{"response":{"docs":[{"id":"bcas_bcmss0837_663","title":"Policy and procedures","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":["1991/2003"],"dcterms_description":null,"dc_format":["application/pdf"],"dcterms_identifier":null,"dcterms_language":["eng"],"dcterms_publisher":["Little Rock, Ark. : Butler Center for Arkansas Studies. Central Arkansas Library System"],"dc_relation":null,"dc_right":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC-EDU/1.0/"],"dcterms_is_part_of":["Office of Desegregation Monitoring records (BC.MSS.08.37)","History of Segregation and Integration of Arkansas's Educational System"],"dcterms_subject":["Little Rock (Ark.)--History--20th century","Little Rock School District","Education--Arkansas","School management and organization","School employees","Educational planning"],"dcterms_title":["Policy and procedures"],"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/663"],"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":["46 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\u0026gt; SLIP SHEET FOR REGULAR MEETING ON OCTOBER 24 , 1991 J CKCOL DISTRICT 810 WEST MARKHAM STREET LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS RECEIVED OCT 2 3 1991 October 24, 1991 TO: Board of Directors FROM: Ruth S. Ofiics ci Desegregation Steele, Superintendent of Schools SUBJECT: REVISION OF POLICY CBG: EVALUATION OF THE SUPERINTENDENT Pursuant to your suggestion, I am enclosing a revised policy on the Evaluation of the Superintendent which references gender as I recommend that the proposed policy revision be approved for first reading.LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT EPS CODE: CBG (Also AFB) ADOPTED: REPLACES OR REVISES POLICY:CBG and AFB EVALUATION OF THE SUPERINTENDENT Through evaluation of the Superintendent, the Board will strive to: 1. Clarify for the Superintendent his/her role in the school system as seen by the Board. The 2. 3 . 4 . Clarify for all Board members the role of the Superintendent in light of his/h^ job description and the immediate priorities among his/hei biliries as agreed upon by the Beard and t Superintendent. responsi- le Develop harmonious working relationships between the Board and Superintendent Provide effective administrative leadership for the school system. Board will provide the Superintendent with opportunities to discuss Superintendent-Board relationships, periodic and will inform him/her, bv June 3 0 of . assessment of his/her performance. every year. of itsSLIP SHEET FOR REGULAR BOARD MEETING ON OCTOBER 24, 1991 LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 810 WEST MARKHAM STREET LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS RECEIVED October 24, 1991 OCT 2 3 1991 Office of UesegTe.jatiori Monitoring TO: Board of Directors FROM: Ruth S. Steele, Superintendent of Schools SUBJECT: REVISED POLICY BDDB, SCHOOL BOARD AGENDA After listening to your concerns about the policy we presented in the printed agenda, I have revised the proposed policy and am enclosing a new one for your consideration. This policy uses the same format as the current policy\nhowever, it adds language that gives the Board the right to set time limitations or to require representatives to speak for large groups whose interests are similar. This proposed policy allows at least as much and in most instances a greater opportunity for citizen or employee comment than any of the six (6) school districts we researched. summary of our research I am attaching a citizen input and participation. on how other school districts handle LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT EPS CODE: ADOPTED: REPLACES OR REVISES POLICY: SCHOOL BOARD AGENDA The method used by An agenda for each regular meeting of the Board of Directors shall be prepared by the Superintendent of Schools. The method used by the Superintendent to establish the Board agenda must provide an opportunity for the Board members to voice objections or add items. The agenda will contain all, but only those items introduced by the Board members and Superintendent. Only action items scheduled in the agenda will be acted upon in a regular Board meeting unless a suspension of the rules is agreed to in compliance with Policy BDDEB (Suspension of the Rules of Order). The order of business at Directors shall be: regular meeting of the Board of a 1. 2 . 3 . 4 . 5. 6. 7 . 8. 9 . 10. 11. 12 . 13 . Call to Order Roll Call Minutes Consent Items Presentations Remarks From Citizens Special Report Action Items Financial Reports Reports from Superintendent Audience with Individuals or Groups Student or Em.ployee Recommendations Adjournment Persons wishing to address the Board during the \"Remarks from Citizens\" section on the agenda will be required to sign up and state the subject of their remarks prior to the convening of the meeting. The Board may vote to set time limitations or representatives to speak for large groups whose require interests are similar. Persons speaking about issues on the agenda for Board action will be given priority during the \"Remarks from Citizens\" section. If additional time is required for citizen or employee remarks or if there is a large delegation wishing to address single issue not on the agenda, the Board may vote to defer their comments to the \"Audience with Individuals or Groups\" II section in rder to complete the pen ing agenda in a timely manne aSUMMARY OF RESEARCH ON PUBLIC INPUT AND PARTICIPATION IN MEETINGS OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS Pulaski County Special School District PCSSD has a place on their agenda prior to their business meeting that allows for \"audience with individuals or groups. It There is no time limitation and it was stated that they seldom have anyone come forward during that period of time other than parents. Immediately following the audience with individuals or groups, they have a section for \"Association Business\" in which the union can address the Board. This section is reserved for the president, executive director, or their designee only. North Little Rock School District They have a period of time after adjournment of their meeting called \"Visitors, members stay and 11 11 This is an informal After their Board meeting is adjourned. Board visit\" with those who wish to speak to them. setting. recorded, and minutes are not kept. dialogue is allowed. it is not Fort Smith School District They have a period of time set aside at the beginning of the agenda for citizen participation. It is a 15 minute segment. Persons wishing to speak must pick up a form which is provided in the back of the meeting room and fill it out giving their name. address, who they represent, and the topic. They drop the form in a basket and the Board president picks it up when the citizen participation section comes up on the agenda. divided among the number of speakers. The 15 minutes are of people wishing to speak, representative to speak for them. they are If there are a large number asked to appoint Board members do not dialogue with the speakers unless they need to ask a simple question for clarification or something like that. a Another way for citizens to participate in items that are to be considered on the agenda is to give the Superintendent written notice 72 hours prior to the Board meeting that they would like to be placed on the agenda. Their name will then be placed on the agenda at the item under consideration. Pine Bluff School District Thev st that ir .ter AC'  A* ngs s 0 1 end if aagenda, it will be done provided the request is made at least one week prior to the Board meeting. In addition, after the Board adjourns, the Board members have a period of time that they listen to anyone who wishes to address them. and minutes are not kept. This segment is not recorded There are no time limitations. Jackson, Mississippi Public Schools If a citizen wants to be on the school board agenda, they must submit a letter requesting to be placed on the agenda at least one week prior to the Board meeting, they will present to the Board. They must send a copy of what They are granted 5 minutes. Also, there is a section on the agenda for \"general comment\". In order to speak during this section, the speakers must fill out a form prior to the meeting. These speakers are granted 3 minutes. When the Board is considering a change in a policy, citizens and/or employees are given an opportunity to speak to the change at the time it comes up on the agenda, policy.) (Only when changing a printed Memphis, Tennessee Public Schools If a person wants to speak to the Board about an item on the agenda, they must call the Superintendent's office in advance (by noon of the day of the Board meeting) and sign up. Their name will then be placed on the agenda with the item under consideration. They will be given 3 minutes prior to the Board's discussion of the item. At the end of the agenda citizens or employees may speak on any issue. individuals will \"yield\" They are limited to three (3) minutes each. Some that speaker's time to 6 minutes. to the current speaker thereby increasing A total of 9 minutes is allowed through \"yielding. 110 PROCEDURES FOR SCHOOL CLOSINGS AND OPERATIONS DURING EMERGENCY CONDITIONS 1993-94 LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 810 WEST MARKHAM STREET LITTLE ROCK, AR 72201 TO: FROM: LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 810 WEST MARKHAM STREET LITTLE ROCK, AR 72201 November 15, 1993 Principals, Direcllors, Supervisors, Associate and Assistant Superintendents Estelle Mattms, Deputy Superintendent THROUGH: Henry P. Wil! rent of Schools SUBJECT: (1) PROCEDURES FOR SCHOOL CLOSINGS (2) OPERATIONS DURING EMERGENCY CONDITIONS Attached please find complete information regarding the procedures to be followed if it becomes necessary to close schools during the day or not to open school at all due to inclement weather or other emergency. In addition, information is enclosed regarding the bus transportation of students during emergencies and other standard procedures. Please study this information carefully so you will know what to do in your particular area of responsibility.  Every employee must follow the procedures outlined in the attached information. If circumstances justify any departure from these procedures, you must notify the Superintendent promptly. It is your responsibility to know what to do under these procedures. You should therefore have access to this information at all times so that all steps will be followed without delay. If you have any questions regarding these procedures, please dont hesitate to contact me. Attachments: 1 2 3 4 5 - Decision to Close Schools During Emergencies - Decision to Close Schools During the School Day - Decision Not to Open School or Delay the Opening of School - Decision to Notify Personnel of Emergency Conditions - Crisis Management Plan - Operations During Emergency Conditions 5-A - District Crisis Response Team 6 7 8 9 - Telephone Numbers of Principals by Group - Distribution of Copies of Procedure - Emergency Phone Numbers - Crisis Communications Management Plan Page lof22ATTACHMENT 1 Revised November 1993 DECISION TO CLOSE SCHOOLS DURING EMERGENCIES SCHOOL YEAR 1993-94 1. Administrators Responsible for Decision Any decision to close schools will be made by the Superintendent or an appointed designee. The Superintendent and possible designees are listed below. Office Home Henry P. Williams Estelle Matthis Russell Mayo Mark Milhollen Sterling Ingram 324-2012 324-2011 324-2272 324-2078 324-2124 221-7508 664-7324 225-4885 753-4964 225-7160 2. 3. Notification of Inclement Weather The Little Rock Police Department - Lt. Charles Holladay, Public Information Officer, has arranged for the Shift Commander of the Patrol Division to notify him immediately when hazardous driving conditions are noticed at any time during the day or night when these conditions will affect the opening or closing of schools. Lt. Holladay will relay this information as soon as possible to the Superintendent or the appointed designee. U. S. Weather Service - When a weather advisory is issued for the Little Rock area, the forecaster on duty at the National Weather Service office will provide this information as soon as possible to the Superintendent or appointed designee. Transportation Department - Brad Montgomery, LRSD Director of Transportation, and his supervisory staff will monitor street conditions during inclement weather. Mr. Montgomery will provide the Superintendent with information concerning current driving conditions to assist in making the decision to close schools. Notification of Other Emergencies The Little Rock Police Department, Little Rock Fire Department, and/or the Office of Emergency Services will alert the Superintendent or the appointed designee of the existence or possible existence of emergencies which may require the evacuation of one or more schools. The accidental release of a toxic substance, a wreck of a vehicle carrying explosives, or a fire in a building near a school are examples of emergencies other than those caused by hazardous driving conditions in winter weather. Page 2 or 22ATTACHMENT 2 Revised November 1993 DECISION TO CLOSE SCHOOLS DURING THE SCHOOL DAY If an emergency situation arises during school hours, the Superintendent will confer with senior staff to assess the necessity of closing schools. Once a decision to close schools has been made, the procedures listed below will be used. 1. Preparation of Communique - A communique signed by the Superintendent will be prepared and distributed to the Associate Superintendents, Manager of Support Services, Assistant Superintendents, Director of Communications, PBX Operator, and persons designated below to call the principals. This communique will include as many of the following as needed. a. b. c. d. e. f. g* h. i. expected closing time of schools expected time of arrival of buses expected pick-up times of special education students decision concerning use of emergency or regular bus routes (emergency bus routes are used when schools are closed because of ice or snow) decision on operation of CARE program (how late? which schools?) cancellation of athletic events decision on serving lunch dismissal times for employees identification of schools being closed if all are not involved 2. Notification of Personnel - The Superintendent or appointed designee will notify the Director of Communications, Deputy and Associate Superintendents, Manager of Support Services, Assistant Superintendents and Norma Rodgers. These individuals will be responsible for notifying the personnel listed below. a. Mark Milhollen Jackie Boykin (Food Services) Ext. 2255 Doug Eaton (Plant Services) Ext. 4022 Charles Neal (Procurement) Ext. 2235 Dave Kingsella (Information Services) Ext. 2019 Bill Bamhouse (Safety and Security) Ext. 2401 b. Norma Rodgers Linda Jones Linda Smith Betty J. Forbes Norma Rodgers Carol Hughett Beverly Griffin Call Principals - Group A* Call Principals - Group B* Call Principals - Group C* Call Principals - Group D* Call Principals - Group E* Call Principals - Group F* Charlotte Washington Call Principals - Group G* Principals in various groups are listed on ATTACHMENT 6. Page 3 of 22ATTACHMENT 2 DECISION TO CLOSE SCHOOLS DURING THE DAY Page 2 c. Sterling Ingram Patty Kohler (Exceptional Children) Ext. 2190 Paulette Martin (Adult Education) Ext. 2260 Dennis Glasgow (I.R.C.) Ext. 0518 Martha Rodgers (CARE) Ext. 2395 d. Russell Mayo Brad Montgomery (Transportation) Ext. 4010 e. Estelle Matthis Linda Watson (Hearing Officer) Ext. 2170 Victor Anderson (Interim Assistant Superintendent-Secondary) Ext. 2017 Margaret Gremillion (Assistant Superintendent-Elementary) Ext. 2006 Larry Robertson (Assistant Superintendent-Elementary) Ext. 2007 Ouida Carter (Athletics) Ext. 2426 f. Jeanette Wagner Brady Gadberry (Human Resources) Ext. 2117 Lt. Charles Holladay (LRPD) at 371-4626 (office) or Communications Section (LRPD) at 371-4601. Notification to the media by FAX machine PBX Operator g. Brady Gadberry Sue Rodgers (SOS OfRce) Ext. 2091 or 562-1683 (home) or Marcy Eckolls (SOS Office) Ext. 2090 or 225-6679 (home) h. Communications Secretary Notification of administrative offices listed in the 1993-94 Personnel Directory under \"LRSD Central Offices\" other than those listed above. TRANSPORTATION If early student release or closing of schools is indicated, the Superintendent will determine whether emergency routes or regular routes will be used. Afternoon bus runs will not begin or continue if running those routes poses a serious threat to student safety. Recommendations concerning delay of bus runs and the diverting of bus loads to alternate locations will be made by the principal of the affected schools and the Director of Transportation to the Superintendent for a decision. When immediate communications are necessary, interim decisions will be made by the Director of Transportation. Page 4 of 22ATTACHMENT 2 DECISION TO CLOSE SCHOOLS DURING THE DAY Page 3 CARE PROGRAM When the schools are dismissed early, the CARE Program will continue to operate until 5:30 p.m. or until all students are picked up by their parents. Parents will be urged through the news media to pick up their students as soon as possible after the time of early dismissal. It is not required that parents whose children are in the CARE Program be called by the building principal to come and pick up their children prior to early dismissal. The CARE supervisor will ensure that the CARE Programs are fully supervised until all students are picked up by their parents. DIVISION OF EXCEPTIONAL CHILDREN When the schools are dismissed early, parents of children in the Division of Exceptional Children program will be urged through the news media to pick up their children as soon as possible after the time of the early dismissal. It is not required that the building principal call the parents of exceptional children to ask that the children be picked up prior to school being dismissed. Buses which are provided for exceptional children will attempt to take these students to their homes as scheduled. However, if there is no one at home to receive the students or the buses are unable to deliver the students, the students will be taken to Booker, Brady, or Chicot Elementary School-whichever is the closest to the students homes. The principals of these schools are responsible for providing the necessary supervision of the students they may receive. This supervision must be prearranged by the principal and the Director of the Division of Exceptional Children. Page 5 of 22ATTACHMENT 3 Revised November 1993 DECISION NOT TO OPEN SCHOOL OR TO DELAY THE OPENING OF SCHOOL The steps outlined below will be followed if it becomes necessary prior to regular school hours to decide to keep the schools closed or to delay the opening of schools. When possible, the decision will be made before 10 p.m. of the evening prior to the day school is to be closed or opened later than regularly scheduled. If the decision must be delayed until the early morning hours, it should be made prior to 6 a.m. to keep the bus drivers from reporting to the terminal at their scheduled time. 1. Notification of Central Office Personnel and LRPD - The Superintendent or appointed designee will notify Estelle Matthis at 664-7324 (home), Russell Mayo at 225-4885 (home), Mark Milhollen at 753-4964 (home). Sterling Ingram at 225-7160 (home), and Jeanette Wagner at 227-7805 (home) immediately after the decision is made. They will then be responsible for notifying the personnel indicated below. a. b. c. d. e. f. Mark Milhollen Jackie Boykin (Food Services) at 794-2499 (home) Doug Eaton (Plant Services) at 834-7304 (home) Charles Neal (Procurement) at 843-3007 (home) Dave Kingsella (Information Services) at 843-4895 (home) Bill Barnhouse (Safety and Security) at 225-4325 (home) Sterling Ingram Dennis Glasgow (I.R.C.) at 227-7554 (home) Patty Kohler (Exceptional Children) at 663-4581 (home) Paulette Martin (Adult Education) at 888-7318 (home) Martha Rodgers (CARE) at 663-6757 (home) Russell Mayo Brad Montgomery (Transportation) at 835-3099 (home) Since many buses leave the terminal at approximately 6:30 a.m., the dispatcher should be called before 6:30 a.m. at the terminal phone number (570-4000) in the event Brad Montgomery cannot be reached. Estelle Matthis Victor Anderson (Interim Asst. Superintendent-Secondary) at 776-1663 (home) Margaret Gremillion (Asst. Superintendent-Elementary) at 663-8540 (home) Larry Robertson (Asst. Superintendent-Elementary) at 225-6173 (home) Jeanette Wagner Brady Gadbeny (Human Resources) at 224-2801 (home) Lt. Charles Holladay (LRPD) at 888-2992 (home) or 371-4626 (office), or the Communications Section at 371-4829 Notification to the media Brady Gadbeny Sue Rodgers (SOS) ext. 2091 or 562-1683 (home) and Marcy Eckolls (SOS) - ext. 2090 or 225-6679 (home). These ladies leave home at approximately 4:30 a.m. and should be contacted as early as possible. Page 6 of 22ATTACHMENT 3 DECISION NOT TO OPEN SCHOOL OR TO DELAY THE OPENING OF SCHOOL Page 2 2. Notification of Principals - As soon as they are informed officially that schools will not open or will open later than regularly scheduled, the persons identified below' will call the principals in the group indicated. Victor Anderson Larry Robertson Brady Gadberry Dennis Glasgow Margaret Gremillion Patty Kohler Sterling Ingram Call Principals - Group A* Call Principals - Group B* Call Principals - Group C* Call Principals - Group D* Call Principals - Group E* Call Principals - Group F* Call Principals - Group G* Principals in various groups are listed on ATTACHMENT 6. CARE PROGRAM When the schools are not opened as a result of inclement weather, the CARE Program will be operated in selected schools. The program will be in operation from 8:00 a.m. until 5:30 p.m. in the schools listed below. Brady Elementary Chicot Elementary Forest Park Elementary Gibbs Magnet 7915 West Markham 11100 Chicot Road 1600 North Tyler 1115 West 16th TRANSPORTATION If adequate early notification of emergency conditions has not been accomplished through the media, buses will make every effort to pick up students at their assigned bus stops in the morning and take them to their assigned school. If the assigned school is inaccessible due to icy conditions, flooding, downed power lines, electrical outages, etc., the students will be taken to an alternate school for safekeeping, supervision, and communication. Alternate schools will be selected by the Transportation Department based on conditions at the time. Patron questions and non-emergency communications should not be referred to the Transportation Department during emergency operations. It is vital that the Transportation Department telephones and staff are accessible for emergency purposes. The Transportation Department will make eveiy effort to provide the schools with information needed to respond to patron concerns. Principals will not provide \"private line\" telephone numbers to patrons. These lines must be kept open for emergency communications. Page 7 of 22ATTACHMEOT 3 DECISION NOT TO OPEN SCHOOL OR TO DELAY THE OPENING OF SCHOOL Page 3 SCHOOLS School personnel are expected to make every possible effort to get to school during severe weather situations and are expected to remain at the school until released by the Superintendent. This is particularly important due to the possibility of the school being selected as an alternate school for student safekeeping and supervision after the schools regular students have been released. Principals are expected to accept and provide supervision for all students delivered to buildings designated as alternate schools. Principals are expected to coordinate closely with the Transportation Department on the release of buses and bussed students during all emergency situations. FOOD SERVICE Principals are expected to notify their food service manager as soon as they are informed that students are being diverted from their building or that additional students are being sent to their building. Although plans do not envision a likelihood that additional food service support will be required,the possibility does exist and must be part of our planning. PLANT SERVICES Principals are expected to notify Plant Services of any failure or imminent failure of their building support system. Plant Services must, in turn, notify the Transportation Department to ensure that students are not delivered to, and/or are immediately removed from, a building that is unsafe for student occupation. Plant Services must ensure that the Transportation Department is aware of power outages, downed power lines, etc., which would make a school unsafe or inaccessible. The Director of Plant Services will provide any vehicle maintenance or recovery support available upon request of the Director of Transportation. Page 8of22ATTACHMENT 4 Revised November 1993 DECISION TO NOTIFY PERSONNEL OF EMERGENCY CONDITIONS School Year 1993-94 Sudden paralyzing disasters can strike school communities anywhere. When they do, school disasters become emergencies for school personnel. Whether a crisis arises by accident or willful violence, schools can be disrupted and become focal points of fear, pain, and chaos. In case an emergency condition occurs, the Superintendent or appointed designee will immediately confer with senior staff. If the emergency condition appears to warrant the implementation of the Districts Crisis Management Plan (as explained in ATTACHMENT 5), the following procedures will be used to notify administrative staff. 1. Notification of Personnel - The Superintendent or appointed designee will notify the Deputy and Associate Superintendents, Manager of Support Services, Director of Communications, Assistant Superintendents, Norma Rodgers, and if necessary, the police and fire departments. These individuals will be responsible for notifying the personnel listed below. a. b. c. d. e. Mark Milhollen Bill Barnhouse (Safety and Security) Ext. 2401 Brad Montgomery (Transportation) Ext. 4010 Jackie Boykin (Food Services) Ext. 2255 Doug Eaton (Plant Services) Ext. 4022 Charles Neal (Procurement) Ext. 2235 Dave Kingsella (Information Services) Ext. 2019 Norma Rodgers Board Members Betty Forbes Victor Anderson (Asst. Superintendent) Ext. 6233 Margaret Gremillion (Asst. Superintendent) Ext. 2006 Larry Robertson (Asst. Superintendent) Ext. 2007 Linda Watson (Hearing Officer) Ext. 2170 Lucy Lyon (Instructional Technology) Ext. 0577 Jeanette Wagner Sterling Ingram (Planning, Research, and Eval) Ext. 2124 Dennis Glasgow (I.R.C.) Ext. 0518 Brady Gadberry (Human Resources) Ext. 2117 If necessary, reports to the media Carol Hughett Gwen Efird (Nursing) Ext. 2161 - (Pager 569-0244) Patty Kohler (Exceptional Children) Ext. 2190 Martha Rodgers (CARE) Ext. 2395 Page 9of22ATTACHMENT 5 Revised November 1993 CRISIS MANAGEMENT PLAN OPERATIONS DURING EMERGENCY CONDITIONS Student safety is our primary concern during emergency conditions. Accordingly, the guidelines below will be used during severe weather or other emergency conditions. The District will have two command centers during an emergency condition. The following personnel will report to the command center located on or near the site of the emergency and will have the following direct responsibilities. All personnel will also complete tasks as assigned by the Superintendent. 1. Superintendent a. b. c. d. e. Direct all operations of the District in the management of the emergency Assess the emergency situation and assign tasks based on the overall needs for managing the emergency Direct all activities of District and school staff in the management of the emergency Stay in contact with the leaders of the emergency service agencies and the law enforcement agencies working with the emergency Authorize the release of information to the public 2. Manager of Resources and School Support a. b. c. d. Serve as a liaison between the emergency site and the emergency support teams that may be needed Coordinate transportation services Coordinate communication between the emergency site and the District command center Coordinate physical plant needs and requirements 3. Director of Transportation a. b. Direct transportation services for injured persons, school students, staff, and parents Assign selected administrative personnel who have no other responsibilities in this plan as necessary to evacuation sites to supervise children or adults who have been transported away from the emergency site 4. Director of Plant Services a. b. c. Direct and assign personnel as necessary to ensure that buildings are safe for students and adults Coordinate telecommunications and work with utility companies Bring building plans to the emergency site 5. Director of Procurement and Materials Management a. Direct and assign personnel as necessary to ensure that adequate supplies and equipment are on-site and available Page 10 of 22ATTACHMENT 5 CRISIS MANAGEMENT PLAN Page 2 6. Director of Communications a. Implement Crisis Communications Management Plan (Attachment 9) which includes: 7. 1) 2) 3) 4) Establish and maintain a \"news room\" on site to facilitate media needs for information and District needs to make information available to the public. The location should be convenient but out of the flow of persons involved actively in the emergency. A room with phones and electrical outlets is desirable. Collect and disseminate information to the media. Be aware of deadlines, the need for accuracy, and other issues related to the media. Plan and coordinate press conferences Establish and maintain a clearing house for calls and requests from schools, the community, parents, the media, etc., and refer them to the appropriate person. Director of Information Services a. b. c. d. Establish and maintain computer communications with the Districts command center Establish and maintain any data links necessary to assist in obtaining needed student and staff information from the computer files Provide technical support for all communications hardware and software Establish an alternative two-way communication system between the on-site and District command centers 8. Director of Food Services a. Plan and initiate arrangements for food for students and staff 9. Coordinator of Nursing a. b. Coordinate District Crisis Response Team (See ATTACHMENT 5-A). Mobilize District Team and assist local building crisis team in providing counseling and support to students, staff, and parents when it Is determined that broad-based District assistance is needed at the local school crisis site. (Example: Sudden violent death of a student or staff member or a violent crime occurring on a school campus) 10. Deputy Superintendent a. b. c. Develop information sheet for parents, teachers, and others Confer with staff and faculty\ncoordinate briefings for staff and faculty Develop schedule for activities for the first day of school following the crisis Page 11 of 22i ATTACHMENT 5 CRISIS MANAGEMENT PLAN Page 3 11. Appropriate Assistant Superintendent a. b. c. d. Set up District command center at the school involved in the emergency Supervise collection of information about those involved in the emergency Check student and staff records for all injured to determine special medical needs that may be on file Notify parents of students and spouses/family of staff who are involved in the emergency 12. Associate to the Deputy Superintendent for Curriculum a. Report to hospitals to which students or adults have been admitted for b. c. d. treatment If more than one hospital is admitting students or adults, coordinate the communication among the hospitals and the District. Assign and direct other District staff to assist in those hospitals Coordinate communication between the hospital and the command center Direct the involvement of the Psychological Examiners in the crisis situation 13. Director of Safety and Security a. b. Coordinate activities with emergency service and law enforcement agencies Direct and assign campus security as needed to ensure a safe, secure campus during the emergency The following personnel will report to the Superintendents office area where the District Command center will be established. These personnel will have the following responsibilities in addition to other tasks assigned. 1. Associate Superintendent for Desegregation a. b. c. d. e. Establish the District command center Coordinate all communication and requests for information with the on-site command center Assign resources (persons and materials) to various sites for specific needs After other schools have closed, assign those principals to sites and tasks that will benefit the Districts attempts to manage the emergency Arrange for the delivery of outside resource and materials needed for the management of the emergency 2. Communications Department a. b. Plan and coordinate the use of the Districts cable television channel for live and taped presentations Provide backup information and link to the Communications Director on site, including handling coordination of media requests that come to District (Administration Building) Command Center. Page 12 of 22ATTACHMENT 5 CRISIS MANAGEMENT PLAN Page 4 3. Instructional Technology Coordinator a. b. Provide technical support for all communications hardware and software Assist Director of Data Processing with providing student and staff information from the computer files 4. Controller a. b. Arrange for the payment of monies needed to respond to emergency situations\nauthorize purchases and payments for such resources Manage the administrative staff 5. Superintendents Executive Assistant a. Provide frequent updates to the Superintendent Page 13 of 22DISTRICT CRISIS RESPONSE TEAM ATTACHMENT 5-A Revised November 1993 The Little Rock School District will have a permanent crisis management team composed of 3 secondary counselors, 3 elementary counselors, 3 school nurses, the Coordinator of Health Services, and 1 administrator who will be responsible for the periodic review of this plan, make appropriate changes and offer recommendations to the administration concerning policies and practices in the Little Rock School District. The teams primary purpose is to help staff and students at the local buildings to deal with the grief and emotional reactions precipitated by a death or other traumatic event at the building. The Associate Superintendent for Curriculum and Learning Improvement will be responsible for designating this team. The Coordinator of Health Services will be the chairperson of this team and will be dispatched to a crisis when it is determined that a District response is needed. This team will plan and implement District inservice programs on the crisis management plan and will assist in training the local school crisis teams. Annual training sessions will be provided for local school teams to insure proficiency in implementing school response plans. District Crisis Response Team 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. Coordinator of Health Services - Chairperson Director of Safety and Security New Futures Mental Health Consultant Designated school nurses Designated elementary guidance counselors Designated secondary guidance counselors Designated psychological examiners Community agencies who may also be called if the crisis situation dictates: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. Child Study Center Centers for Youth and Families Professional Counseling Associates Local clergy Mental Health Center of Greater Little Rock Local School Crisis Response Team Each local school will have a permanent crisis management team composed of designated administrators, a teacher, counselors, the nurse, the librarian, the school secretary and, if possible, a representative from the PTA. Each team is to meet early in the school year and develop their own concise plan of response to crisis situations. School crisis response plans will be reviewed by the appropriate assistant superintendent. Plans should be developed for the day of the crisis and the days and weeks following the crisis. This team will be responsible for seeing that a brief, effective inservice for staff is held early in each school year. It will be important for this team to evaluate the effectiveness of their plan following any crisis event. It is essential that on both the District and local school level, consideration be given to measures that could prevent or minimize crisis situations. This will involve: 1. 2. 3. 4. recognizing that, unfortunately, these crisis situations can become reality\ntaking seriously any statement, conversation or other indication that events have been threatened, suggested or considered\ntracking down sources of information and providing anonymity for the providers of this information\nand surveying each local school for potentially dangerous environmental factors. Page 14 of 22TELEPHONE NUMBERS OF PRINCIPALS BY GROUP ATTACHMENT 6 Revised November 1993 School Principal Principals School Phone Principals Private # Principal\nHome # Group A Central J. A. Fair Hall McClellan Parkview Metropolitan Rudolph Howard Al Niven Dr. Victor Anderson Jodie Carter Junious Babbs Dr. Doyle Dillahunty 324-2300 228-3100 671-6200 570-4100 228-3000 565-8465 324-2343 324-3131 671-6233 570-4145 228-3040 570-4040 223-9711 851-6640 821-6263 568-0930 227-5715 227-9465 Group B Cloverdale Dunbar Forest Heights Henderson Mabelvale Mann Magnet Pulaski Heights Southwest Gayle Bradford Nancy Acre Richard Maple Clell Watts Walter Marshaleck Marian Lacey Ralph Hoffman Charity Smith 570-4085 324-2440 671-6390 228-3050 455-7400 324-2450 671-6250 570-4070 570-4093 324-2445 671-6388 228-3060 455-7407 324-2451 671-6256 570-4075 664-4044 851-3886 663-7919 227-4513 455-3834 664-7912 663-3906 835-5031 Group C Badgett Bale Baseline Booker Magnet Brady Carver Magnet Chicot Cloverdale Mary Golston Levanna Wilson Dr. Mary Jane Cheatham Dr. Cheryl Simmons Mary Menking Mary Guinn Otis Preslar Frederick Fields 324-2475 570-4050 570-4150 324-2482 228-3065 324-2460 570-4062 570-4055 324-2481 570-4054 570-4155 324-2489 228-3071 324-2461 570-4065 570-4057 225-5594 663-0119 225-4938 771-1035 225-3822 562-0382 228-9976 562-3334 Group D Dodd Fair Park Forest Park Franklin Fulbright Garland Geyer Springs Patricia McNeil Barbara Means Virginia Ashley Franklin Davis Mac Huflman Robert Brown Eleanor Cox 455-7430 671-6260 671-6267 671-6380 228-3080 671-6275 570-4160 455-7427 671-6262 671-6273 671-6373 228-3084 671-6280 570-4164 221-1608 753-8294 225-2990 329-8722 663-0513 758-8709 568-1106 Group E Gibbs Magnet King Interdistrict Jefferson Mabelvale McDermott Meadowcliff Mitchell Donna Davis Sadie Mitchell Frances Cawthon Julie Davenport Michael Oliver Jerry Worm Dr. Samuel Branch 324-2490 324-2135 671-6281 455-7420 228-3072 570-4165 324-2415 324-2491 324-2140 671-6283 455-7425 228-3075 570-4171 324-2420 666-1271 565-0741 224-5802 224-2679 225-9332 327-8295 535-5295 Group F Otter Creek Pulaski Heights Rightsell Rockefeller Romine Stephens Terry Carolyn Teeter Lillie Carter Sharon Davis Ann Mangan Lionel Ward Lonnie S. Dean LaDell Looper 455-7440 671-6290 324-2430 324-2385 228-3086 671-6350 228-3093 455-7443 671-6293 324-2431 324-2399 228-3089 671-6354 228-3099 225-6669 568-2631 565-4411 666-5777 227-7333 663-1500 228-7709 Group G Wakefield Washington Watson Western Hills Williams Wilson Woodruff Alt. Learning Willie Morris Karen Buchanan Theresa Courtney Scott Morgan Dr. Ed Jackson Gwen Zeigler Pat Higginbotham Othello Faison 570-4190 324-2470 570-4195 570-4175 671-6363 570-4180 671-6270 324-2370 570-4186 324-2471 570-4193 570-4173 671-6362 570-4179 671-6266 324-2371 221-0990 374-6487 663-8375 225-5450 224-8239 664-2967 758-7269 663-3823 Page 15 of 22 Unlisted NumberATTACHMENT 7 Revised November 1993 DISTRIBUTION OF COPIES OF PROCEDURE Copies of this procedure will be distributed as indicated below to the individuals who will be involved in its implementation. Some of the individuals will receive two copies of the procedure. One copy is to be kept in their office, and the other is to be kept readily available at home. The other individuals will receive one copy. 1. Individuals to Receive Two Copies Henry Williams Lt. Charles Holladay Estelle Matthis Russell Mayo Mark Milhollen Jeanette Wagner Brad Montgomery Brady Gadberry Patty Kohler Sterling Ingram Victor Anderson Dennis Glasgow Margaret Gremillion Larry Robertson Linda Watson Building Principals 2. Individuals to Receive One Copy (Copy to be kept at office) AI Lee (U. S. Weather Service) Betty Jean Forbes Norma Rodgers Carol Hughett Sue Pedersen Linda Smith Linda Jones Charlotte Washington Beverly Griffin Supervisors Directors Page 16 of 22ATTACHMENT 8 Revised November 1993 EMERGENCY TELEPHONE NUMBERS Metropolitan Emergency Medical Services (MEMS ambulance) Fire Department Police Department Superintendent of Schools Assistant Superintendent (secondary schools) Assistant Superintendents (elementary schools) Office of Emergency Services (State) Hwy. 286, Conway Office of Emergency Services (City) 720 W. Markham Office of Emergency Services (County) Wallace Building Weather Forecast (recorded) Weather (radio broadcast) VHF-FM Road Condition Information (State highway only) Time and Temperature Medical Examiner Crisis Center Rape Crisis Line Civil Defense (Little Rock) Ark. State Dept, of Health Emergency Medical Services (EMS) Radiation Control Emergency Management Programs Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Southwestern Bell Telephone (tracer) Poison Control LRSD FAX Machine 371-4600 or 911 911 911 324-2012 324-2017 324-2006 or 324-2007 374-1201 371-4829 377-6100 371-7777 162.55 569-2400 376-8111 277-5936 568-2989 375-5181 371-4540 661-2262 661-2301 1-800-424-8802 373-9800 666-5532 324-2032 HOSPITALS (Emergency Room Numbers) Arkansas Childrens Hospital Baptist Medical System Doctors Hospital St. Vincent Infirmary Medical Center Southwest Hospital University Hospital of Arkansas 370-1185 227-2300 661-4267 660-2680 455-7171 686-6333 Page 17 of 22 BATTACHMENT 9 Revised November 1993 Little Rock School District Crisis Communications Management Plan This \"Crisis Communications Management Plan\" is a supplement to the LRSD 1992-93 Procedures for School Closings and Operations During Emergency Conditions which provides an outline for response by various individuals to a crisis situation in the Little ocK school District. It will also serve as a supplement to each school's individual emergency response plan as it relates to communications and media concerns LRSD Admimstrative Directive 92-1 IS, dated October 6,1992, is a reminder that District po icy requires that all press inquiries for information are to be directed to the ommumcations Office to ensure coordination, clarity and consistency in messages to c public, It^so states that the superintendent will act as District spokesman and in his absence, the Communications Director will act as District spokesman. Wlrether during a crisis situation or a more routine media inquiry, when vou receive any w ----------------- .. avwkiajv iiivuia ixxk|uxx^, wiivn Ykyu iwv-iw 0X1 y niraia rwucst. direct the news representative to the Communications Office. At the same Qme, telephone the Communications Office to alert it about the news media request and c nature of e information being sought This will allow the Communications Office to ^epare for the forthcoming media call and cither prepare an information response or begin to determine from whom the necessary information will be obtained. e nature of the on-site crisis or unusual event which involve District personnel or sudents will determine the level of involvement by the District Office of ominunications. Many situations will be handled by the school staff, but certain situauons, such as a shooting, hostage, bodily harm of any kind or a natural disaster would require the Director of Communications to be at the site. The person at each school listed as that site's media representative in the school's emergency plan will assist the Director of Communications at the site during the emergency situation. Those duties are set out below. TTiere will be numerous groups that must be reached during and after a crisis. A checklist mcludes: - St^, students, and school crisis team  District administrators and school board members - Police, fire, disaster - Media - Parents/guardians - Community experts (clergy, government, counselors) - General public In order to get a better idea about the variety of activities that will be simultaneously underway during a crisis, this plan lists steps that the Communications Director will take, along with some of the steps at site personnel and auxiliary groups may be taking that will relate to media and information needs. DAYl Site (In accordance with Building Security Plan)  Assess situation, DO NOT move or disturb evidence at site Page 18 of 22Gaer needed information for emergency calls Call 911: - Give assessment of situation (name, address, phone number of school, etc.) Do not release names to anyone other than necessary school and emergency officials at this time until family/guardian can be notified. Notify District administrators who will begin implemenution of 1991-92 Operations During Ernergency Situations (Attachment 4, \"Notification of Personnel of Emergency Conditions\"\nAttachment 5, \"Operations During Emergency Conditions\nand Attachment 5-A, \"District Crisis Response Team\"). Call School Crisis Team together to begin their pre-assigned duties. Set up crisis meeting room\nmay be area of command post If for some reason the school building cannot be used for a command post, contact a neighbor to see if their home, business or church could be used. (The initial contact should be made before the crisis occurs.) Secure area until Director of Facilities Services arrives (Attachment 5). Be sure students and staff are safe and are not in an unsecured area or in the hallways. Notify staff of the situation in order to squelch rumors and panic. Use one door for entrance and exit Secure all other doors. Contact parents or guardians of students and immediate relatives of staff involved. Plan for orderly exit of students from site. Work with Director of Transportation (Attachment 5) for transportation services. Be sure feeder schools have facts. If necessary and time of day will allow, write parent memo to be sent home. (Communications Office may assist in this if school equipment is unavailable). Hold faculty meeting after student dismissal, give update, discuss Day 2 agenda. Director of Communications can outline expected media coverage and how to respond to the media. Allow for a question and answer period, School media renresenutive assists Director of Communications at site. - Should you receive media inquiries during the hours or days immediately following e accidcnt/emcrgency, and in the absence of the Director of Communications, direct the news representative to the Communications Office. At the same time, telephone the Communications Office to alert it about the news media request and the nature of the information being sought. This will allow the Communications Office to prepare for the forthcoming media call and cither prepare an information response or begin to determine from whom the necessary information will be obtained. - Set up media room. Make sure that media room has telephone(s) and electrical outlets. - If the pre-assigned media room is not available due to the crisis situation, locate another room. Be sure to notify the Director of Communications of the change. - Escon media to media room through designated entrance. - Assist Director of Communications with media and further briefing. Page 19 of 221 Auxiliary Groups (police, fire, medical) Provide one person from whom information and details can be obtained. Secure area. Do not destroy, move or remove evidence (shell casings, footprints, gun, etc.) Set up security area around area and next to evidence. Use one path to/from area. Set up Command Post. Anyone in the area during the crisis must report to this post. Obtain following information: - Where is the disturbance?  Has someone been injured? - Are victims being held? - Where are the victims? - Are power sources operational? - Are phone lines operational? - Access to roof? - Trap doors?  Post person at secured entrance to observe who comes in and out - If rooms have been evacuated, post a sign on the door.  hl the case of a drive-by shooting, LD. car license, car make, color, identifying marks, dents, etc. Communications Director: Get facts from principal and police. Check with school media representative to see what media contact has occurred. Set up media room (phones, electrical, etc.) if not already completed by building media representative. Escort media to media room from designated entrance (site media representative will cover this responsibility). Assure that staff and students are not interviewed inside the school. The media will be allowed to interview staff and students outside the building. Notify staff of situation before media briefing. This will ensure that rumors will not get started and be perpetuated. Provide media with names, bios, dates, places and other background information. If confidentiality is an issue, explain. DO respond clearly and accurately to questions about the following: 1. What happened 2. Where it happened (as specifically as you can ascertain) 3. When it happened (date and time only) 4. What facilities and equipment were involved 5. Factual assessment of current situation 6. Number known injured, taken to hospital or dead (No names) DO NOT speculate and DO NOT attempt to answer questions about the following: 1. Possible causes 2. Blame or responsibility 3. Anything that might imply district liability, fault or negligence. 4. Monetary estimates of damage Page 20 of 225. Insurance coverage AND FINALLY 1. If in doubt, leave it out. If you don't know the answer to a question, when appropriate, say you or someone else will try to find out and call back as soon as possible. 2. Noting is ever Off the Record.\" Assume everything you say will be 3. Keep a record of whom you've spoken to (including phone numbers) and what facts you've released to the media. Set up general news briefing with primary players as soon as possible. Coordinate additional interviews for media\nset time and place for Day 2 news briefing. Review next day agenda and concerns with site administrators. Be sure superintendent, board members and other administrators involved are briefed/updated. Monitor all news coverage for accuracy. DAY 2 Site Secure campus. Hold faculty meeting if necessary, provide a written update for staff. School Crisis team will continue to visit classrooms and continue counseling. Counselors will continue follow-up counseling. Update feeder schools Decide if parent memo or meeting is needed. Send memo if needed. If parent meeting is required, organize a panel discussion - (possible participants include Principal, police. Director of Communications, crisis team, community experts. - Give facts - Explanation of what preventative measures arc in place - Sp^ to issue of safety. Parents will ask, \"How do I know my child will be safe?\" - Questions and answers. Continue to monitor situation and keep close contact with the Communications Office, notifying it of any changes. Communications Director Be sure superintendent, board members and other administrators involved are updated.  Anticipate inquiries from reporters and conduct news conference. Set up \"reaction\" interviews for media. Monitor news coverage for accuracy. Page 21 0122Site DAY 3 Retum to normalcy. Reduce crisis team. Prepare any additional updates to faculty, parents. etc. Communications Director Provide updates and set up interviews for media from district office. Monitor news coverage for accuracy. Page ZZor22ATTACHMENT B DISTRIBUTION LIST FOR POLICIES \u0026amp; ADMINISTRATIVE DIRECTIVES All Building Principals Superintendent Assoc. Supt., School Operations Associate Supt. for Curriculum Assoc. Supt. for Support Services Assoc. Supt. for Equity (OLE) Planning, Research \u0026amp; Evaluation Jo Evelyn Elston (Drug Education) Mark Milhollen (Financial Services) Charlie Neal (Director) Purchasing Doug Eaton (Director) Plant Services Brad Montgomery (Director) Transportation Patty Kohler (Director) Exceptional Children Dave Kingsella (Director) Data Processing Jackie Boykin (Director) Food Services Asst. Supt. Elem. (Gremillion) Asst. Supt. - Elem. (Robertson) Asst. Supt. - Secondary Director (Reading Dept.) Director (Barnhouse) Safety and Security Director (Leon Adams) Federal Programs Director (Gadberry) Human Resources Director (Jeanette Wagner) Communications Director (Carol Green) Vocational Educational Metropolitan Director (Donita Hudspeth) Staff Development Liaison (L. Young) New Futures1 Page 2 Office of Deseg. (Ann Brown) Rita White Adm. Asst. (Human Resources) Linda Swain - Student Hearing Officer Othello Faison (Director) - Alternative Learning Center Arma Hart Facilitator Incentive Schools Paulette Martin - Adult Ed. Director Ouida Carter - Quigley Stadium - Athletics Marie McNeal, Supervisor - Social Studies Lucy Lyon (Coordinator) - Instructional Technology Dennis Glasgow (Supervisor) - Science Dept. Debbie Milam (Coordinator) - VIPS Supervisor - Math Department Mabel Donaldson - Gifted and Talented Catherine Gill PAC Coordinator Marie McNeal, Supervisor - Social Studies Pat Price, Coordinator - Early Childhood Marian Shead - HIPPY Martha Rodgers - CARE Mala Daggett - McClellan - Community Education Gene Parker (Supervisor) - English Dept.LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT ?! EPS CODE: DBH APPROVAL OF BUDGET The published budget shall be reviewed and adjusted as necessary and presented for Board adoption as a working budget at the regular July meeting of the fiscal year for which it was prepared. Following Board approval, this budget shall be presented in prescribed form to the State Department of Education. Expenditures requiring a budget transfer in excess of $25,000 shall be approved by the Board. Revised: 2/25/93 16.JOHN W. WAI.KKI! HALPil WASHINOTON MARK HHRNETI'E WII.EY A. HRANTON. JR. AUSTIN IlJItTER. .Hi.  Also Io Inirliir in ft Ihslrn l f ( ihnnliiu .John W. Walker, I.A. A'itohney At Law 1723 IROADWAY I JiTEE RiKiK. Arkansas jxxik: Teeei'IIone (riUl) RVl-RTSR FAX (.501) 37'1-'! 187 DELIVERED VIA FACSIMILE March 29, 1993 received MAR 3 0 1993 of Desegrggation Morntcring Chris Heller, Esq. FRIDAY, ELDREDGE \u0026amp; CLARK First Coraraercial Bldg. 400 West Capitol Little Rock, AR 72201 Re: Request for Manual Policy of LRSD Dear Mr. Heller: Would you kindly provide me a copy of the policy manual of the Little Rock School District. reference into the Desegregation Plan. That manual has been incorporated by parties therein. Moreover, I and the other are information exchange. entitled to same as part of the required Dr. Bernd wants to be paid for it. Please let him know that this request is now being made by a party to the desegregation case for inforraation not heretofore provided to us. has a copy, and at no expense to ODM. I am sure the ODM Thank you. Sincerely, JWW:Ira cc: Mr. Mac Bernd Ms. Ann Brown TO: FROM: SUBJECT: LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 810 WEST MARKHAM STREET LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS July 23, 1993 All Department Heads All Building Administrators Pat Kumpuris NEW POLICY: 72201 rECEWEO Otf'ce POLICY ON DISPLACED EMPLOYEES SEP 1 5 IW5 of Oesegfegation MoniW'''''^9 The Board of Directors recently adopted the attached policy (Code GCDB). I am sending you a copy of the new policy and asking that you place it in the appropriate place in your policy manual. I am also furnishing you a new table of contents page for section \"G\" which lists this new policy, contents page. Please discard the old table ofSECTION G: PERSONNEL SECTION G OF THE EPS/NSBA POLICY CLASSIFICATION SYSTEM PROVIDES A REPOSITORY FOR PERSONNEL POLICIES. THIS SECTION HAS THREE MAIN SUBDIVISIONS\nSUBSECTION GC IS FOR POLICIES THAT PERTAIN TO PROFESSIONAL PERSONNEL WHO MUST HOLD CERTIFICATION BY THE STATE TO SERVE IN THEIR POSITIONS\nSUBSECTION GD IS FOR POLICIES PERTAINING TO SUPPORT, OR NONCERTIFICATED PERSONNEL. GA PERSONNEL POLICIES GOALS GBB DRUG FREE SCHOOLS AND CAMPUSES GBBA EMPLOYEE DRUG TESTING GBCC STAFF RIGHTS AND RESPONSIBILITY GBF STAFF PARTICIPATION IN COMMUNITY ACTIVITIES GBI STAFF GIFTS AND SOLICITATIONS GBJ SEXUAL HARASSMENT GBJ-R SEXUAL HARASSMENT REGULATION GC CERTIFIED PERSONNEL GCA PERSONNEL POLICIES FOR ADMINISTRATORS GCB CERTIFIED PERSONNEL CONTRACTS GCBA SALARIES GCBB SPECIAL DUTIES GCBC GCBD FRINGE BENEFITS FOR CERTIFIED STAFF CERTIFIED PERSONNEL LEAVE GCBDA SICK LEAVE GCD VACANCIES AND PROMOTIONS GCDA NOMINATION BY THE SUPERINTENDENT OF SCHOOLS SUPERINTENDENT'S RESPONSIBILITY IN NOMINATION OF PROSPECTIVE EMPLOYEES TIME OF CONTRACT CONSIDERATION GDDB POLICY ON DISPLACED EMPLOYEES GCK SUPERVISION OF PUPIL ACTIVITIES GCKA EXTRACURRICULAR DUTIES GCKB STAFF PARTICIPATION IN JUDGING SCHOOL EVENTSGCLA STAFF DEVELOPMENT OPPORTUNITIES GCPB RESIGNATIONS GCPC RETIREMENT ELIGIBILITY GCPD CERTIFIED PERSONNEL DISMISSAL PROCEDURE GCQ CERTIFIED PERSONNEL EMPLOYMENT REQUIREMENTS GCQA OUTSIDE EMPLOYMENT GCQAB TUTORING FOR PAY GCQAC ADVERTISING OF PRODUCTS OR SERVICES BY DISTRICT EMPLOYEES GCQE CERTIFIED STAFF CHANGE OF ADDRESS GCQF CERTIFIED STAFF SERVICE RECORDS GDB COMPENSATION FOR SUPPORT STAFF GDBC FRINGE BENEFITS FOR SUPPORT STAFF GDBD SUPPORT STAFF LEAVES OF ABSENCE GDBDA SICK LEAVE FOR SUPPORT STAFF GDD SELECTION OF APPLICANTS SUPPORT STAFF GDG SUPPORT STAFF PROBATION AND TENURE GDI SUPPORT STAFF ASSIGNMENT AND TRANSFERS GDJ SUPPORT STAFF TIME SCHEDULES GDP SUPPORT STAFF TERMINATION OF EMPLOYMENT GDPA REDUCTION IN SUPPORT STAFF WORK FORCE GDPB SUPPORT STAFF RESIGNATION GDPC SUPPORT STAFF RETIREMENT GDPD DISMISSAL OF SUPPORT STAFF MEMBERS GDPDA GRIEVANCES BY SUPPORT STAFF MEMBERS GDQE SUPPORT STAFF EMPLOYMENT REQUIREMENTS GDQF SUPPORT STAFF SERVICE RECORD GDQG SUPPORT STAFF CHANGE OF ADDRESSI LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT EPS CODE: ADOPTED: GCDB July 22, 1993 POLICY ON DISPLACED EMPLOYEES It is the desire and intent of the Board of Directors that all employees in good standing who are displaced because of actions over which they have no control will be transferred to a comparable vacant position at a comparable salary, contract term, and working conditions. When that is not appropriate, however, it may be necessary for an employee to move to a vacant position that carries a different salary, contract term, and/or working condition. In the event an employee, through no fault of his/her own, is moved to a position that carries a lower salary, contract term, or working condition, the following will be the policy of the Board of Directors: A. B. If the Board of Directors makes a decision prior to the statutory deadlines for making changes in public school employee contracts for the following year, the affected employee will be notified in a timely manner and any subsequent change in position, salary, or working condition will adher to the standard established for the salary, new position. If the Board of Directors makes a decision after the statutory deadlines for making changes in public school employee contracts for the following year, the affected employee will retain his/her salary for the remainder of the current contract year. The employee will be notified in a timely manner that the terms of his/her contract will be changed to confoirm to the terms established for the position. The exception to this provision is displaced employee accepting a in the case of a new position that is covered by a labor agreement, in which case the salary and other terms of the labor agreement will be effective immediately upon assuming the new position.c w: J :i*2 Little Rock School District To: Mrs. Ann Brown, Desegregation Monitor From: Estelle Matthi nterim Superintendent Re: Request for Memoranda Date: August 23, 1993 I have AUG 2 0 1993 'C\u0026amp;Q Qf ise\nM: been advised that ODM has requested copies of written directives from me to employees. In response, I enclose for your review copies of directives or memoranda regarding desegregation- related issues. Attached you will find memos.dated July 14, 1993 and July 27, 1993 relating to the Academic Progress Incentive Grant Program. will note, the LRSD is in the process of making the evaluations required under the plan. As you You will also find a memorandum dated August 11, 1993, directive of the same date. After the hearings on June 24, 1993, regarding the proposed site for the new Stephens Interdistrict 1993, and a School, Judge Wright advised Jerry Malone that the Court would not impose a requirement that ODM make requests for information only through designated channels. The Court, however, strongly encouraged the LRSD to develop some procedure to ensure that District administrators and attorneys know what information is being transmitted by the LRSD. This was discussed with you on Friday, July 9, 1993, when Jerry Malone and I met with you in your office. The attached directive attempts to put in place a process whereby ODM will get timely and accurate information, while at the same time, the District attempts to ensure that commitments, policies or procedures are not made, altered or otherwise affected by individuals without actual authority to do so. As you are aware. the LRSD has several thousand employees. Accordingly, there might be some initial growing pains as this directive becomes fully operational. Prompt notification of any concerns by your office to my office will ensure that any problems are handled expeditously. Thank you for your attention to this matter. 810 West Markham Street Little Rock, Arkansas 72201  (501)374-3361. J LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 810 WEST MARKHAM STREET LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS 72201 August 11, 1993 TO: All Principals a: Central Administration Personnel FROM: SUBJECT: Estelle Matthi's, Interim Superintendent Jerry Malone, Legal Advisor PROCEDURES FOR RESPONDING TO OFFICE OP DESEGREGATION MONITORING The Office The Office of Desegregation Monitoring (ODM) has been very helpful to the District by providing assistance as we implement our Plan. ODM will need accurate and up-to-date information from each of us as we begin the 1993-94 school year. The District has committed to provide the requested information in a timely manner. Th_ of Desegregation Monitoring will continue to contact appropriate members to secure the needed information and/or assistance. However, it is necessary for the District to establish some procedures for reviewing and responding to these requests in timely manner. C ' a Our attorneys will also need to review critical reports prior to our submission. Your assistance is needed in following the procedures listed in the enclosed administrative directive.LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 810 WEST MARKHAM STREET LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS 72201 August 11, 1993 ADMINISTRATIVE DIRECTIVE NO: 93-04S TO: FROM: Principals and Central Administration Personnel elle Matthis, Interim Superintendent SUBJECT: PROCEDURES FOR PROCESSING REQUESTS FOR INFORMATION Beginning immediately, the following procedures are to be used in processing requests for infonnation and/or assistance from the Office of Desegregation Monitoring (ODM). 1. All staff members are to cooperate fully with requests from ODM in a timely and cooperative 2. 3. 4. manner. Upon receipt of requests from ODM, all staff shall immediately review the request and notify the office of the Superintendent or his/her designee of thecontentand scope of the request and to seek assistance in complying with the request if it is deemed appropriate by the principal or central office administrator. The requests for information are to be completed in a timely manner and forwarded to the and Superintendent's Office for review. to The Superintendent's Office will, in a timely review and refer this information to the manner. appropriate personnel in the ODM office. 5. other district The District's attorneys and/or staff who have responsibility for the area(s) will receive copies of this information from the Office of the Superintendent or his/her designee.Administrative Directive No: 93-04S Page 2 6. Following any additions and/or modifications in reports, the appropriate principal or central office administrator will be consulted and receive copies, in a timely manner, for their records of such changes and/or amendments in a timely manner. This directive is effective immediately so that all District personnel will be able to function more effectively as a team Since time is of successfully implementing the Desegregation Plan. the essence in providing prompt, accurate reports, each person in- the loop must continue to monitor the status until the response is provided.LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 810 WEST MARKHAM STREET From: Subj ect: LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS July 14, 1993 72201 Ms. Margaret Gremillion, Assistant Superintendent Mr. Larry Robertson, Assistant Superintendent Estelle Matthis, Interim Superintendent Academic Progress Incentive Grants The court approved Desegregation Plan describes the Academic Progress Incentive Grants and the process for implementation. On Page 34, it states that the continuation of the Academic Progress Incentive Grant Program will be reviewed at the end of the 1992-93 school year. It is necessary for us to proceed with the final evaluation of this program in order to make a decision regarding future funding. You may wish to consult with Sterling Ingram regarding this matter. To:LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 810 WEST MARKHAM STREET TO: FROM: SUBJECT: LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS July 27, 1993 Ms. Margaret Gremillion Mr. Larry Robertson 72201 Estelle Matthis, Interim Superintendent ACADEMIC PROGRESS INCENTIVE GRANTS Please review my requests dated July 14, 1993 and apprise me of the process as well as the date that I can expect to receive the evaluation report as stated in the Desegregation Plan, page 84. Your urgent attention to this matter is appreciated.TO: FROM: LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 810 WEST MARKHAM STREET LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS October 1, 1993 received OCT 1 1993 Office of Desesregation Monitoring Ann Brown, Federal Monitor, Office of Desegregation Monitoring Estelle Matthis, Deputy Superintendent SUBJECT: Documentation of Administrative Directive Revocation 1. The district received Judge Wrights order dated September 8, 1993, and we complied with her order fully by September 10, 1993. The revocation of the directive took place immediately. See Attachment A 2. Provided is a listing of district personnel to whom this communication was sent. See Attachment B 3. The communication was sent September 10, 1993 (see date on Attachment A). 4. Each administrator will be contacted by means of the attached memorandum to apprise their staff of the revocation of Administrative Directive 93-04S, providing they have not previously contacted staff. This information should serve to establish that the directive was timely revoked. /Iks Enclosures1 ATTACHMENT A To: From: Subject: LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 810 WEST MARKHAM STREET LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS 72201 September 10, 1993 All Principals, Directors, Supervisors and Program Managers stelle Matthis, Interim Superintendent LRSD Administrative Directive No. 93-04S The District employs over 4000 employees, and we believe that it is critical for the administration to put in place a procedure that will allow us to keep track of information that is sent to the Office of Desegregation Monitoring (ODM) . Administrative Directive 93-04S was an attempt to help us achieve this No. 043 task. Judge Susan Webber Wright has reviewed this directive and has directed the District to immediately revoke the document and to distribute a copy of her order to personnel who received the directive. The District will put into effect a procedure that meets the Court's approval and our needs in the very near future. all We continue to encourage all staff to respond to ODM in a timely manner. Effective immediately until a new directive is developed, each staff member is to submit to the Office of the Superintendent copy of all reports, data, etc. that is forwarded to ODM. a Your assistance in this matter is appreciated. EM: nrATTACHMENT B DISTRIBUTION LIST FOR POLICIES \u0026amp; ADMINISTRATIVE DIRECTIVES All Building Principals Superintendent Assoc. Supt., School Operations Associate Supt. for Curriculum Assoc. Supt. for Support Services Assoc. Supt. for Equity (OLE) Planning, Research \u0026amp; Evaluation Jo Evelyn Elston (Drug Education) Mark Milhollen (Financial Services) Charlie Neal (Director) Purchasing Doug Eaton (Director) Plant Services Brad Montgomery (Director) Transportation Patty Kohler (Director) Exceptional Children Dave Kingsella (Director) Data Processing Jackie Boykin (Director) Food Services Asst. Supt. Elem. (Gremillion) Asst. Supt. - Elem. (Robertson) Asst. Supt. - Secondary Director (Reading Dept.) Director (Barnhouse) Safety and Security Director (Leon Adams) Federal Programs Director (Gadberry) Human Resources Director (Jeanette Wagner) Communications Director (Carol Green) Vocational Educational Metropolitan Director (Donita Hudspeth) Staff Development Liaison (L. Young) New FuturesJ Page 2 Office of Deseg. (Ann Brown) Rita White Adm. Asst. (Human Resources) Linda Swain - Student Hearing Officer Othello Faison (Director) - Alternative Learning Center Arma Hart - Facilitator Incentive Schools Paulette Martin Adult Ed. Director Ouida Carter - Quigley Stadium - Athletics Marie McNeal, Supervisor - Social Studies Lucy Lyon (Coordinator) - Instructional Technology Dennis Glasgow (Supervisor) - Science Dept. Debbie Milam (Coordinator) - VIPS Supervisor - Math Department Mabel Donaldson - Gifted and Talented Catherine Gill PAC Coordinator Marie McNeal, Supervisor - Social Studies Pat Price, Coordinator - Early Childhood Marian Shead - HIPPY Martha Rodgers - CARE Mala Daggett - McClellan - Community Education Gene Parker (Supervisor) - English Dept.SCHOQL/SCHOOL CODE . Central Hi^h (01) J. A. Fair Hall (02) McClellan (12) Parkview Magnet (05) Metropolitan Vo-Tech (04) Hiqh (15) Cloverdale Jr. High Dunbar Magnet p?) Forest Heights (09) Henderson (13)' Mabelvale (16) Mann Magnet (03) Pulaski Heights (10) Southwest (11) Badgett Elementary (19) Bale (17) Baseline (22) Booker Magnet (06) Brady (18\nCarver Magnet (21) Chicot (28) Cloverdale (31) Dodd (32) Fair Park (23) Forest Park ^4) Franklin (25)^ Fulbright (48) Garland (26)^ Geyer Springs (37) Gibbs Magnet (27) King (35) Jefrerson Jefferson (30) Mabelvale (46) McDermott 20 (20) Meadowcliff (33) Mitchell (34)* Otter Creek ihts Pulaski Heights (38) Rightsell (391* 39)* Rockefeller (36) Romine (40) Stephens (4l)* Terry (47) Wakefielo (51) Washington Magnet (42) Watson (52) Western Hills (29) Williams Magnet (43) Wilson (44) Woodruff (45) Incentive Schools LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT schools/principals 1993-94 PRINCIPAL Rudolph Howard Al Niven Dr. Vic Anderson Jodie Carter Junious Babbs Dr. Doyle Dillahunty Gayle Bradford Nancy Acre Richard Maple Clell Watts Walter Marshaleck Marian Lacey Ralph Hoffman Charity Smith Mary Golston Levanna Wilson Dr, Mary Jane Cheatham Dr. Cheryl Simmons Mary Menking Mary Guinn Otis Preslar Frederick Fields Patricia McNeil Barbara Means Virginia Ashley Franklin Davis Mac Huffman Robert Brown Eleanor Cox Donna Davis Sadie Mitchell Frances Cawthon Julie Davenport Mike Oliver Jerry Worm Dr. Samuel Branch Carolyn teeter Lillie Carter Sharon Davis Anne Mangan Lionel Ward Lonnie Dean June Looper Willie Morris Karen Buchanan Theresa Courtney Scott Morgan Dr. Ed Jackson Gwen Zieg er Pat Higgir^othamJ LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 810 WEST MARKHAM STREET LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS October 1, 1993 TO: FROM: All Principal^ Directors, Supervisors, and Program Managers Estelle Matthis, Deputy Superintendent SUBJECT: Revocation of LRSD Administrative Directive 93-04S The district has been advised that some administrators may not have promptly apprised their staff of the revocation of Administrative Directive 93-04S. PLEASE COMMUNICATE TO YOUR STAFF THAT THIS DIRECTIVE WAS REVOKED AS OF SEPTEMBER 10, 1993. As always, your assistance in this matter is appreciated. /IksCEIVED OCT 6 1993 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS Oitios of Desegregation Monitoring WESTERN DIVISION FSLED U.S. DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT ARKANSAS OCT - 5 1993 LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT By: No. LR-C-82-866 dep.clehk PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, ET AL DEFENDANTS MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL INTERVENORS KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL INTERVENORS REQUEST FOR NOTICE The Plaintiff, Little Rock School District Request Notice, states: (\"LRSD\"), for its 1. The counsel of record for the LRSD in this matter is Mr. Christopher Heller, FRIDAY, ELDREDGE \u0026amp; CLARK, 2000 First Commercial Building, 400 West Capitol, Little Rock, AR 72201. L. Mr. Heller is being assisted in this matter by Mr. Jerry Malone, FRIDAY, ELDREDGE CLARK, 2000 First Commercial Building, 400 West Capitol, Little Rock, AR 72201. It is hereby requested that Mr. Malone be added to the mailing list to receive copies of any and all documents. records, pleadings, orders or other matters generated herein. Copies should continue to be sent to and served upon Mr. Heller at the above address. Informational copies should be sent to Mr. Malone at vs. 2 . 3 . \u0026amp; FRIDAY, ELDREDGE \u0026amp; CLARK, 2000 First Commercial Building, 400 West Capitol, Little Rock, AR 72201. Copies should also be sent to his office at the Little Rock School District, 810 West Markham Street, Little Rock, AR 72201. WHEREFORE, the Little Rock School District prays that notice be provided as requested herein and that it be awarded any and all i other legal and proper relief to which it may be entited. FRIDAY, ELDREDGE \u0026amp; CLARK 2000 First Commercial Bldg. 400 West Capitol Little Rock, AR (501) 376-2011 72201 Attorneys for Little Rock School istrict By: ____________ ^erry L. Malone Bar I. D. No. 85096 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I, Jerry L. Malone, do hereby certify that a copy of foregoing Request for Notice has been served, by first class mail, postage jrYh pre-paid on the persons listed below on this day of October, 1993 : Mr. John W. Walker JOHN W. 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 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 Jerry L. Malone Little Rock School District 810 West Markham Street Little Rock, AR 72201 June 8, 1994 TO: FROM: Brai Board of Directors Gadberry, Director of Labor Relations THROUGH: Henry P. W ams iuperintendent of Schools SUBJECT: Regulations for Policy GCA (Personnel Administrators) Policies for In response to Board requests, the administration is reviewing the current personnel policies for administrators. While the review continue, the following changes in the regulations for Policy GCA are recommended at this time. The changes are for \"Initial Salary Placement\" and \"Vacation\", only. regulations would remain as approved July 25, 1991 until brought to the Board for revision. All other sections of the The change in \"Initial Salary Placement\" does two things. One, the change allows the hiring of an administrator from within the without causing him/her to work for a reduced daily rate of pay in the administrative position. For example, many teachers with experience will not accept administrative positions such as assistant principalships because they would have to accept less compensation than they would receive as a teacher. For example One, the The second placement change would restrict the salary credit for someone being hired to an administrative position from outside the District to receiving credit for only seven years, limit on previous credit in the current regulation, would make the limit the same for teachers and administrators. There is no This change The change in the \"Vacation\" regulation would bring the language up to date with the change that the Board approved June 24, dealing with administrator pay and vacation credit. 1993, Initial Salary Placement Credit for previous experience will be granted at the rate of one year of credit for each three years of teaching or other non-administrative e^^erience. Credit for previous acceptable administrative experience will be granted at the rate of year of credit for each year of experience. one For administrators new to the Little Rock School District, previous experience will be limited to seven years credit so that initial placement will not be higher than step eight on the salary schedule. For administrators promoted within the District, the daily rate of pay shall not be less than the administrator was earning at the time of the promotion. exceptions to this placement criteria must be recommended by the Superintendent and approved by the Board of Directors. Any Any current administrator whose daily rate of pay is less than their pay would currently be as a teacher because of placement under any previous regulation shall have his/her pay adjusted to be consistent with this regulation, made under this retroactive. All pay adjustment provision shall be prospective and not VACATION All twelve month administrators are contracted to work 250 days annually. Paid vacation days are based on years of administrative experience in the LRSD (and PCSSD if hired during the annexation) . Administrators with 0-7 years receive 15 days, 8-14 years receive 20 days, and 15 or more years receive 25 days. Vacation days which are not used during the school year may be accumulated from school year to school year to a maximum of 45 days. Unused vacation of over 45 days is converted to sick leave. ' -   Any administrator who separates employment from the District will be paid for up to 45 unused accumulated vacation days at the employee's daily rate of pay. Administrators are required to take vacation days during June, July and/or Christmas and spring breaks, taken at other times only with the approval administrator's immediate supervisor. Vacations may be of theAPR 2 0 1995 Office of Desegregation Monitoring LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 810 WEST MARKHAM STREET LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS r -  April 18, 1995 RECE5VED A 0 1995 Office of Desefiieaauui, TO\nALL PRINCIPALS AND ADMINISTRATORS FROM: SUPERINTENDENT'S OFFICE RE: REVISED POLICY PLEASE PUNCH HOLES AND PUT REVISED POLICY IN YOUR POLICY BINDER. h la: J I'n 11 li\u0026gt;ra/- 1 LiiSD's 'Itlicy /ManualJ\ne./'at if'/orma-h'on :REVISED 3-30-95 LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT EPS CODE: DD FUNDING PROPOSALS AND APPLICATIONS In order to offer the best educational opportunities possible for children of the District, the Board will seek as many sources of revenue as possible to supplement the funds provided through local taxation and the basic aid from the State. The Board of Directors shall review all applications for grants* and/or programs of more than $25,000* before the applications are submitted for funding. Applications for grants of $25,000 or less may besubmitted by the Superintendent without prior approval of the Board.*  . - - Exceptions will he allowed when notification of opportunity to submit grants and submission deadlines make Board review before submission impractical. To ensure coordination and avoid confusion in developing proposals and making application for specially funded programs, the Gx.axtI Writer* will establish standard procedures for the preparation of proposals and their review. the Grant The Grant Writer* will submit proposals for special grants to the Superintendent for approval by the Board before any action is taken that commits the District to the proposal. The Superintendent or his designated representative is authorized to sign all proposals and reports on funded projects once approved by the Board. *Change from present policy APR 2 0 1995 Oifice si Csssgreg\nMcr.i'iOFingCl' RECESVEQ Little Rock School District OFFICE OF THE SUPERINTENDENT MAY 2 9 1998 Date: May 27, 1998 OFICEOF DESEGREGATION MONITORING To: Ann Brown, Federal Monitor, Office of Desegregation Monitoring John Walker, Attorney for the Joshua Intervenors Re: Policy Updates Please find enclosed the first section of Board of Education policy updates. We anticipate revised sections being forwarded to you each month as the reviews are completed. We will also forward to your attention regulatory guidelines of administrative policies as needed. If you have questions, please do not hesitate to contact me. Respeptfuily, zosir er me Superintendent of Schools 810 West Markham Street Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 (501) 324-2000 MAY 2 9 1998 OFFICE OF DESEGREGATION MONITORING SECTION A: FOUNDATIONS AND BASIC COMMITMENTS Section A of the NEPN/NSBA classification system contains policies, regulations, and exhibits on the Districts legal role in providing public education and the basic principles underlying school board governance. These policies provide a setting for all of the school boards other policies and regulations. AA School District Legal Status AB The People and Their School District AC ACA ACB ACC ACD ACE ACF ACG Nondiscrimination Nondiscrimination on the Basis of Gender (Sex) Nondiscrimination on the Basis of Ethnicity and Race Nondiscrimination on the Basis of Age Nondiscrimination on the Basis of Religion Nondiscrimination on the Basis of Handicap/Disability Interpersonal/Human Relations Foundations and Basic Commitments AD ADA ADB ADC ADD Little Rock School District Mission Statement Little Rock School District Objectives Drug-Free Schools Tobacco-Free Schools Safe Schools AE Commitment to AccomplishmentSCEIVEO MAY'2 9 199\u0026amp; OFFICE 0\nDESEGREGATION KU LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT NEPN CODE: AA SCHOOL DISTRICT LEGAL STATUS The corporate name of this school district shall be Little Rock School District of Pulaski County, Arkansas, as provided by the law of the State of Arkansas. Adopted: June 26, 1980 Legal References: Statute 80-401,80-402, 80-403 School Law of ArkansasJ LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT NEPN CODE\nAB THE PEOPLE AND THEIR SCHOOL DISTRICT The Board of Education is the legal entity for conducting a system of public education within the geographic area of the school district. The system was created by, and is governed by, state statutes. Members of a Board are chosen by citizens of a district to represent them and the state in the legislative management of public schools. The Board of Education has the dual responsibility for implementing statutory requirements pertaining to public education and local citizens desires for educating the communitys youth. While the Board has an obligation to determine and assess citizens desires, it should be understood that when citizens elect board members to represent them in the conduct of public education they at the same time endorse their representatives with the authority to exercise their best judgment in determining policies, making decisions, and approving procedures for carrying out the responsibility. The Board therefore affirms and declares its intent to: 1. Maintain two-way communications with citizens of the District. The public will be kept informed of the progress and problems of the schools, and citizens will be urged to bring their aspirations and feelings about their public schools to the attention of this body which they have chosen to represent them in the management of public education. 2. Establish policies and make decisions on the basis of declared educational philosophy and goals. All decisions made by this Board will be made with primary emphasis given to the purposes set forth, most crucial of which is the optimal learning of the children enrolled in our schools. 3. Act as a true representative body for citizens of the District in matters involving public education. The Board recognizes that ultimate responsibility for public education rests with the State of Arkansas, but individual Boards of Education have been assigned specific authority through statute. The Board will relinquish none of this authority since it believes that decision making control over the childrens learning should be in the hands of local citizens as much as possible. Adopted:RECEfVBO MAY 2 9 1998 OffICEOf \"-SEGREGAinON MONIlOSfflfi. LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT NEPN CODE: AC NONDISCRIMINATION The commitment of the Little Rock School District to the most fundamental principles of academic freedom, equality of opportunity, and human dignity requires that decisions involving students and employees be based on individual merit and be free from discrimination in all its forms. It is the policy of the Board of Education that there shall be no discrimination because of race, color, religion, sex, age, national origin, or handicap/disability in the placement, instruction, and guidance of pupils\nthe employment, assignment, training, or promotion of personnel\nthe provision and maintenance of physical supplies and equipment\nthe development and implementation of the curriculum, including the activities program\nand in all matters relating to the instruction, supervision, administration and Board policy development. Adopted: Legal References: Title VI and Title VII, Civil Rights Act of 1964 Title I and Title II, Civil Rights Act of 1991 Equal Pay Act of 1963 Executive Order 11246 of 1995 Title IX, Education Amendments of 1972 and regulations, 34 C.F.R. part 104 Rehabilitation Act of 1973, Sections 503 and 504 Section 504, 34 C.F.R. part 104 Americans with Disabilities Act, 1990 Vietnam-era Veterans Readjustment Act, 1974 Age Discrimination Act, 1975 Age Discrimination in Employment Act, 1967 Arkansas General Laws Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) 1997 Cross References: Board of Education Policies ACA\nACB\nACC\nACD\nACE\nACF Cross References: Administrative Policiesreceived MAY 2 9 199\u0026amp; OFFICE OF LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT NEPN CODE: ACA DESEGREGATION MONITW NONDISCRIMINATION ON THE BASIS OF GENDER (SEX) Gender equity is the provision of equal opportunities for all individuals without regard to their gender. Gender equity is attained through compliance with laws prohibiting gender discrimination and through the elimination of gender bias and gender stereotyping. It is the policy of the Board of Education that no student, faculty or staff in the Little Rock School District shall, on the basis of gender, be excluded from participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be subjected to discrimination under any District educational program, activity or employment. Adopted: Legal References: See Code AC Cross References: Board of Education Policies AC Cross References: Administrative PoliciesMAY 2 9 1998 OFFICE OF ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT NEPN CODE: ACB NONDISCRIMINATION ON THE BASIS OF ETHNICITY AND RACE The Little Rock School District is committed to serve the educational needs and aspirations of our culturally diverse community. The District is committed to the pursuit of racial and ethnocultural equity for all its students and staff and the promotion of positive attitudes which respect the cultural diversity of our community. It is the policy of the Board of Education that there shall be no discrimination on the basis of ethnicity and race in the placement, instruction, and guidance of pupils\nthe recruitment, employment, assignment, training, and promotion of personnel\nthe provision and maintenance of physical supplies and equipment\nthe development and implementation of the curriculum, including the activities program\nand in all matters relating to the instruction, supervision, administration and Board policy development. In pursuit of equity, the Board is committed to: (1) (2) (3) (4) The development and promotion of racial harmony among students and staff and within the community it serves\nRespect for the principle of racial and ethnocultural equity in its personnel practices\nProvision in its programs of opportunities for students to develop positive attitudes toward people with diverse racial, religious and cultural heritages\nand The acquisition of learning materials which are free of racial and cultural stereotyping. Further, the Board: (1) (2) (3) Strongly reiterates its refusal to tolerate expression of racist or ethnic bias in any form by its students or staff or Directors\nAffirms its right to deny access to any person, group or association whose intent is to promote discrimination on the basis of race, creed, color, nationality or place of origin, and\nReaffirms its support for special services and programs for students of diverse racial and ethnic backgrounds. Adopted: Legal References: See Code AC Cross References: Board of Education Policies AC Cross References: Administrative PoliciesRECBVPQ MAY 2 9 19Sa OFFICE OF LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT NEPN CODE:'ACC DESEGREGATION MONma NONDISCRIMINATION ON THE BASIS OF AGE Discrimination on the basis of age is illegal under the Federal Age Discrimination Employment Act (ADEA). Age discrimination is present if an individual 40 years of age or older covered under this provision is treated unfavorably in the terms and conditions of his/her employment. Employment issues include hiring, promotions, demotions, terminations, wages, benefits, hours worked, working conditions, and availability of overtime. It is the policy of the Board of Education that individuals employed by the Little Rock School District shall not experience discrimination in any form on the basis of age in the terms or conditions of employment. Adopted: Legal References: See Code AC Cross References: Board of Education Policies AC Cross References: Administrative PoliciesRECEIVF MAY 2 9 m OFFICE OF LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT NEPN CODE: ACD DESEGREGATION NONDISCRIMINATION ON THE BASIS OF RELIGION The First Amendment to the United States of Americas Constitution requires that public schools remain religiously neutral. All students, staff, and faculty have the right to choose or not to choose their own religion and there shall be no discrimination of any kind based upon an individuals religion. It is the policy of the Board of Education that no student, faculty, or staff in the Little Rock School District shall, on the basis of religious belief, be excluded from participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be subjected to discrimination under any District educational program, activity, or employment. Adopted: Legal References: See Code AC Cross References: Board of Education Policies AC Cross References: Administrative PoliciesDeceived WAY 2 9 W OFFICE OF LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT NEPN CODE: ACE DESEGREGATION MOMITQRIMG NONDISCRIMINATION ON THE BASIS OF HANDICAP/DISABILITY In support of Section 504 of the Rehabilitative Act of 1973, the Vietnam Era Veterans Readjustment Assistance Act of 1974, and Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) of 1997, the District will not discriminate against persons who qualify on the basis of handicapping/disabling conditions. It is the policy of the Board of Education that no student, faculty or staff in the Little Rock School District shall on the basis of handicapping/disabling conditions be excluded from participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be subjected to discrimination under any District educational program, activity, or employment. Adopted\nLegal References: See Code AC Cross References: Board of Education Policies AC Cross References: Administrative PoliciesRECEIVED MAY 2 9 199\u0026amp; OFFICE OF LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT NEPN CODE: ACF DESEGREGATION MONlTORINS INTERPERSONAL/HUMAN RELATIONS The Little Rock School District is committed to providing a learning environment that is free from discrimination, culturally sensitive, and promotes positive interpersonal/human relations across all cultures. It is the policy of the Board of Education to provide a learning environment free from discrimination. Programs and procedures will be developed which serve to promote understanding and positive relationships among people. Adopted: Legal References: See Code AC Cross References: Board of Education Policies AC Cross References: Administrative PoliciesRECEIVED MAY 2 9 laaa OFFICE OF LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT NEPN CODE: AD DESEGREGATION MOMIKK LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT MISSION STATEMENT The mission of the Little Rock School District is to equip all students with the skills and knowledge to realize their aspirations, think critically and independently, learn continuously, and face the future as productive contributing citizens. This is accomplished through open access to a diverse, innovative and challenging curriculum in a secure environment with a staff dedicated to excellence and empowered with the trust and support of our community. Adopted: November, 1995f?eceived MAY 2 9 19fi^ OFFICE OF LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT NEPN CODE: ADA DESEGREGATION M0NM\u0026amp; LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT OBJECTIVES By the year 2001, average student performance for every identified sub group (race, gender) will be at or above the 75*^ percentile as measured by standardized tests. No later than the year 2001, no fewer than 9 out of 10 students will meet or exceed Little Rock School District standards of performance identified in the core curriculum. Each student will set and achieve challenging educational goals tailored to his or her interests, abilities and aspirations related to meaningful work, higher learning, citizenship or service to others. Adopted: November, 1995.DECEIVED MAY 29 W OFFICE OF LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT NEPN CODE: ADB DESEGREGATION MOWTOfW DRUG-FREE SCHOOLS The Little Rock School District is committed to providing a drug and alcohol free learning environment and workplace. Drug abuse and alcohol abuse at school or in connection with school-sponsored activities on or off school grounds threaten the health and safety of our students and our employees and adversely affect the educational mission of the school district. It is the policy of the Board of Education that the manufacture, distribution, dispensation, possession or use of illicit drugs, alcohol or other controlled substances in the workplace, on school premises or as part of any school-sponsored activities is strictly prohibited. These standards of conduct are equally applicable to students and employees. Any employee who is convicted of a drug statute violation arising out of conduct occurring in the workplace must notify the central administration of such conviction not later than five (5) days after the conviction. Compliance with these standards of conduct is mandatory. =- In accordance with the Drug-Free Workplace Act of 1988, compliance with this policy is made a condition of employment by the school district. Disciplinary sanctions (consistent with local, state and federal law), up to and including termination of employment and referral for prosecution, will be imposed on employees who violate the standards of conduct set forth in this notice. Adopted: Legal References: Drug-Free Schools Act, 1988 Drug-Free Schools and Communities Act Amendments of 1989 (Public Law 101-226) Cross References: Board of Education Policies Cross References: Administrative Policies GBEC, JACHaecEivp im^-. MAY 2 9rt5 OFFICE DESEGREGATION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT NEPN CODE\nADC IWT9 TOBACCO-FREE SCHOOLS The Board of Education believes that tobacco smoke in the school and work environments is not conducive to good health. As an educational organization, the Little Rock School District should provide both effective educational programs and a positive example to students concerning the use of tobacco. It is the policy of the Board of Education that all uses of tobacco and tobacco products, including smokeless tobacco, will be prohibited in all District facilities. At no time will the use of tobacco or tobacco products be permitted in classrooms, corridors, restrooms, locker rooms, work areas, cafeterias, offices, faculty lounges, gymnasiums, all other rooms and school grounds. This policy also prohibits the use of tobacco or tobacco products, including smokeless tobacco, in all vehicles owned, leased or operated by the District. District employees and students enrolled in the Districts schools are not permitted to use tobacco or tobacco products, including smokeless tobacco, while they are participants in any class or activity in which they represent the school district. Adopted: Legal References: School Law of Arkansas, Acts 854 and 779 Cross References: Board of Education Policies Cross References\nAdministrative Policies GBED, JAICGRECEIWO MAY 2 9 1998 omCEOF DESEGREGATION MOMTORING LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT NEPN CODE: ADD SAFE SCHOOLS The Little Rock School District shall maintain a safe and nurturing educational environment where students can learn, teachers can teach, and where parents and patrons can meet. The Little Rock School District will not tolerate violence or injury to staff or students, nor will weapons be tolerated at any school activity or on any school district property. It is the policy of the Board of Education to enforce fairly and firmly all federal and state laws and related District policies pertaining to school safety and student discipline. Any criminal misconduct shall be reported to the proper law enforcement authority, and school district staff shall cooperate with any subsequent criminal prosecution. Adopted: Legal References: Arkansas General Laws Federal Gun-Free Schools Act Cross References: Board of Education Policies JI Cross References: Administrative Policies Elementary Student Rights and Responsibilities Handbook Secondary Student Rights and Responsibilities Handbook Professional Negotiations AgreementRECEIWO MAY 2 FfW OFFICE OF OESEGREfiATIONWnW LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT NEPN CODE: AE COMMITMENT TO ACCOMPLISHMENT The Board of Education accepts ultimate responsibility for all facets of Board operations. Because it is accountable to the people, the Board will maintain a program of accountability consisting of the following elements: 1. Clear statements of expectations and purpose as they relate to operations, programs, departments, and positions. 2. 3. Provision for the staff, resources, and support necessary, to achieve stated expectations and purposes, subject to the Districts financial capabilities. Evaluation of operations, programs, instruction, and services to determine how well expectations and purposes are being met. Adopted:V Little Rock School District Memo To\nFrom\nThrough\n, Date: Re: Ann Brown, Office of Desegregation and Monitoring Junious Babbs, Associate Superintendent for Administrative Services Dr. Les Gamine, Superintendent August 26,1998 Schedule / Review of School Board Policy While Please note scheduled timelines for review of proposed LRSD Board Polides. ,il= recognizing the need to extend beyond initial timeframes presented, it is our intent to be judicious and consistent with the current strategic plan and compliance requirements of the Revised Desegregation and Education Plan. . Attorney / Etc. Review I July 1998 i October 1998 Board Action I Policy Index j August 1998 j A. Foundations ! November 1998 | B. Board By-laws 1 i December 1998 I January 1999 , February 1999 March 1999 April 1999 May 1999 , June 1999 I I January 1999 C. General Administration D. Fiscal Management I February 1999  March 1999 TApril 1999 i May 1999 /June 1999 I July 1999 H. Negotiations G. Personnel E. Support Services J. Students I I. Instruction 1 I K. Community / School Relations .co'^cems and/or modifications are warranted, please communicate them to me. It is our intent to finalize this activity by September 1*. Thank you.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: August 28, 1998 To: Junious Babbs From: Ann Bro Re: Schedule for Review of LRSD Board Policies Thanks for your fax and phone call about the schedule for the districts review of the LRSD board policies. Im pleased that the district has formulated a timetable for this important action. I have a question and some observations about the schedule. I notice that the policy categories arent in the alphabetical order in which they are catalogued in the board policy manual, so obviously the district decided to approach the review other than alphabetically, which makes sense. But what criteria did you use to prioritize the order in which the district would review the policies? This schedule reflects a decidedly top-down view of the district with the critical areas of students, instruction, and school-community relations relegated to the bottom of the list. Operationally, it appears to present some problems. For example, we know that no later than the January 1999 registration period, the district must have underway a massive public relations campaign to explain and sell the new student assignment plan to the community. Yet this schedule doesnt provide for revisiting the policies that should guide school-community relations until June 1999. Also, students and instruction are what schools are all about, and we constantly talk about the importance of putting students first. Yet this schedule, which wont focus on students and their instruction until late next spring, doesnt comport with a student-first focus. You may have very sound reasons for the order of this schedule of which Im unaware, which is why Im interested in knowing the rationale behind it. I would expect the positioning of topics on the schedule to reflect the districts priorities and align the review with the rhetoric. Otherwise, it sounds like ready-fire-aim. 7 Little Rock School District RECEn'eo 1 0 1998 September 9, 1998 OFFICE OF O'5SEGRGATION MONITORING Ms. Ann Brown Office of Desegregation and Monitoring 201 East Markham, Suite 510 Heritage West Building Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Re: Schedule of School Board Policy Review Dear Ms. Brown: Upon receipt of your letter regarding the scheduled order or rationale behind review of LRSD Board Policies, the following information should be noted: The scheduled review of Policy Index Indicators was carefully established with a broad array of factors that came into play. It was important to take into consideration each section while recognizing the varied timeframes necessary for their completion (i.e. a small amount of time with little refinement necessary for the Bylaws, prior work that had been completed over the summer on the foundation piece and the necessity to allow Mark Millhollen ample time to know our direction for fiscal management. The student and instructional sections are spring reviews for the next school year and do not effect the current academic year. We attempt to limit changes which are mid year. The second issue you raised about school! community relations and timeliness of the consideration given potential policy changes necessary in redistricting is noted. We did not indicate that in areas and t or issues such as this that we will not be promulgating new or modified rules for student assignment nor any other major initiative. Even in those instances we always consider delaying the effect or grandfathering to minimize the negative effects of change wherever possible. We concur quality of instruction is a major component of the revised plan. Work teams in a number of areas are in place and focused to produce quality student results . .. particularly as it relates to the WE SHALLS. The full review of all instructional policies and their coordination with these initiatives is also scheduled to be completed in the spring of the current academic year. We recognize the enormity of this task and are committed not just to introduction but to full implementation. 810 West Markham Street  Little Rock, Arkansas 72201  (501)374-3361I am not versed on the position ready-fire-aim, as you have noted but recognize this significant and most important task of the Policy framework being a process. An area noted first or last does not equate or reflect its degree of importance. We analyzed the schedule and policy framework taking into account the potential impact on people, giving equal weight to timeliness of any change and its communication to get maximum benefits for students, parents, and staff. Dr Gamine has noted in recent conversations, we are not just about becoming unitary but more importantly we are about producing maximum instructional results for our students. Respectfully, Junious C. Babbs, Jr. 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 July 15, 1999 Mr. Junious Babbs, Associate Superintendent for Administrative Services Office of Student Assignment Little Rock School District 810 West Markham Street Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Dear junious\nThe Office of Desegregation Monitoring is continuing its review of the LRSDs preparation for implementation of the Revised Desegregation and Education Plan. Because a major thrust of the revised plan is centered around the implementation of policies and procedures leading to the equity assurances of the plan, ODM is studying the procedures the district is using to insure compliance with those plan commitments. We are aware that a committee of top-level administrators has compared board policies with the revised plan and that policies have been amended or developed to assure compliance. Please identify, by policy or regulation number, those board policies and regulations which were developed or amended as a result of this committee review including those already adopted as well as those in the pipeline for adoption. 1 am aware that you do not categorize board policies by their relation to the desegregation plan, but it is clear to me that you have made significant efforts to avoid lapses and voids in plan compliance. 