainq Equity----------- Office of Organizational \u0026amp; Learuinq Equity----------- Office of Organizational a learning EqiiLty----------- Office of Organizational A Learning Equity______ Rppnrt nf I RSD compl iancewi th .SQF eniii tv. -guidflline: Monitor Incentiye Schools Date Available 1Q./I5. L lQ/1 11ZJ 0____ 15 days aft ?nd of qtr. 15 days aft eniL.flJ.jQlE,- 15 days aft end .af .qtr.- 7/1 r r r Office of Organizational A,I.gaming Equity------ Office of Organizational \u0026amp;earni.ng Equity----------- Office of Organizational X I parni ng Eqiii ty---------------- Office of Organizational \u0026amp; Learning Equi-ty----------- Office of Organizationa \u0026amp; Learning Equity 2Z1 ^qth 5\u0026gt;f pach month in/is QuarterlyTitle Board Agenda Board Meeting Mi nutes School Plans REPORT/INFORMATION AUDIT Content Description Printed agenda of all Board meetings Approved minutes of Board meetings School Improvement Plan State Annual Repc't Meeting State Standards School Profile School Profile EK Department Responaibie/ Contact Person Mac Bernd Mac Bernd Annual Report Report to patrons of District's progress on long-range goals Janet Bernard Assoc.Supt. . Janet Bernard_______ Planning Research and Evaluation Sterling Ingram Communications Dept. Dianne Woodruff Date Available 4th Wed. ea, mo. Monthly as avallable 10-15 10-15 10-15 9-30 annu. News Coverage analysi s Weekly report details category and amount of print news coverage for LRSD, etc. Communications Dept. Dianne woooruff Weekly/ garter! y Press Release analysi s Analysis of kind and amount of news coverage generated from LRSD press release Communications Dept. Dianne Woodruff QuarterlyMEMORANDUM Date: November 20,1992 From: Connie To: Polly Subject: Report/Information Audits The following is a list on information needed that was not listed on the districts information audit BIRACIAL COMMITTEE - Membership list, by race, gender, representative position, address, and phone # from LRSD \u0026amp; PCSSD Monitoring instruments used by all three districts Monitoring team lists (district and school-based) by race, gender, representative position, address, and phone # from LRSD and PCSSD Meeting and monitoring schedule for the school year from all three districts Meeting agendas from all three districts Monitoring reports - LRSD building level biracial committee reports and semester reports from planning and evaluation. PCSSD - local building reports, district biracial committee summary reports and the Office of Desegregations semester reports. PARENT COUNCIL (only LRSD) - Membership list, by race, gender, representative position, address, and phone # Monitoring team list by race, gender, representative position, address, and phone # Meeting and monitoring schedule for the school year Meeting agenda and minutes Quarterly monitoring reportsPTA/PTO - Officers and committees by race and gender from PCSSD and LRSD. membership by race and gender from all three districts. Total MISCELLANEOUS - Press releases from PCSSD and LRSD Recruitment plans from LRSD and PCSSD??? Public relations log or some tracking system from aU three districts District publications (ie newsletters, brochures, videos,... for all three districts (NLRSD did list updated brochures and a quarterly newsletter) VIPS/ PALS monthly or quarterly hours by school, number of hours served, race, and gender from all three districts VIPS/PALS training schedule from LRSD and PCSSD (PCSSD did list a volunteer monitoring training schedule) LRSD Incentive School Mentors by race, gender, and number of hours served monthly or quarterly List of volunteer coordinators by race and gender at each school in aU three districts - List of each schools business and community partner in LRSD \u0026amp; PCSSDGsnersi Information for Ofnca of Desegregotian Monitorin\nO vAttendanca zone maps (as changes occur) ~7 V izAltemative school policies, procedures, and referral process -^Eoard of education/committee meeting schedule iXlapadty of each school building CARE manual (LRSD) i-Distnct Bi-radal committee meeting schedule i/District Bi-radal committee membership list, indudin: t-driy childhood education manual (polides, etc.) 9 race and address i-Edriy .childhood enrollment by school, age level (e.g. four-year-old program), race, gender u-EhroIIment\nfinal Cctobe.^ 1 data by school, grade, class, race, sender L-Ectracurricular/co-curricular participation by school, activity, race, gender '-d^ailure and retention rate, by school, grade, dass, race, gender i-Cifted/talented, AP. enriched, and honors enrollment by school, grade, subject, race, gender Graduation and retention rate for prerious semester by school, grade, race, gender iz'KlPPY partidpation, induding area ser/ed, race, gender z.''lfise.nnce dates, schedule, training topics, trainers (by race, gender) for all e.mployee groups -'M-to-M, magnet, and desegregation transfers by race, grade, sending and receiving school i-'fflonitoring schedules of all district monitoring groups including bi-radal committees i-d^ulticulturai educadon curriculum guides (with redsions as completed) -^A/PTO officers and committee membership by school, race, gender '-'PTA/PTO total membersiiip by school, race vdPolides on extracurricular and co-curricular activities , z- \u0026lt;-^chool improve.mem: plans v^chool profiles i'-SchooI partners in education listing (updated as e.xpanded) - i\u0026gt;-School and district PTA/PTO meetings and school open house schedule '9 c-SchooI voluntee. building coordinator listing, induding race, gender u-Spedal education enrollment, by,school, dassification, race, gender I'Slaffing data by position, race, gender (school and central office) iz5tandardized testing results by school, grade, race, gender '-'Student rights and responsibilities handbooks 'Volunteer training schedule ^oard of education/commictee agendas and minutes '^yiscipline documentations, suspensions, expulsions, referrals to alternative class or school by school, grade, race, gender i/Distnct Bi-radal committee minutes 'district publications (newsletters, brochures, etc) \"Dropouts and reason for withdrawal by school, grade, race, gender \"Monitoring reports of all district monitoring groups ^''Monthly calendar of events (special events, meetings, etc) ^ress releases \"Denotes information of a recurring or ongoing nature\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_423","title":"Desegregation plan modifications (April 1992 plan)","collection_id":"bcas_bcmss0837","collection_title":"Office of Desegregation Management","dcterms_contributor":null,"dcterms_spatial":["United States, 39.76, -98.5","United States, Arkansas, 34.75037, -92.50044","United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, 34.76993, -92.3118","United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, Little Rock, 34.74648, -92.28959"],"dcterms_creator":null,"dc_date":["1991/1996"],"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","School integration","School improvement programs"],"dcterms_title":["Desegregation plan modifications (April 1992 plan)"],"dcterms_type":["Text"],"dcterms_provenance":["Butler Center for Arkansas Studies"],"edm_is_shown_by":null,"edm_is_shown_at":["http://arstudies.contentdm.oclc.org/cdm/ref/collection/bcmss0837/id/423"],"dcterms_temporal":null,"dcterms_rights_holder":null,"dcterms_bibliographic_citation":null,"dlg_local_right":["Available for use in research, teaching, and private study. Any other use requires permission from the Butler Center."],"dcterms_medium":["documents (object genre)"],"dcterms_extent":["82 pages"],"dlg_subject_personal":null,"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":"\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n\n\n\n   \n\n\n\n\n   \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n  \n\nProvisions of Plans or Orders the LRSD Has Failed to Fulfill Board Responsibilities The LRSD Board of Directors has committed to the following goals which it has failed to fulfill, according to the introductory section of the 1992 plan, page 1.  The elimination of achievement disparity between black and white students on norm- referenced and criterion referenced tests.  Promoting positive public reaction to desegregation.  The effective use of interdistrict and intradistrict recruitment strategies to meet the desegregation requirements in all schools and to avoid resegregation. In addition, under the title \"Leadership\" on pages 2-3 of the 1992 plan, the board and superintendent have failed to assert leadership in the following areas.  Clearly delineating the districts desegregation mission to the staff and the community.  Utilizing the desegregation mission as a guide for the development of policies and setting expectations for the superintendent to implement the policies.  Adopting a budget which will provide the resources necessary for an effective, desegregated school system. Making budgetary decisions consistent with district desegregation policies in terms of buildings, staff, materials, and equipment.  The conduct of an annual self-evaluation of their commitment to a quality desegregated education. Incentive Schools  Failure to reserve kindergarten and four-year-old program seats for white students and engage in documented, sustained, and vigorous recruitment to attract those students, (plan page 140, May 1992 order, page 28).  Program specialists have not been hired at all incentive schools (May 1992 order, page 41).  A staffing needs assessment has not been administered and analyzed (May 1992 order, page 41).  Themes have not been incorporated into the core curriculum at each school (May 1992 order, page 42). Little significant progress has been made toward desegregation of the incentive schools, with the exception of Rockefeller (1992 plan, page 149). Lack of coordinated recruitment and failure to implement aU plan recruitment activities (i.e., individual brochures, marketing blitz) (1992 plan, pages 215-217).  The Parent Council has not begun to monitor or report on all activities related to the incentive school program (1992 plan, page 151). Equity Issues  Failure to show significant progress in the reduction of the achievement disparity between black and white students (1992 plan, page 1, 1989 Settlement Agreement, page 26).  Black students (particularly black males) continue to be disciplined at a rate disproportionate to their percentage of the student population (1992 plan, pages 28, 33-34).  Failure to effectively address the overrepresentation of black students (particularly black males) in special education (1992 plan, page 111). Recruitment  The district has not developed a Strategic Recruitment Plan pursuant to the ODM Incentive School Recommendations (page 4) and the LRSD Marketing Plan.  The Recruitment Tracking System, first requested during the March 1991 Construction Hearing, has not been implemented. Additional Items from the May 1992 Order  A plan has not been submitted describing the extended activities designed to address the needs of Washington Magnet School attendance zone students (May 1992 order, page 38).tiP- IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION Ofj LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT PLAINTIFF V. LR-C-82-866 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, ET AL DEFENDANTS MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL INTERVENORS KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL INTERVENORS MOTION FOR APPROVAL OF FOUR-YEAR OLD PROGRAM SITES The plaintiff. Little Rock School District (\"LRSD\") or (\"District\"), for its Motion for Approval of Four-Year Old Program Sites for the 1994-95 school year, states: 1. Pursuant to the court-approved desegregation plan, the LRSD agreed to implement four-year old programs in all schools in the LRSD by the 1993-94 school year. 2. The LRSD later proposed certain modifications to the 1989 settlement plans, which modifications were heard by this Court. 3. Among the modifications proposed was the request that the Court accept the District's long-range implementation plan which was filed with the Court on October 1, 1991. Although the Court did not accept the long-range implementation plan as submitted, the Court did release the LRSD from the requirement to place a four- year old program in every elementary school in the District. Ind-ifip4 . By Order dated May 1, 1992, this Court accepted the LRSD's proposal that four-year old programs be placed in locations which would best further the goals of disparity reduction and racial balance in the District. Further, the Court permitted the District to complete implementation of the program by the 1994-95 school year. 5. In accepting the LRSD's proposed modifications, the Court continued the requirement that the four-year old programs developed by the District had to accommodate the number of children which equalled or exceeded the number which would have been accommodated had all schools in the District had a four-year old program as originally planned. 6. The LRSD added additional four-year old programs as required during the 1993-94 school year. 7. Further, the LRSD has now completed its review and has determined the number of classes necessary to accommodate the number of children which would have been accommodated had programs been placed at all elementary schools in the District. The LRSD has also determined those locations it believes will best further the goals of disparity reduction and racial balance. 8. Attached hereto as Exhibit 1 is a true and accurate listing of the sites selected by the LRSD to complete its obligations for four-year programs during the 1994-95 school year in accordance with the Order dated May 1, 1992. The sites reflected are incorporated herein by reference. lrd-*pp 29. The LRSD is now prepared to take those steps necessary to implement the hereindescribed expansion of the four-year old program for the 1994-95 school year. However, the LRSD would request expedited consideration so that it may begin the necessary preparatory arrangements. WHEREFORE, the plaintiff, Little Rock School District, moves this Court for an Order approving the locations, number of classes and other terms as outlined in the attached implementation proposal\nit requests that it be awarded its costs. expenses, attorney fees incurred herein and all other legal and proper relief to which it may be entitled. FRIDAY, ELDREDGE \u0026amp; CLARK 2000 First Commercial Bldg. 400 West Capitol Street Little Rock, AR 72201 (501) 376-2011 Attorneys for Plaintiff LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT Jerry L. Malone Bar ID No. 85096 Ind'tpp 3 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I certify that a copy of the foregoing Motion for Approval of Four-Year Old Program Sites has been served on the following people by depositing copy of same in the United States mail on this day of April, 1994: Mr. John Walker JOHN WALKER, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72206 Mr. Richard Roachell Roachell and Streett First Federal Plaza 401 West Capitol, Suite 504 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. Sam Jones WRIGHT, LINDSEY \u0026amp; JENNINGS 2200 Worthen Bank Bldg. 200 West Capitol Little Rock, AR 72201 Ms. Ann Brown Desegregation Monitor Heritage West Bldg., Suite 510 201 East Markham Street Little Rock, AR 72201 Jerry L. Malone Ind-tpp 4 EXHIBIT 1 LRSD'S 1994-95 FOUR-YEAR OLD PROGRAM SITE SELECTIONS Pursuant to the LRSD Desegregation Plan, as amended by subsequent court orders, the LRSD must accommodate in four-year old programs a number of children which equals or exceeds the number which would have been accommodated if all schools in the District had a four-year old program At the time the commitment was made, the LRSD had 36 elementary schools. The number of children to be served was computed by using a maximum capacity of 20 students per class. This yielded 720 students as the total number to be served. In accordance with the May 1, 1992 Order of this Court and North Central accreditation standards, the number of students per class during the 1993-94 year was based on the standard of 18 students per classroom. By virtue of this standard, the LRSD had capacity to serve 576 students in its 32 four-year old classes. Accordingly, the LRSD must add eight (8) four-year old classes during the 1994-95 year to have the capacity to serve the additional 144 children necessary to achieve the 720 children capacity as originally computed. To select the eight (8) sites, the LRSD considered the following criteria: 1. Schools which are difficult to desegregate and are racially imbalanced. Irad-tpp 52 . Areas which have a very high concentration of low income families, Based on its review, the LRSD selected the following elementary school sites: 1. Badgett - One additional class can be added by using space that is available within the building. 2. Bale - One additional class can be added by using space that is available within the building through the reassignment of classroom space (classroom space currently being used for physical education on rainy days and for psychological testing). 3. Fair Park One additional class can be added by installing a trailer, which would free up a classroom within the building. 4. Geyer Springs One additional class can be added by offering only two (2) kindergarten classes. Although a third kindergarten class was added after the start of the 1993-94 school year, the majority of the students assigned to that class were from outside the schools' attendance zones. Accordingly, other assignments consistent with the desegregation plan should be available in the event non-attendance zone kindergarten students need to be accommodated during the 1994-95 school year. 5. Mabelvale - One additional class can be added by using a room being made available due to matriculating seventh grade students. 6. Watson - One additional class can be added by using space within the building obtained through the sharing of space by the Irad-app 6Chapter I teacher (there three (3) days a week) and the G/T teacher (there two and one-half (2/1/2) days a week). 7. Woodruff - One additional class can be added by using space available within the building. 8. Stephens - One additional class can be added by using space within the building. Ind-app 7RECSa ^7^ IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS No. 93-3592 NO. 93-3469 NO. 93-3594 FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT APR 2 0 1994 Cffico of Dcsogr 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 1STATEMENT OF THE CASE I. THE VOTING RIGHTS ACT ISSUE. A. Previous LRSD Election Zones. The district court approved seven single-member zones for the election of the Little Rock School District (\"LRSD) Board of Directors on December 18, 1986. Appellant's App. p. 50. Before that time, LRSD board members were elected in at-large elections. Arkansas law requires, however, that school districts with student populations in excess of 24,000 elect board members from single- member zones. See Ark. Code Ann.  6-13-607 (Michie 1991). Pursuant to previous orders of this Court and the district court. LRSD annexed territory of the Pulaski County Special School District which increased LRSD's student population above 24,000 and was required by state law to establish single-member zones. The LRSD zone plan approved by the district court had the following populations and racial compositions according to the 1980 census: Zone 1 - 25,399 total population\n81.50% black\nZone 2 - 25,295 petal population\n68.90% black\nZone 3 - 25,210 total population\nZone 4 - 24,844 total population\n7.83% black\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. 1The district court found that the zone plan \"comports with the one- man one-vote principle required by the Constitution  . , [and is] in compliance with the mandate of Amended  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.\" Appellant's App., p. 50-51. The district court's December 18, 1986, order approving the LRSD zone plan was not appealed. The Charles Plaintiffs, as members of the class represented by the Joshua Intervenors, were parties to the case when the zones were established. LRSD App., p. 1. In fact, Mr. Charles was substituted as a named plaintiff when he became president of the Little Rock Chapter of the NAACP. LRSD B. The PCBE Plan. App., p. 4. The Pulaski County Board of Education (\"PCBE\") plan for LRSD election zones was prepared by Metroplan, a non-profit corporation whose members are local governmental entities in the central Arkansas area. LRSD App., p. 41. Metroplan was asked to determine whether the previous LRSD election zones were out of compliance with the \"one-man, one-vote\" principle according to 1990 census data and, if so, to prepare alternative proposals for rezoning LRSD in compliance with federal law. LRSD App., p. 42. Jim McKenzie, the Executive Director of Metroplan, was primarily responsible for preparing the proposals. LRSD App., pp. 76-77. Before preparation of alternative proposals for submission to PCBE, Mr. McKenzie contacted Jim Lynch, who became the Charles Plaintiffs' expert in this case, concerning criteria which should 2be considered in preparing election zones. Lynch provided McKenzie a written list of five criteria\n(1) adhere to the one-man, one- vote doctrine\n(2) avoid diluting minority political expression\n(3) districts ought to be compact and contiguous\n(4) district boundaries should be recognizable\nand, (5) use existing political boundaries. LRSD App., pp. 9, 76-77. McKenzie followed Lynch's criteria in developing four alternative proposals for rezoning the Little Rock School District. LRSD App., pp. 77-80. McKenzie was aware of the December 18, 1986, order stating that the previous LRSD election zones were in compliance with Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act. LRSD App., p. 40. II. THE DESEGREGATION PLAN MODIFICATION ISSUE The parties to this case are in the process of implementing desegregation plans agreed upon in 1989 and approved by this Court in 1990.* The Interdistrict and LRSD Desegregation Plans call for eight racially isolated incentive schools but do not require that each incentive school must remain open in perpetuity. Instead, a purpose of those plans is to move LRSD black students from racially isolated incentive schools to racially balanced interdistrict schools: 'There are four desegregation plans, district and an Interdistrict Plan. one for each school 1991. The plans were modified in For a history of the development of the desegregation plans and the 1989 settlement agreement, see Little Rock School District V. Pulaski County Special School District. 921 F.2d 1371 (8th Cir. 1990) and Appeal of Little Rock School District. 949 F.2d 253 (8th Cir. 1991). 3\"As new interdistrict schools are established those seats attributable to LRSD will be available for those students who otherwise would or could have been assigned to an incentive school . . II LRSD App. , p. 3 31. Interdistrict Desegregation Plan, April 29, 1992, p. 4. The planned effort to move students from racially isolated incentive schools to racially balanced interdistrict schools is illustrated by the parties' agreement about Stephens school. Stephens is one of the eight incentive schools established under the 1989 plans. LRSD App., pp. 331, 3 34. Interdistrict Desegregation Plan, April 29, 1992, p. 4\nLRSD Desegregation Plan, April 29, 1992, p. 148. The plans require the parties to quickly convert Stephens from an incentive school to an interdistrict school and to close \"[t]he old Stephens school building.\" LRSD App., pp. 332, 334. Interdistrict Desegregation Plan, April 29, 1992, p. 10\nLRSD Desegregation Plan, April 29, 1992, p. 148. Washington Elementary School provides another example of the transition from racially isolated incentive schools to racially balanced interdistrict schools. The 1989 desegregation plans list Washington among the eight incentive schools. (8 J.D.R. 1722\n10 J.D.R. 2288), but the parties later agreed that Washington would become an Interdistrict Magnet School.^ 2 The district court rejected the settlement plans on June 27, 1989 and, during the pendency of the appeals of that order, approved a substitute plan known as the Tri-District Plan (Docket #1328). The Tri-District Plan was implemented for the 1990-91 #1328) . school year, and Washington operated under that plan as a racially balanced interdistrict magnet school. Following this Court's approval of the 1989 settlement plans, the parties agreed that Washington should continue to operate as a racially balanced interdistrict magnet school rather that resume operation as racially isolated incentive school. - - as Docket #1434. a 4The plans and agreements of the parties to date will reduce the number of incentive schools from eight to six by moving incentive school students to racially balanced interdistrict schools. The assignment of Ish attendance zone students to King Interdistrict School is the first movement of students from a segregated to an integrated school which has been opposed by any party. LRSD committed to build a new King Interdistrict School \"in downtown Little Rock ... in the general area along 1-630 between 1-30 and University Avenue.\" LRSD App., P. 334 . LRSD Desegregation Plan, April 29, 1992, p. 148. That area is populated primarily by students who are enrolled or are entitled to be enrolled in an incentive school. The specific site within that area was approved by the district court on March 17, 1992 (LRSD App., p. 227. Docket #1576) and no appeal was taken from that order. Each LRSD school. including each incentive school. has an attendance zone. LRSD App., pp. 310-313. The zone established for each new elementary school required by the desegregation plans must be superimposed upon the existing zone plan and will necessarily ^Counsel for the Joshua Intervenors told the district court: \"I'm suggesting that integration by itself is just unacceptable to black people at this time. It has to be something that is much more substantive than merely being in the same environment with white students.\" LRSD App., p. 292. 5usurp some or all of the attendance zone of one or more of the existing elementary schools. LRSD hired Dr. Leonard Thalmueller to design an attendance zone for King Interdistrict School. LRSD App. , p. 301. Dr. Thalmueller is a former employee of LRSD who has been involved in the preparation of LRSD attendance zones for seventeen years (LRSD App., p. 301) and who prepared the attendance zones for the 1989 LRSD Desegregation Plan. (LRSD App., p. 283). In drawing the King attendance zone, Thalmueller engaged in an effort \"to minimize the impact of the attendance zone on other students in the district. try to keep the domino effect down to the smallest possible factor . . [and] to reduce busing to whatever extent we could\". LRSD App., p. 303. Thalmueller also tried to draw the King zones so that students whose assignments were changed as a result of the establishment of that zone would not have to endure a second change of assignment when zones were later established for the Stephens Interdistrict School. LRSD App., p. 303. Thalmueller prepared three plans. reviewed them with the Office of Desegregation Monitoring and presented them to LRSD. LRSD App., pp. 303-304. In the plan adopted by the LRSD Board of Education, Dr. Thalmueller placed the entire Ish zone, consisting of six zone blocks, in the King attendance zone. LRSD App., pp. 335-336. The only schools whose attendance zones were changedby the Thalmueller plan are Ish, Jefferson, Rightsell and Washington. LRSD App., pp. 335, 336. 6One hundred eighty-three students were enrolled at Ish for the 1992-93 school year. Ninety of those students were from outside the Ish attendance zone. LRSD App. , p. 308. There were 229 students in the Ish attendance zone. June 8, 1993 LRSD App., p. 307. Only 93 of those students attended Ish school. LRSD App., p. 307. The others attended schools throughout LRSD. Dr. Thalmueller and LRSD Associate Superintendent Marie Parker prepared a report on the impact of the King attendance zone (LRSD App., p. 321) which was presented to the LRSD board, shared with all counsel on March 12, 1993 (LRSD App., p. 325) and presented to the District Court on June 8, 1993. The report describes the following impact upon Ish: \"Ish will remain open unless fewer than one hundred students choose Ish, in which case all Ish students will be assigned to King, and Little Rock School District will work with the Ish community to determine an appropriate use for the Ish building.\" LRSD App., p. 321. Four community meetings, including one at Ish school, were held in March, April and May 1993 \"to gather information from prospective parents and patrons to be used in consideration of attendance zones and theme selection for Martin Luther King, Jr. school\". LRSD App., p. 337. Surveys were mailed to all families affected by the location of the proposed attendance zone. LRSD App., p. 320. The King attendance zone was approved by the LRSD Board of Directors on April 22, 1993. On May 5, 1993 LRSD moved for approval of the King attendance zone. LRSD App., p. 231. Docket #1820. Joshua opposed LRSD's motion. LRSD App., p. 235. Docket #1825. The North Little Rock 7School District, the Pulaski County Special School District and the Knight Intervenors did not oppose the King attendance zone. LRSD App., p. 305. The district court conducted hearings on June 8 and 9, 1993 and approved the King attendance zone as drawn by Dr. Thalmueller, but not LRSD's plan for determining whether Ish should be closed. LRSD App., pp. 285-291. The court preferred Thalmueller's plan to the ideas presented by Dr. James Jennings, another former LRSD employee, because Thalmueller's plan would impact fewer attendance zones and because his plan \"left room for doubt\" concerning the 4 future location of the Stephens site. The district court announced that it would order that Ish remain open if one hundred or more students chose to attend Ish from among the students within the Ish attendance zone whether or not presently enrolled at Ish (229 students (LRSD App., p. 307)) and all students attending Ish whether or not residing within the Ish attendance zone (90 students (LRSD App., p. 308)) LRSD App., pp. 286-287. Dr. Jennings was subpoenaed only a few days before the hearing and had not previously reviewed Thalmueller's plan. During his previous employment with LRSD, Jennings had prepared a plan to create attendance zones for King and Stephens together. p. 279. LRSD App., Jennings' testimony consisted of his recollection of the plan he had previously prepared on the assumption that King and Stephens zones would be established at the same time. and his reaction to Thalmueller' s plan which he had seen for the first time the day before. LRSD App., pp. 281-283. Jennings' proposals would impact the attendance zones of thirteen schools. 280. LRSD App. , p. Jennings worked with Thalmueller to prepare the attendance zones contained in the 1989 desegregation plan (LRSD App., p. 283) and considers Thalmueller competent to prepare attendance plans (LRSD App., 284). zone 8The court's bench ruling was followed closely by a written order (Docket #1848) which established the following process by which LRSD could attempt to \"meet its burden of recruiting students to populate the King Interdistrict School\" from among those attending Ish or residing in the Ish attendance zone and \"proving that fewer than 100\" of those students wished to attend Ish: \"Within ten days from June 9, 1993 the LRSD must submit to the Court its proposed survey of these students along with its plan for executing the survey and implementing the survey results This plan must include a time schedule with deadline dates for implementing each step of the survey process, including the date by which the district will determine whether Ish is to remain open or to close. II June 11, 1993 Order, Docket #1848. The court told Joshua twice from the bench (LRSD App., pp. 293-300) and again in its written order that Joshua would \"have 5 days to file their response and objections to LRSD's survey and plan\". June 11, 1993 Order, p.3 LRSD filed on June 21, 1993 its proposed survey of potential Ish students and its plan for implementing the survey results^. LRSD proposed \"to send the form letter, the King and Ish fact sheets, and the School Selection Form to the parents of all students described in the court's June 11, 1993 Order in accordance with the attached time line for implementing King/Ish Survey Process. I LRSD App. , p. 24 0. No one objected to the process LRSD's filing showed exactly how the survey process would be  It included a time line, a form letter to parents of potential Ish students, fact sheets on both King and Ish Schools which would be sent to potential Ish students and a school implemented. selection form. LRSD App., p. 240. 5 9proposed by LRSD. The district court approved the process on June 30, 1993. Docket No. 1873. LRSD engaged in an extensive effort to inform potential Ish students about King and Ish Schools and to maximize the response to its King/Ish survey. Two hundred sixty survey forms were mailed, 173 were returned and 82 students requested Ish School. LRSD App., p. 271-272. Based upon the results of the survey, LRSD moved on July 19, 1993 to close Ish School. LRSD App., p. 268. Docket No. 1908. Joshua opposed LRSD's status report about the survey process (LRSD App., p. 265) and LRSD's Motion to close Ish School (Docket No. 1918). On August 2, 1993, the district court granted LRSD's Motion to close Ish School. SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT 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. The Charles Plaintiffs contend that the plan for LRSD election zones adopted by the PCBE violates Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act, 42 U.S.C.  1973. In order to establish a violation of Section 2, the Charles Plaintiff were required to establishthe LRSD conducted a series of community meetings, including two at Ish School. Fliers announcing the community meetings delivered door to door and distributed to local churches. were Ish patrons conducted a door to door campaign encouraging parents to return the survey forms. The LRSD student assignment office telephoned parents who were sent survey forms and encouraged them to complete and return the forms. LRSD App., pp. 271-272. 10following four elements: (1) that blacks are sufficiently large and geographically compact to constitute a majority in a single-member district\n(2) that blacks are politically cohesive\n(3) that the white majority votes sufficiently as a bloc to enable it usually to defeat blacks' preferred candidate\nand, (4) that based on the \"totality of the circumstances,\" blacks have less opportunity to participate in the political process and to elect representatives of their choice as a result of the PCBE plan for LRSD election zones. 42 U.S.C.  1973(b)\nThornburg v. Ginqles. 478 U.S. 25, 50- 51 (1986) . The district court found that the Charles Plaintiffs failed to establish each of the above elements. The PCBE plan contains two majority black zones. Therefore, the Charles Plaintiffs were reguired to prove that three majority black zones can be created. In addition, the majority black zones must have at least a 65% black majority to enable blacks to elect their preferred candidate. Smith V. Clinton. 687 F.Supp. 1361 (E.D.Ark. 1988). Each of the three majority black zones in the plan advocated by the Charles Plaintiffs has a majority black population of less than 65%. As a result, the district court found that the Charles Plaintiffs were unable to demonstrate that three majority black LRSD zones with a 65% black majority population can be created. The Charles Plaintiffs attempted to establish black political cohesiveness through statistical proof of the correlation coefficient comparing the percentage of black voting age population and the percentage of votes for the black candidate. However, the 11correlation coefficient does not establish the percentage of black support for black candidates. The Charles Plaintiffs did not undertake the additional statistical analysis necessary to establish black political cohesiveness, and therefore, the district court held that they had failed to establish this element. The Charles Plaintiffs' attempt to establish white bloc voting was infected with the same statistical flaw. In addition. persistent proportional representation of blacks on the LRSD Board of Directors makes it \"virtually impossible tl for the Charles Plaintiff to establish white bloc voting. Nash V. Blunt, 797 F.Supp. 1488, 1498 (W.D.Mo. 1992). Evidence of elections between white and black candidates demonstrates that white voters do not usually vote as a block to defeat the blacks' preferred candidate. Accordingly, the district could found that LRSD did not suffer from legally significant white bloc voting. Finally, the district court held that, based on a totality of the circumstances, the Charles Plaintiffs failed to establish that blacks have less opportunity to participate in the political process and to elect representatives of their choice under the PCBE plan than they had under the previous zone plan which had been approved by the district court in 1986. The Charles Plaintiffs' expert testified that the opportunity of blacks is the same under the PCBE plan and under the previous court approved plan. The findings of the district court are not clearly erroneous and should be affirmed. 12A. ARGUMENT I. THE DISTRICT COURT'S FINDING THAT THE CHARLES PLAINTIFFS FAILED TO ESTABLISH ACT, 42 U.S.C. SHOULD BE AFFIRMED.  1973, A VIOLATION OF THE VOTING RIGHTS IS NOT CLEARLY ERRONEOUS AND Introduction. No plan for single-member election zones is immune from challenge under the Voting Rights Act. If a plan concentrates minorities into super-majority zones. the plan may be said to dilute minority voting strength through \"packing.\" If a plan does not create the maximum number of minority black zones, it may be said to dilute minority voting strength through dispersion of minority voters. Compare Jeffers v. Clinton. 730 F.Supp. 196 (E.D.Ark. 1989), and Jeffers v. Tucker. 839 F.Supp. 612 (E.D.Ark. 1993) . PCBE adopted a Metroplan proposal for LRSD election zones which has two majority black zones. The Charles Plaintiffs advocate racial gerrymandering of LRSD election zones to create a third majority black zone. In discussing the racial gerrymandering of election zones, the Supreme Court has stated: Racial classifications of lasting harm to our society. any sort pose the risk of They reinforce the belief, held by too many for too much of history, that individuals should be judged by the color of their skin. The Charles Plaintiffs argued before the district court that the PCBE plan violated the Voting Rights Act due to \"packing.\" this appeal, the Charles Plaintiffs raise for the first time argument based on the dispersion of black voters. In an PCBE adopted Metroplan proposal No. 4. 13Racial classifications with respect to voting carry particular dangers. Racial gerrymandering even for remedial purposes, may balkanize us into competing racial factions\nit threatens to carry us further from the goal of a political system in which race no longer mattersa goal that the Fourteenth and Fifteenth Amendments embody. and to which the Nation continues to aspire. It is for these reasons that race-based districting by our state legislatures demands close judicial scrutiny. Shaw V. Reno, 509 U.S. 113 S.Ct. ___, 125 L.Ed.2d 511, 535 (1993). B. Discussion. 1. Liability Under Section 2 Generally. The Voting Rights Act of 1965 was tl designed by Congress to banish the blight of racial discrimination in voting, which has infected the electoral process in parts of our country for nearly a century.\" South Carolina v. Katzenbach. 383 U.S. 301, 308 (1966). As amended in 1982, Section 2 of 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. 1993). Section 2 further states: A violation of subsection (a) of this section is established if. the circumstances, based on the totality of it is shown that political processes leading to nomination the 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 political subdivision is which in one the State or circumstance may be considered: Provided, That nothing in this section establishes a right to 14have members of a protected class elected in numbers equal to their proportion population. in the 42 U.S.C.  1973(b) (Supp. 1993) (emphasis in original). In order to prevail on a Section 2 claim, the plaintiff bears the burden of proving both less opportunity to participate in the political process and less opportunity to elect representatives of their choice. Chisom V. Roemer, 501 U.S. Ill S.Ct. 2354, 115 L.Ed.2d 348, 364 (1991), The Supreme Court has stated that a minority group challenging single-member election zones under Section 2 must establish three \"necessary preconditions\": First, that [the minority group] is sufficiently large and geographically compact to constitute a majority in a single-member If it is not, as would be the district. case in a 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. minority group is not politically cohesive, it cannot be said that the selection of a multi-member If the electoral structure thwarts distinctive minority group interests, [citations omitted]. Third, the minority must be able to demonstrate that the white majority votes sufficiently as a bloc to enable  in the absence of special circumstances, a minority candidate running such it as unopposed . . . usually to defeat the preferred [citations omitted]. In establishing this last circumstance, the minority group demonstrates that submergence in a white multi-member candidate. minority's district impedes its ability to elect representatives of its chosen representation. Ginqles. 478 U.S, at 50-51\nGrowe v, Emison. ___ U.S. ___, 113 S.Ct. , 122 L.Ed.2d 388, 404. Satisfaction of these three II preconditions\" is necessary. but not sufficient, to establish liability under Section 2. Growe. 507 U.S. at ___, 122 L.Ed.2d at 15404\nChisom. 501 U.S. ___, 115 L.Ed.2d 348, 364\nsee League of United Latin American Citizens v. Clements. 999 F.2d 831, 848 (5th Cir. 1993). Therefore, in order to establish a violation of Section 2, a minority group must demonstrate that (1) the group is sufficiently large and geographically compact to constitute a majority in a single-member district\n(2) it is politically cohesive\n(3) the white majority votes sufficiently as a bloc to enable it usually to defeat the minority's preferred candidate\nand. (4) based on the \"totality of the circumstances,\" the group has less opportunity to participate in the political process and to elect representatives of their choice as a result of the challenged electoral device. 42 U.S.C.  1973(b)\nGingles. 478 U.S. at 50-51. 2. Sufficiently Large and Geographically Compact. The plan for LRSD election zones adopted by PCBE contains two majority-minority zones. LRSD App., p. 8. Thus, in the context of the present case, the first Gingles precondition requires that the Charles Plaintiffs establish that the black population of LRSD is sufficiently large and geographically compact to constitute a \"majority\" in three LRSD election zones. Gingles, 478 U.S. at 50. More than mere numerical superiority must be considered in determining whether the Charles Plaintiffs constitute a sufficient II majority\" in single-member zone to elect representatives of their choice. . As the court explained in Smith v. Clinton. 687 a F.Supp. 1361 (E.D.Ark. 1988): A guideline of 65% frequently used. of total population is and is derived by 16supplementing simple majority with an additional 5% to offset the fact that 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 (Sth Cir. 1992). Therefore, the Charles Plaintiffs must demonstrate that the black population in LRSD is sufficiently large and geographically compact to permit creation of three zones with at least 65% minority population. Otherwise, the PCBE plan for a LRSD election zones \"cannot be responsible for minority voters inability to elect its candidates.\" Singles. 478 U.S. at 50. Each of the purported \"majority\" black zones proposed by the Charles Plaintiffs falls below the 65% guideline. Under the Charles Plaintiffs' plan, 81% of the blacks who live within the boundaries of the LRSD would be packed into zones 1, 2 and 6 resulting in percentage black populations in those zones of 64.7%, 64.0% and 61.7%, respectively. The remaining black population is dispersed among the remaining four zones. Appellant's App., p. 55. 9 Therefore, the plan for LRSD election zones advocated by the Charles Plaintiffs demonstrates that the black population in LRSD is not sufficiently large and geographically compact to constitute Charles Plaintiffs' Zone 1 has percentage population variance of negative 4.5%, and therefore, will in all probability be the first zone to fall out of compliance with the II requirement. LRSD App., p. 74. one-man. one-vote\" Metroplan proposal No. 4 adopted by PCBE took into account present demographics trends by placing more persons in zones with declining population and by placing fewer persons in zones with increasing population. within the limits prescribed by the law and with a lesser degree of This was done population variance than provided in the Charles plaintiffs' plan. LRSD App., pp. 78-80. 17a sufficient \"majority\" in three LRSD election zones. Appellant's App., p. 155. Furthermore, McKenzie testified that the Charles' Plaintiffs plan did not present compact zones. LRSD App., P. 61. Accordingly, the district court found, \"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.\" Memorandum Opinion and Order, p. 7. The district court's finding that the black population of LRSD is not sufficiently large and geographically compact to constitute a majority in three LRSD election zones is not clearly erroneous. Political Cohesiveness. In an effort to establish black political cohesiveness, Lynch computed the correlation coefficient (the \"r\" statistic) and the r- square value for all 65 voting precincts in LRSD. Lynch compared the percentage of black voting age population within the precinct and the percentage of votes for the black candidate for ten elections involving a black candidate and a white candidate. summary of Lynch's calculations was presented as Charles 3. A Plaintiffs' Exhibit 32. Appellant's App., p. 157. Relying only on Charles Plaintiffs' Exhibit 32, Lynch concluded that blacks were politically cohesive. Appellant's App., P. 160. Charles Plaintiffs' Exhibit 32 does not support Lynch's conclusion. The correlation coefficients calculated by Lynch and summarized in Charles Plaintiffs' Exhibit 32 provide no proof that 18blacks are politically cohesive. 10 The correlation coefficient is a measure of consistency. LRSD App., p. 134. See Citizens for a Better Gretna v. City of Gretna. 834 F.2d 496, 499 n.7 (Sth Cir. 1987)\ns^. generally, Richard Engstrom \u0026amp; Micheal McDonald, \"Quantitive Evidence in Vote Dilution Litigation: Political Participation and Polarized Voting,\" 17 Urban Lawyer 369 (1985). A perfect positive correlation (i.e., a correlation coefficient of one) between the percentage of black voting age population and the percentage of votes for the black candidate results where, for example, the same percentage of blacks and the same percentage of white voters support the black candidate in each precinct.'* If 25% of the black voters and 20% of the white voters in each precinct support the black candidate. perfect positive correlation exists. The correlation coefficient provides no evidence of the actual percentage of black voters who supported the black candidate. Thus, Charles Plaintiffs' Exhibit 32 indicates only that approximately the same percentage of blacks supported the black candidate in each precinct. Lynch conceded that the correlation coefficients shown on Charles Plaintiffs' Exhibit 32 provide no information about the 'it is nevertheless important to note that the only LRSD zone election analyzed by Lynch produced no significant correlation between black voting age population and support for the black candidate. Appellant's App., p. 157. \"Lynch's feeble understanding of the correlation coefficient was demonstrated when on cross-examination Lynch was unable to describe circumstances which would produce a perfect positive correlation. Lynch testified that he merely entered the data into a computer equipped with software to calculate the correlation coefficient. LRSD App., p. 165. 19 apercentage of black support for the black candidate. LRSD App., p. 158. Lynch admitted that nothing in his analysis excluded the possibility that only 25% of the black voters supported the black candidate in the elections shown on Charles Plaintiffs' Exhibit 32. LRSD App., p. 161. Lynch acknowledged that, if only 25% of the blacks supported a black candidate, blacks could not be considered politically cohesive. LRSD App., p. 159. In order for the correlation coefficient or r-square value to demonstrate political cohesiveness. they must be used in conjunction with homogeneous precinct analysis or regression analysis. S^, e.q. . Whitfield v. Democratic Party of the State of Arkansas. 686 F.Supp. 1365, 1383 (E.D.Ark. 1988)\nCitizens for a Better Gretna. 834 F.2d 496, 499 (5th Cir. 1987). Homogeneous precinct analysis is the examination of a precinct which is overwhelmingly populated by a discrete group to determine what percentage of voters in that group support a particular candidate. See Campos v. City of Baytown. 840 F.Supp. 1240, 1246 n.lO (5th Cir. 1988). For example, if a precinct is 100% black and the black candidate gets 90% of the votes in that precinct, then 90% of the black voters preferred the black candidate. If there is also a high correlation coefficient among all the precincts (meaning that approximately the same percentage of blacks supported the black candidate in each precinct), it may be appropriate to conclude that approximately 90% of black voters in each precinct supported the black candidate. See Engstrom \u0026amp; McDonald, p. 371-72. 20Regression analysis involves the calculation of the regression coefficient, commonly reported as \"b\". It is the regression coefficient \"that illuminates the degree to which voting patterns are racially differentiated.\" Engstrom \u0026amp; McDonald, P- 375. Whereas the correlation coefficient measures how consistently the electoral support for the black candidate changes with the percentage of black voting age population, the regression coefficient estimates how closely the change in percentage of votes for the black candidate tracks the change in percentage black voting age population. For example, where voting is completely racially polarized, the percentage of votes for the black candidate would track perfectly the increase in black voting age population.^ See Engstrom \u0026amp; McDonald, p. 375. Therefore, homogeneous precinct analysis or regression analysis are necessary to establish racially polarized voting. Lynch testified that he did not conduct homogeneous precinct analysis. LRSD App., p. 164. With regard to regression analysis, Lynch testified, \"I'm not familiar with that term.\" LRSD App., p. 163 . As a result. Lynch's conclusion that LRSD elections are racially polarized IS without foundation. The correlation coefficients shown on Charles Plaintiffs' Exhibit 32 demonstrate *^The regression coefficient is to be distinguished from the square value calculated by Lynch. The r-square value is merely the square of the correlation coefficient. The regression coefficient (\"b\") represents the slope of the regression line. __ regression line is the line which minimizes the deviations among samples. The correlation coefficient is a measure of the samples' deviation fiom the regression line. With a perfect correlation, either positive or negative, the samples fall perfectly along the regression line. See Engstrom \u0026amp; McDonald, p. 374-76. samples. The The See Engstrom \u0026amp; McDonald, p. 374-76. 21only that approximately the same percentage of blacks supported the black candidate in each precinct. Charles Plaintiffs' Exhibit 32 provides no indication of the actual percentage of black voters who supported the black candidate. Because the Charles Plaintiffs failed to establish that blacks are politically cohesive, their Section 2 claim must fail.\"* 4. White Bloc Vote. a. Persistent Proportional Representation. Justice Brennan, joined by Justice White, noted in Gincles that \"persistent proportional representation is inconsistent with [the] allegation that the ability of black voters ... to elect representatives of their choice is not equal to that enjoyed by the white majority.\" Ginoles. 478 U.S. at 77. With regard to this statement by Justice Brennan, Justice O'Conner, joined by Chief Justice Burger, Justice Powell and Justice Renquist, wrote. \"I *The conclusion that blacks are politically cohesive can be drawn based on Charles Plaintiffs' Exhibit 32 only if it is assumed that black voters preferred the black candidate. However, the Supreme Court has stated that minority support for the minority candidate \"never can be assumed, but must be proved in each case in order to establish that a redistricting plan dilutes minority voting strength in violation of  2.\" Shaw v. Reno. 509 U.S. at ___, 125 L.Ed.2d at 532 . V. There is one other notable limitation on the value of the correlation coefficients shown on Charles Plaintiffs' Exhibit 32. A strong correlation between percentage of black voting age population and percentage of votes for the black candidate does not preclude the possibility of an equally strong correlation between percentage of black voting age population and any of the other factors which Lynch testified often determine the outcome of elections. For example, the correlation coefficient between the percentage of black voting age population and the percentage of votes for the democratic candidate may be as strong or stronger, in any given election, the correlation coefficients shown on as Charles Plaintiffs' Exhibit 32. LRSD App., pp. 170-171. 22agree with Justice Brennan that consistent and sustained success by candidates preferred by minority voters IS presumptively inconsistent with the existence of a  2 violation.\" Ginqles. 478 U.S. at 102 (O'Conner, J., concurring). After considering the above quoted language in Ginqles. the court in Nash v. Blunt. 797 F.Supp. 1488, 1498 (W.D.Mo. 1992), concluded, \"If defendants can prove prior persistent proportional representation, it would be virtually impossible for the plaintiffs to prove white voters usually vote together to defeat minority-preferred candidates.\" Recognizing that Ginqles provides that \"proof that some minority candidates have been elected does not foreclose a  2 claim,\" Ginqles, 478 U.S. at 75, the court in Nash reasoned that persistent proportional representation would constitute a defense* to a Section 2 claim only where. in addition to a history of proportional representation, there exists a substantial likelihood that proportional representation would continue in the future. Na^, 797 F.Supp. at 14 98. For example, the plaintiffs in Na^ challenged the Missouri legislative redistricting plan as it applied to Jackson County, Missouri. The court noted that \"during the past decade, the proportion of black legislators for Jackson County has been in almost exactly equal proportion to the The court in Nash describes representation as an \"affirmative defense.\" persistent proportional This is a misnomer. A true affirmative defense relieves a defendant of liability even though the plaintiff has established each element of his claim. The classic example is the statute of limitations. However, persistent proportional representation, in effect, makes it \"virtually impossible\" to prove a necessary element of a Section 2 claim, legally significant white bloc voting. in effect, 1498. Nash, 797 F.Supp. at 23proportion of black citizens living in Jackson County. Na^, 797 F.Supp. at 1500. The court found that the proportion of majority black districts created under the challenged plan was roughly equal to the proportion of black population and concluded: Thus, we conclude that there has been at least a ten-year history of proportional representation, as well as a near certain likelihood that there will be proportional representation for the next decade. Therefore, we find the defendants have successfully proved the elements of this affirmative defense. Nash. 797 F.Supp. at 1500. The facts of the present case are remarkably similar to the facts before the court in Nash. Blacks constitute 29.1% of the voting age population of LRSD. LRSD App., p. 6. There are seven members of the LRSD Board of Directors. Thus, proportional representation would be two of the seven board members or 28.6% of the board. Since 1983, the racial composition of the LRSD Board of Directors has been as follows: 1983 to March 1987 - two blacks. five whites\nMarch 1987 to June 1988  three blacks, four whites\nand, June 1988 to present - two blacks, five whites. Therefore, since 1983, the proportion of black members of the LRSD Board of Directors has been equal to or greater than the proportion of black members of the electorate. Moreover, under the plan for LRSD election zones adopted by the PCBE, blacks are virtually certain to be proportionally represented in the future. The PCBE plan contains two black majority zones. PCBE Zones 1 and 2 have percentages of black population of 79.82% and 59.39%, respectively. LRSD App., p. 8. Although PCBE Zone 2 falls below the 65% guideline discussed in 24Smith V. Clinton, supra, Lynch testified that blacks would be able to elect representatives of their choice with a black majority of 60%. LRSD App., p. 104. Lynch specifically referred to North Little Rock election zones with percentage black populations of 59.4% and 58.8% in which black candidates have been successful. LRSD App., P- 11. Therefore, blacks will continue to be proportionally represented on the LRSD Board of Directors under the PCBE plan. The consistent and sustained past, along with the certain future, of proportional representation on the LRSD Board of Directors makes it \"virtually impossible\" for the Charles Plaintiffs to establish legally significant white bloc voting. Na^, 797 F.Supp. 1500. b. Charles Plaintiffs' Exhibit 33. The Charles Plaintiffs substantially relied on the testimony of Lynch in an attempt to establish white bloc voting. Lynch calculated the correlation coefficient and the r-square value comparing the percentage of white voting age population to the percentage of votes for the white candidate for same ten elections analyzed on Charles Plaintiffs' Exhibit 32. A summary of Lynch's calculations was presented as Charles Plaintiffs' Exhibit 33. Appellant's App., P. 158. Based only on Charles Plaintiffs' Exhibit 33, Lynch concluded that the white majority voted sufficiently as a bloc to enable it to usually defeat the candidate 25preferred by blacks. 