{"response":{"docs":[{"id":"bcas_bcmss0837_381","title":"Construction","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":["1990/2007"],"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","Little Rock (Ark.)--History--21st Century","School facilities"],"dcterms_title":["Construction"],"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/381"],"dcterms_temporal":null,"dcterms_rights_holder":null,"dcterms_bibliographic_citation":null,"dlg_local_right":null,"dcterms_medium":["documents (object genre)"],"dcterms_extent":null,"dlg_subject_personal":null,"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":"\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n\n\n\n   \n\n\n\n\n   \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n  \n\nTO\nFROM: THROUGH: SUBJECT: LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 810 WEST MARKHAM STREET LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS April 2, 1990 Office of the Metropolitan Supervisor James Jennings, Associate Superintendent for Desegregation Monitoring and Program Development ' Dr. Ruth Steele, Superintendent of Schools Dr. Herb Cleek, Deputy Superintendent of Schools Building Plan for Incentive Schools Please find attached the proposed plan for expanding the capacities of the e incentive schools.LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 810 WEST MARKHAM STREETS LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS April 2, 1990 TO\nFROM: SUBJECT: Dr. Ruth Steele, Superintendent of Schools Dr. Herb Cleek, Deputy Superintendent of Schools Dames Dennings, Associate Superintendent for Desegregation Monitoring TTiS and Program Development Building Plan for Incentive Schools According to the Tri-District Desegregation Plan, the Little Rock School District must submit a detailed plan for closing incentive schools with small capacities and enrollments and building larger schools in the approximate vicinity for the purpose of integregation. The plan must be submitted to the Office of the Metropolitan Supervisor by April 1, 1990. The District has discussed this matter with the Metropolitan Supervisor's office on several occasions. It is the District's understanding that certain parameters must be followed in developing plans to close and rebuild incentive schools. First, the purpose of this plan is to increase the elementary building capacity in central and east Little Rock. Any school closings must be accompanied by a building expansion at some other school(s) and/or the construction of a new school building. The increase in building capacity will eventually help reduce the burden o\" busing on black elementary students. Second, in a case of a building expansion, the new capacity must yield enough seats to enable the school to meet desegregation requirements. The incentive schools must have enough space to obtain a racial balance of approximately 60-70% black. The same requirement applies to the construction of a new scheol building. Closing a school also involves reassigning students to either a new building, an expanded facility, or an existing school outside of the target area. Whatever the case, the reassignment process must comply with desegregation requirements. Another parameter involves the number of classes at each grade in a particular school. Each grade must have enough seats to accommodate the total capacity at the preceding grade. This factor is often overlooked in preparing for future capacity needs. For instance, some schools have three classes feeding into two classes at the next grade level. The only way to correct this problem without reassigning students is to move a teacher to the problem grade level. This factor must be considered in developing plans to expand school buildings. p (1)The last factor for consideration relates to physical limitations at the school site and/or in the target community. In considering building expansions, attention must be given to the space limitations at the school site. Some of the incentive schools do not have enough space for extensive expansions. The District has observed these factors as an extensive search for a new school site in the target area has been underway since 1988. Real estate agencies and others who are familiar with availability of properties that might be suitable for a new school site have been engaged to assist in the identification of potential sites. The old King School is the only site east of / University Avenue that the District has been able to identify for new con- struct!on.  In addition to the mandate to close and rebuild/expand incentive schools, the I ri-Di strict Desegregation Plan also directs the Little Rock School District to place four-year old programs in all incentive schools. The following is a plan which addresses the need to provide an early childhood education program in each incentive school as well as the closing and rebuilding/expansion of existing incentive schools. The plan is based on the following assumptions: a  All sixth graders enrolled at the incentive schools in the 1989-90 and 1990-91 school year will be promoted. b. c. d. e. All K-5 students currently enrolled at the incentive schools will remain at these schools for the 1990-91 school year, in 1990-91 will remain at these schools in 1991-92. included for magnet transfers The K-5 students No projections are All K-5 incentive school students will be promoted in 1990-91 and 1991-92 to the next grade level at the end of the respective school year. Kindergarten seats in the incentive schools will be filled using a 60% black and 40% white ratio. If necessary, seats will be reserved to ensure a 60/40 racial balance. All assignments (including sibling preference transfers) to the incen- tive schools are subject to desegregation requirements. Seats will be reserved for white students to ensure compliance with desegregation requirements. ^f. __ pl eted before the beginning of the 1991-92 school year if thq All building expansions, if necessary, and construction will be com- Little Rock School District is able to obtain long-term financing for construction costs. g. Meetings will be scheduled with parents and other community representatives to discuss plans for closing and/or expanding schools in their neighborhoods. (2)I I fl I Ish Ish school will be closed at the end of the 1990-91 school year. Approximately 146 black students in grades 1-6 will be enrolled at Ish at the time of the school closing. The students at Ish will be reassigned to Rightsell and Mitchell for the 1991-92 school year. A site selection committee will be appointed to identify a site for a new school in the general proximity of Ish, Mitchell, and Rightsell. Within the allowable time frame, the District will use every legal means to acquire adequate property for a new school in this proximity (including the right of eminent domain) and will engage the assistance of professional real estate agents in its search. The committee will submit its findings to the Metropolitan Supervisor's office by May 15, 1990. If the District is unable to acquire a site for a new building, the District will proceed with the following plan to expand Mitchell and Rightsell. Mitchel 1 Seven classrooms will be added to Mitchell: - one first grade - one second grade - one third grade - one fourth grade - one fi fth grade one ixth grade - one four-year old class The first through sixth grade additions will change Mitchell's capacity from 280 to 400 students. The addition of 75 students from Ish will still enable Mitchell to obtain a 68/32 black/white racial balance if all of the remaining seats are filled by white students. Rightsell The classroom presently in use for Rightsell's mass media specialty will become a fourth grade classroom. Also, six classrooms will be added to Rightsell: - one first grade - one second grade - one third grade - one fifth grade - one sixth grade - one four-year old class The first through sixth grade additions will change Rightsell's capacity from 260^to 380 students. The addition of 71 students from Ish will still enable Rigtitsell to obtain a 70/30 black/white ratio if all of the remaining seats are filled by white students. These plans are contingent upon adequate space at Rightsell to complete the proposed classroom additions. Rockefeller The CARE activity room will be used for an additional kindergarten class. will give Rockefeller a total of three kindergarten classes and will allow the This 60 four-year old students currently at Rockefeller to be able to remain for kindergarten. The G/T class will be moved to another area of the building. A new second grade class will be assigned to the room formerly used by G/T. At least four classrooms will be added to Rockefeller: - one third grade - one fourth grade - one fifth grade - one sixth grade UIThe classroom changes and additions will change Rockefeller's capacity from 300 to 420 students. The new capacity will allow Rockefeller to obtain a 53/47 black/white ratio if all of the remaining seats are filled by white students. (NOTE: Consideration will be given to adding a total of six new classrooms to Rockefeller to accommodate the relocation of the G/T class.) Old King Site A new school will be constructed on the old King site. the incentive school program and will have a capacity of approximately 700 students. The District will initiate discussions with city officials relative to improvement of street access to the old King site. All students enrolled at Garland and Stephens will be reassigned to the new school. The school will offer open in the 1991-92 school year. The new school will Careful attention will be given to alternative educational/service uses for Ish, Garland, and Stephens. Contact has already been made with an agency that is interested using Ish. These closings will also require that the District give prompt attention to a new site for the IRC. In addition, the District will give special attention to maintaining the names o'' King, Ish, and Stephens. The individuals for whom these schools were named have made important contributions to the black community, and the District should continue to honor them with school names. Fundi ng The District will use proceeds from the 8 mill tax increase to fund the incen- tive school building plan if approved by the voters. If the tax increase is not approved, the District will ask the Metropolitan Supervisor's Finance Committee to make the incentive school building plan a high priority from desegregation funds. - ............... -- If the Finance Committee disallows funds for the incentive school building plan, then the District will ask the Court for funding. (4)LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 810 WEST MARKHAM STREET LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS November 29, 1990 TO: Board of Directors FROM: THROUGH: SUB3ECT: r.'- \\  Dames Dennings, Associate Superintendent for Desegregation Monitoring and Program Development Dr. Ruth Steele, Superintendent of Schools First Quarter Enrollment - 1990-91 School Year Please find attached the enrollment report for the first quarter of the 1990-91 school year. cc: Senior Management TeamLITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 810 WEST MARKHAM STREET LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS COMPARISON OF ACTUAL ENROLLMENT FOR FIRST QUARTER OF 1990-91 AND 1989-90 1990-91 Actual enrollment as of October 31, 1990, First Quarter of the 1990-91 School Year. WHITE BLACK OTHER TOTAL %BLACK Special Schools Elementary (w/o Kindergarten) Junior High Schools 48 4041 1861 High Schools (w/o Kindergarten) 2159 26 8209 4004 3077 0 144 87 87 74 12,394 5,952 5,323 35% 66% 67% 58% SUB TOTAL 8109 15,316 318 23,743 65% Ki ndergarten 681 1,206 21 1,908 63% GRAND TOTAL .8790 16,522 339 25,651 64% 1989-90 Actual enrollment as of November 1, 1989, First Quarter of 1989-90 School Ysdr  WHITE BLACK OTHER TOTAL %BLACK Special Schools Elementary (w/o Kindergarten Junior High Schools 47 3905 1917 High Schools (w/o Kindergarten) 2408 28 8212 3883 3186 1 76 119 12,236 97 83 5,897 5,677 37% 67% 66% 56% SUB TOTAL 8277 15,309 300 23,886 64% Ki ndergarten 628 1,269 20 1,917 66% GRAND TOTAL 8905 16,578 320 25,803 64%GRADE K 1 2 3 4 5 6 UNGR TOTAL ELEM. 7 8 9 UNGR TOT. 3R HIGH 10 11 12 UNGR TOT. SR HIGH TOTAL: SPEC SCHOOLS DIST TOTALS SUMMARY OF FIRST QUARTER ENROLLMENT October 31, 1990 WHITE BLACK OTHER* TOTAL %BLACK 681 727 659 670 684 666 595 40 4722 589 638 601 33 1861 703 718 709 29 2159 8742 48 8790 1206 1450 1271 1279 1408 1380 1309 112 9415 1366 1391 1182 65 4004 1082 980 967 48 3077 16,496 26 16,522 SUWARY OF STUDENTS LISTED IN \"OTHER\" SPANISH ASIAN/PACIFIC ISLANDER ESKIMO/AMERICAN INDIAN OTHER 21 30 21 24 29 14 26 0 165 21 26 40 0 87 32 30 24 1 87 339 0 339 CATEGORY: - 93 - 218 - 24 - 4 1908 2207 1951 1973 2121 2060 1930 152 14,302 1976 2055 1823 98 5952 1817 1728 1700 78 5323 25,577 74 25,651 63% 66% 65% 65% 66% 67% 68% 74% 66% 69% 68% 65% 66% 67% 60% 57% 57% 62% 58% 65% 35% 64%LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT FIRST QUARTER ENROLLMENT OCT. 31, 1990 SCHOOL/GRADE WHITE BLACK OTHER TOTAL %BLACK l^CENTRAL UNGRADED 10 11 12 SUBTOTAL KIND. TOTAL 0 203 174 227 604 0 604 5 308 278 307 898 49 947 0 12 9 13 34 0 34 5 523 46r' 547 1536 49 1585 100.00% 58.89% 60.30% 56.12% 58.46% 100.00% 59.75% IMPAIR UNGRADED 10 11 12 SUBTOTAL KIND. TOTAL 14 107 126 107 354 3 357 12 184 160 132 488 10 498 0 3 4 1 8 0 8 26 294 290 240 850 13 863 46.15% 62.59% 55.17% 55.00% 57.41% 76.92% 57.71% b-^ALL UNGRADED 10 11 12 SUBTOTAL KIND. TOTAL 12 147 180 156 495 10 505 12 223 202 236 673 8 681 0 7 5 3 15 0 15 24 377 387 395 1183 18 1201 50.00% 59.15% 52.20% 59.75% 56.89% 44.44% 56.70% ^'MCCLELLAN UNGRADED 10 11 12 SUBTOTAL KIND. TOTAL 3 127 121 113 364 2 366 19 209 200 158 586 17 603 1 6 2 2 11 0 11 23 342 323 273 961 19 980 82.61% 61,11 5, 61.92% 57.88% 60.98% 89.47% 61.53% V-^ARKVIEW UNGRADED 10 11 12 SUBTOTAL KIND. TOTAL 0 119 117 106 342 0 342 0 158 140 134 432 11 443 0 4 10 5 19 0 19 0 281 267 245 793 11 804 0.00% 56.23% 52.43% 54.69% 54.48% 100.00% 55.10%SCHOOL/GRADE '-\"'CLOVERDALE UNGRADED WHITE BLACK OTHER TOTAL %BLACK TOTAL DUNBAR UNGRADED TOTAL 7 8 9 7 8 9 FOREST HEIGHTS UNGRADED 7 8 9 TOTAL HENDERSON UNGRADED 7 8 9 TOTAL MABELVALE UNGRADED 7 8 9 TOTAL MANN UNGRADED 7 8 9 TOTAL PULASKI HEIGHTS UNGRADED TOTAL 7 8 9 2 61 75 80 218 1 190 180 155 526 0 1 2 2 5 3 252 257 237 749 33.33 o. 75.40% 70.04% 65.40% 70.23% 120 55 56 231 7 62 70 83 222 5 44 74 88 211 9 64 76 67 216 104 134 113 351 4 76 100 78 258 158 143 111 412 9 156 186 174 525 16 214 250 209 689 16 142 147 92 397 196 166 152 514 8 153 138 148 447 3 0 3 6 0 7 3 8 18 0 5 8 9 22 0 0 1 1 2 4 5 6 15 0 1 2 4 7 281 198 170 649 16 225 259 265 765 21 263 332 306 922 25 206 224 160 615 304 305 271 880 12 230 240 230 712 56.23% 72.22% 65.29% 63.48% 56.25% 69.33% 71.81% 65.66% 68.63% 0.00% 81.37% 75.30% 68.30% 74.73% 64.00% 68.93% 65.63% 57.50% 64.55% 64.47% 54,43% 56.09% 58.41% 0.00% 66.52% 57.50 \"O 64.35% 62.78% ASCHOOL/GRADE SOUTHWEST UNGRADED WHITE BLACK OTHER TOTAL %BLACK TOTAL BADGETT UNGRADED SUBTOTAL KIND. TOTAL BALE UNGRADED SUBTOTAL KIND. TOTAL BASELINE UNGRADED SUBTOTAL KIND. TOTAL 7 8 9 1 2 3 4 5 6 1 2 3 4 5 6 1 2 3 4 5 6 6 58 54 36 154 15 157 181 141 494 0 5 7 12 21 215 240 184 660 0.00 5, 73.02% 75.42% 76.63% 74.85 *0 2 6 4 8 10 11 5 46 11 57 3 10 10 8 11 14 4 60 7 67 13 14 11 6 14 13 71 19 90 3 16 25 35 39 17 21 156 9 165 4 50 38 47 46 41 44 270 32 302 49 42 38 37 30 30 226 37 263 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 4 0 1 6 1 7 1 1 2 0 0 0 4 1 5 5 22 29 43 49 28 26 202 20 222 7 60 48 56 61 55 49 336 40 376 63 57 51 43 44 43 301 57 358 60.00% 72.73% 86.21% 81.40% 79.59% 60.71% 80.77% 77.23% 45.00% 74.32% 57.14% 83.33% 79.17% 83.93% 75.41% 74.55% 89.80% 80.36% 80.00% 80.32% 77.78% 73.68% 74.51% 86.05 Q, '5 68.18% 69.77% 75.08% 64.91% 73.46%SCHOOL/GRADE BOOKER UNGRADED WHITE BLACK OTHER TOTAL %BLACK SUBTOTAL KIND. TOTAL BRADY UNGRADED SUBTOTAL KIND. TOTAL CARVER UNGRADED SUBTOTAL KIND. TOTAL CHICOT UNGRADED SUBTOTAL KIND. TOTAL 1 2 3 4 5 6 1 2 3 4 5 6 1 2 3 4 5 6 1 2 3 4 5 6 43 36 34 40 46 34 233 30 263 44 50 51 52 53 56 306 44 350 1 4 0 3 0 0 8 1 9 88 90 85 95 99 90 547 75 622 50.00 5, 55.56% 60.00% 54.74% 53.54% 62.22% 55.94% 58.67% 56.27% 2 20 17 17 16 19 5 96 21 117 31 40 43 45 38 44 241 23 264 10 31 25 20 21 22 20 149 27 176 3 52 41 47 56 51 45 295 37 332 38 44 49 54 54 53 292 34 326 8 66 46 43 46 42 48 299 50 349 0 1 1 1 1 0 1 5 0 5 1 2 0 1 1 2 7 1 8 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 2 0 2 5 73 59 65 73 70 51 396 58 454 70 86 92 100 93 99 540 58 598 18 98 71 63 67 65 68 450 77 527 60.00% 71.23 69.49% 72.31% 76.71% 72.86% 88.24% 74.49% 63.79% 73.13% 54.29% 51.16% 53.26 54.00% 58.06% 53.54% 54.07% 58.62% 54.52% 44.44% 67.35% 64.79% 68.25% 68.66 o, o 64.62% 70.59 66.44% 64.94% 66.22%SCHOOL/GRADE LOVERDALE UNGRADED WHITE BLACK OTHER TOTAL %BLACK SUBTOTAL KIND. TOTAL DODD UNGRADED SUBTOTAL KIND. FAIR PARK UNGRADED SUBTOTAL KIND. TOTAL 1 2 3 4 5 6 1 2 3 4 5 6 1 2 3 4 5 6 FOREST PARK UNGRADED 1 2 3 4 5 6 SUBTOTAL KIND. TOTAL 13 13 26 19 12 14 97 10 107 3 22 17 16 11 28 18 115 19 134 14 9 8 8 6 6 51 10 61 29 23 31 20 19 22 144 33 177 35 45 34 46 52 41 253 29 282 4 20 28 28 28 25 40 173 19 192 56 41 40 37 42 32 248 29 277 19 26 39 35 33 30 182 26 208 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 1 2 0 1 0 0 0 1 1 3 0 3 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 0 2 4 1 5 48 58 60 65 65 55 351 40 391 7 43 45 44 39 54 59 291 38 329 71 50 48 45 48 38 300 39 339 49 49 71 55 52 54 330 60 390 72.92% 77.59 56.67% 70.77% 80.00% 74.55% 72.08% 72.50% 72.12% 57.14% 46.51% 62.22% 63.64% 71.79% 46.30% 67.80% 59.45% 50.00% 58.36% 78.87 Q. *0 82.00% 83.33% 82.22% 87.50% 84.21% 82.67% 74.36% 81.71% 38.78% 53.06% 54.93% 63.64% 63.46% 55.56% 55.15 43.33% 53.33%SCHOOL/GRADE FRANKLIN UNGRADED WHITE BLACK OTHER TOTAL %BLACK SUBTOTAL KIND. TOTAL FULBRIGHT UNGRADED SUBTOTAL KIND. TOTAL GARLAND UNGRADED SUBTOTAL KIND. TOTAL 1 2 3 4 5 6 1 2 3 4 5 6 1 2 3 4 5 6 t^EYER SPRINGS UNGRADED 1 2 3 4 5 6 SUBTOTAL KIND. TOTAL 1 5 5 7 11 6 11 46 11 57 7 65 54 33 46 53 42 300 49 349 0 1 0 3 3 1 1 9 0 9 8 71 59 43 60 60 54 355 60 415 87.50% 91.55% 91.53% 76.74% 76.67% 88.33% 77.78% 84.51% 81.67% 84.10% 5 33 43 34 38 41 35 229 32 261 4 47 30 54 41 42 47 265 27 292 0 3 0 0 3 1 0 7 0 7 9 83 73 88 82 84 82 501 59 560 44.44% 56.63% 41.10% 61.36% 50.00% 50.00 Q, *6 57.32% 52.89% 45.76 52.14% 0 5 2 2 1 0 3 13 3 16 14 18 23 26 37 39 35 192 16 208 0 1 2 2 1 1 2 9 0 9 14 24 27 30 39 40 40 214 19 233 100.00% 75.00% 85.19 Q. *0 86.67% 94.87% 97.50% 87.50 89.72 84.21% 89.27% 7 7 8 14 4 7 47 13 60 16 16 14 22 36 16 120 27 147 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 23 23 22 36 40 23 167 40 207 69.57% 69.57% 63.64% 61.11% 90.00 o. 69.57% 71.86 67.50 a. o, 'o 71.01%SCHOOL/GRADE GIBBS UNGRADED WHITE BLACK OTHER TOTAL %BLACK SUBTOTAL KIND. TOTAL ISH UNGRADED SUBTOTAL KIND. TOTAL JEFFERSON UNGRADED SUBTOTAL KIND. TOTAL MABELVALE UNGRADED SUBTOTAL KIND. TOTAL 1 2 3 4 5 6 1 2 3 4 5 6 1 2 3 4 5 6 1 2 3 4 5 6 20 17 16 29 24 20 126 15 141 26 26 25 34 27 23 161 25 186 1 1 3 1 0 0 6 0 6 47 44 44 64 51 43 293 40 333 55.32% 59.09% 56.82% 53.13% 52.94% 53.49% 54.95% 62.50% 55.86% 0 2 0 0 1 0 0 3 0 3 6 33 17 16 26 11 15 124 16 140 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 6 35 17 16 27 11 15 127 16 143 100.00% 94.29% 100.00% 100.00 96.30% 100.00% 100.00% 97.64 100.00% 97.90% 3 30 33 34 38 31 26 195 32 227 6 36 32 32 35 36 33 210 27 237 0 3 0 1 1 0 1 6 1 7 9 69 65 67 74 67 60 411 60 471 66.67% 52.17% 49.23% 47.76% 47.30% 53.73 5. 55.00% 51.09% 45.00% 50.32% 2 38 34 45 33 25 32 209 28 237 4 60 39 29 44 57 51 284 31 315 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 2 1 3 6 98 74 74 77 83 83 495 60 555 66.67% 61.22% 52.70% 39.19% 57.14% 68.67 61.45 Q, 'O 57.37% 51.67% 56.76%SCHOOL/GRADE MCDERMOTT UNGRADED WHITE BLACK OTHER TOTAL %BLACK SUBTOTAL KIND. TOTAL 1 2 3 4 5 6 0 23 33 22 35 22 27 162 29 191 2 46 38 59 47 54 47 293 26 319 0 2 1 1 0 0 0 4 4 8 2 71 72 82 82 76 74 459 59 518 100.00% 64.79% 52.78% 71.95% 57.32% 71.05% 63.51% 63.83% 44.07 Q, 61.58% MEADOWCLIFF UNGRADED 1 2 3 4 5 6 SUBTOTAL KIND. TOTAL 23 17 24 25 17 18 124 28 152 49 47 39 49 39 34 257 31 288 0 0 1 1 0 1 3 0 3 72 64 64 75 56 53 384 59 443 68.06% 73.44% 60.94% 65.33% 69.64% 64.15 66.93 3. o 52.54% 65.01% MITCHELL UNGRADED 1 2 3 4 5 6 SUBTOTAL KIND. TOTAL 0 10 2 3 2 2 2 21 5 26 7 30 26 24 19 29 18 153 31 184 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 7 40 28 27 21 31 20 174 36 210 100.00% 75.00% 92.86% 88.89% 90.48 % 93.55% 90.00% 87.93% 86.11 87.62% OTTER CREEK UNGRADED 1 2 3 4 5 6 SUBTOTAL KIND. TOTAL 26 26 26 20 26 28 152 24 176 22 23 24 31 26 24 150 32 182 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 48 49 50 51 52 52 302 56 358 45.83% 46.94% 48.00 60.78% 50.00% 46.15% 49.67% 57.14 50.84 5. ASCHOOL/GRADE PULASKI HEIGHTS UNGRADED WHITE BLACK OTHER TOTAL %BLACK SUBTOTAL KIND. TOTAL RIGHTSELL UNGRADED SUBTOTAL KIND. TOTAL 1 2 3 4 5 6 1 2 3 4 5 6 ROCKEFELLER UNGRADED 1 2 3 4 5 6 SUBTOTAL KIND. TOTAL ROMINE UNGRADED 1 2 3 4 5 6 SUBTOTAL KIND. TOTAL 22 17 16 7 12 7 81 23 104 26 30 29 33 31 33 182 31 213 1 0 1 1 0 1 4 2 6 49 47 46 41 43 41 267 56 323 53.06% 63.83% 63.04% 80.49% 72.09% 80.49% 68.16% 55.36% 65.94% 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 23 6 4 7 8 2 50 26 76 3 9 8 11 8 7 6 52 8 60 33 33 27 27 21 17 158 32 190 34 24 27 25 26 23 159 33 192 10 58 41 40 39 37 52 277 43 320 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 3 1 0 1 0 0 5 0 5 0 0 0 0 0 2 1 3 0 3 33 34 27 27 21 17 159 33 192 60 31 31 33 34 25 214 59 273 13 67 49 51 47 46 59 332 51 383 100.00% 97.06 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 99.37% 96.97% 98.96% 56.67% 77.42% 87.10% 75.76% 76.47% 92.00% 74.30% 55.93% 70.33% 76.92% 86.57% 83.67% 78.43% 82.98% 80.43 Q, 88.14% 83.43% 84.31% 83.55%SCHOOL/GRADE STEPHENS UNGRADED WHITE BLACK OTHER TOTAL %BLACK 2 4 5 6 SUBTOTAL KIND. TOTAL 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 2 3 5 7 35 23 19 32 30 17 163 28 191 0 0 1 1 1 1 2 6 1 7 7 35 24 21 33 32 19 171 32 203 100.00% 100.00% 95.83% 90.48% 96.97% 93.75% 89.47 o. *5 95.32% 87.50% 94.09% TERRY UNGRADED 1 2 3 4 5 6 SUBTOTAL KIND. TOTAL 33 32 30 39 37 28 199 32 231 40 37 41 44 46 52 260 26 286 2 1 1 1 0 0 5 2 7 75 70 72 84 83 80 464 60 524 53.33% 52.86% 56.94% 52.38% 55.42% 65.00% 56.03% 43.33% 54.58% WAKEFIELD UNGRADED 1 2 3 4 5 6 SUBTOTAL KIND. TOTAL 0 29 27 22 24 23 21 146 21 167 0 45 40 41 54 54 57 291 39 330 0 1 1 2 1 2 0 7 0 7 0 75 68 65 79 79 78 444 60 504 0.00% 60.00% 58.82% 63.08% 68.35% 68.35% 73.08% 65.54% 65.00% 65.48% WASHINGTON UNGRADED 1 2 3 4 5 6 SUBTOTAL KIND. TOTAL 2 47 45 58 38 44 43 277 39 316 7 115 65 57 52 51 34 381 51 432 0 2 2 0 1 0 3 8 3 11 9 164 112 115 91 95 80 666 93 759 77.78 70.12% 58.04% 49.57 57.14% 53.68% 42.50% 57.21% 54.84% 56.92%SCHOOL/GRADE WATSON UNGRADED WHITE BLACK OTHER TOTAL %BLACK SUBTOAL KIND. TOTAL \\x15estern : UNGRADED 1 2 3 4 5 6 20 30 22 28 25 27 152 19 171 55 43 51 55 58 55 317 41 358 0 1 0 1 1 0 3 0 3 75 74 73 84 84 82 472 60 532 73.33% 58.11% 69.86% 65.48% 69.05% 67.07% 67.16% 68.33% 67.29 HILLS 1 2 3 4 5 6 SUBTOTAL KIND. TOTAL 19 17 14 19 22 14 105 17 122 29 32 31 31 31 38 192 19 211 0 0 1 0 0 1 2 1 3 48 49 46 50 53 53 299 37 336 60.42% 65.31% 67.39% 62.00% 58.49% 71.70% 64.21% 51.35% 62.80% WILLIAMS UNGRADED 1 2 3 4 5 6 SUBTOTAL KIND. TOTAL 30 32 31 41 30 26 190 26 216 38 37 38 49 45 39 246 33 279 2 0 1 2 0 2 7 0 7 70 69 70 92 75 67 443 59 502 54.29% 53.62% 54.29% 53.26 60.00 *6 58.21% 55.53% 55.93% 55.58% WILSON UNGRADED 1 2 3 4 5 6 SUBTOTAL KIND. TOTAL 4 32 13 13 12 14 18 106 12 118 16 39 52 37 42 41 36 263 43 306 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 2 0 2 20 71 65 50 54 55 56 371 55 426 80.00% 54.93% 80.00% 74.00% 77.78% 74.55% 64.29 o. 70.89% 78.18% 71.83% ASCHOOL/GRADE Lx^bODRUFF UNGRADED WHITE BLACK OTHER TOTAL %BLACK SUBTOTAL KIND. TOTAL 1 2 3 4 5 6 9 5 5 7 16 9 51 9 60 10 17 15 18 20 31 111 8 119 0 0 1 1 0 2 4 0 4 19 22 21 26 36 42 166 17 183 52.63 77.27 71.43 a. *0 Q. 6 69.23% 55.56 73.81% 66.87% 47.06 Q. O 65.03% EASTER SEALS UNGRADED TOTAL 15 15 5 5 0 0 20 20 25.00% 25.00% ELIZ. MITCHELL UNGRADED TOTAL 26 26 13 13 0 0 39 39 33.33 33.33% E. MITCHELL(DAY) UNGRADED TOTAL 7 7 8 8 0 0 15 15 53.33% 53.33%School Orig Lang Capacity May Doc 3-15-91 I jj memo B Enrollment 1st Quarter NB T Orig Lang % Black May 1st Doc Quarter Blk May Doc Enr Cap Psb % Blk Badgett Bale Baseline Brady Chicot Clov Elem Dodd Fair Park Forest Pk Fulbright Gyr Sprgs Jefferson Mabelvale McDermott Meadowcliff Otter Creek Pul Heights Terry Wakefield Watson Westn Hills Wilson Woodruff 275 394 417 420 563 420 424 351 436 607 235 490 541 531 465 383 328 537 472 472 328 409 257 401 390 467 257 415 390 491 558 i 558 492 j 464 i 328\n386 351 376 1 165 302 57 74 383 403 540 i 587 328 5 492 515 517 442 351 351 492 492 492 328 394 324 I 255 513 562 562 481 378 378 537 517 537 355 428 209 222 376 263 95 I 358 332 11221 454 1 349 I 178\n527 I 282(109\n391 192 277 53% 60% 62% 52% 57% 73% 69% 55% 52%  31% 60% 72% 74.32% 80.32% 73.46% 73.13% 66.22% 72.12% 137 329 I 62\n339 165-7-257 = 64.20% 302-r 401 = 75.31% 263^390 = 67.44% 332-^467 = 71.09% 3494 558 = 62.54% 282-^492 = 57.32% 55% ' 52% 54%\n51% 58.36% 81.71% 1924 328 = 58.54% 277-^-351 = 208 i182i 292 147 237 390 53% ! 48% 53.33% 208-376 = 55.32% I I 268 I 315 319 288 560 60 : 207 53% i 51% 55% i 67% 52.14% 71.01% 292 4 540 = 54.07% 1474 328 = 44.82% I I 1 234i 471 I 240: 555 i 199( 518 155 I 443 I 52% 47% 50.32% 2374 492 = 48.17% 53% 55% 56.76% 3154515-61.17% 182 176 213 110 I 286 238 330 358 211 306 119 174 174 125 120 64 358 323 524 504 532 336 426 183 55% 57% 53% I 57% I 53% I 50% 57% 54% 54% 59% 54% 57% I 42% 46% 68% 66% 54% 54% 59% 61.58% 65.01% 50.84% 65.94% 54.58% 65.48% 67.29% 62.80% 71.83% 65.03% 319-^517 = 61.70% 2884 442 = 65.16% 1824 351 = 51.85% 2134 351 = 60.68% 286 4 492 = 58.13% 330492 = 67.07% 358- 492 = 72.76% 2114 328 = 64.33% 306-^394 = 77.66% 119^324 = 36.73%02.13.-91 13:39 501 3762147 FRIDAY LAW FIRM @002.-004 KCR5CHCI, hj, FRiOAT, P.A O. 5 CLAftk POBEWT V. LICHT, P A WILLIAM H. CUJTTOM, P.A. aCQPQi E. PiKS. . JAMES SV. MQOflE evnoN M CISCMA jOe O. SELL. P A. M itHACL a. TMQMPSON. P.A. JOHN C. CCmOlS. P.A. JAMES A. OVTTRt. Pa HREQCR CK S. l'ASER''. P.A H T LARZELERE, P.A. FRIDAY, EXDHEOGE \u0026amp; CLARK A PARTNERSHIP Of IN0I710UALS AND PROFESSIONAL ASSOCIATJONS ATTORNCYS AT LAW 2000 FIRST COMMERCIAL eUlUDING 400 WliST CAPITQC t-ITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS 72201-34,93 OAfiBV E COPL.N, B.J. RiCHAfta 3. TAV.OR, P. A JO9CP\u0026gt;1 O. HUBBT, TclcpmonC CtiZAaETh J. ROOBCN, P a. CHfciaroPrtEfl HE-uEft, P.A LAURA HClvSuer SMITH. P.A HOaeST . ShAFLK. b*. a WILLIAM M, GR|Rri4 111, P.A. THPMAS N. *6ae, P.A oacAft E c-AviS. . -AMgg C. CUAHK. R, \u0026gt;R . B. 301-376.OH MiCKACL s. OtANt\na. MACKCV AA,.TttM M. eSCL 1.1 HE VI * A. C BASS TmOmAS P. LtCOETT. P.A JOHN OtWEY WATSON, PA, LwiS MAT-)|S, P.A. Paul B BENHAM I.I, P.A. LAARTW aURKS.PA. A W*CKLlFr NtSeT. JK,, P.A .AMES COWARQ HaRR'S, *A - MIU-IP malCOm, P.A, JAMES M. SIM PSQN, P, A February 15, 1991 MCMCO Tirt  CAri,E f-.A BY FAX WluLIAM A. WADOfcLL, JR., P.A. clyoc \"tab Tunner C ALVI N , 5CQ-T W CBSV u I. lanCabtcr MALONC JAMES M CAXTQn.P. A J. SMSPUCRC RUSSELLI'i OOVAlO h BaCON. P.A. WILLIAM MOMAB BA.KTCR, P.A. WAUTCft A It, P A. Mr. Sam Jones WRIGHT, LINDSEY \u0026amp; JENNINGS 2200 Worthen Bank Bldg. 200 West Capitol Little Rock, AR 72201 M. Oaylc CORLCV AO\u0026amp;CNT B. BCAJH, 3. RA^OOLPPI LOQNCT J LEE BROWN jAMcs C. BArtee,LR. H. Oaci-iw5p.0, JH. HARRV A LICHT SCOTT TLCKCR JOHN CLAYTON RANOOlPM MARV l.WiSCmAN ojy Alton waoe HR ICC. C. OAPDnlH THSHAS F mElKS J. M ichal hi crcna Mr. John Walker JOHN WALKER, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72206 Re: Mr. Steve Jones JACK, LYON \u0026amp; JONES, P.A. 3400 Capitol Towers Capitol \u0026amp; Broadway Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Richard Roachell MITCHELL \u0026amp; ROACHELL, P.A. 1014 West Third Little Rock, AR 72201 LRSD Renovation and Construction Projects Dear Counsel: The renova planned and commitments f seeking a st for the cons the continua- WILL Wil 1. COJASC. AM J. SMITH \u0026gt;AM A. CUCaCCipE, WILLIAM L. CPBV WlLLIAr L. PAT-QllJ, JR TC-SCOniin csQ.i c.ECOh cn lasii u u Hcr-r no 370^1506 i.on and construction projects described below pursuant to either th^ were ^^'ri-District Plan, the during the millage cam|5|b , or both. 1 will be ition concerning these s'cH^ls and court approval The construction projects at these schools, of the Central High School International Studies Program and the implementation of desegregation transfers at the elementary level within the Little Rock School District should be the only issues LRSD must seek to have resolved in advance of the submission of the modified settlement plan. \"ion. The following is a summary of the proposed renovation and construction projects: Woodruff Eleinentary: The Tri-District Plan (p. 8) states: Approximately two hundred students will be added to Woodruff's enrollment, which will require additional classroom space. which will require Some of these classrooms will be used for an early childhood education program. The school program.02 13 91 16:00 501 3762147 FRIDAY LAW FIRM @003 004 will also offer and Extended Day Program to attract children whose parents work in State government offices. A percentage of Woodruff's seats will be reserved to meet desegregation requirements. LRSD proposes to continue the renovation and expansion of Woodruff. The work at Woodruff will consist of adding five classrooms and expanding capacity from 209 to 344 (not counting the space for the four year old program). This expansion will require a slight enlargement of the Woodruff attendance zone, which will allow more Woodruff area students, most of whom are black, to attend a closer school. The expansion will also create the space necessary to recruit students whose parents work in nearby state government offices, and to balance the grade structure at Woodruff at two classes per grade (Woodruff presently has one class each at K-4, and two c sses each at grades 5 and 6). Western Hills Elementary: The Tri-District Plan (p. 8) states\nThe capacity of Western Hills will be expanded by 1991-92 to two hundred students, and its portables, which currently serve one hundred children, eliminated. LRSD does not propose to enlarge Western Hills Elementary (present capacity is 355, proposed is 358) but only to replace portable buildings with permanent classroom space. require any adjustment to attendance zones. The racial composition of Western Hills Elementary is expected to remain approximately 63% bitch.. There is no satellite attendance zone for Western Hills. This project will not black. Cloverdale Elementary and Junior High Schools: Plan (p. 8) states\nThe Tri-District The capacity of each school wiT approximately one hundred students. e increased by The project at the Cloverdale campus involves building a new cafeteria between the schools and renovating former cafeteria space into classrooms. In addition, a new classroom wing will be built at the junior high school so that portable classrooms can be eliminated. The capacity of Cloverdale Junior Hiah School win High will remain at 750. The capacity of Cloverdale Elementary will be increased from 464 to 492. This will allow LRSD to replace the present uneven grade structure (2 classes each at grades K, 1 and 6\n3 classes each at grades 2,3,4 and 5) with three classes per grade. The assignment zones for Cloverdale Junior High and Elementary will not change as a result of this project. ' There is no satellite zone for Cloverdale Elementary . The racial composition of the two schools (70% black at the junior high\n72% black at the elementary) is not expected to change a result of this project. as 02.-15 91 16:01 501 3762147 FRIDAY LAW FIRM @004'004 Geyer Springs Elementary\n____________ Except for Cloverdale Junior High and Western Hills, Geyer Springs has the highest concentration of portable buildings in the district. The renovation and expansion plan for Geyer springs calls for the replacement of portable classrooms with permanent construction, expansion of the kitchen, and the addition of sufficient classrooms so that the school can accommodate two classes each at grades K-6 and a new library. The capacity of Geyer Springs Elementary will be increased from 255 to 328. The racial composition of the school (71% black) is not expected to change as a result of this project, no satellite zones for Geyer Springs Elementary. There are The present imbalanced grade structure (2 classes each at grades K, 4 and 5\none each at grades 1,2,3 and 6) will be balanced at two classes per grade. Forest Heights Junior High: ________ The plan for Forest Heights Junior High School is to demolish most of the existing classrooms and to replace them with a new structure. by two architectural firms. This approach was recommend* Both fixrms reported that renovation the existing buildings would not be economical and would not sol the existing site problems such as drainage and supervision. new structure will house classrooms, The administrative area. The cafeteria, new library and a new gymnasium and vocational buildings (six classrooms) will remain intact but will undergo minor renovations. This project will replace thirty of the thirty-six existing classrooms and three portable classrooms with thirty-nine classrooms, for a net gain of six classrooms. These additional new classrooms are necessary to provide permanent classroom space to teachers who are now required to \"float\" a-nng classrooms which are empty during certain periods of the day day. ^nges in the number of students who attend Forest Heights Junior I School, the racial composition of those students (68% black/ and the attendance zone for Forest Heights Junior High School are not expected as a result of this construction. a These projects should have no detrimental effect on the implementation of our desegregation plan. The funds for these projects were budgeted following the successful millage campaign. Please let me know your position with respect to these proposals as soon as possible. I will be happy to provide any additional information you may need to assess these proposals. Yours very truly'. Christoph^'' feller CJH/k cc: 1 Dr. Ruth Steele Office of Desegregation Monitoring JOFFICE OF DESEGREGATION MONITORING 201 EAST MARKHAM, SUITE 510 HERITAGE WEST BUILDING LITTLE ROCK, AR 72201 Date: February 26, 1991 To: Chris Heller From: Ann Brown Subject: Questions Regarding Proposals for LRSD Construction I've gone over the proposals for building in the LRSD very carefully. Attached are the questions that have occured to me as I've thought it through and researched some data. If you'd like to talk it all over, just give me a call.Questions about Proposed LRSD Construction Woodruff Elementary\n1. First paragraph quotes approximately 200 students\nthe Tri-District Plan provision which would add 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. to 344, a difference of 135 seats. second paragraph says capacity will expand from 209 Which is the proposal, 200 or 135? If the proposal is for 135 new seats rather than 200, why this deviation from the Tri-District Plan provision (which was taken directly from LRSD's December 1, 1989 revised Preliminary Plan submission to the Metropolitan Supervisor?) Do we correctly understand that the proposed five new classrooms will house one each of K - 4th grade? If five classrooms are added, one each for K through 4, a maximum of only 123 students can be placed in these classes according to state standards, the other 12 seats for, early childhood? What are Are we to understand that the proposed early childhood education (ECE) program is for four-year-olds? How many ECE classes will there be? How many students in each? If capacity is expanded from 209 to 344 \"not counting the space for the four year old program\", what are the plans for ECE space? Do you propose to offer an Extended Day Program as provided in the Tri-District section quoted? If so, what will the proposed Extended Day Program entail (what and when for which students?) Are you also proposing to implement the quoted Tri-District provision which calls for a percentage of Woodruff's seats to be reserved to meet desegregation requirements? If so, what percentage, representing exactly how many seats, will be reserved? What will be the black/white percentage of these reserved seats? What is the plan and timeline for recruiting children whose parents work in state government offices? The recent FOCUS says that new students register February 26 - March 8, 1991. How will children of state government workers be assigned to Woodruff: M-to-M, Act 609, intradistrict desegregation transfer? LRSD represented to the Special Master that Woodruff could not be expanded because of state elementary building and playground standards. How is it now possible to expand the school without violating state regulations? Exactly how will the Woodruff attendance zone be enlarged and by how many students? How many students will have to change schools as a result of the zone change? attend!ng? How many of these students are black? What grade level are these students? -1- Which schools are they nowWestern Hills: 1. 2. How many portables are currently at the school and what classes/grades to they house? How long have portables been in use at the school, by year and by number of portable buildings? 3. How many Western Hills students reside in an attendance zone that is other than that of Western Hills? How many of these students are not in their zoned school because of controlled choice and subsequent grandfathering? How many of these students are at Western Hills because their zoned school is full (e.g., incentive school, etc.) an 4. How many students are eligible to leave Western Hills to return to an incentive school or area school? How many of these students are black? How and when wi11 you determine how many children will actually leave Western Hills to return to their zoned school? 5. If all the students who could leave Western Hills to return to their home zone school did so, what would the enrollment of Western Hills be? 6. What does demographic data indicate the enrollment of Western Hills will be when populated solely by children who live in the current attendance zonewithout redrawing linesa few years down the road when all grandfathered students are out of the school? Cloverdale Elementary and Junior High Schools: 1. The quoted Tri-District provision states that both schools will be expanded by about one hundred students each, a provision included in the Tri-District Plan from the December 1, 1989, LRSD revised Preliminary Plan\nyet expansion of only the elementary school is proposed, proposed? Why is expansion of the junior high not 2. How many students who live in the Cloverdale Junior High attendance zone presently must attend another junior high because of grandfathering or inadequate seating at Cloverdale? 3. How many portables are currently at the school? What classes do they house? 4. Will increasing the capacity of Cloverdale Elementary by 28 seats, rather than the 100 in the Tri-Di strict Plan (and the LRSD Dec. 1, 1991, revised Preliminary Plan,) provide adequate seating for the proposed three new classes (one each at K, 1 and 6?) At maximum state class size at these grade levels, as many as 73 students could be enrolled in these three classes. 5. Figures recently provided this office by LRSD Student Assignment indicate that the capacity of Cloverdale Elementary was 422 in 1989-90 (with an enrollment of 419)\n1990-91 capacity is 464 and enrollment 389. How was the capacity of the school enlarged by 42 seats between 89-90 snd 90-91? Why was the capacity enlarged when enrollment actually decreased by 30 students? -2-6. Where will the students for the new K and first grade classes come from? 7. How many Cloverdale Elementary students are grandfathered? assigned to the school because their home zone school is full? How many have been Geyer Springs Elementary: 1. How many portable buildings are presently at the school and what classes/grades do they house? 2. The Geyer Springs attendance zone does not appear to exhibit a growth pattern. As a matter of fact, capacity and enrollment figures indicate that the school has been underenrolled for some time. So why is the school slated for expansion? 3. The district proposes to expand capacity by 73 more seats and to add four more classes (which could contain as many as 103 students.) Are attendance zone changes proposed? classes come from? If not, where will the children who will populate these 4. Neither the Settlement nor Tri-District Plans (nor the preliminary desegregation plans submitted to CMS by LRSD) propose altering the capacity of Geyer Springs. Why is the district now proposing to expand Geyer Springs before addressing building which is provided for in the Settlement and Tri-District Plans? Fore^t^leights Junior High: 1. How will the total capacity of Forest Heights be changed by the proposed new additions? 2. Figures supplied this office by LRSD Student Assignment Office in January 1991, along with those taken from the Aerospace Magnet grant proposal, indicate that Forest Heights currently has a capacity of 780, with 754 students (69% black) enrol led. This means the school is at 97% capacity. (Figures more recently povided this office by James Jennings put enrollment at 772, 99% of capacity.) The aerospace grant proposal states, on page 121, that \"space is available in the designated junior high schools to house the number of students being projected.\" Your current proposal states that \"changes in the number of students who attend Forest Heights Junior High School, the racial composition of those students (68% black) and the attendance zone for Forest Heights Junior High School are not expected as a result of this construction.\" But the aerospace grant proposes to attract White students from North Little Rock and Pulaski County schools. (page 25.) How many M-to-M students are anticipated to participate in the magnet program? How many intradistrict transfers will be accepted into the program? What will the total capacity of the school need to be in order to accommodate these new students? What is the total projected enrollment, the magnet program projected enrollment, and the projected black/white ratio (both school and magnet program) as a result of the magnet program? -3-General: 1. What is the projected total cost of the building proposals? What portion of these building costs does LRSD propose to underwrite with desegregation monies? 2. How will these building plans affect the burden of busing on black children? 3. What does the district intend to do with the portable buildings that are removed from Western Hills, Geyer Springs, etc.? 4. In an Attendance Zone Report submitted to OMS on April 2, 1990, James Jennings states a problem which is recognized in both the Settlement and Tri-District Plans: \"The Little Rock School District currently uses 90% of its total non-magnet elementary capacity. The District has stated on several occasions that the elementary building capacity, particularly in central and east Little Rock, needs to be increased. The District's capacity problem is compounded by the fact that the interdistrict magnet program reduced the number of elementary seats available to Little Rock students. Gifted/Talented have caused a reduction in school capacity.\" Also, programs such as PAL and Both the Settlement and Tri-District Plans agree that building capacity in central and east Little Rock must be increased {as did the LRSD revised Preliminary Plans of December 1, 1989) and there is a timeline for doing so. There are provisions in the Settlement plan (page 30, LRSD Vol II) for 1990-91 to \"relocate Stephens Elementary near the 1-630 corridor between 1-30 and University Avenue.\" Also, \"to build a new King Elementary School in downtown Little Rock...in the general area along 1-630 between 1-30 and University Avenue.\" Over the past several months, this office has received reports and proposals from the LRSD which deal with expanding seating in central and east Little Rock. However, the proposal currently before the parties does not address the pressing need to expand capacity in the downtown area. When will there be firm plans to address it? How can the district expect the Court to approve building in the western part of the city when the district has made no move to fulfill its obligation to build in central/east Little Rock area? 5. The building proposal provides for some adjustment of attendance zones. The LRSD April 2, 1990, Attendance Zone Report states \"The elementary capacity must be addressed before attendance zones are adjusted. will Otherwise, any adjustments simply shift the current capacity problem from one school to another school.\" This same report states repeatedly that \"the plans to close and rebuild incentive schools should be finalized before attendance zones are adjusted.\" We agree that this a sensible approach. Why has the LRSD abandoned it? 6. The recent FOCUS (on page 7) states that \"Tuition-free programs for children who will be four years old on or before October 1, 1991, will be offered at Badgett, Franklin, Garland, Ish, Mitchell, Rightsell, Rockefeller, Stephens, Washington and Woodruff.\" When will plans for expanding Rightsell in order to accommodate the four-year-old program be submitted? How will Mitchell physically accommodate the four-year-old program it was to have implemented two years ago? -4-7. There are numerous indications (including capacity and enrollment figures, statements by LRSD Board members at public meetings, and newspaper articles) that LRSD is short on junior high capacity. The LRSD Settlement Plan (Vol I), on page 174, states that: \"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 Di strict to meet programmatic need of the Di strict 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.\" When will the district review the capacities of junior high schools? When wi11 there be a plan to assure that junior high students will not have to wait for a seat? 8. The district seems to be predicating much of its proposed construction on the Tri-District Plan provision that all portable buildings will be eliminated. Can we therefore expect the district to move to modify the LRSD Settlement Plan (Vol II, page 5) provision that \"every effort will be made to install portable buildings in order to accommodate overflow situations at a particular grade level?\" The provision of one plan to do away with portables contradicts the provision of another plan which justifies their use. -5-FRIDAY, ELDREDGE \u0026amp; CLARK HERSCHEL H. FRIDAY. P.A. B. S. CLARK A PARTNERSHIP OF INDIVIDUALS ANO PROFESSIONAL ASSOCIATIONS ROBERT U. LIGHT. P.A. WILLIAM H SUTTON. P. GEORGE E. PIKE. JR.. I JAMES W. MOORE attorneys at law p. 2000 FIRST COMMERCIAL BUILDING 6YHON M. EISEMAN, JR.. P.A JOE D. BELL. P.A. MICHAEL O. THOMPSON, P A. JOHN C. ECHOLS, P.A. JAMES A. BUTTRY. P.A, FREDERICK S. URSERY, P.A. AOO WEST CAPITOL LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS 72201-3493 Telephone SOi-376-2Oii LAURA HENSLEY SMITH. P.A. ROBERT S. SHAFER. P.A WILLIAM M. GRIFFIN III, P. A. THOMAS N. ROSE. P.A. MICHAELS, MOORE DIANE S. MACKEY WALTER M, EBEL III, P.A. KEVI N A. CRASS WILLIAM A. WADDELL. JR.. P. P CLYDE \"tab\" ThRNER H. T. LARZELERE. P.A. OSCAR E, DAVIS. JR. JAMES C. CLARK, JR.. THOMAS P. LEOOE''T. Fax No. 5OI-376-2IA7 p. JOHN DEWEY WATSON. P.A. LEWIS MATHIS. P.A. PAUL 8. BENHAM III, P.A. LARRY W. BURKS, P.A. A, WYCKLiFF NISBET, JR., P.A, JAMES EDWARD HARRIS. P.A, J. PHILLIP MALCOM, P.A. JAMES M. Simpson, p.a, MEREDITH P. CATLETT, P.A. JAMES M. SAXTON. P.A. J. SHEPHERD RUSSELL III DONALD H. BACON, P.A WILLIAM THOMAS BAXTER, P.A. February 25, 1991 WAI ER A. PAULSON II, P A. SCOTT J. LANCASTER JERRY L. MALONE M. GAYLE CORLEY ROBERT B. BEACH, JR. S. RANDOLPH LOONEY J. LEE BROWN JAMES C. BAKER, JR. H. CHARLES GSCHWENO, JR HARRY A. LIGHT SCOTT H. TUCKER JOHN CLAYTON RANDOLPH GUY ALTON WADE PRICE C. GARDNER THOMAS F. MEEKS J. MICHAEL PICKENS TON lA P. JOKES DAVID O. WILSON JEFFREY H. MOORE BARRY E. COPLIN, P.A. RICHARD O. TAYLOR, P.A. JOSEPH a. HURST. JR., ELIZABETH J. ROBBEN. P. \u0026gt; CHRISTOPHER HELLER. P. COUNSCL WILLIAM J. SMITH WILLIAM A. ELDREDGE. JR.. P a WILLIAM L. TCPRY WILLIAM L. PATTON, JR.. P.A. WRITCP'S OlPCCT NO. Mr. Sam Jones o'. Mr. Steve Jones 370-1506 WRIGHT, LINDSEY ii JENNINGS 2200 Worthen Bank Bldg. 200 West Capitol Little Rock, AR 72201 JACK, LYON \u0026amp; JONES, P.A. 3400 Capitol Towers Capitol \u0026amp; Broadway Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. John Walker Mr. Richard Roachell JOHN WALKER, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72206 MITCHELL \u0026amp; ROACHELL, P.A. 1014 West Third Little Rock, AR 72201 Re: Construction Issues Dear Counsel: Since I wrote you last there has been a slight modification of our plans for Forest Heights Junior High School. We intend to leave standing and to renovate an additional five classrooms which will be used to educate no more than forty handicapped students. Please let me know if you have any questions or concerns about this change or about our other construction proposals. As you know, the Philander Smith College Board rejected an LRSD proposal to locate a new interdistrict school on the campus. Since then, with John Walker's help, we have reached the point that Dr. Titus is willing to consider a modified proposal for an interdistrict school at Philander Smith. LRSD is also considering Westside as a possible interdistrict school site, but is not yetready to propose that to the parties. I would welcome any suggestions you may have concerning the possible location of the new Stephens and King schools within the area described in our desegregation plan. Yours very truly Christopher eller CJE/k cc: Dr. Ruth Steele Office of Desegregation MonitoringOFFICE OF DESEGREGATION MONITORING 201 EAST MARKHAM, SUITE 510 HERITAGE WEST BUILDING LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS 72201 PROGRESS REPORT ON NEW CONSTRUCTION March 4, 1991 Little Rock School District Woodruff Construction ongoingbeen there about a week- -ground work being done for foundations currently facility. no work being done inside the Western Hills Construction ongoingcurrently digging for foundationnothing currently inside facility Cloverdale Elem Construction ongoingground work being done for foundation of cafeteriacurrently no work being done inside the facility Cloverdale Jr. Construction ongoingground work being done for foundation of cafeteriacurrently no work being done inside the facility Geyer Springs - Construction ongoingground work being done for foundationsparking lot torn up- playground torn upsome work being done inside buildingin six of seven classroom no heat, no ceiling and lighting reduced. Forest Heights Junior High - Currently no construction startedsurveying and meeting with principal0 3 Z 0 6 z 1 9 9 1 1 1 ! 3 ? FROM JOHN W.WALKER P.fi. TO 3710100 P .02 MEMORANDUM to\nMR. JOHN W. WALKER FROM\nMR. KIRK HERMAN MRS. JOY CHARLES-SPRINGER re\nLRSD V. PCSSD - New Construction within the LRSD date\nMARCH 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. I visited Cloverdale and Geyer Springs, as follows: 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 ng II additional classrooms, a new playground, office, nurses station and a cafeteria to be shared with Cloverdale Jr. High School. Final students student capacity (after construction): 492 I 1 I03/06Z1991 11!3S FROM JOHN U.UflLKER P.fl. TO 3710100 P. 03 I i I i I 1 PAGE TWO March 5, 1991 The only portable building at Cloverdale Elementary is the music room. Cloverdale Jr. High has several portablej, The budget between Cloverdale Elementary and Jr. High is approximately 2 1/2 million dollars. GEYER SPRINGS ELEMSMTARY Principal: Eleanor Cox (black female) Current student capacity: 200 students 76% black 24% white Current number of classrooms: 9 After construction, the school will have \"2 3 classrooms. The construction will consist of 14\" new classrooms, a new playground and a new parking lot. Final student capacity: 400 Anticipated capacity next school year\n326 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 ELEMENTARY Principal\nMargie Puckett (white female) Current student capacity: 336 students 63.7% black 35.3% white .5% other The construction will consist of \"10\" additional classrooms. II 03x06/1991 11:39 FROM JOHN U.WALKER P.fl. PAGE THREE March 5, 1991 TO 3710100 P . 04 There are currently 6 portable buildings that house classes at Western Hills. The budget for Western Hills has been set at 1 million dollars. WOOPRPPg ELEMENTARY Principal\nPat Higginbotham (white female) Current student capacity: unknown 80% black 20% white The construction will consist of expansion of the cafeteria. 10' new classrooms and There are no portable buildings that house classes at Woodruff. The budget for Woodruff has been set between $800,000 and 1 million dollars. Please let us know if additional information is needed. I 1 I I I 1 J I i iI  - . 03/05/1991 10:12 FROM JOHN U.WALKER P.A JOHN W. WALKER RALPH WASHEsGTON MARK Bt 'RNETTE WOLEy A. BRANTON, JR. 'Afcw a^niUffd to Prartwc in Gcongi. A tfin bbuk-t yC Cohmb-n. DELIVERED VIA FAX Ms. Anna Brown Ms. Arma Hart TO 3710100 P. 02 John W. W/kLKER. P.A. ArroRNEl AT Law 1723 Broadway Litti.e Rock. Arkansas vzaje Telephone (501) -iTi-aT.ss FAX (501) 3744187 March 5, 1991 \u0026lt; Office of Desegregation Monitoring _201 East Markham Little Rock, AR 72201 Dear Ms. Brown and Ms. Hart: Would ionformation you kindly advise me whether , _ regarding construction which xt.^xu capacities in certain Little Rock School buildings? Mr. Chris Heller advises only normal maintenance - ---------is occurring. checking into this at once. LAZAR M. iALNTCK LAW  FINANCE BLDG. SLTTE 1\u0026lt;X'2 429 FOURTH AVENUE PITTSBLIRGH, PA 15219 (412) 2S8-9220 you have additional includes enlarging me that this is not happening and I would appreciate your into this matter and By copy of this letter to Mr, Heller, I am he look call me today if after he has received reply to this inquiry. I also asking that at all possible, With best regards, Z-----\\ 1 I cc: Mr. Chris Heller Ukii At J^n W. Walker Walker M TOTAL P.02I I 03/05/1991 10:12 FROM JOHN Id. WALKER P.A. TO 3710100 P. 02 JOHN W. WALKER RALPH WASHINGTON- MARK BURNETTE WILEY A. BRANTON, JR. * AWi\u0026gt; s'4a7niUed tc Practice in GcorgiA Oi*} Liislrit. 'jI Coh DELIVERED VIA FAX John w. Walker, P.a. Attornet At Law 1723 Broadway Lrrn.E RocK. Arkansa,s 7221)6 Tei,ephone (501) 374-3758 FAX (501) 3744187 March 5, 1991 Ms. Anna Brown Ms. Arma Hart Office of Desegregation Monitoring 201 East Markham Little Rock, AR 72201 Dear Ms. Brown and Ms. Hart\nWould ionformation regaraing construction which includes capacities in certain Little Rock School buildings? you kindly advise regarding me construction whether which LAZAR M. PALNICK LAW \u0026amp; FINANCE BLDG SUITE 1\u0026lt;X\u0026gt;2 429 FOURTH AVENUE Pm^BURGH. PA 15219 (412) 2SS-9220 you have additional enlarging Mr. Chris Heller advis only normal maintenance is checking into this at once. es me that this is occurring. not happening and I would appreciate your By copy of this letter to Mr. -----\"* into this matter and after he has received he look Heller, I am call me today if reply to this inquiry. also asking that at all possible, cc: Mr. Chris Heller With best regards, W. Walker M03/06/1991 11:37 FROM JOHN U.WALKER P.P. TO 3710100 P .02 MEMORANDUM I I I I ! I to\nFROM: re: date\nOn site MR. JOHN W. WALKER MR. KIRK HERMAN MRS. JOY CHARLES-SPRINGER LRSD V. PCSSD - New Construction within the LRSD MARCS 5/ 1991 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: Principal: I visited Our findings at the locations were CLOVERDALE ELEMENTARY 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 i5ir additional classrooms, a new playground, office, nurses station and a cafeteria to be shared with Cloverdale Jr. High School. Final students student capacity (after construction): 49203/'06zl991 11:33 FROM JOHN U.UflLKER P.O. TO 3710100 P . 03 PAGE TWO March 5, 1991 The only portable building at Cloverdale Elementary is the music room. cloverdale Jr. High has several Cloverdale Jr, portable^, The budget between Cloverdale Elementary and Jr. High is approximately 2 1/2 million dollars. GEYER SPRINGS ELEHSMTARY Principal: Eleanor Cox (black female) Current student capacity: 200 students 76% black 24% white Current number of classrooms: 9 After construction, the school will have 23\" classrooms. The construction will consist of \"14\" new classrooms, new playground and a new parking lot. a Final student capacity: 400 Anticipated capacity next school year: 326 There are currently 8 portable buildings that house the intermediate classes. Geyer Springs. There is also classroom sharing at The budget for Geyer Springs' construction has been set at 1 1/2 million dollars. WESTERN HILLS ELEMENTARY Principal: IF Margie Puckett (white female) Current student capacity: 336 students 63.7% black 35.8% white ,5% other The construction will consist of \"10\" classrooms. additional03/0BZ1991 11:39 FROM JOHN UI.UflLKER P.R. TO 3710100 P. 04 PAGE THREE March 5, 1991 There are currently 6 portable buildings that house classes at Western Hills. The budget for Western Hills has been set at 1 million dollars. ffOOPRPPP ELEMEMTARY principal: Pat Higginbotham (white female) Current student capacity: unknown 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. Please let us know if additional information is needed.John w. Walker, p.a. Attorney At Law 1723 Broadway Little Rcxk, Arkansas 72206 Telephone (501) 374-37.58 FAX (501) 374-4187 JOHN W. WALKER RALPH WASHINGTON MARK BURNETTE 'WILEY A. BRANTON, JR. AIm admitted to Practice in Georgia \u0026amp; the District of Columbia. March 5, 1991 LAZAR M. PALNICK LAW \u0026amp; FINANCE BLDG. SUITE 1002 429 FOURTH AVENUE PITTSBURGH, PA 15219 (412) 288-9220 DELIVERED VIA FAX Ms. Anna Brown Ms. Arma Hart Office of Desegregation Monitoring 201 East Markham Little Rock, AR 72201 Dear Ms. Brown and Ms. Hart: Would ionformation you kindly advise me whether regarding construction which you have includes capacities in certain Little Rock School buildings? additional enlarging Mr. Chris Heller advises only normal maintenance me that this is not happening and checking into this at once. is occurring. I would appreciate your he look By copy of this letter to Mr. Heller, I am into this matter and call me today if after he has received reply to this inquiry. also asking that at all possible. With best regards, J Ignn W. Walker cc: Mr. Chris HellerLRSD CONSTRUCTION PROPOSALS As a backdrop to the current LRSD construction proposals, it will be helpful to keep in mind that the LRSD (and to a somewhat lesser extent, NLRSD and PCSSD) has repeatedly found itself in difficulties with desegregation efforts from the \"domino effect\" resulting from failure to thoroughly think through, evaluate, and learn from the following: 1. Cause and effect: All of the districts persist in tunnel vision and short sightedness, but LRSD is the worst of the lot. These \"eye problems\" frequently prevent the districts from recognizing that there may be several diverse factorsnot just one or twowhich work together to create a certain situation. They also have difficulty identifying the potential multiple effects that may ensue as a result of one course of action or another. They repeatedly fail to anticipate all sorts of things: the short and long tern consequences of decisions, changing scenarios, altered needs, etc. Neither do they seem to learn much from the history of their mistakes or their successes. 2. Broad scale and long term context and impact: The desegregation plans and programs are not something \"over there\", somehow separate from the normal, day to day business of delivering educational services to kids. Rather, desegregation is a part of the definition and means of how those services are delivered to all of the children. Anything done in a school district, either programmatically or operationally, invariably has an impact on desegregation because desegregation means the integration not just of bodies, but of ideas, programs, operations, and opportunities. This is the substance of true equity. 3. For every action there is a reaction: The desegregation plan must not be viewed as a disjointed, non-related series of stand-alone sections. What happens as one part of the plan is implemented {one program, one operation, one construction project) invariably impacts what's happening elsewhere in the district (and often in the other districts as well.) Each plan, program, and action must be seen in the context of the whole and as part of an action and time continuum, piece in place, changes. The puzzle (desegregation plan) is not complete without each Remove or distort just one puzzle part, and the whole picture 4. Responsibility: Each school district is ultimately responsible for the effective implementation of its desegregation plan. Placing blame or even giving credit to some external force obscures the fact that what happens in each district is the full responsibility of that district, make them do it! The devi1 did not 5. The LRSD does not seem to recognize the importance of good faith. The district has not been able to build trust with either the Court nor the community because of lies. mi stakes, broken promises. inconsistent and arbitrary actions, and frequent changes without any indication of the \"why\" of the changes. The old saw \"It's easier to get forgiveness than permission\" is not going to work, even in the cases where it might be appropriate, if there is no foundation of trust and a clear record of good faith action. What i s the LRSD doing to build a relationship with the Court and community which clearly demonstrates the district's good faith?Summary: A. Each decision must be considered in the context of the entire desegregation plan, keeping in mind the interrelatedness of the sections, the immediate and future impact of any action, and how one district's actions affects another. Think big picture and long term. B. Desegregation wholi Stic, involving and impacting all students. Desegregation plans are integral to how each district educates ALL its students. Education is describednot dichotomizedby a desegregation plan. C. Each district is responsible for the successful implementation of its desegregation plan. i s D. A record of consistently acting in good faith as well as in accordance with the provisions of desegregation plans is basic to eventually achieving unitary status.AS \"^^Ut/J)\" Questions about Proposed LRSD Construction Woodruff Elementary: 1. First paragraph, quotes the Tri-District Plan provision which would add approximately 200 students\nsecond paragraph says capacity will expand from 209 to 344, a difference of 135 seats. Which is the proposal, 200 or 135? 2. If the proposal is for 135 new seats rather than 200, why this deviation from the Tri-District Plan provision (which was taken directly from LRSD's December 1, Supervisor?) 1989 revised Preliminary Plan submission to the Metropolitan 3.Do we correctly understand that the proposed five new classrooms will house one each of K 4th grade? 4.If five classrooms are added, one each for K through 4, 123 students can be placed in these classes according to What are the other 12 seats for, early childhood? a maximum of only state standards. 5. Are we to understand that the proposed early childhood education (ECE) program is for four-year-olds? 6. How many ECE classes will there be? How many students in each? 7.If capacity is expanded from 209 to 344 \"not counting the space for the four year old program\", what are the plans for ECE space? 8. Do you propose to offer an Extended Day Program as provided in the Tri- District section quoted? If so, what will the proposed Extended Day Program entail (what and when for which students?) 9.Are you also proposing to implement the quoted Tri-District provision which calls for percentage of Woodruf f's seats to be desegregation requirements? reserved to meet many seats. will be reserved? If so, what percentage, representing exactly how these reserved seats? What will be the black/white percentage of 10.What is the plan and timeline for recruiting children whose parents work in state government offices? February 26 March 8, 1991. The recent FOCUS says that new students register 11.How will children of state government workers be assigned to Woodruff: M- to-M, Act 609, intradistrict desegregation transfer? 12.LRSD represented to the Special Master that Woodruff could not be expanded because of state elementary building and playground standards. possible to expand the school without violating state regulations? How is it now 13.Exactly how will the Woodruff attendance zone be enlarged and by how many students? zone change? now attending? How many students will have to change schools as a result of the How many of these students are black? What grade level are these students? Which schools are they aWestern Hills: l.How many portables are currently at the school and what classes/grades to they house? 2. How long have portables been in use at the school, by year and by number of portable buildings? 3.How many Western Hills students reside in an attendance zone that is other than that of Western Hills? How many of these students are not in their zoned school because of controlled choice and subsequent grandfathering? How many of these students are at Western Hills because their zoned school is full (e.g., incentive school, etc.) an 4.How many students are eligible to leave Western Hills to return to an incentive school or area school? How many of these students are black? How and when will you determine how many children will actually leave Western Hills to return to their zoned school? 5. If all the students who could leave Western Hills to return to their home zone school did so, what would the enrollment of Western Hills be? 6.What does demographic data indicate the enrollment of Western Hills will be when populated solely by children who live in the current attendance zone-- without redrawing lines--a few years down the road when all grandfathered students are out of the school? Cloverdale Elementary and Junior High Schools: l.The quoted Tri-District provision states that both schools will be expanded by about one hundred students each, a provision included in the Tri-District Plan from the December 1, 1989, LRSD revised Preliminary Plan\nyet expansion of only the elementary school is proposed, proposed? Why is expansion of the junior high not 2.How many students who live in the Cloverdale Junior High attendance zone presently must attend another junior high because of grandfathering or inadequate seating at Cloverdale? 3.How many portables are currently at the school? What classes do they house? 4.Will increasing the capacity of Cloverdale Elementary by 28 seats, rather than the 100 in the Tri-District Plan (and the LRSD Dec. 1, 1991, revised Preliminary Plan,) provide adequate seating for the proposed three new classes (one each at K, 1 and 6?) At maximum state class size at these grade levels. students could be enrolled in these three classes. as many as 73 5.Figures recently provided this office by LRSD Student Assignment indicate that the capacity of Cloverdale Elementary was 422 in 1989-90 (with an enrollment of 419)\n1990-91 capacity is 464 and enrollment 389. school enlarged by 42 seats between 89-90 and 90-91? How was the capacity of the enlarged when enrollment actually decreased by 30 students? Why was the capacity 6.Where will the students for the new K and first grade classes come from? 7.How many Cloverdale Elementary students are grandfathered? assigned to the school because their home zone school is full? How many have been Gever Springs Elementary: l.How many portable buildings are presently at the school and what classes/grades do they house? 2.The Geyer Springs attendance zone does not appear to exhibit a growth pattern. As a matter of fact, capacity and enrollment figures indicate that the school has been underenrolled for some time. So why is the school slated for expansion? 3.The district proposes to expand capacity by 73 more seats and to add four more classes (which could contain as many as 103 students.) changes proposed? classes come from? Are attendance zone If not, where will the children who will populate these4.Neither the Settlement nor Tri-District Plans (nor the preliminary desegregation plans submitted to OMS by LRSD) propose altering the capacity of Geyer Springs. Why is the district now proposing to expand Geyer Springs before addressing building which is provided for in the Settlement and Tri-District Plans? Forest Heights Junior High: l.How will the total capacity of Forest Heights be changed by the proposed new additions? 2.Figures supplied this office by LRSD Student Assignment Office in January 1991, along with those taken from the Aerospace Magnet grant proposal, indicate that Forest Heights currently has a capacity of 780, with 754 students (69% black) enrolled. This means the school is at 97% capacity. (Figures more recently provided this office by James Jennings put enrollment at 772, 99% of capacity.) The aerospace grant proposal states, on page 121, that \"space is available in the designated junior high schools to house the number of students being projected.\" Your current proposal states that \"changes in the number of students who attend Forest Heights Junior High School, the racial composition of those students (68% black) and the attendance zone for Forest Heights Junior High School are not expected as a result of this construction.\" But the aerospace grant proposes to \"attract White students from North Little Rock and Pulaski County schools.\" (page 25.) magnet program? How many M-to-M students are anticipated to participate in the program? How many intradistrict transfers will be accepted into the What will the total capacity of the school need to be in order to accommodate these new students? What is the total projected enrollment, the magnet program projected enrollment, and the projected black/white ratio (both school and magnet program) as a result of the magnet program?General\n1. What is the projected total cost of the building proposals? What portion of these building costs does LRSD propose to underwrite with desegregation monies? 2. How will these building plans affect the burden of busing on black children? 3.What does the district intend to do with the portable buildings that are removed from Western Hills, Geyer Springs, etc.? 4.In an Attendance Zone Report submitted to OMS on April 2, 1990, James Jennings states a problem which is recognized in both the Settlement and Tri-District Plans: \"The Little Rock School District currently uses 90% of its total non-magnet elementary capacity. The District has stated on several occasions that the elementary building capacity, particularly in central and east Little Rock, needs to be increased. The District's capacity problem is compounded by the fact that the interdistrict magnet program reduced the number of elementary seats available to Little Rock students. Also, Gifted/Talented have caused a reduction in school capacity.\" programs such as PAL and Both the Settlement and Tri-District Plans agree that building capacity in central and east Little Rock must be increased (as did the LRSD revised Preliminary Plans of December 1, 1989) and there is a timeline for doing so. There are provisions in the Settlement plan (page 30, LRSD Vol II) for 1990-91 to \"relocate Stephens Elementary near the 1-630 corridor between 1-30 and University Avenue.\" Also, \"to build a new King Elementary School in downtown Little Rock...in the general area along 1-630 between 1-30 and University Avenue.\" Over the past several months, this office has received reports and proposals from the LRSD which deal with expanding seating in central and east Little Rock. However, the proposal currently before the parties does not address the pressing need to expand capacity in the downtown area. When will there be firm plans to address it? How can the district expect the Court to approve building in the western part of the city when the district has made no move to fulfill its obligation to build in central/east Little Rock area? 5.The building proposal provides for some adjustment of attendance zones. The LRSD April 2, 1990, Attendance Zone Report states \"The elementary capacity must be addressed before attendance zones are adjusted. Otherwise, any adjustments will simply shift the current capacity problem from one school to another school.\" This same report states repeatedly that \"the plans to close and rebuild incentive schools should be finalized before attendance zones are adjusted.\" agree that this a sensible approach. Why has the LRSD abandoned it? We 6.The recent FOCUS (on page 7) states that \"Tuition-free programs for children who will be four years old on or before October 1, 1991, will be offered at Badgett, Franklin, Garland, Washington and Woodruff.\" Ish, Mitchell, Rightsell, Rockefeller, Stephens, accommodate the four-year-old program be submitted? When will plans for expanding Rightsell in order to How will Mitchell physically accommodate the four-year-old program it was to have implemented two years ago? 7.There are numerous indications (including capacity and enrollment figures, statements by LRSD Board members at public meetings, and newspaper articles) that LRSD is short on junior high capacity. The LRSD Settlement Plan (Vol I), on page 174, states that: \"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 need 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.\" When will the district review the capacities of junior high schools? When will there be a plan to assure that junior high students will not have to wait for a seat? 8.The district seems to be predicating much of its proposed construction on the Tri-District Plan provision that all portable buildings will be eliminated. Can we therefore expect the district to move to modify the LRSD Settlement Plan (Vol II, page 5) provision that \"every effort will be made to install portable buildings in order to accommodate overflow situations at a particular gradelevel?\" The provision of one plan to do away with portables contradicts the provision of another plan which justifies their use.03/06/91 16:02 301 374 7609 L R School Dlst ODM 0002/002 LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 810 WEST MARKHAM STREET LITTLE ROCK, AR 72201 March 6, 1991 TO: Chris Heller, Attorney FROM: (^jZChip Jones, Manager of Support Services SUBJECT: Incentive School Facility Improvements The following summarizes renovations at the incentive schools during the last three years: Mitchell $115,000 Renovations including air conditioning, carpeting, and playground equipment Franklin 1,330,000 Classroom addition, cafeteria remodeling, and furniture Rockefeller 176,000 Re-roofing, minor renovation Ricfhtsell 178,000 Air conditioning, re-roofing, classroom conversion, painting Stephens 63,000 Air conditioning, painting, carpeting Ish 135,000 Renovation, re-roofing, playground equipment addition. for additional renovations at the inventive schools in the amount of $180,000. funds are currently budgeted cc: James JenningsTO: FROM: RE: Little Rock School District 810 West Markham Little Rock, AR 72207 March 6, 1991 Ruth Steele, Superintendent Herb Cleek, Deputy Superintendent ip Jones, Manager of Support Services Status of Construction Projects Cloverdale Elementary/junior High: Architect: Contract signed: Bid Advertisement: Bid Opening: General Contractor: Contract signed: Status: Sims, Grisham, Blair May 8, 1990 December 5, 1990 December 28, 1990 Carson \u0026amp; Associates January 3, 1991 100 mobilized, fencing, poured piers. Contract Price: some demolition and excavation, underslab plumbing, some foundation forms set. $2,677,000 Western Hills: Architect: Contract signed: Bid Advertisement Bid Opening General Contractor Contract signed: Status: Roark, Perkins, \u0026amp; Perry July 23, 1990 December 5, 1990 December 19, 1990 NLR Plumbing and General Contractors January 2, 1991 Site utilities in portable building, 50 place. relocated 30% excavation. site demolition. foundations formed and Contract price: pouring foundations in progress. $1,005,400 Woodruff: Architect: Contract signed: Bid Advertisement: Bid Opening: General Contractor: Contract signed: Status: Contract price: Witsell, Evans, \u0026amp; Rasco July 10, 1990 January 6, 1991 January 24, 1991 Wilkins Construction Co. January 28, 1991 100% mobilized, demolition and excavation 50% complete, mechanical 2% complete. $749,711Building Status Report Page 2 Gever Springs: Architect: Contract signed: Bid Advertisement: Bid Opening: General Contractor: Status: Dan Stowers July 25, 1990 January 13, 1991 January 30, 1991 Kulander Construction Mobilized, demolition has begun inside and outside, utilities Contract price: istration relocated. $1,760,000 relocated, admin- Professional Development Center and Southwest Junior High: Architect: Contract signed: Status: Wittenberg, Deloney, and Davidson August 13, 1990 Finalizing programs and developing working drawings. Forest Heights Junior High: Architect: Contract signed: Status: Polk, Stanley, \u0026amp; Associates November 27, 1990 Finalizing programs and developing working drawings. New Incentive/Interdistrict School: Architect: Contract signed: Status: Blass, Chilcote, Carter Informal Agreement Preparing drawings for prospective sites. buiIplan.wpdDate\nMarch 5, 1991 To: Susan Webber Wright From: Ann Brown Subject: LRSD Proposals for School Construction Attached is a copy of a list of questions which I've sent to Chris Heller. Chris had asked me to review the LRSD proposals for new construction and let him know what questions or concerns I had. Here's a summary of my overall observations and concerns about the LRSD proposal. 1. Separate provisions from the Tri-District and Settlement Plans are being crossedor interwoven with entirely new provisionsinto what is essentially a hybrid, third plan. These building proposals seem to be something other than an attempt to find an \"appropriate fit\" between the two plans: some provisions represent an entirely new proposal\n,Others constitute a retreat from the more stringent provisions of the Tri-District Plan without completely returning to the essentially more modest provisions of the Settlement Plan. This cut-and-paste approach is resulting in some strange mosaics. For example, in some instances, part of a sentence from one plan is being spliced to an entirely new concept that exists neither in the Tri-District nor Settlement Plans. do one half of the sentence but not the other. Another time, they want to proposals are in neither one of the plans and are, completely new. Some of the therefore, I'm not suggesting that every bit of the intermixing is yielding an undesirable or unreasonable proposal or concept, but it does leave us to wonder why the plans are being crossed when there's not an apparent reason for it\nthat is, there's nothing in the quoted Tri-District provisions that have actually been started because of court orders and therefore now need to be melded into the Settlement Plans so they can continue \"in order to make a smooth transition\" as the Circuit Court has provided. Did the Court intend for the districts to wind between the Settlement and Tri-District Plans, clipping and twisting and occasionally introducing an entirely new thread, thereby weaving the fiber of a new plan? I think not. My interpretation of their opinion is that the Court acknowledges the need to find a sensible, workable bridge between the two plans in those instances where differences between them require a mechanism to assure a \"smooth transition\" from one to the other. So, the Court has wisely provided for \"the details of the settlement plans to be adjusted.\" Surely the word \"details\" is significant, especially in conjunction with the word \"adjusted, \" putting one in mind of attuning minor items or parts rather than rewriting for the purpose of altering a previous condition or requirement. If the parties are going to continue to pick and choose parts of the provisions of the two plans, occasionally tossing entirely strands onto the loom, the result may be a tangled Gordian knot rather than a smoothly interwoven transitional fabric.(By the way, in publications which are currently being distributed to parents, I also see this unraveling and reweaving happening in other areas of the two plans besides these construction proposals. The Rockefeller Early Childhood Education Magnet Program is a prime example.) Illustrations of the hybridization in the building proposals: (a) At Woodruff Elementary, the Settlement Plan calls for Woodruff to be closed. The Tri-District Plan calls for Woodruff to not only remain open but to add approximately two hundred students to the school's enrollment. however. The LRSD doesn't want to go quite that far, Their building proposal calls for adding 135 seats. Although current enrollment and capacity figures indicate that Woodruff is presently 23 students short of capacity, the 135 new seats added to the 23 that are presently vacant equals only 158 seats , District. still 42 seats short of the 200 proposed in the Tri( b) The Settlement Plan makes no special provisions for Western Hills Elementary but the Tri-District Plan calls for it to be expanded by 200 seats and for the portables which house 100 kids to be eliminated. sentence, but not the first part. The LRSD proposal is to do the last part of the (c) Cloverdale Elementary and Junior High Schools are not slated for expansion in the Settlement Plan but are to be expanded by about 100 students each in the Tri-District Plan. The LRSD proposal will do part of the sentence: Junior High at all (amazing since the district is it won't expand Cloverdale so short on junior high space) but it will expand Cloverdale Elementary, but only by 28 seats. (d) Geyer Springs Elementary is not slated for expansion in either the Settlement Plan or Tri-District Plans but the LRSD wants to make it bigger by 73 seats. However, both plans do impact the school in that they call for the elimination of portable buildings and Geyer Springs has a bunch of those. (e) Neither of the plans call for building at Forest Heights. The school facility is very much in need of improvement and the district has the right as well as the responsibility to provide an environment conducive Heights, located at to learning. Evergreen and However, ] University redoing Forest in white neighborhood, certainly should not be a priority implemented before building the schools in the downtown (black) area that are mandated by both plans. 2. There is no excuse for Heller waiting until now. after construction contracts have been signedand construction begun on every one of these schools except Forest Heightsto seek approval of school construction. 6) states: \"VII. The Interdistrict Settlement Plan (page Further School Construction: All school construction shall be subject to the court's prior approval and shall promote desegregation.\" Maybe the context of this provision would indicate that it's really about the construction of new schools\nbut it does say \"all\" and not \"new\". In any event, even Chris Heller told me he thought these building proposals needed to come before the Court. Chris said he didn't know that the LRSD had a entered into building contracts, but I sure wonder why: attachedis a memo from Chip Jones to James Jennings which we received as part of Jennings' October 1990 report to his board. states construction is on the way. It clearly The newspapers also knew about it and covered it in at least two stories (attached.) John Walker had told him of the articles only recently. Chris said 3. LRSD is trying to slip expanding western school capacity past the Court in various guises, replacing portable buildings being the favorite. The LRSD knows better than to try the capacity ploys\nthey've been severely reprimanded by both the Court and Gene Reville for it. As a matter of fact, all of the districts know that portables are a real touchy subject\nthat's why PCSSD just sent a memo to us begging to be allowed one portable at an elementary school to house some staff. PCSSD doesn't want to risk the displeasure of the Court over the old portable issuesits hands have been smacked before. a new Court not knowing the old tricks. But it seems LRSD is counting on The LRSD capacity figures on any one school change faster than a chameleonand always to suit the need of the moment. LRSD has shamelessly expanded schools in white parts of town while doing little or nothing to add seating in the central and eastern part of the city, even though both the Settlement and Tri-District Plans specifically address the need to increase downtown capacity. This is why the burden of busing remains on black kids. What the words \"build\" and \"replace\" often really mean is increasing the size of schools, especially in white neighborhoods. 4. The next thing that may happen is LRSD may want to increase the capacity of the incentive schools by moving the portables to them (as Dr. Steele has said in a t.v. interview but not in writing.) This could result in many black children being transferred out of the white neighborhood schools and back to the central/east side. A lot of black kids in central and east Little Rock had to be reassigned out of their attendance zone to schools in the west. (These reassignments are because of the old controlled choice assignment plan, or because magnets displaced them, or the children didn't apply or didn't get accepted to a magnet. or because incentive schools were full.) But the grandfathering that is in the Settlement Plan (and, at LRSD's insistence, also in the Tri- District Plan) guarantees that those youngsters who have been reassigned out of their attendance zone have the right to remain in the school they were reassigned to. Moving kids back and forth between schools is, of course, traumatic for the children and so isn't usually in their best interest. 5. The Interdistrict Settlement Plan states on page 7: Quality\n\"Building An aim of the plan shall be to ensure for all students equal educational facilities. Schools which are located in lower socio-economic areas shall receive attention and resources at least equal to those in more affluent areas in respective districts. n If portable buildings aren't good enough for schools in the western part of town, they aren't good enough for kids in the downtown area either. 6. It is important to note what the two plans have to say about portable buildings. itself. The Settlement Plan essentially contradicts One of its provisions (LRSD Plan, Vol II, Page 5) says that \"every effort will be made to install portable buildings in order to accommodate overflow situations at a particular gradelevel\" but it also says (on page 174 of the same document) \"Any school which has portable buildings will have these portables replaced with new units or repaired such that they will be in a condition suitable to housing a class and provide a positive environment for learning.\" However, knowing how portables can be used to play the capacity game, the Tri-District plan has little patience with trailers and banishes them all within five years: (on page 8 of the Area Schools section) \"All portable buildings will be eliminated over a five-year period beginning in 1990-91. n 7. other points about capacity: A. There are twice as many students as capacity in the schools in central and east Little Rock. of busing falls more heavily on black children. This is the main reason the burden B. Main causes of lower capacity in central/east Little Rock: older buildings are smaller so hold fewer kids\n(1) (2) downtown magnets can displace as much as 80% of the neighborhood kids who would normally attend them\n(3) a few schools in the downtown area have been closed, some of them for many years (Kramer, East Side, West Side, Lee, Gillam, King to name the ones that come to mind.) Not all of these schools were replaced with downtown buildings. 3. Grandfathering (found in the Settlement Plan and, much to Mr. Reville's chagrin, also the Tri-District Plan) has had a lot to do with the capacity issue. Under the old controlled choice assignment plan, downtown kids who couldn't get into a magnet because their number didn't come up or couldn't get into an incentive school because there wasn't room had to be bused to a westerly school. schools like Western Hills. This is when so many portables got added to Grandfathered students have the right to remain at their reassigned school but they're moving up a grade each year. So, within another few years, all the grandfathered elementary kids will have moved out of the primary grades. Now the schools expanded with portables to accommodate controlled choice reassignmentsand also more white kidsare asking to make those temporary portables permanent.FRIDAY, ELDREDGE \u0026amp; CLARK HERSCHEL H. FRIDAY, P.A. B. S. CLARK ROBERT V. LIGHT, P. A. WILLIAM H. SUTTON, P.A. GEORGE E. PIKE. JR., P.A. JAMES W. MOORE BYRON M. EISEMAN, JR., P.A. JOE O. BELL, P.A. MICHAEL G. THOMPSON, P.A. JOHN C. ECHOLS, P.A. JAMES A. BUTTRY, P.A. FREDERICK S. URSERY, P.A. H. T. LARZELERE, P.A. OSCAR E. DAVIS, JR. JAMES C. CLARK, JR., P.A. THOMAS P. LEGGETT, P.A. JOHN DEWEY WATSON, P.A. LEWIS MATHIS, P.A. PAUL S. BENHAM HI, P.A. LARRY W. BURKS, P.A. A. WYCKLIFF NISBET, JR., P.A. JAMES EDWARD HARRIS, P.A. PARTNERSHIP OF INDIVIDUALS AND PROFESSIONAL ASSOCIATIONS ATTORNEYS AT LAW 2000 FIRST COMMERCIAL BUILDING 400 WEST CAPITOL LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS 72201-3493 Telephone 501-376-2011 Fax No. SOi-376-2147 March 11, 199 RECeWED J. PHI JP MALCOM, P.A. JAMES M. SIMPSON, P.A. MEREDITH P. CATLETT, P.A. JAMES M. SAXTON, P.A. J. SHEPHERD RUSSELL HI DONALD H. BACON, P.A. WILLIAM THOMAS BAXTER, P.A. WALTER A. PAULSON II, P.A. BARRY E. COPLIN, P.A. RICHARD O. TAYLOR. P.A. JOSEPH B. HURST, JR., P.A. ELIZABETH J. ROBBEN, P.A. CHRISTOPHER HELLER, P.A. HAND DELIVERED,,.  Ms. Ann Brown Ms. Arma Hart Office of Desegregation Monitoring 201 East Markham, Suite 510 Heritage West Building Little Rock, AR 72201 Re: Construction at LRSD Schools Dear Ann and Arma: LAURA HENSLEY SMITH, P.A. ROBERT S. SHAFER, P.A. WI JAM M. GRIFFIN HI, P.A. of 1 1 1991 THOMAS N. ROSE, P.A. MICHAEL S. MOORE DIANE S. MACKEY WALTER M. EBEL HI, P.A. KEVIN A. CRASS WILLIAM A. WADDELL, JR., P.A. CLYDE \"tab turner CALVI N J. HALL SCOTT J. LANCASTER JERRY L. MALONE M. GAYLE CORLEY ROBERT B. BEACH, JR. S. RANDOLPH LOONEY J. LEE BROWN JAMES C. BAKER. JR. H. CHARLES GSCHWENO, JR. HARRY A. LIGHT SCOTT H. TUCKER JOHN CLAYTON RANDOLPH GUY ALTON WADE PRICE C. GARDNER THOMAS F. MEEKS J. MICHAEL PICKENS TO N lA P. JONES fJEFFREY H. MOORE COUNSEL WILLIAM J. SMITH WILLIAM A. ELDREDGE, JR., P.A. WILLIAM L. TERRY WILLIAM L. PATTON, JR., P.A. WRtTERS DtRCCT NO. 370-1506 I am writing to provide you additional information about the construction projects at Woodruff, Geyer Springs, Western Hills, Cloverdale and Forest Heights. After sending to you and to counsel on February 15, 1991 a basic description of the proposed construction projects, I learned last week that construction is underway at Woodruff, Geyer Springs, Western Hills and Cloverdale. We intend to seek court approval of these projects as quickly as possible and have explored the impact of stopping the projects pending court approval. I have enclosed for each project the assessment of the project architect concerning the impact of suspension of construction work. The LRSD Desegregation Team has also reviewed the impact of the construction on our desegregation plan, and I have a good deal of information to share with you regarding that issue. I would like to meet with you as soon construction projects. as possible to discuss the I also intend to meet with the parties and to prepare a comprehensive motion for the court concerning these projects.I will be available to meet at your convenience, for your consideration. Thank you Yours very truly^''^ Christopher TIeller CJH/k cc: All Counsel - w/enc. Dr. Ruth SteeleWitsell. Evans iScRasco Architect I Planners March 8, 1991 Mr. Doug Kendall Little Rock Public Schools 3601 South Bryant Street Little Rock, Arkansas 72204 Re: Proposed Suspension of Work Woodruff Elementary School Dear Doug: In response to the District's request, we submit the following issues to be dealt with concerning suspension of construction work on the Woodruff Elementary School alterations and addition. The primary issue is scheduling. This project is under an extremely tight time frame with anticipated completion to be August 9, 1991. This would allow approximately two weeks for the District to occupy the new addition and the remodeled areas of the existing facility prior to the beginning of the 1991-92 school year. It has been our position that this schedule was obtainable under reasonable circumstances, but for an additional emphasis, we included $500 per day liquidated damages for time spent beyond August 9th to pronounce the District's intent to the Contractor. Any delay caused by the Owner (LRSD) would effectively waive all rights to liquidated damages and allow the Contractor to create his own timetable. Secondly, we have estimated additional expenses that the District would incur should a suspension of work be required. These expenses are those of the Contractor, Subcontractors and their suppliers which would directly transfer to the Owner. Items would include, but are not limited to: 1) Extended field overhead for the period of shutdown and the possibility of start-up delays due to weather, coordination, etc. The Contractor has estimated a cost of $770 per day for an expected three week downtime. Total Cost: $16,170 2) Due to the location of this project, aU on site materials and equipment would need to be removed and stored in a secured area. An estimated cost to move these materials, store in a secured area, and then transfer these items back to the job site would be a lump sum. Total Cost: $1,800 3) The phase of construction that this project is in has left the site extremely vulnerable to the impacts of weather. Currently the final construction grading has been done leaving exposed undisturbed soil. Footings are being poured, and should be 90% Witscll, Evans Rasco, P.A. 101 Ea^t Capitol Avenue. Suite 410 Little Rock. Arkansas 72201 (501) 374'5300Page 2 Mr. Doug Kendall March 8, 1991 complete by the 12th of this month. If we shut down at this point, without floor slabs in place, serious consequences would arise from any measurable rainfall. The dug footings would act as moats around the building line, trapping water and destroying the integrity of the undisturbed soil in our concrete slab areas. To rectify this probable situation, the soil within our building perimeter would need to be undercut and hauled off at a cost of $7 per yard and replaced with new compacted fill at a cost of $9 per yard. $9,770 Total Cost: 4) The work is at a stage where the temporary fence surrounding the project has been removed to allow perimeter grading and sidewalk demolition. A fence would be required around the site on the occurrence of a shut down. The Contractor would need to remove it once again when work resumes, therefore doubling his efforts. $2,106 Total Cost: Estimated Grand Total: $29,846 To avoid additional project delays and costs of Item 3, we suggest that a minimal compromise might be to allow the Contractor to complete his work on foundations and floor slabs. After this stage, the site could remain dormant for an indefinite period of time. Ironically, the time frame for completing this work will be approximately eleven days, nearly the full amount of time that you have requested to shut down. This issue is full of unusual circumstances. The items we have mentioned have some conjecture intertwined with some very real probabilities. Our architectural position concurs with your desire to keep this construction project on schedule. If I can be of any further assistance, please do not hesitate to let me know. Cordially, Witsell, Evans and Rasco, P.A. Eldon W. Bock, AIA Project Architect EWB:lhWILKINS SIMS ARCHITECTS 1001 WEST MARKHAM STREET LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS 72201 501 375-3356 March 8, 1991 Mr. Doug Kendall Director of Plant Services Little Rock School District 3601 South Bryant Little Rock, AR 72204 RE: Addition and Modifications to Cloverdale Jr. High and Elementary Schools Little Rock, Arkansas Dear Mr. Kendall: As you reguested, I will attempt to address the affects of stopping the work on the above referenced project. It is difficult to be very accurate in our assessment of this action, since in our twenty-one years of experience, we have never stopped work on any project. The completion of the work on this project is so critical that we have scheduled certain portions of the work to occur within a certain time period. Some of this work is scheduled for the spring break If we and other portions for the summer months. stop the contractor, even for a short period, he will have a very good reason to miss these scheduled items. Possibly the most critical item is the remo- val of asbestos from the existing cafeteria, this is not done as scheduled, it impacts the If It is almost certain the school remaining work. will not be completed and available in time for the spring semester as anticipated. The contractor has advised us that there will be additional costs if the work is stopped. He has estimated his overhead costs, such as office expenses, salaries for key people, utilities, insurance, costs for rental equipment, etc. will be apprioxima- He estimates the costs for the tely $l,985/day. sub-contractors will add another $2,p00/day, for a total of almost $4,000/day. ARCHITECTUR\u0026amp;PLANNING/INTERIORS/GRAPHICSMr. Doug Kendall March 8, 1991 Page 2 Most of the building materials have already been ordered, so someone will have to be on-site to receive them. Some materials can not be left on the site, so there could be costs for storage of these items. Liquidated damages are included in this contract in the amount of $300.00 per day. If the time of completion exceeds the contract time, I am sure the contractor will use this as an excuse for not completing the work. The loss of momentum could affect his schedule much longer than the actual period he is stopped. If you have any questions, please call. Sincerely yours. WILKINS/SIMS/ARCHITECTS/P.A. Kenneth F. Sims KFS/ptg15 16 west third street little  P  rock, o . box 2 2 3 6 arkansas 72203 pho f a n e X 3 7 6 - 3 2 7 7 3 7 4 - 813 3 d a n f s + o w e r s a r c h I e c p. a. dan f. Stowers, a.i.a. March 8, 1991 Mr. Doug Kendall Director of Plant Services Little Rock School District 3601 South Bryant Street Little Rock, AR 72204 RE: Little Rock School District Little Rock, Arkansas Additions and Renovations to Geyer Springs Elementary School Project No. 90-1005 Dear Mr. Kendall: As per our conversation regarding suspension of work on the above captioned project, will attempt to answer the following questions. If a stop order is issued: 1. Determine Contractor. the amount of immediate hardship placed on the 2. Monetary value created by the stop order. 3. The detrimental impact that it would have on the construction process. first phase of the question, the Immediate impact on the General Contractor, is rather difficult to determine in as much as Kullander Construction has begun demolition work in most of the classrooms and corridors and all of the ceilings have been removed. Some of the roof and structural components have been removed where possible and all of the gravel from the existing roof has been removed. The asbestos contractor is scheduled to move into the building on April 1, 1991, to remove all sensitive materials. T-h-i-s will allow Kullander Construction to continue the demolition of the kitchen and April 1 office areas. If a stop order is issued, the asbestos contractor cannot be rescheduled until June 15, 1991. I Mr. Doug Kendall March 8, 1991 Page 2 The Principals Office is now located in a metal classroom building with telephone, intercom and fire alarm having been connected to this newly established office. Partitions have been constructed and a restroom provided for use as a Teachers' Workroom. Soil has been delivered to the site and is being compacted in anticipation of pouring foundations on March 13, 1991. The playground equipment has been removed and is not usable by the students at this time. Therefore, if a stop order is Issued, I think it would be necessary for the School District to plead with the Court to allow Kullander Construction a minimum of a week to secure the building. In addition, materials such as conduit and plumbing pipe have been delivered to the job site in anticipation of placing these items in the existing building and the new sections. We are scheduled to receive on Monday, March 11, 1991, concrete reinforcing bars and footing foundations will be poured beginning Wednesday, March 13, 1991. Electrical panels and other electrical switch gear should be on the job site before April 1, 1991. Other materials which have purchase orders include overhead structural steel members, heating and air conditioning units, brick and Haydite block and kitchen equipment. All of these materials require approximately ninety to one hundred and twenty days lead time in order for the manufacturers to schedule and deliver the materials. Therefore, Kullander Construction has secured delivery dates of June 1, 1991, for these materials and equipment. Should a stop order be issued to Kullander Construction, the result would be devastating to the contract completion date. The reason being that all of these materials and equipment would have to be reordered and new delivery dates scheduled. The esprit de corps on the project is running very high. Contractors, as well as subcontractors, have great expectations of being able to complete their work in a minimum amount of time and the cooperation of each and every man on the job is focused on the needs of the students. I am almost certain that a stop order would interrupt the continuity that we presently have and would never be able to regain.Mr. Doug Kendall March 8, 1991 Page 3 is Therefore Secondly, if the project is stopped, particularly by the Courts, there is no guarantee when or if the project will resume. Theiexute, I anticipate some of these contractors will seek other projects and we will lose the qualified people that we presently have on this construction project. To address the question regarding anticipation costs resulting from the stop order is probably the most difficult of the three propositions to actually determine at this time. AIA Document A201, General Conditions of the Contract for Construction, paragraph 14.3, IS on Suspension By The Owner For Convenience, states: The Owner may, without cause. order the Contractor in writing to suspend, delay or interrupt the Work in whole or in part for such period of time as the Owner may determine. This Section of the AIA document continues that an adjustment shall be made for increases in the cost of performance of the contract. According to my understanding, the Contractor could be required to cancel orders for materials and each and every manufacturer would be entitled to a \"restocking fee\"\nand the General Contractor, as well as the subcontractors, could be entitled to expenses and anticipated profit fees. Tn reviewing this proposition with Mr. Karl Kullander, if a stop order were issued, we have estimated that it could cost the Little Rock School District in excess of $175,000.00. Mr. Kendall, I hope that this information will be helpful and I pray that the Courts will be lenient in this matter. If we can be of further assistance, please feel free to call. Sincerely, Q Tn Dan F. Stowers DFS:met ROARK  PERKINS PERRY ARCHITECTS ENGINEER  713 W. SECOND LITTLE ROCK AR 72201-2287  501 372-0272 March 8, 1991 Mr. Doug Kendall Little Rock School District 3601 S. Bryant Little Rock, AR 72204 Re: Western Hills Elementary Renovation Dear Doug: As per your request, we have asked the contractor for a letter identifying additional costs related to a two-week shut-down of this project. His letter (copy attached) identifies a minimum of $18,140. additional cost. They also would expect to have the liquidated damages clause of the contract eliminated. In addition, we would expect to have a minimum of 10 hours architectural time at $60.00/hour for our additional involvement with the shut-down and subsequent restarting of this project. We would strongly advise against the two-week shut-down, as the momentum of the project would be lost, and it will ije virtually impossible to have this project available for the start of school the last of August, 1991. Yours very truly, ROARK, PERKINS \u0026amp; PERRY H. Price Roark HPR/bp Enclosure H. PRICE ROARK AIA PE  DAVID W. KENNEDY AIA CSI FRED M. PERKINS. JR. AIA  DAVID W. PERRY AIA SALLY BOWEN CSI MARC H. HATFIELD AIA / North Little Rock Plumbing \u0026amp; General Contracting March 8,1991 Roark, Perking \u0026amp; Perry RE: Western Kills Elementary Project Shutdown Listed below are a few of the cost that we would acure upon a project shutdown of approximatly two weeks. We would like to make clear that this shutdown is not at all feasible 4 these are only a fev\nof the foreseeable cost listed below has been scheduled for this project 4 will not have ar to go to. The equipment her project 1) One Padfoot Roller: $1,175.00 per week i? 2week3 q2,250,00 2) One Dozer: $650,00 per week  2 weeks= $1,300.00 plus $200.00 delivery= $1,500.00 3) One Backhoe: $800.00 per week  2weeks =$1,600.00 plus $200.00 delivery* $1,800.00 Total Rental Equipment: $5,550.00 1) Additional Overtime cost not figured in project which will be required to get project batk on schedule. 5 men s $65.00 including labor burden for 100 Hr3= $6,500.00 2) Plumber, Apprentice i Backhoe to rough-in slab that would have been ready within the next week \u0026amp; 4 half. Plumber i Appren, Backhoe \u0026amp; Operator Total Plumbing Cost AOHrs. X 30.00 = 40Hr5 X 43.00 = $1 ,200.00 $1,800.00 $3,000.00 3) Overhead cost on insurance, managment 4 Labor Burden that will not cease: $3,140.00 We would also have to have all liquidated damaged completely waived off this project. If this project is closed down indefinitly than we would expect ccmpldte payment on all Profit'\u0026amp;Overhead. Thank You, Vic Smith,Project Manager 18 North Dcpch Street  P.O. Dox 127  North Little Rock, Arkansas 72115  Office 501-374-2313  PAX 501-374-3215 I POLK  STANLEY \u0026amp; ASSOCIATES March 8, 1991 ARCH I T  C T S, LTD. Mr. Doug Kendall Director of Plant Services Little Rock School District 3601 S. Bryant Little Rock, AR 72204 Re: Additions and Renovations to FOREST HEIGHTS JUNIOR HIGH Project No. 264 Dear Doug: In response to the question raised about the impact of halting all work on this project while the court reviews the improvements at Forest Heights for compliance with the comprehensive plan, I have enclosed a copy of the proposed Construction Schedule. If our work is halted for as much as one week, the construction schedule cannot be met for the completion of Phase I renovation work by the 1991-92 school year as requested by the Little Rock School District. This would leave us with two options: 1. Phase I work would be delayed to the summer of 1992 causing the final completion date to be extended to August of 1993. 2, Phase I work would run over into the 1991-92 school year with Band, Choral and either Business Education or Art being displaced temporarily until the construction in their area is complete. Phase II schedule could remain as is, with the understanding that we could end up with an overlapping of construction (two contractors on the same site at the same time) leading to added confusion. The impact of added cost to the District under Option One would include the possible duplication of work under a make-do situation until the actual renovation work could be done and maintenance costs that would have been unnecessary had the renovation been completed a year earlier. The impact of added cost to the District under Option Two would include the rental and installation of portable buildings to house the displaced classrooms. 700 S. Schiller ' Little Rock, Arkansas 501'378 0878 72201Mr. Doug Kendall March 8, 1991 Page Two The only additional fees required by us to begin our work after a period of holding would be if the scope of the work changed so greatly that we were required to redesign the project. We have completed work through twenty-two percent of our contract which translates to a fee earned of approximately $38,000 -of which approximately $26,000 has been paid to date. This leaves a balance earned at this point of approximately $12,000. Sincerely, Carolyn Lindsey cc: Vernon Smith, LRSD Chip Jones, LRSD FOREST HEIGHTS JUNIOR HIGH SCHOOL Additions and Renovations March 1, 1991 CONSTRUCTION SCHEDULE PHASE I - Renovations, New Music Classroom March 4 Mar. 25,1991 3 weeks March 25 - April 1, April May June 1 - May 21, 21 - June 10, 4 - June 11, 1991 1991 1991 1991 1 week 7 weeks 2 weeks 1 week June 7, 1991 June 8 June 22, 1991 2 weeks June 12, 1991 June 23, 1991 Aug. 6, 1991 6 weeks Aug. 7 - Aug. 18, 1991 12 days Aug. 14, 1991 9 weeks Aug. 14 - Aug. 18, 1991 5 days Aug. 19, 1991 Design Development Phase I \u0026amp; Phase II Review Construction Documents Bidding ' Bid Opening, Negotiations, Sign Contract Teachers' last day in school Asbestos Abatement of first building Begin Construction of new Music Classroom Begin Renovations of first building Complete Renovations, Asbestos Abatement Move in Renovated Buildings Complete new Music Classroom Move in new Music Classroom First day of classes PHASE II - New Classroom and Administration/Library Building, Sitework, Demolition of Existing Buildings May 15 July 30 Aug. 2 0 - July 29, 1991 - Aug. 19, 1991 - Sept. 2 1991 11 weeks 3 weeks 2 weeks Sept. 3 Aug. 10 '91 Aug. 9'92 Aug. 24, 1992 - Aug 23, 1992 11 months 2 weeks Construction Documents Bidding Bid Opening, Negotiations, Sign Contract Construction Move in First day of classesMAR 19 '91 17:17 P.2 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT PLAINTIFF V. LR-C-82-866 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, ET AL DEFENDANTS MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL INTERVENORS KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL INTERVENORS MOTION FOR APPROVAL OF SCHOOL CONSTRUCTION For its motion, plaintiff Little Rock School District (LRSD) states: 1. schools: LRSD seeks approval of construction projects at eight Forest Heights Junior High School\nCloverdale Junior High School\nCloverdale Elementary School\nRightsell Incentive School, Mitchell Incentive School, Geyer Springs Elementary School\nWoodruff Elementary School\nand Western Hills Elementary School. Each construction project and its impact upon LRSD's desegregation plan will be described below. 2. With the exception of Woodruff Elementary School, the proposed elementary capacity figures presented in this motion are based upon twenty students per four year old class and the average number of students per class required by Arkansas Department of Education regulations for the elementary grades. Those averages are: Twenty students per kindergarten class\ntwenty-three students per class at grades 1 through 3\ntwenty-five students per Aflpfowi Seb \"-nwMAR 19 '91 17:17 P.3 class at grades 4 through 6. Woodruff Elementary School's capacity is calculated at twenty-two students per class for grades 1 through 6 because most of the classrooms for the upper elementary grades are too small to accommodate more than twenty-two students per class. The junior high school capacities are calculated in accordance with a formula which takes into account the size and use of each classroom as well as class scheduling requirements. The proposed projects which are the subject of this motion follow construction and renovation projects at schools in east and central Little Rock which were then known as \"major enhancement\" schools. The largest of the \"major enhancement\" projects was at Washington school, with a 1987-88 capacity of three hundred five (305), which was completely demolished. A new Washington school was constructed on the same site at a cost of $4,932,377.00. The capacity at Washington was increased by five hundred sixty-one (561) students to eight hundred sixty-six (866) . 4. A new wing of ten classrooms was added to Franklin 3. Incentive School and Franklin's cafeteria was remodeled in 1989. The cost of the Franklin project was $1,330,000.00. 5. Rockefeller, Rightsell and Ish Incentive Schools were renovated. including reroofing. beginning in 1988. Mitchell Incentive School was also renovated at the same time. Stephens Incentive School received air conditioning, painting and carpeting. but was not renovated to the extent of the other buildings because of the plan to build a new Stephens school. The combined cost of the Rockefeller, Rightsell, Ish, Mitchell and Stephens projects was knhy\\Mx\u0026gt; Ajipwrei SdiCc* 2MAR 19 '91 17:13 approximately Six Hundred Sixty-Seven Thousand Dollars. P.4 Capital improvements have also been made recently at Garland Incentive School at a cost, since 1988, in excess of $400,000.00. 6. The LRSD Board of Directors voted on March 15, 1990 to seek to increase the LRSD millage rate by eight mils, five and one- half mils for maintenance and operation and two and one-half mils for debt service. The debt service mils were designated for capital improvement projects. LRSD committed to its patrons that capital improvement projects would be undertaken at Woodruff, Western Hills, Cloverdale, Geyer Springs and Forest Heights if the millage passed. The millage was approved by the voters on April 19, 1990. 7. During the 1988-89 school year, LRSD prepared desegregation plan which proposed that a new King school and a new Stephens school be constructed in the area of Interstate 63 0 between University Avenue and Interstate 30. That desegregation plan was agreed upon by all the parties but rejected by the district court. The parties were ordered to implement a different desegregation plan, the Tri-District Desegregation Plan. 8. The Tri-District Plan called for the expansion of Woodruff Elementary School, the expansion of Western Hills Elementary School and the elimination of portable classrooms there, and the expansion of Cloverdale Elementary and Junior High Schools. The parties appealed but did not seek to stay implementation of the Tri- District Plan. LRSD notified the associate metropolitan a supervisors on July 26, 1990 that the \"building expansion projects lalhy\\Mo Seta CoaK 3MfiR 19 '91 17:19 P.5 for Woodruff, Western Hills, and Cloverdale will continue\". 9. Architects were hired during the summer of 1990 for the Cloverdale, Geyer Springs, Woodruff and Western Hills projects. The architect for the Forest Heights project was hired in November, 1990. During December 1990 and January 1991, LRSD advertised for bids, opened bids and hired general contractors for the Cloverdale, Western Hills, Woodruff, and Geyer Springs projects. Work has begun on those projects. No contractor has been hired and no work has begun on the Forest Heights project. Architects have not yet been hired for the Rightsell and Mitchell projects. 10. The \"Interdistrict Desegregation Plan\", which was approved by the Court of Appeals on December 12, 1990, says that \"[a] 11 school construction shall be subject to the court's prior approval and shall promote desegregation\". Interdistrict Plan, 8 J.D.R. 1723. The recruitment of students to non-magnet, non-incentive schools is a part of LRSD's desegregation plan. Interdistrict Plan, 8 J.D.R. 1721-22\nLRSD Desegregation Plan, 10 J.D.R. 2198. The proposed projects at Woodruff, Cloverdale, Geyer Springs, Western Hills and Forest Heights will contribute to LRSD's ability to accomplish that goal. 11. The project at Woodruff would add six new classrooms to the school. Woodruff's capacity would be increased from two hundred nine (209) to three hundred twenty-four (324) . With the increased capacity. Woodruff could accommodate forty-four (44) students per grade for grades 1 through 6, forty (40) kindergarten students and twenty students in the four year old program. 4 kubyvMo SA.MAR 19 '91 17:56 P.l 12. There is no satellite attendance zone for Woodruff School. LRSD does not propose to change the Woodruff attendance zone. There are presently 174 students in grades K-6 who reside in the Woodruff attendance zone. Fifty-nine percent of those students are black. Assuming full participation in Woodruff's four year old program, the present Woodruff attendance zone would yield 194 students, or sixty percent of Woodruff's proposed capacity. Ths remainder of Woodruff's capacity will be filled by recruitment. Woodruff's Care Program (at which students can remain until 5:30 p.m.! and Woodruff's location (adjacent to Interstate 30 near downtown Little Rock) will be used by LRSD recruiters to market the school to parents who work in state government offices, Arkansas Children's Hospital and downtown Little Rock. 13. Woodruff presently has one class each at grades K-4 and two classes each at grades 5 and 6. The expansion of Woodruff will create the space necessary to balance the grade structure with two classes per grade. 14. The construction project at Western Hills consists of replacing nine classrooms in portable buildings with nine permanent classrooms. LRSD does not propose to enlarge Western Hills Elementary School. This project will not require any adjustment to attendance zones. 15. There is no satellite attendance zone for Western Hills. Two hundred ninety-one students in grades K-6 reside in the Western Hills attendance zone. That group, which is fifty-four percent (54%) black, would fill Western Hills to eighty-nine percent (89%) Ans will lACoat 503'20/91 09:37 301 376214\" FRIDAY LAW FIR3I @002 of capacity. As a result of previous desegregation plans and the grandfathering provision in the current plan, one hundred eighty (180) students who reside within the Western Hills zone attend Western Hills, one hundred fifty-four (154) students who reside outside the Western Hills zone attend Western Hills and one hundred eleven (111) students who reside within the Western Hills attendance zone attend schools other than Western Hills. Grandfathering will be phased out according to LRSD's Desegregation Plan (10 J.D.R. 2198 \u0026amp; 2199) which allows students \"presently assigned\" to elementary schools ho remain in those schools but requires that kindergarten and new students will be assigned by attendance zones. 16. All but one of the portable buildings presently in use at Western Hills are approximately twenty years old. One portable building is only two years old. 17. The project at Geyer Springs Elementary School consists of building twelve classrooms by a combination of new construction and the conversion of some existing space to classroom use. Portable buildings which house eight classes will be removed, for a net increase at Geyer Springs of four classrooms. The additional classrooms will allow the school to provide two classes each at grades K-6. The construction project will also increase the size of the kitchen and create a new library at Geyer Springs. 18. The capacity of Geyer Springs Elementary School would increase from two hundred fifty-five (255) to three hundred twenty- eight (328) . The present enrollment at Geyer Springs is two 6 inhyVWo Afptw*! Sch CowSSraEBBBflSa  03/20 91 09:37 301 3762147 FRIDAY LAW FIRM 003 hundred seven (207), although two hundred sixteen (216) students reside in the Geyer Springs attendance zone. Eighty*-four students who reside in the Geyer Springs attendance zone attend Geyer springs Eleinentary School. The remaining one hundred thirty-two (132) LRSD students who reside in the Geyer Springs attendance zone attend various other LRSD schools. One hundred thirteen (113) students who reside outside the Geyer Springs attendance zone presently attend Geyer Springs Eleinentary School. 19. The present racial composition of Geyer Springs Elementary School is seventy-one percent (71%) black. The racial composition of the students who reside in the Geyer Springs attendance zone is sixty-seven percent (67%) black. After grandfathering is phased out, the school will reflect the racial composition of the attendance zone. No change in the assignment of students to Geyer Springs, however, will result from the construction project. 20. The LRSD students who reside in the Geyer Springs attendance zone would fill Geyer Springs to sixty-six percent (66%) of capacity, The remaining capacity will be filled by recruitment to the public schools of students who reside within the Geyer Springs zone and by the assignment of students who cannot be accommodated at neighboring Wakefield Elementary School which is presently operating at ninety-nine percent (99%) of capacity. See 10 J.D.R. 2198-99. 21. The project at Cloverdale Elementary school consists of the construction of new cafeteria, the addition of five a lathyVMo AppMnal Sds Cent 7MAR 19 '91 17=26 P.4\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_347","title":"Construction","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":["1990/2007"],"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 facilities","Little Rock (Ark.)--History--21st Century"],"dcterms_title":["Construction"],"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/347"],"dcterms_temporal":null,"dcterms_rights_holder":null,"dcterms_bibliographic_citation":null,"dlg_local_right":null,"dcterms_medium":["documents (object genre)"],"dcterms_extent":null,"dlg_subject_personal":null,"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":"\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n\n\n\n   \n\n\n\n\n   \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n  \n\nt Recieved JAN 2 4 2000 Office OF desegregation MONIToRING Little Rock School District n IB JE Information Regarding Construction and Renovation Program January 19, 2000CP Little Rock School District OFFICE OF THE SUPERINTENDENT gBCSVED Date: January 21, 2000 JAH 2 4 TO: l(ls. Ann Brown Mr. John Walker (SRGEflf From: Leslie V. Gamine Superintendent of Schools Re: Information Presented at the School Board Work Session of January 19, 2000 Please see the attached information that was presented to the Board at the work session. We anticipate further discussion at upcoming work sessions and board meetings. If you have questions please do not hesitate to call. 810 West Markham Street  Little Rock, Arkansas 72201  (501) 324-2012 I i i: r I Introduction . 5'  Capital needs are in excess of $100,000,000.  Funding sources for these needs - bonds and I 8 I . ongoing revenue from dedicated millage. Bond issue parameters - 30 year repayment and assuming a 6.50% interest rate. i^3 ! Option 1 I New Debt Service Mills to Fund Needs   I  On a $2 billion assessment base, each new mill brings in approximately $1,900,000 per year.  Assuming the financing parameters previously mentioned, each debt service mill will repay $25,000,000 in bonds. II I t'-: ft Ku y Option 2 Restructure Existing Bond Issues I I B I I* IS I District can generate $40,000,000 for construction and renovation. No additional mills required to service this debt. Final debt payoff extended from 2020 to 2030. h R B IOption 3  Combine New Debt Service Mills and Restructuring is*' Is' I i 11 I irJ \u0026lt;5 I  By restructuring the existing debt and voting one new debt service mill, the District could generate $65,000,000. Using the same approach, two new mills would produce $90,000,000.  Restructuring can be delayed until projects are ready to commence. I ,v at Summary of Available Funds New Debt Service Mills/Debt Restructure 1 i I b' e' I I New Debt Service Mills Bond Issue Amount Funds Available by Restructuring Total Funds Available 0 1 2 3 4 0 $ 25,000,000 50,000,000 75,000,000 100,000,000 $40,000,000 40,000,000 40,000,000 40,000,000 40,000,000 $ 40,000,000 65,000,000 90,000,000 115,000,000 140,000,000I r I L E Dedicated Maintenance and Operation Miilage iLj p 6^  1' fe 5\nRevenue use is restricted for technology, renovations, repairs, bus purchases, etc. K\np B s Each mill would generate approximately $1,900,000 per year. Sf fcj i- I 7 I ft F s\nr b' It fcI F,' r,-' f'- e-\nExisting Millage - Little Rock School District Jfc___ I I s I i R For an individual living within the District, the total millage rate for real property appears below. 6 I I I i I te i \u0026amp; K I B I I 41.4 14.0 5.0 2.9 0.6 63.9 School District City of Little Rock County General County Road Hospital Maintenance Total pI t 2^ I I Little Rock School District Tax Table __z. 0 K I I I w I I If your real property is valued at You should be assessed at 20% On 63.9 mills your tax bill would be $25,000 $5,000 $319.50 1.0 . New mill would cost this amount per year $5.00 And this amount per month $.42 ix\n50,000 75,000 100,000 125,000 150,000 10,000 15,000 20,000 25,000 30,000 639.00 958.50 1,278.00 1,597.50 1,917.00 10.00 15.00 20.00 25.00 30.00 .83 1.25 1.67 2.08 2.50 R I 0I h I r?' S Millage Information/Comparable Cities Hi I Competing City Equivalent Millage Little Rocks Millage s ss g Si Memphis Austin Wichita 66.5 83.5 81.3 63.9 63.9 63.9 I 8 I 8 9I I I t Timetable for a Special Election I 2/10 A? 2/13 I I s 1 3/1 3/10 Little Rock School Board approves Proposed Budget of Expenditures for 2001/2002 school year. Proposed Budget appears in Arkansas Democrat Gazette. Begin preparation of absentee ballots. Bond issue application filed with Department of Education. i I I 4/3 Publish Notice of Special Election (requires three publications beginning no later than twenty days before the election.I t- I ii ,e. I s iS\nI t fl a I a I I 8 E I Timetable for a Special Election 4/10 4123 5/2 5/18 6/8 6/15 State Board approves bond issue. Publish Notice of Polling Places (maximum ten days and minimum three days before the election). Special election. Note: a primary election may offer another alternative for the election date. Bond sale. Little Rock School Board approves bond resolution. District receives funds from bond sale.i 4\u0026gt; g g URQCKSCHQQLDISm a Oj ^o-,^t fc. K? \u0026gt; Proposed Second Lien Bond issue \u0026gt;5 jaBaaa-g^iiwwiiitr n iX: l.:=  Bond issue is repaid from existing revenue sources.  Repayment term can not exceed existing bond repayment term (20 years for Little Rock School District).  Funds can be used for new construction, renovations, improvements, technology, bus purchases, etc.  Projected annual payments are shown below and assume a 20 year issue at 6.25%. Bond Issue $ 5,000,000 7,500,000 10,000,000 Payment $444,000 667,000 890,000I' j: I I' Timetable for a Second Lien Issue 2/10 School Board adopts Notice of Intention to Issue Second Lien Bonds. P 2/13 Notice appears in Arkansas Democrat Gazette. r f 3/10 Bond issue application filed with Department of Education. k M/10 State Board approves bond issue. S-' t: I:, 'j\nt- 4/10 Meeting with Administration to set sale date and amount of issue. ^127 Bond sale. II I  ps fe B I t Timetable for a Second Lien Issue i, .-\u0026gt;^1 -\n, 5!} 1 Little Rock School Board approves bond issue. 5/18 District receives funds from bond sale.r S\n- - '1? 41 a si #a ^\u0026lt;**t'*? mi LiniE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT IDENTIFIED CAPITAL PROJECTS ^ECEiVEf JAN 2 4 200U (TO Of CJ I Projects were compiled from recommendations by Facility Services Department 1995 GDI Study Strategic Plan Technology Committee Superintendents Cabinet individual school buildings 1/19/00 The total listed does not include new expansion projects that were recommended recently by the Campus Leadership Teams of the schools. It also does not include a fiber backbone infrastructure for upgrading communication systems, security, and instructional systems District-wide. Those projects will be reviewed and costs developed for them this spring.J LIHLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT CAPITAL PROJECT RECOMMENDATIONS bt' 'n n/ 1. Americans with Disabilities Act Projects 2. Facility Additions $ 5,776,700 1,291,750 2,888,000 13,026,750 4,128,650 1,142,000 4,514,100 I 3. Asbestos Removal Projects .  1 4. Classroom Additions 5. Energy Efficiency Projects 6. Miscellaneous Equipment 7. Grounds Projects 8. HeatingAZentilationZAir Conditioning 10,854,167 I 9. Interior Renovations 1/19/00 24,534,000 LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT CAPITAL PROJECT RECOMMENDATIONS 10. Maintenance and Repair Projects 11. New School Projects 12. Recreation Projects 13. Roof Projects 14. Safety and Security Projects 15. Technology Projects 16. Design, Overhead, Profit 17. Land Purchases 18. New School TOTAL 1/19/00 12,292,739 1,694,040 2,788,500 2,802,280 1,593,450 12,138,525 21,346,250 624,000 11,800.000 $135,235,901 r 4^ \"* u 4 1. AMERICANS with DISABILITIES ACT (ADA) PROJECTS $5,776,700 V I I' ''i I! tH I 'Ws^-n* Compliance with ADA requirements  addition of ramps, railings, lifts, and elevators for multi-floored buildings, where appropriate  handicapped accessible restrooms and water fountains  accessible play grounds and apparatus  adequate parking for persons with mobility impairments 1/19/00 sr-1 Ft 2. FAQUTY ADDITIONS $1,291,750 '4 A, f. * n *  new parking lots  restroom additions  building modifications such as library or cafeteria expansions 1/19/00 \"J -T I A J 4 R 3. ASBESTOS REMOVAL PROJECTS $2,888,000 J '-*4 ^,?4 A Cn^ - 1^1 *?\ns3 f\n\u0026gt;-  asbestos removal projects include work to remove from facilities asbestos material that could deteriorate^ causing health hazards 1/19/00  k^ ' VI \"I g t: 4. CLASSROOM ADDITIONS $13,026,750 r'i t s^v VJ - *1 'v' t' 6.? y  add classrooms to schools  add Tech 2000 labs to high schools and middle schools  projected cost of adding classrooms to existing buildings as proposed by campus leadership teams not included in this figure  numerous additions to District buildings, due to growth at several buildings over the next five years, to be projected in a five-year facilities plan currently being completed 1/19/00 t\n\u0026lt; 5. ENERGY EFFIQENCY PROJECTS $4,128,650 I .'\u0026lt;1 *k t  lighting replacements in District buildings  additional energy management equipment 1/19/001 'J ss 6. MISCELLANEOUS EQUIPMENT $1,142,000 vehicles for use in District operations  tractors  trucks  trailers  vans  other heavy equipment 1/19/00 f' s H ii ' 5.. 4 1. GROUNDS PROJECTS $4,514,100 \u0026gt;1 i. \u0026amp;i( *3  play area improvement r'\" !t\"' - n?* J. w  parking lots J I f   walkways  drives  drainage repairs 1/19/00 H vTS\u0026lt;- * \" r*' 1^' \u0026lt;t '5' 8. HEATING / VENTILATION / AIR CONDITIONING $10,854,167 * Li\"?  repairs and/or replacement of heating/ac systems control systems  miscellaneous mechanical equipment 1/19/00 0 9. INTERIOR RENOVATIONS $24,534,000 5 nV- I I K* cf 3! 8 repairs to interior spaces of District schools/buildings  restrooms  cafeterias  offices  individual classrooms and/or labs 1/19/00II -A \u0026gt; 10. MAINTENANCE AND REPAIR PROJECTS $12,292,739  i'^ 'V /0 I  repairs to facilities  waterproofing  plaster and ceiling replacement  floor covering  engineering studies 1/19/00 11. NEW SCHOOL PROJECTS $1,694,040  electrical upgrades for technology  minor new construction  school signs  new water and sewer lines 1/19/00 f I k mSH^^' t' I M 8 fc- S* I t 1/19/00 12. RECREATION PROJECTS $2,788,500  repair/improve athletic facilities and playing fieldsIk* k** R'SI' ^2 13. ROOF PROJECTS $2,802,280 J 3 r .V| X  repair and replacement of roofs on District buildings 1/19/00 14. SAFETY and SECURITY PROJECTS $1,593,450  fencing  intrusion alarm upgrades  video surveillance cameras 1/19/00 (I K\nt if * *41 15. TECHNOLOGY PROJECTS $12,138,525 1 If,: ta I  new computer hardware  software  cabling  infrastructure  furniture  phone system and fire alarm upgrades  interactive telecommunication systems  media retrieval systems  other instructional technology 1/19/00 r 16. DESIGN, OVERHEAD, PROFIT $21,346,250  costs for the development of the projects  costs to administer the projects 1/19/00 V 17. LAND PURCHASES $624,000 n F* -J  ' r !