1 want to relate, for the record, the actual processes you have used and to describe the resulting board policies and regulations. Sincerely, Gene Jones, Associate Monitor ' S-t 4- I V-z'o sS^ LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 810 WEST MARKHAM LITTLE ROCK, AR 72201 ^z, pt^S^ June 8, 1999 TO\nBoard of Directors I FROM: Brady Gadberry, Special Assistant to the Superintendent Junious Babbs, Associate Superintendent, Administrative Services THROUGH: Dr. Leslie Gamine, Superintendent of Schools SUBJECT: Compliance Policy ACG The attached policy ACG is presented for your approval on first reading. This policy is written primarily to ensure compliance with the Revised Desegregation and Education Plan (Plan). When developing the policy, it was decided that a similar policy should be in place to ensure compliance with the Districts other similar legal obligations. Therefore, the policy was written to address those obligations, too. The attached regulations do not require Board approval and are presented for informational purposes. However, if the Board has concerns or suggestions about the regulations, we would be happy to address them.LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT NEPN CODE\nACG COMPLIANCE WITH THE REVISED DESEGREGATION AND EDUCATION PLAN, TITLE VII, TITLE IX, ADA, SECTION 504, OR OTHER SIMILAR REQUIREMENTS The purpose of this policy is to affirm the Board of Educations commitment to compliance with the Districts Desegregation and Education Plan and the Civil Rights Law of 1964 as amended. LRSD shall implement a compliance program that shall include the following components: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. Compliance standards and procedures reasonably capable of reducing the prospect of noncompliance\nOversight of compliance with such standards and procedures by the Superintendent and the responsible officials\nCommunication of compliance standards and procedures to all employees\nUtilization of monitoring and auditing systems reasonably designed to detect noncompliance\nUtilization of a reporting system whereby students, patrons, and employees can report complaints or noncompiiance without fear of retribution\nEnforcement of compliance standards and procedures through disciplinary mechanisms when appropriate, including the discipline of individuals responsible for compliance and individuals responsible for any failure to report noncompliance\nand. After noncompliance has been detected, implementation of all reasonable steps to correct past noncompiiance and to prevent further noncompliance, including modification of the compliance program as necessary to prevent and detect further similar noncompiiance. Annual review of the compliance program for necessary revisions.LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT NEPN CODE: ACG-R1 COMPLIANCE WITH THE REVISED DESEGREGATION AND EDUCATION PLAN Compliance and Quality Assurance Committee The Associate Superintendents of Administrative Services, Instruction, Operations, and School Services and the Special Assistant to the Superintendent will comprise the Compliance and Quality Assurance Committee. The Districts compliance official also will be a member of the committee. (The compliance official duties may be one of the responsibilities of one of the aforementioned positions.) The committee will have responsibility for the development, implementation, oversight, review, and revision of the compliance program. The compliance program will include any programs, policies, and/or procedures necessary to ensure that the District fulfills all of its obligations under the Revised Desegregation and Education Plan (Plan). The compliance philosophy will be based on internalizing the Plan through the performance responsibilities of the respective organizational divisions. For example, the Instruction division will be responsible for integrating the Plans requirements into the curriculum development, staff development, and other similar functions of that division. The associate superintendent who heads the division will be the responsible person for the components of the Plan that are appropriate for his/her division. Through the internalization of the philosophy and the integration of the Plan into the Districts structure, the respective divisions will proactively monitor compliance. The associate superintendents will take appropriate action with respect to incidents of non-compliance and take steps to prevent future similar incidences of non-compliance. Communication and Training All employees will be provided training on the Plan and the Districts commitment to the principles of equity and Plan compliance. Each employee will be provided a copy of the Plan and a Plan compliance handbook. The associate superintendents will be responsible for the training of the employees in their areas on the specific obligations of the division and the employees. The Plan compliance handbook will include the following information:  A statement of the Districts commitment to compliance\n The procedures for reporting complaints and/or non-compliance with the Plan\n The possible sanctions for non-compliance\n The employees responsibilities for reporting non-compliance\n The possible sanctions for the failure to report non-compliance\n The avenues for suggesting modifications in the compliance plan.LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT NEPN CODE: ACG-R1 (continued) 1 I The District web site will be used to assist in communication associated with the Plan and Plan compliance. The web site will include the following information:  A copy of the Plan\n The name, telephone number, and E-mail address of the Districts compliance official\n The procedures for filing a complaint or reporting non-compliance. 2LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT NEPN CODE: ACG-R2 COMPLAINT RESOLUTION FOR THE REVISED DESEGREGATION AND EDUCATION PLAN, TITLE VI, TITLE VII, TITLE IX, ADA, SECTION 504, OR OTHER SIMILAR REQUIREMENTS The specific purposes to be served by these procedures are\n To ensure that a complaint is considered fairly, with all due speed, and without prejudice or reprisal to the aggrieved person\n To encourage employee expression regarding conditions that affect him/her\n To provide a specific procedure that will facilitate the understanding of district policies affecting employees\n To build confidence, in the sincerity and integrity of the complaint resolution procedure as a means to establish the facts upon which a complaint is based, a problem is stated, and a fair conclusion or solution is reached. Definitions  A complaint is an allegation of action or inaction by the District or its representatives in violation of the Revised Desegregation and Education Plan, Title VI, Title IX, ADA or Section 504, or the implementing regulations, or other similar requirements.  The complainant is the student, patron, or employee bringing the complaint.  \"Employee\" means a person who is a full or part-time employee who is on the payroll of the District.  Patron means any students parent or other resident in the LRSD.  The \"responsible official means the employee designated by the District to coordinate its efforts to comply with and carry out its responsibilities under the abovementioned requirements.  \"Student\" means a person enrolled in one of the schools operated by the corporation.  \"Superintendent\" means the Superintendent of Schools or his/her designee. Responsible Official The following LRSD administrators are the responsible officials for the areas listed\n Revised Desegregation and Education PlanAssociate Superintendent for Administrative Services  Title VIDirector, Exceptional Children  Title VIIDirector, Human Resources  Title IXSpecial Assistant to the SuperintendentLITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT NEPN CODE\nACG-R2 (continued)  ADADirector, Human Resources  Section 504 for EmployeesSpecial Assistant to the Superintendent  Section 504 for StudentsDirector, Exceptional Children Process The following process will be used in the review and resolution of complaints regarding compliance with the Revised Desegregation and Education Plan, Title VI, Title VII, Title IX, ADA, Section 504, or other similar requirements of the Civil Rights Law of 1964 as amended\nStep 1 (Informal Resolution) The complainant is encouraged to try to resolve any issues relating to implementation and compliance with any of the aforementioned legal requirements at the lowest administrative level possible. The complaint should be brought to the administrator/supervisor at the point where the possible violation exists. Within ten days after receipt of the complaint, the administrator will attempt resolution with the complainant in an informal manner. If a satisfactory informal resolution cannot be reached, the complainant and/or the administrator may seek the assistance of the Districts responsible official. Step 2 (Formal Complaint) If the complainant is unable to secure a satisfactory resolution through informal means at step 1, the complainant may file a formal complaint. The complaint should be filed with the LRSDs official who has district level responsibility for that area. The complaint must be filed within ten days of the response of the administration at step 1. The complaint should be in writing and give a concise but thorough overview of the alleged problem or violation and indicate the specific relief requested. All relevant documents also should be included. The responsible official will investigate the complaint and collect whatever information is needed to make an informed decision. The responsible official will issue a written finding within fifteen days of the receipt of the complaint or inform the complainant of the reasons that it is not possible to issue a finding in that time frame. If a finding cannot be issued within fifteen days, it will be issued as soon as practicable. 2LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT NEPN CODE\nACG-R2 (continued) Step 3 (Appeal to the Board of Education) If the complainant is not satisfied with the finding at step 2, he/she may request a hearing with the Board of Education. The request for the hearing must be made within ten days of the written finding issued at step 2. The request for the hearing must include a statement of the complaint, the finding of the responsible official from step 2, and any response to the finding that the complainant wishes to present. It should include the reasons that the complainant believes the finding is in error. The individual members of the Board will review the information presented with the written request for the hearing prior to following months Board agenda meeting. The Board will decide at the agenda meeting whether or not to place the appeal on the agenda for a hearing. If the Board decides not to hear the complaint, the written finding of the Districts responsible official will be the position of the LRSD. Timelines The failure of the complainant to comply with the identified timelines will be considered to be an abandonment of the complaint. Effect of Settlement Any settlement of a complaint will be applicable to that complaint only and will not be binding authority for the disposition of any other complaint. Anonymous Complaints The LRSD is committed to compliance with its legal obligations. As a result anonymous complaints will be thoroughly investigated and handled in a serious manner. However, anonymous complaints are more difficult to substantiate and investigate. Therefore, complainants are encouraged to be open, forthcoming, and identify themselves to assist in a satisfactory resolution to the complaint. The LRSD recognizes that some students, patrons, and employees will not come forward with legitimate complaints because of a fear of retribution. The LRSD will not condone or tolerate reprisals against complainants by any of its employees. Employees who exercise retaliatory behavior against any complainant will be appropriately disciplined. 3LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT NEPN CODE\nACG-R2 (continued) J Reporting Outside the Process In instances where there is a genuine sense of potential reprisal and it is not realistic to report the complaint at the lowest administrative level, the complaint may be made with the Districts responsible official. The responsible official may refer the complaint to another administrator in the departments organizational structure to attempt a resolution. 407/08/1999 15:54 3240567 JQD PAGE 02 Little Rock School District July 8,1999 Mr. John Walker 1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72206 Dear Mr. Walker: 1 received your broad request\" for information dated July 7. Without more specificity, it is difficult for me to understand exactly what it is that you wish to review, but Ill try. I am taking a vacation day on Friday, July 9, and I will be out of town. On Monday, July 12, lam scheduled all day to hear a'report from OCR regarding their findings from the compliance review they conducted in March. On Tuesday, July 13,1 must attend a meeting required by the Superintendent until noon. I will be available in my office on the afternoon of July 13 - from 1:30 to 4:00 for you to review documents in my office. If that time is not convenient for you, please let me know, and we will reschedule. Yours truly. Bonnie Lesley, Ed.D Associate Superintendent for Instruction 0AL/rcm cc: Chris Heller Dr. Les Gamine Junious Babbs Brady Gadberry Ann Brown 810 West Markham Street  Little Rock, Arkansas 72201  (501)324-2000 07/08/1999 15:54 3240567 JQD PAGE 03 I Little Rock School District July 8, 1999 Mr. John Walker 1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72206 Dear Mr. Walker\nI am in receipt of your letter of July 7 regarding my alleged disciplining of an employee for not coming to work before 8:00.\" i have disciplined no one regarding work hours. I did send the attached memorandum to all employees in the Division on March 31, 1999. I have no idea what you are referring to. Yours truly, ours / Bonnie Lesley, Ed.D, Associate Superintendent for Instruction BAUadg Cc\nChris Heller Dr. Les Carnine Junious Babbs Brady Gadberry Ann Brown, ODM 810 West Markham Street  Little Rock. Arkansas 72201  (501)324-200007/08/1999 15:54 3240567 JQD PAGE 04 LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT INSTRUCTIONAL RESOURCE CENTER 3001 PULASKI STREET LITTLE ROCK, AR 72206 March 31.1999 TO: Division of Instruction Staff FROM: Dr. Bonnie Lesley^^sociate Superintendent for Instruction SUBJECT: Expectations for the Work Day i want to be clear about the District's expectations for all employees for the work day, recognizing that individual exceptions may be made for extenuating circumstances. 1. Please report to work on time every day. If you must be late, you are to call your supervisor so that she/he will know when to expect you. Frequent or chronic tardiness is not acceptable. 2. Please do not leave your work before the end of the work day - again unless your supervisor has given you specific permission to do so. We understand occasional needs to leave for doctor appointments or other emergencies, but the employee needs to be at work the full day except on rare occasions. 3, Please radically limit the frequency and duration of any telephone calls you receive or make to conduct your personal business. If there is no alternative, everyone understands occasional phone calls, but frequent and long conversations are not acceptable. 4. Do not leave your work to run personal errands, to have your hair cut/styled, to purchase personal items, to visit with friends, etc. Our Division is constantly criticized for these practices, whether true or not. Please do not do anything to feed the grapevine. 5. Answer the telephones. Voice mail and/or no answers make our customers believe no one is working. 1 called five different numbers one day seeking some help and never got a live body! 07/08/1999 15:54 3240567 JQD PAGE 05 ( 1 Expectations for the Work Day March 31,1999 Page Two Employees who have late afternoon, evening, and/or week-end meetings may certainly be more flexible with their schedule than hourly employees, but fiexibilitv should never be abused. As I reiterate these rules, I recognize that many, many of you never give less than 100 percent. Already I know who you are, and I am appreciative of your work ethic and commitment. Thank you! On the other hand, I see and hear about abuses that concern me, so I felt it necessary to remind everyone of the basic expectations of the district. BAL/adg (RECE\" AUG 2 Q i .1 LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT INSTRUCTIONAL RESOURCE CENTER 3001 PULASKI STREET LITTLE ROCK, AR 72206 OFFICE Of DESEGREGATION MONITORING August 17, 1999 TO: John Walker Ann Brown Terrence Roberts Steve Ross Frank Martin, CTA FROM: Dr. Bonnie Lesleyj'^ssociate Superintendent for Instruction SUBJEOT: Review of Proposed Policies and Administrative Regulations I am attaching for your review three separate packages relating to the revision of our Board policies and administrative regulations. Part I Part I includes for your information and reference copies of policies already adopted by the Board of Education this past year. They are as follows: lA IB IO lOA ID IGA IGB IGBA IGO IGE IHAL IHBA IHBB IHBDA IHBH IHOA IHCC Academic Content Standards/Benchmarks Academic Freedom School Year School Calendar School Day Curriculum Program Alignment and Coherence. Educational Research Grant-Funded Projects Pilot Programs Curriculum Guides Religion in the Schools Special Education for Students with Disabilities Gifted and Talented Education Remedial instruction Alternative Education Programs Summer School Pre-Advanced Placement and Advanced Placement Courses. Grades 6-12 Memo - Review of Proposed Policies and Administrative Regulations August 17, 1999 Page Two IHCDA IHD IIB IJ IJOA IJOC IJOCA IKACA IKB IKE IKEC IKF IKFA IKFC IMB IMCA IMH Opportunities to Earn College Credit Adult Education Programs Teacher-Student Ratio Instructional Resources and Materials Field Trips School Volunteers School-Based Mentoring Programs Parental Visits and Conferences Homework Promotion and Retention of Students Award of Credit General Education Graduation Requirements, Effective for the Graduating Class of 2002 Early Graduation Graduation Requirements for Handicapped Students Teaching about Controversial/Sensitive Issues Distribution of Materials and Literature Through Schools Class Interruptions Part 11 Part II includes copies of two policies under consideration by the Board: IG IKC Curriculum Development, Adoption and Review Class Rankings/Grade-Point Averages IG is on the August agenda for approval-second reading. IKC is on the August agenda for approval-first reading. Part III Part III includes drafts of proposed administrative regulations that have been designed to implement the adopted policies. These regulations have had considerable review already by interested parties and large numbers of staff. In some cases we have simply converted informal documents into more formal language. Some regulations are completely new. lA-R ID-R IGBA-R IGE-RI IHBB-R IHBDA-R IHCC-R IHCDA-RI Academic Content Standards/Benchmarks School Day: Student Schedules Grant Funded Projects\nCurriculum Guides Development Gifted and Talented Education Intervention/Remediation Pre-AP and AP Courses Concurrent EnrollmentMemo - Review of Proposed Policies and Administrative Regulations August 17, 1999 Page Three IJ-Exhibit IJ-RI IJ-R2 IJOA-R IKB-R IKC-R IKEC-RI IKEC-R2 IKEC-R3 IKEC-R4 IKE-R IKF-RI IKF-R2 IKF-R3 IKFA-R IMH-R Instructional Materials: Exhibit Textbook Adoptions Library Media Center Materials Selection Field Trips Homework Guidelines Class Rankings/Grade - Point Averages Dual Credit and Summer Enrichment Correspondence Courses Credit by Examination Basic Combat Promotion and Retention Graduation (Class of 2000 and 2001) Graduation (Class of 2002 and Beyond)\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_773","title":"P.T.A.","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":["1991/1998"],"dcterms_description":null,"dc_format":["application/pdf"],"dcterms_identifier":null,"dcterms_language":["eng"],"dcterms_publisher":["Little Rock, Ark. : Butler Center for Arkansas Studies. Central Arkansas Library System"],"dc_relation":null,"dc_right":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC-EDU/1.0/"],"dcterms_is_part_of":["Office of Desegregation Monitoring records (BC.MSS.08.37)","History of Segregation and Integration of Arkansas's Educational System"],"dcterms_subject":["Little Rock (Ark.)--History--20th century","Little Rock School District","Education--Arkansas","School management and organization","Parents' and teachers' associations"],"dcterms_title":["P.T.A."],"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/773"],"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":["21 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\nI \u0026gt; you are invited to the Little Rock PTA Council Founders Day Luncheon Tuesday February 12, 1991 11:30 AM Asbury United Methodist Church 1700 Napa Valley Drive R Please send reservations by February S\u0026gt; 1991 Sounders 9)ai/ Luncheon David Tutz 13S2S W. iMarkham Little Rock AR 72211 Uh School number oj reservations at (10 each (bjicLVirr LtS'roy amount encfosed .Ilium  iiifc.iiii ml m LR COUNCIL OF PARENTS AND TEACHERS ASSN. 810 W. MARKHAM LI I TLE RO( K, AR 72201 f Non-Profit Organ. U.S. Postage PAID Little Rock, AR 72201 Permit #143 Polly Rainer McClellan High PTA 11411 Kerry Dr. Little Rock, AR 72209 TO : Mr. Stan Strauss Principal, Ish Incentive School FROM: Ms. Sandra Thomas Members Present: President, Ish Incentive School PTA and PTA Members Present on 3/9/93 DATE : March 12, 1993 RE : Concerns of Parents/Patrons At the last PTA meeting, held March 9, 1993, issues and concerns were raised by members present, not only their concerns, but also concerns expressed by many parents not present. The following is a list of these present. 1 . 2 . 3 . concerns. Second Grade Students Formerly Taught by Mr. Ellis Many parents \"passed out\" and there or lack thereof. feel that the second 9-weeks grades were is no Indication of advancement We want a special meeting with you. the appropriate district the new teacher, administrator, parents of these students to discuss the present classroom situation and the grading procedure. Extended Day There is It is concern for what occurs our primarily for understanding that this the extension and the during Extended Day. program of classroom either as a tutorial or for accelerated learning. provides academics, At the December PTA meeting you stated that Extended Day would was being Implemented to foster \"higher level thinking\". writing, However, arithmetic) we want learned children need extension of what we want to take place. the first. basis And (reading, if our classroom learning, that is We want to be assured that the classroom coordinates each child's Extended Day activities. acknowledge and desire leisure children but not in lieu of academics. activities teacher for We our Music Instruction The number of children who are participating in choral music has diminished significantly.4 . 3 . The children are expressing that the music presented is not interesting or relevant to their experiences. Why are these children expected to sing along with recorded music played on a low quality system? Why is there not a musician on staff available for these students? We want a meeting with you. the music teacher, and the appropriate district administrator to discuss this situation. Building Maintenance Restroom facilities for boys and girls were observed during the meeting tl-me, earlier on the meeting date. and numerous other times found to be unsatisfactory during this school and paper towels, flushed clean floors toilets: (especially toilets ( lacking warm after school around year and water, hours), the base soap dispensers environment). obviously over a long (bar soap is not period of of the time), and satisfactory in this The bathrooms were also odorous. want these deficiencies corrected\nDuring the PTA meeting roaches were We observed abundantly around the base of the water fountain in the cafeteria. during spring break. We want this building exterminated Water fountains were found to running continuously. We recommend all fountain sites . not be or to have very low pressure. that cups and dispensers working, be installed at Classrooms are not being cleaned after school ends (trash emptied, bathrooms cleaned, floors mopped and waxed on a routine basis). perform these tasks. haven to situation. only as well. We We have personnel hired to our We children want them want this building regardless 0 f to experience in a warm supportive environment, Campus Facilities There area i s for no playground Pr e-K students. equipment or What forthcoming to alleviate this situation to be their a home learning not but a clean one designated play provisions are as spring will be here shortly and these children will spend more time out of doors? Non-students and non-parents are utilizing during school hours or otherwise loitering on the groundscampus . We want this stopped IMMEDIATELY. We want the grounds properly maintained durln season. this These are some very specific concerns that we have about the overall operation and administration of this institution. As this is an Incentive School, we feel compelled to bring this next item to your attention. as it has been brought to our attention. Dur i ng Mrs . Redwood's Black History program. Mr . Ford, a grasp singing new teacher in this school, was observed choosing not to the hands of the children standing around him during the of \"We Shall Overcome\" and \"Reach Out and Somebody's Hand\" when all other members of the audience Touch did so . We were told that he ultimately \"slipped out\" of the assembly. THIS IS A PROBLEM. Mr . Strauss, we do not want you to feel that the PTA is not proactive. We want you to know that we want this school to the best that is can be and we are willing to help. be However, it has been expressed that if a parent comes to or a problem his/her child may soon come home you with a concern with a Behavior Document. THIS IS A PROBLEM. In keeping with our time day to Inform you that the PTA proactive stance, we want to take this has scheduled a campus clean up for April 3, 1993 from 9a.m. to support in this clean up effort and 4p.m. your We solicit attention to concerns detailed above. March 24, 1993. We anticipate a written response your the by cc : Ms. Janet Bernard Ms . Arma Hart Ms. Gill South Little Rock Community Development Corp.ODM 002/002 Little Rock School District MEDIA ADVISORY August 1,1994 For more information: Dina Teague, 324-2020 Following are some events for news coverage and/or photo opportunities in the Little Rock School District for this week: Monday, August 1, 5:30 - 7:00 p.m Superintendent Henry Williams and the Parent Teacher's Association host a Kickoff for the Little Rock PTA Council and the PTA Presidents. The event is held in the William H. Kennedy, Jr. Auditorium in the Worthen National Bank Building and is sponsored by Worthen and the Capitol Club. Members of the LRSD Board of Directors have been invited to attend. Thursday, August 4, 7:30 - 9:00 a.m. The Greater Little Rock Chamber of Commerce hosts the annual Tri-District Partners in Education Breakfast. The Event is held at the Main Event at 2602 Cantrell Road. Members of the LRSD Board of Directors have been invited to attend. 810 West Markham Street  Little Rock, Arkansas 78201  (301)324-2000COBB LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT C ! I B Romine Interdistrict School Theme: Computer Science and Basic Skills 3400 Romine Road Phone 228-3086 Little Rock, Arkansas 72204 February 4, 1994 - SENT BY FAX - TO: ODM Monitoring Team FROM: Lionel Ward, Principal SUBJECT: Requested Information Please find enclosed the information requested: 1993-94 PTA TOTAL MHSBERSHIP BY RACE AND GENDER RACE/GENDER t X white male 35  111 black male 62 .198 other male 1 .003 white female 65 .207 black female 142 .453 other female 8 .025 TOTAL 313 .997 If I can be of any further help, please contact me. LW/lw Poi'kCs to tr 1  i (t i J Little Rock School District News Release February 13, 1995 For more information\nDina Teague, .324-2020 Ifte Little Rock Karent teacher .^Haxiation (FFA) CouncU celebrates 98 years of service to children and families at the 1995 Founders Pay Luncheon on Friday, Februart 17 at 11:30 a m. in the j.A Gilbreath Conference Center at Baptist Medical f ! I-If ( enter. J ickets are $15.00 at the door, and reservabom may be made by calling Becky Rather at (50i) 324-2272, or Carla Bobo at (501) 224 6746. Dr. Katherine Mitchell, President of Shorter College and member of the 1 title Rock School District Board of Directors, is the keynote speaker. Other highlights of the celebration include the announcement of the Educator of the 'iear Av/ard and the winners of the national PTA elections. Founders Day is observ'ed annually by the PTA Council to honor its founders and review past achievements, to inform members and the community about the FTA, and to encourage contributions to expand and strengthen the PTA. it CO/eO'd T  01/1 1X7/3di \u0026lt;K****/\u0026gt;*^ 0:i?l '36. LT *rT'QQOOnn-i  ZSA1\\al nAAA 20-V\u0026lt;r-T0S-:: xej SZ!l,'vyj3$ lacydiTS QS^n zsAi\\Q\u0026lt;iM nnnA \u0026lt; !  T jaEiacaBi as \u0026gt; \" LRSD SUPPORT SERUICES Pax:1-501-324-2032 f Feb 20 95 10:34 P. 02/06 Little Rock School District -a i Media Advtsorv I! February 20,1995 For more information\nDina Teague, 324-2020 Following is a list of events for announcements, news coverage and/or photo opportunities in the Little Rock School District for thi.s v-eek: Monday, February 20, 7:45 -10:30 a.m. I'he student council of Parkview Arts and Sciences'Magnet High School hosts a Past President's Breakfast in the Gilbreath Center at Baptist Hospital. Students have the opportunity to meet former Parkview student council presidents such as Dr. Sandra Bruce Nichols, Director of the State Health Department, and other role models. Tuesday, February 21,10:00 - IT.OO a.in. Reverend Hezekiah Stewart, Executive Director of the Watershed Project, speaks to students of McClellan Business/ Communications Magnet High School at their Black History Month/Multicultural .Assembly-. fuesday, February 21,1:00 - 2:00 p.m. The Jubilee tRorus presents a vocal program on Black History to students at Rightsell Career Awarenes-s and Mass Media Elementary School. r-h- Tuesday, February' 21, 7:00 - 8:00 p.m. Students in the Gifted Program at Watson Elementary School host an International Bazaar and Chinese Ribbon Dance to showcase what they have learned in their muticultural studies. Wednesday, February 22, 5:00 p.m. The LRSD Board of Directors holds a special meeting to review business cases and to consider their effects on the 1995-96 budget. Thursday, February 23, 8:30 - 9:45 a.ni. In observance of Black History Month, Patrick Oliver presents a lecture on famous black ^American and African artists for students at Woodruff Elementary School. '^inore) I ! i ii! ,1 II k SIO West Markham Street  Little Rock, Arkiasas 72301  (501)8242000 RBoi jt*  mao . ..yC / LRSD SUPPORT SERVICES Fax:1-501-324-2032 Feb 20 95 10:35 P. 03/06 LRSD Events Februar}- 20 24 Page Iwo of tliree I.humday, February' 23, 1:00 -2.00 p.m. Ihe Philander Smith College I'frama Department performs for students at Wakefield Elementary School in celebration of Black History Month. ihursday, Februar monthly meeting. Lur rhe LRSD Board of Directors hold their regular Friday, February 24.8:15 a.m ,- 2:35 p.m. Elizabeth Ellis promotes student awareness of muiticultiural folk tales as she visits groups of students at Terry Elementary School. .Ms, Ellis is a well knoum storyteller and is endorsed bv the American Library Journal. Friday, Febry^ 24 8:30 - 10:(X) a.m. Students at Gibbs Foreign Languages/ International Studies Magnet Elementary School host SIKUKLU, a musical history of black music. Special \"guests\" will be ^ott lopHn, The Supremes, and a Dixieland Jazz baiid Friday, February 24, 9.QP a.m. - 3:00 p.m. Parkview Arts and Sciences Magnet High School hosts a blood drive for the ?\\merican Red Cross. Student demonstrate their commitment to the community as they provide needed donations to the Red Cross. Friday, February 24, 9:30 IQ.'OQ a.m. \u0026amp; 2:00 - 2:30 p.fn. Meadowcliff Elementary School celebrates Black History Month with performances of dramatic .skits about the lives of notable black Americans, lite school choir will perform freedom songs and spirituals.  -.A Ead.aix.Febru.ary 2-4/1:00- 2:30 p.m. Pulaski Heights Elementary School presents \"We /Are the World,\" a multicultural celebration. The event begins with a parade of classes cany'ing flags from around the world. Each grade level will present information about the culture they have studied to the other students tn the school. Friday, February 24,1 V.OO a.m. - 1:00 p.m. McDermott Elementary Schoo! hosts Grandparents Day. Grandparents will join students in the cafeteria for lunch and will participate in Book Fair Week activities (see below). CONTINUING EVBNTS Monday, F_ebraajy\\2Q, through Friday, February 24, 8:30 a.m. - 2:30 p.m. Brady Elementary School students show achievement and enthusiasm for learning as they display their entries in a school-wide science fair. Judging is at 8:,30 a.m, on Wednesday, and award.s are presented at 9:00 a.m. on Friday. Contact: Tami Vardaman, 228-3065 (more)  *'LRSD SUPPORT SERVICES Fax:1-501-324-2032 rebruan' 20,1995 I i Feb 20 '95 10:36 Lirrix Rock School District News Release For more information: Dina Teague, 324-2020 P.05/06 rhe Little Rock PTA Council celebrated 99 years of service to children and tamilies at the 1995 Founders Day Luncheon on Friday, Febmart' 17. Approximately 250 teacf^ers, parents, students, and district admirustrators gathered in the Gilbreath Conference Center at Baptist Hospital to honor PI A founders and to recognize outstanding achievements. Irish Williams, a teacher at Fulbright Elementary\nand Lillie Carter, Principal at Pulaski Heigl.!, Elementary School, were named co-winners of the Educator of the Year Awarti Ashley Carradine, a student at Carver Basic Skills/Math - Science Magnet Elementary School was recognized os a finalist in the National Reflections Art Contest. Dr. Katherine Mitchell, President of Shorter College, former President of the PT A Coundt and member of the Little Rock School District Board of Directors presented the keynote address entitled \"We Must do More,\" Mitchell 810 Weet Markham Street  i (more) .liUff Little Rock. -ArkRnsas 7!S201  (501)3StV!i000 LRSD SLPPORT SERVICES Fax:1-501-324-2032 Feb 20 95 10:37 P. 06/06 s I-TA Founders Day February 19,1995 Page two of tuo acknou ledged the contnbutions of EI A members and reaffirmed that parental involvement is the kev to successful schools. She then encouraged the audience to work even harder to persuade more parents to become involved in the ETA. The next targets for recruitment are businesses, churches and community groups since their support of parents and schools is vital to reaching the goals of the ETA. Mitchell further suggested that parents use part of their vacation leave during the school year in order to spend valuable time in their children's schools. She  ? s_ concluded by reminding the audience that all of our children need all of us and, in time, we will depend on all of them. Debbie Glasgow, El'A Council President, presented several membership drive awards to .schools which had shown increases or 100% participation in their individual PTAs. Beverly Jones also recognized all nominees for the Educator of . -M the Year Award with a cerbheate. Students from Southwest Junior High School assisted ivith .serving the lunch. Entertainment was provided by students from Horace Mann Arts and Saences Magnet Junior High School, and Western Hills Elementary School. fe''*'- h',., I* I. A?!.\nS'  1owl SiDxcik IPTA Cfflsmcnll RECEIVED FEB 2 4 1995 February 20.1995 Olfice of Desegregation Monitoring Dear Dr. Williams and Little Rock School District Board of Directors: The Little Rock PTA Council is gravely concerned about the administrations proposed budget cuts pertaining to the school nurses. The decision to eliminate 19 registered nurses is quite shocking in view of the 1994-95 Little Rock School Board Priorities compiled just last September, 1994, in which Quality Nursing Services ranked third highest in priority. The PTA Council feels that the level and quality of nursing health care and services received by ail students would be greatly diminished under this proposal and in the area schools would be virtually non-existent. Although it appears that most magnet and incentive schools would retain their school nurse positions, in reality these nurses probably would frequently be pulled to work at other schools that have no nurses. Consequently, the PTA Council feels that, ultimately, our schools are at risk of losing the professional health care and services currently rendered to our children by the school registered nurses. The PTA Council is also extremely concerned about possible future plans to consider replacing the RNs (registered nurses) with LPNs (licensed practical nurses) and/or health aides. The knowledge and skills base of a registered nurse is significantly more appropriate in the school based setting in comparison to a licensed practical nurse. Neither an LPN nor a health aide possesses the specialized skills, judgment or knowledge necessary in providing the types of nursing care and services needed in our schools for our children. No parent wants his child to suffer the consequences or risks of mismanaged care given by inadequately trained personnel. During the process of identifying student health needs and intervening however necessary to meet those needs, school nurses provide innumerable types of professional services. In many cases, registered nurses are the only persons legally authorized under state public health regulations to complete the myriad of referral and evaluation forms for students needing special services. Consequently, the PTA Council feels that replacing RNs with LPNs and/or health aides would be comparable, theoretically, to replacing our classroom teachers with instructional aides. Many parents are greatly concerned about the continued assurance of basic nursing services received daily by their children such as administering medications and making pertinent observations, giving specific medical treatments, providing mental health observation and intervention, and providing observation and care for acute and chronic health conditions, such as diabetes, asthma, and head or other traumatic injuries. Every student has the right to a physically safe and emotionally secure environment in our schools, but will this right be severely compromised or. at worst, denied under this proposal? It must be noted that children in the lower socio-economic strata of our student population will undoubtedly stand to suffer greatly under this plan, because the school nurse is their only source of medical care for their health needs. The number of children in this category ranges from 100 to 150 per day. Currently, there are 1260 students in the LRSD served each day for acute illnesses and injuries, and over 1200 individual doses of medication are given daily. School nurses serve an extremely important function as health educators and advocates. As positive role models in developing permanent healthy lifestyles, they promote good health habits and illness prevention, carry out many health education programs, and work closely with students, parents and teachers regarding special health needs. Oftentimes the school nurse is the first and foremost person in whom a student will confide concerning personal problems and needs. Therefore, the nurses play a key role in providing support and intervention and handling the daily crises that arise. Therefore, the PTA Council strongly holds that in order for students to function at their highest learning ability and to have a successful educational experience, they must have access to the health services and education necessary to promote optimal levels of wellness. The PTA Council firmly takes the stand for maintaining health services as they are presently delivered and preserving the school nurse positions that we currently have. Thirty schools are covered daily with nurses while twenty schools are not covered\ntherefore, it would appear that the LRSD should consider adding school nurse positions rather than eliminating them. We also feel strongly that budget cuts should be made further away from the children, because school nurses directly serve 100% of the students in our district. At the last PTA Council meeting the members voted to make known to the LRSD Administration and the School Board of Directors our position on the proposed budget cuts affecting school nurses. Attached is a list of those members in attendance and the schools they represent. These individuals represent more than 13,000 PTA members in the LRSD. At a time when we are striving for safe schools. this situation certainly acquires a chilling perspective if we are to lose our school nurses and. as parents, suddenly feel that our children are truly in an unsafe environment. The Little Rock PTA Council sincerely hopes that you will give strong consideration to our viewpoints regarding this issue and will not make any changes in the current school nurse program in the proposed budget cuts. Sincerely,\nUJ Dfeb^e Glasgow, President Barbara Mills and Debbie Velez, Council Representatives Little Rock PTA Council cc: Honorable Judge Susan Webber Wright Ann Brown, ODM LRSD Administrators Gwen Efird and School Nurses PTA PresidentsName 73 T Little Rock PTA Council DATE: School/PTA Office Home Address/Phone ^'(VAV^k) S^'acnS____ VvU  V\\a2) CL\u0026lt;^ro| Q 'Dgc^ m\nkc 0'0^^ -r C' A A 9cS z\u0026gt;Q n , c\n(.k^VaASAi3 WAV /kJM toen^ I A. ( A ' A ________L.r2 A/f- SiiS^S'/C, b (^ fi.- -13^1 L \u0026lt;Name Little Rock PTA Council DATE: IDJ^^5' School/PTA Office LAXS^rrn AA\\ \\Uy Pri /\\r') Home Address/Phone 72??? CR, f 7/0/\u0026gt; 0'0\u0026lt;^ L- 'T Lu.^k2/(r ^'' i ' f C^k kAkdaCk ') 1-^ '.6 i^\\r T (3i( /^lC\u0026gt; /Gd ck C2) I I.1 [Ai.- ^02./ /y/AAi^'^''-' I /j 5 7^ -^Cij xf 't doc/zieU 3- \"!^:)0'5 /UcCk[l 0~^i/\\ a k-76 / (10 PK \u0026lt;k\u0026lt;y6cy~yi cT,o \u0026gt;t)ur.ou vu\u0026gt;*iiiui i XI X uno ri3t 01/02 810 West Markham Little Rock, AR 72201 For Immediate Release April 26, 2004 For more information: Scott Morgan, 447-6902 State PTA Meeting Set NORTH LITTLE ROCK (AR) - Parents, teachers, students, administrators and friends of the State PTA (Parent-Teacher Association) are set to gather by the river in downtown North Little Rock for the 19^ annual Arkansas State PTA Convention April 30 and May 1 at the Wyndham Riverfront Hotel. The national slogan for PTA, which is 107 years old and the largest childrens advocacy organization in the world, is Every child. One voice. Delegates from around the state will attend workshops, hear from prominent Speakers, discuss recent legislation and expand their network of schools searching forknowledge on how to make the educational system in Arkansas work successfully for all students. The Governors Mansion will be the site for the pre-convention Tea at 3:00 p.m. on Thursday, April 29. All registered delegates will visit the mansion for refreshments. Delegates are asked to bring a childrens book with them which will be given to Arkansas First Lady Janet Huckabee. She will distribute the books to Arkansas schools that are in need of library books. State PTA President Kathy McFetridge of Springdale will officially open the 79 Annual State Convention at 9:00 Fnday morning, April 30. Opening day festivities include North Pulaski High School ROTC presentation of the colors, followed by the National Anthem sung by Tawanna Campbell of Little Rocks Martin Luther King Elementary School. Special guests include North Little Rock Mayor PatnekHays, National PTA President-elect Anna Weselak, Regional Director of the U.S. Department of Education Dr. Gaye Lang and Joy Rockenbach of the Arkansas Health Advisory Committee. National PTA President Linda Hodge could not attend, but sent this message\nAs PTA members, s we are very fortunate to have state and national PTA conventions. They provide us with wonderful opportunities to learn from one another as we share stories of the amazing and successful efforts that have been under way in our communities. This gathering is a time for you to reenergize and inspire each other as you strengthen your commitment and ability to make a difference for all children. On Friday and Saturday the delegates will attend a variety of workshops. Some will cover national and state topics such as No Child Left Behind ... Parents Rights and Responsibilities\nLegislation: Arkansas rwot 0^/02 Arkansas PTA Convention Page 2 of2 Parental Involvement Act 603\nand Building Successful Partnerships...National PTA Is Parent and Community CW wpics .nclud. p,c\u0026lt;i.u,rs\nusing Kchology .0 help child succeed\n,d raismgpositivc, confidentand caringyouth. Many sessionswill address PTA leadership training. Fun workshops are also included. Diane Vibhakar of the Arkansas School Boards Association will demonstrate how to build trust between schools and home with Study Circles. North Little Rock PTA Council will host a Make-N-Take\" workshop with glue, scissors, paint, etc., as participants leant how to say thank you to special individuals back home. National PTA workshop Dogs for Dads\" will teach schools how to get dads, grandpas, uncles, preachers, and other positive male role models involved with their schools. Another component of the convention is the celebration of accomplishments in 2003-04. The National PTAis an advocate of the arts in all schools. The Reflections program honors outstanding students in the areas of music, literature, photography and art. This years state awards will be presented by U.S. Senator Blanche Lincoln at a noon luncheon on Friday, April 30. Sponsors of the luncheon are Radiology of Arkansas and Arvest Bank of Central Arkansas, and the luncheon is hosted by the North Little Rock PTA Council. Friday will be topped off with the Stete PTA Awards Banquet at 7:00 p.m. Schools, PTA units and individuals will be honored. Arkansas PTAs Teacher of the Year Michele Hutton of Springdale and Adnunis- traior of the Year John Bacon of Little Rocks Dunbar Middle School will be introduced. Other awards include Parental Involvement\nHealth \u0026amp; Safety\nCommunications\nBoard ofDistinction\nChampion ofChil- dren\nand Outstanding Councils. Four scholarships will be presented to a parent, a certified teacher and two high school seniors. All scholarship recipients must be working or plan to work on educational degrees. The awards banquet is hosted by the Little Rock PTA Council. The convention will wrap up on Saturday, May 1, with the Membership Awards Luncheon at noon which IS sponsored by the Pulaski County PTA Council. Charters will be presented to new PTA units throughout the state, and outstanding membership schoolswill also be honored. Throughout the convention delegates will be kept busy. The PTA Boutique will offer the latest m PTA jewelry and promotional items. The Exhibit Hall will enable vendors from Arkansas and surrounding states to display their products and services. Information on fundraising items, playground equipment, safety equipment for schools, insurance and other services will be available. A Hospitality Room will help delegates make it through the three-day convention, as will the annual Silent Auction. ###'Welcome KiKsaaiistia SMB, LI'TTDE KOC'K.'PdA. COU(fICIl^ dOWlpE'RS (DAy 12,1991 irrfVi'r DeBBie Velez President Ldi^DTA Council lunch Tresentatum of Awards Life iMemhersfiip Award Introduction of Special Quests Ulistory of the L'K^A Council Introduction of Speaker Speaker (DeBbie Velez dipsie Dunham (Past (President 1967-68 Lssie 9diddleton Arl^gnsas State VTA ^MemBership Chairperson iMemBersBip Awards Special Council Awards ^marll\ns Coats for  Dougd^rde (Honorary (\\demBership Chairman Arliansas State (PTA Announcements Closing Dechy d(ather 1990 Life ddemBership Award (Ppcipient Linda Kussenherger DeBBie Velez dlr. diuth S. Steele L'S^D Superintendent Carla 'BoBo DeBBie Velez KI I aJJ I Special Thanks Special music during lunch was provided by the Central High School Orchestra, directed by Tom McDonald. Lunch was served by the Pulaski Heights Junior High Junior National Honor Society. Hostesses: Essie Middleton Joyce Perry Becky Rather Sue Roland Dudda Sanders Grace Stanley The Council would especially like to thank Glynda Tarpley^ Betty Ruth Davis and their Founders Day Committee for making this day a special occasion. 1 1 II A I 'If' k\" LrrruL J{ocK_ 12,, 1991 Asbury United^detbodist Cburcb WBWgI Wednesday, September 11. 1991.. .Gazette Ot'-ii LR parents claim teacher threatened students over PTA membership By Cary Bradburn Gazette Staff [Three Western Hills Elementary Jchool parents said Tuesday a eacher threatened to punish their ixth-grade children if they didn t oin the Parent Teacher Associa-ion. . Colleen Pritz, the teacher, said CT1M ft. IIMinilP J Monogramn a 821*2106/VUJaA K (behind ChUl'a) 10' OTii FUN \u0026amp; UNIQUE GIFTS Monogramming Atailable la^ at Ploaaant Valley 10770000 RBxoxdlnneeyy Parham If f----------- MP*- she did not threaten the children and thought she had settled the issue after speaking to one of the parents about it Tuesday after school. Margie Puckett, the principal, said none of the parents complained to her and that Pritz told her Tuesday afternoon the matter seemed to be resolved. But Joni Felkins and Gayla Mathis, two of the parents, said nothing has been resolved. They said they would meet with Puckett and Pritz today and go to the school board with their attorney if necessary. Four of Fritzs students said -ar Tuesday night that the teacher assigned as homework the task of enrolling their parents in the PTA and bringing the $2 annual membership back to school today. She said if you dont bring the money back, dont come back to school, said Patches Hedemark, 11, a student in the class and Felkins daughter. I did assign it as homework, Pritz said. I didnt threaten them with punishment. I would never t-   JLftW ajigsai^ r : I' threaten a student. I would never put my job on the line. The students said Pritz threat-' ened to take away recess and write their names on the board if they didnt bring the membership' money. And for each additional day, they would get a checkmark by their name, the students said. Patches said two checkmarks prompts a parent-teacher conference and a third one leads to the long form, or a behavior notice. TH* T r .-.H, \u0026lt; nFMDCRAT-GAZETTE  WEDNESDAY, JUNE 3.1992  PTA urges parents schools to interact Scripps Howard News Service The national Parent . Teacher Association on Tues-, day called for more parentschool interaction to improve education. Its ideas for getting parents more involved in schools:  Principals and teachers should visit parents homes and set up brown bag lunch meetings at work sites.  School buildings should  open earlier and close later to accommodate students and\nparents.  Schools should invite par- ents to curriculum workshops that explain what they're doing and why and offer classes for adults on the ABCs of raising children. The national PTA said these suggestion.s came out of a workshop it held in Wisconsin in April for education advocates and business and civil rights leaders. PTA President Pat Henpf told a news conference in Washington Tuesday that inad- . equate financing of education has resulted in mixed messages and a very confused group of parents out there. But she said schools can do a lot to improve the situation by taking simple steps to get parents more interested and involved in what their children do in class. I do not see the parent involvement effort taking a lot of financial resources as much as ' deep-seated commitment to make it happen, she said. Keith Geiger, president ol the National Education Association, the nations largest teachers union, said Tuesday needed but more support for schools is. The kind of support and involvement Im talking about isnt necessarily financial, he said. Lillian Brinkley, president of the National Association ol Elementary School Principals and principal at the Willard Model School in Norfolk, Va., said Tuesday social and economic realities make the parent-teacher partnership essential. Never, during my 30 years as an educator, has there been a more urgent need for families and schools to help each other, she said. Kent Allison, vice president at Scholastic Inc., a major texb book publisher, said the business community understands that the growth of technology now requires a keenly educated workforce. He called for the federal government to provide money for every child eligible for Head Start and other early intervention programs that improve a childs chances for success. complete overhaul of the public school system is not aOUR CHILDREN ARE THE WORLD What: LR PTA Founders Day Luncheon When: February 11,1997 Where: Pulaski Heights United Methodist Christian Life Center at Woodlawn and Monroe Streets Time: 11:30a.m. to 1:00p.m. Cost: $ 10 per person before Jan. 31 $ 15 per -^person at the door Send payment to: Cathy Drilling, Treasurer 226 Markwood Little Rock, AR 72205 Tickets will be sent through the school mail. Little Rock PTA Council 501 Sherman Street Little Rock, AR 72202 c C a i '-p\\ -.5 t\" A  ysA'SOc iZI I JAN 2 2 1997 Off ICE OF OEStGREGATOHWlTOWHS Largest % Membership Increase Jr. High - Mabclvalejr, High Elementary - Western Hills Elementary Little Red Schoolhouse Award - 100% Staff Parkview Magnet High Fair High Hall High McClellan Magnet High Dunbar Magnet Jr. High Forest Heights Jr. High Mabetvale Jr. High Mabctvale Elementary Pulaski Heights Elementary Terry Elementary Geyer Springs Elementary Williams Magnet Elementary King Magnet Interdistrict Elem. 100% Membership iia/i . 'iJt , Rightsell Academy Baseline Elementary Horace Mann Magnet Carver Magnet Elem. Forest Park Elementary Fulbright Elementary Ciarland Elementary McDermott Elementary Western Hills Elementary Watson Elementary Komine Elementary Jefferson Elementary Meadowcliff Elementary Welcome Carver Magnet Elementary Mcl\u0026gt;ermott Elementary Terry Elementary Williams Magnet Elementary Fulbright Elementary Pulaski Heights Elementary Western Hills Elementary Schools With 10% or More Increase Founders Day Luncheon Little Rock PTA Council February 10, 1998 Pulaski Heights Methodist Church Thought For The Day Introduction Of Entertainment Entertainment Introduction of Special Guest and Past Presidents Introduction of Guest Speaker Guest Speaker Doris Williams, President Selma Chandler Doris Williams Horace Mann Choral Ensemble- Carolyn Forman Director Doris Williams Jeannie Price, 1st. VP. Dr. Sandra Nichols Director - Arkansas Depart, of Health Presentation of Awards Forest Heights Jr. High Mabclvalejr. High Frrrcst Park Elementary Garland Elementary Mitchell Elementary Rockefeller Elementary Terry Elementary Pulaski Heights Jr. High Cloverdale Elementary Fulbright Elementary McDermott Elementary Rightscll Academy Romine Elementary Western Hills Elementary Membership Awards Life Membership Award Educator of the Year Award Rhonda Burton Vai Henry I '.r , -. I Karen Greenlee, 3rd. V.P. Dr. Les Gamine. Supt. Doris Williams, President .JI *FIRST 100% PTA UNIT REPORTING* Announcements I  Rlghtscll Academy - September 10, 1998 Presentation of Door Prizes Ixa Russt^The Little Rock PTA Council would like to thank the following schools, people and organizations for the assistance provided for this event. TOGETHER EVERYONE ACHIEVES\" Richard Davis Photography Pulaski Heights Jr. High Servers Horace Mann Choral Ensemble Carolyn Forman - Director Shamrock, Inc. (Innishrook) Cherrydalc Farms Kathryn Beich Entertainment Betty Raper Stu Trent Nancy Ware Founders Day {Committee Chairman Rhonda Burton would like to thank her committee: Lea Russ, Cathy Drilling, Connie Brown, Brenda Casey, Patti Hamilton, Doris Williams and all the PTA Presidents who took the time help us. Thanks! Special Thanks to all the local PTA units who donated the door prizes! blTTEE ROCK PTA GOUNGlb FOUNDERS DAY bUNGHEON FEBRUARY 10,1908 PUbASKI HEIGHTS UNITED METHODIST GHURGH 11\nSO -1:00 i-: :: 'K \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_793","title":"Purchasing","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","Little Rock School District","Education--Arkansas","Education--Finance","Educational planning"],"dcterms_title":["Purchasing"],"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/793"],"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":["310 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\nRECEIVED JUL 1 Office of Desegregation Monitoring DATE: June 24, 1991 TO: Board of Directors THROUGH: Dr. Ruth S. Steele, Superintendent of Schools (JZI FROM: SUBJECT: /VChip Jones, Manager of Support Services [^Charlie Neal, Director of Purchasing Corrected Copy of Purchasing Policy Attached is a corrected copy of the purchasing policy to replace that submitted for first reading on June 19, 1991. The substantive changes are: a. Section 1-101\nRewritten. b. Section 1-108\nLast sentence added to clarify useage of singular and plural words. c. Section 1-108 (13)\nAdded subsection (o) to exempt commodities purchased for resale. d. Section 2-105\nLast line should have read, \"involved or when special knowledge or skills are needed.\"BOARD OF DIRECTORS LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT PROCUREMENT POLICY SECTION GENERAL PROVISIONS Purpose: The primary purposes of this policy are\nTo simplify, clarify and update the policy governing procurement by the District. To permit the continued development of procurement regulations and procedures. To provide for increased public confidence in the procedures followed in the District's procurement activities. To ensure the fair and equitable treatment of all persons who deal with the procurement system of this school district. To provide increased economy in District procurement activities by fostering effective competition. To provide safeguards for the maintenance of a procurement system of quality and integrity. 1-101 General Principles of Applicable Law\nThe Little Rock School Districts Procurement Policy shall be governed by the applicable laws of the State of Arkansas. 1-102 Obligation of Good Faith\nAll parties involved in the negotiation, performance, or administration of procurement transactions or contracts are required to act in good faith. tl Good faith II means honesty in fact in the conduct or transaction concerned and the observance of reasonable commercial standards of fair dealing. 1-103 Application\n1 The policy shall apply to every expenditure of District funds or funds controlled by the District, regardless of their source, including state and federal assistance monies, under any contract or procurement action for commodities or contractual services. District commodities. It shall also apply to the disposal of Nothing in this policy or in regulations promulgated hereunder shall prevent the District from complying with the terms and conditions of any grant, gift, bequest, or cooperative agreement.Little Rock School District Procurement Policy Page 2 1-104 Severability\nIf any provision of this policy or any application thereof to any person or circumstance is held invalid, such invalidity shall not affect other provisions of application of this policy which can be given effect without the invalid provision or application, coid to this end the provisions of this policy are declared to be severable. 1-105 Current Policies Repealed\nThe following policies are rescinded and replaced by provisions contained herein\nEPS CODE DJ EPS CODE DJA EPS CODE DJC EPS CODE DJF EPS CODE DJG EPS CODE EDA EPS CODE GBI TITLE: TITLE: TITLE: TITLE: TITLE: TITLE: TITLE: PURCHASING PURCHASING AUTHORITY BIDDING REQUIREMENTS PURCHASING PROCEDURES VENDOR RELATIONS RECEIVING AND WAREHOUSING STAFF GIFTS AND SOLICITATIONS 1-106 Current Policies Amended: The following policies, or all other policies or parts of policies containing provisions which may be in conflict or inconsistent herewith, are hereby amended and the application of this policy shall prevail. EPS CODE KHA EPS CODE DI EPS CODE DIA EPS CODE DK TITLE: TITLE\nTITLE: TITLE: GIFTS TO THE SCHOOLS FISCAL ACCOUNTING AND REPORTING INTRA SCHOOL FUNDS DISBURSEMENTS 1-107 Determinations\nWritten determinations and findings required by this policy shall be retained in the appropriate official contract file of the Purchasing office for a period of five (5) years. 1-108 Definitions\nThe following words shall have the meanings as defined whenever they appear in this policy or associated implementing regulations or contracts, unless: (a) the context in which they are used clearly requires a different meaning, or (b) a different definition is prescribed for a particular policy provision or regulation. Also, unless the context requires otherwise, words in the singular include the plural, and those in the plural include the singular.Little Rock School District Procurement Policy Page 3 (1) Business means any corporation, partnership, individual, sole proprietorship, joint stock company, joint venture, or any other private legal entity. (2) Commodities means all supplies, goods, materials. equipment, machinery, facilities, personal property and services to include personal and professional. (3) Construction means the process of building. altering, repairing, improving, or demolishing any public structure or building, or other public improvement of any kind to any public real property. It does not include the routine operation, repair, or maintenance of existing structures, buildings, or real property. (4) Contract means all types of District agreements. regardless of what they may be called, for the procurement or disposal of commodities, services, or construction. Collective bargaining agreements between the District and its employees are excluded from coverage under this policy. (5) Contract Modification means any written alteration in specification, delivery point, rate of delivery, period of performance, price, quantity, or other provision of any contract accomplished by mutual action of the parties to the contract. (6) governmental body. Contractor means any person having a contract with a (7) Cooperative purchasing means procurement conducted by or on behalf of more than one public procurement unit. (8) or characteristic. Data means recorded information, regardless of form (9) Designee means a duly authorized representative of a person holding a superior position. (10) Debarment means the disqualification of a person or business to receive invitations for bids, requests for proposals, requests for quotes, or the award of a contract by the District for a specified period of time commensurate with the seriousness of the offense, the failure, or the inadequacy of performance. (11) Employee means an individual drawing a salary from a governmental body, whether elected or not. (12) Excess commodities means commodities having a remaining useful life but which are no longer required by the using organization in possession of the commodities.Little Rock School District Procurement Policy Page 4 (13) Exempt commodities and services means those categories of commodities and services that are exempt from competitive bidding. The categories are\n(a) Advertising in electronic and print media, periodicals and related publications. (b) Fees, including medical and physician fees. (c) Freight and storage charges and demurrage. (d) Licenses. (e) (f) Maintenance on office machines and technical equipment. Membership in professional, trade, and other similar associations. (g) Postage. (h) Taxes. (i) Services of visiting speakers, lecturers, and performing artists. (j) Travel expense items, such as room and board and transportation charges, (k) Utility services or equipment which is defined, recognized, and regulated by the Arkansas Public Service Commission as a monopoly offering. (1) Professional and consultant services except as may be provided elsewhere in this policy. (m) Published books, manuals, maps, periodicals, films, tapes, diskettes, technical pamphlets, copyrighted material, informational and educational resource material, and other educational program support material when appropriately designated. (n) Items, components, or parts that would be compatible or otherwise cause incompatibility when used with or added to an existing set or system. (o) Commodities procured for resale in bookstores, canteens, gift shops and other similar operations. However, commodities procured under this definition shall not be shared, sold or transferred as a method of circumventing policy or regulation.Little Roc)c School District Procurement Policy Page 5 (14) Grant means the furnishing of assistance, public or private, whether financial or otherwise, to any person to support a program authorized by the Board of Directors. (15) May denotes the permissive. (16) Person means any business, individual, union. committee, club, other organization, or group of individuals. (17) Procurement means buying, purchasing, renting. leasing, or otherwise acquiring any commodities, services, or construction. It also includes all functions that pertain to the obtaining of any commodity, service, or construction, including description of requirements, selection and solicitation of sources, preparation and award of contracts, and all phases of contract administration. Procurement Official or Purchasing Official means (18) the person duly authorized to enter into and administer contracts and ma)te written determinations with respect The term also includes an authorized representative thereto. acting within the limits of authority. (19) Regulation means the administrative instructions developed to interpret and define applicable policy, and to prescribe the requirements, procedures, and practices necessary to implement that policy. (20) Services means the furnishing of labor, time, or effort by a contractor, not involving the delivery of a specific end product other than reports which are merely incidental to the required performance. This term includes professional and personal services but does not include employment agreements or collective bargaining agreements. (21) Shall means the imperative. (22) State Contract means a contract for the procurement of commodities or services awarded and administered by the State of Arlcansas. (23) Surplus commodities means any commodities no longer having any use to the District. This includes obsolete commodities, scrap materials, and nonexpendable supplies and equipment that have completed their useful life cycle.Little Rock School District Procurement Policy Page 6 (2U) Siis pens ion means the disqualification of a person or business to receive invitations for bids, requests for proposals, requests for quotes, or the award of a contract by the District for a temporary period pending the completion of an investigation, or during any legal proceedings that may ensue because a person is suspected upon probable cause of engaging in criminal, fraudulent or improper conduct, or failure or inadequacy of perfoiroance which may lead to debarment.Little Rock School District Procurement Policy Page 7 SECTION 2 - AUTHORITY AND DUTIES OF THE PROCUREMENT OFFICE 2-101 Designated Purchasing and Contracting Official: The designated legal purchasing agent for the Little Rock School District is the Director of Purchasing. This appointment is in accordance with Title 6, Chapter 21, Subchapter 3 of the Arkansas Code of 1987 Annotated. 2-102 Purchasing Director's Authority: Except as otherwise expressly provided in this policy, the authority of the Purchasing Director encompasses procurement of all commodities, services, and construction on behalf of the Little Rock School District, regardless of the source of funding. 2-103 Responsibilities of the Purchasing Director: The Director of Purchasing is the primary responsible official and shall possess the express authority and jurisdiction in matters pertaining to: (1) The procurement and supervision of procurement of all comnodities, services, and construction needed by the District. (2) The supervision, management and control over all inventories of commodities belonging to the District, regardless of the method or source of acquisition. (3) The management and supervision of the distribution, disposition, disposal and inventory control procedures of the District's fixed assets (personal property). (4) Management responsibility for the operation of the District's Central Supply Center and such warehouses and storerooms as may be established for the storage and distribution of materials and supplies. (5) The selection, qualification and disqualification of vendors, suppliers, and contractors. (6) Establishment, management and control of programs for the development of specifications, quality standards, inspection, testing and acceptance of commodities and services. (7) Recommendations to the Superintendent and the Board of Directors on policies pertaining to procurement functions of the Little Rock School District.Little Rock School District Procurement Policy Page 8 (8) The promulgation, dissemination, and enforcement of rules, regulations, and procedures related to procurement, materials management and construction, as long as these are not inconsistent with applicable federal, state, or Little Rock School District Board statutes or policies. 2-104 Authority to Delegate\nThe Director of Purchasing shall have the authority to delegate certain procurement functions and responsibilities as required to enhance effectiveness and economy, and convene such committees or advisory councils as may be necessary to accomplish procurement activities. The Director shall retain oversight and general management authority in instances where purchasing activities have been delegated. 2-105 Coordination: The Director of Purchasing shall coordinate with user schools and departments as needed in the development of reciuirements and specifications. Users will provide specifications when technical or nonstandard factors are involved or when special knowledge or skills are needed. 2-106 Unauthorized Purchases: Except as provided herein, it shall be unlawful for any District official or employee to order or initiate purchase of any commodities, services, or construction, or make any contract or agreement within the provisions of this policy other than through the Purchasing Department, and the District shall not be obligated for any purchase or contract made contrary to these provisions. 2-107 Procurement Violations: The Director of Purchasing shall have investigative responsibility involving alleged violations and make recommendations to the Superintendent in those instances of actual violations of procurement statutes as prescribed by Act 724 of 1991, the \"Local Fiscal Management Responsibility Act.\"DATE: June 19, 1991 TO: Board of Directors FROM: SUBJECT: Dr. Ruth S. Steele, Superintendent of Schools Purchasing Policy for First Reading The attached policy presents the first and most important sections of the new purchasing policy, which will consist of a total of 10 sections when finished. The remaining sections will be completed for the July Agenda meeting. Although the procedures have been in place, the development of the formal governing policies to replace the rather ambiguous and confusing 1981 policies have evolved slowly due decision-making level. to several changes in administrators at the As part of the overall policy review, and because of current personnel turnover, we are making a major effort to complete this rather complex change prior to the start of the coming school year. The overall concept is to replace several random policies with one comprehensive document that reaffirms the authority and responsibility assigned to the central purchasing office, while realigning the manner in wiiich the policy and the implementing regulations are presented to conform to the format of the procurement code model developed by the American Bar Association. Converting the District purchasing to a system patterned after the Model Procurement Code (MPC) has been an objective of the District for a long time. This process was first presented to the Board in February of 1989. (See enclosed transmittal memorandum dated February 13, 1989) Also enclosed is a brief introduction to the MPC, which will give you an idea of what is involved. The entire document will consist of 10 sections. The Model Procurement Code contains 12 articles, but for our purposes all appropriate provisions can be combined into 10 sub-headings or sections. The first two are key in that they establish the authority and the level- of responsibility which will prevail throughout the full procurement process. The provisions covered have been carefully cross-referenced against all current federal and state laws and regulations to ensure conformity. Enclosed also are copies of selected laws and policies that should assist you in your review. I recommend that you approve for first reading the enclosed new initial policy. BOARD OF DIRECTORS LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT PROCUREMENT POLICY SECTION GENERAL PROVISIONS Purpose: The primary purposes of this policy are: To simplify, clarify and update the policy governing procurement by the District. To permit the continued development of procurement regulations and procedures. To provide for increased public confidence in the procedures followed in the District's procurement activities. To insure the fair and equitable treatment of all persons who deal with the procurement system of this school district. activitie To provide increased economy in District procurement by fostering effective competition. To provide safeguards for the maintenance of a procurement system of quality and integrity. 1-101 Supplementary General Principles of Law Applicable\nUnless displaced by the particular provisions of this policy, the principles of law and equity, including the applicable statutes of the State of Arkansas, and law relative to capacity to contract, agency, fraud, misrepresentation, duress, coercion, mistake, or bankruptcy shall supplement the provisions of this policy. 1-102 Obligation of Good Faith: All parties involved in the negotiation, performance, or administration of procurement transactions or contracts are required to act in good faith. \"Good faith means honesty in fact in the conduct or transaction concerned and the observance of reasonable commercial standards of fair dealing. 1-103 Application: 1 The policy shall apply to every expenditure of District funds or funds controlled by the District, regardless of their source, including state and federal assistance monies, by this District under any contract or procurement action for commodities or contractual services. the disposal of District commodities. It shall also apply to Nothing in this policy or in regulations promulgated hereunder shall prevent the District from complying with the terms and conditions of any grant, gift, bequest, or cooperative agreement.Little Rock School District Procurement Policy Page 2 1-104 Severability: If any provision of this policy or any application thereof to any person or circumstance is held invalid, such invalidity shall not affect other provisions of application of this policy which can be given effect without the invalid provision or application, and to this end the provisions of this policy are declared to be severable. 1-105 Cixrrent Policies Repealed: The following policies are rescinded and replaced by provisions contained herein: EPS CODE DJ EPS CODE DJA EPS CODE DJC EPS CODE DJF EPS CODE DJG EPS CODE EDA EPS CODE GBI TITLE: TITLE: TITLE: TITLE: TITLE: TITLE: TITLE: PURCHASING PURCHASING AUTHORITY BIDDING REQUIREMENTS PURCHASING PROCEDURES VENDOR RELATIONS RECEIVING AND WAREHOUSING STAFF GIFTS AND SOLICITATIONS 1-106 Current Policies Amended: The following policies, or all other policies or parts of policies containing provisions which may be in conflict or inconsistent herewith are hereby amended and the application of this policy shall prevail. EPS CODE KHA EPS CODE DI EPS CODE DIA EPS CODE DK TITLE: TITLE: TITLE: TITLE: GIFTS TO THE SCHOOLS FISCAL ACCOUNTING AND REPORTING INTRA SCHOOL FUNDS DISBURSEMENTS 1-107 Determinations: Written determinations and findings required by this policy shall be retained in the appropriate official contract file of the Department of Purchasing for a period of five (5) years. 1-108 Definitions: The following words shall have the meanings as defined whenever they appear in this policy or associated implementing regulations or contracts, unless: (a) the context in which they are used clearly requires a different meaning, or (b) a different definition is prescribed for a particular policy provision or regulation.Little Rock School District Procurement Policy Page 3 (1) Business means any corporation, partnership, individual, sole proprietorship, joint stock company, venture, or any other private legal entity. joint (2) Commodities means all supplies, goods, materials. equipment, machinery, facilities, personal property services to include personal and professional. .nd (3) Construction means the process of building. altering, repairing, improving, or demolishing any public structure or building, or other public improvements of any kind to any public real property. It does not include the routine operation, repair, or maintenance of existing structures, buildings, or real property. (4) Contract means all types of District agreements. regardless of what they may be called, for the procurement or disposal of commodities, services, or construction. Collective bargaining agreements between the District and its employees are excluded from coverage under this policy. Contract Modification ( 5 ) means any written alteration in specifications, delivery point, rate of delivery, period of performance, price, quantity, or other provisions of any contract accomplished by mutual action of the parties to the contract. (6) governmental body. Contractor means any person having a contract with a (7 ) Cooperative purchasing means procurement conducted by, or on behalf of more than one public procurement unit. (8) or characteristic. Data means recorded information, regardless of form { 9 ) Designee means a duly authorized representative of a person holding a superior position. (10) Debarment means the disqualification of a person or business to receive invitations for bids or requests for proposals or requests for quotes or the award of a contract by the District for a specified period of time commensurate with the seriousness of the offense, of the failure, or the inadequacy of performance. (11) Employee means an individual drawing a salary from a governmental body, whether elected or not. Excess commodities means supplies having a remaining (12) useful life but which are no longer required by the using organization in possession of the supplies.Little Rock School District Procurement Policy Page 4 (13) Exempt commodities and services means those categories of commodities and services that are exempt from competitive bidding. These categories are: (a) Advertising in electronic and print media, periodicals and related publications. (b) Fees, including medical fees and physician fees. (c) Freight and storage charges and demurrage. (d) Licenses. (e) Maintenance on office machines and technical equipment. (f) Membership in professional, trade, and other similar associations. (g) Postage. (h) Taxes. (i) Services of visiting speakers, lecturers, and performing artists, Travel expense items, such as room and board and transportation charges. (k) Utility services or equipment which is defined, recognized, and regulated by the Arkansas Public Service Commission as a monopoly offering. (1) Professional and consultant services except as may be provided elsewhere in this policy. (m) Published books, manuals, maps, periodicals, films, tapes, diskettes, technical pamphlets, copyrighted material, informational and educational resource material, and other educational program support material when appropriately designated. (n) Items, components, or parts that would otherwise be compatible or cause incompatibility when used with or added to an existing set or system. (j )Little Rock School District Procurement Policy Page 5 ( 14) Grant means the furnishing of assistance, public or private, whether financial or otherwise, to any person to support a program authorized by the Board of Directors. It does not include an award whose primary purpose is to procure an end product, whether in the form of supplies, services. or construction\na contract resulting from uch an award is not a grant but a procurement contract. (15) May denotes the permissive. (16) Person means any business, individual, union, committee, club, other organization, or group of individuals. (17) leasing, Procurement means buying, purchasing, renting. construction. or otherwise acquiring any commodities, services, or It also includes all functions that pertain to the obtaining of any commodity, service, or construction, including description of requirements, selection and solicitation of sources, preparation and award of contract, and all phases of contract administration. (18 ) Procurement official or purchasing official means the person duly authorized to enter into and administer contracts and make written determinations with respect thereto. The term also includes an authorized representative acting within the limits of authority. (19) Regulation means the administrative instructions developed to interpret and define applicable policy, and prescribe the requirements, procedures, and practices necessary to implement that policy. (20) Services means the furnishing of labor, time, or effort by a contractor, not involving the delivery of a specific end product other than reports, which are merely incidental to the required performance. This term includes professional and personal services, but does not include employment agreements or collective bargaining agreements. ( 21) Shall means the imperative. ( 22 ) State Contract means a contract for the procurement of commodities or services awarded and administered by the State of Arkansas. ( 23 ) Surplus commodities means any commodities no longer having any use to the District. This includes obsolete supplies, scrap materials, and nonexpendable supplies and equipment that have completed their useful life cycle.Little Rock School District Procurement Policy Page 6 (24) Suspension means the disqualification of a person or business to receive invitations for bids or requests for proposals or requests for quote the or the award of a contract by District, for a temporary period pending the completion of an investigation, or during any legal proceedings that may ensue because a person is suspected upon probable cause of engaging in criminal, fraudulent. or improper conduct or failure or inadequacy of performance which may lead to debarment.Little Rock School District Procurement Policy Page 7 SECTION 2 AUTHORITY AND DUTIES OF THE PROCUREMENT OFFICE 2-101 Designated Purchasing and Contracting Official: The designated legal purchasing agent for the Little Rock School District is the Director of Purchasing, This appointment is in accordance with Title 6, Chapter 21, Subchapter 3 of the Arkansas Code of 1987 Annotated. 2-102 Purchasing Director's Authority: Except as otherwise expressly provided in this policy, the authority of the Purchasing Director encompasses procurement of all commodities, services, and construction on behalf of the Little Rock School District, regardless of the source of funding. 2-103 Responsibilities of the Purchasing Director: The Director of Purchasing is the primary responsible official and shall possess the express authority and jurisdiction in matters pertaining to: (1) The procurement and supervision of procurement of all commodities, by the District, services, and construction needed (2) The supervision, management and control over all inventories of commodities belonging to the District, regardless of the method or source of acquisition. (3) The management and supervision of the distribution, disposition, disposal and inventory control procedures of the District's fixed assets (personal property). (4) Management responsibility for the operation of the District's Central Supply Center and such warehouses and storerooms as may be established for the storage and distribution of materials and supplies. (5) The selection, qualification and disqualification of vendors, suppliers, and contractors. (6) Establishment, management and control of programs for the development of specifications, quality standards, inspection, testing and acceptance of commodities and services. (7 ) Recommendations to the Superintendent and the Board of Directors, on policies pertaining to procurement functions of the Little Rock School District.Little Rock School District Procurement Policy Page 8 ( 8 ) The promulgation, dissemination, and enforcement of rules, regulations, and procedures related to procurement, materials management and construction, as long as these are not inconsistent with applicable federal, state, or Little Rock School District Soard statutes or policies. 2-104 Authority to Delegate: The Director of Purchasing shall have the authority to delegate certain procurement functions and responsibilities as required to enhance effectiveness and economy, and convene such committees or advisory councils as may be necessary to accomplish procurement activities. The Director shall retain oversight and general management authority in instances where purchasing activities have been delegated. 2-105 Coordination: The Director of Purchasing shall coordinate with using schools and departments as needed in the development of requirements and specifications. Users will provide specifications when technical or non-standard factors are involved or a less special knowledge or skills are needed. 2-106 Unauthorized Purchases: Except as provided herein, it shall be unlawful for any District official or employee to order or initiate purchase of any commodities, services, or construction, or make any contract or agreement within the provisions of this policy other than through the Purchasing Department, and the District shall not be obligated for any purchase or contract made contrary to these provisions. 2-107 Procurement Violations: The Director of Purchasing shall have investigative responsibility involving alleged violations and make recommendations to the Superintendent in those instances of actual violations of procurement statutes as prescribed by Act 724 of 1991, the Local Fiscal Management Responsibility Act. IILITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 810 WEST MARKHAM STREET LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS I February 13, 1989 TO: Board of Direct 3 FROM: Dr. Ernest f. Associate Superintende Charles Neal, Director of Purchasing ident /f' or Business Administration THROUGH: SUBJECT: Dr. George D. Cannon, Superintendent of Schools Report on Bid Requirements and Purchasing Procedures Attached are copies of purchasing and bidding procedures currently in practice. The format follows that which was developed during the 1983-84 effort to publish the Administrative Procedures Manual. The Purchasing Department is presently working on a project to rewrite and consolidate the functions and responsibilities of the Purchasing Department along with the rules, regulations. and procedures associated with those functions. The product will be a procedures manual patterned after the Model Procurement Code for State and Local Governments. This is a major rewrittlng task but the results will be a more comprehensive procurement procedures manual. We're projecting completion in August.laaa ,1 nil 0 /fcf BASIC: PUBLIC PURCHASING \u0026amp; MATERIALS MANAGEMENT Most of these Acts are covered in FM 74-7, Attachment _______ , 0  All purchasers must be fully aware of and comply with these laws. MODEL PURCHASING CODES AND ORDINANCES The laws under which public purchasing must operate vary from state to state as within each state. well as among municipal entities These variations can and do create confusion for vendors and, in some cases, may not provide or the best purchasing practices. Many laws and ordinances are not specific as to the responsibility for the purchasing I but speak only to some of the legal requirements. practices, es. The National Institute of Municipal Law Officers \u0026lt;NIMLO) and the American Bar Association (ABA) have attempted to structure model purchasing ordinances. Both, organizations have agreed that centralization of purchasing authority is far superior to fragmented authority xa xar superior to iragmented authority, and that the installation of sound purchasing methods, including centraliza- tion, will result in savings to the municipalities. NIMLO Ordinance. , _ ______________ This model purchasing ordinance National Institute of Municipal Law Officers in cooperation with the National Institute of Governmental Pi^chasing to assist any states or municipalities in their adoption of a centralized purchasing policy ordinance. or -^A Code. The American Bar Association is now coordinating the development of a model procurement code for state and local governments. The Association has worked extensively with NIGP and the National Association of State Pj^chasing Officials (NASPO). They have also worked with the National Purchasing Institute (NPI), as well as with the private sector, including the National Association of Purchasing Management (NAPM). The suggested code is still in workingpaper form, but when completed it should provide for unifomnity among public purchasing jurisdictions, just as the Uniform Commercial Code has provided the business world with uniformity. is governments. They have also worked with as well as with The suggested code is still J The proposed Code is intended to provide statutory controls and appropriate limitations of a fundamental nature public. The Code will contain only necessary details so as to establish a practical structure which motes good purchasing practices. to protect the public. 16 statutory - pro- The new Code should permit \"I I 2 8 8 1 1 '1 -4 1 JINTRODUCTION This Model Procurement Ordinance for Local Governments is designed to provide a small unit of local goverrunent with (1) policy guidance and statutory language for managing and controlling its procurement of supplies, services, and construction for public purposes, (2) guidance for 1 itracts, and (3) 2 set iC CO! tile administrative arid judicial resolution of controversies relating to of ethical standards governing public cind private participants in the procurement process. The Model Procurement Ordinance is essentially a condensation of the ABA Model Procurement Code I for State and Local Governments, tailored for consideration and use by smaller units of local government. The Model Procurement Ordinance was drafted by the American Bar Association Coordinating Committee on a Model Procurement Code for State and Local Governments, a joint committee of the ABA Section of Public Contract Law and the ABA Section of Urban, State, and Local Government Law. The Ordinance was developed by the Coordinating Committee with the active cooperation and financial support of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). To help ensure that the Model Procurement Ordinance would be practical for use by small local jurisdictions, the Coordinating Committee established a Purchasing Officials Review Group whose members were appointed by the National Institute of Governmental Purchasing (NIGP), a key member of the Coordinating Committee's Advisory Board. NIGP, and many of its members, had actively participated in the drafting and review of the ABA Model Procurement Code for State and Local Governments and the Code's Recommended Regulations. f- Procurement Under Federal Assistance and Certification I Attachment O to Office of Management and Budget (OMB) Circular A-102 (Uniform Ad- ministrative Requirements for Grants-In-Aid to States and Local Governments\nProcurement Standards) sets forth procurement standards that govern public purchases made by states and local governments using most federzil assistance funds. The Model Procurement Ordinance is designed to provide a small local government with a sound, workable, and consolidated public purchasing idards. Although the Ordinance was developed with the system that meets those federal assistance of EPA, it is also aa^ \u0026gt;le to procurements made using federal funds awarded under grants or cooperative agreements from other federal agencies. Pursuant to Attachment O, many of the major federal grantor agencies have established programs for the certification of the procurement systems used by their state and local government grantees. Since the Model Procurement Ordinance was designed to meet Attachment O standards, it should be an especially helphJ tool to those units of local government that choose to participate in such procurement system certification programs. Drafting Concepts The ABA Model Procurement Code for State and Local Governments has proven readily useful to a jurisdiction with a large procurement responsibility and a substantial procurement organization available to manage the public purchasing function. It could be readily adapted for use by most states, major cities, large urban counties, and other large public entities. The Code's adaptation for use by smaller public bodies, however, proved to require substantial modification. To meet this challenge, the Coordinating Committee undertook the drafting of the Model Procurement Ordinance for Local Governments. The Ordinance is tailored to the more limited procurement responsibilities and limited administrative resources available to most local governments. At the same time, the fundamental principles of good procurement and ethical standards set forth in the Code have been retained, but appear in a \"streamlined\" form. The Ordinance is designed for consideration by small cities and counties, towns, townships, and other small public bodies exercising a public purchasing responsibility. viiAN OVERVIEW OF THE ORDINANCE General Provisions Article 1 states the general purposes of the Ordiriance, and contains definitions of terms used in the Ordirumce.  1 Office of the Purchasing Agent Article 2 suggests the basic organizational structure for managing and conducting public purchasing on a centralized basis. At the same time, the Article gives clear recognition to the benefits of specific delegations of appropriate authority to other professionals available within the local government. Source Selection and Contract Formation Article 3 establishes competitive sealed bidding as the preferred method of contracting, but also authorizes the use of other source selection methods in appropriate, specified situations. The other source selection methods are competitive sealed proposals, a competitive selection procedure for designated types of professional services, simplified procedures for making small purchases, and strict requirements relating to sole source procurements and emergency procurements. The Article states the requirements for contracting by each method. Contracts not awarded by competitive sealed bidding generally require a written justification, which becomes a matter of public record. The Article also provides for cancellation of solicitations, the correction or withdrawal of bids, and the cancellation of awards. The Article provides for determinations relating to the responsibility of prospective contractors, and provides authority to require bid and performance bonds. It also requires the submission of cost or pricing data, and conducting of a price analysis or a cost analysis, for contracts awarded without adequate price competition and for contract price adjustments. The Article authorizes the use of the type of contract most appropriate to the procurement, although it retains a preference for fixed-price contracts and prohibits cost-plus-a-percentage-of-cost contracts. It also permits, and regulates, the use of both multi-year contracts and the technique of multiple source contracting. Finally, Article 3 also specifies requirements for effective contract administration, and for the reporting of anticompetitive practices. 5 1 ! ! I ! I 5 I I I ! Specifications Article 4 requires that specifications be written in a manner that maximizes competition. In particular, it regulates the use of brand name specifications to encourage competition. Procurement of Construction, Architect-Engineer and Land Surveying Services Article 5 covers special aspects of coristruction procurement, including the selection of the appropriate method of construction management, and the use of bid, performance and payment bonds. It also provides a procediue for the competitive award of contracts for architect-engineer and land surveying services in lieu of techniques provided in Article 3. Debarment or Suspension Article 6 contains procedures for making debarment or suspension determinations. 'i it ix I I rI' i I' The Model Procurement Ordinance, like the ABA Model Procurement Code from which it is derived, was developed as a ' mode!' rather than a \"uniform\" legislative proposal in recognition of the substanKal differences among local governments in terms of both governmental orgrini: hon and legal authority to prescribe their own procurement systems. Therefore, the focus of the Model Procurement Ordinance is on the policies and procedures necessary for a modem and cost-effective public purchasing system that is fair and open to public scrutiny. 'The Cnordinating Committee ere courages thoughtful modification to meet local needs, but calls to the attention of those responsible for adapting the Model Procurement Ordinance the process through which its recommendations were developed. Drafting and Review Process The Model Procurement Ordinance for Local Governments was developed during a drafting and review process that spanned more th^ two years. In addition, the Ordinance, as a condensation of the ABA Model Procurement Code for State and Local Governments, had the benefit of the five years of effort that went into drafting the Code and its Recommended Regulations. The initial draft of the proposed Model Procurement Ordinance was prepared by the ABA Model Procurement Code Project staff, under the general guidance of the Coordinating Committee on a Model Procurement Code. Working with Project volunteers and EPA's Task Force on the Model Procurement Ordinance, the proposed Ordinance was refined during the preparation of three internal review drafts. Following a line-by-line review of the last internal review draft, undertaken in conjunction with the EPA Task Force, the Coordinating Committee issued a Public Review Draft of the proposed Model Procurement Ordinance in August of 1981. Almost 3,000 copies of the Public Review Draft were circulated. Comments were actively solicited until the close of the comment period in March of 1982. The Purchasing Officials Review Group and the Coordinating Committee then conducted a line-by-line review of the Public Review Draft in light of the comments received. Following further discussion, a Coordinating Committee's Final Draft was presented to the governing Councils of the cosponsoring ABA Sections in May 1982. Following Council review over the next several months, final approval action on the text of the Model Procurement Ordinance was taken in August during the 1982 Annual Meeting of the American Bar Association. I I I 8 i Drafting Mechanics Commentary has been occasionally inserted to explain the purpose of a particular provision, to provide further amplification of its meaning, or to demonstrate its application in the context of a particular procurement situation. In addition. Commentary may indicate where adjustments may be needed to make a particular provision conform to existing law or regulations. The Ordinance also includes several 'Editorial Notes,\" which provide addibonal assistance to those adapting the Ordinance for use by a particular jurisdiction. Experience indicates that most jurisdictions will not include the Commentary or the Editorial Notes in their ordinances. Bracketed material [ ) indicates matters needing particular attention during the drafting of an ordinance based on the Model Procurement Ordinance. Brackets enclosing a blank require the insertion of language appropriate to that jurisdiction for such things as dollar and time limitations, position descriptions, or references to ^lecific state laws. Suggested language in brackets indicates that the jurisdiction may want to make changes in light of its own experience and circumstances, or because other local requirements may be applicable. Two bracketed phrases appearing side by side usually indicate that one should be inserted and the other deleted. I' viiir' I Cost Principles fl I. Article 7 has been rcscr/cd. Should an enacting jurisdiction wish to iriclude in its ordinarice a comprehensive set of contract cost principles, the text of Chapter 7, Cost Principles, of the Recommended Regulations to the ABA Model fh-ocurement Code for State and Local Governments may be considered. Supply Management Article 8 has been reserved. Should an enacting jurisdiction wish to include in its ordinance the coverage of such topics as quality control, inventory management, excess property transfer, and the disposition of surplus property, the text of Chapter 8, Supply Management, of the Recommended Regulations to the ABA Model Procurement Code for State and Local Governments may be considered. 5 Appeals and Remedies 1 Article 9 suggests mechanisms for the resolution of disputes arising from the solicitation and award of procurement contracts, bid protests, and contract performance claims. In addition, this Article provides procedures for handling contracts awarded in violation of law. ! Cooperative Purchasing I ! Article 10 has been reserved. Cooperative purchasing and joint-use arrangements among units of local government or with the state have proved to be cost-effective management tools. However, given the broad array of potential users of the Model Fh-ocurement Ordinance, and the various state law limitations on their authority to enter into such intergovernmental agreements, it was not possible to address effectively this important subject. Should an enacting jurisdiction be able to include in its ordinance coverage of agreements for cooperative purchasing and the joint use of equipment, faciEties and personnel, it may consider Article 10, Intergovernmental Relations, of the ABA Model Procurement Code for State and Local Governments and Chapter 10 of the Code's Recommended Regulations. i I i Assistance to Small and Disadvantaged Businesses Article 11 has been reserved. Provisions to assist small and disadvantaged businesses, and other socio-economic programs implemented through the procurement process, could be inserted in this Article by the enacting jurisdiction. Ethics in Public Contracting Artide 12 contains ethical standards with accompanying sanctions that are appbcable to all participants in the pubEc procurement process. The proposed ethical standards cover conflicts of interest, gratuities and kickbacks, contingent fees, and misuse of confidential information. I'i APPENDIX The Appendix sets forth provisions which address the various socioeconomic and other federal public policy goals implemented through Attachment O (Procurement Standards) to OMB Circular A-102 (Uniform Administrative Requirements for Grants-in-Aid to States and Local Governments). They have been included with the Model Procurement Ordinance as a convenience for any enacting jurisdiction that wants its pubEc purchasing system to address aU the current requirements of Attachment O. They do not constitute the recommendations of the American Bar Association, or of any of its Sections or Committees. XStjlv o (\" 74 th General Assembly HGl OJO UI iJUd Hegiil.ir Session. 1933 1 \"AN ACT TO REQUIRE THE SOLICITING OF BIDS Ir-\"E^ COIIMODITV TO BE 2 PURCHASED BY A SCHOOL DISTRICT zHAS^l^TIgASgJ^PURCtttSESP^ 3 ^7j,T(^f^tH0USAin)\nDOLLARS..ORlM^^^^ AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES. 4 b 6 BE IT ENACTED BY THE GENERAL ASSSIBLY OF THE STATE OF ARKiVNSAS: 7 SECTION 1. Definition. (A) \"Purchasing Official' shall mean the yv. '.'ifcV'. I 29 30 8 9 10 1 1 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Board of Directors of any school district or a of the school district lawfully designated agent with authority to contract or behalf of the school district. (B) Commodities make purchases on shall mean all supplies, goods, material. ment, machinery, facilities, personal property equip- , and services, other than personal and professional services, purchased for school district. (C) :ioq^3i3 \"Purchase Price shall mean or on behalf of the the full sale or bid price of without any allowance for trade-in. Purchase shall mean and include not of a commodity but also the acquisition only the outright purchase of commodities agreements or lease-purchase agreements or any o whereby the school district has an option the rental payments on the pu (E) under rentar-purchase ther type of agreements to buy the rchase price thereof. \"Open Market Purchases by any purchasing official in SECTION 2. shall mean commodity and to apply those purchases of commoditVes which competitive All purchases bidding is not required of commodities by any school district. except those speclflc.lly exempted by Section 3, shell be made as folic' (A) ImeecK. instenccln which .he.esU.eted.:POPoh,Tp.tlc.hvn oc.exceed.two-thousan4e\u0026lt;ldUe\u0026gt;t= th,e=ood_le\u0026gt;, shell-.be ptocered y except those spccifica soliciCi n^Tds\\ provided that the and may purchase the commodity by negotiating a official may reject all bi\u0026lt;l contract. If the AS SNCROSSCD J/15/81 H.D. 190 1 2 J 4 0 8 9 10 1 I 12 13 14 15 2216 17 18 purchasing official, after rejecting all bids, determines that the purchase shou!-i be mude bij ne j-at lat i'jn then each raspons ible bidder \u0026gt;/ho s-ab.nitte bid shall be notified cf the determination and shall be rjiaen a port uni t \u0026lt;j to rx-^gotiate. f 1-.) Open ilarkei less chan cwo the. (C) Purcli.-isen nay Ik- matle wbev? -anii doll.iis ($2,000). No purciiasin.c\nf. ffiei.al shall p.irccl. or C:  iniic':in!\nc price is n D1 i t witii the intent or purpose to enable the purcha.se restrictive procedure. SECTION 3. to be in.Jde u er a less The hereinafter ii.sted commodities may be purchased without soliciting bids: and unavoidable emergency. (A) Commodities in instances of an unforeseen Provided, that no such emergency purchase shall be approved by the superintendent, unless a statement at cached co Che in writ ?. shall be purchase order describinp. the er.-crgency purcha.s.e of such cot (B) Commnuic (C) n.acess tatinu t n e I I r .otity without competitive bidding. s available onlv from the feder.al government' Ocilicy services, Ji'\n- by.  state '26 21 '22 23 24 25 6 27 28 29 30 31 che. races lor which re subject co reguiaiion e-.'.cy or a federal regulatory agency.' (D) lise.d '.nt and ~ac.hinere. 1 I I i I I SECTION 4.,The board of Directors of each school district shall p.c-- scribe che method oi soliciting bids by regulation and may adopt other rules and regulations governing the procurement of co.mmodiCies. SECTION 5. A violation of the provisions of this Act shall be a Class C misdemeanor. SECTION 6. hereby repealed. Ail laws and parts of laws in conflict with this Act ar 3? 32 33APPROVED V nGnOvVFERRNN.OTRR /s/ Dobby Tullis -7- i. State of Arkansas 75th General Assembly Regular Session, 1985 A Bill HOUSE BILL 725 By: Representative Doramus For An Act To Be Entitled 1 2 \"AN ACT TO AMEND SECTION 3 OF ACT 639 OF 1983 [ARK. STATS. 80-553] TO PERMIT SCHOOL DISTRICTS TO MAKE PURCHASES OF COM-available only from a single source without solicit7 3 9 ation OF BIDS\nAND FOR OTHER PURPOSES.\" BE IT ENACTED BY THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY OF THE STATE OF ARKANSAS: SECTION 1. Section 3 of Act 639 of 1983, the same being Section 80-553 of the Arkansas Statutes, is hereby amended to read as follows: 10 \"Section 3. The hereinafter listed commodities may be purchased without 1 1 12 soliciting bids: (A) Commodities in instances of an unforeseen and unavoidable emergency. n 1 13 Provided, that no such emergency purchase shall be approved by the superlnten- 14 15 15 17 16 dent, unless a statement in writing shall be attached to the purchase order describing the emergency necessitating the purchase of such commodity without competitive bidding. (B) Commodities available only from the federal government. (C) Utility services, the rates for which are subject by regulation by 19 state agency or a federal regulatory agency. (D) Used equipment and machinery. ^Z^E) Commodities available only from a single source. Provided, that the 23 24 purchasing official determines in writing that it is not practicable to us\u0026amp; other than the required or designated commodity or service and a copy of tlr statement is attached to the purchase order.\" 26 27 25 SECTION 2. All laws and parts of laws in conflict herewith are hereb 28 29 30 repealed. 'PROVED BY\nGOVERNOR ? I I A 1 : ( lsbl28 State of Arkansas 76th General Assembly Regular Session, 1987 By: Representative Flanagin ACT 65 1987 A Bill HOUSE BILL 1 fl?-'' 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 For An Act To Be Entiiied AN ACT TO AMEND SECTION 2 OF ACT 639 OF 1983 [ARK. STAT. 80-552] TO REQUIRE SCHOOL DISTRICTS TO SOLICIT BIDS FOR PURCHASES OF AT LEAST $5,000.00\nAND FOR OTHER PURPOSES.