16 LRSD App., p. 149. Again, the record does not support this conclusion. As with Lynch's reliance on Charles Plaintiffs' Exhibit 32 to establish black political cohesiveness, the correlation coefficients and r-sguare values shown on Charles Plaintiffs' Exhibit 33 demonstrate only that approximately the same percentage of whites preferred the white candidate in each precinct. Charles Plaintiffs' Exhibit 33 provides no information concerning the actual percentage of white voters who preferred the white candidate. Lynch failed to conduct the concomitant homogeneous precinct analysis or regression analysis necessary to make Charles Plaintiffs' Exhibit 33 meaningful. c. Legally Significant White Bloc Voting. Black electoral success in LRSD and the City of Little Rock supports the district courts's finding that LRSD does not suffer from legally significant white bloc voting. To establish legally significant white bloc voting under Gingles. the minority group \"must be able to demonstrate that the white majority votes sufficiently as a block to enable itin the absence of special circumstances such as a minority candidate running unopposed usually to defeat the minorities preferred candidate.\" Gingles, 405 U.S. at 51 (emphasis supplied). Stated another way, \"a white bloc vote that normally will defeat the combined strength of 'In his deposition taken the day before his trial testimony. Lynch stated that he had undertaken no study, and therefore could offer no opinion, on the issue of whether white bloc voting worked to usually defeat the candidate preferred by blacks. Lynch changed his testimony at trial.  LRSD App., pp. 148-151. 26minority support plus white 'crossover' votes rises to the level of legally significant white bloc voting.\" Ginqles. 478 U.S. at 56 (emphasis supplied). It is the \"usual predictability of the majority success [that] distinguishes structural dilution from the mere loss of an occasional election.\" Ginqles, 478 U.S. at 51 (emphasis supplied). See Whitcomb v. Chavis. 403 U.S. 124, 153. The Charles' Plaintiffs failed to establish the \"usual predictability\" of white candidate success necessary to establish white bloc voting. As discussed above, blacks have enjoyed proportional representation on the LRSD Board of Directors since 1983. Likewise, blacks have been proportionally represented on the City of Little Rock Board of Directors since 1979. Appellant's App., p. 161-62. See Leadership Roundtable v. Citv of Little Rock. 499 F.Supp. 579, 590 (E.D. Ark. 1980). In sum, white voters do not sufficiently vote as a bloc to \"usually to defeat the minorities preferred candidate.\" Ginqles. 405 U.S. at 51 (emphasis supplied). In 1966, Dr. T.E. Patterson was elected at-large against white opposition to become the first black member of the LRSD Board of Directors. In 1983, Bill Hamilton, a black. defeated a white opponent by winning 70% of the vote in an at-large election. LRSD App., p. 12. In 1986, Thomas Broughton, a black and current PCBE member, garnered 74% of the at-large vote in LRSD to defeat a white opponent. LRSD App., p. 20. In a 1989 Zone 2 election, Hamilton 27received 84% of the vote to defeat a white opponent.* LRSD App., p. 36. Charles Plaintiffs' Exhibits 32 and 33 also reveal significant black electoral success in LRSD. Those exhibits examined ten races in the City of Little Rock which pitted a black against a white opponent. The black candidate won six of the ten races, including the only two LRSD elections shown on those exhibits. LRSD App., p. 152. Moreover, the two LRSD elections had the lowest correlation coefficients of the ten elections shown on Charles Plaintiffs' Exhibit 32. Appellant's App., p. 157. In fact. Lynch testified that the correlation coefficient for the 1989 election of Hamilton was not statistically significant. LRSD App., p. 142. This was the only election analyzed by Lynch under the previous singlemember election zones. Evidence of exogenous elections in the City of Little Rock further demonstrates the considerable success of black candidates. Blacks won four of the eight races analyzed on Charles Plaintiffs' Exhibits 32 and 33 which did not involve LRSD. Appellant's App., pp. 110-11, 157, 161. Similarly, the black candidate prevailed over white opposition in nine of the twenty-three contests for the City of Little Rock Board of Directors shown on Charles Plaintiffs' Exhibit 35. Appellant's App., p. 161-162. As noted above, blacks In the only other LRSD election involving a black and a white since the implementation of election zones, Charles Young, a white, defeated Lawrence Hampton, a black. The race was to represent Zone 6 which at the time was 72.7% white. Even so, Young defeated Hampton by only 32 votes. Even so. This race was excluded from Charles Plaintiff's Exhibits 32 and 33. LRSD App., p. 35. 28have been proportionally represented on the City of Little Rock Board of Directors since 1979. More importantly, the success of black candidates in LRSD and the City of Little Rock cannot be attributed solely to \"special circumstances.\" See Ginqles. 478 U.S. at 47. The Charles Plaintiffs state, \"All of the black electoral successes in the LRSD and Little Rock City Board elections were won under 'special circumstances' II Brief of Appellant's, p. 34. However, as the Charles Plaintiffs define \"special circumstances,\" it is equally true that all of the black electoral failures in LRSD and City of Little Rock elections were the result of \"special circumstances.\" For example, the Charles Plaintiffs describe the black majorities in LRSD Zones 1 and 2 as \"special circumstances.\" It follows then that the failure of a black candidates in a white majority zone would also be attributable to \"special circumstances. it is worth noting that another tl special circumstance\" referred to by the Charles Plaintiffs was support by the \"white power structure. II Lynch testified that black candidates Charles Bussey, H.D. Stewart and Jesse Mason were supported by the \"white power structure\" in races for City Board positions. Lynch testified that the only white candidate who was strongly supported by the \"white power structure\" was Gary Barket in the 1992 City by the II Board race. in 1992 City Barket lost the race and, in fact, received only 300 more votes (7299 to 6999) than Gloria Wilson, a black, whom Lynch described as antithetical to the \"white power structure.\" _ \u0026gt;(___________1_ . ...  . _ -- Thus, the \"white power structure\" described by Lynch has been able to elect its candidate only when that candidate is black. And, if the Court testimony regarding the correlation coefficients shown on Charles Plaintiffs' Exhibit 32, Bussey, Stewart and Mason were also the preferred candidates of African Americans. LRSD App. pp. 186-191. accepts Lynch's Exhibit 32, Bussey 29Lynch acknowledged that many factors other than race determine the outcome of elections. LRSD App., p. 129. These other factors \"would suggest that another candidate, equally preferred by the minority group, might be able to attract greater white support in future elections. II Gingles. 478 U.S. at 100 (O'Connor, J. , concurring). The Charles Plaintiffs should be required to prove that its asserted reasons for any alleged failure by blacks to elect representatives of their choice cannot be characterized as a \"mere euphemism for political defeat at the polls,\" Whitcomb. 403 U.S. at 153\nsee Clements. 999 F.2d at 859. Indeed, one of these other factors explains the 1983 loss by Dr. Mitchell, black current member of the LRSD Board of a Directors, to a white opponent, Frank Mackey, in her first attempt to gain election to the board. Mitchell testified that name recognition had a \"great deal\" to do with her 1983 loss to Mackey. LRSD App., p. 210-211. Mackey's father, after whom Mackey was named, had been twice elected to Pulaski County Sheriff and twice elected County Judge for Pulaski County. LRSD App., p. 211. All of LRSD is within Pulaski County. However, in the same election in which Dr. Mitchell lost to Mackey, Hamilton, a black. was elected to the LRSD Board of Directors with 70% of the vote over a white opponent. LRSD Appendix, p. 12. Both Hamilton and Dr. Mitchell competed districtwide for at-large positions on the LRSD Board. Hence, many of the same voters, black and white alike, voted for Hamilton, but not for Dr. Mitchell. Under such circumstances, it cannot be said that 30whites \"usually\" vote as a bloc to defeat the preferred candidate of blacks. 19 Similarly, Lynch testified that the election of Dr. Hamp Roy to the City of Little Rock Board of Directors over black opposition was due to large amount of money spent by Dr. Roy to win election. In Lynch's own words, \"Dr. Roy just spent an unbelievable amount of money to get that job.\" Lynch agreed that Dr. Roy's election was a \"special situation.\" LRSD Supp., p. 188. Thus, black electoral defeat in LRSD and the City of Little Rock has resulted from the same \"special circumstances\" which the Charles Plaintiffs argue account for black electoral success. The district court's finding that LRSD does not suffer from legally significant white bloc voting should be affirmed. 5. Opportunity to Participate and to Elect. a. Less Opportunity: The Benchmark. As the final element of their Section 2 claim, the Charles Plaintiffs were reguired to establish that, based on the \"totality of the circumstances,\" blacks have less opportunity than other Hamilton testified that it takes only about 300 votes to win an election within the current LRSD election zones. Hamilton's testimony is borne out by LRSD Exhibits 4 and 5 which show the results for the 1987 and 1989 LRSD elections. In the 1987 Zone 6 election, Charles Young defeated Lawrence Hampton 250 votes to 218 votes. In the 1987 Zone 7 election, Oma Jacovelli defeated Doug Harden 293 votes to 257 votes. ' In the 1989 Zone 1 election, Katherine Mitchell defeated Kenyon K. Lowe, Sr. 322 votes to 59 votes. In the 1989 Zone election. Frederick Lee 230 votes to 49 votes. Bill Hamilton defeated There are at five zones in the PCBE plan with black population greater that 4,600. The minimum black population in a LRSD zone under the PCBE plan is 1,112. LRSD App., p. 8. Thus, a black candidate has at least the \"opportunity\" to be elected in every LRSD zone, even without receiving a single white vote. App. , 8 . 31 2members of the electorate to participate in the political process and to elect representatives of their choice. 42 U.S.C. 1973\nChisom. 501 U.S. 115 L.Ed.2d at 364. The Charles Plaintiffs argue that the district court erroneously used the 1986 plan approved by the district court as the benchmark for determining whether blacks have \"less opportunity.\" The Charles Plaintiffs state, \"The comparison of minority's 'opportunity' a under a historic scheme and the challenged scheme compares the minority's opportunity to itself, not to 'other members of the electorate. t II Brief of Appellants, p.l9.^ This statement would be true but for the fact that the \"historic scheme\" in this case was specifically found by the district court to comply with the Voting Rights Act. Appellant's Appendix, p. 50-51. In finding that the previous plan complied with the Voting Rights Act, the district court implicitly found that blacks had the same opportunity as other members of the electorate to participate in the political process and to elect representatives of their choice. As a result. it makes no difference whether one is comparing the PCBE plan to the \"opportunity\" of other members of the electorate or to the \"opportunity\" of blacks under the previous plan when adopted in 1986 because they are the same. Therefore, The Charles Plaintiff's also argue that the PCBE plan should not be granted deference because it is retrogressive. LILI__^1, retrogressiveness may constitute a violation of Section 5 of the Although Voting Rights Act, it does not constitute a violation of Section 2. Na^, 797 F.Supp. 1498. Thus, the plan adopted by the PCBE should be granted deference unless it is found to be in violation of Section 2. Voinovich v. Quilter. ___ U.S. , , 122 L.Ed.2d 500, 513 (1993). --- 32the \"opportunity\" of blacks under the previous plan when approved by the district court in 1986 is an appropriate benchmark to judge the PCBE plan. See Turner v. State of Arkansas. 784 F.Supp 553, 573 (E.D.Ark 1991), aff 'd U.S. 112 S.Ct. 2296, 119 L.Ed.2d 220 (1992) b. Less Opportunity to Participate in the Political Process. Using the previous plan as a benchmark, the Charles Plaintiffs were required to establish, based on the \"totality of the circumstances,\" that the PCBE plan for LRSD election zones results in blacks having less opportunity to participate in the political process than under the previous plan when approved by the district court. 42 U.S.C.  1973(b) (Supp. 1993)\nChisom. 115 L.Ed.2d at 3 64\nTurner. 784 F. Supp. at 573. In an effort to meet this burden. the Charles Plaintiffs presented socioeconomic data 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 ^Turner, is distinguished from Jeffers. 730 F.Supp. at 196, because Turner involves a Section 2 challenge to a zone plan which revised a court approved plan to conform to the 1990 census. See Doulin V. White. 535 F.Supp. 450 (E.D.Ark. 1982). 7 _ zone plan based on the 1990 census, the Arkansas legislature preference to plans that departed as little as possible from the remedy implemented in Doulin\" ...... It In revising the II gave as a starting point . . and \"obviously used the Doulin plan Thus, the court in Turner concluded Turner. 784 F.Supp. at 556, 558. \"'Less opportunity' by any fair interpretation means 'less opportunity' than such black voters had immediately before the imposition 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.\" 473 . Turner. 284 F.Supp. at 33political process, plaintiffs have naturally emphasized the 'socioeconomic' factors.\" Whitfield. 686 F.Supp. at 1384.^ The socioeconomic data indicates that blacks are poorer, less educated. have fewer vehicles and have a higher percentage of households headed by single females than the general population. Even so, consideration of the socioeconomic factors provides no insight into the issue of whether the PCBE plan for LRSD election zones \"results\" in blacks having less opportunity to participate in the political process than under the 1986 plan. Regardless of where the zone lines are drawn, blacks have the same socioeconomic status. It is not the line drawing by the PCBE which \"results\" in the blacks having less opportunity to participate in the political process. but rather. it is their diminished socioeconomic status. Section 2 does not purport to provide a remedy on the latter basis. See Jeffers. 730 F.Supp. at 237, 238 (Eisele, J., dissenting and concurring). Therefore, the Charles plaintiffs have not proved that they have less opportunity to participate in the political process under the districting plan adopted by PCBE, and consequently, their Voting Rights Act claim must fail. See Chisom. 115 L.Ed.2d at 364. ^^S^ 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. Citv 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.\"). See Turner. 784 F.Supp. at 577, quoting Jeffers 34c. Less Opportunity to Elect Representatives of Their Choice. In proceedings before the district court, the Charles Plaintiffs alleged vote dilution due to \"packing\" of blacks into zones with unnecessarily large black majorities. A comparison of the PCBE plan for LRSD election zones and the previous plan, however, reveals that both when it was adopted in 1986^ using 1980 census data and when analyzed by Metroplan using 1990 census data. 24 the previous plan exhibited more \"packing\" than the PCBE plan. Consequently, if the Charles Plaintiffs concern is \"packing, they are better off under the plan adopted by the PCBE than they have ever been since LRSD Board members have been elected from single-member zones. Lynch testified that the opportunity of blacks to elect representatives of their choice is the same under the PCBE plan as it was under the 1986 plan. LRSD App., p. 148. Moreover, the Charles Plaintiffs' claim of packing is barred by the doctrine of law of the case. As noted above, the plan adopted by the County Board has less \"packing\" than the 1986 plan when approved by the district court, which was expressly found to comport with the Voting Rights Act. The law of the case doctrine provides that when a court decides an issue of law that decision continues to govern the same issues at subsequent stages of the ^^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. ^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 Lwu majority black districts have 79.82% and 59.39% black population. two 35same case. Morris v. American National Can Corporation, 988 F.2d 50, 52 (8th Cir. 1993) . The doctrine was created to prevent relitigation of settled issues in a case and to protect the settled expectations of the parties, ensuring uniformity of decisions and promoting judicial efficiency. Id. Furthermore, \"[t]he law of the case doctrine applies to issues implicitly decided in earlier stages of the same case.\" Little Earth of United Tribes v. Dept. of Housing. 807 F.2d 1433, 1438 (8th Cir. 1986). The district court explicitly stated in its December 18, 1986 order that the previous LRSD election zones complied with the Voting Rights Act, and therefore, implicitly found that the percentage of black population in the zones did not dilute black voting strength through \"packing. Consequently, it is the law of H this case that the percentages of black population in the majority black zones in the plan adopted by the PCBE, which are lower than in the previous plan, cannot be said to violate the Voting Rights Act. d. The Senate Factors. In determining whether, based on the totality of the circumstances, a challenged electoral device results in a minority group having less opportunity to participate in the political process and to elect representatives of their choice, the legislative history of Section 2 identifies a number of factors which \"may be relevant. 25 Senate Report, p. 28-29, reprinted in ^The Senate Report recognizes that the factors contained in the report may not be relevant in all Section 2 cases. 478 U.S. at 45. Gingles. Consideration of the Senate Factors in determining 36 H1982 U.S.C.C.A.N. at 206-07\nGinqles. 478 U.S, at 44-45 (1986). Although the district court made findings with respect each of these factors, the Charles Plaintiffs address only select factors in their Brief. LRSD assumes that the Charles Plaintiffs accept the district court's findings with regard to those factors not addressed. LRSD will respond to the Charles Plaintiffs' argument that LRSD used discriminatory electoral devices and that the policy underlying the PCBE plan is tenuous on the factors they discuss. There are presently no electoral devices being used in LRSD elections which enhance the opportunity to discriminate against blacks. In 1987 the State of Arkansas adopted a majority vote requirement which applies to LRSD elections. See Ark. Code Ann.  6-14-121 (Michie 1991). Since 1986 members of the LRSD Board of Directors have been elected from single-member zones, two of which have a majority black population. As a result, the majority vote requirement enhances the opportunity of black candidates to win election in these zones by preventing a candidate supported by the white minority from being elected by a plurality. With regard to the policy underlying the PCBE plan. PCBE instructed Metroplan to prepare alternative plans for LRSD election whether a violation of Section 2 exists has been criticized because the factors more logically support proof of \"intent, It Whitfield V. Democratic Party of Arkansas. 686 F.Supp. 1365, 1382 (E.D.Ark. 1988), aff'd 902 F.2d 15 (8th Cir. 1990), and as a result, often takes attention away from the real issue. Whitfield. 686 F.Supp. at 1386-87 (\"It should be apparent by now that most of the positive findings with the 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.\"). 37zones which preserve existing zones to the extent possible consistent with federal law. LRSD App., p. 41. The overriding policy underlying the PCBE's instructions was stability. LRSD Ms. Pat Gee testified extensively regarding the importance of stability of the LRSD Board of Directors. LRSD App., pp. 215-218. Stability has been recognized as a legitimate policy in redistricting. See Jeffers. 730 F.Supp. at 214. This is especially true where, as in the present case, the plan being App. , p. 4 6. revised was court approved and was specifically found to comply with the Constitution and the Voting Rights Act. Thus, the policy underlying the PCBE plan for LRSD elections cannot be described as tenuous. 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. This Court's review of district court decisions concerning disputed modifications to a settlement agreement is subject to an abuse-of-discretion standard. ADoeal of Little Rock School District. 949 F.2d 253, 258 (8th Cir. 1991). This Court should also \"give a healthy measure to deference to the reasoned choices made by the District Court\". Id. at 257. The last time proposed modifications to the desegregation plans were before this Court, this Court described \"the standard to be used by the District Court for reviewing proposed modifications to the plan (if any are submitted in the future) to which all the parties have not agreed. II Id. at 258. While \"disputed 38modifications are governed by a stricter standard than agreed-to modifications\", Id., the party requesting modification of a school desegregation plan need not prove \"a grievous wrong evoked by new and unforseen conditions\". Id., quoting United States v. Swift \u0026amp; Co. . 286 U.S. 106, 119 (1932). This Court adopted the Sixth Circuit standard for reviewing disputed modifications: To modify [a] consent decree [], the court need only identify a defect or deficiency in its original decree which impedes achieving its goal. either ] because experience proven less effective [or] disadvantageous, or because circumstances and conditions has it have changed which warrant fine tuning of the decree. A modification will be upheld if it furthers the original purpose of the decree in a more efficient way, without upsetting the basic agreement of the parties. Id. at 258, quoting Heath v. De Courcv. 888 F.2d 1105, 1110 (6th Cir. 1989). The standard adopted by this Court is in harmony with the later decision of the United States Supreme Court in Rufo v. Inmates of Suffolk County Jail. 502 U.S. 116 L.Ed.2d 867 (1992) See Lorain NAACP v, Lorain Bd. of Educ., 979 F.2d 1141, 1149 (6th Cir. 1992) (treating the Rufo and Heath standards as harmonious and holding that school desegregation consent decrees ^Under Rufo, \"a party seeking modification of a consent decree bears the burden of establishing that a significant change in circumstances warrants revision of the decree. tt 116 L.Ed.2d at 886. 502 U.S. at should If the moving party meets that standard, the court \"consider the proposed modification suitably tailored to the changed circumstance.\" Id. \"Modification whether is It of a consent decree may warranted when changed factual conditions make compliance with the decree substantially be more onerous . . [\n] when a decree proves to be unworkable because of unforseen obstacles. [\n] or when enforcement of the decree without modification would be detrimental to the public interest.\" Id. at ___, 116 L.Ed.2d at 886-87. 39\"are subject to the same standards as enunciated in Rufo and Heath.\") The district court found \"that the insufficient number of Ish students (fewer than 100) is changed circumstance which a constitutes a defect or deficiency in the plan and impedes the goals set forth therein\". August 2, 1993 Order, p. 5 (Docket No. 1926) . This finding is supported by record evidence, including the results of a survey process which was approved by the district court without objection. LRSD App., p. 263-264. The primary goal of the plan is desegregation, and the district court properly found that that goal would be impeded by the continued operation of a racially isolated school whose attendance zone residents, for the most part, elected not to go there. The district court also found that \"[t]he closing of Ish, when considered in light of the opening of the desegregated King Interdistrict School, furthers the purpose of the plan in a more efficient way without upsetting the basic agreement of the parties.\" August 2, 1993 Order, p. 5. The plan seeks to achieve its purpose. desegregation party by movement of students from racially isolated schools to desegregated schools. LRSD App., p. 331. The modification approved by the district court \"gave the parents of Ish Incentive School students the choice of removing their children from a racially-isolated setting by electing to send them to King, a new, desegregated Interdistrict School in the same general neighborhood.\" August 2, 1993 Order, P- The 4. replacement of an older, inefficient and racially isolated school 40 not favored by even a majority of the attendance zone residents with a new desegregated school in the same neighborhood furthers the purpose of the desegregation plans in a more efficient way and does not upset the basic agreement of the parties. The district court's findings are sufficient, under the standard established by this Court in Appeal of Little Rock School District and by the Supreme Court in Rufo, to warrant the modification approved by the district court. The approved modification, closing Ish, is \"suitably tailored to the changed circumstance\", insufficient interest in Ish and the election to attend King by potential Ish students. Rufo, 502 U.S. at ___, 116 L.Ed.2d at 890. The modification does not \"create or perpetuate a constitutional violation\"^ or rewrite the settlement \"so that it conforms to the constitutional floor\". Rufo, 502 U.S. at ___, 116 L.Ed.2d at 890-91. Therefore, because it stayed within the boundaries imposed by Appeal of Little Rock School District and Rufo, the district court did not abuse its discretion by accepting the plan proposed by LRSD: Within these constraints, the public interest and the \"[c]onsiderations based on the allocation of powers within our federal system,\" Dowell, 498 US, at 112 It L Ed 2d 715, the allocation of Dowell, 498 US, at 111 S Ct 630, require that the district court defer to local government administrators, who have the \"primary responsibility of elucidating, assessing and solving\" the problems of institutional reform, to resolve the intricacies of implementing a decree modification. Brown v. Board of Education, 349 US, at 299, 99 L Ed 2d 1083, 75 S Ct 2749. To the contrary, the movement of black students from an older, racially isolated school building to a new, integrated school building in the same general neighborhood is a part of the remedy for past constitutional violations. To the contrary. LRSD App., p. 331. 41Rufo, 502 U.S. at ___, 116 L.Ed.2d at 891. Joshua first argues that something about the settlement plans or this Court's 1991 decision in Appeal of Little Rock School District deprives the district court of discretion to close an incentive school.^ Brief of Appellants, p. 49-50. Joshua argues that because Ish is an incentive school and incentive schools are a major component of the settlement agreement, that tl Ish must not be closed\". Brief of Appellants, p. 49. That conclusion does not flow from the premises. Further, none of the desegregation plans contains an explicit or implicit statement which supports Joshua's position that incentive schools must not be closed, and Joshua has provided this Court no reference to any plan in support of its position. The district court, on the other hand, properly considered and set out in its Order the relevant language of the settlement agreement which shows the relationship between the establishment of interdistrict schools and the desegregation of incentive schools: As new interdistrict schools are established, those seats attributable to LRSD will be available for those students who otherwise would or could have been assigned to an incentive school. . . . August 2, 1993 Order, p. 3. ^Joshua does not discuss the law of modification of consent decrees or argue that the district court failed to follow the standards enunciated in Appeal of Little Rock School District and Rufo. 42Joshua seems to equate the commitment to double fund the incentive schools with a commitment to perpetuate them. This Court emphasized the importance of double funding because double funding was designed to soften the impact of racial isolation at the incentive schools (LRSD App., p. 331), not because this Court endorsed the perpetuation of racial isolation. Little Rock School District v. Pulaski County Special School District. 921 F.2d at 1385. Without the commitment of double funding, this Court would have found the settlement plans unconstitutional er se because of racial isolation. Id. The District Court properly considered and quoted the plan language which explains the reason for double funding incentive schools: Funding for the incentive schools shall be set at two times the level for the elementary area schools to insure that the children who are in racially-isolated settings are provided meaningful opportunities for desegregated experiences/activities. ~ .... ... shall utilize the To meet that goal, the parties services of consultant who has demonstrable experience in developing and successfully such programs in a majority-black implementing educational setting. a August 2, 1993 Order, p. 4, quoting Interdistrict Plan, April 29, 1992, p. 4. Joshua's argument that an incentive school must not be closed even when fewer than 100 students wish to enroll there and when the alternative is a new integrated school \"in the same ^Double funding of incentive schools is important because that funding compensates for racial isolation. That does not mean that racial isolation is a good thing which must be preserved at its present level. The purpose of the desegregation plan is to end racial isolation, not to perpetuate it in order that double funding will be continued. 43general neighborhood\" which II offers many program enhancements, including four curriculum specialists, a 56-station computer lab. electronic-assisted instruction, and an automated media center,\" is not supported by the settlement desegregation plans or the law. August 2, 1993 Order, P- This Court has emphasized the 4. importance of double funding for the incentive schools (Little Rock School District v. Pulaski County Special School District. 921 F.2d 1371, 1385 (1990)\nAppeal of Little Rock School District. 949 F.2d 253, 256 (8th Cir. 1991)), but it has never found in the plans a requirement that each incentive school building must remain open regardless of the circumstances. Joshua next argues without any legal citation that LRSD is improperly \"attempting to avoid its double funding obligations\". Brief of Appellants, p. 51. This argument, which is merely a restatement of its previous argument. seems to be based on the false premise that King is a racially identifiable school\nThus, the Ish students have been placed in the unfair position of attending a racially-identifiable school, but have been and will be deprived of attendant benefits they were promised. Brief of Appellants, p. 53. Joshua provides no record support for the statement that the Ish students will attend II racially- a identifiable school\", and cannot do so because it is not true. is in Joshua's argument that no incentive school should be closed direct conflict with the Desegregation which requires incentive school and the transfer Plan terms of the Interdistrict interdistrict school. of the closing of Stephens its students to a new LRSD App., p. 332. 1982, p. 10. Interdistrict Desegregation Plan, April 29, 44The district court found that \"the parents of Ish Incentive School students . . elect[ed] to send them to King, new, desegregated Interdistrict School in the same general a neighborhood.\" August 2, 1993 Order, p. 4 (emphasis supplied). Joshua's unsupported argument that the former Ish students are being deprived of incentive school \"benefits\" while being moved from one racially isolated setting to another is simply wrong. Joshua's next argument is that LRSD failed to recruit white students for Ish Incentive School. For this reason, Joshua argues. without citation of authority, the district court should not have \"reward[ed] the district for failing to meet its obligations by granting its motion to close Ish.\" Brief of Appellants, p. 54. The district court did express concern about LRSD's recruitment of white students to incentive schools, but it also had before it evidence of relative merits of King and Ish schools. LRSD Associate Superintendent Marie Parker testified that a primary purpose of the LRSD desegregation plan is to eliminate racially- identifiable schools (LRSD App., p. 316) and that King is better located than Ish to attract white students. LRSD App., p. 314. Ms. Parker believes that students at King will receive as good an education as they would have received at Ish, and testified that LRSD is committed to see that that happens. LRSD App., p. 317. Mr. Doug Eaton, LRSD's Director of Plant Services, testified that If Joshua's argument is that the Ish students should remain in a racially-identifiable school so that they can receive benefits promised to students who attend such schools, that argument ignores the basic purpose of the plan, which is to reduce racial isolation. 45Ish is in a good state of repair and has not been neglected. LRSD App., pp. 318, 319. Finally, Billy Bowles, PCSSD Assistant Superintendent for Desegregation, testified that it is difficult to recruit white parents to incentive schools: There are perceptions about incentive schools, parents look at them as 85% to 90% black and Many and recruiting white parents, just to be perfectly honest with you. it's real difficult to those schools. It doesn't mean that we don't try to recruit them. But just like Little Rock whites, they've just chosen not to go. LRSD App., p. 278. The district court, although concerned about recruitment of whites to Ish, determined from this and other evidence that the future of Ish should be decided by giving \"the parents of Ish Incentive School students the choice of removing their children from a racially-isolated setting by electing to send them to King, a new, desegregated Interdistrict School in the same general neighborhood.\" August 2, 1993 Order. Joshua's final argument is that the district court should have conducted further hearings with respect to LRSD's survey of potential Ish students. It was not necessary for the district court to do so. A two-day hearing preceded the district court's decision to approve the King attendance zone and to require LRSD to file with the court and serve upon the parties the process by which it would determine whether fewer than 100 students from among the groups selected by the district court wished to attend Ish. LRSD filed and served a detailed survey process. Even though the district court warned Joshua twice from the bench (LRSD App., pp. ^^See. Note 5, supra. 46293-300.) and again in its written order that Joshua would \"have 5 days to file their response and objections to LRSD's survey and plan\" (June 11, 1993 Order, p. 3, Docket #1848), Joshua did not object to the survey process. Following the survey, LRSD filed a status report (LRSD App., p. 260) and a motion to close Ish School (LRSD App., p. 2 68). Joshua's only response was to file an \"opposition to status report\" on July 23, 1993 (LRSD App., p. 265) which was refiled on July 28, 1993 (Docket No. 1917) in response to the district court order requiring that responses to LRSD's motion to close Ish School be filed no later than July 28, 1993 (Docket No. 1916). Before the district court approved the closing of Ish School, Joshua raised only three issues with respect to the survey: (1) \"Although the Court may have approved the survey form and process, there was no effort made, on information and belief, to reach pre-school children which may or may not have included kindergarten children\"\n(2) \"The process was designed to fail\"\nand (3) LRSD and the district court should have assumed \"that an equal percentage of the students who did not return the forms would 1. e. , have opted for Ish to that percentage which actually did so, 55.4%\" and therefore should have presumed that the actual number of students preferring Ish would be 145. Joshua Intervenor's Opposition to Status Report (LRSD App., 265) Docket No. 1915) also attached to Joshua's response to order (Docket No. 1917). Joshua now contends that it \"objected not only to the survey format, but also to the fairness of the manner in which it was carried out. and whether it was done correctly even under the survey guidelines proposed by LRSD.\" Brief of Appellants, p. 56- 57. Joshua also contends that it \"raised issues about the validity 47of the survey which came to light only after it was done.\" Brief of Appellants, p. 57. The district court fairly viewed Joshua's objections as untimely objections to the survey process. August 2, 1993 Order, p. 2. The court's bench ruling makes it clear that LRSD was required to survey then current LRSD students. not families who might potentially enroll their students in LRSD schools the following year. The court said, for example, that LRSD would be required to survey the group of students \"attending Ish who live inside the zone\" which was \"about 93 students\", and an additional 90 students \"who attend Ish who live outside the zone\". LRSD App., 287. These were the numbers of students actually attending LRSD for the 1992- 93 school year. LRSD App., pp. 308-309. The survey process filed by LRSD contains no plan to identify and to survey students other than those enrolled in the LRSD system for the 1992-1993 school year. Had Joshua considered this to be a flaw in the survey process, it could have filed a timely objection. This is not an issue of whether the survey \"was done correctly even under the survey guidelines proposed by LRSD\", or an issue \"which came to light only after [the survey] was done\". Brief of Appellants, p. 57. The next issue raised by Joshua after the survey was completed was that \"[t]he process was designed to fail\". This is. on its face. an objection to the process which could have been timely filed. 48Joshua's final objection to the survey, that LRSD should have been required to extrapolate the actual survey results and keep Ish open if the number derived from that extrapolation exceeded one hundred, is also an objection to the survey process which could have been timely filed. It was clear from the survey process filed by LRSD that LRSD would count only those students who affirmatively selected Ish School. In its form letter to parents of potential Ish students which was filed as a part of the survey process, LRSD said: If fewer than 100 students choose to attend Ish Incentive School, Ish will be closed and those students who reside in the present Ish attendance zone will be assigned to King Interdistrict School. LRSD App., p. 240. The district court gave Joshua an ample opportunity to object to the survey process and plenty of warning about the time frame for doing so. Even if the issues raised by Joshua had been timely filed. the court could have properly decided them without a hearing. The court could have concluded without a hearing that if fewer than one hundred of those students residing in the Ish attendance zone and those outside the zone attending Ish for the 1992-93 school year failed to declare an interest in attending Ish, that there was insufficient support for Ish to justify keeping it open, even assuming that a new class of kindergarten students would arrive and even assuming that those who failed to respond to the 49survey would choose Ish in the same proportion as those who did respond to the survey. Each finding made by the district court is supported by the record, and Joshua does not argue that the district court's findings ar unsubstantiated. The district court carefully applied the standard for modification of consent decrees set out by this court in Appeal of Little Rock School District. 949 F.2d 253, 258 (Sth Cir. 1991), and Joshua does not argue that the district court misapplied that standard or should have applied some other standard. In fact, Joshua makes no argument at all concerning the appropriate standard for modification of a consent decree. The district court's factual determinations are supported by the record and its legal conclusions are the result of careful application of the appropriate standard for modification of consent decrees. There was no abuse of discretion. CONCLUSION 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. The district court did not abuse its discretion in modifying LRSD's desegregation plan. The district court's orders on these issues should be affirmed. /// /// The form letter to parents made it clear that failure to respond to the survey was, in effect, a vote against Ish School. The parents were notified that Ish would be closed if fewer than 100 students chose to attend Ish. LRSD App., p. 240. 50Respectfully submitted, LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT FRIDAY, ELDREDGE \u0026amp; CLARK 2000 First Commercial Bldg. 400 West Capitol Little Rock, AR 72201 (501) 376-2011 Attorneys for Little Rock School District By: Christopher He er State Bar No. 81083 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I caused a copy of the foregoing Brief for Appellant Little Rock School District to be served on the following people by hand delivery on April 19, 1994, addressed as follows: 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 51Ms. 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 Christopher He 52 V rbcbivsd ^PR 2 2 1994 Oiiice oi Desegregation Monitofinfl U n DIG'irflCTCuU.\"T EASTERN D:GTniCTAr.\ni:\n:/s IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSA^i\n^ 2 Q WESTERN DIVISION JAMES W. McCCSMAC:\n, CLERK LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT Ey.' I\u0026gt;ISINTIFF V. LR-C-82-866 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, ET AL DEFENDANTS MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL INTERVENORS KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL INTERVENORS BRIEF IN SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR MODIFICATION OF DESEGREGATION PLAN Introduction This brief traces some of the history of the development of the present LRSD and Interdistrict desegregation plans in support of the argument that the parties intended, and now have in place. three interdistrict schools within the Little Rock School District. Some of the documents which were submitted by the parties to Special Master Aubrey McCutcheon do not appear on the docket. For the convenience of the Court and the parties. documents are referred to throughout this brief by their location in the Joint Designated Record which was used for the 1989 and 1990 appeals and subsequently by the district court. Those documents not contained in the Joint Designated Record are referenced by date and docket number.statement of the Case A. Desegregation Plans Aubrey McCutcheon filed his \"Interim Report and Recommendations of the Special Master\" on February 16, 1988. 4 J.D.R. 714. Special Master McCutcheon approved and recommended for immediate adoption certain \"Proposed Stipulations For Little Rock School District Desegregation Plan\" which had been agreed upon by the parties to this case. The Stipulations contained an interim plan as well as a planning process which was to result in a final plan to be submitted to the Special Master by September 30, 1988. The Little Rock School District submitted its proposed desegregation plan on October 3, 1988. 5 J.D.R. 1040. The October 3, 1988 Proposed LRSD Desegregation Plan contained the following language about Washington school: \"The new Washington will function as an interdistrict magnet school. A tri-district survey will be conducted in October 1988 to determine a theme. The Washington students who were temporarily reassigned for the 1988-89 school years will be assigned to the new Washington school. Washington's location is expected to be a major asset to its ability to attract white students. In particular, it is easily accessible to downtown office workers from both North Little Rock, Pulaski County and Southwest Little Rock. Also, Washington's proximity to 1-30 is expected to attract students who live outside of 2Pulaski County. The Little Rock School District is interested in opening the magnet and M-M programs to students who live outside of Pulaski County. 5 J.D.R. 1045-46. The October 1988 plan also recommended Stephens as an interdistrict magnet: \"The recommendations in this section are based on current demographics and geography which identify a need for new construction. It is proposed that the District relocate Stephens Elementary due west of and adjoining the Capitol Hill Complex. The new Stephens will house pre-kindergarten through sixth grades. The new Stephens will be similar to the new Washington in that it will have a capacity of six hundred students and serve as an interdistrict magnet. The magnet theme will be based on the results of the tri-district survey. In addition to being located on the 1-630 corridor, the new Stephens will be easily accessible to downtown office workers, state department employees and University Medical Center personnel.\" 5 J.D.R. 1047-48 (emphasis supplied). The third interdistrict magnet school proposed in the October 1988 plan was King: \"The Little Rock School District also proposes to build a new King Elementary School in downtown Little Rock. The facility would be located in the general area bounded by 1-630, Chester Street, Seventh Street and Center Street. In addition to being an interdistrict 3magnet, the big attraction for this school will be its early childhood program and child care facilities. This location is expected to serve as a natural magnet for individuals who work within governmental and business centers of Little Rock.\" 5 J.D.R. 1048. Working with the parties and the Special Master, LRSD prepared a long term desegregation plan. The plan was submitted in two parts on January 31, 1989. Volume I does not address student assignment issues. Volume II, which was modified slightly and resubmitted on March 23, 1989, describes \"student assignments\" and \"facilities\". An Interdistrict desegregation plan was submitted to the Special Master on February 15, 1989. The March 1989 LRSD plan lists Washington among the incentive schools (10 J.D.R. 2288) and provides the following description of Washington school (10 J.D.R. 2231-33): \"Washington school is closed for the 1988-89 school year. A new Washington school is being built at the same site with a projected capacity of 1,050 students. The students who were originally assigned to Washington for the 1988-89 school year have been reassigned to Ish, Mitchell, Rockefeller and Rightsell. These students (166) will have a preference to return to the new Washington in the 1989-90 school year.\" The March 1989 LRSD plan contains the following language about Stephens and King schools: 4\"It is proposed that the District relocate Stephens Elementary near the 1-630 corridor between 1-30 and University Avenue. The new Stephens will house prekindergarten through sixth grades and will have a capacity of 600 students. It serves as an Interdistrict school. The new Stephens will be easily accessible to downtown office workers, state department employees and University Medical Center personnel. The Little Rock School District also proposes to build a new King Elementary School in downtown Little Rock. The facility would be located in the general area along 1-630 between 1-30 and University Avenue. In addition to being an Interdistrict school, an attraction for this school will be its Early Childhood Program and childcare facilities. This location is expected to serve as a natural magnet for individuals who work within governmental and business centers of Little Rock. 10 J.D.R. 3232. According to the March 1989 plan, the non-magnet enrollment in LRSD for the 1988-89 school year was 8,327 black students and 3,835 non-black students for a total of 12,162 students. The projected enrollment for the 1989-90 school year was 8,500 black students and 3,850 non-black students for a total of 12,350 students. 10 J.D.R. 2229. The March 1989 plan listed 22 elementary schools with a total capacity of 9,501 seats and a projected enrollment of 8,187 students. 10 J.D.R. 2227-28. The eight incentive schools. 5Including 1050 seats at Washington, would have a total capacity of 3800 seats. 10 J.D.R. 2228. Romine was to be established as an interdistrict school for the 1989-90 school year with a capacity of 490 seats, up to 49% of which would be allocated to PCSSD and at least 51% of which would be allocated to LRSD. 10 J.D.R. 2229. The February 1989 Interdistrict Desegregation Plan lists Washington as an incentive school (8 J.D.R. 1722), proposes the conversion of Romine into an interdistrict school (8 J.D.R. 1731- 32), and requires LRSD to construct two new interdistrict schools. King and Stephens. Stephens is described as follows in the February 1989 Interdistrict Plan: \"LRSD will build new Stephens Elementary School a operating at grades pre-K through 6 to be located near the 1-630 corridor between 1-30 and University Avenue. This school will be ready by the 1990-91 school year or as soon as reasonably practicable. These parties propose that this elementary center be constructed, owned, and operated by the LRSD and draw its black student body largely from the students then attending the old Stephens school and its white student population, to the extent feasible, from both dependents of state government employees and PCSSD students. This school will have an early childhood program. The old Stephens school building will then be closed.\" 8 J.D.R. 1732. The February 1989 Interdistrict Plan contains the following language about King school: bU]y\\Dewt-n.Bri 6\"LRSD will construct a new King Elementary School as a downtown Interdistrict School by the 1992-93 school year or as soon as reasonably practicable. These parties propose that this facility be located in the general area bounded by Interdistrict 630 between 1-30 and University Avenue. These parties believe that this location would serve as a natural attractor for individuals who work within the governmental and business centers of Little Rock.\" 8 J.D.R. 1734. The 1989 LRSD and Interdistrict Plans were among the plans the Special Master recommended for rejection on May 10, 1989 (Docket #1182) . The district court accepted the Special Master's recommendation and rejected the 1989 desegregation plans on June 27, 1989 (Docket #1200). All three school districts and the Joshua Intervenors appealed from the June 27, 1989 order. Following the June 27, 1989 order of the district court. metropolitan supervisor Eugene Reville relocated to Little Rock and commenced the task of preparing new desegregation recommendations for the three districts. On January 2, 1990 Mr. Reville filed his proposal, the \"Tri-District Plan\", with the district court. Docket #1291. Under the Tri-District Plan, Washington became an interdistrict magnet school for basic skills/math/science which was described as follows: \"This school will open in 1990-91 for students who learn well in a highly-structured setting\nwho are motivated by btlqr\\OMe|*n.Bri 7academic, physical, and social competition\nand who are interested in math and science.\" 16 J.D.R. 4329. The Tri-District Plan contains the following language regarding assignments to Washington: \"Assignment to Washington will be open to students from the Pulaski County Special School District or the North Little Rock School District based on majority-to- minority provisions and on the provisions of Act 609 of 1989 (the \"School Choice\" law). Preference will be given to black students in the Little Rock School District who live in the attendance zone for Washington School and to white students in the Pulaski County Special School District. Next preference will be given to students who attend schools that are less than fifty-six percent black.\" 16 J.D.R. 4250. The Tri-District Plan does not require the construction of a new Stephens or King Interdistrict School. On March 5, 1990 (Docket #1328) the district court entered an order approving the Tri-District Plan as submitted on January 2, 1990 with only minor exceptions. Washington Elementary School was closed and rebuilt on the same site during the 1988-89 school year. The new Washington school opened for the 1989-90 school year as racially a identifiable elementary school with 519 students, ninety-eight percent of whom were black. During the pendency of the appeals of the district court's order rejecting the settlement plans and 8approving the Tri-District Plan, the Tri-District Plan was implemented for the 1990-91 school year. Washington operated during the 1990-91 school year as a racially balanced interdistrict magnet school. Fifty-seven percent of Washington's 762 students were black. One hundred thirty-two white students from outside LRSD attended Washington Interdistrict Magnet School during the 1990-91 school year. The desegregation plans presented to the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals in the joint appeal of the three school districts and the Joshua Intervenors required only three interdistrict schools within the Little Rock School District - King, Romine and Stephens. On December 12, 1990, the Court of Appeals approved those desegregation plans but recognized that a transition from the Tri- District Plan to the settlement plans would be necessary: 'It may be necessary, in order to make smooth a transition, for the details of the settlement plans to be adjusted to produce an appropriate fit between their future application and existing circumstances. The parties should be able to agree as to whether any such adjustments are necessary, and, if so, what they should be. Absent such agreement, the district court is authorized to take such action as may be just.\" LRSD V. PCSSD. 921 F.2d 1371, 1394 (Sth Cir. 1990). Since certain existing schools, including Washington, were assigned different purposes under the Tri-District Plan than under the settlement plans, it became necessary for the parties to immediately resolve kMhyXDnec-n.Bri 9those differences. The parties reached the following agreement concerning Washington School: \"Washington School was a racially identifiable black school during the 1989-90 school year. Washington opened for the 1990-91 school year as a racially balanced (57% black) magnet school. Washington should continue to operate as a magnet school. This agreement is recorded in a stipulation and consent order signed by all the parties and entered by the district court on February 13, 1991 (Docket #1434). On May 1, 1991, the parties jointly proposed certain revisions to their 1989 desegregation plans. Washington was removed from the list of incentive schools in the May 1, 1991 LRSD plan. 22 J.D.R. 5723, 5726, 5729. Although Washington is not listed as an interdistrict school in the May 1, 1991 interdistrict plan (see 22 J.D.R. 5864-70), the May 1991 LRSD plan describes the goals of the Washington Elementary School Basic Skills/Math - Science Magnet and explains how students will be assigned there: \"All students will be assigned to Washington Schools (sic) by the Student Assignment Office. The NLRSD and PCSSD will actively recruit students who are eligible for M-to-M transfers. The target racial balance at Washington will be 60 percent black and 40 percent white.\" 22 J.D.R. 5698. k\u0026gt;tlv\\DHet-n.Bri 10This court's final ruling on the May 1, 1991 desegregation plans was filed on May 1, 1992, approving \"the revised plans as attached to\" the May 1, 1992 order. Those are the plans under which the districts presently operate. The LRSD plan contains the following language concerning assignments to Washington Elementary School Basic Skills/Math - Science Magnet: \"All students will be assigned to Washington Schools (sic) by the Student Assignment Office. The NLRSD and PCSSD will actively recruit students who are eligible for M-to-M transfers. The target racial balance at Washington will be consistent with the Interdistrict Plan, seeking to obtain a ratio of between 60 percent and 40 percent of either race with the ideal goal to be 50 percent black/white.\" LRSD Desegregation Plan, April 29, 1992, p. 144. The difference between the racial composition proposed by the parties in the May 1, 1991 plan (60% black and 40% white) and the racial balance contained in the plan as approved by the district court dated April 29, 1992 (between 60% and 40% of either race with the ideal goal to be 50% black/white) is significant. The racial balance prescribed for Washington by this Court is the racial balance for interdistrict schools found in the Interdistrict Desegregation Plan and described in this Court's May 1, 1992 Order: \"Provisions of the interdistrict plan target the ideal racial balance for the various types of LRSD schools: Interdistrict schools at 50 percent black/white with variance of 60 to 40 percent of either race ... a H kBth|y\\DMe(*n.Bri 11May 1, 1992 Order (Docket #1587), pp. 27-28. This Court would not have assigned to Washington the racial balance requirements of interdistrict schools if Washington were not, in fact, operating as an interdistrict school. The decision that Washington should be governed by the racial balance requirements for interdistrict schools set forth in the Interdistrict Plan reflects this Court's recognition of Washington as an interdistrist school. The 1989 desegregation plans approved by the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals require the operation of three Interdistrict schools within LRSD - Romine, King and Stephens. 8 10 J.D.R. 2229- 32\nJ.D.R. 1721, 1731-34. LRSD presently operates three interdistrict schools - Romine, King and Washington. The LRSD and Interdistrict Desegregation Plans should be amended to reflect the fact that LRSD presently operates the number of interdistrict schools contemplated by the plans agreed upon by the parties in 1989 and approved by the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals in 1990. In its order with respect to the modifications proposed by the parties in the May 1991 plans, the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals said: \"It may be helpful for us to state those elements of the 1989 plan that we consider crucial, and with respect no retreat should be approved. They are as follows: (3) operation of the agreed number of interdistrict schools according to the agreed timetable ... tl Appeal of Little Rock School District. 949 F.2d 253, 256 (8th Cir. 1991). In accordance with the 1989 plans approved by the Court of 12Appeals in December 1990 and the order quoted above, LRSD presently operates three interdistrict schools. B. Demographics According to the LRSD and Interdistrict Desegregation Plans as those plans were approved by the Court of Appeals in 1990, LRSD was to establish three interdistrict schools, two of which would be located in central Little Rock in the general area along 1-630 between University Avenue and 1-30. One school was to be established \"near the 1-630 corridor between 1-30 and University Avenue.\" 10 J.D.R. 3232. The other was supposed to be \"located in the general area along 1-630 between 1-30 and University Avenue.