{"response":{"docs":[{"id":"bcas_bcmss0837_256","title":"Position papers from Dunbar Arkansans for Gifted and Talented Education","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":["Dunbar Arkansans for Gifted and Talented Education, (A.G.A.T.E.)"],"dc_date":["1994-10-11","1995-01-26"],"dcterms_description":null,"dc_format":["application/pdf"],"dcterms_identifier":null,"dcterms_language":["eng"],"dcterms_publisher":["Little Rock, Ark. : Butler Center for Arkansas Studies. Central Arkansas Library System"],"dc_relation":null,"dc_right":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC-EDU/1.0/"],"dcterms_is_part_of":["Office of Desegregation Monitoring records (BC.MSS.08.37)","History of Segregation and Integration of Arkansas's Educational System"],"dcterms_subject":["Little Rock (Ark.)--History--20th century","Little Rock School District","Education--Arkansas","Parents' and teachers' associations","Gifted \u0026 talented"],"dcterms_title":["Position papers from Dunbar Arkansans for Gifted and Talented Education"],"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/256"],"dcterms_temporal":null,"dcterms_rights_holder":null,"dcterms_bibliographic_citation":null,"dlg_local_right":["Available for use in research, teaching, and private study. Any other use requires permission from the Butler Center."],"dcterms_medium":["printouts"],"dcterms_extent":["217 pages"],"dlg_subject_personal":null,"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":"\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n\n\n\n   \n\n\n\n\n   \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n  \n\nCorrespondence in regard to Gifted and Telented program at Dunbar Junior High School\nOCT 1 1994 Oifice of dessegregation Monitoring October 11, 1994 Elizabeth Shy Dowell 68 Cardinal Valley Drive North Little Rock, AR 72120 Dr. Henry P. Williaims, Superintendent Little Rock School District 810 W. Markham Little Rock, AR 72201 Dear Dr. Williams\nAttached is a copy of the position paper as adopted by the Dunbar Arkansans for Gifted And Talented Education (A.G.A.T.E.) membership at the September 28, 1994, meeting which you were unable to attend. A.G.A.T.E. wants the district and school board members to understand this adoption was chosen for what they believe is best for the entire school population. If based solely on the needs of their individual Gifted and Talented identified children at Dunbar, the parents decision would have been far different. Beginning last spring, as the district began addressing the budget constraints, parents were systematically excluded from the decision making process. The program, as implemented for the current school year, is not what was told to parents and students during recruiting. Again this fall, before any opportunity for real dialogue between the district administration and parents, a decision was reached, based on limited parental input, to re-instate the program as it had been for the previous school year. My personal experience with parents has taught me there is a very real distrust of the district on the part of its patrons. I believe it is this type of unilateral decision-making which promotes these feelings. As the logistics became known, such as the master schedule having to be reworked for the entire school population, a lack of parental concensus became obvious. A.G.A.T.E. feared a situation was developing that would pit parent against parent in trying to implement the fall mandate. We, therefore, elected to support maintaining the program as is for the current school year only. The Gifted and Talented program at Dunbar is a bare minimum program. An enhanced program is probably a more accurate title. It is suggested that all members of the Board tour Fuller Junior High School, in the Pulaski County Special School District, and make a comparison between the two G and T programs. I believe that LRSD will find it more difficult in the near future to recruit- white students from the other districts as the success and quality of Fuller Junior High's program becomes more widely known throughout the county. Whether as individuals we support Gifted and Talented programs or not, in terms of desegregating Dunbar, it is the Gifted and Talented program which draws white students. If the quality and integrity of the program cannot grow, the district will find it harder to recruit and parental support for the district will diminish. Sincerely Yours in Support of Public Schools, Elizabeth Shy Dowell President, Dunbar A.G.A.T.E. ESD/esd C: Ms. Ann Brown, Office of Desegregation Monitor Little Rock School District School Board Members: Ms. Patricia Gee Ms. Oma Jacovelli Dr. Katherine Mitchell Ms. Judy Magness Mr. T. Kevin O'Malley Ms. Linda Pondexter Mr. John A. Riggs, IV Ms. Nancy Acre, Dunbar PrincipalArkansans for Gifted And Talented Education DUNBAR JUNIOR HIGH SCHOOL A.G.A.T.E. AFFILIATE POSITION PAPER MAGNET PROGRAMS AS ADMINISTERED AT DUNBAR JUNIOR HIGH SCHOOL The membership of Dunbar Junior High School A.G.A.T.E. voted at its September 28, 1994, meeting to adopt a position regarding the administration of the Gifted and Talented and International Studies programs at DJHS, as follows\n1. Beginning with the 1995-96 school year, the Gifted and Talented and International Studies programs at Dunbar shall return to their original 1990-91 formats, as established and implemented by the Little Rock School District Dunbar Committee\nmore specifically\na. b. c. d. letters will be sent by the Student Assignment Office to all attendance zone students informing them they must participate in the magnet programs and enroll in a foreign language class\nstudents electing not to participate in the magnet programs will be allowed by the Little Rock School District to opt to attend another junior high\nstudents shall be required to return a letter of intent\nthe LRSD will reinstate the ratio cap among attendance zone black students, thereby encouraging the recruitment of identified gifted black students outside the attendance zone to enroll in Dunbar\nthe LRSD Dunbar Committee shall be reconstituted as per the April 29, 1992, LRSD Desegregation Plan, page 143\ncommittee make-up should be by position, not specific individuals, i.e. LRSD Gifted Supervisor, Dunbar Principal, Dunbar International Studies and Gifted and Talented specialists, one black parent, one white parent and others as needed\nidentified Gifted and Talented students and designated Enriched students will not be grouped together in the four core subjects\nteachers of Gifted and Talented classes will be certified as Gifted and Talented teachers. 2. To strengthen the program, Gifted and Talented classroom size shall not exceed 22 students. 3. For the remainder of the 1994-95 school year ONLY, the identified Gifted and Talented students and the designated Enriched students at Dunbar may be assigned to combined classes in the four core subjects.4. The Little Rock School District will provide a minimum of two additional Gifted and Talented specialists at Dunbar for the remainder of the 1994-95 school year for the purpose of facilitating the Gifted and Talented teachers by providing instructional time with small groups and individuals as needed. The Dunbar A.G.A.T.E. group believes these criteria for administering the magnet programs at Dunbar are the bare minimums for maintaining the quality and integrity of these programs and for recruiting future students in compliance with orders of the Federal District Court. FOR MORE INFORMATION OR QUESTIONS PLEASE CONTACT: ELIZABETH SHY DOWELL President, DJHS A G A T E. 68 Cardinal Valley Drive North Little Rock, AR 72120 (501) 834-3720Arkansans for Gifted And Talented Education DUNBAR JUNIOR HIGH SCHOOL A.G.A.T.E. AFFILIATE 1100 Wright Avenue, Little Rock, Arkansas 72206 Elizabeth Shy Dowell, President January 26, 1995 Dr. Henry Williams, Superintendent Little Rock School District 810 West Markham Street Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 JAN 95 :{ iVi Dear Dr. Williams: J In follow-up to the Dunbar A.G.A.T.E. Position Paper of last fall, we reiterate our concerns for the International Studies and Gifted and Talented magnet programs as outlined. While all four points remain very high priorities, at this time we want to recapitulate item l.b. of the position paper,(see attached.) Specifically, the ratio cap among attendance zone black students and the recruitment of identified gifted and talented black students from outside the Dunbar attendance zone. When Dunbar Junior High School opened as a magnet programs school, to meet court ordered desegregation guidelines, a 60% ratio cap for black students from the attendance zone was established. The Student Assignment OtBce initially required a student, who elected not to participate in either program, to return a form to the SAO. At that point, the student would be assigned to another school in the district. If the number of black attendance zone students electing to opt out of Dunbar dropped the ratio below 60%, the school could then recruit G \u0026amp; T identified black students from other attendance zones. Three years ago, without informing either the school administration or the parents of participants, the Student Assignment OfEce stopped sending out the above mentioned forms. This left prospective students and their parents with the impression they could come to Dunbar and not participate in the either of the magnet programs. As this information circulated and SAO never said anything to the contrary, students who in the past had opted out, returned to Dunbar. Not only did this unpublished SAO policy have a devastating effect on our programs, i.e. the elimination of some courses and the number of sections available in others, but each year we fall further behind in meeting the court ordered desegregation guidelines. Our numbers are approximately 69% black, 31% non-black for the current school year. We believe it is imperative, for the viability of the programs and for student recruitment, the Student Assignment Office for the 1995-96 school year should: A. in order to be in compliance with the courts, reinstate the ratio cap\nB. require students to return a form committing themselves to the Dunbar program(s) or be allowed to opt out of Dunbar.As cautioned in my cover letter of October 11, 1994, regarding what might happen when the quality of Fuller Junior High School's G \u0026amp; T program became known, we have lost two Pulaski County Special School District white students to Fuller and a third is actively looking into making the switch. Lest this leave the impression that Gifted and Talented programs are of most import to white parents, I pass along the concerns some black parents have brought to me. More pointedly, the small number of black students in the G \u0026amp; T program at Dunbar. One parent told of how her son felt uncomfortable with so few black males in his G \u0026amp; T classes and the pressure put on him by peers to not participate. Of those who came to me, all said virtually the same thing, their children need others like themselves to withstand the peer pressure. We can only accomplish this through the proper use of the ratio cap. While we understand and sympathize with your daily pressures, we implore that these matters be given an immediate and high priority by you and your staff. Sincerely, Elizabeth Shy Dowell President, Dunbar A.G.A.T.E. Enclosure: 1 cc: Ms. Ann Brown, Desegregation Monitor Dr. C. Russell Mayo, LRSD Student Assignment Office LRSD School Board Members: Ms. Patricia Gee Ms. Oma Jacovelli Ms. Judy Magness Dr. Katherine Mitchell Mr. Kevin OMalley Ms. Linda Pondexter Mr. John A Riggs, IV Ms. Nancy Acre, Dunbar Principal ESD/esd Arkansans for Gifted And Talented Education DUNBAR JUNIOR HIGH SCHOOL A.G.A.T.E. AFFILIATE POSITION PAPER MAGNET PROGRAMS AS ADMINISTERED AT DUNBAR JUNIOR HIGH SCHOOL The membership of Dunbar Junior High School A.G.A.T.E. voted at its September 28, 1994, meeting to adopt a position regarding the administration of the Gifted and Talented and International Studies programs at DJHS, as follows: 1. Beginning with the 1995-96 school year, the Gifted and Talented and International Studies programs at Dunbar shall return to their original 1990-91 formats, as established and implemented by the Little Rock School District Dunbar Committee\nmore specifically: a. b. c. d. letters will be sent by the Student .Assignment Office to all attendance zone students informing them they must participate in the magnet programs and enroll in a foreign language class\nstudents electing not to participate in the magnet programs will be allow^ed by the Little Rock School District to opt to attend another junior high\nstudents should be required to return alerter of intent\nthe LRSD will reinstate the ratio cap among attendance zone black students, thereby encouraging the reciuitnient of identified gifted black students outside the attendance zone to enroll in Dunbar, the LRSD Dunbar Committee shall be reconstituted as per the April 29, 1992, LRSD Desegregation Plan, page 143\ncommittee make-up should be by position, not specific individuals, i.e. LRSD Gifted Supervisor, Dunbar principal, Dunbar's International Studies and Gifted and Talented specialists, one black parent, one white parent and others as needed\nidentified Gifted and Talented students and designated Enriched students will not be grouped to gether in the four core subjects\nteachers of Gifted and Talented classes x vill be certified tis Gifted and Talented teachers. 2. To strengthen the program, classroom sn -e shall not exceed 22 students. 3. For the remainder of the 1994-95 school yearONLY, the identified Gifted and Talented students and the designated Enriched sturiea's at Dunbar may be assigned to combined classes in the four core subjects.4. The Little Rock School District will provide a minimum of two additional Gifted and Talented specialists at Dunbar for the remainder of the 1994-95 school year for the purpose of facilitating the Gifted and Talented teachers by providing instructional time with small groups and individuals as needed. The Dunbar AG.A.T.E. group believes these criteria for administering the magnet programs at Dunbar are the bare minimums for maintaining the quality of these programs and for recruiting future students in compliance with orders of the Federal District Court. FOR MORE INFORMATION OR QUESTIONS PLEASE CONTACT: ELIZABETH SHY DOWELL President, DJHS A.G.A.T.E. 68 Cardinal Valley Drive North Little Rocl^ AR 72120 (501) 834-3720\nThis project was supported in part by a Digitizing Hidden Special Collections and Archives project grant from The Andrew W. Mellon Foundation and Council on Library and Information Resoources.\n   \n\n   \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\u003cdcterms_creator\u003eDunbar Arkansans for Gifted and Talented Education, (A.G.A.T.E.)\u003c/dcterms_creator\u003e\n   \n\n \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n \n\n  \n\n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n  \n\n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n   \n\n \n\n\n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n\n\n  \n\n\n\n "},{"id":"bcas_bcmss0837_210","title":"Academic Programs","collection_id":"bcas_bcmss0837","collection_title":"Office of Desegregation Management","dcterms_contributor":null,"dcterms_spatial":["United States, 39.76, -98.5","United States, Arkansas, 34.75037, -92.50044","United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, 34.76993, -92.3118","United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, Little Rock, 34.74648, -92.28959"],"dcterms_creator":["Little Rock School District"],"dc_date":["1992/1993"],"dcterms_description":null,"dc_format":["application/pdf"],"dcterms_identifier":null,"dcterms_language":["eng"],"dcterms_publisher":["Little Rock, Ark. : Butler Center for Arkansas Studies. Central Arkansas Library System"],"dc_relation":null,"dc_right":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC-EDU/1.0/"],"dcterms_is_part_of":["Office of Desegregation Monitoring records (BC.MSS.08.37)","History of Segregation and Integration of Arkansas's Educational System"],"dcterms_subject":["Little Rock (Ark.)--History--20th century","Little Rock School District","Student assistance programs","Education--Arkansas"],"dcterms_title":["Academic Programs"],"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/210"],"dcterms_temporal":null,"dcterms_rights_holder":null,"dcterms_bibliographic_citation":null,"dlg_local_right":["Available for use in research, teaching, and private study. Any other use requires permission from the Butler Center."],"dcterms_medium":["printouts"],"dcterms_extent":["1 page"],"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\nf A received IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS JUL 1 1992 WESTERN DIVISION Desegregation Monitoring LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT V. LR-C-82-866 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, ET AL DEFENDANTS MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL INTERVENORS KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL INTERVENORS NOTICE OF FILING The Little Rock School District hereby gives notice of the filing of its Academic Support Program as required by the May 1, 1992 Order of the District Court. Respectfully submitted, LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT FRIDAY, ELDREDGE \u0026amp; CLARK 2000 First Commercial Bldg. 400 West Capitol Street Little Rock, AR 72201 (501) 376-2011 By: Christopher lerT CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I certify that a copy of the foregoing Notice of Filing has been served on the following people by depositing copy of same in the United States mail on this 30th day of June, 1992. -Os f*: ^4 Christopher Heller Mr. John Walker JOHN WALKER, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72206 Mr. Sam Jones WRIGHT, LINDSEY \u0026amp; JENNINGS 2200 Worthen Bank Bldg. 200 West Capitol Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Steve Jones JACK, LYON \u0026amp; JONES, P.A. 3400 Capitol Towers Capitol \u0026amp; Broadway Streets Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Richard Roachell #15 Hickory Creek Drive Little Rock, AR 72212 Ms. Ann Brown Desegregation Monitor Heritage West Bldg., Suite 510 201 East Markham Street Little Rock, AR 72201 Chri ipher HellerLITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT ACADEMIC SUPPORT PROGRAM Overview The future of urban schools is the primary issue facing the Nations educational system. If the system is left as it is, the social and individual costs of inadequate schooling will severely corrode the social fabric of the Nation. The students in these schools, like students everywhere, bring strengths to their classrooms and dream dreams of academic achievement. Drawing on practitioners wisdom accumulated through experience and research findings, we have sufficient knowledge to make changes in schools and classrooms. But, no pat formula to \"grow\" effective schools exists. Curriculum and teaching must be substantially different with individualization, clear objectives, prompt feedback, concrete evidence of progress, and an active role for students. To succeed, we will need to take maximum advantage of the tools and techniques that can support the process. We will need creative and well-integrated uses of technologies of many kinds. Provided is the Little Rock School Districts proposal for Academic Support Programs directed by the Courts. The following process was used to develop the document: as Several urban school districts such as Buffalo, New York, Hartford, Connecticut, and Long Beach, California were contacted regarding how they provided support services to targeted students. A committee composed of principals met several times and provided input for the document. Given the severity of the problem at the secondary level, designated supervisor and the Associate Superintendent for Curriculum met with all the jumor and senior high school principals to discuss their concerns and secure their recommendations. The ?\\ssociate Superintendent for Curriculum also met with the principals of the four restructuring junior high schools to gain additional suggestions and to make sure that our proposal met the needs of all students. Representatives of the Classroom Teachers Association were contacted for their suggestions.Academic Support Program Page 2 Program Name Academic Support Program The Little Rock School District recognizes the need for coherence among improvement initiatives, but we also recognize that no single strategy is likely to solve the diversity of academic problems that the District must remedy. Using the Academic Support Program as the center of our plan, a combination of strategies will be used to increase achievement for all students, which will result in reducing the disparity between minority and non-minority students. Location All schools will implement the proposed Academic Support Program model but will be able to select the option(s) that they deem appropriate for meeting their students needs. Program Goal The goal of the Academic Support Program is to provide equitable language arts and mathematics learning experiences for all students in the mainstreamed setting by supporting them with the instructional and technical assistance needed to reduce the learning disparity. Program Objectives To identify and serve but not to label (stigmatize) students who are at-risk in reading and mathematics using multiple criteria and to prescribe for each identified student a personalized intervention plan that reduces or eliminates potential \"pullout\" away from mainstreamed learning. (The following will be involved in the identification process and implementation of the program: teaching team, school counselor, parents or guardians, student, and appropriate central office technical assistance including the director of reading, the language arts supervisor, mathematics supervisor, the director of staff development, and the coordinator of library media services.) Criteria for Consideration for Academic Support Serxdces Students who are performing below the 50th Normal Curve Equivalency (NCE) on the Stanford Achievement Test, Eighth Edition, or other appropriate standardized tests, will be screened by using multiple criteria to determine if academic support services ar needed as well as the kind and duration of such sen-ices. The screening/identification process will be divided into two categories: Indirect and Direct Services.Academic Support Program Page 3 Indirect Services: Students scores on standardized achievement tests ranging from the 50th - 25th NCE. Student profile will be developed to include the following: * The students strengths/weaknesses * The students letter grades * The students attendance records * The students medical records * Teacher/parent/student recommendation * The students classroom performance * The students social skills * Other relevant data Direct Services: Student scores on standardized achievement tests ranging from the 24th - 1 NCE. Student profile information will be developed to include the following: * The students strengths/weaknesses * The student is unable to read/understand grade level content materials * The students letter grades * The students attendance * The students classroom participation   The students medical records The students social skills * Teacher/parent/student recommendation  Other relevant data Students who are eligible to receive academic support services will have a prescribed personalized intervention plan that is cooperatively developed including the parents and appropriate District staff. Services provided as Indirect in which language arts and math assistance teams teach in the regular classroom at the elementary and secondary levels are to be viewed as transitional. Such services should be phased out over a two-year period of time. This transitional arrangement would provide adequate time to provide intense, quality inservice to all regular classroom teachers. By the 1994-95 school year, regular classroom teachers will provide the necessary support services to their own students.Academic Support Program Page 4 Program Learner Outcomes The learner will: - Function successfully within a regular classroom. - Improve organization and study skills. - Develop critical and creative thinking skills. - Improve basic skills in language arts and math. - Enhance self confidence and motivation. Program Description Elementary Academic Support Program Indirect Services: Reading and math specialists will be paired with classroom teachers to assist in implementing accelerated learning experiences for students with identified reading and mathematics skill deficits a minimum of three days per week. Instructional practices involving both the classroom teacher and the reading/math specialists will include small group instruction, cooperative learning, and individual instruction. An emphasis will be placed on mastery learning for all students, using appropriate materials that assist in varying learning experiences. Direct Services: For students identified with severe reading problems, a reading class will be available to assist them in mastering fundamental reading skills and to stimulate their interest in reading. Reading teachers will focus on mastery learning and use of listening labs and computer labs to diagnose, remediate, and assess specific language problems, using exclusively audio and computer programs correlated to the LRSD language arts and mathematics curricula. This arrangement will promote program continuity, connected learning, student/teacher bonding, and shared accountability.Academic Support Program Page 5 Program Description Secondary schools are to implement the Academic Support Program according to one or a combination of the following three optional approaches: Secondary Academic Support Program - Approach One Indirect Services: The Secondary Academic Support Program is intended to provide connected language arts and math learning for targeted students in a single classroom setting, which brings together appropriate expertise and experiences to support student needs. The driving premise is that targeted students will not succeed simply by repetition of experiences or by separation of experiences spread out over several class periods each day. The academic team approach will, by design, restructure the current secondary language arts staffing by pairing language arts classroom teachers (including English and Learning Foundation teachers) and reading specialists. (Math teachers are already paired for instruction.) Teams will jointly plan appropriate whole group instruction, small group instruction, and individual instruction for learning experiences. Direct Services: For students identified with severe reading problems, a reading class will be available to assist them in mastering fundamental reading skills and to stimulate that interest in reading. Reading teachers will focus on mastery learning, and use of listening labs and computer labs to diagnose, remediate, and assess specific language and math problems, using audio and computer programs correlated to the LRSD language arts and mathematics curricula. This arrangement will promote program continuity, connected learning, student/teacher bonding, and shared accountability.Academic Support Program Page 6 Program Description Secondary Academic Support Program - Approach Two Direct Services: The regular classroom teacher serves as his/her own assistant to meet the needs of targeted students. Smaller class loads will be scheduled for regular language arts and/or mathematics teachers to allow them to provide more individual assistance for targeted students during each class period. Program Description Secondary Academic Support Program - Approach Three (Language Arts Only) Indirect Services: The Language Arts Plus Program is intended to reinforce regular classroom language arts instruction exclusively and to focus on specific student deficits. The Language Arts Plus Program approach will restructure the current secondary language arts program by reducing the number of separate reading classes, reducing language arts class size, and adding an enrichment class to schedules of targeted students. The concept will add an elective credit to student course work and will utilize the services of teachers in whose language arts classes the targeted students are enrolled. These teachers will teach only four out of five class periods and during the fifth period will provide accelerated learning experiences for all students targeted from each of their four classes. Extended Services - Elementary and Secondary: To support and extend learning opportunities for students, the academic team concept will be supported by making available to targeted students before school, at lunch, and after school computer lab instruction. Additionally, some sites may schedule periodic extended weeks in order to provide a practice and review session on Saturdays. Principals may use flexible scheduling of staff in providing some of their extended day services.Academic Support Program Page 7 Targeted Students Learning deficits easiest to remediate are those that never occur in the first place. Increased intensive services in the early grades reduce or eliminate the need for remedial and/or academic support services later on. Prevention programs will focus on preschool, kindergarten, and first through third grades in our district. High quality pre-school programs can give disadvantaged students a leg up in their education. Pre-school is seen as a means of getting students off to a good start in school. Kindergarten classes will start students off with good language skills and school readiness. Full-day kindergarten programs can produce positive effects on first grade readiness and performance. Prevention will mean that the District will offer developmentally-appropriate pre-school and kindergarten programs so students enter first grade ready to succeed and provide regular classroom teachers with effective instructional programs, curricula, and staff development to enable them to make sure that most students are successful the first time they are taught. Early intervention means providing supplementary, accelerated instructional services such as Writing To Read, Math Readiness, use of manipulatives, hands-on approach to science as well as existing language arts software. Language arts and math teachers will also provide support and technical assistance to kindergarten and first grade. We will direct all aspects of school and classroom organization toward the goal of preventing academic deficits from appearing in the first place, recognizing and intensively intervening when any deficits do appear and providing students with a rich and revised comprehensive curriculum to enable them to build on their firm foundation in basic skills. The Little Rock School District will flag all students performing below the 49th Normal Curve Equivalency (NCE) on the Stanford Achievement Test, Eighth Edition. Using multiple criteria, identified earlier in this plan, schools will select students that will participate in our Academic Support Programs. (See attachments for individual school targeted populations.)Academic Support Program Page 8 Coordination of Services: The Districts revised curriculum has been sequentially developed by a cadre of K-12 scholars (master teachers). The objectives have been correlated to the skills in the Arkansas Minimum Performance Test and the Stanford Eight norm-referenced tests.\nwill be aligned with our existing computer-assisted instructional software. Resource guides have been developed for each revised content area. The resource guides will identify appropriate resources that are needed to support daily instruction. Resources It found in the curriculum guides are aligned with objectives and concepts identified in our revised curriculum. All teachers, including those who provide academic support services, will be required to implement the revised curriculum. The Instructional Management System permits the storage and retrieval of information on available resources (books, films, videotapes, courseware, etc.). The District will have the ability to better manage resources in a more efficient manner. The installation and implementation of an Instructional Management System this fall will enable us to track progress of individual students and provide corrective prescriptions to improve learning. Teachers will be able to respond to individual student needs and influence acaderm'c growth. The Instructional Management System will provide ways to help make parents an integral part of their childs learning process. Technology Technology will play a critical role in the delivery of instruction in the Academic Support Program primarily through the use of computer-assisted instruction and video technology. The computer lab will provide support for targeted students during the regular school day as well as during extended day, extended week, and extended year activities. Computer and audiovisual software used in this program will be directly correlated to the revised curriculum and classroom instruction. Use of some of our existing software, which is not applicable for use in supporting our revised curriculum at the secondary level, will not occur during the 1992-93 school year. At the elementary level, targeted students will attend the computer lab along with the regular class. Additional computer-assisted instruction for targeted students may be provided in the areas of reading and math. The reading and math specialists will work closely with the computer lab attendant to determine appropriate lessons. Lessons will be used that reinforce basic skills, higher-level thinking skills, and problem solving strategies. The computer lab will be used to diagnose, reinforce, and assess student progress.Academic Support Program Page 9 At the secondary level, the use of computer-assisted instruction will be closely connected to classroom instruction. In the area of language arts, lessons will reinforce writing skills through literature-based writing activities, process writing activities, word processing, and research strategies. Other appropriate software that reinforces objectives in the revised curriculum may also be used. In the area of mathematics, the computer lab may be used to diagnose problems, review and reinforce specific skills, and assess results. Videotapes and other audiovisual software will be used in instruction for targeted students. Such software will also be directly correlated to classroom instruction and used to teach and reinforce objectives in the curriculum of the District. Parent Involvement The district recognizes that parents serve as an invaluable resource in the process of educating children and believes that a childs education is a responsibility shared by family and school. To assure a collaborative partnership, the Board of Directors, administration, and staff are committed to: 1. Encouraging programs to help parents develop parenting skills and foster conditions at home that support childrens efforts in learning. 2. Providing parents with the knowledge of techniques designed to assist children in learning at home and at school. 3. Providing support and resource information for school staff and parents to enable them to implement and sustain appropriate parent involvement at all grade levels (Pre-K-12). 4. Maintaining communication between parents and schools in regards to school programs and childrens progress. 5. Identifying and involving parents in instructional and support roles at the school. 6. Supporting parents roles in decision-making and encouraging their participation in governance, advisory, and advocacy roles.Academic Support Program Page 10 In support:of the districts commitment to parent involvement, all schools will provide parent involvement activities which are of sufficient size, scope, and quality to promote an effective home-school partnership which will ensure that all participating children (a) succeed in the regular program, (b) attain grade level proficiencies, and (c) achieve basic and advanced skills. The parent involvement activities shall address the following goals: 1. Inform parents of participating children of (a) the reasons their children are participating in the program and (b) the specific instructional objectives and methods of the program. 2. Support the efforts of parents, including training of parents, to the maximum extent practicable to (a) work with their children in the home to attain the instructional objectives of the program and (b) understand the program requirements. 3. Train parents, teachers, and principals to build a partnership between the home and the school. 4. Train teachers, principals, and other staff members to work effectively with the parents of participating children. 5. Consult with parents, on an ongoing basis, concerning the manner in which the school and parents can work together to achieve the programs objectives. 6. Provide a comprehensive range of opportunities for parents to become informed, in a timely way, about how future programs will be designed, operated, and evaluated, allowing opportunities for parental participation so that parents and educators can work together to achieve the programs objectives. 7. Ensure opportunities, to the extent possible, for the full participation of parents who lack literacy skills or whose native language is not English. 8. Provide information to administrators and teachers about how to work effectively with parents from diverse backgrounds.Academic Support Program Page 11 Parents As Learners/Educators To ensure.jjiat parents have the knowledge and skills needed to promote the education of their children at home, schools will address parent education in their school improvement plans according to the following guidelines: B. C. Parent education sessions will be scheduled to provide parents with the training necessary to reinforce academic learning and social behaviors at home. 1. 2. 3. Parents will have an opportunity to identify their needs for parent education. Schools will schedule parent education sessions each year to address the areas of greatest need as identified by parents. Parents will have an opportunity to evaluate the parent education sessions. The results of the evaluations will be used for future planning. Parents will be provided materials and/or suggestions on ways to help their children at home. 1. 2. 3. The schools newsletter may highlight ways parents can be partners in educating their children. Parents will be informed about community resources which can extend and enrich their childrens education. Other activities may be included to support parents as determined by the Parent/Teacher Association (P.T.A.). Parents will be informed about the Adult Education offerings available through the districts schools for adults, parks and recreation, library programs, community school, and local colleges. To ensure that all the parent involvement activities provided by the district are effective, schools will, on an annual basis, evaluate the effectiveness of all activities provided. Each spring, parents and teacher will be asked to complete an evaluation of parent involvement activities provided throughout the year. The results of the evaluation will be shared with the school community through the newsletter and other relevant ways.Academic Support Program Page 12 The district and parents will review the results of the survey and make recommendations for strengthening the parent involvement program. Evidence is growing that extra care in fashioning and maintaining partnerships between schools and families is paying off. Parents who are trained to reinforce academic and social behavior at home help their children learn more effectively. Parent education programs provide parents with the training to become strong and vital partners with the school in educating their children. The need for support of public education has never been more crucial than at the present time. Informed parents who are involved in educational decision pertaining to their children are likely to be supportive of the schools programs. Parent advisory committees and consultation activities provide opportunities for parents to be informed and involved in the education of their children. Staffing Academic Support Program staff will be teachers whose behavior convey high expectations for their students. Research indicates the relationship between teacher behaviors which convey high expectations and student achievement is positively correlated. What teachers expect, student are likely to learn. This phenomenon is called \"self-fulfilling prophecy.\" The belief that all students can learn must be exhibited on a daily basis by teachers. Intense staff development will be provided to staff in order for them to be able to set appropriate and positive expectations for their students. See Attachment B for specific staffing of Academic Support Programs. Monitoring and Evaluation Formal monitoring during inmlementation wall provide evidence that the curriculum is actually being implemented designed. Ongoing monitoring will ensure continuing review and revision of the instructional program. - To schedule not less than two \"intervention\" meetings (regular academic team meetings) each nine weeks to review student progress and to plan appropriate intervention strategies.Academic Support Program Page 13 - To schedule quarterly meetings by school for academic teams, the school counselor, the school principal, and appropriate central office personnel in order to assess and review program progress and to establish quarterly goals for students gains via improved classroom climate, varied instructional techniques, and ongoing learning enrichment experiences. V - To communicate on a regular basis with parents through conferencing, progress reports, and telephone calls as necessary. Student Evaluation Evaluation at the classroom level will include teacher assessment determined by teacher made tests, informal observation, and alternative assessment forms including portfolios, learning folders, performance/exhibition assessments, and parent conferencing. Additional assessments will be provided through use of computer lab instruction and correlated software programs. At District and State levels, assessments will include appropriate criterion referenced testing, state mandated minimum performance testing, and norm referenced achievement testing. Program Evaluation All sites will plan and host quarterly meetings to assess progress and to formulate new quarterly goals. These meetings will involve the academic teams, counselors, building principals, and appropriate central office staff. The evaluation process focus will include formulating instructional units, coordinating extended day activities, identifying staff development needs, soliciting parental involvement, and reviewing student progress.Academic Support Program Page 14 Implementation Timeline Beginning date: July, 1992 - Duration: Ongoing Outcome: The Academic Support Program will be successfully operating in the elementary, junior high, and senior high schools of the District. Date Step Responsibility Activity Begin End 1. Assoc. Supt. for Curriculum Explain the Academic 8/92 Support Programs options to local school administrators 8/92 2. Local school administrators Select the local schools appropriate Academic Support Program. (Indirect/ direct/extended services.) 8/92 8/15/92 3. Local school teams Identify students targeted for participation in each program by school/grade level 8/15/92 4. Principal Select staff (identified by position) responsible for delivering Academic Support Program 8/15/92 5. Principal Schedule the Academic teams staff 8/15/92Academic Support Program Page 15 6. Principal and staffImplement selected school options at local level 8/3/92 's 9f=S- 7. Directors of Staff Development and Reading\nSupvs. of Lang. Arts and Mathematics Cluster schools and develop a staff development schedule for the Clusters 9/5/92 8. Directors of Staff Development and Reading\nSupvs. of Lang. Arts., Mathematics, and Computer Specialists Train all staff responsible for delivering each Academic Support Programs 8/15/92 1 II Team Building 11/92 II II Interactive Teaching/ Learning 11/92 II II Mastery Learning 12/1/92 II II Learning Styles 12/92 II II Cooperative Team Learning 12/92 II II Specialized Content Area Strategies 2/93 9. Principals, District-wide staff development team and Computer Specialists Monitor the implementation of the above OngoingAcademic Support Program Page 16 10. Principals, District-wide staff development team, and Computer Specialists Provide technical assistance and and maintenance workshops as needed in the above staff development area Ongoing after initial workshops are delivered V 11. Principal Schedule local level quarterly meetings to access program Middle/end end of each nine weeks 12. Principal and staff Collect appropriate data for end of school program evaluation including pre and post standardized test scores, student grades and attendance, samples of student work, and parent/ teacher/student recommendations 6/15/93 13. Assoc. Supt. for Curriculum, Asst. Supts., and principals Analyze the above data to evaluate program effectiveness 6/15/93 14. tl II Identify modification for the Academic Support Program for 1993-94 7/1/93Academic Support Program Page 17 Anticipated/Projected 1992-93 Costs Content Area Level Staffing No. Needed Salaries/Fringes Reading/ Language Arts Elementary Teachers Aides Substitutes (5) (revised contracts) 40 4 $1,826,650.00 51,000.00 43,177.00 Math Elementary Teachers Substitutes (5) (revised contracts) 24 $1,102,135.00 35,009.00 Reading/ Language Arts Secondary Teachers 31 $1,167,080.00 Mathematics Secondary Teachers 30 $1,339,981.00 Elementary and Secondary Supplies $30,000.00 Extended Day $34,730.00 Extended Week $33,446.00 Parent Involvement $10,000.00 Transportation $25.000.00 Projected Grand Total $5,698,305.00 Funding Sources\nLRSD Local School Budgets, Chapter 1, Compensatory Education, and DesegregationAcademic Support Programs Page 18 Staff Development The staff development component is critical to the successful implementation of the Academic Support Program. Since the various elements of the Program require that teachers use approaches and strategies that emphasize the interrelationship of teacher/student behavior with the major focus on resultant accelerated student learning, all participating teachers will be trained in the following areas: Team Building - Because the regular classroom teachers will not be working in isolation with the targeted students but will be assisted by reading and/or mathematics specialists, all parties will receive training in collaborative planning, team teaching, and partnership building. Interactive Teaching/Learning - With the emphasis of the program on meaningful student learning experiences as opposed to isolated seat work, teachers will be trained in classroom skills for planning and delivering motivational learning activities, giving information, asking questions, providing feedback, and keeping students on task. Mastery Learning - To ensure that learning actually occurs for idi students, teachers will receive inservice on the Mastery Learning Model that includes developing learning objectives based on identified LRSD learner outcomes, delivering large group instruction according to targeted objectives, assessing students performance, designing corrective activities that differ from the original instructional strategies for students who did not master the objective, assessing again for mastery, and designing enrichment activities that extend the objectives for students who demonstrated mastery on the first assessment. Learning Styles - Teachers will receive training in administering a learning styles inventory to all targeted students, interpreting the results to determine if a student learns more effectively auditorially, visually, kinesthetically, or a combination of the three styles, and designing instructional strategies that relate to the identified learning styles. .Cooperative/Team Learning - Because teachers in the Academic Support Program will be expected to actively involve all targeted students in the classroom learning process, the teacher will receive training in the Cooperative/Team Learning process  that organizes students into small heterogeneous teams which work together toward a common, meaningful learning objective.Acadenu'c Support Program Page 19 Spedalized Content Area Strategies - The regular classroom teachers, the reading spedalists, and the mathematics specialists will receive training on instructional strategies and alternative assessment methods that are unique to the respective content area. Also, the teachers will be inserviced on using appropriate computer software to diagnose and remediate students learning needs. -Air After initial training is provided in the above areas, maintenance activities will be conducted as needed. Some of the training will be conducted on a Districtwide level, some in cluster meetings, and some on the local school level. This training wnll be accomplished through the joint efforts of the local school staff and District-wde staff development specialists, reading director, English supervisor, mathematics supervisor, and other appropriate District-level personnel.TARGET STUDENTS PROJECTION 1992-93 Needs Assessment - Spring 1992 Stanford Eight NCE Scores - Range 1-49 Total Reading and Total Mathematics S'* School: CENTRAL HIGH Academic Support Program Numbers to Be Screened Grade Level Reading Math 10 332 367 11 316 370 12 234 256TARGET STUDENTS PROJECTION 1992-93 Needs Assessment - Spring 1992 Stanford Eight NCE Scores - Range 1-49 Total Reading and Total Mathematics Sa School: J. A FAIR HIGH Academic Support Program Numbers to Be Screened Grade Level Reading Math 10 255 285 11 187 215 12 154 144TARGET STUDENTS PROJECTION 1992-93 Needs Assessment - Spring 1992 Stanford Eight NCE Scores - Range 1-49 Total Reading and Total Mathematics if- School: HALL HIGH Academic Support Program Numbers to Be Screened Grade Level Reading Math 10 117 149 11 153 189 12 154 183TARGET STUDENTS PROJECTION 1992-93 Needs Assessment - Spring 1992 Stanford Eight NCE Scores - Range 1-49 Total Reading and Total Mathematics School: MCCLELLAN HIGH Academic Support Program Numbers to Be Screened Grade Level Reading Math 10 179 214 11 168 174 12 158 153TARGET STUDENTS PROJECTION 1992-93 Needs Assessment - Spring 1992 Stanford Eight NCE Scores - Range 1-49 Total Reading and Total Mathematics \u0026gt;r School: PARKVIEW HIGH Academic Support Program Grade Level Numbers to Be Screened Reading Math 10 0 0 11 120 175 12 113 136TARGET STUDENTS PROJECTION 1992-93 Needs Assessment - Spring 1992 Stanford Eight NCE Scores - Range 1-49 Total Reading and Total Mathematics School: CLOVERDALE JR. HIGH Academic Support Program Grade Level' Numbers to Be Screened Reading Math 7 134 99 8 149 145 9 152 171TARGET STUDENTS PROJECTION 1992-93 Needs Assessment - Spring 1992 Stanford Eight NCE Scores - Range 1-49 Total Reading and Total Mathematics School: DUNBAR JR. HIGH Academic Support Program Grade Level Numbers to Be Screened Reading Math 171 94 127 113 116 136 7 8 9TARGET STUDENTS PROJECTION 1992-93 Needs Assessment - Spring 1992 Stanford Eight NCE Scores - Range 1-49 Total Reading and Total Mathematics School: FOREST HEIGHTS JR. HIGH Academic Support Program Numbers to Be Screened Grade Level Reading Math 119 117 124 127 151 137 7 8 9TARGET STUDENTS PROJECTION 1992-93 Needs Assessment - Spring 1992 Stanford Eight NCE Scores - Range 1-49 Total Reading and Total Mathematics School: HENDERSON JR. HIGH Academic Support Program Numbers to Be Screened Grade Level Reading Math 7 152 129 8 163 151 9 143 132TARGET STUDENTS PROJECTION 1992-93 Needs Assessment - Spring 1992 Stanford Eight NCE Scores - Range 1-49 Total Reading and Total Mathematics School: MABELVALE JR. HIGH Academic Support Program Numbers to Be Screened Grade Level Reading Math 7 124 91 8 144 139 9 111 102TARGET STUDENTS PROJECTION 1992-93 Needs Assessment - Spring 1992 Stanford Eight NCE Scores - Range 1-49 Total Reading and Total Mathematics ft Ti School: MANN MAGNET JR. HIGH Academic Support Program Grade Level Numbers to Be Screened Reading Math 7 0 0 8 132 144 9 120 136TARGET STUDENTS PROJECTION 1992-93 Needs Assessment - Spring 1992 Stanford Eight NCE Scores - Range 1-49 Total Reading and Total Mathematics School: PULASKI HEIGHTS JR, HIGH Academic Support Program Grade Level Numbers to Be Screened Reading Math 7 98 87 8 123 115 9 119 146s^- TARGET STUDENTS PROJECTION 1992-93 Needs Assessment - Spring 1992 Stanford Eight NCE Scores - Range 1-49 Total Reading and Total Mathematics School: SOUrm^'EST JR. HIGH Academic Support Program Grade Level Numbers to Be Screened Reading Math 7 143 129 8 153 154 9 128 132TARGET STUDENTS PROJECTION 1992-93 Needs Assessment - Spring 1992 Stanford Eight NCE Scores - Range 1-49 Total Reading and Total Mathematics School: BALE Academic Support Program Numbers to Be Screened Grade Level Reading Math 2 33 30 3 30 30 4 35 26 5 81 87 6 41 30TARGET STUDENTS PROJECTION 1992-93 Needs Assessment - Spring 1992 Stanford Eight NCE Scores - Range 1-49 Total Reading and Total Mathematics School: BADGETT Academic Support Program Numbers to Be Screened Grade Level Reading Math 20 16 14 12 17 13 83 54 34 30 2 3 4 5 6TARGET STUDENTS PROJECTION 1992-93 Needs Assessment - Spring 1992 Stanford Eight NCE Scores - Range 1-49 Total Reading and Total Mathematics School: baselint: Academic Support Program Numbers to Be Screened Grade Level Reading Math 2 43 50 3 35 30 4 43 27 5 67 43 6 34 19TARGET STUDENTS PROJECTION 1992-93 Needs Assessment - Spring 1992 Stanford Eight NCE Scores - Range 1-49 Total Reading and Total Mathematics School: BRADY Academic Support Program Grade Level Numbers to Be Screened Reading Math 2 36 34 3 42 31 4 34 28 5 71 53 6 73 64TARGET STUDENTS PROJECTION 1992-93 Needs Assessment - Spring 1992 Stanford Eight NCE Scores - Range 1-49 Total Reading and Total Mathematics School: CHICOT Academic Support Program Numbers to Be Screened Grade Level Reading Math 2 67 52 3 50 37 4 47 39 5 73 59 6 72 62TARGET STUDENTS PROJECTION 1992-93 Needs Assessment - Spring 1992 Stanford Eight NCE Scores - Range 1-49 Total Reading and Total Mathematics School: CLOVERDALE Academic Support Program Grade Level Numbers to Be Screened Reading Math 2 20 10 3 29 19 4 33 16 5 65 35 6 62 40School: DODD Grade Level 2 3 4 5 6 TARGET STUDENTS PROJECTION 1992-93 Needs Assessment - Spring 1992 Stanford Eight NCE Scores - Range 1-49 Total Reading and Total Mathematics Academic Support Program Numbers to Be Screened Reading Math 38 29 24 64 61 33 30 19 45 39 TARGET STUDENTS PROJECTION 1992-93 Needs Assessment - Spring 1992 Stanford Eight NCE Scores - Range 1-49 Total Reading and Total Mathematics School: FAIR PARK Academic Support Program Grade Level Numbers to Be Screened Reading Math 34 29 26 19 25 20 66 50 83 73 2 3 4 5 6TARGET STUDENTS PROJECTION 1992-93 Needs Assessment - Spring 1992 Stanford Eight NCE Scores - Range 1-49 Total Reading and Total Mathematics School: FOREST PARK Academic Support Program Numbers to Be Screened Grade Level Reading Math 2 31 26 3 16 19 4 23 17 5 46 34 6 59 34TARGET STUDENTS PROJECTION 1992-93 Needs Assessment - Spring 1992 Stanford Eight NCE Scores - Range 1-49 Total Reading and Total Mathematics School: FRANKLIN Academic Support Program Grade Level Numbers to Be Screened Reading Math 2 59 57 3 57 41 4 59 46 5 81 76 6 85 79TARGET STUDENTS PROJECTION 1992-93 Needs Assessment - Spring 1992 Stanford Eight NCE Scores - Range 1-49 Total Reading and Total Mathematics School: FULBRIGHT Academic Support Program Numbers to Be Screened Grade Level Reading Math 40 38 33 34 32 21 46 40 62 58 2 3 4 5 6TARGET STUDENTS PROJECTION 1992-93 Needs Assessment - Spring 1992 Stanford Eight NCE Scores - Range 1-49 Total Reading and Total Mathematics School: GARLAND Academic Support Program Numbers to Be Screened Grade Level Reading Math 2 17 23 3 27 22 4 27 24 5 87 61 6 86 66TARGET STUDENTS PROJECTION 1992-93 Needs Assessment - Spring 1992 Stanford Eight NCE Scores - Range 1-49 Total Reading and Total Mathematics School: GEYER SPRINGS Academic Support Program Numbers to Be Screened Grade Level Reading Math 2 37 21 3 18 10 4 18 14 5 79 67 6 79 64TARGET STUDENTS PROJECTION 1992-93 Needs Assessment - Spring 1992 Stanford Eight NCE Scores - Range 1-49 Total Reading and Total Mathematics School: ISH Academic Support Program Numbers to Be Screened Grade Level Reading Math 31 31 19 14 16 13 75 45 83 73 2 3 4 5 6TARGET STUDENTS PROJECTION 1992-93 Needs Assessment - Spring 1992 Stanford Eight NCE Scores  Range 1-49 Total Reading and Total Mathematics School: JEFFERSON Academic Support Program Numbers to Be Screened Grade Level Reading Math 2 35 27 3 36 24 4 29 17 5 47 40 6 48 29TARGET STUDENTS PROJECTION 1992-93 Needs Assessment - Spring 1992 Stanford Eight NCE Scores - Range 1-49 Total Reading and Total Mathematics School: MABELVALE Academic Support Program Numbers to Be Screened Grade Level Reading Math 2 52 52 3 51 45 4 43 38 5 67 56 6 76 63TARGET STUDENTS PROJECTION 1992-93 Needs Assessment - Spring 1992 Stanford Eight NCE Scores - Range 1-49 Total Reading and Total Mathematics School: MCDERMOTT Academic Support Program Numbers to Be Screened Grade Level Reading Math 29 28 31 18 26 13 41 29 52 42 2 3 4 5 6TARGET STUDENTS PROJECTION 1992-93 Needs Assessment - Spring 1992 Stanford Eight NCE Scores - Range 1-49 Total Reading and Total Mathematics School: MEADOWCLIFF Academic Support Program Numbers to Be Screened Grade Level Reading Math 2 51 46 3 47 34 4 45 37 5 73 60 6 75 74TARGET STUDENTS PROJECTION 1992-93 Needs Assessment - Spring 1992 Stanford Eight NCE Scores - Range 1-49 Total Reading and Total Mathematics School: MITCHELL Academic Support Program Numbers to Be Screened Grade Level Reading Math 2 29 33 3 40 27 4 33 23 5 85 71 6 76 48TARGET STUDENTS PROJECTION 1992-93 Needs Assessment - Spring 1992 Stanford Eight NCE Scores - Range 1-49 Total Reading and Total Mathematics School: OTTER CREEK Academic Support Program Numbers to Be Screened Grade Level Reading Math 30 25 26 11 28 13 40 41 65 39 2 3 4 5 6TARGET STUDENTS PROJECTION 1992-93 Needs Assessment - Spring 1992 Stanford Eight NCE Scores - Range 1-49 Total Reading and Total Mathematics School: PULASKI HEIGHTS Academic Support Program Numbers to Be Screened Grade Level Reading Math 50 38 23 14 22 12 54 47 56 56 2 3 4 5 6TARGET STUDENTS PROJECTION 1992-93 Needs Assessment - Spring 1992 Stanford Eight NCE Scores - Range 1-49 Total Reading and Total Mathematics School: ROCKEFELLER Academic Support Program Numbers to Be Screened Grade Level Reading Math 2 38 38 3 31 29 4 35 30 5 84 66 6 74 50TARGET STUDENTS PROJECTION 1992-93 Needs Assessment - Spring 1992 Stanford Eight NCE Scores - Range 1-49 Total Reading and Total Mathematics School: RIGHTSELL Academic Support Program Numbers to Be Screened Grade Level Reading Math 2 24 23 3 22 8 4 30 22 5 78 46 6 88 65School: ROMINE Grade Level 2 3 4 5 6 TARGET STUDENTS PROJECTION 1992-93 Needs Assessment - Spring 1992 Stanford Eight NCE Scores - Range 1-49 Total Reading and Total Mathematics Academic Support Program Numbers to Be Screened Reading Math 29 41 35 56 61 19 42 26 47 64TARGET STUDENTS PROJECTION 1992-93 Needs Assessment - Spring 1992 Stanford Eight NCE Scores - Range 1-49 Total Reading and Total Mathematics School: STEPHENS Academic Support Program Grade Level Numbers to Be Screened Reading Math 2 32 24 3 26 24 4 19 13 5 88 78 6 93 69TARGET STUDENTS PROJECTION 1992-93 Needs Assessment - Soring 1992 Stanford Eight NCE Scores - Range 1-49 Total Reading and Total Mathematics School: TERRY Academic Support Program Numbers to Be Screened Grade Level Reading Math 27 19 37 26 28 20 47 34 55 61 2 3 4 5 6TARGET STUDENTS PROJECTION 1992-93 Needs Assessment - Spring 1992 Stanford Eight NCE Scores - Range 1-49 Total Reading and Total Mathematics School: WAKEFIELD Academic Support Program Grade Level Numbers to Be Screened Reading Math 2 58 57 3 33 34 4 50 39 5 70 52 6 83 75TARGET STUDENTS PROJECTION 1992-93 Needs Assessment - Spring 1992 Stanford Eight NCE Scores - Range 1-49 Total Reading and Total Mathematics A School: WASHINGTON Academic Support Program Grade Level Numbers to Be Screened Reading Math 2 82 61 3 75 44 4 69 52 5 54 39 6 67 37TARGET STUDENTS PROJECTION 1992-93 Needs Assessment - Spring 1992 Stanford Eight NCE Scores - Range 1-49 Total Reading and Total Mathematics School: WATSON Academic Support Program Grade Level Numbers to Be Screened Reading Math 2 54 51 3 39 32 4 35 27 5 69 57 6 73 36TARGET STUDENTS PROJECTION 1992-93 Needs Assessment - Spring 1992 Stanford Eight NCE Scores - Range 1-49 Total Reading and Total Mathematics School: WESTERN HILLS Academic Support Program Grade Level Numbers to Be Screened Reading Math 2 33 27 3 27 16 4 26 15 5 70 49 6 68 44TARGET STUDENTS PROJECTION 1992-93 Needs Assessment - Spring 1992 Stanford Eight NCE Scores - Range 1-49 Total Reading and Total Mathematics School: WILSON Academic Support Program Numbers to Be Screened Grade Level Reading Math 12 33 19 42 24 72 59 78 72 2 8 3 4 5 6TARGET STUDENTS PROJECTION 1992-93 Needs Assessment - Spring 1992 Stanford Eight NCE Scores - Ranee 1-49 Total Reading and Total Mathematics School: WOODRUFF Academic Support Program Numbers to Be Screened Grade Level Reading Math 2 14 16 3 16 11 4 19 15 5 77 63 6 65 20RECEIVED IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION MAR 2 6 1993 Office of Desegregation Monitoring LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT PLAINTIFF V. LR-C-82-866 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, ET AL DEFENDANTS MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL INTERVENORS KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL INTERVENORS NOTICE OF FILING The Little Rock School District hereby gives notice of the filing of the attached \"Academic Support Program\" to replace the document which was filed June 30, 1992 in accordance with the May 1, 1992 Order of the district court. Respectfully submitted. LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT FRIDAY, ELDREDGE \u0026amp; CLARK 2000 First Commercial Bldg. 400 West Capitol Street Little Rock, AR 72201 (501) 376-2011 ChrTstopher Helle4^ J kathyVNot-Filing.ASP CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I certify that a copy of the foregoing Notice of Filing has been served on the following people by depositing copy of same in the United States mail on this 24th 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 Heller' / lathy \\Not*FiUng. ASP RECEIVED MAR 2 6 1993 Office of Desegregation Moniicring LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT ACADEMIC SUPPORT PROGRAM 1992 - 19931. 2. 3. LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT ACADEMIC SUPPORT PROGRAM Name and Location of Academic Support Programs The name of all district remediation programs will be Academic Support Programs. All school programs will be located at each school site, except Metropolitan Vocational-Technical Education Center. Goals and Objectives for Academic Support Programs The goal of the Academic Support Program is to provide equitable language arts and mathematics learning experiences that will increase achievement for all students, which will result in reducing disparity among students. The Program will include the following objectives: \u0026lt;   To identify and serve students who are at risk in language arts and mathematics. To prescribe a personalized intervention plan for eligible students. To reduce or eliminate pull-out academic support programs. To provide parents the knowledge and skills needed to promote the education of their children at home and at school. A Comprehensive Description of Each Programs Components and Activities Elementary Academic Support Program Indirect Services: Reading and math specialists will be paired with classroom teachers to assist in implementing accelerated learning experiences for students with identified reading and mathematics skill deficits a minimum of three (3) days a week Instructional services and duration are established for each student in order to address individualized needs. The revised curriculum is used by the regular teacher and the reading/math specialists in order to provide a uniform and integrated approach to learning. Schedules are developed in cooperation with the regular teacher in determining appropriate time for the specialists to provide services in the regularElementary Academic Support Program Page 2 classroom. Time is allocated for the specialists to plan/consult with the regular teacher ensiuing consistency in student learning . This cooperative planning allows for a team effort to best meet the needs of students and prevents fragmentation in teaching and learning. This approach improves and enhances educational opportunities for these students to experience academic success in the regular classroom. Pull-out programs result in students missing out on other relevant classroom activities. By developing alternative methods in service delivery, students increase their time on task, make greater gains, and maintain progress. Direct Services: For students identified with severe reading problems, a reading class will be available to assist them in mastering fundamental reading skills and to stimulate their interest in reading. Reading teachers will focus on mastery learning and use of listening labs and computer labs to diagnose, remediate, and assess specific language problems, using exclusively audio and computer programs correlated to the LRSD language arts and mathematics curricula. This arrangement will promote program continuity, connected learning, student/teacher bonding, and shared accountability. Data secured through individual assessment and other relevant records is used to develop the students program and establish the duration of services. All academic support programs are site-based. Staffing is driven by student needs and is in accordance with local, state, and federal guidelmes. Secondary Academic Support Program Secondary schools are to implement the Academic Support Program according to one or a combination of the following three optional approaches: APPROACH ONE Indirect Services: The academic team approach will, by design, restructure the current secondary language arts staffing by pairing language arts classroom teachers (including English and Learning Foundation teachers) and reading specialists. (Math teachers are already paired for instruction.) Teams will jointly plan appropriate whole group instruction, small group instruction, and individual instruction for learning experiences.Secondary Academic Support Program continued Page 3 Math assistants: Assist/tutor individual or small groups of students\nActively monitor work and behavior of targeted students\nKeep a daily log/joumal of classroom activities and services noting special improvements or concerns\nand Assist the classroom teacher in monitoring students learning and assignments. Direct Services: For students identified with severe reading problems, a reading class will be available to assist them in mastering fundamental reading skills and to stimulate their interest in reading. APPROACH TWO Direct Services: Regular classroom teachers will work to meet the needs of their own targeted students. Smaller class loads will be scheduled for regular language arts and/or mathematics teachers to allow them to provide more individual assistance for targeted students during each class period. APPROACH THREE (Language Arts Only) Direct Services: TDie Language Arts Plus Program is intended to reinforce regular classroom language arts instruction exclusively and to focus on specific student deficits. The Language Arts Plus Program approach will restructure the current secondary language arts program by reducing the number of separate pull-out reading classes, reducing language arts class size, and adding an enrichment class to schedules of targeted students. The concept will add an elective credit to student course work and will utilize the services of regular English teachers in whose language artsSecondary Academic Support Program continued Page 4 classes the targeted students are enrolled. These English teachers will teach four regular periods and during the fifth period will provide tutorial and remedial learning experiences for all academic students enroll in each of their four regular language arts classes. Average class sizes range from 15 to 20 students per period. The approaches that schools are currently using are identified on the following chartINSTRUCTIONAL APPROACH ONE SENIOR HIGH SCHOOL: Central J. A. Fair Hall McClellan Parkview Magnet JUNIOR HIGH SCHOOL: Cloverdale Dunbar Magnet Forest Heights Henderson Magnet Mabelvale Mann Magnet Pulaski Heights Southwest SECONDARY ACADEMIC SUPPORT PROGRAM READING/MATHEMATICS APPROACHES ONE, TWO THREE, COMBINATION READING INDIRECT/ DIRECT X X X X X X X X X X MATHEMATICS TWO DIRECT THREE LANGUAGE ARTS PLUS COMB COMB X X X ONE INDIRECT/ DIRECT X X X X X X X X X X TWO DIRECT X X COMB COMB XExtended Services - Elementary and Secondary Page 6 Extended Services - Elementary and Secondary To support and extend learning opportunities for students, the academic team concept will be supported by making available to targeted students before-school, at lunch, and after-school instructional services. Additionally, some sites may schedule periodic extended weeks in order to provide a practice and review session on Saturdays. Principals may use flexible scheduling of staff in providing some of their extended day services. The following schools have planned for extended day programs. Elementary schools not listed will provide tutorial services to meet the needs of their at-risk students before or during regular school hours as identified in their Aimual School Improvement Plans. School Program Elementary Badgett Bale Baseline Carver Chicot Cloverdale Forest Park Geyer Springs Gibbs Mabelvale Elem. I*ulaski Hgts. Elem. Wakefield Incentive schools: Franklin Garland Ish Mitchell Rightsell Rockefeller Stephens Extended Day Tutoring Extended Day Tutoring Summer Reading Program Summer Reading Program Extended Day Tutoring Extended Day Tutoring Extended Day Tutoring (6th grade) Extended Day Tutoring 2nd Grade Reading Club Peer Coaching (recess) Extended Day Tutoring (K-2) Extended Day Tutoring (3rd \u0026amp; 6th grades) Extended Day, Week, Year n H It M N n H It N NExtended Services - Elementary and Secondary continued Page 7 Sssomiffry Central High Fair High Hall High McClellan High Parkview High Tuesday, Thursday and Saturday tutoring program Before- and after-school tutoring by teachers\npeer tutoring during school day Before- and after-school tutoring by teachers\n\"Project Promotion\" mentoring program (six teachers and one counselor) Math - before- and after-school tutoring\nreading - during school day Study Hall tutoring program-both teacher and peer tutoring Cloverdale Jr. High Dunbar Jr. High Forest Heights Jr, High Henderson Jr. High Mabelvale Jr. High Mann Jr. High Pulaski Heights Jr. High Southwest Jr. High New Futures after-school tutoring program UALR tutoring program after school\nbefore- and after-school tutoring by volunteer teachers New Futures after-school tutoring program\nPartner-in-Education (State Health Department) reading tutors\n\"Eagles Nest\" peer tutors Before- and after-school tutoring program\npeer tutors Cornerstone after-school tutoring program\nbefore- and after-school tutoring program by certified staff Before- and after school teacher and peer tutoring New Futures after-school tutoring program UALR tutoring program before school\nNew Futures after-school tutoring program All schools Grades 9-12 All schools Grades K-12 Cornerstone (after-school tutoring) English as a Second Language (ESL) tutoring programCritical Program Attributes Page 8 Critical Program Attributes The major stakeholders in the school community must have valued input regarding the Academic Support Program approaches selected to implement in their schools. Although the approach may differ from school to school, in design, philosophy, and implementation, the following critical attributes will be evident in every Academic Support Program: Instructional Leadership * Principals will monitor instruction and learning. * Principals will clearly articulate the design and implementation of the Academic Support Program.  Principals will analyze data and use the results to improve learning. Principals will establish staff development as a priority that supports academic performance.  Principals will provide needed resources for teachers.  Principals will set high standards for teachers and students. Varied Instructional Strategies * Teachers will involve students in a variety of classroom activities that address learning styles and cultural diversity. * Teachers will select methods and strategies that capitalize on students interests and experiences. * Teachers will demonstrate creativity and resourcefulness in delivering instruction. * Effective classroom strategies, such as tutors, small-eroup instruction, and extended day/week programs, will be used to maintain the gains students have made.Critical Program Attributes continued Page 9 * Teachers will modify and/or change instructional strategies for students who do not make adequate progress. Time on Task * Students will be provided adequate time on task to demonstrate mastery. Students will be actively involved in learning. * Teachers will monitor students progress regularly and modify instructional strategies accordingly. Higher Order Thinking Skills * Students will be provided opportunities to transfer learning from one discipline to another discipline.  Students will be taught to critique their own thinking from the perspective of others.  Students will engage in collaborative and discovery learning. Curriculum and Alignment * Teachers will be provided locally developed uniform written curriculum guides for core content areas for all grade levels. * Teachers will teach the approved curriculum.  District staff will use a variety of assessment (testing) approaches in determining the effectiveness of the planned, written, and taught curriculum. Materials and Resources * Teachers will ensure that materials and resources are aligned to the curriculum.  Teachers will utilize a variety of materials and resources to involve and assist students in active learning.Critical Program Attributes continued Page 10 * Computer assisted instruction that is aligned with the curriculum will be used to reinforce objectives. At the secondary level, the use of computer-assisted instruction will be closely connected to classroom instruction. In the area of language arts, lessons will reinforce writing skills through literature-based writing activities, process writing activities, word processing, and research strategies. Other appropriate software that reinforces objectives in the revised curriculum may also be used. In the area of mathematics, the computer labs may be used to diagnose problems, review and reinforce specific skills, and assess results. Videotapes and other audiovisual software will be used in instruction for targeted students. Such software will also be directly correlated to classroom instruction and used to teach and reinforce objectives in the curriculum of the district. Positive School aimate * Teachers behavior will convey high expectations for all students. * Teachers will interact with students in a caring manner. * Teachers will inform learners of their achievement on a regular basis. * Teachers will make efforts to ensure that students have a positive feeling of success about school. Parent Involvement * Parents will be provided timely information regarding students achievement and behavior. * Parents will be involved in informative and effective conferences concerning their childs education.  Teachers will involve parents as partners in their childs educational process.Critical Program Attributes continued Page 11 Parent Involvement The district recognizes that parents serve as an invaluable resource in the process of educating children and believe that a childs education is a responsibility shared by family and school. To assure a collaborative partnership, the Board of Directors, administration, and staff are committed to: 1. Encouraging programs to help parents develop parenting skills and foster conditions at home that support childrens efforts in learning. 2. Providing parents with the knowledge of techniques designed to assist children in learning at home and at school. 3. Providing support and resource information for school staff and parents to enable them to implement and sustain appropriate parent involvement at all grade levels (Pre-K-12). 4. Maintaining communication between parents and schools in regards to school programs and childrens progress. 5. Identifying and involving parents in instructional and support roles at the school. 6. Supporting parents roles in decision making and encouraging their participation in governance, advisory, and advocacy roles. In support of the districts commitment to parent involvement, all schools will provide parent involvement activities which are of sufficient size, scope, and quality to promote an effective home-school partnership which will ensure that all participating children (a) succeed in the regular classroom, (b) attain grade level proficiencies, and (c) achieve basic and advanced skills. The parent involvement activities shall address the following goals: 1. Inform parents of participating children of (a) the reasons their children are participating in the program and (b) the specific instructional objectives and methods of the program 2. Support the efforts of parents, including training of parents, to the maximum extent practicable to (a) work with their childrenCritical Program Attributes continued Page 12 in the home to attain the instructional objectives of the program and (b) understand the program requirements. 3. Train parents, teachers, and principals to build a partnership between the home and the school. 4. Train teachers, principals, and other staff members to work effectively with the parents of participating children. 5. Consult with parents, on an ongoing basis, concerning the manner in which the school and parents can work together to achieve the programs objectives. 6. Provide a comprehensive range of opportunities for parents to become informed, in a timely way, about how future programs will be designed, operated, and evaluated, allowing opportunities for parental participation so that parents and educators can work together to achieve the programs objectives. 7. Ensure opportunities, to the extent possible, for the full participation of parents who lack literacy skills or whose native language is not English. 8. Provide information to administrators and teachers about how to work effectively with parents from diverse backgrounds. Parents As Learners/Educators To ensure that parents have the knowledge and skills needed to promote the education of their children at home, schools will address parent education in their school improvement plans according to the following guidelines: A. Parent education sessions will be scheduled to provide parents with the training necessary to reinforce academic learning and social behaviors at home.Critical Program Attributes continued Page 13 1. Parents will have an opportunity to identify their needs for parent education. 2. Parent education sessions will be scheduled each year to address the areas of greatest need as identified by parents. 3. Parents will have an opportunity to evaluate the parent education sessions. The results of the evaluations will be used for future planning. B. C. Parents will be provided materials and/or suggestions on ways to help their children at home. 1. The schools newsletter may highlight ways parents can be partners in educating their children. 2. Parents will be informed about community resources which can extend and enrich their childrens education. 3. Other activities may be included to support parents as determined by the Parent/Teacher Association (P.T.A.). Parents will be informed about the Adult Education offerings available through the districts schools for adults, parks and recreation, library programs, community school, and local colleges. To ensure that all the parent involvement activities provided by the district are effective, schools will, on an annual basis, evaluate the effectiveness of all activities provided. Each year, parents and teachers will be asked to evaluate parent involvement activities provided throughout the year. The results of the evaluation will be shared with the school community through the newsletter and other relevant ways. The district and parents will review the results of the survey and make recommendations for strengthening the parent involvement program.Critical Program Attributes continued Page 14 Problem Analysis * Schools will collect analyze, and disaggregate appropriate data needed to assess student performance and determine program effectiveness. * Schools will review findings to make judgements about change concerning curriculum, support materials, and staff development. Monitoring and Evaluation * Academic teams will meet at least twice each nine weeks to rgvjgw smdght progress and plan appropriate intervention strategies. * Appropriate school-based staff will meet at least once a semester to review and assess program effectiveness. Teachers will use individual and class mastery reports, informal observations, and alternative assessments (including portfolios) to determine student achievement. Monitoring and Evaluation Data gathered by school-based staff will be used by appropriate staff to revise, modify, and/or change students programs in order to effectively meet our students needs. These data will be reviewed on an aimual basis to determine if the academic support program is being implemented as designed and is an effective program. Data will be used to improve the delivery of instruction school and district wide. Staff Development * Teachers will use approaches and strategies that emphasize the interrelationship of teacher/student behavior. * Regular classroom teachers will receive additional training in the delivery of instruction in core content areas.Critical Program Attributes continued Page 15 New Teacher Initiative (New Teacher Mentor Program) The district has had a cooperative arrangement with Henderson State University to provide graduate credit to new teachers and their mentors. The districts instructors, with some assistance from Henderson State, provide all appropriate staff development activities for our new teachers. Given the change in administration and staff reductions for LRSD and Henderson State University, we did not utilize their services this school year. Dialogue has begun to re-establish the collaborative effort for the 1993-94 school year. 4. An Overview of How All the Individual Academic Support Programs Will Be Coordinated for Continuity of Services to Children and Efficient Use of Resources * All schools will implement the Board-approved uniform curriculum. * The established critical attributes of the Academic Support Program will be evident in each school. * The revised curriculum (K-12) has been sequentially developed and the objectives have been correlated to the skills in Arkansas Minimum Performance Test Stanford Achievement Test-Eighth Edition, and existing computer- assisted instructional software. * To provide for continuous improvement of teachers, records will be maintained on staff development activities. * New staff members will be targeted for appropriate staff development activities as well as participation in the districts \"New Teacher Initiative.