\" BE IT ENACTED BY THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY OF THE STATE OF ARKANSAS: SECTION 1. Section 2 of Act 639 of 1983, the same being Arkansas Statute 80-552, is hereby amended to read as follows: Section 2. All purchases of commodities by any school district, those specifically exempted by Section 3, shall be made except as follows: 11 12 (A) In each instance in which the estimated purchase price shall equal or exceed five thousand dollars ($5,000) the commodity shall be procured by ( S r S 13 soliciting bids. 14 Provided that the purchasing official may reject all blds and may purchase the commodity by negotiating a contract. If the purchasing 15 official, after rejecting all blds, determines that the purchase should be 16 made by negotiation then each responsible bidder who submitted a bid shall 17 18 19- 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 be notified of the determination and shall be given a reasonable opportunity to negotiate. (B) Open Market Purchases* may be made where the purchase price is less than five thousand dollars ($5,000). (C) No purchasing official shall parcel or split any item or items. with the intent or purpose to enable the purchase to be made under a less restrictive procedure. SECTION 2. hereby repealed. All laws and parts of laws in conflict with this Act are -16- .\"'PROVED BY bbkl31 GOVERHOR 1 2 3 : 4 5 6 7 S 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 IB 19 20 21 tl 23 24 25 26 27 23 29 30M O tn 2 \u0026gt; 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 .. 20 21 22 23 24 25 ... 26 .. 27  28 29 30 31 32 33 34 Stale of Arkansas _ 78ih General Assembly Regular Session, 1991 ACT 7 24 1991 A Bill B}\nReprcseata'j.'es Stephens, McCuision, and McJunkin For An Act To Be Entitled HOUSE BILL 1807 \"AH ACT TO PROVIDE CIVIL PENALTIES FOR VIOLATING CERTAIN ARKANSAS LAWS RELATING TO FISCAL RESPONSIBILITY AND MANAGEMENT OF COUNTIES, MUNICIPALITIES AND SCHOOL DISTRICTS\nAND FOR OTHER PURPOSES.\" BE IT ENACTED BY THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY OF THE STATE OF ARKANSAS\nSECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. This Act may be known and cited as the \"Local Fiscal Management Responsibility Act\". SECTION 2. provides: DEFINITIONS. As used in this Act, unless the Act otherwise \"Public officer or employee\" means any officer or employee of a county, municipality, or school district located in the State of Arkaxisas{ XTb) \"Fiscal responsibility and management lavs\" means the following laws, as amended, and as applicable to the following subdivisions: (1) Counties: (A) (B) (C) (D) (E) (E) Revision of County Government, Amendment 55 of the Arkansas Constitution\nCounty Record Retention, Title 13, Chapter 10 of the Arkansas Coda Annotated\nCounty Legislative Procedures, Title 14, Chapter 14, Subchapter 9 of the Arkansas Code Annotated\nCounty Executive Powers, Title 14, Chapter 14, Subchapter 11 of the Arkansas Cods Annotated\nCounty Persotmal Procedures, Title 14, Chapter 14, Subchapter 12 of the Arkansas Code Annotated\nCounty Officers, Title 14, Chapter 15 of the Arkansas Code Annotated\njmb055 1 1 / 1 (G) HB 2 3 (H) 4 5 (I) 6 7 (J) 8 9 (K) 10 11 (L) 12 13 (M) 14 15 (N) 16 17 (0) 18 Sale of County Property, Arkansas Coda Annotated SS 14-16- 105 and 14-16-106\nCounty Funds, Title 14, Chapter 21 of the'Arkansas Code Annotated\nCounty Purchasing Procedures, Title 14, Chapter 22 of the Arkansas Code Annotated\nClaims Against Counties, Title 14, Chapter 23 of the Arkansas Coda Annotated\nCounty Warrants, Title 14, Chapter 24 of the Arkansas Code Annotated\nArkansas County Accounting Law of 1973, Title 14, Chapter 25 of the Arkansas Code Annotated\nCorrection of Errors on Tax Books, Arkansas Code Annotated 26-28-111\nSettlement - Payment of Taxes, Arkansas Code Annotated 26- 39-201\nand Review of Audit Reports by Legislative Governing Bodies, Act 187 of 1991\n19 (2) Municipalities: 20 (A) 21 22 23 (B) . 24 .. 25 (C) . 26 27 (D) 28 29 (E) 30 31 (F) 32 cn 5 9 33 (G) rt- ''34 3 g M M 2 \u0026gt; 9 35 (H) Prohibited Actions by Municipal Council Members or Municipal Officials and Employees, Arkansas Coda Annotated $$ 14-42- 107 and 14-42-108\nPowers and Duties of Municipal Officers Generally, Title 14, Chapter 43, Subchapter 5 of the Arkansas Code Aiwotated\nPurchase, Lease and Sale of Real and Personal Property, Arkansas Code Annotated S 14-54-302\nCities of First Class Generally, Title 14, Chapter 58 of the Arkansas Code Annotated\nMunicipal Accounting Law of 1973, Title 14, Chapter 59 of the Arkansas Code Annotated\nMunicipal Water and Sever Department Accounting Law, Title 14, Chapter 237 of the Arkansas Coda Annotated\nArkansas Municipal Courts, Police Courts, City Courts, And Justice of the Peace Courts Accounting Law, Title 16, Chapter 10, Subchaptar 2 of the Arkansas Coda Annotated\nand'\\ Review of Audit Reports by Legislative Governing Bodies, Act J 1 jmb0551 187 of 1991} HB 2 (3) Schools: 3 (A) 5 (B) 6 7 (C) 8 9 (D) 10 11 12 13 /o3o /I ^7 (F) School Disbursing Officer, Arkansas Coda Annotated 6-13- 613\nSchool District Treasurer, Title 6, Chapter 13, Subchapter 7 of the Arkansas Code Annotated\nArkansas Teachers Salary Law, Title 6, Chapter 17, Subchapter 9 of the Arkansas Coda Annotated\nSchool Finance Acts, Title 6, Chapter 20 of the Arkansas Code Annotated\nSchools Acquisition of Commodities, Title 6, Chapter 21, Subchapter 3 of the Arkansas Code Annotated\nand Review of Audit Reports by Boards, Act 4 of 1991\n14 (4) The following laws are applicable to some or all of the political 15 subdivisions: 16 5 17  18 (A) (B)  19 20 ' 21 (C) 22 23 (D) . 24  25 (E) 26  27 28 (F) (G) 29 6 O M cn W 2 \u0026gt; a 30 31 32 (H) (I) (J) Limitation on Legislative and Taxing Power, Article 12, Section 4 of the Arkansas Constitution\nPolitical Subdivisions Kot to Become Stockholders in or Lend Credit to Private Corporations, Article 12, Section 5 of the Arkansas Constitution\nLending Credit, Article 16, Section 1 of the Arkansas Constitution\nLevy and Appropriation of Taxes, Article 16, Section 11 of the Arkansas Constitution\nLocal Capital Improveaient Bonds, Amendment 62 of the Arkansas Constitution\nRevenue Bonds, Amendment 65 of the Arkansas Constitution\nClerks of Courts, Collection and Settlement, Additional Fees, Investment of Moneys held in trust, Arkansas Code Annotated 5516-20-106, 16-20-107, and 16-20-108\nDepositories for Public Funds, Title 19, Chapter 8 of the Arkansas Code Annotated\nPublic Worrks, Title 22, Chapter 9 of the Arkansas Code Annotated\nand Local Fiscal Management Responsibility Act\nIi) (c) \"Political Subdivieion\" means any county, tnunicipality, or school 35 V 36 3 jmbO55 HB 1 district of the State of Arkansas\n2 ^(d) \"Executive Officer\" means the following for the applicable 3 political subdivisions: 10 11 1) (e) ?qt: sxsctiCivs officsT** is tHs supGirintsndenw of the school or the director of the educational cooperative\nFor municipalities, an \"executive officer\" is the mayor, city manager, or city administrator\nFor counties, an \"executive officer\" is the elected official exercising administrative control over a particular county employee\nand \"Knowingly\" means that a person is aware or should have been aware 4 5 6 7 8 9 W 12 that his conduct will violate the fiscal responsibility and management laws. 13 14 SECTION 3. COMPLIANCE WITH FISCAL RESPONSIBILITY AND MANAGEMENT LAWS. 15 16 All public officers and employees shall comply with the provisions of the fiscal management and responsibility laws contained in this Act. 17 18 SECTION 4. INVESTIGATION BY EXECUTIVE OFFICER. Upon discovery or 19 20 21 notification of an alleged violation of the fiscal responsibility and management laws, the executive officer of the political subdivision shall investigate such allegations and take appropriate administrative action. 22 23 SECTION 5. DOCUMENTATION OF VIOLATION. After completing the . 24 . 25 . 26 . 27 28 investigation, if the executive officer of the political subdivision determines that one or oxsre of the fiscal responsibility and management laws have been violated, the facts and circumstances relating to a violation and any corrective or remedial action shall be documented and placed in the personnel files of the public officer or employee involved in the violation. 29 30 SECTION 6. NOTIFICATION OF VIOLATION. The executive officer of the 11  31 political subdivision shall notify the public officer or employee of its A x) 12 findings and any corrective or remedial action to be taken. Notification 33 O M 3\" O tn co M 2 \u0026gt; a shall be made in a manner ensuring actual notice to the public officer or en^loyeo. The public officer or employee shall be notified that the failure to make corrective or remedial action within thirty(30) days after the date of notification creates the rebuttable presuinptlon that the violation was 35 4 jmbO55 1 committed knowingly. HB 2 3 SECTION 7. REBUTTABLE PRESUMPTION. The public officer or employee 4 5 6 violating a fiscal responsibility and management law shall ba given not more than thirty (30) days from the date of notification to effect corrective or remedial action recommended by the executive director of the political 7 suhdiviaion. Failure to make corrective or remedial action within thirty (30) 8 9 days after notification createa the rebuttable presumption that the violation was committed knowingly. 10 11 SECTION 8. REFERRAL TO PROSECUTING ATTORNEY, (a) If the executive 12 officer determines that there has been a violation of the fiscal 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 responsibility and management laws, the executive officer may request the appropriate prosecuting attorney to conduct an Investigation regarding the violation(s). (b) The Legislative Joint Auditing Committee may request the appropriate prosecuting attorney to conduct an investigation regarding violations of the fiscal responsibility and management laws documented in the audit report. (c) The prosecuting attorney shall conduct a timely investigation into 21 all matters referred to him under the provisions of thia Act. If the 22 23 .24 25 prosecuting attorney falls to conduct a timely investigation or file a civil suit under the provisions of this Act, the executive officer or the Legislative Joint Auditing Committee may request the Attorney General to conduct an investigation into the violations. .26 -.27\n^28 29 SECTION 9. CIVIL SUIT BY PROSECUTING ATTORNEY. After conducting an 30 I 31 32 investigation Into the alleged violations, the appropriate prosecuting attorney or the Attorney General may file a civil suit In Circuit Court against the public offlcer(s) or employee(s) alleged to have violated the fiscal responsibility and management laws. Venue shall be in the county where the political subdivision Is located. I 3 to 2 tn M 2 \u0026gt; a 33 SECTION 10. CIVIL PENALTY. If the public officer or employee la found 35 by the Court to have knowingly violated the provialona of the fiscal responsibility and management laws, the Court shall Impose a civil penalty 5 jmbO55 '/i HB V 13 C' 44- \u0026gt; O n CO \u0026gt; 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 '18 19  20 21 22 23\n24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 12 33 .34 ye upon the public officer or employee of not less than one hundred dollars ($100), nor more than one thousand dollars ($1,000) for each violation, and may subject the public officer or employee to the payment of damages resulting as a direct consequence of any violation. SECTION 11. RECOVERY OF COSTS. If the public officer or employee is found by the Court to have knowingly violated the provisions of the fiscal responsibility and management laws, the prosecuting attorney or the Attorney General shall be allowed to recover costs and attorney fees associated with the civil suit from the public officer or employee. Any costs or fees recovered by a prosecuting attorney under this provision shall be deposited into an account administered by the prosecuting attorney and shall be used for expenses of the office. Any costs or fees recovered by the Attorney General under this provision shall be deposited into the State Treasury. SECTION 12. CIVIL PROCEDURES APPLY. All actions and procedures under the provisions of this Act are civil in nature and shall be governed by the appropriate rules, regulations, and laws regarding civil actions and remedies. SECTION 13. EXISTING REMEDIES NOT IMPAIRED. The provisions of this Act are supplemental to any other remedies available by law. In addition, the provisions of this Act do not limit or diminish any civil rights administrative procedures available political subdivision. SECTION 14. or to any public officer or employee or All provisions of this act of a general and permanent nature are amendatory to the Arkansas Code of 1987 Annotated and the Arkansas Code Revision Commission shall incorporate the same in the Code. SECTION 15. If any provision of this act or the application thereof to any person or circumstance is held invalid, such invalidity shall not affect other provisions or applications of the act which can be given affect without the invalid provision or application, and to this end the provisions of this act are declared to ba severable. SECTION 16. hereby repealed. All laws and parts of laws in conflict with this act are tn r PROVED ( I -A 3 - governor inibOS? 1 LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT EPS CODE: DI FISCAL ACCOUNTING AND REPORTING The district accounting system will provide an accurate record of financial tmraen saaiscitniocns . acRuueucoiiurdnsi y will be nse..t. upK and ma in4t. ai7n edJ on a kbaaes4ics consistent with the accounting system detailed in the Accounting Manual for Local __ School District of Arkansas. riifli. In keeping with Board Policy, accounting will be bandied P-PtV^o^tnthaa.^t .nthee Board may receive monthly reports fr,o,m,, ,t,heer s .\u0026gt; Si. Superintendent on 4,.,^. --------------- -  - - , of funds as needed, and make investments of surplus funds. Cr. ixa js SSS .Vr .1 'X :*i The following purposes must be satisfied by the accounting system: . 1. 2 Administrative Control: The financial records must be adequate to guide the making or deferring of purchases, the expanding or curtailing of programs, and the controlling of expenses. Current data should\nbe c immediately available and in such form that periodic suntnarie^ may be,.I^^^^ readily made from the data. Budget Preparation: The financial records must be ad^uate-fd?serY^iAtgj^^ a guide to budget estimates of subsequent years, and to hold expenditure^ to the amounts appropriated. Accounts are to be kept for each item for.--/\" which separate budget estimates must be made. An adequate code of^expep^ diture accounts will be used. *. 1* \u0026gt; .'.tk/ 4\u0026lt;. '-'TT.^nZJZJX^laCKlUam  \u0026lt;- ................-i. a.-' Accounting for Stewardship: The financial records of the district\nntsra adequate to show that those .in charge have handled funds within the frame  work of law and in accordance with Board policy. The districts financial records will provide the following information 1. 2. I V3. 4. 5. e  -  ' A--- y . For each account in the districts budget: the appropriation, expenditures\nencimbrances, and unencumbered balance.   For each purchase order\nthe name of vendor, description of the item -a involved, the amounts, the call for bids if required, and an abstract:\nof the bids received. , For each purchase\nthe purchase order information above, plus the record, of receipt and condition of goods, the invoice and the record of payment For each income account\nthe budget estimate, the estimates as revised periodically, the receipts to date, and the balance anticipated. Income received under the-abatement procedure will be debited to the appropriate previously expended account. Legal Reference: Arkansas School Laws\n80-524, Act 384 of 1977, Section 7. Act 111 of 1979.  f  '5 I t U s A. B. C. D. E. LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT INTRA-SCHOOL FUNDS EPS CODE: DIA Depository Intra-school or activity funds shall be deposited in a single bank account at the bank selected for District funds. Source of Funds Funds to be deposited in these accounts are those derived from school organization activities, athletic events, school concessions, bookstore operation, and authorized fund raising drives. Record and Management Procedures Record keeping and management procedures to be followed in handling of these funds shall be prescribed by administrative directive. Purchasing . Purchase shall be in accordance with district purchasing policies and defined by administrative directive referenced above. Responsibility *  ' The fund manager shall be responsible for the proper management of  these funds. He/she shall sign all requisitions/purchase orders or related transaction documents that initiate or result in disbursement of activity funds. The Director of Financial Accounting Services shall be responsible for ensuring that activity fund transactions conform to appropriate policies and procedures and are accounted for properly. f Adopted: 12-17-811 '4' 5 i '/\u0026gt; ' LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT  \u0026gt; f-,r\u0026gt;, 'S .^EPS CODE^ : DJ I? ''r * f R 'y\\-. vc'* \u0026gt; I purchasing\n4 J/jiSS ,T !r ''O'T\nThe function of purchasing Is to serve, the' eHucaildhal pro^^^ K the necessary supplies, equipment, and services IX\nV 4 The Board I\nn_t_e_n_d__s to ,purchase competitively without prejudice.\nand. to/seek maximum educational value for every dollar expended ,1. 0^ be^entril 1 ze\u0026lt;\n^1n ? lAhe acquisition of supplies, equipment, and services w^Vbe^ceri^^ J rhe Purchasing PepartmentHwhich functions under the supervision of, the.Ex- Officio Financial Secretary, and through whose office all purchasing-\ntransaction '^are conducted. he acquisition of supplies, equipment, and services will the Ex-Officio Financial Secretary the responsibility for The prime guidelines governing_ The Board assigns the quality and quantity of. purchases made. ...- r. \n-  -- -jf tthhiiss rreessppoonnssiibbiilliittyy aarree tthhaatt aallll ppuurrcchhaasseess ftaailll wwiittmhinn txhnee fTrraammeewwuor r/,Of\n'-pZ budgetary limitations and be consistent with the approved educational- goals and programs of the district.. 'p'. i Adopted: 12-17-81 -V' .A 4 i j a . '4' \u0026gt; f. It?- r -fT ^'.4 'I 1 ' rT : 1  LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT EPS CODE: DJA PURCHASING AUTHORITY the responsibility of the Purchasing Department to make purchases for school use. The Superintendent or his designee, the Director of Purchasing U.ruuyh the Ex-Officio Financial Secretary, is authorized to approve purchases in accordance with budget allocations except when such transactions must be It is through put to bid. D Individual.schools and departments will have no authority to make purchases except as these are approved by the Purchasing Office, 0 . 1 mzA -   Purchasing shall be*made on written order from the Purchasing Office in keeping with properly approved written requisitions. F-\"?* ,only-as\n:provided for by administwtive,directive., , .. ,.... Exceptions may be made X\"' 3\n'P.  Jt- S'' 'F^.j 'acti/sujr.s {A\u0026gt;. 2'^ y-i- 4* ^sjcr\u0026gt;\ncjcr\u0026gt;\u0026lt;oc  e- 75' R I .. Adopted: . 12-17-81 r 'tt- \u0026gt;\u0026gt;: -* \u0026lt;LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT EPS CODE: DJC BIDDING REQUIREMENTS Any item or group of items having an estimated cost of $2,000 or more must Exceptions may be made upon approval uf be purchased by soliciting bids. the Superintendent of Schools or his designee, in cases of bona fide emergencies, single source purchases, and other instances where bidding is not Any item or group of items feasible or required conimodities are exempt. having an estimated cost of less than $2,000 may be purchased as an Open Market Purchase at the discretion of the Director of Purchasing. When bids are solicited, the lowest responsible, responsive bidder meeting specification requirements shall be awarded the order or contract unless (1) all bids are rejected and the purchase negotiated, or (2) bidders have been informed that factors other than price alone, are to be considered in the award of the bid. Sufficient documentation will be maintained to substantiate competitive bid determinations. .'7'9*' LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT A i EPS CODE\nDOF PURCHASING PROCEDURES K Quality/Quanity Control  The Director of ':y The Director of Purchasing, has full authority to question and kind of materials requested and delivered.in order that the best interests of the district may be served. Consolidation of Purchases shall seek to consolidate purchases into such the district within the limits The Director of Purchasing quantities as will result in the lowest cost to of available warehousing. V School^ Books tore \u0026lt;.T terns  . i^^^^tHe^i^Wf^tbe'dlstH to-purchase\nin^quWt/and ^princ^ple iterns handled by'school bookstores.-. ...oto-. the .school bookstores at cost plus a minimum markup ^^^ocaT ^^i^sing%?s .'i . Those'^-1 terns will be sold \"to -^utner^dcwr\n^ u=..na..=M-.r.. ttoi.strict prefer^ to^dwl^ with local sources of _^s'uppTyt\nin\ntOrminimize conmunication and ..shipping problems. Where out- gg??gKS!ro.\u0026gt;ftf.-c'tate'~ve'n aqai nst.-local vendors, the local ...vendor. \"^^r^rqfanl'ed-^the five'percent preference allowed by Arkansas Preference Lai^^.-if. . Requested in writing at the time the bid is submitted. Other^actors being .equal ST is r jr z :52 nrs . bi I Adopted: 12-17-81LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT EPS CODE: DJG .. VENDOR RELATIONS No favoritism will be extended to any vendor. 'Each order will be placed on the basis of quality, price, and delivery\npast services being a factor if all other considerations are equal. No employee or director of the district who has authority or influence over purchasing decisions will be an agent for, or-have any pecuniary or beneficial interest in, or receive any compensation or reward of any kind from any vendor for sale of supplies, materials, equipment, or services. Adopted: 12-17-81LITTLE RCLK SCHOOL DISTRICT EPS CODE: DK DISBURSEMENTS Disbursements shall be made only with appropriate authorization and directly to the vendors, except for petty cash expenses which shall be limited to the minimumnecessary for effective and efficient operation. Documentation (requisitions, purchase orders, evidence of receipt of goods or services, invoices, etc.) to support disbursements shall be retained in active files until after audit has been completed. A list of disbursements for each month shall be submitted for Board approval at the regular meeting the fol lowing month. I I i I Adopted: 12-17-81I i I J I I i I II }I i I 1 I I LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT EPS-CODE: GBI STAFF GIFTS AND SOLICITATIONS ..L No employee of the Little Rock School District or member of\"the Board of Directors of the said district shall accept any gratuity or favor from any supplier, contractor, or person performing personal services for the Little Rock School District. Further, the same policy will apply to any person, partnership, company or any other entity which may reasonably be expected to perform such services, or offer bids orprices for any supplies, construct!on,-or maintenance work to .. be performed for the Little Rock School District. District. or any ye Adopted: A-.? 2-25-82  T- i:\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_1418","title":"\"Reflections on the Little Rock School Case,\" Photocopy","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":["Woods, Henry, 1918-2002","Deere, Beth"],"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","Little Rock School District","Education--Arkansas","Education--Evaluation","Educational law and legislation","Law--History","Segregation--Arkansas--Little Rock","School integration","Legal research--Arkansas"],"dcterms_title":["\"Reflections on the Little Rock School Case,\" Photocopy"],"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/1418"],"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":["73 pages"],"dlg_subject_personal":null,"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":null},{"id":"bcas_bcmss0837_690","title":"Safety and security","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":["1991/2004"],"dcterms_description":null,"dc_format":["application/pdf"],"dcterms_identifier":null,"dcterms_language":["eng"],"dcterms_publisher":["Little Rock, Ark. : Butler Center for Arkansas Studies. Central Arkansas Library System"],"dc_relation":null,"dc_right":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC-EDU/1.0/"],"dcterms_is_part_of":["Office of Desegregation Monitoring records (BC.MSS.08.37)","History of Segregation and Integration of Arkansas's Educational System"],"dcterms_subject":["Little Rock (Ark.)--History--20th century","Little Rock School District","Education--Arkansas","Education--Evaluation","School management and organization","School discipline","School improvement programs"],"dcterms_title":["Safety and security"],"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/690"],"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":["238 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\nIncludes ''Task Force on Safety and Security in the Secondary Schools of Little Rock'' report, ca. 1989\nLRSD - SAFETY \u0026amp; SECURITY (ANNS FILE) (DO NOT SEPERATE)SLIP SHEET FOR REGULAR BOARD MEETING ON FEBRUARY 28, 1991 LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 810 WEST MARKHAM STREET LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS TO\nFebruary 25, 1991 Board of Directors FROM: Ruth c SUBJECT: FEB 2 8 1! Office of Desegregation Monitormg . Steele, Superintendent of Schools SAFETY AND SECURITY PLAN FOR LRSD AND THE CITY OF LITTLE ROCK Based on comments and opinions from, school board members, employees, and patrons, I am recommending that the Little Rock School District form a partnership with the City of Little Rock to develop a master plan for addressing increasing problems of crime, violence, drugs, and gang activity in our community. Elements of the partnership will include the following: 1) A pilot School Resource Officer Program will be implemented in three secondary schools in March, 1991, and will be evaluated no later than the end of the 1991-92 school year. It will be developed in accordance with the proposed agreement between the City and the School District which you have already received. The duties of the resource officer will be as outlined in the job description which you have also received. 2) Assistance will be provided by LRPD in training security personnel employed by the Little Rock School District. In addition, LRSD will provide sensitivity training to LRPD. (Note: Increased security will be provided in all secondary schools not participating in the School Resource Officer Program thereby increasing the need for training assistance,) 3) The Little Rock School District's Biracial Advisory Committee will be asked to evaluate the District's Safety and Security Program no later than at the end of the 1991-92 school year and to file a report for review by the City Board of Directors and the School Board. The Biracial Advisory Committee's report will be used to assist in determining which, if any, changes need to be made prior to the 1992-93 school year. 4) LRPD will provide to the District up to 30 hours of drug dog services with handling by an off-duty policeman (to be paid by the District) following payment by the District of an initial fee not to exceed $5,500. 5) Representatives from LRPD and LRSD will review recommendations from the Safety and Security Task Report which require cooperation between the City, a orce especially the Police Department, and the School District. A report will be given to the Board in April, 1991, concerning which of these recommendations have or have not been implemented and what plans exist, if any, to implement them. This report will include plans and actions by LRPD to address problems that exist outside the school environment and contribute to disciplinary and security problems in the schools .I LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 810 WEST MARKHAM STREET LITTLE ROCK, AR 72201 February 28, 1991 TO: Board of Directors FROM: THROUGH: :hip Jones, Manager of Support Services Ruth S. Steele, Superintendent SUBJECT: Safety and Security Program On January 12, 1989, the Board established a Safety Task Force \"to report to the Board through the Administration to and security at Little Rock School among other things. \"Resource Police Officer Program address safety District secondary schools The Task Force recommended establishing . er Program\" in each secondary school. n a 'X' During the development of the Tri-District Desegregation Plan District proposed a safety .... ' officers. As this plan was refined after Bill Barnhouse, who served on the Task Force, was named director, it became apparent , .  --------- Its safety and security The District could either add safety employees, or it could try a school resource officer program. When the budget was 1990, a sufficient reserve was programmed into the budget to allow for either approach. office with thirty (30) As this plan was refined after Bill that the District was at a crossroads plan. resource Throughout the fall cis' the security When the budget fall. District officials met with representatives City to develop the School Resource Officer Program. Principals were included in three meetings, and their suggestions' comments, and concerns have been used in developing a proposed The principals' sentiment about the contract and job descriptions. program was mixed. Some felt the program had a lot of potential  , . concerned whether a need actually existed for police officer in the buildings. while others The advantages follows: 1. a of the School Resource Officer Program are as I I. The growing problem of violence in the schools is symptomatic The community must begin to develop and strengthen relationships with other agencies in order to solve a social problem that is threatening our students and schools. of a community problem. Board of Directors February 28, 1991 Page 2 2. More of the same may not effect a significant change in the schools. While the additional training for the school security officers has helped this year, we uaimuL quuni-iiy that adding additional security officers will improve total school security. schools. we cannot quantify 3. Having trained, professional police officers in the building will add a higher level of security awareness at the school. 4. The prospect that students will acquire respect for authority is appealing. In programs in other districts that have been In programs in other districts that have been successful, the students have learned to regard the resource officer as a friend. The program jointly developed by the City and the District is intended to instill in students an appreciation of the role of police responsibility in society. The advantages of adding additional security staff are as follows: 1. The District will have absolute control of the security employees. 2. The District will have more flexibility for assigning staff to problem areas and to add and delete resources as needed. 3. ?\u0026gt; There will be no question about the principals' authority and their responsibility to provide a safe learning environment for our students. !-'Vw f We are now at the point of implementing Board policy, presenting this policy issue to you for consideration. and we are ------------------- The issue before us is how the School Board wishes to discharge its duty to\nprovide safe, secure schools for our students and the extent to f which it wishes to enter into a partnership with the City to i address a social problem that threatens the community as well as  the schools. This is clearly a policy question, and we are presenting it to you in that light. I would appreciate your W '^roents to assist me in making a recommendation that supports the collective will of the Board regarding this issue. 3?^ A recommendation will be made during the regular meeting on February 28, 1991. *LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 810 WEST MARKHAM STREET LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS May 23, 1991 SS! '^' TO: Board of Directors OS* o\\ gessJ'- FROM: I^Bill Barnhouse, Director of Safety \u0026amp; Security THROUGH: t-^hip Jones, Manager of Support Services J^Dr. Ruth Steele, Superintendent of Schools SUBJECT: UPDATE ON SAFETY AND SECURITY TASK FORCE RECOMMENDATIONS On January 12, 1989, the Board of Directors established a special Task Force to address safety and security concerns in the Little Rock School District. to the Board at the completion of its work. The Task Force presented 20 recommendations A checklist has been prepared in an effort to identify which recommendations have been implemented at this point. I will discuss the entire report at the Board meeting, including an explanation of recommendations 12 and 20 where no \"X's\" are shown. M-***ar,-* [ ] Implemented 1 . RECOMMENDATIONS [B] Partial Implementation [ C ] Not- Implemented Overhaul of the Discipline Code: A B C A. X X X X B. Adopt tough, clear and progressive discipline statements. Update the Student Rights and Responsibilities Handbook to make it appear more like. 1 . 2 . 3 , serious and business- X X X X X X X X X Comments: B. C. D. E. F. G. Set Recommend no expensive jewelry to be worn to school. Recommend no large sums of money be brought to school. Develop a clear definition of weapons. a tone of progressive discipline. Establish a committee to re-write the discipline code. Add anti-gang statements. Ban Beepers. Re-evaluate due process hearing procedures. 1 . 2 . Remove any appeals from the pupil/counseling division and place in the school division. Appeals for short term suspensions granted only on grounds of due process violation. {Ban Book bags.) 1. and 2. - Principals make on-going reminders through intercom announcements and school bulletins to ask students not to wear expensive and/or carry large amounts of money, recommendations have been suggested to in new handbook for 1991-92. jewelry These be included G. 2. - Administration will support a recommendation unless due process procedures have been violated. (Ban Book bags,) Some schools do not allow students to carry book bags. 2. Take a strong, possession of tough and uncompromising position on the use or weapons. A. X X B. Possession of a gun warrants permanent expulsion. Use of any weapon will expulsion. warrant permanent3 . 4 . X c. _x_ X X Take a strong, D. E. F. Possession of any weapon other than a gun will warrant expulsion for a minimum o f one (1 ) yen r. Possession of a weapon facsimile warrants a long term suspension. Prior to returning to the regular school environment from a suspension or expulsion for an offense involving weapon or facsimile, a student a must successfully complete one (1), semester in a Little Rock alternative school. The LRSD will not accept from another school district a student who is on expulsion or suspension as a result of possession or use of a weapon. drugs on school grounds: X X X Comments: tough and uncompromising stand against illegal A. B. C. Establish stronger penalties for drug off enses. Discussions should be held with the federal district attorney to determine the scope of the federal safe school laws, particularly those dealing with a protected zone of 1000 feet around school campuses. The school districts desire for the federal district attorney to prosecute should be emphasized. Purchase a drug dog for district use . 3.A. - At times, students are held out of school when they have been arrested or charged with drug violations. Under the emergency removal clause a student may be removed from school if that students presence poses an immediate danger or may disrupt the schools orderly operation. 3.C. - Two attempts have been made during the school year. The administration worked with county government in an attempt to secure services this attempt failed. A drug dog was one of the features of the Police Resource Officer Program. did not adopt this program. The Board Mr. Neal is now working on a RFP to lease services of a drug dog. Establish an Alternative School: A. X X B. To keep students in the educational system and off the streets. To act as environmeiit. a way back into the regularX X 5 . 6 . 7 . c. D. Establish a review committee of building level administrators/teachers to supervise placement the Alternative School. in and removal from Establish Saturday School in lieu of short term suspension (to offer an alternative learning environment for those who have had discipline problems in the regular setting). (Establish a properly staffed alternative classroom. ) Improve the effectiveness of campus supervisors: X X X X X A. B. C. D. E. Make improvements A. X X X B. X X X C. D. E. Develop a Establish job description. a training program. Have a uniform dress (wind breaker) and I .D. tag to make them easily ident i f i able. Better communications (walkie-talkie). Increase pay. in the Bus system: Better screening and hiring practices for bus drivers. Bus driver training on dealing with student problems. Drivers check bus picture I.D. cards. Bus supervision modeled after the L.A. safe corridors 1. It program. Pay stipends to campus supervisors and teachers to ride back seat of problem buses. (Reduce the number of bus stops. ) Strongly recommend bus runs to reduce Move from 3 to 2 the It window of vulnerability\" for supervisions. (Earliest runs for secondary schools.) Establish a Resource Police Officer Program in each Secondary School: X X X X X X A. B. C. D. E. F. Police presence. Drug abuse programs. Child Abuse. Extra-curricular programs. Probation counseling. G. Officer to be advisor. Inservice for getting legal seen as a friend and staff for procedures in as s i stance.X I (Safe driving programs.) 8 . Develop School Strategy Plans to prevent and deal with crisis si tuations: X A . B. Earthquake (gunman) drill. Reverse fire drill (for getting students back into the safety of the X school building when a crisis arises 9 . X X X X X X Comments: C. D. on the campus or in the neighborhood). Crisis Plans: 1 . 2 . 3 . 4 . Emergency signals. Hostage Crisis. Bomb threat/reality. Grief counseling (training for staff). Frequent Locker checks. 8.B. - This type of drill will be a priority for the 1991-92 school year. Improve school maintenance for security and better climate. A. X X X B. C. D. X X E. X X X X X X F. G. H. X X I . J . Maintain clean building and grounds to make schools an obviously different place than some neighborhoods. Prune shrubbery to allow maximum visibility. Remove all coverings (decorations) on door windows from classrooms and offices to allow better visibility to halls. Make graffiti removal a high priority for local buildings as well as central maintenance office. Install convex mirrors in and It blind corners\". It blind halls II Secure doors so that you may enter only througli the front, yet may exit at any door in case of fire. Post Signs: 1 . 2. 3 . 4 . Directing visitors to register in the office and receive I.D. Announcing the penalty for pass . trespassing(non-trespassing sign, legal distance apart). Giving the Hot Line Number. Weapon violation signs made larger. Make sure all rooms have working intercom. Upgrade exterior ligliting. Purchase a hand Field metal detector for eacli school (to be used in lieu ofX K. X personal searches). Purctiase a camera for each school for photographing and cataloguing graffiti. 10 . Develop n Crime Prevention Strategy: A, X X B. C. X X X X D, E. F. G. X 11. 12 . Crime prevention clubs: Youth Crime Watch (Miami). Crime/Violence/Weapon Prevention Hot Line (New Orleans). Work out a method with the prosecuting attorney where by a school administrator may get a warrant without leaving the school building for a long period of time . All students \u0026amp; staff should have I.D. cards. All cars have numbered parking Small reward for accurate tips weapons ($5-$10) from activity (modeled on New Orleans). Use all available resources to stickers. on funds improve communications between students and school personnel which will cause students to feel comfortable and protected in knowing that their identity will not be revealed or compromised when they provide school authorities with information regarding crimes to be committed on campus. Initiate neighborhood child protection strategy: A. At hours wlien children are X X X X Employ Social f rom 1 . 2 . 3 . Workers A. B. C. 1 school and bus stops: Develop a neighborhood walking to/ tt watch It watch\". Identify on the order of \"safe houses a child \"crime child may run for help. Have police cruising the where a areas. (Identify fewer and safer bus pick up points.) at each school: Worker to begin outreach program by making home and community visits. Work hours to be flexible so that after hours visitations may be made. Social workers are to help prevent neighborhood fights from spilling into the schools.Comments: D. E. F. 13 . 14 . 15 . 16. 17 . Social workers are to help prevent the spread of gangs in Little Rock. Workers are to identify child and neglect. Deal with residual There are no in the district. abuse effects of a crisis. social workers currently employed Case managers in New Futures schools do a number of these tasks in their day-to- day work with students and families. Inservice for employees: X X X Comments: The A. B. C. On improved security techniques. On identifying and combating gang behavior. On self defense and intervention tactics ( f ights, assaults, weapons). (Strategies for women teachers to use in physical confrontations.) Safety and Security Department has worked in a number of schools on crime prevention surveys. Additionally this department has visited churches, counselors, and McClellan Community School to talk about gang problems and identification. Begin a Gang-Violence Prevention Curriculum Program in all schools (K-12). X X A. B. Establish regular, Violence Prevention-model after Boston. Gang Intervention and Prevention-model Portland. planned meetings with a reservoir of community resource agencies to coordinate activities combating child abuse. Little Rock: crime, violence, and the \"gangification 11 of X Comments: X I A. Regular meetings of agencies, church groups (CJOHN), police, and Health department. Meetings have been held with PTA o roups, churches. Little Rock Police Department, COPE, and other groups to coordinate activities. Establish close ties with the media. Establish a Leadership Roundtable for city officials and school officials:X X A. Government leaders (mayor, 18 . I I X X 19 . 20. X B. C. D. E. legislators, judges ) . Chamber of Commerce Pol ice Teacher groups Community groups governor, !_x_L I I The LRSD will establish an office of safety and security. Establish an on-going review committee to monitor the of the implementation of recommendations report: X A. B. results contained in the Small committee (6-8 people) Monitor: 1 . 2 . 3. Security Gang activity Programs and Curricula suggested in the report. The governor and the legislature need to take action: A. Make assault on a school employee serious crime. a more B. C. Possession of a weapon on campus or bus should have a stronger penalty. Upgrade the penalty for possession of drugs/alcohol on a school D. campus. E. Establish strict zoning laws around school campuses. Toughen penalties on adults who cause disruptions on school campuses. Comments: After working with the LRSD Task Force, Mr. Butterfield (National School Safety Center) George was invited to address the Lt. Governors Task Force on Discipline. Mr. Butterfield shared items of concern that were reported in the LRSD report. Additionally, Sam Stueart was invited to address the Lt. Governors committee. testified on the Mr. Stueart Task Force report. same concerns expressed in the Both the Lt. Governor and Governor Clinton asked for and received copies of the report.TO: FROM: SUBJECT: SLIP SHEET FOR REGULAR BOARD MEETING ON AUGUST 22, 1991 LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 810 West Markham Street Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 recejved AUG 2 6 J99I August 21j 1991 Office of Desegregaiicn fenitoring LRSD Board of Directors Dr. Ruth S. Steele, Superintendent of Schools \"Safe Schools\" Plan Attached is a 53-point action plan that references activities in the District that contribute directly or indirectly to the well-being, safety and security of our students. Also, attached are sample copies of letters to parents referred to in Point 26, page 8. \"Safe Schoolsrr 53-Point Action Plan 1991-92 A Report to the Board of Directors Little Rock School District August 22,1991 Following is a fact sheet detailing steps either underway, recently completed or soon to be implemented which contribute toward the improved environment for student well-being and safety in the schools in the Little Rock School District. Actions and decisions are predicated on these premises: -The well-being of the students in this District is a priority given serious attention by every staff member and a responsibility of every staff member. -A strategy of prevention, intervention and remediation will minimize the need for crisis reaction. -No one action will solve the problem, but each action, program or step is supportive of the entire process, leading to comprehensive, long-term results. -Securing the publics confidence in the degree of safety and security provided by the District requires decisive actions and frequent communication about these actions. (Where appropriate, actions listed below include in italics a start or completion date, cost, responsible department and reference number to the relevant recommendation contained in the 1989 Safety \u0026amp; Security Task Force Report.) 1 1. Safety \u0026amp; Security Task Force Review Committee At its next meeting the committee will review and identify needed additions, clarifications or amendments to the 1989 report recommendations. The committee, which meets monthly, held its first meeting in June. Three of its members, plus the LRSD safety and security director, were members of the 1989 task force. Members are teachers, principals, patrons and community representatives. August 1991, Safety and Security, 19. 2. Heightened security awareness associated with opening of school year Summer maintenance, building improvements, new security measures, letters to parents, inservice training and planning and other focuses on safety will elevate the importance of all aspects of the school operation in connection with safety improvements. August 26,1991. 3. Closed door practice Every principal has been mandated to assure that any door that is necessary to secure or control access to every 3 building in the District will remain locked this year except one front door available to the public. Every building in the District was audited this summer and comprehensive repair or replacement of every door or door frame necessary for controlled access will be completed by the end of September. Cost to date for labor and materials is $100,000. Another $70,000 of expense is anticipated. In some buildings this repair or replacement was for outside doors to the buildings and on some buildings, due to building design where classrooms open to the outside, the work involved repair to classroom doors. The $100,000 figure includes $16,000 in parts and 300 to 400 hours of labor already expended and $84,499 for contracts awarded August 20 for repairs at Parkview, Jefferson, Forest Park, Pulaski Heights Junior, Pulaski Heights Elementary and Dunbar. Remaining schools where contracts will be awarded are McClellan, Hall and Wilson. It is estimated that remaining work will account for another 400-500 work hours. Completion by the date set is contingent on hardware availability, because the scope of the project has placed a tremendous demand on suppliers in the Little Rock area. August-September 1991, $170,000, Plant Services, 9. 24. Housing Authority assistance to monitor attendance Officials of the Little Rock Housing Authority and the District will work cooperatively to monitor attendance of students in the District who live in the Highland Park and Hollinsworth Grove projects. The Authority also has agreed to assist with transportation for parents to attend parent-teacher conferences and other school functions, as well as to provide space for after-school study centers. A letter co-signed by a Housing Authority official and the superintendent was sent to parents August 10. Additionally, police have agreed to pick and take to school other truants. August 1991, deputy superintendent. 5. Hotline 9V Students and patrons can notify the District of security concerns. A separate number, 688-3033, has been established. The voice mail box arrangement, which will be monitored every 90 minutes, lets persons telephone and leave their message in response to recorded instructions. It also instructs persons to call another number in case of emergency. A plan to communicate the availability of the service is being developed. Kickoff is set for August 26. August 1991, Safety and Security, Communications Department, 9. 6. Fight Back Insure the Children The District, in cooperation with the City of Little Rock and Blue Cross and Blue Shield of Arkansas is sponsoring a comprehensive drug abuse and alcohol program which will provide insurance for an extensive treatment plan for every child in the District. The contract will be signed August 23. August 1991, Pupil Services. 7. Crisis management plans Each principal, using criteria developed in 1989, will appoint a school-based committee to update individual school emergency plans which prepare for various categories of occurrences including earthquakes, tornadoes, fires, bomb threats or violent incidents. Plans, depending on building design, may include, for example, pre-determined codes and instructions for student and staff movement during an emergency. All school personnel will be familiar with the plan for their school. Copies of the plans are filed with the Security Office. The security director and the assistant superintendent for that school who will review the plans and monitor buildings and personnel for awareness and compliance. October 1,1991, Safety and Security, building principals, 8. 38. Dialogue with law enforcement officials In order to determine and monitor potential problem situations with certain students and with an aim toward either removal of hard-core cases or assistance where warranted, the District has stepped up its interface with local law enforcement agencies. Two units, one dealing with gangs and one that deals with youth investigations (primarily crimes against persons) have been formed by the Little Rock Police Department. Representatives from the units met with principals during the Principals Institute in mid-August. Safety and security staff will monitor and serve as a go-between as needed. August 1991, Safety and Security, 17. 9. Student Rights and Responsibilities Handbook revision The handbooks for the elementary and secondary levels were revised during the summer. Each version clearly defines acceptable standards of student conduct. Each student will receive the book. Elementary teachers are working on classroom strategies or steps for intervention in disciplinary situations that will be used in support of the handbooks during the year. To underscore the need .4 for uniformity in use and to raise the importance of the handbooks in the students eyes, during the first week of school, every elementary teacher in a school will teach the handbook simultaneously for a number of minutes each day. Students will be pre- and post-tested on their understanding. Parents must sign off to acknowledge awareness of rules. Teachers will keep accurate documentation in the grade books to assure due process is followed in disciplinary actions. August 1991, Pupil Services, assistant superintendents, 1. 10. Safety, security component for school improvement plans Principals at Principals Institute in mid-August conducted group (elementary, junior high and senior high) planning for security needs and solutions to use in development of the safety/security component of school improvement plans each school will develop and file by midSeptember. Mid-September 1991, assistant superintendents. 411. Violence prevention, personal safety training for school staff A 45-minute workshop for building staff on violence prevention and personal safety, will be provided on request. Four sessions have been scheduled to date. The session includes suggestions for conduct before and after school and techniques to prevent potentially violent situations from escalating. Reminder bulletin about availability will be mailed. August 20,1991, Safety and Security, 13. 12. New hand-held radios Fifty two-way, hand-held radios to replace old models were purchased during the summer and have been allocated to staff at seven schools. Currently all secondary schools and approximately 12 elementary schools have hand-held radios. August 1991, $10,000, Safety and Security, 5. 13. Secured parking for Quigley Stadium Central High School principal and security staff will provide for parking inside the fence on the practice field and the tennis courts for all football games at Quigley * Stadium during 1991-92. Security officers will patrol the lots. Cost will be $2. Parkers may purchase tickets at the east gate for seating on either side of the field. August 1991, Central High School, Safety and Security. 14. Drug testing program All Transportation Department drivers, aides and mechanics have been tested for the presence of drugs and alcohol pursuant to the policy adopted by the Board of Directors in June (only drivers and aides are mandated for testing\nother transportation employees were tested voluntarily). They were tested for alcohol, cocaine, morphine, barbiturates, marijuana, amphetamines, metham- pheumines and PCP. Testing was conducted by District staff and confirmed by tests administered by the University of Arkansas Medical Center. Three tested positive and are no longer employed by the District Testing is planned again in January. Additionally, each transportation employee is subject to two random drug tests at unannounced times during the year. Probable cause drug screening, begun several years ago, will continue as needed. August 1991, January 1992, ongoing, $20,000, Transportation and Safety and Security, 3. 515. Removal of window coverings Every teacher will remove all coverings from classroom door windows to afford easy view of the classroom. August 26,1991, teachers, building principals. Safety and Security, 9 16. Clean buildings and grounds Ground crews have worked this summer to prune shrubbery to allow maximum visibility, repair broken or cracked glass, repair loose hinges, repair steps and install emergency lighting. Also, $37,000 has been spent to add monitoring security for expansions at six schools. More sites will be added to the monitoring network when construction is completed. Personnel from safety and security, plant services, as well as assistant superintendents, will visit each building during the first semester to recommend further site improvements. July-August 1991, $50,000, Building Services, Safety and Security, assistant superintendents, 9. 17. Reading teacher assigned to Cornerstone Project The District will pay the salary this year for a reading . teacher to tutor participants in the program that serves junior and senior high school students throughout the year from 3:30 until 10 p.m. daily. Students take part in classes offered by the staff and volunteers that focus on drug prevention, career awareness, computer literacy, self- esteem and personal achievement skills. Funding will be from the Districts Compensatory Education Grant. August 1991, associate superintendent for educational programs. 18. Improvements for compensatory education Each of the four restructured junior high schools will have additional math and reading teachers assigned. All other secondary schools will have an additional reading teacher assigned. Proper attention to compensatory needs will contribute toward acquisition of skills. August 1991, associate superintendent for educational programs. 619. Academic Progress Grants Thirty-two areas schools may apply for $25,000 grants which can be used to assist with their improvement plans and which must be targeted at improving student achievement. Parts of approximately 12 applications have been approved. The grant money may be used for extended-day tutorial services, parent involvement activities, more hands-on activities, additional field trips that relate to daily instruction or activities that promote self-esteem. August-October 1991, assistant superintendents, associate superintendent for educational programs. 20. Expanded drug education program An enhanced drug education program will be added this year into health, science and social studies curriculum at the junior high level. August 1991, associate superintendent for educational programs. 21. Relevant staff development activities The District staff development program will offer over 71 mini courses and training courses during the school year that focus on prejudice reduction, classroom management, the Program for Effective Teaching, sensitivity to student needs and the delivery of instruction that provides for more direct and engaged learning experiences that actively involve students in the process. August 1991 - June 1992, associate superintendent for educational programs. 22. Active pursuit of federal grants The District federal programs office will aggressively pursue acquisition of federal monies which the District can use in various programs and approaches to student safety, security, well-being and compensatory education. August 1991-June 1992, Federal Programs. 23. Purchase of drug dog services Each secondary school will be searched at least one time each month by a specially trained dog and its trainer. The dog will search lockers and parking lots. The dog can detect marijuana, cocaine and amphetamines, as well as firearms. All searches will be during school time. Students will not be searched. This is the first time the District will have used a drug dog. September 1991, $14,000, Safety and Security, Safety and Security, 3. 724. School safety drills Each schools must, in addition to the fire drills routinely practiced by schools for years and the more recently added drills for bomb scares, earthquakes and tornadoes, educate students on proper actions to take in the event of a shooting. This includes a reverse fire drill and gunman (bullet) drills. Each principal has been instructed on a drill procedure to follow and will keep written records of these drills. Teachers must carry class rolls with them during drills.Drills will be conducted by the fifth day of each month. Assistant superintendents and Safety and Security will monitor. September 1991, Safety and Security, assistant superintendents, 8. 25. Resource police officer program A meeting at 1:30 p.m. September 3, the superintendent, Little Rock police chief and Little Rock city manager will discuss with secondary principals options related to a police officer resource program. September 3,1991, ongoing, superintendent, 7. 26. Letters to parents of all secondary students Each secondary principal has drafted a letter for parents that will be mailed during the first week to 10 days of school telling them what safety/security improvements have been made over the summer and about additional plans. The letter will be co-signed by the superintendent. September 3, 1991, assistant superintendent for secondary schools. 'll. Student and staff photo identification badges Each high school has requested that badges be provided for all students. Students will be required to carry the badges with them but not to wear them. No junior high school has requested badging this year. Additionally, all LRSD staff NOT based at a school will be badged and required to carry the badge when on school premises. September through November 1991, $25,000, Safety and Security, 10. 828. Crime prevention clubs Each elementary school will implement a club to further students understanding, awareness and cooperation with law enforcement officials and the legal process. Assistant superintendents will monitor progress. September-December 1991, building principals, 10. 29. Survey of public opinion to develop baseline data To assess safety issues and to measure progress in meeting public expectations, a telephone survey of the public, including students, will be conducted. September 1991 and annually, $1,500, Communications Department. 30. Media/crisis communications training Representatives from each school and Central Office administrators who work with news media routinely during the year or during an emergency situation will receive this training. September-October, 1991, Communications Department. 31. School safety profiles A checklist of District criteria reflecting all the areas a school should address annually relative to safety and security will be developed and the status of each school in addressing these will be assessed. The instrument will be useful to target and direct resources and to report to the public status and improvements. January 1992, Safety and Security. 32. Police officers eating lunch in schools LRPD has agreed that police officers on patrol may be invited to have lunch in school cafeterias. To support this partnership, the District will provde the lunches free of charge. A letter will be sent to the chief of police formalizing the proposal. September 1991, School Food Service, 7. 33. Alternative schools at elementary level Three elementary schools will be identified to have an . alternative classroom for the 1991-92 school year. Planning for operational criteria and staffing is underway. Implementation is scheduled for the second nine weeks. November 1991 -January 1992, assistant superintendents for elementary schools, 4. 934. Community gang activity awareness and prevention training Upon request, this four-session training, begun in September 1990, will be presented to church and community groups and at McClellan Community School. Ongoing, Safety and Security, 14. 35. Gang/violence prevention curriculum Current curriculum based on a Boston program in use in the District by teachers and counselors since 1989 will be reviewed and compared with a model used in Portland, Oregon. A recommendation will be made to associate superintendent for educational programs. Curriculum should provide preventive, rather than punitive, alternatives to some of the acting-out behavior that teenagers are prone to display. August 1992, Pupil Services, associate superintendent for educational programs. 36. Liaison with fire and police departments A Safety and Security Department supervisor serves as liaison between the District and these two departments, usually daily contact. Crime prevention surveys and routine calls for help on bus stops are monitored. Fire department inspections and visits are scheduled, also. Ongoing, Safezy and Security 37. Playground safety inspections Each playground will be checked for dangerous situations or needed repair on equipment. Police incident reports are scanned for notices of playground problems. The building principal is notified. Ongoing, Safety and Security, Risk Management, assistant superintendents for elementary schools. 38. Off-duty police protection Protection is provided at all athletic events and other school meetings and functions, based on the type of event, location, size and other factors. Assignment is done cooperatively among the District, LRPD and the Pulaski County Sheriffs Office. Ongoing, Safety and Security. 1039. Building security Each structure in the District (approximately 81) is covered by perimeter, fence, door, glass, motion detection and/or sound detection devices to protect against fire, theft, burglary or break-in. Ongoing, $100,000 annually. Safety and Security, 11. 40. Crime prevention surveys LRPD and/or Little Rock Fire Department personnel, accompanied by District staff, assess safety and security needs of school sites periodically. Ongoing, Safety and Security. 41. Home-school visits District security personnel visit student homes on request from school staff or transport parents to schools for meetings when problems arise. Ongoing, Safety and Security. 42. Use of National School Safety Center consultant The National School Safety Center cooperates fully 4 with the LRSD to furnish requested assistance. Written materials, research results and recommendations are shared with District staff. Ongoing, $1,000 annually. Safety and Security. 43. Police assistance on bus stops and in neighborhoods 11 The District Transportation Department compiles a list of problem stops which is forwarded to the LRPD. Police officers pay particular attention to these areas, as does District Safety and Security staff. Ongoing, Salctyand Security, Transportation, 11.44. Office of Safety and Security and campus security officers The office has a director, two supervisors and 33 school-based campus security officers. The Safety and Security Office serves all schools, while the security officers are assigned in the secondary schools only. Each campus security officer is paid $7 an hour and works 40 hours weekly. Officers are assigned to work extra curricular events in the afternoons and night. Each junior high has two officers. Each high school has from one to five officers, depending on individual situations. They are not armed. Ongoing, $300,000 annually. Safety \u0026amp; Security, Support Ser\\ices, 18,5. 45. School bus total safety planning Every activity of the Transportation Department is designed to enhance the safety of LRSD students from the time they leave their homes in the morning until their return in tlie afternoon or evening. LRSD buses travel over five million miles annually. School bus transportation is statistically the safest form of transportation in service today. This is assured by a program that routinely and methodically includes supervisory training, maintenance training, drivers training, careful route and bus stop se- - lection and student and driver supervision. Ongoing, Transportation Department. 46. School bus vehicle inspection Route buses in daily operation range from 1983 to 1991 model vehicles. Vehicles are replaced when they reach 100,000 miles or sooner, if necessary. Each receives a complete safety inspection a minimum of every 30 days and a state inspection twice each year. Ongoing, Transportation Department. 47. Driver training courses for transportation staff 12 The285 drivers and drivers aides, as well as the safety supervisors, dispatchers and mechanics, receive three drivers training courses. The courses are the state school bus drivers training program, the commercial drivers license training program and a defensive driving program. Ongoing, Transportation Department.4 48. Bus route safety planning 49. Bus stop location factors 50. On-bus communication, behavior management Route selection is managed via a computerized routing system that determines the safest and most efficient and economical routes to follow. Copies of routes and all route changes are furnished to students in advance by the school to ensure uninterrupted service. Emergency bus routes, used primarily during inclement weather conditions, also are prepared and distributed to students. There is a practice run of these routes in early November each year to ensure against confusion during actual emergency weather conditions. Ongoing, Transportation Department. Buses stop within four blocks of each elementary students home and within six blocks of each secondary students home, by school board policy. These stops are regularly monitored by transportation staff, safety and security and the police. Ongoing, Transportation Department. Each bus driver is in constant contact with the  Transportation Department via two-way radio. The Department can immediately contact all area hospitals, police and fire departments and area ambulance services, if needed. The bus is considered an extension of the classroom. Each student is assigned a specific seat and the driver is responsible for overseeing compliance. Any student activity which endangers the vehicle or its passengers or is distracting to the driver or other motorists is recorded on the Bus Incident Report form and submitted by the driver to the school for appropriate disciplinary action. In severe cases of student misbehavior which prevent the further safe operation of the bus or present other imminent danger to fellow passengers safety, the driver will stop the bus and notify the transportation office by two-way radio. A supervisor, the police or both will be sent to deal with the problem. Dispatchers and supervisors have extensive training and detailed instructions on dealing with all emergency situations. Ongoing, Transportation Department. 1351. Driver selection, supervision of driving habits, effective student relations Constant and effective supervision of bus drivers includes monitoring on a daily basis of driving habits, ability to drive the route in a safe and timely manner and ability to deal effectively with students, patrons, school personnel and other employees. Driver safety meetings are held each month. Ongoing, Transportation Department, 6. 52. Character education curriculum As part of the overall curriculum revision process, a model citizenship program will be planned into the social studies curriculum that will consider socio-political decision making, justice, ethics, morality and practical application of civics. August 1992, associate superintendent for educational programs. 53. Deputy prosecutors make presentations to students Prosecuting Attorney Mark Stodola has offered to schedule deputy prosecutors one hour a week at secondary schools this year to talk about law, protections and rights, and penalties for dlegal actions. 1991-92, assistant su- * perintendent for secondaiy schools. 14LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTR ICT Forest Heights Junior High School 5901 Evergreen Street  Phone 671-6390  Little Rock, Arkansas 72205 Dear Parents\nBelieving in the motto, \"RHAT'S BEST FOR KIDS\", the Forest Heights staff certainlv knows that student safety is and always lias been of grea t import ance. Forest Heights will maintain a safe and secure environment by following the measures listed below. 'File administrative staff will do on goin, evaluations of these procedures and monitor and adjust as needed, are in effect for the 1991-92 school vear. The following measures 1) Teachers will stand outside their classrooms before and after class 2) 3) time so as to monitor student safety\nClassroom doors will be locked from the inside\nTis'o full-time campus supervisors will monitor the campus. vi.sitors and A) students\nBefore and after school, the campus will be monitored by si.x certified teachers and three administrators, in addition to the two campus 5) supervisors\nDuring lujich time. three certified teachers, administrators and camtxis 6) 7) supervisors will monitor the campus\n.Administrators will be present for all extracurricul activities\n8) Off duty policeman will assist administrators in monitoring student safety during athletic events\nThe Forest Heights School Emergency/Safety Plan will be reviewed, revised 9) and taught to all staff\nFinally, it should be mentioned that al the campus at all times. three administrators will monitor If at any time during the school year, you have any questions concerning measures please feel free to call my office at 671-6390. these Sincerely, Ax Richard Maple, Principal Dr. Ruth Steele, Superintendent LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT Cloverdale Junior High School 6300 Hinkson Road Phone 570-4085 Little Rock, Aiknnsoj 72209 tear Parents, Sumner reports regarding disruptive teen Lxtiiavior in oiir city have heightened our resolve regardiiig school safety. Clearly, our goal is to ensure that Cloverdale continues to offer .a disciplined environiicnt conducive to learning. During the sunnier, our staff conducted an annuaJ. school safety audit of facilities, policies and proccclures. The following recaimendations on school, safety wiJ.J be .implemented, continued or revised during the 1991-92 schoo.L year: 1. 2. 3. Revise and update the annual security plan. Repair all doors, locks and security equipnent. Continue the need for clear, fair and consistent nile enforcement that pronotes a belief in the validity of school rules. 4. Continue to conduct safety drills: fire, oartliquake. 5. tornado, evacuation, etc. Control and monitor the access points to school grounds 6. Increase security and surveillance. Additional staff 7. 8. 9. persons will assist the two security guards and ndininistrritors with buildings and grounds supfervision. Update the crisis management plan. Continue to solicit parental participation in the supervision of students and the screening of visitors. Provide additional inservice training regarding safety for students and staff. Since campus safety is everyone's business, including students, parents, teachers, staff and administrators, you are encouraged to take responsibility for the safety of our children by doing the following\n1. 2. Review carefully the district, school and team rules' regarding discipline and safety. Clearly explain to your child your expectation for appropriate student behavior. 3. Report suspicious individuals or unusual activity ininediately. Teach your child ways to resolve conflicts. Your support is critical. A safe and productive school year is our goal. We are confident that when heme and school work cooperatively together, our students develop a sense of belonging that premotes an increased sense of security and academic success. feel free to call us at 570-4085. to serve you. If you have questions, please Thank you for giving us the opportunity 4 . Gayle B? Bradford, Princi] A. Ruth Steele, Superintendent ^hall high school 6700 \"H\" Slreel Lillie Rock, Arkonsos 72205 661-9000 August 7, 1991 Dear Parents/Guardians of Hall High School Students, Recently there has been a heightened concern in our community about the safety and security of school environments. At Hall High School we share your concerns that your young people are safe and secure while in our care during the school day or at after school activities. We are committed to providing a well supervised and meaningful educational experience for all of our students. For the 1991 - 92 school year several measures will be undertaken to secure our All the exterior doors to the building have been surveyed to determ.ne campus. Where repairs are necessarj', if the locking mechanisms are in working order. they have been requested. During the school day all exterior entrances to the building will be secured, al lowing-entrance only through the front entrance of the building. As we have operated lest school year, students will not be permitted to leave the campus without permission, nor congregate in unsupervised areas of the campus during the school day. Your coope.ration is requested in directing your students to enter the building upon arrival and remain in the appropriate areas of the campus at all times. Two security officers will beon duty each day and at after school extra curricular activities. All four administrators, as well as available instructional personnel, will supervise students before and after school and during the periods between classes. Faculty members will monitor the corridors at their classroom doors as students pass to class each hour. As we have in the past, we will continue to rely on the prompt assistance of the Little Rock Police Department in the event of an emergency which requires the presence of law enforcement officers. We will restate our expectations that students treat each other with kindness and respect. We will continue to closely monitor student behavior and remove from the campus individuals whose actions threaten the safety and well being of others. We are optimistic about the opening of school. climate of quiet excellence. Hall High School has enjoyed a Our students are mostly well behaved and cooperative. With your support and the cooperation of our young people we will have an outstanding school year. We need not forget that. Sincerely, Victor Anderson Principal Ruth S. Steele Superi ntendentSkip Rutherford LITTLE ROCK August 23, 1991 Ms. Ann Brown Metropolitan Supervisor Heritage West Building, Suite 510 201 East Markham Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Dear Ann: I thought you would find the attached secondary school analysis of interest. Included are some of the more serious discipline categories. Reports are available from the School District which list all the categories for all the schools. It is my belief  and concern - that safety and security issues are having a detrimental impact on the Little Rock School Districts desegregation plan. As I have stated before, parents who are enrolling their children in any Little Rock public school need to know the 1990-91 individual building crime statistics. Si !rely, mhei ip Rpiherford 1 SR:sw Attachment1990-91 SECONDARY SCHOOL CRIME STATISTICS Data based on Little Rock School District Fourth Quarter Attendance Report and Little Rock School District Suspension Data Report Quarter 1 to Quarter 4. 176 student class days SENIOR HIGH Category (District Code #) Enrollment: Fights (1030) Assaults on Students (2010) Thefts (2030) Indecent Exposure (2100) Paging Device (2123) Physical Assaults on Staff (3071) Possession of Firearm (3080) Central 1460 25 5 2 2 3 1 0 Fair 801 37 4 1 0 1 0 0 Hall 1145 41 6 3 1 2 0 3 McClellan 945 42 4 8 0 3 0 1 Parkview 766 16 0 0 1 0 0 0 TOTAL 5,117 161 19 14 4 9 1 4 District TOTAL 25,134 1,056 87 71 32 31 26 13 Possession of Weapon (3090) Use of Weapon (3121) Gang Membership (3123) 6 59 1 3 1 0 1 0 0 0 2 8 1 1 4 15 0 0 2 0 6TUNTOR HIGH Category (District Code #) Cloverdale Dunbar Forest Heights Henderson Mabelvale Mann Pulaski Heights Southwest TOTAL District TOTAL Enrollment 719 606 748 863 609 855 692 655 5,747 25,134 Fights (1030) 108 83 94 102 48 64 72 112 683 1,056 Assaults on Students (2010) 9 6 4 11 0 1 0 6 37 87 Thefts (2030) 4 4 7 5 0 9 0 6 35 71 Indecent Exposure (2100) 5 1 2 0 0 3 5 1 17 32 Paging Device (2123) 1 3 2 0 7 4 0 3 20 31 Physical Assaults on Staff (3071) 2 1 2 1 1 0 1 2 10 26 Possession of Firearm (3080) 1 2 0 2 1 0 0 0 6 13 Possession of Weapon (3090) 4 1 0 3 8 1 5 6 28 59 Use of Weapon (3121) 0 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 8 Gang Membership (3123) 1 5 0 0 1 1 0 0 8 15 These totals represent only those offenses which resulted in: 1. 2. 3. out-of-school suspensions long-term suspensions expulsion They do not include incidents which did not result in 1.2 or 3. (In-school suspensions are not included)SLIP SHEET FOR REGULAR BOARD MEETING ON NOVEMBER 21, 1991 LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 810 WEST MARKHAM STREET LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS RECEIVED NOV 2 7 1991 TO\nNovember 21, 1991 Board of Directors Office of Desegregation ftonitoiing FROM: SUBJECT: Ruth S. Steele, Superintendent of Schools ADDENDUM TO REPORT ON SECURITY I am attaching information on the Resource Officer Program and a report on the activity of the drug dog which should be attached to the report on security.LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 810 W. Markham Little Rock, AR 72201 November 19, 1991 TO: FROM: Dr. Ruth S. Steele, Superintendent of Schools './Dr, Angela Maynard Sewall, Assistant Superintendent for Secondary Schools SUBJECT: Resource Officers Job description is acceptable to both principals committee and the four officers from LRPD. Prior to any program the budgets of both entities, LRSD and City of LR must be examined in light of programmatic costs. Proposal is for officers to be selected and new recruits to be hired and trained by LRPD to replace the officers on the force who became Resource Officers. The program, if approved by the School Board and City Board, could not begin until fall as new officers have 15 weeks of basic training and then 12 weeks of training with a senior officer i.e. 27 weeks of training which means at least 6 months of lead time is necessary. Comparative costs: Campus Security Guards - (approximately 10,600 plus benefits for 9 months) School Resource Officers - approximately 28,000 each (this is entry level i.e. experienced officers, which are preferable, would cost more.) The District would have to commit to providin\nig some staff development to the officers in addition to normal training provided by LRPD. Officers would work a teachers contract, 192 days. AMS/sh Attachment:LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 810 W. Markham Little Rock, AR 72201 Police Resource Officer JOB GOAL: To implement the Police Resource Officer program which has as its goal the provision of information in regard to the ways in which enforcement relates matters to students, faculty and administration, program are: The objectives of the 1. To prevent students from becoming involved in behaviors that violate state statutes and city codes and District policy\n2. To establish an improved rapport between law enforcement officers and youth\n3. To assist the building staff and administration in providing security for students\n4. To act as a resource to staff and students in legal matters and violence prevention intervention\n5. To help to provide an educational environment that offers prevention programs in determining youth involvement in gang activities, crime, alcohol, and drug abuse\n6. To assist in the coordination of community resources in promoting interagency approaches to the solution of community youth problems. PRINCIPAL DUTIES: 1. Counsels with students regarding law enforcement matters, primarily upon self-referral. 2. Serves as resource speaker for assembles and in classrooms as requested by the principal and/or teachers. 3. Monitors locations at the school considered \"trouble spots\" for students and teachers recommendations to the principal for correction.Police Resource Officer Cont'd. Page -2- A. Confers with students, staff, parents and others upon the request of the principal or his designee. 5. Assists principal with problems stemming from neighborhood conflicts that arise at school. required to consult with parents.) (Visits to homes may be 6. Exercises legal police authority. 7. Attends and participates in extra-curricular activities as assigned by the principal. 8. Attends staff meetings and assists with faculty inservice upon request of the principal. 9. Supervise students as other staff members do. 10. Adheres to the policies, rules and regulations of the School Board, the school and the LRPD. 11. Maintains a daily log of activities and provides a summary to the principal upon request. 12. Other duties as assigned. GUIDELINES: 1. The school resource officer will work approximately forty hours per week. The school resource officer will be compensated for any time worked over forty hours according to LRPD policy. The school resource officer's overtime or compensatory time will be monitored by the resource supervisor. Time off will be authorized by the resource supervisor along with school personnel. 2. The School Resource Officer may review students' records only with the consent of parents and upon request/approval of the principal. 3. The School Resource Officer may attend due process hearings in cases that involve violations of statutes or city codes for the purpose of providing information.Police Resource Officer Cont'd. Page -3- 4. The School Resource Officer may conduct investigations in a manner that complies with School Board policies, state statutes and city codes. May exercise arrest powers as needed. Resource officers will wear their uniforms at extra-curricular activities and at other times as designated by the principal. 6. Concealed firearms will be carried while wearing plain clothes. If the officer is in uniform, the weapon shall be worn. 7. A weekly activity summary will be submitted to the principal. Also, a monthly activity summary will be submitted to the resource officer supervisor and principal. 8. Resource officers will notify the principal upon each departure from the campus and will notify the principal's secretary prior to departure. Such notification is to include destination and time of return. 9. Requests from teachers for the resource officer as a classroom speaker will be made in writing to the principal and will include time, date and topic, officer. The principal will notify the QUALIFICATIONS: 1. The candidate must have a minimumn of three years as a police officer with the Little Rock Police Department. 2. Officer must have effective oral communication skills. 3. Officer must have effective written communication skills. 4. Officer must have strong desire to work with young adults. 5. B.A. degree or equivalent combination of training and experience is preferred, but not mandatory. 6. Requirements may be waived by the Chief of Police, based on the needs of the program.Police Resource Officer Cont'd. Page -4- EVALUATIONS: The evaluation of the program will include the following components: 1. Written evaluation by principals, including suggested improvements. 2. Written evaluation by school resource officer, including suggested improvements. 3. Survey of all staff members of schools. 4. Survey 10% of students, including high and middle school students. 5. Survey 10% of parents of high and middle school students. 6. Compare pre and post data for suspensions, attendance, dropout incidents involving unauthorized non-students on campus and juveniles processed into the juvenile justice system.OFFICE OF SAFETY AND SECURITY done at this point Approximately 20 drug searches . in the secondary schoo addition, he has used dogs at his aisp + 4-  moC _ has three dogs belonging to other police agencies at times. IS licensed by Durham-Haus Working Dogs - Agency with a Schedule 1 and 11 permit. the Drug Enforcement with a All dogs are Association. certified by the National Narcotic Dog Detector Student lockers searched in the schools. search is lots. Dogs are trained to detect cocaine, methamphetmine, marijuana, and gunpowder/^A c^/ Little Rock School District 810 West Markham Street Little Rock, AR 72201 1. PRINCIPALS' MEETING September 24, 1994 Opening remarks by the Superintendent RECEPS SEP 2 W\u0026lt;)4 Oflico 0^ Cvesegrej lea' T\u0026gt; '8 2. Principal evaluation instrument 3. Mobile Security Force 4. Security guard contract 5. Crisis communications plan 6. Discussion of security needs 7. Crisis prevention planATTACHMENT 9 Revised September 1994 Little Rock School District Crisis Communications Management Plan This \"Crisis Communications Management Plan\" is a supplement to the LRSD 1994-95 Procedures for School Closings and Operations During Emergency Conditions which provides an outline for response by various individuals to a crisis situation in the Little Rock School District. It will also serve as a supplement to each school's individual emergency response plan as it relates to communications and media concerns LRSD Administrative Directive 92-1 IS, dated October 6, 1992, is a reminder that District policy requires that all press inquiries for information are to be directed to the Communications Office to ensure coordination, clarity and consistency in messages to the public It also states that the superintendent will act as District spokesman and in his absence, the Communications Director will act as District spokesman. Whether durin .. a crisis situation or a more routine media inquiry, when you receive any media request, direct the news representative to the Communications Office. At the same tune, telephone the Communications Office to alert it about the news media request and the nature of the information being sought. This wiU allow the Communications Office prepare tor the forthcoming media call and either prepare an information response 7 . --O------------- \u0026gt;**** wxvu^^i an iiuviuidui oegin to determine from whom the necessary information will be obtained. to or 5 m ^ O unusual event which involve District personnel students wiH determine the level of involvement by the District Office of Communications. Many situations will be handled by the school staff, but certain situations, such as a shooting, hostage, bodily harm of any kind or a natural disaster or would require the Director of Communications to be at the site. The person at each school listed as that site's media representative in the school's emergency plan will assist the Director of Communications at the site durin the emergency situation. Those duties are set out below. There will be numerous groups that must be reached during and after a crisis. A checklist XLlvX uUvOi  Staff, students, and school crisis team - District administrators and school board members - Police, fire, disaster - Media - Parents/guardians - Community experts (clergy, government, counselors) - General public In order to get a better idea about the variety of activities that will be simultaneously linnftrWziV nlinno a nncic fk\u0026lt; \u0026lt;.1__________ . ... undenvay during a crisis, this plan lists steps that the Communications Director will take^ ainno ixzitn com** Uz* -ix-__________ i  some of the steps that site personnel and au?tiliary groups may be taking that Will ________________________j_ -/or j vxxcx*. will relate to media and information needs. O a DAYl Site (In accordance with Building Security Plan) Assess situation, DO NOT move or disturb evidence at site RSCEiVEB SEP 2 4 Ollies ol DesegraaaVon MoniSornQ Pat- liarsGather needed information for emergency calls Call 911: - Give assessment of situation (name, address, phone number of school, etc.) Do not release names to anyone other than necessary school and emergency officials at this time until family/guardian can be notified. Notify District administrators who will begin implementation of 1991-92 Operations During Emergency Situations (Attachment 4, \"Notification of Personnel of Emergency Conditions\"\nAttachment 5, \"Operations During Emeroencv Conditions\"\nand Attachment SA, \"District Crisis Response Team\").' Call School Crisis Team together to begin their pre-assigned duties. J Set up crisis meeting room\nmay be area of command post. If for some reason the school building cannot be used for a command post, contact a neighbor to see if their ho me, business or church could be used. (The initial contact should be made before the cnsis occurs.) Secure area until Director of Facilities Services arrives (Attachment 5). Be sure students and staff are safe and are not in an unsecured area or in the hallways. Notify staff of the situation in order to squelch rumors and panic. Use one door for entrance and exit Secure all other doors. Contact parents or guardians of students and immediate relatives of staff involved. Plan for orderly exit of students from site. Work with Director of Transportati (Attachment 5) for transportation services. on Be sure feeder schools have facts. If necessary and time of day will allow, write parent memo to be sent home. (Communications Office may assist in this if school equipment is unavailable), ^old faculty meeting after student dismissal, give update, discuss Day 2 agenda. Director of Communications can outline expected media coverage and how to respond to the media. Allow for a question and answer period. School media representative assists Director of Communications at site. - Should you receive media inquiries during the hours or days immediately following the accident/emergency, and in the absence of the Director of ^mmumcations, direct the news representative to the Communications Office. At the same time, telephone the Communications Office to alert it about the news media request and the nature of the information bein- sought. This will allow the Communications Office to prepare for the forthcoming media call and either prepare an information response or beoin to determine from whom the necessary information will be obtained.  - Set up media room. Make sure that media room has telephone(s) and electrical outlets. 'O'* - If the pre-assigned media room is not available due to the crisis situation locate another room. Be sure to notify the Director of Communications of the change. o Escort media to media room through designated entrance. - Assist Director of Communications with media and further briefing. Q Pat* 19*r22Auxiljary Groups (police, fire, medical) Provide one person from whom information and details can be obtained. Secure area. Do not destroy, move or remove evidence (shell casings, footprints, gun, etc.) Set up security area around area and next to evidence. Use one path to/from area. Set up Command Post. Anyone in the area during the crisis must report to this post. Obtain following information: - Where is the disturbance? -\u0026lt; Has someone been injured? - Are victims being held? - Where are the victims?  Are power sources operational?  Are phone lines operational? - Access to roof? - Trap doors?  Post person at secured entrance to observe who comes in and out. - If rooms have been evacuated, post a sign on the door.  In the case of a drive-by shooting, I.D. car license, car make, color, identifying marks, dents, etc. Communications Director: Get facts from principal and police. Check with school media representative to see what media contact has occurred. Set up media room (phones, electrical, etc.) if not already completed by buildin: media representative. g Escort media to media room from designated entrance (site media representative will cover this responsibility). Assure that staff and students are not interviewed inside the school. The media will be allowed to interview staff and students outside the building. Notify staff of situation before media briefing. This will ensure that rumors will not get started and be perpetuated. Provide media with names, bios, dates, places and other background information. If confidentiality is an issue, explain. DO respond clearly and accurately to questions about the following: 1. What happened 2. Where it happened (as specifically as you can ascertain) 3. When it happened (date and time only) 4. What facilities and equipment were involved 5. Factual assessment of current situation 6. Number known injured, taken to hospital or dead (No names) DO NOT speculate and DO NOT attempt to answer questions about the following: 1. Possible causes 2. Blame or responsibility 3. Anything that might imply district liability, fault or negligence. 4. Monetary estimates of damage Pm* Morn5. Insurance coverage and FINALLY 1. If in doubt, leave it out. If you don't know the answer to a question, when appropriate, say you or someone else will try to find out and call back as soon as possible. 2. Nothing is ever \"Off the Record.\" Assume everything you say will be quoted. 3. Keep a record of whom you've spoken to (including phone numbers) and what facts you've released to the media. Set up general news briefing with primary players as soon as possible. Coordinate additional interviews for media\nset time and place for Day 2 briefing. news Review next day agenda and concerns with site administrators. Be sure superintendent, board members and other administrators involved are briefed/updated. Monitor all news coverage for accuracy. DAY 2 Site Secure campus. Hold faculty meeting if necessary, provide a written update for staff. School Crisis team will continue to visit classrooms and continue counseling. Counselors will continue follow-up counseling. Update feeder schools Decide if parent memo or meeting is needed. Send memo if needed. If parent meeting is required, organize a panel discussion - (possible participants include Principal, police, Director of Communications, crisis team, community experts. - Give facts - Explanation of what preventative measures are in place - Speak to issue of safety. Parents will ask, \"How do I know my child will be safe?\" - Questions and answers. Continue to monitor situation and keep close contact with the Communications Office, notifying it of any changes. Commanications Director Be sure superintendent, board members and other administrators involved are updated. Anticipate inquiries from reporters and conduct news conference. Set up \"reaction\" interviews for media. Monitor news coverage for accuracy. Pa II UBDAY 3 Site Return to normalcy. Reduce crisis team. Prepare any additional updates to faculty, parents, etc. Communications Director Provide updates and set up interviews for media from district office. Monitor news coverage for accuracy. Pm* ata5 X% C-z/ SECURITY GUARD CONTRACT 2 4 1994 O'/'ce of Desegregation Mofwcfing ARTICLE 12 HOURS OF WORK AMD OVERTIME SECTION 1. The work year for 9 1/4 month security guards is to be equal to the number of student contact days, plus four (4) additional days. The normal work year for twelve (12) month security guards shall be 235 days, July 1st through June 30. The normal work week for full-time employees shall be 40 hours beginning Saturday through Friday. The normal workday for full-time employees shall be eight (8) hours including two (2) fifteen (15)- minute breaks. Employees will take an unpaid, duty free, uninterrupted luncb period of thirty (30) minutes. If a lunch period or break is interrupted by an emergency, the employee shall be allowed to take the remaining time before the end of the shift. SECTION 2. Each employee shall be assigned to a definite shift, for student and non-student attendance days. with designated starting and ending times. split shifts shall not be used without the consent of the employee. Such assignments shall be totally voluntary. I All full-time non-exempt employees will be paid one and one half times their hourly rate for any work beyond forty (40) hours per week. Overtime work shall be avoided insofar as possible but may be required in the interest of efficient operation. For work in excess of the regular work week, the employee shall be paid the current overtime rate. The authorization of overtime work and personnel selected is the responsibility of the Building Administrator\nhowever, no overtime will be paid by the Security Department unless approved in advance by the designated representative of that Department. When it becomes necessary to require Security Guards to work outside the normal work week, the following procedure will be followed: 1. Guards regularly assigned to the site of the event will be offered the overtime first by seniority and will thereafter be rotated. 2. If sufficient guards from the site are not available or initially ask not to work the overtime, the District will attempt to cover the event with other qualified District security guards. 3. If the District is unable to adequately cover the security needs after steps 1 and 2 above. mandatory overtime will be required of theguard(s) regularly assigned to the site using the rotation established in step 1. When offering or requiring overtime, a seniority list by site will be maintained, and overtime will be assigned on a rotating basis. Whenever possible, the administration shall notify the employee of required overtime 24 hours in advance. SECTION 3. All employees shall be provided a break if their regular daily schedule calls for more than 4 (four) continuous hours of work. Breaks and lunch periods shall be scheduled as near as practicable to the middle of the shift for lunch or the half-shift for breaks. An employee who works a five (5)-hour or longer shift is entitled to a lunch break.R T E N I MEMO OFFICE To: From: Subject: Date: Ann Polly Safety and security wording in desegregation plans August 3, 1995 Attached you will find the pages of LRSDs desegregation plan that contain the wording safe and safety. The LRSD Desegregation Plan does not contain the word security. The Interdistrict Plan does not contain the words safe, safety, or security.7 SUPPORT SERVICES The Office of Support Services shall provide materials, supplies, equipment, and services to support a positive environment for learning in all schools. Facilities The District will provide clean and safe facilities and make all repairs fundamental to maintain incentive schools, magnet schools, and area schools in good condition. To this end, roofing repairs, painting, plastering, recarpeting, and other needed repairs will be made. Concrete walks and macadam drives will be in good repair. New public address systems and bell systems will be placed in buildings where such items are not repairable. Any school which has portable buildings will have these portables replaced with new units or repaired so that they will be in a condition suitable for use. The capacities of junior high schools will be reviewed in light of needed programs. Such capacities will then be revised as necessary. If, upon review, it is determined that inadequate junior high capacity exists in the District to meet programmatic needs of the District and/or intradistrict and M-to-M needs as they develop, then an adequate site will be located and planning will begin for the construction of a new junior high school. The District will involve the parties in identifying and planning for additional junior high capacity. Curriculum supervisors, and associate/assistant superintendents, and others as needed will be involved in the planning process. Construction of this junior high school will be completed on a timeline comparable to that followed for other newly constructed District/magnet schools and in a manner commensurate with building needs. The Purchasing Department will work with staff and principals in all schools to provide necessary materials and equipment. Data Processing Data Processing will provide the necessary support for all school and central office-based functions. Programs will be developed and implemented relative to the following areas: Dropout Statistics (to include the ability to generate data by race, gender, and grade on a school by school as well as district-wide basis). Test Scores (to include capacity to score tests and to generate data by race, gender, grade, school, subject area, and districtwide.) Student Achievement Data (to include the capacity to monitor test scores, grade distribution and other identified achievement data by race, gender, grade, subject, school and districtwide). Page 131COMPUTERIZED TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM The District will continue to use its automated routed system to make efficient use of district resources in providing transportation to those students eligible for transportation. The Transportation Department will also request additional resources to help provide transportation support for evening and extended day programs. In 1990-91, the District reduced its number of runs from three to two. The two run system has been well received by the community, and the district plans to keep this method of routing buses. The^Little Rock School District has made progress in the utilization of the Ecotran MapNet System It appears that the vastly improved 1988-89 opening of school justifies all the long hours both the District and Ecotran System spent in initializing the automated routing system. As a result of the proposed change in the student assignment plan (from city-wide open enrollment to home area schools) there is extensive work to be performed in updating the geographic files/table within the LRSD database. School attendance areas and updated walk zones need to be encoded into the map files. Transportation/safety policies need to be reviewed and updated properly and assignment promotion population region tables need to be created to ensure proper student assignment. The above massive database update teamed with the inherent problems such as grandfather assignment, magnet schools, etc. would tax the existing transportation personnel resources. Currently, these resources are busy attempting to keep ahead of day to day student assignments due to the district wide open enrollment. Therefore Ecotran Systems has proposed the following plan for service, for the 1989-90 school year. Proposed Services Transportation Ecotran Systems will update all geographic files to coincide with the new student assignment plan. All school attendance areas will be encoded into the geographic tables, corresponding walk zones will be generated for schools, alt transportation/safety policies will be reviewed and updated. Tables will be created to reflect new assignment/promotion procedures. In addition, Ecotran Systems will update all student data files relating to the student assignment changes. Students may then have the transportation eligibility determined utilizing then new established attendance areas and walk zones. An entire new stop network will be generated to improve efficiency and most economically utilize District resources. Assignment of students to the correct stop location by Ecotran Systems is the next procedure. Page 230LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT TENTATIVE TIMELINE 1989 Date Action February 15, 1989 Contract signature. March 1, 1989 Control table development and verification for 1989-90 Desegregation Plan. March 1,1989 Geographic Files updated. Building new streets, subdivisions, review of transportation/safety policies, encoding of \"Home\" school attendance areas, walk zone generation. April 1, 1989 Initial student census download. The editing of student addresses and assignment of unaddressed students will occur. May 1, 1989 Student census download #2. Further correction of student addresses and updating procedures. May 22, 1989 Final student census download. Utilized to promote students to 1989-90 grade and assign to 1989-90 school of attendance. Address updating should be under 10% of total student census. June 1,1989 School assignment/transportation eligibility checked. Exceptions list provided to the District. June 8,1989 Stop generation. June 20, 1989 Stop review. July 1,1989 Route generation. July 15, 1989 Route review. July 22, 1989 Vehicle coordination generated. July 26, 1989 Vehicle coordination review. August 7, 1989 Final reports delivered to the LRSD. August 10, 1989 Pre-implementation meetings. August 22, 1989 School begins. Page 232DEC 2 1996 Little Rock School District Office of Desegregation Monitoring November 25, 1996 TO: FROM: Safety \u0026amp; Secuji^ Task Force Committee Members //\u0026gt; Jo Evelyn Elstoh, Director of Pupil Services RE: December Meeting A Safety \u0026amp; Security Task Force meeting has been scheduled for Thursday, December 12, 1996 in the LRSD Administration Boardroom from 5:30 p.m. - 6:30 p.m. Please make every effort to attend this meeting. If you have any questions please feel free to call me @ 324-2162.07/30/2004 15:19 501-447-1161 LRSD COMMUNICATIONS PAGE 02/02 810 West Markham T.irrlc Rock, AR 72201 For Immediate Release July 30. 2004 For more information: Robert Jones, 447-2077 Emergency Preparedness Drills to Take Place August 2 \u0026amp; 3 The safety of our students is our top priority. That is why the Little Rock School District has partnered with the Little Rock Police Department and MEMS to conduct mock emergency drills at two Little Rock schools on August 2 and 3. These drills will help prepare city law enforcement, rescue and school personnel to act in the unlikely event of an actual emergency at one of our schools- The first drill will take place on Monday, August 2, on the campus of Hall High School, located at 6700 H Street. This exercise will concern a sniper in the wooded area behind the school. The second drill will be Tuesday, August 3, at Forest Heights Middle School, 5901 Evergreen Street. This drill concerns a hostage situation inside the school building. Both exercises will consist of a briefing beginning at 9 a.m. and the actual drill, which is expected to commence at approximately 9:30 a.m. ###07/30/2004 15:19 501-447-1161 LRSD COMMUNICATIONS PAGE 01/02 DATE\n810 West Markham UttleRock, AR 72201 Communications Office\nFax: (501)447-1025 (501)447-1161 - jpkU__ TO: FROM: SUBJECT: MESSAGE: # Pages {including cover) a To Fax# An Individual Approach to a World of Knowledge i_r.oLi I luno Hage 02/02 810 West Markham Urrle Rock, AR 72201 For Immediate Release A.ugust 16, 2004 For more iniormation: Juiie Davis, 4474027 LRSD Safety \u0026amp; Security Department Holding Frofcssional Development Seminars The Dctle Rock School Districts Safety and Security Department is preparing for the start of the 200405 school year with a series of professional development seminars continuing through Wednesday, August 18. This valuable training will help the security officers perform their jobs better throughout the year. One of the most important seminars for district security officers is the fire suppression class, which will take place this afternoon (Tuesday) from 1:00 to 3:00 p.m. Security officers will have the opportunity to extinguish an actual fire. The professional development seminars will take place at the LRSDs Garland building, 3615 West 25'*' Street. ###t-r.ov I iuno PAGE 01/02 lf\u0026gt; !