\" 10 J.D.R. 3232. Since those plans were written, both King and Washington schools have been established as interdistrict schools within the area described in the plans. Also since those plans were written, 1990 census information has revealed a dramatic shift of population away from the area in which the interdistrict schools were to be located. This decline in population in the area targeted for the location of interdistrict schools is illustrated by undisputed evidence which was presented to the district court concerning the issue of revised election zones for the LRSD board. When the initial LRSD board member election zones were approved by Judge Woods on December 18, 1986 (Docket # 719), zones one and two had total populations of 25,399 and 25,295 respectively. Zones one and two cover most of central and east Little Rock, which is the 13primary area in which LRSD interdistrict schools were to be located. According to the 1990 census information, the population of zone one is 20,901, which is 4,498 people lower than the previous census. The 1990 population of zone two was 20,415, which is 4,880 people lower than the previous census. The 1990 census shows an eighteen percent decline of the number of people in zone one and a nineteen percent decline of the number of people in zone two. The movement of population away from east and central Little Rock is further shown in the testimony of Jim McKenzie about the election zone issue. Mr. McKenzie is the executive director of Metroplan, governmental planning and research organization composed of local government entities in the Central Arkansas area. Mr. McKenzie testified that his organization tracks demographic changes in Little Rock and that there was a material demographic change from the 1980 census to the 1990 census. April 13, 1993, Tr. 62-63. Although the population in eastern Little Rock a declined each year since 1980 (Tr. 67), most of the movement out of that area occurred between 1985 and 1990. Tr. 62-63. Mr. McKenzie testified that the \"center city\" will continue to lose population. Tr. 100-01. Mr. McKenzie prepared four proposals to adjust the LRSD election zones so that they would contain relatively equal populations. He testified that his proposal number four \"looks more to the future in terms of growth and shifts in population than the other proposals.\" See Memorandum Opinion and Order, June 21, taukorVDeaet-n.Bri 141993 (Docket #1853), p. 5. According to Mr. McKenzie's description of proposal number four, \"the areas of the City of Little Rock that are projected for growth have a negative variance from the mean while the areas that are projected to lose population have a positive variance. Id. In proposal number four, which was presented to the court in PCBE Exhibit 1, the only two zones which show a positive variance from the mean, indicating a projected loss of population, are zones one and two. See Tr. 101-02. The movement of population away from the area targeted for the establishment of interdistrict schools within LRSD is also shown in information provided to the parties by the Office of Desegregation Monitoring. A document titled \"Incentive School Attendance Zones and Schools Attended\" shows a total population of the incentive school attendance zones (Franklin, Garland, Mitchell, Rightsell, Rockefeller and Stephens) of 1,946 for the 1993-94 school year. The incentive school attendance zones generally correspond with the area targeted for the location of interdistrict schools. In fact, the interdistrict schools were expected to draw their black student population from among \"those students who otherwise would or could have been assigned to an Incentive School\". 8 J.D.R. 1722. The present number of students in the incentive school zones (1,946) is dramatically lower than the capacity established for the incentive schools in the 1989 desegregation plans of 3800 students. 10 J.D.R. 2228. The parties projected in the 1989 LRSD Desegregation Plan that if 3600 LRSD black students attended kMlvMiMH-Pl.Bri 15incentive and interdistrict schools, the racial composition of the area schools would be 56% black. 10 J.D.R. 2231. According to the 1989 Interdistrict Desegregation Plan, the incentive schools alone should be \"sufficient to accommodate that number of black students who, by attending these schools, make it possible to achieve a student population in the remaining Little Rock schools (elementary academies) [now area schools] of 55% black and 45% white with a variance of 5%.\" 8 J.D.R. 1721. That means that in 1989 the parties expected that more than 3600 black students would attend the incentive schools from the incentive school zones, but today only 1,946 students reside in the incentive school zones. The Office of Desegregation Monitoring prepared and distributed to the parties in February 1994 a study of \"Enrollment In Downtown Elementary Schools\". That study defines downtown elementary schools as those located \"east of University, west of Adams Field, north of Fourche Creek, and south of Markham.\" This is generally the area targeted for the location of LRSD interdistrict schools. This study shows that the incentive schools have a capacity of 2,305 students but that the October 1, 1993 enrollment was only 1,454 students. There are 1,429 available seats in downtown elementary schools. Those schools operate at only seventy-six percent of capacity. The February 1994 ODM study also shows that the two existing downtown interdistrict schools. King and Washington, are operating at 80% and 77% of capacity, respectively. There are 139 available seats at King and 218 available seats at Washington. King kitkor\\DBW(\u0026gt;n.Bri 16Interdistrict School has attracted 200 white students from outside the downtown area and Washington Interdistrict Magnet School has attracted 249 white students from outside the downtown area. Finally, both the Pulaski County Special School District, which was to be the primary source of white students for the interdistrict schools (8 J.D.R. 1721), and the Little Rock School District have experienced an unexpected overall decline in student population. The number of students attending PCSSD declined from 21,633 for the 1992-93 school year to 20,426 for the 1993-94 school year according to the October 1 enrollment count, a loss of 1,207 students. The number of students attending LRSD declined from 26,212 for the 1992-93 school year to 25,594 for the 1993-94 school year, a loss of 618 students. Both districts expect to lose more students for the 1994-95 school year. C. Plan Modification Process The PCSSD plan contains a desegregation plan amendment process (pp. 104-05) which this Court has found should be implied in the LRSD and NLRSD plans (Memorandum and Order, June 21, 1991, p. 17, Docket #1479). This Court has described the plan modification process as follows: \"Proposed amendments may arise in multiple ways. including by agreement or consultation with the other parties. Any proposal is first submitted to the PCSSD Office of Desegregation (Office) for initial review and analysis. The Office will make a recommendation to the kMtay\\Dnet*n.Bri 17superintendent who will in turn make the final recommendation to the Board. If the Board approves, the matter will be submitted to the Court, and formally submitted to the other parties to the litigation. If the Court approves, the plan shall be amended. Note that bv the Plans own terms, agreement of all parties is not required for amendment.\" 1^. (emphasis in original). LRSD has followed the desegregation plan amendment process with respect to its proposal to recognize Washington as an interdistrict school in place of Stephens. The proposal was first reviewed by the LRSD Desegregation Office as well as other administrators and the superintendent. Following that review. LRSD informally submitted the proposal to the other parties on November 12, 1993. LRSD proposed: \"That we seek to amend the desegregation plan to acknowledge the fact that both Washington and King have been established as interdistrict schools and that the establishment of two such schools within LRSD satisfies the Eighth Circuit's requirement that LRSD operate 'the agreed number of interdistrict schools'. PCSSD would be expected to 'engage in early, rigorous and sustained recruitment efforts' to recruit students to Washington, but would be relieved of the expectation that the white student population of Washington would come primarily from PCSSD. White LRSD students presently attending Washington would be allowed to remain and LRSD would lathy \\DBMg-Pl.Bri 18continue to recruit white students for Washington in the future.  Letter to Counsel, November 12, 1993. LRSD further proposed: \"That we delay the construction of a school at the present Stephens site so that LRSD may complete its demographic study to determine how best to meet the requirements of its student population and the desegregation plans. If LRSD determines to build a new school at the Stephens School Site, the new school will be an incentive school and the parties will s\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_417","title":"Desegregation plan modifications (April 1992 plan)","collection_id":"bcas_bcmss0837","collection_title":"Office of Desegregation Management","dcterms_contributor":null,"dcterms_spatial":["United States, 39.76, -98.5","United States, Arkansas, 34.75037, -92.50044","United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, 34.76993, -92.3118","United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, Little Rock, 34.74648, -92.28959"],"dcterms_creator":null,"dc_date":["1991/1996"],"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","School integration","School improvement programs"],"dcterms_title":["Desegregation plan modifications (April 1992 plan)"],"dcterms_type":["Text"],"dcterms_provenance":["Butler Center for Arkansas Studies"],"edm_is_shown_by":null,"edm_is_shown_at":["http://arstudies.contentdm.oclc.org/cdm/ref/collection/bcmss0837/id/417"],"dcterms_temporal":null,"dcterms_rights_holder":null,"dcterms_bibliographic_citation":null,"dlg_local_right":["Available for use in research, teaching, and private study. Any other use requires permission from the Butler Center."],"dcterms_medium":["documents (object genre)"],"dcterms_extent":["81 pages"],"dlg_subject_personal":null,"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":"\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n\n\n\n   \n\n\n\n\n   \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n  \n\nAssignments for LRSD Plan Modification Proposals McClellan Community School Horace Staffing-Incentive Schools Horace Focused Activities and APIG Horace Four Year Old Program Melissa Biracial Committee References Horace Student Assignments Melissa \u0026amp; Bob Parent Council-Incentive Schools Melissa Parent Involvement/Community Linkages Melissa Spanish-Incentive Schools Melissa \u0026amp; Horace Recruitment of Private School Parents Melissa Incentive School Parent Recruitment MelissaCOMMITMENT TO DESEGREGATION IN THE LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT The Little Rock School District is committed to a comprehensive desegregation plan which focuses on the total learning environment. The method of assigning students is merely the first step toward creating school and classroom environments that foster academic achievement and improve race relations among students and staff members. The next step involves a commitment to quality desegregated education by the District, parents and the community. Of course, real commitment always requires a plan of action. To that end, the Little Rock School District Board of Directors is committed to the following: A. B. The belief that all children can learn. The elimination of achievement disparity between black and white students on norm-referenced and criterion-referenced tests. C. D. E. F. G. H. Improving educational quality and student academic performance in all schools and doubling the financial resources in schools identified in the court-approved desegregation plan as enhanced/incentive schools. Improving race relations among students and staff members. Ensuring that equity occurs in all phases of school activities and operations (i.e. school, class and staff assignments\nparticipation in extracurricular activities\ndistribution of resources\netc.) Promoting positive public reaction to desegregation. The effective use of interdistrict and intradistrict recruitment strategies to meet the desegregation requirements in all schools and to avoid resegregation. The development and infusion of multicultural education in all areas of the curriculum. 1. Ongoing staff development activities to equip teachers, administrators, and other staff with the skills needed to achieve quality desegregated education. In summary, the Little Rock School District Board of Directors is committed to having quality desegregated education in all schools. Quality desegregated education will result in long-term stability and growth for the city of Little Rock and Pulaski County. It also will provide all Little Rock School District students with the academic and social skills needed for successful experiences in the future. The Little Rock School District Board of Directors hereby acknowledges its commitment to quality desegregated education and respectfully invites parents and community leaders to make the same commitment. Such a commitment has to occur in order to ensure stability in our schools and ultimately achieve unitary status. Page 1LRSD DESEGREGATION PLAN IMPLEMENTATION TIMELINE AREA: School Operations Goal VII: Provide and ensure opportunities and encouragement to all students to participate in extracurricular and co-curricular activities. Objectives Strategies/ Activities Beginning Date Ending Responsibility Date 1. Inform all students and patrons of co-eurricular/ extracurricular activities available for students and of participation requirements. 1.1 12 1.3 1.4 2. Staff recruitment of students to participate. 2.1 22 3. Increase student participation, particularly minority student participation in co- curricular activities. 3.1 32 3.3 4. Use of media and press. Send printed information to parents. Make clear public address system announcements to students. Use community agencies such as churches to assist with recruitment. Individual staff contacts with students encourage involvement. Staff shall specifically recruit from among students who do not typically participate in particular activities. Profile student involvement in each club or activity. Disaggregate participation data. Annually Annually Annually Annually Annually Annually Ongoing Ongoing Ongoing Evaluation w OQ fl) W SO Remove all barriers to equitable participation of students who wish to participate in extracurricular activities. 4.1 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. Annually Ongoing 42 Provide a program for student access to equipment/ uniforms etc. needed for participation at minimal cost. Annually Ongoing Communications Dept Principals Staff PT A 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 profilesRECRUITMENT OF PRIVATE SCHOOL STUDENTS Active recruitment of private school students to the Little Rock School District will be handled, in large part, by the PT As in individual schools. The Parent Recruiters will share and network recruitment strategies with each PT A. These strategies will focus on (1) the determination of those private school families who live within a specific schools attendance zone and (2) the recruitment of these students. Utilizing private school student directories and attendance zone maps, the PTAs can pinpoint those students living in their schools zone. Names of prospective kindergarten students can be obtained from directories of area pre-school and day-care facilities as well as informal sources in the community. The PTAs will be asked to contact these students families and provide opportunities to inform them about the attendance zone school. Suggested opportunities include open houses at the schools, coffees held in private homes, and invitations to school functions (carnivals, performances, spring picnic, etc.). The Parent Recruiters (and VIPS office) will provide direct assistance to those PTAs which have limited parental support and manpower. Also, the Parent Recruiters will meet bimonthly with the PT A Council and/or various PT A representatives to monitor recruitment activities. In an effort to contact those students who exited the Little Rock School District during implementation of the controlled choice assignment plan, the Parent Recruiters will obtain and forward to each school, computer printouts of students on the data base who are not presently enrolled in a district school. The PTAs will contact these students families and encourage them to reconsider their public school options. The Parent Recruiters will continue to foster a working relationship with area realtors in order to access those families with school-age children who are relocating to the Little Rock area. An explanation of LRSD programs in conjunction with building tours will provide new residents with information on which to base their decision to enter public or private school systems. The District will assess the effectiveness of recruitment strategies on an annual basis and share and discuss the assessment with the parties before seeking court approval of alternative strategies. Page 954. Develop and expand the parent volunteer programs a. Each school will establish a multiethnic cultural teacher/parent committee to design and implement school-based activities. b. Encourage all parents to become active members of a parent involvement program. c. Recruit prospective committee members from diversified communities including (among others) retired teachers and community leaders. B. Utilize parents in marketing educational programs and benefits that will result from desegregation. 1. Develop a resource list of parents who are willing to talk with potential patrons. 2. Establish parent recruitment teams in each school to encourage families to enroll in the public schools. 3. Seek positive media coverage featuring parents from all ethnic backgrounds a. Work through local parent/ teacher organizations to encourage positive media coverage. b. Designate a contact person at each local school to report to an established information center. c. Designate a contact person at each local school to report to an established information center. d. Produce video presentations of area schools for use by real estate offices, day care centers, local businesses, economic development agencies, and other community groups. C. Encourage community-wide multiethnic citizen/ parent/ teacher/ student committees for input into planning and decision-making. 1. Establish building, district and tri-district level committees which are racially, geo-graphically and socio-economically representative to provide input and feedback on the operations of the schools and the districts. D. Work with the Greater Little Rock Chamber of Commerce Committee on Education on its advocacy for public school activities. 1. Expand the school/business partnerships. 2. Have a tri-district event to honor business partners in public schools. Page 132AREA: VIPS Goal: (continued) Objectives 1. (continued) 2. Utilize parents in the marketing educational programs and benefits that will result from desegregation of all three districts. LRSD DESEGREGATION PLAN IMPLEMENTATION TIMELINE Strategies/ Activities Beginning Date Ending Responsibility Date 1.7 1.8 2.1 22 2.3 Evaluation fl CW n\u0026gt; LZl Exchange information training and materials with other districts as requested. Provide training for school personnel on the use of volunteers in the school. Develop a resource list of parents v4io are willing to be contacted to taUc with potential parents. Establish parent recruitment teams in each school to encourage families to enroll in pubUc schools. Seek positive media coverage featuring parents from all multicultural back grounds: a. b. c. Work through local parent/teacher organizations to encourage positive media coverage. Designate a contact person at each local school to report to an established information center. Produce video presentations of area schools for use by real estate offices, utility companies and day care centers including Public Housing Authority. Fall 1991 Fall 1991 Fall 1991 Fall 1991 Fall 1991 Fall 1991 FaU 1991 FaU 1991 Ongoing Ongoing Ongoing Ongoing Ongoing Ongoing Ongoing Ongoing VIPS Coors, PAC Coors of 3 districts Coors of the three school districts PTA Councils SAO Parent Recruiters PTA Councils SAO Parent Recruiters Communications Department Local PTAs Bldg level principals Local PTA Board Communications Information requested on file Completed training Increased number of staff members requesting and using volunteers Available resource lists Parent recruiters on file Increased # of media coverage news items that reflect persons from multicultural backgrounds for local schools \u0026amp; districts Designated contact person Completed videosSTUDENT ASSIGNMENTS I. n. Magnet Schools The assignment process to magnet schools will not change under this Plan. Interdistrict Schools LRSD and PCSSD agree to establish interdistrict schools as described in the Interdistrict Desegregation Plan. in. Elementary Area Schools 1. Students will be assigned to the elementary area schools by attendance zones. 2. The elementary area school attendance zones are drawn to establish a racial balance at each school of 55 percent black and 45 percent white with a variance of 5 percent. The recruitment of white students to elementary area schools may increase the percentage of white students at these schools but no school shall have a racial composition of greater than 60 percent white. 3. Students presently assigned to elementary area schools will be given the option to remain in these schools (grandfathered). 4. After grandfathered students have been identified and assigned, students in the attendance zone will be assigned to the elementary area schools. 5. If there is no space available at a students zoned school or if assignment of the student to the school would put the school out of compliance with racial balance requirements, the student will be assigned to the closest school with capacity which meets racial balance requirements. 6. The elementary school zones will provide a feeder pattern for elementary students going to junior high school and for junior high school students going to high school. As a result all LRSD students can determine which schools they will attend for the entire course of their education in LRSD. Attached to this Plan are maps of the elementary, junior high school and high school attendance zones. 7. Students in elementary area school zones will be given the option to select an incentive school. IV. Incentive Schools 1. Each incentive school will have an attendance zone that encompasses the neighborhood around the school (primary attendance zone). Page 1392. Students presently assigned to incentive schools will be given the option to remain in these schools (grandfathered). 3. After grandfathered students have been identified and assigned, students in the primary attendance zone will be assigned to the incentive schools. 4. All incentive school students will have the option to be assigned to an elementary area school to be selected by LRSD in accordance with desegregation considerations. 5. In order to assist in meeting the desegregation requirements, a certain number of seats for black and white students will be reserved for each pre-kindergarten and kindergarten class. The seats reserved for white children shall not remain permanently vacant if unfilled. Sufficient time should be allowed for timely, vigorous, and sustained recruitment efforts before filling these seats. V. Desegregation Transfers 1. Junior and senior high school students may transfer to another school as long as the reassignment allows both the sending and receiving school to comply with the desegregation requirement and a seat is available. The minimum black percentage is twenty-five percent (25 percent) below the district-wide percentage of blacks in grades 7-12. The minimum and maximum black percentages constitute the desegregation requirement (or acceptable range) for a desegregation transfer. The desegregation requirement in secondary schools is that all schools will remain within a range of 12-1/2 percent above to 25 percent below the district-wide percentage of black students at each organizational level (i.e., high school and junior high school). 2. Elementary Students may transfer to an incentive school only if such a transfer enhances desegregation at the incentive school. Desegregation transfers will be granted to elementary area schools that are difficult to desegregate. 3. A student may make two (2) desegregation transfers at each organizational level (primary, intermediate, junior or senior high school). The purpose of the second desegregation transfer is to allow a student to return to his or her previous school assignment. 4. Desegregation transfers will be granted during a limited period once each year. (Secondary Schools only). 5. LRSD will provide transportation for desegregation transfer students where it is cost effective to do so. Page 140 the student will be reassigned to the nearest school that has a seat available in the students feeder zone. If the student cannot be assigned to any of the schools in the students feeder zone, the student will be reassigned to a school in a contiguous feeder zone. The Student Assignment Office will be responsible for all reassignments. Reassigned students will be placed on the waiting list for the appropriate attendance zone school. 2. The minimum black percentage for each elementary area school is 40 percent black. Any assignment that causes a school to fall below the minimum black percentage will not be granted. In such cases, the student will be reassigned to the nearest school that meets the minimum black percentage requirement and has a seat available. If the student cannot be assigned to any of the schools in the students feeder zone, the student will be reassigned to a school in a contiguous feeder zone. IX. Student Assignment Office 1. The Student Assignment Office will: monitor new assignments\nprocess all data entry work for elementary schools\nprocess interdistrict M-to-M transfers and magnet assignments\nreassign students because of overcrowdedness or desegregation requirements\nconsider appeals\nconduct recruitment efforts\nprocess desegregation transfers\nassign all early childhood and incentive school students\nand process all special transfers (Act 609, Act 624, etc.). 2. New students to the District who enroll after May 17,1989 will not have to come to the Student Assignment Office to obtain an assignment. Each school will be authorized to enroll students who live within the attendance zone of that school. 3. The Student Assignment Handbook includes the timeline and procedures used by the schools and the Student Assignment Office to assign students. The Student Assignment Handbook will be revised each year, as necessary, to reflect any changes in the procedures for assigning students. Changes will be made as needed to indicate new deadlines and to improve the implementation of the court-approved student assignment plan. The Student Assignment Handbook is not included in this plan since it is a procedural document that is subject to change each year. The handbook will be developed by the Student Assignment Office and distributed to the schools and the parties each year. Page 142Capacity The capacities of the elementary area schools are determined in accordance with Arkansas accreditation standards which have the following limits: Grade Maximum Number of Students Per Class (Average) Maximum Number of Students in Any Class Kindergarten 20 20 First-Third 23 25 Fourth-Sixth 25 28 The total capacity of the 23 elementary area schools is 9,678. The incentive schools will have a maximum pupil/teacher ratio of 20 to 1. There may be more than 20 students per classroom, however, there will be an aide in each class and possibly a second teacher in those classes. The capacity of the incentive schools is 2558. The overall racial composition of the elementary area schools and the space available for recruitment at those schools depend upon the number of students who enroll in Incentive and Interdistrict Schools. The initial racial composition of the Incentive Schools is expected to be predominately black. It is expected that at least 600 black LRSD students will attend Interdistrict Schools. Stephens and King It is proposed that the District relocate Stephens Elementary near the 1-630 corridor between 1-30 and University Avenue. The new Stephens will house pre-kindergarten through sixth grades and will have a capacity of 696 students, including the four-year-old program. It serves as an Interdistrict School. The new Stephens wiU be easily accessible to downtown office workers, state department employees and University Medical Center personnel. The Little Rock School District also proposes to build a new King Elementary School in downtown Little Rock. The facility would be located in the general area along 1-630 between 1-30 and University Avenue. In addition to being an Interdistrict school, an attraction for this school will be its early childhood program and childcare facilities. This location is expected to serve as a natural magnet for individuals who work within governmental and business centers of Little Rock. Page 148INCENTIVE SCHOOL PROGRAM Introduction The Little Rock School District will have seven (7)* schools providing the incentive school program. Rockefeller may become an interdistrict school, but would continue to provide the incentive school program. The purpose of the incentive school program is to promote and ensure academic excellence in schools that have been difficult to desegregate. It is believed that the incentive school program will not only compensate the victims of segregation, but the program will also serve as a tool for promoting meaningful and long-lasting desegregation in these schools and in the entire school district. The following schools will provide the incentive school program: Franklin Garland Ish Mitchell Rightsell Rockefeller Stephens *The question of an additional incentive school for the 1992-93 school year is still under discussion. The parties do not seek to modify the plan at this time to add an additional incentive school. In order to be successful, the incentive program must address the academic, social and emotional needs of all student participants. The incentive program must also serve as a recruitment tool for meeting the desegregation requirements in these schools. With proper resources and expectations, the incentive school program will serve as a model of excellence for the county, state and nation. The success of the incentive school program is directly related to the success of the long-term desegregation plan in the Little Rock School District. In addition to the ongoing comprehensive programs in the incentive schools, the parties will explore the possible use of a trust fund to provide future college scholarship incentives. The parties will determine the costs of implementing a scholarship program for the students who attend incentive schools and will determine the feasibility of using trust funds to provide such an incentive. If feasible, the parties will have the responsibility for establishing the guidelines and criteria to be used in allocating any resources to the students. The trust fund would be used to provide an academic achievement incentive to students and would also assist parents and students in setting realistic goals for attending college. Page 149Section Five: Incentive School Parent Recruitment Aggressive marketing and recruitment are essential to the overall success of the incentive school program. Careful marketing of the incentive school program is the first step toward an effective recruitment program. The marketing phase of the parent recruitment program will focus on providing general information to the community. The black community will be targeted during the initial phase of marketing activities. Recruitment will be an ongoing process at the incentive schools. The purpose of the recruitment program is to encourage voluntary assignments that will enable the incentive schools to comply with the desegregation requirements. 1. To provide information to the community about the incentive school program. A. Mail final report on incentive school program to special interest and community groups (i.e. PTA Council, Junior League, Greek organizations. Ministerial Alliance: Tri-District Council, ACORN, etc.). B. Conduct information sessions at churches located near incentive schools and churches throughout the community with large memberships. II. C. D. E. F. G. H. I. Conduct information sessions with special audiences. Establish Saturday information booths at such places as University Mall, Park Plaza Mall, Wal-Mart Stores, Safeway Stores, Kroger Stores, etc. Stores in the black community will also be targeted for information booths.* Secure special media coverage from local newspapers and radio stations. Develop highlights sheet for distribution to aU elementary parents (and new elementary parents). Use telephone hotline.* Place highlights sheet in local businesses.* Special media coverage from State Press and black radio stations. Note: *Will be done in conjunction with promotion of student assignment plan. To implement a recruitment program that will enable the incentive schools to comply with the desegregation requirements. A. Brochures - Produce a brochure for each incentive school. Brochures should include: photo of school, special resources, programs, theme information, partners- in-education information, grants received, honors, list of staff members with brief credentials. Page 215B. PSAs - Produce generic public service announcements for all incentive schools. C. Billboards - Use billboards, bus benches, etc., to advertise generic information about incentive schools. Seek donated space. Billboards throughout Pulaski County should be used. D. Media Blitz - Conduct an ongoing media (radio, TV and newspaper) blitz to heighten public awareness regarding incentive schools. Pursue funding donations from community. E. Videocassette Recordings - Produce short (10-15 minutes) videocassette recordings to be used in public presentations (i.e. PTA meetings, realtors, etc.) F. Flyers - Produce generic incentive school flyers to be distributed throughout Pulaski County. (Example: insert flyers in utility companies bills\nmass mailings to targeted K-5 white parents in NLRSD and PCSSD. G. Open House - Provide special open house opportunities at incentive schools. H. Neighborhood Blitz Target geographic areas/neighborhoods to receive informational blitz regarding a specific incentive school. Stress group preference as an assignment option. Mail individual school brochures to each elementary student in targeted area. I. Tours - Conduct small group \"For Your Information\" tours to acquaint parents, grandparents, businessmen, realtors, etc., with the incentive schools. J. State Department of Education - Request a special designation from the Arkansas Department of Education (i.e. \"Five Star Schools\", \"Model Schools\") to be used in marketing incentive schools. K. Celebrities - seek incentive school endorsements from local celebrities. Arrange visits by celebrities, news events, special ceremonies, etc., to generate media coverage. L. Conduct meetings with NLRSD and PCSSD parents and PTA groups to encourage M-to-M transfers to incentive schools. M. Parent Recruiters - Hire two parent recruiters to conduct recruitment activities. N. Speakers Bureau - Establish a speakers bureau for each incentive school. The parents of white students enrolled in the incentive schools will be encouraged to serve on the bureau along with celebrities, teachers, etc. Page 216III. To monitor and evaluate the effectiveness of the recruitment program for the incentive schools. The Little Rock School District Biracial Advisory Committee will also serve as the steering committee for the incentive school recruitment program. The Little Rock School District Office of Desegregation wUl be responsible for submitting bi-monthly reports on the implementation and effectiveness of various recruitment strategies. These reports will also be shared with the Little Rock School District Board of Directors. The Biracial Advisory Committee will review each bi-monthly report and recommend to the Board of Directors and/ or Office of Desegregation any changes needed in recruitment strategies/ activities. The Biracial Advisory Committee wall also appoint two ex-officio members with expertise in marketing/advertising to advise the Committee on recruitment strategies. The Biracial Advisory Committee will evaluate the recruitment program each quarter. The evaluation of the recruitment program will be addressed in the quarterly monitoring/evaluation report on the incentive school program. Page 217LRSD DESEGREGATION PLAN IMPLEMENTATION TIMELINE AREA: Incentive Schools Goal: To provide general information to the community about the incentive program. Objectives Strategies/ Activities Beginning Date Ending Date Responsibility Evaluation 0 p m n NJ 00 1. Inform special interest groups and seek their assistance in disseminating information to general public. 2. Conduct special information campaign in black community. 1.1 12 2.1 22 Mail final report on incentive school program to special interest and community groups. June 1991 June 1991 Associate Supt.- Desegregation a. b. c. Get Court approval to release information on incentive schools. Design cover for final report and print. Update mailing list of community groups. Conduct information sessions with special audiences. a. Send invitation and information to special interest groups. Conduct information sessions at churches. a. b. c. February February May 1991 March January March February May 1991 April Ongoing as needed LRSD Attorneys Assoc Supt-Deseg Parent Recruiters Assoc Supt-Deseg Assoc Supt-Deseg Identify churches and contact pastors. Schedule and publicize sessions. Send information package to other churches in the black community. Special media coverage from State Press and black radio stations. January January January January August Annually August Annually August Annually April Parent Recruiters Student Assignment OfficerLRSD DESEGREGATION PLAN IMPLEMENTATION TIMELINE AREA: Incentive Schools Goal: (continued) Objectives Strategies/ Activities Beginning Date Ending Date Responsibility Evaluation 3. Distribute information to parents and community. 3.1 Develop highlights sheet for distribution to all elementary parents. January Annually February Annually Assoc Supt-Deseg Communications Department 32 Estabhsh Saturday information booths at University Mall, Park Plaza Mall and Wal-Mart Stores.* January Ongoing Assoc Supt-Deseg Parent Recruiters Communications Department 3.3 Pbce highlights sheet in local businesses. March April Parent Recruiters Communications Department 3.4 Special media coverage. March April Parent Recruiters Communications Department 3J Use telephone hotline. March April Parent Recruiters Communications Department 3.6 Distribute Program description to all elementary parents. T3 p OQ fS Is) so * Will be done in conjunction with promotion of new student assignment plan.LRSD DESEGREGATION PLAN IMPLEMENTATION TIMELINE AREA: Incentive Schools Goal: To implement a recruitment program that will allow the incentive schools to comply with the desegregation requirements. Objectives Strategies/ Activities Beginning Date Ending Date Responsibility Evaluation 1. To utilize a variety of marketing strategies to recruit white students to the incentive schools. 1.1 Produce a brochure for each incentive school. Brochure should include: a. Photo of school b. Photo of principal c. Special resources d. Programs e. Theme information f. Partners information g. Grants received h. Honors i. List of staff July Annually Nov. Annually Assoc Supt-Deseg \u0026amp; Schools Asst Supt-Incentive Schools Incentive School Principals Communications Department Parent Recruiters 12 Produce generic public service announcements for all incentive schools. June Ongoing Assoc Supt-Deseg \u0026amp; Schools Asst Supt-Incentive Schools Incentive School Principals Communications Department Parent Recruiters 1.3 Use billboards, bus benches, etc. to advertise generic information about incentive schools. August Ongoing Assoc Supt-Deseg Communications Department 13 00 CD KJ KJ O 1.4 Conduct an ongoing media blitz to heighten public awareness regarding incentive schools. March Ongoing Assoc Supt-Deseg Communications Department 1.5 Produce short (10-15 minutes) video cassette recordings to be used in public presentations. July Ongoing Assoc Supt-Deseg Communications DepartmentAREA: Incentive Schools Goal: (continued) Objectives 1. (continued) LRSD DESEGREGATION PLAN IMPLEMENTATION TIMELINE Strategies/ Activities Beginning Date Ending Date Responsibility Evaluation 1.6 Produce generic incentive school flyers to be distributed throughout Pulaski County. a. Insert flyers in utility companies bills. b. Mass mailings to targeted K-5 white parents in NLRSD and PCSSD. 1.7 Provide special open house opportunities at incentive schools. January January January August August August August November 1.8 Target geographic areas neighborhoods to receive informational blitz regarding a specific incentive school (using secondary zones). January Annually Ongoing 1.9 Conduct small group \"For Your Information\" tours to acquaint parents, grandparents, businessmen, realtors, etc. with the incentive schools. January Annually Ongoing \"T3 00 n\u0026gt; 1.10 Request a special designation from the Arkansas Department of Education to be used in marketing incentive schools. March July Assoc Supt-Deseg Communications Department Assoc Supt-Deseg and Schools Asst Supt-Incentive Schools Incentive Schools Principals Assoc Supt-Deseg Parent Recniiters Incentive Schools Principals Parent Recruiters Incentive School Principals Assoc Supt-Deseg LRSD AttorneysAREA: Incentive School Goal\n(continued) Objectives 1. (continued) LRSD DESEGREGATION PLAN IMPLEMENTATION TIMELINE Strategies/ Activities Beginning Date Ending Date Responsibility Evaluation 1.11 Seek incentive school endorsements from local celebritites. Arrange visits by celebrities, news events, special ceremonies, etc., to generate media coverage. September Ongoing Assoc Supt-Deseg Parent Recruiters 1.12 Conduct meetings with NLRSD and PCSSD parents and PTA groups to encourage M-M transfers to incentive schools. January Ongoing Assoc Supt-Deseg Parent Recruiters 1.13 Hire two parent recruiters. July Ongoing Assoc Supt-Deseg *13 P 00 fS to KJ toAREA: Incentive Schools LRSD DESEGREGATION PLAN IMPLEMENTATION TIMELINE Goal: To monitor and evaluate the effectiveness of the recruitment program for the incentive schools. Objectives Strategies/ Activities Beginning Date Ending Date Responsibility Evaluation 1. Provide a special inservice for the LRSD Bi-racial Advisory Committee on the Incentive School Program and the Long-term Desegregation Plan. 1.1 12 2. To utilize the services of individuals with eiqjertise in marketing/advertising. 2.1 3. To develop procedures for monitoring implementation of the recruitment program. 3.1 32 3.3 4. Notify committee of special meeting. Conduct special inservice meeting. (1) Review plan and focus on parent recruitment program. Appoint ex-officio members to Bi-racial Advisory Committee. Develop draft of monitoring procedures. Prepare final draft. Review monitoring procedures with superintendents cabinet, Bi-racial Advisory Committee, and incentive school principals. August August August August September September September September Assoc Supt-Deseg Assoc Supt-Deseg Assoc Supt-Deseg Bi-racial Advisory Committee Assoc Supt-Deseg Bi-racial Advisory Committee Chairperson Dir of Eval and Testing Assoc Supt-Deseg Bi-racial Advisory Committee Chairperson Dir of Eval and Testing Assoc Supt-Deseg Dir of Eval and Testing O p (TO fS to IQ CU 5. Recommend any changes needed in recruitment strategies/ activities. To evaluate the recruitment program. 4.1 5.1 Review bi-monthly reports on recruitment program. Prepare quarterly report and submit to Board of Directors June November Ongoing Ongoing Bi-racial Advisory Committee Bi-racial Advisory CommitteeFRIDAY, ELDREDGE \u0026amp; CLARK HERSCHEL H. FRIDAY. F.A. ROBERT V. LIGHT. P.A. WILLIAM H. SUTTON. P.A. JAMES W. MOORE BYRON M. EISEMAN. JR., P.A. JOE 0. BELL, P.A. JOHN C. ECHOLS. P.A. JAMES A. BUTTRY. P.A. FREDERICK S. URSERY. P.A. H.T. LARZELERE. P.A. OSCAR E. DAVIS, JR., P.A. JAMES C. CLARK, JR., P.A. THOMAS P. LEGGETT. P.A. JOHN DEWEY WATSON. P.A. PAUL B. BENHAM III, P.A. LARRY W . BURKS. P.A. A. WYCKLIFF NISBET. JR.. P.A. JAMES EDWARD HARRIS. P.A. J. PHILLIP MALCOM, P.A. JAMES M. SIMPSON. P.A. MEREDITH P. CATLETT. P.A. JAMES M. SAXTON. P.A. J. SHEPHERD RUSSELL III, P.A. DONALD H. BACON. P.A. WILLIAM THOMAS BAXTER. P.A. WALTER A. PAULSON II, P.A. BARRY E. COPLIN. P.A. RICHARD O. TAYLOR. P.A. JOSEPH B. HURST. JR.. P.A. ELIZABETH J. ROBBEN. P.A. CHRISTOPHER HELLER. P.A. LAURA HENSLEY SMITH. P.A. ROBERT S SHAFER. P.A. WILLIAM M. GRIFFIN III, P.A. THOMAS N . ROSE. P.A. MICHAEL S. MOORE. P.A. DIANE S . MACKEY. P.A. WALTER M. EBEL III. P.A. A PARTNERSHIP OF INDIVIDUALS AND PROFESSIONAL ASSOCIATIONS ATTORNEYS AT LAW 2000 FIRST COMMERCIAL BUILDING 400 WEST CAPITOL LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS 72201-3493 TELEPHONE 601*379-201 1 FAX NO. 601*379*2147 March 29, 1995 received MUR J 0 1995 KEVIN 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. ROBERT B. BEACH, JR.. P.A. J. LEE BROWN, P.A. JAMES C. BAKER, JR., P.A. H. CHARLES 68CHWEND. JR., P.A. HARRY A. LIGHT, P.A. SCOTT H. TUCKER. P.A. JOHN CLAYTON RANDOLPH, P.A. GUY ALTON WADE, P.A. PRICE C. GARDNER J. MICHAEL PICKENS TONIA P. JONES DAVID 0. WILSON JEFFREY H . MOORE ANDREW T. TURNER JOHN RAY WHITE DAVID M. GRAF CARLA G. 8PAINH0UR JOHN C.FENDLEY,JR. ALLISON GRAVES BAZZEL JONANN C. ROOSEVELT R. CHRISTOPHER LAWSON GREGORY D. TAYLOR TONY L. WILCOX FRAN C. HICKMAN BETTY J. DEMORY Oftice ot Oesegrega. yn' -9 COUNBEt WILLIAM J. SMITH WILLIAM A. ELDREDGE, JR., P.A. B.S. CLARK WILLIAM L. TERRY WILLIAM L. PATTON, JR., P.A. vHiTCR-e Direct no. (601) 370*1609 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 Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. John Walker JOHN WALKER, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72206 Ms. Ann Brown Desegregation Monitor Heritage West Bldg., #510 201 East Markham Street Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Richard Roachell ROACHELL and STREETT 401 West Capitol, Suite 504 Little Rock, AR 72201 Ms. Elizabeth Boyter Arkansas Dept, of Education 4 State Capitol Mall Little Rock, AR 72201-1071 Re: LRSD Proposed Desegregation Plan Modifications Dear Counsel and Ms. Brown: I inadvertently included a proposed plan modification concerning the LRSD Four-Year Old Program among the materials I sent you last week. respect to the Four-Year Old Program. LRSD does not propose a plan modification with document concerning that proposed modification. Please disregard the You hru Christopner Heller CJH/kAssignments for LRSD Plan Modification Proposals McClellan Community School Horace Staffing-Incentive Schools Horace Focused Activities and APIG Horace Four Year Old Program Melissa Biracial Committee References Horace Student Assignments Melissa \u0026amp; Bob Parent Council-Incentive Schools Melissa Parent Involvement/Community Linkages Melissa Spanish-Incentive Schools Melissa \u0026amp; Horace Recruitment of Private School Parents Melissa Incentive School Parent Recruitment MelissaREVIEW OF THE JULY SUBMISSION LRSD VOLUME I 1517-1518 - Commitment to Desegregation in the LRSD - Narrative - from the 1989 Plan 1519-1520 - Leadership - Narrative - from the 1989 Plan 1521-1526 - Early Childhood - Narrative - from the 1989 Plan 1527-1529 - Early Childhood - (HIPPY) Timelines - from the May Submission including the changes made in May 1530-1533 - Early Childhood Four-Year-Old Incentive School Program - Narrative - from the 1989 Plan (NOTE: on page 1533 the language regarding all schools in the district implement the four- year-old program is not changed in the July Submission - see example \"A\") 1534-1535 - Early Childhood Four-Year-Old Incentive School Program - Timelines - from the May Submission including the changes made in May Note: In the July Submission, the next page (SP-00324) apparently is out of order. It is the second page of the City-wide Early Childhood Program timeline. It is number 1541. 1536-1539 - City-Wide Early Childhood Education Program - Narrative - from the 1989 Plan 1540 - City-Wide Early Childhood Education Program - Timelines - from the 1989 Plan - Note: This timeline is on pink paper???? Note: This is the location the above noted sheet is suppose to go. Note: This timeline is on white paper. 1542-1543 - Special Programs - Nanative - from the 1989 Plan 1544-1545 - Summer Learning Program - Nanative - from the 1989 Plan 1546 - Summer Learning Program - Timeline - from the May Submission including changes made in May 1546-1550 - Asset Program - Nanative - from the 1989 Plan 1551-1553 - JTPA-Asset Program - Timelines - from the 1989 Plan 1554-1556 - School Operations - Nanative - from the 1989 Plan 1557-1578 - School Operations - Timelines - from the May Submission including changes made in May 1579-1584 - Program for Accelerated Learning - Nanative - from the 1989 Plan1585-1592 - Program for Accelerated Learning - Timelines - from the May Submission including all the May changes (mostly deletions with reasoning of \"Completed\") Note: page 1592 is noted at the top of the page \"Delete All\" - this page is not legible 1593-1594 - Gifted Education - Narrative - from the 1989 Plan 1595-1598 - Gifted Education - Timelines - from the May Submission including changes made in May 1599-1600 - Multi-Ethnic Curriculum - Narrative - from the 1989 Plan 1601-1615 - Multicultural Curriculum - Timelines - from the May Submission including changes made in May (multi-ethnic changed to multicultural in timelines but not in narrative) - several pages lined through and noted \"completed\" 1616 - This page is moved - in the July Submission this page is following page 1622 - Content Area Programs - Narrative - from the May Submission noting to delete **** 1617-1622 - Content Area Programs - Timelines - new changes made, different from the May Submission (LRSD took the 1989 plan and made deletions, additions, and changes for the July Submission) **** Note: immediately following page 1622 is another set of pages 1616-1622 (Content Area Programs) - this time the pages are orange - from the May Submission including the \"Delete\" at the top of the page Note: immediately following the second set of pages 1616-1622 (the orange one) is yet another set of pages 1616-1622 - this time the pages are white - from the May Submission including the wording \"Delete\" at the top of each page. 1623-1626 - Focused Activities - Nanative - from the 1989 Plan 1627-1630 - Focused Activities - Timelines - from the 1989 Plan with manual date extensions to 1992 (Note: the May Submission asked to delete these pages and inserted one page to replace the three) 1631-1639 - Parkview - Nanative - from the 1989 Plan (Note: McClellan Community School is omitted from the July Submission) 1640-1641 - Recruitment of Private School Students - Narrative - from the 1989 Plan 1642 - Federal Programs - Narrative - from the 1989 Plan 1643 - Federal Programs - Timelines - from the May Submission 1644-1646 - Vocational Education - Narrative - from the 1989 Plan 1647-1654 - Vocational Education - Timelines - from the May Submission including all changes made in May (Note: on page 1651 a manual note is made to \"restore\" a part of that page1655-1656 - Library Media Services - Narrative - from the 1989 Plan 1657-1659 - Library Media Services - Timelines - from the May Submission including changes made in May 1660-1664 - Special Education - Narrative - from the 1989 Plan 1665-1676 - Special Education - Timelines - from the May Submission including changes made in May - Note\npage 1665 was omitted from the May Submission - pages 1666-1677 has many changes. In the July Submission, page 1665 is copied from the 1989 Plan and pages 1666-1677 is copies from the May Submission, (p. 1677 is not in numerical order in the May Submission - the July Submission has the exact same order) 1678 - Staff Development - Narrative - from the 1989 Plan - Note\nthis page in the July Submission comes after page 1688 1679-1688 - Staff Development - Timelines - from the May Submission 1689-1691 - Support Services - Narrative - from the 1989 Plan 1692-1696 - Parent Involvement/Community Linkages - Narrative - from the 1989 Plan 1697-1703 - Parent Involvement/Community Linkages - Timelines - from the May Submission including the changes made in MayREVIEW OF THE JULY SUBMISSION LRSD VOLUME II 2198-2212 - Student Assignment - Narrative - from 1989 Plan 2213-2214 - Student Assignment Desegregation Plan Timeline - from May Submission which is deleted 2215-2226 - Student Assignment Handbook - Narrative - from 1989 Plan 2227-2232 - Facilities - Narrative - from 1989 Plan 2232-2249 - Incentive School Program - Narrative - from 1989 Plan 2250-2252 - Incentive School Program - Latin Timelines - from May Submission which are deleted (Note: the narrative regarding the Latin program is not deleted but the timelines crossed through) 2253-2256 - These are blank Pages in the 1989 Plan - omitted in July Submission 2257-2263 - Incentive School Program - Quality Academic Program Timelines - from May Submission which most are deleted (on page 2259 of JS date changes are extended manually by three years regarding incentive school curriculum - Note: the dates that are manually extended are being deleted by show of lines drawn through it - see example \"A\" attached) 2264 - Incentive School Staff Development Timeline - from May Submission showing the changes made in that submission 2266-2277 - Incentive School Program School Administration - Narrative - from 1989 Plan 2278-2280 - Incentive School Support Programs and Procedures Timelines - from 1989 Plan 2281-2282 - Incentive School Procedures for Administration and Staffing Timelines - from 1989 Plan 2283-2285 - Incentive School Program of Counseling/Social Work Timelines - from 1989 Plan 2286-2287 - Incentive School Monitoring Timelines - from 1989 Plan 2288-2289 - Incentive School Policies and Procedures Timelines - from 1989 Plan 2290-2297 - Incentive School Staffing - Narrative - from 1989 Plan 2298-2300 - Incentive School Staffing Timelines - from 1989 Plan 2301-2302 - Incentive School Staffing Timelines - from 1989 Plan - every place regarding developing curriculum the date has been manually extended by three years - see example \"B\" attached 2303-2306 - Incentive School Staffing Timelines (Staff Development) - from 1989 Plan - the wording \"Annually\" has been manually added to almost every timeline and dates regarding implementing the Teacher Demonstration Program has been manually extended by three years -see example \"C\" attached 2307-2309 - Incentive School Parent Involvement - Nanative - from 1989 Plan 2310-2321 - Incentive School Parent Involvement - Timelines - from 1989 Plan 2322-2326 - Incentive School Parent Recruitment - Narrative - from 1989 Plan 2327-2334 - Incentive School Parent Recruitment - Timelines - from 1989 Plan 2235-2338 - Monitoring and Evaluation - Narrative - from 1989 Plan 2339-2341 - Computerized Transportation System - Narrative and Tentative Timeline - from 1989 Plan 2342-2343 - Data Processing - Narrative - from 1989 Plan Added after the last section is copies of orders: * Stipulation and Consent Order Regarding Little Rock School District Aerospace Technology Magnet School * Stipulation regarding construction * Stipulation and Consent Order Concerning Adjustments to Settlement Plans * Stipulation and Consent Order Concerning Adjustments to Settlement Plans SUMMARY OF REVIEW OF LRSD JULY SUBMISSION VOLUME II: 1. LRSD has used the 1989 Plan as the narrative. 2. LRSD has presented timelines in varying ways: A, Used the May Submission timelines B. Used the 1989 Plan timelines C. Used the May Submission timelines with some date extensions by three years D. Used the May Submission timelines with some \"annually\" wording added E. Used the 1989 Plan timelines with some date extensions by three years ???? - With the statement attached to the front of the LRSD Plan, \"The LRSD proposes that all deadlines referred to in the text of its plan be extended by up to three years to conform to the originally proposed schedule of compliance.\", does that mean that the manually made three year extensions are also extended \"up to three years\". For example, on one page of the timelines, some dates are left as they were in the 1989 Plan and some have been manually extended to 1992, See example \"D\" attached.3. In some instances, the narrative and timeline do not correlate. The narrative will be from the 1989 Plan and the timelines from the May Submission. For Example: Student Assignments, Incentive Schools Latin Program, Incentive Schools Academic Programs (including staff development) 4. Not noted in the July Submission neither in the narrative nor the timeline is the change regarding instructional aides in incentive school classrooms. Change made in the May Submission, but in the July Submission no change noted from the 1989 Plan. See example \"E\" attached.United.States Court of Appeals FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT Nos. 91-2640EA, 91-2648EA, 91-2655EA, 91-2683EA Little Rock School District, Pulaski County Special School District No. 1, North Little Rock School District, and Mrs. Lorene Joshua, Appellants. * * it it it it it On Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Arkansas. Siibmitted: September 4, 1991 Filed: November 14, 1991 Before ARNOLD, Circuit Judge, HEANEY, Senior Circuit Judge, and WOLLMAN, Circuit Judge. ARNOLD, Circuit Judge. On December 12, 1990, we approved a comprehensive settlement of the Pulaski County, Arkansas, school-desegregation case. Little Rock School District v. Pulaski County Special School District. 921 F.2d 1371 (Sth Cir. 1990). We recognized, however, that the approved plans, which we shall call the 1989 plan or plans, would need some modification because of the passage of time. We remanded the case to the District Court with directions to adopt the plans with any necessary transitional changes. We also stated that the parties are \"free, by agreement, to modify the settlement plans by incorporating in them one or more provisions of the Tri-District Plan, subject, of course, to the approval of the District Court.\" 921 F.2d at 1393 n.l5.On remand 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, representing the plaintiff class, met to discuss what modifications of the 1989 plan would be necessary or appropriate. After extensive negotiations, the parties agreed to a long list of modifications, and submitted them to the District Court for approval. The parties refer to their settlement as thus modified as the \"May 1991 Plan,\" and we shall adopt the terminology. same The District Court rejected the proposed modifications. In its view, they went beyond any authority conferred by this Court's 1990 opinion. That opinion. as the District Court read it. authorized only two sorts of changes: the incorporation of provisions of the Tri-District Plan, and an adjustment of details necessary to make a smooth transition between the 1990-91 school year, which had been governed by an interim order of this Court dated July 2, 1990, see 907 F.2d 76, and the 1991-92 school year. The District Court considered all other changes out of bounds under this Court's mandate, whether or not these changes had been agreed . to by all parties concerned. The Court directed the parties to submit a new modified plan in compliance with its view of this Court's mandate. \"Substantive modifications to the plans,\" it said. \"shall be only for the purpose of incorporating useful features of the Tri-District Plan.