\" 5. The Number of Students Targeted for Participation in Each Program by School and Grade Level for the 1992-93 School Year (see the following)5. ACADEMIC SUPPORT PROGRAM THZ MUMBZR 07 STUDKKTS TAROITBD TOR PARTICIPATION IM BACH PROGRAM BY SCHOOL AMD GRADB LBVBL TOR THB 1892-93 SCHOOL YBAR school: central HIGH SCHOOL Grade Level No. Students - Reading No Students - Math 10 91 145 11 123 12 12 TOTALS 284 158 7ACADEMIC SUPPORT PROGRAM THl MUNBER OF STUDENTS TARGETED TOR PARTICIPATION IN EACH PROGRAM BY SCHOOL AND GRADE LEVEL TOR THE 192\u0026gt;93 SCHOOL YEAR scHOOLt J. A. FAIR Grade Level No, Students - Reading No Students - Math 10 12 16 11 15 13 12 TOTALS 31 32ACADEMIC SUPPORT PROGRAM THB MUMBBR OF STUDENTS TARGETED FOR PARTICIPATION IN EACH PROGRAM BT SCHOOL AND GRADE LEVEL FOR THE 1992-93 SCHOOL YBAR school: hall HIGH SCHOOL Grade Level No, Students - Reading No Students - Math 10 13 11 17 12 TOTALS 38 0 0 0ACADEMIC SUPPORT PROGRAM THK mniBBR or STUDBMTS TAHOBTXD rOR PARTICirATIOH IB BACH PROGRAM BY SCHOOL AMD QRAOB LBVBL TOR THB 1992-93 SCHOOL YBAR SCHOOL: MCCLELLAN HIGH SCHOOL Grade Level Nq, Students - Reading Wo Students - Math 10 36 93 11 31 10 12 TOTALS 85 103ACADEMIC SUPPORT PROGRAM THE MUMBBR OF STUDEMTS TARGETED TOR TARTZCIPATIOM IM EACH PROGRAM BY SCHOOL AMD GRADE LEVEL TOR THE 1992-93 SCHOOL YEAR school: parkview HIGH SCHOOL Grade Level No, Students - Reading No Students - Math 10 31 64 11 38 94 12 TOTALS 103 222ACADEMIC SUPPORT PROGRAM THZ WUNBBR OT STUDZMTS TAROBTZD TOR PARTICIPATIOM IM ZACH PROGRAM BY SCHOOL AMD GRAOZ LBVZL POR THZ 1992*\u0026gt;93 SCHOOL YZAR SCHOOL: CLOVERDALE JUNIOR HIGH Grade Level Wo. Students - Reading Wo Students - Math TOTALS 67 68 78 66 208 197 7 8 9ACADEMIC SUPPORT PROGRAM THB MUMBBR OB STUDENTS TARGETED BOR PARTICIPATION IN BACH PROGRAM BY SCHOOL AMD GRADE LEVEL BOR THE 1992-93 SCHOOL YEAR school: DUNBAR JUNIOR HIGH Grade Level No, Students - Reading- No Students - Math TOTALS 64 44 79 76 173 153 7 8 9ACADEMIC SUPPORT PROGRAM THK MUMBER OZ STUDBMTS TARGETED TOR PARTICIPATION IM BACH PROGRAM BY SCHOOL AMD GRADE LEVEL POR THB 19*2-93 SCHOOL YEAR SCHOOL t FOREST HEIGHTS JUNIOR HIGH Grade Level yo. Students - Reading No Students - Math TOTALS 68 42 56 99 170 225 7 8 9ACADEMIC SUPPORT PROGRAM THS NUMBER 07 STUDENTS TARGETED TOR PARTICIPATION IN EACH PROGRAM ET SCHOOL AND GRADE LEVEL TOR THE 1992-93 SCHOOL YEAR school: HENDERSON JUNIOR HIGH Grade Level No, Students - Reading No Students - Math 7 8 73 79 97 80 9 TOTALS 215 221ACADEMIC SUPPORT PROGRAM THS VUMBSR OH STUDHHTS TAROBTHD TOR PARTICIPATION IN RACH PROGRAM BY SCHOOL AND ORADB LBVIL POR THE 1992-93 SCHOOL TEAR school: mabelvale JUNIOR HIGH Grade Level No. Students - Reading No Students - Math TOTALS 73 49 13 44 172 158 7 8 9ACADEMIC SUPPORT PROGRAM THB MDNBIK 07 STUDBHTS TARGETED TOR PARTICIPATIOM IE EACH PROGRAM BT SCHOOL AMD GRADE LEVEL TOR THE 1992-93 SCHOOL YEAR school: MANN JUNIOR HIGH Grade Level Nq. Students - Reading No Students - Math 7 8 38 26 43 68 9 TOTALS 99 169ACADEMIC SUPPORT PROGRAM THB MUKBSR OF BTUDEMTS TARQBTBD FOR FARTICIFATIOM IH BACH PROGRAM BY SCHOOL AMD GRADE LEVEL FOR TRE 1992-93 SCHOOL YEAR SCHOOL: PULASKI HEIGHTS JUNIOR HIGH Grade Level No, Students - Reading No Students - Math TOTALS 13 49 93 37 44 7 8 9 7 __0ACADEMIC SUPPORT PROGRAM THE HUMBER OF STUDENTS TARGETED TOR PARTICIPATION IM EACH PROGRAM BY SCHOOL AMD GRADE LEVEL FOR THE 1992-93 SCHOOL YEAR scHOOLt SOUTHWEST JUNIOR HIGH Grade Level No. Students - Reading No Students - Math TOTALS 77 68 77 84 211 237 7 8 9 7ACADEMIC SUPPORT PROGRAM THS NUXBER 07 STUDENTS TARaSTED TOR PARTICIPATION IM EACH PROGRAM BY SCHOOL AND GRADE LEVEL TOR THE 1992-93 SCHOOL YEAR SCHOOL: BADGETT Grade Level No, Students - Reading No Students - Math TOTALS 14 12 \u0026lt;0 10 14 IS. 53 1 2 3 4 5 6 6 0 6 7 5 6ACADEMIC SUPPORT PROGRAM THS mJMBIR or STUDEMTS TARGETED TOR PARTICIPATION IN EACH PROGRAM BT SCHOOL AMD GRADE LEVEL FOR THB 1992-93 SCHOOL YEAR 8CHOOI1X BALE Grade Level No. Students - Reading No Students - Math TOTALS 14 18 17 23 92 13 14 10 19 12 7C 1 2 3 4 5 6 4 3ACADEMIC SUPPORT PROGRAM THK NUMBKR OK STUDEMTS TARGETED TOR PARTICIPATION IN EACH PROGRAM BY SCHOOL AND GRADE LEVEL POR THB 1992-93 SCHOOL YEAR SCHOOL X BASELINE Grade Level No, Students - Reading No Students - Math TOTALS 17 12 19 13 73 17 14 10 54 1 4 4 2 3 4 5 6 4ACADEMIC SUPPORT PROGRAM THS NUMBER OS STUDENTS TARGETED TOR PARTICIPATION IN EACH PROGRAM BY SCHOOL AMD GRADE LEVEL POR THE 1992-93 SCHOOL YEAR SCHOOL: BOOKER Grade Level No, Students - Reading No Students - Math TOTALS 38 31 25 18 27 30 14 18 IS IS 114 109 1 2 3 4 5 6 0 2ACADEMIC SUPPORT PROGRAM THE NUMBER OF STUDENTS TARGETED TOR PARTICIPATION IN BACH PROGRAM BY SCHOOL AND GRADE LEVEL TOR THE 1992-93 SCHOOL YEAR SCHOOL t BRADY Grade Level No. Students - Reading No stvdente_--.Meth TOTALS 19 19 11 21 16 19 17 21 21 101 73 1 0 0 2 8 3 4 5 6ACADEMIC SUPPORT PROGRAM THS NUMBIR OT STDDBIITS TAROETID TOR PARTICIPATION IN BACH PROGRAM BY SCHOOL AMD GRADE LEAHSL FOR THE 1992-93 SCHOOL YEAR SCHOOL: CARVER Grade Level No, Students - Reading No Students - Math TOTALS 10 16 68 46 1 5 1 2 6 4 3 9 4 8 5 6 9 6 22 12ACADEMIC SUPPORT PROGRAM THl XXTMBSR OH STXJDEMTS TARGSTED TOR PARTICIRATIOH IM BACH PROGRAM BY SCHOOL AMD GRADE LEVEL POR THB 1992-93 SCHOOL YEAR SCHOOL: CHICOT Grade Level No. Students - Reading No Students - Math TOTALS 30 27 24 18 18 108 15 19 14 12 99 1 6 6 2 3 4 5 6 12ACADEMIC SUPPORT PROGRAM THS MUNBKR OT STUDENTS TAROBTID TOR PARTICIPATION IN EACH PROGRAM BY SCHOOL AND GRADE LEVEL TOR THE 1992-93 SCHOOL YEAR SCHOOL: CLOVERDALE Grade Level No. Students - Reading No Students - Math TOTALS 14 19 12 67 16 12 10 65 1 1 3 2 3 4 5 6 5 9ACADEMIC SUPPORT PROGRAM TKX HUMBER OT STUDENTS TARGETED TOR PARTICIPATION IM EACH PROORAN Br SCHOOL AMD GRADE LEVEL POR THE 1992-93 SCHOOL YEAR SCHOOL: DODD Grade Level No, Students - Reading No Students - Math 1 0 1 2 3 4 17 19 16 14 13 6 5 9 8 6 12 TOTALS 67 57ACADEMIC SUPPORT PROGRAM THX MUXBIR or STUDKHTS TAROITBD TOR rARTICirATIOM IM KACH PROORAM BY SCHOOL AMD ORAOB LBVBL TOR THB 1992-93 SCHOOL YBAR school: fair PARK Grade Level No. Students - Reading No Students - Math TOTALS 11 15 19 12 iQ. 71 12 15 12 59 1 4 3 2 9 3 4 5 6ACADEMIC SUPPORT PROGRAM THB MUMBIR OV STUDENTS TARGETED TOR PARTICIPATION IN EACH PROGRAM BY SCHOOL AND GRADE LEVEL TOR THE 1992-93 SCHOOL YEAR SCHOOL: FOREST PARK Grade Level No. Students - Reading No Students - Math TOTALS 11 10 10 23 14 1 7 49 1 2 3 4 5 6 4 3 5 7 8 21ACADEMIC SUPPORT PROGRAM THB HUMBER 07 STUDENTS TARGETED TOR PARTICIPATION IN BACH PROGRRN nr SCHOOL AND GRADE LEVEL TOR THE 1992-93 SCHOOL YEAR SCHOOL! FRANKLIN Grade Level No, Students - Reading No Students - Math TOTALS 11 24 37 23 10 21 126 10 17 22 21 15 11 98 1 2 3 4 5 6ACADEMIC SUPPORT PROGRAM THS MUKBBR Of STUDBHTS TAMBTSD TOR PARTICIPATION IM BACH PROGRAM BY SCHOOL AMD ORADB LBVBL POR THB 1992-93 SCHOOL YBAR school: FULBRIGHT Grade Level No, Students - Reading No Students - Math TOTALS 15 16 13 17 19 12 8C 13 20 11 75 1 2 3 4 5 6 5 4 8ACADEMIC SUPPORT PROGRAM THB VUNBBR OF STUDENTS TARGETED EOR PARTICIPATION IN EACH PROGRAM BT SCHOOL AND GRADE LEVEL POR THB 1992-93 SCHOOL TEAR SCHOOL: GARLAND Grade Level No. Students - Reading yp gtMd^ntS-r Jiatb TOTALS 19 13 23 13 75 53 1 6 6 2 7 8 3 4 5 6 7 5 IIACADEMIC SUPPORT PROGRAM THl VnXBKR or STUDKHTS TAROBTID TOR rARTICZPATIOM IM lACH PROGRAM BT SCHOOL AMD GRADE LEVEL POR THB 1992-93 SCHOOL YEAR SCHOOL: GEYER SPRINGS Grade Level No. Students - Reading No Students - Math TOTALS 19 13 11 10 15. 73 54 1 5 4 2 9 3 8 4 5 6 9 6 1ACADEMIC SUPPORT PROGRAM THS NUMBER OE STUDENTS TAROETEO TOR PARTICIPATION IN EACH PROGRAM BY SCHOOL AND GRADE LEVEL POR THB 1992-93 SCHOOL YEAR SCHOOL: GIBBS Grade Level yp, gtudgntp - Reading No Students - Math TOTALS 12 11 52 12 38 1 4 2 3 4 5 6 4 9 7 3 3 3 3ACADEMIC SUPPORT PROGRAM THE HUMBER OE STUDENTS TARGETED TOR PARTICIPATION IN BACH PROGRAM BY SCHOOL AND GRADE LEVEL POR THE 1992-93 SCHOOL YEAR SCHOOL: ISH Grade Level No, Students - Reading No Students - Math 1 3 4 2 3 4 21 20 12 10 6 7 5 9 4 6 12 TOTALS \u0026lt;8 45ACADEMIC SUPPORT PROGRAM THE HDNBER OF STUDENTS TARGETED FOR PARTICIPATION IN EACH PROGRAM BY SCHOOL AND GRADE LEVEL FOR THB 1992-93 SCHOOL YEAR SCHOOL: JEFFERSON Grade Level No, Students - Reading No Students - Math TOTALS 21 15 25 14 13 10 10 81 11 12 62 1 2 3 2 3 4 5 9 6ACADEMIC SUPPORT PROGRAM THB trXJXBSR or STUDKHTS TARGBTBD FOB PARTICIPATION IM BACH PROGRAM BY SCHOOL AMD ORADB LBVBL POR THB 1992-93 SCHOOL YEAR SCHOOL: MABELVALE ELEMENTARY Grade Level Mo, Students - Reading Mo Students - Math TOTALS 31 28 32 30 157 15 19 30 25 99 1 0 0 2 3 4 5 6 22ACADEMIC SUPPORT PROGRAM THB NUMBER 07 STUDENTS TARGETED TOR PARTICIPATION IN BACH PROGRlOt BY SCHOOL AND GRADE LEVEL POR THE 1992-93 SCHOOL YEAR SCHOOL t MCDERMOTT Grade Level No. Students - Reading No Students - Math TOTALS 14 11 16 10 12 11 12 11 75 59 1 2 3 4 5 6 8 8 8 7ACADEMIC SUPPORT PROGRAM TBS MDHBBR OF STUDBMTS TARQBTED TOR PARTICIPATION IB BACH PROGRAM BY SCHOOL AMD GRADS LBVBL TOR TBS 1992-93 SCBOOL YBAR SCHOOL X MEADOWCLIFF Grade Level No. Students - Reading No Students - Math TOTALS 33 23 26 19 19 16 112 23 22 113 1 2 3 4 5 6 6 7 12 12ACADEMIC SUPPORT PROGRAM THK VnXBER Or STUDHHTS TARGETHD TOR PARTICIPATION IN EACH PROGRAM BY SCHOOL AMD GRADE LEVEL POR THE 1992-93 SCHOOL YEAR SCHOOL: MITCHELL Gradg Lgvel 1 2 3 4 5 6 No. Students - Reading No Students - Math TOTALS 19 17 15 15 7\u0026lt; 20 12 17 65 4 3 7ACADEMIC SUPPORT PROGRAM THB MUXBBR OB STUDBMTS TARGBTBD FOR PARTICIPATION IN BACH PROGRAM BY SCHOOL AND ORADB LBVBL POR THB 1992-93 SCHOOL YBAR school: otter CREEK 1 2 3 4 5 6 No, Students - Reading No Students - Math 12 TOTALS 10 12 II CO 49 6 4 9 6 9 9 9ACADEMIC SUPPORT PROGRAM THE NUKBBR 07 STUDENTS TARGETED FOR FARTICIPATZOH IN EACH PROGRAM BY SCHOOL AMD GRADE LEVEL FOR THE 1992-93 SCHOOL YEAR SCHOOL: PULASKI HEIGHTS ELEMENTARY Grade Level No. Students - Reading No Students - Math TOTALS 25 19 11 10 75 13 64 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 7 7 7 7 11ACADEMIC SUPPORT PROGRAM THX MUMBKR OT STUDEMTS TARGKTBD TOR PARTICIPATION IN HACH PROGRAM BY SCHOOL AND GRADE LBVBL TOR THE 1992-93 SCHOOL YBAR SCHOOL t RIGHTSELL Grade Level No. Students - Reading No Students - Math TOTALS 12 14 15 21 70 10 10 10 42 1 3 3 2 3 4 5 6 5 3ACADEMIC SUPPORT PROGRAM THK HUMBER OF STUDHHTS TAHaKTID FOR PARTICIFATIOH IM EACH FROORAM BY SCHOOL AMD ORADX LBVXL FOR THX 1992-93 SCHOOL YXAR SCHOOL t ROCKEFELLER Grade Level No, Students - Reading No Students - Math TOTALS 22 16 11 12 20 18 14 17 11 88 78 1 5 4 2 3 4 5 6ACADEMIC SUPPORT PROGRAM THX MUMBXR Of STtJDEMTS TAROHTHD TOR PARTICIPATION IN EACH PROORAN BT SCHOOL AND ORADB LEVEL TOR THE 1992-93 SCHOOL YEAR SCHOOL! ROMINE Grade Level Mp. Students - Reading MO-Students - Math TOTALS 12 19 22 13 12 57 57 1 2 3 4 5 6 2 2 3 8 7ACADEMIC SUPPORT PROGRAM THX MUNBKR OF STUDBMTS TAROBTBD FOR PARTICIPATION IM BACH PROGRAM BY SCHOOL AMD GRADB LBVBL FOR THB 1992-93 SCHOOL YBAR SCHOOL: STEPHENS Grade Level No, Students - Reading No Students - Math TOTALS 23 15 21 21 82 81 1 2 2 2 3 4 9 7 5 6 8 5 12ACADEMIC SUPPORT PROGRAM THS NX7MBSR 07 STTOKNTS TARGETBD TOR PARTICIPATION IM BACH PROGRAM BY SCHOOL AMD GRADE LEVEL TOR THE 1992-93 SCHOOL YEAR SCHOOL: TERRY Grade Level No, Students - Reading No Students - Math TOTALS 13 19 11 12 11 70 12 13 22. C2 1 1 0 2 3 4 5 6 8 9ACADEMIC SUPPORT PROGRAM THH MUMBSR 07 STUDHHTS TAROKTHD TOR PARTICIPATION IM KACH PROORAM BT SCHOOL AMD ORADB LBVBL TOR THB 1992-93 SCHOOL YBAR school: WAKEFIELD Grade Level No. Students - Reading No Students - Math TOTALS 27 19 19 21 15 124 16 13 15 21 95 1 8 8 2 3 4 5 6 11ACADEMIC SUPPORT PROGRAM THB HUMBBR OB STUDBHTS TARGETED BOR BARTICIBATIOM lit BACH PROGRAM BY SCHOOL AMD ORADB LBVBL BOR THB 1992-93 SCHOOL YEAR school: WASHINGTON Grade Level Ho, Students - Reading No Students - Math TOTALS 10 35 36 42 32 192 28 14 28 27 116 1 0 2 3 4 5 6 22 12ACADEMIC SUPPORT PROGRAM THX HUMBER OX STUDENTS TARGETED TOR PARTICIPATION IN EACH PROGRAM BY SCHOOL AND GRADE LEVEL POR THB 1992-*93 SCHOOL YEAR SCHOOL: WATSON Grade Level No. Students - Reading No Students - Math TOTALS 32 17 25 23 lie 19 12 18 21 12 SC 1 6 6 2 3 4 5 6 12ACADEMIC SUPPORT PROGRAM THX HDHBBR 07 STUDEHTS TAROBTED TOR PARTICIPATION IN BACH PROGRAM BY SCHOOL AMD GRADE LEVEL TOR THE 1992-93 SCHOOL YEAR school: western HILLS Grade Level Ho. - Students - Reading No Students - Math TOTALS 14 15 18 14 17 12 81 CO 1 2 3 4 5 6 0 4 8 7 9ACADEMIC SUPPORT PROGRAM THH HUMBER OF STUDHHTS TARGETED HOR PARTICIFATIOH IH EACH PROGRAM BY SCHOOL AMD ORADB LEVEL POR THB 19*2-93 SCHOOL YEAR SCHOOL t WILLIAMS MAGNET Grade Level No, Students  Reading No Students - Math 00 TOTALS 11 33 2S 1 0 2 3 4 5 6 7 5 6 4 3 6 6 5ACADEMIC SUPPORT PROGRAM THX NUXBXR OX STUDBMTS TAROBTED BOB PARTICIPATION IM BACH PROGRAM BT SCHOOL AMD GRADE LBVBL POR THB 1982-93 SCHOOL YEAR SCHOOL: WILSON Grade Level No. Students - Reading No Students - Math TOTALS 12 14 10 11 21 SI 58 1 1 1 2 6 6 3 9 4 5 7 6ACADEMIC SUPPORT PROGRAM THS NUMBBR OT STUDENTS TARGETED FOR PARTICIPATION IN BACH PROGRAM BY SCHOOL AND GRADB LBVBL POR THB 1992-93 SCHOOL YEAR SCHOOL: WOODRUFF Grade Level No. Students - Reading No Students - Math TOTALS 11 11 12 12 15. IS 55 55 1 2 3 4 5 6 4 4 8 5 8 5Number of Teachers or Other Staff Page 16 6. nie Number of Teachers or Other Staff (Identified by Position) Responsible for Delivering Each of the Academic Support Programs Content Area Level Position Total No, Positions Language Arts Elementary Teachers 39 Aides 8 Mathematics Elementary Teachers 30 Language Arts Secondary Teachers 34 Mathematics Secondary Teachers 27 Total Teachers Aides 130 8 Language Arts Elem. Specialists 3 Mathematics Elem. Lab Attendants 37 Language Arts Sec. Specialists 1.5* Language Arts Sec. Lab Attendants 13 Total Specialists Lab Attendants 4.5* 50 ESL Cornerstone Parent Support K-12 Tutors Tutors Coordinators Support/Secretary 8 1 1 1 Jostens Learning Corporation reimburses LRSD for 2.5 salariesImplementation Timeline Page 17 7. Implementation Timeline Beginning date: July, 1992 - Duration: Ongoing Responsibility Adiyiiy Begin Date End 1. Assoc. Supt. for Curriculum Explain the Academic Support Programs options to local school administrators 1st Quarter/ FY92 Ongoing* 2. Local school administrators Select the local schools appropriate Academic Support Program. (Indirect/ direct/extended services.) 1st Quarter/ FY92 Ongoing* 3. Local school teams Identify students targeted for participation in each program by school/grade level 1st Quarter/ FY92 Ongoing* 4. Principal Select staff (identified by position) responsible for delivering Academic Support Program 1st Quarter/ FY92 Ongoing* 5. Principal Schedule the Academic teams staff 1st Quarter/ FY92 Ongoing* 6. Principal and staff Implement selected school options at local level 1st Quarter/ FY92 Ongoing*Implementation Timeline continued Page 18 7. Directors of Staff Development and Reading\nSupvs. of Lang. Arts and Mathematics Cluster schools and develop a staff development schedule for Curriculum Clusters 1st Quarter/ FY92 Ongoing* 8. Directors of Staff Development and Reading\nSupvs. of Lang. Arts., Mathematics, and Computer Specialists Begin training staff responsible for delivering each Academic Support Program 1st Quarter/ FY92 Ongoing H n Specialized Content Area Strategies (Curriculum Cluster) 1st Quarter/ FY92 Ongoing* M Team Planning 2nd Quarter/ FY92 Ongoing* n Learning Styles/ Cultural Diversity (Review) 2nd Quarter/ FY92 Ongoing Interactive Teaching/ Learning (Curriculum Cluster) 2nd Quarter/ FY92 Ongoing* 9. w If (1 Mastery Learning Cooperative Team Learning (Review Curriculum Cluster) 1st Quarter/ FY93 (Fall) 3rd Quarter/ FY93 (Spring) Ongoing* Ongoing* Principals, District-wide staff development team and Computer Specialists Monitor the implementation of the above 1st Quarter/ FY92 Ongoing*Implementation Timeline continued Page 19 10. Principals, District-wide staff development team, and Computer Specialists Provide technical assistance and and maintenance workshops as needed in the above staff development areas Ongoing after initial workshops are delivered 11. Principal Schedule school based meetings to assess program effectiveness One per semester Ongoing* 12. Principal and staff Collect appropriate data for end of school program evaluation including pre and post standardized test scores, student grades and attendance, samples of student work, and parent/ teacher/student recommendations 1st Quarter/ FY92 4th Quarter/ FY93* 13. Assoc. Supt. for Curriculum, Asst. Supts., Curr. Supervisors, and principals Analyze the above data to evaluate program effectiveness 4th Quarter/ FY93 Ongoing* 14. H Identify modification for the Academic Support Program for 1993-94 4th Quarter/ FY93 Ongoing* 8. Anticipated Costs (see the following)8. ACADEMIC SUPPORT PROGRAM ANTICIPATED COSTS 1992-93 ] IMG SOURCE CONTENT AREA NO. POSITIONS TOTAL BUDGET Reading/Math/ Language Arts Elem./Sec. Aides Substitutes 99 8 $3,919,882.00 123,770.00 84,363.00 Parent Advisory Program Reading/Math Reading/Math/ Language Arts Reading/Math/ Language Arts Reading/Math/ ESL Reading/Math Parent Advisory Program ' Academic Support  Partnership Read ing/Math/ Language Arts Reading/Math Language Arts Coordinator/ Support Supplies Elen./Sec. Ext. Day/Week Secondary Supplies/Materials Secondary Specialists Lab Attendants Support Supplies/Materials Secondary Secondary 1.5 88 28 9 4.5 Reimb. 50 .5 6 4 Sub total Re Imbursement 32,979.00 45,939.00 41,880.00 576,362.00 21,883.00 278,360.00 112,416.00 588,908.00 7,465.00 10,000.00 30,000.00 222,534.00 135,253.00 6,231,994.00 112.416.00 $6,119,578.00Overview of Necessary Staff Training Page 21 9. Ah Overview of the Necessary Staff Training by Content, by Year, and by Number of Training Participants The staff development component is critical to the successful implementation of the Academic Support Program since the various elements of the Program require that teachers use approaches and strategies that emphasize the interrelationship of teacher/student behavior. Designated teachers will be trained in the following areas: Overview/Content. 1992-93 No. of Participants Specialized Content Area Strategies - TTie regular classroom teachers, reading specialists, and mathematics specialists will receive training on instructional strategies and alternative assessment methods that are unique to the respective content area. Also, the teachers will receive inservice training on using appropriate computer software to diagnose and remediate students learning needs. 1st Quarter/ FY92 130 Learning Styles/Cultural Diversity - Teachers have received training in administering learning styles inventories and designing instruct- tonal strategies that relate to identified learning styles 2nd Quarter FY92 (Review) 130 Staff Training The schedule for staff training is as follows: 25 teachers/staff per session. At least six (6) sessions are needed to accommodate all 130 teachers. Training is provided only one time during the indicated quarter. Follow-up inservice may be provided on an \"as needed/requested basis.\" Provisions are made either through new teacher initiative or LRSD Staff Development Department to provide the needed inservice for our new teachers.Overview of Necessary Staff Training continued Page 22 Interactive Teaching/Leaming - With the emphasis of the program on meaningful student learning experiences as opposed to isolated seat work, teachers will be trained in classroom skills for planning and delivering motivational learning activities, giving information, asking questions, providing feedback, and keeping students on task. 2nd Quarter/ FY92 130 Team Planning - Reading and/or math specialists will receive training in collaborative planning, team teaching, and partnership building. 2nd Quarter/ FY92 130 Mastery Learning - To ensure that learning actually occurs for students, teachers will receive inservice on the Mastery Learning Model that includes developing learning objectives based on identified LRSD learner outcomes, delivering large group instruction according to targeted objectives, assessing students performance, designing corrective activities that differ from the original instructional strategies for students who did not master the objective, assessing again for mastery, and designing enrichment activities that extend the objectives for students who demonstrated mastery on the first assessment. 1st Quarter/ FY93 (Fall) 130 Mastery Learning A number of teachers (regular and academic support) have been trained in Mastery Learning. We would provide a minimum of six sessions, three hours per session, for 25 participants per session totaling 130 teachers per quarter.Overview of Necessary Staff Training continued Page 23 Cooperative/Team Learning - Because teachers in the Academic Support Program will be expected to actively involve all targeted students in the classroom learning process, the teacher will receive training in the Cooperative/Team Learning process that organizes students into small heterogeneous teams which work together toward a common, meaningful learning objective. 3rd Quarter/ FY93 (Spring) 130 Components of all staff development programs will be reviewed annually. New teachers will be provided intensive inservice in order to maintain program continuity and effectiveness. Staff receiving and staff delivering staff development activities will review the design, delivery, and quality of services provided on an annual basis. This evaluation data will be used to improve the quality and quantity of inservice for academic support programs. Annually beginning school year 1993-94Evaluation Criteria Page 24 10. Evaluation Criteria That Will Indicate How Effectively Teachers Are Implementing New Instructional Approaches Principals will monitor instruction and learning in Academic Supoort Program settings on a regular basis and will observe: Teachers involving students in a variety of classroom activities that address learning styles and cultural diversity.  Teachers selecting methods and strategies that capitalize on students interests and experiences.  Teachers demonstrating creativity and resourcefulness in delivering instruction. Teachers utilizing effective classroom strategies, such as tutors, small-group instruction, and extended day/week programs, to maintain the gains students have made.  Teachers interacting with students in a caring manner. Teachers recording of students data that shows increased student achievement and social skills (letter and citizenship grades, standardized test scores, attendance). 11- Evaluation Criteria That Will Measure the Degree to Which Each Academic Support Program Is Successful in Meeting Its Particular Programmatic Goals and Objectives of Remediating Student Achievement and Contributing to the Overall Reduction of Disparity Between Black and White Students Program Evaluation Academic Support Programs will be successfully operating in all district schools evidenced by: as * Improvement on standardized test scores. Increased numbers of students moving from bottom quartile to the next quartile. Increased numbers of students moving above the 50th percentile.Evaluation Criteria continued Page 25 * Grade distribution reports (by semester) reflecting an increase in letter grades of \"C\" or better in the core areas for each student.  Grade distribution reports (by semester) by class and grade level reflecting an increase in attainment of letter grades of \"C or better in the core areas. 12. Utilization of Resources Invested in the PAL Remediation Approach, Staff Positions. Computer Hardware. Software Programs, and Other Equipment and Materials Previously Devoted to PAL Should be Properly Reallocated Toward the New Approach to Remediation. All existing staff (positions), computer hardware, software programs, other equipment and materials are and will be used extensively in the Districts Academic Support Program. Curriculum-assisted instructional software has been aligned with the Districts revised curriculum and is being used to reinforce curriculum objectives. 13. Provision for Removing Ineffective Teachers Provisions for removing ineffective teachers are outlined in the Professional Negotiations Agreement Between the Board of Directors and the Little Rock Classroom Teachers Association (Article VI).KCkaTXlZ SUPPORT PROGRAM PROGRAM EVALUATION Procrram Description Purpose The purpose of the Academic Support Program is to provide support for participating students in grades one through twelve in the areas of reading, language arts, and mathematics. The program reinforces and enhances the academic achievement of these targeted students. The support will be provided by certified reading specialists, English and mathematics teachers in the regular classroom, additional classes, and labs. Scope and Content The name of all district remediation programs will be Academic Support Programs. All school programs will be located at each school site, except Metropolitan Vocational-Technical Education Center. The Academic Support Program offers a variety of options to the individual schools for providing accelerated reading/language arts and mathematics learning experiences for students identified through a process using multiple criteria. The program is characterized by providing either direct or indirect services to identified students through additional classes, smaller class sizes, or in-class assistance at the secondary level and in-class assistance or limited pull-out at the elementary level. Elementary Academic Support Procrram At the elementary level, the primary delivery method in the area of mathematics is in-class assistance for grade levels 1 and 2, and limited pull-out as a possible second strategy for grade levels 3-6. In the area of reading/language arts, limited pullout is used to provide for the learning needs of students with identified reading deficits for grade levels 1-6. Indirect Services Reading and math specialists are paired with classroom teachers to assist in implementing accelerated learning experiences for students with identified reading and mathematics skills deficits. An instructional program and duration of services are established for each student in order to address individualized needs. TheAcademic Support Program Fast Track Evaluation Page 2 revised curriculum is used by the regular teacher and the reading/mathematics specialists to provide a uniform and integrated approach to learning. Schedules are developed in cooperation with the regular teacher to determine appropriate time for specialists to provide services in the regular Time is allocated for the specialists to plan and classroom. consult with the regular teacher in order to ensure consistency This cooperative planning allows for a team in student learning. effort to best meet needs of students and to prevent In addition, this fragmentation in teaching and learning. approach improves and enhances educational opportunities for these students to experience academic success in the regular classroom. By developing alternative methods for delivery of instruction, students increase their time on task, make greater gains, and maintain progress. Direct Services. For students identified with severe reading problems, a reading class is available to assist them in mastering fundamental reading skills and to stimulate their interest in reading. Reading teachers focus on mastery learning and use of listening labs and computer labs to diagnose, remediate, and assess specific language problems, using a variety of curricular approaches including computer technology. This arrangement will promote program continuity, connected learning, student/teacher bonding, and shared accountability. Data secured through individual assessment and other relevant records is used to develop the student's program and establish the duration of services. Secondary Academic Support Program Secondary schools implement the Academic Support Program according to one or a combination of the following possible approaches: APPROACH ONE Indirect Services The academic team approach restructures the current secondary language arts staffing by pairing language arts classroom teachers (including English and Learning Foundation teachers) andAcademic Support Program Fast Track Evaluation Page 3 instruction.) reading specialists. (Mathematics teachers are already paired for instruction.) Teams will iointlv plan appropriate whole group instruction, small group instruction, and individual instruction for learning experiences. Direct Services For students identified with severe reading problems, a reading class will be available to assist them in mastering fundamental reading skills and to stimulate their interest in reading. APPROACH TWO Direct Services Regular classroom teachers will work to meet the needs of their own targeted students. Smaller class sizes will be scheduled for regular language arts and/or mathematics teachers to allow them to provide more individual assistance for targeted students during each class period. APPROACH THREE (Language Arts Only) Direct Services The Language Arts Plus Program is intended to reinforce regular classroom language arts instruction exclusively and to focus on The Language Arts Plus Program specific student deficits. approach will restructure the current secondary language arts program by reducing the number of separate reading classes, reducing language arts class size, and adding an enrichment class to schedules of targeted students. The concept will add an elective credit to student course work and will utilize the These English services of regular English teachers in whose language arts classes the targeted students are enrolled. teachers will teach four regular periods and during the fifth period will provide tutorial and accelerated learning experiences for all academic students enrolled in each of their four regular Average class size will not exceed 15 language arts classes. students per period in the teachers' fifth periods.Academic Support Program Fast Track Evaluation Page 4 EXTENDED SERVICES ELEMENTARY AND SECONDARY To support and extend learning opportunities for students, the academic team concept will be supported by making available to targeted students before-school, at lunch, and after-school instructional services. Additionally, some sites may schedule periodic extended weeks in order to provide a practice and review session on Saturdays. Principals may use flexible scheduling of staff to provide some of their extended day services. The implementation of academic support programs may vary from school to school in design and philosophy. However, the following common critical elements will be evident in every program: instructional strategies including higher order thinking skills, close observance of time on task, use of the District's approved curriculum with appropriate materials and resources, a positive school climate that includes conveying high expectations for all students, parent involvement designed to assure a collaborative partnership between parents and school, problem analysis consisting of collecting, analyzing and disaggregating student data, and monitoring/evaluation. New staff members will participate in development activities that will assist them in use of curriculum guides as well as appropriate staff development activities for targeted students. Participants/Beneficiaries Target students are initially identified from the student population scoring in the lower quartiles in the annual student assessment. Multiple criteria, including student grades, teacher recommendations, and student records are used to select students from the eligible population to participate in the Academic Support Program. Progrzun Goal The goal of the Academic Support Program is to provide equitable language arts and mathematics learning experiences for all students in the mainstream setting by supporting them with the instructional and technical assistance needed to reduce the learning disparity.Academic Support Program Fast Track Evaluation Page 5 Specific objectives have been developed in order to designate what is to be accomplished to implement the adopted goals, program will include the following objectives: The 1. 2. 3. 4. To identify and serve students who are at-risk in language arts and mathematics. To prescribe a personal education plan for targeted students. To reduce or eliminate pull-out academic support programs. To provide parents the knowledge and skills needed to promote the education of their children at home and at school. Evaluation Criteria The Academic Support Program will be evaluated by comparing data from Spring 1992 through Spring 1994. evaluation will consist of: Specifically the 1. 3. Print-out of eligible students is provided to local school teams. Uniform District criteria are used (Stanford 8 cutoff score and multiple criteria) to identify targeted students. 2. Personal education plans of targeted students reflect implementation of the selected school option (s). Individual student folders that include a systematic collection of student work, pre and post standardized test scores, grades, and recommendations to provide individual/group/school progress are maintained for continuous student and program progress. 4 . Parental involvement will show an increase in the numbers of parents attending parent conferences and parent training sessions and visiting schools. Evaluation Results Evaluation results reflect data gathered from several sources. These data have been compiled and analyzed and yield the following results, presented in correspondence with each previously stated objective.Academic Support Program Fast Track Evaluation Page 6 Objective 1 To identify and serve students who are at-risk in language arts and mathematics. The Academic Support Program options were explained to local school administrators and they were provided an overview of how all the individual Academic Support Programs were to be coordinated for continuity of services to children and efficient use of resources. Local school administrators selected the appropriate Academic Support Program. Students eligible for participation in the Academic Support Program were identified from the District-wide printout of the Stanford 8 results. Identified students were those with total reading and/or mathematics scores falling within the lowest quartile on the Stanford 8 (total NCE of 35.8 or below). Multiple criteria, including student grades, teacher recommendations, and student records, were used to select targeted students from the identified population to participate in the Academic Support Program. Staff assignments were determined at the building-level and schedules were completed to ensure implementation of the selected school options. Discussion For the 1992-93 school year, thirteen secondary schools chose the Reading/Language Arts/Mathematics Indirect/Direct Approach, while one secondary school chose the Language Arts Plus Approach and three secondary schools chose the Direct Mathematics Approach. All elementary schools chose the Reading/Language Arts/Mathematics Indirect/Direct Approach. (Appendix A-1) For the 1993-94 school year, fourteen secondary schools chose the Reading/Language Arts/Mathematics Indirect/Direct Approach, while seven secondary schools chose the Language Arts Plus Approach and All six secondary schools chose the Direct Mathematics Approach, elementary schools chose the Reading/Language Arts/Mathematics Indirect/Direct Approach. (Appendix A-1) The District-wide printout of the Stanford 8 results for the 1992-93 school year revealed that 11,955 students were eligible for participation. For the 1993-94 school year, 11,044 students were eligible. (Appendix A-2)Academic Support Program Fast Track Evaluation Page 7 For the 1992-93 school year, uniform multiple criteria were used to identify 8,173 targeted students from the eligible population to be served by the Academic Support Program. For the 1993-94 school year, 7,466 students were selected. (Appendix A-3) 2,525 students at the secondary level were served by the Indirect/Direct Approach during the 1992-93 school year. 26 students were served by the Language Arts Plus Approach and 287 students were served by the Direct Mathematics Approach, elementary level, 5,385 students were served by the At the Reading/Language Arts/Mathematics Indirect/Direct Approach. (Appendix A-3) During the 1993-94 school year, 2,212 students at the secondary level were served by the Reading/Language Arts/Mathematics Indirect/Direct Approach. 466 students were served by the Language Arts Plus Approach and 622 students were served by the Direct Mathematics Approach. At the elementary level, 4,655 students were served by the Reading/Language Arts/Mathematics Indirect/Direct Approach. (Appendix A-3) For the 1992-93 school year, a total of 52 teachers staffed the Reading/Language Arts/Mathematics Indirect/Direct Approach, while .6 teachers staffed the Language Arts Plus Approach and 6.1 teachers staffed the Mathematics Direct Approach. At the elementary level, a total of 82.4 teachers staffed the Reading/Language Arts/Mathematics Indirect/Direct Approach. (Appendix A-4) For the 1993-94 school year, a total of 40.6 teaches staffed the Reading/Language Arts/Mathematics Indirect/Direct Approach, while 8.2 teachers staffed the Language Arts Plus Approach and 15.3 teachers staffed the Mathematics Direct Approach. At the elementary level, a total of 71.6 teachers staffed the Reading/Language Arts/Mathematics/Indirect/Direct Approach. (Appendix A-4) Objective 2 To prescribe a personal education plan for targeted students. The Stanford 8 Individual Record Sheet for each targeted student served as the basis for developing a personal education plan for each student. The Little Rock School District Curriculum, which is correlated to the Stanford 8 objectives, was used as theAcademic Support Program Fast Track Evaluation Page 8 curriculum in each program option at each school site. Schools were clustered for delivery of staff development and a schedule was developed to provide training to the staff responsible for delivering each Academic Support Program. Workshops were provided on the topics of specialized content area strategies, team planning, learning styles/cultural diversity, interactive teaching/learning, mastery learning, and cooperative team learning. been addressed. Workshops were monitored to ensure that all topics had Instruction and learning in the Academic Support Program settings were monitored regularly to determine student involvement, appropriateness of learning strategies and cultural diversity, creativity and resourcefulness, use of tutors, small group instruction, and extended day/week programs, teacher-student interaction, increased student achievement and social skills. Technical assistance was provided on an as-needed basis in each of the areas monitored. TABLE B YEAR \u0026amp; CLASSIFICATION SCHOOL VISITS TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE SCHOOL BASED MEETINGS 1992-93 Totals ELEMENTARY SECONDARY 413 97 40 6 24 13 1993-94 (to 12/15/93) ELEMENTARY SECONDTkRY 183 70 104 62 4 9 Discussion A comparison of the total number of training sessions conducted during the 1992-93 school year to the to-date number of sessions conducted during the 1993-94 school year reveals that there has been an increase in the number of training sessions requested and offered. During the 1992-93 school year, 593 monitoring visits were made to review personal education plans and to observe teacher strategies. visits have been made to date. For the 1993-94 school year, 332 monitoring (Appendix B-1)Academic Support Program Fast Track Evaluation Page 9 Objective 3 To reduce or eliminate pull-out Academic Support Programs. Appropriate data were collected for end of school program evaluation, including pre and post standardized test scores, student grades and attendance, samples of student work, and parent/teacher/student recommendations. These data were analyzed to evaluate program effectiveness in meeting its particular programmatic goals and objectives of remediating student achievement and contributing to the overall reduction of disparity between black and white students. After reviewing the 1992-93 data, modifications were identified for the Academic Support Program for 1993-94. Learning opportunities were supported and extended for students by making available to targeted students before school, at lunch, after school, and periodic extended week computer lab instruction. Discussion A comparison of the 1992-93 Stanford 8 test data for the students being seirved to the 1993-94 test data for the same population revealed that students achieved growth at all grade levels except grades 1, 4, and 10 in reading. Tn the area of mathematics, negative growth occurred at grades 2, 4, 6, 7, and 8. Cl - C4) (Appendix For the 1993-94 school year, the number of secondary schools choosing the Language Arts Plus Approach increased from only one during the 1992-93 school year to six. Six secondary schools also chose the Mathematics Direct Approach, representing an increase of three schools over the 1992-93 school year. These changes represent a trend at the secondary level away from an exclusive Reading/Language Arts/Mathematics Indirect/Direct Approach toward the Direct Approaches. (Appendix A-1) During the 1992-93 school year, approximately 50% of the elementary and secondary schools offered targeted students extended learning opportunities before school, at lunch, after school, and extended week. A number of these schools kept signin sheet to validate student participation, but no hard data exist on the success of this endeavor, compiled for the 1993-94 school year. No data have beenAcademic Support Program Fast Track Evaluation Page 10 Objective 4 To provide parents the knowledge and skills needed to promote the education of their children at home and at school. Parents were assisted in obtaining the knowledge and skills needed to promote the education of their children at home and at school through provision of information about students' achievement and behavior, conferences about their children, and the establishment of parent/school partnerships. Discussion A comparison of 1992-93 parent activity documentation to the 1993-94 parent activity documentation reveals there has been an increase in the number of participating parents. The number of parents involved during 1993-94 increased two and a third times the rate of parental participation during the 1992-93 school year. Twenty-eight of the twenty-nine schools where data were collected showed positive gains in parent participation. (Appendix D) Obstacles to Goal Attainment The obstacles to goal attainment encountered are indicated by specific objectives: 1. To identify and serve students who are at-risk in language arts and mathematics. Although this objective is achieved, it has not been achieved in a timely manner. Printouts of the eligible students in each building for reading, mathematics, and language arts need to be available at the end of the school year to begin the identification process for the next year. Additionally, printouts of District-wide eligible students need to be in each school at the beginning of the school year to facilitate identification of students new to each building.Academic Support Program Fast Track Evaluation Page 11 2. To prescribe a personal education plan for targeted students. This objective is largely achieved\nhowever, some folders are not complete because teachers do not have sufficient information to develop the plans. Individual Test Records (Stanford 8) for all Academic Support students are needed in order for teachers to develop the personal education plans. 3. To reduce are eliminate pull-out Academic Support Programs. Progress has been made in reading and language arts, however, additional time is needed in mathematics. As well, delayed funding from outside sources has hampered plans for providing extended services. 4 . To provide parents the knowledge and skills needed to promote the education of their children at home and at school. Although this objective is largely achieved at the elementary level, there is a need for strengthening efforts at the secondary level. Recommendation 1 It is recommended that District printouts identifying the eligible students be forwarded to each building prior to the close of the school year in order to facilitate the identification process for the next school year. As well, District-wide printouts need to be disseminated to every school at the beginning of the new school year in order to identify new students to the schools who might be eligible for the Academic Support Program. Additionally, at least three copies of the Student Record Sheet for each targeted student need to be forwarded to the schools from the Office of Planning, Research, and Evaluation in order to ensure that program teachers have the appropriate record forms needed to design the personal education plans.Academic Support Program Fast Track Evaluation Page 12 Objective The objective of this recommendation is to ensure timely identification and selection of students to participate in the Academic Support Program and to serve targeted students by developing personal education plans based on their Stanford 8 Individual Test Records. Evaluation Criteria Documentation will indicate that the selection and identification processes occur in a timely and efficient manner and that program teacher record keeping is complete. Expected Benefits The District will meet its commitment of reducing academic disparity and pull-out programs. Impact Analysis This recommendation will assist the District in providing appropriate instructional opportunities for students with identified needs in reading/language arts and in mathematics. As the students are served, pull-out programs and learning disparity will be reduced. Resource Analysis The Planning, Research and Evaluation Department and the Data Processing Department will generate the necessary forms. The Office of Federal Programs will gather and report data so that analysis can be made. Force Field Analysis The primary supporters of this recommendation will be central office supervisors, director of federal programs, building principals, program teachers, students, and parents, no known detractors. There areAcademic Support Program Fast Track Evaluation Page 13 General Implementation Plan Date Activity Person(s) Responsible 6/1/94 District SAT-8 printouts forwarded to schools Director of Planning, Research, and Evaluation 8/1/94 Updated District SAT-8 printouts forwarded to schools Director of Planning, Research, and Evaluation 9/1/94 Student record forms for selected students are forwarded to program teachers Director of Planning, Research, and Evaluation Recommendation 2 It is recommended that change in the delivery of academic support in secondary mathematics be made by providing additional instructional time for targeted students rather than by providing assistance within the regular class time. Objective The objective of this recommendation is to provide the necessary support in mathematics that is needed to reduce the learning disparity. Evaluation Criteria Targeted students will be assigned to an additional math class or lab. Comparative data as measured on the Stanford 8 (Spring 1995) will show increased achievement. Expected Benefits The District will meet its commitment of increasing achievement and reducing academic disparity.Academic Support Program Fast Track Evaluation Page 14 Impact Analysis This recommendation will provide instructional time needed for teaching and learning mathematics. Resources Analysis Although this may require some additional staff, for the most part existing staff can fill the necessary positions. Force Field Analysis The primary supporters of this recommendation will be central office supervisors, the director of federal programs, building principals, programs teachers, students, and parents, not known detractors. There are General Implementation Plan Date Actiyjty Personfs) Responsible 6/1/94 Analysis of Staffing Needs/Staff Selection Mathematics supervisor, principals 7/15/94 Identify schedules/ add classes Principals, counselors 8/30/94 Schedule students into classes Principals, counselorsAPPENDICESAPPENDIX A-1 ACADEMIC SUPPORT PROGRAM READING/LANGUAGE ARTS/MATHEMATICS APPROACHES ONE, TWO, THREE 1993-93 READIHG/LANGUAGE ARTS MATHEMATICS INSTRUCTIONAL APPROACH ONE TWO THREE ONE TWO Indirect/ Direct Direct Language Arts Plus Indirect/ Direct Direct SENIOR HIGH SCHOOLS Central X X J. A. Fair X X Hall X X X McClellan X X Parkview Magnet X X JUNIOR HIGH SCHOOLS Cloverdale X X Dunbar Magnet X X Forest Heights X X Henderson Magnet X X Mabelvale X X Mann X X Pulaski Heights X X Southwest X X Alt. Learning Ctr. ELEMENTARY SCHOOLS All X X 1993-94 READING/LANGUAGE ARTS INSTRUCTIONAL APPROACH ONE TWO THREE I mathematics ONE q TWO B Indirect/ Direct Direct Language Arts Plus Indirect/ Direct Direct SENIOR HIGH SCHOOLS Central X X X J. A. Fair X X X Hall X X McClellan X X X Parkview Magnet X X X JUNIOR HIGH SCHOOLS Cloverdale X X Dunbar Magnet X X Forest Heights X X Henderson Magnet X X Mabelvale X X X Mann X X X X Pulaski Heights X X X Southwest X X Alt. Learning Ctr. X ELEMENTARY SCHOOLS All X XTotal Tested: APPENDIX A-2 READING/LANGUAGE ARTS/MATHEMATICS STANFORD ACHIEVEMENT TEST 1992 Number of students scoring within the lowest quartile (1-25 PR) GRADE TOTAL TESTED READING SPRING 1992 MATH SPRING 1992 GRADE READING SERVED 1992-93 MATH SERVED 1992-93 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 2,094 1,881 1,783 1,904 1,922 1,843 1,795 1,573 1,554 1,602 1,472 Total tested: 804 707 649 524 685 473 668 599 494 495 357 625 418 358 324 406 332 544 621 728 672 472 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 STANFORD ACHIEVEMENT TEST 1993 Number of students scoring within the lowest quartile (1-25 PR) GRADE TOTAL TESTED READING SPRING 1993 MATH SPRING 1993 GRADE 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 700 599 560 505 570 428 432 282 142 137 69 READING SERVED 1993-94 531 455 491 467 507 284 276 254 360 95 29 MATH SERVED 1993-94 1,941 1,912 1,770 1,715 1,821 1,855 1,716 1,571 1,506 1,587 1,383 686 714 575 486 623 466 603 548 471 403 392 584 405 411 197 329 303 555 539 691 547 516 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 514 584 499 435 475 457 503 407 195 190 110 366 334 360 218 324 305 354 422 335 72 7APPENDIX A-3 ACADEMIC SUPPORT PROGRAM READING/LANGUAGE ARTS/MATHEMATICS APPROACHES ONE, TWO, THREE STUDENTS 1992-93 READING/LANGUAGE ARTS MATHEMATICS INSTRUCTIONAL APPROACH ONE Indirect/ Direct TWO Direct THREE Language Arts Plus ONE Indirect/ Direct TWO Direct SENIOR HIGH SCHOOLS Central J. A. Fair Hall McClellan Parkview Magnet JUNIOR HIGH SCHOOLS Cloverdale Dunbar Magnet Forest Heights Henderson Magnet Mabelvale Mann Pulaski Heights Southwest Alt. Learning Ctr. ELEMENTARY SCHOOLS Badgett Bale Baseline Booker Magnet Brady Carver Magnet Chicot Appendix A-3 (page 1 of 4) 191 33 22 87 15 198 162 100 150 108 127 149 148 0 63 88 70 120 108 33 135 26 95 99 48 121 29 155 110 129 106 102 97 91 0 50 75 66 115 86 27 118 140Cloverdale Dodd Fair Park Forest Park Franklin Fulbright Garland Geyer Springs Gibbs Magnet Ish Jefferson Mabelvale McDermott Meadowcliff Mitchell Otter Creek Pulaski Heights Rightsell Rockefeller Romine Stephens Terry Wakefield Washington Watson Western Hills Williams Magnet Wilson Woodruff Appendix A-3 (page 2 of 4) 68 86 64 65 99 77 76 72 52 57 84 142 78 120 69 58 85 66 85 50 56 74 124 132 123 87 36 68 64 55 64 71 55 97 69 59 55 35 30 67 128 62 122 62 47 63 38 72 54 38 68 93 118 85 61 28 64 54ACADEMIC SUPPORT PROGRAM READING/LANGUAGE ARTS/MATHEMATICS APPROACHES ONE, TWO, THREE STUDENTS 1993-94 READING/LANGUAGE ARTS MATHEMATICS INSTRUCTIONAL APPROACH ONE TWO THREE ONE TWO SENIOR HIGH SCHOOLS Central J. A. Fair Hall McClellan Parkview Magnet JUNIOR HIGH SCHOOLS Cloverdale Dunbar Magnet Forest Heights Henderson Magnet Mabelvale Mann Pulaski Heights Southwest Alt. Learning Ctr. ELEMENTARY SCHOOLS Badgett Bale Baseline Booker Magnet Brady Carver Magnet Chicot Cloverdale Indirect/ Direct Direct Language Arts Plus Indirect/ Direct Direct 58 36 10 203 92 152 203 127 71 187 202 12 57 78 89 135 81 39 133 62 124 91 87 63 28 31 42 * 110 131 59 90 246 20 203 0 29 41 30 92 53 19 94 25 144 112 40 48 75 80 123 Appendix A-3 (page 3 of 4)* Dodd Fair Park Forest Park Franklin Fulbright Garland Geyer Springs Gibbs Magnet Jefferson King Mabelvale McDermott Meadowcliff Mitchell Otter Creek Pulaski Heights Rightsell Rockefeller Romine Stephens Terry Wakefield Washington Watson Western Hills Williams Magnet Wilson Woodruff 71 72 53 94 79 60 80 52 79 80 131 80 152 66 66 72 44 82 67 44 84 159 140 156 65 78 44 62 44 31 31 69 52 34 30 26 43 46 99 39 88 42 29 36 16 42 35 27 45 81 80 50 32 60 28 51 Approach One is provided in small class settings (App. 2). Appendix A-3 (page 4 of 4)APPENDIX A-4 ACADEMIC SUPPORT PROGRAM READING/LANGUAGE ARTS/MATHEMATICS APPROACHES ONE, TWO, THREE STAFF (FTE per school) 1992-93 READING/LANGUAGE ARTS MATHEMATICS INSTRUCTIONAL APPROACH ONE TWO THREE ONE TWO Indirect/ Direct Direct Language Arts Plus Indirect/ Direct Direct SENIOR HIGH SCHOOLS Central 3.0 2.0 J. A. Fair Hall 1.0 1.0 0.6 1.0 1.0 McClellan 1.4 3.0 Parkview Magnet 0.6 1.0 JUNIOR HIGH SCHOOLS Cloverdale 4.0 3.0 Dunbar Magnet 2.0 2.0 Forest Heights 3.0 Henderson Magnet Mabelvale 3.0 2.0 3.0 2.0 3.0 Mann 2.0 4.1 Pulaski Heights 3.0 2.0 Southwest 3.0 2.0 Alt. Learning Ctr. 0.0 0.0 ELEMENTT^Y SCHOOLS Badgett Bale Baseline Booker Magnet Brady Carver Magnet 1.0 1.4 1.0 1.6 1.6 0.0 0.6 1.0 0.6 1.5 1.4 0.0 Chicot 2.0 1.0 Appendix A-4 (page 1 of 4)Cloverdale Dodd Fair Park Forest Park Franklin Fulbright Garland Geyer Springs Gibbs Magnet Ish Jefferson Mabelvale McDermott Meadowcliff Mitchell Otter Creek Pulaski Heights Rightsell Rockefeller Romine Stephens Terry Wakefield Washington Watson Western Hills Williams Magnet Wilson Woodruff 1.0 1.0 1.0 0.6 *2.0 *1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 *1.0 2.0 1.0 2.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 *1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 2.0 *2.0 2.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 *2.0 * Part-time instructional aides Appendix A-4 (page 2 of 4) 1.0 1.0 1.0 0.6 1.5 1.0 1.0 0.6 1.0 0.5 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 0.6 1.0 0.5 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.4 2.0 1.4 1.0 1.0 1.0 *2.0ACADEMIC SUPPORT PROGRAM READING/LANGUAGE ARTS/MATHEMATICS APPROACHES ONE, TWO, THREE STAFF (FTE per school) 1993-94 READING/LANGUAGE ARTS MATHEMATICS INSTRUCTIONAL APPROACH ONE TWO THREE ONE TWO Indirect/ Direct Direct Language Arts Plus Indirect/ Direct Direct SENIOR HIGH SCHOOLS Central J. A. Fair Hall McClellan Parkview Magnet 1.0 0.6 0.4 2.0 1.2 2.2 1.0 0.6 3.6 1.0 2.0 1.8 1.4 1.2 JUNIOR HIGH SCHOOLS Cloverdale 4.0 2.8 Dunbar Magnet 2.0 2.0 Forest Heights 3.0 2.8 Henderson Magnet 3.0 2.4 Mabelvale Mann Pulaski Heights 2.0 2.0 0.6 0.6 0.8 1.4 2.0 3.0 3.3 Southwest 3.0 3.0 Alt. Learning Ctr. 0.4 0.0 ELEMENTARY SCHOOLS Badgett Bale Baseline Booker Magnet Brady Carver Magnet Chicot Cloverdale Dodd 0.8 1.0 1.4 2.0 1.6 0.0 2.0 0.6 1.0 0.5 0.7 0.7 1.5 1.0 0.0 1.2 0.7 0.5 I Appendix A-4 (page 3 of 4)* Fair Park Forest Park Franklin Fulbright Garland Geyer Springs Gibbs Magnet Jefferson King Mabelvale McDermott Meadowcliff Mitchell Otter Creek Pulaski Heights Rightsell Rockefeller Romine Stephens Terry Wakefield Washington Watson Western Hills Williams Magnet Wilson Woodruff 1.0 1.0 1.4 1.4 1.0 1.4 1.0 1.0 1.0 2.0 1.0 2.0 1.0 0.6 1.0 0.6 1.4 1.0 0.6 1.4 2.0 2.0 2.0 1.0 1.0 0.6 *2.0 Part-time instructional aides Appendix A-4 (page 4 of 4) 0.5 0.5 1.1 0.8 0.7 0.5 1.0 0.7 0.6 1.2 0.7 0.9 0.5 0.7 0.7 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.7 1.2 0\nThis project was supported in part by a Digitizing Hidden Special Collections and Archives project grant from The Andrew W. Mellon Foundation and Council on Library and Information Resoources.\n   \n\n   \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\u003cdcterms_creator\u003eLittle Rock School District\u003c/dcterms_creator\u003e\n   \n\n \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n \n\n  \n\n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n   \n\n \n\n\n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n\n\n  \n\n\n\n "},{"id":"bcas_bcmss0837_267","title":"Budget, court filings","collection_id":"bcas_bcmss0837","collection_title":"Office of Desegregation Management","dcterms_contributor":null,"dcterms_spatial":["United States, 39.76, -98.5","United States, Arkansas, 34.75037, -92.50044","United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, 34.76993, -92.3118","United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, Little Rock, 34.74648, -92.28959"],"dcterms_creator":["United States. District Court (Arkansas: Western District)"],"dc_date":["1992/1998"],"dcterms_description":null,"dc_format":["application/pdf"],"dcterms_identifier":null,"dcterms_language":["eng"],"dcterms_publisher":["Little Rock, Ark. : Butler Center for Arkansas Studies. Central Arkansas Library System"],"dc_relation":null,"dc_right":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC-EDU/1.0/"],"dcterms_is_part_of":["Office of Desegregation Monitoring records (BC.MSS.08.37)","History of Segregation and Integration of Arkansas's Educational System"],"dcterms_subject":["Little Rock (Ark.)--History--20th century","Little Rock School District","Education--Arkansas","Educational law and legislation","Education--Finance"],"dcterms_title":["Budget, court filings"],"dcterms_type":["Text"],"dcterms_provenance":["Butler Center for Arkansas Studies"],"edm_is_shown_by":null,"edm_is_shown_at":["http://arstudies.contentdm.oclc.org/cdm/ref/collection/bcmss0837/id/267"],"dcterms_temporal":null,"dcterms_rights_holder":null,"dcterms_bibliographic_citation":null,"dlg_local_right":["Available for use in research, teaching, and private study. Any other use requires permission from the Butler Center."],"dcterms_medium":["printouts"],"dcterms_extent":["74 pages"],"dlg_subject_personal":null,"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":"\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n\n\n\n   \n\n\n\n\n   \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n  \n\nIN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT vs. No. LR-C-82-866 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT No. 1, ET AL MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL ORDER filed 1993 OARL fl, Sy.-. / clerk oep. PLAINTIFFS DEFENDANTS INTERVENORS INTERVENORS During a hearing on July 8, 1993, the Court asked the Little Rock School District (LRSD) to provide an update on the status of the district's desegregation plan audit. The Court has repeatedly l expressed concern about this audit because of its crucial relationship to the district's planning and budgeting processes. The audit. which is an inventory of all the district's obligations contained within the desegregation plans and related court orders, is to serve as a basis for the district's long-term program and budget planning. It will enable the district to determine not only what it is required to do, but also to ascertain the status of progress toward implementing each requirement. In response to the Court's inquiry at the July hearing, Mr. Sterling Ingram, Director of the LRSD's Planning, Research and Evaluation Department, testified that he is in charge of conducting the desegregation audit. a task which was assigned him by the superintendent in March 1993. He stated that he expected the desegregation audit to be ready by August 1993. At the hearing, the Court once again stressed the importance of the audit and expressed  9 -1 J concern that it would be as late as August before the audit's completion. The Court directed the LRSD to provide the audit as soon as possible to the Court, the LRSD Board of Directors, and the other parties. The Court also directed Mr. Ingram to meet immediately with the Court-appointed Budget Specialist, Mr. Bill Mooney, to discuss information that would expedite audit completion. Again, at a hearing to consider the LRSD budget on August 12, 1993, the Court inquired about the status of the district's desegregation audit. In response. the district offered a memo (Exhibit 164), dated August 3, 1993, documenting that the meeting with Mr. Mooney had taken place. The LRSD also submitted a Desegregation Plan Audit Progress Report (Exhibit 162) which had been presented to the LRSD Board of Directors at its regular monthly meeting on July 22, 1993. The progress report indicates that the audit was not yet complete at the time of the board meeting. Mr. Ingram, whom council identified as the district's lead planner. testified that the plan audit was still not complete as of the hearing date, but that he expected to finalize it soon. This important audit process is taking far too long to conclude and is, thereby, impeding the progress of other critical program and budget planning processes. Superintendent Mac Bernd told the Court on February 1, 1993 that the audit was underway. although later evidence revealed that Dr. Bernd did not even commission the audit until March 1993. Now, almost six months later, the audit still is not complete despite assurances from the district in both July and August 1993 that its conclusion was imminent. Even though the Court -2-recognizes that certain follow-up aspects of the audit will be ongoing, the initial audit must be complete before other aspects of program and budget planning can be developed. During the August 12, 1993 hearing, the Court praised the LRSD for beginning to make planning headway, all the while stressing that the district had only made a beginning and that diligent follow- through and continuous execution would be necessary. The LRSD does not appear to have take that admonition to heart. The Court hereby reguires the district to submit immediately the desegregation audit it has promised for so long. If the audit is still incomplete at this time, then by 5:00 p.m. at the end of the second working day from the date of this Order, the district must file the following: (1) a complete and succinct list of the audit process steps that are complete and those that remain to be completed\n(2) the precise timeline for completing each of those unfinished steps\n(3) the person(s) responsible for each of those steps\nand (4) firm a completion and submission date for the audit. The Court reminds the LRSD that it and the other parties are reguired to provide simultaneously to the Office of Desegregation Monitoring a copy of any submission to the Court. IT IS SO ORDERED this Sth day of September 1993. ^ITED STATES DlSTRICO\nt judge THIS DOCUMENT ENTERED ON DOCKET SHEET IN COMPLIANCE WITH RULE 58 AND/OR 79(a) FRCP -3- ON BY_Vreceived IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT coOfeG 3 ^993 EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION Office of Desegregation Monitoring LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT PLAINTIFF V. LR-C-82-866 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, ET AL DEFENDANTS MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL INTERVENORS KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL INTERVENORS NOTICE OF LRSD BOARD INVOLVEMENT The plaintiff. Little Rock School District (\"LRSD\" or District\"), for its Notice of LRSD Board Involvement, the order of this Court, states: pursuant to 1. On November 16, 1993, an order was issued and filed directing the Board of Directors of the LRSD to file a report outlining how the Board was being involved in the LRSD budgeting process, how the Board was preparing itself to make specific budget decisions, how the Board's approval was being sought and received, and outlining which specific line item budget transfers the Board had approved since the 1993-94 budget was finalized in August, 1993. This filing is intended to be responsive to that order. 2. As an attachment to the order. the Court included excerpts from the transcript of a July 8, 1993 budget hearing. In the order, this Court specifically referred to comments by a Board member that he hoped the Board would know by Christmas 1993 what Irsdpul.notbudget cuts to make in order to address the anticipated deficit for the 1994-95 school year. However, by virtue of the manner in which personal and real property taxes are assessed, collected and paid in the State of Arkansas, and the manner in which Pulaski County administrators notify school districts of the funds which will be available to them from those tax collections, District administrators are not in position to provide the initial a financial forecast until after that information has been obtained from the County administration. assessed and analyzed. The information from the State of Arkansas regarding minimum foundation program aid to the respective Districts will not be available until even later in the 1993-94 school year. It is also necessary to place the referenced comments by the Board member into the proper context. Mainly, by order dated June 15, 1993, this Court required the LRSD to begin the development of a planning process that would be used by the District to develop its 1994-95 budget. Prior to the July 8 hearing, the LRSD had been required to submit certain information responsive to that order. The June 15, 1993, order also required the LRSD to develop a written action plan to demonstrate how it would develop a long- range planning and budget process. That action plan had to be filed on or before June 28, 1993. The action plan was timely filed and the LRSD was in the process of developing a written plan for the long-range planning and budgeting process at the time of the July 8 hearing. The Court had required that written plan to be Iradpul.iKX 2filed by July 30, 1993. Accordingly, at the time of the July 8, 1993, hearing the LRSD had neither developed, analyzed, adopted nor submitted its written plan for the long-range planning and budgeting process to be used in developing the 1994-95 budget. Subsequent to the July 8 hearing, the LRSD continued its efforts to develop a written program planning and budgeting process. 3. In developing the planning and budgeting process, representatives of the LRSD conferred with the budget specialists which had been appointed by the Court to assist the LRSD in budgetary matters. Those conferences took place in early July, 1993. At that time. the LRSD was advised that the budget specialists had reviewed the order of this Court and developed a draft paper detailing how many of the requirements of the order could be satisfied. Working from that draft paper. and in conjunction with the budget specialist, the LRSD developed the program budgeting and planning document eventually filed by it on July 29, 1993 . During hearings on August 12 and 13, 1993, regarding the LRSD budget, the LRSD presented testimony outlining the process used to develop the long-range program planning and budget document. Additional background on this process can be found in the LRSD's 1993-94 First Quarter Status Report filed November 3, 1993. on 4. The program planning and budgeting document filed on July 29 constituted the LRSD's response to the June 15, 1993 order of this Court requiring a detailed written action plan for the Indpul.mM 3long-range planning and budgeting process to be used in developing the 1994-95 budget. That order specifically required the LRSD to \"clearly describe the roles in the planning and budgeting process of the School Board, the superintendent, the superintendent's cabinet, and any other key participants. 11 Prior to the document being filed, the LRSD Board of Directors met on Wednesday, July 28, 1993, for the purpose of assessing, analyzing and adopting the process as developed from the budget specialists' draft paper. 5. Since adopting the program planning and budgeting document, and explaining its workings to this Court during the August 12 and 13 budget hearings, the LRSD has endeavored to utilize that process to develop the 1994-95 budget. In fact. pursuant to the order of this Court, the LRSD has now worked with the Court-appointed budget specialists to identify and purchase software and put in place a project management tool to guide. monitor and control the development and implementation of its planning and budgeting process. The District has filed monthly reports with this Court for the months ending August 31, September 30, October 31 and November 30. To its knowledge, the LRSD is on target with the timelines established in the program planning and budget document as further refined by the project management tool. 6. In assessing Board involvement in the budgetary process, the LRSD would submit that the Board has been involved in accordance with the process outlined in the program planning and budget document as well as in accordance with the refinements made 4 IrtdpuJuK*through the project management tool. Attached hereto as Exhibit 1 is true and accurate copy of a report submitted by the a superintendent of the LRSD on behalf of the Board of Directors. The response attempts to address each guestion posed by this Court as well as provide listing of the Board's activities and involvement in the planning and budgeting process, is incorporated herein by reference. That document 7. Attached hereto as Exhibit 2 is a true and accurate copy of a memorandum reflecting the budget activities which occurred immediately after the July 8, 1993 hearing. As reflected in that memorandum, the Board of Directors met at 7:00 a.m. on Friday, July 9, 1993, for purposes of providing the administration with a direction and guidance for budgetary revisions to be presented by the administration to the Board. That document is also incorporated herein by reference. 8. Attached hereto as Exhibit 3 is a true and accurate copy of a memorandum to the LRSD Board of Directors dated July 28, 1993, giving notice of certain matters regarding the budgetary process. This memorandum is incorporated herein by reference. Of significance to this filing. please note that in the second paragraph, it is reported that the LRSD Board of Directors decided to meet each Thursday during the month of July for purposes of budgetary matters. This is merely illustrative of the commitment this Board has demonstrated during the budgetary process. In fact. the Board has continued to devote a substantial number of hours to the District and its operation. lndpul.oo( 59. It is anticipated that the Board of Directors will continue to be involved in the budgetary process as outlined in the program training and budget document, the project management tool and as circumstances otherwise permit or require. Respectfully submitted, FRIDAY, ELDREDGE \u0026amp; CLARK 2000 First Commercial Bldg. 400 West Capitol Street Little Rock, AR 72201 (501) 376-2011 Attorneys for Plaintiff LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT By: Jerry L. Malone Bar ID No. 85096 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I certify that a copy of the foregoing Notice of LRSD Board Involvement has been served on the following people by depositing copy of same in the United States mail on this 3^ day of December, 1993. --- Jerry L. Malone 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 Irsdpul.not 6 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 (hand delivered) Desegregation Monitor Heritage West Bldg., Suite 510 201 East Markham Street Little Rock, AR 72201 Jerry L. Malone IradpuJ.oM 7 LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 810 WEST MARKHAM STREET LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS November 30, 1993 TO: Jerry L^J^lnne FROM\n1. tarns, perintendeni SUBJECT: Response to Recent Court Order The Board of Directors remains committed to quality implementation of the Court- approved Desegregation Plans, Monitoring Reports, and other Court Orders which include our July 30, 1993, filing. The July 30, 1993, filing presented the districts long- range planning and budgeting process. The Board thoroughly reviewed and examined this document prior to the filing. District staff were questioned extensively by Board mernbers to ensure staff had outlined a planning and budgeting process that would the Board to be involved on ........ .................................... an allow ongoing basis in developing the 1994-95 budget, as well as future district budgets. The document was basically an adoption of a process suggested by Bill Mooney, the Court-appointed budget specialist. Questions Posed by the Court 1. 2. Report on how the Board is being more involved in the budget process. The Board is following the process as adopted in the July 30, 1993, Court filing (see Attachment A for specific activities). Report on how the Board is preparing itself to make specific budget decisions. Board members have requested specific reports and information from the Superintendent and staff in order to stay fully informed and involved. A special report is to be provided during our December Board meeting. Staff has been asked to review the planning and budgeting process that is outlined in the July 30, 1993, filing (see specific activities in Attachment A).Response to Recent Court Order Page 2 3. 4. Report on how the Boards approval is being sought and received. The Superintendent keeps the Board informed of all major activities that have implications for the existing budget and the projected 1994-95 budget. The Superintendent and Board President either meet or confer on a regular basis to address desegregation and budgetary issues, as well as the routine day-to-day activities of the district. Staff provide assistance and information to various Board members through routine written and/or oral requests. Identify which specific line item budget transfers the Board has approved since the 1993-94 budget was finalized in August, 1993. Three specific line item budget transfers will be considered for approval by the Board during a special meeting on December 2, 1993. Business cases have been developed for review and approval by the Board to allow the budget transfers for the following programs to be implemented: Program/Project Amount Transferred Truancy Reduction Program Special Assistant to the Superintendent Garland Multimedia Technology Theme - $ 58,943.00 $ 60,000.00 Phase One S 75,000.00 These programs will be funded as follows: Truancy Reduction Program: The police resource officer program was not fully implemented. The projected increase in students attendance will have a positive impact on funds received by the district from the state through an increase of student average daily membership. (Students will benefit academically and socially by attending school on a regular basis.)Response to Recent Court Order Page 3 Special Assistant to the Superintendent: Funds currently budgeted for positions not filled will be used pay for this position. A projected increase in federal funds to the district will pay the future salary of this employee. Indirect costs generated by the acquisition of federal funds should allow the district to expand the grant writing team. Garland Incentive School Multimedia Technology Theme: Garlands staff has been advised to develop a proposal for the expansion of this project that can be presented during the budgeting process for the 1994-95 school year. Funds were generated from a one-time only carryover, plus existing funds in Garlands incentive school budget. Future phases of this program will follow the process outlined in the July 30, 1993, filing to the Court. The Board remains committed to living up to its obligations as identified in the planning and budgeting document.LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT BOARD OF DIRECTORS PROGRAM PLANNING AND BUDGETING PROCESS DATE July 8, 1993 7 a.m. July 27, 1993 ______ activities/INVOLVEMENT Discussed with Cabinet, Bob Morgan and Bill Mooney (Office of Desegregation Monitoring) in order to givedirections to staff for reduction of three million dollars from 1993-94 budget. Designated the lead planner from Planning Research, and Evaluation ' Discussed/reviewed approved July 30 uxscusseu/reviewed approved July 30, 1993, Court submission and \"Program Planning and Budget Document, II including the budget calendar RESPONSIBILITY Board of Directors Board of Directors Board of Directors August, 1993 Appointed two Board members to participate in work sessions to establish Mission Statement and tentative goals I Dorsey Jackson August 31, 1993 Participated in the work session Board of Directors Developed Mission Statement and tentative goals Dorsey Jackson/ Katherine Mitchell September 9, 1993 Participated in work session - Board Agenda Approved Mission Statement/tentative Meeting. Board of Directors goals.  Reviewed: issues related to needs assessment Desegregation Program Inventory Report Mission Statement/Goals Established guidelines for determining written priorities for the annual budget (1994-95)  Reviewed and provided guidance related to proportional allocation formulaLittle Rock School District Board of Directors Program Planning and Budgeting Process Page 2 September 9, 1993 cont'd Considered strategies for funding shortfall  Identified/approved program for \"fast track evaluation\" Provided input regarding public forums September 15, 1993 September 23, 1993 November 18, 1993 October 11 October 26 November 10 November 16 November 30 Participated in planning and budgeting activities: support I Little Rock School District/City of Little Collaborative Effort Rock Raised issues/gave additional direction to staff regarding Desegregation Update (School Operations section of Program Budget Document) to staff Raised issues regarding the resolution of financihq projects with Office of Deseoreaation Mnniiny-inrr and district staff of Desegregation Monitoring Raised issues regarding a comparison of staffing and staffing patterns for 1992-93 and (numbers, costs) 1993-94 Requested a report for our December 17, meeting on the projections for the as well as deficit shortfalls 1993, Board 1994-95 budget, Requested a review of the Budget Planning Document for December 17, 1993 Board Meeting Attended Public Forums: Cloverdale Elementary School Parkview Magnet High School Bale Elementary School Forest Heights Jr. High School Rockefeller Incentive School I Board of Directors John Riggs Katherine Mitchell Bill Hamilton Board of Directors T. Kevin O'Malley Pat Gee Dorsey Jackson John Riggs John Riggs Board of Directors ITo: From: Subj ect: Date: Little Rock School District 810 West Markham Street Little Rock, AR Board of Directors 72201 'Estelle Matthis, Interim Superintendent LRSD 1993-94 Budget Revisions July 22, 1993 Thursday, July 8, 1993, the United State District Court, instructed the Little Rock School District to revisit the 93-94 LRSD Budget to consider further reductions through adjustments to recurring expenditure budgetary items. The District was also advised to reductions through adjustments to if any. The District was also advised to consider reducing the reliance, if any, placed on non-recurring revenue sources used to achieve the balanced budget submitted to the court by the LRSD. Prior to the Court adjourning on Thursday, July 8, a rccccc was taken to allow all of the parties, in consultation with the Office of Desegregation Monitoring, to meet and confer regarding a schedule for considering and making the requested budget revisions. A timetable was discussed and agreed upon whereby the LRSD (in consultation with representatives from the O.D.M.) could make the necessary budget review and revisions, if any, obtain LRSD final Board members actions and file any revised document with the court by 6 p.m. on Monday, August 2, 1993. a recess was any Hearings on the LRSD budget were set to resume on August 12-13, 1993. announced Still under the impression that the court would meet regarding the LRSD budget on Friday, July 9, as had been previously announced, the LRSD Board of Directors, administrators and representatives of O.D.M. agreed to begin their meetings on Monday, July 12, 1993, at 7 a.m. Upon returning from the recess, the court was advised of the schedule which had been agreed upon by the parties and O.D.M. In consideration of that schedule, the court, thereupon, announced that the hearings which had previously been set for Friday, July 9 would be canceled. Acpordingly, the parties and O.D.M. agreed that the meetings between and among them would begin on Friday, On Friday, July 9, 1993, the Board of Directors met with me and other administrators to provide direction and guidance for the additional budgetary revisions to be presented to It by the administration. Also in attendance were Mr. Bill Mooney, Court-appointed budget specialist for the LRSD, and Mr. Bob Morgan, with the Office of Desegregation Monitoring. July 9 at 7 a.m. \u0026lt;2.Board of Directors July 22, 1993 Page 2 with the advice and input of representatives from O.D.M. ----------------------------- v^.r^.ri., the LRSD Board of Directors instructed the administration of the LRSD to consider ways to reduce or eliminate, if possible, the LRSD's need to rely upon the proceeds from the desegregation loan (a recurring revenue source) in the 1993-94 budget. To accomplish this, the Board directed the administration to consider approaching Rock Classroom Teachers Association regarding the possibility of a one percent salary roll back during the 93-94 The administration was also directed to consider whether across-the-board cuts could be made in the areas of materials/services/supplies (i.e. four percent or less). Other the Little school year. could made four percent or less), areas to be considered were identified as follows: - Abacus Program - Staffing Efficiency - Ish Closing - Reinstatements non- Following the two-hour meeting with the Board of Directors, administrators held various other meetings during the day to consider the LRSD budget and various other desegregation related , Particularly, Sterling Ingram and LRSD attorney, Jerry Malone, met with Bill Mooney regarding the LRSD desegregation plan (On Thursday, July 8, the court directed Mr. Ingram and Mr. Jerry Malone to meet with Mr. Mooney to provide a status update From the meeting, it was apparent that Mr. Ingram and Mr. Mooney had already reached agreement on various matters relating to the program inventory needed for proper implementation, evaluation, and monitoring of the desegregation plan process. The program inventory will also play a critical roll in the development of the LRSD budgetary process in accordance with the process outlined in the June 15, 1993 order. issues. audit. regarding the audit.) Board General consensus was reached regarding the purposes to be achieved through the audit procedure developed by Mr. Ingram to accomplish those Ingram reported that inquiries have gone out to the purposes. various program managers to establish the status of implementation on the various program elements. This information is now being returned and compiled by the Office of Planning and Evaluation. On Thursday, July 8, ,1993, the court suggested that the LRSD , uLixy o, uiie court suggesrea mat the LRSD now has an opportunity to consider ways to become more efficient in its staffing and, thereby, achieve significant cost savings. Board also the administration to consider staffing efficiency as an element in the budgetary review process. In accordance with those instructions, on Friday, July 9, 1993, the LRSD administrators (along with Bill Mooney) met to finalize the plans which were already in process to fill the Human Resources Director position. directed to The LRSD 1993, the I also announced other efforts being made to ensure that a greater staffing efficiency is achieved during theBoard of Directors July 22, 1993 Page 3 93-94 school year. . - Particularly, I have enlisted the services of Victor Anderson, principal of Hall High School, to address staffing issues at the secondary level, an expertise in this area. Dr. Dr. Anderson has exhibited Brady Gadberry, our current Human Resources/Labor Director, will continue his efforts to obtain the current Relations continue his efforts to obtain maximum benefit from transfers, reassignments, and new hire process. Your were to make every effort to staff based on This will be particularly critical in meeting the s affing needs of the new King Interdistrict Magnet School. Hopefully, this process will become somewhat instructions enrollment. 4.-  , - , , --------- ---more clear now that District knows that Ish Incentive School will be closed during trie 93-Qd cnbnnl mu-\u0026gt;4- ______t j ____ ___ _ _ _ the 93-94 school year. process. That could play an important roll in this Later on Friday, July 9, Mr. Malone and I met with Mrs. in the Office of Desegregation Monitoring. i:__ in agreement that the LRSD could not and would Ann Brown Mrs. Brown and I were 1 could not and would not seek to delay Its efforts regarding the Desegregation Plan during the interim I Superintendent. In fact, due to my long-term tenure with the LRSD and my administrative background with the District . . obtain the level of team support necessary to implement the process for opening schools. In addition, my familiarity with the Desegregation Plan, will serve to ensure that no loss of momentum occurs. Mrs. Brown and I also discussed matters such as: - Incentive Schools - Staff Organization - Attendance Zones - Position Control - Magnet Schools - Staff Development - Curriculum - Monitoring/Reporting Procedures ' 1553, I convened the LRSD Council to continue revision process. I gave instructions to those in assigned tasks to be accomplished in accordance with the schedule imposed by agreement of the parties and O.D.M. process. Based on the foregoing, it appears that we consider whether any further budget reductions\nthat we are on target to ensure that a revised document, along with any necessary business it are on target to It also appears that are possible for the cases, willBoard of Directors July 22, 1993 Page 4. be filed by Monday, August 2, 1993. Since being appointed Interim, I have also held conferences with various program managers, Directors, and other administrators including, not limited to. Director of Plant Services Procurement Directors, Associate Superintendent for Desegregation' Desegregation Facilitator, Director of Planning, Research, ' Evaluation, Director of Transportation, I__ Director of Human Resources/Labor Relations\" u..i We all understand the immediate, critical needs of the District and are working together to move us forward. I have also had a meeting with representatives of the LRCTA and the Joshua Intervenors. Services, Controller. but Director Director Plant of Planning, \u0026amp; Director of Information and LRSD I have also initial principals' meeting was held on Monday, July 19, ___ Attached you will find an agenda from that meeting. We are off to a good start. 1993. On Wednesday, July 21, 1993, an extended work session was held for the purpose of further refining the elementary school staffing needs for 1993-94. We are hooeful that thp nmrpqq n-i-i i i i i result resources. available. We ere hopeful that the process utilized will  efficiency and utilization of our limited More information will be provided as it becomes in greater of as c: Sterling Ingram Mark Milhollen Marie Parker Brady Gadberry Chris Heller Fred Ursery Jerry L. MaloneTo: From: Subject: Date: Little Rock School District Attorney Little Rock School District 810 West Markham Street Little Rock, AR 72201 Little Rock School Board of Directors Jerry L. Malone, LRSD Attorney Little Rock School District vs. Pulaski County Special School District, et al. July 28, 1993 This memo is to notify you that the hearings before Judge Susan Wright regarding the 1993-94 LRSD budget was recessed on Thursday, July 8, 1993. Pursuant to the agreement reached and accepted by the Court, the hearing will resume on Thursday, August 12, 1993 and Friday, August 13, 1993. calendars. Please place these dates on your If anyone has a conflict with these dates, we must know immediately so that requests can be made for excused absences. Judge Wright has given word that she will no longer tolerate untimely requests to be excused. A' ccordingly, i' t is my request that each of you give immediate consideration to this matter. As instructed by the Court, a meeting was held with board members and the Office of Desegregation Monitoring on Friday, July 9, 1993. The meeting opened at approximately administration building. 