\u0026amp;l \\ \\ ' -Rq^ i Bl ! I^'l 810 West Markham Little Rock, AR 72201 Communications Office\nFax: (301} 447-1023 (501)447-1161 DATE\nFROM\nSUBJECT\nMESSAGE: * Pages (including cover) To Fax # An Individual Approach to a World of KnowledgeEstablish a Resource Police Officer Program in each Secondary SchooiWe made police power a positive force in our schools BY ANTHONY R. MORIARTY AND PATRICK J. FITZGERALD nCoIPS ON CAMPUS? This school must be in serious trouble.\" That's what some teachers and students at our suburban high school thought when they first heard about our plan to set up a police liaison program. But those initial suspi-aons have dissolved. And now, after almost four years of having police officers on campus every day, we can say the program has produced overwhelmingly positive resultsnot only for the school, but for the police department as well. The program started out simply to provide protection and security for the school. Over time, though, the police officers involved have contributed to the school in many waysoffering their expert advice on school security, teaching classes as guest lecturers, and establishing sound and healthy relationships with kids. A program like ours can work in your schools, too, and it costs little to set one up. Suggestions for starting a police liaison program appear in the article on page 14. Now, here are the details: Park Forest, Ill., is a diverse, middleclass suburb of Chicago. Students at Rich East High School (9-12\nenr.: 1,278) come from various backgrounds\nSome come from low-income families, some from families who are quite well off. Thirty-nine percent of our students are minorities (mostly black). Like most schools, we have kids who take advanced placement courses and others who need help with basic skills. When we began contemplating the need for police on campus. Rich East had not been troubled by any major incidents. But we were concerned: Drug problems were on the rise in the Chicago suburbs, and gang recruitment was increasing. At Rich East, people who weren't students Anthony R. A/lohorty is ossis/ont principal at /itch East /iigh School in Park Forest, III., and Patrick J. Pitrgerald is a defective holding the rank of corporal with the Pork Forest Police Deportment. Together, they coordinate the school/police liaison program. often wandered in and out of the building, and teachers were reluctant to confront these intruders. A major problem, we feared, was bound to develop sooner or later. We wanted to head off trouble. The two of usan assistant principal and a detective with the Park Forest Police Departmentbegan talking about ways to bring police officers or. campus. At first, we discussed using the police only for protection and security. Police officers, we agreed, would help the school handle trespassers, drug dealing, crowd control, and parking problems. In addition, they would serve as liaisons between the school and the police department. The questions we needed to work out were primarily logistical: Who would be in charge? How would police power be used on campus? Could officers make an arrest on school grounds? The answers to these questions came largely from school administrators, who laid out some firm expectations for the program. The officers involved had to want to work with teenagers. They had to act differently at school than on the streets: No hands on kids, no arrests on school grounds, no authority to suspend students, no guns, no uniforms. Ultimately, responsibility for discipline problems rested with the school's deansnot with the police officers. Both sides agreed this would be primarily a liaison program. That is, the 12 police officers involved would be cm-ployed full-time by the police department, working at the school only one day a week when they were off duty. The school system would pay the officers an hourly amount for their servicesbeginning at $9.50 an hour and increasing over time to $10.50. Typically, each officer would put in one six-hour day each week at the school. Officers would supervise football games and evening events and would be present in the building during the day for security purposes. Once wed agreed on these ground rules, we recruited police officers for the program. In interviews with candidates, we soon found that some couldn't live with the guidelines we had set up. Some didn't want to lock their guns in the schcral safe, as required. Others didn't like the idea that they couldn't make an arrest on the spot. Still others, when it came right down to it, had to admit they just don't get along with kids very well. Our best prospects, we found, were juvenile officers. They are accustomed to working with teenagers, and most of them genuinely like kids. They're used to exercising more latitude on the joband Heres how you can use campus cops constructively FOLLOW THESE EIGHT tips tO Set Up a police liaison program similar to the one at Rich East High School: 1. Select your liaison people carefully. The police department and your school should appoint one key person each to work with the programand these two individuals must be an effective match. They must understand each other's role, and they must be able to communicate well with each other and with other people. 2. Develop thoughtful employment criteria. Not every police officer wants toor shouldwork in a school. Screen out anyone who doesn't like working with kids and who rigidly follows police procedures regardless of the situation. The right person for the job should be comfortable and relaxed with kids, trained in how to handle young troublemakers, and able to turn student problems over to school people for resolution. We found juvenile officers best fit the bill. (One note\nOf the dozen officers working in the Rich East program, two are women and two are black. We want and need more of each. And so do other agencies and corporationswell- trained women and minorities are hot commodities in the justice field.) 3. Encourage officers to take on nonpolice roles. When officers tell kids about their hobbies and interests or give guest lectures, they have a chance to develop a rapport with kids that pays off in many ways. The officerswho too often see only the troublemakers get to know the responsible teenagers, too. And the kids get to know that cops are people they can trust. 4. Work with local officers. We debated whether to use local police or state troopers. State troopers, some people argued, would be more objective than local police officers, who might have dealt with some of our kids in the streets. Also, some people thought the state troopers would be more qualified and better trained. The argument in favor of local officers: They know our kids and work in our community, and many have kids enrolled in our school. As it's turned out, the local officers are a great choice. The kids know and recognize them on the street, and they refer to the officers as \"our cops.\" 5. Write specific operating procedures. Police officers are used to dealing with sound, clear policies and proceduresand they'll expect the same from your schools. Write clear and detailed guidelines for handling discipline problems, turning problem kids over to school executives, and consulting school officials if an officer needs to make an arrest. At Rich East, we developed a manual that we hand out to officers. 6. Sell your community on the program. The idea of police on campus can evoke images of serious problems. Parents, teachers, and even students might think the school is on the verge of chaos. When you present the concept to the community, be sure to emphasize that you are preventing future problems not trying to solve existing ones. 7. Set up accountability procedures. Make sure a detailed, workable recordkeeping system is in place when you start the program. At Rich East, we use a computerized data-base system to file entries that officers make in a daily logbook. This information is useful in several ways. From it, we compile an annual report, which we distribute to school board members, administrators, and the police chief. Also, by artalyzing the data from the log, we're better able to plan our security needs for regular events, such as those that occur during homecoming weekend. And we can evaluate trouble spots and determine where and when we need less security. 8. Base your program in the schools. Don't associate the program with the police department. Everyone should see and accept the officers as school staff members. This approach places primary responsibility with your school and avoids the notion that the police department is in charge of your campus. At Rich East, a police officer who sees the need to make an arrest must consult with the assistant principal and the dean of students.a.r.m. and p.j.r. to consulting probation officers, social workers, and others. Theyve had training in preventing much of the delinquent behavior likely to occur in a school. They know how to deal with problem kids and can help keep them out of the courts. Once we'd selected 12 officers, the next step was to introduce them into the school as smoothly as possible. To make everyone more at ease, we urged the officers to greet at least 25 students each time they came into the building. The officers also got involved in evening basketball leagues and even took part in the spring talent show. Before long, they knew dozens of students by name, and the kids grew to know the officers and looked forward to seeing them. What happened next took us by surprise. Frankly, school executives and teachers had not expected the police officers to be as well trained and well edu- YOUR VERDICT, PLEASE You might find this article controversial. Let us and your colleagues from across North America know your reactions. Turn to the reader reply card next to page 8, and give us your verdict. Well publish a roundup of the results in a later issue of The Executive Educator. cated as they are. Our officersmost of whom have college degreesare competent people with a variety of skills and a great depth of expertise. We took advantage of our officers' abilities by urging them to take on \"noncop\" roles. One officer gave a lecture to a business law class, and another spoke about sexual abuse to a psychology class. One officer found he enjoyed the classroom so much that he got his certification as a substitute teacher and now does substitute teaching on his day off (we lost him from the program, but we're glad we kept him in the classroom). Right from the start, the officers were at ease in handling the kids. Students gradually started coming to them with a variety of problems\nWhen a kid can't get into his locker or when he locks his keys in his car, he'll turn to our cops. Students also ask the officers what to expect when they have to go to court to answer speeding charges. The officers can be comfortable and open with students, yet they know how to set appropriate limits on familiarity. Meanwhile, the officers continually (Please turn to page it5 I THE executive educatorPolice power offer their expert advice on security matters to the school. For example, they have trained school deans and discipline officers in how to interview troublemakers, investigate a problem, identify drugs, and recognize gang activities. Because of their training in how to respond to emergenciesespecially medical emergenciesthe officers were able to offer valu- j able advice on setting up a crisis in- i tervention plan. And that's not all: When we were having a problem with thefts from the locker rooms, the officers analyzed the situation and suggested several ways to tighten security. When we wanted to make the school more secure overall, they assessed the entire building and grounds, making suggestions on steps we should take to improve security and recommending the kind of alarm system that would best meet our needs. The school budgeted for 12 hours a day  from the officerswhich costs us ap- j proximately $22,000 a year. For the school, that's a bargain\nHow else could 1 we hire the breadth of coverage and depth  of expertise our officers provide for only $22,0007 The officers, we know, aren't doing this for the money. They tell us they enjoy the kids and love being in the school. At the same time, they've reaped some important benefits. By developing , good relations with the kids, the officers i have an advantage on the streets that they  didn't enjoy before the program was ' established. Now, when a crime is com- i mitted in the community, students are ! more willing to tell the cops what they j know about it. In fact, the officers say the i kids were key in getting a gun off the streets and solving an arson and a shoot- I ing that occurred outside of school. , Despite a cautious beginning and ten- j uous initial acceptance by the school com-  munity, the school/police liaison pro- gram at Rich East High School has evolved into a multidimensional program. It helps the school prevent crime and delinquency, educates students and staff members, provides expert advice to the school, and satisfies everyonestudents, parents, teachers, administrators, and police officers. An ounce of prevention has turned out to be worth much more than we anticipated,  How do you rate this arliclt? Please tum to now ao 1|I5 1 , t the reply card lacittg page 26 and circle 181 it\n.s . a _ 90^ ll'c 1 you think it's excellent, 182 U you think it good, and 183 U you think it's poor. Thanks. 'sSecurity Provisions at Dallas Independent School District 2538 South Envoy. Dallas. TX 75215 Director - Eldrige Fisher Court Liasion - Bill Haggart Phone - 214-421-1453 A School Security Department provides assistance and monitors DISD's 200 schools (K-12). 21 Youth Action Centers are present which provide services to respective cluster/feeder schools. Each center is staffed with a specialist, teacher, clerical person and advisor. Students are referred to the Center by principals, parents, counselors or teachers. Students are counseled, home visits are made and parents counseled regarding disruptive behavior, school truancy and other behavior disorders. A contracted behavior agreement is made. If emergency situations occur they are called to lend support to schools in need of assistance. 18 Dallas Police Officers work through these centers. They are specifically assigned by the department to DISD. School Safety Resources 1. 2. School Crime and Violence Victims Rights Published by the National Safety Center \"Chaos to Calm\" - a film from the California Crime Prevention Council presents a variety of potential solutions to problems to school safety. 3. \"Safe Schools - Better Schools 4. Institute of Justice. \"What's Wrong With This Picture? is a film produced by the National II Award Winning - First place Gold Medallion for Documentary-Social Issues at the Houston International Film Festival. First place Gold Screen for Films by the National Association of Government Communicators. Recognized for Creative Excellence at the United States Industrial Film Festival. H This film, \"What's Wrong With This Picture?\", is designed to encourage It dialogue between school principals and their community resources, presents the critical issue of school safety in a frank and straightforward way, dramatizing real life incidents of crime and violence on school campuses. Five scenarios taken from interviews with actual school crime victims and witnesses, covering drug traffic and abuse, intimidation teacher \"burnout\", violence, theft and suicide are depicted. The film leaves little room for doubt that the problem does exist and that it is serious.PROFILE OF THE SPECIAL INVESTIGATIVE UNIT DADE COUNTY PUBLIC SCHOOLS The Special Investigative Unit is a school system operation responsible for the provision of law enforcement services to  -  The 1988-89 budget for this the Dade County School Board. unit is approximately $4.2 million with a staff as follows: 1 Director 2 Assistant Directors 5 Supervisors 1 Data Specialist 9 Secretaries/Clerks 19 Investigators 33 Uniformed Patrol Officers 26 Uniformed Guards 20 School Resource Specialists The unit has a central office and four area offices. Each area office is staffed with a supervisor, one secretary and several investigators. the central office with one supervisor. The uniformed patrol is housed at FUNCTIONS\nINVESTIGATIONS Nineteen (19) investigators are assigned to feeder-pattern configurations centered around senior high school to provide follow up investigations to those incidents that are reported in accordance with the School Board Rules. They are also responsible for providing in-depth investigations into complaints against any School Board employee if a approved Additional by the Department responsibilities of include Personnel conducting Management. security surveys, liaison with local police and emergency response to school locations. PATROL UNIT Thirty-three (33) patrol officers in uniform and in marked vehicles provide patrol services to some 80 schools in the  ~  They are deployed in three inner city of Dade County. shifts that are on duty 24 hours a day, 7 days a week. Their main function is to provide emergency response to ensure the safety of students and staff during school hours and during non-school hours to protect property and respond Occasionally, the uniformed patrol is to intrusion alarms. used as a strike-team to prevent a disturbance from taking place on a school campus. Within the uniformed division. twelve of the officers are assigned as School Resource Officers in a preventive-type program.NEW ORLEANS PUBLIC SCHOOLS SECURITY UNIT I Supervisor: 8-4 Lindsey Payne A. Director C. Boyd, Jr. Supervisor: 4-12 Ronald Luki novi ch I Maintenance b Confidential Secretary Yvonne Reed I Detail Supervisor: l?-fl Vacant I Trainitigl hool-Based \u0026gt;unse1or Alexander Baptiste Bi enemy Brown Curtis Edgerson Harri s Marts Stewart Johnson Brpssette 1 School-Based Counselor R. DeLoach N. Hawkins D. Hollins R. Janes R. Jones L. LaBranch R. Thomas R. Smith D. Stukes T. Chamberlain W. Jones R. Malone V. Sorina J. Hensley (Vacant) Patrol S. Adams H. Baptiste C. Condo!\" R. Foster W. Jones E. King C. Mims J. Smith 0. Lawson G. Deruise J. Lalnez Technicians D. Blunt H. Ebanks Y. Edwards Y. Embry G. Harrell J. McFarland D. Cooper Patrol Y. Adams R. George I. Gilbert J. Hills T. Hutton Y. Irving M. King A. Henry Patrol M. Harris D. Hawkins H. Irving L, Richards C. Young J. Chissell K. Green G. Wilson Rovers K. Hayes P. LeBlanc 6. White 26 School-Based 3 Floats 27 Patrol 7 Technicians 2 Supervisors 1 Secretary 1 Director 67 TotalFebruary 8, 1989 PHONE CONVERSATION: Sam Stueart with Sgt. Dan Leedom, Portland, Ore. Security Officer DATA: 1. Portland Oregon School District has its own certified police department. 2. The chief of the school district's police department is Mack Locket: (Phone: 503-249-3307). 3. The school district's police wear uniforms and carry guns. 4. The security police work schools by geographic districts. 5. Along with the district police, two campus supervisors are assigned to each high school. 6. The district has a strong Anti-Gang curriculum written by Ms. Alcena Boozer (phone: 503-280-5783).Portland Public Schools 501 N. Dixon Portland, Oregon 97227 March 13, 14, 1989 Visited by Junious Babbs Marion Lacy Sam Stuart 10 High Schools (9-12) 17 Middle Schools (6-8) 67 Elementary Schools (1-5) Racial Composition 25% Minority 75% Majority Staff Offices Visited 1) Mrs. A. Hoosier - Administrator for Alternative Education 2) Mr. Mac Lockett - Chief of Portland Public School Police 3) Dr. Donald D. McElroy - Executive Deputy Superintendent 4) Dr. Matthew Prophet - Superintendent Support Mechanisms/Proqrams in Place 1. 2. 3. 4. A hard stand by the board and superintendent regarding gangs and student violence Leadership Roundtable - A monthly meeting of city leaders to review programs and/or strategies regarding the welfare of young people and attempting to streamline efforts. 3-4 Alternative Schools - Each with a coordinator Student Awareness Video \"Tips on Removal/Non-Involvement with Gangs\". Roy Pittman Ex-Olympic Wrestler Narrator 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. Gun/Weapon Hotline 6-8 Outreach Workers (utilized in schools) Youth/Gang Task Force Teams - Community based by geographic locations Two alternative teachers and 1 aide in each secondary school (core classes Drop-Out Prevention Grant in some schools Portland Public School Police Force 1 4 5-6 18-20 Chief of Police Sergeants Office Staff Persons Officers 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. Home visits for each alternative student at least once a month Safety curriculum within the handbook taught at the beginning of each school year Bus aides for some schools and troubled areas Staff inservice on security and gang behavior Campus Security Persons Use of Walkie Tai kies (recognizible jackets) 18. Child Development Specialists in elementary and middle schools (similiar to social workers) Inservice for Campus Security (CPR, First Aid, Fire Arm Safety Class, investigative skills, control hold training)Portland Public Schools Page 2 March 13, 14, 1989 19. Close conmunication between the Portland Public School Police Force and the Portland City Police _ 20. NCIC (National Crime Information Centers) computer reading housed in the office of the Portland School Police - central office) 21. 22. 23. Community Programs against violence Teen Health Centers in some schools Removal of building graphetti receives top priority Schools Visited 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. Cleveland High School Harriet Tubman Middle School Jefferson Performing Arts Magnet High School Portsmouth Middle School Roosevelt High School Wilson High School Literature/Policies Retained 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. Portland School Police Child Abuse Program Campus Security - Job Description Loitering Notice Exclusion Notice Gang Prevention Habitual Offender Program Gangs in Schools Guide to Policies, Rules and Procedures on Student Responsibilities, Rights and Discipline (secondary and primary) Teen Health CentersOrganized in 1943. the Portland School Police Depl. is the only school law-enforcement agency In Oregon, Known Originally as Ihe School Investigators Office, the force has grown from two officers assigned to vandalism and burglary investigations to a sophisticated department involving 19 uniformed officers and six office personnel. School Police Chief Mac Lockett has been with the force since 1965. If] '.\u0026lt; , The school police department operates 24 hours daily, seven days weekly on a year-round basis. Officers handle a variety of criminal violations including childabuse. narcotics, assault, traffic and burglary. A computerized communication center links the school police department with all Oregon criminal, court and prosecutors' computer networks, criminal investigation bureaus in other slates and to the Federal Bureau of Investigation. Slate of the-art fire alarm and burglary-response systems constantly track and report disturbances, enabling Portland school police to achieve Ihe highest burglaryin progress arrest record in the state. Portland Public Schools officers are granted full police authority by the Oregon Legislature. Portland school police protect the students, employees and property of the school district. The school district employs nearly 6.CXX)full and part-time staff members and has a student enrollment exceeding 50,000 School police respond to crimes in and around some 100 school buildings, enforcing criminal laws and ordinances of the State of Oregon and City of Portland  s. *3 I, -4 ,f^\" In addition to normal law- enforcement duties, school officers perform crime-prevention activities, participate in community-service events and make presentations to students, school staffs and parent groups. Those presentations deal primarily with juvenile law. drug and alcohol abuse, child abuse, legal updates and career development. Other police responsibilities include crowd control al athletic events and other school functions and maintaining close working relationships with nine other police agencies in the 152- square-mile jurisdictional area. Portland school police o' ficers receive certificalic' from the Oregon Slate Boa^c of Police Standards anc Training and must complete training at the Oregon Police Academy. Officers also rp ceive on-gomg specialize, training. Effective communicalio' with youths is essential in . school police officer s qua' fications. Officers also mus have abilities to relate well t persons from many differei ethnic backgrounds. J I !  I \"J S' i( ir ko School police are commt' ted to providing a safe, sr cure learnir\u0026gt;g environmer\u0026gt; for Portland s students Pre fessionalism and person? dedication make Portian School Police Dept, officei among the most oulstand'f in Oregon's lav/-enforci ment agencies. :  Portland Public Schools 501 N. Dixon Street Portland. Oregon 97227PORTLAND PUBLIC SCHOOLS 501 N. Dixon St. I Portland. Oregon 97227 Phone: (503) 249-3307 Mailing Address\nP.O. Dox 3107 / 9720S-3107 PORTLAND PLDl.IC SCHOOLS POLICE OTicc of (he Chie CAMPUS SECURITY MONITOR TRAINING AGENDA DATE/TIME COURSE INSTRUCTOR Monday, Feb. 1. 1988 8:00 A.M. Orientation (staff introductions, agenda, expectations, ccnmunication, I.D. tags, jackets) School Police 10:00 A.M. District Policies Lashley 10:30 A.M. School Police Procedures (Department overview, tape, working relationship) School Police 12:00 P.M. Lunch 1:00 P.M. Reporting Child Abuse (Video, questions and answers) Linne' and C.P 3:00 P.M. Narcotics PPB Tuesday, Feb. 2, 1988 8:00 A.M. Report Writing (Use of Trespass forms. Stolen Property forms. Incident Reports) Taylor 12:00 P.M. Lunch 1:00 P.M. Criminal Law (Theft, Trespass, Assault, scope of authority, victims rights, court procedures) W. Pearson (D.A.'s Office 5:00 P.M. Ajoum Page DATE/TIME COURSE  INSTRUCTOR Wednesday, Feb. 3, 1988 8:00 A.M. First Aid Risk Management 12:00 P.M. Lunch 1:00 P.M. C.P.R. Risk Management 5:00 P.M. Ajoum Thursday, Feb. 4, 1988 12:30 P.M. Basic Firearms Safety Taylor 1:30 P.M. Investigative Skill.q (Interviewing, gathering facts and information) Taylor 2:30 P.M. Basic Hostage Situations Taylor 3:30 P.M. Lunch 4:30 P.M. - 8:30 P.M. Self Defense/Control Holds Christensen/PPB Friday, Feb. 5, 1988 8:00 A.M. Juvenile.Gang Activity (Black, Asian, White) Hollingsworth/ Leedcm 12:00 P.M. Lunch 1:00 P.M. Discussion and Review * NOTE: Classes February 1 only, will be'held in the B.E.S.C. Boardroan. Training for the remainder of the week will be at Whitaker Middle School, Roon E-206.SCHOOL PORTLAND PUBLIC SCHOOLS TRESPASS OR LOITERING REPORT DATE OF VIOLATION: TIME OF VIOLATION: NAME OF VIOLATOR SEX . RACE DATE OF BIRTH ADDRESS. PARENT OR GUARDIAN: SCHOOL STATUS. ACTIVITY OBSERVED AND OTHER DETAILS: PREVIOUSLY WARNED: yesD NO  ACTION REQUESTED: TRESPASS LETTER  INFORMATION ONLY  OBSERVED BY. DATE OF THIS REPORT: School Police Department Portland Public Schools 501 N. Dixon Street Portland. Oregon 97227 249-3307 REPORTED BY. DATE OF THIS REPORT: (Administrator in Charge) ir'PI - White (SCHOOL COPY) - Yellow 67-7180 Reviscdl? PORTLAND PUBLIC SCHOOLS POLICE DEPARTMENT 501 N. DIXON ST. PORTLAND, OREGON 97227 NOTICE OF EXCLUSION FROM SCHOOL DISTRICT NUMBER 1 PROPERTY TRESPASS NOTICE PERSON RECEIVING NOTICE DATE 1. 2. 3. 4. ADDRESS LOCATION SIGNATURE OF DISTRICT REPRESENTIVE OR OFFICER D.O.B. TIME You are prohibited from coming on the property indicated at the above location for the period of,(3 months),(6 months),(12 months), from the above dote without the express permission of the School Principal or building Administrator. If you return to the above location during the period of exclusion you may be ARRESTED for CRIMINAL TRESPASS IN Tie SECOND DEGREE. According to Oregon law (ORS 164.245), a person commits the crime of criminal trespass In the second degree If ho or she enters or remains unlawfully in or upon premises. I, the excluded person, understand the above information and also understand the notice is effective immediately. Signature of Excluded Person 4/88 \\ PORTLAND PUBLIC SCHOOLS Al, sill N. PixunSl./loilluintJkcgiHi '\u0026gt;1221 Ilionc\n(503)249-33(17 Mailing Aiklicss: P.O. Hnx 3107 / 97208-3107 POK 11 AND POBI.K S\u0026lt; IIOOI.S POI-K ! lVO 1 VViBl/f o All Olliivi'l ilicCliK'l March 10, 1989 ___ N.E. 30th Ave. Portland, Oregon 97211 This office has been notified by the staff of Beauncxit Middle School thatWMBU school property, on 3-7-89, at 2:55 P.M., without permission. This is to inform you that there are state statutes prohibiting the unauthorized presence of persons in public schools and on school property. unauthorized presence at Beavmont is ag_ ain repoirted to usrweilfl reefrer LLoovveellllee ttoo the Juvenile Court for further action. Sincerely yours. /) L. Mac Lockett, Chief I Donald J. Eilert, Captain LML/nm cc: School CERTIFIED CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS WARNING: INTERROGATION before you are asked any questions, you must understand your RIGHTS. ID You have the right to remain silent. (D (D (4) Anything you say can be used against you in court. You have the right to talk to a lawyer before we ask you any questions and have him present while you are being questioned. If you cannot afford a lawyer, the court will appoint one before any questioning. I have READ THIS STATEMENT OF MY RIGHTS AND AM FULLY AWARE OF THESE RIGHTS. I AM WILLING TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS ASKED OF ME. 1 DO NOT DESIRE THE PRESENCE OF A LAWYER AT THIS TIME. THIS STATEMENT IS SIGNED OF MY OWN FREE WILL WITHOUT ANY THREATS OR PROMISES HAVING BEEN MADE TO ME. Signature Date Time Rev 873 Place BFtCIAL It-:VZ PORTLAND ^31 M. E. CL.\\  ID t n e s s\nW i T n e s s ^4PORTLAND PUBLIC SCHOOLS POLICE BOMB THREAT REPORT SCHOOL OR LOCATION: \"date EXACT WORDS OF PERSON PLACING CALL Caller's Identity: Voice: Loud TIME TRY TO DETERMINE THE FOLLOWING (CIRCLE AS APPROPRIATE) Male Soft Accent: Local Female Adult Juvenile Age years Speech: Fast Language: Manner: High Pitch Not Local Slow Excellent Calm Angry Emotional Background Noises: Deep Raspy Pleasant Intoxicated Other Foreign Distinct Good Region Distorted Stutter Nasal Slurred Lisp Fair Poor Foul Other Rational Irrational Coherent Incoherent Deliberate Righteous Laughing Intoxicated Office Machines Factory Machines Bedlam Trains Animals Music Quiet Voices Mixed Airplanes Street Traffic Party Atmosphere ADDITIONAL INFORMATION Time Building searched by district employee  School Police dispatched to scene  PPB Bomb Disposal Unit to scene  Other Copy to School  PPB Bomb Disposal Unit  DECEIVING telephone number PERSON WHO RECEIVED CALL  information taken by RECOMMENDATIONS [A] Implemented [B] Partial Implementation [C] Not Implemented 1. Overhaul of the Discipline Code: A B C A. X X X X X X X X X X X X X -L -U Comments: B. B. C. D. E. F. G. Adopt tough, clear and progressive discipline statements. Update the Student Rights and Responsibilities Handbook to make it appear more serious and businesslike. 1. 2 . 3 . Recommend no expensive jewelry to be worn to school. Recommend no large sums of money be brought to school. Develop a clear definition of weapons. Set a tone of progressive discipline. Establish a committee to re-write the discipline code. Add anti-gang statements. Ban Beepers. Re-evaluate due process hearing procedures. 1. 2 . Remove any appeals from the pupil/counseling division and place in the school division. Appeals for short term suspensions granted only on grounds of due process violation. (Ban Book bags.) 1. and 2. - Principals make on-going reminders through intercom announcements and school bulletins to ask students not to wear expensive jewelry and/or carry large amounts of money. These recommendations have been suggested to be included in new handbook for 1991-92. G. 2. - Administration will support a recommendation unless due process procedures have been violated. (Ban Book bags.) students to carry book bags. Some schools do not allow 2. Take a strong, tough and uncompromising position on the use or possession of weapons. A. X X B. Possession of a gun warrants permanent expulsion. Use of any weapon will warrant permanent expulsion.t J I JO c. X X X D. E. F. 3 . 4 . 5. Possession of any weapon other than a gun will warrant expulsion for a minimum of one (1) year. Possession of a weapon facsimile warrants a long term suspension. Prior to returning to the regular school environment from a suspension or expulsion for an offense involving a weapon or facsimile, a student must successfully complete one (1), semester in a Little Rock alternative school. The LRSD will not accept from another school district a student who is on expulsion or suspension as a result of possession or use of a weapon. Take a strong, tough and uncompromising stand against illegal drugs on school grounds: A. X B. Establish stronger penalties for drug offenses. Discussions should be held with the federal district attorney to determine the scope of the federal safe school laws, particularly those dealing with a protected zone of 1000 feet around school campuses. The school district's X X C. desire for the federal district attorney to prosecute should be emphasized. Purchase a drug dog for district use. Establish an Alternative School: A. X X X 1 X B. C. D. To keep students in the educational system and off the streets. To act as a way back into the regular environment. Establish a review committee of building level administrators/teachers to supervise placement in and removal from the Alternative School. Establish Saturday School in lieu of short term suspension (to offer an alternative learning environment for those who have had discipline problems in the regular setting). (Establish a properly staffed alternative classroom.) Improve the effectiveness of campus supervisors:X X A. B. C. D. E. X X X Develop a job description. Establish a training program. Have a uniform dress (wind breaker) and I.D. tag to make them easily identifiable. Better communications (walkie-talkie). Increase pay. 6. Make improvements in the Bus system: 1 A. JU. B. C. D. Better screening and hiring practices for bus drivers. Bus driver training on dealing with student problems. Drivers check bus picture I.D. cards. Bus supervision modeled after the L.A. \"safe corridors II program. 1. Pay stipends to campus supervisors and teachers to ride back seat of problem buses. (Reduce the number of bus stops.) E. Strongly recommend - Move from 3 to 2 bus runs to reduce the \"window of X X X X vulnerability\" for supervisions. X t (Earliest runs for secondary schools.) 7 . Establish a Resource Police Officer Program in each Secondary School: X X X X X A. B. C. D. E. F. G. Police presence. Drug abuse programs. Child Abuse. Extra-curricular programs. Probation counseling. Officer to be seen as a friend and advisor. Inservice for staff for procedures in getting legal assistance. (Safe driving programs.) X X 8 . Develop School Strategy Plans to prevent and deal with crisis situations: X X X X X X A. B. C. Earthguake (gunman) drill. Reverse fire drill (for getting students back into the safety of the school building when a crisis arises on the campus or in the neighborhood). Crisis Plans: 1. 2. 3. Emergency signals. Hostage Crisis. Bomb threat/reality.4 . 9 . 10. X X D. Grief counseling (training for staff). Frequent Locker checks. Improve school maintenance for security and better climate. A. X X X X X X B. c. D. E. F. G. 4 d X X X X X X X H. I. J. K. Maintain clean building and grounds to make schools an obviously different place than some neighborhoods. Prune shrubbery to allow maximum visibility. Remove all coverings (decorations) on door windows from classrooms and offices to allow better visibility to halls. Make graffiti removal a high priority for local buildings as well as central maintenance office. Install convex mirrors in \"blind halts\" and \"blind corners\". Secure doors so that you may enter only through the front, yet may exit at any door in case of fire. Post Signs: 1. 2 . 3 . 4 . Directing visitors to register in the office and receive I.D. pass. Announcing the penalty for trespassing(non-trespassing sign, legal distance apart). Giving the Hot Line Number. Weapon violation signs made larger. Make sure all rooms have working intercom. Upgrade exterior lighting. Purchase a hand held metal detector for each school (to be used in lieu of personal searches). Purchase a camera for each school for photographing and cataloguing graffiti. Develop a Crime Prevention Strategy: A. X X X B. I C. D. X X E. Crime prevention clubs: Youth Crime Watch (Miami). Crime/Violence/Weapon Prevention Hot Line (New Orleans). Work out a method with the prosecuting attorney where by a school administrator may get a warrant without leaving the school building for a long period of time. All students \u0026amp; staff should have I.D. cards. All cars have numbered parking stickers.X X F. G. Small reward for accurate tips on weapons ($5-$10) from activity funds (modeled on New Orleans). Use all available resources to improve communications between students and school personnel which will cause students to feel comfortable and protected in knowing that their identity will not be revealed or compromised when they provide school authorities with information regarding crimes to be committed on campus. 11. Initiate neighborhood child protection strategy: A. X X X X At hours when children are walking to/ from school and bus stops: 1. 2 . 3 . Develop a neighborhood II watch\" on the order of a watch\". Identify It safe houses\" child \"crime where a child may run for help. Have police cruising the areas, (Identify fewer and safer bus pick up points.) and 3 Safety-Security vehicles. 12 . Employ Social Workers at each school: I A. X X X X X X B. C. D. E. F. Worker to begin outreach program by making home and community visits. Work hours to be flexible so that after hours visitations may be made. Social workers are to help prevent neighborhood fights from spilling into the schools. Social workers are to help prevent the spread of gangs in Little Rock. Workers are to identify child abuse and neglect. Deal with residual effects of a crisis. Comments: There are no social workers currently employed in the district. Case managers in New Futures schools do a number of these tasks in their day-to- day work with students and families. 13 . Inservice for employees: X X I 4. I 1 I 4. I I I I I 4- I I I 4. I I I I A. B. C. On improved security techniques. On identifying and combating gang behavior. On self defense and intervention tactics (fights, assaults, weapons).14 . 15. 16. 17 . 18 . I I I I X I I I 4- I I I X I I I I (Strategies for women teachers to use in physical confrontations.) Comments: The Safety and Security Department has worked in a number of schools on crime prevention surveys. Additionally this department has visited churches, counselors, and McClellan Community School to talk about gang problems and identification. Begin a Gang-Violence Prevention Curriculum Program in all schools (K-12). X X A. B. Violence Prevention-model after Boston. Gang Intervention and Prevention-model Portland. Establish regular, planned meetings with a reservoir of community resource agencies to coordinate activities combating child abuse, crime, violence, and the \"gangification\" Little Rock: of X Comments: A. Regular meetings of agencies, church groups (CJOHN), police, and Health department. Meetings have been held with PTA groups, churches. Little Rock Police Department, COPE, and other groups to coordinate activities. I I X I 4- I i I I Establish close ties with the media. Establish a Leadership Roundtable for city officials and school officials: A. X X X X X B. C. D. E. Government leaders (mayor, governor, legislators, judges). Chamber of Commerce Police Teacher groups Community groups I J I I X I I I 4- I I I 4- I 1 I I The LRSD will establish an office of safety and security. 19 . Establish an on-going review committee to monitor the results of the implementation of recommendations contained in the report: I I I I X X I X I X I X I X I I I ) A. B. Small committee (6-8 people) Monitor:20. X X X X 1. 2 . 3 . Security Gang activity Programs and Curricula suggested in the report. The governor and the legislature need to take action: A. X B. C. X X X Comments: D. E. Make assault on a school employ\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_731","title":"Salary schedules","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":["1991/2005"],"dcterms_description":null,"dc_format":["application/pdf"],"dcterms_identifier":null,"dcterms_language":["eng"],"dcterms_publisher":["Little Rock, Ark. : Butler Center for Arkansas Studies. Central Arkansas Library System"],"dc_relation":null,"dc_right":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC-EDU/1.0/"],"dcterms_is_part_of":["Office of Desegregation Monitoring records (BC.MSS.08.37)","History of Segregation and Integration of Arkansas's Educational System"],"dcterms_subject":["Little Rock (Ark.)--History--20th century","Little Rock School District","Education--Arkansas","Education--Finance","Educational statistics","School employees"],"dcterms_title":["Salary schedules"],"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/731"],"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":["456 pages"],"dlg_subject_personal":null,"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":"\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n\n\n\n   \n\n\n\n\n   \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n  \n\nLITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 810 WEST MARKHAM STREET LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS January 24, 1991 TO: Board of Directors FROM: Ruth S. Steele, Superintendent of Schools SUBJECT: SALARY RECOMMENDATIONS I recommend your approval of the following salaries for the 1990-91 school year for the senior administrators listed below: 1989-90 Salary 1990-91 Sal ary Difference % Amount Associate Superintendent $56,500 Estelle Matthis $59,890 +6% $3,390 Associate Superintendent James Jennings 58,500 59,890 +2.4% 1,390 Manager, Support Services Chip Jones 49,600 52,576 +6% 2,976 Asst. Superintendent Margaret Gremillion 50,000 53,000 +6% 3,000 Controller Mark Milhollen 50,539 53,000 +4.9% 2,461 Total $13,217SLIP SHEET FOR REGULAR BOARD MEETING ON OCTOBER 24, 1991 LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 810 WEST MARKHAM STREET LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS Sec'a 3 t? TO\nFROM: SUBJECT: October 24, 1991 Board of Directors OCT 2 3 1991 Office of Dssegregsiicn f ioiing Ruth S. Steele, Superintendent of Schools PERSONNEL SALARY ADJUSTMENTS Act 10 funds resulted in average salary increases of 13.37 percent for certified administrators and 14 percent for teachers, contrast, eight senior administrators received 4 percent. In Until such time as we complete a salary study to address and solve the many inequities I have already mentioned, I recommend that duty stipends manner: be provided to senior administrators in the following Estelle Matthis James Jennings Jim Ivey Angela Sewall Margaret Gremillion Larry Robertson Arma Hart Mark Milhollen $ 3,500 3,500 3,500 2,500 2,500 2,500 2,500 2,500. I also recommend that educational stipends paid to other administrators be applicable to these employees' salary. These recommendations are effective for the 1991-92 school year. f LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 810 WEST MARKHAM STREET LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS 72201 RECEIVED Office of Desegregation Monitoring J UN 'i 5 1993 June 24, 1993 TO: Board of Directors FROM: C. M. Bernd, Superintendent of Schools SUBJECT: ADMINISTRATOR PAY Now that the Board and virtually all other employee groups have agreed on contracts for the 1993-94 school year, it is necessary for the Board to make administrators. decisions concerning the District's In my opinion, the District must address the issue of recruiting and retaining talented managers. To that end, I suggesting that compensation for the positions of Associate Superintendent and Manager of Resources and School Support be set at $68,000 for the 1993-94 fiscal year. I am also suggesting that compensation for the positions of Assistant Superintendent, Controller, Student Hearing Officer, and Desegregation Facilitator be set at $61,000 for the 1993-94 fiscal year. Further, I am advocating a 1.5% base salary increase for all 12- month administrators except those listed above. In addition, I suggest that all 12-month administrators be placed on a 250 day contract with paid vacation days credited according to years of experience as an administrator in the Little Rock School District and Pulaski County Special School District at the time of the merger in 1987 as follows\ndays\n15+ years, 25 days. 0-7 years, 15 days\n8-14 years, 20 For all administrators whose contracts are less than 12-months, I suggest a 3% base salary increase. Finally, accumulate contract. am advocating that administrators be sick leave up allowed to If a contract is reduced. to the length of the individual's the accumulated sick leave cannot be greater than the length of the current contract. I It is my recommendation, following\ntherefore. that the Board adopt the A $68,000 annual salary for the positions of Associate Superintendent and Manager of Resources Support for FY 1993-94\nand Schoolr A $61,000 annual salary for the positions of Assistant Superintendent, Controller, Student Hearing Officer, and Desegregation Facilitator. 1.5 base salary increase for administrators for FY 1993-94\nall 12-month A A 250 day contract for all 12-month administrators with paid vacation days based on experience in LRSD and PCSSD of 15 days for 0-7 years of service\n20 days for 8-14 years of service\nand 25 days for 15 or more years of service\nA 3% base salary increase for all administrators on a less than 12-month contract\nand The ability for administrators to accumulate sick leave up to the length of the individual's contract.LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 810 WEST MARKHAM STREET TO: FROM: SUBJECT: LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS June 24, 1993 Board of Directors 72201 C. M. Bernd, Superintendent of Schools ADMINISTRATOR PAY Now that the Board and virtually all other employee groups have agreed on contracts for the 1993-94 school year, it is necessary for the Board to make administrators. decisions concerning the District's In my opinion, the District must address the issue of recruiting and retaining talented managers. To that end, I suggesting that compensation for the positions of Associate Superintendent and Manager of Resources and School Support be set at $68,000 for the 1993-94 fiscal year. I am also suggesting that compensation for the positions of Assistant Superintendent, Controller, Student Hearing Officer, and Desegregation Facilitator be set at $61,000 for the -1993-94 fiscal year. Further, I am advocating a 1.5% base salary increase for all 12- month administrators except those listed above. In addition, I suggest that all 12-month administrators be placed on a 250 day contract with paid vacation days credited according to years of experience as an administrator in the Little Rock School District and Pulaski County Special School District at the time of the merger in 1987 as follows: days\n15+ years, 25 days. 0-7 years, 15 days\n8-14 years, 20 For all administrators whose contracts are less than 12-months, I suggest a 3 base salary increase. Finally, accumulate contract. am sick advocating that administrators be leave up to the length of the allowed to individual's If a contract is reduced, the accumulated sick leave cannot be greater than the length of the current contract. I It is my recommendation, following: therefore. that the Board adopt the A $68,000 annual salary for the positions of Associate Superintendent and Manager of Resources Support for FY 1993-94\nand School A $61,000 annual salary for the positions of Assistant Superintendent, Controller, Student Hearing Officer, and Desegregation Facilitator. 1.5 base salary increase for all administrators for FY 1993-94\n12-month A A 250 day contract for all 12-month administrators with paid vacation days based on experience in LRSD and PCSSD of 15 days for 0-7 years of service\n20 days for 8-14 years of service\nand 25 days for 15 or more years of service\nA 3% base salary increase for all administrators on a less than 12-month contract\nand The ability for administrators to accumulate sick leave up to the length of the individual's contract.LRSD 1993-94 CERTIFIED SALARY INCREASES (A) (B) (C) (D) (E) (F) (G) (H) (I) Base Salary Number of Certified Positions Actual Average Salary Actual Average Step Increase Actual Average Salary Raise Average Total Increase (D-hE) Revised ^rage Salary (C+F) Impact on Budget (BxF) Total Cost to District (BxG) 16,000-21,000 21,001-26,000 26,001-31,000 31,001-36,000 36,001-41,000 41,001-56,000 56,001-61,000 61,001-76,000 76,001-81,000 81,001-86,000 TOTAL (J) 1993-94 Average Salary (A) The base salary will be used only for identifying employees within a certain salary range. (B) The number of positions column identifies the number of positions within that base salary range. (C) The actual average salary is an average salary for all the positions identified in column (B). (D) Actual average step increase is the averaged dollar amount received per position identified in column (B). (E) Actual average salary raise is the averaged dollar amount received for the \"across the board\" percentage raise per position identified in column (B). (F) Average total increase is the step increase plus the salary raise. This is the amount the district will pay \"over and above\" last year. (G) Revised (or adjusted) average salary is the average salary identified in column (C) plus the step increase, plus the salary raise. (H) The impact on the budget is the number of positions identified in column (B) times the average total increase, column (F). This is the additional amount the district will be paying during 1993-94 over what they paid in 1992-93 for the positions identified in column (B). (I) Total cost to district is the amount the district will pay for salaries of those positions identified in column (B) during 1993-94. (J) 1993-94 average salary is determined by dividing the total cost to district, column (I), by the number of positions, column (B),Exhibit 1-C Revised LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 1993-94 CERTIFIED SALARY INCREASES (A) BASE SALARY (1993-94 Schedule) (JI o 20,000-25,000 25,001-30,000 30,001-35,000 35,001-40,000 40,001-45,000 45,001-50,000 50,001-55,000 55,001-60,000 60,001-65,000 65,001-70,000 (B) NUMBER OF CERTIFIED POSITIONS 301.50 433.30 470.90 411.50 216.00 20.00 (C) ACTUAL AVERAGE SALARY 1992-93 21,320.10 .26,148.75 30,702.44 35,010.48 39,430.38 44,607.72 (D) ACTUAL AVERAGE STEP INCREASE 804.37 805.44 806.53 809.77 824.31 947.95 (E) ACTUAL AVERAGE SALARY RAISE 671.10 837.56 947.47 1,085.23 1,387.76 1,382.95 (F) AVERAGE TOTAL INCREASE (D^E) 1,475.47 1,643.00 1,754.00 1,895.00 2,212.07 2,330.90 (G) REVISED AVERAGE SALARY (C*F) 22,795.57 27,791.75 32.456.44 36,905.48 41,642.45 46,938.62 (H) IMPACT ON BUDGET (B*F) 444,854.21 711,911.90 825,958.60 779,792.50 477,807.12 46,618.00 (I) TOTAL COST TO DISTRICT (B*G) 6,872,864.36 12,042,165.28 15,283,737.60 15,186,605.02 8,994,769.20 938,772.40 TOTAL 1993-94 AVG SAL 1,853.20 32,008.91 3,286,942.33 59,318,913.85 Note: The base salary ranges in (A) are determined using the 1993-94 salary schedule\ntherefore, average salaries for the personnel shown in (C) for 1992-93 may fall below the ranges defined in (A) for 1993-94.^6^ Exhibit 1-C Revised LITTU: ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 1993-94 CERTIFIED SALARY INCREASES UI o (A) BASE SALARY (1993-94 Schedule) 20,000-25,000 25,001-30,000 30,001-35,000 35,001-40,000 40,001-45,000 45,001-50,000 50,001-55,000 55,001-60,000 60,001-65,000 65,001-70,000 (B) NUMBER OF CERTIFIED POSITIONS 301.50 433.30 470.90 411.50 216.00 20.00 (C) ACTUAL AVERAGE SALARY 1992-93 21,320,10 .26,148.75 30,702.44 35,010.48 39,430.38 44,607.72 (D) ACTUAL AVERAGE STEP INCREASE 804.37 805.44 806.53 809.77 824.31 947.95 (E) ACTUAL AVERAGE SALARY RAISE 671.10 837.56 947.47 1,085.23 1,387.76 1,382.95 (F) AVERAGE TOTAL INCREASE (DtE) 1,475.47 1,643.00 1,754.00 1,895.00 2,212.07 2,330.90 (G) REVISED AVERAGE SALARY (C^F) 22,795.57 27,791.75 32,456.44 36,905.48 41,642.45 46,938.62 (H) IMPACT ON BUDGET (B-F) 444,854.21 711,911.90 825,958.60 779,792.50 477,807.12 46,618.00 (\u0026lt;) TOTAL COST TO DISTRICT (B-G) 6,872,864.36 12,042,165.28 15,283,737.60 15,186,605.02 8,994,769.20 938,772.40 TOTAL 1993-94 AVG SAL 1,853.20 32,008.91 3,286,942.33 59,318,913.85 Note: The base salary ranges in (A) are determined using the 1993-94 salary schedule\ntherefore, average salaries for the personnel shown in (C) for 1992-93 may fall below the ranges defined in (A) tor 1993-94.LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 810 WEST MARKHAM STREET LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS August 30, 1993 MEMORANDUM TO: .Board of Directors FROM: SUBJECT: stelle Matthis, Interim Superintendent Associate Superintendent Pay Rate Effective August 3, 1993, Dr. Henry Williams directed me to administratively assign Sterling Ingram to assume temporary responsibilities for the Desegregation offices. He is performing the responsibilities left vacant by the resignation of Marie Parker. By means of this memorandum. Sterling Ingram should be paid in accordance with Superintendent for Desegregation. the position of Associate Dr. Williams has approved the increased rate of pay for Sterling Ingram. /bjf cc: Mark MilhollenLITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 810 WEST MARKHAM STREET LITTLE ROCK, AR 72201 May 25, 1994 TO: FROM: Bob Morgan, Office of Desegregation Monitoring ark Milhollen, Manager of Support Services SUBJECT: Information Request Per your telephone request concerning a special sorting of data included in the Districts salary object codes, I submit the attached schedule which includes changes filed in the May 18, 1994, Court submission (under the categories designated by you). Please contact me if additional information is needed. MDM:ca AttachmentLITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT Object Actual 1992/93 Budget 1993/94 Budget 1994/95 INSTRUCTION iio 117 120 124 _______130 140 Total Instruction I 349,686,191,29 | I $166,548.53 I $7,987,966.23 | $52,365.03 I $195,978.02 I $1,076.76 I $54,683,609.33 | $191,735.00 I $7,468J 71.67 I $0.00 ! I $53,090,125.36 | $0.00 $62,343,516.00 $52,736,456.32 $163,614.11 $3,199,755.04 _________$0.00 _________$0.00 _________$0.00 $61,099,825.47 -3,5% INSTRUCTION ADMINISTRATION 110 115 117 120 124 130 135 140 145 Total Inst Admin I I $3,201,426.21 I $5,386.52 I $157,451.13 I $2,383,373.10 | $17,122.71 I $1,167,653.99 ' $175,747.31 $7,108,161.47 $3,157,753.52 | I $114,150.31 I $2,317,952.67 | I $1,226,321.00 I I $185,264.20 I $0.00 1 $7,001,446.70 I $3,455,670.47 $128,183.00 $2,471,351.29 $60,000.00 $1,400,000.00 $200,000.00 $7,715,204.76 SUPPORT SERVICES 0110 0117 0120 0121 _______0140 Total Sup Sen/ $11,967.73 $2,650.00 $5,297,373.66 $1,167,691.67 I $234,152.52 j $6,713,840.53 I $0.00 $5,176,657.28 | $1,136,945.28 I $231,580.25 i $6,545 J 82.31 I $0.00 $5,576,194.79 $1,089,626.75 $200,000.00 $6,365,821.54 ^gRSQTQTAL I- $71,912,127.91 I $7S,mi45.ST | $75.S80.85T.77~j9 1/4 MOS. -95-96 000001 1 20262 000002 21316 000003 22369 000004 000005 000006 23443 24537 25652 2 21072 22126 23180 24254 25348 26462 3 21883 22937 23990 25064 26158 27273 4 22693 23747 24801 25875 26969 28083 5 23504 24558 25611 26685 27779 28894 6 24314 25368 26422 27496 28590 29704 7 25125 26179 27232 28306 29400 39515 8 25935 26989 28043 29117 30211 31325 9 26746 27799 28853 29927 31021 32136 10 27556 26610 29664 30737 31832 32946 11 28367 29420 30474 31548 32642 33757 12 29177 30231 31285 32358 33453 34567 13 29388 31041 32095 33169 34263 35377 14 30798 31852 32905 33979 35074 36188 15 31609 32662 33716 34790 35884 36998 16 32419 33473 34526 35600 36694 37809 17 35337 36411 37505 38619 18 37221 38315 39430 19 39126 40240 20 41051 7 '010*744 IS*? WALKER LAW FIRM 'S33 P02 AUS OS 'S? John W. Walker, P.A. Attorney At Lw ] 723 BaO.WWAY Little Rock. Akkans.is 12206 Telephone (.501) 374-375$ FAX (501) 374-4I8\nJOHN W. %\u0026gt;LiLK ILILPH WASHINGTON ^URK BURNETTE AUSTIN PORTER. JR. f Fax August S, 1997 Dr. Don Roberts, Superintendent of Schools Mr Richard Hurley Little Rock School District 810 W. xMarkham Little Rock, Arkansas Re: Little Rock School Dititrict Gentlemen\nUnder the Arkansas Freedom of Information xAct, would you please provide me the salary histoiy of Roy Wade, Cleo Collier, Jerome Farmer and James Moseby, and anuy other writings that reflect their pay. Please provide this information to me by Tuesday, August 13, 1997. Thank you for your attention to this matter. 1 ^mcerely. W. Walker rww\nlp cc. Ms. Ann Brown FRIDAY. ELDREDGE \u0026amp; CLARK MfRSCHEL H. pmOAT, e-.a. ROBERT V. LICmT, P-A. WILLIAM H. SUTTON. P.A. JAMES W . MOOR 6 BYNQN M. eiBEMAN. JR-. P A. JOE 0. BCkU. PA. JOHN C. ECHOLS, P.A. JAME3 BWTTRY. P.A. FREDERICK S. URSERV. P.A. H.T. LAR2ELJC. OSCAR E. OAVlS. JR , P A. JAMES C. CLAR*. 4P-. P A. THOMAS P. LEGGETT. P.A. JOHN OCWtY WATSON, P.A. FAUL B. BENHAM III. F A. larry W. BURKS.P.A. A. WYCKLIFP N13BET. JR.. F.A. JAMES EDWARD HARRIS. P.A. J. PHILLIP MALCOM. P.A. JAMES M. SIMPSON. P.A. MER^OITh P. CATLETT, F A. JAMES M. SAXTON. P A. 9M\u0026lt;PHCRO rubsell HI. P.A DONALD H- BACON. P A. WILLIAM THOMAS BAXTER. P.A. WALTER A. Paulson ii. p.a. BARRY e. COPLIN, P A. RICHARD D. TAVLOR. P-A. JOSEPH B. HORST. JR.. P.A. (LIZABETH J. ROBBEN. F.A. CHRISTOPHER HELLER, P.A. LAURA HENSLEY SMITH, F.A. ROBERT 8. SHAPER. P.A. WILLIAM M. GRIPPIN III, P.A. THOMAS N. ROSE, P-A. Michael 5- moore. OlANt $. MACKEY. P.A. WALTER M. EBEL III, P.A. A ?AATNERSHI\u0026lt;\u0026gt; OF INOIVlOUAUS AND PROFESSIONAL ASSOCIATIONS ATTORNEYS AT LAW KEVIN A, CRASS. P.A. WILLIAM A. waOOELL, JR.. P A. CLYOE 'TAO* TURNER. P.A. CALVIN 4 Mill, R.A. 2000 first commercial building 400 WEST CAPITOL LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS 72201-3493 T6LSPH0NE 501-376-201 1 FAX NO. 501-376-2147 August 24, 1994 /I ? 2B 'sg/i SUPrsoFFICt SCO J. i,ANCA8TCR. P.A. JERRY L. MALONE, P A. M. OAYLE CORLEY. P.A ROBERT B, REACH. JR.. P.A J. LEE BROWN. P.A. JAMES C baker, JR.. P A. H. CHARLES axnnwENO, jR., P.A. HARRY A. LIGHT. P.A. SCOTT H. tucker, f.A. JOHN CLATTON RANDOLPH. P.A. GUY ALTON WAGE, P.a. PRICE C, CAROnER J. MICHAEL PlCAENB TONIA P. JONCS DAVID D. WILSON H. MOORE ANDREW T. TURNtn JOHN RAY WHITE DAVID M. GRAP CARLA 0. SPAINHOUn JOHN C. PENDLEY. JR. ALLISON GRAVES BAZZEL JONANN C. ROOSEVELT R. CHRISTOPHER LAWSON GREGORY 0. TAYLOR TONY L. WILCOX PRAM C. HICKMAN OliTTY J, OCMORV SqWNNib WILLIAM J. SMITH WILLIAM A. ELDREDGE. JR.. P A  .s. Clark WII I I. .M . TERRY wHtiAM L. Catton, jr.. p RtTEA' *\u0026lt;A. (SOU 370.1606 ^fce/veo Dr. Henry P. Williams Superintendent Little Rock School District 810 West Markham Little Rock, AR 72201 Re\nLRSD V. PCSSD Dear Dr. williams\nI have noted that the board intends to consider a proposal to use any revenues in excess, of those budgeted to provide stipends to senior teachers and support personnel who did not receive a step increase. I am concerned about the proposal for several reasons which I will discuss below. Jerry Malone will be present at the board meeting tomorrow night to discuss the proposal with you and the board. My first concern is for the integrity of the bargaining process. After long and sometimes difficult negotiations, the board has approved and the Class Room Teachers Association has ratified an agreement between the parties. I know of no precedent for an effort to reopen or change the agreement at this point. I am also concerned that the use of excess revenues to pay stipends would not be favored by the district court. The court has expressed its concern that the district continues to fund recurring expenses with non-recurring revenues. The district must also make plans to replace the diminishing settlement funds and should have a contingency plan to repay the settlement loan. It would be difficult to justify to the court the payment of stipends in the face of our long term budget problems. 20d too ** NOIlWiS 30IAd3S ailWISOVJ ** 19517 Sgl 60 SS ! Z0 0  80 17661Jerry Malone will be prepared to discuss these and other concerns about the stipend proposal, like to discuss the matter further. Please call me if you would Yours truly, er Heller CJH/k J lOd too ** NOIiViS 30IAd3S 3HWIS0VJ ** Z9Gt C2l GO 55:10 oc-ao-teGiJohn W. Walker, P.A. Attorney At Law 1723 Broadway Little Rock, Arkansas 72206 Telephone (501) 374-3758 FAX (501) 374-4187 received ^U6 2 0 1997 JOHN W. WALKER RALPH WASHINGTON MARK BURNETTE AUSTIN PORTER, JR. office Or DESEGREGMlOfl MONIIOWIW via Facsimile 371-0100 August 18, 1997 Ms. Ann Brown Office of Desegregation Monitoring 201 East Markham, Suite 510 Little Rock, AR 72201 Dear Ms. Brown: Enclosed please find the salary histories of four black employees of the Little Rock School District. Please look at this matter and you will see how the District finds money whenever it wants. I further believe that the District rewards those who seek to regress the legitimate intervention of the Joshua Intervenors. The stipend policy gives Mr. Millhollen, Dr. Hurley and Mr. Gadberry huge opportunity to manipulate pay of employees and it also shows how the budget itself can be manipulated. I believe that a budget hearing is in order and request that you advise the Court of same. \" ' '  matter if you seek our input. We can shed more light on this Clearly budget manipulation affects the District's ability to met its desegregation plan obligations. Please let me hear from you. Walker JWW:js Enclosure Cleophis Collier salary history Hired revised Grade - step 8/24/87 1-2 asst-jr hi asst-jr hi 1987-88 1988-89 1989-90 1990-91 1991-92 1992-93 1993-94 1994-95 1995-96 1996-97 1-3 11-3 11-4 11-5 11-6 tchr-2-7 tchr-2-8 tchr-4-9 admcer-2-7 admcer-2-8 Cleophis Collier Months-days 9.25months-192 9.25months-192 9.25months-192 9.25months-192 9.25months-192 9.25months-192 9.25months-192 9.25months-192 9.25months-192 10.5months-210 10.5months-210 Salary Stipends(total) $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ 16,234.00 17,702.00 18,555.00 19,200.00 21,075.00 24,311.00 25,180.00 26,739.00 29,872.00 36,222.00 37,288.00 $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ 5,510.00 5,510.00 5,642.00 5,642.00 5,839.00 5,388.00 6,019.00 6,206.00 6,206.00 1,840.00 1,840.00 Page 1 4 .Hired Grade - step 8/27/74 1-0 revised revised revised 1975-76 1976-77 1977-78 1978-79 1979-80 1980-81 1981-82 1982-83 1983-84 1984-85 1985-86 1986-87 1987-88 1988-89 1989-90 1990-91 1991-92 1992-93 1993-94 1994-95 1995-96 1996-97 1-1 1-2 1-3 11-4 III-5 IV-5 IV-7 IV-8 IV-9 IV-11 IV-12 IV-13 IV-14 IV-14 IV-16 IV-17 IV-18 Tchr-5-19 Tchr-5-19 Tchr-5-19 Tchr-5-19 admcer-2-15 Jerome Farmer salary history Jerome Fanner Months-days Salary 10months 10months lOmonths lOmonths lOmonths lOmonths lOmonths lOmonths lOmonths lOmonths 9.25months lOmonths lOmonths lOmonths lOmonths lOmonths 9.25 mo-192 9.25 mo-192 9.25 mo-192 9.25 mo-192 9.25 mo-192 9.25 mo-192 9.25 mo-192 $ 7,250.00 $ Stipends(total) $ 8,240.00 $ $ 8,692.00 $ $ 10,790.00 $ $ 11,571.00 $ $ 13,988.00 $ $ 15,766.00 $ $ 17,282.00 $ $ 19,861.00 $ $ 19,999.00 $ $ 21,603.00 $ $ 22,515.00 $ $ 23,453.00 $ $ 26,178.00 $ $ 27,488.00 $ $ 28,799.00 $ $ 31,248.00 $ $ 35,671.00 $ $ 37,960.00 $ $ 38,763.00 $ $ 39,054.00 $ $ 39,126.00 $ $ 44,752.00 $ 300.00 380.00 589.00 801.00 857.00 1,656.00 1,722.00 2,207.00 2,548.00 3,954.00 4,838.00 5,031.00 5,034.00 5,915.00 6,673.00 6,100.00 6,100.00 5,891.00 5,891.00 5,985.00 5,985.00 6,966.00 272.00 Page 1Hired Grade - step 8/21/73 1-0 revised revised asst-jr hi asst-jr hi asst-jr hi asst-jr hi asst-jr hi asst-jr hi asst-jr hi asst-jr hi asst-jr hi asst-jr hi asst-sr hi 1974-75 1975-76 1976-77 1977-78 1978-79 1979-80 1980-81 1981-82 1982-83 1983-84 1984-85 1985-86 1986-87 1987-88 1988-89 1989-90 1990-91 1991-92 1992-93 1993-94 1994-95 1995-96 1996-97 1-1 1-2 1-3 1-4 1-5 1-6 11-7 11-8 11-9 11-10 IV-12 IV-13 35-2-7 36-2-8 36-2-9 36-2-10 36-2-11 36-2-12 admcer-2-13 admcer-2-14 admcer-2-15 admcer-2-16 admcer-3-17 Jimmy Mosby salary history Jimmy Mosby Months-days 9.25months 9.25months 9.25months 9.25months 9.25months 9.25months 9.25months 9.25months 9.25months 9.25months 9.25months 9.25months 9.25months 10months-180 Salary $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ 10.5months-210 $ 10.5months-210 $ 10.5months-210 $ 10.5months-210 $ 10.5months-210 $ 10.5months-210 $ 10.5months-210 $ 10.5months-210 $ 10.5months-210 $ 10.5months-210 $ 6,700.00 $ 7,468.00 $ 8,480.00 $ 8,938.00 $ 9,806.00 $ 10,471.00 $ 12,213.00 $ 13,809.00 $ 15,155.00 $ 17,561.00 19,827.00 $ 22,158.00 $ 23,079.00 $ 22,937.00 $ 29,072.00 $ 30,648.00 $ 31,500.00 $ 34,322.00 $ 38,999.00 $ 40,132.00 $ 42,371.00 $ 43,405.00 $ 44,718.00 $ 48,584.00 $ Stipsnds(total) 335.00 635.00 360.00 369.00 394.00 410.00 466.00 592.00 108.00 124.00 375.00 1,637.00 286.00 340.00 340.00 1,254.00 2,370.00 340.00 340.00 340.00 340.00 340.00 362.00 Page 1Hired 8/14/67 I-2 revised revised 1968-69 1969-70 1970-71 1971-72 1972-73 1973-74 1974-75 1975-76 1976-77 1977-78 1978-79 1979-80 1980-81 1981-82 1982-83 1983-84 1984-85 1985-86 1986-87 1987-88 1988-89 1989-90 1990-91 1991-92 1992-93 1993-94 1994-95 1995-96 1996-97 1997-98 Roy Wade salary history Roy Wade Grade - step Months-days Salary 1-3 1-4 1-5 1-5 1-7 1-8 11-9 11-10 11-11 11-11 11-11 11-11 11-11 ill-12 111-12 111-12 1111-14 IIII-14 1111-14 tch-5-15 tch-5-15 tch-5-17 tch-5-18 tch-5-19 tch-5-19 tch-5-19 tch-5-19 tch-5-19 tch-5-19 lOmonths lOmonths lOmonths lOmonths 10months lOmonths lOmonths lOmonths lOmonths lOmonths lOmonths 10months 10months lOmonths lOmonths lOmonths 9.25 mo-192 9.25 mo-192 9.25 mo-192 9.25 mo-192 9.25 mo-192 9.25 mo-192 9.25 mo-192 9.25 mo-192 9.25 mo-192 9.25 mo-192 9.25 mo-192 9.25 mo-192 9.25 mo-192 9.25 mo-192 $ $ $ $ $ $ $ 5,958.00 6,716.00 6,901.00 7,210.00 7,210.00 8,280.00 8,982.00 admcer-3-20 11 mo-210 $10,346.00 $11,672.00 $12,234.00 $13,584.00 $15,442.00 $16,464.00 $18,677.00 $21,300.00 $22,108.00 $23,268.00 $23,643.00 $24,026.00 $27,645.00 $29,028.00 $30,340.00 $32,883.00 $37,496.00 $37,633.00 $38,763.00 $39,054.00 $39,126.00 $40,088.00 $40,088.00 $52,430.00 Page 1 Stipends(total) $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ 1,300.00 1,300.00 1,300.00 1,300.00 1,485.00 1,658.00 1,500.00 2,050.00 1,840.00 2,214.00 2,014.00 2,094.00 2,950.00 2,717.00 2,475.00 2,908.00 5,559.00 5,427.00 5,652.00 5,652.00 6,345.00 7,001.00 6,567.00 7,388.00 7,978.00 7,977.00 8,277.00 7,847.00 8,685.00 9,435.00 1,862.00oZZ John W. Walker, p.a. Attorney At Law 1723 Broadway Little Rock, Arkansas 72206 Telephone (501) 374-3758 FAX (501) 374-4187 received MJG 2 0 1997 JOHN W. WALKER RALPH WASHINGTON MARK BURNETTE AUSTIN PORTER, JR. OFFICE OF desegregation MONilORlNQ Via Facsimile 324-2146 August 18, 1997 Dr. Don Roberts Interim Superintendent of Schools Little Rock School District 810 West Markham Little Rock, AR 72201 Dear Don: This request is being made pursuant to the Arkansas Freedom of Information Act. Would you please provide to me the following information by 5:00 p.m. on Thursday afternoon. a printout of all stipends paid to employees in the District for the past five years\n1. 2 . a copy of the District's stipend policy\nany written interpretations of the stipend policy made by any administrator or by the Board within the last five 3 . years\nand the salary history of all junior and senior high principals for the last five years. 4. Please explain how an uncertified administrator can be given a salary of $54,000 pursuant to your salary scale. Is this being done so as to reward Mr. Roy Wade for \"standing up\" to the class counsel for the Joshua Intervenors. I am also curious to know why Ms. Gayle Bradford is the highest paid senior high school principal in the District. advised that she has the least experience as a senior high administrator or principal of any high school principal now occupying that position. ?  ' - - I am and Ms. Again, it seems as if the Hall faculty Bradford's favorites who do not favor the desegregation plan are rewarded for their adversity to it. if I am wrong. Please correct me. Please let me hear from you.I. Sincerely, \u0026gt;3ohn W. Walker JWW:js cc: Ms. Ann Brown 5013744137 WALKER LAW FIRM 992 P32/08 AUG IS 97 17:55 John vv. Walker, e.a. Attorney At Law 1723 Broadway Little Rock, Arkansas 72206 Telerhont (501) 374-3758 PAX (501) 374-4187 JOHN W. WALKER RALPH WASHINGTON MARK BURNETTE AUSTIN PORTER. JR, Ms. Ann Brown Via Facsimile - August 18, 1997 371-0100 Desegregation Monitoring 201 Last Markham, Suite 5io Little Rock, AR 72201 Dear Ms. Brown: Enclosed please find the employees of the Little Rock i this matter and Salary histories of four black , School District. T.u ... Will see how the District whenever it wants. '-ricr Please look at finds money I further believe that the to thJ The stipend policy gives Mr Mi 11 hnn of the Joshua Intervenors. Gadberry huge opXtu^i^v Millhollen, Dr. Hurley and Mr. also shows how the budget itself^can^b J^P}oy6es and it xtseir can be mamnniat-o/t itself can be manipulated. I believe that you advise the Court%f^same ^^We^c^ order and request that matter if you seek on? m ^^^ht on this affects thrniSric?\" aSuiv Obligations. ability to met its desegregation plan Please let me hear from you.  Walker JWW:js Enclosure5013744187 WALKER LAW FIRM 992 P03/O8 AUS 18 97 17:56 Cleophis Collier salary history Hired revised Grade - step 8/24/87 1-2 asst-jr hi asst-jr hi 1987-88 1988-89 1989-90 1990-91 1991-92 1992-93 1993-94 1994-95 1995-96 1996-97 I-3 II-3 11-4 11-5 11-6 tchr-2-7 tchr-2-8 tchr-4-9 adnncer-2-7 admcer-2-8 Cleophis Collier MonthsKJays Salary Stlpendsftotal) 9.25monlhs-192 $ 16.234.00 $ Salary 9.25months-192 $ 17,702.00 $ 9.2Snionths-192 $ 18.555.00 $ 9.25months-192 $ 19,200.00 $ 9.25months-192 $ 21,075.00 $ 9.25months-192 $ 24,311,00 $ 9.25months-192 $ 25,180.00 S 9.26rnonths-192 $ 26,739.00 S 9.25months-192 $ 29.872,00 $ 10.5months-210 $ 36,222,00 $ 10.5months-210 $ 37,288.00 $ 5,510.00 5,510.00 5.642.00 5,642.00 5,839.00 5.388.00 6,019.00 6,206.00 6,206.00 1,840.00 1,840.00 Page 1 45013744187 WALKER LAW FIRM 59. PO4/0S AUG IS 97 17 b Hired Grade - 8/27/74 1-0 step revised revised revised 1975-76 1976-77 1977-78 1978-79 1979-80 1980-81 1981-82 1982-83 1983-84 1984-85 1985-86 1986-87 1987-88 1988-89 1989-90 1990-91 1991-92 I-1 1-2 1-3 11-4 III-5 IV-6 !V-7 IV-8 IV-9 IV-11 IV-12 IV-13 IV-14 IV-14 IV-16 IV-17 IV-18 1992-93 Tchr-5- i-19 1993-94 Tchr-5-19 1994-95 1995-96 1996-97 Tchr-5-19 Tchr-5-19 admcer-2-15 Jerome Farmer salary history Jerome Farmer Months-days Salary Stipendsftotal) 7,250.00 S lOmonths Wmonths 10months lOmonths lOmonths Wmonths Wmonths Wmonths Wmonths lOmonths 9.25months Wmonths Wmonths lOmonths Wmonths Wmonths 9.25 mo-192 9.2S mo-192 9.25 mo-192 9.25 mo-192 9.25 mo-192 9.25 mo-192 9.25 mo-192 $ $ $ 8,240.00 $ 8,692.00 S S 10,790.00 $ $ 11,571.00 $ $ 13.988.00 $ $ 15,766.00 $ $ 17,282.00 S $ 19,861.00 $ $ 19,999.00 $ $ 21,603.00 S $ 22,515.00 $ S 23.453.00 $ $ 26,178.00 S $ 27,488.00 $ S 28,799.00 S $ 31,248.00 $ $ 35,671,00 S S 37,960,00 S $ 38,763,00 $ S 39,054.00 $ $ 39,126,00 S S 44,752.00 $ 300.00 380.00 589.00 801.00 857.00 1,656.00 1,722.00 2,207.00 2,548.00 3,954.00 4,838.00 5,031.00 5,034.00 5,915,00 6,673.00 6,100.00 6,100.00 5,891.00 5,891.00 5,985.00 5,985.00 6,966.00 272.00 Page 1513137441S'? WALKER LAW FIRM 992 R05'0S AUG 13 '9' Hired Grade - 8/21/73 1-0 step revised revised asst-jr hi asst-jr hi 1974-75 1975-76 1976-77 1977-78 1978-79 1979-80 1980-81 1981-82 1982-83 1983-84 1984-85 1985-86 1986-87 1987-88 asst-jrhi 1988-89 asst-jrhi 1989-90 asst-jr hl asst-jr hi asst-jr hi asst-jr hi asst-jr hi asst-jr hi 1990-91 1991-92 I-1 1-2 1-3 1-4 1-5 1-6 11-7 11-8 11-9 11-10 IV-12 IV-13 35-2-7 36-2-8 36-2-9 36-2-10 36-2-11 36-2-12 1992-93 admcer-2-13 1993-94 1994-95 1995-96 asst-srhi 1996-97 admc9r-2-14 admcer-2-15 admcer-2-18 admcer-3-17 Jimmy Mosby salary history Jimmy Mosby Months-days 9.25months 9.25months 9.25months 9.25month5 9.25months 9.25months 9.25months 9.25months 9.25months 9.25months 9.25months 9.25months 9.25months IOmonths-180 Salary Stlpends(total} 6,700.00 $ $ $ S s s 7,468.00 $ 8,480.00 $ 8,938.00 $ 9,806.00 $ S 10,471.00 $ S 12,213.00 $ $ 13,809.00 S $ 15,155.00 S $ 17,561.00 S 19,827.00 $ $ 22,158.00 $ $ 23,079.00 $ $ 22,937.00 S 335.00 635.00 360.00 369.00 394,00 410.00 466.00 592.00 108.00 10.5months-210 $ 29,072.00 $ 10.5month8-210 $ 30,648.00 $ 10.5months-210 $ 31,500.00 $ 10.5months-210 $ 34,322.00 $ 10.5months-210 $ 38,999.00 $ 10.5months-210 $ 40,132.00 $ 10.5months-210 $ 42,371,00 $ 10.5mon(hs-210 $ 43,406,00 $ 10.5months-210 $ 44,718,00 5 10.5months-210 $ 48,584.00 $ 124.00 375.00 1,637.00 286.00 340.00 340.00 1,254.00 2,370.00 340.00 340.00 340.00 340.00 340.00 362.00 Page 15013744137 WALKER LAW FIRM qq- F06 '08 AUG IS  17: 5 Hired revised revised Roy Wade salary history Roy Wade Grade - step Months-day: 8/14/67 I-2 'S 1968-69 1969-70 1970-71 1971-72 1972-73 1973-74 1974-75 1975-76 1976-77 1977-78 1978-79 1979-80 1980-81 1981-82 1982-83 1983-84 1984-85 1985-86 1986-87 1987-88 1988-89 1989-90 1990-91 1991-92 1992-93 1993-94 1994-95 1995-96 1996-97 1997-98 1-3 1-4 1-5 1-5 1-7 1-8 11-9 11-10 II-11 11-11 11-11 11-11 11-11 111-12 III-12 111-12 IIII-14 1111-14 1111-14 tch-5-15 tch-5-15 tch-5-17 tch-5-18 tch-5-19 tch-5-19 tch-5-19 tch-5-19 tch-5-19 tch-5-19 admcer-3-\nlOmonths lOmonths 10months lOmonths lOmonths lOmonths lOmonths lOmonths lOmonths lOmonths Wmonths lOmonths lOmonths lOmonths lOmonths lOmonths 9.25 mo-192 9,25 mo-192 9.25 mo-192 9.25 mo-192 9.25 mo-192 9.25 mo-192 9.25 mo-192 9.25 mo-192 9.25 mo-192 9.25 mo-192 9,25 mo-192 9.25 mo-192 9.25 mo-192 9.25 mo-192 20 11 mo-210 Salary $tipends(total) $ 5,958.00 $ $ 6,716.00 $ $ 6,901.00 $ $ 7,210.00 $ $ 7,210.00 S $ 8,280.00 S $ 8,982.00 $ $10,346,00 $ $11,672,00 $ $12,234.00 $ $13,584.00 S $15,442.00 $ $16,464.00 $ $18,677.00 $ $21,300.00 $ $22,108.00 $ $23,268.00 S $23,643.00 $ $24,026.00 .5 $27,645.00 $ $29,028,00 $ $30,340.00 $ $32,883.00 $ $37,496.00 $ $37,633.00 $ $38,763.00 $ $39,054.00 $ $39,126.00 $ $40,088.00 $ $40,088.00 $ $52,430.00 $ 1,300.00 1,300.00 1,300.00 1,300.00 1,485.00 1,658.00 1,500.00 2,050.00 1,840.00 2,214.00 2,014.00 2,094.00 2,950.00 2,717.00 2,475.00 2,908.00 5,559.00 5,427.00 5,652.00 5,652.00 6,345.00 7,001.00 6,567.00 7,388.00 7,978.00 7,977.00 8,277.00 7,847.00 8,685.00 9,435.00 1,862.00 Pago 15013744137 WALKER LAW FIRM 932 PO7.-0S AUG 18 97 17 w. walker R.ALPH Washington UaRK BURNETTE AUSTIN PORTER, JR .JOHN w. Walker, p.a. Attorney At Law 1723 Broadw'ay Little Rock. .Arkansas 7'''C'6 Telephone (501) 374.3758 F.AX (501) 374.4187 Via Facsimile - August 18, 1997 324-2146 Dr. Don Roberts Interim Superintendent of Schools Little Rock School District 810 West Markham Little Rock, AR 72201 Dear Don\no In?oation^Jctf' pursuant to the information by 5\n00 Would you please Arkansas Freedom P.m. on Thursday following District fc^ employees past five years\nin the 2 . a copy of the District's stipend policy\n J , Written interpretation^^ i \" '\" made by any administrator or by the Board within thZlast years\nand of the stipend policy five 4. principals fcrX^aS\"!iw* years. senior high 1 am also . . ,------- curious to know why M\nsenior high school administrator ? least eSperi:^:: . Gayle Bradford is the principal in the District. occuDvinrf Th +-^ Principal of any high school position. Again, it seems as as a senior high principal now I am Bradford's favorites who do not rave plan are rewarded for their adversity to^T^ If I am wrong. if the Hall faculty not f^yor the desegregation *\"* Please correct me, Please let me hear from you.501374418? WALKER LAW FIRM y82 POS OS AUG IS 8? JWW\njs cc: Ms. Ann Brown Sincerely, /? SahTi W. Walkfir-\n.John w. Walker At,Office of Desegregation Monitoring United Slates 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 11, 1997 Mr. John Walker 1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72206 Dear John: In organizing papers on my desk this morning, I discovered that I had neglected to respond to a fax you sent me on August 18, 1997. My failure to answer was wholly unintentional, and I apologize for my oversight. Your fax expressed concerns about the equity of stipends the LRSD has paid to certain of its employees. Attached were four pages listing the salary histories of four black males, who are employees of the LRSD. Also attached was a copy of your August 18, 1997 letter to Don Roberts, in which you asked for certain information about LRSD salaries and stipends. In your letter to me, you suggested that a budget hearing would be appropriate as a means for monitoring the LRSD. Monitoring the LRSD is not presently an option available to this office, nor has it been since the Court granted the districts motion for a moratorium on monitoring. However, as you requested, I will keep Judge Wright informed of your concerns. Sincerely yours, (^23^ Ann S. Brown'DK-15-97 MON 10:39 SUSAN W WRIGHT FAX NO. 5013246576 F.Ol S John w. Walker, p.a. Attornty At L.w 1723 Broadway Littls Rock, Arkansas 72206 Telephone (501) 374-3758 FAX (501) 374-4187 JOHN W. WALKER RALPH WASHINGTON X-URK BURNETTE AUSTIN PORTER. JR. VO December 12, 1997 Honorable Judge Susan Webber Wright United States District Judge 600 West Capitol Little Rock, AR 72201 Re: LR-C-32-S56 LRSD V PCSSD Dear Judge Wright\nEnclosed please find the job postings by the Little Rock School District for four positions: Associate Superintendents for Desegregation, Support Services and Instruction and Director of Planning, Research and Development, I am writing to request that you allow the Office of Desegregation Monitoring to review and study the impact of the salary structure set forth in the postings, i.e. $70-90,000.00 plus car allowance and benefits with one position being open ended defined as negotiable. We have, previously had extensive budget hearings, no budget that allows payment of $100,000.00 or more including benefits to any group of employees. I believe that allowing the District to make these changes without court approval will have a tendency to have an adverse impact upon the ability of the District to meet, not only its desegregation obligations, but its other obligations as well. The effect will be magnified because the concept of equal pay will mean that scores of administrators There is may be able to make legitimate cla Thi level. s for upward pay adjustments, will include principals and other persons at the Director o  o Dr. Leslie Carnine, the new superintendent, may not be aware of the budget concerns of the Court or the history of pay to administrators in the District.  The Court is reminded that there has been no showing of a dearth of qualified applicants for administrative positions and thus, that huge payment is required to attract necessary staff. The salaries are grossly out of line for this district in comparison to other districts in the State except the possibility of the Pulaski County Special school District where we have raised similar concerns regarding pay inflation for administrators, many of who.m are unnecessary. Dr. Carmine's principal advisor appears to be Mr. BradyDEC-15-97 MON 10:39 SUSAN K WRIGHT FAX NO, 5013246576 P. 02 Page. 2 - Letter to Juge Wright December 12, 1997 Gadberry who has expressed chagrin at being paid less money than Dr. Richard Hurley, the Personnel Director. 'Y' ou will recall that Dr. Henry Williams brought Dr. Hurley aboard and paid him far more than anybody else without adherence to the salary schedule in existence. That put him ahead of his supervisor, Mr,. Gadberry. By allowing advertisement at these ranges of pay, a number of people like Mr. Gadberry will be able to make claims for pay adjustments. This, in turn, will generate, I believe, more contention from the teachers and the grossly unpaid services workers, most of whom are black. Because of the broad implications and the possible far reaching effect of the pay initiatives, I respectfully request that you allow ODM to review this matter and to make a prompt report to the Court before the February 1, 1998 deadline. WWaayy II remind the Court that such increases also will necessarily result in substantial budget adjustments for ODM staff, if the concept of comparability to administrative positions in the LRSD is carried forward and if the Court ends jurisdiction any time soon. For those monitors will be entitled to Associate Superintendent level pay as well. This is not a anttii--Drr.. CGaarmniinnee lleetttteerr.. I expect that the teachers organization will express grave reservations regarding the source of additional revenues having been told that the District is on the verge of being broke in the recent negotiations. Thank you for your attention to this request. JVW\nj s CC ! Dr. Leslie Carnine Mr. Chris Heller Ms. Ann Brov/n DEC-15-97 MON 10:40 SUSAN W WRIGHT FAX NO. 5013246576 P, 03 PLEASE POST LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISITUCT 810 WESTMARKHAM STREET ' LITTLE ROCK ARKANSAS 72201 PLEASE POST December 9, 1997 .n?? The Little Rock School District is now accepting applications for the following position for the 1997-98 school year\nPOSITION: Associate Superintendent for Instruction QUALIFICATIONS\n1. Minimum of a Masters Degree. 2. At least five (5) years experience in a management capacity. 3. Must possess or be able to obtain an Arkansas Administrators Certificate. 4. Successful experience, in an urban setting, as a principal and/or administrator with instructional program implementation responsibilities. 5. Evidence of successfill experience with parent and staff involvement in decision making. 6. Evidence of a strong commitment to quality desegregated education. NOTE\nAPPLICANTS MUST BE PREPARED TO SHOW EVIDENCE OF THESE QUALIFICATIONS IN THE INITIAL SCREENING INTERVIEW, REPORTS TO: Superintendent of Schools SUPERVISES: Staff as may be designated by the Superintendent JOB GOAL: To assist the Superintendent in the task of providing leadership, support, and direction in the area of instruction by providing building principals with a vehicle to more effectively utilize the division of instruction to improve teaching and learning.DEC-15-97 MON 10:40 SUSAN W WRIGHT FAX NO. 5013246576 P. 04 SEND WRITTEN LETTERS OF INQLTRY TO\nDr. Richard E. Hurley Director of Human Resources Little Rock School District 810 West Markham Street Little Rock, AR 72201 NOTE: INDIVIDUALS WHO ARE INTERESTED IN THE ABOVE POSITION MUST COMPLETE A VERY RIGOROUS SELECTION PROCESS. THEREFORE. BECAUSE AN INDIVIDUAL APPLIES FOR A POSITION DOES NOT NECESSARILY MEAN THAT AN INTHRXTEW WILL BE CONDUCTED. The Little Rock School District is an Equal Opportunity Employer. Equity concerns may be addressed to the Associate Superintendent for Desegregation. It is the policy of the Little Rock School District not to discriminate on the basis of age, sex, race, color, religion, national origin, or disability in its educational programs, activities or emplojment practices.DEC-15-97 HON 10:41 SUSAN W WRIGHT FAX NO. 5013246576 P. 05 PLEASE POST LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 810 WEST MARKHAM STREET LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS 72201 PLEASE POST V  f December 9. 1997 The Little Rock School District is now accepting applications for the following position for the 1997-98 school year\nPOSITION: Associate Superintendent for Desegregation QUALICATIONS: 1. Minimum of a Masters Degree. 2. At least five (S) years experience in a management capacity. 3. Must possess or be able to obtain an Arkansas Administrators Certificate. 4. Successful experience as an administrator in a multi-cultural setting or urban setting. 5. Evidence of a strong commitment to quality and equity in student learning and school organization. 6. Demonstrates the conviction that all children can learn and will learn in the Little Rock School District. 7. Evidence of successful experience with parent and staff involvement in decision-making and communication. 8. Demonstrated knowledge of how to apply the concept of high expectations to school organizational patterns. 9, Extensive experience in organizing staff development programs with a focus on Effective Schools research. NOTE\nAPPLICANTS MUST BE PREPARED TO SHOW EVIDENCE OF THESE QUALIFICATIONS IN THE INITIAL SCREENING INTERVIEW. REPORTS TO\nSuperintendent of SchoolsDEC-15-97 MON 10:41 SUSAN W WRIGHT FAX NO. 5013246576 P. 06 APPLICATION DEADLINE: February 1, 1998 - starting date negotiable NOTE: All interested applicants must include a letter detailing how/why they feel they should be considered for the position. EVALUATION\nPerformance of this job will be evaluated annually in accordance with provisions of the Boards policy on Evaluation of Administrative Personnel. SEND WRITTEN LETTERS OF INQUIRY TO: Dr. Richard E. Hurley Director of Human Resources Little Rock School District 810 West Markham Street Little Rock, AR 72201 NOTE: INDIVIDUALS WHO ARE INTERESTED IN THE ABOVE POSITION MUST COMPLETE A VERY RIGOROUS SELECTION PROCESS. THEREFORE, BECAUSE AN INDIVIDUAL APPLIES FOR A POSITION DOES NOT NECESSARILY MEAN THAT AN INTERVIEW WILL BE CONDUCTED. The Little Rock School District is an Equal Opportunity Employer, Equity concerns may be addressed to the Superintendent of Schools. It is the policy of the Little Rock School District not to discriminate on the basis of age, sex, race, color, religion, national origin, or disability in its educational programs, activities or employment practices.DEC-15-97 MON 10:42 SUSAN W WRIGHT FAX NO. 5013246576 P. 07 PLEASE POST LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 810 WEST MARKHAM STREET LITTLEROCK, ARKANSAS 72201 PLEASE POST- December 9, 1997 The Little Rock School District is now 1997-98 school year: accepting applications for the following position for the ... POSITION: Director - Planning, Research and Evaluation QUALIFICATIONS: 1. Minimum of a Masters Degree. 2. At least five (5) years experience in a management capacity. 3. Must possess or be able to obtain an Arkansas Administrators Certificate. 4. Experience in research, testing, and program evaluation, 5. Evidence of successfol experience in developing and implementing monitoring and evaluation of educational programs. 6. A commitment to parent and staff involvement in decision making. 7. Evidence of a strong commitment to quality desegregated education. 8. Ability to administer programs and supervise professional staff. NOTE: APPLICANTS MUST BE PREPARED TO SHOW EVIDENCE OF THESE QUALIFICATIONS IN THE INITIAL SCREENING INTERVIEW. REPORTS TO: Superintendent of Schools SUPERVISES: Planning and Evaluation Specialists and assigned clerical and secretarial support personnel assigned to the department.1 DEC-1'5-97 NON 10:42 SUSAN W WRIGHT FAX NO, 5013246576 P. 08 APPLICATION DEADLINE\nFebruary 1, 1998 - stalling date negotiable SEND WRITTEN LETTERS OF INQUIRY TO: Dr. Richard E. Hurley Director of Human Resources Little Rock Schoo! District 810 West Markham Street Little Rock, AR 72201 NOTE: All interested applicants must include a letter detailing how/why they feel they should be considered for this position. EVALUATION\nPerformance of this job will be evaluated annually in accordance with the provisions of the Boards policy on Evaluation of Professional Personnel. NOTE: INDIVIDUALS WHO ARE INTERESTED IN THE ABOVE POSITION MUST COMPLETE A VERY RIGOROUS SELECTION PROCESS. THEREFORE, BECAUSE AN INDIVIDU.AL APPLIES FOR A POSITION DOES NOT NECESSARILY MEAN THAT AN INTERVIEW WILL BE CONDUCTED. The Little Rock School District is an Equal Opportunity Employer. Equity concerns may be addressed to the Associate Superintendent for Desegregation. It is the policy of the Little Rock School District not to discriminate on the basis of age, sex, race, color, religion, national origin, or disability in its educational programs, activities or employment practices.DEC-15-97 MON 10:43 SUSAN W WRIGHT FAX NO. 5013246576 P. 09 PLEASE POST LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 810 WEST MARKHAM STREET LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS 72201 December 9, 1997 PLEASE POST  accepting applications for the following position for the 1997-98 school year\nPOSITION\nAssociate Superintendent for Support Services QU.ALIFICATIONS\n1. 2. 3. Minimum of a Masters Degree. At least five (5) years experience in a management capacity. Must possess or be able to obtain an Arkansas Administrators Certificate. 4. In-depth knowledge and experience with financial, budgeting, computer, and data processing systems and applications are essential. Evidence, through positive past accomplishments, js required to demonstrate the high level of analytical, problem- solving, and decision'tnaking skillsneeded for this position. 5. A strong commitment to quality desegregated public education must be shown along with a full understanding of the relationships required between student, staff, and administration to be a highly motivated, successful school district.  parent, 6. Demonstrated ability to effectively communicate, both orally and in writing is essential. NOTE: APPLICANTS MUST BE PREPARED TO SHOW EVIDENCE OF THESE Qualifications in the initial screening interview. REPORTS TO\nSuperintendent of SchoolsDEC-15-97 MON 10:43 SUSAN W WRIGHT FAX NO, 5013246576 P, 10 5. Serves as chief financial and support services advisory to Superintendent and liaison with all professional staff, students, and the financial and support services serves as community on matters relating to SALARY AND TERMS\n$70,000 - $90,000 - commensurate with experience, plus berxefits package. month position, plus car allowance. a twelve (12) EVALUATION\nPerformance of this job will be evaluated annually in accordance with provisions of the Board s policy on Evaluation of Administrative Personnel. APPLICATION DEADLINE\n.February 1, 1998 - starting date negotiable be considered for this position. SEND VTUTTEN LETTERS OF INQUIRY TO. Dr. Richard E, Hurley Director of Human Resources Little Rock School District 810 West Markham Street Little Rock, AR 72201 NOTE: ^IVIDUALS WHO ARE INTERESTED IN THE ABOVE POSITION MUST COMPLETE A \\^RY RIGOROUS SELECTION PROCESS, THEREruKt l AN INDIVIDUAL APPLIES FOR A POSITION DOES NOT NECESSARTT v ktc am that an interview will be CONDUCTED ^^^SSARILY MEAN THEREFORE, BECAUSE The Little Rock School District is addressed ,o ,he Associate SuperinSm *\" It is the policy of the Little Rock School District practices. I'  .. , .-------------------f'Ot to discriminate on the basis of aae sex, racr* disability in its educational programs, activities or employment  f' 'keyOffice 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 January 15, 1998 Mr. John W. Walker 1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72206 Dear John\nJudge Wright has asked me to acknowledge that she has received your letter dated December 12, 1997. In that correspondence, which was copied to me. Les Camine, and Chris Heller, you raised concerns about recent LRSD job postings for four associate superintendent positions that listed a salary' structure of 570-90,000 plus benefits. You requested that ODM be allowed to review the potential effect of the salaries and report to the Court before February 1, 1998. Judge Wright and 1 have discussed your request. However, as you are aware, the LRSD is presently under a moratorium that has suspended ODMs monitoring of the district. Therefore, I will not be able to investigate and report on the matter of the salaries posted for the associate superintendents. Because you are troubled by the high salaries that have been proposed. 1 trust that you, Les, and Chris will discuss the matter in the spirit of openness and cooperation that we all seek in our working relationships with one another. Sincerely yours, in S. Brown cc: Susan Webber Wright Les Camine Chris Heller ROACH ELL LAW FIRM Attorneys at Law 504 Lyon Building 40 I West Capitol Avenue Little Rock. Arkansas 7220 1 Richard W. Roachell Travis N Creed. Jr. Janelle S . Evyan telephone (50 I ) 375-5550 FACSIMILE (50 I ) 375-6 I 86 Honorable Susan We] United States Di :ct Judge\nr Wright 600 West itol Avenue Linle (ck, Arkansas 72201 Re: January 19, 1998 RECSSViO JAN 2 1 1SS3 OFFICE OF OESEGREGATIOH MONITORING Little Rock School District v. Pulaski County Special SchooiDistrict, etal. United States District Court No. LR-C-82-866 Dear Judge Wright\nOn behalf of the Knight, et al. Intervenors, I have been authorized to write to you concerning Mr. Walkers letter dated December 12, 1997. The Knight, et al. Intervenors are wholly in agreement with Mr. Walkers arguments that posted job openings by the Little Rock School District for the four positions cited are grossly out of line for this district and that the consequences, both long term and short term, of filling such positions at such salaries and benefits would impair the Districts desegregation obligations in ways that should be studied carefully by ODM. Sincerely yours, ROACHELL LAW FIRM Richard W. Roachell RWR:ajm cc: Ms. Ann Brown Mr. Timothy Gauger Mr. Christopher Heller Mr. Sam Jones Mr. John Walker Mr. Stephen Jones AC.P Little Rock School District OFFICE OF THE SUPERINTENDENT JUL 2 1 1998 July 17, 1998 OFFICE Of DESEGREGATiONMONITOfiING Ms. Ann Brown, Federal Monitor Office of Desegregation Monitoring 201 East Markham, Suite 510 Little Rock, AR 72201 Re\nRevised Desegregation and Education Plan Section 2/3 2.2.3 Dear Ms. Brown: We have extended the current administrative pay system by two new levels. Levels 7 and 8 have been added to the current structure for the purpose of placing the newly appointed assistant superintendents and associate superintendents. As has been previously noted, the changes and promotions will not require additional funds for district leadership positions. We have and will continue to look for opportunities to consolidate administrative and staff positions. Please understand that the rationale will be to look for opportunities that will increase services to children and teachers rather than compromise a service function. We further have indicated to the individuals promoted and to the Board of Directors that we believe the total salary plan should be independently reviewed for adequacy and equity. We anticipate contracting for that service and are optimistic that a report and recommendations will be forthcoming during November 1998. Further, we believe that by the conclusion of the 1998-99 academic year that we will have accomplished the goal v/hich was established by the revised desegregation and education plan. Respectfully. cesliffi V. Camine Superintendent of Schools Attachment: Administrative Salary Plan \u0026amp; Placements cc: Board of Directors Mr. Chris Heller 810 West Markham Street Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 (501) 824-2000 received From the desk of. . .  Leslie V. Carnine JUL 2 1 1998 OFFICE OF DESEGREGATION MONITORING LEVEL 8 - ASSOCIATES Vic Anderson* Junious Babbs Bonnie Lesley Sadie Mitchell 14 12 20 8 LEVEL 7 - ASSISTANTS OR EQUIVALENTS Frances Cawthon Marian Lacey Kathy Lease* 10 17 16 Doctorate degreesreceived JUL 2 1 1998 OFFICE OF DESEGREGATION MONITORING ADMC12 3 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 ,1 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 17622 18838 20054 21270 22486 23702 24918 26133 27349 28565 29781 30997 32213 33429 34645 35861 37077 38293 39509 40724 34010 35226 36442 37658 38874 40090 41306 42522 43738 44954 46170 47386 48601 49817 51033 52249 53465 54681 55897 57113 35949 37165 38381 39597 40813 42028 43244 44460 45676 46892 48108 49324 50540 51756 52972 54188 55404 56619 57835 59051 38064 39279 40495 41711 42927 44143 45359 46575 47791 49007 50223 51439 52655 53870 55086 56302 57518 58734 59950 61166 41059 42275 43491 44707 45923 47139 48355 49571 50787 52003 53218 54434 55650 56866 58082 59298 60514 61730 62946 64162 45465 46681 47897 49113 50328 51544 52760 53976 55192 56408 57624 58840 60056 61272 62488 63704 64919 66135 67351 68567 53888 55104 56320 57536 58752 59968 61184 62400 63615 64831 66047 67263 68479 69695 70911 72127 73343 74559 75775 76991. 63897 65113 66329 67545 68761 69977 71193 72409 73625 74?41 76057 77272 78488 79704 80920 82136 83352 84568 85784 87000Office 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 August 7, 1998 Dr. Les Carnine Little Rock School District 810 West Markham Street Little Rock, AR 72201 Dear Les: Thanks for your recent letter informing me about some of the changes youve made in the LRSDs administrative pay levels. The letter arrived July 21, which was just after Id left for a two-week trip to tend to ill family members. Im presently processing the mail that accumulated while I was out of state, so please forgive my delay in responding to you. It may be helpful for you to know that the Court has a history of intense concern about how the LRSD constructs and manages its budgets, because of the relationship between finances, district operations, and desegregation goals. For example, the Court has been concerned about such past district practices as: funding long-term commitments (such as salaries) with one-time or short-term monies, failure to clearly align each annual budget with the districts educational and desegregation commitments\nbasing new budgets on the previous budget instead of actual expenditures (known as budgeting on budget\")\ntop-down rather than bottom-up budgeting (top-down budgeting sets numbers at the summary level and then forces the detail figures to fit those totals)\nfailure to link planning and evaluation activities to drive budget decisions\nand failure to use written business cases (or a similar process) as a decision-making tool to define and support all manner of decisions, including salary increases, adding or deleting positions and programs, and so on. Im not sure I understand how the information in your letter and its attachments fits into the districts approach to fulfilling its Plan commitment (2.2.3) to establish a uniform salary schedule for all positions within the district, provide compensation in accordance with qualifications, and minimize complaints of favoritism. I note that you chose to set the salaries of top administrators before establishing the uniform salary schedule for all positions in the district, which sounds like the carts before the horse and also could be construed as a form of favoritism. I also note that youve chosen to establish the salaries of top administrators before concluding contract and salary negotiations with the union, a timing decision that could bolster the unions leverage position..August 7, 1998 Page Two I'm not questioning your right to make decisions about salaries or timing. Rather Im concerned about the districts overall financial management practices. I would be remiss if 1 didnt emphasize that the Court has paid considerable attention to budget management over the years and has frequently admonished the LRSD about the need for a budget planning and management system that will enable the district to make careful financial decisions, effectively manage its multimillion dollar business, and reach its desegregation goals. I would be happy to discuss with you any aspect of the districts budgeting history, including the role of the Budget Specialist the Court appointed for the district in 1993. .Although ni be closely monitoring the districts budget development and management process and will need further information later on, right now Id appreciate a copy of your administrative organizational chart that includes the names of each individual administrator. Id also like the job description for each position so I understand who is responsible for what. Thank you very much. Sincerely yours, I ' I -Ann S. Brown ///AC.9 1/4 MOS. (192) LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 'teachers 2000-01 4.25% 1 2 3 4 5 6 1 2 3 4 5 6 2 '3 4 5 6 1 2 3 4 1 '24,118\" 25\n372' 26^26 29,207 30,533 2 25^83 2\u0026amp;.iZl 21.5^} 28'869 \"30,17f 31,498 3 '26,047 27,302 28.556 29^834 '31,136 32,463 9J/2 MOS. (1^) _ _1 '24,746 26,033 2^ 3 26,726 28,013 27y:^0^ 28310 _^9^99 28,631 29,621 29,968 30^^ 31,329 32,318 30,611 31,947' 33^308 10 MOS. (207) 1 _ 26,002 2 27,042 27,354 28^9 28706 30,085 3'1,489 '32,919 29. 2ii21 32\n529' 33,959 3_ 28,082 30,787 _4 27.012 28766 20.020 30,799 32j01 33,428 _4___ 27,716 29,002 30,289 31,60i 32,937 34,298 4 29,12'2 30^475 3\u0026lt;827  32,'165 33,205 33,569 '3\u0026lt;999 34,609 36,039 jb'lM MOS. (212)_______ _ 1 _ 26,630 28,015 29^00 30,811 _5 _ 21.Qn 29,23\u0026lt; 30',405 31,763 33,066 34,392 J_ 28,705' 29,992 ?L279 32,591 33,927 35,288 5 30,163 31,515' 32,867 34,245 35,649 37,079 6 __ 2^42 30J9'6 3'1,450 32j2Q 34,031 35,357 7 29,906' 31,160 33,693 34,995 36,322 8 30.871 32.125 33.379 3'4658 35.960 37.286 9 31,836 33.090 34,344 36,925 38,251 10 32,800 '34,055' 35,309 36,587 37^889' 39,216 11_ 33,765 35,019 i7,^2 '38,854 40,181 12 34,730 35,984 37,238 '38,516 13 35,695 36,94^ 38,20^ 39,481 39^819 40784' 41,145 42,110 14 ^659 39,168' 40,446 41748 43,075 15 37,624 38,878 40.132 41.411 42.713 44.039 16 38,589 39,843 41,097 42\n375 '43,678 45,004 17 43,340 18 44.305 '44,642 45,607 45,969 46,934 19 46.5^ 1 47,898 20 48,863 6 29,69^' 30,982 32,269 ' 33,580 ' 34,917 ' 36,278 ' 1 30,685 31,972 33,259 34,570 '35,907 37,268 8 31,675 32,962 34,249 35,560 36,896 38,257 9 32.665 33.952 35.238 36.550 37.886 39.247 10 33,655 34,941 36,228 37,540 38,876 40,237 11 34,645 35,931 12 35,634 36,921 37,218 38,M8 38,530 39,866 Ti,227 39,519 40,856 13 36,624 37,911 39,198 40,509 41,846 42,217 43,207 14 37,614 38,901 40,188 41,499 42,835 44,196 15 38,604 39,891 41,177 42,489 43,825 45,186 16 39,594 40,881 42,167 43,479 44,815 46,176 17 18 19 20 43,157 44,469 45,805 47,166 45,459 46,795 '48,156 47,785 49,146 50,136 6 31,203 32,555 33,907 35,285 36,689 38,119 7___ 32,243 33,595 34,947 36'325 37,12Q 39,159 8 33,283 34,635 35,987 37'365 38,769 40,199 9 34,323 35,675 37,027 38,405 39,809 41,240 10 35,363 11 36,403 12 37,443 38.795 36,715' 37,755 39,107 40,147 _13__ 38,483 39,835 14 39,523 40,875 39,445 40,849 42,280 40^485 41,526 42,566 41,188 42,228 41,890 43,320 42,930 44\u0026gt;60 43,970 45,400 43,606 45,010 46,440 15 40,563 41,916 43,268 44,646 '46,050 47,480 16 41,604 42,956 44,308 45,686 r 47,090  4X520 17 18 19 20 45,348 46,726 48,130 49?56Q 47,766 49J70 50600 50,210 51,640 52,681 20 19 18 17 16 42,608 43,993 15 41,543 42,928 14 40,478 41,863 43748 44,659 13 39.413 40798 '42,182 12 38,348 39J32 41 jl7 11 3X667 _ 40^52 42,901 44,366 10 36,217 37,602 38,987 40,398 41,836 9 35,152 36,537 i 37,922 r 39,333 I '40,771 _8___ ^,08^7 35\n472 36,856 38,268 39.706 1 33,022' 34,406 6 31.956 33.341 5 3O^89 'Z2.27Q 4 __ '29,826 3l',211 3 2 27,696 29\nOM\" '36?465' '31,876' 28,761 30746 3i?530 32'942 32.595 33.661 '34,726 35.791 44,313 45^378 46,443 47,855 49,293 50,757 46,789 48,227 49,692 48.920 45724 42,529 '43^594 ____________ 45.252_ ^6,097 47,162 50,358 51,423 51,823 52,888 37,203 '38,641 36.137 L35:2.72 36,510 34.007 ' 4X967 r 45,431 53.953 33,315 \" 34,380 3X7~14~ 34,779 Ct: ' 5' 32.249 6 35.445 37.575 '35^844' 36^910137,975 I 39,040~| 40,105 | 41,170 42,236 '43,301 Teachers at the top of the schedule who do not receive step increases are paid an additional $1,500. 46,496 47.562 '48,627101/2 MOS. (217__21_. LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT TEACHERS 2000-01 4.25% 1 2 3 4 5 6 1_ 2\u0026lt;258 28,676 30,093 ^1.8^ 33,610 34,509 2 '28,349 29J66' 32^628 34,100 35,599 3 \"29,439 30'856 '32,274 _33,7f9 35,i'9l' 4 30,529 31,947 5 3\u0026lt;626 33,037 6 33\n364  34,455 .^1809 36,281 36,690 37,780 10 3/4 MOS. (222) 35,899 37,371 38,870 32.710 34J27 35,545 36,990 38,462 39,961 7 33,800 35,218 3X635 38,080 39,552 41,051 8 34,891 36.308 'i7J2\u0026amp; 39,170 40,642 42,141 9 35.981 37,398 38^816 40,261 41,733 43,232 10 3X071 3X489 3X906 41,351 42,823 44,322 11 38,162 39,579 40,997 42,441 43,913 45,412 12 39,252 40'669 43,532 45,004 46,503 1^ 40,342 41,760' 43,177 44,622 46,094 47,593 14 41,433 42?850' 45,712 '47,184 48,683 15 42,523 43,940 45,358 46,803 48,275 49,774 16 42.613 46.448 47.893 49.365 50,864 17 18 19 20 47,539 4X983 50,455 51,954 50,074 51,546 53,045 52,636 54,135 55,225 1 2 3 4 5 6 1 27,886 29,337 32,265 33776 2_ 29,00J 30^52 3L992 33,380 34^886 35.304_ 36j1?2  Yi Mos.l^f 1 2 3 4 L_ 28.515 29,997' 3\u0026lt;480 '32,991 5 34?531 6 36,099 _ 2___ 29,655 32'621 34,132 35,672 1 2 3 4 5' 6' 3 30. UL 3r^'^ 33:0JJ 34,496 36,001 37,535 4 31,233 32,683 34,133 35,61\u0026lt; 37,117 ___ 32,348 33,798 35,248 36,726 38,232 M,651_ 39,766 6 33,464 34,914 36364 37,842 39,348 40,882 7 34,579 36,029 37,479 38,957 40,463 41,997 8 35,695 37,145 38,595 40,073 41,579 43,112 9 36,810 38,260 39,710 41 j 88 42,694 44,228 10 37,926 39,376 40,826 42,304 43,810 45,343 11 39.041 40.491 4 \u0026lt;941 12 40,156 41,607 43,057 43,419 44,535 44,925 46,459 46,041 47,574 13 41,272 42,722 44,172 45,650 47,156 48,690 14 42,387 43,837 45,288 46,766 48,271 49,805 15 43,503' 44,953 46,403 47,881 49,387 50,921 16 44,618 46,068 47,518 48,996 50,502 52,036 17 18 19 20 48,634 50,112 51,618 53,152 51,227 52,733 54,267 53,849 55,382 56,498 30,796 3X278 33,761 25,272 36,812 12 MOS. (247) _1 3T0'27 32640 34,254 2 32^268 33,881\" '35^4'95' 3 33'509 35 J 22 36,736 35,898 '37,139 38,380 __4 __ ?l:036 33,4'19 \"34,902 36413 \"37,953 39,521 5 33,077 34,560 3'6,042 37.554 39.093 1O\n662 6 34,217 35,700 37,183 38,694 40,234 41,802 7 35,358 36,841 38^324 39,835 41,375 42,943' 8 36.499 37,981 '39,464 40,975 42,515 44,083 9 37,639 39,122 40,605 42,116 43,656 45,224 JO__ 38,780 40,262 41,745 4X257 44,796 46,365 11__ 39,920 42,886 12 41,061 42,544 44,026 44,397 45,538 45,937 47,505 47,077 48,646 13 '42,201 43,684 45,167 46,678 '48,218 49,786 14 43,342 44,825 46,308 47,819 49,359 50,927 15 44,483 45,965 47,448 48,959 50,499 52,068 16 45,623 47,106 48,589' 50,100' 51,640 53,208 17 18 19 20 4 5 34,750 35,'991 36,363 37,977 39,621 37,604 6 38,846 39^18 40,459 37,'573 \"38815 ' 40,056 4\u0026lt;297 39,280 '40,521  41,762 43,003 40,862 42,538 44,2'4'4 42,103 A2,77Q 45,485 7 38,473 \"40,087 41,700 43,344 45,020 46,726 8 39,714 JL328 42,941 44,586 46,261 47,987 9 40,955 42?569 44,182 10 42,19'6 43,810 45,423 11 43,438 45,051' 46,664 12 13 44,679 45,920 45,827 47,068^ 48,309 47,502 49,209 48,743 60,450 49,984 51,691' 46,292 47,905 49550 51,225 52,932 47,533 49,146 50,791 52,466 54,173 14 47,1'61 4X774 50,388 52,032 53,707 55,414 15 48,402 _50,qi5 5\u0026lt;629' 52,272 54,948 56,655 16 49,643 51,256 52,870 54,514 56,190 57,896 Teachers al Ihe lop of Ihe schedule who do nol receive step increases are paid an additional $1,500. 