\u0026gt;  acquisition of land  buyout of leases, when necessary 1/19/00'i'* 18. NEW SCHOOL $11,800,000  estimated costs associated with the construction of one new eiementary school 1/19/00 PROJECTS NEEDED BY AUGUST 2000 The following projects have been identified as necessary for the opening of school in August 2000. It is recommended that the Board examine funding proposals for these projects that would enable work to begin immediately . Central 1) demolition of the Campus Inn 2) construction of a concession space / three additional classrooms 3) expansion of the outside concession area between the cafeteria and the gym, creating a covered area for lunch seating 4) modification of the old faculty dining room to serve as a student eating area Fair 1) construction of a covered and paved concession area adjacent to the cafeteria 2) construction of an additional covered and paved concession area adjacent to the Eagles Nest Hall 1) creation of a concession room in the 500 hall, with access from the west parking area 2) expansion of the covered and paved area in the west courtyard, and an additional area in the west parking lot adjacent to the new concession room 3) construction of restrooms on the west side of the campus with access from the ball field 4) addition of a two classroom portable unit to replace the classroom taken out of service to create the concession area McClellan 1) the addition of a two classroom portable unit 2) the construction of four restrooms on the main campus Parkview 1) the expansion of a covered and paved outside concession area adjacent to the cafeteria, located between the main building and the gym 2) the addition of a two classroom portable unit 3) expansion of the parking lot across the access road from the existing portable classrooms Metropolitan Construction of a 3,000 square foot building to warehouse and from which to distribute the NSF supplies. Cloverdale Middle School The addition of a two classroom portable unit. Contingency Funds identified for other short term needs that may develop prior to funding from the millage campaign.The costs for these projects are being developed. Certain decisions remain to be made that will affect the final project costs. An example is the type of structure that would be constructed to replace the Campus Inn building. The costs that appear below are estimates until the final engineering design for these projects can be completed. Central $ 577,000 Fair 88,000 Hall 295,000 McClellan 412,000 Parkview 280,000 Metropolitan 377,000 Cloverdale MS 50,000 Contingency 621,812 Total August Projects $2,700,812 Stephens Elementary School The final funding for the completion of the Stephens project must also be addressed. The completion of that project will require an additional $3,143,188. In addition to this amount, if Mitchell School remains open, certain equipment, library books, and instructional materials that were to be moved to Stephens will have to be replaced. The anticipated cost for those items is an additional $156,000. Stephens Project Total - $ 3, 143,188 156,000 $3, 299,188 TOTAL NEEDED FOR SHORT TERM PROJECTS - $6,000,000LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT STUDENT GROWTH FUNDING - V* QUARTER 01-19-00 1998-99 ADM (K-12 3 QUARTER AVERAGE) $ 23,144.10 1999-00 ADM {K-12 1* QUARTER) 23,376.78 STUDENT GROWTH 232.68 BASE LOCAL REVENUE PER STUDENT 4,300.68 ADDITIONAL STUDENT GROWTH FUNDING $ 1,000,682 PROPOSED USES INCREASE TO FUND BALANCE 500,341 CAMPUS BASED INSTRUCTIONAL EXPENSE 250,171 ACCELERATION OF NSF MATCHING EFFORTS 250,170 TOTAL PROPOSED USES $ 1,001,6821 Individual Approach to a World ofKnowledge' Ml'l 2 4 ?O!1I} January 10, 2000 OfflCEOf OfSES.icSATIflNmiigRisg Dear Parent: As the parent of a child in the Little Rock School District, you should expect the best education for your child. Additionally, you should anticipate that the building your child attends is appropriate to meet todays educational needs. Over the past several months the Little Rock School District surveyed our buildings and grounds to assess the needs for repairs, renovations and additions. Many parents, as members of PT As or as representatives of our Campus Leadership Teams, participated in these activities. In a series of public meetings in late November and early December, campus representatives presented to the District their priorities for the repair and renovation of their buildings. They described desired additions to several buildings required by growth in enrollment, and most of them discussed needed additions to their schools technology program. Through this process the schools identified approximately $180 million in recommended repairs, renovations and additions. They also identified almost $20 million in technology needs for the Districts schools. Because it is unlikely that all of the Districts capital needs can be funded at one time, each school was asked to establish priorities for their campus. These priority lists will now be used to compile a modified District list of capital needs that we believe that the community will support. Raising the funds necessary to pay for a major building campaign will require the issuance of bonds. To pay the debt service on the bonds, the District will likely seek approval from the public for an increase in the millage rate. The decision to seek an increase in the millage rate would be made by the District Board of Education. Our Board will convene for a work session at 6:00 p.m. on Wednesday, January 19, 2000, at 810 West Markham to hear a proposal from the administration regarding a millage campaign. You are invited to attend that session and to speak to the Board about the capital and technology needs at your school. I hope that you take a moment to review the list of building priorities for your childs school. If you have questions regarding the capital priorities proposed for your school, please contact your principal. It is our intent that all parents will know of the needs in each school and will then support the District as we address these concerns. Sincerely, ,e^e V. amine SupeRntendent of Schools Attachment: Campus Capital Project Priorities 810 W. Markham  Little Rock, Arkansas 72201  www.lrsd.kl2.ar.us 501-324-2000  fax: 501-324-2032 Capital Projects Priority Listing School Central High Date 10/17/99 Please list capital projects by category and indicate the priority assigned to the project by the CLT. Attach additional sheets if necessary. Category 1. Projects to sustain the facility and to correct major deficiencies and repairs. 1. Waterproof/repair exterior/interior walls 2. Replace carpeting - main entry porch 3. Renovate Campus Inn - 3 classrooms 4. General restoration \u0026amp; restroom renovations 5. Ceiling repairs/replacement 6. Replace fan coils/condensation system 7. HVAC projects/choir \u0026amp; band rooms 8. Replace sewer line 9. Renovate existing gym 10. New kitchen doors 11. Replace walkway to gym 12. Replace teacher sidewalk - parking lot 13. ADA Adaptations 14. Restroom upgrades (Quigley) 15. Replace manual overhead doors (Quigley) 16. Renovate dressing rooms (Quigley) 17. Replace Condensation Pump 18. Replace floor covering/carpet 19. Fire alarm upgrade 20. Energy efficient lighting/ceilings Estimated Cost 35,000 80,000 200,000 75,000 4,500,000 120,000 30,000 290,000 2,000 15,000 15,000 580,000 50,000 10,000 35,000 8,000 40,000 75,000 255,000 Priority High - Moderate - Low High High ________High________ ________High________ ________High________ ________High________ Moderate ________High________ ________High________ Moderate Moderate Moderate Moderate Moderate Low Moderate High______ Moderate ________High________ High Category 2. Projects to sustain current educational programs and initiatives. 1. Build new athletic complex 2. Electrical upgrade 3. Construct athletic fields, including baseball 4. New track 5. New gym lights 6. Estimated Cost 200,000 28,000 250,000 50,000 30,000 Priority High - Moderate - Low High High High High High Category 3. Projects to sustain and plan for new educational initiatives and expansions. 1. Technology upgrade 3. Estimated Cost 945,000 Priority High - Moderate - Low HighCapital Projects Priority Listing School J. A. Fair High School Date 12/03/99 Please list capital projects by category and indicate the priority assigned to the project by the CLT. Attach additional sheets if necessary. Category 1. Projects to sustain the facility and to correct major deficiencies and repairs. 1. Roofing replacement 2. Storm drain/roof drain 3. Final coating 4. Upgrade heating/air system 5. Floor drainage 6. Upgrade fire alarm 7. Repair asphalt - drive/parking 8. Replace gas piping 9. Electrical upgrade 10. Plumbing fixtures 11. Floor covering 12. Expand camera system 13. Lighting covers/lockers/outlets 14. Window weather strip/caulk 15. Generator replacement 16. Upgrade exterior lighting 17. Landscaping Estimated Cost IWi 30,000 12,000 500,000 30,000 50,000 25,000 25,000 25,000 27,000 52,000 30,000 15,000 50,000 65,000 40,000 10,000 Priority High - Moderate - Low High ________High________ ________High________ ________High________ Moderate ________High________ Moderate Low Moderate Low Moderate Moderate Moderate Low ________High________ Moderate Low Category 2. Projects to sustain current educational programs and initiatives. 1. Technology upgrade 2. Lab class ventilation/gas 3. Auditorium lighting 4. Renovate dressing rooms 5. Upgrade intercom system 6. Category 3. Projects to sustain and plan for new educational initiatives and expansions. 1. Auxiliary gym air conditioning 2. Cafeteria replacement 3. Auditorium (seating 2000) 4. New media center 5. Add bleachers/new dressing rooms-main gym Estimated Cost 9W^ 25,000 50,000 50,000 20,000 Priority High - Moderate - Low ________High________ ________High________ ________High________ Moderate Low Estimated Cost roojjoo 100,000 500,000 700,000 200,000 Priority High - Moderate - Low Low High ________High________ ________High________ ModerateI, Capital Projects Priority Listing School Hall High School Date 12/03/99 Please list capital projects by category and indicate the priority assigned to the project by the CLT. Attach additional sheets if necessary. Category 1. Projects to sustain the facility and to correct major deficiencies and repairs. 1. New intercom system 2. Construction of wing between 400s and 600s to house CBI and new small 100 person multimedia auditorium 3. Multi-purpose gym to accommodate student body________________________________ 4. Student drop-off circle around the sign on comer of H and McKinley 5. Update/repair student restroom facilities 6. New heating/cooling for 100,200,500,600s 7. Re-roof entire building 8. Add hot water to faculty restrooms and student restrooms in media center 9. Hang new shades on all windows 10. Rectangular tables for cafeteria w/additional chairs 11. Improvements between 600/700 to include covered walkway, wider sidewalks, outside tables_______________________________ 12. Add flat-topped tables in all classrooms 13. Replace all water fountains 14. Install new ceiling tiles in the school 15. Build new football stadium at Hall 16. Install drop ceilings in 400/500s/cafeteria 17. Convert media center to two stories 18. Replace all lockers in current gym 19. Additional parking on east side of campus \"20^ Category 2. Projects to sustain current educational programs and initiatives.___________ 1. New fluorescent light fixtures in 400,500,600,700 zones, cafeteria, media center__________________________________ 2. Exterior lighting_________________________ 3. Security fence around the satellite dish on east side of campus ______________________ 4. Improve rapid ventilation all chemistry labs Estimated Cost 25,000 150,000 25,000 Estimated Cost Priority High - Moderate - Low ________High________ High High High High High High High Moderate Moderate Moderate Moderate Moderate Moderate Moderate Low Low Low Low Priority High - Moderate - Low nigh Moderate Low LowCAPITAL PROJECTS PRIORITY LISTING School McClellan High School Date 11-22-99 Please list capital projects by category and indicate the priority assigned to the project by the CLT. Category 1. Projects to sustain the facility and to correct major deficiencies and repairs 1. Replace intercom System 2. HVAC Replacement 3. Central Camera System 4. Asbestos Removal Ceiling 5. Roof repairs (HVAC Rpl) 6. Replace Lockers 7. Restroom Renovation 8. Landscaping 9. Outside Storage Building 10.ADA adaptations 11 .Fire alarm upgrade 12.Renovate hall exits to outside 13.Replace (plumbing fixtures) Re-do all bathrooms 14.Plumbing repairs 15.Replace toilet partitions Estimated cost $30,000 $300 ,000 $15,000 $168,000 $35,000 $100,000 $130,000 $20,000 $4,000 $125,000 $85,000 $100,000 $90,000 $20,000 $20,000 Priority High - Moderate- Low High High Moderate High High Moderate High Moderate Category 2. Projects to sustain current educational programs and initiatives. Technology Upgrade Estimated Cost Priority High - Moderate- Low S478,000 Category 3. Projects to sustain and plan for new educational initiatives and expansions 1. 8 Additional Classrooms (Lab School) Estimated Cost 600,000 Priority High- Moderate-Low HighCapital Projects Priority Listing School Parkview Arts/Science Magnet High School Date November 15, 1999 Please list capital projects by category and indicate the priority assigned to the project by the CLT. Attach additional sheets if necessary. Category 1. Projects to sustain the facility and to correct major deficiencies and repairs. 1. Overhaul and clean HVAC system 2. Install new thermostatic controls for the HVAC system in each classroom. 3. Construct additional permanent classroom space. 4. Install additional lighting in academic hallways and stairwells. 5. Install additional exterior lights. 6. Update restrooms. 7. Resurface parking lot. 8. Resurface front walkway. 9. Update landscaping and beautify site. la 11. 12. Category 2. Projects to sustain current educational programs and initiatives. 1. Install secure storage area for band/orchestra instruments. 2. Purchase new curtains for Metcalf auditorium. 3. Build fieldhouse/locker rooms/weight room/offices. 4. Install 21 additional seats in Babbs Independence Hall (as per original plan). 5. Estimated Cost 10,000 100,000 10,000 15,000 Estimated Cost 425,000 Priority High - Moderate - Low Priority High - Moderate - LowCapital Projects Priority Listing School Metropolitan Vocational Technical Center Date 1/19/99 Please list capital projects by category and indicate the priority assigned to the project by the CLT. Attach additional sheets if necessary. Category 1. Projects to sustain the facility and to correct major deficiencies and repairs. 1. Cooling tower 2. Ventilation system - cosmetology 3. Electrical upgrade 4. Air condition Building C - shop areas 5. Intercom system 6. T 8. 9. 10. Category 2. Projects to sustain current educational programs and initiatives. 1. Technology upgrade 2. Renovate restrooms y 4. 5. Category 3. Projects to sustain and plan for new educational initiatives and expansions. 1. Childs toilet - Daycare 2. Direct phone line - Daycare L Estimated Cost 60^000 50,000 6,000 100,000 20,000 Estimated Cost 200,000 85,000 Estimated Cost 23^ 175 Priority High - Moderate - Low ________High________ ________High________ Moderate ________High________ Moderate Priority High - Moderate - Low High High Priority High - Moderate - Low ________High________ HighCapital Projects Priority Listing School Alternative Learning Center Date December 9, 1999 Please list capital projects by category and indicate the priority assigned to the project by the CLT. Attach additional sheets if necessary. Category 1. Projects to sustain the facility and to correct major deficiencies and repairs. 1. Plumbing repairs in restroom near cafeteria 2. Wheelchair ramp at front entrance \u0026amp; SHO 3. New installation of intercom system 4. Fences \u0026amp; lights on parking lot 5. Landscaping improvement 6. Carpeting 100% 7. Restroom renovations 8. Renovation for pest abatement 9. Cafeteria windows replaced/upgraded 10. Acoustic hallways and cafeteria II 12. 13. 14. 15. Category 2. Projects to sustain current educational programs and initiatives. 1. Technology upgrade Z 3. 4. 5. Category 3. Projects to sustain and plan for new educational initiatives and expansions. 1. New gymnasium/P.E. facility constructed 2. Video cameras in all classrooms T 4. 5. Estimated Cost 5^000 2,000 10,000 7,000 10,000 35,000 25,000 5,000 5,000 50,000 Estimated Cost 50,000 Estimated Cost 500,000 15,000 Priority High - Moderate - Low ________High________ Moderate ________High________ Low Moderate High ________High________ ________High________ Moderate High Priority High - Moderate - Low Moderate Priority High - Moderate - Low High HighCapital Projects Priority Listing School Cloverdale Middle School Date December 9, 1999 Please list capital projects by category and indicate the priority assigned to the project by the CLT. Attach additional sheets if necessary. Category 1. Projects to sustain the facility and to correct major deficiencies and repairs. 1. Technology upgrade 2. Electrical upgrade 3. Upgrade electrical services 4. Replace electrical panels in gym/classrooms 5. HVAC classroom units (heat/air) 6. Roofmg/guttering 1. Exit/emergency lighting 8. Waterproofmg/caulking 9. Landscaping 10. Upgrade fir alarm 11. Floor covering (30%) 12. Drinking fountains 13. Restroom renovation 14. New bell system 15. Gym bleachers repair 16. Renovate dressing rooms 17. Outside storage building 18. Resurface Holland Street 19. Re-pour kitchen floor 20 Category 2. Projects to sustain current educational programs and initiatives. L 2. 3. 4. 5. Category 3. Projects to sustain and plan for new educational initiatives and expansions. L 2. 3. 4. 5. Estimated Cost 413\\0W 10,000 15,000 5,000 125,000 45,000 8,000 20,000 15,000 20,000 24,500 13,000 30,000 3,000 20,000 24,000 4,000 25,000 40,000 Estimated Cost Estimated Cost Priority High - Moderate - Low ________High________ ________High________ ________High________ ________High________ ________High________ ________High________ ________High________ ________High________ ________High________ High ________High________ ________High________ ________High________ ________High________ ________High________ ________High________ ________High________ ________High________ High Priority High - Moderate - Low Priority High - Moderate - LowCapital Projects Priority Listing School Dunbar Magnet Middle School Date November 29, 1999 Please list capital projects by category and indicate the priority assigned to the project by the CLT. Attach additional sheets if necessary. Category 1. Projects to sustain the facility and to correct major deficiencies and repairs. 1. ADA Adaptations 2. Electrical upgrade 3. Replace electrical panels 4. Total renovation of main building 5. Total renovation of gym 6. Gutter/downspout/storm drain 7. Energy efficient lighting 8. New lockers 9. Replace auditorium seats - balcony 10. Replace stage lighting 11. Landscaping 13. 14. 15. Category 2. Projects to sustain current educational programs and initiatives. 1. Technology upgrade 3. 4. 5. Category 3. Projects to sustain and plan for new educational initiatives and expansions. 2. 3. 4. 5. Estimated Cost 400^000 10,800 30,000 3,500,000 750,000 85,000 45,000 2,000 18,000 150,000 25,000 Estimated Cost 391,000 Estimated Cost Priority High - Moderate - Low ________High________ High ________High________ ________High________ ________High________ Moderate Moderate Low Low Low Low Priority High - Moderate - Low High Priority High - Moderate - LowCapital Projects Priority Listing School Forest Heights Middle School Date December 7, 1999 Please list capital projects by category and indicate the priority assigned to the project by the CLT. Attach additional sheets if necessary. Category 1. Projects to sustain the facility and to correct major deficiencies and repairs. 1. ADA Adaptations - covering for walkway to 500 building 2. Renovation of gym (HVAC) 3. Renovation of original classrooms, cafeteria \u0026amp; stage area, update Home Economics equipment 4. Carpeting replacement 5. Lighting - outside 600 wing \u0026amp; east parking lot 6. Teacher restrooms - downstairs 1. Drainage - gutter downspout between 700/500 area 8. Landscaping - railroad ties in front of building to back of 600 wing 9. Replace dish room floor tile (cafeteria) 10. Drain covers, lights, new mop sink, ceiling tiles in kitchen 11. Storage cabinets in conference room 13. 14. 15. Estimated Cost 275,000 800,000 5,000 10,000 1,200 6,000 Priority High - Moderate - Low High High High Moderate High Moderate High Moderate Moderate Moderate Low Category 2. Projects to sustain current educational programs and initiatives. 1. Additional phone lines 3. 4. 5. Category 3. Projects to sustain and plan for new educational initiatives and expansions. 1. Technology upgrade (computers) 2. Electrical upgrade 4. 5. Estimated Cost Priority High - Moderate - Low High Estimated Cost 385,000 9,200 Priority High - Moderate - Low ________High________ HighCapital Projects Priority Listing School Henderson HS Magnet Middle School Date November 30, 1999 Please list capital projects by category and indicate the priority assigned to the project by the CLT. Attach additional sheets if necessary. Category 1. Projects to sustain the facility and to correct major deficiencies and repairs 1. ADA Adaptations 2. Energy Efficient Lighting 3. Asbestos Removal Ceiling 4. Electrical Upgrade 5. Resurface Parking Lot 6. Partial Roof Replacement 7. Paint Interior 8. Replace Concrete Patio 9. Floor Covering (50%) 10. Resurface Teimis Courts 11. New Intercom System 12. Renovate Dressing Room 13. Replace Gym Electrical Panel 14. Landscaping 15. Locker Replacement/Repair 16. New Sign 17. Gym Exhaust 18. Stage Closet 19. Front Office Renovation 20. Replace Acoustic Tile Walls/ Ceiling Gymnasium Category 2. Projects to sustain current educational programs and initiatives. 1. Technology Upgrade 3. 4. 5. Category 3. Projects to sustain and plan for new educational initiatives and expansions - T 2. 3. 4. 5. Estimated Cost $ 65,000.00 135, 000. 00 675, 000. 00 50, 000. 00 50, 000. 00 85, 000. 00 100, 000. 00 50, 000. 00 47, 000. 00 8, 000. 00 20, 000. 00 5, 000. 00 25, 000. 00 75, 000. 00 6, 000. 00 6, 000. 00 1, 000. 00 Estimated Cost $ 361, 000. 00 Estimated Cost Priority - High - Moderate - Low High Moderate High High Low High High Low High Low Moderate High High High Moderate Low Low Low High High Priority - High - Moderate - Low High Priority - High - Moderate - LowSchool Capital Projects Priority Listing Mabelvale Middle School Date November 17, 1999 Please list capital projects by category and indicate the priority assigned to the project by the CLT. Attach additional sheets if necessary. The following recommendations were developed by the Campus Leadership Team and were presented to the Mabelvale Middle School PTSA board. Category 1. Projects to sustain the facility and to correct major deficiencies and repairs. 1. Cafetorium Expansion/Renovation (Stage) 2. Re-align drainage at cafeteria 3. Replace gym electrical panel 4. Gym bleachers repaired 5. Renovate dressing rooms 6. Landscaping 7. ADA adaptations 8. Track for physical education 9. HV/AC system for media center 10. Renovation of rooms 13-19 II 12. Estimated Cost $10,000. $30,000. $15,000. Priority High - Moderate - Low ________High________ ________High________ ________High________ Moderate Low Moderate Moderate Low Moderate Moderate Category 2. Projects to sustain current educational programs and initiatives. 1. Technology upgrade 2. Electrical upgrade 3. Media center expansion/computer lab 4 5. Estimated Cost $200,000. $6,000. Priority High - Moderate - Low High ________High________ High Category 3. Projects to sustain and plan for new educational initiatives and expansions. Construction of eight new classrooms to replace rooms 1 -8 1. Construction of offices for counselors and registrar 2. Construction of assistant principal offices (2) Due to displacement from cafetorium expansion 3. Demolition of old rooms 1-8 4 5. Estimated Cost Priority High - Moderate - Low High High Moderate HighSchool Capital Projects Priority Listing Mann Magnet Middle School Date December 7, 1999 Please list capital projects by category and indicate the priority assigned to the project by the CLT. Attach additional sheets if necessary. Category 1. Projects to sustain the facility and to correct major deficiencies and repairs. 1. Music hall and gym area reconstruction 2. Paint building 3. Electrical upgrade for entire school 4. Technology upgrade 5. Dance floor - room 222 6. Dance Studio 1- replace opaque panels/carpet 7. Fencing 8. Library 9. Structural repair/replacement (English \u0026amp; NW wing) 10. Install HVAC ducts in English wing 11. Auditorium and stage 12. Landscaping 13. Replace lockers ($80 per student) 14. Install driveway (requires traffic study) 15. Install HVAC vents - foyer auditorium 16. ADA Adaptations 17. Energy efficient lighting/ceiling 18. Structural study 19. Replace carpet 30% 20. Storm drain project (requires study) 21. Pave drives 22. New gym floor 23. Replace sewer line 24. Rewire hall lights 25. Replace gym electrical panel 26. Replace electric panels - classrooms 27. Van 28. Art classes 29. Auditorium PA system 30. Portable bleachers - football field 31. Science room renovation 32. Final coat roof Category 2. Projects to sustain current educational programs and initiatives. 2. Category 3. Projects to sustain and plan for new educational initiatives and expansions. 2. Estimated Cost 12,800 470,000 10,000 5,000 1,000,000 8,000 20,000 33,000 25,000 86,000 205,000 35,000 34,000 20,000 25,000 10,000 5,000 35,000 7,000 15,000 6,000 120,000 40,000 Estimated Cost Estimated Cost Priority High - Moderate - Low Priority High - Moderate - Low Priority High - Moderate - Low* * * * * * * School Pulaski Heights Middle School Capital Projects Priority Listing Date 11/19/99 Please list capital projects by category and indicate the priority assigned to the project by the CLT. Attach additional sheets if necessary. Category 1. Projects to sustain the facility and to correct major deficiencies and repairs. 1. Replace HVAC 2. Install AC (or fans) in gymnasium 3. Replace windows (or bricked over areas) with operable windows 4. Repair roof 5. Upgrade electrical 6. Replace electric panels in kitchen, gym, other 7. Replace floor-covering as needed 8. Repair sidewalks \u0026amp; stairs and install railing on Pine Street 9. Install additional faculty bathrooms 10. Install new kitchen doors 11. Replace kitchen floor tiles 12. Install new intercom system 13. Extend telephone system 14. Install safety exits for upper floors 15. Install light on landing of second floor (SE) 16. Replace floor in Room 105 17. Replace SE side doors, slab \u0026amp; door-stopper 18. Replace NE side doors 19. Remove bat guano from ceilings 20. Landscape (including an irrigation system) the west side of the building 21. Add exterior lighting to reflect on portable buildings 22. Replace ceiling tiles as needed 23. Make modifications to comply with ADA 24. Repair plaster and paint interior 25. Renovate dressing rooms and lockers in the gymnasium 26. Renovate the auditorium 27. Replace auditorium lights 28. Replace stage lighting in auditorium 29. Build covered walkway to portable buildings 30. Convert to energy efficient lighting ! ceiling 31. Convert to automatic low flow flushing toilets 32. Build outside storage building Category 2. Projects to sustain current educational programs and initiatives. 1. Technology upgrades of existing computer labs (Rooms 309 \u0026amp; 409) 2. Upgrade library to correct inadequacy per ODM 3. 4. 5. Renovate current library space for administrative offices or classrooms Enclose area between gymnasium and band building for offices, storage, and classrooms Install sinks and storage area in science rooms 6. Replace lockers 7. Install VCR in every classroom 8. Install pencil sharpeners in every classroom 9. Install regulation cushions for basketball backboards 10. Install mirrors in a classroom for spirit groups practice 11. Secure storage area in band room Category 3. Projects to sustain and plan for new educational initiatives and expansions. 1. 2. Build an addition for a new library, a creative learning lab, and six new classrooms Convert one classroom to an EAST lab * 3. Upgrade science rooms with lab tables, miming water, drainage and gas connections Shared with Pulaski Heights Elementary Estimated Cost $450,000 $75,000 $200,000 $48,000 $45,200 $43,000 $80,000 $35,000 $2,000 $6,000 $12,000 $5,000 $150,000 $10,000 $625,000 $150,000 $25,000 $100,000 $60,000 $150,000 $40,000 $135,000 $4,000 Estimated Cost $430,000 $650,000 $3,000 $33,000 $600 Estimated Cost +$2,000,000 $25,000 $150,000 Priority High - Moderate - Low High High High High High High High High High High High High High High High High High High High Moderate Moderate Moderate Moderate Moderate Moderate Moderate Moderate Moderate Low Low Low Low Priority High - Moderate - Low High High High High Moderate Moderate Low Low Low Low Low Priority High - Moderate - Low High High ModerateCapital Projects Priority Listing School Southwest Middle School Date November 10, 1999 Please list capital projects by category and indicate the priority assigned to the project by the CLT. Attach additional sheets if necessary. Category 1. Projects to sustain the facility and to correct major deficiencies and repairs. 1. Energy efficient lighting (halls only)________ 2. Rewrap hall HVAC piping_________________ 3. Major renovation (83,000 sq ft x $20/ft)_____ 4. Asbestos removal________________________ 5. Renovate dressing room___________________ 6. ADA adaptation__________________________ 1. Electrical upgrade________________________ 8. Re-engineer front parking lot_______________ 9. Landscaping 10. Estimated Cost 70,000 5,000 1,800,000 26,000 15,000 75,000 11,000 20,000 15,000 Priority High - Moderate - Low ________High________ Moderate Low High Moderate Moderate High ________High________ Moderate Category 2. Projects to sustain current educational programs and initiatives._______________________ 1. Technology upgrade_______________________ 2. Re-carpet media center 3. 4. 5. Estimated Cost 360,000 Priority High - Moderate - Low ________High________ High Category 3. Projects to sustain and plan for new educational initiatives and expansions. L________________________________________ 1_ 1________________________________________ 4________________________________________ 5. Estimated Cost Priority High - Moderate - LowCapital Projects Priority Listing School Badgett Elementary Date November 30, 1999 Please list capital projects by category and indicate the priority assigned to the project by the CLT. Attach additional sheets if necessary. Category 1. Projects to sustain the facility and to correct major deficiencies and repairs. 1. Fire alarm upgrade 2. Energy efficient lighting 3. ADA adaptations 4. Asbestos removal ceiling 5. Technology upgrade 6. Electrical upgrade 7. Renovation (23,400 sq ft x $30sf) 8. Fence repairs 9. Replace sewer line 10. New electric service to building 11. Landscaping 12. Media Center addition 13. Replace carpet in classrooms, media center, and office area 14. Remodel bathroom and replace plumbing 15. Replace intercom and PA systems 16. Covered walk-ways to portable classrooms 17. Wall mounted TVs for classrooms 18. Science and Math labs with updated equipment 79^ Category 2. Projects to sustain current educational programs and initiatives. L 2. 3. Category 3. Projects to sustain and plan for new educational initiatives and expansions. 2. 3. Estimated Cost WOO 42,000 40,000 220,000 196,000 2,100 750,000 2,000 6,000 10,000 20,000 125,000 Estimated Cost Estimated Cost Priority High - Moderate - Low Priority High - Moderate - Low Priority High - Moderate - LowCapital Projects Priority Listing School Bale Elementary Date November 30, 1999 Please list capital projects by category and indicate the priority assigned to the project by the CLT. Attach additional sheets if necessary. _ Category 1. Projects to sustain the facility and to correct major deficiencies and repairs. 1. Central HVAC 2. ADA Adaptations 3. General Restoration (33,600 sq ft) 4. Replace floor tile in kitchen 5. Replace sewer line 6. Replace hall lights 7. Replace electrical conduit on roof 8. Energy efficient lighting 9^ 10. Category 2. Projects to sustain current educational programs and initiatives. 1. Technology upgrade 2. Electrical upgrade y 4. 5. Category 3. Projects to sustain and plan for new educational initiatives and expansions. 1. ADA adaptations - play area \u0026amp; resurface 2. Additional portable 3. Landscaping 5. Estimated Cost 200,000 55,000 1,680,000 3,000 20,000 15,000 10,000 52,000 Estimated Cost 172,000 5,500 Estimated Cost 33^ 22,000 15,000 Priority High - Moderate - Low Moderate Moderate ________ High________ Low Moderate Moderate Moderate Low Priority High - Moderate - Low ________ High________ High Priority High - Moderate - Low ________ High________ Moderate Moderate Capital Projects Priority Listing School Baseline Elementary Date November 29. 1999 Please list capital projects by category and indicate the project assigned to the project by CLT. Attach additional slieets if necessary. Category 1. Projects to sustain the facility and the correct major deficiencies and repairs-______________________________ 1. Walls_____________________________ 2. New carpet/tile for facility___________ 3. Grounds landscaped________________ 4. Fence around building______________ 5. Playground equipment______________ 6. Enclose office area_________________ 7. Relocate restrooms in office area 8. New intercom system_____________ 9. Install ventilation fans to bathroom Estimated Cost 35,000.00 20,000.00 10,.000.00 3,000.00 5,000.00 5,000.00 25,000.00 2,000.00 1,000.00 Priority -High -Moderate - Low High High High High____ High High Moderate Moderate Moderate Category 2. Projects to sustain current educational programs and initiatives - 1. Update Computer Lab Estimated Cost 200,000.00 Priority - High - Moderate - Low HiSh___________________ Category 3. Projects to sustain and plan for new educational initiatives and expansions -________________________ 1. Renovate classroom space_________ 2. Maintain Success For All Reading Program________________________ 3. Computer for Title I classroom 4. Restroom for CBI lab_____________ 5. Portable Stage Estimated Cost 6,000.00 30,000.00 2,000.00 5,000.00 3,000.00 Priority -High -Moderate - Low High High High High ModerateCapital Projects Priority Listing School: Booker Arts Magnet Date: 12-6-99 Please list capital projects by category and indicate the priority assigned to the project by the CLT. Attach additional sheets if necessary. Category 1. Projects to sustain the facility and to correct major deficiencies and repairs. 1. Renovate restrooms________________________ 2. Playgroundlandscape, new play unit 3. Lighting retrofit____________________________ 4. Replace gym roof 5. Upgrade exterior lighting/timer 6. HVAC and controls in gym 7. Upgrade windows 8. Carpet replacement_________________________ 9. ADA Adaptations 10. Replace locks/hasps on classroom exterior doors 11. Improve drainage__________________________ 12. Enclose all HVAC units in interior 13. Replace old chalkboards____________________ 14. Fire alarm upgrade_________________________ 15. Electrical upgrade 16. Replace cabling/speakers/switches 17. Replace floor tile in kitchen 18. Replace missing floor tile in halls 19. Install additional outlets in classrooms 2(h Category 2. Projects to sustain current educational programs and initiatives. 1. Construct auditorium_______________________ 2. Place acoustical tiles in gym 3. Place tack strips in classrooms 4. Data video projector_______________________ 5. Replace gym bleachers_____________________ 6. 7. Category 3. Projects to sustain and plan for new educational initiatives and expansions._________ 1. Enclose exterior courtyards_______________ 2. Pave new parking area near track__________ 3. Expand Media Center into courtyard_______ 4. Extend waterline to courtyard 1 Estimated Cost $100,000 45,000 4,000 200,000 250,000 100,000 7,000 32,000 9,500 5,000 Estimated Cost 3,500 125,000 Estimated Cost Priority High - Moderate - Low High Moderate High High _______High_______ _______High_______ Moderate High Moderate High Low Low Moderate High High Low Low High High Priority High - Moderate - Low High High Moderate Low Low Priority High - Moderate - Low Low Low Low ModerateCapital Projects Priority Listing School Brady Elementary Date December?, 1999 Please list capital projects by category and indicate the priority assigned to the project by the CLT. Attach additional sheets if necessary. Category 1. Projects to sustain the facility and to correct major deficiencies and repairs. 1. ADA Adaptations 2. Energy efficient lighting 3. Enclose outside walkway 4. Floor coyering 90% 5. Electrical upgrade 6. Restroom Renoyation 7. Add window to office 8. Landscaping 9. Replace outside doors - Bldg. #2 10. Floor tile abatement 11. Install exhaust fan in Health room 12. Replace floor tile - kitchen 13. Asbestos remoyal - ceiling 14. Playground renoyation K Estimated Cost 66,000 20,000 32,600 6,000 25,000 2,000 10,000 4,000 18,000 600 3,000 320,000 5,000 Priority High - Moderate - Low High High High ________High Moderate Moderate Moderate Moderate Moderate Moderate Low Low ________High________ Moderate Category 2. Projects to sustain current educational programs and initiatiyes. 1. Technology upgrade 2^ 3. 4. 5. Category 3. Projects to sustain and plan for new educational initiatiyes and expansions. 1. Fenced in area by Annex 2. 5 Classroom addition y 4. 5. Estimated Cost 200,000 Estimated Cost 6,000 340,000 Priority High - Moderate - Low High Priority High - Moderate - Low ________High________ ModerateCapital Projects Priority Listing School Carver Magnet Elementary Date December 2, 1999 Please list capital projects by category and indicate the priority assigned to the project by the CLT. Attach additional sheets if necessary. Category 1. Projects to sustain the facility and to correct major deficiencies and repairs. 1. Floor covering 2. Expand Media Center 3. Expand parking lot/drive 4. Parking lot drainage 5. Classroom renovation 6. T 8. 9. 10. Category 2. Projects to sustain current educational programs and initiatives. 1. Technology upgrade 2. Electrical upgrade 3. ADA Adaptations 4 5. Category 3. Projects to sustain and plan for new educational initiatives and expansions. L 2. 3. 4. 5. Estimated Cost WOO 125,000 85,000 15,000 15,000 Estimated Cost 327,000 8,000 20,000 Estimated Cost Priority High - Moderate - Low ________High________ Moderate ________High________ ________High________ High Priority High - Moderate - Low ________High ________High________ High Priority High - Moderate - LowCapital Projects Priority Listing School: Chicot Elementary Date: December 9, 1999 Please list capital projects by category and indicate the priority assigned to the project by the CLT. Attach additional sheets if necessary. Category 1. Projects to sustain the facility and to correct major deficiencies and repairs. 1. Additional acoustical matting in classroom walls_________ 2. Fence around entire campus 3. Speakers in hallways, work room, cafeteria, custodian room 4. Waterproofing old section____________________________ 5. Drainage improvements______________________________ 6. T 8. 9. 10. Estimated Cost 40,000 Woo Togo 75,000 50,000 Priority High - Moderate - Low High High Moderate High High Category 2. Projects to sustain current educational programs and initiatives. 1. Technology Upgrade 2. 3. 4. 5. Estimated Cost Priority High - Moderate - Low Moderate Category 3. Projects to sustain and plan for new educational initiatives and expansions. 1. Playground equipment for all grades 2. Skylights in inner classrooms and Media Center y 4. 5. Estimated Cost Priority High - Moderate - Low Moderate ModerateCapital Projects Priority Listing School Cloverdale Elementary Date December 6, 1999 Please list capital projects by category and indicate the priority assigned to the project by the CLT. Attach additional sheets if necessary. Category 1. Projects to sustain the facility and to correct major deficiencies and repairs. 1. Replace roof on Media Center 2. Replace girls restroom counter 3. Replace hanging and missing gutters 4. Enclose open ramps to create hallways 5. Playground improvements/drainage 6. Replace and add carpet in the classroom 1. Fill in holes in the courtyard 8. Fix leak in the health room and replace carpet 9. Replace water fountain in counselors office/health 10. Paint classrooms/doorways 11. Level concrete by four-year-old classrooms 12. Make classrooms handicap accessible 13. Heating system for four-year-old building 14. Fix leak in four-year-old classroom IT Estimated Cost Priority High - Moderate - Low High Moderate Moderate ________High________ ________High________ ________High________ ________High________ ________High________ ________High________ Moderate ________High________ Moderate ________High________ High Category 2. Projects to sustain current educational programs and initiatives. 1. Upgrade the Computer Lab 2. Buy new software so all grades can use computer lab 3. New playground equipment 4. Materials to sustain current SEA program 5. Computer for GT classroom 6. Replace old chalkboards with dry erase boards Estimated Cost 12,()00 50,000 10,000 2,000 Priority High - Moderate - Low ________High________ Moderate Moderate High Moderate Moderate Category 3. Projects to sustain and plan for new educational initiatives and expansions. 1. Add additional bathrooms 2. 3. 4. 5. Estimated Cost Priority High - Moderate - Low HighCapital Projects Priority Listing School Dodd Elementary Date November 22, 1999 Please list capital projects by category and indicate the priority assigned to the project by the CLT. Attach additional sheets if necessary. Category 1. Projects to sustain the facility and to correct major deficiencies and repairs. 1. Bathrooms for Kindergarten (see below) 2. Upgrade other bathrooms 3. Doors for kitchen 4 y Estimated Cost Priority High - Moderate - Low ________High________ High Low Category 2. Projects to sustain current educational programs and initiatives. 1. Early Childhood wing, to include bathrooms and a multi-purpose room 2. Portable walls for 2 classrooms (would not need if #1 was built) Estimated Cost 450,000 35,000 Priority High - Moderate - Low High High 3. 4. 5. Category 3. Projects to sustain and plan for new educational initiatives and expansions. 2. 3. 4. Estimated Cost Priority High - Moderate - LowSchool Capital Projects Priority Listing Fair Park Elementary Date November 30, 1999 Please list capital projects by category and indicate the priority assigned to the project by the CLT. Attach additional sheets if necessary. Category 1. Projects to sustain the facility and to correct major deficiencies and repairs. 1. Replace roof 2. Update all bathrooms 3. Add central heat and air throughout the building 4. Replace/repair asphalt on campus 5. Update the cafeteria 6. Purchase curtains for the stage 7. Install tile floors in the hallway 8. Replace damaged ceiling tiles 9. Replace screens on windows 10. Replace the cover on the awning Tl 12. Category 2. Projects to sustain current educational programs and initiatives. 1. Update all classrooms 2. Replace computers in the Computer Lab 3. Add four classrooms to the SW end of building 4. Put five computers in each classroom 5. Wire building for internet access 6. Automate the Media Center 7. Install dry erase boards in all classrooms 8^ Category 3. Projects to sustain and plan for new educational initiatives and expansions. 1. Landscape the campus 2. Remove all mobile classrooms 3. Update the office area 4. Update staff workroom 5. Place speed bumps in front of the school 6. Create a parking area on the north side of building Estimated Cost WOO 22,000 50,600 20,000 50,000 3,000 24,000 11,000 17,000 2,700 Estimated Cost 153,600 55,000 125,000 17,000 3,000 Estimated Cost TWO 29,000 6,000 Priority High - Moderate - Low ________High________ ________High________ ________High________ Moderate Moderate Low ________High________ Moderate Moderate Low Priority High - Moderate - Low ________High________ ________High________ Moderate ________High________ High High Moderate Priority High - Moderate - Low Moderate Moderate ________High________ Moderate Low ModerateCapital Projects Priority Listing School Forest Park Elementary Date November 30, 1999 Please list capital projects by category and indicate the priority assigned to the project by the CLT. Attach additional sheets if necessary. Category 1. Projects to sustain the facility and to correct major deficiencies and repairs. 1. Central heat \u0026amp; air for entire building 2. Renovation of all restrooms 3. Re-plaster and paint interior walls 4. Resurface all playgrounds 5. Resurface back of building (bus loading area) 6. Landscape/irrigate sides of building 7. Replace carpet in building 8. Adequate off-street parking for staff 10. Estimated Cost 200,000 45,000 50,000 45,000 30,000 10,000 29,000 30,000 Priority High - Moderate - Low ________High________ ________High________ ________High________ ________High________ ________High________ Moderate ________High________ High Category 2. Projects to sustain current educational programs and initiatives. 1. Update computer technology lab 2. Redo stage curtains and sound system 3. Mount closed circuit TVs/VCRs in each classroom 4. Closed circuit television 5. New play unit on playground 6. 8. Category 3. Projects to sustain and plan for new educational initiatives and expansions. 1. Expand Media Center facility 1. 3. 4. 5. Estimated Cost 288,000 40,000 20,000 20,000 Estimated Cost Priority High - Moderate - Low _______High________ Moderate Moderate Moderate Moderate Priority High - Moderate - Low HighCapital Projects Priority Listing School Franklin Elementary Date November 30, 1999 Please list capital projects by category and indicate the priority assigned to the project by the CLT. Attach additional sheets if necessary. Category 1. Projects to sustain the facility and to correct major deficiencies and repairs. 1. New roof 2. Drainage 3. Reconnect bathroom showers 4. Painting building interior 5. Air conditioning cafeteria 6. Air conditioning auditorium 7. Renovate old section 8. ADA Adaptations 9. Replace outside lighting 10. Landscaping 11. Electrical upgrade 12. New play unit 13. Play area fence 14. Outside storage building 15. Roll-up window for dish room 16. Accordion door in kitchen Tl 18. 19. 20. Estimated Cost 150,000 25,000 45,000 35,000 1,600,000 70,000 8,000 20,000 10,500 2,000 4,000 4,000 2,500 Priority High - Moderate - Low ________High________ ________High________ Moderate Moderate ________High________ ________High________ _______High________ ________High________ Moderate Moderate ________High________ Low ________High________ Low Low Low Category 2. Projects to sustain current educational programs and initiatives. 1. Technology upgrade 3. 4. 5. Estimated Cost 206,000 Priority High - Moderate - Low High Category 3. Projects to sustain and plan for new educational initiatives and expansions. 2. 3. 4. Estimated Cost Priority High - Moderate - LowSchool Capital Projects Priority Listing Fublright Elementary Date November 30, 1999 Please list capital projects by category and indicate the priority assigned to the project by the CLT. Attach additional sheets if necessary. Category 1. Projects to sustain the facility and to correct major deficiencies and repairs. 1. Parking expansion, including additional entrance/exit 2. Carpet 3. Air conditioning and heat working properly 4. Renovate bathrooms 5. Resurface playground area 6. Replace roof - 8. 9. 10. Category 2. Projects to sustain current educational programs and initiatives. 1. Updated computer lab 2. Closed circuit cable and broadcast system, including infrastructure and equipment 3. Science labs - two indoor and one outdoors 4. P. E. program with proper facilities y Category 3. Projects to sustain and plan for new educational initiatives and expansions. 1. Foreign language (Spanish) 2. Art Program 3. Band and/or orchestra program 4 5. Estimated Cost 350,000 50,00 100,000 10,000 20,000 207,680 Estimated Cost 345,000 120,000 20,000 350,000 Estimated Cost 50J)0d 60,000 60,000 Priority High - Moderate - Low High High High Moderate Moderate Low Priority High - Moderate - Low ________High________ High Moderate Moderate Priority High - Moderate - Low ________High________ Moderate LowCAPITAL PROJECTS PRIORITY LISTING School Geyer Springs Elementary School Date November 23, 1999 Please list capital projects by category and indicate the priority assigned to the project by the CLT. Attach additional sheets if necessary. Category 1. Projects to sustain the facility and to correct major deficiencies and repairs. 1. Roof Repaired (New Roof)____________ 2. Restroom (Staff and Visitors) 3. Playground Equipment A ___________________________________ 6. y 8. 9. 10. Category 2. Projects to sustain current educational programs and initiatives. 1. Technology Upgrade (Computer Lab) 2. Multi-purpose Room (P.E., etc.) 4. 5. Category 3. Projects to sustain and plan for new educational initiatives and expansions. L 2. 3^____________________________________ 4. 5. Estimated Cost Estimated Cost Estimated Cost Priority High - Moderate - Low ________High________ ________High________ Low Priority High - Moderate - Low ________High________ High Priority High - Moderate - LowSchool Capital Projects Priority Listing Gibbs Magnet Elementary Date November 17, 1999 Please list capital projects by category and indicate the priority assigned to the project by the CLT. Attach additional sheets if necessary. Category 1. Projects to sustain the facility and to correct major deficiencies and repairs. 1. Add on to the school so that the two back entrances connect. Add additional classrooms to replace portable classrooms. 2. Language lab additions 3. Convert cafeteria to multi-purpose/gym 4. Add cafeteria and kitchen to rear of school 5. P. E. office and equipment room area - attached to new gym area 6. Add additional space in library and a classroom computer area in the library 7. Add study/testing room 8. Add in-school suspension room 9. Upgrade all restrooms 10. Additional storage areas 11. Replace carpet in all classrooms and offices with new carpet 12. Move health room to international studies room and move bathroom door and sink to international studies room. (They presently are back to back.) 13. Facelift for front of building with many flagpoles and landscaping 14. Build risers in music room U Estimated Cost Priority High - Moderate - Low High High High High High High High High High High High High High High Category 2. Projects to sustain current educational programs and initiatives. 1. More computers in classrooms y 3. Category 3. Projects to sustain and plan for new educational initiatives and expansions. L 2. 3. Estimated Cost 221,000 Estimated Cost Priority High - Moderate - Low High Priority High - Moderate - LowCapital Projects Priority Listing School Jefferson Date 11/23/99 Please list capital projects by category and indicate the priority assigned to the project by the CLT. Attach additional sheets if necessary. Category 1. Projects to sustain the facility and to correct major deficiencies and repairs. 1. Renovation 43,500sf @35 2. Electrical Upgrade 3. New Electrical Outlets 4. 5 classroom replacement/addition 5. Lighting retrofit 6. Improve drainage/landscaping 1. Landscaping 8. New play unit on playground 9. Additional parking 10. Clean hall bricks 11. Replace sewer lines II 13. 14. 15. Category 2. Projects to sustain current educational programs and initiatives. 1. Technology upgrade 2. Cork strip halls 3. Classroom furniture 4. Replace window shades 5. Classroom cabinets 6. Replace cable system 7. Office space renovations K 9. 10. Category 3. Projects to sustain and plan for new educational initiatives and expansions. 1. Additional restrooms in kindergarten wing 2. Fire alarm upgrade T 4. 5. Estimated Cost $1,500,000 100,000 40,000 500,000 65,000 10,000 10,000 10,000 7,000 8,000 7,000 Estimated Cost JTzooo 1,200 10,000 3,000 50,000 4,000 3,000 Estimated Cost Inc. Cat. 1-1 6,000 Priority High - Moderate - Low High________________ High________________ High________________ High________________ Moderate Moderate Moderate Moderate Moderate Moderate Moderate Priority High - Moderate - Low High________________ Moderate Moderate Moderate Moderate High________________ Moderate Priority High - Moderate - Low Moderate LowCapital Projects Priority Listing School King Interdistrict Magnet Elementary Date November 15, 1999 Please list capital projects by category and indicate the priority assigned to the project by the CLT. Attach additional sheets if necessary. Category 1. Projects to sustain the facility and to correct major deficiencies and repairs. 1. Re-carpet classrooms 2. Additional classroom storage 3. Covered walkway 4. Gymnasium 5. 6. T 8. 9. 10. Category 2. Projects to sustain current educational programs and initiatives. 1. Technology upgrade 2. Electrical upgrade J 4. 5. Category 3. Projects to sustain and plan for new educational initiatives and expansions. 1. Music Lab 2. Classroom expansions y 4. 5. Estimated Cost 64^^ 75,000 Estimated Cost 361,000 8,500 Estimated Cost Priority High - Moderate - Low ________High________ Moderate ________High________ Moderate Priority High - Moderate - Low High  High Priority High - Moderate - Low Low ModerateCapital Projects Priority Listing School Mabelvale Elementary Date November 15, 1999 Please list capital projects by category and indicate the priority assigned to the project by the CLT. Attach additional sheets if necessary. Category 1. Projects to sustain the facility and to correct major deficiencies and repairs. 1. Door inserted between computer labs 2. Door inserted in principals office 3. Additional parking 4. New carpeting throughout building 5. Fill in ditch in front of building 6. Landscaping 7. New playground equipment 8. Replace tiles throughout building 9. Vents in all restrooms 10. Outside storage 11. New drainage system II 13. 14. 15. Category 2. Projects to sustain current educational programs and initiatives. 1. Classroom computers/printers 2. Classroom furniture 4. 5. Category 3. Projects to sustain and plan for new educational initiatives and expansions. 1. Storage cabinets in classrooms 3. 4. 5. Estimated Cost 3^ 300 7,000 30,000 1,000 5,000 10,000 18,000 4,000 3,000 4,000 Priority High - Moderate - Low ________High________ ________High________ ________High________ Moderate Low Moderate Moderate ________High________ ________High________ Low High Estimated Cost 40,000 10,000 Priority High - Moderate - Low ________High________ Moderate Estimated Cost WOO Priority High - Moderate - Low ModerateCapital Projects Priority Listing School McDermott Elementary Date December 6, 1999 Please list capital projects by category and indicate the priority assigned to the project by the CLT. Attach additional sheets if necessary. Category 1. Projects to sustain the facility and to correct major deficiencies and repairs. 1. New heating/air system - all areas kitchen \u0026amp; health room 2. Renovate restrooms\ninclude handicapped 3. Reconfigure back parking lot to bus drive 4. Closet/restroom in principals office 5. Add hot water to sink/counter in teachers lounge 6. Repave asphalt areas 7. Update classroom furniture 8. Replace lights on exterior of building 9. Update intercom system 10. Renovate/landscape upper/lower playground/add fence 11. Update incoming electrical equipment 12. Additional electrical outlets 13. Shelves in bookroom 14. New entrance/exit doors/ffames/windows 15. Paint hallways 16. French drain on east side of building 17. Water faucet in courtyard 18. Replace all floor tiles/carpeting 19. Replace skylights M Priority High - Moderate - Low High High High High High High High High High High High High High High High High High High High Category 2. Projects to sustain current educational programs and initiatives. 1. Computers in each classroom 2. Software 3. Group Listening Centers/Stations 4. Grade level books for curriculum initiative 5. Televisions with port to connect to PC 6. PC to TV adapter y Category 3. Projects to sustain and plan for new educational initiatives and expansions. 1. Expand Library/additional shelving 2. Draperies for stage 4. Estimated Cost 275,000 25,000 25,000 8,000 2,000 10,000 18,000 15,000 10,000 25,000 10,000 1,000 500 16,000 10,000 2,000 2,000 80,000 6,000 Estimated Cost 4(Xood 20,000 25,000 30,000 5,900 2,600 Priority High - Moderate - Low High High High ________High________ High High Estimated Cost 20,000 1,500 Priority High - Moderate - Low ________High________ HighCapital Projects Priority Listing School Meadowcliff Elementary Date December 6, 1999 Please list capital projects by category and indicate the priority assigned to the project by the CLT. Attach additional sheets if necessary. Category 1. Projects to sustain the facility and to correct major deficiencies and repairs. 1. Energy efficient lighting 2. Electrical upgrade 3. Fire alarm upgrade 4. Asbestos removal ceiling 5. Landscaping 6. Repave parking lot 7. Minor renovation y 9. 10. Estimated Cost WOO 6,500 15,000 235,000 15,000 55,000 740,000 Priority High - Moderate - Low ________High________ ________High________ High ________High________ Moderate Low Moderate Category 2. Projects to sustain current educational programs and initiatives. 1. Technology upgrade 2. Classroom furniture y 4. 5. Estimated Cost 294,000 50,000 Priority High - Moderate - Low ________High________ High Category 3. Projects to sustain and plan for new educational initiatives and expansions. 1. New computer lab 2. Updated media center 4. 5. Estimated Cost Priority High - Moderate - LowCapital Projects Priority Listing School Mitchell Academy Date November 30, 1999 Please list capital projects by category and indicate the priority assigned to the project by the CLT. Attach additional sheets if necessary. Category 1. Projects to sustain the facility and to correct major deficiencies and repairs. 1. ADA adaptations_______________________________ 2. Energy efficient lighting 3. Electrical upgrade_______________________________ 4. Structural repairs_______________________________ 5. Exterior waterproofing___________________________ 6. Floor covering 25%_____________________________ 7. Pave parking___________________________________ 8. Ceiling Replacement 9. New speakers/switches 10. Rebuild restroom floor 11. Landscaping/fencing 12. Administrative renovation 13. Enclose/cover connection between main building and annex buildings lA 15. Estimated Cost 230,000 50,000 4,000 20,000 100,000 10,000 15,000 60,000 4,000 15,000 75,000 750,000 Priority High - Moderate - Low Moderate ________High________ High ________High________ ________High________ Moderate Low Low Low ________High________ Moderate Moderate High Category 2. Projects to sustain current educational programs and initiatives. 1. Technology upgrade 3. 4. 5. Category 3. Projects to sustain and plan for new educational initiatives and expansions. L 2. 3. 4. 5. Estimated Cost Estimated Cost Priority High - Moderate - Low High Priority High - Moderate - LowCapital Projects Priority Listing School Otter Creek Elementary Date November 17, 1999 Please list capital projects by category and indicate the priority assigned to the project by the CLT. Attach additional sheets if necessary. Category 1. Projects to sustain the facility and to correct major deficiencies and repairs. 1. Storm Drainage System 2. Floor Covering - Carpet 3. Security light on parking lot 4. Additional playground/equipment 5. Outside water fountain 6. Additional parking area 7. Landscaping 9. 10. Category 2. Projects to sustain current educational programs and initiatives. 1. Technology Upgrade 3. 4. 5. Category 3. Projects to sustain and plan for new educational initiatives and expansions. 1. 6 classroom addition 2. Office for assistant principal 3. Bathroom - Handicapped accessible 4. Cafetorium with stage y Estimated Cost Estimated Cost Estimated Cost Priority High - Moderate - Low High________________ High________________ High________________ High________________ Moderate Moderate Moderate Priority High - Moderate - Low High Priority High - Moderate - Low High________________ High________________ High________________ HighCapital Projects Priority Listing School Pulaski Heights Elementary Date November 30, 1999 Please list capital projects by category and indicate the priority assigned to the project by the CLT. Attach additional sheets if necessary. Category 1. Projects to sustain the facility and to correct major deficiencies and repairs. 1. New office/health room/ADA/security monitors 2. Upgrade restrooms 3. Air conditioning/central air 4. Upgrade cafeteria 5. Fence around playground 6. Parking lot/circular driveway 1. Landscaping/playground equipment  ' Bfc - I 8. New return system for central air in 5 grade 9. New roof 10. Glass windows in rooms on 3'\"* floor 11. New carpet II 13. 14. 15. Estimated Cost 100,000 15,000 50,000 Priority High - Moderate - Low ________High________ ________High________ ________High________ High High . High ________High________ High ________High________ ________High________ High Category 2. Projects to sustain current educational programs and initiatives. 1. Upgrade cabling 2. Install cabling 4. 5. Category 3. Projects to sustain and plan for new educational initiatives and expansions. 1. New Media Center/multi-purpose room I 3. 4. 5. Estimated Cost Estimated Cost Priority High - Moderate - Low High High Priority High - Moderate - Low HighCapital Projects Priority Listing School Rightsell Elementary Date November 15, 1999 Please list capital projects by category and indicate the priority assigned to the project by the CLT. Attach additional sheets if necessary. Category 1. Projects to sustain the facility and to correct major deficiencies and repairs. 1. Landscaping and fence around the school 2. Energy efficient lighting 3. Electrical update 4. Paint interior/exterior and repair walls 5. Waterproof library 6. Replace storm piping 7. New kitchen floor 8. Replace floor tile pantry 9. New speakers/switches/intercom 10. Replace front doors 11. Repair kitchen floors 12. Replace storm drain____________________________ 13. Rebuild restroom floors/basement \u0026amp; 2\" 14. Plumbing retrofit 15. ADA adaptations 16. Replace boiler 17. New roof 18. Install surface covering on playground 19. Install weather stripping under all exit doors 2Q. Estimated Cost 100,000 84,000 5,000 135,000 50,000 25,000 18,000 1,000 4,000 8,000 8,000 15,000 30,000 85,000 230,000 8.000 Priority High - Moderate - Low Moderate High ________High________ Moderate ________High________ Low Moderate Moderate Moderate Moderate Low Low Moderate Moderate Moderate High High High High Category 2. Projects to sustain current educational programs and initiatives. 1. Maintain low classroom enrollments (20/1) 3. 4. Estimated Cost 200,000 Priority High - Moderate - Low High Category 3. Projects to sustain and plan for new educational initiatives and expansions. 1. Technology upgrade 2^ 3. 4. Estimated Cost 115,000 Priority High - Moderate - Low HighSchool: Rockefeller Elementary School Capital Projects Priority Listing Date\nDecember 9, 1999 Please list capital projects by category and indicate the priority assigned to the project by the CLT. Attach additional sheets if necessary. ategory 1. Projects to sustain the facility and to correct major deficiencies and repairs. 1. New carpet throughout the building 2. New intercom system - The system needs to be one that will prove to be least disturbing for an open-space school. 3. Heating/Air Replacement - This must include all new vents or totally cleaning the ones presently in the building. Present vents spit out dirty residue into the rooms. 4. Improve playground and work to eliminate soil erosion on early childhood, primary and intermediate playground area. The grounds are in poor condition. 5. Provide emergency hom/bell system on the outside of the building_______________ ' 6. Replace damaged window panes in the building - Plexiglas panes at front entrance, principals office, assistant principals office, bookkeepers office. Early Childhood Coordinators two office windows, and several kindergarten classes. Cloudy, dirty appearance and most unattractive - cleaning does not improve appearance.___ 7. Re-key all doors to the building or provide an improved system of entering the building for staff members. 8. Install proper ventilation in the restroom areas and also the room housing the kiln 9. Interior Renovations 10. Paint interior/exterior 11. Electrical upgrade 12. American Disability Act adaptations 13. Replace Lay-in Ceiling Tile____________________________________________ 14. Improve outdoor lighting____________________________________________ 15. Landscaping Category 2. Projects to sustain current educational programs and initiatives. 1. Outside storage unit for storage of Early Childhood equipment such as tricycles, outside play toys, etc. 2. Technology upgrade 3. Remodel front office area and conference room furnishings 4. Provide and install Dutch doors (cut half in the middle with ability to leave top open or closed) on the health room and doors (5) in the early childhood area. 5. Remodel space to accommodate nurse and counselor in adjoining spaces for health related issues and instructional/counseling purposes. L 6. Category 3. Projects to sustain and plan for new educational initiatives and expansions. 1. Build at least 4 new classrooms plus two other instructional areas - a special activity room and a science lab 2. Expand parking spaces for parents/visitors 3. Provide covered walkway or awning for protection from rainy weather as parents come from the parking area and enter the Early Childhood classrooms (Infant/Toddler) 4. Estimated Cost $61,000 $12,000 $500,000 $60,000 $15,000 $60,000 $7,500 $25,000 $85,000 $20,000 Estimated Cost $4000 $5000 $5000 Estimated Cost $250,000 $250,000 Priority High - Moderate - Low Very High Very High Very High High Moderate to High . High Moderate High Moderate High High High Moderate High Moderate Priority High - Moderate - Low Moderate High Moderate High Moderate Priority High - Moderate - Low High High ModerateCapital Projects Priority Listing School Romine Elementary Date December 7, 1999 Please list capital projects by category and indicate the priority assigned to the project by the CLT. Attach additional sheets if necessary. Category 1. Projects to sustain the facility and to correct major deficiencies and repairs. 1. Central HVAC 2. Asbestos Removal - Doors_______________________ 3. Restroom renovations___________________________ 4. Energy efficient lighting - grounds________________ 5. Landscaping ______________________________ 6. Replace carpet in office, lounge. Rooms 8 \u0026amp; 6______ 7. Major renovations to roof___________ 8. Replace floor tile in kitchen______________________ 9. Retile nurses office _________________________________L_______________ 10. ADA adaptations_______________________________ 11. New playground equipment II 13. 14. 15. Category 2. Projects to sustain current educational programs and initiatives._____________________________ 1. Technology upgrade_____________________________ 2. Electrical upgrade_______________________________ 3. Replace and re-install intercom switches \u0026amp; speakers in portables Estimated Cost 400,000 8,000 3,000 93,000 20,000 3,000 1,000,000 3,000 1,000 70,000 Priority High - Moderate - Low ________High________ ________High________ Moderate High ________High________ High  High________ Moderate Low ________High________ Moderate Estimated Cost 255,000 7,000 3,000 Priority High - Moderate - Low High ________High________ Moderate 4. 5. Category 3. Projects to sustain and plan for new educational initiatives and expansions.________________ 1. Renovate storage closet (basement) for use as a parent center__________________________ 2. 4 classroom addition(s)__________________________ 3. _______________________________________ 4________________________________________________ 5. Estimated Cost 300,000 Priority High - Moderate - Low Moderate HighCapital Projects Priority Listing School Terry Elementary School Date November 29, 1999 Please list capital projects by category and indicate the priority assigned to the project by the CLT. Attach additional sheets if necessary. Category 1. Projects to sustain the facility and to correct major deficiencies and repairs. 1. Parking Lot Drop-off area\ndriveway area 2. HVAC Replacement Tower 3. Replace Floor covering 95% 4. Electrical upgrade - to accommodate computers in classrooms 5. Restroom renovations (4 in halls) 6. Exterior waterproofing 7. New lights in kitchen 8. Landscaping 9. Play area ground work 10. Add exhaust fans in adult restrooms Tl 12. 13. 14. 15. Category 2. Projects to sustain current educational programs and initiatives. 1. 6 elementary classroom with individual restrooms in each classroom 2. Technology upgrade (new computer lab) 3. New Library 5. Category 3. Projects to sustain and plan for new educational initiatives and expansions. 2. 3. 4. 5. Estimated Cost 200,000 100,000 43,000 10,000 50,000 2,000 15,000 10,Q00 , Estimated Cost 680,000 346,000 Estimated Cost Priority High - Moderate - Low High ________High________ Moderate Moderate Moderate Moderate Moderate Moderate Moderate Moderate Priority High - Moderate - Low High High Moderate Moderate Priority High - Moderate - LowCapital Projects Priority Listing School Wakefield Date November 30, 1999 Please list capital projects by category and indicate the priority assigned to the project by the CLT. Attach additional sheets if necessary. Category 1. Projects to sustain the facility and to correct major deficiencies and repairs. 1. Major Renovation 2. Central Heat/Air(Individual Thermostats) 3. Electrical Upgrade/Lighting 4. Plumbing Upgrade 5. Windows Upgrade/replace 6. Tear down lower building and Replace with new classrooms 1. Off street parking/Drop off 8. Working/dependable intercom 10. Category 2. Projects to sustain current educational programs and initiatives. 1. Technology upgrade 3. 4. 5. Category 3. Projects to sustain and plan for new educational initiatives and expansions. 1. Add more classrooms (4) 2. Stage improvements 3. Security - outside cameras 5. Estimated Cost 1,800,000 400,000 135,000 50,000 20,000 50,000 250,000 75,000 10,000 Estimated Cost 375,000 Estimated Cost mW 100,000 25,000 Priority High - Moderate - Low High________________ High________________ High________________ High________________ High________________ High________________ High________________ Moderate Moderate Priority High - Moderate - Low High Priority High - Moderate - Low Moderate Low LowCapital Projects Priority Listing School Booker T. Washington Elementary Magnet Date 12-9-99 Please list capital projects by category and indicate the priority assigned to the project by the CLT. Attach additional sheets if necessary. Category 1. Projects to sustain the facility and to correct major deficiencies and repairs. 1. Americans with Disabilities Act adaptations 2. Playground leveled and enclosed with brick wall 3. Hot water for two science labs 4. Replace floor covering 95% 5. Outside storage building area 6. Miscellaneous cabinetry T 8. 9. 10. Estimated Cost $20,000 $85,000 $4,000 $3,500 Priority High - Moderate - Low High________________ High High Moderate Low Low Category 2. Projects to sustain current educational programs and initiatives. 1. Electrical upgrade 3. 4. 5. Category 3. Projects to sustain and plan for new educational initiatives and expansions. 1. Technology upgrade 2. Landscaping for outdoor science instruction 1 4. 5. Estimated Cost $12,000 Estimated Cost $314,000 $5,000 Priority High - Moderate - Low High Priority High - Moderate - Low High____________. HighCapital Projects Priority Listing School: Watson elementary Date : December 9,1999 Please list capital projects by category and indicate the priority assigned to the project by the CLT. Attach additional sheets if necessary. Category 1. Projects to sustain the facility and to correct major deficiencies and repairs. 1. Asbestos removal from ceiling 2. Energy efficient lighting/ceiling 3. Restroom renovation 4. Upgrade playground and fencing 5. Replace floorcovering 6. ADA adaptations 7. Exterior waterproofing 8. Resurface parking lot and drives 9. 3DI Renovations 10. Interior painting 11. Landscaping II 13. 14. 20. Estimated Cost $170,000 $160,000 $25,000 $75,000 $40,000 $60,000 $40,000 $75,000 $200,000 $45,000 $15,000 Priority High - Moderate - Low High________________ High________________ High________________ High________________ High________________ High________________ High________________ Moderate Moderate Moderate Moderate Category 2. Projects to sustain current educational programs and initiatives. 1. Technology upgrade 2. Electrical upgrade 3. Security upgrade: intercom, surveillance 4 5. Estimated Cost $178,000 $16,000 $35,000 Priority High - Moderate - Low High________________ High________________ High Category 3. Projects to sustain and plan for new educational initiatives and expansions. 1. Classroom additions (2) I 3. 4. 5. Estimated Cost $200,000 Priority High - Moderate - Low ModerateCapital Projects Priority Listing School Western Hills Elementary Date November 22, 1999 Please list capital projects by category and indicate the priority assigned to the project by the CLT. Attach additional sheets if necessary. Category 1. Projects to sustain the facility and to correct major deficiencies and repairs. 1. Central HVAC - old wing 2. Energy efficient lighting 3. Asbestos removal - ceiling_______________________ 4. Electrical upgrade 5. Replace floor covering 50% 6. HVAC repairs 7. ADA adaptations 8. Repave parking lot \u0026amp; drives 9. Replace cafeteria lights 10. Landscaping___________________________________ 11. Intercom system TT. 13. 14. 15. Estimated Cost 400,000 50,000 178,000 5,500 21,000 175,000 60,000 40,000 6,000 20,000 9,000 Priority High - Moderate - Low ________ High________ ________ High________ ________ High________ Moderate Moderate Moderate Moderate Low Low Low Low Category 2. Projects to sustain current educational programs and initiatives. 1. Technology upgrade 2. Reisograph machine 4. 5. Estimated Cost 161,000 3,000 Priority High - Moderate - Low ________ High________ Moderate Category 3. Projects to sustain and plan for new educational initiatives and expansions. 1. Science lab 2. Six (6) classroom addition 3. Larger kitchen office 4 5. Estimated Cost WOO 340,000 50,000 Priority High - Moderate - Low Moderate Moderate Low Capital Projects Priority Listing School Williams Magnet Elementary Date November 10, 1999 Please list capital projects by category and indicate the priority assigned to the project by the CLT. Attach additional sheets if necessary. Category 1. Projects to sustain the facility and to correct major deficiencies and repairs. 1. Central HVAC ~ 2. Realign, expand parking lot______________________ 3. Security cameras________________________________ 4. Restroom renovations___________________________ 5. Replace sewer line 6. Resurface parking and drives 1. Resurface play areas 8. ADA adaptations 9. Roof final coating 10. Repair exterior drainage 11. Gutter/downspout replacement 12. Structural repair walls 13. Energy efficient lighting 14. Electrical upgrade 15. Tile hall floors 16. Replace exterior windows 17. Exterior waterproofing 18. Additional kitchen lighting 19. Replace floor tile kitchen 20. Fencing_______________________________________ 21. Landscaping___________________________________ 22. Miscellaneous cabinetry 2T 24. Category 2. Projects to sustain current educational programs and initiatives._______________________ 1. Technology upgrade Z Category 3. Projects to sustain and plan for new educational initiatives and expansions._________ 1. 6-classroom addition Estimated Cost 400,000 55,000 6,000 30,000 25,000 60,000 8,000 120,000 8,000 50,000 50,000 50,000 85,000 65,000 25,000 120,000 65,000 3,000 3,000 7,000 25,000 5,000 Priority High - Moderate - Low ________High________ ________High________ ________High________ ________High________ Moderate Moderate Moderate Moderate Moderate Moderate Moderate Moderate Moderate Moderate Moderate Moderate Moderate Low Low Moderate Low Low Estimated Cost 261,000 Priority High - Moderate - Low High Estimated Cost 300,000 Priority High - Moderate - Low HighI \u0026gt; Capital Projects Priority Listing School Wilson Elementary Date December 6, 1999 Please list capital projects by category and indicate the priority assigned to the project by the CLT. Attach additional sheets if necessary. Category 1. Projects to sustain the facility and to correct major deficiencies and repairs. 1. Replace carpet 2. Electrical upgrade 3. Major renovations 4. ADA adaptations y 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. Category 2. Projects to sustain current educational programs and initiatives. 1. Technology upgrade 2. New play unit 3. Landscaping 4. Relocate electric panels y Category 3. Projects to sustain and plan for new educational initiatives and expansions. 1. Parking lot for staff 2. Enlarge PrincipaTs/Secretarys office y 4. 5. Estimated Cost HOOO 6,000 735,000 80,000 Estimated Cost 180,000 35,000 20,000 8,000 Estimated Cost Priority High - Moderate - Low High ________High________ Moderate Moderate Priority High - Moderate - Low ________High________ Moderate Low Moderate Priority High - Moderate - Low ________High________ LowK Wilson Elementary School RECEIVED andEi^uity in Education\" JAN 1 I 2000 SUPPORT SERVICES TO: DR. VICTOR ANDERSON, ASSIST FROM\nBEVERLY JONES, PRINCIPX^ DATE: JANUARY 10, 2000 r T SUPERINTENDENT I AM WRITING THIS LETTER TO REQUEST AN ADDITION TO THE CAPITOL IMPROVEMENT LIST FOR WILSON SCHOOL. AFTER CONSULTING WITH SADIE MITCHELL ABOUT OUR ODM REPORT FROM THE FALL OF 1999 IT WAS DECIDED THE FOLLOWING SHOULD BE ADDED IF IT IS NOT TOO LATE: 1. ENLARGE THE MEDIA CENTER 2. MAKE THE BUILDING HANDICAP ACCESSIBLE PLEASE FEEL FREE TO CONTACT ME SHOULD YOU HAVE QUESTIONS. THANK YOU. 401 5 Stannus Phone 570-41 80 Little Rock, Arkansas 72204 Capital Projects Priority Listing School WOODRUFF ELEMENTARY Date NOVEMBER 22, 1999 Please list capital projects by category and indicate the priority assigned to the project by the CLT. Attach additional sheets if necessary. Category 1. Projects to sustain the facility and to correct major deficiencies and repairs. 1. Replace chalkboards w/dry erase_________ 2. Re hang maps in classrooms_____________ 3. Build small 4 yr. old track_______________ 4. Expand parking lot_____________________ 5. Study under floor moisture problem_______ 6. Technology upgrade___________________ 7. Electrical upgrade______________________ 8. Waterproofing________________________ 9. Floor covering 90%_____________________ 10. Window replacement___________________ 11. HVAC Controls________________. 12. Replace floor covering__________________ 13, Repair brick kitchen___________________ 14. Landscaping___________________________ 15. ADA Adaptations_____________________ 16. Repair Plaster Walls Estimated Cost $ 3,500 $ 1,000 $ 2,000 $175,000 $ 5,000 $233,000 $ 6,000 $ 65,000 $ 34,200 $100,000 $ 30,000 $ 4,000 $ 4,000 $ 10,000 $250,000 $ 6,000 Priority High - Moderate - Low ________High________ ________Low________ ________Low________ ______Moderate______ ______Moderate______ ________High________ ________High________ ______Moderate______ High ______Moderate______ ______Moderate______ ________High________ ________Low________ _____Moderate______ _____Moderate______ High Category 2. Projects to sustain current educational programs and initiatives. 1. Computer lab___________________ 2. Classroom computers Estimated Cost Priority High - Moderate - Low ______Moderate______ High Category 3. Projects to sustain and plan for new educational initiatives and expansions._________ 1  Public Address system in cafeterioum_______ 2. Stage Curtains Estimated Cost Priority High - Moderate - Low High ModerateTEL: Feb 19,92 11:50 No .001 P.Ol z\u0026gt; \"2 KING TNTERPJBTRTCT BCHOOJ.. Site Se.l ection Process Tim el iiic. 0 anuarv 31 - Phone survey of key community leaders .in 91.11 cUjO Pulucki (Ninth Street Park) are.'-i February 4  Mailed specia.l sit.rvey to all LPST) parents Pi.ilaski Streel..s area in 9t..h .-iiK-'l February .1.0. - Host luncheon meet.!ng al Mt. with key community leaders Zion Paptist Cliurch February 19 \" Begin sending surveys to parents of t.afgel.ed areas of Little Rock and Pulaski County r.i.udents .in February. 19 - Fox'm a site selection committee of parents teachers from both districts. and February 20 - Di.itribute presss release tannounc.i.ng perd.od for public input Februa7'y..2O - Ma.ll surveys to selected Fai'tncr.s in Education, businesses and cdnirches in downtown Little Rock asking thorn to inc^Ite them available to tl'ie.i.r employees and coiD^regati ons . Amoub 1.1 lose businesses to be .i11o.1 udwd ae Arkanscis Chi 1 di'en' s Hospi 1.a 1 , AI 'k ansa s Pov/hir and Light. State Capitol Mall, Fiisl. Comtnftrc.ia.l bank, Churches include Ml.. Immanuel baptist Church. FP.bruary 23 and Arkan Zion baptist Chui'ch and Run ad in Ai'kansas Democrat-Gazette announce public forums .\n^nd to inform public that surveys are available' upon raquo.'st. survey. Include a phone number to call to request a February 24 - FUDT-IC FORUM Gibl\u0026gt;:-i .School , 6:00 p.m. 1115 W. 16th St. February JJ. - PUBLIC FORUM Lawson School , 6:00 p.m. 19903 Lawson Road February 27 - PUBLIC FORLn4 Oak Grove Elementary Schoo.l , 6:00 p.m. .5703 Oak Grove Road March 2 - Site Selection Committee Meeting LRSD Administx-ation Building 6:00 p.m. IC' f\nTEL: Feb 19,92 11:50 No .001 P.02 ANNOUNCEMENT.  February 19,1992 Dear Patron, The Little Rock School District is planning on building a new elementary school in the area near 1-630 and central Little Rock. Tlie new school is scheduled to open in August 1993. Although the school will be built in the Little Rock School District, the Pulaski County Special School District will be actively involved in recruiting students. We are very concerned about getting as much public opinion and input as possible in the selection of a site for this school. The new school will be an interdistrict school. Interdistrict .schools serve black students from the Little Rock School District and white students from the Pulaski County Special School District. The students from the Pulaski County Special School District are recruited on a voluntary basis. The new elementary school, which will be named after Martin Luther King, Jr., will have a capacity of 696 students. This includes two classes for four-year-old students. The four-year-old classes will be free of charge. In addition, the new King School will have a theme, Please take a few minute*\nto complete the survey attached to this letter. As you can see, we would like to have your input on the selection of a site and the selection of a theme for the new King Inicrdistrict School. In addition to completing the survey, you are invited to attend one of the public forums listed on the survey form. These meetings will be held to give our community the opportunity to express any concerns/suggestions about the site and/or theme for the new Martin Luther King, Jr. Interdistrict School. Thanks in advance for taking the time to complete the site selection survey form. We hope to see you at one of the public forums. Little Rock School District Pulaski County Special School DistrictTEL: Feb 19,92 11:50 No.001 P.03 Little Rock School District Pulaski County Special School District Community Survey Which of the following locations would you prefer for the new King Elementary Inierdistrict School? Rank (1 for fir^t choice, 2 for second choice. Map is enclosed.) 9th and Pulaski Streets Westside Junior High School site (14th and Marshall Streets) Comments: Please check your choice for a theme for King Interdistrici School. Rank (1 for first choice, 2 for second choice, 3 for third choice. 4 for fourth choice, 5 for fifth choice, 6 for sixth choice, and 7 for seventh choice. Program descriptions are enclosed.) Basic Skills Computer Science Economic Education Environmental Science Medical Science and Health-related Occupations Visual and Performing Arts Other:____________________________________ Would you be interested in enrolling your child(ren) at the King Elementary Inierdistrict School? Yes No Maybe You are invited to give public comment about this school site selection at any of the following public forums: February 24,6 p,m. Gibbs Magnet Elementary School, Media Center, 1115 W. 16th, LRSD February 25,6 p.m. Lawson Elementary School, Cafeteria, 19901 Lawson Road, PCSSD February 27,6 p.m. Oak Grove Elementary School, Cafeteria, 5703 Oak Grove Road, NLR Name. Address, Childs Current School Assignment Phone. .Grade. If aH'LICable, please return to your childs school by Monday, February 24,1992.Feb 19.-92 11:5 No. 001 P.05 MAP TEL: Feb 19,92 11:52 No .001 P.04 MARTIN LirrilER KING, JR. INTERDISTRICT SCHOOL SITE/THEME SELECTION SURVEY Theme Descriptions February 1992 Basic Skills This program places strong emphasis on mastery of basic skills at the student's instructional level in reading, math. English, spelling, writing, science, social studies, health, penmanship, art, music, and physical education. This includes a highly structured, disciplined approach to academic and social behaviors. Computer Science Each area of the basic skills curriculum will be supported by the use of computer technology. In addition, students will prepare for the twenty-first century with an introduction to programming, word processing, telecommunications, and interactive video. Economic Education This program will prepare students for the twenty-first century through the development of academic, technological and interpersonal skills. Each students knowledge and awareness of business will be developed from both the consumer and career point of view. An enriched curriculum will be featured that includes in-class study(using varied IcamingZteaching strategies), visiting speakers, and field trips. Environmental Sciences The environmental science program will be designed to offer challenging educational experiences with an emphasis on the scientific method, inquiry, methodologies, and experiences in environmental science. Challenging and meaningful activities will be geared to the level of each student and his/her interest. Ecology and conservation will be the specific areas of concentration. Medical Science and Health-related Occupations This program will increase student awareness and understanding of content and careers in the health sciences. Students will have the opportunity to practice hands-on laboratory work in a controlled setting. Special emphasis will be placed on mastery in mathematics and science. Visual and Performing Arts This program will feature instruction in dance, vocal music, theater arts, and visual arts. Qualified professionals will instruct in the specialized areas and the opportunity for performance and/or exhibits will be an integral part of the program. An enriched basic skills program, using a variety of teaching strategies, will be provided to meet the needs of all students.collar COURT  rtOv IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION -4'-/. Cl LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT PLAINTIFF^  V. NO. LRC82866 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, ET AL. DEFENDANTS MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL. INTERVENORS KATHERINE V. KNIGHT, ET AL. INTERVENORS ORDER The Little Rock School District has moved to reschedule construction of the King and Stephens interdistrict schools and to implement the McClellan Magnet Plan in phases. Having determined that a hearing on the motions is necessary. the Court hereby notifies the parties that a hearing is scheduled for Friday, May 29, 1992, at 9:30 a.m. in Room 305 of the United States Post Office and Courthouse. Because each district has a mutual obligation with respect to interdistrict schools, the Court anticipates hearing further argument as well on the Pulaski County Special School District's motion to delay construction of the new interdistrict school on the 67/167 corridor. DATED this day of May, 1992. p. ,1 occ i' y- -  -J UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE  ''P'?M niCTr,, / / !-cRH h I 1 I I 5 I 1590 IIN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT V. NO. LR-C-82-866 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, ET AL. MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL. KATHERINE W. KNIGHT, ET AL. ORDER Before the Court is the motion of the FILED -ASTERnB!?STR?C^^ JUN - 5 1992 CARL By: ERK {J DEP. I PLAINTIFF DEFENDANTS INTERVENORS INTERVENORS Little Rock School District [LRSD] to reschedule the construction of two interdistrict schools and the motion of the Pulaski County Special School District [PCSSD] to replace portable classroom buildings at Pinewood Elementary with permanent classrooms. The LRSD seeks to delay the construction of the King interdistrict school from the May Submission date of 1993-94 to a new date of 1994-95. It also asks the Court to approve a delay in construction of the Stephens interdistrict school from 1994-95 to 1995-96. The Court held a hearing on the motion on May 29, 1992. After careful consideration of the motion and the testimony presented at the hearing, the Court finds that the motion should be denied at this time. The Court is unconvinced that the LRSD cannot. if it acts diligently, meet the deadlines set forth in the May Submission for both the King and Stephens schools. Mr. Jim Ivey, manager of CLERK 1 support services for the LRSD, testified that the money for both ^The original 1989 plan construction dates were 1992-93 for King and 1990-91 for Stephens.schools is in the bank, with $3.85 million earmarked for King and $3.5 million earmarked for Stephens. The testimony of Mr. Doug Eaton, director of plant services for the LRSD, indicated that land acquisition for King is proceeding at an acceptable pace and that the additional year was needed mostly to get community input on the King school. There has been and will be sufficient time for community involvement on the design and use of the King school. provided the district acts expeditiously. There was no convincing argument that Stephens could not be constructed by 1994-95 as set forth in the May Submission. In order to ensure that the LRSD meets the 1994-95 opening date, the Court will require the district to develop and submit to the Court written plan for the construction of the new Stephens interdistrict school. The plan is to include dates of completion for each phase of development and the following: 1. A strategic plan for community involvement that includes neighborhood meetings with the community members living in the area surrounding the current Stephens Incentive School, formation of a biracial citizens site advisory committee, and the involvement of parents whose children are targeted for recruitment to the new school. 2. The school's total capacity. the number of students to be a assigned from LRSD schools, the number of PCSSD students to be recruited, and the number of early childhood classes anticipated with the ages of the students to be served. 3. A comprehensive description of projected attendance zone -2-changes and the effect these changes will have on the incentive school and/or area school enrollment, racial balance, and capacities. 4. A description of all anticipated costs. including site purchase, site preparation, design fees, construction, equipment. materials. furnishings. personnel. etc. must be included in complete budget of start-up and maintenance expenses. The portion of the costs to be funded by desegregation funds is to be clearly indicated in the budget. 5. Contingency plans for accommodating the current Stephens students while construction takes place, if the school is to he rebuilt on the current site. If the school is located elsewhere. a comprehensive re-use plan should be developed in conjunction with the community. 6. Description of the process that will be used to select and a purchase a site, if applicable. If a new site is selected, the description should include steps required to obtain any special zoning consideration required, status of options to purchase the property, and information regarding the neighborhood support for an interdistrict school. 7. Summary of the design and construction process including procedures for the selection of an architectural firm, preliminary designs, design input from citizens, teachers, and parents, design completion with adherence to federal requirements and ADE recommendations regarding new school construction, and a description of the construction schedule. -3-8. An outline of staff recruitment procedures for the school's administrative, teaching and support staff, including staff projections for each grade level and all support programs. If the recruitment and hiring practices planned differ from those outlined in the Professional Negotiations Agreement, a description of plans to negotiate the hiring modifications with the LRCTA must be included. The Court also orders the LRSD to refrain from spending the $3.85 million earmarked for King and the $3.5 million earmarked for Stephens, and the interest earned on the sums, for any purposes other than the construction of these interdistrict schools. In its motion. the PCSSD seeks authorization to replace portable classrooms at Pinewood Elementary School. One of the four double portable buildings recently was destroyed by fire. Because of this emergency and the district's assurance that capacity of the school will not be changed, the Court determines that the motion should be granted. In granting the motion, however, the Court notes that at the May 29th hearing, the PCSSD indicated that it intended to file a motion with the Court concerning the replacement of all portable classroom buildings with new construction. The Court prefers to consider the question of replacing portables in a comprehensive manner rather than piecemeal, and it is granting the motion as to Pinewood because of the particular circumstances involved. Further, on the topic of new construction in the PCSSD, at the May 29th hearing the Court also heard testimony on the PCSSD's -4-motion to delay construction of an interdistrict school on the Highway 67/167 corridor. The Court will delay ruling on the PCSSD motion until it receives and considers the anticipated comprehensive motion concerning replacing portable classrooms with new construction. IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the LRSD motion to delay interdistrict school construction [Doc. #1584] be and is hereby denied. The LRSD is ordered to submit to the Court within ninety (90) days from the date of entry of this Order a timetable for the construction of Stephens interdistrict school. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the PCSSD motion to replace portable classrooms at Pinewood Elementary School [Doc. #1607] be and is hereby granted. DATED this day of June, 1992. UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE AIso before the Court is the motion of the LRSD for phased implementation of the McClellan High School Business/Communication Magnet Plan [Doc. #1583]. Counsel for the LRSD orally withdrew the motion at the May 29th hearing\nthe motion is, therefore, moot. -5-18:26 501 324 2032 L R School Dlst ODM @001 December 4, Little Rock School District NEWS RELEASE ,'1 1332 For more information: Dianne Woodruff, 324-2020 LRSD AWARDS CONTRACT FOR MARTIN LUTHER KINS. JR. SCHOOL TO LOCAL CONTRACTOR Little Rock School District has awarded the contract for building the new Martin Luther King, Jr. Interdistr ict Elementary School to the Little Rock firm of Progressive Constructors, Harvey Skorcz, president of Progressive Constructors, has named Tom Williams as project manager and Johnny Wise as project superintendent. Progressive Constructors, Inc. will serve as the major contractor for the $3.6 million project. Several other Central Arkansas firms including Central Industrial Electric, North Little Rock\nVogel Mechanical, North Little Rock\nCovington Construction, Conway and Langston Excavators, Little Rock, will serve as subcontractors. Martin Luther King, Jr. School will be located at the corner of Sth and Martin Streets south of 1-630 and is scheduled to open its doors at the onset of the 1333-34 school year. King School will house 636 fouryearold through sixth grade students. The school is one of four 5^ Inc. interdistrict schools to be built as part of the 1383 Desegregation Plan. S S2 ass Sag J RECEIVED IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT V. LR-C-82-866 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, ET AL MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL MOTION FOR APPROVAL OF SCHOOL CONSTRUCTION APR 1 1993 Office of Desegregation Monitoring PLAINTIFF DEFENDANTS INTERVENORS INTERVENORS For its motion, plaintiff Little Rock School District (LRSD) states: 1. LRSD seeks approval of construction projects at four schools: Chicot Elementary School\nJefferson Elementary School\nWilliams Magnet School\nand Fair High School. Each proposed construction project and its impact upon LRSD's desegregation plan is described below. 2. The proposed projects which are the subject of this motion follow construction and renovation projects which have been completed or which are presently underway at schools in central and east Little Rock. The largest such project completed to date was at Washington school. Washington was demolished and rebuilt on the same site at a cost of $4,932,377.00. The capacity of the new school is more than double the capacity of the building it has replaced. kad^XCorntfucGcn.!3. A new wing of ten classrooms was added to Franklin Incentive School and Franklin's cafeteria was remodeled in 1989. The cost of the Franklin project was $1,330,000.00. 4. Rockefeller, Rightsell and Ish Incentive Schools were renovated, including reroofing. beginning in 1988. Mitchell Incentive School was renovated at the same time. Stephens Incentive School received air conditioning, painting and carpeting. but was not renovated to the extent of the other buildings because of the plan to build a new Stephens school. The combined costs of the Rockefeller, Rightsell, Ish, Mitchell and Stephens projects was approximately $667,000.00. Capital improvements have also been made at Garland Incentive School at a cost, since 1988, in excess of $400,000.00. 5. LRSD is in the process of constructing a new Martin Luther King, Jr. Interdistrict School in central Little Rock. Construction is scheduled to be completed by August 1, 1993. The new King school will have a capacity of 696 students. 6. Plans are underway for the construction in central Little Rock of a new Stephens Interdistrict School which is scheduled to begin operations for the 1994-95 school year. The new Stephens school will also have a capacity of 696 students. 7. The LRSD Board of Directors voted on March 15, 1990 to seek to increase the LRSD millage rate by eight mils, five and one- half mils for maintenance and operation and two and one-half mils for debt service. The debt service mils were designated for capital improvement projects. LRSD committed to its patrons that k\u0026gt;tfay\\CGmtxuc(xxi.2 2J certain improvement projects would be undertaken at Chicot, Jefferson, Williams and Fair. The millage was approved by the voters on April 19, 1990. 8. The \"Interdistrict Desegregation Plan\", which was approved by the Court of Appeals on December 12, 1990, requires that \"[a]11 construction shall be subject to the court's prior approval and shall promote desegregation\". Interdistrict Plan, p. 5. The recruitment of students to magnet and area schools is a part of LRSD's desegregation plan. LRSD Desegregation Plan, pp. 95-96\nInterdistrict Plan, p.4. The proposed projects at Chicot, Jefferson, Williams and Fair will contribute to LRSD's ability to accomplish that goal. 9. The proposed project at Chicot consists only of the construction of a cafetorium for the school. The construction of the cafetorium will increase the size of Chicot Elementary School by approximately 3,000 square feet and the cafetorium will have sufficient capacity to seat at one time more than one-half of the children enrolled at Chicot. The Little Rock School District plans to have the cafetorium constructed in time for the beginning of the 1993-94 school year. 10. The proposed project at Jefferson Elementary School consists of construction of a media center and computer room for a net increase of approximately 1,300 square feet of space. The proposed project will allow three classrooms which have been converted to a media center and a computer room to be returned to service as regular classrooms. These three classrooms will be lntfay\\CoiitfucG\u0026lt;ii.2 3occupied by classes at Jefferson which are presently taught in portable buildings behind the school. The portable buildings which are no longer needed will then be removed. The proposed construction project at Jefferson will not require any adjustment to the Jefferson attendance zone. The proposed project is planned to be completed in time for the beginning of the 1993-94 school year. 11. The proposed project at Williams Magnet School consists of expanding the cafeteria to meet the needs of the present student body and to accommodate P.T.A. meetings. Williams presently holds its P.T.A. meetings off campus at Hall High School. The administration area at Williams is adjacent to the cafeteria. LRSD proposes to construct a new administration area and to convert the present administration area into a multi-purpose area for indoor recreation and for expanded cafeteria space. 12. LRSD also proposes to convert the present multi-purpose area at Williams into two classrooms. Seven classes are now taught in five portable buildings at Williams. The conversion of the multi-purpose area to classrooms will allow two of those classes to be moved to permanent space. The proposed construction project will not result in a change in the number of magnet seats available at Williams Magnet School or a change in the process for filling those seats. The proposed project is planned to be completed in time for the beginning of the 1993-94 school year. k\u0026gt;U^\\C\u0026lt;nBliuc6cxi.2 413. The proposed project at J.A. Fair High School consists of converting space vacated by programs no longer taught at Fair into usable classroom space. This conversion will allow LRSD to remove two portable buildings which are presently used as classrooms. Auto mechanics and carpentry courses have been moved to Metropolitan Vocational-Technical School and are no longer taught at Fair. The space which was devoted to these specialty courses consists of 3,450 square feet. The proposed project will convert the auto mechanics and carpentry classrooms into 2,180 square feet of usable classroom space which will accommodate ninety students and allow two portable buildings to be removed from the campus. 14. The new classrooms will be used to permanently locate some of the eight floating teachers at Fair who presently have no permanent classrooms. The proposed project does not change the capacity of Fair High School but merely converts existing space to a different use and allows the removal of two portable buildings. It will not be necessary to change the J.A. Fair attendance zone as a result of this project. The proposed project is planned for completion in time for the beginning of the 1993-94 school year. WHEREFORE, for the reasons set out above, the Little Rock School District prays for an order authorizing the construction projects described above at Chicot Elementary School, Jefferson Elementary School, Williams Magnet School, and J.A. Fair High School. Respectfully submitted. LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT lathy^amUuctian.2 5\u0026lt; 9 FRIDAY, ELDREDGE \u0026amp; CLARK 2000 First Commercial Bldg. 400 West Capitol Street Little Rock, AR 72201 (501) 376-2011 By-? Christopher Helle CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I certify that a copy of the foregoing Motion for Approval of School Construction has been served on the following people by depositing copy of same in the United States mail on this 31st day of March, 1993: Mr. John Walker JOHN WALKER, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72206 Mr. Sam Jones WRIGHT, LINDSEY \u0026amp; JENNINGS 2200 Worthen Bank Bldg. 200 West Capitol Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Steve Jones JACK, LYON \u0026amp; JONES, P.A. 3400 Capitol Towers Capitol \u0026amp; Broadway Streets Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Richard Roachell Roachell and Streett First Federal Plaza 401 West Capitol, Suite 504 Little Rock, AR 72201 Ms. Ann Brown Desegregation Monitor Heritage West Bldg., Suite 510 201 East Markham Street Little Rock, AR 72201 ristopher Hell lathy \\Ccmtruciian.2 6 School Chicot Jefferson Williams J.A. Fair ANALYSIS OF MARCH 31, 1993 LRSD MOTION FOR APPROVAL OF SCHOOL CONSTRUCTION Project Square Foot Increase Capacity Impact Portables Removed New cafetorium New media center New computer room Expand cafeteria New administration area Convert old administration area into multi-purpose area and expanded cafeteria space Convert multi-purpose area into two classrooms Convert vocational program space into classrooms 3,000 1.300 Not included 3,450 \u0026gt; 2,180 (1,270 unaccounted) Not included Not included \"no change in number of magnet seats available\" \"does not change capacity\" 0 Unclear Unclear 2 Attendance Zone Impact Not included \"no adjustment in attendance zone\" \"no change in the process for filling seats\" \"no adjustment in attendance zone\" Completio n Date By 1993-94 school year By 1993-94 school year By 1993-94 school year By 1993-94 school yearRECEIVED filed MAY j lYW Office of Desecrs^^alicn Mojr^23rf^ IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS W 3 0 1993 WESTERN DIVISION CARL R/brents, clerk 3y:_ I/, DP. CLERK LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT PLAINTIFF V. NO. LR-C-82-866 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, ET AL. DEFENDANTS MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL. INTERVENORS KATHERINE W. KNIGHT, ET AL. INTERVENORS ORDER Before the Court is the motion of the Little Rock School District for the Court' s approval of various construction projects to which there has been no response. The motion is granted in part. In reviewing the motion. the Court is particularly concerned about the effect of the construction projects on the racial ratios at the schools. The Court approves the construction of a cafetorium at Chicot Elementary School as long as the new construction does not increase the school's capacity. The construction project at Jefferson Elementary School is not approved at this time. Because attendance zones for the new King Interdistrict Elementary School may impact the Jefferson satellite zones that are presently near King, the District may repetition the Court for approval of the Jefferson construction after the attendance zones for King are firm and Court-approved. In itsrenewed petition. the District must include information: the following the current capacity of Jefferson\nany changes in school capacity that will result from the proposed construction\nand the precise number of portable buildings that will be removed and the number that will remain at the school as a result of the proposed construction. Prior to granting approval for the Williams Elementary School construction project, the District must provide the Court with the foilowing information: the school' square feet that will be added to s current capacity\nthe number of the school by the construction\nany change in the proportional allotment of the school's magnet seats among the Little Rock School District, the North Little Rock School District, and the Pulaski County Special School District\nthe precise number of portable buildings that will be removed and the number that will remain at the school as a result of the proposed construction\nand clarify how the present administration area will be rearranged. i. e. single multi-purpose area or two a separate areas, one for expanded cafeteria recreation. space and one for indoor Before the Court will consider approving the construction project at J.A. Fair High School, the District must account for the 1,270 square feet difference between the 3,450 square feet of old space and the 2,180 of new space and specify the exact number of new classrooms that will result from the construction. THEREFORE, the motion is granted only to the extent that the Court approves construction of the cafetorium at Chicot Elementary -2-School. The Court will rule on the remaining construction projects after the requested information is filed with the Court. DATED this 2^ ay of April, 1993. JUDGE THIS DOCUMENT ENTERFD rnyoi lAkiz^,--------w^icncu COMPLIANCE W TH RI n p SHEET IN ON _ Z/ Va AND/O^(a) FRW 3\u0026amp; BY -3-SLED r district court EAjTERN district ARKANSAS IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION JUN I 11993 CARL R. BRENTS, CLERK sy--_LLJkiji w- A L-y OHP. CLERK LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT PLAINTIFF V. NO. LR-C-82-866 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, ET AL. DEFENDANTS MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL. INTERVENORS KATHERINE W. KNIGHT, ET AL. INTERVENORS ORDER The Court held a hearing on June 8 and 9, 1993 , on plaintiff's motion for approval of the attendance zones for the King Interdistrict School and the site selection for the Stephens Interdistrict School. Most of the testimony addressed the King attendance zones\nadditional testimony on the matter of the Stephens site will be taken at a later date. The Court issues the following Order concerning the attendance zones for King. a The Little Rock School District hired Dr. Leonard Thalmueller, former LRSD employee, to draw up several proposed attendance zones plans for the new King Interdistrict School. The plan approved by the LRSD Board of Directors assumed that the Ish Incentive School would be closed unless 100 or more students in the Ish attendance zone wished to attend that school for the 1993-94 academic year. The Court finds that the zoning changes approved by the LRSD are acceptable. They were drawn in such a way as to minimize changes in the attendance zones for other schools. The Court approves the plan, however, only on the condition that Ish remainopen unless the LRSD establishes, according to the Courts criteria, that fewer than 100 students wish to attend Ish duri ng the 1993-94 academic year. The incentive schools are an integral part of the desegregation plan and the LRSD failed to present sufficient evidence to justify the closing of Ish at this time. The Court further finds that it would not be appropriate to close Ish according to the criteria set forth by the LRSD at the hearing. The Court orders that Ish will remain open during the 199394 school year if 100 or more students want to attend Ish. The 100 students who will decide the immediate future of Ish will come from the following groups\n1. Students now attending Ish who reside within the Ish attendance zones\n2. Students not attending Ish but who live within the Ish attendance zones\nand 3. Students now attending Ish but who live outside the Ish attendance zones. The Court is adding this third group of students, which is I significant in number, because it believes it is only fair to recognize that these students have a stake in the closing of Ish. student assignments are confusing and are in a state of disarray for a number of reasons, including grandfathering leftover from the controlled choice student assignment plan. The LRSD has the burden of recruiting students to populate the King Interdistrict School from the above three groups of students. The LRSD also has the burden of proving that fewer than 100 -2- IStudents in the above-mentioned groups wish to attend Ish. Within 10 days from June 9, 1993, the LRSD must submit to the Court its proposed survey of these students along with its plan for executing the survey and implementing the survey results. This plan must include a time schedule with deadline dates for implementing each step of the survey process, including the date by which the district will determine whether Ish is to remain open or to close. Because the district's student assignment plan for King includes closing Ish and reassigning those students to King, the LRSD must develop an amended student assignment plan for assigning students to King in the event Ish remains open. The district must submit this amen\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_818","title":"Court filings: District Court, order; District Court, objections of Joshua intervenors to entry of order directing implementation of ''tri-district desegregation plan'' proposed by Metropolitan Supervisor Eugene T. Reville; District Court, consent order; District Court, response (of North Little Rock School District (NLRSD)) to tri-district desegregation plan submitted by Eugene T. Reville; District Court, order","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":["1990-01"],"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":["Court records","Education--Arkansas","Educational law and legislation","Educational planning","School districts","School integration","Little Rock (Ark.)--History--20th century"],"dcterms_title":["Court filings: District Court, order; District Court, objections of Joshua intervenors to entry of order directing implementation of ''tri-district desegregation plan'' proposed by Metropolitan Supervisor Eugene T. Reville; District Court, consent order; District Court, response (of North Little Rock School District (NLRSD)) to tri-district desegregation plan submitted by Eugene T. Reville; District Court, order"],"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/818"],"dcterms_temporal":null,"dcterms_rights_holder":null,"dcterms_bibliographic_citation":null,"dlg_local_right":null,"dcterms_medium":["documents (object genre)"],"dcterms_extent":null,"dlg_subject_personal":null,"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":"\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n\n\n\n   \n\n\n\n\n   \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n  \n\nThis transcript was created using Optical Character Recognition (OCR) and may contain some errors.\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_345","title":"Curriculum","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":["1990/2003"],"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","Little Rock (Ark.)--History--21st Century","Educational planning","Education--Curricula","School improvement programs"],"dcterms_title":["Curriculum"],"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/345"],"dcterms_temporal":null,"dcterms_rights_holder":null,"dcterms_bibliographic_citation":null,"dlg_local_right":null,"dcterms_medium":["documents (object genre)"],"dcterms_extent":null,"dlg_subject_personal":null,"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":"\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n\n\n\n   \n\n\n\n\n   \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n  \n\n4 / ATTENTION PARENTS LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT CURRICULUM AUDIT A curriculum audit ol the LRSD Is being conducted by the American Association ol School Administrators (AASA). This process Includes opportunities lor parents ol children In the district and other members ol the community to meet with the auditors to express their views and make comments. YOU ARE INVITED TO ATTEND AN ADDITIONAL OPEN MEETING FOR PARENTS WEDNESDAY, OCTOBER 3, 1990 4:00 - 6:00 P.M. OR 7:00 - 9:00 P.M. PARKVIEW HIGH SCHOOL AUDITORIUM If you are unable to attend these meetings, you may express your comments in writing and send to: Dr. William K. Poston Iowa State University Dept, of Professional Studies N229 Lagomarcino Hall Ames, Iowa 50011 ATTENTION TEACHERS AND OTHER PERSONNEL A curriculum audit ol the Little Rock School District is scheduled ior September 17-21. 1990. The audit will be conducted by the American Association, ol School Administrators \u0026lt;AASA).- This process wiH Include an\" Independent, external analysts ol the design and delivery oi our school system's curriculum in attaining desired  results within the context and cost parameters which it iiio ono COST porometers must function. The auditors will be gathering data from multiple sources, including interviews. FOR INTERESTED PERSONNEL. WALK-IN TIMES ARE POSTED BELOW. TUESDAY. SEPTEMBER 18 3:00 - 5:30 P.M. ill WEDNESDAY, SEPTEMBER 19' 3:30 - 4:30 P.M. INTERVIEWS WILL BE HELD IN THE ADMINISTRATION BUILDING 810 WEST MARKHAMI ATTENTION TEACHERS AND OTHER PERSONNEL A curriculum audit of the Little Rock School District is scheduled for September 17-21, 1990. The audit will be conducted by the American Association of School Administrators (AASA). This process will include an independent, external analysis of the design and delivery of our school systems curriculum in attaining desired results within the context and cost parameters which it must function. The auditors will be gathering data from multiple sources, including interviews. For interested personnel, wsik-in times are posted below. TUESDAY, SEPTEMBER 18 WEDNESDAY, SEPTEMBER 19 3:00-5:30 3:30-4:30 INTERVIEWS WILL BE HELD IN THE ADMINISTRATION BUILDING AT 810 WEST MARKHAM CURRICULUM AUDIT/REVIEW Reported by Sterling Ingram and Estelle Matthis (RECOMMENDATIONS IMPLEMENTED FROM NASE) RECOMMENDATIONS 1. Develop and adopt a comprehensive Board polity framework for curriculum management Action Taken\nThe LRSD Board of Directors created and adopted a comprehensive policy framework for curriculum management. 2. 3. To Be Completed: The development of a policy that establishes criteria for decisions on school facility remodeling, replacement, and closure. Reorganize the administrative structure for effective instructional management Action Taken: A. Partially implemented as supervision of the schools remains unevenly divided into three regions of approximately 17 schools each. LRSD has not added a fourth assistance superintendent position due to budgetary constraints and changes in administration. B. Separate and consolidate key curriculum and instruction operations from school operations. The Board approved the reorganization of the central administration to provide concentrated effort in curriculum development. Consolidate and restructure business services and support services. Action Taken: Partially completed. A director of human resources has been employed to provide appropriate control over persoimel hiring and to maintain overall supervision of key managerial functions in support services.Board labor relations responsibilities are no longer the responsibility of the director of human resources. 4. Establish administrative stability and integrity in management functioning. Action Taken: Improvements have been noted in this area. The district has employed two superintendents since the curriculum audit was conducted. With the employment of the current superintendent, the Board of Directors will need to review and address this recommendation. Noted improvements:  Board members professionally remind each other that they do not speak for them unless it has been authorized through action by the Board in legal sessions or as legally directed by the Board.  Limit Board authority to that stated in Board-adopted policies. Board members provide directives to the Superintendent\nstaff receives their directive from the Superintendent and/or their immediate supervisor. The chain of command is acknowledged by the Board through their actions and communications with staff.  Characterize relationships with administrators with respect and courtesy, both in public and in private. Some improvement has been made in this area. There may exist a need for this area to receive additional attention so that we are in compliance with LRSD policy BBA-R.  Develop a close-knit team with joint Board-Administration planning and collaboration. Beginmng with the 1993-94 school year, the Board, interim superintendent, and immediate staff entered into a very positive and productive relationship. Our superintendent and boards, work in harmony, both professionally and personally. A workshop to facilitate the initiation and accomplishment of this strategy will need to be scheduled and held within the very near future. 25. Adopt and follow a polity for improved Board governance. Action Taken: This recommendation has not been implemented. The Board of Directors has reduced the number of requests for information and is more sensitive to the working conditions of staff. 6. Purge the Professional Negotiations Agreement of provisions which unduly limit Board control of key educational programs and practices. Action Taken: Recommendation #5 has not been addressed. 7. Improve educational facilities based upon a district-wide needs assessment. Action Taken: A comprehensive facilities needs assessment conducted by an outside third party has not been completed. A facilities needs assessment has been recently completed by Plant Services. 8. Develop and implement functional curriculum documents. Action Taken: Functional and user-friendly curriculum and resource guides have been developed and have been utilized by staff for nearly two years. Teachers played a major role in the development of these curriculum documents. Teachers have a complete set of guides. Old guides were collected district-wide and disposed of to prevent confusion and misunderstanding regarding our Board-approved curriculum. T^e revised guides, customized test item bank, and the newly-installed instructional management system should facilitate the accomplishment of this recommendation. 9. Develop and implement a participative curriculum management process. Action Taken: A curriculum management process has been established in policy. Given the mandates from the Arkansas Department of Education (ADE) regarding the establishment of a new curriculum framework that determines the basis for district curriculum as well as the states 3initiatives regarding assessment, the district has aligned its curriculum development and assessment with the ADE. Recommendation #9 was utilized as the curriculum was revised. 10. Consolidate curriculum functions to facilitate curriculum planning, development, and delivery. Action Taken: The curriculum functions have been consolidated as of March, 1991 (refer to \"No More Excuses\"). Formation of a district-wide testing program has been delayed as the ADE is establishing a state-wide focus on assessment. The Program Planning and Budgeting Document presently serves as written procedures for course additions, deletions, or changes in curriculum. Quality staff development to support and enhance the newly-adopted programs of curriculum offerings remains a major concern that must be addressed by the district if we are to increase achievement for all students, which should result in the reduction of disparity between black and white students. 11. Establish a functional assessment program and expand testing. J Action Taken: A comprehensive plan to address expansion of district testing was developed during the 1992-93 school year. The decision was made to delay further development and/or expansion of tests pending the outcome of the ADEs initiatives regarding assessment. The district has developed and is using a customized test item bank and other authentic assessment measures to determine the effectiveness of our revised curriculum. See EPS codes IL and IM (also AFE). 412. Establish consistency and equity in educational programs. Action Taken: The issues raised in recommendation #12 are being addressed within the context of our court-approved desegregation plan. However, areas exist that have not been totally resolved and/or remediated. 13. Move toward greater involvement in budgeting with curriculum linkages. Action Taken\nThe development and utilization of the districts Program Planning and Budgeting Document affords us a mechanism for addressing this concern. The completion of Phase 11 of the Desegregation Audit, including non-desegregation programs, will establish curriculum linkages and allow district personnel to constructively monitor and evaluate the effectiveness of all of our programs. 14. Develop and use long-range strategic planning process. Action Taken: The Superintendent has committed to the districts development of a long-range strategic plan. A number of components needed in this process are currently in place. 5Ui, LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT INSTRUCTIONAL RESOURCE CENTER 3001 PULASKI STREET LITTLE ROCK, AR 72206 SEP 2 ?ssg OfffCEOf August 31, 1998 ' ^^^^SR^SATlONMOfjlTOnifjQ TO: Ann Brown, ODM FROM: Dr. Bonnie Lesley, Associate Superintendent - Instruction SUBJECT: Promised Documents As I promised, I am sending to you a couple of documents: 1. A copy of the Executive Summary of the Kansas City, Kansas, Exit Plan 2. A copy of a draft of our Division 1998-99 Work Plan. Wed welcome your feedback. Im looking forward to our meeting at ODM and to my lunch with you and Liz. Thanks to for your Friday phone cal. I enjoyed the conversation! BAL/rcm1998-99 Work Plan for the Division of Instruction Little Rock School District SEP 2 iaL8 OFFICE OF OESEGREGATIOfJMOfilTORIFlG STANDARDS 1. Review and recommend revisions of the Boards Instruction policies. 2. Complete the 7-12 curriculum standards in English language arts, mathematics, science, and social studies. April 1999 Bonnie Lesley Linda Young Report to Dr. Carnine of recommended changes. Board approval of recommended changes Strategic Plan: Strategy 2 Goals 2000 Jan. 1999 3. Review and revise elementary, middle, and high school Curriculum Catalog\nconduct orientation sessions for central office staff, principals, and counselors. 4. Begin implementation of K-6 curriculum standards in English language arts and social studies. .S. Implement new science curriculum in grades K-8. Dec. 1998 Strategic Plan: Strategy 2. NSE Project. Goals 2000. 1998-99 1998-99 Gene Parker, Team Leader Dennis Glasgow Marie McNeal Mable Donaldson Patty Kohler Lucy Lyon ADE Bonnie Lesley Gene Parker Dennis Glasgow Marie McNeal Mable Donaldson Patty Kohler Lucy Lyon Carol Green Jo Evelyn Elston Gene Parker Marie McNeal Pat Price Mable Donaldson Patty Kohler Dennis Glasgow Vanessa Cleaver Mable Donaldson Patty Kohler Pat Price Board approval of Standards documents. Publication of curriculum standards. Publication of new K-12 Curriculum Catalog. Agendas and meeting dates for orientation sessions. Professional development agendas and meeting dates. Publication of curriculum documents. Teacher familiarity with K-6 standards as measured on end-of-year survey. Professional development agendas and meeting dates. Publication of curriculum documoents. Teacher familiarity of K-8 standards as measured on end-of-year survey. 16. Implement new mathematics curriculum in grades K-8. NSF Project. Goals 2000.    / ''ilr i-'Hiu 1998-99 7. Complete plan for middle school curriculum for fall 1999. 8. Publish Middle and High School Student/Parent Curriculum Handbooks. 9. Define and establish Delivery Standards. 10. Align school schedules. Pre- K3 reading curriculum, instructional strategies, materials, assessment, professional development, monitoring/ coaching, and parent information/ education with Strategic Plan and Desegregation Plan. 11. Align school schedules, mathematics curriculum, and professional development with Strategic Plan and Desegregation Plan. \" Strategic Plan: Strategy 3. Revised Desegregation and Education Plan. Goals 2000. Strategic Plan: Strategy 2. Strategic Plan: Strategy 3. Revised Desegregation and Education Plan: Sections 5.2.1,5.2.2, and 5.2.3. Revised Desegregation and Education Plan: Sections 5.3, 5.3.1, 5.3.2, 5.3.3, 5.3.4, 5.3.5. NSE Project. Oct. 1998 Jan. 1999 Jan. 1999 Nov. 1998 Nov. 1998 Dennis Glasgow Vanessa Cleaver Mable Donaldson Patty Kohler Pat Price Linda Young Gene Parker Kathy Lease Bonnie Lesley Jo Evelyn Elston Marian Lacy Bonnie Lesley Gene Parker Gene Parker Pat Price Linda Young Marion Woods ADE Dennis Glasgow Vanessa Cleaver Pat Price Linda Young Marion Woods ADE Professional development agendas and meeting dates. Publication of cuniculum documoents. Teacher familiarity of K-8 standards as measured on end-of-year survey. Publication of committee recommendations. Board approval of recommendations. Publication of Curriculum Catalog and Middle School Student/Parent Curriculum Handbook. Publication of Middle and High School Student/Parent Curriculum Handbooks. Agendas and meeting dates for committee meetings. Publication of committee recommendations. Board approval of Delivery Standards. Agendas and meeting dates for professional development sessions for principals. Report on review of school schedules. Agendas and meeting dates for teacher training. Publication of curriculum documents. Board adoption of proposed Reading Curriculum goals. Report on review of school schedules. Agenda.s and meeting dates for teacher training. Publication of curriculum documents. Board adoption of proposed Reading Curriculum goals. 212. Develop in collaboration with Linda Watson a list of behavior standards\nadopt a discipline/ classroom management/ character education program and curriculum for teaching the behavior standards to all students. 13. Propose for Board adoption revised Graduation Standards and revision of tlie core curriculum requirements to align with new state requirements. 14. Implement Year One of NSF grant project: Extended Year Alg. 1\nAP examinations\nnew teacher training\nVital Link\nand Family MatlVScience programs. 5 . '(tiiiaii 15. Develop Early Childhood Education plan for fall 1999. 16. Develop plan to improve G/T, honors, and AP student enrollment and success (e.g., Project AVID). Strategic Plan: Strategy 10. Goals 2000 State law. Strategic Plan: Strategy 2. Goals 2000 NSF Project Strategic Plan: Strategy 8. Revised Desegregation and Education Plan. Goals 2000 Revised Desegregation and Education Plan. NSF Project Mar. 1999 Jan. 1999 June 1999 Feb. 1999 Nov. 1998 Marie McNeal Jo Evelyn Elston Patty Kohler Terrence Roberts Kathy Lease Jo Evelyn Elston Marian Lacy Dennis Glasgow Vanessa Cleaver Pat Price Marian Shead-Jackson Patty Kohler Bonnie Lesley Kathy Lease Mable Donaldson Terrence Roberts ADE Agendas and dates of committee meetings. Board approval of Behavior Standards. Board approval of character education curriculum. Publication of curriculum documents. Agendas and dates of teacher training during summer 1999. Board adoption of new Graduation Standards. Publication of new requirements in Curriculum Catalog and in the Middle/lligh School Student/ Parent Curriculum Handbooks. Records relating to Extended Year Alg. 1. Board adoption of policy relating to AP examinations. Agendas and dates of teacher training. Agendas and dates of meetings with Vertical Teams. Agendas and dates of Family Math/Science meetings. Copy of report submitted to NSF. Report on current status of Early Childhood programs. Publication of Early Childhood Improvement Plan. Board adoption of Early Childhood Improvement Plan. Publication of reorganization of Early Childhood programs and services as per Plan. Agendas and meeting dates of committee. Publication of recommended revisions to current policies, procedures, and programs. Board adoption of recommended changes. 