\" Little Rock School District v. Pulaski County Special School District No. i, No. LR-C-82-866, slip op. 15 (E.D. Ark., opinion filed June 21, 1991) . The Court explained: \"Nearly all the [proposed] . . . revisions . . . fall outside the narrow realm of modifications and adjustments deemed permissible by the Eighth Circuit. Thus, this Court cannot approve them. This is not to say that all the proposed changes are without merit, or that they all -2-would negatively affect desegregation in the three districts. It is simply a matter of compliance with the language of the Eighth Circuit's order.\" Id. at 14-15. The parties then moved for reconsideration. They emphasized that all the changes for which approval was being sought had been agreed to by all parties concerned. They took the position that the District Court should approve any modifications thus agreed to, provided that they met the standards set out in this Court's opinion for judicial review of the original, 1989, settlement. So long as the agreed changes did not render the plan plainly unconstitutional on its face, were not manifestly unworkable, and were not unfair to class members, see 921 F.2d at 1383, they should be approved, the parties said. The Court denied the motion for reconsideration and summarized its position as follows\nThe Court sees the Eighth Circuit's approval of the plans as akin to establishing benchmark\nwe now have [a] distinct reference point, sure guide for ending this dispute and getting the parties out of court. revisions Some to the settlement plans will be needed initially to update the plans and to effect smooth transition from the Tri- District Plan\nthereafter, other modifications may be necessary conditions and in response to changing unforeseen developments. However, such changes should be minimal and occur at the margins, rather than at the core of the plans. a a a Little Rock School District V. Pulaski County Special School District No. 1, No. LR-C-82866, slip op. 6-7 (E.D. Ark., opinion filed July 15, 1991). From these orders disapproving their proposed modifications, the parties have now appealed. All four parties involved, LRSD, PCSSD, NLRSD, and the Joshua Intervenors, take the position that the District Court has confined them within limits that are too -3-narrow, and that ail of their proposed changes, being constitutional, workable, and fair, should have been approved. They ask us to reverse the orders of the District Court and remand the case with directions to approve all of the parties' modifications. I. There is much in the District Court's opinions with which we agree. The 1989 settlement which we approved last year should indeed be a benchmark for the future path of this parties are not authorized to modify it at will. case. Further, The we agree, for the most part, that any changes approved should be concerned only with the details of the plan, affecting it only at the margin, so to speak. 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 reduction in their commitment to desegregation represented in the 1989 plan, even if such a reduction were agreed to by the Joshua Intervenors, eventuality which, in any event, seems to us most unlikely. an The desegregation obligations undertaken in the 1989 plan are solemn and binding commitments, not be disturbed. The essence and core of that plan should On the other hand, we think the District Court was too strict with itself. We did not intend, for example, to limit changes in detail to matters that are merely transitional, or to the selection of certain provisions from the Tri-District Plan. (We accept responsibility for any lack of clarity in our December 1990 opinion on this point.) If a question is truly one only of detail, not affecting the major sxibstantive commitments to desegregation, the District Court has the authority to consider it. Some such changes, for example, as the District Court noted, may have merit, either because they advance desegregation, or for other reasons. Even changes that go beyond the level of detail, moreover, could -4- abe approved, but only if the parties affirmatively establish good reasons (not including the 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 funding for students attending the incentive (virtually all-black) schools\n(2) operation of the agreed number of magnet schools according to the agreed timetable\n(3) operation of the agreed number interdistrict schools according to the agreed timetable\nof (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. For purposes of illustration, we will discuss a number of the proposed modifications, indicating which of them seem to us to concern mere details, and which of them, on the other hand, would require substantive justification. Items we consider to involve details include deciding whether Russian will be taught at Parkview\nfailing to include the 144-page appendix in the revised PCSSD May 1991 Plan\nchanging the plan's language with respect to a possible interdistrict school in Chenal Valley\nchanging the process to decide whether King Elementary School will be Montessori school\nand eliminating Explorer memberships 1 a for 1 students at incentive schools. In contrast, changes we consider to be significant, requiring justification, include reducing the number of instructional aides in the incentive schools from one per classroom to two aides for every three classrooms\neliminating incentive-school themes\nand eliminating a full-time nurse at each ^Students at the incentive schools, which are all on the elementary level, are too young to be Explorer Scouts. Addendum (J.A.) 102. Joint -5-school. Again, we emphasize that we do not mean to imply that these changes are not permissible. Rather, changes of this kind may be approved if the District Court finds they are justified. One other kind of change proposed by the parties deserves our attention: deleting requirements of the plan because the parties agree the requirements have been met. An example of this is LRSD's obligation under the 1989 plan to hire two parent recruiters to conduct recruitment activities for the incentive schools. In their \"Stipulation Regarding Little Rock School District and Interdistrict Plan Modifications,\" filed with the District Court on July 25, 1991, the parties stated that they deleted the requirement to hire the recruiters because the recruiters were hired in 1989. J.A. 105. We agree with the District Court's statements on this topic: \"Present performance does not excuse future obligation. What if the district stops doing what it promised? Without such commitments remaining readily identifiable in the plan, the Court cannot monitor [the] district's compliance with the plan.\" Little Rock School District v. Pulaski County Special School District No. 1. No. LR-C-82-866, slip op. 22 (E.D. Ark., opinion filed July 15, 1991) (emphasis in original). Perhaps LRSD will no longer need parent recruiters at some point in the future. Until that time, however, the district's obligation to hire and maintain the recruiters should remain in the plan. The appellants urge that we not remand the case to the District Court for further proceedings, order approval of their modifications as They ask us simply to a whole. or. in the alternative, to go through each of the modifications and indicate specifically which of them should be approved. and which disapproved. They suggest that a remand would not result in any additional factual proof. Justification for each of the proposed changes, they say, can be found in the stipulations they filed with the District Court. We can read those stipulations and apply them just as well as a trial court, the parties assert. -6-We believe the better course, though it will involve some delay before a final plan is in place, is to remand to the District Court with directions to review the proposed modifications under the standards set out in this opinion. On the most general level, the standard is, as the parties assert, the same one we originally- applied in approving the 1989 plan\nThe parties' agreement should be upheld if it is constitutional, workable, and fair to class members. On the other hand, the application of this test is affected by the new procedural context in which we now find the case. The 1989 settlement is a benchmark. Although changes can be made, the District Court and we must take into account the potential for confusion, even chaos, that constant change creates. The parties and the public deserve 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 account when such changes are proposed and considered. We recognize that the language of this opinion is somewhat general. It leaves a considerable degree of latitude to the District Court. That Court must determine in the first instance, using the criteria we have suggested, what changes are mere details and what changes are outside that category. It must also determine. in 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. Its decisions, whatever they are, are of course subject to review on appeal, but the review will be on an abuse-of-discretion basis, and we will give a healthy measure of deference to the reasoned choices made by the District Court. -7-II. We turn to a few other matters requiring our attention. After the District Court rejected the May 1991 Plan, it ordered the parties to submit new modifications which complied with its interpretation of our December 1990 opinion. On July 22, 1991, the parties submitted their new proposed modifications. In view of our resolution of this appeal, the debate over the extent to which this so-called July submission conforms to the District Court's orders of June 21 and July 15, 1991, is now moot. Although the District Court disapproved the parties' proposed modifications, it entered a partial stay of its orders on August 22, 1991, pending the outcome of this appeal. The effect of the stay was to require the parties to abide by the 1989 plan, except with respect to those specific items mentioned in the order. We have no quarrel with this order. and it can. subject to any modification that may commend itself to the District Court, remain in effect pending the District Court's decision concerning the proposed modifications to the plan under the guidelines we have set foirth in this opinion. It troubles us. however. that the parties seem to be misinterpreting the pairtial stay. At oral argument, the attorney for PCSSD stated that the District Court's order of August 22, 1991, prevents the parties from taking other desegregative actions on subjects that are not covered in the 1989 plan. An example given at oral argument was a proposed program to encourage vendors to hire minority employees and deal with minority suppliers. We see nothing in the District Courts August 22 order prohibiting efforts by the school districts above and beyond those required by the 1989 plans. The District Court disapproved the May 1991 Plan, in part, because it viewed the plan as a reduction in the parties' commitment to desegregating public schools in Pulaski County. Nothing in its orders prevents the districts, without necessarily -8- coming to the Court for approval, from voluntarily increasing their desegregation efforts, as long as these efforts do not conflict with the districts' pre-existing obligations under the 1989 plan. as it may be modified from time to time. The District Court' s July 15 opinion makes this clear: \"The plans are a floor. not a ceiling.\" Little Rock School District v. Pulaski County Special School District No. 1. No. LR-C-82-866, slip op. 10 (E.D. Ark., opinion filed July 15, 1991). We reiterate, however, that these increased efforts may not supplant the districts' obligations under any court-approved plan. Finally, we think it prudent to mention the standard to be used by the District Court for reviewing proposed modifications to the plan (if any are sxibmitted in the future) to which all the parties have not agreed. As appellants have correctly noted. disputed modifications are governed by a stricter standard than agreed-to modifications. In Board of Education of Oklahoma City Public Schools v. Dowell, 111 S. Ct. 630, 636 (1991), the Supreme Court rejected, as too burdensome, the requirement that a party requesting a dissolution or modification of a school-desegregation plan show \"grievous wrong evoked by new and unforeseen a conditions,\" under United States v. Swift \u0026amp; Co.. 286 U.S. 106, 119 (1932) . In rejecting the Swift standard, however, the Court did not indicate what showing would be necessary for a party to demonstrate the need for modification. We find the Sixth Circuit case of Heath v. De Courcy. 888 F.2d 1105 (6th Cir. 1989), instructive on this issue: To modify [a] consent decree[ ], the court need only identify a defect or deficiency in its original decree which impedes achieving its goal, either because experience has proven it less effective [or] disadvantageous. because circumstances and conditions , or have changed which warrant fine-tuning the decree. A modification will be upheld if it furthers the original purpose of the decree in a more efficient way, without upsetting the basic agreement between the parties. -9-Id. at 1110. Our review of the District Court's decisions concerning this kind of modification will also be subject to abuse-of-discretion standard. an * * The orders appealed from are vacated, and the cause remanded to the District Court for further proceedings consistent with this opinion. We direct that our mandate issue forthwith. We ask the District Court, to the extent practicable, to give this matter priority on its docket, this appeal. Each party shall bear its own costs on It is so ordered. WOLLMAN, Circuit Judge, concurring. Although I concur in the court's judgment vacating the orders appealed from and remanding the case to the District Court for further proceedings, I write separately to voice my concern that our holding may be too restrictive with respect to the changes that the parties should be allowed to implement. By way of example, it seems to me that the parties have already offered sufficient justification for their intention to reduce the number of instructional aides in the incentive schools, to eliminate certain incentive-school themes, and to eliminate a full-time nurse at each school. These are matters, among others, that I consider to be mere details, the implementation of which should be left to the discretion of the parties. The recurring theme expressed during oral argument was the knowledge and experience that the parties have gained during the past several years about those aspects of the desegregation plan that have been successful and those which have not. For example. -10- counsel for Pulaski County Special School District stated (and I paraphrase) \"What we have learned over the past two years is that brand new schools and a strong basic curriculum is what parents want.\" Counsel for North Little Rock School District explained that North Little Rock had abandoned precision teaching because it was found not to be effective. Likewise, counsel for the Joshua Intervenors stated (and again I paraphrase) \"We have seen that certain things don't work, theme schools.\" We know what won't work, for example. Of course these are arguments that can (and no doubt will) be made to the District Court on remand. I mention them here only to illustrate the deference that we, and the District Court, should pay to those who are charged with the responsibility of educating the children within the several school districts. Some might reply by saying that such deference represents a naive. too-trusting attitude. given the recalcitrancenay. outright obduracyof the parties in years past. Perhaps so. On the other hand, we should remember that this is not 1954 or 1957- -or even 1985, for that matterand the time has come to cease excoriating the leaders of the present for the sins of their forebears and to vouchsafe them some credit for the efforts they have made to comply with the several decrees that have been entered in this long-standing case. The court's opinion today takes this latter course, and I am pleased to join in it, differing only in the degree of detailed supervision that the District Court should be required to exercise over the parties' revised plan. If I thought that my somewhat more relaxed standard of supervision would lead to a cessation of the efforts that have heretofore been made to remedy the effects of legally-enforced segregation or a wholesale jettisoning of the plan that we approved in our opinion of last December, I would not espouse it. As it is. however, I would give the parties the opportunity of demonstrating -11-that the changes they have proposed do not affect, in the court's words, \"the major substantive commitments to desegregation.\" I view the continuing presence of the Joshua Intervenors as a powerful force to insure that the several school districts adhere to their conunitments to desegregation. My views have not carried the day, of course, and so we will never know whether the greater latitude I would have allowed the parties would have resulted in a commitment fulfilled or a promise rung hollow. A true copy. Attest\nCLERK, U. S. COURT OF APPEALS, EIGHTH CIRCUIT. -12-OFFICE OF DESEGREGATION MONITORING 201 EAST MARKHAM, SUITE 510 HERITAGE WEST BUILDING LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS 72201 Date: January 29, 1992 To: James Jennings, Asso. Supt. for Desegregation Monitoring and Community Services From: Ann S. Brown, Federal Monitor Subject: Correction of Inconsistencies and Timelines Listed below are inconsistencies we have noted between the narrative and timelines in the May Submission: Pages 47-49: ASSET Program Timelines have been deleted but the narrative on page 37 has been restored. Also, the narrative on pages 43-46 regarding JTPA/ASSET is inconsistent with testimony regarding existing tutoring programs. Page 97: Multicultural Curriculum Under Evaluation and Monitoring, the reference to adding multicultural curriculum to the LRSD monitoring checklist was deleted and not restored. Ms. Matthis testified that reference to the checklist had been moved to the section on Educational Equity Monitoring. Although curriculum is listed in the addition to the incentive school monitoring and evaluation section on pages 371-72, multicultural curriculum is not specifically identified. Pages 208-212, 312-325: Parent Involvement and Incentive School Section The Parents in Learning Program has been deleted on page 208 but remains in the timeline on page 212. (Testimony indicated that LRSD would restore the Parents in Learning Program to the narrative.) \"Nationwide recruitment\" was restored to the narrative on page 325 but is still deleted from the timeline on page 312.January 29, 1992 Page Two Hiring of staff on initial one-year contracts has been restored to pages 324 and 325 but is still deleted in the timeline on page 312. \"Full time nurse\" has been restored in the page 304 narrative but is still deleted from the timeline on page 316. Pages 344-345: Parent Involvement Section - Parent Internship Program The May Submission is not clear regarding the LRSDs proposed changes on page 344 and the corresponding timelines on page 345: Page 344, #2, calls for the district to \"establish an Inoentive wide P-^arent hntemship P^rogram in all incentive schools with the purpose of employing parents as teacher aides.\" Yet the timeline has been changed to replace the original Parent Internship Program with a \"Parent Training Program with the purpose of utilizing parents as facilitators of support groups.\" Page 344, #3, reads \"recruit parents from the incentive neighborhoods for teacher aides and other positions for which they are qualified.\" The timeline has been changed to read \"recruit parents from the Incentive neighborhoods for group facilitators for which they will be trained. Page 344, #4, reads \"establish mentorships between teachers and parents in the incentive schools. It The timeline has been changed to \"establish mentorships between counselor (sic} and parents in the incentive schools.\" Pages 344 and 346: Parent Involvement Section - Monthly Communication Packet The narrative on page 344 deletes the word \"monthly\" regarding a monthly communications packet\nthe timeline on page 346 still contains \"monthly\". Pages 358 and 363: Parent Recruitment Section - Highlight Sheets The narrative has been changed: \"F. Develop highlight sheets for distribution to all elementary Distribute program descriptions to prospective elementary parents (and new elementary parents). (I Item \"H\" on that page states \"place highlights sheet in local businesses.\" The timeline states that program descriptions will be distributed to \"all parents\" and that highlight sheets will be placed in local businesses. Pages 359 and 365: Parent Recruitment Section - Flyers and Open House The narrative states that flyers will be inserted in utility companies bills and through mass mailings to \"all- targeted K-5 white parents in NLRSD and PCSSD, except the southeast quodraat. \"All\" and \"except for the southeast quadrant\" are not deleted in the timelines. ItJanuary 29, 1992 Page Three The narrative states, \"Follow mass mailings with Provide special open house opportunities at incentive schools.\" However, mass mailings are not deleted in the timeline. Listed below are timelines in the May Submission that are either totally or partially illegible\n42 86c 86d 92 93 98 99 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 426 449 450 453 454 455 456 457 458 459 460 461 462 463 464 465 466LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 810 WEST MARKHAM STREET RECE5VED TO: FROM: THROUGH: LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS March 22, 1993 Mr. Sterling Ingram Marie Parker 72201 APR I 1993 Office of Desegregation Monitoring SUBJECT\nDESEGREGATION PLAN ISSUES The purpose of this memorandum is to direct you to address several priorities associated with the implementation of the Desegregation Plan as rapidly as possible so that we may be sure that we are making good faith effort to address the requirements of the Court with respect to these priorities. 1. 2. Please report in writing any specific programatic assessment processes required by the Desegregation Plan and the status of the implementation of these processes. As a part of this report please include any plans, systems documents, or timelines that outline the assessment processes mentioned herein. Please develop a plan and implementation schedule for any of the above assessments that have not been implemented. 3. Please develop a plan to meet the general requirement that we assess all aspects of the Desegregation plan. This assessment plan should specify each aspect of the Desegregation Plan in terms of two issues: (1) the purpose of the aspect of the plan being evaluated\nand (2) the measure which will ascertain the fulfillment of said purpose. \u0026gt; 4. Please prepare a report or \"audit\" that indicates the status of implementation efforts with respect to each of programs outlined in the plan so that a document for the Federal Court can be developed as soon as possible. You may want to contact Diane Barksdale regarding this matter because she has done considerable work on this issue as a graduate school project. The information she has gathered may be quite useful to you as you prepare your report. In conclusion, please make an appointment with me to discuss the issues outlined in this memorandum. I believe all of them are important if we are to correctly implement our Desegregation Plan. ( cc: Cabinet Mr. Chris Heller 7 OFFICE OF DESEGREGATION MONITORING 201 East Markham, Suite 510 Heritage West Building Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 To\nLucille DeGostin I From: 'pAnn Brown Re: Corrections to the LRSD Desegregation Plan Date: May 28, 1992 Page 22, last line, 11th word should read \"is\" not \"a\". Correct reading: \"Programs and individual components will be continued if JTPA funding is available.\" Page 147, third line, fourth word should read \"four\" not \"\"one\". Correct reading: \"There will be seven incentive schools which are listed below with the capacity of each based upon 18 in four-year-old classes, 20 in kindergarten, 23 in grades one through three, and 25 in grades four through six (figures are based on LRSD 1991- 92 School Profile data: . . If Page 228, first line of last paragraph, 13th word should read \"two\" not \"tow\". Correct reading: \"In 1990-91, the District reduced its number of runs from three to two.' n Page 229, first date should read \"February 15, 1989\" not \"February 15, 1898\" Correct reading: \"February 15, 1989 Contract signature.\"FILED ITS. DISTRICT COURT,   EASTERM district ARKANSAS f 4 Vi FEB 0 2 1993 oS N THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT t, EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS 3/\" WESTERN DIVISION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT, ET AL. V. NO. LR-C-82-866 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT, ET AL. MRS. LORENE JOSUVR., ET AL. KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL. OEP. CLERK PLAINTIFFS DEFENDANTS INTERVENORS INTERVENORS ^A. -I OeseQ^^'S''\" 1 ' CJK :J5C. -1 .* 1 MOTION The Joshua Intervenors respectfully request the Court as follows: 1. To require the (defendant) plaintiff Little Rock School District to consult with Joshua and the others parties prior to making any desegregation plan alterations which require court approval\nand 2. To require the defendants to include in their budget projections the scholarship commitments made either by the school district or by the Joshua Intervenors to the parties and to the Court, including the Court of Appeals, for the pupils who attend or have attended the incentive schools since the inception of the Court approved Desegregation Plan herein. The support for this motion is found in the Desegregation Plan itself as well as in the oral arguments in the Court of Appeals made by the school district. Those commitments have been reinforced by the testimony of Dr. Ruth Steele, Dr. James Jennings r Mrs. Estelle Mathis, and every other school official other than Dr. Mac Bernd who was not privy to the agreements or commitments made as set forth above. \u0026lt;t fy-, without the scholarship commitments being made integral part of the budget of the district, the district proposes to abort the settlement. I-'?'* ^5? a 5*? Joshua requests an Order regarding this matter so that either C i: r-party may appeal. This is so because the district, under the uperintendent, appears to disregard the basic leadership of a new s tenets of the agreement which caused the Court of Appeals to approve the settlement herein. Respectfully submitted. JOHN W. WALKER, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR (501) 374-3758 72206 ORIGINAL SIGNED BY UNDERSIGNFr John W. Walker, Bar #64046 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I, John W. Walker, hereby certify that a true and correct copy of the foregoing document has been served upon record by hand-delivery on this ___ day of ------ all counsel of , 1993. ORIGINAL SIGNED BY UNDERSIGNED COUNSEL John W. Walker V s 'il-r Date: February 26, 1993 From: Ann To: Everybody MEMORANDUM Subject Provisions of Plans or Orders the LRSD Has Failed to Fulfill The Judge wants a very concise list of what plan and order provisions the LRSD has failed to fulfill so far. She wants to use this information in a statement she plans to read at the March 19 hearing. Please work up a list of whats not been done in \"your\" parts of the plan and orders. 111 need this list no later an next Friday, March 5. Sorry about the extra assignment, but with the right mindset, this could be fun. Thanks!A Provisions of Plans or Orders the LRSD Has Failed to Fnlfill Board Responsibilities The LRSD Board of Directors has committed to the following goals which it has failed to fulfill, according to the introductory section of the 1992 plan, page 1.  The elimination of achievement disparity between black and white students on norm- referenced and criterion referenced tests.  Promoting positive public reaction to desegregation.  The effective use of interdistrict and intradistrict recruitment strategies to meet the desegregation requirements in all schools and to avoid resegregation. In addition, under the title \"Leadership\" on pages 2-3 of the 1992 plan, the board and superintendent have failed to assert leadership in the following areas.  Clearly delineating the districts desegregation mission to the staff and the community.  Utilizing the desegregation mission as a guide for the development of policies and setting expectations for the superintendent to implement the policies.  Adopting a budget which will provide the resources necessary for an effective, desegregated school system. Making budgetary decisions consistent with district desegregation policies in terms of buildings, staff, materials, and equipment.  The conduct of an annual self-evaluation of their commitment to a quality desegregated education. Incentive Schools  Failure to reserve kindergarten and four-year-old program seats for white students and engage in documented, sustained, and vigorous recruitment to attract those students, (plan page 140, May 1992 order, page 28).  Program specialists have not been hired at all incentive schools (May 1992 order, page 41).  A staffing needs assessment has not been administered and analyzed (May 1992 order, page 41).  Themes have not been incorporated into the core curriculum at each school (May 1992 order, page 42). Little significant progress has been made toward desegregation of the incentive schools, with the exception of Rockefeller (1992 plan, page 149). Lack of coordinated recruitment and failure to implement all plan recruitment activities (i.e., individual brochures, marketing blitz) (1992 plan, pages 215-217).  The Parent Council has not begun to monitor or report on all activities related to the incentive school program (1992 plan, page 151). Equity Issues  Failure to show significant progress in the reduction of the achievement disparity between black and white students (1992 plan, page 1, 1989 Settlement Agreement, page 26).  Black students (particularly black males) continue to be disciplined at a rate disproportionate to their percentage of the student population (1992 plan, pages 28, 33-34).  Failure to effectively address the overrepresentation of black students (particularly black males) in special education (1992 plan, page 111). Recruitment  The district has not developed a Strategic Recruitment Plan pursuant to the ODM Incentive School Recommendations (page 4) and the LRSD Marketing Plan.  The Recruitment Tracking System, first requested during the March 1991 Construction Hearing, has not been implemented. Additional Items from the May 1992 Order  A plan has not been submitted describing the extended activities designed to address the needs of Washington Magnet School attendance zone students (May 1992 order, page 38).RECSW^O Oiiice ^PR 2 2 1994 of Desegregation IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT CODRf\nMonitoting EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSASt3Rndi WESTERN DIVISION 'COUi tar:\n2 0 1594 LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT JAMES VA McJv aMAG:pLA1NTIFF By.-____________________ CL? CLLRK V. LR-C-82-866 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, ET AL DEFENDANTS MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL INTERVENORS KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL INTERVENORS MOTION FOR MODIFICATION OF DESEGREGATION PLAN For its motion, plaintiff. Little Rock School District (LRSD) states: 1. The LRSD and Interdistrict Desegregation Plans require the establishment within LRSD of three interdistrict schools Romine, King and Stephens. The plans require that two of those schools. King and Stephens, be located in the downtown Little Rock area. Romine and King schools have been established as interdistrict schools. 2. Since the parties agreed that LRSD would establish the King and Stephens Interdistrict Schools in the downtown Little Rock area. there have been significant changes in factual conditions which warrant modification of that agreement. First, Washington Elementary School, which the parties agreed would be an incentive school. presently operates as an interdistrict school in the downtown Little Rock area. Second, there has been a significant movement of population out of the area in which the parties plannedto locate Interdistrict schools. The schools in that area are experiencing low enrollment. There are many empty seats, including seats at the King and Washington Interdistrict Schools. 3. The modification of the desegregation plans which is most suitably tailored to the changed circumstances is to recognize Washington in place of Stephens as the second required interdistrict school in the downtown Little Rock area. This modification is in compliance with the standards for modification of consent decrees set out in Rufo v. Inmates of Suffolk County Jail, 502 U.S. ___, 116 L.Ed.2d 867 (1992) and Appeal of Little Rock School District. 949 F.2d 253, 258 (8th Cir. 1991). WHEREFORE, for the reasons set out above and in the accompanying brief, LRSD prays for modification of the LRSD and Interdistrict Desegregation Plans to recognize Washington as the second required interdistrict school in the downtown Little Rock area and to delete the requirement that LRSD construct a new Stephens Interdistrict School. 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 B' Christopher He Bar No. 81083 2 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I certify that a copy of the foregoing Motion For Modification of Desegregation Plan 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 Christopher Helle 3 RECEIVED IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION APR 7 1994 Office cf Desegregation Monitoring LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT PLAINTIFF V. LR-C-82-866 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, ET AL DEFENDANTS MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL INTERVENORS KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL INTERVENORS MEMORANDUM BRIEF IN SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR APPROVAL OF FOUR-YEAR OLD PROGRAM SITES The plaintiff. Little Rock School District (\"LRSD\"), for its Memorandum Brief in Support of its Motion for Approval of Four-Year Old Program Sites, states: The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure (\"FRCP\"), Rule 7(b)(1), provides that an application to the Court for an order shall be by motion which shall be made in writing, stating with particularity the grounds for the motion and setting forth the relief or order sought. In accordance with the requirement, the LRSD has submitted its motion for approval of the sites for four-year old programs for the 1994-95 school year. Under the terms of the desegregation plan approved by the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals, the LRSD committed itself to implement a four-year old program by the end of the 1993-94 school year in all schools in the District. Little Rock School District V. Pulaski County Special School District. 921 F.2d 1371 (8th Cir. !nd\u0026gt;br1990). However, the LRSD later proposed modifications to the 1989 settlement plans for consideration by this Court. Hearings were held in late 1991 and early 1992 regarding the proposed modifications. By Order dated May 1, 1992, this Court ruled on both proposed modifications. Among the modifications which had been proposed by the LRSD was the request that this Court release it from the obligation of placing a four-year program in every school in the District. Rather, the LRSD submitted that four-year old programs were both compensatory and desegregatory in nature since they impact disparity of academic achievement by better preparing children for kindergarten and also serve to attract white children to the public schools. In light of those facts, the LRSD persuaded this Court that it was more appropriate to place four-year old programs in those schools or areas which have proven difficult to desegregate. Based on the evidence and testimony presented, as well as other matters, this Court granted the request and relieved the LRSD from the requirement of placing four-year programs in every elementary school. In considering the modifications proposed by the LRSD, the Court did not release the District from serving the same number of children who would have been served had every school in the District offered a four-year old program as had been originally planned. However, the Court did relieve the LRSD of the obligation to completely implement the four-year old programs by the 1993-94 school year. Rather, the Court permitted the District to follow a Ifsd-br 2time schedule in which implementation could be completed by the 1994-95 school year. In accordance with its obligations to select locations which will best further the goals of disparity reduction and racial balance, the LRSD embarked upon a review to determine the most appropriate sites and the number of classes for each site. The LRSD has now completed that review and attached its report as Exhibit 1 to the Motion filed herewith. For the reasons stated herein as well as those contained in the Motion, the LRSD submits that the Motion should be granted. This Memorandum Brief is respectfully submitted in support of the Motion. , FRIDAY, ELDREDGE \u0026amp; CLARK 2000 First Commercial Bldg. 400 West Capitol Street Little Rock, AR 72201 (501) 376-2011 Attorneys for Plaintiff LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT Jerry L. Malone Bar ID No. 85096 Ind-br 3 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I certify that a copy of the foregoing Brief in Support of Motion for Approval of Four-Year Old Program Sites has been served on the following people by depositing copy of same in the United States mail on this day of April, 1994: Mr. John Walker JOHN WALKER, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72206 Mr. Richard Roachell Roachell and Streett First Federal Plaza 401 West Capitol, Suite 504 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. Sam Jones WRIGHT, LINDSEY \u0026amp; JENNINGS 2200 Worthen Bank Bldg. 200 West Capitol Little Rock, AR 72201 Ms. Ann Brown Desegregation Monitor Heritage West Bldg., Suite 5IQ. 201 East Markham Street \"\" Little Rock, AR 72201 Jerry L. Malone Irad-br 4 RECBIV^D MAY 21994 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS , FfLEO districtARKANSAS 29 1994 Office of Desegregation MonnonnS LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT WESTERN DIVISION \"'MES w McCormack. ciERK By.-, p V. NO. LR-C-82-866 CURK PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT, ET AL. DEFENDANTS MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL. INTERVENORS KATHERINE W. KNIGHT, ET AL. INTERVENORS MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME The Joshua Intervenors respectfully move the Court for an extension of time until May 12, 1994 in which to respond to Little Rock School District's motions filed on April 20, 1994 and received by undersigned counsel on April 25, 1994 regarding the following: 1) Motion for Modification of Desegregation Plan\n2) Motion to Designate King Interdistrict School a Magnet\nand 3) Motion for Approval of Four Year Old Program Sites. For their reasons, Joshua states: 1. Undersigned counsel has not had the opportunity to devote the necessary time towards the preparation of response to said motions due to other trials and discovery commitments that had already been previously scheduled. 2. Opposing counsel has been contacted and has authorized counsel to state that they have no objection to this request for extension. 3. Said motion is being made in good faith, and is not being made for the purpose of delay. Wherefore, Joshua respectfully prays the Court to grant thei  extension of time, up to and including May 12, 1994. Respectfully, JOHN W. WALKER, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR (501) 374-3758 72206 ^John W. Walker 7^ 1 Iror  Ra r* Mn\u0026lt; ' Bar No\u0026lt; 64046 CZt CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing has been mailed, postage prepaid to all counsel on this April, 1994. John W. Walker JpiBECE^^.^ MAY 9 1994 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEAL FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT Offcd \u0026lt;oi ^iiSSQrsgalion xf.si^^xifirig 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 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, 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 John i Walkert  I- I'\nir' Id MAY-16-94 MON 10:10 SUSAN W WRIGHT r nun JUMN U.UBLKER P.O. FAX NO. 5013246576 To 3J46896 P.Ol P. 82 IN THE united STATES DISTRICT COURT eastern DISTRICT OF AK2CAWSAS WESTERN DIVISION little rock school district, kt al. NO. LR-C-82-866 PULASKI COUNTV SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT, ET, al. MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET aL, KATHERINE ff, KNIGHT, ET AL. PLAINTIFFS defendants INTERVENORS INTERVENORS RESPONSE OF JOSHUA INTERVENORS TO LRSD fgNDiNG MOTIONS BEFORE THE COUrt The Joshua Intervenors do interpose the following regarding the pending motions before the Court: 1) 2) Motion to Designate King Interdistrict. Motion for Modifioation ^School a Magnet, Of Desegregation Plan\n3) Motion for Approval of Four and Year Old Program Sites. O-oshua hao no objection to King Interdistrict designated a Magnet School. Sohool being Because ef little Seek School Districtfailure to respond to Joshua regarding the resolution respectfully request the Court pending motions, until after of the Stephens School issue, we to defer action on LRSDs other (8thJ Circuit rules a hearing or after euch time the Eighth on the pending appeal. Respectfully subnitted,. John w. Walker- p.a. 1723 Broadvay Little Rock, ar (501) 374-3758 7?206I MAY-16-94 MON 10:10 * \u0026gt;  I  SUSAN W WRIGHT I-Kun JOHN U.UBLKER P.b.  FAX NO. 5013246576 TO 124^096 P. 02 P.O: l4I i f l! I r 5 J V ? V [f f ? I SSliriGATE Qg SBRVlgR TnHn 147 XtfeTl *' \"  V, Jolin w. Walker Total p.esRBGE^VED iw MA'f 1 7 1994 Offics oi Dessgr.?gaticn Monitoring IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COUR'^ J me. UiUiLU 4 EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSASS oiSTOCTC^sr WESTERN DIVISION A2Tc.Pf4 DS' T A?7KA\\J MAY V r-'Z LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT, ET AL. KC tl PLAINTIFF: r Lt NO. LR-C-82-866 OEP c\" PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT, ET. AL. DEFENDANTS MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL. INTERVENORS KATHERINE W. KNIGHT, ET AL. INTERVENORS RESPONSE OF JOSHUA INTERVENORS TO LRSD PENDING MOTIONS BEFORE THE COURT The Joshua Intervenors do interpose the following regarding the pending motions before the Court: 1) Motion to Designate King Interdistrict School a Magnet\n2) Motion for Modification of Desegregation Plan\nand 3) Motion for Approval of Four Year Old Program Sites. Joshua has no objection to King Interdistrict School being designated a Magnet school. Because of Little Rock cliool District's failure to respond to Joshua regarding the resolution of the Stephens School issue. we respectfully request the Court to defer action on LRSD's other pending motions until after a hearing or after such time the Eighth (Sth) Circuit rules on the pending appeal. Respectfully submitted. John W. Walker, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR (501) 374-3758 72206 / ( I'il irf',OF  Office of Desegregation Monitoring United States District Court  Eastern District of Arkansas Ann S. Brown. Federal Monitor 201 East Markham. Suite 510 Heritage West Building Little Rock. Arkansas 72201 (501)376-6200 Fax (501) 371-0100 Date: November 1, 1994 To: All Counsel of Record From: n S. Brown Subject: LRSD Proposal for Plan Modification: Desegregation Facilitator As you are aware, judge Wright has asked me to coordinate the desegregation plan modification process for a specific proposal, which was prompted by a LRSD business case presented to the Court during recent hearings. That business case proposed to eliminate the Desegregation Facilitator, to distribute the Facilitators duties to other district administrators, and to create a new Director of Student Assignment position. In an October 24, 1994 Order, the Court directed me to \"work with the LRSD to identify any deficiencies in the business case and to address them in ways that preserve the intent of the desegregation plan when it provided that a Desegregation Facilitator would serve the staff and students of LRSD schools.\" I have met at length with Dr. Russ Mayo to discuss the business case. As a result of our discussions and my observations. Dr. Mayo has completed a revised business case. The revision addresses deficiencies in the original proposal, which had to do with: incongruities within the business case, omitted plan mandates, the scope of the revised job description, possible neglect of plan-mandated responsibilities, and unclear accountability. In my opinion. Dr. Mayo has satisfactorily addressed those deficiencies through this revised proposal. Please review the revised business case, which is attached along with a letter from Dr. Mayo to me. If you have questions or concerns about the proposal, discuss them with Dr. Mayo and his attorney. Do your best to resolve any issues and determine whether the business case may need further revision. Let me know immediately the nature of any matters that remain unsettled or if you anticipate any additional changes in the proposal\nI will serve as a resource to further facilitate the modification process if necessaiy. 1 wish to conclude this phase of the modification process as soon as possible, certainly no later than November 10, 1994. By that date or before, please indicate in writing to me either that you do not object to the plan modification as proposed in e revised business case, or that you object to the modification for reasons which you specify. 1 will forward your written comments to the Court along with copies of this memorandum and the enclosures. The Court will issue a ruling based on this information, any other filings you may wish to make, and the record of this case. Thank you for your cooperation. Please let me know if 1 may be of further assistance. Enc. Little Rock School District Octobers, 1994 Ann Brown, Monitor Office of Desegregation Monitoring 201 E. Markham St. Little Rock, AR 72201 OCT 6 1994 Dear Ann: Office of Desegregation Mon V Our discussion of my business case for a Director of Student Assignment was helpful. As you know, the proposal is to eliminate the Desegregation Facilitator position appearing in the desegregation plan. The money for that position will be used for a Director of Student Assignment. 1, and others as noted in the business case, will assume the responsibilities mandated by the plan for the Desegregation Facilitator. Since this is a plan modification, I am asking for your assistance with the modification process. The attached business case has been rewritten to include all desegregation plan mandates for the Desegregation Facifitator, to clarify job responsibilities and accountability, to define a realistic job scope, and to correct some previous incongruities among sections of the business case. The Little Rock School District Board of Directors was presented the original business case by Dr. Henry Williams, Superintendent, on June 14, 1994. There were no objecfions. On or about July 18, Chris Heller, LRSD Attorney, sent copies of the business case to all parties and submitted it to the court with the budget document. No objections were heard from any of the parties at that time. At a later hearing. Judge Wright requested clarification of specifically who would address the mandates of the plan in addition to the Associate Superintendent for Desegregation. A chart responding to her request is included. Since this is a modification to the LRSD Desegregation Plan, the change should be reflected in the document for future reference. 1 suggest that the references to Desegregation Facilitator in the current plan be deleted. Again, thank you for your help with the business case. 1 look forward to hearing from you. Sincerely, C. Russell Mayo Associate Superintendent for Desegregation C: Dr. Henry Williams, Superintendent Chris Heller, LRSD Attorney 810 West Markham Street Little Rock, Arkansas 72201  (501)374-3361 Little Rock School District Director of Student Assignment A Business Case I Addition  Modification Deletion Octobers, 1994Little Rock School District Director of Student Assignment Business Case Executive Summary The position of Associate Superintendent for Desegregation was established to insure implementation of our desegregation plan as well as to monitor the districts desegregation process. Historically, this has been done through careful oversight of the Student Assignment Office (SAO), generation of numerous statistical reports, and staying abreast of the latest desegregation obligations. Also included with these responsibilities has been oversight of Volunteers In Public Schools (VIPS) and responsibility for recruitment of students as described in the desegregation plan. This past year, the responsibilities of Communications and Transportation were added to this position. Transportation has over 340 employees. Also added this school year are additional reports and documents generated monthly and quarterly to monitor the districts progress in fulfilling its obligations under its plan. The Student Assignment Office is not receiving as much day-to-day supervision as it should to address the sensitivity of student assignments, their impact on the desegregation plan, and the needs of parents. The responsibilities of student assignment require moment by moment attention. Decisions about when to release weiiting lists affect racial balance and recruitment of parents to the district. Careful and proper monitoring of racial balance and the student assignment process improves public confidence and maintains racial balance. Projecting demographic data and enrollments aids in planning for future marketing, recruitment, and school closings or constmction. Executing plans for closing schools requires attention to patrons who are affected and the assurance of acceptable options. The supervision of SAO personnel requires meetings, planning, and periodic training. Meeting with parents who do not understand the student assignment process requires diplomacy, patience, and time. Meeting with the appeals committee requires time and diplomacy. These are examples of student assignment responsibilities requiring day-to-day, on-site attention. Currently the Associate Superintendent for Desegregation fulfills the role of the student assignment supervisor in addition to broader responsibilities. Though housed at the SAO, his responsibilities require his presence and attention elsewhere too often. This makes the day-to-day attention required by the student assignment impossible. This is a proposal to change the position of Desegregation Facilitator to Director of Student Assignment. Realign responsibilities so the new director assumes the primary responsibility for student assignment, and the Associate Superintendent for Desegregation assumes primary responsibility for desegregation and the duties previously done by the Desegregation Facilitator. This neither increases the costs of personnel nor ignores the responsibilities of the Desegregation Facilitator. Further, it gives the attention necessary to student assignment and allows for greater focus on the desegregation effort. This position will report to the Associate Superintendent for Desegregation. See Figure 1.Director of Student Assignment Business Case 2 Now, more than before, senior management is totally involved in the desegregation effort. The responsibilities of the Superintendent, the Deputy Superintendent, Associate to the Deputy Superintendent, Associate Superintendent for Desegregation, Director of Planning, Research, and Evaluation, and staff development personnel are all focused on the desegregation effort. The implementation of a planning and budgeting process has raised the effort to a new consciousness. Now monitoring of desegregation is more extensive than ever. Continuous discussions and analysis in meetings of the Superintendents Council have moved obligations to the forefront. The Program Budget Document and the Management Tool represent additional safeguards not previously used by the district. Therefore, the original intent of the Desegregation Facilitator has grown beyond a single individual into a way of life for senior management in the district. Addressing the need in the area of student assignment now becomes an important part of the solution. The responsibilities of the former Desegregation Facilitator will become the primary responsibility of the Associate Superintendent for Desegregation. He will be assisted by those persons listed in the chart below. Tasks 1. Work directly with building principals 2. Identification of problems or practices that impede the implementation of quality desegregated education in each building 3. Providing technical assistance to building principals and their staffs for desegregation concerns_____________ 4. Working very closely with the remaining associate superintendents^ as needed_____________________ 5. Allow the central office administration to have immediate feedback on the day-to-day activities in the schools^_______________________________________ 6. Focusing on all aspects of desegregation implementation including, but not limited to achievement disparity, extracurricular activities, class assignments, guidance and counseling, staffing and staff interaction, student interactions, and parent involvement. Person (s) Associate Supt. for Deseg. Assistant Supts. Assoc, to Deputy Supt. Assistant Supts. Assoc, to Deputy Supt. Dlr. of Human Resources Dir. of Labor Relations Dlr. of Student Assignment Assoc. Supt for Deseg. Dir. of Staff Development Associate Supt. for Deseg. Assistant Supts. Assoc, to Deputy Supt. Associate Supt. for Deseg. ' At present, only one Associate Superintendent exists. This reference is interpreted as other senior level administrators in the district. 2 This item is less of a task and more of a result. 10/6/94 DIRSAOZ.DOCDirector of Student Assignment Business Case 3 Cunently, the position of Desegregation Facilitator is vacant because of a retirement. By modifying the position now, no adjustments are necessary for the person in the position. The position will be advertised as described herein. The new person will know what is expected before filling the position. An extended period of training will be necessary once a person is employed. Time for announcing the position and interviewing will be necessary. This should take no more than one month to complete once final approval is given. The busiest time of the year for student assignment is January through September. The sooner we can make this change\nthe sooner we can begin improving service to parents. The following are milestones for implementing this position modification. 1. 2. 3. 4. 5, 6. '.Sb- 7/ 8. 9. Milestone Meet with SAO staff. Director of Communications, the Coordinator of VIPS, and the Director of Transportation^ Present Business Case to the Superintendent for approval Present Business Case to the Board of Directors for approval Present Business Case to ODM to begin modification procedure Discuss this modification with all parties Submit plan modification to the Court for approved_________________ Court approval Advertise the position Interview 10. Report for work Date 8/30/94 6/14/94 6/14/94 10/03/94 10/14/94 10/21/94 11/04/94 11/07/94 11/22/94 12/05/94 Person Mayo Mayo Williams Attorney Attorney Attorneys Williams Hurley Mayo Appointee Timely consideration of this modification is respectfully requested. Russ Mayo Associate Superintendent for Desegregation September, 1994 3 Though discussed in staff meetings with this group, a specific date was not reflected in an earlier edition of this business case. /Another discussion was held updating this group on the progress of the business case. Therefore, the date appears to be out of sequence. 10/6(94 DIRSAOZ DOCDirector of Student Assignment Business Case 4 Background The position of Associate Superintendent for Desegregation was established to insure implementation of our desegregation plan as well as to monitor the districts desegregation process. Historically, this has been done through careful oversight of the Student Assignment Office (SAO), generation of numerous statistical reports, and staying abreast of the latest desegregation obligations. Also included with these responsibilities has been oversight of Volunteers In Public Schools (VIPS) and responsibility for recruitment of students as described in the desegregation plan. This past year, the responsibilities of Communications and Transportation were added to this position. Transportation has over 340 employees. Also added this school year are additional reports and documents generated monthly and quarterly to monitor the districts progress in fulfilling its obligations under its plan. Problem Definition The Student Assignment Office is not receiving as much day-to-day supervision as it should to address the sensitivity of student assignments, their impact on the desegregation plan, and the needs of parents. The responsibilities of student assignment require moment by moment attention. Decisions about when to release waiting lists affect racial balance and recruitment of parents to the district. Careful and proper monitoring of racial balance and the student assignment process improves public confidence and maintains racial balance. Projecting demographic data and enrollments aids in planrfing for future marketing, recruitment, and school closings or construction. Executing plans for closing schools requires attention to patrons who are affected and the assurance of acceptable options. The supervision of SAO personnel requires meetings, planning, and periodic training. Meeting with parents who do not understand the student assignment process requires diplomacy, patience, and time. Meeting with the appeals committee requires time and diplomacy. These are examples of student assignment responsibilities requiring day-to-day, on-site attention. Currently the Associate Superintendent for Desegregation fulfills the role of the student assignment supervisor in addition to broader responsibilities. Though housed at the SAO, his responsibilities require his presence and attention elsewhere too often. This makes the day-to-day attention required by the student assignment impossible. Analysis of Alternatives The following alternatives have been considered: 10/6/94 D1RSAOZ.DOCDirector of Student Assigrunent Business Case 5 1. Add a new position to cover the responsibilities of student assignment and to assist the Associate Superintendent for Desegregation. This creates an additional position and personnel costs. 