49,729 51,241 52,780 54,349 52,381 53^921 55,489 55,062 56,630 57J7Q 17 18 19 20 54,111 55,755 57,431 59,137 56,996 58,672 60,378 59,913 61,610 62,860appendix B SUPPLEMENTARY PAY SCHEDULE 2000-01 ( ATHLETICS amount I Senior High: Head Football Coach Asst. Head Football Coach Asst. Football Coach Off-Season Football Coach Asst. Off-Season Football Coach Head Basketball Coach Asst. Head Basketball Coach Head Track Coach Asst. Head Track Coach Asst. Track Coach Cross Country Coach Volleyball Coach Softball and Baseball Coach Gynmastics Coach Golf Coach (Boys or Girls) Tennis Coach (Boys or Girls Sponsor - Cheerleader, Drill Team, Pep Club Asst. Gymnastics Coach Asst. Volleyball Coach Soccer Coach Pre-Season Football Middle School: Head Football Coach Asst. Head Football Coach Head Basketball Coach Asst. Basketball Coach Head Track Coach Asst. Track Coach Volleyball Coach Gymnastics Coach Golf Coach (Boys or Girls) Tennis Coach (Boys or Girls) Sponsor - Cheerleader, Drill Team, Dance Team, Pep Club Asst. Gymnastics Coach Asst. Volleyball Coach Soccer Coach Pre-Season Football MUSIC Senior High\nBand Director Asst. Band Director Middle School: Band Director Orchestra Director 3,740 2,031 1,710 1,282 962 3,740 1,390 1,817 1,496 1,390 535 1,390 1,817 1,603 460 460 1.817 612 1,176 1,390 per diem pay 1,390 641 1,390 641 1,390 641 1,176 1,226 460 460 962 612 481 1,176 per diem pay 2,672 1,870 1,870 1,069appendix B SUPPLEMENTARY PAY SCHEDULE 2000-01 ( JOURNALISM Senior High Middle School (Yearbook) Middle School (Newspaper) 1,977 1,069 535 1 DRAMA Senior High: Play Director (one play) Play Director (two plays) OTHER Senior High \u0026amp; Middle School: Department Coordinator Extra Duty - Before and After School Extra Duty - During School Hours ELEMENTARY Volunteer lunch and/or playground (30 minutes) The stipend will increase the same percentage as the base salary increases each year. 908 1,817 908 2,084 2,084 1,335I PROFESSIONAL COMPENSATION 2000 - 2001 Article 9, Section L, of the PN Agreement states that Teachers requested (by principal or Central Office administrator) to provide professional services on a day not specified in Article Vn as a workday shall be compensated for the time spent in performmg those services according to the following schedule\nHours per Calendar Day 2 to 6 hours more than six hours Compensation .25 percent of base salary ($60.30) .50 percent of base salary ($120.60) are This provision does not apply to teachers who paid a stipend for extra duty, to services performed outside the minimum schedule hours of work on a workday specified in Article VII, nor to the State Department requirements for job performance. SUBSTITUTE PERIOD PAY Article 31, Section D slates, When elementary teachers are required to cover an entoe class other than their own, they shall be paid one-twentieth (1/20) of one percent (.0005) of the annual base salary for a 914 month teacher for the major portion of each hour, rounded to the nearest A hour, that they are required to substitute. For second^ teachers the contract states, Secondary teachers who serve as substitutes shall be pmd one-twentieth (1/20) of one percent (.0005) of the annual base salary for a 9% month teacher for the major portion of each hour, rounded to the nearest 'A hour, that they^^e required to substitute. For the 2000 - 2001 school year ($24,118 x .0005 - $12.06) SiJ d L n ij n 5 o p s 'I O n s D s 8 1M MOS. (192) f 11 2 3 4 5 6 1_ 20.546 2''.873 20:200\" 30.^3 31,931 2 \"26,38 4' 29771'1 3'l,dB4 32,442 33,335 33,646 3 J7,567 267094 307221 31,574 32,962 34.356 9 112 MOS. (197) 1 j 1 I 2 ' 3..... 2 I 23,599 I 3 4 29,91)1 ' 311,4115 31,3'19 31,873 27,761 26,285 zn'.iza ' 29,6'46 5 3^63J 33,287 6  r 31,204 ''34',7Z7  ' i(\u0026gt; MOS. (K(7): 1 2 3  I 4 ! 5  6 I i 1 2 4 _ 28.688 5 29,609 '30,630 26.915 36'933 31,'242 32j95_ '3'3.973_ 35.37'7 32,283 3i:9S7 33.284' 33,616 34:637 7 31,651 34,305 35,656' I 8 4 '34'994 ' 36,615 37,036' 36,396 \"5 37,419  38,446' 6 7 'Little Roa\u0026lt; schooi wsiRicr .....teachers'2002 03 27875/.' 9 327672 7 33,593 33.999  35,020 35.320 : 367347 '36,679 i \"37.700 10 'i'l 3\u0026lt;71+  35735 36,041  37,062 37.368'J 38,389 M,721 12 36,758 38:d83 \"39.4'10 .....vv I 39,'742 4O,'763' 'aa.ce?  39',d7B'['40,099' '41,120............ '39:461 40,462 41:5'63'1 42,524 ^  I  31.008 32.3E6 33,610 35,251 29j^33^ 30,380 30,694 7 31:742 32,056 33,444 '34',8S8 \"36:299 33,103 34,491 I 31,427\n32,476 32.789 347161 35.539 35,906 36,953' 3t346 _ 36.394 33.837 35.199 38.001 39.441 8 33,523 34,684 36,246 37,634 39,048 40,489 9 10 34,570 35,616 35,932 37,204 36,682 40:086 41,536 36.980 38,341 39,720 '41.144 42,584 11 36,665 38,027 39,369 40,777 42,191 43,632 I fzzTzzjrs\" 13 J 15 3'^777 .\"3'8,798 j 39,818 ' 39,104 ' 4'0,125 ' 41.146 ^2,141 14 39.104 ' 40,125 40,431 , 4j.452 41.'7M'''42,8b5 43:162. 44,183 43,545 44'566' '45,567' '427473 43,826 '45,204 4'6,608 __16 _ 40.839 42,167 43\",494' 44,847 17 44,515 46,225 '47,246 .^29. 48,650 18 46,868'r46,889 49,671 19  20 49,268\" 12 37.713 39.075 13 38,'76d\" 40,122 46:437 41,4'84 41,826 I \"42,872 oho*. Zit'dfic 14 39,808 41,170 '2'5'i22 '43,020 1'5 40.855 4272'17 '43:579 16 4'3,2'65 44.627 17' T 18  19 20 43:2'39i 44:286\" 45,334 44,879  46,774 '44,967 '46:016 46,382\" 4\"7,429 477822 48,869 '45,674 47.063 46,477 46.017 4'87i io\" \"49.524  60,905\" 50,572 52,012 23,620 30,0111 3t,4il2 32,910 34,426 I 35,940 I 2!),1?0 30,801 32,0:12 3.-4,41iO 34,976 30.490 20.720 31,151 32,562 34,041 ' 35,527 37.040 :i1MOS (212) i 1 l'i 23,3111 2 3' 2 : 33,7'76'_3ti'.o 2J,87T' 3O:438 34,904 3 32,212 4 5 6 3^16 35.258 _3'2^8l)y 33.369' 31,2'1)9 '347863' , 35,821 3'6:385' 36:808'! 37,372'' 37,935 4 30,82'1 32,252 33,063 35,142 36,627 38,141 5 31:922 33,353 34,784 36,242 37,728 39:'242' 6 33,023 34,454 35,685 37,343 38,629 40,343 8 34,123 1 36,224 35,554 ^,655 36,085 38,444 39,930 41,443 36,066 39,545 41,031 I 42,544 9 36,325 37,756 39,187 40,645 42,131 43,646 10 37,426 38.857 40,268 41,746 43,232 44,746 i 11 36,526 39,957 41,386 42,647 44,333 45,847 12 39,627 41,058 42,489 43.948 46,434 46,947 13 40,728 42,159 43,590 45,048 ' 46,534 48,048\" 41.829\" 43:200 44.691 46.149 ' 47.635 49:149 15 16 42,929 44.030 44,360 \"4577'91' 4'7:250\" 48,736 50,249 46,692' 47\n93' '48,350 1 4'9:45'1 '5i',3M 52,451 18 19 20 '60:552\" ?,2:O36 'W:552 53,139 H652  66,763 4 ij Mi '33,0'31 \"s' 6 '32:393 ,\"33,620 '34,168 34^97 _35JM '35.900' 37,118 a'z.sl^' 39.^2 a'Bjsid \"40.190 35,266 '34,'947 36,413 a i' 9 36,075 37.'262 10 -f i 11 J:L5L 36.245 39.372 J7.641 30:006 38,668 40,134' 3^,767 41,317 46,894' 42,022 40,500 4i:627 387330 i' 39,457' _3^796 ^0,9M 41,2612 42:388  42,75'5 I \"43,882 12 4O,'M4' 42,050 13 41,712 J3:177 14  16 42.444 43,572 43,140 4'4,276\nISIM 44.699 45,826 46,954 I'ucliei ( al the lop t the schedule who do no! receive step fncisaies ere paid an additional 61,500. '43:516 1 44,643 \"427630 43,963 '44.304 '457^ \"16 45.094 17 18 19 20 \"45,009 48,531\" '46,136 45,770 46,897 47,856 48,786' 48:681 4'9:269' 46,659 47,26'4' 48:391 '50,336' 40.913\" 51,463 48,025 49,152 4'9:518 ' 50,646 51.040 62.690 5'1:7'73\n' \"53.2'95 i 54,422 ' 53,7\"18' 54,845 r55,972' 52,168 \"57.1'60'Ari\u0026lt;ansas Democrat '(Gazette  TUESDAY. MARCH 21, 1995  Teachers want raise\ncut in works LR would lop 2 days from its school year BY CYNTHIA HOWELL  Democrat-Gazette Education Writer Little Rock School District teachers want a 5 percent raise next year. But the district, contending its cupboard is bare, is proposing a shorter work year and an accompanying pay cut. District administrators and the Classroom Teachers Association exchanged proposals late last week in preparation for the first negotiating session on the 199.596 teachers contract. The session is set for March 28. The district's proposal re- llects financial problem,s that were subjects at several school board meetings in Februaiy and March. The district is trying to balance next year's budget by making $9.1 million in cuts and adjustments. The district's initial contract proposal includes no provisions for across-the-board raises for teachers. The proposal also calls ftni contract changes that would\nReduce the school year by two days, with teachers working 190 days and students attending class 176 days. Employee salaries would be cut accordingly, about 1 percent. For example, the $20,225 paid beginning teachers this year would fall t6 $20,014 next year.  Remove the automatic salary increase most teachers get for an additional year of experi- efice. This year, those incremental raises were about $800 per year for each teacher who hadnt reached the top of the salary schedule. i Freeze the district's cost for fringe benefits for teachers. If insurance premiums increase, the teachers would have to absorb the cost.  Reinstate the practice of assigning teachers to supervise liinch and playground duly, which would allow the district to eliminate supervisory aide positions. Teachers now have a 30- minule duty-free lunch each day.  Halve the extra pay for junior and senior high teachers who teach six classes each day instead of the standard five. Teachers are paid the equivalent of 20 percent of their salary for teaching a sixth period. That supplement would be reduced to 10 percent. The CTA proposal calls for a S percent across-the-board raise for teachers in addition to the traditional increment. Teachers ineligible for the increment because they have reached the top of the salary schedule should get a bonus equal to 5 percent of their salaries, the CTA says. Trimming the school year vyould require the state Department of Education's approval.Ajkansa^emocrat (  WEDNESDAY, JULY 16, 1997 LR schools, LRSD teachers get pay haggling out of the way BY CYNTHIA HOWELL T- ARKANSAS DEMOCRAT-GAZETTE . _ vi auiger LeuDetter, the new Little Rock School District President of the union, said the teachers will start work next negotiations were hard but month with salary increases rang- district officials were more open ing from 3.6 percent to 5.3 percent usual about the financial con- ff a tentative agreement reached dition of the system. dopted by the school I believe we have the best set- fpophiner Pvnon'oni-a board and the Classroom Teachers Bement possible given the dis- ^aCniTlg CXpenence. Association. . tricts financial situation  T .Arlhot- ------------------------------- The salary agreement holds the promise of more money for teach- ere if the school district wins a $5 5 million lawsuit against the state over the funding of health insurance and teacher retirement That ca.se IS pending before the Sth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in St Louis. Interim Superintendent Don ssgs eggss bbsb , .  tuiuouauj' early in a low-key and amicable fashion. Typically, teacher salary negotiations continue until school ' starts in August, raising fears about teacher strikes. _ Thats the case in the neighboring Pulaski County Special \u0026amp;nd North Little Rock districts, plagued by contract disputes and labor relations problems. To get this done on July 15 fits in with our effort to show the community that we are doing things differently, Roberts told the board. This means we can focus See LRSD- Page 5B  Continued from Page 1B on getting school started and getting people to buy into the fact that we all must work together as a team. The districts 18,000 teachers perCCnt start work Aug. 13. Students start increaSC in thc BaSC scnooi Aug. 20. I , Grainger Ledbetter, Salary, Whlch will gO from $20,760 to $21,020 more open tricts financial situation, Ledbetter said. A few other contract provisions remain to be settled between the districts and unions negotiating teams. Once those issues are resolved, the complete tentative agreement will be presented to the School Board and to the union membership for final approval. trict employee salaries. That pro- Ihe salary agreement calls for vision is capped at a $5.5 million a 1.25 percent increase in the base crt ' salary, which will go from $20,760 by the suit, to $21,020 for a teacher with a bachelors degree and no teaching A final provision of the salaiy agreement makes a bonus of ^70 available for up to one-third of the districts teachers if they take nine crease, or $840, for their added SS/ yearofexperience. -we think this will provide The district s most experienced teachers with the skills and moti- experience. Also, most current teachers will get an average 2.7 percent inteachers , who have reached the top of the salaiy schedule, are ineligible for the experience increment. In lieu of the increment those teachers will get a stipend of The salary agreement calls for a 1.25 percent for a teacher with a bachelors degree and no $980 for their added year of work, up from $810 the previous year. The top salary will be $43,566 for teachers who work 9!!i months and have at least 21 years of experience and a masters degree plus 30 more credit hours. Teachers could get another raise of as much as 3 percent if the court award  the amount sought II vation to use computers, Roberts said, adding that the training may be provided by either staff members knowledgeable about computers or computer operators in private businesses. Roberta said money for the computer training will likely come from whats left of a $20 million loan from the state to the district for desegregation. About $5 million of the loan has not yet been spent. Roberts said he envisioned using some of that money this year to buy computer equipment. In another break from tradition, the tentative salary agreement was negotiated before the School Board voted on a budget for the 1997-98 school year. It doesnt have to happen this way eveiy year, Roberts said. But it is a way to say that employee relations are important and that they shouldnt come at the end of everything else. The board may vote on a 1997- 98 budget at a meeting Tuesday. That budget is expected to include the raises, as well as funding for some expected enrollment in- creases and anticipated changes in the district alternative eduoa.- tion program for junior high stu-, dents.  as The superintendent praised Uip- School Board for efforts to stabi-. lize the school district and work, together. The salary agreement- typified those efforts, he said,  did tile recent orderly hiring of a new superintendent  Leslie Cai\n- nine  who will replace Roberta by the end on the year. ,. j\n,Arkansas Democrat ^(5azcltfe. O FRIDAY, JULY 25, 1997  i LR schools hope to offer everyone 1.25% pay raises BY CYNTHIA HOWELL ARKANSAS DEMOT RAT-GAZETir All Little Rock School District employees can expect raises this year if the School Board approves recommendations administrators made Thursday. Board members first heard the salary proposal during a meeting announcing the expansion of a drug-abuse prevention program. Superintendent Don Roberts and Mark Milhollen, the district's manager of financial services, pre- ' sented a draft 1997-98 budget that includes a 1.25 percent increase in every employee groups base salary, plus the traditional raise employees get for another year of experience. The proposed increases are similar to the proposal made earlier this month for the districts 1.800 teachers. District administrators are reSee RAISES, Page 8B X -I- Raises  Continued from Page IB fining the proposed budget, which the School Board took no action on Thursday. .. The budget draft shows that the district finished the 1996-97 school year with a $2.1 million balance in federal and local funds. Much of that will be spent this year to off- get anticipated expenses of $162 million. Revenues are projected at $160 million. This is the first year since 1989 tliat the district will be without special desegregation funding from the state. The district got its last payment of $683,125 this past year, Milhollen said. The state payments have been as high as $8 million annually as the result of a financial settlement between the district and the state.  I But the school district can stilt draw from a $20 million loan from the state and will continue to get special state funding to support magnet schools and interdistrict student transfers. In other School Board business, organizers of a year-old program to reward Little Rock high school students who choose not to use illegal drugs announced plans to exThe budget draft shows that the district finished the 1996-97 school year with a $2.1 million balance in federal and local funds. pand the program to include junior high students. John Ostner, a member of the Downtown Little Rock Rotary Club, told the School Board that 22 percent of eligible public and private high school students participated in tire voluntary prevention program last winter. The number far exceeded his expectations, Ostner said, and he called the program a resounding success. The Rotarj Club organized the program  Teens Resisting Unhealthy Choices Everyday, or TRUCE  last year, basing it on a similar program in Texas. Students are asked to prove they are drug-free by undergoing a urinalysis, and get a TRUCE card that entitles them to discounts and hiring preferences at more than two dozen busirresses. Of tire 6,116 students enrolled iir Little Rocks five public high schools. Mount St. Mary Academy and Pulaski Academy last year, 1,319 participated in tire program. Participation in the private schools was greater, with 45 percent of tire 875 enrolled at St. Marys and Pulaski Academy taking part, compared to 921  or 17.6 percent  of the public schools 5,241 students. Tlris school year. Baptist Health has joined with tire Rotary Club to sponsor tire program. Also Thursday. Roberts told tlie boaid hes close to completing negotiations with IBM and National Computer Systems to update the districts administrative computer system, quadr upling its capacity. He said the improvements should serve the district for tire ne.xt four to five years. The hardware improvements will cost about $2M,000. The $133,000 cost of software improvements will be waived and the three-year service contract dis- coiurted by 35 percent, Roberts said. The negotiations, once completed, will end an ongoitrg dispute be tween the district and computer system providers that dates back to 1991, he said. IArkansas Democrat (j^azette^  THURSDAY, AUGUSTU Teachers OK pact for raises of 3.6% to 5.3% The Little Rock Classroom Teachers Association voted Wednesday to accept a contract providing salary increases from 3.6 percent to 5.3 percent The contract was approved unanimously, association President Grainger L^better said. He declined to speculate on how many teachers showed up to vote at Hall High School, but he said turnout was light The contract now faces a LiWe Rock School Board vote, e.xpected tonight There are no real surprises here, Ledbetter said. This ,is something eveiybody has known about for some time.\n* Union and school district ofiB- cials reached a tentative agreement July 15. If approved by the school board, the contract will raise the base teacher salary from $20,760 tb $21,020. Most, teachers will receive an average a? percent increase.'*^ I*\u0026gt;.2B  WEDNESDAY, MAY 20, 1998  Alkans^ Democrat LR teachers seek 10 percent pay increase next year BY CYNTHIA HOWELL ARKANSAS DEMOCRAT-OAZETTE The teams would like to reach crease of 2.3 to 33 percent Teach- settlement before_the last ^y of en at tte top of tte sala^^^^^ assigned to the junior and senior district policy. is barred from a class for the sec- Repeated or habitual noncom- ond time, according to the propos- pliance with established building al, the child shall not be returned.   .. . ------j_ A teacher who refuses to accept Repeated or habitual noncom- highs. . . The association has proposed --------------C\"'7C\"u new contract language that would Procedures by the buildi^ ad- a settlement betore me lasi a*y ui cia at uix f am. ivnnri refhers^!ocrau|n 1?^^^^ ^a^lnlTcS^^thels^^^ sp^cificauFtoate each school .ffiMSS.SS.'l... aKSffJSSMJ  SKSS.'tiK.S'S SSSluEK -----------------r,,il.,i,n. Intial teachere. e^urelh^^^iwl'administSora officer, the proposed contract Ues, according to the CTA propos- ence increment would get a $!0 principal as the person with the primary responsibility for enforcing discipline in their schools. ----------------- Some orincipals give teachers view team of representatives from ciai pay given lu vuaviito cuiu lu 1 11,  nnt lA il-A aa,tv,1Haa HiaTTA anncQls- teachers who do extra duty such the message that they are not to tion proposal. ministration should be reviewed such a student will not be threat- by the Discipline Management ened with reprisals, tte proposal Committee and, if unresolved, said. Additionally, a student who shall be reviewed by a joint re- has been suspended but is ^peal- \" 1 ing the suspension and IS still at- the committee,the CTA, an assis- tending school should not be al- tant superintendent, the principal lowed to participate in regular and the districts student hearing school-spo^ored eve^ or activi- tors.  Dut, just as important to teachers as the salary proposals are ^TepraS^s%Taete^^^^ tioto thTc?eato of a P^efKafSnSet stuck S|a^assocj_a_tion have pl^^^^^ '\"^ntssuesrelatedtodiscipllne, management con....................... bf a new contract and will contin- -ue to try to meet once or twice a rne associauou ^'''Cgigmentary school for dis- would have the authority to re-  week for the next few weeks to cent across-the-board ra runtive pupils and the assignment view a principals discipline en- jeach a settlement, said Brady teachers, coupledl^th a gffl ex- to forcement if a teacher believes Gadberry, the director of labor re- penence * J g^npLnee every school Currently, virtually the principals action is inconsis- g?tooT^ The torameni^anfounte to ai im all 7ampus se^ty officers are tent with building procedures or first stages of negotiations. Ihtial teasers, lusuauasco v j-aisc would increase a The language provides a means ------------------------j for an appeal beyond the school ing table this year, is site-toed The association seeks a 7 per- Ss-sS rupttye pupils and the assis^ent \"owj_pracipals^dism^^^^ ^at ^w teachers to bar disrup- proposed contract naust be^ - tive students from class, some- proved by the Little Rock School : times permanently. Once a child Board and the association.Arkiuisas Democrat| WEDNESDAY, JULY 22, 1998 School chief sets ay for top aides: 831 to $87,000 5 LR districts new associate superintendent for instruction at the top ol salary schedule BYCYNflllA IIDWr.LL ARKANSAS OI-MfK'KAI GAZhl II, IJltle Hock School District Ku pcrintendent Leslie Carnine ha.s set 1998-99 salarie.s ranging from $64,831 to $87,000 for his seven new top assistanls. But salaries for all district administrators and other nonleaching employees may be subject to change soon. Carnine said this week lie wants a consultant to review district salaiy schedules for equity and adequacy. Carnine wa.s hired as superin- Icndent last summer and assumed Mill ian l.,in:cy, I'ornier piin-vipiil at Miinii Ails anil Svienves Magnet .liinior High, will be assistant snperintendent I'or secondary education at a salaiy of $73,343. Katherine Lease, a former Little Rock district employee who most recently worked as director ofsec-ondaiy education in Fayetteville s public schools, will oversee the district's (mice of Planning, Research and Evaluation at a salaiy or$72,127. (aiiiiiie said he tried to limit administiatois pay raises to 10 the duties in October. Selecting associate and assistant superinlen-pciccnt. 'I'liat cap was exceeded. though, in cases where the adniin-istratois will work more days per dciiLs in M...a..r.c..h..,.. ..h..e began ruling yeaCr.a rnine, who IS paidi $ti1i1n5,otXoKn) na year, said that although the assistant and associate superinlen-positions that had been vacant for a year or two because of resignations and retireinenls. At the lime - --------- J . of llie appointnienls, which took deiiLs salaries are \u0026gt;\u0026gt;'8 effect July 1, Carnine said the .i.s ti .a.l.i..v..e.. .s..a..l.a...r.i..e.s ove-ranll ssbhmoudldd bhee salaries were not final. lleessss Uthniss yyeeaarr.. TIhhaaltss bBeeccaauussee aass Carnine has added two new lev- many as 11 admniistrative imsi-ehs to the districl'.s adininistralive lion.s are being ssaablairryv sscchheedduullee ttoo aaccccoommmmooddaattee ers are being moved into cainims the new associate and assistant su- I norinfprulPIlb\n. level positions. . The number of positions in the districl'.s planning, icseaKli and evaiiialion oirice, the stall uevel-opineiit onke. the Instructional Resource Center and the districts student assignment office are being reduced, Carnine said. On the other hand, stalf positions will be incre.ased for alterna-perintendents. Previously, the schedules highest adininislrative salaiy was $68,567. The highest salary now possible for an assistant superintendent is $76,991 and the highest possible for an associate superintendent is $87,000. An ciniiloyee's lernUned noUn7y by Um assigned tivror' \"'^'^\".'..XeroVas-job but also by years of experience ............... \"mnbei and educational background. Bonnie Lesley, Uie districts new associate sutieriiitendent for instruction, will be paid the top pals, salary of $87,000. Now the Little Rock districts curriculum leader, Lesley is a fonner associate superproarauis, and the number of as- sislaiil. piiiiei_p_al1s.. iJn.. eleinentaiy schools will rise, ^hunine said, Not all schools have assistant pruici- i'lie call for an independent review of district salaiy schedules T eslev is a former associate super- was prompted by the distiic s fnlendent and chief of staff of pub- newly i -ised desegregation and Victor Anderson, a longtime junior high and high school principal and former assistant superintendent for secondary education in Lillie Rock, will be paid $79,704 as associate supcrintendcnl for operalions. Sadie Mitchell, also a former liewi,y I iovv. -- education plan, Carnine said, and by his own discomfort with what he Ihinlcs are i.neipiitics in pay. The desegregation inaii, approved by a federal judge in April, obligates the district to establish a uniform salaiy schei.'ule for all positions that will coiiii.'ciisalc cin-also a loriiiei ployees based on their qiialifica-princ. pa. a... most recently lions and iniininize coiiip,anils of worked as an assistant superinlen- m|. deni for eleinentaiy education is Caininc has sK ,,icinn or the districts desegrega- meiils can be coinpieieu uy principal who denl elementaiy liuw aaovc.ukv ------------ school services at a salaiy ol vision of the districts desegrega-lion obligations. Three people were selected by Carnine and approved by the School Board for assistant super-has asked .lim Mal-veiiiber. , , , The affected salaiy schedules are for administrative and support intendent positions. Frances Cawtlion, fonner principal alJefferson Eleiiientary, wi 1 be assistant superintendent for el-pineiilnrj' ediicalinii at a salary of cinlion. personnel, rather thanteachers. UClOUllllVll  . - ----- - Carnine said. Tlie leacliers salary schedule is subject to collective hurgaining each year with Uie Lit- Ue flock Classroom Teachers Asso- \\ Arkansas Democrat 7^ OjjazcHc  FRI DAY, APRIL 23, 1999 ILR board extends contract for school chief with raise BY CYNTHIA HOWELL ARK.ASSAS DEMOCRAtC.VETTE The Little Rock School Board voted 5-1 Thursday to increase Superintendent Les Gamine's compensation package by 10 percent years. A majority of teachers got across-the-board raises of 8.5 peri cent over two years, plus step increases for e.xperience of about 5.4 percent. Board member Katherine and e.\\lend the duration of his con- Mitchell cast the dissenting votes on tract by one year to give him a the contract e.xtension and on the three-year pact benefits. Board member Judy Maj The board approved the contract ness left the meeting before the changes during a meeting in which a counselor from JA Fair Higli votes were taken. Mitchell said after the meeting School appealed to board members that she objected both to aspects of for help in resolving faculty dissen- Gamine's job performance and to sion regarding the school's former the informal process the board used principal. William Broadnacc. Five percent of the approved in- in evaluating the superintendent  Earlier this month, board mein- crease will go to Gamine's annual bers discussed Gamine's job perforsalary, raising it from SI 15.000 to mance in an e.xecutive session S120.750. The remaining 5 percent closed to the public. Mitchell said S5.750. will be contributed annually the evaluation was done in Gar- to his retirement fund. The raise is nine's absence and that Berkley retroactive to Sept 1.1998. then presented a summary of the The salary increase marks the boards discussion to the supenn- first raise in base pay for the dis- tendenL Mitchell said her remarks   about Gamine's job performance tricts chief e.xecutive since 1993.  when Dr. Henry Williams was hired were not included  and therefore not valued  in Berkley's verbal re: as superintendent t Board President Larry Berkley P^ Gamine.     She said the omission was espe- said after Thursday's meeting that a majority of the seven-member board was pleased with the direction Gamine is taking the district's educational program and with the districts progress in complying with its dese^egation plan. Gamine has been a district employee since September 1997. Board members said the increase in his compensation was intended to be somewhat similar to the percentage increases paid district teachers over the past two cially disturbing because she was the only black board member participating in the evaluation. Board member Mike Daugherty, who is. also black, was absent2B  FHIDAY, OCIOUEU 15. 1999  Pay schedule for secretaries is approved by LR board . BY ARIEL RJ-KANK ARKANSAS 1)1 MO( RAI (iA/l I II The Little Itock School Board approved a new saliiry sclicdiile . for secretaries and administrative staff at a special meeting , Thursday niglit. , Board members and school . district employees concerned pbout disparities in pay within the district called the move ii step in the right direction, but . said that it was nol a solution. . Richard Hurley, the districts director of human resources, told . Ilie board the district mostly followed the recommendation!\nof a . salary consultant who had been  hired to evaluate the secretarial and administrative jobs and recommend a salary scale. Thc district also surveyed 10 other school districts to determine liow they decided secretarial salaries. Hurley said. The most lively part of thc discussion focused on the fact that middle and elementary school secretaries are to be placed on a lower salary grade than secretaries for high school principals. Secretary Vickie Armstead told the board she and her fellow clerical employees support the new salaiy scale but not the ranking system that deterniined it. The schedule will give secre- Ufies on the superintendents\n.staff about $4,(MX) more per year - than entry-level grade school sec-\nrctarics, who earn about $14,(XX) a -year. Much work needs to be done *lo solve the ineejuities, 2 'Board member she said. Board Michael 'Uaugherty said the rankings by iwhich tile new pay scale was de- ^termined create a caste system. \u0026lt; But Hurley and Superinten- ,dent Les Camine said they hope -to put salaries for all secretaries fon thc new scale within the next .three years. They would have ^likcd to do so immediately, but *thc money isnt there, they said.  Were not creating fa hicrar- chyl. It already exists, Hurley tsald. *. The board also postponed un- Itil its next meeting two issues on *the agenda  a retmest by the ^districts speech palliologists to\n*be removed from the bargaining Cunit of the Classroom Teachers ^Association, and tlie seleciion of | \\a fiscal agent to assist in generat- nng at least $50 million through a nhliagc increase means. and other4B  FRIDAY, NOVEMBER 6, 1998  Aikansas Democrai ^(Bazcttc Board apprehensive about cost of teacher raises, new school  BY CYNTHIA HOWELL . . . . ARKANSAS DEMOCRAT-GAZETTE .: .in a 4'A-hour meeting devoted - both to academic and financial is-  sues. Little Rock School Board  members voiced concerns Thursday  about the long-term cost of a proposed 4.5 percent employee pay , raise and the possible $105 million nice of a new school -\" The board took no action on any ' issues. Most  including the pro-\nposed 1998-99 teacher contract proposed school attendance zones and a curriculum for the eight new mid- - die' schools  are set for a board - voi? Jfev. 19. The new Stephens Elementary , School, projected to cost about $3 / -  -million more than the $7.2 million .  the district has set aside for it will - -likely be the subject of a special -' -School Board meeting next week. A majority of the board members indicated Thursday that they were inclined to approve the proposed teacher contract But they also acknowledged that changes in district finances will be necessary in the ne.xt few years to avoid a $356,000 deficit by 2001-2002. District administrators described the long-range financial projections as a worse-case scenario that included no Binding increases for enrollment growth, legislative funding changes, increases and modifications in federal funding, or significant increases in local tax revenues. The proposed contract ratified by the Classroom Teachers Association last week, calls across4he- board raises of 4.5 percent or 525 percent for teachers this year if the district gets reimbursed for shortfalls in state-funded teacher retirement and health insurance costs. Most other district employees will get identical percentage raises, also contingent on the state funding. The proposed teacher contract also includes provisions to increase contributions to employee health insurance costs and to raise stipends for e.xtra duty, such as coaching or club sponsorships. The district e.xpects to get as much as $20 million in state reimbursements for 1996-99 and about $8 million annually each year thereafter. The total cost of increased teacher benefits this year is about $9.3 million, and the district owes teachers $3.4 million for raises that went unpaid in 1997-98. Board member Judy Magness said it appeared the district cant afford the raises in the long term, especially if the district is also to pay for installing and using more computers in schools, training for sitebased decision-making and repairing school building. Magness questioned who authorized district negotiators to offer teachers the 4.5 percent raise. She said she thought the cap in the contract talks was to be 4.25 percent She asked for changes in the process used to get board input in future negotiadons. Besides the promised 4.5 percent teachers and other employees are already getting incremental raises that they traditionally get for their addition^ year of e.'cperience. For teachers, the increment is about 3 percent Superintendent Les Carnine said the board approved the incremental increase in September as part of the 1998-99 budget The district deferred some $2 million in anticipated e.'cpenses in that budget to be able to pay the e.xperience increment The move was intended to help employees offset insurance premium increases that took effect OctL Board President Larry Berkley said he wanted the district to pay the highest salaries in the state but also wanted to be sure it can remain solvent The board also got its first look at plans for the construction of a new Stephens Elementary School in central Little Rock at 18th and Maple streets. The district has owned most of the land for the school but has bought four adjacent properties, which prompted board members to ask why they were not asked to approve the purchases. They asked for a breakdown of the specific costs of the school to better determine what costs they could trim before the plans for the school are completed. Stephens is intended to be a state-of-the-art school for the 21st century. Associate Superintendent Sadie Mitchell said. The school will feature one computer for every five students, as well as a focus on economic education and communityi .4s currently designed, the split- level 75.000-square-foot school for about 650 pupils in pre-kinder- garten through fifth grade will be laid out like a city. The bookstore might be a simulated bank, the main hai might be a mall and the cafeteria could be divided into four different kinds of restaurants. Mitchell said. It would cost about $90 a square foot to build.r 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 DEMOCRATCAZETTE 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 Association 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 2000-01 school year. The meeting to act on the contract proposal will be at the Arkansas Education Association building, 1500 W. 4th SL As of late Wednesday, the School Board had not scheduled a time to consider the newly inked I agreement but has a special meeting set for 5:30. p.m. Tuesday on a different matter Brady Gadberry, special assis- ,tant to the superintendent and the ence will be $50,363, compared jj.i-- with $48,372 last year. The contract proposal estab- districts chief negotiator, said the three-year proposal is significant because it will contribute to loi^- term stability and enable the district and community to concentrate on attaining release from 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 the 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 al- niost an entire school year without a contract. As a result the first year of tlie 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 experience increment traditionally paid eligible teachers for their additional year of work. *  ' As a result, a majority of teachers 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. Tlie 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- lishes a minimum salary increase for the second and third years.but also establishes a procedure'to increase percentages as nonrestrict- 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 account 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, m!Zi' .. i ^^Ir? ^^4^3 V^1 5. I f- 1',. f.-rS 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 salary 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 salary 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. K Arkansas Democrat-Gazette/STEVE KEESEE 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 onjrom 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 flock schools start classes Aug. 21. that she felt very positive about the proposal and deferred other comments until after next weeks membership meeting. Gadberry released the proposed terms to the Aikansas The teams used Francis X. Quinn, a labor relations specialist from Oklahoma, on both Tuesday and Wednesday to complete the 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 employees to donate unused sick days to be used by other critically ill employees. teaUer bIcheS d?^e^' benwcrat-M,butonly^er^e and no^experience in 20014)2 will. XSaVon Ac^ be $25,803. A second-year teacher with the same degree will earn $26300. A third year teacher will earn $26,796. In the final year of the contract, the beginning salary will be $26,835, the second-year salary will be $^351, and the third-year teacher with a bachelors degree will be paid $27,687. The top salary in the district that year will be $53,777. 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. Clementine Kelley, president of the teachers association, said only  information. The states Freedom of Information Act states that all records maintained in public offices or by public employees within the scope of their employment are presumed to be public records. And according to the law, any citizen of the state may inspect and copy public records. Gadberry said his reluctance to release the information was in deference to the union. The negotiating teams met most of Tuesday and for a few hours Wednesday to find acceptable language on the restructuring of the salary schedule beginning with 2001-2002.  WEDNESDAY, AUGUST 9, 2000  Teacher raises ^ttled in time school year BY JULIA SILVERMAN ARKANSAS DEMOCRAT-GAZETTE the most senior teachers in the Tjfile Rock School District will be more than $50,000 this year, the first classroom teachers in the state to reach that level, under the terms of a three-year agreement ratified unanimously Tuesday night by the members of the Classroom 'Teachers Association. '\"'Tuesdays action caps several months of negotiation between the teachers and the city school board, which has yet to formally ratily the agreement but is expected to do so soon. And it came only one day before almost all of the districts teachers went back to work for the 2000-2001 school year. TTie agreement represents a carefully balanced compromise, said leaders of the negotiation efforts. TTie school boards primary objective was to raise first-year teacher salaries to attract more people to the profession and to the district, while the teachers association wanted to make sure that its members, many of whom have years of experience, would get their long-wished-for substantial  SeeTEWI iHERS, Page 3B ' Teachers  Continued from Page 1B pay raises. I feel very good about this, said Clementine Kelley, the president of the teachers association, af- past salary increases, will cortie' ter the meeting, which drew about from the districts general operat- 150 teachers. ing fund, which consists of both School board representatives state and local money. Under the have said the agreement will leave terms of the agreement during the administrators free to focus on oth- second and third years of the con-, er concerns, such as attaining re- tract the teachers will receive, a' lease from federal court monitor- percent raise equal to the average ing of the districts desegregation percentage increase of the general efforts. operating funds they have received Under the terms of the agree- over the last five years. ment, all teachers will receive pay raises of 425 percent this year, and state Legislature intends to raise . at least 2.875 percent in each of the teacher salaries, which would next two years. make the general operating fund Also, each year most teachers al- larger, and which in turn might ready receive a 3,03 percent annual push teacher raises past the 2.875 increase for experience. Teachers percent mark, with more than 20 years of expert- ence receive a $1,500 stipend. That means first-year teachers will make $24,118 this year, up from $23,135 last year, and the more senior teachers will make $50,363, up from $48272. By the end of the next three years, the districts first-year teachers will be making $26,8^. A teacher with 20 years experience, a masters degree and 30 additional credit-hours will make $53,777, ac-' cording to the contract '  For the second and third years, teachers are guaranteed a raise of at least 2.875 percent according to the contract , Money for that raise, as it has for'- There are indications that the FRIDAY, AUGUST 11, 2000  LR School Board \" gives final approval to salary increases: Teachers, other district workers to get raises BY CYNTHIA HOWELL u ARKANSAS DtMCK RAT-CAZETI E Little Hock School Board members, by ratifying a prcpGuvd teacher contract Thursday, final- sent salary settlements with.ail other employee groups by Aug. '24. - ____ , On other financial matters, the ircrint u? authorized the issuancd of bonds to Prudential Securities on the districts construction bonds and the one that offered tlie in- fiod. ?ece workers who do not participate in negotia- tions or in Sie k and confer salary Ulks. -'\" The board adopted the contract y?\"issues will tak\ne and pay raises at a wide-ranging The bondf wm^be^ w it also authorized DortiSth^^vp^?,a^^^ pleted over about the next, five the sale of $46 million in construction bonds and considered regulations that will give parents a say on whether their children can be exempted from semester exams. portion of the revenues raised by.a 5-mill tax increase approved by voters in May. . Don Stewart, the districts chief financial officer, told the bo^rd that the district ended this past school year with about $7.6 million m its operating fund. That amount School district administrators ^d leaders of the Classroom Teachers Association reached a tentative agreement on the threA- x , .----------------- year teacher contract last week jna^et-school fund balances are Association members endorsed it Tuesday'so board approval the final step. . _________________ The contract provides a 4 25 8enda for the Aug. 24 regulaT percent raise across the board for includ- this year and at least a 2.875 per- ** revised regulations that will cent increase in each of the next 9Uire parents of students-in two years  more if revenue in- **'*'''\"** creases in the district warrant. grows to $9 million if federal and included. Part of Thursday's board meetwas . . -------------- . mg concentrated on reviewing the monthly business meeting, including revised regulations that will grades nine through 12 to give permission for their children to be exempted from one or more of their semester exams. Some parents Eligible teachers will also get an average 3.03 percent increase -T-T' each year for every added vear of ?iid teachers had complained duTr work experience, so most teachers =~Png will actually see their annual who met grade and atten- salaries increase by 7.25 percent *- *- this year and more than 5 percent in the next two years. The districts T \"j most experienced teachers who the college-bound, have reached thc top of the salary , With the new regulations, \". Stif? schedule are not eligible for the who have a parents penfiis- expericnce increment but will get and meet the grade, attem a top-out stipend of $1,500. dance and behavior requirements The districts chief negotiator 9^ he exempted. During the yean Brady Gadberry said the salaries e schools will honor a parents including the new starting salaries ''lst for a change on the testing of $24,118 this year and $ffi 803  the request is sent to the next year for a bachelors degree , Principal in writing at leastclO and no experience, are competi-  . before the first day of semes* live within the state but not as  er , high as starting salaries in the , Even though students :mayi'be Northwest Arkansas districts. S exempted from a test, they have ' 'Gadbeny said he hopes to pre- option of taking to raise tieif ing the past year about exempting cf 1An A M,* ..A 1 _ _ V It -------- ...HUM OVVV4V dance requirements because the adults said that the lack of testing was detrimental to the studehU regulations,'IStif? ter tests. thA nntinn nPtalrinr* it tA grades. In that case, taking thatest I will not result in a lower semester grade for the course, according to ' the regulations. FRIDAY, MARCH 26, 2004  LR teachers raises are official School Board OKs 2.875% for 2003-04,10% for next year BY CYNTHIA HOWELL ARKANSAS DEMOCRAT-GAZETTE The Little Rock School Board made teacher pay raises of 2.875 percent this year and 10 percent next year official Thursday night by ratifying a two-year contract settlement that was negotiated earlier this month by district representatives and the Classroom Teachers Association. This years raise will be retroactive to last July 1 and will be paid to the districts approximately 3,000 teachers in their April 1 paycheck. Also Thursday, the board approved a similar retroactive 2.875 percent raise for all other employee groups. The nonteaching employees iso will get the same increase in insurance benefits for this year that teachers are getting. As of April 1, the districts contribution to monthly insurance premiums will go from $187 to $253. Our teacher salaries now have us being very competitive with surrounding school districts, said Beverly Williams, the districts director of human resources and chief negotiator. While we have districts in outlying parts of the state that still pay higher, I believe we have an attractive salary that will cause us to win the best teachers in the area and maintain those we already have. Williams said district administrators will return to the board later this year with recommendations for 2004-05 raises for nonteaching employees. School Board President Tony Rose, whose wife is a district elementary school teacher, described the two-year contract as a great victory scored for teachers and the district. This was a mutually agreed upon contract. It wasnt done so much through negotiations as it was through collaboration, he said. Board member Baker Kurrus called the raise substantial and significant. It gives our people incentive to stay in the classroom and gives people who are beginning to get some experience the chance to have a career that is fulfilling and doesnt involve the sacrifices that teachers have had to make to stay in the classroom, he said. Thats my greatest hope  that we continue to reward the people who have the greatest impact on our students. Board member Larry Berkley said he was particularly pleased with a contract provision that provides teachers with an incentive of $1,300 next year if they use no sick leave. The district and the teachers association have been at odds all year and continue to be in arbitration over a provision in the new teacher evaluation system that rates teachers based on their work attendance. But the disagreements over the teacher evaluation system were completely absent from Thursdays meeting. We are so very pleased at the extension of kindness and understanding and professionalism that the district extended to us by offering what we think is the most significant raise that Little Rock teachers have ever had ... and I thank you very much, Katherine Wright Knight, president of the association, told the board. Kurrus said he hopes the two organizations can build on the  good relationship as a way to bet- 1 ter serve the city. Weve always pulled on the same rope in this business, but frequently we pulled in opposite directions, he said. Now ... we are all on the same end of the rope, pulling in the same direction, and , its amazing how much more we r can do. ! SATURDAY, OCTOBER 16, 2004  ! LR teachers to get I credit for experience ARKANSAS DEMOCRAT-GAZETTE The Little Rock School Board voted Thursday in favor of giving teachers in the Little Rock School District full credit on the district's salary schedule for previous teaching experience in schools, as well\nas colleges or universities. Teachers have, in the past, been I given credit for time spent teaching in other kindergarten through 12th-grade classrooms and for time spent teaching in colleges or universities if they held teaching licenses while working on those I campuses. Now, on the basis of a memo ' of understanding between the 5 School Board and the Little Rock | Classroom Teachers Association, j teachers will earn credit for teach- j ing in colleges and universities accredited by the North Central Association of Colleges and Secondary Schools, National Council for Accreditation of Teacher Education or accrediting agencies of comparable rank as long as their higher-education e.xperience was in their major teaching fields. ' Beverly Williams, the districts ' director ofhuman resources, said ! the change would apply to new I hires and teachers working in the i district in the 2004-2005 school , year but it is not retroactive to pre- I vious teaching years. I2B  THURSDAY, SEPTEMBER 1,2005  LR School Board ratifies 2005-06 teacher contract Agreement gives 0.5% pay raise BY CYNTHIA HOWELL ARKANSAS DEMOCRAT-GAZETTE The Little Rock School Board on Wednesday ratified the 2005- 06 teacher contract, but not without some board members objecting to complaints made by teacher leaders about the 0.5 percent across-the-board pay raise in the agreement. The board's 6-1 vote, which makes the contract final, followed on the heels of a similarly positive vote by the Classroom Teachers Association on 'Tuesday. But Katherine Wright Knight, the president of the Classroom Teachers Association, said shortly after the union vote that the half-percent salary increase is an embarrassment. Board member Tony Rose, who participated in the negotiations as part of the district's team, on Wednesday accused the teachers association of waging a campaign of disinformation at a time when the School Board had directed district administrators to offer teachers all that the district can afford. I want to make sure it is noted that the day of antagonistic methods of negotiating a labor contract in this district have to end, Rose read from notes before voting for the agreement. Rose warned that the districts recognition of the association as the sole bargaining agent for teachers could be in jeopardy. I will carefully weigh the actions and words of the CTA over the next few months, and I hope I wont be compelled by those actions and words to move myself into a position of opposition to a union that I previously supported, he said. Rose questioned why teacher leaders publicly named longevity pay for veteran teachers and an experimental incentive plan at Meadowcliff Elementary as significant issues to the association but did not raise those issues as such at the bargaining table. If damage control by the CTA representatives has to include distorting the truth of the negotiations, I dont see the collaborative efforts, Rose said. It inclines me to support opening the negotiations process to the public and press so that we dont have those kinds of misunderstandings. The reaction of board members to the news account of her comments surprised Knight. I honestly think it was a misinterpretation of what I said, Knight said later Wednesday about the reaction. I said what was true. It was not intended to offend anyone. It was intended to communicate what my people believe. Board member Baker Kurrus cast the sole negative vote to the contract. He said he objected to the provision that calls for the salary negotiations to be reopened in midyear only if the Lake View school funding case  now pending in the Arkansas Supreme Court  results in an increase in unrestricted state funding to the 25,000-student district. If we are going to have a contract, lets have a contract, he said. If diesel costs go to four bucks or the cost of electricity doubles, we are not going to reopen negotiations. If we are going to go to a situation where we are going to open things back up,\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_709","title":"ServiceMaster Management Services","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":["1991/1998"],"dcterms_description":null,"dc_format":["application/pdf"],"dcterms_identifier":null,"dcterms_language":["eng"],"dcterms_publisher":["Little Rock, Ark. : Butler Center for Arkansas Studies. Central Arkansas Library System"],"dc_relation":null,"dc_right":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC-EDU/1.0/"],"dcterms_is_part_of":["Office of Desegregation Monitoring records (BC.MSS.08.37)","History of Segregation and Integration of Arkansas's Educational System"],"dcterms_subject":["Little Rock (Ark.)--History--20th century","Little Rock School District","Education--Arkansas","Education--Economic aspects","School facilities","Educational law and legislation"],"dcterms_title":["ServiceMaster Management Services"],"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/709"],"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\nServiceMaster Management Services, an Illinois company hired to supervise Little Rock School District's maintenance and custodial staff.\nIN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT, ET AL PLAINTIFFS V. NO. LR-C-82-866 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT. ET AL DEFENDANTS LORENE JOSHUA ET AL INTERVENORS MOTION TO ENJOIN THE LRSD FROM ENTERING INTO A SERVICE CONTRACT WITHOUT FOLLOWING BIDDING PROCEDURES, REQUESTS FOR INFORMATION AND WITHOUT PRIOR INVOLVEMENT OF THE JOSHUA INTERVENORS The Joshua Intsr/eoors respectfijlly move the court to enjoin the Little Rock School District from entering into a management service contract regarding managerial services for custodial and maintenance services. For cause, the Joshua Intervenors respectfully show the court that 1. The Little Rock School District has not discussed the proposed management services contract with the Joshua Intervenors\n2. The proposed management contract has potential adverse racial effect and impact 3. The proposed management contract has not been let for bids and is not a part of the program, research and evaluation instrument for the next five years\n4. The proposed management contract has potential adverse monetary effects upon ftnandai resources of the district and has the potential for adversely affecting the ability of the school district to meet its desegregation obligations\nand 1 5. length and was designed to provide special favor to someone, a John Doe, in toe school district The Joshua ir^ervenors request an opportunity to engage in discovery and to have this matter set for hearing shortly thereafter. The matter will be presented to the Little Rock School Board this evening, August 31, 1995, for action. Timo is therefore of the essence. WHEREFORE, the Joshua Intervenors respectfully request that this court reserve the right to review, and cancel, if necessary, any contract which is entered into between the Little Rock School District and any management service contractor, unless said contract is let tor bids after the discussion process has been followed which involves the Joshua intervenors. Respectfully submitted, JOHN W. WALKER, PA 1723 Broadway Little Rock, Arkansas 72206 (501)374-3758 in W. Walker, Bar No. 64046 2:5ATg OP SERVICE I, John W. Walker, do hereby certify that a copy cf the foregoing pii forwarded to ail counsel of record, by il.S. Mail, post^ prepaid, on this August, 1995. was y of 3 I -\u0026gt;i iiefji Assemnlv 193 3 ACl 01 100'5 ft 1 1995 Ottice oi Desesf^ataxi Moniiorina \\V A 1 t 3 KI 1 ) b a 3 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 15 17 18 19- 20 t 23 24 -w act to B'cqOIRE THE SOUCITIX OF BIOS I?-a* COMOITY TO BE SCKOOt DIBTB^CT HAScM.ESTlHATEO PUKCE.XSE PEtCE ? .CHASSD 3Y A r.ruS'S.\" 3- n iNACTED 3Y THf : assz-sly Q7 i.T : s  43 F aRK.i2\u0026lt;S/iS : ION 1. Definition. Board of Directors (A) \"Purchasing Off of any school dist icC or a la' 13i\" shall near. .'.a lly designated age of the school district with authority to contract or behalf of the school district. . (3) \"Commodities\" shall laean aake purcha.ses all supplies\", goods, MCerial, equip- , meet, machinery, facilities, personal property, and services, other than and pr^ssional se^ces school district. , purchased for or on behalf of the (0) Purchase Price\" shall nean Che full sale or bid price 0 --ponuBod-iy,  , without any allowance for trade-in. 'Purchase\" shall mean and include not only the outright purcnase of a conmodicy whe the but also the acquisition of commodities under rental-purchas or lease-purchase agreements or any other type of agreements rental payments on the purchase price thereot. by a. () 'Open Market Purchases\" shall mean ,os purchases or c\njdi ties /y purchasing SECTION 2. official in which competitiv All purclunses - bidding is not required qS commodities by any school district. 26 27 23-  :o' except those spccifiea lly exempted by Section 3, shall be made as folic' I I (A) In each instance In which Che estiaaeed pu- ^.-ba8e price shall erj^- cvo-chgus.ind-dollars ($2,000) thif commodity shall be procured : \u0026lt;rnHcitiirr- bids'. orowided c.bat the purc.bas 'J rus/ and rs u the by r.egcz a irtg a co.icracc. zejecz * Z-*-e T 1 rJ I 'T J pp I 6\n: (}  1 I !2 13 14 15 a. t Pv t.Jf.V  i I 16 .n\nj7 i Ivbx. cl-.nr ' n ch- into i r vs L r T vitho-dt solicit and unavoidable cxi be aoproyedj by ths att.nrhcd o the IT*.,-- i  l purcha.^e df jsuc.h t. (2) toi 1'. a 1? iii t, C: dcJiar# ($2,000). P CSC* xoeh \u0026gt;.1^ the pur n s-tt tc rbv hereinafter listed co-raaoditics  bid.s: r.ency. S C (A) Comnioditics i Provided, ' ths superintende r.stancss of r.o S'. h crser u rsscer. '.cy purchase s\n. c, unless a statenen: in writ chose order deocribinr. he et seniy ncce rodity without cosnrtifivc biddinf. s available onlv fro.-a the fedcial Rover : sh in\" t by 182 r 12 ^23 sc: pt\" r-S 24 :b*' 1.0$. (c).Siuciirc: state sgaoc\n. (D) Usetd. 071 S-Ssl' a4 1   II . isorvices,-the rates ' for wiiich or a\"federal regulatory agency ar.d :::acnineii.  subj co r h -Tlie Doa'rd'of Directors'of each school district shall pre ibe--che'\"nieclioc of soliciting bids by regulation and aay adept other 4' .riles.and rcgula \u0026gt;26' .1. ons governins the procurenent of corrxodities. SEC^XzSSy^AJyl olaf i?n%\norr 'che^pcevisi6hs\\_ofTthis'Act shall be a .if I .29 * :i^-sjceanor '.S' ' '' -1 - ' . .w * SECTION 6, 1 - 30 Uiercfiy'Trepcalcd . ' k. V*  3 J 32 33 3r a- 11 laws and parts of'laws in conflict with this Act art .a n   tirfS- : n * /s/ Oobbtj Tullis f -V-' 3 3jAPPR0VED VS rG.Or.V-AEaRNNO'iaR -2- IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT PLAINTIFF VS . NO. LR-C-82^^0g|V'^^ PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, ET AL DEFENDANTS SEP 8 1995 MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL Office of Desegregation Monitoring INTERVENORS INTERVENORS LRSDS RESPONSE TO JOSHUA INTERVENORS MOTION TO ENJOIN THE LRSD FROM ENTERING INTO A SERVICE CONTRACT WITHOUT FOLLOWING BIDDING PROCEDURES. REQUESTS FOR INFORMATION AND WITHOUT PRIOR INVOLVEMENT OF THE JOSHUA INTERVENORS (\"LRSD\" The Plaintiff, Little Rock School District or \"District\") , for its Response to Joshua Intezrvenors Motion to Enjoin the LRSD from Entering Into a Service Contract Without Following Bidding Procedures, Requests for Information and Without Prior Involvement of the Joshua Intervenors, pursuant to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, states: The LRSD denies the allegations made by the Joshua Intervenors in their Motion to Enjoin the LRSD from Entering Into a Service Contract Without Following Bidding Procedures, Requests 1. for Inf ozmiation and Without Prior Involvement of the Joshua Intervenors. 2 . The LRSD does hereby assert that this Court hold the Joshua Intex-zenors to strict proof of each and evezry allegation made by them in their Motion to Enjoin the LRSD regarding the \u0026lt;lara\\pcud/en)oi n.res -1-proposed entry into a management service contract regarding custodial and maintenance services. 3 . As of this response, the LRSD has not yet entered into any contract with any entity to provide managerial services for custodial and maintenance services. However, the board of directors of the District, on Thursday, August 31, 1995, did vote to authorize the administration of the District to negotiate terms and conditions of such a contract and to enter into the contract upon the completion of those negotiations. 4 . The Joshua Intervenors have stated no basis to permit discovery and the request to review a contract negotiated and entered into in the day-to-day operation of the District is unprecedented and without support in the law of this case or other controlling authority. WHEREFORE, the Little Rock School District respectfully requests that this Court deny the Joshua Intervenors Motion to Enjoin the LRSD From Entering Into a Service Contract and award the District all of the legal and proper relief to which it may be entitled. Respectfully submitted. FRIDAY, ELDREDGE \u0026amp; CLARK Attorneys at Law 2000 First Commercial Building 400 West Capitol Little Rock, Arkansas 72201-3493 (501) 376-2011 ATTORNEYS FOR PLAINTIFF LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT Jerry L. Malone {Bar No. I. D. 85096) dianavpcssd/enjoin.res -2-CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I, Jerry L. Malone, do hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing LRSD's Response to Joshua Intervenors Motion to Enjoin the LRSD from Entering Into a Service Contract Without Following Bidding Procedures, Requests for Information and Without Prior Involvement of the Joshua Intervenors has been served by U. S. '7^ Mail, postage prepaid, on September J_, 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 Federal Monitor, Office of Desegregation Heritage West Building, Suite 520 201 East Markham Street Little Rock, AR 72201 Jerry L. Malone Jiana\\ocss\u0026lt;l/en)oin.ra -3-LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 810 WEST MARKHAM STREET LITTLE ROCK, AR 72201 September 22, 1995 TO: Board of Directors FROM: Fred L. Smith, Manager, Support Services THROUGH: Henry P. Williams, Superintendent SUBJECT: Proposed Agreement with ServiceMaster the District and the proposed agreement between comments, please call Attached is . . ServiceMaster. Should you have any questions or me at 324-2009.management services agreement , 199 5 , by and Liule Rock school Dlsrrict. (me -School ) WITNESSETH: RECITALS\noperates various departments A. which provide services in support of the that the B. i. is -- vSTa ci Xrnvtament for sodenu, suff and public and that d,= materials, supplies and equipment used by^such^employees m . be well trained and managed to C. D. materials, supplies in the discharge of their responsibilities he of the oroper quality and quanuty\n School that ServiceMaster has extensive faculties and in providmg certam of the i------- materials and supplies needed by such departments\nThe School wishes to certain of its support departments and management services for the School. obtain the management services of ServiceMaster for ServiceMaster desires to provide such NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the foregoing and the terms and conditions set forth below the parties agree as follows: 1. INTRODUCTION TheSchool hereby retains ServiceMaster as e ,,eeXiv^^SSS^ces'2:X\\se^tlon2andtonulma,a^^^^^ .he school agrees to pay The School the for the efficient performance of such managemem the consideration therefor C provided in section 6\nand ServiceMaster accepts as piuviutu ______ rnakp available such employment and responsibilities and equipment, all as set forth herein. bv ServiceMaster. The prograin of 1 -2 Information Provided hvU^der h^^^v^^lnped based on management services which ServiceMas r independent on-site survey and investigation iufor^dou provided by me \u0026amp;hoo and u^^^^ ,nd mmrviews ^b _____ImaaAXactfar 30 inSDCCtlOn 0l DUUUlUg, ^,4 has been developed based on bv ServiceMaster, an inspection DY OCl V IVCivxttJvw*., r administrators, principals and suff of schoo . 2. SERVICES . ServiceMaster agrees to train, manage and direct die Schoorlemp^S^seSarunents of School hlch are idendried tn secuon Agreement Page 1and direction together with 3.2 below (the .-Service Such \u0026lt;mlmn^^ X  and deUiont .of d. Physi^-- the i^ the administrative services related thereto (the \"Management ServiceMaster in the context of ServiceMasters duties of Servce Employees Agreemen. b, descriptions and duties------ , as are set forth in the Exhibits attached hereto and reference. (b) The Management Services shall be provided to those departments for which an Exhibit number appears in the following table\nDepartment Support Services Function Exhibit Custodial Plant Operations and Maintenance Grounds Grounds Equipment A A A B ServiceMaster agrees that it will perform ^1 the etnploymeX^u Service Employees by the school as directed by die Seto bT \"L\" Rnlafed Administrative Services. ^ch relate to the employment records and furnishing to the School the data from regular payroll for the Servicw Employees should the School so desire gxnense provide and maintain all 2.3 10.111101 Material^. Service-Master will, at   ' daUy work and project Management Service related traimng equipment,^ manuals used to train the schedules, indices, standard opetano^ PX- ,tooronetty of ServiceMaster. schedules, indices . such materials sh^ _at^^_t^- at its sole expense, ruQuired for the lawful renderins\nofj^^Mmgeto Service Employees. -------- 2.4 Permits and Licenses: Compliance with Laiv all licenses and permits which are i _ procure Services and are applicable to ServiceMaster agrees to comply with aU statutes the conduct of its services and sales hereunder . , ordinances and regulations which 2.5 Costs operating costs (a) ServiceMaster shall pay all direct The term \"direct To Be .Ahso^^^d bv ServiceMaster. htcuned ,^.n wi^ the athibuuble m the costs as used in the preceding sentence jjgt mciuuc uiuac of e Manageniem Semces^^^^^ foUowirig\nd m below, me lenu contributions (i.e., worker s y. -1-: . -3, benefits -d employment-ml^^^^^ (U) aU taxes compensation, unemployment,\nXr\\ocIu^^^^^^ connec^on wi e provision and fees currently unposed by fede^, suk^or loca^au _ of the Management Services, and (in) tra g costs which are to (b) The followmg costs are not direct p zn wages and. all related, payroll be paid by ServiceMaster as provided m costs or contributions (includm mxLof^tviceEmployeclothing cu^ndy operating costs does not include those provision \u0026lt; items listed in paragraph (b) below costs: (i) salaries, taxes in connection with the provision taxes or ocivius. uniforms or other special ciuuuub all to (.btomnance expenses for equipment owned by *e School provided to Agreement Page 2which is made available to ServiceMaster as provided in Section 5\n(iv) repair and maintenance Section 10\n(v) materials and supplies nf fhp snace orovided to ServiceMaster pursuant to  ... P -  (vi) payroll and employment forms and documents (such as time pursuant to Section 4,2(d)\nand, cards, time sheets, application forms, evaluation forms, etc). 3. PERSONNEL . , ServiceMaster Personnel, (a) ServiceMaster agrees 3.1 to furnish no less than five (5) coordinatmg managemem blSb^ shall be a coordinating manager, who shall be ServiceMaster s wi.h the performance of ServiceMaarers powers daues proper performance One of such persons and duties under ^^bUraddition to me management personnel. ServiceMaster will famish all necess^ (b) In addition to p,jects personnel as required for the supervisory, training and efficient performance of the Management Services. emnlovees of fc) All of the personnel described in paragraphs (a) and (b) will be employees or federal, sure or local sumte in connection wi eir employment. (d) If any ServiceMaster management, supervisory, personnel are not acceptable to training, technical or special projects 'ieJuperintendent of e Schoofor his or her designee, such of such personnel. Upon the receipt by reXSerTsucharrZ(5ervT^^^^^^ will provide w.thin Employees on dre dam of dais to be employees of the School as opposed to 3.2 .School Personnel, (a) All persons who were Agreement shall continue ServiceMaster and all persons employed by School as shall be employees of the School. All such persons a reasonable time a Service Employees after e date of this are subject to discipline, job Agreement shall be employees o uxc ovixuvu polices procedures, stamtes action and discharge by the School pursuant to applicable practices, polices, p and oer laws. (b) ServiceMaster shall not be regarded as a party to or agreements to which the School was or becomes a party any collective bargaining agreement ServiceMaster will, upon request by me school, SsX^eXMas:\nagrees established policies and procedures. cprvice Emnlovees and the School (d) The School shall pay all wages and salanes of the Service Employees anu shall pi all payroll and other taxes, fees, and other =^g!Vc^'^nlovees r.^. or'fmml Stamms relating to the employment of Ifa^loyees injured levied or required by, federal, state or local statutes relating to shaU pay all workers compensation insurance. Any claims . The SchoolWhile working under die dhection and supeivision of ServiceMaster shaU be handled by to . School. (e) The School agrees to furnish to ServiceMaster, upon request, certificates of u^rance evidence of the proper employee insurance coverage lo, the Seri ice Employees and Ser^IcXter agreesm furnish to School certiflcams of insurance as as to furnish to insurance coverage for evidence of proper employee insurance coverage for the employees of ServiceMaster, including, but not limited to. workers compensation insurance. 4. MATERIALS AND SUPPLIES 4.1 7rUe olthis Section. This Section 4 aUocates the respoi^ibilities of the parties for  and supplies which are requued in t---------- . the furnishing of the materials performance of the Management feXX colinon sePfonh in parugrHph (a) toeof is not connection with the sub-section to dus Section 4 is noc apptable satisfied, the sub-section shall be considered as deleted from to ^..^le only if the Management Services 4.2 Custodial, (a) This Secuon .- ph schools custodial department. to be provided hereunder include services wi reexpendable supplies referred   Ld:srn^d:dtc*\" SeXTSSaSe To to Ssmdi^ Depawhent is toiuded materials tjiis paragraph (b) are owned as of the appi.....w CprviceMaster oursuant to tjus paragrapn to\nand upon .nnination of to Agreement any inventory of and supplies shall be delivered to School. unused materials and supplies snail oe ucuvc... - . _ ?,^^^l^L.^\"TXMaster a Certficate of Tax Exemption upon e taxes, the School shall furnish to ServiceMaster a commencement of the Management Services. School agrees to provide, at its own expense (d) , the expendable supplies, as such may be defmed by agreement 0 sIZmss eiand Uhil, required drcounecdouwidithe ope ot SKViceMasBi ____ ,0) of the Schools Custodial department. towels, deodorants, washroom soap. Such expendable supplies include (but are nlastic container liners, and paint. toilet tissue, paper towels, aeoaorauu, waoxa....- \u0026gt; section 4 ' ' \" ' 4 T, Plant Operations and Maintenance., (a) This ion 4.3 shall be applicable only if the Management Services to be provided hereunder include services with respect to Schools plant operations and maintenance. its own expense, all plant operations and maintenance \" (b) The School shall provide, at its own expense, ai up...---------- supplies, materials, repair parts, oily if the Management Services 4.4 Ground, (a) This section 4.4 shall department. to be provided hereunder mclude services supplies, materials, repair (b) The School shall provide, at its own expense, an grounu^ pp (b) parts, and purchased services. owned by ServiceMaster 5. equipment ServiceMaster AU equipment now ServiceMas^ 5.1 Equipment Provided by Serviceiviaster. \\j\ncervices (including computer and used in connection with the tende^ o e am ServiceMaster shall be hardware and software) shall remam to property of ServiceMaster. Agreement Page 4responsible for the repair, maintenance and replacement of such equipment, at no additional cost to the School. This section 5.2 shall be \u0026gt; \"7 Pniiinment Provided bv the School. Custodial. ( ) applicable'oiif if the Management Services to be providS hereunder include services 5.2 Equipment (b)hoolS\"rSkXta^^^^^ use by ServiceMaster the =quipm owr^by die school and used in the custodial the shall remain the property of e ^erv.^ maintenance of the equipment. cKrndial denartment shall be provided and ^^u^^SVs^'SeMSS ^Threost of such additional or replacement equipment has been mamumed by ServiceMaster, rue e hv \u0026lt;berviceMaster oursuant to this h(bns XTby teshool S'ditional amounts to (e paid m ServiceMaster rdJ^Xio7Xs%reem^^^^^^^^ Equipment purchased hereunder shall e ^0 c^rviceMaster the unamortized book value exceed five years. School is not obligated to pay  not S Sc^S'XTaSte^a^yTay\" by ServiceMaster the equipment owned by purchased by ServiceMaster pursuant rather than to ServiceMaster. . 5 t rniiiriiir? - Bv P' Ooeranota secticnk^S sgS^SSS^ and Maintenance, (a) This the Schools plant operations and maintenance. services with respect to the School s piam operjuvw operations and -rh Qz'hnn! aarees to oemut ServiceMaster to utuize me prcsciu piau*- k- (b) The School agrees to p^t equipment in an operanve, maintenance service equipment. The School a rees mai mainuin such equipment in an operative, of additional or replacement maintenance service equipment. Thiq section 5 4 shall be operable, workable and safe School shall maintain such equipment, at its expose in^^Zquipntent condition. The School shall be respoi^ible, at i^ (including replacement parts). ServiceMaster P paid in fiiU, date of this Agreement, grounds equipment, *p P described in Exhibit B. The equipment so ServiceMaster at the termination of -T-n____i qmniinK to be paid to servicciviaaiti \u0026lt;. of its purchase this Agreement being The only additional amounts to be paid to----- the unamortized book value of said equipment. . - - its useful life, not to exceed tive years. Equipment purchased hereunder stall be amortaed by ru^Xolr value of any equipment School Is not Obligated to pay to J\" equipment not desiied by School School does not desire  ServiceMaster has not paid the complete shall be transferred to berviceiviasLci. Agreement Page 5amount owed on the additional equipment at the time the Agreement is terminated, the School may make any payments pursuant to this sub-section directly to the entity owed, rather than to ServiceMaster. 6. COMPENSATION 6.1 Schools Agreement to Pav Contract Amount. In consideration of the performance by Service.Master of the Management Services and in consideration of the transfer of the materials and supplies by Service.Master to the School in connection with the performance of the Manaaement Services, the School agrees to pay to ServiceMaster, at the times set forth in section 6.3, the Contract Amount as set forth in section 6.2. 6 Contract Amount. Subject to adjustment as provided in subsequent sections of this Section 6 the Contract ^Amount shall be S98.659.00 per mon. If the Management Services commence on a dav other than the first day of a month, or if the Management Services terminate dav other than the last day of a month, the Contract .Amount for the first or the last month on 3. dav other than the last nay or a muiiui. me vuuudvi Amuuuu tvi wx  shall be prorated on the basis of the number of days within such first or last month on which Management Services were provided. It is agreed that of the SI. 183.908 to be paid annually^ to ServiceMaster pursuant to this Agreement, ServiceMaster will meur not less than an average for materials, supplies and equipment to be used in its of S329,347 expense per year for matenals, supplies ana equipment lu uc uocu m performance of the terms and conditions of this Agreement and title to such material, supplies and equipment will be solely in the name of School. On or before each annual anniversary date of this Aareement, ServiceMaster shall provide invoices. contracts or other written documenution satisfactory to School evidencing that at least an average of 3329,3^1 has been expensed by ServiceMaster toward the purchase of materials, supplies and equipment. 6.3 'payments of the Contract .Mnount. (a) Commencing on October 15, 1995, and on the fifteenth of each month thereafter, the School shall pay to ServiceMaster the Contract Amount. . . , (b) If any payment of the Contract Amount is not paid in full withm fineen days or the due date, the unpaid portion shall bear interest at e highest rate allowed by the laws of the State of Arkansas. Further, School shall pay all costs and reasonable attorneys fees incurred by Service.Master (not to exceed 10% of the amount awarded) in collecting amounts due to ServiceMaster from the School. 6.4 Adjustment of the Contract .Amount: Base Wage Increase. On each anniversary of the commencement of services hereunder, the Contract Amount (excluding custodial and pounds capital equipment, computerization and vehicles) shall be increased by die percenta.ge mcrease that the base, waae rate of the Service EmnloveeTot School have mcreased for the previous _ twelve (12) month period not to exceed 2.5%in any given year. Base wage rate is Qefmed as the rate otcompensauon paid to service employees wmch shall include the annual raise approved or authorized for the Service Employees of School. This amount does not mclude any annual step increase or increment given for an additional year of service with the School. 6.5 Adjustment of the Contract Amount: Change in Services. The Contract A^unt has been established on the basis of the area, job descriptions and specific dunes descnbedm e Exhibits. If the total amount of area or the job descriptions or the dunes to be pertormea by ServiceMaster or the Service Employees is enlarged, reduced or altered m any shall be an increase or decrease, as the case may be, in the Contract Amount. Such adjustment Agreement Page 6 shall be effective with the first payment to be made immediately following such increase, reduction or alteration. In connection therewith, ServiceMaster and School shall negotiate in good faith and mutually agree upon any enlargement, reduction or alteration of the contract, amount. 6.6 ServiceMaster Guarantee. ServiceMaster guarantees that the Schools costs to perform services for the custodial, maintenance and grounds departments as set forth in Exhibit A attached hereto, including ServiceMaster annual fees, during each year of this agreement, shall not exceed the amount reflected in the applicable portions of the School s 1995-96 fiscal year budget for such period as reflected in Exhibit C. Should any payment to ServiceMaster for services provided cause School to exceed the budget as adjusted for fiscal year 1995-96, ServiceMaster agrees that the School shall not be obligated to make any payment(s) to ServiceMaster which would cause the School to exceed the amount reflected in the applicable Rather, the schools liability to portions of the Schools 1995-96 fiscal year budget. ServiceMaster for any remaining amounts owed pursuant to Section 6 would terminate, except to the extent hereinafter provided. As such, the School would not be obligated to pay ServiceMaster the total annual amount reflected in paragraph 6.2. However, should the School realize sufficient savinss in the applicable portions of the Schools budget such that the amounts for the 1995-96 school year is less an or equal to the applicable portions of the adjusted budget for the 1995-96 fiscal year, including the amount owed to ServiceMaster, the School shall pay ServiceMaster any remaining amounts owed under paragraph 6.2. It being the intent of the parties that the School shall not incur costs and expenses, including the amounts paid to ServiceMaster, in the applicable portions of the School s budget relating to maintenance and plant operations which would cause the School to exceed the amount budgeted for that area during the 1995-96 fiscal year. For instance, the Schools 1995-96 budget for custodians, mainrenancs and related matters is $10,779,986.00. The ServiceMaster projection for 1995-96 for these same arsas, including the annual amount in paragraph 6.2, total $10,621,136.00. If those projections are achieved, ServiceMaster would receive the compensation as provided by  ? this Agreement, assuming all other terms and conditions are met. Should the projections not be achieved, the School would not be obligated to pay ServiceMaster, to the extent the payment(s) would cause the School to exceed the $10,779,986.00 budgeted amount for the 1995-96 fiscal year as pro-rated for the nine (9) months of the shortened initial year. In subsequent years, the School would not be obligated to pay ServiceMaster, to the extent the payments would cause the School to exceed the baseline amount as adjusted pursuant to the provisions of this Agreement. To get the pro-rated baseline and actual amounts for the 1995-96 fiscal year, ServiceMaster and the School shall negotiate and mutually agree in writing within forty (40) calendar days after the October 2, 1995 commencement date. Management fees and amounts to be expended by ServiceMaster on equipment and supplies during the initial year will also need to be pro-rated, as necessary. Likewise, if the operational costs, exclusive of the amounts owed to ServiceMaster, exceed $9,596,086.00 ($10,779,986.00 minus $1,183,908.00), ServiceMaster must refund to the School, dollar for dollar, all such amounts already paid to Service Master which would cause the School to exceed the 1995-96 budgeted amount ($10,779,986.00). However, in no event would ServiceMaster be obligated to refund more than the management fee for the particular year (i.e., $854,561, which will be subject to proration during the initial year.) For example. Agreement Page 7 should the operational costs, exclusive of the amounts owed to ServiceMaster reach SIO.300,000 during the school year and the School has already paid ServiceMaster S640.917 (571,213 x 9), the total in this category so far would be 510,940,917. This exceeds the budgeted amount by 5160,931.00. As such, ServiceMaster would be required to refund 5160,931.00 to the School and not receive any payments remaining (571,213 x 3 = 5213,639), to honor its guarantee to the School. This same guarantee would apply for each year of this agreement, using the schools 1995-96 budgeted amount as the baseline. However, following the 1995-96 fiscal year, the wage and benefit portion of the baseline will increase each year by the base wage rate as defined in paragraph 6.4 plus any annual step increase or increment given for an additional year of service with the School. Likewise, the remaining portion including supplies, purchased services and utilities will increase each year by 1.5%.The amounts not paid from year-to-year, for which the School is not liable, may be determined by the School and ServiceMaster and recorded in a log. Thereafter, should the operational costs for the applicable portions of the Schools budget, including the amounts paid to ServiceMaster for the year in consideration, achieve sufficient savings (after all required services, supplies, equipment and other school needs for the year in question have been met), the School may pay Service.Master a portion of the amounts reflected in the log, but only to the extent such payment(s) (after determining the acnial expenditures for the year in question, including payments to ServiceMaster for the year in question) would not cause the School to exceed the applicable portions of the.baseline. Should such savings never be achieved during the term of this Agreement, the School would have no liability whatsoever to ServiceMaster for the amounts reflected in the log. Should ServiceMaster deem it necessary to request that certain expenditures be removed\nood faith, and mutually or adjusted to arrive at the actual expenditures for a particular year of this Agreement, upon request by ServiceMaster, ServiceMaster and School shall negotiate in g' agree upon any such adjustments. Notwithstanding any of the foregoing, including the possibility that ServiceMaster may either receive less than full payment of the amounts reflected in paragraph 6.2 during one or more years of this Agreement or that ServiceMaster may have to refund monies to the School should sufficient savings not be achieved, ServiceMasters obligation to perform management services shall not be reduced, abated or otherwise relieved as such constimtes a portion of the guarantee made by ServiceMaster to the School. No party shall have any liability to the other hereunder by reason of any delay or failure to perform any obligation or covenant including ServiceMaster guarantee if the delay or failure to perform is occasioned by force majeure, meaning any act of God, storm, fire, casualty, work stoppage, strike, lockout, civil disturbance, riot, war, national emergency, act of government, ' act of public enemy, or other cause of similar or dissimilar nature beyond its control. 7.1 7. INDEMNIFICATION . . 7.1 Tn.surance and Indemnification of the School. ServiceMaster agrees to indemnify and hold the School and its School board members, officers and employees harmless from any liabUity imposed against the School by reason of the negligent acts or omissions of ServiceMaster or its employees. ServiceMaster shall, at its sole expense, obtain and keep m force during the term of this Agreement, a policy of comprehensive public liability insurance Agreement Page 8 insuring ServiceMaster and School against any liability arising out of the negligent acts or omissions of ServiceMaster or its agents, representatives or employees. Such insurance shall be in an amount of not less than $1,000,000.00 for injury to or death of one person in any one accident or occurrence and in an amount of not less than $20,000,000.00 for injury to or death of more than one person in any one accident or occurrence. Such insurance shall further insure ServiceMaster and the School against liability for property damage of at least $20,000,000.00. The limits of said insurance shall not, however, limit the liability of ServiceMaster hereunder. If ServiceMaster shall fail to procure and maintain said insurance School may, but shall not be required to, procure and maintain the same, but at the expense of ServiceMaster. Indemnification of ServiceMaster. 7.2 The School shall indemnify and hold ServiceMaster and its parmers, directors, officers and employees harmless from any liability imposed against ServiceMaster by reason of the negligent acts or omissions of the School or its employees to the extent that the School is covered by insurance and to the extent that such is permitted by applicable law. Such insurance shall be in an amount of not less than $1,000,000 for injury to or death of one person in any one accident or occurrence and in an amount of not less than $3,000,000 for injury to or death of more than one person in any one accident or occurrence. Further, the school does not, by so agreeing, intend to waive any immunity or other defense to which it may be entitled. Therefore, to the extent such an agreement would jeopardize or otherwise interfere with the Schools immunity and other defenses, such indemnity provision becomes null and void. 7.3 Indemnification Regarding Asbestos. The School acknowledges its obligation to identify the presence, if any, of asbestos material on the Schools premises and its responsibility to appoint the Asbestos Hazard Emergency Response Act (AHERA) \"Designated Person.\" ServiceMaster agrees to provide assistance to the School in the form of: (i) support service employee education and training material when ServiceMaster is responsible to train, manage and direct said employees\n(ii) guidance in the form of Standard Operating Procedures for small- scale, short-duration operation and maintenance activities as defined by AHERA\nand (iii) other support as determined by ServiceMaster to aid the School in its AHERA-related activities. School agrees that under no circumstance shall a ServiceMaster employee be or act in the capacity of the \"Designated Person.\" School also acknowledges that ServiceMaster has no obligation hereunder to identify or take corrective action by removing or containing asbestos fibers for other than small-scale, short-duration operations and maintenance activities as defined by AHERA, nor does ServiceMaster have any duty to mitigate the hazards from exposure to asbestos fibers. The School agrees to indemnify and hold ServiceMaster harmless from any liability imposed against ServiceMaster, including costs and reasonable attorneys fees (not to exceed 10% of the amount awarded), by reason of the presence of asbestos material on the Schools premises or for any actions done or failed to be done by ServiceMaster while acting on Schools behalf related to AHERA. (This indemnity agreement is subject to the conditions, restrictions and limitations in paragraph 7.2.) 8. AGREEMENTS CONCERNING EMPLOYEES OF A PARTY 8.1 Agreements. At no time during the term of this Agreement and for a period of one year thereafter will either of the parties call upon any employee of the other party or persons who were employees of the other within the then previous twelve months, to employ, hire or Agreement Page 9 otherwise interfere with the contracmal relationships of such employees, without the prior written approval of the other party\nnor will either party directly or indirectly, for itself or on behalf of or in connection with, any other person, firm, parmership, corporation, association or School, solicit, hire, employ or take away any such employee from the other party. The parties agree that this provision is for the protection of their respective legitimate business interests and is not intended to restrict the employment rights of individuals. 8.2 Remedies for Breach. If either party breaches the above covenant, the offended party shall have e right to apply to a court of competent jurisdiction for an injunction to restrain the offending party from employing such employee and for an order to enforce the terms of this section so breached, and the offending party shall be liable to the offended party for all reasonable attorneys fees, costs and expenses incurred by it to enforce the covenant. 9. TERM 9.1 Terms. The term of this Agreement shall be for a period of five years commencing on October 2, 1995. 10. SPACE AND OTHER ACCOMMODATIONS PROVIDED BY THE SCHOOL 10.1 Space and Utilities. The School shall provide ServiceMaster with reasonable offices, storage space and facilities on the Schools premises from which ServiceMaster will conduct the Management Services. Such offices and storage space shall be under the operational control of ServiceMaster. The provision of such space shall include all utilities (including water, sewer, electricity and local telephone service). Such space, local facilities and utilities shall be provided without cost to ServiceMaster. ServiceMaster will insure its interest in any property owned by it located on or about the office and storage space provided to ServiceMaster. ServiceMaster shall vacate the office and storage space upon termination of this Agreement. 11. MONTHLY JOINT REVIEW 11-1 Joint Review Committee. The parties shall form a Joint Review Committee consisting of at least two persons from the School and two persons from ServiceMaster. The Joint Review Committee will meet on a monthly basis for the purpose of reviewing ServiceMasters performance with respect to the Management Services and generally to review the results of operations under this Agreement in comparison with the expectations of e parties. 12. TERMINATION FOR NON-PERFORMANCE 12.1 Notice of Non-Performance\nGrace Period: Termination. If one party (the \"Offended Party\") considers the other party (the \"Offending Party\") to have not performed one or more of its obligations hereunder, the Offended Party shall give the Offending Party a written notice which shall specify the nature of the alleged non-performance. The Offending Party shall then have sixty days from the receipt of such notice to remedy the alleged non-performance. If, at the end of such sixty-day period, the Offended Party considers the alleged non performance not to have been cured, the Offended Party may thereupon terminate this Agreement by giving the Offending Party a written notice of termination and, at the expiration of the thirtieth day following the delivery of such notice, the Offended Party shall be relieved from the further performance of its obligations hereunder. The parties understand and agree that the foregoing Agreement Page 1030-day period is to allow for an orderly transition from the Management Services as provided hereunder to an alternative service mechanism. 12.2 Termination by ServiceMaster Based on the Schools Failure to Pav the Net Amount Due. Notwithstanding the provisions of Section 12.1 and 6.3(b), ServiceMaster may terminate this Agreement upon ten days prior written notice if the School fails or refuses to pay ServiceMaster in accordance with e provisions of Sections 6.1, 6.2, 6.3(a) or 6.6. 12.3 Relationship to Section 8.2. This Section 12 shall not affect the covenants and remedies for breach thereof which are set forth in Section 8. 13. NOTICES 13.1 Form of Notice and Delivery. Any notice required or permitted under this Agreement shall be in writing and shall be delivered by certified or registered mail, wi proper postage prepaid If to ServiceMaster, to\nServiceMaster Management Services L.P. ServiceMaster Education Management Services One ServiceMaster Way Downers Grove, IL 60515 Atm: President If to the School, to\nLittle Rock School District 810 West Markham Street Little Rock, AR 72201 Attn: Superintendent In the event the date of actual receipt of any notice is not recorded, notices shall be deemed to have been received on the third day after post. 14. GENERAL PROVISIONS 14.1 Appropriation of Funds. In the event sufficient funds shall not be appropriated or made available for the funding of operations of e School and School has no funds legally available for the payments due hereunder from other sources, School and ServiceMaster shall review the services provided hereunder and the Contract Amount, in keeping with the then proportionate amount of appropriated funds for the services hereunder, and determine the level of services which can be performed and the method of delivery of such services to School within the level of appropriated funds. In the event ServiceMaster is not able to modify its program to meet the funds appropriated, either party may terminate this Agreement upon giving to the other thirty days prior written notice. 14.2 Severability. If a court holds any part, term or provision of this Agreement to be unenforceable, the validity of the remaining portions or provisions shall not be affected, and the rights and obligations of the parties shall be construed and enforced as if this Agreement did not contain the particular part, term or provision. Agreement Page 1114.3 Headings. The headings which appear in this Agreement have been inserted for the purpose of convenience and ready reference. They are not intended to, and shall not be deemed to. define, limit or extend the scope or intent of any provision hereof. 14.4 Entire A.greement. This Agreement (including Exhibits A, B, C and D as well as the Schools Business Case dated August 24, 1995, all of which are incorporated herein by reference as if included word-for-word) has been negotiated and prepared by and for the parties equally and shall not be construed as having been drafted by one party. When fully executed, it shall supersede any and all prior and existing. Agreements between the parties, either oral or in writing. This Agreement contains the entire agreement between the parties hereto wi respect to the subject matter hereof. 14.5 Amendments. Other than for amendments as provided in Section 6.4, any amendment or modification of this Agreement must be made in writing and signed by the parties. 14.6 Management Service (\"Exhibit D\\ A proposal detailing ServiceMaster Management Services has been submined. The said proposal becomes a part of this agreement and is attached hereto as Exhibit D. 14.7 Assignments. This Agreement is not assignable by either party without the prior written consent of the other party. 14.8 Choice of Law and Jurisdiction. This Agreement shall be governed by the laws of the State of Arkansas. The parties agree to submit to e jurisdiction of the courts within the State of Arkansas. 14.9 Attorneys Fees. Except as oerwise specifically provided herein, in any action brought in law or in equity based on this Agreement, each party shall be responsible for its own costs and attorneys fees. 14.10 Non-Waiver. No waiver of any default will be construed to be or constitute a waiver of any subsequent defaults. 14.11 Counterparts. This Agreement may be executed in one or more counterparts, each of which shall be a separate document but all of which constitute one and e same instrument. 14.12 Pending Litigation. Each of the parties agree that as of the date of the execution of this Agreement a motion to enjoin School from entering into this Agreement with ServiceMaster is now pending in the United States District Court, Eastern District of Arkansas, Western Division, styled Little Rock School District v. Pulaski County Special School District No. 1, et al., No. LR-C-82-866. Service Master does hereby release and forever discharge School from any and all actions, causes of action, damages, claims or demands which ServiceMaster may hereafter have, arising out of or in any way relating, directly or indirectly, from orders issued by the United States District Court which may terminate or modify this Agreement. School is under no obligation or duty to appeal any decisions of the United States District Court affecting this Agreement. Further, the Schools liability hereunder will be subject to the outcome (through either settlement, order of the Court or otherwise) of that litigation. Agreement Page 12IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have executed this Agreement the day and year above written. VICEMASTER MANAGEMENT SERVICES oited Partnership iceMaster Management Services, Inc., General Parmer ration Management Services,-Genefal Piutun ATTEST tn L. ,an, President Assistant ^Secretary J FLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT ATTEST By: Agreement Page 13 j I -  N -zV.: ' ?*' I -'k-a \u0026gt; I 2539-120 1199-140 FUND 12-2542-120 2542-120 i-'- J 2542-12) 2541-120 2648-120 . i 210+240 ABOVE EUNCPONS i| 400,500,600 OBJECTS 2641.2,4,5 8 FUND 12 SALARIES VO TECH SUBS MAGNET CUST SUBTOTAL MAINT SER AREA ASB SUBTOTAL TOTAL Sal BENEFITS TOTAL LABOR SUPPLIES CUST MAINT MAGNET total SERVICE MAS^ER 38,500.00 2,070.570.00 2,109.070.00 1,330.243.00 59.426.00 1,383.669.00 3.498,739.00 524,611.00 4.023.550.00 109.259.00 480.575.00 15,000.00 604,634.00 300 OBJECf'S 254),2,4,5 EXCEPT 321-323 PORCH SER 603,159.00  y ACTUAL 92/93 ACTUAL 93.'94 actual 94795 BUDGET 95/96 FUND 12 2542-322 2642-321 2542-323 UTILITIES MAG.NET ELECT GAS WATER TOTAL 2.734,075.00 695.425.00 189.150.00 3.618.650.00 SER MASTER 1 J83,90? ')' A granc total 10.034,101.00 88.836,24 234,152.52 335,694.82 2.478.062.48 3,136.895.86 1.167.691.67 240.065.11 70,950.0-' 1.478.706.79 4,615,602.65 772,168.72 5,387,771-37 73,894.57 214,602.38 360,957.42 2.596,523.16 3,245,977.53 1,098.482.35 205.943.88 46.375.69 1,351,401.92 4.597,379.45 686.91272 5,284,292.17 79,809.80 212,697.87 351,306.97 2,536,386,27 3,ie{),200.9l 1,095,302.11 200,742.96 54,635.05 1,350,630.14 4,530,881.06 672,824.34 5.203.705.39 85,149.00 200.000.00 ' 372.934.00 2,661,168.75 3,219.261.75 1.109,338.00 175,750.00 55,115.43 i ,S40.203.43 4,559.455.18 720,591.26 '5,280,046.44 \u0026lt; ( f. ~  . \u0026gt;I ' 230,287.22 5,008.90 235,296,12 222.016.52 0.05 222,016.52 364.98223 17,460.10 382.442.33 198,541.00 15.000. CO 213,641.00 r, r 693,329-20 981,615.29 991,931.86 1,035,999.00 507,373.00 5,232,084.12 ^*,209.77 1 3.82 3.46 J 10-71 9.78C 337.40 598,876.00 2,766,666.00 642,959.98 227,539.97 4.286,030.95 529,201.00 2,443,097.45 482,255.81 230,574.64 3.685,128.90 576,335.00 2.791.665.00 698,200.00 184,100.00 4,250.300.00 10.723,954.93 10.263,208.48 ia\n779.986.44^ ) f OCT 2 6 1995 Office Of Desegregaccn moe: John w. Walker, pa. Attorney At Law 1723 Broadway Ltitle Rock. Arkansas 72206 Telephone (501) 374-3758 FAX (501) 3744187 JOHN W. WALKER RALPH WASHINGTON MARK BURNETTE AUSTIN PORTER, JR. October 24, 1995 Mr. Chris Heller FRIDAY, ELDREDGE \u0026amp; CLARK 2000 First Commercial Bank Building Little Rock, AR 72201 Dear Chris: I would like to depose the following persons beginning at 3:00 p.m. on Wednesday afternoon: Dr. Mr. Mr, Ms. Henry Williams Fred Smith Charlie Neal Linda Pondexter Ms. Judy Magness Mr. John Riggs Dr. Katherine Mitchell Each of the depositions should be relatively brief and will be focused upon the Servicemaster contract in anticipation of the Saturday hearing. If you do not agree, please let me know so that I may ask for an order from the Court requiring it. Ve: truly yours, ohn W. Walker JWW:js cc: Dr. Mr. Ms. Henry Williams Jerry Malone Ann BrownFSLED U.S. DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT ARKANSAS UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION OCT 5 1 1995 JAMt^ W. il^cCOfiMACK, CLERK DEP CLERK LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT PLAINTIFF vs. LR-C-82-866 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, ET AL DEFENDANTS MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL INTERVENORS MRS. KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL INTERVENORS ORDER On October 28, 1995, the Court conducted a hearing on a motion by the Joshua Intervenors to prevent Little Rock School District from entering into a contract with ServiceMaster. The evidence was not completed, and the hearing on this issue is now scheduled to continue on Friday, December 8, 1995, at 9:00 a.ra. IT IS SO ORDERED this I day of October, 1995. SUSAN WEBBER WRIGHT3 United States District Judge PHIS DOCUMEMT ENTERED ON DOCKET SHEET IN COMPLIANCE WITH RULE 53 AND/OR 79(al FRCP ON _ 25 5 2 I I i  i 1RECSs\" S NOV 1995 Oice oi DeseyiC'aauon MOiiitCi OlJ IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION FILED district COURT eastern district ARKANSAS NOV 2 1995 OEP CURK LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT Plaintiff, vs. PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, ET AL. Defendants, MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL. V'- Intervenors, KATHERINE W. KNIGHT, ET AL. Intervenors. * * * * * * * * * *  * * * * * * * * * LR-C\n82-866 Tr, MWWKZI W\u0026lt; ORDER With the Courts ruling from the bench during a heai ing on October 28, 1995, ServiceMaster Companys motion for leave to intervene (docket entry # 2547) is hereby granted. DATED this 1st day of November 1995. 'JUDGE mis DOCUMENT ENTERED ON DOCKET SHEET IN COMPLIANCEWITHRULE58 AND/OR79(a) FRCP ON BY 4 2 551 1.430/ 1 995 17:18 FROM JOHN W.URLKER P.R. TO 3710100 P . 02 1 X IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT-. CCf^, EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION 1. LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT PIAZNTXFF VS, NO. LR\u0026lt;-82-866 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, ET AL DEFENDANTS MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL INTER KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL INTERVENORS Ths Plaintiff, SETTLEMENT Little Rock School District (\"LRSD\") or (\"District\") and the Joshua Intervenors (\"Joshua\"), by and through their respective undersigned counsel, respectfully settle, resolve and compromise any and all issues and disputes between the\"!, pursuant to 11 14.12 of the Little Rock School District Management Services Agreement with ServiceMaster Management Services, L.P., (hereinafter referred to as the \"Agreement\"), on the following terms, conditions and understanding\n1. The District, on the recommendation of the District's superintendent, Dr. Henry Williams, authorized Dr. Williams to negotiate and enter into a contract regarding its custodial and janitorial services with an entity known as \"ServiceMaster Management Services, L.P.\", Delaware limited partnership a (hereinafter referred to as \"ServiceMaster\"). \u0026lt;MceMirruLur -1-2. .F ft It .JOHN .U...U.R.L K E.R __ p.0 3 The terms of the authorization of the Little Rock School Board Minutoe recited in the determined at dated September 1, a meeting of the hoard of director. ' excerpt 1995, as held on Thur.day, Augu.t 31, of the Dietrict 1995. evidence at the hearing referred hereinbelow as Court's Exhibit No. The excerpt was admitted to in Paragraph Nos. 31. 3 . On August 31, 1995, Joehua filed States District Division, Case No. Court, Eastern District LR-C-82-866, entering into a contract to into 9 and 9 a motion in the United Of Arkansas, Western seeking to enjoin the District from provide janitorial and management services to the District. custodial The XtRSS Prow Satering into Joshua's Motion to Enjoin Bidding Procedures \u0026lt; A Service Contract Without Reguests For Following lavolveaient e The Joshua and Without Prior the w motion\" or w Intervenors will be refsrrecl to heroin as pending litigation\". motion are adopted herein by reference The allegations off the for-word. as if set out herein On September 7, 1995, word- Joshua's motion, reference as if The allegations of the District filed its response to set out herein word-for-word. that response are adopted by 4. On or about September 20, brief in support off its contained in the brief herein word-for-word. 1995. Joshua filed a memorandum 5. motion. The allegations and are adopted by reference The primary issues ^rief, among others, *MOBWTTUI,ur arguments aa if set out raised by Joshua in its motion and were that the proposed management services' 2- f I11/.30Z1995 17! 20 FROM JOHN U.WALKER P.O. TO 3710100 P. 04 contract had the potential to negatively impact the District's ability to carry out its desegregation obligations and that the District would be in violation of the laws of the State of Arkansas should it enter into the contract In the manner and under the terms proposed. 6 . The LRSO gave ServiceMaster, its agents and representatives notice of the Motion to Enjoin (referred to in the Agreement as the \"pending litigation) prior to the data on which the Agreement was subsequently executed. ServiceMaster and the District acknowledged the pending litigation and the District's right to terminate or modify the Agreement through either settlement of the litigation, order of the Court, or otherwise. The Agreement was executed on September 20, 1995. 7, On October 28, 1995, this Court the Honorable Susan Webber Wright presiding, conducted a hearing on Joshua's motion. The hearing was recessed until December 8, 1995. 8. At the hearing on October 28, 1995, this Court allowed ServiceMaster to intervene in the proceeding. ServiceMaster was represented by attorneys, John Everett of Fayetteville, Arkansas, and Joseph Mowery of Little Rock, Arkansas. 