3PERSONALIZED EDUCATION 17. Review Title I programs and services to align with COE, Smart Start, Campus Leadership Plan, NSF, Strategic Plan, and Desegregation and Education Plan. Strategic Plan: Strategy 3. Revised Desegregation and Education Plan NSF Jan. 1999 1S. Complete planning for middle schools and smooth transitions from elementary and to high schools._________________________ 19. Assess ESL program and services and develop program improvement plan with estimated budget._________________________ 20. Review special education programs, policies, and/or procedures to ensure no racial discrimination in referral and p I a e e me nt______________________ 21. Begin needs assessment and initial planning for implementation of Smart Start program from ADE. Strategic Plan: Strategy 3. Revised Desegregation and Education Plan Goals 2000 State laws. Strategic Plan: Strategy 2 Goals 2000 Revised Desegregation and Education Plan. Arkansas initiative Dec. 1998 June 1998 Dec. 1998 March 1999 Bonnie Lesley Leon Adams Kathy Lease Dennis Glasgow Vanessa Cleaver Gene Parker Pat Price Steve Ross Phyllis McClure ADE___________ Kathy l.case Linda Young Gene Parker Kathy Lease Bonnie Lesley Patty Kohler Bonnie Lesley Kathy Lease Leon Adams Dennis Glasgow Vanessa Cleaver Gene Parker Pat Price Publication of revised Quality Index that included requirements of Title I Publication of consolidated School Improvement Plan format to include requirements of Title I Report from consultant, Phyllis McClure Documentation of changes in Title I programs and services Publication of committee recommendations Board approval of committee recommendations Publication of report and improvement plan Copies of recommended changes in programs, policies, and/or procedures Board approval of recommended changes Publication of implementation plan Report to Board-minutes 4PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT 22. Complete planning and begin implementation of middle school professional development program. 23. Conduct in collaboration with Sadie Mitchell the Year One training for Campus Leadership Plan. 24. Restructure the districts professional development program and services so that they build professional learning communities at the district and school levels. Strategic Plan: Strategy 3 Revised Desegregation and Education Plan Campus Leadership Plan Goals 2000 Jan. 1999 June 1999 Linda Young Marion Woods Bonnie Lesley Marion Woods Gene Parker I Publication of committee recommendations Agendas and meeting dates for professional development sessions Publication of training plan Agendas and meeting dates for sessions 25. Implement Year One of ASCD's UPDl project with focus on school change and improving achievment in reading and mathematics. 26. Provide training in prejudice reduction and cultural sensitivity. 27. Consolidate COli, Campus Leadership, Title 1, and Instructional Technology planning requirements in collaboration with Sadie Mitchell\ndesign format and plaii'deliver training for Campus Leadership Teams. 28. Provide appropriate training for certified and clerical staff of Division of Instruction to improve productivity and communication. Strategic Plan: Strategy 7 Revised Desegregation and Education Plan: Sections 2.6.1,2.12.1, 5.2.1j, 5.2.2g, 5.2.3e, 5.3.1 Campus Leadership Plan NSE ASCDs UPDI ASCDs UPDI Revised Desegregation and Education Plan. COE Campus Leadership Plan Title I Instnictional Technology Plan Strategic Plan Oct. 1998 June 1998 June 1999 Jan. 1999 June 1999 Bonnie Lesley Director, Professional Development Marion Woods Bonnie Lesley Director, Professional Development Marion Woods Marion Woods Terrence Rnhertx Bonnie Lesley Sadie Mitchell Leon Adams Lucy Lyon Director, Professional Development Marion Woods Bonnie Lesley Marion Woods Lucy Lyon Agendas and meeting dates of team meetings Copy of restucturing plan Board approval of plan Agendas and dates of activities Copies of quarterly reports to ASCD Agcnilas and dates of sessions \u0026lt;?opics of new planning format and process Publication of training plan Agendas and dates of training sessions Copies of needs assessments Agendas and dates of training sessions 5BUILDING COMMUNITY SUPPORT 29. Restructure the districts parent/community programs and services to align with the Strategic Plan, the Desegregation and Education Plan, tlie Campus Leadership Plan, the NSF project, and the requirements of Title 1. Strategic Plan\nStrategy 2. Strategy 8. Revised Desegregation and Education Plan Campus Leadership Plan Goals 2000 Dec. 1998 Bonnie Lesley Debbie Milam Leon Adams Catherine Gill Linda Young Patty Kohler Pat Price Paulette Martin Marian Shead-Jackson Marian Baldwin Vanessa Cleaver Terrence Roberts Agendas and meeting dates of restructuring team Publication of reorganization and restructuring plan Board approval of reorganization and restructuring plan 6COMMUNICATION 30. Communicate curriculum standards so that all parents and students understand the expected knowledge and skills by grade level and course. Strategic Plan: Strategy 2. May 1999 31. Communicate aspects of middle school planning to smdents, parents, and community for fall 1999. 32. Provide second-language translations of key documents for students and parents. 33. Implement From Inside the CIA,\" a weekly publication for principals from the Division of Instruction. 34. Conduct quarterly meetings of all clerical staff in the Division of Instruction. Strategic Plan: Strategy 3. Revised Desegregation and Education Plan Goafs 2000______________ Strategic Plan: Strategy 2 May 1999 May 1999 September 1998 August 1998 June 1999 Bonnie Lesley Suellen Vann Gene Parker Dennis Glasgow Maric McNeal Terrence Roberts Kathy Lease Linda Young Terrence Roberts Agendas and meeting dates of team Publication of communications plan Agendas and publications to implement plan Agendas and meeting dates of team Publication of communications plan Agendas and publications to implement plan Gene Parker Kathy Lease Bonnie Lesley Anita Gilliam Regina Moore Bonnie Lesley and designated staff Publication of documents in second languages Copies of weekly publications Agendas and dates of meetings 7ASSESSMENT 35. Design CRTs for fall 1999 in reading and mathematics. 36. Establish Perfonnance Standards in reading and mathematics. 37. Pilot HBJ CRTs in reading and mathenratics during 1998-99. 38. Reinvent PRE programs and services to support the Campus Leadership Plan. 39. Refine the Quality Index indicators and develop district and school profiles according to the proposed Quality Index. 40. Embed Title 1 and Smart Start accountability requirements into the Quality Index. Strategic Plan: Strategy 2 Strategic Plan: Strategy 2 Strategic Plan: Strategy 2 Strategic Plan: Strategy 8 Revised Desegregation and Education Plan: Sections 5,2.1g. 5.2,2c. 5.2.3r, and 5.3.2 Campus Leadership Plan NSF Title I and Smart Start COE Campus Leadership Plan Campus Leadership Plan Title 1 requirements Feb. 1999 Feb. 1999 May 1999 Dec. 1998 Dec. 1998 Dec. 1998 Gene Parker Dennis Glasgow Kathy Lease Kathy Lease Dennis Glasgow Gene Parker Kathy Lease Dennis Glasgow Gene Parker Kathy Lease Bonnie Lesley Steve Ross Kathy Lease Steve Ross ADE Kathy Lease Leon Adams Steve Ross ADE Publication of CRTs Agendas and dates for training sessions Publication of communications plan for staff, parents, and students Agendas and date.s of team meetings Publication of proposed Performance Standards Board approval of proposed Performance Standards Copies of communication to teachers and principals (.'opies of assessments Summaries of results Copy of reorganization plan Copy of revised Quality Index Copy of revised Quality Index 841. Redesign the student grading and reporting system to reflect the standards-based focus of the district. May 1999 42. Design waiver form and process for schools seeking waivers from policy relating to Campus Leadership. 43. Redesign end-of-year climate suivey to include items relating to measuring progress of refonn. Campus Leadership Plan Campus Leadership Plan October 1998 Feb.1999 Kathy Lease Gene Parker Dennis Glasgow Marie McNeal Pat Price Patty Kohler Mable Donaldson Steve Ross Kathy Lease Bonnie Lesley Agendas and dates of team meetings Publication of report and recommendations Board approval of changes in grading system and reporting system Plan for teacher/principal training Budget for redesign of report cardselectronic and paper Copy of proposed waiver form and process Kathy Lease Bonnie Lesley Sadie Mitchell Copy of new survey instruments 97 i u PXg$^ J} LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT INSTRUCTIONAL RESOURCE CENTER 3001 PULASKI STREET LITTLE ROCK, AR 72206 November 19, 1998 TO: Board of Directors FROM: THROUGH: SUBJECT: Dr. Bonnie Lesiey, Associate Superintendent for Instnjction Dr. Les Carnine, Superintendent Approval of Middle School Curriculum The staff recommends approval of the five attached documents: Area Middle Schools Curriculum and Parameters Dunbar Middle School Curriculum and Parameters Henderson Middle School Curriculum and Parameters Mann Magnet School Arts Curriculum and Parameters Mann Magnet School Science Curriculum and Parameters These course requirements for grades 6-8 were derived from and are aligned with the Middle School Program Standards\" adopted by the Board of Directors on October 22,1998. The process used to gather input on these documents included the following:  Initial proposal of course requirements and options developed by staff of the Division of Instruction and then review of drafts at each step of input.  Two reviews by the Superintendents Cabinet.  Three one-half day meetings with all eight middle school principals, Marian Lacey, and Linda Young to discuss and refine the initial drafts.  Input from counselors, teachers, assistant principals, and registrars as principals solicited feedback at the school level.  Presentation to all principals at their October meeting.  Meeting with and feedback from the Middle School Curriculum Committee, chaired by Gene Parker.  ODM was sent copies for review./\"hrrt LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT INSTRUCTIONAL RESOURCE CENTER 3001 PULASKI STREET LITTLE ROCK, AR 72206 November 19, 1998 TO\nBoard of Directors FROM\nTHROUGH\nSUBJECT\nDr. Bonnie Lesley. Associate Superintendent for Instruction Les Gamine, Superintendent, Little Rock School District 1999-2000 High School Curriculum Board Policy IFD states the following\nChanges and improvements in curriculum offerings may be suggested and implemented administratively, as deemed necessary and educationally sound by the superintendent of schools but shall be reported to the Board prior to implementation. However, before new courses are added to the total offerings, such courses must be approved by the Board of Education. Courses may be dropped during one year because of few enrollees in the course, but reoffered and reinstated the following year by administrative action. This agenda item, then, does two things\n1. It reports on curriculum changes and improvements that are planned for fall 1999 implementation. 2. It requests the Board's approval of new courses added to the curriculum. The Division of Instruction has been engaged since August, in collaboration with school principals, counselors, and registrars, in a comprehensive review of the LRSD high school curriculum. We have examined and updated the 1991-92 curriculum catalog that was the last one published. We have made every effort to determine the list of all courses currently being offered and/or taught at each of the five high schools and Metropolitan. And we have given the curriculum supervisors, principals, and teachers the opportunity both to suggest new courses and to drop obsolete and unpopular courses. 14, New numbers have been assigned to make the numbers more meaningful. The first two digits designate the subject area. The third digit designates the first grade level at which the course may be taught (1= freshmen, 2= sophomore. 3= junior, 4= senior, and 5= advanced placement). The last digit is an odd number if the course is taught for only one semester and even if taught for a full year. 15. The Division of Instruction will publish soon a new edition of the High School Curriculum Catalog. It will include information on policy and regulations governing curriculum, graduation requirements, articulation agreements, course descriptions of all approved courses, and guidelines to advise students on course selection. When this publication is completed, the staff will provide copies to members of the Board. Request for New Course Approval The following twenty-two new courses are proposed for the Boards approval\nArt 1. Three-Dimensional Design (Sculpture) Grades: Credit\nSchool: 11-12 1 Parkview Magnet Business Education 2. Multimedia Applications in Business Grades: Credit: 11-12 3. Banking and Finance Principles Grades: Credit: 11-12 % 4. Banking and Finance Operations Grades\nCredit: 11-12 5. Banking and Finance Marketing Grades: Credit\n11-12 6. Banking and Finance Law Grades: Credit: 11-12One important source to examine was the IMS master course list. However, courses unique to one or two schools or courses added in fall 1998 did not necessarily appear on that list. Therefore, the attached tables do not always list a prior course number or title even though the course had prior Board approval. Information Report The attached report of high school courses for 1999-2000 allows the Board, staff, and others to see the following changes: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. Some regular-level courses previously open to only one or two schools are now open to high schools if recommended by the Campus Leadership Team and approved by the principal, if adequate funding is available for materials and equipment, and if adequate numbers of students enroll. All advanced placement courses offered by the District at any school are now available at five high schools to ensure equitable access to this valued curriculum. Previously designated honors/GT/enriched/Pre-AP/AP courses are now all consistently designated Pre-AP or AP. (AP is an abbreviation for Advanced Placement.) Some course titles changed, as the report shows, due either to a need for consistency, to an issue of clarity, to changes in the states vocational course titles, and/or to a need to align with standard course titles. Ninth-grade courses previously taught in the junior highs have been moved to high school, thereby requiring some re-numbering of course sequences. Adopted core curriculum courses for second-language students at Hall High have been clarified and listed both under ESL and the respective subject areas. Full-year courses in a sequence have been consistently titled as I, II III, etc. One-semester courses in a sequence have been consistently titled as A, B. In some cases, due to the new four-year high school, prior gradelevel designations have been changed to include freshmen. 10. The Rationale/Notes column indicates courses or special groupings that are being deleted. 11. One-quarter courses have been eliminated or changed to one- semester courses. 12. The new University Studies courses at Hall High have been designated as APU (in English, Social Studies, and Science). 13. Special Education course titles have been changed to reflect new regular education curriculum and sequences.Journalism 17. Journalism III Grades: Credit: 11-12 1 18. Journalism IV (to be implemented in fall 2000) Grades: Credit: 12 1 JROTC 19. Air Force JROTC IV Grades: Credit: School: 12 1 Central High 20. Naval Science JROTC IV Grades: Credit: School: 12 1 Parkview Magnet Mathematics 21. Calculus Grades: Credit: 12 1 Trades and Industry 22. Computerized Commercial Art III Grades: Credit: School: 12 1 Parkview Magnet Please note that many, many courses have been deleted. They are indicated at the end of each subject area. Attachments BAL/rcmCommunications 7. Debate II Grades: Credit\n11-12 8. Debate III (to be implemented in fall 2000) Grades: Credit: 12 1 Dance 9. Young Mens Dance \" Grades: Credit\nSchool: 9-12 1 Parkview Magnet Drama 10. Drama II Grades: Credit: 10-12 1 11. Drama III (to be implemented in fall 2000) Grades: Credit: 11-12 1 English 12. The Bible as/in Literature Grades: Credit: School: 10-12 Pilot at Hall High in 1999-2000\nthen open to all Family and Consumer Science 13. Managing Resources Grades: Credit: 9-12 14. Food Science Grades: Credit: 11-12 72 15. Child Care and Guidance Management Services Grades: Credit: 10-12 1 16. Parenting Grades: Credit: 9-12 72Art 020400 020500 020800 020900 020600 021100 021100 020525 020575 020675 020160 020260 020300 020301 020302 020350 020375 Xbbrey?Mi^ thia INTRO TO ART ARTDESIGN GFtAPHC DESGN INTRO PAINT ART WATERCOL GREAT ART 12 FNE ARTS\nART DRAWING l-PM DRAWING II STUDIO ARTAP LAB ART I 9 LAB ART II 9 ART I 9 ART II 9 ART III 9 LAB ART III SCI ILLUS 9 ilDMcriptloni'^'M^^SSW^ Introduction to ArtGrades 10, 11,12 ArtDesign - Grades 10,11, 12 Graphic DesignGrades 11, 12 Introduction to Painting Grades 11,12 ArtWatercolorGrades 11, 12 Creative ArtGrade 12 onlyfor Adv. Fine Arts SurveyArt, Grades 10-12 Drawing IParkview Magnet, Grade 10 Drawing IIParkview Magnet Studio Art APParkview Magnet Lab Art l-Grade 9 Lab Art ll-Grade 9 Art l-Grade 9 Art ll-Grade 9 Art Ill-Grade 9 Lab Art III Scientific Illustrations (Art Elective) High School Course Changes Little Rock School District iV9\n|2000$ 'Cburse^J 021000 022000 022002 022004 022006 024000 022001 021008 022008 025000 025002 Abbroy.^f^ Title M INTRO TO ART ARTDESIGN GRPHC DSGN PAINTING WATERCOLOR GREAT ART SURVEY ART DRAWING 1 DRAWING 2 STUDIO ART AP ART HIST AP ^piidriptloh'fifcf^,^ bd Introduction to Art ArtDesign Graphic Design Painting Watercolor Creative Art Survey of Fine Arts Drawing I Drawing II Studio Art AP Art History AP {f-V-:*'' Simplified title. Simplified title. Not taught. Deleted. Not taught. Deleted. Not taught. Deleted. Not taught. Deleted. Not taught. Deleted. Not taught Deleted. Not taught. Deleted. 1ArtParkview Magnet only LCpuree^ 020572 POTTRY I \u0026amp; II i*-*! '''W It 020585 020660 020555 020582 020590 020595 020700 022000 AV CRAFTS JL DRAWING III OILSPM CRAFTS FIBER PRINTMAKING ART HISTORY ART CRAFTS SCR PRNT AIR ^*99\u0026gt;2oqo.^ ,Cout i rseA t\"SitVy Pottery I \u0026amp; IIParkview Magnet 022003 023003 022010 ^Abbrev^ POTTERY A KM POTTERY B POTTERY Pottery A Pottery B Pottery Ratlofiiale/Ndtesls Advanced Crafts/ Jewelry- Parkview Drawing III (Comb)  Parkview Magnet OilsParkview Magnet- Semester Crafts FiberParkview Magnet 022012 024008 023002 022014 023004 JEWELRY DRAWING 3 OILS CRAFTS FIBER 3-D DESIGN Jewelry Drawing III Oils CraftsFiber PrintmakingSemester- Parkview Art HistoryParkview Magnet Art Crafts- Grades 11,12 Screen Printing/ /Mrbrush Techniques 022005 021010 PRINTMAKING ART HIST Three-Dimensional Design Printmaklng Art History Separate numbers required. Parkview Magnet only. Separate numbers required. Parkview Magnet only. Number to schedule fullyear course. Simplification of titles. Parkview Magnet only. Parkview Magnet only. Parkview Magnet only. Parkview Magnet only. Parkview Magnet only Parkview Magnet only. Parkview Magnet only. Not taught. Deleted. Not taught. Deleted. 2 Business Education 030500 030300 ^Description1^?j:?7^ [*99\n2000W 030425 030200 030455 030460 030800 030900 031175 032017 031200 031205 030700 031450 031600 031675 031650 KEYBOARDING KBD APP I 9 KEYBRD l/ll COMPUTER TI WORD PROC\nI WORD PROCJI COMP ACCT I COMP ACCT ii COMP APPL:DB CA\nSPRDSHEET SUPERWRiTE SUPERWRITE II BUSINESS LAW JREXECTRNG COE-RELATED COEEARLY COECOOP ii  - tv Keyboarding 9th__________ Keybbarding Applications I 9 Keyboarding and Keybbarding Applications I Computer Technology Introduction Word Processing I 11-12- Semester Word Processing II- Semester Computerized Accounting I- 10 Computerized Accounting II- -11 Computer Applications Data Base-Semester Computer Applications Spreadsheet Supenwrite-Semester Superwrite II (Magnet) 10 Business LawGrades 10, 11,12 Junior Executive Training Grades 11 Cooperative Office Education-Related Cooperative Office Education-Related Cooperative Office Education-Coop 031001 031003 031004 031019 031005 032005 032002 032004 033004 032007 032009 033002 032011 032013 033004 033006 033008 033010 033012 '\nAbbreV^SK' Is? Pescripllpn^ ^patlohBle/ ^btes^ KEYBOARDiNG KEYBD APPLS KEYBD/APPL COMPTECH INT WORD PROC A WORD PROC B WORD PRO A/B COMP ACCT 1 COMP ACCT 2 DATABASE MGT SPREADSHEETS OFFICE MGT RAPID WRTG A RAPID WRTG B BUSINESS LAW JR EXEC TRNG COE-RELATED COE-RELATED COE-COOP OJT Keyboarding________ Keyboarding Applications Keyboarding and Keyboarding Applications (full year) Computer Technology: Introduction Word Processing A Word Processing B Word Processing I Computerized Accounting I Computerized Accounting II Database Management Spreadsheet Applications Office Management Rapid Writing A Rapid Writing B Business Law Junior Executive Training Cooperative Office Education- Related Cooperative Office EducationRelated (Early Bird) Cooperative Office Education -OJT Word Processing A\u0026amp;B 3CT\" 030225 COMPUTER TBP 031100 COMP PG:AD B 030400 KEYBD:APP II Computer Technology Basic Programming_____________ Computer Programming: Advanced Basic___________ Keyboarding /Applications II- -Semester 032000 DESKTP PUBL 032005 Desk Publ II Computer Desktop Publishing-Semester Advanced Desktop Publishing (Magnet) ^T^31?AbbrwI^^^^Rbo5cHpti5ril .99-2000.? tCourseUi 1N^ 031015 032015 032006 031017 032017 033001 033003 033005 033007 033009 ^Abbrev.M V .W' PROGAMMING A PROGRAMMING B COMP BUS APPL DESKTOP PUB A DESKTOP PUB B MULTIMEDIA BANK/FIN PRIN BANK/FIN OPR BANK/FIN MKG BANK/FIN LAW Programming A Programming B 032040 032045 BUS ETIQUET INTR TO BUS Business Etiquette (Magnet) Introduction to Business (Magnet) 032019 032021 B ETIQUETTE INTRO TO BUS 032050 BUS FINANCE 032065 INT BANK II 032020 030100 ENTREPRNSHP CLERICAL REC 030450 030475 KEY/KEY APP I WRD PROCI/II Business Finance (Magnet)_______________ International Business and Banking II______________ Entrepreneurship (Magnet) Clerical Record Keeping, Grade 10 033014 034002 033011 032023 031050 OFC TECH LAB Word Processing l/ll Grades 10, 11,12_______________ Office Technology Lab Grades 10-12 ECONOMICS BUS FINANCE INTRN BUS ENTREPRNSHP Computerized Business Applications_____ Desktop Publishing A______________ Desktop Publishing J_______________ Multimedia Applications in Business Banking and Finance Principles Banking and Finance Operations Banking and Finance Marketing Banking and Finance Law______ Business Etiquette Introduction to Business Economics Business Finance International Business_______ Entrepreneurship Simplified title. Simplified title. New course New course. New course. New course. New course. McClellan High only. McClellan High only. McClellan High only McClellan High only. McClellan High only. McClellan High only. Not taught. Deleted. Not taught. Deleted. Not taught. Deleted. Not taught. Deleted. 4031150 032010 032015 171375 COMPTECH CP PROG: LOGO CP PROG:RPG GLOBAL ECON iL *7  ''u'Vv*- ** \"!(-f ,^'i S !if99-2000^ .Course^ 'NoS' Abbrey. f sif Title,' 5. i* - {DescHptldnr\u0026lt;W yS*.^ Computer Programming: Basii^Logo (Magnet) Computer Programming:RPG (Magnet) Global Economics-Central Not taught. Deleted. Not taught. Deleted. Not taught. Deleted. 5Communications ^CoUrse\u0026gt;^\nAbbrev.')\u0026gt;fS iij-r' SNo/t'Jij'iife' :\u0026lt;ntia j: TT * Description VeiVJtT^'^k^ ^^f\"J',' ' 99-^VW'f^ CourseW 052570 COMM/SPEECH9 JL. Communication/ Speech Grade 9 051100 COMMUNICA 1 Communication i 053000 053100 053400 055020 055030 051300 051102 ESL COMMON 1 ESL Communication i COMMUNCTR i COMMUNCTR it DEBATE PUB SPEAKiN GRP DYNAMiC COMMUNiCA il jRatldpaWNdt^l^'^ Hall High only\nfor second-language students Communications IGrades 10-12 Communications II Grades 11-12 DebateGrades 11-12 Public Speaking (Magnet), Grade 10 Interpersonal Skills and Group Dynamics 052100 053100 052102 053102 054102 052104 052106 COMMUNiCA 2 COMMUNiCA 3 DEBATE 1 DEBATE 2 DEBATE 3 PUB SPKG GRP DYNAMiCS Communication ii Communication lii Debate I Debate II Debate iii Pubiic Speaking Interpersonal Skills and Group Dynamics New course to build program. New course to build program\neffective fall 2000. Dupiication. Deieted. 6DanceParkview Magnet Fl 23498\nA-''\"'-'- '   No.  t\"*-^ TvvVtV''*''/,-. DANCE TECH I Dance Techniques I- 121000 DANCE TECH 1  ~ D^re %chnioues I ' ' 123505 123510 123520 123500 123487 123492 123495 123501 DANCE TECHII DANCE TCHIII DANCE ENSBLE HISTRY DANCE DANCE I 9 DANCE II 9 DANCE III 9 DANCE TECIII Park view___________ Dance Techniques II Park view___________ Dance Techniques III- Parkview Dance Ensemble^ Parkview History of Dance Parkview Magnet Dance I 9 Dance II 9 Dance III 9 122000 123000 124000 123002 122002 121002 DANCE TECH 1 DANCE TECH 2 DANCE TECH 3 DANCE TECH 4 DANCE ENSBLE HIST DANCE MEN'S DANCE Dance Techniques I Dance Techniques II Dance Techniques III Dance Techniques IV Dance Ensemble History of Dance Young Men's Dance Not taught. Deleted. Not taught. Deleted. Not taught. Deleted. Duplication. Deleted. 1 n 7Drama WWW No. v?  053500 053510 053525 053550 053600 053300 DRAMA DRAMA IS DRAMA II DRAMA III STAGE CRAFT INTERP COMM DramaInternational StudiesCentral______ Drama IIGrades 10-12 Drama IIIGrades 11-12 Stage CraftGrades 10-12 Interpretation Communication 051200 051202 052200 053200 052202 052204 DRAMA 1__ DRAMA 1 IS DRAMA2 DRAMA 3 STAGE CRAFT INTERPCOMM Drama I Drama I International Central High only. Studies Drama II Drama III Stage Craft Interpretative Communication New course to build program.__________ New course to build program\neffective fall 2000. I I 8DramaParkview Magnet fmgoooWBBraOT^ 'Counsel 050720 MIMEPM 050750 CLASS SCENE 050715 ACTINGPM 050755 CHILD THEATR 050760 THEATR HIST 053460 053560 DRAMA 9 THEATR/ARTS MimeParkview Magnet full year Classic Scene Study Parkview ActingParkview Arts Magnet Children's Theater- Parkview Magnet Theater HistoryParkview Magnet DramaGrade 9 Theater and ArtsGrade 9 052206 052208 052210 052212 052212 MIME CLASSIC STDY ACTING CHILD THTR THTR HISTORY i'\n:' ** '**.\u0026lt;' Mime Classic Scene Study Acting Children's Theater Theater History Parkview Magnet only. Parkview Magnet only. Parkview Magnet only. Parkview Magnet only. Parkview Magnet only. Duplication. Deleted. Duplication. Deleted. 9\nNoJ '?vt^' '''\" ' ' - noinnV '\" .tis jJoAii 081000 I DRIVER ED Driver Education Semester 081001 i DRiVER ED iS^ Driver Education IBSiSa Taught in summer school only. 10English 6CpU(ej 180709 180710 180711 180712 050302 050304 s3t\u0026gt;' y\nra y. f- ''Course\n^ .'.Title Idsa 050402 050406 050502 050504 050506 050602 050615 050605 050611 050603 050612 050700 055010 LANG ARTS-r LANG ARTS-rQ LANG PLUS 11 LANG PLUS 12 ENGLISH R 9 ENGLISH GT 9 ENGLISH 10 R ENG 10 GT/H ENGLISH 11 R ENG 11 GT/H ENGLISH GT ENGLISH 12 R ENG 12 REB ENGLISH GT ENG 12APEB ENGLISH IS R ENGLISH IS/G CREATIV WRIT TECH WRITING Language Arts -i- 9 Language Arts Plus 11 Language Arts Plus 12 English Regular 9 English GT/ Enriched 9 English Regular 10 English GT/ Honors Grade 10___________ English Regular 11 English GT/Honors Grade 11__________________ English GT 11 Hall, Fair_____________ English Regular 12_____ English 12 Regular (Early Bird) English GT/Honors Hall, Fair, Central_____ English 12 AP (Early Bird) 12 English/lntemational Studies Regular________________ English GT/Honors International Studies Creative Writing 12 (Magnej) Technical Writing (Magnet)______ No\n5?\" 051000 052000 053000 054000 051002 051004 052002 052004 053002 053004 055004 055006 054002' 054004 055008 055010 054006 055012 054008 053001 ww LANG ARTS 1 + LANG ARTS 2+ LANG ARTS 3-I- LANG ARTS 4+ ENG 1________ ENG 1 PRE-AP ENG 2_______ ENG 2 PRE-AP ENG 3_______ ENG 3 PRE-AP ENG 3 AP ENG 3 APU ENG 4 ENG 4 ENG 4 AP ENG 4 AP ENG 4 IS ENG 4 IS AP CRT WRTG/MAG TECH WRTG 21S Language Arts Plus I Language Arts Plus II Language /Vts Plus III Language Arts Plus IV English I___________ English I Pre-AP English II______ English II Pre-AP English III______ English III Pre-AP English III AP English III AP English IV_________ English IV (Early Bird) English IV AP English IV AP (Early Bird) English IV International Studies____________ English IV International Studies AP Creative Writing and Magazine Production Technical Writing 3 Pre-AP courses Include GT/EnrIched. Pre-AP courses include GT/Enriched. New Advanced Placement course. Hall High only, Dual CTedil with UALR. This number 1$ needed to schedule zero-hour course._____________ Pre-AP courses include GT/Enriched. This number needed to schedule zero-hour course. AP courses include GT/Enriched. Central High only._________ Course includes production of literary magazine._________ Course is open to all schools. 11mS}|B :ppur*ej\u0026lt;^ No.^a'vv isll 'Course'.\"-*' 053006 l^^sSOI RESEARCH 053008 052001 052003 MULTICUL LIT BIBLE AS/IN LIT ACT PREP ENG Research for the 21 Century fW- 4^ ROSS 180310 180410 180510 160610 180713 050310 050311 050315 050325 050406 050407 050505 050610 READING/ENG READ/ENG ASST READING/ENG READING/ENG LAP 12________ ENGLISH GT 9 I SKILLS GT9 ENGLISH EN 9 TECH WRIT 9 ENGLISH HONR ENGLISH GT ENGLISH HNRS ENG 12 GT/AP Reading/Engllsh Assistance Reading/Engllsh Assistance Reading/Engllsh Assistance English GT 9 Introductory Skills Seminar, Grade 9 English Enriched 9_______ Technical Writing9 Semester English Honors 10 Hall, Fair______________ English GT 10 Hall. Fair English Honors 11 Hall, Fair English 12 Adv. Placement, 12 Multicultural Literature The Bible as/ln Literature ACT Preparation Hall High only. Not taught. Deleted. Not taught. Deleted. Not taught. Deleted. Not taught. Deleted. Duplication. Deleted. Duplication. Deleted No longer taught. Duplication. Deleted Not taught at grade 9. Duplication. Deleted. Duplication. Deleted. Duplication. Deleted. Duplication, peleted. 12 IrWc^sw :ZiJ I Ol BR9'^P*'?V^i?^'????^t^5PU'W4000.*|JAbbr '4 .Course?^^ -Title 051500 052500 053500 054500 051502 052502 053502 054502 051102 151000 151002 152002 153002 154002 131000 132000 133000 bbrevj W ESL English 1 ESL English 2 ESL English 3 ESL English 4 ESL LA PLUS 1 ESL LA PLllS 2 ESL LA PLUS 3 ESL LA PLUS 4 ESL COMM 1 ESL INTRO SS ESL CIVICS ESL WRLD HIST ESL US HIST ESL US GOVT ESL PHYS I ESL BIOL I ESL CHEM I ESL English I______ ESL English II_____ ESL English III_____ ESL English IV_____ ESL Language Arts Plus I_____________ ESL Language Arts Plus II____________ ESL Language Arts Plus III __________ ESL Language Arts Plus IV___________ ESL CommunicaBon I ESL Introduction to Social Studies ESL Civics ESL World History ESL United States History_______ ESL United States Government ESL Physics I ESL Biology I ESL Chemistry I Hall High only Hall High only. Hall High only. Hall High only. Hall High only. Hall High only. Hall High only. Hall High only. L't.vi.fcH \u0026gt; ? Hall High only. See also In Communications.* Hall High only. See also In \"Social Studies*_____ Hall High only. See also In Social Studies.*_____ Hall High only. See also in Social Studies.*_____ Hall High only. See also in *Social Studies.*_____ Hall High only. See also In *Soclal Studies.*_____ Hall High only. See also In *Science.*_________ Hall High only. See also In Science.*__________ Hall High only. See also In *Sclence.* i I 13Family and Consumer Science \u0026lt; 1999-^95'^1'\nCour\nivS  \u0026gt;Titi^\n^rf^\u0026gt; 090210 HOME EC 9 090500 HSE MANAGMT 090811 INTPERS REL 090810 090600 090900 090700 090650 090400 090655 090750 091000 FAMILY DYNAM FPS \u0026amp; NUTRI CHDVL/PRT-RE CLOTH \u0026amp; TEX FD PROD MGTI HUMAN DEVEL FD PRD MGTII CONSUMER ED CHDVL/PTG KG Description I \u0026lt;99-2000 f.\n-.' 1 Course i :_ Home Economics 9 No\nfi \u0026gt;4i' 091000 AbbrrW^ i FAM\u0026amp;CONSCI Housing Management- semester___________ Interpersonal Relations Family Dynamics Foods and Nutrition Child Development/ Parenting Related Clothing and Textiles Semester Ftxxl Production, Management, and Services____________ Human Development- Semester____________ Food Production/ Restaurant Management Consumer Education- Semester Child Development/ Parenting Kinder 091001 091003 091005 091002 091007 093007 091009 092010 091011 091013  093008 094008 H\u0026amp;INT DSN HUMAN REL MNG RSRC FAM DYNAMICS FD \u0026amp; NUTRI FOOD SCI CHILD DEVEL CHILD CARE PARENTING CLOTH MGT FD PROD MGT 1 FD PROD MGT 2 Family and Consumer Science Housing and Interior Design____________ Human Relations Managing Resources Family Dynamics Food and Nutrition Food Science______ Child Development Child Care and Guidance Management Services___________ Parenting__________ Clothing Management Food Production, Management, and Services I_______ Food Production, Management, and Services II______ McClellan High only. McClellan High only. Not taught. Deleted. Not taught. Deleted. Not taught. Deleted. Not taught. Deleted. 14Foreign Languages C*99-2p00T AJJirwk 061100 061200 FRENCH I 9 FRENCH II 9 Frenct) IGrade 9 French IIGrade 9 -Ul^ Course 'WSPittsa 061100 062100 FRENCH 1 FRENCH 2 s i* 061300 FRENCH III French IIIGrades 9-12 061401 FRENCH IV AP French IV APGrades 10- 12 063100 064100 065100 FRENCH 3 FRENCH 4 FRENCH 4 AP French I (Grade 9) French II (Grades 9- 12)______________ French III French IV________ French IV AP 061501 FRENCH V AP French V APGrades 10- 12 064102 065102 FRENCH 5 FRENCH 5 AP French V French V AP 061510 061750 061755 061760 062200 062210 062220 062265 062267 062270 062501 062601 060400 060500 FRENCH VI AP GERMAN I 8\u0026amp;9 GERMAN II GERMAN III GRMN GT/AP GRMN GT/AP GRMNVI GT/AP LATIN I 9 LATIN II 9 LATIN III 9 LATIN III AP LATIV/AP/VIR SPAN I 9 SPAN II 9 French VI APGrade 12 German I German II____________ German III Latin I 9 Latin II 9 Latin III 9 Latin III AP Latin IV GT/AP Spanish IGrade 9 Spanish IIGrade 9 064104 065104 061200 062200 063200 064200 065200 064202 065202 064204 065204 061300 062300 063300 065300 064300 065302 061400 062400 FRENCH 6 FRENCH 6 AP GERMAN 1 GERMAN 2 GERMAN 3 GERMAN 4 GERMAN 4 AP GERMAN 5 GERMAN 5 AP GERMAN 6 GERMAN 6 AP LATIN 1 LATIN 2 LATIN 3 LATIN 3 AP LATIN 4 LATIN 4 AP SPAN 1 SPAN 2 French VI French VI AP______ German I_________ German II_________ German III________ German IV________ German IV AP German V________ German V AP______ German VI________ German VI AP_____ Latin I____________ Latin II____________ Latin III___________ Latin III AP________ Latin IV___________ Latin IV AP________ Spanish I (Grade 9) Spanish II (Grades 9- J2) 15060600 SPANISH III Spanish IIIGrades 9-12 063400 SPAN 3 -Si t \\ * ) .p.' 060701 SPAN IV AP Spanish IV APGrades 10- 12 064400 065400 SPAN 4 SPAN 4 AP 060801 SPAN V AP Spanish V APGrades 10- 12____________________ 064402 065402 SPAN 5 SPAN 5 AP ! 060810 060125 061900 062000 062100 062300 062400 060190 062700 062800 062900 064020 064030 064035 065030 065040 065050 SPAN VI AP IN LANGLIAGE9 GERMAN I GERMAN II GERMAN III LATIN I_______ LATIN II______ SKLS SPANISH CLS GREEK I CL GREEK II CLS GREEKIII RUSSIAN III 9 RUSSIAN 18-9 RUSSIAN II 9 JAPAN I JAPAN II JAPANESE III Spanish VI APGrade 12 Introduction to Language/CulturesGrade 9 __________________ German I German II______________ German III_____________ Latin II Classical Greek I Classical Greek II Classical Greek III Russian III Russian I_______ Russian II______ Japanese I______ Japanese II_____ Japanese III_____ 064404 065404 SPAN 6 SPAN 6 AP Spanish III (Grades 9- 12)_______________ Spanish IV_________ Spanish IV AP (Grades 10-12)_____ Spanish V_________ Spanish V AP (Grades 10-12)_____ Spanish VI_________ Spanish VI (AP) Not taught. Deleted. Duplication. Deleted. Duplication. Deleted. Duplication. Deleted. DupllcaUon. Deleted. Duplication. Deleted. Not taught. Deleted. Not taught. Deleted. Not taught. Deleted. Not taught. Deleted. Not taught. Deleted. Not taught. Deleted. Not taught. Deleted. Not taught. Deleted. Not taught. Deleted. Not taught. Deleted. 16J Health and Physical Education T  Ik .'  ' '  V -I ./ 080920 080500 080520 080800 080540 080550 080510 HEALTH SM PE 9______ PE 9-12 SM  'U'v. .i '! PE 9-12 PE ELEC GIRL PE ELEC BOYS INT SPORTS 9 Health-Semester________ Physical Education9 Physical Education- semester______________ Physical Education (Grades 9-12)_________ Physical Education Elective (Giris) Physical Education Elective (Boys) Intramural Sports-Semester Course/K  .. -No. '\u0026gt;\n-.i. '\u0026gt;,' 081001 081003 081005 081002 201000 202000 203000 204000 201002 202002 203002 204002\nii\u0026lt;\nHEALTH PHYS ED 1A PHYS ED IB PHYS ED 1 ATHLETICS G1 ATHLETICS G2 ATHLETICS G3 ATHLETICS G4 ATHLETICS Bl ATHLETICS B2 ATHLETICS B3 ATHLETICS B4 , ViC *ei.5ire\"r Health and Safety Physical Education lA Physical Education IB Physical Education I Girls Athletics I Girls Athletics II Giris AthleUcs III Girls Athletics IV Boys Athletics I Boys AthleUcs II Boys Athletics III Boys Athletics IV Wttdhel^Noi^^^ V* 1  V  1 Required course. Required course. Elective course. Full-year course No credit toward satisfaction of graduation requirements. No credit.________ No credit.________ No credit.________ No credit toward satisfaction of graduaUon requirements._____ No credit.________ No credit.________ No credit.________ Not taught. Deleted. 17Journalism/Writing 054000 054100 054200 054250 055000 055005 020560 JOURNALISM I JOURN II JOURN II YB JOURN II SP MASS MEDIA MS MEDIA II PHOTOG-PM :. jiifu Jourrfalism IGrades 10-12 JourrlBlism IIGrades 11- 12 Journalism II (Yearbook) Grades 11-12 Journalism II (School Paper) Mass Media (Magnet) Grade 11 Mass Media IIGrades 10- 12 PhotographyParkview Magnet-Semester *g9\u0026gt;?ooQX Course,^: 'iPtl 051400 052400 JOURN 1 JOURN 2 Journalism I Journalism II 052402 052404 053400 053402 053404 054400 054402 054404 053405 054405 051406 JOURN 2 YB JOURN 2 NP JOURN 3 JOURN 3 YB JOURN 3 NP JOURN 4 JOURN 4 YB JOURN 4 NP MASS MEDIA A MASS MEDIA B PHOTOGRAPHY Journalism II (Yearbook) Journalism II (Newspaper) Journalism III Journalism III (Yearbook) Journalism III (Newspaper) Journalism IV Journalism IV (Yearbook) Journalism IV (Newspaper) Mass Media A Mass Media B Photography Some schools schedule both yearbook and newspaper together. Number needed to schedule Yearbook dass. Number needed to schedule Newspaper class. Third-year course allows program growth. Effective fall 2000. Number needed to schedule Yearbook dass. Effective fall 2000. Number needed to schedule Newspaper dass. Effective fall 2000. Fourth-year course allows program improvement. Effective fall 2001. Number needed to schedule Yearbook dass. Effective fall 2001. Number needed to schedule Newspaper dass. Effective fall 2001. McClellan High only McClellan High, only. Parkview Magnet only 18JROTC 260200 260400 260600 260100 260300 260500 AF ROTC I 10 AF ROTC II AF ROTC III NS ROTC 10 NJ ROTC II NJ ROTC III Air Force ROTC ICentral Air Force ROTC IICentral Air Force ROTC IIICentral Naval Science ROTC Parkview Magnet Naval Science ROTC II Naval Science ROTC III W-2000,V Course ',  No. 261000 262000 263000 264000 'AbbreVj (Titled\n. AF JROTC 1 AF JROTC 2 AF JROTC 3 AF JROTC 4 Air Force JROTC I Air Force JROTC II Air Force JROTC III Air Force JROTC IV 261002 262002 263002 264002 NS JROTC 1 NS JROTC 2 NS JROTC 3 NS JROTC 4 Naval Science JROTC I Naval Science JROTC II Naval Science JROTC III Naval Science JROTC IV a Central High only. Central High only. Central High only. Central High only. Effective fall 2002. Parkview Magnet only. Parkview Magnet only.___________ Parkview Magnet Q!)L___________ Parkview Magnet only. Effective fall 2002. 19Marketing Education aeicflptl^ \u0026lt;lJ 171500 MARKET REL I Marketing Education 173000 MARKET ED 1 Marketing Education I 171700 MRKTG COOP I Related I_______________ Marketing Education Coop I 171750 171600 MRKTG COOP lAFT________ MRKTG REL II 171800 MRKTG COOP II Marketing Education Coop I (afternoon) Marketing Education Related II  ________ Marketing Education Coop II 173002 173004 174000 174002 171850 MRKTG COOP IIAF Marketing Education Coop II (afternoon) 174004 032080 032085 032030 032035 032080 171510 MRKTG COOP 1 MRKTG COOP 1 MRKTG Ed'2 MRKTG COOP 2 MRKTG COOP 2 fashion MDS ADVERTISING RETAILING SALESMNSHIP INSURANCE MARKET REL I Fashion Merchandising (Magnet)________ _____ Advertising (Magnet) Retailing (Magnet) Grades 1011__________ Salesmanship (Magnet) Grade 10_____________ Insurance (Magnet)_____ Marketing Education Related I (Early Bird) 172001 172003 173001 172005 FASHION MDS ADVERTISING RETAILING SALESMNSHIP Marketing Education Coop I____________ Marketing Education Coop I___________ Marketing Education II (Management) Marketing Education Coop II (Management) Marketing Education Coop II (Management) Fashion Merchandising Advertising_______ Retailing Salesmanship Afternoon class. Afternoon class. Not taught. Deleted. Not taught. Deleted. 20 Mathematics 110501 110900 110904 111000 111004 111010 111300 111100 111104 111200 111250 111301 111351 110400 181000 110401 110402 110850 ALG I 9 R ALG II ALG lIGT GEOMETRY R GEOM GT/HNRS CONCEPT GROM PRE-CALCULSU TRIG/A ALG R TRGALG GT/H STATISTICS STATIS AP CALCUL GT/AP CALCUL BC AP PR-ALGEBRA 9 GEOM R APP MATH I 9 APP MATH II INTM ALGEBRA Algebra I Regular Algebra II 9________ Algebra 11 GT/Honors Geometry Regular Geometry GT/Honors Concepts of Geometry Trigonometry/ Advanced Algebra Regular T rigonometry/ Advanced Algebra GT/Honors Statistics Statistics AP Calculus AB AP Calculus BC AP Pre-Algebra 9 Applied Mathematics I 9 Applied Mathematics II Intermediate Algebra 111000 112000 112002 112004 112006 112008 113002 113004 113006 113008 115000 114000 115002 115004 112001 ii ALG I_________ ALG II_________ ALG II PRE-AP GEOMETRY GEOM PRE-AP CONCEPT GEOM PRE-CALCULUS TRIG/ADV ALG TRIG PRE-AP STATISTICS STATS AP CALCULUS CALC AB AP CALC BC AP ACT PREPiMATH Algebra I_______ Algebra II_______ Algebra II Pre-AP Geometry______ Geometry Pre-AP Concepts of Geometry Pre-Calculus Pacesetter Mathematics Trigonometry/ Advanced Algebra Trigonometry/ Advanced Algebra Pre-AP_________ Statistics Statistics AP Calculus Calculus AB AP Calculus BC AP ACT Preparation: Mathematics iti 'gr-\nThis course can substitute for Geometry. Need regular level of course. Deleted. Deleted. Deleted.__________ Deleted.__________ Not taught. Deleted. 21Music (Vocal, Band, Orchestra) Bo5535Mi?iIhhn5SjTJS!?35T75Serinnnn^5\u0026gt;3^ 'Coui 'Xoiiras^ 123100 123200 123300 CHOIR III CHOIR II CHOIR I Choir III Choii II Choir I 122900 121500 MADRIGALS BG BAND I 9 121530 BG BAND II 9 121600 121550 INT BAND 9 BG BAND 1119 122400 122500 FIRST BAND JAZZ BAND Madrigals Beginning Band I Woodwinds Beginning Band II Brass Intermediate Band Beginning Band III Percussion First Band (Concert) Jazz Band 121000 121002 122002 123002 124002 122004 121100 121102 122102 123102 121800 121900 122000 BG ORCHESTRA INT ORCH 9TH ADV ORCH 9TH Beginning Orchestra 021101 FNE ARTS:MUS Survey of Fine Arts--Music 124102 122006 123006 121200 121202 122202 123202 124202 121001 122880 MUSIC APPRECI Music Appreciation 121006 NOVICE CHOIR CHOIR 1 CHOIR 2 CHOIR 3 CHOIR 4 MADRIGALS NOVICE BAND Novice Choir Choir I Choir II Choir III Choir IV Madrigals Novice Band Beginners section Beginners' section BAND 1 BAND 2 BAND 3 BAND 4 JAZZ BAND 1 JAZZ BAND 2 NOVICE ORCH ORCHESTRA 1 ORCHESTRA 2 ORCHESTRA 3 ORCHESTRA 4 SURVEY MUS MUS APPREC Band I Band II Band III Band IV Stage Band I Stage Band II Novice Orchestra Orchestra I Orchestra II Orchestra III Survey of Fine Aris- Music Music Appreciation Beginners' section 22MusicParkview Magnet Si998:95^'1 i'Atbrev.-cwS^#\n Description' ' iCourseTitle': \\ s' tNo\nTitle: 35 jrs^^app^ 'CourseiS, :_ tNo? 122450 ENSEMBLE SM Small Ensemble Parkview Magnet 121300 122300 121302 122302 123302 124302 122304 123304 124304 121306 Abbrev -iiwjor Title , CADET BNP 1 CADET BNP 2 VARSITY BANP CONC BANP 1 CONC BANP 2 CONC BANP 3 SYMP BANP 1 SYMP BANP 2 SYMP BANP 3 INST ENSEM * pescrlp06n'j-\n| sgSilg^-w Cadet Band I Cadet Band II Varsity Band________ Concert Band I______ Concert Band II______ Concert Band III_____ Symphonic Band I Symphonic Band II Symphonic Band III Instrumental Ensemble Parkview Magnet only. 122870 123350 123325 123375 122865 120682 120685 121700 MUSIC THRY I MUSIC THRY II LAB SINGERS ARRANGING MUSIC HST AP PIANO I 9 PIANO II 9 ADV BAND 9 Music Theory IParkview Magnet Music Theory IIParkview Magnet Lab SingersParkview Magnet ArrangingParkview Magnet______________ History of Music AP Parkview Magnet Plano/Basic Musicianship I Piano/Basic Musicianship JI____________________ Advanced Band 122306 121400 122400 123400 125400 125402 123308 124308 VOC ENSEM MUSIC THRY 1 MUSIC THRY 2 MUSIC THRY 3 MUS THRY 3AP MUS THRY 4AP LAB SINGERS 1 LAB SINGERS 2 Vocal Ensemble Music Theory I Music Theory II Music Theory III Music Theory III AP Music Theory IV AP Lab Singers I Lab Singers II Parkview Magnet only. Parkview Magnet only. Parkview Magnet only. Parkview Magnet only. Parkview Magnet only. Parkview Magnet only. Parkview Magnet only. Parkview Magnet only. Not taught. Deleted. Not taught. Deleted. Not taught. Deleted. Not taught. Deleted. 23i 122050 122070 122080 122100 122200 122300 122800 122805 122810 123360 \u0026gt;  CHOIR 9 BOYS CHOIR 9 G B MUSIC III BAND III BEG BAND BAND II_______ ORCHESTRA INT ORCHESTR ADV ORCHESTR MUSIC T IIIAP Choir Boys 9_______ Choir Girls 9 Basle Musicianship III Band III Band II Interrliediate String Orchestra Advanced String Orchestra Music Theory III AP Coiiis* No. s S3^ Not taught. Deleted. Not taught. Deleted. Not taught. Deleted. Not taught. Deleted. Not taught. Deleted. Not taught. Deleted. Not taught. Deleted. Not taught. Deleted. Not taught. Deleted. Not taught. Deleted. 24I Science 'CptlrMf^ ' Counwiy'?^ No. 130600 130700 130401 130875 130500 130880 130801 130825 130901 130512 130750 130725 130861 PHYSICS UNIF PHYS I BIOLOGY BIOLOGY GT/H CHEMISTRY CHEM GT/HON UN PHYS II AP PHYSIOLOGY AV BIO GT/AP AP CHEMISTRY GEOLOGY/SCI ENVIRONM SCI AVSC T I GT Unified Physics I Biology_________ Biology GT/Honors Chemistry_______ Chemistry GT/Hon Unified Physics II AP Human Physiology- Semester Advanced Biology AP Advanced Placement Chemistry Physical Geology/Environ- mental Science Environmental Science AP Advanced Science Theoretical Research I 131000 131002 131004 132000 132002 132004 133000 133002 133004 135002 135004 133006 135006 ' 135008 134000 135010 133008 133010 X ESL PHYS I PHYSICS I PHYS 1 PRE-AP ESL BIOL I BIOLOGY 1 BIO 1 PRE-AP ESL CHEM 1 CHEMISTRY 1 CHEM 1 PRE- AP___________ PHYS 2 AP PHYS 2 APU ANAT\u0026amp;PHYS BIOL 2 AP CHEM 2 AP EARTH SCI ENV SCI AP ADVSCI RSRCH ARSRCH PRE- AP ESL Physics I________ Hall High only. Physics I________ Physics I Pre-AP ESL Biology I____ Biology I________ Biology I Pre-AP ESL Chemistry I Chemistry I______ Chemistry I Pre-AP Physics II AP Physics II APU Human Anatomy and Physiology Biology II AP Chemistry II AP Earth Science Environmental Science AP________________ Advanced Science/ Theoretical Research Advanced Science/ Theoretical Research Pre-AP Hall High only. Hall High only. Hall High only. University course._____ Combined two semesters for a full-year course. New senior-level course. Only one level is taught. 25)wo?g\u0026lt;^ 130310 130315 130350 130351 130850 130862 130886 130887 I P SCI 9 GT I P SCI ENR 9 INT SCI 9R I PHYSCI M 9 SCIENCEZreCH ADVS T II GT APP BIO/CHMI APPBIO/CHMII Integrated Physical Science GT 9 Integrated Physical Science Enriched 9 Integrated Science Regular 9 . Integrated Physical Science Magnet 9 Science/ Technology_____ Advanced Science Theoretical Research II Applied Biology/ Chemistry I Applied Biology/ Chemistry II Not taught. Deleted. Not taught. Deleted. Not taught. Deleted. Not taught. Deleted. Not taught. Deleted. Not taught. Deleted. Not taught. Deleted. Not taught. Deleted. 26ScienceParkview M agnet xCouree'^i i'No.: 1*99-2000! Course J No. )\u0026lt; i TAbbrWi\ni APDfWiJv l^b^ptlb^ 130885 130895 130905 130896 130828 130897 130260 130265 130304 I MICR BIOLOGY QL ANALYSIS ST/WRITING ENV HEALTH PHYSIOLOGY ORG CHEMSTRY LB SCIENCE 9 LB SCIENCEGT INT SCI 9 GT Microbiology--Semester Qualitative Analysis- Semester Applied Statistics/ Technical Writing- Semester___________ Environmental Health- Semester___________ Physiology-Semester Organic Chemistry- Semester Lab Science 9 Lab Science GT/ Enriched 9____________________ Integrated Science GT/EnrIched 9 133101 133103 133105 133107 133109 133111 MICROBIO QUAL ANALY STATS/WRTG ENV HEALTH ANAT\u0026amp;PHYS ORG CHEM Miaobiology Qualitative Analysis Applied Statistics and Technical Writing Environmental Health Human Anatomy and Physiology Organic Chemistry Parkview Magnet only. Parkview Magnet only. Parkview Magnet only. Parkview Magnet only. Parkview Magnet only. Parkview Magnet only. Not taught. Deleted. Not taught. Deleted. Not taught. Deleted. 27Social Studies Coursesft No.y\n' 151000 Atbre'v? ESL INT SOCST 11 150300 150304 150502 150402 150401 150405 150412 150802 150750 150600 150875 150880 150975 150760 CIVICS 9 CIVICS 9 GT/E WLD HISTORY AM HISTORY AMER HIST EB AM HISTRY GT AM HST/AP EB AM GOVERNMEN GLBL STUDIES WLD GEOGRAPH PSYCHOLOGY SOCIOLOGY EUR HST AP/G WRLD CULTURE Civics 9 Civics GT/Enriched World History 151002 151004 151006 152002 152004 152006 153002 ESL CIVICS CIVICS CIVICS PRE-AP ESL WRLD HST WORLD HIST W HIST PRE-AP ESL US HIST American History________ American History Regular (Eady Bird) American History GT 11-12 American History AP Early Bird American Government Global Studies Worid Geography Psychology Sociology_________ European History AP World Cultures GT 153004 153006 155006 155008 155010 154002 154004 155001 155003 151008 151010 151012 153001 155012 153003 155014 154006 US HIST US HIST US HIST AP US HIST APU US HIST AP ESL US GOVT US GOVT GOV\u0026amp;POL AP COMP GVTAP GLBL STUDIES WRLD GEOG WRLD GEOG PRE-AP PSYCHOLOGY PSYCH AP SOCIOLOGY EURO HIST AP WRLD CULTURE ESL Introduction to Social Studies ESL Civics Civics Civics Pre-AP ESL Worid History World History______ World History Pre-AP ESL United States History United States History United States History (Early Bird) United States History AP United States History AP United States History AP (Early Bird) ESL United States Government United States Government US Government and Politics AP Comparative Government AP Global Studies Worid Geography World Geography Pre-AP Psychology_______ Psychology AP_____ Sociology_________ European History AP World Cultures iiali Elective credit only. Hall High only. Hall High only. Hall High only. Hall High only. University course. Hall High only. One semester. One semester. 28'No.':sa,hK- 150215 150905 150340 150420 150225 150310 150315 150411 150420 150325 150327 150330 150505 150650 150805 150850 150860 150900 150950 AFR STUDIES9 ECONOMICS II GLBL STDS IS AM HIST IS ESL INTRO SOCST I SKILLS GT9 CIVICS GT9 CIVICS EN9 AM HIST GT/AP AM HIST IS UNITED NATNS INT ISS 9 LDS 20'\" CEN IS/AFRIC HST ARK STUDIES COMP GOVERMNT CT AM HISTRY INT RELATION ECONOMICS AM STUDIES African Studies 9-Dunbar Economics II (Maflnel) Global Studies IS American History GT AP O' hour ESL Introduction to Social Studies Introductory Skills Seminar GT 9 Civics GT9 Civics Enriched 9 American History GT 11-12 American History GT AP \"O' hour United Nations (1/2) International Issues 9 Leaders of 20'\" Century (1/2) Arkansas Studies Comparative Government Contemporary American History International Relations/ Contemporary Economics American Studies Seminar 152008 153008 153009 153010 151012 153012 X ?Abl^ Riisms^ a TWI*^ .V**\nAFR/AFR AM H ECONOMICS SERV LRNG PEER HELP GLBL STDS IS US HIST IS African/African American History Economics Service Learning Peer Helping and Facilitation Global Studies IS United States History IS McClellan High only. Hall High only. Central High only. Central High only. Changed to ESL Civics. Not taught. Deleted. Duplication. Deleted. Duplication. Deleted. Duplication. Deleted. Duplication. Deleted. Not taught. Deleted. Not taught. Deleted. Not taught. Deleted. Not taught. Deleted. Not taught. Deleted. Not taught. Deleted. Not taught. Deleted. Not taught. Deleted. Not taught. Deleted. Not taught Defeted. 29Tracies and Industry 5 161460 170800 172300 172550 172400 172500 171000 171200 171250 171100 171300 171350 172600 172800 172850 172700 WRKPL READY CARPENTRY EX DRAFTING BAS AV MECH DRFT ARCH DRAFTING ENG DRAFTING CCE REL I CCE COOP I CCE CP AFT I CCE REL II CCE COOP II CCE CP HAFT ICT REL I ICT COOP I ICT COOP I AFT ICT REL II Workplace Readiness Carpentry Exploralion DraftingBasic Mechanical Drawing Advanced Mechanical Drafting Drafting-Architecture Drafting-Engineering Coordinated Career Education Related I Coordinated Career Education Coop I Coordinated Career Education Coop I- aftemoon Coordinated Career Education Related II Coordinated Career Education Coop II Coordinated Career Education Coop II- aftemoon Industrial Coop Training Related I Industrial Coop Training Coop I Industrial Coop Training Coop l-afternoon Industrial Coop Training Related II No., 172103 171100 172100 171001 172102 173102 173104 174104 173108 173110 173112 174108 174110 174112 173120 173122 173124 174120 WRKPL READY EXP IND TECH CARPENTRY EX EAST LAB BASMECHDRAW ADVMECHDRAW Af\\CH DRAFT ENGIN DRAFT CCE REL 1 CCE COOP 1 CCE COOP 1 CCE REL 2 CCE COOP 2 CCE COOP 2 ICT REL 1 ICT COOP 1 ICT COOP 1 ICT REL 2 Workplace Readiness Exploring Industrial Technology________ Carpentry Exploration Environmental and Spatial Technology Lab Basic Mechanical Drawing Advanced Mechanical Drawing___________ Architectural Drafting McClellan High only. Engineering Drafting Coordinated Career Education I_______ Coordinated Career Education Coop I Coordinated Career Education Coop I (afternoon) Coordinated Career Education II Coordinated Career Education Coop II Coordinated Career Education Coop II (afternoon) Industrial Coop Training I Related Industrial Coop Training I Coop Industrial Coop Training I Coop (afternoon) Industrial Coop Training II Related 30172900 ri' ICT COOP II ' \ni. ''r 172950 170250 170252 170251 170253 170900 160050 160055 160060 160401 160402 160705 161100 161200 ICT COOP HAFT GCE REL I GCE COOP I GCE REL II GCE COOP II CAREER ED EX AIR\u0026amp;HEAT TCI HEAT AIR EX AIR\u0026amp;HEAT TH APPL MATH 11 APPL MATH 11 COMM FOOD EX COMP TECH I COMP TECH II Industrial Coop Training Coop II Industrial Coop Training Coop ll-afternoon General Coop Education Related I General Cooperative Education Coop I General Cooperative Education Related 11 General Cooperative Education Coop 11 Coordinated Career Education Exploratory Air Conditioning and Heating Technology I Air Conditioning and Heating Technology II Applied Mathematics II Computer Technology I Computer Technology II '.Course yU 174122 lUbbi^ ICT COOP 2 174124 173126 173128 174126 174128 172130 173130 174130 ICT COOP 2 GCE REL 1 'AS GCE COOP 1 GCE REL 2 GCE COOP 2 COMM ART 1 COMM ART 2 COMM ART 3 3131 Industrial Coop Training 11 Coop Industrial Coop Training 11 Coop (afternoon) General Coop Education Related I General Cooperative Education Coop I General Cooperative Education Related 11 General Cooperative Education Coop II Computerized Commercial Art I Computerized Commercial Art II Computerized Commercial Art HI fol Parkview Magnet only. Parkview Magriet only. Parkview Magriet only. Not taught. Deleted. Not taught. Deleted. Not taught. Deleted. Not taught. Deleted. Not taught. Deleted. Not taught. Deleted. Not taught. Deleted. Not taught. Deleted. Not taught. Deleted. 31Metropolitan Courses 1 Metropo SCourseTE  164360 ^Abbrsv??^ WRKP RDNS sa. 7 'CourseiTiiii '' No. niti* ss\n160100 160200 160300 160400 160700 160800 160550 160650 160900 161100 162150 162250 AUTO BODY I AUTO BODY II AUTO TECH I AUTO TECH II COM FOODS I COM FOODS II CMP GRAPIC I CMP GRAPH II COMP DRFTG I CMP DRFTG II COMP PRTG I COMP PRTG II Workplace Readiness- Metro Auto Body/Paint Techhology I Auto Body/Paint Techhology II Automotive Technology I Automotive Technology II Culinary /Vts I Culinary Arts II Computer Graphics/ Commercial Art I Computer Graphics/ Commercial /Vt II Computer-Aided Drafting I Computer-Aided Drafting II Computer Graphics/Printing Technology I Computer Graphics/Printing Technology II 162000 162100 163100 164100 162102 163102 163102 162104 163104 164104 162106 163106 164106 162108 163108 164108 162110 163110 164110 WRKP READY AUTO BODY 1 AUTO BODY 2 AUTO BODY 3 AUTO TECH 1 AUTO TECH 2 AUTO TECH 3 CULINARY ART1 CULINARY ART2 CULINARY ART3 COMMER ART 1 COMMER ART 2 COMMER ART 3 C-A DRAFT 1 C-A DRAFT 2 C-A DRAFT 3 PRINTING 1 PRINTING 2 PRINTING 3 Workplace Readiness Auto Body/Paint Technology I Auto Body/PaInt Technology II Auto Body/Paint Technology III Automotive Technology I______ Automotive Technology II Automotive Technology III_____ Culinary /Vts I_____ Culinary Arts II_____ Culinary Arts III Computerized Commercial Art I Computerized Commercial Art II Computerized Commerical Art III Computer-Aided Drafting I Computer-Aided Drafting II Computer-Aided Drafting III Computer Graphics/ Printing Technology I Computer Graphics/ Printing Technology II Computer Graphics/ Printing Technology III Metropolitan only. Metropolitan only. Metropolitan only. Metropolitan only. Metropolitan only. Metropolitan only. Metropolitan only. Metropolitan only. Metropolitan only. Metropolitan only. Metropolitan only. Metropolitan only. Metropolitan only. Metropolitan only. Metropolitan only. Metropolitan only. Metropolitan only. Metropolitan only. Metropolitan only. 32No, 1 161300 161400 161700 161800 161900 163100 163200 162700 162800 162300 161400 162500 162600 162430 162440 161450 161500 161600 161850 162900 163300 '_A__M__\u0026gt;M COSMETOLOGY I COSMETOLOG II ELECTRONICS I ELECTRONIC II ELEC III HEALTH OC I HEALTH PC II WELDING I WELDING II RADIO BRD I RADIO BRD II CONSTRUCTN I CONSTRUCT II TV PROD I TV PROD II COSMETOL III COMP PROG I COMP PROG II INDS CONTRLS WORD PROC I I WORDPROCT Cosmetology I Cosmetology II_____ Electronics I Electronics II Electronics III Medical Professions I Medical Professions II Metal Fabrication I (Welding) Metal Fabrication II (Welding) Radio Broadcasting I Radio Broadcasting II Residential Construction I Residential Construction II TV Production I TV Production II Cosmetology III________ Computer Programming I Computer Programming II Word Processing I Word Processing II 1994000 '.Cot^y 162112 163112 164112 162114 163114 164114 162116 163116 164116 162118 163118 164118 162120 163120 164120 162122 163122 164122 162124 163124 164124 162126 163126 164126 rabBs i Title j i^  COSMTLGY 1 COSMTLGY 2 COSMTLGY 3 ELECTRONICS 1 ELECTRONICS 2 ELECTRONICS 3 MED PROFS 1 MED PROFS 2 MED PROFS 3 WELDING 1 WELDING 2 WELDING 3 RADIO BRDCT 1 RADIO BRDCT 2 RADIO BRDCT 3 CONSTRUCT 1 CONSTRUCT 2 CONSTRUCT 3 TV PROD 1 TV PROD 2 TV PROD 3 DIESEL TECH 1 DIESEL TECH 2 DIESEL TECH 3 Cosmetology I______ Cosmetology II_____ Cosmetology III_____ Electronics I Electronics II_______ Electronics III_______ Medical Professions I Medical Professions II Medical Professions III________________ Metal Fabrication I (Welding)__________ Metal Fabrication II (Welding) Metal Fabrication III (Welding) Radio Broadcasting I Radio Broadcasting II Radio Broadcasting III Residential Construction I_______ Residential Construction II Residential Construction III TV Production I_____ TV Production II TV Production III Diesel Technology Services I Diesel Technology Services II Diesel Technology Services III Metropolitan only._____ Metropolitan only._____ Metropolitan only._____ Metropolitan only._____ Metropolitan only._____ Metropolitan only._____ Metropolitan only._____ Metropolitan only._____ Metropolitan only. Metropolitan only. Metropolitan only. Metropolitan only. Metropolitan only. Metropolitan only. Metropolitan only. Metropolitan only. Metropolitan only. Metropolitan only. Metropolitan only. Metropolitan only. Metropolitan only. Metropolitan orily. Metropolitan only. Metropolitan only. Not taught. Deteted. Not taught. Deleted. Not taught. Deleted. Not taught. Deleted. Not taught. Deleted. 33 I- t 163055 163250 163260 163325 163350 163425 163450 163550 163575 I 1 AIR COND:EX HEALTH COOP HEALTH OC EX COSMO LEXNC COSMO LEXCR COSMO ILEXNC COSMO ILEXNC AUTO TECH:EX AUTO BODY:EX Air Conditioning Technology and Repair Extended Health Occupations _^ucation Coop Medical Professions ^Extended Day Cosmetology I Extended DayNo credit Cosmetology I Extended Day-Credit_________ Cosmetology II Extended DayNo credit_______ Cosmetology II Extended DayNo credit_______ Automotive Technology Extended Day Auto Body/Paint TechnologyExtended Not taught. Deleted. Not taught. Deleted. Not taught. Deleted. Not taught. Deleted. Not taught. Deleted. Not taught. Deleted. Not taught. Deleted. Not taught. Deleted. Day Not taught. Deleted. 34J 163625 i COMP ART:EX wo tlpa J. -No\nSi\njTKto 163650 163700 163705 163750 163800 163805 163810 163850 163900 163910 170675 170700 172200 COMP PRTG:EX COMP DRFT:EX COMM FDS:EX WORD PROC:EX COMP PROG:EX RES CONST:EX CP CONSTR:EX COMP ELEC:EX TV PROD:EX RADIO BRD:EX IND TECH II BUS/TYPWRITE COMM ART Computer Graphics/ Comrherical ArtExtended Day Computer Graphics/Printing Extended Day Computer-Aided Drafting Extended Day Culinary ArtsExtended Day Word Processing Extended Day Computer Programming Extended Day Residential Construction Extended Day Computerized Construction T echnologyExtended Day Computer Technology/ ElectronicsExtended Day TV ProductionExtended Day Radio Broadcasting- Extended Day Industrial Education Technology II Exploratory Business/ Typewriting Commercial Art Not taught. Deleted. Not taught. Deleted. Not taught. Deleted. Not taught. Deleted. Not taught. Deleted. Not taught. Deleted. Not taught. Deleted. Not taught. Deleted. Not taught. Deleted. Not taught. Deleted. Not taught. Deleted. Not taught Deleted. Not taught Deleted. Not taught Deleted. 35Special EducationResource Room ^*99:20001!? 'Course Course' ^Abbre^J 190900 191400 191800 192200 190950 191750 192150 193000 191100 191600 192005 192405 191200 191700 192510 192050 191000 192320 191910 192300 192310 191300 191500 191510 191775 191900 192505 ENGLISH RR 9 ENG 10 RR ENG 11 RR ENG 12 RR READING RR 9 READING RR LEARNING RR LEARNING RR MATH RR 9 MATH RR BUS MATH RR BUS MATH RR PHY SCI RR 9 BIO RR HEALTH RR EARTH SCI RR CIVICS RR 9 WO HIST RR WO GEOG RR A HISTORY RR GOVERNMENTRR LRNG ST RR 9 AM GOVT RR AM HIST RR LRN STRAG RR A HISTORY RR PHYS SCI RR English RR 9________ English 10 RR_______ English 11 RR_______ . English 12 RR_______ Reading RR 9________ _ Reading RR 10_______ Learning Strategies RR 11 ' Learning Strategies RR 12 _______ Mathematics RR 9 Mathematics RR 10 Business Mathematics RR______________ Business Mathematics RR 12 _______ Physical Science RR 9~ Biology RR IQ________ Health RR___________ Earth Science RR Civics RR 9 World History RR 10 World Geography RR American History RR 12 American Government RR 12_______________ Learning Strategies RR 9 American Government RR American History RR Learning Strategies RR 10 US History RR-11 Physical Science RR No. Title ENG 1 RR ENG 2 RR ENG 3 RR eng 4 RR READ 1 RR READ 2 RR READ 3 RR READ 4 RR MATH 1 RR MATH 2 RR MATH 3 RR MATH 4 RR PHYS SCI RR BIOLOGY RR HEALTH SCI RR EARTH SCI RR CIVICS RR WRLD HIST RR W GEOG RR US HIST RR US GOVT RR i 36Special EducationSelf Contained M#98-99S|f, 'No.  I  Abbrey, '.Title\nVDescrfptlon^ 193900 194400 194800 195200 193950 194750 ENGLISH SC 9 ENGLISH SC10 ENGLISH sen ENGLISH SC12 READING SC 9 READING SC English SC 9 English SC 10 English SC 11 English SC 12 Reading SC 9 Reading SC 10 ' \n|i*9-2000!^  No. 194100 194600 MATH SC 9 G MATH SC 10 195000 G MATH 11 195505 G MATH SC 12 194200 194700 195510 PHY SCI SC 9 BIOLOGY SCIO HEALTH SC 12 Mathematics SC 9_____ General Mathematics SC 10__________________ General Mathematics SC 11__________________ General Mathematics SC 12 _______________ Physical Science SC 9 Biology SC 10_________ Health SC 12 191000 192000 193000 194000 191002 192002 193002 194002 191004 192004 2k^i ENG 1 SC ENG 2 SC ENG 3 SC ENG 4 SC READ 1 SC READ 2 SC READ 3 SC READ 4 SC MATH 1 SC MATH 2 SC 193004 194004 MATH 3 SC MATH 4 SC ^TMOeSefii - tfe- !.:i' 194000 195320 194910 195300 195310 CIVICS SC 9 W HISTORY SC GEOPHERAPHY SC____________ A HISTORY SC GOVERNMENTSC Civics SC 9__________ Worid History SC 12 World Geography SC 11 191006 192006 193006 194006 191008 192008 192010 PHYS SCI SC BIOLOGY SC HEALTH SCI SC EARTH SCI SC CIVICS SC WRLD HIST SC W GEOG SC 194220 194225 194230 194235 COM DOM 9 DOM DOMAIN 9 VOC DOMAIN 9 REC/LEISUR 9 American History SC 12 American Government SC 12 _____________ Community Domain CBI 9 Domestic Domain CBI 9 Vocational Domain CBI 9 Recreation/Leisure CBI 9 193008 194008 US HIST SC US GOVT SC 194825 COM DON CBI 194830 DOMES DN CBI _________ Community Domain CBI SC 11_______________ Domestic Domain CBI SC 11 191010 191012 191014 191016 192010 192012 192014 192016 193010 193012 COMM DOM 1 DOMT DOM 1 VOC DOM,1 REC/LEIS 1 COMM DOM 2 DOMT DOM 2 VOC DOM 2 REC/LEIS 2 COMM DOM 3 DOM DOM 3 37194835 '*.............. No. VOC DOMN CBI Vocational Domain CBI 194840 REC/LESR CBI SC 11______________ Recreation/Leisure CBI SC 11 193014 193016 VOC DOM 3 REC/LEIS 3 V^r Si \u0026gt;8i!i\u0026lt;i^*.'\u0026gt;*^A\n' 194900 195100 195500 194500 194510 A HISTORY SC SCIENCE sen P SCIENCE SC A HISTORY SC GOVERNMENTSC American History SC 11 Science SC 11_______ Physical Science SC 12 American History SC 10 American Government SC 10 194010 194012 194014 194016 COMM DOM 4 DOMT DOM 4 VOC DOM 4 REC/LEIS 4 38Non-Credit KCoureW BNo. 200100 200200 280100 220100 220150 270100 270300 270300 200400 200401 200309 STUD COUNCIL MONITOR MONITOR STUDY HALL STUDY HALL HOMEROOM HOMEROOM HOMEROOM ORN TCH PROF INTR EDUC LEARN FOUND9 V* Student Coungl MonitorLibrary____ MonitorOffice_____ Study Hallfull year Study Hall-semester HomeroomGrade 10 HomeroomGrade 11 HomeroomGrade 12 Orientation to the Teaching Profession Learning Foundations 9 Course' No.r . 201000 201002 201004 201006 201001 201008 202008 203008 204008 STDT COUN LIB MONITOR OFF MONITOR STDY HALL STDY HALL HOMEROOM1 HOMEROOM2 HOMEROOM3 HOMEROOM4 Student Council Library Monitor Office Monitor Study Hall Study Hall Homeroom I Homeroom II Homeroom III Homeroom IV Not taught. Deleted. Not taught. Deleted. Not taught. Deleted. 39F. MIDDLE SCHOOL CURRICULUMLITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT INSTRUCTIONAL RESOURCE CENTER 3001 PULASKI STREET LITTLE ROCK, AR 72206 December 15, 1999 HE(^ TO: Dr. Terrence Roberts Dr. Steve Ross Ann Brown. ODM Clementine Kelly (CTA) John Walker DEC 1 6 V9S3 OFFiGEOF FROM: Dr. Bonnie Lesley .'Associate Superintendent for Instruction SUBJECT: Instructional Standards One of the major projects that we are working on currently is a definition of instructional standards. Such standards are called for in Strategy 2 of our Strategic Plan and are implicit in the Revised Desegregation and Education Plan in several sections, as well as in the other critical planning/accountability documents that guide the Districts work. Few districts, if any, have adopted such a concept, but we are committed to doing so to provide a focus for professional development, to use as criteria in evaluating external instructional programs, to guide program evaluation, to provide criteria for teacher evaluation, and so forth. The standards that we adopt/adapt/create must be research-based and must attend to the needs of cultural minorities. We initially looked at the following models: 1. Dimensions of Leamina by Robert Marzano. et al 2. A Guide to Authentic Instruction and Assessment: Vision, Standards and Scoring by Fred Newmann. Walter Secada, and Gary Wehlage 3. Handbook of Reseach on Improvinci Student Achievement by Gordon Cawelti 4. Pedapoov Matters: Standards for Effective Teaching Practice by Stephanie Dalton 5. Educating Everybodys Children: Diverse Teaching Strategies for Diverse Learners, edited by Robert Cole 6. Enhancing Professional Practice: A Framework for Teaching by Charlotte Danielson Instructional Standards December 15, 1999 Page Two We then added two more models to consider\n7. The Dreamkeepers: Successful Teachers of African American Children by Gloria Ladson-Billings 8. How People Learn: Brain, Mind, Experience, and School, published by the National Research Council Finally, we are excited about some brand new researcha meta-analysis of studies on the effectiveness of instructional strategies by Robert Marzano. This study, available on the web at www.mcrel.ora. is the best research synthesis that I have seen on effect size and with correlations of specific strategies with instructional goals. You may want to read the entire study, but I am attaching only the summary chapter. Our goal is to either adopt, adapt, or create (synthesize) a set of instructional standards to be presented to the Board of Education by May. We will, of course, be consulting representative principals and teachers, once we on the committee fully understand the available research and our task. We invite your study of the accompanying documents and any advice you might have for us in the front end of completing this task. Please e-mail me, call, or write any suggestions or questions that you may have. Attachments cc: Dr. Les Carnine Junious Babbs Brady Gadberry Sadie Mitchell Dr. Marian Lacey Frances Jones Chris Heller Clay FendleyA.n Individual Approach to a World of Knowledge February 21, 2000 BECBVED Ms. Ann Brown ODM 201 E. Markham, Ste. 510 Little Rock, AR 72201 Dear Ann: I am sending to you a bundle of recent LRSD publications that I know youll be interested in. Also, 1 hope youll share them with your staff. K-8 Refrigerator Curriculum (Grade-Level and Course Benchmarks for Parents) Middle School Curriculum Catalog Middle School Student/Parent Guide High School Curriculum Catalog High School Student/Parent Guide to Course Selection and Graduation Requirements Please call if you have questions or feedback for improvement. Sincerely, Bonnie A. Lesley, Ed.D /rem Cc\nJunious Babbs Brady Gadberry 810 W. Markham  Little Rock, Arkansas 72201  www.lrsd.kl2.ar.us 501-324-2000  fax: 501-324-2032) Kindergarten Standards, Benchmarks RECBVEO MAR 1 0 2000 November 1999 Dear Kindergarten Parents or Guardians: OfflCEOf DfSfSRffiATOKOJIfTOflj,S This publication includes the Little Rock School Districts newly developed curriculum content standards and grade-level benchmarks. The benchmarks describe the specific knowledge and skills that your child is expected to learn in kindergarten. We are providing you this information not only for you to be able to check frequently on your childs progress in learning, but also so that you can help reinforce at home what your child is learning at school. We are confident that if the school and home work together in partnership, every student will improve his or her academic performance, and most, if not all, students will meet the Districts standards. You may be interested as well in how we will know if your child is meeting the curriculum standards and benchmarks. The following measurements will be used at the elementary school level:  daily observations and frequent grading of the childs work by the classroom teacher\n teacher-made tests and examinations\nadministration of the State Benchmark examinations in grade 4\nadministration of the Stanford 9, a norm-referenced examination, at grade 5\nand  LRSD progress examinations administered at least twice a year in grades K-5. Performance on the State Benchmark examinations and the LRSD progress tests will be defined according to one of the following levels: Below Basic, Basic, Proficient, and Advanced. The Little Rock School Districts goal is that a minimum of 90 percent of the students will score at or above the Profi- cienf level. Schools (staff, students, and parents) are challenged to assume collective responsibility to ensure that the goal is met. We encourage you to stay in close touch with your childs teacher. If you cannot go visit the school, you may call the teacher to discuss how your child is doing. Some questions you may want to ask are as follows: 1. Is my child learning at an appropriate rate? How do you know? 2. What are my childs academic strengths? Weaknesses? 3. How can I help my child build on his or her strengths? Help in areas of weakness? If you have questions about the information in this publication, please ask your child's teacher or the principal of the school. Sinosrely, Dr. Bonnie A. Lesl^, Associate Superintendent for Instructionpt GRADE Standards, Benchmarks RECI U 1 Cft r 1 November 1999 Dear Grade 1 Parents or Guardians: This publication includes the Little Rock School Districts newly developed curriculum content standards and grade-level benchmarks. The benchmarks describe the specific knowledge and skills that your child is expected to learn in first grade. We are providing you this information not only for you to be able to check frequently on your childs progress in learning, but also so that you can help reinforce at home what your child is learning at school. We are confident that if the school and home work together in partnership, every student will improve his or her academic performance, and most, if not all, students will meet the Districts standards. You may be interested as well in how we will know if your child is meeting the curriculum standards and benchmarks. The following measurementswill be used at the elementary school level:  daily observations and frequent grading of the childs work by the classroom teacher\n teacher-made tests and examinations\nadministration of the State Benchmark examinations in grade 4\nadministration of the Stanford 9, a norm-referenced examination, at grade 5\nand  LRSD progress examinations administered at least twice a year in grades K-5. Performance on the State Benchmark examinations and the LRSD progress tests will be defined according to one of the following levels: Below Basic, Basic, Proficient, and Advanced. The Little Rock School Districts goal is that a minimum of 90 percent of the students will score at or above the Proficient level. Schools (staff, students, and parents) are challenged to assume collective responsibility to ensure that the goal is met. We encourage you to stay in close touch with your childs teacher. If you cannot go visit the school, you may call the teacher to discuss how your child is doing. Some questions you may want to ask are as follows: 1. Is my child learning at an appropriate rate? How do you know? 2. What are my childs academic strengths? Weaknesses? 3. How can I help my child build on his or her strengths? Help in areas of weakness? If you have questions about the information in this publication, please ask your childs teacher or the principal of the school. Si rely, 7, Associate Superintendent for InstructionSR A DE Standards. Benchmarks RECSiV MAR 1 0 Office cf \u0026gt;*4 f: , 1 iJsia p[^.RGftriOHMOiTORi^S November 1999 Dear Grade 2 Parents or Guardians: This publication includes the Little Rock School Districts newly developed curriculum content standards and grade-level benchmarks. The benchmarks describe the specific knowledge and skills that your child is expected to learn in second grade. We are providing you this information not only for you to be able to check frequently on your childs progress in learning, but also so that you can help reinforce at home what your child is learning at school. We are confident that if the school and home work together in partnership, every student will improve his or her academic performance, and most, if not ail. students will meet the Districts standards. You may be interested as well in how we will know if your child is meeting the curriculum standards and benchmarks. The following measurements will be used at the elementary school level:  daily observations and frequent grading of the childs work by the classroom teacher\n teacher-made tests and examinations\nadministration of the State Benchmark examinations in grade 4\nadministration of the Stanford 9. a norm-referenced examination, at grade 5\nand  LRSD progress examinations administered at least twice a year in grades K-5. Performance on the State Benchmark examinations and the LRSD progress tests will be defined according to one of the following levels: Below Basic. Basic. Proficient, and Advanced. The Little Rock School Districts goal is that a minimum of 90 percent of the students will score at or above the Proficient level. Schools (staff, students, and parents) are challenged to assume collective responsibility to ensure that the goal is met. We encourage you to stay in close touch with your childs teacher. If you cannot go visit the school, you may call the teacher to discuss how your child is doing. Some questions you may want to ask are as follows: 1. Is my child learning at an appropriate rate? How do you know? 2. What are my childs academic strengths? Weaknesses? 3. How can I help my child build on his or her strengths? Help in areas of weakness? If you have questions about the information in this publication, please ask your childs teacher or the principal of the school. Siricerely, Sirjcerely, Dr. Bonnie A. Lesley. 7. Associate Superintendent for InstructionNovember 1999 3\" SRAOE Standards, Benchmarks MAR i 0 .or *. J GFi'wH Cf KSESREGAWnyesr i5:5\u0026gt;5 Dear Grade 3 Parents or Guardians: This publication includes the Little Rock School Districts newly developed curriculum content standards and grade-level benchmarks. The benchmarks describe the specific knowledge and skills that your child is expected to learn in third grade. We are providing you this information not only for you to be able to check frequently on your childs progress in learning, but also so that you can help reinforce at home what your child is learning at school. We are confident that if the school and home work together in partnership, every student will improve his or her academic performance, and most, if not all, students will meet the Districts standards. You may be interested as well in how we will know ifyour child is meeting the curriculum standards and benchmarks. The following measurementswill be used at the elementary school level: daily observations and frequent grading of the childs work by the classroom teacher\n teacher-made tests and examinations\nadministration of the State Benchmark examinations in grade 4\nadministration of the Stanford 9, a norm-referenced examination, at grade 5\nand LRSD progress examinations administered at least twice a year in grades K-5. Performance on the State Benchmark examinations and the LRSD progress tests will be defined according to one of the following levels: Below Basic, Basic, Proficient, and Advanced. The Little Rock School Districts goal is that a minimum of 90 percent of the students will score at or above the Proficient level. Schools (staff, students, and parents) are challenged to assume collective responsibility to ensure that the goal is met. We encourage you to stay in close touch with your childs teacher. If you cannot go visit the school, you may call the teacher to discuss how your child is doing. Some questions you may want to ask are as follows: 1. Is my child learning at an appropriate rate? How do you know? 2. What are my childs academic strengths? Weaknesses? 3. How can I help my child build on his or her strengths? Help in areas of weakness? If you have questions about the information in this publication, please ask your childs teacher or the principal of the school. Dr. Bonnie A. Lesley, Associate Superintendent for Instruction 4*\" GRADE  3 November 1999 Standards, Benchmarks d. 'J Ji' OsSEGFiEGATiCil ijKiiinGaiiiu Dear Grade 4 Parents or Guardians: This publication includes the Little Rock School Districts newly developed curriculum content standards and grade-level benchmarks. The benchmarks describe the specific knowledge and skills that your child is expected to learn in fourth grade. We are providing you this information not only for you to be able to check frequently on your childs progress in learning, but also so that you can help reinforce at home what your child is learning at school. We are confident that if the school and home work together in partnership, every student will improve his or her academic performance, and most, if not all, students will meet the Districts standards. You may be interested as well in how we will know if your child is meeting the curriculum standards and benchmarks. The following measurements will be used at the elementary school level: daily observations and frequent grading of the childs work by the classroom teacher\nteacher-made tests and examinations\nadministration of the State Benchmark examinations in grade 4\nadministration of the Stanford 9, a norm-referenced examination, at grade 5\nand LRSD progress examinations administered at least twice a year in grades K-5. Performance on the State Benchmark examinations and the LRSD progress tests will be defined according to one of the following levels: Below Basic, Basic, Proficient, and Advanced. The Little Rock School Districts goal is that a minimum of 90 percent of the studentswill score at or above the Proficient level. Schools (staff, students, and parents) are challenged to assume collective responsibility to ensure that the goal is met. We encourage you to stay in close touch with your child's teacher. If you cannot go visit the school, you may call the teacher to discuss how your child is doing. Some questions you may want to ask are as follows: 1. Is my child learning at an appropriate rate? How do you know? 2. What are my childs academic strengths? Weaknesses? 3. How can I help my child build on his or her strengths? Help in areas of weakness? If you have questions about the information in this publication, please ask your childs teacher or the principal of the school. Sincerely, Dr. Bonnie A. Lesl^, Associate Superintendent for InstructionS' GRADE Standards, Benchmarks November 1999 Dear Grade 5 Parents or Guardians: This publication includes the Little Rock School Districts newly developed curriculum content standards and grade-level benchmarks. The benchmarks describe the specific knowledge and skills that your child is expected to learn in fifth grade. We are providing you this information not only for you to be able to check frequently on your childs progress in learning, but also so that you can help reinforce at home what your child is learning at school. We are confident that if the school and homework together in partnership, every student will improve his or her academic performance, and most, if not all, students will meet the Districts standards. You may be interested as well in how we will know if your child is meeting the curriculum standards and benchmarks. The following measurements will be used at the elementary school level: daily observations and frequent grading of the childs work by the classroom teacher\nteacher-made tests and examinations\nadministration of the State Benchmark examinations in grade 4\nadministration of the Stanford 9, a norm-referenced examination, at grade 5: and LRSD progress examinations administered at least twice a year in grades K-5. Performance on the State Benchmark examinations and the LRSD progress tests will be defined according to one of the following levels: Below Basic, Basic, Proficient, and Advanced. The Little Rock School Districts goal is that a minimum of 90 percent of the students will score at or above the Proficient\" level. Schools (staff, students, and parents) are challenged to assume collective responsibility to ensure that the goal is met. We encourage you to stay in close touch with your childs teacher. If you cannot go visit the school, you may call the teacher to discuss how your child is doing. Some questions you may want to ask are as follows: 1. Is my child learning at an appropriate rate? How do you know? 2. What are my childs academic strengths? Weaknesses? 3. How can I help my child build on his or her strengths? Help in areas of weakness? If you have questions about the information in this publication, please ask your childs teacher or the principal of the school. Sincerely, Dr. Associate Superintendent for Instruction6* GRAOE November 1999 Standards, Benchmarks MAS ] 0 ZGCil Office a? DESEGRE(3ATi0ijM0WT0fl|S Dear Grade 6 Parents or Guardians: This publication includes the Little Rock School Districts newly developed curriculum content standards and grade-level benchmarks. The benchmarks describe the specific knowledge and skills that your child is expected to learn in grade 6. We are providing you this information not only for you to be able to check frequently on your childs progress in learning, but also so that you can help reinforce at home what your child is learning at school. We are confident that if the school and home work together in partnership, every student will improve his or her academic performance, and most, if not all, students will meet the Districts standards. You may be interested as well in how we will know if your child is meeting the curriculum standards and benchmarks. The following measurementswill be used at the middle school level:  daily observations and frequent grading of the childs work by the classroom teacher  teacher-made tests and examinations administration of the State Benchmark examinations in grades 6 and 8. administration of the Stanford 9, a norm-referenced examination, at grade 7.  LRSD progress examinations administered at least twice a year in grades 6-8. Performance on the State Benchmark examinations and the LRSD progress tests will be defined according to one of the following levels: Below Basic, Basic, Proficient, and Advanced. The Little Rock School Districts goal is that a minimum of 90 percent of the studentswill score at or above the Proficient level. Schools (staff, students, and parents) are challenged to assume collective responsibility to ensure that the goal is met. We encourage you to stay in close touch with your childs teacher. If you cannot go visit the school, you may call the teacher to discuss how your child is doing. Some questions you may want to ask are as follows: 1. Is my child learning at an appropriate rate? How do you know? 2. What are my childs academic strengths? Weaknesses? 3. How can I help my child build on his or her strengths? Help in areas of weakness? If you have questions about the information in this publication, please ask your childs teacher or the principal of the school. Sincerely, Associate Superintendent for InstructionI'\" GRADE ,v.\u0026gt;. /SD Standards, Benchmarks \u0026gt;UJ Illi: ~ 'J DESEGSrGAiiCfl November 1999 Dear Grade 7 Parents or Guardians: This publication includes the Little Rock School Districts newly developed curriculum content standards and grade-level benchmarks. The benchmarks describe the specific knowledge and skills that your child is expected to learn in grade 7. We are providing you this information not only for you to be able to check frequently on your childs progress in learning, but also so that you can help reinforce at home what your child is learning at school. We are confident that if the school and home work together in partnership, every student will improve his or her academic performance, and most, if not all, students will meet the Districts standards. You may be interested as well in how we will know if your child is meeting the curriculum standards and benchmarks. The following measurements will be used at the middle school level:  daily observations and frequent grading of the childs work by the classroom teacher teacher-made tests and examinations administration of the State Benchmark examinations in grades 6 and 8. administration of the Stanford 9, a norm-referenced examination, at grade 7.  LRSD progress examinations administered at least twice a year in grades 6-8. Performance on the State Benchmark examinations and the LRSD progress tests will be defined according to one of the following levels: Below Basic, Basic, Proficient, and Advanced. The Little Rock School Districts goal is that a minimum of 90 percent of the students will score at or above the Proficient level. Schools (staff, students, and parents) are challenged to assume collective responsibility to ensure that the goal is met. We encourage you to stay in close touch with your childs teacher. If you cannot go visit the school, you may call the teacher to discuss how your child is doing. Some questions you may want to ask are as follows: 1. Is my child learning at an appropriate rate? How do you know? 2. What are my childs academic strengths? Weaknesses? 3. How can I help my child build on his or her strengths? Help in areas of weakness? If you have questions about the information in this publication, please ask your childs teacher or the principal of the school. Sincerely, Associate Superintendent for Instruction 8* GRADE BKES .1 Standards, Benchmarks !\u0026lt;iAR 1 ( GFr: 5^. November 1999 Dear Grade 8 Parents or Guardians\nThis publication includes the Little Rock School District's newly developed curriculum content standards and grade-level benchmarks. The benchmarks describe the specific knowledge and skills that your child is expected to learn in grade 8. We are providing you this information not only for you to be able to check frequently on your childs progress in learning, but also so that you can help reinforce at home what your child is learning at school. We are confident that if the school and home work together in partnership, every student will improve his or her academic performance, and most, if not all, students will meet the Districts standards. You may be interested as well in how we will know if your child is meeting the curriculum standards and benchmarks. The following measurementswill be used at the middle school level: daily observations and frequent grading of the childs work by the classroom teacher teacher-made tests and examinations administration of the State Benchmark examinations in grades 6 and 8. administration of the Stanford 9, a norm-referenced examination, at grade 7.  LRSD progress examinations administered at least twice a year in grades 6-8. Performance on the State Benchmark examinations and the LRSD progress tests will be defined according to one of the following levels: Below Basic, Basic, Proficient, and Advanced. The Little Rock School Districts goal is that a minimum of 90 percent of the students will score at or above the Proficient level. Schools (staff, students, and parents) are challenged to assume collective responsibility to ensure that the goal is met. We encourage you to stay in close touch with your childs teacher. If you cannot go visit the school, you may call the teacher to discuss how your child is doing. Some questions you may want to ask are as follows: 1. Is my child learning at an appropriate rate? How do you know? 2. What are my childs academic strengths? Weaknesses? 3. How can I help my child build on his or her strengths? Help in areas of weakness? If you have questions about the information in this publication, please ask your childs teacher or the principal of the school. Sinaerely, 5 A.. Lestev T. Bonnie A. Lesfey, Associate Superintendent for Instructionf-n-oc C.P-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 \u0026gt;371-0100 /i'Ct-lfd April 13, 2000 Dr. Bonnie A. Lesley Little Rock School District 810 West Markham Street Little Rock, AR 72201 Dear Bonnie: This note is to let you know that we received your February 21, 2000 letter and attachments (various LRSD curriculum guides and catalogs) on March 10, 2000. We thank you very much for sharing the documents and inviting our feedback. Well be glad to look them over. As you know, I was involved in a car accident on March 1. I returned to work for the first time yesterday, so please forgive me for just now acknowledging your correspondence. I havent found the bottom of my desk yet and am slowing working my way through the accumulated piles. Please give me a call when you can and lets schedule some time,to spend together catching up. Sincerely yours, Ann S. Brown Date: April 17, 2000 To: Gene, Horace, and Melissa From: Ann Re: Recent LRSD Publications Attached are some LRSD publications that Bonnie Lesley recently sent us, asking for our feedback. Please review each document individually according to the assignments below, answering the seven review questions in writing for each document. Note that these publications are the originals, so please dont mark them up. If youd like to jot notes on them (edits, etc.), work on a copy. Id like to have your reviews by this Thursday. April 20. Thanks. Gene: Horace: Melissa: High Schools:  High School Curriculum Catalog 2000-2001  Guide to Course Selection and Graduation Requirements, 2000-2001 Middle Schools:  6* Grade Standards, Benchmarks  7* Grade Standards, Benchmarks  8* Grade Standards, Benchmarks  Middle School Curriculum Catalog 2000-2001  Guide to Learning in Middle School Elementary Schools:  Kindergarten Standards, Benchmarks  1 Grade Standards, Benchmarks  2\"' Grade Standards, Benchmarks  3\"* Grade Standards, Benchmarks  4\" Grade Standards, Benchmarks  S* Grade Standards, Benchmarks Review Questions 1. For which audience is the publication intended? 2. What is the stated purpose of the publication? 3. List the documents strengths in relation to its purpose. 4. List the documents weaknesses in relation to its purpose. 5. Overall, how well do you think the publication fulfills its purpose? Why? 6. What suggestions do you have for improving the publication so that it can better fulfill its purpose? 7. Additional comments.at- Office of Desegregation Monitorinq United Stales 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: April 25, 2000 To: Bonnie Lesley From: Ann Bro\nRe: Feedback on LRSD Curriculum Documents I took you at your word when you invited our feedback on the various curriculum documents you kindly sent us last month. I asked my staff to look them over, and their responses are attached Their consents ^e unvarnished and strictly FYI, so take them ofS^m, but please accept them in the spirit nt pnllpoiQiitxz of collegiality in which we offer them. Listed below are the questions I asked the staff to use as their guide in reviewing the documents. By the way, weve have gotten several calls from frustrated parents wanting to know, \"Whats a a Evidently that undefined phrase appears in a recent district publication on behalf of the millage, and perhaps elsewhere on parent-directed documents. We tell them refiigerator cumculum enables them to learn how to fix their refrigerator, or in the alternative we say It s a curriculum their refrigerator can study in order to become a smart refrigerator No we dont' (Just kidding.) Actually, we have to tell them the truth: In-house education-speak is one of lifes continuing mysteries, and none of us at ODM know what a refrigerator curriculum is either. is one of lifes Another point of bewilderment has knows, maybe teachers too) are come to our attention. Many parents and students (and who very confused about the difference between standards and benchmarks. We think we know how to define those words, but maybe the district needs to differentiate between the two terms and to widely broadcast definitions that will to work from the same understanding. to take care enable everyone Review Questions 1. For which audience is the publication intended? 2. What is the stated purpose of the publication? 3. List the documents strengths in relation to its purpose. 4. List the documents weaknesses in relation to its purpose. 5. Overall, how well do you think the publication fulfills its purpose? Why? 6. What suggestions do you have for improving the publication so that it can better fulfill its purpose? 7. Additional comments.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: April 25, 2000 To: Bonnie Lesley From: Ann Bro\nRe: Feedback on LRSD Curriculum Documents I took you at your word when you invited our feedback on the various curriculum documents you kindly sent us last month. I asked my staff to look them over, and their responses are attached. Their comments are unvarnished and strictly FYI, so take them or them, but please accept them in the spirit of collegiality in which we offer them. Listed below are the questions I asked the staff to use as their guide in reviewing the documents. By the way, weve have gotten several calls from fiustrated parents wanting to know, \"Whats a refrigerator curriculum?\" Evidently that undefined phrase appears in a recent district publication on behalf of the millage, and perhaps elsewhere on parent-directed documents. We tell them a refiigerator curriculum enables them to learn how to fix their refrigerator, or in the alternative we say its a curriculum their refiigerator can study in order to become a smart refrigerator. No, we dont! (Just kidding.) Actually, we have to tell them the truth: In-house education-speak is one of lifes continuing mysteries, and none of us at ODM know what a refiigerator curriculum is either. Another point of bewilderment has come to our attention. Many parents and students (and who knows, maybe teachers too) are very confused about the difference between standards and benchmarks. We think we know how to define those words, but maybe the district needs to take care to differentiate between the two terms and to widely broadcast definitions that will enable everyone to work from the same understanding. Review Questions 1. For which audience is the publication intended? 2. What is the stated purpose of the publication? 3. List the documents strengths in relation to its purpose. 4. List the documents weaknesses in relation to its purpose. 5. Overall, how well do you think the publication fulfills its purpose? Why? 6. What suggestions do you have for improving the publication so that it can better fulfill its purpose? 7. Additional comments.Comments regarding LRSDs High School Student and Parent Guide to Course Selection and Graduation Requirements, 2000-2001 1. For which audience is the publication intended? The guide is directed at high school students and their parents. Though the document does not explicitly say so, it would be useful also to middle school students as they decide whether or not to take high school courses as 8* graders. For example, students who wish to take calculus in high school must take algebra I in grade 8 as explained in the guide. 2. What is the stated purpose of publication? A convoluted sentence on page 2 in a section captioned Where do I start? says the guide is intended to assist students and parents by providing information that will help them to plan next years courses, meet graduation requirements, and to know college admission requirements. 3. List the documents strengths in relation to its purpose. It is complete. Few details regarding student placement have been omitted. 4. List the documents weaknesses in relation to its purpose. The guide is not clear enough for its intended audience because the language is garbled and the layout is inconsistent. For example, the table of contents lists Purpose for Guide and indicates it is on page 1. No heading on page 1 says Purpose. Instead there is a two-paragraph section titled Where do I start? in which the first paragraph extols the quality of LRSD. The second paragraph contains three items, not parallel, in what could be called a statement of purpose. Language used in the curriculum discussions is often vague. For example, the Unconditional Admission section on page 2 does not state a requirement and then list the courses by number and title which could fulfill it. Instead, for example, the natural science admission requirement section says, Three units, with laboratories, chosen from Physical Science, Biology, Chemistry, or physics. Only one unit may come from a life science. Few students could complete the course selection sheet accurately from this information, and the guide is full of examples similar to this. Frequently, supplemental information is included with course requirement listings and is introduced by a question. Page five has the question, What may I take to satisfy the technology requirement? The first paragraph following explains that the keyboarding class will not count. The second paragraph explains that students can test out of keyboarding, and the third explains something else. Nowhere, in this section, is the question answered clearly.The document is sprinkled with items enclosed in boxes but the boxes do not signify a single and consistent purpose. Some enclose quotes while others enclose significant information in thumbnail fashion, but the reader cannot tell the difference without close reading. The layout should help the reader focus on the key elements quickly. 5. Overall, how well do you think the publication fulfills its purpose? Why? If the guide fails to meet its purpose it will be because of the weaknesses described in section 4 above. As it is rewritten and republished the mistakes will be taken care of. 6. Suggestions! Clean up the language with clear declarative sentences that avoid ambiguity. Courses should be identified by name and number. The layout should help readers find information quickly and easily by using symbols consistently for information types. For example, if bold type indicates a particular meaning in one place, it should do the same in every place. Rhetorical questions used to draw attention to certain types of information should be answered directly and in sensible fashion. 1. Additional comments The guide is a useful publication that meets an important need. LRSD should be commended for the effort.Comments Regarding LRSDs High School Curriculum Catalog 1. For which audience is the publication intended? Apparently, the catalog is intended for staff use in assisting students with course selection. Some directives are clearly intended for staff, but students could use the catalog with little assistance from staff members. 2. What is the stated purpose of the publication? The purpose is not explicitly stated, but its title. Curriculum Catalog, probably makes a statement of purpose unnecessary. J. List the documents strengths in relation to its purpose. The catalog is detailed. It includes information for every circumstance imaginable from specialty courses in unique schools to correspondence courses available for dual credit, high school credit, or college credit. The only observable omissions are the regulations for administration. These omissions are explained in a foreword. 4. List the documents weaknesses in relation to its purpose. Other than the occasional typographical error or missed heading (Board Policy), the catalog appears to be accurate and to offer everything needed for general student assignment. It does not include special education student assignment procedures, but they probably should not be contained in this catalog. 5. Overall, how well do you think the publication fulfills its purpose? Why? The Curriculum Catalog fulfills its purpose completely. Except for the omission explained in the foreword, it contains everything the school staffs need for student placement. 6. Suggestions! The format could be spiffed up with illustrations or humor. 7. Comments! LRSDs instructional department is making good progress in formalizing its curriculum. The ill-defined courses and arbitrary student placements seem to be disappearing.LRSD b\"\", 7\"', 8', Grade Standards, Benchmarks Audience: Parents or Guardians Purpose: To help parents or guardians to monitor student progress in learning and to help reinforce at home what the students are learning at school. Strengths: Various guides are color coded. For parents with more than one child, this makes it easier to differentiate the guides. The general layout of the document makes it easy to use and attractive without being overly simplistic or juvenile. The explanatory cover memo from Bonnie is detailed enough to clearly state the purpose of the document, but also avoids excessive details which might lose the attention of the reader. For the most part, the benchmarks within subject areas are brief and relatively self-explanatory to even the reader with a very basic level of knowledge in various curriculum areas. Weaknesses: I may be confused, but where are the standards? Somewhere, the documents need to differentiate standards and benchmarks. Some benchmarks are not clearly expressed. In some cases, I got the impression that some benchmarks were condensed in order to keep the documents brief. However, condensing seems to have made some statements confusing or tremendously vague. Fuifdls Purpose: Generally, these documents fulfill the purpose of being simple and informative. It is quite a task to write an informative document that will inform a broad spectrum of individuals without being either insultingly simplistic or confusingly pedantic. I feel that the writers avoided the extremes in most cases. Suggestions: Define and give examples of standards. Parenthetical examples would have helped clarify some of the benchmarks. Are the curriculum documents printed in any other language other than English?A Parent and Student Guide to Learning in Middle School LRSD 2000-2001 Audience: Purpose: Strengths: Weaknesses: Middle school students and their parents To explain the progression of required and elective middle school courses. The guide is less formally formatted than the curriculum catalog. The question and answer arrangement should make the guide more user-friendly. The pages aren t numbered! It seems that if you were discussing the content with a teacher or counselor, you would have difficulty with references. In reality, the question and answer format is not as effective as it should be. The guide should have followed the format consistently rather than varying off into specific course descriptions. The more specific descriptions might have been more appropria\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_412","title":"Drug Program","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":["1990/1997"],"dcterms_description":null,"dc_format":["application/pdf"],"dcterms_identifier":null,"dcterms_language":["eng"],"dcterms_publisher":["Little Rock, Ark. : Butler Center for Arkansas Studies. Central Arkansas Library System."],"dc_relation":null,"dc_right":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC-EDU/1.0/"],"dcterms_is_part_of":["Office of Desegregation Monitoring records (BC.MSS.08.37)","History of Segregation and Integration of Arkansas's Educational System"],"dcterms_subject":["Little Rock (Ark.)--History--20th century","Little Rock School District","Education--Arkansas","Educational planning","School management and organization","Drug control"],"dcterms_title":["Drug Program"],"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/412"],"dcterms_temporal":null,"dcterms_rights_holder":null,"dcterms_bibliographic_citation":null,"dlg_local_right":null,"dcterms_medium":["documents (object genre)"],"dcterms_extent":null,"dlg_subject_personal":null,"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":"\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n\n\n\n   \n\n\n\n\n   \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n  \n\nTO: FROM: THROUGH I SUBJECT: Little Rock School District All Budget Managers / October 12, 1990 Brady Gadberry, Labor Relations Specialist Herb Cleek, Deputy Superintendent Drug Free Schools and Campuses Enclosed are copies of the LRSD policy and regulations covering drug free schools and campuses. Federal law mandates that each employee must be provided the policy and made aware of the possible consequences of failure to comply. The law also requires that each employee sign a statement acknowledging receipt of the policy. Please distribute the policy and acknowledgment form to each employee in your building or unit. each employee. Collect the signed acknowledgment from possible inspection. You should keep the signed forms on file available for 810 West Markham Street Little Rock, Arkansas 72201  (501)374-3361 LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT EPS CODE: GBB DRUG FREE SCHOOLS ANO CAMPUSES This po1icy The purpose of this policy is to comply with the Drug Free Schools and Communities Act Amendment of 1989 and Public Law 101-226. This policy IS applicable to all employees of the Little Rock School District. 3 Drug abuse and use during working hours are subjects of immediate concern in our society. From a safety perspective, the users of drugs may impair the well-being of all employees, students, the public at large, and may cause damage to school district property Therefore it is the policy of the Little Rock School District that the unlawful manufacture, distribution, possession, sale, dispensation or use of alcohol or a controlled substance on district property or at school-related activities is prohibited. piupeiLj UI di bcnooI-Any employee violating this policy will be subject to discipline to and including termination and referral for prosecution. up POLICY RECEIPT ACKNOWLEDGEMENT Little Rock School District, a copy of the district's hereby , an employee of the certify that I have received drug-free work envi ronraent. policy regarding the maintenance I am aware that the .of unlawful manufacture, distribution , cf alcohol or control led sale, dispensation, substance on Little possession or Rock use School District prohibited. property, or at school am also aware that violation of related activities/events, is subject realize district me to that as discipline up a -condition to and of my this policy will including termination. my employment in this school I must abide by the terms of this policy and Will notify employer of any criminal drug conviction f oi a violation occurring in the workplace no later that five (5) days after such conviction. I , a d I I Signed DateREGULATION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT EPS CODE: GBB J DRUG FREE SCHOOLS AND CAMPUSES I. Purpose To set forth procedures for regulating and monitoring the implementation of the Drug Free Schools and Campuses policy. II. Definition of Terms The term \"controlled substance\" means any drug listed in 11 U.S.C. Section 812 and other federal regulations. Generally, these are drugs which have a high Such drugs include, but are not limited to. Heroin, Crack,\" PCP and \"Ice.\" They also include \"legal drugs\" potential for abuse. Marijuana, Cocaine, \"C. . v. T k T which are prescribed by a licensed physician and are illegally distributed, dispensed or sold on school premises or at school-related activities. III. Procedures 2. The Little Rock School District will not differentiate between drug users and drug pushers or sellers. Any employee who is guilty of possession, use or distribution of a controlled substance and/or alcohol on school premises or as a part of any school-related activity will be subject to discipline up to and including termination of employment and referral for prosecution. The buidling principal or other administrative head shall notify the superintendent or his/her designee of any employee guilty of a drug- related violation occurring on Little Rock School District property or at school-related activities, and impose sanctions on the guilty employee. Alternatively, the school district may give the employee the option, at the employee's expense, to successfully complete a drug/alcohol abuse program sponsored by an accredited and approved private or governmental institution. 3. Each employee is required to inform the district within five (5) days after he or she is convicted for violation of any federal or state criminal drug statute where such violation occurred on the district's premises or during district-sponsored activities. A conviction means a finding of guilt (including a plea of nolo contendre) or the imposition of a sentence by a judge or jury in any federal court, state court or other court of competent jurisdiction. 4. If any employee is convicted of violating any criminal drug statute while in the workplace, he or she will be subject to discipline up to and including termination. Alternatively, the school district may give the employee the option, at the employee's expense, to successfully complete a drug/alcohol abuse program sponsored by an accredited and approved private or governmental institution. 5. By virtue of Little Rock School District participation in federally funded programs, the law requires all employees of the District to abide by these regulations as a condition of employment in the Little Rock School Di strict. 6. Each unit administrator shall be responsible for compliance with the reporting and certification procedures outlined in this policy and shall maintain, at the building site, appropriate documentation to demonstrate compli ance. 7. All employees are to be made cognizant of this policy and regulations and are required to sign an acknowledgement form and return it to the unit administrator. 1.5i\u0026lt;. K 1  U,(T Jt-VW'pX/l a. db^/ (jlu Ci^iA'L^ I L Ua\u0026lt; StU'-\u0026gt;X\u0026gt;\u0026lt; ktUit i tM OU-J ilTf- VLITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT EPS CODE\nGBB DRUG FREE SCHOOLS ANO CAMPUSES The purpose of this policy is to comply with the Drug Free Schools and Communities Act Amendment of 1989 and Public Law 101-226. This policy IS applicable to all employees of the Little Rock School District This policy Drug abuse and use during working hours are subjects of immediate concern in our society. From a safety perspective, the users of drugs may impair the well-being of all employees, students, the public at large, and may cause damage to school district property Therefore it is the policy of the Little Rock School District that students, the property the unlawful manufacture, distribution, possession. -------------------. J . v.i, sale, dispensation or use of alcohol or a controlled substance or, district property or at school-related activities is prohibited. p,upc, UI scnooi-reiatea Any employee violating this policy will be subject to discipline . , \"1 J  . ............... 'J 'J I OL. I p I I to and including termination and referral for prosecution. up POLICY RECEIPT ACKNOWLEDGEMENT I, ____________________________ Little Rock School District, a copy of the district's hereby , an emplovee of the certify that I have received drug-free work environment. policy regarding the maintenance I am aware that the .of ci unlawful manufacture, distribution, of alcohol or a control 1ed sale, dispensation, substance on Little possession or Rock use School District prohibited. property, or at school I am also aware that violation of related activities/events, is subject realize district me to that as discipline up a .condition to and of my this policy will including termination. ray employment in this I school I must abide by the terms of this policy and will notify employer of any occurring conviction. in the workplace criminal drug conviction for a violation no later that five (5) days after such Signed DateREGULATION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT EPS CODE: GBB DRUG FREE SCHOOLS AND CAMPUSES 1. Purpose To set forth procedures for regulating and monitoring the implementation of the Drug Free Schools and Campuses policy. II. Definition of Terms \"controlled substance\" means any drug listed in 11 U.S.C. Section 812 The term '(.unuuueu ouuiLUHvc ---------- . and other federal regulations. Generally, these are drugs which have a high Such drugs include, but are not limited to. Heroin, \"Crack \" PCP and \"Ice.\" They also include \"legal drugs Generally potential for abuse. Marijuana, Cocaine, u.u^r,, .... ....- . j , ,, ..\n.. which are prescribed by a licensed physician and are illegally distributed. dispensed or sold on school premises or at school-related activities. III. Procedures The Little Rock School District will not differentiate between drug users and drug pushers or sellers. Any employee who is guilty of possession, use or distribution of a controlled substance and/or alcohol on school premises or as a part of any school-related activity will be subject to and including termination of employment and referral disci pli ne up to for prosecution. 2. The buidling principal or other ad.ministrative head shall notify the superintendent or his/her designee of ary employee guilty of a drug- related violation occurring on Little Rock School District property or at school-related activities, and impose sanctions on the gullty employee. Alternatively, the school district may give the employee the option, at the employee's expense, to successfully complete a drug/alcohol abuse program sponsored by an accredited and approved private or governmental cry 3. 4. 6. 7. insti tution. Each employee is required to inform the district within five (5) days after he or she is convicted for violation of any federal or state criminal drug statute where such violation occurred on the district's premises or during district-sponsored activities. A conviction means a finding of guilt (including a plea of nolo contendre) or the imposition of a sentence by a judge or jury in any federal court, state court or other court of competent jurisdiction. If any employee is convicted of violating any criminal drug statute while in the workplace, he or she will be subject to discipline up to and including termination. Alternatively, the school district may give the employee the option, at the employee's expense, to successfully complete a drug/alcohol abuse program sponsored by an accredited and approved private or governmental institution. By virtue of Little Rock School District participation in federally funded programs, the law requires all employees of the District to abide by these regulations as a condition of employment in the Little Rock School Di strict. Each unit administrator shall be responsible for compliance with the reporting and certification procedures outlined in this policy and shall maintain, at the building site, appropriate documentation to demonstrate compllance. All employees are to be made cognizant of this policy and regulations and are required to sign an acknowledgement form and return it to the unit administrator. 1.LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT EPS CODE: GBB DRUG FREE SCHOOLS AND CAMPUSES This policy The purpose of this policy is to comply with the Drug Free Schools and Communities Act Amendment of 1989 and Public Law 101-226. This policy is applicable to all employees of the Little Rock School District. students, the Drug abuse and use during working hours are subjects of immediate concern in our society. From a safety perspective, the users of drugs may impair the well-being of all employees, students, the public at large, and may cause damage to school district property Therefore it is the policy of the Little Rock School District that the unlawful manufacture, distribution, possession, sale, dispensation or use of alcohol or a controlled substance on district property or at school-related activities is prohibited. pi upei uy UI dL scnooi-Any employee violating this policy will be subject to discipline un tn anH i nrl itdi nn _______i . to and including termination and referral for prosecution. POLICY RECEIPT ACKNOWLEDGEMENT I, ____________________________ Little Rock School District, a copy of the district's hereby , an employee of the certify that I have received drug-f ree work envi ronraent. policy regarding the maintenance .of a I am aware that the unlawful manufacture, distribution, of alcohol or control 1ed sale, dispensation, substance possession or use on Little Rock School District prohibited. property, or at school related activities/events, am also aware that violation of subject realize district me to that as discipline up a .condition to and of my this policy will including termination. my employment in this school I must abide by the terms of this policy and will notify employer of any occurring conviction. in the workplace criminal drug conviction for a violation no later that five (5) days after such I a i s I Signed DateI. REGULATION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT EPS CODE: GBB Purpose DRUG FREE SCHOOLS AND CAMPUSES To set forth procedures for regulating and monitoring the implementation of the Drug Free Schools and Campuses policy. Il. Definition of Terms The term \"controlled substance\" means any drug listed in 11 U:S.C. Section 812 and other federal regulations. Generally, these are drugs which have a high Such drugs include, but are not limited to. Heroin, \"Crack,\" PCP and \"Ice.\" They also include \"legal drugs\" potential for abuse. Marijuana, Cocaine, . v. ....-  - - which are prescribed by a licensed physician and are illegally distributed, dispensed or sold on school premises or at school-related activities. III. Procedures The Little Rock School District will not differentiate between drug users u.uu o w. o=,lv. .. Any employee who is guilty of possession, or distribution of a controlled substance and/or alcohol on school and drug pushers or sellers. use or distribution or a control leo suuslohuc a.iu/ur premises or as a part of any school-related activity will be subject to UI Ob a pui t . ------------------------ 1. J r ^-1 discipline up to and including termination of employment and referroi 2. for prosecution. The buidling principal or other administrative head shall notify the superintendent or his/her designee of ary employee guilty of a drug- related violation occurring on Little Rock School District property or at school-related activities, and impose sanctions on the guilty employee. Alternatively, the school district may give the employee the option, at the employee's expense, to successfully complete a drug/alcohol abuse accredited and approved private or governmental program sponsored by an insti tution. 3. Each employee is required to inform the district within five (5) days after he or she is convicted for violation of any federal or state criminal drug statute where such violation occurred on the district's premises or during district-sponsored activities. A conviction means a finding of guilt (including a plea of nolo contendre) or the imposition of a sentence by a judge or jury in any federal court, state court or other court of competent jurisdiction. If any employee is convicted of violating any criminal drug statute while in the workplace, he or she will be subject to discipline up to and including termination. Alternatively, the school district may give the employee the option, at the employee's expense, to successfully complete a drug/alcohol abuse program sponsored by an accredited and approved private or governmental institution. 5. By virtue of Little Rock School District participation in federally funded programs, the law requires all employees of the District to abide by these regulations as a condition of employment in the Little Rock School Di strict. 6. Each unit administrator shall be responsible for compliance with the reporting and certification procedures outlined in this policy and shall maintain, at the building site, appropriate documentation to demonstrate compli ance. 7. All employees are to be made cognizant of this policy and regulations and are required to sign an acknowledgement form and return it to the unit administrator. 1. 4.received JUL 1 t99t OHice of Desegregation Monitoring LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT DRUG TESTING PROGRAM June 1991I. Little Rock School District Drug Testing Program A, Program Overview The safety and District's maintained. students security shall of be the Little a priority and Rock School alcohol, The influence or use of drugs, always including is capable of threatening the safety of our students and cannot be tolerated. The Little Rock School District (LRSD) is committed to providing a drug free work environment for employees. the safety of students and The possession, use, transfer, or sale of alcohol and/or any illegal drug while on duty is strictly prohibited. Being under the influence of alcohol and/or any illegal drug while on duty is also strictly prohibited. B. Scope of Program All LRSD employees whose primary job is the transporting of students in vehicles owned, leased, or rented by LRSD will abide by this program. II. Definitions A. \"Abuse and/or untimely use of alcohol\": Having an alcohol concentration in the blood or breath of 0.4% or greater or having an alcohol concentration in the blood or breath in any amount or degree when coupled with impairment of the employee's ability to safely, properly, and effectively perform his or her assigned duties. B. Drug: Any substance (other than alcohol) that has known mind or function-altering effects on human subject, specifically including any psychoactive substance and including, but not limited to, controlled substances. C. Controlled Substance: a Has the meaning assigned by the Federal Government and includes all substances listed on Schedules I through V as they are presently listed in Regulations, Parts 1301-1306. 21 Code of Federal D. \"Abuse and/or untimely and/or drugs\": use of controlled substances 1. Testing positive for the presence of any controlled substances in the body in any amount or degree, when coupled with impairment of the employee'sDrug Testing Program June 27, 1991 Page 3 E. ability to safely, properly, perform his/her assigned duties, or and effectively Testing positive for the presence of any drugs in the body at or above the following cutoff levels (nanagrams per milliliter) for the initial drug screen (lA) and the confirming test fGC/MS). NIDA cutoff will be utilized). Marijuana metabolites Cocaine metabolites Opiate metabolites Codeine Morphine Amphetamine Amphetamine Methamphetamine Phencyclidine Drug Screener/Collector: lA 100 300 300 1000 25 (The GC/MS 15 ng/ml 150 ng/ml ng/ml 300 ng/ml 300 ng/ml 500 500 25 2 . The person responsible for collection of specimens under this program. F. Drug Program Coordinator: The person responsible for administration of this program. G. NIDA: National Institute on Drug Abuse H. On Duty: The time beginning when an employee reports for work until the employee finishes work and leaves District property (including any rest and lunch breaks). On duty also includes any time an employee is traveling on LRSD business.Drug Testing Program June 27, Page 4 1991 I. Specimen: A urine sample in the amount of at least 60 milliliters. III. Job Applicant Testing A. All applicants for jobs covered by this program will be required to undergo drug and/or alcohol screening prior to their employment. B. Applicants will be informed in writing prior to any drug and/or alcohol screening that such tests are required and that their employment is conditioned upon passing such tests. Applicants will also be C. D. E. F. IV. District's Testing Drug Program, informed and a program will be made available upon request. Procedures set forth in of the copy of the applicant testing. Section VII will apply to If an applicant's positive, initial drug or alcohol test a confirmation test will be conducted requested by applicant at applicant's expense. confirmation test IS requested. no action on is if If a the applicant's employment will be taken until the results of the confirmation test are available. If an applicant's initial drug or alcohol test or. if requested, confirmation test is positive for alcohol or illegal drugs, applicant will not be employed. On written request by the applicant. a copy of the confirmation test will be supplied to the applicant. Random Employee Testing A. To maintain the District's priority of assuring the safety, health. and well-being of students and the traveling public, LRSD retains the right to randomly test for alcohol and illegal drugs all District employees who are covered by this program. No employee will be B. randomly tested more than two times per school year. Each employee selected for random testing will be assured that his or her selection does not mean suspects usage of alcohol or illegal drugs. that LRSD The processDrug Testing Program June 27, 1991 Page 5 by which employees will be selected for random testing is as follows: 1, All employees subject to this program will be assigned code Coordinator. number by the Drug Program a 2. The Drug Program Coordinator will also assign each month of the school year (August through May) a one digit code number. When the last digit of an employee's number 4, corresponds with the code number for the month in which tests are being conducted, the employee will be tested. If an employee is unavailable for testing on the assigned date, he or she will be tested on the next drug testing date. 3, 5. The procedures set forth in Section VII will be used for all random testing of employees. 6. If the employee's confirmation test is positive for abuse and/or untimely use of alcohol or abuse and/or untimely use of controlled substances and/or drugs, he or she shall be terminated. V. Employee Testing for Cause A. An LRSD administrator who has a reasonable suspicion that an employee under his or her supervision is guilty of abuse and/or untimely use of alcohol or abuse and/or untimely use of controlled substances and/or drugs may require the employee to undergo a drug and/or alcohol test. Reasonable suspicion may be based, among other things, on an employee's observed behavior which is indicative of drug or alcohol use, reports from a reliable source of suspected drug use or possession. or the employee's admission of possession or use of drugs and/or alcohol. B. The administrator will follow the following process in cases where the administrator reasonably suspects abuse and/or untimely use of alcohol or abuse and/or untimely use of controlled substances and/or drugs: 1. Solicit an explanation from the employee for any behavior which creates a reasonable suspicion of a violation of this program.Drug Testing Program June 27, Page 6 1991 2 . If the employee cannot satisfactorily explain the , behavior, the supervisor may request the employee to undergo a drug and/or alcohol test (urinalysis). 3 . If the employee agrees to be tested, he or she will complete the LRSD consent form (see attached), and a specimen will be obtained. 4. Procedures set forth in Section VII will apply to employee testing for cause. 5. If the employee refuses to undergo the test or complete the consent form, he or she will be advised that such refusal constitutes a ground for immediate termination. If the employee still refuses to cooperate, he or she will be relieved of duty pending appropriate disciplinary action. 6. If the employee's initial drug and/or alcohol test is positive, administrative the leave employee will of absence be placed pending confirmation test of the employee's specimen. on a If a positive test is not confirmed, the employee's pay and job status will be restored. 7. If the employee's confirmation test is positive for abuse and/or untimely use of alcohol or abuse and/or untimely use of controlled substances and/or drugs, he or she shall be terminated. 