2. Allow things to remain as they are. SAO and parents will continue to receive less Associate Superintendent Organizational Chart than attention. adequate 3. I Associate SupTintendent j I Director of Transportation staff Director of Student Assignment and Desegregation Student Assignment Coordinator SAO tnformetton Coordinetor Director of Communications j (2) Recruiters | Ccmmunlly Ocvdopmcfrt Co^rdlnctor (VIPS) I staff i I ProqfI iMinar I (8) Studant Aaslafffat Asslstawtiii~] Figure 1 Change the position of Desegregation Facilitator to Director of Student Assignment. Realign responsibilities so the new director assumes the responsibility primary for Student and the assignment, Associate Superintendent Desegregation for assumes responsibility primary for desegregation and the duties previously done by the Desegregation Facilitator. This neither increases the costs of personnel nor ignores the responsibilities of the Desegregation Facilitator. Further, it gives the attention necessary to student assignment and allows for greater focus on the desegregation effort. This position will report to the Associate Superintendent for Desegregation. See Figure 1. Now, more than before, senior management is totally involved in the desegregation effort. The responsibilities of the Superintendent, the Deputy Superintendent, Associate to the Deputy Superintendent, Associate Superintendent for Desegregation, Director of Planning, Research, and Evaluation, and staff development personnel are all focused on the desegregation effort. The implementation of a planning and budgeting process has raised the effort to a new consciousness. Now monitoring of desegregation is more extensive than ever. Continuous discussions and analysis in meetings of the Superintendents Council have moved obligations to the forefront. The Program Budget Document and the Management Tool represent additional safeguards not previously used by the district. Therefore, the original intent of the Desegregation Facilitator has grown beyond a single individual into a way of life for senior management in the district. Addressing the need in the area of student assignment now becomes an important part of the solution. The following are examples of responsibilities to be assigned to the new position: 1(V64 DIRSAOZ.DOCDirector of Student Assignment Business Case 6 a) Supervises and coordinates the day-to-day operation of the Student Assignment Office\nb) Keeps the Associate Superintendent informed and updated on progress made in performing responsibilities relating to student assignment and on any relevant information discovered in the performance of these duties\nc) Assists with developmental planning in the areas of long-range student assignment policies, magnet school development, program placement, and equal educationeil opportunity planning, and proposal development by providing demographic information and other pertinent information\nd) Assists with monitoring and evaluating the districts desegregation plan\ne) Assists in identifying problems or practices that impede the implementation of quality desegregation in the student assignment process\nf) Provides immediate feedback on the day-to-day operations relating to student assignment\ng) Stays informed of current issues before the Board of Directors by attending Board Meetings\nh) Provides for the development, implementation, and evaluation of staff training for Student Assignment Office personnel\ni) Coordinates the appeals committee\nand, j) Performs other duties as assigned. The LRSD Plan defines the position of Desegregation Facilitator. Those tasks are found in the Educational Equity Monitoring section of the plan. The primary responsibility for the tasks described in the LRSD Plan will rest with the Associate Superintendent for Desegregation with this proposal. In the plan, the Desegregation Facilitator is defined as follows: Office of Desegregation A desegregation facilitator will be hired to work directly with building principals. The desegregation facilitator will be solely responsible for identifying problems or practices that impede the implementation of quality desegregated education in each building. The facilitator will also be responsible for providing technical assistance to building principals and their Steiffs, for desegregation related concerns. The use of a desegregation facilitator will eillow the central office administration to have immediate feedback on the day to day activities in the schools. The desegregation facilitator will report directly to the Associate Superintendent for Desegregation. However, the desegregation facilitator will work very closely with the remaining associate superintendents as needed. The desegregation facilitator will focus on all aspects of desegregation implementation. This includes, but is not limited to, achievement disparity. W\u0026amp;M D1RSAOZ.DOCDirector of Student Assignment Business Case 7 extracurricular activities, class assignments, guidance and counseling, staffing and staff interaction, student interaction, and parent involvement. Timeline Develop Job Description Announce Position Hire Desegregation Facilitator March 1-15 April 1-15 May 30 The responsibilities of the former Desegregation Facilitator will become the primary responsibility of the Associate Superintendent for Desegregation. He will be assisted by those persons listed in the chart below. Tasks 1. Work directly with building principals 2. Identification of problems or practices that impede the implementation of quality desegregated education in each building 3. Providing technical assistance to building principals and their staffs for desegregation concerns______ 4. Working very closely with the remaining associate superintendents^ as needed_________________ 5. Allow the central office administration to have immediate feedback on the day-to-day activities in the schools^___________________________________ 6. Focusing on all aspects of desegregation implementation including, but not limited to achievement disparity, extracurricular activities, class assignments, guidance eind counseling, staffing and staff interaction, student interactions, and parent involvement. Personas) Associate Supt. for Deseg. Assistant Supts. Assoc, to Deputy Supt. Assistant Supts. Assoc, to Deputy Supt. Dir. of Human Resources Dir. of Labor Relations Dir. of Student Assignment Assoc. Supt for Deseg. Dir. of Staff Development Associate Supt. for Deseg. Assistant Supts. Assoc, to Deputy Supt. Associate Supt. for Deseg. 4 At present, only one Associate Superintendent exists. This reference is interpreted as other senior level administrators in the district. 5 This item is less of a task and more of a result\". 10/6/94 MRSAOZ DOCDirector of Student Assignment Business Case 8 Recommendation Alternative 3 is recommended. 3. Change the position of Desegregation Facilitator to Director of Student Assignment. Realign tasks to make this position responsible primarily for student assignment. The responsibilities of the former Desegregation Facilitator will become the responsibility of the Associate Superintendent for Desegregation. This change neither increases the costs of personnel nor ignores the responsibilities of the Desegregation Facilitator. Further, it gives the attention necessary to student assignment. This position will continue to report to the Associate Superintendent for Desegregation. Objective Upon implementation of alternative 3, the Student Assignment Office will receive the day-to-day supervision necessary to address the sensitivity of student assignments, their impact on the desegregation plan, and the needs of parents. Achieving this objective will permit: 1. More efficient monitoring of progress of desegregation by the Associate Superintendent for Desegregation\n2. Greater focus and attention given to daily decisions relating to student assignment\n3. Thorough long-range planning for student assignment policies, magnet school development, program placement, equal educational opportunity planning, and proposal development by providing demographic information and other pertinent information\n4. Quicker response to parent inquires\nand, 5. Identification of problems or practices in the student assignment process that impede the implementation of quality desegregation. Impact Analysis Negatives 1. Student Assignment Personnel will have to adjust to a third supervisor within three years. 2. Parties in the case may be concerned that monitoring of the districts desegregation obligations will be compromised. 10/6/94 DIRSAOZ.DOCDirector of Student Assignment Business Case 9 Positives 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. eliminate delays in decision-making and responses to parents in the area of student assignments. permit efficient monitoring of progress of desegregation by the Associate Superintendent for Desegregation\nbring more focus and attention to daily decisions relating to student assignment\nprovide more thorough long-range planning for student assignment policies, magnet school development, program placement, equal educational opportunity planning, and proposal development by providing demographic information and other pertinent information\nallow quicker response to parent inquires\nand, permit the identification of problems or practices in the student assignment process that impede the implementation of quality desegregation. Risks The risks of not implementing this solution are continued disorganization for the Associate Superintendent for Desegregation, complaints, limited compliance with our obligations, and continuation of a generally poor public image in the area of student assignments. Timing I Currently, the position of Desegregation Facilitator is vacant because of a retirement. By modifying the position now, no adjustments are necessary for the person in the position. The position will be advertised as described herein. The new person will know what is expected before filling the position. An extended period of training will be necessary once a person is employed. Time for announcing the position and interviewing will be necessary. This should take no more than one month to complete once final approval is given. The busiest time of the year for student assignment is January through September. The sooner we can make this change\nthe sooner we can begin improving service to parents. Resources Analysis Personnel This is a position modification requiring no increase or decrease in the number of existing positions. 10/(3/94 D1RSAOZ.DOCDirector of Student Assignment Business Case 10 Financial No increase will occur in the current level of funding for this position. Revenue Source Funding for this position will come from the current line item of the budget. Force Field Analysis Primary supporters of this modification are council members, SAO staff. Director of Communications, the Coordinator of VIPS, and the Director of Transportation. General Information Plan The following are milestones for implementing this position modification. 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. Milestone Meet with SAO staff. Director of Communications, the Coordinator of VIPS, and the Director of Transportation^ Present Business Case to the Superintendent for approval Present Business Case to the Board of Directors for approved Present Business Case to ODM to begin modification procedure Discuss this modification with all parties Submit plan modification to the Court for approval 7. Court approval -,3 8. 9. Advertise the position Interview 10. Report for work Date 8/30/94 6/14/94 6/14/94 10/03/94 10/14/94 10/21/94 11/04/S4 11/07/94 11/22/94 12/05/94 Person Mayo Mayo Williams Mayo Attorney Attorneys Williams Hurley Mayo Appointee -rt. \u0026gt; -* 5 J.+ '!f-.t5Cj.xe!5r4r\n: t3S! 6 Though discussed in staff meetings with this group, a specific date was not reflected in an earlier edition of this business case. Another discussion was held updating this group on the progress of the business case. Therefore, the date appears to be out of sequence. 10/6/94 DIRSAOZ.DOCer 1 3il^W\u0026lt;ZM\u0026lt;^y^.4SKaSg?igSi^.w^ Little Rock School District OFFICE OF THE SUPERINTENDENT November 3, 1994 received NOV 4 1994. Judge Susan Webber Wright U. S. Federal Court Eastern District of Arkansas 600 West Capitol Little Rock, AR 72201 Office of Desegregation Monitoring Dear Judge Wright: Enclosed is a bound copy of the Pulaski County Desegregation Case foundation documents. Included are the Settlement Agreement, the Interdistrict Plan, the Court Order (May 1992) relating to plan modifications, and the LRSD Desegregation Plan. They (except the Cour\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_396","title":"Desegregation plan modifications (April 1992 plan)","collection_id":"bcas_bcmss0837","collection_title":"Office of Desegregation Management","dcterms_contributor":null,"dcterms_spatial":["United States, 39.76, -98.5","United States, Arkansas, 34.75037, -92.50044","United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, 34.76993, -92.3118","United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, Little Rock, 34.74648, -92.28959"],"dcterms_creator":null,"dc_date":["1991/1996"],"dcterms_description":null,"dc_format":["application/pdf"],"dcterms_identifier":null,"dcterms_language":["eng"],"dcterms_publisher":["Little Rock, Ark. : Butler Center for Arkansas Studies. Central Arkansas Library System"],"dc_relation":null,"dc_right":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC-EDU/1.0/"],"dcterms_is_part_of":["Office of Desegregation Monitoring records (BC.MSS.08.37)","History of Segregation and Integration of Arkansas's Educational System"],"dcterms_subject":["Little Rock (Ark.)--History--20th century","Little Rock School District","Education--Arkansas","Educational planning","School integration","School improvement programs"],"dcterms_title":["Desegregation plan modifications (April 1992 plan)"],"dcterms_type":["Text"],"dcterms_provenance":["Butler Center for Arkansas Studies"],"edm_is_shown_by":null,"edm_is_shown_at":["http://arstudies.contentdm.oclc.org/cdm/ref/collection/bcmss0837/id/396"],"dcterms_temporal":null,"dcterms_rights_holder":null,"dcterms_bibliographic_citation":null,"dlg_local_right":["Available for use in research, teaching, and private study. Any other use requires permission from the Butler Center."],"dcterms_medium":["documents (object genre)"],"dcterms_extent":["111 pages"],"dlg_subject_personal":null,"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":"\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n\n\n\n   \n\n\n\n\n   \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n  \n\nbyu 3- HERSCHEL H. FRIDAY 11 922-1 9941 ROBERT V. light. P.A. WILLIAM H. SUTTON. P.A. JAMES W. MOORE BYRON M. EISEMAN. JR.. P A. JOE 0. BELL. P.A. JOHN C. ECHOLS. P.A. JAMES A. BUTTRY, P A. FREDERICK S. URSERY. P.A. H.T. LARZELERE. P.A. OSCAR E. DAVIS. JR.. P.A. JAMES C. CLARK. JR.. P.A. THOMAS P. LEGGETT. P.A. JOHN DEWEY WATSON. P.A. PAUL B. BENHAM 111. P.A. LARRY W. BURKS. P.A. A, WYCKLIFF NISBET, JR.. P.A. JAMES EDWARD HARRIS. P.A. J. PHILLIP MALCOM. P.A. JAMES M. SIMPSON. P.A. MEREDITH P. CATLETT. P.A. JAMES M. SAXTON. P.A. J. SHEPHERD RUSSELL III. P.A. DONALD H. BACON. P.A. WILLIAM THOMAS BAXTER. P.A. WALTER A. PAULSON II, P.A. BARRY e. COPLIN, P.A. RICHARD 0. TAYLOR. P.A. JOSEPH B. HURST. JR.. P.A. ELIZABETH ROBBEN MURRAY. P.A. CHRISTOPHER HELLER, P.A. LAURA HENSLEY SMITH. P.A. ROBERT S. SHAFER. P.A. WILLIAM M. GRIFFIN III. P.A. THOMAS N. ROSE. P.A. MICHAEL S. MOORE, P.A. DIANE S. MACKEY, P A. WALTER M. EBEL UI, P.A. FRIDAY, ELDREDGE \u0026amp; CLARK A PARTNERSHIP OF INDIVIDUALS AND PROFESSIONAL ASSOCIATIONS ATTORNEYS AT LAW 2000 FIRST COMMERCIAL BUILDING 400 WEST CAPITOL LITTLE ROCK. ARKANSAS 72201-3493 TELEPHONE 501-376-201 1 KEVIN A. CRASS. P.A. WILLIAM A. WADDELL, jR.. P A. CLYDE -TAB- TURNER. PA. CALVIN J. HALL. P.A. SCOTT J. LANCASTER. P A. JERRY L. MALONE, P.A. M. GAVLE CORLEY. P.A. ROBERT B. BEACH. JR.. P.A. J. LEE BROWN. P.A. JAMES C. BAKER. JR.. P A. H. CHARLES GSCHWENO. JR.. P A. HARRY A. LIGHT. P.A. FAX NO. 501-376-2147 June 30, 1995 JUi 1995 Office of DesegrsgciiC'h i.-cr SCO H. TUCKER. P.A, JOHN CLAYTON RANDOLPH. P.A. GUY ALTON WADE. P.A. PRICE C. GARDNER. P.A. J. MICHAEL PICKENS TONIA P. JONES DAVID 0. WILSON JEFFREY H. MOORE ANDREW T. TURNER DAVID M.GRAF CARLA G. SPAINHOUR JOHN C. FENDLEY. JR. ALLISON GRAVES JONANN C. ROOSEVELT R. CHRISTOPHER LAWSON GREGORY 0. TAYLOR TONY L. WILCOX FRAN C. HICKMAN BETTY J. DEMORY couMseu WILLIAM J. SMITH WILLIAM A. ELDREDGE, JR.. P.A. 8.S. CLARK WILLIAM L. TERRY. P.A. WILLIAM L. PATTON. JR.. P.A. WRireil'S DIRECT NO. l50n 370-1 553 Mr. John W. Walker JOHN W. WALKER, P.A. Attorneys at Law 1723 Broadway Little Rock, Arkansas Mrs. Ann Brown Attorney at Law Heritage West Building, Suite 520 201 East Markham Street 72206 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Mr. Sam Jones WRIGHT, LINDSEY i JENNINGS Attorneys at Law 2200 Worthen Bank Building 200 West Capitol Avenue Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Mr. Richard Roachell ROACHELL \u0026amp; STREETT Attorneys at Law First Federal Plaza, Suite 504 401 West Capitol Avenue Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Mr. Stephen W. Jones JACK, LYON t JONES, P.A. 3400 Capitol Towers Capitol \u0026amp; Broadway Streets Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Re: LRSD V. PCSSD, et al Gentlemen and Mrs. Brown: Enclosed please find a copy of LRSD's Motion for Modification of Desegregation Plan and Memorandum Brief in Support of LRSD's Motion for Modification of Desegregation Plan which are being filed with the Court today. d iana\\pcsM\\aiiomey. it2Gentlemen and Mrs. Brown June 30, 1995 Page 2 Thank you for your attention to this matter. Sincerely, Jerry L. Malone LRSD Attorney JLM/dtw Enclosures cc (w/enc): Dr. Henry P. Williams Dr. Russell Mayo Dr. Robert Glowers LRSD Board of Directors diana\\pcs$d\\at(orney. 1(2A IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT PLAINTIFF VS. NO. LR-C-82-866 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL' DISTRICT NO. 1, ET AL REGS''\"' DEFENDANTS , tazs MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL INTERVENORS KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL Jill 1995 INTERVENORS D . Office of Desegregc.ticn Monitoring LRSDS MOTION FOR MODIFICATION OF DESEGREGATION PLAN The Plaintiff, Little Rock School District (\"LRSD\" or \"District\") , for its Motion for Modification of Desegregation Plan, states: 1. The LRSD currently operates approximately twenty-three (23) elementary area schools for the education of children in the various attendance zones for each school and as otherwise may be assigned to a particular school. Two of those schools. Fair Park Elementary School and Badgett Elementary School, have been identified for closing beginning'the 1995-96 school year after a thorough review of the facts. circumstances and financial constraints of the District. 2 . Attached hereto as Exhibit One (1) is a true and accurate copy of the business case developed by the Little Rock School District to support the recommendation to close Badgett Elementary diana\\pc5sd\\(nodirica(ion.nKK -1-School. Attached hereto as Exhibit Two (2) is a true and accurate copy of the Memorandum reflecting the time line for the various tasks necessary to give the appropriate notices and allow for the appropriate involvement of community, patrons and other interested parties. 3 . Attached hereto as Exhibit Three (3) is a true and accurate copy of the business case developed by the Little Rock School District to support the recommendation to close Fair Park Elementary School. Attached hereto as Exhibit Four (4) is a true and accurate copy of the Memorandum reflecting the time line for the various tasks necessary to give the appropriate notices and allow for the appropriate involvement of community, patrons and other interested parties. 4 . This Court has consistently encouraged the District to pursue budget reduction strategies which reflect its appreciation of the need to eliminate recurring expenditures through the use of strategies which are themselves recurring in nature from year-to- year. In light of the number of vacant seats which exist in the District, the under-enrollment of certain schools in the District and the major expenses required to operate and maintain a school. among other factors. the LRSD has determined that it IS a reasonable budget deduction strategy to consider school closings among the various other strategies reviewed and considered by it. Since the development and approval of LRSD's Desegregation Plan, there have been significant changes in conditions which warrant diana\\pcs$d\\modificaiioft. mo( -2-modification of that plan. Namely, there has been a significant decline in student enrollment at each school since the 1989-90 school year and, consequently, operational costs per student have continued to increase. Further, the physical structures are in need of renovation and upgrading. but to do so would cost considerably more than the average cost of renovating and upgrading other buildings in the District. 5 . The modification of the desegregation plan which is most suitably tailored to the changed circumstances is to permit the District to close Badgett Elementary School and Fair Park Elementary School. Such a modification would allow the District to reassign the students currently attending those schools, reassign building administrators and staff to allow for greater efficiency and, to some extent. improve the racial balance at the receiving schools. In those instances where the racial balance of the receiving school will not be improved, the District will attempt to accomplish reassignment in such a manner that the current racial balance is not significantly impacted in a negative manner. Attached hereto as Exhibit Five (5) is a true and accurate copy of the District's rating sheet and explanations for the study made of its facilities to determine whether schools should be closed. As noted, Badgett Elementary School and Fair Park Elementary School had the highest negative ratings. 6. This proposed modification is in compliance with the standards for modification of consent decrees set out in Rufo v. dianaxpcssdVmodificaiHJn.nxx -3-1  Inmates of Suffolk County Jail. 502 U. S. , 112 S.Ct. 748, 116 L.Ed.2d. 867 (1992) and Appeal of Little Rock School District. 949 F.2d. 253, 258 (8th Cir., 1991). WHEREFORE, for the reasons set out above and in the accompanying brief. LRSD prays for modification of the LRSD desegregation plan to permit it to close Badgett Elementary School and Fair Park Elementary School beginning with the 1995-96 school. year. Respectfully submitted. FRIDAY, ELDREDGE \u0026amp; CLARK Attorneys at Law 2000 First Commercial Building 400 West Capitol Little Rock, Arkansas (501) 72201-3493 diana\\pcsl\\nxxlificaiKxi.mo( 376-2011 ATTORNEYS FOR PLAINTIFF LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT Jerry L. Malone Bar No. I. D. 85096 -4- 1  CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I, Jerry L. Malone, do hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing LRSD's Motion for Modification of Desegregation Plan has been served by U. S. Mail, postage prepaid, except as otherwise 7\u0026gt; indicated. on the 3o day of 1995, upon the following: Mr. John W. Walker JOHN W. WALKER, P.A. Attorneys at Law 1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72206 Mr. Samuel M. Jones, III WRIGHT, LINDSEY \u0026amp; JENNINGS Attorneys at Law 2200 Worthen Bank Building 200 West Capitol Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Stephen W. Jones JACK, LYON \u0026amp; JONES, P.A. Attorneys at Law 3400 Capitol Towers Capitol \u0026amp; Broadway Streets Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Richard W. Roachell ROACHELL \u0026amp; STREETT Attorneys at Law First Federal Plaza, Suite 504 401 West Capitol Avenue Little Rock, AR 72201 Mrs. Ann Brown (Hand-delivered as per Order by the Court) Attorney at Law Heritage West Building, Suite 520 201 East Markham Street Little Rock, AR 72201 Jerry L. Malone dianftxpcssdkmodiftcaiiofl.mot -5-- exhibit 1 Little Rock School District Badgett School Relocation A Business Case January, 1995 Addition Modification 4 Deletion $523,000 savings EXHIBIT 1 'I'WiRadgett School Relocation Business Case 2 jExecutiv^umm^^ For several years, the Little Rock School District (LRSD) has faced austere budgets. Though many strate^es were developed to cut costs, most have been one time cuts. A comparison of the district s total building capacity and total enrollment shows many vacant seats. While a larger than normal number of seats are necessary for desegregation, the number of vacant seats is significant. Said another way, LRSD has too many school buildings. The financing of any school is a major expense. Therefore, serious consideration must be given to closing some schools. It is a reasonable strategy. The savings are significant and are repeated from year to year. As attractive as it is to saving mone), it is more unattractive to the patrons of the school considered for closing. Because it is an emotional issue, specific research criteria were used in making the decision about which school to close. Badgett has become expendable as a public school because of its isolation, its declining enrollment, and its increasing costs in per pupil expenditure and in building operation. The following are closing: reasons why Badgett Elementary School is considered for 1. 2. 3. As of October 1,1994, the school was filled to only 68.87% of its capacity\nThe capacity of the school itself (257) is below the district average of 475 for area elementary schools. Therefore, if the school were at capacity, the school would not operate efficiently when compared to other average size schools\nEnrollment since 1989 has declined steadily from 237 to 177 and is expected to continue\n4. The school is out of racial balance by 15.14%. It has not been within balance as far back as 1989 in spite of efforts to reverse this. A dramatic increase of 5.30% in percentage black occurred this year\n5. Because the attendance zone (160) is smaller than the capacity of the school (257), students must come from elsewhere to fill the school. Successful experience in recruiting has not been achieved for this school. 6. The per pupil cost has increased to $4021.87 in 1994-95 which is the highest of any area elementary schools\n7. The school is geographically isolated from other populations. The additional population to fill the school must come from other attendance zones which will negatively impact other schools\n8. Operational costs for the building have increased enough to make this school one on the most expensive to operate annually\nand, 9. The building is in need of renovation and upgrading. Together these costs will exceed 51,000,000, which is considerably more that the average cost of renovation and upgrading needed at other buildings. t iBadgett School Relocation Business Case 3 By the opening of school fitr 1995-96, Badgett students will be relocated, faculty will be reassigned according to the negotiated contract, and appropriate reductions in positions will be completed with a minimum of disruption to these individuals and the school district. Plan. Fulfilling this proposal will require a modification to the LRSD Desegregation This proposal supports LRSD goals relating to securing financial necessary to support schools and the desegregation program. resources a The problem will be considered solved if the following list of criteria is met: 1. New attendance zones affected by this relocation will reflect a better racial balance\n2. 3. 4. The community is given the opportunity to be heard on the decision\nTransportation is re-routed to accommodate these students\nSpecial activities are plarmed and implemented by each new school to make the new students and patrons feel welcomed\n5. New patrons are included in appropriate school correspondence and activities with those who have been enrolled\n6. 7. 8. Leaders within the community are made aware of the relocation plan and have the opportunity for input\nImmediate cost savings is realized\nand, The relocation of students and staff at will be complete before the opening of school 1QQC nr r o for 1995-96. Most of these benefits will occur when the process concludes. Desegregation Plan goals will not be altered. Parent concerns about the process and their newly assigned school will be minimal District officials are aware that the community will be concerned about relocating the students. A number of school buildings have been abandoned in the city. These are of paramount concern to many community members. Some will want to know if a plan exists for use of the building when the students are relocated. Some will want assurance that students will receive equal program quality in the reassigned school. While these concerns are understandable, we believe we can offer our students an equal program in a more economical way. Negatives 1. Students and staff will experience their friends\nsome disappointment in being separated from 2. Communit}' reaction will be strong against the decision for fear of the impact on the community as mentioned above\n3. The building may stand vacant for a period of time if not used by an agency or the community\nBadgett School Relocation Business Case 4 4. The general community may react to the redrawing of attendance general area of the city. zones in that Positives 1. Students will receive assignment to schools equal to current programs\n2. Special activities will be planned and implemented by each newly assigned school make new students and patrons feel welcomed\nto 3. New patrons are included in appropriate school correspondence and activities with those who have been enrolled\n4. Elementary schools in contiguous areas are capable of absorbing the student population of Badgett\n0. Immediate and year-to-year cost savings will be realized of approximately $523,000\nand,. 6. The Badgett School facility may be available to the community for use pending court approval. The risks of not implementing this solution is increasing district costs thus inhibiting the expected goals of desegregation and responsible fiscal management. It is critical that the process be complete before the opening of school for 1995-96. If this solution is to be implemented, patrons will need to know immediately after the Board of Directors decides to pursue this alternative. Awareness and input must be generated in the community through meetings. Eventually, students must be notified of their new assignments, and a number of other tasks as noted in the timeline (later page) must be addressed. This will impact projected enrollment at other schools, transportation, food services, and the relocation of students, staff, and equipment. The following milestones for implementing this proposal are suggested and will be monitored by the Associate Superintendent for Desegregation. Milestone___________________ 1 Develop a list of key people in the community who should be contacted immediately 2. Contact the principals of surrounding schools who may be affected by the relocation 3. Business Case presented to the LRSD Board of Directors for approval____________ 4. Make contact with key people in the community who should be contacted immediately and solicit support for getting people to community information meetings. Include PTA president and ministers.___________________ 5. Compile list and mailing labels of all students living in the Badgett School attendance zone and those scheduled to attend the school. Sort the lists by: a) those who attend Badgett School but live outside of the attendance zone b) those who attend Badgett School but live in the attendance zone\nand, c) those who do not attend Badgett School but live in the attendance zone. Date 1/13/95 1/25/95 1/31/95 2/10/95 2/10/95 Person Modeste Modeste Williams Modeste MayoBadgett School Relocation Business Case 5 Milestone  Develop notice of relocation and dale of community information meeting to send to a) parents 4 students: b) community groups and churches\nc) media (press release) d) for door-to-door delivery in the neighborhood 7 Conduct informational meeting with the pnncipal, faculty, and staff about the proc^ 8. Mail notice of possible relocation and date of community information meetino to\"------ a) parents \u0026amp; students: b) community groups and churches\nc) media (press release) 9. Deliver fliers, door-to-door, announcing the relocation and date of the infonnation meeting 10. Conduct community information meetings by 11 Notify finance person to include this as a budget reduction strategy _1_2. File motion with the U. S. Federal Court to relate students at aadgeff School 13. Develop letter to parents and students with announcement and reassignment 14. Inventory building ' ------------------ 15. Design plan for new attendance zones in southwest. 16. Mail letter to parents and students with announcement and assignment' 17 Remove matenals and equipment from school --------- 18. Reroute transportation of students 19. Secure building 20. Reassign staff___________ 21. Send final assignment notices Date 2/10/95 2/10/95 2J2QI^S 2/22/9S 2/28/95 3/3/95 3/15/95 4/19/95 5/30/95 6/1/95 6/15/95 7/31/95 7/31/95 7/31/95 7/31/95 8/1/95 Person Mayo Modeste Mayo Mayo Williams Williams Williams Mayo Neal Mayo Mayo Eaton Cheatham Eaton Hurley Mayo Background For several years, the LzffZe Rock School District (LRSD) has faced austere budgets. K ______J_____1____J . . . - . many vacant seats. Though many strate^es were developed to cut costs, most have been one time cuts. A comparison of the district's total building capacity and total enrollment shows While a larger than normal number of seats are necessary for desegregation, the number of vacant seats is significant. Said another way, LRSD has too many school buildings. The financing of any school is a major expense. Therefore, serious consideration must be given to closing some schools. It is a reasonable strategy. The savings are significant and are repeated from year to year. As attractive as it is'to saving money, it is more unattractive to the patrons of the school considered for closing. Because it is an emotional issue, specific research criteria were used in making the decision about which school to close. Based on the criteria used, Badgett Elementary School is a school that must be considered for closing. It is located in the extreme eastern tip of the City of Little Rock. See Attachment A. Reasons for this conclusion are explained in this business case. I Problem Definition Badgett has become expendable as a public school because of its isolation, its declining enrollment, and its increasing costs in per pupil expenditure and in building operation.Badgett School Relocation Business Case 6 The following are reasons why Badgett Elementary School is considered for closing: 1. As of October 1,1994, the school was filled to only 68.87% of its capacity\n2- The capacity of the school itself (257) is below the district average of 425 for area elementary schools. Therefore, if the school were at capacity, the school would not operate efficiently when compared to other average size schools\n3. Enrollment since 1989 has declined steadily from 237 to 177 and is expected to continue\nThe school is out of racial balance by 15.14%. It has not been within balance as far back as 1989 in spite of efforts to reverse this. A dramatic increase of 5.30% in percentage black occurred this year\n5. Because the attendance zone (160) is smaller than the capacity of the school (257), students must come from elsewhere to fill the school. Successful experience in recruiting has not been achieved for this school. 6. The per pupil cost has increased to $4021.87 in 1994-95 which is the highest of any area elementary schools\nThe additional 7. The school is geographically isolated from other populations. population to fill the school must come from other attendance zones which will negatively impact other schools\n8. Operational costs for the building have increased enough to make this school one on the most expensive to operate annually\nand, 9. The building is in need of renovation and upgrading. Together these costs will exceed $1,000,000, which is considerably more that the average cost of renovation and upgrading needed at other buildings. Figure 2 illustrates some of these trends.Badgett School Relocation Business Case 7 Figure I Badgett Elementary Enrollment History Criteria Enrollment % Black % Out of Balance Capacity__________ Attnd. Zone Ttl.~ AZ % Black 1989-90 1990-91 1991-92 1992-93] 1993-94 237 76.00 16.00 92.22 222 74.77 14.77 86.38 220 73.18 13.18 85.60 202 76.24 16.24 78.60 189 69.84 9.84 73.54 135 65.93 1994-95 177 75.14 15.14 68.87 160 61.25   to bring children of different cultures together for 0 d^egXgZ To toe to M-M transte across that ime to Badgett, if permitted, would  ' J  , ,, - ------because that area of PCSSD ic North Little Kock School District, which does not participate in M to M Iransfeis now. To the west. the school is buffered from the See Attachment A. rest of the city by the airport and industrial complexes. Analysis of Alternatives Solutions were discussed with LRSD. Data on attendance a committee representing administrators in the zones, enrollment, ethnic makeup of students in the school as well as those in the attendance zone were reviewed, .^/considerable discussion It was decided that three things must be addressed for an alternative to be satisfactory. They were declimng enrollment, increasing costs, and location. Addressing only or two and not all three aspects seriously compromises an effective solution. one Inherent in the selection of an alternative is the assumption that the problem can 1 J J , , ----- uiai uic pruDiem ran be addressed adequately if the alternative offers quality for students and cost efficiency for tax.payers. To be a good alternative, it must address adequately all areas of concern. The alternative solutions considered are listed below: 1. Change nothing This will not address any aspect of the problem and will allow costs to grow annually\n' Enrollments are for Octoller of each year. Attendance zone data is available for two vears only.Badgett School Relocation Business Case s 2. Redraw the attendance zone to increase the number of students attending Badgett School. per-pupil costs at Badgett but will increase costs elsewhere since :s zone must be reduced to enlarge Badgett's. Further it wnnlH impact in negative ways the enrollment of other schools. This reduces the another attendance areas of the problem. addresses all three a) A plan to relocate students will be devised. Attachment C\nOne possible scenario appears in b) An immediate savings of approximately $523,000 will be eliminating the need for management staff, food and utilities to name a few\nrealized by service, building maintenance, c) d) t Staff will be relocated according to the provisions of the negotiated contract. I*  0 ihools under the program for that particular school. k r? location causes it to be ^ficult to desegregate. Recruitment has been tried in IKSD. The results havM ^n stgiuficM. U the enrollment of Badgett were increased by this effort, it would attendar^^zone \"* n- To the south of the if ^CSSD boundary line. M-M transfers across that line to Llk 'oL *T^oXh T  predominately Little Rock School ff ' in M to M transfers now. To the west the school IS Recommendation Alternative 3 is recommended. addresses all of the Objective By the opening of school for 2995-96, Badgett students will be relocated, faculty will be reassigned according to the negotiated contract, and appropriate reductions in positions will be completed with a minimum of disruption to these individuals and the school district.Badgett School Relocation Ptisincss Case 9 Fulfilling this proposal will Th. proposal support mllhof \" necessary to support schools and the desegregation Plan. to The problem will be considered solved if program. securing financial resources 1. 2. 3. 4. New attendance the following list of criteria is met\nzones affected by this relocahon will reflect a better racial balance\nThe community is given the opportunity to be heard Transportation is Special activities i re-routed to accommodate these students\non the decision\nStudents and patrons feel welcomed\nplemented by each new school to make the new \" and activities with 6. Leaders within the opportunity for inpu*^ \"\" P' have the 7. Immediate cost savings is realized\nand, 8. The relocation of students and staff for 1995-96. at will be complete before the opening of school Most of these benefits will Plan goals will not be altered. occur when the process concludes. Desegregation assigned school will be minimal. arent concerns about the process and their newly The desegregation plan must be modified to accommodate this proposal.' District officials are aware that the community will be concerned about relocating the students. A number of school buflto\nSv^e Z aranS::? Pamount concern to ^y co^unity members. _  Of the buildmg when the students are relocated. Some will --s ..\"J receive equal program quality in the reassigned know if a plan exists for use in the city. Some will want to want assurance that students will concerns are understandable, we believe we c^ offer an equal program in a more economical way. our students Negatives 1. Students and staff will their friends\nexperience some disappointment in being separated from 2 Community reaction will be strong against the decision for community a.s mentioned above\nfear of the impact on the Badgett School Relocation Business Case 10 3. The building may stand vacant for a period of time if not used by an agency community\nor the 4. The general community may react to the redrawing of attendance general area of the city. Positives zones in that 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. Students will receive assignment to schools equal to current programs\nSpecial activities will be planned and implemented by each newly assigned school make new students and patrons feel welcomed\nto New patrons are included in appropriate school correspondence and activities with those who have been enrolled\nElementary schools in contiguous areas are capable of absorbing the student population of Badgett\n^mediate and year-to-year cost savings will be realized of approximately $523,000\nThe Badgett School facility may be available to the community for use pending court approval. Risks The risks of not implementing this solution is increasing district costs thus inhibiting the expected goals of desegregation and responsible fiscal management. The risks of implementation of this solution are several. Some are criticism for abandoning another school building in the community, inconveniencing the students who walk to school, and the possibility that this solution will not realize all of the benefits exactly as anticipated. Timing It is critical that the process be complete before the opening of school for 1995-96. If this solution is to be implemented, patrons will need to know immediately after the Board of Directors decides to pursue this alternative. Awareness and input must be generated in the community through meetings. Eventually, students must be notified of their new assignments, and a number of other tasks as noted in the timeline (later page) must be addressed. This will impact projected enrollment at other schools, transportation, food services, and the relocation of students, staff, and equipment. IBadgett School Relocation Business Case Resources Analysis Personnel No additional positions are necessary to implement this proposal. 77 Instead, some positions will be eliminated. No one will lose his or her Job, however. Attrition will be used to eliminate positions. Financial A savings of approximately $523,000 is the estimated benefit under this plan. This includes the cost of relocating students, staff, and equipment. The savings are year-to-year. Revenue Source A source of revenue is unnecessiry. Implementation of this proposal creates a cost-reducing strategy for the district's budget. I Force Field Analysis I I Primary supporters of this proposal will be those who do not have children attending the school. The Board of Directors and administration of the school district are well aware of the improvement this solution will bring for student opportunities and for cost savings. Those most opposed to the solution will be those in the immediate area of the school. These include some parents of students attending the school, community groups, and churches. They may argue that too many buildings have been closed, abandoned, and now are eye-sores in communities\nThat a school is the life of a wholesome community. Some say that removing a school from a community removes the last hope for the survival of that community. The negative reaction may be reduced by keeping everyone informed as the decision is made and implemented. One-to-one meetings with key community people will allow for their questions and an attempt to resolve their concerns.I I bl I ! ! IH I il  I i 1 I I I! I i I!!: II ! I I' Badgett School Relocation Business Case I General Implementation Plan 12 The following milestones for implementing this proposal are suggested and will be monitored by the Associate Superintendent for Desegregation. Milestone 1. Develop a list of key people in the community wtio should be contacted immediately   _______ /  -  11 \u0026lt;  I w  a A w \u0026gt;  2. Contact the pnncipals of surrounding schools who may be affected by the relocation -'X Hi IcirtAee I 3. Business Case presented to the LRSD Board of Directors for approval 4. Make contact with key people in the community who should be contacted immediately and solicit support for getting people to community information meetings. Include PTA president and ministers. 5. Compile list and mailing labels of all students living in the Badgett School attendance zone and those scheduled to attend the school. Sort the lists by: a) those who attend Badgett School but live outside of the attendance zone b) those who attend Badgett School but live in the attendance zone: and. ___those who do not attend Badgett School but live in the attendance zone. zone 6. Develop notice of relocation and date of community information meeting to send tO' a) parents \u0026amp; students: b) community groups and churches: c) media (press release) d) for door-to-door delivery in the neighborhood 7. Conduct informational meeting with the pnngpal. faculty, and staff about the a ______________I_____- ...  .. iHccung wnn me pnngpal, racutty, and staff about the process 8. Mail notice of possible relocation and date of community information meeting to a) parents \u0026amp; students: b) community groups and churches: c) media (press release)_______________ 9. Deliver fliers, door-to-door, announcing the relocation and date of the information meeting 10. Conduct community informabon meetings by 11. Notify finance person to include this as a budget reduction strategy 12. File motion with the U. S. Federal Court to relocate students at Badgett School_____ 13. Develop letter to parents and students with announcement and reassignment.______ 14. Inventory building 15. Design plan for new attendance zones in southwest. ~ 16. Mail letter to parents and students with announcement and assignment___________ 17. Remove materials and equipment from school 18 Reroute transportation of students___________________ 19. Secure building ~ 20. Reassign staff 21. Send final assignment notices Date 1/13/95 1/25/95 1/31/95 2/10/95 2/10/95 2/10/95 2/10/95 2/20/95 2/22/95 2/28/95 3/3/95 3/1S/95 4/19/95 5/30/95 6/1/95 6/15/95 7/31/95 7/31/95 7/31/95 7I3M95 31-1195 Person Modeste Modeste Williams Modeste Mayo Mayo Modeste Mayo Mayo Williams Williams Williams Mayo Neal Mayo Mayo Eaton Cheatham Eaton Hurley MayoBadgett School Relocation Business Case J 3 Attachment A Copy of map of Little Rock, eastern most area, with Badgett Elementary and other schoolsBadgett School Relocation Business Case 14 Attachment B Copy of pages from 1994-95 Budget relating to the cost of Badgett Elementary SchoolHM* laaM MM .MM MM Little Rock School District Department Budget Unit Func Ob| - Description Actual 92793 FTE 92793 Budget 93794 Actual 93794 FTE 93794 Budget 94795 FTE 94795 0019 BADGETT ELEMENTARY_____________________ _______1105 FOUR YEAR OLD PROGRAM 0110 REGULAR CERTIFICATED 0120 REGULAR NON-CERTIFICATED__ ' 0210 SCX:iAL SECURITY TAX_________ 0240 INSURANCE____ ______________0380 FOOD SERVICES_______________ 04 i 0 SUPPLIES_____ ____________0416 SUPPLIES - SUPPLY CENTER 0540 EQUIPMENT-PERSONAL PROPER 1105 FOUR YEAR OLD PROGRAM 1110 KINDERGARTEN_________________ 0110 REGULAR CERTIFICATED 0210 SOCIAL SECURITY TAX_ ______0240 INSURANCE________________ '____0410 SUPPLIES__________________ 04 i 2 LOCAL SUPPLIES SP TRACKIN _____0416 SUPPLIES  SUPPLY CENTER 1110 KINDERGARTEN 1120 ELEMENTARY______________________ Olio REGULAR CERTIFICATED_______ 0117 STIPENDS____________________ di 20 REGULAR NON-CERTIFICATED 02 i 0 SOCIAL SECURITY TAX_________ 0240 INSURANCE_____________ 0326 REPAIRSEQUIPMENT__________ 0342 POSTAGE _________________ 0360 PRINTING A BINDINQ-INTERN___ 04 i 0 SUPPLIES _______________ 04 i 6 SUPPLIES - SUPPLY CENTER ______04 i 8 PRIOR ENCUMBRANCES_______ 0421 TEXTBOOKS - LOCAL SOURCES ~ 0540 EQUIPMENT-PERSONAL PROPER fl20 ELEMENTARY 1124 ELEMENTARY MUSIC________ 0110 REGULAR CERTIFICATED 0216 SOCIAL SECURITY TAX 0240 INSURANCE IV,,.. S' ^'01 Pri.p nutxx)2 29,078.00 9,960.00 _2.?8a54_ 2,935.05 2^510.10 325.76 _____000 0.00 47,795.45 66,968.40 5,123.11 3,116 29 13541 000 000 75,345.21 238,811.46 000 31,32381 20,665.95 15,887.16 _____25.00 66.31 000 4342 987.23 ______0 00 ______0.00 500 01__ 308,330.37 OQO 0.00 o'oo 1.00 1.00 2.00 1.00 1.00 e.oo 3.00 11.00 30,753.00 9,643.93 2,935.42 2,512.88^ ___10300 ___176.65 ___139 50 ____0.00 46,264.56 70,319.00 5,014.49 2,633.57 262.95 461.44 0.00 78,711.45 241,781.40 0.00 29,666.37 20,919.72 14,759.75 515.00 257.50 267.50 979.74 1j030.00 3,581'96 257.50 257.50 314,465.94 15,256.00 1,167.00 592.00 ___34,367.00 ____10,411.00 _____3 J 78 87 2,137.62 2,431.35__ 35.00 Mr47 _ 0.00 52,798.31 40,670.00 3,049.48 1,127.13 145.86 0.00 71.05 45,063.52 215,094.04 0.00 22,217.80 16,030.14 10,238.22 0.00 102.47 21.00 3,221.22 1,365 67 000 0.00 0 00 270,290.56 17,233.50 _____1,316 32 565.96 1.00 1.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 7.50 4.00 11.50 0.50 69.359 00 20,318 00 5,757 61 4,420.00 5,400.00 3,07600 178 00 3,600 00 102J 10.61 40,670.00 2,938.90 1,10500 240^00 0.00 000 44,953.90 206,775.00 300.00 22,893.30 16,016.24 11,602.50 500 00 100.00 ______0.00 200.00 1,892.00 0.00 0.00 ______0.00 262,281.04 17,635.00 1,274.34 552.50 2 00 200 4 00 t 00 1.00 7.50 3 00 10.50 0.50Unit ' 'U -I Little Rock School District Department Budget Func Ob| - Description 1124 ELEMENTARY MUSIC Actual 92/93 0.00 FTE 92/93 Budget 93/94 17,015 00 [ Actual 93/94 19,117.78 FTE 93/94 0.50 Budget 94/95 19,461 84 FTE 94/95 0 50 ____1195 ACADEMIC SUPPORT PROGRAM __________0120 REGULAR NON-CERTIFICATED 0210 SOCIAL SECURITY TAX_______ _ 0240 INSURANCE 1195 ACADEMIC SUPPORT PROGRAM 0 00 0^00 o?ob 0.00 1.00 1.00 10,411.00 ___796 44 1,292 94 12,500 38 4,390.97 _336 00 425.11 5,152.08 1.00 1.00 4,164 40 300.93 442'00 4,907.33 0 40 0 40 1210 ITINERANT INSTRUCTION ______0110 REGULAR CERTIFICATED 0210 SOCIAL SECURITY TAX ______0240 INSURANCE____________ 1210 ITINERANT INSTRUCTION ___14,782.56 1,130.89 768.03 16,681.48 1.00 1.00 __15,627.5^ ____1^1442 _____654 92 17,'396.64 ___15,627.60 1,19544 ______561^4 17,384.08 1.00 1.00 ____16,029 00 '1,158 29 _______552 50 17,739.79 0 50 0 50 1220 RESOURCE ROOM__________ ______0110 REGULAR CERTIFICATED 0210 SOCIAL SECURITY TAX ______0240 INSURANCE____________ 1220 RESOURCE ROOM 1560 ACADEMIC PROGRESS GRANTS 0124 CLERICAL OVERTIME_______ 0210 SOCIAL SECURITY TAX ______0331 PUPIL TRANSPORTATION ______0380 FOOD SERVICES___________ 0410 SUPPLIES_________________ ______0416 SUPPUES - SUPPLY CENTER _0416 PRIOR ENCUMBRANCES 1580 ACADEMIC PROGRESS GRANTS 1910 GIFTED AND TALENTED____ 0110 REGULAR CERTIFICATED ______0210 SOCIAL SECURITY TAX 0240 INSURANCE 1910 GIFTED AND TALENTED 2120 GUIDANCE SERVICES_______ ______0116 REGULAR CERTIFICATED 0210 SOCIAL SECURITY TAX 0240 INSURANCE Date 8/ 5/94 Prog: BUD002 l\u0026gt; HV 34,784.58 2,661.27 2,809.43 40,255.28 Ji^l 99.49 244.79 575.76 440.15 165.00 0.00 0.00 4,625J 9 11,888 24 909.40 636.56 13,43420 29,058 00 2,223.10 1,532.64 1.00 1.00 0.25 0.25 0 50 24,892.00 1,775 06 1,776.20 28,443.26 33,886.02 2,365.61 2,662.61 38,934.44 1.00 1.00 13,216 50 955 20 552 50 14,726 20 0 50 0 50 0.00 0.00 000 0.00 0.00 0.00 172.10 172.10 0.00 000 0.00 0.00 ^162.72 11.49 0.00 9,174.21 0.00 0 00 0 00 000 0 00 aoo 0 00 o.ob^ 15,095.50 l'076.46 652.55 16,824.51 31,413 98 2,381.65 1'218.64 35,014.47 2.00 2.00 32,322.80 2,335.70 1.105.00 35,763.50 1 00 1 00 15,366.50 1,M5.79 653.77 15,366 52 1,154.68 563.86 0.50 _15.^8jpO__ _l.139 42__ 552'50 0 50MM .JMM Little Rock School District Department Budget Unit Func Obi * Description 2120 GUIDANCE SERVICES Actual 92/93 32,613.74 [ FTE 92/93 0.50 Budget 93/94 I 17,116.0'6 Actual 93/94 17,085.06 FTE 93/94 0.50 Budgt 94/95 17,459.92 FTE 94/95 0.50 NliQSING^SERVICES_____________ 0120 REGULAR NON CERTIFICATED io SOCIAL SECURITY TAX 0240 INSURANCE 2134 NURSING SERVICES 90.62 6.94 ooo 97.56 0 30 0.30 0 00 0.00 0.00 000 0.00 000 0.00 0 00 5,139 00 371.35 221.00 5,731.35 0 20 0 20 2222 SCHOOL LIBRARY SERVICES ______0110 REGULAR CERTIFICATED____ _____0120 REGULAR NON CERTIFICATEO 0210 SOCIAL SECURITY TAX 0240 INSURANCE__________ 0410 SUPPLIES 0416 SUPPLIES - SUPPLY CENTER 2222 SCHOOL LIBRARY SERVICES 2410 OFFICE OF THE PRINCIPAL _______0110 REGULAR CERTIFICATED 0120 REGULAR NON-CERTIFICATED 0210 SOCIAL SECURITY TAX 0240 INSURANCE 0410 SUPPLIES 0416 SUPPLIES - SUPPLY CENTER 24io OFFICE OF THE PRINCIPAL 2542 UPKEEP OF BUILDINGS OiiO REGULAR NON-CERTIFICATED ______0210 SOCIAL SECURITY T/kX________ ~ 0230 PUBLIC EMPLOYEES RETIREME 0240 INSURANCE_________________ 0321 UTILITY SERVICES-NATURAL ______0322 UTILITY SERVICES-ELECTRIC 0323 UTILITY SER-WATER/SEWAGE/ 2542 UPKEEP OF BUILDINGS 2590 OTHER SUPPORT SERVICES-BU 0416 SUPPLIES - SUPPLY CENTER 2590 OTHER SUPPORT SERVICES-BU P.iie S/VQ4 I'mg nunofl2 32,692.33 1,152.12 2,589.07 1,701.25 1,458.83 0.00 39,593.60 54,411.43 24,502.13 6,036.72 4,230.79 0.00 0.00 89,181.07 22,786.15 1,743.24 55251 2,481.37 6,901.65 18,764.99 2,493.27 55,723.18 893.05 893.05 1.00 1.00 2.00 1.00 1.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 34,540.67 0.00 1,770.37 1,420.74 176.85 257.50 38,166.13 34,455.67 0 00 2,614.46 1,166 64 1,553.64 0.00 39,790.61 1.00 1.00 35,364.58 _____0 00 2,555 51 1,105.00 1,607.00 0 00 40,632.09 1.00 1 00 58,104.28 25,304.67 6,099.61 3,769.99 176.85 257.50 93,712.90 57,067.14 15,229.39 5,47884 2,220.15 0.00 ____aoo 79,9d5 52 1.00 2.00 3.00 58,150 36 21,275.48 5,739.47 2,652.00 200 00 200.00 88,217 33 1 00 f40 2.40 21,511.93 1,656.04 573 68 2,421.08 8,400.00 17,500.00 2,700.00 54,762.71 23,571.00 1,803.16 673.60 1,684.73 7,358.75 19,225.15 1,382.87 55,799.26 2.00 2.00 23,106 65 1,669.74 __10.00___ 2,21000 O^OOO.OO 16,200 00 2,700.00 55,886.59 2 00 2 00 2,000.00 2,000.00 1,253.66 1,253 66 2,000.00 2,000.00Unit Func Ob|  Description 0019 BADGETT ELEMENTARY Dale: 8/5/94 lacc 64 Prog\nDUD()02 Little Rock School District Department Budget Actual 92/93 RE 92/93 Budget 93/94 Actual 93/94 FTE 93/94 Budget 94/95 RE 94/95 724,769.38 24.05 737.551.84 686,853.56 27.50 711,871.49 24 50Badgett School Relocation Business Case 15 A possible scenario for relocating students  Badgett School Relocation Business Case 76 Possible Scenario for Badgett Relocation 1. Two four-year-old classes must be relocated intact or a plan modification must be submitted to eliminate these classes. 2. Work with Dr. Kohler, Special Education Dept., to relocate self-contained class of six 3. resource students (5 black and 5 non-black) to another building. ^nd the twenty-eight black students currently attending Badgett who are not living in BzinCTpf+c -TAWA 1,. lI___1-_____i.   Badgett's attendance zone back to their area school. 4. Encourage the thirty-seven non- i-black students to apply to either Booker Magnet School Q 1 T oLuuciiu, LU apply to eitner DooKer bchool or to Booker T. Washington Magnet School. For each white student assigned to Washington Magnet School, a black student who not 15 currently attending Badgett b^ause he/she could get into their attendance zone school, Washington, can be assigned to Washington if they are on Washington's waiting list 5. Badgett will lose twenty-seven sixth graders to jr. high school thereby leaving a total of 104 students to reassign (85 black and 37 non-black) if we are unsuccessful in convincing pyents to select Booker or Washington. If successful, we are looking at reassigning only about thirty- black students. 6 6/ a) PLAN FOR 85 BLACK STUDENTS i) Offer seats in the Incentive Schools ii) Enlarge Chicot and reconstruct the attendance attendance zone. b) PLAN FOR 30 BLACK STUDENTS i) Offer seats in the Incentive Schools zone to include the former Badgett ii) Reassign to Pulaski Heights Elementary' School Pulaski Heights currently vacant seats. has 26 6. iii) Offer Brady as the overflow school Effect of Racial Balance on receiving schools:^ a) b) Booker - Will remain the same 53.8% (if 37 non-black students and 37 black students opt to go to Booker). Washington - Will remain the same 57.3% (if 37 non-black students and 37 black students opt to go to Washington). c) Pulaski Heights' current percentage black is 47.6%, this will increase to 54.8 including Badgett s thirty black students. 0 o bv - student assignment must assign black students on a matching basis with non-black students to maintain the current racial balance within the attected magnet schools.Little Rock School District MEMORANDUM : exhibit 1. 2. To: From: Date: Subject: Dr. Henry P. Williams, Superintendent Russ Mayo, Associate Superintendent pL/ June 29. 1995 Closing of Badgett School Updated Timeline (Revised since 6/21/95 memo) I Miktteae Develop a list of key people in the community who should be contacted immediately Design possible scenarios for new attendance zones 3. Business Case presented to the LRSD Board of Directors for approval____________________ 4. Notify patrons at February registration of the possibility that the school will close.