9. At the hearing, Joshua began presenting evidence and testimony toward the two issues referred to hereinabove. Prior to \u0026gt; .recessing the hearing. this Court noted the presence of the superintendent and members of the board of directors of the . District in Court and the advocacy of the lawyers for the District \u0026lt;iHtfci0imsxrr -3- )11Z30Z1995 17!20 EBQM.JQHN .U.WALKER P.fl. TO 3710100. P. 05 in defending adherence to the Agreement. The Court further remarked that ita primary interest, notwithstanding the presence of other isauea of importance, concerned the potential for the Agreement to have an adverse impact on the District's ability to meet its desegregation obligations (l.e., its ability to fund and appropriate money for desegregation programs) and whether the laws of the State of Arkansas had been complied with in reaching the Agreement and the terms of the Agreement, This Court remarked that should the Agreement be found in violation of Arkansas state law, and the Court indicated that it probably was, the Court would then have to determine whether to require the District to go back through the selection process. However, this Court went on to note that if the contract does violate Arkansas state law, it is either void or voidable. Specifically, the concerns raised relate to Code  6-31-301, aS. US', which provides that all school districts in the  State of Arkansas are required to purchase commodities as defined therein through soliciting bids where the purchase price shall equal or exceed $5,000, Commodities are defined as all supplies, goods, materials, equipment, machinery, facilities, personal  property and services, other than personal and professional services, purchased for or on behalf of the school district, excluding school buses. A violation of these requirements constitute a Class ^C criminal misdemeanor offense. 10. Paragraph 14.12 of the Agreement providest AMMSMantALR' -4- A11^30/1995 17:21 FROM JOHN W.WALKER P.A. TO 3710100 Bach of the parties agree that as pending ILtiaation. of the date of the execution of this Agreement, a motion to enjoin school from entering into this Agreement-with ServiceMaster is now pending in the United States District Court, Eastern District of Arkansas, Western Division, styled \"Little Rock School District v. Pulaski County Special School District No. 1, et al.\", No. LR-C- 82-866. ServiceMaster does hereby release and forever discharge School from any and all actions, causes of action, damages, claims or demands which ServiceMaster may hereinafter have arising out of or in anyway relating directly or indirectly, from orders issued by the United States District Court which may terminate or modify this School is under no obligation or duty to Agreement. appeal any decisions of the United States District Court affecting this Agreement. Further, the School's liability hereunder will be subject to the outcome (through either settlement, -T ?.l~ otherwise) of that litigation. order of the Court or 11. In recognition of the serious coneems raised in the pending litigation through Joshua's motion\nthe evidence and testimony presented at the hearing on October 38, 1995\nthe P . 06 concerns expressed by this Court prior to recessing the October 28 hearing\nand, the independent review and assessment of the facts, circumstances and applicable law by the District, its agents. representatives, and counsel, the board of directors of the District, on Tuesday, October 31, 1995, met in a special meeting and passed a motion directing its counsel to negotiate a settlement ' of. the pending litigation with the appropriate parties,  accordance with 5 14.12 of the Agreement. in NOW, THESSF0R2, the Joshua Intervenors and the Little Rock School District have decided and agreed to resolve their differences and to request the Court to enter an order on the pending Motion to Enjoin the LRSD from entering into the agreement  on terms which are 9d mutually satisfactory to all parties to the *Mii I' nfii-j nxLiT s- Udi J Mtn AbnidJ 26/ T0 33111/30/1995 17:22 FROM JOHN W.WALKER P.A. TO 3710100 P. 07 pending litigation such to prevent any negative impact on the District's desegregation obligations and to avoid any state law violations, to-witi a. The Joshua Intervenors do hereby agree to the entry of an order by the United States District Court, Eastern District of Arkansas, on their Motion to Enjoin the LRSD from entering into a service agreement which terminates the District's liability under the Agreement to ServiceMaster as well as terminating the District's liability on all matters which were brought or could have been brought in that pending litigation\n'o. The District acknowledges that it had no intent to enter into and would not enter into a contract with ServiceMaster had it known that the terms thereof would violate the terms and conditions of the Court-approved desegregation settlement plans, laws of the State of Arkansas, or both. Joshua contends that the Court- approved desegregation plan requires timely involvement of Joshua, the office of Desegregation Monitoring and the Court in matters which may substantially affect the operations of the Little Rock School District as it relates to the District's ability to fund, implement and ca'Ty out its desegregation programs and activities. To the extent that such is required by the Court-approved desegregation plan, the District reaffirms its commitment to do SO\nand, c. The Joshua Intervenors have raised questions relating to the possibility that the District has failed to follow prescribed processes and procedures, possibly violated the laws of the State of Arkansas by virtue of the Agreement, and possibly placed the District in the position of negatively impacting its ability to carry out Its desegregation obligations. This Court has likewise Agreement raised concerns regarding the legality o the Agreement pursuant to the laws of the state oS Arkansas. Because of these questions and concerns as well as the Distriet's own independent investigation and assessment of the facts, circumstances and applicable law, both Joshua and the District agree that thia Court should enter an Order pursuant to f 14.12 of the Agreement declaring the Agreement to be null and void and terminating the District's liability thereunder in accordance with the release agreed to by ServiceMaster therein. Because fcl|ll.lHl*HTl.llJ.IT -6-11^30X1995 17:23 FROM JOHN W.UfiLKER P.fl. TO 3710100 P . 08 On the basia o the foregoing agreement, acknowledgements and recitals* the Joshua Intervenors and the Little Rock School District do hereby respectfully request that this Court enter an Order terminating any and all of the District's liability under, . pursuant to, or otherwise relating to the Agreement with ServiceMaster and. affirming the validity of the release of liability by ServiceMaster, all as contained in t 14.12 of the Agreement, Both Joshua and the District agree and acknowledge that any proposed settlement of this litigation is intended to comply '.with the provisions of 1 14.12 of the Agreement which gives the LRSD the right to terminate or modify its liability thereunder through order of this Court, settlement or otherwise. Therefore, any such settlement is expressly conditioned upon the entry of an order by the United States District Court, Eastern District of Arkansas, recognizing the District's right to terminate or modify its liability under the Agreement by order of this Court, settlement or otherwise\nterminating the Agreement with ServiceMaster and the pending litigation\nand, terminating the District's liability under the Agreement by declaring the Contract to ba void or otherwise unenforceable in accordance with 1 14.12 of the Agreement. Should the Court decline to do so, be unable to do _ so, or for whatever reason such cam not be accomplished, it is the ** agreement of the parties hereto that this proposed settlement will .become null and void to the same extent as though it had never existed, to the extent that such is necessary to prevent contractual, equitable or other liability being imposed upon the fi'riiihitimj.ur -7- AM11/30/1995 17:24 FROM JOHN W.UflLKER P.fl. TO 3710100 P . 09 1 District by ServiceMaster or any other party or person by virtue of this settlement or any actions of the District, Its agents, representatives, counsel, er assigns. Further, should the Court decline to so terminate the District's liability, be unable to do so, or for whatever reason such can not be accomplished, Joshua would retain its right to proceed with evidence and testimony in support of the motion as though Chis settlement never existed. Neither party (LRSD, Joshua or ServiceMaster) would be permitted to utilize this settlement or any of its recitals as - admissions, concessions or other evidence in the proceedings on Joshua's motion, should the hearing resume. Respectfully submitted, JOHN W. WALKER, P,A. Attorneys at Law 1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72206 (501) 374-3753 ATTORNEYS FOR JOSHUA INTERVENORS By: John w. Walker Bar I. D. No. . FRIDAY, ELDREDGE \u0026amp; CLARK. Attorneys at Law 2000 First Commercial Building 400 West Capitol Little Rock, ikrkansas 72201-3493 (SOD 376-2011 ATTORNEYS FOR PLAINTIFF . LITTLE ROCK 3CSOGL DISTRICT By: Jerry L. Malone Bar No. I. D. 85096 MMcnwruur -8-I * ' 11^30/1995 17:25 FROM JOHN W.WALKER P.fl. TO 3710100 P. 10 ! CERTIFICATE QF SERVICE I, Jerry L. Malone, do hereby certify that a copy of the foreooing Sectlement of Pending Litigation has been eerved by U, 3. Mail. Dostage prepaid, except as otherwise indicated, on November 1995, upon the followings Mr. John C. Everett EVERETT, MARS \u0026amp; STILLS Attorneys at Law 3822 N. Parkview Drive Post Office Box 1646 Fayetteville, Arkansas 72703-1S4S Mr. Joseph s. Mowery GIROIR i GREGORY Attorneys et Law 111 Center Street, Suite 1900 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Mr, Samuel M, Jones, III WRIGHT, LINDSEY \u0026amp; JENNINGS Attorneys at Law 2200 worthan 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 a Broadway Streets Little Rock, AR 73301 Mr. Richard W, Roache11 ROACHSLL \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) Federal Monitor, Office of Desegregation . Heritage West Building, Suite 520 201 East Markham Street Little Rock, AR 72201 Jerry L. Malone teMKatManuuT -9- MM waij pn AJdQiaj wdBSsza se, ta oaa12/07/1995 10:25 FROM JOHN U.UPLKER P.P. TO 3710100 EASTS  IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COD^jgg by EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION i3y\n, e-=. -T P. 02 LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT, ET. AL. PLAINTIFFS V. LR-C-32-866 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT, ET AL. DEFENDANTS MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL. INTERVENORS KATHERINE W. KNIGHT, ET AL. INTERVENORS I-. I SERVICEMASTER MANAGEMENT SERVICES, A Limited Partnership MOTION FOR COKTINUANCE INTERVENOR The Joshua Intervenors respectfully request a continuance of the hearing scheduled for December 8, 1995. respectfully show the Court as follows\n1. For cause, they On November 29, 1995, intervenor Servicemaster Management Services filed a motion for leave to file an amended answer to the Joshua Intervenors motion to enjoin the Little Rock School District from entering into a contract with Servicemaster. This motion, amended answer and memorandum brief was not received by undersigned counsel for the Joshua Intervenors until December 4, 1995. Therefore, additional time is needed in order for undersigned counsel to prepare a response to said motion, answer and memorandum brief. 2. In preparation tor the hearing on Friday, December 8, t  1995, undersigned counsel did not anticipate any additional12/07/1995 10:26 FROM JOHN U.UflLKER P.fl. TO 3710100 P. 03 pleadings being filed by either plaintiff, defendant or the other intervenors in this 'case. Intervenor Servicemaster^s filing can be construed as surprise given the pending hearing scheduled for Friday of this week. Further preparation by Joshua is now necessary 3, in view of this filing. In addition, on December 4, 1994, the Joshua Intervenors approved the proposed settlement agreement between the Dxstrict and Joshua which was prepared by the school district. That document effectively resolves the controversy between Joshua and the LRSD. 4. In view of the settlement agreement, which Joshua awaits school district counsel to file with the Court, the case should be dismissed except to the extent that the Court wishes to afford Servicemaster a hearing. Joshua, however, has not filed any action against Servicemaster. 5. A continuance would afford the parties, time to prepare their respective positions more fully in the event that the Court finds for example, that Servicemaster is entitled to proceed in this matter. 6. The LRSD and Servicemaster are not prejudiced by this request for delay. WHERJ^ORJS, the Joshua Intervenors pray that this matter be continued pending the filing of further submissions by the LRSD and, if necessary, if the Court declines, to approve the submission, after full further oppoirtunity for preparation by the Joshua Intervenors.12/07x1993 10:27 FROM JOHN U.URLKER P.R. TO 3710100 P . 04 Respectfully subiaitted, John W. Walker, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR (501)Z374-3758 72206 By\nCBRTiyiCATB OF SERyiCB I do hereby state that a copy of the foregoi via U.S. mail to all counsel of record on this /- December, 1995. has been sent J\u0026gt; W. Walker day of 12/07/1995 10!24 FROM JOHN W.URLKER P.R. TO 3710100 P. 01 \u0026lt; REASONS G K E E T I N G Q John W. Walker, PX I7B Broadway Littlt tod, M 72206 (501)374.0 fajc (501)3744187 fax transmittal to: fax: fronu date: re: pages: 1-6 ( / / //V , inciuding cover sheet J NOTES: 3-.. i: A riia  f' ei*a.LA,Zi^ RECE DEC 1 J 1995 . ,AS Office of Desegregation Monitoring IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION r-. }5y5 I l\n' ...-ex. Cl j.K LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT PLAINTIFF VS. NO. LR-C-82-866 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, ET AL DEFENDANTS MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL INTERVENORS KATHERINE W. KNIGHT, ET AL INTERVENORS SERVICEMASTER MANAGEMENT SERVICES, A Limited Partnership INTERVENOR ORDER GRANTING LEAVE TO FILE AMENDED ANSWER Now on this day of s.. 1995, this matter comes on to be heard upon the motion of the Intervenor, ServiceMaster Management Services, for leave to file an amended answer in this case. After consideration of such motion, the Court doth find that such motion should be, and hereby is, granted. IT IS SO ORDERED. 1 4' Hon. Susan Webber Wnght, United States District Court Judge mis DOCLVE^ .ED ONDCCKET SHEET IN COMPLIA ON 2. .3 r.r BY VOR 79(a) FRCP Ad 2 5 8C ' 1 6^ cm/ EO I DEC 1 ,31995 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION i i 1595 Office of Desegregation Monitoring Py:V .y. ClL^' JC ClE.-.X CEP CLERK LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT PLAINTIFF No. LR-C-82-866 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT No. 1, ET AL DEFENDANTS MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL INTERVENORS KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL INTERVENORS SERVICEMASTER MANAGEMENT SERVICES, A LIMITED PARTNERSHIP INTERVENOR ORDER The issue before the Court concerns a contract that the vs. I 0 b Superintendent of the Little Rock School District, Dr. Henry Williams, entered into with Servicemaster Management Services, L.P. on September 20, 1995.' The contract (Ex. 359) provides that ServiceMaster will provide management services to the district for a period of five years for $98,659 per month. subject to adjustment. The district sought the advice of counsel before entering into the contract, which was drafted by ServiceMaster, and several contract modifications were made pursuant to the advice of district counsel. On August 31, 1995, the district board of directors held a hearing at which it authorized Dr. Williams to negotiate and enter into the contract on behalf of the district. Board member Pat Gee testified at a hearing before this Court that she asked the board to review the final contract before Dr. Williams signed it. However, the board did not review the final document before Dr. Williams signed it. I 2 5 86 IThe minutes for the August 31, 1995 meeting of the Little Rock School District Board of Directors reflect that the board was aware that the Joshua Intervenors had filed a motion with this Court for a preliminary injunction asking the Court to enjoin LRSD from entering into a contract with ServiceMaster. Joshua alleged the following grounds for issuance of the injunction: (1) that the district had not discussed the proposed management services contract with the Joshua Intervenors\n(2) that the proposed contract has potential adverse racial effect and impact\n(3) that the contract has not been let for bids in accordance with Arkansas law\n(4) that the expenditures required of the district under the contract would inhibit the district in meeting its desegregation obligations\nand (5) on Joshua's belief that the contract was not negotiated at arms' length. Aware of the pending motion for a preliminary injunction, LRSD and ServiceMaster included the following clause 14.12) in their contract: Pending litigation. Each of the parties agree that as of the date of the execution of this Agreement, a motion to enjoin school from entering into this Agreement with ServiceMaster is now pending in the United States District Court, Eastern District of Arkansas, Western Division, styled \"Little Rock School District v. Pulaski County Special School District No. 1, et al.\". No. LR-C- 82-866. ServiceMaster does hereby release and forever discharge School from any and all actions, causes of action, damages, claims or demands which ServiceMaster may hereinafter have arising out of or in anyway relating directly or indirectly, from orders issued by the United States District Court which may terminate or modify this Agreement. School is under no obligation or duty to appeal any decisions of the United States District Court affecting this Agreement. liability hereunder will Further, the be subject to the School's outcome -2-(through either settlement, otherwise) of that litigation. order of the Court or The Court set the matter for a hearing on Saturday, October 28, 1995. ServiceMaster filed a motion to intervene, which the Court granted. During the hearing the Court noted from the bench that Joshua had a difficult burden of proof with respect to establishing that the contract would interfere with the district's ability to carry out its desegregation obligations, as the district maintained that it would spend no more money on the contract than it already spends on maintenance and custodial services. The Court further noted, without deciding, that Joshua might be more likely to succeed on its argument that state law had not been followed because the district had not followed the bidding procedures established by Ark. Code Ann.  6-21-301 et seq.^ The Court recessed the hearing before the Joshua Intervenors had completed their proof. However, Joshua did establish that bidding procedures were not used and that neither the superintendent nor anyone else from the LRSD administration consulted with Joshua prior to entering into the contract. The hearing was continued until December 8, 1995. On October 31, 1995, the Little Rock School District Board of Directors discussed the ServiceMaster contract in absence of their attorneys. The board passed a motion with respect to settlement of 2 ServiceMaster contends that the contract is one for professional services, exempt from the bidding requirements set forth in the statute. -3-the ServiceMaster issue. The minutes for the October 31 meeting (Ex. 378) read as follows: III. ACTION ITEMS ServiceMaster Contract: Ms. Pondexter called for a motion on the ServiceMaster contract. Dr. Daugherty stated that he would prefer to question District attorneys about the contract prior to making a motion, but attorneys for the District were not present. Dr. Daugherty made a motion that the Board ask the attorneys to settle the contract with the appropriate parties. r \" \" ' __\n____1 __ He stated that his motion was based on the pending litigation and the fact that Judge Wright had stated a belief that the contact [sic] violation of Arkansas law. is a possible Ms. Gee seconded the motion. Ms. Magness, opposition to Mr. the Riggs, and Dr. motion. Mitchell spoke in They suggested a more appropriate action would be to allow the District's attorneys to work within the court system to settle the litigation and to then abide by any rulings made by Judge Wright. Ms. Pondexter spoke in favor of the motion and indicated that the District's attorneys were being instructed by the Board to seek a reasonable settlement to save the cost of litigation. instructed to The attorneys are not being motion. \"give away the company store\" by this She stated that an Attorney General's opinion found the contract to be a violation of State law. The attorneys' responsibility is to return to the Board if they are unable to reach a settlement, in which case the litigation would continue. She then called for the vote. The motion passed 4-3 with Ms. Pondexter, Ms. Gee, Ms. Strickland and Dr. Daugherty voting \"yes. II Magness, Dr. Mitchell and Mr. Riggs voting and Ms. \"no.\" At the continuation of the hearing on December 8 counsel for Joshua tendered into evidence a document entitled \"Settlement\" (Ex. 3 73) , which Joshua maintains constitutes a settlement offer by LRSD that was accepted by Joshua (Ex. 374) with respect to the -4-ServiceMaster contract. ServiceMaster was not a party to this H settlement\" even though it would have a considerable impact upon ServiceMaster's contract with the LRSD. This \"settlement\" was delivered by fax to counsel for Joshua by counsel for the LRSD on or about December 1. Counsel for Joshua, Mr. John Walker, claims that this constitutes an offer by LRSD to settle the matter with Joshua by having the court issue an order enjoining the LRSD from entering into the ServiceMaster agreement and terminating the district's liability pursuant to Paragraph 14.12 of the contract. Little Rock contends that this document was not intended as an offer to settle, in that it is stamped \"Draft\" (illegible on the court's copy) and is not signed by any party or the attorney for any party. LRSD has also implied, by questioning of witnesses. that Mr. Jerry Malone, the LRSD attorney who apparently drafted and sent this \"settlement\" document, did not have authority from the board to settle with Joshua. Linda Pondexter, President of the LRSD Board of Directors, testified on December 8 that it was her understanding that on October 31, the Board was authorizing its attorneys to settle with the Joshua Intervenors, not with ServiceMaster. Pat Gee, another board member, testified on December 8 that the motion regarding settlement was intended to get the district out of its contract obligations without liability. This Court declines to rule on whether this \"settlement It constitutes a binding agreement on the district or on whether the board of directors delegated Mr. Malone the authority to enter into -5-it with Joshua. The Court finds that even if Mr. Malone had the authority and even if it was an offer to settle which Joshua accepted, public policy prohibits this type of settlement. This \"settlement\" purports to create a situation in which this Court, by agreement of Joshua and LRSD, would by court order declare the agreement to be non-binding on the part of LRSD and would relieve LRSD of any liability. Indeed, Paragraph 14.12 of the ServiceMaster contract provides an If escape clause\" for LRSD should this Court terminate or modify the ServiceMaster agreement. It provides that LRSD shall have no obligation to appeal decisions affecting the contract. Therefore, it implies that LRSD will in good faith abide by the terms of the contract and will not contract with Joshua or anyone else to procure a court order allowing it to escape liability. It would not be consistent with public policy to permit one party to contract to escape its obligations unilaterally without a similar provision for the other contracting party. This Court finds that ServiceMaster and LRSD did not intend that this clause would permit Little Rock to escape liability without a ruling by this Court on the merits. Therefore, the Court holds that this purported settlement cannot be enforced against ServiceMaster. IT IS SO ORDERED this 11th day of December 1995. \"^jnitedstatesdistrictTjudg JUDGE -6- rHIS DOCUMENT ENTERED ON DOCKET SHEET IN WJTl COMPLIANCE WJ' ON 12/1(1 ULE 58 AND/OR 79(a) FRCP aC- ' DEC 1 a 1995 Office of Desegregaiion Motmofing IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION U3 L 'if-G .\\ i ' 1995 LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT vs. LR-C-82-866 -xf-iS Dy: ClL.' CURK I T X E . 1/ PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT, ET AL ORDER Joshua's motion for continuance of the hearing scheduled for December 8, 1995, was denied in open Court during hearings conducted on December 8, 1995, and should be removed as a pending motion. The clerk is directed to make the proper entry to remove this motion [#2579] from the motions' list. IT IS SO ORDERED this // day of December, 1995. SUSAN vj: 'EBBER WRIGHT United States District Judge mis D\nCf...\\\nPL\nA.NCE VViTi- ON iN DOCKET SHEET IN T.O/CR 79(a) FRCP BY 2 5 8 5IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS EASTERN DIVISION FILED U.S. DISTRICT COURT eastern district ARKANSAS DEC 2 2 1995 LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT, ET. AL. V. LR-C-a3-866 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT, ET. AL MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET. AL. KATHERINE W. KNIGHT, ET. AL. JAMES W. McCORMACK, CLERK By\nPLAINTIFFS-- DEP CLERK RECEn^ DEFENDANTS DEC 2 7 1995 INTERVENORS Office of Oesegregation Monitoring INTERVENORS MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION ANETTOR COMPLETION-OF HEARING The Joshua Intervenors (\"Joshua\") respectfully move for reconsideration of this Court's Order of December Ilf 1995, addressing the issues arising in the course of consideration of the Joshua motion to enjoin the Little Rock School District (\"LRSD\") from entering into a contract with ServiceMaster Management Services, L. P. (\"ServiceMaster\"). Joshua Intervenors further request that the Court schedule an additional hearing to complete consideration of the Joshua's motion. This motion is based upon the accompanying brief, the record in this case and the following allegations\n1. As the Court's Order of December 11, 1995, reveals (at 2), the Joshua Intervenors alleged multiple grounds in support of their motion. Joshua Intervenors have not completed their presentation in support of their motion. and the Court has not ruled on the substantive grounds which it sets forth. See December 11, 1995, Order at 3, 6. 2. The safeguarding of the system's resources in order to / 1permit the LRSD to satisfy the reguirements of federal law is an important element of the current phase of this case. 3. The current desegregation plan of the LRSD emphasizes voluntary choice of schools. The LRSD's relevant \"business case\" of August 24, 1995, cites a relationship between the maintenance of schools and enrollment (at 2 \"Problem Definition\"\nat 7-8 \"Impact Analysis\"). The business case indicates that the contract would be \"paid for\" by: Position reductions over time through attrition 21 PTE custodians 14 PTE building substitutes Consideration of the implications of these reductions is not complete. 4. For the reasons set forth in the accompanying brief, the Joshua Intervenors respectfully submit that the Court's reliance on grounds of \"public policy\" in the December 11, 1995, Order,(at 6) was in error. 5. For the reasons set forth in the accompanying brief, the Joshua Intervenors respectfully submit that the Court's * * interpretation of the contract (Order at 6) was in error. 6. Based upon our research, there are substantial grounds to doubt that the Order of December 11, 1995, is an appealable Order. 7. The amount of in-court time needed to complete consideration of the motion can be minimized by the taking and use of depositions. WHEREFORE, the Joshua Intervenors motions this Court to reconsider its December 11, 1995, Order and to allow the Joshua 2Intervenors to proceed with their presentation to support their motion and for all other relief deemed proper and necessary by the Court. Respectfully submitted, John W. Walker, P.A. 1723 S. Broadway Little (501)/ Rock, AR 74-3758 72206 By\n_____ W. Walker CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I, John W. Walker, do hereby certify that copy of the sent to all counsel of record via U.S. foregoing was postage prepaid on this day of em, . mail with 95. J, .n W. Walker a 3FILED U.S. DISTRICT COURT eastern district ARKANSAS IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS nF n 2 21935 EASTERN DIVISION JAMES W. McCORMACK, CLERK LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT, ET. AL. By.-. - PLAINTIFFS.. . CLERK V. LR-C-82-866 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT, ET. AL. RECEJVEr DEFENDANTS MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET. AL. DEC 2 7 1995 INTERVENORS KATHERINE W. KNIGHT, ET. AL. Office of Doseoregation Monnenng INTERVENORS BRIEF IN SUPPORT OF  MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION AND COMPLETION OF HEARING The Plaintiffs, the Little Rock School District (\"LRSD\"), entered into a contract with ServiceMaster Management Services, L.P. (\"ServiceMaster) on September 20, 1995.' The Joshua Intervenors filed a Motion to enjoin the contract on the grounds that the contract was in contradiction of the intent of the desegregation plan and it violated state laws of the bidding process. The contract was drafted by ServiceMaster and modifications were made by counsel for the LRSD. Despite the modifications. ServiceMaster signed the contract with the LRSD. A hearing on Joshua's Motion to Enjoin was held on December 10, 1995. ServiceMaster filed a motion to intervene, which was granted. At issue in the hearing was and is paragraph 14.12 of the LRSD  The LRSD board of directors authorized Superintendent Dr. Henry Williams to negotiate and enter a contract on behalf of the The LRSD board did not have an opportunity to review the district. final document before Dr. Williams signed it. / 1Management Services Agreement with ServiceMaster (at 12) which is entitled \"Pending Litigation.\" The Pending Litigation provision reads as follows: Each of the parties agree that as of the date of the execution of this Agreement a motion to enjoin School [LRSD] from entering into this Agreement with ServiceMaster is now pending in the United States District Court, Eastern District of Western Arkansas, Division, styled Little Rock School District V. Pulaski County Special School District No. 1, et. al.. No. LR-C-82-866. ServiceMaster does hereby release and forever discharge al., causes of School from any and all actions, action, damages, claims demands which ServiceMaster may hereafter have, arising out or directly or of or in any way relating, indirectly from orders issued by the United States District Court which may terminate or School is under no modify this Agreement, obligation or duty to appeal any decisions of the United States District Court affecting this Agreement. Further, School's liability hereunder will be subject to the outcome (through either settlement, order of the the Court or otherwise) of that litigation. Representatives of the LRSD and ServiceMaster signed the contract on September 20, 1995. Thus, a binding contract was created between the parties. It is the position of the Joshua Intervenors that a settlement was reached between the LRSD and the Joshua Intervenors. Pursuant to paragraph 14.12 of the contract between the LRSD and ServiceMaster, such a settlement would terminate the contract with ServiceMaster without liability to the LRSD. In its December 11, / 1995, Order the Court refused to rule on whether this \"Settlement\" constitutes a binding agreement on the district or on whether the board of directors delegated Mr. Malone the authority to enter into 2it with Joshua. The Court went on to say that it \"finds that even if Mr. Malone had the authority and even if it was an offer to settle which Joshua accepted, public policy prohibits this type of settlement. Indeed, Paragraph 14,12 of the ServiceMaster contract provides an 'escape clause' for LRSD should this Court terminate or modify the ServiceMaster agreement. It would not be consistent with public policy to permit one party to escape its obligations unilaterally without a similar provision for the other contracting party.\" The Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals has held to the contrary. The Eighth Circuit has held that while a termination clause may indicate willingness to engage in cold-hearted economic a competition, it simply does not violate any recognized Arkansas public policy. Union Nat. Bank v. Federal Nat. Mortg. Ass'n, 860 F.2d 847 (8th Cir. 1988). Union National Bank and Federal National Mortgage Association (\"FNMA\") entered into contract which contained a unilateral termination clause. The clause read as follows: We may [FNMA] terminate the provisions of this Contract covering the servicing under this Contract of any or all mortgages that we This may be done by following entirely own. the procedure outlined below. 1. Termination without cause. We [FNMA] may terminate by giving the Lender 30 days notice of the termination, and by paying the Lender a termination fee. This termination fee will be specified in our Guides as we may modify them from time to time. Union. 860 F.2d at 849. FNMA sought to terminate the contract and Union argued that to a / 3allow FNMA the right to terminate the agreement without cause was unenforceable as contrary to public policy. The Eighth Circuit analogized this situation to an \"at will\" or \"without cause\" termination right in employment contracts. The right to terminate \"at will\" or \"without cause\" is not against public policy unless the reason alleged for the discharge is so repugnant to the general good as to deserve the label 'against public policy'.\" Union. 860 F.2d at 853 (citing Lucas v. Brown \u0026amp; Root, Inc.. 736 F.2d 1202 (8th Cir. 1984)). Similarly, the contract between LRSD and ServiceMaster contained a pending litigation clause which is the equivalent of a termination clause. The clause requires Servicemaster to release and forever discharge the LRSD from \"any and all actions and damages that may arise from orders issued by the United States District Court which may terminate or modify the contract.\" It has been held by the Eighth Circuit that this clause does not violate any Arkansas public policy. The Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals is not alone in this holding. The Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals has held that the power to refuse to enforce contracts on the grounds of public policy is therefore limited to occasions where the contract would violate \"some explicit public policy\" that is \"well-defined and dominant, and [which] is to be ascertained 'by reference to the / laws and legal precedents and not from general considerations of supposed public interests'.\" St. Paul Mercury Ins. Co. v. Duke University. 849 F.2d 133 (4 th Cir. 1988) (citing United 4Paperworkers International Union v. Misco Inc., 484 U.S. 29, 108 S.Ct. 373, 98 L.Ed.2d 286 (1987) citations omitted). The Court went on to state that the usual and most important function of courts of justice is rather to maintain and enforce contracts, than to enable parties thereto escape from their obligations on the pretext of public policy, unless it clearly appears that they contravene public right or the general welfare. St. Paul. 849 F.2d at 135 (citing Smithy Braedon Co. V. Hadid, 825 F.2d 787, 790 (4th Cir. 1987)). Finally, the Court concluded that it was the court's duty to enforce the contract as written unless enforcement was forbidden by an existent state policy. St. Paul. 849 F.2d at 136. In the case at bar, it is the Court's duty to enforce the contract between the LRSD and ServiceMaster as written since it does not violate any established Arkansas public policy. ServiceMaster entered into the contract with the LRSD with full knowledge of the meaning of paragraph 14.12. As a result. ServiceMaster cannot argue unconscionability. The Eighth Circuit in Union stated that the district court also ruled that, despite a substantial inequality in the bargaining power of the parties, the Contract was not unconscionable. Union. 860 F.2d at 853 (footnote 12) . There does not seem to have been any inequality in the bargaining power between the LRSD and ServiceMaster. Therefore, there are no grounds for an argument of unconscionability. Additionally, ServiceMaster voluntarily agreed to release and discharge the LRSD from \"any and all actions, causes of actions, damages, claims or demands which may arise from orders issued by / 5R the United States District Court which may terminate or modify the agreement. ( Contract, Paragraph 14.12.). The Arkansas Court of Appeals has held that subject to public policy considerations, a party may voluntarily agree to hold another harmless against loss by whatever cause it might be sustained. Weaver-Bailey Con'trs v. Fiske Carter Const.. 9 Ark.App. 192, 657 S.W.2d 209 (1983) . As previously stated. there is no Arkansas public policy which prohibits the inclusion of a unilateral termination clause in a contract between two parties even if the parties are of unequal bargaining power. Therefore, ServiceMaster voluntarily waived its ight to hold the LRSD liable for breach of contract and damages r resulting therefrom. The Court may not rewrite the contract to provide relief to ServiceMaster. Arkansas law states in the absence of violation of some clearly established public policy, the courts will not remake a contract between the parties to devise a basis of relief where none exists under the contract. M.B.M. Co. V. Counce. 268 Ark. 269, 569 S.W.2d 681 (1980). Pursuant to Arkansas law, the Court may not rewrite or modify the contract to grant relief to ServiceMaster when ServiceMaster entered into the contract with full knowledge of the impact of the Pending Litigation clause. In conclusion, ServiceMaster did not assert that the Pending Litigation clause violated public policy nor inclusion of the clause was unconscionable. did it assert that The clause is valid / and does not violate any established Arkansas public policy. Therefore, if is found that a settlement was reached between the 6LRSD and Joshua Intervenors, the pending litigation clause should be effectuated to render the contract between the LRSD and ServiceMaster discharged without liability to LRSD. Respectfully submitted, John W. Walker, P.A. 1723 S^ Little I Ri (501) By:__ Jo] \u0026lt;7 iroadway bk, AR 7220 W .\" Walkfer CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE a copy of the I, John W. Walker, do hereby certify that foregoing was sei] to all counsel of record via U.S. mail postage paid on this day of December, 19^. o n'W. Walker I 7 RECEIV filed JAN 19 1996 **) atassB Ofiice ot Desefltegavon MonAofii'S 'JAN 1 7 1995 JAMES W. JN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT \u0026lt;Q^T EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION ^\u0026lt;^CORMACK, ClRK OEP CURK 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 SERVICEMASTER MANAGEMENT SERVICES, A Limited Partnership INTERVENOR MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE REPLY The Joshua Intervenors respectfully request the Court to afford them any opportunity to respond to the submission filed herein on behalf of Servicemaster Management Services dated January 8, 1996. The response raises and addresses several cases which were not raised and discussed in our brief and motion for reconsideration. There is no prejudice to the Little Rock School District or Servicemaster by allowing such a submission. We also note that the LRSD has taken no position regarding wither the position of Servicemaster or Joshua. We further request five days beyond the date of an order granting permission to submit a reply in which to file our response.\u0026gt;1.1 \u0026gt;* ,I Undersigned counsel is authorized to say that counsel for LRSD and Servicemaster have no objection to this request. Respectfully submitted, John W. Walker, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR (501^374-3758 72206 Ji Walker CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE th I do hereby state that a copy of the forego^g was delivered via U.S. mail to all counsel of record on this l^h day of January, 1996. IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT No. LR-C-82-866 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT No. 1, ET AL MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL SERVICEMASTER MANAGEMENT SERVICES, A Limited Partnership FILED U.S. DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT ARKANSAS JAN I 3 1996 JAMES/W. By\nES/M(jC^ORMACK, CLERK ''1 ' DEP CCLLEERRKK PLAINTIFF RECEIVE' DEFENDANTS INTERVENORS JAN 1 9 1996 INTERVENORS Office of Desefiregation f'^\u0026amp;nito.-ifqiNTERVENORS ORDER Upon motion of the Joshua Intervenors, and there being no objections. the time for filing a reply to the Servicemaster submission dated January 8, 1996, is hereby extended to and vs. including January 26, 1996. IT IS SO ORDERED this 18th day of January 1996. RED ON DOC:\u0026lt;ET SHEET IN I .1 R^/jT JUDGE Odis DOCUMEfiT Ef.'T COMPLIANCE WITH RULE 58 AND/OR 79(a) FRCP _gY -L 2 6 0 4 LRSD SUPTS OFFICE 431 P02 JfiN 19 96 12:52 91^ Little Rock School District OFFICE OF THE SUPERINTENDENT January 18, 1996 Mr. John Walker, Attornev 1723 S. Broadway Little Rock, AR 72206 Dear Mr. Walker: Once again I find it necessary to respond to one of your letters which tells a half truth supports what you wan. e Board. Ann Brown, andLtheXheL taow wnat actually occurred. You have an uncanny way of distorting the truth. or think, and not Yes, you were present at the meeting, and yes, you wanted to raise questions and issues that st\",'! \"iied by Le Cour,. I rcfuald L actaX!X ' on Md no'pL.T.' belief that your presence at die meen'ngwas to gaUierinforLL P meeting that was designed to answer questions and address litigators. Your concerns and questions as a litigator currently being litigated and studied by the Court. concerns ServiceMaster contract should be addressed --  questions as a litigator regarding the in Court, not in a meeting of emplovees. In response to your contention that I condition with regard to the misrepresented the Board or the Districts fiscal J  amount of money the District has to spend on new custodial equipment and supplies, as well as salary increases, is absolutely not true. What I said, and made very clear, was that if we, equipment for custodial as a District, had to replace all of the wtherrnei ietoh thie^uch as the ServiceMastesr upgegoepstleed atrhea td iof iwngf tthhaatt wwee would indeed have to have increased salaries for custodians \\xra\u0026lt;/ oe T^ ... \u0026gt;*w**w. revenue tVhUrioVuUgXhU \u0026lt;a* UmlUilIldaSgCe increase. By the IT c?aLn oLnliy mTake recommendations in this regard.  milla=g e incr ease ccaammppaaiiggnn. Also. I would like to know when aU of the District custodians became provide me with all records which indicate that your clients. Please custodians to represent their interest As far as I know, that ^oup attomw that ft.., *__ 1_____ Of you were contacted and retained by the attorney that represents the teacher group. IS represented by the Sincerely, \u0026lt;J Henry P. Williams Superintendent of Schools LRSD SUPTS OFFICE 431 P03 JAN 19 96 12:53 January 18, 1995 Page 2 cc: Chris Heller Ann Brown Linda Pondexter LRSD Board Members f.JOHN W. WALKER. PA 3 Uiija Vxi? ^'x:3 I* JOHN W. WALKER RALPH WASHINGTON MARK BURNETTE AUSTIN PORTER JR. ATTORNEY AT LAW 1723 BROADWAY LITTLE ROCK. ARKANSAS 72206 TELEPHONE (501) 374-3758 FAX (501) 374-4187 JAN 1 9 1996 Office cf ^eseg.-egaacn Modiicnng January 17,1996 [DELIVERED BY FAX \u0026amp; U.S. MAIL] Dr. Henry P. Williams Superintendent of Schools Little Rock School District 810 West Markham Street Little Rock, AR 72201 Dear Dr. Williams: I represent a number of custodians. Today, I requested an opportunity to address the group meeting were you were present and to be allowed to ask some questions regarding comments made by you or Service Master representatives. I also reduced my request to writing in a letter to Mr. Fred Smith. You both declined my request. I now wish to state that you made representations to the group to the effect that the district was financially unable to provide custodian equipment and supplies and, therefore, that an outside group was required to do so. You specifically held the school board responsible for the financial condition of the district stating that a mileage was needed in order to provide wage increases for the employees and other needs of the district. I believe you misrepresented the district's financial condition as well as the necessity for Service Masters management services, supplies and equipment. Would you kindly, therefore, make available a tape of the meeting to the school board members so that they may independently appraise your comments as well as those of the Service Master representative. Would you also explain why I could not raise issues on behalf of my clients. Please recall that cleanliness issues are an integral part of the desegregation plan.Page Two January 17,1996 Please let me hear from you by return fax to this letter and my hand-written letter to Mr. Fred Smith. Very truly yours, [Original Signed By Uni John W. Walker signed Counsel] wCc Ld- JWW-.lp cc: Mr. Fred Smith Ms. Ann Brown Ms. Linda Pondexter LRSD Board Members [DICTATED BUT NOT READ]JOHN W. WALKER RALPH WASHINGTON MARK BURNETTE AUSTIN PORTER, JR. JOHN w. Walker, P.A. Attorney At Law 1723 Broadway Little Rock, Arkansas 72206 Telephone (501) 374-3758 FAX (501) 374-4187 .MN 2 2 1996 Office of Desegregaiicn Monnoring K. January 19, 1996 Dr. Henry Williams Superintendent of Schools Little Rock School District 810 West Markham Little Rock, AR 72201 Dear Dr. Williams: This letter is a seriatim response to your letter to of January 18, 1996. You indicated that you declined to allow me to speak to the custodians or raise questions regarding the Servicemaster (1) matter. So that it will not be regarded as a \"half truth\", please acknowledge that I neither said or did anything during that meeting other than to raise my hand. Would you also please acknowledge that we did not exchange any words at that meeting and that your beliefs which were written in your letter were not publicized at the meeting. (2) You indicated that the Board's fiscal condition did not allow for the purchase of 1.2 million dollars in equipment, supplies and services. Please acknowledge that you indicated that the District could not afford to meet its custodial needs within its existing budget and that the only way of meeting the custodial needs of the District was by outsourcing. Now, for my position for purposes of discussion, neither you nor Mr. Fred Smith have been in a position to state what the District's actual for financial position is. Moreover, there are means available within the ADE to allow school districts loan funds for equipment purchases and meet other exigencies. What you have done with Servicemaster is simply to accept a loan which, I submit, you will repay many times over with interest and for services rendered. I might further add that if the buildings were in such bad condition, then Mr. Doug Eaton necessarily had some responsibility for that circumstance. The District practice has been to transfer, demote or terminate unsatisfactorily performing administrators. Mr. Eaton has been rewarded, rather than \"punished\", by having had his budget and staff substantially increased while his responsibilities for custodians have been diminished. This is giving him time to use his skills in educational policy making, an area for which he is not trained, certified or experienced.(3) You did indicate that the only way that the custodians could receive pay raises is by a millage increase. As a party representative in the desegregation case, I would like to know how you can make this statement in view of the transfers that you have made of people into higher level positions. The examples that I would like for you to address are those of Ms. Griffin, your personal secretary and Ms. Keathley, Dr. Mayo's personal secretary, though titled otherwise, each of whom received pay raises over a two year period of between 10 and 15 thousand dollars or more. Their raises alone I submit, if directed toward approximately 300 custodians, would have allowed each custodian a raise of $100.00. With the other raises of similarly situated people, it is easy to see that this group of employees could have been easily afforded, within the present budget, a 3 or 4 percent raise without a millage increase. I am sure you could sense the low morale of the custodians and their great sense of distrust which they had of you and Servicemaster. Surely you must know that low morale of this group of employees will necessarily result in lower levels of work performance and will accordingly reflect upon the desegregation plan. Please reflect on this. (4) You indicate that I contend that I represent all district custodians. did, let me hasten to correct that. If I suggested that, which I don't think I I do not. I do represent a number of them with respect to issues which are presently pending. I am withholding legal action against the District because of my December commitment to you which extends through the end of January. I had hoped that there would have been some substantive manifestation of reciprocity during this interval. It appears that I was wrong, but today is January 19, 1996\nwe still still have 12 days to go. Pardon the pun, please.) I still have hope (being from Hope - Sincerely, John W. Walker JWW:js cc: Mr. Chris Heller Ms. Ann Brown Ms. Linda Pondexter LRSD Board MembersALED COURT EASTERN DISTRICT ARKANSAS IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT JAW 2 6 tqo-s EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DISTRICT JAMES W. McCORMACK, CLERK By.-------------------- DEP CLERK LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT, ET. AL. PLAINTIFFS V. NO. LR-C-82-866 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT, ET. AL. received DEFENDANTS MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET. AL. KATHERINE W. KNIGHT, ET. AL.  IAN 3 0 1996 INTERVENORS INTERVENORS Office of Desegregation SERVICEMASTER MANAGEMENT SERVICES, A Limited Partnership -__ Momoring INTERVENOR JOSHUA INTERVENORS' REPLY BRIEF The Joshua Intervenors filed a Motion and a Brief in Support of Reconsideration and Completion of Hearing regarding settlement between the Little Rock School District (\"LRSD\") and Joshua Intervenors. ServiceMaster has intervened in the matter as a party of interest since its contract with LRSD is involved. A hearing was held in December of 1995 and the Court issued a subsequent Order on December 11, 1995 in which it refused to rule on the merits of whether a settlement between LRSD and Joshua Intervenors existed. Instead the Court ruled that a provision in the contract between ServiceMaster and LRSD was against public policy and could not be enforced. Joshua Intervenors then filed its Motion for Reconsideration. ServiceMaster responded that the provision was not a terminationclause and the Court should examine the intent of the parties as to the provision in question. The provision in question, Section 14.12 entitled Pending Litigation, reads as follows: Each of the parties agree that as of the date of the execution of this Agreement a motion to enjoin School from entering this Agreement with ServiceMaster is now pending in the United States District Court, Eastern District of Arkansas, Western Division, styled Little Rock School District v. Pulaski County School District No. 1, et. al.. No. LR-C-82-866. ServiceMaster does hereby release and forever discharge School from any and all actions, causes of action, damages, claims or demands which ServiceMaster may hereafter have, arising out of or in any way relating, directly or indirectly, from orders issued by the United States District Court which may terminate or modify this Agreement. (emphasis added) School is under no obligation or duty to appeal any decisions of the United States District Court affecting this Agreement. Further, the School's liability hereunder will be subject to the outcome (through either settlement, order of the Court or otherwise) of that litigation. The Court stated this provision allowed one party to unilaterally escape its obligation without a similar provision to the other and was against public policy. The Court did not address the merits of whether there was a settlement between LRSD and Joshua Intervenors. Joshua Intervenors have requested that the Court reconsider its ruling on the grounds that the United States Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals has stated that clauses in contracts that allow termination without cause are not against any established Arkansas public policy. ServiceMaster responded that Joshua Intervenors analogized thei 5S^ case improperly. Review of Joshua Intervenors' Brief in Support of the Motion for Reconsideration will show that Joshua cited the case for the law and not for the facts. The law was simply that a party may unilaterally terminate a contract and it does not go against any established Arkansas public policy. Union Nat. Bank v. Federal Nat. Mortg. Ass'n, 860 F.2d 847, 853 (Sth Cir. 1988) . The termination without clause did provide for a termination fee to be paid to Union. Union, 860 F.2d at 849. Next, ServiceMaster argued the intent of the parties was to be bound to the contract. The dominant rule IS that the interpretation of a contract is controlled by the intention of the parties, and it is the duty of the courts to ascertain and give effect to the meaning and intent of the parties as expressed in the language used. Les-Bil V. General Waterworks, 256 Ark. 905, 511 S.W.2d 166 (1974). The express language used in the provision made \"the School's liability hereunder will be subject to the outcome (through either settlement, order of the Court or otherwise) of that litigation\" namely the motion in the school case concerning the ServiceMaster contract. When ServiceMaster entered into this Agreement it was fully aware of pending litigation. With full knowledge, ServiceMaster expressly agreed to be bound until a settlement or Court order terminated the contract. It is clear that ServiceMaster intended to be loound until a settlement or Court order terminated the contract. The Arkansas Court of Appeals has held that parol evidence isnot admissible to show subjective intent of the parties. Thi rule does not allow a party to prove by oral testimony that clear and unambiguous words were subjectively intended to have a meaning not fairly attributable to them. Martin v. Martin, 6 Ark.J^p. 18, 637 S.W.2d 612 (1982) . ServiceMaster cited a case which held that\" [i]t is a well- established principle of law that. in the interpretation or construction of the contract. the construction the parties  themselves have placed on the contract is entitled to great weight. and will generally be adopted by the courts in giving effect to its provisions. This is especially true in cases of ambiguity in the written contract.\" Worthen Bank \u0026amp; Trust Co. v. Adair, 15 Ark.App. 144, 151, 690 S.W.2d 727, 731 (En Banc 1985) . There is no ambiguity in the provision. The intent of the parties is clearly expressed in the provision. Section 14.12. The construction is that settlement or an order from the Court will terminate the contract. The objective manifestation of intent, not subjective manifestation, is what the court examines. The Court ruled that the provision. Section 14.12, was against public policy and refused to rule on the merits of the case. Joshua Intervenors motion that, in light of case law stating a provision which allows termination, even by only one party, is not against any established Arkansas public policy, the Court reconsider its ruling. In addition, Joshua Intervenors request that the Court determine whether LRSD and Joshua Intervenors entered into settlement which serves as grounds for termination of the contract between LRSD and ServiceMaster. In addition. since ServiceMaster was not a party to the litigation when the contract was entered, it is unreasonable to interpret the last sentence of 14.12 to include ServiceMaster as a party involved in any settlement. For the foregoing reasons, the reasons advanced by Servicemaster in oposition to reconsideration should be rejected. Respectfully submitted, John W. Walker, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72206 By:^ in W. Walker CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I do hereby state that a copy of the foregoing was delivered to all counsel of record via U.S. mail on this January, 1996. day of in W. Walker LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 810 WEST MARKHAM STREET LITTLE ROCK, AR 72201 Februar)' 22, 1996 TO: Board of Directors FROM\nFred L.^ Smith. Manager of Support Services III. Ily j^^iik^rfis. THROUGH: Henn/ i. Superintendent of Schools SUBJECT: ServiceMaster Questions The following information is being provided in response to concerns raised by Ms. Gee (list anached) and Ms. Pondexter\n Section 6.6 of the ServiceMaster contract is attached.  Item #2 of Ms. Gees list - ServiceMaster will receive no more than the contract amount. Any additional savings below the SI0.8 million budget amount will remain with the District.  Item #3 of Ms. Gees list - It was agreed that within 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 the contract.  Item #4 of Ms. Gees list - Four (4) payments have been made to ServiceMaster for the months of October, 1995, through January, 1996.  Item #5 of Ms. Gees list - The 571,213 per month is the amount to satisfy the guarantee since ServiceMaster is required to provide actual documentation to support the supplies and equipment cost.  Item #6 of Ms. Gees list - Based on actual expenditures for the past several years, the 1995- 96 budget amount provides a realistic baseline.  Item i7 of Ms. Gees list - Attached is a schedule that shows the $10.8 million. With respect to the energy savings, the effect of the energy savings programs has already been included in the 1995-96 budget. It is true that a mild winter would have a positive impact on guarantee compliance. The converse is also true. A harsh winter would have a negative impact on guarantee compliance. Item #8 of Ms. Gees list - It is probably not possible to list all potential points of concern. However, we do have a detailed budget and Exhibit A is a part of the contract.  Item #9 of Ms. Gees list - The OEM system would oniy enhance, not conflict with, the Distncts system. cc\nDoug Eaton Jerry Compton FLS:caLittle Rock School District 1995-9S Budget Analysis Function Function Descriotion 2539 Other Facilities Acq \u0026amp;Co 2542 Upkeep of Buildings 2541 Service Area Direction 2544 Upkeep of Equipment 2545 Vehicle Maintenance 2548 Asbestos Program Magnet Schools Substitutes Amount $240,213 8,924,431 201,085 12,800 53,200 61,338 1.076,870 200,000 Total $10.779,937LRSD ADMIN. EULDING I Fax:1-bO1-324-2032 Mar 14 96 11:32 P. 02/02 If IriTLE Rock School Distioci' SPECr\\L board meeting March l-l, 1996 For more information. Suellen Vann. 324-2020 Ihe Board of Directors of the Liuie Rock School District (LRSD) will hold a spec?! Board meeting tonight at 5:00 p.m. in conjunction with the monthly agenda meeting. The special meeting wail include 'eports on trie old Forest Heights building. ServiceMaster, custodian turnover, substitute office business case, approval of the 1996- 97 proposed budget, student hearings, and a personi.el issue. Both meetings will be held in the Board Room of the LRSD Administration Building, 810 West Markham. SilO Wc'il Markliam Sirc*\n! Liltle Kock, Vrkan!,i4\u0026gt;i 73301  {,=501)334^-3\u0026amp;0n LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 810 WEST MARKHAM STREET LITTLE ROCK, AR 72201 March 14, 1996 CONriDENTIAL TO: Board of Directors FROM: Hej Imams, Superintendent of Schools SUBJECT: ServiceMaster Contract As requested by the Board at the February meeting, ServiceMaster will be responding to concerns raised by custodians at tonights meeting of the Board. District staff responsible for administering the ServiceMaster contract has expressed some concern to me about the administration of this contract. I have attached a copy of a memo from Mr. Eaton and Mr. Smith that details those concerns. I agree that if the ServiceMaster contract is to fail, it should be ServiceMasters fault and not the Districts. This way, we will have the full force of the contract in our favor. cc: Fred Smith Doug Eaton Charlie NealTO\nFROM: throug\nSUB J\nDATE: I am LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT PLANT SERVICES 3601 SOUTH BRYANT STREET LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS (501) 570-4020 72204 CONFinCNTlAL r. Henry P. Williams, Superintendent of Schools iaton, Director, Plant Services \u0026gt;Fred Smith, Manager of Support Services ServiceMaster Contract February 23, 1996 writing to state the position, as one of the Districts contract administrators, that the vocal objections presented by the Board of Directors with regard to the ServiceMaster contract is placing the administration in a most precarious situation with regard to the legal enforcement of this contract. While it is a matter of record that the Board did not vote unanimously for this contract, it is also a matter of record that the Board did approve the entering of this contract, and in doing approved its clauses and stipulations. so. While the Board most certainly reserves the right of insuring that the administration enforces the contract that they have approved, that right must be exercised in a manner which will allow us to do it within the legal parameters of contract administration. Objections to the contract, raised by Little Rock School District employees are, of course, a are, concern to those of us who are trying to administer this Board directed contract. without full investigation being provided to the Board, with regard to concerns raised by employees, the Board must adequately hear all sides of the issue before However, providing further guidance. It is difficult for us to understand what direction that they would like us to proceed. If this contract is to succeed, it must succeed with a cooperative effort between the Little Rock School District and ServiceMaster Corporation. If this contract is to fail, it must fail because of the efforts of ServiceMaster and not the Little Rock School District and if we are put in a precarious situation of not having the support to administer this contract. equally at fault in the failure. then we could be heldPage Two CONFIBCN^'*^ Continued The Board's subtle messages are being interpreted by some of our principals as non support for this contract\nand that if they hold out long enough, it will go away. administer the Boards desires for this contract, For those of us trying to it is putting us in a precarious situation of having to administer a contract and to be as responsive to the school districts needs Sometimes there is a dichotomy in that situation. as possible. Unless full one hundred percent support for trying this contract exists, it is not going to be successful. I would like the opportunity to meet with you and discuss how we can proceed in administering this contract. DCE/apl/smc cc: Charlie Neal, Director, ProcurementGtroir \u0026amp; Gregory PROFESSIONAL ASSOOATiON ATTORNEYS AT UAW SUITC 1800 in CENTER STREET little rock. ARKAN\u0026amp;AS 73201 TVLCPHONC (5On 373-3000 RUfiSCLUViLUe OmCK! Ttuccewc* \u0026lt;\u0026amp;O|} (SOU 373.3A7S ti iowc3T*e- STRcrr KU^SCLLVlLLe. ARKANSAS 72801 rCLCFKONb \u0026lt;9011 887.7080 TELCCOAICR \u0026lt;8011 7 r078 March 15,1996 Mr. Jerry Malone Mr. Jim Clark Friday, Eldredge \u0026amp; Clark 400 W. Capitol Suite 2000 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Re: School Board Action Regarding Custodians Schedules Thursday, March 14,1996 Gentlemen: As you may know, last night the Little Rock School Board passed a resolution that plant services employees should return to their old schedules. The motion Jor this action came following comments from several custodians regarding their new work schedules under the School Districts agreement with ServiceMaster. A discussion by the Board focused on a sentence in section 3.2(a) of the Agreement between ServiceMaster and e School which states: ServiceMaster will, upon request by the School, make recommendations in connection with wage and wage related matters, but ServiceMaster shall not make any decisions with respect to wages, hours or other working conditions for Service Employees. In taking this action, the Board has misinterpreted the contract provision with regard to the management of the service employees. When the word hours is used in the reference which is bolded above, it relates to the total hours of the service employees and in no way means the shift or assignments which ServiceMaster gives to the service employees in its duty to manage them. As it states in section 2.1(a): ServiceMaster agrees to train, manage and direct the Schools employees in the support service departments of School which are identified in Section 3.2 below (the Service Employees). conij KHIJ AVaiHH 9e/8T/cn a  :ftMr. Jerry Malone Mr. Jim Clark March 15, 1996 Page 2 As has been reported, School District officials who negotiated the Agreement wdth ServiceMaster are well aware of the fact that the ServiceMaster Guarantee (as provided for in Section 6.6 of the Agreement) was agreed to only in conjunction with the Schools agreement to allow ServiceMaster to control scheduling so as to provide for more efficient operations. The Board in taking this action has caused the School District to be in breach of its obligations under the Agreement. If the scheduling issue is of such importance to the Board and it is interested in amending the Agreement to the mutual satisfaction of the parties, then my client is certainly willing to discuss possible solutions. Otherwise, this letter shall serve as notice of the existing breach pursuant to Section 12.1 of the Agreement Consistent with said Section 12.1, if the breach of the Agreement is not cured to ServiceMasters satisfaction within 60 days, ServiceMaster fully intends to provide notice of termination at said time which would result in it being relieved of its duties under the Agreement 30 days thereafter. Please be advised that if ServiceMaster is forced to follow this course of action, it will also pursue all other remedies available to it under law. Please do not hesitate to contact me should you want to discuss this matter further. Sincerely, Joseph S. Mowe JSMjm cc: Mark Himel, ServiceMaster Management Services John Talley, Esq., ServiceMaster Management Services rno ij KHiH nvi Ava:aj O 9S Cl ge.'ST.co IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT No. LR-C-82-866 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT No. 1, ET AL MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL \u0026lt;996 SERVICEMASTER MANAGEMENT SERVICES, A Limited Partnership a' FILED U S OI3T\".iCT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT ARKA.NSAS MAR 1 1 1996 JAMES By\n\"-'.to .54W. McQQRMACK, ClIRK OEP CLERK PLAINTIFF DEFENDANTS INTERVENORS INTERVENORS INTERVENORS vs. AM.? 1 Q 'S MEMORANDUM AND ORDER Before the Court are a number of motions (listed in the order filed) which the Court now addresses: (1) motion of the Pulaski County Special School District (\"PCSSD\") to withdraw supervision from three discrete areas of the PCSSD plan [doc.#2481]\n(2) motion of the Little Rock School District (\"LRSD\") for partial unitary status [doc.#2483]\n(3) motion of the Joshua Intervenors (\"Joshua\") to enjoin the LRSD from entering into a service contract without following bidding procedures, requests for information and without prior involvement of Joshua [doc.#2506]\n(4) motion of PCSSD to clarify the PCSSD desegregation plan [doc.#2520]\n(5) motion of Joshua for the Court to set forth in detail the continuing obligations of the LRSD under the desegregation plan with respect to faculty and staff desegregation [doc.#2544]\n(6) motion of PCSSD for an Order regarding portable buildings [doc.#2546]\n(7) motion of LRSD for an Order dismissing this case without prejudice with respect to LRSD, PCSSD, and the North Little Rock School District (\"NLRSD\") [doc.#2573]\n(8) motion of Joshua for reconsideration of 2 6 4 the Court's Order of December 11, 1995, and for completion of the hearing (doc.#2594]\nand (9) motion of PCSSD regarding the replacement of portable buildings with permanent construction. dated October 25, 1995 (doc.#2612]. I. The Court first addresses PCSSD's. motion to withdraw supervision from three discrete areas of the PCSSD plan (doc.#2481] and LRSD's motion for partial unitary status (doc.#2483]. The PCSSD states that it has substantially complied with plan provisions regarding library media services, staff development and counseling services, while the LRSD states that it has substantially complied with LRSD plan provisions regarding Home Instructional Program for Preschool Youngsters (\"HIPPY\"), Rockefeller Early Childhood Program, Parkview Science Magnet Program, and Job Training Partnership Act/Summer Learning Program (\"JTPA\"). Both the PCSSD and the LRSD argue that the Court should withdraw supervision from these areas of the respective plans. The PCS\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_1506","title":"\"Students Placed in the Gifted Program,\" 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":["Little Rock School District"],"dc_date":["1991/1992"],"dcterms_description":null,"dc_format":["application/pdf"],"dcterms_identifier":null,"dcterms_language":["eng"],"dcterms_publisher":["Little Rock, Ark. : Butler Center for Arkansas Studies. Central Arkansas Library System"],"dc_relation":null,"dc_right":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC-EDU/1.0/"],"dcterms_is_part_of":["Office of Desegregation Monitoring records (BC.MSS.08.37)","History of Segregation and Integration of Arkansas's Educational System"],"dcterms_subject":["Little Rock (Ark.)--History--20th century","Education--Arkansas","Little Rock School District","Educational innovations","Education--Standards","Educational statistics","School improvement programs","School management and organization","Student activities"],"dcterms_title":["\"Students Placed in the Gifted Program,\" 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/1506"],"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":["91 pages"],"dlg_subject_personal":null,"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":null},{"id":"bcas_bcmss0837_724","title":"SWAT visits","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":["1991/2005"],"dcterms_description":null,"dc_format":["application/pdf"],"dcterms_identifier":null,"dcterms_language":["eng"],"dcterms_publisher":["Little Rock, Ark. : Butler Center for Arkansas Studies. Central Arkansas Library System"],"dc_relation":null,"dc_right":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC-EDU/1.0/"],"dcterms_is_part_of":["Office of Desegregation Monitoring records (BC.MSS.08.37)","History of Segregation and Integration of Arkansas's Educational System"],"dcterms_subject":["Little Rock (Ark.)--History--20th century","Little Rock School District","Education--Arkansas","Office of Desegregation Monitoring (Little Rock, Ark.)","School facilities","Education--Evaluation","Educational statistics"],"dcterms_title":["SWAT visits"],"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/724"],"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":["72 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\nInformal school visits and reports made by the Office of Desegregation and Monitoring\n0 3 Z 0 6  1 9 ? 1 11 rRQM JOHN W.UflLKER P.fl. TO 3'10100 P . 02 MBMORAMDUM to\nMR. JOHN W. WALKER FROM: MR. KIRK HERMAN MRS. JOY CHARLES-SPRINGER re: LRSD V. PC38D - New Construction within the LRSD date: MARCH 5, 1991 On site visits to four elementary schools (Geyer Springs, Cloverdale, Woodruff, and Western Hills) within the Little Rock District revealed substantial construction underway. Over 5.5 million dollars has been budgeted to effectuate changes in the present structures that were visited. Changes range from construction of additional classrooms, new playgrounds, parking lots, and cafeterias. Construction at all sites has been tentatively set for completion by the beginning of the new school year. August, 1991. Mr. Herman visited Woodruff and Western Hills. Cloverdale and Geyer Springs, as follows: I visited Our findings at the locations were CLOVERDALE ELEMENTARY Principal: Sadie Mitchell (black female) Current Student capacity: 400 students 75% black 25% white Current number of classrooms: 15 After construction the school will have 21\" classrooms (3 sections each of K-6) The construction will consist of t 5 tr additional classrooms, a new playground, office, nurse's station and a cafeteria to be shared with Cloverdale Jr. High School. Final student capacity (after construction)\nstudents 492 i I I03Z0B/1991 11:33 FROM JOHN U.UBLKER P . fl. TO 3710100 P. 03 i i ! I I I I PAGE TWO March 5, 1991 The only portable building at Cloverdale Elementary is the music room. High has several Cloverdale Jr. portables, The budget between Cloverdale Elementary and Jr. High is approximately 2 1/2 million dollars. GEYER SPRINGS ELgHSKTARY Principal\nEleanor Cox (black female) Current student capacity\n200 students 76% black 24% white Current number of classrooms\n9 After construction, the school will have 23\" classrooms. The construction will consist of \"14\" new classrooms, a new playground and a new parking lot. Final student capacity\n400 Anticipated capacity next school year\n325 There are currently 8 portable buildings that house the intermediate classes. There is also classroom sharing at Geyer Springs. The budget for Geyer Springs construction has been set at 1 1/2 million dollars. WESTERN HILLS BLEMSNTARY Principal\nMargie Puckett (white female) Current student capacity\n336 students 63.7% black 35.8% white ,5% other The construction will consist of \"10\" classrooms. additional I Iaszeszigai 1 1 ! 39 FROM JOHN U.USLKER P.fl. TO 3T10100 P . 04 PAGE THREE March 5, 1991 There are currently 6 portable buildings that house classes at Western Hills. The budget for Western Sills has been set at 1 million dollars. WOOPSPP? ELEMENTARY Principal\nPat Higginbotham (white female) Current student capacity\nunknown 80% black 20% white The construction will consist of \"10 new classrooms and expansion of the cafeteria. There are no portable buildings that house classes at Woodruff. The budget for Woodruff has been set between $800,000 and 1 million dollars. I I Please let us know if additional information is needed. I ( i I I I i i ! i I03zafi^l'?91 11:37 FROM JOHN U.UHLKER P.A. TO 3710100 p.ai JOHN w. Walker, P.A. Attorney at Law i?a Broadway Little Rock. Arkansas tjsob Telephone (5O1) 374-\ni758 FAX (501) :3744187 JOHN W. WALKER RALPH WASHINGTON \u0026gt;L\\RK BURNETTE WILEY A. BRANTON. JK. Abo iximitwd io Practiw io n*nr^ \u0026amp; tb Din.nct uC CUwAib)*. FACSIMILE COVER I-AZAR M. PALNiCK LAW \u0026amp; FINANCE SLTx\nSUITE 1002 129 roURTH AVENiiL PmSBURGH. PA i52.S 1412) 28.?-?220 TO: 2^ CblAA/^ Y'KY. NO. : FROM: hr QlD DATE: RE: U^S) ptfjz. THIS FAX CONSISTS OF IF YOU DO NOT RECEIVE PAGE(S), INCLUDING THIS COVER PAGE. PAGE(S), PLEASE CALL AT THE NUMBER LISTED ABOVE AS SOON AS POSSIBLE. I TO: FROM: THROUGH: SUBJECT: Little Rock School District January 29, 1992 Ann Brown, Office of Desegregation Monitoring James Jennings, Associate Superintendent for J' CT Desegregation Monitoring and Community Services Dr. Ruth Steele, Superintendent of Schools Educational Equity Monitoring Schedule Please find attached the Educational Equity Monitoring Schedule for the third nine weeks. 810 West Narkham Street * Little Rock, Arkansas 72201  (501)374-35611 LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT PLANNING, RESEARCH AND EVALUATION EDUCATIONAL EQUITY MONITORING THIRD VISIT SCHEDULE 1991-92 SCHEDULED DATE Wed., 01-22-92 SCHOOL Western Hills Elem. SPECIALISTS Dunbar, Tadlock Thu., 01-23-92 Jefferson Elem. Tadlock, Dunbar Mon., 01-27-92 Washington Maonet Dunbar, Tadlock Tue., 01-28-92 Booker Maqnet Tadlock, Dunbar II II Fair High Hobby, Smith Wed., 01-29-92 Central High Smith, Hobby II II Fulbright Elem, Dunbar, Tadlock Thu., 01-30-92 It It Geyer Springs Elem. Mabelvale Jr. High Tadlock, Dunbar Hobby, Smith Fri., 01-31-92 Caryer Magnet Tadlock, Dunbar Mon., 02-03-92 Williams Magnet Dunbar, Tadlock Tue.. 02-04-92 Mabelvale Elem. Tadlock, Dunbar Wed., 02-05-92 Badgett Elem. Davis, Brooks It It Mann Magnet Smith, Hobby Thu.. 02-06-92 Bale Elem. Davis, Brooks Fri.. 02-07-92 Woodruff Elem. Dunbar, Tadlock II II Hall High Smith, Hobby Tue.. 02-11-92 Metropolitan Vo-Tech. Smith, Hobby Wed.. 02-12-92 Baseline Elem. Davis, Brooks Thu.. 02-13-92 II II Brady Elem. Gibbs Magnet Davis. Brooks Tadlock, DunbarLRSD PRE DEPT. EDUCATIONAL EQUITY MONITORING THIRD VISIT SCHEDULE 1991-92 PAGE 2 SCHEDULED DATE SCHOOL SPECIALISTS Fri., 02-14-92 Chicot Elem. Dunbar, Tadlock Mon., 02-17-92 Cloverdale Elem. Davis, Brooks II If McDermott Elem. Tadlock, Dunbar Tue.. 02-18-92 II fl II II Wed., 02-19-92 II II II If Thu.. 02-20-92 II II II II Mon., 02-24-92 II II II II Tue.. 02-25-92 II II II It Fri.. 02-28-92 II II Tue.. 03-03-92 II II Wed., 03-04-92 II II Cloverdale Jr. High Dodd Elem. Terry Elem. Fair Park Elem. Dunbar Magnet Meadowcliff Elem. Forest Park Elem. McClellan High Watson Elem. Otter Creek Wakefield Elem. Pulaski Heights Jr. High Parkview Magnet Pulaski Heights. Elem Wilson Elem. Romine Elem. Southwest Jr. High Franklin Elem. Henderson Jr. High Forest Heights Jr. High Garland Elem. Hobby, Smith Davis. Brooks Dunbar, Tadlock Davis, Brooks Smith, Hobby Tadloc}'., Dunbar Davis, Brooks Hobby, Smith Dunbar, Tadlock Brooks, Davis Tadlock, Dunbar Hobby, Smith Hobby, Smith Brooks, Davis Dunbar, Tadlock Davis, Brooks Smith, Hobby Brooks, Davis Hobby, Smith Smith, Hobby Brooks. DavisLRSD PRE DEPT. EDUCATIONAL EQUITY MONITORING THIRD VISIT SCHEDULE 1991-92 PAGE 3 SCHEDULED DATE Thu., 03-05-92 SCHOOL Ish Elem. SPECIALISTS Brooks, Davis Mon., 03-23-92 Mitchell Elem. Brooks, Davis Tue., 03-24-92 Riqhtsell Elem. Brooks, Davis Wed., 03-25-92 Rockefeller Elem, Brooks, Davis Thu., 03-26-92 Stephens Elem. Brooks, DavisLittle Rock School District TO: FROM: THROUGH: SUBJECT: April 1, 1992 Ann Brown, Office of Desegregation Monitoring RECEIVED APR 7 1992 01iic3 of Desegregation Won'itorina James Jennings, Associate Superintendent for Desegregation Monitoring and Community Services Dr. Ruth Steele, Superintendent of Schools Educational Equity Monitoring Schedule - Fourth Visit Please find enclosed the District's schedule for the fourth monitoring visits to all schools. 810 West Markham Street Little Rock, Arkansas 72201  (501)374-3361LRSD PRE DEPT. EDUCATIONAL EQUITY MONITORING FOURTH VISIT SCHEDULE 1991-92 PAGE 2 SCHEDULED DATE Mon., 05-04-92 II tl Tue., 05-05-92 II II II II Wed., 05-06-92 II II II II Thu., 05-07-92 II II It II Fri., 05-08-92 Mon., 05-11-92 It II Tue., 05-12-92 II II It tl Wed., 05-13-92 II It tt II Thu., 05-14-92 II II II II SCHOOL Bale Elem. Fulbricfht Elem. Baseline Elem. Gever Sorinas Elem. Metrooolitan Vo-Tech. Bradv Elem. Cloverdale Jr. Hiqh Williams Maanet Cloverdale Elem. Mabelvale Elem. Pulaski Heiqhts Jr. Hiqh Mann Maqnet Dodd Elem. Woodruff Elem. Fair Park Elem. Gibbs Maqnet Southwest Jr. Hiqh Chicot Elem. Forest Park Elem. Henderson Jr. Hiqh Forest Heiqhts Jr. Hiqh McDermott Elem. otter Creek SPECIALISTS Davis, Brooks Dunbar, Tadlock Davis, Brooks Tadlock, Dunbar Smith, Hobbv Davis, Brooks Hobbv, Smith Dunbar, Tadlock Davis, Brooks Tadlock, Dunbar Hobbv, Smith Smith, Hobbv Davis, Brooks Dunbar, Tadlock Davis, Brooks Tadlock, Dunbar Smith, Hobbv Dunbar, Tadlock Davis, Brooks Hobbv, Smith Smith, Hobbv Tadlock, Dunbar Brooks, DavisSCHEDULED DATE Mon., 04-06-92 Tue., 04-07-92 II 11 If 11 Wed., 04-08-92 II II tl II Thu., 04-09-92 II II II II Tue., 04-28-92 II tl Wed., 04-29-92 II 11 tl II Thu., 04-30-92 II II II It Fri.. 05-01-92 tl II It II LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT PLANNING, RESEARCH AND EVALUATION EDUCATIONAL EQUITY MONITORING FOURTH VISIT SCHEDULE 1991-92 SCHOOL Franklin Elem. Carver Magnet Fair High Garland Elem. Central High Ish Elem. Western Hills Elem. Jefferson Elem. Mabelvale Jr. High Mitchell Elem. Hall High Rightsell Elem. Parkview Magnet Rockefeller Elem. Washington Magnet Booker Magnet McClellan High Stephens Elem. Badgett Elem. Dunbar Magnet Wilson Elem. SPECIALISTS Brooks, Davis Tadlock, Dunbar Hobby, Smith Brooks, Davis Smith, Hobby Brooks, Davis Dunbar, Tadlock Tadlock, Dunbar Hobby, Smith Brooks, Davis Smith, Hobby Brooks, Davis Hobby, Smith Brooks, Davis Dunbar, Tadlock Tadlock, Dunbar Hobby, Smith Brooks, Davis Davis, Brooks Smith, Hobby Dunbar, TadlockLRSD PRE DEPT. EDUCATIONAL EQUITY MONITORING FOURTH VISIT SCHEDULE 1991-92 PAGE 3 SCHEDULED DATE Mon., 05-18-92 If H Tue., 05-19-92 It fl Wed., 05-20-92 SCHOOL Pulaski Heights. Elem Terrv Elem. Meadowcliff Elem. Romine Elem. Watson Elem. SPECIALISTS Brooks, Davis Dunbar, Tadlock Tadlock, Dunbar Davis, Brooks Dunbar, Tadlock Thu., 05-21-92 Wakefield Elem. Tadlock, Dunbar\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_1505","title":"\"Syracuse City School District Strategic Plan\"","collection_id":"bcas_bcmss0837","collection_title":"Office of Desegregation Management","dcterms_contributor":null,"dcterms_spatial":["United States, 39.76, -98.5","United States, New York, 43.00035, -75.4999"],"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":["Education","Educational law and legislation","Educational planning","School management and organization","School improvement programs","School integration"],"dcterms_title":["\"Syracuse City School District Strategic 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/1505"],"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":["73 pages"],"dlg_subject_personal":null,"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":null},{"id":"bcas_bcmss0837_748","title":"Test data","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":["1991/2005"],"dcterms_description":null,"dc_format":["application/pdf"],"dcterms_identifier":null,"dcterms_language":["eng"],"dcterms_publisher":["Little Rock, Ark. : Butler Center for Arkansas Studies. Central Arkansas Library System"],"dc_relation":null,"dc_right":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC-EDU/1.0/"],"dcterms_is_part_of":["Office of Desegregation Monitoring records (BC.MSS.08.37)","History of Segregation and Integration of Arkansas's Educational System"],"dcterms_subject":["Little Rock (Ark.)--History--20th century","Little Rock School District","Education--Arkansas","Education--Evaluation","Education--Standards","Educational statistics"],"dcterms_title":["Test data"],"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/748"],"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":["207 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\nState Benchmark Exams 1998-99 through 2000-01 Mathematics and Literacy Grades 4 and 8J. ^'i 'Aiiaf i r^iiiv.^ri~i\u0026amp;\u0026lt;tA'^*'ftito 4 /i Grade 4 Mathematics !. (-i- 4 r Pefcent fiwfident and Advanced In 1998-99 In 1999-00 In 2000-01 ' (. State 34% 41% * 48% i' *  'r\u0026lt; K\u0026gt; 4 . s S: LRSD PCSSD NLR 22% 30% 30% w ??% 43% 'W w '  '- tS 'if' J?' } s^i w* ? '-5 jtA ) 1 a as\u0026gt;ni 'U \u0026lt; 4 s Wj Ml V \u0026gt;*  5^'J' f* Grade 4 Mathematics \u0026gt; X  4-w  Percent PfOficiefit and Advanced -i. .f in 1998-99\n-In 1999-00: in 2000-01:  State Black LRSD White Black White 9% 14% 1. 18% Ho 44% 49% 57% k. 8% 15% 16% rW s. JS^ V 53% 61%  3 A  I * '  \u0026lt;\"J. ij i i i ! 1 4. Grade 4 Mathematics Highest Perforttiihg 3^\nMost Impfoved \" ' iX / , t i I 1. ? Jefferson 64% Baseline +23 Forest Park 57% Bale +19 Fulbright 53% Williams 52% Terry Gibbs, Carver 48% 46% ***   ' 44% 'i'. McDermott 44%  Fair Park +18  Franklin +14  Fulbright +11 Tejry +10 Badgett +9 Booker ,4 :fr' 1 * ' ^1 T \"1^! .1  't \u0026lt; 4 I Grade 4 Mathematics Below Basic f/- -'S.'.i .\u0026lt;.4UI^ 1998-99 1999-00 2000-01 f I''*' \u0026gt; { 59% 55% 51% A*- Z''. v\n4 y-^ '\"A' .f 5 ,  ?5- 'tiLf e e r Grade 4 Mathematics Below Basic Xi* fi ,5 Lowest Percent .--'-'A. --. '''.''f :x A,  I  ' i Most Improved !r\u0026lt; ::  \u0026lt; [ f' Jefferson  Fulbright  Gibbs  Williams  Terry 14% 26% 29% 30% 33% .1  Bale  Fair Park  Baseline  Cloverdale Jefferson 36 28 22 21 17 6 3 i. .iiZ Ci if-X 'kJ } Grade 4 Literacy Percent Proficient aiid Advanced 't'y'.' -.t- - In 1998-99 - In 1999-00\n- In 2000-01: State 44% 47% 43% LRSD PCSSD NLR 32% 42% 35% ??% 34% ??% ??% 41% I.. m^2.4,. rlix.\n: * 79: ' i 4 ] 1 4 irt. jlb*..' Grade 4 Literacy r\u0026lt;r\".rrr JPefcefit Prc^ci^ntiajid Adviced ?/' i. V 'fr\u0026lt; . \u0026lt;' .i -In 1998-99: -In 1999-00: In 2000-01 State Black White 21% 51% 26% 21% a. 53% 51%   LRSD Black White 20% 30% V 23% 5- 62% 66% .'A ' 63%  x- -ia * S  .-4  -A- ? ^5 8 sA.'    -I.. in. \u0026gt; f .t' A 1 Grade 4 Literacy Ai 'S\u0026gt; r^J Highest i s\u0026lt; fl ''!t\n^iji' ^1 .4 Mfti r' \u0026lt;* .\u0026lt;- ? .+,i' ' i '\u0026gt; fij rA\u0026gt;\ni***' V'  Jefferson 95%  Fulbright 74% Forest Park 71%  Williams 52% Jefferson +24 Fair Park +14 Wakefield +11 e': V '-'.\\ *n': Terry 49% McDermott 47% Booker Baseline Bale + 9 + 4 *  ? \u0026lt; a' /  r?'. y'\u0026gt; (jibhs Vv' .k 1^1. 45%^ T, /A *7 Rockefeller 45% 'W I  [ Y\nX\nJ 'A' sJi 'i?- vS/Vt\nr- i k-'.yz'- nsgH1 . J Grade 4 Literacy BelbW Basic V.L. 4\n.A?f V'.'' .V 1 1998-99 1999-00 2000-01 t I r. I-  . 41% 28% 32% 10 V 4, 'Ji s ' 3' -^4Grade 4 Literacy Below Basic .V'' .4 J'' 1 A Lowest Percent Jefferson Fulbright Forest Park McDermott Gibbs\nS.\\ Williaths Rockefeller L'\"- 0% 7% 9% 12^ i' 13% 14% f Most Improved Wakefield Wilson Jefferson Cloverdale Mabel vale '* 'h iH' v7 Booker 3 17 15 14 13 9 'tr?' i 8 11 r \u0026gt;ry' 3^ Ma a J i t Grade 8 Mathematics A  Percent Proficient and Advanced .t. ^z - In f^99-00: - In 2000-01: ,i State 21% LRSD PCSSD NLR 9% 17% ??% 14% ??% 15% f A- f, I 'n .f' 12 Jl*t 1 ) i I Grade 8 Mathematics \u0026gt;5^ Percent Proficient and Advanced State Black White i' LRSD Black White 1111999-00 In 2000-01\ny/' V: H' \"j c n, 3% 4% -4r* X h' k'l 19% 27% 2% 4% jiy 28% 45% ti 'J: {'\"i h . '.4*I 1 Grade 8 Mathematics ft- V li! LV'' \u0026lt;* Highest Performing J: Most Improved / J !*\u0026lt;\u0026gt; Pulaski Heights 32% Pulaski Heights 4-22  . Mirt,'.\n:.i \" *.'*7  ' '1. ' 'AiPF' ' Mann Dunbhr 29% 23% Mann Dunbar +12 + 9 \u0026lt; .y A, -'i-u I' t ' 14 'i. ,',  i-- 2:'AX\ng'.1 i 1 J Grade 8 Mathematics BelbWBasic  1999-2000 2000-2001 58% 55% tl '* t r? J r 'i\nr Lf- V'. u'-.-i. jf'W ?' i 15 : j-^ -j .j' Grade 8 Mathematics 1 Below Basic '1  'rr'-e 1- Lowest Percent Most Improved Mann 31%  Pulaski Heights -11 V. Pulaski Heights 42% Cloverdale 6 A \u0026lt;w ^j3\ni\nf t-- VI .1 .t ^55'^ 4 f j.' ' 16 '5^\nI 0 'i I Grade 8 Literacy Percent Proficient and Advanced State LRSD PCSSD NLR 5? 1999-2000 2000-2001 ??% 37% 15% 31% ??% 26% ??% 26%  V- C'r f k T. J'. 7, itet\n-V. i'T- I ft.' I, i'A r' i- V''^'5 t- A 7 \u0026gt; ' - 8^ 4 .. I j ! Grade 8 Literacy I- a Percent Proficient and Advanced \u0026gt; j. *7? -In 1999-00: -In 2000-01: State Black White 9% 16% 29% 44% LRSD Black White 4: 1. 8% 18% 32% 61% J:. 18 vlU.. r f. Grade 8 Literacy Highest Perfouning Most Improved Forest Heights 48% Pulaski Heights 45%  Forest Heights +31  Pulaski Heights+26 M' Mann \u0026lt;Sr' 7 -A- 44% t,- Dunbar Mabelvale V -f- +23 +21 X # \u0026gt; 'at.Grade 8 Literacy B^ldWBasic  / .  'J 5l( iS 'r.  1999-2000  2000-2001 5? 46% 33% I 'O* ViL f - ! 'Mr'' i.i- *f' I 1 20 0 i . -  \u0026lt; :I J I Grade 8 Literacy Helbw Basic r Lowest Percent Most Improved  Mann 17%  Forest Heights 25%  Pulaski Heights 27%  Mabelvale  Dunbar -26 -24 Mabelyale L)unbar r- V .'.hi 4 HdhdersPh 1 % 31% 32% ' J.'.'.*- ' Forest Heights -18 Hhhdersori -11 t-\n'5' .r.-v -* .1. \u0026gt;\u0026lt;e \u0026gt;' '.x f 21. \u0026lt; l^,Jli^'U. J 4i i.- tp j W Grade 4 Mathematics 'A*\n' 1* 'V' Highlights 'f**' ?}.? \u0026gt;\u0026gt; rc* 'r\u0026gt;- ii i-i '. J I- Percelit Proficient/Advanced did not 'm'- .*\n- \u0026gt;J fl. - . '{: vJviA^\nX'r decline\n8 points above baseline year. Percent Below Basic went down 4 points in one year and 8 points in two years. 18 schools improved. 1 7 i' S' \u0026gt; 't'  ' t.tf ^'. ' v-^\nh A- 22 \u0026gt;1'4 1 1 j Grade 4 Literacy Hishlights if. ....-, iSj.\nEVenjthoUgh'doy^^  Bistiict is still S^pdirits ahead of baseline year, compared to state s decline of one point since baseline year. percent performing Below Basic down 9 points since baseline year, compared to 6 5 for state !.-r-h .\u0026lt;V' XV .!\u0026gt;, 'f H-j. i.'-^l f. ,11 '\u0026lt;fc :*! 8 schools impfoyed\n3, stayed the s^ihe  'st \"i-.'r/ Jefferson scored 95%! ! i / iW' '3 M f  r 323, v1 Grade 8 Mathematics 4 Xtju \u0026gt;' '-Is !^,i X\n'm' B XsS-ii-''\" Sdoresw^^eilt up 8 points^ cOii^ sWs the state 7 of the 8 middle schodls improved t ek rtf- District out-performed NLR and PCSSD. ' 7 * Percent Below Basic went down 3 points 9 compared to 0 ppiutS for the State r!'.vV 2 \"I, u t * -'U, ? \u0026gt; V a\u0026gt; J 24 7 ^4^ A aJ Grade 8 Literacy Highlights \u0026lt;: I J A District improved 16 points^ comp^ed to ? 13 for the state. This area most improved of four tests All 8 middle schools improved. Percent at Below Basic declined 13  W-V- .f.' points, as compared to 9 for M ERSDdht pdrfoffled^ 4 V. PCSSD t' \"I j .1:\n1 '1 vi-25  t' .'fkir Grade 4 Mathematics .'/.^7CVr' ff Plans for Improvement Si Si :k V. ^4 Classfoom and homeWrk practice Sets S .k' '^i-Uk? aligned with Benchmark items have already been developed and distributed to schools it' .* for use in grades 3-5 rM *t .\u0026gt; WM tl V. Parent packets have Been developed arid I-'/v disseminated to each elementary school to ,f' x provide information and include activities forparehts to hefothieir children. t^, \u0026gt;* fp- * !# s,*' 26 W' 't r I L i iv^ K?3^ -^os  r'^5 ) i Grade 4 Mathematics Continued V j- L*\u0026gt;4 A \u0026lt; e t 3' -Lead teachers will facilitate after-school study groups to deepen teacher understanding of curriculum and to plan -f'- collaboratively A Mathematics staff will work collaboratively with principals to deyeloj) pl^S fbf - 4 itnproved .achievement\n, including plans for Content training for teachers. t SWiO'V ) -.4 Grade 4 Mathematics G ontinued iw fr-f 5\" ' '1^'' ^4^ - End-of-^module ctiteHon-referenced tests win be given after each mathematics modotile to keep track of student achievement on on-going basis. \u0026gt;- :r'AV.  yfi'' f^: \u0026lt; V- Students in grade 4 m 2001-Q2 will 'h^ RS'-y  .4 '\u0026gt; .'4- experienced the new curriculum for two yearS\"iirst timesb we should see gaitis 28. 25^:ni. Grade 4 Literacy J plans for ImproYement \u0026lt;*? 9.9^!^. Identify present 3^^ grade students who perforttied below grade level on the DRA(at the end of last 1 'v'ii' year) Identify present 4* grade students who are below grade level in reading (based upon combination of ALT score, classroom performance, and teacher V- i .1 '. .-.J  -i input) l\u0026gt;j' f i... :^- \u0026gt;\u0026lt; rain all grade^eaehers on adriimistfhddn oftheDRA .e - .t\" /\u0026gt; Ji  ' :i s.\"t -b i\n..Jt *\u0026gt; 5V.^\u0026lt;\u0026lt;Sfe V t  ' ih ^\n.W\n-i .1 .** 1 ! i\ni*. t Grade Four Literacy Plans for Lnrprover^ iAAM\u0026lt;Ua^adMUU*J\u0026lt;at2t r Administer the DRA40 all identified 3S1\u0026amp; 4*^\ngrade Students z--, ci- *y\u0026gt;' \u0026amp; Using those results, teachers write SAIPs on all students below grade level on the newly administered DRA. SAIPs would include providing instruction in guided reading, comprehension and writing - .y -y t Provide fiaining on guided reading, / bompreheh^idhahdCOtih^^^ grade teachers, beginning with teachers who have not ? k, had Effective Literacy 30 O I tV. J Grade F our Literacy Bitf irrthitii^ *1 \\4'' i-^ rc\u0026lt;i\u0026lt; FlausTfbrdmprovement 'Wt 't Pfoviae^training Monitor for Implementation 1. Develop Literacy Checklist 2. Continue classroom visitations and teacher demonstrations 3 aiS '?\u0026gt;/\u0026lt; c A\n.v ** .b t \u0026gt;*:'V mI dohtihhe dh-site ihdivii^uaii^ed grade level staff f development \" ' XJi V *K Provide all 3*^**, 4*, and 5^ grade teachers with six\nthemes of reading and writing prompts with iruhrics tailored to our reading program and correlated to the State Benchmark Exam \u0026gt;- f i y -- K* ? i*- Ji .!H. i KiX ,r f^* i * j_A-----?y . \u0026gt; - --- - -\u0026lt;---I Grade Si^atliematics 5'' Plans for^mprovemenh:, ^4f \"/S-vf. }\u0026gt; \u0026gt; # C\u0026gt; 'i-''i\u0026amp;V a! VT\u0026amp; 2. Developed and disMbuted for grades 6-8 '.V\u0026gt; classroom and homework practice sets aligned with Benchmark items. j- S Assigned two lead teachers to middle schools to provide support. OK  K ?' v' i. aV- I K' a Developed pacing guides for grades 6-8 to ensure\n?cp^er^ge- ofcriticalcontent r-tl \u0026lt; , Jt.' ..V' -All rH,' 32, i ,i.s' 1 1 Grade 8 Matnematics Gontinued - i J:  \\ End-Of-module diiterion-teferehced tests will be given after each module to keep ftack of student achievement on on-goihg y basis i \u0026gt; \u0026gt;- t-\n' VK Students taking the Benchmark in 2002 mil have had three years of Connected Mathemeities orie year in J). 4 a 2001) I F * \u0026gt; 1 IJ t jbgj \u0026lt;d* . y 33 fti-. i .1' i :jiiw 3'^ i * i*lJ. r* '' '^l-- .aaJMh ' -\" v'jyv*' *5^ iiirifaniitfcifatkr j^tos^foij^pro^ Af' -%\u0026gt;}. I-\n:*\"- \u0026gt;v. 'V ' Oi \u0026lt;*,'4!^: iOfeS Develop stratfegi\u0026lt;^lati\u0026amp;fbf  \u0026lt; I each school. Develop strategic plans for improvement for \u0026gt;-. ,f=' vA  'V W' ' fc - - iy- identified teachers Conduct quarterly check-point sessions at  , ' ' '\"i each school. Provide teacherded workshops on /hi Practices 99 Vx Best 34 K* -tr  t Iy b ( Grade 8 \"Literacy J Gontinued A,: i^ \u0026lt; '1 il^ 'Sv v T'acilitate interschool and intraschool collaboration and fearii teacliihg. e ' ' M '*i*?*i. *\n .A J: jk\u0026gt; ^\n'W''K Implement comprehension strategies in Mosaic of Thought Continue training in Mosaic of Thought Strategies throughsummer2002 \"nt'\nf 'i\" Jt' *  A  \" 'i rA i' ^T* i:. II?' :iSt S' f ti\" 51 I 14\n% i-t 'ft iai: I* ^1 s ) ' / \u0026gt;*?5 u* if iSSiS' 4^ \u0026gt;'?f o* Wi '!*' sj*3 '' -xc 'HJ''RKOESVEI JtL 2 * innt (i (ifHCfcC ^54 Individual Approach to a World of Knowledge' June 27, 2001 Ms. Ann Marshall Office of Desegregation Monitoring One National Plaza 124 W. Capitol, Ste. 1895 Little Rock, AR 72201 Dear Ms. Marshall: As per your telephone request of June 24, I am enclosing the following:  five years of SATO data, by school and race, and . two years of DRA data by school and race. We have not yet received the results of the State Benchmarks. Yours truly. Bonnie A. Lesley, Ed.D Associate Superintendent of Instruction BAL/adg Enclosures cc: Dr. Kenneth James Junious Babbs Chris Heller 810 W Markham  Little Rock, Arkansas 72201  www.lrsd.kl2.ar.us 501-324-2000  fax: 501-324-2032Developmental Reading Assessment The LRSD began the administration of the Developmental Reading Assessment (DRA) in fall 1999 (pre-test). The school year's post-test was administered in late spring 2000. Both tests were administered again in 2000-01. ORA scores are reported below as the percent of students by grade who scored at or above the \"readiness\" level. \"Readiness\" is defined as the necessary knowledge and skills for success at the next grade level. One-Year Changes Table 1 displays the schools' kindergarten scores by grade level so that the one-year change can be visible. Tables 2 and 3 display the grade 1 and grade 2 scores, respectively. received JUL 2 - omcfof DESESnON mowing 1School LRSD Badgett______ Bale Baseline Booker Brady Carver Chicot Cloverdale Dodd Fair Park Forest Park Franklin Fulbright Seyer Springs Sibbs Jefferson .King__________ Mabelvale McDermott Meadowcliff Mitchell Otter Creek Pulaski Heights Rightsell_____ Rockefeller Romine Stephens Terry Wakefield Washington Watson Western Hills Williams Wilson Woodruff Table 1 Percent Readiness, Kindergarten Spring 2000 and Spring 2001 Spring 2000 72.2 21.6 58.5 51.1 81.0 76.9 80.5 56.1 56.4 86.5 68.3 55.8 64.3 94.5 85.1 89.2 89.5 63.6 61.0 94.8 77.4 90.6 90.4 82.5 92.1 75.8 66.7 40.8 91.9 46.8 81.2 56.4 75.0 89.1 66.7 69.2 Spring 2001 80.7 50.0 59.0 94.0 89.6 93.4 90.4 70.9 82.5 80.0 75.6 82.9 58.6 94.0 87.7 93.4 83.9 80.5 73.3 94.3 77.1 92.3 90.6 84.9 80.5 76.2 86.4 66.1 86.7 61.1 84.1 73.7 73.0 89.7 80.0 46.2 Change 8.5 28.4 0.5 42.9 8.6 16.5 9.9 14.8 26.1 -6.5 7.3 27.1 -5.7 -0.5 2.6 4.2 -5.6 16.9 12.3 -0.5 -0.3 1.7 0.2 2.4 -11.6 0.4 19.7 25.3 -5.2 14.3 2.9 17.3 -2.0 0.6 13.3 -23.0 2School LRSD Badgett_______ Bale Baseline Booker Brady Carver Chicot Cloverdale Dodd Fair Park Forest Park Franklin Fulbright Seyer Springs Sibbs Jefferson King AAabelvale McDermott Meadowcliff Mitchell Otter Creek Pulaski Heights Rightsell______ Rockefeller Romine Stephens Terry Wakefield Washington Watson Western Hills Williams Wilson Woodruff Table 2 Percent Readiness, Grade 1 Spring 2000 and Spring 2001 Spring 2000 53.6 5.9 66.7 29.6 69.3 34.9 76.1 26.8 28.4 58.3 62.5 69.8 57.6 61.0 46.8 65.9 69.1 56.6 50.8 80.4 70.0 25.0 67.7 50.0 35.7 76.3 59.6 23.5 47.1 22.0 35.5 24.7 81.4 84.1 82.9 84.2 Spring 2001 63.8 26.5 66.6 70.8 87.4 53.5 91.8 51.2 33.9 73.5 72.7 80.0 58.9 66.6 38.6 71.4 73.9 66.6 60.5 87.9 66.6 25.0 69.6 61.7 41.7 65.2 76.5 51.0 59.8 66.6 41.1 66.6 55.6 97.1 53.8 61.5 Change 10.2 20.6 -0.1 41.2 18.1 18.6 15.7 24.4 5.5 15.2 10.2 10.2 1.3 5.6 -8.2 5.5 4.8 10.0 9.7 7.5 -3.4 0 1.9 11.7 6.0 -11.1 16.9 27.5 12.7 44.6 5.6 41.9 25.8 13.0 -29.1 -22.7 3School LRSD Badgett_______ Bale Baseline Booker Brady Carver Chicot Cloverdale Dodd Fair Park Forest Park Franklin Fulbright Geyer Springs Gibbs Jefferson __________ Mabelvale McDermott Meadowcliff Mitchell Otter Creek Pulaski Heights Rightsell______ Rockefeller Romine Stephens Terry Wakefield Washington Watson Western Hills Williams Wilson Woodruff Table 3 Percent Readiness, Grade 2 Spring 2000 and Spring 2001 Spring 2000 67.5 11.8 72.1 47.1 79.8 70.8 81.8 38.6 57.9 51.7 62.9 89.6 81.2 79.3 72.5 80.5 71.1 80.8 43.4 67.1 57.9 48.6 87.2 45.2 94.7 71.4 68.8 31.3 81.2 40.0 63.3 54.4 89.5 89.7 60.4 78.3 Spring 2001 75.4 42.9 81.4 60.5 81.4 79.6 93.1 52.1 45.1 82.8 67.7 85.7 83.6 88.7 66.0 82.9 85.0 85.6 63.0 89.6 75.0 50.0 90.5 74.5 70.5 84.2 81.6 61.4 67.1 54.4 81.4 51.2 91.7 92.6 61.4 86.5 Change 7.9 31.1 9.3 13.4 1.6 8.8 11.3 13.5 -12.8 31.1 4.8 -3.9 2.4 9.4 -6.5 2.4 13.9 4.8 19.6 22.5 17.1 1.4 3.3 29.3 -24.2 12.8 12.8 30.1 -14.1 14.4 18.1 -3.2 2.2 2.9 1.0 8.2 4Performance Levels Table 4 below displays a comparison for the District and by school of the spring 2000 and spring 2001 kindergarten scoresthe percent of students who scored at or above the readiness level. Tables 5 and 6 provide the results for first grade and second grades, respectively. The schools shaded black are those schools with 80 percent or more students scoring at or above the \"readiness\" level. Sray-shaded schools are those with 50-79 percent of the students scoring at the \"readiness\" level. The schools in white boxes are those schools with fewer than half (0-49 percent) of the students scoring at the \"readiness\" level. 5Table 4 Percent Readiness, Kindergarten, 2000 and 2001 All Students School LRSD Average McDermott Fulbright Rightsell Terry Mitchell Otter Creek Jefferson Gibbs Williams Dodd Geyer Springs Pulaski Heights Washington Booker Carver Meadowcliff Brady______ Rockefeller Western Hills Woodruff Fair Park Wilson______ Romine Franklin King Mabelvale Bale Cloverdale Watson Chicot Forest Park Baseline Wakefield Garland Badgett 1999-2000 72.2 94.8 94.5 92.1 91.9 90.6 90.4 89.5 89.2 89.1 86.5 85.1 82.5 81.2 81.0 80.5 77.4 76.9 75.8 75.0 69.2 68.3 66.7 66.7 64.3 63.6 61.0 58.5 56.4 56.4 56.1 55.8 51.1 46.8 40.8 21.6 School LRSD Average McDermott Baseline Fulbright Gibbs Brady Mitchell Otter Creek Carver Williams Booker Geyer Springs Terry Romine Pulaski Heights Washington Jefferson Forest Park Cloverdale King Rightsell Dodd Wilson Meadowcliff Rockefeller Fair Park Watson Mabelvale Western Hills Chicot Stephens Wakefield Bale Franklin Badgett Woodruff 2000-01 80.7 94.3 94.0 94.0 93.4 93.4 92.3 90.6 90.4 89.7 89.6 87.7 86.7 86.4 84.9 84.1 83.9 82.9 82.5 80.5 80.5 80.0 80.0 77.1 76.2 75.6 73.7 73.3 73.0 70.9 66.1 61.1 59.0 58.6 50.0 46.2 6Table 5 Percent Readiness, Grade 1, 2000 and 2001 All Students School LRSD Average 1999-2000 School 53.6 LRSD Average 2000-01 64.0 Woodruff Williams Wilson Western Hills McDermott E 1 1 Rockefeller Carver Meadowcliff Forest Park Booker Jefferson Otter Creek Bale Gibbs Fair Park Fulbright Romine Dodd Franklin King Mabelvale Pulaski Heights Terry Geyer Springs Rightsell_____ Washington Brady Baseline Cloverdale Chicot Mitchell Watson Garland Wakefield Badgett 76.3 76.1 70.0 69.8 69.3 69.1 67.7 66.7 65.9 62.5 61.0 59.6 58.3 57.6 56.6 50.8 50.0 47.1 46.8 35.7 35.5 34.9 29.6 28.4 26.8 25.0 24.7 23.5 22.0 05.9 Williams Carver McDermott Booker Forest Park Romine Jefferson Dodd Fair Park Gibbs Baseline Otter Creek Watson Wakefield Fulbright Kins_________ Meadowcliff Bale Rockefeller Pulaski Heights Woodruff Mabelvale Terry Franklin Western Hills Wilson Brady Chicot Stephens Rightsell_____ Washington Geyer Springs Cloverdale Badgett______ Mitchell RTwl 76.5 73.9 73.5 72.7 71.4 70.8 69.6 66.6 66.6 66.6 66.6 66.6 66.6 65.2 61.7 61.5 60.5 59.8 58.9 55.6 53.8 53.5 51.0 51.0 41.7 41.1 38.6 33.9 26.5 25.0 7Table 6 Percent Readiness, Grade 2, 2000 and 2001 All Students School LRSD Average Rightsell Williams Forest Park Western Hills Otter Creek Carver Franklin Terry King Gibbs Booker_______ Fulbright_____ Woodruff Geyer Springs Bale_________ Rockefeller Jefferson Brady________ Romine McDermott Washington Fair Park Wilson Cloverdale Meadowcliff Watson Dodd Mitchell Baseline Pulaski Heights Mabelvale Wakefield Chicot Garland Badgett 1999-2000 67.5 94.7 89.7 89.6 89.5 87.2 81.8 81.2 81.2 80.8 80.5 79.8 79.3 78.3 72.5 72.1 71.4 71.1 70.8 68.8 67.1 63.3 62.9 60.4 57.9 57.9 54.4 51.7 48.6 47.1 45.2 43.4 40.0 38.6 31.3 11.8 School LRSD Average Carver Williams Western Hills Otter Creek McDermott Fulbright Woodruff Forest Park King Jefferson Rockefeller Franklin Gibbs Dodd Romine Washington Booker Bale Brady Meadowcliff Pulaski Heights Rightsell_____ Fair Park Terry Geyer Springs Mabelvale Wilson Stephens Baseline Wakefield Chicot Watson Mitchell Cloverdale Badgett 2000-01 75.4 93.1 92.6 91.7 90.5 89.6 88.7 86.5 85.7 85.6 85.0 84.2 83.6 82.9 82.8 81.6 81.4 81.4 81.4 79.6 75.0 74.5 70.5 67.7 67.1 66.0 63.0 61.4 61.4 60.5 54.4 52.1 51.2 50.0 45.1 42.9 8Achievement Gap The achievement gap between African American and other students is always an issue of concern in the Little Rock School District. A major emphasis in the PreK-3 Literacy Plan is the significant narrowing and eventual elimination of that gap. Tables 7, 8, and 9 provide DRA data, by school, reflecting the achievement of African American and other students for comparison purposes and a calculation of the gaps. The gap is being addressed at this level not only through the literacy and mathematics program initiatives in the primary grades, but also by the addition of as many pre-kindergarten sections as has been possible. As of spring 2001 there were 953 four-year-olds enrolled in pre-kindergarten classes and another 358 in HIPPY and infant/toddler programs for a total of 1312. 9School Table 7 Percent of Black and Non-Black Students at Readiness\" Level, Kindergarten, 1999-2000 and 2000-01 LRSD Average Badgett______ Bale Baseline Booker Brady Carver Chicot Cloverdale Dodd Fair Park Forest Park Franklin Fulbright Geyer Springs Gibbs Jefferson King Mabelvale McDermott Meadowcliff Mitchell Otter Creek Pulaski Heights Rightsell_____ Rockefeller Romine Stephens Terry Wakefield Washington Watson Western Hills Williams Wilson Woodruff Black 99-00 69.3 16.1 56.8 48.6 85.4 84.6 74.4 59.2 54.2 88.2 67.7 30.4 65.6 89.5 90.0 90.5 80.0 59.6 61.5 94.7 82.6 89.7 91.2 72.7 91.7 67.4 78.9 40.4 92.7 53.3 81.8 57.1 76.2 92.3 71.4 68.6 Black 00-01 77.0 52.6 61.3 92.5 92.3 92.3 83.8 70.6 82.2 76.5 72.7 53.8 59.3 81.3 87.5 66.7 75.5 78.1 86.4 77.8 92.3 87.1 79.3 80.0 73.7 85.4 65.5 87.5 77.1 64.4 75.0 73.2 73.1 86.7 79.4 48.6 Non-Black 99-00 84.7 100.0 80.0 100.0 79.4 72.7 91.7 60.0 83.3 85.0 77.8 91.3 60.0 97.2 80.0 87.5 97.2 70.0 75.0 97.3 62.5 100.0 94.6 94.4 100.0 90.9 73.3 0.0 96.2 33.3 83.3 0.0 77.8 88.5 33.3 75.0 Non-Black 00-01 88.8 0.0 50.0 100.0 85.7 100.0 97.2 71.4 83.3 88.2 85.7 100.0 100.0 98.0 100.0 96.9 86.5 66.7 100.0 72.7 0.0 95.5 91.7 100.0 80.0 87.5 100.0 100.0 94.7 44.4 95.7 33.3 72.7 92.9 80.0 25.0 Denotes schools where Blacks perform higher than Non-Blacks. Gap 99-00 15.4 83.9 23.2 51.4 6.0* 11.9* 17.3 0.8 29.1 3.2* 10.1 60.9 5.6* 7.7 10.0* 3.0* 17.2 10.4 13.5 2.6 20.1* 10.3 3.4 21.7 8.3 23.5 5.6* 40.4* 3.5 20.0* 1.5 57.1* 1.6 3.8* 38.1* 6.4 Gap 00-01 11.8 52.6* 11.3* 7.5 6.6* 7.7 13.4 0.8 1.1 11.7 13.0 46.2 40.7 16.7 12.5 30.2 11.0 11.4* 13.6 5.1* 92.3* 8.4 12.4 20.0 6.3 2.1 34.5 12.5 17.6 20.0* 20.7 39.9* 0.4* 6.2 0.6 23.6* 10School Table 8 Percent of Black and Non-Black Students at \"Readiness\" Level, Grade 1, 1999-2000 and 2000-01 LRSD Average Badgett______ Bale Baseline Booker Brady Carver Chicot Cloverdale Dodd Fair Park Forest Park Franklin Fulbright Geyer Springs Gibbs Jefferson King Mabelvale McDermott Meadowcliff Mitchell Otter Creek Pulaski Heights Rightsell_____ Rockefeller Romine Stephens Terry Wakefield Washington Watson Western Hills Williams Wilson Woodruff * Block 99-00 48.3 7.4 81.5 30.2 61.4 34.2 64.7 28.0 28.3 60.0 57.7 53.3 57.1 60.9 47.1 50.0 55.0 52.5 51.1 85.7 70.0 28.1 46.7 31.8 38.5 62.9 64.7 24.1 31.0 24.5 24.4 27.3 78.1 81.3 87.5 84.4 Block 00-01 57.4 22.6 65.2 68.3 88.5 48.4 83.3 59.3 30.9 72.2 64.7 65.0 59.4 58.3 51.7 54.5 56.8 65.5 87.5 65.5 25.7 87.8 45.5 42.9 62.5 80.0 53.2 36.6 36.1 59.5 36.8 27.7 46.4 97.1 55.1 65.7 Non-Block 99-00 71.2 0.0 58.8 20.0 84.6 52.9 90.3 26.9 33.3 62.5 100.0 82.9 100.0 68.8 46.2 85.0 84.4 64.4 66.7 76.9 77.8 0.0 88.2 68.0 0.0 95.8 50.0 25.0 73.5 14.3 55.2 0.0 90.9 89.7 75.0 83.3 Non-Black 00-01 77.3 100.0 69.2 85.7 85.7 66.7 100.0 36.0 57.1 73.3 100.0 92.0 66.7 74.4 92.6 91.7 76.1 50.0 87.9 69.2 0.0 89.3 75.0 90.0 71.4 73.3 33.3 66.7 75.9 38.5 50.0 0.0 87.5 97.0 33.3 25.0 Denotes schools where Blacks perform higher than Non-Blacks. Gap 99-00 22.9 7.4* 22.7* 10.2* 23.2 18.7 25.6 1.1* 5.0 2.5 42.3 29.6 42.9 7.9 0.9* 35.0 29.4 11.9 15.6 8.8* 7.8 28.1* 41.5 36.2 38.5* 32.9 11.7* 0.9 42.5 10.2* 30.8 27.3* 12.8 8.4 12.5* 1.1* Gop 00-01 19.9 77.4 4.0 17.4 2.8* 18.3 16.7 23.3* 26.2 1.1 35.3 27.0 7.3 16.1 40.9 37.2 19.3 15.5* 0.4 3.7 25.7* 1.5 29.5 47.1 8.9 6.7* 19.9* 30.1 39.8 21.0* 13.2 27.7* 41.1 0.1* 21.8* 40.7* 11School Table 9 Percent of Black and Non-Black Students at \"Readiness\" Level, Srade 2, 1999-2000 and 2000-01 LRSD Average Badgett______ Bale Baseline Booker Brady Carver Chicot Cloverdale Dodd Fair Park Forest Park Franklin Fulbright Seyer Springs Sibbs Jefferson King Mabelvale McDermott Meadowcliff Mitchell Otter Creek Pulaski Heights Rightsell_____ Rockefeller Romine Stephens Terry Wakefield Washington Watson Western Hills Williams Wilson Woodruff Black 99-00 63.8 9.7 71.4 46.2 81.0 72.5 78.3 42.9 62.7 52.9 54.5 83.3 83.1 75.0 69.7 71.4 58.6 78.6 32.4 62.8 55.2 50.0 87.5 30.0 97.3 65.8 65.6 39.3 83.3 40.5 61.7 53.2 92.6 87.1 58.1 82.9 Black 00-01 69.8 44.4 84.4 60.5 70.9 76.3 91.1 55.3 46.7 73.7 62.5 62.5 83.3 83.3 63.9 75.0 78.3 78.4 60.0 89.5 80.0 42.9 91.7 65.0 69.8 72.7 83.3 58.5 59.4 46.9 74.3 59.2 91.4 91.4 60.0 84.8 Non-Black 99-00 81.6 50.0 83.3 57.1 79.5 100.0 94.7 31.6 25.0 71.4 90.0 96.3 0.0 93.0 85.7 90.0 78.7 93.9 68.8 86.4 57.1 66.7 90.0 65.0 0.0 93.8 80.0 80.0 77.5 50.0 73.1 80.0 100.0 94.3 80.0 77.8 Non-Black 00-01 86.8 0.0 72.7 60.0 95.2 90.9 95.2 46.2 20.0 100.0 100.0 97.0 100.0 93.1 72.7 94.1 89.2 95.6 83.3 89.7 50.0 0.0 89.7 81.5 0.0 100.0 75.0 100.0 72.2 100.0 88.6 0.0 92.3 93.9 75.0 100.0 Denotes schools where Blacks perform higher than Non-Blacks. Sap 99-00 17.8 40.3 11.9 10.9 1.5* 27.5 16.4 11.3* 37.7 18.5 35.5 13.0 83.1* 18.0 16.0 18.6 20.1 15.3 36.4 23.6 1.9 16.7 2.5 35.0 97.3* 28.0 25.6 40.7 5.8* 9.5 11.4 26.8 7.4 7.2 21.9 5.1* Sap 00-01 17.0 44.4* 11.7* 0.5* 24.3 14.6 4.1 9.1* 26.7* 26.3 37.5 34.5 16.7 9.8 8.8 19.1 10.9 17.2 23.3 0.2 30.0* 42.9* 2.0* 16.5 69.8* 27.3 8.3* 41.5 12.8 53.1 14.3 59.2* 0.9 2.5 15.0 15.2 12 fJOHN W. WALKER SHAWN CHILDS 7\u0026lt; 7^ j John w. Walker, P.A. Attorney At Law 1723 Broadway Little Rock, Arkansas 72206 Telephone (501) 374-3758 FAX (501) 374-4187 Via Facsimile - 371-0100 August 15, 2001 OF COUNSEL ROBERT McHENRY, P.A. DONNA J. McHENRY 8210 Henderson Road Little Rock, Arkansas 72210 Phone: (501) 372-3425  Fax (501) 372-3428 Email: mchenryd^wbell.net Ms. Ann S. Marshall Office of Desegregation Monitoring 124 West Capitol, Suite 1895 Little Rock, AR 72201 RECEIVED AUG 1 7 ZOOI Dear Ms. Marshall: OFFICE OF DESEGREGATION MONITORING Please find enclosed Stanford Nine results for reading and language. This is information that we have not been previously provided by the Little Rock School District. It is not within any of the volumes of documents submitted by the school district to either the court or the parties. Several witnesses indicated that these data have been available and are being used by the District at the same time the new superintendent. Dr. James and Dr. Bonnie are proposing to discontinue much of the testing. The Board has approved eliminating much of the testing. The enclosed testing information reveal the reasons for abandonment of tests by the District. While the school district may not have eliminated the Stanford 9, it appears headed in that direction. Mr. Heller is complaining that we have sought too much information from the District and are obstructing school opening. Please see my letter to him today. As the monitor approved by the court. I am writing to request that you obtain all of the test data on all of the subjects test for each school. I am also requesting that you provide a report to the parties assessing the LRSDs progress with respect to remediation of achievement disparities between African American and non African American children during the past four years. Thank you for your immediate attention to this request. incerely, John W. Walker JWW\njs Enclosure 4. 