8. If the employee is found not to have violated this program and is otherwise medically fit for duty, the employee will be returned to duty. VI. Employee Accident-Related Testing LRSD shall require an employee to undergo drug and/or alcohol testing when an employee is involved in an accident which results in personal injury or property damage while operating a vehicle owned, leased, or rented by LRSD. In such cases the procedures set forth in Section V (Employee Testing for Cause) will be followed, except that the employee will be advised that such tests investigation. are required If the employee's as part of the accident confirmation test is positive for abuse and/or untimely use of alcohol or abuse and/or untimely use of controlled substances and/or drugs, he or she shall be terminated. VII. Procedures During Collection A. To ensure that a chain of custody and specimen controlDrug Testing Program June 27, 1991 Page 7 are maintained, the collection of urine specimens shall . proceed as follows: 1. Upon employee's arrival at the collection site, the collector shall request the individual to present photo identification or other similar official 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. identification. If the individual does not have proper identification, this shall be noted on the chain of custody form. The collector shall notify the Drug Program Coordinator (DPC) immediately. The DPC shall then contact the employee's immediate supervisor individual. to confirm identification of the The employee will be required to complete a pre- test information form which serves as an identification document for the specimen collected. This form will request information regarding the employee's use of prescription and non-prescription drugs which may affect the outcome of the test. The collector shall be of the same gender as the employee. The employee will be required to remove any unnecessary outer garments and to leave outside the collection area any purses, briefcases, or similar items. The employee will be required to wash and dry his or her hands before the test is administered. The employee will then remain in the presence of the collector and not have access to water fountains, faucets, soap dispensers, cleaning agents or any other material which could be used to adulterate the specimen. To deter the dilution of collection site, specimens at the placed in the toilet bowl. toilet bluing agents shall be There should not be any other source of water (e.g., shower, sink, etc.) in the enclosure where the sample is taken. Any transfer of the specimen from the collection container to another observed by the donor. specimen bottle will be No information shall be released concerning the collection of the specimen unless accordance with this policy. it is inDrug Testing Program June 27, 1991 Page 8 9. If after one (1) hour, the employee cannot give the - required specimen, the employee will be required to report at the next Drug/Alcohol Test date. If at the second Drug/Alcohol Test the employee again cannot produce an adequate specimen, the employee will be suspended until the drug test is completed. 10, Immediately after collection, the collector will measure the temperature of the specimen (avoiding cross contamination of specimens) and inspect the specimen for signs of contaminants. Any unusual findings resulting from the inspection shall be noted on the chain of custody form. The time from when the specimen is collected to delivery of the sample for temperature measurement is critical and in no case shall exceed 4 minutes. The individual giving the specimen will be asked to observe the reading of the temperature and the recording of the reading on the control form. He or she will then be asked to initial in the proper block on the chain of custody form. If the temperature of the specimen is outside the range of 32.5-37.7 degrees C/90.5-99.8 degrees F., another specimen shall be collected, specimens specimen under direct forwarded to observation. the suspected to be forwarded for testing. and laboratory. adulterated will both Any be 11. Both the employee being tested and the collector should keep the specimen in view at all times until it has been packaged and sealed for shipment. If the specimen is transferred to a second container, the collector observe the transfer shall request the individual of the specimen and to the placement of the tamper-proof seal over the bottle cap and down the sides of the bottle. 12 . The identification label should contain the date of collection. name of collection required identifying information. official, and The individual shall initial the label on the specimen bottle, using initials corresponding with the name on the chain of custody form. 13 . The individual shall be asked to read and sign a certification statement certifying that the urine in the bottle came from his or her body at the time of collection. Refusal to sign this statement shall be noted on the certification statement form by the collector. Refusal to sign this statement.Drug Testing Program June 27, Page 9 1991 without justification, will result in disciplinary , action. 14. 15, The collector shall complete the chain of custody form for the collection process. All procedures shall be conducted in a detached and objective manner. 16. The specimen and chain of custody form with certification statement will be shiped immediately to the contractor laboratory. Reasonable suspicion specimens shall be shipped, in all cases, to the testing laboratory the same day of collection. VIII. Failure of Employee to Report to Designated Collection Site A. Upon notification by the DPC that an employee has failed to appear for a scheduled collection, the supervisor shall discuss with the employee the reason(s) for failing to appear. If the employee provides a legitimate reason for failing to report, no disciplinary action will be taken. B. If the employee does not provide a legitimate reason(s) for failing to report, the supervisor shall document the failure in writing and the employee will be suspended without conducted. payr until a drug and/or alcohol test IS IX. Employee Refusal to Provide Specimen at the Collection Site A. In the event an employee refuses to provide a specimen, the following procedures shall apply. 1. The DPC and director of the employee's department will be contacted. The employee will be advised by the director of the department or his representative that refusal to provide a specimen will result in termination. 3. The director of the department shall initiate appropriate disciplinary action against an employee if the employee still refuses specimen. to provide 2 . a X, Failure of Employee to Provide Specimen A. Upon notification by the DPC that an employee has failed to provide a sufficient quantity of urine (at least 60Drug Testing Program June 27, Page 10 1991 milliliters), the supervisor shall be documenting all relevant details to responsible for support any disciplinary action taken against an employee because of failing to provide a specimen. B. The director of the employee's department or his representative shall meet with employee to see if the employee has legitimate reasons for not providing a specimen. C. If the employee has legitimate reasons, he or she will be required to take the drug test within twenty-four hours. D. If the employee does not have a legitimate reason, he or she will be suspended without pay until the test is taken. XI. Right of Refusal All applicants and employees have the right to refuse to undergo drug testing. testing will be denied employment. Applicants who refuse to undergo such undergo such testing will be terminated. Employees who refuse to XII. Test Results A. Employees who are given the initial drug screening urine drug detection test for alcohol, barbiturates. amphetamines, marijuana, morphine. heroin, cocaine, and phencyclidine (PCP) may be provided with test results in one day. B. If the employee test is positive on the initial drug screening drug detection system for alcohol, marijuana, cocaine, barbiturates, amphetamines, morphine (heroin), and phencyclidine (PCP) a more specific alternate chemical testing method will be used in order to obtain a confirmed analytical result. All positive samples will be stored at the confirmation laboratory for a period of at least one (1) year. C. There are a number of different confirmation tests available cocaine, (heroin). for drugs of abuse phencyclidine (PCP), (alcohol, marijuana, amphetamines, morphine LRSD will select a company or laboratory with the necessary experience, knowledge, and background to do all confirmation testing. The company or laboratory will be certified by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS) or college of American Pathologists (AP) .Drug Testing Program June 27, Page 11 1991 D. Confirmation test results may be provided to the , employees who request them in writing within five (5) working days of the notification of their confirmation test results. E. Both applicants and employees may provide a written, explanation for their positive test results and request reconfirmation of their original sample at their own expense. XIII. Employee Notification All employees and job applicants will be advised of the Little Rock School District Drug Testing Program. Notice of the program will be posted on employee bulletin boards and copies of the program will be conveniently available for XIV. XV. XVI. XVII. applicants and employees to review. Employee Appeal A. job Any employee may appeal his or her discharge or other disciplinary action taken under this policy. Any employee may appeal his or her discharge or any other disciplinary action to the extent and in the manner such appeal is authorized by Board policy or appropriate law. Testing Time for Employee A. All employees who are subject to drug and/or alcohol testing will be allowed to take the test on work time. Job applicants will receive no compensation for testing. Self-Referral Substance Abuse Option A. Employees who voluntarily advise LRSD of an alcohol, narcotic, or substance abuse problem prior to being tested for alcohol and illegal drugs shall be eligible for a leave of absence without pay or benefits for the purpose of treatment and rehabilitation for a period not to exceed six (6) months. Upon completion of the leave. LRSD may require the employee to provide certification that he or she is capable of performing his or her duties and free from the effects of his or her prior drug or alcohol use. Return to service is conditioned on the employee being willing to submit to monthly drug testing for one calendar year. Confidentiality A. LRSD recognizes the legal need for strict confidentiality as it relates to test results. Confidentiality appliesDrug Testing Program June 27, Page 12 1991 to all information relating to the employee drug testing, result and treatment and no person other than necessary management will have access to drug testing results. B. An employee may waive the confidentiality of the drug test, test To waive confidentiality of the drug screening the employee must authorization to the LRSD. give written letter- of XVIII. Record Maintenance a It shall be the responsibility of the Drug Program Coordinator to see that all drug and/or alcohol test records generated by the Safety and Security Department are properly stored. Records resulting from the testing of LRSD employees for drug and/or alcohol abuse (e.g., chain of custody form, negative test results, confirmed positive test result, waiver forms, etc.) shall be maintained by the Drug Program Coordinator. XIX. Responsibility It shall be the responsibility of the Safety and Security Department to administer the Drug/alcohol Test Program for the Little Rock School District.LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT SAFETY AND SECURITY DEPARTMENT 1002 E. 21ST STREET LITTLE ROCK, AR 72206 RANDOM DRUG TESTING PROGRAM CHECKLIST FOR EMPLOYEES You have been identified through a process of random selection for drug testing by urinalysis. Please be assured that your selection and the selection of other employees in your facility for such drug testing in no way reflects that the agency has a specific cause to suspect the usage of illegal drugs. The process by which you have been selected uses the last number in your drug identification number. All eligible employees in that are under the drug testing policy and are listed in a random order and, on the day chosen for testing, a preset percentage are notified to report for testing. The number of employees selected for drug and/or alcohol testing are determined by a preset percentage. This process continues until the predetermined number of tests are completed. Please take a few minutes to read the following information, describes your role in the collection process. which Present required drivers license to the collector. When instructed by the collector, complete the Drug Testing Control Form. On this form, you may list any prescription and over-the- counter drugs that you use. strictest confidence. Any information given is held in Remove any unnecessary outer garments, e.g., coat, jacket. All personal belongings (e.g., purse, briefcase) must remain with outer garment(s). You may retain your wallet. When instructed by collector, wash and dry your hands. You may provide the specimen in the privacy of a stall or otherwise partitioned area that allows for individual privacy. It will be necessary for you to provide a specimen of at least 60 milliliters. If you are unable to provide a sufficient quantity, you will be given a reasonable period of time to provide an adequate specimen. As a general rule, you will be allowed a maximum of 1 hour in which to provide your RANDOM DRUG TESTING PROGRAM CHECKLIST FOR EMPLOYEES specimen. If at the end of the waiting period you still cannot provide a specimen, drug testing will be rescheduled by the Drug Program Coordinator. I I I  I I I I  I I I I  I I I I  I I I I  IPage 2 I I I I You should observe the entire collection procedure. I I I I When instructed, read, sign, and date the certification statement certifying that the specimen in the bottle is yours and came from your body at the time of collection. I 1 1  1 Note the temperature reading on the bottle and verify that the temperature was correctly recorded by initialing in the proper space on the form. 1 1 1  1 1 1 1  1 If you have any questions or concerns, share them with the Collector, your supervisor, or the Drug Program Coordinator. You are to report to at on (Address) (Time) (Date) for your test. 1 1 1  1 If you have an emergency and cannot make the appointment please contact your supervisor at (Name) (Phone number) 1 I 1  1 This form was given to the employee on at (Time) by (Date) (Supervisor) Employee's signature Date and timeSPECIFICATIONS FOR ON-SITE TESTING SYSTEM General: Drug testing system that provides for the qualitative detection of parent compound or metabolite for at least, (1) THC, Morphine, (4) Barbiturates, (5) Amphetamines, (6) PCP. (2) Cocaine, (3) Specific: The drug testing system must: 1. Be rapid with results being obtained in less than five minutes. 2. Be able to be conveniently performed \"on the spot\", (portable) at any location and in the presence of the client/patient/offender. Not require any instrumentation nor the corresponding electrical and plumbing requirements. Not require any daily routine maintenance or calibration procedure, beyond routine quality control. 5. Comply with NIDA Guidelines relative to cut-off/threshold values for each respective assay. 6. Require minimal urine sample volume of less than 25 microliters. 7. Be simple and easy to use so that professional staff can capably perform the test. 8. Not require the pretreatment of urine, or be affected by PH balance of urine. 9. Be in compliance with Food and Drug Administration regulations. 10. Be highly specific and reliable immunoassay that provides easy-to- read, clearly distinguishable positive or negative results. 11. Not require the reading of color differentiation for results. SPECIFICATION FOR CONFIRMATION DRUG/ALCOHOL TEST The Company, Laboratory, or Agency that performs the Confirmation Drug/Alcohol Test must be certified Department of Health Pathologists. and Human Services by either the United States or College of American 3 . 4 . The confirmation test results will be forwarded back to Requesting Agency within twenty-four (24) hours of receipt of sample to be tested.CONTACT LISTINGS Arkansas Highway Department 3994 Greman Leaf Cove Memphis, TN Roche Diagnostic Systems Joe Plaia 3994 German Leaf Cove Memphis, TN Fifth Division Circuit Court Jimmy Potts Little Rock, AR Friday, Eldredge, Clark Law Firm Andy Turner Chris Heller Little Rock, AR Little Rock School District Labor Relations Brady Gadberry Little Rock, AR Little Rock School District Transportation Department Richard Johnson, Director Floyd Cooper, Safety Supervisor Little Rock, AR Little Rock School District Safety and Security Department Bill Barnhouse, Director Little Rock, AR Little Rock School District Risk Management Brad Montgomery Little Rock, AR Arkansas Highway Safety Section Mike Selig 569-2648 U.S. Department of Transportation Federal Bldg., Room 3120 Mark WestmorelandArkansas Highway Police Motor Vehicle Richard Brown Drug Free, Inc. 100 S. University Cathy A. Bradshaw Midway Airlines, Inc. Nancy Romski, Director of Personnel 321-838-4610 Atlanta, GA Wayne Yancey 404-656-3377 School District Kansas City Public School District Tom Steaver 816-871-7000 Jackson, MS School District Curtis Starling 601-960-8700 Shreveport, LA  Parish Schools Marques Bladds 381-632-6318 Memphis, TN Mr. Douglass School District Director of Transportation 901-325-5540 Louisville, KY C. Duncan 502-473-3470 502-473-3113 - School District Birmingham, AL  School District Charles Henry 205-599-8810 CONTACT LISTINGSCONTINUED Roche Diagnostic SystemsLITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 810 WEST MARKHAM STREET LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS received 1 TO: FROM: SUBJECT: June 27, 1991 Board of Directors JUL Oiiico 01 Desegregation Monitoring Ruth S. Steele, Superintendent of Schools CONTRACT FOR SCHOOL DRUG INSURANCE PROGRAM I am enclosing a copy of the contract with Blue Cross Blue Shield in connection with the School Drug Insurance Program, reviewed the contract at my request. Our attorney I recommend that you approve the contract.FIGHTING BACK! BLANKET INSURANCE CONTRACT WITH ARKANSAS BLUE CROSS AND BLUE SHIELD, A MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY This is an agreement among Arkansas Blue Cross and Blue Shield, A Mutual Insurance Company, hereinafter referred to as \"Insurer\", \"we\" or \"us\", whose home office is located at 601 Gaines Street, Little Rock, Arkansas and the Little Rock School District, hereinafter referred to as II District, tl \"you\" or \"your. II whose Administrative Office is located at 800 West Markham, Little Rock, Arkansas, and the City of Little Rock, hereinafter referred to as \"City\", whose offices are located at 500 West Markham, Little Rock, Arkansas. ARTICLE I. WE AGREE: In consideration of the District's and City's execution of the Application for Insurance and of the premium set forth in Schedule A, attached hereto. Insurer agrees to provide Qualified Students insurance coverage for drug and alcohol treatments subject to the following terms and conditions: SECTION I. Definitions A. Plan: The Plan is the School Drug Insurance Program, described in this Agreement, designed by Insurer for Qualified Students of the District. B. Student: A Student is an enrolled. full-time student during the time this Agreement is in force, certified as such by the District. BICC. Gatekeeper: A designated person or persons who has the necessary training, certification and experience to evaluate the drug or alcohol abuse patterns of Students to determine if eligible Students qualify for the benefits available under the Plan. This person or persons will be employed by the District. D. Qualified Student: A Student that has been determined by the Gatekeeper to qualify for services available under the Plan. E. Designated Provider: A health care institution, located in the same county as District, which is licensed and qualified to render treatment for alcohol and drug abuse and which has entered into an agreement with Insurer to participate in the Plan. SECTION II. Benefits A. Up to $360.00 per Qualified Student for Level 1 Treatment by a Designated Provider, Education and Counseling: Treatment consists of (a) two one-hour group sessions per week for up to four weeks. if necessary. and (b) one one-hour private session and three two-hour group sessions with the Qualified Student's family. B. Up to $2,240.00 per Qualified Student for Level 2 Treatment by a Designated Provider, Intervention Group Therapy: Treatment consists of (a) an initial assessment, (b) three one-hour group sessions, per week for up to eight weeks\n(c) follow-up with two-hour group or one-hour individual sessions each week for six months\n(d) one one-hour private session and up to six two-hour group sessions for the Qualified Students's family. BIC 2C. Up to $6,500.00 per Qualified Student for Level 3 Treatment by a Designated Provider, Limited Residential Care: Treatment consists of (a) social, physical and psychological assessment of the Qualified Student\n(b) twenty-four hour residential care for no more than seven days\n(c) after residential care, three-hour group sessions three times a week for six months\n(d) three one-hour private sessions and six two-hour group sessions for members of the Qualified Student's family\n(e) periodic drug screening and (f) for Qualified Students with severe chemical dependency, inpatient detoxification for up to three days. D. Up to $13,500.00 per Qualified Students for Level 4 Treatment by a Designated Provider, Intensive Residential Care: Treatment consist of (a) twenty-four hour supervised residential living up to ninety days\n(b) after care one one-hour individual session per week or one two-hour group session per week for six months\n(c) Level 3 treatment components (a) , (d) , (e) and (f). SECTION III. Limitations A. No benefits are provided under this Contract to any student other than a Qualified Student. B. No benefits will be provided for admission of a Qualified Student in Level 3 Treatment more than once during a twelve month period. C. No benefits will be provided for admission of a Qualified Student in Level 4 Treatment more than once during a twelve month period. BIC 3D. No benefits will be provided for a Qualified Student's Level of Treatment which is not started while this contract is in force. E. No benefits will be provided for a Qualified Student's Level of Treatment which is not provided by a Designated provider. SECTION IV. Other Insurance A. Designated Providers have agreed to accept payment under the Plan as payment in full. B. If any of the' benefits under the Plan are available to a Qualified Student under any other individual, group or blanket disability insurance policy, health maintenance organization plan. union welfare plan. employer or employee benefit organization. self-insurance or any other non-regulated group disability benefit plan, benefits of the Plan will be reduced when the sum of: 1. Benefits that would be payable under the Plan in the absence of coverage of the Qualified Student's other insurance\nand 2. The benefits that would be payable under the Qualified Student's other insurance, in the absence of the Plan, exceed the maximum Benefit, set forth in Section III. of this Contract, for the Qualified Student's Level of Treatment. In that case, the benefits of the Plan will be reduced so that they and the benefits payable under the other insurance do not total more than the maximum Benefits set forth in Section II. of this Article for the Qualified Student's Level of Treatment. SECTION V. Other Provisions BIC 4A. As condition of coverage, District authorizes a Designated Providers to furnish Insurer, its agents, or any of its subsidiaries, upon request. all records, or copies thereof, relating to services provided under the Plan. B. Notice and Proof of Claim 1. You must submit written proof of any treatment received by a Qualified Student under the_ Plan not later than December 31 of the calendar year following the one in which such treatment was received. We shall furnish you such forms as are usually furnished by us for filing proof of claim. If such forms are not so furnished within fifteen (15) days after you give us written notice of treatment of a Qualified Student, you shall be deemed to have complied with the requirements as to proof of claim upon submitting within the time fixed for filing proof of claim (subparagraph 1. above), written proof covering the occurrence, character and extent of loss for which claim is made. 3. Benefits payable under the Plan will be payable 2. immediately upon receipt of written proof of claim. C. Legal Actions. No court suits shall be brought to recover from the Plan before sixty (60) days after written proof of claim has been furnished in accordance with the requirements of this contract. No legal action shall be brought after the expiration of three (3) years from the time written proof of claim is required to be furnished. BIC 5ARTICLE II. UNLESS OTHERWISE AGREED IN WRITING, THE CITY AGREES: SECTION I. To pay us the premium charges set forth in Schedule A of this Contract. SECTION II. That the District is the member of Arkansas Blue Cross and Blue Shield with authority to act in accordance with Article V. of this Contract. ARTICLE III. UNLESS OTHERWISE-AGREED IN WRITING, THE DISTRICT AGREES TO: SECTION I. Act as the agent for your Students (not of us) in all dealings between us and such Students including: A. Notifying us of changes in Students' status\nB. Provide notice to us of a Student's acceptance into the program, which Designated Provider and Level of Treatment. C. Providing Students all communications and notices from us. SECTION II. Employ and train the Gatekeeper. SECTION III. Hold Insurer harmless against any claims or liability which may arise as a result of Gatekeeper's determination of Designated Provider or Level of Treatment. ARTICLE IV. ALL PARTIES AGREE: SECTION I. . This Blanket Insurance Contract and the accompanying application constitute the entire contract among the parties. All statements by you shall be deemed representations and not warranties, unless there is fraud. No statement will be used to void coverage or reduce benefits unless it is contained in a written application. BIC 6SECTION II. We may amend the terms of this Contract. If we do so, we will give 30 days written notice to you. Such change shall be effective on the date fixed in the notice. Unless all of the parties agree to another date, any change in benefits and premiums shall occur on the anniversary date. SECTION III. Any of the parties can cancel this Contract by thirty days written notice to the others. We cannot cancel before the last day of any period for which we have received premiums. ARTICLE V. POLICY PROVISIONS RELATIVE TO MEMBERSHIP, MEETING AND VOTING. SECTION I. Annual Meetinp. An annual meeting of the members shall be held each and every calendar year in the State of Arkansas for the purpose of electing directors. receiving and considering reports as to the business and affairs of the Corporation, and transacting such other business as may properly come before the meeting. The meeting shall be held between January 1 and April 1 of each year at such place, date and time as shall be fixed by the Board of Directors or the Chief Executive Officer. The Board of Directors may, from time to time, provide that the place, date and time of the annual meeting shall be set forth in the policy of members as provided in Article III, Section 3 of these ByLaws. [THE ANNUAL MEETING OF THE MEMBERS SHALL BE HELD EACH YEAR AT THE HOME OFFICE OF THE COMPANY ON THE THIRD THURSDAY IN MARCH AT 1:00 P.M. (PROVIDED, IF SUCH DAY SHALL BE A LEGAL HOLIDAY, BIC 7THEN AT THE SAME TIME AND PLACE ON THE NEXT SUCCEEDING DAY WHICH IS NOT A LEGAL HOLIDAY)]. SECTION II. Special Meetings. A special meeting of members for any purpose may be called by the Board of Directors or Chief Executive Officer, and shall be called by the Chief Executive Officer or the Secretary at the request of members holding one- third (1/3) of the voting power entitled to vote at such meeting. Such request shall state the purpose or purposes of the meeting and no other business outside the scope of the stated purpose or purposes shall be transacted. Unless ordered by the Board of Directors, the time and place of each special meeting of members shall be determined by the Chief Executive Officer. SECTION III. Notice of Meetings. So long as each insurance policy issued by the Corporation sets forth the place, date and hour of the annual meeting of members, no notice of any annual meeting shall be required to be given to any member, regardless of the number or nature of proposals to be considered and voted upon at the annual meeting. If notice of the annual meeting is not set forth in each insurance policy, written or printed notice of the annual meeting and every special meeting of the members, stating the place, date, time and the purpose or purposes of such meeting shall be given to the members entitled to vote at such meeting not less than ten (10), nor more than sixty (60), days before the date of the meeting. All such notices shall be given, either personally or by mail, by or at the direction of the Chief Executive Officer or Secretary unless ordered by the Board of Directors. Notices BIC 8which shall be mailed shall be deemed to be II given\" when deposited in the United States Mail addressed to the member at the member's address as it appears on the records of the Corporation, with postage prepaid [first class mail, if the notice is mailed thirty (30) days or less before the date of the meeting], and any notice transmitted other than by mail shall be deemed to have been \"given\" when delivered to the member. SECTION IV. Quorum. Except as otherwise provided by applicable law. majority of the members of the Corporation (present in person or by proxy) shall be necessary to constitute a quorum for the transaction of business at any annual or special meeting of the members of the Corporation. SECTION V. Voting Rights. Each member shall be entitled to one vote for each policy held by him upon each matter coming to a vote at meetings of members. Provided, a group policyholder shall be entitled to a number of votes equal to the number of certificate holders insured under the group policy. Such vote may be exercised in person or by written proxy. SECTION VI. Vote Reguired. A majority of the voting power represented at any meeting of members shall be necessary and sufficient to approve any given matter. There shall be no a cumulative voting. SECTION VII. Proxy. At all meetings of members a member may vote by proxy executed in writing by the member or by the member's duly authorized attorney in fact. Such proxy shall be filed with the Secretary before commencement of the meeting or at such later BIC 9time as shall be expressly permitted by the Corporate officer presiding at such meeting. Each application for an insurance policy issued by the Corporation shall contain a provision pursuant to which the policyholder thereof grants a revocable proxy to the Board of Directors with respect to all matters to be considered and voted upon by members at any meeting for the term of such insurance policy. BIC 10ARKANSAS BLUE CROSS AND BLUE SHIELD, A MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY 601 Gaines Street Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 (herein called the Company) BLANKET INSURANCE APPLICATION AND PROXY COMPANY, IN CONSIDERATION of the application made by (herein called the District) Blanket Insurance Contract Number and in consideration of payment by the City of the charges as herein provided in Schedule A, agrees to provide the benefits described in the Blanket Insurance Contract. This agreement shall be for a period of (the Effective Date) to ( ) months beginning at 12:01 a.m. on , (the Anniversary Date) and from year to year thereafter, unless the Contract is canceled as provided therein. The premiums shall be paid in advance of the Effective Date and thereafter as provided herein. This Application is made and delivered in the State of Arkansas. It is governed by the laws of such and is subject to the terms and conditions of Application by reference. the Group Contract, which is a part of this Signed at 19 , this ARKANSAS BLUE CROSS AND BLUE SHIELD, A MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT Authorized Signature Authorized Signature CITY OF LITTLE ROCK Authorized Signature BIC 11PROXY I hereby appoint the Board of Directors (\"Board\") of Arkansas Blue Cross and Blue Shield, A Mutual Insurance Company (\"Company\") as my proxy to act on my behalf at all meetings of members of the Company. This appointment shall include such persons as the Board may designate by resolution to act on its behalf. the Board, or its designee, This proxy gives matters that may be voted upon at any meeting. full power to vote for me on all The annual meeting of Members is held each year at the home office of the Company on the third Thursday of March, at 1:00 o'clock p.m. beginning March 17, 1988. If the third Thursday of March is a legal holiday, then the meeting will be at the same time and place on the next day after, which is not a legal holiday. Special meetings may be called upon notice mailed not less than ten (10) nor more than sixty (60) days prior to,such meeting. This proxy, unless revoked. shall remain in effect during my membership in the Company. I may revoke this proxy in writing by advising the Company of such at least five (5) days prior to any meeting. I may also revoke my proxy by attending and voting in person at any Member's meeting. Address By: Signature and Title Dated this day of 19 BIC 12SCHEDULE A PREMIUM FOR THE FIGHTING BACK BLANKET INSURANCE CONTRACT SHALL BE AS FOLLOWS: Annual Premium $267,000 Payment of premium will be made semi-annually. The initial premium charge, of no less than $133,500, shall be paid on the Effective Date, and no coverage shall be in effect until such payment is received. Subsequent payments, the balance of the annual premium. shall be payable on or before the semi-annual date of the Effective Date. BIC 13November 1993  Vol. 5, No. 2 ^4 p arent talk JIL A DDrruugg Education Newsletter for Parents in the LRSD iiUtitiinnnnitHiUCS B B Safe Homes Program Comes to Little Rock Parent Power! has become the rallying cry of parent groups across the country who have joined together to implement a SAFE Homes initiative in their communities. The SAFE Homes program originated in New Jersey and Nebraska in 1991 because of the growing concern of parents regarding the alarming increase in drug and alcohol use among teenagers. Parents in these communities were asked to join in the effort by signing a SAFE Homes Pledge. Further, the parents agreed to cooperate with schools, law enforcement and young people to create a healthy atmosphere in which the use of alcohol and other drugs was no longer considered the norm. Guidelines which SAFE Home parents follow include:  to develop and communicate a clear no drug use position about alcohol and other drugs\n to not allow the illegal use of drugs or alcohol in the home or on family property\n to not allow parties or gatherings in the home when parents or other responsible adults are not present\n to support school and law enforcement policies regarding the use of alcohol and other drugs and to encourage the use of appropriate discipline in dealing with offenders\n to set an example that can be followed by children, and  to remember that appropriate and consistent discipline indicates concern and love. The Little Rock School District Drug Free Schools Advisory Council has adopted as one of its goals for the 1993-94 school year to implement a SAFE Homes Program in the city of Little Rock. An objective of the program is to have all Little Rock School District parents with children ages ten and older signed and pledged by the end of the first semester. This age group represents a critical period for experimentation. According to a recent Youth Health Survey conducted (1992) by the Centers for Disease Control, alcohol consumption is much more widespread among young people than the use of tobacco or any other illegal drug. The Center surveyed approximately 11,631 teenagers in 9th through 11th grades: Fifty nine percent of the students reported that in the previous month, they had consumed one alcoholic drink, while 14% said they had used cocaine in one form or another\nthirty-seven percent said they consumed five or more drinks on one occasion within the past month. In fact, the survey suggests that one third of our nations youth are problem drinkers. In our own city, alcohol and drug use are a leading cause of teenager overdose - requiring hospitalization. A Drug Use Survey administered to Little Rock School District elementary students (4th, Sth and 6th grades) and secondary students (grades 7th, 8th, 9th, 10th and 11th) in September, 1992, indicated serious drug use among out youth. Results of both surveys on selected drug use items are listed below: Elementary Level (3,931 students surveyed) Questions Responses 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 1. 8. 9. Have you ever smoked a cigarette? Have you smoked within the past 30 days? Have you ever drunk alcohol? Have you drunk any alcoholic beverage within the last 30 days? Have you ever used marijuana? Have you used marijuana in the last 30 days? Have you ever used Cocaine? Have you used Cocaine within the last 30 days? Have you ever used an inhalant Yes 7.5% 2.4% 17.1% 5.1% 2.8% 1.5% 2.3% 2.3% 7.2% 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 1. 8. 9. Secondary Level (4,544 students surveyed) Have you ever drunk alcohol? Have you had a drink of alcohol in the past 30 days? Have you used alcohol/drugs at school during the past school year? Have you used alcohol/drugs after school during the past year? Have you had 5 or more drinks per occasion in the past 30 days? Have you ever used alcohol/drugs on the way to school Have you ever used alcohol/drugs right after school? How easy is it for you to get alcohol? (Very Easy) Have you ever used marijuana? 10. Have you used in the past 30 days? 11. Have you ever sniffed anything to get high? 12. Have you ever used cocaine? 13. Have you ever used cocaine in the past 30 days? 14. When you drink do you drink to get drunk? 15. Have you ever been too drunk to remember what happened. 16. Have you ever come to school or gone to work with a hangover? 17. Within the past 6 months, have you 60.4% 30.3% 14.9% 18.0% 19.9% 14.4% 18.1% 60.2% 24.0% 11.3% 18.4% 8.4% 3.7% 41.5% 19.5% 15.8% been in danger due to your drinking? 16.5% 18. During the past year, have you used alcohol/drugs in school: 12.2% 10. Have you used an inhalant within the last 30 days? 11. Have you ever used other drugs? 6.2% 3.4% Clearly it is time for parents and other concerned citizens in Little Rock to unite and send a consistent and unified message to vulnerable young people about the dangers of drug use. Parents who are interested in finding out more about the SAFE HOMES program or want to be involved in its implementation are encouraged to call the Pupil Services Office at 324-2162 or the PTA president at your childs school. See Pledge Form on page 6. Little Rock School District Peer Helpers Hold Annual Retreats Expressions such as, it was really fun, I learned a lot, \"I want to come back next year, could be heard form the elementary peer helpers as they prepared to leave at the end of their first annual Peer Helper Training retreat held on September 17 and October 8, 1993, at the Ferndale 4-H Center. A special expression came from a Peer Helper from Otter Creek Elementary School who wrote: \"Thank you for organizing the peer training retreat. It was a lot of fun and I enjoyed leamingabouthelpingyourpeers. Also, I would like to thank you for letting us perform our dance. I had a lot of fun learning it and performing itfor the other students. I thank you again\"! Sincerely, Jessica B. Davenport Because of the large number of Peer Helpers at the elementary level, two training retreats were held at Ferndale. Peer retreats are District sponsored training events that bring students from across the District together to enhance skills and share ideas and information for improving their school-based Peer program. In addition to skill building, the peers also learn how to use energizers and music to add vitality and fun to the learning experience. About 225 students and adult sponsors participated in the first annual elementary peer retreat. A three day training retreat for secondary students was held November 3, 4, \u0026amp; 5, 1993, also at the Ferndale 4-H Center. The three days and two nights that secondary students spend in training make it possible to broaden the scope of the training to include relevant issues that students have to daily cope with in their lives. At the heart of peer programs are a range of student delivered projects that are implemented in both the schools and communities by Peer Helpers. Projects are varied and include: peer tutoring, cross-age peer education which allows secondary students to tutor, mentor and provide educational presentations in elementary schools for elementary students\ndiversity training designed to increase the students understanding and acceptance of individual, cultural, racial, religious and gender differences as well as encourage students to become proactive in their schools to help others learn about and appreciate and value differences. Other projects being implemented are:  Orientation of new students  Anti-drug use campaigns  Peer mediation  Peer education, i.e., AIDS awareness, suicide prevention, pregnancy prevention  Assistance to students with special needs  Providing a listening ear, and  Community outreach. There are also a wide variety of other projects and services aimed at promoting a more caring, affirming and nurturing school environment. Over 1,912 elementary and secondary students are involved in Peer Programs throughout the Little Rock School District. li I Peer Helpers learning how to work cooperatively to solve a problem. Recovery providing a hard hitting prevention message through music. f. 1 Suzi Davis, Peer Helper sponsor at Mann Magnet leading a skill building session for advanced level Peer Helpers. 12? Peer Helpers working on school design for district Peer Helping Quilt. I Heading home. A child 15 a person who is going to carry on what you have started. He is going to sit where you are sitting and whenyou are gone, attend to those things you think are important. You may adopt all of the policiesyou please, but how they are carried out depends on him. He will assume control of your cities, states, and nations. He is going to move in and take over your churches, schools, universities, and corporations... Thefate of humanity is in his hands... Abraham Lincoln 2 Armed Services branches present colors. Elementary Peer Helpers registering for retreat. Elementary Peer Helpers demonstrate a helping project. Peer Helpers get marching instructions from Marine, Navy and Coast Guard Officers, Randall Eller, an illusionist, puts \"magic\" Peer Advisory Council members lead group into Peer Helping. in rousing energizer. 1993-9^^ Peer Advisory Courrcil members \u0026amp; sponsors. Developing Lifeski Us Empowerment For Success Empowerment is a frequently used term and one that is important in the healthy development of every child. While the needs for survival, recreation, belonging, freedom and power are equally important, the need for Power seems to be the most difficult to satisfy. Power is one of the most effective incentives that can be offered to motivate children to learn. Fore example, children who cant read, according to the experts, have removed the need for reading from their minds because they have failed to see reading as a way to satisfy their need for power. Once they realize that reading will gain them power, they will begin to read. Helping children to succeed in tasks both at home or at a school is empowering. Giving choices is one of the most common methods of giving children power in their lives. Allowing them to select form a variety of acceptable options is an empowering experience. Relevance. Providing learning experiences that are relevant is crucial for helping children relate learning to empowerment. Children and youth must see that what they are being asked to learn has meaning for them. Taking the time to explain the relevance of what they are learning rather than just tell kids to do it just because 1 say so, helps them to understand and accept the learning activity as meaningful both now and in the future. Responsibility. We have discovered that while giving choices is empowering, it is also essential that children are taught to be responsible for their choices. During family meetings or in talking with kids individually it is important to be sure that they understand that they are responsible for the choices they make. Empowerment with responsibility should be our goal. By giving children and youth many appropriate opportunities to satisfy their need for power, we are assuring success for all children. 5 Drug Information Update Teen girls have highest gonorrhea rate. . . Of 544,000 cases of gonorrhea diagnosed in 1991, a third were teenagers and teenage girls have the countrys highest rate of infection - 22 times higher than women 30 and older. Teenage boys arent far behind, federal health officials reported. Gonorrhea, which could signal possible AIDS infection, also could make teens more vulnerable to AIDS even if they havent yet been exposed to it. Gonorrhea is curable but can cause infertility and heart and joint problems if not caught early. About half of those infected with the disease dont experience symptoms, which can include pain and discharge. Source: The Clarion-Ledger, August 1993 Aids Cases Increasing. . . Since 1981, health officials have reported 233,907 cases of AIDS in the U.S. About 1 million Americans are carriers of the virus. Deaths from AIDS have increased from 6,689 in 1985 to over 45,000 in 1992. The annual cost of treating an AIDS patient is J61,200. Source: Drug Abuse Update, Summer 1992 Syphilis Prevalent Among Teens. . . The rate of syphilis is rising again, particularly among urban teens who are sexually active and who abuse drugs. A recent study of syphilis patients aged 12- 19 shows the disease is most prevalent among females who abuse drugs, particularly cocaine. Almost one-half of patients showed no symptoms, and researchers emphasize that to slow the increased rate of infection, drug-abusing, sexually active teens should be screened for syphilis. Source: Drug Abuse Update, Summer 1S)93 'Two-year'olds say'NO.' Middle schoolers say'SO??? fff -Judith Baenen Drugs, Violence Parents Main Fears. . . According to a survey conducted by the Gallup Organization for Parenting magazine, when it comes to their childrens education, parents are more worried about drugs and violence than grades and teachers. Seventy-eight percent of parents named drugs as their top concern, while 68% listed violence. Parents were able to choose more than one category. Other concerns included low academic standards (68%), quality of teachers (59%), poor curriculum (50%), and class size (48%). Also, 67% of the parents back higher standards for teachers. Source: The Clarion-Ledger, August 1993 Poor Odds for Heroin Recovery. . . Heroin addicts who dont change their lifestyles by their mid-30s are unlikely ever to shake the habit, according to a study conducted by psychologist Douglas Anglin of UCLA School of Medicine. His study shows that an estimated 70,000 Americans are frequent users of heroin and only one in four people treated for heroin addiction at age 25 will be alive, out of jail, and drug free by age 50. Anglin traced 581 male addicts who started court-ordered treatment at an average age of 25. After 24 years, 28% were dead, 47% were in jail or still using heroin, and 25% were drug free. He believes that most rehab programs focus too narrowly on addiction and there is usually a whole range of problems such as psychological causes, housing, job training, and education that should also be treated. Source: USA Today, July 15, 1993 Tobacco Smoke a Toxic Substance. . . A report by the EPA in January concludes that second-hand smoke is a toxic substance, placing it in the same category as asbestos. Second-hand smoke (ETS) is responsible for about 3,000 lung cancer deaths each year. Other reports have shown that ETS is responsible for approximately 50,000 deaths each year in the United States, including about 37,000 heart disease deaths and over 12,000 deaths due to cervical and other cancers. Some of the EPAs findings concerning the effects of ETS on children are as follows: 150,000 to 300,000 cases of pneumonia and bronchitis annually in children up to 18 months of age are attributable to exposure to secondhand smoke. The report estimates that as many as 1 million asthmatic children annually have their condition worsened by exposure to ETS, and ETS exposure is a risk factor for new cases of asthma in children who have not previously displayed symptoms. Source: The Chemical People Newsletter, Summer 1993 Oral Cancer Epidemic Predicted. . . Today, 75% of mouth and throat cancers result from smoking and use of smokeless tobacco. Health care officials warn that if use of smokeless tobacco does not slow, we will experience an epidemic of oral cancer in 20 to 30 years. An estimated 10 to 16 million American use smokeless tobacco. Nearly 20% of male high school students use it and they are often the prime targets of advertising campaigns for smokeless tobacco products. Source: Drug Abuse Update, Summer 1993 Tuberculosis Threat To Certain Populations. . . Although the presence of tuberculosis has declined dramatically among the general population, it has maintained a strong foothold among the homeless, many of whom are alcoholics. Possible reasons for the spread of the disease among this population are the crowded housing in which some exist and the effect alcohol has on suppressing the immune system. Tuberculosis is also on the rise among AIDS patients, and public health officials warn that if adequate resources are not made available to these at-risk populations, they will not be able to control further spread of the disease. Source: Drug Abuse Update, Summer 1993 4Drug Information Update Cost of Substance Abuse Staggering. . . Substance abuse costs the nation $300 billion each year in crime, decreased productivity, and direct health care costs. Drug abuse is the prime culprit in the spread of HIV, and an additional danger is the susceptibility of AIDS patients to drug resistant strains of tuberculosis, causing the president of the Center on Addiction and Substance Abuse at Columbia University to call this a three headed biomedical monster. By the end of 1993, the cost of treating people infected with AIDS will exceed $10 billion. Source: Drug Abuse Update, Summer 1993 Clove Cigarettes Present Danger. . . clove cigarettes appeal to young smokers because they numb the mouth and help inexperienced smokers avoid the initial unpleasantness of smoking. Though the popularity of the cigarettes has decreased due to publicity of their adverse effects, no state bans them or places restrictions on their production. The eugenol in the clove oil is the active ingredient that acts as an anesthetic\na serious danger is that the eugenol can dull the swallowing mechanism and impair breathing, in some cases causing suffocation. Source\nDrug Abuse Update, Winter 1992 Rate of Fetal Alcohol Syndrome Triples. . . Between 1979 and 1992, the prevalence of fetal alcohol syndrome more than tripled, says researchers at the Center for Disease Control and Prevention. Researchers believe that much of the increase is due to greater awareness and reporting by physicians. Symptoms of the syndrome include behavioral problems, abnormal facial features, mental retardation, and growth deficiencies. Source: Drug Abuse Update, Fall 1993 \"People get into addictive behavior in order to feel good, and tb^/ eventually have to keep doing it not to feel bad. Dr. Robert Lobis as ijuotei in The Chemical Peovle Newsletter, Summer tjjj Did You Know?  Alcohol kills over 100,000 persons and costs this country over S85 billion a year, imposing a $40 billion burden on our health care system alone.  In 1991, the U.S. government spent S28 million of taxpayer money to promote consumption of U.S. alcohol products overseas.  States which have raised alcohol consumption taxes have tended to have higher college completion rates.  The more alcohol a high school student consumes a week, the less likely he/she is to enter or graduate from college. Source: The Chemical People Newsletter, Spring 1993 Drink why Teen-agers Drink Drink when bored 25% to get high 25%  Reasons 9% PARENT TALK A publication of the Little Rock School District Drug Abuse Prevention Program, is published quarterly for parents. Funding is provided through the Little Rock School District Drug Free Schools and Communities Grant. PARENT TALK is looking for practical ideas on how parents can help their children to develop physically, emotionally and socially. Reader ideas and comments are always welcome. Send correspondence to : Jo Evelyn Elston, Director, Pupil Services, Little Rock School District, 810 West Markham, Little Rock, AR 72201 I I I I I \"a hundred years from now it will not matter what my bank account was, the sort of house I lived in, or the kind of car I drove. But the world maybedifferentbecauselwasimportantin the life of a child.\" -Author unknown, reprinted in Progressive Farmer 5 Gun Violence Casts Shadow On Childrens Lives On May 15, 1993, two teenagers, one seventeen and the other eighteen years of age, shot and killed a Little Rock police officer during an attempted robbery. On July 19,1993, one fifteen year old male and one fourteen year old male were shot and killed by the proprietor of a local business during an attempted robbery of that business. Several youths entered a local restaurant on November 22, 1993, spraying the dining room with bullets and shot two other teenagers in what was described as a gang retaliation shooting. Regular reports like these on the local and national nightly news and in local newspapers are waking up Little Rock citizens to the deepening shadow gun violence is casting on the lives of children in our town and in the nation. According to a poll released by the Harvard School of Public Health in June, 70 percent of the public now believes that the safety of our children is affected by the easy availability of so many guns on the street and in our homes. More often, this awareness comes from personal experience. According to the survey:  Twenty percent of all parents reported having had or knowing someone who had a child who was wounded or killed by another child with a gun.  Nineteen percent reported knowing a child who was so worried that he or she got a gun for self-protection.  Sixteen percent reported that they knew a child who was found playing with a loaded gun. the poll, guns are present in 40 billion American homes, and nearly two in every three households with a gun possesses a handgun (25 million households). Forty four percent of parents with children younger than 18 own a gun, and among those parents, only 43 percent say they keep their gun locked up. Handgun Control, Inc. is also working for passage of state laws that would hold parents liable when their children injure others in accidents with the parents gun. Twelve states now have such laws but Arkansas is not among the twelve. A national campaign has begun to address gun violence as a public health issue. The campaign hopes to focus public attention on effective strategies for reducing gun related violence. Little Rock Youth Homicide Deaths, 1993 As of November 30, 1993, there were thirteen homicide deaths among youth ages 8-21 from handguns in the city of Little Rock. Gender/Age Black White All Races Male 8-14 Years 14 -17 Years 18 - 21 Years Female 226 226 At least 60% of parents said that the widespread availability of guns and the resulting violence have made their children more concerned about their own safety both in school, going to and from school, and that their children have learned to act tougher in an effort to protect themselves. The new data confirm that Americans are desperately concerned about how guns affect their children. Gun control advocate Sarah Brady, chairperson of Handgun Control, Inc., stated that she wasnt surprised by the poll results. What did surprise her, she said, is the number of people saying they believe in BANNING hand guns. The poll indicated that 52% of adults responding favored passage of a federal ban on the ownership of all handguns except for individuals who have permission from a court. The poll also revealed that 72% of the public supports making it illegal to carry a handgun outside the home without a special permit. Mrs. Brady stated that the public still doesnt understand that \"if you have a gun at home, youve got a ticking time bomb. According to 10 - 13 Years 14 - 17 Years 18 - 21 Years 1 1 1 12 I Pledge to Provide a Safe Home  I will not allow parties or gatherings in my home when Im not there.  1 will not serve, nor will I allow youth under the legal drinking age to consume alcohol in my home or on my property.  I will not allow the use of illegal drugs in my home or on my property. Name: Address: Phone: Signature: Complete and return to: Children's Grade Level: Date: Jo Evelyn Elston, Director Pupil Services Department Little Rock School District 810 West Markham Dttle Rock, AR 72201 (501) 324-2162 6 SPOTLIGHT Young People Who Beat The Odds This year the Drug Free Schools Program will replicate a new initiative called Beat the Odds\". It is a program that was developed nationally by the Children's Defense Fund (CDC), Washington D.C. in 1990 Annually, the CDC celebrates the positive potential of young people by giving Beat the Odds awards to teens who have overcome tremendous obstacles in their lives to achieve success\". Too often, news stories dwell on youths who get into trouble\ndrop out of school\nbecome involved with gangs or crime\nor become parents too soon. Rarely recognized, however, are the many young people who do well despite facing problems such as poverty, homelessness, family breakup or substance abuse that stand in the way of even the smallest achievement. What is most in^iring about the youth who are profiled is that though each faced obstacles in their personal lives, they have chosen to devote their time and energies to others through school and commuinty service. Two such gallant youth in the Little Rock School District are spotlighted in this issue ofParent Talk. \", S' Barty Jefferson, a twelfth grade student at McClellan High School, is one of two Beat the Odds youth to be profiled in our first recognition column. Based on the accepted definition of an at-risk youth, Barry would be considered a 'classic\" example. According to Barry, he grew up in a very poor family\", in an area where the use of drugs and trafficking in drugs could be observed in the neighborhood at any time of the day or night. Academic progress was difficult for him throughout elementary and much of junior high school. This lack of success in school coupled with low self-esteem led Barty into many self-defeating behaviors both in school, at home and in his community. Barry describes his early years in the following way: I had a whole different life at home than others. I lived in a very poor family and sometimes we really didnt know where our next meal would come from. This hurt my school work and the way I talked to people and the way I would treat my friends. But they did not know that I had not eaten even sometimes for three days. Our family moved from house to house a lot during my school years, so I had to change schools a lot and it was very hard because I lived with my mother and my two brothers and one sister. I did so many things in school when I was in kindergarten through sixth grade just so I would be noticed and liked. Because 1 was a ugly little boy in grade school, no one liked me but there were some of my friends who thought 1 was O.K. and tried to help me. Even some of my teachers did not like me and passed me just because of the way 1 acted in their class and they wanted me out. If you really want to know, I was the kind of person that went around beating up on little kids and taking their money. If some of my grade school teachers could see the way I act now, they would say I have changed a lot, a whole lot. From the sixth grade on down, I was a bad boy. I did everything I could to make life miserable for teachers, kids, my mother and the police. A turning point in Bartys life came when he entered 7th grade at Forest Heights Junior High. He credits much of that turn around to the efforts of his teachers and especially to his 7th grade counselor, Ms. Patsy Campbell. He explains his transformation this way: After the seventh grade, I started to like Forest Heights and a very dear person, Ms. Patsy Campbell, came into my life. She came to be my best friend and I loved her with all my heart. 1 still do. So now, every one saw the good side of Barty. 1 started working hard at school and at home. My grades came up, and my life was getting back on track until that day, 1 will never forget, someone was out to kill me because of something someone had said. I was at a meeting called Teen Talk with a good friend of mine, Mr. Moss. Three teenagers were out to get me but we got the truth out and everything was over. What made me stay in my right mind, keep good grades and stay involved in school activities, were six people in my life. Joe Lair was one of those people that changed me and the way I lived. He is my best friend and I learned a lot from him. I also owe a lot to my good friend. Officer Brigges, of the Little Rock Police Department for encouraging me to stay involved in all of the clubs I am in now and in the past. Many thanks to all my teachers, the guidance department, the wellness clinic and my family who have stood by me. I feel that there are three things that make me the person that I am today. (1) First is faith. I have always had faith in what 1 believed. I had to respect myself. The thing 1 had to learn was to love me for who I am and dont care what other people say about me. (2) Listen to what people say. I really had to do all I could to hang in there. (3) Work things out. 1 had to work very hard to be me, Barry, not how some other people wanted me to be. I guess thats why I want to be a law enforcement officer. I want to take what Ive learned and share it with other kids and people like me. Community service has become a staple in Bartys life now. He teaches two Sunday School Classes at Theyer Baptist Church\nhe was an active member of the Peer Helping program at Forest Heights, Central and now at McClellan, and volunteers many hours working with elementary school Just Say No clubs and the Little Rock Police Department Explorer Post. He is also aaive in the school-based Accept No Boundaries program and the Young Democrats. Barty is now living on his own and works after school and on weekends at Mega Market. After graduating in May, 1994, Barty plans to enroll at UALR and pursue a degree in criminal \u0026amp; justice. His ultimate goal is to become a police officer with the Little Rock Police Department. Rochelle Webb is a 17 year old 11th grade student enrolled at Central High School. She is also a young person who appears to be endowed with an indomitable spirit that keeps her focused in spite of many challenging circumstances she has had to deal with at a very young age. Because of a chronic health condition that her mother has, Rochelle has had to help raise five younger brokers and sisters. The neighborhood that Rochelle lives in is located in an area plagued by gang violence. Having to navigate form home to school, to church or to venture outside her door each day amidst the turmoil on the streets deeply saddens her, but the experience, somehow, has also strengthened her resolve. Rochelle states, \"The reason why I choose to make something out of my life is because I would like for my children to have a better life than I have. 1 dont care what it takes, but I am going to succeed in life. Life has not been easy for me at all, but Im not about to give up. 1 devote my time and energy on positive things. I spend most of my time on homework and extra curricular activities. I also give speeches on all kinds of topics. You see, some people find it easier to blame their situation on other people yet they are not doing anything to change it. I find it easier to do all I can to change my situation. I know that I can only do so much because I am a teenager, but thats a start. 1 feel that I will be a very strong adult because I have had to face so much. My advice to those young people who feel like giving up is to look to God for strength. I can't say that there havent been times when I just wanted to leave and go somewhere real far away\nbut running away never helps anything, it just postpones it. I believe that everyone has a purpose in life. You may not know right away, but sooner or later youll find out. My purpose in life is to make a difference in this world. I will do all 1 can to help someone and to make our world a better place to live. I Continued on pages. 7ZZZA The Station by Robert J. Hastings jf I Young People Who Beat The Odds Continued from page 7 Tucked away in our subconscious is an idyllic vision. We see ourselves on a long trip that spans the continent. We are traveling by train. Out the windows we drink in the passing scene of cars on nearby highways, of children waving at a crossing, of cattle grazing on a distant hillside, of smoke pouring from a power plant, of row upon row of com and wheat, of flatlands and valleys, of mountains and rolling hillsides, of city skylines and village halls. But uppermost in our minds is the final destination. On a certain hour we will pull into the station. Bands will be playing and flags waving. Once we get there so many wonderful dreams will come true and the pieces of our lives will fit together like a completed jigsaw puzzle. How restlessly we pace the aisles, damning the minutes for loitering - waiting, waiting for the station. When we reach the station, that will be it. When I buy a news SL Mercedes Benz! When 1 put the last kid through college. When I have paid off the mortgage! When I get 'Ttje Z\u0026gt;7/^ Hfeis tlje trtj). // a promotion. When I reach the age of retirement, 1 shall live happily ever after! Sooner or later we must realize there is no station, no one place to arrive once and for all. The true joy of life is the trip. The station is only a dream. It constantly outdistances us. relish the moment is a good motto, especially when coupled with Psalm 118:24: This is the day which the Lord hath made\nwe will rejoice and be glad in it. It isnt the burdens of today that drive men mad. It is the regrets over yesterday and the fear of tomorrow. Regret and fear are twin thieves which rob us of today. So, stop pacing the aisles and counting the miles. Instead, climb more mountains, eat more ice cream, go bare foot more often, swim more rivers, watch more sunsets, laugh more, cry less. Life must be lived as we go along. The station will come soon enough. Rochelle sees service as an obligation. She is a member of TAILS, Centrals Peer Helping program\nThe Ladys Club, Future 500, the Central Student Council, the track team and president of the Little Rock School District PRIDE Youth Group. In her community she is equally as involved. She sings in her church choir, serves on e Stop the Violence Youth Council and Hands of Praise, a group that ministers to the deaf through sign language. After graduation, Rochelle plans to attend college, major in social work and minor in communications. She has maintained a 3.8 grade point average at Central. grhinR freef^. ^ugfi heartity. ^f[ those you fove Q^ach out. gfow dovvm. I G^^ow. I that \"^ou (fo. tPediscover 'X oW ejriends. CA^Re 'Hug a Rid. 0\\s'C- new ones. Give in. CDirk snmrV pfrust fife. i^icR some daisies. Qrust fife. 31^1 someone in. gfiare them. CK^p a promise. (Expfore the unRnown. Source: Dream Inc., November, 1993, Jackson, Mississippi JXaRe some mistaRes. ^learn Jrom them. Have faith. Ceiebraie (ife? Verse by Jan IvUchelsen Little Rock School District Drug Abuse Prevention Program 810 West Markham Little Rock, AR 72201 Non-profit organization U.S. POSTAGE Paid Permit No. 2608 Little Rock, ARI Arkansas Democrat THURSDAY, AUGUST 22, 1991 i Police lunch, drug dog suggested to take bite out of LR school crime (s k ( BY CYNTHIA HOWELL DeiTxxraf Staff Writer A telephone hot line, a drugdetecting dog, locked schoolhouse doors, and police officers eating lunch in school cafeterias are among the items listed in a Little Rock School District 53- point plan for improving school safety. The 1991-92 plan, prepared by Superintendent Ruth Steele and her staff, was delivered to * school board members Wednesday and will be discussed at a school board meeting at 6 p.m. today. The plan includes new and old programs, and programs that j arent directly tied to safety and 1 security but are designed to make schools attractive to students. Several of the ongoing programs deal with school bus safety. The new telephone hot line began operation this week. Parents, teachers and students can leave anonymous tips about potential criminal activity or mischief in the schools. The number, which is answered by a machine, is 688-3033. The plan also calls for continued discussion of a controversial program to assign full-time police officers to secondary schools. The program was rejected twice by the board, but Steele has a Sept. 3 meeting with City Manager Tom Dalton and Police Chief Louie Caudell about program options. The cost of the 53-point plan would be about $691,500 this year, including the $300,000 budget for the districts 36-mem- ber safety and security office. Other proposed costs include:  $170,000 to repair broken, uniockabJe school doors. All exterior doors will be locked except for school front doors.  $10,000 for the purchase of 50 hand-held two-way radios. Some of the staff In all secondary schools and 12 elementahes now have the radios.  $50,000 for crews to dean and repair school grounds and prune overgrown shubbery.  $20,000 for mandatory drug-testing of bus drivers and aides. Three employees were fired last year because of positive tests.  $14,000 for the services of a dog that can detect drugs and firearms in student lockers and cars. V J 9. I  $25,000 for identification badges for high school students and some district employees to carry, but not necessarily wear.  $1,500 for an annual telephone survey to assess public views about school safety.  $100,000 for motion and sound detection devices to detect break-ins or fires. other highlights of the report included secured parking for Quigley Stadium inside the fenced practice field\nthe Little Rock Housing .A.uthoritys cooperation with the district to improve school attendance by children living in housing projects\nand an enhanced drug education program in the junior high health, science and social studies classes. Still other programs include monthly safety drills, elementary school crime prevention clubs, and a review of various anti-gang curricula. 1 I' 6B  FRIDAY, OCTOBER 9,1992 U.S. attorneys zones zero in on guns, drug sales in schools Democrat-Gazette Staff U.S. Attorney Chuck Banks has started gun-free/drug-free^ school zones in his district that make it a crime to possess a gun or distribute drugs near private or public schools. It is the responsibility of the federal government to have a visible law enforcement presence to help ensure that our schools are safe and secure centers for learning. Our parents, students and teachers deserve no less, Banks said. Banks said he wrote all school superintendents in the Eastern District of Arkansas on Monday saying that he was alarmed at the increased violence and drug activity near our school campuses. The Eastern District roughly covers the eastern half of the state. Banks asked the school superintendents to post signs identifying a school zone and giving notice to potential offenders of prosecution for criminal behavior. School officials are being asked to notify local law enforcement authorities and the U.S. attorneys office of criminal violations, he said.2B  UlUnSDAY, NOVEMBER 12. 1992 Pulaski Arkansas IX-niocnit \"y Rjnzcllc LR board spends $173,500 to save student insurance B/ KEVIN FREKING O'nncf\n,l Gi,?ene Cfy HafI neporter The Little Rock Board of Directors on Wednesday allocated $173.500 to bail out  for the fourih and maybe final time  Ihe program that jjrovide.s insurance coverage for students who need help with alcohol and drug addictions. \\iayor Sharon Priest said Ihe bfiai fl probably won t spend any more city money for the \"Fight Bark' Insure (he (Jdldren\" program wilhotil more help from Ihe private sector or state gov- (U'luin'ul. In addition, tity Manager fom Dalton recommended watering flown (he program s most ambitious ()rovisions for the in snrance policy's remaining six months. When the prf)gram was first envisioned, organizers hoped that the private sector and par- enl.s could sup|)ly the necessary funding. But since July, donations have amounted to $19,876. compared to the $187.000 needed to pay the first two premiums. My guess Is. we ll vole to do this today.\" Priest said shortly bobne the board met and votnd .5 0 to approve the allocatifin. \"But after that, it's going to he 'Mr. City Manager, you need to find other funds to fb, this because we can't afford this any i  . 1 more.' \" The $173.5(M) include.s $93,500 for the second of four quarterly insurance premium payments to Arkansa.s Blue Cross and Blue Shield and $H0.000 to repay an interest free loan obtained from Twin City Bank to help make the first premium payment in August. The second premium pavmcnl is due Nov. 25. During the program's fir.sl year, donations also fell far short of footing the bill. Al that lime. I.ilth\nRock marie the first of (wo $135,000 premium payments with the help of an $80,000 loan from Twin City Bank. Ihen repaid that money and paid the second premium with part of a $3 million grant from the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation of Princeton. N.J. Next year, afler (he final two payments  due in February and May 199.3  are made. city, school district and Fighting Back officlal.s should meet with Arkan.sas Blue Cir)s.s and Blue Shield to discuss Ihe program's future. Dalton said. It's been a successful program in terms of usage.\" he said. It's no! bt'en a successful program in term.s of funding.\" \"Fight Back! Insure the (Hui dren\" is a tinique program that enabled Lillie Rock this year to become one of only 10 cities in the country honored as an AllAmerica City by the National League of Cities. The program covers all stu dents in the Little Rock School District for treatment ranging from education and counseling to residential care for drug or alcohol addiction. During the meeting. Dalton told the board he recommended that the program s Hnal six months of coverage, beginning In February 1093. provide for tip to 30 dny.s of Ireatmcnt al a (Irug rehabilitation facilily in.slead of the current 90day maximum. Rxpendilures per student would also be ctil to $125. about 30 percent of the figure now in effect. But Wendy Salaam. FIghliivj Back executive director, said many of the private facilities that provide treatment likeh won t accept students under tin* proposed $125 cap. The number of students requiring residen tial treatment ha.s greatly ex ceeded expectations. .Salaam said. The $173,500 is being taken by the city's Special Projects Fund, which is about Io recciv e more than $200,000 thanks to tin lirtuidation of an escrow ac count cslablishe\u0026lt;l during litiga lion over Pulaski County .s in validated use lax.Arkansas Democrat AV/ (Sazcttc FRIDAY, NOVEMBER 13. 1992 Denial hurts donations, LRSD finds Advocates fear parents ignore need for anti-drug insurance BY DANNY SHAMEER Democrat-Gazette Education Writer Advocates of a substanceabuse insurance program for Little Rock School District students said Thursday that one reason donations have continued to fall short is because parents dont think their own children will face drug or alcohol problems. Lagging donations  which may threaten the programs long-term existence  caused the Little Rock Board of Directors to take two bold steps Wednesday night to help save it. They spent $173,500 to pay for the opening six months of coverage for the 1992-93 school year premium. The board also decided to restructure the plan so it wont cost so much and give fund-raisers a better chance to get private donations to finance covering the remainder of the school year. Starting in February 1993, residential care will be reduced from a maximum of 90 days to 30 days, and the amount spent per student will drop from about $450 per day to $125 per day. Wendy Salaam, executive director of Little Rocks Fighting Back office, said the lower premium for the final six months will make it more manageable for them to try and raise the money that will keep the program alive. Parents have a tendency to think it won't happen in their home. Drug or alcoholic abuse is not on a list you enjoy planning for. Advocates of the insurance program, now in its second year, said they hope parents come through so the program will continue. Most parents have such a high regard for their children, Mac Bernd, Little Rocks superintendent of schools, said. They dont think their children will need the program. Parents have a tendency to think it wont happen in their home. Drug or alcoholic abuse is not on a list you enjoy planning for. Marty Moore, a North Little Rock School Board member who has two children in Little Rock public schools under student desegregation transfers, said she thinks parents don't understand the program. Were always in denial, said Moore, whose two children are in the program. This is not charity, its insurance. We are uneducated and uninformed about what we could be faced, with. The Rev. Wendell Griffen, co- chair of the Fight Back! Insure the Children fund-raising effort, said he thinks several factors  including parental denial  have caused donations to lag. Griffen said he also thinks people in the city dont understand how much substance abuse affects the entire community. He said that when one child misbehaves in class, learning is disrupted for everyone else. Our community has not yet swallowed that message, Griffen said. He also said that parents will enthusiastically rally around fund-raising efforts for band trips, cheerleading squads and drill teams, but not to keep children drug-free. Griffen said that the citys religious leaders have not overwhelmingly supported fund- raising efforts among their own congregations. The fact that we have not gotten the moral leadership behind this as much as they get behind bingo is disheartening, Griffen, pastor of Emmanuel Baptist Church, said. Its our children, for crying out loud. They are our future. Santa Barbara, Calif., which is copying Little Rocks insurance program, is trying to solve the fund-raising problem at the beginning. Frankie Sarver, associate director of the national Fighting Back office, said in a telephone interview from Nashville, Tenn., that Santa Barbara officials will work this year collecting about $900,000 to pay for coverage that will last three years. See INSURE. Page 3B They want to make sure mat they have the money in their hands before the program starts,\" said Sarver, who ran Little Rocks Fighting Back office until last June. Little Rock Mayor Sharon Priest said that she hopes the city will be able to develop a more stable way to get donations flowing in before the school year ends in May 1993 so that they wont struggle to pay for the 1993-94 coverage. I want the program to survive, Priest said, But we can't continue to get money piecemeal and sweat it out every year.4 Arkansas Demccrat '^CBazcttc TUESDAY, MARCH 30,1993  3B Students begin campaign for alcohol-free prom night BY TRACIE DUNGAN Democrat-Gazette Staff Writer Paige Yates tosses some ice and liquids into a blender, presses the button and pours as young people enticed by the whirring sound fall into line. A parade of hurricane glasses, filled with the pink concoction and topped with little umbrellas, wends its way from the bar to tables in the room. But nothing illegal is going on here. These youths, who sat around Monday morning drinking their non-alcoholic mock- tails,\" wont be drinking the real thing on prom night, either. The 25 or so students from local schools were on hand at a news conference to help begin the first Prom Promise campaign in Arkansas. The program, started four years ago by Nationwide Insurance Cos., asks students to sign a pledge not to drink or do drugs on prom night. The pledge reads in part: Prom night will be one of the most memorable nights in my life, and I want to stay alive to remember it. So whether I attend prom or not, I promise not to use alcohol or drugs on prom night. Gayle King, assistant personnel manager for Nationwide in Memphis, said the programs main purpose is to save young lives. We hope a by-product of it is that it will impact insurance rates, King said. She spoke in a room done up in a prom-style motif. An arc over the speakers podium was festooned with pearlescent, pastel balloons. Some students sat at circular tables adorned with peach and blue tablecloths, streamer spirals and balloon centerpieces. King said program participants will receive a manual detailing ways to recruit their peers signatures on the pledge through such events as mock car crashes and red ribbon days. Schools with the most original events and the highest percentage of pledges will be eligible for cash prizes. Most of the participating campuses  Central, Sylvan Hills, Hall, Mills and North Little Rock high schools  were represented by student leaders at the news conference. They were provided a list of florists, tuxedo shops, restaurants and other businesses that will offer 10 percent discounts to those who sign the pledges.- The discounts are good from Thursday through June 10. Yates, who mixes up the, strawberry-pina colada mock-' tails on a regular basis while working at Spaghetti Ware-, house, said the ingredients are. ice and strawberry daiquiri\u0026lt; and pina colada liquid mixes. She garnishes the drink with a . pineapple wedge and straw.- . berry. i I 1I93 THURSDAY, APRIL 1,1993 Pulaski =J \u0026lt;,..5  ?  it 1- L'j e d h y I- s s s 1 *r \u0026lt; 'W -  -^1 L'T'\"' t f 1 1 I f TAPING PROGRAM  Two members of the 810th Station Hospital of the Arkansas Army Reserve, including Spec. James Johnson (top left) and Capl. Wayne Ray (lower left), speak Wednesday with McClellan Community High School coach Ray Gillespie and an eight-student Arkansas Democrat-Gazetle/Scott Carpenter panel during videotaping of a cable television show on drug and alcohol abuse. The program, \"Drugs: Reduce the Demand, Reduce the Problem, is scheduled to air at 1:30 p.m. Sunday on Black Access Channel 14 in Little Rock. 1 1 Reserves program takes war on drugs, alcohol to cable 1 BY SANDRA COX Democral-Gazette Staff Writer The Army Reserve in North Little Rock has declared war on drug and alcohol abuse and has taken the battle to cable television. The reserves 810th Station Hospital at Camp Pike completed its third taping Wednesday of Drugs: Reduce the Demand, Reduce the Problem, which appears on Storer Cables Black Access Channel 14 in Little Rock. If we reduce the demand for drugs on the individual level, well reduce illegal activity caused by the drugs, Capt. Wayne Ray said Wednesday morning, just before taping began at the stations studio in east Little Rock. Ray, who was dressed in his Army fatigues, is the shows coordinator. He was accompanied by Spec. James B. Johnson, who is also a minister at New Bibleway Church of God in Christ in North Little Rock. The episode marked the first time the program included high school students. Eight students from McClellan Community Gillespie to share their feelings about drug and alcohol abuse and its impact in the community. The students, many wearing blue jeans, appeared slightly nervous and giggly before the camera lights went on. But once the tape started rolling, they became serious and talked candidly about drug abuse as Gillespie questioned them. Most said they knew someone who was using drugs. One said he was a reformed drug and alcohol abuser. Another said he had been asked to join a gang, but he declined. Just about all of the students said they knew of businesses that didnt ask for identification when juveniles buy alcohol. At the end of the program, each student gave a statement about why people shouldnt use Ray said Gillespie had been very active in working to prevent drug abuse. Gillespie, 39, who grew up in the Highland Park housing project, said he was confronted with gangs as a youth, but the I problem wasnt nearly as bad as it is today,\nThey have to realize that Christ is the answer, he said. 1 It is my personal belief that a i lot of our problems are from separation of church and state. I Following the taping, Ray  said he was happy with the way i students presented themselves i in the program and would like to work out similar episodes I where well have students in- } volved. I The 30-minute talk show is 1 normally broadcast at 1:30 p.m. on the second and fourth Sun- I day of every month, but Storer I will deviate from that schedule I by broadcasting Wednesdays I taping at 1:30 p.m. Sunday, a sta- I drugs. , After the taping, senior r=,--------. LaKeshia Walker said the ex- ,tion spokesman said. perience was rewarding. I think this is great, and its jii aj/vifcvo*****!* Besides substance abuse, the I High School in Little Rock ac- very educational, Walker said. Ray said the Army Reserve program had been conducting similar programs, minus the Army Reserve program also has been discussing the problems 1 and responsibilities associated I with teen sex. That topic is ex- rnmnanied athletic coach Ray ^deo cameras^^at, pected to be addressed in future ! episodes.'1 2B WEDNESDAY, MAY 26,1993   Pulaski Arkansas Democrat (gazette i I I i LR school drug insurance needs $25,000 for premium PV: DANNY SHAMEER * \" ' Democfat-Gazene Education Writer Drug-treatment insurance coverage for Little Rock School District students may stop next whek unless supporters come up with $^,000. I  t- 4 I hope we can make it, said 41 Wendy Salaam, executive director of the City of Little Rock Fighting Back Initiative. The program is a non-profit arm of the municipal government\nits mission is to combat drug abuse. She and Mayor Jim Dailey said they believe a fund-raising effort will produce the $25,(XM) needed for the $45,205 premium ........... __.* due Monday. The insurance program, one of 12 projects created by the City of Little Rock Fighting Back Initiative, began with great fanfare in August 1991. It is the first in the country to offer students hospital care for substanceabuse treatment. Officials dont know how many students would be affected if insurance ends abruptly. Latest available figures show the district referred 198 students for treatment between Aug. 1,1992, and April 1. The latest figures show 160 students were assessed and 135 entered treatment since then. About 80 percent of the students in the program have no other insurance. The overall impact is definitely long term, Salaam said. It will take four to five years to see less criminal activity and a lower criminal population. The city needs to have that vision. Pay now or pay later. Last winter the city bailed out the program by contributing $173,000 and restructuring the plan with Arkansas Blue Cross and Blue Shield to help lower the premium costs from $373,000 to $277,910 over 12 months. , The premium due Monday would carry the program through August. Robert Cabe, executive vice president of Arkansas Blue Cross and Blue Shield, said that, because Monday is a holiday, a check that arrived June 1 would not cause disruption of service. If payment is not made, he said, officials would consider various options, including whether to stop insurance coverage. The Little Rock Board of Directors said last winter it would not bail out the program again. The city doesnt have the money to subsidize what needs to be a communitywide fund- raising effort, the board said. The city board firmly believes this must be a community endeavor if the insurance coverage is to stay in existence forever, Dailey said. Dailey added that, speaking as an individual board member, he would not like to see the insurance coverage get interrupted over a few thousand dollars. Salaam said Tuesday her office recently mailed out about 1,(XX) letters to corporations and business leaders, seeking contributions. Besides the $173,000 that the city kicked in last winter, about $51,195 has come from parents. Another $15,000 came from a Pennies for Pasta fund raiser in which the citys schoolchildren donated loose change, including pennies, dimes and nickels. The insurance coverage, which received national attention when Hillary Rodham Clinton, one of the original fundraisers, went on the CBS This Morning television show in 1991, offers a variety of treatment to students. .1 Treatment ranges from counseling and education to up to 30 days of hospitalization.Arkansas Democrat (i^azette   TUESDAY, JUNE 15, 1993 Copyright \u0026lt;0 1993, Little Rock Newspapers. Inc. Drug abuse insurance for students hinges 1 i / on $45,285 BY LINDA SATTER Democrat-Gazette Staff Writer City officials worked feverishly Monday to confirm tentative financial commitments to save the struggling substance abuse insurance program for Little Rock students. Officials of Fight Back! Insure the Children said they would announce today whether they met the Monday deadline for payment of a quarterly premium and whether the program would continue. A $45,285 premium was due by the close of business Monday to continue the city-sponsored drug and alcohol treatment program through the summer. Michael Hutchinson, a spokesman who returned calls on behalf of several city officials, said after 5 p.m. Monday that workers were still diligently working to get the mon- ey- We are trying to confirm some resources that were tentative commitments. We are still trying to meet that deadline, Hutchinson said. The program could possibly be suspended. If we cannot identify the resources, we will make a decision this afternoon and release a statement in the morning, Hutchinson said. Robert Cabe, a spokesman for Arkansas Blue Cross and Blue Shield, which provides the insurance coverage, said Monday afternoon: So far today, we have not received the premium or any communications about it. Since the fall of 1991, the program has provided all 26,000 district pupils with 100 percent coverage for drug and alcohol treatment, ranging from counseling to up to 30 days of inpatient care. The premium was due June premium 1, but on May 28, the insurance company granted the non-profit group a two-week reprieve. At midmoming, city Finance Director John Pryor said he had approved a check from the city, which contributed some money. He said Wendy Salaam, executive director of the citys Fighting Back program, has worked out a plan for the rest. But at midaftemoon, Salaam said she was still working on the matter. I dont have an answer right now, she said. Cindy Watkins, director of community relations for KATV- TV, Channel 7 and chairman of Fighting Backs media committee, said the Broadway Theater Series had a^eed to donate $1 from each ticket sold to two matinee performances of Les Miserables. Marilyn Weinstein, executive producer of the Theater Series, said late Monday afternoon that only about $550 can be expected in donations from the play. Watkins said Fight Back had expected $2,500 to $3,000, but the matinee performances didnt sell out. Watkins said a Pennies for Pasta fund-raiser she organized to help pay the last premium netted about $17,000, when just $10,000 was needed\nso the city had a $7,000 nest egg toward the current premium. But Watkins said she knew of no other money generated to meet the current premium, aside from the theater donation and despite a half-hour documentary she produced on the program that aired on Channel 7. I i\n|! 8 The city has said that if every parent contributed $12 a year toward the premium, it would be met. But few parents have donated.Arkansas Democrat (i^azcttc THURSDAY, JUNE 17, 1993 Copynght  1993, liltls Rock Newspapers. Inc. Collapse of school drug insurance BY LINDA BATTER Democrat-Gazette Staff Writer through local health providers. The tab has been picked up by Arkansas Blue Cross and Blue Shield, to whom the city of Little Rock, aided by donations, paid an annual premium. But the city announced Tuesday that there werent enough donations to pay the latest insurance premium, due Monday. Conse- vices office\".........................'* Children, T .u f 12 initiatives in the citys _ In the two years of the Fight larger Fighting Back anti-drue ick. Insure the rh.ia'.  program, was suspended until solid funding can be found to restart it. -Now that Little Rock students have lost the insurance that gave them free help for drug and alcohol problems, the fate of the counselors who assessed the students needs remains uncertain. The three counselors have been working out of the Little Rock School Districts pupil ser- puts 3 counselors in limbo and were guaranteed through 1997, by a five-year grant to Fighting Back from the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation of New Jersey. The other counselor has been paid by the DjttIe Rock School District, which also provided the selors office space. coun- Back! Insure the Children pT^ gram, the counselors have screened about 600 students from kindergarten through 12th grade to determine the type of substance abuse treatment orjntensive residential care, all coulselorfLTvet^^^pliffi Salaam said that in the programs first year, the 1991-92 school year, the two employees now paid with grant money were paid by the Alcohol and Drug Abuse Prevention Division of the state Department of Human Services. The division has since moved to the state Health Wednesday that she Department. started before June 1, Theres follow-up to do. Therell be a good months work for them to do. After that, she said, Im just not able to say until she speaks with Jo Evelyn Elston, director of pupil services for the district Elston IS attending a three-day seminar in Maumelle. Meanwhile, Wendy Salaam executive director of Fighting Ra/tir onizf 1X7....J___i_  - were hired specifically tor this, Salaam said of all the counselors. She said that, because coverage continues for some students whose treatment Similarly, Jeanette Wagner spokesman for the Little Rock School District, said Wednesday that I think thats still up in the air. Those decisions are still being made. Wagner also said that more definite answers hinge on the return of Elston, who will no doubt help make the decisions The counselors, also attending a conference, couldnt be reached for comment. The school districts next fis- cal year begins July 1. The citys next fiscal year begins Jan. 1 1994. Wagner said two of the counselors, both called substance specialists, are paid 000 plus benefits. One is paid by the city with money from Fighting Backs foundation grant\nthe other is paid by the school district. The third employee, the co- ordmator of the substance abuse assessment office, is paid $38 000 plus benefits by the city, Wagner said. That compensation also comes from the Fighting Back grant. The only other costs of the program which are paid by us are telephone service and office . space, she said. Figures for those services werent available Wednesday.Aikansas Democrat Q^azctk FRIDAY, JUNE 18.1993 Copyright  1993. Little Rock Newspapers, Inc. EDITORIALS Adopt-A-Kid Keep fighting back F\nlighting Back is down but not out. Tlie drug insurance program for the 26.000 kids in Little Rock's public schools wound up short the other day. A $45,205 premium payment came due, and there was only $28,000 to meet it. Result: This model program has been canceled for now. Sad. No one can believe tliat this insurance is too expensive. Premiums billed by Blue-Cross and Blue-Shield for three years of Fighting Back total $930,820. riiats $35.80 per studentless than $12 a year. That's a bargain, especially when you consider what other types of insurance cost. Why would families with teen-age students pass it by ifthe drug problem is as serious as the public has been led to believe? Some 600 of the districts 26,000 students have been counseled about their drug problem since the programs inception. Half of them were referred for therapy or treatment  a little more than 1 percent of the total school enrollment. This program is needed. Divide the cost of the insurance by the number of students who have received help, and its still inexpensive for the treatment it provides. The cost for every student treated amounts to only $3,102. Compare that to what some detox clinics charge. In the beginning, sponsors of Fighting Back were fortunate. The Robert Wood Johnson Foundation paid half the first years premium of $375,000. City officials have covered half the costs of reduced premiums for the second and third years of the program, or $277,910. The business and corporate community has been generous, too, but it's time for the program to support itself. Little Rock needs to keep fighting back against this menace. How many kids are using drugs and telling themselves they don't need help? How many parents are in denial? The vast majority of kids may not use drugs, but who can say how many will? Or who they will be? Drug pushers don't discriminate. Kids from every social and economic class have been affected. How many will need help before the summer is over? Where will they go? Instead of a perpetual search for stopgaps, this valuable program needs to be put on a sound financial footing. It's the first program of its kind in the nation  a pathfinder. Instead of foundering, it should be setting an example for other school districts beset with drug problems. Yes, fund-raisers are great  for one-time projects. The kids themselves p'loved that by pooling their pocket change to help make one of the quarterly payments. Churches helped, too. Some held Fight Back Sundays to raise money. But a more substantial method of funding is needed. Like nominal fees from those parents who can afford to participate. Growing numbers of parents have become interested in helping the program. Only 6 percent of parents with children in the public schools paid the $10 fee the first year. By the second year, 20 percent supported the program with a $12 fee. Why cant that percentage be doubled for the next school year? Maybe its apathy. Or poverty. Or hubris. Or the assumption that my child would never do drugs, combined with an indifference t\nThis project was supported in part by a Digitizing Hidden Special Collections and Archives project grant from The Andrew W. Mellon Foundation and Council on Library and Information Resoources.\n   \n\n   \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n   \n\n \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n \n\n  \n\n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n   \n\n \n\n\n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n\n\n  \n\n\n\n "},{"id":"bcas_p15728coll3_37957","title":"Dwight D. Eisenhower Library Symposium on Eisenhower Administration Civil Rights Record","collection_id":"bcas_p15728coll3","collection_title":"Butler Center for Arkansas Studies Documents Collection","dcterms_contributor":null,"dcterms_spatial":["United States, 39.76, -98.5","United States, Arkansas, 34.75037, -92.50044","United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, 34.76993, -92.3118","United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, Little Rock, 34.74648, -92.28959","United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, Little Rock, Central High School, 34.73683, -92.29895"],"dcterms_creator":null,"dc_date":["1990"],"dcterms_description":["This project was supported in part by a Digitizing Hidden Special Collections and Archives project grant from The Andrew W. Mellon Foundation and Council on Library and Information Resources."],"dc_format":["image/jpeg"],"dcterms_identifier":null,"dcterms_language":["eng"],"dcterms_publisher":["Little Rock, Ark. : University of Arkansas at Little Rock Center for Arkansas History and Culture"],"dc_relation":null,"dc_right":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC-EDU/1.0/"],"dcterms_is_part_of":["Elizabeth Huckaby papers, 1936-1998 (UALR.MS.0118)","History of Segregation and Integration of Arkansas's Educational System"],"dcterms_subject":["Education--Arkansas--Little Rock--History--20th century","School integration--Arkansas--Little Rock","Segregation in education--Arkansas--Little Rock","Central High School (Little Rock, Ark.)--History","Education--Arkansas--Little Rock","Public schools--Arkansas--Little Rock"],"dcterms_title":["Dwight D. Eisenhower Library Symposium on Eisenhower Administration Civil Rights Record"],"dcterms_type":["StillImage"],"dcterms_provenance":["Butler Center for Arkansas Studies"],"edm_is_shown_by":null,"edm_is_shown_at":["http://arstudies.contentdm.oclc.org/cdm/ref/collection/p15728coll3/id/37957"],"dcterms_temporal":null,"dcterms_rights_holder":null,"dcterms_bibliographic_citation":null,"dlg_local_right":null,"dcterms_medium":["documents (object genre)"],"dcterms_extent":null,"dlg_subject_personal":["Huckaby, Elizabeth"],"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":null},{"id":"bcas_bcmss0837_406","title":"Early childhood","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":["1990/2001"],"dcterms_description":null,"dc_format":["application/pdf"],"dcterms_identifier":null,"dcterms_language":["eng"],"dcterms_publisher":["Little Rock, Ark. : Butler Center for Arkansas Studies. Central Arkansas Library System."],"dc_relation":null,"dc_right":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC-EDU/1.0/"],"dcterms_is_part_of":["Office of Desegregation Monitoring records (BC.MSS.08.37)","History of Segregation and Integration of Arkansas's Educational System"],"dcterms_subject":["Little Rock (Ark.)--History--20th century","Little Rock School District","Education--Arkansas","Educational planning","Childhood development","School improvement programs"],"dcterms_title":["Early childhood"],"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/406"],"dcterms_temporal":null,"dcterms_rights_holder":null,"dcterms_bibliographic_citation":null,"dlg_local_right":null,"dcterms_medium":["documents (object genre)"],"dcterms_extent":null,"dlg_subject_personal":null,"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":"\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n\n\n\n   \n\n\n\n\n   \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n  \n\nFree Program For Four-Near Olds Applications Accepted April 29-May 10 LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT First Class Schools For World Class Kids \\ /? A A Program Of Fun And Learning For Four-Year Olds  Certified early childhood education teachers  Ratio of two adults to every 20 students (1 teacher, 1 aide)  Structured learning environment  Developmentally appropriate curriculum and activities  Before- and after-school childcare available Tuition-Free Tuition-free program for children who will be four years old on or before October 1, 1991, is available at the following schools during the 1991-92 school year: X / ' I ^''A7 -1  Badgett  Franklin  Garland  Ish  Mitchell  Rightsell  Rockefeller  Romine  Stephens  Washington  Woodruff Applications will be accepted at these schools April 29-May 10. /\\ Selections will be by lottery whenever the number of applicants for the Program for Four-Year Olds exceeds the available seats. Enrollment preference is given to children who live within the school's attendance zone or have brothers/sisters enrolled at the requested school. Students selected for enrollment will be notified by May 23. Those who cannot be placed will be put on a waiting list. I I School Hours. The regular school hours are from 8:00 a.m. to 2:30 p.m., Monday through Friday except for regular school holidays. Childcare. Childcare for a fee is available from 2:30-5:30 p.m. For additional information. For more information about the Program for Four-Year Olds, call the Student Assignment Office at (501) 324-2272. \\ s \u0026gt; 3 K - ' /I -I / /! PUT YOUR 4-YEAR OLD ON THE RIGHT TRACK FOR SOCIAL, EMOTIONAL, PHYSICAL, AND COGNITIVE GROWTH. Enroll now for the Little Rock School Districts Special Program for Four-Year Olds. Little Rock School District Student Assignment Office (501) 324-2272 i I -f- X f SOH   G n ?r \u0026amp;: I \\  \"1 I  --1 '1  V \\ lx kJ 3  tZ5 X '\\ ' .ZX/ I t I t r I r Free Program For Four-Near Olds I\" \\ \\' A I I \\ - #* \\ I x. '' I - \\ .71 \\ \\ Applications Accepted April 29-May 10  r- 2 m o 3 3 2 \" i \u0026gt; -O o \" -T y n \u0026gt; Q D H (re  \u0026gt; g Os 73 R- m  o' X I LErCESB LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT First Class Schools For World Class KidsLittle Rock School District March 20, 1990 TO: FROM: Downtown Early Childhood Committee James Jennings, Associate Superintendent for Desegregation^^ Monitoring and Program Development SUBJECT: March 7 Minutes Members Present: Fatimah Akbar James Jennings Chip Jones Rachel Myers It was noted that Glenda Bean (Arkansas Early Childhood Commission) and Jack Turner (Domtown Partnership) could not attend the meeting. Both have had experience in developing a downtown early childhood program. The committee identified five planning areas for the downtown early childhood project: (1) Site Identification (2) Publicity (3) Licensing Requirements (4) Staffing (5) Support Services In regard to site identification, the next meeting will be used to discuss the site identification process. A prospective site should have at least three classrooms (20 students in each class) and outdoor space for play. Hie conmittee also agreed that the center should only enroll four-year old students. Other age groups can be considered after the center is in operation. Teacher representatives will be added to the committee. Also, respresen- tatives from the other districts in Pulaski County will be added to the committee. 810 West Markham Street  Little Rock, Arkansas 72201  (501)374-33612. 3. 4. DOWNTOWN EARLY CHILDHOOD CENTER COMMITTEE Site Selection Report Staffing and Program Report Publicity Needs Assessment AGENDA 4/17/90 1. 5. Additional Committee MembersDOWNTOWN EARLY CHILDHOOD CENTER COMMITTEE April 17, 1990 MINUTES Those attending were Jack Turner, Thelma Jasper, Cecil Talliaferro, Dorisen Hill, Michele French, Rachel Meyers, Fatimah Akbar. Mrs. Meyers opened the meeting. The minutes were read by Michele French and they were approved by the committee. a report on the task of the commission, were heard on the following: Mrs. Meyers gave Questions and discussion 1. 2 . 3. Including 3 year olds and 4 year olds Funding for 3 months beyond the regular school year Care during vacation days, summer and after school The site acquisition committee had several possibilities. searched and reported on A description was given on each, and Jack Turner was given the task of setting up an appointment to visit the Bushman Court Building at 6th \u0026amp; Pulaski and also the Cashion Company at 501 Sherman. of the exact date and time. All committee members will be notified The staff and A question was program committee presented two staffing plans. asked concerning North Central Association accreditation if the center is disassociated with the schools. Carver Magnet School was suggested as a possibility for associating the center with a school since there is no existing 4 year old program. suggested go to an affiliate Discussion on giving children a preference to Meyers was asked or to associating school was presented. check on requirements for the center and to North cost modified version of Plan 1 was recommended. Mrs. Central Association out both plans. A A vice principal was recommended instead of a full-time administrator. The curriculum completed by the Early Childhood Task Force recommended and would be programs in the District. consistent with other 4 year was old A question was asked about a theme in the center. Mrs. Meyer's committee was asked to check on possible schools the center could be attached to. Mr. Jennings asked that consideration be given to Thelma Jasper's program. A needs assessment established as follows: was asked for and a subcommittee was Glenda Beane Dorisene Hill Cecil Talliaferro Co-Chairman Co-ChairmanDOWNTOWN EARLY CHILDHOOD CENTER COMMITTEE May 3, 1990 MINUTES Those is attendance were Jim Moses, Michele French, Glenda Beane, T^my Jack Turner, Thelma Jasper, , Dorothea Davis, parent from the North Little Rock School District. and a Site selection sub-committee asked Mr. Moses to present facts about the Cashion Building and Bushman Courtyard Building. Moses reported the following: Mr. A. 6th Street. The Bushman Courtyard Building is located at 1300 West 1. 2 . 3. 4 . 5. 6. 7 . 8. 9. 10. 11. 12 . 5500 sq. ft. of usable space $3,100 per month to lease Smaller spaces Sharp corners 3 major hallways Kitchen Parking spaces Intra structure work needed 35 years old Some remodeling has been done Previously a doctors' building Possible playground by using some parking area B. The Cashion Building is located at Sth and Sherman. 1. 2. 3. 4 . 5. 6. 7 . 8. 9. 10. 11. 4,800 sq. ft. of usable space Larger spaces Large kitchen Parking spaces Full lot adjacent to building for playground For lease - $5,000 per month (including taxes \u0026amp; insurance) Will spend $15,000 for improvements 10 years old Excellent condition Circle driveway Parking Recommendation to have Jack Turner and the committee pursue the Cashion location. after the meeting. make an offer, frame to be used. Other committee members were excited to visit Mr. Turner proposed that the sub-committee Consideration for money, improvements and timeNew members were assigned to the sub-committees as follows\nDorothea Davis - Staffing Jack Turner - Publicity Glenda Beane NLR Parent - Site Selection The next meeting will be on May 10 at 1:30 p.m.ROCKEFELLER COOPERATIVE EARLY CHILDHOOD EDUCATION DEMONSTRATION MAGNET PARENT-TEACHER PLANNING COMMITTEE ON STAFF DEVELOPMENT AND CURRICULUM PRELIMINARY RECDMMENDATIDNS March 20, 199D TRAINING AND STAFFING Thosa who care For young children must be well prepared and sensitively selected For their work. They must have Formal training in both child development and appropriate pedagogy, For quality training For all personnel who provide care and education For vary young children is a critical component in the success oF early education programs. Ongoing inservice education must be an integral part oF their training and growth as early childhood educators. ThereFore: Early childhood education curriculum and daily activities will be based upon young childrens interests and styles oF learning, emphasize developmentally appropriate learning, and appeal to childrens sense oF curiosity and eagerness in order to help them experience the joy oF learning. Thora will bo a Full spectrum oF activities to stimulate children at various levels oF development. A comprehensive curriculum and training approach is to ba collaboratively developed among the throe districts by those presently responsible For training and supervising HIPPY paraproFessionals, CARE employees Cor other beFore- and aFter- school day care programs), and teachers and aides who work These individuals in any aspect oF early childhood education. will utilize the expertise or professionals From local insti- tutions oF higher education in deaigning the training curri culum. A coordinated training approach among HIPPY, extended daycare, and early childhood education personnel will promote understanding, cooporatlon, and continuity among the programs. To promote understanding oF the total.school program, early childhood staFF should be given an overview oF the elementary curriculum and the elementary staFF should ba given an over- view oF the early childhood program. Thon appropriate in- aervica training should bo provided separately For early childhood staFF and elementary staFF. This approach to training should enhance cohesiveness oF staFF while allowing spaciFic targeting oF teaching levels and oFFicient utilization oF training time. # # # Z2 # Early childhood students should not attend school at least one week CpreFerably two weeks) beFore elementary school students return in the Fall oF each year to allow certiFied and non-certiFied staFF to attend the inservice training and prepare For the coming year. tha First # Early childhood teachers should meet during two weeks oF summer vacation with Dorothea Davis, Michelle r. a representative For Arkansas Baptist College and UALR (Tish Henslee, iF possible), and Marian Shead (HIPPY), This French, to continue work on the early childhood curriculum. could be coordinated with Systematic Training For EFFective Teaching with a halF-day oF curriculum reFining and a day oF S.T.E.T. halF- # The training outlined in the two previous paragraphs will provide one month oF training recommended For RockeFeller School StaFF. . , x IN-SERVICE TRAINING SHDULD INCLUDE\n* Human Relations workshops For entire school and perhaps some just For early childhood staFF to occur in August * Training For staFF about working with computers Viewing and discussion oF the videotape made to illustrate the NAEYC booklet on Developmentally Appropriate Practices For Young Children  Workshop presented by Dr. Anna Heatherly about what early childhood classes should provide to encourage language development and literacy \u0026gt;!= Training For staFF , in building conFlict resolution strategies in early childhood classrooms and playgrounds ! An inspirational speech by Dr. Bettye Caldwell in preparation For the school year 1990-91 * Training For instructional aides at RockeFeller to be required For continued employment and including: 1 . 2. Early Childhood Methods Child Development OTHER RECOMMENDATIONS + CertiFied early childhood staFF should not be required to Many extra hours aFter 3:DO P.M. work longer hours each day. are necessary to plan and prepare For optimal experiences daily For early childhood students and these hours are give IF teachers are n voluntarily by early childhood teachers. required to spend extra hours working with children, this voluntary preparation time will be reduced and program quality will suFFer. + Additional salary compensation should be provided For instructional aides who work longer hours at RockeFellor in tha early childhood classroom than instructional aides It is our at other Little Rock School District schools. understanding that tha promise oF extra pay worked has not been honored. For extra hours3 + Comprehensive developmental screening should be provided * 1. . A__II.. M4 1 rlrn * C3 for early childhood students. Arkansas Children's Hospital might be a resource for this need. + Regular observational assessment of all children should be provided + Foreign language instruction (ppench or Spanish] should begin in early childhood classrooms. ly childhood students should be paid + Field trips for early childhood students snouxc co paxu Little Rock School District Cat least one per for by the class per nine weeks]. + Several specially equipped vans with removable restraining Seats for -inf ants , - twov - and tbree-yeac. old.-studeots-pcovided to allow this age group of children transportation for field trips. to have state mandated + All children should not be required to stayuntil 5:00 P.M. as In f.hR Incentive School Plan. This should be Stated in the Incentive School Plan. voluntary. + More time should be allotted during the summer for teachers to work in their classrooms. AFTER SCHOOL CARE S HIPPY 0 To apply developmentally appropriate practicesfor young four-year-old students should be provided consistent and nurturing by the same staff, with the sama children, experiences group This does not occur of children throughout each day. enrolled in the CARE program after 2:30 daily, enrolled in our classes when they are Ten parents of four-year-old children at Rockefeller have their children picked up by a private bus and taken to a private after school program day care artar scnoox progi an- simply because of this inconsistency of care in this school. Consistency can be provided by having staggered schedules for instructional aides throughout the early childhood program. must receive careful @ Those employed in extended day programs training, supervision and support. As indicated in the section on Training and Staffing of the Early Childhood Plan for desegregation, daycare personnel must bo included in the early childhood education training program which is designed and implemented by the districts and are to members of the school faculty. to be be supervised and supported as @ There must be uniformity of quality among extended daycare programs regardless of the school at which they may be based. @ Activities provided during extended day hours should be sufficiently varied, appealing, and age-appropriate to sustain the interest of the children, 0 The Little Rock School District will consider mandating or strongly encouraging participation in HIPPY for all four- year-old students at the incentive schools.RECOMMENDATIONS should not bs required to + Early childhood children be remain in school until 5:00 p.m. It has worked well for those children not needing extended child care to bo picked up 2*30\n1 r-Hn not endoPBC voung children Qw C.C3. Child care experts do not endorse young attending preschool for long hours if child care is not necessary. Thev feel that the children should be with their Families. parents They feel that the =. A parent on this committee stated that many , including herself, would not enroll their children children were required to remain at Rockefeller if the for an extended day. + An assistant co-teacher is needed for the infant/toddler classroom because of the number of children in that area.OFFICE OF THE METROPOLITAN SUPERVISOR 201 E. MARKHAM, SUITE 510 LITTLE ROCK, AR 72201 Hand Delivered Date\nMay 2, 1990 To: James Jennings, Associate Superintendent From: t^^Ann S. Brown, Associate Metropolitan Supervisor Subject: Progress Report on Desegregation Plan, Early Childhood Education Section As we discussed in our meeting last Friday, April 27, 1990, members of the Metropolitan Supervisor's Parent Committee on Early Childhood Education reported on April 26 that they have a number of concerns about the development and implementation of the early childhood education portion of the Desegregation Plan. They are aware that the Desegregation Plan requires the bi racial participation of parents, teachers, and representatives of UALR and the local black colleges, along with district administrators, throughout the planning and implementation of all programs which involve early childhood education and Rockefeller School. The concerns which these parents express relate to both communication and participation. To illustrate, the parents state that as members of the planning committees at Rockefeller, they have received no acknowledgment nor any sort of response regarding reports which they submitted to the District in late March. These reports contain suggestions on curriculum, training, and staffing. Without administrative response to their reports, the parents are uncertain how to proceed next in the development and implementation process. The parents al so say that they have not been consulted about the re-evaluation of Rockefeller's early childhood education policies as required in #6 on page 15 of the early childhood section of the Plan. There have also been complaints that the teacher interview committee at Rockefeller was decidedly racially imbalanced and that there was no representation from UALR or the black colleges. Previously, there have been other difficulties regarding the Little Rock School District's compliance with the early childhood education section of the Plan. In early March, you and I discussed the necessity of involving parents and representatives from the local university and colleges in interviewing the candidates for principal of Rockefeller. A March 5 memo, sent at the direction of Mr. Reville in order to insure compliance with the plan, plainly described and mandated what the composition of the Rockefeller principal interview committee was to be. Yet the procedure outlined in that communication was not followed. Apparently, corrective measures were not implemented until sometime after a March 22 memo which reiterated the necessity for following the requirements of the Desegregation Plan and the directives of the March 5 communication.May 2, 1990 Page 2 In order to assess compliance with the early childhood education section of the Desegregation Plan, and to prevent confusion or misunderstanding on the part of parents, teachers, administrators, or this office, a progress report seems in order. Therefore, by Monday, May 14, please provide the Office of the Metropolitan Supervisor with information which clearly defines how the Little Rock School District is complying with the Desegregation Plan's provision that \"...the process of developing, modifying, or augmenting any early childhood education programs must be done in conjunction with biracial planning and oversight groups approved by the Metropolitan Supervisor and comprised of parents, teachers, representatives of area universities and colleges, and the districts' supervisors responsible for early education.\" This report must: --Contain an update on the progress made regarding all provisions of the early childhood section, including curriculum, staffing, training, the Downtown Early Childhood Education Center, interdistrict collaboration, etc. --Indicate how suggestions from parents, teachers, and representives from local institutions of higher education are being incorporated into program planning and implementation. --Include the names and race of the parents who have been added to the District's Early Childhood Education Task Force, the date they were added to this group, and the primary tasks this group is presently focusing upon. --Include a timeline which indicates key tasks and expected or actual start and completion dates, and the individuals or groups primarily responsible for each task. If there are problem areas or tasks which have not been undertaken, please briefly indicate what the difficulties have been and how and when you expect them to be overcome. I believe that a progress report at this time will help resolve questions, alleviate uncertainties, and uncover problems which must be resolved before they become major hindrances to the timely implementation of the Desegregation Plan. If you have any questions, please don't hesitate to contact me. Thank you.OFFICE OF THE METROPOLITAN SUPERVISOR 201 E. MARKHAM, SUITE 510 LITTLE ROCK, AR 72201 Date: May 2, 1990 To: James Jennings, Associate Superintendent From: 4^Ann S. Brown, Associate Metropolitan Supervisor Subject: Progress Report on Desegregation Plan, Early Childhood Education Section As we discussed in our meeting last Friday, April 27, 1990, members of the Metropolitan Supervisor's Parent Committee on Early Childhood Education reported on April 26 that they have a number of concerns about the development and implementation of the early childhood education portion of the Desegregation Plan. They are aware that the Desegregation Plan requires the biracial participation of parents, teachers, and representatives of UALR and the local black colleges, along with district administrators, throughout the planning and implementation of all programs which involve early childhood education and Rockefeller School. The concerns which these parents express relate to both communication and participation. To illustrate, the parents state that as members of the planning committees at Rockefeller, they have received no acknowledgment nor any sort of response regarding reports which they submitted to the District in late March. These reports contain suggestions on curriculum. training, and staffing. Without administrative response to their reports, the parents are uncertain how to proceed next in the development and implementation process. The parents al so say that they have not been consulted about the re-evaluation of Rockefeller's early childhood education policies as required in #6 on page 15 of the early childhood section of the Plan. There have also been complaints that the teacher interview committee at Rockefeller was decidedly racially imbalanced and that there was no representation from UALR or the black colleges. Previously, there have been other difficulties regarding the Little Rock School District's compliance with the early childhood education section of the Plan. In early March, you and I discussed the necessity of involving parents and representatives from the local university and colleges in interviewing the candidates for principal of Rockefeller. A March 5 memo, sent at the direction of Mr. Reville in order to insure compliance with the plan, plainly described and mandated what the composition of the Rockefeller principal interview committee was to be. Yet the procedure outlined in that communication was not followed. Apparently, corrective measures were not implemented until sometime after a March 22 memo which reiterated the necessity for following the requirements of the Desegregation Plan and the directives of the March 5 communication.May 2, 1990 Page 2 In order to assess compliance with the early childhood education section of the Desegregation Plan, and to prevent confusion or misunderstanding on the part of parents, teachers, administrators, or this office, a progress report seems in order. Therefore, by Monday, May 14, please provide the Office of the Metropolitan Supervisor with information which clearly defines how the Little Rock School District is complying with the Desegregation Plan's provision that \"...the process of developing, modifying, or augmenting any early childhood education programs must be done in conjunction with biracial planning and oversight groups approved by the Metropolitan Supervisor and comprised of parents, teachers, representatives of area universities and colleges, and the districts' supervisors responsible for early education.\" This report must: Contain an update on the progress made regarding all provisions of the early childhood section, including curriculum, staffing, training, the Downtown Early Childhood Education Center, interdistrict collaboration, etc. --Indicate how suggestions from parents, teachers, and representives from local institutions of higher education are being incorporated into program planning and implementation. --Include the names and race of the parents who have been added to the District's Early Childhood Education Task Force, the date they were added to this group, and the primary tasks this group is presently focusing upon. --Include a timeline which indicates key tasks and expected or actual start and completion dates, and the individuals or groups primarily responsible for each task. If there are problem areas or tasks which have not been undertaken, please briefly indicate what the difficulties have been and how and when you expect them to be overcome. I believe that a progress report at this time will help resolve questions, alleviate uncertainties, and uncover problems which must be resolved before they become major hindrances to the timely implementation of the Desegregation Plan. If you have any questions, please don't hesitate to contact me. Thank you.Little Rock School District May 11, 1990 V TO: FROM: Ann Brown, Prentice Dupins, and Arma Hart - Associate Metropolitan Supervi sors Chip Jones, Manager of Support Services __ James Jennings, Associate Superintendent for Desegregation 03 Monitoring and Program Development THROUGH:lj^br. Herb Cleek, Deputy Superintendent of Schools (?)^Dr. Ruth Steele, Superintendent of Schools SUBJECT: Downtown Early Childhood Center Site Selection The planning committee for the downtown early childhood center (the Center) has located a site that will be a showcase of the four-year old program in the Little Rock School District. The selected site is currently owned by Cashion and Company. The district has negotiated a price of $4,500 per month for the location contingent upon approval by the Office of the Metropolitan Supervisor. Current cost estimates for the total program are as follows: Rent Utilities 3 teachers 3 aides 1 custodian 1 coordinator 1 secretary Benefits Food Service Material \u0026amp; Supplies Postage Furniture \u0026amp; Equipment Renovations Contingency $54,000 10,000 75,000 30,000 9,000 20,000 12,000 21,900 15,000 3,000 500 20,000 (Start-up) 20,000 (Start-up) 30,000 $320,400 The committee recommends that funding for the Center be similar to the Magnet Schools. Each participating district will be responsible for the costs of the Center based on seat allocation. It is further recommended that the partici-pating districts be allowed to use the Settlement proceeds to pay for the Center. 810 West Markham Street Little Rock, Arkansas 72201  (501)374-3361 Downtown Early Childhood Center May 11, 1990 Page two In order for the District to open the Center for the 1990-91 school year, it must commit withing five working days (by May 18) to a lease agreement. The current occupant needs time to locate new space, remodel and move by August 6, 1990 to allow the district time to open the Center by the beginning of school. The building is well-suited for an early childhood program. Most of its wal1s are movable so that renovation requirements are minor\na separate lot will provide an outdoor play area\noff-street parking is generous\nand access to downtown and to the freeways is strategic. The total square footage of the building itself (not including play areas and parking) is 5,500 or $9.82 per foot, which is very competitive for downtown office space. The committee also considered: --Bushman Court Reporting Building (6th and Pulaski, $3,169 per month. 