7:00 a.m. at the LRSD As a result of the time constraints within which we are working, the board members decided to meet each Thursday for the rest of this month. Accordingly, the Board will meet at 5:00 p.m. on Thursday, July 15\nThursday, July 22\nand Thursday, July 29. The Court has indicated that although the budget for 93-94 is balanced on paper, she fears that the use of non-recurring revenue sources (i.e., the desegregation settlement loan, desegregation settlement proceeds, transfers and other funds, etc.) to cover recurring expenditures (i.e., teacher's salaries, utilities, etc.) will create an iimmppoossssiibbllee situation when the 94-95 budget is prepared. Pursuant to the board's instructions, the administration is now pursuing various options to present to the Board. The Court has instructed the LRSD to file a revised budget by Monday, August 2, 1993. It is imperative that this deadline be met, as the Court has indicated that no variance whatsoever will be allowed. To meet this schedule, it is our hope that final board action can occur on Wednesday, July 28, 1993 . Should there be no drastic changes from the proposals as submitted by the administration to Board of Directors July 28, 1993 Page 2 the Board, we are hopeful that the necessary revisions and updates can be made to allow the budget to be timely filed on August 2. Judge Wright indicated that she is pleased that the District has begun using business cases. Although we have submitted business those cases for the budget documents currently before the Court, iluse business cases may or may not support the revised budget document to be filed on August 2. Accordingly, it is my request that the administration review the business cases already submitted and provide appropriate revised business cases or new business cases to support the recommendations to be made to you. *      Again, please review your schedules to determine whether the August 12 and 13 hearing dates pose a conflict. If so, please notify me immediately. Should any conflicts arise later, each of you must notify us immediately so that a determination can be made whether Should later to request an excused absence from the Court. Please recall that Judge Wright has become very impatient with what she perceives an efforts to flaunt the authority of the Court in attendance requirement. imposing the Let's make an effort to establish a tract record of cooperation and good-faith attention to the requirements of the Court-approved desegregation plan. By doing so, we will be able to develop a factual trail to overcome the conclusory statements placed on record regarding receivership.Board of Directors July 28, 1993 Page 3 Thank each of you for your kind attention Hopefully, future correspondence will not be to this remember that Z am a lawyer.) as verbose. matter. (However, JLM:nr Mrs. Estelle Matthis Mr. Sterling Ingram Mrs. Marie Parker Mr. Doug Eaton Mr. Brady Gadberry Mr. Mark Milhollen c:cews O'lhts o' OeseQ'\"\"- IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT vs. No. LR-C-82-866 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT No. 1, ET AL DEFENDANTS MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL INTERVENORS KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL INTERVENORS ORDER Informational hearings on the Little Rock School District (\"LRSD\") budgeting process are hereby scheduled to begin at 9:00 a.m. on each of the following dates: February 25, 1994\nApril 6 and 7, 1994\nand May 25 and 26, 1994. These hearing dates coincide I I J with the schedule embodied in the LRSD's latest Project Management Tool filed November 30, 1993. Members of the LRSD Board of Directors are required to attend the hearings. Subsequent orders pertaining to the information required for each hearing may follow. IT IS SO ORDERED this day of December 1993. NITED STATES JUDGE 'HiS DOCI n -'OMPLIANf nr' CM CCCXuT SHEET IN B'/ n :D/OR 7S(a) F.'iCP IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT No. LR-C-82-866 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT No. 1, ET AL MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL ORDER rled'OUfiT 'fiKANSAS By: plaintiff'^ DEFENDANTS INTERVENORS INTERVENORS On motion of the Little Rock School District (LRSD), and without objection from any of the parties to this action, the time in which the LRSD must file its proposed 1994-95 budget is hereby extended to and including April 15, 1994. The hearings on the W4R 1 8 J594 vs. budget originally scheduled for April 6-7, 1994, will be continued to a date after April 15, 1994. The Court will reschedule these hearings by separate order. IT IS SO ORDERED this 18th day of March 1994. UNITED SPATES 'DISTRICT .JUDGE FHIS DOCUMENT ENTEAED ON DOCKET SHEET IN COMPLIANCE WITH RULE 50 AND/OR 79(a) FRCP ON BY 1/1 tr- 1 -Xw-fe. V J MP?r2:-\u0026gt;9'4 MON 9:36 SUSAN W WRIGHT FAX NO. 5013246576 P.Ol IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT C' eastern DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION COURT t, Hi 1 f. } LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT vs. J./ 'PLAINTIFF NO. LR-C-82-866 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL district no. 1, et al. SCHOOL MRS. DEFENDANTS LORENE JOSHUA, et al. KATHERINE W. KNIGHT, et al. INTERVENORS INTERVENORS notion TO EXTEND TIME AND,TO RESCHEDULE HEARING For its motion, the Little Rock School District 1. (LRSD) states: The court has established deadlines which a schedule of hearings and development corresponds with key dates in LRSD-s budget process. LRSD is budget to the presently scheduled to submit a Court on March 24, IS scheduled for April 6-7, 1994 and a hearing on the budget 2. Several 1994. important components of LRSD's uncertain at this time for budget are various reasons. in the process of For example, LRSD is with the Little negotiating a professional negotiations agreement Rock Classroom Teachers reluctant to Association and is the project a budget for teachers' salaries thia early in negotiating process. - LRSD is also in the determining process of whether to outsource certain Finally, LRSD support functions. expenses. is continuing to look for ways to reduce its On the revenue side of the budget. funding and the amount the method of state LRSD will likely receive under a new fundingi M??-21-P4 HON 9:37 SUSAN M WRIGHT fomiula remains uncertain. time within which to FAX NO, 5013246576 LRSD must therefore present to the court budget for the 1994-95 school year. 3. LRSD must make decisions certified personnel P. 02 request additional a Complete and balanced concerning the contracts of no later than May 1, 1994. the court sufficient time to In order to provide ot that date, lrsd requests an extension review its proposed budget in advance it must submit its of the time within which proposed budget to and including April lrsd also 15, 1994. be rescheduled to requests that the hearings scheduled for April 6-7, 1994 a date after April 15, I994. 4. counsel for PCSSD, NLRSD, the Joshua Intervenors Knight Intervenors have been they do not oppose it. contacted and the concerning this motion and WHEREFORE, for the order extending the time reasons set forth above, LRSD prays for an within which it must 1994-95 budget to and including April 15, file its proposed hearing on the 1994 and rescheduling the proposed budget to a date after April 15, 1994 . Respectfully submitted, LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT FRIDAY, ELDREDGE \u0026amp; CLARK 2000 First Commercial Bldg 400 West Capitol Street Little Rocky AR 72201 Christofer Heli Bar No. 81083 2MAR-23-94 WED 9:14 SUSAN W WRIGHT FAX NO, 5013246576 us DISTRICT COURT eastern district ARKANSAS MAR 2 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT m,cqRMACK,CLERK EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS JAMES WESTERN DIVISION By:, LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT PLAINTIFF vs. No. LR-C-82-866 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT No. 1, ET AL DEFENDANTS MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL INTERVENORS KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL INTERVENORS ORDER The hearings previously scheduled for April 6 and 7, review the Little Rock School District (LRSD) proposed 1994 to 1994-95 budget are hereby rescheduled to begin at 9.00 a.m. on Friday, April 22, 1994. By April 15, 1994, the LRSD must submit to the Court and the Office of Desegregation Monitoring the district's proposed 1994-95 budget, along with business cases for programmatic additions, deletions, or modifications that are reflected in the budget. The district must also identify each major budget adjustment, including projected revenue increases, projected revenue reductions. and proposed deficit reduction measures. Each deficit reduction Strategy must be accompanied by a rationale for the assumptions underlying it, as well as the steps and timelines the district will follow in implementing the strategy. IT IS SO ORDERED this 22nd day of March 1994. 'ATES .-4/^ CT JUDGE RECEIVED IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION APR 1 5 1994 Office ol 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 KNIGHT, ET AL INTERVENORS LRSD 1994-95 BUDGET STATUS REPORT The Plaintiff, Little Rock School District (\"LRSD\" or \"District\"), for its LRSD 1994-95 Budget Status Report, pursuant to the order of this Court, states: 1. The LRSD, pursuant to the order of this Court, developed and adopted a program, planning and budgeting process to guide the development of the District's 1994-95 budget. Also in accordance with the orders of this Court, the LRSD developed and adopted a Project Management Tool process to set out the respective tasks necessary to develop a budget and impose timelines on those persons responsible for the various tasks identified. Both the comprehensive budgeting process and the management tool process were developed and implemented at or near the beginning of the 1993-94 school year. The LRSD has been operating in accordance with both the planning document as well as the management tool throughout this 1993-94 school year. Further, the LRSD has provided the Court with quarterly status reports as well as monthly management tool reports.LRSD 1994-95 Budget Status Report April 15, 1994 Page 2 2. The Program Budget and Planning Document came into being as outlined in the LRSD's 1993-94 First Quarter Status Report filed herein on November 3, 1993. That filing is incorporated herein by reference. Further, the Notice of LRSD Board Involvement, filed on December 3, 1993, touches and concerns this development. It too is incorporated herein by reference. 3. The LRSD submitted project management tools, as ordered by the Court, for the months ending August 31, 1993, and September 30, 1993. However, beginning with the Project Management Tool filed on October 29, 1993, the LRSD used a format which more closely resembled the format desired by the Court. For each month thereafter, the LRSD has submitted its Project Management Tool to the Court. The tool, among other things, identified the various tasks necessary to plan, prepare and present a budget on behalf of the LRSD. The tool also identified the responsible persons for the various tasks. the percentages of completion and the proposed completion dates. Recognizing the newness of this effort to it, the LRSD placed the Court and the parties on notice that it would continue to fine-tune the process so that the monthly reports would become more accurate, timely and informative. 4. Among the many categories of tasks to be completed was that of \"Budgeting. Beginning with the Project Management Tool filed on November 30, 1993, the budgeting category of the tool outlined those steps necessary to build the budget document theLRSD 1994-95 Budget Status Report April 15, 1994 Page 3 District is obligated to submit to the State of Arkansas. As indicated by the November filing, the proposed budget would be submitted to the Board of Directors of the District on March 24, 1994, revisions would be made, the budget would be submitted to the Board for adoption at its July 28, 1994, meeting and would be submitted to the State of Arkansas on or before August 26, 1994. The time frame outlined was developed based upon the District's knowledge and awareness of the infonnation and steps necessary to arrive at the various components of the budget as well as in recognition of the time when various pieces of information become available to it. For instance. certain steps and procedures necessary submitted before a final balanced budget can be prepared and are not determined until accounts can be reconciled. certain information is received from the State of Arkansas, accounts properly closed out and an ending fund balance determined. 5. The District continued to refine and revise dates it found to be out of sync with the facts and circumstances as they were being developed or less reliable based upon knowledge acquired through the planning and development process. However, the projections regarding the submission of a proposed budget to the Board, the revision process. Board adoption and submission to the State remained in tact. This is so for the Project Management Tools filed on December 28, 1993, January 31, 1994, February 28, 1994, and March 31, 1994. Based on reasonable information and belief, theLRSD 1994-95 Budget Status Report April 15, 1994 Page 4 LRSD has remained on schedule as reflected in those documents. 6. The Project Management Tools, as suggested by and developed with the assistance of the Court-appointed Budget Specialist, has consistently contained the District's best estimates of when the various tasks and activities outlined would occur. However, realizing that the District had embarked upon a process vastly different from and more expansive than the process that had been used by the District in prior years, the LRSD continued to notify the Court, as matters became more apparent to it, when and where refinements to the process had to be made. As evident from the recitals above, the critical tasks in the budgeting component remained as established in November, 1993. 7. The LRSD submits that it is still on schedule to present the final budget to the Board of Directors for adoption by the July Board meeting and to submit a balanced budget to the State of Arkansas by August 26, 1994. However, as evident from the Project Management Tool filed on March 31, 1994, the LRSD has further defined those constraints (both internal and external) with which the District is faced and which must be overcome in order for the District to meet these goals. In particular, the Court will note that the tasks between ID #193 and ID #220 of the March \"tool\" contain greater detail on the items which must come together prior to completion of the process. Notwithstanding, this expanded list is not fully exhaustive of those tasks which must be undertaken andLRSD 1994-95 Budget Status Report April 15, 1994 Page 5 completed. Rather, they represent most. if not all, of the substantive events along the way. 8. On March 24, 1994, the LRSD administration submitted to its Board of Directors the proposed annual budget for the 1994-95 school year. Attached hereto as Exhibit 1 is a true and accurate copy of that budget. Similar to the 1993-94 budget filed herein on December 17, 1993, this budget reflects the financial structure of the LRSD by school and department and shows detail through function codes. object codes and FTE's. The document also reflects the actual revenues and expenditures for 1990-91, 1991-92 and 1992-93. It also includes the projected budget for 1993-94 and the proposed budget for 1994-95. The Board conducted a work session on this document on March 29, 1994. 9. Under Tab 2 of Exhibit 1, a budget summary appears which identifies proposed revenues and expenditures for the 1994-95 school year. Based upon the proposals identified, the District would experience a deficit in the amount of $7,099,292 at year end. 10. By order dated March 22, 1994, entered on March 23, 1994, this Court directed the LRSD to submit its proposed 1994-95 budget by April 15, 1994. Exhibit 1 is submitted in compliance with that directive. 11. The Order also required the District to make additional submissions. Attached hereto as Exhibit 2 is a true and accurate copy of a Court submission dated April 15, 1994, which contains theLRSD 1994-95 Budget Status Report April 15, 1994 Page 6 required business cases for programmatic additions, deletions or modifications reflected in the proposed budget, a schedule of major budget adjustments (including projected revenue increases, projected revenue reductions and proposed deficit reduction measures). Further, the document contains various appendices which provide the rationale for the assumptions underlying each deficit reduction strategy and the steps and timelines the District will follow in implementing the various strategies. Both Exhibits 1 and 2 are incorporated herein by reference as fully as if set out word-for- word herein. 12. The budget summary contained under Tab 2 of Exhibit 1 is repeated on pages 204-205 of Exhibit 2. Although a deficit is reflected, the LRSD hastens to point out that the proposed deficit reduction measures identified on page 208 of Exhibit 2 exceed the proposed deficit contained in the budget summary. Accordingly, full implementation of the proposed deficit reduction measures causes the deficit to be eliminated and a positive ending fund balance to be realized. Given the foregoing, the LRSD provides the documents and information submitted herewith in accordance with the directives imposed upon it by the Court to this date. The LRSD is continuing its pace to ensure that the timelines identified by it through the project management tools are maintained. In fact, the Board of Directors continued to guide and direct the budget developmentLRSD 1994-95 Budget Status Report April 15, 1994 Page 7 process through a special Board meeting on Thursday, April 14, 1994. WHEREFORE, the Little Rock School District does hereby submit this filing in accordance with the order of this Court\nit prays that it be granted any and all legal and proper relief to which it may be entitled either now or as influenced by future circumstances. FRIDAY, ELDREDGE \u0026amp; CLARK ATTORNEYS AT LAW 2000 First Commercial Building 400 West Capitol Little Rock, Arkansas 72201-3493 (501) 376-2011 ATTORNEYS FOR PLAINTIFF LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT Jerry L. Malone Bar No. I. D. 85096CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I, Jerry L. Malone, do hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing LRSD 1994-95 Budget Status Report has been mailed by First Class Mail, postage pre-paid on April 15, 1994, upon the following, except as othervise indicated: Mr. John W. Walker John Walker, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72206 Mr. Sam Jones Wright, Lindsey \u0026amp; Jennings 2200 Worthen Bank Building 200 West Capitol Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Steve Jones Jack, Lyon \u0026amp; Jones, P.A. 3400 Capitol Towers Capitol \u0026amp; Broadway Streets Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Richard Roachell First Federal Plaza 401 West Capitol Avenue, Suite Little Rock, AR 504 72201 Mrs. Ann Brown (Hand-delivered pursuant to the order of the Court) Heritage West Building, Suite 520 201 East Markham Street Little Rock, AR 72201 Jerry L. Malone LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 4 PROPOSED ANNUAL BUDGET 1994 - 1995 DRAFT 1 MARCH 24, 1994 I. II. III. IV. V. VI. VII. TABLE OF CONTENTS EXECUTIVE SUMMARY budget summary line item summary (Object) PROGRAM SUMMARY BUDGET (Function) program budget (Object Within Functions) DEPARTMENT BUDGET DESEGREGATION X c Vi c 2 2LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT u COURT SUBMISSION April 15, 1994 TABLE OF CONTENTS Item Page No, Executive Summary 1 Review Process For Program Development 2 Business Cases: Category I - Incentive Schools 4 Franklin Incentive School Communications Technology Theme Franklin Incentive School Spanish Program Implementation Rockefeller Incentive School Alternative Room Specialist Rockefeller Incentive School Spanish Instruction Rockefeller Incentive School Computer Science Theme Rightsell Incentive School Spanish Instruction Rightsell Incentive School Career Awareness and Mass Media Theme Mitchell Incentive School Foreign Language Program (Spanish Teacher) Garland Incentive School Multimedia Technology and Educational Research Garland Incentive School Multimedia Technology Theme - Phase II Stephens Incentive School Spanish Teacher 6 16 22 25 30 43 46 60 64 70 80 Business Cases: Category II - Desegregation Plan/ADE 82 English As A Second Language (ESL) Program Language Arts and Mathematics Applied Biology and Chemistry Science Cumcuium Revision Foreign Language Program Science Program 84 97 106 113 118 126 Business Cases: Category III - Related Desegregation/ADE 134 Science, Mathematics, and Reading: Statewide Systemic Initiative Foreign Language K-12 Curriculum Articulation Social Studies Department Secretarial Position Romine Interdistrict School Theme Specialist Incentive School Immersion Spanish Program - First Grade Pilot Project Executive Assistant for the Associate Superintendent for Desegregation Student Assignment Office Reorganization 136 144 150 156 160 165 174 1990-95 Revenue and Expenditure Projection (Draft 1) 204 Schedule of Major Budget Adjustments 206 Proposed Deficit Reduction Measures 208 Appendix A Appendix B Appendix C Appendix D Appendix E Appendix F 209 210 211 212 213 214-f./tj /i'n FILED K. IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURTg^g^gjfifJ^A^jTS^^^ EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION MAY 1 8 1994 JAMES W. MCCORMACK. CLERK Cy. LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT DEP CLERK PLAINTIFF VS. No. LR-C-82-866 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, ET AL DEFENDANTS MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL INTERVENORS KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL INTERVENORS LRSD^S 1994-95 BUDGET PRE-HEARING FILING The Little Rock School District (\"LRSD\" or \"District\"), for its 1994-95 Budget Pre-Hearing Filing, states: 1. By Order dated May 9, 1994, this Court required the LRSD to submit all written information and exhibits (including business cases) which the LRSD expects to discuss at the hearing set by this Court for May 25, 1994 (to be continued on May 26, 1994, if necessary). 2. Attached hereto as Attachment 1 is a true and accurate copy of the 1994-95 budget information required by Order of this Court. 3. The information submitted herein reflects the LRSD's progress toward meeting its desegregation obligations through the Program Planning and Budgeting Process developed with the assistance of the Court-appointed Budget Specialist.LRSD'S 1994-95 BUDGET PRE-HEARING FILING May 18, 1994 Page 2 WHEREFORE, the Little Rock School District sxibmits its 1994-95 Budget Pre-Hearing Filing in accordance with the Order of this Court and prays that it be awarded any and all legal and equitable relief to which it may be entitled. Respectfully Submitted, FRIDAY, ELDREDGE \u0026amp; CLARK ATTORNEYS AT LAW 2000 First Commercial Building 400 West Capitol Little Rock, Arkansas 72201-3493 (501) 376-2011 ATTORNEYS FOR PLAINTIFF LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT L. Malone Bar No. I. D. 85096 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I, Jerry L. Malone, do hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing LRSD's 1994-95 Budget Pre-Hearing Filing has been mailed by First Class Mail, postage pre-paid on May 18, 1994, upon the following, except as otherwise indicated: Mr. John W. Walker John Walker, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72206 Mr. Sam Jones Wright, Lindsey \u0026amp; Jennings 2200 Worthen Bank Building 200 West Capitol Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Steve Jones Jack, Lyon \u0026amp; Jones, P.A. 3400 Capitol Towers Capitol \u0026amp; Broadway Streets Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Richard Roachell First Federal Plaza 401 West Capitol Avenue, Suite 504 Little Rock, AR 72201 Mrs. Ann Brown (Hand-delivered pursuant to the order of the Court) Heritage West Building, Suite 520 201 East Markham Street Little Rock, AR 72201 Jerry L. Malone IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION FILED COURT eastern district ARKANSAS JW I 0 1594 JAMES By.-. 5W.McGURMACK,CLERK AZ-v  OCP ClRK LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT PLAINTIFF vs. No, LR-C-82-866 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT No. 1, ET AL DEFENDANTS MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL INTERVENORS KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL INTERVENORS ORDER The Court has previously scheduled hearings on June 28 and 29, 1994 to review the progress of the Little Rock School District's (LRSD) 1994-95 budget development process. Listed below is the information which the Court will review at that time. The parties must submit all requested information. along with any other submissions they expect to introduce during the hearing, to the Court and the Office of Desegregation Monitoring (ODM) by the end of the workday on Monday June 20, 1994. 1, Latest revision of the projected LRSD 1994-95 budget. including revenues and expenditures by department and line item category. 1993-94 budgeted expenses. and projected year-end actual 1993-94 expenses. 2. Identification of any budget revisions, which have been made since the last Court submission, that the district has based upon subsequent re-examination of projected enrollment, the employee Reduction In Force, the early retirement program. ? 2 2 16transportation outsourcing, and school closings. 3 . Updates on the status of specific budget-balancing measures which the district has previously identified in submitted documents, such as the Early Retirement Program, salary freezes, use of settlement loan monies, etc. 4. Status of employee salary negotiations and Reduction In Force. 5. Identification and explanation of any new budget-balancing measures introduced since the last submissions. The explanation must include a rationale for the assumptions underlying the measure, as well as the steps and timelines the district will follow in implementing it. 6. Revised five year revenue and spending projections and anticipated budget balances or deficits by each of the next five fiscal years. 7 . Any new business cases or revisions of earlier business cases for anticipated changes, additions, or deletions in programs, operations, or staffing. The business cases must clearly show the budget impact including department. function, and object assignment. 8 . Update on the timeline for budgeting decisions and actions. The timeline must reflect the July 1994 hearing dates and deadlines for submitting the final budget to the school board, the parties, the Court, and the Arkansas Department of Education. Additionally by the same date, the district must provide the -2-following information which is listed in the LRSD May 31, 1994 Project Management Tool, and which comprise tasks which will have been completed by June 20, 1994: 1. Copy of the Facilities Study (per Tasks 62-66 of the May 31, 1994 Project Management Tool). 2 . Copy of the completed Needs Assessment listing (per Task 77 of the May 31, 1994 Project Management Tool). 3 . Copy of the Program Inventory Report for 1993-1994 (per Task 97 of the May 31, 1994 Project Management Tool). 4. A list of the Desegregation and Non-Desegregation related programs (as shown in the Third Quarter Program Budget Document) which were actually evaluated, annotating those selected for downsizing, deletion. or modification (per Tasks 184 and 329 of the May 31, 1994 Project Management Tool) . 5. A copy of the Board-approved tentative budget for 1994-1995 (per Task 207 of the May 31, 1994 Project Management Tool) . 6. Copy of the Incentive School program modifications (per Task 228 of the May 31, 1994 Project Management Tool). According to Task 5 in the district's May 31, 1994 Project Management Tool, the LRSD began in July 1993 to reassess its planning organization and structure. That reassessment is scheduled to be complete on June 30, 1994. Also on that date, the district is scheduled to complete Task 6, which is any necessary restructuring and modification of the planning organization and structure. Along with the Project Management Tool items listed -3-above, the district must submit documentation of Tasks 5 and g to the extent to which they are complete on June 20, 1994. Through the ODM, counsel for the North Little Rock School District (NLRSD) has conveyed a request, and the Court has agreed, to review the NLRSD budget at the June hearing instead of the July hearing as originally scheduled. The NLRSD must submit its revenue and expense projection for the 1994-95 budget cycle and a five year projection of revenues and expenses. The district must also submit business cases for anticipated changes, additions, or deletions in programs, operations, or staffing. The parties should also be prepared to discuss any other items not specifically listed in this order but which were itemized in the May 9, 1994 order that scheduled a budget hearing on May 25, 1994.* IT IS SO ORDERED this 10th day of June 1994. UNITED STATE STATES DISTRICT JUDGE ___Ot 1 / * That hearing was subsequently cancelled by the Court. -4-CC- / FILED O'STI^'CTAR'i^^lSAS IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT JUL 06 1994 EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION JAMESCLERK LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT \u0026lt;Z OEP clerk PLAINTIFF No. LR-C-82-866 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT No. 1, ET AL DEFENDANTS MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL INTERVENORS KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL INTERVENORS ORDER The Court is charged with monitoring the districts' compliance with their Settlement Agreement and making sure that they don't waste desegregation funds. In order to fulfill this charge, the Court keeps a close watch on the districts' budgets. Accurate and complete budgets are important to making sure that the parties keep their desegregation commitments. In this regard, the Court has vs. held hearings on February 25, April 22 and June 28 and 29, 1994 to determine progress being made by the LRSD, NLRSD, and PCSSD on developing their 1994-95 budgets. During the June 28-29, 1994 hearings, the districts told the Court that, in order to complete their 1994-95 budgets in balance. they need to know the level of state support to anticipate through Minimum Foundation Program Aid (MFPA). Until the districts know the amount of MFPA for 1994-95, they will not know what additional expense restrictions to implement for next year. The parties have told the Court that the State has been vacillating for some months on the amount which it may place in theMFPA fund, citing amounts that have varied from $50 million down to $0. The Court hereby requests the State to submit the following information: A. Whether the State intends to put additional (new) money into MFPA. B. The amount of any additional monies it intends to place in the MFPA fund. C. The date it will notify the LRSD, NLRSD, and PCSSD of their total individual MFPA allocations for 1994-95. D. The steps the State will take in making the decisions to determine its contribution to MFPA and the accompanying timeline for each step. The Court will hold hearings on July 27-29, 1994 to review the parties' final, balanced budgets for 1994-95. Anticipating those dates, the Court has required the parties to submit their budgets and related information to the Court and ODM by noon on July 18, 1994. Therefore, the Court and the parties must have the above requested information from the State no later than 5:00 p.m., July 13, 1994. IT IS SO ORDERED this Sth day of July 1994. UNTTED STATES DISTRI .IT JUDGE rnIS CXXUM9\u0026lt;r EWTlfO 0 tXJCRET SWEET IN COMPUTE MTH_RUL 58 AND/OR 75(a) FRCP ON 7- 6- -RECEIVEO IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION JUL 1 8 1994 Office ol Desegregation Monitoring LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT PLAINTIFF V. LR-C-82-866 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, ET AL DEFENDANTS MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL INTERVENORS KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL INTERVENORS NOTICE OF FILING The Little Rock School District (LRSD) hereby gives notice of the filing of the following documents required by the courts July 6, 1994 order. 1. LRSD's current 1994-95 budget document is attached. The budget document includes current revenue and expenditure projections, a line item summary, a program summary by function, a program summary by function and object, department budgets by function and object, a Magnet School budget, and the budgets for federal programs, food service. capital projects. and desegregation. 2. Also attached are documents showing LRSD's actual expenditures for the 1991-92 and 1992-93 school years. and the budgeted expenditures for the 1993-94 school year. LRSD's books are not entirely closed for the 1993-94 school year and the attached list of 1993-94 actual expenditures is not a completely final tally of actual 1993-94 expenditures. kathy^'Heaiwg.Budget3. LRSD has separated and identified funds according to their intended use. State reimbursement for Workers' Compensation and Magnet indirect costs are listed as separate revenue items. LRSD is continuing the process of adding necessary function and object codes to separate and identify funds according to their intended use. 4. LRSD has attached revised five year revenue and spending projection with the anticipated budget balances or deficits for each of the next five fiscal years. 5. LRSD has attached business cases for outsourcing of transportation, academic progress incentive grants, the Incentive School Spanish program, and a modification of the business case for desegregation facilitator. Each business case shows its impact on the budget. 6. Because LRSD's books for 1993-94 school year are not yet closed. because some budget issues for the 1994-95 school year remain unresolved (e.g. outsourcing of transportation), and because posting of budget revisions (e.g. early retirement, reduction in force) is not yet complete at the detail level, LRSD is unable to provide a final program summary by function and object and a final department budget by function and object. LRSD has provided a 1994-95 budget for food service, but cannot provide final 1993-94 actual expenditures. Finally, LRSD cannot provide final 1994-95 budgets for federal programs and for desegregation. LRSD's planning documents show a July 21, 1994 deadline for preparation of a final 1994-95 budget, which is scheduled for presentation to the kad^XP-Hcarii^.Budgel a 2board of directors on July 25, 1994 and for approval on July 28, 1994. LRSD expects to have each of the required documents in final form before the scheduled budget hearing begins on July 27, 1994 and will provide those documents to the court, the parties and the Office of Desegregation Monitoring as soon as they have been completed. 7. The attached budget reflects a reduction in Incentive School expenditures of $2,000,000.00. The amount budgeted for Incentive Schools for the 1994-95 school year is the amount necessary to provide double funding at each Incentive School. LRSD is in the process of preparing a business case which will show whether or not the Incentive School budget can actually be reduced to the double funding level. Because of the need to meet with each Incentive School principal and the Joshua Intervenors as a part of this process, the business case will be submitted to the court, the parties and the Office of Desegregation Monitoring on Thursday, July 21, 1994. Respectfully submitted. LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT FRIDAY, ELDREDGE \u0026amp; CLARK 2000 First Commercial Bldg. 400 West Capitol Street Little Rock, AR 72201 (501) 376-2011 efiristopher Hell Bar No. 81083 lathy \\P-K6anng.Bud get 3CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I certify that a copy of the foregoing Notice of Filing has been served on the following people by depositing copy of same in the United States mail on this 18th day of July, 1994. Mr. John Walker JOHN WALKER, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72206 Mr. Sam Jones WRIGHT, LINDSEY \u0026amp; JENNINGS 2200 Worthen Bank Bldg. 200 West Capitol Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Steve Jones JACK, LYON \u0026amp; JONES, P.A. 3400 Capitol Towers Capitol \u0026amp; Broadway Streets Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Richard Roachell Roachell and Streett First Federal Plaza 401 West Capitol, Suite 504 Little Rock, AR 72201 Ms. Ann Brown Desegregation Monitor Heritage West Bldg., Suite 510 201 East Markham Street Little Rock, AR 72201 Ms. Elizabeth Boyter Arkansas Dept, of Education 4 State Capitol Mall Little Rock, AR 72201-1071 ristopher Helleg^^ kalfayXP-Hcanng.Budg^ 4FILED IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION U.S. district COURT eastern district ARKANSAS FEB 0 7 1995 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 Informational hearings on the Little JAMES By:_ W. McCOiRflNMACK, CLERK AX BtP CLERK PLAINTIFF DEFENDANTS INTERVENORS INTERVENORS Rock School District (\"LRSD\") draft budget and budgeting process are hereby scheduled to begin at 9:00 a.m. on each of the following dates: March 24, 1995\nJune 8 and 9, 1995\nand August 1 and 2, 1995. These hearing dates coincide with the schedule for budget development which appears in the LRSD's most recent Project Management Tool, filed on January 31, 1995. Members of the LRSD Board of Directors are required to attend the hearings. Subsequent orders pertaining to the t information required for each hearing may follow. DATED this day of February 1995. TED\nt judge rws DOCUMENT ENTERED ON DOCKET SHEET IN COMPLIANCE WITH RULE 58 AND/QR 79(a) FCP ON BY l/r^^ 2 3 5 0 si IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT V. NO. LR-C-82-866 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, ET AL. MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL. KATHERINE W. KNIGHT, ET AL. ORDER FILED B* Ji:5-O'STR'CT court eastern district ar Kansas FEB 2 4 1995 JAMES Vl/. ,McCMMACK. CLERK -i u 0 \\ OEP CLERK PLAINTIFF DEFENDANTS INTERVENORS INTERVENORS Before the Court is the motion of the Little Rock School District (\"LRSD) filed February 21, 1995 for a continuance of the budget hearing set for March 24, 1995 by Court Order dated February 7, 1995. The LRSD states that several of its administrators, whose participation is necessary at the hearing, have made travel plans during that week, which is the LRSD spring break. In order to avoid placing a hardship on those administrators, the LRSD asks that the hearing be rescheduled. The Court has carefully considered its own calendar as well as that of the Office of Desegregation Monitoring in an attempt to accommodate the LRSD's request for continuance. Unfortunately, the Court is unable to come up with a new date that will fit its calendar and that also will be timely as far as the budgeting process is concerned. It regrets that the motion for continuance 2 must be denied. DATED this 24th day of February 1995. -N CM- WlTEly^ATES DISTRICT JUD JUDGE 6 DOCUMENT ENTERED ON DOCKET SHEET IN ILE 58 AND/O^9(aj FRCP -BYI IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION FILED STRICTCOURT eastern district ARKANSAS MAfi - 3 1995 JAMES 'Rmack. clerk llA OEP CLERK LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT PLAINTIFF V. NO. LR-C-82-866 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, ET AL. DEFENDANTS MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL. INTERVENORS KATHERINE W. KNIGHT, ET AL. INTERVENORS ORDER By previous Order, the Court has scheduled a hearing to begin at 9:00 a.m. on March 24, 1995 to review the progress of the Little Rock School District (\"LRSD\") in developing its budget for the 1995-96 fiscal year. No later than March 14, 1995 at 5:00 p.m.. the LRSD must submit to the Court, the Office of Desegregation Monitoring, and the parties, all of the documents, budget material, business cases. and any other information which the district expects to introduce as subject matter for the hearing. These submissions must include at least: the district's proposed 1995-96 budget, as defined in the LRSD Program Planning and Budgeting Manual (August 1994)\nand business cases for programmatic additions. deletions. or modifications that are reflected in the budget. Also, the district must identify each major budget adjustment, including projected revenue increases. projected revenue reductions. projected expenses, and proposed deficit reduction measures. Each deficit reduction strategy must be accompanied by a rationale for the t assumptions underlying it, as well as the steps and timelines the district will follow in implementing the strategy. The Court expects the LRSD to present business cases which the district has thoroughly constructed in the context of the desegregation plans and related court orders. For example, if the LRSD were to consider changing the McClellan Community School Program, the district would have to do so in light of the desegregation plan and this Court's orders regarding McClellan. In orders of December 30, 1992 and August 26, 1993, the Court cautioned the LRSD against changes that would negatively affect the district's ability to desegregate McClellan. The Court directed that the McClellan Community High School Advisory Council \"must be meaningfully involved in all changes at McClellan, including budget planning and adjustment, because the Council is a means for promoting community input so that any changes proposed for McClellan reflect the community's needs and wishes. As another example, if the district were to consider proposing to eliminate the seven period day in its junior high schools, it would have to build a strong business case that takes into account this Court's December 30, 1992 order regarding the seven period day, especially in relation to magnet programs. The Court will expect the district to show that any budget cuts under consideration are \"as far away from the children and the desegregation plan as possible.\" (See Order of December 30, 1992.) SO ORDERED this \u0026lt;3 day of March 1995. U^r^TED ST DISTRICT (JUDGE rHJS DOCUW.i\u0026lt;. UH , .r: -- Ut CVCKET SHEET HM COMPLIANCE With RUlE 58 AND/OR 79(a) FRCP Ji 1 \u0026lt; Tv IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION mar 2 V 1995 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 ey.jZ ^inCK, CLcSK 1. iC OEP CLcftK PLAINTIFF DEFENDANTS INTERVENORS INTERVENORS The hearing to review the progress of the Little Rock School District in developing its budget for the 1995-96 school year. which began on Friday, March 24, 1995, will resume at 9:00 a.m. on Monday, April 10, 1995. Any revisions in business cases or other new information must be submitted to the Court, the Office of Desegregation Monitoring, and the parties by noon, April 3, 1995. DATED this 29th day of March 1995. ITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE . 58 AND/OR79(a) Ff^P BY 79(a 3 u 3\n3 M N 2 3 9 1c , HA MOn \"10^45   'SUSAN K WRIGHT FAX NO. 5013246576 P. 01 FILED us fiSTOiCT CO'J.'I' IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKAN,SA5 WESTERN DIVISION I 1995 JAMfS W. WcUUHMACK, CLERK By\n-d..i20uV..rn_ LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT OsfCiEMX , PLAINTIFF V. KO, LR-C82-86e PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, ET AL. DEFEN DAI^TS MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL. INTERVENORS KATHERINE W. KNIOHT, ET AL. INTERVENORS OR PER Through an earlier Order, the Court has scheduled hearings to begin at 9:00 a.m, on June 8 and 9, 1995. The purpose of these I ,.\n6f-.\u0026lt; i.  L  hearings is to review the progress of the Little RocR School District (LRSD) in relation to its 1995-96 budget, and to determine 4 the extent to which the district has fulfilled certain orders of the Court. 1 By 5:00 p.n. on Friday, May 26, 1995 the district must submit to the Court, the Office of Desegregation Monitoring, and the !\u0026gt; parties all documents, budget material, business cases, and any other information which the district expects to introduce as subject matter for the hearing. As at the last budget hearings, f -f these submissions must include at least: the district's tentative budget, as defined in the LRSD Program Planning and Budgeting Manual of August 1994\nand any new or revised business cases for programmatic or position additions, deletions. or modifications that are reflected in the budget. The district must also identify 11 71 any major adjustments it has made in the budget since submitting A? V. . otilMiK 7, .y MfeFEB-15-96 THU 9:51 SUSAN W WRIGHT FAX NO. 5013246576 P. 01 FsLED u s DISTRICT COURT EASTc.RN DISTRICT ARKANSAS IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION FEB 1 4 1996 JAMES! p//J.. McckkuuhkmmAaCcKK,, ccllerk DE? CLERK LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT PLAINTIFF No. LR-C-82-a6b PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT No. 1, ET AL DEFENDANTS MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL INTERVENORS KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL INTERVENORS SERVICEMASTER MANAGEMENT SERVICES, A Limited Partnership INTERVENORS ORDER , Informational hearings on the Little Rock School District (\"LRSD\") draft budget and budgeting process are hereby scheduled to begin at 9:00 a.m. on each of the following dates: March 26, 1996\nJune 6 and 7, 1996\nand July 29 and 30, 1996. Members of the LRSD Board of Directors are required to attend the hearings. During the July hearing dates, the Court will also review the budgets of the North Little Rock School District and the Pulaski County Special School District. Subsequent orders pertaining to 2y.__i VS . the information required for each hearing will follow, IT IS .10 ORDERED this day of February 1996. I '^\"UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE ,D Oi . DOCKEr SHEET IN COMPLIANCE WITH RU' ON -- BY_2 D/OR 79(a) FRCP rH'S DOC'J^'^T SNi u : L- FiLED U.S. DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT ARKANSAS j\nIN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION FEB 1 4 1996 OffiCS 0\u0026gt; Dece^-iya\njiiHG JAMES By\n_4 !J IVIc^HMACK. CLERK OE? CLERK  little rock school district PLAINTIFF No. LR-C-82-866 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT No. 1, ET AL DEFENDANTS MRS. LORENE JOSHUA.. ET AL INTERVENORS KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL INTERVENORS SERVICEMASTER MANAGEMENT SERVICES, A Limited Partnership INTERVENORS ORDER Informational hearings on the Little Rock School District (\"LRSD) draft budget and budgeting process are hereby scheduled to begin at 9:00 a.m. on each of the following dates: March 26, 1996\nJune 6 and 7, 1996\nand July 29 and 30, 1996. Members of the LRSD Board of Directors are required to attend the hearings. During the July hearing dates, the Court will also review the budgets of the North Little Rock School District and the Pulaski 1 District. Subsequen Oxders pcrtaj.ning 3 I J vs. the information required for each hearing will follow. IT IS SO ORDERED this day of February 1996. STATES DISTRICT JUDGE CHS POCL'J/EN COMPLIANCE WITH RL'L ON 5 ON DOCKET SHEET IN C AND/OR 79(a) FRCP BY 77? -______ Ai f ?. 01 FEE-15-36 THU 9:51 SUSAN N NRIGHT FAX NO. 5013246576 FsLED U3 Oia',\"ICT COURT\nTE.R,J CISTRICTA.RKANSAS IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF .ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION FEB 1 4 1596 u'Al'ES Mc^UnMACK. GLt.HK ViC^UnMACK. G OEr CLSnK LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT PLAINTIFF No. LR-C-S2-a66 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT No. 1, ET AL DEFENDANTS MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL INTERVENORS KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL INTERVENORS SERVICEMASTER MANAGEMENT SERVICES, A Limited Partnership INTERVENORS ORDER Informational hearings on the Little Rock School District (\"LRSD\") draft budget and budgeting process are hereby scheduled to begin at 9:00 a.m. on each of the following dates: March 26, 1996\nJune 6 and 7, 1996\nand July 29 and 30, 1996. Members of the LRSD 3oard of Directors are required to artend the hearings. During the July hearing dates, the Court will also review the budgets of the Norrh Little Rock School District and the Pulaski County Special School District. Subsequent orders pertaining to vs. / the information required for each hearing will follow, IT IS .10 ORDERED this day of February 1996. .) U.,'/ '\"^'UNITED STATED DISTRICT JUDGE rH!S DQC!JV.E\u0026gt;T NT COMPLIANCE Y/iTH PCI' DON DOCKET SHEET IN .AND/OR 73(a) FRCP BY ________ 2 6 2ia ^3. JUL-13-95 THU 11:13 SUSAN W WRIGHT FAX NO. 5013246576 P.Ol FILED CAS-JiS DISTRICT COURT eastern district ARKANSAS IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURTj^j^^gg EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION Sy\nLITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT vs. No. LR-C-82-866 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT No. 1, ET AL MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL ORDER 2, JUL I 3 1995 McCormack, clerk OEP CLEW PLAINTIFF DEFENDANTS INTERVENORS INTERVENORS The Court has previously scheduled hearings for August 1 and 1995 to consider Little Rock School District (LRSD) budget matters for FY 1995-96. On those dates, the Court will also review the 1995-96 budgets of the North Little Rock School District (NLRSD) and the Pulaski County Special School District (PCSSD). Listed below is the information the court will review during the hearings. The parties must submit the requested information, along with any other submissions they will introduce during the hearings, to the Court and the Office of Desegregation Monitoring (ODM) by 12:00 P.M. (noon) on Monday, July 24, 1995. I. A. LRSD must furnish its final 1995-96 balanced budget document, including final revenues and expenditures projections. line item summary, program summary by function, program summary by function object, department budget by function and object. magnet school budget, and the budgets for federal programs, food service, capital projects, and desegregation.JUL-13-95 THU 11:13 SUSAN W WRIGHT FAX NO. 5013246576 P. 02 S. In each of these categories above, include actual expenditures for 1992-93 and 1993-94, and budget and actual expenditures for 1994-95. C. Add function codes and object codes as necessary to separate and identify funds according to their intended use. Commingling of disparate funds will not satisfy the Court's need for budgeting information that is specifically identified D. E. A. according to its planned use. Also, identify all revenue items as revenue items and all expenditures as expenditures to provide an accurate representation of each item. Submit a revised five year revenue and spending projection and anticipated budget balances or deficits for each of the next five fiscal years. Provide any new or revised business cases for budget balancing measures and for changes, additions, or deletions in programs. operations, or staffing which are reflected in the final budget, the Each business case must clearly show its impact on budget including department. assignment. II. function. and object The NLRSD and PCSSD must furnish their respective final 1995-96 balanced budget documents. including final revenues and expenditures projections. salaries and wages by object within function, other expenditures by -2-JUL-13-95 THU 11:14 SUSAN W WRIGHT FAX NO. 5013246576 P. 03 B. C. object within function, federal programs, and other supporting information the districts may provide. Submit a revised five year revenue and projection and anticipated budget balances for each of the next five fiscal years. Provide any new or revised business cases spending or deficits for budget balancing measures and for changes, additions, or deletions in programs. operations, or staffing which are reflected in the final budget. Each business case must clearly show its impact on the budget including department, function, and object assignment. IT IS SO ORDERED this 12th day of July 1995. ISTRICT JUDGE -3- FaLD U S OISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT ARKANSAS IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS JAMES WESTERN DIVISION By\n. LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT vs. No. LR-C-82-866 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT No. 1, ET AL MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL SERVICEMASTER MANAGEMENT SERVICES, A Limited Partnership ORDER MAR 1 2 1996 3 W. McQUHMAGK, CLEi RK OeP CLhRK PLAINTIFF DEFENDANTS INTERVENORS INTERVENORS INTERVENORS By previous order, the Court has scheduled a hearing to begin at 9:00 a.m. on March 26, 1996 to review the progress of the Little Rock School District (LRSD) in developing its budget for the 1996- 97 fiscal year. No later than noon on March 18, 1996, the LRSD must submit to the Court, the Office of Desegregation Monitoring, and the parties. all of the documents. budget material, business cases. and any other information which the district expects to introduce as subject matter for the hearing. These submissions must include at least the following: 1. The district's proposed 1996-97 budget, as defined in the LRSD Program Planning and Budgeting Manual\n2. Business cases for programmatic additions, deletions, or modifications\nAn identification of each major budget adjustment. including projected revenue increases, projected revenue reductions, projected expenses, and proposed deficit reduction measures, be accompanied by expenses. Each deficit reduction strategy must rationale for the assumptions 3 . a 2 6 4 1 underlying it, as well as the steps and timelines the district will follow in implementing the strategy\n4. An itemization of year-to-date expenditures by object code through the end of January 1996, along with a forecast of expenditures by object code for the balance of the 1995-96 fiscal year. In earlier hearings, the Court has admonished the LRSD to abandon its old practice of basing new budgets on the amounts the district has allotted within discrete categories in preceding annual budgets. (The Court has referred to this procedure as \"budgeting on budget.\") Instead, the Court has advised the district to build its new budgets on the actual expenditures incurred within the various budget categories during the previous year. (The Court has referred to this practice as II budgeting on expenditures\" or \"budgeting on actuals.\") During the hearing, the Court will ask the district to explain how it is working to construct its 1996-97 budget on actual expenditures, rather than on previous budgets. Further, the Court expects the LRSD to present business cases which the district has carefully constructed in the context of the desegregation plans, related court orders, and the realities of the district's financial condition. For example. the Court will require the district to show that any budget cuts under consideration are \"as far away from the children and the desegregation plan as possible. It (See Order of December 30, 1992.) The Court will also expect that any proposed new expenditures will be counterbalanced by similar reductions elsewhere in the budget. For example. it the district were to propose adding an -2-administrative position in one area, the Court would expect to see reductions in another area of the administrative budget to accommodate the proposed change. IT IS SO ORDERED this - /o\u0026lt; aay of March 1996. UNITED STATES^IST] 'RJCT JUDGE rmS DOCUMENT ENTERED ON DOCKET SHEET IN COMPLIANCE WITy RULE 58 AND/QR 79(a) FRCP ON IPUANCE WITH RL BY -3-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 NOTICE OF FILING ei\u0026lt;u '-97 MiR 1 8 J^^^ntiff JAMES w McCormack, By\nCLERK DEP. CLERK DEFENDANTS INTERVENORS INTERVENORS In accordance with this court's order of March 12, 1996, the Little Rock School District hereby gives notice of the filing of the Little Rock School District 1996-97 Proposed Budget and Little Rock School District Business Cases For Proposed Budget FY 1996-97. The budget documents reflect the following significant changes in state funding: 1. twelve Beginning with the 1996-97 fiscal year, LRSD must pay a percent (12%) teacher retirement matching contribution. previously paid by the state. which results in an increase to I fringe benefit costs (object 0220 in the line item budget) of $8,371,294.00\n2. Beginning with the 1996-97 fiscal year, LRSD must pay what was previously the state's share of health insurance costs which results in a $3,501,056.00 increase in LRSD's fringe benefit costs (object 0240 in the line item budget)\nk\u0026gt;ihy\\MoU*Fil.3183 . Some of the increased costs described above are offset by an increase in state aid, but based on the most current information the impact of the change in state funding will be a net loss to LRSD in the amount of $226,804.00. A chart comparing state aid for the 1995-96 fiscal year and projected state aid for the 1996-97 fiscal year is attached to this Notice of Filing\n4 . LRSD will pay twelve percent (12%) retirement a contribution plus additional health care costs for its food service workers in the amount of $486,000.00\n5. The changes described in paragraphs 3 and 4 above result in a net loss to the operating fund of $712,804.00\nand 6. LRSD will receive its final fixed settlement payment in the amount of $683,125.00. Respectfully submitted. LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT FRIDAY, ELDREDGE \u0026amp; CLARK 2000 First Commercial Bldg. 400 West Capitol Street Little Rock, AR 72201 (501) 376-2011 By:7^__ Christopher Helle: Bar No. 81083 lathy \\Nou*Fil.318 2CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I certify that a copy of the foregoing Notice of Filing has been served on the following by depositing copy of same in the United States mail on this 18th day of March, 1995: 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 HAND DELIVERED Desegregation Monitor Heritage West Bldg., Suite 510 201 East Markham Street Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Timothy G. Gauger Office of the Attorney General 323 Center Street 200 Tower Building Little Rock, AR 72201 Christopher Hell^ knhy\\^ou-FU.318 3 REVENUE - STATE SOURCES MEPA^*S^?.3HfK LIHLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT STATE AID COMPARISON 3-14-96 BUDGET 1995-96 REVISED 1995-96 DRAFT 4 1996-97 SETTLEMENT PROCEEDS___________________ SETTLEMENT LOAN APPORTIONMENT VOCATIONAL HANDICAPPED CHILDREN EARLY CHILDHOOD_________________________ ORPHAN CHILDRENMMiiP8B@SS)Wt^1%\n^^ TRANSPORTATION -REGULAR TRANSPORTATION -M TO M COMPENSATORY,EDUCATION M TO M TRANSFERS ADULT EDUCATION ALTERNATIVEEDUCATIONMB818BS3jmS 27.023.348 3.829,942 2.500,000 0 1.100,000 1,444,499 233,992 7,000 3.850,000 AT RISK FUNDING SUMMER'SCHOOlBatiOfeWiaBa^iiSS^ WORKER'S COMPENSATION TOTAL 285,000 2,800,000 790,466 0 0 399.350 430.542 44.694.139 STATE FORMULA AID TEACHER RETIREMENT MATCHING CONTRIBUTION HEALTH INSURANCE MATCHING CONTRIBUTION 27,012,642. 3,829.942 500.000 0 1.100.000 1.444.499 233.992 ?yS3,066/ ^1,656\n540i 2.195.910 --9246,030 2.607.195 808.523 . 222\n134\n5{3a 67,044' 399.350\n501.193 42.828.059 29.606.806 s-29.606,806\n39,595,812\n683,125 0 0 900.000 1,444.499 245.000 m1\n656,540 2.500.000 .19ss.a.O' 3.641.000 810.000 FORMUIA\" FORMULA^ FORMULA?\n? FORMULA - TORMU13V FORMULA'^ 405.275 51.881.251 41.252.352 (8,371.294) (3.501.056) a29.380,a02i FORMULAE ^1226,804)\nThis project was supported in part by a Digitizing Hidden Special Collections and Archives project grant from The Andrew W. Mellon Foundation and Council on Library and Information Resoources.\n   \n\n   \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\u003cdcterms_creator\u003eUnited States. District Court (Arkansas: Western District)\u003c/dcterms_creator\u003e\n   \n\n \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n \n\n  \n\n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n   \n\n \n\n\n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n\n\n  \n\n\n\n "},{"id":"bcas_bcmss0837_906","title":"Zone change maps, North Little Rock, Ark.","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","United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, North Little Rock, 34.76954, -92.26709"],"dcterms_creator":null,"dc_date":["1991/1994"],"dcterms_description":null,"dc_format":["application/pdf"],"dcterms_identifier":null,"dcterms_language":["eng"],"dcterms_publisher":["Little Rock, Ark. : Butler Center for Arkansas Studies. Central Arkansas Library System"],"dc_relation":null,"dc_right":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC-EDU/1.0/"],"dcterms_is_part_of":["Office of Desegregation Monitoring records (BC.MSS.08.37)","History of Segregation and Integration of Arkansas's Educational System"],"dcterms_subject":["Little Rock (Ark.)--History--20th century","North Little Rock School District","Maps--20th Century--Little Rock (Ark.)","Education--Arkansas","Educational law and legislation","Educational planning","School attendance"],"dcterms_title":["Zone change maps, North Little Rock, Ark."],"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/906"],"dcterms_temporal":null,"dcterms_rights_holder":null,"dcterms_bibliographic_citation":null,"dlg_local_right":["Available for use in research, teaching, and private study. Any other use requires permission from the Butler Center."],"dcterms_medium":["printouts"],"dcterms_extent":["52 pages"],"dlg_subject_personal":null,"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":"\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n\n\n\n   \n\n\n\n\n   \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n  \n\nThe transcript for this item was created using Optical Character Recognition (OCR) and may contain some errors.\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\n "},{"id":"bcas_bcmss0837_163","title":"Alternative Learning Center","collection_id":"bcas_bcmss0837","collection_title":"Office of Desegregation Management","dcterms_contributor":null,"dcterms_spatial":["United States, 39.76, -98.5","United States, Arkansas, 34.75037, -92.50044","United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, 34.76993, -92.3118","United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, Little Rock, 34.74648, -92.28959"],"dcterms_creator":["Little Rock School District"],"dc_date":["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","School management and organization","Remedial teaching"],"dcterms_title":["Alternative Learning Center"],"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/163"],"dcterms_temporal":null,"dcterms_rights_holder":null,"dcterms_bibliographic_citation":null,"dlg_local_right":["Available for use in research, teaching, and private study. Any other use requires permission from the Butler Center."],"dcterms_medium":["printouts"],"dcterms_extent":["30 pages"],"dlg_subject_personal":null,"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":"\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n\n\n\n   \n\n\n\n\n   \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n  \n\nOFFICE OF THE METROPOLITAN SUPERVISOR 201 EAST MARKHAM, SUITE 510 HERITAGE WEST BUILDING LITTLE ROCK, AR 72202 December 4, 1990 Mr. Sanford Tollette Route 3, Box 424 Little Rock, AR 72211 Dear Sanford: I very much enjoyed talking with you today. Your fine work with children in the Camp Pheifer project is so important to all of us. I am distressed that funding uncertainties seem to be looming for the project. However, since your program is an integral part of the alternative learning program which is described in the Tri-District Desegregation Plan, there should be no question that the districts are responsible for ensuring that the program continues, and that it continues at least at the level described in the plan. (You may remember that Judge Woods called the Tri-District Plan minimal: the districts cannot do less than the plan prescribes.) The program at Camp Pheifer can be underwritten, entirely or in part, by the school districts' desegregation funding, program. If the districts choose to apply for grant monies to help finance the that is their prerogative\nhowever, I do not believe that it is necessarily incumbent upon you to pursue that funding. Enclosed are copies of the Security Section of the desegregation plan (which contains the provisions regarding alternative learning) along with a copy of the Operational Proposal on Tri-District Alternative Learning Programs submitted to this office in accordance with provisions of the plan. You'll be able to see from these documents that the Camp Pheifer project is intended to continue on as a part of the desegregation effort in Pulaski County. Perhaps a meeting between you, leaders from the Downtown Kiwanis, and the three superintendents will provide an opportunity to discuss your concerns in plenty of time for the districts to make plans for the financial support of the Camp Pheifer project so it continues desegregation plan. to operate fully. as described in the Please keep us posted on how things are coming along. you and your work, so many children. We care very much about Thank you for the difference you are making in the lives of Sincerely, Ann S. Brown Associate Metropolitan Supervisor Enc. To\nFrom\nI s J I' f r LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 810 WEST MARKHAM STREET LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS February 28, 1991 Board of Directors }^ZAngela M. Sewall, Special Assistant - Accountability Through\nSubject\na M. Ruth S. Steele, Superintendent Herb Cleek, Deputy Superintendent Update on the Alternative Learning Center The Alternative Learning Center (ALC) ] students in September, 1990. Student referral principals through the Pupil Services te high schools and the Board of Directors, schools is accomplished by which is included with this 1990. began receiving s are made by teams at the junior Referral from the means of completion of the report Referral is based foina Characteristics of students which wouW nSSj? p?::^ at risk of failure in the regular school setting. A Placement and Referral Committee -4. . , , --------wconsiders all referrals at meetings which are held on a regular basis and placement on the basis of cf principals, counselors, need. recommends The committee is composed c?'^nselors, and the New Futures Liaison. The Student Hearing Officer also attends meetings. The school, which can serve up to 60 students in grades 7, has a staff of six teachers (English, MaLhcu.ai.iu o Studies, Vocational Education and Health/ P.E.), one counselor, two aides, u secretary/bookkeeper and an administrator. are provided by means of a cooperative program among the nurses assigned to the eight junior high schools and the Supervisor of Health Services. Science, Mathematics, a campus supervisor, a Nursing services Food Service is provided by means of a Satellite Lunch Program. udents serve on a committee with representatives of the ood Service Department in order to help select school menus. The District also transports the students to and from school. menus. Parents play an important role in student placement at the ALC. A parental consent form is completed before the student can enter the ALC. Additionally, an entrance conference is scheduled with the parent and student on the day of entry into the school program. The conference i held by the school administrator and details tions. Students typically remain at the ALC until recommended for return to the home school by the ALC staff. ALC. program. school expects- i I s, t. I S'-- l: Ai'CP.RAL FCi When such a recommendation is given, ' ^^^^^Gnce is .. with the student, the principal/counselor from the school and the ALC staff. The purpose of the confere to discuss expectations on return to the home school effective strategies for success of the student. attend these conferences as well. hone Parents a student referrals and enrollment at the ALC have been follows during this year: as Student Referral: I Grade 7 Grade 8 Grade 9 17 BM 27 BM 14 BM 3 WM 7 WM 4 WM 2 BF 13 BF 5 BF - WF 1 WF 1 WF Students Placed at ALC: Grade 7 Grade 8 Grade 9 11 BM 15 BM 10 BM 2 WM 7 WM 4 WM 1 BF 8 BF 4 BF - WF 1 WF 1 WF Students Exited to Home Schools: I I 1 Grade 7 Grade 8 Grade 9 2 BM 2 WM 3 WM 1 WM 1 BF 1 BF I Students Exited for (Non-Attendance)\nGrade 7 Grade 8 Grade 9 1 BM 2 WM (non-attendance) (non-attendance) Students Scheduled to Enter ALC the week of February 18 : I Grade 7 Grade 8 Grade 9 1 BF Fifty-one students are currently enrolled. One student will report the week of February 18 for a total of 52 students. Arrangements have been made with the Data Processing Department to flag these students on the database so that their achievement, attendance and behavior can be monitored for the two students following their return to the home school to ascertain whether or not the ALC interventions were effective in assisting the students to be more successful in a regular school setting.ttemativc little rock enter ---------- SCHOOL district 8QP,^person 7J2202 ^'324-2370 RECEIVED J ,2993 MJ 2 1993 To Members of the Little Rock Sch^,^Bj^  ^8\nePt Desegregation tenitoring From Othello 0. Faison, Principal Alternative Learning Center It has been brought to my attention that NO provisions have been made for inclolsion of ALC in the promised renovation process. I am distressed, not bust for myself, but moreso for those parents and students to whom it was promised. If we are to receive students , who for all practical purposes have been dumped from their home schools, for whatever reason. then we ought to at least prepare to receive them in a building that reflects dis trict pride\nor are they not consedered trworld class students\"? In 1990, August, the Friday before I was to report back to Central High 1 was called to the central office and verbally assigned to the old Carver building to open an alternative school for junior high school students who are being suspended from their home school or who just generally n eed smaller classes and more Individual attention. I really was not given an opportunity to refuse. However, I usually accept challenges when it comes to children. and so I came. With the help of a committed staff, I built a quality program. Students and parents were encouraged to the point that many asked to be reassigned to us. Last SEptember, I made a report to the board at the request of the then associate superintendent. I did spell out our needs, and made the observation that these students don't need less, they need more. I did not have a clue at that time that we were about to be excluded altogether. I understood that the board pledged its support, but again, we were placed on a back burner, with the possible hope that we would go away. Well, we're not going away. We are prepared to work harder than ever to assure both your support and community support. We are seriously in need of a new floor for the cafeteria. a place wher we eat and where we also present our programs. It was placed on a priority list by Mr. Stueart, Mrs. Bernard, Mr. Vernon Smith and Mr. Doug Eaton. The Health Department has cited us because of the floor, and it must be done. Another major concern is the lack of accoustical ceiling in the halls. We need this for noise control. Presently, the floor is concrete, the walls are concrete block, and the ceiling is sheet rock. Accoustical ceiling tile,PLEASE! As the members of the Deseg team walked through our building, it was noted by all that we had no science equipment. We did order science equipment last fall, with guidance from Dennis Glasgow, but the requisition never got past Charlie Neal whose idea it was that we had no plumbing, so there was no need for science tables at that time. I need not remind you that there are projects that can be carried out on science tables that do not require plumbing. In addition, the purchase was from my budget, and we would not have been overspent. Our annual budget was only 13,000 dollars. Each year I have tried to continue to build, because I am aware of what is needed for these students to continue their education. IT IS EVERY BIT AS IMPORTANT TO MAKE OUR SCHOOL SAFE AND ATTRACTIVE AS TO DO IT FOR THE MAGNET AND INCENTIVE SCHOOLS. We get White students too. In order to continue services for the ninth graders, we must add a foreign language, I chose Spanish\nArt. Each could be a .5 position. Industrial Arts HOme Economics WE have the equipment. .5 co w H H Pi O W Pi Pl. A realistic budget which will allow us to continue to purchase library books. Carpet in offices, since I see nice carpet in most other offices. It is important that parents and students see an attractive building. A nurse , even on loan from the Health Department. I have begun work on this. A mental Health Professional. I have talked with Dr. Elders about this. One good riding mower and a new lawn mower. WITH YOUR SUPPORT, MORAL AND FINANCIAL, WE HAVE PLANS TO BUILD A WORLD CLASS MODEL. I HAVE TALKED WITH PERSONS WHO CAN HELP TO MAKE IT HAPPEN. MY SALARY AND TRAVEL MUST BE BROUGHT INTO COMPLIANCE WITH THE SALARY SCHEDULE. NOT TO DO SO IS DISCRIMINATORY. THE DISTRICT IS THREE YEARS BEHIND. Copies: all board members Office of Deseg.ALTERNATIVE LEARNING CENTER Date: January 27, 1995 We were pleased to find: 1. 1. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. The parking lot was newly resurfaced, lending a very neat and professional appearance. The exterior grounds looked well-tended and were almost litter-free. Sidewalks, which during our last visit had been covered with grass and brush, were clean and visible. The grass was neatly mowed and edged, American and Arkansas flags were in place on the pole. The courtyard and walkways were free of litter and looked well-tended. The three huge trees in the courtyard served to beautify the area and will provide welcome shade in the summer. A large eagle-adorned red. white, and blue banner was draped handsomely in the entrance way, bidding \"Welcome\" to all who entered. In the entryway, a neat bulletin board announced the schools mission. The reception area was spacious, allowing visitors and students to be in the area without feeling overcrowded. The hallways were very clean. The walls looked freshly painted and, although few in number, the bulletin boards in the halls were attractive. Plenty of strategically-placed large trash barrels helped to keep litter off the floors throughout the building. The kitchen area was clean and smelled of freshly baked cookies and bleach. The brightly painted lockers were somewhat age-battered, with some dents, scratched and chipped paint, and a few apparently sprung doors, but all were padlocked and free of graffiti. 11. On the cold, misty day we visited, the temperature throughout the building was comfortable. 12. Most of the girls  bathrooms were free of litter and had paper towels. 13. The few students we encountered were friendly and well-behaved. 14. From classroom door windows, we could see most students participating in class discussions or 15. 16. 17. otherwise focused on learning tasks. During class changes, students moved swiftly and with a minimum of noise. Teachers were present in the hallways and a security guard at the end of the hallway monitored the time for students to get to their classrooms. The principal and other staff we encountered were welcoming, friendly, and eager to answer questions and share information. The principal clearly takes pride in the building, its appearance, and its mission. Security personnel were on duty. Areas Needing Attention: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. Only one of the two drinking fountains in the cafeteria worked, and only one of the twin fountains in the main hallway was operable. Most of the interior and exterior doors had chipped paint. Most of the windows on the classroom doors had tape residue. The cafeteria had two bulletin boards, but one was bare except for a tattered construction paper backing. The other contained only one or two few visuals, also on a slightly tattered and faded paper background. Both appeared to have been untended for some time. The library was locked and our observations were limited to those that could be made at the door windows. The carpeted room was tidy and clean. It contained only books and magazines. Page 16. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. and had no audio-visual, computer, or other technical equipment. In addition to the printed matter, the room contained only three small tables and a total of nine chairs. Four skimpy plants on the window ledge and a few posters were the rooms only decorative touches. An instructional aide served as the librarian/media clerk, and also doubled as the attendance clerk. According to the aide, the books, which were donations, were old and did not appeal to todays youth. The only current publications available to the students were through sporadic deliveries of some magazines. In parts of the building interior, sheaves of wires have been bundled and openly run overiiead. The only recreational equipment we saw was a ping-pong table on the stage of the cafetorium and an exterior basketball goal. The principal explained that the school had no physical education program. During the school day, the students have access only to unorganized recreation during the recess time. A desk, apparently used by security personnel in the entrance was unattended when we arrived. The nearby counselors office was dark and locked. One set of double doors to the rear of the building was not locked from the outside. The principal said the locks were broken and could not be secured without also preventing exit. Another set of twin exit doors was also accessible from the exterior, but these doors opened to an interior courtyard which also served the Hearing Office. One of these doors was propped slightly open by a chain, apparently to allow staff to enter and exit at will. One entire wing of the school is empty, except for the Hearing Office. This space could be used to expand the services of the ALC. 12. The Hearing Office, located in the otherwise unused wing, appears newly constructed to 13. 14. 15. accommodate the district hearing officer, who recently moved to the building from the LRSD Annex. Another office area in that same wing sits empty and unused. The door to the computer room had a hole in it. Paint on the exterior window frames was cracked, faded, and peeling. The floor of the cafeteria was well-swept, but bore many scuff marks and looked as though it had not been scrubbed or waxed in quite some time. Girls Restrooms 16. 17. One restroom, marked for the use of faculty women, contained five stalls, but only one had a roU of toilet paper. This seemed to be a regular pattern in the restrooms. Inadequate amounts of toilet paper, one bar of soap, if any, and skimpy supplies of paper towels were common in the restrooms for both students and faculty. None of the taps provided hot water, and some restrooms had no hot water taps at all. Other problems noted were burned out light bulbs, inoperable faucets, and graffiti on stall doors or mirrors. The floor in one restroom needed mopping and waxing. The room had no stall for handicapped students. The wall in one restroom was marred by a large dark area that apparently once contained a heating or air conditioning unit. Boys Restrooms 18. The restrooms were relatively clean and odor free, but dimly lit. The rooms were stocked with paper goods, and e toilets were clean. The faucets were working, and soap was furnished. Page 2\u0026lt;?c: 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 January 30, 1995 Dr. Walter Marshaleck, Principal Alternative Learning Center 800 Apperson Street Little Rock, AR 72202 Dear Walter: We enjoyed visiting the Alternative Learning Center last week and appreciated your gracious welcome. You obviously care very much about your school and its students and staff. As promised, enclosed is a copy of our December 1992 monitoring report on the alternative schools in the three county districts. 1 know youll be interested in our observations and recommendations, particularly concerning the school you now lead. We hope this information will be helpful to you and your staff. 1 encourage you to contact the other alternative school directors and also to visit their facilities, particularly e one at Scott in the Pulaski County Special School District. Youll enjoy getting to know Joni Turner, the schools principal. Joni is warm and enthusiastic, and, as a fellow alternative educator, she understands the unique challenges you face. 1 have taken the liberty of contacting Joni and she will call you (or you can call her at 961-1518). Later this year, ODM will again monitor the alternative schools in all three districts to access the progress they have made since 1992. Well notify you in advance of our visit. If you should have any questions or need information, please dont hesitate to contact me or Margie Powell, my colleague who takes a special interest in alternative education. Well be glad to hear from you at any time. Sincerely yours, Ann S. Brown Enc. CC.' 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 November 22, 1995 The Honorable Jim Dailey City Hall, Room 203 500 West Markham Little Rock, AR 72201 Dear Mayor Dailey: I have been pleased to read about the current public dialogue, in which you and other community leaders are engaging, concerning alternative schools in our local school districts. For some time, I have shared a number of the concerns about alternative education which I now hear being addressed in your discussion. Well-run alternative schools are an important intervention that can serve to positively redirect both student behavior and academic achievement. Alternative education should be a valued, integral, and strongly supported part of our public school system. For your information. I'm enclosing a report which my staff and I issued in December 1992 on the alternative schools in the Little Rock, North Little Rock, and Pulaski County Special School Districts. Although this report is now three years old, most of the observations we made at that time still hold true today. The Conclusions and Recommendations sections (which are organized by individual school district on pages 12-17, 25-31, and 38-42), will provide you with a comprehensive summary of our findings about the schools and our recommendations for improving them. We are in the process of publishing a follow-up report on the alternative schools in the three county districts. I will send you the report when it is issued within the next few weeks. Meanwhile, if you should have any questions or need further information, please feel free to contact me or my associate, Margie Powell, who has primary responsibility for monitoring the alternative schools. Sincerely yours, Ann S. Brown Enc. cc: Judge William Watt Board of Directors for the City of Little RockBusiness Case Alternative School For Senior High Students * T Office EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The LRSD began operation of the Evening School on March 16, 1996 for a limited number of District students who require an alternative learning environment in grades ten through twelve. Approximately forty-five students are served through the program which is located at Metropolitan Vocational Center. However, this site cannot meet the demand for alternative educational programming required by a number of District students with behavioral and or adjustment problems. To meet this need, a collaborative arrangement with the Little Rock Job Corps Center to provide an alternative education program for seventy-five tenth, eleventh and twelfth grade students is being proposed. As an option to a longterm suspension or expulsion, LRSD senior high students would be referred for enrollment in the LR Job Corps Program to restructure their learning habits, social habits, and to develop a commitment to positive educational outcomes before returning to the regular school program. The financial commitment of the LRSD program would be minimal as the Job Corps would absorb the major costs for the education of these students. In addition to a self-paced academic curriculum, students will receive health sen/ices, social skills training, and vocational curricula which are competencybased and require students to demonstrate specific competencies that are tracked and reinforced for mastery. Program Benefits: 1. 2. 3. Program is open-entry, open-exit. That is, students continuously enter and exit classes which will allow for enrollment throughout the school year. Instruction is individualized/self-paced based on academic assessment at entry. Students will have the option of pursuing a GED or a regular curriculum that will prepare them for re-entry into the LRSD.4. Students will receive financial benefits: 5. a. b. c. d. e. f. bi-weekly pay checks a bonus of $250.00 for completing a vocational trade a bonus of $250.00 if GED is authorized and completed financial incentives for improving reading and math skills a bonus of $100 to $350 for placement back into the regular school program $25.00 to $80.00 bonus for positive school performance every 60 days. Clothing allowance 6. 