___________ 5. Compile list and mailing labels of all students living in the Badgett School attendance zone and those scheduled to attend the school. Sort the lists by: a) those who attend Badgett School but live outside of the attendance zone b) those who attend Badgett School but live in the attendance zone\nand, c) those who do not attend Badgett School but live in the attendance zone._______________ 6. Develop notice of relocation and date of community infonnation meeting to send to: Date 1/13/95 1/30/95 1/26/95 2/6/95 2/1/95 1/26/95 7. a) b) c) d) parents \u0026amp; students\ncommunity groups and churches\nmedia (press release) for door-to-door delivery in the neighborhood Conduct informational meeting with the principal, faculty, and staff about the process 8. Mail notice of possible relocation and date of community information meeting to: 1/25/95 1/26/95 9. a) parents \u0026amp; students\nb) community groups and churches\nc) media (press release)___________________________________________________ Deliver fliers, door-to-door, announcing the relocation and date of the information meeting 10. Conduct community information meetings_____________________________________________ 11. Notify finance person to include this as a budget reduction strategy_________________________ 12. Finalize a specific plan for new attendance zones_______________________________________ 13. Business Case presented to the LRSD Board of Directors for approval_______________________ 14. File motion with the U. S. Federal Court to relocate students at Badgett Seftoo/___________ 15. Determine date for Student Assignment personnel to go to school and offer guidance to patrons about choices for their students._________________________________________________ 16. Develop letter to parents and students with announcement of closing and choices asking for a response by a deadline. Deadline must be after student assignment guidance meeting._____ 17. Develop flyer to parents and students with announcement of closing and date of guidance meeting at school to help patrons with choices._____________________________________________ 18. Receive court approval^ 19. Mail letter of relocation and date of guidance meeting to patrons____________________________ 20. Deliver fliers, door-to-door, announcing the relocation and date of the guidance meeting_________ 21. Inventory building_________________________________________________________________ 22. Conduct patron guidance and information meeting no later than____________________________ 23. Mail letters to parents and students with announcement and notifying them of new assignment 24. Remove materials and equipment from school__________________________________________ 25. Reroute transportation of students___________________________________________________ 26. Secure building__________________________________________________________________ 27. Reassign staff___________________________________________________________________ 28. Send final assignment notices to patrons and students 1/26/95 2n/95 3/3/95 6/20/95 5/22/95 5/30/95 6/26/95 6/26/95 6/26/95 7/7/95 7/10/95 7/10/95 7/14/95 7/20/95 7/21/95 7131/95 7/31/95 7/31/95 7/31/95 6/3/95 C: Superintendent's Cabinet EXHIBIT 'Remaining timeline is based on Court approval. Modeste Mayo Williams Mayo Mayo Mayo Modeste Mayo Mayo Mayo Williams Mayo Williams Williams Mayo Mayo Mayo Williams Mayo Mayo Neal Mayo Mayo Eaton Cheatham Eaton Hurley Mayo M MAiainiar2 E X H1 Blt I 3 u Little Rock School District Fair Park School Relocation A Business Case January, 1995 Addition Modification Z Deletion $637,000 savings EXHIBIT 3 l/ MJFair Park School Relocation Business Case 2 I Executive Summary For several years, the Little Rock School District (LRSD) has faced austere budgets. Though many strategies were developed to cut costs, most have been one time cuts. A comparison of the district's total building capacity and total enrollment shows many vacant seats. While a larger than normal number of seats are necessary for desegregation, die number of vacant seats is significant. Said another way, LRSD has too many school buildings. The financing of any school is a major expense. Therefore, serious consideration must be given to closing some schools. It is a reasonable strategy. The savings are significant and are repeated from year to year. As attractive as it is to saving money, it is more unattractive to the patrons of the school considered for closing. Because it is an emotional issue, specific research criteria were used in making the decision about which school to close. Fair Park has become expendable as a public school because of its isolation, its declining . enrollment, and its increasing costs in per pupil expenditure and in building operation. The following are reasons why Fair Park Elementary School is considered for closing: 1. As of October 1,1994, the school was filled to only 80.34% of its capacity\n2. The capacity of the school itself (351) is below the district average of 425 for area elementary schools. Therefore, if the school were at capacity, the size itself is significantly below the average\n3. Enrollment since 1989 has declined from 332 to 282 and is expected to continue\n4. The school is out of racial balcince by 12.34%. It has not been within balance as far back as 1989 in spite of efforts to reverse this\n5. The per pupil cost has increased\n6. Operational costs for the building have increased to make this school as one on the most expensive to operate annually\n7. The building is in need of renovation and upgrading. Together these costs will exceed $1,000,000, which is considerably more that the average cost of renovation and upgrading needed at other buildings\nBy the opening of school for 1995-96, Fair Park students will be relocated, faculty will be reassigned according to the negotiated contract, and appropriate reductions in positions will be completed with a minimum of disruption to these individuals and the school district. Fulfilling this proposal will require a modification to the LRSD Desegregation Plan. This proposal supports LRSD goals relating to securing financial resources necessary to support schools and the desegregation program. The problem will be considered solved if the following list of criteria is met: 1. New attendance zones affected by this relocation will reflect a better racial balance\nFair Park School Relocation Business Case 3 2. The community is given the opportunity to be heard on the decision\n3. Transportation is re-routed to accommodate these students\n4. Special activities are planned and implemented by each new school to make the new students and patrons feel welcomed\n5. New patrons are included in appropriate school correspondence and activities with those who have been enrolled\n6. Leaders within the community are made aware of the relocation plan and have the opportunity for input\n7. Immediate cost savings is realized\nand, 8. The relocation of students and staff at will be complete before the opening of school for 1995-96. Most of these benefits will occur when the process concludes. Desegregation . Plan goals will not be altered. Parent concerns about the process and their newly assigned school will be minimal. District officials are aware that the community will be concerned about relocating the students. A number of school buildings have been abandoned in the city. These are of paramount concern to many community members. Some will want to know if a plan exists for use of the building when the students are relocated. Some will want assurance that students will receive equal program quality in the reassigned school. While these concerns are understandable, we believe we can offer our students an equal program in a more economical way while achieving a better racial balance. Negatives 1. Students and staff will experience some disappointment in being sepsurated from their friends\n2. Community reaction will be strong against the decision for fear of the impact on the community as mentioned above\n3. The building may stand vacant for a period of time if not used by an agency or the community\n4. The general community may react to the redrawing of attendance zones in that general area of the city. Positives 1. Students will receive assignment to schools equal to current programs\n2. Special activities will be planned and implemented by each newly assigned school to make new students and patrons feel'welcomed\nffl/r Park School Relocation Business Case 4 3. New patrons are included in appropriate school correspondence and activities with those who have been enrolled\n4. Elementary schools in contiguous areas are capable of absorbing the student population of Fair Park\n5. Immediate and year-to-year cost savings will be realized of approximately $637,000\nand, 6. The Fair Park School facility may be available to the community for use pending court approval. The risks of not implementing this solution is increasing distrirt costs thus inhibiting the expected goals of desegregation and responsible fiscal management. It is critical that the process be complete before the opening of school for 1995-96. If this solution is to be implemented, patrons will need to know immediately after the Board of Directors decides to pursue this alternative. Awareness and input must be  generated in the community through meetings. Eventually, students must be notified of their new assignments, and a number of other tasks as noted in the timeline (later page) must be addressed. This will impact projected enrollment at other schools, transportation, food services, and the relocation of students, staff, and equipment. The following milestones for implementing this proposal are suggested and will be monitored by the Associate Superintendent for Desegregation. Milectone 1. Develop a list of key people in the community who thould be contacted immediately 2. Contact the principals of sunounding schools who may be affected by the relocation 3. Business Case presented to the LRSD Board of Directors for approval____________ 4. Make contact with key people in the community who should be contacted immediately and solicit support for getting people to community infonnation meetings. Include PTA president and ministers. ___ 5. Compile list and mailing labels of all students living in the Fair Park School attendance zone and those scheduled to attend the school. Sort the lists by\na) those who attend Fair Park School but live outside of the attendance zone b) those who attend Fair Park School but live in the attendance zone\nand, c) those who do not attend Fair Park School but live in the attendance zone.___ 6. Develop notice of relocation and date of community information meeting to send to: a) parents \u0026amp; students: b) community groups and churches\nc) media (press release) d) for door-to-door delivery in the neighborhood_____________________________ 7. Conduct informational meeting with the pnncipal. faculty, and staff about the process 8. Mail notice of possible relocation and date of community information meeting to: a) parents \u0026amp; students: b) community groups and churches\nc) media (press release)_________ 9. Deliver fliers, door-to-door, announcing the relocation and dale of the information meeting________________________________________ 10. Conduct community information meetings by_______________________________ 11 Notify finance person to include this as a budget reduction strategy______________ 12 File motion with the U S Federal Court to relocate students at Fair Park School Date 1/13/95 1/25/95 1/31/95 2/10/95 2/10/95 2/10/95 2/10/95 2/20/95 2/22/95 2/28/95 3/3/95 3/15/95 Peraon Modeste Modeste Williams Modeste Mayo Mayo Modeste Mayo Mayo Williams Williams WilliamsFair Park School Relocation Business Case 5 Milestone 13. Devotop totter to poontt and ttudonf with nnounewnent ond reitugnmeni. 14. Inventory buildinfl__________________________________________ 15. Deargn plan toe new attendance zonee in aouttrweet._____________________ 16. Mail totter to parents and atudentt with announcement and assignment_____ 17. Remove matanala and equrpment from sctxl__________________________ 18. Reroute transportation of atudentt 19. Secure bunding 20. Reaaaign ataff 21. Send final aaaignment noticea Date 4/18/85 5AXV95 6/1/95 6/1S/95 7/31/85 7/31/95 7/31/85 7/31/85 8/1/95 Peraon Mayo Neal Mayo Mayo Eaton Cheatham Eaton Hurtay Mayo Background For several years, the Little Rock School District (LRSD) has faced austere budgets. Though many strategies were developed to cut costs, most have been one time cuts. A . comparison of the district's total building capacity and total enrollment shows many vacant seats. While a larger than normal number of seats are necessary for desegregation, the number of vacant seats is significant Said another way, LRSD has too many school buildings. The financing of any school is a major expense. Therefore, serious consideration must be given to closing some schools. It is a reasonable strategy. The savings are significant and are repeated from year to year. As attractive as it is to saving money, it is more unattractive to the patrons of the school considered for closing. Because it is an emotional issue, specific research criteria were used in making the decision about which school to close. Based on the criteria used. Fair Park Elementaiy School is a school that must be considered for closing. It is located north of 1-630 and just west of University Avenue in the City of Little Rock. See Attachment A. Reasons for this conclusion are explained in this business case. Problem Definition Fair Park has become expendable as a public school because of its isolation, its declining enrollment, and its increasing costs in per pupil expenditure and in Imilding operation. The following are reasons why Fair Park Elementary School is considered for closing\n1. As of October 1,1994, the school was filled to only 80.34% of its capacity\n2. The capacity of the school itself (351) is below the district average of 425 for area elementary schools. Therefore, if the school were at capacity, the size itself is significantly below the average\n3. Enrollment since 1989 has declined from 332 to 282 and is expected to continue\nFair Park School Relocation Business Case 6 4. The school is out of racial balance by 12.34%. It has not been within balance as far back as 1989 in spite of efforts to reverse this\n5. The per pupil cost has increased\n6. Operational costs for the building have increased to make this school as one on the most expensive to operate annually\n7. The building is in need of renovation and upgrading. Together these costs will exceed $1,000,000, which is considerably more that the average cost of renovation and upgrading needed at other buildings\nFigure 1 illustrates some of these trends. Figure 1 Fair Park Elementary Enrollment History ':x\u0026lt; 2S9\u0026lt;-9S Enrollntenfl % Black % Out of Balance Capacity Attnd. Zone Ttl.^ AZ % Black 332 72.00 12.00 94.59 345 80.87 20.87 98.29 320 80.31 20.31 91.17 243 79.01 19.01 69.23 263 76.05 16.05 74.93 343 49.27 282 72.34 12.34 80.34 348 53.44 Analysis of Alternatives Solutions were discussed with a committee representing administrators in the LRSD. Data on attendance zones, enrollment, ethnic makeup of students in the school as well as those in the attendance zone were reviewed. After considerable discussion, it was decided that three things must be addressed for an alternative to be satisfactory. They were age of building, increasing costs, and low capacity. Addressing only one or tuo and not all three aspects seriously compromises an effective solution. Inherent in the selection of an alternative is the assumption that the problem can be addressed adequately if the alternative offers quality for students and cost efficiency ' Enrollments are for October of each year. 2 Attendance zone data is available for two years only. k itrM Ik*Fair Park School Relocation Business Case 1 ioT tax-payers. To be a good alternative, it must address adequately all areas of concern. The alternative solutions considered are listed below: 1. 2. 3. Change nothing. This will not address any aspect of the problem and will allow costs to grow annually\nRedraw the attendance zone to increase the number of students attending Fair Park School. This reduces the per-pupil costs at Fair Park but will increase costs elsewhere since another attendance zone must be reduced to enlarge Fair Park's. Further, it would impact in negative ways the enrollment of other schools. Relocate students from Fair Park to solve the problem. This alternative addresses all three areas of the problem. a) b) c) d) A plan to relocate students will be devised. One possible scenario appears in Attachment C\nAn immediate savings of approximately $637,000 will be realized by  eliminating the need for management staff, food service, building maintenance, and utilities to name a few\nStaff will be relocated according to the provisions of the negotiated contract The curriculum offered at Fair Park will be offered at other schools under the program for that particular school. 4. Intensify recruitment ejfbrts. Recruitment has been tried. The results have not been significant. If the enrollment of Fair Park were increased by this effort, it would have a negative impact on neighboring attendance zones. Kecommeniation Alternative 3 is recommended. 3. Relocate students from Fair Park to solve the problem. This alternative addresses all of the problem areas. Objective By the opening of school for 1995-96, Fair Park students will be relocated, faculty will be reassigned according to the negotiated contract, and appropriate reductions in positions Uill be completed with a minimum of disruption to these individuals and the school district. Fulfilling this proposal will require a modification to the LRSD Desegregation Plan. This proposal supports LRSD goals relating to securing financial resources necessary to support schools and the desegregation program. The problem will be considered solved if the following list of criteria is met: az* *Fair Park School Relocation Business Case 8 1. New attendance zones affected by this relocation will reflect a better racial balance\n2. The community is given the opportunity to be heard on the decision\n3. Transportation is re-routed to accommodate these students\n4. Special activities are planned and implemented by each new school to make the new students and patrons feel welcomed\n5. New patrons are mcluded in appropriate school correspondence and activities with those who have been enrolled\n6. Leaders within the community are made aware of the relocation plan and have the opportunity for input\n7. Immediate cost savings is realized\nand, 8. The relocation of students and staff at will be complete before the opening of school for 1995-96. Most of these benefits will occur when the process concludes. Desegregation Plan goals will not be altered. Parent concerns about the process and their newly assigned school will be minimal. |lOTpflcfA^a/ysis | The desegregation plan must be modified to accommodate this proposal. District officials are aware that the community will be concerned about relocating the students. A number of school buildings have been abandoned in the city. These are of paramount concern to many community members. Some will want to know if a plan exists for use of the building when the students are relocated. Some will want assurance that students will receive equal program quality in the reassigned school. While these concerns are understandable, we believe we can offer our students an equal program in a more economical way while achieving a better racial balance. Negatives 1. Students and staff will experience some disappointment in being separated from their friends\n2. Community reaction will be strong against the decision for fear of the impact on the community as mentioned above\n3. The building may stand vacant for a period of time if not used by an agency or the community\n4. The general community may react to the redrawing of attendance zones in that general area of the city.Fair Park School Relocation Business Case 9 Positive* 1. Students will receive assignment to schools equal to current programs\n2. Special activities will be planned and implemented by each newly assigned school to make new students and patrons feel welcomed\n3. New patrons are included in appropriate school correspondence and activities with those who have been enrolled\n4. Elementary schools in contiguous areas are capable of absorbing the student population of Fair Park-, 5. Immediate and year-to-year cost savings will be realized of approximately $637,000\nand, 6. The Fair Park School facility may be available to the community for use pending court approval. Risks The risks of not implementing this solution is increasing district costs thus inhibiting the expected goals of desegregation and responsible fiscal management The risks of implementation of this solution are several. Some are criticism for abandoning another school building in the community, inconveniencing the students who walk to school, and the possibility that this solution will not realize all of the benefits exactly as anticipated. Timing It is critical that the process be complete before the opening of school for 1995-96. If this solution is to be implemented, patrons will need to know immediately eifter the Board of Directors decides to pursue this alternative. Awareness and input must be generated in the commxmity through meetings. Eventually, students must be notified of their new assignments, and a number of other tasks as noted in the timeline (later page) must be addressed. This will impact projected enrollment at other schools, transportation, food services, and the relocation of students, staff, and equipment. ^Resources^A^lysis Personnel No additional positions are necessary to implement this proposal. Instead, some positions will be eliminated. No one will lose his or her job, however. Attrition will be used to eliminate positions.Fair Park School Relocation Business Case 10 Financial A savings of approximately $637XX)0 is the estimated benefit under this plan. This includes the cost of relocating students, staff, and equipment. The savings are year-to-year. Revenue Source A source of revenue is unnecessary. Implementation of this proposal creates a cost-reducing strategy for the district's budget. I Force Field Analysis Primary supporters of this proposal will be those who do not have children attending the school. The Board of Directors and administration of the school district  are well aware of the improvement this solution will bring for student opportunities and for cost savings. Those most opposed to the solution will be those in the immediate area of the school. These include some parents of students attending the school, community groups, and churches. They may argue that too many buildings have been closed, abandoned, and now are eye-sores in communities\nThat a school is the life of a wholesome commimity. Some say that removing a school from a community removes the last hope for the survival of that community. The negative reaction may be reduced by keeping everyone informed as the decision is made and implemented. One-to-one meetings with key community people will allow for their questions and an attempt to resolve their concerns. General Implementation Plan The following milestones for implementing this proposal are suggested and will be monitored by the Associate Superintendent for Desegregation. Milestone 1. Develop a list of key people in the community who should be contacted immediately 2. Contact the pnncipals of suirounding schools who may be affected by the relocation 3. Business Case presented to the LRSD Board of Directors for approval____________ 4. Make contact with key people in the community who should be contacted immediately and solicit support for getting people to community information meetings. Include PTA president and ministers.___________________________________ 5. Compile list and mailing labels of all students living in the Fair Par^ School attendance zone and those scheduled to attend the school. Sort the lists by: a) those who attend Fair ParU School but live outside of the attendance zone b) those who attend FairPait School but live in'tha attendance zone\nand, c) those who do not attend Fair Park School but live in the attendance zone. Date 1/13/95 1/25/95 1/31/95 2/10/95 2/10/95 Person Modeste Modeste Williams Modeste MayoFair Park School Relocation Business Case n Mileatone 6. Davatop notice of relocation and data of communlly mformation maatmg to tend to: a) paranta \u0026amp; atudants\nb) community groupa and churcbaa\nc) madia (praaa ralaaaa) d) for door-to-door daHvary In the naiflbboftTOOd_______________________________ 7, Conduct Informational maatingwtth Iha principal, tacufty, and ataff about the procaaa 6. MaH notioa of poaaibla relocation and date of community nfotmaton maatmo to: a) paranta Aatudenta: b) community groupa and churchea\nc) madia (preaa ralaaaa)_________________________________________________ 9. Deliver fhera, door-to-door, announcing the relocation and date of the mformation meeting______________________________________________________ 10. Cofiduct community information meatinga by__________________________________ 11  Notify finance peraon to includa thia aa a budget reduction atratagy________________ 12. File motion with the U. S. Federal Court to relocate students at Fair Park School 13. Develop tetter to parents and students with announcement and reassignment._______ 14. Inventory building_________________________________________________________ 15. Design plan for new attendance zones in southwest____________________________ 16. Mail letter to parents and students with announcement and assignment____________ 17. Remove materials and equipment from school_________________________________ 18. Reroute transportation of students _________________________________________ 19. Secure building 20. Reassign staff _______________________________________ 21. Send final assignment notices Date 2/10/95 2/10/95 205 2/22/95 2iaiK\u0026gt; ZIZI96 4/19/95 5/30/95 6/1/95 6/15/95 7/31/95 7/31/95 7/31/95 7/31/95 8/1/95 Peraon Mayo Modaeta Mayo Mayo WWiare Wtliaro Wtlltams Mayo ' Neal Mayo Mayo Eaton Chaatham Eaton Hurtay Mayo IJ Fair Park School Relocation Business Case 12 Copy of map of Little Rock with Far Park Elementary and other schoolsA ,~1----- I _ rLittle T lefterson School A Jci t\nlbUil ouiluul leTS^\u0026lt; School ti W rest Pa V\\ \\ ' \\ \\ District .Forest Park School j|Williams Magnet SchoolSj^ A halpHigh'^chooP Swit \\ I T  r sis Hi*' Si /l/K ^Cf^OOL 7 School r High School! \u0026lt; t \\ ~l  __J f~ 1 jj et HSIC __J. _ EH3 B I- 630 .v \\ \\ \\ \\ \\ \\ T I I I I I I. V i 1 Orth iclool^){sU tr(l\\ District- \\ X \\ \\ \\ 'Jr A \\\\ \\ \u0026gt; \\ \\ I \\ \\ \\ * A \\ VrW^  ~ \" - ^ulastoVle^ghts School FranKiin Incentive A X ------1 [SJ-j-Pu aski Heights AA \\ chooP - 1, L: Woodruff School  rrri Schoolr ^ts pl fephe OPf r phens T School 2 I t 7LRSD Adm king InterdistrictS^ool' aiieW^Wol' 1 i 11 Sfwr-.'M i^bs Magnet Sc J-1 Dunbar Junior High School I t ll'T I I H I 1 I n.i 1 iTT-t-t-t1-J Fair Park School Relocation Business Case 13 Attachment B Copy of pages from 1994-95 Budget relating to the cost of Fair Park Elementary SchoolMM Little Rock School District Department Budget UnH Func 0b| - Description Actual 92/3 FTE 92/M Budgat sayM Aaual n/M FTE 3/M Budgal MM FTE M/W 0023 FAIR PARK ELEMENTARY___________________ ________1105 FOUR YEAR OLD PROGRAM________ 0110 REGULAR CERTIFICATED_______ 0 i 20 REGULAR NON-CERTIFICATED 0210 SOCIAL SECURITY TAX_________ 0240 INSURANCE___ ______________0380 FOOD SERVICES______________ ______________0410 SUPPLIES___________________ ______________04 i 6 SUPPLIES - SUPPLY CENTER 0540 EQUIPMENT-PERSONAL PROPER 0548 EQUIPMENT - SUPPLY CENTER 1105 FOUR YEAR OLD PROGRAM 1110 KINDERGARTEN_________________ 0110 REGULAR CERTIFICATED ______0210 SOCIAL SECURITY TAX 0240 INSURANCE________________ ______0410 SUPPLIES_________________ 0412 JLOCAL SUPPLIES SP TRACKIN 0416 SUPPLIES - SUPPLY CENTER 1110 KINDERGARTEN 1120 ELEMENTARY_____________________ oi l 0 REGULAR CERTIFICATED____ ______0120 REGULAR NON-CERTIFicATED _____ 0210__SOCIAL SECURITY TAX_________ ______0240 INSURANCE__________________ ______0326 REPAIRS-EQUIPMENT__________ ______0342 POSTAGE____________________ _____ 0360 PRINTING a BINDING-INTERN ______04 i 0 SUPPLIES___________ ______04 i 6 SUPPLIES - SUPPLY CENTER _____ 0421__TEXTBOOKS - LOCAL SOURCES ______0540 EQUIPMENT-PERSONAL PROPER 0548 EQUIPMENT-SUPPLY CENTER 1120 ELEMENTARY 1124 ELEMENTARY MUSIC________ 0110 REGULAR CERTIFICATED 0210 SOCIAL SECURITY TAX 0240 INSURANCE Dale: 8/ 5/94 Page: 71 Prog\nBUD002 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 61,466.31 4,703.86 3,081.67 256.47 0.00 0.00 69,530.31 406,546.70 35,167.90 33,793.04 25,237,13 2.64 262.92 ____109.00 606.15 3,560.75 239.27 1,347.06 469.90 507,401.66 0.00 0.00 0.00 3.00 3.00 12.00 5.00 17.00 0.00 10,411.00 687.75 1,000.68 0.00 1,977.93 0.00 3,600.00 0.00 17,677.36 68,212.00 4,864.25 2,624.26 ___212^2 412.00 45.32 76,370.05 421,628.06 3^567.28 35,039.40 23,663.51 515.00 257.50 257.50 1,414.77 1,701.66 257,50 0.00 519,074.70 15,256.00 1,167.00 592.00 0.00 9,907.00 745.02 997.20 2,572.05 2,049.00 209.03 ___245.13 910.07 10,444.70 68,212.00 5,166.06 2,229.66 436.66 0.00 0.00 76,066.42 398,583.85 23,946.96 31,403.34 17,076.75 4.05 163.68 302.80 ____906.46 3,246.62 0.00 0.00 476,111.48 17,233.50 1,310.32 505.96 1.00 1.00 2.00 2.00 13.50 4.00 17.50 0.50 24.089.00 20.066 00 3.190.73 3.315.00 5.400.00 3,233.00 0.00 3,600 00 0.00 62,893.73 69.014.00 4.967.06 2.210.00 200.00 200.00 44.00 76,655.06 352.097.00 26,721.70 31,300.44 17,127.50 300.00 100.00 96.50 1,200.00 i.7daoo 257.50 500.00 200 00 433,600.64 17.635.00 1.274 34 552.50 1.00 2.00 3.00 2 00 2.00 10 50 3.00 13.50 0 50UnH Furrc Obj  DaacrlpHon 1124 ELEMENTARY MUSIC 1195 ACADEMIC SUPPORT PROGRAM ______0120 REGULAR NON-CERTIFICATED ______02 i 0 SOCIAL SECURITY TAX_______ ______0240 INSURANCE_________ 1195 ACADEMIC SUPPORT PROGRAM 1220 RESOURCE ROOM__________ ______0110 REGULAR CERTIFICATED ______0210 SOCIAL SECURITY TAX 0240 INSURANCE 1220 RESOURCE ROOM Little Rock School District Department Budget Actual 92/93 0.00 FTE 92/93 Budget 93/94 I 17,O15.o6~J Actual 3/M FTE 3/M 19,117.78 I 0,50 I Budoat 94/W 19,461.84 J FTE 94/95 0.50 ] 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 10,411.00  796 44 1,292.04 12,500.38 6,246.71 456.12 600.11 7,302.94 1.00 1.00 6,246 60 451.39 663.00 7,360.99 0.60 0 60 ___14,392.56 1,101.13 765.59 16,259.28 1.50 1.50 14228.00 1,085.78 653.15 16,064.03 30,452.00 2,046.64 1,117.88 33,616.52 0.50 0.50 25,004.00 1,606.84 1,105.00 27,915.84 1 00 1.00 1 seo ACADEMIC PROGRESS GRANTS ______0117 STIPENDS____________________ ______0210 SOCIAL SECURITY TAX ' 0331 PUPIL TRANSPORTATION_______ ______0380 FOOD SERVICES______________ 0410 SUPPLIES 0540 EQUIPMENT-PERSONAL PROPER 1580 ACADEMIC PROGRESS GRANTS 1910_Glf=TED AND TALENTED ______0ilO REGULAR CERTIFICATED 0210_^OCIAL SECURITY TAX 0240 INSURANCE 1910 GIFTED AND TALENTED 2120 GUIDANCE SERVICES_______ 0110 REGULAR CERTIFICATED ______0210 SOCIAL SECURITY TAX 0240 INSURANCE 2120 GUIDANCE SERVICES 2134 NURSING SERVICES _______0120_REGULAR NON-CERTIFICATED ______0210 _ SOCI^ SECURITY TAX________ 0240 INSURANCE 2134 NURSING SERVICES Dale: 8/5/94 72 Prog: BUD002 4,703.31 751.69 040.37 20.00 2,585.83 1,079.24 10,089.44 18,044.54 1,380.55 645.79 20,270.88 71900 2^43.88  1^618.67 30,281.53 15,144.45 1,158.26 1,273.28 17,575.99 0.50 0.50 0 60 0.60 0.40 0.40 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 3,222.67 4,428.44 7,651.11 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 18.438.00 1^314.83 ___665.41 20,418.24 14,162.00 1,000.00 648.44 15,820.34 14,803.67 1^3061 1,089.98 17,033.26 11,043.69 644.81 358 46 12,246.88 25,657.47 1,^61 033.42 28,095.50 10,950.49 637.68 700.94 12,489.09 0.60 0.50 0.60 0.60 0.40 0.40 18,436 00 1,332.37 552.50 20,322.67 32.056.00 2,316.57 1,105.00 35,479.57 15,432.65 1,115.19 331.50 16,879 34 0 50 0.50 1 00 1.00 030 0 30Unit Fuik Obj - Description 2222 SCHOOL LIBRARY SERVICES _______0110 REGUL^R CERTIFICATED____ 0 i 20 REGULAR NON-CERTIFICATED ______02 i O SOCIAL SECURITY TAX_______ ______0240_INSURANCE ______0410 SUPPLIES _________ 016 SUPPLIES  SUPPLY CENTER 2222 SCHOOL LIBRARY SERVICES 2410 OFFICE OF THE f^INCIPAL 0110 REGULAR CERTIFICATED ______0120 REGULAR NON-CERTIFICATED _______0124 CLERICAL OVERTIME________ 0210 SOCIAL SECURITY TAX_______ ______0240 INSURANCE ______0410_SUPPLIES____________ 04lie SUPPLIES - SUPPLY CENTER 2410 OFFICE OF THE PRINCIPAL 2542 UPKEEP OF BUILDINGS 0120 REGULAR NON-CERTIFICATED 0124 CLERICAL OVERTIME 0210 SOCIAL SECURITY TAX _______0230 PUBLIC EMPLOYEES RETIREME 0240JNSURA2JCE_ ______0321__UTILITY SERVICES-NATURAL ______0322 UTILITY SERvicES ELECTRIC Disutility serwater/sewage/ 2542 UPKEEP OF BUILDINGS 2590 OTHER SUPPORT SERVICES BU __ 0418 SUPPLIES - SUPPLY CENTER 2590 OTHER SUPPORT SERVICES BU 0023 FAIR PARK ELEMENTARY Date: 8/ 5/94 Page: 7J Prog: nUD002 Little Rock School District Department Budget Actual 02/93 FTE 02/93 Budget 03/94 Actual 03/94 FTE 03/94 Budget \u0026gt;4/98 FTE \u0026gt;4/05 40,513.28 12,269.00 ____4^037.91 2,990.07 2,090.80 ______180.95 62,081.99 44,209.33 16,998 68 0.00 4,682.36 3,010.54 24.95 0.00 68,925.86 25,945.41 0.00 1,964.69 698.30 1,866.60 ^304.62 28,873.70 2,327.05 G9.022.77 1.017.68 1,917.66' 873,357.37 1.00 1.00 2.00 1.00 1.00 2.00 3.00 3.00 31.00 41,729.11 8,698.61 2\u0026gt;04.26 2J32.79 176.65 257.50 56,399.12 47,375.24 16,059.30 0.00 4,621.13 2,566.65 176.85 257.60 71,056.67 21,574.11 0.00 1,660.80 394.30 1,202.79 5,500.00 43,500.00 2,000.00 75,832.00 2,000.00 2,666760 018,182.05 41,720.11 12,983.00 4,022.20 2,175.10 2,048.39 164.18 63,141.96 46,125.49 31,731.99 135.62 5,968.42 3.138.92 0.00 0.00 87.096.34 15,432.68 780.21 1,240.28 187.46 1,064.62 8,606.37 3^247.41 1,662 45 66,241.35 ^305.62 2,305.62 910,017.81 1.00 1.00 2.00 1.00 1.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 30.00 41.720.11 5,372.40 3,40365 1,547.00 1,141.00 1,141.00 54,334.16 47,631.00 17,194.65 000 4.684.49 2,210.00 180 00 260 00 72,161.04 22,962.97 0.00 1,660.80 0.00 2,210.00 6,000 00 37,000.00 2,500 00 75,353.77 2,000.00 2.000.00 004.418.87 1.00 0.40 1.40 1 00 1.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 27 80Fair Park School Relocation Business Case 14 A possible scenario for relocating students 't Fair Park School Relocation Business Case 75 ^Possibl^cenariofoT^airJParf^Relocati^ 1. 2. 3. One four-year-old class must be relocated intact or a plan modification must be submitted to eliminate this class. Reassign the one hundred and thirty-two students (85 black and 47 non-black) who are not living in Fair Park's attendance zone back to their area school. Fair Park will lose thirty sixth graders to jr. high school (25 blacks and 5 non-blacks) thereby leaving a total of one hundred and twenty-one students (99 blacks cind 22 4. non-blacks) to reassign. Encourage twenty-two non-black students to apply to magnet schools, interdistrict schools. or 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. Reassign 22 non-black students to Brady. Offer 99 black students seats in Incentive Schools. Encourage M-to-M transfers. Reassign zone blocks 511, 512, 513, and 554 to McDermott McDermott current capacity is 494 however, in past years it has been higher in to warrant an assistant principal. Effect of Racial Balance on receiving schools: 3 a) b) Magnet and Interdistrict school's racial balance will remain the same. Brady's racial makeup will improve. Brady is currently 64% black and 32.2% non-black. The new balance will be 62.2% black and 37.8% non-black. c) McDermott racial balance will shift to 69.3 black if all former Fair Park black students transfer to McDermott. *5 Student assignment must assign black students on a matching basis with non-black students to maintain the current racial balance within the altected magnet schools./ Little Rock School District MEMORANDUM EXHIBIT To: From: Dr. Henry P. Williams, Superintendent Russ Mayo, Associate Superintendent hi Date: Subject: June 29, 1995 Closing of Fair Park School Updated Timeline (Revised since 6/21/95 memo) 1. 2. 3. Develop a list of key people in the community who should be contacted immediately Design possible scenarios for new attendance zones_________________________ Business Case presented to the LRSD Board of Directors for approval 4. Notify patrons at February registration of the possibility that the school will close.____________ 5. Compile list and mailing labels of all students living in the Fair Park School attendance zone and 1/13/95 1/30/95 1/26/95 2/6/95 2/1/95 Modeste Mayo Williams Mayo Mayo 6. those scheduled to attend the school. Sort the lists by\na) those who attend Fair Park School but live outside of the attendance zone b) those who attend Fair Park School but live in the attendance zone\nand, c) those who do not attend Fair Park School but live in the attendance zone. Develop notice of relocation and date of community information meeting to send to: 1/26/95 a) b) c) d) parents \u0026amp; students\ncommunity groups and churches\nmedia (press release) for door-to-door delivery in the neighborhood 7. Conduct informational meeting with the principal, faculty, and staff about the process 8. Mail notice of possible relocation and date of community information meeting to: 1/30/95 1/26/95 9. a) parents \u0026amp; students\nb) community groups and churches\nc) media (press release)___________________________________________________ Deliver fliers, door-to-door, announcing the relocation and date of the information meeting 10. Conduct community information meetings______________________________________________ 11. Notify finance person to include this as a budget reduction strategy_________________________ 12. Finalize a specific plan for new attendance zones_______________________________________ 13. Business Case presented to the LRSD Board of Directors for approval_______________________ 14. File motion with the 0. S. Federal Court to relocate students at Fair Park School__________ 15. Determine date for Student Assignment personnel to go to school and offer guidance to patrons about choices for their students.__________________________________________________ 16. Develop letter to parents and students with announcement of closing and choices asking for a response by a deadline. Deadline must be after student assignment guidance meeting._____ 17. Develop flyer to parents and students with announcement of closing and date of guidance meeting at school to help patrons with choices._____________________________________________ 18. Receive court approval^ 19. Mail letter of relocation and date of guidance meeting to patrons___________________________ 20. Deliver fliers, door-to-door, announcing the relocation and date of the guidance meeting________ 21. Inventory building_________________________________________________________________ 22. Conduct patron guidance and infonnation meeting no later than____________________________ 23. Mail letters to parents and students with announcement and notifying them of new assignment 24. Remove materials and equipment from school__________________________________________ 25. Reroute transportation of students___________________________________________________ 26. Secure building__________________________________________________________________ 27. Reassign staff___________________________________________________________________ 28. Send final assignment notices to patrons and students 1/26/95 1/31/95 3/3/95 6/20/95 6/22/95 6/30Z95 6/26/95 6/26/95 6/26/95 7/7/95 7/10/95 7/10/95 7/14/95 7/20/95 7/21/95 7/31/95 7/31/95 7/31/95 7/31/95 8/3/95 C: Superintendents Cabinet EXHIBIT Mayo Modeste Mayo Mayo Mayo Williams Mayo Williams Williams Mayo Mayo Mayo Williams Mayo Mayo Neal Mayo Mayo Eaton Cheatham Eaton Hurtey Mayo I Remaining timeline is based on Court approval. U IlMtkUMK'X January 7, 1995 LRSD Area Elementary Schools Explanation of Rating Sheet for Facilities Study The criteria shown across the top of the chart are defined as follows: Desegregation Criteria Under Cap Low Cap Enroll Deci Bal Out Recfut Diffie Per Pupil $ AZ Isolat co I VP X lU TTrw*MSIW The extent to which this school is under its published capacity - \"1 = 85%-94% of capacity, \"5 = 75%-84%, and \"10\" = below 75%_____________________________________________________________________________________'----- The extent to which this school is under the average capacity for the district - The average capacity for a LRSD Area Elementary School is 425 students. Therefore, a rating is necessary only for schools with capacities below 425. A rating of 1\" = less than 50 below, \"5\" = 51-100 below, and \"10 more than 100 below the average.__________________ The severity of the rate of decline in enrollment for a school - A drop of 1%-2.99% = 1\", 3%-4.99% = 5\", and 5% or more of last years October 1 enrollment received a 10\".____________________________________________________ The extent to which the school is out of racial balance according to current guidelines and past trends indicate that it will continue - Ten percent or more beyond guidelines should receive a 10._________________________________________ The level of difficulty in recruiting to this school to achieve racial balance______________________________________ The extent to which per pupil expenditures exceeds the average of the district in this school - Under $2,550 = \"1\", $2,551 to $2,899 = \"5\", and $2,900 to $4,100 = 10\".________________________________________________________ The extent to which the school's attendance zone is isolated because it is too small and cannot draw more students without taking them from other zones. To some extent, this is a measure of the size of the attendance zone for the school and the geographic location of the building. The average size attendance zone is 353. Facilities Criteria Bldg Config Reno Need Oper Costs The extent to which the age and design of the building negatively impacts program, costs, and modern standards - Supports Program = \"1, Minor Shortfalls = 5\", and Major Shortfalls = *10.________________________________ The extent to which the building needs renovation to meet current codes - $100,000-$200,000 = \"1', $200,001 to $500,000 = 5\", and above $500,000 = 10\".__________________________________________________ The extent to which the per capita cost of maintaining this school is greater than similar schools - At or below average =  1 Between 10% \u0026amp; 25% above average = \"5\", Above 25% = 10' Upgrad Costs wiSs The cost of upgrading the building to support the academic program - Below $500,000 = \"1\", $500.000-$1,000,000 = \"5\". and Above $1,000,000 = 10_______________________________________________________________________January 7, 1995 LRSD Area Elementary Schools Rating Sheet for Facilities Study A rating is given in a column only if the criteria named at the top of the column has a negative influence on the desegregation plan, on the building itself, or on the budget. If so, then a rating of 1, 5, or 10 is given according to the extent of the negative impact. Therefore, schools with the highest total should gel serious consideration for closing An explanation of each criteria is included. Bale Under Low School Cap Cap -i-, :\u0026lt;r lr \u0026gt;4 ilQi IgrTi Uit-xrxy 1 = Minimal 5 a Considerable Desegregation Criteria Enroll Ded Bal Out X'i-KzxSgTfv-.^^rK-: Recrut Dif^ Per AZ 10 = Extreme Facilities Criteria Pupil $ tS? !f\u0026gt;K tihnin-r Isolat Bkfg ConTig W\n*wVx- Reno Need Oper Costs Upgrad Costs* Total 'lx'I'W.*.*. iBaWSr\u0026lt; Brady Chicot Cloverdale Dodd Forest Park Fulbright Gayer Springs Jefferson Mabelvale McDermott Meadowcliff Otter Creek Pulaski Heights Terry Wakefield Watson Western Hills Wilson (w'iijieiiiW SJixixcr, ___ 5TJi?fOrxi2Jc\" 10 10 10 (I*  ?ii Si 1 K xy. -ilQbs in-i(u.x*x6x.x Tejragi. 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 XO( XX'ft.X-XXwGfi.-ii?/ --------- SpOpi ill ysffstJt ifiitHirrnniaiM K{ WsSHijSigsj JsSS? *jPWkPii 10 'tpjw, a\u0026gt;trAKsxt, 10 10 !***\nMu'-' M agiaj 10 10 10 10 sj :*nwz .Kiow:^.' xiiSx* asbUtt SB 10 B 10 10  95 56 62 20 35 30 24 85 28 17 39 31 30 24 19 33 13 38 25 28 22 63 r/ \"7 5 1 1 5 1 1 1 1 5 1 1 litieSitfej\nifcPii\"K\nBewwjeai *^'^''.*15#^ i^f} 5 2 SsSSSaB^fei* *5S^SSS 1 l^h?ifJM-XJ .jwuiitlj 1 1 5 5 i T S 53 *!^Sr* * jFloi MiFj^\u0026gt;l\nM 1 5 5 1 1 1 5 5 1 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 1 5 1 5 1 Vi^iyff-  laiftiniftr^i akaBOfSa '.Bo  5 5 5 a ji**^^?**^ 5 5 5 1 5 5 5 MAJl.tM. JT 5^\n?S?S y^y*-~ieyifc\u0026gt; 1 5 5 5 5 5 1 1 1 1 5 5 5 5 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 5 5 1 5 fjF 5*\u0026lt;.-!:'?3r 1 1 1 1 1 1 5 5 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 5 1 9 1 5 1 1 1 5 1 1 1 1 1 5 5 1 5 30^ \u0026gt; 5 ubix iu 1 1 1 1 1 1 r/ ' This is a factor only if renovation is ever done. wraiIN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT PLAINTIFF VS. NO. LR-C-82-866 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, ET AL REC I? IVES! . DEFENDANTS MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL .1111 3 1995 INTERVENORS INTERVENORS Office of Desegre. a' son Mon:icfing MEMORANDUM BRIEF IN SUPPORT OF LRSDS MOTION FOR MODIFICATION OF DESEGREGATION PLAN It The Plaintiff, Little Rock School District (\"LRSD\" or District\"), for its Memorandum Brief in Support of its Motion for Modification of Desegregation Plan, submits the following: In the Court-approved LRSD desegregation plan. the LRSD indicated that it would operate twenty-three (23) area schools. various incentive schools, magnet schools and inter-district schools on the elementary school level. The LRSD has in fact operated the area schools as envisioned in the plan through and including the 1994-95 school year. As this Court has continued to monitor LRSD's implementation of the plan. the District has regularly updated this Court of its financial condition. In fact. at the Court's request, the District has provided this Court, from time-to-time, projections of its budget status for five-year diinaVpcssdXmodiOcaiKMi.brf -1-intervals. Those projections have included various scenarios of anticipated budget deficits with no millage increase/no cuts, no millage increase/cuts and millage increase/cuts. It is primarily in the last scenario that the District projects its ability to continue program operations while submitting balanced budgets in accordance with Arkansas state law. As a part of its review of the District's financial condition, this Court has consistently encouraged the District to pursue those budget reduction strategies which will yield recurring benefits. Namely, this Court has expressed concern over the use of revenue generating measures which are one-time in nature whereas the District's primary expenditures are recurring in nature. Accordingly, this Court has requested the District to determine the availability of strategies which yield recurring benefits. As this Court is well aware, the District has now embarked upon a program, planning and budget process whereby it makes an inventory of its programs, conducts program evaluations, conducts an analysis of the needs of the District as it relates to the District's goals and mission and, thereby, develops programs tied to the achievement of its goals and mission. The program planning and budgeting process is driven by the District's project management tool which tasks out the various components of the process to insure that the products to be produced from each sub-process will be available for the District's use in budget development. The project management tool for fiscal diani\\pcssd\\fnodiricaiion.brf -2-year 1996 was primarily implemented during the 1994-95 school year for the development of the District's budget for the 1995-96 school year. Among the many sub-processes identified in that tool to lead to the 1995-96 budget was a sub-process for school closings. As indicated by the business cases and time lines attached to the motion filed herewith, the District used processes and procedures which revealed a sufficient change of circumstances to warrant the requested modification of the desegregation plan. As reflected by the respective business cases, each school's enrollment as of October 1, 1994, was significantly below the available capacity. Further, even if each school was filled to capacity, the capacity of each school is significantly below the District-wide average for elementary area schools. As such, each school would not operate efficiently when compared to average sized area schools. The enrollment at each school has declined since 198 9 and continued enrollment declines are expected at both schools. One of the most severe consequences of such enrollment declines is the continued increase in per pupil expenditures at each school. For instance, the per pupil cost at Badgett Elementary School has increased to $4,021.87 during the 1994-95 school year, the highest of any area elementary school. Likewise the per pupil cost at Fair Park Elementary School as increased. In fact, operational costs for these two buildings have increased such to cause these schools d iana\\pcssd\\rTxxt ificat ton. brf -3-to become two of the most expensive schools to operate annually within the District. It is also significant to note that both of the buildings where each of these schools is housed are in need of renovation and upgrading. The cost to accomplish the necessary renovations and upgrades at each school is estimated to exceed $1,000,000 each. This is considerably more than the average cost which would be necessary to renovate and upgrade the other buildings in the District. Taking these changed circumstances into consideration, along with the fact that the District's total building capacity and total enrollment reflects many vacant seats, the number of vacant seats in the District has now become significant. Although, various factors may be considered as one searches for the cause of the increase in the number of vacant seats. it is important to recognize that the District has been extremely successful in its efforts to encourage its black students to take advantage of educational opportunities available in the Pulaski County Special School District through the interdistrict school program. As a consequence of these and other facts, the LRSD now has more school buildings and school seats available than needed to serve the students currently in the District and those reasonably anticipated to enroll in the District in the near future. Given the fact that financing the operational costs of a school is a major expense, it was only reasonable for the District diana\\pcsjd\\modiftcmon.l\u0026gt;rf -4-to give serious consideration to possible closing of schools as a budget reduction strategy which would yield recurring savings from year-to-year. In fact, it is estimatedthat the District could save approximately $523,000 during the 1995-96 school year by closing Badgett Elementary School and approximately $637,000 during the 1995-96 school year by closing Fair Park Elementary School. In light of these considerations, as well as the budget projections reflected in the LRSD's 1995-96 proposed budget filed with this Court on or about March 14, 1995, this District has attempted to comply with the mandates of this Court through recognizing the changed circumstances and the opportunity those circumstances present to allow the District to achieve significant savings without negatively impacting the quality educational programs available in the District. In recognition of previous filings made herein, the District would refer this Court to its Brief in Support of Motion for Modification of Desegregation Plan filed herein on April 20, 1994, requesting that Washington Elementary School be recognized as the second required interdistrict school. In that brief, the District provided this Court with significant factual information regarding the demographics of the LRSD and the changes which have occurred in those demographics since the plans were agreed upon by the parties. That information is incorporated herein by reference as if set out herein word-for-word. The District also incorporates the argument portion of that brief wherein the law of modification of consent diana\\pcssd\\rTK\u0026gt;diftcaiKMi.brf -5-decrees is discussed and analyzed, the effect of changed circumstances, the demographics of the District and the importance of the financial constraints under which the District continues to operate. In light of the foregoing factors and circumstances, the board of directors considered the strategy of closing schools as a budget reduction measure. When initially reviewed by the board on April 12, 1995, the board only consisted of six voting members due to the recent death of board member 0. G. Jacovelli. At that time, the board was evenly divided on the issue, and the matter failed 3-3. Subsequent to that meeting, the vacancy on the board was filled by the selection of Ms. Stephanie Johnson to represent Zone 7 on the board of directors. Further, through continued discussions and review during the various budget work sessions held by the board of directors, the board continued to consider the various budget reduction strategies available to it--among those being school. closings. Finally, on Thursday, June 22, 1995, the board revisited the issue of school closings as it continued its budgetary process and voted to close both Badgett Elementary School and Fair Park Elementary School beginning with the 1995-96 school year. This action was reported to this Court during the budget hearings held on Friday, June 23, 1995. In light of the changed circumstances as discussed herein including. but not limited to, declining enrollment. increased operational costs, increased vacant seats district-wide and severe financial constraints, it is hereby submitted that the diana\\pcud\\modirica(ion.brf -6-circumstances warrant the requested plan modification. Accordingly, this Court is hereby requested to grant the motion to modify desegregation plan filed herewith and permit the District to close Badgett Elementary School and Fair Park Elementary School beginning with the 1995-96 school year. Respectfully submitted, FRIDAY, ELDREDGE \u0026amp; CLARK Attorneys at Law 2000 First Commercial Building 400 West Capitol Little Rock, Arkansas (501) 72201-3493 duni\\pcud\\(nodiricatton.brf 376-2011 ATTORNEYS FOR PLAINTIFF LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT Jerry L. Malone Bar No. I. D. 85096 -7-CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I, Jerry L. Malone, do hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing Memorandum Brief in Support of LRSD's Motion for Modification of Desegregation Plan has been served by U. S. Mail, postage prepaid, except as otherwise indicated, on the 7 day of rJc/A^X. , 1995, upon the following: Mr. John W. Walker JOHN W. WALKER, P.A. Attorneys at Law 1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72206 Mr. Samuel M. Jones, III WRIGHT, LINDSEY \u0026amp; JENNINGS Attorneys at Law 2200 Worthen Bank Building 200 West Capitol Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Stephen W. Jones JACK, LYON \u0026amp; JONES, P.A. Attorneys at Law 3400 Capitol Towers Capitol \u0026amp; Broadway Streets Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Richard W. Roachell ROACHELL \u0026amp; STREETT Attorneys at Law First Federal Plaza, Suite 504 401 West Capitol Avenue Little Rock, AR 72201 Mrs. Ann Brown (Hand-delivered as per Order by the Court) Attorney at Law Heritage West Building, Suite 520 201 East Markham Street Little Rock, AR 72201 Jerry L. Malone diini\\pcssd\\jnodirication.brf -8-HERSCHEL M. FRIDAY II 922-I394I ROBERT 7, light. P a. WILLIAM H. SUTTON. P.A.  W. MOORE M. elSEMA.N. JR.. P.A. BELL. P.A. FRIDAY, ELDREDGE \u0026amp; CLARK A PARTNERSHIP OF INDIVIDUALS ANO PROFESSIONAL ASSOCIATIONS ATTORNEYS AT LAW X6VIN A. CRASS. *.A. WILLIAM A. WAOO6LL. CUYO *TA8' rURNER* 9 J R . a A jwr,., C. SCMOLS. P.A. JAMES A. 3UTTRY. A. FREOEflICX S. URSERY. P.A. H. r. LARZELERE. P.A. OSCAR . OAVIS. JR.. P.A. JAMES C. CLARK. JR.. P A THOMAS P. LEGGETT. P.A. JOHN OeWEY WATSON. P.A. PAUL 3. 3ENHAM III. P.A. LARRY W. 3URKS. A. A. WYCKLIFF NISBET. JR.. P a. JAMES EOWARO HARRIS. P.A. J. PHILLIP MALCOM. P.A. JAMES M. SIMPSON. P.A. MEREDITH P. CATLETT. P.A. JAMES M. SAXTON. P.A. J. SHEPHERD RUSSELL III. P.A. DONALD H. 3ACON. P A. WILLIAM THOMAS BAXTER. P.A. WALTER A. PAULSON II. P.A. BARRY S. COPLIN. ? A. RICHARD 0. TAYLOR. P.A. JOSEPH 9. HURST. JR.. P.A. ELIZABETH ROBBEN MURRAY. P a CHRISTOPHER HELLER. P.A. LAURA HENSLEY SMITH. P.A. ROBERT S. SHAFER. P A. WILLIAM M. GRIFFIN III. P.A. THOMAS N. ROSE. P.A. MICHAEL 3. MOORE. P A. OIANE 5. MACKEY. P.A. WALTER M. EBEL HI. P.A. 2000 FIRST COMMERCIAL BUILDING 400 WEST CAPITOL LITTLE flOCX. ARKANSAS 72201-3493 TELEPHONE 501-376-201 1 Pax no. SOl-376-2147 August 1, 1995 RECEn/^O AUG I 1995 Calvin j. mall. p.a. SCOTT J. LANCASTER. P a JERRY L. MALONE. P.A. M. GAYLE CORLEY, p a ROBERT 3. BEACH. jR.. p 4, J. LEE aROWN. P.A. JAMES C. BAKER. JR. P a H. CHARLES GSCHWENO jR Pa HARRY A. LIGHT. P.a SCOTT M. TUCKER. P a JOHN CLAYTON RANDOLPH ? a GUY ALTON WADE. P a PRICE C. Gardner, p a J. MICHAEL PICKENS TONIA P. JONES OAVIO D. WILSON JEFFREY M. MOORE ANDREW T. TURNER DAVID M. GRAF CARLA G. SPAINHOUR JOHN C. FENDLEY.jR. ALLISON GRAVES JONANN C. ROOSEVELT R. CHRISTOPHER LAWSON GREGORY 0. TAYLOR TONY L. WILCOX FRAN C. HICKMAN BETTY J. DEMORY Mr. John W. Wal.ker JOHN W. WALiiCiR., P.A. Attorneys at Law 1723 Broadway Little Rock, Arkansas 72206 Mr. Sam Jones WRIGHT, LINDSEY i JENNINGS Attorneys at Law 2200 Worthen Bank Building 200 West Capitol Avenue Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Mr. Stephen W. Jones JACK, LYON \u0026amp; JONES, P.A. 3400 Capitol Towers Capitol Sc Broadway Streets Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Re: Gentlemen and Mrs. Brown: Offics of Desegregaiion Moriiicring Mrs . Ann Brown Attorney at Law ileritage West Building,. 201 East Markham Street ittle Rock, Arkansas Mr. Richard Roachell ROACHELL Sc STREETT Attorneys at Law First Federal Plaza, COUNtlL WILLIAM J. SMITH WILLIAM A. ELOREOCE. JR.. P.A. 3.3. CLARK WILLIAM L. TERRY. P.A, WILLIAM L. PATTON. JR.. P A. wRiTSR-s oiaecr .'*o. (SOI) 370-1553 Suite 520 72201 401 West Capitol Avenue Little Rock, Arkansas LRSD V. PCSSD, et al Suite 504 72201 Since early spring the Little Roc.k School District has been following the Desegregation various plan modifications Plan approval. it will Amendment submit Process regarding :o the Court to tor We have received responses from the North Little Rock School District and the Pulaski County Special School District. Neither has any objections to the modifications as proposed nor any concerns have been resolved. dianixpcudVaitorney. Il4Gentlemen and Mrs. Grown August 1, Page 2 1995 Richard Roachell is checking with his clients whether the Knight intervenors will raise any object: I have received no response from Richard. to determine ton. To data. been requested to review and consider the prooosed and provide his response for our Likewise, Mr. Walker das modifications consideration and negotiation. I now write to update each oi you regarding the status of the proposed modifications. Enclosed please find the latest update on Desegregation Plan Modifications. As noted in the cover racari the rications. L\u0026gt; Memorandum : 'om Dr. Russ Mayo, or not presented to the parties several items were e consideration. the enctosec material represents the proposed modif currently exist. ther withdrawn Accordingly, zations as thev These modifications will now be oresented to the LRSD Soard of Directors for its consideration and action. If approvec, approval. they will be filed with the Court tor s review and Included herewith are: 1. 2 . 3 . 