6,500 sq. feet). This was the committee's second choice\nhowever, in order to use the building for an early childhood program would require extensive and expensive remodeling, this expense would be prudent. The committee did not feel that --Olympia Publishing Building (900 West Fourth, $2,000 per month, 3,400 sq. feet). The committee believes the space would not be adequate for the Center and that it would be difficult to occupy in time for the 1990-91 school year. --SE Corner (3rd and Ringo, $3,000 per month, 3,600 sq. feet). committee believes the space would not be adequate for the Center. Again the Seat Allocation According to the Tri-District Desegregation Plan, II the districts will work together to establish a pre-kindergarten program in the downtown Little Rock business area. II As a result, seats will be allocated for downtown employees from each of the three districts in Pulaski County -- Little Rock School District, North Little Rock School District, and Pulaski County Special School Di strict. The Downtown Early Childhood Center will have three four-year old classes during the 1990-91 school year. Each class will have a maximum of 20 students. The seat allocation formula for the interdistrict magnet schools will be used to allocate the 60 four-year old seats among the three districts. LRSD NLRSD PCSSD 45.6% 15.7% 38.7% 27 seats 10 seats 23 seats ODowntown Early Childhood Center May 11, 1990 Page three Assignment Process All assignments are subject to desegregation requirements and capacity. As stated in the Tri-District Desegregation Plan, the Downtown Early Childhood Center is specifically aimed at serving the children of parents who work in the downtown area. in Pulaski County, Arkansas. However, the parent must reside in one of the three districts Act 609, Act 624, or legal transfers cannot be used for admission to the Downtown Early Childhood Center. Special publicity efforts will be used to inform downtown employees about the early childhood program. Special meetings will be held prior to the appli- cation period to inform downtown employees about the downtown early childhood program. city efforts. The three districts will work together to promote and support publi- As stated earlier, the downtown early childhood program is aimed at serving the children of parents who work in the downtown area. The downtown area is defined as the Central Business District of Little Rock. The boundaries of this area are Interstate 30 on the east side, 15th Street on the south side, the State Capitol Mall on the west side, and Markham Street on the north side, parent's worksite must be located in this area in order for the parent to be classified as a downtown employee. The The Little Rock School District Student Assignment Office will be responsible for processing all applications. In order to be eligible for admission, the child must be four years old on or before October 1, 1990. Parents must present a birth certificate and proof of address during the application process. A lottery will be conducted if demand exceeds the supply of seats for a parti- cular district. Students who are not selected will be placed on a waiting list for the remainder of the school year, each year. A new waiting list will be developed Hours of Operation The Downtown Early Childhood Center will have the same opening and closing time as a regular elementary school. In addition to the normal hours of operation, parents will have the option to participate in the before and after school care program. Office. The costs will be determined by the Little Rock School District CARE CARE services also will be provided during holidays. Transportation The three districts will not provide transportation. ODowntown Early Childhood Center May 11, 1990 Page four Curriculum The goals and objectives of the educational program will be sensitive to the developmental characteristics of the children. The curriculum will be based on young children's interests and styles of learning which will guide daily acti- vities. The program itself will be compatible with the developmental needs of young children. the joy of learning. It will appeal to young children an help them experience The early childhood program will be multicultural in focus and sensitive to the cultural and ethnic heritages of children. to learn about themselves and other cultures. Young children need the opportunity An appropriate curriculum for young children will be one in which the children are active learners. They will be given freedom to act on materials, to use them in their own ways, to move about and to interact verbally and physically with other children and with their teachers. There will be a full spectrum of activities to stimulate children with many levels of development. Children will be offered choices and will select many of their own activities in learning areas: keeping, and music. children to explore and manipulate. blocks, science, math, games, puzzles, books, art, house- There will be many concrete materials in each area for Teachers are expected to facilitate the development of self-control in children by using positive guidance techniques. havior are a part of the classroom management program. Modeling and encouraging expected be- Children will have many opportunities to develop social skills such as cooperating, helping, and talking with other children, the staff, and resource persons. Children will be provided many experiences which lead to literacy: listening, drawing, and copying. and fine motor development. Such activities facilitate language talking. Listening to stories, telling about pictures. poetry, fingerplays, field trips, dictating stories, and participating in dramatic play all provide a foundation for beginning literacy. Formal reading and writing instruction is reserved for a more developmentally appropriate time. Implementation Plan Since the Center is required by the Tri-District Desegregation Plan, the Little Rock School District plans to implement the recommendations of the committee as described herein. Please advise us before May 18, 1990 if the Office of the Metropolitan Supervisor is not in agreement with this decision so that other plans might be developed. The North Little Rock and the Pulaski County Special School Districts have been provided a copy of this memorandum. cc: Billy Bowles, PCSSD Bobby Acklin, NLRSD OLittle Rock School District r .f- - J*  May 11, 1990\nA TO: FROM: Ann Brown, Prentice Dupins, and Arma Hart - Associate Metropolitan Supervi sors Chip Jones, Manager of Support Services James Jennings, Associate Superintendent for Desegregation \"753 Monitoring and Program Development THROUGH:iJ^Dr. Herb Cleek, Deputy Superintendent of Schools (?^Dr. Ruth Steele, Superintendent of Schools J SUBJECT: Downtown Early Childhood Center Site Selection The planning committee for the downtown early childhood center (the Center) has located a site that will be a showcase of the four-year old program in the Little Rock School District. The selected site is currently owned by Cashion and Company. The district has negotiated a price of $4,500 per month for the location contingent upon approval by the Office of the Metropolitan Supervisor. Current cost estimates for the total program are as follows: Rent Utilities 3 teachers 3 aides 1 custodian 1 coordinator 1 secretary Benefits Food Service Material \u0026amp; Supplies Postage Furniture \u0026amp; Equipment Renovations Conti ngency $54,000 10,000 75,000 30,000 9,000 20,000 12,000 21,900 15,000 3,000 500 20,000 (Start-up) 20,000 (Start-up) 30,000 $320,400 The committee recommends that funding for the Center be similar to the Magnet Schools. Each participating district will be responsible for the costs of the Center based on seat allocation. It is further recommended that the parti ci- pating districts be allowed to use the Settlement proceeds to pay for the Center. O 810 West Markham Street  Little Rock, Arkansas 72201  (501)374-3361Downtown Early Childhood Center May 11, 1990 Page two In order for the District to open the Center for the 1990-91 school year, it must commit withing five working days (by May 18) to a lease agreement. The current occupant needs time to locate new space, remodel and move by August 6, 1990 to allow the district time to open the Center by the beginning of school. The building is well-suited for an early childhood program. Most of its walls are movable so that renovation requirements are minor\na separate lot will provide an outdoor play area\noff-street parking is generous\nand access to downtown and to the freeways is strategic. The total square footage of the building itself (not including play areas and parking) is 5,500 or $9.82 per foot, which is very competitive for downtown office space. The committee also considered: --Bushman Court Reporting Building (6th and Pulaski, $3,169 per month. 6,500 sq. feet). This was the committee's second choice\nhowever, in order to use the building for an early childhood program would require extensive and expensive remodeling, this expense would be prudent. The committee did not feel that --Olympia Publishing Building (900 West Fourth, $2,000 per month, 3,400 sq. feet). The committee believes the space would not be adequate for the Center and that it would be difficult to occupy in time for the 1990-91 school year. --SE Corner (3rd and Ringo, $3,000 per month, 3,600 sq. feet). committee believes the space would not be adequate for the Center. Again the Seat Allocation According to the Tri-District Desegregation Plan, \"the districts will work together to establish a pre-kindergarten program in the downtown Little Rock business area. II As a result, seats will be allocated for downtown employees from each of the three districts in Pulaski County -- Little Rock School District, North Little Rock School District, and Pulaski County Special School Di strict. The Downtown Early Childhood Center will have three four-year old classes during the 1990-91 school year. Each class will have a maximum of 20 students. The seat allocation formula for the interdistrict magnet schools will be used to allocate the 60 four-year old seats among the three districts. LRSD NLRSD PCSSD 45.6% 15.7% 38.7% 27 seats 10 seats 23 seats ODowntown Early Childhood Center May 11, 1990 Page three Assignment Process All assignments are subject to desegregation requirements and capacity. As stated in the Tri-District Desegregation Plan, the Downtown Early Childhood Center is specifically aimed at serving the children of parents who work in the downtown area. in Pulaski County, Arkansas. However, the parent must reside in one of the three districts Act 609, Act 624, or legal transfers cannot be used for admission to the Downtown Early Childhood Center. Special publicity efforts will be used to inform downtown employees about the early childhood program. Special meetings will be held prior to the appli- cation period to inform downtown employees about the downtown early childhood program. city efforts. The three districts will work together to promote and support publi- As stated earlier, the downtown early childhood program is aimed at serving the children of parents who work in the downtown area. fined as the Central Business District of Little Rock. The downtown area is deThe boundaries of this area are Interstate 30 on the east side, 15th Street on the south side, the State Capitol Mall on the west side, and Markham Street on the north side, parent's worksite must be located in this area in order for the parent to be classified as a downtown employee. The The Little Rock School District Student Assignment Office will be responsible for processing all applications. In order to be eligible for admission, the child must be four years old on or before October 1, 1990. Parents must present a birth certificate and proof of address during the application process. A lottery will be conducted if demand exceeds the supply of seats for a parti- cular district. Students who are not selected will be placed on a waiting list for the remainder of the school year, each year. A new waiting list will be developed Hours of Operation The Downtown Early Childhood Center will have the same opening and closing time as a regular elementary school. In addition to the normal hours of operation, parents will have the option to participate in the before and after school care program. Office. The costs will be determined by the Little Rock School District CARE CARE services also will be provided during holidays. Transportation The three districts will not provide transportation. ODowntown Early Childhood Center May 11, 1990 Page four Curriculum The goals and objectives of the educational program will be sensitive to the developmental characteristics of the children. The curriculum will be based on young children's interests and styles of learning which will guide daily acti- viti es. The program itself will be compatible with the developmental needs of young children, the joy of learning. It will appeal to young children an help them experience The early childhood program will be multicultural in focus and sensitive to the cultural and ethnic heritages of children. to learn about themselves and other cultures. Young children need the opportunity An appropriate curriculum for young children will be one in which the children are active learners. They will be given freedom to act on materials, to use them in their own ways, to move about and to interact verbally and physically with other children and with their teachers. There will be a full spectrum of activities to stimulate children with many levels of development. Children will be offered choices and will select many of their own activities in learning areas: keeping, and music. children to explore and manipulate. blocks, science, math, games, puzzles, books, art, house- There will be many concrete materials in each area for Teachers are expected to facilitate the development of self-control in children by using positive guidance techniques. havior are a part of the classroom management program. Modeling and encouraging expected beChildren will have many opportunities to develop social skills such as cooperating, helping, and talking with other children, the staff, and resource persons. Children will be provided many experiences which lead to literacy: listening, drawing, and copying. and fine motor development. Such activities facilitate language talking. Listening to stories, telling about pictures. poetry, fingerplays, field trips, dictating stories, and participating in dramatic play all provide a foundation for beginning literacy. Formal reading and writing instruction is reserved for a more developmentally appropriate time. Implementation Plan Since the Center is required by the Tri-District Desegregation Plan, the Little Rock School District plans to implement the recommendations of the committee as described herein. Please advise us before May 18, 1990 if the Office of the Metropolitan Supervisor is not in agreement with this decision so that other plans might be developed. The North Little Rock and the Pulaski County Special School Districts have been provided a copy of this memorandum. cc: Billy Bowles, PCSSD Bobby Acklin, NLRSD OPROGRESS REPORT ON DESEGREGATION PLAN, EARLY CHILDHOOD EDUCATION SECTION May 14,1990 B JB A_C J[ A L._..RAjR I IC. IEAT-I-OjN The District will continue to have biracial participation throughout the planning and implementation of all programs, which involve Early Childhood Education and Rockefeller School. Rockefeller School. On March 21,1990 - The Planning Committee met at a) b) c) d) e) Represented were: The Metropolitan Supervisors' Office The Little Rock School District The Rockefeller Staff Parents The Local Colleges After a general meeting the group broke up into subcommittees in order to plan, organize and schedule their next meeting date. Rockefeller School. On March 28, 1990 - A general meeting was held at The following committees met : 1. 2. .3. 4. Public Relations, Recruitment, and Parent and Community Involvement Elementary Curriculum Early Childhood Education Policies and Procedures Staff Development and Curriculum Represented were: a) b) c) d) Little Rock School District Rockefeller Staff Parents Local Colleges CQMMUJSJLCAri.QH-..AND_JPAB.LKIEAIIGH A letter was sent to the Chairperson of the various committees from Mrs. Mangan on March 29, 1990, informing them their reports have been forwarded to the Central Office. These reports will be addressed beginning the third week of May by a District Committee comprised of the following: a) b) c) Rockefeller Parents, Teachers, and Administrators Little School District Administration College representatives The purpose of the District Committee is to review all recommendations and concerns and to make final recommendations to the Metropolitan Supervisors' Office. Page 1These recommendation: concerned. will then be made available to all parties EAP,LL_CHILtDHQQD...ED.UCAT LON _EQL LC.IES. The parent committee met on March 28,1990 and submitted a list of ten preliminary recommendations. These will be examined at the meeting scheduled for the third week of May and the above stated procedure will be followed. This committee will reconvene in order to develop specific recommendations regarding the following: 1. Infant Enrollment Age 2. Sick Days for Extended Illness The plan specifically state that these items \"must be evaluated by the parent committee on early childhood education.\" Childhood section, page 15, item 6) (Early T.EAC.HR.-.IN.TEm.EK_GQWMLTJrE The Teacher Interview Committee at Rockefeller School has been enlarged by representation from U.A.L. R. and Shorter College. The composition of the Interview Committee is as follows: 1. Ann Mangan Principal 2. Rachel Meyers Asst. Supt. B F 3. Rose Ivory Supervisor 4. Dorothy Daniels Parent 5. Evelyn Jackson Retired Teacher B F 6. Jaime Foster 7. Romona Clark U. A. L. R. Shorter W F B F B F W F B F These changes should adequately address any earlier concerns of imbalances. SIAEEIHG All of the applicants have been interviewed with the exception of two which are scheduled for an interview next week. The Director of Human Resources will begin staffing the school Thursday, May 10, 1990. TRABUMS A tentative outline of training is complete and will be addressed by the District Committee during the third week of May. DQWHTQHH...EARLY-.CHILDH.Q.QD...EDU.CAT.LQK..,CENTER Page - 2STATUS REPORT May 8, 1990 The Downtown Early Childhood Center Committee has met five time since its March 1 inception. According to the Tri-District Desegregation Plan, the Downtown Early Childhood Center will be: 1. Of the same high quality as other early childhood education programs in the district. 2. Aimed at serving the children of parents who work in the downtown area. 3. Racially integrated. The center is scheduled to open in 1990-91. In order to meet this deadline, the committee has agreed to place primary interest on selecting a site as soon as possible. A property search in the downtown area was conducted by committee member Jack Turner. Mr. Turner is employed by the Downtown Partnership, were reviewed during the April 17 meeting. Five sites On April 27, several of the committee members toured two of the facilities. and Pulaski Streets. The Bushman Reporting building is located at Sixth Fifth and Sherman Streets, for both buildings. The Cashion Company Building is located at Jim Moses is the real estate agent The building were evaluated on the basis of the following areas: Access ibility Condition Renovation Work Expansion Landscaping Attractiveness Playground Space Costs The committee agreed to pursue a lease arrangement on the Cashion Building. The site selection committee (Jack Turner, Chip Jones, and Amy Flynn) will make a recommendation to the committee at the May 10 meeting. Three subcommittees have been established. As already stated. the site selection committee is preparing a lease proposal, staffing and program subcommittee has recommended a staff of three teachers, one administrator, one secretary, and The paraprofessional support. The center will have three four-year- old classes (20 students each) during the first year of operation. The Little Rock School District four-year-old curriculum will be used at the downtown center. Subcommittee members are Rachel Myers-Jones (LRSD), Michelle French (PCSSD), Thelma Jasper (Educational Cooperative), and Doretha Davis Page - 3(Philander Smith College). The staffing and program subcommittee will develop plans for year-round service, extended day care, and holiday service. The publicity subcommittee is developing a needs assessment survey for downtown employees. Subcommittee members are Glenda Bean (Arkansas Early Childhood Commission), Fatimah Akbar (LR parent), and Monecia West (NLR parent). The publicity subcommittee also will develop plans for recruitment in the downtown area. INTERDISTRI.C.T...C.QLLAB.QRAT.,IQN. A comprehensive curriculum and training approach is to be collaboratively developed among the three districts by those presently responsible for training and supervising HIPPY paraprofessionals, CARE employees (or other before- and afterschool daycare programs), and teachers and aides who work in any aspect of early childhood education. The Little Rock School District Early Childhood Task Force will develop a training model for early childhood teachers and aides. The training model will focus on the delivery of the specific skills and objectives listed in the early childhood curriculum report. The training model will be completed prior to the end of the 1989-90 school year. In regard to training for CARE and HIPPY employees, Jo Evelyn Elston will be responsible for developing a tri-district committee to address this task. The Little Rock School District HIPPY program currently uses a training model that has been refined over the past five years. LRSD will explore the possibility of developing collaborative HIPPY training with PCSSD and NLRSD. two weeks. The tri-district committee will meet within the next INC0RP.QRATJNG_5JGGESTlQN.S_JKLQ_fR.Q.GRAM...-RLAN.N.IRa_AND IMPLEMENTATION The Little Rock School District is soliciting and collecting suggestions from a wide range of groups including patrons. employees and local colleges. These are collected by various committees such as the Parental Involvement and Public Relations Committee. The committees forward the reports to the Principal who sends them in turn to the Little Rock School District where they are analyzed and distilled by the District Committee comprised of various enabling groups. The results of the committee's decisions will be disseminated as timely and widely as possible through the following means: 1. District Cable T. V. 2. Press Releases Page 43. District Focus 4. P.T.A. 5. Personal Communications EARkyCmJL.DHQQI?._.EDD.QAIl^^ The following parents have been added to the Early Childhood Education Task Force as of March 22, 1990: Garland Georgia Rucker 5113 W. 29th St. Little Rock, AR 664-2856 (Home) Black Garland was unable to furnish a white parent. Franklin: Denise Northcutt 4320 Irwin Road Little Rock AR 455-3110 (Work) 821-3310 (Home) White 72210 Darlene Jones 9601 Nathan Hale Little Rock, AR 666-4665 (Home) 686-9103 (Work) Black 72209 In accordance to the Tri-District Desegregation Plan, the Early Childhood Education Task Force is focusing on the continuation of high school kindergartens. UMEL INE.-_KEX-IASKS 1. Conduct an investigation of the continuation of high school kindergarten. Initiation - 12/89 Completion - 6/30/90 Persons Responsible - Rachel Myers-Jones, LRSD Task Force 2. Re-evaluate early childhood policies now in existence and their impact on desegregation and educational goals. Initiation 3/21/90 Completion - 6/30/90 Persons Responsible - Rachel Myers-Jones, LRSD Task Force, and selected Rockefeller Committee Members 3. Review and revise the comprehensive curriculum training and information document proposed by the Tri-District Early Childhood Task Force. Initiation 10/3/89 Completion - 8/27/90 (ongoing) Page - 5Persons Responsible - Rachel Myers-Jones, LRSD Task Force, Pat Price, Selected Rockefeller Committee Persons 4. 5. Staff Development - Identify the Early Childhood components that are needed in the incentive Schools. Initiation - 3/29/90 Completion - 6/15/90 Persons Responsible - Pat Price, Marvin Zimmerman, Input Task Force, Rockefeller Committee, Incentive School Curriculum Committee Identify and secure reports and other relevant concerns. Initiation - 3/29/90 Completion - On-going Persons Responsible - Pat Price, James Jennings, Estelle Matthis Page - 6TO: FROM: Little Rock School District May 14, 1990 Ann S. Brown, Associate Metropolitan Supervisor James Jennings, Associate Superintendent for Desegregation Monitoring and Program Development Estelle Matthis, A.ssociate Superintendent for Educational Programs and Staff Development THROUGH: Dr. Herb Cleek, Deputy Superintendent Dr. Ruth Steele, Superintendent of Schools SUBJECT: Progress Report on Early Giildhood Education Section of Tri-District Desegregation Plan -   W  A * Tne progress report on the early childhood education section of the Tri-District Desegregation Plan is attached for your review. The report contains all the information requested in your May 2 memo. Your May 2 memo begins with a reference to our meeting on April 27. How- ever, your memo does not give much detail about our discussion on 4/27. It is very important to review our discussion in order to establish the proper context for responding to other concerns listed in your May 2 memo. As you know, you stated that you met with a committee on April 26 about the Rockefeller program. You stated that the committee liad a number of concerns about the development and implementation of the Rockefeller early childhood program. You also stated that the committee was the Metropolitan Supervisor's Parent Committee on Early Childhood Education. The District was unaware of a meeting scheduled for April 26 with the Parent Committee on Early Childhood Education. In our meeting on April 27, you vzere unable to respond to our questions about the role of this committee and the relationship of this committee with the parent/ staff committee for Rockefeller. Rockefellers parent/staff committee was already in existence on April 26. At the time of your meeting on April 26, you were fully aware of the existence of the parent/staff committee for Rockefeller because you were instrumental in developing this committee. As you probably recall, we met with you on March 9 and discussed the letter you wrote and distributed to all Rockefeller parents without our knowledge or approval (see attacl'iment). You also addressed the parent/staff planning committees at the March 21 orientation meeting. - 810 West Markham Street Little Rock, Arkansas 72201  (501)374-3361Memo to Ann Brown Early Childhood Progress Report page two Your May 2 memo specifically refers to the concerns of the Metropolitan Supervisor's Parent Committee on Early Childhood Education. Tne District is still interested in knowing about the role of this committee, in regard to Rockefeller, and the relationship between this committee and the parent/staff planning committees at Rockefeller. The District has met with the parent/staff planning committees on several occasions, and we are in the process of responding to their recommendations. It is somewliat confusing to now hear that another committee has some concerns. There are at least four early childhood committees presently in operation: LRSD Early Childhood Task Force, Metropolitan Supervisor's Parent Committee on Early Childhood Education, Downtown Early Childhood Committee, and the Rockefeller parent/staff planning committees. Communications have varied regarding the role that each of these committees should play in developing a comprehensive early childhood program. A meeting with the committee chairpersons, the Metropolitan Supervisor's office, and LRSD will help clarify the various roles and responsibilities. Once clarity is established, all committees should be able to complete the tasks iden- tified in the Tri-District Desegregation Plan. The ultimate goal is to develop and implement a quality early childhood education program that addresses the needs of all students whether they attend Rockefeller School or any other early childhood site in the district. The merging of strategies, philosophies, etc., and the cooperation of all parties will ensure the accomplishment of this goal. In regard to another matter, your May 2 memo also refers to \"other difficulties regarding the Little Rock School District's compliance with the early childhood education section of the Plan. It of your May 2 memo, you specifically state the following: In the third paragraph A March 5 memo, sent at the direction of Mr. Reville in order to insure compliance with the plan, plainly described and mandated what the composition of the Rockefeller principal interview committee was to be. Yet the procedure outlined in that communi- cation was not followed. Apparently, corrective measures were not implemented until sometime after a March 22 memo wliich reiterated the necessity for following the requirements of the Desegregation Plan and the directives of the March 5 conmunication. In your May 2 memo, you failed to mention why the \"procedure outlined in your March 5 memo was not followed. It Please be reminded that the following individuals met on March 7 to discuss your March 5 memo: Eugene Reville Arma Hart Ann Brown Prentice Dupins Dr. Ruth Steele Dr. Herb Cleek Estelle Matthis James Jennings Chip JonesMemo to Ann Brown Early Childhood Progress Report page three Ihe District reviewed your March 5 memo and outlined the procedure we wanted to use to interview for all incentive school principal positions, including Rockefeller. We specifically stated that the teacher committee members would be selected by the LRCTA, and the parent committee members would be selected by the Joshua Intervenors. We also noted that the first round of interviews would be used to develop a pool. The second round of interviews would be used to deal with possible assignments to particular schools. Mr. Reville approved our procedure. In our minds, llr. Reville's March 7 approval of our proposal for selecting interview team members superceded your March 5 memo. We regret that a memo was not written to confirm the decisions made in the March 7 meeting. In regard to the teacher interview committee at Rockefeller, please note in the progress report that the committee includes representatives from UALR and Shorter College. This information was shared with you during our April 27 meeting. Please refer to page two of the April 27 minutes prepared by your office. The minutes clearly indicate that the District \"rectified\" this problem. In regard to the principal interview committee at Rockefeller, the local universities were involved in the process after your March 22 memo. However, you must remember that the District pro- ceeded after the March 7 meeting with our understanding of Mr. Reville's approval. cc: Prentice Dupins Arma HartMarch 7, 1990 Dear Parent: Rockefeller School is growing! And we want you to be part of the exciting changes in store for the Rockefeller community of students, staff, and parents. The new Desegregation Plan enables Rockefeller to become a cooperative early childhood education demonstration magnet school next year. That means our school will become a model of creative and exciting ways to provide the very best care and education for children from infancy through grade six. Educators and college students from all over the county and the state will be able to visit Rockefeller to learn about early childhood education at its very best. And your child will be a student at this wonderful school! As a parent, your ideas about how our school will grow into an early childhood magnet are very important. Parents, teachers and other school staff, college It representatives, and administrators will all work together to make suggestions and decisions about what our \"new\" school will become, based on the framework of the Desegregation Plan. Attached is a A number of planning areas will be addressed through parent-staff committees, each of which will concentrate on certain aspects of the school. Attccf.cd i: c list of these committees and a brief description concentration. of each one's area of Will you become our planning partner and join us as a committee member? Please say \"yes!\" by filling out the enclosed Committee Volunteer Form and returning it to your child's teacher by this Friday, March 9, 1990. Then join your fellow parents, school staff, and the Metropolitan Supervisor, Mr. Eugene Reville, for one hour at Rockefeller on Thursday evening, March 15, at 5:00 p.m. for an orientation and the first meeting of each committee. Thank you very much. Sincerely, The Staff of Rockefeller School P.S. Remember these two important dates: Friday, March 9, 1990: return Volunteer Form to your child's teacher Thursday, March 15, 1990: orientation and committee meetings at RockefellerROCKEFELLER PLANNING COmiTTEES VOLUNTEER FORM Name Address ZIP Phone (day) (eveni ng) Please join us in planning for the Rockefeller Cooperative Early Childhood Education Demonstration Magnet School. Below is a list of committees and the If you can think of types of topics that will probably be considered by each one. other planning areas you believe should be adclressed, please write your idea in the space marked \"Other suggestions.\" Then indicate your preferences for the conmittee you would like to join by placing a 1\" by your first choice, a 2 by your second choice and a \"3\" by your third choice. (You may serve on more than one committee but be careful not to over-commit your time!) Staffing: selection process\nstaff distribution\ncontract lengths\nresponsibilities\ncompensation\ncareer ladders\ninterfacing with colleges. Early childhood curriculum: emphasis on developmentally appropriate curriculum for infants through kindergarten\nhow to link early childhood and elementary curriculum\nspecial programs and events. Elementary curriculum: emphasis on grades one through six\nhow to build elementary curriculum upon that of early childhood\nspecial programs and events. ___Staff development: training programs and topics\ntrainers and trainees\nstaff development calendar. ___Scheduling and calendar: organization of the school day. week, and year. Policies and procedures: includes those of the early childhood program: infant enrollment ages\nvacation days, private pay and lunch rates for infants and toddlers\nschoolwide policies and procedures for staff, students and parents. Alternative education: al ternative classrooms and incentive and discipline programs. teaching methods\nPublic relations and recruitment: information dissemination\nschool racial balance. community outreach\ncommunication and strategies for student recruitment\nenhancing Parent and comunity involvement: types of involvement\nhow to promote. support, and sustain involvement\ntraining for parents. Student support systems: college scholarships\nmentoring\nservice learning (students as volunteers\n) peer and cross-age interaction. Other suggestions for committee topics: Please return this form to your child's teacher by Friday, March 9. Thank you!PROGRESS REPORT ON DESEGREGATION PLAN, EARLY CHILDHOOD EDUCATION SECTION May 14,1990 EIBALIAIuJEAEXIlEmi^ The District will continue to have biracial participation throughout the planning and implementation of all programs, which involve Early Childhood Education and Rockefeller School. Rockefeller School. On March 21,1990 - The Planning Committee met at Represented were\na) b) c) d) e) The Metropolitan Supervisors' Office The Little Rock School District The Rockefeller Staff Parents The Local Colleges After a general meeting the group broke up into, subcommittees in order to plan, organize and schedule their next meeting date. Rockefeller School. On March 28, 1990 - A general meeting was held at The following committees met : 1. 2. 3. 4. Public Relations, Recruitment, and Parent and Community Involvement Elementary Curriculum Early Childhood Education Policies and Procedures Staff Development and Curriculum Represented were\na) b) c) d) Little Rock School District Rockefeller Staff Parents Local College A letter was sent to the Chairperson of the various committees from Mrs. Mangan on March 29, 1990, informing them their reports have been forwarded to the Central Office. These reports will be addressed beginning the third week of May by a District Committee comprised of the following: a) b) c) Rockefeller Parents, Teachers, and Administrators Little School District Administration College representatives e The purpose of the District Committee is to review all recommendations and concern\nand to make final recommendations to the Metropolitan Supervisors' Office. Page - 1These recommendations will then be made available to all parties concerned. The parent committee met on March 28,1990 and submitted a list of ten preliminary recommendations. These will be examined at the meeting scheduled for the third week of May and the above stated procedure will be followed. This committee will reconvene in order to develop specific recommendations regarding the following: 1. Infant Enrollment Age 2. Sick Days for Extended Illness The plan specifically states that these items \"must be evaluated by the parent committee on early childhood education. Childhood section, page 15, item 6) (Early The Teacher Interview Committee at Rockefeller School has been enlarged by representation from U.A.L.R. and Shorter College. The composition of the 'Interview Committee is as follows: F 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. Ann Mangan Principal W Rachel Meyers Asst. Supt. B F Rose Ivory Supervisor Dorothy Daniels Parent Evelyn Jackson Retired Teacher B F Jaime Foster Romona Clark 0. A. L. R. Shorter B F B F W F B F These changes should adequately address any earlier concerns of imbalances. SIAELINfi All of the applicants have been interviewed with the exception of two which are scheduled for an interview next week. The Director of Human Resources will begin staffing the school Thursday, May 10, 1990. TRAIHIHG A tentative outline of training is complete and will be addressed by the District Committee during the third week of May. Page - 2STATUS REPORT May 8, 1990 The Downtown Early Childhood Center Committee has met five times since its March 1 inception. According to the Tri-District Desegregation Plan, the Downtown Early Childhood Center will be: 1. Of the same high quality as other early childhood education programs in the district. 2. Aimed at serving the children of parents who work in the downtown area. 3. Racially integrated. The center is scheduled to open in 1990-91. In order to meet this deadline, the committee has agreed to place primary interest on selecting a site as soon as possible. A property search in the downtown area was conducted by committee member Jack Turner. Mr. Turner is employed by the Downtown Partnership, were reviewed during the April 17 meeting. Five sites On April 27, several of the committee members toured two of the facilities. and Pulaski Streets. The Bushman Reporting building is located at Sixth Fifth and Sherman Streets, for both buildings. The Cashion Company Building is located at Jim Moses is the real estate agent The buildings were evaluated on the basis of the following areas: Acce ibility Condition Renovation Work Expansion Landscaping Attractiveness Playground Space Costs The committee agreed to pursue a lease arrangement on the Cashion Building. The site selection committee (Jack Turner, Chip Jones, and Amy Flynn) will make a recommendation to the committee at the May 10 meeting. Three subcommittees have been established. As. already stated. the site selection committee is preparing a lease proposal, staffing and program subcommittee has recommended a staff of three teachers, one administrator, one secretary, and The paraprofessional support. The center will have three four-year- old classes (20 students each) during the first year of operation. The Little Rock School District four-year-old curriculum will be used at the downtown center. Subcommittee members are Rachel Myers-Jones (LRSD), Michelle French (PCSSD), Thelma Jasper (Educational Cooperative), and Doretha Davis Page 3(Philander Smith College). The staffing and program subcommittee will develop plans for year-round service, extended day care, and holiday service. The publicity subcommittee is developing a needs assessment survey for downtown employees. Subcommittee members are Glenda Bean (Arkansas Early Childhood Commission), Fatimah Akbar (LR parent), and Monecia West (NLR parent). The publicity subcommittee also will develop plans for recruitment in the downtown area. A comprehensive curriculum and training approach is to be collaboratively developed among the three districts by those presently responsible for training and supervising HIPPY paraprofessionals, CARE employees (or other before- and afterschool daycare programs), and teachers and aides who work in any aspect of early childhood education. The Little Rock School District Early Childhood Task Force will develop a training model for early childhood teachers and aides. The training model will focus on the delivery of the specific skills and objectives listed in the early childhood curriculum report. The training model will be completed prior to the end of the 1989-90 school year. In regard to training for CARE and HIPPY employees, Jo Evelyn Elston will be responsible for developing a tri-district committee to address this task. The Little Rock School District HIPPY program currently uses a training model that has been refined over the past five years. LRSD will explore the possibility of developing collaborative HIPPY training with PCSSD and NLRSD. two weeks. The tri-district committee will meet within the next IHPiEMENTATKIH. The Little Rock School District is soliciting and collecting suggestions from a wide range of groups including patrons, employees and local colleges. These are collected by various committees such as the Parental Involvement and Public Relations Committee. The committees forward the reports to the Principal who sends them in turn to the Little Rock School District where they are analyzed and distilled by the District Committee comprised of various enabling groups. The results of the committee's decisions will be disseminated as timely and widely as possible through the following means: 1. District Cable T. V. 2. Press Releases Page - 43. District Focus 4. P.T.A. 5. Personal Communications The following parents have been added to the Early Childhood Education Task Force as of March 22, 1990\nGarland Georgia Rucker 5113 W. 29th St. Little Rock, AR 664-2856 (Home) Black Garland was unable to furnish a white parent. Franklin\nDenise Northcutt 4320 Irwin Road Little Rock AR 455-3110 (Work) 821-3310 (Home) White 72210 Darlene Jones 9601 Nathan Hale Little Rock, AR 666-4665 (Home) 686-9103 (Work) Black 72209 In accordance to the Tri-District Desegregation Plan, the Early Childhood Education Task Force is focusing on the continuation of high school kindergartens. 1. Conduct an investigation of the continuation of high school kindergarten. Initiation - 12/89 Completion - 6/30/90 Persons Responsible - Rachel Myers-Jones, LRSD Task Force 2. Re-evaluate early childhood policies now in existence and their impact on desegregation and educational goals. Initiation 3/21/9 0 Completion - 6/30/90 Persons Responsible - Rachel Myers-Jones, LRSD Task Force, and selected Rockefeller Committee Members 3. Review and revise the comprehensive curriculum training and information document proposed by the Tri-District Early Childhood Task Force. Initiation 10/3/89 Completion - 8/27/90 (ongoing) Page - 54. 5. Persons Responsible - Rachel Myers-Jones, LRSD Task Force, Pat Price, Selected Rockefeller Committee Persons Staff Development - Identify the Early Childhood components that are needed in the incentive Schools. Initiation 3/29/9 0 Completion - 6/15/90 Persons Responsible - Pat Price, Marvin Zimmerman, Input Task Force, Rockefeller Committee, Incentive School Curriculum Committee Identify and secure reports and other relevant concerns. Initiation 3/29/90 Completion - On-going Persons Responsible - Pat Price, James Jennings, Estelle Matthis Page 6 t Jack, Lyon \u0026amp; Jones, p.a. ATTORNEYS AT LAW 3400 TCBY TOWER 425 WEST CAPITOL AVENUE LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS 72201 (501)375-1122 TELECOPIER (501) 375-1027 Nashville Office 1201 Sixteenth Avenue South P.O. Box 121114 Nashville, Tennessee 37212 (615) 329-4664 Telecopier: (615) 320-0115 May 15, 1990 Christopher J. Heller, Esquire FRIDAY, ELDREDGE \u0026amp; CLARK 2000 First Commercial Building Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 VA\"^ SAS'S RE\nDowntown Early Childhood'Center Dear Chris: Upon review of the Memorandum of May 11, 1990, from Chip Jones and James Jennings to the Associate Metropolitan \" Supervisors regarding the Downtown Early Childhood Center, I must infeorm you that the position of the North Little Rock School District is that the cost distribution provisions of that Memorandum violate the March, 1989, Pulaski County Case Settlement Agreement (as revised September I Desegregation 28, 1989). 1989, The May 11, Memorandum states at page 1, \"Each _ district will be responsible for the costs of the Center based on seat allocation.\" Thus, it anticipates that the Districts will have to provide funds for their respective students attending this Center. participating at page Thus, . _ ----- As you are aware Sectxon^II. D. of the Settlement Agreement at page 4 provides, \"The districts' obligation to contribute funds to Magnet Schools shall be limited to their paying their portions of the costs six existing Magnet Schools pursuant to the Court's Order of February 27, 1987.\" By agreement, the only funds to be provided to a host district for students attending new magnet schools is limited to the MtoM transfer payments The May 11 Memorandum suggests an obligation in addition to this which is in violation of the Settlement districts of the SIX from the State. Agreement. We note that the Memorandum also provides, _________ recommended that the participating districts be allowed to the Settlement proceeds to pay for the Center.\" \"It is further use _ _ As you are aware, pursuant to the Settlement Agreement all Settlement proceeds received by the NLRSD are restricted to providing compensatory education. See, Section VIII., B., C. and D. Thus, North Little Rock Settlement proceeds would not be available for this purpose even if we so desired. B. C.* - a Jack, Lyon \u0026amp; Jones, p.a. Chistopher J. Heller May 15, 1990 Page 2 Also, you should be aware that the NLRSD is surprised by the proposed budget. Daycare centers in the Little Rock area, such the First United Method Church Child Development are able to provide an early childhood program for children ranging in ages from infants through four years of age for half of this cost. as Center, If we were expected to pay for such a program, we anticipate that we would be involved in the budget preparation and determination of program content. In any event, I hope that you will remind your clients about the provisions of the Settlement Agreement. Hopefully, thro 13 simply an oversight and further proceedings regarding the Settlement Agreement will not be needed. this is Hopefully cc\nVery truly yours, Stephen W. Jones All counsel of record Office of Metropolitan Supervisor James Smith PCSSD PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT 1500 Dixon Road/P.O. Box 8601 Little Rock. Arkansas 72216 (501) 490-2000 May 16, 1990 Ms. Ann Brown Mr. Prentice Dupins Ms. Arma Hart Associate Metropolitan Supervisors Heritage West Building 201 East Markham, Suite 510 Little Rock, AR 72201 Dear Ms. Brown, Ms. Hart and Mr. Dupins: The LRSD's memo to you dated May 11, 1990 regarding a proposed downtown early childhood center has been brought to my attention. This is the first time the PCSSD's Office of Desegregation has been notified of this proposal. The Court approved plan provides that the districts will work together to establish a pre-kindergarten program in the downtown Little Rock business area. II I certainly assumed that my office. which has direct line responsibility for desegregation, would have been at least notified of this decision prior to its submission to the Office of the Metropolitan Supervisor. Our district representative on the committee, Michelle French, is not aware of any discussions on funding formula or seating allocations during committee meetings she attended. While I have not had time to fully analyze the May 11, 1990 memo or to discuss it at all with the superintendent, the following objections have already occurred to me: 1. The proposed method for funding is directly contrary to the Court's Order of December 11, 1989 which accepted the alternative funding mechanism of M to M transfer monies as opposed to the funding method which has prevailed for the six existing magnet schools. funding \"similar to the magnet schools. The PCSSD is not agreeable to II 2. while the LRSD generously suggests that the PCSSD settlement funds be used to pay for this center, the fact remains that after several requests these funds have not been released to our District. May 16, 1990 Page 2 The proposed commitment It May 18, 1990 is simply unreasonable. of five working days ending 4. While you indicate that the seats will be populated pursuant to ratio that means. \"desegregation requirements\" I do not know what 3 . 5 . The late Metropolitan Supervisor, Mr. Eugene Reville, with Dr. Don Stewart, Mr. Bobby Lester and myself, in a meeting on January 16, 1990 responded to some questions and concerns that dealt specifically with funding interdistrict magnet and specialty schools. Note his response to questions number one and sixteen in the attached information. 6 . I have simply not had time to assess such important issues as access and whether or not the proposed starting time is reasonable for our patrons. Neither can I determine the racial composition that would be anticipated from PCSSD students. Because of all of the foregoing considerations, the PCSSD must, at this point in time, register its strong objections to the proposal as presently outlined. Sincerely, Bi y J. 'B Assistant Superintendent for Desegregation ch Attachments c Mr. Chip Jones Mr. James Jennings Dr. Herb Cleek Dr. Ruth Steele Mr. Bobby Lester PCSSD PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT 1 500 DixO': ' Liitie d 3 January 18, 1990 Mr. Eugene Reville Metropolitan Supervisor Heritage West Building 201 East Markham, Suite 510 Little Rock, AR 72201 Dear Mr. Reville: At our January 16 meeting you requested that notes be taken recording your responses to the questions and/or concerns regarding our District's desegregation plan. Enclosed is a copy of the questions and your responses, review this for verification. Please We are also enclosing our suggested changes in the wording of the tri-district desegregation plan. Sincerely, Bobby G. Lester Superintendent of Schools ps Enclosures  1. 2 . 3 . 4 . 5 . 6. PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT QUESTIONS/CONCERNS AND MR. REVILLE'S RESPONSES REGARDING TRI-DISTRICT DESEGREGATION PLAN January 18, 1990 Who will schools? RESPONSE: pay for new Little Rock School District magnet LRSD will pay for any new magnet schools located within their district. either Will the PCSSD have any financial responsibility for the construction, operation or maintenance of the new LRSD magnet schools beyond the M to M payments its students schools generate? RESPONSE: If the No, it will not. answer is PCSSD's responsibility? students, seat other arrangements? RESPONSE: yes,\" what will be the magnitude of the Will it be based on the number of allocations, Not applicable cost of the schools, or some extent that the money does not presently exist -in the PCSSD budget, where will it come from? Other than federal magnet school grants, new revenue  * If so, what do you propose? To the from? do you plan sources for our District? RESPONSE: Judge Woods cannot order a millage increase the school districts are unsuccessful in unless -- ----- their attempt to pass a increase. I suggest you seek and pass a millage increase. to millage how do you the PCSSD finance its obligations under your proposed plan? Do you believe the PCSSD should engage in - \" If so, what additional cuts do you If the PCSSD is unable to pass a new millage. propose Do you further budget cuts? propose? RESPONSE: First, its obiigat ions a we need to do everything we can to pass increase. If we run into financial millage increase. If we run problems after the millage fails. to the courts. then we\nan go (Page 17, LRSD Student Assignment) Transportation. The statement about the 8 a.m. school opening would_ create numerous problems transporting PCSSD's students. (--- ---- time be more flexible? 8:a.m., a .m. Can this RESPONSE: (8 : 20-8:30 m., etc.) This will be discussed with the LRSD. 17 . We have serious concerns that plans may be under way by the LRSD to establish a medical arts magnet (page 16, Interdistrict Schools and Programs) which would be duplicate of the program approved for Oak Grove High, you share these concerns or do you believe duplication is satisfactory? If you share how do you propose to resolve them? arts concerns, RESPONSE: This 8 . 9. 10 . 11. 12. and a Do that such IS not conf lict. laboratory interested believed to This area is in experience be a planned for the medical courses for credit. any of our problem or to those field, a provide students rather than The elimination of one-race classes by 1990-91 is not possible to accomplish, especially on the high school level This is something that will have blacks into advanced classes and one-race in some advanced courses. to be tied to phased in. employ to relaxed? RESPONSE: What getting accomplish specific this strategies goal and do can you propose we the timetable be Explain why this is not being done. Who will pay attending incentive schools? feasible and what is the scholarships for PCSSD and NLRSD students As this money is not present in the budget, where do you propose it be secured? RESPONSE: Has the The LRSD will pay for the scholarships. business community pledged a particular amount of level of support for the public money or schools? Have you obtained some firm commitment regarding a dollar figure they would raise or guarantee? RESPONSE: Some businesses have pledged their expertise and some money to Dunbar. There has been some support for the aerospace magnet, an especially large amount from a foundation. businesses to give more than their support--they pay their taxes. We cannot expect (Page 1,\" Extracurricular Activities) Is the director of activities appointed by the principal in each school, a new position or a new assignment for existing staff? Extracurricular Activities) RESPONSE: It could be a new assignment for existing staff. (Page 3, mean all Does this Standardized Eligibility Requirement) which have membership requirements? organizations RESPONSE: We should strongly consider this proposal. 213 . (Page 10 item 4, qualifications Early Childhood required for principals Education) make it The almost 14 . impossible to find applicants. Can the \"must be changed to II should\"? RESPONSE: Yes, it can be changed to \"should.\" (Page 10 item 5 Early Childhood Education) position or added responsibility for existing staff? Is this a new RESPONSE\nThis staff. responsibility can be added to existing 15. (Page 11 item 3 Early Childhood Education) PCSSD's program to be 60 percent black? Does this allow 16 . RESPONSE: No it does not. (Page 16, Early Childhood Education) Who will the downtown E.C.E. Center? What are the pay sites for under consideration? Where are they located? What do they cost? RESPONSE: The LRSD will pay for the downtown E.C.E. Center.- There was no response to the other parts of the- question. 17 . (Page 17 item 1 Early Childhood Education) Does this make 19. extended day mandatory for every school? RESPONSE: Are No, it is not mandatory that every school have the extended day program. recommendations\" going to be mandatory is accepted by the court? RESPONSE: if this plan In most cases they will be mandatory. If the court approves those things that have been \"strongly and we are not able to comply, will we be held recommended in contempt of court? RESPONSE: The court gets angry when the districts are not serious about what they are doing or have proposed to do. ignore the court order, comply. You get into trouble when you will not be able to If you see that you come to me and explain why. Then there is no real problem. Clarification is needed (Pages 31 and 35, Incentive School) on who will administer the trust fund--two groups are 18 . listed. RESPONSE: One group will manage the trust fund and the other group will oversee the program. 3RECEIVED IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION OCT 1 1991 Office of Desegregation Monitoring 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 NOTICE OF FILING Little Rock School District hereby gives notice of the filing of the attached \"Four-Year-Old Program Long-Term Plan II as required by this Court's order of August 22, 1991. Respectfully submitted. LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT FRIDAY, ELDREDGE \u0026amp; CLARK 2000 First Commercial Bldg. 400 West Capitol Street Little Rock, AR 72201 ) BYT Christopher Hei^SrJCERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I certify that a copy of the foregoing Notice of Filing has been served on the following counsel of record by depositing copy of same in the United States mail on this 30th day of September 1991. Mr. John Walker JOHN WALKER, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72206 Mr. Sam Jones WRIGHT, LINDSEY \u0026amp; JENNINGS 2200 Worthen Bank Bldg. 200 West Capitol Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Steve Jones JACK, LYON \u0026amp; JONES, P.A. 3400 Capitol Towers Capitol \u0026amp; Broadway Streets Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Richard Roachell MITCHELL \u0026amp; ROACHELL, P.A. 1014 West Third Little Rock, AR 72201 Ms. Ann Brown Heritage West Bldg., Suite 510 201 East Markham Street Little Rock, AR 72201 BYl . -- Christopher Hell -2- FOUR-YEAR-OLD PROGRAM LONG-TERM PLAN Little Rock School District This report will outline the long-range plans for expanding the early childhood education program in the Little Rock School District. In particular, this report will address the demographic, instructional, and structural needs for expanding the current four-year-old program. The report will begin with a review of background information related to the expansion of the four-year-old program in the Little Rock School District. selecting program sites will be provided. Next, the objectives for The objectives will be followed by an analysis of demographic data related to the four- year-old population in the Little Rock School District, attention will be given to identifying the number of Special disadvantaged students to be served by the four-year-old program. A review of the instructional goals of the four-year-old program will be included. Finally, long-term recommendations for establishing new four-year-old classes will be presented. Background The Little Rock School District four-year-old program was started during the 1988-89 school year as a means of meeting the needs of disadvantaged students and improving the racial balance at schools that are difficult to desegregate. Although Rockefeller Elementary School served four-year-old students prior to this time, the emphasis on using this program as a tool to desegregate schools started in the 1988-89 school year. Three schools participated in the four-year-old program during the 1988-89 school year: Ish, Rockefeller, and Stephens. In the following year (1989-90), four-year-old classes were added to Franklin and Washington. Four-year-old classes were added to Badgett and Garland in the 1990-91 school year and Mitchell, Rightsell, Romine, and Woodruff at the beginning of the current school year - 1991-92. As a result, eleven of the 36 elementary schools in the Little Rock School District have one or more four- year-old classes: Badgett - Franklin - Garland - Ish - Mitchell - Rightsell - Rockefeller 20 seats 60 seats 20 seats 20 seats 20 seats 20 seats 60 seatspage two Romine - Stephens - Washington - Woodruff - 20 seats 20 seats 40 seats 20 seats Total 320 seats Volume I of the long-term desegregation plan was drafted and submitted to the federal district court during the first semester of the 1988-89 school year. At that time, the Little Rock School district proposed to have a four-year-old program in all elementary schools by the 1993-94 school year. This goal included the provision that the \"scope of this program may be altered, affected and/or enhanced by the proposed assignment and construction proposals made in this plan. II The District still believes that early childhood education is a means of meeting the needs of disadvantaged students and improving the racial balance at schools that are difficult to desegregate. Furthermore, we believe that effective early childhood programs will reduce, if not eliminate, the need for major remediation programs in the upper grades. For these reasons, the enhancement and expansion of the four-year-old program will continue to be a priority for the Little Rock School District. Objectives for Selecting Sites It has already been stated that the expansion of the four- year-old program in the Little Rock School District is related to two major objectives: (1) to meet the growing needs of disadvantaged students\nand (2) to improve the racial balance at schools that are difficult to desegregate. These objectives carry with them certain limitations in regard to the location of future four-year-old sites. The settlement plan emphasizes the ongoing collaboration between the Little Rock School District and other federally funded early childhood programs to meet the needs of inner city Little The District has worked closely with the Rock students. Head Start program operated by the Community Organization for Poverty Elimination (COPE). Since Head Start can only serve families below the poverty level. Head Start centers are typically found in areas that are easily accessible to this population. As a result, future four-year-old sites should be located in or near areas that will facilitate collaborative efforts between the District and Head Start.page three Another factor that should be considered in identifying future four-year-old sites is the number of disadvantaged students in a given area. Priority should be given to areas that have a very high concentration of low income students. The first objective cannot be accomplished without an estimate of the number of disadvantaged four-year-old students in the Little Rock School District. According to the settlement plan, 80% of the disadvantaged students in the city of Little Rock will be served by the citywide early childhood education program. The figures listed below represent the District's estimate of the number of four-year-old students who have been eligible for the free and reduced lunch program during the past four years: 1987 1988 1989 1990 981 1077 1237 1071 Using the long-range goal of sezrving 80% of the disadvantaged students, these figures will require the citywide program to have the capacity to be able to serve 785 to 990 disadvantaged four- year-old students. The remainder of this report will use the average of these four years, 1092 four-year-old students, for planning purposes. As a result, for planning purposes only, the long-range goal is to serve 874 disadvantaged students. The four Head Start centers currently serve 361 students. All of these students are below the poverty level. In addition. the Model Cities Program, operated by the City of Little Rock, can serve a total of 60 four-year-old children. The Model Cities Program has two centers: the East End Community Complex (near Carver Magnet School) and the South Little Rock Recreation Center (across the street from Washington Magnet School). There are no income eligibility requirements for the Model Cities Program. The second objective of the long-range plan for expanding the four-year-old program is to improve the racial balance in schools that have been difficult to desegregate. The elementary school attendance zones were originally designed to establish a racial balance at each school of 55 5, variance of 5%. black and 45% white with a Demographic changes over the past two years have resulted in some attendance zones having a lower number of white students than anticipated. The District has been successful in using the four-year-old program, along with other voluntary desegregation measures, to attract white students to schools that fall in this category. For instance, the Romine area is experiencing a steady increase in its black population. The four-year-old program at Romine School, however, is 50% white.page four The use of the four-year-old program as a means to improve the racial balance at certain schools also implies that these classes cannot be placed in attendance zones that continue to remain racially balanced. A list of the attendance zones that are not in danger of becoming racially imbalanced is provided below. This restriction does not preclude the placement of four- year-old classes in satellite zones that have heavy concentrations of disadvantaged students. Attendance zones less than 55% black: Brady, Dodd, Fair Park, Forest Park, Fulbright, Jefferson, McDermott, Meadowcliff, Otter Creek, Pulaski Heights, Terry, and Western Hills. In order to use the four-year-old program as means of improving the racial balance at a school it will be necessary to make provisions for both black and white students. This requirement must be addressed in calculating the number of additional four-year-old seats needed to meet the long-range goal. Demographics The purpose of this section is to review demographic data related to four-year-old children in the city of Little Rock, should be noted that the Little Rock School District has worked very closely with COPE to develop and maintain early childhood It opportunities for four-year-old students. As a result, some of the demographic information collected by COPE will be presented in this section. At present, COPE operates four Head Start centers within the boundaries of the Little Rock School District. Start center is at the old King/Oakhurst School, still owned by the Little Rock School District. The largest Head This site is The second largest center is in Hollingsworth Court (east Little Rock). addition, two buildings that were formerly Educare centers are In currently used at Head Start sites. The center on 65th Street will probably be vacated at the end of this school year, site in the southwest Little Rock area has already been Another identified for the 1992-93 school year. The center on Asher Avenue, directly across the street from Wilson School, opened at the beginning of this school year, classrooms that are not in use. This center has four Community Needs Assessment. was conducted by COPE in 1990. 523 families throughout Little Rock. A community needs assessment Interviews were conducted with pre-school children at the time of the interview, is a brief review of some of the findings: All of the families had The followingpage five A. More services are needed in the King School/Highland Court area, the John Barrow/Asher Avenue area, and in southwest Little Rock. B. All of the centers in the above areas have waiting lists. C. Children were identified in each area who are above the Head Start income guidelines, cannot be served by Head Start. Barrow/SWLR - 16 As a result, these children King/Highland - 25, D. Number of children in families inteirviewed\n0-2 years 3 years 4 years 5 years Total H.S. Eligible 275 233 377 72 957 508 E. 53 of the families interviewed are at the bottom of the economic ladder - less than $6,280. F. 77% (401) of the families interviewed are headed by single mothers. G. 65% of the families interviewed indicated a need for Head Start in the future. H. A substantial number of parents indicated that they would be willing to participate in the following parent programs: literacy, drug abuse prevention, self-improvement, parenting, self-sufficiency, parent support group (child abuse), parent support group (drug abuse), and adult education classes. LRSD Data. It is interesting to note that the demographic information compiled by the LRSD Student Assignment Office identifies two of the three target areas cited by COPE as areas of need. Attachment One shows the number of four-year-old students over the past four years who have enrolled in kindergarten. each geographic area. The schools are listed as a means of describing Areas A, B, H, J, L, and M have experienced increases over the past two years. The largest increase (50% growth) occurred in Area. H - the area around Parkview, Wilson, and Bale Schools. This area is referred to by COPE as the John Barrow area, growth in areas L (22% growth), A (21% growth), and B (14% The growth) is more likely to be the result of parents who decided toV page six choose public education, as opposed to a net increase in births. The fluctuations in these areas over the four-year period tend to confirm this assumption. The increase in Area M (7% growth) from 1989 to 1990 tends to confirm the finding by COPE in regard to the need for more early childhood services in southwest Little Rock. In addition to this finding, however. Area M is the only area that experienced a steady increase in the number of four-year-old children during the period of 1987-1990: 1987-1988 1988-1989 4 % growth 21% growth The findings for Areas H and M should be coupled with the trend in Area J - the area around Western Hills, Meadowcliff, and Dodd Schools. This area is contiguous to, and in some cases overlaps, what is generally considered to be the Barrow area and southwest Little Rock. Again, a steady increase in the number of four-year-old children is evident during the period of 1987-1990: 1987-1988 1988-1989 11% growth 14% growth The data supplied by both parties document the need for four-year-old services in the John Barrow Road area and southwest Little Rock. Although these areas continue to show growth. future services in the central Little Rock area should not be disregarded. Little Rock. COPE is interested in having a center in central Currently, Head Start students from central Little Rock must go to the King/Oakhurst site. Transportation from central Little Rock to King/Oakhurst is a serious problem for some of these parents. Attachment One indicates heavy concentrations of four-year-old students in Areas D and I, the areas which serve the Incentive Schools, even though both areas have experienced declines since 1988. Instructional Goals The whole thrust of the early childhood program has been to remedy the academic differences that our students are bringing into the school system. In the past, we have experienced low performance, retention, and dropouts. Significant amounts of time and money have been expended on remediation, special education, and on providing the basic level of preparation needed to succeed in school. Many of the problems of skills disparity that are chronic in the higher grades are lessened when all youngsters enter kindergarten with appropriate pre-school experiences. Thepage seven citywide early childhood programs are geared to providing the skills and experience that have often been lacking in lower income youngsters. This is tremendously important, not only to the parents, but to the self-image and self-confidence of the child. The number of students who will flourish, learn, and perform at grade level while building on a foundation of pride, achievement, and self-esteem is simply incalculable. The instructional goals of this program are to address the needs of at-risk students, at the earliest possible age, in a manner that ensures success in learning and diminishes the current disparity in performance between not only black and white children but economically advantaged and disadvantaged children. Philosophv/Ob~i ectives. The early years of life are critical for helping children realize their full developmental potential. Arranging experiences to enhance development is a task for the home, the school, and the community. The goals and objectives of the educational program will be sensitive to the developmental characteristics of the children. The curriculum will be based on young children's interests and styles of learning which will guide daily activities. The program itself will be compatible with the developmental needs of young children. It will appeal to young children and help them experience the joy of learning. The early childhood program will be multicultural in focus and it will be sensitive to the cultural and ethnic heritage of children. Young children need the opportunity to learn about themselves and other cultures. An appropriate curriculum for young children will be one in which the children are active learners. They will be given freedom to act on materials, to use them in their own ways, to move about, and to interact verbally and physically with other children and with their teachers. There will be a full spectrum of activities to stimulate children with many levels of development. The Early Childhood Task Force has endeavored to structure a curriculum for four-year-old children that is multicultural and tailored to the individual needs and interests of the learners. In every instance, teachers of young children must be curriculum developers who are able to observe and talk with children to determine high interest areas. The specific skills taught in LRSD four-year-old classes can be found in the District's early childhood education handbook.page eight Parent Involvement. The active involvement of the family is critical to children's success in school. helps sustain the effects of school programs. It reinforces and Parents will be actively involved in the implementation of the program through: - Orientation Meeting and Make/Take Workshops - Parents will become acquainted with the program at Open House. Parents also will be provided a variety of activities and strategies to enhance achievement by their children. - Parent Participation - Parents will be invited to volunteer in the classroom, accompany the class on field trips, and observe the child in the classroom. - Advisory Committee - Parents will serve on the Early Childhood Advisory Committee. - Training Sessions - Principals and teachers will encourage parents to participate in training sessions so they can have a better understanding of the characteristics of children and how they grow. - Discussion Groups - Parent discussion groups with teachers and outside agency representatives will be scheduled as a means to improve parent effectiveness. - Parent Survey - Parents will help us evaluate the program in the school by completing a survey. A summary will be made from the responses to identify needs and provide better services for the children. Staff Development. The Little Rock School District is committed to providing continuous professional growth opportunities for all staff members. Major components of these opportunities are the districtwide training courses and minicourses which have been designed and scheduled to address staff development needs as reflected in the local schools' Annual School Improvement Plans. Also, in order to be in compliance with State Department Standards, LRSD certified staff members are required to complete a minimum of five (5) days or 27 1/2 hours of staff development training each year. Staff development activities for the four- year-old program will include but not be limited to the following areas: - Licensing Requirements - Classroom Managementpage nine - Child Development and Behavior - Learning Styles Parent Conferences - Developing Centers and Units - Transitional Activities - Prejudice Reduction - Behavior Management and Self-Esteem Instructional aides will receive child development associate training or early childhood education technical assistance depending upon individual needs. Program Evaluation. A longitudinal study of all students involved in the citywide early childhood program will be conducted. The information gained from this study will allow LRSD, and the other agencies, to make valid assessments of student achievement and program effectiveness. Recommendations The difference between the estimate for the long-range goal (874 disadvantaged children) and the number of children currently served by Head Start (361 children) is 513. The extent to which the Head Start program will expand over the next 3-5 years cannot be detennined at this time. long-range expansion planning. Head Start is currently involved in It will be necessary for the Little Rock School District to continue to work closely with COPE to determine the exact number of seats that can be provided by each agency to meet the long-range goal. The long-range goal will probably be modified as better information is acquired about the number of disadvantaged four-year-old students in Little Rock. In addition to determining the number of seats that must be provided by each agency, the Little Rock School District will have to provide enough seats at each new site to meet the desegregation requirements. The following recommendations are tentative pending the collection of additional details on demographics and expansion possibilities, and the finalization of agreements with COPE, citywide early childhood planning committee will be formed to A continue the process of studying these factors. The committeepage ten will consist of representatives from the Little Rock School District, COPE, Model Cities, the Housing Authority, related agencies. and other quarter. The committee will meet at least once each The nature of long-range planning to meet the growing needs of disadvantaged children is such that ongoing collaboration and planning is crucial. 1992-93 A. B. Open a class at Bale School - 20 seats Open 3 classes at the Asher Avenue Head Start Center C. D. (directly across from Wilson School) Open a class at Watson School - 20 seats Open a class at Geyer Springs - 20 seats 60 seats 1993-94 A. B. Open two classes at the new King School - 40 seats Convert Ish School to an early childhood center if the attendance zones for the new interdistrict schools will allow for accommodation of Ish students at nearby schools and place LRSD in a position to petition the court to authorize conversion of Ish to an early childhood center. The proximity of the new King School, Mitchell School, and Rightsell School, and the low enrollment at Ish are factors that will be considered in developing a proposal to submit to the court. C. Open at least one class at the new SWLR Head Start Center - 20 seats 1994-95 A. Open two classes at the new Stephens School - 40 seatsFOUR-YEAR-OLD DEMOGRAPHICS AREA DESCRIPTION 1987 1988 1989 1990 A Fulbright Terry 99 83 89 108 B Brady Fair Park Jefferson McDermott 130 125 138 157 C Pul. Hgts. Woodruff 83 105 119 95 D Rightsell Mitchell Rockefeller Ish 324 377 314 283 E Carver Mann 93 81 96 90 F Badgett 13 14 28 25 G Romine 131 161 135 116 H Parkview Wilson Bale 107 106 74 111 I Franklin Stephens Garland 324 318 313 285 J Western Hills Meadowcliff Dodd 73 81 92 93 K Geyer Springs Wakefield 73 81 100 96 L Otter Creek 24 28 23 28 M Cloverdale Mabelvale Watson Chicot 159 166 201 216 N Baseline 133 135 141 116For suspension of the rules at regular Board meeting on April 23, 1992. LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 810 WEST MARKHAM STREET LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS RECEiyPO April 23, 1992 APR 2 2 1992 Office of Desegregation Monitoring TO: Board of Directors FROM: istelle Matthis, Associate Superintendent for Educational Programs THROUGH: Ruth S. Steele, Superintendent of Schools SUBJECT: Arkansas Better Chance (ABC) Program Continuing Grant Application The Arkansas Department of Education recently aimounced the availability of Arkansas Better Chance (ABC) monies for second-year funding of developmentally appropriate early childhood education programs which identify and assist educationally-deprived children ages three (3) to five (5), as specified in the Arkansas Better Chance Program, Act 212 of 1991. The request for the Continuing Grant Application was released April 16, 1992, and the deadline for submission is May 8, 1992. The amount requested for second-year funding may not exceed the total amount of last years grant award, plus a five percent increase. 1991-92 Grant Allocation Center-based Four-Year-Old Program HIPPY Program Total Allocation Five percent increase $100,000.00 47.050.00 $147,050.00 + 7,352.50 Continuing Grant Request 1992-93 $154,402.50 It is recommended that you authorize the administration to submit an application for second-year funding in the amount of $154,402.50.ARKANSAS BETTER CHANCE ( STATEMENT OF ASSURANCES 1. The applicant has the necessary legal authority to apply for and to receive the proposed contract. (Attach a copy of the substantiating document.) 2. The applicant agrees to plan and implement a program in compliance with Act 212 of 1991, the Arkansas Better Chance Program, and to follow all applicable state and federal statutes and regulations. 3. If applicable, the applicant agrees to secure a license for a child care center under The Child Care Licensing Act, Ark Code Ann. 20-78-201 through 221 (1987 and Supp. 1989). 4. The applicant agrees to keep such records and provide such information to the Arkansas Department of Education and to the Arkansas Department of Human Services as reasonably may be required for fiscal auditing and program evaluation. 5. The applicant agrees to use funds provided under Act 212 of 1991 to supplement and not to supplant existing funds for early childhood programs. 6. The applicant agrees to participate upon request in an external annual evaluation of the project as determined by the Arkansas Department of Education. 7. The applicant agrees to coordinate its efforts with other early childhood programs and service providers to provide a comprehensive, quality early childhood program. 8. The applicant agrees to prohibit discrimination and intimidation on account of race, creed, color, sex or national origin in student selection and employment practices. 9. The activities and service.s under this proposed program will be admim'stered by or under the supervision of the applicant. 10. For operation of HIPPY Programs, a letter of authorization from HIPPY USA will be provided. 11. The filing of this application was authorized at the following official meeting: District Board of Education meeting Policy Board meeting--------------- Head of Administration________ President of Board ____________ Date Date Date Date Date Signature of Authorized Official TitleFOUR-YEAR-OLD PROGRAM LONG-TERM PLAN Little Rock School District Ofiico (.\n? iiacj jUH 4 o{ Desegregation Moniw-3 This report will outline the long-range plans for expanding the early childhood education program in the Little Rock School District. In particular, this report will address the demographic, instructional, and structural needs for expanding the current four-year-old program. The report will begin with a review of background information related to the expansion of the four-year-old program in the Little Rock School District. selecting program sites will be provided. Next, the objectives for The objectives will be followed by an analysis of demographic data related to the four- year-old population in the Little Rock School District. A review of the instructional goals of the four-year-old program will be included. Finally, long-term recoiranendations for establishing new four-year-old classes will be presented. Background The Little Rock School District four-year-old program was started during the 1988-89 school year as a means of meeting the needs of disadvantaged students and improving the racial balance at schools that are difficult to desegregate. Although Rockefeller Elementary School served four-year-old students prior to this time, the emphasis on using this program as a tool to desegregate schools started in the 1988-89 school year. Three schools participated in the four-year-old program during the 1988-89 school year: Ish, Rockefeller, and Stephens. In the following year (1989-90), four-year-old classes were added to Franklin and Washington. Four-year-old classes were added to Badgett and Garland in the 1990-91 school year and Mitchell, Rightsell, Romine, and Woodruff at the beginning of the current school year - 1991-92. According to the May 1 court order, the District must \"accommodate in four-year-old programs a number of children which equals or exceeds the number which would have been included if all schools in the district had a four-year-old program as originally planned\" (page 16). in the Little Rock School District. There are 36 elementary schools This moans that the District must provide 648 four-year-old seats in order to comply with the desegregation plan. a four-year-old program in 1992-93. Figure One shows the schools which will have These schools will account for 378 of the 648 four-year-old seats needed by 1994-95.1992-93 Badgett Bale Cloverdale Franklin Garland Geyer Spgs. Ish Mitchell Rightsell Rockefeller Romine Stephens Washington Watson Wilson Woodruff 2 FIGURE ONE Ineligible 1993-94. 1994-95 Brady Dodd Fair Park Forest Park Fulbright Jefferson Mabelvale McDermott Moadowcliff Otter Creek Pul. Heights Terry Western Hills Baseline Chicot* King** Booker Carver Gibbs Williams * Under consideration - will need additional space (NOTE: Wakefield is eligible for a four-year-old program, but no space is available for an additional class.) ** If approved by the Court to open in 1994-953 Objectives for Selecting Sites It has already been stated that the expansion of the four- year-old program in the Little Rock School District is related to two major objectives: (1) to meet the growing needs of disadvantaged students\nand (2) to improve the racial balance at schools that are difficult to desegregate. These objectives are consistent with the terms of the May 1 court order to \"place four-year-old programs in locations which will best further the goals of disparity reduction and racial balance\" (page 16). These objectives carry with them, however, certain limitations in regard to the location of future four-year-old sites. A factor that should be considered in identifying future four-year-old sites is the number of disadvantaged students in a given area. Priority should be given to areas that have a very high concentration of low income students. The second objective of the long-range plan for expanding the four-year-old program is to improve the racial balance in schools that have been difficult to desegregate. The elementary school attendance zones were originally designed to establish a racial balance at each school of 55% black and 45% white with a variance of 5%. Demographic changes over the past two years have resulted in some attendance zones having a lower number of white students than anticipated. The District has been successful in using the fo\\ir-year-old program, along with other voluntary desegregation measures, to attract white students to schools that fall in this category. For instance, the Romine area is experiencing a steady increase in its black population. The four-year-old program at Romine School, however, is 50% white. The use of the four-year-old program as a means to improve the racial balance at certain schools also implies that these classes cannot be placed in attendance zones that continue to remain racially balanced. This restriction does not preclude the placement of four-year-old classes in satellite zones that have heavy concentrations of disadvantaged students. The attendance zones that are ineligible for a program because of racial balance Brady, Dodd, Fair Park, Forest Park, Fulbright, Jefferson, Mabelvale, McDermott, Meadowcliff, Otter Creek, Pulaski Heights, Terry, and Western Hills. balances that are less than 55% black. These attendance zones have racial are: In light of the information provided in Figure One, the District will need to open a total of 270 four-year-old seats by the 1994-95 school year in order to comply with the desegregation plan. This goal can be met by using area centers, opening programs at schools that are eligible, and/or adding one or more classes to schools with existing four-year-old programs.4 Demographics Attachment One shows the number of four-year-old students The over the past four years who have enrolled in kindergarten, schools are listed as a means of describing each geographic area. Areas A, B, H, J, L, and M experienced increases between 1989 and 1990. The largest increase (50% growth) occurred in Area H - the area around Parkview, Wilson, and Bale Schools. This area will be referred to as the John Barrow Road area. The growth in areas L (22% growth), A (7% growth), and B (14% growth) is more likely to be the result of parents who decided to choose public education, as opposed to a net increase in births. The fluctuations in these areas over the four-year period tend to confirm this assumption. The increase in Area M (7% growth) from 1989 to 1990 tends to suggest the need for more early childhood services in southwest Little Rock. In addition to this finding, however, Area M is the only area that experienced a steady increase of more than 1% growth in the number of four-year-old children during the period of 1987-1990: 1987-1988 1988-1989 1989-1990 4% growth 21% growth 7% growth The findings for Areas H and M should be coupled with the trend in Area J - the area around Western Hills, Meadowcliff, and Dodd Schools. This area is contiguous to, and in some cases overlaps, what is generally considered to be the Barrow Road area and southwest Little Rock. Again, a steady increase in the number of four-year-old children is evident during the period of 1987-1990\n1987-1988 1988-1989 1989-1990 11% growth 14% growth 1% growth These data document the need for four-year-old services in the John Barrow Road area and southwest Little Rock. Although these areas continue to show growth, future services in the central Little Rock area should not be disregarded. Attachment One indicates heavy concentrations of four-year-old students in Areas D and I, the areas which serve the Incentive Schools, though both areas have experienced declines since 1988. even Instructional Goals The whole thrust of the early childhood program has been to remedy the academic differences that our students are bringing In the past, we have experienced low into the school system. Significant amounts of performance, retention, and dropouts. time and money have been expended on remediation, special 5 education, and on providing the basic level of preparation needed to succeed in school. Many of the problems of skills disparity that are chronic in The the higher grades are lessened when all youngsters enter kindergarten with appropriate pre-school experiences. District's four-year-old program is designed to provide the skills and experience that have often been lacking in lower income youngsters. This is tremendously important, not only to the parents, but to the self-image and self-confidence of the The number of students who will flourish, learn, and child. perform at grade level while building on a foundation of pride, achievement, and self-esteem is simply incalculable. The instructional goals of this program are to address the needs of at-risk students, at the earliest possible age, in a manner that ensures success in learning and diminishes the current disparity in performance between not only black and white children but economically advantaged and disadvantaged children. The early years of life are critical Philosophv/Qbjectives, for helping children realize their full developmental potentxal. Arranging experiences to enhance develojxnent is a task for the home, the school, and the community. The goals and objectives of the educational program will be sensitive to the developmental characteristics of the children. The curriculum will be based on young children's interests and The styles of learning which will guide daily activities. program itself will be compatible with the developmental needs of It will appeal to young children and help them young children. experience the joy of learning. The early childhood program will be multicultural in focus and it will be sensitive to the cultural and ethnic heritage of children. Young children need the opportunity to learn about themselves and other cultures. An appropriate curriculum for young children will be one in They will be given which the children are active learners. freedom to act on materials, to use them in their own ways, to move about, and to interact verbally and physically with other children and with their teachers. There will be a full spectrxim of activities to stimulate children with many levels of development. The Early Childhood Task Force has endeavored to structure a curriculum for four-year-old children that is multicultural and tailored to the individual needs and interests of the learners. In every instance In every instance, teachers of young children must be curriculum developers who are able to observe and talk with children to determine high interest areas. The specific skills taught in LRSD four-year-old classes can be found in the District's early childhood education handbook.6 Parent Involvement, The active involvement of the family is critical to children's success in school. It reinforces and Parents will be helps sustain the effects of school programs. actively involved in the implementation of the program through: - Orientation Meeting and Make/Take Workshops - Parents will become acquainted with the program at Open House. Parents also will be provided a variety of activities and strategies to enhance achievement by their children. - Parent Participation - Parents will be invited to volunteer in the classroom, accompany the class on field trips, and observe the child in the classroom. - Advisory Coirenittee - Parents will serve on the Early Childhood Advisory Committee. - Training Sessions - Principals and teachers will encourage parents to participate in training sessions so they can have a better understanding of the characteristics of children and how they grow. Discussion Groups - Parent discussion groups with teachers and outside agency representatives will be scheduled as a means to improve parent effectiveness. Parent Survey - Parents will help us evaluate the program in the school by completing a survey. A summary will be made from the responses to identify needs and provide better services for the children. Staff Development. The Little Rock School District is conmitted to providing continuous professional growth opportunities for all staff members. Major components of these opportunities are the districtwide training courses and minicourses which have been designed and scheduled to address staff developxnent needs as reflected in the local schools' Annual School Improvement Plans. Also, in order to be in compliance with State Department Standards, LRSD certified staff members are required to complete a minimum of five (5) days or 27 1/2 hours of staff development Staff development activities for the four- training each year. year-old program will include but not be limited to the following areas : - Licensing Requirements Classroom Management - Child Development and Behavior7 - Learning Styles Parent Conferences - Developing Centers and Units Transitional Activities - Prejudice Reduction - Behavior Management and Self-Esteem Instructional aides will receive child development associate training or early childhood education technical assistance depending upon individual needs. Program Evaluation. A longitudinal study of all students involved in the four-year-old program will be conducted. The information gained from this study will allow the District to make valid assessments of student achievement and program effectiveness. Long-Range Proposal - Structural Heeda As stated earlier, the District will need to open a total of 270 four-year-old seats by the 1994-95 school year in order to comply with the desegregation plan. This amount is equivalent to 15 four-year-old classes with a maximum capacity of 18 students in each class. It was also noted that future four-year-old programs should be located in the John Barrow Road area, southwest Little Rock, and/or the area around the incentive schools. In regard to future four-year-old sites, the Little Rock School District proposes the following: A. Chicot. In the 1993-94 school year, open a class at Baseline and The class at Chicot is contingent on the District's ability to free a classroom (e.g. eliminate a kindergarten cla\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_436","title":"Early childhood","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":["1990/2001"],"dcterms_description":null,"dc_format":["application/pdf"],"dcterms_identifier":null,"dcterms_language":["eng"],"dcterms_publisher":["Little Rock, Ark. : Butler Center for Arkansas Studies. Central Arkansas Library System."],"dc_relation":null,"dc_right":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC-EDU/1.0/"],"dcterms_is_part_of":["Office of Desegregation Monitoring records (BC.MSS.08.37)","History of Segregation and Integration of Arkansas's Educational System"],"dcterms_subject":["Little Rock (Ark.)--History--20th century","Little Rock School District","Education--Arkansas","Childhood development","School improvement programs","Educational planning"],"dcterms_title":["Early childhood"],"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/436"],"dcterms_temporal":null,"dcterms_rights_holder":null,"dcterms_bibliographic_citation":null,"dlg_local_right":null,"dcterms_medium":["documents (object genre)"],"dcterms_extent":null,"dlg_subject_personal":null,"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":"\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n\n\n\n   \n\n\n\n\n   \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n  \n\n'(I3/24-3S 13: 22 501 324 2023 LRSD COMMLNICATI fiDM @ 002.'1)03 Littie Rock School District For Immediate Release March 24, 199S For more information: SuelJen Vann, 324-2020 School District Opening Daycare Center Babies and toddlers will soon Join the ranks of students at a Little Rock high school. The Metropolitan Learning Opportunity Child Care Center will occuny a portion. of the Metropolitan Vocationai Techrdcal Center, located at 7701 Scott Hamilton Diive. Childcare Director Shirley Lewis is overseeing preparations for the April 1st opening of the facility. We are excited about ser''vtng young children from the age of six weeks to two and one-half years old in this center, levris said. We plan to provide childcare for any of our secondary students who may be young parents. The Metropolitan Learning Opportunity Child Care Center is funded by a $48,500 grant from the Arkansas Early Childhood Commission. The grant will fund materials and eqmpinent for the center, as well as paying the daycare costs for income-eligible students. In addition to providing daycare sendees., the center plans to teach appropriate parenting skills to teen parents in the fumre. ihe Center will be licensed by die .Arkansas Deparment of Human Sendees. We will work with infants and toddlers to improve tlieir developmental skdils by reading to them and providing age appropriate games, music and other activities, Lewis added,  i he center is open to anyone in the cornrauniry. Private pay enrollments will be accepted in addition to the children of Little Rock studente. (more) 810 West Markham Street Little Rock, Arkansas 72201  (501)324-2000 \"os. 24.98 ^..11 324 2023 LRSI) COMMVMCATI OD.M @003.003 CAlIhfcMMlMni. tx. .\u0026lt;WU Metopohtan Child Care Center Page i of 2. Little Rock chool District Pupil Sendees Director Jo Eveljn Elston said that a survey of teen parents intiicated that some students, m ust leave school because they do not have childcare available. We believe the Center -w,!! help to keep some of our young female students in school by offering a daycare option for their infan.ts, Elston said. \"A CjUdlitv daycare program in an educational setting will meet this need . Metropolitan Learning Opportunity Child Care Center joins the Rockefe-Uer tarty L liildhooc Program in sernng infantB and toddlers. Ihs new center -^sdll be open from. S:00 a.m. until 4\n,30 p.m. Monday tliroug.h Friday. Parents ma'y visit the facility dlnng an open .house on Sunday, April 5, fioin. 2:00 un.til 4:00 p.m. Reggstration forms and additionaj ajiformation. m,a\\ be obtained by calling Ms. Le'ads at 324-216404. 21/199S 08: 19 501-.924-20 lRSD COMMLInICATIONS P.AGE 02.'02 Little Rock School District f ar Immediare P,.elease April 21, 1998 For more information\nSuellen Vann, 324-2020 Kindergiirten Students Celebrate National Kindergarten Day Thanks to YamelJs Ice Cream, kindergarten students in the Little Rock School Dismct ( LRSD) vnll enjoy ice cream parties today to cotnmsmorate National Kindergarten Day. Each kindergarten class in the LRSD received a Yarnells Ice Cream Party Kit winch included ice cream, scoops, bowls, spoons and napkins. We wanted tlie kids to have some fun vhile we took note of the significant contributions made by kindergarten programs and kindergarten teachers,\" said Doug Sanders. Yameils senior vice president. Early childhood education is the foundation for a successful, productive school experience. This is our way of encouraging the children, and saying dianks to the teachers, media NOTE: Janne Neals kindergarten class at Pulaski Heights Elementan' will have an outdoor celebration beginning at 1:30 p.m. today with huge bubbles and parachute activities as part of their National Kindergarten Day festivities. 810 West l^aTkham Street Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 (501)324-2000 Little Rock School District MEMORANDUM To: \\oard of Directors Boan From: es Gamine, Superintendent Date pril 23, 1998 Subject: April Desegregation Update The attached information represents the desegregation update for the month of April.Little Rock School District Desegregation Update Board of Directors Meeting April 23, 1998 FOUR-YEAR OLD PROGRAM A total of 990 applicants have applied for the four-year old program through April 1 1998. The Little Rock School District has seats for 720 four-year olds. Parents were notified by mail on April 17, 1998, regarding their placement in the program or on the waiting list. All unfilled seats are reserved for white/other students, with the exception of 12 seats at Badgett Elementary that are available for black students. All remaining vacant seats will be filled on a 1\" come basis.PRE-REGISTRATION JAN. 26-FEB. 6 1999 4-YEAR OLD APPLICATIONS [ Applications Filed ________________II________ Name of School \n Capacity BADGETT BALE BASELINE BRADY CHICOT CLOVERDALE FAIR PARK FRANKLIN GARLAND GEYER SPRING ML KING MABELVALE MITCHELL RIGHTSELL ROCKEFELLER ROMINE WASHINGTON WATSON WILSON WOODRUFF CLINTON CRYSTAL HILL 36 36 36 18 36 36 36 72 18 36 72 18 18 18 54 36 54 36 18 36 26 30 NON- Black IBLK 6 23 27 30 27 28 18 37 24 36 102 20 15 23 35 39 27 36 30 18 26 51 0 5 4 25 13 2 18 6 1 9 40 12 1 3 26 15 31 0 8 10 0 0 Total 6 28 31 55 40 30 36 43 25 45 142 32 16 26 61 54 57 36 38 28 26 51 I TOTAL ASSIGNED INON- Black I Black 6 18 18 9 18 18 18 36 9 18 36 9 9 9 27 18 27 18 9 18 26 30 0 8 3 9 13 2 18 6 1 9 36 9 1 3 27 15 27 1 8 10 0 0 776 678 229 906 404 206 Total 6 26 21 18 31 20 36 42 10 27 72 18 10 12 54 33 54 19 17 28 26 30 610 Non-Black Assigned total represent some 2nd choices LRSD - STUDENT ASSIGNMENT ]To\nLITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT RECEJVED Ann S. Brown, Federal Monitor Office of Desegregation Monitoring APR 2 8 1998 From: Nancy Acre, Director Student Assignment Office OFFICE Of DESEGREGATION MONITORING Date: ^April 27, 1998 Subj.: Movement of 4-year old class Mrs. Sadie Mitchell has asked me to notify you that Little Rock School District has decided to move one 4-year old class from Badgett to Dodd, effective August, 1998. Dodd has a strong interest in offering the 4-year old class. They have polled their community and have asked the superintendent to allow them to have the class. Due to the decrease in enrollment and difficulty in filling the 4-year old seats in two classes at Badgett, it is the decision of the district to move one class to Dodd. Please feel free to call if you have questions. 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 May 5, 1998 Nancy Acre, Director Student Assignment Office Little Rock School District 810 West Markham Little Rock, AR 72201 Dear Nancy: Thanks so much for your April 27 memo informing me of the districts decision to move a four-year- old class from Badgett to Dodd next fall. It was good to hear from you, and I appreciate your keeping me posted. 1 would appreciate some further infonnation if you have it. WTiile I agree that it makes sense to move the four-year-old class in the instance you described, Id like to know what policies and procedures the LRSD has adopted that provide criteria and guidelines for changing the location of its four-year- old classes. As you know, the district had previously committed to locating the four-year-old program at specific schools. As a matter of fact, the LRSDs new desegregation plan contemplates that the four-year-old classes will remain at their present sites or in the same general location. While Im not suggesting that the district should not move a four-year-old class to a new location, I do want to understand the process the district follows to arrive at such decisions. Since your memo indicated that Sadie Mitchell had asked you to notify me about moving the Badgett class to Dodd, Ill send a copy of this letter to her. Tliank you very much for your assistance. Sincerely yours, Anns. Bro\\ S. Brown cc: Sadie MitchellRECBVF.e MAY 1 8 1993 OFFICE Or DESEGREGATION MONITORING Little Rock School District OFFICE OF THE SUPERINTENDENT Date: May 15, 1998 mIB To: Re: Ann Brown. Federal Monitor, Office of Desegregation Monitoring John Walker, Attorney for the Joshua Intervenors Early Childhood Program: Pre-Kindergarten We currently have, as of May 4, 1998, a total of 574 children signed up for the districts four-year old classes. 358 155 61 574 Black White Other Total (62%) (27%) (11%) We have 146 openings to fill before we reach current capacity of 720 seats. Recommendation: The District shall release all seats to children on the waiting list except two seats per classroom. The result would be the release of 114 seats to children on the waiting list, reserving 32 seats for children who move into the district during the summer. The District would release 50% of any remaining seats on the Tuesday after Labor Day. I he uisirici wouid release aii remaining seats on October 1. We understand that this is substantially what the Court has previously approved. I will request the Boards approval regarding the recommendation on May 28, 1998. If you have modifications that you would like for us to consider, I look forward to hearing from you. Re^peraully, Leslie V.cSarnine Superinten^nt of Schools 810 West Markham Street Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 (501) 824-2000 e nuz.t4^ 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: May 22, 1998 BY FAX To: Les Carnine From: Ann Bro Re: District Proposal for Releasing Four-Year-Old Seats Thank you for your May 15, 1998 memo about releasing empty seats in the LRSDs four-year-old program for 1998-99. I commend you for addressing this issue long before the start of the next school year. Im puzzled by your recommendation to release seats in increments and upon dates that bear no relationship to a district policy, procedure, guideline, or precedent of which I am aware. Nor do I agree that your recommendation is substantially what the Court has previously approved. Our records reflect no history of the district either proposing or implementing an incremental release of seats on a timeline such as that outlined in your memo. The districts practice has been to racially balance the initial spring enrollment of the four-year-old classes, reserve seats for white students in proportions that would preserve racial balance, hold those seats open until school is about to start (or actually has started), and then, citing the districts recruitment efiforts, ask the Courts permission to immediately fill the seats with black children from a waiting list. The LRSD has moved the Court for permission to release unfilled four-year-old seats on a timetable that was always the districts own (not that of the Court) and that also varied from year to year: the dates upon which the district filed its requests to fill vacancies were either in August or September as the new academic year was getting underway. The Court quickly responded to those motions, not wishing to delay childrens access to early childhood education. Because your recommendation represents a departure from the districts previous approach to releasing four-year-old seats, and because Im not aware of any district policies that guide its decisions on how and when to release four-year-old seats. Id appreciate an explanation of the process the district followed to arrive at the recommendation in your memo. As you requested, here are my suggestions: 1. Define the guidelines (policies, procedures, and timelines) for releasing early childhood seats, including an explanation of the reasons underlying the criteria. Make the guidelines sufficiently comprehensive to apply every year but flexible enough to allow for adaptation when special circumstances arise. I Page Two May 26, 1998 2. Use district records and consult with the parent recruiters to determine how many children usually move into the LRSD during the summer months and reserve seats accordingly. (I agree that it may be prudent to reserve some seats for new children, but how did the district arrive at 32 as the number of reserved seats needed for children moving into the district during the summer?) 3. Consider releasing vacant four-year-old seats before Labor Day and certainly well before October 1. Why wait to release half the remaining seats on the Tuesday after Labor Day (why 50% and why after Labor Day, which is September 7 this year)? Waiting until October 1, well into the school year, to release the remaining seats is a very lengthy delay. Its important for children to settle into their classes as early as possible in the new academic year. cc\nJohn WalkerC. 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: May 28, 1998 BY FAX To: Les Carnine From: Ann BrowJ Re: Comments on Second Draft of LRSD Recommendation for Releasing Four-Year-Old Seats Glad we finally caught up with each other on the phone. We both agree with the districts objective of seating children in early childhood classes as soon as possible in any new school year. I also agree that specific wording of the guidelines for releasing seats can be worked out in the next few days. Evidently my fax to you this afternoon crossed with the second fax you sent me, which contained some revisions of the earlier fax (sounds like whos on first!). I still stand by my previous recommendations and now, as you requested, add these, which pertain to the most recent draft Ive seen. These suggestions are to correct errors or clarify wording: Page 1, paragraph 3: Correct the error that appears in the third paragraph, because the district hasnt always filed in August. Below are the dates on which the LRSD filed its requests to fill vacant seats and the date the court responded over the last four years: LRSD Motion September?, 1997 August 1, 1996 August 16, 1995 August 25, 1994 Court Order Septembers, 1997 August 27, 1996 September?, 1995 September 7, 1994 Page 1, paragraph 4, last sentence, last phrase: Specify which disparity is to be closed. (I presume the disparity is that in academic achievement between the races, but its always best to be clear.) Page 2, paragraph 1, item b: The district doesnt report its enrollment on October 1. Rather, October 1 enrollment is the official student count that the district reports to the Arkansas Department of Education. Page 2, #6: Why release all but two of the vacancies per class? This may be a perfectly reasonable number, but what is it based upon? Do district records of enrollment patterns show that two seats per classroom will likely yield the number of vacancies the district wants to preserve over the summer?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: May 28, 1998 To: Les Carnine From: Ann Browi Re: Changes in LRSD Recommendation for Releasing Four-Year-Old Seats Thanks for faxing me a response to my recent memo about the districts proposal for releasing four- year-old seats. Your note asked me to give you a call today, which I did, but reached only recorded messages. I know that the Board meeting days are hectic, so Im faxing you this message in case we arent able to talk by phone today. The changes Pat Price suggested are reasonable and will help ensure better service to more children earlier in the school year. However, if the seven points in the proposed guidelines are to be consistently applied every year, as Ms. Price indicated, and are also to align with the districts desegregation goals, you may want to consider the points Ive listed below. (My intention isnt to edit your documents. Les, just to make suggestions that may head off some future confusion or problems.) 1. 2. 3. Because the whole idea behind reserving seats is to promote racially balanced enrollment, add a few words or a short sentence (perhaps to #1 on Pats list) to indicate that the districts goal is to racially balance its four-year-old program. In #4 on the list, it might be wise to clarify up front who is to be responsible for making the monthly assessment of vacancies. (Student Assignment?) In #5, change fill to read racially balance the vacancies that exist. (Thats what the recruiters will be trying to do in May and June: just filling the vacancies isnt usually the problem, but getting white children into them is.) 4. Because school starts on a different date each year, guideline #7 can become more generically useful if it doesnt include a specific date (like September 1), but rather a date in relationship to, say, the first day of school. Labor Day, or the month of September. For example, the wording might be during the second week of school or the day after Labor Day, or the first Monday in September. Just use which ever timeframe district records indicate is the best date for releasing seats to accommodate the after-Labor-Day deluge and give Student Assignment enough time to process the necessary paperwork to get the children into their classes as soon as possible.LRSD SUPTS OFFICE 925 P01 MAY 28 98 13:23 LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 810 WEST MARKHAM LITTLE ROCK ARKANSAS 72201 fax MJKIBER: (501) 324-2146 SUPERINTENDENTS OFFICE Date\n/i To: '^rcixn-. n Telephone No,\nMESSAGE: lOz' 1) Number of Pages Sent To FAX Phone Number J* f  LRSD SUPTS OFFICE S25 P02 MAY 23 93 13:23 LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT TO\nFROM: Dr. Les Carnine. Superintendent Pat Price, Director of Early Childhood Education DATE\nMay 28, 1998 SUBJECT: Response to Ann Browns Memo of May 22, 1998 Thank you for your suggestions regarding the memo of May 15, 1998, addressing the release of reserved seats in the LRSDs four year old program for the 1998-99 school year. The process that the district followed to arrive at the recommendation that was initially sent to you was: The Director of Early Childhood Education sent a memofeking what process was used for releasing the reserved seats under the revised Desegregation and Education Plan. She also asked that the issue be addressed as early as possible so that we could expedite the process and provide children 'with the opportunity to participate in the program at an earlier date. In addition, the director made a recommendation for releasing the seats. tn the past year (97-98) the request for a blanket release of reserved seats has been handled by the districts attorneys, after receiving the necessary information from student assignment, such as the number of seats available and the recruitment efforts of the district. The beginning of this process was initiated in late August. The time required for the filing process, a decision, and implementation of that decision resulted in a delay of children being able to participate in the program. It is the districts goal to streamline this process in an attempt to fill the vacancies in an appropriate manner while holding sufficient seats for new patrons and to help further racial balance. The proposal used 32 for the number of seats to be reserved for children moving into the district. This number was based on an approximation of the vacancies that existed in schools which had openings after releasing 50% of the reserved seats in all classes that had vacancies as of May 5, 1998. Please remember that this number will change on an ongoingLRSD SLIPTS OFFICE 925 P03 MAY 28 98 13:24 basis as children are assigned to the program from now until the end of June. The reasoning behind selecting the day after Labor Day and Octobei 1 as the days for releasing the reserved seats was\nJays tne reserveo was. The district usually has a number of children who wait until b. after Labor Day to register. The October 1 date is the official date that the district uses for student counts. r e The (istrict has no problem with releasing the seats at earlier dates and has r lade some adjustments in this area. The district expects these changes to provide the benefits of the program to more children, quickly. Now, seats in an effort to expedite and standardize the process for releasing the district is proposing the following procedures and timelines: 1. 2. Initial enrollment for the four year old program will be in January/Parents may enroll at the student assignment office or at th^ir attendance zone school. Notification of assignments to the four year old program will be mailed to parents in April. 3. Registration for the four year old program will reopen and parents may register at the student assignment office. 4.. After initial assignments are made, there will be-a monthly assessment to see where the vacancies exist in four year old classes and assignments made accordingly. 5. During the months of May and June, recruitment efforts will be made by parent recruiters in the student assignment office to frlfthe vacancies that exist. 6, 1. After recruitment efforts have been made, at the end of June, classrooms that have vacancies will release 50% of their vacancies to students who are on the waiting list. The remaining seats will be reserved to help^reat^ desegregated program. On September 1, all remaining vacant seats will be released and will be filled from the waiting list. ScA.Mi/5C\u0026lt;a Needless to say no system is perfect\nhowever, these procedures will , provide guidelines with time frames that can be consistently aoclied every year. The district intends to closely monitor the procedures to see if \"further changes will be necessary or advisable. I yiAjti,LRSD SUPTS OFFICE 927 P01 MAY 28 98 15:58 Date: To: From: Telephone No.: MESSAGE: LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 810 WEST MARKHAM LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS 72201 FAXNUMBER: (501)324-2146 SUPERlNTENDENrS OFFICE c Number of Eases Sent -3 To FxAK Phone Number -0 fO 0 LRSD SUPTS OFFICE LKou oinrr uc.vc.i.urric.i'i i rciA'QVA~..\u0026gt;..sujvo riciy zo 927 PQ2 MAY 28 98 15:57 r- 50 LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT TO: FROM: Dr. Les Carnine, Superintendent Pat Price, Director of Early Childhood Education DATE: May 28,1998 SUBJECT: Response to Ann Browns Memo of May 22. 1998 Thank you for your suggestions regarding the memo of May 15,1998, addressing the release of reserved seats in the LRSDs four-year-old program for the 1998-99 schoc! year. The process that the district foilowed to arrive at the recommendation that was initially sent to you was: . The Director of Early Childhood Education sent a memo asking what process was used for releasing the reserved seats under the revised Desegregation and Education Plan. She also asked that the issue be addressed as early as possible so that we could expedite the process and provide chiidren witn the opportunity to participate in the program at an earlier date, in addition, the director made a recommendation for releasing the seats. Durinq the past three years the request for a blanket release of reserved seats has been handled by th districts attorneys, after receiving the necessary information from student assignment, such as the number of seats available and the recruitment efforts of the district. The ........... July by the Student Assignment Office and filed process was Initiated in July by the Student Assignment unice duu with the court in August. The time required for the filing process, a decision and implementation of that decision resulted in a delay of klCwlw'-wl I \u0026gt; Ml *W ._ I /I, chiidren being able to participate in the program. (X Traditionally two-thirds of at! four-year-oid applications are requesied for African American students. This results in a large number of these students being placed on waiting lists, while seats resented for nonAfrican American students remain vacant. It is the district s goal to streamiins this process in an attempt to fill the vacancies in an appropriate manner while holding sufficient seats for new patrons and to help further racial balance and close the disparity. The prcposal used 32 for the number of seats to be reserved for children moving Into the district. This number was based on an approximation of th vacancies that existed in schools which had openings after releasing 50% of the reserved seats in all classes that had vacancies as of May 5, 1998. Please remember that this number will change on an ongoingLRSD SUPTS OFFICE LRSD STAFF LtVtLUHMtNI FaxibUi-oz^-Loue Ilciy zo 927 P03 MAY\n8  98 15:5? basis as children are June. assigned to the program from now until the end of The reasoning behind selecting the day after Labor Day and October 1 as the davs for releasing foe reserved seats was: The district usually has a number of children who wait until a. b. after Labor Day to register. October 1 is foe date that the district reports fog gfficial student counts to the Arkansas Department of Education. The district has no problem with releasing foe has made some adjustments in this area. The distr.ct . i changes to provide foe benefits of the program to more children, quicKly. Now. in an effort to expedite and standardize the foj '^^^asing seats, the district is proposing the following procedures and timelines. 1, 2. 3. Initial enrollment for the four-year-old program will be during( foe districts regular registration period. Parents may enrc.l at the Student assignment office or at their attendance zone school, if applicable. Notification of assignments to ths four-year-oid program will be mailed to parents in April. Registration for the four-year-old program will reofer. and parents may register at foe student assignment office. 4.. After initial assignments are made, there will be a monthly assessment to see where foe vacancies exist m fou^ear-old classes and assignments will be made accordingly. 5. During the months of May and June recruitment ^ll be made by parent recruiters in the student assignment office to fs-l the vacancies that exist. 8. After recruitment efforts have been made, at Classrooms foat have vacancies will reiease^but^of foe^r vacancies to students who are on the waiting nst. the remaining seats will be reserved to help create a desegregated program. 7. On September 1, all remaining vacant seats will be released and will be filled from foe waiting list. Needless to say no system is perfect\nhowever, these procedures wl.l provide guidelines with time frames foat can be consistently applied every year. The district intends to closely monitor foe procedures to see if further changes will be necessary or advisable.* 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: June 3, 1998 To: Les Carnine line X From: Ann Bro Re: District Guidelines for Releasing Four-Year-Old Seats Thanks for the fax you gave me today, which contained Pat Prices updated guidelines for releasing four-year-old seats. The guidelines look fine to me. Good job!J_RSD STAFF DEOELOPMENT Fax:501-324-0508 Jun 3 98 11:03 p.02 MjtlTTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT TO\nLes Carnine, Superintendent FROM: /Pat Pat Price, Director of Early Childhood Education DATE: June 3, 1998 SUBJECT: Response to Ann Browns Memo of May 28. 1998 The suggestions that Ms. Brown has made can be easily addressed\nand if these suggestionswill help head off. confusion or problems, then I recommend all of the underlined changes be made. The process that the district followed to arrive at the recommendation that was initially sent to you was\nThe Director of Early Childhood Education sent a memo asking what process was used for releasing the reserved seats under the revised Desegregation and Education Plan. She also asked that the issue be addressed as early as possible so that the district could expedite tfie process and provide children with the opportunity to participate in the program at an earlier date. In addition, the director made a recommendation for releasing the seats. During the past three years the request for a blanket release of reserved seats has been handled by the districts attorneys, after receiving the necessary information from student assignment, such as the number of seats available and the recruitment efforts of the district. The process was initiated in July by the Student Assignment Office and filed with the court in August or September. The time required for the filing process, a decision, and implementation of that decision resulted in a delay of children being able to participate in the program. Traditionally two-thirds of all four-year-old applications are requested for African American students. This results in a large number of these students being placed on waiting lists, while seats reserved for nonAfrican American students remain vacant. It is the districts goal to streamline this process in an attempt to fill the vacancies in an appropriate manner while holding sufficient seats for new patrons and to help further racial balance and close the disparity in academic achievement between the races...LRSD STAFF DEUELOPMENT Fax:501-324-0508 Jun 3 98 11:04 p.03 The proposal used 32 for the number of seats to be reserved for children moving into the district. This number was based on an approximation of the vacancies that existed in schools which had openings after releasing 50% of the reserved seats in all classes that had vacancies as of May 5, 1998. Please remember that this number will change on an ongoing basis as children are assigned to the program from now until the end of June. The reasoning behind selecting the day after Labor Day and October 1 as the days for releasing the reserved seats was: a. The district usually has a number of children who wait until after Labor Day to register. b. October 1 enrollment is the official student count that the district reports to the Arkansas Department of Education. The district has no problem with releasing the seats at earlier dates and has made some adjustments in this area. The district expects these changes to provide the benefits of the program to more children, quickly. Now, in an effort to expedite and standardize the process for releasing seats that are reserved to promote racially balanced enrollment, the district is proposing the followng procedures and timelines\n1. Initial enrollment for the four-year-old program will be during the districts regular registration period. Parents may enroll at the student assignment office or at their attendance zone school, if applicable. 2. Notification of assignments to the four-year-old program will be mailed to parents in April. 3. Registration for the four-year-old program will reopen and parents may register at the student assignment office. 4.. After initial assignments are made, Student Assignment will do a monthly assessment to see where the vacancies exist in four-year- old classes and assignments will be made accordingly, 5. During the months of May and June, recruitment efforts will be made by parent recruiters in the student assignment office to racially balance the vacancies that exist.^LRSD STAFF DEVELOPMENT Fax:501-324-0508 Jun 3 98 11:04 p.04 6. 7. After recruitment efforts have been made, at the end of June, classrooms that have vacancies will release ail but two of their vacancies to students who are on the waiting list. The remaining seats will be reserved to help create a desegregated program. These seats may or may not exist at the end of June, and it is true that two is an arbitrary number\nhowever, in an effort to help attain the goal to promote a racially balanced enrollment, the district feels that this is a reasonable request to reserve a minimum of two seats in every classroom that has vacancies, During the second week of school, all remaining vacant seats will be released and will be filled from the waiting list. Needless to say no system is perfect\nhowever, these procedures will provide guidelines with time frames that can be consistently applied every year. The district intends to closely monitor the procedures to see if further changes will be necessary or advisable., .LRSD STAFF DEyELOPMENT Fax:501-324-0508 Jun 3 98 11:03 P. 01 LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT STAFF DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT INSTRUCTIONAL RESOURCE CENTER 3001 S PULASKI LITTLE ROCK, AR 72206 FAX (501) 324-0508 DATE TO  FROM ir 4  . SENDERS PHONE NO. 3^ V - SUBJECT Special Instructions Number of pages (include cover page) -S: FAX Phone Number Transmitted By C^^-, TrC5? Z Date Time ///\u0026gt;,\u0026lt; 09/17/1999 15:15 501-324-2023 LRSD COMMUNICATIONS C! ' PAGE 02/02 810 West Markham UttleRock, AR 72201 sevann@Irsdadm.lrsd.k12.ar.us For Immediate Release September 17,1999 For more information\nPat Price, 324-0517 Suellen Vann, 324-2020 / New Pre-Kindergarten and Head Start Classes to Open Children who are 4-years-old may apply to attend one of two new pre-kindergarten classes that will open at Wakefield Elementary School. The new classes represent a collaboration between the Little Rock School District (LRSD) and Head Start, according to LRSD Early Childhood Director Pat Price. Were pleased to welcome these 4-year-old children into the Wakefield program, Price said. This early start in their education will help these children succeed as they progress through elementary school. Parents may apply September 20-24,1999, by completing an application at the LRSD Student Registration Office, 501 Sherman Street. At that time parents should provide an original birth certificate for the child\nproof of address (utility bill, lease agreement, etc.)\nthe childs Social Security number\nand. only if interested in Head Start services, proof of income. Price said the partnership between Wakefield and Head Start will provide better service to families in Southwest Little Rock. Head Start services include health, vision and hearing screening\ndental screenings and follow-up visits to the dentist\nnutritional and developmental assessments\nservices for children with special needs\nand connections to community resources and family advocates. Date: July 26, 2000 To: Melissa From: Annj^ Re: New LRSD Four-Year-Old Sites Please contact Pat Price, asking her for the written criteria the district used to determine the placement of the three new four-year-old programs for the coming school year, as described in the July board agenda. Also, Id like an updated list of where all the four-year-old programs will operate next year, noting the number of classes at each school. Further, are these programs being funded on one-time or short-term money? Whats the districts plan for long-term funding to keep all of them up and running? The agenda item references adding a four-year-old program at Pulaski Heights Elementary in 2001-02, when space will be available. Since the proposal cites that space isnt available for the upcoming school year, find out whats going to change at the school to enable the addition of a program there. Thanks.I { ( ( Participants r Career-Tech Coordinators Coaching Staffs Secondary Content Teachers PRESCHOOL PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT JULY AND AUGUST. 2001 Date Time Location Topic 1 Department G a  G cr G G I July 20, 10:00-12:30 Metropolilan Principals, Directors, Counselors, Asst. Principals, Asst. Principals, Asst. Supt., Assoc. Supt. Middle/Senior High Department Chairs Career-Technical Ed ALL NEW TEACHERS 2001 July 30. 