7. Three free meals provided daily Free medical, dental and optical care An expansion of the Alternative Learning Center to include sixty (60) senior high school students was considered, but at a total cost of $465,110.00, was determined to be beyond what the LRSD can afford at this time. The impact of this proposal will be to provide a sound academic and vocational program to students who require behavior modification and a more structured, non-traditional educational environment at a cost that the LRSD can afford. Supporters of this proposal will be the parents and students at-risk of long term suspension or expulsion who need an educational alternative to being out of school from a semester to a full academic school year. Detractors to this proposal may be individuals who feel that separate alternative programs are convenient \"dumping ground\" for the school district's failure to adequately meet the education needs of all its students. a 2BACKGROUND On March 16, 1996, the LRSD began operating the first Alternative Educational Program in the system for senior high school Students in 20 years. The LRSD Evening High School, located at Metropolitan Vocational Center, provides classes for about forty-five students in grades ten through twelve, four days a week from 5:00 p.m. until 9:15 p.m. The students enrolled in this progrom generolly toll into one or more of the following categories: (1) (2) (3) (4) students who cannot attend regular day school because of economic, personal, and/or family problems students who have dropped out of school or are potential dropouts I teen parents who cannot attend regular day school because of child care obligations students who are enrolled in day school but need to make up credits lost through various circumstances. The Evening High School appears to be adequately meeting the needs of students in these categories, but senior high students with disruptive behavioral problems within the traditional school setting or are at risk of suspension or expulsion create another group of students whose educational needs are not being addressed. As a result of exploratory discussions with the staff of LR Job Corps Center located at 2020 Vance Street, an opportunity is available to partner with the Center in providing an alternative school environment for seventy-five 10th, 11 th, and 12th grade students beginning July 1,1996. Aside from funding one teacher position to provide a credit course in English and supplementary transportation for students needing this service, all other costs for this program will be borne by the Job Corps Center. Generally, students will enter the program on an open entry system which will allow us to refer students as needed. The goal will be to return students to their respective schools with improved motivation and academic functioning. However, a student and parent may elect to enter and prepare for a GED. iThe Center will provide both a residential or non-residentiol option. According to Job Corps Center Staff, about fifteen percent of students live off campus. Course work includes academic, vocational and social skills training on the basis of student needs. Academic classes are designed to increase basic reading and mathematics competencies and support the vocational program. Courses in which high school social studies credit may be earned are also offered. The World of Work Program prepares students for jobs by emphasizing appropriate job attitudes, job search techniques, interview techniques and consumer education. The Social Skills Training (SST) Program is a structured program consisting of 50 skills which all students must master. Skills such as teamwork, anger management, conflict resolution and questioning are examples of skills taught in SST. After careful review of the benefits to students and the extremely modest financial commitment that the LRSD would be required to make, it was concluded that entering a partnership with the LR Job Corps Center to provide an alternative education program for LRSD Senior High Students would be the most prudent and fiscally responsible path to take for the 1996-97 school year. PROBLEM DEFINITION The number of LRSD senior high students requiring an alternative educational program currently exceeds our internal capacity and financial resources to address their needs. Three alternatives were considered. The first option was to expand the Alternative Learning Center program at the Apperson Street site to include sixty 10th, 11th \u0026amp; 12th grade students beginning in the 1996-1997 school year. The second option considered was to increase capacity for senior high students by opening an alternative program in one of the vacant school buildings in the District. The third option is to maintain the status quo and add no new capacity for the 1996-97 school year. The fourth option is to enter into a partnership with the LR Job Corps Center to provide alternative schooling for approximately seventy -five LRSD students at the Job Corps Center located at 2020 Vance Street, L.R. 4ANALYSIS OF ALTERNATIVES Several strategies were considered to expand educational alternatives for senior high students who lack motivation, are disruptive to the learning environment or are at risk of long term suspension/expulsion. These options include: 1. 2, Expand the Alternative Learning Center capacity at the Apperson Street facility to accommodate sixty senior high school students. Increase the enrollment capacity by providing services at the school campuses or facilities in the District. 3. Maintain the status quo. 4. Develop partnership with the Little Rock Job Corps to provide alternative schooling for seventy-five LRSD students who are at risk of Long Term suspension or expulsion. Alternative one is not feasible at this time since the two possible vacant facilities within the District, Ish and Oakhurst schools, have now been occupied by other District programs. Alternative two was extensively studied and initially recommended but, because of the projected cost of $465,110.00 to add 60 high school students to that program, it was determined to be cost prohibitive in view of the District's looming operational budget deficit for the 1996-97 school year. Alternate three is unacceptable because the list of students who need alternative educational services continues to grow and feed the ranks of dropouts, pushouts and the increasing numbers of disruptive students within schools who jeopardize the learning and safety of other students and staff. our Alternative four would enable the District to partner with the LR Job Corps Center and provide alternative schooling for seventy-five LRSD students at a much smaller cost to the District than trying to provide these sen/ices in the district. RECOMMENDATION Due to the critical need to expand alternative schooling for disruptive senior high school students, it is recommended that the District enter into a partnership with the LR Job Corps Center to provide an alternative educational program for LRSD senior high students at the Job Corps Center located at 2020 Vance Street in Little Rock. 5This proposal would enable the District to provide a quality educational experience to seventy-five senior high students at a fraction of the cost of providing this service internally. The Job Corps is a federally funded program that has established Centers throughout the U.S. and has operated successfully for over thirty years The LR Center is fully accredited by the North Central Association Commission on Schools Students accepted into the program would benefit from competency-based academic and vocational curricula that require students to demonstrate specific competencies and skills as they progress through the program. Additionally, students will receive: a. social skills training b. optional GED program format c. extensive health, dental, optical and counseling services d. financial benefits e. optional residential or non-residential placement f. clothing allowance g. three free meals daily h. vocational certificate upon completion of a vocational trade that is the equivalent of a GED in vocation. This open-entry/ open-exit program format will allow us to refer students at any time throughout the school year. Students may elect to move to a GED program or maintain courses that complement LRSD curriculum at their respective grade level in preparation for returning to the regular school program. The District would incur modest expenses in two areas: 1. 2. The cost of a certified classroom teacher, preferably in English since this is the only subject that the Job Corps does not provide its students that would be needed by returning LRSD students. Transportation of some LRSD students would also need to be considered. The Job Corps provides tokens to its students for CTA transportation. However, if we want neighborhood pick-ups we will need to provide these services at cost to the District. 6OBJECTIVES 1. To increase the number of senior high school students being sen/ed, through alternative educational options, who are at-risk of long term suspension or expulsion. 2. To decrease classroom/school disruptions and increase student motivation for learning, school attendance and academic achievement. Providing alternative educational schooling supports LRSD goals, 1 \u0026amp; 5 which state: Goal one: Implement integrated educational programs that will ensure that all students grow academically, socially and emotionally with an emphasis on basis skills and academic enrichment while closing disparities in achievement. Goal Five: Provide a safe and orderly climate that is conducive to learning for all students. EVALUATION CRITERIA Criteria for evaluation of this proposal will include: 1. A decrease in the number of senior high students who are out of school because of disruptive behavior or due to long term suspension or expulsions. 2. Increased student motivation as measured by improved attendance, academic achievement improved behavior, improved classroom/school learning climate. 3. Increased number of students successfully completing a GED or earning a high school diploma. Formative and summative evaluation data will be collected and compiled during the first and second semesters of the 1996-97 school year. Baseline data will include pre and post assessment data, report cards, progress reports, attendance records, disciplinary data and a survey of students, parents, and school administrators' satisfaction with the program. 7Expected Benefits The benefits of these objectives are to continue the educational progress of these young people in a setting that will address their need for an academic and vocational program, while providing for behavior modification. These benefits will be realized at the beginning of the 1996- 97 school year and will continue throughout the year for each student facing a long term suspension or expulsion and who is recommended for enrollment by the LRSD Hearing Officer. Resource Analysis The only personnel to be added to the payroll of the Little Rock School District as a result of this proposal is a language arts teacher. Financial Analysis The approximate salary for the program personnel will be $36,000 for the 1996-97 school year. The costs will be expected to increase by 3% over each of the next five years. The other program cost will be for transportation to the site at 2020 Vance. The approximate cost per bus will be$31,150.00 for the 1996-97 school year. In the first year of operation two busses are expected to be needed for a total transportation cost of $62,300.00. The costs for transportation are expected to rise by 3% during each of the next five years. The source of revenue to operate this proposal will be the operating budget of the Little Rock School District. This proposal will not result in a cost savings to the district. The total anticipated costs for this proposal in the rirst year of operation are estimated to be $98,300.00. Force Field Analysis The primary supporters of this proposal will be patrons of the school district who seek alternative placements for students who demonstrate behaviors that disrupt the learning climate in the schools. Other supporters will be teachers, administrators, students in the schools, and parties who / 8 ffrequently criticize district for not having alternatives for students facing long term suspension or expulsion from the district. Forces who will be against the proposal have not been identified. General Implementation Plan Milestones Timeline Tasking Approval of the proposal June 1996 School Board Advertise for personnel July 1996 Human Resources Arrange for transportation July 1996 Laidlaw Transit Assign Students August-May 1996-67 Hearing Officer- School Board Periodic review of the program August-May 1996-97 Assistant Superintendent- Secondary and Director of Pupil Personnel Program evaluation June 1997 Assistant Superintendent- Secondary and Director of Pupil Personnell 9? JOHN W. WALKER RALPH WASHINGTON NLARK BURNETTE AUSTIN PORTER. JR. JOHN w. Walker, p.a. Attorney At Law 1723 Broadway Little Rock, Arkansas 72206 Telephone (501) 374-3758 FAX (501) 374-4187 received December 16, 1997 Dr. Leslie Carnine Superintendent of Schools Little Rock School District  OFFICE Of O^SEGHEBAJIOfiUOfllWaiNS 810 West Markham Little Rock, AR 72201 Dear Dr. Carnine: In reading today's newspaper, I note that the Little Rock School District is being investigated by the United States Department of Education Office of Civil Rights with respect to its alternative education programs. I am writing because of the quote attributed to you: \"I think they got us by mistake\". [Carnine] said the District's disciplinary policies and student records are already subject to federal review through the court system. It went on to indicate that your office has made the OCR aware of the federal court monitoring underway in this district. If this quote is properly attributable to you, you may be unaware that for the past eighteen months there has been no monitoring of the Little Rock School District's programs by the Office of Desegregation Monitoring. To represent otherwise is incorrect and probably should be corrected if you are to maintain your presumptive credibility regarding providing informed opinions. There simply is no monitoring by ODM of these programs at this time by order of the Court, you inform OCR of this fact at once. I, therefore, request the 1 8 1997 Thank you for your attention to this matter. sincerely, ORIGINAL SIGNED\nBV UNDERSIGNED COUNSEL John W. Walker JWW:j s cc: Judge Susan Webber Wright Ms. Ann Brown Mr. Chris Heller1 it \\.a Little Rock School District MAY 5 139, OFFICE OF ^^SESREGATlOflMd^liOPjl^^ May 6, 1998 Ms Margie Powell Office of Desegregation \u0026amp; Monitoring 201 East Markham Street Little Rock, AR 72201 Dear Ms. Powell: Please attend a meeting on Wednesday, May 13, 1998 to discuss the planning of an Elementary Alternative Learning Environment for the 1999-2000 school year. The meeting will be held at 9:30 a.m., in the Districts Board Room, which is located at 810 West Markham Street. Sanford Tollette, who is the Director of Phiefer Camp, will serve as the consultant to assist us with this endeavor. If you are interested in serving on this committee but can not attend this meeting, please call me at 324-2170. Sincerely, Dr. Linda Watson, Assistant Superintendent Student Discipline 810 West Markham Street  Little Rock, Arkansas 72201  (501)824-2000OS-13-98 11:05 AM r RuM FER i Mr TO 5013710100 IS PiW August 12, 1998 Dr. Les Carnine, Superintendent Little Rock School District 810 W. Markham Little Rock, AR 72201 Dear Dr. Carnine\nI am pleased to endorse and support the Residential Alternative Elementary School for at-risk 3rd, 4th, and Sth graders. Prevention and intervention at the elementary level is crucial if we hope to see less academic and behavioral failure at the junior high and high school levels. The fact that you are taking such innovative steps while not under court order speaks highly of the Little Rock School District. I am familiar with the Pfeifer Kiwanis Camp program on which the school will be modeled. The staff of this office have observed the Camp's alternative classroom since 1988 and believe that children In Pulaski County have been well served by this unique and innovative effort, Students in Pulaski County who appeared to have been on the verge of failure In school as well as in life have received from the Pfeifer Camp experience a remarkable chance to reconsider their values and to turn their Ilves around. Time after time, students with behavior problems in their regular classrooms have come to the Pfeifer Camp classroom and learned to take direction, commit themselves to school work, and to take responsibility for their actions. I look forward to seeing the results of a longer, more extensive program. This potential for success with students, coupled witht he Influence of Pfeifer Camp's methods, makes the Residential Alternative Elementary School worthy of support from everyone associated with educating children. Sincerely yours, Ann S. Brown Federal Monitor pat ol pays* I Fro* phOl'^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 August 14, 1998 Dr. Les Gamine Little Rock School District 810 West Markham Street Little Rock, AR 72201 Dear Dr. Gamine: One of the joys of working with the Little Rock School District is supporting district initiatives that are designed as both prevention and intervention programs attuned to the special needs of students. Thats why Im pleased to endorse the Residential Alternative Elementary School for at-risk 3\"*, 4*, and 5* graders. The optimal application of the charter school concept is to develop innovative, break-the-mold schools that venture beyond the constraints of traditionally structured institutions. The Residential Alternative Elementary School will apply fresh but proven ideas and approaches to meet the unique needs of at-risk children where other schools have fallen short. Since 1988,1 have been well-acquainted with the Pfeifer Kiwanis Camp program on which the new school will be modeled. My staflf and I have closely observed the Camps alternative program and know that it -works: children who were on the verge of failure in schoolas well as lifelearn how to learn, expand and hone their academic skills, relinquish self-defeating behaviors, and take responsibility for their actions. These children leave the Camp with new-found direction, capabilities, and confidence. The Pfeifer Camp methods deserve to be applied in a school designed specifically to turn at-risk children around while their malleable minds and moldable character can be reshaped and redirected. The Residential Alternative Elementary School is worthy of support by everyone who cares about making a difference for all children. Sincerely yours, r Ann S. Brown^AansasPemo^ C^azettg THURSDAY, APRIL 14, 1994 Copyright  Utile Rock Newspapers. Inc. T ibi QM MrI b-K-1 SI Arkansas Damocral-OazeNe/Brlan Phelps LEADING THE WAY  Community volunteers and leaders stand by in support Wednesday al City Hall as Dr. Henry Williams. Little Rock School District superintendent, announces a new youth leadership program. New leadership institute targets at-risk students BY CHRIS REINOLDS Democrat-Gazette Staff Writer At-risk high school students will be trained as leaders in a new program announced Wednesday by Little Rock community leaders. \"There are plenty of bright, ambitious young people in our schools who, for reasons beyond their control, like economics and broken homes, have been overlooked in the past for this type of program, said Henry Williams, Little Rock School District superintendent. The Youth Leadership Institute will provide leadership development and mentors for students not in such traditional programs as student councils, Williams said at a news conference on the steps of Little Rock City Hall. The institute is a cooperative effort by Leadership Greater Little Rock, the Qua-paw Area Council of Boy Scouts of America and the Little Rock School District. The program will include monthly leadership sessions and community service projects, as well as a mentor program. The institute's main goal is to find students jobs that will develop leadership skills, said Cathy Rodgers, cochairman of the institute. Mayor Jim Dailey lauded the program as a big step toward developing our citys future leaders. State Rep. Jim Argue and Pulaski County Chancellor Vann Smith have already signed up to be mentors, Rodgers said. Parents, teachers and other adults can nominate students for the 40 spots in the program. Students must be sophomores or juniors in 1994-95 and enrolled in McClellan Community, Central, Parkview, Hall or J.A. Fair high schools. The deadline for nominations is May 10. Students are required to pay a $20 enrollment fee, though scholarships are available, Rodgers said. A panel of faculty and Youth Leadership Institute Committee members will review applicants and select eight to 10 students from each high school. The program will run from August through May 1995. The institute has received about $6,000 in donation.s to start the program, which is being financed by the three sponsoring groups, Rodgers said. Arkansas Democrat ^C^azctk SATURDAY, APRIL 30, 1994 Copyright  Little Rock Newspapers, Inc. LRSD task force urges more guards, alternative clasjes -- ----------ex- programs. _____dations calls for anti-violence and conflict-resolution training to extend to the school faculty, bus drivers and parents, as well as to the students. The recommendations also call for expanding the alternative education program beyond the one junior high alternative school that serves 75 to 100 students. There are no alternative programs available for elementary or senior high students who do not function well in the traditional class- BY CYNTHIA HOWELL Democral-Gazette Educallon Writer The Little Rock School District could strengthen safety and security on its campuses with more alternative-education classes for disruptive students, more police and security guards, and training in violence prevention. Those suggestions are among 16 broad recommendations sent to district Superintendent Henry Williams and the Little Rock School Board this week bv a districtwide Safely and Security Task Force. Williams appointed the task force in December 1993 in response to security concerns raised by parents and staff at a series of public hearings. The task force did not try to determine the costs. T. Kevin OMalley, a school board member and a member of the task force, said the group realized that there were costs associated with the proposals and that decisions about spending money on the recontmen- dations have to be made by the school board. The recommendations oi the task force repeat or pand on many of the proposals made by a similar group in 1989. The earlier committee s work led to a school security department, a dramatic increase in the number of security guards at the secondary schools, strengthened school rules and an improved communications system by way of repairing school intercoms and providing staff members with two-way radios. Both sets of recommendations stressed the need for teaching violence-prevention programs. . Bill Barnhouse, the district s director of safety and security who worked with both committees, said the district has some anti-violence programs, but they are not standardized throughout the district. We're in the teaching profession and we should be teaching this thing in pre-kinder- earten through 12th grades. Barnhouse said. Successful programs exist elsewhere in the country and could be adopted by the Little Rock district. he said. room.Arkansas Democrat W'C^azettc FRIDAY, SEPTEMBER 30, 1994  LR superintendent wants to expand districts alternative learning services BY CYNTHIA HOWELL DemocratGazette Education Writer The Little Rock School District is seeking ways to expand its alternative education program for students unsuccessful in a regular school program, the districts superintendent said Tuesday. Speaking to about 250 members of the Downtown Little Rock Rotary Club, Dr. Henry Williams said he would recommend to the school board that the existing Alternative Learning Center program at Eighth and Apperson streets be enlarged this year to accommodate as many as 125 junior high students. The program now serves about 60 students, he said. The district would have to increase the number of teachers assigned to the building to work with the increased number of students, he said. The district doesnt have an alternative school for senior high school students. Williams said he was exploring the possibility of incorporating an alternative school program into the program at Metropolitan Vocational Technical Skills Center. Students having problems at their regular schools could be assigned to Metropolitan to take academic courses half the day and occupational courses for the rest of the day. No final decisions have been made about the idea, Williams said. Currently, students from all over Central Arkansas can choose to take vocational and technical courses at Metropolitan, but they take their academic course.s at their home high schools. That program isnt expected to change. The alternative school proposals are the latest in a series of efforts by Williams and his staff to improve school security. Last week, he announced plans to create a mobile security response team of 10 officers. The trained team would report as needed to schools. assist emergencies at in weapons searches or ride school buses. The district has added police resource officers to secondary school campuses this year. Last year, Williams formed a task force to review safety and security needs.Arkansas Democrat (gazette FRIDAY, SEPTEMBE.q 30, 1994  Truant problem child gets mom arrested, fined A Little Rock woman was -  She came into court with- fined and arrested Thursday out her paperwork, and she in Little Rock Traffic Court has done that before,\" Watt when she failed to tell Judge   Bill Watt why her son has been picked up for four curfew violations and attended school only one week this semester. said. She started arguing with me and when we noticed she had warrants from Sherwood. we just sent her on her way.\" Watt smd he fined Sheila She came into court Newsom Robinson $750 and offered her a work-release without her paperwork, '\"\"o'\"\"- M ^he has done that said Robinsons 12-year-old , - , son. a student at Garland El- oejore. She Started chifd problem arguing with me and The boy didnt start school when we noticed she had a problem until Sept. 6, two weeks after classes began. Watt said. Robinsons son faces warrants from a Sherwood, we just sent school district hearing today her on her way to determine if he will be sus- , I pended or expelled for bring-  Judge Bill Watt mg cocaine onto campus. A Garland teacher found the A Sherwood police officer wouldnt say Thursday night what warrants had been issued for Robinson or if she was being held in the Sherwood jail. Shes eligible for boy in a comatose state two weeks ago, and paramedics found cocaine and a large amount of cash pinned inside his pants. Watt said. Robinson told Watt her son work release when Sherwood has been seeking counseling is through with her. Watt and but she said. She doesnt need to stay couldnt back that up in court, in lockup. treatment, Arkansas Democrat (gazette  WEDNESDAY, OCTOBER 5, 1994  Alternative schools Stricter discipline get parents approval BY DANNY SHAMEER Democrat-Gazette Education Water Pulaski County Prosecuting Attorney Mark Stodola thinks the Little Rock School District should expand its alternative school program to accommodate more disruptive students. And Skip Rutherford, former Little Rock School Board member, proposes that the district toughen its student disciplinary code and judge each case individually. Those Stodola sentiments and by Rutherford, whose children attend Little Rock public schools, elicited applause by many of the 60 parents attending a forum on the citys schools Tuesday at Pulaski Heights Junior High School, Student safety and security dominated questions at the town forum, one in a series the district scheduled for this fall. The next one is Tuesday at Fulbright Elementary School, Stodola said special programs to help disruptive students are a better alternative I than kicking them out into I the streets, ! I believe no kid should be expelled or suspended. Period. Because then it becomes a community problem, he said. The districts single alternative school can accept fewer than 100 stu- dents, though some schools also reserve classrooms to accommodate problem students. The prosecutor suggested that designating more classrooms and schools for disruptive students would be a speedy remedy that should prove popular with the public. He said teachers ought to get combat pay for working in those surroundings and that students might be offered a chance to earn rewards as an incentive to return to a regular classroom. Stodola suggested that the district modify its curriculum to include lessons on the law and the consequences of breaking it. .\\nd he suggested that the district make schools follow its rules on checking students for weapons, which wasnt always the case during the last school year. Principals who disobey district policy should be reprimanded or fired, he said, The schools get an F in compliance. Rutherford, an advocate of school safety and security during his school board tenure, said the district had watered down the student disciplinary code. He said he viewed sexual harassment, verbal abuse, obscene language and gestures, and violating school rules as major offenses. Look at putting some teeth in the discipline program, and judge cases on an individual basis, Rutherford suggested.[^Arkansas Democrat ^Q^azcttc [ biOyEMBER 7, 1994 State students gravitating to alternatives Enrollment in Arkansas public universities Figures, for full-time equivalencies, are In thousands 4-yfeitr colleges UmbM-griMlutit* CkvdlMto t-yeaccolteffes BY SUSAN ROTH Oemocral-Gazette Education Wriler Arkansas students increasingly are choosing two-year public colleges over four-year universities with the addition of 12 HBW Itit'hfiitMil tidllngnn throughout the state. The higher education system enrolled fewer full-time students last year than the year before, but the total number of public college students, including part timers, continues to increase. A small but unprecedented 40 '89-'9O 93-'94 5.0 89-90 '93-'94 10.0 89-90 93--9\u0026lt; SOUnCE: AihnnsRs Ospl. ol mghof Edticntlon 1993-94 occurred at the four-year universities. Two-year colleges and graduate schools continued -------------------- trends toward higher enroll- (Jpcrease between 1992-93 and ments in 1993-94. Colleges  Conlinued from Page 1A .\"T? ^'^boojs will increas- 3TEVE SCALLION/ArtcsnMa Derr'oc'Rl.Qaietlo Higher education officials say the Arkansas numbers reflect a national shift toward two- year institutions because of .j See COLLEGES, Page 2A loKer costs, greater accessibili , ...... avvesSIDin- ty and greater fiexibility for working students. Ed Crowe, the Higher Education Departments senior a.ssoci- Arkansas or gmal stable of community colleges was already growing more rapidly than its universi ties when the Legislature creat- 199l' ''\"'eal colleges in ii. T will increas- tiigl) become feeders to the hnir-year schools,\" Crowe predicted. At the universities, we growth in numbers of third and fourth-year students. rather than in freshmen and sophomore.s. less because they employ i part time faculty than the versifies. more ! uni- In a plan to trim future fac- in Well see the technical colleges continue to grow at a rapid pace.\" said Charles Dunn president of Henderson State' University in Arkadelphia, deni^''ri' ? .bsorb the new students. But in a couple of vears I 11. utpauii asked all institutions to faculty workloads with an eye toward increasing them. examine Older students changing \"When the state is able to support the system, tuition be- u^s of a concern.\" Crowe L he department IS concerned now about the fate of the soft-drink tax. the last referendum issue remaining on Tuesday s statewide ballots  r \"'bleh funds V d 'hledicaid program to provide health insurance to low-income people. is repealed, offi- ciaLs have said they will have to look elsewhere in the state bud- , , ......auraciive \"\"\"ey. And 70 per- to local business and industry j! \"/ he state budget funds Dunn noled, education, Crowe said. oneges t ents. of years the four-year schools will re- who are nerve the benefits of these pro rmproving grams in transfers, and there ?nllo(lo frav Will ho .. .... . c--.g careers, i wfii-be\"be\n:nS' rue Iirst lime tend to choose Iwo- agreed ^we*\"Sid''\"%iy  'LbP .echnical colleges, the ggSSig o slight leveling off in the number of high school graduates, and that r-- isssSssgs to remain steaSy roVthVn\"e?ew lutes' Um S?caiYcho'rshat issaf f se If a new industry comes into the '-in- As far as the universities are concerned, all the two-year colleges. including the technical schools, represent a growing group of potential customers. \"At Henderson, we'll market hiipc Ilr-V '.w'vi man insti- bose students, mn^'i /r'b\"''^=''eboolshave 'b.? ewt the high more to nff^r *1.. . schools. Dunn said They good students. We do not get many from community colleges w^7i7i\".\"'' prepped. And wed like to have them.\" I The Higher Education Department plans to track the movement of students between nstitutions beginning this year hold'll 'f ransfer -theory holds true. Crowe said the department also is looking for an area, the school could devel- part op a new curriculum for the are more of Deleee\" ? wt-year cob h!f\n\"bey'll dip their toes in Io see if they can \"'P\" '\"'''er those ^\"\"bit hours Io a four-year -a - I,, lion of state funding. Crowe said the Higher Edu- mil?-''\"''\"'\"* '\"luest 510 million next j- - year in a new , .......... III a new * ....... ow looKing tor fl nd both kinds of That's the theoiy. Higher-ed- to Ih^e ^^^1! 8 thudents transfer, ucation officials believe the grown encourage sue- boom in the two-year school! S iofh. r be last few oess. not just enrollment,\" he eventually will lead to growth at lochnicol o some of the last decade, 1110 iiniira,.,.:*:____... ,1 III di leLonicai and commiiniHr we ve sp^n .  'We want to rhrunSyis'aTw ano conimunilv col- ^'niversityofCen- l.rSlI soid \"n ooi'ollment,\" he said. Over the s.ci HoonRc  tremendous in- mh' m bigher edu- cation. Now --  -   fered oriiy'dipromaDro'Br!.,^l  !'b\" future, the depart- 3-----------.-...s ,e , Now. their students can riceiie it critina !\" .'i'\"' \"\"'\"'\"\"\"I oal.' associate's degrees alter com 1, Pas. funding pletion of technical courses anti 7 ^ 0?? \"\"ruHment Ihe same general-ed!!!uon cr ?hat ihev a- P b'\u0026gt;\"' riculuni offered at other two- b\"y \"\"e rel.iin.nv year contmiinity colleges. 'Hie program began in 1991 hut fho \u0026lt;i, - cAams. schools had no degree.'grantt dent, \"the su- authority until the spring of h f S \"w anymore.\" Crowe year. i ring oi mis said Now we want to know how If students wish Io transfer to nl \"\"\"' ' a public four-year school for a Iwn ' \"eknowledged that the bachelor's degree afier earning stae^hio'i\n''p?'i  be an associate's degree their tidfion n 5y^\"'\" credits are all transferable  '' ' ------------- ' programs. can receive com- that tt, IO snow two and retaining students wo- and graduating ntrtro -----...6 a.uucin\u0026amp; more people fidrlrtrn. U_\u0026gt;a__ . iiiuie peon P.PPf better on exams. \" !\nonoy. But Crowe said those colleges also cost the state we want to make  sye students are meeting their ' educational enak  Alkalis as Democrat 'grtfsazettc * * WEDNESDAY, JANUARY 11, 1995  : EDITORIALS The Dailey Planner Link Rock gels a leader T here was something refreshing about Jim Daileys swearing-in a few days ago. Maybe it was the mayors boyishness in (he presence of Monsignor George 'nibou, who once taught Mr. Dailey at Catholic High School. Maybe it was the mayors attempt to hold the speech to no more than 12 minutes. (He didn't.) Or maybe it was the sight of a politician with a detailed plan and die knowledge, patience, and business sense to carry it out. Here was Lillie Rocks first elected mayor in 37 years niilliniricr Iho rifv'c J eas will continue to get new street lights first, and the city will hire an- otlier 45 police ofllcers this year. He plans to work more closely with Hen- ly Williams, the superintendent of the Little Rock School District The mayor is particularly interested in helping Dr. Williams and the district set up alternative schools for the kind of student who needs special attention, and who may only disrupt Oie classroom without it. (Good! Alternative schools are needed to relieve pressure on the regular schools.) One day each montli the mayor, the outlining the citys agenda with the experience of a city manager, and '''V Kiuiiagci, aiiu k^mir .  rApInrc nian rectors plan to man who had done this before and with the enthusiasm of someone new to the job, Nice combination. Jim Dailey started with the good news about Little Rock: Hnemploy- inenl has dipped hold a neighborhood City Hall somewhere in Little Rock. As the mayor puts it: Its important to visit and first hand. Notice a see things tern? patSpecific, to 3.5 percent, following a downward trend statewide. Crime has dropped from the record high for violence set in 1993. And the number of tourists has gone up. lliere was also some go(xl news that isn't news: Little R(X2k remains a bastion of civility and friendliness. Alter that pep talk, the once and future mayor got down to specifics. Here are some of his new years resolutions for Lillie Rock in 1995:  I*ut economic development and industrial recruitment at the top of his priorities. It's a good way to build a city  acquiring more Southwest Airlines booking centers and R\u0026amp;G Sloanes. More Jobs mean a broader tax base, a stable economy, less crime, and more prosperous people. ~ Tliink Arkansas. 'Tins state needs a strong capital city. We need to work togetlier on issues of common interest, says Jim Dailey, even (ougli issues like a multi puiposc arena. And it help if the go(xl folks in Jonesboro, Pine Bluff, and Fayelle- ville would support a multi-purpose arena in Little Rock. Please don't think of it as competition. Tliink of it as another reason for businesses and events to conic to Aikansas.  Expand tlie Statehouse Convention Center. 'This could turn out to be the Dailey Ixjgacy. We cant wait any longer, he wams. And the may- manageable goals. A vision that aims high but remains within reach. A concentration on the basics  like figlit- ing crime and cooperating with tlie superintendent of schools. No going crazy over every new fad that comes down Uie pike. And the underpinning realization that a mayor must represent the whole city and keep it together. c |ould it be that Little Rocks mayor will turn out to be that rarest of public servants, one who admits and leanis from his mistakes? Jim Dailey seems to understand dial Public Servant is a term to be taken literally. Ofien the best official is like the best butler, or the kind of waiter who is best when least noticed. Strip away the vestments of the mayor's ofiice  visibility, ego, power  and one gets the feeling Uiat Jim Dailey would still want the job. Hes called it his \"peisonal mission to do something for his home town. Back in the mid-SOs, Mr. Dailey sold one of his companies and got, in his words, a good chunk of money. He sat down with his wife to map out their future. Part of Jim Dailey wanted to move to Colorado, climb the mountains, ski, and live the good life. But a bi^er part of him wanted to stay awhile  to pitch in right here. I _ . ......................have roots, friends, family here, Jim or backed up his tougli talk witli hard Dailey once said. I grew up here. I facts: He said that the city lost about '  .............................. 70 major conventions in 1994 worth about $68 million to the local economy. He said tlie lack of convention facilities is making Arkansas-based companies hold their gatherings out of slate. For example, Stephens Inc. felt that maybe I have something to contribute. If being mayor were just has planned its investment conference outside Little Rock because an ego trip, hey. Ive already done it for two years. Some still might think that an elected mayor is only a ceremonial position. Except for perfonning a few more administrative duties and pre-  ...... senting an annual city budget, they enough space is just not available in might have a case. But they may also its home town. What a shame. But a correctable shame. A bigger Statehouse Convention Center would go well with the proposed entertainment district along (he river. But the reality behind (he rhetoric is that any expansion of the convention center would probably mean a new tax. Thats right, T-A-X. Il's going to be a tough sell. 'llie mayor has some other things in mind, too: He says high-crime ar- underestimate the importance of ceremony. It can hold us together, concentrate our attention, conclude old efforts and begin new ones. Illis capital city had a leadership vacuum for about as long as (lie four decades between mayoral elections. Little Rock needs a public servant with the integrity and vision to put Uie (leople fii-st, and one willing to be held accountable for his ideas  good and bad. Jim Dailey, is that you?4B  FRIDAY. MAY 19, 1995 Arkansas Democrat \"^(Bazctte City board favors helping LRSD fund alternative school Police arrested 23 students in BY JULIAN E. SARNES Democrat-Gazette Staff Writer crime and education,\" City directors would be wUl- ing to help fund an alternative school program with the Little Rock School District to fight discipline problems in school and crime on the street, officials said Thursday. City Dean Kumpuris said helping the public understand that the schools are aggressively tackling crime and discipline problems was vital to improving the Director school districts image, especially if district officials ask voters to approve a property tax increase this year. These are the two major problems in our community, Kumpuris said. We have to show the public that the city board and school board are coming together to deal with this problem. Municipal Judge Bill Watt, present to brief elected officials on his anti-truancy efforts, said alternative school programs backed with the threat of more serious criminal justice could benefit potential delinquents and control juvenile crime. Mayor Jim Dailey named a joint committee to study city support for expanding the alternative school program, either as an in-school program for elementary students or as a separate facility for junior high students. The committees members include Kumpuris and his fellow city director, Michael Keck, school board members Stephanie Johnson and Judy Magness. Superintendent Henry Williams and Watt. Little Rocks alternative school for junior high students has room for 88 students. A facility that would serve 200 students a year would cost at least $500,000, Williams said. Kumpuris and Watt said any alternative school program should focus on elementary school students. Williams said he would support an in-school behavior-mod- ifying program for elementary school students. He didnt discuss possible costs for such aprograms Directors and school board members also discussed the effect of the citys recent get-tough policies  Watts war against truancy and Williams zero-tolerance program toward violence. Watt said truancy reports to his court had dramatically increased. Last school year, 120 truants were reported. This year, that number has risen to 1,000. Even so, 14 of the citys 36 elementary schools havent reported any truants, Watt said. Those schools must report chil- dren who skip class if authorities are to have time to help such students. Watt said. Under the schools' zero-tolerance policy toward violence, suspensions nearly doubled in the third semester, to more than 1,000, Williams said. Expulsions have risen from four to about 25, he said. But earlier in the meeting, school board member Kevin O'Malley said he was concerned that police were too quick to arrest students involved in school fights, which prompted the zero-tolerance policy. I went to Catholic High. We had fights at Catholic, but we didnt get arrested, OMalley said. four fights at McClellan Community, J.A. Fair and Hall high schools and Mabelvale Junior High this year after school resource officers called in patrol units. School resource officers are police officers stationed at each school and paid by both the school and the city. OMalley wondered whether the resource officers were too quick to make arrests. Are they there to be a big brother, or are they there to be Big Brother? he asked. Williams said the district recently reviewed the resource officers role and training with police officials and drafted a new handbook for the officers.SATURDAY. MAY 27,1995 School parking lot scene of armed threat 1 Ai'aer in a blue Chevrolet Monte Carlo threatened to Shoot a student Thursday afternoon in the parking lot at Lit- ue Rock s Alternative Learning Center, police said. A school employee told police the Monte Carlo drove into Ir! 0\" the north side at 800 Apperson SL about 1\n15 p.m. and stopped ne.xt to a student. ^ars occupants called out to the student and waved a 9mm handgun while s^id P^^icej Arkansas Democrat'^ (i^azcttc [ TUESDAY, NOVEMBER 21,1995 City, school officials skirmish over alternative education effort BY SUSAN ROTH Democrat-Gazette Education Writer City directors on Monday called again for expanded alternative programs in the Little Rock School District, but city and school board members have dropped the ball in their joint effort. The issue of alternative education programming for students who cannot function in regular schools came up again and again at a joint meeting of the two boards held at school tees six members were present district headquarters. City directors raised the is- sue six months ago in a similar groups last meeting was or meeting. They offered to help fund a program to help the district meeting, Dailey said. fight discipline and image problems as well as the citys crime Jesse Mason and Jeff Sharp problem. Serving about 60 junior high districts new strategic plan proschool students, the Little Rock districts alternative program is the smallest of the three Pulaski County districts. Little Rock school officials have acknowledged that the district also needs alternative programs at elementary and high school levels. Six months ago. Mayor Jim Dailey named a joint committee to study city support for expanding the program. Three of the joint commit- Monday. But no one knew when the what it had done. I think they had at least one Dailey and City Directors questioned whether the school vides for more alternative pro^ grams. The queries prompted defensive responses from Superintendent Henry Williams and Linda Pondexter, the school board president.\nMost people in the cit^ would think this is the answer to our problems, Sharp said'. They want to get these kids out of regular classes. a misperception, Thats Williams said. Weve had 1,300 suspensions from school this quarter, and 800 were first-tim^ offenders. ' You think alternative edu^ cation will get rid of kids forever, Pondexter added. We have to start talking to the public about what alternative educa^ tion can and cannot do. ... ItS time to start talking about how to save kids.yUkaiisas Democrat gazette )  MONDAY, DECEMBER 2, 1996 In LR schools, hall monitors have electronic eyes these days I BY JIM K.ORDSMEIER I ARKANSAS DEMOCRAT-GAZETTE Teachers at Little Rocks Alter- | native Learning Center grew eyes\nbehind their backs last week. Ten video camera eyes. The schools three security guards started using a video ciiiii era surveillance system to monitor students in the halls and classrooms at 800 Apperson St. in east Little Rock. Wiring for a similar system is being installed at Central High, and other high schools could follow, said Bobby Jones, the districts director of safety and security. Its like having nine or 10 new people in the building working security, Jones said Wednesday. All we used to have in a school was some typewriters and a safe in the office. Now weve got expensive computer equipment, and thousands of dollars worth of computer software. There are about 90 students at the Alternative School, a school for students who dont respond to a traditional school environment, Cameras  Continued from Page 1A cover at one time, Jones said. Arkansas DemocratXaazette/STATON BREIDENTHAL Bobby Jones, director of safety and security for the Little Rock School District, checks a new surveillance system Wednesday at the Alternative Learning Center. Jones said. Aging schools, built long before educators even thought about security, make the cameras a necessity, Jones said. A new school building in Little Bock, excluding King Elementary and a few others, is about 25 years old, Jones said. These older buildings werent designed for security. They were made for easy access, in and out. There are too many rooms and exits at the Alternative School for the three-member security staff to See CAMERAS, Page 7A The problem is multiplied at Central High School, where there are several entrances and exits that are impossible to monitor at all times. On Wednesday morning, security guards at the Alternative School sat silently watching a 27- a while, said district spokesman Suellen Vann. Funding for the camera system is coming out of the districts safety and security budget, Vann said. The cameras sit in tamperproof boxes in the ceiling and look much like video cameras installed in department stores. Cameras at the Alternative . School cover the cafeteria and a room used for in-school suspension. Boxes designed to carry and inch television screen filled with images from each of the schools ,----------- r------\n- . , . 10 cameras. were installed in district buses Twisted black video cables several years ago. The cameras snake along hallway ceilings to are alternated amoiig buses as two television monitors and problems warrant, officials said, equipment that lets the guards Students never know if the box in peer down on the cafeteria, main nneratins entrances and hallways. protect portable video cameras were two television monitors their bus contains an operating camera. But the new camera system at the Alternative School is station- The system, including installation, cost the district a little less than $10,000, Jones said. The equipment is guaranteed for a ----------------- .___ year and is expected to work for years ago, and now schools are seven to 10 years without mainte- \u0026gt;* \"\"e' a'd ary, and always operating. Businesses went this way 20 starting to go to it, Jones said, nance or replacement. \"Most large school districts have That's not a bad price, Jones installed video systems.   The Alternative School sclass- said, considering it costs us at bUlU, VUllolUCl III\u0026amp; VWOOM WM V.V ------------- least $16,000 to pay a single em- . rooms are across a grassy court- --3 yard from Jones ofTice. The proximity of his office was no deterrent for the 30 students ployee who can only watch one door or classroom at a time.  Schools around the country are installing video cameras for added security  especially on involved in a fight in the cafeteria April 11. The fight started after a morning weapons search conducted just as students got off their larger campuses. But a new study by Emory Universitys Center for Injury Control suggests that money to buy securi- -------------------= ty devices like metal detectors again, we can see exactly what and video cameras is better spent happened,  Jones added, on security personnel. Videotape of fights and other Georgia school officials told re- incidents can be used as evidence bus, police said. If something like that occurs Georgia school officials told researchers al the Atlanta universi- ... -w- ---------- .J - ty that such equipment deters vio- security guards and faculty, Jones lence and crime, but that students said. Every school in the district has audio and motion alarms to alert or as a valuable training tool for were likely to see the cameras as an intrusion. ocnuoi sia.i a.ou .. police of intruders, Jones said, searchers that most violence and The cameras give security and po- vandalism happens outside lice another tool to battle bur- school buildings - but that most glars, Jones said. cameras cover only the inside. The tape records toreight School staff also told the reoutside hours before it ha.s to be changed, The Little Rock School District --------------------------------------- has been planning to install video so we can leave it on overnight, cameras on the two campuses for Jones said. Arkansas Democrat WO\u0026gt;rtzd(c I  MOMOAV ncrrunn-.  ------- * MONDW, DECEMBER 2, 39QR School program aims to help single parents BY LINDA FR1F.DL1EB ARK.ASSAS OIMCX RAI -liAZEri 1- Single parenting will be the focus of the next Super Saturday\"  an opportunity for parents from 36 Little Rock schools to hone their skills. A lot of times we have parents who say they don't know what to do with their children.\" said Catherine J. Gill, the school district's parent involvement coordinator. \"This is an opportunity for them to learn how to help them. Jn 11 Super Saturdays. \" educators will help parents improve their children's attendance, acad- T * f.. 'y- 7J?.\n- emic achievement, discipline record and more. The first session for the 1996-97 school year. Nov. 23. drew M parents to discus.s The Family Atmosphere\" at the Instructional Resource Center. Parents did an assessment of their family life. \"We have to look at how we can strengthen the family, because the family is the key thing for our children right now.\" Gill said. \"We know there are many diverse things out there, like gangs, that tend to break down the family, but we can't let that happen.\" While the parents are learning, their children can attend workshops on activities from drama to academic skills. The next Super Saturday program will be at 9 a.m. Saturday at the Instructional Resource Cen-ter. 30th Street and Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. Drive. Transportation will be provided on request. More information is available at 324-052,5. This workshop is .'il ^v' 4 .\u0026gt; I Sft i1'hj C5. s t X:ft Rv Jean Rouse, a counselor at Bale Elementary School and counselor of the year in Arkansas, uses a diagram to r / 4 \" '5 W9W Arkansas Democrat-GazettezMORRlS RtCHARDSON It make her point during a parent-teacher workshop Nov. 23 in Little Rock. starts out with an overview, then breaks into smaller discussion groups. \"We have children who are low-achieving in 36 schools.\" Gill said. V/e've got to grab those children. They cannot fall through the cracks.\" The program is funded through Title I. the largest federally fund-er Springs. King Magnet. Meadowcliff. RRiigghhttsseellbl, Rockefeller. ed education program which targets underprivileged children. All uiDuiviopcv.i... .........o___ parents of students at Baseline, children alone. Each workshop (^hicot. Cloverdale. Garland. Gey-important. Gill said, because between 40 and 50 percent of the districts parents are raising their Romine. Wakefield. Washington. Watson and Woodruff elemen-taries qualify for the program. Badgett. Brady. Fair Park. Franklin. Jefferson. McDermott. Mitchell, Pulaski Heights, Wilson. Bale. Dodd. Forest Park. Fulbright. Mabelvale, Otter Creek and Western Hills elementaries. and Dunbar. Mabelvale. Southwest, Cloverdale, Henderson, and Forest Heights junior high.s quali-fy for targeted assistance. Parents at those schools should consult with teachers and administrators. Gill said, to see whether they qualify for the program. Gill said the school district has run parent training sessions for three years, and only wants to expand parental involvement. We're talking about involving the parents to the max. setting meetings so the parents will not feel alienated from the schools. Gill said. Arkansas Democrat ^Q)jxzclLc WEDNESDAY, APRIL 3, 1996 Teacher to pursue cast against student A teacher at the Little Rock ociiooi Districts Alternative Learning Center told police he wouiu pursue charges against a lo-yeai -old student who hit him in the a^e during a classroom fight 1 uesaay, police said. Ko Hudson, 24, told police lit ,,a3 oreaking up a fight between two boys in his classroom i aocut 9:45 a.m. when one of them  hit nun in the nose. i rhe student wa,) taken to po- I lite headquarters for questioning I and charged as a juvenile with I single counts of second-and third- degree battery. Hudson told police he saw the arrested youth bite a 14-year-old student on the arm during the fight.Arkansas Democrat T^Ojazctte FRIDAY, APRIL 12, 1996 About 30 students take part in melee Employees and a seciuity guard at the Little Rock School Districts Alternative Learning Center broke up a fight involving about 30 students in the cafeteria Thursday morning, police said. Police reported no serious injuries in the brawl. The fight began while several students were in a conference room being searched after a bus driver told officials a student might be carrying a weapon, police said. When one of the students in line for the search refused to stay in the room, Principal Walter Marschaleck stepped in front of him to keep him from going into the cafeteria, police said. and As the student 15, Marschaleck stru^led, the teenager threw the principal against a wall and threatened him._ I Aikansas Demcxrat igS (gazette .  FRIDAY, JANUARY 12. 1996 Night school on agenda for LRSD $166,440 from state would fund program BY CYNTHIA HOWELL Oemocra\u0026lt;\u0026lt;3azetle Educadoo Witter An after-hours high school program for Little Rock students in Sphger of dropping out or being: kicked out of their regular I sclK^s could be in operation as eariy as next month. The Little Rock School Board will vote Jan. 25 on a proposal to spend $166,440 in state money to operate an evening high school. it-would start with about 40 teen-agers and operate out of Metropolitan Vocational Technical Skills Center at 7701 Scott Hamilton Drive. District administrators intro- ' duced the idea to the school beard during an agenda meeting Thursday. Jo Evelyn Elston, director of pupil services, said the program would be the first of its kind in the district. It would be open to students ages 16 through 19, in grades 10, 11 and 12, who are seekihg a high school diploma but are not succeeding. Candidates for the alternative program include truants, including those who have stopped attending school to work or take care, of their small children. Also eligible are students who have bebayior, academic and attendance problems in the regular high schools. Elston said she did not believe the-flistrict would have any trouble identifying enough students for\nthe program. Parents frequently call the district seeking an alternative program for their high school-age children, she said. The district has operated a daytime alternative school for tropbled junior high students for several years  the Alternative Learning Center at 800 Apperson  St. Elementary children who need special help are assigned to the alternative education program at Camp Pfeifer in west Pulaski , County for a few weeks. Elston said the evening high school will be staffed with teach- See NIGHTS, Page 4B Nights  Continued from Page 2B ers certified in the core academic subjects, as well as with support stair, including a counselor and administrator. The faculty positions will be advertised. Current employees seeking second jobs will be among those eligible to work in the program. Also Thursday, the school board: '  Invited members of the public interested in school finance to apply for open positions on the districts Adviso^ Committee for Financial Stability. The committee is an outgrowth of the strategic planning process the district used last year to develop a five- year plan of operation. 'The committee already has 16 members, only one of whom is a woman.  Learned that John Walker, the civil rights lawyer who represents black families in the Pulaski Counfy school desegregation lawsuit is interested in reaching an out-of-court settlement with the district on his request for legal fees. Late last year. Walker filed a petition in federal court seeking more than $800,000 from the three school districts for his work in the case dating back to 1989.I ^Arionsas Democrat ]  MONDAY, NOVEMBER 10, 1997 Evening High helps students reach graduation BY CYNTHIA HOWELL ARKANSAS DE.MOCRAT-GAZETTE At 6 oclock on a stormy November night after most high school students and teachers have called it a day, Jerry Cookus is gently coaxing students to iden- 1 tify the parts of speech in a sen- I tence about the Great Wall of China. Everything in grammar is like math. If you follow a step-by-step procedure, it all becomes clear, Cookus says. This is not easy, one frustrated student responds. But she and her classmates halfheartedly hang in there, trying to separate prepositions from direct objects and distinguish between gerunds and participles. Passing Cookus English class at the Little Rock School Dis- --------- tricts Evening High School will tered this semester, but enroll- put students a half-credit closer --------- . to graduation. Without night flection of the high-risk ^opula- school, many might not graduate. The district opened its tuition- free Evening High in March 1996 for dropouts and those struggling in the citys traditional high schools. Classes are held in a wing of Metropolitan Vocational Technical Skills Center, 7701 Scott Hamilton Drive, from 5 p.m. until 9:15 p.m. Monday through Thursday. It is for students in grades 10-12, under age 21. We're not at all in competition with the high schools, said Mabel Collins, Evening High principal. We have our own niche. We try to get the students to the point where they can graduate with their classes at their home schools. We're a little stepping stone for them so they\ncan step right back into their day school. The night school started with 50 students. A total of 178 regis- ment now is 97. The drop is a re- tion the school serves, Collins said. The students leave the night See CLASSES, Page 2BI Arkansas DcinocrdfilgRtlj^rtzcKv I  MONDAY. NOVEMBER 10 1997 Aikansas Oenioctat-Gazelte.'STEPHEN B. THORNTON * * English instructor Jerry Cookus talks with Principal Mabel Collins about a slu-derU disciplinary problem in the tiall at the Little Rock School District's Evening High school Wednesday night. Classes aie held in a wing of Metropolitan Vo-caiionni lechnical Skills Center, 7701 Scott Hamilton Drive. Classes  Conlinued Iroin Page IB school for the same reasons they weren't making it during the day. Some have young children or are the family breadwinners. They may have health problems, a lack uftranspoHation or poor achievement level.s. Aller Ihe first scmesler in erwise its strictly business - no activity clubs, no student council, no clas,s ollicers. The nllendaiKc policy is 199(1. six slihlents giudualed. Tweivt* graduated in 19tH\u0026gt; 97 and live nunc arr\nexpected to be eligible at Ihe end of December. \"Our biggt'sl challenge! i.s to recover students who leave be- .strict. Students must attend (5(1 hours of class. Absences must be made up, usually in the comput er laboraloiy, which i.s e(|uippcd with soltwfue that lets students learn at their own pace. II was poor school attendance that thnW Luther Coleman, a Central High senior, offtrack for graduation. school A conn-lore Ijccuiiiing completers. Collins says. Our biggest dream i.s to have a day-care program for the children of the students.\" About one-third of the .students are parents. I he school depends on recom-mendation. s from high school counselors. posted notices in community centers and word-of-mouth (rr attract .students. (Japac-ity i.s 250 students, Collins said. .Jo Evelyn Elston, district director of pupil .services, believes the school will become more in demand by young people sent Night classes in algebra and Eng li.sh follow. This is a good program. lat ton .says. Ms free. All you have to do is come here and behave. You gel the same credit you would in a regular high school.\" Konw Vat ion. also a .senior at Fitir, decided be needed algebra Il for college. Valion doesn't mind going lo night school Iwice a we\u0026lt;k :ind believes be is learning a lol fi'om It'aclu'r Donald Elston said a proposal for such a school was approved for slate funding in the late I98t)s. But Ihe district couldn't afford to pul up matching funds to get the grant, and the plan was filed away. It wa.s resurrected in the mid 1990s, when the state again was encouraging alternative education programs. 't he school'.s initial intent was lo serve students under 21 who bad dropped out of traditional high schools, Elston said. But now it also serves as a dropout Hicbardson. Like Collins and the rest of Elslon siiiil a proposal for stdor .suggested Kvc'iiiiig ii'Kh such a school wa.s He now has per ' i r 2 i feci attendance appiOVeU lof State night funding in the late 1980s. school biology class while can tljg district COUklll'l liruung lo , lend day cla.sse.s alloRl to put lip a nialcliing fumls to gel (lie grant, and the plan at- S('nH*st(*r of home school ing pul McClel - Ian High senior WilS llIcU aWUy. Il WHS n!'u.behindin rcsurrected in Ihe mid Wels-back to school or work by wel- high fare reform. The evening school offers courses in English, mathematics. her (juesl \"J'' I990.S, when the state the first in her  family lo earn ti again WHS eilCnUiaglllg '''1 schoih education diploma. science, .social .studies and .said she likes night .school b*- .speed i/conimunications. Stu-eau. se people programs. the High Evening .stair. prevruilion program. allowing Kichardson IS an experienced instructor wilh a day job. He h'ache.s algebra 11 and geometry at Parkview Magnet High. Night .school slmlmUs are more motivated than lypical high school slu-dciits, Iticbard son ays. \"There more on dents can take up lo four courses a semester and earn two credits toward lh\u0026lt;? 21 needed to graduate. Night school i.s not an alterna-get along better than at her home school, it also beats paying summer school tuition fees. Tiffany Patlon, a senior who wants to study medicine, began taking night classes last year af-live for those with behavior prob- ter her quick temper repeatedly lems. Collins has little time or tolerance for misbehavior. This is a high school in an alternative setting for students who choose to attend, sho says. There is an occasional pizza party and field trip to a city library. And there is an effort to come up with a school song. Olh-ianded her in in-school suspension programs at J.A. Fair High. She likes the small classes and individualized attention at night school. She attend.s three classes a day at Fair, then takes medical and word processing courses al Metropolitan in the afternoon. students who have failed courses or are over-age for their grade to make up lost credit while continuing to attejid their regular high schools during the day. About three-fourths of the evening school students are daytime students, loo. Ireregistratiou now i.s open for the Evening High School\nformal registration is Jan. 6 for the .Ian. 12-May 1 semester. The phone number is 570-1401. Night school ijs relatively new to central is uni\u0026lt;jue in Ihe state. Arkansas bfit not the line for most of IIk'sc* slmlcnts, .John Dollarhide. assistant be ays. riiis principal at Springdale High and district coordinator of alterna-can be consid ered their last chance, the last slop on the highway.\" The night school staff inclmles Collins, a I7 year veteran of the disirict and a computer (eclinolo gy teacher at Southwest Junior High\nnine teachers\na counselor\na computer specialist: a secre-tary/ regislrar: and a security offi Stair costs account for SlbtMMK) of the program'.s $193,000 budget, according lo district figures. The Evening High School ex-i. sled on paper long before it became a reality. live education. lays his district has been operating a night school for nine years, and there are similar programs in neighboring Northwest Arkansas districts. Springdale's night school senes about 350 in six five-week sessions each year. Dollarhide says. The school is financed in part wilh a Dunicliffe Educational Trust grant and is tuition-free. Unlike the Little Hock program, the Springdale night school is open to teens 15 and up and adults. Arkansas Democrat ^(gazette  TUESDAY, APRIL 21, 1998  Expanded alternative programs outlined for Little Rock schools BY CYNTHIA HOWELL ARKANSAS DEMOCRAT-GAZETTE Little Rock School District Superintendent Les Carnine on Moncial wish lists of more than $4 million in operating expenses and $116 million in facility and con- -------------- struction costs. day jounced plans to expand  Proposed an administrative the distnct s alternative education chart that elevates technology em- programs through the use of char- ployees into a separate unit that ter schools, and to give individual reports directly to the superinten- schools more decision-making au- dent. The move signifies the. im- opiy-,  . portance the district will place on I Carnine offered the draft plans developing technology systems i. -------- vxAv, piaiio ueveiupmg lecnno at a wide-ranging Little Rock the neirt few years. School Board work session during ~ which he and his staff also: in  Listed the specific staff members who will supervise district ef- Carnine, who became superintendent late last year, recommend- ed that an accelerated learning  . , , - . --------------- center be placed at Metropolitan forts to comply with a newly re- Vocational Skills Center for -stu- msed desegregation plan. dents who have fallen far behind  Gave the board a look at finan- - See PROGRAMS, Page 8B the existing alternative education sions on school operations to teams I r lU^fClIllo program for junior high students at of teachers, support staff, communi- ! 800 Apperson SL be altered in the ty members and principals.  Continued from Page 1B fall to house junior and senior high The campus leadership concept in their courses at traditional high school students who would other- has been discussed for years in the schools and are at risk of not gradu- wise be removed from school for a district but never carried out The ating. semester or longer for serious mis- purpose would be to improve stu- The center could take the form of behavior. That school might also ap- dent achievement a charter school, the first of its kind ply for charter school status, Carin the state, he said. A charter nine said. Schools would be offered incen- tives for progress in improving stu- He said he hoped the district dent achievement reducing the would reach a point in the next few drop-out rate, encouraging student dependently of a local district and years in which virtually no students and teacher attendance, raising the freed from district and state regula- would be expelled and left with no percentage of students who take coitions. Such a school would have to educational options. lege entrance pyams and improving be approved by the School Board Each of the two proposals could the scores earned on those exams, and the Arkansas Board of Educa- cost the district between $150,000 An advisory committee and sublion. and $200,000 for equipment and for committees have already been Students would use computer building alterations at the Apper- formed to develop recommenda- programs to work at their own pace, son site. Carnine said he believes he tions on the proposal, which could school is a publicly funded school that can be operated somewhat in- I Carnine said. Students, many of can staff the two programs but does take several years to fully imple- whom might be over-age for high not yet know how the equipment ment Principal training could be- school, would progress through the and renovations will be funded. gin as early as this summer and program as quickly as they can mas- .......................................... ' ter Uie materiaL i' Carnine said he thought the cen- of in-school suspension classes and ter could ultimately serve up to 400 possibly a separate site for inisbe- students but would start next fall having elementary school students, with about 150 students and about P-*'------' For the elementary schools. Car- leadership teams elected at the nine recommended the exp^ion schools next fall. On another matter Monday, Car- nine said construction of a new Stephens Elementary School could But he said such efforts .might start next fall and take about two eight staff members. The staff would take a year or more to develop. Still be acquired as a result of staff re- another possibility would be the ex- the site of the old Stephens in cen- ductions and consolidation of posi- pansion of the Camp Pfeifer pro- tral Little Rock A new elementary tions in other distnet departments.,,. gram. an alternative, short-term school in west Little Rock also will Metropolitan already hosts an' program for elementary children bebuilt evening high'school. Eventually the''* who are 'having problemsin their two'programs could be merged to regular schools. years. The school would be built on serve students from 8 a.m. until 10 p.m. each weekday, he said. Carnine also recommended that Carnine said he is working with - , city ofBcials to see about a coopera- Carmne said he would present to tive effort in selecting a site, possi- the board by the middle of summer bly a site in which a school could a plan for delegating more deci- adjoin a city park SATURDAY, MAY 21.2005  Ex-charter school chief files suit Also, 2 trustees resign as conflict persists at Academics Plus BY CYNTHIA HOWELL ARKANSAS DEMOCRAT-GAZETTE Discord among leaders at one of the states pioneer charter schools took some new twists Friday as the ousted president of the Academics Plus Charter School sued the corporation at founded the school, and two members of the schools board of trustees resigned. Caroline Proctor, who was president of the 258-student charter school from its 2001 opening until she was suspended April 7, filed suit in Pulaski County Circuit Court asking for back pay, damages and that the court dissolve Pulaski County Charter School Inc., the operator of the school. If Proctor wins the lawsuit, the school could lose its state-awarded chatter and be closed down. Proctor argued in the suit filed by Little Rock attorney Beth Deere that the board of trustees violated procedural requirements in her contract for suspending her from her job and has refused to pay her all of what she is owed  partly because the trustees have said the school is insolvent and cannot pay bills as they are due. She also claimed that individual trustees of the corporation are undermining the original mission of the school. Defendant has ceased acting or attempting to conform its actions to the requirements as a Charter School in the state of Arkansas and for the benefit of all children eligible to attend Academics Plus Charter School, according to the filing. To the contrary, defendant has been subverted by a group of individual trustees and parents into a quasi-private school operated at public expense.\" Richard Bishop and David Jones, two of the four trustees who have advocated for Proctors continued employment at the school, submitted identical, two-page letters of resignation to trustees Chairman Dean Elliott on Friday. They said their attempts to reason with the majority of board members regarding As of today, I think the school is on better financial footing than it was last week, entirely because of the sale of that land. .  Dean Elliott Proctor and the schools financial problems have been futile. My hands are tied to prevent you and the other directors from placing the corporation into bankruptcy or rendering it insolvent, both letters said. Elliott said Friday night he had not seen the letters nor the lawsuit but was not surprised by either, as they had been rumored. He said the corporation is continuing to pay Proctor her annual salary. He disputed claims that the school is only for Maumelle families, as he was unaware of any students being turned away. He acknowledged that bankruptcy was discussed in conversations exploring options to protect staff and students from a sudden closure, but the $200,000 sale this week of two school lots to Maumelle will ease the financial straits. The school will now lease the land, which is a common area for students and the site of a science laboratory, from the city. As of today, I think the school is on better financial footing than it was last week, entirely because of the sale of that land, Elliott said. Academics Plus is one of eight Arkansas charter schools run by nonprofit organizations other than traditional public school districts. A charter school is a public school supported by taxpayer funds but operated according to the terms of a three-year charter, or contract, with the state. Charter schools are exempt from many of the state regulations and laws that govern more traditional public schools. The Maumelle school, which serves third through 10th grades, was designed to offer a rigorous, college preparatory curriculum spread over a 188-day school year and an 8 a.m. to 5 p.m. school day. The school does not have an attendance zone and is open to students from throughout Pulaski County and the surrounding counties. In February, the school trustees voted 5-4 to not renew Proctors contract for the 2005-06 school year. And on April 7, representatives of the trustees notified her that she was suspended from the school and an interim president was appointed. Later that same day, the four trustees who had supported Proctor and opposed her removal from the school filed a lawsuit against the five-member majority, accusing them of violating the schools bylaws in terms of the number of trustees who had to vote to suspend Proctor and of violating the confidentiality of student records. Deere, who also is the attorney for the four trustees, could not be reached for comment at her home Friday night about either lawsuit. This past Monday, the trustees delivered a letter to Proctors attorney detailing the grounds for removing her from the schools employment in preparation for a termination hearing scheduled for June 13. The contents of the letter have not been made public. Proctor argued in the suit that she is owed more than $20,000 for 49 days of vacation and 28'/2 days of sick leave, as well as a 15 percent salary enhancement for working extended school days, which amounts to more than $10,000. She also is seeking payment by the corporation on her behalf to the Arkansas Teacher Retirement System and punitive damages for what she said was harm done to her professional reputation.in o o CM CM Charter  Charter school gets states OK BY CYNTHIA HOWELL ARKANSAS DEMOCRAT-GAZETTE The state Board of Education on Monday unanimously approved a charter school for Pulaski County area students who are unable to attend their regular public schools because theyve committed serious rule violations. The new Arthur Bo Felder Alternative Learning Academy will be operated by the Little Rock School District in partnership with the North Little Rock and Pulaski County Special school districts as well as Pulaski County goverrunent and the juvenile court system. The school will serve about 100 students in grades six through 12 at 8300 Geyer Springs Road starting in August. Students who are reSee CHARTER, Page 2B I  Continued from Page 1B moved from a traditional school for violations such as bringing a weapon to a school would be candidates for the tri-district school. Other candidates would be students who have been truant or have committed juvenile crimes. They would be assigned to the school by a juvenile court judge as a last resort before being placed in a juvenile detention facility. The tri-district charter school will provide a militarystyle environment. We dont want you to misunderstand, said Gene Walker, who has worked with a previous alternative school in the county. \"Its not a drill sergeant standing in front of a little eighth- or ninth-grader barking out orders, but it is teaching each student how to learn, how to listen and how to follow instructions so not only he or she can be successful but so the entire school can be sue- cessful and students can work as a team. The school, which will work with the nearby McClellan High School staff to provide all courses necessary for high school graduation, will offer the core academic classes with remediation for those who need to catch up in their schoolwork. Daily sessions on anger management and gooddecision making, as well as other mental health services, will be provided, Linda Watson, the Little Rock districts senior director of student services, told the board. Jim Boardman, the state Department of Educations assistant commissioner for research and technology, told the board that the school doesnt fit the mold of most previous charter schools and, as a result, will present some challenges. Well need to work with them to make sure that we can track students after they go back to their home schools in regard to their academic achievement, Boardman said, \"because in some cases they wont be in attendance at this school for the complete year. Thats one of the problems I dealt with as far as fitting it into our nice package. Of course, thats the reason why we have charter schools  to not fit into our nice package. Watson said tracking student achievement will be a priority. The school will do pre- and post-testing of students as they enroll and exit the school. Their achievement levels, attendance and behavior will also be tracked at their regular schools, she said. A charter school is a publicly financed school that is exempt from some of the laws and regulations that govern traditional schools and, as a result, can be experimental in its design. In Arkansas, a conversion charter school is one that is operated by a traditional school district, as is the case with this alternative school. An open-enrollment charter school is one in Arkansas that is operated by a nonprofit organization other than a traditional school district. Organizers of the tri-district school, which will have a budget of $1.3 million, requested waivers of state education standards and laws on classroom square footage, on the requirement for a school librarian and on the minimum number of books per student in the library. The school organizers also asked that teachers who are licensed in grades 7-12 be allowed to teach sixth-graders as well. The charter school is a successor to the grant-funded Pulaski Alternative Learning Academy, which was established by juvenile court judges in Pulaski County with the assistance of the school districts, and to the Juvenile Justice Center's Step One Program. Both programs were designed to help students who are in trouble with the law or who otherwise cannot attend regular schools. The new charter school is named for the late Arthur \"Bo Felder, a former lead teacher in the Step One Program and an Army National Guard captain who was killed as the result of enemy fire in April 2004 while stationed in Iraq.\nThis project was supported in part by a Digitizing Hidden Special Collections and Archives project grant from The Andrew W. Mellon Foundation and Council on Library and Information Resoources.\n   \n\n   \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\u003cdcterms_creator\u003eLittle Rock School District\u003c/dcterms_creator\u003e\n   \n\n \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n \n\n  \n\n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n   \n\n \n\n\n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n\n\n  \n\n\n\n "},{"id":"bcas_bcmss0837_243","title":"Annual reports","collection_id":"bcas_bcmss0837","collection_title":"Office of Desegregation Management","dcterms_contributor":null,"dcterms_spatial":["United States, 39.76, -98.5","United States, Arkansas, 34.75037, -92.50044","United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, 34.76993, -92.3118","United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, Little Rock, 34.74648, -92.28959"],"dcterms_creator":["Little Rock School District"],"dc_date":["1990/2006"],"dcterms_description":null,"dc_format":["application/pdf"],"dcterms_identifier":null,"dcterms_language":["eng"],"dcterms_publisher":["Little Rock, Ark. : Butler Center for Arkansas Studies. Central Arkansas Library System"],"dc_relation":null,"dc_right":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC-EDU/1.0/"],"dcterms_is_part_of":["Office of Desegregation Monitoring records (BC.MSS.08.37)","History of Segregation and Integration of Arkansas's Educational System"],"dcterms_subject":["Little Rock (Ark.)--History--20th century","Little Rock School District","Education--Arkansas","Educational statistics","Education--Evaluation"],"dcterms_title":["Annual reports"],"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/243"],"dcterms_temporal":null,"dcterms_rights_holder":null,"dcterms_bibliographic_citation":null,"dlg_local_right":["Available for use in research, teaching, and private study. Any other use requires permission from the Butler Center."],"dcterms_medium":["printouts"],"dcterms_extent":["33 pages"],"dlg_subject_personal":null,"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":"\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n\n\n\n   \n\n\n\n\n   \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n  \n\nAnnual Report for 1990-91 Little Rock School District Board and District Work Toward Achieving Long-range Goals Long-range goals adopted for the District in 1989 by the Little Rock School Board continue to be our focal points for improvement: increasing educational achievement for all students, establishing climates of excellence in all schools and enhancing human relations skills for District employees. Academic Achievement Results of the Metropolitan Achievement Test over a four-year period reflect a pattern of progressively better achievement for students in grades one through 11. However, much work remains to be done to address academic achievement at the junior high level where student growth either remained virtually static or dropped slightly. (See report of MAT-6 scores included as an attachment to this report.