4 . A list of modifications now being considered\nA graphic of the modification process\nDesegregation Plan Modification Draft A Guidelines\nand. !py of the plan modifications as they currently stand. Thank each of you for your kind attention to and consideration of this matter. Sinc^ely Jerry u. Mauone LRSD Attorney DICTATED 3UT NOT READ JLM/dtw Enclosures cc (letter only)\nDr. Ms. Dr. Henry P. Williams Linda Pondexter Russ Mayo UiamxocudUuarney.l(4Little Rock School District MEMORANDUM To: Dr. Henry P. Williams, Superintendent From: Russ Mayo, Associate Superintendent Date: July 13, 1995 Subject: Update on Desegregation Plan Modifications OlSice \u0026gt;'.1 1 \\995 ot Oesegtss'-i'-' ,D onAoting a The next step in our Desegregation Plan Modification Process requires your approval and recommendation of our proposed modifications to the Board of Directors. I am recommending the attached plan modifications for your consideration. We have heard no objections from the parties except the item noted below from the Magnet Review Committee. Below are changes since the modifications were first submitted to the parties: 1. McClellan Community School and Four-Year-Old Program modifications were withdrawn. McClellan was a reduction which does not require a plan change. School Closings modifications were never submitted because of the original vote of the Board\nand, 2. At the request of the Magnet Review Committee, I have removed the reference to geographic preference in the original Student Assignments modification. Included here are: 1. 2. 3. 4. A list of the modifications now being considered\nA graphic of the modification process\nDesegregation Plan Modification Draft Guidelines\nand, A copy of the plan modifications as they currently stand. If the you and the Board approve, these modifications will be filed for consideration by the Court. C: Chris Heller, LRSD Attorney Jerry Malone, LRSD Attorney UIH CnTTDICLittle Rock School District Desegregation Plan Modifications July 13, 1995 Budget Related Result 1. Staffing - Incentive Schools 2. Academic Progress Incentive Grants 3. Focused Activities Others 1. LRSD Biracial Committee 2. Student Assignments 3. Parent Coimcil - Incentive Schools 4. Parent Involvement/Community Linkages 5. Spanish - Incentive Schools 6. Recruitment of Private School Students 7. Incentive Schools Parent Recruitment LRSD Office of Desegregation Reduce Reduce Reduce Change Change 4 to 2 mon. visits Change Delete Change ChangeStudents Desegregation Plan Amendment Process WHO? HOW? WHY? Patrons Teachers Administrators Committees f 1. Initial Evaluation 2. Share with the LRSD Board of Directors Little Rock School District Propose Change (in writing) Failure of Deseg. Process Changes in Law Better Methods Discovered Demographic Changes Changing Circumstances Office of Desegregation (LRSD) If approved 3. When appropriate: Surveys \u0026amp; Public Meetings held Informal Consultation with Parties I Submit to Court (Share with Parties) ) 4. Final Recommendation to Superintendent 5. Superintendent Recommends to Board If the Court approves, the plan shall be amended noting the amendment \u0026amp; approved date. R. MayoLittle Rock School District Desegregation Plan Modification Draft Guidelines 1. Identify all references in the plan relating to the modification that is to be done\n2. For each topic to be modified, retype word-for-word those sections relating to the particular topic as follows: a) Clearly reference the section and page from the plan at the beginning\nb) Leave all words in place you want deleted but show them with a strike out line through them\nc) New wording must be shown as italicized in the appropriate place\nd) Summarize (one sentence) significant changes briefly in [brackets] at the end of certain paragraphs or sections. These bracketed summaries will remain in the final revision with the amendment date. Use a month and year approximately 6 months into the future for the amendment date. This date will be changed to the date of final approval by the court. The bracketed comments will serve as a reminder in future years of the additions, modifications, or deletions that are made to the plan\ne) Page numbers of the retyped modification must appear at the top right of each retyped page as Modification Page 1, for example. These numbers refer only to the pages of the modification. They are in no way related to page numbers in the plan. Plan page numbers are referred to at the beginning of each new retyped section\nf) If your word processing software will do it, line number each line or every other line down the left side of the page for reference purposes\nand, g) Add footnotes where you think appropriate. Once this is done, submit it to the LRSD Office of Desegregation for review. If you have questions at anytime, please call Russ Mayo (2408).LRSD Plan Modification Proposal Staffing - Incentive Schools February, 1995- 2 LUD Desegregation Plan Modification Page 1 (cftiw on ___ o L Oooofrototien Fl on and on Ftfo 172 of tHo (itoot tndoiod copy of tho Plan.) 4  universities to assist with teaching activities and extracurricular 8 activities\nassistance from social agencies to intervene if students need assistance in health and/or personal need situations. 10 12 14 16 B. College/Post Graduation Rwareaess - A mentoring program will be established which will provide interactive time for students to work with appropriate role models to enhance an awareness of skills necessary for successful entry into the world of work. The program will also serve to heighten student expectations with regard to their own abilities and potential to attend college and to graduate. Parents will also receive this information so that they may be aware of the options which are open to their children. 18 C. 20 22 tudy Skills - Counselors and teachers will be responsible for working with students to enhance test taking skills, listening skills and study skills. Practice will be provided for students in test taking, i.e., bubble sheets will be used on some class tests and a variety of question types will be used by teachers. e. 24 D. /ighborhood Meetings - Meetings with parents will not always be held at the schools. 26 Other Beetingss, for SBall groups of parents, will be scheduled at couaunity locations such as churches and sose hoses if 28 invited by parents. 30 These less formal meetings out of the school environment may more productive and can help forge a school/neighborhood partnership. It is suggested that local ministers be considered as part of the school partnership and community. be 34 Individual ind Group Counseling - Individual and group counseloing as well as peer facilitators will be employed at the school to assist students as they attempt to work through concerns and the normal issues which arise 36 as student growth and development takes place, taught conflict resolutions. Students will also be 38 F. 40 Incentive/Reeognition Programs - Incentive/recognition programs will be developed by students, staff and patrons at each school. Ideas awards 42 (suggestions) presented in teh subcommittee meeting included\nprograms, recognition days, good citizen clubs, free tickets to community and athletic events, tangible rewards such as a book of the student's 44 choice for academic growth and the like. 46 48 50 G. ^llness Program - A wellness program will be in place at each building with availability of a full time nurse. Students will be screened for physical health and will also receive information on topics like self- esteem, nutrition, drug prevention and awareness and first aid. Presentations will likewise be made to parents on similar topics for their information on a continuing education basis. 52 H. 54 58 Camp Pfeifer - Students in need of additional academic assistance will have access to programs such as that currently in place at Camp Pfeifer, whereby, they spend some time in residence at a program away from the school and the home which provides counseling, intensive academic support and time management skills. Parent involvement is an inherent part of this program in assisting them to work with students on homework and academics. 60 622 LRSD Desegregation Plan Instructional Aides Modification Modification Page 2 (Mfltn* on 14 af Nay 1, 1992 Court Ordar.) 6 20 students, If the district should choose to reduce class size to a aaxinuD 8 of 20 students in every kindergarten through sixth grade classroom in an entire incentive school, the Ceept the school will el lew that eeheel te have sufficient twa instructional aides fer e^ery \u0026lt;hres K- \u0026lt; slasspessie to implement apeeifie 10 functions, fnrfa Ilia Pam fpm, fiffr-rny grtrf ini*tcr rufruj\nrijnjJ tmialanee~n9-iie9igmiteti-by-tfte-pnneipitl-antl/9e-the~eiiuar9om-ieeKhei. In any case, an appropriate 12 number of supervision aides will be provided at each incentive school, regardless of whether- there is ene the number of instructional aides per olassreem 14 optin thei  sshoels whieh eleet te have- we sepe then \u0026gt;0 ehilSpew yg k 6 16 elaaapeem\ntwe inatpuetiewal aides pep-evpy three K-6 elaaapeema per building. Information presented at the hearings indicated that over half of all incentive school classroons presently have acre than 20 students. The Court 18 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 20 school year, the Court will not require that students currently enrolled in the Incentive Schools be transferred mandatorily to some other school. Children 22 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 24 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. 26 However, the Court is willing to permit an exception if the new student's enrollment would improve racial balance. 28 Academic Program - 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.. 2 LRSD Desegregation Plan Incentive School Staffing Modification Modification Page 3 4 (((irw on Rtf* 190 of l*S0 Ootefrofot ion Flan and Faga 186 of the I at Mt indaatd copy of tht Flan.) Section Three: Incentive School Staffing 8 The selection and support of quality staff sembers will be critical 10 factors in the success of Incentive Schools. Carefully planned staff-selection criteria and procedures will provide the quality personnel capable 12 of successfully attaining the goals and implementing the programs and curriculuB of these schools. Ongoing staff devalopaent for Incentive Schools 14 must prepare the staffs to attain the standards of excellence they will uphold for achieving student success and fulfillment of potential. 16 Itaffinq 18 I. Little Kock School District (LKSD) Incentive schools Staffing Coa*ittee 20 - A committee will be established to assess staffing needs for Incentive Schools, to set criteria for staffing, to recruit quality staff members, and 22 to determine procedures for staffing. The committee would be composed of teachers, parents, supervisors, principals, other administrators, and Joshua 24 Intervenors. 26 II. Staffing Moods Xssessnent - The needs and interests of student populations in the Incentive Schools will be considered before staff selections are made. 28 Factors to be considered before adding new staff include the following: 32 34 Number of students per grade level Race and gender Academic achievement needs and interests Disciplinary needs Social interaction needs Health needs 36 Program goals and curriculum of the Incentive Schools will also be examined. The LRSD Incentive Schools Staffing Committee will then utilize the student 38 data, goals, and curriculum to identify staffing needs for the Incentive Schools. 40 The following full-time positions except music, art, physical education, and social worker are 42 recommended for each school but are not all inclusive of positions which may be identified during the needs assessment process. 44 46 48 52 54 Classroom teachers Counselor Media specialist Music Art P.E. Social Worker Permanently assigned substitute teacher (for each Incentive School) Reading (remediation) Math (remediation)2 LRSD Desegregation Plan Incentive School Staffing Modification Modification Page 4 (tn* on * 1W of L\u0026lt;0 D**fret*tlan Rian and  186 of th* lotott ind*i*d capy of th* Olon. \u0026gt; 10 12 14 Computer lab attendant Resource Speech Specialist for alternative classrooa Media Clerk Instructional aides (ewe per elesspsea) {Une 11 * one per classroom deleft} Prograa specialist Principal Assistant Principal Non-certified supervision aides 6 8 16 Note: 18 Music teachers, art teachers, and physical education teachers will be assigned in accordance with the practice of providing a two (2) thirty (30) minute periods per week of preparation time for each regula classroom teacher. 20 22 Social Workers will be assigned based on student enrollment and the need to provide sodal services to students at the Incentive Schools. B III. Staff Beeruitaaat - The LRSD will implement ongoing nationwide recruitment etrategies with special emphasis on recruiting qualified minority staff 26 members. Current recruitment files will be maintained on an ongoing basis. A pool of prospective staff members also will be drawn from promising student 28 teachers and participants in the Master Teacher Program (as mentioned in the Staff Development Section, Item F). 30 IV. 32 A) Staff Salactioa The LRSD Incentive Schools Staffing Committee will develop criteria for principal and staff selection. \" ' 34 vacant. All positions in each school will be declared Principals shall be selected first for each school so that they may be involved in staff selection and collection and review of student data. 36 Selection criteria will include, but not be limited, the following: 38 40 42 44  Race and gener  Successful teaching and/or administrative experience with at-risk youth  Record of commitment to quality desegregated education  Strong recommendations from a variety of sources (i.e., colleagues, principals, college professors, and other administrators) B) The LRSD Incentive Schools Staffing Committee will work with the Human Resources Department to develop job descriptions and special contracts outlining program and contractual requirements. C) The Human Resources Department will advertise the positions. 48 50LRSD Plan Modification Proposal Focused Activities and Academic Progress Incentive Grants February, 1995LRSD Plan Modification School Operations Focused Activities!Academic Progress Incentive Grant Modification Page I (c|im OB F(e It of LMSO Dce|rc|ilion Ph* * on P*|e 11 of ihc hlctt iadcwd eof^ of the phn) SCHOOL OPERATIONS FOCUSED ACnVITIES/lND ACADEMIC PROGRESS INCENTIVE GRANT Each elementary area school shall have a fundamentally sound and strong basic education program. It shall also have the option of developing focused activities (which may center around a theme) after appropriate community and parental involvement All focused activities must promote the desegregation objectives ordered by the court and will be implemented through the appropriate goals identified in School Operations (LRSD pp. 28-47). The elementaiy area schools (non-incentive and non-interdistrict) will receive an annual allocation for implementing the focused activities for the school year. The purpose of the focused activities shall be threefold: (1) to promote the school as a \"community of learning\" among parents, staff, and students, (2) to provide enrichment opportunities at the building level\nand (3) to ensure equitable opportunities for participation in the elementary area schools. I. Elementary areas of Collaboration The Little Rock School District and the Pulaski County Special School District agree that the implementation of focused activities (LRSD) and specialty programs (PCSSD) in the districts elementary schools could be a collaborative effort (1) in enriching each districts elementary curriculum and (2) in achieving greater racial balance through voluntary interdistrict and intradistrict transfers. Considering the first point, the PCSSD wants the specialty programs initially in a limited number of its elementary schools, whereas the LRSD plans to implement only focused activities in all of its elementary area schools. In relations to the second point of collaboration, the two districts agree to accept that only magnet, incentive, and interdistrict schools in Little Rock School District will have specialty themes, and the two districts agree to develop procedures whereby specialty themes will not be unnecessarily duplicated within the two districts. Also, the tvo districts will collaboratively publicize the specialty programs and encourage majority to minority transfers between theModification Page 2 two districts. Once a final decision is made regarding the implementation of specialty programs, additional areas of collaboration between PCSSD and LRSD will be explored. Also, at any time in the future that the North Little Rock School District decides to implement q\u0026gt;ccialty programs, PCSSD and LRSD agree to address any possible areas of collaboration with NLRSD. IL Overview The Little Rock School District will establish an Academic Progress Incentive Grant Program, the goals of which will be to (1) improve the education of all students and (2) reduce the disparity in achievement among students of different racial, socioeconomic, and gender groups. III. Expected Outcomes The following goals will be achieved by the Little Rock School District  Each non-magnet and non-incentive elementary school will provide focused activities for the total school population including attention to gender, race, and socioeconomic issues.  Each school will be recognized as a community of learning in which all students, staff members, and parents are totally involved and supportive.  The focused activities of each non-magnet and nonincentive elementary school will be integrated into the core curriculum or reflected in the schools environment and day-to-day activities.  All elementary area school students will participate in ongoing, meaningful enrichment activities that complement and extend the core curricular activities.  All elementary area schools will be viewed by the community as providing equitable and excellent educational programs. Academic Progress Incentive Grants In response to n request for proposals (RFP), the To expend the funds, teachers. building administrators, and patrons of individual elemental area schoolswill develofs nouModification Page 3 yrepeb wriwwig apifw utilize the goals identified in School Operations (LRSD pp. 2847) to develop a plana for increasing achievement and decreasing disparity. A grant AMFitiwg Inservice will be offered by the District to assist schools in developing strategies that will facilitate the integration of these goals into appropriate goals of School Operations. Bagiaaiag with tha 1S\u0026gt;9O 91 tahoal yaart aneh aahoai will ba able to apply for-a total af aver a thaaa year pariodi Thia aaiawat win ba-iaaaed to the aahaals ia iaarewaats of taStOOO aaah yaart aad the aawyaoar of Biade will be parwitted. The aaatiaaatiaa of the Aoadewie Progress Inoeative Grant Program will be reviewed ot the end of the 1992 93 aahoal year.. Beginning with the 1995-96 school year, each elementary area school will be eligible to receive funding (at a rate of $20 per student) to implement the goals of Focused Activities and Academic Progress Incentive Grants by using the goals in School Operations to establish a basis of developing an action plan. Magnet and incentive schools will not be eligible for these grants. The focused activities of each area school will be integrated into school operations and the core curriculum as well as reflected in the schools environment and day-to-day activities. The academic performance of area school students will indicate achievement gained partially as a result of enrichment experiences provided by the core program and enrichment activities. Area school studentswill participate in ongoing, meaningful enrichment activities that complement and extend the core curricular activities. All area schools will be viewed by the community as providing equitable and excellent educational programs. Allowable Activities Elementary zrez schools may receive funds to identify and implement strategies based on promising practices to enhance student achievement and reduce the disparities in academic achievement among groups formed on the basis of race, gender, and economic status.Modification Page 4 Teachers, b\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_465","title":"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":["1991/1993"],"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","Education--Evaluation","Educational statistics","School enrollment"],"dcterms_title":["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/465"],"dcterms_temporal":null,"dcterms_rights_holder":null,"dcterms_bibliographic_citation":null,"dlg_local_right":["Available for use in research, teaching, and private study. Any other use requires permission from the Butler Center."],"dcterms_medium":["documents (object genre)"],"dcterms_extent":["70 pages"],"dlg_subject_personal":null,"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":"\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n\n\n\n   \n\n\n\n\n   \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n  \n\nM-to-M TRANSFERS SENDING TO: RECEIVING FROM: LRSD NLRSD PCSSD TOTAL LRSD NLRSD PCSSD TOTAL LRSD NLRSD PCSSD TOTAL XXXXX 256 382 638 XXXXX 118 255 373 118 255 373 XXXXX -0-* 256 -0-* XXXXX 382 118 255 1,011 256 382 638 XXXXX -0- 256 -0- 118 XXXXX 382 255 1.011  NLRSD sends to PCSSD 59 students and PCSSD sends to NLRSD 34 students on a volunteer transfer agreement between the two districts. The normal M-to-M funding formula is not used for these students. NOTE: LRSD sends to PCSSD 382 students PCSSD sends to LRSD 255 students Summary: LRSD sends to PCSSD 127 students more than PCSSD sends to LRSD LRSD sends out a total of 638 students PCSSD sends out a total of 255 students Summary: LRSD sends out 383 more students than PCSSD does. LRSD sends out a total of 638 students LRSD receives a total of 373 students Summary: LRSD sends out 265 more students than they receive. PCSSD sends out a total of 255 students PCSSD receives a total of 382 students Summary: PCSSD receives 127 students than they send out.Note: Romine is 73% filled with 130 available seats. Woodruff is 69% filled with 99 available seats. There are 5 elementary schools with 100% or more capacity: Forest Park McDermott Otter Creek Terry Wilson 102% 104% 101% 104% 100% over 6 over 19 over 5 over 20 There are 8 elementary schools with 80% or below maximum capacity: Cloverdale Garland Geyer Springs Ish Rightsell Romine Stephens Woodruff 80% 78% 77% 75% 80% 73% 73% 69% 100 available seats 81 available seats 74 available seats 65 available seats 71 available seats 130 available seats 90 available seats 99 available seats Cloverdale, Geyer Springs, and Woodruff underwent new construction and increased capacity. Garland, Ish, Rightsell, and Stephens are incentive schools. Romine, Woodruff, and Stephens have the lowest percent of filled capacity in LRSD. Woodruff and Stephens are located in the same area as the Westside site. Romine is an interdistrict school.LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT ENROLLMENT TO CAPACITY COMPARISON SCHOOLS 1991-92 Enrollment % BLK CAPACITY % FILLED AVAILABLE SEATS Badgett 220 73% 237 93% 17 Bale 360 82% 396 91% 36 Baseline 337 77% 390 86% 53 Booker 634 55% 656 97% 22 Brady 420 68% 492 85% 72 Carver 601 54% 613 98% 12 Chicot 531 64% 558 95% 27 Cloverdale 392 78% 492 80% 100 Dodd 303 55% 328 92% 25 Fair Park 320 80% 348 92% 28 Forest Park 402 48% 396 102% 0 Franklin 507 84% 570 89% 63 Fulbright 506 46% 515 98% 9 Garland 279 94% 360 78% 81 Geyer Springs 254 71% 328 77% 74 Gibbs 339 56% 353 96% 14 Ish 200 94% 265 75% 65 Jefferson 484 43% 486 99% 2 Mabelvale Elem 505 53% 515 98% 10 McDermott 511 57% 492 104% 0 Meadowcliff 427 59% 442 97% 15 Mitchell 312 91% 360 87% 48 Otter Creek 356 45% 351 101% 0 Pul. Heights 342 54% 351 97% 9 Rightsell 289 98% 360 80% 71 Rockefeller 403 70% 445 91% 42 Romine 357 84% 487 73% 130 Stephens 245 96% 335 73% 90 Terry 512 47% 492 104% 0 Wakefield 479 69% 492 97% 13 Washington 841 57% 979 86% 138SCHOOLS 1991-92 Enrollment % BLK CAPACITY % FILLED AVAILABLE SEATS Watson 467 72% 492 95% 25 Western Hills 323 59% 328 98% 5 Williams 495 55% 517 96% 22 Wilson 394 73% 394 100% 0 Woodruff 225 64% 324 69% 99 SUB TOTAL 14,683 65% 1,417 Cloverdale Jr. 745 71% 857 87% 112 Dunbar 691 61% 751 92% 60 Forest Heights 765 71% 733 104% 0 Henderson 859 83% 959 90% 100 Mabelvale Jr. 665 65% 594 112% 0 Mann 872 56% 935 93% 63 Pul. Heights 761 62% 692 110% 0 Southwest 704 74% 702 100% 0 SUB TOTAL 6,062 68% 335 Central High 1,721 60% 1,891 91% 170 Fair 882 61% 904 98% 22 Hall 1,082 54% 1,216 89% 134 McClellan 980 65% 1,085 90% 105 Parkview 844 53% 991 85% 147 SUB TOTAL 5,309 59% 578 GRAND TOTAL 26,254 64% 2330LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT ENROLLMENT TO CAPACITY COMPARISON SCHOOLS 1991-92 Enrollment % BLK CAPACITY % FILLED AVAILABLE SEATS Badgett Bale Baseline Booker Brady Carver Chicot Cloverdale Dodd Fair Park Forest Park Franklin Fulbright Garland Geyer Springs Gibbs Ish Jefferson Mabelvale Elem McDermott Meadowcliff Mitchell Otter Creek Pul. Heights Rightsell Rockefeller Romine Stephens Terry Wakefield Washington 220 360 337 634 420 601 531 392 303 320 402 507 506 279 254 339 200 484 505 511 427 312 356 342 289 403 357 245 512 479 841 73% 82% 77% 55% 68% 54% 64% 78% 55% 80% 48% 84% 46% 94% 71% 56% 94% 43% 53% 57% 59% 91% 45% 54% 98% 70% 84% 96% 47% 69% 57% 93% 17 396 390 656 492 613 558 492 328 348 396 570 515 360 328 353 265 486 515 492 442 360 351 351 360 445 487 335 492 492 979 91% 86% 97% 85% 98% 95% 80% 92% 92% 102% 89% 98% 78% 77% 96% 75% 99% 98% 104% 97% 87% 101% 97% 80% 91% 73% 73% 104% 97% 86% 36 53 22 72 12 27 100 25 28 0 63 9 81 74 14 65 2 10 0 15 48 0 9 71 42 130 90 0 13 138SCHOOLS 1991-92 Enrollment % BLK CAPACITY % FILLED AVAILABLE SEATS Watson 467 72% 492 95% 25 Western Hills 323 59% 328 98% 5 Williams Wilson Woodruff SUB TOTAL Cloverdale Jr. Dunbar Forest Heights Henderson Mabelvale Jr. Mann Pul. Heights Southwest SUB TOTAL Central High Fair Hall McClellan Parkview SUB TOTAL GRAND TOTAL 495 394 225 14,683 745 691 765 859 665 872 761 704 6,062 1,721 882 1,082 980 844 5,509 26,254 55% 73% 64% 6S% 71% 61% 71% 83% 65% 56% 62% 74% 63% 60% 61% 54% 65% 53% 59% 64% 517 394 324 857 751 733 959 594 935 692 702 1,891 904 1,216 1,085 991 96% 100% 69% 87% 92% 104% 90% 112% 93% 110% 100% 91% 98% 89% 90% 85% 22 0 99 1,417 112 60 0 100 0 63 0 0 335 170 22 134 105 147 578 2,330Saturday, October 12, 1991...Dei enrollment - Oct. 1,1991 Sr.high Central Fair Hall McClellan Parkview Total White Black Other % Black 640 1,086 336 487 330 377 542 595 658 455 45 13 19 12 25 2,152 3,243 114 61 61 54 66 53 59 Jr. high Cloverdale Dunbar Forest Heights Henderson Mabelvale Mann Pulaski Heights Southwest Total 209 263 208 135 235 365 291 176 531 420 541 711 429 491 468 521 1,882 4,112 5 8 16 13 1 16 2 7 68 71 61 71 83 65 56 62 74 68 Elementary Badgett Bale Baseline Booker Brady Carver Chicot Cloverdale Dodd Fair Park Forest Park Franklin Fulbright Garland Geyer Springs Gibbs Ish Jefferson Mabelvale McDermott Meadowcliff Mitchell Otter Creek Pulaski Heights : Rightsell Rockefeller Romine Stephens Terry Wakefield Washington Watson Western Hills Williams Wilson Woodnjff Total Grand Total 59 60 74 275 128 271 187 84 134 60 206 71 264 15 74 141 9 270 234 206 174 27 191 151 6 116 55 9 253 141 356 126 130 214 105 77 161 295 258 347 286 325 341 304 166 257 191 428 231 262 180 190 188 209 266 291 252 285 160 185 282 282 301 235 243 329 480 338 190 273 289 145 0 5 5 12 6 5 3 4 3 3 5 8 11 2 0 8 3 5 5 14 1 0 5 6  1 5 1 1 16 . 9 5 3 3 8 1 3 Includes 4-year-olds 4,851 9,374 166 9,04516,916 357 73 82 77 55 68 54 64 78 55 80 48 84 46 94 71 56 94 43 53 57 59 91 45 54 98 70 84 96 47 69 57 72 59 55 73 64 65 64 \u0026lt; 1 (LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 810 WEST MARKHAM STREET LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS RECEIVED OCT 2 8 1991 TO: Board of Directors October 8, 1991 Office of Desegregation Monitoring FROM: James Jennings, Associate Superintendent for Desegregation Monitoring and Program Development THROUGH: Dr. Ruth Steele, Superintendent of Schools iA SUBJECT: October 1 Enrollment - 1991-92 School Year Please find attached the October 1 enrollment statistics for the 1991-92 school year. cc: Senior Management Team LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 810 WEST MARKHAM STREET LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS OCTOBER 1 ENROLLMENT COMPARISON 1990-91/1991-92 WHITE BLACK OTHER TOTAL %BLACK SENIOR HIGH: 10/1/90 10/1/91 INCREASE(DECREASE) % 2201 2152 (49) (2.2%) 3174 3243 69 2.1% 90 114 24 26.7% 5465 5509 44 .8% 58 59 JUNIOR HIGH: 10/1/90 10/1/91 INCREASE(DECREASE) % 1878 1882 4 .2% 4025 . 4112 87 2.2% 81 68 (13) (16.1%) 5984 6062 78 1.3% 67 68 ELEMENTARY: 10/1/90 10/1/91 INCREASE(DECREASE) % 4740 4851 111 2.3% 9435 9374 (61) (.7%) 161 166 5 3.1% 14,336 14,391 55 .4% 66 65 SPECIAL SCHOOLS: 10/1/90 10/1/91 INCREASE(DECREASE) 49 40 (9) 22 24 2 0 0 0 71 64 (7) 31 38 DISTRICT TOTAL: 10/1/90 10/1/91 INCREASE(DECREASE) % 8868 8925 57 .6% 16,656 16,753 97 .6% 332 348 16 4.8% 25,856 26,026 170 .7% 64 64 KINDERGARTEN: 10/1/90 10/1/91 INCREASE!DECREASE) % 682 694 12 1.8% 1200 1231 31 2.6% 22 18 (4) (18.2%) 1904 1943 39 2.1% 63 63WHITE BLACK OTHER TOTAL XBLACK FOUR YEAR OLD: 10/1/90 10/1/91 INCREASE{DECREASE) % 76 120 44 57.9% 146 163 17 11.6% 6 9 3 50% 228 292 64 28.1% 64 56 DISTRICT TOTAL WITH FOUR YEAR OLDS: 10/1/90 10/1/91 INCREASE(DECREASE) % 8944 9045 101 1.13% 16,802 16,916 114 .7% 338 357 19 5.6% 26,084 26,318 234 .9% 64 64GRADE WHITE K 694 1 757 2 693 3 656 4 688 5 668 6 657 UNGR 38 TOTAL ELEM, 4851 7 649 8 597 9 626 UNGR 10 TOTAL JR HIGH 1882 10 700 11 731 12 710 UNGR 11 TOTAL SR HIGH 2152 SPEC. SCHOOLS 40 FOUR YEAR OLDS 120 DIST TOTALS 9045 SUMMARY OF OCTOBER 1 ENROLLMENT 1991-92 BLACK OTHER* TOTAL %BLACK 1231 1414 1291 1240 1333 1410 1348 107 9374 1407 1422 1271 12 4112 1241 1056 933 13 3243 24 163 16,916 18 22 32 22 24 22 25 1 166 24 21 23 0 68 44 37 33 0 114 0 9 357 SUMMARY OF STUDENTS LISTED IN \"OTHER\" CATEGORY: SPANISH 92 ASIAN/PACIFIC ISLANDER - 233 ESKIMO/AMERICAN INDIAN OTHER 27 5 1943 2193 2016 1918 2045 2100 2030 146 14,391 2080 2040 1920 22 6062 1985 1824 1676 24 5509 64 292 26,318 63 64 64 65 65 67 66 73 65 68 70 66 55 68 63 58 56 54 59 38 56 64Q: G TTLE TOBER t 1 ROCK ? 1 ENf WOO!.... DI (5 T t..LNENT RE FCT jRT 1 1 C hl IJ Li L / (ri F\\ A L, F\". Whin E. BL.ACI OThlER TOTAL BLACK CENTRAL UNGRADED 10 11 12 0 L. 4: 0  SUBTOTAL KIND. TOTAL 169 640 0 640 OeZLJ 2 7 h 1036 0 21 13 11 tiRf\u0026lt;  5 fl) 1 702 .3 to to 5 6 721 1771 61 hC) 60.20% 100 . !(!0% 61.32% (vm\u0026lt; UNGRADED 11 10 11 18 106 123 SUBTOTAL KIND. TOTAL . 1 13 209 164 148 534 8 542 13 (j 13 24 311 5'-!' 17% 20% 60.07% 54.O1% O iiC\u0026gt; to to (391 60  8 -vz KALL UNGRADED 10 11 c\nUBTOTAL. KIND. TOTAL 0 134 154 188 476 11 487 0 196 204 187 0 to e:\n87 a 595 (? 1 \u0026lt;? IV 0 fc.RF'\\ MCCLELLAN UNGRADED 10 11 12 0 91 126 1 11 0 243 207 190 0 2 B SUBTOTAL 6 KIND TOTAL to 0 6 c (-ARK VIEW UNGRADED 10 11 C} 134 120 1 * IF, IF 0 8 0 A ?ec: SUBTOTAL KIND. TOTAL 44 I.-.. 45 Q 'ST Page - 1 UtoH 380 1082 19 1101 56.04% 49.21% 5 A 8 Fitz 48.11% 54.04% 0 U-toto 341 980 20 1000 0 298 283 1 857 ERF\u0026lt; 60.70y, vC J. 65.80% 0 53 50 00% 02% 19% 84%SCHOOL/GRADE! CLOVER\n?ALE UNG EVADED WHKE BLACK OTHER TOTAL BLACK TOTAL DUNBAR UNGRADED TOTAL '7 8 9 7 8 9 FOREST HEIGHTT5 UNGRADED 7 8 9 TOTAL HENDERSON UNGRADED 7 S p TOTAL MABELVALE UNGRADED 8 (5 TOTAL MANN UNGRADED 8 9 TOTAL PULASKI HEIGH UNGRADED C TOTAL 0 77 63 69 209 0 179 1EI9 163 531 0 1 1 3 0 257 253 235 7A5 ERF! 69.65% 7 A, 7W, 6736% 71 .Ec3% 109 106 A3 263 6 68 59 75 208 0 26 50 59 135 0 65 93 235 1A3 100 122 36: cr A 86 93 108 291 1 t: 1. 5 A 55 111 A20 7 181 183 170 Al 0 256 216 239 711 0 1A 9 15)2 128 I- 9 1A9 189 153 A91 1 '70 161 132 ^^68 Pane 5 0 8 6 7 16 0 p 6 13 0 1 0 0 1 A 6 1 h 0 0 0 P 269 263 159 691 13 255 EA9 2A8 765 0 28A 271 30A 859 0 227 217 221 665 296 895 Lt) 1 872 25. h E5A 2A2 761 57.25% 58.9A% 69.81% 60.78/. 53.85% 70.98% 73.A9% 68.55% 70.72% ERF'-\n90.1A% 79. ) 78,62% ERR 65.6A% 70.05% ^'.7 _ 92% 6 A . 51 % 50.3A% 6A. 07/, 56.31% 55.56% 66.Al% 63.39% 5A.55% 61.50%SCHOOL/GRADEK SOUTHWEST UNGf3\nABEIj UH ITE BLACK OTHER TOTAL. KBL.ACK TOTAL 13ADG3ETT UNGF^ADED SUBTOTAL. KIND. 4YR OLD TOTAL. bale\nUNGRADED SUBTOTAL KIND. TOTAL BASELINE UNGRADED SUBTOTAL KIND. TOTAL 7 8 1 cr. 3 4 1 2 3 A 1. 5 0 63 61 176 C 169 177 521 0 4 \u0026lt;'.) 3 (\u0026gt; 236 236 230 704 ERF^ 71.6111 76.0911 74.01% 1 13 4 4 10 !:3 49 4 6 3 9 19 21 32 33 19 136 16 9 161 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 (3 Cj (5 0 4 82 23 25 42 4.1 28 185 20 15 220 75.00% 40.91% 82.61 % 04. OCy/, 7^,. 19% GO.49% 67.86% 73. 1V, 80.00% 60.00% 76.18% 4 6 6 9 9 13 5'2 8 60 14 9 12 11 6 11 63 11 7i^ 36 AO. 38 47 44 39 249 46 295 39 34 43 31 33 212 46 25f3 Page - 3 0 1 0 0 1 3 0 0 1 1 0 0 c 4 1 9 43 46 47 53 56 52 306 54 360 54 44 44 39 43 58 337 55.56% 33.72% 86.96% 30.05% 38,68% 78.57% 75.00% 81.37% 85.19% 31.94% 72.22% 77.27% 78.18% 70.45% 84.62% 74.42% 75.99% 79.31% 76.56%SCHO: /GRADE E- E\" I- OTHE fil.. I'-, BOOKER UNGRADED SUBTOTAL KIND. TOTAL 48 36 39 43 48 48 844 31 875 51 51 49 53 58 3OE5 39 347 1 8 3 0 s 3 11 1 IE 94 89 91 95 97 563 71 634 54.86% 57.30% 53.135% 54.74% 54.64% 53.61% 5)4- . / 1 54.93% 54.73% BRADY UNGRADED 1 c: SUBTOTAL. KIND. TOTAL 1 83 IE 14 15 15 19 99 89 188 4 43 43 35 39 50 48 30 886 CAF^VEFl\nUNGRADED 1 E9 c. 3 4 s-\n' J-7 SUBTOTAL KIND. TOTAL 41 47 44 44 844 87 871 38 46 48 52 55 53 S9E 33 3E5 CHICOT UNGRADED IE 1 3 q- 84 SO 9\ns b SUBTOTAL KIND. TOTAL IS 159 S3 10- 54 41 44 39 44 891 50 341 ce 0 0 e 0 1 t\nCl 0 1 0 1 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 E 3 0 3 6 lb 57 49 68 61 361 59 4S0 69 S5 90 99 100 98 541 60 60 J. 19 90 30 65 64 71 64 453 78 531 BO.00% 65.15% 75.44% 71.43% 70.91% 6). SSV) 70.91'/. 50.85% 68.10% 55.07% 54.18% 53.33% 58.53% 55.00% 54.08/. 53.97% 55.00% 54.03% 63.16% 63.33% 67.50% 63.08% 68.75% 54.93*/. 68.75'/. 64,84% 64.10% 64.88%SCHOOL/GF^ADE CLOVF\\DAl-.E UNGF'JADED WHITE BL... A Ok. OTHER TOTAL. kblack 1. 6 SUBTOTAL KIND. TOTAL 11 13 11 12 lA 11 72 1? SA 37 37 A3 A3 A A 52 AS 30A DODD UNGF^ADED I s 3 A A lA 23 1 b SUBTOTAL 16 lA 2S) 109 MD, 13A 3 30 17 21 26 29 26 152 lA 166 FAI c PAT^K UNGRADED 1 A 1 0 1 1 0 1 A 0 i|. 0 0 1. 0 0 0 1 2 1 3 AV 50 58 6 A 332 60 392 7 A A Al. 36 A2 A3 50 263 AO 303 SUBTOTAL KIND. TOTAL 11 9 10 10 6 6 51 9 60 3A 35 3A 3A SASS 206 51 1 1 0 0 0 0 A 6 AA A5 AA AO Al 260 60 320 FOREST PAF?F\u0026lt;: Ur4GF^ADED 1 A b SUBTOTAL KIND. TOTAL AO 30 2A 32 25 19 170 36 206 32! 16 22 A1 31. 25 1.67 2A 191 1 I J. 1 0 Cj 73 A7 SEAS 3A2 60 A02 P.age 75.51*/. 7A . 00*/. '/8.18*/. 76.79\u0026gt;i 75.861\n81.2511 77.1.11\n80.0011 AE.8611 63.1811 Al .A611 58.33% 61.90% 67.AA% 52. ool\n57.79% 35.00% CT. A. 79^ 73.91% 79.55% 75.561\n77.27% 55.00% 85,37% 79.2311 35. C'tJll 30.311\nA3.8A% 3A.0A% A6.81% 55.A1% 55.3611 55.56% AS . 831\nA I'J . 0011 A 7.5 111school/grade F4A\niNFT....IN UNGRADFID UH I T c E3l....ACi\n: 01 MLR TOTAL BLACK 1 \n3 A 1 10 3 7 7 '7 9 65 63 56 AS -- C) ) 0 0 SUBTOTAL KIND. AYF7 OLD TOTAL A15 6 59 3A9 AS 31 428 0 s 3 A 8 1 (? 75 66 63 A 9 6A 6 A 391 56 60 507 vO.00% 86.67% 95.45% 88.89% 85.71% 35.94% 98.19% 89.26% S5 . '71 % 51.67% SA.42% FULBRIGHT UHGF?ABED 1 B 3 A 6 SUBTOTAL KIND. TOTAL 3 AO 37 AO 3S 33 A5 230 3A 26A 3 A Al SASA AO S8 S06 35 331 o 1 3 1 1 10 1 11 s 81 65 66 7A AA6 60 506 6S.50% A5.337. . 6\ni\n36.921\n51.527. 51.95% 37.847. . 19% Al.67% A5.65% G\nAF-\u0026lt;L.AND UNGF^ADED I B 4 ij SUBTOTAL FUND. AYR OLD TOTAL 0 2 4 Cj B 1 0 9 1 5 1 5 IS 37 30 35 30 37 43 224 S7 11 262 0 (5 0 0 0 C! 0 0 0 B IS 39 34 35 32  38 A3 233 28 IS S79 100. ooi\n94.87i\n83. ciA4 100,001\n93.751\n97.371\n100. ooi\n96. lAi\n96, A31\n61.11% 93.911\nGEYEf^ SPFHNQS UN3RABEB SUBTOTAL KIND. TOTAL 1 S 3 A c: 6 19 9 h IS 10 63 IS 7 A 19 16 33 153 S7 130 0 0 0 ij 0 C\n0 0 0 (5 A AS 31 25 23 43 36 215 39 .254 60. A3\u0026gt;i 70.97% Z'b. CjCjy, 57.1 AX 76.7A 83.571\n71.161\n69.631\n70.871'. F'age-?SCHOOL/OFC A DE GIBF5S UNGRADED UH ITE I'j .C OTHER HAL XBLAC SUBTOTAL. KIND. TOTAL... 20 20 16 19 26 24 125 16 141 E8 25 26  41 25 168 28 190 0 I 2 3 1 0 7 :i 8 48 4 4 43 48 613 49 300 39 339 58.33% 52,87% 58.14% 54.17% 60.29% 51.02% 56.00% 56.41% 56.05% ISH UNGRADED 1 2 3 4 1 C' b 0 0 1 C) 40 2 6 19 SUBTOTAL. KIND. 4YR OLD TOTAL 1 A 9 c\nJ 31 17 163 13 12 188 0 0 J, 0 0 C) 0 1 1 1 3 6 40 29 19 85 32 17 168 15 17 200 83.33% 100,00% 89.66% 100.00% 100.00% 96.88% 100.00% 97.02% 86.67% 70.59% 94.00% JFEF-lEF\u0026lt;SaN UNGF^ADED 1 c. 3 4 6 SUBTOTAL. KIND. TOTAL 2 41 38 37 43 38 35 234 36 270 58 33 58 32 31 29 185 24 209 0 1 3 1 .0 Cs 0 0 MABEL ALE\n. UNGF^ADED S 40 34 31 34 46 , 33 0 1 0 A 6 SUBTOTAL KIND. TOTAL 37 23 205 2=' 234 34 47 0 \u0026lt;) 1 3 /- Hiiae 6 70 74 66 69 64 454 bCj s 80 70 70 71 71 44-5 60 505 66.67% 40.00% 44.59% 42.42% 42.67% 44.93% 45.31% 43.63% 40,. 00% 43., 18% 6 c\n.. 50% 54.29% 47.14% A7.89% 66.20% 5-3.26% 43.33% 52.67%CCHOCL/GRADE MCDERMOT-'- UNGRADED WHITE BLACK OTHER TOTAL V,BLACK 1 .r.r 0 G31 3 A 6 SUBTOTAL KIND. TOTAL E7 37 19 17G 3A 306 SB AO A9 .... 50 366 E5 391 ij 3 3 3 A 0 3 13 1 1A 73 71 ERR 63.50% 53,53% 53.33% MEADOWCLIFF UNGRADED 1 c. A i-. SUBTOTAL KIND. TOTAL EG EA El EE E3 16 lAl A3 Al A2 36 SASE 335 17^ E5E 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 !.) 1 MITCHELL LJNGf-\u0026lt;ADED 1 0 C. 3 A iZL\" 5 SUBTOTAL KILD, AYR OLD TOTAL 3 3 1 1 lA 6 9 A A Al 3S AA 30 37 3A3 39 13 SS5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o 0 \"'TEF^ Cf=\nEEK UNGRADED s 3 A :3A E6 33 16 El iic\n6 33 J SUBTOTAL KIND. TOTAL J 70 21 191 SA lAE 13 1 6C\n0 0 1 1 (? 2 A GO 31 73 A51 60 511 71 65 63 66 A7 367 60 AS7 7 A6 A6 Al A 6 31 3S 357 35 30 313 5 r-\n AB 30 A8 ii:' iz.\" 316 AO 356 51 .E: /i 5A.33% 69,AA% B. 9S% Al.67% 56.95% i:,(y. 56 A 63.03% \u0026lt;). 67 a SA. cri:-!,- 51. . 06% 70.91% 61,31% A5.00% 59.0E% 100.00% 95.65% 89.13% 93.6S% 95.65% 96.77% 97.37% 9A.55% 83.36% 9i.35a 50.77% 33.00% AS.75% , 17% A3.6A% AA 9A% A5,00% P a  c-3 ~SCHOOL/ grade: RULASIC!: HE:[GHTG ungraded WHITE BL.\n:h 1 HER TOT AL ZLLACK SUBTOTAL KIND. TOTAL KEGHTSELL UNGF\u0026lt;ADED SUBTOTAL KIND. 4Yf^ OLD TOTAL 1 3 3 4 b 1 P c 4 b ROCKEFELLER UNGRADED 1 E:: 4 b SUBTOTAL KIND. 4YF? OLD TOTAL ROMINE UNGRADED 1 2 3 ii. b SUBTOTAL KIND. 4YR OLD TOTAL 34 S4 23 16 20 1 1 123 1.51 37 18 26 33 E9 26 169 16 185 i 1 1 \u0026lt;\n! b (I) b 73 43 50 50 50 3'7 303 39 342 50.687, i^l ..86% 52.OOL 6 8 H O ^~i % 53.OOL 70,27% 55.78% 41.03% 54.09% 0 0 0 0 o (\u0026gt; 0 .1 5 b 23 12 9 6 by 21 28 116 p 9 5 8 KL 4 38 10 48 36 42 37 43 35 241 11 SS2 46 31 305 40 32 219 31 10 41 5 Ci 39 39 9, 301 '=.5.C3e? !? 1 Ci 0 C! 1 0 Ci 1 e 1 0 1 C) 4 0 1 5 0 0 0 0 !i C! 1 1 0 1. 48 36 43 3'7 43 35 248 31 16 289 69 45 415 46 44 41 290 60 403 12 crcr 44 47 40 40 238 50 19 357 100.00% 100.00% 97.67% 100.00% 100.00% 100'. 00% 99.59% 96.77% 68.75% 9'/ . 58% 66.67% 68.89% 77.78% 86.96% 79.55% 78.05% 75.52% 60.38% 51.67% 69.98% 82.00% 90.91% 83.64% 82.9S% C7. j e'\". 5Oi E\nb. 46'\u0026lt; 86.OOL i7.37L 84.31%SCHOOL/GRADE CTEPHENS UNGRADED WHITE 0 BLACK 6 OTHER TOTAL y.B.ACK SUBTOTAL KIND. 4YR OLD TOTAL 1 0 0 0 1 4 1 4 P 34 CQ 41 203 24 8 35 Os . 0! Oi \u0026lt;5 Q 1 1 0) !':i 1 6 41 oc. 5 3 41 37 08 25 12 45 100  00/ 97.14% 100.00% 100 00?\n100.007, 94.59% 9?. 6'0% 96.1SO% . fby/, 95.92% TERRY UNGRADED 1 4 SUBTOTAL KIND. TOTAL 35 36 40 34 32 40 17 36 253 31 36 33 36 45 40 221 2 43 3 1 o 1 4 15 1 16 70 74 72 78 84 453 59 512 44.27*1 48. OO/i 44.59\u0026gt;\n50. QQV\u0026gt; 57.69W 47.62\" 48.77% 37.29% 47.46?i WAKfZFIELD ungf\naceb 1  03 4 0: 17 24 26 b SUBTOTAL KIND. TOTAL 16 21 126 15 141 0 56 36 40 46 53 5 ) 2t37 42 329 0) 1  2 0 1 o 8 1 c? 0 74 62 68 68 70 79 421 479 Q. 00?\n'7 cr .68?\n5S.06% 58.82% 67.65% 75.71% 70.89% 68.17% 72.41% 63.68% WAiJHINBTCN UNGRADED 1  3 4 b SUBTOTAL KIND 4'Tf\nOLD total. J\nr- 47 40 41 293 47 16 356 1 1 00 63 60 3 ^0)9 r-: 1 0 4 aoi 3 0 O' 0 1 4 152 130 110 117 98 94 705 99 37 841 25.007 65.79% 56.92% 57.7% 51.23% 59.13% 56.38% 58.01% 1 ,5?i: 54.050 57.07?\nSCHOOL/GRADE WATSON UNGFxADED II Tt ... !-l!.\nOTAi... j. 23 10 19 SO 17 86 i-i. : I-'\" '\"1 30 SLIDTOAl... KIND. TOTAL. 1 1 cr 11 1S6 58 56 893 45 338 0 1 1 0 Q 1 70 64 50 69 83 411 56 467 i:,7.14% 88.81'1 60,00% 73.33% 75.36% 6'/ . 4'/'/. 71.89% 80.36% 72.38% westh\nk:n hills UNGRADED 1 3 C\n4 iz\u0026gt; SUBTOTAL KIND. TOTAL 19 17 18 '15 80 25 114 16 130 S2 34 S7 33 3S 29 167 23 190 \u0026lt;) O' 3 Cl 0 3 0 3 41 41 45 51 52 884 39 383 53.66% 58.54% 60.00% 64.71% 61.54% 53.70% 58.80% 58.97% 58.88% WILLIAMS IJNGFFiADED 1 3 4 c: 6 E5UI5TDTAL KIND. TOTAL 30 89 38 41 32 189 C-.J 814 36 33 4.1 51 41 848 31 873 2 1 0 2 1 0 6 c. S NILSON IJNSF\\ADED 1 c. 3 4 6 6l 67 67 93 73 437 58 495 =: 6.45^\n53.73% 56.78% 54,67% 54.84% 56.16'% 55.38% 3.4S\u0026gt;i SUBTOTAL KIND. TOTAL 4 13 86 18 11 9 13 88 17 105 IS 34 43 46 38 4 1 8813 1 0 0 0 0 f) 0 1 0 1 ' 47 63 43 51 336 58 394 70.59'/ 8.34W 53.73'Z 78.lez 77.0SZ 88.64/i 74.511^ 73.51rt 70.69Z 73.. 1 OZ F'acjf? I 1LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 810 WEST MARKHAM LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS 72201 RECEIVED OCT 2 8 1991 TO: FROM: SUBJECT: October 18, 1991 Office of Desegregation Monitoring Estelle Matthis, Associate Superintendent Educational Programs and Staff Development atty Kohler, Director, Division of Exceptional Children Special Education Enrollment Attached, please find the special education enrollment, by school, classification, race and gender. If further information is needed, please feel free to contact me. PK:lhb AttachmentSCHOOL Central High J. A. Fair High Hall High McClellan High Parkview Magnet Cloverdale Jr. High Dunbar Magnet Forest Heights Jr. Henderson Jr. High //STUDENTS 57 79 73 77 14 55 42 54 67 GRADE 10th 11th 12th 10th 11th 12th 10th 11th 12th 10th 11th 12th 10th 11th 12th 7 th Sth 9th 7th Sth 9 th 7th Sth 9th 7th Sth 9 th BM 10 12 10 16 S 13 Y1 7 12 14 , 8 3 2 2 15 12 S 6 7 5 13 7 11 10 IS 17 WM 2 3 0 9 5 7 3 4 5 3 4 1 1 0 0 5 2 2 2 3 5 1 3 2 2 3 1 BF 5 S 5 1 5 1 6 6 9 9 9 10 2 1 1 2 1 4 5 2 5 2 6 1 S 1 6 WF 2 0 0 3 3 2 1 5 4 1 3 2 1 1 0 1 1 2 1 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 0SCHOOL Mabelvale Jr. High Mann Magnet Pulaski Heights Jr. Southwest Jr. High //STUDENTS 82 23 64 73 GRADE 7th 8th 9th 7 th 8th 9th 7th 8th 9th 7th 8th 9th BM 14 19 14 7 2 16 9 14 20 8 10 WM 5 1 5 2 1 3 3 3 1 5 7 6 BF 8 5 2 0 1 0 4 5 6 7 3 2 WF 3 3 3 1 0 2 1 1 1 1 3 1I SCHOOL BADGETT BALE BASELINE BOOKER BRADY CARVER //STUDENTS 18 37 16 24 17 20 GRADE 1st 2ncl 3rd 4th Sth 6th K 1st 2nd 3rd 4th Sth 6th 1st 2nd 3rd 4th Sth 6th 1st 2nd 3rd 4th Sth 6th K 1st 2nd 3rd 4th Sth Sth 1st 2nd 3rd 4th Sth 6th BM 5 3 1 3 3 3 4 4 2 2 1 1 2 3 1 2 1 2 2 2 2 3 1 1 1 1 2 1 WM 1 1 1 1 2 2 1 1 2 4 1 1 2 1 3 1 1 1 1 2 1 1 2 BF 1 2 1 1 1 2 3 1 2 2 1 1 1 1 1 3 WF 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 3 2 1SCI IDOL Chicot Elementary Cloverdale Elementary Dodd Elementary Fair Park Elemenyary Forest Park Elem. Franklin Elementary //STUDENTS 51 27 24 20 16 45 GRADE K 1st 2nd 3rd 4 th 5 th 6 th K 1st 2nd 3rd 4 th 5 th 6 th K 1st 2nd 3rd 4th 5 th 6 th K 1st 2nd 3rd 4 th 5 th 6th K 1st 2nd 3rd 4 th 5 th 6 th K 1st 2nd 3rd 4 th 5 th 6 th BM 1 0 1 3 0 3 5 0 1 3 0 4 5 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 8 1 2 0 3 1 0 2 0 1 2 0 0 2 1 3 2 9 3 WM 1 4 2 1 3 2 2 0 1 1 0 0 1 2 2 2 4 1 1 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 1 1 0 0 1 0 1 3 1 3. 1 1 1 BF 1 1 1 2 1 5 6 0 0 2 1 1 1 1 1 0 0 1 1 3 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 2 1 0 0 0 0 1 2 2 4 1 WF 1 1 0 0 1 3 0 0 0 1 0 2 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 2 1 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 2saiooL GARLAND FULBRIGHT GEYER SPRINGS GIBBS ISH JEFFERSON //STUDENTS 23 28 11 28 14 26 GRADE K 1st 2nd 3rd 4th 5 th 6 th K 1st 2nd 3rd 4 th 5 th 6 th K 1st 2nd 3rd 4 th 5 th 6 th K 1st 2nd 3rd 4th 5 th 6 th K 1st 2nd 3rd 4 th 5 th 6 th K 1st 2nd 3rd 4 th 5 th 6 th BM 1 1 1 1 3 7 1 1 2 2 3 2 2 1 2 1 2 4 1 1 2 2 3 1 1 2 WM 1 1 2 1 2 2 1 1 1 1 3 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 BF 2 1 2 2 3 2 1 1 1 3 1 1 3 1 1 2 1 1 1 2 5 WF 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 1 1SCHOOL MABELVALE ELEMENTARY MCDERMOTT MEADOWCLIFF MITCHELL OTTER CREEK PULASKI HGTS. ELEM //STUDIOTS 38 25 23 31 11 32 GRADE K 1st 2nd 3rd 4 th 5 th 6 th K 1st 2nd 3rd 4 th Sth 6 th K 1st 2nd 3rd 4 th Sth 6 th K 1st 2nd 3rd 4 th Sth 6 th K 1st 2nd 3rd 4 th Sth 6 th K 1st 2nd 3rd 4 th Sth 6 th BM 4 1 1 3 4 3 3 3 1 3 2 1 1 1 3 2 1 4 4 3 2 3 2 2 2 1 5 3 1 4 WM 3 2 4 1 5 3 1 3 1 1 3 1 1 2 3 1 1 BF 1 1 1 2 1 2 1 1 1 1 2 5 2 2 1 1 1 1 2 WF 1 1 2 1 1 1 3 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 1 1 Of ]saiooL Rightsell Elementary Rockefeller Elem. Romine Elementary Stephens Elementary Terry Elementary Wakefield Elementary ^STUDENTS 12 23 29 16 23 15 GRADE K 1st 2nd 3rd 4 th 5 th 6 th K 1st 2nd 3rd 4 th 5 th 6 th K 1st 2nd 3rd 4 th 5 th 6 th K 1st 2nd 3rd 4 th 5 th 6th K 1st 2nd 3rd 4 th 5 th 6 th K 1st 2nd 3rd 4 th 5 th 6 th BM 0 1 1 3 2 0 1 1 5 0 4 3 0 1 0 2 6 1 4 5 4 0 2 2 0 2 2 2 0 4 2 1 1 2 3 0 1 1 1 2 1 2 WM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 2 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 1 2 0 BF 0 0 1 0 0 3 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 1 0 1 1 1 2 0 0 0 2 0 0 1 2 1 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 WF 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0SO 1001, WASHINGTON WATSON WESTERN HILLS WILLIAMS MAGNET WILSON WOODRUFF //STUDIOTS 43 15 21 48 13 GRAIJE K 1st 2nd 3rd 4 th 5 th 6 th K 1st 2nd 3rd 4 th 5 th 6 th K 1st 2nd 3rd 4 th 5 th 6 th K 1st 2nd 3rd 4th 5 th 6 th K 1st 2nd 3rd 4 th 5 th 6th K 1st 2nd 3rd 4 th 5 th 6 th BM 1 5 2 6 2 3 1 2 2 2 3 1 3 1 2 4 3 1 1 1 3 2 3 8 11 1 1 1 1 WM BE WE 2 1 1 4 4 1 1 1 2 1 1 2 1 1 2 1 2 4 1 1 1 1 1 2 3 1 1 1 3 2 1 1 1 1 4 1 3 1 2 2 3 2 2 1 2 2H I I I I I I i Wedne-S73'ay\n''ffugxrTt 2199171 .p'^mocraT:- LRSD registration figures -1990 and 1991 Sr.high Central Fair Hall McClellan Park view Total Jr. high Cloverdale Dunbar Forest Heights Henderson Mabelvale Mann Pulaski Heights Southwest Total Elementary Badgett Bala Baseline Booker Brady Carver Chicot ! Cloverdale Dodd Fair Park Forest Park Franklin Fulbright Garland Geyer Springs Gibbs Ish Jefferson Mabelvale McDermott Meadowcliff Mitchell Otter Creek Pulaski Heights. Rightsell Rockefeller Romine Stephens Terry Wakefield Watson Western Hills Williams Wilson Woodruff Washington Total Grand Total 90 Bl '91 Bl 616 . 728 398 495 428 365 410 426 417 367 2.302 2,348 '90 Wh 453 316 413 306 284 1,772 '91 Wh increase/'90 total '91 total '91 not Wh 517 291 388 262 296 1.754 decrease +64 -25 -25 -44 +12 -18 regis.' 1.088 717 923 744 663 4.135 regis,' regis. 1.271 710 833 690 679 434 254 335 417 189 4,183 1,629 I C? (i 387 321 379 502 248 410 312 335 395 341 411 509 351 422 387 341 2,894 3,157 164 190 183 170 170 287 213 110 1.487 139 223 164 95 210 310 279 118 1.538 -25 h33 -19 -75 -t-40 ^23 +66 +8 +51 558 517 581 690 419 709 528 451 4.453 539 571 586 616 562 744 666 465 257 207 228 202 182 158 123 234 C 4,749 1,591 133 208 204 285 234 242 237 180 132 183 161 310 190 197 83 150 98 143 220 245 172 169 112 152 156 164 273 166 249 247 237 166 247 208 104 387 115 211 191 298 206 306 248 234 110 171 139 337 141 196 132 174 141 141 208 220 171 240 114 155 198 204 241 184 212 226 263 158 258 219 131 377 51 59 76 217 109 233 138 74 1005 4 168 73 210 7 40 112 0 187 177 178 146 25 167 74 5 55 40 9 199 138 121 110 209 88 48 300 7,044 7,290 3,997 -------- 12,240 12,775 7,256 'Total registered includes students of other 55 56 66 213 114 243 152 75 107 48 182 67 240 11 61 135 7 243 206 192 157 24 178 134 5 85 28 6 236 102 84 118 198 77 62 294 4.261 7.553 rac +4 -3 -10 -4 +5 + 10 + 14 +1 +7 -6 +14 -6 +30 +4 +21 +23 +7 +56 +29 +14 + 11 -1 + 11 +60 NC +30 -12 -3 +37 -36 -37 +8 -11 -11 + 14 -6. +264 +297 184 274 283 509 347 480 375 255 234 237 334 397 402 216 123 267 98 333 400 423 319 . 194 279 231 161 222 316 178 453 388 360 278 461 298 156 687 '11.161 19.740 170 272 263 518 329 555 403 310 219 226 326 412 390 210 193 315 148 388 419 423 329 265 296 294 204 294 271 172 462 337 347 277 462 296 195 103 67 101 97 48 108 37 139 118 72 104 81 104 166 75 54 19 52 118 122 123 121 58 66 49 96 130 ' 100 57 65 186 146 42 46 92 28 144  t e s S I \"1.' I: 1\nli f  I 1 I .*TCV SC4U.UION t. 11,713 3.231 20.645 6.501 .J'Pulaski Arkansas Democrat   WEDNESDAY, AUGUST 21, 1991\ns J 3 LRSD gaining 297 white students for fail, records show District official says 1 ) Busing costs for state ILRSD registration figures - 1990 and 1991 r Sr.high soar to $3.46 million I Central BY CYNTHIA HOWELL Dwnocrat Start Wrtar . The states cost of busing Pulaski County area students for desegregation-related programs more than doubled between 1987-88 and 1990-91, a committee of legislators learned Tuesday to their cha- ferin. In four years, the cost of transporting students who attend magnet schools dr participate in the majority-to-minor- ity interdistrict student trans- ifer program rose from $1.57 pillion in 1987-88 to $3.46 million. according to figures given -to the legislators Tuesday by the state Department of Education. There are no caps on the number of students who participate in the programs or on the state's expense. The money is in addition to the states $129.75 million financial settlement with the transportation costs paid by the state totaled S544 in North Little Rock. S921 in Little Rock and $1,179.81 in the Pulaski County Special School District The average transportation cost last year for 2.996 magnet and 705 transfer students in the three districts was $881 per student The average cost of transporting non-magnet and nontransfer students in the three districts was $407 in 1989-90. The average transportation cost statewide that year was $222. The states desegregation money for the three districts is taken from general revenues and lessens the amount available for most other state operations. Dr. Burton Elliott, director of the state Department of Education, told legislators that a McClellan Parkview Total Jr. high Cloverdale Dunbar Forest Heights Hertderson I Mabelvale 90 81 616 398 495 428 365 91 Bl 728 410 426 417 367 90 Wh 453 316 413 306 284 2.302 2.348 1,772 91 Wh 517 291 388 262 296 1.754 Wh increase/\"90 total 9110131 91001 decrease regss.* *64 -25 -25 *12 18 1.088 717 923 744 663 4,135 reais. 1.271 710 833 690 679 434 254 335 417 189 1,183 1.629 nj part-time employee will be hired, in addition to the de\nthree school districts in the vv, IPulaski County school desegre- partments existing transporta- Igation lawsuit .......................... . --1- k--'Sen. Stanley Russ of Con- tion director, to more closely fisures a good sign i way. a member of the Joint In- \u0026gt;tdfim Oversight Subcommittee j on Educational Reform, complained about the escalating costs and the states inability I to control or cap them, since a iTe'deral court directed Arkansas to pay the actual transpor- ' tation costs for students.  Im just frustrated. Russ I ) said. \"The federal court has  wrapped its fingers around our I throat and is choking us to ' 1 death. ' T\u0026amp; 1990-91 per student monitor the transportation expenses. Those expenses include more than $400,000 - 23 percent of the Little Rock districts transportation budget - for taxi services to transport some students to magnet or other schools. Sharon Streett. an attorney for the state Department of Education, said the state could take the issue to federal court to get relief from the growing costs. Mann Pulaski Heights Southwest Total Elementary Badgett Bale Baseiina Booker Brady Carver Chicot Cloverdale Dodd Fair Park Forest Park Frankfin Fulbright Garland Geyer Springs Gibbs Ish Jefferson Mabelvale McDermott Meadowc^ff Mitchel Otter Creek Putasid Heights Rightsei Rockeleler Romina Stecnens Terry Wakefietd Watson Western Mils Wil\u0026amp;ams Wilson Woodruff Washington Total Grand Total 387 321 379 502 248 410 312 335 395 341 411 509 351 422 387 341 164 190 183 170 170 287 213 110 2,894 3,15? 1.487 139 223 164 95 210 310 279 118 1,538 25 33 19 75 *40 *23 *66 *8 51 558 517 581 690 419 709 528 451 4.4S3 539 571 586 616 562 744 666 465 257 207 228 202 182 158 123 234 4,749 1.591 BY CYNTHIA HOWELL Democrat Staff Writer The number of white students registered in the Little Rock School District this year is up by 297 from registration figures for 1990. according to district records. James Jennings, associate superintendent for desegregation, called the numbers, gen- erally used for making staffing and transportation plans, a 133 208 204 285 234 242 237 180 132 183 161 310 190 197 83 150 98 143 220 245 172 169 112 152 156 164 273 166 249 247 237 166 247 208 104 387 115 211 191 298 206 306 248 234 110 171 139 337 141 196 132 174 141 141 208 220 171 240 114 155 198 204 241 184 212 226 263 158 258 219 131 377 51 59 76 217 109 233 138 74 1005 168 73 210 7 40 112 0 187 177 178 146 25 167 74 5 55 40 9 199 138 121 110 209 88 48 300 7.044 7.290 3.997 12.240 12.775 7.256 55 56 66 213 114 243 152 75 107 48 182 67 240 11 61 135 7 243 206 192 157 24 178 134 5 85 26 6 236 102 84 118 198 77 62 294 4.261 7353 -3 10 5 *10 *14 +1 -6 *14 -6 *30 *21 *23 Total regtstered Includes students of other races 56 29 *14 *11 -1  11 60 NC 30 12 -3 37 36 37 *8 11 11 14 6 264 297 184 274 283 509 347 480 375 255 234 237 334 397 402 216 123 267 98 333 400 423 319 194 279 231 161 222 316 178 453 388 360 278 461 298 156 687 11,161 19.740 170 272 263 518 329 555 403 310 219 226 326 412 390 210 193 315 148 388 419 423 329 265 296 294 204 294 271 172 462 337 347 277 462 296 195 103 67 101 97 48 108 37 139 118 72 104 61 104 166 75 54 19 52 118 122 123 121 58 66 49 96 130 100 57 65 186 146 42 46 92 28 144 STSVS SCALLONZ 11,713 3.231 20.645 6.501 good sign. School board member Skip Rutherford, who has made a hobby of analyzing school enrollment figures, was delighted. saying white flight from the citys public schools has been halted. The numbers include only those students who registered during the formal registration period, which was July 29 through Aug. 2. compared to formal registration in 1990. which was Aug. 9-10. A total of 20.645 students registered this year. The district is expecting an additional 6.501 students to register by the time school is under way. Jennings did not have a racial breakdown of students who have not registered. Classes begin Monday. Black students made up 61.8 percent of the registrants\nwhites made up 36.5 percent of the total. Data shows the increase in white students occurred at the junior high schools, which had 51 more white registrants this year than last, and at the elementary schools, which re- ported an increase of 264 white pupils. The senior high\nschools reported a net loss of' 18 whites. 'I White enrollment increased at 29 schools, decreased at 19\nschools and was unchanged-at one. Pulaski Heights Elementary reported an increase of 60 white pupils, bringing the total' to 134. and Jefferson Elementary was up 56 white pupils to 243. Central'High School gained 64 white students but McCleT Ian lost 44. Fair and Hall high schools each lost 25. y\nPulaski Heights Junior High has 66 new white students, to a preliminary total of tS19 whites. Henderson Junior High lost 75 whites, leaving the school with 690 whites. ,, . Is white flight continuing?. I think the answer is no/\nRutherford said in a recent interview. \"The combination,of giving parents schools .of choice and attendance-zotie schools is working. The school district in late 1988 developed a student assignment plan in which stu-. dents could choose between attending their assigned atten-: dance zone school, or a magnet school that might be outside their attendance zone but offers a special academic program to attract black and white children to a hard-to- Ail desegregate school. schools must meet racial ratio requirements set by the fed- eral court.  See FIGURES. Page 7B) Figures  Continued from Pulaski Page '-I i' The desegregation plan, ap h proved by the 8th U.S. Circuity 4 Court of Appeals in December ? 1990, also established predom-^ j inantly black incentive ele-- i' mentary schools that provide^ - r K double per-student financing P and programs to improve- ! achievement levels of black children. ) 7 Those incentive schools- I showed some progress toward* registering white pupils this^ year. Rockefeller Elementary, f which once had an almost en I tirely black enrollment, has in : creased its white enrollment 3 1 1 to 85 pupils, up 30 from 1990. \" Despite the loss of 18 white^ students in the senior high i schools, Rutherford said he  was encouraged by trends. He i pointed out that 690 white stu- H dents graduated in 1990, while : 199Os ninth-grade class, which. H  1 7 V I ^1* rtxkVzxZ-xl 1 o'  will enter high school this'fall',: was a much smaller class of 571, a difference of 119. The^ { district appears to have -at-\ntracted 101 new white high\nschool students. I \u0026gt;  j. (I I I I U i  ) ' j I I 1 r I LRSD enrollment figures - 7th day com^jFigon Sr.high Central Fair Hall i McClellan Park view Total 90 Bl 862 493 642 642 439 3,078 91 __Bl_ 972 500 528 633 461 3,094 90 Wh 606 365 490 386 361 2,228 91 90 total 91 total Wh enrollment enrollment 687 338 487 323 397 2,232 1,468 878 1,132 '1,028 800 5,306 \u0026gt; Democrat I Friday, 9-6-91 Jr. .high Cloverdale Dunbar Forest Heights Henderson i Mabelvale ! I Mann i Pulaski Heights Southwest i Total 493 402 526 642 395 514 414 497 524 415 512 661 427 485 461 493 I 3,913 3,378 234 232 234 238 220 367 270 162 1,957 Elementary Badgett Bale I Baseline  Booker '! Brady i Carver !  i Chicot ,  i : i Coca lovercaie f . 1 Fair Park Forest Park Franklin , \u0026lt; I Puioright u i I I J \\ j f 1 I Garland Geyer Springs Gibbs Ish Jefferson Mabelvale McDermott Meadowcliff Mitchell Otter Creek 163 292 93 336 328 307 364 281 191 272 202 322 293 214 141 186 156 288 239 344 281 319 342 311 153 242 190 411 ! Pulaski Heights\nI Rightsell I Rockefeller -  I Romine I I t I Stephens Terry Wakefield Watson Western Hills Williams Wilson Woodruff Washington Total Grand Total White student 1,659 638 1,015 956 858 5,326 % black 59 60 52 66 54 58 I u I I 209 274 213 127 233 357 294 203 1,920 727 634 760 880 615 881 714 659 5,870 733 689 725 788 660 852 755 698 5,898 71 60 71 84 65 57 61 71 67 f s\n'r. 57 . 72 276 276 122 269 .184 100 133 65 . 182 66 '266 59 64 82 275 139 274 187 90 136 6i 208 79 225 , 364 369 612 450 576 548 381 324 337 384 383 559 239 193 333 144 449 551 533 431 220 344 315 202 263 364 201 : 517 491 501 336 502 420 184 760 14,020 73 82 74 56 67 54 65 78 53 80 48 34 46 94 70 56 94 43 52 56 58 90 44 54  98 70 85 95 47 69 72 60 56 71 65 57 65 15,338 9,249 25,196 25,587 64 category includes students of other races stevescallion/ wiunu,Otmxru 532 257 178 189 140 . 190 216 282 326 275 192 166 201 197 196 314 188 289 321 333 209 276 301 120 443 205 264 277 242 '284 157 183 267 277 305 228 238 324 334 195 272 275 148 463 25 57 147 4 233 269 207 156 28 178 114 5 72 50 13 228 170 168 127 226 119 64 317 9,157 9,266 4,862 16,148 13,338 9,047 15 75 147 12 276 239 220 173 30 197 159 5 118 55 11 266 148 127 130 216 111 81 352 5,097 215 352 321 619 420 593 529 401 289 303 398 492 506 272 253 336 202 481 503 497 420 314 354 342 272 395 360 239 504 472 461 325 488 386 229 820 14,363 5'V I S\nI .j\n...Friday, September 6, 1991 FE / White enrollment in LR schools keeps climbing Bulk at elementary level By Cary Bradburn Gazette Staff White enrollment continues to be higher this year in the Little Rock School District. However, there were 48 fewer white students at the senior and junior highs. Numbers provided by the district Thursday show that 144 more white students were enrolled in all grades this year for the seventh day , of school compared with last year. , Black enrollment is up by 190 students from last years seventh day and enrollment of students classified as other increased by 57. Total enrollment rose from 25,196 to 25,587 students. Last week, third day enrollment figures had white attendance higher by 215, but the increase has slowed when measured against last year. The seventh day numbers have black enrollment at 63.9 percent of have black enrollments of more total enrollment. White enrollment than 90 percent. is 34.7 percent and other  Spanish, Asian and Native American students  1.4 percent. As in the third-day report, the bulk of the increase in white enrollment is in the elementary schools. The number of white students at that level climbed by 192 from 4,726 to 4,918 while black attendance went from 9,157 to 9,266. In the junior high schools, white enrollment decreased by 26 students from 1,873 to 1,847. It was down by 22 students in senior high, from 2,160 to 2,138. Junior high black enrollment increased by 65 students compared with the white decline. Senior high black enrollment is up by 16 students. Attendance of others increased by 26. Among the districts 36 elementary schools,' five are majority white. Those are Forest Park, Fulbright, Jefferson, Otter Creek and Terry. Rightsell, Stephens, Garland, Ish and Mitchell continue to I S i IDemocrat. ---------- Friday, September 6, 1991 LRSD enrollment up ..... ............. Lioa I n*w 391 on 7th class day 0/CYNTHIA HOWELL Democrat Staff Writer L.'