2001 Aug. 3, 2001 Aug. 6, 2001 8:30-12:00 8:30-4:00 10:00-12:00 Board Room J. A, Fair Peabody Hotel NEW Attendance and Elementary Secretaries All NEW Elementary Teachers All NEW Secondary Teachers Secondary and Elementary Teachers (5 years of teaching ________experience________ Elementary School Staffs Aug. 6, 2001 Aug. 6, 2001 Aug. 6, 2001 Aug. 7, 2001 Aug. 8, 2001 Aug, 9-10, 2001 8:30-12:30 8:30- 11:30 1:00-3:30 8:30-3:30 8:30-3:30 8:30-3:30 Metropolitan IRC IRC Computer Lab IRC IRC IRC 6 Grade Math Teachers b\" Grade Science Teachers 7* Grade Science Teachers Aug. 13- 14,2001 Aug. 13- 14,2001 Aug. 13, 2001 Aug. 13, 8:30-3:30 8:30-3:30 8:30-3:30 8:30-3:30 Individual Elementary Schools Parkview Hall - Room 702 Hall - Room 701 1 Internships, Apprenticeships/J AG_ Coaches Orientation and Workshop ADE Content Workshop Advanced Placement Institute Career-Tech 324-4043 Johnny Johnson 324-2427 Gifted Program 324-2197 Gifted Program 324-2197 G LC (J cs I to hO I K) to Professional Development Planning for 2001-2002 Orientation Student Management ________System_________ Classroom Organizational _________Skills_________ Classroom Organizational _________Skills_______ Pathwisc Mentoring Training Elementary Building Leve ________Inservices_______ Module Training Bits A Pieces II New Science Curriculum Assessment/S A LI Career-Tech 324-4043 Pro. Dev. 324-0500 Mattie Ruth Tipton Pro. Dev. 324-0500 Pro. Dev. 324-0500 Pro, Dev, 324-0500 to register Individual Schools Math Dept, 324-0520 Science 324-0518 Science 7/30/01 w o co \u0026lt; Ci m tn \"D J\u0026gt; CD hO( ( ( I I Participants 7 \u0026amp; 8 Grade Math Teachers 8 Grade Science Teachers All Middle School English \u0026amp; Resource English Teachers All Middle and High School Foreign Language Teachers Middle and High School Band, Choir, and Orchestra Teachers Middle and High School Drama/St^eech Teachers Middle and High School Dance __________Teachers_________ Middle and High School Visual _______Arts Teachers_________ Secondary Librarians Secondary Library Secretaries 9-12 Grade Math Teachers All High School English \u0026amp; Resource English Teachers PRESCHOOL PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT JULY AND AUGUST, 2001 Date Time Location Topic department G 0  G O K G G 2001 Aug. 13- 14,2001 Aug. 13, 2001 Aug. 13- 14.2001 Aug. 13- 14,2001 Aug. 13- 14,2001 Aug. 13- 14,2001 Aug. 13- 14, 2001 Aug. 13- 14.2001 Aug. 13- 14,2001 Aug. 13- 14,2001 Aug. 13- 14,2001 Aug. 13- 14,2001 8:30-3:30 8:30-3:30 8:30-3:30 8:30 - 3:30 8:30 - 3:30 8:30-3:30 8:30-3:30 8:30-3:30 8:30-3:30 8:30-3:30 8:30-3:30 8:30-3:30 Parkview Hall - Room 701 Cafeteria \u0026amp; Auditorium J. A. Fair Media Center J. A. Fair Parkview J, A. Fair Park view Metropolitan Library Central High Library Central High Park view Media Center Hall 2 Module Training Comparing and Scaling Assessment/lEY Refreshing the Curriculum Pacing the Curriculum and Materials Essential Elements of the Music Classroom Speech/Drama Workshop Dance Workshop Visual Arts Workshop Applications of Library Technology New Technologies for Secondary Libraries Standards-Based Lessons Six Traits of Writing Rubrics \u0026amp; Assessment 324-0518 Math Dept. 324-0520 Science 324-0518 English DepL Barbara Brandon 324-0510 English \u0026amp; For. Lang. Dept. 324-0510 Fine Arts Fine Arts Fine Arts Fine Arts Q l a G H I U I K K tJ Instructional Tech. 324-0577 Instructional Tech. 324-0577 Math Dept. 324-0520 Eng. Dept' 324-0510 7/30/01 to a I o p cn m c o m U) \"D m cs to! ( f ( PRESCHOOL PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT JULY AND AUeUST, 2001 ( ( I Participants Date Time Location Topic Department IS 00 cs cn hO CD cs\u0026gt; All High School Journalism Teachers__________ 9-12 Grade Science Teachers Career-Tech Teachers High School Counselors Indirect, HI, VI Teachers Early Literacy Teachers (Success for All Schools) 6\"* Grade Science Teachers ?\" Grade Science Teachers 8*' Grade Science Teachers Aug. 13- 14,2001 Aug. 13, 2001 Aug. 13, 2001_ Aug. 13, 2001 Aug. 13, 2001 Aug. 14, 2001 Aug. 14, 2001 Aug. 14, 2001 Aug. 14, 2001 8:30-3.30 8:30-3:30 8:30-3:30 8:30-4:00 1:00-3:00 8:30-12:00 8:30-3:30 8:30-3:30 8:30-3:30 9-12 Grade Science Teachers Middle School Counselors Career-Tech Teachers Aug. 14, 2001 8:30-3:30 journalism Rm. Hall Parkview Greater Second Baptist Church Board Room Annex Conference ______Room IRC Hall - Room 702 Hall-Room 701 Hall - Room 701 Parkview Quality of Journalism Collaborative Learning and ______Pacing Guides_____ Curriculum Integration Guidance Program Planning____ Indirect Teachers Early Literacy Assessment Issues New Issues in SALl Training - lEY Aug. 14, 2001 Aug. 14, 2001 8:30-4:00 8:30-3:30 Board Room Greater Second Baptist Church Student Research Seminar, Textbooks and Other _______Topics_________ Guidance Program Planning________ Developing Guidelines for Collecting Required Student Data and Follow- up Policies_ 3 Eng. Dept. 324-0510 Science 324-0518 Career-Tech 324-4043 Pupil Services 324-2162 G. Smith 324-2177 BCE Dept. 324-0526 Science 324-0SI8 Science 324-0518 Science 324-0518 Science 324-0518 Pupil Services 324-2162 Career-Tech 324-4043 7/30/01 CD A UD UI CD I GJ A I bo bO to O) o I o o 01 m 7) \u0026lt; o m 01 T) Ki oI / / r 1 PRESCHOOL PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT JULY AND AUGUST, 2001 ( ( Participants date Time Location Topic department c 0 G o h G G Gifted Program Facilitators Aug. 14, 2001 12:30-3:30 Hall High Gifted Programs for Secondary Students Gifted Program 324-2197 a u Selected Regular Ed Teachers/ SpEd Teachers/Therapists/School Psychology Specialists Above by Invitation Only Sp Ed Para-Pros-Mandatory Middle and High School Staffs ALL Elementary Secretaries and Secondary Bookkeepers Prc-Kindergarlen Teachers Kindergarten Teachers Kindergarten Teachers First Grade Teachers Second Grade Teachers Aug. 14, 2001 Aug. 15- 16,2001 Aug. 15, 2001 Aug. 15, 2001 Aug. 15, 2001 Aug. 15, 2001 Aug. 15, 2001 Aug. 15, 2001 8:30-3:30 8:30-3:30 8:30-10:30 8:30-3:30 8:30-11:30 12:30-3:30 8:30-3:30 8:30-11:30 School for the Blind Individual Middle [ and High Schools Metropolitan North Little Rock East Campus 2400 Lakeview Rd. Western Hills Western Hills Washington Chicot Autism Middle and High School Building Level Inservices Purchasing and Activity Funds Strategies for Improving Behavior for Young ________Children________ Introducing the New Social Studies Curriculum Integrating Social Studies into the Literacy Block Math Investigation Training Integrating Social Studies into the Literacy Block 4 K. Burnette G. Smith 324-2177 Individual Schools Gail Hester Linda Shiflett ECEZLiteracy 324-0517 Social Studies 324- 0514 ECE/Literacy 324-0517 Math 324-0520 ECE/Literacy 324-0517 7/30/01 u G J a N 1 h\nK (n o I o o to m X \u0026lt; a m (0 -0 Q m o cnr I ( ( PRESCHOOL PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT JULY AND AUGUST, 2001 { I \\ G a G Participants Dote Time Location Topic Deportment (S Second Grade Teachers Third Grade Teachers ______Group A Third Grade Teachers ______Group B_______ Third Grade Teachers Group A_ Third Grade Teachers ______Group B______ Fourth Grade Teachers Aug. 15, 2001 Aug. 15, 2001 Aug. 15. 2001 Aug. 15. 2001 Aug. 15, 2001 Aug. 15, 2001 12:30-3:30 8:30-11:30 8:30-11:30 12:30-3:30 12:30-3:30 8:30-3:30 Chicot Washington Metropolitan Metropolitan Washington Fifth Grade Teachers Reading Recovery Teachers Elementary Music Teachers Elementary Visual Arts Teachers Gifted Program Specialists PreK Instructional Aides Aug. 15, 2001 Aug. 15- 16,2001 Aug. 15- 16,2001 Aug. 15- 16,2001 Aug. 15- 16.2001 Aug. IS, 8.30 - 3:30 8:30-3:30 8:30-3:30 8:30-3:30 8:30-3:30 8:30-3:30 AR Slate Police Hdqtrs. - I Stale Police Plaza Dr. G. Springs Rd. Classroom C Metropolitan Activity Center IRC M. L. King M. L. King Williams Magnet M. L. King 5 Introducing the New Social Studies Curriculum Math Investigation Training Inquiry Learning and STC Training_______ Inquiry Learning and STC Training Math Investigation ______Training Writing in Fourth Grade Introducing the New Social Studies Curriculum Standards \u0026amp; Guidelines in Early Literacy Groups Curriculum Frameworks Orff Workshop Macmillan/Scolt Foresman Presentation Visual Arts Workshop Gifted Programming at Its _______Best___________ Managing People Skills Social Studies 324-0514 Math 324-0520 Science 324-0518 Science 324-0518 Math 324-0520 ECE/Literacy 324-0517 Social Studies 324-0514 ECE/Literacy 324-0517 Fine Arts Fine Arts Gifted Program 324-2197 ECE/Literacy 7/30/01 (S cn Gl H* I co to 1 hO ro to cn o I o o \u0026lt; o m to \"D O m cs 03( (. f { I Participants Para-Professionals Speech Pathologists Occupalional/Physical Therapists Mandatory Elementary Librarians Elementary Library Secretaries Computer Lab Attendants Instructional Aides (Grades K - 5 Only) Pre-Kindergarten Teachers ALL Kindergarten Teachers First Grade Teachers First Grade Teachers PRESCHOOL PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT JULY AND AUGUST, 2001 Dote Time Location Topic Deportment . Q a G cr G G 2001 Aug. 15, 2001 Aug. 15, 2001 Aug, 15, 2001 Aug. 15- 16, 2001 Aug. 15- 16,2001 Aug. 15- 16, 2001 Aug. 15- 16,2001 Aug. 16, 2001 Aug. 16, 2001 Aug. 16, 2001 Aug. 16, 2001 8:00-3:30 8:00-12:00 1:00-3:30 8:30-3:30 8:30-3:30 8:30-3:30 8:30-3:30 8:30-3:30 8:30-3:30 8:30-11:30 12:30-3:30 L J. A, Fair Auditorium Board Room M. L. King Elem. Media Center Booker Magnet Booker Magnet Carver Computer Lab Washington Media Center M. L. King Washington Western Hills Western Hills 6 Para-Professional Issues Speech Pallwlogisls Occupational/Physical Therapists Applications of Library Technology Whats New for Elementary Libraries Hands-On Software Learning to Cope with Differences ECERS \u0026amp; Licensing Requirements Math Investigation Training Introducing the New Social Studies Curriculum 324-0517 G. Smith 324-2177 C. Steele 324-2196 M. Clevenger 324-2180 Instructional Tech. 324-0577 Instructional Tech. 324-0577 Instructional Tech. 324-0577 Pro. Dev. 324-0500 ECE/Literacy 324-0517 Moth 324-0520 Social Studies 324-0514 Integrating Social Studies j Early Childhood into the Literacy Block Elementary Literacy 7/30/01 G tX cn G I CO to I to to co CO o I o p (n m \u0026lt; o m co T m CDMotion September 2, 1997 August 1, 1996 1^0 Order September 8, 1997 Aug. 27, 1996 August 16, 1995 September 7, 1995 August 25, 1994 September 7, 1994 1988-89 Classes 1 I Capacity 20 1989-90 Classes 1 Capacity 1990-91 Classes Capacity 1991-92 Classes Capacity 1992-93 Classes Capacity 1993-94 C 20 1 20 1 18 1 18 Classes Capacity 1994-95 C Classes Capacity 1995-96 c Classes Capacity 1996-97 C Classes Capacity 1997-98 C Classes Capacity 1998-99 C Classes Capacity 1999-2000 C Classes Capacity 2000-2001 C Classes Capacity LRSD FOUR-YEAR-OLD SITES AND CAPACITIES   8 IL w c  3 60 3 60 3 60 3 54 3 54 3 54 c  C 31 541 C 3 54 /JC 3! 54i [c 54i 3 54\nc 3! 54 2 36 2 J_iL i ts a D  JQ. D C    1 20   1 3 2 20 60 40 I 1 3 2 1 1 20 60 40 20 20 18 18 ll 18' I T 3I 541 3 2 1 54 36 18 18 3 2 1 1 54 36 18 18 3 2 1 54 36 18 181 4 3 2 1 72 54 36 18 4 3 72 54 2 36! 1 18 4 3 12y 54 2i 36! 1' 4| 4- 31 i 2! 11 721 I 4l 22 4? 72! 3! 54' 541 3^ 18i Z 3 iT 54 18 1 3 54 3  c e 3= 2 i  \u0026lt;0 A   s o lA O) _C   o M i S  .c  M  A 2 JB. 1 g \u0026lt;0 I 1 1 1 1 18 18 18 18 1 18 1 18 181 1 18  1 1 1 1 18 18 18 18 1 2 1 1 18 36 18 18  1 2 2 2 18 36 36 36 1 2 2 2 18 36 36 36 Si.  c  5  X  i o I  0 X z E SI lA  e-   - to I e i \u0026lt;2 I s Si.  o c o e t   3 1 I  o u o 5 100 T I I T T 1 1 1 10 200 18 18 18 18 3 1 1 1 54 18 18 18 3 54 2 36 Z 2 2 1 36 36 18 2 2 1 36 36 18 I I 2| 36? ..2\n, 361 2i 36l 1 1 18 18 1 1 18 18 li 2! + isi sei T 1 18  2 4 1 36 72 18 2 36 I I I I. 12 240 16 288 21 I 4 I T T I T 72 18| -----1 i I T T 378 28 504 40 _2L 18 1. 18 C _ [C^_ 54' I I I T 720 40 Zill- 181 Z I . -j 18 Z 11 181 18i 1' 18 Z I I I 720 1! 18l 2 2 1 18 2 36 2 36 2 36! 36 36 2 36| 2 36! 36, 2 1 2 2 2 2 36 36 36 2! 36l 2 36 2 2 2 2 2 36 36 36 36| 36 36 18 36 18i 2 II 2! 36 18: 361 2 11 2i 36 18 2 36 2! 36\"^ 2\\ 361 _2i 361 2' 36, 2 36! -A 36' 2 36 2i 361 3. 36! Z* s Operating program __2- 36' il 21 18 1' 36^ 18 2! ll 2i 1 36\n18, 36 18 2 4 1 -.L. .2 36 72 18 I --I  r 40 36l 2: 36! 2 36 \"21 36\n36\n1 I T 72 18 7 4i 1 72: 18 Z i 1i is\n_2l 36l 2 is 2- 36 C = closed school 18: 36! 2I 36i T  I 1 T I I T i 40 I 720 I r 41 738 4\n72? ZT ji' 181 18' 2! 2! 1 1' ll 36i 36 181 18 18\njr_ isj___ T I 49 882 72! 181 -21- 18\n-I- 2\\ 36\nI A 36! 1 1 1 18: 18 18! 18 1i 18| 1, 181 if 18' 51 918DEMOCRAT-GAZETTE  WEDNESDAY, JUNE 3, 1992  7B LRSD plans to seat 648 4-year-olds by 94 BY CYNTHIA HOWELL Democral-Gazelte Stall Writer The Little Rock School District has developed a long- range plan to expand its early- childhood education program for 4-year-olds from 378 seats next year to 648 seats by 1994- 95. The expansion would more than double the programs cost, from $502,973 in 1993-94 to $1.3 million in 1994-95. This years cost was $204,356. The district submitted the proposal to U.S. District Judge Susan Webber Wright late Monday. Wright asked last month for details on how the district would comply with the early-childhood component of its court-approved desegregation plan. The program is meant to expose disadvantaged children to educational experiences and to improve the racial balances at hard-to-desegre- gate schools. In a May 1 court order, Wright said the district must design a program that will accommodate as many children as would be served if all 36 elementary schools in the district operated a 4-year-old program. The district determined that number would be 648 pupils. In selecting sites for an additional 270 seats in 15 classrooms by 1994-95, district officials said priority would be given to sections of the city with a high concentration of children from low-income families and where school attendance zones are more than 55 percent black. As a result of the criteria, 17 of the 36 elementary schools ineligible to house the are early-childhood programs. The district identified Southwest Little Rock, the around John Barrow area 'Road, and east and central Little Rock as areas in greatest need of the early-childhood programs. The proposal calls for:  Si.xteen schools to house early-childhood programs in 1992-93, compared with 11 this year.  Opening early-childhood classes at Baseline Elementary and Chicot Elementary in 1993-94. Space would have to be created for the room at Chicot. In addition, an early-childhood center with five or six classes would be opened.  Opening two early-childhood classes at the new King Elementary in 1994-95. In addition, another center housing six classes would be opened.Arkansas DemocratW'(5azelle FRIDAY, JUNE 5, 1992 Critic is not impartial, teaches tennis for tots 5 In her May 23 Voices letter about the Little Rock School Districts Super Summer Enrichment Program, Lisa Gray suggested, without explaining what she meant, that my opinions on education are biased. From the letter, which wa.s replete with ad hominem insults but absent rebuttal of my column or documentation other expertise, and from the conversation that inspired her tirade, I deduced that it might be Lisa who had the bias. The way she signed the letter indicated strongly that she was not the impartial critic she presented herself to be. The letter carried her name, the notation Tennis for Tots and an address and telephone number. My curiosity aroused, I called the number. The person who answered said, Tennis for 'Tots. What do you do there? I asked. We teach tenni.s to children, the voice said. Aha! When I asked additional questions about the enterprise, the woman on the other end of the line asked who I was. Apparently she recognized my name. In any event, she wouldnt talk any more. I left word for Lisa. While I was wailing for Lisa to return the call, I called upon : I rDEAR READER  John R. Starr i my not often used but still considerable reportorial skills to do some checking. Tennis for Tots was not in please me, but because her busi- the latest Little Rock phone book, nor did directory assistance have such a listing, and the address Lisa gave was listed in the latest city directory as a private residence. A call to Arma Hart, the LRSD official responsible for psychology and almost an M.A. the Super Summer Enrichment in special education. Program, revealed that Lisa had talked with her about the possi- bility of teaching some of the young children aren't as good as proposed tennis courses. Lisa had accused me of bias. I had caught her in what ap- peared to me, in light of her call mentary and early childhood ed- to me, to be a cold-blooded conflict of interest. When Lisa returned my call, she confessed to being a tennis teacher. She confirmed that she her intelligence. had talked with Hart, but not, she said, until after she had talked with me. She said Tennis for Tots was a business, incorporated in another state, that she had owned for a number of years. Do you have a city privilege license? I asked. She said she didnt ha .-e one. Does that bother you?she asked. 1 said it did, and she said that if it bothered me, she would get a privilege license. Since her intentions seemed to be good, 1 passed up the chance to snidely suggest that she should get the license not to ness was most likely illegal without it. Lisa said she is 32, that she grew up in Hot Springs and that she has lived in and out of Arkansas during the last 11 years. She has a degree in child Sounds to me as if her qualifications to judge whats good for my wifes, whose expertise she debunked in her letter. My wife carried a double major of eleucation. In closing, because Lisa called me ignorant, stupid and foolish, I would like to assess Shes smart, but like almost everybody else, including me, shes not as smart as she thinks she is. Mniiiif'iiig Editor .lotin It. Stnrr's col II III II appears every day. .1^1Z'loCCPanel looks at age cutoff for schooling. Bill would move date  from Oct. 1 to Sept. 1 j BY LINDA SATTER ? Democral-GazeKe Staff Writer 1 Questions about when chil-  dren should enter kindergarten i and first grade dominated the' discussion in the Senate Edu- . cation Committee on Friday, j The topic was a bill by Rep. Greg Wren of Conway that would move the date by which children must be 5 years old to start kindergarten and 6 years old to start first grade. Wrens House Bill 2125 would require children to be 5 or 6 years old by Sept. 1 of the year of enrollment to get into kindergarten and first grade, respectively. Children now must be 5 or 6 by Oct. 1 of the year of enrollment, so the bill would cause\nsome children to wait another year. An amendment to the bill, however, would allow students who hadnt reached the age of 5 by Sept. 1 to enter kindergarten with parental approval and permission of the local school district. The same would be true for children not yet 6 years old seeking enrollment in first grade. Both provisions would take effect in the 1994-95 school i year. When voted as- amended, the bill failed, biitjhe vote was expunged so the matter could f be brought up again before the  legislative session ends. We all know someone whos been put in school too early and theyve been held back, Wren told the committee. He added that the national trend is to go i back to July 1. Dr. Burton Elliott, director of the state Department of Education, said: I think were putting a big burden on schools to make these determinations. There is a lot of subjective information that has to go into this. Elliott also noted that basically, everyone supports the idea that youngsters will do better in school if theyre a little older. Committee members also discussed whether many parents, thinking their children to be exSee SCHOOL, Page 3B Arkansas Democrat W gazette SATURDAY. APRILS, 1993 Copyright O 1993. LiWe Rock Newspapers. Inc. I School  Continued from Page 1B ceptionally bright, would be inclined to push their children into school prematurely. ,.7 Sen. Stanley Russ of Conway noted that study after study shows that when you push a gifted and talented child ...-you are raising the probability that child is going to encounter problems later on. ... Mttny . well-intentioned parents and educators are pushing chilcken into school too young. Sen. Bill Lewellen of Marianna disagreed, asserting, I think in 99 percent of cases we make the best decisions for our children. He favored the bill^as amended. Sen. George Hopkins*of Malvern said, If weve had it for 30 years and its not.ab- solutely broken. Im in favor of leaving it like it is.a Arkansas Democrat (gazette THURSDAY, APRIL 8, 1993 Copyrfohl e 1993. LHUe Rock Newsoepen. Inc. Stange tor scfiboltos^Tta\u0026amp;nS Democrat-Gazette Capitol Bureau that ... Legislation that would i!!! thday cutoff for children attending kindergarten and the first grade was House Bill 2125 by Rep. Greg would have moved the birthdate requirement for those students fmm fw\" 1 t q\"\"? Students from Oct. 1 to Sept 1 of each year. hn '^^dren must be 5 . .\niiiusi oe 0 anH to enter kindergarten tJ rationale for  system that works right. Let s not fix something thats not broke, said Sen. Bill Lewellen of Marianna. Sen. Stanley Russ of Conway, who carried the bill in the Senate contendd that studies show that students meeting a Sept 1 cutoff are ready for school. Before defeating the bill, Sen. J erry J ewell of Little Rock unsuccessfully attempted to amend it to allow school districts to decide whether a child raching the applicable age after the cutoff date was ready to attend school. * Senate rejected a bill that would allow some medical records to be released without the patients con- sent. Senate Bill 648 by Sen. Bill Walters of Greenwood would define when a health-care provider could release medical records without permission irom the patient. were has already been approved by both the Senate and House. The bill was returned to the Senate to consider three amendments - two of which deal with patient records. All three House amendments rejected by the Senate. My advice to you is if you don t want your confidential medical records floating w  said Sen Wayne Dowd of Texarkana Also Wednesday, the Senate defeated a House amendmen to Senate Bill 260, which woulc have eliminated the printins clerks division in the state ditor s offices. au Senate Bill 260 is the annual appropriation bill for the state auditor s office. The printing clerks division has three Ployees and a $130,000 annual em to Rep. Jodie Mahony of El Do-  numerous times in the Joint Budget Committee to delete the reference to the printing clerks office Mahony has contended that office IS unnecessary because he claims the function is duplicated by other state agencies.Arkansas Democrat (fjazettc SUNDAY, JUNE 13,1993 Copyright O 1993, Little Rock Newspapers, Inc. 1 Registration is continuing for the Little Rock School Districts Early Childhood Education programs. Parents.may register their children weekdays through June 25 between 8 a.m. and 5 p.m. at the district student assignment office, 501 Sherman St. The early childhood pro- i lie Cdiijf vuuuuvvu v gram for 4-year-olds is avail- I able in five new locations for 1993-94:  Baseline Elementary, 3623 Base Line Road.  Brady Elementary, 7915 W. Markham St.   Chicot Elementary, 11100 Chicot Road.  Fair Park Elementary, 616 N. Harrison St.  Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. Elementary, 907 Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. Drive. Selections will be made by lottery whenever the number of applicants for the program exceeds available seats. Enrollment preference is given to children who live within the schools attendance zone | and/or who have siblings enrolled at the school. Parents may register their child by providing a birth certificate and verification of address (a current utility statement, lease agreement or personal property tax bill). Programs for 4-year-old children are also available at Bad- I gett. Bale, Cloverdale, Franklin, Garland, Geyer j Springs, Ish, Mitchell, Rightsell, Rockefeller, Romine, Stephens, Washington, Watson, Wilson and Woodruff elementary schools. ! I 1SUNDAY, SEPTEMBER 5.1993  J ATTENTION!!!! PARENTS OF 4-YEAR-OLD CHILDREN Put your four-year-old on the right track for social. ' emotional, physical and academic growth. The Little Rock School District offers parents of four-year-old children a special opportunity to start the learning process in a quality integrated setting - before kindergarten. Seats for white students are available at the following schools: Badgett, Baseline, aoverdale, Romine, Mitchell, Garland, Stephens and Rightsell Efforts will be made to locate your child at the school of your choice. Application to this program does not guarantee placement. Call the LRSD Student Assignment Office at 324-2010 or return the following information to 501 Sherman Street, Little Rock, Arkansas 72202 before September 15. Please Print and mail to the Student Assignment Office, 501 Sherman St, Little Rock, AR 72202 I I am interested in sending my child to a four-year-old class at--------------------------------- . School.\ni Name______ Address  Home Phone __ City___ Work Phone Zip I Aricansas Democrat TgrtCiazcttc TUESDAY, APRILS, 1994 LRSD adding classes to early childhood programs BY CYNTHIA HOWELL Democrat-Gazeite Education Writer The Little Rock School District will expand its early childhood programs for 4-year-olds in several schools next fall, starting with a new program at an eighth school. Dr. Henry Williams, district superintendent, said one new section of the preschool program will be added at Fair Park, Watson, Geyer Springs, Bale, Woodruff, Badgett and possibly Stephens Incentive elementary schools. Those schools already have one class each of 4-year- olds. An eighth class will be added to Mabelvale Elementary, which has not had an early childhood education class. The additions will give the district 40 preschool classes in 21 of its 36 schools. Pre-registration for the classes will be April 18-29. Parents and guardians can register children in the districts student assignment office at 501 Sherman St., or at any of the 21 schools that have the preschool classes. Children must be 4 years of age on or before Oct. 1,1994 to be eligible for the program. The district started preschools in 1988-89 with three classes in three schools as a way to better prepare children for the upper grades and to improve the racial balance at schools that have been difficult to desegregate. Officials hoped to use the full-day, tuition-free preschool program to entice white families to remain in public schools as their children move through the grades. Each class of 4-year-olds is limited to 18 children and is staffed by a state-certified teacher and an instructional aide. The children also work with the physical education, art and music teachers as well as school counselors. Each class is supposed to have a 50-50 blackwhite balance. If that balance isnt achieved, some seats are left vacant to make it possible for pupils to move in later in tBe year. As of Oct. 1,1993, 58 percent of the children in the program were black and 42 percent were white. The districts preschool enrollment was 492, and the capacity was 576. The capacity will increase to 720 next year in compliance with the desegregation plan. Pat Price, early childhood education coordinator in the dis- tricL said efforts will intensify to recruit children to fill the seats for next year. The 4-year-old program has an annual budget of $1.7 million. which is about $3,500 per child. The Arkansas Better Chance program has granted the IK 0- gram about $183,000. The'ela'ss- es are licensed by the Arkansas Department of Human Services Division of Children and Family Services. The children are provided with two snacks a day and can participate in the school lunch and breakfast programs. Transportation for 4-year-olds generally is not provided by the district. \\ In addition to the schools that are getting new programs, next year, other schools preschool programs are Rockefeller, Ish, Franklin, WasSl'ng- ton. Garland, Mitchell, Righi^Il, Romine, Cloverdale, Wif^hri, Baseline,^rady, Chicot^fi'l King elemehtaries.[ Arkansas Democrat (gazette SATURDAY, AUGUST 20, 1994 Copyright e Uttio Rock Newspapors. Ine. I Aftansa# Democrat-^azeKWOavM.Qotttclulk GETTING READY FOR SCHOOL  Q!na Glover\naf Rockefeller Elementary School Tn Little Rock. prepares art supplies for her kindergarten classv  Glover is preparing for her fifth year at'tlie school. Kinde^atten or la^ Asses^g childs readiness helps parents make choice BY CHRIS REINOLDS Democrat-Gazette Staff Writer Claudia Smith wasnt sure whether her son would be ready for kindergarten this year because he had problems playing with other children. But Smith said 5-year-old There are advantages and ' lishedi , disadvantages to holding a-' The whole point of kinder-child back. z garten is readiness, McKin- Educators say most chil- ney said, dren need to attend kinder-?'\nSmith enrolled her son in a Spencer has made some garten even if they are imma-  program for 4-year-oIds l^t ture or developmentally slow-' year, and he has made signif-er than their peers. icant advances. Spencer If a child is: eligible for turned 5 on June 30\n' ' leant progress in a pre-kinder- kindergarten, I-believe the -H--e- -h-a--d- -n--o-t- -h-a-d-- p--l-a-y-m---a-t-e-s garten program, and she has child should have those expe- his own age, Smith said. We no intention of keeping him riences. If the child needs to had a very difficult year. But out of his kindergarten class repeat kindergarten* then so  he has improved a lot, and we that starts Monday, at Romine . be it said Mary K: McKinney, .hate to go back on the ad- Elementary School ' ' ' nf Him. 1*1a_ ' tinnnao wava maria alt*aaHv  Every year thousands of  De It, . saxu Kiary, i\\- mciuuuvy, uuie lu gu uu aw coordinator of the- state De- vances weve made already.\" parents in Ar^insas must de- partment of Educations' K-3 -A--r-k-a--n-s-a--s law -s-t-a-t-e-s that Initiative. children who are 5 years old cide whether their children _T_h_e_ K__-3_ I_n_i_ti_a_ti_ve- -p-r-o--g-r-a-m-- o--n- -o--r- -b--e-f-o-r-e Oct. 1 are eligi-are ready to attend kinder- is designed to help remedial ble to attend kindergarten, garten  especially, children  students ' in  kindergarten McKinney said she did not who will not turn* 5 before through third grade before know how the state designat-school starts. : See DECISION, Page 7B Decision  Continued from Page 1B ed Oct. 1 as the cutoff date. The date varies from state to state. The older they are, the easier time they have in kindergarten. But we wouldnt recommend holding them back just for that reason, said Glenda Bean, executive director of the Arkansas Early Childhood Commission. Schools are required to provide a full day of kindergarten, but parents can obtain a waiver if they do not want their child to attend. However, if the child will be 6 before Oct. 1, the state requires the child to be enrolled in either kindergarten or first grade. Liz Wright has worked as a kindergarten teacher in the Little Rock School District for 19 years. Wright said it is impor- Early Childhood Association, said that for children who are barely 5, as well as older children, the kindergarten class should fit them developmentally. Kindergarten should not be an abrupt change, Shores said. There should not be a dramatic difference in the kinds of activities from age 4 to 5. Its important for parents to ask if a kindergarten teacher is certified in early childhood rather than elementary teaching. The teacher needs to be able to recognize the childs needs and abilities and support the childs development. Shores said. If the learning plans include a lot of work sheets and paper activities, then a child who is slower developmentally may be better off waiting a yeaf, Shores said. Shores said many kinder^ should not assume children are ready for kindergarten just because they reach the appropriate age. Sometimes it may benefit a younger child to stay at home one more year, Shores said. The world is a learning environment for children of any age, Shores said. All of these learning experiences can occur at the home. It may be to a childs advantage  especially for boys or petite children  to wait another year before sending them to kindergarten. If parents decide to wait, then the child should attend pre-kindergarten classes to become familiar with the routine, Wright said. Wright said most children dont notice they are behind unless parents make an issue out of it. The way that you (parents) handle things is going to make a big difference, she said. Wright practices positive-.re-inforcement in the classroom to improve a childs self-esteem. She said parents who hav6 a positive attitude toward their child, regardless of their failures, will encourage the child to succeed. ' * I dont use the word ,no more than three times a year,' she said. The child has the opportunity for interaction but is not traumatized. tant that parents investigate garten teachers are under pres-kindergarten before they de- sure to prepare childrett^Toi* cide to delay it for a young first-grade work. child. Parents should visit st-gra The result of this is less of classes during different times of developmentally , appropriate  the year and talk to teachers be- learning activities, Shores-i fore their son or daughter is el- said. This is an insidious trend' igible for school, Wright said. Elizabeth F. Shores, publications editor of the Southern over the last couple of decades. Shores warned that parents. Arkansas Democrat '^(gazette J  FRIDAY, MAY 12, 1995 LRSD plans physicals for pre-kindergartners Little Rock Rockefeller incentive Fh free physi^fexamiLations Sta^'.SL??nnt Rockefeller Incentive Elemen- month for children who will c ter the districts kindergarten pre-kindergarten August. --------J Elementary, Franklin Incentive Elementary, Garland Incentive Elementary, King Magnet Ele- programs in mentary. Forest Height JuS High and Romine Interdistrict Elementary. en- or Appointments must be made by calling 324-2266 between a.m. and 4 p.m. Friday. The exams will be from 12:30 to 3 p.m. Tuesday and Wednes- day at the following schools: McClellan Community High, Washington Magnet Elementary, 9 Parents or guardians of children unable to take advantage of the exams should arrange for an exam by a private physician or the Arkansas Department of Health before the school year starts.Arkansag Democrat Tgr (gazette  SUNDAY, JULY 9, 2000  Preschool in LR district expanded to add 3 schools ARKANSAS DEMocRAT\u0026lt;iAZETTE {o Children of employees at the d^ 'The Little Rock School District sired school. has recently expanded its tuition- All but six of the districts ele- free preschool program for 4-year- mentary schools will offer the fuil- olds to three more schools\nJeffer- day preschool classes for 4-year son, McDermott and Fulbright ele- olds this year, bringing the total mentaiy schools. who will be served to about 1,000 Regikration for this coming year at children. (Registration for schools the three schools is under way and with established programs was held will conclude Friday. Children must earlier this year.) be 4 years old by Sept 15 to be eligible for the classes, which begin Aug. 21. Schools that do not offer thd classes yet are Pulaski Heights, Parents may apply by complet- Badgett, Williams Magnet, Carver ing an application at the districts Magnet, Booker Magnet and Gibbs Student Registration Office, 501 Magnet elementary schools. Super? Sherman St, which is just west of intendent Les Carnine said Friday the intersection ofEast Capitol Av- he is hopeful that the program can I enue and Interstate 30. be expanded again into the remain? Parents need to provide a copy ing schools as classroom space and of their childs birth certificate, ftmding becomes available. ' proof of address such as a utility Bus service is not provided for ' bill or lease agreement and their preschool children, childs Social Security number. Par- ents who do not wish to reveal the Social Security number will be pro- ' vided an alternative number for their child. I Children who live in the school I attendance zone and have siblings ! attending the school will be admitted first to a schools program. Second priority is given to children who live in the schools attendance zone but do not have older siblings at the school. Third priority is re- ' served for children who live outside the school zone but have siblings at ! the school. Fourth priority is given\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_453","title":"Extracurricular","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":["1990/2005"],"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","Student activities","School improvement programs"],"dcterms_title":["Extracurricular"],"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/453"],"dcterms_temporal":null,"dcterms_rights_holder":null,"dcterms_bibliographic_citation":null,"dlg_local_right":null,"dcterms_medium":["documents (object genre)"],"dcterms_extent":null,"dlg_subject_personal":null,"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":"\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n\n\n\n   \n\n\n\n\n   \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n  \n\n FRIDAY. APRIL 29. 2005  1  ' ! LR board votes to cut athletics for 6th-graders ARKANSAS DEMOCRAT-GAZETTE Citing safety and academic concerns. Little Rock School Board members voted 7-0 Thursday to discontinue organized athletics and pep club for sixth-graders in the districts eight middle schools. District administrators had recommended the elimination of the sixth-grade activities earlier this month because the sports are typically coached\nby district employees such as security guards, custodians or teachers who dont hold state coaching credentials. The lack of any required certification or standardized training for the sixth-grade coaches raised administrative I concerns about the districts liability in the case of student injuries. Additionally. Superintendent Roy Brooks and his staff said the elimination of the activities would enable greater attention to be paid to academics by the sixth-graders who are making a big transition out of elementary school into middle school. All eight middle schools are on the states list of schools in need of improvement because of a history of low test scores earned by one or more subpopulations of students in the schools. Discontinuing the activities is expected to save the district about $80,000 in stipends for the coaches and in the costs of transporting students to and from games. In no way does this suggest that we dont support athletics.\" Brooks told the School Board on Thursday. Several board members urged that alternative afterschool activities or intramural sports be developed to replace the sixth-grade athletics. Seventh- and eighth-grade athletic programs will continue to operate in the middle schools.Vote planned on axing 6th-grade sports Lack of certified coaches, worries about liability among concerns in LR district I ! BY CYNTHIA HOWELL ARKANSAS DEMOCRAT-GAZETTE Athletics and spirit clubs in Little Rocks eight middle schools are headed out of bounds to sixth-graders because of a lack of certified coaches, concerns about liability in case of student injuries and the need to raise student achievement. The Little Rock School Board is scheduled to vote on I eliminating sixth-grade sports I for the 2005-06 school year at its regularly scheduled meeting April 28. The proposal would affect a few hundred students who par- I ticipate in sixth-grade football. track, volleyball and basketball, as well as Ln pep clubs. In the current 2004-05 school year, a total of 169 sixth-graders in the Little Rock School Districts eight middle schools participated in football, as did 132 in volleyball, 242 in basketball, 136 in soccer and 216 in track, according to district figures. Some students participated in multiple sports and as a result they were counted multiple times. Numbers were not available for the number of participants in sixth-grade pep clubs, which also would be discontinued, according to the proposal. If approved, the move would save the district about $80,000 a year  $40,000 for stipends to the coaches and $40,000 in transportation costs for the teams. But Johnny Johnson, the districts athletic director, said Friday that cutting costs is not the driving force behind the proposal. The biggest issue with us is that sixth-grade coaches only have to be employees of the school district, Johnson said. Weve had a number of sixth-grade coaches who were not [state] certified coaches, he said. They were either custodians or security guards or teachers who just wanted to do it. From a liability standpoint and from a certification stand point, those were big issues. The Arkansas Activities Association, which regulates athletics and other interscholastic programs starting with the seventh grade, requires coaches to have a degree in physical education or what is called a coaching endorsement from the state of Arkansas. Johnson said coaches in sixth-grade programs should meet those same state credentials. Adding to the concerns, Johnson said, is the fact that all eight of the districts middle schools are on the states list of schools in need of academic improvement because of chronically low standardized test scores. Schools that remain on that state list face increasingly severe penalties. That sixth grade is a big transition year, going from elementary school to middle school, he said. We felt the sixth-grade year ought to be used to get the students on stronger acadernic footing. Johnson also said that there are numerous athletic programs in the community tor sixth-grad- ers, particularly in football and basketball, and that those programs often give the students more games in a season than what the district can do. Superintendent Roy Brooks told School Board members at an agenda meeting Thursday that he agreed with the recommendation. We feel it would be in the best interest of the district to encourage our students to participate in athletics outside of the school day, Brooks said. Board members raised no objections to the proposal. Board member Sue Strickland said she was unaware that the sixth-graders were being coached by people who are not state-certified to coach. I think its a good idea, she said about eliminating the sports program. Board member Baker Kur- rus said there were some great people who work hard in the programs, but the lack of certification made him a little nervous. Kids have some fun, but it lacks structure, he said. My son is in the seventh grade and the seventh-grade program is excellent, but in sixth grade I wished he had focused on his work. Johnson said Friday he wished circumstances were different. If we had a perfect situation where we had plenty of coaches at each school and all of our coaches were certified. Id love to have sixth-grade athletics. Right now we struggle to keep our seventh-and eighth-grade staffs properly maintained. I Wednesday, August 22, Educators: Dont snub below-C students Keep sports open, state board is urged BY KIMBERLY DISHONGH ARKANSAS DEMOCRAT-GAZETTE Educators across Arkansas asked the state Board of Education on Tuesday to reconsider its proposal to eliminate a program that allows students to participate in sports and other extracurricular activities even if they dont have the required C average. The widely used program gives public school students struggling with class work a second chance to participate in nonacademic activities. About 160 of the states 310 public school districts use the program. Wiping out the supplemental instruction program would take away a strong incentive for many underachieving students to stay in school and out of trouble, school officials said during a public hearing. The program fell out of favor with several state educa- tion leaders when news reports revealed that the program lacked monitoring, which led to students not completing the required tutorials. Change it if you must, but do not eliminate it, said Gerald Fears, junior high school teacher and coordinator of the Pocahontas School Districts program. Fears and other educators said they would favor strengthening monitoring rather than disbanding the program. The Education Board is expected to make a final ruling Sept. 10. Robert Hackler of Mountain Home, chairman of the Education Board, said later Tuesday See GRADES, Page 9A Grades  Continued from Page 1A that calls hes taken about the issue have been fairly evenly divided between people wanting to retain the program and those wanting a strict compliance with the C-average requirement. I have had a few calls from groups or individuals, but not a lot, and I really didnt Imow what to expect from the public comment period, Hackler said. He added that although the board voted 5-1 earlier this year to put out for public comment the plan to eliminate the supplemental instructional program, no final decision has been made by the board. There never is a final board decision until after the public comment period, he said. Earlier this year, the Arkansas Democrat-Gazette published stories about rule violations in the Little Rock School District athletic program. Little Rock Central Hi^s basketball team had to forfeit its AAAAA state basketball title because one player skipped several remedial classes that were part of the supplemental program. The articles also detailed how coaches knowingly played ineligible players and how the Little Rock district, the states largest, failed to report violations to the Arkansas Activities Association, the state's governing body for high school athletics. During an Aug. 13 meeting, Ed- while he understands there is po- ucation Board members ex- tential for abuse of the program, pressed concern that no one at he believes many students bene- the sate Department of Education fit from it. However, a section of was monitoring compliance. the policy that allows students to The Education Board creat- qualify for participation by scored the supplemental instruction ing at or above the 50th percentile program in 1997 to allow students on a standardized test, even if they with grade-point averages below dont maintain a 2.0 average, en- 2'0 to stay in extracurricular ac- courages laziness, Lievsay said, tivities if they take remedial class- Some students, he said, would es. The programs aim: To keep settle for lower grades  and less failing students in school. The homework  if they knew they students must attend the extra tu- could remain eligible by scoring toring classes. If they miss one a certain percentage on an exam, class without an excuse, they Jimmy Coats, executive direc- must be declared ineli^ble. tor of the Arkansas Activities As- Ray Kirkland, superintendent sociation, did not attend the hear- of the Barton-Lexa School Dis- ing, but he noted in a written trict, called the boards plan to statement that the suppiemen- eliminate the supplemental pro- tai program was embraced by gram a knee-jerk reaction. member schools as a way to as- It is indeed unfortunate that sist students who are struggling. The schools felt so good low the rules, Kirkland said. The about the new regulation that the Central High students did not fol- guilty parties were punished. We [association] membership vot- did the supplemental instruction ed to adopt these regulations as program right, and our students part of their bylaws for eligibiJi- should not be punished.\" ty, Coats wrote. To change the Representatives from the Lit- regulation now to a strict corn- tie Rock School District said they pliance 2.0 would eliminate any understand that the districts of- students, both athletic and non- fense has endangered the pro- athletic, from the opportunity gram statewide. to participate in programs that We were the ones who have proven to be effective in pro- messed up on this, said Little viding positive educational Rock School Board member Judy periences to young people. Magness. \"We stood up and said Johnny Johnson, the Little we messed up, and we took our Rock School Districts new ath- punishment.\" letic director, said the district is ex- In response to the Little Rock working to make sure the pro- violations, the Education Board gram's rules wont be violated considered two plans, one that again. The responsibilities have would dictate more stringent been more clearly defined and monitoring of the supplemental communication between school program and one that would do staff and his office has been em- away with it. The boards 5-1 vote phasized, he said, favored eliminating the program and mandating strict compliance the program is a good one, John- with a 2.0 grade-point average for son said. \"I think they make a participation in athletics or any valid point that just because one other after-school activity. district had a problem with the Fears, the Pocahontas school program is no reason to tie it official, said the program must be away from the rest of the state. saved because it keeps students in class when they might otherwise drop out. Any time a student is willing to come to 100 minutes of learning in an after-school program, that shows that learning is important to them, Fears said at a public hearing via a videoconference from the Education Department in Little Rock that linked sites at the states 15 education cooperative headquarters. Jon Watson, athletic director for the Bauxite School District, began his comment with a complaint. I think its in very bad taste that this meeting is being held on the second day of school, Watson said. Watson surmised that many of the people who might have commented couldnt because they were needed at school. Then he asked a question. If a child makes a D in math, why would you limit his success in another area? What does that do for the self-esteem that were constantly reminded to instill in our children? Dick Johnson, athletic director for the Fayetteville School District, said keeping students in school keeps them out of trouble. The reality is that playing football may not be the only game in town, he said. They will affiliate, and they a^e being lured by activities that are not as positive as those offered in public schools. Alvin Lievsay, co-principal at Huntsville High School, said that \"I think everyone agrees thatO 50 ff. 09 3 ^22\"  TUESDAY, JULY 10, 2001  3A I cro 2. FI919 vt msS 3 o M  g\nCM3*a2^5ftKGMft S S s I Grades  Continued from Page 1A because it would kill any hope of them ever participating, Howard said. I would say that in our quest to provide excellence that a standard must be set\nhowever, I would want us to use good judgment as it relates to providing some medium for motivation for students in or- said. In the second semester, eight athletes and five nonathletes were in the program. Of those 13, six raised their grades to meet the eligibility requirement. I think [those students] definitely had an incentive, but I give credit to the instructors, he said. They motivate the kids and get them back on track. Jerry Welch, director of student services and athletics with the Pu- iS? 09 5' :\u0026gt;5 CTO st 3 \u0026gt;\u0026gt;\u0026lt;  sr I der that theyre successful not only laski County Special School Dis- in the athletic end but the acade-...............  ' c 3 B ScoSS ' 'S ?B ft ft 09 2 3i^3S- 2^r-ica.2'\u0026lt;ft 2.' SSsrU 2.^ -- ,, BO'ftBK 5-3'g' \u0026lt;2 o \u0026lt;s g   5: asa\" oS  5^ g.a s S' a S  s Slp.ggSg'S^ -s $ ft 3' ft *** B' 09 ft OwftYW - 3'\u0026lt;ftT09 e \" 5^\" \u0026lt; 3 EO M 09 571 09  (C ii. \u0026lt; ^3 \"^3 ft 3- 5 G s w (A B-^ 09 \u0026amp;-q,52. \"g.? ssg. CZi fp S 0^ 09  = s. 3 -5 SP 33\nft o oL* i faS | e 3 coS-S* (Q O O  Q c 09 O 3 - 3 3,5'? 3 sr Sa o mic end. Academics is a high priority. I think we should have high academic standards, but I think you can achieve those in a variety of ways. I dont think there should be a trict, said records on students participating in remediation programs are kept at individual ?D ' '2 5^ 5 '2 o a.. 52.3*tn 09 gj- 3-X0? ff B'SO r-h \" - SlS  S' O 5^H2COft_'CQ,,., ^G- EXB 3.' 2. p 2-3 \u0026amp; S.fte^5oE^CW r  fts-\" Sj a.\" ?6 3-3 g 1 I B - ' 3,5 3 S 2 s: S  3 09 3 g.\" St'c o-olsffgls'sS\u0026amp;S 33*\u0026lt; WgJ13\ngfto'3-33t S 3 o ft S- 09 s 3 ft 7* \u0026lt;.,3 5 Cl. V W lilies II bs.^s^ \u0026amp; 3S-S SS- 3 fl9 w-o 5  gS'3 - i-i 3 g-g-S 3'5^ Bags 1 ?s? o a 3 o 09 s. 3 fO 3 I v\u0026gt; to 3 a 3 =-S 0 3 C si o fO 3 w SS 2 3 S- In retrospect, that was the worst vote [ in favor death sentence, that we should say , . , .  , - . if you dont achieve a 2.0 grade- \u0026lt;?/ strict 2.0grode-pOlUt P\"f average, theres no hope for compliance] I ever made. Howard said he will speak out It did more harm tO against the proposed regulations if the opportunity arises. I think everyone is crying for an answer and an appropriate end to a serious problem, and I think all. opinions need to be heard and considered. Of course in doing that, you increase the chances of coming up with a workable solution. young people, and I dont think made any great difference academically.' ff  Skip Rutherford W Q,O,C!OOS?-s'l TO I O O 2 C 3  -'(S' S. 5'Q3.s.\n^'g.'B-S5.e j -t c 3,?. _ srS  3 S.Q'K 5 =io (A c o a ,S o o u fO 09 o - Pl c-. schools. However, he said, most of , those students pull up their grades Skip Rutherford, who served on after the first semester. a committee to investigate grade- \"If the supplemental instnic- questions about athlete tion program is carried out to the eligibility in Little Rock schools, letter, the way its supposed to be said he cast a vote in favor of strict then I think it serves a purpose  2.0 grade-point compliance while Welch said. he was on the Little Rock School Kids grades improve. Most of Board in the late 1980s and early the time, kids dont not make good 19^. grades because theyre not smart In retrospect, that was the enough. Ifyou make sure that kids worst vote I ever made, Ruther- go to class every time theyre supford said, adding the Little Rock posed to, do their work when board made the decision in a rush theyre supposed to, they do bet- to achieve higher standards. It ter. did more harm to young people, Mark Rush, boys baseball and and I dont think made any great basketball head coach and athlet- difference academically.... ic director in Concord (Cleburne Some people dont get it to- County), said the problem is tough gether until later in life, and some to call. ro 2. a a wi l 3 cr. Sic W* C M S 5 3 o (0 ft O'. 2.CB CD _o3:g o M'S ct.\" .. CZ3 S' a $ S' o-TO iv S.'S \u0026amp; e = 3 3 S -s:|gR2\u0026gt;gs 5. 2 s. I ci.'^  2 e- 9  3 ft o Ci fD Mark Rush, boys baseball and ^^5- ?53 3 \u0026lt;5 \u0026gt; \u0026amp; -3,.  S-' 'p  as-p* 09 3 ft *3 sr w en t s\no 3  3\"g r3 'a  Q- S S. 3- a pj O' n\u0026gt; 5S 5'sr2?'3'ft ^'^ft^ft P- a KOI iBhflhll I a!?3l0Kr.h:li.rK|  Ss peoples families make it difficult I can see both ends of the for them to study when they go spectrum, Rush said. I can see 2? ~ honie lives make it where athletes and all extra-cur- difficult in itself. Athletics for ricular participants should be many young people are the only passing. A 2.0  a C average  is way out of a difficult situation. not a whole lot to ask for. .. Suellen Vann, spokesman for u. muse the Little Rock district, said the people are not going to meet those number of students participating requirements. Thats just a fact, in supplemental instruction was And I hate to see those kids fall not immediately available. through the cracks because athlet- Gregg Thompson, principal at ics, in some cases, are all thats North Little Rock-West Campus, keeping those kids in school. I said 26 juniors and seniors there hate to think what might happen if participated in supplemental in- that was the case. struction. ___________________________ But you know some of those o ora - fc-1  _ S'- s.^  sf sag's.a Sil SB.\" Hl? \"!? aD.S.3S3  9  3* S. S.  o 3 ,5.^ I O' 09 'O n g 09 09 1-^3   go.\u0026gt;, -I ll'o .SrS.  3 rs n s w M  S \u0026gt;TO  \u0026lt;o C-.O, S' o o'o o S' C B O 3 g 1 U U CA 3 I'S jg. g'i's si 3 \u0026gt; !.?o'  o! I \u0026amp; S? S 5j w 'P B Q. a I think its real important to note that 10 were participating in athletic activities and 16 in nonathletic activities, like band, speech and drama, choir, Thompson said. Nineteen of those students raised their grade-point averages to 2.0 or better in first semester, herAoc. 01/ 01 810 West Markham Little Rock, AR 72201 For Immediate Release June 28,2001 For more information: Suellen Vann, 324-2020 Little Rock School District Hires Athletic Director Johnny Johnson, Assistant Athletic Director and Mens BasketbaU Coach at the University of the Ozarks, will become the new Athletic Director for the Little Rock School District (LRSD). Tonight the LRSD Board of Directors hired Johnson after a committee interviewed applicants and recommended Johnson to Superintendent Ken James. I am pleased that Johnny Johnson has agreed to serve as Athletic Director and feel that he will provide strong administrative leadership to our athletic program, James said. Coach Johnson is well respected and will work closely with our coaches and principals to improve our sports programs. Johnson holds a Masters degree in Education from Arkansas Tech University and a Bachelors degree in Administration from the University of Arkansas. Johnson has served as head basketball coach at the University of the Ozarks since 1990, with an overall coaching record of 173 wins and 126 losses. During that period his graduation rate for senior basketball players is 80%. Johnson previously coached at the University of Arkansas at Little Rock. He has earned several coaching honors and has been active for several years in the Special Olympics program June 12, 2 0 0 1 Wood quick study on, off playing field BY ROBERT YATES ARKANSAS DEMOCRAT-GAZETTE Perhaps the best illustration of Jason Woods athletic and academic resume is that Air Force tried to recruit the former Sheridan football standout. Former Yellowjackets football Coach Billy Dawson wasnt surprised. It was Woods combination of talent and wits that made him one of the states top players as a senior and attractive to a service academy. What made him a great football player tied straight into academics, said Dawson, who left Sheridan earlier this spring to become coach at Monroe (La.) Neville. Hes very intelligent Hes one of those guys, from a coachs standpoint, that once you told him one time it was done. Hes one of those kids you coach that hes special in the fact that he has a broad knowledge of the game. Hes a coach on the field. Wood, the Arkansas Democrat- Gazette's Male Academic Athlete of the Year, helped Sheridan to its first playoff berth in the states largest classification last fall with o 03 CO O .\u0026gt; 03 ra G a G G O o o 52 IS bS E SP 00 G G 3 G e* 5.5.5 a3 43j- flT zi co \u0026lt;\" t:' -H 4=eM M 0^ . cn Wl co 03 \u0026lt;1. 3 C-  d =3  J2 G  o x: '\"* 52 \u0026lt;13 O) \" ' OJ G \"*  o 03 03 G 3  C \u0026gt;\u0026gt;43 5 5*4= 0.^5 33 G  ,Wc:  03 O a co a G 03 G e: G G  os \"S \u0026gt;\u0026gt;. ** g 2 \u0026lt; -2  O K. G u. to G - C fc- o oo!r- IS' 03 G 43 3 rt O U, W co (4 o o o a monstrous numbers at wide receiver. Wood, 5-10, 180 pounds, earned All-Arkansas honors with a singleseason school record 74 receptions for 1,373 yards and 8 touchdowns. He rushed 7 times for 36 yards, returned 24 kickoffs for 532 yards, returned 11 punts for 180 yards and 1 touchdown and started at safety. At the same time. Wood scored 25 on the ACT and maintained a 3.91 grade-point average, graduating seventh in his class. Hes really a great kid, said Athletic Director Don Sharpe, Sheridans former football coach. Ive never heard anybody ever say anything bad about him at this school. A National Honor Society member, Wood also impacted the basketball and baseball programs. See WOOD, Page 3C Early rise has Gunn well, wise BY ROBERT YATES ARKANSAS DEMOCRAT-GAZETTE Late-night stu(J^3essions arent the norm around the Gunn household. Instead, oldest daughter Tiffany can be found hitting the books about the time the morning paper hits the front porch. Its an academic approach her father, David, used as a studentathlete at Arkansas in the mid- 1980s. It's an academic approach his daughter has grasped exceptionally well. On the heels of a record-setting spring in the hurdles, Tiffany Gunn, the Arlcansas Democrat- Gazettes Female Academic Athletic of the Year for a second consecutive time, scored 24 on the ACT and graduated from Little Rock McClellan with a 4.25 grade-point average. Im an early bird, said David 043 E 'O  to a J\n! \u0026lt;13 ,50 \u0026gt;, U fc, 2 OS 2 2^^ 03 5 C 03 o co 03 43 to Q.G fli-G - 5  -fl UO 03 Z OT G 2 2 -.2 g SS g sS?. o p.gT t, 2.S's^_-5-SS ______ g.S'g-S  S \" \u0026gt; 5b5sc gfeoa = BgKo,Z B  g \u0026gt; g = obS-'SE'-1'2'3 -g  g5'p ZG-3Gg^G43 SGG.GXJtoj-^cffljs-tSGu.  c: - x= J-** G^fc\n03 03  j ''g^ O3c::3-f343^^H-. G G-a G^S o S \u0026gt;^5355 w C 5? 2 s  p O tZ) S C tio o s g CT-e.M O E I fi. U3 S.2 o \u0026lt;0 ci: o o-\ns   cw\u0026lt; PE- = Ctfi o ,ffi C 0)  S\u0026gt;% o O 03 \u0026lt;y c \u0026lt;  S.S5 E'E O .G XT 03 i X G3 -cr G G S,4a G G X o 3  - - o o 4) a co g = S.313 _5 'I' 'll \"C \u0026lt; co C/3 5 G u ,03 O a JiOO'UWtLTO O a -.a O (U 2 2 u -s n, 6C o' G 9 a I 9! 3 C S2 O.-5 K S ^S.Sl3 0)5 \u0026gt;.=^  c S 3 S3-g'35 p'S s.s  co G.fcjj Sfe G 03 O 43 s -c a c5  wIS C3-S c c 3 o x: ra  *0  TJ G co 03 G o OU \u0026amp; 0) o.c3 5 iao03 \u0026amp; S3ti\"2 ^C4G.ErGG \u0026gt; o 43 G cu \" - o c c co .3 r.*a a\u0026gt; c 3 - S o -.5 o*^ o  \u0026lt;43c\n\u0026gt;.fc w ___ \u0026lt;D - \"O u o JU g cj  ca o co .03 rg O oi_'O \" 03 'O G 7? o 2 ~ tn \u0026lt;v CS TH c \u0026lt;u o CQ o  S  *' an 00  c csi _e O .5 co X o2 \"g 43 cfl\" co 03 45 e. o 03 G izi Q ' \"a O 03 3 8 I a\u0026gt; 8 E .X 4\u0026gt; co 3 a C/3 C  3 o tn (A ^X! a 40 o E -CJ g o 5 .3 3 G G  gj s:=\nc* e c O'.S  S S  5s a.2 = 'S--S.c . S 3  S 3'S2'^ 33 o  M \u0026lt;u - 3 o _ C4  03 o a_^.^ .SIP'S y \u0026lt;13 C flj r\na  : 5 \" G o J on 55 w c \"  G'a 3 X 03 2 5 ,5 2.2-E 2 G C .5 03 g 3'i o V Oi  E O O I J Gunn, who graduated from -O 0 O .g .3 C  C \u0026lt;.2 S S. Td 03 m c XJ . 0) 03 co Q u o 2 c G M OJ G G -O G co O '1 I 2 3 dj.Ti E-c \", 0)- G *0 __r, 03 c cj 'O't, oa o G M 03 CU3 Q, u\" \u0026lt;5 2 O .w (U a u\n3 Arkansas in 1987 with a degree in physical education/biological science after lettering at defensive back. Theres a lot of mornings where getting up at 4 oclock is no big deal for me. I can go to bed at 11, midnight and get back up at 4 a.m. Thats the way I studied in college. Thats one of the things I tried to instill in Tiffany. Youre in athletics, you come in a lot of times tired following a,very long day and arent as fresh and sharp as you need to be. After dinner, go to bed and get up early in the morning. Very early. Gunn said that if his daughter is still in bed at 5 a.m., then somethings wrong. Whats the old Army saying? David Gunn said. \"They do more before, what, 6 a.m., than most people do in the entire day. That may be true of Tiffany. In addition to being valedictorian, Tiffany Gunn was National Honor Society president, a Student Council representative and president of Future Business Leaders See GUNN, Page 3C C St3 S LS fD tS-S \u0026lt;D -O cc -S C0 I kJ cu \u0026lt;zi \u0026gt; \u0026lt; O \"a 2 C S 8 r .s O 03 3  O X o G 3 W G43 4*J to_\"0 . G^ O OflO ^OO S 'rt :\"! G G n co to 2 c--  .\u0026lt;9* 15 \"^-S 5 o .2 23, fe - s)Sffi  g gs g'S s s  Ja'g.\" .S S S   03 O Th ! G 03 0\u0026gt; co 43  C CO o gS^:^ 4) T-I e tn ?=! M e-S  8 o O O c tu) o 2 r- CJ -UA G tn . ^.S g 03 .ssg='55saS\u0026gt; c 5 I-  G  2  SgS gtLo\u0026lt;lJva  3 03 cBXI to 4) U o\u0026gt;2\n\u0026gt;Subi35B Uh Os_zSc0 G 03m43 *S 3 A *3 W -5 -s e -2 o\u0026gt; m 5 -' 3 C ti ra co o G oT ctO c \u0026gt; 2 -G co  S 03 S\nC3 03 so- 03 O s \u0026lt; o c .2 .. o  C 03 O .W C o \u0026lt;4 54^ 2 G co G co S 8- S O co jO h co 2 G 3 S 4G O' 2 = 03 O 4) .ts -n  n 43 I  G *4 S XJ co O 5  a  \u0026gt;? G E tn G \u0026lt;13 G 03  o 03 G C G U. 3  O .*-\u0026gt; Q3 ? S 61 4= 4\u0026gt; 3 G M to S .G 03 -r i3 to co -x t- co_ t- G 03 -S ZG 03 'G .\"2 c S =  -H  33 03 co a) B I oS'Sl .-sS I-Ei Ill's B'S o  - s 5? to c  3 co .. = ^'S o a \" 3 0) \u0026gt; 5 o * ^2^-Sg Is-2 2^ E 03 =^3!  43 G iZ co 5 G 03 \u0026gt; o5013744187 WALKER LAW FIRM 283 P02 SEP 12 00 15:32 John w. Walker, p.a. Attorney At Law 1723 Broadway Little Rock, Arkansas 72206 Telephone (601) 374-3758 FAX (501) 374-4187 JOHN W. WALKER RALPH WASHINGTON MARK BURNETTE SHAWN CHILDS Via Facsimile September 12, 2000 Dr. Leslie Gamine Superintendent of Schools Little Rock School District 810 West Markham Little Rock, AR 72201 Dear Dr. Gamine: I am writing on behalf of Marcus Winston, a 9\"' grade student at Parkview High School and similarly situated students in the Little Rock District. Would you please direct my attention to the section of the Districts student handbook which states that 9* grade students cannot participate in varsity team athletics. It is my understanding that the practice of the District in previous years has been to allow these students to participate on varsity teams. By copy of this letter to Mr. James Washington, I am also requesting that he investigate this matter. I recommend that he identify all 9* grade students at the senior high level to determine the number, race and gender of the students who are being adversely affected by unwritten directive. As I review the Districts desegregation plan, I note in Section 2.6 of that plan that the District shall implement programs, policies and/or procedures designed to promote participation and to ensure that there are no barriers to panicipation by qualified African Americans in extracurricular activities.... Tt appears that the Districts refusal to allow 9* grade students to participate in athletics at the varsity level is contrary to plan commitments. This new practice is neither promoting nor ensuring participation. Prior to invoking the process regarding compliance issues, I ask that Mr. Washington provide to this office a report of his preliminaiy findings by September 20, 2000. Thank you for your attention to this matter.5013744187 WALKER LAW FIRM 283 P03 SEP 12 00 15:32 linccrelvf Joy C. Sprin^r H On Behalf of Joshua Intervenors JCS/ cc: Mr. James Washington, Ombudsman Mr. Junious Babbs, Associate Superintendent Mr. Ray Gillespie. Althletic Director Ms. Ann Brown5013744187 WALKER LAW FIRM 283 P01 SEP 12 00 15:32 I JOHN W. walker, P.A. 1723 Broadway , Lictle Rock,. AR 72206 501.374-3753 Fix: 501-374-4137 FAX COVER SHEET FAX WMBER TRA^S^HTTED TO To: L J Of. I From\nJ JOHN w. Walker, p.a. Client/Maner\nL J Date\nj . DOCUMENTS i number of Pages* . COMMENTS\nOriginal ( ] will ( ) wiHNOT follow. t kArkansas Democrat '^(Oazeltv |  WEDNESDAY, JULY 23, Schools to offer examinations for athletics - ARKANSAS DEMOCR-AT-G.AZETTE ?the Little Rock School Districts health services office will offer physical examinations for students planning to participate in football, basketball and volleyball during the 1997-98 school year. ' School district policy requires that each student athlete undergo a physical examination before participating in any sports activity, including athletic practice sessions.\nParents are asked to contact their childrens schools beginning Monday to get a parental consent form. Coaches must be present during examinations. l^ludents may receive exams from a private physician or at Arkansas Childrens Hospital under the following schedule:  Wednesday, July 23. Mann Magnet Junior High School students, 5:30 p.m. Cloverdale Junior High, 6 p.m. McClellan High School, football 'and basketball students only, 6:30 p.m.  Thursday, July 24. Henderson Junior High. 5:30 p.m. Southwest Junior High, 6ji.m. Forest Heights Junior High. 6:30 p.m.  Friday, July 25, Dunbar Junior High, 5:30 p.m. Mabelvale Junior High, 6 p.m. Pulaski Heights Junior High, 6:30 p.m. Make-up days are:  Monday, Aug. 25, Mann and Cloverdale, 5:30 p.m. Henderson and Mabelvale, 6 p.m.  Wednesday Aug. 27, Southwest and Forest Heights, 5:30 p.m. Dunbar and Pulaski Heights, 6:30 p.m. Physical exams for football and basketball participants have been held for Fair, Hall, Parkview and Central High schools. Volleyball participants at the high school level may have their examinations performed on Aug. 14 at Bowen Hefley Knee \u0026amp; Sports Medicine Clinic, 5 St Vincent Circle, Blandford Building, Suite 100, as follows: Hall and Parkview, 5:30 p.m. Central and Fair, 5:50 p.m. McClellan, 6:10 p.m. 12 96 10:48 !2l 002 003 l- : 1 \"V 1 . i'. '\n- i July 12,1996 301 324 2023 LRSD COMMl?vICATI ODM LimE Rock School District LRSD Coach Takes State Team to Belgium for more information: Suellen Vann, 324-2020  1 tI I I The Central High School girls basketball coach will travel to Belgium later this month. Michael Green will accompany a team of eleven senior high girls to compete in an international basketball tournament from July 31 through August 8. Green, who also serves as head coach of Centrals girls track team and assistant boys basketball coach, was selected to serve as coach for the Arkansas team comprised of 10 Arkansas high school girls and one from Oklahoma. Green also teaches health and physical education at Henderson Health Science Magnet Junior High School. The games are sponsored by Sports Challenge International, Incorporated. The next team practices prior to their departure for Belgium will be at 9:00 a.m. and 1:00 p.m., July 27, at Central High School. 810 West Markham Street  UtUe Rock. Arkansas 78301  (501)834-3000 lU. k/WWV W W J* W .W A . I ti.1 \\,  v, a 1 J ffcPSl * 12-96 10:50 LRSD COMIIVNICATI OHM  003 1103 i 501 324 2023 Little Rock School District LRSn Bus Drivers to Drive Olympic Game Participants I : July 12,1996 For more information: Suellen Vann, 324-2020 Twenty Laidlaw bus drivers leave Little Rock Sunday, July 14, to travel to Atlanta for the Olympic Games, but they wont be there as competitors or spectators. The drivers have been invited to serve as coach bus drivers for the Olympic Games Committee. Laidlaw selected about 100 drivers from Memphis and 20 from Little Rock to provide this service at the Olympic Games. 810 West Markham Street  Little Rock. Arkansas 78S01  \u0026lt;501)324-2000 j Arkansas Democrat (gazette | SATURDAY. APRIL 20, 1996 Girl pops up in lineup after lawsuit Ajji^nsas Democral-Gazetle/BENJAMIN KRAIN Claiming sex discrimination, mom says damage is done BY CHRIS REINOLDS Democrat-Gazette Stalf Wiitei No. 34 played the second game of a doubleheader Friday between Parkview and Arkadelphia. That gave the second baseman two starts in the Parkview Patriots six games since Tuesday  the day she filed suit against the teams head coach and the Little Rock School District alleging se.x discrimination. Christi Jackson, 17, says that coach Terry Daniell limits her playing time because she is a girl. This season Jackson has been played in only two of the 12 Class AAAA conference games since Qlisti Jadson, who started for Parkview t-h-e-- -s--e-a--s-o--n started in March. In High Schools baseball team last year, both gmes, ^he todn t go m m si,,ts on.. .___I__k. _______ fho lucf iTinina Twn or tnS 2Hni6S cnoois uai\u0026gt;euail icaiii icuai yvai, --------- - T. the bench during a game Friday the last inning. Two of toe games a^nst Ariodetphia  a position she she sat out were played the day contends shes in far too often. the suit was filed. When the suit was filed, she had played in 56 of the teams 224 innings and had made stx errors. The lawsuit filed Tuesday in federal court says Jackson, identified only as Jane Doe, was recruited to play second base on the baseball team for the 1995 season. She played for both varsity and junior varsity teams. Before the 1995 season. Jack-son starred at pitcher and right field for the Blazers, a girls independent softball team that has won three state championships and played in national and world competitions, Robert Clark, then Parkview's head coach, recruited Jackson last year. Neither Clark nor Daniell would comment on the lawsuit Last year the kids had fun, her mother said. \"They played baseball and they were a team. This is not a team. On Wednesday, the day after the suit was filed, Jackson started the game. Friday night she started the second game of a doubleheader. Neither contest was a conference game. According to the lawsuit when Jackson and other female students who attended a meeting for prospective baseball players, Daniell encouraged them to find a faculty sponsor and form a girls softball team. The suit cited federal Title IX of the federal Education Amendments of 1972. Title IX requires schools that receive federal money to equalize sports opportunities for men and women. Kathryn Gunzelman. advocacy See JACKSON, Page 5B Jacksori\"  Continued from Page 1B Tm just tired of not playing. All my coordinator for the Wonien s feammateS knOW I CUn Sports Foundation in Uniondale, . , N.Y., said Jackson will probably play better and I m tired win her lawsuit , of being treated Unfairly. going to ride the pine. One teammates parent, asking not to be named, viewed the discrimination lawsuit as legitimate. Were not the worlds greatest baseball team, but we have Gunzelmans nonprofit educa-tional organization was founded in 1994 to promote and enhance sports and fitness for women. Barbara Jackson said its been a horrible season for her daughter. Daniell has told Jackson that she wasnt ready and her timing is off, her mother said, Christi did everything in her power , but it wasnt good enough, Barbara Jackson said, She didnt want to play baseball last year and now she is wanting to play and this guy wont let her. good players and Christi is one of them, the parent said. Its un, II lfoonrtuunnaatiee tuhiaati tuhiec uLnitntlce uRuocvk. My self-esteem has really school District doesnt offer soft-been shot. ball. But the parent said not every- - Christi Jackson one supports Jackson. _____________ Larry Sipes, whose son Clay plays shortstop, doesnt think the arship offers from Oklahoma City Jacksons should sue. University and William Woods It was absolutely not neces- College in Fulton, Mo. sary. Its a bunch of baloney, I dont want this to happen to gipes said at the game Friday. any girl in any high school. Bar- Sipes said Jackson is good bara Jackson said. I want him to enough to be on the team, but know can't run or bat very well. Barknow what hes done and never Shes going to get to play now, but the damage has already been done, her mother said, He knew what he was doing. Hes made her life miserable and boys. ninvinv  destroyed her self-confidence. I tn just tired of not playing. do it again. She can field well and she's Her daughter, who is growing got a good arm, he said, But the tired of the media attention be- other player (who plays second cause of the lawsuit, said she just base) is better. Theyre making it wants to play as much as the She could have gotten so much more offers. The University of Arkansas at Pine Bluff has offered her a scholarship to play on the mens baseball team. Jackson said. She is also considering softball schol- Christi Jackson said. All my teammates know I can play bet-a girl-guy thing. Sipes said the team is still new, and he worries that the lawsuit will cause the coach to quit and destroy Parkviews fledgling ter and Im tired of being treated baseball program. unfairly. My self-esteem has real- He said the teams budget is ly been shot. $3,000, and there s not enough Most games, she wonders why money to also support a girls she should show up if shes just softball team. Letters FRIDAY, MAY 6.1994 Dont eliminate the coaches stipends The Little Rock School District is in a |7----------- . xuc xjiiue nocK acnooi District is in a financial quagmire due to the districts decade-long fight against the federal courts and the millions of dollars lost in the battle. Now the district is contem- ' plating elimination of coaches stipends which would ultimately result in the elimination of high school athletics in the district. This is ridiculous It needs to be recognized by the community that at the time many area athletic programs declined, gang activity grew into a community epidemic Few have recognized this parallel of trends. Coaches in this district... have chosen their profession out of love for the i games and for working with kids. We ' eliminate these stipends and we eliminate these coaches. Many will ultimately find work outside of teaching attempting to regain wages lost. As a substitute teacher in the Little Rock schools, I rarely filled in for coaches, they were always there. I cannot say the same for regular classroom teach- : er  I always had work. These men ' and women are dedicated to our chil- i dren and are the few positive role mod- i els many students have. ( Our community should be concerned ! for the status of these coaches and their J?h. Lamar Cole and the Arkansas Activities Association should fight this proposal. Jim Lynch (if he really cares) should fight this idea. Anyone who feels that athletics is better than gang banging should fight this idea. Athletics is school pride, individual pride and ultimately improved civic pride. MARK HOOPER Little Rock^07/19/95 10:36 501 324 2023 IJ^Sn COMMCNlCATf OD)I @002/005 :i 'i4r\u0026lt;4.x '* Little Rock Schooi 1 TRIC'I r' L L News Release I r Athletic Program Physicals Scheduled for Senior High School Students I I Jelly 19,1995 For more information\nDina Teague, 324-2020 I I LITTLE ROCK ~ Senior high school students in the Little Rock School District (LRSD) who plan to participate in extra-curricular athletic programs this fall may take advantage of a limited number of physical examinations that will be provided tree of charge. All students must have \u0026lt;a physical examination before p^ticipating in athletic programs. Students who do not take advantage of the LRSD provided physicals may see a private physician for these examinations, but should obtain the appropriate forms from an LRSD high school for their physician to complete. Physicals for McClellan High School football and volleyball team members will be administered at the Arkansas Children's Hospital on July 24 beginning at 5:30 p.m. After school begins, all physicals for McClellan will be given at the McClellan Wellness Clinic. Students may contact the school nurse to make an appointment. ! J. A. Fair High School, Hall High School, and Parkview Arts and Sciences Magnet High School students who are interested in participating in football, volleyball, or basketball will be tested on July 27 at the l ittle Rock Orthopedic Clinic which is located at 13100 Chenal Parkway. Students should contact their schools for. I specific times and locations. (more) ( 810 West Markham Street  Llttle'Rock, Arkansas 72301  (501)324-3000 SSffi35^5SlK^K5S?^3BhfcMnat3.6 07/19/95 10:37 501 324 2023 LRSD COMMI?.'ICAT1 ODM 003/005 LiRSD High School Athletic Physicals July 19,1995 Page two of two 1 Centrai High School football and volleyball team members may contact the liittle Rick Central High Wellness Clinic after school begins on August 21 to schedule an appointment for a physical examination. j Physicals for spring sports and spirit groups will be provided by the Little Kock Sports Medicine Clinic. Dates and times will be posted in schools later in the school year. I' 1 ## r.?l- 'V: .  .1' 1 ! jE / - lyy, J. fe' 1- I 9^' * SL' ' I I I I . I { r t I I 4 i Add,.i 5!\" I .v f \u0026lt; 07/19/9.5 1 I 'I i I I I I  I' 10:37 ODM 004/005 July 19,1995 { 50l 324 2023 l.RSD COMllCMCATI a k. J Little Rock School District News Release LRSD Provides Physicals for junior High Athletic Programs For more information\nDina Teague, 324-2020 Lm LE ROCK  The Little Rock School District (LRSD) will provide a limited number of physical examinations for junior high school students interested in participating in extra-curricular sports programs during the 1995-96 school year. These physicals will be administered at the Arkansas Children's Hospital (ACH), and LRSD coaches tvili be present. AU athletes must have a physical examination before participating in athletic Students who do not take advantage of the LRSD provided physicals may see a private physician for these examinations, but should obtain the appropriate forms from an LRSD jumor high school for their physician to complete. j ACH requires that students provide a permission form signed by a parent guardian before an examination is administered. These forms are currently available at all LRSD junior high schools. or I Physicals for fall sports will be administered at ACH during the week of August 1 through 4 and are limited to 25 students per school. An additional round of physicals, also limited to 25 per school, will be administered on August 24. I I I (more) 810 West Markham Street  Little Rdck, .Vrkaasas 72201  (501)824-2000 Stipend flap angers LR coaches BY TIM COOPER Democrat-Gazette Staff Writer Coaches in the Little Rock School District may be dismay^ with the recommendation to eliminate stipends, but most are still taking a wait-and-see attitude until a final decision is made. More than 400 school district employees were sent letters stating that their annual stipends are not automatic and that a recommendation from Superintendent of Schools Dr. Henry P. Williams will be made that they be discontinued. -----Arkansas Democrat (Bazctt^  One coach speaks out 4C If whats in this letter is true, there is no coaching staff, Little Rock Central football coach Bernie Cox said. There are no athletics in Little Rock. The letter I received said we would not receive any stipends. Obviously they dont want us to work for nothing. They havent volunteered to take any pay cuts. Stipends compensate teachers for extra duty such as coaching or sponsoring student activities. According to coaches the Arkansas Democrat-Gazette talked to Sunday and Monday, annual coaching stipends range from $1,000 to $6,000. The letter also states that after a review of the stipends, the need for the extra duty and the district budget is completed, the employees may be asked to perform the extra duties again. I think this is an effort to balance the budget and to see what kind of funds they have available, said Oliver Fitzpatrick, the girls basketball coach at Central. The first and foremost thing is to balance the budget. If they cant do that, theres not going to be any teaching going on. If theres no teaching, theres not going to be any coaching. I havent lost hope. Its just an effort on the districts part to ensure that theyre fiscally sound. Thats good business. In an effort to save more than $1.85 million in salaries next year, the district notified 80 teachers that it is eliminating their jobs. TUESDAY, MAY 3, 1994 Copyright  Little Rock Newspapers. Inc. It was the third consecutive year the district has had to eliminate jobs, but no coaching jobs were affected. However, the elimination of stipends would effectively force some coaches to seek coaching jobs elsewhere. I think theyre crazy if they think were going to coach for free, said Parkview assistant football coach Terry Daniell. I dont think anyone asked them to be administrators for free. Im See COACHES, Page 4CCoaches  Continued from Page 1C not going to go out there and coach for free. I'm not and I know the staff at Parkviews probably not. Frank Martin, an Arkansas Education Association staff member, said that under the Fair Dismissal Act, the removal of a stipend is seen as a reduction in compensation. This means folks have to be evaluated and observed ... be- i.fore they can be removed, said Martin, who is assigned to the Little Rock Classroom Teachers Association as executive director. My initial reaction is there are going to be some serious questions whether the district is able to issue statements to these guys saying that they arent going to come back next year. Not unless they abolish this position. Williams said he did not think the re-evaluation of the stipends would hurt the sports programs in the district. I don't think it's going to affect it at all, Williams said. \"We have unilaterally given stipends to individuals over the years, and we're now looking at another way to do it.... We want to make sure that the people receiving stipends are the ones we want to do it. Williams said the district currently pays out more than $700,000 in stipends for coaches and teachers involved in extracurricular activities. But some coaches claim the letters only underscore the district's willingness to cut the athletic budget as much as possible. When the district spends $1,000 to send out certified letters notifying us there will be no stipends, they mean business, Cox said. T've been here 24 years, and I think its a slap in the face, Little Rock McClellan football coach Ellis Register said. Theres people who have worked in the district to make it better and they turn around and do that. Register said he was not shocked by the recommendation, but it hinders his staffs efforts to prepare for next season. Were making plans. Were working on schedules and our physicals for the summer, Register said. If we dont know something by Aug. 1. then we wont start practicing. Cox, who has been with the district 22 years, said it would not be fair for his team to start practicing later than other programs. Central is scheduled to open its season with defending Class AAAA champion Pine Bluff. Athletics in Little Rock has deteriorated over the past cou- I pie of years, Cox said. With all i the violence and murder in the t streets, it boggles my mind that ! theyre not putting more money into athletics and other extracurricular activities to get more young people going in a more positive direction. Athletics is a very small part of the school district in Little Rock, Daniell said. Thats evident by some of the fields we have and the crowds that come to the games. Our facilities are bad. They wont even buy the Coaches may avoid LRSD, Osmon says BY TIM COOPER Democrat'Qazetle Staff Writer Little Rock Central base- ball coach Scott Osmon, like many coaches in the Little Rock School District, does not agree with the.dis- tricts decision to re-evaluate coaching stipends. But he plans to remain with the district and has no plans to quit coaching whether stipends are eliminated or not. Personally, I will continue to coach, said Osmon, who commutes from Conway. \"I have several kids that dont play anything but baseball and we practice throughout the year. Now, there are coaches that might not be able to devote as much time to their sports. Stipends are paid to school employees who perform extra duties such as coaching or sponsoring student activities. Osmon said the elimination of the stipends will make it difficult to lure good coaches to the district and keep many of the ones they have now. Nobodys getting rich in coaching anyway and to take away the stipends is only another insult, Osmon said. As coaches, we may be the only father figures some of these kids have. A lot of those kids need us, and its a shame they may not be able to to find the money somewhere. The decision to eliminate The stipends came three days after Osmons team earned its first trip to the Class AAAA State Baseball Tournament in the programs three-year history. The Tigers (14-8) finished third in the AAAA-Central Conference and ended Conways 27-game conference winning streak. We were 4-12 our first year and 9-10 last year, Osmon said. The kids have been able to see all phases. The Tigers will play North Little Rock at Burns Park on Thursday in the AAAA-Central semifinals. The winner will play Conway for the districts No. 1 seed in the state tournament. kids a letter jacket. There is nothing prestigious about athletics any more. I guess the things that are prestigious now are having a lot of money and jewelry and being a gang leader. The letter said individuals would be afforded a hearing before the Board of Directors regarding Williams recommendation if they notified the board in writing within 30 days from the letters receipt. Democrat-Gazette Staff Writers Todd Traub and Pete Perkins contributed to this report.?VFD .J Un Vt If f' OCT 2 6 1993 Skip Rutherford 5604 Hawthorne Road Little Rock, Arkansas 72207 Office of Desegregation Monitanny Personal Not For Publication October 25,1993 Mr. Kevin Freking Arkansas Democrat-Gazette P.O. Box 2221 Little Rock, Arkansas 72203 Dear Kevin: I thought your and Grant's Sunday articles about football in the Little Rock School District were interesting. They were well-written. However, I do think you concentrated on the negative, and I wish you had been more balanced. Some observations: 1. Little Rock Hall is 5-0, leading the AAAA Central division and is play-off bound. You could have easily focused on the success of a team which was not projected to be a title contender. 2. Little Rock Parkview is having its best season in years and maybe - just maybe - football is on the way back. It could have been presented that way. 3. In your comments about the 2.0 grade point average, you could have noted that the Little Rock School District has approximately 5% of the State's students, but approximately 14% of the state's national merit semifinalists. Central itself has 18 national merit semifinalists - the most of any school in Arkansas. Like the majority on the State Board of Education, I don't believe the 2.0 GPA is driving students into gangs, and I am encouraged the rest of the state is finally following the example Little Rock pioneered years ago. After aU there has certainly been much concern voiced in your paper about college remediation costs and the poor graduation rates of college athletes.Mr. Kevin Freking October 25,1993 Page Two You could have pointed out these scores on the ACT, a respected college admission test: White Scores Black Scores United States Arkansas Little Rock 21.4 20.7 21.9 17.1 16.8 17.4 (Note that Little Rock is higher than both the state and nation.) Although the 2.0 standard may get the blame, the gangs, etc. are a result of what has been called the \"Hidden home curriculum\" exacerbated by a family environment of single parents, no parents, high divorce rates (Arkansas leads the nation) and concentrated urban poverty (while the nation has 20% of its students in poverty, cities have 40%). Inner-dty neighborhoods all across America have suffered from middle-class flight, business flight and religious flight, and since Pulaski Cotmty encompasses the only significant urban area in the state, it suffers the most. On another matter you raised, as a University of Arkansas alumnus, and former Fayetteville resident. I'm very sorry the Razorback football team has had a string of bad seasons. I'm also very sorry the LRSD (and apparently other Arkansas schools) is not providing the U of A with the \"stars of years past. I would note that one Central Arkansas star -- Catholic's Zach Adami  chose Michigan over Arkansas, and thus the problem may not only be quality athletes, but the quality of the U of A program. Although in fairness, there's stiU hope the Hogs will get a bid to the Poulan Weedeater Independence Bowl in Shreveport. (Since the U of A's current kicking game is poor at best, you might suggest that the recruiters take a look at Central's kicker, Matthew Mittelstaedt. He is being recruited by colleges for soccer.) Also, your photo of the security at the Central-Hall game should be put into context. The last-time I came to the Democrat-Gazette building. I noticed strong security. To get to the second floor of the Post-Office Building on Capitol Avenue you have to pass through a metal-detector as well as security guards. At Cranford Johnson Robinson Woods there is a security guard to walk people to their cars, and there are many more examples throughout the city. Finally, as you did on football, I hope you will do a series on LRSD basketball, and someone also will do a front page article on LRSD's academic achievements.Mr. Kevin Freking October 25,1993 Page Three In your basketball article, perhaps you will point out Charles Ripley's success rate at Parkview, including State Championships, national rankings, NCAA scholarships, 3.0 team grade point average and the 6'7\" junior guard which apparently Duke -- and most aU major colleges are coveting. In addition, you could feature Chris Williams, a scholar-athlete who starts for Central, and who is a first-class young man. Also, McQellan, Fair and Hall all have quality basketball programs. (You might even encourage people to come out and see some of the best high school - and junior high  basketball in the region.) Thank you for your consideration of a more balanced approach in your reporting. Sincerely, Rutherford SR:sw cc: Grant Tennille Walter Hussman Paul Greenberg Rex Nelson Cynthia HowellCc: Little Rock School District May 17, 1993 RECEIVED MAY 1 8 Office of DesegregaSon Mcniioricg Mr. John Walker Attorney at Law 1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72206 Dear Mr. Walker: In response to your letter regarding Gary Greenwood dated May 14, 1993 to Superintendent Mac Bernd, I am forwarding to you a copy of the investigative report completed by Sam Stueart, Assistant Superintendent, for the Superintendent. We collectively reached what we believe to be a fair and equitable resolution to the concerns. Please feel free to contact me should you have any questions. Yours very truly, anet L. Bernard Associate Superintendent for School Operations and Climate JLB:nr c\nMrs. Dede Greenwood Mrs. Ann Brown Dr. Mac Bernd 810 West Markham Street Little Rock, Arkansas 72201  (501)374-3361 LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 810 WEST MARKHAM STREET To: From: Subject: LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS May 17, 1993 72201 Janet Bernard, Associate Superintendent for School Operations and Climate Sam Stueart, Acting Assistant Superintendent for Secondary Schools Tennis Tryouts at Pulaski Heights Junior High School As per your request at 7:45 a.m. this morning to investigate the matter at Pulaski Heights Junior High School pertaining to the selection procedure for the Pulaski Heights Jr. High tennis team, I am submitting the following information: Investigation After discussions with Janet Bernard, the patron, Ms. Greenwood and the principal of Pulaski Heights Jr. High, I find the following facts: 1. No \"try-outs\" were held to establish team members due to the fact that the teacher was sick and rain occurred on several days when the try-outs might have been scheduled. 2. Team members were chosen by taking those students who are ranked by the USTA. 3. No African-American team members were selected. One African- American student (Derrick Greenwood) expressed an interest, but was not ranked by the USTA and therefore was not selected. Solutions 1. In the future, state rankings by the USTA should not be used since the rankings are based on participation in tournaments requiring paid entrance fees. This works to exclude students who cannot afford to pay the fee. not to participate in the It also excludes students who did \"private tournaments\" because they preferred another activity or simply chose not to compete in those events. A student may be a very good tennis player and not be ranked by the USTA.Janet Bernard May 17, 1993 Page Two 2. In the future, round-robin try-outs are to be held so that a student has the opportunity to demonstrate tennis ability without USTA rankings being used or subjective judgements being made. In the future, 3. there should be a very serious effort to encourage participation in tennis by all members of the student body and opportunities to develop tennis skills should be given to students at Pulaski Heights. 4. To meet the immediate concern of.today, the principal will release students to play in try-outs for positions in tonight's tournament. today to \"earn position equally. One or two students should not be expected to play try-outs. a position\nall students should compete for a Two teachers will serve as line judges for the One teacher will be an African-American and one shall be of another race. A drawing will be held to determine opponents./\u0026lt; JOHN W. WALKER RALPH WASHINGTON MARK BURNETTE WILEY A. BRANTON. JR. ' AUSTIN PORTER, JR. * Also aiiinilhtl lo [raclin* in (U-nrgia \u0026amp; llv Dislrivl of ('obnnbia. John w. walker, p.a. Attorney At Law 1723 Broadway Little Rook, Arkansas 722n6 Telephone (501) 374-3758 FAX (501) 374-4187 rbceweo MAY 1 1 1993 QffC\u0026amp; of. DesegregaScn i'\u0026lt;\u0026lt;r icnitoring May 14, 1993 Delivered Via Fax \u0026amp; U.S. Hail Dr. Mac Bernd Superintendent of Schools Little Rock School District 810 West Markham Little Rock, AR 72201 Dear Dr. Bernd\nIt has come to my attention that there may be problems at Pulaski Heights again involving the administration of Mr. Ralph Hoffman. Please check to see whether or not the tennis team was just selected and its racial composition. I am representing the interests of Mr. Gary Greenwood, a student there, and his mother, Ms. Dede Greenwood. My information is that Mr. Greenwood was effectively prevented from being a team member by subjective consideration. My further understanding of our plan is that every effort will be made to ensure that all extra curricular activities are racially inclusive. Time is of the essence in that the tournament that this youngster is concerned about begins on Monday and continues on Tuesday. Therefore, your urgent attention is requested and action is also requested this weekend. If you agree with my conclusion, please let the youngster know so that he will have preparation time, though a minimum. Thank you for your consideration. Sincerely, John V W. Walker JWW:lp cc: Ms. Dede Greendwood Ms. Ann Brown28  THURSDAY, MARCH 18,1993   Pulaski Aikansas Democrat  azctte i  i I Grades sideline 4 % of basketball players in survey BY DANNY SHAMEER\nDemocrat-Gazette Education Writer . .' About 4 percent of the stu- . dents who played junior or se- . nior high school basketball in .1 ^Pulaski County public schools were ineligible in the second semester because of grades, an  . Arkansas Demoerat-Gazette survey found. The survey reveals no particular pattern, such as .whether younger junior high players struggled more than : older high school players to meet academic eligibility requirements. Also, the data does not in- f elude how many students may have simply stayed away from signing up for a basketball team because of the standards  a figure that would be impossible to compile, some coaches and principals said. But the survey does show that the Little Rock School District  which has had a tougher academic standard since 1988- 89  had a marginally smaller percentage of ineligible players than the other two Pulaski County public school districts. The survey found\n In the Little Rock district, the states largest in enrollment, 3 percent of 623 players from 13 schools lost their eligibility during the season. Twenty-two players ineligible the first semester regained eligibility the second semester.  The Pulaski County Special School District, the states second-largest in enrollment, had about 5 percent of 526 players from 13 schools lose eligibility during the season. Seventeen players ineligible the first semester regained eligibility for the second semester.  The North Little Rock School District had about 6 percent of 171 players declared ineligible. Students who quit the team or were kicked off for nonacademic reasons were not included in the numbers. Since 1988, the Little Rock district has required its players to have at least a C average, or 2.0 grade-point average. The North Little Rock and Pulaski County Special districts make their players earn at least a 1.6 grade-point average. Student athletes in all the states public school districts will be required to earn at least a 1.8 grade-point average in the fall semester to play on a publie school team. The minimum grade-point average increases to a 2.0 Little Rocks standard  in the 1994 fall semester. Not everyone is happy about that. I believe in letting all kids play and not excluding anyone, said Eugene Stuckey, boys basketball coach at Jacksonville South Junior High, echoing the views of many coaches. Im concerned that the Arkansas Activities Asso- we have a lot of kids who are just above the special ed line but are academically slow. We have programs for special ed and gifted students, but nothing for the kids in between. A whole group out there who need help and a little motivation will stay away from sports. These are the kids who end up in gangs. Some of these kids are going to be in someones gang  the street gang or the basketball team gang, Stuckey said. Statewide figures for basketball arent available from ciation, a governing body for interscholastic activities. Basketball is the only major sport in the schools that spans the first and second semesters.\u0026gt; P/XxcA-tCg- I ? AJO, lUjt\u0026gt; U'. I |^Ln\\-(oc l op - A \\oc Ao'P i^S 5^Lf-L \u0026lt; \\cc5'Act'\u0026lt;' dt\u0026gt;tA^ xQS\" - 4 A \u0026gt;\\ c^' 1 cx^ lo\u0026lt;xJi ftyn(X3fy^ \"\" 16\" p^ictoQOxs. (Gen 4c\\,(cC i  iq.bC iQAA SocKs f rijr , 1 \u0026lt;ppuf Cx-muCL - L-Ovn u ti n\\lAe on tiVA^ b\\cLQ_ . 434 .A'o OO LcUi^ X fYAcxi^ 2S\u0026gt; EKC^PTAOCfel o Afnc\u0026gt;\u0026gt;n43. 4\u0026gt;V10lQ5 a o 2]~~. V\u0026gt;o.oe_ o.*^ -Qu.vyy \u0026gt;1 ' Cx-^ AVvC- \\o Pcxf er\\'t ' ^r\u0026gt;oxA.\u0026lt; '^Ckx^U^A^'s 'O\u0026gt;ae_SCHOOL Central High Fair High Hall High McClellan High Parkview High Magnet Cloverdale Jr. High Dunbar Magnet Jr. Forest Heights Jr. Henderson Jr. Mabelvale Jr. Mann Magnet Jr. Pulaski Heights Jr. Southwest Jr. Jacksonville High Mills High North Pulaski High Oak Grove High Jr. \u0026amp; Robinson High Sylvan Hills High Fuller Jr. OFFICE OF METROPOLITAN SUPERVISOR 201 EAST MARKHAM SUITE 510 HERITAGE WEST BUILDING LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS 72201 EXTRACURRICULAR ACTIVITIES ENROLLMENT September 28, 1990 CHEERLEADERS DRILL TEAM/PEP CLUB DIST LRSD PCSSD It It It tl It % BLK 59% 56% 57% 62% 55% 68% 63% 69% 73% 64% 58% 62% 75% 25% 44% 21% 21% 23% 22% 50% T W B % BLK T W B % BLK 19 10 9 47% 15 7 8 53% 17 14 3 18% 18 16 2 11% 12 17 16 16 12 12 12 10 16 12 16 13 14 11 22 10 12 15 9 3 25% 24 14 10 42% 13 4 24% 22 14 8 36% 6 10 63% 25 2 23 92% 13 3 19% 20 8 12 60% 1 7 2 11 5 8 2 Other 6 4 7 9 92% 42% 67% 40% 56% 17 20 23 24 21 0 3 6 15 5 17 17 17 9 16 8 8 4 7 1 Other 12 0 1 Other 13 11 19 9 11 11 1 0 3 1 1 4 100 85% 74% 38% 76% 33% 44% 0% 7% 0% 14% 10% 8% 27% 11 22 27 17 24 28 29 21 29 0 2 11 14 2 Other 25 2 7 10 20 22 27 11 13 4 6 2 10 16 100 64% 7% 59% 17% 21% 7% 48% 55% 1CHEERLEADERS DRILL TEAM/PEP CLUB SCHOOL DIST % BLK T W B % BLK T W B % BLK Jacksonville N. Jr. tl 24% 12 8 4 33% 19 15 4 21% Jacksonville S. Jr. (I 27% 11 10 1 9% 29 20 9 31% Northwood Jr. 21% 14 13 1 7% 27 22 5 19% Robinson Jr. II 24% 8 7 1 13% NA NA NA NA Sylvan Hills Jr. M 24% 12 11 1 8% 21 10 11 52% NLRHS West NLRSD 36% 16 12 4 25% 30 21 9 30% NLRHS East II 43% 35 32 3 9% 78 42 36 46% Lakewood Middle II 41% 31 25 6 19% 76 57 17 22% 2 Other Ridgewood Middle II 42% 19 12 7 37% 54 43 11 20% Rose City II 56% 30 12 18 60% 30 8 22 73% 2OFFICE OF METROPOLITAN SUPERVISOR 201 EAST MARKHAM, SUITE 510 HERITAGE WEST BUILDING LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS 72201 Hand Delivered May 31, 1990 TO: James Jennings, Associate Superintendent for FROM: SUBJECT: lesegregation Monitoring and Program Development kirma Hart, Associate Metropolitan Supervisor Purchase of Cheerleader Uniforms All districts are to provide transportation and uniforms for cheerleaders, pep club, and drill team on the same basis as those items are provided for athletic squads. the court-approved plan. This is a requirement ofHand Delivered TO: James FROM: SUBJECT: The OFFICE OF METROPOLITAN SUPERVISOR 201 EAST MARKHAM, SUITE 510 HERITAGE WEST BUILDING LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS May 23, 1990 Jennings, Associate 72201 Superintendent Desegregation Monitoring and Program Development Prentice Dupins, Associate Metropolitan Supervisor Purchase of Cheerleader Uniforms Extracurricular Activities following summary should clear up any problems for of interpretation of the language concerning the extracurricular activities section of the Tri-District Desegregation Plan: Items That Are Required 1. Each secondary school will have a director of activities whose duties are specifically defined on pages one and two of the extracurricular activities section. 2. Transportation and uniforms for cheerleaders, pep club, and drill team members will be provided by the district on the same basis as those items athletic squads. are provided for 3. If the absence of transportation for other extracurricular activities serves as an impediment to desegregation, the district is to provide transportation for these activities. 4. The Little Rock Districts are to and Pulaski County Special School use the services of the Arkansas Department of Education to assess its extracurricular activities. program of The districts are to develop further plans to increase black student participation. It Items That Are To Be Considered But Not Stated as Requirements 1. 2. 3. 4 . is The districts are to consider the addition of acrobatics/gymnastics to the secondary curriculum. The districts are to consider sponsoring clinics and or mini-camps for sports and music activities. The districts are to consider the addition of a mentor program to assist at-risk youths in the school. The districts are to consider standardizing eligibility requirements for extracurricular participation within the three districts. my understanding that occurring in the near future, district's requirement to pay tryouts either have or will be If the information regarding the for uniforms for cheerleaders and drill teams was not advertised prior to tryouts or practice, it will be necessary to repeat the process used to select members for these squads. All students should be appraised of these facts prior to tryouts so that cost factors will not serve as a deterrent to participation. It is my hope that this will provide clarification for any points that may have appeared unclear. I am sure that this will help you in reaching the goals you have stated in your own plans for the removal of barriers extracurricular activities. for students who wish to participate inLittle Rock School District HAND-DELIVERED May 21, 1990 TO: Ann Brown, Arma Hart, and Prentice Dupins - Associate Metropolitan Supervisors FROM: James Jennings, Associate Superintendent for Desegregation Monitoring and Program Development THROUGH: 'ar. Herb Cleek, Deputy Superintendent ^Dr. Ruth Steele, Superintendent of Schools SUBJECT: Purchase of Cheerleader Uniforms According to the Tri-District Desegregation Plan, \"nthe parent committee (on extracurricular activities) recommended that transportation and uniforms for cheerleaders, pep club, and drill team members be provided by the districts on the same basis as uniforms and transportation are pro-vided for athletic squads. II Since the court-approved plan refers to the purchase of cheerleader uniforms as a recommendation, rather than a requirement, it is conceivable that each district can decide whether or not to implement the parent committee's recommendation. The Little Rock School District would like for your office to interpret the language cited above. Some items in the plan are \"recomnended\" and some items are clearly required. If possible, please provide a written response to our concern on or before May 24. 810 West Markham Street Little Rock, Arkansas 72201  (501)374-3361 JUN 2 \u0026amp; W IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION Oiiice of Desegrcg\nIE Son MonitoriH: LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT, ET AL. PLAINTIFFS V. NO. LR-C-82-866 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT, ET AL. DEFENDANTS MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL. INTERVENORS KATHERINE W. KNIGHT, ET AL. INTERVENORS I. BRIEF IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO INTERVENE AND MOTION FOR A PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION LIMITED INTERVENTION MUST BE AVAILABLE TO STUDENTS WHO ARE ADVERSELY AFFECTED BY THE PARTIES' FAILURE TO MEET THEIR DESEGREGATION OBLIGATIONS The Joshua intervenors and the applicants for intervention jointly seek permission from the court to join the additional named intervenors to this proceeding pursuant to Rule 24(b), Fed. R. Civ. P. Throughout this litigation, the role of the Joshua intervenors has been to ensure that the remedy in this case resulted in enforceable commitments from the other parties on behalf of minority students in the three districts. That goal has been accomplished through the approval by the Court of the parties' settlement agreement and the three school districts' individual and joint plans for desegregation. These commitments are now enforceable by the Joshua intervenors through this court. enforcing the agreements. but in the real beneficiaries will often be individual students rather than the entire class of minority students. After all, individual students come into daily contact with the districts in entirely unique sets of circumstances. buteach student has a right to enforce the remedial obligations as it affects them in their daily interaction with the parties. Although the Joshua intervenors are diligent in their attempts to monitor the districts and to insist on compliance, ultimate responsibility for enforcement is in the court. Therefore, as the real beneficiaries of very specific remedial obligations, minority students in the district must have access to this court on their own behalf. Since it is actually the individual applicants' right to fair treatment under the parties settlements which the Joshua intervenors are seeking through this limited proceeding for preliminary injunction, the applicants for intervention should be allowed to intervene for the limited purpose of enforcing the settlement as it relates to their particular participation in extra-curricular activities at Pulaski Heights Junior High School. II. INTERVENORS ARE ENTITLED TO IMMEDIATE RELIEF The present motion is styled \"Motion for Preliminary Injunction,\" but intervenors are essentially seeking enforcement of the parties' prior settlement agreements and desegregation plans. Consequently, this motion might also be considered a motion for contempt and enforcement. Either approach justifies a quick hearing on the claims raised. A. Preliminary Injunction Intervenors will be enjoined from implementing irreparably harmed if the LRSD is not the cheerleader selection results which intervenors claim are racially biased and out of compliance with the districts obligations for desegregation of extra-curricularactivities. The selection of cheerleaders for Pulaski Heights Junior High, PHJH, occurs once a year, usually in April. This selection process has occurred and it has presumably determined the cheerleader participation for the 1992-93 school year. That participation begins during the summer. however, through the summer training camps which the school sends its cheerleaders to. Only students that attend PHJH may participate. Consequently, the minor intervenors will be ineligible for participation in the summer cheerleading camps nor in the future because they will presumably move on to the next grade and a different school after the 1992 93 school year. Therefore, relief must come swiftly, if it is to come at all. The damage to the intervenors' self esteem and their disillusionment with the educational system that will result from their denial of fair participation will also irreparably harm them in their future educational processes. The benefits of fair and equitable participation are cumulative and cannot be restored after the fact. seek. Intervenors are likely to succeed in obtaining the relief they Pursuant to the Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit, LRSD V.PCSSD, 921 F.2d 1371 (Sth Cir. 1990), remedial orders have already been entered in this case pursuant to the parties \"settlement agreements\" and \"settlement plans\". The LRSD plan for desegregation has recently been resubmitted and represents enforceable commitments by LRSD to the intervenors. (See \"Desegregation Plan Little Rock School District April 29,19 9 2\nrelevant portions of which are Motion) attached to Intervenor's The intervenors reserved the right to seek enforcement of these plans through this court. (See Settlement Agreement, p. 19.) Under the LRSD Desegregation Plan, the District has committed to: tl E. of Ensuring that equity occurs in all phases school activities and operations (i.e. activities school, class and staff assignments\nparticipation in extracurricular activities\ndistribution of resources\netc.) [underlining class added for emphasis] Equity, tt in this situation, means \"participation. II in meaningful numbers, not merely the right to access. There should ordinarily be some semblance of proportional participation. at least proportional to the numbers that try out for a particular activity. Here the disparities in participation are so overwhelming as to be patently unfair and ludicrous. (Eleven out of seventeen white applicants were selected, while only one out of eleven black applicants were selected\nin the previous year. an even more disparate selection ratio occurred.) The district also has a binding commitment to: I. Ongoing staff development activities to equip teachers, and other staff with the skills needed to administrators, achieve quality desegregation education, and\n(LRSD Plan, p. 1) c. Encourage positive attitudes and commitments to the desegregation plan by taking a team approach to promoting it, involving school staff,___administrators,___parfents,---and (INTERDISTRICT DESEGREGATION PLAN, p.65) volunteers. The district has failed to meet its obligation to develop these commitments in their staff and volunteers. Their failure is egregiously obvious in the disparities in these extra-curricularactivities. In addition, the ability to improve is built into the process through the school's participation in summer training camps for their cheerleading squads. Furthermore, the District has committed to a yearly \"analysis\" of participation data. The responsibility is that of the Assistant Superintendents, the Associate Superintendent for Desegregation and the Manager for Support Services. These monitoring activities must occur in timely fashion so that they can be translated into corrective policies throughout the school year. Yet, nothing has been said or done by the administration to address the miscarriage of the district's obligations in regard to the extra curricular activities complained of herein\nnot even a response to the intervenors. The district has obligations in all of these areas pursuant to their own Desegregation Plan. There is little doubt that it has not met these obligations and that intervenors will secure the relief they seek. In contrast. there can be no injury to the defendants by enforcing their obligations under the settlement plans\nthey are already obliged to take these remedial steps. After providing the proper training to the staff and judges. the district will be obliged to contact all of the students who tried out. reschedule try-outs and remake these decisions. This can hardly be considered enough of a harm to counter-balance the harm to the intervenors. In contrast. the public interest will be best served by enjoining the district and enforcing the defendant's desegregation plan. The public interest is best served when the public seesactivities. In addition, the ability to improve is built into the process through the school's participation in summer training camps for their cheerleading squads. Furthermore, the District has committed to a yearly \"analysis of participation data. The responsibility is that of the Assistant Superintendents, the Associate Superintendent for Desegregation and the Manager for Support Services. These monitoring activities must occur in timely fashion so that they can be translated into corrective policies throughout the school year. Yet, nothing has been said or done by the administration to address the miscarriage of the district's obligations in regard to the extra-curricular activities complained of herein\nnot even a response to the intervenors. The district has obligations in all of these areas pursuant to their own Desegregation Plan. There is little doubt that it has not met these obligations and that intervenors will secure the relief they seek. In contrast, there can be no injury to the defendants by enforcing their obligations under the settlement plans\nthey are already obliged to take these remedial steps. After providing the proper training to the staff and judges. the district will be obliged to contact all of the students who tried out. reschedule try-outs and remake these decisions. This can hardly be considered enough of a harm to counter-balance the harm to the intervenors. In contrast. the public interest will be best served by enjoining the district and enforcing the defendant's desegregation plan. The public interest is best served when the public seesfaithful adherence to the school's procedures and commitments to desegregation. CONCLUSION Wherefore, the LRSD has failed to meet it obligations to intervenors under the terms of the parties' settlement agreement and desegregation plans, and should be enjoined as intervenors have prayed for in the accompanying Motion for Preliminary Injunction. Respectfully submitted, JOHN W. WALKER, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR (501) 374-3758 72206 John W. Walker, Bar No. 64046 -2^ ), U i-1 Mark Burnette, Bar No. 88078 ? / O '222 !2:2. 1122 Wiley A. 'Brailton, Jr. Bar No-/ 90053 Norman Chachkin, Esq. NAACP Legal Defense Fund 99 Hudson Street Mew York, New York (202) 212-1900 10013CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing has been mailed, postage prepaid to the counsel of record listed below on this 'O / day of /t't 19 J Christopher Heller, Esq. Friday, Eldredge \u0026amp; Clark 2000 First Commercial Building Little Rock, AR 72201 Sam Jones, Esq. Wright, Lindsey \u0026amp; Jennings 2200 Worthen Bank Building Little Rock, AR 72201 Steve Jones, Esq. Jack, Lyon \u0026amp; Jones, P.A. 3400 Capitol Towers Capitol \u0026amp; Broadway Streets Little Rock, AR 72201 Richard Roachell, Esq. #15 Hickory Creek Drive Little Rock, AR 72212 Mark Burnettefaithful adherence to the school's procedures and commitments to desegregation. CONCLUSION Wherefore, the LRSD has failed to meet it obligations to intervenors under the terms of the parties' settlement agreement and desegregation plans, and should be enjoined as intervenors have prayed for in the accompanying Motion for Preliminary Injunction. Respectfully submitted, JOHN W. WALKER, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR (501) 374-3758 72206 John W. Walker, Bar No. 64046 / // t' Mark Burnette, Bar No. 88078 Wiley A. Brarfton, Jr. Bar No-/ 90053 Norman Chachkin, Esq. NAACP Legal Defense Fund 99 Hudson Street New York, New York (202) 212-1900 10013\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_460","title":"Funding","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":["1990/2002"],"dcterms_description":null,"dc_format":["application/pdf"],"dcterms_identifier":null,"dcterms_language":["eng"],"dcterms_publisher":["Little Rock, Ark. : Butler Center for Arkansas Studies. Central Arkansas Library System."],"dc_relation":null,"dc_right":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC-EDU/1.0/"],"dcterms_is_part_of":["Office of Desegregation Monitoring records (BC.MSS.08.37)","History of Segregation and Integration of Arkansas's Educational System"],"dcterms_subject":["Little Rock (Ark.)--History--20th century","Little Rock School District","Education--Arkansas","Educational planning","Education--Finance","School management and organization"],"dcterms_title":["Funding"],"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/460"],"dcterms_temporal":null,"dcterms_rights_holder":null,"dcterms_bibliographic_citation":null,"dlg_local_right":null,"dcterms_medium":["documents (object genre)"],"dcterms_extent":null,"dlg_subject_personal":null,"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":"\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n\n\n\n   \n\n\n\n\n   \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n  \n\nLITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT CASH FLOW PROJECTIONS 1969-90 TOTAL OPERA TING MAGNET SCHOOLS SPECIAL REVENUE DESEG CASH BALANCE '\"vV' CASH IN BANK 11-30-S9 (936,373) 262,431 (7,197,235) (1,668,709) DECEMBER 1989 REVENUES LINE/LOAN REPAYMENTS LOANS TO BE REPAYED EXPENDITURES 28,479,985 (14,325.000) (2,225,432) (10,019,763) 1.637,325 0 0 (860.000) 350,662 0 0 (245,000) (630.000) JANUARY 1990 REVENUES EXPENDITURES 30,467,972 (14,325,000) (2,225,432) (11,754,763) 494,068 3,490,197 (6.390,000) 521,312 (900.000) 350,000 (250.000) (800.000) FEBRUARY 1990 REVENUES EXPENDITURES 4,361.509 (8,340,000) (3,484,423) # 3,207,546 (10,802,411) 521,312 (1,400,000) 350,000 (350,000) (1,050.000) MARCH 1990 REVENUES EXPENDITURES 4,078,858 (13,602,411) (13,007,976) 30 (7,856,013) 2,167,812 (1,100,000) 350,000 (300.000) (800,000) APRIL 1990 REVENUES EXPENDITURES 7,693,942 (10.056,013) (15,370,047) 5,559,379 (6,740,000) 521,312 (1.100,000) 350,000 (300,000) (800.000) MAY 1990 REVENUES EXPENDITURES 6,430,691 (8,940,000) (17,879,356) 4,503,612 (12,135,192) 521,312 (2,300,000) 350,000 (550,000) (1,300,000) JUNE 1990 REVENUES EXPENDITURES 5,374,924 (16,285,192) (28,789,624) 10.871,351 (10,127,870) * 3,906,018 (1,200,030) 368,580 (500,000) (1,188,684) 15.145,949 (13,016,584) (13,131,013) 0 236,673 (13,765,919) (26,660,259) - Net of accrual of $5,000,000 for 40*70 pullback. Collection expected after 6/30. # - Interfund borrowings of $4,175,000 are available.* LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT CASH FLOW PROJECTIONS 1989-90 TOTA L OPERATING MAGNET SCHOOLS SPECIAL REVENUE DESEG CASH BALANCE ul CASH IN BANK 11-30-89 6.202.468 (936,373) 262,431 (7,197,235) (1.668,709) DECEMBER 1989 REVENUES LINE/LOAN REPAYMENTS LOANS TO BE REPAYED EXPENDITURES 28,479,985 (14.325,000) ' (2,225,432) (10.019.763) 1,637,325 0 0 (860.000) 350.662 0 0 (245.000) (630,000) JANUARY 1990 REVENUES EXPENDITURES 30,467,972 (14.325,000) (2,225,432) (11,754,763) 494,068 3,490,197 (6,390.000) 521,312 (900.000) 350,000 (250,000) (800.000) FEBRUARY 1990 REVENUES EXPENDITURES 4,361,509 (8.340,000) (3,484,423) # 3,207,546 (10.802.411) 521,312 (1,400,000) 350,000 (350,000) MARCH 1990 REVENUES SETTLEMENT PROCEEDS EXPENDITURES 5,176,130 2,167,312 350,000 (7,856,013) (1,100,000) (300,000) APRIL 1990 REVENUES LOAN PROCEEDS EXPENDITURES 5,559,379 (6,740,000) 521.312 350,000 (1,100,000) (300,000) 9.950.000 ' (800,000) 6.000.000 . (800,000) 4,078,858 (13.602.411) (13,007,976) (1,050.000) 9.950,000 (10,056,013) (5,420.047) 50,691 6.000.000 (8,940,000) (1,929,356) MAY 1990 REVENUES EXPENDITURES 4,503,612 (12.135,192) 521,312 (2.300,000) 350,000 (550,000) (1,300.000) JUNE 1990 REVENUES EXPENDITURES 5,374,924 (16.285,192) (12,839,624) (^ 10,871.351 (10,127,870) 3.906,018 (1,200,030) 368.580 (500,000) (1,188,684) 15.145,949 (13.016,584) (13.131,013) 0 236,673 2,184,081 (10,710,259) * - Net of accrual of 15,000.000 for 40Vo pullback. Collection expected after 6/30. # - Interfund borrowings of f4,1 75.000 are available. @ - Interfund borrowings of up to $10.175.000 are available if bond restructuring is approved. CASH W BANK 11-30-89 DECEMBER 1989 REVENUES LINE/LOAN REPAYMENTS LOANS TO BE REPAYED EXPENDITURES JANUARY 1990 REVENUES EXPENDITURES FEBRUARY 1990 REVENUES EXPENDITURES MARCH 1990 REVENUES EXPENDITURES APRIL 1990 REVENUES EXPENDITURES MAY 1990 REVENUES EXPENDITURES JUNE 1990 REVENUES EXPENDITURES LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT CASH FLOW PROJECTIONS 1989-90 TOTAL OPERA TING MAGNET SCHOOLS SPECIAL REVENUE DESEG CASH BALANCE ^,202, (336.373} 262,431 (7,197,235) (1,668,709) 28.479,985 (14.325.000) (2,225,432) (10,019.763) 3,490,1 97 (6.390.000) 3,207,546 (10,802.411) 5,176,130 (7,856.013) 5,559,379 (6,740,000) 4,503,612 (12,135,192) 10,871.351 (10,127.870) (13,131,013) * - Net of accrual of $5,000,000 for 40Vo pullback. Collection expected after 6/30. # - Inierfund borrowings of $4.175.000 are available. 1.637,325 0 0 (860,000) 521,312 (900.000) 521,312 (1.400,000) 2.167,812 (1.100.000) 521,312 (1,100,000) 521,312 (2,300.000) 3,906,018 (1,200,030) 0 350.662 0 0 (245.000) (630,000) 30,467,972 (14.325,000) (2,225,432) (11.754.763) 494,068 350,000 (250,000) (800.000) 4,361,509 (8,340,000) (3,484,423) # 350,000 (350.000) (300.000) 350,000 (300.000) 350,000 (550,000) 368.580 (500.000) 236,673 (1,050.000) 4,078,858 (13.602.411) (13,007,976) (800,000) (800.000) (1,30G,Q0Q} (1,188,684) (13,765,919) 7,693.942 (10.056,013) (15,370,047) 6,430,691 (8.940.000) (17,879,356) 5,374,924 (16,285,192) (28,789,624) 15,145.949 (13,016,584) (26,660,259)LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT CASH FLOW PROJECTIONS 1989-90 TOTAL OPERATING MAGNET SCHOOLS SPECIAL REVENUE DSG CASH BALANCE CASH /H BANK 11-30-B9 (936,373) 262,431 (7,197,235) (1.668,709) DECEMBER 1989 REVENUES LINE/LOAN REPAYMENTS LOANS TO BE REPAYED EXPENDITURES 28,479,985 (14.325,000) ' (2,225,432) (10.019,763) 1,637,32p 0 0 (860,000) 350.662 0 0 (245.000) (630,000) JANUARY 1990 REVENUES EXPENDITURES 30,467,972 (14.325.000) (2,225,432) (11,754,763) 494,068 3,490,197 (6,390,000) 521,312 (900,000) 350,000 (250,000) (800.000) FEBRUARY 1990 REVENUES EXPENDITURES 4,361,509 (8,340,000) (3,484,423) # 3,207,546 (10,802.411) 521.312 (1,400,000) 350,000 (350,000) (1,050,000) MARCH 1990 REVENUES SETTLEMENT PROCEEDS EXPENDITURES 4,078,858 (13.602,411) (13,007,976) 5,176,130 2,167,812 350,000 (7,856,013) (1,100,000) (300,000) 9.950.000 (800,000) APRIL 1990 REVENUES LOAN PROCEEDS EXPENDITURES 7,92,3^2 9.950.000 (10.056,013) (5,420.047) 5,559,379 (6,740,000) 521,312 350,000 (1.100,000) (300,000) 6.000.000 (800,000) 6.430,691 6.000.000 (8,940,000) (1,929,356) REVENUES EXPENDITURES 4,503,612 (12.135,192) 521,312 (2,300,000) 350,000 (550,000) (1,300.000) JUNE 1990 REVENUES EXPENDITURES 5,374,924 (16,285.192) (12,839,624) @ 10,871.351 (10,127,870) 3,906,018 (1,200,030) 368.580 (500,000) (1,188,684) 15.145.949 (13.016,584) (13,131,013) 0 236,673 2,184,081 (10,710,259) * - Net of accrual of $5,000,000 for 40% pullback. Collection expected after 6/30. # - Inlerfund borrowings of $4.1 75.000 are available. @ - Interfund borrowings of up to $10.1 75.000 are available if bond restructuring is approved.CASH /N BANK t1-30~S9 DECEMBER 1989 REVENUES LINE/LOAN REPAYMENTS LOANS TO BE REPAYED EXPENDITURES JANUARY 1990 REVENUES EXPENDITURES FEBRUARY 1990 REVENUES EXPENDITURES MARCH 1990 REVENUES EXPENDITURES APRIL 1990 REVENUES EXPENDITURES MAY 1990 REVENUES EXPENDITURES JUNE 1990 REVENUES EXPENDITURES LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT CASH FLOW PROJECTIONS 1989-90 total OPERATING MAGNET SCHOOLS SPECIAL REVENUE DESEC^ CASH BALANCE 6,202,468 (936,373) 262.431 (7,197,235) (1.668,709) (14.325.000) (2,225,432) (10,019.763) 3,490,197 (6,390.000) 3,207,546 (10,802.411) 5,176,130 (7,856,013) 5,559,379 (6,740,000) 4,503,612 (12.135,192) 10.871.351 (10,127,870) (13,131,013) * - Net of accrual of $5,000,000 for 40Vo pullback. Collection expected after 6/30. # - Interfund borrowings of $4,175,000 are available. 1.637,325 0 0 (860,000) 350,662 0 0 (245.000) (630.000) 30,467,972 (14.325.000) (2,225,432) (11,754.763) 494,068 521,312 (900.000) 350,000 (250.000) (800,000) 4,361,509 (8,340.000) (3,484,423) # 521,312 (1.400,000) 2.167,812 (1.100.000) 521,312 (1.100.000) 521,312 (2,300.000) 3,906,018 (1,200,030) 0 350,000 (350.000) 350,000 (300.000) 350,000 (300,000) 350,000 (550,000) 268.580 (500.000) 236,673 (1,050.000) 4,078,858 (13.602,411) (13,007,976) (800,000) (800,000) (1,300,000) (1,188,684) (13,765.919) 7,693,942 (10.056.013) (15,370,047) 6,430,691 (8.940.000) (17,879,356) 5,374,924 (16,285,192) (28,789,624) 15.145.949 (13,016,584) (26,660.259)LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT CASH FLOW PROJECTIONS 1969-90 rCTzIZ. OPERA TING MAGNET SCHOOLS SPECIAL REVENUE oesEfS CASH BALANCE CASH IN BANK 11-3C-89 (936,373) 262,431 (7,197.235) (1.660,709) DECEMBER 1989 REVENUES LINE/LOAN REPAYMENTS LOANS TO BE REPAYED EXPENDITURES 28,479,905 (14.325,000) ' (2,225,432) (10,019.763) 1,637,325 0 0 (860.000) 350,662 0 0 (245.000) (630,000) JANUARY 1990 REVENUES EXPENDITURES 30,467,972 (14.325.000) (2,225,432) (11,754.763) 494,068 3.490,197 (6,390.000) 521,312 (900,000) 350,000 (250,000) (800.000) FEBRUARY 1990 REVENUES EXPENDITURES 4,361.509 (8340.000) (3,484,423) # 3,207,546 (10,802.411) 521,312 (1,400,000) 350,000 (350,000) (1,050,000) MARCH 1990 REVENUES SETTLEMENT PROCEEDS EXPENDITURES 4,078,858 (13.602.411) (13,007,976) 5.176,130 2,167,012 350,000 (7,856,013) (1,100,000) (300,000) 9.950.000 (800,000) APRIL 1990 REVENUES LOAN PROCEEDS EXPENDITURES 7,693,942 9.950.000 (10,056,013) (5,420,047) 5.559.379 (6,740,000) 521,312 350,000 (1,100,000) (300,000) 6.000.000 (800,000) MAY 1990 REVENUES EXPENDITURES 6.430,691 6.000.000 (8,940,000) (1.929.356) 4,503,612 (12,135.192) 521,312 (2,300,000) 350,000 (550,000) (1.300.000) JUNE 1990 REVENUES EXPENDITURES 5,374,924 (16.285.192) (12,839,624)  10.871.351 (10,127.870) 3.906.018 (1,200,030) 368.580 (500,000) (1,188,684) 15.145.949 (13.016,584) (13,131,013) 0 236,673 2,184,081 (10.710,259) * - Net of accrual of $5,000,000 for 40% pullback. Collection expected after 6/30.  - Interfund borrowings of t4.175.000 are available. @ - Interfund borrowings of up to $10.1 75.000 are available if bond restructuring is approved.LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT DESEGREGATION EXPENSES - 7/1/88 - 1/31/90 FUND 13 7/1/88 - 6/30/89 7/1/89 - 1/31/90 HOMEWORK CENTERS EARLY CHILDHOOD EDUCATION FACILITIES OPERATIONS INTEREST LINE OF CREDIT PAL ENHANCEMENT SCHOOLS EXTENDED DAY CARE CURRICULUM DEVELOPMENT, STUDENT RECRUITMENT/ASSIGNMENT, EVALUATION 57,658.93 271,815.65 328,291.15 399,080.47 2,439,757.44 1,479,821.58 62,618.94 323,921.47 61,056.85 275,891.77 122,870.22 385,936.13 1,715,611.31 537,126.93 491,450.41 STUDENT DATA SYSTEMS VIPS/PARTNERS IN EDUCATION MINORITY TEACHER RECRUITMENT TOTAL 58,659.52 37,576.51 11,867.33 5,471,068.99 10,520.50 23,774.04 17,395.18 3,641,633.34 SETTLEMENT PROCEEDS RECEIVED 2-6-90 LESS MFPA PROTECTION NET AVAILABLE TO DESEG 9,950,000.00 FUND 13 EXPENDITURES 7/1/88 THRU 6/30/89 EXPENDITURES 7/1/89 THRU 1/31/90 EXPENDITURES CHARGED IN EXCESS OF PAYMENTS (5,471,068.99 (3,641,633.34) ^PROGRAM WILL BE CHARGED IN FEBRUARY FOR COSTS INCURRED TO DATEr-- Little Rock School District To: From: Subject: March 21, 1990 Office of Metropolitan Supervisor - Finance Committee Ruth S. Steele, Superintendent of Schools Request for Determination on Allowable Desegregation Costs eCES\"' WR 2 1 3 In keeping with efforts to ensure that desegregation funds are used in an appropriate way, the Little Rock School District (LRSD) submits for your consideration the following expenditure estimates for planned desegregation activities: 1. CurriculumAudit -- A description of this activity, as written in the January 2, 1990 Trl-Dlstrlct Desegregation Plan Is enclosed as Exhibit I. Current estimates on the cost for this activity are $5,000 for 1990-91 and $50,000 for 1991-92. Original cost estimates provided by LRSD for the curriculum audit were $5,000 for 1990-91 and $100,000 for 1991-92. It is our belief that the curriculum audit should be accomplished during the first semester of the 1990-91 school year to provide maximum effectiveness in the development of plans for reducing disparity in the academic achievement of students. Further, we believe that It would be beneficial to have advanced training in the 1989-90 school school year for two or more staff members who will serve on the internal audit team. This approach will permit members of the internal audit team to become familiar with the audit process and thus enable preparation of Information for use by the external audit team. 2. Twg-Run Bus SysteiR -- Exhibit II provides details on changing from a three-run to a two-run bus system. At this time, it is estimated that the annual cost for this part of the Desegregation Plan will be $600,000 for 1990-91 plus increases 810 West Markham Street Little Rock, Arkansas 72201  (501)374-3361 of three percent for the next four years of the capital lease payment period. Revised costs estimates will be provided no later than the end of the five year payment period. We have been advised that an order for new buses should be placed no later than April 2, 1990 to ensure delivery for the beginning of the 1990-91 school year. 3. Dunbar lujilsx.High SchQflX facilities -- Information on Magnet Schools and Programs required by the Tri-Dlstrict Desegregation Plan is enclosed as Exhibit III. According to the Plan, Dunbar Junior High School will open in the fall of 1990 as an Interdistrict Magnet School for International Studies and for Gifted and Talented Education. A joint planning committee has de- veloped recommendations on facilities renovations that would be appropriate to the themes at Dunbar and would enhance recruitment of students to the new Interdistrict Magnet School. Cost estimates for initial renovations at Dunbar are enclosed as Exhibit IV. We are seeking approval on the described renovations at this time so that work might proceed on schedule. Additional estimates will be submitted as planning continues on Dunbar.From\nTri-District Desegregation Plan - January 2, 1990 Exhibit I INFORMATION ON CURRICULUM AUDIT These recommendations are made in addition to the ones proposed by the districts. The individual district plans follow. PLANS FOR REDUCING DISPARITY\nLITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT The Little Rock School District has identified three problems related to equity in the academic achievement of its students. First, disparity continues between black and white achievement, as evidenced by grades and standardized tests. Second, black and white students are disproportionately represented in certain classes, programs, and activities. And third. the level of learning expected from students often varies according to a student's race. These problems will be addressed in the following ways: Problem One\nDisparity in Educational Achievement Despite years of awareness of the problem and numerous attempts to combat it, the disparity in educational achievement between black and white students continues, worsening as students move from grade to grade. The Little Rock School District will develop the following programs to address this problem. Five-Year Program Review\nThe district will immediately develop a five-year schedule for the review of all courses and including incentive programs, and magnet schools. to determine whether their content is sufficiently challenging, students. relevant, and enriching to all 5Curriculum Audit\nThe Little Rock School District will conduct a \"curriculum audit\" of instructional programs and services during the next schedule, five years according to a prearranged in order to assess their effectiveness for all students. Programs to be audited include, but are not limited to: Art Chapter 1 Reading and Math Drug Education Foreign Languages Four-Year-Old Program Gifted and Talented Education Guidance and Counseling Homework Centers Kindergarten Language Arts Learning Lab Library-Media Mathematics Music Physical Education, Health, and Nutrition Education Program for Accelerated Learning (PAL) Reading Science Social Studies Special Education Vocational Education The first programs to be audited will include Chapter 1 Reading and Math, Guidance and Counseling, PAL Learning Lab, and Foreign Languages. The purpose of the review will be to determine whether programs need to be modified to increase their educational value to students. In some cases programs may need to be eliminated or drastically changed. Review of Multiethnic Curriculum Guides: Curriculum supervisors will be required to review the use of the multiethnic curriculum guides in order to propose necessary revisions and modifications. This review will be done yearly so that problems which become apparent can be quickly resolved. Instructional District will Management\nseek The Little Rock School assistance Instructional Management System in for establishing an Technology now exists that can analyze every a student. student's learning style and achievement level, predict success or failure in school based on certain factors, and prescribe the necessary interventions in a timely manner. The 6district will immediately engage experts in instructional technology to devise such a system. It should be noted that this approach is intended to benefit the successful as well as the unsuccessful student. The district will attempt to have this program in place by 1991-92. Problem Two: Disproportionate Representation in Programs The disproportion representation of blacks and whites is not a problem that can be addressed by simplistic solutions such as quotas or percentages, which are often humiliating and frustrating to students. All students, both the gifted and the low-achieving. must be provided every opportunity to excel, contribute, produce. and be challenged in school. A necessary precondition for this to occur is a strong basic education for all students beginning with kindergarten or before, and enrichment for disadvantaged children so they can compete with the more advantaged without losing ground over the years. Enrichment activities include additional or extended homework centers, summer learning programs, Saturday classes, extended day programs, academic incentive programs, and tutorial services. In schools that lack these programs, the district will allocate funds to establish at least one such program in each school. Principals, teachers, and guidance counselors can positively affect this problem. However, Boards of Education and administrators must support their efforts and insist on optimum learning opportunities for all students. The extent to which staff development can assist teachers and administrators in dealing with this problem will be discussed in the staff development section of this plan. 7F rom Tri-District Desegregation Plan January 2, 1990 Exhibit II DETAILS ON TWO-RUN BUS SYSTEM student Assignment Appeals Committee\nThe Appeals Committee will consist of one representative from each of the following organizations: the Biracial Advisory Committee the PTA Council the Little Rock Classroom Teachers Association The Appeals Committee will also include two members at-large appointed by the Board of Directors, and one ex-officio member (an administrator) appointed by the Superintendent. The Appeals Committee will meet once each month to hear appeals. It will review only the following types of appeals: geographic isolation racial isolation --medical hardship --extenuating circumstances (as defined by the parent) Transportation\nFor the 1989-90 school year, the Little Rock School District is using a three-run bus system with schools opening on the first run at 7:55 a.m., on the second run at 8:50 a.m., and on the third run at 9:40 a.m. For the 1990-91 school year, the Little Rock School District will use a two-run bus system with the first-run schools opening at 8 a.m. and the second-run schools opening at 8:50 a.m. The Little Rock School District will also attempt to have all 17elementary schools on the first run and all secondary schools on the second run. In order to move from a three-run to a two-run bus system, the Little Rock School District will need to acquire approximately forty additional buses before the 1990-91 school year and plan to replace approximately 15 to 20 buses per year, beginning in 1991-92 . Financing these purchases with capital leases should reduce the first-year impact on the budget. In addition. the two-run system will require approximately thirty additional drivers and two route supervisors. 18From: Exhibit III Tri-District Desegregation Plan - January 2, 1990 INFORMATION ON MAGNET SCHOOLS AND PROGRAMS PROPOSED INTERDISTRICT MAGNET SCHOOLS AND PROGRAMS 1990-91 1. Washington Basic Skills/ Math and Science Magnet Grades Pre K-6 2. Dunbar International Studies/ Gifted and Talented Magnet Grades 7-9 3. Central High International Studies Interdistrict Program Grades 10-12 4. Rockefeller Cooperative Early Childhood Education Demonstration Magnet Grades Pre K-6 1991-92 1. University Laboratory Magnet Grades Pre K-9 2. Franklin Early Childhood Environmental Science/Basic Skills Magnet Grades Pre K-6 3. Romine Gifted and Talented/ Basic Skills Magnet Grades Pre K-6 Aerospace/Technology Pre-Engineering Magnet Grades 7-12 1992-93 1. Business/Communications Magnet Grades 7-12 2. Environmental Sciences/Zoo Magnet Grades 7-9 3. Garland Montessori Magnet Grades Pre K-6 4 . 1993-94 1. MacArthur Park Science/Natural History/Arts Magnet Grades Pre K-6 8DESCRIPTION OF INTERDISTRICT MAGNET SCHOOLS AND PROGRAMS There will be twelve additional interdistrict magnet schools in the Little Rock School District, with student ratios of 55-60 percent black and 40-45 percent white, and one, Central High School, that will be a limited interdistrict school. The 55-60 ratios will be implemented in the initial grades at the six existing magnets. There will be one interdistrict magnet school in the Pulaski County Special School District, and one. Oak Grove Jr./Sr. High School, that will provide an interdistrict program. Student ratios will be set at the maximums allowed by the court. Some funding for the interdistrict magnets will be through majority-to- minority transfers. The themes of every school will be further discussed and reviewed with parents for possible modification. LITTLE ROCK INTERDISTRICT MAGNET SCHOOLS Washington Basi Skills/Math/Science (Pre K-6) This school will open in 1990-91 for students who learn well in a highly-structured setting\nwho are motivated by academic. physical, and social competition\nand who are interested in math and science. 9Dunbar International Studies/Gifted and Talented (7-9) Dunbar Junior High School will open in the fall of 1990 as an Interdistrict Magnet School for International Studies and for Gifted and Talented Education. A joint planning committee of area businesses, school administrators from the three districts, staff. and parents will be formed to supplement present plans developed by the district. They will start Feb. 1, 1990, to develop international studies programs for both Dunbar Junior and Central High Schools. A pledge of cooperation and support has been secured from the Greater Little Rock Chamber of Commerce and from Arkansas-based businesses interested in seeing the schools of Arkansas succeed. Those area businesses include Systematics Inc., Stephens Inc., Jacuzzi, Maybelline, Timex, Orbit Valve, and TCBY. Other businesses will be approached to seek their assistance in this process. These corporations have significant international business interests. Central High School (10-12) A limited interdistrict magnet program will be offered at Central High School. Approximately 175 seats will be opened to students from North Little Rock, Pulaski County, and other neighboring districts at the beginning of the 1990-91 school year. Other seats will be made available to any student on a space available basis and in compliance with desegregation limits. The program will be developed around a theme of international studies 10TO: ER ON: Exhibit IV COST ESTIMATES FOR DUNBAR RENOVATIONS LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT PLANT SERVICES 3601 South Bryant Street Little Rock, AR. 72204 Bob Robertson, Principal, Dunbar Junior High School Vernon E. Smith, Construction Manager THROUGH: Doug Kendall, Director of Plant Services DATE: March, 14, 1990 SUBJECT: receivec MAh 1990 SERVICES Proposed Renovations to Dunbar Junior High School The following is an estimated cost for proposed renovations of carpeting, windows, and grounds, cosmetic improvements to the building, and materials to complete the job. DESCRIPTION ESTIMATED COST Carpet and Pad Removal Sta and Replacement Curtains (16,348 sq. ft.) Lighting in Auditorium Auditorium P.A. System Main Intercom System (Console Cmly) Electrical (Computer Room) Seif Sufficient Air Handler (B-5) Masonary Cleaning Window Replacement (Clear Plexiglass) Parking Lots (New) Asphalt Drive for Bus Drop Off Sidewalk Repairs Basket Ball Courts . Goals Landscaping Removal of Two (2) Existing Flagpoles From Old Carver \u0026amp; Gilliam and installation at Dunbar Junior High (Completion Date, April 15, 1990) $ 15,000.00 3,707.60 3,882.00 1,200.00 2,500.00 1,250.00 5,500.00 ,090.00 30,720.00 14,775.00 4,599.41 1,500.00 3,500.00 8,725.00 1,500.00 Sub Total Contingency, Fees, Permits, etc. (10%) Total $101,449.01 10,144.90 $111,593.91 Chip Jones LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT PLANT SERVICES 3601 South Bryant Street Little Rock, AR. 72204 TO: Jackie Boykin, Director of Food Services FROM: Vernon E. Smith, Construction Manager THROUGH: Doug Kendall, Director of Plant Services DATE: March 12, 1990 SUBJECT: Renovation of Dunbar Jr. High Kitchen The following is an estimated cost for proposed renovations to the Kitchen at Dunbar Jr. High School, and items required to complete the job. DESCRIPTION ESTIMATED COST Partition Walls Exhaust Fan and Duct System For New Dishwasher Hot Water Heater \u0026amp; Booster Security Gate (Steel) Electrical Pantry (Wall Removal \u0026amp; Build New Shelves) $2,358.00 1,517.00 1,700.00 1,950.00 425.00 585.00 Tota 1 $8,555.00 u cc: Bob Robertson Chip Jones \\, ' i To: From: Subject: t 0^. Little Rock School District April 3, 1990 Office of Metropolitan Supervisor - Finance Committee 0^ AJ'td Ruth S. Steele, Superintendent Request for Determination on Allowable Desegregation Costs The Little Rock School District (LRSD) submits the following expenditure estimates on planned desegregation activities for your consideration and approval as allowable desegregation expenditures: 1. QjLl-Se o.f..Safety, and SecurityExhibit I summarizes the recommendations made in the TriDistrict Desegregation Plan relative to establishing an Office of Safety and Security. The LRSD requests authorization to establish this office for the 1990-91 school year at a cost of $850,000 per year plus annual increases of approximately three percent (3%) for ongoing maintenance and operations expenses. In addition, approval is requested for a one-time capital improvements expenditure of $100,000 for renovation and modification of the former LRSD Transportation building located at 21st and Barber Streets so that this facility might be used as headquarters for the Office of Safety and Security. 2. PAtkvlew^ScJe-nce j^^gn.ei_Sc II is a description of the science magnet program which was initiated in 1989-90 in accordance with Volume I of the LRSD Desegregation Plan dated January 31, 1989. Implementation costs for the second year of the program are estimated at $180,000 for one-time facilities expansion/im- provement and $70,000 per year for personnel costs. 810 West Markham Street Little Rock, Arkansas 72201  (501)374-3361It is respectfully requested that a decision be given on these requests by April 16, 1990 so that necessary actions can be taken on a schedule that will enable programs to be in place by the beginning of the 1990-91 school year. RSSznr Encl. Exhibit I - Security Exhibit II - Parkview Science Magnet SchoolExhibit I - Tri District Desenregation Plan - January 2, 1990 SECURITY SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATIONS In the many meetings and forums held throughout Little Rock and Pulaski County last fall, a recurring theme was the concern of parents, black and white, about school safety and security. These themes involved apprehension about the safety of children in and around schools, and with black parents and community members. concern about the disproportionate numbers of black students suspended and expelled, particularly black male students. School programs in desegregated settings will suffer greatly if positive discipline policies aren't consistently and equitably enforced. Parents and community members must be involved in the preparation of programs to deal with this important problem. involving human relations, prejudice reduction, Staff development and discipline is an essential element of any program. The districts have included in their plans excellent suggestions regarding codes of conduct, security forces, and parent and community involvement. These plans must go forward in addition to recommendations contained in this report. The school principal is the key to this effort. School principals must be concerned about the safety of children in and around schools, and their leadership is essential in providing a safe school environment for children. For this reason, selection of school principals, inservice training in the area of discipline 14 . Establish a school-based student attendance incentive system at each school. discipline and 5. Activate discipline/attendance intervention teams at schools. Mandate that the pupil services team will do monitoring and involve the counselor with students who have discipline/attendance problems. 6. Involve parents in the team process children through meetings/conferences. regarding their 7 . Establish discipline-review committee and sub-committees to include principals, staff, patrons, students, and at least one Board member to review discipline data and recommend modifications to ensure equity of policies and policy administration. The committee will be involved in the process of analysis of data and planning for reducing disparities in discipline. 8. Appoint a joint committee with Pulaski County Special School District and North Little Rock School District to coordinate discipline policies. 9. Put in place alternatives to suspension across the district with at least one such intervention to be placed at each school. Safety and Security To parents whose children may be attending school in a part of the community that is unfamiliar to them, the issue of safety and security is extremely important. The Little Rock School District Board of Directors is determined to have safe, secure schools for children. Therefore, the following are proposed: 1. Establish an Office of Safety and Security with a coordinator and approximately thirty safety supervisors who will patrol campuses. follow and/or ride school buses, and perform other duties intended to protect the safety and security of school children. Salaries for safety supervisors will be in the $20,000 range. 2. Establish by 1990-91 a two-run bus system. thus eliminating a system requiring junior high students to begin their school day at 9:40 a.m. 12Exhibit II - Little Rock School District Proposed Desegregation Plan - January 31, 1989 PARKVIEW SCIENCE MAGNET SCHOOL Overview Parkview became \u0026lt;  ' 1987-88 school year, arts, drama, and dance interdistrict^ Fine Arts Magnet School A specialized curriculum in music,  - --------- is part of the magnet program, the fine arts program has attracted for the 1988-89 school year. for the visual Although lot me 19HH flQ approximately 815 students students sho?J nF school plant is still over 150 students short of capacity. m anticipation remaining undercapacity in the future and to ror students graduating Magnet Schools, of the facility _ -- provide continuity Magnet Schools, the crB'atJ^of - Math/Science and Arts Sver'^a thr.l'?' PrPaed. The program will bo phased in d':^t^-iS\"^i B A V4iir--ber-o? te^n^h'^grZd^':?^! ith\\\"^i 1^enro^lett ^7 stSlnrs^ ror three a science magnet school to be The . . tenth grade students A similar number of tenth grade stu- paK i-T.-n =n,A i.:____ _ 7, Parkview Science Magnet School has the following goals: 1. To provide a science curriculum that exceeds the science program in depth and breadth. regular 2. To increase that is student understanding in the science content rnnrco  pre-professional course of study in medicine or health. or technical 3 . MU, and 4 . To develop skills in information cessing, statistical analysis. in acquisition, p and technical writing. pro- 5. RSssiaTtTfh^^ foreign language offerings by adding Kussian to the curriculum. 6. opportunities for students to interact with heaithp^f professionals through field trips to the ^^^~science site, guest presentations ah Fho 1 u6 f And 4. u presentations at the school fessionals. \" shadowing of the health-science pro- Program Design The Science Magnet specialty science Program will combine the District's high tech courses with a magnet curriculum that will pare students Fnr an ------- - uutLxuuium mac will premajor in the area of ^aduate or technical exceU^^t pro^^rd^erV'^'tTsV ou^ major stumbling of Arkansas at organic chemistry were identified would an undergraduate pre-professional rea of medicine and health. of undergraduat blocks. Little Rock, After e programs because of a few consulting with the University micfoblology 3nd  i ^116as courses with traditionally high failure rates in undergraduate health-science programs. ' ' * Students fail these courses because of a lack of mastery of the prerequisite content and skills. magnet program will serve to strengthen the students' and skills in these and other critical areas. The knowledge A. Organizational Structure/Operations Parkview Science Magnet School will be phased in over a three year period of time.  In 1989-90 one hundred to one hundred and fifty (100-150) student seats will be available for tenth grade. (100-150) In 1990-91 one hundred to one hundred and fifty student seats will be added to eleventh grade to accommodate the rising tenth grade students. A similar number of seats will be added for twelfth grade in 1991-1992, bringing the total capacity to 300-450. The exact total capacity will complement the enrollment figures/projections for the Fine Arts Magnet program. The seven period day currently in place at Parkview will need to continue to allow students the time to take the specialty courses in the curriculum. The Science Magnet School will utilize the administrative team and teaching staff that already Magnet School. A part time Russian teacher will be the only additional staff member needed for the 1988-89 school term. In an additional science teacher and Technical Writing teacher will be needed. serve the Fine Arts B. 1989-90 a part time , , - ------------ Additional staff requests beyond 1989-90 will be based upon enrollment. The Parkview Science Magnet School will work cooperatively with the University of Arkansas at Little Rock College of Sciences and the University of Arkansas for Medical Sciences to provide unique experiences for students. Both Universities have expressed a willingness to host student groups for special laboratory investigations and guest lectures at the University Campuses, and to send university personnel to the school site for special lectures and/or demonstrations. The Universitv of Arkanc^a-s for Medical experiences cooperatively ec- University Arkansas Sciences will provide some individual \"shadowing where a student follows and works with fessional for a period of time. ........ School staff will meet annually with personnel representing the College of Sciences at UALR and the University of Arkansas for Medical Sciences to plan specific activities and strategies for the upcoming school year. for II a health-care proParkview Science Magnet Curriculum Design/Course Offerings The Little kocx School District non-science senior high curriculum will be combined with the District's high tech a science component to form the program ot studies for Parkview Science Magnet School. Rock science courses and - _117The following program of study is required for high school graduation: Required Graduation Requirements (Grades 9-12) English (4 units) Social Studies (3 units) Mathematics and Science (5 units) Physical Education (1/2 unit) Health Education (1/2 unit) Vocational Education (1 unit) Fine Arts (1/2 unit) Computer Education The science magnet special course offerings are as follows: Biological Science 1. 2. 3. 4 . 5. Biolab (1 year) (existing District high tech course) Microbiology (1 semester) (new course) Human Anatomy and Physiology (1 semester) (new course) Environmental Health (1 semester) (new course) AP Biology (existing course) Physical Science 1. 2. 3 . 4 . Chemtech (1 year) (existing District high tech course) Qualitative Analysis (1 semester) (new course) Organic Chemistry (1 semester) (new course) Physics (1 year) (existing course with slight modifications to emphasize medicine and health applications) Mathematlcs/Sclence Skill Courses 1. 2. Applied Statistics (1 semester) (new course) Technical Writing (1 semester) (new course) (all are existing or proposed District courses) 1. 2. 3 . 4 . 5. Geometry (1 year) Algebra II (1 year) Advanced Algebra and Trigonometry (1 year) Calculus AB (1 year) Calculus BC (1 year) _ . 118Foreian Lancruaae 1. 2. 3 . Russian I, II (1 year) (new course) German I, II, III, IV (1 year) (existing course) Latin I, II, III (1 year) (existing course) Required and Elective Non-speciaItv Courses Non-specialty courses required for graduation and free elective courses will selected from the District's be full Program of Parkview High School Studies offered at Program Reouirements Biolab (1 year) required in the tenth grad Chemtech (1 year) required eleventh grade e in the tenth or Physics (1 year) required in the eleventh or twelfth grade Applied Statistics (1 semester) required in the eleventh or twelfth grade Technical Writing (1 semester) required in the eleventh or twelfth grade Two (2) semester electives must be chosen from Microbiology, Human Anatomy and Physiology and Environmental Health in grades 10-12, One (1) semester elective must be chosen from Qualitative Analysis and Organic Chemistry in grades 11-12. AP Biology may be elected grade. in the twelfth Two (2) years of foreign language must be chosen from either Russian, German, or Latin in grades 10-12. Mathematics must be taken each 10-12. year, grades All students will complete a science project each year. research All will complete a 3 hour shadowing\" of a health-science professional during the twelfth grade. students 3 The following sample schedules are for illustrative only: purposes 119Sample Schedule A Sample Schedule B Grade 10 {PE, Health, Vocational Education, and Algebra II were taken in the ninth grade) English 1. (PE, Health, Vocational Education were not taken in the ninth grade) 2 . 3 . 4 . 5. 6 . 7 . Social Studies Geometry Foreign Language Biolab Chemtech General Elective 1. 2. 3 . 4 . 5. 6 . 7 . English Social Studies Geometry PE/Health Vocational Biolab Foreign Language Grade 11 1. 2 . 3 . 4. 5. 6 . 1. English Social Studies Trigonometry and Advanced Algebra Qualitative Analysis/Fine Arts Survey Foreign Language Physics General Elective 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6 , 7 . English Social Studies Algebra II Fine Arts Survey/ Anatomy \u0026amp; Physiology Chemtech Applied Statistics/ Technical Writing General Elective Grade 12 1. 2. 3. 4 . 5. 6 . 7 . English Calculus Advanced Biology Anatomy and Physiology/ Environmental Health Applied Statistics/ Technical Writing General Elective General Elective 1. 2. 3. 4 . 5. 6. 7. English Advanced Algebra/ Trigonometry Foreign Language Physics Qualitative Analysis/Organic Chemistry Microbiology/ Environmental Health General Elective Staff Development The instructional staff will ment and staff^SivJi  participate in curriculum develop- ?hrouahout th^ activities during the summer of 1989 . to provide the staff w?tV^' inservice programs will be conducted also general insVruLVnnAl specific content and skills and , ,. instructional strateaies and 11 c +-h=.4- ___ strategies skills that will fad- 4.U J 7.--------.jutaucyxes ano SKll n\u0026amp;r.u the science curriculum. C\u0026lt;.iioulLai,vs -----------O will be used to assist with staff development. UALR and UAMS Consultants from Parent Involvement Parents and participating students understanding of the rules of the program^ designated PTA will sign a contract assuring Parent.: --- School and participation in the expected to attend a limited number of  1 meetings and other special events. a limited number of 120Physical Facilities Space will be needed in the year or me program tor use as Lnsiti^? house fragile instrumentation in science and will also  , , , . second year of the program for research laboratory/technical writing lab. _/  ------------ ww XIX O' house the computers needed for the technical writing course. Evaluation Evaluation for the science magnet school will be tied directlv to K?rvisit?h?'^\"\"- -5^ ''\"l^\"tlon plan includes (1) re^lar site visits by a moniuoring team from the District'Pv a 1 11 a+ 4 The evaluation plan includes f'   monitoring team from the District's Evaluation and Testing Department\n(2) a teacher questionnaire- f3 a stu (4) (2) a teacher questionnaire\nas academic records, trips, guest experiences. and a parent questionnaire\n(6) a review of pertinent documents such behavioral records, and records of field fairs, \"shadowing\" Information will be gathered. and (5) assessed throughout the school luation report will Directors. year and be presented annually reviewed, analyzed, a summative to the Board eva- of 121To: From: Subject: reccrae Little Rock School District April 19, 1990 Office of Metropolitan Supervisor - Finance Committee^^ Ruth S. Steele, Superintendent Request for Determination of Allowable Desegregation Costs (No. 3) The Tri-District Desegregation Plan provides for the hiring of at least one additional parent recruiter and one data entry operator for the Student Assignment Office of the Little Rock School District. Exhibit I describes duties that will be performed by these individuals. Estimated annual costs of salaries, benefits, and other expenses for the two positions will be in the range of $51,000 to $55,000. These personnel are needed immediately to accommodate implementation of the long-term student assignment plan. Your favorable consideration and approval of these costs as allowable desegregation expenses at the earliest practical date will be appreciated. RSS:nr Attachment: Exhibit I - Tri-District Desegregation Plan dated January 2, 1990 OJIlse. Student Assignment ,e 810 West Markham Street \u0026gt; * Little Rock, Arkansas 72201  (501)374-3361Exhibit I - Tri-District Desegregation Plan - January 2, 1990 Student Assignment Office\nThe Student Assignment Office will monitor new assignments, process all data entry work for elementary schools, process interdistrict majority-to-minority trans fers and magnet assignments, reassign students because of over-crowdedness or desegregation requirements, consider appeals. verify addresses. conduct recruitment efforts, maintain waiting lists, and process desegregation transfers. The Student Assignment Office will also be responsible for incentive school and kindergarten assignments. The Student Assignment Office will be reorganized and extra personnel will be added to provide temporary and/or permanent support. At least one parent recruiter and one data entry operator will be added on a permanent basis. These individuals will be needed to accommodate the additional magnet, incentive school, and pre-kindergarten options that will be created by the long-term student assignment plan. Address Changes\nAll students will be required to report address changes immediately to the school's main office. Students who change addresses will have the option (if space is available and the assignment complies with desegregation requirements) to attend their new attendance zone schools or to remain at their current schools. The district will not be responsible for transportation if students elect to remain at their current schools. 16OFFICE OF DESEGREGATION MONITORING 201 EAST MARKHAM, SUITE 510 HERITAGE WEST BUILDING LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS 72201 Date: August 12, 1991 From: Brown To: Ruth Steele Subject: Financial Monitoring As we discussed on the phone this morning. Bob Morgan, the financial monitor for ODM, is developing a system for monitoring the desegregation expenditures of the Pulaski County school districts. Joining Bob in this task will be the Arkansas Financial Group whom we have contracted to assist in the development and implementation of the financial monitoring process. Members of the Financial Group are Rick Adkins, Cynthia Conger, and Ashvin Vibhakar. Bob will be contacting Jim Ivey very soon to arrange a meeting between Bob, the Arkansas Financial Group, and your staff. Bob particularly wants to include Jim Ivey, Mark MilhoUen, David Kingsella, James Jennings, and Tony Wood in this initial meeting. Any other members of your staff whom you might also wish to participate will be very welcome. As much as possible, we want the ODM financial monitoring system to be a logical outgrowth of the financial accounting system which is already in place in the LRSD. As we work to get a feel for the \"set up\" of LRSD financial records, well be contacting your auditors, Thomas and Thomas, and asking them to give us an overview of their auditing procedures. Will you please contact Don Smith at Thomas and Thomas to authorize the firm to discuss the LRSD audit records with us? Im sure Don and his colleagues wUl provide valuable information and insights which will save time and ensure that our monitoring system is compatible with your financial structure. Thank you very much for your assistance. 08/13/91 16:26 501 374 7609 L R School Dlst w . r. Little Rock School District August 13, 1991 Mr- Don Smith Thomas and Thomas Certified Public Accountants 201 E. Markham Little Rock, AR 72201 Dear Don: Thomas and Thomas is authorized to release- to the Office of Mnn 1't-oT-i ncr current and orior year and Desegregation Monitoring and_ prior audits workpapers for the Little Rock School District. If further information is needed^ please let me know. Sincerely, Ruth S. Steele Superintendent of Schools RSS/ch 810 West Markham Street  Little Rock. Arkansas 72201  (501)574-3^61A- Table 8 LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT DESEGREGATION BUDGET 1989-90 1990-91 1991-92 SETTLEMENT PAYMENTS SETTLEMENT LOAN PROCEEDS 12,559,250 3,000,000- 8,356,778 3,000,000 8,637,482 6,000,000 TOTAL REVENUE 15,559,250 11,356,778 14,637,482 EXPENSES: 2 RUN BUS SYSTEM ACADEMIC PROGRESS GRANTS ADDITIONAL COMMUNICATION AREA SCHOOL IMPROVEMENT ART AVIATION AND TRANSPORTAT BADGETT THEME BEFORE AND AFTER SCHOOL CURRICULUM AUDIT DATA PROCESSING DEBT SERVICE DIVISION OF SCHOOLS DOWNTOWN EARLY CHILDHOOD DUNBAR ENGLISH ENHANCEMENT SCHOOLS SPEC ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCE MA EXTRACURRICULAR COSTS FOREIGN LANGUAGE FOUR-YEAR OLD PROGRAM GRANTS PROCUREMENT OFFIC 22,300 308,373 48,739 , 100 85,800 28,920 2,363,885 600,000- 800,000 75,000 400,000 22,300 15,000 50,000 292,854 50,000 75,000 942,481 43,800 400,000 399,000 45,920 618,000 800,000 77,250 500,000 22,300 1,700,000 25,000 301,640 24,806 1,442,481 35,800 420,000 300,000 39,920 i: HEARING OFFICER HOMEWORK CENTERS * HUMAN RELATIONS 21,190 431,313 144,805 15,000 120,000 11,190 556,313 H.I.P.P.Y. INCENTIVE SCHOOLS INFORMATION SYSTEM JUNIOR HIGH RESTRUCTURIN LIBRARY LITTLE ROCK CENTRAL MATH MCCLELLAN COMMUNITY PROG METROPOLITAN SUPERVISOR MINORITY RECRUITER MULTI-ETHNIC CURRICULUM MUSIC OFFICE OF DESEGREGATION 208,156 360,000 27,000 PAL I-  110,493 40,279 143,000 9,510 470,302 3,750,834 PARENT CENTERS PARENT INVOLVEMENT PARKVIEW SCIENCE PLANT SERVICES -POSITIVE STUDENT DISCIPL PRECOLLEGE TESTS 48,755 37,133 293,340 40,000 149,149 50,000 220,645 2,894,240 200,000 848,000 370,800 10,000 19,000 25,000 110,493 42,696 500 9,510 588,520 2,750,184 20,000 51,680 215,580 310,940 15,000 50,000 200,000 120,000 11,190 681,313 45,000 42,400 153,624 50,000 233,884 2,126,067 4 250,000 893,000 381,924 12,125 25,000 110,493 45,257 9,510 623,831 2,848,154 25,000 54,781 113,225 329,597 15,000 50,000 i- t\u0026gt;'^Table 8 LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT DESEGREGATION BUDGET 1989-90 1990-91 1991-92 READING ROMINE w SAFETY SCIENCE SECONDARY ALTERNATIVE PR SOCIAL STUDIES SOCIAL WORKERS/COUNSELOR SPECIAL EDUCATION STAFF DEVELOPMENT SUMMER SCHOOL UNIVERSITY LAB SCHOOL VOCATIONAL EDUCATION WASHINGTON 113,120 35,000 9,750 102,490 317,297 80,000 800 113,120 50,000 800,000 15,750 300,000 15,575 200,000 82,940 386,335 90,000 17,000 113,120 50,000 824,000 10,875 318,000 14,225 300,000 107,940 409,515 200,000 185,000 155,000 TOTAL EXPENS 10,086,683 16,161,516 18,260,247 INCREASE (DECREASE) IN FUND BALANCE 5,472,567 (4,804,738) (3,622,765) BEGINNING FUND BALANCE (5,500,000) (27,433) (4,832,171) ENDING FUND BALANCE (27,433) (4,832,171) (8,454,936) .1' 1 1. FOURTH DRAFT/NO MILLAGE INCREASE/SALARY INCREASES/1 YEAR GT PROGRAM LRSD 5 YEAR PROJECTION BEGINNING SURPLUS (DEFICIT) REVENUE - LOCAL SOURCES CURRENT TAXES 40% PULLBACK DELINQUENT TAXES EXCESS TREASURERS FEES DEPOSITORY INTEREST REVENUE IN LIEU OF TAXES TUITION MISC. AND RENTS INTEREST ON INVESTMENTS ATHLETIC RECEIPTS TOTAL REVENUE - COUNTY SOURCES COUNTY GENERAL TOTAL REVENUE - STATE SOURCES MFPA APPORTIONMENT VOCATIONAL HANDICAPPED CHILDREN ORPHAN CHILDREN TRANSPORTATION M TO M TRANSERS ADULT EDUCATION DESEGREGATION TOTAL REVENUE - OTHER SOURCES PUBLIC LAW 874 TRANSFER FROM FED GRANTS TRANSFER FROM BOND ACCT MINERAL LEASE REVOLVING LOAN TOTAL TOTAL REVENUE GROWTH RATE 1988-89 ACTUAL EST. ^7^ 1989-90 PROJECTION 3^^ 1990-91 3 1991-92 3 1992-93 1993-94 0 285,799 (5,822,828)(13,893,364X22,408,844)(31,365,020) 10.00% 3.00% 10.00% 0.00% 10.00% 5.00% 10.00% 10.00% 5.00% 30,987,565 16,457,698 3,354,988 110,722 378,632 283,030 0 284,453 188,654 117,437 31,647,145 17,373,028 3,690,486 114,044 416,496 283,030 0 298,676 207,520 129,181 31,734,254 18,255,248 4,059,535 117,465 458,145 283,030 0 313,610 228,272 142,099 32,732,412 19,322,216 4,465,489 120,989 503,960 283,030 0 329,290 251,099 156,309 34,587,922 20,493,180 4,912,038 124,619 554,356 283,030 0 345,755 276,209 171,939 36,684,019 21,773,133 5,403,241 128,357 609,791 283,030 0 363,043 303,830 189,133 52,163,180 54,159,605 55,591,658 58,164,793 61,749,047 65,737,578 118,064 118,064 3.00X 20,242,162 0.00% 3.00% 10.00% 3.00% 10.00% 15.00% 3.00% O.OOX 123,967 123,967 130,165 130,165 136,674 136,674 143,507 143,507 150,683 150,683 75,805 1,217,817 224,252 12,720 2,355,814 189,262 236,771 20,242,162 75,805 1,274,811 562,064 12,720 2,472,241 217,651 239,020 20,242,162 75,805 1,274,811 562,064 12,720 2,719,465 250,299 239,020 20,849,427 75,805 1,313,055 618,270 13,102 2,991,412 287,844 246,191 21,474,910 75,805 1,352,447 680,097 13,495 3,290,553 331,020 253,576 22,119,157 75,805 1,393,020 748,107 13,899 3,619,608 380,673 261,184 24,554,602 25,096,474 25,376,346 26,395,105 27,471,903 28,611,454 5,989 95,845 73,517 7 0 175,358 5,989 150,000 73,517 7 0 5,989 150,000 73,517 7 0 5,989 150,000 73,517 7 0 5,989 150,000 73,517 7 0 5,989 150,000 73,517 7 0 229,513 229,513 229,513 229,513 229,513 77,011,205 79,895,358 75,504,854 71,032,721 67,185,127 63,364,2081. FOURTH DRAFT/NO MILLAGE INCREASE/SALARY INCREASES/1 YEAR GT PROGRAM LRSD 5 YEAR PROJECTION 1988-89 ACTUAL EST. 1989-90 PROJECTION 1990-91 1991-92 1992-93 1993-94 CERTIFIED SALARIES NOH CERT SALARIES SUBSTITUTES EMPLOYEE BENEFITS 38,841,402 9,544,735 1,490,494 5,960,708 43,677,822 11,139,282 1,394,052 6,521,485 46,298,491 11,807,639 1,414,963 7,088,948 49,076,400 12,516,098 1,436,187 7,514,285 52,020,984 13,267,064 1,457,730 8,161,006 55,662,453 14,195,758 1,479,596 9,081,567 TOTAL PERSONNEL COSTS 55,837,340 62,732,641 66,610,041 70,542,970 74,906,784 80,419,375 MAGNET SCHOOL COSTS, NET 1,798,634 PUR. SERV., SUPPLIES, CAPITAL 12,939,113 CONTINGENCY ALTERNATIVE SCHOOL DEBT SERVICE 0 0 6,150,319 1,565,213 14,212,146 1,000,000 250,000 5,958,186 1,580,865 14,125,329 1,000,000 250,000 5,831,984 1,596,674 14,337,208 1,000,000 250,000 5,714,713 1,612,641 14,695,639 1,500,000 250,000 5,585,084 1,628,767 15,063,030 2,000,000 250,000 5,617,001 TOTAL OPERATING EXPENSES 76,725,406 85,718,186 89,398,218 93,441,565 98,550,147 104,978,172 OPERATING FUND BALANCE 285,799 ( 5,822,828X13,893,364 X 22,408,844 X 31,365,020)(41,613,965) DESEG. BEGINNING FUND BALANCE (996,068) DESEGREGATION REVENUE 4,475,000 8,084,250 8,356,778 8,637,482 8,926,606 8,094,112 0 0 0 0 0 DESEGREGATION EXPENSES: CERTIFIED SALARIES NON CERT SALARIES SUBSTITUTES EMPLOYEE BENEFITS 1,545,090 757,148 75,850 358,610 2,766,157 1,355,512 135,793 642,015 2,265,989 1,110,413 111,239 525,928 2,447,228 1,199,226 120,136 567,993 2,535,857 1,242,657 124,487 588,563 2,282,804 1,118,653 112,065 529,831 TOTAL PERSONNEL COSTS 2,736,698 4,899,476 4,013,569 4,334,583 4,491,564 4,043,352 PUR. SERV., SUPPLIES, CAPITAL 2,335,291 CONTINGENCY DEBT SERVICE 2,060,373 3,424,876 3,698,805 3,832,761 3,450,291 399,080 128,333 918,333 604,094 602,281 600,469 2,734,371 2,188,706 4,343,209 4,302,899 4,435,042 4,050,760 TOTAL DESEGREGATION EXPENSE 5,471,068 7,088,182 8,356,778 8,637,482 8,926,606 8,094,112 DESEGREGATION FUND BALANCE (996,068) TOTAL FUND BALANCE (710,270) (5,822,828)(13,893,364)(22,408,844)(31,365,020)(41,613,965) :s! 0 0 0 0 0REVENUE LOCAL SOURCES CURRENT TAXES 40% PULLBACK DELINQUENT TAXES EXCESS TREASURERS FEES DEPOSITORY INTEREST REVENUE IN LIEU OF TAXES TUITION MISC. AND RENTS INTEREST ON INVESTMENTS ATHLETIC RECEIPTS TOTAL REVENUE - COUNTY SOURCES COUNTY GENERAL TOTAL GROWTH RATE REVENUE HFPA STATE SOURCES APPORTIONMENT VOCATIONAL HANDICAPPED CHILDREN ORPHAN CHILDREN TRANSPORTATION H TO H TRANSERS ADULT EDUCATION DESEGREGATION TOTAL REVENUE - OTHER SOURCES PUBLIC LAW 874 TRANSFER FROM FED GRANTS TRANSFER FROM BOND ACCT MINERAL LEASE REVOLVING LOAN TOTAL 2. FOURTH DRAFT/NO MILLAGE INCREASE/NO SALARY INCREASE/3 YEAR GT PROGRAM LRSD 5 YEAR PROJECTION 1988-89 ACTUAL EST. 1989-90 PROJECTION 1990-91 1991-92 1992-93 1993-94 10.00% 3.00% 10.00% 0.00% 10.00% 5.00% 10.00% 10.00% 5.00% 30,987,565 16,457,698 3,354,988 110,722 378,632 283,030 0 284,453 188,654 117,437 31,647,145 17,373,028 3,690,486 114,044 416,496 283,030 0 298,676 207,520 129,181 31,734,254 18,255,248 4,059,535 117,465 458,145 283,030 0 313,610 228,272 142,099 32,732,412 19,322,216 4,465,489 120,989 503,960 283,030 0 329,290 251,099 156,309 34,587,922 20,493,180 4,912,038 124,619 554,356 283,030 0 345,755 276,209 171,939 36,684,019 21,773,133 5,403,241 128,357 609,791 283,030 0 363,043 303,830 189,133 52,163,180 54,159,605 55,591,658 58,164,793 61,749,047 65,737,578 118,064 118,064 3.00% 20,242,162 0.00% 3.00% 10.00% 3.00% 10.00% 15.00% 3.00% 0.00% 123,967 123,967 130,165 130,165 136,674 136,674 143,507 143,507 150,683 150,683 75,805 1,217,817 224,252 12,720 2,355,814 189,262 236,771 20,242,162 75,805 1,274,811 562,064 12,720 2,472,241 217,651 239,020 20,242,162 75,805 1,274,811 562,064 12,720 2,719,465 250,299 239,020 20,849,427 75,805 1,313,055 618,270 13,102 2,991,412 287,844 246,191 21,474,910 75,805 1,352,447 680,097 13,495 3,290,553 331,020 253,576 22,119,157 75,805 1,393,020 748,107 13,899 3,619,608 380,673 261,184 24,554,602 25,096,474 25,376,346 26,395,105 27,471,903 28,611,454 5,989 95,845 73,517 7 0 5,989 150,000 73,517 7 0 5,989 150,000 73,517 7 0 5,989 150,000 73,517 7 0 5,989 150,000 73,517 7 0 5,989 150,000 73,517 7 0 175,358 229,513 229,513 229,513 229,513 229,513 TOTAL REVENUE 77,011,205 79,895,358 79,521,106 81,160,677 85,189,130 91,580,9772. FOURTH DRAFT/NO MILLAGE INCREASE/NO SALARY INCREASE/3 YEAR GT PROGRAM LRSD 5 YEAR PROJECTION .1988-89 ACTUAL EST. 1989-90 PROJECTION 1990-91 1991-92 1992-93 1993-94 CERTIFIED SALARIES NON CERT SALARIES SUBSTITUTES EMPLOYEE BENEFITS 38,841,402 9,544,735 1,490,494 5,960,708 40,292,096 10,508,757 1,394,052 6,521,485 41,834,959 10,824,020 1,414,963 6,424,395 43,424,107 11,148,740 1,436,187 6,657,887 44,726,831 11,483,202 1,457,730 7,026,254 46,068,636 11,827,699 1,479,596 7,526,523 TOTAL PERSONNEL COSTS 55,837,340 58,716,390 60,498,336 62,666,922 64,694,017 66,902,453 MAGNET SCHOOL COSTS, NET 1,798,634 PUR. SERV., SUPPLIES, CAPITA 12,939,113 CONTINGENCY ALTERNATIVE SCHOOL DEBT SERVICE 0 0 6,150,319 1,565,213 14,212,146 1,000,000 250,000 5,958,186 1,580,865 14,125,329 1,000,000 250,000 5,831,984 1,596,674 14,337,208 1,000,000 250,000 5,714,713 1,612,641 14,695,639 1,500,000 250,000 5,585,084 1,628,767 15,063,030 2,000,000 250,000 5,617,001 TOTAL OPERATING EXPENSES 76,725,406 81,701,935 83,286,514 85,565,518 88,337,380 91,461,251 OPERATING FUNO BALANCE 285,799 (1,806,577) (3,765,409) (4,404,841) (3,148,250) 119,726 DESEG. BEGINNING FUND BALANC (996,068) 0 0 0 0 0 DESEGREGATION REVENUE 4,475,000 8,084,250 8,356,778 8,637,482 8,926,606 8,094,112 DESEGREGATION EXPENSES: CERTIFIED SALARIES NON CERT SALARIES SUBSTITUTES EMPLOYEE BENEFITS 1,545,090 757,148 75,850 358,610 2,766,157 1,355,512 135,793 642,015 2,265,989 1,110,413 111,239 525,928 2,447,228 1,199,226 120,136 567,993 2,535,857 1,242,657 124,487 588,563 2,282,804 1,118,653 112,065 529,831 TOTAL PERSONNEL COSTS 2,736,698 4,899,476 4,013,569 4,334,583 4,491,564 4,043,352 PUR. SERV., SUPPLIES, CAPITA 2,335,291 CONTINGENCY DEBT SERVICE 2,060,373 3,424,876 3,698,805 3,832,761 3,450,291 399,080 128,333 918,333 604,094 602,281 600,469 2,734,371 2,188,706 4,343,209 4,302,899 4,435,042 4,050,760 TOTAL DESEGREGATION EXPENS 5,471,068 7,088,182 8,356,778 8,637,482 8,926,606 8,094,112 DESEGREGATION FUNO BALANCE (996,068) 0 0 0 0 0 TOTAL FUND BALANCE (710,270) (1,806,577) (3,765,409) (4,404,841) (3,148,250) 119,726GROUTH RATE 3. FOURTH DRAFT/NO MILLAGE INCREASE/NO SALARY INCREASE/1 YEAR GT PROGRAM LRSD 5 YEAR PROJECTION 1988-89 ACTUAL EST. 1989-90 PROJECTION 1990-91 1991-92 1992-93 1993-94 REVENUE - LOCAL SOURCES CURRENT TAXES 40% PULLBACK DELINQUENT TAXES EXCESS TREASURERS FEES DEPOSITORY INTEREST REVENUE IN LIEU OF TAXES TUITION MISC. AND RENTS INTEREST ON INVESTMENTS ATHLETIC RECEIPTS 10.00% 3.00% 10.00% 0.00% 10.00% 5.00% 10.00% 10.00% 30,987,565 16,457,698 3,354,988 110,722 378,632 283,030 0 284,453 188,654 117,437 31,647,145 17,373,028 3,690,486 114,044 416,496 283,030 0 298,676 207,520 129,181 31,734,254 18,255,248 4,059,535 117,465 458,145 283,030 0 313,610 228,272 142,099 32,732,412 19,322,216 4,465,489 120,989 503,960 283,030 0 329,290 251,099 156,309 34,587,922 20,493,180 4,912,038 124,619 554,356 283,030 0 345,755 276,209 171,939 36,684,019 21,773,133 5,403,241 128,357 609,791 283,030 0 363,043 303,830 189,133 TOTAL 52,163,180 54,159,605 55,591,658 58,164,793 61,749,047 65,737,578 REVENUE - COUNTY SOURCES COUNTY GENERAL 5.00X 118,064 123,967 130,165 136,674 143,507 150,683 TOTAL 118,064 123,967 130,165 136,674 143,507 150,683 REVENUE - STATE SOURCES MFPA APPORTIONMENT VOCATIONAL HANDICAPPED CHILDREN ORPHAN CHILDREN TRANSPORTATION H TO H TRANSERS ADULT EDUCATION DESEGREGATION 3.00% 20,242,162 0.00% 3.00% 10.00% 3.00% 10.00% 15.00% 3.00% 75,805 1,217,817 224,252 12,720 2,355,814 189,262 236,771 20,242,162 75,805 1,274,811 562,064 12,720 2,472,241 217,651 239,020 20,242,162 75,805 1,274,811 562,064 12,720 2,719,465 250,299 239,020 20,849,427 75,805 1,313,055 618,270 13,102 2,991,412 287,844 246,191 21,474,910 75,805 1,352,447 680,097 13,495 3,290,553 331,020 253,576 22,119,157 75,805 1,393,020 748,107 13,899 3,619,608 380,673 261,184 TOTAL 24,554,602 25,096,474 25,376,346 26,395,105 27,471,903 28,611,454 REVENUE - OTHER SOURCES PUBLIC LAU 874 TRANSFER FROM FED GRANTS TRANSFER FROM BOND ACCT MINERAL LEASE REVOLVING LOAN 0.00% 5,989 95,845 73,517 7 0 5,989 150,000 73,517 7 0 5,989 150,000 73,517 7 0 5,989 150,000 73,517 7 0 5,989 150,000 73,517 7 0 5,989 150,000 73,517 7 0 TOTAL 175,358 229,513 229,513 229,513 229,513 229,513 TOTAL REVENUE 77,011,205 79,895,358 78,852,906 80,095,125 84,089,166 90,445,4743. FOURTH DRAFT/NO MILLAGE INCREASE/NO SALARY INCREASE/1 YEAR GT PROGRAM LRSD 5 YEAR PROJECTION . 1988-89 ACTUAL EST. 1989-90 PROJECTION 1990-91 1991-92 1992-93 1993-94 CERTIFIED SALARIES NON CERT SALARIES SUBSTITUTES EMPLOYEE BENEFITS 38,841,402 9,544,735 1,490,494 5,960,708 40,960,296 10,508,757 1,394,052 6,521,485 42,189,105 10,824,020 1,414,963 6,467,601 43,454,778 11,148,740 1,436,187 6,661,629 44,758,421 11,483,202 1,457,730 7,030,203 46,101,174 11,827,699 1,479,596 7,530,753 TOTAL PERSONNEL COSTS 55,837,340 59,384,590 60,895,688 62,701,334 64,729,557 66,939,222 MAGNET SCHOOL COSTS, NET 1,798,634 PUR. SERV., SUPPLIES, CAPITA 12,939,113 CONTINGENCY ALTERNATIVE SCHOOL DEBT SERVICE 0 0 6,150,319 1,565,213 14,212,146 1,000,000 250,000 5,958,186 1,580,865 14,125,329 1,000,000 250,000 5,831,984 1,596,674 14,337,208 1,000,000 250,000 5,714,713 1,612,641 14,695,639 1,500,000 250,000 5,585,084 1,628,767 15,063,030 2,000,000 250,000 5,617,001 TOTAL OPERATING EXPENSES 76,725,406 82,370,135 83,683,866 85,599,930 88,372,920 91,498,019 OPERATING FUND BALANCE 285,799 (2,474,777) (4,830,960) (5,504,805) (4,283,754) (1,052,545) DESEG. BEGINNING FUND BALANC (996,068) DESEGREGATION REVENUE 4,475,000 8,084,250 8,356,778 8,637,482 8,926,606 8,094,112 0 0 0 0 0 DESEGREGATION EXPENSES: CERTIFIED SALARIES NON CERT SALARIES SUBSTITUTES EMPLOYEE BENEFITS 1,545,090 757,148 75,850 358,610 2,766,157 1,355,512 135,793 642,015 2,265,989 1,110,413 111,239 525,928 2,447,228 1,199,226 120,136 567,993 2,535,857 1,242,657 124,487 588,563 2,282,804 1,118,653 112,065 529,831 TOTAL PERSONNEL COSTS 2,736,698 4,899,476 4,013,569 4,334,583 4,491,564 4,043,352 PUR. SERV., SUPPLIES, CAPITA 2,335,291 2,060,373 CONTINGENCY DEBT SERVICE 3,424,876 3,698,805 3,832,761 3,450,291 399,080 128,333 918,333 604,094 602,281 600,469 2,734,371 2,188,706 4,343,209 4,302,899 4,435,042 4,050,760 TOTAL DESEGREGATION EXPENS 5,471,068 7,088,182 8,356,778 8,637,482 8,926,606 8,094,112 DESEGREGATION FUND BALANCE (996,068) TOTAL FUND BALANCE (710,270) (2,474,777) (4,830,960) (5,504,805) (4,283,754) (1,052,545) 0 0 0 0 0BEGINNING SURPLUS (DEFICIT) REVENUE LOCAL SOURCES CURRENT TAXES 40% PULLBACK DELINQUENT TAXES EXCESS TREASURERS FEES DEPOSITORY INTEREST REVENUE IN LIEU OF TAXES TUITION MISC. AND RENTS INTEREST ON INVESTMENTS ATHLETIC RECEIPTS TOTAL REVENUE COUNTY SOURCES COUNTY GENERAL TOTAL REVENUE - STATE SOURCES MFPA APPORTIONMENT VOCATIONAL HANDICAPPED CHILDREN ORPHAN CHILDREN TRANSPORTATION H TO H TRANSERS ADULT EDUCATION DESEGREGATION TOTAL REVENUE - OTHER SOURCES PUBLIC LAW 874 TRANSFER FROM FED GRANTS TRANSFER FROM BOND ACCT MINERAL LEASE REVOLVING LOAN TOTAL GROUTH RATE 4. FOURTH DRAFT/6.5 HILL INCREASE IN 89/SALARY INCREASE/3 YR GT PLAN LRSD 5 YEAR PROJECTION 1988-89 ACTUAL EST. 1989-90 PROJECTION 285,799 1990-91 1991-92 1992-93 1993-94 (1,932,125) (1,508,577) (593,435) 511,837 10.00% 3.00% 10.00% 0.00% 10.00% 5.00% 10.00% 10.00% 5.00% 30,987,565 16,457,698 3,354,988 110,722 378,632 283,030 0 284,453 188,654 117,437 31,647,145 20,595,531 3,690,486 114,044 416,496 283,030 0 298,676 207,520 129,181 36,292,888 21,770,855 4,059,535 117,465 458,145 283,030 0 313,610 228,272 142,099 38,364,012 23,051,064 4,465,489 120,989 503,960 283,030 0 329,290 251,099 156,309 40,619,962 24,448,005 4,912,038 124,619 554,356 283,030 0 345,755 276,209 171,939 43,081,612 25,974,966 5,403,241 128,357 609,791 283,030 0 363,043 303,830 189,133 52,163,180 57,382,108 63,665,899 67,525,241 71,735,912 76,337,004 118,064 118,064 3.00% 20,242,162 0.00% 3.00% 10.00% 3.00% 10.00% 15.00% 3.00% 0.00% 123,967 123,967 130,165 136,674 143,507 150,683 130,165 136,674 143,507 150,683 75,805 1,217,817 224,252 12,720 2,355,814 189,262 236,771 20,242,162 75,805 1,274,811 562,064 12,720 2,472,241 217,651 239,020 20,242,162 75,805 1,274,811 562,064 12,720 2,719,465 250,299 239,020 20,849,427 75,805 1,313,055 618,270 13,102 2,991,412 287,844 246,191 21,474,910 75,805 1,352,447 680,097 13,495 3,290,553 331,020 253,576 22,119,157 75,805 1,393,020 748,107 13,899 3,619,608 380,673 261,184 24,554,602 25,096,474 25,376,346 26,395,105 27,471,903 28,611,454 5,989 95,845 73,517 7 0 5,989 150,000 73,517 7 0 5,989 150,000 73,517 7 0 5,989 150,000 73,517 7 0 5,989 150,000 73,517 7 0 5,989 150,000 73,517 7 0 175,358 229,513 229,513 229,513 229,513 229,513 0 TOTAL REVENUE 77,011,205 83,117,861 87,469,798 92,777,957 98,987,401 105,840,4914. FOURTH DRAFT/6.5 MILL INCREASE IN 89/SALARY INCREASE/3 YR GT PLAN LRSD 5 YEAR PROJECTION 1988-89 ACTUAL EST. 1989-90 PROJECTION 1990-91 1991-92 1992-93 1993-94 CERTIFIED SALARIES NON CERT SALARIES SUBSTITUTES EMPLOYEE BENEFITS 38,841,402 9,544,735 1,490,494 5,960,708 43,009,622 11,139,282 1,394,052 6,521,485 45,924,299 11,807,639 1,414,963 7,043,296 49,013,857 12,516,098 1,436,187 7,506,654 51,954,688 13,267,064 1,457,730 8,152,719 55,591,516 14,195,758 1,479,596 9,072,346 TOTAL PERSONNEL COSTS 55,837,340 62,064,441 66,190,197 70,472,796 74,832,201 80,339,216 MAGNET SCHOOL COSTS, NET 1,798,634 PUR. SERV., SUPPLIES, CAPITA 12,939,113 CONTINGENCY ALTERNATIVE SCHOOL DEBT SERVICE 0 0 6,150,319 1,565,213 14,212,146 1,000,000 250,000 5,958,186 1,580,865 14,125,329 1,000,000 250,000 5,831,984 1,596,674 14,337,208 1,000,000 250,000 5,714,713 1,612,641 14,695,639 1,500,000 250,000 5,585,084 1,628,767 15,063,030 2,000,000 250,000 5,617,001 TOTAL OPERATING EXPENSES 76,725,406 85,049,986 88,978,375 93,371,391 98,475,564 104,898,013 OPERATING FUND BALANCE 285,799 (1,932,125) (1,508,577) (593,435) 511,837 942,477 DESEG. BEGINNING FUND BALANC (996,068) 0 0 0 0 0 DESEGREGATION REVENUE 4,475,000 8,084,250 8,356,778 8,637,482 8,926,606 8,094,112 DESEGREGATION EXPENSES: CERTIFIED SALARIES NON CERT SALARIES SUBSTITUTES EMPLOYEE BENEFITS 1,545,090 757,148 75,850 358,610 2,766,157 1,355,512 135,793 642,015 2,265,989 1,110,413 111,239 525,928 2,447,228 1,199,226 120,136 567,993 2,535,857 1,242,657 124,487 588,563 2,282,804 1,118,653 112,065 529,831 TOTAL PERSONNEL COSTS 2,736,698 4,899,476 4,013,569 4,334,583 4,491,564 4,043,352 PUR. SERV., SUPPLIES, CAPITA 2,335,291 CONTINGENCY DEBT SERVICE 2,060,373 3,424,876 3,698,805 3,832,761 3,450,291 399,080 128,333 918,333 604,094 602,281 600,469 2,734,371 2,188,706 4,343,209 4,302,899 4,435,042 4,050,760 TOTAL DESEGREGATION EXPENS 5,471,068 7,088,182 8,356,778 8,637,482 8,926,606 8,094,112 DESEGREGATION FUND BALANCE (996,068) 0 0 0 0 0 TOTAL FUNO BALANCE (710,270) (1,932,125) (1,508,577) (593,435) 511,837 942,477 :s: :x:BEGINNING SURPLUS (DEFICIT) REVENUE LOCAL SOURCES CURRENT TAXES 40% PULLBACK DELINQUENT TAXES EXCESS TREASURERS FEES DEPOSITORY INTEREST REVENUE IN LIEU OF TAXES TUITION MISC. AND RENTS INTEREST ON INVESTMENTS ATHLETIC RECEIPTS TOTAL REVENUE - COUNTY SOURCES COUNTY GENERAL TOTAL REVENUE HFPA STATE SOURCES APPORTIONMENT VOCATIONAL HANDICAPPED CHILDREN ORPHAN CHILDREN TRANSPORTATION M TO M TRANSERS ADULT EDUCATION DESEGREGATION TOTAL REVENUE - OTHER SOURCES PUBLIC LAW 874 TRANSFER FROM FED GRANTS TRANSFER FROM BOND ACCT MINERAL LEASE REVOLVING LOAN TOTAL GROWTH RATE 5. FOURTH DRAFT/6.5 MILL INCREASE IN 89/SALARY INCREASE/1 YR GT PLAN LRSD 5 YEAR PROJECTION 1988-89 ACTUAL EST. 1989-90 PROJECTION 285,799 1990-91 1991-92 1992-93 (2,600,325) (2,596,620) (1,751,652) 1993-94 (720,963) 10.00% 3.00% 10.00% 0.00% 10.00% 5.00% 10.00% 10.00% 5.00% 30,987,565 16,457,698 3,354,988 110,722 378,632 283,030 0 284,453 188,654 117,437 31,647,145 20,595,531 3,690,486 114,044 416,496 283,030 0 298,676 207,520 129,181 36,292,888 21,770,855 4,059,535 117,465 458,145 283,030 0 313,610 228,272 142,099 38,364,012 23,051,064 4,465,489 120,989 503,960 283,030 0 329,290 251,099 156,309 40,619,962 24,448,005 4,912,038 124,619 554,356 283,030 0 345,755 276,209 171,939 43,081,612 25,974,966 5,403,241 128,357 609,791 283,030 0 363,043 303,830 189,133 52,163,180 57,382,108 63,665,899 67,525,241 71,735,912 76,337,004 118,064 118,064 3.00% 20,242,162 0.00% 3.00% 10.00% 3.00% 10.00% 15.00% 3.00% 0.00% 123,967 123,967 130,165 130,165 136,674 136,674 143,507 143,507 150,683 150,683 75,805 1,217,817 224,252 12,720 2,355,814 189,262 236,771 24,554,602 5,989 95,845 73,517 7 0 175,358 20,242,162 75,805 1,274,811 562,064 12,720 2,472,241 217,651 239,020 20,242,162 75,805 1,274,811 562,064 12,720 2,719,465 250,299 239,020 20,849,427 75,805 1,313,055 618,270 13,102 2,991,412 287,844 246,191 21,474,910 75,805 1,352,447 680,097 13,495 3,290,553 331,020 253,576 22,119,157 75,805 1,393,020 748,107 13,899 3,619,608 380,673 261,184 25,096,474 25,376,346 26,395,105 27,471,903 28,611,454 5,989 150,000 73,517 7 0 5,989 150,000 73,517 7 0 5,989 150,000 73,517 7 0 5,989 150,000 73,517 7 0 5,989 150,000 73,517 7 0 229,513 229,513 229,513 229,513 229,513 0 TOTAL REVENUE 77,011,205 83,117,861 86,801,598 91,689,913 97,829,184 104,607,6915. FOURTH DRAFT/6.5 MILL INCREASE IN 89/SALARY INCREASE/1 YR GT PLAN LRSD 5 YEAR PROJECTION CERTIFIED SALARIES NON CERT SALARIES SUBSTITUTES EMPLOYEE BENEFITS 1988-89 ACTUAL EST. 38,841,402 9,544,735 1,490,494 5,960,708 1989-90 PROJECTION 43,677,822 11,139,282 1,394,052 6,521,485 1990-91 1991-92 1992-93 1993-94 46,298,491 11,807,639 1,414,963 7,088,948 49,076,400 12,516,098 1,436,187 7,514,285 52,020,984 13,267,064 1,457,730 8,161,006 55,662,453 14,195,758 1,479,596 9,081,567 TOTAL PERSONNEL COSTS 55,837,340 62,732,641 66,610,041 70,542,970 74,906,784 80,419,375 MAGNET SCHOOL COSTS, NET 1,798,634 PUR. SERV., SUPPLIES, CAPITA 12,939,113 CONTINGENCY ALTERNATIVE SCHOOL DEBT SERVICE 0 0 6,150,319 1,565,213 14,212,146 1,000,000 250,000 5,958,186 1,580,865 14,125,329 1,000,000 250,000 5,831,984 1,596,674 14,337,208 1,000,000 250,000 5,714,713 1,612,641 14,695,639 1,500,000 250,000 5,585,084 1,628,767 15,063,030 1,500,000 250,000 5,617,001 TOTAL OPERATING EXPENSES 76,725,406 85,718,186 89,398,218 93,441,565 98,550,147 104,478,172 OPERATING FUND BALANCE 285,799 (2,600,325) (2,596,620) (1,751,652) (720,963) 129,518 DESEG. BEGINNING FUND BALANC (996,068) 0 0 0 0 0 DESEGREGATION REVENUE 4,475,000 8,084,250 8,356,778 8,637,482 8,926,606 8,094,112 DESEGREGATION EXPENSES: CERTIFIED SALARIES NON CERT SALARIES SUBSTITUTES EMPLOYEE BENEFITS 1,545,090 757,148 75,850 358,610 2,766,157 1,355,512 135,793 642,015 2,265,989 1,110,413 111,239 525,928 2,447,228 1,199,226 120,136 567,993 2,535,857 1,242,657 124,487 588,563 2,282,804 1,118,653 112,065 529,831 TOTAL PERSONNEL COSTS 2,736,698 4,899,476 4,013,569 4,334,583 4,491,564 4,043,352 PUR. SERV., SUPPLIES, CAPITA 2,335,291 CONTINGENCY DEBT SERVICE 2,060,373 3,424,876 3,698,805 3,832,761 3,450,291 399,080 128,333 918,333 604,094 602,281 600,469 2,734,371 2,188,706 4,343,209 4,302,899 4,435,042 4,050,760 TOTAL DESEGREGATION EXPENS 5,471,068 7,088,182 8,356,778 8,637,482 8,926,606 8,094,112 DESEGREGATION FUND BALANCE (996,068) 0 0 0 0 0 TOTAL FUND BALANCE (710,270) (2,600,325) (2,596,620) (1,751,652) (720,963) 129,518REVENUE LOCAL SOURCES CURRENT TAXES 40% PULLBACK DELINQUENT TAXES EXCESS TREASURERS FEES DEPOSITORY INTEREST REVENUE IN LIEU OF TAXES TUITION MISC. AND RENTS INTEREST ON INVESTMENTS ATHLETIC RECEIPTS TOTAL REVENUE COUNTY SOURCES COUNTY GENERAL TOTAL GROWTH RATE REVENUE MFPA STATE SOURCES APPORTIONMENT VOCATIONAL HANDICAPPED CHILDREN ORPHAN CHILDREN TRANSPORTATION M TO M TRANSERS ADULT EDUCATION DESEGREGATION TOTAL REVENUE - OTHER SOURCES PUBLIC LAW 874 TRANSFER FROM FED GRANTS TRANSFER FROM BOND ACCT MINERAL LEASE REVOLVING LOAN TOTAL 6. FOURTH DRAFT/6.5 MILL INCREASE IN 90/SALARY IMCREASE/3 YR GT PLAN LRSD 5 YEAR PROJECTION 1988-89 ACTUAL EST. 1989-90 PROJECTION 1990-91 1991-92 1992-93 1993-94 10.00% 3.00% 10.00% 0.00% 10.00% 5.00% 10.00% 10.00% 5.00% 30,987,565 16,457,698 3,354,988 110,722 378,632 283,030 0 284,453 188,654 117,437 31,647,145 17,373,028 3,690,486 114,044 416,496 283,030 0 298,676 207,520 129,181 31,734,254 21,770,855 4,059,535 117,465 458,145 283,030 0 313,610 228,272 142,099 38,364,012 23,051,064 4,465,489 120,989 503,960 283,030 0 329,290 251,099 156,309 40,619,962 24,448,005 4,912,038 124,619 554,356 283,030 0 345,755 276,209 171,939 43,081,612 25,974,966 5,403,241 128,357 609,791 283,030 0 363,043 303,830 189,133 52,163,180 54,159,605 59,107,265 67,525,241 71,735,912 76,337,004 118,064 118,064 3.00% 20,242,162 0.00% 3.00% 10.00% 3.00% 10.00% 15.00% 3.00% 0.00% 123,967 130,165 136,674 143,507 150,683 123,967 130,165 136,674 143,507 150,683 75,805 1,217,817 224,252 12,720 2,355,814 189,262 236,771 20,242,162 75,805 1,274,811 562,064 12,720 2,472,241 217,651 239,020 20,242,162 75,805 1,274,811 562,064 12,720 2,719,465 250,299 239,020 20,849,427 75,805 1,313,055 618,270 13,102 2,991,412 287,844 246,191 21,474,910 75,805 1,352,447 680,097 13,495 3,290,553 331,020 253,576 22,119,157 75,805 1,393,020 748,107 13,899 3,619,608 380,673 261,184 24,554,602 25,096,474 25,376,346 26,395,105 27,471,903 28,611,454 5,989 95,845 73,517 7 0 5,989 150,000 73,517 7 0 5,989 150,000 73,517 7 0 5,989 150,000 73,517 7 0 5,989 150,000 73,517 7 0 5,989 150,000 73,517 7 0 175,358 229,513 229,513 229,513 229,513 229,513 TOTAL REVENUE 77,011,205 79,895,358 79,688,661 84,996,820 91,206,264 98,059,3546. FOURTH DRAFT/6.5 MILL INCREASE IN 90/SALARY INCREASE/3 YR GT PLAN LRSD 5 YEAR PROJECTION CERTIFIED SALARIES NON CERT SALARIES SUBSTITUTES EMPLOYEE BENEFITS 1988-89 ACTUAL EST. 38,841,402 9,544,735 1,490,494 5,960,708 1989-90 PROJECTION 43,009,622 11,139,282 1,394,052 6,521,485 1990-91 45,924,299 11,807,639 1,414,963 7,043,296 1991-92 49,013,857 12,516,098 1,436,187 7,506,654 1992-93 51,954,688 13,267,064 1,457,730 8,152,719 1993-94 55,591,516 14,195,758 1,479,596 9,072,346 TOTAL PERSONNEL COSTS 55,837,340 62,064,441 66,190,197 70,472,796 74,832,201 80,339,216 MAGNET SCHOOL COSTS, NET 1,798,634 PUR. SERV., SUPPLIES, CAPITA 12,939,113 CONTINGENCY ALTERNATIVE SCHOOL DEBT SERVICE 0 0 6,150,319 1,565,213 14,212,146 1,000,000 250,000 5,958,186 1,580,865 14,125,329 1,000,000 250,000 5,831,984 1,596,674 14,337,208 1,000,000 250,000 5,714,713 1,612,641 14,695,639 1,500,000 250,000 5,585,084 1,628,767 15,063,030 2,000,000 250,000 5,617,001 TOTAL OPERATING EXPENSES 76,725,406 85,049,986 88,978,375 93,371,391 98,475,564 104,898,013 OPERATING FUND BALANCE 285,799 (5,154,628) (9,289,714) (8,374,572) (7,269,300) (6,838,660) DESEG. BEGINNING FUND BALANC 0 (996,068) 0 0 0 0 DESEGREGATION REVENUE 4,475,000 8,084,250 8,356,778 8,637,482 8,926,606 8,094,112 DESEGREGATION EXPENSES: CERTIFIED SALARIES NON CERT SALARIES SUBSTITUTES EMPLOYEE BENEFITS 1,545,090 757,148 75,850 358,610 2,766,157 1,355,512 135,793 642,015 2,265,989 1,110,413 111,239 525,928 2,447,228 1,199,226 120,136 567,993 2,535,857 1,242,657 124,487 588,563 2,282,804 1,118,653 112,065 529,831 TOTAL PERSONNEL COSTS 2,736,698 4,899,476 4,013,569 4,334,583 4,491,564 4,043,352 PUR. SERV., SUPPLIES, CAPITA 2,335,291 2,060,373 3,424,876 CONTINGENCY DEBT SERVICE 3,698,805 3,832,761 3,450,291 399,080 128,333 918,333 604,094 602,281 600,469 2,734,371 2,188,706 4,343,209 4,302,899 4,435,042 4,050,760 TOTAL DESEGREGATION EXPENS 5,471,068 7,088,182 8,356,778 8,637,482 8,926,606 8,094,112 DESEGREGATION FUND BALANCE TOTAL FUND BALANCE (996,068) 0 0 0 0 0 (710,270) (5,154,628) (9,289,714) (8,374,572) (7,269,300) (6,838,660)LRSD 9.5 HILL INCREASE IN 1990 8 YEAR PROJECTION - DRAFT #1 1989-90 PROJECTION 1990-91 1991-92 1992-93 1993-94 1994-95 1995-96 1996-97 2 RUN BUS SYSTEM ACADEMIC PROGRESS GRANTS ADDITIONAL COMMUNICATIONS AREA SCHOOL EXTRA PROGRAMS ART AVIATION ANO TRANSPORTATION I BADGETT THEME BEFORE AND AFTER SCHOOL CARE COMMUNITY SUPPORT GRANTS CURRICULUM AUDIT DATA PROCESSING DEBT SERVICE 'DIVISION OF SCHOOLS DUNBAR t ENGLISH ENHANCEMENT SCHOOLS SPECIALI ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCE MAGNET\u0026lt; FOREIGN LANGUAGE FOUR-YEAR OLD PROGRAM HEARING OFFICER HOMEWORK CENTERS 'HAN RELATIONS ... I .P.P.Y. INCENTIVE SCHOOLS INFORMATION SYSTEM JUNIOR HIGH RESTRUCTURING LIBRARY LITTLE ROCK CENTRAL HATH METROPOLITAN SUPERVISOR MINORITY RECRUITER MULTI-ETHNIC CURRICULUM MUSIC OFFICE OF DESEGREGATION PAL PARENT CENTERS PARENT INVOLVEMENT PARKVIEW SCIENCE PLANT SERVICES POSITIVE STUDENT DISCIPLINE READING ' ROMINE % SAFETY SCIENCE SEVEN PERIOD DAY-JR HIGH SOCIAL STUDIES SOCIAL WORKERS/COUNSELORS SPECIAL EDUCATION CR HIGH ALTERNATIVE SCHOOL \\FF DEVELOPMENT 22,300 308,373 48,739 474,100 85,800 400,000 800,000 150,000 200,000 22,300 15,000 50.000 292,854 165,000 5,000 75,000 412,000 800.000 154,500 206,000 22,300 1.700,000 25,000 301,640 165,000 100,000 24,806 424,360 800,000 159.135 212,180 22,300 1,785,000 26,500 310,689 165,000 437.091 450,204 463,710 477,621 26,046 28,920 763,885 21,190 431,313 144,805 208,156 360,000 27,000 110,493 40,279 143,000 9,510 248,469 3,750,834 48,755 37,133 293,340 113,120 35,000 9,750 102,490 43,800 399,000 45,920 35,800 300,000 39,920 35,800 315,000 32,920 SUMMER SCHOOL UNIVERSITY LAB SCHOOL VOCATIONAL EDUCATION WASHINGTON 317,297 80,000 15,000 11,190 631,313 40,000 149,149 50,000 220.645 2,094,240 250,000 848,000 370.800 10,000 19.000 110.493 42,696 500 9,510 353,377 2,750.184 20,000 51,680 215,580 310,940 75,000 113,120 50,000 800,000 15,750 1,400,000 15,575 700,000 82,940 300,000 336,335 90.000 17,000 200,000 11,190 1,006,313 42,400 153,624 50,000 233,884 2,102,067 250,000 893,000 381,924 200,000 11,190 1,036,502 44,944 158,232 247,917 2,165,129 250,000 1,039,000 393,382 800 185,000 CURRENT BUDGET 12,125 110,493 45,257 9,125 47,973 163,909 218,545 22,300 1,874,250 28,090 320.009 168,826 225,102 173,891 231,855 179,108 238,810 27,350 35,800 330,750 32,920 200,000 11,190 1,067,597 47,641 162,979 262,792 2,230,083 250,000 1,230,500 405,183 9,125 50,851 1,967,963 29,775 329.610 2,066,361 31,562 339,498 2,169,679 33,456 349,683 28,171 29,016 29,886 347,288 200,000 1,099,625 50,499 167,869 278,560 2,296,986 250,000 1,484,000 417,339 53,902 364,652 200,000 1,132,614 53,529 172,905 295,273 2,365,895 1,547,000 429,859 57,137 382,884 200,000 1,166,593 56,741 178,092 312,990 2,436,872 1,617,000 442,755 60,565 9,510 374,580 2,848,154 25,000 54,781 113,225 329,597 75,000 113,120 50,000 824,000 10,875 1.442,000 14,225 721,000 107,940 318,000 356,515 9,510 397,055 2,952,002 31,250 58,068 120,018 349,373 75,000 113,120 50,000 848,720 10,875 1,485,260 14,225 742,630 107,590 337,080 377,906 9,510 420.878 3,062,082 39.063 61,552 127,219 370,335 113,120 50,000 874,182 2,125 1,529,818 14,225 764,909 132,490 357,305 400,580 10,000 155,000 155,000 155,000 8,264,850 15,418,892 17,731,765 446,130 2,473,766 48,828 65,245 134,853 392,555 472,898 2,597,450 61,035 69,160 142,944 416,108 501,272 2,728,556 76,294 73,310 151,520 441,075 113,120 50,000 900,407 113,120 50,000 927,419 113,120 50,000 955,242 1,575,712 1,622,984 1,671,673 787,856 100,000 378,743 424,615 120,000 811,492 106,000 401,468 450,092 835,837 112,360 425,556 477,097 123,600 127,308 18,153,006 17,903,349 17,857,547 18,320,526 19,072,953 :3iIndividual Approach to a World ofKnowledge April 8, 2002 Mr. Gene Jones Associate Monitor Office of Desegregation Monitoring 124 West Capitol Little Rock, AR 72201 RECEIVED APR 1 0 2002 nror. OFRCEOF desegregation MONITORINfi Dear Gene\nAttached is a narrative and worksheet showing the amount of funds paid to the three school districts in Pulaski County by the State of Arkansas during the 2000- 2001 school year. It is similar to the one I did earlier except it acknowledges the pooling agreement between LRSD and PCSSD and the earlier one did not. You will see on Line 19 of the worksheet that I have computed the funds that would come to the Districts if M-to-M students were placed back in the State Aid formula and have netted out the results of that on line 20. Im sorry this has taken so long. Please give me a call if you have questions or comments. incerely, Donald M. Stewart Chief Financial Officer Enclosures C: Dr, T. Kenneth James Mr. Chris Heller Mr. Clay Pendley 810 W Markham  Litde Rock, Arkansas 72201  www.lrsd.kl2.atus 501-324-2000  fax: 501-324-2032 Desegregation Payments to Pulaski County School Districts 2000-2001 Attached is a worksheet that recaps the total amount of funds received from the State of Arkansas by the three school districts in Pulaski County as a result of the Desegregation Settlement Agreement and various court orders. These calculations are for the 2000-2001 school year and change from year to year based on funding levels and number of students served. The three school districts received approximately $42.3 milhon for the following purposes. Magnet School Operation ($11.2 milhon) M-to-M transfer payments ($13.8 milhon) Magnet and M-to-M transportation ($5.86 milhon) Teacher Retirement \u0026amp; Health Insurance ($11.42 milhon) In addition there was a small payment to each District for Workers Compensation that is not shown on this worksheet and as of the 2001-2002 school year these payments have ceased. These payments are divided among the three Pulaski County Districts utilizing various methods and result in annual payments to the Districts on behalf of district students as follows. LRSD ($20.89 million) NLRSD ($5.13 million) PCSSD ($16.26 million) M-to-M Funding: Currently M-to-M transfer students are removed from the district enrollment prior to State Equalization Aid computations. If these students were not being funded through the separate M-to-M stipulation they would be ehgible for State Equalization Aid and would have created approximately $9 million during the 2000-2001 school year. Under the stipulated agreement, total State payments for M-to-M students was $13.8 milhon therefore the net gain to the districts from this stipulation for the 2000-2001 school year was $4.8 milhon. LRSD is cuirently sending a larger number (1,147) of M-to-M students than it receives (369) and also, through the pooling agreement, must pay to PCSSD $.4 milhon for the education of M-to-M students. Because of these provisions, doing away with the M-to-M provision would actually result in an increase in aid to the LRSD of approximately $1.76 million, while NLRSD would lose $1 milhon and PCSSD would lose $5.57 milhon.Sr district, LRSD would be for educating approximately 778 students xhoxi, fewer students and PCSSD would educate 697 fewer students. responsible more than currently, NLRSD would educate 81 Magnet Fundinp\nMagnet funding is limited to students in th located in LRSD. These students are included to the homeXtrict the ori^al Stipulated Magnet Schools, all membership (ADM) for equahzation aid s average daily  - J L 1 purposes. In addition to this funding source the Slate IS required to fund one half of the cost of educating these students.  Tins amount is calculated from the Magnet Review Committee s'ctok ' Th   behalf of all stutoeZlWfa ' schools. The approved amount for the 2000-2001 school year was approximately SI 1.2 submissions and is paid directly to the LRSD million. The amount paid on behalf of each districts students was: LRSD ($6.92 million) NLRSD ($1.43 million) PCSSD ($2.85 million). Magnet \u0026amp; M-to-M Transportation: The three school districts in Pulaski County are currently paid under a stipulated ^d^M to of P-oviding transportation for all d M-to-M students, mcludmg expenses for getting these students Magnet activities and events. The costs for the 2000-2001 school to after school year was: LRSD ($3.39 million) NLRSD ($.6 million) PCSSD ($1.92 million) Teacher Retirement \u0026amp; Health Insurance: Dunng the 2000-2001 school year the school districts in Pulaski County received pproximately $11.4 million to offset teacher retirement and health insurance costs ' y a number of factors although it has been a fairly stable number the past several years. The fimding breakout by district for the insurance costs. This over 2000-2001 school year is: LRSD ($6.85 million) NLRSD ($1.14 million) PCSSD ($3.42 milUon)Workers Compensation: ^ere were some Workers Compensation payments made to the Districts during the 2000-2001 school year but we were never provided the back up information to detennine how much was paid as a result of the Court Order and how much was regular payments to all school districts in e State. A decision was made by the State to fund Workers Compensation expenses through the State Equalization Aid Formula beginning with the 2001-2002 school year.Ln.# 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 DESEGREGATION FUNDING BY CATEGORY SCHOOL DISTRICTS IN PULASKI COUNTY DISTRICT LRSD NLRSD PCSSD Total FUNDING TYPE MAGNET FUNDING ADM District Contribution State Contribution Tot. Cost To Dist. Tot. Cost To State State Eq. Rate State Eq. Aid Reed. Loss of Revenue M-to-M FUNDING ADM Sent 1/2 Table Rate Sending Incentive ADM Received Cost Per Student Receiving Aid Pooling Agreement Total M-to-M Aid Reed. Eq. Aid Gain W.O. M-to-M (Loss) or Gain TRANSPORTATION AID Transportation Aid Reed. Total Loss 2000-2001 2000-2001 2000-2001 2000-2001 2,366.05 $2,925.00 $2,925.00 $6,920,696 $6,920,696 $4,492.23 $10,628,841 ($6,920,696) 1,147.89 $1,178.43 $1,352,708 369.43 $6,595 $2,436,391 ($400,000) $3,389,099 $5,156,586 $1,767,487 $3,332,460 ($3,332,460) 490.96 974.64 3,831.65 $2,925.00 $2,925.00 $1,436,058 $1,436,058 $4,492.23 $2,205,505 ($1,436,058) 211.82 $1,578.13 $334,279 293.06 $5,516 $1,616,519 $1,950,798 $951,544 ($999,254) $603,364 ($603,364) $2,925.00 $2,925.00 $2,850,822 $2,850,822 $4,492.23 $4,378,307 ($2,850,822) 644.22 $1,550.36 $998,773 1,341.44 $5,268 $7,066,706 $400,000 $8,465,479 $2,893,984 ($5,571,494) $1,924,308 ($1,924,308) TEACHER RETIRE., HEALTH INS. \u0026amp; WKR'S COMP. FUNDING Teach. Ret. \u0026amp; Health Insur. Worker's Comp. Total Loss Grand Total Loss Total Loss To LRSD Budg. $2,925.00 $2,925.00 $11,207,576 $11,207,576 $4,492.23 $17,212,653 ($11,207,576) 2,003.93 $2,685,760 2,003.93 $11,119,616 $13,805,376 $9,002,114 ($4,803,262) $5,860,132 ($5,860,132) $6,852,475 $1,142,079 $3,426,238 $11,420,792 $0 ($6,852,475) ($15,338,144) ($19,625,024) ($1,142,079) ($4,180,755) ($3,426,238) ($13,772,862) ($11,420,792) ($33,291,762)o o CM co nj LR schools see error taking $8 million bite out of extra funding .Q ID BY CYNTHIA HOWELL ARKANSAS DEMOCRAT-GAZETTE An anticipated increase of $33 million in state funding to the Little Rock School District may turn out to be nearly $8 million short of that, district leaders said Thursday. The shortfall could jeopardize any support that the states largest district might give to recent legislative changes in school funding laws. Two special masters have been appointed by the Arkansas Supreme Court y  .'5 ! evaluate to Stewart changes ap- proved by lawmakers. Alarmed Little Rock district leaders told the School Board on Thursday that discrepancies in the funding projections appear to be the result of an error in magnet student calculations, j  Its just horrible, Don Stew- I art, the districts chief financial officer, told the board. It puts us in a whole lot different position than we would have been even yesterday. Tom Courtway, interim director for the Arkansas Department of Education, said Thursday night from his home that he was unaware of the discrepancy in the numbers for the Little Rock district and would talk with his staff and Little Rock district officials about it today. A Feb. 6 computer printout from the Arkansas Department of Education shows the projected state funding for all Arkansas school districts as the result of legislative changes in a session that concluded earlier this month. The printout bases $143 million in state funds for the Little Rock district on an average enrollment of 24,407 students. Stewart said the Little Rock count wrongly includes 1,426 students who attend Little Rock magnet schools but actually reSee SCHOOL, Page 4B (School  Continued from Page 1B side in the North Little Rock or the Pulaski County Special school districts. Those students, he said, should be counted for the purpose of school district funding in the enrollment numbers for the North Little Rock and Pulaski County Special districts. Subtracting those 1,426 students from the Little Rock district count will cost the district at least $5,400 per student, or $7.7 million, in the first year of the new funding system, Stewart said. Thats about a 23 percent cut in the funding increase that district leaders thought would result from Act 59 of the second special legislative session of 2003. That school funding act and other new school reform laws are the target of a 60-day review by two special masters who are investigating how much progress the state has made in complying with the Supreme Courts 2002 ruling that declared the states school funding system unconstitutional. The masters are to report their findings to the Supreme Court on April 3. The Little Rock district was an intervening party in the Lake View School District class action lawsuit that challenged the school funding system and led to the Supreme Court order. Chris Heller, an attorney for the Little Rock district, said the district proved in the Lake View case that it could not provide an adequate education, particularly for poor students, with the resources it had at the time. The question we need to determine the answer to is will we be able to do that begirming in the 2004-05 school year with the resources that will then be available, Heller said. The district has until Thursday to present the districts views on the reform measures to other parties in the case in preparation for a hearing before the special masters Feb. 23 and 24. Heller said he told the masters earlier this week and the School Board on Thursday that the district can not take a position on whether the legislative measures are adequate until the district knows how the legislation will affect Little Rocks effort to provide an adequate education system. Stewart said that before getting the calculations  which he believes are the latest available and the basis for the new legislation  he was prepared to encourage the board to reserve judgment on the adequacy of the new system for a couple of years to see how the system will work. The shortfall in the anticipated revenue jeopardizes that stance on the new funding mechanism, he said. Courtway, from the Department of Education, said the new law allocates $5,400 per student plus additional funding for students who have special needs or are from low-income families. If there is a computer or a mathematical error, well look at it and correct it, he said, but he also said the error would likely be in the computations and not in the law or in the funding formula. I will look at that printout tomorrow. I'll have to visit with the people who prepared the figures and see what the reason for the discrepancy is, he said.\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_462","title":"Incentive Schools","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":["1990/1996"],"dcterms_description":null,"dc_format":["application/pdf"],"dcterms_identifier":null,"dcterms_language":["eng"],"dcterms_publisher":["Little Rock, Ark. : Butler Center for Arkansas Studies. Central Arkansas Library System."],"dc_relation":null,"dc_right":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC-EDU/1.0/"],"dcterms_is_part_of":["Office of Desegregation Monitoring records (BC.MSS.08.37)","History of Segregation and Integration of Arkansas's Educational System"],"dcterms_subject":["Little Rock (Ark.)--History--20th century","Little Rock School District","Education--Arkansas","Education--Evaluation","Educational planning","School improvement programs"],"dcterms_title":["Incentive Schools"],"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/462"],"dcterms_temporal":null,"dcterms_rights_holder":null,"dcterms_bibliographic_citation":null,"dlg_local_right":null,"dcterms_medium":["documents (object genre)"],"dcterms_extent":null,"dlg_subject_personal":null,"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":"\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n\n\n\n   \n\n\n\n\n   \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n  \n\n1 INCENTIVE SCHOOLS CHECKLIST SCHOOL CRITICAL TASKS IMPLEMENTED YES NO COMMENTS 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. *7. 8. 9. 10. 11. Parent Council Speakers Bureau Science Labs Computer Labs School Themes IEPs/ SEP'S Specialized state and federal mandated programs are available during the core instructional day, with reinforcement activities available through the extended day, week, or year programs. Incentive Programs to recognize student excellence. Effective Schools Model African Alnerican History Subject Area Emphasis Reading Components 1. Learning to Read Through Literature (K-6) 2. Classics used to augment basic textbooks (K-6) 3. Emphasis on critical reading skills (4-6) 4. Use of oral expression through reading (K-6) English/Literature Arts 1. Writing to Read (K-2) 2. Writing Across Curriculum (K-6, 3. Latin Program (5-6) 4. Oral Language Expression (K-6) 5. Penmanship (K-6) 6. Language Modeling (K-6) Social Studies 1. Emphasis on World, American and Ark. History (4-6) 2. Emphasis on introductory concepts in history, geography, civics (K-3) 3. Geography through active learning 4. Multi-ethnic curriculum (K-6) * remedial, special ed., gifted and talented) Page 2 CRITICAL TASKS IMPLEMENTED COMMENTS YES NO 5. Promote living social studies(K-6) 6. Emphasis on American \u0026amp; Arkansas history (4-5) 7. Emphasis on World History (6) 8. Celebrations/Ceremonies Mathematics 1. Emphasis on word or story problems (2-6) 2. Basic geometry and algebra (2-6) 3. Extensive use of manipulation (PreK-3) 4. Use of computers (5-6) 5. Critical thinking, methodology and results (K-6) Science 1. Hands-on discovery and exploration (K-3) 2. Demonstrations and experiments 3. Emphasis on life and physical sciences (4-6) 4. Culminate with annual projects 5. Information packets for students/parents Fine Arts 1. Basic concepts music and art 2. Instruction will be sequential and cumulative 3. Emphasis on enjoyment in music, painting and crafts(Pre K-3) 4. Understand cultural differences (4-6) 5. Performances, exhibits, field trips Foreign Language 1. Study foreign language 2. Total physical response approach 3. Basic vocabulary, conversational, cultural (K-3) 4. Foreign language laboratory 5. Transcribing and translating (4-6) 6. Interactions with native language user 7. Emphasis on vocabulary, grammar, reading, writing, cultural (4-6)Page 3 CRITICAL TASKS c IMPLEMENTED COMMENTS YES NO Physical Education/Health 1. Family Life Education (1-6) 2. Nifty Nutrition (1-6) 3. Emphasis on wellness - 4. Understanding and respect of the handicapped (5-6) 5. Team sports, leisure skills (K-6) Social Skill Development (Taught through Core Curriculum) 1. Family Folklore 2. Positive Imaging 3. Interpersonal Skills 4. Rites of Passage 5. Role Models Programs 6. Mentoring Programi Page 4 CRITICAL TASKS IMPLEMENTED COMMENTS YES NO SCHOOL ADMINISTRATION A B C D E F G H I J Homework Centers Homework Hotline Peer Tutoring Retired Teacher Mentors Instructional Aide Career Skills Development Program Year Round School Community Access/Field Trips a. local b. state c. national Community Involvement Special Skills Programs SCHOOL ADMINISTRATION A B C D Staff Recruitment 1. Nationwide search 2. Staff hired on one year basis Special Training Parental Involvement: sign daily homework Learning Time Schedulesm (Extended Day) E Home/School Communication: Monthly Interims F Extra Curricular Programs (at lunch or recess) G Attendance and Behavior Guidelines H Subject Related Extra Curricular Activities COUNSELING/SdCIAL WORK A Community Services Access B College/Post Graduation Awareness (mentoring) C Study Skills/ Test Taking/ Listening D Home/Neighborhood Meetings (partnership) E Individual and Group Counseling F Incentive/Recognition Programs G Wellness Program H Camp PfeiferHfiSiSS IlM! Op^WlCAL TASKS ' -r'^i a\n^-  I 1 't! ! lb IMPLEMENTED YES NO COMMENTS r EVALUATION 7^ Student Growth  S fV (lestitig dept) I) . 1* Regular TraCkiiig of Student Attendance, ^^Discipline/Behayior and Achievement f 5^ (class profiles) I S af\u0026gt; ' h '. . s -\u0026gt; d Involve Parents in the development of Student Educational Excellence Plans s^-r's i  Vi 3' i i c . !i' s b Quarterly Reports and Visitations E Student Evaluators .jfo Computerized Data Access I's,01 School Site Teams (program modification) SCHOOL POLICIES AND PROCEDURES A Flexible Programs (individualized instruction) 'Additional Items Recommended: ' \u0026lt; \"Is-  i .Permanent substitute r.'s  ji- 1 I:,4' J tH*. I X - . ^.Assistant principal 3. Uniforms 4. Staff dress code 5 i Required PTA 6. Student handbooks 7. Science lab 8. Computer lab 9. PE playground * r ^S\nWii p ^k'slf: *' ! ^\nv' ! Oil  t ? tV 1, J!\" lOi p * i' 1 fc ii\n?:} ! 'i: 1.1 S MI S sl y i'  iM. y 'i. L V li 1 ? i? ': 1 li'l ^1. \nill ( r ,ijr OFFICE OF METROPOLITAN SUPERVISOR 201 EAST MARKHAM, SUITE 510 HERITAGE WEST BUILDING LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS 72201 May 23, 1990 Ruth Ragsdale 515 Beckwood Little Rock, AR 72205 Dear Ms. Ragsdale: I am in receipt of your May 15, 1990, communication regarding your comments on the Incentive School submission of May 8, 1990, to the Office of the Metropolitan Supervisor. As I expressed to you over the phone, the ideas and comments of all parents, either individually or collectively. are valued. appreciated, and will be carefully reviewed before this office makes final recommendations to the Court. Your deep interest and hard work in assisting in the work of the committee regarding what you think is best for the students of this district is commendable. Let me know if I can be of further assistance. Sincerely, Arma Hart Associate Metropolitan Supervisor AH:par cc: Kenyon Lowe Dr. Doris Gardner James Jennings'T' JI (2 i't /^o /ii ' /-//^h/ /^- /A^ iJ.!, ILITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 810 WEST MARKHAM STREET LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS April 2, 1990 TO: Office of the Metropolitan Supervisor FROM: James Jennings, Associate Superintendent for Desegregation Monitoring and Program Development THROUGH: Dr. Ruth Steele, Superintendent of Schools SUBJECT: Magnet Incentive School Programs The attached document is a joint submission from the Little Rock School District, Joshua Intervenors, and Knight Intervenors. This submission should be regarded as a supplementary document to the incentive school plan included in the Tri-District Desegregation Plan, January 2, 1990. The parties reached consensus in all areas except the scholarship program and staffing. Please note that the Little Rock School District provided separate recommendations for the areas of scholarships and staffing. The parties look forward to meeting with the Metropolitan Supervisor's office in order to discuss and resolve the areas of disagreement. OBJECTIVES AND GOALS The schools referred to heretofore as \"Incentive Schools\" shall be referred to and known as Magnet Incentive Schools. 1 They shall have two (2) primary objectives: 1) to effectively eliminate academic achievement disparities which exist between pupils who attend these schools as compared to those pupils whose academic achievement is the highest in the school system's \"best\" school\nand, 2) to be established simply as schools which are racially integrated and racially non-identifiable. IDENTIFICATION OF MAGNET INCENTIVE SCHOOLS The district presently operates six schools which, by court definition, must be classified as \"racially identifiable\". These schools are attended almost entirely by pupils of African American descent. Those schools and their respective locations and pupil capacities are as follows: SCHOOL ADDRESS CAPACITY 1. Garland 3615 W. 25th, LR, AR 300 2. Ish 3001 Pulaski, LR, AR 200 3. Mitchell 2410 Battery, LR, AR 280 4. Rightsell 911 W. 19th, LR, AR 240 5. Rockefeller 700 E. 17th, LR, AR 340 6. Stephens 3700 W. 185th, LR, AR 260 1,620 1 The term \"Magnet Incentive Schools\" was introduced by the Metropolitan Supervisor. office of Metropolitan Supervisor. The term is subject to change by the the jurisdiction of the Magnet Review Committee. These schools will not be underBASIC CONCEPT The children who attend the Magnet Incentive Schools have been, are being and are likely to be deprived of equal educational and other expected advantage due to the racial isolation of these schools. These schools are likely to remain one race schools until the Court approved plan herein has had a reasonable opportunity to work, i.e., to assist in relieving their \"one race\" character. This is expected to be achieved under the plan within six years. The pupils who attend these schools in the meantime must have basic, compensatory and other need related educational and support programs which exceed those available in other schools of the district if their chances for equal academic opportunity are to be maximized. Major incentives within these schools are therefore required. The objective is to provide the best basic skills programs and enrichment available as well as a full range extended day and Saturday programs which address individual needs and interests. The school district shall rely upon the strength of the core curriculum, strong teachers and administrators. enhanced programs and post high school graduation scholarship opportunities as factors through which to promote racial integration or desegregation of these schools. The school district shall also promote desegregation in these schools by establishing early childhood centers in each of them. Four (4) early childhood centers will be operative by August of 1990. The other two (2) will operative by August, 1991. The premise of these centers is that they can be racially integratedfrom the outset and that the students who begin their education therein will continue thereafter due to the strength of the varied programs offered. THE BASIC PROGRAMS OF THE MAGNET INCENTIVE SCHOOLS The Magnet Incentive Schools shall operate basic skills programs. The design of the Williams Magnet School curriculum shall be the model used. All classes of the school shall be inclusive and all pupils therein shall be mainstreamed. The special needs of pupils shall be addressed, pursuant to Student Education Plans (SEPs) for each pupil, both during the regular school day. in the time following the regular school day. on Saturdays and, if necessary, subsequent to the end of the regular school year. A major objective of the basic skills programs shall be to insure exposure of all children to the same course materials and instruction on an equal basis. Pupils shall not be assigned to classes or to groups within classes on the basis either of purported ability or race. The practice known as \"tracking\" shall have no place in these schools. Special attention to pupils with special needs either for remedial or advanced study - shall be addressed after the period of basic course instruction. There shall be no \"pull-out\" programs for individuals or small groups of students during the regular school day. Formative as well as summutive data will be gathered in order to determine: (1) effectiveness of the SEP\n(2) uniform implementation of magnet incentive curriculum\n(3) effectiveness ofoverall programs\nand (4) secure data for revision/expansions of the SEPs and magnet incentive school programs. DOUBLE FUNDING The Magnet Incentive Schools shall operate pursuant to a budget which is based upon \"double funding\". Double funding as used herein is a per pupil cost for Little Rock Pupils which is twice the per pupil costs for other non Magnet School pupils in the district. EXTENDED DAY PROGRAMS These schools shall operate extended day programs. Extended Day Programs are supplemental but essential to achievement of the primary objectives of the Magnet Incentive Schools. They shall operate from the end of the school day until 5:30 p.m., half days on Saturdays and for at least one and a half (1 1/2) months after the regular school year ends. The primary objectives of the extended day programs, as set for in respective SEP'S, are: (a) to promote interest in the concept of learning\n(b) to provide enrichment and remediation experiences\n(c) to improve and enhance the self esteem of all pupils\n(d) to improve the verbal, problem identification and problem solving skills of pupils\n(e) to improve the conflict resolution skills of pupils\n(f) to improve the social skills of pupils\nand (g) to enlarge their experiences within and outside the community by extensive, education related programs. personalities and field trips.AFTER CARE Any elementary school age pupil who would normally otherwise be within the attendance zone of a magnet incentive school or who has previously been assigned to a magent incentive school shall be eligible for the extended day, weekend and extended year programs offered at their incentive zone school. The Scholarship Trust Committee shall be authorized to consider these pupils for scholarship awards pursuant to funds available and other criteria approved by the Court. SCHOIiARSHIP PROGRAMS The Little Rock School District recommends approval of the scholarship program proposal submitted by the Trust Fund Committee. The Joshua and Knight Intervenors recommend approval of the following: a The Magnet Incentive Schools shall provide college scholarship program which shall be available to all pupils therein. Each minority student assigned thereto as of the 1989-90 school term and thereafter, who remains in and graduates from Little Rock School District schools, shall have an entitlement to receive such assistance for college as determined by the Scholarship Trust Committee. The Scholarship Trust Committee Was recommended by the Office of the Metropolitan Supervisor. Non-minority and other pupils shall also be entitled to the same benefits as minority pupils. provided they are currently enrolled (as of 1989-90) ^For purposes of this provision, LRSD schools shall include County or NLR schools if a minority magnet incentive school pupil graduates therefrom as a part of the M to M program.therein or provided they live within the shadow of a Magnet Incentive School and elect to attend that school. Non-minority pupil shall be eligible to participate in the school's scholarship programs provided they meet the requirements otherwise set out below by the Scholarship Trust Committee. The scholarship fund shall be constituted by the allocation of twenty percent (20%) of the total budget for the magnet incentive schools each year for a period of six years. The scholarship program is intended to encourage minority students to complete high school and to enroll in and complete a regular 4 year college curriculum. It is also intended to increase the enrollment in the magnet incentive schools of a representative number of non-minority pupils and to promote their interest in completing high school and college as well. The exact scholarship amount per pupil shall be determined on the basis of the funds available and the demands thereon at the time the student qualifies. It is to be determined by the Scholarship Trust Committee upon notice to the parties. The scholarship funds shall be invested, with court approval, in interest bearing securities. The court approved Scholarship Trust Committee will administer the fund. The scholarships will be paid out beginning with the 1996-97 school term and will continue thereafter until either the funds are depleted or until the court establishes other requirements. It is anticipated that the interest yield of the scholarship fund will be sufficient to allow approximately one million dollars per year to be devoted to scholarships for pupils from the magnetincentive schools thereafter. This amount is sufficient to provide each student with scholarship funds of $4,000.00 per student. At the point that these schools become racially non identifiable, a report of same will be made to the court by the parties along with a recommendation regarding the disposition of any remaining funds in the scholarship trust fund. STAFFING The magnet incentive schools shall be staffed by the district with those administrators and teachers who are committed to the goals approved by the Court herein both in general and specifically. LRSD RECOMMENDATION: The incumbent teaching staff shall be vacated. The selection criteria, in addition to the appropriate certification or licensing requirements, are as follows: JOSHUA AND KNIGHT INTERVENORS RECOMMENDATION: The incumbent professional staff in those schools shall be vacated within one week of the Court's approval of this plan and placed into a general pool with other professional staff members.^ The district shall select from that pool, pursuant to court approved criteria. new staff to fill the magnet incentive school vacancies. The recommended criteria in addition to appropriate certification or licensure requirements submitted for approval by ^Support staff shall be afforded an option to remain at their present school assignment. They shall agree, however, to undertake the necessary training which is required for all staff to be successful in these schools. the court for the selection of magnet school professional staff are as follows: (a) racial balance\n(b) successful past experience in working with minority children and parents\n(c) sensitivity to cultural and racial differences between minority and majority pre-school and elementary pupils\nand (d) willingness to work in the communities where the magnet incentive schools are located at times other than during regular school hours. Staff members who are not selected or decline to participate in the program shall be transferred into comparable positions for which they qualify on the basis of the contract provisions, Articles XVI, XVIII. and XXXVIII. of the Professional Negotiating Agreement between Little Rock and the Little Rock Classroom Teacher's Association. The teachers who are selected to work in the magnet incentive schools shall be entitled to additional pay for the additional work and responsibilities they will have with the magnet incentive schools. A pay schedule for the additional work for teachers in the magnet incentive schools which is supplemental to the existing pay schedule. It shall be based upon a figure of not less than 20% of the base pay which each teacher earns pursuant to the regular salary schedule. This is consistent with present practice for additional time during the regular school day for which some teachers are presently paid. The contracts of magnet incentive school teachers during the 1990-91 school term shall be for ten and three fourths months withthe understanding that, by mutual agreement of the teacher and the district, the contract may be extended to the extent necessary for a period up to an additional one month. The reason for the contract period being ten and three fourths month for the 1990-91 school year is explained as follows. The district presently extends to all teachers a contract for nine and one fourth months or 192 days. The additional one and one half month takes into account approximately four weeks for magnet incentive school staff development and approximately two weeks for preparation of SEPs and for extended year programs which are not available in the other schools. It is not expected that all teachers will be employed on supplemental contracts during the 1991-92 and subsequent school years. The number of teachers necessary for the supplemental time requirements of the magnet incentive schools shall be determined by the district at the end of each school year beginning in June of 1991 and continuing each year thereafter at approximately that time. The district shall, of course, have the authority to extend contracts as necessary, on an objective, impartial basis, in order to meet the expectations of the court. For 1991-92 and thereafter the district shall be authorized to vary the length of contracts in *Each magnet incentive school teacher shall be required to spend at least seven (7) additional hours per week. While these seven (7) hours are fixed they are expected to be arranged to accommodate the individualized needs of the students to the extent necessary. It is expected, however, that absent compelling circumstances, each teacher shall spend two hours for each of three days and one Saturday per month for four hours. 4 Days deemed undesirable shall be adjusted so that they can be equitably distributed among staff by the associate superintendent. Fridays and Mondays shall be rotated among all staff.accordance with objectively determined needs and expectations. There shall also be an extensive teacher aide program. It's purposes shall be two fold: (1) to assist the teachers and the administrators in the classroom, with the extended day, Saturday and year programs\n(2) to supervise children in the lunch room, the playground and on field trips as necessary\nand (3) to help develop minority teachers for possible future placement in the district. There shall be at least one teacher aide for each teacher. There shall also be at least one person employed in a professional capacity to coordinate field trips so that there will be a correlation between those learning experiences and the expected learning experiences which occur within the classroom in particular and the school in general. An adequate number of student aides will be selected to perform this function. They will be paid as part time employees on an hourly basis which is commensurate with the local rate of pay for comparable work. In keeping with the recommendations of the Metropolitan Supervisor and for otherwise independent good reasons, the district shall arrange and pay for educational courses which facilitate the objectives herein for the teacher aides at any teacher training institution in Central Arkansas that is accredited by North Central Association. The courses shall be college degree oriented with an emphasis upon teacher preparation.TO: FROM: THROUGH: SUBJECT: LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 810 WEST MARKHAM STREET LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS April 2, 1990 Office of the Metropolitan Supervisor James Jennings, Associate Superintendent for Desegregation Monitoring and Program Development Dr. Ruth Steele, Superintendent of Schools'^^^ Dr. Herb Cleek, Deputy Superintendent of Schools Building Plan for Incentive Schools Please find attached the proposed plan for expanding the capacities of th  incentive schools.k. LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 810 WEST MARKHAM STREETS LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS April 2, 1990 TO: Dr. Ruth Steele, Superintendent of Schools Dr. Herb Cleek, Deputy Superintendent of Schools FROM: James Jennings, Associate Superintendent for Desegregation Monitoring Tj'S and Program Development SUBJECT: Building Plan for Incentive Schools According to the Tri-District Desegregation Plan, the Little Rock School District must submit a detailed plan for closing incentive schools with small capacities and enrollments and building larger schools in the approximate vicinity for the purpose of integregation. The plan must be submitted to the Office of the Metropolitan Supervisor by April 1, 1990. The District has discussed this matter with the Metropolitan Supervisor's office on several It is the Districts understanding that certain ice occasions. parameters must be followed in developing plans to close and rebuild incentive schools. First, the purpose of this plan is to increase the elementary building capacity in central and east Little Rock. Any school closings must be accompanied by a building expansion at some other school(s) and/or the construction of a new school building. The increase in building capacity will eventually help reduce the burden o busing on black elementary students. Second, in a case of a building expansion, the new capacity must yield enough seats to enable the school to meet desegregation requirements. The incentive schools must have enough space to obtain a racial balance of approximately 60-70% black. The same requirement applies to the construction of a new school building. Closing a school also involves reassigning students to either a new building, an expanded facility, or an existing school outside of the target area. Whatever the case, the reassignment process must comply with desegregation requirements. Another parameter involves the number of classes at each grade in a particular school. Each grade must have enough seats to accommodate the total capacity at the preceding grade. This factor is often overlooked in preparing for future capacity needs. For instance, some schools have three classes feeding into two classes at the next grade level. The only way to correct this problem without reassigning students is to move a teacher to the problem grade level, factor must be considered in developing plans to expand school buildings. This (1)The last factor for consideration relates to physical limitations at the school site and/or in the target community. In considering building expansions, attention must be given to the space limitations at the school site. Some of the incentive schools do not have enough space for extensive expansions. The District has observed these factors as an extensive search for a new school site in the target area has been underway since 1988. Real estate agencies and others who are familiar with availability of properties that might be suitable for a new school site have been engaged to assist in the identi- fication of potential sites. The old King School is the only site east of University Avenue that the District has been able to identify for new construction. I In addition to the mandate to close and rebuild/expand incentive schools, the Tri-District Desegregation Plan also directs the Little Rock School District to place four-year old programs in all incentive schools. The following is a plan which addresses the need to provide an early childhood education program in each incentive school as well as the closing and rebuilding/expansion of exist- ing incentive schools. The plan is based on the following assumptions: a. All sixth graders enrolled at the incentive schools in the 1989-90 and 1990-91 school year will be promoted. b. All K-5 students currently enrolled at the incentive schools will remain at these schools for the 1990-91 school year, in 1990-91 will remain at these schools in 1991-92. included for magnet transfers The K-5 students No projections are c. All K-5 incentive school students will be promoted in 1990-91 and 1991-92 to the next grade level at the end of the respective school year. d. Kindergarten seats in the incentive schools will be filled using a 60% black and 40% white ratio. ensure a 60/40 racial balance. If necessary, seats will be reserved to e. All assignments (including sibling preference transfers) to the incen- tive schools are subject to desegregation requirements. Seats will be reserved for white students to ensure compliance with desegregation requirements. f. All building expansions, if necessary, and construction will be com-^ pl eted before the beginning of the 1991-92 school year if the Little Rock School District is able to obtain long-term financing for construction costs. g. Meetings will be scheduled with parents and other community representatives to discuss plans for closing and/or expanding schools in their neighborhoods. (2)5' t T - h  /-I. t Ish Ish school will be closed at the end of the 1990-91 school year. Approximately 146 black students in grades 1-6 will be enrolled at Ish at the time of the school closing. The students at Ish will be reassigned to Rightsell and Mitchell for the 1991-92 school year. A site selection committee will be appointed to identify a site for a new school in the general proximity of Ish, Mitchell, and Rightsell. Within the allowable time frame, the District will use every legal means to acquire adequate property for a new school in this proximity (including the right of eminent domain) and will engage the assistance of professional real estate agents in its search. The committee will submit its findings to the Metropolitan Supervisor's office by May 15, 1990. If the District is unable to acquire a site for a new building, the District will proceed with the following plan to expand Mitchell and Rightsell. Mitchell Seven classrooms will be added to Mitchell: - one first grade - one second grade - one third grade - one fourth grade - one fifth grade - one sixth grade - one four-year old class The first through sixth grade additions will change Mitchell's capacity from 280 to 400 students. The addition of 75 students from Ish will still enable Mitchell to obtain a 68/32 black/white racial balance if all of the remaining seats are filled by white students. Rightsell The classroom presently in use for Rightsell's mass media specialty will become a fourth grade classroom. Also, six classrooms will be added to Rightsell: - one first grade - one second grade - one third grade - one fifth grade - one sixth grade - one four-year old class The first through sixth grade additions will change Rightsell's capacity from 260 to 380 students. The addition of 71 students from Ish will still enable Rightsell to obtain a 70/30 black/white ratio if all of the remaining seats are filled by white students. These plans are contingent upon adequate space at Rightsell to complete the proposed classroom additions. Rockefeller The CARE activity room will be used for an additional kindergarten class. will give Rockefeller a total of three kindergarten classes and will allow the This 60 four-year old students currently at Rockefeller to be able to remain for kindergarten. The G/T class will be moved to another area of the building. A new second grade class will be assigned to the room formerly used by G/T. At least four classrooms will be added to Rockefeller: - one third grade - one fourth grade - one fifth grade - one sixth grade (3)The classroom changes and additions will change Rockefeller's capacity from 300 to 420 students. The new capacity will allow Rockefeller to obtain a 53/47 black/white ratio if all of the remaining seats are filled by white students. (NOTE: Consideration will be given to adding a total of six new classrooms to Rockefeller to accommodate the relocation of the G/T class.) 01d King Site A new school will be constructed on the old King site. The school will offer the incentive school program and will have a capacity of approximately 700 students. The District will initiate discussions with city officials relative to improvement of street access to the old King site. Garland and Stephens will be reassigned to the new school, open in the 1991-92 school year. All students enrolled at The new school will Careful attention will be given to alternative educational/service uses for Ish, Garland, and Stephens. Contact has already been made with an agency that is interested using Ish. These closings will also require that the District give prompt attention to a new site for the IRC. In addition, the District will give special attention to maintaining the names o*' King, Ish, and Stephens. The individuals for whom these schools were named have made important contributions to the black community, and the District should continue to honor them with school names. Funding The District will use proceeds from the 8 mill tax increase to fund the incen- tive school building plan if approved by the voters. If the tax increase is not approved, the District will ask the Metropolitan Supervisor's Finance Committee to make the incentive school building plan a high priority from desegregation funds. If the Finance Committee disallows funds for the incentive school building plan, then the District will ask the Court for funding. (4)- 515 Beckwood Little Rock, AR May 15, 1990 72205 Office of the Metropolitan Supervisor 201 E. Markham Little Rock, AR 72201 To Whom it May Concern: Your office called together the original Incentive Schools parent committee for the purpose of reviewing and commenting the proposed Incentive School plan. on We met several times and generated reports which were given to your office. Your office then sent copies of this final report to the committee members. Our work (we thought) had been completed. We listened to Mr. Walker and Mr. Jennings speak Then your office called and summoned us for one more meeting, where we learned that the final report was supposedly just a draft. speak, then reaffirmed our support for the original recommendations that we had agreed upon. I have learned that another \"final\" report has been issued that purports to contain the recommendations of our committee. It claims that the Incentive School committee supports the closing of Stephens and Garland, and thus basically supports the LRSD proposed building plan. This is absolutely untrue! It was the concensus of the committee that all incentive schools should remain open and that a new King Elementary should also be built if there is a need for more capacity. We believed that the smaller schools served the needs of these children better, and that parents would be attracted to the smallness of the schools if the District would properly advertise their benefits. We were well aware that our recommendations would probably not get written into the plan, but we wanted to go on record that PARENTS disagreed with the closing of these three neighfc)orhood Now that the final report of our committee has been schools. LRSD's plan. altered, it gives a false impression that parents agree with the Tr\u0026gt;or-,i_ Mr. Jennings told me that there was no need to go into the affected community for a public debate because \"your committee represents the parents in that area and your committee endorsed our building plan.\"I request that you disallow the second \"final the first report be made the official one. report and that It is the responsibility of your office to be sure that what is released to the press and school officials is accurate. The final report should not have been released to anyone until the committee had seen and approved it. I haven't even received a copy of the second \"final\" report, and I suspect that others on the committee haven't, either. The greater questions are these: Who is trying to squelch the voices that cry out for fairness and equality for ALL of the children in Little Rock? valued equally by the LRSD? Are \"black\" and H white\" children How successful can a plan be when it is built on an unconstitutional elementary student assignment plan? (Just because it is \"popular\" doesn't make it right). there really any willingness on the part of administrators to allow community members to participate in meaningful decision Is making? What is the purpose of attracting more students to our district when we can barely afford to educate the ones we already have? When are we going to stop blaming others for our problems and recognize that the solutions are in our own hearts? If you don't stand up for the principles of fairness, honesty and equality, who will? Is your commitment simply to desegregate the schools or to stand uncompromisingly firm on ) I believe that if you do the latter, the former principles? will take care of itself. Sincerely,RECE5V^D Co P ? 2 WO BiU2cMKw'ttanS3sw-9P 515 Beckwood Little Rock, AR May 21, 1990 72205 Mr. James Jennings 8^0 W. Markham Little Rock, AR 72201 Dear Mr. Jennings, Although you have included two parents (Mr. Lowe and me) on the Site Selection Committee for the Incentive Schools, I want to make it very clear that we have had no input whatsoever into your plans for the incentive schools. It appears that the only reason we were put on the committee is so that you can say you had parent involvement. I am fundamentally opposed to large elementary schools, especially in areas that have a large population of lower income families. I am strongly opposed to closing smaller schools within neighborhoods and funnelling those students into larger schools on the outer fringes of the neighborhoods. The parents on the Incentive School Committee (metropolitan supervisor's office) agreed with this and thought that school capacity should be kept at 350 or below for incentive schools, and building additional schools as necessary to increase capacity. (A second, false report was generated after our final report, original building subcommittee recommendations were the ones which the full committee supported). The I plead with you once again to go into the affected neighborhoods and have a public debate on where schools will be located and how large they will be. Give people in those areas the power to decide these issues that affect them. Did you read the article by Tom Peters in yesterday's Democrat? He stressed the importance of shrinking school size to improve the quality of education and discipline in the schools, recommends that schools have less than 250 students each! He If you generate any reports or summaries concerning the Site Selection committee, you do not have permission to include my name on them. If you are required to include my name, then you must attach a copy of this letter disclaiming my support for your decisions. Sincerely, Ruth Steele Judge Henry Woods Metropolitan Supervisor's Office Kenyon Lowe Willis Walker Bill Hamilton cc\nLittle Rock School District June 5, 1990 TO: FROM: SUBJECT: Arma Hart, Associate Metropolitan Superintendent James Jennings, Associate Superintendent for Desegregation Monitoring and Program Development THROUGH:^! Dr. Ruth Steele, Superintendent of Schools Dr. Herb Cleek, Deputy Superintendent Site Selection for Incentive Schools The Little Rock School District submitted a building plan to your office on April 2. The plan included recommendations for closing and rebuilding (or expanding) certain incentive schools. In addition to possible building expansions, the District also decided to look for a new school site in the area of Rightsell, Mitchell, and Ish schools. The purpose of this report is to share the District's findings and make additional recommendations concerning Rightsell, Mitchell, and Ish Schools. The Little Rock School district recently entered into discussions with Philander Smith College concerning approximately six (6) acres of space on the west side of the campus. The site is between 13th Street, Chester Street, Interstate 630, and Izard Street. There are several collaborative efforts that can be developed between the District and Philander if this idea becomes a reality. The District will propose that the collaboration with Philander become a part of the overall University Lab School Program described in the Tri-District Desegregation Plan. The laboratory school arrangement is expected to have tremendous benefits for Philander's teacher education program, as well as for the District's efforts in the area of recruitment of minority teachers. Likewise, the District will benefit from the staff development opportunities that are expected to develop from this partnership. Please find attached several worksheets that have been developed to explain the plans and ramifications of the proposed project. It should be noted that this proposal is still at the point of mere discussion between the two parties. However, the District hopes to hear from Philander in the very near future concerning the likelihood of this proposal. It is possible that Philander may elect to consider a lease arrangement rather than the actual sale of the property. The building plan for the incentive schools is based on the following assumptions: a. All sixth graders enrolled at the incentive schools in the 1989-90 and 1990-91 school year will be promoted. 810 West Markham Street Little Rock, Arkansas 72201  (501)374-3361Site Selection page two b. All K-5 students currently enrolled at the incentive schools will remain at these schools for the 1990-91 school year. The K-5 students in 1990-91 will remain at these schools in 1991-92. projections are included for magnet transfers. No c. All K-5 incentive school students will be promoted in 1990-91 and 1991-92 to the next grade level at the end of the respective school year. d. Kindergarten seats in the incentive schools will be filled using a 60% black and 40% white ratio. reserved to ensure a 60/40 racial balance. If necessary, seats will be e. All assignments (including sibling preference transfers) to the incentive schools are subject to desegregation requirements. Seats will be reserved for white students to ensure compliance with desegregation requirements. f. All expansion and construction work will be completed before the beginning of the 1991-92 school year if the Little Rock School District is able to obtain long-term financing for construction costs. The Little Rock School District proposes the following: 1. Build a new school at the old King School site. This school will accommodate approximately 700 students. Students enrolled at Stephens and Garland during the 1990-91 school year will be reassigned to the new school at the old King School site. The attendance zones for Stephens and Garland will be combined to form the attendance zone for the new school. The District will initiate discussions with city officials relative to improvement of street access to the old King site. Careful attention will be given to alternative educational/service uses for Ish, Garland, and Stephens. Contact has already been made with an agency that is interested in using one of these school sites. These closings will also require that the District give prompt atten- tion to a new site for the IRC. The District also will give special attention to maintaining the names of King, Ish, and Stephens. The individuals for whom these schools were named have made important contributions to the black community, and the District should continue to honor these individuals with school names.Site Selection page three 2. Expand Mitchell School by adding seven classrooms. This expansion will allow Mitchell to comply with desegregation requirements, have a four-year old class, and enroll some students from Ish School (see worksheet 2). -one 1st grade -one 2nd grade -one 3rd grade -one 4th grade -one 5th grade -one 6th grade -one 4-yr. old Ihe first through sixth grade additions will change Mitchell's capacity from 280 to 400 students. 3. Expand Rockefeller School by adding at least four classrooms. This expansion will allow Rockefeller to comply with desegregation requirements. Hie CARE activity room will be used for an additional kindergarten class. This will give Rockefeller a total of three kindergarten classes and will allow the 60 four-year old students currently at Rockefeller to be able to remain for kindergarten. ' The G/T class will be moved to another area of the building. A new second grade class will be assigned to the room formerly used by G/T (Gifted and Talented). At least four classrooms will be added to Rockefeller: -one 3rd grade -one 4th grade -one Sth grade -one 6th grade The classroom changes and additions will change Rockefeller's capacity from 300 to 420 students. (NOTE: Consideration will be given to adding a total of six new classrooms to Rockefeller to accommodate the relocation of the G/T class.) 4. Build a new school at the Philander Smith College site. Students will be reassigned to this school from parts of the Rightsell, Mitchell, and Ish attendance zones. Students also will be reassigned to this school from part of the Jefferson satellite zone (see Worksheet 2). The school will accommodate at least 560 students. If the District is unable to secure an agreement with Philander, Rightsell School will be expanded. 5. Close Stephens, Garland, and Ish at the end of the 1990-91 school year. This proposal is referred to as \"Plan B\" on Worksheet 1. Plan A is the same proposal described in the April 2 submission to your office. Plan B does not include an expansion of Rightsell School. The adjustment of attendance zones and reassignment of students will create enough vacancies at Rightsell to comply with desegregation requirements. The adjustment of attendance zones and reassignment of students also will allow some students who currently attend school in west or southwest Little Rock to attend school in central Little Rock (new school at Philander). The transfer of students to the new school at Philander will create additional vacancies in other schools.WORKSHEET 1 SCHOOL Current Capacity 1989-90 Enrollment Plan A Capacity Plan B Capacity Garland 300 251 Stephens 260 212 700^ 700\u0026gt;' Ish 200 156 560^ Mitchell 280 222 400 400 Rightsell 240 206 380 240 Rockefeller 340 245 420 420 Total 1620 1292 1900 2320 Plan A - New school at old King site - Expand Mitchell - Expand Rightsell - Expand Rockefeller - Close Stephens, Garland, and Ish Plan B - New school at old King site - Expand Mitchell - Expand Rockefeller - New school at Philander site - Close Stephens, Garland, and Ish - Reassign all students in specified zone blocks to Philander site. -\u0026gt; New schoolWORKSHEET 2 Specified Zone Blocks 1. Move from Rightsell attendance zone to Philander site: 0439 0448 Total 71 students 68 students 139 (13 students currently at Rightsell) (24 students currently at Rightsell) 37 2. Move from Jefferson satellite to Philander site: 0434 0435 Total 31 students 20 students 51 3. Move from Ish attendance zone to Philander site: 0477 0485 0480 Total 32 students 54 students 42 students 128 (12 students currently at Ish) (17 students currently at Ish) (11 students currently at Ish) 40 4. Move from Mitchell attendance zone to Philander site: 0445 0446 Total 28 students 14 students 42 (5 students at Mitchell) (3 students at Mitchell) Other Changes 1. Move Ish attendance zone to Mitchell: 0476 0479 0473 38 students 29 students 54 students (9 students at Ish) (7 students at Ish) 0-6 students at Ish)School Mitchell Rightsell Rockefeller Garland Stephens New School Ish New School School Mitchell Rightsell Rockefeller Garland Stephens New School Ish New School -A^ith Expansion WORKSHEET 3 Kindergarten Capacity 40 40 60 100 80 Building Capacity 400'\" 240 420* 700 560 1st Grade Capacity 60 40 60 100 80 Kindergarten Atten. Zone Students 37 23 47 34 37 71 54 Atten. Zone Students 296 161 304 322 309 631 360EXPLANATION OF WORKSHEET 3 Ihe March 5 court order from Judge Woods raises concern about overcrowding in the Incentive Schools. The court's concern is related to the fact that the attendance zones developed by the Little Rock School District in March 1989 were based on a 1:25 teacher/pupil ratio. Ihe court noted that the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals mandated a ratio of 1:20 in the virtually all-black schools. However, the attendance zones for the Incentive Schools have not been changed since March 1989. Worksheet 3 compares the total number of kindergarten attendance zone students to the kindergarten and first grade capacities for each Incentive School. Worksheet 3 also compares the total number of K-6 attendance zone students to the building capacity for each Incentive School. In both cases, the capacities are based on a teacher/pupil ratio of 1:20. The capacity figures listed on Worksheet 3 reflect the proposed expansions and new construction. The kindergarten comparison is important because the attendance zones only apply to kindergarten students. The 1989-90 kindergarten class will be in the sixth grade in 1995-96. Each kindergarten class between 1989-90 and 1995-96, inclusive, will be assigned by attendance zones. As a result, the attendance zone plan will be in full operation after the 1995-96 school year. Worksheet 3 clearly indicates that each Incentive School has enough capacity to accotimodate all kindergarten attendance zone students. Of course, it is possible that some kindergarten attendance zone students may not be able to attend a particular incentive school because of the desegregation requirements. If the desegregation requirements are not enforced, some of the kindergarten classes will exceed the desegregation requirements. The attendance zone figures listed on Worksheet 3 do not represent the actual number of students currently enrolled in the incentive schools, most cases, students who reside in the attendance zones of incentive In schools currently attend other schools. If these figures give any idea of the number of students in these zones by 1996-97, it is conceivable that the incentive schools will have adequate capacities to accommodate their attendance zone students. As stated in the District's April 2 report on attendance zones, additional information is needed to make student projections for the 1995-96 school year. Ihe construction of a new school at Philander will allow a large number of black students to be able to attend school in their neighborhood. The reassignment of these students also will help reduce the burden of busing on black students.WORKSHEET 4 Attendance Zone Students 1. Move from Rightsell attendance zone to Philander site: 0439 71 students  Bale (3) Badgett (2) Chicot (2) Dodd (8) (Boundaries: 12th, State, 16th, and High Streets) Fair Park (1) Forest Park (6) Franklin (1) Fulbright (3) Geyer Springs (1) Ish (4) Jefferson (1) Mabelvale (2) Meadowcliff (4) Mitchell (5) Otter Creek (1) Rightsell (13) Rockefeller (2) Romine (3) Stephens (1) Wakefield (1) Washington (3) Western Hills (3) Woodruff (1) 0448 68 students  Bale (1) Brady (2) Chicot (1) Cloverdale (2) (Boundaries: 16th, High, Wright Ave., State Streets) Dodd (1) Fair Park (1) Garland (1) Geyer Springs (6) Mabelvale (8) McDermott (1) Meadowcliff (4) Mitchell (8) Otter Creek (1) Pulaski Hgts. (1) Rightsell (24) Stephens (1) Wakefield (1) Washington (4)2. Move from Jefferson satellite to Philander site: 0434 31 students  Dodd (1) Fair Park (1) (Boundaries: State, Broad- way, 17th Streets, and Forest Park (2) 1630) Jefferson (1) McDermott (5) Meadowcliff (4) Otter Creek (1) Pulaski Hgts. (3) Rightsell (7) Rockefeller (2) Romine (1) Stephens (1) Washington (1) Western Hills (1) 0435 20 students  Badgett (2) Brady (1) Chicot (1) Dodd (1) Jefferson (3) Rightsell (3) Rockefeller (4) Stephens (1) Terry (2) Western Hills (2) (Boundaries: Broadway, Main, 17th Streets, and 1630) 3. Move from Ish attendance zone to Philander site: 0477 32 students  Bale (1) Dodd (1) Forest Park (1) (Boundaries: 28th, Ringo, 33rd, and High Streets) Geyer Springs (1) Ish r Sra (12) McDermott (4) Otter Creek (2) Pulaski Hgts. (2) Romine Hg (1) Washington (6) Wilson (1)0485 54 students  Badgett (1) Chicot (12) Dodd (1) Fair Park (1) Ish (17) Jefferson (5) McDermott (3) Otter Creek (3) Wakefield (1) Washington (4) Wilson (5) Woodruff (1) (Boundaries: Ringo, 28th, State, and 33rd Streets) 0480 42 students  Badgett (1) Chicot (2) Cloverdale (5) Dodd (1) Forest Park (1) (Boundaries: 33rd, State, High Streets, and 130) Geyer Springs (2) Ish r Spj (11) Mabeivale (8) McDermott (1) Meadowcliff (3) Mitchell (2) Rightsell (2) Washington (2) Wilson (1) 4. Move from Mitchell attendance zone to Philander site: 0445 28 students  Bale (2) Baseline (1) Dodd (1) (Boundaries: High, 16th, 18th, and Battery Streets) Fair Park (2) Forest Park (1) Fulbright (1) Geyer Springs (1) Jefferson (6) Mabeivale (1) Meadowcliff (2) Mitchell (5) Terry (1) Washington (1) Western Hills (1) Wilson (2)0446 14 students  Brady (5) Ish (1) Jefferson (1) Mitchell (3) Pulaski Hgts. (1) Rightsell (2) Romine (1) (Boundaries: Battery, 18th, High Streets, and Wright Avenue)LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 810 WEST MARKHAM STREET LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS August 7, 1990 TO: FROM: Incentive School Principals and Teachers QzRuth S. Steele, Superintendent of Schools SUBJECT: CONTRACTS FOR INCENTIVE SCHOOL TEACHERS In recent days there has been considerable comment concerning incentive school teacher contracts and pay for the 1990-91 school year. Allegations that the District has \"reneged\" on its promise to incentive school teachers have been made. I have investigated these allegations and have held extensive conversations with all the administrators on my staff who were involved in the discussions of the incentive school programs. Based on my investigation, I have determined the following: 1) Earlier discussion that all teachers would receive a ten and three-fourths (10 3/4) month contract and 20 percent additional pay was based upon the supposition that all children in all incentive schools would participate fully in the Extended Day Program and the It has since been determined that Saturday program. not every child in every school will participate every The agreement day and every Saturday in this program, submitted to the Metropolitan Supervisor's Office on April 2 states that a contract and pay schedule for additional work for teachers will be developed that is supplemental to the existing pay schedule and 9.25 contract. It shall be based upon a figure of not less than 20 percent of the teacher's base pay-. The 20 percent figure was used because that is the amount paid to teachers under present practice who work additional time during the regular school day (e.g., teach an This represents the equivalent of additional class). one extra day per week. Incentive school teachers will receive the 20 percent pay supplement for each additional O seven hours they work. If these additional hours are worked each week, the teacher will receive what amounts to pay for an extra day of work that week. That amount is 20 percent In fact, over what is normally earned is a week's time. whenever seven hours of additional work are completed, the teachers will receive the equivalent of an extra day's pay. This is how the 20 percent additional pay will be calculated.a Principals and Incentive School Teahcers August 7, 1990 Page Two 2) Teachers will receive their supplemental pay for an additional 20 days of work in two checks, one to be distributed around August 15 and the other to be distributed around September 15. S' worked the additional twenty days, teachers will Since not every teacher receive pay for the total number of days worked. Their compensation will be determined by multiplying the 1990-91 daily rate of pay times 20 days  or the number of days worked by the individual teacher. 