} On the Arkansas Minimum Performance Test, scores received over a five-year period also are encouraging. (See report of Minimum Performance Test results included as an attachment to this report.) Eighty-seven percent of Little Rock students tested in grades three and eight passed the Arkansas Minimum Performance Test in reading. Ninety-four percent of the sixth graders passed the reading portion. In the math area, 87 percent, 90 percent and 84 percent passed in grades three, six and eight, respectively. At the eighth grade level, the second administration of the test showed marked improvement in the percentage of students passing the test, with all but two junior high schools having at least an 85 percent passing rate. A third administration of the test given in August resulted in all schools passing the total test and achieving an overall 92 percent pass rate for the District. Strategies to increase performance in the Arkansas minimum performance test include tutoring, increased reading and mathematics assistance, computer assisted instruction, more homework, and cooperative learning. In terms of long-range achievement, the District expects to 1 implement most of the 13 recommendations of the Board-approved curriculum audit performed by the National Curriculum Audit Center of Arlington, Va. Results were reported in January 1991 and serve as the basis for the No More Excuses posture outlined by the superintendent in March. Tliis document will serve as the guide for initiating steps to implement the recommendations from the audit and other steps which we agree will further student progress. The District will continue to emphasize and expand early childhood education, homework programs, extended day activities, restructuring efforts at the junior high level and secondary reading and mathematics assistance programs to address academic achievement issues. In addition, the District has launched a major curriculum review and revision process, under the direction of the associate superintendent for educational programs. Two new magnet schools opened: Washington Basic Skills/Math-Science and Dunbar International Studies/Gifted and Talented. Central High School added an international studies program. Six incentive schools offered extended day, Saturday school, full-time counselors, auxiliary teachers and small classes. McClellan initiated a comprehensive community education program, and Rockefeller opened with an early childhood education magnet program serving infants as young as six weeks of age. Also, as a result of the Districts successful millage election in 1990, major construction projects were started at Geyer Springs, Western Hills, Woodruff and Cloverdale elementary schools and Cloverdale Junior High School. Construction and/or improvement projects are on schedule at virtually every school in the District. Revenues 1990-91 Local Total, $103,123,807 Other, 44.9%  State, Other, $46,300,150 0 Local, $56,823,657 2 Expenditures 1990-91 Other Objects, 1.01% Magnets, 3.5% Debt Service, 6.48% Capital Outlay, 3.53% Supplies, Materials, 3.92% -  Q  B  Purchased Services, 10.19% Salaries/Benefits, $73,225,914 Purchased Services $10,457,142 Supplies, Materials, $4,020,746 Capital Outlay, $3,624,884 Debt Service, $6,646,769 Magnets, $3,592,755 Other Objects, $1,040,327 Total: $102,608,537 Salaries/Benefits, 71.37% - Climates of Excellence Declared by the District superintendent as The Year of the School, the 1990-91 school year was a year in which the needs of individual schools received major priority. Restructuring efforts continued at four junior high schools with assistance from the Annie E. Casey Foundation and the Center for Leadership in School Reform. Academic progress incentive grants of $25,000 each were awarded to area schools for school improvement projects. The focus on the school as the basic unit for the delivery of quality education to students will continue in the 1991-92 school year. A reorganization of central office staff will provide principals closer access to the office of the superintendent. Local school plans will continue to be used to improve instruction and learning in all our schools. Human Relations Through the use of trained employees, the Districts bus drivers and education support personnel received special training in human relations skills. For teachers and principals, minicourses were available through our Staff Development Office. An annual survey of attitudes toward human relations reflected the following\nA comparative analysis of the results at each organizational level showed that items ranked as areas of greatest priority did not vary significantly from those identified in 1990, witli 3a slight difference in relative standing. These focus on lack of demonstrated respect among teachers, students, parents and administrators\nlack of fairness and consistency relative to school rules and student discipline\nand lack of satisfaction by all groups, except junior high parents, relative to student progress. Areas that shifted to a lower grouping in 1991 from 1990, indicating an improvement in perception, were about teachers receiving equal treatment (junior high level)\nextra learning time provided for students who need or want it (elementary parents)\nparents promotion of the schools instructional program (elementary teachers)\nand parents treating principals with respect (elementary teachers). The survey item regarding school safety ranked as a greatest priority area for junior high parents only and collective data from each organizational level (excluding junior high parents) showed that respondents from the majority of the subgroups did not regard safety within the school as a major concern. More work will continue in this area during the 1991-92 school year as the results of the annual surveys are used to improve interaction among our students. Appeals Court Rules in Favor of 1989 Plan On December 13, 1990, the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals approved the Settlement Plan agreed on by the Little Rock School District, the North Little Rock School District and the Pulaski County Special School District in 1989 for operation of desegregated schools. Reaching a conclusion to this long-running court case allows the District to place its effons in operation and action, rather than hearings and plan development. While there will continue to be adjustments among the parties, the Office of Desegregation Monitoring and the court to assure compliance with our plan, we can now offer parents and patrons stability and predictability in terms of the school assignments and other aspects that affect school choice decisions. 4GKAPK 1222 KUMHER TESTED 1929 1922 1991 TOTAL.. reading__ 1980 1929 1222 1991 _TQ T A II- M A1H EMA' 1292 1929 LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICP METROPOLITAN ACHIEVEMENT TE.STS (MA'r-6) NATIONAL PERCENTILE SCORES 'jjes.l__tq: .122a .122111222 1998, COMPARATIVE DATA , 1989, 1990 AND 1991 AL_I-AN\u0026lt;iy\u0026amp;8___ 1222 122a 1221 _____ 3CTEI.ICE_ 1202 .1902 ,199a 1991 .fiOCIMi. STUDIES___ 1202 JJB9. 129a 1921 TOTAL ___BASIC_DATTERY___ A22a. 1902. - J25\u0026gt;1 TOTAL __COM p 1,6T K_ DAT' im. -im EBY- .laiLt __1__ _.i._ 0 __ 1'... .11 _ ZQ2:: 1921 20} 1 1 ?Qn-i 1?.'Z9 ?066 _12- _.19. _59_ _22- -Ol.. ,_24,. _11_ _12_ _5a_ _.52_ _HAA -MA* -1!M _li.A4 .-49- .52- ._53_ ._21. _i\na! 1A . 22-. .51 - L9 r 1911 117 2 1712 17,90 19.92 17.77 1912 1209 1910  109.2 1127 1812 1 7  \u0026gt; 1129 1206. 19 30 164.9 1927 1951 1959 I 906 17 2 Q 1706 1 7 69 .Ifi.. -.11- 54 5a -.11.. -21.. 54 .11.. _2.1_ .-22- - 19 -12. _5a.. -IL. ._21_ .54 . 04 . -5 a. 55 _01_ .09... _61_. ._51_ -21.. ..54,_ ,ay 64 _01.- _02_. .57-.. -IONA! MA! _ 4 2. .. -.12. -HA! _M.A* .22 . Il.. _52. . .UA.*.. . MA* .6Q. -24- _A1.. _61_ 66 ,7 1292 1610 1668 1610 K'Qo .1490 _4S___4n_ -.26_ .,21.. -.-49- _24_ ._22__ _92._ _22_ ,2Q ...53 -24. -.53- ._5Q_ _21_ .12 _20_ 22. 19  _2Q. -.23_J._22_ .-23- 57_ _23_ -oe.. _oi_ _01_ - o.a. _54.- _.5Q- -5X. _45, _:19_ -29 .49.. -49- '4- -52... ._52- . 19.. .53. . 51 .51. 12. .-.f\u0026gt;a. _.6a_ --5,2. -2a._ .5.1,. _26.- -21- _.29_. .52 . -22- -21 _59_ _59._ _52_. -21- *\n9 ..59.- 56 _22_. _42_ -21-. _55_ _22_. -24- -2 ^'L _22_ _16_ _26_ _5a_ _62_ _65_ -21- 66 .-21- _ 57 -22- -52- -fiO- -22_ .. ,9 61 61 .-62_ ._2a_ _21_ _47_ _22_ -23-. 59 52 50 i3_- -22_ _52_ _55.. -22 21 54 50 .21 12. . 2a_ AJ- 12. _22___ .-24_ -26.- 5 .21 _22_ ..61- 61 57 _59. 21 49 1.7 19- _56_ _2X.. -20_. -21- _22_ _55___51_ 22. 21 20. 51. 7.1 .61.. ..60 71 ...02.. 2 67 58 _63_ -29- _21_ 65 -.22.- 22 21 .67 66 62 _2k_ _52_ .11.. -11- .64. 61 .2.0.,. ..49 4 9 49 Students in grades one and two did not take scietico and sod a 1 stud ies in 1908 or 1989. 22, _22. ,49.. ,-.4 9_. ..53 . -54 -22- _22_ -29 _5 ...23 .59 .29- .J 2.. S'd. 51 54 ._22_ _aa. _53_L-22 12.. -29J19 8.7 19 8 8 READING 19 89 1990 LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT ARKANSAS MINIMUM PERFORMANCE TEST RESULTS DISTRICT SUMMARY FIVE YEAR COMPARISON 1987 THROUGH 1991 1.9J7, lJ-08, READING 1989 .1990. J.S11 198.7 MATHEMATICS 1988 1989 1990 1991 GRADE 3 No. Tented No. Passed P e r c e n t_ P a s s e d_ 1191 19871 1988 1274 1103 1044 154 1 1946 1683 1958 1709 1 863 1616 1275 1081 1844 1566 1946 1735 1958 1694 1863 1620 __0 7, __8_4 MATHEMATICS 198.9. 19.9.0 8_6j___87 ___.87. 0 5, ___8.5 09 87 87 19U 1987 1,198 8 I.AHGUAGE ARTS 19.8.?. .1^0 199.1 1987 198.8. SCIENCE 1989 1990 19JX 1987 SOCIAL STUDIES 1988 1989 1990 1991 GRADE 6 No. Tested No. Passed 1202 1063 1765 1533 1799 1590 1709 1542 1722 1615 1202 999 1765 1518 1798 1602 1709 1544 1722 1558 1201 836 1765 1301 1790 1354 1709 1315 1722 1336 1200 799 1765 1135 1799 1196 1709 1223 1722 1255 1200 718 1765 1157 1799 1265 1709 1318 1722 1265 Percent_Pa3Sed._ 88. 87, 0 0 ___9 0 .9.4, ___8 3. .8 6 __0?____.9 0 ___90. 7,0 __74 ___75 12 ___7.8. _|___,67. 64 .66 12 73 J, 60 6.6 7.0 IT. ___13 1987 .19.8 8 READING 1989 .19? 0 -199J, 1987 118.8, MATHEMATICS 1?8? IHQ. 1991 1987 LANGUAGE ARTS 1?J_O .19 8?. ..19?J. ,.19.91 SCIENCE .1987 19.8,8. 1989 1990 1991 1987 SOCIAL STUDIES 1988 1989 19,9Q .19_9 1 GRADE 8 No. Tested No. Passed 1326 1130 1811 1679 1799 1623 1756 1562 1792 1561 1326 1098 1811 1609 1799 1608 1756 1536 1792 1506 1326 945 1811 1560 1799 1537 1756 1478 1792 1467 1326 724 1011 1272 1799 1207 1756 1298 1792 1121 1326 866 1811 1275 1799 1337 1756 1324 1792 1134 Percent Passed 81 93 90 89 87 83 .89 ___8.9J___8.7.)___.841. ___7,1 ___86,1___85. ^BJ.)___02. 5. 1.9 ^7 Ai 65 70 7i 75 ___63.27^J'?? \"Sr-nJ 7-1 SEP 2 9 1992 Annual Report for Little Rock School District Board and District Work Toward Achieving Long-range Goals Long-range goals adopted for the District in 1989 by the Little Rock School Board continue to be our focal points for improvement: increasing educational achievement for all students, establishing climates of excellence in all schools and enhancing human relations skills for District employees. Academic Achievement The Stanford Achievement Test was administered in April 1992 to 19,287 students in grades one through 11. Because this is the first year for administering the Stanford, a longitudinal display of data is not given. However, results are encouraging. (See report of Stanford scores included as an attachment to this report.) On the Arkansas Minimum Performance Test (MPT), scores are reported for a five-year period. (See report of MPT results included as an attachment to this report.) Eighty-eight percent of Little Rock students tested in grade three passed the MPT in readin\nNinety-one percent of the third graders passed the math portion. In the reading area, 92 percent and 85 percent passed in grades six and eight, respectively. At the eighth grade level, the third administration of the test showed marked improvement in the percentage of students passing the test, with all but two junior high schools having at least an 85 percent passing rate. The 1992 percent pass rate for the District is 88 percent. Strategies to increase performance in the Arkansas minimum performance test include tutoring, increased reading and mathematics assistance, computer assisted instruction, more homework and cooperative learning. In terms of long-range achievement, the District began to implement recommendations of the Board-approved curriculum audit performed by the National 1 Curriculum Audit Center of Arlington, Va. Results were reported in January 1991 and serve as the basis for the No More Excuses posture outlined by the superintendent in March 1991. The administration was authorized by the Board to design and develop a curriculum specifically for Little Rock students which is comprehensive, relevant, challenging and properly scoped and sequenced in grades K-12. This covered the core areas of the curriculum (reading, language arts. math, science and social studies), as well as gifted/talented, physical education and vocational education. Implementation began in August 1992. The scope of this revised curriculum exceeds required statewide assessment requirements. Local schools have some flexibility in implementing the curriculum as they make decisions regarding teaching strategies, methodologies and resources. Additionally, curriculum guides were sequentially developed and objectives have been correlated to the skills in the Arkansas Minimum Performance Test and the Stanford Eight nonreferenced test. Also in August 1992, an Instructional Management System was implemented to enable teachers, administration and parents to monitor progress of individual students and provide corrective prescriptions to improve learning. It can monitor the effectiveness of instruction through an assessment component aligned with the curriculum, also. The District will continue to emphasize and expand early childhood education, homework programs, extended day activities, restructuring efforts at the junior high level and secondary Revenues 1991-92 Local State, Other, 43.1%  State, Other, $49,292,940 B Local, $64,998,181 Total, $114,291,121 2 Expenditures 1991-92 Other Objects, 1.53%  Magnets, 3.32% Debt Service, 7.06% Capital Outlay, 3.52% B   Supplies, Materials, 3.56% a   J Salaries/Benefits, $82,183,954 Purchased Services $9,036,188 Supplies, Materials $4,010,760 Capital Outlay $3,959,731 Debt Service $7,950,100 Magnets $3,738,667 Other Objects $1,724,698 Purchased Services, 8.02% Total: $112,604,098 Salaries/Benefits, 72.99% reading and mathematics assistance programs to address academic achievement issues. Two new magnet schools were planned by e District and approved for opening in the fall of 1992 by the federal court: Henderson Health Science Magnet Junior High and McClellan Business/ Communications Magnet High School. The number of incentive schools was increased to seven with the inclusion of Franklin Elementary. Incentive schools continued to offer extended day, Saturday school, full-time counselors, auxiliary teachers and small classes. The number of elementary schools offering free four-year-old programs was increased from seven to 11. Those schools. Rightsell, Romine, Mitchell and Woodruff, joined the previous schools of Rockefeller, Badgett, Franklin, Garland, Ish, Stephens and Washington. Also, results from the Districts successful millage election in 1990 continued to be evident. Major construction projects were completed at Geyer Springs, Western Hills, Woodruff and Cloverdale elementary schools, Cloverdale Junior High School and McClellan Business/Communications Magnet High School. Remodeling and construction began at Forest Heights Junior High School. Construction and/or site improvement projects are on schedule at approximately 20 other schools in the District. 3Positive School Climate On April 30, 1991, the City of Little Rock, the LRSD and Blue Cross and Blue Shield of Arkansas announced a program to help in the battle against the abuse of alcohol and other drugs. This unique program is an insurance policy which covers all children enrolled in the LRSD and provides coverage for treatment of problems arising from substance abuse. It is the only one of its kind in the nation. During 1991-92, 264 students were refemed for assessment, 75 percent of whom had no private insurance coverage for substance abuse treatment. Various restructuring efforts for improved organization and delivery of instruction and services continued, including work at four junior high schools under the umbrella of the New Futures for Little Rock Youth program. Funding assistance for the restructuring in the four schools continued from the Annie E. Casey Foundation and the Center for Leadership in School Reform. Also, the collaborative work between the District and the Arkansas Health Department continued at two school-based health clinics for improved health services to students . The Johnson and Johnson Community Health Foundation continued its commitment to the effort with the award of an additional $20,000 grant to the clinic at Forest Heights Junior High School. A third clinic, to open in tlie fall of 1992 at McClellan High School, was approved by the Board. Academic progress incentive grants of $25,000 each were awarded to area schools for school improvement projects. Safety and security continued to be a priority. In February 1992, the use of hand-held scanning devices to detect metal was begun and frequent, random searches at secondary schools continue. This was part of the continuing response to needs identified in the Safety and Security Task Force Report in 1989 and to the 53-point action plan for safe schools developed in 1991. Dr. Ruth Steele announced in October 1991 her resignation as superintendent, effective July 1, 1992. The LRSD Board of Directors formed a search committee and Dr. Mac Bernd was hired in May 1992. The focus on the school as the basic unit for the delivery of quality education to students will continue in the 1992-93 school year. A reorganization of central office staff will provide principals closer access to the office of the superintendent. Local school plans will continue to be used to improve instruction and learning in aU schools. Twenty-six schools are in 4the first or second year of the five-year rotating cycle of the Comprehensive Outcomes Evaluation (COE) effort begun in 1990. COE is the evaluation process designed by the state to accredit schools which combines state and North Central Accreditation criteria. Human Relations During 1991-92, the primary mission of the Districts Staff Development Department was to provide District employees with professional growth experiences that support the Districts goal of educational excellence and equity for all students. These experiences were designed and implemented according to the (1) mandates of the desegregation plan\n(2) specific identified needs as reflected in the local schools annual improvement plans\nand (3) district-wide expectations. Areas addressed included effective teaching, teacher expectations and student achievement, classroom management, cooperative/team learning, learning styles, self-esteem for students, at-risk students, classroom discipline, stress management, thinking skills, prejudice reduction training, new teacher/mentor program and subject area mini-courses. In the annual survey of attitudes toward human relations in LRSD schools, a comparative analysis of the results at each organizational level showed that items ranked as areas of greatest priority varied from those identified in 1991, with several differences in relative standing. The 1992 data revealed new areas of priority, including the need for voluntary visits by parents at the junior high and senior high levels\nparent promotion of the instructional program\nand involvement of parents and community members in school decisions through advisory committees. Improvement was noted relative to respect among teachers, students, parents and administrators\nand fairness and consistency relative to school rules and student discipline. Although the perception of junior high parents relative to school safety improved, the area remains a concern for junior high parents. As reported in 1991, collective data from each organizational level (excluding junior high parents) showed at respondents from the majority of the subgroups did not regard safety within the school as a major concern. More work will continue in this area during the 1992-93 school year as the results of the annual surveys are used to improve interaction among our students. 5Progress Made on Desegregation Plan Implementation On December 13, 1990, the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals approved the Settlement Plan agreed on by the Little Rock School District, the North Little Rock School District and the Pulaski County Special School District in 1989 for operation of desegregated schools. Following the court ruling, timelines in the 1989 plan were revised and necessary modifications were made to reflect the status of programs that had been implemented and were being retained. While there will continue to be adjustments to details in the plan among the parties, the Office of Desegregation Monitoring and the court to assure compliance, the District continues to improve its ability to offer students, parents and patrons stability and predictability in terms of school assignments and other aspects that affect school choice decisions. 6LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT PLANNING, RESEARCH AND EVALUATION STANFORD ACHIEVEMENT TEST, EIGHTH EDITION NATIONAL PERCENTILE RANK/NORMAL CURVE EQUIVALENT SCORES (PR/NCE) DISTRICTWIDE SUMMARY 1992 ENVIRONMENT* GRADE/RACE NUMBER TESTED TOTAL READING TOTAL MATHEMATICS LANGUAGE SCIENCE SOCIAL SCIENCE B.^SIC BATTERY COMPLETE * BATTERY 1 TOTAL B W o 2094 1330 697 2 4 42/45.8 35/41.9 63/57.0 66/58.8 48/49.0 40/44.6 70/61.1 74/63.3 41/45.1 32/40.2 63/57.2 68/60.1 37/42.9* 27/37.3 59/55.0 49/49.5 A 45/47.5 36/42.4 67/59.5 74/63.5 39/44.0 31/39.5 64/57.8 67/59.1 2 TOTAL B X W 0 1883 1173 672 28 39/44 . 1 29/38 . 1 62/56.2 63/56.9 57/53.8 46/47.7 77/65.6 87/73.6 49/49.7 39/43.9 70/60.9 64/57.4 43/46.3* 32/40.0 65/58.0 67/59.3 A 45/47.4 34/41.3 69/60.3 73/62.6 45/47.3 33/40.8 70/61.2 74/63.5 3 TOTAL B W 0 1783 1131 632 18 39/44.2 27/36.9 63/57.0 57/53.8 58/54.1 46/47.8 76/65.1 80/68.0 50/50.0 38/43.8 70/60.9 68/59.6 43/46.1 30/38.8 67/59.1 63/57.1 46/48.0 35/41.6 67/59.2 61/55.9 49/49.2 36/42.4 70/61.1 69/60.4 47/48.2 34/41.0 70/61.0 68/59.7 4 TOTAL B W 0 1867 1211 632 23 44/47.0 33/40.9 67/59.2 60/55.4 57/53.9 49/49.2 73/63.0 76/65,1 46/47.6 35/42.1 65/58.0 64/57.4 46/47.6 34/41.5 68/60-0 66/50.7 48/49.0 38/43.5 68/59.7 69/60.3 48/49.0 38/43.6 68/59.7 67/59.0 47/48.2 36/42.2 68/60.0 67/59.0 5 TOTAL B W 0 1922 1288 612 22 38/43 .3 26/36.6 63/56.8 58/54.1 53/51.7 43/46.5 71/61.9 83/69.9 48/48-7 38/43.7 67/59.1 66/58.7 45/47.4 33/40.6 70/61.2 74/63.6 46/48.1 37/43. 1 65/58.2 70/60.8 44/46.8 34/41.1 65/58.3 71/61.5 44/46.7 32/40.4 67/59.2 72/62.4 6 TOTAL B W 0 1843 1209 609 25 50/49.9 37/42.8 74/63.6 67/59.2 57/53.8 48/48.7 74/63.3 75/64.3 51/50.3 41/45.4 68/59.9 64/57.7 54/52.0 43/46.0 74/63.5 75/64.0 59/54 . 5 48/49.0 76/65.0 72/62.0 54/52.1 43/46.4 73/63.1 72/62.2 54/52.1 43/46.0 75/64.0 73/62.6 7 TOTAL B W O 1694 1122 550 21 42/45.5 31/39.3 70/61.0 72/62.2 45/47.4 36/42.2 64 /57.3 75/64.3 43/46. 1 33/40.7 64/57.7 70/61.1 42/45.6 31/39.7 65/57.9 75/64.5 47/48.6 35/42.1 72/62.0 80/67.8 46/47.9 35/41.7 69/60.6 75/64.5 46/47.7 33/40.9 71/61.5 78/66.0 8 TOTAL D W 0 1573 1060 493 19 43/45.2 29/38.5 67/59.4 73/62.6 39/4 4.0 30/38.8 59/54.7 87/73.6 48/49.1 38/43.6 69/60.7 81/68.5 45/47.4 34/41.3 68/60.1 77/65.7 46/48.0 34/41.3 72/62.1 83/70.0 43/46.2 32/40.0 66/58.6 84/71.2 4 3/46. 1 30/39.2 68/59.8 86/72.6 9 TOTAL B W O 1554 995 536 23 44/46.6 30/39.2 68/60.1 63/57.2 34/41.2 23/34 . 1 57/53.9 68/59.6 54/51.9 42/45.9 73/63.0 69/60.6 50/50.2 38/43.4 72/62.5 69/60.7 49/49.6 36/42.5 73/62.6 71/61.4 47/48.2 34/41.1 70/61.0 71/61.7 48/48.8 34/41. 1 73/62.6 73/62.9 10 TOTAL B W O 1602 949 609 41 49/49.2 3 5 / 4 3.. 8 72/62.3 64/57.4 37/43.2 26/36.7 56/53.1 58/54.0 47/48.6 34/41.5 68/60.0 59/54.6 45/47.3 32/39.9 67/59.0 64/57.3 43/46.2 30/38.7 66/58.4 57/53.8 47/48.4 34/41.2 68/60.1 64/57.7 47/48.5 32/40.4 70/61.2 65/58.2 11 TOTAL D W O 1472 825 612 35 50/49.8 34/41.4 69/60.7 66/58.4 43/46.5 32/40.1 59/54.6 62/56.4 48/49.1 35/41.9 66/58.5 61/56.1 47/48.6 32/40.2 63/59.7 58/54.4 51/50.6 36/42.7 69/60.7 72/62.3 51/50.4 36/42.3 70/60.8 69/60.5 51/50.4 34/41.3 72/62.1 70/61\n0  At Grades 1 and 2 the SCIENCE and SOCIAL SCIENCE objectives are combined and refl noted an on*^ nrnrn undnr ENVIRONMENT.1255 1252. READIHG 1220 1221 GR.A!)E_6 No. Tested llo. Prtssetl 1765 15 13 ?eESIl^..tS.9ied_ J___ft2. 12.63 1799 159 0 00 1262 1709 15 12 .23. 1722 1615 21 READING 1223 1221 LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT ARKANSAS MINIHUM IERIOHMANCE TEST RESULTS UI STH I CT SUHMAHY FIVE YEAR COnrARISOH FIROT ADMINIOTRATION 1900 'I'HROUGII 1992 ISQfi 1252 REAUIUC 1225 1221 12 22 1235 1252 MATHEMATICS 1223 122.1 122? QB.ade, s No. No. Tus t ed Passed 10)1 1679 1 ^99 1623 1756 1562 PtCfent_Ea95e.'d_J___2lJ__30___eg. 17 9 2 1561 __32 i No. Tested No. Passed I9reDt_ Fa33ed_ 122? 1875 1725 1222 170 1 1505 _35. 1255 17 65 1518 104 1 154 1 __8 4 \"iiATii'EMATICS 1236 lull 1 609 12 S2 1220 194 6 1603 -12 21 ...6 1950 1709 __07 -122J 1063 16 16 _,0L 128 5 1003 1503 __0 8 1044 1 566 19 4 6 1 7 35 ___0 5 1___0? iahguage'arts*'' 1232 1223 1221 17 90 1602 1 709 15 14 1722 1 550 _.32L_..23L-._2 0 1232 MATHEMATICS 1223. 1221 1 075 167 1 ... 9.1 1222 1765 1301 ___24 1265 1799 ) 600 17 56 1536 17 9 2 1 506 __311___31J_J2.|__34 170 1 1 523 _.63 I 0 1 1 1560 1798 1 354 22 19 50 16 9 4 1221 \u0026amp;2. 1063 1620 __fi? 1280 1 803 1635 1.232 2 1 SCIENCE 1223 1221 1222 1256 SOCIAL STUi)JE, 1262 1220 12 2 1 ij22 1709 1315 1722 1336 .12___IS. lANGUAGE ARTS 1232 17 9 9 153 7 1223 1 4 70 ___84 199 1 1792 14 67 ___02 1875 14 4 6 1765 1 135 1799 1 196 1709 1223 17 2 2 1255 - W_71J___2,1 1221 1701 1 4 35 31 1233 18 11 1272 70 1232 SCIENCE 1223 1221 1 /yy 1 20? IL 17 5 6 1290 1792 112 1 1875 1410 __2.2 1222 1701 1110 421__31 17 65 1157 1238 18 11 127) ...IS I 299 I 265 . 7\u0026lt;i 1709 1110 1 7 .! . I B75 1 )0 ! .21 .. 2 2 SOCIAL STUDIES 1262 17 9 9 13 3/ 71 12 2,0 I ?j .._.251. 122 1 1 / 9 1 1 J 4  f i 12 2? I 70 I 11/2 ....44LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT PLANNING, RESEARCH, AND EVALUATION ARKANSAS MINIMUM PERFORMANCE TEST GRADE EIGHT SUMMARY THIRD ADMINISTRATION 1 9 9 2. SCHOOL/NO. TESTED* STUDENTS PASSING TOTAL TEST PASSING SCORE = 4204 STUDENTS FAILING BLACK WHITE OTHER TOTAL CLOVERDALE/219 Number Percent DUNBAR/242 Number Percent FOREST HEIGHTS/218 Number Percent HENDERSON/211 Number Percent MABELVALE/175 Number Percent MANN/273 Number Percent PULASKI HEIGHTS/228 Number Percent SOUTHWEST/199 Number Percent ELIZ. MITCHELL/9 Number Percent PINNACLE POINT/5 Number Percent DISTRICT/1779 Number Percent 198 90 222 92 181 83 179 85 153 87 257 94 202 89 162 81 5 56 1559 88 10 48 10 50 24 65 21 66 12 55 7 44 10 38 15 41 109 50 10 48 6 30 13 35 11 34 9 56 16 62 15 41 1 25 1 20 88 40 2 10 2 10 3 14 5 14 2 50 2 40 11 5 1 25 2 40 12 5 21 10 20 8 37 17 32 15 22 13 16 6 26 11 37 19 4 44 __5 100% 220 12 M F M 0 0 0 0 0 0 F 1 5 0 0 M 0 0 0 0 F 0 0 0 0 6 21 1 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 * The number of students tested has been revised to reflect students moving into and out of the district since the second administration and to exclude special education students who may have been included in the second administration summary.Little Rock School District RECE!Er\u0026gt; OCT 6 1992 Office of Desegregation Monitoring DATE: October 1, 1992 TO: Ann Brown Office of Desegregation Monitoring FROM: Marie A. Parker, Associate Superintendent for Organizational and Learning Equity SUBJECT: Annual Report for 1991-92 The enclosed State Report was submitted to the LRSD School Board on September 24, 1992. The report will be submitted to Arkansas State Department of Education on/or before October 15, 1992. If you have any questions regarding this report, please call me at 324-2270. rjg: 810 West Markham Street Little Rock, Arkansas 72201  (501)374-3361 Annual Report for 1991-92 Little Rock School District Board and District Work Toward Achieving Long-range Goals Long-range goals adopted for the District in 1989 by the Little Rock School Board continue to be our focal points for improvement: increasing educational achievement for all students, establishing climates of excellence in all schools and enhancing human relations skills for Dis-trict employees. Academic Achievement The Stanford Achievement Test was administered in April 1992 to 19,287 students in grades one through 11. Because this is the first year for administering the Stanford, a longitudinal display of data is not given. However, results are encouraging. (See report of Stanford scores included as an attachment to this report.) On the Arkansas Minimum Performance Test (MPT), scores are reported for a five-year period. (See report of MPT results included as an attachment to this report.) Eighty-eight percent of Little Rock students tested in grade three passed the MPT in reading. Ninety-one percent of the third graders passed the math portion. In the reading area, 92 percent and 85 percent passed in grades six and eight, respectively. At the eighth grade level, the third administration of the test showed marked improvement in the percentage of students passing the test, with all but two junior high schools having at least an 85 percent passing rate. The 1992 percent pass rate for the District is 88 percent. Strategies to increase performance in the Arkansas minimum performance test include tutoring, increased reading and mathematics assistance, computer assisted instruction, more homework and cooperative learning. In terms of long-range achievement, the District began to implement recommendations of the Board-approved curriculum audit performed by the National 1 Curriculum Audit Center of Arlington, Va. Results were reported in January 1991 and serve as the basis for the No More Excuses posture outlined by the superintendent in March 1991. The  -- administration was authorized by the Board to design and develop a curriculum specifically for Little Rock students which is comprehensive, relevant, challenging and properly scoped and sequenced in grades K-12. This covered the core areas of the curriculum (reading, language arts, math, science and social studies), as well as gifted/talented, physical education and vocational education. Implementation began in August 1992. The scope of this revised curriculum exceeds required statewide assessment requirements. Local schools have some flexibility in implementing the curriculum as they make decisions regarding teaching strategies, methodologies and resources. Additionally, curriculum guides were sequentially developed and objectives have been correlated to the skills in the Arkansas Minimum Performance Test and the Stanford Eight non-referenced test. Also in August 1992, an Instructional Management System was implemented to enable teachers, administration and parents to monitor progress of individual students and provide corrective prescriptions to improve learning. It can monitor the effectiveness of instruction through an assessment component aligned with the curriculum, also. The District will continue to emphasize and expand early childhood education, homework programs, extended day activities, restructuring efforts at the junior high level and secondary Revenues 1991-92 Local State, Other, 43.1%  State, Other, $49,292,940 H Local, $64,998,181 Total, $114,291,121 2 Expenditures 1991-92 Other Objects, 1,53%  Magnets, 3.32% Debt Service, 7.06% Capital Outlay, 3.52% a   Supplies, Materials, 3.56% a   Salaries/Benefits, $82,183,954 Purchased Services $9,036,188 Supplies, Materials $4,010,760 Capital Outlay $3,959,731 Debt Service $7,950,100 Magnets $3,738,667 Other Objects $1,724,698 Purchased Services, 8.02% Total: $112,604,098 Salaries/Benefits, 72.99% reading and mathematics assistance programs to address academic achievement issues. Two new magnet schools were planned by the District and approved for opening in the fall of 1992 by the federal court: Henderson Health Science Magnet Junior High and McClellan Business/ Communications Magnet High School. The number of incentive schools was increased to seven with the inclusion of Franklin Elementary. Incentive schools continued to offer extended day, Saturday school, full-time counselors, auxiliary teachers and small classes. The number of elementary schools offering free four-year-old programs was increased from seven to 11. Those schools. Rightsell, Romine, Mitchell and Woodruff, joined the previous schools of Rockefeller, Badgett, Franklin, Garland, Ish, Stephens and Washington. Also, results from the Districts successful millage election in 1990 continued to be evident. Major construction projects were completed at Geyer Springs, Western Hills, Woodruff and Cloverdale elementary schools, Cloverdale Junior High School and McClellan Business/Communications Magnet High School. Remodeling and construction began at Forest Heights Junior High School. Construction and/or site improvement projects are on schedule at approximately 20 other schools in the District. 3Positive School Climate On April 30, 1991, the City of Little Rock, the LRSD and Blue Cross and Blue Shield of Arkansas announced a program to help in the battle against the abuse of alcohol and other drugs. This unique program is an insurance policy which covers all children enrolled in the LRSD and provides coverage for treatment of problems arising from substance abuse. It is tlte only one of its kind in the nation. During 1991-92,264 students were referred for assessment, 75 percent of whom had no private insurance coverage for substance abuse treatment. Various restructuring efforts for improved organization and delivery of instruction and services continued, including work at four junior high schools under the umbrella of the New Futures for Little Rock Youth program. Funding assistance for the restructuring in the four schools continued from the Annie E. Casey Foundation and the Center for Leadership in School Reform. Also, the collaborative work between the District and the Arkansas Health Department continued at two school-based health clinics for improved health services to students . The Johnson and Johnson Community Health Foundation continued its commitment to the effort with the award of an additional $20,000 grant to the clinic at Forest Heights Junior High School. A third clinic, to open in the fall of 1992 at McClellan High School, was approved by the Board. Academic progress incentive grants of $25,000 each were awarded to area schools for school improvement projects. Safety and security continued to be a priority. In February 1992, the use of hand-held scanning devices to detect metal was begun and frequent, random searches at secondary schools continue. This was part of the continuing response to needs identified in the Safety and Security Task Force Report in 1989 and to the 53-point action plan for safe schools developed in 1991. Dr. Ruth Steele announced in October 1991 her resignation as superintendent, effective July 1, 1992. The LRSD Board of Directors formed a search committee and Dr. Mac Bernd was hired in May 1992. The focus on the school as the basic unit for the delivery of quality education to students will continue in the 1992-93 school year. A reorganization of central office staff will provide principals closer access to the office of the superintendent. Local school plans will continue to be used to improve instruction and learning in aU schools. Twenty-six schools are in 4the first or second year of the five-year rotating cycle of the Comprehensive Outcomes Evaluation (COE) effort begun in 1990. COE is the evaluation process designed by the state to accredit schools which combines state and North Central Accreditation criteria. Human Relations During 1991-92, the primary mission of the Districts Staff Development Department was to provide District employees with professional growth experiences that support the Districts goal of educational excellence and equity for all students. These experiences were designed and implemented according to the (1) mandates of the desegregation plan\n(2) specific identified needs as reflected in the local schools annual improvement plans\nand (3) district-wide expectations. Areas addressed included effective teaching, teacher expectations and student achievement, classroom management, cooperative/team learning, learning styles, self-esteem for students, at-risk students, classroom discipline, stress management, thinking skills, prejudice reduction training, new teacher/mentor program and subject area mini-courses. In the annual survey of attitudes toward human relations in LRSD schools, a comparative analysis of the results at each organizational level showed that items ranked as areas of greatest priority varied from those identified in 1991, with several differences in relative standing. The 1992 data revealed new areas of priority, including the need for voluntary visits by parents at the junior high and senior high levels\nparent promotion of the instructional program\nand involvement of parents and community members in school decisions through advisory committees. Improvement was noted relative to respect among teachers, students, parents and administrators\nand fairness and consistency relative to school rules and student discipline. Although the perception of junior high parents relative to school safety improved, the area remains a concern for junior high parents. As reported in 1991, collective data from each organizational level (excluding junior high parents) showed that respondents from the majority of the subgroups did not regard safety within the school as a major concern. More work will continue in this area during the 1992-93 school year as the results of the annual surveys are used to improve interaction among our students. 5Progress Made on Desegregation Plan Implementation On December 13, 1990, the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals approved the Settlement Plan agreed on by the Little Rock School District, the North Little Rock School District and the Pulaski County Special School District in 1989 for operation of desegregated schools. Following the court ruling, timelines in the 1989 plan were revised and necessary modifications were made to reflect the status of programs that had been implemented and were being retained. While there will continue to be adjustments to details in the plan among the parties, the Office of Desegregation Monitoring and the court to assure compliance, tlie District continues to improve its ability to offer students, parents and patrons stability and predictability in terms of school assignments and other aspects that affect school choice decisions. 6LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT PLANNING, RESEARCH AND EVALUATION STANFORD ACHIEVEMENT TEST, EIGHTH EDITION NATIONAL PERCENTILE RANK/NORMAL CURVE EQUIVALENT SCORES (PR/NCE) DISTRICTWIDE SUMMARY 1992 ENVIRONMENT* GRADE/RACE NUMBER TESTED TOTAL READING TOTAL MATHEMATICS LANGUAGE SCIENCE SOCIAL SCIENCE BASIC BAITERY COMPLETE BATTERY 1 TOTAL B W 0 2094 1330 697 2 4 42/45.8 35/41.9 63/57.0 66/58.8 48/49.0 40/44.6 70/61.1 74/63.3 41/45.1 32/40.2 63/57.2 68/60.1 37/42.9* 27/37.3 59/55.0 49/49.5 45/47,5 36/42.4 67/59.5 74/63.5 39/44.0 31/39.5 64/57.8 67/59.1 2 TOTAL B \\ W O 1883 1173 672 28 39/44.1 29/38.1 62/56.2 63/56.9 57/53.8 46/47.7 77/65.6 87/73.6 49/49.7 39/43.9 70/60.9 64/57.4 43/46.3* 32/40.0 65/58.0 67/59.3 45/47.4 34/41.3 69/60.3 73/62.6 45/47.3 33/40.8 70/61.2 74/63.5 3 TOTAL B W 0 1783 1131 632 18 39/44.2 27/36.9 63/57.0 57/53.8 58/54.1 46/47.8 76/65.1 80/68.0 50/50.0 38/43.8 70/60.9 68/59.6 43/46.1 30/38.8 67/59.1 63/57.1 46/48.0 35/41.6 67/59.2 61/55.9 49/49.2 36/42.4 70/61.1 69/60.4 47/48.2 34/41.0 70/61.0 68/5S: . 7 4 TOTAL B W 0 1867 1211 632 23 44/47.0 33/40.9 67/59.I 60/55.4 57/53.9 49/49.2 73/63.0 76/65.1 46/47.6 35/42.1 65/58.0 64/57.4 46/47.6 34/41.5 68/60.0 66/58.7 48/49.0 38/43.5 68/59.7 69/60.3 48/49.0 38/43.6 68/59.7 67/59.0 47/48.2 36/42.2 68/60.0 67/59.0 5 TOTAL B W 0 1922 1288 612 22 38/43.3 26/36.6 63/56.8 58/54.1 53/51.7 43/46.5 71/61.9 83/69.9 48/48.7 38/43.7 67/59.1 66/58.7 45/47.4 33/40.6 70/61.2 74/63.6 46/48.1 37/43.1 65/58.2 70/60.8 44/46.8 34/41.1 65/58.3 71/61.5 44/46.7 32/40.4 67/59.2 72/62.4 6 TOTAL B W o 1843 1209 609 25 50/49.9 37/42.8 74/63.6 67/59.2 57/53.8 48/48.7 74/63.3 75/64.3 51/50.3 41/45.4 68/59.9 64/57.7 54/52.0 43/46.0 74/63.5 75/64.0 59/54.5 48/49.0 76/65.0 72/62.0 54/52.1 43/46.4 73/63.1 72/62.2 54/52.1 43/46.0 75/64.0 73/62.6 7 TOTAL B W O 1694 1122 550 21 42/45.5 31/39.3 70/61.0 72/62.2 45/47.4 36/42.2 64/57.3 75/64.3 43/46.1 33/40.7 64/57.7 70/61.1 42/45.6 31/39.7 65/57.9 75/64.5 47/48.6 35/42.1 72/62.0 80/67.8 46/47.9 35/41.7 69/60.6 75/64.5 46/47.7 33/40.9 71/61.5 78/66.0 8 TOTAL B W O 1573 1060 493 19 41/45.2 29/38.5 67/59.4 73/62.6 39/44.0 30/38.8 59/54.7 87/73.6 48/49.1 38/43.6 69/60.7 81/68.5 45/47.4 34/41.3 68/60.1 77/65.7 46/48.0 34/41.3 72/62.1 83/70.0 43/46.2 32/40.0 66/58.6 84/71.2 43/46.1 30/39.2 68/59.8 86/72.6 9 TOTAL B W 0 1554 995 536 23 44/46.6 30/39.2 68/60.1 63/57.2 34/41.2 23/34.1 57/53.9 68/59.6 54/51.9 42/45.9 73/63.0 69/60.6 50/50.2 38/43.4 72/62.5 69/60.7 49/49.6 36/42,5 73/62,6 71/61.4 47/48.2 34/41.1 70/61.0 71/61.7 48/48.8 34/41.1 73/62.6 73/62.9 10 TOTAL B W 0 1602 949 609 41 49/49.2 35/41.8 72/62.3 64/57.4 37/43.2 26/36.7 56/53.1 58/54.0 47/48.6 34/41.5 68/60.0 59/54.6 45/47.3 32/39.9 67/59.0 64/57.3 43/46.2 30/38.7 66/58.4 57/53.8 47/48.4 34/41.2 68/60.1 64/57.7 47/48.5 32/40.4 70/61.2 65/58.2 11 TOTAL B W O 1472 825 612 35 50/49.8 34/41.4 69/60.7 66/58.4 43/46.5 32/40.1 59/54.6 62/56.4 48/49.1 35/41.9 66/58.5 61/56.1 47/48.6 32/40.2 68/59.7 58/54.4 51/50.6 36/42.7 69/60.7 72/62.3 51/50.4 36/42.3 70/60.8 69/60.5 51/50.4 34/41.3 72/62.1 70/61i 0 * At Grades 1 and 2 the SCIENCE and SOCIAL SCIENCE objectives are combined and reflected ar. r.corn nndnr ENVIRONMENT..?BAJ\u0026gt;t*_9 No. Tested No. Passed 120 8 1765 1513 19 8? readThg 1799 1 59 0 SInt._ES.ia.4_i._ill___SS. ills i6 1220 1709 1542 lA 1991 1722 1615 n KEADIIIG UO ISi LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT ARKANSAS MINIMUM PERIOIUIANCE TEST RESULTS OISTniCT SUMMARY FIVE YEAH COMPARISON FIROT ADMINISTRATION 1908 TIiROUGlI 1992 1-215 1292 READING 1229 1221 1212 1229 1292 MATHEMATICS 1220 1211 122? i No. Tested Uo. Passed percent Passed 122? 1875 1725 m? 1299 17 65 1518 ..9A 188 184 1 1541 8 4 HATliEMATT\u0026lt;:S 1212 1220 1790 1602 1 709 154 4 19 4 6 1603 86 .1221 1722 1558 IU. 1950 1709 87 1212 1875 1671 ... fj. MATHEMATICS ISfi. mi i22 1863 1616 _^.ei 1199 17 65 1301 ___Ll. 1 803 1503 00 1044 1566 1946 1735 19 58 16 9 4 1063 1620 .1___85____811___07 J__0 7 ITkUGUAGE ARTS llfil 1220 1121 1221 1199. 12SS 1803 1635 __9 1 1.29.2 SCIENCE 12 22 1221 1221 1299 SOCIAL SrUDH..', 1292 1 229 1 ? 3 1 1 798 1354 1709 1315 1722 1336 1875 1446 1765 1135 1799 1196 1709 1223 1722 1255 1 875 1410 17 65 1157 I 199 1 265 1 709 1 H 8 1 7 . 1 2. 187 5 1 )8 Z li ._21L__2A lAHGUAGE ARTS ill ISO mi 71 mi _ ttl 7jJ 7.J _ { T) .22 . li 2i mi ill SCIENCE 128 121 1221 i 28 a SOCIAL STVJOIES 18 1 ?p 12! OB.AIJE. S No. Tested No. Passed mil 1679 r? teaat-EassslJ.__11. 1 7 99 1623 __29 i 7 5 \u0026amp; 1562 __82. 1792 1561 .17 170 1 1505 _..15. lull 1 609 1799 1 608 __llL.-.Sl 1756 1536 11 1792 1506 11 170 1 1 523 _-.91 18 11 1560 11 it 99 1537 11 1756 1478 1792 1467 b\n1701 1 4 35 __Bl 1811 1 272 11 1 /99 1 207 1 7 56 1 290 ill. 11 1792 1121 ii 1781 1110 ___ 18 11 127) ...ip 1 ?9'J 13)1 ...7 i 112 1 1 /\u0026gt;- I I J 4 I za I .7} 11 IfLITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT PLANNING, RESEARCH, AND EVALUATION ARKANSAS MINIMUM PERFORMANCE TEST GRADE EIGHT SUMMARY THIRD ADMINISTRATION 1 9 9 2. TOTAL TEST PASSING SCORE = 4204 STUDENTS FAILING SCHOOL/NO. TESTED* STUDENTS PASSING BLACK WHITE OTHER TOTAL CLOVERDALE/219 Number Percent DUNBAR/242 Number Percent FOREST HEIGHTS/218 Number Percent HENDERSON/211 Number Percent MABELVALE/175 Number Percent MANN/273 Number Percent PULASKI HEIGHTS/228 Number Percent SOUTHWEST/199 Number Percent ELIZ. MITCHELL/9 Number Percent PINNACLE POINT/5 Number Percent DISTRICT/1779 Number Percent 198 90 222 92 181 83 179 85 153 87 257 94 202 89 162 81 5 56 1559 88 10 48 10 50 24 65 21 66 12 55 1 44 10 38 15 41 109 50 10 48 6 30 13 35 11 34 9 56 16 62 15 41 1 25 1 20 88 40 3 14 2 50 2 40 11 5 2 10 5 14 1 25 2 40 12 5 21 10 20 8 37 17 32 15 22 13 16 6 26 11 37 19 4 44 __5 lOQ! 220 12 0 M F M 0 2 0 0 0 0 F 1 5 0 0 M 0 0 0 0 F 0 0 0 0 6 1 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 o, .X 0 0 * The number of students tested has been revised to reflect students moving into and out of the district since the second administration and to exclude special education students who may have been included in the second administration summary.Annual Report for 1992-93 Little Rock School District Board and District Work Toward Achieving Long-range Goals Long-range goals adopted for the District in 1989 by the Little Rock School Board continuf to be our focal points for improvement\nincreasing educadonai achievement for all students, establishing climates of excellence in ail schools, and enhancing human relations skills for o District employees. Academic Achievement The Stanford Achievement Test was administered in April 1993 to 18,777 students in grades one through 11. In comparison to the 1991-92 districtwide percentile, scores show that at the primary and intermediate grade levels scores for total reading, total mathematics, and language increased from the previous year. There was an increase in science and social studies as well. (See report of Stanford scores included as an attachment to this report.) The percentile ranking for the secondary levels showed increases or stability in reading, mathematics, and English, with the exception of grade eleven. A representative sampling of principals across organizational levels reported that numerous strategies were being employed to reduce the disparity that still remains between black and white students. Some of the strategies mentioned were peer tutoring, teaching reading two times a day, accuracy of placement, flexible assignments, an early morning tutorial program, and remediation of students through the use of Academic Skills Development Plans. The Arkansas Minimum Performance Test (MPT) scores are reported for a five-year period. The test was admimstered in grades three, six, and eight. (See report of MPT results included as an attachment to this rer'on.) In the 1992-93 academic year, 86 percent of ail students tested in third grade passed reading\n1 88 percent passed mathematics. Passing percentages for third grade black students were 81 percent in reading and 8 j percent in mathematics. Ninety-six percent of third grade white J students passed both of these areas. At the sixth grade level, passing percentages for all tested students ranged from 91 percent in reading to 76 percent in language ans and social studies. Eighty-seven percent of third grade white students passed reading\nninety-nine percent of the sixth grade white students passed in this area. Eighty-seven percent of the eighth grade students who were tested passed the total test. At the eighth grade level, passing percentages for black students ranged from 82 percent in reading to 51 percent in science. The range for white students was 95 percent passing reading to 85 percent passing social studies. A slightly greater percentage of black students passed reading an in the previous year. The 1993 Arkansas Legislature passed a bill which allows eighth grade students to be promoted to the ninth grade without passing the MPT, as was previously required. This bill was implemented in 1993\ntherefore, no eighth grade students were retained solely on the basis of their failure to pass the 1993 MPT. Strategies to increase performance in the Arkansas Minimum Performance test include tutoring, increased reading and mathematics assistance, computer assisted instruction, more homework, and cooperative learning. State, 2 Expenditures 1992-93 Debt Services, 8.52% Services, Supplies, Equipment, 18.54%  Services, Supplies, Equipment, $20,795,262 Salaries/Benefits, 72.94% a  Salaries/Benefits, $81,820,303 Debt Services, $9,554,535 Total: $112,170,100 The District will continue to emphasize and expand early childhood education, homework programs, extended day activities, restructuring efforts at the junior high level, and secondary reading and mathematics assistance programs to address academic achievement issues. Two new magnet schools opened in the fall of 1992: Henderson Health Science Magnet Junior High and McClellan Business/Communications Magnet High School. Incentive schools continued to offer extended day, Saturday school, full-time counselors, auxiliary teachers, and small classes. The number of elementary schools offering free four-year-old programs was increased from 11 to 16, making them available in Badgett, Bale, Cloverdale, Franklin, Garland, Geyer Springs, Ish, Mitchell, Rightseil, Rockefeller, Romine, Stephens, Washington, Watson, Wilson, and Woodruff schools. Also, during the 1992-93 school year, the most significant building projects completed were the addition to Forest Heights Junior High and the construction of the Martin Luther King Jr. Interdistrict Elementary School. To date, the District has expended approximately 80 percent of the bond issues and completed 132 projects which include building improvements as well as new facilities. Twenty-five projects are scheduled for the 1993-94 school year. 3Positive School Climate In the annual survey of attitudes toward human relations in LRSD schools, a comparative analysis of the results at each organizational level showed that items ranked as areas of greatest priority varied from those identified in 1992, with several differences in relative standing. The 1993 data revealed new areas of priority including the need for more student respect for teachers and other students and a need for students to be more excited about learning. A concern was that slow learners did not receive as much praise as more advanced students. Another concern was that pupils felt that the school rules were not fair. Improvement was noted relative to involvement of parents and community members at the elementary and high school levels in school decisions through advisory committees. Safety and security continued to be apriority. In February 1992, the use of hand-held scanning devices to detect metal was begun and frequent, random searches at secondary schools continue. This was part of the continuing response to needs identified in the Safety and Security Task Force Report in 1989 and to the 53-point action plan for safe schools developed in 1991. Curriculum and Staff Development The Little Rock School District was authorized by the Board of Directors to design and develop a written curriculum that is comprehensive, relevant, challenging, and developmentally appropriate for kindergarten through twelfth grade. With this charge, a revised curriculum was developed in the 1991-92 school year and implemented beginning with the 1992-93 school year. The board also approved the installation and use of a technology system to monitor and assess student progress in mastering the revised curriculum. This new system, the Abacus Instructional Management System, was piloted in twenty-two elementary schools and two junior high schools during the 1992-93 school year. Implementation of the revised curriculum and its computer management system was moni- tored throughout the 19^-93 school year, and a curriculum debriefing meeting was held with a committee of teachers and administrators at the end of the 1992-93 school year. Feedback from 4monitoring and the debriefing meeting suggested that the curriculum was being used by teachers at all levels and was viewed by teachers, principals, and parents as a strong document that has to the potential to make a marked difference in student achievement. Teachers reponed that the curriculum is closely correlated to the LRSD standardized testing program and reflects the latest initiatives in curriculum development at the national level. Staff development provided for the revised curriculum was reported by teachers as a positive experience. Although curriculum implementation and training for multiple subject areas all at one time was not always viewed by teachers as the ideal method for curriculum renewal, the end result was positive. A \"trainer of trainers\" curriculum workshop was conducted in August 1992. One teacher for each subject area from each school received initial training about the revised curriculum. These trainers provided curriculum training for all teachers at each local building during the 1992-93 pre-school conference. In addition, elementary curriculum grade level to^ cluster meetings were held throughout the first semester of 1992-93. Each elementary teacher attended four sessions: language arts, mathematics, science, and social studies. Secondary traimng sessions were held through subject area cluster meetings and secondary council meetings. A large scale training program for the Abacus Instructional Management System was also undertaken in 1992-93. Training sessions for curriculum supervisors were followed by sessions for the principals and teachers at 24 pilot schools. Trainees learned to access curriculum objectives in the computer, make tests from a test item bank correlated to the objectives, and use teacher observation records and teacher-made tests to assess student mastery of curriculum objectives. During the summer of 1993, teacher committees worked to add items to the test item bank and to revise existing test items. Abacus will continue at the pilot schools and will be expanded to include the remainder of the elementary schools during the 1993-94 school term. Student and class reports generated from Abacus will give teachers, principals, and parents an up-to-date record of how well an individual student or group of students is mastering the objectives in the revised curriculum. This data will give parents, teachers, principals, curriculum supervisors, and admimstrators a basis for effecting change at the district, school, classroom, and family level.Desegregation Audit and Review During the 1992-93 school year, the LittleRock School District initiated a Desegregation Audit/Review. The purpose of the audit, as commissioned by the Superintendent, was to determine the degree to which each program of the Desegregation Plan had been implemented. What began as an assessment of implementation evolved into the formation of a system for monitoring, reporting, and determining the level of success of the Desegregation Plan. 6SLIP SHEET TO AGENDA 09-22-94 Annual Report for 1993-94 Little Rock School District NEW DISTRICT MISSION STATEMENT AND GOALS Of major importance to the Little Rock School District (LRSD) in the coming years, is the review of LRSDs mission statement and goals. Dr. Henry P. Williams, superintendent, requested a day-long planning session to review the direction the school district should take. The group developed a new mission statement and listed six major goals for the district. The group consisted of members of the board of directors, district administrators, Classroom Teachers Association and Parent Teachers Association members. Office of Desegregation Monitoring representatives, Joshua Intervenors, and a variety of community members. Both the goals and mission statement printed below provide direction for the district s educational and academic focus\ninsures equity for students, parents, and staff\nguides budget planning\nand emphasizes staff development and school safety. LRSD Mission Statement The mission of the Little Rock School District is to provide a quality, integrated educational program which encourages all children to achieve their optimum academic, social, and emotional development. To that end, the students in the Little Rock School District will develop skills in problem solving and conflict resolution, and demonstrate mastery of the Districts curriculum.This will be achieved through the collaborative efforts of a Board, a dedicated and competent staff, and of parents and citizens committed to fairness, racial equity and adequate support for education. LIHLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT GOALS 1. Implement integrated educational programs that will ensure that all students grow academically, socially and emotionally with emphasis on basic skills and academic enrichment while closing disparities in achievement. 2. Develop and maintain a staff that is well-trained and motivated. 3. The Little Rock School Board, administration, staff, and students will demonstrate in their day-to-day behavior that they accept each individual as a valued contributor to society and view cultural diversity among students, staff and community as a valued resource upon which our community and nation can draw as we prepare for the 21st Century. 4. Solicit and secure financial and other support our schools, including our desegregation plan. resources that are necessary to fully 5. Provide a safe and orderly climate that is students. conducive to learning for all 6. Ensure that equity occurs in all phases of school activities and operations. ACADEMIC ACHIEVEMENT The Stanford Eight Achievement Test was administered during the spring of 1994, to more than 18,000 students in grades one through 11. A Complete 2Battery was used to assess student achievement mathematics, English, science, and social in the areas of reading, reviewed separately for the diagnostic results of individual. science. When scored, subtests may be strengths and weaknesses. class, or grade level The 1994, districtwide average percentile totals showed that percentile ranks at the school level remained fairly stable. (Percentile points ranae from a low of one to a high of 99 with 50 being (Percentile points range from average.) Grades 4, 5, 6, and 10 scored at or above the fiftieth percentile on the complete battery test district level. However, from Spring 1992 scores at the indicated some increase to Spring 1994, seven of 11 grades complete battery at the district level. in the average percentile rank of the Stanford 8 A sample of principals reported that strategies were being developed and Will be implemented to focus on reducing achievement disparity. Some of the strategies shared were team teaching, individualized tutoring in mathematics and science, smaller classes, a program entitled Math-Plus, Reading Clubs for at- risk students, test taking skills, an after school homework and tutoring program, and a Reading and Language Direct Instruction Program. Arkansas Minimum Performance Test The Arkansas Minimum Performance Test (MPT) five-year period. In.1993-94, the scores are reported for a Third-grade students test was administered in grades six and eight. were not tested, as was previously required. The 1993-94 school year was the last year of administration of the MPT. 3At the sixth grade level, passing percentages for all tested students ranged from 91 percent in reading to 78 percent in language arts. Ninety-seven percent of sixth grade white students passed reading\neighty-eight percent of the sixth grade black students passed in this area. Passing percentages for eighth grade students who were tested ranged from 83 percent in reading to 60 percent in science. At the eighth grade level, passing percentages for black students ranged from 76 percent in reading to 47 percent in science. The range for white students was 96 percent passing reading to 88 percent passing science. A slightly greater percentage of eighth grade students improved their scores in social studies over the previous year. Some strategies to enhance learning and increase achievement for all students based on areas of need identified on the Arkansas Minimum Performance test include Academic Skills Development Plans, Math-Plus, Language Arts-Plus, tutoring\nhomework centers, use of Abacus (the districts instructional management system), and implementing a variety of teaching methods and educational programs. Principals also identified the need to continue staff development in human relations to improve student performance. Climate/Hu man Relations Sun^'ey A School Climate\\Human Relations Survey is conducted each year by the LRSD. The purpose of the survey is to gather opinions concerning teacher- student relations, instruction, school security, student-peer relations. parent- school relations, etc. The results are used to develop plans to capitalize on the strengths and remedy weaknesses. 4Data from the 1994 survey indicated that at least two-thirds of parents, students, and teachers surveyed agreed on several items: They were knowledgeable about their rights and responsibilities at their respective schools, and all three groups agreed that teachers treat one another with respect. The following items were among those that received the highest percentage of always and usually answers by each group: Students were knowledgeable about their rights and responsibilities, and also answered positively concerning the treatment of librarians and secretaries at schools. Among the items receiving the highest percentage of always and usually answers from teachers were that parents were welcome at school, received reports of student progress at conferences, and that principals treated parents with respect. Items to which parents most frequently responded always and a usually indicated that they agreed with the above findings. Answers to survey items also pointed to weaknesses. Some of the areas of concern identified indicated that: Students, teachers, and parents held the opinion that students did not treat other students with respect, and teachers expressed the opinion that students did not treat teachers with respect. Additionally, the survey indicated that it is the perception of parents that teachers do not expect low achievers to respond as often as other students. Information derived from the School Climate\\Human Relations Survey will serve as a useful tool in reinforcing those positive aspects of parental awareness and planning for better communications for the 1994-95 academic year. 5Curriculum and Staff Development The Little Rock School District (LRSD) educational program which provides a quality, integrated children to achieve their optimum academic, social, and emotional development. established for each subject and grade level. Curriculum objectives have been the elementary level and subject areas. The objectives are introduced at are expanded as students advance toward mastery of In order to meet the National Education establishment of new learner Goals, Act 236 of 1991 called for assessment, and professional development. outcomes linked to new curriculum frameworks. The State Board of Education adopted the Arkansas Learner Outcomes in October 1991, and in May of 1992, the State Board adopted a schedule for the rievpinnm.^, curriculum a schedule for the development of frameworks. Frameworks in developed. English, Language Arts, and Mathematics were The Districts current Course Content Guides in . English, Language Arts, and athematics were used for instruction until the 1994-95 school the 1993-94 school local curriculum guides K-12 in year the District used the state frameworks year. During to revise the the following years, LRSD curriculum English, Language Arts, and Mathematics. During frameworks for remaining will be revised in accordance with state course content areas. LRSD offers 18 challenging advanced placement students assuring that all students will be allowed courses for high school to prepare for the future at their own level of learning. A Youth Apprenticeship Program is offered at 6 t IMetropolitan VoTech Education Center, and it provides students with on-the-job training and related classroom instruction. LRSD offers Tech Prep which is designed to guide students into higher level academic and vocational courses giving them the strong technical and academic foundations on which to build their future. Quality staff development was executed in 1992 to support the implementation of the revised District curriculum through the trainer of trainers model for administrators and teachers. (975) workshops were conducted during the 1993-94 school Nine hundred and seventy-five thousand eight hundred and year, and nine received Professional Growth Training and ninety-seven (9,897) educators enrolled and programs and teaching methods: training credits in the following PET, TESA, Classroom Management, Cooperative learning, Learning Styles, and Thinking SkiUs. staff development training was well received by administrators and by the Staff Development teachers. The hands-on computer training, and implementaUon of the Abacus instructional Management System by the Staff Development and Media/Instructional Technology Departments instructional management tool. ensured the use of this viable Training for the Abacus Instructional Management for all teachers in 14 additional elementary schools this System was provided classes were offered year, and refresher at the districts Instructional Resource Center. sessions were held in the evenings for principals. During the Special year, 72 sessions of Abacus training were held for a total of 810 1993-94 school The training will equip teachers with the skills participants. and knowledge to use Abacus to 7monitor on a regular basis individual student students strengths and needs, ability to generate reports for growth as well as diagnosis of Additional features of the Abacus system are its parent conferences, obtain immediate feedback of test results, identify supplementary objectives, and to develop individual lesson resources correlated to curriculum plans for students. During the summer of 1994, objectives were added revised mathematics and language to the Abacus system along with additional correlated to the revised objectives. arts Abacus as the record-keeping system of the All elementary schools will test items I now use District. DESEGREGATION PLAN IMPLEMENTATION The Desegregation Plan to by the Little Rock School District, the North was approved in May 1992. The plan was agreed Pulaski County Special School District for Little Rock School District, and the operation of desegregated schools. During the 1993-94 school year, the Little Rock School District identified all Obligations, within our plan, within our court orders, and within monitoring reports from the Office of Desegregation Monitoring and Little Rock School  The Little Rock School is updated by Program District Planning, Research and Evaluation Department. District has incorporated a living document which Managers on a Quarterly basis. obligations. This living document called the PROGRAM BUDGET DOCUMENT is used to monitor progress in meeting our defined The Little Rock School District has students to their Attendance Zone schools. undertaken a major effort to assign all unless other choices were approved. 8The district is following our obligation to phase out Grandfathering, whereby students were allowed to remain in their current school, whether or not the school was the Attendance Zone school. Because of this effort, many Incentive School students have elected to go to their Attendance Zone school. This effort resulted in a total increase of 165 students in our incentive schools in August of 1994 over the October 1993 student count. This increase occurred with one (1) less Incentive School in 1994-95 than in 1993-94. The Little Rock School District also has moved toward actively and aggressively recruiting students to our district. During the 1993-94 school year, a districtwide recruitment plan was written to address requirements in the desegregation plan, court orders, as well as monitoring reports. The document includes plans for incentive, area, magnet and interdistrict schools. As part of the districtwide recruitment plan, each school is required to have an individual recruitment plan and a school recruitment team to implement activities in their plan. Recruitment efforts for Clinton Elementary, Pulaski County Special School Districts new mterdistrict elementary school, were extremely successful. More than 200 Little Rock School District students were part of the desegregation exchange and will now attend Clinton Elementary. LRSDs four-year-old program continues to grow and serve parents of preschool children in preparing them for kindergarten. With the addiUon of eight more classes, the district enrolled 695 students in the program for the 1994-95 school year, an increase of 203 students over last year. The Little Rock School District wUl continue to comply with every aspect of our Desegregation Plan. 9LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT MISSION STATEMENT The mission of the Little Rock School District is to provide a quality, integrated educational program which encourages all children to achieve their optimum academic, social, and emotional development. To that end, the students in the Little Rock School District will develop an appreciation for ethnic and cultural diversity, develop skills in problem solving and conflict resolution, and demonstrate mastery of the District's curriculum. This will be achieved through the collaborative efforts of a Board, a dedicated and competent staff, and of parents and citizens committed to fairness, racial equity and adequate support for education.URSD Annual eport r, A Progress Report on the Little Rock School District 2003-2003 School Year advertising supplement i fall 2003 | Little Rock School District This is the fifth annual report that the Little Rock School District has prepared as an insert to inform the community about the highlights of the prior school year. Despite many challenges, the 2002-03 school year was successful in terms of growth in many academic indicators. Student learning is, and will always be, the primary focus in our schools. classes have been relocated during the process at some campuses, but the end result is worth the disorder as upgraded facilities contribute to a more appropriate and functional teaching and learning environment. The declaration last fall by U.S. District judge Bill Wilson that the Little Rock School District is unitary in all areas except program evaluation was appealed to the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals. Oral arguments have been held, and the district awaits the courts decision. Work continues in the final area in which the district must comply with its Revised Desegregation and Education Plan. That piece, program evaluations, is being finalized and will be submitted to judge Wilson in the spring of 2004. Teachers continue to monitor closely student performance on key state and national achievement tests. Under the federal No Child Left Behind Act, schools analyze student performance data based on specific subgroups, including race, limited-English-proficient, free/reduced lunch qualification and special education. While many schools experienced double-digit growth on the state Benchmark Exams, in some cases a subgroup performance might have resulted in a school being placed on school improvement. In other cases, if a school made its required improvement during the year, it remained on the school improvement list because two consecutive years of mandated growth are required for a school to be removed from the list. We are working diligently with schools that are on school improvement in order to provide the necessary resources for teachers and administrators to improve students academic achievement. The district has updated its Strategic Plan. This work, done by more than loo community residents working in six major areas, will help to guide the districts direction in the next five years. I look forward to assisting district staff, business and civic leaders, parents and others this school year. The challenges facing our students are great and cannot be overstated. However, I believe that this community has put its support into our schools, and teachers, staff and students will benefit from knowing that public education is highly valued in our city. Morris Holmes, Ed.D. Interim Superintendent r I i: On the Inside Construction continues at schools throughout the city. Many major projects, such as Hall High, are complete, while others, such as Williams, are just beginning. Students, teachers and parents have been patient as they have lived through renovations in their buildings. Entire Performance LRSD News Page 2-3 Page 4-5 Honors \u0026amp; Achievements . . .Page 6-7 Construction Zone Page 8 Page 2 I advertising supplement State Benchmark Exams Our Performance A Grade 4 Literacy 1 o LRSD Arkansas Grade 4 Math LRSD Arkansas 1 -\u0026amp;s o    African-Arne ri can 53 46 African-Arne ri can 35 38 Grade 6 Literacy LRSD Arkansas Grade 6 Math LRSD Arkansas White 90 77 White 82 76 African-American 13 14 African-American 8 12 Grade 8 Literacy LRSD Arkansas Grade 8 Math LRSD Arkansas White 49 37 White 54 50 1 Academic Achievement One of the primary issues facing school districts across the state and nation is student academic achievement as measured by accepted examinations. There are two types of exams administered to studentscriterion-referenced exams and norm-referenced exams. Criterion-referenced exams measure student achievement on a specific curriculum or base of knowledge. In the case of students in the Little Rock School District, the Arkansas Benchmark Exam is the criterion-referenced test that students take. It measures how well students are learning the mandated Arkansas standards. As of the 2002-03 school year, the Benchmark Exam was required for students in grades 4, 6 and 8. It also is required as an End-of-Course test for students who take Algebra and Geometry, and all 11th grade students must take the End-of-Course Literacy Benchmark Exam. LRSD students recorded some significant increases at many schools on the Benchmark Exams. Benchmark results presented here indicate the percentage of students who perform at the proficient and advanced levels. There are no national comparisons on the Benchmark Exam since it an Arkansas-developed and -administered test. Algebra African-American 28 25 African-American 45 White 68 57 White 52 33 5 I What steps are being taken to assist students in schools on the school improvement list?  LRSD Arkansas Geometry LRSD Arkansas African-Arne ri can 15 18 African-American 17 11 Grade 11 Literacy LRSD Arkansas African-Arne rican 20 19 White 6o 54 White 63 47 White 71 57 Under the federal No Child Left Behind Act, students in schools on school improvement receive supplemental services and school choice options, depending on which year of school improvement the school is placed. The LRSD offers supplemental services, which consists of tutoring by a provider selected by the Arkansas Department of Education, to students in year two of school improvement. All schools in alert status or on the school improvement list develop their school improvement plan to include proven strategies to help students build skills and knowledge in literacy and mathematics. Professional development activities in these schools are geared toward improving teacher preparation to address identified student needs. Principals of LRSD schools on the improvement list are encouraged to work with principals of schools that have scored well on the Benchmark Exam in order to duplicate successful strategies. Our Performance Page 3 I advertising supplement Stanford Achievement Exam \u0026amp; ACT Norm-referenced exams compare student academic performance to that of a national norm group of students who took the same test. This allows a district to see how its students are doing compared to others, regardless of the specific curriculum taught in school. Students in Arkansas must take the Stanford Achievement Test, ninth edition, as a norm-referenced exam. Stanford Achievement Exam results are stated as a percentile. For example, a percentile rank of 72 means that these students did as well or better than 72 percent of the students in the norm group who took the same exam, African-American students in the LRSD were within 1 or 2 points of their counterparts in the state at every grade level. White students in the LRSD scored 9-17 percentile points ahead of their peers on the Stanford Achievement Test. Another exam that allows comparisons with students across the nation is the ACT college entrance exam. The districts composite ACT score climbed from 19.0 in 2001-02 to 19.5 in 2002-03. Students in the LRSD showed significant progress in many areas of all of these exams in 2002-03. When scores are disaggregated and comparisons made both within Arkansas and to other students nationally, LRSD students perform quite well. Looking at the scores for the district, state and nation on all three exams, there is an achievement gap that can be accounted for, in part, by poverty. With more than 50 percent of its students who qualify for the free/reduced lunch program, the LRSD continues to focus on methods to help students who are not performing well on standardized exams. Academic achievement remains the LRSDs top priority. Stanford Achievement Exam Grade 5 LRSD Arkansas LRSD Arkansas African-American 35 37 Grade 7 African-American 35 37 White 72 62 White 73 64 What About Schools on the School Improvement List? Readers of the local newspaper may wonder why, with LRSD student scores ahead of the state and nation in many areas on required exams, there are several schools on the states school improvement list. There are several answers to this question. There are some schools in the LRSD which have shown significant improvement on the Benchmark Exam, but they have not reached the level of improvement (Adequate Yearly Progress, or AYP) required by the state. Not only must the entire school meet the AYP, but subpopulations, such as limited-English-proficient students, students who qualify for free/reduced lunch and special education students, must meet the same AYP as all other students. Also, once a school is on the school improvement list, it must meet AYP for two consecutive years to be removed from the list. Some LRSD schools did meet AYP this year, but remain on the list until they meet AYP for a second year. All schools on school improvement, indeed all LRSD schools, continue to look closely at test results to determine areas in which to concentrate lessons in order to help students learn the necessary course material and to improve academic performance in the future. I L Grade 10 LRSD Arkansas LRSD Arkansas Nation African-American 30 31 ACT Exam White 72 55 J African-American White 17.1 16.7 16.9 23.0 21.1 21.7  Page 4 I advertising supplement LRSD News J Grants The Little Rock School District is committed to having all of its students reading at or above grade level by the end of the third grade. The district received a three-year Arkansas Reading First grant from the Arkansas Department of Education in the amount of $4,412,184. This grant money will be used to implement a comprehensive, research-based reading program in 12 elementary schools that were determined by 1999-2002 literacy data and other factors to have the greatest need. The Reading First project will build on the districts current literacy plan and will provide human and financial resources to more fully implement that plan. Other new grants implemented in 2002-03: Hall High and Henderson Middle School received 21st Century Community Learning Center grants to establish after-school and summer academic enrichment programs for the next five years. The schools will share a total of up to $1 million over five years. The U. S. Department of Education selected the LRSD to receive funding under the Professional Development for Music Educators Program in the amount of $706,785 over three years to provide ongoing professional development support for LRSD music teachers. The LRSD received the Teaching American History Grant in the amount of $995,953 over a three-year period. The district and its partners will provide professional development for all American history teachers in grades 5, 8 and 11. Paulette Martin, Director of Adult Education, accepts the Adult Education Week Proclamation from Governor Mike Huckabee. Adult Ed Celebrates Milestone The Little Rock Adult Education Center marked 25 years of service to the community. During the past 25 years, the Little Rock Adult Education Center has served nearly 65,000 adults with over 7,000 receiving their Arkansas GED diplomas. The main center and its 18 satellite programs serve over 2,500 adults a year. Classes offered include refresher courses in reading, math and English\nGED preparation\ncomputer-assisted instruction\ncomputer literacy\nfamily literacy\nand English as a second language. Foundation Provides $100,000 in Teacher Grants It wasnt Ed McMahon delivering the Publishers Clearing House grand prize, but it was just as exciting for many teachers and principals in the Little Rock School District. April 2 was the day the Public Education Foundation of Little Rock delivered 32 grants totaling nearly $100,000 throughout the district. Foundation members, donors, city dignitaries, LRSD School Board members and others boarded three school buses to personally deliver balloon bouquets and grant checks to surprised teachers! Each grant met certain criteria, whether it was targeting student achievement, parent involvement or improving teacher quality. kJ A Foundation Board of Directors member Larry Lichty gives Fair Park Elementary's Margaret Isum a hug as she receives her $5,000 grant. -4 I LRSD News Page 5 I advertising supplement SREB Training The Little Rock School District was selected from an elite group of ten urban districts across the nation by the Southern Regional Education Board (SREB) to be the first to participate in a new national leadership initiative. The goal of the SREB Leadership Initiative is to prepare school and teacher leaders to lead a comprehensive school improvement effort that will result in increased student achievement. All five LRSD high schools as well as four middle schools (Cloverdale, Henderson, Mabelvale and Southwest) are participating in the program. The leadership initiative will provide school leadership teams an intensive three-year curriculum program beginning with the 2002-03 school year. I High schools and several middle schools receive SREB training. 1 Volunteers Give 400,000 Hours Parents and other community residents continue their longstanding practice of serving schools in the LRSD. In 2002-03, volunteer hours climbed above 400,000. This huge commitment of time and energy helps to bolster the work that teachers and other staff do to help students achieve. The growth in volunteer hours has been phenomenal. In the past five years, the number of hours has grown from 187,580 in 1997-98 to 400,031 during the last school year. c o o ZEJ Volunteer Hours iiSO,ooo^^ . 4OO,OCX3 350,000 300,000 250.000 200,000 J 150,000 r 100,000 i. 50,000 0 Bi Uh3fiS0 I II xaM\u0026gt;^ Advanced Placement Enrollment 3500 3000 2500 2000 1500 1000 500 0 \u0026gt;4i. H t f i     MM! t In order to improve academic achievement, the LRSD encourages students to take challenging courses. One way to do this is through enrollment in Advanced Placement (AP) classes at the high school level. AP courses are very rigorous and meet national guidelines in terms of curriculum and college preparation. Students in AP classes may take the national AP exams in the spring. Those students who earn at least a 3 on the national AP exam may, in most cases, earn college credit for these classes. The LRSD has worked with teachers, counselors, students and parents to increase student enrollment in AP classes. To that end, we have been successful. The accompanying chart shows the increase in AP class enrollment in LRSD high schools during the past few years. Since the 1997-98 school year, there has been more than 20 percent annual growth in the number of students enrolled in AP classes and a total growth during that time of more than 100 percent. We expect these students to demonstrate higher levels of academic performance based on the more challenging courses they take, and their success in high school should continue at the college level. Honors \u0026amp; Achievements  * a Page 6 I advertising supplement Yang Dai scored a perfect 36 on the ACT exam.  Katherine Wright Knight was named Arkansas 2003 Teacher of the Year and received the national NEA Foundation Award for Teaching Excellence.  Sharon Boyd-Struthers of Rockefeller Elementary\nTimothy Eubanks of Parkview High\nRuth Eyres of J.A. Fair High\nCatherine Koehler of Baseline Elementary\nand ' Judy Meier of Rockefeller Elementary earned National Teacher Certification from @ the National Board for Professional Teaching Standards. National Board Certification is a credential attesting that a teacher has been judged by his or her peers as one who is accomplished and makes sound professional judgments about student learning.  Gillian Glasco and Earnest Sweat, seniors at Parkview Magnet High School, were elected to office at Boys and Girls State. Gillian was elected Governor at Arkansas Girls State, and Earnest was elected Lieutenant Governor at Arkansas Boys State. s\u0026lt;i  Five students from Central High School were Semifinalists this year in the Siemens Westinghouse Competition in Math, Science \u0026amp; Technology. p \\ The Siemens Competition recognizes remarkable talent all over the country and fosters individual growth for high school students who are willing to challenge themselves through science research. The students were Daniel Liu, Satish Mahalingam, Mark Mazumder, Ananth Ranganathan and Xiazhong (Jeff) Wang.  Jeff Fuell and Kenneth Patterson, students at Parkview Magnet High School, had artwork selected for use on commemorative stamps that were issued in 2003 by the U. S. Postal Service celebrating the life of civil rights leader Daisy Bates.  Dr. Linda Brown, principal of Parkview Magnet High School, was named 2003 Principal of the Year by MetLife and the National Association of Secondary School Principals. 2 Oariane Mull recieves her award for best essay in the U.S. Rice Producers Association Essay Contest. 3 Patterson and Fuell display their stamp artwork at a Board of Directors meeting. Central Fed Challenge team? from left-KevIn Luneau. David Mitchell, Jessica Marshall, Chris Burks, Shep 5 Russell, Daniel liu and team sponsor Sam Stueart. Katherine Wright Knight (left) and Dr. Linda Brown meet with First Lady Laura Bush during a reception at the White House honoring recipients of NEA teaching excellence awards.  Nineteen LRSD students were named National Merit Semifinalists in 2002-03, two were named National Achievement Semifinalists, and three were named National Merit Commended Students. The National Merit Semifinalists are: Kyla Achard, Adva Biton, Fredrick Brantley, Kevin Burns, David Gutierrez, Catherine Keisler, Daniel Liu, Mark Mazumder, Colin McAlister, Joseph McDonnell, Stephanie Nielson, Nadia Patel, Rachel Rouby, Brennan Taylor and Benjamin Wells, all from Central High School, and Alison Boland, Benjamin Carson, Jessica Lovelace-Chandler and Lorinda Peoples from Parkview Magnet High School. The National Merit Commended students are Annie B. Bauman and Mary Orsini from Central High School and Dori Scallett from Parkview Magnet High School. The National Achievement Semifinalists are Everette Callaway from J. A. Fair High School and Lorinda Peoples from . Parkview Magnet High School. David Simmons Henrywinner of the John W. Harris Leadership Award.  The MathCounts team from Pulaski Heights Middle School captured the state championship.  The J.A. Fair basketball team captured the Arkansas state 4-A championship.  The Central High chess team earned the title of Chess Association of Arkansas Schools State Champions for the 3A-5A Division. Honors \u0026amp; Achievements^H  A Central High sophomore scored a perfect 36 on the ACT exam. Yang Dai was one of only three students in Arkansas, and 58 nationally, who achieved this distinction.  