0 fifed /i'6rary - f.rcj '^etl I 9 O n 9 ACHiEl^EMBHT TEST SEJUES, NINTH EDITION n G^BLADE: 07 Item Analysis Summary FOR LITTLE ROCK ? o TEST TYPE: MULTIPLE CHOICfi TEST DATE: 09/00 District Code: 036001 Page 14 T H L D SUBTEST CLUSTER OBJECTIVE Rems Item Number Aslan/ Padfie Is. t ! J t u c J I 3 0 H J T 0 PROCESS CLUSTER SUMMARY FOR Thinking Skills 42 Iteew Mean p^value Above Averege Avere^ Belew Aver^^a 71 43 52 5 49 8 39 55 SUBTEST SUMMARY FOR Reading Comprehension Ta-tal N-Count: ASIANZPACIFIC IS.= NATIVE AHERXCAN: DISTRICT* 21 BLACK= 1046 1 WHITES 401 1511 54 Items Hean p'velua HISPANICS OTHERS 21 15 74 52 STANFORD tEVEL/FORM: Irtetwediale i/T 1995 NORMS: Fall National response: analysis PERCENT CORRECT Hispanic 54 lo 43 46 56 Scores based on oomiative data copyrieht O 1996 by Harooust Brace A CcTi^any. AB rescrveiL Natfv* Anwvtcan 40 0 0 5 37 While 73 44 44 12 75 Otker 69 20 47 33 63 District 56 18 41 41 59 NKnal 63 66 Copy 01 PtocmjNo. HII2-J92IU-15-OJM3-1Office of Desegregation Monitoring United States District Court  Eastern District of Arkansas Ann S. Marshall, Federal Monitor One Union National Plaza 124 West Capitol, Suite 1895 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 (501) 376-6200 Fax (501) 371-0100 August 20, 2001 Mr. John W. Walker 1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72201 Dear John: Thank you for your letter of August 15, 2001, to which you attached certain Little Rock School District standardized test results. The data you included were for the SAT-9 taken by 7'* graders in September 2000 and for the ACTAAP benchmark exams for 8\" graders, administered in April 2000. We are in the process of gathering various test data from the districts. However, due to the ongoing hearings on the LRSDs bid for unitary status and Judge Wrights associated directives, at this time I dont anticipate that ODM will issue a report on LRSD achievement indicators. ! very much appreciate your keeping us informed. Sincerely yours, Ann S. MarshallT Date: August 21, 2001 To: From: Re: Melissa Inventory of LRSD Test Data Attached is an accumulation, from various sources, of LRSD test data. 1 need you to list out exactly what were got here by test, subject area, date administered, and grade level. Next, indicate any holes in the information, that is, what tests, dates, or grade levels are missing. It may be helpful to refer to Genes chart (distributed at staff meeting several weeks ago) of the various tests each district gives and the time of their administration. After youve finished the LRSD, do the same for the PCSSD and NLRSD. I dont think we have much recent test data on hand from either of the other districts. Once youve determined what we don t have, write a draft of a letter to each district that will enable us to update our files. The attached copies are mine, so please return them when youre through. See how fast you can get this done. Thanks much.Name of Report Standardized Testing Annual Rpt Standardized Testing Annual Rpt AMPT Results 5 year Comparison MAT-6 National Percentile Scores Comparative Data AMPT Results 5-Year Comparison Comparison of Passing Rates on the MPT AMPT Test Results SAT 8 Nat'l Percentile Rank/ Normal Cun e Equivalent Scores SAT 8 Nat'l Percentile Rank/ Normal Cune Equivalent Scores AMPT Third Administration SAT Percentile Rank/Normal Curve Equivalent Scores Comparative Data SAT 8 Nat'l Percentile Rank/ Normal Curve Equivalent Scores SAT 8 Nat'l Percentile Rank/ Normal Curve Equivalent Scores AMPT SAT 8 Annual Report Analyses SAT 8 Percentile Rank and Normal Curve Equivalent SAT Percentile Rank/Normal Curve Equivalent Scores/Comparative Data SAT 8 Percentile Rank and Normal Curve Equivalent LRSD Testing Reports on File at ODM March 5,1996 Year(s) 1986-87 1987-88 1987-91 1988, 1989, 1990, 1991 1988-92 1989-92 1989-93 1992 1992 1992 1992-93 1993 1993 1993-94 1994-95 Fall, 1995 1992, 1993, 1994, 1995 1995 Summarized By school Bv school District summary District summan' By school District summary District summary \u0026amp; by school By school District summary^ By school By school By school District summary By school \u0026amp; district summary By school \u0026amp; district summan By school \u0026amp; district summary By school \u0026amp; district summary By school \u0026amp; district summary Grades 1-6 1-6 3,6,8 1-11 3,6,8 3,6,8 3, 6,8 1-11 1-11 8 1-11 1-11 1-11 6,8 1-11 1-11 1-11 1-11 Race BAV B/W B/W B/W B/W B/W B/W B/W B/W B/W B/W B/W B/W B/W B/W B/W Gender F/M F/M F/M F/M F/M Areas Reported Subject areas Subject areas # pass. # fail, by subject area Subject areas Subject areas Subject areas Subject areas Subject areas Subject areas # pass\n# fail Basic Battery/ Complete Battery Subject areas Subject areas Subject areas Subject areas Subject areas Basic Battery, Complete BatteryTest Subject Date Administered The following are the recent LRSD test results that are in our files. DRA Literacy Spring 2000, Spring 2001 SAT 9 Reading 1996-97-2000-01 SAT 9 Math 1996-97-2000-01 SAT 9 Language arts 1996-97-2000-01 SATO Science 1996-97-2000-01 SAT 9 Social studies 1996-97-2000-01 SAT 9 Basic battery 1996-97-2000-01 SAT 9 Complete battery 1996-97-2000-01 ACTAAP Math 1998-99-1999000 ACTAAP Literacy 1998-99-1999000 ACTAAP Math 1998-99-1999000 ACTAAP Literacy 1998-99-1999000 Grade Levels K 1st 2n 5\\ 7\\ IO' 5th, 1 Qth 5'\\ 7\\ IO* 5*, 7*, 10* 5*, 7*, 10* 5*, 7*, 10* 5*, 7*, 10* 4th 4* 8* 8* The following, which are duplicates of those in our files, were sent by John Walker. SAT-9 Reading September 2000 7* SAT-9 Language arts September 2000 7* ACTAAP Literacy April 2000 8*IMw Individual Approach to a World of Knowledge August 23, 2001 Ms. Melissa Guildin Office of Desegregation Monitoring One Union National Plaza 124 W. Capitol Avenue Little Rock, AR 72201 Dear Melissa\nI am attaching, as per your request, copies of the grade 4 Benchmark scores for 1998- 99 and 1999-2000. We do not have as yet the 2000-01 reports. I am also attaching a copy of the grade 8 scores for the pilot year in 1999-2000. Again, we do not have the 2000-01 results as yet. As I told you on the telephone, we have not had time as yet to put all the ALT scores on tables. I have the all-student reports done, but I still lack the disaggregations. That task is next on my list. As soon as I get them done, I will provide the full set to you. I sent you earlier our preliminary report on the Developmental Reading Assessment. I now have tables constructed of all the Observation Survey data, each of the five subtests, including disaggregations, plus the mean scores for each sub-test on the DRA, again disaggregated, so I am sending those pages along as well. Wonderful stuff! Let me know if you have questions. Yours truly, Lesley, Ed. D. Associate Superintendent for Instruction Attachment cc: Dr. Kenneth James Chris Heller 810 W. Markham  Litde Rock, Arkansas 72201  www.lrsd.kl2.ar.us 501-324-2000  fax: 501-324-2032 T  5AT - /^C'TA A? TO A 6At^ 1|. Srt /icrnpre (JiCf\u0026gt;i\u0026lt;/ii\u0026lt;naiiK^ i\u0026lt; 1/ I ( I J(A'^ nii.\\ h i:\u0026gt;i/ia- Ci^'^ ^2A^-~___ xuyra\u0026gt;\u0026lt;g__ ^yDcl ^Ido______ loo______ __'~l )(oo 7^0 _bfdlin____^Qii ) _____200' 0 I___ h 5 n f! u II H H U :i. i IJ ~7 2. 1 1^ /a 2..,. 1 s.^1 /o )  ^.7lo GraudLf- It II 4^Individual Approach to a World of'Knowledge ?SII1 August 23, 2001 Ms, Melissa Guildin Office of Desegregation Monitoring One Union National Plaza 124 W. Capitol Avenue Little Rock, AR 72201 Dear Melissa: I am attaching, as per your request, copies of the grade 4 Benchmark scores for 1998- 99 and 1999-2000. We do not have as yet the 2000-01 reports. I am also attaching a copy of the grade 8 scores for the pilot year in 1999-2000. Again, we do not have the 2000-01 results as yet. As I told you on the telephone, we have not had time as yet to put all the ALT scores on tables. I have the all-student reports done, but I still lack the disaggregations. That task is next on my list. As soon as I get them done, I will provide the full set to you. I sent you earlier our preliminary report on the Developmental Reading Assessment. I now have tables constructed of all the Observation Survey data, each of the five subtests, including disaggregations, plus the mean scores for each sub-test on the DRA, again disaggregated, so I am sending those pages along as well. Wonderful stuff!  Let me know if you have questions. Yours truly, 4 Bonnie A. Lesley, Ed. D. Associate Superintendent for Instruction Attachment cc: Dr. Kenneth James Chris Heller 810 W Markham  Little Rock, Arkansas 72201  www.lrsd.kl2.ar.us 501-324-2000  fax: 501-324-2032 y / /-I AUG 2 V ZOGi Table 1 Letter IdentificationKindergarten-Black Students Maximum Score = 54 OfflCEOF DESEGREGATiOMrlO^lTDF School Fall 1999 Spring Growth 2000 Fail 2000 Spring Growth 2001 Codes LRSD Badgett_______ Bale Baseline_______ Booker________ Brady Carver Chicot Cloverdale Dodd_________ Fair Park_____ Forest Park Franklin______ Fulbright_____ Geyer Springs Gibbs_________ Jefferson______ King__________ Mabelvale McDermott Meadowcliff Mitchell Otter Creek Pulaski Heights Rightsell______ Rockefeller Romine_______ Stephens (Grid) Terry_________ Wakefield Washington Watson Western Hills Williams Wilson Woodruff 27.59 20.56 26.56 16.78 37.31 29.17 26.37 21.43 20.88 31.19 29.03 31.22 I 21.06 38.81 29.45 40.25 25.75 29.73 23.03 28.72 28.45 39.92 29.82 26.38 39.44 25.44 37.47 29.81 34.09 I 25.81 23.51 21.96 20.25 38.32 22.90 30.57 48,48 45,33 50.67 38.28 51.92 50.33 50.84 48.50 48.83 51.25 47.21 50.17 50.03 53.44 49.33 54.00 46.80 49.93 49.50 51.94 49.23 45.48 51.58 48.38 50.69 48.09 50.90 48.57 51.54 45.81 41.87 45.25 43.80 51.24 49.12 46.83 Only students with a fall and spnng score arc included in this report. 20.89 24.77 24.11 21.50 14.61 21.16 24.47 27.07 27.95 20.06 18.18 18.95 28.97 14.63 19.88 13.75 21.05 20.20 26.47 23.22 20.78 5.56 21.76 22.00 11.25 22.65 13.43 18.76 17.45 20.00 18.36 23.29 23.55 12.92 26.22 16.26 27.43 12.38 30.85 29.03 32.37 28.08 28.67 21.26 21.35 26.13 34.09 25.82 23.10 30.38 29.06 37.15 21.68 32.43 29.68 28.27 24.23 26.17 31.58 24.15 29.70 25.74 30.03 20.04 30.70 24.84 32.20 23.25 34.52 38.19 21.07 25.64 49.38 46.62 49.59 46.89 51.24 49.48 52.08 45.85 48.35 51.31 53.82 49.73 49.48 50.92 50.90 53.76 48.32 48.80 46.96 51.60 45.48 49.41 50.77 50.37 50.45 49.89 51.50 48.06 50.63 47.13 47.88 49.00 45.57 52.11 50.07 49.39 21.95 34.24 18.74 17.86 18.87 21.40 23.41 24,59 27.00 25.18 19.73 23.91 26.38 20.54 21.84 16.61 26.64 16.37 17.28 23.33 21.25 23.24 19.19 26.22 20.75 24.15 21.47 28.02 19.93 22.29 15.68 25.75 11.05 13.92 29.00 23.75 FR SP SP FR SFA, SP RR M YC, SFA, SP M YC,FRRR,SP FR SFA, SP.CSR RR, CSR SP FR, SFA, SP I, FR, RR, SP FR, RR. SP RR, .M RR SP FR EYE, SP TA FR. SFA, SP I, FR, SP RR, TA I, FR.SP I, SP YC, SFA, SP I, FR, EYRSP YC, TA FR, SP NC, DI, ,M, SP FR CSR SP SP RR M FR RRSP FRSFA.EYE,SP Codes: DI=Direct Instrucuon\nEYE=Extended Year Education\nFR=75% or higher eligible for free/reduced lunch\nl=lncennve School\nM=Magnet School\nNC=Newconier Center\nRR=Reading Recovery\nSFA=Success for All\nTA=Title I Targeted Assistance\nSP=Title 1 Schoolwide Project 98/ / - ZX5(9 ffirrt h It, Individual Approach to a World of Knowledge August 28, 2001 V*  4 Ms. Ann Marshall Office of Desegregation Monitoring One Union National Plaza 124 W. Capitol Avenue Little Rock, AR 72201 Dear Ann\n1 promised to send to you our ALT data as soon as I could get the disaggregated scores onto tables. I completed the grades 2-8 reading and language usage reports this past week-end, so they are attached. As soon as other reports are ready, I will also forward them. \\Ne are told that the Benchmark results will arrive this week. If they do, well work to get those to you as quickly as possible. Yours truly, Bonnie A. Lesley, Ed.D Associate Superintendent of Instruction BAL/adg cc: Dr. Kenneth James Chris Heller 810 W Markham  Litde Rock, Arkansas 72201  www.lrsd.kl2.ar.us 501-324-2000  fax: 501-324-2032 J Individual Approach to a World of Knowledge September 10, 2001 Ms. Ann Marshall Office of Desegregation Monitoring One Union National Plaza 124 W. Capitol Avenue Little Rock, AR 72201 Dear Ms. Marshall: RECF''^D SEP I i' ?!l!)l urHbi\nV- 1 0WGATi02^GJjjI0RiMB All of our test scores are finally in, and we have compiled our reports, attaching for your files the following\nI am 1. ALT Reading and Language Usage 2. ALT Mathematics and Science 3. Grade 4 Literacy and Mathematics - Benchmarks 4. Grade 8 Literacy and Mathematics - Benchmarks 5. ACT, 1997-98 through 2000-01 6. Advanced Placement Please let me know if you have questions. Sincerely, Bonnie A. Lesley, Ed.D Associate Superintendent for Instruction BAL/adg Attachments cc: Dr. Kenneth James Chris Heller 810 W Markham  Litde Rock, Arkansas 72201  www.lrsd.kl2.ar.us 501-324-2000  fax: 501-324-2032 John W. Walker, P.A. Attorney At Law 1723 Broadway Little Rock, Arkansas 72206 Telephone (501) 374-3758 FAX (501) 374-4187 CC JOHN W. WALKER SHAWN CHILDS OF COUNSEL ROBERT McHENRY, P.A. DONNA J. McHENRY 8210 Henderson Road Little Rock, Arkansas 72210 Phone\n(501) 372-3425  Fax (501) 372-3428 Email: mchenrydl^wbell.net Via Facsimile - 371-0100 November 12, 2001 Ms. Ann Marshall Office of Desegregation Monitoring 124 West Capitol, Suite 1895 Little Rock, AR 72201 RECEIVED NOV 14 2001 Re: LRSD Six Year SAT 9 Summary lafflCEOl- OeSTIONMONITORil Dear Ms. Marshall: Would you please provide the NCE scores for grades 5, 7 and 10 by year and race for the most recent LRSD Stanford 9 results. In other words, as measured by the NCE scores on the SAT 9, has the disparity decreased in academic achievement between the black students and white students in the Little Rock School District. Thank you for your attention to this request. incerely, John W. JWW:js Office of Desegregation Monitoring United States District Court  Eastern District of Arkansas Ann S. Marshall, Federal Monitor One Union National Plaza 124 West Capitol, Suite 1895 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 (501)376-6200 Fax (501) 371-0100 September 11, 2002 Dr. Boimie Lesley Little Rock School District 810 West Markham Street Little Rock, AR 72201 Dear Bonnie: Thanks very much for forwarding a copy of your August presentation to the Board on recent algebra, geometry, and literacy test scores. The results indicate very encouraging improvements, upon which we congratulate you, your professional colleagues, and, of course, the students. some We appreciate your keeping us informed and look forward to hearing good news during the school year. Sincerely yours, Ann S. Marshall k st\u0026lt;ru\u0026gt; 144 vS jtu lift (x\u0026gt; July 22, 2005 RECEIVED JUL 2 9 2005 OFFICE OF DESEGREGATION MONITORING John W. Walker, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72206-1220 Dear Mr. Walker: Thank you for your request for ACTAAP \u0026amp; ITBS disaggregated test results by school, race and gender from last school year. We have received such data related to the ITBS, however, ACTAAP data received by LRSD consists only of raw scores for individual students and is not yet normalized by the Department of Education. Our PRE Department will prepare a set of ITBS data for you in the format you requested and furnish it to you within two weeks. Please let us know whether this satisfies your request. Siricerely yours, L't/p :aren DeJamette, Ph. T H^ai fl . V // Director, PRE Department xc\nMr. Gene Jones, Associate Monitor Office of Desegregation Monitoring US District Court 1 Union National Plaza 124 West Capitol 1895 Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Chris Heller Friday Eldredge \u0026amp; Clark 2000 Regions Center 400 Capitol Little Rock, AR 72201 Thursday, May 9,1991 Arkansas Gazette Bghth grade MFT test results Caposite pass rate School: Dfetncts RodR\nN^\u0026lt;\nLJ^G|RiLiisskf: ? No. tested , 1792 fe^paSs^ll^ggig Q/ /o passed 78 536 ssas\n85.5 County 1483'1 B^253\n\u0026lt; 84.5 : I r. t J J- r. J ::Pa^s-rafie| bysubji^ Reading Language.... Sqenc8hi:W-:-: 87% 82 Soc. Studies '\"^ S- i \u0026lt; 89% SOT 86... 75 89%IGA  ARKANSAS DEMOCRAT  THURSDAY, MAY 9, 1991 Arkansas Minimum Performance Test (Sth grade) STUDENTS FAILING School Cloverdale * iDuhbar Forest Heights Henderson Mabelvale Mann ^ulaski Heights Southwest * Elizabeth Mitchell DISTRICT Students passing ~7i 70 83 76 81 88 80 69 29 78 Black Male Female White Male Female 38 50 38 43 40 48 44 40 44 44 39 57 44 51 43 50 48 20 47 3 7 3 2 5 14 ' 2 2 40 18 13 4 3 3 0 3 NA 5 NA 17 Total students tailing 29 soil 17 24 19 12 20 3t 71 Note: Figures are percentages, with fractions rounded off to the nearest whole number, and therefore may not total 100 percent. WA = not available * = other races not included^Thursday, May 23, 1991...Arkansas Democrat _______________ LRSD pass rates on Minimum Performance Test I { } I I s.\nfrhe chart shows the percentage of black, white and tot^ studeriU.passlhg the MPT^ SCHOOL/GRADE READING MATH LANGUAGE ARTS SCIENCE SOCIAL STUDIES BADGETT 3 6 BALES 6 BASELINE 3 6 BOOKER 3 6 BRADY 3 6 CARVER 3 6 CHICOT 3 6 CLOVERDALE 3 6 DODD 3 6 FAJR PARK 3 6 FOREST PARK 3 8 FRANKLIN 3 6 FULBRiGKrS 6 QARLAN0 3 6 QEYER SPRINGS 3 6 GIBBS 3 6 ISH3 6 JEFFERSON 3 8 MABELVALE 3 8 MCDEFBAOnS 8 HEADOWCUFF 3 6 MICHELL 3 8 OUERCREEKS 6 PULASKI HEIGHTS 3 8 OHrSELL3 8 ROCKEFELLER 3 6 ROMINES 6 STEPHENS 3 6 TERRY 3 6 WAKEFIELD 3 8 WASHMQTON 3 8 WATSONS 6 WESTERN HILLS 3 6 W1LUAMS 3 8 WILSON 3 8 WOODRUFF 3 6 DUNBAR FOREST HBGHTS HENDERSON MABELVALE MANN PULASKI HEtOHTS SOUTHWEST ALL 73 88 67 86 85 88 93 99 P 98 99 96 .65 P 94 92 74 79 91 85 93 98 92 94 P 96 69 91 95 100 90 98 75 P 90 98 86 88 94 99 84 98 93 94 92 100 88 P 96 93 M 95 84 91 59 94 93 IM 87 96 90 93 P 95 93 92 94 1W P 87 P 98 B 69 86 65 84 83 85 90 98 77 98 98 92 54 88 97 89 78 78 91 81 87 97 90 95 72 93 67 90 93 100 83 100 75 83 89 97 74 85 91 96 78 96 92 94 83 too 80 87 96 93 85 95 87 90 60 92 89 too 82 94 80 84 77 92 94 89 97 100 84 90 80 97 w 88 100 71 100 100 92 97 100 94 100 100 100 94 92 85 too 71 -79 91 100 too 100 100 86 97 100 too 100 100 100 100 95 90 100 95 92 100 too 96 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 75 100 50 100 97 100 95 100 100 100 94 100 93 100 97 100 92 79 100 100 ALL 92 58 75 81 P 93 91 97 80 92 97 86 56 72 96 92 S3 80 88 88 99 100 87 83 83 92 58 76 100 too 88 90 75 83 90 98 77 76 89 96 81 100 100 88 96 too 90 89 92 93 97 95 94 84 65 94 93 97 88 85 98 100 77 95 98 too 94 97 72 91 76 98 B 90 62 73 78 78 96 88 96 74 91 96 75 49 68 97 91 80 78 88 85 97 100 87 81 72 88 58 n 100 100 78 95 75 83 83 97 70 74 86 96 75 100 100 88 92 100 84 90 92 93 96 95 97 83 60 92 89 98 83 81 96 100 72 94 97 too 91 97 68 94 67 97 W 100 40 86 100 100 85 97 100 94 100 98 100 75 85 92 100 88 84 91 100 100 100 75 86 100 97 100 67 100 100 100 85 100 100 p 81 95 95 91 100 100 100 100 100 88 100 100 83 too too 100 97 96 94 94 100 100 89 96 100 100 97 96 85 88 too too ALL 58 67 54 87 78 76 56 59 59 74 92 68 81 50 80 90 83 82 58 87 85 82 81 76 80 73 65 69 85 84 88 95 86 92 S3 80 B 80 63 52 78 74 63 51 49 49 P 90 65 68 52 86 90 83 72 61 82 79 82 63 77 80 71 65 75 76 81 77 94 81 n P 73 W 57 100 54 100 100 90 69 85 79 100 95 71 97 33 67 90 92 81 90 94 96 75 100 50 190 89 97 96 100 93 71 100 ALL 38 58 44 82 90 n 43 71 61 59 75 49 82 59 85 85 91 58 76 68 71 83 74 80 68 56 69 79 66 93 78 68 p 83 93 B it S3 44 71 88 61 29 60 51 48 69 43 73 55 93 81 P n 39 67 50 71 63 67 80 67 54 75 71 62 84 73 S3 75 94 90 W ao 87 46 97 100 95 85 100 79 100 82 71 94 100 67 90 100 100 85 92 94 96 100 100 75 92 72 100 68 100 89 79 100 ALL 38 58 54 92 73 78 44 P 55 68 80 55 86 53 95 83 75 80 58 82 78 76 85 74 80 68 75 68 85 78 81 74 78 88 65 75 B 38 58 59 P 70 61 34 48 46 59 72 49 76 48 100 81 75 P 50 74 71 76 63 70 80 17 73 n 76 72 65 67 75 81 65 70 W 40 48 100 100 91 77 92 74 100 90 71 100 100 83 85 10c 73 98 88 100 88 100 100 too 83 95 88 86 96 64 86 83 86 84 85 95 89 89 81 81 80 78 93 00 88 88 98 97 97 98 99 98 75 89 88 85 87 87 n 79 69 84 85 78 81 75 74 84 88 98 98 97 95 99 U 77 77 81 80 84 93 84 77 74 73 74 76 78 89 72 72 87 86 95 97 97 97 97 95 61 50 71 58 58 71 71 56 52 40 60 49 40 55 48 50 O 71 94 65 88 92 96 80 53 56 79 56 65 80 66 47 48 52 71 51 53 71 47 42  65 63 95 73 P P ' P i 61Thursday, August 8, 1991... Democrat LRSD Metropolitan Achievement Test comparison I Sr.high Central Fair Hall McClellan Parkview I i Jr. high loverOale Dunbar Forest Heights Henderson Mabelvale Mann Pulaski Heights Southwest - 1990 7 B W 40 62 28 47 42 81 41 79 34 73 51 85 42 88 41 64 1990 10 B W 42 84 38 71 45 78 38 63 56 81 1991 7 B W 32 53 46 80 36 70 33 74 34 61 53 83 34 84 34 48 1991 10 B W 42 86 37 63 40 74 40 65 57 84 1990 8 B W 35 55 24 44 43 78 38 76 41 65 50 85 38 80 33 73 1990 11 B W 38 81 32 64 38 73 28 58 41 68 1991 8 B W 34 56 30 61 40 77 37 78 36 70 49 84 33 84 35 61 1991 11 B W 40 85 36 70 42 76 37 59 54 79 1990 9 B W 52 73 42 68 50 85 54 83 52 78 63 91 52 89 53 73 Chart shows percentile ranking, by grade and race, of the test's complete battery, comparing 1990 scores to 1991 scores. A ranking in the 50th percentile is considered average. 1991 9 B W 45 64 44 77 49 83 46 84 45 72 61 90 50 85 42 67 I ! Elementary 1990 1 B W 1991 1 B W Badgett Bale Baseline Booker Brady Carver \u0026lt; . Chicot Cloverdale Dodd , Fair Pai^' Forest Park 29 40 55 79 45 66 27 83 45 54 30 50 41 74 38 74 23 63 46 72 95 73 41 59 29\n48: 66 40 27 50 21 78 97 42 1990 2 B W 30 46 30 53 60 63 60 80 42 84 63 93 26 48 63 50 60 52 32 79 40 \u0026lt;71 64 89 49 93 33 45 53 88 57 94 1991 2 B W 26 51 33 55 41 57 41 78 28 55 61 92 43 61 70 81 26 31 33 70 61 93 1990 3 B W 20 39 40 63 40 63 42 75 30 69 46 87 35 62 49 76 38 71 34 66 43 91 Frankiih. Fulbright _ 27 44 37-82 23 72 49 86 Garland 37 - 31 65 Geyer Springs 51 63 54 74 Gibbs :\u0026lt;\u0026lt;:4\n:\u0026gt; Ish Jeffersonii Mabelvale ,\u0026lt;\n: 40 84 39 88 43 25 28 60 . 38 78 25 \u0026lt;77 23 49 32 55 46 52 27 51 32 54 49 83 34 80 34 77 27 83 23 46 26 52 64 43 70 . 28 51 48 90 58 93 32 35 57 47 61 48 McDermott-  49 92 43 80 Meadowcliff MitcheiL- \u0026gt;  Otter Creek 31 67 32 60 \u0026lt; 48 91 53 71 57 84 37 80 44 76 42 74 46 88 50 59 34 63 33 53 62 89 61 87 44 78 34 73 44 60 32 78 42 23 44 75 47 28 43 78 45 80 Pulaski-'Heights 26 72 21 64 Rightsell Rockefeller Romine ,, Stephens\"  Terry Wakefield Washington Watson Western Hills Williams Wilson Woodruff 51 73 47 - \u0026lt;39 43 33 70 ,38 48 55 , 44 25 61 33 - 40 85 64 - 34 37 40 81 48 79 46 52 39 68 20 63 45 94 40 54 50 58 1991 3 B W 29 56 26 37 37 47 39 73 34 61 55 90 23 49 54 53 34 36 38 83 46 89 38 77 40 81 25 57 37 66 49 86 37  40 80 31 ^7 44 75 36 76 45 56 51 81 1990 4 B W 35 35 27 45 53 59 1991 4 B 31 36 49 50 80 .44 44 70 72 93 38 70 39 63 62 54 58 80 57 1990 5 B 21 29 44 84 49 69 1991 5 B W 1990 6 B W 35 21 37 46 29 5 4 45 69 49 49 49 75 47 83 51 84 61 88 49 84 42 71 57 83 90 55 91 65 91 68 92 46 63 32 64 37 73 45 72 Q7 79 .17 85 39 63 49 55 41 26 44 72 29 75 53 87 36 62 44 68 40 37 53 49 47 90 32 47 29 , 45 49 85 51 87 \\53 99 : 59 81 25 - 51 76 52 83 50 74 49 82 38 - 40 67 40 55 59 38 50 42 60 55 74 41 52 80 32 58 46 84 95 52 88 36 85 53 :43 81 41 76 79 44 82 43 80 40 37 v' -\u0026lt;45 1991 6 B W 33 37 37 83 53 57 49 87 ' 51 82 50 91 39 70 39 63 38 64 66 82 57 95 49 64: 52 73 48 38 37 75 41 65 61 92 59 93 60 58 47 10 36 61 38 23 61 80 59 71 63 91 58 92 60 93 66 85 37 63 50 75 55 54 52 88 41 86 41 92 89 58 82 47 92\u0026lt; 46 64 35 57 34 34 35 55 51 62 45 53 51 84 62 84 49 49 38 68 41 80 55 83 53 61 37 82 43 27 72 - 44 83 58 83 45 76. 36 53 28 73 32 - 31 41 40 40 47 82 19 66 43 42 45 47 53 41 48 45 49 56 47 67 47 75 47 .40 53 \u0026lt;44 52 53 - \u0026lt; 53 43 88 58 82 50 78 41 36 59 31 :79 33 69 48 40 39 90 58 J 28 38 33 - 60 35 58 33 58 27^ 42 35 27 82 58 28 75 28 33 43 46 40 70 54 62 58 67 35 44 44 46 66 64 89 50 87 44 44 48 55 53 23 61 54 54 42 95 36 - 43 49 54 58 27 44 78 53 79 53 53 43 70 53 79 65 83 54 40 64 32 70 48 48 45 ' 61 56 73 55 65 79 39 84 40 85 30 30 41 74 51 38 88 33 51 30 46 32 74 39 55 45 48 25 66 48 85 50 83 84 94 87 :95 82 70 77 82 33 25 20 33 46 78 58 85 59 82 43 97 91 82 93 70 91 63 50 65 61 56 50 53 27 35 56 67 19 60 38 27 75 85 47 69 59 77 60 61 55 55 51 72 48 68 53 72 54 75 42 75 52 52 46 74 51 83 55 80 83 89 46 59 36 48 75 92 72 72 75 87 75 92 72 90 47 44 50 50 43 60 53 74 59 62 28 30 42 42 43 66 51 59 48 75Au.qust 12, 1991 Monday Arkansas Ppmncrat MAT 6 anaylsis for elementary schools (Total possible score is 600. School average of 50% or higher is 300 or more total points) _ . ' Total points I B ^4 Total points  Ranking 1 '??:.'2 3 Name Williams Magnet Car/er Magnet- Forest Park area Total points' i 4 Gibbs Magrwt 5 Otter Creek area 7 . 0 9 : 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 .27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 6 Terry area 502   455 402\n393:::'.- ' Name Williams Jefferson area McDermott area Fulbright area Booker Magnet Western Hills area Cloverdale area Washington Magnet Wilson area M J- Mitchell incentive Geyer Springs aroa Meadowcliff area Remine area- V Watson area Fair Park area \u0026lt; Rightseil incentive Rockefeller incentive Wakefield area , Brady areaii' Pul. Heights area Stephens incentive Baseline area Ish incentive Woodruff area Mabelvale area Chicot area [jodd area Franklin area Badgett area\nBale area Garland incentive 392  , 372 366 363 349 338 335 320 308 308 306 291 283 - 283 ( 283 282 281 281 279 269 . 268: 267 264 262 260 255 226 .218 :213 Carver \u0026lt; Gibbs Cloverdale Wilson Forest Park Mitchell Terry (black) 454 'S\u0026lt;i367''  329 .:.:S:329\n\u0026gt;-.' Name Carver (per 600 whita pupils 551 Forest Park ' 548 McDermott Romine Western Hills Otter Creek Rightsell Stephens Geyer Springs Ish Booker Fulbright Baseline Watson Fair Park Rockefeller Meadowcliff Jefferson Wakefield Brady Franklin Dodd Chicot Mabelvale ' Badgett Pul. Heights 325 312 311 303 296 294 284 283 272 i 272 263: 262 259 259 258 246 245 245 242 240 240 226 218 217 212 209 : :::208 Washington 207 Garland Woodruff Bale 204 202 188 Williams Gibbs- : Jefferson Otter Creek? Washington Booker McDermott Fulbright\\ : Western Hills Terry Pul. Heights Fair Park Rockefeller Meadowcliff Brady Franklin Cloverdale Watson. - Geyer. Springs Wakefield Bale Chicot Romine Wil sen Woodruff Mabelvale Dodd Bale . Baagett Stephens\" Garland\" Mitcheir* Ish\" Rightseil\" 542 537 498 490 483 481 477 475 . - 472 468 : 426 417 415 409 404 402 400 372: \\ 369 368 366 358 354 351 345 330 325 318 306 283 261 255 206 *AI1 pupils based on total percentile rank for each grade \"Total points possible are less than 6CC because there were not white students enrolled in all grades.Metropolitan Achievement Tests ,tK': The chart shows how Arkansas students ranked against national percentiles on the MAT~6 tests, 1986-91 I '86 '87 '88 '89 '90 '91 Composite / Basic Battery 64 66 66 67 67 65 Total reading 60 62 62 62 62 61 Total math 67 68 67 70 70 69 Total language 63 64 65 66 65 64 u Composite / Basic Battery 54 58 59 60 61 60 Total reading 51 53 55 Total math 53 57 58 Total language 55 59 61 55 59 62 55 54 60 59 63 61 ( Composite / Basic Battery 53 54 55 56 58 57 , fOtA, Total reading 49 49 50 Total math 50 51 52 Total language 58 59 60 51 51 52 I 53 61 55 54 62 61 SOURCE: Nat'l Education Assn. 7- M. STOREY / Democrat-Ga2etteI I, t * Arkansas Democrat MONDAY, AUGUST 12, 1991 B  I  I 4 J J 1 U Magnet schools rank highest in MAT6 scores 4  l! , BY CYNTHIA HOWELL Democrat Staff Writer A ranking of Little Rock\nSchool District schools based I on their Metropolitan Achieve- ! ment Test results from last I I spring puts Williams Magnet I Elementary, Mann Magnet Jun- i ior High and Parkview Magnet I High schools on top. : Garland Elementary, South- i west Junior High and McClellan High schools make up the bottom of the lists when only test scores are considered. The test assesses students in the areas of social studies, mathematics, reading, language arts and science. Williams, which offers a basic skills magnet program, had the highest number of points, followed by Carver Basic Skills/Math-Science Magnet School, Forest Park Elementary, Gibbs International Studies Magnet School and Otter Creek Elementary School. Four of the top 10 elementary schools were magnet schools, meaning they have special academic themes, strict rules on parent involvement and are open to pupils from all three Pulaski County school districts. The schools were created to enhance desegregation and are financed by all three districts and the state, which pays half the cost of educating each child. Parents voluntarily enroll their children in the magnet schools. No students are assigned to the schools. Little Rock Superintendent Ruth Steele in an interview last week cautioned that ranking schools could be like comparing apples and oranges. You have to remember that children or their parents want to be at the magnet schools and that they came from all three school districts, she said. They have waited on lists or participated in a lottery to be in those schools. That can be very different than staying at an assigned school. She also noted that poverty can affect student achievement and the incidence of poverty is likely to be greater among students in the districts area schools and predominantly black incentive ! 4 H I  3 ' J J i schools. Area schools are schools that have attendance I J zones and no special court-or- J dered desegregation program. The Arkansas Democrat t  I t  ranked the schools based on 5 ' the school-by-schooi, grade-by- t 1 grade data released by the dis- , trict last week. Three sets of 5 rankings were done using the ? test scores of all students, the a | scores of all black students J I and the scores of all white Stu- * dents. The rankings revealed: ,  Tremendous disparities j 4 exist between the average 4 achievement levels of black 4 and white students in the dis- 5 trict, and between schools in ,4 the district.  Eight elementary schools 1 I that ranked in the top 12 had both high white scores and the ! high black scores, indicating * that schools that do a good job ! for one race do a good job for J the other.  The elementary incentive J schools, which get double per- J See SCORES, Page 5B I I i J 1 Scores MAT 6 anaylsis for elementary schools  Continued from Arkansas Page pupil funding and are designed to improve the achievement level of black children, had mixed test results. Mitchell Elementary ranked highest among the incentive schools.  Some of the districts area schools, like Forest Park, Cloverdale, McDermott and Western Hills, reported high or fairly high test results. Those schools dont get the special funding and public attention that magnets and incentive schools get. The school rankings were determined by adding the percentile scores for all grades at a school. Fer example, Williams first-graders scored at the 92nd percentile. That was added to the second grade per- centile of 88, the third-grade percentile of 75, the fourthgrade score of 85, the fifthgrade score of 80 and the sixthgrade score of 82 for a total of 502 points. The highest number of points possible at any grade wa.s 100, thus the total perfect score would be 600. An average score was 300. Eighteen of the districts elementary schools scored above the 300 mark and 18 scored below. When the scores of black students were considered. only nine schools had 300 or more points. When white scores were considered in isolation, all schools scored above average. (The average for white students is less than 300 at some of the incentive schools because there were not white students in every grade.) I told the principals that whatever conclusions are drawn about the test scores, it is clear that what happens in a class to white students is very different than what happens to . black students, Steele said. Theres a lot of work for everybody to do. Im not pleased\nI cant be pleased when there are disparities of 30 percentile points or more between black and white children. (Total possible score is 600. School average of 50% or higher is 300 or more total points) Ranking Name 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 Williams Magnet Carver Ma^t Forest Park area Gibbs Magnet Otter Creek area Terry area Jefferson area McDermott area Fulbright area Booker Magnet Western Hilts area Cloverdale area Washington Magnet WSson area Mitchell incentive Geyer Springs aroa Meadowcliff area Romine area Watson area Fair Park area Rightsell incentive Rockefeller incentive Wakefield area Brady araa Pul. Heights area Stephens incentive Baseline area Ish tocentive Woodruff ares Mabelvale area Chicot area Dodd area Franklin area Badgett area Bale area Garland incentive Total points* Name 502 474 455 444 402 393 392 377 372 366 363 349 338 335 320 308 308 306 291 283 283 283 282 281 261 279 269 268 267 264 262 260 255 226 218 213 Williams Carver Gibbs Cloverdale Wilson Forest Park Mitchell Terry McDermott Romir\u0026gt;e Western Hilis Otter Creek Rightsell Stephens Total points (black) 454 367 329 329 325 322  312 311 303 296 294 284 283 272 Name Carver Forest Park Williams Gibbs Jefferson Otter Creek Washington Booker McDermott Fulbright Total points (per 600 white' pupils Geyer Springs 272 Ish Booker Fulbright Baseline Watson Fair Park Rockefeller Meadowcliff Jefferson Wakefield Brady Franklin Dodd Chico\nMabelvale Badgett Pui. Weights Washington Garland Woodruff Bate 263 262 259 259 258 246 245 245 242 240 240 226 218 21' 212 209 208 207 204 202 188 Western Hills Terry Pul. Heights Fair Park Rockefellei Meadowcliff Brady FrankJir^ Cloverdale Watson 551 548 542 537 498 490 483 481 477 475 472 468 426 417 415 409 404 402 400 372 I I I Geyer Springs 369 Wakefield Bale Chicot Romine Wil sen Woodruff Mabelvale Dodd Bale Badgett Stephens* Garland Miicbeil** Ish** Rightseil* 368 366 358 354 351 345 330 325 318 306 283 261 255 206 All pupils based on total percentile rank for each grade Total points possible are less than 600 because there were not white students enrollee in all grades. The results of the MAT6 will be used to determine whether the district must repay a $20 million loan to the state of Arkansas. The loan is a provision in the districts financial settlement of the 8-year-oid school desegregation lawsuit with the state. If the district raises the average score of black children to 90 percent of the average score of white students by the year 2000, the district will not have to repay the money. The incentive schools are intended to help the district meet that goal by offering after-school, weekend and summer programs, as well as smaller class sizes, parent centers and field trips. When the scores of black children are considered by themselves, Mitchell students ranked seventh in the district. Rightsell Elementary ranked : 13th, Stephens was i4th and Ish was 16th, Rockefeller was 22nd and Garland 34th. Black students at Mitchell outscored black students at Terry, McDermott, and Jefferson, which are area schools, and at | Booker Magnet and Washing- 5 ton Magnet elementaries. In the junior high rankings, ,, Mann was first, followed by Pulaski Heights, Forest  Heights, Dunbar, Henderson, Mabelvale, Cloverdale and j Heights Southwest. Dunbar, the dis- s tricts newest magnet school, showed some large gains in scores when compared to last year. At the high school level, Parkview was first, followed by I Central, Hall, Fair and McClel- j Ian. When only the scores of white students were ranked, Central Parkview. was ahead ofuiasKi Black pupils in LRSD below national average on Stanford 8 scores BY CYNTHIA HOWELL Democrat-Gazette Staff Writer Black pupils in the Little Rock School District on average scored below the national average in all subjects and at all reported grade levels on the new Stanford Achievement Test. Eighth Edition. White pupils, on the average, scored above the national average in ail subjects and at -all grades reported. Dr. Ruth Steele, whose last day of work in the Little Bock School District is today, said Thursday the scores had changed little since last year. A disparity between black and white pupils continues to exist in the district, Steele said. As superintendent, I must say that one of my disappointments has been our inability to significantly raise the test scores and reduce the disparity, she said. score earned by black pupils was at the 48th percentile in sixth-grade math and fifth- grade social studies. The lowest average score was at the 28th percentile in fifth-grade reading. The 50th percentile is considered to be the national average. 7 must say that one of my disappointments has been our inability to significantly raise the test scores and reduce the disparity. ARKANSAS DEMOCRAT-GAZETTE FRIDAY, JUNE 26, 1992 LRSD SAT results Stanford Achievement test. Eighth Edition national percentile {Districtwide summary, 1992) rank The achievement disparity between the races exceeded 30 points in some subjects and grades. . Steele is retiring from the district and will become a half-time associate professor in the College of Education at the University of Central Arkansas. Dr. Mac Bernd, formerly a superintendent in San Diego County, Calif., will replace her. According to the test results, the highest average The highest average score for white pupils was at the 77th percentile in second-grade math and the lowest was at the 57th percentile in grade-nine math. The achievement disparity between the races exceeded 30 points in some subjects and grades. In eighth-grade reading, white pupils scored at the 67th percentile, compared to black pupils 29th percentile score. A total of 19,287 pupils in grades one through 11 took the nationally standardized exam last spring. The Stanford 8 replaces the Metropolitan Achievement Test, Sixth Edition, which had been administered in past years. The Stanford 8 compares the achievement levels of Little Rock pupils with the achievement levels of a national sample of pupils who took the same tests. The test is especially signif- Grade/ race 1 TOTAL B W 2 TOTAL B W 3 TOTAL B W . -4 TOTAL 5 TOTAL B _______W. 6 TOTAL B _______W .2JQTAL 8 TOTAL B ______ML 9 TOTAL B ______ML *10 TOTAL 11 TOTAL B W Number tested 2,094 1,330 697 1,883 1,173 672' 1,783 1,131 632 1.867 1,922 1,288 612 1,843 1,209 609 1.694 1,573 1,060 493 1,554 995 ___53fi_ 1.602 1,472 825 612 Total Total Environment Soc. reading math Lang. Science science 42 35 63 39 29 62 39 27 63 44 38 26 63 50 37 24. AZ 41 29 44 30 ja. 49 50 34 69 48 40 70 57 46 n 58 46 76 58 53 43 2L 57 74 JS. 39 30 59 34 23 .52. 37 43 32 59 41 32 63 49 39 70 50 38 70 4^ 48 38 52 51 41 55 45 48 38 52. 54 42 25 48 48 35 66 37 27 59 43 32 65 43 30 67 46 45 33 20. 54 43 24. .42. 45 34 58. 50 38 22. 45 47 32 68 46 35 67 48 46 37 55. 59 48 25 42 46 34 22 49 36 73 43 51 36 69 Complete battery 39 31 64 45 33 70 47 34 70 47 44 32 ___S2_ 54 43 75 ___4S_ 43 30 ___sa_ 48 34 73 47 51 34 12. 'Data by race for grades 4,7 and 10 are unavailable at this time. \" At grades 1 and 2 the SCIENCE and SOCIAL SCIENCE objectives are combined and reflected as one score under ENVIRONMENT NOTE: Totals may not add up because other* category was omitted. leant to the Little Rock School District in light of the district's financial settlement agreement with the state of Arkansas. If the district raises the average scores of black children to at least 90 percent of the average score earned by white pupils by the year 2000, the district will not have to repay a $20 million loan. The state is loaning the district the money to aid in the districts desegregation efforts. The district Thursday had not yet broken the test scores down by school, said Sterling Ingram, director of the districts planning, research and evaluation office. The district also does not have the fourth-, seventh- and 10th-grade scores broken down by race yet Those grades are handled differently in scoring the tests because the test results must be reported to the state Department of Education./   ARKANSAS DEMOCRAT-GAZETTE  THURSDAY, MAY 14,1992  1 2Wof LR eighth-graders fail state performance test t I L BY CYNIHIA HOWELL Democrat-Gazette Stall Writer The number of Little Rock eighth-graders who failed the Arkansas Minimum Performance Test in March climbed to LRSD 1992 MPT results (Eighth grade summary) a record 412 pupils, who arc now in jeopardy of not being promoted. Statistics released Wednesday by the Little Rock School District show that 23 percent of 1.781 eighth-graders failed the exam on the first attempt. Last year, 400 pupils, or 22 percent of the test-takers, failed the exam on the first try. 'The Minimum Performance Test, mandated by the slate, tests students in reading, math, language arts, science and social studies. It is given to pupils in third, sixth and eighth grades, though only eighth-graders must pas.s the exam to be eligible for promotion to the ninth grade. The Little Rock eighth- graders' failure rates are^ almost 7 percentage point.s higher than those recorded for the North Little Rock and Pulaski County Special school districts, which released their All students I No. tested No. passed Percent passed Black males  Percent passed Black females - Percent passed White males  Percent passed White Females Percent passed Other--------------- Percent passed Reading 1,781 1,505 85 Math 1,781 1,523 86 Lang. Arts 1,781 1.435 81 Science 1,781 1,110 62 Soc. Slud. 1,781 1,172 66 Total 1,781. 1,369 77 76 79 69 57 57 NA 81 84 81 47 57 NA 96 98 97 94 88 87 84 NA 95 95 83 85 NA 92 86 81 81 NA 3 testing results Tuesday. Eighth-graders in both those districLs had 16.2 percent fail- ure rates. Pupils have three chances to pass the eighth-grade test The test will be given again May 26-29 and once more July 24-2!l. Last year, 92 percent of the eighth-graders . districts passed the test after three tries. Of the Little Rock eighth- graders who failed, 90 percent are black, though black.s make up 64 percent of the district's enrollment. A total of 372 black eighth-graders failed the test, as did 40 white pupils. Seventy pupils, or 34 percent of the test-takers at Southwest Junior High School, failed the test thi.s year. South- west's failure rate was the highest among the eight junior high schools. Mann Magnet Junior High School had the highest pass rate 87 percent. Here are the failure rates fol' the other junior highs:  Forest Heights Junior High - 73 failures, 32 percent.  Mabelvale Junior High - 52 failures, 30 percent.  Henderson Junior High - 54 failures, 25 percent.  Dunbar Magnet Junior High - 50 failures, 21 percent.  Cloverdale Junior High - 37 failures, 17 percent.  Pulaski Heights Junior High - 30 failures, 16 percent. Among the district's third- graders, 68 percent passed the reading test, compared to 88 percent last year. Eighty-seven percent of the third-graders passed the math test last year, compared to 91 percent this year. At Carver Magnet Elementary School, all third-graders passed the reading test and 99 percent passed the math test. See TEST, Page 7B lebi j  Continued horn Pulaski Page\nAll Gibbs Magnet School third- */[ (I __________ js^uisiig nin fit ittainHn I r graders the test All s ividf^iivb .J...--- passed both parts of 1 \"Uie Uiird-graders at 1, Otter Creek, J\n^I(i:i^'aTwe\n^n-llills I passed the math test. Overall, pas.s rates lor sixth- Overall, pass uveiaii, , graders fell from 94 percent to m normiil Ulis year in reading. 92 percent this year  90 ^r-U to 89 1 in inatli.iind rroni TH perceiiUo\n77 percent in language aits. ____ imnro I ates improved The pass rates improveu 73 percent to 75 percent from LRSD desegregation official resigns to take post at Hendrix ir science JI VVHV vv r- - and 73 percent to 74 IP hvivuv-'- I..-  1 l^uccnt in social studies. I Janies Jennings, associate .superintendent for desegregation in tile Little Rock School District, said Wednesday that lie i.s resigning to become an assistant professor of education at Hendrix College in Con- I  way. Jennings, who has been an associate superintendent since March 1987 and a district I L i I einployce since 1977, said his resignation is effective Juno 30. lie is completing liis doctorate in educational administra- tion this spring at Vanderbilt University in Nashville, Tenn. He will attend Memphis Slate University thi.s summer and next fall to obtain a master's degree in history. Jennings is one of five top administrators leaving the district this year. The others include Superintendent Ruth Steele, Deputy Superintendent Tony Wood, Manager for Support Services Janies Ivey and Transportation Director Richard Johnson.Arkansas Democrat W(Sazettc ABk-AMCAg- MCWCPAPFR LITTLE ROCK. AUGUST 14,1992 88 PAGES 9 SECTIONS 35e White students still outpace blacks, achievement tests show BY CYNTHIA HOWELL Democrat-Gazette Staff Writer White students in the Little Rock School District continued to outperform blacks in standardized tests in 1991-92, according to school-by-school results on the Stanford Achieve- mejit Test, eighth edition. - The scores were released .i74th percentile to the 82nd per- Thursday for exams taken in April by 19,287 students in grades kindergarten through 11. They show wide variations in achievement between schools. For example, Williams Basic Skills Magnet Elementary School averaged scores for the six grades that ranged from the i centile. Pupils in five of the six, ^ades at Garland and Franklin incentive elementaries averaged scores that were below the 30th percentile. The 50th percentile is considered the national average. We have some areas to cheer about, and some we could hold a wake over, Dr. Mac .1 Bernd, Little Rocks new school superintendent, said. The test shows us where we need to improve. The test results and the elimination of the racial disparity gap are especially important to the Little Rock district. Narrowing the gap would be a general sign that )^e district is ac- . - ) eomplishing its desegregation goals. Also, if the district narrows the gap to the degree that the average score of black students is at least 90 percent of the average score of white students by 2000, the district won't have to repay a $20 million desegrega- See TESTS, Page 14AH4A  ARKANSAS DEMOCRAT-GAZETTE  FRIDAY, AUGUST 14,1992 LRSD Stanford 8 Test results Chart shows percentile ranking, by grade and race, of the tests complete battery. A ranking in the 50th percentile is considered average. Elementary Badgett Dale Baseline Booker(M) Brady Carver (M) Chicot Cloverdale Dodd Fair Park Forest Park Franklin (1) Fulbright Garland (I) Geyer Springs Gibbs (M) Ish (1) Jefferson Mabelvale' McDermott Meadowcliff Mitchel! (I) Otter Creek Pulaski Heights Righlsell (I) Rockefeller (I) Romine Stephens (I) Terry Wakefield Washington (M) Watson Western Hills Williams (M) Wilson Woodruff 1 2 3 4 5 6 TOT BL WT TOT BL WT TOT BL WT TOT BL WT TOT BL WT TOT BL WT 19 20 27 23 27 25 35 21 47 36 76 68 35 26 56 54 21 22 33 26 61 29 21 19 40 18 26 26 32 26 49 36 25 25 54 21 31 24 59 35 31 26 26 25 54 38 42 18 39 40 42 37 49 47 24 24 61 43 21 18 55 38 24 22 43 29 80 72 68 67 28 14 17 65 34 54 66 85 50 71 20 70 84 48 66 38 68 75 40 84 44 49 70 73 51 63 25 71 33 82 32 61 89 71 56 39 31 67 29 26 54 28 22 47 52 35 74 44 39 58 73 54 89 36 26 56 49 39 77 36 27 44 31 22 71 64 30 74 23 21 59 60 41 75 26 23 58 47 40 64 71 53 84 43 43 49 58 28 77 37 27 52 61 40 82 34 28 47 26 26 12 57 30 69 55 27 76 58 58 - 30 24 53 25 26 16 22 22 - 54 33 67 36 26 48 52 29 81 39 34 64 52 40 72 79 68 89 58 54 63 26 18 40 33 30 45 31 30 35 38 31 63 44 29 60 30 20 64 72 49 90 39 36 46 54 50 61 31 28 35 36 27 72 66 32 66 20 18 42 63 35 78 17 17 - 33 33 32 72 57 88 31 31 - 63 46 76 38 28 52 69 54 81 31 29 27 30 27 71 60 39 76 62 39 78 34 34  25 18 39 40 40 42 31 31 - 68 50 82 37 30 49 44 22 72 31 20 58 53 40 71 77 67 86 45 41 56 35 28 60 32 25 44 60 38 74 37 57 42 41 56 23 56 26 / 33 lij 67 m 38 3 58 g 36 \u0026lt; 56 5 37 H 26 i 56 i 47 I 32 I 26 i 41 I 47 1 54 i 42 i 51 i 40 i 39 i 74 I 38 i 33 5 lU co \u0026lt; O z 21 20 24 31 28 47 35 36 32 51 41 65 33 29 41 63 42 82 40 32 54 49 43 63 48 42 44 30 27 71 57 31 87 20 19 18 46 29 61 28 28 - 32 25 49 67 40 88 31 32 20 68 37 85 38 30 49 53 40 68 33 19 56 42 40 67 52 37 69 44 28 62 29 29 - 35 32 52 39 38 42 26 26 - 46 31 67 28 22 56 46 28 70 45 46 44 40 31 60 74 59 86 30 29 39 45 38 54 41 38 46 30 27 46 37 36 46 59 44 76 44 32 66 79 69 90 47 36 59 51 50 56 56 48 65 47 41 75 64 43 82 36 34 67 66 40 78 38 38 - 44 43 48 72 48 87 44 44 - 79 56 90 41 35 52 50 43 67 51 46 67 36 36 - 66 39 84 36 28 54 40 40 - 45 40 61 44 41 76 35 30 76 71 57 82 43 36 59 56 38 78 53 40 71 60 51 72 82 76 88 44 41 56 38 30 50 Jr. high Cloverdale Dunbar(M) Forest Heights Henderson Mabelvale Mann (M) Pulaski Heights Southwest 7 8 9 35 59 50 37 33 55 55 34 LU m LU \u0026lt; 32 27 49 39 33 53 53- 36 72 39 26 65 37 29 66 38 25 69 50 38 74 42 34 70 Sr. high Central Fair Hall McClellan 10 11 37 27 56 ' 42 29 61 O z O z 56 43 79 45 26 76 33 28 50 61 64 82 57 30 82 40 33 66 55 36 43 34 LU CO 3 UJ (D 3 Parkview (M) 58 b z  57 33 82 39 28 58 50 34 69 42 33 56 57 43 75 Noles: Scores lor race by grades 4,7 and 10 are not yel available. Magnet schools are noted with an *M*, Incentive schools are noted with an 'I'. Tests  Continued from Page 1A lion loan from the slate.  Bernd said the districl.s new curriculiini, which begin.s this fall, could improve scores. Its a simple concept of teaching students what you are going to test them on, he said. If we know that long division ixS on the lest, then we should make sure the students know long division and are skilled in it. Asked if the scores would show improvement by next year, Bernd said he gets suspicious if he sees sudden,huge gains in a ^districts test scores. ' I think we can set this district on a course of steady improvement so that in five years people can look back and say, \"We really improved.  Il is difficult to compare the 1991-92 lest scores lo the scores earned in past years because the state changed the test from the Metropolitan Achievement Test (MAT6) to the Stanford 8. Racial disparities existed in test results on the MAT6 as well. While comparisons are hard to make from last year to this year on race disparities, a review of the scores this year showed at least one case where the white first-graders scored 54 points higher than their black */ think we can set this district on a course of steady improvement so that in five years people can look back and say ff f we really improved. classmates. A review of the scores showed that students at the dis tricts seven double-funded, pre- dominantly black incentive schools did not have high average scores. Black second-graders at Rightsell Incentive Elementary School scored at the 58th percentile. That was the only average score for black children in the incentive schools that was above the 50th percentile. Students at the districts magnet schools, which also get extra money, averaged scores higher than the incentive schools. Scores for black children at Williams ranged from the 59th percentile in the fifth grade to 76th percentile in the sixth grade. At Booker Arts Magnet Elementary, however, the scores for the black children ranged from the 21st percentile in the first grade to the 44lh percentile in the sixth grade. Bernd said the incentive schools are going to be the focus of some strong efforts in the coming year. He plans to meet with the principals of those schools soon to discuss ways to improve the schools by encouraging excellent teaching. Bernd is an advocate of the effective schools body research, which prescribes certain steps for improving learning conditions for children. He already has conducted one workshop for Little Rock principals on the program. The test scores showed some strengths at the districts area schools, which arc non-magnet, non-incentive neighborhood schools. Forest Park, Jefferson, and Terry elementary schools were among the schools with average scores over the 50th percentile...IB'- rs I\" it (? tg 5.  THUnSDAY, OCTOBER 8, 1992 LR seniors raise ACT average 0.2 point in 92 ) I ) BY CYNIHIA ROWELI OnnKR'ial G.i7rHP E(1ih\niIiwi WhIpi The composite score earned by Little Rock School Dislrict .senior.s on the American College Test improved in 1992 as compared to 1991. but it remained below the stale and national composite scores. The Little Rock district on Wednesday released its 1992 scores for both the ACT and the Scholastic Achievement Test, the two most common college enirance exams in (he country. More than three times a,s man.v Lillie Rock graduating studenl.s took the AI'T ill 1991- 92 than look the SAT. Thal is I commonly the case, as most , Arkansas colleges and universities retpiest the At/!' score on I enrol I incut applications. The results of the exams I\nshowed that students who took traditional academic courses and Advanced Placement courses are more likely tr? score higher on the college entrance tests. Superintendent Mac Bernd said he hoped to increase the nund)er of advanced courses as a way of improving student achievement levels of both black and white students. Ad vanced Placement courses are LRSD ACT scores ^1992 LRSD SAT scores i National State LRSD Central Fair Hall McClellan Parkview -Noniber 832.217 16,977 1,101 *264 *144 *224 *155 *166 Composite\n___score 20.6 20.0 19.7 19.9 19.1 19.9 18.3 20.7 Black students While sludenls Number Composite Number Composite 1991 Number 75,356 2,373 465 141 65 92 82 85 17 16.7 17.2 16.2 16.4 17.7 17.0 18.9 604,469 11,577 488 123 79 132 73 81 21.3 20,6 21.7 23.0 21.6 21.1 20.0 22.5 tested Verbal 1991 scores* * Includes only black and wtiite tesi takers and nol students of other races _____________ National' State LRSD Central Fair Hall McClellan Parkview 1,032,685 1,660 293 151 15 97 4 26 422 482 467 480 485 434 NA 502 Math 474 523 495 502 527 477 NA 516 1992 Number tested 1,034,131 1,579 315 122 24 96 3 64 1992 scores* Verbal 423 474 453 457 451 441 NA 455 Math 476 516 489 489 521 486 NA 481 * Top score in each category Is 800. NA = not available those courses taken in high school that enable some stu dents to receive college credit for their work. \"We must work to prepare all our students to (pialify for. enroll ill and complete the more advanced and challenging Advanced Placement courses,\" Bernd said. A total of 1.101 graduating students took the ACT in Little Rock. Slightly more students took the test in 1992 than in at least the last four years. The district's composite score of 19.7 reversed an annual decline in score.s since at least 19117. when the composite was 20.2. In 1991. the composite  which i.s c.ilculated from Eiig- lish. mathcnmlics. rcadiiiE and science scores  was 19..5. The Little Rock score was below the national composite of 20.6 and the state composite of 20.0. Parkview Magnet High School students, with a 20.7 composite score, exceeded both the state and national composite scores. The highest possible score is 36. The Little Rock student!! scored the highest in reading. Allowed by English, science, and then math. When the scores arc broken down by race, while student.s in all five Little Rock high school.s scored highest in reading. Black students, however, were likely to score a.s high or higher in subjects other than reading. Average scores for white students were higher than average score.s for black sludenls on both the ACT and the SAT. The largest disparity in ACT scores was the 6.8 poinis between black and white students at Central High. The composite score of Little Rock black students. 17.2. was higher than the Arkansas com posite for black students, 16.7, and the national composite for black students, 17.0. Similarly, the composite score for Little Rock white stu dents, 21.7, was higher than the Arkansas composite for whites, 20.6, and the national composite for wliites, 21.3. On the SAT. a total of315 slu dents took the lest, scoring 453 on the verbal exam and 4B9 on the math exam. Both scores represented a decline from the 19tH scores of 467 on the verbal exam and 495 on the math exam. The number of students taking the lest rose by 22 from 293 in 1991. The Little Rock scores exceeded the national scores of 423 on verbal and 476 on math tests, but they were less than the state averages of 474 on the ver bal test and 516 on the math exam. I 1Arkansas Democrat ^(i^azctte THURSDAY, MARCH 18, 1993 Copyright  1993. Little Rock Newspapers. Inc. B LR group hopes after-school tutors will raise black awareness, grades BY CYNTHIA HOWELL Democrat-Gazette Education Writer An after-school and Saturday educational program that offers academic tutoring and cultural exposure to black students in the Little Rock School District is being planned for next fall by an off-campus group. Wayne E.X. Burt, chief elder of the Council for African-American Progress, said Wednesday that the after-school program will be housed in the education building of the Liberty Hill Baptist Church, 1215 S. Schiller St. The council is seeking at least 24 trained teachers, as well as volunteer tutors, to work in the program, Burt said. The program is designed to serve as many as 500 students in grades one through 12, Burt said. Hours will be 3:30 p.m. until 8 p.m. weekdays and 9 a.m. to noon Saturdays. The program, called the Institute of African-American Studies and Progress, will be financed by council members. No tuition will be charged. Burt announced the councils plans at a lecture at the University of Arkansas at Little Rock. His talk was one of three lectures sponsored this semester by the UALR Black Forum. The program will save the Little Rock School District $20 million, Terrence Cain, education director for the council, said Wednesday. Cain was referring to a $20 million loan from the state of Arkansas that the school district will not have to repay if it can raise black childrens standardized test scores to within 10 percent of white students scores by the year 2000. Cain and Burt said they believe their program can reduce the academic achievement disparity that has traditionally existed. The Council for African- American Progress spent more than a year lobbying the Little Rock School Board to add more information about black history, culture and perspective to the district curricula. The school board did adopt a new curriculum that includes information about a variety of cultures, but council members have said they are not satisfied with those offerings. Burt said the council decided to turn its attention to an afterschool program. In his lecture Wednesday, Burt said blacks must learn to provide for themselves, to create industries and jobs for one another. One segment of the community is producing jobs and two segments need them, he said. He also s4id blacks must learn about themselves as a way to develop self-esteem. Black and white Americans know far more about European history and geography than they do about Africa,land both races must be educated, he said. I (Arkansas Democrat (gazette   FRIDAY, MAY 21, 1993 Copynght  1993. Una Rock Newspapofs. Inc, I Flunking MPT no longer i forces rerun of Sth graded' New law brings other criteria to bear  BY CYNTHIA HOWELL Democrat-Gazette Education Wnter Arkansas Minimum Performance Test wont terrify eighthgraders anymore. It wont force them to repeat the grade or intimidate them into dropping out Instead, the MPT and new tests that will be developed can help students, many educators say. Arkansas pupils in grades three, six and eight have taken the MPT since 1982 to measure their competence in basic skills. In 1988, at the suggestion of the Education Standards Committee led by Hillary Rodham Clinton, schools began to use the test to determine whether eighth-graders could advance to the ninth grade. But a new state law has changed things. The requirement that eighth- graders pass the test before promotion brought considerable criticism. Teachers and parents have complained over the years about the eighth-grade MPT, saying too much instructional time is spent preparing students for a relatively e^asy, multiplechoice test. In a recent Winthrop Rock^ feller Foundation survey at. 2,100 teachers, the educators said the test was too easy, de-^ tracted from the teaching of cre^' ative and advanced thinking\nskills, and was more likely.to cause students to drop out than to motivate them. ' \"i. About one-fifth of the teach?\ners recommended eliminating the test Others suggested maior revisions in the format and the way it is used. -I- i In a significant change of dU  rection, this years Act 846 of the' I legislative session declared th'a^' eighth-graders who flunk the test will not automaticallylbe forced to repeat the eighth grade. And in what proved someJ thing of a surprise to educators\n: ! the provision affects this years: eighth-graders, who took the test in March. I  Under newly adopted guid^ lines, local school districts must establish other criteria which can include MPT failure and bad grades  to decide whether , r See MPT, Page 17AMPT  Continued Irom Page 1A a pupil should be held back. :rm particularly pleased they dropped the compulsory retention, Gene Jones, assistant superintendent for instruction in the North Little Rock School District, said of the new law. 1 was a little surprised they did it this year. -. Jones said he didnt believe mandatory retention had produced better-educated students. Several North Little Rock eighth-graders who failed the exam this year were held back last year for failing the test, he said. Students may be more successful if they know they can be jlromoted if they go to summer school or take other steps to raise their grades or improve their attendance, Jones said. ! Vicki Gray, administrative a'dyiser for student assessment ih the state Department of Education, said this week that despite the law change, school districts must continue with plans to give eighth-graders three chances to pass the exam and offer remedial help to those who do not pass. It's obvious the students have not mastered the skills they will need in ninth grade, Gray said of those who failed the tpsjt on their first try. i It is especially important that eighth-graders learn the skills this year because they will be thd first in the state required to Ilas^ an exit exam to get a high srchool diploma, she said. The exit exam, which will go into effect for the 1996-97 school year, dlso is provided for in Act 846. Act 846 authorizes the state pepartment of Education to change the way student achieve- hient and thinking skills are assessed in the public schools.  The law also spells out how the MPT should be used while Ihe new system is being developed. That transition period piust end by June 30,1996. Education Department officials are circulating a memo describing the law and the testing changes. It notes that:  Beginning next year, Ihird- graders will no longer take the MPT, though the te.st will continue for the sixth and eighth grades.  The Education Department will institute a comprehensive assessment program for grades one through three next year that will include testing and teacher evaluations.  School districts experimenting with alternate forms of student assessments may ask the state Board of Education to waive the MPT requirements for the sixth and eighth grades. The current test was developed by Arkansas educators. It consists of five sections  reading, mathematics, language arts, science and social studies. The exam is given once in March and again at the end of the school year. It is given again in midsummer for those who failed it earlier. In 1988, 98.6 percent of the eighth-graders passed the test. In 1992, 95.7 percent of the eighth-graders passed. Statewide test results are incomplete for this year, although individual school districts have received reports on their students' performances. Virginia Raum, director of counseling services in the Pulaski County Special School District, said the MPT has served a purpose in forcing school officials to look at what individual students were accomplishing. But she also said it is time to move to a different kind of assessment. The county school district is using the same methods it employed in past years to help eighth-graders who failed the test in March. The district hires substitute teachers so that regular classroom teachers can work in small groups with the pupils who failed. Packets of practice questions were sent to the parents so they also can help their children pass the test when they retake it later this month. Decisions on retentions will be made on a case-by-case basis aRer the third administra- I tion of the test, Raum said. Concerning development of a new testing system, Dr. Emma Bass, associate director for school improvement in the Education Department, said the new program may not consist of only a single test. Instead, she said, it will likely be a combination of different kinds of evaluations. The new system for grades one through three must be designed as soon as possible this summer to give school districts time to plan and budget for it, Bass said. Rules and regulations for any new system will be advertised and explained during public hearings, she said.Arkansas Democrat SATURDAY, MAY 22, 1993 Copyright O 1993, Little Rock Newspapers. Inc. I________________________________________________________ _______----------- ---------r - T III ...................................- -    MPT failure rates increase in NLR, county BY CYNTHIA HOWELL Democrat-Qazette Education Writer Failure rates increased for North Little Rock and Pulaski County Special school district eighth-graders on the Minimum Performance Test this year but improved slightly for Little Rock pupils. The test measures mastery of basic skills in reading, mathematics, language arts, science, and social studies. Statistics released by the three Pulaski County districts showed:  Eighteen percent, or 267, of the county district students failed the slate-mandated exam on the first try in March, compared to 16.2 percent, or 223 students, last year.  Twenty-one percent, or 138, of North Little Rock pupils failed, compared to 16.2 percent, or 97 pupils, last year.  Twenty-two percent, or 383, of the Little Rock eighth-graders failed this year, a 1 percent improvement over last year, when a record 23 percent, or 412 pupils failed. Minimum Performance Test resuits 1993 Minimum Performance Test pass/fail rates District____________ Little Rock North Little Rock Pulaski County Special Total tested Total passing 1,750 668 1,455 1,367 (78%) 530 (79% 1,188 (82%) Note: Results following the first administration of the test, which will be given two more times. Source: School districts ___________________ by 1996 as newer, more broad- tive of a first year of a new cur- based exams are developed. The test results are reflec- riculum, Little Rock Superintendent Dr. Mac Bernd said. The district this year began a revised curriculum in most key subject areas in an effort to correct problems found by a team of out-of-state educational auditors in 1991. Until this year, eighthgraders who failed the MPT could not enter the ninth grade. Students who fail the test this year also are in jeopardy of not passing the school year, but Act 846 of the 1993 legislative ses- High. The failure rate was 19 sion says criteria besides the test results must be considered before holding back a student. The MPT will be phased out Total failing 383 (22%) 138 (21%) 267(18%) The MPT will be given again this month and in July. School districts are directed by law to provide remedial help to the students who fail. Schools that have failure rates in excess of 15 percent must implement improvement programs. Following are the school-by-school results for the eighth-grade test:  Little Rock  The failure rate ranged from 16 percent at Mann Magnet Junior High to 29 percent at Cloverdale Junior percent at Dunbar Magnet Junior High, 23 percent at Forest Heights Junior High, 24 percent at Henderson Junior High, 23 percent at Mabelvale Jupior High, 18 percent at Pulaski Heights Junior High and 26 percent at Southwest Junior High.  North Little Rock  The failure rate ranged from 16 percent at Lakewood Middle School to 25 percent at Rose City Middle School. The rate was 19.per- cent at Ridgeroad Middle School. Only two of the'13'students at the alternative school who took the test passed it.'.  Pulaski County Special  The failure rate ranged from 9 percent at Robinson Jiihior High to 27 percent at Fuller Junior High. The failure rale was 18 percent at Jacksonville North Junior High, 26 percent at Jacksonville South Junior High\n10 percent at Northwood Junior High, 14 percent at Oiik Grove Junior High and 18 percent at Sylvan Hills Junior High: Virginia Raum, district director for guidance services, said there were computational errors at Jacksonville North and.Qak Grove, which will be corrected and reflected in later reports.Arkansas AAansas Democrat '^(Fijizcttc MONDAY, JUNE 21, 1993 Copyright O 1993. Little Rock Newspapers, Inc. B Rising remedial student figures disturb educator BY SHAREESE HAROLD ............................. Democrat-Gazette Staff Writer More Arkansas college freshmen took remedial courses in state-supported schools this year than did those who entered Arkansas public colleges and universities last year, a recent report shows. One state education official said the figures are disturbing. According to the 1993 high school feedback report, 57.1 percent of 1991-92 high school grad- uates attending the states public colleges and universities were assigned to at least one remedial course. Last year, 56.6 percent of the 1990-91 graduates were assigned to remedial math, reading or English classes. Remedial courses are semester-long, noncredit skills enhancement classes. Students are placed in these classes based on their performance on the ACT college entrance test or college- sponsored assessment examinations. Each year, the state Department of Higher Education releases two remedial monitoring reports. The high school feedback study shows how Arkansas high school students rank, and the placement status report, prepared by the American College Testing Service each spring, rates remediation levels of all Arkansas college freshmen. Ed Crowe, associate director of planning and research at the state Department of Higher Education, called this years feedback report figures disturbing. Especially since we had 50 percent of Arkansas (high school) students complete the core curriculum in high school, which should have prepared them for college,\" Crowe said. Its a little disappointing because we felt we were making progress. Districts core curricula include college preparatory courses designed to strengthen students math, reading and English skills. The major factor in college placement is whether students take these courses, Crowe said. In Arkansas, 50.7 percent of the fall 1992 freshmen took these courses in high school,___ pared to 43.8 percent last year and 41 percent in 1990. com- STATEWIDE: graduates The feedback report reflects the number of students who took the ACT college entrance exam. Students who score below 19 on any ACT category are automati- cally placed in a remedial course for that particular category. By subject area, 48.2 percent of the 1992 Arkansas graduates needed math remediation, a small decrease from the 48.9 percent who needed such help in 1991. In reading, 29.2 percent See COLLEGE, Pago 5B Pct, needing remediation in: High schools Graduates* l^nglish Math Readino ( Northwest  Fayetteville 107 Fort Smith (Southside) ioi Fort Smith (Northside) Springdale Van Buren Northeast Blytheville Jonesboro Newport Greene Co. Tech. Southwest Arkadelphia Ei Dorado Hope Hot Springs Southeast 69 103 52 46 156 52 .48 65 82 45 37 PULASKI COUNTY: High schools Pct needing remediation in\nGraduates* I English Math Reading J Dermott Pine Bluff Stuttgart 21 53 150 41 15 17 28 21 12 43 22 23 27 26 28 29 35 48 49 51 14 30 41 16 21 57 36 31 38 40 51 49 46 81 74 58 10 17 23 14 13 28 20 29 23 31 27 22 32 College  Continued from Page 1B took remedial courses, up from 27.8 percent the year before, and 33.1 percent needed English remediation, compared with 32.7 percent in 1991. Crowe estimated that 15 percent of the states college-bound seniors last year attended out- of-state and private colleges or universities. Those students are exempt from state-required college-entry testing in math, read- ing and English and are not included in the report. Act 1052 of 1987 requires all freshmen entering state-funded colleges and universities to complete math, reading and English placement tests. Future first-year college students from Arkansas may need fewer remedial programs, Crowe said, because of the states more rigid training for math and science teachers and early intervention. One long-term solution is coming from Governor (Jim Guy) Tuckers suggestion to the state Legislature urging them to look into strengthening the education process of kindergarten to third grades, Crowe said. Students are afraid of taking math and science classes because they were never encouraged to go that way in the early grades. Teachers are now being taught to emphasize those areas by stroking younger students curiosities about math and science. Crowe said once teachers are better trained to teach these courses, remedial placement scores should start to look better. Central Hall J.A. Fair McClellan Parkview Non-dlstrict Ark. School for the Blind Pulaski Co. Special Jacksonville Mills Oak Grove North Pulaski Robinson Sylvan Hills North Little Rock NLR High School Private schools 111 112 89 77 93 3 46 42 38 39 31 33 54 59 46 65 49 100 46 38 33 39 38 -ihM 33 26 27 25 17 13 21 26 ' , 108 44 53 92 39 119 146 55 42 16 13 31 27 25 25 18 29 22 51 48 49 38 38 34 37 29 55 13 46 57 60 43 '' 32 29 29  Flgum ar. la-tax gadoM, anading paOllc cgUagn and [sources: Stale Oept. o( Higher Education: Amencan Colleqe Testing Sarwce. Catholic High School Mount St. Mary Pulaski Academy I Arkansas Baptist 18 12 6 15 18 19 13 31 STOREY/SCALUON/Oemocrar-Ga^etre  SUNDAY, AUGUST 22, 1993  5J SAT results put males ahead Attention countrymen, who may have believed, as I always have, that women are smarter than men. The next time one of your countrywomen starts putting on airs, ask her about the SAT scores. SAT stands for Scholastic Aptitude Test. It is one of the tests that most colleges require would-be college students to take. There is a rousing argument in academic circles as to whether the test accomplishes its purported objective, which is to predict the probability of success in college, but it's been around for a couple of decades and it shows no signs of going away. The 1992 SAT scores were reported and hidden away in Thursdays Democrat-Gazette. Among the phalanx of comparative figures was this one: Men outperformed women. Not by just a little bit. The men creamed the women. Maybe I should say the boys creamed the girls, given that were talking about teen-agers here, but whatever the terminology, the average score of males was 930 to 877 for females. Males beat females on both the math and the verbal portions of the exam. The edge was only eight points on the verbal (428 to 420) so most of the male margin of victory was in the math portion, which measures the skills that will be most valuable in the technological age that is rapidly engulfing us. As you might expect, the College Board, which watches test results more closely than most of us, had a ready excuse for women. Men scored better, board spokesmen said, because they /I ^ohn R. Starr tend to take more difficult science and math courses, such as physics and calculus, in high school. That (and not discrimination) might also be why men have more of the high-paying jobs that demand math and science skills. News in the test scores was not all good for men, whose average score was exactly the same as last year. The womens average score was up a point. When SAT scores are reported, the comparison of the accomplishments of men and women is usually forgotten as the social scientists rush to see how blacks did in comparison with whites. The Scripps Howard News Service, which provided the SAT story used by the Democrat-Gazette this year, neglected to report SAT scores by race. Instead, the story used figures that show that youngsters from families with incomes over $70,000 a year do a lot better than those from families that live on $20,000 to $30,000 a year\nthat those who attend private schools do better than those who attend public schools\nand that those who attend suburban public schools do better than those who attend inner city schools. Results from tests administered by the three Pulaski County school districts did compare white and black performance, and these figures, like those in previous years, demonstrate that, while all men are created equal, differences develop rather quickly and often are quite pronounced. In Little Rock, where the public schools have almost been destroyed in a 26-year effort to equalize educational opportunity between the races, white scores on the Stanford 8 battery of tests were almost double those of blacks. In the fourth grade, whites were in the 75th percentile, which means they did better than 74 percent of the students taking the test nationwide. Blacks were in the 40th percentile. In the seventh grade, whites were in the 69th percentile, blacks in the 31st, In the 11th grade the percentiles were 74 for whites, 34 for blacks. Blacks did best (45th percentile) in the sixth grade, worst (28th percentile) in the first grade, indicating that the schools reduce the environmental factors that contribute to poor performance for the first six years but then begin to lose ground. The good news for Little Rock was that, generally, its students  white and black  did better than those from the other two districts. In the second grade in North Little Rock, blacks scored in the 13th percentile, a performance that should be embarrassing both to their parents and to the school district. ----------------- John R. Starr is the former managing editor of the Arkansas Democrat-Gazette. His column appears every day.Arkansas Democrat \"^(^azettc } THURSDAY, APRIL 7,1994 __Copyngh, 8 u. Ro I Insulting to black community I read with great dismay that Little Rock school Superintendent Henry Williams continues to pursue replacement of the SAT test as a good indicator of the educational level of the black student under his care. This continual quest of a lower common denominator for the black student is insulting to the black community, the Little Rock community at large and the classroom teachers of Little Rock. Williams continues to imply through this effort that a black student, while sitting in the same classroom and receiving the same information as a white, Korean, Hispanic or other student, is unable to take the same test in the same manner and produce positive results. If this is true, the SAT test is not the problem. Williams attempt to dumb down the test for black students or escape a test vehicle such as the SAT that is successfully used by tens of millions of students each year is a sickening statement of affairs in the Little Rock School District. Williams poor black us attitude is leading the black student to an educational grave. Is there not one member of the Little Rock School Board who has the courage to challenge Williams to factually prove and present specific examples of racial discrimination within the SAT? He should be publicly rebuked for such a reckless and racist attitude. Anyone who has taken the SAT knows that if you can read, write and do basic computations, then the SAT is easily understood. I believe that the black student is the equal of any other student, in spite of what Williams might imply. I reject his insinuation that the black student needs a set of tests and standards different from the rest of America and the world community. Will anyone speak this encouragement to them? I ISATURDAY, AUGUST 13. 1994 Coovncm O Crtda ftocx ^-nrwwrr. iw. Gap lingers between black, white scores BY DANNY SHAMEER AND CYNTHIA HOWELL Oemocrat-Gazatts Stall Wntan A large gap persists between standardized test scores of black students and white students in the Little Rock School District, a report released Friday shows. Among black students, only fifth-graders improved for 1993- 94, increasing the average score three points to 37 from 34 for 1992-93. But white fifth-graders increased by four points  to 74 from 70  during the same period. A score of 50 is the national average. Scores  Continued from Page 1A great deal of energy and im- Narrowing the gap between black and white students is a key provision of the court-enforced desegregation settlement under which Pulaski County's three school districts operate. The disparity is also a significant issue because of a financial settlement with the state. If the district can show it has raised the average scores of black students to at least 90 percent of the average scores of whites by the year 2000, the district will not have to repay up to $20 million in loans from the state. The state is lending the dis- 10th.  In math, students in grades two, three, four, five and six were above the 50th percentile. In science, students in fourth. trict money to help with desegregation, and the financially struggling district counts on that money to meet e.xpenses. So far, the district has borrowed $12 million, and it plans to borrow another $1.6 million this fiscal year to buy buses. In two years, the district will have to start putting money into a trust fund to repay the state in case achievement goals arent met The settlement agreement states that the district must pay back the loan seven years after starting to get the money. Because the district borrowed $6 million in the 1989-90 school year, it would need to begin repayment in the 1996-97 school year. Dr. Henry Williams, district superintendent, said the 1994 test results reflected some gains by black students when compared to test results flrom previous years, and he was encouraged. He expects greater improvements ne.xt year at schools across the district. Im hoping the enthusiasm of building level administrators and teachers will generate a See SCORES, Page 16A Little Rock School District test scores 4 provements in instructional fifth and sixth were at or above strategies.\" Williams said. He the 50th percentile. noted that many schools will have new principals this year.  Black students on average failed to reach the 50th per- One reason that he gave this centile on the complete battery summer for shifting principals in any grade level. Black first- was to improve instruction and graders did the worst, scoring at student achievement. the 30th percentile. Black sixthTest results varied widely graders fared the best, reaching from school to school. For example:  Williams Magnet Elemen- the 44th percentile.  White students averaged above the 50th percentile in tary School black students every grade with a high of 78 at scored well above the 50th per- the sixth grade and a low of 68 centile in every grade level. The at the first grade. lowest black score was the 63rd Williams said the district percentile at the sixth grade, will implement a Great Expec- The highest was 80 at the first tations program at Mitchell and grade.  At Dodd Rightsell elementary schools Elementary that he hopes will help students School, the highest average per- knock the top ofF test scores centile by blac.k students was 48 next year. at the sixth grade. The lowest was the Sth percentile at the centive schools. Mitchell and Rightsell are in- first grade. Modeled after a program in In an example of disparity. Oklahoma City public schools. Forest Park Elementary School the Great Expectations program white second-graders scored at is an approach to teaching that the 85th percentile. But black promises student success. Stu- second-graders averaged the dents and teachers make a con- 21st percentile. Results showed: scious effort to speak in sentences and address each other by  In seven of 11 grades, name, students recite from mem- scores regardless of race. showed some increase over 1992 in the complete battery. ory. and students write daily. The Stanford 8. which students took last spring, compares  Students, overall, scored at the achievement levels of stu- or above the 50th percentile on dents with the achievement lev- the complete battery in four els of a national sample of stu- grades: fourth, fifth, sixth and dents who took the same test. 1994 test scores by grade Stanford Acfiievamant Test scores for the Uttfe Rock School District 88 7Z 7t  7^ 78 77 50 30 25 32 \n 0 47 44 III 32 I aadc.-.. r Whitar 1 '34  II I 3' 1 30 IhLULIlLIIJ 1st 2rxJ 3rd 4m sth em 7m sm 9m iom urn  Little Rock School District IST GRADE students took the. Start ford Achievement Test in April. Students who score in the 50th Reading percentile are at the naSortai axerage. Anything balovftheSOtnparcantila is considered bekw average. Math Language arts Science Social studies Total. 46 48 48 46 Blacfc 35 3S 2ND ORAOE 67 35 34t 69 3i6IUDE- Reading Math Language arts Sdenca- Social studies Reading Math Language arts Science- Sociai studies Reading Malhr , Language arts Science' Social studies Reading ' Language arts Sdene^ Social studies Total 41 58 51 48 Black 28 45 38 35 White 64 77 71 70 Total. 43 5T 51 4 52 Blaclc.\\^ 29 68 12 38 72 4g 39 74 ' ATHGRABE smeitAoe Total 49 61 55 50 61 Black 35 Whits 71 50 - TT 43 38 49 74 7Z 78 Thtat 41 5G' 56\n5^ 56 Biwdr'^ 28 67 j STH GRADE Total 52 59 53 57 58 Black White 39 49- 43 45 47 77 78 71 78 77 STH GRADE Total 42 41 '  51 I\"- 48 \" 48 Black 29\n30  ' 39 3S 34 lOTH GRADE 4at 44 *45 75 74 7TKGRADC\nTotal ' BiKfc 1 *45  52 '47 White 69 ^63.\" 74 \"72\"  73'\" 32 . J? 331^ 39 36 ETHGiUDe\nTout Bli 43 \"\" i 47  31 40 35 71 77 69 69 72 Reading Math Language arts Science Social studies Total 49 43 49 49 53 Black 35 33 36 34 41 Whita 74 81 71 74 73 UTH Total 45 40 46 43 47 31 69 -i, 33 68 (.n OvSt ScfToot Ostnet 31 71Arkansas Democrat (gazette WEDNESDAY, MAY 3, 1995 Whites score well in LRSD But districts blacks dont do as well on Stanford test as some in area BY CYNTHIA HOWELL Democrat-Gazene Education Writer When it comes to student test scores, especially for white At a glance students. the Little Rock School District compares well to outlying districts. The state Department of Education released district-by- district Stanford Achievement Test results this week. A spot check of basic battery scores, broken down by race, showed that Little Rock white students overall netted higher scores than their peers in several Central .Arkansas districts, as well as in some of the states other large districts. The basic battery scores are a combination of mathematics, reading and language arts scores. Following is a listing of 10 school districts and their 1994 Stanford basic bat- tery scores for 1994:  School district  Little Rock  North Little Rock 4th grade 7th grade Black White Black White 10th grade Black White 42 31  Pulaski County Special 37  Conway  Cabot  Bryant  Pine Bluff  Jonesboro  Fort Smith  Fayetteville 43 na na 32 40 32 38 76 59 61 71 62 58 56 63 65 61 33 30 29 41 na na 32 35 33 38 69 58 51 65 58 53 71 67 61 63 36 28 28 33 na na 37 34 38 43 72 66 55 67 60 54 74 67 69 66 Little Rocks black students outperformed white stu- didnt fare quite as well. Black *es in the nearby Pulaski students attending Little Rock County Special, North Little schools scored higher than Rock, Conway, Cabot and black students in the Pulaski Bryant districts, according to the 1994 test results. County Special and North Little Rock districts, but that wasnt always the case in comparisons with other districts in Central Arkansas, The Arkansas Department of Little Rock whites also outscored  whites in the more distant Jonesboro, Fort Smith and Fayetteville districts. Little Rock whites scored at Education administers the the 76th percentile in the Stanford Achievement Test to fourth grade, the 69th per- students across the state in centile in the seventh grade fourth, seventh and 10th and the 72nd percentile in the gr^es. 10th grade. Of the 10 districts included The Arkansas students are compared to a national sample in the spot check, only the Pine of students, the percentile Bluff School District reported o , 1,. -- XU - higher average scores for tional average on the test, white students in two grades\nWhite students in grades white seventh-graders scored at commonly referred to as the na- four, seven and 10 in Little the 71st percentile, and 10th- graders scored at the 74th percentile. White fourth-graders in Pine Bluff scored below their Little Rock peers, at the 56th percentile. Little Rock black fourthgraders scored at the 42nd percentile, seventh-graders scored at the 33rd percentile and 10th- graders scored at the 36th percentile. Black students in the nearby Conway district outscored the Little Rock blacks at both the fourth and seventh grades. Black lOth-graders at Pine Bluff, Fort Smith and Fayetteville had higher average scores than their peers in Little Rock. The Cabot and Bryant districts had very few or no black students in the targeted grades.iMUHbUAY, JUNE 22. 1995 All SAT scores rising, but white pupils gains outdistancing blacks BY CYNTHIA HOWELL Democrat-Gazette Education Writer standardized test scores earned by both black and white students in the three Pulaski County school districts have improved since 1991-92, but achievement disparities between the races have widened, according to a new study by the Office of Desegregation Monitoring. The study, submitted Wednesday to U.S. District Judge Susan Webber WrighL compares Pulaski County students scores in 1991-92 with those earned in 1993-94 on the Stanford Achievement Test eighth edition. In their desegregation plans, all three districts made commitments to reducing the achievement gaps that have traditionally existed between black and white students on standardized exams. The Little Rock School District, in particular, has staked repayment of a $20 million state loan on narrowing the racial disparity gap by the year 2000. The study looked at the 1991-92 test scores for first-, fourth-, seventh- and ninth-graders and the 1993-94 scores for third-, sixth-, ninth- and llth-graders. Among the three districts, black and white Little Rock students had the highest overall scores, followed by Pulaski County Special School District students. Although the North Little Rock district had the lowest overall scores, it also showed the greatest improvement between 1991-92 and 1993-94. North Little Rock students improved their scores on the exams five subject area tests by a total of 64.3 points, compared to 50.6 points in the Little Rock district and 59.2 points in the Pulaski County district The five subject area tests are in reading, mathematics, language arts, science and social studies. In Little Rock the disparity widened in most subjects at each grade by an average of 1.9 points. The disparity grew in each subject at each grade by an average of 1 point in the Pulaski County district LRSD board to meet on 2 budget issues The Little Rock School Board will hold a special meeting at 5 p.m. today to vote on budget proposals for next year, including hiring a private company to operate the school bus system and closing two elementaiy schools. After the special meeting, the board will hold its regular monthly meeting at 6 p.m. The board is to consider hiring Laidlaw Transit Inc. of Ontario and Cincinnati to run the bus system next year. The contract could save the district $700,000 next year. The board also will consider closing Badgett and Fair Park elementary schools, among the districts smallest schools, for a possible savings of about $1.1 million next year. and an average of 0.4 points in North Little RocL The actual 1993-94 test score disparities in Little Rock ranged from a low of 15.4 points between black and white sixth-graders in language ' arts to a 24-point gap between black and white third-graders in science. The disparity in Little Rock nar- , rowed only in sixth-grade language arts, ninth-grade reading and llUi- grade mathematics. In North Little Rock the 1993-94 disparities ranged from a low of 12.9 points between black and white sixth-graders in language arts to a 22.7-point gap in ninth-grade reading. The disparity gap narrowed in seven of the 19 categories analyzed, i In Pulaski County the disparities I between black and white students in 1993-94 ranged from a low of 9.1 points in llth-grade mathematics to  a gap of 16.4 points in sixth-grade reading. The disparity narrowed in seven of the 19 categories analyzed.THURSDAY, JULY 6, 1995 \nLRSD test scores slip overall, fail to close racial gap Superintendent Henry 1 Williams could not be reached BY MARTHA DUNN AND CYNTHIA HOWELL Democral QuelW Stall Writ. seven of 11 grades fell below last years. Students scored belter than the nalional average in just scores. f. j\nTwo years of improving Stan- three grades. High school seniors ford Achievement Test scores in tlie Little Rock School District pare Little Rock students scores ended this\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_781","title":"Test data","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":["1991/2005"],"dcterms_description":null,"dc_format":["application/pdf"],"dcterms_identifier":null,"dcterms_language":["eng"],"dcterms_publisher":["Little Rock, Ark. : Butler Center for Arkansas Studies. Central Arkansas Library System"],"dc_relation":null,"dc_right":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC-EDU/1.0/"],"dcterms_is_part_of":["Office of Desegregation Monitoring records (BC.MSS.08.37)","History of Segregation and Integration of Arkansas's Educational System"],"dcterms_subject":["Little Rock (Ark.)--History--20th century","Little Rock School District","Education--Arkansas","Education--Evaluation","Educational statistics","Education--Standards"],"dcterms_title":["Test data"],"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/781"],"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":["193 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\nIndiana Achievement Level Tests Reading Goal Structure 1. Reading Strategies/Word Meaning a. Context clues b. Root/base words, structural analysis, prefixes and suffixes c. Synonyms, antonyms, homonyms, multiple meaning d. Phonetic clues 2. Literal Comprehension a. Identify main idea/summarize b. Recognize or recall significant detail c. Determine sequence of ideas or events d. Interpret directions e. Use reference skills 3. Inferential/Interpretive Comprehension a. Make inferences b. Make predictions c. Identify cause and effect d. Categorize information 4. Critical Judgment Skills a. Draw/evaluate conclusions b. Distinguish between fact and fiction c. Identify persuasive content d. Identify authors purpose e. Identify authors point of view, bias, stereotypes f. Identify literary devices/techniques (figurative language, mood, tone, etc.) g. Identify literary elements (plot, characters, setting, theme, etc.) h. Distinguish between fiction-nonfiction, fantasy realityIndiana Achievement Level Tests Language Usage Goal Structure 1. Writing Strategies and Skills a. Prewrinng b. Drafting skills: complete sentences, clarity, figurative language, mood, tone, etc. c. Revising proofing, editing d. Forms appropriate to purpose e. Appropriate sentence forms f. Paragraph skills including form, topic sentence, etc. 2. Grammar and Usage a. Basic sentence patterns b. Types of phrases and clauses c. Noun forms including plurals, possessives d. Verb tenses e. Irregular verb forms f. Subject-verb agreement g. Adjective forms h. Adverb forms i. Pronoun forms including plurals, possessives j. Negative forms 3. Mechanics of Writing a. Appropriate end punctuation b. Commas c. Apostrophes d. Enclosing punctuation e. Underlining titles f. Beginning capitalization g. Capitalization of proper nouns and adjectives h. Capitalization of pronoun I i. SpellingIndiana Achievement Level Tests Mathematics Goal Structure 1. Reasoning/Connections/Problem Solving a. Logic/reasoning b. c. 2. a. b. c. d. Strategies Connections/application of process skills Number Sense/Place Value Counting, order Greater than, less than, equal comparisons Odd, even Place value e. Rounding f. Fraction and decimal concepts and relationships g. Ratios, proportions, percent h. i. j- 3. Notation systems Primes, factors, multiples, roots Application of process skills Computation /Estimation/AIgebraic Functions a. Addition and subtraction of whole numbers (algorithms) b. Multiplication and divisions of whole numbers (algorithms) c. Addition and subtraction of fractions and decimals (algorithms) d. Multiplication and division of fractions and decimals (algorithms) e. Commutative, associative, distributive properties/order of operations f. g- h. i. 4. Solve equations, evaluate expressions, understand concept of variable Patterns and functions Coordinate system Application of process skills Geometry and Spatial Sense a. Recognize, describe, compare, classify geometric objects b. Describe geometric relationships c. Identify, describe angles d. Line characteristics e. Geometric patterns f. Identify fundamental transformations g. Pythagorean theorem h. Application of process skills 5. Measurement and Estimation a. Attributes of length, capacity, volume, weight, mass b. Attributes of time and temperature c. Concepts of perimeter, area, diameter, radius, circumference d. Value of money e. Relationship between and among metric and customary units f. Application of process skills 6. Data Analysis, Statistics, and Probability a. Analyze data from charts, graphs, and tables b. Concepts of chance, probability, prediction c. Measures of central tendency d. Ordered pairs e. Application of process skillsNWEA NORTHWEST EVALUATION ASSOCIATION Achievement Level Tests: Assessments that Make a Difference Achievement Level Test results help teachers, schools and districts to: T'he Northwest Evaluation Association (NWEA) Achievement Level Tests are a  Monitor the progress of all students toward state and district standards series of tests aligned with local curriculum and state standards. While most tests simply provide scores that compare and rank students and schools. Achievement Level Tests provide the information most important to educators  scores that measure growth in student achievement. Level tests provide thorough and reliable data that can be used with confidence to make instructional and program improvement decisions. about the testing experience. Another benefit of focusing the tests around specific achievement levels is that each test is shorter in length, resulting in less class time used for testing. But most importantly, teachers receive accurate information that enables them to monitor each students academic growth. When to Administer Achievement Level Tests Most districts administer Achievement Level Tests in both the fall and spring. Tests may be administered starting in the spring of second Measure growth in student achievement over time Place students into appropriate courses or instructional settings  Provide instructional focus  Screen students for Title I eligibility, special education services and gifted programs  Evaluate program effectiveness More Accurate Data About Individual Students Teachers want to improve student learning, but to do this, they need more accurate information than the traditional, single-form test can provide. With conventional tests, low-performing students see only a few questions that they can get right, and high-performing students see only a few that they will miss. This RIT Score 250 r 238 - 226 - 214 - 202 - 190 Achievement Level Test Longitudinal Report   *  diiu| R Score H Average W Grade 6 6 7 7 8 8 9 grade. The reading and language usage tests are appropriate for most students through grade 10\nthe mathematics tests through algebra and geometry. Science tests can be given to students in third grade through high school science courses. Term F96 S96 F97 S97 F98 S98 F99 Academic growth for individual students can be tracked through the NWEA longitudinal report. Shown here is a student's progress in mathematics from grade 6 through grade 9. The Test Administration Process Achievement Level Tests are not timed and take about one Communicate to parents and the community not only causes boredom and frustration in students, it also makes achievement scores less accurate. With Achievement Level Tests, students take tests that are tailored to their current achievement level. This gives students a fair opportunity to show what they know and can do. There are no wasted test items on level tests. Students can actually attempt all items in a given test, which makes them feel better hour per subject for most students. An easy-to- follow administration booklet and instructional video smoothly guide the test administration process. For all districts new to the concept, NWEA provides an on-site introductory workshop that guides teachers through proper test administration procedures. The administration of NWEAs Achievement Level Tests differs from other tests since students must be assigned a test of appropriate difficulty. In the first year of the program, brief locator tests help place students into the right test level. In subsequent years, NWEA's scoring program uses prior test results to automatically assign students to the right level. Test Results Returned Quickly, Measure Progress Level test results are returned within two weeks. Districts with appropriate technical expertise may license the NWEA scoring software for immediate on-site scoring. Level test results are reported on an achievement scale called the NWEA RIT scale. This scale RIT Score -! State Standard Score = 23i~~|-- 220 - IM T 21 7l 221 225 205 - 190 - 201 208 211 175 Grade Median RIT Score Achievement Level Test scores can predict performance on critical state tests. The chart here shows the progress of students towards one state's reading standard of 231. 3 4 enables teachers to measure student progress much like a yardstick measures height. Growth in student achievement can be accurately tracked between terms and across years. In addition to the RIT score, NWEA provides percentile scores for districts to use to compare their students to others in the nation. NWEAs norms include more than 500,000 students, the largest K-12 norm base in the country. More importantly, NWEA provides the only systematically-collected set of growth norms available, enabling districts to accurately compare the growth of students with others in their grade. Goal scores provide specific measures related to the districts curriculum. These scores make it possible to compare student performance in each goal area to typical performance for students in that grade. Reports Summarize Test Results, Used to Improve Learning NWEA provides class, grade, school, district, and parent reports. Teachers use the information to focus classroom instruction and help pinpoint areas where individual students might need extra attention. District and school leadership teams use the data to make informed decisions and answer the difficult question, Are we a more effective school system today than we were yesterday? \"This scale enables teachers to n n n n n n 5 6 7 8 Predicting Student Performance on State Tests Schools should never be surprised by student performance on high-stakes tests. NWEA staff works with school districts to create an alignment between the level test scales and the state test scales. Districts commonly use data from Achievement Level Tests to predict student performance on state tests, which measure student progress much like a yardstick measures height.\" helps districts identify students eligible for special intervention programs and shows how all students are progressing toward the standards. NWEA Support to Districts NWEA provides extensive support to districts that use Achievement Level Tests, from early design decisions through the implementation process, and appropriate and effective use of the data. NWEA: Assessment Expertise The Northwest Evaluation Association is a non-profit organization working in partnership with many of our nations school districts. Our mission, Partnering to help all kids learn, is rooted in the belief that accurate information about student achievement leads to improved student learning. NWEA provides professional training, consulting services, and ongoing research. We build long-term relationships with clients, helping them design and maintain comprehensive assessment programs that are making a difference in student learning. Northwest Evaluation Association 15115 SW Sequoia Pkwy, Suite 200 Portland, OR 97224 Tel: (503) 624-1951 Fax: (503) 639-7873 www.nwea.orgLittle Rock School District ASSESSMENT PROGRAM 2000-2001 Test Grade K 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 'j I. i\"! I  1 t , / 1*1 1 it| I \"n ^IjI hki J ta' 'fe 'fc* it IsStiBi- .  'riji.-M 1 --H-l--J'lTi JfiBi! 1-,-1 ' 12 Observation Survey Fall and Spring Fall and Spring Fall and Spring Achievement Level Tests: Reading, language arts, math, science April Fall and Spring Fall and Spring Fall and Spring Fall and Spring Fall and Spring Fall and Spring Fall and Spring Fall and Spring Fall and Spring 1st Quarter CRT-October Alg I \u0026amp;II Geom Trig Alg l\u0026amp;ll Geom Trig Alg I 811 Geom Trig Alg l\u0026amp;ll Geom Trig 2! Quarter CRT-January Read \u0026amp; L. Arts Read \u0026amp; L. Arts Read \u0026amp; L. Arts L. Arts L. Arts L. Arts 3'\" Quarter CRT-March Read. \u0026amp; L. Arts Read \u0026amp; L. Arts Read \u0026amp; L. Arts L. Arts L. Arts L. Arts Alg l\u0026amp;ll Geom Trig Alg l\u0026amp;ll Geom Trig Alg l\u0026amp;ll Geom Trig Alg l\u0026amp;ll Geom Trig End of Module Math As completed As completed As completed As completed As completed As completed End of Unit Science As completed As completed As completed As completed As completed End of Level Social Studies State tRa lli'hti Miifefy' of kfstii bon^hitiarkdi And standards, ' May SwHaSSl state Benchmark: Math and Literacy April April (pilot) April End of Course Algebra I (pilot) May May May May End of Course Geometry (pilot) May May May End of Course Literacy (pilot) iBSi 1 Ihfeij^ibk/\nft May SAT-9: Norm-referenced Test Sept ACT. PLAN, EXPLORE PSAT NAEP Feb. NAEP (randomly selected schools) February Sept Sept October Feb. Feb. FebruaryLittle Rock School District HAND DELIVERED February 13, 1991 53 V I a*?'  