3) The additional pay for incentive school teachers has been characterized by some as \"incentive pay, tl would receive additional pay simply because they i.e., teachers decided to work in an II incentive\" school. The language of the original statement reads, \"The teachers who are selected to work in the magnet incentive schools shall be entitled to additional pay for the additional work and responsibilities they will have with the magnet Nowhere has the additional pay incentive schools. II been based upon anything other than additional work and responsibilities. A few other points need to be made. First, District administrators and incentive school principals did not inform the incentive school teachers of exactly what they would be making when they were interviewed because we were not sure what the Court might ultimately approve. In fact, we were criticized We explained that we could not make for not being more specific. a firm commitment until we had a final ruling from the Court. We did tell teachers they would need to be prepared to work additional days and longer days although we could not be specific as to the precise amounts of time. We had been told, following the January 2 submission of our desegregation plan to the Court, that we needed to do more work At the Court's direction, we on the Incentive School Program. submitted a more detailed document to the Office of the As late as Metropolitan Supervisor's Office on April 2. June 12, 1990, revisions were still being made in the document, and as of this date, there is still no Court-approved Incentive School Plan, and we do not believe there will an approved plan until after the Eighth Circuit Court's final ruling. Second, rumors notwithstanding, teachers who work in the incentive schools will be compensated at a rate of pay based upon their contractual amount, not a stipend. cc: Board of Directors Dr. Herb Cleek Ms. Estelle Matthis Mr. James Jennings Mr. Chip Jones Ms. Margaret Greraillion Ms. Pat PriceI I TO: FROM: LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 8)0 West Markham Street Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 October 2, 1990 RE OCT 2 1990 Office of Mefpopaiifjn Sojisryfsop Arma Hart. Associate Metropolitan Supervisor James Jennings, Associate Superintendent for Desegregation Monitoring and Program Development TS-THR0U6H: T^'Or. Herb Cleek. Deputy Superintendent SUBJECT: October 1 Request for Information In our phone conversation on October 1 , you requested the following information: A. The number of M-M students enrolled in incentive schools. B. The recruitment efforts at the incentive schools (Reference: Tri- District Desegregation Plan, Incentive School Section, pp.28-29). C. Bimonthly reports on recruitment. The information on Item A was given to you over the phone. Item B, please note the following: In regard to 1 . Place informat ion booths at prominent shopping centers and malls throughout Pulaski County. Information was distributed at Southwest City Mall and Park Plaza Mall. 2. Develop highlight sheets about the Incentive School Program to be displayed in local businesses inserted in utility bills . and distributed in ail RvIftaLA County elementary students. Incentive school highlight sheets were sent to students throughout Pulaski County. Incentive school brochure has been distributed through individual contacts and at Park Plaza Mall. sheets have not been inserted in utility bills, consideration for the future. Highlight This is under .X sga^ I I Memo to Arma Hart page two I 3. Conduct information sessions with special audiences such as the PTA Council . Junior League Commerce and Realtors Association League of Uomen iloters Chamber of Information sessions have been held with realtors, Chamber of Commerce, PTA Council, Southwestern Bell employees, and all LRSD principals, assistant principals, counselors, and secretaries. 4. Develop public service announcements (PSAs) for all media. along with billboards signs an EUiailS. benches  and other public adver- tlsements as part oX an ongoing media blitz to heighten public awareness of. and provide general information about the incentive schools Activities that have been done to date: Television interviews by Channels 4 and ?, Seven On Your Side program on incentive schools and back to school activities! promotion on district's cable channel, special articles in newspapers. 5. Produce short videocassette recordings for use at public presentations such as PTA meetings, realtor groups, and community organizations. To be developed in consultation with marketing expert. 6. Seek incentive school endorsements from local celebrities. To be developed in consultation with marketing expert. 7. Meet individually and in small groups with parents. Several individual and informal small group meetings have already occurred with parents. Building tours are ongoing. 8. Hire a marketing expert to develop and implement multi-year market inq cewpeiign- All interviews have been completed and a marketing team has been selected. of October 8. Contract negotiations will be conducted during the week 9. Conduct an ongoing media blitz that focuses on the positive aspects of the incentive school program. See Item 4. Also, a special issue of FOCUS (district newsletter) was sent to all parents in the Little Rock School District. News- letter sent during spring 1990. incentive schools. A special page was devoted to theMemo to Arma Hart page three 10. Highlight incentive schools in all district publications. See Item S. In regard to targeting specific neighborhoods throughout Pulaski County, Items 1,2.4. and 5 are underway. A meeting with NLRSD and PCSSD administrators was delayed because the incentive school plan had not been approved by May 1990. In regard to Item C, bimonthly reports on recruitment, please note the monthly updates on desegregation that are enclosed for your review. Recruitment reports from the school-based biracial committees will be included in the November update on desegregation. cc: Dr. Ruth Steele Chris HellerTO: FROM: LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 810 WEST MARKHAM STREET LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS February 27, 1991 Board of Directors ^Ruth S. Steele, Superintendent of Schools SUBJECT: Incentive Schools - Update In order to provide you with information concerning efforts made by the administration to address issues related to incentive schools, the following report is provided. A Board of Directors' meeting was held on October 3, 1990, to share concerns from incentive school teachers and other staff members. The Board directed the adminis- tration to conduct similar meetings with individual schools and to work cooperatively to resolve issues that could negatively impact the implementation of our Incentive School Program. were recorded at each meeting. Meetings were held with each school and concerns and accomplishments Members of my senior management team shared these con- cerns with the deputy superintendent, other staff members, and with me. issues were resolved after our meetings with the incentive school staffs. A number of I have met with incentive school principals several times to secure their perspective of the operation of these programs. Joshua and Knight Intervenors to resolve these issues. As directed by you, we have tried to meet with the Chris Heller has scheduled several meetings with only the Knight Intervenors and district personnel attending such meetings. In December, we received the Eighth Circuit Court order approving the settlement plan. The order directed that all new and unresolved issues be referred to the parties for discussion and approval. We have indicated to the parties our need to quickly resolve some issues, both verbally and in several written requests through our attorney, Mr. Hei 1 er. Based on input from our incentive school teachers and principals, central office staff made written recommendations which have been submitted to the Joshua Intervenors. stating that Mr. Walker Chris Heller sent a written message via FAX cover page on February 18 11 called and approved the change. II On February 25, 1991, he stated in our desegregation planning meeting that the Joshua Intervenors had given verbal approval to our latest recommendations (see attachments) and advised us to move forward with the changes. To date, we have not received written approval but do pTan to advise staff of the verbal agreement that will provide more meaningful activities for extended day and week as well as some relief for our staff and students. Several of my senior staff members visited similar programs in Dallas, Texas, on February 12, 1991. The Charles Rice Learning Center was designed to accomplish the same type of goals as those of our incentive schools. John Walker visit this school with me in early March. be asked to join us on this trip. The team recommended that The Knight Intervenors will The information gained from one year of program implementation and on-site visits to the Charles Rice Learning Center in Dallas will assist us in revising our incentive school program. Provided is a chronology of activities, events, and communications that have taken place since our last meeting.DATE TIME SITE 10/3/90 5 p.m. INCENTIVE SCHOOLS CHRONOLOGY OF EVENTS Board Room TYPE OF MEETING fWriCIPANTS Incentive School Staff Board, Administrators, Teachers 10/16/90 8:30 a.m. Board Room Incentive School Principals Principals, Dr. Steele, Administrators 10/22/90 10/30/90 11/1/90 11/5/90 11/8/90 All day 5:30 p.m. 7 p.m. 3:30 p.m. 5 p.m. 5:30 p.m. 1 :30 p.m. Ish Inservice Instructional aides 11/13/90 3:30 p.m. Board Room Board Room Curr. Center Curr. Center Rockefeller Board Room Frankli n Incentive Schools Incentive Schools Incentive Schools Incentive Schools Incentive Schools Intervenors and LRSD Inservice 11/29/90 12/13/90 All day 1:45 p.m. Schools Conference Rm. Deseg Inservice Stephens 12/14/90 12/18/90 2:15 p.m. 3 p.m. 2:15 p.m. 3 p.m. 4 p.m. 1 p.m. Conference Rm. Conference Rm. Conference Rm. Conference Rm. Conference Rm. Board Room Garland Mitchel 1 Rockefel1 er Rightsell Ish Intervenors and LRSD Garland Stephens Ish and Rightsell Mi tchel1 Rockefeller LRSD and Knight/ Joshua Intervenors Pre-school Teachers Incentive Schools Principal, Dr. Steele, Admi ni strators II 11 II II II II II II II 11 11 It II II II LRSD, Joshua/Knight Intervenors 1/8-10/91 1/29/91 2/12/91 2/14/91 2/25/91 Transition Parties All day 8 a.m. Schools 2:30 p.m. 8 a.m. Dallas, TX Supt's Office Schools Rockefeller Deseg/Staff Development Charles Rice Learning Ctr. Report on Dallas trip Deseg/Staff Development Inservice Incentive Schools Administrators Administrators Incentive Schools Pre-school Teachers and Aides (HIPPY Staff invited)DATE 12/5/90 12/11/90 1/17/91 1/22/91 1/22/91 2/8/91 2/18/91 CHRONOLOGY OF COMMUNICATIONS FROM Chris Chris Chris TO SUBJECT Heller Heller Heller Dr. Steele John Walker Chris Heller Chris Heller John John John Walker Walker Walker Chris Heller Chris Heller John Walker John Walker Requested meeting Announced meeting Proposed Extended Proposed Extended dates dates/times Day change Day chang Request for discussion Clarification of 1/22 letter Seeking responseHERSCHEL H. FRIDAY, P.A. B. S. CLARK ROBERT V. LIGHT, PA. WILLIAM H . SUTTON, P. A. GEORGE E. PIKE, JR.. P.A. JAMESW. MOORE Byron m. eiSCman, jr,, p. a. JOED. BELL, P. A. MICHAEL G. Thompson, p.a. JOHN c. ECHOLS, P A. JAMES A, BUTTRY, P.A. FREDERICK S. URSERY, P.A. M T. LARZELERE, P. OSCAR E. OAVIS, J* R JAMES C. CLARK, JR., P Thomas p lCOOCTt, t. JOhM OCWCT WATSON, PAUL a. aCNHAM III, LARRTW. 8URKS, P. A. wvckliff Nisan J ft., P. JAMES COWARD HARRIS, P.A J. PHILLIP MALCOM, P.A. JAMES M. SIMPSON. P.A. MEREDITH p. Catlett, p.a. JAMES M, SAXTON, p.a. J. SHEPHERD RUSSELL HI DONALD H. BACON. P.A. WILLIAM THOMAS BAXTER, P. WALTER A. PAULSON II, P.A. FRIDAY, ELDREDGE \u0026amp; CLARK A PARTNERSHIP OF INDIVIDUALS ANO PROFESSIONAL ASSOCIATIONS ATTORNEYS AT LAW 2000 FIRST COMMERCIAL BUILDING 400 WEST CAPITOL LITTLE ROCK. ARKANSAS 72201-3493 Telephone 501-376-2011 December 5, 1990 ATTACHMENT 1 BARRY E. COPLIN, P.A. RICHARD O. TAYLOR, P.A. JOSEPH B. HURST, JR., P. 4 Elizabeth j. robben, p./ CHRISTOPHER HELLER, P. LAURA HENSLEY SMITH, P. ROBERT S. SHAFER, P.A. WILLIAM M, GRIFFIN III. P. J THOMAS N. ROSE, P.A. Michael a. hoore oiAN E S. MACKEY Cltoe 'tab' C A LVI N J. H, URNCR SCOTT J. LANCASTER JERRY L. MALONE M. OAYLE CORLEY ROBERT a. BEACH, JR. S. RANDOLPH LOONEY J. LEE BROWN JAMES C. BAKER, JR. M. CHARLES aSCHWENO, JR MARRY A. LIGHT SCOTT M. TUCKER JOHN Clayton Randolph MARY L. WISEMAN Guy ALTON WADE PRICE C. GARDNER THOMAS F. MEEKS J. M I Ch a el PICK E N S WILLIAM A. ELOREOGE, JR., P L. TERRY WILLIAM L. PATTON, JR, P.A, telecopier (SOU 37a-2l4T TELECOPIER ISOU 37O-O3C Mr. John W. Walker Mr. Wiley Branton JOHN W. WALKER, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72206 370-1056 Re: Incentive School Program Dear John and Wiley: We would like to schedule a meeting as soon as possible among representatives of the Joshua Intervenors, the Knight Intervenors snd the Little Rock School District to resolve a number of issues concerning the Incentive Schools. Please provide a list of dates when you could be available for such meeting. meet at your office. We will be happy to Yours very truly, Christopher Heller CJH/k cc: Grainger Ledbetter Frank Martin James JenningsIK C'CC 11 '90 It': 45 FRi EJLO CLhRK (501 \u0026gt; H. FRIDAY, .A ROaCRT y. LIOMT, A A. WILLIAM W. BUTTON, R A OCORBK C. A.m, JR., 0.^ JAMra w MOORS BTRON M. BiBSmaN, JR  A JOB 0- BELL. MA. hiChabl 0. tmOmabon, ma. JOHNO. CChOlB, MA. JAMBB A. ButtAY, Ma. PRBOBRiCM a. URBBRY, R.A. N. T. LARBClBRS, ma. OBCaR (. BAVIB, JP. Z. CLARK, JR., 0 A. t**0mab m LtaafTT, r,a. f/OxN Otwev WATfiON, M. PAUL a. 9CNHAM III, Ma. 4- wvcruiff Niaacr, ., JAMtl BOWARO NARRIB, J- WALCOM, MA. JAMia H. fllUP^ON, P.A, mbrbbith m catlstt, ma. JAMBB M. Saxton, J- BHKPMCRO RUSfitLL III OONALO H. BACON, MA. WILLIAM THOMAS BAXTCfl, MA. WALTBr a. PAULSON \u0026lt;1, MA. b-cl47 fhiday, eldhedoe a OLAHK A PARTNERSHIP OP INDIVIDUALS ANO PROFESSIONAL ASSOCIATIONa ATTORNKYI at UAW lOOq FIRST commcrciau UlLOINa 400 W\u0026lt;T CAPITOL I.ITTLC ROCK, ARKANSAS 7iaorA34i Tclcrhonc 9Cl*37aOi| December 11, isgo P-.2 ATTACHMENT 2 lARRY c. corliN, a a  iCnarb d. Taylor, b,a. JOaiRH a. Hurst, jr., a CLIBAaCTM ROaiBN, R A A. CMRiarOBMfR HCUUtR, ha LAURA Ur^ai _________ ' * LAURA W^NBtCy A|4(TM Ma MSHPBT* WILLIAM M, ORif'PIN III ThOmaB N. Rose, MA. miChakl a. moorc O\u0026gt;ANC B. MACrky III, MA. WaLTBR M. Kcl III. MA MBVINA. CRABB WILLIAM A. WAOOILL. JR.. __________ * CuroB -tab- turnkr CALVIN 4. mall aCOTT J. LANOABTIR J BRRY L. MALONB M. CATLB eORLSr ROBBRT a. aCACH, JR. . RAHOOlRM LOONCY J. LCC BROWN jAMca c. iakba, UR. \u0026gt;*. CMARLta pscmwbno, HARRY A. LICmT . JR. aCOTT M. TUCKCR JOHN CLAYTON RANOOLRH L. WitCMAN OUT ALTON WAOI pRiei e. oaronbr THOMAS M MCSxa J. MICHASl pickkni eevMAek WILLIAM smith William a. l6rco, jr.. ma WILLIAU , ' WILLIAM L. TCRRY WILLIAM L. RATTON, JR. MA. TBlBCOPIBR (BOn BtcpBiat TCLCCOPIER IBOtl a7B\u0026gt;B Mr. John W. Walker Mr. Wiley Branton JOHN W. WALKER, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72206 370-1506 Re: Incentive School Program Dear John and Wiley\nRepresentatives of the Little Rock Knight Intervenors will meet at issues at 1:00 School District and the LRSD to discuss Incentive School , , , P'l\"* on Tuesday, December is, 1990. know if either or both of  . - - . meeting. that will be ,,, , . -------- Please let me  ,,, will be available to attend this We will be happy to move the meeting to your be more convenient for you. offices if CJH/k Yours very truly ChristopTCT Mileru u IJ i i\n0 U'OUi tKiUAl LAU l-iK.'ll L K bChOvi Dibt ua U U 2 \u0026gt; 1,11.1 ATTACHMENT 3 January 17, 1991 Mr. John W. Walker JOHN W. WALKER, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72206 Re: 370-1506 Incentive School Extended Day Program Dear John: I am writing to follow up on our discussion yesterday concerning the extended day program at the Incentive Schools, The extended day program is presently operated from 2:30 p.m. to 5:05 p.m. Monday through Friday at each of the Incentive Schools. This schedule does not leave time for regular staff meetings and extends the school day beyond the point which is productive for the students, The desegregation team at the Little Rock School District recommends that the schedule of the extended day program be changed to 2:30 p.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Thursday, beginning with the second semester of this school year. I believe that the LRSD desegregation plan is flexible enough to allow this change (see Volume II, p. 67, paragraph J.) Please let me know whether the ..Joshua Intervenors would have any objection to the described change of extended day program hours for the remainder of the 1990-91 school year. Yours very truly, Christopher Heller CJH/k cc: James Jenning:JhM 24 'SI 10:0'3 P.2 JOHN W. WALKER RALPH WASHINGTON MARK BURNETTE WILEY A. BRANTON, JR. *Alu id.nlttai u PncdM In Gtoiili A the Oliulct cl Columbit. JOHN w. Walker, p.a. Attorney At Law 1723 Broadway Little Rock, Arkansas 72206 Telephone (601) 374-3768 FAX (501) 374-4187 ATTACHMENT 4 January 22, 1991 LAZAR M. PALNICK LAW a FINANCE BLDG. SUITE 1002 429 FOURTH AVENUE PTTIBBURGH, PA 16219 (412} 2S8-9220 Mr. Chris Heller FRIDAY, ELDREDGE \u0026amp; CLARK 2000 First Commercial Bldg. Little. Rock, AR 72201 Re: Incentive School Extended Day Program! Dear Chris\nIn reference to your letter of January 17 above, 7 ........................ uanuatj 1, 1991 regarding the I dont believe the Joshua Intervenors would have c objection to the change, however, I do suggest that we have comprehensive discussion about this matter. any Best regards, John W. Walker a JWW:lpTO: Chris Heller FROM: SUBJECT: Little Rock School District January 22, 1991 Ruth S. Steele, Superintendent of Schools Proposed Incentive School Revisions ATTACHMENT 5 The incentive schools have been in operation using the new plan for one semester. We have experienced some success\nhowever, a review of the programs indicates a need to provide more time for teachers to plan instructional programs that are of high quality and reflect an integrated basic skills curriculum. The extended day and extended week activities are to be an integral part of daily instruction. The existing daily schedule does not contain adequate time to plan and implement these activities. more linkage between daily instruction and field trips. There must be These trips are an important component of the incentive schools. Students and parents are experiencing some difficulty in adjusting to such a lengthy school day and week. Parents are picking their children up from school before extended day activities are completed. Saturday is not encouraging at this time. After lengthy discussions with the principals, teachers, and some parents, we propose the following revisions be approved and become effective by the beginning of the second semester, February 4, 1991. Attendance on Proposed Schedule Changes 1. Extended Day - Time for Students and Teachers Currently - 2:35 - 5:05 p.m. Proposed - 2:35 - 4:30 p.m. (for students only) One day per month students will be dismissed at 2:35 p.m. Staff would remain until 5:05 p.m. This additional time would be used for staff development activities and faculty meetings. The district's CARE Program is open until 5:30 p.m. so parents and students would not be negatively impacted by this change. 2. Extended Day - Number of Days (for the remainder of the 1990-91 school year only. This will be reassessed before the beginning of the 1991-92 school year.) Currently - Five (5) days weekly Proposed - Four (4) days weekly The CARE Program will still be available for our students. 010 West NarRlmin Street I.illle (tock, Ark.Ttisns 72201 (Sn 1)574 \u0026lt;530 I Proposed Incentive School Revisions Page 2 3. Extended Week - Saturday Program Currently - All six schools now operate Saturday programs Proposed - The Saturday program will be on a bt-monthly basis at each school and one district-wide Saturday program that would include involvement of parents NOTE: 1. 2. Teachers would still v/ork two extended days a week. Before this goes into effect, time will be needed to coordinate activities with the Transportation Department and CARE. 3. Compensation to teachers and aides will be adjusted in accordance with the proposed changes in work schedules. Most of the proposed changes are listed or implied in the Incentive Section of the Settlement Plan. RSS/lksHERSCHEL H. FRIDAY, P.A. B 9. CLARK ROBERT V. LIGHT, P A. WILLIAM H. SUTTON, P A. GEORGE E. PIKE, JR., P.a. FRIDAY, ELDREDGE \u0026amp; CLARK PARTNERSHIP OF INDIVIDUALS AND PROFESSIONAL ASSOCIATIONS ATTORNEYS AT LAW ATTACHMENT 6 J am c 3 W. M oo A C BYRON M. CISCMA JOE O. BELL, P.A. N. JR.. P. MICHACLO. THOMPSON, P. JOHN c. ECHOLS, P A. JAMES A. BU TTRY, P. A. FREDERICK S. URSERy, P.A OSC a E. OAVlS, JR. JAMES C. CLARK, JR.. C Thomas P. LEGGETT, P. JOHN OtWET WATSON, MES COWAAO H ARIS, J. PHILLIP MALCOM, P.A. JAMES M. SIMPSON. P.A. MtRCOiTH P. CATLETT, P. JAMES M. SAXTON, P.A. J. SHEPHERD RUSSELL II OONA .O H. BACON, P A. M THOMAS BAXTER, P. R A. PAULSON II, P.A. 2000 FIRST COMMERCIAL BUILDING 400 WEST CAPITOL LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS 72201-3493 Telcphone 501-376 2011 February 8, 1991 BARRY E. COPLIN, P.A. OlCHAOa.O. TAYLOR, P. \u0026lt; JOSEPH B. HURST, JR., ELIZABETH J. ROBBEN, CHRISTOPHER HELLER, LAURA HENSLEY SMITH, ROBERT 9. SHAFER, P.A THOMAS N. ROSE, P. MICHAELS. MOORE DIAN e S. MACKEY KEVIN CLYDE \" C A LVI N SCOTT J. LANCASTER JERRY L. MALONE M, OAYLE CORLEY ROBERT a. BEACH, JR. S. RANDOLPH LOONEY J. LEE BROWN JAMES C. BAKER, JR. M. CH. RLCS O9CHWCNO, JA. MARRY A. LIGHT SCOTT H. TUCKER JOHN CLAXXON RANDOLPH MARY L. WISEMAN OUT ALTON WADE PRICE C. GARDNER THOMAS F. MEEKS J. MICHAEL PICKENS eouNicL Mr. John Walker JOHN W. WALKER, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72201 WILLI. WILLI. Wl M A. ELOREOOE, jn., p a M L. TERRY JAM U. PATTON, JR. P. TELECOPIER \u0026lt;SOI\u0026gt; 370*21X7 TELECOPIER \u0026lt;SOl\u0026gt; 370-0309 RE: Incentive School Extended Day Program wMtTCP's oecr .o. 370-1506 Dear John: I wrote you on January 17, 1991 to seek your approval of certain proposed changes to the Extended Day Program at the Incentive Schools. Your response on January 22 was that you did not believe the Joshua Intervenors would object to the change but you suggested a comprehensive discussion about the matter. Copies of both letters are enclosed for your convenience. My understanding of your position, which is based on our discussions as well as the letters is that you do not oppose implementation of the proposed change immediately, but that you intend at some point to have a comprehensive discussion with LRSD about all Incentive School issues. Please let me know whether I am correct so that I can advise LRSD whether or not to implement the proposed change. Your ry truly\nristopher Heller CJH/k cc: Dr. Ruth Steele Mr. James Jennings bcc: Enc.-o CCOAG o uO nJ- i$ /iH U'Ch OOAC xACL a. THOMPSON, N c. CCHQta. \" A. iA eeAiC* ahCS C. CI.A-P Oma6 p. VCG Omn OGWKt * AH III, r. \u0026lt;VA RO n A R R I d , MAVCOM, R A. JAMC6 M. S'HPaoi MCRteiTH P. CATt JAHCa M. SamTOn, J. BHCPRCRO HU3 \u0026lt;O I. BACO HOHAS ill AXTC 16:11 'fi'SiU 37621-17 FRIDAY L.-V'V FIRM L R .School Dl.st FRIDAY. ELDREDGE fi: CLAEK A RARTNenSHlA OF INOiVlOUAUS ANO PftOFeSSIONAL ASSOCIATIONS attohneys at Law 2OOq FIR3T COMweRCIAL BUILDING *OO V/C3T CAPITOu LITTUE ROCK. ARKANSAS 722QI-i Teucpkonc 501-376.2011 Fax No. 501-376.2|A7 03  @.00 2/Uij.3 ATTACHMENT 7a o TmO M M. GPirT. Ka H. rOSC. H(CHACL S. MOO*: CU III) P ru AN c A M. OaVV AoaeA '.NCAiTi A : cop'.ct a. B CaCh, jA . RahOOuPh uooncv I.CC BBQWN AMCS C. BakCA, jA. c vv XUTQN *A0C AICC C. OaAOnCR kOhaS i. h Cixb TONIA P. JONES Oavi  wiuaoN lANOaUPH dAAR AlCii\u0026lt; joae RO O. TAT1.QR. P. A. K B. HURBT, JR., P. \u0026gt;CTH J. ROBfiCN, P. lAM A. ELOACOOC, TELECOPY TO FOLLOWING NUMBER: 374-7609 THE FOLLOWING PAGES ARE FOR: TO: Or. Ruth Steele FIRM NAI4E: LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT FROM: Chris Heller MESSAGE: This letter was sent to John Walker today. He called and approved the change. TOTAL NO. OF PAGES\n2 THIS INFORMATION SHEET PLUS 1 PAGES DATE: February 18, 1991 TIME: A.M./P.M. IF YOU DO NOT RECEIVE ALL THE PAGES PLEASE CALL 501/376-2011 ASAP  TRA.NSMITTING FROM: AUTOMATIC FAX RAPICOM 200 - 501/376-2147 TELECOPY OPERATOR: FOR OFFICE USE ONLY: LT23_0________ CLIENT NUMBER 90_________ MATTER NUMBER NOTE' Th\u0026amp; infonj\\(i!ioi} jzi f/i/j Jiicsirnile trans/niiial is legally privileged confideadcil intended only Jor ihe use of ihe individual or entity named above. If the reader of fids message is not the intended recipient, you are hereby tiotified that any dissemination, distribution or copy of the transmittal is strictly prohibited. If you receive this transniiiial in eiror. pleivte imtnedialely notify us by telephone, and return A A ii'll 2  i S / II1 16 : l.'l 'Q'.'jlii .'(762 1.17 I'RID.AV LAW FIRM L R .School Dl.sc f2) 001/00.3 o. 6. Cl.*\"rt R06CRTV. 1. .ICh T, B. SUTTON, fElDAY, ELDREDGE \u0026amp; CLARK A Partnership of inoiviouals ano phofessionau associations ATTORN SYS AT LAW ATTACHMENT 7b UAVftA ncnGLCt aWIT-H,-** aqbcrts. awAreo, p. a OCOaOC C. PixC. . JAMCaV*. MOQXC R., P. A. riRST COWMeRClAL aUlUOiNO BTRON M. CiaCMAN, Jp., P.A ^OE a. BELL, p A. miCmaClO. TMOMPaoN, p, a JOHN C. ECHOlS, P. a, JAMES A. auTTRY, P, A. rpcoERiCK a. unsERT, p.a. M. T. LAREELCRE. A. 400 WEST CAPITOu LITTUE rock. ARKANSAS 72201-3493 TcuCPhonc SOI-376\u0026gt;2OIi OSCAR C. OAW(8. . ^AMCS C. ClaAh, F^'ax No. 501-376.2147 A. THOMAS liooktt, p A. JOHN DEWEY WAl LCWlS MATHIS, P. On. P.a. LAOAV w. BUPK?. P.A. A. WVCXl.l^* NHOCT, JR.. P.A. JAMS 9 COWaBO HARRIS, RA. J. PKIUUIP MALCOM, P.A. JAHeS M. SIMPSON, P.A. MCRcoiTri p. Catlett, p.a. JAM C9 M. SAXTON, P A. J. 5MCPMCRO RU66CLL hl OOhALO N. BACON, R. A. william TmOmaS OaaTCA, P.a. WALTER A. RAULBON II, P.A. BAORV c. CORLIN. p.a, RIChASO O. TAYLON, p.a. JOGSPM a. HURST, JR., R.A. CUUHTM J, RQgaCN, P.A. CHRISTOPHCR HEULCR, P.A. TELECOPY TO FOLLOWING NUMBER\n374-7609 THE FOLLOWING PAGES ARE FOR: TO: James Jennincrs FIRM NAI-IE: LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT FROM: Chris Heller MESSAGE: This letter was sent to John Walker today. He called and approved the change. TOTAL NO. OF PAGES: THIS INFORMATION SHEET PLUS DATE: February 18, 1991 TIME\nWILVIAM M. OPiPTIH III, THOMAS N. flOJH, P.A. \u0026amp;. MOORE oiANc a. hacxct WALTER M. CBCUiil, P.A 6S Cut or -t\u0026gt; Calvin .j, . WAOOELL, JP.. t kb TU R N E H SCOTT J. LANCASTER JERRY L. MALONC M. QAYUE CORLEY ROBERT B. BCACh, JN. S. RANOOLRM LOONEY J. LE C BROW N JAMES C. aAKCA. jA. H. CHARLES OSChwend, j. HARRY A. LIOkT aCOTT H. TUCKER JOmn,ClaytOn Randolph Out ALTON WAOC PRICE C. OARONER TMOMAS P. MEEKS J. MICHAEL PICKENS TO NIA P. J O N CS DAVID D. WILSON JCPFRET M. MOORE iduDttb WILLIAM J. SMITH WILLIAM A. CLOREOqC. JR., WILLIAM L. TERRY WILLIAM L. PATTOn. JR., p.,1 PAGES A.M./P.M. \u0026lt;\u0026gt;AWt. . 9CHH 2 1 a A IP YOU DO NOT RECEIVE ALL THE PAGES PLEASE CALL 501/376-2 011 -ASAP TRANSMITTING FROM: AUTOMATIC FAX RAPICOM 200 501/376-2147 telecopy OPERATOR: FOR OFFICE USE ONLY: LI230________ CLIENT NUMBER 90__________ MATTER NUMBER CONPIDENTJ.ALITY f^OTE: The in/onnaiion in this facsimile transmittal is legally privileged and confidential U\u0026gt;filiri7ia!ion intended only for the use of the individual or entity named above. Jfthe reader of this message is not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copy of the transmittal is strictly prohibited. If you receive this transmittal in error, please immediately notify us by telephone, and return02 - lS/91 16:11 mOl 3762147 FRIDAY LAW FIRM L R School Diet @003/063 FKIDAY, ELDREDGE it CLARK mCOSChCL rl. r Nl DAY, P. A. AOBChT V. LIOrtT, P, A. WILLIAM M. SUTTON, P, A. Oioncc C. |NC, JR., J A hi C 6 w. hOOnc A pabtnership of individuals ano pbofcssional ASSOCIATIONS ATTACHMENT^c BYRON M. C\u0026gt;6Cm. JOe O. BCLL, P.A M, JR., / miCmaCu Q. tmOmb\njOinn c. eci\u0026gt;ioi.s, p. A. aUTTftV. P. coEniCKa. unsc ON, A. ATTORNEYS AT UAW 3000 FIRST COmMCIAL SUIUQinG *OO WEST CAPITOL LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS 72201-3^33 Tclcphone axnqy RICUARQ 0. TaVLOP, p.. JOSEPH B. hUHBt, JR.. CUIZAflCTH J. ROaaCN, Christopher heller, OaCAA C. SAVIS, JR. J AM C SOI 37S.2OII LAURA mcnslCt Smith, p nOBCRT 5. ShaFCR, r.A. WILUIAH M. GRirriN III, p. ThOmaM N. AOQC, p,x, KICMACL S. MOORE OiANC MACHCT WALTER M. EBEL \u0026lt;11, P.A. N. KEVIM Thomas r. lcOO in, b JOHN DESwCT WATSON, CRABfr CLYOC 'TAS TURNCR LAHHTW. aUPKS, P.A, A. WVCHLirr NISBET, JR,, JAMC5 EOWARQ HARRIS. A. A. J- PHILLIP MALCOM. H.A. JAMES M. SImPSOm. .a. MCRt^DlTH P. CaTlCTT, p a. JAMES M. SaXTON, P. a. J. JWKPhCRO HUaaCLL III OONALO H. raCOn. p a. February 18, 1991 WILLIAM TnOUAS SAXT WAlTtA A. PAULSON II, CALVIN J. HALL SCOTT J. LANCASTER JCAi^T L. HALONC M. OATLC CORLCT HOOCRT B. BSACH, JA. a. ranoolRH LOONk:T \u0026gt;\u0026gt;* 1-CC BROWN JAHC\u0026amp; C. SAKCR, JO. H. Charles oscnweno, ja HaRRT a. LIGHT SCOTT M. TUCACO JOHN CLAYTON RANOOlI'H MARV L. WI9CMAN GUT ALTON WAOC RHICE C. OAROnCR THOMAS F. MCCHS J- MICHAEL R-ICKENS eojNXt WILLIAM J. dMITM WILLIAM A. CI.CDOC,vH., B FAX L. RATTO M, J e. TCIECOPICB TCLECOPICA I69M ^\u0026gt;6*0303 Mr, John Walker JOHN W. WALKER, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72201 370-1056 Re: Incentive School Extended Day Program Dear John\nSeveral LRSD administrators , . - visited and were impressed bv the Rice Learning Center -   4* ^earning center at Dallas, Texas. Certain aspects of the Extended Day Program particularly interested the LRSD group. We would like for you to visit the school with you to visit the school with us to determine whether certain successful components of the extended day and other programs at the Charles L. Rice Learnino Center ran ho . X..,. .  Learning Center can be adopted for use in the Little Rock School District. ~ scheduled to be in Dallas on March 67, convenient time for us to visit the school. ,Dr. Steele and others are 1991, and that might be a me ome dates which would be convenient for If not, please provide you. other issue requires our immediate attention. My clients need to know as soon as possible your position concerning the Extended Day Program schedule proposed in my February 8, 1991 letter. Thank you for vour consideratinn. Incentive School our Thank you for your consideration. Yours very trul Christophe Halier CJH/k cc: Dr. Ruth Steele c5.!-03/06/91 16:02 501 374 7609 L R School Dlst ODM 002/002 LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 810 WEST MARKHAM STREET LITTLE ROCK, AR 72201 March 6, 1991 TO: Chris Heller, Attorney FROM: ^^Zchip Jones, Manager of Support Services SUBJECT: Incentive School Facility Improvements The following j during the last three summarizes renovations at the incentive schools years\nMitchell $115,000 Renovations including air conditioning, carpeting, and playground equipment Franklin 1,330,000 Classroom addition, cafeteria remodeling, and furniture Rockefeller 176,000 Re-roofing, minor renovation Richtsell 178,000 Air conditioning, re-roofing, classroom conversion, painting Stephens 63,000 Air conditioning, painting, carpeting Ish 135,000 Renovation, re-roofing, playground equipment addition. 5\" currently, budgeted for additional renovations at the inventive schools in the amount of $180,000. funds are currently budgeted for cc: James Jennings^i. TRANSACTION REPORT \u0026gt; r * : * * P.Ol AUG-13-91 TUE I6:O7 DATE -START SENDER RX TIME PAGES TYPE NOTE AUG-13 16:05-.. 501 374 7609 V 42\" 2 RECEIVE OK * * * * * * * . [k- ' ?-'.A' . .'  Jfei.\nJ * '4^. . 1\u0026gt;S'.pa \u0026gt; 1- 081391 16:11 0301 374 7609 L R School Dlst OBM @001 Little Rock School District . . August 13, 1991 Mrs. Ann Brown Desegregation Monitor Heritage West Building 201 East'Markham, Suite 510 Little AR 72201 Post-It'* brand fax transmittal memo 7671 [ Prem COJ Co. # Bl pages e DDeepstt.. * ^'^7PQI06 Phone # J Dear Ann: I have met with Donita Hudspeth, one of the Incentive School principals', to review a student_ daily schedule and see what impact the increase in instructional aides would have on adult-student interaction. What follows is an attempt to show the effect of one aide per classroom 'teacher -as well as our proposal to' have two aides for every three classroom teachers and a contingent of supervision aides to provide supervision at lunch, recess, and before school. ' As you probably are aware, there are 14 classroom teachers at Mitchell. aides. Underthe -1989 plan, there would be 14 instructional Under our proposed change, Ms, Hudspeth would have nine. .A school, day, for children, is 6 1/2 hours long. hour is spent for- lunch and recess, Of that time, one instructional time per day. leaving 5 1/2 hours of Of those hours, one hour per day is spent for special classes in art, music., computer lab, gifted and talented, and physical education. Thus, 41/2 hours of time remain each day -for regular classroom instruction in reading, language arts, math, social studies, and science. -Under the plan calling for-one aide -per classroom teacher, students would have two adults in their classroom every day but wo d still have only 4 1/2 hours of daily classroom instm- ion. rider this plan a student would interact with the following adults in a week's time. I Regular classroom teacher Instructional aide Art specialist Counselor Music specialist Nurse Computer lab attendant Gifted/talented specialist* (for those in the program) Physical education specialist I fl -a 810 West Markham Street  Uttle Rock, Arkansas 72201  (501)524''2000 !set?T I 9 OS/13 '91 16:12 esoi 374 7609 L R School Dlst ODM 002 Mrs. Ann Brown August 13, 1991 Page 2 Including the auxiliary teachers in the list, as well as the principal and secretary, it is entirely conceivable, if not probable, that a youngster will.interact with up to twelve adults during a typical school week- Under our proposal of two aides tor every-three teachers, adultstudent interaction would not change significantly since all the specialists would continue to interact in the students. same way with slightly less. However, timeallocation for aides per student would be Assuming again that the amount of instructional time per teacher is 4 1/2 hours a day, the time needing to be covered for three teachers is 13 1/2 hours. Assuming that two aides work 4 1/2 hours each, the time they can \"contribute\" toward the 13 1/2 hours is 9 hours.\nThat-means that 4 1/2 hours will not be covered by instructional aides. However, that time, when spread among three teachers, amounts to only 1 1/2 hours per day. Given the level of services available to students in the incentive schools and the small-class size, T believe students^ educational needs can certainly be met in the \"2 for 3\" arrangement. 1 hope this explanation illustrates that we are not shortchanging the needs of students, nor would we ever do so.  Our proposal represents a thoughtful new analysis of this aspect of the incentive school prograTns and a better utilization of resources, our children's days in school are greatly enriched by specialists and instructional-aides. .It certainly does not seem unreasonable to have classroom teachers spend 1 1/2 hours per day alone with their.children. In fact, it is quite important that they do so. Thank you for considering this issue with us. if I can be of further assistance- Please let me know- .Sincerely, Ruth S. Steele Superintendent of Schools bjf TO: FROM: THROUGH: lUBJECT: LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 810 West Markham Street Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 September 13, 1991 Horace Smith, Associate Monitor CU'Ca Si? James, Jennings, Associate Superintendent for Desegregation Monitoring and Community Services Dr. Ruth Steele, Superintendent of Schools Instructional Aides in Incentive Schools Please find listed below the information you requested concerning the number of instructional aides in the incentive schools. In addition to the number of aides currently assigned to each incentive school, I have also included the number of positions that we of filling. are in the process SCHOOL NUMBER OF AIDES POSITIONS BEING FILLED \\ 5 W* C\\ 0^' Franklin 11 3 Garland 9 0 Ish 6 0 Mitchell 8 1 Rightsell 8 1 Rockefeller 8 2 Stephens 8 0 cc: Arma Hart Larry Robertson OFFICE OF DESEGREGATION MONITORING 201 EAST MARKHAM STREET, SUITE 510 heritage west building LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS 72201 To: From: James Jennings, Assistant Superintendent for Desegregation Desegregation Monitoring Team: Ann Brown, Melissa Guldin, Connie Hickman, Margie Powell, and Horace Smith Date: October 28, 1991 Subject: Additional Incentive School Documentation Needed Thank you for agreeing to meet with our staff on November 4, 1991. During further review of the Incentive School Monitoring Guide, it became evident that additional data would be needed to complete our reports. As we indicated during our conversation on October 28, 1991, obtaining this information will require the expertise of several of the district's central administrative staff. We will need the following information: - Incentive School Program Committee- membership list and minutes #2 - Incentive School Parent Council- membership list and minutes #3 - LRSD Definition of Criterion-Reference Testing #21 - Copy of District homework policy #20 - Homework Hotline- staff Ust, example of materials #32 - Update on year-round school #37, #92 - Staff recruitment procedures #40, #68 - Staff development records of training in the Incentive Schools #41 - Camp Pfeifer referral guidelines and procedures #55 - Procedure for monitoring SEP's - team list #56-59 i - Copy of Incentive School Staffing Needs Assessment/Recommendations #66 - Guidelines for Incentive School staff evaluation #70 - Staff Development Planning Committee - procedures/membership Ust #71 - Copy of Staff Development Needs Assessment - results /recommendations #72 - Status of the Incentive Schools Instructional Specialist #79 - Teacher Demonstration Committee - membership and current status #77 - Master Teacher Program Committee - membership and current status #78 - Copy of the Teacher Assistance Program Plan #80 - Copy and status of the reserved kindergarten seat poUcy #82 - Status of Adult/Parent/Community Education #64,83,92 - Status of Parent Intern Program #84 - Parent Workshops - Ust of dates/locations, topics, participants #87 - Copy of Parent Recruitment Plan, materials, current status #96 If you have any questions and/or concerns, please do not hesitate to call on us. cc: Dr. Ruth SteeleTO: FROM: LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 810 WEST MARKHAM STREET LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS November 6, 1991 ^2 James Jennings, Associate Superintendent for Desegregation Estelle Matthis, Associate Superintendent for Educational Programs SUBJECT: ODOM 1. Sue Corker is the assigned specialist for our incentive schools\nJudy Milam helps in case of an emergency. Sue has spent and will continue to spend many hours in these schools. 2. Enclosed are the forms used by the reading specialists when providing technical assistance to teachers. If additional information is needed, please contact me. /IksLittle Rock School District Instructional Resource Center (IRC) TEACHER ASSISTANCE PLAN (TAP) SCHOOL READING SPECIALIST{S) PRINCIPAL TEACHER(S) DATE OF REQUEST DATE OF PLANNING VISIT Suggest!ons/P1anni ng IRC Staff Will Provide Assistance in Reading/Language Related To: Reading/Learning Activities Centers: Whole Language - Strategies: Use of Reading Materials/Records: Flexible Grouping: Special Testing/Assessment: Using Reading Multicultural Guide and Core Literature List: Reading/Writing Connection: Demonstration Teaching: Other: Comments: (Continue on back if needed.) SIGNATURES: Principal Date IRC Director/Reading Supervisor Date Reading Specialist Date Reading Specialist Date Date Assistance Begins LRSD Revised 10/89Little KOCK dcnooi L) I Str ICC Instructional Resource Canter (IRC) COMPLETION OF TEACHER ASSISTANCE SCHOOL SPECIALIST(S) PRINCIPAL TEACHER(S) DATE ASSISTANCE BEGAN DATE ASSISTANCE COMPLETED The following sarvices/assistance were provided. Date Assistance Comments (Continue on attachments if needed.) RECOMMENDATIONS: SIGNATURES: Specialist Data IRC Qi rector/Supervisor Data Specialist Date Principal Date LRSD 10/89623 Legato Drive Little Rock, Ar. 72205 December 12, 1991 Dear Ann, This is a follow-up to my concerns about the necessity for homework hotline for incentive schools. The following is an account of the calls received at the hotline during the four weeks that Rockefeller teachers were manning the phones. Oct. 28 Nov 29 30 456 11 12 13 14 18 19 20 21 1200 16 (Mrs. Mangan made every student 66 62 3 0 0 1 1 write the phone number and take it home that day!) There were no books for the teachers to use as referenceJust the phones. On most nights there were seven teachers assigned to answer phones. I have no idea what salaries were paid, but my guess is that each phone call was very expensive. I have read that a new will begin January 6. community/business sponsored hotline That coupled with the homework center offered eachday in extended day should give each student adequate help with dally homework. Cancellation of the incentive school homework hotline looks like an opportunity to save money. We would like this money to be applied to the establishment of an alternative classroom in each building. I hope all is well with you and that you and yours have joyous holiday. a Sincerely, V -t- TEL : Dec 17,91 11 28 No.002 P.Ol I' KtCBBS^ Little Rock School District ( 1 t DcceiiibeX' 13, I'* 91 TO: Rnn Brown Office ot DbKPfii'cgation Moniior.i \u0026gt;if\nFROM: uci.ne. kesooiate superintendent for Uecegregat ion Moul tor i ng und Ooimmunity ,.\u0026gt;6 \u0026gt; James Jonninc c. THROUGH: 01'. Ruth StBwle, Superintendent of School sA] .SUBJECT: Homework Hotline Log T find attachod the homework hotline loc for October. have the log for November to you before the end of ot Please hope to next week.I J V.'  1 ' S KdCDI'^'D ')CiiC^^S J { /\ne/C.^ZA5 1 STHK/i^'/G D-\u0026gt;lCrL!^ Fa t mr fn uHif Xs// f ' r FAiVK/.^// I! I -.J i / nOTLIWt pl Ifll \u0026amp; f I U/ ) '\\ ' / ki/ t /D I {D Hn nii U- IHi ff juti K /nr 11 ZTrJDtyyG S^ Srujjks l/rrHll \u0026amp; I'D -  // / Z7^ /^n nf/ W /I HI/ H} f It i! 1 i I D I II //fl U! 3 i J U^r f /? i G' \u0026lt;x ID ID HD 1^ ^7 G^. \u0026lt;) r^DDec 17,91 12:26 No .001 P.01 LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT OFFICE OF DESEGREGATION 501 Sherman Little Rock, AR 72202 FAX (501) 324-2281 DATE TO 4tz FROM \u0026lt;? SENDERS PHONE # 324-2271 SUBJECT Special Instructions Number of Paget (include cover pa,\n- j  Fax Phone Number TO: FROM: THROUGH: SUBJECT: LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 810 West Markham Street Little Rock, Arkansas December 16, 1991 72201 DEC 1 0 by I Office of Desegregakn Monitoring Ann Brown, Office of Desegregation Monitoring James Jennings, Associate Superintendent for W Desegregation Monitoring and Community Services Dr. Ruth Steele, Superintendent of Schools Jlecruitment in Incentive Schools I am providing my latest update on recruitment for the incentive schools. It should be noted, however, that most of the recruitment activities listed on the incentive school timelines (Re: or March. 02327-02333) are scheduled to begin in January, February, It would be counterproductive to implement all of these activities during the first quarter of school even if the recruitment timelines did not exist. recruitment is from January through April. The peak period for I will continue to keep you apprised of recruitment activities in the incentive schools by sending you a copy of my monthly updates on desegregation. Highlight Sheets The highlight sheets have been revised and reprinted. distributed as part of the KIDSFAIR activities. They will They were continue to be used on a routine basis as handouts or special mailouts. They are included in all packages sent to parents who request information about our schools. Incentive chool Video Our eight-week production schedule for completion of an incentive school video is on target. Video footage research is one-fourth complete and script development, tape logging, script writing and research is one-third complete. and assistance is being contributed by AP\u0026amp;L. Four days of editing facility completion date is still projected for January 10. Anticipated Incentive School Brochures Copy is due to the Communications Department from each incentive school January 10 for preparation of the individual school If cards.\" These will be prepared to supplement the overall incentive program brochure on which final artwork is being Recruitment page two completed presently. Each school will have the opportunity to offer its brochure with the overall brochure to provide the overview and specific information about incentive programs. At the end of the school term, an updated, expanded version of these individual materials can be produced that will further enhance the recruiting/awareness effort. Incentive school brochures will be distributed to target audiences including realtors, businesses, neighborhood areas, etc. KIDSF.AIR Over 500 parents visited the Little Rock School District incentive schools booth during KIDSFAIR at Barton Colieseum, November 1-3, 1991. The'booth was attractively set up with information about incentive schools' offerings, and students' work was neatly displayed. The art teachers, media specialists and regular classroom teachers did an outstanding job in helping to plan and set up the booth. Flyers and bookmarks with the incentive school logo were given to prospective parents. displayed was a bicycle which had been donated for a prize, bicycle was awarded to one of the parents that registered. Also This The parent recruiters will put the names and addresses of the parents on a database, set up parent meetings, and provide appropriate follow-up as indicated on the parent sign-up forms. . Neighborhood Blitz The Student Assignment Office is in the process of updating its database of private school students. This information will be used to send printed information to targeted neighborhoods. The speaker's bureaus in the incentive schools will also have access to mailing labels for targeted neighborhoods. In addition to the database for private school students, we will also use the names that were acquired at KIDSFAIR. Finally, we are in the process of attempting to purchase a pre-kindergarten database of white students in Pulaski County. Speaker's Bureau A speaker's bureau has been formed for each incentive school. A list of the members was sent to your office on an earlier date by Arma Hart. Inservice training for the speaker bureau members was provided by Julie Wiedower and Dianne Woodruff (11/25/91). members will be available to assist with school tours, help arrange recruitment meetings, and be involved in meetings in targeted recruitment areas. TheRecruitment page three Special Media Coverage Special public service announcements will coincide with the announcement of pre-registration for the 1992-93 school year. The State Press, the radio stations in the black community, the Quapaw Chronicle, the Maumelle Monitor, and others will also be asked to publicize the incentive school program. These announcements will be a part of an ongoing media blitz. Telephone Hotline The District expects to have a hotline for incentive and interdistrict schools operative by the end of January. ' The hotline will have a recorded message about the special programs offered in these schools. Tours The parent recruiters will schedule ongoing parent tours in the incentive schools cc: Arma HartTO : Dr. Ruth Steele, Superintendent Little Rock School District Board of Directors J- ' RECEIVED MAR 3 0 1992 FROM: Office of Desegrsgaicn .Mchiicring Little Rock School District Biracial Advisory Conimlttee RE : Incentive Schools In the Little Rock School District (LRSD) Desegregation Plan the Biracial Advisory Committee Is charged with the task of quarterly monitoring each Incentive School. (pp. 371 \u0026amp; 373) Incentive Schools have been called the most important element of the LRSD Desegregation Plan (p. 260), and the Biracial Advisory Committee is very concerned that the plan for the Incentive Schools is not being fully implemented, being changed, and is achievement. not resulting in improved student is continually We are Impressed administrators In the with Che dedication of the teachers and Incentive Schools. However, failure to Implement the entire Incentive School plan Is causing disappointment, - - - frustration and low morale of staff members. The Biracial Advisory Committee has compiled thl outlining concerns about the Incentive Schools. our follows the format of the monitoring Instrument used the Incentive Schools. Desegregation Plan.) (Page numbers refer to the LRSD s report The report to evaluate 1 . STAFFING-: A . B . C . D . E . More male teachers Better racial balance of support staff One instructional aide per classroom (p. 297E) Supervisory aides for playground/cafeteria (p. 293F) Fulltime *  ' 2 . F . H . students Full c Ime Full time Assistant NOTE: social worker (p. 323) counselor (p. 322) nurse (p. 304G) -- principal (pp. 307 \u0026amp; 323) one per 250  one per 250 students one per 250 students C thru H are in the LRSD Desegregation Plan, aren't these staff members in each school? Why CURRICULUM: A . (pp. 265-294) B . Teachers are concerned about the many pull out programs which interfere with classroom instruction. Multicultural curriculum -- 1 . 2 . 3 . visuals are good infusion Into instruction seems to be limited 4 . teachers often ask fo-.r more training on how to implement the multicultural curriculum. the public should be more Informed about multicultural curriculum to allay misgivings misunderstandings. and3 . 4 . 5 . 6 . C . D . E. F . More hands on equipment Is needed (p. 269) Special activities such as field trips seem to be available on a limited basis rather than as a supplement to enrich academics as specified in the LRSD Desegregation Plan (pp. 272 \u0026amp; 299) Very little evidence of peer tutoring (pp. 272 \u0026amp; 297C) Only one school has a science lab. equipment seen at other schools. Very little science (pp. 267 \u0026amp; 307) No evidence of foreign language program (p. 270) EXTENDED DAY: A . B. C . (Falls very short of Desegregation Plan) Needs more special skills offered (pp. 300 \u0026amp; 302) Bring In community people and karate, drama, etc. (p. 302) prog rams, I.e. dance , Programs are now based on talents of teachers In the schools but should be based available In the community. on the variety of activities STUDENT ACHIEVEMENT: We are concerned that student achieve-' ment Is not Improving and cite these factors as possibly contributing to the the lack of Improvement: A. B . C. D. E . F. Teacher/pupil ratio is too large, originally set at 1/18, now 1/25 is acceptable, (p. 322) Instructional aides (2 per 3 classrooms) have very little time In the classroom because they are being used as supervisory aides. They have only a minimum amount of training, (p. 297E) Larger classroom sizes impede individualized instruction and cause more discipline problems Physical plant not stimulating Social problems -- (social worker will help) Too many pull-out programs Teachers express need for more training In different strategies to enhance achievement of diverse student populations. STAFF DEVELOPMENT: A . B . C . Bring In outside experts Offer professional training a s Is being done for staff In the New Futures junior high schools. New teachers In the Incentive Schools need additional assistance and support. (p 378) PARENTAL INVOLVEMENT: According to the Incentive School Plan (p. 263) \"The specific details and concerns for each Individual Incentive School must be developed by the local practltlone practitioners are the principals, r s . The local teachers, parents and community representatives In each Incentive School area. District firmly believes that the success of any program depends the opportunity for the practitioners to make The on o certain decisions at the local level.\" A . B , Very limited participation at most schools Need a full time social worker and a full time assistantC . D . 7 . 8 . the principal to help ensure who have been difficult to reach. more participation by parents (p. 307) Very little evidence of small group meetings with parents at community sites. (p. 303) Need more involvement of parents on school-based comm 1t tee s . DISCIPLINE: A . B . C . D . (pp. 263, 305, 329) Need alternative classroom with certified instructor in each school. Need strong mentoring programs such as retired teachers program (pp. 271 \u0026amp; 279 D) Need smaller classes to allow more Individualized attention. More community based programs, i.e. Boy and Girl Scouts, (pp. 299 \u0026amp; 300) BUILDINGS AND CAMPUSES: A . B . C . Incentive Schools should have extensive renovation or be replaced with new buildings, with exception of Rockefeller. New buildings should be built in the same areas of the community and should be state-of-the-art facilities. Playgrounds should be Improved and we 11-equ 1 pped. of the present playgrounds are unsafe. Franklin, Ish, and Stephens) (Mitchell, Some According to the LRSD Desegregation Plan, \"The purpose of Incentive School program Is to promote and ensure academic excellence In schools that have been difficult to desegregate.\" (p. 260) Members of the Biracial Advisory committee are very concerned that Che Incentive Schools are not accomplishing this purpose. If the Incentive Schools do not succeed, the LRSD Desegregation Plan will fall causing this district to continue to spend large amounts of time and resources in court. The possibility also exists that the State will have to be repaid millions of dollars in desegregation money. MOST IMPORTANTLY, THE STUDENTS IN THE INCENTIVE SCHOOLS WILL NOT HAVE BEEN THE EDUCATIONAL OPPORTUNITIES PROMISED BY THIS DISTRICT. IVEN cc : The Honorable Susan Weber-Wright Office of Desegregation Monitoring Joshua IntervenorsLittle Rock School District March 31, 1992 1 i\u0026gt;y2 n: TO: Ann Brown, Office of Desegregation Monitoring Joy Springer, Joshua Intervenors Bennie Smith, LRSD Biracial Advisory Committee Sterling Ingram, LRSD Planning, Research and Evaluation Department FROM: James Jennings, Associate Superintendent for \"^5^ Desegregation Monitoring and Community Services SUBJECT: Incentive School Parent Council The Incentive School Parent Council would like for one or two representatives from your office/organization to attend their next meeting on Monday, April 13, at 5:30 p.m. The meeting will be held in the employee lounge of the LRSD Administration Building, Markham and Izard Streets. The Parent Council would like to hear about your monitoring visits to the incentive schools. not be able to send a representative, end at 7 p.m. Please let me know if you will The meeting is expected to cc: Dr. Ruth Steele Arma Hart Catherine Gill Roxanne Hefley, Parent Council Chair 810 West Markham Street Little Rock, Arkansas 72201  (501)374-3361 APa JI  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 To: James Jennings, Associate Superintendent for Desegregation Incentive School Principals From: ODM Monitors: Ann Brown, Melissa Guldin, Connie Hickman, Bob Morgan, Margie Powell, and Horace Smith Subject: Review of the Incentive School Monitoring Guides Date: May 29, 1992 I Attached you will find your advance copies of the Incentive School Monitoring Guides. These are being provided to allow you to review the information, alert our office if an error exists, and incorporate corrections. As you review the document, remember that the Guides reflect the situation that existed at each school at the time of our initial visit. Updates have been included at the end of each report. This updated information reflects our communications with you during the entire school year. Any corrections must be submitted in writing to our office no later than 5:00 p.m. Monday, June 1, 1992. If no corrections are needed, you may retain your copies of the documents. . Reports which have been changed will be reprinted and the corrected version furnished to you by Friday, June 5, 1992. We look forward to your reactions. Please remember that the deadline for changes is 5:00 p.m. Monday.INCENTIVE SCHOOLS MONITORING REPORT Timeline - Task Deadline Monitoring 5-28-93 Gathering information 5-28-93 School Reports completed 6-04-93 Intro/Summary/Conclusion/Recommendations (1st Draft completed) 6-11-93 Begin Edit 6-14-93 Principals Breakfast 6-15-93 Edit completed 6-16-93 To Dr. Steve 6-21-93 From Dr. Steve 6-24-93 To Ann 6-26-93 Publication 7-02-93 Incentive Schools and Their Sending Schools Count of Studio Name Name Badgett____________ Bale_______________ Baseline____________ Brady______________ Chicot_____________ Cloverdale Elementary Dodd______________ Fair Park___________ Forest Park_________ Franklin____________ Fullbright___________ Garland____________ Geyer Springs_______ Jefferson___________ Legal Transfer______ M.L King___________ Mablevale Elementary McDermott__________ Meadowcliff_________ Mitchell____________ North Little Rock_____ Otter Creek_________ Pulaski County______ Pulaski Heights Int Rightsell____________ Rockefeller_________ Romine____________ Stephens___________ Terry______________ Wakefield__________ Washington_________ Watson____________ Western Hills________ Wilson_____________ Woodruff Grand total .c c J 0 14 5 6 3 1 1 9 2 194 5 7 3 1 0 3 0 7 20 5 0 6 1 4 0 4 3 3 9 2 9 3 2 3 0 335 o c C (0 CD 0 6 0 4 1 1 3 1 0 10 0 136 0 1 0 0 0 8 6 1 0 2 0 0 1 4 0 9 0 0 4 0 1 2 0 201 - 0) -c  0 1 0 3 3 0 4 2 3 5 2 6 1 6 0 1 1 3 3 109 0 20 0 1 8 3 2 1 0 0 11 3 0 4 2 2201 186 (1) c .D) (2 0 0 0 0 0 3 2 0 1 4 0 1 4 3 1 1 0 8 2 6 0 1 2 0 129 4 3 0 0 0 3 1 0 1 0 5 o o q\n8 14 9 1 12 6 3 2 8 4 12 1 6 39 7 2 2 6 7 7 7 6 13 6 7 118 3 1 8 4 31 5 1 4 10 380 w c (I) c 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 10 3 19 1 1 0 0 0 6 1 3 1 0 1 0 0 0 1 82 1 0 5 0 0 0 4 142 S a O c 2 (0 9 41 14 15 19 11 13 15 14 227 22 170 15 51 8 19 3 38 39 131 8 35 17 11 145 133 12 96 18 6 63 12 4 14 16 1464Incentive School Attendence Zones and Actual Schools Attended / 7^x3. Attending Incentive School School .c 5 c T3 c c Name Badgett_____________ Bale Baseline____________ Booker Brady______________ Carver______________ Central_____________ Chicot______________ Cloverdale Elementary Dodd_______________ Fair________________ Fair Park Forest Park_________ Franklin_____________ Fullbright___________ Garland_____________ Geyer Springs_______ Gibbs______________ Jefferson____________ M.L King___________ Mablevale Elementary McDermott__________ Meadowcliff Mitchell_____________ Otter Creek_________ Parkview Pulaski Heights Int Rightsell____________ Rockerfeller_________ Romine Stephens___________ Terry_______________ Wakefield___________ Washington_________ Watson Western Hills Williams Wilson Woodruff Grand total 2 26 3 10 15 4 1 5 0 0 1 14 18 194 16 10 8 1 20 1 2 35 30 5 1 2 18 4 4 7 10 12 1 3 0 11 12 11 10 539 (D 0 0 4 3 0 4 2 1 3 0 4 1 6 1 7 1 136 1 4 14 5 0 8 18 6 4 0 1 1 1 2 19 14 1 7 1 14 3 4 5 312 \"S c  3 6 4 7 8 6 11 9 3 5 0 3 10 5 5 1 4 9 6 12 5 15 14 109 1 1 7 6 1 0 3 2 4 0 0 2 9 1 318 0) 42 c .O) ( 0 3 2 8 3 6 3 6 1 3 0 1 5 0 2 1 6 31 13 4 2 3 11 8 3 0 9 129 7 0 0 6 6 29 1 2 1 1 4 320 \u0026gt;2 o o q: 4 4 2 8 4 3 6 6 3 6 2 0 1 4 0 4 6 7 1 2 2 4 3 3 1 1 3 4 118 1 0 6 3 20 0 1 1 3 4 251 C (1) c Q. -2 00 w o o c m k. O 0 1 0 0 9 0 3 2 1 1 0 8 5 3 2 9 0 2 15 5 0 11 7 1 0 0 1 0 1 0 82 12 2 3 0 5 3 1 5 200 9 44 14 33 43 21 25 31 8 19 4 32 52 213 26 161 25 60 69 35 11 76 83 132 16 4 39 144 138 10 114 53 15 66 2 33 22 29 35 1946Little Rock School District NEWS RELEASE March 31,1993 For more information Jeanette Wagner, 324-2020 INCENTIVE SCHOOL HOTLINE-QUTCK AND EASY INFORMATION. FOR PARENTS A hotline telephone number, 688-3085^1 Y school-age children with information assists parents/guardians of elemen school-\nabout Little Rock School DistricrT'seveirincentive schools. The hodine provides at taped message about special incentive school programs an benefits- A LRSD representative returns a call to those who leave their name and phone number requesting additional information. Incentive schools promote academic excellence in basic skills and provide enriched activities allowing children to receive unique opportunities to learn. Special incentive school benefits include: individual learning plans to meet each student's learning style, \"take home\" laptop computers, weekday and Saturday field trips, art and music theme specialists and full-time physical education. Incentive schools maintain the best pupil-to- staff ratio in the district and offer special parenting mareTiaLs and courses designed to assist parents in helping their children learn. The seven incentive schools are Franklin, Garland, Ish, Mitchell, Rightsell, Rockefeller and Stephens. ### 810 West Markham Street  Little Rock. Arkansas 72201  (501)324-2000 OftCQ o' CAREER AWARENESS AND MASS MEDIA PROGRAM \"Reaching Out to Reach Our Children\" Tenative Implementation Plan (Rough Draft) a Our mission here at Rightsell Incentive School is to provide educational expenences that will help each child reach his/her potential. The development of i career awareness education proyam as an integral part of the social studies and lan^age arts curriculum will help today's student face the occupational choices and challenges of the future. Now,more than at any other time we must assist students in learning about these choices. Parent, teachers, administrator, and community volunteers selected the Career Awareness/ Mass Media theme to provide learning opp^nities that would foster positive social growth and produce responsible and productive citizens. The prog-am specialist will assist classroom teachers in infreg-ating Mass Media technology ^d Career Awareness Intruction through the language arts and social Studies curriculum by\nweekly planning session with classroom teachers, staff development /inservice training, developing a professional library focusing on personal and ^ofessional gowth, providing technical/instructional support, through the formation of a Parent Ai^isory Council and Parent Career Assistance Progams, provide detailed learning style invetories (CITE) to the student-parent-teacher, and by scheduling special events/site visits that reinforce student learning. Grade Level Career Awareness Clusters- Occupational Groups Kindergarten 1st Grade 2nd Grade 3rd Grade 4th Grade Sth Grade 6th Grade Community Helpers Occupations Around the World (U.S,/ Africa/ Japan/Europe) Human/Public Service Occupations Enviromental, Science, \u0026amp; Agiculture Technolgy Cereer Occupation Exploration/Research Health Professions/ Arkansas Employment Opportunities Communication and Media Technology / Employability Skills EducationStudent at all grade levels will: Identify responsible and successful work behaviors. Acquire knowledge of economic/free enterprise principles. Acquire knowledge of diverse occupations. Apply basic skills to career decisions. Through involvement of the business community in provicfing students with practical experience, exposure, and information. Develop positive attitudes toward\nseif and others, learning, work, leisure, and indvidual and cultural cfifferences. Acquire knowledge about one's self: physical characteristics, interests, aptitudes abilities, and attitudes. Recognize that all educational experiences ere integ-ated with total career development and preparation. Develop an early and continuing awareness of career options and opportunities and explore them in relation to maturing personal values, interests, and aptitudes. Acquire decision making skills and apply them to personal career development. Become aware of competencies needed for entry into the next educational or occupational level. We hope that student will develop work attitude competencies that will: Encourage students to set personal, educational, and community goals. Demonstrate promptness by coming to school and class each day. Demonstrate responsibility by completing ther assignments. Strive to do their best. Demonstrate cooperation by participating in crouD tasks. Keep their work areas clean. Link basic skills to occupational areas(Rd, Math,SS,Sc). Ust education requirements for entry level employment. Identify social requirements to for employment. Define work ethic.Suggested Career Theme Club/ Activities Cereer Mentors Entreprenuership Club Young Pilots Club Just Say No Student Council or Cities in Schools Clubs 4-H Career Clubs Newspaper Staff Spanish Club Teacher Development Club Rightsell Young Broadcast Journalist Staff Planning Guide Week 1 I Introduction, orientation, and class visits. PTA Council Meeting - Theme Specials Meeting - Gibbs International Magnet School. Information Revest were mailed to institution/ agencies The respondents are listed below: ADVONET electronic mail network that the National Center for Research in Vocational Education and runs on VOCNET, which is an Internet Discussion Group - David Carlson John L Leinhardt, Extension Specialist-Com. Dr... Cooperative Extension Serv. Barbara Baer, Project Administrator, Project CERES, Ceres, CA Karen P. Heath, Asst. Dir., Career Planning, Transition and Intervention. Ohio Department of Education. Richard D. Pfister, Director of Magnet Schools, Utica City School District, NY Janice Hanlon, Proyam Manager, Career Orientation, AR Voc \u0026amp; Tech Educ Div Robert C. Sherer, Executive Coordinator, Michigan Occupational Information Coacfinating Committee Jo Cheek, State Coordinator, National Diffusion Network J.B. Robertson, Cereer Guidance Supervisor, State Department of Education Donna Grady Creer, Executive Director, Magnet Review Committee Pat Nellor Wickwire, American Association for Career Education a Prog-am Theme Leadership Team Meeting- Davis, Williams, Blacknail met on week 2 to establish a working structure, articulate the desired proyam outcomes and a tenative staff involvement schedule. An invitation has been extended to each certified staff member to serve on the curriculum inflations committee. On June 15-30,1993 the curriculum committee workshop will begin on June 15 and end on June 30,1993. h/ks. Karen Campbell, Carver Magnet School Curriculum Specialist will serve as our^oject consultant. The Rightsell staff will return one week earlier in the fall to complete the project and participate in special staff inservices. The committee hopes to develop a proyam that will: Identify student goals and outcomes Develop career exploration concepts for youth. Provide Quality Career Counseling. Engage students in a process that will heighten their self-worth, self- awareness, and self-worth. Allow students to learn how their interests, educational goals and favorite subjects relate to career goals. Provide staff visits and summer experiences at local businesses and companies to help broaden teacher awareness of local industry needs. Assist in directing student thinking toward high school and higher education course offerings. EQUIPMENT The Mass Media component of the prog-am will place emphasis on written, oral, and communication skills through computer assisted instruction, video productions, student publications, creative hands-on activities, and public performances. Equipment assessments determined condtion, program application and replacement schedule of exsisting equipment. Faculty and staff inservices should be provided to ensure proper usage of available technololgical resources. They should include: Available Community Resources Instructional Television Cable In the Classroom Comf^er Data Bases Timelines of History and Science Library of Print, Media, and Film Higher Education Databases Recommended Program Improvements Equipment Storer Cable to install a closed-circuit system in Cable in 17 classrooms, the library and the office.  19 Video cassette recorders with locking wall mounts. 19 Color Televisions with locking wall mounts. F^toVix with 3x convertor - A High resolution Microscope with VH conversion capibility. IBM 386 Computer with HD, 14.4 modem installed, and laser printer to be linked with Fred-Mail and the cable system to recieve daily lesson plans to support Instruction TV and Cable in the classroom.Resource Materials Arkansas Democrat-Gazette Newspaper in Education Progam which will provide 2 copies of the newspaper per class at the rate of $.13 each on school calendar days. Expected Outcomes: Increased knowledge of current events... Enhanced student vacabulary, word recognition, and reading comprehension skills... A positive attitude toward readng among students. Cable in the Classroom Expected outcomes: Quality commercial-free educational progamming that includes news, documentaries, performing arts, and programs of educational value in math, English, the sciences, foreigi languages, health and technical studies........ Curriculum-based support materials at low-cost or free.. Copyright clearences so that progams can be taped and used later.... USA Today Visions of Exploration - Explorers Journal - Science and Space Exploration. Connect Reading, social studes, science, mathematics, and I language arts curricula. USA Today Careers Progam - CLASSLINE Today coffers free daily satelitte-transmitted teaming plans offering tips and classroom acitvities for social sciences, sdencehiealth, math, economics/business and language arts. 1. 2, 3. 4. E valuation/l mprovement Is the prog'am achieving the stated goals? Is the prog-am being implemented in accordance with LRSD and state guidelines. Are the students benefiting from the prog-am in terms of content, quality, and performance. Evaluations should be conducted to determine the level of impact of action to mission acco\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_476","title":"Incentive Schools: Budget and correspondence","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":["1990/1995"],"dcterms_description":null,"dc_format":["application/pdf"],"dcterms_identifier":null,"dcterms_language":["eng"],"dcterms_publisher":["Little Rock, Ark. : Butler Center for Arkansas Studies. Central Arkansas Library System."],"dc_relation":null,"dc_right":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC-EDU/1.0/"],"dcterms_is_part_of":["Office of Desegregation Monitoring records (BC.MSS.08.37)","History of Segregation and Integration of Arkansas's Educational System"],"dcterms_subject":["Little Rock (Ark.)--History--20th century","Little Rock School District","Education--Arkansas","School improvement programs","School management and organization","Education--Finance"],"dcterms_title":["Incentive Schools: Budget and correspondence"],"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/476"],"dcterms_temporal":null,"dcterms_rights_holder":null,"dcterms_bibliographic_citation":null,"dlg_local_right":null,"dcterms_medium":["documents (object genre)"],"dcterms_extent":null,"dlg_subject_personal":null,"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":"\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n\n\n\n   \n\n\n\n\n   \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n  \n\nJohn w. Walker, p.a. Attorney At Law 1723 Broadway Little Rock, Arkansas 72206 Telephone (501) 374-3758 FAX (501) 374-4187 JOHN W. WALKER RALPH WASHINGTON MARK BURNETTE 'WILEY A. BRANTON, JR. *Admitted to Practice in Georgia \u0026amp; the District of Columbia only. March 13, 1,990 LAZAR M. PALNICK LAW \u0026amp; FINANCE BLDG. SUITE 1002 429 FOURTH AVENUE PITTSBURGH, PA 15219 (412) 288-9220 Ms. Arma Hart Assistant Metropolitan Supervisor Pulaski County School Systems Little Rock, AR Dear Ms. Hart: Enclosed is a copy of the letter which was sent to Beth Deere explaining the incentive school idea and proposed budget. I am still working on the draft which you and I discussed yesterday regarding refinement to the incentive school program. I appreciate our meetingj^ I feel that it was highly productive and that your insight was most helpful. Sincerely, Ji . Walker JWW:Ip Enclosure JOHN W. WALKER, P.A. Attorney At Law 1723 Broadway Little Rock. Arkansas 72206 Telephone (501) 374-3758 FAX (501) 374-4187 JOHN W. WALKER RALPH WASHINGTON MARK BURNETTE WILEY A. BRANTON, JR. Admitted to Practice in Georgia A the District of Columbia only. May 2, 1989 \\.KLKV. M. PALNICK LAW \u0026amp; FINANCE BLDG. SUITE 1002 429 FOURTH AVENUE PITTSBURGH, PA 15219 (412) 288-9220 Ms. Beth Deere United States District Court U.S. Post Office \u0026amp; Courthouse Little Rock, AR 72201 Dear Ms. Deere: Special Master Aubrey McCutcheon has indicated that he intends to recommend the funding of the incentive schools as proposed by the parties and to recommend the appointment of a consultant or other person to develop the programs and incentives for those schools. The purpose of this letter is to: (1) request the Court to allow Little Rock and Joshua to have input into that process\nand (2) to suggest certain considerations that have been shared with our clients about what they may expect from those schools over the next five to seven years. The proposals that were submitted for the incentive schools were not completed as Mr. McCutcheon observed. Our expert witnesses advise us that many of the ideas that Mr. James Jennings and Ms. Beverly White shared verbally about the workings of the incentive programs appeared to be useful in achieving the objective of remediating achievement disparities. The district staff did not address the specifics of the incentive school program fully, in part, because of the extensive amount of lawyer time spent in negotiating and otherwise securing the parties' approval of the settlement with the State of Arkansas. I was, during that time, somewhat unaccessible to the district staff so that they did not secure my specific input into their planning. The incentive school program, while presented by me, was developed in consultation with black community leaders who were concerned about the disparate transportation burdens imposed upon black youngsters, the relative shortage of classroom space east of University Avenue, and the fact that black young people simply were not learning in the schools. The incentive school programPage Two Ms. Beth Deere May 2, 1989 was designed to provide regular education from 8:00 until 3:00. During that time, there would be only limited attention given to the segregating programs such as gifted and special education classes. The 8:00 until 3:00 classes would be as rigorous as any in the school district. The special needs of the pupils in the incentive schools would be identified in the form of individual education plans similar to those developed for special students and would be addressed in the after school programs. The second part of the incentive school program would begin at 3:00 and extend at least until 5:30 each day, and would also continue on Saturdays as well. This part of the program would be devoted to the remediation and enhancement needs of each child and would be conducted in such a way as to promote each child's interest in being comfortable with a school setting most of the time. The third key part of the incentive school program would be the special role of the staff. Staff members would be expected to work approximately twenty percent more time than regular staff members. These staff members would have a specific commitment to the goals and objectives herein and would be capable of empathetic relationships with the students of these schools, their parents and the surrounding community. The fourth key part of the incentive school program would be the employment and utilization of aides and others who would supplement the teaching and professional certified staff. The aides would be recruited from parents and students in the higher grades and would work with the teachers, parents and professional staff to achieve the objectives of the plan. The aides would be selected in part because of their interest in education and in furthering their own education. The idea would be to develop, with district sponsorship, over a period of five to seven years, a number of aides as teachers or professionals who would be available for employment with in the district. The fifth part of the incentive school program provides scholarship assistance to the youngsters who are assigned or who choose to remain in those schools. The amount and terms of the scholarships have not been established, but it was contemplated by us that approximately twenty percent of the double funding would be placed into a trust fund for these youngsters. The total number of students assigned to the incentive schools or who remain there after having had a choice option for the next and succeeding years. The scholarship amounts contemplated would be set to ensure that between one and four years college tuition and costs would be made available to these students based upon the average cost of public higher education in Arkansas at this time.Page Three Ms. Beth Deere May 2, 1989 The enhancement programs would be numerous and would require specially trained persons to develop and implement them. We have many ideas that we would share with the district or with such other person(s) that the Master may designate. These schools should logically begin by July 15 with summer enrichment programs which would continue through September 1 or thereabout. Regular School Programs would begin about September 5 and end as scheduled except that educational continuation programs would be extended as need until July 1 of the next school term. Moreover, assuming an approximately one to fifteen teacher pupil ratio for approximately 2,500 pupils, the minimum incentive staff would be: Regular Year Programs Total Assistant Superintendent and Staff Teachers Counselors Principals Teacher Aides Student Assistants (Part-time High School Students) Drama Specialists Music Specialists Drama \u0026amp; Music Aides Art Specialists Art Aides Grammar Specialists Field Trip Coordinator Field Trip Staff (Aides and Teachers) 4 166 8 8 166 83 3 6 12 6 12 12 18 1 The budget would be set and generally as follows: Total available revenue for the schools, not transportation and other special funding sources including 2,500 pupils X $6,000 per pupil = $15,000,000 Expenses Certified Staff 220 X average $24,000 = $5,280,000 Benefits $ 530,000Page Four Ms. Beth Deere May 2, 1989 Aides (Full-time) 211 X $10,000 including benefits $2,111,000 $ Administrative Staff 100,000 Part-time Student Assistants 83 X $4,000 Continuation - 332,000 Summer School (extra staff?) 250,000 Programs Field Trips $100 per child 250,000 Activities in school $200 per child 500,000 Equipment, Instruments, Mise. $200 per child 500,000 Aide College Tuition 166 X $1,300 216,000 Parent Programs 1,000 - 1,500 parents at $100 per parent 125,000 Scholarships $600 X 2,500 (escrowed) $1,500,000 Materials and Supplies $50 per pupil 125,000 Testing and Evaluation $100 per pupil 250,000 Meals $250 per pupil 513,000 = $ $ $ $ $ = $ $ $ $ $Page Five Ms. Beth Deere May 2, 1989 Miscellaneous $ 418,000 Total $15,000,000 Staffing Monitoring and general oversight would be at the top administrative level. These costs would be absorbed by the district's budget for administrative and evaluation. Staff criteria and the section process should be developed cooperatively with the parties, especially the teacher groups. This should be put into place at once if the incentive programs have a chance to effectively work this year, as it must in face of the recent MPT results.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) 3744187 RECEIVED OCT 2 6 1993 OHica of Desegregation Monitoring October 25, 1993 Ms. Ann Brown Office of Desegregation Monitoring 201 East Markham, Suite 510 ttle Rock, AR 72201 Dear Ms. Brown: I am advised that your office recently completed an analysis of the Incentive School budgets for the past several years, writing to request a copy of the same. I am Thank you for your attention to this request. Sjmcerely\nprin* er / JCS/ Office of Desegregation Monitoring United States District Court  Eastern District ot 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 October 27, 1993 Ms. Joy C. Springer 1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72206 Dear Joy: I received your letter yesterday in which you stated that you had been advised that ODM recently completed an analysis of the incentive school budgets for the past several years. You also asked for a copy of such an analysis. Although we are certainly femiliar with the incentive school budgets, ODM has not done a written analysis of those budgets independent of the information we published in our 1992 monitoring report on the incentive schools. We are presently completing our 1993 report on the incentive schools which will include the same type of budgetary monitoring information that was in our last report. When we file that report with the Court, we will certainly forward a copy to your office. If you should need additional information, please contact me. Sincerely yours. in S. Brownirm ''G f J ' vjTJ FEB 1 1994 Office of Desegregation Moriitoii'tg January 27, 1994 Ms. Ann Brown Office of Desegregation Monitoring Little Rock, AR 72201 Dear Ann: Enclosed is a copy of the letter sent to Mr. Larry Robertson and Margaret Gremillion, Assistant Superintendents for the Little Rock School District, requesting explanation of the Budgeting process. This information is being forwarded to you at the suggestion of the Judge during yesterdays court hearing of the Little Rock School District's Desegregation Plan. The questions concerning double funding was a coordinated effort with other Incentive School Principals (Encl. 2) and forwarded to Mr. Robertson's Office in October. Numerous phone calls were also made to both the Superintendent's Office and Financial Services Office with no answers. Any assistance provided reference the Incentive School's budgeting process will be appreciated. Sincerely, Robert L. Brown Principal RLBJ/dlj Enclosures:TO: October 12, 1993 Incentive School Principals FROM?^ Robert L. Brown, Jr. \u0026amp; Ann Mangan SUB J: Incentive School Double Funding Process We are questioning how the budget is determined for Incentive Schools. We would like to sit down with all Incentive School Principals on Monday, October 18, 1993 at 3.:30 p.m. We are asking you to complete the budget ledger enclosed for the last four years. An example budget is being provided for your review. Additionally, a copy of the ODM \"Incentive School Double Funding\" document Is enclosed. Your student enrollment for each year will be beneficial in helping us decipher some aspects of the budgeting process. We plan to ask Mr. Robertson and Mrs. Gremillion to meet with us to discuss our findings and concerns. Remember, we agreed to meet as a group on a regular basis to discuss common elements of operating Incentive Schools. We need to establish Monday's meeting will be held at regular meeting sites and dates. We look forward to your attendance at 3:30 p.m., October Rockefeller. 18, 1993. fOctober 19, 1993 TO: FROM: SUBJ: Larry S. Robertson, Assistant Superintendent Margaret Gremlllion, Assistant Superintendent Incentive School Principals Budgeting Process - Explanation Request We are requesting your assistance in arranging a meeting with Mr. Mllhollen for Incentive School Principals. After discussing our present budgets, budget history, and documented guidelines for the budget process, we were left with more questions than answers, are some of the questions and concerns: These 1. What formula has been used for the last four years in developing the operating and desegregation budget? 2. How has the process met the guidelines established by the District in its oral arguments before the Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit on June 21, 1990? 3. What are the reasons for multiple changes in budget codes and line items from year to year? 4. With a 6% Inflationary rate computed from the base funding year (1990-91), what factors have led to budget decreases for three consecutive years? 5. What Is the basis for the similarity in desegregation funding amounts among schools with significant enrollment differences? 6. What process was used to determine the Extended Year and Inservice allocations for the 1993-94 school year? 7. In the 02 account, the addition of custodial and library funds has Increased our overall allocation of resources. However, there has been a comparative decrease in the general amount of funds at our disposal. What variables are responsible for this decrease? Enclosed you will find a copy of the \"Incentive School Double Funding\" guidelines and a copy of a four year budgetary document as shown on business office forms. Please examine the documents and if you have any questions, please contact Robert Brown or Anne Mangan. A timely response Is requested.To: From: Incentive School Principals Robert L. Brown, Jr. Date: November 3, 1993 Subject: Incentive School Budgets The following table of figures represent past, current and proposed budgets for all incentive schools over a six year period starting with the 91-92 school year. 149 OlTice of Incentive Schools 91-92 261,482 '2-93 63,147 93-94 65,041 94-95 95-96 96-97 66,993 69,002 71,072 152 153 Writing To Read Science Labs 13,000 15,450 15,914 153 153 153 154 158 171 172 Computer Labs Foreign Language Computer Loan Program E.xtended Day/Week Field Trips Transportation Instructional Aides 1,096,148 172 Extended Year 176 190 193 194 153 Incentlve/R ecognition Starring StafT Development Teacher Stipends Other Academic Programs 1,291,786 Total - Incentives 2,649,416 CC: 15,000 15,450 15,914 16,391 16,391 16,883 16,883 15,000 15,450 15,914 16,391 16,883 7,500 5,000 863,000 37,500 20,000 549,695 260,000 21,600 914,823 59,500 225,000 55,000 3,126,765 7,725 3,150 888,890 38,625 20,600 566,186 267,800 22,145 942,267 61,285 231,750 56,650 7,957 5,305 915,557 39,784 21,218 583,171 275,834 22,809 970,535 63,124  \" 238,703 58,350 3,220,464 3,317,082 8,195 5,464 943,023 40,977 21,855 600,666 284,109 23,494 999,651 65,017 245,864 60,100 3,416,590 8,441 5,628 971,314 42,207 22,510 618,686 292,632 24,198 1,029,641 66,968 253,239 61,903 3,519,088BUDGEDS1.XLS Desegragatlon Budget (13) [student Enrollment Control Account 90-91 91-92 92-93 93-94 TOTAL 1101 -OOXX_____________ 410|Hm wrk/Tutorlal 1120-00XX 326 331 410 421 540 57-0380 65-0300 65-0300 75-0300 Repair Equip Transportation Supplies Textbook - Local Personal Prop/Eq Extended Wk/Food Extended Year Incentive Recog Other Activities 1129-OOXX____________ 1171 Food Services 1550-00XX 41O[ELE Supplies 3500-00XX 313[Pupll Supplies 1105-00XX 410 540 4 Yr-Old Supplies Equip Per Prog Teacher Expenses 1120-00XX 57-0300 73-0300 74-0300 1129-OOXX Extended Day Stall Development Inservice $1,500.00 $1,500.00 $42,000.00 $2,000.00 $10,000.00 $10,000^00 $10,000.00 $10,000.00 $0.00 $6.00 $0.00 $0^00 $12,000.00 $12,000.00 $400.00 $400.00 $10,000.00 $10,000.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $65,900.00 $0.00 $6.00 $6.00 $0.00 $0.00 $26,730.00 $0.00 $7,290.00 $12,150.00 $0.00 $7,290.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $500.00 $400.00 $100.00 $27,230.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $57,500.00 $0.00 $5,000.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $12,000.00 $30,000.00 $3,000.00 $7,500.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $57,500.00 $92,500.00 $0.00 $7,500.00 $6.66 $36,000.00 $0.00 $0.00 $25,266.60 $0.00 $5,000.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $13,055.38 $2,060.35 $5,150.87 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $343.39 $343.39 $0.00 $25,609.99 $104,054.14 $7,463.85 * $11,189.38 Sr I 117 117 Stipends______ Additional Spent $88,000 00 $100,000.00 $188,000.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 _____^.00 $0.00 $130,000.00 _____^.00 $0.00 $122,707,37 fn 0 C\u0026gt;M other Expenses PJ 300 92-93 POs Theme Funds $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $8,190.44 $45,000.00 $53,190.44 Grand Total I $253,900.00 Pago 1 $27,230.00 $187,500.00 $148,317.36I Sheet 1 Operating Budget (02) Klndergarden 1110-0026 410 412 Elementary 1120-0026 326 342 360 410 421 300 300 Repair Equip Postage________ Printing-Binding Supplies_______ Textbooks - Local Custodial General 2222-0026 410 2410-0026 410 90-91 $250.00 $150.00 $100.00 $4,044.00 $100.00 $100.00 $100.00 $3,450.00 $294.00 91-92 $400.00 $200.00 $200.00 $6,913.00 $446^00 $223.00 $223.00 $5,352.00 $669.00 92-93 $10,927.32 $1,743.00 $9,184.32 TOTAL Library Supplies Office of Principal 93-94 $360.00 $6,215.57 $2,000.00 $4,215.57 $2,242.00 $2,242.00 $2,237.00 $2,237.00 $2,246.00 $2,246.00 $100.00 $100.00 $223.00 $223.00 $6,636.00 $9,773.00 $10,927.32 $8,821.57 Page 1INCENTIVE SCHOOL DOUBLE FUNDING As a part of the 1989 settlement agreement, the Little Rock School District agreed to \"double fund\" each of the incentive schools. The commitment to this enhanced financial support is made in both the Interdistrict and Little Rock School District Desegregation Plans: Tunding for the incentive schools shall be set at two times the level for the elementary area schools to ensure that the children who are in racially-isolated settings are provided meaningful opportunities for desegregated experiences/ activities.\" (Interdistrict Desegregation Plan, April 29, 1992, Page 4.) and \"...[T]he Little Rock School District Board of Directors is committed to...[i]mproving educational quality and student academic performance in all schools and doubling the financial resources in schools identified io the court-approved desegregation plan as enhanced/incentive schools.\" (Little Rock School District Desegregation Plarf, Ajiril 29, 1992, Page 1.) Neither plan specifically defines double funding, but in oral arguments before the Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit on June 21,1990, the LRSD lawyer explained double funding as a dollar amount twice the average per pupil expenditure in the district s area schools, not including transportation and administrative costs. The lawyer cited $2000 as the approximate extra amount that would be spent on each incentive school student above what is spent for each area school student. During those June 1990 oral arguments, the judges expressed pointed concern about the great amount of money such a double funding obligation would represent, but the LRSD lawyer was firm in the districts commitment and ability to double fund the incentive schools. However, there was no discussion of what effects any increases in the district s average per pupil expenditure in area schools might have upon double funding the incentive schools. Since that time, there has been a substantial rise in the districts per pupil expenditure because of increases resulting largely from the successful millage campaign in 1990 and Arkansas Act 10. In order to control incentive school costs, the LRSD has tied its double funding obligation to the \"base year\" of 1989-90. The base year average per pupil expenditure was established by dividing the total 1989-90 instructional expenses for all area schools by the October 1,1989 total enrollment. This process yielded a base year per pupil expenditure of $1,887.46, the amount the district uses as the fixed double funding obligation. For each year thereafter, the actual previous years per pupil expenditure is multiplied by an inflation factor. This amount then becomes a projected per pupil expenditure to which the double funding obligation is added. The sum is then multiplied by the number of incentive school students according to the previous years October 1 enrollment data (not including the infant through three-year-olds at Rockefeller), resulting in the floor amount the district is obligated to spend. I Page 44The LRSD double funds the incentive schools through implementation of the settlement plan features. Many, but not all, of the special programs, personnel, and equipment described in the incentive school section of the desegregation plan have been put in place, costing the district the amount of the double funding obligation. According to the October 1 data used by the LRSD in the calculation of double funding, there were 976 more students in the Incentive schools during the 1991-92 school year than the previous year. (This number includes the 507 students at Franklin, which became an incentive school in 1991-92, plus the increased enrollment at the other six Incentive schools.) Consequently, spending for the incentive schools has soared because the funding obligation of the district is based on those schools enrollment. Increasing enrollment at the incentive schools not only impacts education and desegregation at these schools, it also pumps more double-funded dollars into the schools than may be necessary to adequately meet the children's needs and the provisions of the desegregation plan. It may be difficult to spend that additional money prudently and it will surely mean that less money will be available for the area schools. At the same time, there are many incentive school classrooms with very low enrollment, resulting in a per pupil cost that is higher than necessary. Adding students up to a regular classroom capacity does not tend to raise the actual cost of the classroom because a schools fixed costs are based on a standard class size. Using the formula devised by the LRSD, the district is meeting its obligations to double fund the incentive schools. However, since most of that money is spent on staff salaries, there is little physical evidence that the incentive school facilities have special attention because capital improvements and maintenance are not included in the provisions for the additional incentive school funds. The following table shows the history of double funding and the double funding projection for 1992-93. Note that the obligation is based upon the previous years student enrollment because the budgeting process is completed before it is known how many students will actually be enrolled during the academic year the new budget will fund. Page 45LRSD PROCESS FOR INCENTIVE SCHOOL DOUBLE FUNDING 1990-91 1991-92 1992-93 Area School Actual Per Pupil Expenditure (Previous Year) $1,887.46 $2:24924 (Projected) $2,449.08 Inflationary Adjustment X 6% X 5.8% X 6%  Projected Area School Per Pupil Expenditure Double Funding Obligation Incentive School Per Pupil Expenditure Incentive School Enrollment (Previous Year) Minimum $ Amount to be Expended for Double Funding Incentive Schools Actual Expenditure in the Incentive Schools Over or Below LRSDs Minimum Incentive School Obligation $2,000.71 + $1,887.46 $3,888.17 X 1375 $5346233.75 $6,833,005.68 Over $1,486,771.93 $2379.70 $2,596.02  4- $1,887.46 $4267.16 X 1259 $5372354.44 (budgeted) $8223,093.15 -- $1,887.46 $4,483.48 X 2235 $10,020377.80 Page 46Recommendations 1. When making student assignments, keep in mind that there is a relationship between double funding and enrollment figures that represents the greatest return on investment. Class enrollment that Is below the fixed cost amount results in wasted dollars\nenrollment above that amount can result In exorbitant spending. The district courts May 1,1992 ruling regarding the relationship of class size to instructional aides at the Incentive schools has given the district a further incentive to contain class size to no more than 20 students in any classroom. The district is bound to keep its pledge to double fund each incentive school for six years or a long aj the ichool maintains an enrollment above 80% black. But the district must also keep in mind that the Incentive schools educate only a small portion of the class that prevailed in the desegregation law suit. (FuUy 80% of the districts black elementary students are educated In area schools, not incentive schools.) An overriding goal of the desegregation plan to is close the gap in academic achievement between black and white children. If the district fails to prudently manage student placement at the incentive schools, especially in relationship to the double funding obligation, there will be far fewer dollars to spend on the programs and strategies that target achievement in the area schools, thus jeopardizing the equity the desegregation plan is designed to achieve. Conceivably, in order to contain the base per pupil expenditure in the area schools upon which double funding is figured, the district could cut area school programs, personnel, materials, and facilities to the detriment of the majority of black students the settlement was designed to compensate. This possibility could become reality in the current financial deficit situation. Ultimately, the concerns the circuit court judges expressed in 1990 about the district's ability to afford double funding may have been tragically prophetic. 2. Ensure that a portion of the Incentive school funding fulfills the plan s commitment that \"the children who are in racially-isolated settings are provided meaningful opportunities for desegregated experiences/ activities.\" Field trips taken during this school year coincidentally may have resulted in desegregated experiences, but there has been no evidence that incentive school staff planned trips to serve this function. Nor has there been any evidence of pairing incentive school student bodies with those of desegregated schools for racially integrated activities or special events. The best way to provide desegregated experiences for incentive school children is to racially desegregate their schools. 3. Give the Incentive schools priority in the district's sequencing of capital improvement projects since double funding does not cover capital improvements and maintenance. If student enrollment at the incentive schools is to become desegregated, the buildings must be sound, attractive, and well-maintained. Page 47rrxa January 27, 1994 Ms. Ann Brown Office of Desegregation Monitoring Little Rock, AR 72201 Dear Ann: FEB 1 1994 Office of Desegregation Munibiitg Enclosed is a copy of the letter sent to Mr. Larry Robertson and Margaret Gremillion, Assistant Superintendents for the Little Rock School District, requesting explanation of the Budgeting process. This information is being forwarded to you at the suggestion of the Judge during yesterdays court hearing of the Little Rock School District's Desegregation Plan. The questions concerning double funding was a coordinated effort with other Incentive School Principals (Encl. 2) and forwarded to Mr. Robertson's Office in October. Numerous phone calls were also made to both the Superintendent's Office and Financial Services Office with no answers. Any assistance provided reference the Incentive School's budgeting process will be appreciated. Sincerely, Principal RLBJ/dlj Enclosures: October 12, 1993 TO: Incentive School Principals FROMRobert L. Brown, Jr. \u0026amp; Ann Mangan SUBJ: Incentive School Double Funding Process We are questioning how the budget is determined for Incentive Schools. We would like to sit down with all Incentive School Principals on Monday, October 18, 1993 at 3:30 p.m. We are asking you to complete the budget ledger enclosed for the last four years. An example budget is being provided for your review. Additionally, a copy of the ODM \"Incentive School Double Funding\" document is enclosed. Your student enrollment for each year will be beneficial in helping us decipher some aspects of the budgeting process. We plan to ask Mr. Robertson and Mrs. Gremillion to meet with us to discuss our findings and concerns. Remember, we agreed to meet as a group on a regular basis to discuss common elements of operating Incentive Schools. We need to establish regular meeting sites and dates. Monday's meeting will be held at Rockefeller. 18, 1993. We look forward to your attendance at 3:30 p.m., October fTO\nFROM: SUBJ: October 19, 1993 Larry S. Robertson, Assistant Superintendent Margaret Gremillion, Assistant Superintendent Incentive School Principals Budgeting Process - Explanation Request We are requesting your assistance in arranging a meeting with Mr. Mllhollen for Incentive School Principals. After discussing our present budgets, budget history, and documented guidelines for the budget process, we were left with more questions than answers, are some of the questions and concerns: These 1. What formula has been used for the last four years in developing the operating and desegregation budget? 2. How has the process met the guidelines established by the District in its oral arguments before the Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit on June 21, 1990? 3. What are the reasons for multiple changes in budget codes and line items from year to year? 4. With a 6% inflationary rate computed from the base funding year (1990-91), what factors have led to budget decreases for three consecutive years? 5. What is the basis for the similarity in desegregation funding amounts among schools with significant enrollment differences? 6. What process was used to determine the Extended Year and Inservice allocations for the 1993-94 school year? 7. In the 02 account, the addition of custodial and library funds has Increased our overall allocation of resources. However, there has been a comparative decrease in the general amount of funds at our disposal. What variables are responsible for this decrease? Enclosed you will find a copy of the \"Incentive School Double Funding\" guidelines and a copy of a four year budgetary document as shown on business office forms. Please examine the documents and if you have any questions, please contact Robert Brown or Anne Mangan. A timely response Is requested.To: From: Date: Subject: Incentive School Principals Robert L. Brown, Jr. .November 3, 1993 Incentive School Budgets The following table of figures represent past, cunent and proposed budgets for all incentive schools over a six year period starting with the 91-92 school year. 149 Office of Incentive Schools 91-92 261,482 2-93 63,147 93-94 65,041 94-95 95-96 96-97 66,993 69,002 71,072 152 153 Writing To Read Science Labs 15,000 15,450 15,914 153 153 153 154 158 171 172 Computer Labs Foreign Language Computer Loan Program Extended Day/Week Field Trips Transportation Instructional Aides 1,096,148 172 Extended Year 176 190 193 194 153 Incenlive/Recognition Staffing Staff Development Teacher Stipends Other Academic Programs 1,291,786 Total - Incentives 2,649,416 CC: 15,000 15,000 7,500 5,000 863,000 37,500 20,000 549,695 260,000 21,600 914,823 59,500 225,000 55,000 3,126,765 15,450 15,914 16,391 16,391 16,883 16,883 15,450 15,914 16,391 16,883 7,725 5,150 7,957 5,305 8,195 5,464 8,441 5,628 888,890 915,557 943,023 38,625 39,784 40,977 971,314 42,207 20,600 566,186 267,800 22,145 942,267 21,218 21,855 22,510 61,285 231,750 56,650 583,171 275,834 600,666 284,109 618,686 292,632 22,809 970,535 23,494 999,651 24,198 1,029,641 63,124   238,703 65,017 66,968 58,350 245,864 60,100 253,239 61,903 3,220,464 3317,082 3,416,590 3,519,088BUDGEDS1.XLS n Desegragatlon Budget (13) [student Enrollment Control Account 90-91 91-92 92-93 93-94 TOTAL 1101 -OOXX_____________ 4101 Hm wrkZT utorial 1120-00XX ______326 331 410 421 540 57-0380 65-0300 65-0300 75-0300 Repair Equip Transportation Supplies Textbook - Local Personal Prop/Eq Extended Wk/Food Extended Year Incentive Recog Other Activities 1129-OOXX 117|Food Services 1550-00XX 41O[ELE Supplies 3500-00XX 313 Pupil Supplies 1105-00XX 410 540 4 Yr-Old Supplies Equip Per Prog Teacher Expenses 1120-00XX 57-0300 73-0300 74-0300 1129-OOXX Extended Day Staff Development Inservice J- 117 117 Stipends______ Additional Spent Other Expenses 300 92-93 POs Theme Funds Grand Total $1,500.00 $1,500.00 $42,000.00 $2,000.00 $10,000.00 $10,000.00 $10,000.00 $10,000.00 $0.00 $6.00 $0.00 $0^00 $12,000.00 $12,000.00 $400.00 $400.00 $10,000.00 $10,000.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $65,900.00 $6.00 $0.00 $6.66 $88.000 00 $100,000.00 $188,000.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 I $253,900.00 Page 1 $0.00 $0.00 $26,730.00 $0.00 $7,290.00 $12,150.00 $0.00 $7,290.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $500.00 $400.00 $100.00 $27,230.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $57,500.00 $0.00 $5,00000 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $12,000.00 $30,000.00 $3,000.00 $7,500.00 $0.00 $0,00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $57,500.00 $92,500.00 $0.00 $7,500.00 $6.66 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $27,230.00 $30,000.66 _____$0.00 $0.00 $130,000.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $187,500.00 $0.00 $0.00 $25,266.60 $0.00 $5,000.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $13,055.38 $2,060.35 $5,150.87 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $343.39 $343.39 $0.00 $25,609.99 $104.054J4 $7,463.85 * $11,189.38 _____^.00 $0.00 $122,707.37 $8,190'44 $45,000.00 $53,190.44 $148,317.36 tn 0 bM C-\"'I- -PJSheetl I Operating Budget 02) 90-91 91-92 92-93 93-94 Klndergarden 1110-0026 410 412 Elementary 1120-0026 326 342 360 410 421 300 300 Repair Equip Postage________ Printing-Binding Supplies Textbooks - Local Custodial General 2222-0026 410 Library Supplies TOTAL 2410-0026 410 Office of Principal $250.00 $150.00 $100.00 $4,044.00 $100.00 $100.00 $100.00 $3,450.00 $294.00 $2,242.00 $2,242.00 $100.00 $100.00 $6,636.00 $400.00 $200.00 $200.00 $6,913.00 $446.00 $223.00 $223.00 $5,352.00 $669.00 $2,237.00 $2,237.00 $223.00 $223.00 $9,773.00 Page 1 $360.00 $10,927.32 $1,743.00 $9,184.32 $10,927.32 $6,215.57 $2,000.00 $4,215.57 $2,246.00 $2,246.00 $8,821.57INCENTIVE SCHOOL DOUBLE FUNDING As a part of the 1989 settlement agreement, the Little Rock School District agreed to \"double fund\" each of the incentive schools. The commitment to this enhanced financial support is made in both the Interdistrict and Little Rock School District Desegregation Plans: Tunding for the incentive schools shall be set at two times the level for the elementary area schools to ensure that the children who are in racially-isolated settings are provided meaningful opportunities for desegregated experiences/ activities.\" Desegregation Plan, April 29, 1992, Page 4.) (Interdistrict and \"...[T]he Little Rock School District Board of Directors is committed to...[i]mproving educational quality and student academic performance in all schools and doubling the financial resources in schools identified in the court-approved desegregation plan as enhanced/incentive schools.\" (Little Rock School District Desegregation Plar#, ApJril 29, 1992, Page 1.) Neither plan specifically defines double funding, but in oral arguments before the Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit on June 21,1990, the LRSD lawyer explained double funding as a dollar amount twice the average per pupil expenditure in the district's area schools, not including transportation and administrative costs. The lawyer cited $2000 as the approximate extra amount that would be spent on each incentive school student above what is spent for each area school student. During those June 1990 oral arguments, the judges expressed pointed concern about the great amount of money such a double funding obligation would represent, but the LRSD lawyer was firm in the districts commitment and ability to double fund the incentive schools. However, there was no discussion of what effects any increases in the district s average per pupil expenditure in area schools might have upon double funding the incentive schools. Since that time, there has been a substantial rise in the districts per pupil expenditure because of increases resulting largely from the successful millage campaign in 1990 and Arkansas Act 10. In order to control incentive school costs, the LRSD has tied its double funding obligation to the \"base year\" of 1989-90. The base year average per pupil expenditure was established by dividing the total 1989-90 instructional expenses for all area schools by the October 1,1989 total enrollment. This process yielded a base year per pupil expenditure of $1,887.46, the amount the district uses as the fixed double funding obligation. For each year thereafter, the actual previous years per pupil expenditure is multiplied by an inflation factor. This amount then becomes a projected per pupil expenditure to which the double funding obligation is added. The sum is then multiplied by the number of incentive school students according to the previous year's October 1 enrollment data (not including the infant through three-year-olds at Rockefeller), resulting in the floor amount the district is obligated to spend. Page 44The LRSD double funds the Incentive schools through implementation of the settlement plan features. Many, but not all, of the special programs, personnel, and equipment described in the Incentive school section of the desegregation plan have been put in place, costing the district the amount of the double funding obligation. According to the October I data used by the LRSD in the calculation of double funding, there were 976 more students in the Incentive schools during the 1991-92 school year than the previous year. (This number includes the 507 students at Franklin, which became an Incentive school in 1991-92, plus the Increased enrollment at the other six incentive schools.) Consequently, spending for the Incentive schools has soared because the funding obligation of the district Is based on those schools enrollment. Increasing enrollment at the incentive schools not only impacts education and desegregation at these schools, it also pumps more double-funded dollars into the schools than may be necessary to adequately meet the childrens needs and the provisions of the desegregation plan. It may be difficult to spend that additional money prudently and it will surely mean that less money will be available for the area schools. At the same time, there are many incentive school classrooms with very low enrollment, resulting in a per pupil cost that is higher than necessary. Adding students up to a regular classroom capacity does not tend to raise the actual cost of the classroom because a schools fixed costs are based on a standard class size. Using the formula devised by the LRSD, the district is meeting its obligations to double fund the incentive schools. However, since most of that money is spent on staff salaries, there Is little physical evidence that the incentive school facilities have special attention because capital improvements and maintenance are not included in the provisions for the additional incentive school funds. The following table shows the history of double funding and the double funding projection for 1992-93. Note that the obligation is based upon the previous years student enrollment because the budgeting process is completed before it is known how many students will actually be enrolled during the academic year the new budget will fund. Page 45LRSD PROCESS FOR INCENTIVE SCHOOL DOUBLE FUNDING 1990-91 1991-92 1992-93 Area School Actual Per Pupil Expenditure (Previous Year) Inflationary Adjustment Projected Area School I Per Pupil Expenditure Double Funding Obligation  $1,887.46 X 6% $2,000.71 + $1,887.46 $274924 (Projected) $2,449.08 Incentive School Per Pupil Expenditure Incentive School Enrollment (Previous Year) Minimum $ Amount to be Expended for Double Funding Incentive Schools Actual Expenditure in the Incentive Schools Over or Below LRSD's Minimum Incentive School Obligation $3,888.17 X 1375 $5346733.75 $6,833,005.68 Over $1,486,771.93 X 5.8% $2379.70  + $1,887.46 $4767.16 X 1759 $5372354.44 (budgeted) $8723,093.15 X 6% $2,596.02 -I- $1,887.46 $4,483.48 X 2735 $10,020377,80 Page 46Recommendations 1. When making student assignments, keep in mind that there is a relationship between double funding and enrollment figures that represents the greatest return on investment. Class enrollment that is below the fixed cost amount results in wasted dollars\nenrollment above that amount can result In exorbitant spending. The district courts May 1,1992 ruling regarding the relationship of class size to Instructional aides at the Incentive schools has given the district a further Incentive to contain class size to no more than 20 students in any classroom. The district is bound to keep Its pledge to double fund each incentive school for six years or B long as the ichool maintains an enrollment above 80% black. But the district must also keep in mind that the incentive schools educate only a small portion of the class that prevailed In the desegregation law suit. (Fully 80% of the districts black elementary students are educated In area schools, not incentive schools.) An overriding goal of the desegregation plan to Is close the gap In academic achievement between black and white children. If the district fails to prudently manage student placement at the incentive schools, especially in relationship to the double funding obligation, there will be far fewer dollars to spend on the programs and strategies that target achievement in the area schools, thus jeopardizing the equity the desegregation plan is designed to achieve. Conceivably, in order to contain the base per pupil expenditure in the area schools upon which double funding Is figured, the district could cut area school programs, personnel, materials, and facilities to the detriment of the majority of black students the settlement was designed to compensate. This possibility could become reality in the current financial deficit situation. Ultimately, the concerns the circuit court judges expressed in 1990 about the districts ability to afford double funding may have been tragically prophetic. 2. Ensure that a portion of the Incentive school funding fulfills the plan s commitment that \"the children who are in racially-isolated settings are provided meaningful opportunities for desegregated experiences/activities.\" Field trips taken during this school year coincidentally may have resulted in desegregated experiences, but there has been no evidence that incentive school staff planned trips to serve this function. Nor has there been any evidence of pairing incentive school student bodies with those of desegregated schools for racially integrated activities or special events. The best way to provide desegregated experiences for incentive school children is to racially desegregate their schools. 3. Give the incentive schools priority in the districts sequencing of capital improvement projects since double funding does not cover capital improvements and maintenance. If student enrollment at the incentive schools is to become desegregated, the buildings must be sound, attractive, and well-maintained. Page 471 Incentive Schools Function 1105 1110 1120 1124 1195 1210 1220 1240 1910 2113 2120 2134 2222 2410 2542 2590 3500 9999 Description Four Year Old Program Kindergarten Elementary Elementary Music Accelerated Learning Itinerant Instruction Resource Room Homebound and Hospital Gifted and Talented Social Work Services Guidance Services Nursing Services School Library Services Office of the Principal Upkeep of Buildings Other Support Services -B Custody \u0026amp; Care of Child 1995-96 Budget 1994-95 Budget $155,681.30 $84,758.85 $739,301.19 $30,434.21 $11,998.11 $35,479.57 $31,239.85 $0.00 $22,356.95 $23,490.61 $55,371.92 $27,795.75 $38,829.74 $131,589.47 $110,460.34 $1,000.00 $33,000.00 YTD TOTAL $165,106.19 $143,234.58 $588,438.05 $29,180.28 $114,394.57 $29,909.45 $42,861.14 $29,191.42 $37,641.16 $19,757.64 $74,882.01 $23,159.83 $36,767.92 $122,008.25 $91,332.91 $2,715.57 $0.00 1995-96 Budget $1,532,787.86 $1,550,580.97 $1,838,099.03 $1,838,099.03 1105 1110 1120 1124 1195 1210 1220 1230 1240 1910 2113 2120 2134 2222 2410 2542 2590 3500 9999 Four Year Old Program Kindergarten Elementary Elementary Music Accelerated Learning Itinerant Instruction Resource Room Special Class Homebound and Hospital Gifted and Talented Social Work Services Guidance Services Nursing Services School Library Services Office of the Principal Upkeep of Buildings Other Support Services -B Custody \u0026amp; Care of Child 1995-96 Budget $57,293.21 $40,892.74 $638,535.22 $14,702.75 $37,907.57 $18,331.68 $0.00 $77,847.35 $0.00 $10,005.99 $11,745.30 $38,923.68 $30,378.83 $48,765.33 $79,196.54 $76,996.09 $2,000.00 $15,000.00 $29,666.62 $55,139.77 $647,434.04 $24,042.48 $26,995.30 $15,417.73 $7,744.09 $34,176.15 $4,652.46 $8,231.58 $19,757.64 $32,825.57 $24,882.64 $25,416.68 $95,276.18 $65,539.54 $759.47 $0.00 1105 Four Year Old Program $1,198,522.28 $1,117,957.94 $1,246,992.88 $1,246,992.88 $41,192.09 $17,356.882 Incentive Schools Function 1110 1120 1124 1195 1210 1220 1240 1910 2113 2120 2134 2222 2410 2542 2590 3500 9999 Description Kindergarten Elementary Elementary Music Accelerated Learning Itinerant Instruction Resource Room Homebound and Hospital Gifted and Talented Social Work Services Guidance Services Nursing Services School Library Services Office of the Principal Upkeep of Buildings Other Support Services -B Custody \u0026amp; Care of Child 1995-96 Budget 1994-95 Budget $69,030.78 $608,632.57 $17,336.16 $12,295.12 $16,878.76 $21,887.04 $30,313.41 $17,067.64 $16,564.23 $33,757.52 $31,239.85 $47,306.77 $72,301.56 $93,305.91 $3,000.00 $25,000.00 YTD TOTAL $77,541.37 $560,197.42 $22,613.79 $5,489.64 $14,219.43 $0.00 $25,520.77 $2,900.03 $13,560.44 $0.00 $26,090.21 $43,789.31 $70,920.21 $75,225.16 $2,463.71 $0.00 1995-96 Budget $1,157,109.41 $957,888.37 $1,242,718.82 $1,242,718.82 1105 1110 1120 1124 1195 1210 1220 1910 2113 2120 2134 2222 2410 2542 2590 3500 Four Year Old Program Kindergarten Elementary Elementary Music Accelerated Learning Itinerant Instruction Resource Room Gifted and Talented Social Work Services Guidance Services Nursing Services School Library Services Office of the Principal Upkeep of Buildings Other Support Services -B Custody \u0026amp; Care of Child $295,636.85 $80,577.35 $909,370.19 $34,511.32 $22,060.42 $19,848.40 $21,887.04 $25,601.45 $26,870.38 $35,479.57 $32,358.22 $55,929.17 $126,518.33 $176,906.14 $3,000.00 $49,000.00 $1,915,554.83 $229,172.73 $70,145.53 $907,920.51 $26,143.08 $23,659.30 $16,901.39 $26,982.55 $12,452.46 $22,338.39 $30,786.14 $27,043.83 $51,325.48 $106,635.37 $124,068.94 $3,991.72 $0.00 $1,679,617.42 9999 1995-96 Budget $1,955,387.43 $1,955,387.43 1105 Four Year Old Program $45,360.01 $37,254.453 Incentive Schools Function 1110 1120 1124 1195 1210 1220 1910 2113 2120 2134 2222 2410 2542 2590 3500 9999 Description Kindergarten Elementary Elementary Music Accelerated Learning Itinerant Instruction Resource Room Gifted and Talented Social Work Services Guidance Services Nursing Services School Library Services Office of the Principal Upkeep of Buildings Other Support Services -B Custody \u0026amp; Care of Child 1995-96 Budget 1994-95 Budget $44,002.09 $593,342.61 $17,336.16 $66,208.50 $13,048.10 $19,612.50 $22,909.45 $17,771.95 $39,784.70 $46,600.48 $51,998.97 $80,710.54 $74,944.04 $2,500.00 $13,000.00 YTD TOTAL $55,142.42 $449,552.99 $30,752.92 $40,614.34 $10,806.25 $16,483.39 $13,751.20 $9,040.51 $33,516.85 $29,923.17 $42,022.29 $74,697.95 $57,832.46 $1,973.86 $0.00 1995-96 Budget $1,149,130.10 $903,365.05 $1,029,819.64 $1,029,819.64 $6,953,104.48 $6,209,409.75 $7,313,017.80 Prepared by the Office of Desegregation Monitoring based upon information supplied by the LRSD 6/22/95\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":71,"next_page":72,"prev_page":70,"total_pages":372,"limit_value":12,"offset_value":840,"total_count":4462,"first_page?":false,"last_page?":false},"facets":[{"name":"educator_resource_mediums_sms","items":[{"value":"worksheets","hits":2},{"value":"bibliographies","hits":1}],"options":{"sort":"count","limit":16,"offset":0,"prefix":null}},{"name":"type_facet","items":[{"value":"Text","hits":4200},{"value":"StillImage","hits":387}],"options":{"sort":"count","limit":16,"offset":0,"prefix":null}},{"name":"creator_facet","items":[{"value":"Connor, Eugene, 1897-1973","hits":567},{"value":"South Carolina Council on Human Relations","hits":246},{"value":"Federal Bureau of Investigation","hits":186},{"value":"Little Rock School District","hits":114},{"value":"Arkansas. Department of Education","hits":112},{"value":"Scholarship, Education and Defense Fund for Racial Equality","hits":75},{"value":"McCain, James T.","hits":66},{"value":"United States. Federal Bureau of Investigation","hits":57},{"value":"Student Nonviolent Coordinating Committee (U.S.)","hits":52},{"value":"Mississippi Freedom Democratic Party","hits":50},{"value":"Huckaby, Elizabeth","hits":41}],"options":{"sort":"count","limit":11,"offset":0,"prefix":null}},{"name":"subject_facet","items":[{"value":"Education--Arkansas","hits":893},{"value":"Little Rock School District","hits":640},{"value":"Little Rock (Ark.)--History--20th century","hits":629},{"value":"Birmingham (Ala.)--Officials and employees--Biography","hits":567},{"value":"Birmingham (Ala.)--Politics and government--20th century","hits":567},{"value":"Civil rights movements--Alabama--Birmingham","hits":567},{"value":"Politicians--Alabama--Birmingham","hits":567},{"value":"Civil rights workers","hits":509},{"value":"Civil rights--Arkansas","hits":464},{"value":"African Americans--Arkansas","hits":455},{"value":"Race discrimination--Arkansas","hits":454}],"options":{"sort":"count","limit":11,"offset":0,"prefix":null}},{"name":"subject_personal_facet","items":[{"value":"Connor, Eugene, 1897-1973","hits":567},{"value":"McCain, James T.","hits":259},{"value":"Huckaby, Elizabeth","hits":89},{"value":"Simpson, John Milton Bryan, 1903-1987","hits":89},{"value":"King, Martin Luther, Jr., 1929-1968","hits":79},{"value":"Davis, L. O.","hits":78},{"value":"Hayling, Robert Bagner","hits":74},{"value":"Bryant, Farris, 1914-2002","hits":52},{"value":"Phillips, Vel, 1924-2018","hits":42},{"value":"Stuart, Virgil","hits":39},{"value":"Mizell, M. Hayes","hits":35}],"options":{"sort":"count","limit":11,"offset":0,"prefix":null}},{"name":"name_authoritative_sms","items":[{"value":"Connor, Eugene, 1897-1973","hits":566},{"value":"Simpson, John Milton Bryan, 1903-1987","hits":89},{"value":"Davis, L. O.","hits":78},{"value":"King, Martin Luther, Jr., 1929-1968","hits":77},{"value":"Hayling, Robert Bagner","hits":74},{"value":"Bryant, Farris, 1914-2002","hits":52},{"value":"Phillips, Vel, 1924-2018","hits":42},{"value":"Stuart, Virgil","hits":39},{"value":"Ashmore, Harry S.","hits":34},{"value":"Brown, Robert R. (Robert Raymond), 1910-1994","hits":30},{"value":"Heiskell, John Netherland, 1872-1972","hits":30}],"options":{"sort":"count","limit":11,"offset":0,"prefix":null}},{"name":"event_title_sms","items":[{"value":"Little Rock Central High School Integration","hits":246},{"value":"Freedom Summer","hits":167},{"value":"Martin Luther King, Jr.'s Nobel Prize","hits":77},{"value":"Housing Act of 1961","hits":9},{"value":"Ole Miss Integration","hits":5},{"value":"Civil Rights Act of 1964","hits":3},{"value":"Freedom Rides","hits":2},{"value":"Integration of Clemson University","hits":2}],"options":{"sort":"count","limit":11,"offset":0,"prefix":null}},{"name":"location_facet","items":[{"value":"United States, Arkansas, 34.75037, -92.50044","hits":1714},{"value":"United States, 39.76, -98.5","hits":1676},{"value":"United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, 34.76993, -92.3118","hits":1280},{"value":"United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, Little Rock, 34.74648, -92.28959","hits":1214},{"value":"United States, Alabama, Jefferson County, Birmingham, 33.52066, -86.80249","hits":567},{"value":"United States, Mississippi, 32.75041, -89.75036","hits":439},{"value":"United States, South Carolina, 34.00043, -81.00009","hits":409},{"value":"United States, Florida, 28.75054, -82.5001","hits":373},{"value":"United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, Little Rock, Dunbar High School, 34.73231, -92.28654","hits":206},{"value":"United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, Little Rock, Central High School, 34.73683, -92.29895","hits":189},{"value":"United States, Mississippi, Forrest County, Hattiesburg, 31.32712, -89.29034","hits":86}],"options":{"sort":"count","limit":11,"offset":0,"prefix":null}},{"name":"us_states_facet","items":[{"value":"Arkansas","hits":1797},{"value":"Alabama","hits":573},{"value":"Mississippi","hits":569},{"value":"South Carolina","hits":503},{"value":"Florida","hits":410},{"value":"Wisconsin","hits":84},{"value":"Georgia","hits":74},{"value":"New York","hits":42},{"value":"Missouri","hits":18},{"value":"District of Columbia","hits":9},{"value":"Virginia","hits":9}],"options":{"sort":"count","limit":11,"offset":0,"prefix":null}},{"name":"year_facet","items":[{"value":"1964","hits":954},{"value":"1963","hits":662},{"value":"1965","hits":510},{"value":"1962","hits":470},{"value":"1957","hits":460},{"value":"1960","hits":454},{"value":"1966","hits":441},{"value":"1961","hits":439},{"value":"1967","hits":437},{"value":"1995","hits":428},{"value":"1959","hits":418},{"value":"1994","hits":411},{"value":"1958","hits":399},{"value":"1996","hits":398},{"value":"1993","hits":387},{"value":"1969","hits":380},{"value":"1991","hits":371},{"value":"1992","hits":360},{"value":"1968","hits":356},{"value":"1997","hits":346},{"value":"1999","hits":345},{"value":"2000","hits":332},{"value":"1998","hits":330},{"value":"2001","hits":328},{"value":"1970","hits":316},{"value":"1990","hits":316},{"value":"2002","hits":297},{"value":"1971","hits":292},{"value":"1989","hits":288},{"value":"2003","hits":283},{"value":"1956","hits":276},{"value":"1972","hits":266},{"value":"2004","hits":262},{"value":"1955","hits":257},{"value":"2005","hits":238},{"value":"1954","hits":229},{"value":"1981","hits":224},{"value":"1974","hits":219},{"value":"1987","hits":216},{"value":"1988","hits":216},{"value":"1984","hits":205},{"value":"1986","hits":205},{"value":"1975","hits":203},{"value":"1985","hits":203},{"value":"2006","hits":203},{"value":"1973","hits":201},{"value":"1983","hits":197},{"value":"1982","hits":196},{"value":"1977","hits":195},{"value":"1980","hits":195},{"value":"1979","hits":193},{"value":"2007","hits":190},{"value":"1976","hits":187},{"value":"1978","hits":187},{"value":"1952","hits":156},{"value":"2010","hits":156},{"value":"1951","hits":154},{"value":"1953","hits":154},{"value":"2009","hits":152},{"value":"2008","hits":151},{"value":"2011","hits":151},{"value":"1950","hits":146},{"value":"2012","hits":142},{"value":"1948","hits":140},{"value":"2013","hits":140},{"value":"2014","hits":139},{"value":"1947","hits":137},{"value":"1945","hits":135},{"value":"1944","hits":133},{"value":"1946","hits":132},{"value":"1949","hits":131},{"value":"1943","hits":127},{"value":"1942","hits":121},{"value":"1940","hits":120},{"value":"1936","hits":119},{"value":"1937","hits":119},{"value":"1939","hits":119},{"value":"1934","hits":118},{"value":"1932","hits":117},{"value":"1935","hits":117},{"value":"1941","hits":117},{"value":"1933","hits":116},{"value":"1938","hits":116},{"value":"1930","hits":114},{"value":"1924","hits":111},{"value":"1931","hits":111},{"value":"1929","hits":97},{"value":"1921","hits":95},{"value":"1928","hits":91},{"value":"1922","hits":90},{"value":"1923","hits":90},{"value":"1926","hits":90},{"value":"1927","hits":90},{"value":"1909","hits":89},{"value":"1925","hits":89},{"value":"1908","hits":88},{"value":"1911","hits":88},{"value":"1912","hits":88},{"value":"1907","hits":87},{"value":"1910","hits":87}],"options":{"sort":"count","limit":100,"offset":0,"prefix":null},"min":"1061","max":"2034","count":27042,"missing":0},{"name":"medium_facet","items":[{"value":"documents (object genre)","hits":4462},{"value":"correspondence","hits":288},{"value":"notes (documents)","hits":97},{"value":"lists (document genres)","hits":89},{"value":"memorandums","hits":84},{"value":"postcards","hits":56},{"value":"programs (documents)","hits":46},{"value":"reports","hits":39},{"value":"agendas (administrative records)","hits":38},{"value":"pamphlets","hits":38},{"value":"essays","hits":37}],"options":{"sort":"count","limit":11,"offset":0,"prefix":null}},{"name":"rights_facet","items":[{"value":"http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC-EDU/1.0/","hits":2000},{"value":"http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/CNE/1.0/","hits":1168},{"value":"http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC/1.0/","hits":656},{"value":"http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/UND/1.0/","hits":604},{"value":"http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/NoC-US/1.0/","hits":33},{"value":"http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC-NC/1.0/","hits":4}],"options":{"sort":"count","limit":11,"offset":0,"prefix":null}},{"name":"collection_titles_sms","items":[{"value":"Office of Desegregation Management","hits":904},{"value":"Historical Manuscripts and Photographs","hits":764},{"value":"Theophilus Eugene ‘Bull’ Connor Papers, 1959-1963","hits":566},{"value":"Land of (Unequal) Opportunity: Documenting the Civil Rights Struggle in Arkansas","hits":454},{"value":"Butler Center for Arkansas Studies Documents Collection","hits":447},{"value":"Civil Rights Library of St. Augustine","hits":372},{"value":"James T. McCain papers, 1957-1972","hits":257},{"value":"New insights in the American civil rights movement: South Carolina Council on Human Relations records","hits":249},{"value":"Judy Richardson Papers 1963-2014","hits":92},{"value":"March on Milwaukee: Civil Rights History Project","hits":85},{"value":"Faith Holsaert Papers 1950-2011","hits":45}],"options":{"sort":"count","limit":11,"offset":0,"prefix":null}},{"name":"provenance_facet","items":[{"value":"Butler Center for Arkansas Studies","hits":1353},{"value":"University of Southern Mississippi. Libraries","hits":765},{"value":"Birmingham Public Library (Ala.)","hits":567},{"value":"University of South Carolina. Libraries","hits":549},{"value":"University of Arkansas, Fayetteville. Libraries","hits":454},{"value":"Proctor Library","hits":372},{"value":"South Caroliniana Library","hits":321},{"value":"Duke University. Library","hits":137},{"value":"Golda Meir Library. Special Collections","hits":85},{"value":"Historically Black Colleges and Universities (HBCU) Library Alliance","hits":50},{"value":"Stuart A. Rose Manuscript, Archives, and Rare Book Library","hits":49}],"options":{"sort":"count","limit":11,"offset":0,"prefix":null}},{"name":"class_name","items":[{"value":"Item","hits":4449},{"value":"Collection","hits":13}],"options":{"sort":"count","limit":100,"offset":0,"prefix":null}},{"name":"educator_resource_b","items":[{"value":"false","hits":4456},{"value":"true","hits":6}],"options":{"sort":"count","limit":100,"offset":0,"prefix":null}}]}}