Thirty-nine students were recognized by the Duke Talent Search State Recognition program. The seventh graders took either the SAT or the ACT assessment to qualify for recognition (the same exams administered to college-bound high school students). ______  The Dunbar PTA was one of only three schools in Arkansas to receive the Certificate of Excellence from the National PTA, and it was named the Arkansas PTA Outstanding Local Unit.  Students at Metropolitan Career-Technical Center took away 26 medals from the 2002 Skills USA competition in Hot Springs. 8  Central High Schools Fed Challenge team bested the defending two-time champion to win the state Fed Challenge championship. The Fed Challenge involves researching the status of the national economy and making recommendations for actions as if the team members were the actual Board of Governors for the Federal Reserve System. t Page/ I advertising supplement  The Central High School Lady Tigers varsity womens soccer team won WjkLI the womens 5-A state soccer championship.  Dariane Mull, a 5th grade student at Terry Elementary, won the 5th grade category of the U.S. Rice Producers Association Essay Contest. The contest was open to students in grades 4 to 12 in the rice-producing states of Arkansas, California, Louisiana, Mississippi, Missouri and Texas. JOJ 9 j\u0026lt;. / '  The Central tennis team won this years state 5-A state title. The womens team compiled an 'impressive record of 5-A conference and state championships in 2001 and 2003. The mens team has been 5-A conference and state champs every year from 2000 to 2003. JI Utik  Five LRSD teachers and two students were honored with the 2003 Stephens Award. Jackson T. Stephens and the late W. R. Witt Stephens formed this program in 1985 to provide scholarships to outstanding students and cash awards to exceptional educators in Little Rock. The award-winning students were Mark M. Mazumder and Nadia A. Patel of Central High School. The outstanding teachers were: Kimberly Dade, Kirby Shofner and Amy Snodgrass of Central High\nVannessa Pace-Hampton, Parkview High\nand Hosea D. Malone, Hall High. (9)  Anne Ye, a 7th grade student at Dunbar Magnet Middle School, won the Arkansas state spelling bee championship and represented Arkansas in the National Spelling Bee in Washington.  David Simmons Henry, an 8th grade student at Dunbar Magnet Middle School, received the John W. Harris Leadership Award from the National Beta Club. Only 50 students nationwide (25 senior high and 25 junior high/middle school) are recognized each year. Anne Ye-state spelling bee champion. Central Chess Team: From left-johnson Wong, Coach Joe Gray, Joe Liu, Victor Harris. Barbara Luke (president of CAAS) and Coach Chuck West. MathCounts Team from Rilaski Heights Middle School. Dunbar PTSA president lana Hunter Geft) and principal )ohn Bacon with national PTA president Linda Modge at the national PTA convention in Charlotte. NC. National Merit and National Achievement Semifinalists.  Central High seniors Adva Biton, Fredrick Brantley and Stephanie Nielson and Parkview senior Kristen Olson received Achievement Awards in Writing from the National Council of Teachers of English. They were judged as being among the best student writers in the country. t. ( I I 1 ) I I I Page 8 I advertising supplement Construction Zone q A Construction Progress at LRSD Schools Improvements continue on many LRSD schools, thanks to the millage increase approved by Little Rock voters in 2000. While work wraps up on a few schools and continues on some, it is just beginning on others. During the summer of 2003, Wakefield Elementary held a groundbreaking for a building to replace the school that was accidentally destroyed by fire in 2002. Things are progressing rapidly at Mann Magnet Middle School where students will be in the new multi-story building next semester. Central High Schools exterior renovations are complete. The interior refurbishment of classrooms and offices continues. Major construction work continues at Williaips Elementary and Mabelvale Middle School. Construction has begun at Dunbar, while Hall Highs new gymnasium and classrooms are complete. o Central High School Construction. I- 6 I - 8 1 9 0 Terry Elementary School Media Center Construction. Construction Outside Dunbar. A  Brady Elementary Classroom Construction. s  Mabelvale Middle School Construction. Wakefield groundbreaking: From left-parent Ron Harrington, LRSD Interim Superintendent Morris Holmes, former Board president Judy Magness. Wakefield principal Les Taylor. Wakefield student lazmlne Coleman and UALR Share America representative Cheryl Chapman take part in the groundbreaking for the new Wakefield Elementary building. Dunbar Classroom Construction. Mabelvale Middle School Construciton. Hall High Construction. 5 1 Board of Directors: Dr. Katherine Mitchell, Mike Daugherty, Bryan Day, Baker Kurrus, Larry Berkley, Tony Rose, Sue Strickland How much of the 2000 millage bond proceeds has been spent? As of the printing of this annual report, more than $98 million has been invested in the voter-approved school and technology improvements. That total includes expended and encumbered (contracted) projects. Contracts for building additions and renovations at Parkview Magnet High School and Brady Elementary will be awarded this fall. Design plans are almost complete for improvements at Mitchell Elementary. Little Rock School District  8io West Markham  Little Rock, AR 72201 (501) 447-1000 www.LRSD.org 11 'I LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 810 WEST .MARKHAM LITTLE ROCK, .ARKANSAS 72201 DATE: October 23, 2003 RECEIVED TO: Little Rock School District Board of Directors OCT 2 2 2003 FROM: Suellen Vann, Director of Communications OmCEOF DESEGREGATION MONITORING THROUGH: Morris L. Holmes, Interim Superintendent Title/Subject: 2002-03 Annual Report Summary: Objectives: Expected Outcomes: Arkansas Department of Education (.ADE) Rules Governing Standards for Accreditation of Arkansas Public Schools, Standard 7.02.2, requires each school district to publish an annual report in a newspaper with general circulation in the district before November 15 of each school year, a report to the public detailing progress toward accomplishing program goals, accreditation standards, and proposals to correct deficiencies. Further, Standard 7.03.3.1 requires each school board, prior to November 15, to hold a public meeting to review and discuss its annual report. To provide a summary of the information that will be included in the published 2002-03 annual report. To raise public awareness of the districts activities and performance during the 2002-03 school year and to comply with ADE directives. Budget Amt.: Cost of publishing the annual report is about $8,600. Additional copies are printed for district use as a recruitment tool and information brochure during the school year. The summary of the annual report is provided. Major information categories in the report include academic performance and student discipline\nboth areas have been previously reported to the Board. Other information included relates to program/grant information and achievements/honors.Annual Report 2002-03 Superintendents Message to the Community an This is the fifth annual report that the Little Rock School District has prepared as insert to inform the community about the highlights of the prior school year. Despite many challenges, the 2002-03 school year was successful in terms of growth in many academic indicators. Student learning is, and will always be, the primary focus in our schools. Teachers continue to monitor closely student performance on key state and national achievement tests. Under the federal No Child Left Behind Act, schools analyze student performance data based on specific subgroups, including race, limited-English- proficient, free/ reduced lunch qualification and special education. While many schools experienced double-digit growth on the state Benchmark Exams, in some cases subgroup performance might have resulted in a school being placed on school a improvement. In other cases, if a school made its required improvement during the year, it remained on the school improvement list because two consecutive years of mandated growth are required for a school to be removed from the list. We are working diligently with schools that are on school improvement in order to provide the necessary resources for teachers and administrators to improve students academic achievement. Construction continues at schools throughout the city. Many major projects, such as Hall High, are complete, while others, such as Williams, are just beginning. Students, teachers and parents have been patient as they have lived through renovations in their buildings. Entire classes have been relocated during the process at some campuses, but the end result is worth the disorder as upgraded facilities contribute to a more appropriate and functional teaching and learning environment. The declaration last fall by U.S. District Judge Bill Wilson that the Little Rock School District is unitary in all areas except program evaluation was appealed to the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals. Oral arguments have been held, and the district awaits the courts decision. Work continues in the final area in which the district must comply with its Revised Desegregation and Education Plan. That piece, program evaluations, is being finalized and will be submitted to Judge Wilson in the spring of 2004. The district has updated its Strategic Plan. This work, done by more than 100 community residents working in six major areas, will help to guide the districts direction in the next five years. I look forward to assisting district staff, business and civic leaders, parents and others this school year. The challenges facing our students are great and cannot be overstated. However, I believe that this community has put its support into our schools, and teachers, staff and students will benefit from knowing that public education is highly valued in our city. Morris Holmes, Ed.D. Interim SuperintendentAcademic Achievement One of the primary issues facing school districts across the state and nation is student academic achievement as measured by accepted examinations. There are two types of exams administered to studentscriterion-referenced exams and norm- referenced exams. Criterion-referenced exams measure student achievement on a specific curriculum or base of knowledge. In the case of students in the Little Rock School District, the Arkansas Benchmark Exam is the criterion-referenced test that students take. It measures how well students are learning the mandated Arkansas standards. As of the 2002-03 school year, the Benchmark Exam was required for students in grades 4, 6 and 8. It also is required as an End-of-Course test for students who take Algebra and Geometry, and all 11* grade students must take the End-of-Course Literacy Benchmark Exam. LRSD students recorded some significant increases at many schools on the Benchmark Exams. Benchmark results presented here indicate the percentage of students who perform at the proficient and advanced levels. There are no national comparisons on the Benchmark Exam since it an Arkansas-developed and -administered test. Grade 4 Literacy LRSD Arkansas Grade 4 Math LRSD Arkansas Grade 6 Literacy LRSD Arkansas Grade 6 Math LRSD Arkansas Grade 8 Literacy LRSD Arkansas Grade 8 Math LRSD Arkansas Algebra LRSD .Arkansas Geometry LRSD Arkansas 11 * Grade Literacy LRSD Arkansas African-American 53 46 African-American 35 38 African-American 13 14 .African-American 8 12 African-American 28 25 African-.American 4 5 African-American 15 18 African-American 17 11 African-American 20 19 While 90 77 White 82 76 White 49 37 White 54 50 White 68 57 White 52 33 White 60 54 White 63 47 White 71 57Norm-referenced exams compare student academic performance to that of a national norm group of students who took the same test. This allows a district to see how its students are doing compared to others, regardless of the specific curriculum taught in school. Students in Arkansas must take the Stanford Achievement Test, ninth edition, as a norm-referenced exam. Stanford Achievement Exam results are stated as a percentile. For example, a percentile rank of 72 means that these students did as well or better than 72 percent of the students in the norm group who took the same exam. African-American students in the LRSD were within 1 or 2 points of their counterparts in the state at every grade level. White students in the LRSD scored 917 percentile points ahead of their peers on the Stanford Achievement Test. Grade 5 LRSD Arkansas Grade 7 LRSD Arkansas Grade 10 LRSD .Arkansas African-American 35 37 African-American 35 37 African-American 30 31 White 72 62 White 73 64 White 72 55 Another exam that allows comparisons with students across the nation is the ACT college entrance exam. The districts composite ACT score climbed from 19.0 in 2001-02 to 19.5 in 2002-03. Disaggregated scores are\nLRSD Arkansas Nation African-American 17.1 16.7 16.9 White 23.0 21.1 21.7 Students in the LRSD showed significant progress in many areas of all of these exams in 2002-03. When scores are disaggregated and comparisons made both within Arkansas and to other students nationally, LRSD students perform quite well. Looking at the scores for the district, state and nation on all three exams, there is an achievement gap that can be accounted for, in part, by poverty. With more than 50 percent of its students who qualify for the free and reduced lunch program, the LRSD continues to focus on methods to help students who are not performing well on standardized exams. Academic achievement remains the LRSDs top priority.What About Schools on the School Improvement List? Readers of the local newspaper may wonder why, with LRSD student scores ahead of the state and nation in many areas on required exams, there are several schools on the states school improvement list. There are several answers to this question. There are some schools in the LRSD which have shown significant improvement on the Benchmark Exam, but they have not reached the level of improvement (Adequate Yearly Progress, or AYP) required by the state. Not only must the entire school meet the AYP, but subpopulations, such as limited-English-proficient students, students who qualify for ffee/reduced lunch and special education students, must meet the same AYP as all other students. Also, once a school is on the school improvement list, it must meet AYP for two consecutive years to be removed from the list. Some LRSD schools did meet AYP this year, but remain on the list until they meet AYP for a second year. All schools on school improvement, indeed all LRSD schools, continue to look closely at test results to determine areas in which to concentrate lessons in order to help students leam the necessary course material and to improve academic performance in the future. What steps are being taken to assist students in schools on the school improvement list? Under the federal No Child Left Behind Act, students in schools on school improvement receive supplemental services and school choice options, depending on which year of school improvement the school is placed. The LRSD offers supplemental services, which consists of tutoring by a provider selected by the Arkansas Department of Education, to students in year two of school improvement. All schools in alert status or on the school improvement list develop their school improvement plan to include proven strategies to help students build skills and knowledge in literacy and mathematics. Professional development activities in these schools are geared toward improving teacher preparation to address identified student needs. Principals of LRSD schools on the improvement list are encouraged to work with principals of schools that have scored well on the Benchmark Exam in order to duplicate successful strategies. Advanced Placement Enrollment In order to improve academic achievement, the LRSD encourages students to take challenging courses. One way to do this is through enrollment in Advanced Placement (AP) classes at the high school level. AP courses are very rigorous and meet national guidelines in terms of curriculum and college preparation. Students in AP classes may take the national AP exams in the spring. Those students who earn at least a 3 on the national AP exam may, in most cases, earn college credit for these classes. The LRSD has worked with teachers, counselors, students and parents to increase student enrollment in AP classes. To that end, we have been successful. The accompanying chart shows the increase in AP class enrollment in LRSD high schools during the past few years. Since the 1997-98 school year, there has been more than 20 percent annual growth in the number of students enrolled in AP classes and a total growth during that time of more than 100 percent. We expect these students to demonstrate higher levels of academic performance based on the more challenging courses they take, and their success in high school should continue at the college level. Foundation Provides 5100,000 in Teacher Grants It wasnt Ed McMahon delivering the Publishers Clearing House grand prize, but it was just as exciting for many teachers and principals in the Little Rock School District. April 2 was the day the Public Education Foundation of Little Rock delivered 32 grants totaling nearly 5100,000 throughout the district. Foundation members, donors, city dignitaries, LRSD School Board members and others boarded three school buses to personally deliver balloon bouquets and grant checks to surprised teachers! Each grant met certain criteria, whether it was targeting student achievement, parent involvement or improving teacher quality. Honors and Achievements Katherine Wright Knight was named Arkansas 2003 Teacher of the Year and received the national NEA Foundation Award for Teaching Excellence. Sharon Boyd-Struthers of Rockefeller Elementary\nTimothy Eubanks of Parkview High\nRuth Eyres of J. A. Fair High\nCatherine Koehler of Baseline Elementary\nand Judy Meier of Rockefeller Elementary earned National Teacher Certification from the National Board for Professional Teaching Standards. National Board Certification is a credential attesting that a teacher has been judged by his or her peers as one who is accomplished and makes sound professional judgments about student learning. Gillian Glasco and Earnest Sweat, seniors at Parkview Magnet High School, were elected to office at Boys and Girls State. Gillian was elected Governor at Arkansas Girls State, and Earnest was elected Lieutenant Governor at Arkansas Boys State. Five students from Central High School were Semifinalists this year in the Siemens Westinghouse Competition in Math, Science \u0026amp; Technology. The Siemens Competition recognizes remarkable talent all over the country and fosters individual growth for high school students who are willing to challenge themselves through science research. The students were Daniel Liu, Satish Mahalingam, Mark Mazumder, Ananth Ranganathan and Xiazhong (Jeff) Wang. Mark Mazumder also was named a Regional Finalist and competed against nine other entrants in the Southwest Region at the University of Texas at Austin. Additionally, Mark also was named a National Semifinalist in the Intel Science Talent Search, one of only three Arkansas students to achieve this distinction this year. Often considered the junior Nobel Prize, the Intel Science Talent Search recognizes Americas brightest students for excellence in science and math. Jeff Fuell and Kenneth Patterson, students at Parkview Magnet High School, had artwork selected for use on commemorative stamps that were issued in 2003 by the U. S. Postal Service celebrating the life of civil rights leader Daisy Bates. Dr. Linda Brown, principal of Parkview Magnet High School, was named 2003 Principal of the Year by MetLife and the National Association of Secondary School Principals. Nineteen LRSD students were named National Merit Semifinalists in 2002-03, two were named National Achievement Semifmalists, and three were named National Merit Commended Students. The National Merit Semifinalists are: Kyla Achard, Adva Biton, Fredrick Brantley, Kevin Bums, David Gutierrez, Catherine Keisler, Daniel Liu, Mark Mazumder, Colin McAlister, Joseph McDonnell, Stephanie Nielson, Nadia Patel, Rachel Rouby, Brennan Taylor and Benjamin Wells, all from Central High School, and Alison Boland, Benjamin Carson, Jessica Lovelace-Chandler and Lorinda Peoples from Parkview Magnet High School. The National Merit Commended students are Annie B. Bauman and Mary Orsini from Central High School, and Dori Scallett from Parkview Magnet High School. The National Achievement Semifmalists are Everette Callaway from J. A. Fair High School and Lorinda Peoples from Parkview Magnet High School. The MathCounts team from Pulaski Heights Middle School captured the state championship. Team members were: Sho Maymia, Miles McCullough, Albert Speed, Corina Oprescu and their coach Treia Cook. Each team member also placed individually in the top ten. The J.A. Fair basketball team captured the Arkansas state 4-A championship. Team members were: Seniors: Melvin Fisher, Vincent Hunter, Earnest Maxwell and Quen Spencer\nJuniors: Lonnie Henry, Shaun Reynolds, Larry Porter and Dwight Watkins\nand Sophomores: Quincy Googe, Charles Hayes and Parris Pattillo. The Head Coach was Charlie Johnson, and the Assistant Coaches were Tom Poole and Erik Jackson. The Central High chess team earned the title of Chess Association of Arkansas Schools State Champions for the 3A-5A Division. Teams are limited to four players at the state level, and Centrals team consisted of Victor Harris, Joe Liu, Shep Russell and Johnson Wong. Other team members included David Gutierrez, Daniel Krupitsky, Elizabeth Richardson and Shannon Rodgers. The teams coaches were Joe Gray and Chuck West. A Central High sophomore scored a perfect 36 on the ACT exam. Yang Dai was one of only three students in Arkansas, and 58 nationally, who achieved this distinction. Thirty-nine students were recognized by the Duke Talent Search State Recognition program. The seventh graders took either the SAT or the ACT assessment to qualify for recognition (the same exams administered to college-bound high school students). Students listed were recognized at the State Ceremony\nand students denoted with an asterisk also were recognized at the Grand Ceremony-they scored in the top 2 percent of all participating students in the nation. Dunbar Magnet Middle School: Aska Amautovic, Melody Chang, Dylan Frost, Megan Jackson, Scotty Lankford, Peter Liu*', Linsey Miller, Cameron Murray, Melissa Nichols, Hannah Roher, Hannah Smith, Russell Viegas, Samuel Whitehorn, Anne Ye* and Elaine Zhou. Forest Heights Middle School: Jamie Coonce, Stacy Coonce\"* and Sasha Ray. Henderson Magnet Middle School: Geoffrey Jackson and Sarita Robinson. Mabelvale Magnet Middle School: Kelicia Hollis and Victoria Kreie. Maim Magnet Middle School: Cyrus Bahrassa, Jillian Carroll, Samuel Clark, Maura Conder, Elizabeth Cox, Abigail Dobson, Patricia Graves, Dillon Hupp, Grace Nam and Jillian Petersen. Pulaski Heights Middle School: Sarah Ball, Ellen Barber, Colton Koehler, Miles McCullough, Colin Rockefeller, David Steward and Kathryn Tull. The Dimbar PTA was one of only three schools in Arkansas to receive the Certificate of Excellence from the National PTA, and it was named the Arkansas PTA Outstanding Local Unit. Students at Metropolitan Career-Technical Center took away 26 medals from the 2002 Skills USA/VICA competition in Hol Springs. Students earning medals and state honors were: Matt Davidson, Jeff Merks, Fabian Marks, Nick Spear, Rolonda Foreman, Veronda Lee, LaToya Jacko, Danyell Boyd, Mary Katherine Knight, Dale Jackson, Georgina Pena, Tonya Bums, Shamika Walker, Lynzzie Cash, Tabitha Clark, Bessie Haygood, Megan Moody, Andrea Sanders, Danny Aaron, Jermond Booze, Steven Spencer, Dustin Ashley, Jeremy Baker, Jason Bredlow, Tim Lingo, Ben Royer, Greg Fundyler, Jordan McElrath, Cole Camhron, Chad Ellis, Ashley Kelly, Tara Womack and Tiffany Neam. Central High Schools Fed Challenge team bested the defending two-time champion to win the state Fed Challenge championship. The Fed Challenge involves researching the status of the national economy and making recommendations for actions as if the team members were the actual Board of Governors for the Federal Reserve System. Team members were Kevin Luneau, David Mitchell, Jessica Marshall, Chris Burks, Shep Russell and Daniel Liu. Their sponsor was Sam Stueart. The Central High School Lady Tigers varsity womens soccer team won the womens 5-A state soccer championship. The team members were: Anne Claire Alien, Caroline Allen, Jamie Bandy, Lindsey Barron, Kate Burnett, Lauren Cloud, Camille Cook, Allison Corbin, Sally Cunningham, Riley Duke, Sheffield Duke, Stephanie England, Lizzy Gray, Elizabeth Harrell, Marissa Hayes, Cara Janton, Elizabeth Jones, Jessica Jones, Whitney Maloney, Kendall Polansky, Stephanie Rogers, Megan Russell, Lindsey Short, Rosalind Smith, Becca Vehik, Robin West and Claire Wetzel. Their coach was Keith McPherson, the assistant coach and manager was David Duke, and the teams physical therapist was Bill Bandy. Dariane Mull, a 5* grade student at Terry Elementary, won the 5* grade category of the U.S. Rice Producers Association Essay Contest. The contest was open to students in grades 4 to 12 in the rice-producing states of Arkansas, California, Louisiana, Mississippi, Missouri and Texas. The Central tennis team won this years state 5-A state title. The womens team compiled an impressive record of 5-A conference and state championships in 2001 and 2003. The mens team has been 5-A conference and state champs every year from 2000 to 2003. The womens team members were Ashley Batchelor, Dovie Dockery, Ashley Driver, Barrett Jones, Lauren Kamey, Jessica Marshall, Holly McGetrick, Nancy Mitchell, Collins Speed and Presley Thomas. The mens team members were Matthew Angulo, Scott Bacon, Nick Clifford, Andrew Crone, Alex DePriest, Brock Dial, Andrew Humphrey, Daniel Krupitsky, Kevin Luneau, Sam McSpadden, David Mitchell, Jay Murphy, Blake Ross, John Shults and Peter Thomas. The team coach was Joy Thompson, and the team manager was Megan Heard. Five LRSD teachers and two students were honored with the 2003 Stephens Award. Jackson T. Stephens and the late W. R. Witt Stephens formed this program in 1985 to provide scholarships to outstanding students and cash awards to exceptional educators in Little Rock. The award-winning students were Mark M. Mazumder and Nadia A. Patel of Central High School. The outstanding teachers were: Kimberly Dade, Kirby Shofner and Amy Snodgrass of Central High\nVannessa Pace-Hampton, Parkview High\nand Hosea D. Malone, Hall High. Anne Ye, a 7*' grade student at Dunbar Magnet Middle School, won the Arkansas state spelling bee championship and represented Arkansas in the National Spelling Bee in Washington.David Simmons Henry, an 8* grade student at Dunbar Magnet Middle School, received the John W. Harris Leadership Award from the National Beta Club. Only 50 students nationwide (25 senior high and 25 junior high/middle school) are recognized each year. Central High seniors Adva Biton, Fredrick Brantley and Stephanie Nielson received Achievement Awards in Writing from the National Council of Teachers of English. They were judged as being among the best student writers in the country. Grants The Little Rock School District is committed to having all of its students reading at or above grade level by the end of the third grade. The district received a three-year Arkansas Reading First grant from the Arkansas Department of Education in the amount of $4,412,184. This grant money will be used to implement a comprehensive, researchbased reading program in 12 elementary schools that were determined by 1999-2002 literacy data and other factors to have the greatest need. The Reading First project will build on the districts current literacy plan and will provide human and financial resources to more fully implement that plan. Other new grants implemented in 2002-03: Hall High and Henderson Middle School received 21 Century Community Learning Center grants to establish after-school and summer academic enrichment programs for the next five years. The schools will share a total of up to $1 million over five years. The U. S. Department of Education selected the LRSD to receive funding under the Professional Development for Music Educators Program in the amount of $706,785 over three years to provide ongoing professional development support for LRSD music teachers. The LRSD received the Teaching American History Grant in the amount of $995,953 over a three-year period. The district and its partners will provide professional development for all American history teachers in grades 5, 8 and 11. Adult Ed Celebrates Milestone The Little Rock Adult Education Center marked 25 years of service to the community. During the past 25 years, the Little Rock Adult Education Center has served nearly 65,000 adults with over 7,000 receiving their Arkansas GED diplomas. The main center and its 18 satellite programs serve over 2,500 adults a year. Classes offered include refresher courses in reading, math and English\nGED preparation\ncomputer-assisted instruction\ncomputer literacy\nfamily literacy\nand English as a second language. SREB Training The Little Rock School District was selected from an elite group of ten urban districts across the nation by the Southern Regional Education Board (SREB) to be the first to panicipate in a new national leadership initiative. The goal of the SREB Leadership Initiative is to prepare school and teacher leaders to lead a comprehensive school improvement effort that will result in increased student achievement. All five LRSD high schools as well as four middle schools (Cloverdale, Henderson, Mabelvale and Southwest) are participating in the program. The leadership initiative will provideschool leadership teams an intensive three-year curriculum program beginning with the 2002-03 school year. Construction Progress at LRSD Schools Improvements continue on many LRSD schools, thanks to the millage increase approved by Little Rock voters in 2000. While work wraps up on a few schools and continues on some, it is just beginning on others. During the summer, Wakefield Elementary held a groundbreaking for a building to replace the school that was accidentally destroyed by fire in 2002. Things are progressing rapidly at Mann Magnet Middle School where students will be in the new multi-story building next semester. Central High Schools exterior renovations are complete. The interior refurbishment of classrooms and offices continues. Major construction work continues at Williams Elementary and Mabelvale Middle School. Construction has begun at Dunbar, while Hall Highs new gymnasium and classrooms are complete.achievement efficiency professionalism service 2004-05 Little Rock School District ANNUAL REPORTMMMktMlik .Is8 1 1  W II . f  25,868 students in 50 schools  34 elementary schools  8 middle schools  5 high schools  1 accelerated learning center  1 alternative learning center  1 career-technical center  4,064 employees  One of the top 10 employers in Arkansas  Student enrollment increased by 1.5% in 2004-05  87% of the enrollment growth is at the elementary level r Back row, left to right: Micheal Daugherty, Board president. Zone 2\nTony Rose, Zone 6\nBaker Kurrus, Board vice president, Zone 4\nBryan Day, Board secretary. Zone 3 Front row, left to right: Larry Berkley, Zone 5\nSue Strickland, Zone 7\nDr. Katherine Mitchell, Zone 1 I The 2004-05 school year was a time of change for the LRSD, changes that were carefully planned and executed with one central goal in mind: student achievement. Public schools are seldom viewed as true businesses. In order to achieve our vision of becoming the highest achieving urban school district in the nation, however, the Little Rock School District has taken a very business-based approach to educating our students. This report will review the LRSD's progress toward meeting its goals and detail the following critical components of its business: Student Achievement Operational Efficiency Employee Professionalism Customer Service We are very happy with the strong foundation we have laid for the future of the Little Rock School District. There is much more work that lies ahead for us, and like most businesses today, we face significant challenges. But if we view these challenges as opportunities and rally the support of our community, we can fulfill our promise of having great schools for a great city. Roy G. Brooks, Ed.D. Superintendent of Schools I 1 Student Achievement State LRSD 80 r State Benchmark Exam Grade 4 80 r State Benchmark Exam Grade 6 02 Uc fO D c 02 'y \"S \".p 70 - 60 - 50 - 40 - 30 20 - 28 10 - Math 58 62 28 African- American Caucasian i| 4  t Maj Literacy 30 | 31 African- American 60 69 \"C OJ u c: 03  'o (X vP 70 - 60 - 50 - 40 - 30 - 20 -I 10 - 20 Math Literacy 79 60 65 16 53 36^37 Caucasian O-\" African- American Caucasian African- American Caucasian All Little Rock School District schools met the state standards for accreditation in 2004-05. Every school is reviewing student assessments to determine appropriate measures needed to increase academic achievement for each child. Some schools received additional teaching positions, such as instructional coaches, to provide extra assistance. Other schools are using new tools, such as the Student Online Achievement Report, that will help teachers identify student progress toward mastering required concepts. The state Benchmark exam was administered to all students in grades 3 through 8. Results of the Benchmark exams are difficult to measure against prior year performance, however. The Arkansas Department of Education (ADE) changed the scoring on the 2004-05 literacy examinations to reflect additional knowledge that students must possess. Therefore, comparison with prior year performance is not valid, according to the ADE. Iowa Test of Basic Skills Data Comparing LRSD Student Performance to State-wide Student Performance African-American Students Caucasian Students LRSD 3rd Grade State 3rd Grade Reading 41 40 Math Conce\nThis project was supported in part by a Digitizing Hidden Special Collections and Archives project grant from The Andrew W. Mellon Foundation and Council on Library and Information Resoources.\n   \n\n   \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\u003cdcterms_creator\u003eLittle Rock School District\u003c/dcterms_creator\u003e\n   \n\n \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n \n\n  \n\n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n   \n\n \n\n\n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n\n\n  \n\n\n\n "},{"id":"bcas_bcmss0837_245","title":"Area School Advisory Committee","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":["Area School Advisory Committee"],"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","Educational statistics","Educational planning"],"dcterms_title":["Area School Advisory Committee"],"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/245"],"dcterms_temporal":null,"dcterms_rights_holder":null,"dcterms_bibliographic_citation":null,"dlg_local_right":["Available for use in research, teaching, and private study. Any other use requires permission from the Butler Center."],"dcterms_medium":["printouts"],"dcterms_extent":["2 pages"],"dlg_subject_personal":null,"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":"\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n\n\n\n   \n\n\n\n\n   \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n  \n\nPULASKI HEIGHTS ELEMENTARY SCHOOL PTA 319 North Pine Little Rock, Arkansas 72205 February 12, 1990 HAND DELIVERED FEB 1 3 1990 Ms. Martha Hirsch Alman 41 North Sherrill Road Little Rock, Arkansas 72202 Ms. Barbara Patty 324 Midland Street Little Rock, Arkansas 72205 Re: Parent Desegregation Planning Committee For Regular Or Area Schools Dear Ms. Alman and Ms. Patty: On behalf of the Pulaski Heights Elementary School PTA, I write to identify perceived disparities between area schools. including Pulaski Heights, and magnet schools. Our concerns and comments are based on our experience regarding elementary schools. Given a bit more time, we will be glad to identify more specific needs of the area schools under the categories identified below. We have two main concerns: 1. Without a more balanced distribution of resources, the area schools may not continue to offer the same quality of education as the magnet schools offer. 2. Without a more balanced distribution of resources, the magnet schools actually may impede desegregation, rather than facilitating it, by giving parents the impression that the only viable options for their children are magnet schools and private schools. Because of our concerns, we believe that the area schools should receive a greater portion of the educational resources available to the Little Rock School District than they have received recently.Ms. Martha Hirsch Alman Ms. Barbara Patty February 12, 1990 Page 2 For the last few years, the magnet schools have received a greater concentration of the District's resources in the following areas: 1. Administrators 2. Teachers 3. Physical facilities 4. Laboratories 5. Extra programs 6. Money The District has concentrated its best administrators and teachers and its greatest resources in the magnet schools in order to ensure that they attract the required diversity of students to desegregate the schools in hard-to-desegregate areas and that they provide exemplary education. The experience of the last few years proves that the concentration of resources in the magnet schools has been more than sufficient to accomplish those goals, as indicated by the oversubscription of those schools and the long waiting lists for places in those schools. Despite the more-than-sufficient attractiveness of the magnet schools, the current desegregation and student assignment plan contains a new component to further enhance their attractivenessthat is, sibling preference. This change exacerbates the disparity between magnet schools and area schools in terms of attractiveness to potential patrons and parental involvement in, and support for, the schools. While the magnets have flourished, the area schools have struggled. Pulaski Heights Elementary, which had become a minor enhancement school, is gradually being desegregated by parents from the area around the school who are committed to sending their children to Pulaski Heights, spending time and money on the school, and ensuring that Pulaski Heights is an excellentMs. Martha Hirsch Alman Ms. Barbara Patty February 12, 1990 Page 3 academic institution. This commitment has resulted in a racial balance closer to court-approved guidelines and in improvements to educational programs and resources at the school. The success of that continuing effort depends upon greater support from the District than the area schools have received in the last few years. The area schools have had to find funding from the PTA and other outside sources for basics which the District should provide and which it does provide to the magnet schools. For example, at Pulaski Heights, the PTA has had to provide funds for basic musical instruments, a program with the Arkansas Arts Center to serve as part of the curriculum, and basic maintenance of, and improvements to, the school grounds. The District satisfies these kinds of needs and many more for the magnets and leaves the area schools to fend for themselves. Area schools can be desegregated and can provide excellent education without the concentration of resources needed in the magnet schools. Nevertheless, they cannot do so if the existing disparity between magnet schools and area schools is not reduced. We encounter a number of parents who state that they will send their children to private schools, unless they get into a magnet school. We are concerned that this attitude may be increasing. The increased emphasis on magnet schools can only aggravate that situation. With those facts in mind, it would be counterproductive to build new magnet schools at this time. New magnets would cost millions of dollars and would draw students out of existing schools. While it may be necessary to convert incentive schools into magnet schools in order to desegregate them, additional resources should be used to strengthen existing area schools. rather than to construct new unneeded buildings. Furthermore, the District and the Metropolitan Supervisor should publicly support and champion the area schools as fervently as they do the magnet schools. In order to continue to provide quality desegregated education, the area schools need more consistently excellent and supported principals, administrators, and teachers, improvedMs. Martha Hirsch Alman Ms. Barbara Patty February 12, 1990 Page 4 physical facilities, additional laboratory facilities, more specialty programs, and greater funding. Additionally, a great attaction of the area schools is the fact that children from the same family can attend the same area school. Adding sibling preference for the magnet schools will make it that much harder to desegregate the area schools. Almost 80% of the District's students attend area schools. Given that fact, area school patrons are the key to a successful millage election. In order to motivate and galvanize that constituency, the District needs to make a specific commitment to the area schools of additional resources from existing funding and from any millage increase. In summary, the magnet schools have received more than enough resources to accomplish their goals, but the area schools have not. Unless the tide is turned, the educational opportunities in the area schools may be inferior to those in the magnet schools, we may create desegregated magnet schools and inferior segregated area schools, and we may be unable to pass school millages necessary to provide an adequate education for our children. For these reasons, we ask that your committee encourage those responsible for the allocation of resources to provide a more balanced distribution of resources between the magnet schools and the area schools. Sincerely, Goorrddoonn TW^iillssoonn,, Prreessiiddeenntt Pulaski Heights Elementary School PTA Steve Shults, Board Member Pulaski Heights Elementary School PTA cc: Mr. Skip Rutherford Dr. Ruth Steele Mr. Eugene Reville Q.K 'Jr' TO: FROM: THROUGH: SUBJECT: Little Rock School District February 22, 1990 fEB 2 4 'W g??'^735'. Eugene Reville, Metropolitan Supervisor James Jennings, Associate Superintendent for Desegregation Monitoring and Program Development Dr. Ruth Steele, Superintendent of Schools Community Support Grants \u0026gt;1 (Sa^ /4 \u0026amp;t6c- iw B The Little Rock School District met with Area Schools Committee on February 12 to discuss deletions and/or additions to the Tri-District Desegregation Plan. Both parties agreed that the community support grants should be deleted from the plan. Ihe community support grants were intended to be used by area schools to support recruitment efforts. However, both parties agreed that the attendance zones will serve as a natural recruitment tool. Please note that this request only applies to the community support grants. The academic progress incentive grants should not be deleted. cc: Chip Jones Estelle Matthis Martha Alman, Conmittee Chairperson Arma Hart 810 West Narkhatn Street  Little Rock, Arkansas 72201  (501)374-3361AREA SCHOOL PARENT COMMITTEE MEETING FEBRUARY 27, 1990 HIGHLIGHTS A meeting was held in the office of the Metropolitan Supervisor at the request of the Area School chairperson, Mrs. Martha Alman. There were approximately 15 members in attendance. a reporter from the Arkansas Democrat, Cynthia Howell, was also in attendance. According to the chairperson, the purpose of the meeting was to gain an understanding of the direction the committee was going to pursue rn working with the LRSD regarding the part of the desegregation plans that dealt with the section on Area Schools. Mrs. Alman also explained that the committee had undertaken the following actions which were not at the pleasure of the district: 1. A copy of the report devised by the committee was 2. submitted to all P.T.A. Council presidents throughout the district. A survey developed by the committee was sent to all the schools in the district. Mr. Reville expressed to the committee that it was quite alright for the report to be submitted to the P.T.A presidents, however. the survey should be done through the district and by district personnel. The results should then be shared with the committee to determine if any disparities exist. If so, they should work with the district to eliminate the disparities. Mr. Reville stressed that he did not want the committee to work in an adversary role against the district. He further commented on the important work that the committee had done and expressed their importance to the efforts of the district. Other concerns expressed by the committee were: 1. 2 . 3. 4. 5. The perception of a disparity felt by parents of the district. The need for a planning and implementation timeline and the date? The desire to see the survey form and comment on it before the district sent it out to the schools. The name of the contact person from the LRSD, and the office of the Metropolitan Supervisor. The district should not cut music, p.e, and art from the Area Schools. Would the federal Court permit it? A'\"\"6 . 7. Will the money to implement programs in the Area School come from desegregation money? Committee is still interested in the 1 million dollars that can be secured for the community grant. If it is 8. 9. not used where will the money go? Committee would like to form a liaison with the Early Childhood, Disparity and Area Schools Committees. Can a date be set up for a future meeting? Committee would like to see a copy of the court approved document on Area Schools as soon as the district receives a copy. Mr. Reville answered all the concerns of the committee. Mrs. Hart will do a follow-up with the district today to set a timeline of March 15,1990 for the districts planning and implementation timeline to be submitted to the Metropolitan Supervisor. A Survey should be developed and submitted to the schools by March 12, 1990, and reviewed by the parent committee at least three days A progress report will be before it is sent to the schools. submitted to the Metropolitan supervisor regularly. Mr. Reville stated to the parents that he would meet with them upon request, however, if there were disagreements with the district they would contact Mrs. Hart first in seeking assistance. Mr. Reville told the committee that he hoped they would acquire The committee chairperson asked if they other minority members. could also add other members to the committee. This is to be done only with the approval of Supervisor. the office of the Metropolitan The meeting was knowledge. taped by the committee with Mr. Reville's The meeting adjourned at approximately 9:00 p.m. Arma Hart Assoc. Metro. Deseg. Superv.OFFICE OF METROPOLITAN SUPERVISOR 201 EAST MARKHAM, SUITE 510 HERITAGE WEST BUILDING LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS 72201 March 2, 1990 TO: Estelle Matthis, Associate Superintendent Little Rock School District FROM: Hart, Associate Metropolitan Supervisor RE: Area School Committee Meeting I cim sending you information regarding the meeting held on February 27, 1990, with the Area School Committee and this office, call if you have any additional questions. Please AH:par enclosure A ' / / / AREA SCHOOL PARENT COMMITTEE MEETING FEBRUARY 27, 1990 HIGHLIGHTS A meeting was held in the office of the Metropolitan Supervisor at the request of the Area School chairperson, Mrs. Martha Alman. There were approximately 15 members in attendance. Cynthia Howell, a reporter from the Arkansas Democrat, was also in attendance. According to the chairperson, the purpose of the meeting was to gain an understanding of the direction the committee was going to pursue in working with the LRSD regarding the part of the desegregation plans that dealt with the section on Area Schools. Mrs. Alman also explained that the committee had undertaken the following actions which were not at the pleasure of the district: 1. 2. A copy of the report devised by the committee was submitted to all P.T.A. Council presidents throughout the district. A survey developed by the committee was sent to all the schools in the district. Mr. Reville expressed to the committee that it was quite alright for the report to be submitted to the P.T.A presidents, however, the survey should be done through the district and by district The results should then be shared with the committee personnel. to determine if any disparities exist. If so, they should work with the district to eliminate the disparities. Mr. Reville stressed that he did not want the committee to work in an adversary role against the district. He further commented on the important work that the committee had done and expressed their importance to the efforts of the district. other concerns expressed by the committee were: 1. The perception of district. a disparity felt by parents of the 2. 3. 4 . 5. The need for a planning and implementation timeline and the date? The desire to see the survey form and comment on it before the district sent it out to the schools. The name of the contact person from the LRSD, and the office of the Metropolitan Supervisor. The district should not cut music, p.e, and art from the Area Schools. Would the federal Court permit it?6. 7 , Will the money to implement programs in the Area School come from desegregation money? Committee is still interested in the 1 million dollars 8. that can be secured for the community grant, not used where will the money go? If it is 9. Committee would like to form a liaison with the Early Childhood, Disparity and Area Schools Committees. Can a date be set up for a future meeting? Committee would like to see a copy of the court approved document on Area Schools as soon as the district receives a copy. Mr. Reville answered all the concerns of the conunittee. Mrs. Hart will do a follow-up with the district today to set a timeline of March 15,1990 for the districts planning and implementation timeline to be submitted to the Metropolitan Supervisor. A Survey should be developed and submitted to the schools by March 12, 1990, and reviewed by the parent committee at least three days A progress report will be before it is sent to the schools. submitted to the Metropolitan supervisor regularly. Mr. Reville stated to the parents that he would meet with them upon request, however, if there were disagreements with the district they would contact Mrs. Hart first in seeking assistance. Mr. Reville told the committee that he hoped they would acquire The committee chairperson asked if they other minority members. could also add other members to the committee. This is to be done only with Supervisor. the approval of the office of the Metropolitan The meeting knowledge. was taped by the committee with Mr. Reville's The meeting adjourned at approximately 9:00 p.m. Arma Hart Assoc. Metro. Deseg. Superv.March 19, 1990 TO: Ruth Steele, Superintendent Little Rock Public Schools FROM: The Parents Committee on Area Schools Martha Alman, Chairman The Parents Committee on Area Schools shares the same goals administration and most of the teachers and parents in the educational system of unsurpassed us ^We^hAv desegregation resolved and behind us. We have worked long and diligently, and for education in Little Rock district: excellence, with /.b' i/' work to do instructed our part in attaining that goal. will continue to - - -------- We have been in the area school section of the Tri-District Desegregation Plan to work with the District It is our desire to do ways. can . in several specific just that, helping by what means we We are aware that there is , . , . a very real budget crisis in which has been building for many years, and we ------ plans we have made for area if Hp other plans are very much in jeopardy very \"* \"t  1. a the District, are also very aware that the schools as not pass. p,  . feel that the greatest obstacles the Littl District must ---- overcome in e Rock School passing a millage are lack of open perceot^nn credibility due to the community's perception of chronic mismanagement and insensitivity, believe that if, as you have begun to do, with all the facts about the budget, the increase will be s W e voters are presented ------, where the money is, and spent, they will begin to see that the system fthe goal of an excellent educational system tor our children now and in the future. District Open communication is so essential on all levels suggest that ... how We in addition to disseminating as much information as terms simple enough for everyone to understand, the set up a telephone hotline to receive input from teachers. We have heard some interesting and workable to know^that thev The teachers need being hea^d communication, that they are oeing heard. a restructuring of the lines of communication in the administration so allowed to freely communicate with the metropolitan supervisor and the board' restructuring in the chain of command, save money, but could lead to more efficiency. possible, District in anonymously given those in the front lines\". an avenue of communication. We also suggest that the principals be superintendent, the There might also be some which would perhaps not We as teachers, principals and parents, information for the District. a committee would like to continue to talk with administrators are gathering and dispensing We do not understand why the averse to open communication, particularlywhen Mr. Reville defined these discussions as part of our responsibilities. We have discussed areas where budget cuts might be made. We do not have the information or the historical perspective to make suggestions. It is the job of the administrators to make those decisions, but they owe it to the public to explain those decisions. received, fully explored. We do feel, from the information that we have that there are perhaps some areas which have not been services--custodial supervisors. Are there more cuts which can be made in support for example? Could outside firms be hired to provide bus service and custodial services at a lower cost? (Some schools are not adequately cleaned now.) Attention to detail in ways that might only be suggested by teachers and parents could save money and garner public support. The public has read that administrators' salaries in Little Rock are among the highest in the nation, while teachers' salaries are among the lowest. From public perception. an acceptable good faith gesture on the part of the adminstration would be to take a significant across the board salary cut. a 10% cut. this would only save approximately $50,000, but it With would show the teachers, patrons and especially the voters that the administration is serious about recovery budgeting and about the education of the children as the first priority. also begin a give and take process with teachers, groups and parents. It could special inters! cc: Little Rock School District Board of Directors Office of the Metropolitan Supervisor/l.'\u0026gt; ! rV-t.t / LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 810 WEST MARKHAM LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS 122Q1. 2- Date: April 19, 1990 /vA Building Principals To: From: Through: Estelle Matthis, Associate Superintenden Educational Programs and Staff Developmen' Dr. Herb Cleek, Deputy Superintendent Re: Reques for Proposal - Academic Incentive Grants ava The Little Rock School District is pleased to announce the .ability of funds to identify and establish initiatives to reduce the number of low achievers.- provide guidelines for funding of proposal Incentive Grants. The purpose of this memorandum is to for A.cademic Progress The primary purpose of the Academic Progress Incentive Grants Program shall be to (i) improve the education of all students, and (2) reduce the disparity in achievement among students of different racial. socioeconomic, and gender groups. Availability of Funds The grant awards shall be non-competitive for cne year with an option to continue for two additional years.. , Grants shall not exceed $25,000. awards. Incentive and magnet schools.-are not eligible for grant Application Content The application must contain the following information: 1. 2. 3 . 4 . c: Need for'Project Program Description Plan of Operation Evaluation Plan Budget InformationMemorandum - April 19, 1990 Request for Proposal Academic Incentive Grants Page 2 Allowable Activities Area schools may receive funds to identify and implement strategies based on promising practices to enhance student achievement and reduce the disproportion in academic achievement among groups formed on the basis of race, gender, and economic status. Grant proposals The Teachers, building administrators, and patrons shall participate in the development_of the local school proposal. Grant proposals should avoid additional personnel costs, to the extent possible. District will not assume responsibility for continuing costs that occur after the expiration of the funding period. Selection Criteria A panel will review all applications according to the following: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. A detailed and well-planned proposal Appropriate goals and objectives Well-documented need Innovativeness Potential for replicability Realistic budget Quality of evaluation Ability to continue after grant period ends Documentation of teacher, administrator, and patron involvement during proposal development Use of volunteers and/or collaborative efforts with businesses, outside organizations, etc. Only one proposal per area school will be accepted. Application Deadline 1990. Applications must be received by 5:00 p.m. on June 5, Send to Estelle Matthis, Associate Superintendent for Educational Programs and Staff Development. A grant writing inservice is scheduled for May 1, 1990, at 9:00 - 11:00 a.m. \"  \" a.m. for elementary schools and 1:30 p.m.- 3:30 p.m. for secondary schools, in the Board Room.  '   representative at the inservice. Each area school should have a bjgAPPLICATION INSTRUCTIONS ACADEMIC PROGRESS INCENTIVE GRANT I. Proposal Narrative (Limit proposal to no more than ten double-spaced, typed Additional pages will not be considered.) pages. A. Need for Project Describe the identified needs and how they will be met through the project. - - - Include any statistical data. B. Program Description Give a description of the program to be implemented, program goals, organizational management, curriculum, personnel and staff training, if needed. Include C. Plan of Operation Include project management time line. Task/Person Responsible/Completion Date A suggested format: D. Evaluation Plan Describe the methods you will use to evaluate activities outlined in this program. E. Budget Information List items to be funded through the grant. The maximum to be funded through the grant will be $25,000 per area school. Identify separately related items that will not be funded through the grant. II. Document Organization A. Organize the proposal in the following order, additional blank sheets of paper. Do not use B. 1. 2. 3. Cover sheet Narrative Budget Submit the original plus four copies of the proposal to: Estelle Matthis, Associate Superintendent for Educational Programs and Staff Development.LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT ADADEMIC PROGRESS INCENTIVE GRANT APPLICATION 1990-91 Name of School Principal Date Submitted Signature of Principal PROPOSAL COMMITTEERECEIVED MAR I 2 1993 TO: FROM: RE: DATE: The Honorable Susan Webber Wright tor Horoh 19, 1993 HeagfeV '\"3 March 9, 1993 I. Area School parents and patrons of the Little Rock School District request that this letter and the accompanying petitions be made a part of the court record. We wish to address the Court on Budget discussions directly related to Desegregation Plan. We educate 64% of all students in the Little Rock School District, that is approximately 10,788 out of 16,700 black students, and 6,000 out of 9,000 white student's, certainly the majority. Wg are concerned about the following issues: 1) The Little Rock School District has promised, under the Desegregation plan, to make available to the Area Schools $25,000 per Area School per year for a three-year period or more (if the evaluation proves that the grant had positive results) for Academic Progress Incentive Grants to decrease academic disparity. Unfortunately, Area school patrons have had to repeatedly request these funds from the Little Rock School District. Currently, the Little Rock School District has slashed the available money from $25,000 to $10,000 per Area School (a cut of almost 1/2 million dollars). To date for this year, our district has only given Area Schools a total of $50,000 of the allotted $320,000. 2) The Little Rock School District is also obligated to make available to the Area Schools funding for Focused Areas of Activities, but has not responded to pleas and public requests for defining and implementing this funding. 3) Area Schools have borne a disproportionate burden of cuts budget shown by reductions in funding for Gifted/Talented staff, music, counselors, physical plant assets, and general per capita funding compared to Magnet and Incentive Schools. This scenario has significantly diminished the educational opportunities of Area School students. 4) Area School parents and patrons perceive that their concerns about the inequitable budget cuts and their negative impact on the Little Rock School District efforts to implement the Desegregation Plan have not been addressed by the Little Rock School District. 15) There have been no monitoring or evaluation efforts by the Little Rock School District for the Area School portion of the Desegregation Plan. 6) Area School Parents and Patrons have worked hard for our District. We simply do not understand why the Little Rock School District is failing to meet the letter and spirit of the Desegregation Plan. we respectfully request Little Rock School District fulfill its promised obligation to the Area Schools. District II. Impact of the 1992-93 Budget Cuts on Area Schools. 1) Cuts in funding, and lack of funding for Academic Progress Incentive Grants, have limited the Area Schools abilities to provide the very programming (such as afterschool tutoring) which has proven to be an effective tool in funding. for decreasing academic disparity. When Area Schools are put \"on hold\" and don't receive approval or funding for Academic Progress Incentive Grants until February of 92 for the 91-92 school year, and then are cut to $10,000 for the 92-93 year, the potential effectiveness of the program has diminished, greatly. But who knows the outcome? The District has been unwilling to provide information such as: a) b) c) d) e) f) g) h) Which schools applied for grant dollars? Who is on the grant review committee? What is the criteria for the grant awards? The oversight and monitoring process? Who and why denied, who and why accepted? Evaluation techniques? Results of Evaluations? Why aren't there Area School parent representatives on the grant review committee? It is also unfair that the Little Rock School District used evaluation criteria to approve or disapprove grants initially, and then failed to evaluate. 2) The Little Rock School District's unwillingness to respond to or define \"Focused Areas of Activities'', order for the Area Schools to apply for and receive fair portion of total funding, has again adversely affected the Area Schools abilities to decrease Academic in a disparity. 3) When budget cuts (such as Gifted/Talented.Q^ music, counselors) are made at the Area Schools (but^Magnets, Incentives) Public perception is that quality of *   , Private school education is lower in Area Schools. 24) 5) parents who perceive that quality of education is lower in Area Schools and who are unable to obtain a Magnet School seat are discouraged from sending their children to public schools. This defeats one main goal of the Desegregation Plan, which is to fully desegregate the District. Perhaps it is time for the Little Rock School District to realize that the Area Schools have a role in helping to fully desegregate the Little Rock School District. When budget cuts are made at the Area Schools, public perception is that quality of education is lower at Area Schools. Therefore, children whose parents are knowledgeable about the 'special offerings\" at the Magnet Schools seek to transfer to Magnets from Area Schools, if seats are available. Because of these transfers, Area Schools have lost many G/T and high achieving minority (as well as majority) students, thus diminishing the number of minority role models, high achievers, G/T students in the Area Schools. We feel that this has also skewed the academic scores: according to figures reported in the Arkansas Democrat Gazette on 8/14/92, overall scores at Magnet Schools were higher than at Area Schools. (However, academic disparity was GREATER at Magnets than Area Schools.) This again defeats one main goal of the Desegregation Plan, which is to decrease academic disparity. It is time for the Little Rock School District to realize that the Area Schools have a role in helping to decrease academic disparity. Domino Effect. Since there is no longer a music program, planning time for the classroom teacher has been reduced due to lack of travel time and because the classroom teacher has the added responsibility of teaching music one hour per week. The librarian now has to deal with whole classes for thirty minutes rather than one half class for thirty minute each, so that the teacher has prep time. This has drastically diminished the effectiveness of REACH lessons in the library, which are supposed to reinforce curriculum objectives. Little Rock School District The libraries at Area Schools, are now available less frequently for classes working with their teachers. Therefore the children's instruction in research and other areas have been decreased significantly. Free flow for independent study and reading is necessarily more limited. Children who really desire to use the library are often turned away because of this tight schedule and because of limited library personnel. 36) Eliminating music teachers in Area Schools has adversely affected the classroom teacher, as well as, our children. Teachers vary greatly in their music skills and comfort level in teaching music concepts, increased pressure associated with implementing the new curriculum, teachers simply cannot spend adequate time planning and carrying out music instruction. This situation has adversely affected teacher morale. Children suffer because they are no longer integrated in grade level and school wide music programs. Skills such as listening and group cooperation and multi-cultural understanding and appreciation are a vital part of music education at the elementary level, which is no longer With the This available. 7) Gifted/Talented programs have been cut in half by the reduction of teachers. The impact on children in Area Schools is especially great because Area Schools lack the extra personnel and programs available in Magnet and Many parents who choose public Incentive Schools. schools over private schools in large measure because of a fine Gifted/Talented program developed and supported by both the State and Little Rock School District, are especially demoralized by these cuts. Once again, Area Schools are inequitably dealt the greater loss because their program offerings are not as enriched as those found in Magnet and Incentive Schools. Children, i\" kindergarten and first grades (and sometimes second) are no longer afforded the opportunity to participate -- Gifted/Talented programs at all in Area Schools. Since these are the formative years when children are being introduced to problem solving and higher order thinking skills which are tested on the Stanford 8, the lack of Gifted/Talented instruction must certainly adversely affects the academic progress of Area Schools children. And those children whose talents are not evident in the traditionally expected ways may be missed during the selection process for Gifted/Talented participation in the upper grades because of the reduced scope of the program. The Gifted/Talented program cannot adequately meet the needs of the children it targets by once again t-hfi rosnonsibllitv for instruction with the Children in in 8) program. placing the responsibility classroom teacher. The direct services to children provided by our counselors are a vital part of ensuring their success in school. Any reduction in counselor time in Area Schools necessarily impacts on academic progress, citizenship, and school environment. Counselors work with children who have specific behavior problems which disrupt the learning environment in already crowded classrooms, and which interfere with academic progress. Counselors are 49) vital in addressing social problems which affect our - children and disrupt the learning process, such as drug and gangs. children They provide social work functions for whose and situations background family necessitate extra support in order for them to succeed in school. Counselors are instrumental in setting up programs to encourage children who have no incentives from home to achieve in school. One Counselor per 450 students is not enough. school nurses who were already spread thinly among Area Schools are now even less of a visible presence. The pressure of giving medication and attending to illness and injury on a daily basis falls to the school secretary and principal on days when the nurse is not assigned to the school.- For example, an area elementary school might dispense an average of 50 medications daily, including critical medications for illnesses such as asthma and diabetes. school personnel. Medical testing is also handled by These responsibilities are obviously time consuming, requiring up to 3/4 of the day for the secretary (or principal, in the secretary's absence) on The nurse also days when the nurse is not there. provides screening services such as vision, hearing, and scoliosis testing to diagnose problems which would otherwise go undetected in children whose only medical Volunteers often care is provided by the school nurse, hesitatingly perform, but with little expertise, these services when the nurse has no time. Health education is another important service the school nurse handles. Information about physical development, diseases and personal hygiene contributes to keeping children healthy and thus positively affects academic achievement. Hc\" can we not see the importance of development screening How and health education for children who do not get basic Information, care and protection elsewhere? Area Schools cannot take any further cuts in nursing staff. 10) At the public meetings held in 1992 with our new superintendent, Dr. Mac Bernd, many, many more examples of negative impacts of the budget cuts on Area Schools were presented by Area School Parents and Patrons. However, there have been no responses. III. Conclusion. Area Schools play a major role in the Desegregation Plan. We represent 64% of students in the Little Rock School District. That is 10,788 out of 16,700 black students, and 6,000 out of 59,000 White students of the 26,000 students in the district. We struggle for a fair share of resources and repeatedly cry out to the administration to have our children's educational needs net. After the current year budget cuts, we perceived more than ever that we have no recognized role in achieving the goals of the Desegregation Plan. We are the first to be cut and the last to be given our portion of programming and funding which is a part of the district-written and court-approved Desegregation Plan. We obviously care a great deal about and take pride in our children and our schools. We have spent nuch time and effort in presenting these specific negative impacts of the 1992-93 budget cuts. following: We hope they will indicate to the court the * * Budget cuts to Area Schools must be reinstated with no further cuts to Area Schools. Little Rock School District must live up to the letter and spirit of the Desegregation Plan. Area Schools must have an avenue to be heard in any future desegregation matters at the Little Rock School District level and by the court. we sincerely thank you for your consideration. These petitions are still being circulated and will be forwarded to the court. Name Address Date ------t ^2. 0^  ' ' 31/ gii 0. 'i. 3J./ z M CU^ -------- / I RteXrl .-97OT Kt 7 fj '1^1 7t'\\ 1V\\zM.er 6 L-K-kl Patrons   CHRONOLOGY OF MEETTWdS/REQUESTS -----RY AREA SCHOOL PATRONS TO LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT ADMINISTRATION of the Little Rock School District have repeatedly ____clarification of 4-participation nts^Sd and release of funds for Academic Progress Incentive Grants and requested Focused Areas of Activity. 7-25-1990 Area School Patrons met with - Dr. concerning zcademlo ProgrB Incentive Grants. At Area that time, there was time line for Area discussion of. the irrational Schools regarding the grant first letter discussing the Academic sent to the schools proposals. The  Progress Incentive Grants was------ -t.- on April 26th, which discussed a grant writing session on May Sth, with proposals due June 5th. Dr SSlOn oil WAV** 4-Vs4wV . Steele was told that it was outrageous to think and parents have the time t-hat Principals, teachers,  ----- to creatively think about and come up with progr^s the last month of school. told that the Area School Patrons Dr. Steele was me area ouuuui  were met with such statements as  Don't worry, we re working with the schools\" -   about the Academic Progress However, when the administration when patrons questioned the administration Incentive Grants. However, when me was asked \"will the schools receive the Academic progress Incentive Grants dollars by fall 90.   administrations response was \"I can t answer that . The following questions were asked of Dr. Steele: 1) IS there a schools? grant writer helper for the Area 2) Did any Magnet or Incentive Schools request 3) 4) 5) 6) 7) 8) grants? the Magnets and Incentives sent a memo Why were _ regarding these grants. , . ,, 4-bir4-u- Was there enough money budget for all thirty four Area Schools? available for these grants. Is there money --------- --- - Where is it coming from and how much is it. Who's on the Grant Review Committee? What are the review procedures? _ If the grant or portions of the grant are ____ _ ___9 hnnnanq to that monev? 1 rejected, what happens money? reabsorbed into something else or wha?Fall 1991 Feb. 1992 Aug. 1992 . --S) 10) 11) What is the procedure if a school's grant (or portion of) are rejected? Are there any Area School patrons on the Grant- Review/Evaluation Committee? if not, could we please have representation? - Will the grants be in place by September '90? Area School Patrons met with Dr. Steele concerning the Academic Progress Incentive Grants money being put on hold. The administrations explanation was -that because of the budget crisis and the double - funding at Incentive Schools, that the money for Academic Progress Incentive Grants were not available and that the court had to rule on this.  Area School patrons waited until February 1992 and then demanded the money (a copy of the demand may ......... be obtained). It was perceived that because these demands were placed on the administration, the grant monies were made available. Several Area Schools patrons talked with several board members concerning Academic Progress incentive Grants and Focused Areas of Activity and why the Little Rock School District had not gone forward with its plan. Dec. 19, 1992 Area School patrons presented to the Little Rock School District board requesting the board to have the administration define Focused Areas of Activity and describe the difference between Focused Areas of Activity and Academic Progress Incentive Grants. Each board member was handed a copy of the Area School portion of the Desegregation Plan, as was taken from the May 1, 1992 revision. Board members were urged to make these areas clear, and to provide the money. other suggestions concerning these grants were made available. There was NO RESPONSE to these requests. Fall 1992 Area School patrons met with Dr. Mac Bernd concerning Area Schools such as budget cuts and disinterest by the District in Academic Progress Incentive Grants and Focused Areas of Activity. 2 Bernd was asked the same question that were asked Dr. of Dr. Steele 7-25-90. There has been no response to these questions and concerns.I t 800 Marell Street, LittJe Rock. Arkansas 72202-3591, (501) 320-1100 or TDD (501) 320-1184 ( SECTION OF COMMUNITY PEDIATRICS AND PUBUC POUCY I I I' Charles R. FeOd, M.D. Seclimi Chief (501)320-1431 Faa (501) 320-2340 Seoalary 320-2651 I  i February 25, 1992 Paul Brown. Ed D, RK Cram t\u0026gt;ai tlii,oian\u0026lt; A Comnranliy ttwhli (501)636-9605 Dr. Mac Bernd, Superintendent Little Rock School District 1810 W. Markham : Little Rock, AR. 72201 r \u0026gt; ri II . I Frank Farmer. Ph.D. CoMalUM la Ratal Sociology (501)320-3333 I Dear Dr. Bernd: J F- Great Gay. Ph.D. Health Policy CoasuhatH (501)569-3293 I the needs of pupils and staff in the a^ea concerned about tuppoj\nL  *0 RawR S. Kirbjr, Phjj. Epidemioloiy \u0026lt;501)320-3333 I  -I at home^^r^^^ I me at 320-3605, or 661-0393 Sim L Shulu, M.D. (MI)32O-3M7 -hoet M Udouj. M.D. (.501)320-3606 ii I -'i , I  1 i I 1 f 7, Cymhb Montgomery, R.N.P. I Joycf Moore. R.N.P, \u0026lt;501 \u0026gt; 320-3*08 1 Torn Noil. MS.W. 1 Director. Edocalioa Sernas (501)320-3628\nAHtMsat Accot Rebeca Pocock Projecl Direclof (SOI)32(M)8 I I ' i Ji I j  Best wishes, Charles R. Feild, M.D. Associate Professor of Pediatrics CRF/mda i \u0026lt; \u0026gt; f I1 - 1 t:  -e-:!- 'V-T w'-ir ? I I Timoihy Lee Project Rcprcscnlalite (501)320-7526 J I Arkmn School HoHh Imuranct Preyed Cd Smart Prof ran -I Oiarira Nickenon, MPA Aflmtnhlralor (501)320-3635 Tina Cohm Coordinator. l) 320-3605 \u0026gt;(500 320-3948 ii i I J-\".'' * r ! .1 Depirtment of Perfiairia Uniwnilj tl faitnu hi Molicii Sdowj Tn- The Honorable Susan Webber Wright From\nParents and Patrons of Area School Children jn the LRSD Re- March 19.1993 Budget Cut Hearings I. as a parent or patron of children in the area schools of the LRSD, respectfully: 1) ask the Court to include this petition and signature as a part of the Court record. 2) ask the Court to review the sincere concerns of the Area School patrons as outlined in this petition. 3) ask the Court to listen to Area School patrons who perceive that their concerns about the inequitable budget cuts (gifted and talented and music faculty, school nurses counsellors, and general per capita funding) and their negative impact on the District's efforts to implement the Desegregation Plan have not been addressed by the LRSD or the Court. 4) ask the Court to demand that the LRSD live up to the committments it made to the Area Schools in its Desegregation Plan. 5) ask the Court to order the LRSD to make readily available to the Area Schools its due funding for the Academic Progress Incentive Grants and define and make available its due funds tor Focused Areas of Activities as approved by the Court ordered plan without monetary penalty in other Area School programs. 6) ask the Court to include Area School patrons and parents in future budget hearings and desegregation matters. 7) ask the court to appoint an Area School committee to oversee the LRSD in desegregation matters, name address date z aa^^o^- - -I------ '\\\\aixLA 3/5?/^3 lda\\ ___^^a.gn------- MjLiO ^If.'''^ A \u0026lt;/Gl \u0026gt;i7 7^1.0-7 12 Io \u0026lt;f-C:\u0026lt;T!Jjar.a___ 72^00- 3- k-^r 3-\u0026amp;\"9-\u0026lt;3 5j. ^?e\u0026gt; ^aio-Hipr '7^^7 f,^^7 '22.'z-o y To: The Honorable Susan Webber Wright From: Parents and Patrons ot Area School Children in the I BSD Re: March 19.1993 Budget Cut Hearings I, as a parent or patron ot children in the area schools ot the LRSD, respecttully: 1) ask the Court to include this petition and signature as a part of the Court record. 2) ask the Court to review the sincere concerns of the Area School patrons as outlined in this petition. 3) ask the Court to listen to Area School patrons who perceive that their concerns about the inequitable budget cuts (gifted and talented and music faculty, school nurses, counsellors, and general per capita funding) and their negative impact on the District's efforts to implement the Desegregation Plan have not been addressed by the LRSD or the Court. 4) ask the Court to demand that the LRSD live up to the committments it made to the Area Schools in Its Desegregation Plan. 5) ask the Court to order the LRSD to make readily available to the Area Schools its due funding for the Academic Progress Incentive Grants and define and make available its due funds for Focused Areas of Activities as approved by the Court ordered plan without monetary penalty in other Area School programs. 6) ask the Court to include Area School patrons and parents in future budget hearings and desegregation matters. 7) ask the court to appoint an Area School committee to oversee the LRSD in desegregation matters. '^xz) Qi/Yv 7 (c/gi date Ct' I/Qljc.zst / A/rvw 7g^7  Q|Oto yA. n1 3. \u0026gt;o - 'i^ A M . fl / - / g - 7 3. 3-1 It -7^7 3-IU^ ....... . 13r' I. Aa R _______S//i)/?3 3-1 To: Thft Honorable Susan Webber Wright From: Parents and Patrons of Area School Children igthe LRqD Re: March 19,1993 Budget Cut Hearings I, as a parent or patron of children in the area schools of the LRSD. respectfully: 1) ask the Court to include this petition and signature as a part of the Court record. 2) ask the Court to review the sincere concerns of the Area School patrons as outlined in this petition. 3) ask the Court to listen to Area School patrons who perceive that their concerns about the inequitable budget cuts (gifted and talented and music faculty, school nurses counsellors, and general per capita funding) and their negative impact on the Districts efforts to implement the Desegregation Plan have not been addressed by the LRSD or the Court. 4) ask the Court to demand that the LRSD live up to the committments it made to the Area Schools in its Desegregation Plan. 5) 5) ask the Court to order the LRSD to make readily available to the Area Schools its due funding for the Academic Progress Incentive Grants and define and niake available its due funds for Focused Areas of Activities as approved by the Court ordered plan without monetary penalty in other Area School programs. 6) ask the Court to include Area School patrons and parents in future budget hearings and desegregation matters. 7) ask the court to appoint an Area School committee to oversee the LRSD in desegregation matters. n address 3 Aid neo date 1^01 nar^e^reT - lot^ )\\7, Pirv Lp dlLLj^ H 7t^ Q^'mi to I ' Cg)^T\u0026amp;(^ To\nThe Honorable Susan Webber Wright From: Parents and Patrons of Area School Children in the LBSD Re: March 19.1993 Budget Cut Hearings 1, as a parent or patron ot children in the area schools of the LRSD, respectfully\n1) ask the Court to include this petition and signature as a part of the Court record. 2) ask the Court to review the sincere concerns of the Area School patrons as outlined in this petition. 3) ask the Court to listen to Area School patrons who perceive that their concerns about the inequitable budget cuts (gifted and talented and music faculty, school nurses, counsellors, and general per capita funding) and their negative impact on the Districts efforts to implement the Desegregation Plan have not been addressed by the LRSD or the Court. 4) ask the Court to demand that the LRSD live up to the committments it made to the Area Schools in its Desegregation Plan. b} ask the Court to order the LRSD to make readily available to the Area Schools its due funding for the Academic Progress Incentive Grants and define and make available its due funds for Focused Areas of Activities as approved by the Court ordered plan without monetary penalty in other Area School programs. 6) ask the Court to include Area School patrons and parents in future budget hearings and desegregation matters. 7) ask the court to appoint an Area School committee to oversee the LRSD in desegregation matters. / n^e date .address l/0( AJo.THXjZA. s eft. na-aei\u0026lt;r ~ 7) ^itKQ3 n-3 *7^^/2 ^2^ _____(tio   ___ Itt-b \u0026lt;rTo- The Honorable Susan Webber Wright f^rom: Parents and Patrons ot Area School Children in.the LRSH Re: March 19.1993 Budget Cui Hearin.gs I, as a parent or patron ot children in the area schools ot the LRSD, respecttully: 1) ask the Court to include this petition and signature as a part ot the Court record. 2) ask the Court to review the sincere concerns ot the Area School patrons as outlined in this petition. 3) ask the Court to listen to Area School patrons who perceive that their concerns about the inequitable budget cuts (gifted and talented and music taculty, school nurses counsellors, and general per capita funding) and their negative impact on the Districts efforts to implement the Desegregation Plan have not been addressed by the LRSD or the Court. 4) ask the Court to demand that the LRSD live up to the committments it made to the Area Schools in its Desegregation Plan. 5) ask the Court to order the LRSD to make readily available to the Area Schools its due funding for the Academic Progress Incentive Grants and define and make available its due funds for Focused Areas of Activities as approved by the Court ordered plan without monetary penalty in other Area School programs. 6) ask the Court to include Area School patrons and parents in future budget hearings and desegregation matters. 7) ask the court to appoint an Area School committee to oversee the LRSD in desegregation matters. name address sn -So t I dale pr iVitJKLKrViA/\u0026gt; y/^ f\\G. J iJLi/ A\u0026gt;f {iO^ dl'\\ J-f VS-13 -2^i=l-^^  r 11 IIG S,.,. txJ4\u0026gt;oJ^i^ 5o. C/aIh^^-^ C ' J P7/\u0026lt;/  Ko ^ 4------------ 3 \u0026gt; 1 Lhil 5. -fl-ir Pa^t Tn- The Honorable Susan Webber Wright Prom: Parents and Patrons of Area School Children in.the LRSD Re: March 19,1993 Budget Cut Hearings I, as a parent or patron of children in the area schools of the LRSD, respectfully: 1) ask the Court to include this petition and signature as a part of the Court record. 2) ask the Court to review the sincere concerns of the Area School patrons as outlined in this petition. 