Mrs. Arma Hart Office of Desegregation Monitoring 201 E. Markham, Suite 510 Heritage West Building t * Little Rock, AR 72201 Dear Mrs. Hart: As per your telephone request through Polly Ramer on February 12, 1991, I am forwarding 1990 test scores for Carver and Washington Elementary Schools. I regret the delay, but I was out of the office at the time of the request and my staff is not authorized to release information without my approval. Sue Tadlock indicated to Ms. Ramer that a written reguest was needed for our records. Please be advised that a written request is not needed at this time, letter in our files is sufficient. A copy of this Please contact me if you need additional assistance. Sincerely r Sterling Ingram, Director Planning, Research, and Evaluation cc: Ruth Steele James Jennings bjg 810 West Markham Street Little Rock, Arkansas 72201  (501)374-3361Little Rock School District August 27, 1991 RECEIVED Mrs. Ann Brown Office of Desegregation Monitoring 201 East Markham, Suite 510 Heritage West Building AUG 2 8 1991 Little Rock, AR 72201 Office of Desegregaticn lioring Dear Mrs. Brown: We are enclosing the third administration summary report of the 1991 Arkansas Minimum Performance Test. This is in addition to test information provided to you on August 21, 1991. If I can answer any questions regarding this information, please feel free to contact me. Sincerely, Sterling Ingram, Director Planning, Research and Evaluation 324-2124 cc: Dr. Ruth Steele, Superintendent James Jennings, Associate Superintendent bjg 810 West Markham Street Little Rock, Arkansas 72201  (501)374-3361LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT PLANNING, RESEARCH, AND EVALUATION ARKANSAS MINIMUM PERFORMANCE TEST GRADE EIGHT SUMMARY THIRD ADMINISTRATION 19 9 1 *NUMBER INC. SCHOOL/IN SUMMARY TOTAL TEST PASSING SCORE = ____________STUDENTS FAILING 4204 STUDENTS PASSING BLACK WHITE OTHER TOTAL CLOVERDALE/219 Number Percent 193 88 12 46 9 35 4 15 26 12 DUNBAR/152 Number Percent FOREST HEIGHTS/219 Number Percent HENDERSON/295 Number Percent MABELVALE/193 Number Percent MANN/284 Number Percent PULASKI HEIGHTS/223 Number Percent SOUTHWEST/206 Number Percent ELIZ. MITCHELL/5 Number Percent DISTRICT/1796 Number Percent 136 89 197 90 263 89 178 92 276 97 207 93 191 93 2 40 1643 92 8 50 11 50 16 50 9 60 4 50 7 44 6 40 1 33 74 48 5 31 10 46 15 47 5 33 4 50 9 56 9 60 66 43 2 13 2 67 16 11 22 10 32 11 15 8 16 7 15 7 3 60 153 __8 M F 0 M 0 0 0 0 1 7 0 0 0 5 3 F 1 6 1 5 1 3 0 0 0 0 0 7 5 M 1 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 F 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8 3 *The number included in this summary has been revised to reflect students moving into and out of the district since the first and second administrations.O' LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT PLANNING, RESEARCH, AND EVALUATION DEPARTMENT Date: November 22, 1991 To: Ann Brown Office of Deseiggrreeggaattiioo:n Monitoring From: sterling Ingra: itor Planning, Research and Evaluation Re: Test Scores Incentive Schools As requested today by Polly Ramer, we are providing Metropolitan Achievement Test results by race and gender for each of the incentive schools. If you have questions, please feel free to contact this office. bjg GnADE/nftCE iruHLirii TKSYKO J TOT/.T* W D 2 TOTAL II W o 1 TOTAL h W o 1 TOl'Al. n w 0 5 TOTAL D y o 6 TQTAI^ 8 W 0 7 7'lZJ AL II H O 8 TOTAL w o 9 Tar.M, 0 w o m TOTAL h If o J 1 TOTAl. n H 0 LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT PLANHIHC, RESRARCir AHO EVALVZiTIDH STANFORD ACHlKVBMEirT TEST\nEIGIITK EDITION MATlOriAI. PP^CRMTILr RAHK/KORMAL CURVE KQUIVAI.KHT SCORES (PR/NCR) UlSl'RIGTWIDE aUHMARY 1992 EMVlROHMEMT* TOTAL HEAODIC TOTAL r4ATHRHATICS LArrctmoE BCICHCE SOCIAL tJClEHC*: /*SIC nATj'Env COMPLETE  n/iTTERV 269 4 1330 697 24 1883 1)73 67 2 28 170 3 1 131 632 IC 1867 L211 632 23 1922 1200 612 22 184 J 1709 609 25 1694 1122 050 31 1 57,7 1060 493 19 15114 995 53 6 23 1602 949 609 4 1 .3 4 72 B25 612 3 5 12/45,8 35/41,9 63/37,(1 66/58,0 4fl/49.0 4Q/44.6 70/CJU 74/63,3 41/45.1 32/40.2 63/57.2 66/60.1 37/43.9* 27/37,3 S9/55.0 49/49.5 45/47.5 36/42,4 67/59.5 74/63,5 39/44.0 31/39,5 64/57,0 67/59.1 O 30/44.1 29/38.1 02/55,3 57/56.9 39/44.2 27/36.9 63/57.0 57/53.5 44/47,0 33/40.9 67/59,2 60/55.4 38/43.3 26/36.6 63/56,8 58/54.1 60/49.9 37/42,0 74/63.6 67/59.2 12/ 5 31/39.3 70/61.0 72/62,2 41/45,2 29/.nO-S 6//59,4 73/62.6 44/46.6 30/39.2 08/60,1 63/57.2 49/49,2 35/-ll.n 72/62.3 64/57.4 50/49.8 34/41.4 69/60.7 66/58.4 57/53,8 46/47,7 77/69.6 07/73.6 *'/49.7 59/43.9 70/60.9 64/57.4 43/46,3* 32/40.0 65/5n,0 O7/59 3 45/47.4 34/41.3 69/60.3 73/61.6 45/47.3 33/40.8 70/C1.2 74/63.5 C I 50/54.1 46/47.8 76/65,1 00/68.0 50/50.D 38/43.6 70/60.9 68/59,6 43/46.1 30/30.0 67/59.1 63/57,1 46/40.0 35/43.6 67/59.2 61/55,9 49/49.2 36/42.4 70/61.1 69/60.4 47/48.2 34/41.0 70/61.0 68/51.7 57/53.9 43/49.2 73/63.0 76/05.1 46/47.6 35/42.1 05/50.0 64/57.4 46/47.6 34/41.5 68/60.0 66/58.7 4Q/4*J.O 38/43.S GB/59.7 69/G0.3 48/45,0 3A/43.6 68/59.7 67/53.0 47/48.2 36/42,2 60/60.0 67/59.0 53/51,7 43/46,5 71/61,9 03/69.9 48/48.7 38/43.7 67/59.1 66/50.7 45/47.4 33/40,6 70/61.2 74/63.6 46/48.1 37/43.1 65/58.2 70/60.0 44/46.0 34/41.1 65/58.3 71/61.5 44/46.7 32/40.4 67/59.2 72/63,4 57/53.0 48/49.7 74/63.3 75/64.3 51/50.3 41/45.4 68/59.9 64/57.7 54/52.0 43/46.0 74/63,5 75/64.0 59/54.5 49/49.0 76/65.0 72/62.0 54/52.1 43/4C.4 73/63.1 72/62.2 54/52.1 43/46.0 75/64.0 73/62.6 45/47,4 36/42,2 64/57,3 75/64.3 39/1UO  n/lB.IJ 9/54.7 07/73.C 34/41.2 23/34,1 57/53.9 68/59.6 37/43.2 26/36.7 56/53,1 58/54.n 43/46.5 32/40,1 59 / 54,6 62/56.4 43/46,1 33/40,7 64/57.7 70/61.1 42/45,6 31/39,7 6S/S7.9 75/64-5 47/40.6 35/42.1 72/62,0 80/67.8 46/47.9 '35/41.7 69/60,6 75/64,5 46/47.7 33/40.9 71/61.5 70/66.0 o O o tO/49.1 Jn/\u0026lt;13.6 G0/GO.7 E1/GB.5 45/47.4 34/43,3 CB/60,1 77/65,7 46/40.0 34/41.3 72/62.1 63/70.0 43/46.2 32/40.0 66/5B,6 04/71.2 43/4G.1 30/39.2 60/59.0 86/72.6 cn 54/51.9 42/45.9 73/63,0 69/60.6 50/50,2 38/43,4 72/62.5 69/60.7 49/49.6 36/42.5 73/62,6 71/61.4 47/40,2 34/41.I 70/61,0 71/61.7 48/48.8 34/41,1 73/62.6 73/62.9 47/40.6 31/41.5 68/60.0 59/54.6 45/47.3 32/39.8 67/59.D 64/57.3 43/46.2 30/36.7 66/58.4 57/53,8 47/48,4 34/4 1.2 6B/60.1 64/57.7 47/48.5 3?/4O,4 70/61.2 65/58.2 40/49.1 35/41,9 66/50.S 61/56,1 32/40.2 fin/[i9.7 SQ/54.4 Sl/50.6 36/42.7 69/60-7 72/62.3 * At O.TdoH 1 nnd 2 tliD .SCIENCE nnti SOCIAL.SCIENCE objoctlvos aro comblnad .ind rnflortrid nii ceorts uinicr EWVIROPMEUT. 51/50.4 36/42.3  70/60,9 69/60.S Sl/90,4 34/41.3 72/62.1 7O/61\u0026lt;D li O oSCHOQI./MO. TESTEO* saazEBEftiiEzm Humber _ Peroent ssaiBABma Humbar --------Eaiaant LITTLE HOCK SCHOOL DISl'RICT Pr^KHIttB, RESBWICIt, AHD EVALUATIOll ARKANSAS dlNIMUH PERFORMZiNCB TEST GRADE EIGRT SUKHARV third adhihistratioh 19 9 3 ----ISTAb TEST PflSaiKS-'^RE c, 4304 STlfDEHTS ____ PASSIRQ __ DUCK gWi\u0026gt;E.KTB FA I LIMO LtKI Tnr\u0026gt; -_____ K WfllTB . A OTHER Z. J^OIidL . aeuagL/Ho. tested* ailEa3AJEIiiJ[I5/221 Humber UllSEBSa)lZ213 Humber laiDELyALEzua Hiinbor Pprcowt H\u0026amp;lUf/lSi Humber ------Pgroaht raiAEKIABISHlS/Jll Humber flO5TFIWF.ST/t94 Rinahor ______RSLEflflI lIlA_niTHELC4Z2 Humber --------Ea2SHt_____ limiAeLE POINTMl Rumbsr ---------Eaxaant______ CISlEl 1/1162 Humbor _____- Paroei 154 _2i 201 -AA 115 SA 214 BA lai SA 234 _2A 2il\u0026gt; ----------Ifi____ ISfi ___52- A AA 31 1525 ___SA 12 AA 12 AA 24 25, 14 -lA 12 JI A .41- 14 -5A 20 59 A 0 ii 121 _SA * The number of students tested lias Into and out of the district i special education students Qdnij.i)iatraklefk fiummary. 13 -12 A -21 A 25 IS -.-S2_ 12 43 11 II -12 ~0 A ___0 A. 3A -A lA _1 100 A 12 Al .11 .3 A. A 0 ii A A. A 21 IS 0 A. _a -A A_ _a A. A -A A A_ A _A _3 A A -A 32 A -A A' -i_ A -A 31 lA fiisyBiiEjUiEZiia tlUDbsr Patoont A A 25 Al_ liHHUABZm Hunber JL ~o 32 -lA FOREST HElnilTH/21A Nunbor _6 _A_ A -A 25 18___ UEamaotf/ui Hun.bnr __- Peroant A A A A- A -A A -A -12. Zi_ A A A -A A -A A -A A -A A A _A 25 JA 22 9 2J 10 34 -la___ ii. A -Al 235 A3_ tevlsed to reflect studenta movinc since the second adininlstraticn and to exclude 10 inav hava hn^n a-,.. ' uxeauao . --------  KILAa UAUI vho may havo been includod In the second BiaEurALBZua Rtlinber -- Percent MAHH/273 Humber ______Paroenl PULASKT HEIgKTS/?2fl Riunbec Pnroant:  sflimniEaiziaa Humber 5mAIITCIIEl.r./9 Humbar ---------latoent  EtUHACl.B POIHT/S  Humber _____Percent_____ DISTniCT/1779 Humber ______Peroent l.ITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT PWRHINQ, RESEAHCri, AHI) EVAUJATIOH ARKAHSAS MtHIMUH PERFOIIHAlfCE TEST GRADE EIGHT SUMMARY THIRD ADHIHISTRATIOH 19 9 2 BTUDEHTS isaiiL ISA 90 222 ____SA iSi -AA 122 - Bj 153 -AA 251 A4. 2S2 _AA 152 -AA A IS. Ji 1555 __BA to co o CD iffioUt.TES'C-jasauffi^coRE 4204 1-lU- SLACK 10 Ai_ IS -SA 21 -SA 12 5B JL AA_. 19 in 15 Al 0 IOS -SS- F 10 AS Ji 12 ii AA- -15- A S8 15 -iL JA A 2A SS AA ejWBEHTB EAIUUg___ JI KKITE i JI OTHER o _IS1AL_ 0 10 0 0 A -U. Q 0 2 A _2 54- ii 11 -5. A -i_ JA 0 0 1 A 0 0 A -14. _2i_ _1 AA 12 -A- 0 a 0 0 0 0 0 Q 0 _a o 0 a 0 G 0 0 0 0 0 _a 0 21 -IS 20 0 32 -H 32 AA 22 .11 IS -A 26 Ak 32 AA Ai JAai_. 225 18 (Into Olid out of the diatriot aiiino^hn^T to rntlect students moving apoolnl Bducatlon otudonte who may hava hm '''\"'^olstratlon and to oxolude\nadministration sumnary? inoludsd In the socond I t3 Dl O to tJ \u0026gt;c 50 o\u0026gt; o C3- o o O) IS o oijJ. I i LiE. KUtA OC-ilUUlj UXJj TKX^- T PLAHNIWG, RES15AKCH AND EVALUATION EXHIBIT 2 A ARKANSAS MINIMUM PERFORMANCE TEST PERCENT OF STUDENTS PASSING FIVE YEAR COMPARISON 1909-1993 \\   I I 1 I ALL STUDENTS GRADE SUBJECT '09 '90 '91 '92 '93 ' 89 BLACK STUDEN' ' 90 '91 '92 '93 '09 WliITE_STU DENTS__ '90 '91 ' 92 '93 ' 09 OTHER STUDENTS ' 90 '91 '92 '93 i\u0026gt; 3 6 8 0 READING MATH READING MATH LANGUAGE ARTS SCIENCE SOCIAL STUDIES READING MATH rj^NGUAGE ARTS SCIENCE SOCIAL STUDIES TOTAL TEST * 86 89 88 09 75 66 70 90 89 85 67 74 91 07 87 90 90 77 72 77 09 8 7 84 74 75 91 87 87 94 90 70 73 73 07 84 02 63 63 92 08 91 92 89 77 75 74 05 06 01 62 66 00 86 88 91 80 7 6 80 76 86 03 80 63 67 82 06 8 4 86 60 56 60 86 06 79 55 65 83 82 07 88 70 62 '69 05 83 79 64 68 02 83 92 88 71 64 65 02 79 76 SO 54 02 0 7 09 06 70 67 66 79 81 75 52 57 81 83 07 84 70 73 69 02 70 75 51 58 * TOTAL TEST SCORE AFTER THIRD ADMINISTRATION EACH YEAR. 96 97 96 95 89 86 09 90 97 97 09 91 95 95 97 96 92 92 94 98 97 93 93 91 95 94 90 95 90 90 09 97 95 94 08 01 90 97 90 95 90 90 09 97 95 92 85 04 96 96 99 94 90 95 91 95 92 91 07 05 70 83 96 96 80 05 80 90 80 70 70 83 95 90 95 95 06 82 9 5 08 93 00 03 01 96 91 100 97 90 07 90 9 0 90 02 70 70 96 96 94 91 85 00 05 97 92 06 01 01 06 91 95 9 2 92 02 02 02 77 79 69 74 I |! .h I1 ,a r w Little Rock School District NEWS RELEASE October 7 1992 For more informations Dianne Woodruff,\n020 J LR5D ACT AND SAT SCORES RELEASED Better ACT and SAT scores were aligned with those Little Rock School District students who had taken advanced placement and honors t jurses in addition to their regularly required core courses. Students who took honors classes scored much better on the SAT on the average than the mean scores for all students. Of the 315 students who took the SAT, 212 C677.3 had taken honors English and 152 t.4SZ.') had taken honors mathematics c our ses. \"These test summaries support the belief that student will do better on tests if they take advanced placement and s honors level courses,\" said Mac Bernd, super intendent. Although LRSD offers more advanced placement course than other districts, as part of our emphasis on academic achievement were working towards offering even more advanced placement courses, If Bernd added. II In terms of the disparity among blacks and whites. we can see that getting students into advanced placement c1 asses could really help their achievement levels, If Bernd said. (MORE) 810 West Markham Street  Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 ^(Sonag^MoooLRSD ACT and SAT Page 2 scores \"We must work to prepare al 1 our students to quali fy for, enrol 1 in and complete the more advanced and challenging advanced placement c ourses,\" said Bernd. Recently released SAT and ACT scores for the 19'31-92 school year show a variety of statistical information that compares LRSD students to other Arkansas district scores and to the National averages. Both tests are administered several times throughout the school year and are summarized at the end of the testing period. The tests measure verbal and mathematical reasoning skills, developed over many years of education. that are related to academic performance in college. The ACT exam was administered to 1,101 LRSD students, while 315 students took the SAT exam. The ACT test summary shows an increase in overall composite scores from 1990-91 to 1991-92 for LRSD students. English. mathematics and science reasoning all had increased sc or es. The reading score did not change over the two-year period. Parkview Magnet School students c jmposite scores wer ea better than Arkansas and National composite scores. Students from Fair, Hal 1, McClellan and Parkview Magnet had higher composite scores in 1991-92 than in the 1990-91 school year. CMOREjLRSD ACT and SAT Scores Page 3 In comparing 13'31 and 1'3'32 ACT composi'fcB scores for black and white students, the black pupil composite remained stable at 17 i while the white student composite score increased slightly from 21.'2 in 1'3'31 to 21.7 in 1'3'32. Although LRSD students did not score as high on the SAT test in the verbal \u0026lt;453) and mathematics \u0026lt;48'3) areas as in the previous year, the 1'3'32 mean scores for LRSD students were substantially higher than the National Average scores of 41 verbal and 47S mathematics. Fair High School students scored higher on the SAT than the Arkansas and National average in mathematics. In comparing black and white students. LRSD, Ar kansas and National white students scored higher on the average on the verbal and mathematics sections than black students. Note: A detailed summary which includes national. school comparisons will be mailed state and LRSD upon request.u 10/07/92 16:27 501 324 2032 L R School Dlst ODM @001/004 LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 810 WEST MARKHAM STREET LITTLE ROCK, AR 72201 FAX (501) 324-2032 DATE (Qc. TO FROM 7 SENDER'S PHONE# SUBJECT Special Instructions Number of Pages (include cover page) Fax Phone Number Speed dial FOR COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE USE ONLY Transmitted By Date Time . RECEIVED TO: Mrs. Janet Bernard, Associate Superintendent FROMz'^a. Mr. Robert L. Brown, Jr. DATE: May 16, 1993 MAY 1 3 1993 SUBJ: Oitica of Dossgregation Mcnitoring AMPT Test Summary/Six Years I am providing you with the results of Garland's sixth grade (Black male)student performance over a six year period. The results from 1988 -1991 reflect the progress of Black male students under the instructional leadership of another principal. Particular focus on Black males is being used because of the enormous gender disparity in performance between black students. Detailed results of the performance of Black male students from 1988 to 1993 can be obtained from the office of Planning, Research, and Evaluation. The results in reading are being provided for you because they are the single most important predictor of future success in educational attainment. The District Summary results are being used as a standard to normalize the results at Garland. READING 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 District Summary Percent Passed Garland School Percent Passed Difference 78 79 84 88 86 84 73 -5 47 -32 80 -4 77 -11 91 +5 95 +11 The major difference in the variables impacting the results for the last two year has been the emphasis placed on culturally specific content in the school's curriculum. The students at Garland School, in grades 4 through 6, responded to this statement \"African-African American History is taught in this school\", on the Incentive School Student Survey with 80% favorable response as \"ALWAYS\". When the outcomes of the MPT performance in Reading and Math were shared with the sixth grade students, they were asked to explain the cause of the difference. They responded by saying that school was about them. They learned a lot about Africa and African Americans. When you compare the District Summary with Garland's progress for the same period. you find a significant difference in gains for Black males, uncharacteristic of the performance level during the tenure of another principal. I would like to get on the agenda to share this with the Board of Directors. I am asking your assistance in making this happen. We can close the gap before the year 2000. cc Monitoring Teams05/21/83 14:36 0501 324 2032 L R School Dlst ODM 121002/003 \u0026lt;1 I I Little Rock School District I t NEWS RELEASE May 21,1993 For more information: Jeanette Wagner, 324-2020 I LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT RH.FASES MINIMUM PERFORMANCE TEST SCORES Three Little Rock School District schools, Cloverdale and Terry Elementary, both, area schools, and Williams Magnet Elementary achieved 85% I mastery of the Arkansas Minimum Performance Test in all areas in all grade levels. Six additional schools achieved mastery in all subject areas except one  in aU grade levels except one. The schools are McDermott, Jefferson and Woodruff area elementary schools and Carver Magnet, Ish Incentive and Romine Interdistrict elementary schools. j I 1 The seven incentive elementary schools improved as a group and are 1 making progress, especially at the 6th grade level. Rightsell Incentive I I i Elementary students in grade three and six improved in six of the seven areas of testing. Mitchell Incentive Elementary and Stephens Incentive Elementary improved in all areas in grade six. Rockefeller Incentive Elementary I I I improved overall in grade three. The Districts Magnet Schools continue to score at or near the 85% passage requirements in all grades and areas tested. (MORE) fin iaMteAMia05/21/93 14:36 501 324 2032 L R School Dlst ODM @003/003 I LRSD MPT Tests-1993/94 Page 2 The district-wide passing rate for Sth grade students is seventy-eight percent which is one percentage point higher that the 1992 school year passing rate. The increased passing rate indicates continued growth in Little Rock School District student's mastery levels. ### I i i i ( I ireceived t JAH OHse o5 Dsesesi^' .MpPi-pnCiS LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT PLANNING, RESEARCH AND EVALUATION Date: January 4, 1994 To: From: Margie Powell, Associate Monitor Office of Desegregation Monitoring Sterling Ingra^^Director Planning, Research and Evaluation Re: Arkansas Minimum Performance Test, 1993 As requested in your telephone call today, we are enclosing copies of the school summary reports for the 1993 Arkansas MPT. If we can provide any additional information, please let me know. bjg cc: Jerry Malone P 1 4 1 t JRECEIVED AUG 2 2 1994 Office of Desegregation Monitoring LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT PLANNING, RESEARCH AND EVALUATION DEPARTMENT DATE: August 18, 1994 TO: Ms. Margie Powell, Office of Desegregation Monitoring FROM: r. Robert Glowers RE: 1993-94 Stanford Achievement Test Results Please find enclosed results of the 1993-94 administration of the SAT-8 test for the Little Rock School District. Enclosed are districtwide and individual school reports disaggregated by ethnicity. One report provides a three year trend of the test administration giving the basic and complete battery score results. The second report provides subject area results along with basic and complete battery scores for the 1993-94 school year. Please let me know if you have any questions. Enclosure cc: Dr. Henry P. Williams, Superintendent 08/31/94 13:36 501 324 2032 L R School Dlst 002 5-- C3X Little Rock School District August 31, 1994 RECEIVED TO\nFROM\nMargie Powell Office of Desegregation Monitoring Or. Robert dowers. Director Planning, Research, and Evaluation SUBJECT\nAUG 3 11994 0ffiC3 of !9 Stanford-8 Results for Incentive Schools, 1991-92 As per your request, please find attached copies of the Stanford-8 Test results for the Incentive Schools by Subject area/Race for the 1991-92 school year. If I can be of further assistance, please contact iny office. dge Attachmentco o o s LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT PLANNING, RESEARCH AND EVALUATION (A C5 STANFORD ACHIEVEMENT TEST, EIGHTH EDITION NATIONAL PERCENTII.E RANK/NORHAL CURVE EQUIVALENT SCORES (PR/NCE) SCHOOL SUMMARY 1992 o o Xi o (/3 a SCHOOL\nFRANKLIN ELEMENTARY ENVIRONMENT** GRADE/RACE HUMBER TESTED TOTAL READING TOTAL MATHEMATICS LANGUAGE SCIENCE SOCIAL SCIENCE BASIC BATTERY COMPLETE BATTERY CM CO o C'l CM CO o IO 3 co co 05 co co* o 1 TOTAt, B W O 2 TOTAL B H O 3 TOTAL B H O 4 TOTAL B W O 5 TOTAL B H O 6 TOTAL B W O 70 64 6 63 60 3 60 55 5 39 37 2 56 50 4 2 55 51 4 25/35.5 25/35.5 26/36.2 26/36.3 25/35.8 35/41.6 19/31.5 18/30.8 30/38.8 28/37.9 26/36.4 58/54.0 25/36.0 25/35.5 33/40.8 21/32.8 19/31.3 48/48.8 19/31.5 18/30.4 59/54.5 17/29.5 16/28.6 31/39.3 25/35.6 23/34.6 75/64.4 15/28.5 14/27.1 18/30.9 66/58.6 30/38.8 28/37.5 62/56.2 35/41.9 35/41.6 47/48.4 29/38.3 27/37.0 56/53.0 31/39.4 27/36.9 97/89.6 28/37.6 26/36.7 24/35.4 74/63.8 36/42.7 34/41.3 69/60.6 27/36.9 26/36.2 51/50.7 25/36.0 23/34.5 79/66.9 25/35.6 24/34.8 56/52.9 23/34.1 21/33.1 59/54.9 27/37.0 26/36.1 46/48.0 24/34.9 21/33.0 85/71.4 28/37.5 25/35.9 34/41.0 86/72.7 38/43.3 36/42.5 57/53.8 18/30.8 16/29.0 50/50.1 18/30.9 19/31.2 81/68.2 23/34.2 22/33.5 13/26.6 77/65.8 39/43.9 37/43.1 59/54.8  At Grsdcs 1 and a the SCIENCE and SOCIAI. SCIENCE objootivos are combined and reflected as one score unde EWVinoNHENT. 23/34.2 21/33.0 45/4 7..3 23/34.1 21/33.0 43/46.2 20/32.1 18/30.9 42/45.9 28/37.8 26/36.7 68/59.6 26/36.2 24/35.3 19/31.2 81/68.2 43/46.0 41/45.0 66/58.9 26/36.1 25/35.8 89/76.2 21/33.0 19/31.7 21/32.8 77/65.2 36/42.7 34/41.4 66/58.4 23/34.1 22/33.8 89/75.5 20/32.3 19/31.1 18/30.4 78/66.3 36/42.3 34/41.0 67/59.2o [l Liri'LE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT PIJVNNING, RESEARCH AND EVALUATION U) n STANFORD ACHIEVEMENT TEST, EIGHTH EDITION NATIONAL PERCENTILE RANK/NORHAL CURVE EQUIVALENT SCORES (PR/NCE) SCHOOL SUMMARY 1992 o o X3 U cn Of SCHOOL: GARI^ND ELEHENTARY EMVIROHHENT** GRADE/RACE NUMBER TESTED TOTAL READING TOTAL MATHEMATICS LANGUAGE SCIENCE SOCIAL SCIENCE BASIC BATTERY COMPLETE BATTERY CM ec o CM CM CC o ira 3 n ec X 00  o _1 _TOTAL B W O 2 TOTAL B W O 3 TOTAL B W O 4 TOTAL B N O 5 TOTAL B W O 6 TOTAL B H O J2_._ 32 29 26 3 28 28 31 30 1 35 35 62 62 ** At Grades 1 -_-62/_6S--5- -31/39.7-- 31/39.7 - -29/38,^-- 29/38.5 -20/32t1 20/32.1 -------35/Al-r$h 35/61.9 -26/36^1----- 26/36.1 19/31.8 17/29.7 51/50.7 32/60.3 29/38.6 65/58.3 25/35.9 23/36.5 68/60.7 25/35.7 21/33.3 65/58.3 21/33.1 18/30.8 55/52.8 26/36.2 23/36.1 58/56.2 12/25.6 12/25.6 29/38.5 29/38.5 26/35.0 26/35.0 20/32.0 20/32.0 22/33.9 22/33.9 19/31.2 19/31.2 17/30.0 17/30.0 23/35.1 43/46.3 23/36.3 23/36.3 27/37.2 27/37.2 39/66.3 38/43,7 69/60,4 29/38.1 28/37.9 43/46.3 26/36.7 26/36.2 54/52.1 36/61.5 33/40.9 69/60.4 28/37.7  28/37.6 49/49,5 26/36.6 20/37.9 51/50.5 30/63.8 38/63.8 63/66.6 63/66.6 and z the ecIBNCE and flocIAL 32/60.0 32/60.0 39/66.3 39/66.3 SCIENCE objectives 30/38.7 30/38.7 31/39.5 31/39.5 29/38.3 29/38.3 28/37.6 28/37.6 39/63.9 39/63.9 67/68.5 67/68.5 39/63.9 39/63.9 38/63.5 38/63.5IO o o Ka.'S LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT PIANNING, RESEARCH AND EVALUATION CA o STANFORD ACIIIEVFJIENT TEST, EIGHTH EDITION NATIONAL PERCENTILE RANK/NORMAL CURVE EQUIVALENT SCORES (PR/NCE) SCHOOL SUMMARY 1992 o o 4= O CZ5 0 SCHOOL: H1TCHEI.L ELEMENTARY ENVIRONMENT** GRADE/RACE NUMBER TESTED TOTAL READING TOTAL MATHEMATICS LANGUAGE SCIENCE SOCIAL SCIENCE BASIC BATTERY COMPLETE BATTERY cv n o CM CM CC o IO \u0026amp; co cc 03 cc 00, o _ 1 TOTAL B H O 2 TOTAL B W O 3 TOTAL B W O 4 TOTAL B W o 5 TOTAL B W O 6 TOTAL B W 0 40...... 38 2 32/40.1 31/39.6 49/49.6 30/39.1 30/38.7 43/46.3 30,38.8 29/38.4 44/47.0 21/33.9 - 20/31.9 55/52.6 __.ie'it -31/39.5- - 30/38.8 54/52.1 26/36.3  25/35.6 49/49.4 43 41 2 39 35 3 1 41 38 ,3 24 23 1 38 38 20/32.0 21/32.9 4/13.8 25/35.9 23/34.1 58/54.4 42/45.8 26/36.3 26/36.2 26/36.5 27/37.1 26/36.4 55/52.6 29/38.3 29/38.3 At Grades 1 and 2 the SCIENCE are combined and rrt F 1 48/49.0 49/49.5 31/39.6 31/39.7 32/40.0 21/33.0 26/36.3 25/35.6 52/50.9 29/30.6 30/39.2 12/25.3 26/36.2 26/36.7 12/25.2 46/40.1 44/47.0 73/62.9 43/46.3 34/41.3 31/39.5 75/64.2 26/36,.5 29/38.2 25/35.7 71/61.5 65/58.1 42/4 5.9 39/44.1 78/65.9 49/49.5 32/40.0 28/37.9 73/62.6 40/44.7 30/39.2 27/37.1 71/61.8 42/45.8 37/42.8 37/42.9 34/41.3 56/53.1 56.53.4 44/46.8 42/45.9 42/45.9 25/35.9 25/35.7 29/38.3 26/36.7 26/36.5 30/39.1 29/38.2 29/38.2 28/37.7 29/38.2 34/41.3 30/39.0 26/36.7 29/38.2 28/37.5 43/46.3 40/44.7 94/82.7 33/40.9 33/40.9 and SOCIAL SCIENCE objectives 35/41.6 34/41.0 66/58.7 50/49.8 49/49.6 59/54.8 42/45.6 41/45.0 67/59.3 42/45.5 40/44.9 67/59.3 43/46.2 43/46.2 39/44.2 39/44.2 36/42.6 36/42.6 36/42.2 36/42.2co o o s LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT PLANNING, RESEARCH AND EVALUATION ce Q STANFORD ACHIEVEMENT TEST, EIGHTH EDITION NATIONAL PERCENTILE HANK/NORHAL CURVE EQUIVALENT SCORES (PR/NCE) SCHOOL SUMMARY 1992 o o 3 O W o: SCHOOL: RIGHTSEIX ELEMENTARY ENVIRONMENT** GRADE/RACE NUMBER TESTED TOTAL READING TOTAL MATHEMATICS LANGUAGE SCIENCE SOCIAL SCIENCE BASIC BATTERY COMPLETE BATTERY CM CD CM CM CO O1 co co OJ co \\ co * o 1 TOTAL B ' V O 2 TOTAL B H O 3 TOTAL B W 0 4 TOTAL n H O 5 TOTAL B W O 6 TOTAL B W O - 39- 38 33 32 38 37 33 33 62 62 33 33 *'63/66.2 63/66.5 '*56/67.9\" 66/68.0 32/60.6' 33/60.3 25/35.9' 26/36.2 60/66.7 61/65.0 39/66.0 60/66.6 65/67.1 65/67.2 32/60.2 32/39.9 53/51.6 26/36.2 26/36.2 21/33.1 21/33.1 36/61 .0 36/61.0 71/61.5 70/61.0 66/68.1 65/67.1 95/86.6 53/51.6 53/51.6 69/69.5 69/69.5 66/58.7 66/58.7 66/66.9 65/67.2 57/53.8 57/53.8 58/56.1 58/56.1 62/65.7 61/65.0 86/70.9 37/62.8 37/62.8 37/63.1 37/63.1 62/65.6 62/65.6 26/35.2 23/36.7 56/53.2 26/35.1 27/37.2 28/37.9 28/37.9 36/62.3 36/62.3 30/38.8 29/38.6 55/52.6 31/39.6 31/39.6 37/63.2 37/63.2 61/65.2 61/65.2 38/63.8 38/63.3 75/66.2 . 36/62.6 39/66.2 30/38.8 30/38.8 63/66.0 63/66.0 36/61.5 36/61.0 73/62.9 32/60.1 35/61.9 29/38.6 29/38.6 60/66.6 60/66.6 o lO 3 1 ** At Grades 1 and 2 the SCIEJtCE and SOCIAL SCIENCE obioctivo aro combined and reflnnl-od 13o s LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT PLANNING, RESEARCH AND EVALUATION ) o STANFORD ACHIEVEMENT TEST, EIGHTH EDITION NATIONAL PERCENTILE RANK/NORMAL CURVE EQUIVALENT SCORES (PR/NCE) SCHOOL SUMMARY 1992 o o .c o tn q: SCHOOL: ROCKEFELLER ELEMENTARY ENVIRONMENT** GRADE/RACE NUMBER TESTED TOTAL READING TOTAL MATHEMATICS LANGUAGE SCIENCE SOCIAL SCIENCE BASIC BATTERY COMPLETE BATTERY CM O CM CM O to ei o co a\u0026gt; 00 J o --1 TOTAL B W O 2 TOTAL B W O 3 TOTAL B M O 4 TOTAL B W o 5 TOTAL B W O 6 TOTAL B H O - 62----- 41 20 1 - 42/45\n8 - 52/51.0 64/57.5 -30/3071  45/47.1 61/56.0 59/54.8 51750 .'3----- 46/47.8 59/54.8 70/61.0 33/40-.3!.... 26/36.7 49/49.3 35/41.9 46/48.1 41/45.1 57/53.6 68/59.9 42/45.5 37/42.8 51/50.7 63/57.0 41 29 10 2 39 26 12 1 38 33 5 38 32 5 1 36 27 9  At Grades 1 and 20/37.8 23/34.6 43/46.3 34/41.0 42/45.9 38/43.5 56/52.9 40/44.6 44/46.9 38/43.5 58/54.0 68/59.6 30/38.9 23/34.2 54/52.2 26/36.7 31/39.8 25/36.0 51/50.3 36/42.4 30/39.2 24/34.8 53/51.3 35/41.8 20/32.2 13/26.0 38/43.8 69/60.4 36/42.7 33/40.5 43/46.4 67/59.3 35/41.6 26/36.4 54/52.1 63/57.0 20/31.9 16/29.4 24/34.9 61/55.9 27/37.2 22/33.9 38/43.3 38/43.6 28/37.6 21/33.2 41/45.2 66/58.7 25/35.7 18/31.0 39/44.0 63/57.0 29/38.4 28/ 37.6 38/43.4 30/39.2 28/38.0 39/44.0 55/52.6 37/42.9 32/40.3 53/51.6 38/43.4 36/42.3 51/50.5 49/49.7 46/47.7 71/61.4 63/57.0 48/48.7 43/46.1 64/57.3 2 the SCIENCE and SOCIAL 25/35.6 23/34.5 41/45.3 26/36.7 28/37.6 41/45.2 31/39,3 27/37.0 58/54.3 28/37.8 29/38.6 40/44.4 26/36.3 27/36.8 41/45.1 41/45.1 36/42.6 63/56.9 75/64.2 43/46.2 38/43.8 66/58.8 66/58.7 34/41.0 32/40.0 40/44.6 59/54.8 36/42.4 33/40.7 52/50.9 62/56.4 35/41.8 32/40.0 52/51.0 62/56.4 38/43.8 34/41.1 55/52.7 48/49.0 45/47.3 58/54.2 56/53.4 50/49.9 75/64.1 45/47.4 40/44.9 59/54.9 45/47.5 40/44.8 61/55.7 SCTEHPP nh-i oci-00 o o LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT PliANNlNG, RESEARCH AND EVALUATION U) Q STANFORD ACHIEVEMENT TEST, EIGHTH EDITION NATIONAL PERCENTILE RANK/NORMAL CURVE EQUIVALENT SCORES (PR/NCE) SCHOOL SUMMARY 1992 o o 43 O tn os SCHOOL: STEPHENS ELEMENTARY ENVIRONMENT** GRADE/RACE NUMBER TESTED TOTAL READING TOTAL MATHEMATICS LANGUAGE SCIENCE SOCIAL SCIENCE BASIC BATTERY COMPLETE BATTERY -----1 TOTAL D W O 38- 37 1 22/3i-.%  22/33.8 23/34.4  42/5-r5-  41/45.4 52/51.1 -35/41.-8 - 35/41.6 53/51.6 -23/34T5- 23/3ii.l th tn .2 31/39. 6 ' 31/39.6 35/41.9 75735.-3 - 24/35.2 25/35.8 C-l n o CM CM CO o 1(5 63 n Oi co OO \u0026gt; 2 TOTAL B W O 3 TOTAL B W O 4 TOTAL B W O 5 TOTAL B W O 6 TOTAL B W 0 32 32 21 21 2 2 39 39 30 28 1 1 At Grados 1 27/37.3 27/37.3 20/32.6 20/32.6 24/35.4 30/39.2. 17/30.2 17/30.2 33/40.9 . 29/38.2 73/62.9 98/93.3 26/36.2 26/36.2 43/46.1 43/46.1 34/41.4 34/41.4 35/42.0 35/42.0 40/44.9 35/41.6 94/32.7 99/99.0 33/40.5 33/40.5 35/42.0 35/42.0 38/43.6 38/43.6 34/41.3 34/41.3 37/42.9 35/42.0 33/40.7 84/70.9 and 2 the ECIENCE and SOCIAL SCIENCE obloctivas 24/35.2 24/35.2 23/3^.5 29/38.5 27/36.8 27/36.8 32/40.4 38/43.3 34/41.4 54/52.1 97/89.6 21/33.3 21/33.3 22/34.0 22/34.0 36/42.3 36/42.3 33/40.5 33/40.5 31/39.7 31/39.7 35/41.9 35/41.9 32/40.2 32/40.2 26/36.2 26/36.2 26/36.2 26/36.2 42/45.5 37/42.9 89/75.8 96/86.9 36/42.3 31/39.7 98/93.3 35/41.8 30/39.2 76/64.9 98/93.309/07/95 ! i I 13:29 501 324 2023 LRSD COMMUNICATI ODM @002/002 i i mn V J. I Little Rock School District I 1 f i t i Media Advisory PREPARATIONS FOR STANFORD 8 TESTING I i September 7,1995 f I I For more information\nDina Teague, 324-2020 Friday, September 8,1:30 - 2:00 p.m. Stanford 8 testing begins around the state on Monday and students at Otter Creek Elementary School will get ready at a Test Buster Assembly in their cafeteria. One student will dress as Rocky (the boxer) and will \"challenge\" the test. ### I I ! I09/11/95  10:15 501 324 2023 LRSD COMMUNICATI ODM 002/002 f' Little Rock School District Media Advisory I ( I } i i I i i I 1 September 11,1995 For more information: Dina Teague, 324-2020 No special events are scheduled for students in the Little Rock School District this week while Stanford 8 Tests are being administered. ! Thursday, September 14, 5:00 p.m. The LRSD Board of Directors will hold their regular monthly agenda meeting. I I 1 ### 1 I I 1 I I ( f i ! 810 West Markham Street  Little Rock. Arkansas 78201  (5011324-2000c\nLITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT Planning, Research, and Evaluation NOV 2 2 1995 of Desegregation f^Ol'IiiOfiiig MEMORANDUM Date: November 21, 1995 To: Dr. Henry Williams, Superintendent From: Dr. Ed Jackson, Director Planning, Research, and Evaluation Subject: 1994-95 Stanford Eight Achievement Test Annual Report C^cc Please find enclosed your personal copy of the 1994-95 Stanford Eight Achievement Test Annual Report. Also enclosed are copies for distribution to the Board members. If 1 can be of further assistance, please call me. Enclosure cc: LRSD Board Members Jerry Malone, LRSD Attorney Joshua Intervenors John Walker, Attorney ^Office of Desegregation MonitoringI'l/i h Dra ^T^sr Tt. 'ry (tz. ** Little Rock School District Planning, Research, and Evaluation MEMORANDUIVI RECiSVED DEC 1 5 1995 J\nOffice of Dssegiegauon Munuwuiy TO: Ann Brown. Office of Desegregation Monitoring FROM: Dr. Ed Jackson, Director RE: Revised Stanford Achievement Test Results: Historical Comparisons DATE: December 12,1995 h bra t'y - An error occurred during the processing of the comparative data report causing the scores for five schools (Mabelvale, Meadowcliff, Mitchell, McDermott, and Martin L. King) to be interchanged. The results affect these schools only. All other data, to include other school and district totals, remain the same. Please replace previously received data with the attached revised version. If you have any questions, please contact Dr. Lacey, Testing Coordinator or myself at 324-2120. Attachment a: e?ved N 1995 CKffiBB Little Rock School District Office ol Desegregation December 8. 1995 Monitoring MEMORANDUM TO: Mrs. Ann Brown, Office of Desegregation Monitoring FROM: Dr. Ed Jackson, Director vl Planning, Research, and Ev^uation Tl.'k I'x RE: 1995 Stanford Achievement Test Results Cop'd /I'bi-a 'LX t Please find enclosed results of the Fall 1995 administration of the SAT-8 test for the Little Rock School District. Enclosed are districtwide and individual school reports disaggregated by ethnicity. One report provides a four year trend of the test administration giving the basic and Complete Battery score results. The second report provides subject area results along with Basic and Complete Battery scores for the Fall 1995 school year. Please let me know if you have any questions. Enclosure cc: Dr. Henry P. Williams, Superintendent Dr. Russ Mayo, Associate Superintendent 810 West Markham Street  Little Rock, Arkansas 72201  (501)824-2000c: /tlrye. LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT Planning, Research and Evaluation RECEiV''n FEB 8 1996 3 MEMORANDUM FROM: RE: January 25, 1996 Superintendents Cabinet Dr. Ed Jackson, Director Insert for SAT-8 Annual Report Office of Deseflregation Monuoii htg Please see attached SAT-8 Annual Report pages 7 and 8. If your document is missing these pages, please insert. We regret the inconvenience. cc: Dr. Henry P. Williams LRSD Board Members Arm Brown, ODM John Walker, Attorney Magnet School Review 1O-.8 (2, 4, 6, 9, and 10) scored average or above\nin 1994, eight grades (2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, and 9) scored above the national average, and for 1995 six grades (2, 4, 5, 6, 7, and 9) scored at or above the national average. Grade 6 and 9 have remained above the national average for each years results. Fifth grade students in 1994 scored at the 56th percentile which equalled grades 4, 5, and 6 in 1995. 4.1.6 Science Five grade levels (2, 4, 5, 6, and 9) scored at or above the 50th percentile in science on the Stanford Eight in 1995. Only grades 4, 5, and 6 scored at or above the 50th percentile for the 1994 administration. In 1993 grades 4 and 6 exceeded the national average while in 1992 grades 6 and 9 scored average or above. 4.1.7 Social Science The 1994 social science data show that five of die nine grades levels tested (3, 4, 5, 6, and 10) scored above the national average. Grade 4 achieved the highest percentile rank in social science. In 1993, grades 4, 5, and 6\nand in 1992, grades 6 and 11 scored above the average national percentile. In a review of the 1995 data only 9 grades 4, 5, 6, and 10 exceeded the average national percentile (See Exhibits 1-6). 4.1.8 Highest Performance The national percentile ranks for grade 6 were at or above the national average in every subject area for all administrations (1992 through 1995), and grade 4 was above average in every subject area except reading (See Exhibits 1-6). 4.1.9 Analysis of Test Data for Elementary Students The Group Skills Analysis with Objectives Performance reports presents summary information for a class, school or district. This analysis provides a summary of the groups performance on the \"Content Clusters.\" Below average (BA) refers to the bottom 23 % of the reference group\nAverage (A), to the middle 54%\nand Above Average (AA), to the top 23%. These performance categories are especially helpful when identifying strengths and needs within content areas. This report, as well as other alternative assessments, assists the schools instructional leaders and staff when reviewing curriculum and setting priorities for instruction.Grade all Sheet 1 Normal Curve Equivalent (NCE) Scores by Elementary Schools compared Io Total District Scores - Complete Battery [ School Name Williams (magnet) Carver (magnet) Icioverdale Romine (interdist) iGibbs (magnet) Western Hills I Rightsell (incent) Terry I King (interdistrict) Otter Creek I McDermott Rockefeller (incent) I Booker (magnet) Wilson I Fulbright Watson I Pulaski Heights Brady I Wakefield Washington (Inter) I Woodruff Forest Park I Bale Geyer Springs I Meadowcliff Dodd I Jefferson Fair Park iGarland (incent) Mabelvale I Chicot Baseline I Badgett Mitchell (Incent) I Frankin (incent) School Black 61.5 50 District Black 41.7 41.7 48.48 I 41.7 48.2 47.44 45.28 45.26 45 44.92 43.92 42.58 42 41.7 I 41.7 41.7 I 41.7 41.7 I 41.7 41.7 I 41.7 41.7 41.86 I 41.7 41,84 41.54 41.16 40.9 40.88 40.34 39.88 39.64 39.4 39.06 39 38.4 38.16 37.7 37.64 ,. 37.58 f 37.48 37.34 I 37.22 . 41.7 I 41.7 41.7 I 41.7 41.7 I 41.7 41.7 I 41.7 41.7 I 41.7 41.7 1 41.7 41.7 I 41.7 41.7 41.7 41.7 41.7 41.7 34.96 1 41.7 34.94 31,8 1 41.7 41.7 % diff 147.5% 119.9% 116.3% 115.6% 113.8% 108,6% 108.5% 107.9% 107.7% 105.3% 102.1% 100.7% 100.4% 100.3% 99.6% 98.7% 98.1% 98.0% 96.7% 95.6% 95.1% 94.5% 93.7% 93.5% 92.1% fo 91.5% , 90.4% 90.3% 90.1% 89.9% 89.5% 89.3% 83.8% Sorted by the % difference of School Black Scores to District Black Scores School White 75.58 71.36 I 65.9 49.3 I 69.24 63.96 I 17.3 68.56 I 62.3 61.54 I 66.12 51.38 I 57.98 52.06 I 66.82 48.32 I 68.62 56.68 1 48.78 63.28 I 53.9 75.66 I 53.96 46.2 I 48.76 , 48.76 83.8% 76.3% I 70.66 64.06 0 50.94 49.34 38.64 45.86 52.8 62.4 ZIZ Dlstricf White 63.32 63.32 63.32 63.32 63.32 63.32 63.32 63.32 63.32 63.32 63.32 63.32 63.32 63.32 63.32 63,32 63.32 63.32 63.32 63.32 63.32 63.32 63.32 63.32 63.32 63.32 63.32 63.32 63.32 63.32 63.32 63.32 63.32 63.32 63.32 % diff 119.4% 112.7% 104.1% 77,9% 109.3% 101.0% 21.3/^ 108.3% 98.4% 104.4% 81.1% 91.6% 82.2% 105.5% 76.3% 108.4% 89.5% 99.9% 85.1% 119.5% 85.2% 73.0% 77.0% 77.0% 111.6% 101.2% 0.0% 80.4% 77.9% 61.0% 72.4% 83.4% 98.5% School Total 68.46 60.86 50.2 49.28 57.16 51.92 45.24 58.4 53.64 54 53.58 45.02 49.34 44.54 54.18 42.44 55.52 45.52 41.52 48.58 45.68 58.08 42.32 40.58 40.98 41.96 57.52 41.84 37.76 42.08 39.56 37.64 37.64 35.24 32.64 Page 1 District Total 49.38 49.38 49.38 49.38 49.38 49.38 49.38 49.38 49.38 49.38 49.38 49.38 49.38 49.38 49.38 49.38 49.38 49.38 49.38 49.38 49.38 49.38 49.38 49.38 49.38 49.38 49.38 49.38 49.38 49.38 49.38 49.38 49.38 49.38 I 49.38 I % diff 138.6% 123.2% 101.7% I 99.8% 115.8% I 105.1% 91.6% I 118,3% 108.6% I 109.4% 108.5% I 91.2% 99.9% I 90.2% 109.7% I 85.9% 112.4% I 92.2% 84.1% I 3rd Qlr Enrollm't 513 630 454 312 310 318 223 534 557 333 484 402 605 384 520 453 434 389 428 98.4% : 656 92.5% I 117.6%  85.7% I 82.2% I 83.0% 1 85.0% I 116.5% I 84.7%  - I 76.5% I 85.2% I 80.1% I Report date: May 23,1996__ % Black % eligible for free or___% ellgito for reduced Lunch free lunch 241 433 343 320 405 281 506 273 257 448 454 76.2% . 323 76.2% i 71.4% 66.1% I 220 258 455 52.0% 52.0% 85.0% 71.0% 54.0% 66.0% 96.0% 45.0% 54.0% 41.0% 53.0% 64.0% 52.0% 79.0% 49.0% 80.0% 47.0% 63,0% 86 0% 64,0% 67,0% 47,0% 70,0% 75,0% 76,0% 65,0% 42.0% 92.0% 69.0% 76.0% 76.0% 79.0% 97.0% 93.0% 22.4% 33.0% 78.0% 54.5% 39.4% 61.3% 83.0% 28,7% 51,7% 34,8% 41,3% 65,9% 46,9% 73,7% 36,2% 74,8% 43,6% 49,6% 81,1% 63,0% 68.5% 37.0% 74.9% 76.6% 73.3% 66.9% 38.3% 75.5% 94.6% 73.9% 77.3% 81.7% 77.3% 98.5% 86 5% 17.9% 27.0% 69.8% 46.5% 33.5% 54.4% 76.2% 27.2% 43.8% 30.9% 37.6% 59.2% 36.7% 68.0% 31.7% 67.3% 39.2% 43.4% 72.2% 56.7% 61.8% 32.3% 66.4% 65.9% 68.9% 61.9% 36.0% 69.6% 89.9% 64.1% 68.1% 74.3% 74.1% 95.0% 79.8%Sheen Normal Curve Equivalenl (NCE) Scores by Elementary Schools compared to total District Scores-- Complete Battery ~]~ Grade all School Name Forest Park Williams (magnet) ICarver (magnet) Jefferson iGibbs (magnet) Pulaski Haights iTerry Fulbright iMcDermotl Cloverdale I Fair Park Western Hills Iwashington (inter) Frankin (incenl) I King (interdistrict) Otter Creek I Booker (magnet) Brady (Bale Woodruff I Mitchell (incenl) Wilson I Rockefeller (incenl) Mabelvale IChicot Romine (interdist) [Wakefield Dodd I Meadowcliff Watson [Geyer Springs Badgett [Baseline Rightsell (Incent) [Garland (incenl) Sch(X)l Black 39.4 61.5 50 37.7 47.44 40.9 45 41.54 42.58 48.48 37.64 45.28 39.88 31.8 44.92 43.92 41.86 40.88 39.06 39.64 34.94 41.84 42 37.48 37.34 48.2 40.34 38.16 38.4 41.16 I 39 34.96 [ 37.22 45.26 [ 37.58 I I 1 1 I I 1 I I I i District Black 41.7 41.7 41.7 41.7 41.7 41.7 41.7 41.7 41.7 41.7 41.7 41.7 41.7 41.7 41.7 41.7 41.7 41.7 41.7 41.7 41.7 41.7 41.7 41.7 41.7 41.7 41.7 41.7 41.7 41.7 41.7 41.7 41.7 41.7 41.7 % diff 94.5% 147.5% I 119.9% 90.4% ] 113.8% 98.1% 107.9% 99.6% 102.1% 116.3% 90.3% 108 6% 95.6% 76.3% 107.7% 105.3% 100.4% 98.0% 93.7% 95.1% 83.8% 100.3% 100.7% 89.9% 89.5% 115.6% 96.7% 91.5% 92.1% 98.7% 93.5% 83.8% 89.3% 108.5% [ 90.1% I 1 I Sorted by the % difference of School White Scores to District While Scores School While 75.66 75.58 71.36 70.66 69.24 68.62 68.56 66.82 66.12 65.9 64.06 63.96 63.28 62.4 62.3 61.54 57.98 56.68 53.96 53.9 52.8 52.06 51.38 50.94 49.34 49,3 48.78 48.76 48.76 48.32 46.2 45.86 38.64 17.3 0 District While 63.32 63.32 63.32 63.32 63.32 63.32 63.32 63.32 63.32 63.32 63.32 63.32 63.32 63.32 63.32 63.32 63.32 63.32 63.32 63.32 63.32 63.32 63.32 63.32 63.32 63.32 63.32 63.32 63.32 63.32 63.32 63.32 63.32 63.32 63.32 % diff 119.5% 119.4% I 112.7% 111.6% 109.3% 108.4% 108.3% 105.5% 104.4% 104.1% 101.2% 101.0% 99.9% 98.5% 98.4% 97.2% 91.6% 89.5% 85.2% 85.1% 83.4% 82.2% 81.1% 80.4% 77.9% 77.9% 77.0% 77.0% , 77.0% 76.3% 73.0% 72.4% 61.0% 27.3% 0.0% r Schrxjl Total 58.08 68.46 60.86 57.52 57.16 55.52 58.4 54.18 53.58 50.2 41.84 51.92 48.58 32.64 53.64 54 49.34 . 45.52 42.32 45.68 35.24 44.54 45.02 42.08 39.56 49.28 41.52 . 41.96 40.98 42.44 40.58 37.64 37.64 45.24 37.76 Page 1 DisIricI Total 49.38 49.38 49.38 49.38 49.38 49.38 49.38 49.38 49.38 49.38 49.38 49.38 49.38 49.38 49.38 49.38 49.38 49.38 49.38 49.38 49.38 49.38 49.38 49.38 49.38 49.38 49.38 49.38 49.38 49.38 49.38 49.38 49.38 49.38 49.38 % diff 117.6% 138.6% I 123.2% 116.5% I 115.8% 112.4% I 118.3% 109.7% ( 108.5% 101.7% [ 84.7% 105.1% I 98 4% 66.1% [ 108.6% 109.4% I 99.9% 92.2% 85.7% 92.5% 71.4% 90.2% 91.2% 85.2% 80.1% 99.8% 84.1% 85.0% 83.0% 85.9% 82.2% 76.2% 76.2% 91.6% 76.5% I 3rd Qlr Enrollm't i 433 513 630 506 310 434 534 520 484 454 273 318 656 455 557 333 605 389 343 241 258 384 402 448 454 312 428 281 405 453 320 220 323 223 257 I Report Dale May 23,1996 % Black 47.0% 52.0% 52.0% 42.0% 54.0% 47.0% 45.0% 49.0% 53.0% 85.0% 78.0% 66.0% 64.0% 93.0% 54.0% 41.0% 52.0% 63.0% 70.0% 67.0% 97.0% 79.0% 64.0% 69.0% 76.0% 71.0% 86.0% 65.0% 76.0% 80.0% 75.0% 79.0% 76.0% 96.0% 92.0% I I I I 1 | I I % eligible lor free or reduced Lunch I I I I I I I LZ 37.0% 22.4% 33.0% 38.3% 39.4% 43.6% 28.7% 36.2% 41.3% 78.0% 75.5% 61.3% 63.0% 86.5% 51.7% 34.8% 46.9% 49.6% 74.9% 68.5% 98.5% 73.7% 65.9% 73.9% 77.3% 54.5% 81.1% 66.9% 73.3% 74.8% 76.6% 77,3% 81.7% 83.0% 94.6% I % eligible for free lunch 32.3% 17.9% 27.0% 36.0% . 33.5% ' -  39.2% 31.7% 37.6% 69.8% 69.6% 54.4% 56.7% . , 79,8% 43.8% 30.9%  36.7% . 43.4% ,\n66 4%  61.8%  95.0% 68.0% 59.2% 64.1% 68.1% 46.5% 72.2% 61.9% - 68.9% 67,3% 65.9% 74.1% 74.3% 76.2% 89.9%Shee11 Normal Curve Equivalent (NCE) Scores Elemenlary Schools compared Io To1al Dislrid Scores Complele Ballery f aii School Name Williams (magnef) Carver (magnet) I Terry Forest Park I Jefferson Gibbs (magnet) I Pulaski Heights Fulbright I Oller Creek King (inlerdislricl) I McDermott Western Hills Icioverdale Booker (magnet) I Romine (interdist) Washington (inter) I Woodruff Brady I Rightsell (incent) Rockefeller (incent) I Wilson Watson I Bale Mabelvale I Dodd Fair Park I Wakefield Meadowcliff |Geyer Springs Chicot iGartand (incent) Badgett I Baseline Mitchell (incent) iFrankin (incent) School Black 61.5 50 I 45 39.4 I 37.7 47.44 I 40.9 41.54 I 43.92 44.92 I 42.58 45.28 I 48.48 41.86 I 48.2 39.88 I 39.64 40.88 I 45.26 42 I 41.84 41.16 I 39.06 37.48 I 38.16 37.64 I 40.34 38.4 I 39 37.34 I 37.58 34.96 I 37.22 34.94 I 31.8 1 I District Black 41.7 41,7 41.7 41.7 41.7 41.7 41.7 41.7 41.7 41.7 41.7 41.7 41.7 41.7 41.7 41.7 41.7 41.7 41.7 41.7 41.7 41.7 41.7 41.7 41.7 41.7 41.7 41.7 41 7 41.7 41.7 41.7 41.7 41 7 41 7 % diff 147.5% 119.9% 107.9% 94.5% 90.4% 113.8% 98.1% 99.6% 105.3% 107.7% 102.1% 108.6% 116.3% 100.4% 115 6% 95.6% 95.1% 98.0% 108.5% 100.7% 100.3% 98.7% 93.7% 89.9% 91.5% 90.3% 96.7% 92.1% 93.5% 89.5% 90.1% 83.8% 89.3% 83.8% 76.3% I Sorted by the % difference of Schooi Tofal Scores fo Disfricf Total Scores School White 75.58 71.36 68.56 75.66 70.66 69.24 68.62 66.82 61.54 62.3 66.12 63.96 65.9 57.98 49.3 63.28 53.9 56.68 17.3 51.38 52.06 48.32 53.96 50.94 48.76 64.06 48.78 48.76 46.2 49.34 0 45.86 38.64 52.8 62.4 D^trict White 63.32 63.32 I 63.32 63.32 I 63.32 63.32 I 63.32 . 63.32 I 63.32 63.32 I 63.32 63.32 I 63.32 63.32 I 63.32 63.32 I 63.32 63.32 I 63.32 63.32 I 63.32 63.32 I 63.32 63.32 I 63.32 63.32 I 63.32 63.32 I 63.32 63.32 I 63.32 63.32 I 63.32 63.32 I 63.32 % diff 119.4% 112.7% 108.3% 119.5% 111.6% 109.3% 108.4% 105.5% 97.2% 98.4% 104.4% 101.0% 104.1% 91.6% 77.9% 99.9% 85.1% 89.5% 27.3% 81.1% , 82.2% 76.3% 85.2% 80.4% 77.0% . 101.2% 77.0% 77.0% 73.0% 77.9% 0.0% 72.4% 61.0% 83.4% 98.5% School Total 68.46 60.86 58.4 58.08 57.52 57.16 55.52 54.18 54 53.64 53.58 51.92 50.2 49.34 49.28 48.58 45.68 45.52 45.24 45.02 44.54 42.44 : 42.32 42.08 41.96 41.84 41.52 40.98 40.58 39.56 37.76 37.64 37.64 35.24 32.64 Page 1 District Total 49.38 49.38 I 49.38 49.38 , I 49.38 49.38 I 49.38 49.38 I 49.38 49.38 I 49.38 49.38 I 49.38 49.38 I 49.38 49.38 I 49.38 49.38 I 49.38 49.38 I 49.38 , 49.38 I 49.38 Z 49.38 I 49.38 49.38 I 49.38 49.38 I 49.38 49.38 I 49.38 49.38 I 49.38 49.38 I 49.38 I diff 138.6% 123.2% 118.3% 117.6% 116.5% 115.8% 112.4% 109.7% 109.4% 108.6% 108.5% 105.1% 101.7% 99.9% 99.8% 98.4% 92.5% 92.2% 91.6% 91.2% 90.2% 85.9% 85.7% 85.2% 85.0% 84.7% 84.1% 83.0% 82.2% 80.1% 76.5% 76.2% 76.2% 71.4% 66.1% 3rd Qfr Enrollm'f 513 630 534 433 506 310 434 520 333 557 484 318 454 605 312 656 241 389 223 402 384 453 343 448 281 273 428 405 320 454 257 220 323 258 455 r Report Date May 23, f996 % Black _%^ligible tor free or reduced Lunch 52.0% ... 52.0% I 45.0% 47.0% I 42.0% ,, 54.0% j 47.0% ~ 49.0% I 41.0% 54.0% I 53.0% 66.0% I 85.0% 52.0% I 71.0% 64.0% I 67.0% 63.0% . I 96.0% 64.0% I 79.0% 80.0% I 70.0% 69.0% I 65.0% 78.0% I 86.0% 76.0% I 75.0% 76.0% I 92.0% 79.0% I 76.0% 97.0% I 93.0% 22.4% 33.0% 28.7% 37.0% 38.3% 39.4% 43.6% 36.2% 34.8% 51.7% 41.3% 61.3% 78.0% 46.9% 54.5% 63.0% 68.5% 49.6% 83.0% 65.9% 73.7% 74.3% 74.9% 73.3% 66.9% 75.3% 81.1% 73.3% 73.3% 77.3% 94.6% 77.3% 811% 98.5% 86.5% % eligible for free iunch 17.9% 27.0% 27.2% 32.3% 36.0% 33.5% 39.2% 31.7% 30.9% 43.8% 37.6% 54.4% 69.8% 36.7% 46.5% 56.7% 61.8% 43.4% 76.2% 59.2% 68.0% 67.3% 66.4% 64.1% 61.9%  69.6% . 72.2% 68.9% 65.9% 1-68.1% 89.9% 74.1% 74.3% . 95.0% 79.8%e' LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT Planning, Research and Evaluation 810 West Markham Street Little Rock. AR 72201 r* ve\u0026lt;' J MEMORANDUM ' D Date: May 29, 1996 To: Dr. Henry P. Williams, Superintendent Superintendents Cabinet Ms. Ann Brown, Office of Desegregation Monitoring Magnet Review Committee CTA From: Dr. Ed Jackson, Director Subject: 1995-96 Fall Stanford Achievement Test - Eighth Edition Annual Report Analyses '' /t 7) Please find enclosed the 1995-96 Stanford Achievement Test - Eighth Edition Annual Report Analyses. This report represents a summary of the Stanford Eight Achievement Tests that were administered to students in grades 2 through 11 in the fall of 1995. Please feel free to contact me if you have any questions or need additional information. Enclosure cc: LRSD Board MembersJohn w. Walker, p.a. Attorney At Law 1723 Broadway Little Rock. Arkansas 72206 Telephone (501) 374-3758 FAX (501) 374-4187 OCT 1 b 1996 JOHN W. WALKER RALPH WASHINGTON MARK BURNETTE AUSTIN PORTER. JR. Office of Desegregation Monitoring via Facsimile 324-2308 October 15, 1996 Mr. Rudolph Howard, Principal Central High School 1400 Park Little Rock, AR 72206 Dear Mr. Howard: I am writing to request information regarding the PSAT testing that was done at Central today. This office has received several calls from parents of class members alleging disparate treatment regarding the testing. For example, in one of Ms. Becker's 10th grade English classes, none of the black students were allowed to take the test nor did they receive information regarding the same. With information that I have provided thus far, would you please provide the following to this office: 1) gender and grade level\nthe number of students who took the PSAT by race. 2) the name of the teachers by core subject whose students were given the PSAT\n3) state the date(s) of the next PSAT testing\nprovide all documentation that was published by the administration and/or staff to advise students of the PSAT 4) testing\nprovide all documentation (item #4 above) including criteria used to be considered for testing that was provided to the students and the date(s) this information was provided either through written notice or announcement\n5) 6) provide all correspondence, brochures, literature that the administration, teachers, counselors and other staff members have regarding PSAT testing\nand 7) state the name of the person(s) responsible for the PSAT testing besides yourself.I would like to have this information by 3:00 p.m. on Thursday afternoon, October 17, 1996. immediate attention to this request. Thank you for your incerel I /^oy C. Springer Kloshua Intervenors JCS/ cc: Dr. Victor Anderson Dr. Don Roberts Ms. Ann Brown Joshua class membersLU Q UJ LU m LU Visit our home page on the World Wide Web: hup: 11 WWW. collegeboard. org  iap z cc o U5J z o i 5 S I -J 55 LU oz cci (fi DC UJ Q. V) Vi 0)3 QQ^ LU LU (/) Vi LU CC O Q co Q LU m UJ O H t/i O 0. _ i/\u0026gt; OJ LJ .y X- \u0026gt; (U Ln m G o m m 9^ o O O \u0026lt; O QQ \u0026gt; -5 QJ  2 I'C-Se^' /SI I 5o h\ntj U O 7 m 'I 2  - x: in Q H H Wwe^a n,t .hear from , you: to The College Board Educational Excellence for All Students Tell us whot you think of the PSAT/NMSQT Student Bulletin Tell us about yourself So,, 1. How much do you actually read? _____ all of it _____ most of it _____ some of it _____ none of it 5. 6. 2. Which pages do you read? [Check all that apply.] _____ None _____ Front page _____ Tips and hints about verbal questions _____ Tips and hints about math questions _____ Tips about bubbles for address, scholarships, (2-5) (6-9) 3. 4. majors, etc. _____ Full-length test ____ Scholarship information (11-12) 7. How do you rate the Student Bulletin? [For each characteristic, circle the appropriate number on the scale.] 1____ boring 2 3 4 5 6 interesting 8. 1 2 3 4 5 6 hard to read easy to read 1 2 3 4 unattractive 5 6 attractive 1 2 3 4 5 6 uninteresting lots of helpful info 9. 1 2 3 4 5 6 information hard to find information easy to find 1______ too long 2 3 4 5 6 too brief 10. 1 2 3 4 5 6 disorganized well-organized What is your overall impression of the Student Bulletin? Sex _____Female _____Male Grade Level _____12th grade _____11 th grade _____10th grade _____ 9th grade _____ Sth grade _____Not yet in Sth grade you re thinking about college Grade Average _____A+ or A _____A- or B+ _____ B or B- _____C+ or C _____C- or D+ _____D or below Educational Plans _____specialized training or certificate program _____two-year college degree _____four-year college degree _____master's degree _____doctoral or related degree _____I don't know How did you get your copy of the Student Bulletin? from a counselor from a teacher from a volunteer or secretary Other (Please specify) Did you take the PSAT/NMSQT last year? ______yes ______no Optional Name (please print) School Code Phone ( ) thank you The College Board wants to help you get ready for college. Taking the PSAT/ NMSQT lets you get feedback about academic preparation, get mail from colleges, and get scholarships. The PSAT/NMSQT Student Bulletin has a lot of helpful information about doing well on the test. But it won't help, unless you read it. We want to know what you read (or don't read), and why. Your answers will influence future editions. Thank you. Sincerely, Maureen Welsh Director of School Services P.S. If you tell us who you are, we may contact you.I CENTRAL HIGH SCHOOL 1500 SOUTH PARK STREET LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS 72202 2 / /995 October 17, 1996 Office of ^^^^gregation Moniionna Joy Springer Joshua Intervenors 1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72206 Ms. Springer: In response to your request for information regarding PSAT testing practices and procedures at Central High School, the following insights are herein provided according to your fax dated 10/15/96. 1. The number of students according to race, level. gender and grade A. Race White 230 Black 94 Other 22 Total 346 B. Gender WM 78 WF 152 BM 35 BF 59 OM 11 OF 11 Total 346 C. Grade Level Grade 10 Grade 11 WM WF Sub Totals 27 68 95 BM BF 2 OM 13 OF 15 4 6 10 WM WF 51 84 135 BM BF 2. Total Grade 10 - 120 Total Tested 33 46 79 OM OF 7 5 12 Total Grade 11 - 346 226 The name of the teachers by core subject whose students were given the PSAT. As I indicated in our phone conversation on 10/16/96, I do not fully understand what you are needing here, however, I hope that the following explanation suffices. A. The PSAT is a test which is strongly recommended to be given to 11th grade students, however, we do encourage 10th grade students to take it. that we promote for 10th graders to take. The PLAN Test is a test I make this point because a greater effort of solicitation is made to 11th graders versus 10th graders. Observe, however. that many 10th graders (120) as well as 11th graders (226) took the test. Page 2 B. C. Since any and all students who take the PSAT are enrolled in core subjects, any and all teachers that teach the core areas will have students represented. Is a roster of all my English, math, science and/or social studies teachers being requested here? The PSAT is not administered via classes, e.g., English, math, etc. Testing sites are set up according to our scheme and students from all classes, English, math. etc., are assigned to the sites. Please see the five page special bulletin attachment for the testing sites and the students assigned there. 3. The next PSAT testing will be in October of 1997. Again, it will be recommended for 11th graders, but 10th graders will be encouraged to take it. 4. Provide all documentation that was published by the administration and/or staff to advise students of the PSAT. A. Announcement of PSAT testing is provided in the LRSD's 1996-97 calendar. The District's calendar is presented by the Superintendent to the Board for approval in the Spring each year. All patrons and schools have access to the calendar prior to the beginning of school each year. See attachment. B. Central High School publishes a monthly calendar. It is distributed to all staff the week prior to the beginning of each month. calendar in their classrooms. Teachers are encouraged to post the C. See attachment. Central High communicates all major and/or important events through its newspaper. The- Tiger. The paper is delivered to our students by the journalism department D. twice to three times per month. See attachment. Central attempts to keep its students informed via a Daily Bulletin. The announcements concerning the PSAT were contained in the bulletins on the following dates: 9/20/96 10/09/96 10/01/96 10/10/96 10/04/96 10/11/96 Teachers read the daily bulletin to students during 1st period. See attachment. E. In addition, announcements regarding the PSAT were made via intercom both mornings and afternoons, October 1-4, 1996. Special bulletins were published and distributed 10/7, F. 10/11 and 10/14, 1996. See attached. Counselors personally visited every 11th grade English class during the period 10/1 - 10/11, 1996, in an effort to discuss the importance of the test and to encourage registration.Page 3 G. All teachers, irrespective of subject area and/or grade level, received two (2) special bulletins regarding the PSAT on the following dates: 1996 . See attachment. October 7, 11, and 14, 5. Provide all documentation (Item #4 above) including criteria used to be considered for testing . . . Item #4 contains all documentation asited for in Item #5. There was no additional criteria provided to students except that they pay for the cost of the test, $9.00, at which time the PSAT Student Bulletin was given to every 10th grade student who signed the stand-by list and to all 11th grade students who paid the $9.00. 6. Provide all correspondence, brochures . . . See Item #6 and PSAT Student Bulletin (attached). 7. State the person(s) responsible for the PSAT testing besides yourself: Sam Blair, Test Coordinator and Head Counselor Ann Graves, Counselor Peggy Hawthorne, Counselor Lynda Johnson, Counselor Linda Porter, Counselor SincefrefLy, Rudodph Howard Principal RH/mj s cc: Dr. Dr. Ms . Victor Anderson Don Roberts Ann Brown Joshua class membersLittle Rock School District First Class Schools For World Class Kids dis n/ Vil'. ^'l jl h  t-' ^f-y.-. ... ^' / \"V . 1\ni- ^'1/ '\u0026gt;J SB V /'r i!' ^2 ii ig\n! w  * * iS\nw A y t ik..^ y\" 1996-97 CALENDAR0^ S M T W T F s 1 School Day Photos 10th. 11th. Kinoer-garten \u0026amp; Faculty PTSA Mtg Library 5:30 p.m. 2 FBLA Meeting 125B 3 Senior Make-up Picture Day (Rm 103) 4 Home-coming Court Nominees Pep Rally(NLR} Order Senior Ring Lunch Times only 5 6 20 ! r. 13 College Admissions Program 2:00 Auditorium I 27 'Daylight Savings Time Ends I'\"'\" 7 Faculty Meeting 14 21 Home-coming Carnations Sale Mu Alpha Theta 28 8 15 PSAT (Periods 10th \u0026amp; 11th Graders End of 9 weeks 22 Early Dismissal 29 Order Senior Announcements Invitations/ Caps Gowns Report Cards Go Home 9 Teachers meeting with Dr. Roberts 4:30 p.m. 16 Students Out Teacher Workday 23 30 Order Sr. Announcements Invitations/ Cap \u0026amp; Gown Plan Test 10 FBLA Mtg 125B 17 24 1st Equity Monitoring 31 11 Pep Rally (Conway) I 12 I I 18 Scoliosis Screening 25 Pep Rally (Home-coming) Park view 1 I 1 I 19 26 i I I ! I i t I II IV [ n II I L-......  w .. CenfRolHighTigeRsJ Enrollment totals 1785 students Sophomores - 760 Juniors - 529 Seniors 464 Kindergartners  32 Tonight's football game is here at Quigley. Kickoff is 7:30 p.m. LITTLE ROCK CENTRAL HIGH SCHOOL Volume 102 Little Rock, Arkansas, October 4,1996 Number 5 THE BELL IS BACK!  i * Winning BELL very special to Class of 97 Ringing the belt Pictured at left are three Central High Tigers who want nothing better than to re-paint the bell from orange and white to black and gold. At left are Ralph Jack-son. Joseph McCraney and Errick Berry. Students had an opportunity to see and hear the Central bell ring Tuesday niorning while It sat in Student Council Sponsor Mr. Mark Mead ows truck on the school's front law. It was a truly glori OUS sight. By Ryan Davis It's back!! And it'saboui linx. After four years al Hall Ihe coveted Bell is honw. all thanks lo the spanking given lo ihe Warriors by Ihe TiguT bxnhalt leani. Rushing for 267 yards, die Tigers delivered a smashing 20-0 defcal to iIk Wjuriors of Hall High. \"It's bevn four years (since we last had Ihe Hell] iuid we didn't gel any respcx'i.\" senior light end Jixscph McCr.iixV staled. \"We got our rcs|X'Ci back. Anyixxly who thinks b.id alxml the leaiii. ...we an- going to prove them wrong.\" The Warriors, whoenlereil the \"Hallie for llie Hell on a ihrcv-gaiiK winning sire.ik, were only able lo allain 7.S yards rushing due lo the lix\u0026gt;l-pn.Hf Tigei defense. \"We tried lo prose sonwlliing lo our fans aixJ coaches. ' senior defensive eixl Fmck Herry s.n,l. Berry liiilliei si.iu-d lli.tl ilu \"defense' kind \u0026lt;f lei dow n dm iiig the ganx.' :il West Memphis,\" which allowed the Blue I X s il- h \u0026gt; rush oser 7\u0026lt;X\u0026gt; yards. Il Was an alt (lefeiise first h.ilf with die Tigers leading 7 0 .i-. h.ilflinx buzzer s^uixled. Tlii' was due lo senior l.iilb.n k Virgil Jones' selling up the louelxlowt. followiijg.i 47 y.trd p.isscmpk lii'n from qii.irlerb.iek Rt'bbie Stilleiiger .iiid dien niiming foiii y.irds for the hHiehdwn. Thl^ iixrcdible pl.iv c.iiiie willi I I' Continued on page 4 Ntws BRiefs\n4 of states 10 scholars are Central High students Krill .lohnsnn, a Cenii'al High innior. will lx* leaiured .is fli.innel Il's \"SliMlenl of Hie Week\" ironi (X t. 1-11. Johnson i\\ .1 .Student Council junior ap. president of Little Rixks chapter ofTop Teens, vice pa*sident of Centr.il's SBCMIi. .ind was nominated for the 1997 N.i-tion. il Youth Le.idership l-orum on Medicine. He w.is the winner 01 the I99.S-9f) Mr. LRCH Photogenic Contest. S* By Christine Whitson Four seniors .ire semilln.il-ists in the National Achievement Scholarship Program (NASP). Tliey are Salonica Gray. Larissa Jennings. T. Michelle Payne, and Ngozi i Scott. This awjird honors - ouisiJinding African-Americiin students. World Test, a celebration of uorld coinmuniiies. people, pl.inis and animals, will lx* held lomorrow Ironi 10-7 ill M.icAnhiir P.irk. Aeimission is free. Semifinalists. These three seniors were among 10 students from around Arkansas who were recently announced as National Achievement Scholar semifinalists. Pictured are Ngozi Scott, Salonica Gray and Larissa Jennings. The fourth semifinalist, not pictured, is T. Michelle Payne. About 1,200 finalists and 750 scholarships will be awarded next spring. To Ik considered, sludeiils iixik the Preliminitry Scholastic Aptitude Test (PSAT) in their junior year. The NASP is conducted by the National Merit Scholarship Coqxxa-tion. An estimated I(X).(XK) Africiin-Aniericiui students entered the competition by taking the PSAT iind 1.5(X) semilinal-ists were chosen natiiutwide. The semifinidisis will com-peic by Inking ihc Scholnsiic Aphiiidc Test (SAIIi .Uhl cdinplcimg .1 SIX) word esvix. Tlie essay is lo lx* .ilxui then ac.idcnuc |Xrloriii.incc. exir.i curricular acliviiics they participate in. iheir contribiiitons lo Ihe community and scIuk)I. iuid their educational plans lor the filllire. There will lx* 1.2\u0026lt;MHinalisis and 750 scholarship.s awarded totalling S.^ million. They will be given next spring. Juniors inieresicil in com|Xiing for next years scholarships shotikl coniact their counselor. Other semifinalisis in Arkansas are fmm Blytheville. Jacksonville. Mount St. Mary's. Pine Bluff. Russellville, and Helena. Ocfolivr will be a busy monih al Central and throughout the LRSD. College night is Thursday. (X t. 10. A pep rally IS planned for next Friday, (kt. 11 for the hxuball gameagainsi Conw.iy. The S Yl' Tesi is (Xt. 12. The ISAI will fx given to HUh and llih graders during period.s l-.l on Tuesday. (Xt. 1.^. Thal IS Ihe final day of ihe firsi 9-weeks. Siudeiiis are out of school on Wevlnesil.iy, (X'l. 16 for a teacher workday. Mu Alpha Theta will hold a carnation sale for lloinccom-ing Week.l XI. 21 -2.\u0026gt;. Tuesday. I \u0026gt;ci. 22 IS .in early dismissal ^Liy. The homecoming game is I'rid.n. Oci. againsi Parkview. Seniors will or^ler oul guuHs tX't. 2v-.P\u0026lt; ni Homecoming nominees told A total of 22 young ladies have been nominuied Homecoming nominees. Pictured above are Kumari Hardy. Jenny Wiedower. Misiv Price. Tiffany Mays, NiLki MclilHMg, Suzanna Monk, Evita Washington. Mary Fleming. Jill Irv.'in. Eiuubuili Faulkner. Moyao Kearney. AlonUra Givons, Molly Darragh, Tiffany Cravens, Tanya Corbin, Monica Simpbuii, thmugh first periixJ ciasse.s to contend for posiiioiw on the 1996 Central High Fixxlxill Homecoming Court. These students met with Mr. Mark Meadows. Siiident Council .sponsor, last Thursday lo Iciini about practice and appropriate attire. They will be* presented before the student btxly at an assembly nxlay. Students will have m opportunity to vote for the court, lloniecoining is Oitober 26 against Ihe Parkview High Schi**\ni i I 1 CENTRAL ilIGM SCHOOL DAILY BULLETIN SEPTEMBER 20, 1996 FRIDAY DO NOT ADMIT LIST: Robert Daniels Adrin Shorter 1/f Richard Boyd I/f Jabari Cummins Expul Demingo Johnson l/f Patrick I Tilery Expul Jonathan Van Buren I/T Vincent Williams lixpul luirl Westbrook lixpul I b iea Singleton-I I lenry James -xpi /r James llubbiud lixpul Rec. Nicole Breedlove l/f Eabrian Bridgewater Expul Deon Earnest Expul Harold Smith 9/19-9/25 Kissy Russell I/f Cedric Jones 9/9 to end of 1st Sem Acie Cummins Antonio Maxwell Expul Courtney Smith 9/12-9/25 , Edmar Higgins Expul. Courtney Blackwell 9/13-9/26 Maria Slubbcrfield 1/f Quentin Davis 1/f Danny Brown LT Antimoore Jackson Expul Phillip Hatton L/T John Roberts LT Rec. Wyncse Gantt 9/18-9/25 Korey Williams Rashee Barnett 9/19-9/26 Shawnrita Sain 9/19-9/25 Anton Grant 9/9 to End 1 st Sem Ryan Bell 9/19-9/26 David Hall 9/19-9/25 Elijah Johnson Expul Alan Rowe Expul Andre Harris I/f Adrias Moore 9/12-9/26 Archie Howard 9/11-9/24 Melvin Shepard 9/16-9/27 HI-STEPPERS: Teachers please dismiss all Hi-Steppers at 3:00 pm to leave for the bailgame in West Memphis. TEACHERS: Thank you for your splendid help in administering the Stanford 9. We had almost 100% perfect teacher attendance for the three days. Please add these future test dates to your calendar\nwe know that nobody likes to be surprised. As you can tell, the standardized test mania continues unabated: * October 15 - PSAT (about 400 juniors and sophomores) October 30 - PLAN test for sophomores (pre-ACT\nLRSD mandates it for all sophomores now) November 11 - 14 - State-mandated Exit exam for juniors (4 days) November 15 - Exit exam makeups STAFF MEMBERS: If you are cunenlly certified in First Aid, please notify Mrs. Stone immediately. ALL STAFF: Anyone interested in coaching swimming? Please contact Mr. Howard. WELLNESS CIJNIC: Friday Sept. 20th is the last day to sign up for a group in the Wellness .Clinic. All students who are interested in a group and all teachers or administrators who want to refer a student to a group should do so by that dale. STUDENTS: YOUNG DEMOCRATS: There will be a meeting on Tuesday the 24th during both lunches in Mrs. Cobbs room 337. SOPHOMORES \u0026amp; JUNIORS: The Congress-Bundestag Youth Exchange Program scholarship is now being olTered to students with a 3.0 GPA or higher. The student winners will spend a full year in Germany immersed in the lan| studeiit.s I,PA language and '199^'^' guidance office for an application. Applications must e postmarked by November 12, GERMAN CLUB: Sign up for German Club in room 312. Dues are $3.00. Our first meeting is Friday September 20. GUIDANCE: Any 10th, 11th and 12th graders interested in applying for the Prudential Spirit of community award, see Mrs. Porter. Central Highs top volunteer will be chosen to compete at the state level. Requirements include writing. Two essays about your volunteer work. Deadline for submitting your application. Deadline is Oct. 18,1996. GUIDANCE: Any 10th, 11th and 12th graders interested in applying for The voice of Democracy scholarship, see Mr s Graves. Requirements include a 3-5 minute recording and an essay on the students personal responsibility and understanding of the rights and responsibilities of being an American. Deadline: Nov. 2, 1996. INTERACT CLUB: Do you ever feel the urge to Mamba? Does the sight of Leder-hosen give you goose-bumps' Do siicred pigeons erk your curiosity'. If you answered yes to any of these questions then youd best get on the train and sign up for Interact, a service oriented club with an internal flare. Register today at lunch! JOURNALISM: Attention all seniors - those seniors who need a senior photograph made for the yearbook or to purchase must come by room 103 between Sept 13 and Sept 20 to receive an appomtment. See Mrs. Cherry to make your appointment ASAP. Thursday, Oct 3 is the last day our school photographers will be here taking senior pictures. SPANISH CLUB: Anyone currently enrolled in a Spanish Class that is interested in joining Spanish Club Please sign up in Rm. 335 or pay your Spanish Teacher. Dues are $3. Deadline to sign up is September 20. interested in joining Mu Alpha Theta should obtain and return a form in room 145 by F:3O pm^^ P a:ements from Jostens in the bookstore Oct 29th \u0026amp; 30th 8:30 am -DAILY B U L L E TIN CENTRAL HIGH SCHOOL OCTOBER 1, 1996 TUESDAY DO NOT ADMIT LIST: Robert Danieks Adrin Shorter L/T Richard Boyd L/T Jabari Cummins lixpul Demingo Johnson L/T Patrick Tillery lixpul Jonathan Van Buren L/T Vincent Williams lixpul liarl Westbrook lixpul lirica Singleton-I/f lidmar Higgins Expul. Maria  Iliagins Stubherlielu L/T Quentin Davi.s I./'f Danny Brown LT Chris Beasley 9/23-10/7 Mark Thompson 9/24-9/30 l ory Irby 9/25-10/2 Natasha Samuel 9/25-10/9 Justin Thabit 9/26-10/3 James Hubbard Expul Rec. Nicole Breedlove L/T Fabrian Bridgewater Expul Deon Earnest Expul Jeffrey Moss 9/26-10/3 Kissy Russell L/T Cedric Jones 9/9 to end of 1 st Acie Cummins Antonio Maxwell Expul Alan Rowe Expul Andre Harris L/T Antimoore Jackson Expul Phillip Hatton I/f Archie Howard ITT Rashaad Profit I/f Felyxia Williams 9/25-10/2 De Wayne Veasley 9/25-10/2 Lakilia Turner 9/26-10/3 Sem John Roberts LT Rec. Rikita Robinson 9/30-10/11/96 Korey Williams Kinte Perry 9/30-10/4 Anton Grant 9/9 to End 1st Sem Elijah Johnson Expul Gerron Garrett 9/24-10/9 Marina McElrath 9/25-10/2 Teri Walker 9/25-10/2 Billy Robinson 9/26-10/3 WELLNESS: Wellness Clinic groups will start meeting Monday, 9-30-96. liach member will sign a group contract and we have placed a copy of it in your mailboxes. As soon as group membership has stabilized (1-2 weeks) wc^will give vou a calendar and roster. If you have any questions please contact the Wellness clinic. ' .hoMahis Rouse Scholarship for Outstanding Teachers are available in O  t f Stone if you wish to apply . Each school may nominate two teachers. Ilie award consists varies  lSKr?p?ytoffK M  educational activity. The cash award ATTENTION TEACHERS: The following students are helping with school pictures. Please allow them to make-un anv k\"Sept. 30} 9-12 noon: Matt Milhollen, Meghan OMalley, and Tara Hall From 12-3 1 eah lleloUi \u0026lt;? *^7  Wick^d. (Tuesday, Oct. 1 )9-12 noon: Paula Moore, Lucie WetzeL Molly fhmsd J Oct 31 9 ?2 noon-Idlahunty and Kristen Wanek. Matt^lb^R-n indV.m d^n^fer Wagner. 12-3 pm.: Anthony Jacuzzi, Jill Irwin. Matt Milfiolen, and Tara Hail. STUDENTS\nJUN IORS \u0026amp; SENIORS\nIf you would like to be nominated for the National Youth'i.eadership Forum on Defense Intelligence and Diplomacy to be held in Washington D.C. in February, please see Mr.s Graves You must have a B average. I he cost to you is $890 plus transportation to Washington. -a cs. i ou iiiusi nave a i j Troubadour Members there will be a meeting in room 134 on Thursday October 3 1996 We w ill meet in room 134 dunng each lunch penod. Please attend we will nominate officers at this meeting! Th.\\h^th^'^ldmf Giris Basketball Team will be Thursday Oct. 3 at 6:00 in the Gvm. 1 nis IS inc XiriiH irvout. It vou nave anv cpc* f ia*) * Ihis is thcLjnal Tryout. If you have any questions see Coach Fitzpatrick in room 102. K Attaition French Club Members there will be a French Club meeting this Thursdav October 3rd diirino SKnS:.,'\n\" -'I \u0026gt;5.  lunch seniors portraits on matted \"'de^ See M^^. CheiT7befom SMOKING CLASS: Smoking class will be held October 2nd \u0026amp; 3rd at 8:00 in the Library Conference room. -d-?pd lunch in room 325. Elections will be held  t , r Al --------luuivii Hl luviu ixj aiiu secont and plans for the year will be discussed. Drawing for grand prize will be Oct. 2. W^d 2 Teenage Republicans will be having their membership drive from Wed., Sept 25 to cd. Oct. 2. Ihcrc will be a tabic in front of the library during first and second lunch for anyone interested in signing up. f ^der your caps \u0026amp; gowns \u0026amp; 1:30 pm. announcements from Jostens in the bookstore Oct 29th \u0026amp; 30th 8 30 am - tllN JOKS : Unlike the SAT or ACT, which are the PSAT is not a required test. used for college adnii ss ion , SOPIIOMOKI- UTrniiKS JENIOKS JDNIGRS: used to determine However, it is the tesl , next year's National Merit and National Achievement Semifinalists. This year's test is October The cost This year's _____ is $9.00 (correct change) payable in advance You may bring your payment to Mrs. Graves in the Guidance 01 fice B1^ORE_ school or DURING LUNCH by Thursday. October You will be given test 1 \u0026gt;. Graves Thursday, a receipt, whicE~will be your ticket. well as your pass to class. Please come to register early. of admission as Please 111. : The PSAT is a test for juniors, tests than we expect to need. but we have ordered iiioi e Sophomores wishing to trike the PSAT \"for practice\" may sign a stand-by list Gii i dance bn t office beginning today. The test costs in the sophomores will pay on the day of the test since we don't know how many tests will be\"available. stand-by list does be taking the test. Signing the not assure a sophomore that ho/she will Kepreseiitatives from the following colleges will be In the Guidance Conference Room next week applicants. to talk to prospective If you are interested-and meet the college's admission requirements, you may sign the list on the back bulletin board in the Guidance Office before the d.iy of the visit. - ---- Mon., Oct. 7: Wed., Oct. 9\nThur!!. Oct. 10: Erl., Oct. 11: 10:00 a.m. Hendrix College, Conway, AK. 9:55 a.m. Park College, St. Louis, MO 1.45 p.m. Drury College, Springfield, HO. 8:55 a.m. University of Chicago, Chicag.o, 8:55 a.m. Kenyon College, Gambler, Oil. III.. 10:00 a.m. Centenary College,Shreveport, LA. 11:00 a.m. University of Tulsa, Tulsa, OK 1:45 p.m. Columbia U. , New York, New York 2:45 p.m. Davidson College, Davidson, N.C. The applications for the Discover Card_ Youth Program Tribute Award Scholarships are here in Ihe Guidance Of fice. These scholarships can be used for any post high school training you are planning to enter. mus_t have a GPA of 2.75 or higher to compete. You You must demonstrate accomplishments in four out of these five a teas: Special Talents, Leadership, Obstacles Overcome, Community Service, Unique Endeavors. due to be received The application i: See Mrs. Graves for an application. by the committee by January 10, 199/.DAILY B U L L E TIN CENTRAL HIGH SCHOOL OCTOBER 4,1996 FRIDAY DO NOT ADMIT LIST: Robert Daniels Adrin Shorter L/T Richard Boyd ITT Jabari Cummins Expul Demingo Johnson L/T Patrick I illery lixpul Jonathan Van Buren ITT Vincent Williams Expul liarl Westbrook Expul Erica Singlcton-I/T lidmar\"' Higgins Expul. )ore Jackson Ex Antimoore Expul Quentin Davis IZf James Hubbard Expul Rec. Nicole Breedlove L/T Fabrian Bridgewater Expul Deon Earnest Expul Jeffrey Moss 9/26-10/3 Kissy Russell ITT Cedric Jones 9/9 to end of 1st Sem Acie Cummins Antonio Maxwell Expul Alan Rowe Expul Andre Hams ITT John Roberts LT Rec. Archie Howard L/T Korey Williams Kinte Perry 9/30-10/4 Deshun Williams 10/2-10/8 Anton Grant 9/9 to End 1st Sem Rikita Robinson 9/30-10/11/96 Elisa Brown 10/2-10/17 Elijah Johnson Expul IJanny Brown LT Chris Beasley 9/23-10/7 Natasha Samuel 9/25-10/9 Phillip Hatton L/T Sherita Smith 10/2-10/8 Rashaad Profit L/T Gerron Garrett 9/24-10/9 Drh?m ' teachers: Please send your Individual Improvement Plan (IIP) to ^^^^'^^FRS. 1 lease excuse the following students on Tuesday Oct 7 nt in-tsnm trv *1 \u0026lt; wc have placed a copy of it calender and roster, l VJ\" meeting Monday, 9-30-96. liach member will sign a ei 11 you have any questions please contact the Wellness clmic. ' ' I^ch member will sign a groifp contract and we will give you a are available in ATTENTION TEACHERS: The following student.s missed work. . (MoX Sept W 9 12 n^-lJfaSMiZnxf ^hool pictures. Please allow them to make-up any Vi.,:.:.. cV 1 P Matt Milhollen, Meghan O Malley, and Tara Hall From 12-3 1 pah ftplmti .ef.? Wickard. (Tuesday, Oct. 1)9-12 noom Paula Moore Luefe We^el Mollv Santini, and Lydia Mcew. 12-3 p.m : Meghan Rose, Katie Dowell, Ashley Dillahunty and Kri^cm ^anck Tiffany Wyatt. Ellen leay, and Jennifer Wagner. 12-3 pm,: Anthony/aXuill S Kelly Morion, uiumvj, onu v-tum\nWlCKa Darragh. James Mccoy (Ihursdav, Oct. 3) 9-12 noon: Malt Milholen. and Tara Hall. STUDENTS: yu ni^ mo^to a\"sS Ar?\"= stop by the bookstore this Friday if Ibk\\n n 7\" Calendar of activities and Fall Conference Room 325A or from yur business teacher. The next meeting will be Wednesday, October 10. information may get Md? L8?(13^163^* Multi-CuItural Day for Seniors on Monday, October CONGRATULATIONS TO 96-97 LATIN CLUB OFFICERS: Whitney Bailey, I reas. Kara Lipsmeycr, Rep. Brooke Ishmael Pres. Patrick Hicks, V-Pres. Chastity Hicks, Scc.-SPANISH CLUB\nI or anyone who signed up for Spanish Club, ihere will be e meetina Tuesday October 8 Tbi,  very iinportunt. Wc w.lf be elceling officer,. Fir,l IrrrK* will meet to R. 314 and Snd 13'vSl nSl to S 3 ------------------------s meeting will meet in nn. 335. GO'*'  \"k'' 'taulalion. See Mm. AH ENTION SENIOR REPRESENTATIVES: Then! will be a meeltog of the Senior Council on Frid.v  P'* K-ic will be finalized.^' in Ms. Cobbs* I. Ifaltcnduncu is SENIORS: Applications for the National Beta Club chgihic tor mcmbcrsliip, ----- '  - good cilizen.ship grades.' ,, --------''4are available in the Library and Rcxim 219 Tube ' 1-hi^ g.'^e pom! average (including 9th grade) of at least 3 0 and have Jhe application deadline is Fnday, October 11,4:00p.m. El^^iu. joiu. E' SCHOLAR.SHIP INFORMATION HAS ARRIVED IN THE GUIDANCE OmCF Cheek ihe srtholarship box. Your l-.nghsh teacher also has a copy on her bulletin board, rfltl.. Check the YOUNG DEMOCRATSTEENACE HEPUBUCANS\nIf you are 18 before Nov S ckclIOtl Yon \u0026lt;-nn rPDKtnrbv thaa likvoww Uei. 1 u-? vviviv iiv. j, s .SEC'ME\nStudents who are creative and motivated iipplication. are encouraged lo join SECME. Sec Mrs Blcvtoa (room 122) fur an VC a I) LW pm^' *'8' * nnouKanoiU from Josinu to the bookstore On 291h \u0026amp; 30lh 8:30 am - ll KI It (ttt.\nHl. like the SAT or ACT. which . - ---------- are used for college ndmi Ih.\nl.SAl IS not a required test. ii.Hd lo duterrnj! However, It in i|i(\u0026gt; tfst , . , years National Merit ami N.iiion.il Aclilovpment Semi f inali sts . \"*  III.' cost This year's tost is Octnhci V.niA/eAl W..aa*evU1* a*' ' ~  ' iH 59.00 (correct change) payable in aJv,ii\u0026gt;cc* i.Mi may hi mg your payment to Mrs. Craves in the Guulaiic- 'Ml mo BIJOHK SCIKXJL oc pllRING LUNCH by Thursday, Vou wilt ho given a receipt, whTcKwill bo  'I Hiiiiission as well as your pass to class. Ot'tOhlM 'iHirttiiKi:  \u0026gt;l your ticket li tcijister early. Ile.uto come The PSAT is n tost for juniors, but we have ordciwd tji than wc export to need. inoj  Sophomores wishing tf) t.ikt*   It. --.W|..ua WAOIIAIKI I tJ l.ll Hit' ISAf tor practice\" may sign a stand-by list iti ttn- Co idanco otEico beginning tflday. .---------------XAJSI\n*. The tost costs 59.0(1. sopiioinores will pay on the day of tlio test niiitro -I'oil know how mony test.s will be nvail.ible.  I.iiul-liy tint does not assure wo SigniiKj (h.\u0026gt; Ik- lakiiK] the tost. a sophomore that hn/siin wi I I Hi.-iinii\n: ' I n mu:\nUIIHOIh\n: Rcprcuentatlwes fro the following cnllegcn will bo in the Uuld.nicc Coiifereoce Rona oext week to talk to --- pronpertIve If you are Interested vaod acet the ro] irge'ii udaliialuii requlrvacnts, you asy alga the list on the h.irk nppllcantu. biillctla board In the Guidance Office before the day w I u \u0026lt; \u0026gt; ----------- TUES, Oct. 8: Wi-d., Oct. 9: Tlnirn.Oct. 10: Frl., Oct. 11: |\u0026gt;I \u0026lt;h\u0026gt;- 10:00 a.a. Hendrix College, Conway, AH. 9:55 a.a. Park College, St. Louis, MO \" Drury College, Springfield. MO. 1.45 p. 8:55 a. 6:55 a. 10:00 11:00 1:45 P Ualverslty of Chicago, Clilr.np.ti, III.. Kenyon College, Csabler, OH. Centeoary College,Shreveport. 1^. University of Tulaa, Tuhi.i. (JK Goluabla U. , New York, New Yik 2:45 p.a. Davldsoo College, Davldcon, N.C. Tin* applications for the Discover Card Youth Pro.jr.nn 11ibute Award Scholarships are here in the Guidance of H co. These scholarships can be used for any post higli school training you are planning to enter. have a GPA of 2.75 or higher to compete. Yon You must ilt.-inonstratc accomplishments in four out of these five \u0026lt;11 nns s Special Talents, Leadership, Obstacles Overconx!, ('(iimniinity Service, Unique Endeavors. The Application is linn to be received by the committee by January 10, 1'197. .Stjc Mrs. Graves for an application.DA I L Y B UL L E TIN CENTRAL HIGH SCHOOL OCTOBER 9, 1996 WEDNESDAY DO NOT ADMIT LIST: Robert Daniels Adi in Shorter L/f Richard Boyd L/f Jabari Cummins F.xpul Deiningo Johnson L/T Iiilhck Tillery Expul Jonathan Van Buren L/T Vincent Williams Expul Earl Westbrook Expul Erica Singleton-1/f Edmar Higgins Expul. Anlimoore Jackson Expul Quentin Davis L/T Danny Brow n LT Rashaad Profit ITT Natasha Samuel 9/25-10/9 Jainc.s Hubbard Expul Rec. Nicole Breedlove L/f Fabrian Bridgewater F.xpul Deon Earnest Expul Deshun Williams 10/2-10/8 Kissy Russell I./!' Cedric Jones 9/9 to end of 1st Sem Acie Cummins Antonio Maxwell Expul Alan Rowe Expul Andre Harris ITT DeWayne Veasley 10/3-10/9 Phillip Hatton L/T Sherita Smith 10/2-10/8 Gerron Garrett 9/24-10/9 Shurrod Smith 10/8-10/15 John Roberts LT Rec. Archie Howard IVr Korey Williams Anton Grant 9/9 to End 1 st Sem Rikita Robinson 9/30-10/11/96 Elisa Brown 10/2-10/17 Elijah Johnson Expul Timothy Turner 10/4-10/10 Fred Williams 10/3-10/17 TO ALL FACULTY, STAFF AND STUDENTS: The Central High School library is now exhibiting the original art works ot many prominent African American artists including Romare Bearden and Jacob I.awrence. These works on paper arc from the Arkansas Arts Centers permanent collection and will be on display through October 30th Ihis show sponsored by the Central High School P.T.S.A. IS STUDENTS: ,1 a program on the College litorium at 2:00 p in. this Sunday. Panelists will COLLEGE-BOUND JUNIORS AND SENIORS: The Guidance Department has arranged Admission Process for parents and students to be held in Centrals auditorium at 2:00 p in. th... Vur^fi'^^scntatiyes from the University of /Arkansas, Hendrix, several other in-state institutions, and Rice University 1 he Rice representatives will speak about the college admission process as it applies to highly-sclective colleges We hope the attendance will be such that we will be able to make this an annual program ATTENTION COLLEGE-BOUND STUDENTS: COLLEGE NIGHT IS HERE! You and your parents arc cordiallv nivited to the atmual Little Rock School District College Night at the Convention Center, lower level of the Excelsior Hotel in downtown Little Rock, Thursday evening. Financial aid workshop starts promptly at 6:00 p.m., with browsing at 6'30 Don t forget to come. z . ACCEPT NO BOUNDARIES: Applications are now available for the Accept No Boundaries Prejudice Identification and 5^5?,*?' s a day long seminar designed to promote friendship, learning and harmony. Ihe Retreat VVI he ni'lfl wnHnoccinv CV'trtKoi- 1 A orrl le AXnJ _________ti_________________ \u0026gt; \u0026lt; \u0026gt; \u0026lt; i-v ... II 1_ Lil MJ J J ----1_---------------. o lA IWAlUOllAM) IVUllllXlg OliU iiadUVtiy. 1X1 wi 1 be held Wednesday, October 16, and is free to ANB members. Pick up applications from Mrs. McDennott in room 33X or Ironi an ANB Steering Committee member. THE LADIES CLUB: Ihe Ladies Club will meet during both lunch periods Thursday, Oct. 10th in room 220. Please bring your $3 .00 dues. Do not bring any food ro drinks to the meeting. You will have plenty of time to eat lunch. is the ^LLEGE-BOUND JUNIORS: Have you brought your money and registered for he PSAT? Friday morning dciidline. Bring your moiiey-$9.00 in correct change or a personal check made out to LR Central High. to the Guidance Ollice by 10:00 a.m. Friday. Students who registered after this time will go on the sophomore waiting list FBLA: Any FBLA members not enrolled in a business class and that would like a subscription to the free magazines should come by room 325. e central inon school or mr. central high anyonein TERES IEDMUST BRING A8x 10 black or white or color photograph to room 134. Ihe cost fh,. n,t.,. .etinm -n, photographers will be displayed in the 1997 school yearbook. Troubadours lasts from Monday October 7 to October 25,1996. For more details see Mrs of the competition is $ 10.00 per photo. The arc the sponsors of the contest. The contest Holladay. JUNIORS: Ihe Japen-U.S.Senate Scholarship Program applications are in the Guidance Office. If you are interested in \u0026lt;ni*nziino n ciimmw iti Innon onH kovia nt lanoE n \"i /\"ir* a ___________________i.. a___i _x! . z \u0026lt; ------------------------------------------r *-re-\"-'. vziin.!-. n yuu aic line Japan and have at least a 3.0 GPA, you may apply. Applications must be postmarked by 15. 1996. liach scholarship recipient is required to pay a $500 program contribution. You must also pay some ! domestic travel. See Mrs. Graves. November expenses including program contribution. You must also pay some other EBLA: Attention any member who did not get the 1996-97 calendar of activities and Fall Conference infonnation may eel 1 hlin KllClin / S A rrnm V/Mir hiicinoee foozvl-tav. \"TTnzi 'TT..___J - V  i o this in Room 325A or from your business teacher. The next meeting will be Thursday, October lO. * '?*' Univereity of Arkansas at Fayetteville will have Multi-Cultural Day for Seniors on Monday October 14th. Il you are interested in attending call 1-800-377-8632.DAILY BULLETIN CENTRAL HIGH SCHOOL OCTOBER 10, 1996 THURSDAY DO NOT ADMIT LIST: Robert Daniels Adrin Shorter IZf Richard Boyd L/T Jabari Cummins Expul Demingo Johnson Lff Iatriek T illery lixpul Jonathan Van Buren L/T Vincent Williams Expul Earl Westbrook E^ul Erica Singleton-L/T Edmar Higgins Expul. Antimoore Jackson Expul Quentin Davis L/^f Danny Brown LT Rashaad Profit L/T James Hubbard Expul Rec. Nicole Breedlove iVt Fabrian Bridgewater Expul 13eon Earnest Expul Ryan Goins 10/9-10/23 Kissy Russell L/T Cedric Jones 9/9 to end of 1st Acie Cummins Antonio Maxwell Expul Alan Rowe Expul Andre Harris L/T John Roberts LT Rec. Archie Howard L/T Korey Williams Sem Anton Grant 9/9 to End 1 st Sem Rikita Robinson 9/30-10/11/96 Elisa Brown 10/2-10/17 Elijah Johnson Expul Timothy Turner 10/4-10/10 Fred Williams 10/3-10/17 Phillip Hatton L/T Shurrod Smith 10/8-10/15 staff and STUDENTS: The Central High School library is now exhibiting the original art works 01 many prominent ?Vncan Amencan artists including Romare Bearden and Jacob Lawrence. These works on paper s^msoTed b^'^TentrlfH^ This show is STUDENTS: ATTN NATIONAL MERIT SEMIFINALIST: Thursday at the beginning of 1st lunch, meet on the front steps to take a picture for the yearbook. It wont take long dont miss out.   ... :,ieps lu laxc a TOURNAMENT: Please excuse the following students on Thursday, October 10 at 10:20 tnt- VOIIl'V HhI 1 Tni im.'imont of Ui-vTnrs* a__________  w, t* \u0026lt; it . .. a.m. to go to lU V X/ 11 k 11 T X X vrtvuov 111%, iMiiMVTiiig oiuuviiid uii iiiui^ay, MClODcr lu at iu:zo a ir tlK Volleyball Tournament at Mountain Home: Samatha Jones, Anne Davis, Holly Edmonds, Judith Batson Jill And^on, Haley Walker, Courtney Hager, Katara Nowden, Blair Wdllace, Cordelia Bohlar, Heather Alverson, Breanna Brakhop, Misty Lewis. bin CULTURAL SOCIETY: There will be a Black Cultural Society meeting in Mrs. Blevins room 122 during both lunches. I his meeting is very important please plan to be therethank you. A SENIORS: Representatives from the following colleges will be in the Guidance Conference Room next week to talk to prospective applicants If you are interested and meet the colleges admission requirements you may sign the list on the back bulletin board m the Guidance Office BEFORE the dav nf the vi.it emeius. you may sign lulletin in day of Ute visit. Mon., Oct. 14: 11:00 a m. Rice University, Houston, Texas fhurs.. Oct. 17: 2:45 p.m. Wellesley College, Wellesley, Mass. I  1: Middlebury College, Middlebury, Vt. 11:00 a.m. Princeton University, Princeton, N.J. Fri.. Oct. 18: 9:55 a m. Middlebur juniors and SENIORS: The Guidance Department has arranged a program on the College parents and students to be held in Centrals auditorium at 2:00 p.m. this Simday. Panelists wall th . from the University of Arkansas, Hendrix, several other in-state institutions, and Rice University Hie ^cc representatives will speak about the college admission process as it applies to highly-selective colleges We hone the attendance will be such that we will be able to make this an aumual program. =\u0026gt;viecuve colleges, we hope state institutions, and Rice University. ATTENfrION COLLEGE-BOUND STUDENTS: COLLEGE NIGHT IS HERE! You and your parents are cordially in\\ ited to the annual Little Rock School District College Night at the Convention Center, lower levefof the Excelsior I lotel ACCEPT NO BOUNDARIES: Applications are now available for the Accept No Boundaries Prejudice Identification and u m'if-h\"l ts a day long seminar designed to promote friendship, learning anil harmony lire Retreat \"i\" l * a SiSjSmmiS S A' JUNIORSUlavc you brought your money and registered for he PSAT? Friday morning ntrn-. hv 1 \u0026gt;our money-$9.W m correct change or a personal check made out to LR Central High, to tire Guidance Oiliee bv 10:00 a.m. Pridav uho ...:n____xi_____i___ . .  .* '-juiumitv deadline. Bring your money$9.00__________________ _____ i ix vein Oflice by Friday. Students who registered aflerUiis time wilTgo on'thrsophomo^^ is theFBLA: Any FBLA members not enrolled in a business class and that would like a subscription to the free magazines should come by room 325. ATTENTION STUDENTS\nYOU MAY BE THE NEXT MISS CENTRAL HIGH SCHOOL OR MR CFNTRAI HIGH SCIKXJL. ANYONE INTERESTCD WJST BRING A 8 x 10 black or white orcolor photograph^ooni 134^e cost '97 school yearbook. Troubadours of the competition is $10.00 per photo. The photographers will be displayed in the 1997 school yearbook Troubadours are the sponsors ot the contest. Ihe contest lasts from Monday October 7 to October 25, 1996. For more details see Mrs. Holluday. JUNIORS: Ihe Japen-U.S.Senate Scholarship Program applications are in the Guidance Office. If you are interested in spending a summer m Japan and have at least a 3.0 GPA, you may apply. Applications must be postmarked by Novem 15. 1996. I'.ach scholarship recipient is required to pay a expenses including domestic travel. See Mrs. Graves. November $500 program contnbution. You must also pay some other FBLA: Attention any member who did not get the 1996-97 calendar of activities and Fall Conference infonnation this m Room 325A or from your business teacher. The next meeting will be Thursday, October 10. may get GUIDANCE: Ihe University of /Vkansas at Fayetteville will have Multi-Cultural Day for Seniors on Monday October 14th. II you are interested in attending call 1-8(10-377-8632.  ATTENTION SENIOR REPRESENTATIVES: There will be a meeting of the Senior Council on Friday in Ms Cobbs room (room 337) dunng both lunch periods. Please attend as plans for the Senior Picnic will be finalized. If attendance is sparse at these meeting, the Senior Picnic will be canceled. JUNIORS \u0026amp; SENIORS: Applications for the National Beta Club are available in the Library and Room 239 To be eligible lor membership, you must have a cumulative grade point average (including 9th grade) of at least 3 0 and ha\\ e good citizenship grades, the application deadline is Friday, October 11, 4:00p.m Please join YOUNG DEMOCRATS/TEENAGE REPUBLICANS: If you are 18 before Nov. 5, you are eligible to vote in this years election. You can register by the library during both lunches. Its simple, easy \u0026amp; worthwhile. Remember\n Ihe only wrong choice is no choice.  JUNIORS \u0026amp; SENIORS: If you would like to be nominated for the National Youth Leadership Forum on Defense Intelligence and Diplomacy to be held in Washington D.C. in February, please see Mrs. Graves. You must have a B average. Ihe cost to you is $890 plus transportation to Washington. SENIORS: You may order your caps \u0026amp; gowns \u0026amp; announcements from Jostens in the bookstore Oct 29th \u0026amp; 30th 8 30 1:30 pm. am -DAILY BULL ETIN CENTRAL HIGH SCHOOL OCTOBER 11,1996 FRIDAY DO NOT ADMIT LIST: Robert Daniels Adrin Shorter ITT Richard Boyd ITT Jabari Cummins Expul Demingo Johnson l/f Patrick Tillery Expul Jonathan Van Buren L/T Vincent Williams Expul Earl Westbrook Expul Erica Singlclon-I/f Edmar Higgins Expul. Antimoore Jackson Expul Quentin Davis I/f Danny Brown LT Rashaad Profit L/T James Hubbard Expul Rec. Nicole Breedlove L/T Fabrian Bridgewater Expul Deon Earnest Expul Ryan Goins 10/9-10/23 Kissy Russell L/T Cedric Jones 9/9 to end of 1 st Acie Cummins jAntonio Maxwell Expul Alan Rowe Expul Andre Harris IZT Sem John Roberts LT Rec. Archie Howard L/T Korey Williams Nakita Smith 10/10-10/17 Carl Ragland 10/9-10/23 Anton (jrant 9/9 lo End 1 st Sem Rashee Barnett Expul Rec. Elisa Brown 10/2-10/17 Elijah Johnson Expul Fred Williams 10/3-10/17 Phillip Hatton L7T Shurrod Smith 10/8-10/15 lechers meeting (district dialogue) with Dr. Don Roberts set for October 9 has been rescheduled for Ihursday, October 17, at 4:30 p.m. The meeting will be held m the Central High Schooi Auditorium. FACULTY \u0026amp; STAFF: The University of Arkansas has a limited number of South End zone tickets for Saturdays came ayatnst LoilHiianfl I t^rn in war Mptnnrial StnHinm Ifintomriorl i\n lU., __________r*!______ .2-1- -P against Louisiana I ech in War Memorial Stadium. If interest^ , sign the list on the counter of the main officeprint IcPlhlv nv nn Infpr than 1 1 00A Vn fzYrl A vvM .r**... * 1 UI II u I \u0026lt; Al \u0026lt; i ^7 .. ** ***''**'*^ '*****-vli iiiv wjuiiivi UI uic indin oHicepnni legibly! !-by no later 11:00 a.m. today(Fnday). You must sign in ink so it will be legible on a Fax machine Tickets may be picked up before the 6:00 p.m. kickoff Saturday at Gate 4, War Memorial Stadium. AND^STTJDENTS: Ihe Central High School library is now exhibiting the original art . A A .  .   . Lawrence. i works of many prominent African American artists including Romare Bearden and Jacob Lawrence These works on paper arc from the Arkansas Arts Centers permanent collection and will be on display through October 30th This show is .sponsored by the Central High School P.T.S.A. STUDENTS: THE PIX: Students, we need a Central logo for the 1997 Pix. Please turn in your entries to room 103 bv (kt 21 If we use your entry, you will receive a free yearbook! SPANISH CLASSES: All Spanish Classes will meet in the auditorium Monday, Cktobcr 14 to hear a guest speaker Please be prompt. FUTURE 51)0\nIhe first future 500's meeting will be this Saturday (kt. 12 at the Carver YMCA on 1116 West 14th Street Ihe meeting will be from 10 am. to 12 a.m. and ID. cards will be made for $3.00. If you have not yet turned in vour information sheets, please do so to the guidance office by Friday. THE PIX\nSeniors: Reserve space for your senior before Oct. 15! Bring a down payment, pictures \u0026amp; words to room 103. ATTENTION SENIOR: Senior Picnic tickets will be on sale Thursday, Friday and Monday during both lunch periods in f ill* hcUTK ^t(YrP Tn A pzret IC tA nnzl it inAlnr^oe all tlin Pnbi\u0026lt;i\u0026gt; \u0026gt;\u0026lt;\u0026gt; a.\u0026gt;..\u0026gt;. A -at..Jal__Jll LLI i  .\u0026lt; . - I Tl_  d* A--.-.---.---A .,Fxaaa^ 9 * * J MISU 1 U UI u 9^ Will lUilCll Lz^l iklClo j the bookstore. Jhe cost is $6.00 and it includes all the Corkys Barbeque you can cat. Activities will be held durina the Senior Picnic which is on October 22nd from 2:35pm to 5:00 pm. BLACK CULTURAL SOCIETY: There will be a meeting for the Black Cultural Society, Friday (kt 11 1996 during both lunches in Mrs. Blevins room (122). ORCHESTRA: Please excuse these Orchestra students 5th \u0026amp; 6th period Fri. (kt. 11 th. Ibey will be attending Southern Region Orchestra Clinic in Conway: Jeremy Antipolo, David Beuerman, Maributh Mock. BO(}KSTORE\nStudents please be remind^ that the parking lot across from the library is reserved for those who have Please do not park in that lot if you did not purchase a space. And if you did purchase a space. purchased those spaces. 1_________................... please make sure you park in your assigned space. ATTN.. NATIONAL MERIT SEMIFINALIST\nThursday at the beginning of 1st lunch, meet on the front steps to take a picture for Ihe yearbook. It wont take long dont miss out. VOLLEYBALL TOURNAMENT: Please excuse the following students on Thursday, October 10 al 10:20 a m. to go to the Volleyball Tournament at Mountain Home: Samatha Jones, Anne Davis, Holly Edmonds, Judith Batson. Jill ..... . i.a,vui.,uui I.'III... a,u,i,auia rUUlC l..avtS, iUJliy r.UULOllUS. juuiui naison. J III Watson, Anita Bunch, Hillary Anderson, Haley Walker, Courtney Hager, Katara Nowden. Blair Wallace, Cordelia Bohlar, Heather Alverson, Breanna Brakhop, Misty Lewis.JUNIORS \u0026amp; SENIORS: Representatives from the following colleges will be in the Guidance Conference Room next wee.. lo la... to prospectiyc applirants II/pu arc interested and meet the colleges admission requirements, you may sign the list on the back bulletin board m Ihe Guidance Office BEFORE the day of Sie visit.  * week Io lalk lo Mon.. (X't. 14:11:00 a m. Rice University, Houston, Texas I hurs.. Oct. 17: 2:45 p m. Wellesley College, Wellesley, Mass. i. IV,. 1 u. Q.ss Middlebury College, Middlebury, Vt. Princeton University, Princeton, N.J. I ri.. Oct. 18: 9:55 a.m. Middlcbi 11:00 a.m. COLLEGE-BOUND JUNIORS AND SENIORS: fhe Guidance Department has arranged a program on the College Admission I roccss lor parents and students to be held in Centrals auditorium al 2:00 p.m. this* Sunday. Panelists wall '^'^^representatiyes Irom the University of Arkansas, Hendrix, several other in-state institutions, and Rice University I he Riee representatives will speak alrout the college admission process as it applies to highly-selective colleges We hope the attendance will be such that we will be able to make this an annual program. wueges. we nope ATTENTION COLLEGE-BOUND STUDENTS: COLLEGE NIGHT IS HERE! You and vour narents are cordiallv in\\ ited to the 1 -itlle Rock School District College Night at the Convention Center, lower Icve/of the ! xcelsior 1 liilel Xm l'evening. Financial aid workshop starts promptly at 6:00 p.m., with browsing at 6:30. l/vJll I IvHgvl lU CXIlTiV, ACCEPT NO BOUNDARIES: Applications Reduction Retreat. Hie Retreat is a day long seminar are now available for the Accept No Boundaries Prejudice Identification and xiiiik k liXv YzA W resigned to promote friendship, learning ana harmony llie Retreat 33g members. Pick up applications from Mrs. MclXinJlott in 3.^8 or Irom an ANB Steering Committee member. room THE LADI^ES CLUB: Hie I\u0026gt;adics Club will meet during both lunch periods Thursday, Oct. 10th in room 220 Please bnng your $3.00 dues. Do not bnng any food ro drinks lo the meeting. You will have plenty of time to eat lunch. is the COLLEGE-BOUND JUNIORS: Have you brought your money and registered for he PSAT? Friday morning is the onite'hv !\" pCTSonal check made out to LR Central High. to the (Juidanee OllKL h) lO.OO am. 1 nday. Students who registered after this time will goon the sophomore waiting list. S 1\"ANYOW^lJw SM high SCHOOL OR MR. CEWfRAL HIGH o fh,.* i. A or while or color photograph to room 134. The cost photographCTs will be displayed in the 1997 school yearbook. Troubadours lasts from Monday October 7 to October 25, 1996. For more details see Mrs of the competition is $ 10.00 per photo. Ibe are the sponsors of the contest. Ilie contest Holladay. a|V..7iIh f Applications for the National Beta Club are available in Ihe Library and Room 239 To be , must have a cumulative grade point average (including 9lh grade) of al least 3 0 and have good citizenship grades. Ilic application deadline is Friday, (Xitober 11, 4:00p.m. Please join. ?'30 pm*^' gowns \u0026amp; announcements from Jostens in the bookstore Oct 29th \u0026amp; 30lh 8:30 am -P E C I A L To: \"Th Molt B*utiful High School m Central High School 1500 Park Straat Little Rock, Arkansas 72202 Phone (501) 324-2300 October 7, 1996 P.S.A.T. BULLETIN READ NOW, THEN KEEP UMTlZ. Staff directly affected by PSAT testing on Tuesday, October 15: otr. I Alve son, Becker, Brandon, Caldwell, Caruth, N. Callaway, Cobb, Colburn, Col Cox, Daniel, Deitz, Dixon, Dumas, Futrell, Gadberry, J. Gray, Hammons, Hardin, Hargis, Holladay, Jernigan, Ligon, McDermott, McDonald, McLendo Hammons, Moore, A.Nash, Pedigo, Pierce, Pittman, Rosenberger, Rutledge, L.Thomps Watson, Williamson From: Rudolph Howard, Principal Copies: Counselors and Assistant Principals\nMr. Givens\nC. Williams The PSAT will be administered to about 375 juniors and sophomores Oct. 15, periods 1-3 and possibly into 1st lunch.  ' on Tuesd This undertaking can be managed only with the cooperation and flexibility of EVERYBODY involved, logistics are complex due to our limited space, inconveniences. P\"l ease read t'h i s master plan carefully. There will be unavoidable Note how it will affect you and your students. Let Mr. Blair or me know IMMEDIATELY if you see something that won't workDON'T WAIT UNTIL THE DAY OF THE TEST. I. 100 desks to be moved to Library to supplement the 90 stations available there now. Total capacity: 190. (All Library testers^jrs. NEEDS: 190. II . III. 2 classrooms to test junior overflow: 4 classrooms to test sophomores: Rooms 214 and 216 58 maximum Rooms 333, 336, 338, and 339--120 max IMPLEMENTATION, SOPHOMORE TESTING: ROOM 333 - will test 30. Ms. Thompson and her students will meet in Ms. D. McDonald's Room 236 on Tuesday, pds. 2 \u0026amp; 3. advance and post a reminder on the door. ROOM 336 - will test 30. rooms. Tell students in Ms. Becker and her students will meet in the Tell students and post a reminder on the door: Pd. 1 - to Room 248 (Hammons) Pd. 2 - to Room 342 (Cole) Pd. 3 - to Room 335 (Caldwell) ROOM 338 rooms. will test 30. Ms. McDermott's classes will meet in these Tell students and post a reminder on the door: Pd. 1 - to Room 251 (Dixon) Pd. 2 - to Room 246 (Deitz) Pd. 3 - to Room 250 (A. Nash) ROOM 339 will test 30. Ms. Hargis's students should all be testing. If any are not, send them to Ms. McDermott in the roomS listed above IMPLEMENTATION, JUNIOR TESTING: A. CUSTODIANS will move 40 desks with smooth. large-surface tops from Room 125 to the Library at the beginning of 5th period on MONDAY AFTERNOON, OCT. 14. (Mr. Givens, please have custodians at Room 12! junior testing (continued) 96/page 2 ready to begin as soon as halls clear at 1:40 p.m.) crew will move the desks back to the study hall (125) 1:40 p.m.--on Wednesday. The same custodian at the same time- B. C. D. E. During the last 10 minutes of 5th period on Tuesday, period students will move desks to the Library, period on Monday, Ms. Caruth's students will move her desks to the Lib- , then meet the remainder of 6th period in Ms. rary Note: Ms . Pedigo's 5th At the BEGINNING of 6t Jernigan's room 237 If it is important to you to get your ov/n desks back instead of someone else's, you may want to supervise ycur students' moving of the desks back to your classroom right after the test (4th pd.) on Tuesday. ROOM 143 day. Pd. 1 Pd. 2 Pd. 3 Pd . 4 Ms . Pedigo and her students will meet in these rooms Please tell them and post a reminder on the door: on Tues - to Room 147 (Mr. Moore) - to Room 134 (Ms. Holladay) - to Room 148 (Mr. Watson) - Students report to Library to move desks back to room ROOM 145 - Ms. Caruth's students will move 30 desks to the Library duri\nthe first 5 minutes of 6th period on Monday, theJt meet in Room 237. Caruth and her students will meet in these rooms Pd. Pd. Pd. Pd. 1 to Room. 235 (Ms. Williamson) 2 - to Room 239 (Ms. Hardin) 3 - to Room 151 (Ms. Rutl6:dge) 4 Students Ms on Tuesday: report, to Library to move desks b^l( k to ROOM 214 - Ms. Pittman and her students will meet in these rooms on Tuesday. Please announce and post a reminder: Pd. 1 - to Room 113 (Ms. Colburn) Pd. 3 - to Room 104a (Mr. Gray) ROOM 216 - Ms. Gadberry's students should all be taking it. them to Coach Cox in 218. If any are not, send Final notes: The PSAT last year ran right up to 12:00. We did not run over into first lunch, but if it should happen this year, students whose 4th period classrooms are in xise will need to eat 1st lunch on Tuesday. STUDY HALL TEACHERS: Study halls will meet in the study hall teacher's own classon Monday afternoon and Tuesday morning. Please tell students and post a reminder on the door of 125. Also, detention halls will have to meet elsewhere Monday afternoon and Tuesday morning (Auditorium?) room Period 4 study hall students should be instructed to eat 1st lunch Tuesday , then assist custodians in moving chairs back to Room 125 soon as the halls clear at 12:35 p.m. on as THANKS FOR YOUR COOPERATIONSpage 1 of 5 Monday, Oct. lA, 1996 TEACHERS: SPECIAL BULLETIN The following students (juniors) are to report directly to the rooms indicated on Tuesday, October 15, 1996, at 8:40 a.m. to take the PSAT/NATIONAL MERIT SCHOLARSHIP QUALIFYING TEST. three hours. The testing session will last a little over Students are to report promptly at 8:40 with two (2) sharpened pencils with erasers, f '  . . ... of the test. Please remind your students of the date, time, and place REPORT TO LIBRARY pCiAci Is. skccr loe-Torg- Abson , Adams, Alverson, Alverson, Anderson, Anderson, Anderson, Anderson Antipolo, (A - P) Brian Chris Heather Ryan Hillary Julie Quincy Tamara Jeremy Armstrong, Clifton Bailey , Sherrhonda Ball, John Bailey, Whitney Baldwin, Cassie Batson, Judith Bauman, Katie Beasley, Demeatrice Binz, Kristen Blackmon, Ro mar Blann, Barbara Carpenter, Olivia Blanchard, Nick Block, Michael Chester, Daniel Bohanan, Donald Cleveland, Lawrence Bonner, Marlon Cole, Tekima Boyette, Chris Bradley, Lacey Brainard, Branch, Brewer, Brown, Brown, Brown, Anne Eunice Anthony Carrie LaTonya Tony Buchanan, April Buck, Buen, Call, David Kristina Seth Collins, Cook, Corbin, Cowart, Dang, Darnell, Davidson, Davis, Davis, Tina Timothy Tanya Lauren Minh Scott Darren Anne Arica Dayananda, Dedner, Denman, Dowell, Nilu Cynthia Monica KatiePSAT - JUNIORS (continued I page 2 of 5 Library: Mon.. Oct. (4-, 1996 Downing, Whitney Guy, Clarence Houston, Randall Earlywlne, Ashley Hall, Jesse Irving, Stewart Edmonds, Holly Hall, Kathryn Ismael, Brooke Elmore, Leah Hampton, Herlanda Jackson, Ralph Hardy, Kumari Ely, Jessica Hayes, Christie Jarsma, Kim Enoch, Kim Hayes, Nicole Jenkins, Elizabeth Farrell, Tim Hearon, Tom Jennings, Laura Faulkner, Adam Fergurson, Kelly Heister, David Johnson, Britt Finn, Flick, Katrina Michael Hester , John Johnson, Camela Flowers, Kristi Hicks, Chastity Johnson, Ceaser Flullen, Larry Flye, Henson Hicks, Lindsey Hildebrande, Natalie Johnson, Christopher C. Fox, Allen Hines, Megan Johnson, Josh Franke, Christen Hintergardt, Jared Johnson, Katie Freeland, Michael Hoffman, Patrick Jones, Jones, Carletta Christina Gardner, Freeman Holden, Laura Beth Jones, Crystal Ghori, Safiya Holland, Emily Jones, Harold Glasier, Evan Holloway, Tywana Jones, John P. Gray, Amanda Holmes, Margaret Keen, April Grimmett, Jeff House, Erin Kilgore, CollinsPSAT JUNIORS (continued) page 3 of LIBRARY: Korte, Leslie Miller, Emmett Oct. , 1996 Passini, Rusty Krupitsky, Eugene Mitchell, Jay Perry, SuLauren Langford, Laura Mitchell, Maury Peters, Jessica Latch, Ashley Moore, Angela Pettus, Todd Lilly, Keith Morrison, Alicia Powell, Jennifer Lipsmeyer, Kara Morton, Kelly Prewitt, Jennifer Ludwig, Stefan Mosley, Nikki Purvis, Benjamin Malvin, Katrina Neal, Josh Putterman, J Ames Mapili, Gazele Nguyen, Freddy REPORT TO ROOM\n216 (Jt - S) M]^', GADBERRY Martinez, Andrea Nicks, Lyncola Ray, Rimmer, Cora Virginia Massie, James Nugent, Courtney Norman, Varnell Robinson, Marie Mezza, McCoy, Leslie Norris, Tiffany '' Lydia Obiaga, Genese Rose, Meghan McCullum, Prentice McElderry, Jacob Oden, Cassie Sampson, Aaron McCulen, McJunkin, Crystal Jeremy Owens, Erin Saviers, Marshall McGrew, Justin McMullen, Ahmad Packard, Clay Schiller, Lauren McKindra, Fatima Padgett, Sara Schmalz, Lea Mehlin, Wayne Pan, Dan Schmidt. Geoffrey Miller, Ashley Pasha, Khaleelah Sevier, SharondaPSAT - JUNIORS (continued) page A of 5 Scott, Mark REPORT TO ROOM: 214 Washington, LaTasha (T - Z ) Sclvally, Robyn Tappin, Jacqueline Webb, Josh Shaw , Tashia Taylor, Elliott Wilson, Jamie Sheth , Seema Thomas, Brian Wirth-Jones, Sasha Shaffer, Zarinah Thomas, Jenny Anne Wittenberg, Justin Simmons, Kerri Thomas, Katrina Wright, Sarah Sims, Corakeita Thompson, Jeffrey Yarbrough, Elizabeth Slaughter, Maribeth Thompson, Jill Smith, Jake Thrist, Andrea Smith, Sam Tiner, Natalie Spann, Jeremy Toombs, Michael Torrence, Vincent Sparks, Tava Trice, Trent Stacey, LaTlsha Tucker, Courtney Stanley, Rebecca Tucker, Justin Steadman, Zach Turner, Levy Steelman, Amanda Vickers, Leigh Stefanova, Boriana Wage, Aaron Steward, Doug Walters, Ben Sullivan, Jessica Warriner, Prenticepage of 5 5 Monday, Oct. 14, 1996 SPECIAL BULLETIN TEACHERS: The following students (sophomores) are to report directly to the rooms indicated below on TUESDAY, October 15, 1996, at 8:40 a.m. to take the PSAT/NATIONAI MERIT SCHOLARSHIP QUALIFYING TEST. three (3) hours. The testing session will last a little over Students report promptly at 8:40 with two (2) sharpened pe\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":61,"next_page":62,"prev_page":60,"total_pages":362,"limit_value":12,"offset_value":720,"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}}]}}