-Little Rock School District ehToIlment was up by 391 students to 25,587 on Wednesday, the seventh day of school, in comparison to the seventh day of classes last year. The racial composition is 63.9 percent black - virtually the same as the racial composition of 64 percent black and 36'percent white in the district last year. 'D'The new numbers include increases of 144 white students, 190 black students and 57 students of other races. The district showed an increase of 190 white students in the elementary grades, but it lost 22 white students in the high schools and 26 white students at the junior highs. Superintendent Ruth Steele said Thursday some teacher reassignments will have to be made as the result of changes in school enrollments. For example, Steele said, three teachers are needed at Geyer Springs Elementary School, where enrollment jumped from 198 last year to 253. She said Bale Elementary would need fewer teachers. Enrollment dropped there from 364 to 352. In the Pulaski County Special School District on Thursday, the eighth day of class, the enrollment was 21,080, count-i ing 49 students assigned to the' districts alternative school -j or 21,031 if those students arent included. The overall: racial makeup of the district' was 73 percent white and 27j percent black. , The county districts enroll-' I ment is down 249 students in' comparison to the eighth day of classes last year, iOFFICE OF METROPOLITAN SUPERVISOR 201 EAST MARKHAM, SUITE 510 HERITAGE WEST BUILDING LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS 72201 DATA SHEET LRSD PCSSD NLRSD TOTAL Enrollment Black 16,634 5,755 4,279 26,668 Non-black 9,151 16,005 4,915 30,071 Total Enrollment 25,785 21,760 9,194 56,739 Black 65% 26% 47% 47% Number of Schools Elementary 36 23 19 78 Secondary 14 13 7 34 Total 50 36 26 112 Employees Certified Teachers 3,300 (2,000) 3,000 (1,346) (681) (4,027) Annual Budget (million) +104 +74 30 +208 Square Miles of Districts city limits 729 30 Millage Rate 43.9 35.9 36.3 Magnet Schools\nLocated within the LRSD\n6 elementary magnet schools 2 junior high magnet schools 2 senior high magnet schools Incentive Schools\nLocated within the LRSD 6 elementary schoolsOPTIONAL ENROLLMENT REQUEST FORM SECONDARY (Grades 7-12) School Year 1992-1993 Student ID. #t Date Reed.: Reed. by:. Directions: L-----------------------------------  Please read all information before completing this form.  The Student Assignment Office will be responsible for all optional enrollment assignments.  All assignments are subject to desegregation and capacity requirements. If demand exceeds supply, a lottery will be used to fill vacancies.  Students who are not selected will have their names placed on a prioritized waiting list (Please print or type) Student's Legal Name: Street Address: City Zip Code Raee Sex Date of Birth: Month Day Year Home Phone Work Phone Current Sehool Assignment Grade 1992-93 Make up to three (3) choices from the options listed below. Rank your choices in numerical order (1st, 2nd, 3rd). You are not required to use all of your choices. (High school students may make up to three school choices or make three selections within the Parkview Arts program. Students may also make a combination of choices. Example: First choice-Central, Second Choice-Parkview Arts Dance, third choice-Parkview Science.) Magnet Schools (Grades 7-9) -----Dunbar International Studies/Gifted and Talented -----Mann Ans Magnet Check the box if you have a preference for orchestra ___Mann Science Magnet ___Henderson Health Science (Grades 10-12) ___ Central High International Studies ___ Parkview Science Magnet ___ Parkview Arts Band ___ Parkview Arts Dance ___ Parkview Arts Speech/Drama ___ Parkview Arts Orchestra ___ Parkview Arts Visual Arts ___ Parkview Arts Vocal Music ___ McClellan Business/Communications I understand that if I wish to withdraw this application for any reason, I may do so prior to assignment of my child. I agree that if my request is approved, my child must remain in the program for a minimum of of one (1) school semester. Parent Signature Date Little Rock School District, 501 Sherman, Little Rock, AR 72202 (501)324-2272 copy - scudenc Aasignmenc Offica yllow copy - MUC pinK copy - PaeonCSCHOOL TEL: Jul 21.92 FOUR-YEAR-OLD ASSIGNMENTS 1992-93 BLACK 16:53 No.002 P.Ol OTHER TOTAL Bale Badgett Fraiiklin Garland Cloverdale Mitchell Rockefeller Geyor Springs Rightsell Romine Stephens Washington Wilson Woodruff Ish Watson 9 9 27 9 9 9 25 9 11 9 9 18 9 9 9 9 9 7 27 2 9 8 29 9 0 9 1 18 9 9 ,1 9 18 16 54 11 18 17 54 10 11 18 10 36 18 18 10 18 7/21/92School Enrollment % BIk Elem Jr. High High Area gadget Elem Bale Elem Baseline Elem Booker Elem Brady Elem Carver Elem Chicot Elem Cloverdale Dodd Elem Fair Park Elem Forest Park Franklin Elem Fulbright Elem Garland Elem Geyer Springs Gibbs Elem Ish Elem Jefferson Elem King Elem Mabelvale McDermott Meadowcliff Mitchell Elem Otter Creek Put Heights 202 321 339 621 396 598 535 366 304 243 444 411 530 256 282 336 187 483 500 509 440 264 353 379 76 77 77 56 69 55 65 80 60 79 45 86 42 91 63 57 97 42 56 54 66 88 41 52 X X X X X X X X X X X X X X  X\nX X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 1992-93 Incentive Magnet Inter- dist Magnet Inter- dist Magnet Prog 4-Year- Okte Prog X X X X X X X X X X X X X X Annexed X X X X X X X X CommentsSchool Enrollment % BIk Elem Jr. High High Area Incentive Magnet Inter- dist Magnet inter- dist Magnet Prog 4-Year- Oids Prog Annexed Comments Rightsell Elem Rockefeller Romine Elem Stephens Elem Terry Elem Wakefield Elem Washington Watson Elem Western Hills Williams Elem Wilson Elem Woodruff Etern Cloverdale Jr, ?\nDunbar Jr. Forest Heights Henderson Jr. Mabelvale Jr. Mann Jr. Pulaski Heights Southwest Jr. Central High Fair High Hall High McClellan High Parkview High High Sch Kind 249 3615 361 209 541 SOO 822 451 335 502 355 234 775 705 787 914 667 849 774 695 1,950 886 976 966 854 122 96 X X X 55\n695 77 97 44 69 59 74 62 65 75 63 74 58 70 75 66 59 68 75 68 63 57 66 57 89 X X X X X X X X X X X X X 5X5: X\n5:5 X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X XNote: 1. Baker Elementary is an interdistrict school in the Pulaski County Special School District. For the 1992-93 school year, the extended care theme has drawn 63 LRSD students on M- to-M transfers. 2. Crystal Hill Elementary is an interdistrict magnet school in the Pulaski County Special School District. For the 1992-93 school year, it has drawn 278 LRSD students on M-to-M transfers. 3. Rockefeller is an incentive school with an early childhood magnet program serving children beginning at 6-weeks old. 4. Henderson Jr., Central High, and McClellan High are area schools with magnet programs. 5. All high schools house one to two kindergarten classes. The enrollment figures reflect high school enrollment. 6. The King Elementary Interdistrict School to open 1993-94 will probably be an interdistrict magnet school, as will the Stephens Elementary Interdistrict School opening in 1994-95.LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 810 West Markham Street Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 TO: FROM: February 6, 1992 Jerry Malone, LRSD Attorney James Jennings, Associate Superintendent for Desegregation Monitoring and Community Services SUBJECT: Pupil/Teacher Ratios The North Central Accreditation Standards state the following concerning the ratio of pupils to teachers: 24.02 Pupli/Professional Staff Ratio. The ratio of pupils to teachers and other professional staff members shall not exceed 20 to 1. In computing the ratio, the school may include the instructional responsibilities of all professional staff assigned to the building plus the time devoted to instruction by other professional personnel. The attachment to this memo provides the pupil/teacher ratio for each elementary school in the Little Rock School District. NCA provisions listed above are used to compute pupil/teacher The ratios. The staffing information is taken directly from the NCA orts developed at the beginning of the school year. The i-iowing certificated positions are included in the staffing counts: - Prekindergarten teachers - Kindergarten teachers - Grade level teachers - Special subject area teachers - Building principal - Assistant principal - Guidance counselor - Media specialist/librarianLITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT ELEMENTARY PUPIL/TEACHER RATIOS School 1-31-92 Enrollment Staffing Count P/T Ratio Badgett Bale Baseline Booker Brady- Carver Chicot Cloverdale Dodd Fair Park Forest Park Franklin Fulbright Garland Geyer Springs Gibbs Ish Jefferson Mabelvale McDermott Meadowcliff Mitchell Otter Creek Pulaski Hgts. Rightsell Rockefeller Romine Stephens Terry Wakefield Washington Watson Western Hills Williams Wilson Woodruff 222 361 332 630 413 606 518 388 309 327 410 497 534 275 258 349 198 483 509 511 432 321 363 357 296 401 362 237 526 474 840 470 334 499 396 231 19 29 24 45 30 43 37 25 23 25 24 37 2 27 20 31 23 31 35 32 26 25 22 22 27 30 27 26 29 31 50 31 21 34 27 17 11.68 12.44 13.83 14.00 13.77 14.09 14.00 15.52 13.43 13.08 17.08 13.43 16.69 10.19 12.90 11.26 8.61 15.58 14.54 15.97 16.61 12.84 16.50 16.22 10.96 13.36 13.40 9.11 18.13 15.29 16.80 15.16 15.90 14.68 14.67 13.5910/16/92 13:07 QaOl 324 2032 L R School Dlst ODM 002/006 A ir Pl Little Rock School District News Release LRSD Non-black Enrollment Increases, Overall Enrollment Stability Continues October 16,1992 For more information, contact Dianne G. Woodruff Non-black enrollment in the Little Rock School District continues to climb, with an increase of 84 students over 1991 figures, according to the annual October 1 enrollment report released today by Superintendent Dr. Mac Bernd. \"Not only have we gained non-black students to the District this year, but these figures reflect a steady trend we're evidencing when you look at the enrollment data during the past four years,\" Bernd said. \" And if you look at several years' enrollment data longitudinally, you see that the non-black enrollment is increasing within a given grade level of students as they move through our schools,\" Bernd said. Total enrollment for the District as of October 1, when the Arkansas Department of Education requires all districts to make official enrollment reports, is 26,212, compared to 26,318 for the same date last year. The percent of black enrollment for both years was 64 percent The number of black students in the District dropped by 190, from 16,916 to 16,726, while the number of white students increased by 37 from 9,045 to 9,082. At the same time, the number of students classified as \"other\" increased by 47 from 357 to 404. This includes students who are Spanish, Asian/Pacific Islander, Eskimo or American Indian. -more- 810 West Markham Street  Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 . \u0026lt;5011374.336110/16/92 17:04 501 324 2032 L R School Dlst ODM @002/004 Page 2 LRSD Release Enrollment Data \"I believe this is evidence that our efforts with the other districts in Pulaski County to offer assignment options are successful. In the Little Rock District, the overall number of students is down because there are 1,101 students from Little Rock now attending schools in the North Little Rock and County districts under majority to minority transfers. At the same time, those two districts are sending us a total of 422 majority to minority (M-to-M) students,\" said Bernd. \"We can see that the majority to minority transfer options are helping all our districts achieve more even racial balances. We fully expect these numbers to be further improved when we open two new schools in the next two years,\" Bemd added. The LRSD will open the King Elementary Interdistrict Magnet School in August 1993 and a new Stephens Interdistrict Magnet School in August 1994. Pulaski County opened Crystal Hill Elementary Magnet School this year and will open another interdistrict school in the next couple of years, also. \"I expect to see more movement among our three districts as vigorous recruitment continues. Clearly, students' needs are being served when we are able to offer a solid basic skills foundation enhanced with a variety of special themes,\" Bemd said. Altogether, the number of magnet transfers. tty to im transfers and legal transfers through two state acts represents influx of 1,953 voluntary isfers into the Little Rock School District The Little Rock School District receives 143 students from North Little Rock and 279 students from Pulaski County Special School District under M-to-M transfer requests. There are 228 Little Rock students attending the North Little Rock School District and 821 Little Rock students going to schools in e Pulaski County Special School District on majority to minority transfers. -more-L  yckooi Bist W Page 3 LRSD Release Enrollment Data Also, there are a tow of 1,481 sh^ from the North Little Rock and Pulaski County districts attending the six original magnet schools in the Little Rock District This includes 558 student from North Little Ri id 923 from aski County. Additionally, there are about 50 students in the Little Rock district via legal transfers provided by state Act 609 or state Act 624, both of which allow students to request transfers to other districts. The number of students in the District's four-year-old classes has continued to grow as the number of schools offering the programs has increased over the past five years, Bernd said. At the same time, the racial make-up of those classes is shifting, also. The white and \"other\" student enrollment program has risen from 17 percent in 1988 to 45 percent this year. The four-year-old program is now offered in 16 schools. That has grown from three schools in 1988, five in the 1989, seven in 1990,11 in 1991 and 16 in 1992. Enrollment data for the past five years is: SENIOR HIGH 10/3/88 10/2/89 10/1/90 10/1/91 10/1/92 WHITE 2,823 2,461 2,201 2,152 2,131 BLACK OTHER TOTAL 3,398 3,264 3,174 3,243 3,378 75 77 90 114 123 6,296 5,802 5,465 5,509 5,632 % BLACK 54 56 58 59 60 JUNIOR HIGH 10/3/88 10/2/89 10/1/90 10/1/91 10/1/92 2,076 1,951 1,878 1,882 1,948 3,912 3,937 4,025 4,112 4,138 80 90 81 68 80 6,068 5,978 5,984 6,062 6,166 64 66 67 68 67 -more-Page 4 LRSD Release Enrollment Data ELEMENTARY 10/3/88 10/2/89 10/1/90 10/1/91 10/1/92 4,678 4,579 4,740 4,851 4,819 9,374 9,489 9,435 9,374 8,994 127 127 161 166 190 14,179 14,195 14,336 14,391 14,003 66 67 66 65 64 SPECIAL SCHOOLS 10/3/88 10/2/89 10/1/90 10/1/91 10/1/92 55 39 49 40 43 35 27 22 24 28 0 1 0 0 0 90 67 71 64 71 39 40 31 38 39 DISTRICT TOTAL (including kindergarten, excluding four-year-old programs) 10/3/88 10/2/89 10/1/90 10/1/91 10/1/92 9,577 9,030 8,868 8,925 8,941 16,684 16,717 16,656 16,753 16,538 282 295 332 348 393 26,543 26,042 25,856 26,026 25,872 63 64 64 64 64 KINDERGARTEN 10/3/88 10/2/89 I 10/1/90 I 10/1/91 I 10/1/92 581 629 682 694 715 1,204 1,264 1,200 1,231 1,188 18 16 22 18 27 1,803 1,909 1,904 1,943 1,930 67 66 63 63 61 FOUR-YEAR-OLD 10/3/88 10/2/89 10/1/90 10/1/91 10/1/92 16 49 76 120 141 78 127 146 188 0 5 6 9 11 94 181 228 292 340 83 70 64 56 55 DISTRICT TOTAL (with kindergarten and four-year-olds) 10/3/88 10/2/89 10/1/90 10/1/91 10/1/92 9,577 9,030 8,944 9,045 9,082 16,684 16,717 16,802 16,916 16,726 282 295 338 357 404 26,543 26,042 26,084 26,318 26,212 63 64 64 64 64 -more-10/16/92 13:10 Ol 324 2032 L R School Dlst ODM @006/006 Page 5 LRSD Release Enrollment Data The last year we had a drop in non-black enrollment in the District was 1988,\" Bernd noted. \"It's my understanding that the so caUed 'control choice' assignment plan which many patrons found to be very unsatisfactory was in place at that time. But if you begin with the 1989 school year, when we were able to implement the assignment plan now in place, stability has prevailed and our ability to attract and hold students in the white and 'other' categories has been quite evident,\" Bernd said. I believe it is helpful to look at some of these data for the longitudinal results, Bernd said. For example, the kindergarten class of 1988 was 67 percent black but also, enrollment for at class now in the fourth grade, is 64 percent black. If you look at figures for the kinderganen class of 1989, which was 66 percent black, data shows that the black enrollment among those students, now in grade three, is 62 percent black.\" These numbers point to long-term stability and the effect that a stable student assignment plan will have for our schools over a period of time,\" Bernd said -30-10/16/92 13:07 501 324 2032 L R School Dlst ODM 21002/006 ? Little Rock School District News Release LRSD Non-black Enrollment Increases, Overall Enrollment Stability Continues October 16,1992 For more information, contact Dianne G. Woodruff Non-black enrollment in the Little Rock School District continues to climb, with an increase of 84 students over 1991 figures, according to the annual October 1 enrollment report released today by Superintendent Dr. Mac Bernd. \"Not only have we gained non-black students to the District this year, but these figures reflect a steady trend we're evidencing when you look at the enrollment data during the past four years,\" Bernd said. \"And if you look at several years' enrollment data longitudinally, you see that the non-black enrollment is increasing within a given grade level of students as they move through our schools,\" Bernd said. Total enrollment for the District as of October 1, when the Arkansas Department of Education requires all districts to make official enrollment reports, is 26,212, compared to 26,318 for the same date last year. The percent of black enrollment for both years was 64 percent The number of black students in the District dropped by 190, from 16,916 to 16,726, while the number of white students increased by 37 from 9,045 to 9,082. At the same time, the number of students classified as \"other\" increased by 47 from 357 to 404. This includes students who are Spanish, Asian/Pacific Islander, Eskimo or American Indian. -more-10/16/92 17:04 501 324 2032 L R School Dlst ODM 002/004 Page 2 LRSD Release Enrollment Data \"I believe this is evidence that our efforts with the other districts in Pulaski County to offer assignment options are successful. In the Little Rock District, the overall number of students is down because there are 1,101 students from Little Rock now attending schools in the North Little Rock and County districts under majority to minority transfers. At the same time, those two districts are sending us a total of 422 majority to minority (M-to-M) students,\" said Berni \"We can see that the majority to minority transfer options are helping all our districts achieve more even racial balances. We fully expect these numbers to be further improved when we open two new schools in the next two years,\" Bemd added. The LRSD will open the King Elementary Interdistrict Magnet School in August 1993 and a new Stephens Interdistrict Magnet School in August 1994. Pulaski County opened Crystal HUI Elementary Magnet School this year and wiU open another interdistrict school in the next couple of years, also. II' 'I expect to see more movement among our three districts as vigorous recruitment continues. Clearly, students' needs are being served when we are able to offer a solid basic skills foundation enhanced with a variety of special themes,\" Bemd said. Altogether, the number of magnet transfers. j^transfers and legal transfers through two state acts represents influx of 1,953 voluntary isfers into the Little Rock School District The Little Rock School District receives 143 students from North Little Rock and 279 students from Pulaski County Special School District under M-to-M transfer requests. There are 228 Little Rock students attending the North Little Rock School District and 821 Little Rock students going to schools in the Pulaski County Special School District on majority to minority transfers. -more-10/16/92 17:05 '0501 324 2032 L R School DiSt ODM 1^003/004 Page 3 LRSD Release Enrollment Data Also, there are a toi of 1,481 stud\u0026lt; from the North Little Rock and. Pulaski County districts attending the six original magnet schools in the Little Rock District. This indues 558 student from North Little Rj id 923 from Laski County. Additionally, there are about 50 students in the Little Rock district via legal transfers provided by state Act 609 or state Act 624, both of which allow students to request transfers to other districts. The number of students in the District's four-year-old classes has continued to grow as the number of schools offering the programs has increased over the past five years. Bernd said. At the same time, the racial make-up of those classes is shifting, also. The white and \"other\" student enrollment program has risen from 17 percent in 1988 to 45 percent this year. The four-year-old program is now offered in 16 schools. That has grown from three schools in 1988, five in the 1989, seven in 1990,11 in 1991 and 16 in 1992. Enrollment data for the past five years is: SENIOR HIGH 10/3/88 10/2/89 10/1/90 10/1/91 10/1/92 WHITE 2,823 2,461 2,201 2,152 2,131 BLACK OTHER TOTAL 3,398 3,264 3,174 3,243 3,378 75 77 90 114 123 6,296 5,802 5,465 5,509 5,632 % BLACK 54 56 58 59 60 JUNIOR HIGH 10/3/88 10/2/89 10/1/90 10/1/91 10/1/92 2,076 1,951 1,878 1,882 1,948 3,912 3,937 4,025 4,112 4,138 80 90 81 68 80 6,068 5,978 5,984 6,062 6,166 64 66 67 68 67 -more-XU/XU/a X / . u o kJ u U X 4UO4i\nA ounuux y xb t UUlU 14AJ UU^/ UU4 Page 4 LRSD Release Enrollment Data ELEMENTARY 10/3/88 10/2/89 10/1/90 10/1/91 10/1/92 4,678 4,579 4,740 4,851 4,819 9,374 9,489 9,435 9,374 8,994 127 127 161 166 190 14,179 14,195 14,336 14,391 14,003 66 67 66 65 64 SPECIAL SCHOOLS 10/3/88 10/2/89 10/1/90 10/1/91 10/1/92 55 39 49 40 43 35 27 22 24 28 0 1 0 0 0 90 67 71 64 71 39 40 31 38 39 DISTRICT TOTAL (including kindergarten, excluding four-year-old programs) 10/3/88 9,577 16,684  -------- 10/2/89 10/1/90 10/1/91 10/1/92 9,030 8,868 8,925 8,941 16,717 16,656 16,753 16,538 282 295 332 348 393 26,543 26,042 25,856 26,026 25,872 63 64 64 64 64 KINDERGARTEN 10/3/88\n10/2/89 I 10/1/90 I 10/1/91 I 10/1/92 581 629 682 694 715 1,204 1,264 1,200 1,231 1,188 18 16 22 18 27 1,803 1,909 1,904 1,943 1,930 67 66 63 63 61 FOUR-YEAR-OLD 10/3/88 10/2/89 10/1/90 10/1/91 10/1/92 16 49 76 120 141 78 127 146 188 0 5 6 9 11 94 181 228 292 340 83 70 64 56 55 DISTRICT TOTAL (with nnder^rten and four-year-olds) 10/3/88 10/2/89 10/1/90 10/1/91 10/1/92 9,577 9,030 8,944 9,045 9,082 16,684 16,717 16,802 16,916 16,726 282 295 338 357 404 26,543 26,042 26,084 26,318 26,212 63 64 64 64 64 -more-10/16/92 13:10 SaOl 324 2032 L R School Disc - ODM @006,'006 Page 5 LRSD Release Enrollment Data \"'Hie last year we had a drop in non-black enrollment in the District was 1988,\" Bemd noted. \"It's my understanding that the so caUed 'control choice' assignment plan which many ft patrons found to be very unsatisfactory was in place at that time. But if you begin with the 1989 school year, when we were able to implement the assignment plan now in place, stability has prevailed and our ability to attract and hold students in the white and other categories has been quite evident,\" Bemd said. I believe it is helpful to look at some of these data for the longitudinal results, also,' II Bemd said. For example, e kinderganen class of 1988 was 67 percent black but enrollment for that class now in the fourth grade, is 64 percent black. If you look at figures for the kinderganen class of 1989. which was 66 percent black, data shows that the black enrollment among ose students, now in grade three, is 62 percent black.' If These numbers point to long-term stability and the effect that a stable student assignment plan wiU have for our schools over a period of time,\" Bemd said -30-09/11/92 09:57 501 324 2032 L R School Dlst ODM @001/003 LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 810 WEST MARKHAM STREET LITTLE ROCK, AR 72201 FAX (501) 324-2032 DATE TO FROM SENDER'S PHONE# SUBJECT '?o//c/ 7 Special Instructions Number of Pages (include cover page) Fax Phone Number Speed dial FOR COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE USE ONLY Transmitted By Date Time 09/11/92 09 : 58 501 324 2032 L R School Dlst ODM l2]002/0q3_ LRSD ENROLLMENT SEVENTH DAY 1992-93 SCHOOL BLACK WHITE OTHER TOTAL XBLACK ELEMENTARY Badgett Bal Baseline Booker Bi'ady Carver Chicot Cloverdale Dodd Fair Park Fox'est Park Franklin Fulbright Garland Geyer Springs Gibbs Ish Jefferson Mabelvale McDermott Meadowcliff Mitchell Otter Creek Pulaski Heights Rightsell Rockefeller Romina Stephens Torry Wakefield Washington Watson Western Hills Williams Wilson Woodruff 157 250 259 344 262 324 336 281 177 186 196 355 223 229 168 189 181 204 269 261 289 239 144 189 240 256 274 198 234 337 475 324 186 271 255 147 48 56 89 260 lib 259 178 74 117 55 240 54 292 16 116 13 2 5 275 222 219 150 26 203 172 9 117 70 8 287 142 326 116 137 219 94 03 0 9 4 11 11 6 10 3 0 2 5 8 9 7 0 12 0 6 3 15 2 2 6 11 1 7 10 0 17 1 7 1 4 9 2 6 205 315 332 615 389 589 524 358 294 243 441 417 524 252 284 333 186 485 494 495 441 267 353 372 250 380 354 206 538 480 808 441 327 499 351 236 7 7 7 9 7 8 54 67 5 5 64 78 60 78 44 85 43 91 59 57 97 42 54 53 66 90 41 5 i 96 67 77 96 43 69 5 9 7 3 5 7 54 7 3 62 TOTAL 8909 4962 207 3 6-, 078 63 DISTRICT TOTAL 16,287 0967 379 25,623 6409/11/92 09:59 301 324 2032 L R School Dlst c-o ODM i U , @003/003 xo:c.x NO.Uuo r LRSD ENROLLMENT SEVENTH DAY - 1992-93 BLACK WHITE OTHER TOTAL iaL 1LL2_H1^ Central Fair Hall McClellan Parkview 1154 515 530 654 506 730 281 403 375 365 35 10 19 15 17 1927 806 952 994 008 60 64 56 6 6 57 TOTAL 3359 2112 96 5567 60 JONTOR HIGH Clovordale Dunbar Forest Heights Henderson Mabelvale Mann Pulaski Heights Southwest 521 434 532 650 439 498 456 489 154 28 2 203 176 232 333 322 176 8 9 14 15 2 19 4 5 683 725 7 54 841 67 3 850 782 670 7 6 60 71 7 7 65 59 58 7 3 TOTAL 4019 1083 76 5978 67SEP 1 1  S 2 P R I 10:05 P - O 1 THE NORTH LITTLE ROCK PUBLIC SCHOOLS administrative offices 700 POPLAR STREET Fax Number: (501) 771-8069 FAX COVER SHEET Date: I'lh Ja Transmitting To: o An FAX Number: Attention: Number of Pages, Including Cover Sheet: From: /So ((f Comments: -fi I oiO Oc\u0026gt;- ( P.O. BOX 687, NORTH LITTLE ROCK, AR 72115/0687 501/771-8000t. t N 0 SECONDARY ENROLLMENT BY GRADES SCHOOL:Recapitulation for all Schools DATEiAugust 31 - September 9, 1992 fl. 0 0 11 IL N (Ji. ll I fl. liJ Vi Grade Level NLRHS - West Campus NLRHS - East Campus Lakewood Middle School Ridgeroad Middle School Rose City Middle School Baring Cross Alternative Education Center________ Total: Year 1992 1991 1990 31 Mon 1080 1051 1004 1 Tue 1130 1058 1025 2 Wed 1150 1111 1078 3 Thu 1158 1112 1142 4 Fri 1165 1113 1147 Mon 8 Tue 1174 1191 1113 9 Wed 1185 1220 1145 Thu Fri 1992 1991 1990 1193 1136 1181 1254 12 05 1278 1274 1238 1303 1296 1270 1326 1304 1285 1337 1312 1303 1368 1322 1307 1385 1992 1991 1990 1992 1991 1990 1992 1991 1990 1992 1991 1990 1992 1991 1992 1991 1990 497 526 509 521 547 522 527 552 535 534 556 548 ^6 560 553 539 566 559 539 570 559 516 346 371 54 4 452 443 559 467 Tsl 570 467 TeT 569 476 551 477 459 513 477 163 343 290 337 364 375 386 371 367 404 378 386 365 382 386 375 385 3^ 386 385 38^ 367 24 30 28 25 29 32 29 35 26 29 34 26 29 33 26 29 33 26 30 33 17 9 3670 3388 3430 merged with ~ schools merged with schools merged with schools merged with schools merged with schools merged with schools 3838 3677 3686 3907 3764 3808 3962 3820 3879 3982 3849 3935 3987 3952 3958 3970 3990 3952 IS.E P  1 1^2 P R I 10:0 6. P . 0 3 RECAPITULATION FOR ALL ELEMENTARY SCHOOLS DATE September 9, 1992 NAME OF SCHOOL YEAR MONDAY TUESDAY WEDNESDAY THURSDAY FRIDAY AMBOY BELWOOD BOONE PARK CENTRAL CRESTWOOD GLENVIEW INDIAN HILLS LAKEWOOD LYNCH DRIVE MEADOW PARK NO.HEIGHTS PARK HILL PIKE VIEW REDWOOD 19^ i TWT 1990 1992 xnz 1990 1992 19 96 1992 1991 Tm\" 1992 1991 1957 1991 1996 1992 1991 1990 1557 1991 1990 1992 1991 1990 T957 '19^1 1990 1992 7757 1990' 1992 1991 7557 1992 1991 7557 1992 1991 7557 251 T2T 411 777 757 166 456 5oT 157 460 390 127 240 238 22T 260 230 277 TTT 425 437 777 775 242 7^ 757 256 772 775 291 400 ITT TTJ 207 775 772 415 414 T25 226 231 775 39\u0026lt; 777 412 170 777 167 457 517 ~477 468 399 -177 240 238 277 277 235 277 444' 425 435 277 2^ 242 277- 256 256 277 25T 291 401 177 442 209 257 277 417 415 T27 227 235 1T7S E p  1 1^2 F R I 1 0 : o \"? p . ei -q- BOSE CITY SEVENTH ST. BARING CROSS ALTERNATIVE KINDERGARTEN ELEMENTARY TOTAL 1992 Ttir 1990 TOI TOT 1990 1992 \"TOT 1990 1992 TOT TTO 1992 1991 TOI 1992 1991 TOI TTO 1991 1990 251 TO ITT TO \"TO Toi 12 TT 12 20 ... 252 TO ITT lel TO\" l6l 12 TT 12 20 685 682 ~TO 4324 4343 TTO TOI 5025 TOT 695 TO 4338 4356 ITO TOI 5046 TOI, 09/1.1'92 09: 57 501 324 2032 L R School Dlst ODM 001/003 LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 810 WEST MARKHAM STREET LITTLE ROCK, AR 72201 FAX (501) 324-2032 DATE TO FROM SENDER'S PHONE # SUBJECT Special Instructions Number of Pt^es (include cover page) Fax Phone Number Speed dial FOR COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE USE ONLY Transmitted By Date Time 09/1,1/92 09:58 501 324 2032 1. R School Dlst ODM @002/003_ LRSD ENROLLMENT SEVENTH DAY 1992-93 SCHOOL BLACK WHITE OTHER TOTAL %BLACK ELEMENTARY Badgett Bale Baseline Booker Bi'ady Carver Chicot Cloverdale Dodd Fair Park Forest Park Franklin Fulbright Garland Geyer Springs Gibbs Ish Jefferson Mabelvale McDermott Meadowcliff Mitchell Otter Creek Pulaski Heights Rightsell Rockefeller Romine Stephens Terry Wakefield Washington Watson Western Hills Williams Wilson Woodruff 157 250 259 344 262 324 33 6 281 177 106 196 355 223 229 168 189 181 204 269 261 289 239 144 189 240 256 274 198 234 337 47 5 324 166 271 255 147 48 56 6 9 260 116 259 178 74 117 5 5 240 54 292 16 116 132 5 275 222 219 150 26 203 172 9 117 70 8 287 142 326 116 137 219 94 83 0 9 4 11 11 6 10 3 0 2 5 8 9 7 0 12 0 6 3 15 2 '2 6 11 1 7 10 0 17 1 7 1 4 9 2 6 205 315 332 615 389 589 524 358 294 243 441 417 524 252 284 333 186 485 494 495 441 267 3 53 372 260 380 354 206 538 480 808 441 327 499 351 236 7 7 79 7 8 54 67 5 5 64 78 60 78 44 8 5 43 91 59 57 9 7 42 54 53 66 90 41 51 9 6 67 77 96 43 69 5 9 7 3 57 54 7 3 62 TOTAL 8909 4962 207 ]4,078 63 DISTRICT TOTAL 16,ZS7 0967 379 25,623 6409/11/92 09:59 501 324 2032 L R School Dlst cep ODM iU , @003/003 j'J NQ.UUO r. UZ LRSD ENROLLMENT SEVENTH DAY - 1992-93 SCHOOL. sLacK WHITE OTHER Central Fair Hall McClellan Pax'kview 1154 515 530 654 506 738 281 403 325 365 35 10 19 15 n 1927 806 952 994 008 60 64 56 66 57 TOTAL, 3359 2112 96 5567 60 JUNIOR HIGH Cloverdale Dunbar Forest Heights Henderson Mabelvale Mann Pulaski Heights .Southwest 521 434 532 650 439 498 456 469 154 28 2 208 176 232 333 322. 176 8 9 14 15 2 19 4 5 683 725 7 54 841 673 8 50 782 6' 0 7 6 60 71 7 7 65 59 58 7 3 TOTAL t019 1083 76 5978 67X I * % X * X DATE START SENDER SEP-11 9:46 501 324 2032 TRANSACTION REPORT RX TINE PAGES TYPE P.Ol SEP-11-92 FRI 9:49 NOTE 2'23\" 3 RECEIVE OK I * I * I X Xer LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 810 WEST MARKHAM STREET LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS TO: FROM: THROUGH: SUBJECT: March 25, 1993 Board of Dire^cctt5'\u0026gt;r\nMarie Parker, RB 1 3 1993 oifico of Desegregation McniiOfing sociate Superintendent for Organizational and Learning Equity Dr. Mac Berndt Superintendent Second Quarter Enrollment - 1992-93 School Year Please find attached the second quarter enrollment statistics for the 1992-93 school year. cc: Cabinet COMPARISON OF ACTUAL ENROLLMENT FOR SECOND QUARTER OF 1992-93 AND 1991-92 1992-93 Actual Enrollment as of January 28, 1993, Second Quarter of 1992-93 School Year: White Black Other Total %Black Special chools* Elementary (w/o Kind.)  4129 Junior High Senior High (w/o Kind.) 1905 2044 40 7783 4079 3281 0 175 71 104 84 12,087 6,055 5,429 48 64 67 60 Sub Total 8122 15,183 350 23,655 64  Kindergarten Four-Year-Old 697 143 1,190 186 32 13 1,919 342 62 54 ......GRAND TOTAL .... 8962 X 16^-559 .  - 395 25,916 64 c 44 Private Handicapped Schools Homebound students counted in school where assigned. 1991-92 Actual Enrollment as of January 23, 1992, Second Quarter of 1991-92 School Year: White Black Other Total %Black Special Schools* Elementary (w/o Kind.) Junior High enipr High (w/o Kind.) 45 4130 1843 2077 33 8131 4032 3144 0 161 74 119 78 12,422 5,949 5,340 42 6 5 68 58 Sub Total 8095 15,340 354 23,739 64 Kindergarten Four-Year-Old 695 120 1,247 172 22 10 1,964 302 63 57 GRAND TOTAL 8910 16,759 386 26,055 64 q Private Handicapped School Homebound students counted in school where assigned.GRADE K 1 2 3 4 5 6 UN TOTAL ELEM. 7 8 9 UN TOTAL JR HIGH 10 11 12 UN TOTAL SR HIGH TOTAL K-12 SPEC. SCHOOLS FOUR YR OLD DI ST TOTALS SUMMARY OF SECOND QUARTER ENROLLMENT 1992-93 WHITE BLACK OTHER TOTAL %BLACK 697 710 727 680 640 658 670 , ..44 4826 684 617 583 21 1905 693 648 694 9 2044 8775 44 143 8962 1190 1307 1299 1204 1212 1291 1342 128 8973 1418 1368 1232 61 4079 1317 1014 919 31 3 281 16,333 40 186 16,559 *SUMMARY OF STUDENTS LISTED IN SPANISH -133 ASIAN/PACIFIC ISLANDER -219 32 25 32 35 25 35 23 0 207 22 29 20 0 71 31 35 37 1 104 382 0 .13 39 5 1919 2042 2058 1919 1877 1984 2035 172 14,006 2124 2014 1835 82 6055 2041 1697 . 1650 41 5429 25,490 84 342 26,916 OTHER\" CATEGORY: ESKIMO/AMER. IND. OTHER 20 23 62 64 63 63 65 65 66 74 64 67 68 67 74 67 65 60 56  76 60 64 48 54 64L I' I r L E I' (0 C E G C HIJ iJ L. r\u0026gt; IG1IL\nT SEflOMD QUARTER EMROLLrlEW I REPOFM JANUARY as, 1993 SCHOOL/GRADE WHITE BLACK OTHER TOTAL !^BLAOK CENTRAL UNGRADED 10 11 12 SUBTOTAL KIND. TOTAL 0 265 244 221  730 0 730 0 453 370 273 1096 49 1145 0 15 20 14 49 0 49 0 733 634 508 187'5 49 1924 ERR 61.80*/. 58.36'/. 53.74*4 58.45'/. 100.00*/. ,9.51*/. FAIR UNGRADED 10 11 12 SUBTOTAL KIND. TOTAL   7 103 94 96 -5-300 ..... - 1 301 ' 15 206 170 150 541 .. 19 560 0 0 0 0 . _\n.0 0  o S2 309 264 246 B41 20 B61 68.18*/. 66.67*/. 64.39*/. 60.98*/. 64.33*/. 95.00/. 65.04*/. HALL UNGRADED 10 11 12 SUBTOTAL KIND. TOTAL 0 113 123 155 391 11 40)2 O 218 157 179 9 563 O 6 7 12 25 0 C 337 287 346 970 20 990 ERR 64.69*/. 54.70*/. 51.73*/. 57.11*/. 45.00!4 56.87*/. MCCLELLAN UNGRADED 10 11 12 SUBTOTAL KI ND. TOTAL 2 94 79 111 286 1 287 16 263 168 166 613 18 631 1 4 3 b 14 0 14 19 361 2G3 913' 19 84.21*/. 72.85*/. 67.20'/. 58,661i 67.14\u0026gt;\u0026lt; 94.74!/ 67.70'/. PARKVIEW UNGRADED 10 11 12 SUBTOTAL, KI ND. TOTAL. 0 118 106 11.1 337 2 339 0 1 77 149 151 47'7 15 4 92 0 ii 16 0 16 O 301 262 267 630 17 847 0.00*/ 58G0!4 56.677 56.557 57.477 y\n. 247 58.097 ISi.T 'lOOL / GRADE CLOVERDALE UNGRADED WHITE OTHER TOTAL TOTAL DUNBAR UNGRADED TOTAL 7 8 9 1 8 9 FOREST HEIGHTS UNGRADED 1 8 -9 TOTAL HENDERSON UNGRADED 1 a 9 TOTAL MABELVALE UNGRADED 1 8 9 TOTAL MANN UNGRADED 3 9 TOT AL. PULASKI HEIGHTS i)HGK'Ai\u0026gt;E.D 8 o TOTAL. 68 57 183  88 92 96 276 6 64 70 70 3 210 3 82 45 60 190 c. 79 74 65 223 129 123 333 I li, 74 207 178 184 574 132 144 129 405 7 194 184 . 155- 540 17 225 233 175 650 12 146 143 127 428 145 180 500 137 :i 66 138 .UH 3 4 3 10 3 6 2 11 0 3 7 4-.. 14 0 2 2 6 iO 0 2 0 0 2 o 1 0 ij 9 ^64 250 244 767 223 242 227 692 13 261 261 229  764 20 309 280 241 850 17 227 217 192 653 310 266 S^S 8 269 262 232 771 78.I it\n71.20% 75 i 7''+. W4/i 59.19% 59.50% 56.8 3 / 58.53% 53.85% 74.33% 70.5o% 67.69% 70.6S% 85.00% 72,82% 83.21% 72.6J % 76.47% 70.59% 64.32% 65.90% 66.15% 65.54% 56. 53 5Q 3 t'3 ITSCHOOL/GRADE fiOUTI 1WE8T UNGRADED WH 1 I tS BLACK OTHER \"I OTAi... . BL ALA TOTAL BADGETT UNGRADED 7 8 9 C) 56 49 60 165 15 02 144 536 6 0 1 2 4 b SUBTOTAL KI ND, FOUR YR OLD - TOTAL -   1 1 '  '2 10 3 != 4 7 32 8 -47- 7 20 13 18 16 30 28 132 12 9  -isa'.\n' 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0   1 15 c.61 J 230 204 710 8 22 23 21 22 34 165 19 17 201 - i CjCi. OCT/. 7'7 39% 76.07% 70.59% 75.49% 87.50% 90.91% 56 02% 85.71% IrL. 73% 88.24% 80.00% 80.00% 63.16% 52.94% 76.12% BALE UNGRADED 7 1 2 3 4 c\nb SUBTOTAL KI ND. FOUR YR OLD TOTAL 3 8 8 9 45 10 9 64 26 25 28 28 41 37 190 34 9 233 0 1 2 1 11 3 0 14 12 32 32 32 38 51 49 246 47 18 311 41.67% 81.25% 78.13% 87.50% 73.68% 80.39% 75.51% 77.24% 72.34% 50.00% 74.92% BASELINE UNGRADED 1 2 3 4 tr 10 14 10 6 9 4 SUBTOTAL KIND. TOTAL Oi:\n12 64 47 42 34 43 30 32 228 45 273 1 1 0 0 4 0 4 58 44 'IS 41 36 284 57 341 81.03% 73.68% 77.27% 89.58% 73.17% 88.89% 80.28% 78.95% 80 06% ISUI iOOL/GRADE BOOKER UNGRADED WHITE Bl-AC ( ! U'l AL. A BLi-'iLL. 1 3 A 6 SUBTOTAL K.TND. TOTAL 3a 35 38 A A 37 39 825  \"e.7 252 A 6 AS AS 50 50 53 295 Al 336 0 1 0 . 0 a 6 0 6 78 8A 86 97 87 9A 5ac3 68 S9A BRADY UNGRADED 1 a 3 4 6 58.97% 57.1 A/) 55.81% 57.477. 5(6.38% 56.08% 60.89'/) 5 6  5 / % SUBTOTAL KIND. TOTAL 1 25 17 16 10 . 167 12 97 ... 26 123 c* 33 AA A3 38 /36 - A6 839' 30 869 0 1 1 a 0 a  7 3 10 6 59 68 61 Aa 53 60 3A3 59 A02 S3.33% 55.93% 70.97% 70.A9% 76.19% 67.98% 76.67% 69.68% 50.85% 66.98% CARVER UNGRADED 1 a 3 4 6 SUBTOTAL KIND. TOTAL 31 3A Al A3 A3 A5 837 a? S6A AO 51 A 9 A9 5A 895 33 338 CHICOT UNGRADED 1 81 30 -3 + c\naa ao d-Xj 65 58 A a Al 38 A7 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 (Ji 0 SUBTOTAL KI ND. TOTAL 1A9 3 1 i r'- 71 85 90 9a 9'7 60 598 j.G GA 88 t\u0026gt;o ya ASA 78 56.3A*/\n60.00% 5 A. AA% 53.a6% 55.67% 53.61% 55.A5% 55.00% 55 . A17\u0026lt; 50.00% 75.58% 65.91% a3.aAa 6 A. 06% 63.33% i?G% bb.08% '/1. bb.78% I*StO-IOuL/GRADE CLOVERDALE UNGRADED WHI f E iLACK a ruiLK TO t-K 1  3 4 6 10 11 9 3 11 6 39 J. SUBTOTAL KI ND. FOUR YR OLD TOTAL  17 a 36 43 41 48 35 36 9 80 1 1 0 50 47 46 47 DODD UNGRADED 1  3 - ..,.4 - SUBTOTAL KIND. 4  14 17 11,.. 14 35 117 1 138 7 El 31 3 ... .E5L-. 36  IS\n155 19 174 FAIR PARK UNGRADED 1  3 4 10 7 7 9 6 SUBTOTAL KIND. TOTAL 43 9 5E 3E 8 6 30 30 4 170 FOREST PARK UNGRADED 1 E 36 43 35 9 6 SUBTOTAL KI ND. IO l AI. 4 07 33 4 13 81 43 31 3'/ C) 0 1 6 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 1  (j 1 1 1 1 4 1 43 890 53 18 361 1 1 43 45 40 L'L. 36 50 47 7 40 31 43 35 34 35 39 30 16 36 5 51 G 376 -I- OP 30 7e?,. 00*/. 7834*/. 78.6% 91.49% 78.85*/\n87.50'/. 81.03'% 67'. 9*/. 50.00*% 77.56% 63.64*/ 48,84*/. 68.89*/. 57.50*/. .44*/. 7S.. 00'/. 85.53*/. 56.99*/. 47.50*/. 55.77*/. 74.4% 80. ooy. 7h,.i^7'h 85.7iy. 7b. 9/. 80.00/. 78.70/. 69.44/. 77.38*/. 46.48*/. 35.89% 86.53*4 4.1 . .18% 58.44% 56 - ( 4 .37%g(.\n:houl/(jRADf: FRANKLIN UNGRADED WHITE BLACK OTWt?.H TOTAL.. /.BLACK 1 2 3 0 6 aUDTOTAL- L\u0026lt; I ND. FOUR YR OLD TOTAL 4 1 4 23 10 65 45 48 43 O 23 51 47 283 40 .27 350 1 0 0 2 0 3 8 10 74 50 51 47 2) 53 31 1 45 ..J 3 409 100.00% 8'/. 84/\n90.00'/ 94.12'/. 91.49'/. 96.15/ 88.68'/. 91.00'/. 88.89*/\n50.94'/. 85.57% FULBRIGHT UNGRADED cr 1 2 3 .. . - ....T 4 - 5 6 SUBTOTAL KIND. TOTAL 33 '+3  - 50 42 ' 42\"  270 305 2 30 28 40 -28 38 38''  204 24 228 0 1 2 2 2 i 1 9 0 9 64 73 97 80 81 81 483 59 542 28.57/. -76.80/. 38.36*/. 41.24*/. 35.00*/. 46.91'/. 46.91'/. 42.24'/. 40.68'/. . 42.07'/. GARLAND UNGRADED 1 2 3 4 6 SUBTOTAL KIND. FOUR YR OLD TOTAL 1 O 0 1 0 o 0 2 3 2 -J 11 37 27 29 32 26 32 194 9 228 GEYER SPRINGS UNGRADED 1 c 3 4 0 17 20 15 28 26 26 20 16 6 SLIbTOTAL. I ND 16 82 17 1 23 TOiiF\n70 I AL. CiLD too 0 1 0 1 0 2 6 0 0 0 0 12 38 27 31 32 28 34 202 30 11 243 T5 '76 Ti 25 T7 ^lO 10 91.67'/. 97.37% 100.00'/. 93.55'/. 100.00'/. 92.86'/\n94.12/. 96.04'/ S3.33'/. 81.82'/. 93.83*/\ni 00.00X 62.22/ 56 GO 6'4 65 41'/ 00% OOyL I ii. iT'.tjfSEHui IL../SRADE G I BBS UHljRADET.) wuri E EL.Ai.\nl OTHER TOTAL \u0026gt;\nriLALr:. SUBTOTAL KIND. TOTAL ISH UNGRADED 1 2 3 9 1 2 3 9 6 ' SUBTOTAL' -'  KIND. FOUR YR OLD TOTAL JEFFERSON UNGRADED 1 2 3 9 6 subtotal KIND. TOTAL MABELVALE UMeRABEIJ 1 2 3 9 SUBTOTAL lO'ND.. TOT Al.. 17 19 19 20 IS c. 128   13 23 87 88 39 168 88 190 1 0 1 i P S 8 10 93 95 93 90 9 9 898 37 335 5 Ei. 1 9-7', 57.787 53.99*/ 56). 25z, 57.197, 55.717 56.387\n56.72*/, 0 0 0 8 O . . 0 -- 0 0 3 9 3S 93 36 37 90 92 238 90 278 3 38 39 88 29 TO 169 215 29 89 16 22-.. 89 '137-\"'- 23 8 168 0 0 0 0 o 0 0 - 0 0 0 o CT 13 88 86 16 28 29 139 23 11 173 100.007, 100.007. 100,007. 92.317. 100.007. 100 iOoy. 100.007. 98.567. 100.007. 72.737. 97.117. 9 89 30 65 30 ES 37 188 19 807 39 95 90 851 39 285 I' ! 0 0 1 3 1 1 0 6 0 6 (.) 1 i 1 0 0 3 0 3 8 60 79 79 68 69 79 938 i=,a ^91 10 75 79 73 69 993 503 50  OC 90.00*/. 90.59*/, 97.30*/. 99.187. ^,0 . Ub /, 96.897, 93.58% 38. aoy.  98. 167, 70 ti6. (MV, 52.707. 61.697 53.137. 56 57 T4'/\nT6.6 Cj 56 ..8 C Hu 0 L / ti L (A i) L MCDERMaTT UNGRADED WIU ft. iU. ACK o r I 11:::,!-\nl u I AL /^LLAlJ-.. 1 3 it er 6 SUBTOTAL KIND. TOTAL 0 32 29 36 32 30 35 194  30 224 0 43 42 36 38 48 47 254 29 283 0 0 3 3 2 it ii) 1 O 75 '74 75 72 aa 84 462 60 EI\u0026lt;R 57.33% 56.76% 48.00% 52.78*% 58.54% 55.95% 54.98% 4 8.33*% 54.21 % MEADOWCLIFF UNGRADED 1 2 3 4 25 28 26 15 6  SUBTOTAL'\" KIND. TOTAL. --22 16 132  \" IS 150 5o 46 42 46 41 * 26Cr 42 302 0 1 0 0 - \u0026lt;1 0  '2 o 2 75 75 68 61 64 51 394  60 454 66.67*/. 61 .33*/, 61.76*/, 75.41*/, 64.06*/, 68,63/, 65,99*/, 70.00*/, 66.52/, MITCHELL UNGRADED 1 1 2 3 it a 6 SUBTOTAL KIND. FOUR YR OLD TOTAL. it 0 21 2 ss 10 29 32 29 36 22 201 23 9 233 0 ci 1 0 1 0 0 4 1 OTTER CI'iEFK UNGRADED j. 2 3 k- 6 SWBTCU AL KI ND. TOTAL 37 34 31 27 26 177 23 200 24 25 14 20 6^2 24 129 15 144 2 0 2 1 0 f'i 11 32 46 34 35 40 22 226 25 i rs\n266 48 62 50 52 49 3i 1. A O 90.91 % 76.32% 93.48% 94.12% 82.86*/, 90.00*% 100.00% 88.94 /. 92.00/, 60.00% 87.59% 50.00% 4032% 2800% 38.46% it it. 90% 48,. Oo\n.^ 41 48% 3'/.. 50% i\n1 03%SCHOOL/GRADE r'ULASKI HEIGHTS U N G R Ai D E11 WHITl LLALK. tJi l lliH Tui AL SIJBTOTAI. KIND. TOTAL RIGHTSELL UNGRADED 1 S 3 4 6 6 33 5 5 15 SS 146  '31 177 4 31 3 30 36 34 178 6 04 (3 1 1 1 0 3 8 1 s 3 4 6 ' SUBTOTAL  ' KIND. FOUR YR OLD TOTAL 1 0 0 0 - 0- 0 1' 6 9 33 34 9 38 . -\"34 38 S06''  9 37 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 ROCKEFELLER UNGRADED 1 S 4 6 4 13 10 a 3 cr 50 66 49 56 CiS. 5)6 39 60 389 34 34 39 39 48.00% 4'6.9'/*/) 46.94% 69..S3% 60 71 /. 54.10% 43.33% 52.44% 97.06% 100.00% 100.00% 97.44% 3^^ . -100.00*/. 38 08 4 eA-7 100.00*/. 99.04*/. 91 ..67% 60.00*/. 95.95*/. SUBIOTAL KIND. FOUR- YR OLD TOTAL 63 7 4 114 39 5 34 33 31 199 9 6 54 1  0 0 O 1 3 9 6e 54 37 4S 36 36 6'7 5'7 37'7 59.68*/. 7S.SS*/. kf/. 5'7*/. 80.95*/. 91.67*/. 86.11 % 74.53*7. 50.88% 49.06% 67.37% ROMINE UNGRADED 1 E IE di IS 43 38 0 O 1 14 StJEn'QTftL K1 ND. r4:'!liR i t Ii Al. ft OLD 10 10 1 o H-0 L-O 8 SS9 1 1 1 45 4 6 51 37 39 98'7 SS.'/i 78.ia 84-. 44% 91 . BGT. 78 - 4 '3 z. 71 79 c?L) ' 1 1JSOHUOL/GRADE STEPHENS UNGRADED wni 1 g\nbl... ACK 011 lt.R I DIAL ZBLACh\n. 1 E 3 4 SUBTOTAL KIND. FOUR YR OLD TOTAL ij 2 1 0 1 0 0 4 0 3 7 6 as 32 19 14 33 157 20 g 1Q5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 (J 0 0 6 27 9 32 20 14 33 161 0 11 192 100.00% 92.59% 96.55% 100.00% 95.00% 100,00% 100.00% 9'7.52% 100.00% 72.73% 96.35% TERRY UNGRADED 1  3 4-- 5 6 SUBTOTAL KIND. TOTAL 38 38 40 42 ... 35 ' 36 229 45 74 5 31 31 . . .36^.,. 39 03 32 235 3 4 ........1  4 3 19  1 66 74 75 79 78 79 451 79 530 37.88/. 41.89% 41.33% 45,57% 50.00% 51.90% 45.01% 40.51% 44.34% WAKEFlELD UNGRADED 1 S 3 4 A SUBTOTAL KIND. TOTAL Cl 7 9  1 20 26 4 147 17 164 0 47 46 45 57 56 53 304 43 347  (1 1 O 0 1 2 0 4 0 4 0 75 75 hi. 7Q 84 77 0.00% 62.67% 61.33% 68.18% 73.08% 66.67% 68.83% 66.81% 71.67% 67.38% WASHINGTON UNGRADED  h SUBTOTAL K I ND. FOUR YR Ol..D TOT Ai.  49 47 42 38 48 36 62 34 18 31\u0026lt;! 3 77 89 63 5)6 hh 57, 4 1 !j 4 8 17 4.7 5 0 1 3  0 i 9 4 C j i b ! i..' la? I3c\u0026gt; i 07 94 i i 93 68 5 86 Gi0 60 .. 0C}\u0026gt;4 60.63% 64.03% 58.88% 59.57% 56.90% S0?% 60.21% 55.81 % 4 b 57^\u0026lt;S(^i 'lOUI..  iil 'T-iDt. WATSON UNGRADED Wl J1 i L BLACK  ! r'LU 1 U I fU. 1 c 3 SUBTOAL KIND. FOUR YR OLD TOTAL 19 14 14 16 19 18 94   17 56 \"I 118 60 898 39 10 347 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 4 0 66 58 58 79 63 393 60 17 470 '/4 L 67y 78.79% 75.86% 6'7.31 % 75.95% SO. 95*/. 75.83*4 65.00% 58.88% 73.83*/. WESTERN HILLS UNGRADED 1 3 4- 5 ' 6  SUBTOTAL KIND. TOTAL 81 SO 15 80 .. 81 IV'\" 116 15 131 89 30 33 30. _ 30 189 85 814 0 0 1 iTO- . .. 8  0 3 0 3 50 50 49 50 53 308 40 348 58. ooy. 60. ooy. 67.35*/. 60. ooy. 56.60*/. 66.07*/. 61.36*/. 68.50*/. 61 .49*/. WILLIAMS UNGRADED 1 3 4 6 SUBTOTAL KIND. TOTAL 30 86 88 30 31 40 185 87 818 36 37 36 41 38 51 839 31 870 3 8 1 0 8 1 9 0 9 69 65 65 71 71 95 433 58 491 58.17*/. 56.98% 55.38*/. 5'7.75*/. 53.58% 55.43*/. 55.80% 5^+. ^'^'A WILSON UNGRADED 1 8 3 4 4 T3 11 17 6 SUBTOTAL KIND. four yr old | (TTAi. 68 16 / 05 80 35 89 34 3'9 38 4 8 837 84 9 570 . O 0 0 0 1 Q 1 9 C'l j 84 48 40 51 47 48 48 300 40 1 ii 83.33*/. 78.98*/, 78.50y. bb. b7V\u0026gt; 88.98*4 90.4 84 37.507. 79 . OO-i 60.QOA ,iiH i 'SCI lUUi, /iSRADi. WOODRUFF Ui'JGRADED Wr  i I Er. Lent b\nI..11 I U I i ii 1 3 4 14 9 9 10 13 as 13 16 i (J 1 43 21 23 26 6?..'. 1 c J/, iq- 6 SUBTOTAL KIND. FOUR YR OLD TOTAL 62  11 7 SO 18 109 88 1 1 1 '+ 1 1 6 26 170 'iO 17 232 C'-}. Or'.'I 61.04'% 61.11% 69 62 59% 70.00 6 .94% .93% EASTER SEALS UNGRADED TOTAL le 1 s 9 9 0 45.86% 42.86% ELIS. MITCHELL .... - ungraded TOTAL  .s.'y..  S7 . . .. 17%: 17 ... 0 . , 0 44 44 38.64% 38.64% E. MITCHELL(DAY) UNGRADED TOTAL 14 14 0 0 19 19 73.68% 73.68% iArkansas Democrat (gazette SATURDAY, SEPTEMBER 12, 1992 , 1 tRSO enrollment (7th day) Sr.high\nCentral Fair Hall McClellan Parkview Total Jr. high Cloverdale Dunbar I 1992-93 ' Black Non-blk%Blk Total - 1,154 515 530 654 506 773 291 422 340 382 60 1,927 3,359 2,208 521 434 Forest Heights 532 Henderson Mabelvale Mann 650 439 498 Pulaski Heights 456 Southwest Total Elementary Badgett Bale Baseline Booker Brady ' Carver Chicot Cloverdale Dodd Fair Park Forest Park Franklin Fulbright Gatland Geyer Springs Gibbs Ish Jefferson Mabelvale McDermott Meadowcliff Mitchell Otter Creek 489 162 291 222 191 234 352 326 181 4,019 1,959 157 250 259 344 262 324 336 281 177 186 196 355 223 229 168 189 181 204 269 261 289 239 144 Pulaski Heights 189 Rightsell Rockefeller Romine Stephens Terry Wakefield Washington Watson Western Hills Williams Wilson Woodnjff Total 240 256 274 198 234 337 475 324 186 271 255 147 48 65 73 271 127 265 188 77 117 57 245 62 301 23 116 144 5 281 225 234 152 28 209 183  10 124 80 8 304 143 333 117 141 228 96 89 8,909 5,169 Grand Total 16,287 9,336 64 56 66 57 806 952 994 888 60 5,567\n76 60 71 n 65 59 58 73 683 725 754 841 673 850 782 670 67 5,978 77 79 78 54 67 55 64 78 60 78 44 85 43 91 59 57 97 42 54 53 66 90 41 51 96 67 77 96 43 69 59 73 57 54 73 62 205 315 332 615 389 589 524 358 294 243 441 417 524 252 284 333 186 485 494 495 441 267 353 372 250 380 354 206 538 480 808 441 327 499 351 236 63 14,078 64 25,623 J ENROLLMENT FIGURES The . Little Rock School District's enrollment on Wednesday, the seventh day of school, was up 36 students as compared with last years seventh- day enrollment of 25,587, The racial . .roomposition of the district  64 per-  \"cent black and 36 percent white is ! virtually unchanged. Elementary en- j 2 rollment was down 285 students, ju- i * nior high school enrollment was up  Z by 80 students and senior high en-  Z-rollment was up by 241 students, j ZMore than 300 district elementary '  pupils are attending the new Crystal  Hill Elementary School in the Pulaski Qounty District, which accounts for the drop in the elementary enrollment i yeaK w\nthis t\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":57,"next_page":58,"prev_page":56,"total_pages":362,"limit_value":12,"offset_value":672,"total_count":4341,"first_page?":false,"last_page?":false},"facets":[{"name":"educator_resource_mediums_sms","items":[{"value":"worksheets","hits":2},{"value":"bibliographies","hits":1}],"options":{"sort":"count","limit":16,"offset":0,"prefix":null}},{"name":"type_facet","items":[{"value":"Text","hits":4079},{"value":"StillImage","hits":389},{"value":"MovingImage","hits":1}],"options":{"sort":"count","limit":16,"offset":0,"prefix":null}},{"name":"creator_facet","items":[{"value":"Connor, Eugene, 1897-1973","hits":567},{"value":"South Carolina Council on Human Relations","hits":246},{"value":"Federal Bureau of Investigation","hits":186},{"value":"Arkansas. Department of Education","hits":112},{"value":"Little Rock School District","hits":106},{"value":"Scholarship, Education and Defense Fund for Racial Equality","hits":75},{"value":"McCain, James T.","hits":66},{"value":"United States. Federal Bureau of Investigation","hits":57},{"value":"Student Nonviolent Coordinating Committee (U.S.)","hits":52},{"value":"Mississippi Freedom Democratic Party","hits":50},{"value":"Huckaby, Elizabeth","hits":41}],"options":{"sort":"count","limit":11,"offset":0,"prefix":null}},{"name":"subject_facet","items":[{"value":"Education--Arkansas","hits":824},{"value":"Little Rock School District","hits":615},{"value":"Little Rock (Ark.)--History--20th century","hits":575},{"value":"Birmingham (Ala.)--Officials and employees--Biography","hits":567},{"value":"Birmingham (Ala.)--Politics and government--20th century","hits":567},{"value":"Civil rights movements--Alabama--Birmingham","hits":567},{"value":"Politicians--Alabama--Birmingham","hits":567},{"value":"Civil rights workers","hits":507},{"value":"African Americans--Arkansas","hits":455},{"value":"Civil rights--Arkansas","hits":454},{"value":"Race discrimination--Arkansas","hits":454}],"options":{"sort":"count","limit":11,"offset":0,"prefix":null}},{"name":"subject_personal_facet","items":[{"value":"Connor, Eugene, 1897-1973","hits":567},{"value":"McCain, James T.","hits":259},{"value":"Huckaby, Elizabeth","hits":89},{"value":"Simpson, John Milton Bryan, 1903-1987","hits":89},{"value":"King, Martin Luther, Jr., 1929-1968","hits":79},{"value":"Davis, L. O.","hits":78},{"value":"Hayling, Robert Bagner","hits":74},{"value":"Bryant, Farris, 1914-2002","hits":52},{"value":"Phillips, Vel, 1924-2018","hits":42},{"value":"Stuart, Virgil","hits":39},{"value":"Mizell, M. Hayes","hits":35}],"options":{"sort":"count","limit":11,"offset":0,"prefix":null}},{"name":"name_authoritative_sms","items":[{"value":"Connor, Eugene, 1897-1973","hits":566},{"value":"Simpson, John Milton Bryan, 1903-1987","hits":89},{"value":"Davis, L. O.","hits":78},{"value":"King, Martin Luther, Jr., 1929-1968","hits":77},{"value":"Hayling, Robert Bagner","hits":74},{"value":"Bryant, Farris, 1914-2002","hits":52},{"value":"Phillips, Vel, 1924-2018","hits":42},{"value":"Stuart, Virgil","hits":39},{"value":"Ashmore, Harry S.","hits":34},{"value":"Brown, Robert R. (Robert Raymond), 1910-1994","hits":30},{"value":"Heiskell, John Netherland, 1872-1972","hits":30}],"options":{"sort":"count","limit":11,"offset":0,"prefix":null}},{"name":"event_title_sms","items":[{"value":"Little Rock Central High School Integration","hits":246},{"value":"Freedom Summer","hits":167},{"value":"Martin Luther King, Jr.'s Nobel Prize","hits":77},{"value":"Housing Act of 1961","hits":7},{"value":"Ole Miss Integration","hits":5},{"value":"Civil Rights Act of 1964","hits":3},{"value":"Freedom Rides","hits":2},{"value":"Integration of Clemson University","hits":2}],"options":{"sort":"count","limit":11,"offset":0,"prefix":null}},{"name":"location_facet","items":[{"value":"United States, Arkansas, 34.75037, -92.50044","hits":1644},{"value":"United States, 39.76, -98.5","hits":1603},{"value":"United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, 34.76993, -92.3118","hits":1212},{"value":"United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, Little Rock, 34.74648, -92.28959","hits":1146},{"value":"United States, Alabama, Jefferson County, Birmingham, 33.52066, -86.80249","hits":567},{"value":"United States, Mississippi, 32.75041, -89.75036","hits":439},{"value":"United States, South Carolina, 34.00043, -81.00009","hits":409},{"value":"United States, Florida, 28.75054, -82.5001","hits":373},{"value":"United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, Little Rock, Dunbar High School, 34.73231, -92.28654","hits":206},{"value":"United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, Little Rock, Central High School, 34.73683, -92.29895","hits":189},{"value":"United States, Mississippi, Forrest County, Hattiesburg, 31.32712, -89.29034","hits":86}],"options":{"sort":"count","limit":11,"offset":0,"prefix":null}},{"name":"us_states_facet","items":[{"value":"Arkansas","hits":1728},{"value":"Alabama","hits":573},{"value":"Mississippi","hits":569},{"value":"South Carolina","hits":504},{"value":"Florida","hits":375},{"value":"Wisconsin","hits":84},{"value":"Georgia","hits":74},{"value":"New York","hits":42},{"value":"District of Columbia","hits":9},{"value":"Virginia","hits":9},{"value":"","hits":7}],"options":{"sort":"count","limit":11,"offset":0,"prefix":null}},{"name":"year_facet","items":[{"value":"1964","hits":957},{"value":"1963","hits":664},{"value":"1965","hits":513},{"value":"1962","hits":472},{"value":"1957","hits":462},{"value":"1960","hits":456},{"value":"1966","hits":444},{"value":"1961","hits":440},{"value":"1967","hits":440},{"value":"1995","hits":429},{"value":"1959","hits":420},{"value":"1994","hits":409},{"value":"1958","hits":401},{"value":"1996","hits":397},{"value":"1993","hits":384},{"value":"1969","hits":383},{"value":"1968","hits":359},{"value":"1992","hits":357},{"value":"1991","hits":355},{"value":"1999","hits":347},{"value":"1997","hits":344},{"value":"2000","hits":333},{"value":"1998","hits":326},{"value":"2001","hits":323},{"value":"1970","hits":319},{"value":"1990","hits":308},{"value":"1971","hits":295},{"value":"2002","hits":292},{"value":"1956","hits":278},{"value":"2003","hits":278},{"value":"1989","hits":277},{"value":"1972","hits":268},{"value":"1955","hits":259},{"value":"2004","hits":256},{"value":"2005","hits":237},{"value":"1954","hits":230},{"value":"1981","hits":225},{"value":"1974","hits":221},{"value":"1987","hits":215},{"value":"1988","hits":214},{"value":"1975","hits":205},{"value":"1973","hits":203},{"value":"1984","hits":203},{"value":"1986","hits":202},{"value":"1985","hits":201},{"value":"2006","hits":201},{"value":"1977","hits":197},{"value":"1980","hits":197},{"value":"1982","hits":197},{"value":"1983","hits":197},{"value":"1979","hits":195},{"value":"1976","hits":189},{"value":"1978","hits":189},{"value":"2007","hits":189},{"value":"1952","hits":158},{"value":"2010","hits":157},{"value":"1951","hits":156},{"value":"1953","hits":156},{"value":"2009","hits":154},{"value":"2008","hits":153},{"value":"2011","hits":153},{"value":"1950","hits":148},{"value":"2012","hits":144},{"value":"1948","hits":142},{"value":"2013","hits":142},{"value":"2014","hits":141},{"value":"1947","hits":139},{"value":"1945","hits":134},{"value":"1946","hits":134},{"value":"1944","hits":133},{"value":"1949","hits":133},{"value":"1943","hits":127},{"value":"1942","hits":121},{"value":"1934","hits":120},{"value":"1940","hits":120},{"value":"1932","hits":119},{"value":"1936","hits":119},{"value":"1937","hits":119},{"value":"1939","hits":119},{"value":"1933","hits":118},{"value":"1935","hits":117},{"value":"1941","hits":117},{"value":"1930","hits":116},{"value":"1938","hits":116},{"value":"1924","hits":113},{"value":"1931","hits":113},{"value":"1929","hits":99},{"value":"1921","hits":96},{"value":"1928","hits":93},{"value":"1923","hits":92},{"value":"1926","hits":92},{"value":"1927","hits":92},{"value":"1922","hits":91},{"value":"1925","hits":91},{"value":"1909","hits":89},{"value":"1918","hits":89},{"value":"1919","hits":89},{"value":"1920","hits":89},{"value":"1908","hits":88},{"value":"1911","hits":88}],"options":{"sort":"count","limit":100,"offset":0,"prefix":null},"min":"1061","max":"2036","count":27224,"missing":0},{"name":"medium_facet","items":[{"value":"documents (object genre)","hits":4341},{"value":"correspondence","hits":288},{"value":"notes (documents)","hits":97},{"value":"lists (document genres)","hits":89},{"value":"memorandums","hits":84},{"value":"postcards","hits":56},{"value":"programs (documents)","hits":47},{"value":"reports","hits":39},{"value":"agendas (administrative records)","hits":38},{"value":"pamphlets","hits":38},{"value":"essays","hits":37}],"options":{"sort":"count","limit":11,"offset":0,"prefix":null}},{"name":"rights_facet","items":[{"value":"http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC-EDU/1.0/","hits":1880},{"value":"http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/CNE/1.0/","hits":1168},{"value":"http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC/1.0/","hits":654},{"value":"http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/UND/1.0/","hits":604},{"value":"http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/NoC-US/1.0/","hits":35},{"value":"http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC-NC/1.0/","hits":5}],"options":{"sort":"count","limit":11,"offset":0,"prefix":null}},{"name":"collection_titles_sms","items":[{"value":"Office of Desegregation Management","hits":830},{"value":"Historical Manuscripts and Photographs","hits":764},{"value":"Theophilus Eugene ‘Bull’ Connor Papers, 1959-1963","hits":566},{"value":"Land of (Unequal) Opportunity: Documenting the Civil Rights Struggle in Arkansas","hits":454},{"value":"Butler Center for Arkansas Studies Documents Collection","hits":447},{"value":"Civil Rights Library of St. Augustine","hits":372},{"value":"James T. McCain papers, 1957-1972","hits":257},{"value":"New insights in the American civil rights movement: South Carolina Council on Human Relations records","hits":249},{"value":"Judy Richardson Papers 1963-2014","hits":92},{"value":"March on Milwaukee: Civil Rights History Project","hits":85},{"value":"Faith Holsaert Papers 1950-2011","hits":45}],"options":{"sort":"count","limit":11,"offset":0,"prefix":null}},{"name":"provenance_facet","items":[{"value":"Butler Center for Arkansas Studies","hits":1279},{"value":"University of Southern Mississippi. Libraries","hits":765},{"value":"Birmingham Public Library (Ala.)","hits":567},{"value":"University of South Carolina. Libraries","hits":549},{"value":"University of Arkansas, Fayetteville. Libraries","hits":454},{"value":"Proctor Library","hits":372},{"value":"South Caroliniana Library","hits":321},{"value":"Duke University. Library","hits":137},{"value":"Golda Meir Library. Special Collections","hits":85},{"value":"Stuart A. Rose Manuscript, Archives, and Rare Book Library","hits":49},{"value":"Valdosta State University. Odum Library. Archives and Special Collections","hits":15}],"options":{"sort":"count","limit":11,"offset":0,"prefix":null}},{"name":"class_name","items":[{"value":"Item","hits":4326},{"value":"Collection","hits":15}],"options":{"sort":"count","limit":100,"offset":0,"prefix":null}},{"name":"educator_resource_b","items":[{"value":"false","hits":4335},{"value":"true","hits":6}],"options":{"sort":"count","limit":100,"offset":0,"prefix":null}}]}}