3) ask the Court to listen to Area School patrons who perceive that their concerns about the inequi..t.a....b....l.e.... ..b....u...d.. get. c_ uts (gifted anmdi itoailoe niotneidil fva/n do rmhnynsiic faculty, school nurses, ccoouunnsseelloorrss,,. aa_ _nn ad_ zgg\u0026lt;eeznn\\neeArrraaolli rppvee/irir ncboadnppiiittiaaa ffluuiinnnrdutiimnnngy^)\nepamnnrdut ttuhhicfethiirr nn.eftg0a3ttiiv\\/e6 iimmDprS aCctt (on the Districts efforts to implement the Desegregation Plan have not been addressed by the LRSD or the Court. 4) ask the Court to demand that the LRSD live up to the committments it made to the Area Schools in its Desegregation Plan. due 5) ask the Court to order the LRSD to make readily available to the Area Schools its due funding for the Academic Progress Incentive Grants and define and make available its due funds for Focused Areas of Activities as approved by the Court ordered plan without monetary penalty in other Area School programs. 6) ask the Court to include Area School patrons and parents in future budget hearings and desegregation matters. 7) ask the court to appoint an Area School committee to oversee the LRSD in desegregation\u0026gt;matters. 47^^ address , datte 7/2 - 7 ------------------ -i- 'Si 20902 3^ (^ooi 7/00 7 J 9^'7 5 ' 7 2,2 o 7 ZWai Tn- The Honorable Susan Webber Wright From: Parents and Patrons of Area School Children in.the LRSD. Re- March 19.1993 Budget Cut Hearings I, as a parent or patron of children in the area schools of the LRSD, respectfully: 1) ask the Court to include this petition and signature as a part of the Court record. 2) ask the Court to review the sincere concerns of the Area School, patrons as outlined in this petition. 3) ask the Court to listen to Area School patrons who perceive that their concerns about the inequitable budget cuts (gifted and talented and music faculty, school nurses counsellors, and general per capita funding) and their negative impact on the Districts efforts to implement the Desegregation Plan have not been addressed by the LRSD or the Court. 4) ask the Court to demand that the LRSD live up to the committments it made to the Area Schools in its Desegregation Plan. 5) ask the Court to order the LRSD to make readily available to the Area Schools its due funding for the Academic Progress Incentive Grants and define and make available its due funds for Focused Areas of Activities as approved by the Court ordered plan without monetary penalty in other Area School programs. 6) ask the Court to include Area School patrons and parents in future budget hearings and desegregation matters. 7) ask the court to appoint an Area School committee to oversee the LRSD in I I desegregation matters. name , address / 5 blt-J ..lx  J JI- ! .A.aA cL^.n/c iQ/j/s'. It . '/'jL/icy / -7^5 '// 'I'n/n./i, //r. i.fl LU Qr~ 'C' /2 WU?To: The Honorable Susan Webber Wright From: Parents and Patrons ot Area School Children in the LRSD Re- March 19.1993 Budget Cut Hearings I, as a parent or patron ot children in the area schools ot the LRSD. respecttully: 1) ask the Court to include this petition and signature as a part ot the Court record. 2) ask the Court to review the sincere concerns ot the Area School patrons as outlined in this petition. 3) ask the Court to listen to Area School patrons who perceive that their concerns about the inequitable budget cuts (gifted and talented and music faculty, school nurses, counsellors, and general per capita funding) and their negative impact on the Districts efforts to implement the Desegregation Plan have not been addressed by the LRSD or the Court. 4) ask the Court to demand that the LRSD live up to the committments it made to the Area Schools in its Desegregation Plan. 5) ask the Court to order the LRSD to make readily available to the Area Schools its due funding for the Academic Progress Incentive Grants and define and make available its due funds for Focused Areas of Activities as approved by the Court ordered plan without monetary penalty in other Area School programs. 6) ask the Court to include Area School patrons and parents in future budget hearings and desegregation matters. 7) ask the court to appoint an Area School committee to oversee the LRSD in desegregation_matters. na address date \u0026gt;u\\. A.' iJ^ C . V\\\\\\Sdk:u\u0026gt;\\^ UAo\u0026lt; AAAiQi s? \u0026lt;1 Ju S- \u0026gt;0-^3 L. k\u0026gt;^ r-y^ Cob^ 3 -/c '?3 3 th?3 ______________Lil --------------------  SMAtr. , L.'^. laaoA S\\\\iT? ^1. f -------- 1 l^ .l l^n\u0026lt;\\Z^ ^/(i/-i3 u ylc^.'^ ?-//-73-r To: The Honorable Susan Webber Wright From: Parents and Patrons of Area School Children in.the LRSD Re: March 19.1993 Budget Cui Hearings I, as a parent or patron of children in the area schools of the LRSD, respectfully\n1) ask the Court to include this petition and signature as a part of the Court record. 2) ask the Court to review the sincere concerns of the Area School patrons as outlined in this petition. 3) ask the Court to listen to Area School patrons who perceive that their concerns about the inequitable budget cuts (gifted and talented and music faculty, school nurses, counsellors, and general per capita funding) and their negative impact on the Districts efforts to implement the Desegregation Plan have not been addressed by the LRSD or the Court. 4) ask the Court to demand that the LRSD live up to the committments it made to the Area Schools in its Desegregation Plan. 5) ask the Court to order the LRSD to make readily available to the Area Schools its due funding for the Academic Progress Incentive Grants and define and make available its due funds for Focused Areas of Activities as approved by the Court ordered plan without monetary penalty in other Area School programs. 6) ask the Court to include Area School patrons and parents in future budget hearings and desegregation matters. 7) ask the court to appoint an Area School committee to oversee the LRSD in address S- yV\u0026amp;r^naC, date 3-^-73 3-1-13 . 6 ,1 nQ Ca A vZ, i\u0026gt; ino^ \u0026lt;vJI -Yaj.'A.or it 9 a ^nno q-ix. Qv, JS2^ k'-tc ,fy,i\"ir ---------------Cl 3-9^^\"? /Cb bib Is iVl -J I  I i-?- ntffia. p4  ' f ~ 3lUi. a '- iV^r' N. uC- j^Th*^ Honorable Susan Webber Wright Prom: parents and Patrons of Area School Children in.the LRSD. Re: March 19.1993 Budget Cut Hearings I, as a parent or patron of children in the area schools of the LRSD. respectfully\n1) ask the Court to include this petition and signature as a part of the Court record. 2) ask the Court to review the sincere concerns of the Area School patrons as outlined in this petition. \u0026lt; 3) ask the Court to listen to Area School patrons who perceive that their concerns about the inequitable budget cuts (gifted and talented and music faculty, school nurses counsellors, and general per capita funding) and their negative impact on the Districts efforts to implement the Desegregation Plan have not been addressed by the LRSD or the Court. 4) ask the Court to demand that the LRSD live up to the committments it made to the Area Schools in its Desegregation Plan. due 5) ask the Court to order the LRSD to make readily available to the Area Schools its funding for the Academic Progress Incentive Grants and define and make available its due funds for Focused Areas of Activities as approved by the Court ordered plan without monetary penalty in other Area School programs. 6) ask the Court to include Area School patrons and parents in future budget hearings and desegregation matters. 7) ask the court to appoint an Area School committee to oversee the LRSD in desegregation matters. lame address date , )OV\u0026gt;I 1^ a^xi^y- Qf/nn WK 32^ -------------- - 7)7, ?.aa.-z)23 ------^.7?/23 lJ- PTg o- '^3 O.3^ ^r -f-j ll 't Z^f (\\\u0026lt;Zj otitis XU4. 7-3/g fyi(urxc^To: The Honorable Susan Webber Wrighl Prom: parents and Patrons ot Area School Childrejiin the LRSD. Re: March 19.1993 Budget Ci^ Hearings I, as a parent or patron ot children in the area schools ot the LRSD, respecttully\n1) ask the Court to include this petition and signature as a part ot the Court record. 2) ask the Court to review the sincere in this petition. concerns ot the Area School patrons as outlined 3) ask the Court to listen to Area School patrons who perceive that their concerns about the inequitable budget cuts (gifted and talented andI music\nacufty, ^ch^ nurses, and general ,Sr capita landing) and their negative intact on the Districts eftorts to implement the Desegregation Plan have not been addressed by the LRSD or the Court. 4) ask the Court to demand that the LRSD live up to the committments it made to the Area Schools in its Desegregation Plan. 5) ask the Court to order the LRSD to make readily available to the Area Schools its due tunding for the Academic Progress Incentive Grants and available its due funds for Focused Areas ot Activities as approved by the Court ordered plan without monetary penalty in other Area School programs. Court to include Area School patrons and parents in tuture budget hearings 6) ask the and desegregation matters. 7) ask the court to appoint an desegregation matters. name Area School committee to oversee the LRSD in address date u2 -T 'h. J-/O'7^ Or (2k. 3-^ ^(19 A'2 f- /. 1 IL 1, 22 23 M T,. 2^  H1) ^enyDtChflnA- Dr Cha nAi To: The Honorable Susan Webber Wright Prom: Parents and Patrons of Area School Children.in.the URSQ Rft- March 19.1993 Budget Cut Hearings I, as a parent or patron of children in the area schools of the LRSD, respectfully: 1) ask the Court to include this petition and signature as a part of the Court record. 2) ask the Court to review the sincere concerns of the Area School patrons as outlined in this petition. 3) ask the Court to listen to Area School patrons who perceive that their concerns about the inequitable budget cuts (gifted and talented and music faculty, school nurses counsellors, and general per capita funding) and their negative impact on the Districts efforts to implement the Desegregation Plan have not been addressed by the LRSD or the Court. 4) ask the Court to demand that the LRSD live up to the committments it made to the Area Schools in its Desegregation Plan. 5) ask the Court to order the LRSD to make readily available to the Area Schools its due funding for the Academic Progress Incentive Grants and define and make available its due funds for Focused Areas of Activities as approved by the Court ordered plan without monetary penalty in other Area School programs. 6) ask the Court to include Area School patrons and parents in future budget hearings and desegregation matters. 7) ask the court to appoint an Area School committee to oversee the LRSD in desegregation matters. address date 5-11-^3 3LtgtW\u0026lt;^kuK\u0026gt;o\u0026lt;I J-41^ 0 n 7 3-//-U 3'//-7T- 2 ___ _ r. To: The Honorable Susan Webber Wright Re: h\u0026lt;arnh 19 Ifln3 Rudnet Cut Hearings I, as a parent or patron ot children in the area schools ot the LRSD. respecttully\n1) ask the Court to include this petition and signature as a part of the Court record. 2) ask the Court to review the sincere in this petition. concerns ot the Area School patrons as outlined 3t ask the Court to listen to Area School patrons who perceive that they concerns about the inequitable budget cuts (gifted and talented and music facu ty. sch\u0026lt;30 nurses, SoTand general capita .ending) and 'heir negative impac. on .he Districts eftorts to implement the Desegregation Plan have not been addressed by the LRSD or the Court. 4) ask the Court to demand that the LRSD live up to the committments it made to the Area Schools in its Desegregation Plan. Court to order the LRSD to make readily available to the Area Schools its due^ ndfngllor the Academic Progress Incentive Grants and define and make due funds lor Focused Areas of Activities as approved by the Court ordered plan without monetary penalty in other Area School programs. Court to include Area School patrons and parents in future budget hearings 6) ask the and desegregation matters. 7) ask the court to appoint an Area School committee to oversee the LRSD in desegregation matters, name address date I stern tJills----- Ml, Z-.S LnV.\u0026gt;(ialtiI----------------- h QLWui3(n.-d L. zof.: 7.\ni 7Z.2O4- --- Ay IJXA____ 5 93 1 c I ~'\\3 3 jL 72^^ 7S.SJy 3-/c-^3 3To- The Honorable Susan Webber Wright From: Parents and Patrons of Area School Children in the LRSD Re: March 19,1993 Budget Cut Hearings I, as a parent or patron of children in the area schools of the LRSD, respectfully. 1) ask the Court to include this petition and signature as a part of the Court record. 2) ask the Court to review the sincere concerns of the Area School patrons as outlined in this petition. 3) ask the Court to listen to Area School patrons who perceive that their concerns about the inequitable budget cuts (gifted and talented and music faculty, school nurses, counsellors, and general per capita funding) and their negative impact on the Districts efforts to implement the Desegregation Plan have not been addressed by the LRSD or the Court. 4) ask the Court to demand that the LRSD live up to the committments it made to the Area Schools in its Desegregation Plan. 5) ask the Court to order the LRSD to make readily available to the Area Schools its due funding for the Academic Progress Incentive Grants and define and make available its due funds for Focused Areas of Activities as approved by the Court ordered plan without monetary penalty in other Area School programs. 6) ask the Court to include Area School patrons and parents in future budget hearings and desegregation matters. 7) ask the court to appoint an Area School committee to oversee the LRSD in desegregation matters. a\u0026lt; c -A '\u0026lt;.  T7 T' '  ^77^ date it f i~l\u0026gt;i'   :i v'K^sbC / f i-'-' ^^)a-9 3 f U( c Z  Zip  rv-r... / jz / \"J f ' - Z S\\\\'\\ $t !-' -v^  I i I 'J i :j:f ' t \u0026gt;'. I \\ I 1To: The Honorable Susan Webber Wright From: parents and Patrons of Area School Children in the LRSD Re: March 19.1993 Budget Cut Hearings 1, as a parent or patron ol children in the area schools ot the LRSD. respectfully: 1) ask the Court to include this petition and signature as a part of the Court record. 2) ask the Court to review the sincere concerns of the Area School patrons as outlined in this petition. 3) ask the Court to listen to Area School patrons who perceive that their concerns about the inequitable budget cuts (gifted and talented and music faculty, school nurses counsellors, and general per capita funding) and their negative impact on the Districts efforts to implement the Desegregation Plan have not been addressed by the LRSD or the Court. 4) ask the Court to demand that the LRSD live up to the committments it made to the Area Schools in its Desegregation Plan. 5) 5) ask the Court to order the LRSD to make readily available to the Area Schools its due funding for the Academic Progress Incentive Grants and define and make available its due funds for Focused Areas of Activities as approved by the Court ordered plan without monetary penalty in other Area School programs. 6) ask the Court to include Area School patrons and parents in future budget hearings and desegregation matters. I 7) ask the court to appoint an Area School committee to oversee the LRSD in desegregation matters. Dj address le d A P Q I r\u0026gt;Q  _ 2ZZZZWZSS3Z^^ a._ 'J- h LTo- The Honorable Susan Webber Wright From\nParents and Patrons ot Area School Children in.th^ LRSD. Rp- March 19.1993 Budget Cut Hearings I, as a parent or patron ot children in the area schools ot the LRSD. respecttully\n1) ask the Court to include this petition and signature as a part ot the Court record. 2) ask the Court to review the sincere concerns ot the Area School patrons as outlined in this petition. 3) ask the Court to listen to Area School patrons who perceive that their concerns about the inequitable budget cuts (gifted and talented and music taculty, school nurses counsellors, and general per capita tunding) and their negative impact on the Districts ettorts to implement the Desegregation Plan have not been addressed by the LRSD or the Court. 4) ask the Court to demand that the LRSD live up to the committments it made to the Area Schools in its Desegregation Plan. 5) ask the Court to order the LRSD to make readily available to the Area Schools its due funding tor the Academic Progress Incentive Grants and detine and make available its due tunds tor Focused Areas ot Activities as approved by the Court ordered plan without monetary penalty in other Area School programs. 1 6) ask the Court to include Area School patrons and parents in tuture budget hearings and desegregation matters. 7) ask the court to appoint an Area School committee to oversee the LRSD in desegregation matters. me ZL address ,---------- h3le5 fl^ i-l- I Ctstl'Mc CjPLL. LIL. Ci \u0026lt;g- \u0026gt;Jtll S'! l-lC___ iz.-z.c-) 'V \u0026lt;7330*1 date 3-^13 g - /C - 9 5 3- /r. 3-10-^^ 3/ 1^*13 ^0 ^1.  10 friii-'/ 1To: The Honorable Susan Webber Wrighl From: Parenis and Palrons ol Area School Children in the LRSD Re: March 19,1993 Budget Cut Hearings I. as a parenl or palron ol children in Ihe area schools ol Ihe LRSD, respecllully\n1) ask Ihe Court Io include Ihis pelilion and signalure as a part ol Ihe Court record. 2) ask the Court to review the sincere concerns of the Area School patrons as outlined in this petition. 3) ask the Court Io listen to Area School patrons who perceive that their concerns about the inequitable budget cuts (gilted and talented and music faculty, school nurses, counsellors, and general per capita funding) and their negative impact on the District's eftorts to implement the Desegregation Plan have not been addressed by the LRSD or the Court. 4) ask Ihe Court Io demand Ihal Ihe LRSD live up Io Ihe commillmenis II made Io Ihe Area Schools in ils Desegregalion Plan. 5) ask Ihe Court Io order the LRSD Io make readily available Io Ihe Area Schools its due lunding lor the Academic Progress Incentive Grants and deline and make available its due lunds lor Focused Areas ol Activities as approved by Ihe Court ordered plan without monetary penally in other Area School programs. 6) ask Ihe Court Io include Area School palrons and parenis in luture budget hearings and desegregation matters. 7) ask Ihe court Io appoini an Area School commillee Io oversee Ihe LRSD in desegregalion mailers, name address dale /C/r ^-9- \u0026lt;r3 ^1 a A \u0026lt;- ifsnvo F 1^X4 7-^3 ^/o Or \u0026lt;.r rf'^7tftffz. f To- The Honorable Susan Webber Wright From: Parents and Patrons of Area School Children in the LRSD. Re: March 19.1993 Budget Cyl Hearings I, as a parent or patron of children in the area schools of the LRSD, respectfully. 1) ask the Court to include this petition and signature as a part of the Court record. 2) ask the Court to review the sincere concerns of the Area School patrons as outlined in this petition. 3) ask the Court to listen to Area School patrons who perceive that their concerns * .................. _ z-txA__ I____ I mi ir^izx f o/M ittv/ o/*hr4nl about the ineiiquitable budget cuts (gifted and talented and music faculty, school nurses, counsseeHCHff^s,, aanndd ggeenneerraall ppeerr ccaappiittaa ffuunndoiinngg)) aannad itnheeiirr nneeggaattiivvee iimmppaacut ounu tmhee Districts efforts to implement the Desegregation Plan have not been addressed by the LRSD or the Court. sp 4) ask the Court to demand that the LRSD live up to the commitments it made to the Area Schools in its Desegregation Plan. 5) ask the Court to order the LRSD to make readily available to the Area Schools its due funding for the Academic Progress Incentive Grants and define and make available its due funds for Focused Areas of Activities as approved by the Court ordered plan without monetary penalty in other Area School programs. 6) ask the Court to include Area School patrons and parents in future budget hearings and desegregation matters. 7) ask the court to appoint an Area School committee to oversee the LRSD in desegregation matters. - IS U\n- dpt IK address date J /c  JZ ZO ') ''\u0026gt;! I i /'i 1 \"7- '7^9'6 2 J ( To: The Honorable Susan Webber Wright From\nParents and Patrons of Area. School Children in the LRSD Re: March 19,1993 Budget Cut Hearings I, as a parent or patron of children in the area schools ot the LRSD, respectfully\n1) ask the Court to include this petition and signature as a part ot the Court record. 2) ask the Court to review the sincere concerns in this petition. of the Area School patrons as outlined 3t ask the Court to listen to Area School patrons who perceive that they concerns about the ineguitable budget cuts (gifted and talented and music faculty, school and general per caplla landing) and their negativei impact on DisUicl's ellorts to implement the Desegregation Pian have not been addressed by the LRSD or the Court. 4) ask the Court to demand that the LRSD live up to the committments it made to the Area Schools in its Desegregation Plan. LRSD to make readily available to the Area Schools its SI ask the Court to order the LRSD to make reaaiiy avaiiauie tu ..v due funding for the Academic Progress Incentive Grants and define make available its due funds tor Focused Areas ot Activities as approved by the Court available programs ordered plan ! include Area School patrons and parents in future budget hearings 6) ask the Court to and desegregation matters. 7) ask the court to appoint an desegregation matters. Area School committee to oversee the LRSD in address date VTn- The Honorahle Susan Webber Wright From: Parents and Patrons of Area School Children in.the LRS Re: March 19.1993 Budgel Cui Hearings I. as a parent or patron of children in the area schools of the LRSD. respectfully: 1) ask the Court to include this petition and signature as a part of the Court record. 2) ask the Court to review the sincere concerns of the Area School patrons as outlined in this petition. ask the Court to listen to Area School patrons who perceive that their concerns ' ............................................rtlrtnlAH onH mi lOIA faci litu Qnhnnl about the inequitable budget cuts (gifted and talented and music faculty, school counsellors, and general per capita funding) and their negative impact on the nurses, counsellors, ano gerieidi pei uapiia lUHuina\nr- . .. District's efforts to implement the Desegregation Plan have not been addressed by the LRSD or the Court. 4) ask the Court to demand that the LRSD live up to the committments it made to the Area Schools in its Desegregation Plan. due 5) ask the Court to order the LRSD to make readily available to the Area Schools its funding for the Academic Progress Incentive Grants and define and make available its due funds for Focused Areas ot Activities as approved by the Court ordered plan without monetary penalty in other Area School programs. 6) ask the Court to include Area School patrons and parents in future budget hearings and desegregation matters. 7) ask the court to appoint an Area School committee to oversee the LRSD in desegregation matters. name address . / - date .................................. ^rin\u0026gt;s ,  3- 7-72,, 3- 7515 gOT k) ___ CSII .^Zg-. LP^UAj\u0026gt;, 6 MUbuxi, Of.__To: The Honorable Susan Webber Wright Parenis and Patrons ol Area School Children in.the.LRSD. Re: March 19.1993 Budget Cut Hearings I. as a parent or palron ol children in Ihe area schools ol the LRSD, respecttully: 1) ask the Court to include this petition and signalure as a part of the Court record. 2) ask the Court to review the sincere concerns ol the Area School patrons as outlined in this petition. 33)) ask the Court to listen to Area School patrons who perceive that their concerns about the ineguitable budget cuts (gifted and talented and music faculty, school counsellors and general per capita lunding) and their negative impact on the Dnuisrstreicst,'s efforts to implement the Desegregalion Plan have not been addressed by the LRSD or the Court. 4) ask the Court to demand that the LRSD live up to the committments it made to the Area Schools in its Desegregation Plan. 5) ask the Court to order the LRSD to make readily available to the Area Schools ils due lunding lor the Academic Progress Incentive Grants and define and available its due funds lor Focused Areas ol Activities as approved by the Court ordered plan without monetary penally in other Area School programs. 6) ask the Court to include Area School patrons and parents in future budget hearings and desegregalion matters. 7) ask the court to appoint an Area School committee to oversee the LRSD in desegregation matters, name address dale X\u0026gt;t7 3 ( 'jj To: The Honorable Susan Webber Wright From: Parents and Patrons of Area School Children in the LRSD Re: March 19.1993 Budget Cut Hearings I. as a parent or patron of children in the area schools of the LRSD, respectfully: 1) ask the Court to include this petition and signature as a part of the Court record. 2) ask the Court to review the sincere concerns of the Area School patrons as outlined in this petition. 3) ask the Court to listen to Area School patrons who perceive that their concerns about the inequitable budget cuts (gifted and talented and music faculty, school nurses, counsellors, and general per capita funding) and their negative impact on the District's efforts to implement the Desegregation Plan have not been addressed by the LRSD or the Court. 4) ask the Court to demand that the LRSD live up to the committments it made to the Area Schools in its Desegregation Plan. 5) ask the Court to order the LRSD to make readily available to the Area Schools its due funding for the Academic Progress Incentive Grants and define and make available its due funds for Focused Areas of Activities as approved by the Court ordered plan without monetary penalty in other Area School programs. 6) ask the Court to include Area School patrons and parents in future budget hearings * and desegregation matters. 7) ask the court to appoint an Area School committee to oversee the LRSD in desegregation matters. hLl^ address kJ. OoJz:-. L Q. 13^05 date 510 . Gr^ Il 'r\nL5-C5 ],Oi4n^ I __ '7^0^ -------J-Tn Q (:\u0026gt;Qi\u0026lt;. UL L!\u0026lt;L 72 i-\u0026lt;\u0026gt; 'y 3/u^ To: The Honorable Susan Webber Wright From: Parents and Patrons ot Area School Children In the LRSD Re: March 19.1993 Budget Cut Hearings I. as a parent or patron ol children in the area schools ot the LRSD. respecttully: 1) ask the Court to include this petition and signature as a part of the Court record. 2) ask the Court to review the sincere concerns ol the Area School patrons as outlined in this petition. 3) ask the Court to listen to Area School patrons who perceive that their concerns about the inequitable budget cuts (gifted and talented and music laculty, school nurses counsellors, and general per capita funding) and their negative impact on the Districts efforts to implement the Desegregation Plan have not been addressed by the LRSD or the Court. 4) ask the Court to demand that the LRSD live up to the committments it made to the Area Schools in its Desegregation Plan. 5) ask the Court to order the LRSD to make readily available to the Area Schools its due funding for the Academic Progress Incentive Grants and define and make available its due funds lor Focused Areas ol Activities as approved by the Court ordered plan without monetary penalty in other Area School programs. 6) ask the Court to include Area School patrons and parents in tuture budget hearings and desegregation matters. 7) ask the court to appoint an Area School committee to oversee the LRSD in desegregation matters. name C \u0026lt; address date jryiaj. IaJ. \\Z.tv\\c1 r/lA\u0026lt;e^\u0026gt; fcxAtdM________ r^sQS./ .^is 'i^ , a^inqUf^)^ ^J2-'t27oi___-5|?|93 tfal--o.s^^ 7p^ A/- 'J -^3^06^ 3 // L0 /4iye. \"7To: The Honorable Susan Webber Wright From: Parents and Patrons of Area School Children in the LRSD Re: March 19.1993 Budget Cut Hearings I, as a parent or patron of children in the area schools of the LRSD. respectfully: 1) ask the Court to include this petition and signature as a part of the Court record. 2) ask the Court to review the sincere concerns of the Area School patrons as outlined in this petition. 3) ask the Court to listen to Area School patrons who perceive that their concerns about the inequitable budget cuts (gifted and talented and music faculty, school nurses, counsellors, and general per capita funding) and their negative impact on the Districts efforts to implement the Desegregation Plan have not been addressed by the LRSD or the Court. 4) ask the Court to demand that the LRSD live up to the committments it made to the Area Schools in its Desegregation Plan. 5) ask the Court to order the LRSD to make readily available to the Area Schools its due funding for the Academic Progress Incentive Grants and define and make available its due funds for Focused Areas of Activities as approved by the Court ordered plan without monetary penalty in other Area School programs. 6) ask the Court to include Area School patrons and parents in future budget hearings and desegregation matters. 7) ask the court to appoint an Area School committee to oversee the LRSD in desegregation matters. name , -tt .. address 3 J U vU ______ dale e-4- /.:3oo A 2350 Y' 3 jj____To: The Honorable Susan Webber Wright From: Parents and Patrons ot Area School Children in the LRSD Re- March 19.1993 Budget Cut Hearings I, as a parent or patron ot children in the area schools ot the LRSD, respecttully: 1) ask the Court to include this petition and signature as a part of the Court record. 2) ask the Court to review the sincere concerns of the Area School patrons as outlined in this petition. 3) ask the Court to listen to Area School patrons who perceive that their concerns about the inequitable budget cuts (gifted and talented and music faculty, school nurses counsellors, and general per capita funding) and their negative impact on the Districts efforts to implement the Desegregation Plan have not been addressed by the LRSD or the Court. 4) ask the Court to demand that the LRSD live up to the committments it made to the Area Schools in its Desegregation Plan. 5) ask the Court to order the LRSD to make readily available to the Area Schools its due funding for the Academic Progress Incentive Grants and define and make available its due funds for Focused Areas of Activities as approved by the Court ordered plan without monetary penalty in other Area School programs. 6) ask the Court to include Area School patrons and parents in future budget hearings and desegregation matters. 7) ask the court to appoint an Area School committee to oversee the LRSD in desegregation matters. name address late L .SB / 1iO I ty I  7gy o-//- ?To: The Honorable Susan Webber Wriqhl From: Parents and Patrons of Area School Children in Ihe.LRSD Re. March 19.1993 Budget Cui Hearings I. as a parent or patron of children in the area schools of the LRSD. respectfully: 1) ask the Court to include this petition and signature as a part of the Court record. 2) ask the Court to review the sincere in this petition. concerns ot the Area School patrons as outlined 3) ask the Court to listen to Area School patrons who perceive that their concerns about the inequitable budget cuts (gifted and talented and music faculty. schcwl counsellors, and general per capita funding) and their negative impact on the District's efforts to implement the Desegregation Plan have not been addressed by the nurses. LRSD or the Court. 4) ask the Court to demand that the LRSD live up to the committments it made to the _ Area Schools in its Desegregation Plan. Court to order the.LRSD to make readily available to the Area Schools its due funding for the Academic Progress Incentive Grants and define and make available its due funds for Focused Areas of Activities as approved by the Court ordered plan without monetary penalty in other Area School programs. Court to include Area School patrons and parents in future budget hearings 6)ask the and desegregation matters. 7) ask the court to appoint an Area School committee to oversee the LRSD in desegregation matters. name address Slate. 3. E 7To: The Honorable Susan Webber Wright From: Parents and Patrons of Area School Children In the LRSD Re: March 19,1993 Budget Cut Hearings I. as a parent or patron ot children in the area schools of the LRSD. respectfully: 1) ask the Court to include this petition and signature as a part of the Court record. 2) ask the Court to review the sincere concerns of the Area School patrons as outlined in this petition. 3) ask the Court to listen to Area School patrons who perceive that their concerns about the inequitable bu'rget cuts (gifted and talented and music faculty, school nurses, counsellors, and general per capita funding) and their negative Impact on the District's efforts to Implement the Desegregation Plan have not been addressed by the LRSD or the Court. 4) ask the Court to demand that the LRSD live up to the committments it made to the Area Schools in Ils Desegregation Plan. 5) ask the Court to order the LRSD to make readily available to the Area Schools its due funding for the Academic Progress Incentive Grants and define and make available its due funds for Focused Areas of Activities as approved by the Court ordered plan without monetary penalty in other Area School programs. 6) ask the Court to include Area School patrons and parents in future budget hearings and desegregation matters. 7) ask the court to appoint an Area School committee to oversee the LRSD in desegregation matters. name address -/.Zg-g. J 4/1 , date 3/n/pTo: The Honorable Susan Webber Wright From: Parents and Patrons of Area School Children in the kESD Re: March 19. 1993 Budget Cut Hearings I, as a parent or patron ot children in the area schools ot the LRSD. respecttully: 1) ask the Court to include this petition and signature as a part of the Court record. 2) ask the Court to review the sincere concerns of the Area School patrons as outlined in this petition. 3) ask the Court to listen to Area School patrons who perceive that their concerns about the inequitable budget cuts (gifted and talented and music faculty, school nurses, counsellors, and general per capita funding) and their negative impact on the Districts efforts to implement the Desegregation Plan have not been addressed by the LRSD or the Court. 4) ask the Court to demand that the LRSD live up to the committments it made to the Area Schools in its Desegregation Plan. 5) ask the Court to order the LRSD to make readily available to the Area Schools its due funding for the Academic Progress Incentive Grants and define and make available its due funds for Focused Areas of Activities as approved by the Court ordered plan without monetary penalty in other Area School programs. 6) ask the Court to include Area School patrons and parents in future budget hearings and desegregation matters. 7) ask the court to appoint an Area School committee to oversee the LRSD in desegregation matters. narpi address dateTn: The Honorable Susan Webber Wright From: Parents and Patrons of Area School Children in the LRSD Re: March 19,1993 Budget Cui Hearings I. as a parent or patron of children in the area schools of the LRSD, respectfully: 1) ask the Court to include this petition and signature as a part of the Court record. 2) ask the Court to review the sincere concerns of the Area School patrons as outlined in this petition. 3) ask the Court to listen to Area School patrons who perceive that their concerns about the inequitable budget cuts (gifted and talented and music faculty, school nurses counsellors, and general per capita funding) and their negative impact on the Districts efforts to implement the Desegregation Plan have not been addressed by the LRSD or the Court. 4) ask the Court to demand that the LRSD live up to the committments it made to the Area Schools in its Desegregation Plan. 5) ask the Court to order the LRSD to make readily available to the Area Schools its due funding for the Academic Progress Incentive Grants and define and make available its due funds tor Focused Areas of Activities as approved by the Court ordered plan without monetary penalty in other Area School programs. 6) ask the Court to include Area School patrons and parents in future budget hearings and desegregation matters. 7) ask the court to appoint an Area School committee to oversee the LRSD in s. de^gregation m^ R^e/^ // address (, \\iA\u0026gt;: '^ja^ A -'f- _js^ TjTj2. / ' 4 I c: \u0026gt; t A-, \\To: The Honorable Susan Webber Wright From: Parents and Patrons of Area School Children in the Re: March 19,1993 Budget Cut Hearings I, as a parent or patron of children in the area schools ot the LRSD. respectfully: 1) ask the Court to include this petition and signature as a part of the Court record. 2) ask the Court to review the sincere concerns of the Area School patrons as outlined in this petition. 3) ask the Court to listen to Area School patrons who perceive that their concerns about the inequitable budget cuts (gifted and talented and music faculty, school nurses, counsellors, and general per capita funding) and their negative impact on the Districts efforts to implement the Desegregation Plan have not been addressed by the LRSD or the Court. 4) ask the Court to demand that the LRSD live up to the committments it made to the Area Schools in its Desegregation Plan. 5) ask the Court to order the LRSD to make readily available to the Area Schools its due funding for the Academic Progress Incentive Grants and define and make available its due funds for Focused Areas of Activities as approved by the Court ordered plan without monetary penalty in other Area School programs. 6) ask the Court to include Area School patrons and parents in future budget hearings and desegregation matters. 7) ask the court to appoint an Area School committee to oversee the LRSD in deseg ri name/ ition matters. address date zTo\nThe Honorable Susan Webber Wright Prom\nParents and Patrons ot Area School Children.in.the.LRSD Ro- March 19.1993 Budget Cut Hearings I, as a parent or patron ot children in the area schools ot the LRSD. respecttully\n1) ask the Court to include this petition and signature as a part ol the Court record. 2) ask the Court to review the sincere concerns ot the Area School patrons as outlined in this petition. 3) 3) ask the Court to listen to Area School patrons who perceive that their concerns about the ineguitable budget cuts (gifted and talented and music faculty, school nurses counsellors, and general per capita funding) and their negative impact on the Districts efforts to implement the Desegregation Plan have not been addressed by the LRSD or the Court. 4) ask the Court to demand that the LRSD live up to the committments it made to the Area Schools in its Desegregation Plan. 5) ask the Court to order the LRSD to make readily available to the Area Schools its due funding tor the Academic Progress Incentive Grants and define and make available its due funds for Focused Areas of Activities as approved by the Court ordered plan without monetary penalty in other Area School programs. 6) ask the Court to include Area School patrons and parents in future budget hearings and desegregation matters. 7) ask the court to appoint an Area School committee to oversee the LRSD in desegregation matters. nam' address dateTo: The Honorable Susan Webber Wright From: Parents and Patrons ot Area School Children in the Re: March 19.1993 Budget Cut Hearings I. as a parent or patron ot children in the area schools ot the LRSD, respecttully: 1) ask the Court to include this petition and signature as a part ot the Court record. 2) ask the Court to review the sincere concerns of the Area School patrons as outlined in this petition. 3) ask the Court to listen to Area School patrons who perceive that their concerns about the inequitable budget cuts (gifted and talented and music faculty, school nurses, counsellors, and general per capita funding) and their negative impact on the Districts efforts to implement the Desegregation Plan have not been addressed by the LRSD or the Court. 4) ask the Court to demand that the LRSD live up to the committments it made to the Area Schools in Its Desegregation Plan. 5) ask the Court to order the LRSD to make readily available to the Area Schools its due funding for the Academic Progress Incentive Grants and define and make available its due funds for Focused Areas of Activities as approved by the Court ordered plan without monetary penalty in other Area School programs. 6) ask the Court to include Area School patrons and parents in future budget hearings and desegregation matters. 7) ask the court to appoint an Area School committee to oversee the LRSD in I desegregation matters, name address date04 (Tl '93- 10 501 3203948 ACH COMM PEDS @002 his ToAid U.S. School tiv-, 'ats tic-j adej 'susj ''fea?.a.S3sst\"s'- W A CH fon Warch 27 . '^pveloped a new of Commerce has way of '  . :.! n a study ree^7/, h . ,\u0026gt;.:  'tnal the E\u0026lt;JPiior dan Prep. a some of that moi ^^P^pendingModeli dl i\nfewer \u0026gt;0*relies .'The other sd\n^7 S^ruB an ^.ergy'efficient repairs.'. jr...!',I IS and par- Countv \"ere AAilaamr edai pair services could fS' bbuurrgg CCoubntyu sno^-^,^ Spariani districts have exiiSZ^L?!*'' s.^boo! . I ihe the Us- * I  Ifnn NNTaacs-hktv.mnte- ,t.h. e '4\ncuuW soul was to  Z. lixjia ur, j education I the Shitlv' Oke I the study's m^n University and\n- 'the monfy UnlessU die tAiid, the tL\u0026lt;^r 1,. ^nssnom, h/ the resf.  s not reaching L\n in th i:i t 'ded from St re- Perceni of the budg, r-liersg h ^npaetiorn asla aidvTehraTet e of -------.-- '^I i oc- SO percent of ^^SLI!,.P'^=ent to I ri re^ the dast^^' .should Ir\n\"y \" hat I the cost of main Zne iyd tral ornces percent to 63 as against the i fr w ^nding, frvai W I\nag-1 tnf' ..aLion text nd I can unders', I Por th\u0026lt; Ks. and present the I d v^ay that the public I ft I US to loolf ^'bws I tn laymen's terms \"7idT.''^5.5f*\"t y\u0026gt;la policy analyst ' Commission o/lhe sLt'?/ ^Oation 't and advocacy Broun ? fesearch y. Ms. Fulton on the^ Denver, he f mission for Se^X^^ FinancedbvtS i?i5^!^.?.*htiy. I spent tt Si si m 'I a st he the study's sSeni^^\" \"dianapolis\nh. W school e^end1turi^f,'P t^tthtles tl. htlegories, central nfi?'tain cat-1 Hi * te Sites, wiiicTare the?X.-d\"3'^ ' 1 subcategoriel five version of one used to tra^v ^ refined IM \\ j New York City nublie  I \"J'^Z^real^Xe in in 1990\nit I Y s Systems In the ft  eral districts Spent an arge percentage--u--n--a--cceptably th- ) b feiexda m$1p lem, itlhlioen a ''tict idenii- U1 fem's' '\"dcS^SFM' Commerce, saidict . I Hi Arkansas Childrens Hospital Pqgnfap\u0026lt;\u0026lt;Jfetfflahlta Chhmby ofArionss forMedka:! SdcnoiS OiariesR. Feild, M.D.,FAAP\nA5y?ct** Professor of Pediatrics I\n, Chief, Community Pediatrics \u0026amp; . :\n.. PubficFtaticy\n. 501/320-1438 Fax (501) 320-2840 Emergencies (501) 320-1185 800 MaishaH Street  Uttk Rode, Aitensas 72202-3591 ! / School BADGETT____________________ BALE_________________________ BASELINE____________________ BRADY_______________________ CENTRAL CHICOI______________________ CLOVERDALE ELEMENTARY CLOVERDALE JR HIGH DODD_______________________ DUNBAR______________________ FAIR_______________________ fair PARK___________________ FOREST HEIGHTS^, FOREST PARK FULBRIGHT GEYER SPRINGS_______________ HALL_________________________ HENDERSON__________________ JEFFERSON___________________ MABEL VALE ELEMENTARY MABELVALE JR HIGH MCCLELLAN COMMUNITY HIGH MCDERMOTT_________________ MEADOWCLIFF_______________ OTTER CREEK_________________ PULASKI HEIGHTS INT___________ PULASKI HEIGHTS JR HIGH SOUTHWEST TERRY WAKEFIELD WATSON WESTERN HILLS WILSON WOODRUFF Area School Per Student Costs ^ea School Per Student Costs Benefits $331.53 $330.82 ____ $311.49 $302.14 ____ $307,58 Capital Outlay $386.99___ $259.14 $313.39 $340.81 $300.01 $343.41 $331.18 $0.90 $1.60 $0.00 $0.00 $6.16 11.11 $0.00 $1.69 $3.49 $16.15 $7.55 Materials .Suppliei Other Objects $42.52 143.97 $68.05 151.85 $37.33 $57.90 $42.63 $38.63 152.90 $35.39 $32.73 $0.00 $0.58 io.oo $0.89 I $0.00 $0.07 Purchased Servici __ $150.00 $118.47 Salaries $2,668.63 $2.663.12 $192.37 $2,464.07 $112.82 $140.96 _______ $317,94 $268.34 $311.84 $285.96 $342.83 $375.60 $282.11 $315.97 $434.35 $362.48 $275.29 $292.36 $282.38 $248.69 $298.00 $363.36 $266.11 $285.29 _$270.77 _$292.22 $309.04 $328.51 _______ $3.38 $3.92 ________$3.03 ________$3.85 ________$5.19 _______$56.31 ________$0.99 ________$1.51 ______ $5.94 _____ 128,29 ________$2.07 ________$1.24 ________$2.32 ________$0.71 ________$6.45 $5.11 $4.10 $0.87 $0.88 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $51.53 $32.68 $4/40 J51.68 $45.66 $34,58 $56.26 $51.31 $53.85 $32.00 $70.14 $51.95 $50.80 $56.22 $49.37 $30.95 $32.76 $50.26 $48.08 $47.58 $52.37 $46.35 $54.74 $2.7 L $0.00 $0.00 $0.96 $0.55 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0-22 $0.00 $0.26 $0.00 $0,14 $0.00 $0.00 _____ 182.95_ $89.65 $173.53 _____ $135.74 _____ $162.79 $177.24 $190.79 $2,464.58 $2,672.65 $3,062.99 $2,051.08 $2,580.18 $2.699.61 $2,583.80 $2,977.79 $2,767.88 $157.21 $2,697.98 $102.19 $119.55 $T31.O9 _$190.40 $171.91 $107.72 _$141.98 $131.98 $2.187.63 $2,552.53 $2,174.63 $3,001.20 $3,238.85 $2,410.27 $2,504.78 $3,685.61 _________$215,26________ $3,079.21 $128.82 $90.80 $159.34 $122.33 $100.07 $167.12 $89.66 $88.97 $130.61 $131.56 $129.62 $165.72 $2,278.37 $2,415.64 $2,331.12 $1,962.38 $2,567.56 $3,072.53 $2,134.19 $2,348.42 $2,186.51 $2,423.10 $2,539.79 $2,572.34 School Salaries Area School Students Per Staff Member frtiK As /c 1/8/96 [BADGETT\nBALE BASELINE BRADY CENTRAL GHICOT iCLOVERDALE ELEMENTARY 'CLOVERDALE JR HIGH 'DODD IDUNBAR lUUl 'CAIC FAIR FAIR PARK____________________ FOREST HEIGHTS______________ FOREST PARK_________________ FULBRIGHT____________________ GEYER SPRINGS_______________ HALL__________________________ HENDERSON__________________ JEFFERSON___________________ .MABELVALE ELEMENTARY MABELVALEJRHIGH MCCLELLAN COMMUNITY HIGH MCDERMOTT iMEADOWCLIFF ,OnER CREEK___________ PULASKI HEIGHTS INT PULASKI HEIGHTS JR HIGH 'SOUTHWEST_____________ ^ERRY__________________ iwAKEFIELD_____________ WATSON________________ WESTERN HILLS__________ WILSON________________ WOODRUFF 9.21 8.17 8.92 9.68 11.84 7.54 11.95 9.35 8.61 11.27 9.16 10.65 10.39 10.56 9.88 11.14 10.11 9.69 11.58 9.20 6.82 8.80 11.00 9.93 10.38 10.29 9.86 10.12 11.19 11.06 10.39 11.43 10.82 9.25 Z Page 1LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 810 WEST MARKHAM STREET LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS January 26, 1995 To: Board of Directors From: Judy Magness - Board of Directors Subject: PROPOSAL FOR AREA SCHOOLS ADVISORY COMMITTEE Attached committee. is a It proposal for developing an area school advisory t is recommended the Board approve the establishment of this committee. that  I/'I I I I I PROPOSAL FOR AREA SCHOOLS ADVISORY COMMITTEE (ASAC) Currently, area schools educate approximately 80% of the Little Rock School District student population. Parents of these students are ardent supporters of public education in general and this school district in particular. We care deeply about the qua ity of our children's education and the quality of the school environment. Parents of these We care deeply about the We are concerned about inequities , j among area schools and between .schools and other types of schools, i.e. magnet, incentive and interdistrict schools.  We are aware of the higher funding evels, greater program resources, and extra attention devoted to these other types of schools. And yet, area schools educate a majority of the children, black and white, in the Little Rock School District. aiiu wuxue, me Therefore, the success of desegregation and the success in reducing disparity. the ma^or goals of the Little Rock School District must be with the area schools. These schools are, we believe, playing a crucial role in desegregating our school district and in increasing the educational achievement of targeted groups of children.  f There is no group that is an advocate for children in our area We propose to be that group. schools. we As an advisory committee to the Little Rock School District Board of Directors, we would work in partnership with the district toward the successful achievement of its goals. we would We have the energy and enthusiasm for this task because it is the children in our area schools who stand to benefit. Interdistrict Plan of April 29 The 1992 provides for 'community-wide ---------\n----------7 . 7 f [Jiuviueb tor CQrainuniuy multi-ethnic citizen/parent/teacher/student committees for incut into planning and decision-making\", specifically the establishment of building, district, and multi-district level committees which are racially, geographically and socioeconomically representative to provide input and feedback the operations of the schools and the districts (page 59). on i I i We welcome this opportunity to be fully educated and informed about Little Rock School District goals and plans which affect area schools. Our readiness to work in partnership with Little Rock School District dates back to initial desegregation plan efforts when community input was actively sought in many areas. Area School Parents and Patrons propose that an Area School Advisory Committee (ASAC) be established with the following guidelines (modeled after Magnet Review Committee and Bi-Racial Advisory Committee Organization): I I I Ii 1) Members: a) b) c) d) e) f) One (1) representative (either parent or staff) appointed by each Area Schools' Parent-Teacher Association to represent each of the Area Schools One (1) Non-Voting representative appointed by the State Department of Education One (1) Non-Voting representative appointed by the Joshua Intervenors One (1) Non-Voting representative appointed by PCSSD One (1) Non-Voting representative appointed by Little Rock School District One (1) Ncn-ypting representative appointed by ODM This membership would reflect the diversity of Schools [\"single, married, divorced- Black/White/Hispanic/Asian, etc.\nReligious\nworking/non- working\nincome status, etc.] the Area I I 2) 3) 4) 5) At least one manber will represent ASAC on each of those groups that make decisions which affect Area Schools (e.g., Academic Progress Incentive Grants and Focused Areas of Activities\nMagnet Review Committee\nInterdistrict/Incentive School groups, etc.) ASAC will be informed of any plans (by LRSD, PCSSD, NLRSD, ODM, Joshua Intervenors, MRC, etc.) which potentially affect Area Schools. (Examples\nA new Magnet School would directly effect the Black/White ratio at Area Schools\nchanges in funding at an Incentive School would directly affect Area School funding\nreduction of grant money\nchanges in M/M transfers, etc.) PCSSD, NLRSD, any ASAC members will be able to review, consider, hear information (snch as Business cases), evaluate, offer suggestions, and report its findings to committee and the Little Rock School District Board and Administrators, ODM befQce decisions are made concerning Area Schools, propose tt^t an--ailotted time period be given to ASAC to'^ make suggestions for ArM~Schoo^ts'at each'monthly Little Rock School District Board Meeting.  evaluate, offer and We a) b) Within 2.1 \u0026lt;jays from establishment of ASAC, it is suggested that Little Rock School District provide each member with information concerning Area Schools (i.e. Desegregation plan information, number of B/W/0 students, student/teacher ratio, etc.) Ten (12) working days from mail-out of Area School information, the committee will meet to begin planning and implesenting a time table and goals to review information concerning Area Schools. I I6) 7) 8) c) It would be helpful for the Little 3^1__1 to provide the ASAC with a Little Rock School District Area School Administrator for the first two meetings to information. As liaison to ASAC, this administrator would facilitate information. Rock School District on. the flow of The ASAC will a) b) c) PJ^oposals (including changes in 2?,./J^3?tives) for Area Schools made by the Little Rock School District Initiate ideas and or ODM/court. Tpon/nnv/ Proposals and submit them to LRSD/ODM/court for their consideration. Provide written feedback to Little concerning the impact of proposed changes o Schools before the changes are implemented. Rock School District on the Area findings to the Little Rock School District Board of Directors, L .... requested together with recommendation operation and administration of and to the ODM and Court, to the efficient the Area Schools. as ASAC will work for =  V, consensus, but recognizes the right of any member to express dissenting concerns. The ASAC may involve volunteer consultants and assist in the ASAC process. experts toLITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 810 WEST MARKHAM STREET LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS January 26, 1995 To: Board of Directors From: Judy Magness - Board of Directors Subject: PROPOSAL FOR AREA SCHOOLS ADVISORY COMMITTEE Attached\ncommittee. is a It proposal for developing an area school advisory is recommended establishment of this committee. that the Board approve the a' PROPOSAL FOR AREA SCHOOLS ADVISORY COMMITTEE (ASAC) Parents of these Currently, area schools educate approximately 80% of the Little Rock School District student population. Parents of these students are ardent supporters of public education in general and this school district in particular. We care deeply about the quality of our children's education and the quality of the school environment. We are concerned about inequities among area schools and between area schools and other types of schools, i.e. magnet, incentive and interdistrict schools. We are aware of the higher funding levels, greater program resources, and extra attention devoted to these other types of schools. And yet, area schools educate a majority of the children, black and white, in the Little Rock School District. Therefore, the success of desegregation and the success in reducing disparity, the major goals of the Little Rock School District must be with the area schools. These schools are, we believe, playing a crucialrole in desegregating our school district and in increasing the educational achievement of targeted groups of children. area There is no group that is an advocate for children in our schools. We propose to be that group. As an advisory committee the Little Rock School District Board of Directors, we would work in partnership with the district toward the successful achievement of its goals. We have the energy and enthusiasm for this task because it is the children in our area schools who stand to benefit. The Interdistrict Plan of April 29, 1992 provides for \"community-wide multi-ethnic citizen/parent/teacher/student committees for input into planning and decision-making\", specifically the establishment of building, district, and multi-district level committees which are racially, geographically and socioeconomically representative to provide input and feedback the operations of the schools and the districts (page 59). on We welcome this opportunity to be fully educated and informed about Little Rock School District goals and plans which affect area schools. I Our readiness to work in partnership with Little Rock School District dates back to initial desegregation plan efforts when community input was actively sought in many areas. Area School Parents and Patrons propose that an Area School Advisory Committee (ASAC) be established with the following guidelines (modeled after Magnet Review Committee and Bi-Racial Advisory Committee Organization): I1) Members: a) b) c) d) e) f) One (1) representative (either parent or staff) appointed by each Area Schools' Parent-Teacher Association to represent each of the Area Schools One (1) Non-Voting representative appointed by the State Department of Education One (1) Non-Voting representative appointed by the Joshua Intervenors One (1) Non-Voting representative appointed by PCSSD One (1) Non-Voting representative appointed by Little Rock School District One (1) Ncn-ypting representative appointed by ODM This membership Would reflect the diversity of the Area Schools ('single, married, divorced- 2) Black/White/Hispanic/Asian, etc.\nReligious\nworking/non- working\nincome status, etc.] At least one member will represent ASAC on each of those groups that make decisions which affect Area Schools (e.g.. Academic Progress Incentive Grants and Focused Areas of Activities\nMagnet Review Committee\nInterdistrict/Incentive School groups, etc.) 3) ASAC will be informed of any plans (by LRSD, PCSSD, NLRSD, ODM, Joshua Intervenors, MRC, etc.) which potentially affect Area Schools. (Examples: A new Magnet School would directly effect the Black/White ratio at Area Schools\nchanges in funding at an Incentive School would directly affect Area School funding\nreduction of grant money\nchanges in M/M transfers, etc.) NLRSD, any 4) ASAC members will be able to review, consider, hear information (such as Business cases), evaluate, offer suggestions, and report its findings to committee and the Little Rock School District Board and Administrators, and ODM befQce decisions are made concerning Area Schools. We propose that an--a-llotted time period be given to ASAC to^^ make suggestions for Area\"SchooLs at each monthly Little Rock School District'Board Meeting. 5) a) b) I i I Within 21 days from establishment of ASAC, it is suggested that Little Rock School District provide each member with information concerning Area Schools (i.e. Desegregation plan information, number of B/W/0 students, student/teacher ratio, etc.) Ten (iQ.) working days from mail-out of Area School information, the committee will meet to begin planning and impl^enting a time table and goals to review information concerning Area Schools. I I 1C) It would be helpful for the Little __1 Liou.xi^ to provide the ASAC with a Little Rock School District Area School Administrator for the first discuss background information, this administrator would facilitate information. Rock School District two meetings to As liaison to ASAC, the flow of 6) The ASAC will a) consider any plans PJ^oposals (including changes in goals/ob]ectives) for Area Schools made by Rock School District or ODM/court. the Little b) Initiate ideas and proposals and submit LRSD/ODM/court for their consideration. them to c) Provide written feedback to Little Rock __1 concerning the impact of proposed changes on the Area Schools before the changes are implemented. School District 7) findings to the Little Rock School istrict Board of Directors, and to the ODM and Court, requested together with recommendation operation and administration of the to the efficient as 8) Area Schools. ASAC will work for consensus, but recognizes the right of any member to express dissenting concerns. The ASAC may involve volunteer assist in the ASAC process. consultants and experts to\u0026lt;?C: CCCTBBg^ u Little Rock School District February 17, 1995 a' FEB 2 1 1595 MEMORANDUM CigC3 05 DoSi :ga:\nen TO: Representatives to the Area Schools Advisory Committee FROM: Judy Magness, Board Member Martha Alman, Convener SUBJECT: AREA SCHOOLS ADVISORY COMMITTEE The Little Rock School District Board of Directors approved a proposal for development of an Area Schools Advisory Committee at the January 26, 1995 Board meeting. The purpose of the Area Schools Advisory Committee is to be an advocate for children in the LRSD Area Schools by working in partnership with the District toward the successful achievement of its goals. Each Area School received a copy of this proposal in early January. The first committee meeting has been scheduled for Wednesday, March 8 at 6 p.m. , in the LRSD Board Room of the Administration Building at 810 W. Markham Street. In order to convene this meeting, committee members will need to be selected as follows: A. One (1) representative (either parent or staff) appointed by each Area School Parent-Teacher Association B. One (1) non-voting representative appointed by the State Department of Education C. One (1) non-voting representative appointed by the Joshua Intervenors D. One (1) non-voting representative appointed by the Knight Intervenors E. One (1) non-voting representative appointed by LRSD F. One (1) non-voting representative appointed by Pulaski County Special School District 810 West Markham Street  Little Rock, Arkansas 72201  (501)824-2000Memo February 17, 1995 Page 2 G. One (1) non-voting representative appointed by North Little Rock School District H. One (1) non-voting representative appointed by the Office of Desegregation Monitoring (ODM) I. One (1) non-voting representative appointed by the Magnet Review Committee (MRC) We would like to have the membership reflect the diversity of the Area School enrollment. Please complete the attached form and return it by March 1, to the attention of the Area Schools Advisory Committee, Superintendent's office of the Little Rock School District, 810 West Markham, Little Rock, AR 72201. If you should need another copy of the ASAC proposal, please indicate on the bottom of this form. FORM TO BE COMPLETED AND RETURNED MY MARCH 1Cc - Little Rock School District February 17, 1995 MEMORANDUM TO\nFROM\nSUBJECT\nFEB 2 1 1995 Office of Desegregation Mcnilodiig Representatives to the Area Schools Advisory Committee Judy Magness, Board Member Martha Alman, Convener AREA SCHOOLS ADVISORY COMMITTEE The Little Rock School District Board of Directors approved a proposal for development of an Area Schools Advisory Committee at the January 26, 1995 Board meeting. The purpose of the Area Schools Advisory Committee is to be an advocate for children in the LRSD Area Schools by working in partnership with the District toward the successful achievement of its goals. Each Area School received a copy of this proposal in early January. The first committee meeting has been scheduled for Wednesday, March 8 at 6 p.m. , Building at 810 W. in the LRSD Board Room of the Administration Markham Street. In order to convene this meeting, committee members will need to be selected as follows: A. One (1) representative (either parent or staff) appointed by each Area School Parent-Teacher Association B. One (1) non-voting representative appointed by the State Department of Education C. One (1) non-voting representative appointed by the Joshua Intervenors D. One (1) non-voting representative appointed by the Knight Intervenors E. One (1) non-voting representative appointed by LRSD F. One (1) non-voting representative appointed by Pulaski County Special School District 810 West Markham Street  Little Rock, Arkansas 72201  (501)824-2000Memo February 17, 1995 Page 2 G. One (1) non-voting representative appointed by North Little Rock School District H. One (1) non-voting representative appointed by the Office of Desegregation Monitoring (ODM) I. One (1) non-voting representative appointed by the Magnet Review Committee (MRC) We would like to have the membership reflect the diversity of the Area School enrollment. Please complete the attached form and return it by March 1, to the attention of the Area Schools Advisory Committee, Superintendent's office of the Little Rock School District, 810 West Markham, Little Rock, AR 72201. If you should need another copy of the ASAC proposal, please indicate on the bottom of this form. FORM TO BE COMPLETED AND RETURNED MY MARCH 1 from Our Representative to the ASAC is\nNAME\nMelissa Guldin, Associate Monitor ADDRESS\n201 E. Markham, Suite 510, Heritage West Building, Little Rock, AR 72201 PHONE\n(home) 663-8177 (work) 376-6200 STAFF ODM PARENT I would like a copy of the ASAC proposal-VS- 5 Little Rock School District February 17, 1995 MEMORANDUM TO: FROM: SUBJECT: FEB 2 1 1595 CuiCS 0! Representatives to the Area Schools Advisory Committee Judy Magness, Board Member Martha Alman, Convener AREA SCHOOLS ADVISORY COMMITTEE The Little Rock School District Board of Directors approved a proposal for development of an Area Schools Advisory Committee at the January 26, 1995 Board meeting. The purpose of the Area Schools Advisory Committee is to be an advocate for children in the LRSD Area Schools by working in partnership with the District toward the successful achievement of its goals. Each Area School received a copy of this proposal in early January. The first committee meeting has been scheduled for Wednesday, March 8 at 6 p.m.. Building at 810 W. in the LRSD Board Room of the Administration Markham Street. In order to convene this meeting, committee members will need to be selected as follows: A. One (1) representative (either parent or staff) appointed by each Area School Parent-Teacher Association B. One (1) non-voting representative appointed by the State Department of Education C. One (1) non-voting representative appointed by the Joshua Intervenors D. One (1) non-voting representative appointed by the Knight Intervenors E. One (1) non-voting representative appointed by LRSD F. One (1) non-voting representative appointed by Pulaski County Special School District 810 West Markham Street  Little Rock, Arkansas 72201  (501)324-2000Memo February 17, 1995 Page 2 G. One (1) non-voting representative appointed by North Little Rock School District H. One (1) non-voting representative appointed by the Office of Desegregation Monitoring (ODM) I. One (1) non-voting representative appointed by the Magnet Review Committee (MRC) We would like to have the membership reflect the diversity of the Area School enrollment. Please complete the attached form and return it by March 1, to the attention of the Area Schools Advisory Committee, Superintendent's office of the Little Rock School District, 810 West Markham, Little Rock, AR 72201. If you should need another copy of the ASAC proposal, please indicate on the bottom of this form. FORM TO BE COMPLETED AND RETURNED MY MARCH 1KKBBgg Little Rock School District Media Advisory March 2,1995 For more information: Dina Teague, 324-2020 The newly formed Little Rock School District Area Schools Advisory^ Committee (ASAC) will hold its first meeting on Wednesday, March 8 at 6:00 p. '.m. in the board room of the administration budding at 810 W. Markham. Community members are invited to attend the meeting and encouraged to serve as representatives on the committee, ASAC was proposed by LRSD Zone 3 representative Judy Magness and was approved by the School Board in January. ### O ATr*tr'k* C4-M. 30/30'd 62:9T G6. 3 JieW 303-t732-I0S-Txej $331^^35 iSIOdcinS OSdlSee. /f-. Clryyp/c/e r? n .'7 PSRk i : ' b- :\n- :'l TO: LRSD ADMINISTRATION AND BOARD OFFICE OF DESEGREGATION MONITORING FR: AREA SCHOOL PARENTS AND PATRONS MAR 8 1995 Office ot Desegfogation Monixn\nJ March 6,1995 Area School Parents and Patrons collected approximately 430 signatures (in less than a 24-hour period) protesting the proposed 1995-96 Budget Cuts by the LRSD Administration. Area School Parents and Patrons feel that most of these cuts were addressed in the March 1993 petition to the Court, which was accepted into the Court record. We simply feel outraged and betrayed by this Administration's blatant disregard of the primary needs of the children in the majority of the LRSD'S schools, which were addressed in that March 1993 petition. And AGAIN, we ask the Administration and the Court not only to listen to our concerns, but also to act responsibly by making cuts which DO NOT AFFECT THE PRIMARY NEEDS OF OUR CHH .DREN o 7 /RECS1VS3? MAR 5 1995 TO: LRSD ADMINISTRATION AND BOARD OFFICE OF DESEGREGATION MONITORING FR: A CONCERNED PARENT WHO HAS TALKED WITH MANY PARE!NM 0sesresaBo.n Mcn.ic\nng March 8,1995 Area School Parents and Patrons are dazed at the prospect of the Administration's attempt to cut the Area Schools' Academic Progress Incentive Grants and the Focused Areas of Activities allotted monies, especially in light of the the Office of Desegregation Monitoring's report of December, 1994. This Administration's latest Business Case on these monies is so poorly written and difficult to understand( besides the fact that it is filled with inaccurate and incomplete information) that it simply should be rejected by the Court. The Court should demand that the LRSD give these monies to the ARFA SCHOOLS in a timely and efficient manner, and should hold The LRSD accountable for its lack of concern for the Area Schools. It is difficult to try to figure out iff this Administration deliberately writes such incredulously vague reports to confuse the people, or if this Administration is simply too incompetent to write clear, concise informational reports. Area School Parents and Patrons are adamantly opposed to cutting nurses in the Area Schools. It is this type of cut which makes the patrons of LRSD reel with feelings of rage, lack of trust, and abandonement. We demand MORE NURSES, NOT FEWER, IN OUR AREA SCHOOLS. Area School Parents and Patrons demand that the LRSD have a logical, workable plan of action in order to consider the closing of any schools. We believe that the LRSD has no workable plan for children who would be left without a school. The suggestions previously made by this district are illogical and unworkable. Haw dare the ^strict suggest that students be placed in already filled-up, overcrowded and underserved Area Schools. We do NOT support the closings of Fair Park and Badgett. Area School Parents and Patrons are fervently opposed to cutting any Counseling or Music services to our Children. AREA SCHOOL PARENTS AND PATRONS DO NOT SUPPORT ANY CUTS WHICH DIRECTY AFFECT THE PRIMARY NEEDS OF OUR CHILDREN. 7 O'. .V MINUTES 'A-5 AREA SCHOOL ADVISORY COMMITTEE (ASAC) 2 7 ^995 APRIL 10, 1995 LRSD Administration Building OfiiCS -  O' M j Steve Arnold served as facilitator for the second meeting of the ASAC. He called the meeting to order at 6:35 PM. Fourteen persons attended the meeting, ten of whom were voting members. The meeting began with Mr. Arnold thanking all those who helped form the ASAC as well as those committee members who attended a recent meeting called by the LRSD administration. Estelle Matthis, Deputy Superintendent, called several members of the ASAC and asked them to come to the district offices and discuss a LRSD business case which proposed changes to both the Academic Progress Incentive Grants (APIG) and the grants for focused activities. According to representatives who attended the meeting with LRSD, during 1995-96 the district seeks to combine the two grants and offer $5000 in combined funds to each school as an allocation. While the schools will no longer be required to file a grant proposal, the projects upon which the funds are spent will be evaluated. Each school should use the APIG/focused activity fund for activities that promote academic achievement or a thematic emphasis for the school. The committee briefly discussed the need for better participation among the area school representatives, and decided to develop bylaws which would address attendance guidelines and other basic organizational issues. Steve Arnold volunteered to enlist the aid of an outside expert to prepare a draft for discussion. The committee agreed to take the task up at our next meeting. Mr. Arnold said, that in order to give committee members time to review the document, he would try to have a draft ready to mail out with the May meeting notice. Dannette Haley gave a report on the LRSD budget hearing held earlier that day in District Court. The report focused primarily on the courtroom discussion of APIGs and focused activities. Ms. Haley also explained that a number of schools had not yet received their funding, and she urged ASAC members to go back and encourage principals to go after the funding before the year ran out. Any APIG/focused activity funds left over at the end of the 1994-95 budget year will revert to the general fund. Melissa Guldin, an associate monitor at the Office of Desegregation Monitoring (ODM) explained that the LRSD does not \"roll over\" funds into a specific account\nall unspent money is reallocated through the regular budget process. Judy Magness, a member of the LRSD Board of Directors, asked the committee members to comment on the budget proposals related to APIGs and focused activities. Magness also commented that, to date, the district has spent $1,600,000 on the APIG grants to area schools. The group spent a great deal of time discussing the possibility of changing the grant funding to a per pupil basis, rather than a standard allocation per school.Page 2 ASAC Minutes for 4/10/95 Edwina McClerkan made a motion , which Dannette Haley seconded, that said : \"For the 1995-96 school year, focused activities and APIG will be combined and funded at a level of $20 per student per year. This funding will be in the form of a budget allotment [rather than through a grant application process].\" The motion was passed unanimously by the voting members present. Several committee members raised concerns about maintenance and repairs at the districts area schools. Representatives reported waiting for long periods for responses to work order requests. Due to the considerable number of concerns related to plant services, the committee decided to invite Doug Eaton, the LRSD Director of Plant Services, to attend the May ASAC meeting. The committee decided to place Mr. Eatons presentation first on the agenda and then take up the issue of ASAC by-laws. Steve Arnold placed the proposed agenda items as a formal motion, which Edwina McClurkan seconded. The motion passed without dissent. Cindy Farris, reporting for the Media Perception sub-committee, said that she has begun to keep a file of all newspaper articles and photos related to the public schools.\nThis project was supported in part by a Digitizing Hidden Special Collections and Archives project grant from The Andrew W. Mellon Foundation and Council on Library and Information Resoources.\n   \n\n   \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\u003cdcterms_creator\u003eArea School Advisory Committee\u003c/dcterms_creator\u003e\n   \n\n \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n \n\n  \n\n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n   \n\n \n\n\n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n\n\n  \n\n\n\n "},{"id":"bcas_bcmss0837_248","title":"Budget","collection_id":"bcas_bcmss0837","collection_title":"Office of Desegregation Management","dcterms_contributor":null,"dcterms_spatial":["United States, 39.76, -98.5","United States, Arkansas, 34.75037, -92.50044","United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, 34.76993, -92.3118","United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, Little Rock, 34.74648, -92.28959"],"dcterms_creator":["Little Rock School District"],"dc_date":["1989/2004"],"dcterms_description":null,"dc_format":["application/pdf"],"dcterms_identifier":null,"dcterms_language":["eng"],"dcterms_publisher":["Little Rock, Ark. : Butler Center for Arkansas Studies. Central Arkansas Library System"],"dc_relation":null,"dc_right":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC-EDU/1.0/"],"dcterms_is_part_of":["Office of Desegregation Monitoring records (BC.MSS.08.37)","History of Segregation and Integration of Arkansas's Educational System"],"dcterms_subject":["Little Rock (Ark.)--History--20th century","Little Rock School District","Education--Arkansas","Office of Desegregation Monitoring (Little Rock, Ark.)","Educational planning","Education--Finance","School management and organization","School administrators"],"dcterms_title":["Budget"],"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/248"],"dcterms_temporal":null,"dcterms_rights_holder":null,"dcterms_bibliographic_citation":null,"dlg_local_right":["Available for use in research, teaching, and private study. Any other use requires permission from the Butler Center."],"dcterms_medium":["printouts"],"dcterms_extent":["52 pages"],"dlg_subject_personal":null,"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":"\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n\n\n\n   \n\n\n\n\n   \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n  \n\nLittle Rock School District DATE: August 10, 1989 TO: Eugene Reville, Metropolitan Supervisor FROM Mark D. Milhollen, Director, Einancial Services THROUGH:'Herb Cleek, Deputy Superintendent SUBJECT: STAFFING COSTS As a result of our meeting on Tuesday, August 8, 1989, I am submitting the following information concerning fringe benefits of Little Rock School District employees for the 1989-90 School Year: (1) SOCIAL SECURITY Current rate is 7.51% with a cap of $48,000\nsince rates historically change on January 1 of each year, we are using 7.60% for budget purposes. ~ (2) FRINGE BENEFITS - Package includes: TYPE ANNUAL OPERATING BUDGET COST ANNUAL FEDERAL BUDGET COST Health Dental Hosp. Indemnity Short Term Disab. Life Ins. ($16,000) $576.00* 161.28 65.52 45.60 26.88 $875.28 $1,195.20 161.28 65.52 45.60 26.88 $1,494.48 The Health difference in Federal and Operating costs is due to the fact that the State of Arkansas $619.20 of the cost directly to Blue Cross. pays (3) LONG TERM DISABILITY - The District provides this benefit at a cost of .0054 of the annual salary with a salary cap of $36,000, thus making the maximum District cost of $194.40. *It is anticipated that this amount will decrease when the State's contribution is revised. 810 West Markham Street Little Rock, Arkansas 72201  (501)374-3361 0(11 Myilf(a /o J i 'Jy c,J tuC Memorandum, August 10, 1989 - Page 2 To Eugene Reville (4) Most District employees are members of the Arkansas '7 Teacher Retirement System. The State of Arkansas pays the Matching Rate of 12^ on all Operating Budget employees, while the individual Federal Grant pay the 12% on each federally funded employee. must (5) The District allocates 12 Sick Days, 2 Personal Leave Days, and 10 Vacation Days for its 12-month employees. (6) Cost ceilings for actual meals and incidental for School District Travel are as follows: expenses (7) (8) (9) In-state Out-of-state not to exceed $17.50/day not to exceed $25.50/day I am also attaching a copy of our Administrative Directive 81-2055, concerning District Travel. The District also pays an annual car allowance of $1,200 to certain cabinet-level administrators, and $900 to most directors. In addition, we reimburse at the rate of $.24/mile for local travel. I am attaching a copy of the 12-Month, 240-Day Calendar. I am also attaching a copy of the 1989-90 Budget for the Superintendents Office.Uttle Rock Public Schools October 29, 1981 ADMINISTRATIVE DIRECTIVE 81-20SS TO: FROM: Prinopals, Directors, Supervisors, and Managers ^'V^ce Jones, Manager, Support Services THROUGH: Dr. H. Benjamin Williams, Associate Superintendent Educational Programs SUBJECT: Paul W. Masem, Superintendent of Schools Out-of-District Travel Regulations^tlA^ As you are aware, financial restraints resulted in a reduced budget for out-of-district travel along with many other budget items. In addition, our auditors have commented that our travel regulations and procedures To insure that maximum impact can be achieved from our are inadequate. limited travel budget, the following regulations are effective immediately. TRAVEL DAY The travel day shall begin at 6:00 a.m., include breakfast, lunch, dinner, and one night's lodging, and shall end the following morning at 6:00 a.m. Requests for reimbursements of expenses incurred in less than full travel days must reflect a reasonable allocation based on the expense limits directed herein for a full travel day. LODGING EXPENSES The district will reimburse actual lodging expense incurred in trav\"'' for the district. District employees must understand L 't the district 'rates on public funds and there is an obligation to protect these funds by using lodging as economical and reasonable in accordance with the purpose of the travel. Reimbursement for lodging expenses will require lodging receipts that indicate the employee has paid for the lodging. Receipts from personal credit cards will not be accepted unless accompanied by the receipt from the lodging establishment. LONG DISTANCE TRAVEL The district will reimburse travel expenses to the maximum limit of point- to-point costs for coach fare on common carriers. are required for reimbursement of common carrier costs. Receipts or ticket stubs If an employee chooses to use a personal automobile in long distance travel, reimbursement shall not exceed 23\u0026lt;t per mile or point-to-point coach fare, whichever is less. When more than one employee travels to the same location in a personal automobile, long distance travel cost will be reimbursed only to the employee whose personal automobile is used. Afxl Irard  Urtle Rrxk Art*77 701  (501)374-3361Principals, Directors, Supervisors, and Managers Out-of-District Regulations October 29, ^981 Page 2 local travel at destination Actual reasonable expenses destination will be reimbursed. of local travel by common carriers at the Reimbursement for airport limousines or airport bus costs require the submission of ticket stubs or receipts. Mass transit or taxi fare do not require receipts, but must be reasonable. AUTOMOBILE RENTALS Automobiles will not be rented at district expensewithout prior approv^^ of the Superintendent or his designee and in r.c zzzz ri- in advance, that automobile rental will be less expensive to the district than the cost o^ public transportation to meetings, conferences, etc. Reimbursement is conditioned upon advance authority as well as receipts no case without documentation. transportation to from the leasing agency. MEALS AND INCIDENTALS reimburse employees for actual meals and incidental expenses incurred in out-of-district travel on district business, not to exceed the following limits\nThe district will In-State and Border Areas - Not to exceed $17.50 per day. Out-of-state - Not to exceed $25.50 per day. The allowances listed Reimbursement is allowed for actual expenses, onjj^. rates but are cost ceilings that are not to be exceeded. are not per diem ADVANCE REQUEST FOR TRAVEL Submission of two forms will be required to receive advance permission for out-of-district travel. The \"Request for Absence for Professional Meetings\" form will be completed and submitted in accordance with the iU/, lIDrtoiiArf +0** llllTAT - in xi In addition, the \"Request for Out-of-Oistrict -'rdance with the instructions on that form. form (attached) will be submitted mac Travel\" form (attached) will be submittea in ac -ruance w.w,  ^structions on that form. No employee will be reimbursed fo. out-of-distr.ct -avei unless the required two forms are submitted and approved in advance. II This directive is effective immediately and until changed in writing.H WD o SV PC T W Jiy 3 LH 4 5 .cust 1 2 tember Stober 2 3 4 :vember 1 scember snuery '90 LH 1 2 3 ebruary .rch ril SV 2 SV 3 SV 4 y 1 2\nne Teacher Work Day - No School First Day of Student Attendance Last Day of Student Attendance Spring Vacation Parent Conference Th F M T W Th F 6 7 10 11 12 13 14 3 4 7 8 9 10 11 1 LH 4 5 6 7 8 5 6 9 10 11 I 12 I 13 WD 2 PC 3 1 6 4 7 5 8 6 4 1 1 SV 5 3 5 2 2 SV 6 4 1 8 5 5 9 7 4 9 6 6 10 8 5 9 7 10 8 10 7 7 11 9 6 11 8 8 12 10 o 7 12 9 9 13 11 8 1989-90 Calendar August 28 - June 7 Students - 178 Days July 3 - June 29 12.0 Months - 240 Days M T U Th F M 17 18 19 20 21 24 14 i 15 11 16 13 11 LH 12 17 14 12 15 i 16 12 12 16 14 11 13 13 17 15 12 Saturday, August 26, 1989, is a workday in the schools 16 13 18 15 13 17 17 14 19 16 14 18 14 15 14 15 18 16 13 18 15 20 17 15 19 16 16 19 17 14 20 18 15 I 21 18 23 20 18 22 19 19 23 21 18 SH LH SD 1 T W 25 I 22 19 24 21 19 23 20 20 24 22 19 26 I 23 20 25 22 SH 20 WD 24 21 21 25 23 20 Special Holiday Legal Holiday - No School Snow Day Inservice Day - No School Th 27 WD 24 21 F M T W Th F \u0026amp;O m z O 1/1 tz\u0026gt; o o o . -\u0026lt; tn tn m X) O m  \u0026gt;  tn  \u0026gt; tn  \u0026gt; CJ 2: \u0026gt; m -\u0026lt; tn o s: o \u0026gt; tn !\u0026gt; I _ 28 WD 25 22 26 27 LH 23 SH 21 25 22 22 26 24 21 31  28 25 30 29 26 31 1 20 i 30 27 31 28 29 4 3 16 20 20 2 1 SH 24 SH 22 26 23 23 27 25 22 27 LH 25 29 26 26 30 LH 28 25 28 SH 26 30 27 27 29 26 29 SH 27 31 28 28 30 27 30 SH 28 WD 29 31 28 1 18 1 1 1 SH 29 PC 30 29 1 2 13 20 20 20 16 22 5 178 5 1 2 1 7 2 5 1 1 5 16 3 65 10 Vacation Days - 240 Days j 20 I J ! 23 I i 20 ' 22 J 20 18 I 21 ! 20 22 21 22 21 250Little Rock School District I 1991-92 Revenue Projection and Budget Summary revenue-local taxes 1991-92 1992-93 1993-94 1994-95 1995-96 CURRENT TAXES aOtM) PULLBACK DELINQUENT TAXES EXCESS TREASURER FEES DEPOSITORY INTEREST \\ '.TaiH *3\n. .WJ REVENUE IN LIEU OF TAXES wise. ANO BENTS INTEREST ON INVESTMENTS MAY 1 4 ATHLETIC RECEIPTS Of: cf Dc-segrsgsucri M\u0026amp;nifcring REVENUE-COUNTY SOURCES COUNTY GENERAL REVENUE-STATE SOURCES I. PA SETTLEMENT PROCEEDS SETTLEMENT LOAN APPORTIONMENT VOCATIONAL HANDICAPPED CHILDREN EARLY CHILDHOOD ORPHAN CHILDREN transportation COMPENSATORY EDUCATION M TO M TRANSFERS ADULT EDUCATION revenue-other souRdes PUBLIC LAW 874 i TRANSFER FROM FEO GRANTS transfer FROM BONO ACCOUNT / TOTAL REVENUE. Little Rock School District Revenue Projection and Budget Summary EXPENSES 1991-92 1992-93 1993-94 1994-95 1995-96 CERTiFiEO SALARIES NON-CSRTIFIEO SALARIES aCNErlTS DESEGREGATION PURCHASED SERVICES MATERIALS \u0026amp; SUPPLIES other OBJECTS I CAPITAL OUTLAY DEBT SERVICE CCNTiNGENCY INCREASE IN FUND BALANCE BEGINNING FUND BALANCE ENDING FUND BALANCE \u0026gt; ITEM# PAGE# SETTLEMENT PLAN BUDGET DESCRIPTION 91-92 92-93 93-94 94-95DRAFT (FOR DISCUSSION ONLY) DESEGREGATION PLAN PROGRAMS REQUIRING FUNDS Deseg Prog # Plan Page # Description a' 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 31 32 33 34 35 49 5 5 12 20 28 28 39 44 46 48 58 63 82 86 114 129 129 143 148 148 224 226 227 1-9 93 34 35 28 114 106 1-56 131 125 00 Hippy 4-Year Old Program (Incentive School and other) Rockefeller Early Childhood Magnet Homework Centers Student Hearing Officer u' Office of Desegregation (and Student Assignment - p. 142) Extra-Curricular Participation: e.g., transportation Teacher Recruiter Staff Development Academic Support Programs, including remediation (PAL) (See 5/1 /92 order) Gifted and Talented Programs Multicultural Programs/Curriculum Academic Incentive Grants (amount not specified) Original Magnets (also page 4 in the Interdistrict Plan) Special Education Learning Center at Washington Security (required for \"safe schools\") Data Processing System for Student Information (also page 177) M-to-M Magnet Schools (Central, Dunbar. Washington. Henderson. McClellan) King Interdistrict School (also page 386) Stephens Interdistrict School (also page 386) Monitoring Activities (Evaluation Department plus CMIS-ABACUS) Desegregation Facilitator and Office (#6?) Computerized Transportation System Romine Interdistrict Theme McClellan Community School In-School Suspension Job Fair Testing Assistance - Disadvantaged Special Education - Equity Efforts Library Services Parent Recruiting VIPS - Recruiting Prejudice Reduction To Be Allocated Incentive Schools (Items numbered 50 and above) 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 149 152 153 153 153 153 154 156 Incentive Schools - Additional Programs Writing To Read Science Labs Computer Labs Foreign Language Computer Loan Program Extended Day Nifty Nutrition MAY i 4 U i V \u0026lt;Deseg Plan Programs Requiring Funds Page 2 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 158 171 171 171 171 172 172 176 176 176 178 178 179 190 193 194 153 Field Trips (also 173) Homework Centers Transportation (additional) Homework Hotline Mentors/Tutors Instructional Aides (additional) Extended Year I ncentive/Recognition Resident Counseling Service (Camp Pfeiffer) Monitoring Permanent Substitute (Recommended: therefore, required) Additional Compensation - extra hours Extended Week Staffing - Recommended Full-Time Positions (Recommended: therefore, required) Required Staff Development (also Page 204 - Paula Greer) Teacher Stipends for Inservice and Extra 5 Days Other Incentive School Academic Programs c:\\memos\\plancosl.wpdLITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 810 WEST MARKHAM STREET LITTLE ROCK, AR 72201 June 1, 1992 3VSD JUN 1 1992 Mr. Christopher Heller Friday, Eldredge and Clark 2000 First Commercial Bldg. Oiiice ci Desegregaiicn Monitoring Little Rock, AR 72201 Dear Chris: Attached are budget projections for the Little Rock School District Desegregation Plan as specified in the January 21, 1992 Court Order. The Order's requirement for a revised 1991-92 budget is met by Exhibit A showing the projected cost of certain desegregation programs in this year through agreement with Mr. Bob Morgan of the Office of Desegregation Monitoring. A list of notes and assumptions is included and is an integral part of the document. These projections are estimates based on current information. Although the LRSD is committed to the programs of the Desegregation Plan, these figures should not be viewed as precise commitments of funds. It is our hope that the objectives of the Plan can be met in more cost-effective ways. Also attached is a procedure that the LRSD will use in future desegregation budgeting so that these costs can be more accurately known. The formats and procedures shown have been reviewed with Mr. Morgan, and we believe he understands and approves. We have stated to Mr. Morgan, however, that we view this as only a step in the process of working with his office on the definition and tracking of desegregation costs, and we will continue to work with him to perfect this process to our mutual benefit. Sincerely, 'Jim Ivey i \\ '-Manager of Support Services Jl/ch Attachment co: R. R. Morgan, Office of Desegregation Monitoring w/attachment c:\\project.upd\\ FEB-22-93 MON 10:59 SUSAN W WRIGHT FAX WO, 5013246576 LRSD Projected Revenue and Expense 1992/93 - 1996/97 Response to Federal Court Order Dated January 21, 1992 Assumptions/Notes: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. P.02 The years of the projection and the formats used were done through consultation with Monitoring (ODM). the Office of Desegregation Although the LRSD implemented the Tri- District Plan and double funded the incentive schools in 1990- 91, these figures are not included. These projections are estimates based on current information. Although the LRSD is committed to the programs of the Desegregation Plan, these figures should not be viewed precise commitments of funds. as . _ . It is our hope that the objectives of the Plan can be met in more cost-effective ways. The LRSD is in the process of negotiating labor contracts with teachers and support personnel at this time. Consequently, projection of any salary costs starting with 1992-93 cannot be done with accuracy, and for the District administration to do so precludes good faith negotiation. The ODM understands this problem but feels that projecting no increases presents an unrealistic picture. Consequently, they have asked us to use a 3% annual increase in these costs. We agree to do that but wish to publicly state that this represents no commitment or intent on the part of the LRSD. If the Court desires, we can present.updated projections when these figures are known. We have al^ used a factor of 1% for inflationary increases in non-salary costs. We The LRSD is currently working to produce a balanced budget for Although this cannot be completed until negotiations are settled, programs must be reviewed and some 1992-93. union must be cut in order to meet the legal requirement of balanced budget. The projections herein assume that a sufficient reductions will be made to balance the 1992-93 budget. These reductions will not result in violation of the Desegregation Plan nor of state law. These reductions are shown as a line item entitled \"1992-93 Budget Reductions\". the Court desires, we will define these reductions for the Court when they are known. If As stated in the previous paragraph, it is assumed that $7.7 million in expense reductions will be implemented in 1992-93 Additional shortfalls will occur if and carried forward. further reductions or increased revenues are not fouiid. We are assuming a millage increase of five mills in September, This will not be required if sufficient reduction can 1993. be found. Note that the projections do not show use of the Desegregation loan in the revenues. It is our intent to use that as a reserve in the event that we cannot get millage rates increased at the time desired. The $1.5 million available in 1992-93 may, however, have to be used to balance the budget.FEB-22-93 MON 11:00 SUSAN W WRIGHT FAX NO, 5013246576 P.03 LRSD Projected Revenue and Expense Page 2 6. Program discussion. #51-75, Incentive School Programs, requires in the years through the 1991-92 school year, the cost of programs in the Incentive Schools exceeded the mandatory level of two times the area school instructional cost per student. Since the programs are now functioning and the mandatory level is increasing, the mandatory funding level ,, Therefore, will exceed program costs in 1992-93 and beyond. we have shown the cost of Incentive School programs in 1991-92 and have shown the mandatory funding level differential in 1992-93 and beyond. 7. The projections show the cost of programs that are funded by the revenue sources shown. Federal funds are utilized in some programs but are not shown in the expense. We don't show federal funds in our operating budgets and to do so here. believe, public. we 8. 9. 10. 11. 12 . 13 . 14 . Court desires. would create confusion for the court and for the We can provide information on federal funds if the Another program that will grow further is program. the 4-year old This has been projected based on the requirements of the Desegregation Plan and previous submissions. Any required new construction will be paid for with capital improvement funds from previous bond issues. of this is planned for. second-lien issues. we believe most Any additional will be covered with The 1993-94 reduction in Programs, equipment. equipment. reflects the program #10, completion of payments Academic Support for PAL Some funding is added for replacement of this The Desegregation Plan includes certain programs that require funds but are not included in the projections because they are funded by federal grants or because their cost is small and the cost information, broken out. of tracking them exceeds the value of the The costs are not omitted? they are just not The operating costs of the new King and Stephens Schools are shown as opening at the times requested in motions before the Court. If these motions are not granted, revised budgets if the Court desires. we can submit Operating costs in other schools are reduced somewhat upon the opening of these schools because 400 students will move to each of the new schools from others in the LRSD. The fifth and sixth positions (from the left) of the LRSD standard account code will be used for coding desegregation expenses. The Desegregation program numbers shown on the spread sheets are the codes to be used. The Order specifies that start-up costs be identified. since most of this has been expended in previous years, the only significant one remaining is the PAL cost discussed above.FEB-22-93 MON 11:00 SUSAN W WRIGHT FAX NO. 5013246576 P. 04 Desegregation Budgeting Description - Future Year Procedures A. A list of Desegregation programs with 2'-digit program numbers and a description of costs to be charged to each program will be prepared. B. The program number will be coded in the fifth and sixth positions of the account number, so that costs may be charged to a Desegregation program from various operating units and functions for various objects and using money from various fund sources. C. After the normal budget planning process is complete  W. a W ... awF J. i 4 * * J-* JW J. iff W.* ILl J- O C-S lUSIUO will be sent to each budget manager telling them what costs or types of cost may be charged to Desegregation and how they are to be coded. This will be agreed to by the Associate Superintendent for Desegregation and the Manager of Support Services. D, The Associate Superintendent for Desegregation will review Desegregation expenses monthly to assure proper charging.FEB-22-93 MON 11:01 SUSAN W WRIGHT FAX NO. 5013246576 P. 05 Lime ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 1992-97 REVENUE PROJECTION AND BUDGET SUMMARY 05-2992 1991-92 1992- 93 1993-94 1994 - 95 1995-96 1996-97 REVENUE - LOCAL SOURCES CURRENT TAXES 40% PULLBACK DELINQUENTTAXES EXCESS TREASURERS FEES DEPOSITORY INTEREST REVENUE IN LIEU OF TAXES MISC. AND RENTS INTERESTON INVESTMENTS ATHLETIC RECEIPTS 38,196,979 21,081,833 3,900,000 140,000 400,000 224,667 420,850 300,000 65,000 39,088,120 21,736,595 3,500,000 140,000 365,000 225,000 461,000 300,000 85,000 40,093,227 25,253,744 3,805,000 141,400 368,650 227,250 484,050 309,000 86,700 45,616,117 25,996,645 3,819,150 142,814 372,337 229,523 508,253 318,270 88,434 47,086,512 26,766,307 3,933,725 144,242 376,060 231,818 533,665 327,818 90,203 48,506,276 27,518,335 4,051,736 145,685 379,820 234,136 560,348 337,653 92,007 TOTAL 64,749.329 65.900,715 70,769,021 77,091,642 79,490,349 81,825.996 REVENUE - COUNTYSOURCES COUNTY GENE.RAL SEVERANCE TAX 73,419 11,000 73,419 11,000 73,419 11,000 73,419 11,000 73,419 11,000 73,419 11,000 TOTAL 84,419 84,419 64,419 84,419 84,419 84,419 REVENUE - STATE SOURCES MFPA SETTLEMENT PROCEEDS SETTLEMENT LOAN APPORTIONMENT VOCATIONAL HANDICAPPED CHILDREN EARLY CHILDHOOD ORPHAN CHILDREN TRANSPORTATION COMPENSATORY EDUCATION M TOM TRANSFERS ADULT EDUCATION 28,118,907 8,637,482 4,500,000 73,419 1,474,485 629,752 147,050 3,000 2,983,190 874,311 1,798,665 624,119 28,118,907 8,926,606 28,759,387 8,094,112 29,419,061 6,042,591 30,102,462 9,629,942 30,862,449 683,125 TOTAL 49,364,380 73,419 1,500,000 675,000 147,050 3,000 3,100,000 875,000 2,490,900 653,094 73,419 1,545,000 742,500 154,403 3,000 3,348,000 918,750 3,248,910 672,687 73,419 1,591,350 816,750 162,123 3,000 3,615,840 964,686 3,760,540 692,867 73,419 1,639,091 898,425 170,229 3,000 3,905,107 1,012,922 4,140,580 713,653 73,419 1,688,263 988,268 178,740 3,000 4,217,516 1,063,568 4,491,150 735,063 46,562,976 47,560,167 47.142,246 46,488,830 44,984,560 REVENUE - OTHER SOURCES PUBLIC LAW 874 TRANSFER FROM FED GRANTS TRANSFER FROM BOND ACCT 44,625 111,453 800,000 40,000 112,000 600,000 35,000 116,480 400,000 30,000 121,139 300.000 25,000 125,965 200,000 20,000 131,024 100,000 TOTAL 956,078 752,000 551,480 451,139 350,985 251.024 TOTAL REVENUE 115,654,206 113,300,110 118,965,087 124,769,348 126,414,583 127,146,000 :== CCaS!:FEB-22-93 MON 11:01 SUSAN W WRIGHT FAX NO. 5013246576 P, 06 LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 1992-97 REVENUE PROJECTION AND BUDGET SUMMARY 05-29-92 1991-92 1992- 93 1993-94 1994-95 1995- 96 1996 - 97 EXPENSES SALARIES BENEFITS DESEGREGATION PURCHASED SERVICES SUPPLIES \u0026amp; MATERIALS OTHER OBJECTS CAPITAL OUTLAY DEBT SERVICE CONTINGENCY BUDGET REDUCTION 67,748,508 7,808,935 16,910,424 6,791,207 3,817,539 887,696 1,606,543 8,718,196 0 71,437,088 9,022,067 19,141,451 6,992.544 3.927,703 755,079 1,621,715 9,597,115 500,000 (7,700,000) 73,765,037 9,202,508 18,887,119 7,202,320 4,045,534 777,731 1.670.366 9.090,123 600,000 (7,931,000) 75,316,854 9,386,558 22,144,629 7,418,390 4,166,900 801,063 1,720,477 8,845,246 700,000 (8,168,930) 76,822.807 9,574,289 24,940,080 7,640.942 4,291,907 825,095 1,772,092 8,258,921 800,000 (8,413,998) 79,373,940 9,765.775 25,864,401 7,870,170 4,420,664 849,346 1,825,255 8,041,468 900,000 (8,666,418) TOTAL OPERATING EXPENSES 114,289,046 115,294,762 117,309,739 122,331,190 126,512,136 130,245,103 INCREASE (DECREASE) IN FUND BALANCE 1,365,158 (1,994,652) 1,655,346 2,438,158 (97,553) (3,099,103) BEGINNING FUND BALANCE 634,842 2,000,000 5,348 1.660,696 4,098,855 4.001.302 ENDING FUNO BALANCE 2,000,000 5,348 1,680,696 4,098,355 4,001,302 902,199 lasiR t- 1 2 5 0 7 o 0 10 12 13 14 15 10 17 18 10 21 22 24 25 28 27 20 20 32 38 34 35 40 .51 -75 r L 5 5 20 28 30 40 48 03 02 80 114 120 120 143 148 148 224 227 1-0 03 34 35 28 100 I-50 tsi 125 00 Hippy * 4 Yr Old Programs Sttidsfit Hsarina Offtcar Offfcs of OossoMBSlioa ExiraCurricular Tsachar Recruiter Staff Development Academic Support Muihcultral Programs Incentive Grants Original Uagnela I Sp Ell Learning Center Security Data Processing System MIoM Magnet Schools King School Stephens School Monitoring ActivitKee Computerized Transportation R omine Theme Cummunity School j In School Suepenston Job Fair Testing Assistance Library Services Parent Recrailing VIPS - Recruiting Prejudice Reduction To Be AUucstad Incentive School Programs ^TOTAL SETTLEMENT PLAN BUDGET J' TTTPT \u0026lt; :3{\u0026lt;\n8-7 70 1105 121 04 1 i 01 00 1580 75 42: 87 82 35 41 71/75 02 40 12 14/08/120 00 T 00 90 72/45 73 75 244,077 204,350 101,040 432,504 110.000 45,702 f 418.570 2,004,720 200.005 730.732 3.800.000 103,415 080,082 200.335 400.272 O 0 345.320 10.000 17,207 270.002 741.217 1.500 12,850 501.404 52.000 02,088/ 50,000 200.000 4,128,058 10,010.424 252.320 502.073 102.477 430.140 110,000 40.020 587.074 2.730.374 200,005 800.000 3,800.000 110,342 704.553 410,384 1.330,038 0 0 300.270 10.000 70.000 270,002 750,381 1,500 11.350 580,017 52,000 04,048 5.000 200.000 4,437,312 19,141,451 250,000 057.450 105,552 452,323 : 113,300 40.837 504.704 2.102.810 270.002 0 3.014.000 113,053 818,300 422,074 1.013,028\n0 0 401.084 10,500 81.370 285.271 782,102 1,545 11,001 503,035 53.500 00,807 5.000 200,000 4.814.373 18.807,110 207,003 1,205,131 100.710 405.002 110,000 40.707 002,245 2,258.505 200,342 0 4.031,420 117,002 842,042 435.355 1.445,652 2,003,300 0 414,043 11.025 83.811 203.320 805.027 1,501 12,041 015.077 55,107 08.004 5,000 200,000 4,050.380 22.144,020 275.724 ? 1.104,723! 111.000 470,000 120.200 51.201 020.313 2.320,353 204.032 0 4,152.303 120,574 808,230 448,415 1.404.007 2.707,432 2.707,000 420.405 11.570 00,325 302.044 820,700 1.030 12.402 834,450 ' 50,822 70,071 5.000 200.000 4,307,023 24,940.060 203.005 1,232.112 115,330 404.205 123.000 52,010 030.022 2.300,143 303.700 0 4,270.033 124,101 804,277 401,888 1,484,110 2.815.720 2,815.280 430.250 12.155 38.015 311.723 854.000 1.088 12,775 053.490 58.520 73.100 5,000 200,000 4.030,500 25,804,401 ) m ro I ro I co ro OQ \u0026lt;n CD on COFEB-22-93 MON 11:03 SUSAN W WRIGHT FAX NO. 5013246576 P,08 Exhibit A 1105 1110 FOUR YR OLD PROGRA KINDERGARTEN 1120-99 REGULAR PROGRAMS 1210-99 SPECIAL ED PROGRAM 1320-99 VOCATIONAL PROGRAM 1410-99 ADULT EDUCATION 1510-99 COMPENSATORY ED 1910 GIFTED \u0026amp; TALENTED 2110-90 PUPIL SUPPORT 2210-99 STAFF SUPPORT SERVI 2310-20 ADM SUPPORT SERVlC 2410 PRINCIPALS OFFICE 2510-99 BUSINESS SUPPORT 2610-99 CENTRAL SUPPORT 3000'3 COMMUNITY SERVICES 5100 LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT EXPENDITURE PROJECTION BY FUNCTIONAL AREA 1991-92 TEACHER SALARY 52,349.84 2,795,060.64 28,811,085.64 4,037,827,87 4,071,829.27 756,490.90 1,156,944.86 2,598,700.99 2,634,664.92 183,975.48 3,939,101.54 290,883.36 BONDED INDEBTEDNESS OPERATING FUND 44,337.94 325,000.00 7,562,955.21 1,224,081.75 1,238,599.52 698,543.12 537,715.75 214,094.16 1,102,812.86 2,077,880.91 734,945.29 1,861,405.13 16,625,075.77 2,194,315.26 839,750.00 8,718,196.00 DESEQ FEDERAL GRANTS MAGNET SCHOOLS TOTAL TOTAL 204,356.00 6,686,389.30 11,626.28 118,050.36 35,608.75 1,649,581.34 317,475.66 1,653,162.72 4,265.335.80 107,044.21 710,699.21 510,528.09 640,566.28 362,373.04 351,162.00 130,509.54 3,522,602.96 67,162.00 428,580.73 444,781.18 115,554.79 425.733.12 9,069,517.95 273,945.79 601,212.16 6,880.00 187,848.98 651,786.63 423,530.00 3.000.00 464,212.24 1.195,556.85 1,051,829.76 301,043.78 3,545.793.76 52,129,948.10 5,909,854.73 6,380,853.31 864,661.41 6,473,270.95 1,626,050.00 5,099,356.87 7,284,019.73 5,299,811.36 7,103,107.73 18,390,604.74 2,995.726.73 1,944,528.52 8.718,196.00 51,378,915.33 45,999,708.67 16,910,424.00 5,889,938.48 13,887,841.24 134,066,827.72.4 t RECE5VEP IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION AUG 3 1992 Office of Desegregation Monitoring LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT PLAINTIFFS V. NO. LR-C-82-866 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, ET AL DEFENDANTS MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL DEFENDANTS KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL INTERVENORS NOTICE OF FILING On January 21, 1992, this court ordered the Little Rock School District to submit certain information concerning its desegregation budget. The required budget information was filed on June 1, 1992. The budget projections which were previously submitted have now been revised based on current information. The revised budget projections are attached to this Notice of Filing. Respectfully submitted. LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT FRIDAY, ELDREDGE \u0026amp; CLARK 2000 First Commercial Bldg. 400 West Capitol Street Little Rock, AR 72201 (501) 376-2011 By: Christopher Helfer Bar No. 81083 kaihyXNotioc of Filing* CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I certify that a copy of the foregoing Notice of Filing has been served on the following by depositing copy of same in the United States mail on this 31st, day of July, 1992: Mr. John Walker JOHN WALKER, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72206 Mr. Sam Jones WRIGHT, LINDSEY \u0026amp; JENNINGS 2200 Worthen Bank Bldg. 200 West Capitol Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Steve Jones JACK, LYON \u0026amp; JONES, P.A. 3400 Capitol Towers Capitol \u0026amp; Broadway Streets Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Richard Roachell #15 Hickory Creek Drive Little Rock, AR 72212 Ms. Ann Brown Heritage West Bldg., Suite 510 201 East Markham Street Little Rock, AR 72201 Christopher He k*ih\u0026gt; 'Nodas of Kilin^ 2 LRSD Projected Revenue and Expense 1992/93 - 1996/97 Revised 7-30-92 Response to Federal Court Order Dated January 21, 1992 Assumptions/Notes: 1. The years of the projection and the foirmats used were done through consultation with the Office of 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. Monitoring (ODM). Desegregation Although the LRSD implemented the Tri- District Plan and double funded the incentive schools in 1990- 91, these figures are not included. These projections are estimates based on current information. Although the LRSD is committed to the programs of the Desegregation Plan, these figures should not be viewed as precise commitments of funds. It is our hope that the objectives of the Plan can be met in more cost-effective ways. The LRSD is in the process of negotiating labor contracts with teachers and support personnel at this time. Conseguently, projection of any salary costs starting with 1992-93 cannot be done with certainty. For the purpose of these projections, it is assumed that annual step and experience increases will be provided to all employees. We have also used a factor of 1% for inflationary increases in non-salary costs. The LRSD Board of Directors adopted a balanced budget for 1992-93 on July 23, 1992. None of the budget reductions will prevent LRSD from implementing its Desegregation Plan. The modifications to the Desegregation Plan proposed by LRSD and approved by the Court for Henderson and McClellan, however, will have to be adjusted in order to implement the proposed budget reductions at those schools. At this time, the LRSD takes no position as to the necessity for a millage increase, are as follows: The reasons for taking this position A) B) C) It is not practical to rely on a millage increase in the near future to balance the budget. The LRSD's ability to fund long-range capital improvement projects is linked to the issue of extended millage. The LRSD Board of Directors must set its priorities and develop a long-range plan and budget around these priorities. It is assumed that capacity for the incentive schools will be limited to a ratio of 20 students to 1 teacher. The projections show in summary the revenue and expense of the most significant federal programs.LRSD Projected Revenue and Expense Page 2 8. Another program that will grow further is the 4-year old program. This has been projected based on the requirements of the Desegregation Plan and previous submissions. 9. Any required new construction will be paid for with capital improvement funds from previous bond issues. We believe most 10. 11. 12. 13. of this is planned for. covered with second-lien issues or possible extended millage. The 1993-94 reduction Any additional improvements will be from bonds secured by Programs, equipment. reflects in program Some funding the completion #10, Academic Support is added of payments for PAL maintenance of this equipment. for replacement and The Desegregation Plan includes certain programs that require funds but are not provided separate accounting codes at this time. This means that cost infoirmation for implementation must be extracted from other budget line items. The opening dates of the new King and Stephens Schools are shown as approved by the Court. The fifth and sixth positions (from the left) of the LRSD standard account code will be used for desegregation expenses. identifying The Desegregation program numbers shown on the spread sheets are the codes to be used. 14. The Order specifies that start-up costs be identified, known \"start up\" costs are as follows: The A. Academic Support Program $1.0 million ends in 1992-93 B. Data Processing $.25 million in 1992-93 and $.50 million through 1996-97 in 1993-94 C. Four-Year Old Programs $34,500 for five new programs and $30,000 for playground equipment No other significant \"start up\" costs are projected. 15. Because of the new reporting codes used for 1992-93, reconciliation between 1991-92 and 1992-93 program budgets is imperfect. The District will provide any specific answers which may arise because of the change in accounting coding structure.Desegregation Budgeting Description - Future Year Procedures A. A list of Desegregation programs with 2-digit program numbers and a description of costs to be charged to each program will be prepared. B. The program number will be coded in the fifth and sixth positions of the account number so that costs may be charged to a Desegregation program from various operating units and functions for various objects and using money from various fund sources. C. Each budget manager will submit a proposal for spending allotted funds. These proposals will be conjunction with the Desegregation Plan audit. reviewed in Once specific plans for spending have been proposed, the Superintendent will prepare a proposal for Board approval. In addition the Superintendent will prepare a process for reguiring Board approval for changes in planned expenditures above a to-be determined spending authority. Once the types of expenditures have been programmed, the Purchasing Department will not be authorized to issue a purchase order except for those items programmed and approved. D. The Superintendent will immediately begin directing a process for Board involvement in the long-range planning and budgeting process. E. The Superintendent will direct the new administration team to conduct a proposals. Desegregation Plan audit and related budgetLITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 1992-97 REVENUE PROJECTION AND BUDGET SUMMARY 07-29-92 1991-92 1992-93 1993-94 1994- 95 1995-96 1996-97 REVENUE - LOCAL SOURCES CURRENTTAXES 40% PULLBACK DELINQUENT TAXES EXCESS TREASURERS FEES DEPOSITORY INTEREST REVENUE IN LIEU OF TAXES MISC. AND RENTS INTEREST ON INVESTMENTS ATHLETIC RECEIPTS 38,196,979 21,081,833 4,250,186 140,858 241,476 224,667 406,878 354,446 100,857 39,088,120 21,694,578 4,250,186 140,000 300,000 224,667 461,000 300,000 100,857 40,093,227 22,453,744 4,577,692 144,200 309,000 226,914 484,050 309,000 102,874 41,416,117 23,196,645 4,615,022 148,526 318,270 229,183 508,253 318,270 104,932 42,786,512 23,966,307 4,753,473 152,982 327,818 231,475 533,665 327,818 107,030 44,206,276 24,718,335 4,896,077 157,571 337,653 233,789 560,348 337,653 109,171 TOTAL 64,998,181 66,559,408 68,700,700 70,855,217 73,187,080 75,556,873 REVENUE - COUNTY SOURCES COUNTY GENERAL SEVERANCE TAX 73,419 15,350 73,419 11,000 73,419 11,000 73,419 11,000 73,419 11,000 73,419 11,000 TOTAL 88,769 84,419 84,419 84,419 84,419 84,419 REVENUE - STATE SOURCES MFPA SETTLEMENT PROCEEDS SETTLEMENT LOAN APPORTIONMENT VOCATIONAL HANDICAPPED CHILDREN EARLY CHILDHOOD ORPHAN CHILDREN TRANSPORTATION COMPENSATORY EDUCATION M TO M TRANSFERS ADULT EDUCATION 27,264,460 8,637,482 4,500,000 73,426 1,513,699 824,870 147,050 3,000 2,379,879 858,743 1,770,486 697,589 27,042,713 8,926,606 1,500,000 73,419 1,341,887 821,449 229,403 3,000 2,692,563 548,034 2,490,900 697,589 28,394,849 8,094,112 73,419 1,500,000 903,594 240,873 3,000 3,300,000 575,436 3,600,000 718,517 29,814,591 6,042,591 73,419 1,545,000 993,953 252,917 3,000 3,564,000 604,207 5,200,000 740,072 31,305,321 3,829,942 73,419 1,591,350 1,093,349 265,563 3,000 3,849,120 634,418 5,460,000 762,274 32,870,587 683,125 73,419 1,639,091 1,202,683 278,841 3,000 4,157,050 666,139 5,733,000 785,143 TOTAL 48,670,683 46,367,563 47,403,799 48,833,751 48,867,755 48,092,076 REVENUE - OTHER SOURCES PUBLIC LAW 874 TRANSFER FROM FED GRANTS TRANSFER FROM BOND ACCT 9,385 129,428 394,675 40,000 262,000 600,000 35,000 272,480 400,000 30,000 283,379 300,000 25,000 294,714 200,000 20,000 306,503 100,000 TOTAL 533,488 902,000 707,480 613,379 519,714 426,503 TOTAL REVENUE OPERATING 114,291,121 113,913,390 116,896,398 120,386,766 122,658,968 124,159,872ssa^sEa LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 1992-97 REVENUE PROJECTION AND BUDGET SUMMARY 07-29-92 1991-92 1992- 93 1993- 94 1994- 95 1995- 96 1996-97 REVENUE-FEDERAL GRANTS CHAPTER I CHAPTER II TITLE VI B OTHER 3.272.693 224.423 558.810 1.076.226 4.474.288 215.020 569.986 1.097.751 4.563.774 219.320 581.386 1.119.706 4.655.049 223.707 593.014 1.142.100 4.748.150 228.181 604.874 1.164.942 4.843.113 232.745 616.971 1.188.240 TOTAL 5,132,152 6.357,045 6,484,186 6,613,869 6,746,147 6,881,070 REVENUE-MAGNET SCHOOLS 13,887,841 14,165,654 14,448,967 14,737,946 15,032,705 15,333,359 TOTAL REVENUE 119.423.273 120.270.435 123.380.584 127.000.636 129.405.115 131.040.941 LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 1992-97 REVENUE PROJECTION AND BUDGET SUMMARY 07-29-92 1991-92 1992-93 1993-94 1994-95 1995- 96 1996-97 EXPENSES SALARIES BENEFITS DESEGREGATION SERVICES, SUPPLIES, EQUIP DEBT SERVICE CONTINGENCY 65,368,035 8,020,788 15,997,240 15,267,935 7,950,100 0 65,063,011 9,162,732 17,013,029 14,536,674 9,597,115 500,000 66,364,271 9,208,546 19,148,407 14,972,774 9,090,123 600,000 67,691,557 9,254,588 22,515,161 15,421,957 8,845,248 700,000 69,045,388 9,300,861 23,246,037 15,884,616 8,258,921 800,000 70,426,296 9,347,366 23,732,324 16,361,155 8,041,468 900,000 TOTAL OPERATING EXPENSES 112,604,098 115,872,561 119,384,121 124,428,511 126,535,823 128,808,608 EXPENSES-FEDERAL GRANTS 5,132,152 6,357,045 6,484,186 6,613,869 6,746,147 6,881,070 EXPENSESMAGNET SCHOOLS 13,887,841 14,165,654 14,448,967 14,737,946 15,032,705 15,333,359 TOTAL EXPENSES 131,624,091 136,395,260 140,317,274 145,780,327 148,314,675 151,023,037 INCREASE (DECREASE) IN FUND BALANCE 1,687,023 (1,959,171) (2,487,723) (4,041,745) (3,876,855) (4,648,736) BEGINNING FUND BALANCE 634,842 2,321,865 362,694 (2,125,029) (6,166,774) (10,043,629) ENDING FUND BALANCE 2.321.865 362.694 (2.125.029) (6.166.774) (10.043.629) (14.692.365) FUND BALANCE ANALYSIS BEGINNING FUND BALANCE 2,321,865 362,694 3,874,971 5,833,226 6,956,371 INCREASE(DECREASE) IN FUND BALANCE RECORD LOAN REVENUE BUDGET REDUCTIONS (1,959,171) (2,487,723) 3,000,000 3,000,000 (4,041,745) 3,000,000 3,000,000 (3,876,855) 2,000,000 3,000,000 (4,648,736) 3,000,000 ENDING FUND BALANCE 362.694 3.874.971 5.833.226 6.956.371 5.307,635 * $1,500,000 recorded as revenue In 1992-931105 1110 FOUR YR OLD PROG RA KINDERGARTEN 1120-99 REGULAR PROGRAMS 1210-99 SPECIAL ED PROGRAM 1320-99 VOCATIONAL PROGRAM 1410-99 ADULT EDUCATION 1510-99 COMPENSATORY ED 1910 GIFTED \u0026amp; TALENTED 2110-90 PUPIL SUPPORT 2210-99 STAFF SUPPORT SERVI 2310-20 ADM SUPPORT SERVIC 2410 PRINCIPALS OFFICE 2510-99 BUSINESS SUPPORT 2610-99 CENTRAL SUPPORT 3000'S 4000 5100 LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT EXPENDITURES BY FUNCTIONAL AREA 1991-92 TEACHER SALARY 138,077.08 2,760,904.00 28,381,519.29 3,989,261.59 4,023,283.53 1,013,772.90 1,143,799.80 2,570,622.02 2,667,369.46 198,491.86 3,895,984.12 287,255.96 COMMUNITY SERVICES NON PROGRAMMED BONDED INDEBTEDNESS OPERATING FUND 79,415.14 347,089.07 6,024,779.24 1,354,685.45 1,158,370.16 697,588.87 253,127.76 183,211.79 1,174,153.77 1,631,966.93 446,175.31 1,983,094.66 19,318,518.35 2,161,066.34 740,723.24 32,450.45 7,950,100.01 DESEG 94,937.48 6,072,099.95 10,538.70 107,559.18 35,631.06 1,589,524.16 309,073.21 1,479,959.60 441,244.35 107,262.02 1,041,101.85 465,561.53 504,079.83 3,738,667.07 TOTAL FEDERAL GRANTS MAGNET SCHOOLS TOTAL 302,717.88 338,788.30 130,394.89 3,123,267.62 55,541.49 371,072.25 301,061.72 88,318.56 429,905.44 8,567,902.51 276,198.03 592,044.13 5,333.69 181,901.87 658,847.84 414,539.17 4,792.23 302,192.60 114,004.58 1,207,390.15 1,050,413.66 503,364.75 51,070,341.61 45,536,516.54 15,997,239.99 5,132,152.12 13,887,841.24 312,429.70 3,537,898.51 49,046,300.99 5,933,401.65 6,220,045.30 863,614.82 5,985,026.13 1,564,454.95 5,083,769.09 6,494,896.88 1,174,230.08 7,193,730.95 21,414,826.09 2,913,883.83 1,546,995.67 7,950,100.01 131,624,091.50Prg # Pg# Description 1 5 2 5 5 28 6 28 7 39 Hippy 4 Yr Old Programs Student Hearing Officer Office of Desegregation Extra-Curricular 8 44 Teacher Recruiter 9 46 10 48 12 63 13 82 Staff Development Academic Support Multicultral Programs Incentive Grants 14 86 15 114 16 129 17 129 18 143 19 148 21 148 22 224 24 227 25 1-9 Original Magnets Sp Ed Learning Center Security Data Processing System M-to-M Magnet Schools King School Stephens School Monitoring Activities Computerized Transp Romine Theme 26 93 27 34 28 35 Community School In-School Suspension Job Fair 29 28 32 106 33 1-56 34 131 35 125 Testing Assistance Library Services Parent Recruiting VIPS - Recruiting Prejudice Reduction Plant Services 49 00 To Be Allocated Incentive Schools: 51 149 Office of Incentive Schools 52 152 53 153 Writing To Read Science Labs 54 153 55 153 56 153 57 154 59 158 61 171 64 172 Computer Labs Foreign Language Computer Loan Program Extended Day/Week Field Trips Transportation Instructional Aides 65 172 Extended Year 66 176 72 190 73 193 74 194 75 153 Incentivo/Recog nition Staffing Staff Development Teacher Stipends Other Academic Programs SUB-TOTAL INCENTIVES GRAND TOTAL SETTLEMENT PLAN BUDGET Unaudited 91 -92 92-93 93-94 94-95 95-96 96-97 214,295 278,772 284,347 290,034 295,835 301,751 811,591 88,332 452,998 31,072 45,924 400,069 2,846,490 164,490 658,575 3,738,667 56,291 703,830 200,727 354,920 0 0 373,686 0 17,267 295,276 914,101 4,063 0 588,441 22,367 62,714 0 268,247 0 13,314,433 261,482 1,096,193 1,325,132 2,682,807 15,997,240 1,202,033 1,238,094 1,520,236 1,810,843 1,847,060 99,087 101,069 103,090 105,152 107,255 433,133 441,796 450,632 459,644 468,837 0 0 0 0 0 42,204 43,048 43,909 44,787 45,683 447,446 456,395 465,523 474,833 484,330 2,785,221 1,840,925 1,877,744 1,915,298 1,953,604 240,315 320,000 3,800,000 110,307 617,038 411,583 721,442 0 0 391,495 10,000 85,816 115,000 748,258 1,500 11,350 716,504 27,000 65,863 5,000 200,000 13,886,365 63,147 15,000 15,000 15,000 7,500 5,000 863,000 37,500 20,000 549,695 260,000 21,500 914,823 59,500 225,000 55,000 3,126,664 17,013,029 245,121 320,000 3,876,000 112,513 629,379 773,930 543,085 2,603,300 0 399,325 10,200 87,532 115,000 763,223 1,530 11,577 730,834 27,540 67,180 5,000 200,000 15,927,943 65,041 15,450 15,450 15,450 7,725 5,150 888,890 38,625 20,600 566,186 267,800 22,145 942,267 61,285 231,750 56,650 3,220,464 19,148,407 250,024 255,024 260,125 320,000 320,000 320,000 3,953,520 4,032,590 4,113,242 114,763 117,058 119,400 641,967 654,806 667,902 789,409 805,197 821,301 553,947 565,026 576,326 2,655,366 2,708,473 2,762,643 2,707,000 2,761,140 2,816,363 407,311 415,457 423,767 10,404 89,283 115,000 778,487 1,561 11,809 745,451 28,091 68,524 5,000 200,000 19,198,082 66,993 15,914 15,914 15,914 7,957 5,305 915,557 39,784 21,218 583,171 275,834 22,809 970,535 63,124 238,703 58,350 3,317,078 22,515,161 10,612 10,824 91,068 92,890 115,000 115,000 794,057 809,938 1,592 1,624 12,045 12,286 760,360 775,567 28,653 29,226 69,894 71,292 5,000 5,000 200,000 200,000 19,829,446 20,213,235 69,002 71,072 16,391 16,391 16,391 8,195 5,464 943,023 40,977 21,855 600,666 284,109 23,494 999,651 65,017 245,864 60,100 3,416,591 23,246,037 16,883 16,883 16,883 8,441 5,628 971,314 42,207 22,510 618,686 292,632 24,198 1,029,641 66,968 253,239 61,903 3,519,088 23,732,324On January 21, 1992, the United States District Court ordered the LRSD to make certain submissions in order that ODM could determine that the LRSD's budgetary process would meet the following requisites: (1) accurately and comprehensively accounts for the expenditure of settlement funds\n(2) demonstrates the link between the district's legal requirements and the fiscal underwriting of those requirements\n(3) describes a desegregation budgeting process that can be demonstrated, justified, and verified\nand (4) enables the district to determine what adjustments might be necessary in order to align finances with desegregation obligations. The LRSD filed its reply to that order on June 1, 1992 and began an ongoing process to satisfy the request of the court. By incorporating into the general ledger a code structure that ties the district's general ledger to the desegregation plan, a link has been established between the district's legal requirements (the desegregation plan) and its fiscal commitment (the budget). The district has committed to maintaining the code structure and to provide reports to the ODM for monitoring. The district has incorporated the new codes into the 1992-93 budget. The ODM continues to have concerns about the budgeting process that is used in the LRSD and its capability to determine its financial status. The LRSD is a multi million dollar enterprise. It is the state's largest school district and should set an example of strong fiscal management. Yet, the district operates its financial affairs like the smallest of school districts that have simplistic needs. The Arkansas Department of Education provides Handbook II as the basis for school district accounting and within the code structure there is ample flexibility to measure any aspect of school finance. The LRSD Policies and Procedures Manual has very little in the way of board policy relative to financial matters. There is no requirement for board approval of major expenditures. Therefore, major financial obligations are undertaken without full public disclosure committing the District to, not only current year obligations, but also to future payments. Examples include the purchase of computer equipment for the CMIT project and the expenditure of millions on the PAL program, as well as the open ended \"double funding\" of the incentive schools. The Board has not required, as a matter of policy, that new or changed needs that require substantial outlays be funded in the budget, and that the sources of the funds be identified. For example, if additional funds are needed for security personnel, which item in the budget will have to give up the money. The current financial system is essentially an accounting system that produces the accounting reports required by state law. However, it does not generally satisfy the high priority needs of the District itself. Major unmet needs include an improved ability to generate systematic short- and long-term expenditure projections, as well as an improved ability to allocate resources according to explicit District priorities, especially in relation to academic programs. In December 1990, a report submitted by a team from the National Curriculum Audit Team and commissioned by the LRSD Board stated in Finding 5.3 \"School management practices show inadequate control of district resources.\" and in Finding 5.1 \"the district may be not exercising appropriate stewardship such as in management of programs and personnel.\" The auditors found that \"the budget was not used as a comprehensive planning document driven by curriculum needs. Visible and tangible linkages between budget priorities and curriculum priorities were not apparent\" Neither is the desegregation plan used daily as an instrument to guide implementation of district policy. There is a disparity between the promise of the plan and reality yet there is no evaluation of the programs the school district offers to see \"what works\", and no changes are made to cut ineffective programs. In effect, the school district seems to have a large slump hole into which it pours money. In no way can the district offer that they have shown good faith efforts to improve the quality of the educational process. The lack of program orientation and other truly useful financial information may impede the District's efforts to provide an equitable and productive distribution of resources to all students. Program budgeting has the characteristic of a primary focus on the purpose for which funds are intended, e.g., McClellan Magnet Program, PAL Program, Alternative Programs, Gifted and Talented, etc., rather than on object code line items, e.g., textbooks, supplies, certified salaries, etc., or organizational units. When budget documents are presented to the board and public, there should be a comprehensive overview of each program and all of the resources allocated to them. The accounting codes used by the school district provide for the use of a function code which could be defined as program categories in a program budgeting system. School districts provide educational services to students in the form of academic programs such as reading, mathematics, science, social science, etc. Parents, teachers, and students view progress and achievement in the same terms. The financial and human resources to accomplish all of this in the LRSD are accumulated, budgeted, allocated, analyzed and reported in terms of funds, schools, functions and objects, but not the primary programs which embody the reasons for the district's existence. Thus, neither the public education constituencies nor the administrators themselves can readily discern the priorities of the district as reflected in the allocation of resources. The curriculum audit pointed this out to the district in its Recommendation 12: \"Move toward greater involvement in budgeting with curriculum linkages. That recommendation is especially valid H considering the need to balance budgets with revenues in an effective and equitable manner. The recommendation identifies the major steps, found on pages 119-120 of the curriculum audit, necessary to install programmatic budgeting. Instead of concentrating their management efforts on improvement of internal processes and developing basic management information, the district has continued to ignore the direction of the court and its own commissioned audit. The Board of Directors at the direction of the previous administration renewed contracts for all personnel effective May 1, 1992 and passed responsibility to provide a balanced budget to the new superintendent. As a result, sweeping cuts were made to the budget that were inappropriate. At the time of the cuts. Superintendent Mac Bernd made promises to improve the financial process in order to be in better position for the next year. He stated in the budget document transmittalOnce this budget is adopted, the budgeting process will not end. We must begin to restructure the budgeting process so that full attention and resources are directed at improving student achievement rather than providing so many different programs which ultimately distract the District's focus to the other issues. It is my goal to place the entire District in the position of being accountable for improving student achievement. This will be done by concentrating our attention first on the core curricular areas. Next, programs which are designed to improve instruction and achievement in these areas will be linked to particular expected outcomes and goals. If a program does not have this linkage, I will be recommending in the Spring of 1993 that personnel contracts in these areas not be renewed for the next fiscal year. Finally for the district to operate efficiently and effectively it will be necessary to streamline the administration. Because contracts have been renewed for 1992-1993, this cannot happen this year. On the other hand, the District has several cost centers where investment in personnel might produce savings or generate revenues for the District. All of these items will be considered in the coming months. Now as the District approaches May 1, 1993, history seems to be repeating itself. The district is projecting large deficits for the next year yet has little good information on which to base cuts or deployment of personnel. Again, the plea of \"wait until next year\" is heard. We can no longer continue down this path. The administration was aware of problems and has not put adequate resources to correct them. The position control system does not reflect the authority for each position or the person assigned to that position. How can a district cut personnel when it can't even determine what positions it has? Where is the plan for allocating personnel to the needs of the children?Budget concerns: A. Financial Situation Terminal financial situation No plan for fixing terminal financial situation Deficit spending Exact situation unknown...no current year forecast No projections for out years...revenue/expense Loan repayment odds going down B. Process No detailed budget calendar Adding on expenses while in deficit (positions, salaries) Dont have history of cut/add options considered Increases hidden in budget document No published teacher staffing analysis for current year No published current school capacity plan for budget C. Quality of Effort Poor quality of effort...job descriptions Poor justifications prepared for add/cuts No formal response planned back to Budget Committee No detailed linking between budget and Budget Committee No documentation on new hardware/software costs Long term costs of contracting outD. Policies and Procedures Personnel Policies Absentee/Sick Leave Policy E. Leadership and vision/rp. LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT EPS CODE: 06H APPROVAL OF BUDGET The published budget shall be reviewed and adjusted as necessary and presented for Board adoption as a working budget at the regular July meeting of the fiscal year for which it was prepared. Following Board approval, this budget shall be presented in prescribed form to the State Department of Education. Expenditures requiring a budget transfer in excess of $25,000 shall be approved by the Board. Revised: 2/25/93 16.I I LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT EPS CODE: DBH APPROVAL OF BUDGET The published budget shall be reviewed and adjusted as necessary and presented for Board adoption as a working budget at the regular July meeting of the fiscal year for which it was prepared. Following Board approval, this budget shall be presented in prescribed form to the State Department of Education. Expenditures requiring a budget transfer in excess of $25,000 shall be approved by the Board. Revised: 2/25/93 16.I I I LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT EPS CODE: DBH APPROVAL OF BUDGET The published budget shall be reviewed and adjusted as necessary and presented for Board adoption as a working budget at the regular July meeting of the fiscal year for which it was prepared. Following Board approval, this budget shall be presented in prescribed foirm to the State Department of Education. Expenditures requiring a budget transfer in excess of $25,000 shall be approved by the Board. Revised: 2/25/93 16.Bill HoaNey MEMORANDUM To: From\nSubject\nDate: Board of Directors Mac Bernd 1993-94 Budget Development Process April 22, 1993 j The purpose of this memorandum is to discuss the 1993-94 budget process in terms of the major steps that have been taken and will be taken so that our estimated 1993-94 deficit of 7.5 million dollars can be eliminated and a balanced budget can be submitted to the State of Arkansas. 1. The first step in the budget process was to hold community forums, to listen to the aspirations and concerns of our constituents. These forums were held in the fall of 1992L The main issues that surfaced from the forums were as follows: a. School safety and security b. Academic achievement c. Implementation of the Desegregation Plan d. Control of our own destiny both legally and fiscally. 2. After the Community Forums were completed, a Citizens Budget Committee began meetingJ These meetings began before the winter holiday and ended in April with a series of recommendations for the District to consider in light of near and long term budgetary concerns. The recommendations of the Budget Committee are attached to this memorandum. Recommendations that were used in the Financial Forecast are designated with an asterisk (*) in the Citizens Report. 3. As the Qitizens Budget Committee continued its work, a corresponding process involving the Superintendent's cabinet and other administrators was undertaken for the purpose of developing a budget that was balanced and reflective of the priorities identified in the desegregation plan and by the community. This group took the priorities of the Citizen's group into account during the process, but many of the Citizen's Committee recommendations are long term and will be considered for future years. 4. The steps outlined above have resulted in the Financial Forecasttthat we are outlining this evening. This forecast is presented to get direction from the Board so that personnel reductions can be accomplished before the May 1, 1993 statutory deadline. We are asking for a special meeting on April 28, so that the Board can take final action on the personnel reductions outlined in the Financial Forecast. A5. The next step in the process will be the development of the detailed Tentative Budget J^This document will be furnished to the Board on April 28th. As this is a detailed document which is quite comprehensive, we are not requesting action on it until the regularly scheduled meeting in May. The Tentative Budget will contain our most accurate estimates of revenues and expenditures in a detailed fashion. This is the budget that will be presented to the Federal Court for approval. It will not be the Final Budget because the complete picture of revenues and state funding will not be known in May. 6. The last step in the 1993-94 Budget process will be the development of the Final Adopted^ Budget which will be submitted to the Board of Directors in the July meeting. This is the Budget that will developed after the Federal Court has acted on the Tentative Budget After this Final Budget is acted upon by the Board, it will be submitted to the State of Arkansas for approval.DEFICIT REDUCTION PLAN FOR THE 1993 - 1994 SCHOOL YEARDEFICIT REDUCTION PLAN I. n. ADDITIONAL BUDGET EXPENDITURES REINSTATEMENT OF PROGRAMS m. REVENUE/EXPENSE FORECAST IV. BUDGET REDUCTION CRITERIA BUDGET RECOMMENDATIONS VI. POSITION REDUCTIONS1. ADDITIONAL BUDGET EXPENDITURE * 4 ASSISTANT PRINCIPALS AT INCENTIVE SCHOOLS $ 160,000 * 4 FULL-TIME SOCIAL WORKERS AT INCENTIVE SCHOOLS 132,000 * 1 SPANISH TEACHER 33,000 * POLICE RESOURCE OFFICER AT EACH SECONDARY SCHOOL (50% CITY 50% DISTRICT) 203,000 * KING STAFF - EXTENDED CONTRACTS ABACUS AND MISCELLANEOUS 350,000 * 1 SECRETARY FOR DESEGREGATION 21,500 TOTALn. REINSTATEMENT OF PROGRAMS PROGRAMS ESTIMATES * GIFTED \u0026amp; TALENTED 242,000 * COUNSELING 260,000 $ * MUSIC TEACHERS 551,000 * IRC AIDES 38,500 * COMMUNITY SCHOOLS 100,000 * PARENT RECRUITING 75,000 * SEVENTH PERIOD AT HENDERSON 303,000 TOTAL $ 1\n569,5O{1 m. REVENUE! EXPENSE FORECASTLittle Rock School District Revenue/Expense Trends $120  it $100 -  $80- -rn- c Q. K UI  $80 - c (X $40 - $20 -  b i $0 88-88 I 89-00 I 00-91 81-82 92-83 93-84 T n School Years Total Expenses Revenue Settlement Loan Settlement Payments Ail Dollar Amounts aro stated In Millions of DollarsLITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 1991-94 REVENUE AND EXPENDITURE PROJECTION (DRAFT 1) 04-22-93 ACTUAL 1990-91 ACTUAL 1991-92 BUDGET 1992-93 PROPOSED 1993-94 REVENUE - LOCAL SOURCES CURRENT TAXES 40% PULLBACK DELINQUENT TAXES EXCESS TREASURERS FEES DEPOSITORY INTEREST REVENUE IN LIEU OF TAXES MISC. AND RENTS INTEREST ON INVESTMENTS ATHLETIC RECEIPTS 31,899,357 20,601,593 3,214,974 118,998 317,646 120,412 317,978 141,376 91,322 38,196,979 21,081,833 4,250,186 140,858 241,476 224,667 406,878 354,446 100,857 39,088,120 21,694,576 4,250,186 140,000 300,000 224,667 461,000 300,000 100,857 41,027,982 21,420,949 4,277,692 145,690 303,000 245,162 484,050 340,000 102,874 TOTAL 56,823,656 64,998,180 66,559,406 68,347,399 REVENUE- COUNTY SOURCES COUNTY GENERAL SEVERANCE TAX 73,971 16,232 73,419 15,350 73,419 11,000 73,419 15,000 TOTAL 90,203 88,769 84,419 88,419 REVENUE - STATE SOURCES MFPA SETTLEMENT PROCEEDS SETTLEMENT LOAN APPORTIONMENT VOCATIONAL HANDICAPPED CHILDREN EARLY CHILDHOOD ORPHAN CHILDREN TRANSPORTATION COMPENSATORY EDUCATION M TO M TRANSFERS ADULT EDUCATION 22,037.764 10,356.778 6,000.000 73.971 1.265.710 602.063 0 8.820 2,885.960 609.943 1,007.481 624.119 27.264.460 8.637.482 4.500.000 73.426 1,513.699 824.870 147.050 3.000 2.379,879 858,743 1.770,486 697,589 27,042,713 8,926,606 1,500,000 73,419 1,341,887 821,449 229.403 3,000 2,692,563 548,034 2,490,900 697,589 27,142,713 8,094,112 0 1,341,887 1,210,000 240,873 3,000 2.700,000 575.436 2.883.425 768.715 TOTAL 45,472,609 48,670,684 46,367,563 44,960,160 REVENUE- OTHER SOURCES PUBLIC LAW 874 TRANSFER FROM FED GRANT TRANSFER FROM BOND ACCT 28,585 95,588 613,166 9,385 129,428 394,675 40,000 262,000 600,000 30,000  250,000  400,000  TOTAL 737,339 533,488 902,000 680,000 TOTAL REVENUE OPERATlNfl 103,123,807 114,291,121 113,913,388 114,075,978\u0026lt; LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 1991-94 REVENUE AND EXPENDITURE PROJECTION (DRAFT 1) 04-22-93 ACTUAL 1990-91 ACTUAL 1991-92 BUDGET 1992-93 PROPOSED 1993-94 REVENUE-FEDERAL GRANTS CHAPTER I CHAPTER II TITLE VI B OTHER 2,886,618 227,900 468,964 1,735,885 3,275,099 224,423 558,810 1,164,511 4,288,755 215,020 589,011 1,253,733 4,288,755 215,020 589,011 1,253,733 TOTAL 5,319,367 5,222,843 6,346,519 6,346,519 REVENUE-MAGNET SCHOOLS STATE/LOCAL 12,571,785 13,887,841 14,278,796 14,707,160 TOTAL 12,571,785 13,887,841 14,278,796 14,707,160 TOTAL REVENUE 121,014,959 133,401,805 134,538,703 135,129,6571 EXPENSES SALARIES BENEFITS DESEGREGATION SERVICES,SUPP,EQUIP DEBT SERVICE CONTINGENCY 56,996,869 7,312,664 14,598,558 17,053,677 6,646,769 0 65,368,035 8,020,788 15,997,240 15,267,935 7,950,100 0 65,063,011 9,162,732 17,013,029 14,536,674 9,597,115 500,000 67,930,687 9,454,597 . , 19,279,615 15,436,968 8,870,123 1,000,000 TOTAL OPERATING EXPENSE 102,608,537 112,604,098 115,872,561 121,971,991? EXPENSES-FEDERAL GRANT 5,319,367 5,222,843 6,346,519 6,346,519 EXPENSES-MAGNET SCHOOL 12,571,785 13,887,841 14,278,796 14,707,160 TOTAL EXPENSES) 120,499,689 131,714,782 136,497,876 143,025,670? INCREASE (DECREASE) IN FUND BALANCE 515,270 1,687,023 (1,959,173) (7,896,013) BEGINNING FUND BALANCE 119,574 634,844 2,321,867 362,694 ENDING FUND BALANCE 634,844 2,321,867 362,694 (7,533,319) 1rV. BUDGET REDUCTION CRITERIA A. COMPLIANCE WITH DESEGREGATION PLAN B. MINIMIZE IMPACT TO PROGRAMS C. STREAMLINE ORGANIZATIONAL PYRAMIDV. BUDGET RECOMMENDATIONS 1. USE DESEGREGATION LOAN $ 3,000,000 2. TRANSFER FUNDS FROM FOOD SERVICE 500,000 3. TRANSFER FUNDS FROM INSURANCE FUND 500,000 4. DEVELOP THE OPERATING BUDGET 1,000,000 '7 5. IMPLEMENT CAFETERIA HEALTH CARE PLAN 311,000 6. REFINANCE LEASE-PURCHASE AGREEMENTS 400,000 7. MISCELLANEOUS 325,000 8. POSITION REDUCTIONS 1.500.000 TOTALS ^36? VL POSITION REDUCTIONS GROUPS FTES ADMINISTRATIVE/MANAGERS 8.5 SECRETARIAL 7.0 CLERICAL 4.0 COMPUTER AIDES 50.0 MEDIA/LIBRARY CLERKS .STAi. 33 ___ * % SKILLED TRADE 4.0 MATH TEACHERS TOTAL 81.5 LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT CITIZENS BUDGET COMMITTEE Subcommittee Reports March 31,1993 Item Page Staff Appreciation 1 Legend 1 I. Academic Achievement 2 II. Desegregation 3 III. Non-Academic 6 IV. Physical Plant 10 V. Revenue 11 VI. Staffing 12 VII. Transportation 14 VIII. Safety and Discipline 15STAFF APPRECIATION The Citizens Budget Committee is extremely appreciative of the efforts of District employees who furnished information and assisted in the the committee's report. Without the employees cooperation, support, and willingness to be candid, the Committee could not have completed Its work. We owe all employees of the District a warm thank you for their assistance. LEGEND * Indicates that the recommendation was taken Into consideration in the 1993-94 budget / 1I. ACADEMIC ACHIEVEMENT The following are recommendations to help reduce the budget but still maintain an emphasis on academic achievement for all students. A. B. c. A concerted effort needs to be made to determine the success of the academic programs that exist at the present time. To accomplish this goal, we suggest that: (1) the school f district arxJ our committee determine the criteria needed to deem a program successful/unsuccessful and (2) teachers and principals throughout the district fill out an anonymous questionnaire that focuses on what programs they want to keep and/or implement Rationale: We feel that the success of our schools is, in large measure, dependent on those who are responsible for the delivery of services. Thus we need to help teachers and principals to become empowered individuals by asking them to be a part of the solution rather than part of the problem. We want the teachers and principals of the district to become active participants in solving the problems that face the district and one way to do this is by seeking their input concerning program services. Classes that have less than 15 students need to be canceled or if there are several students at more than one school who want to enroll in a particular class (e.g. German V), then those students need to take the course at one school. This will cost the district the travel expense for transfering and/or transporting students from school to school.  Rationale: We feel that offering courses that reach only a few students is not cost effective. By consolidating, we hope that the district can still offer most, if not all, of its courses. Some portion of the money that has been allocated for narrowing the gap between black and white achievement levels needs to be used for programs that foster professional development of teachers and academic progress for all students. Rationale: The district has been given money to narrow the gap and that is what it needs to be used for. We realize that more money does not necessarily mean achievement levels will automatically rise. However, we do see the need to invest in our teachers because without quality teachers we wSI not have quality students. / 2II. DESEGREGATION What is the District vision/mission statement? Our perception\nThe Little Rock School District must embrace the Desegregation plan wholeheartedly, provide the best education possible for each child in the district, encourage total parental involvement, value teacher input and be responsive to the community as a whole. In order to do this: the Superintendent must communicate to all levels of the employee population clear expectations for implementing the Desegregation Plan with reinforcement permeating to all segments of the District Each employee should be able to articulate the components which impact them. In addition, each employee should be held accountable for their particular area of expertise. Recommendations for 1993-94 budget reductions: A. Eliminate ail staff which reports to the Associate Superintendent for Organization and Learning Equity and move a support staff person from Planning, Research arxl Evaluation to serve as Administrative Assistant. B. Reduce staff in Planning, Research arxJ Evaluation by two staff persons by not filling current vacancies. C. Evaluate the 4-y6ar old program to determine rate of white retention and petition the court before future expansions. D. Lobby for LRSD to become Lead Agency for Head Start. E. Student Assignment Office Coordinator must be able to recognize problem areas of racial imbalance during the student assignment process, articulate to parents components of plan compliance, and correct. We noted several examples of assignments not in compliance. Review procedures as outlined in Plan arxJ require personnel to comply. Disparity in treatment because of race and economics was apparent during our visits. Attitudes arid awareness level of treatment must be reviewed with each staffing office. F. Review new school construction to determine school closings which would feed students Into new interdistrict magnets and reduce double funded incentive schools.  Martin Luther King (692) impact: Ish (187), Mitcheil (264), Rightsell (249)  Stephens impact: Stephens (209), Garland (256), Fair Park (243)  Determine facflity utilizations G. Combine ALL recruitment functions/eliminate one position through better utilization.  Teacher recruitment  Parent recruiting  VIPS recruitment  Private school recruitment 3Desegregation (continued) _H. Review Data Processing for effectiveness and flexibility, multiple usage and access for District users.  ABACUS: including existing training program implemented by Staff Development Office 1. J.  SIMS  WP  Use before and after normal school hours for teachers, PTSA, students  Review total computer operations for safety and computer security procedures, particularly reviewing system glitches, including: computer capacities \u0026lt; user help/assistance customer help line 4 simplify present data input and document preparation  Develop a starxiardized SYSTEM MANUAL for user on-site help.  In-house trouble shooter to handle day-to-day access and response.  Review cunent telephone operation for computer interface, call routing and data transmission efficiencies.  Develop systemwide searches by subject name to be used in data capturing. Review staffing levels at all schools to determine optimum level of student/pupil operations.  Bring class sizes Into line with state/district standards.  Review teacher class loads (example: teacher teaching at least 4 of 6 periods at high school level).  Rnal decisions on courses being offered should be made by final registration. Review Staff Development operations including better utilization of current district personnel with planned future elimination.  Perform more functions al principal/school level.  Curriculum Coordinators could function as resource for staff development.  Biminate teacher stipend for training (negotiation) utilize days and time already paid for through present contracts. 4 Desegregation (continued) K. Combine department heads and eliminate one position.  What are the positions?  Are persons in these positions functioning effecliveiy? L Add Grantwrfter reporting to Superintendent. M.  Salary must come as a result of grants submitted. This means that this position must pay for Itself plus generate new dollars for the District Eliminate KLRE/KUAR affiliation unless or untB it becomes an educational component of the District N. One-time incentive for early retirements (example: $3000 for 27 yrs, etc. - PN Agreement). 0. Planning Research and Evaluation now produces reports and recommendations which are not being utilized and Implemented. R^efine Planning, Research, and Evaluation impact In order that findings are implemented. P. Develop a coordinated nxinitoring efforts which wfli minimize disruptions in classroom.  Biracial Committee  Parent Advisory Committee  Include written summary of events, observations, eliminate in-room teacher/student confrontations. Q. Review Gifted and Talented Program for maximum pupil/teacher exposure. \u0026amp;  Restore time to 150 minutes per student.  Restore to prior budget levels.  Concentrate program implementation above 3rd grade level\nfocus on basic skills prior to 3rd grade.  Increase teacher requirements to Master's level: 3 year limit on acquisition. Committee Conclusions A. Monitoring is not our adversary, each individual in the District should be able to participate in the monitoring function because the Plan should be a part of day-to-day operations of every entity in the District B. WE BEUEVE THAT THE JUDGE HAS GIVEN DIRECTIVES ON ALL ASPECTS OF THE PLAN: THEREFORE. REVIEW ALL GOALS AND OBJECTIVE FOR EFFECTIVENESS AND IMPLEMENTATION - REPORT BACK TO DISTRICT BY APRIL 1, 1993 AND GIVE STATUS OF ALL PROGRAMS DESCRIBED IN PLAN. MAKE CONCRETE RECOMMENDATIONS FOR CHANGE OR IMMEDIATE IMPLEMENTATION OR EUMINATION BY MAY 1. 1993. 5III. NONACADEMIC A. STATEMENT OF UNDERSTANDING It is the understanding of this cluster that the Little Rock District School Board and the administration have previously cut $7.6 million from the current budget and are at an Impasse as to finding further areas of budget reductions. Also, the duster understands that a reduction of $5.6 million is needed to balance the budget for the 1993-94 budget year, unless the court reinstates the $7.6 million in budget reductions then the deficit would increase to $13.2 million. B. PURPOSE This cluster was formed as a subcommittee to evaluate the non-academic areas falling within the Little Rock School District budget The cluster's evaluation was to seek recommendations for helping to achieve an overall budget reduction for the district C. APPROACH Definition of Subject Area One of the early on determinations centered around defining what constituted nonacademic activities. The duster decided that any area that did not require teacher certification should be considered non-academic. Applying that criteria, the following areas were asked to provide someone to present a brief overview of where the area fit into the operations of the school district: * SCHOOL FOOD SERVICES - Ms. Jackie Boykin - PLANT SERVICES - Mr. Doug Eaton \u0026lt; INFORMATION SERVICES - Mr. Bob Connolly * PURCHASING - Mr. Charles Neal - HUMAN RESOURCES - Ms. Rita White  VOLUNTEERS IN PUBUC SCHOOLS - Ms. Debbie Milam \u0026lt; KLRE/KUAR - Ms. Regina Dean  FINANCIAL SERVICES - Mr. Mark Milhollen - NEW FUTURES - Ms. Unda Young  ATHLETICS - Ms. Ouida Carter X COMMUNICATIONS - Ms. Dianne Woodruff There are other areas we did not interview even though they satisfied the above criteria. These areas fell under the purview of another duster and we made every effort to avoid duplication of request being made to the district staff. These areas are as follows: - PLANNING, RESEARCH \u0026amp; EVALUATION - The duster on academics and student achievement. - CURRICULUM. STAFF DEVELOPMENT, INSTRUCTIONAL RESOURCE CENTER - The duster on academics and student achievement. 6Nonacademic (continued) - STUDENT ASSIGNMENT. C.A.R.E.. DESEGREGATION/EQUITY. PARENT RECRUITERS - The cluster on courts/desegregation. \u0026lt; HEARING OFFICE - The cluster on safety and discipline. \u0026lt; TRANSPORTATION - The cluster on transportation. D. GENERAL RNDINGS Achieving the desired results will mandate some difficult and unpopular decisions. The obvious spending cuts have been addressed in previous budget reductions. This cluster feels strongly that not only are spending cuts necessary, but an overall evaluation of the district from an operations audit prospective is critical to any long term productivity gains. A restructure of the district to achieve efficiency, cost savings. Job consolidation of duties and resources, and redistribution at duties and responsibilities is essential. The need to flatten the organization chart and eliminate the multiple layers of management are superb examples of this necessary restructure. If the district does not restructure and eliminate unproductive spending, the budget crisis will be ongoing. A cursory review indicated the need for an overall salary evaluation of negotiated salaries. It appears that the district is burdened with relatively high administrative salaries considering the local administrative and executive salary market. It is recommended that an immediate salary freeze be implemented until the budget crisis has been addressed in a manner that will allow for salary increases as a structured item in a balanced budget. It is further recommended that a hiring freeze be placed on replacement of nonacademic personnel until the positions are included In a balanced budget. All car allowances shoiJd be eliminated Immediately and business mileage should be reimbursed at 28 cents per mile with adequate documentation. The board should consider proposing an early out and/or a voluntary severance program to reduce nonacademic labor cost An across the board cut of five percent in each area over and above the following specific recommendations is proposed. E. SPECIFIC RECOMMENDATIONS The following areas were reviewed and the cluster offers the following specific recommendations for consideration. Implementation of the specific recommendations does not eliminate the need for application of the general recommendations to these areas. School Food Services This program Is totally self funded and operates without cost to the district. It is recommended that this area be left status quo. 7Nonacademic (continued) Plant Services This area was found to be a major area needing further evaluation and significant restructure and consolidation. Consolidation of the procurement and distribution of all janitorial supplies with the purchasing department is recommended.  Contracting as many functions as possible will eliminate the need for staff and the associated benefit cost. Areas of consideration include, but are not limited to, the plumbing crew, grounds crew, carpenter crew, and electrical crew. Use of students for routine upkeep and any other conceivable areas is encouraged. This would be less costly to the district, provide needed employment for students, provide a learning experience and also give students a sense of pride. - All vacated properties should be sold to supply income and reduce cost as well as staffing necessary to maintain these properties. Information Services Due to the limited time for review and lack of technical expertise, the cluster does not wish to make recommendations In this area. Purchasing Automation and staff reductions are the key recommendations in this area. The organization chart for purchasing is similar to that of a major corporation. All the accounting functions currently residing in the purchasing department should be immediately transferred to the district accounting office. No new positions should be filled in this area and elimination of a minimum of two positions through consolidation and automation is proposed. Human Resources Immediate consolidation for a staffing reduction of two clerical positions is recommended. It appears automation may be critical to reach the efficiency required with fewer personnel. Volunteers in Public Schools The five percent reduction as recommended in the general recommendations is proposed for this area. No further recommendations are made for this area except a comprehensive operations review be corxfucted as soon as practical. KLRE/KUAR Termination of the agreement between UALR and the district and discontinuing the district's involvement with the radio station is recommended. The costs associated with terminating the agreement are recognized, but felt to be justified because of present and future cost savings. \u0026amp; 8 Nonacademic (continued) Financial Services Time restraints precluded a review of staffing requirements in financial services. Upon the completion of the conversion of computer systems, a complete operations analysis Is strongly urged. New Futures The $400,000 cost of this program to the district generates approximately $2 million of funding from outside sources. Therefore, discontinuing the program is not recommended. Athletics This area is perceived to be one of the most community sensitive and costly areas to the district. The duster is cautious In specific recommendations in this area, but is quite definite in conveying the position that continued funding and enhancement, as has been the historic pattern, wBI have a decidedly detrimental impact on the ability of the district to fulfill its primary function education. After much deliberation, the cluster suggest that the athletic department be given the opportunity to present an athletic offering that is cost effective and equitable yet accomplishes a minimum of a five percent budget reduction. The committee would offer the following for consideration: \u0026lt; Consolidation of teams between schools eliminating the duplicate staffing and facilities requirements.  Elimination of any new athletic programs.  Elimination of programs that are not self funding and that do not achieve a minimum participation level. Communicatioi A comprehensive restructure based on the proposals of Ms. Woodruff is supported. The communications department should concentrate on external communications and the burden of internal communications should be placed on the Human Resources Area. It is highly recommended that restructuring be used to improve productivity as opposed to replacing Ms. Woodruff as department head. F. EVALUATION Time constraints and higher priority demands placed on data processing have precluded assessment of dollar values on specific recommendations. / 9 IV. PHYSICAL PLANT A. Mission To review the facilities and physical plant budget of the Little Rock School District to determine possible cost savings. B. Observations  Staff has made good progress In the use of technology to manage utility costs.  Some older facilities, because of general physical decline, or inefficient size, have outlived their educational value.  With the opening of the Martin Luther King school, the Little Rock School District has a \"window of opportunity\" to maximize use of a modem facSity and attract students. C. Recommendations  Continue to Tine tune\" utility management.  Promote Martin Luther King to the county In such a way that 100% enrollment Is attained. This will not only ensure the most efficient use of this facility, but will also provide a platform, or \"laboratory\" for some \"flexibility* in the management of the Little Rock School District.  Close and liquidate the current Instructional Resource Center building. 0  Close Ish and Garland schools. This is an extremely emotional issue. However, the committee feels strongly that these students will be better served from at least two positions: 1) if the Martin Luther King school is properly promoted to the county, the students moved from Ish and Garlarxl will be in a Desegregated School and 2) they will also benefit from the added self-esteem of attending school in a modem facility. This recommendation may reduce District costs by approximately $1.38 million. The Marketing of this is absolutely critical.  Any property which has become obsolete and for which there Is no foreseeable future use should be liquidated for operating cash where possible. In the case of Ish and GarlarxJ, which have tremendous community value, these properties should be offered to the community for some alternative use. If appropriate organizations do not step forward in a reasonable time, then perhaps the best plan would be to transfer the properties to the Little Rock Parks for the purpose of razing the buildings and creating parks. 10 V. REVENUE A. Mission Target long-term strategic planning Initiatives for the district with the primary goal of increased student enrollment In the district which will enhance revenue. B. Strategic Planning  The LitUo Rock School District should obtain the services of an expert in strategic planning for public schools in order to help facBitate a strategic planning process with the school board and District administration. Orre of the most strategic tasks ahead for the district is to stop the out migration of students. Within the past four years, there have been approximately 1.000 students who have left the District This out-migration must cease in order for the District to remain viable.  Strategies also will need to be developed In order to attract some of the 11.000 students who attend private schools in the district C. Little Rock Public Education Fund  One of the objectives of the strategic plan should be the recruitment of school officials and community leaders to form a Little Rock Public Education Fund. This independent group would focus on the long-term economic development of the district It would bring the Districts needs to the business, civic and philanthropic communities for a collaborative effort This approach has been successful in other public schools across the country.  The education furxl would also be charged with seeking federal, state and local education grants\nprivate foundation grants: and gifts from local, state and national industries. It would oversee the equitable distribution at these funds.  The education fund would Institutionalize the best programs and the best schools, making them the norm for the entire district D. Review Physical Plants  Determine disposable physical assets within the district and arrange for their disposal through the use of a local real estate agent who would aggressively market the property.  Determine underused assets and develop a strategy in order to rent these assets to the general public. A property manager should be able to rent empty buildings, kitchens, buses, theaters, auditoriums, shops and garages on weekends and during the summers. 11 VI. STAFFING A. Mission To review ways the LRSD can reduce staffing costs without consequential or adverse educational impact. B. Short term \"band-aids' (appropriate for the coming budget year)  Evaluate dosing small schools that are not cost effective. Review consolidation possibilities.  Review need for new schools and their subsequent staffing requirement  Review the value of all noncertified positions. Determine and make staff cuts wherever arxl whenever a vital function is not realized or will not be significantly impacted. Administration \u0026lt; Duplicity of function in different departments? \u0026lt; Absolute staffing requirement within each department for a vital function to be maintained? \u0026lt; Can some functions be more cost-effectively performed via contracts with the private sector? \u0026lt; Emphasize site-based management. Academic \u0026lt; Review the need for Instructional Aides. 0  Review the need for certified personnel in areas where lower cost non-certlfied personnel might suffice. I.e. study halls.  Review potential reductions in paid leave-of-absence policy. Little Rock School District personnel have reinstatement rights for two years. In the meantime, other personnel must be hired arxJ trained to fill the position of the absentee. Can the leave-of-absence policy be reduced without negative impact on education?  Adjust per-pupil ratio to North Central/State standards. How many classes are being / funded without a significant pupil count?  Offer an incentive for early retirement. Replace only the vital personnel and then at reduced salary levels.  Review value and impact of each position as natural employee attrition occurs. . (!)  Review sick leave policy. Are we encouraging absenteeism? Little Rock School District absenteeism runs as high as 15% while national average is approximately 6.5%.  Review substitute teacher pay. Could under-utilized teachers be used as substitutes? 12 Staffing (continued) C. Long-term solutions for a proper and healthy staffing environment. From the ground up...  Contract professional services to research from the ground-up ways to eliminate duplicity of function and streamline the total management structure.  Evaluation of the many and various programs to determine if they are delivering the original and desired impact of an equal high quality education. \u0026lt; Conduct focus groups of all personnel to determine ways the Little Rock School District can function more smoothly and efficiently. 13 VI. TRANSPORTATION Objective: Identify immediate and long term solutions to reduce the total operating cost. A. With the use of the present automated routed system, reduce the number of 65-passenger bus runs by five (5). Because of the increased routing efficiency, the following minimum savings can be realized: 5 driver positions Tire savings Fuel savings $50,000 9,000 14.000 B. C. D. E. F. Total Minimum Savings $73,000 With proDerlv administered driver training, and the use of Tach Sheets or Tattle-Tail\" sheets, which would be keyed Into a new \"Fuel Processing Transaction\" program, using existing personnel, (based on the estimated 92-93 projected fuel cost), a substantial fuel savings will be realized. Fuel savings cost Computer program cost Cost Savings $48,000 (20.000) $28,000 Review and revise hiring practices\nto include listing job availabilities with the Arkansas Employment Security Division and local colleges. Progressive ideas should be aggressively implemented to reduce the 20-30% driver turnover rate and absenteeism. Cost Savings $100,000 Cut the number of full time subs (drivers) from 24 to 14 by natural attrition. Cost Savings $100,000 Reduce the number of aides from 35 to 30 by natural attrition. Cost Savings $50,000 Begin a 5-year change-out period from bias to radial tires, which will decrease the fuel cost each year by approximately 4% and increase safety and longevity. Cost Savings (each year) $27,000 G. Purchase a minimum of 20 diesel buses per year (retiring 20 unleaded buses per year). Cost Savings of 50% fuel efficiency increase per bus minimum. 14VII. SAFETY AND DISCIPUNE The following are recommendations to help reduce the budget but still maintain an emphasis on academic achievement for all students. A. Present Budget $140,000 - Sonitrol 50.000 - Running office-drug dog, auto expense, off-duty police, drug testing of $190,000 employees, hand held safety alarm systems, etc. B. Present Staff Director 3 Supervisors (1 night building security - answers all fire arxf intrusion alarms) Secretary C. Proposed Cuts * Drug Dog - $3,500 * Drug Testing - cut $5,000 (less frequency of tests and decrease number of substances tested) D. Recommended Cut Combine job of Director of Safety and Security and Risk Manager position into one job which would eliminate the Risk Managers salary of approximately $40,000 including benefits. E. Other Recommendations * Budget for 14 additional school resource officers. * We strongly recommend that we continue to pursue collaborative efforts to expand and improve safety and discipline in LRSD through grants and other resources (a committee member has agreed to assist with this). * Violence prevention curriculum should be developed at the elementary school level to prepare students for their transition to junior high school. 15AREA AFFECTED Curriculum 'S Transportation - Plant Services - Food Services Associate Superintendent School Operations IRC Personnel Communications - LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 810 WEST MARKHAM STREET LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS 72201 PERSONNEL BUDGET REDUCTIONS explanation NO. OF POSITIONS Through secretarial pooling, we can eliminate four (4 positions. will be re-allocated and remaining duties will be absorbed by remaining staff members and coordinator for incentive schools. Contract driver training services with the possibility of our insurance company doing it. Eliminate one clerical position and assign the duties to shop foreman, mechanics. and secretaries. EPA Coordinator duties will be handled by Reduce custodial supervisory staff by two. Principals will assume supervision of Doug Eaton. custodians. Construction management will be subcontracted and made a part of the project bid. Eliminate one secretary and assign duties to the remaining secretary. Eliminate one data entry person. aximinate one data entry person. Duties will be reassigned to remaining personnel. Eliminate one administrative secretarial position, r  .- - Duties will be assigned to remaining pool. Eliminate one position in instructional technology. Reassign duties to remaining staff. Eliminate recruiting coordinator position. Teachers of Tomorrow Program will be coordinated by the Curriculum Division. Reassign some aspects of position control to the Financial Services Department, secretarial position. Eliminate one Eliminate the Communications Assistant Restructure some of the office duties. Sub-contract production of materials. position. Some 4 3 3 5 1 1 1 2external information and PR requests will be channeled directly to schools. 1 Gibbs Assistant Principal Assistant Principal position will be reduced to .5 FTE. MRC concurs. 1/2 Media Clerks The revised curriculum contains resource guides which identify materials needed to support the teaching of the curriculum. These guides were not available when media clerks were scheduled as full time employees. Reduce media clerks to 5 hours per day  benefits stay intact. 33% Computer Lab Attendants Restructure so academic support and regular teachers use labs for computer assisted instruction. Develop a team of 10 people who will act as technology support people to work out of IRC. Develop inservice for teachers to effectively use labs. 50 Plant Services Skilled Trade Eliminate 3 positions. Existing duties to be reassigned to other departments. 3 Primary Remedial Math Teachers Eliminate pull-outs for math in grades 1-3. Reassign 8 teachers. 8Little Rock School District NEWS RELEASE May 21,1993 For more informatiorL: Jeanette Wagner, 324-2020 LRSD BOARD OF DIRECTORS mi] IILES BUDGET WORK SESSION The Little Rock School District Board of Directors has schedule 1 a bj^get work session Saturday, May 22, at 7 aan. The session will be held m the board room at the LRSD AdministTative Offices BIO West Markham Street. tr-mr ftlAOffice of Desegregation Monitoring Unrted Statss District Court  Eastern District of Arkansas Ann S. Brown, Federal Monitor 201 East Markham, Suite 510 Heritage West Building Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 (S01) 376-6200 Fax (501) 371 -0100 June 7, 1993 Gary Jones, Mgr of Resources and School Support Little Rock School District 810 West Markham Little Rock, AR 72201 Dear Gary: Attached are Budget Document Suggestions that I hope you will find useful. Sincerely, ^\u0026lt;4- Bob Morgan Associate Monitor cc: Bill Mooney Mark MilhollenBudget Document Suggestions Executive Summary: Should include the reductions, add backs and reinstatements. Budget Summary: Projections should be extended to 1998-1999. That is a five year projection. The expense category for desegregation should be eliminated and the expense amounts should be allocated to salaries and supplies. Object Code Summary: Include actual 1992-1993 expenditures by object code. Add a column for FTE. Function Code Summary: Review and include additional function codes (programs). Include actual 1992- 1993 expenditures by function code. Add a column for FTE. Program Budget: Report by function and object only. Further breakdown by school can be provided in the department budget. Include actual 1992-1993 expenditures. Add a column for FTE. Department Budget: The department budget should be in the order: department, function and object. Include actual 1992-1993 expenditures. Add a column for FTE. Incentive School Budget: Eliminate this section Magnet School: Include the 1992-1993 Magnet Review Committee budget. In the format of the department budget project the 1993-94 budget for each magnet school. Add a cover page showing revenues from the state and the three school districts. Food Service\nThe food service budget shows a transfer to the operating budget of $5(X),000 which is justified for e recapture of overhead expense from prior years. Should not the budget also reflect a budget year overhead expense amount? Capitol Projects: The computation of the capital amounts being spent is left to the reader. Include an additional column to show the planned expenditure. Desegregation Budget: Eliminate the total break on object code to reduce the size of the section. Include an explanation of each item and show how to follow the item back to the department budget.LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 810 WEST MARKHAM STREET LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS 72201 RSCEJV Office ci Dssegrecatien McnUcring JuN 5 1993 June 24, 1993 TO: Board of Directors FROM: C. M. Bernd, Superintendent of Schools SUBJECT: ADMINISTRATOR PAY Now that the Board and virtually all other employee groups have agreed on contracts for the 1993-94 school year, it is necessary for the Board to administrators. make decisions concerning the District's In my opinion, the District must address the issue of recruiting and retaining talented managers. To that end, I suggesting that compensation for the positions of Associate Superintendent and Manager of Resources and School Support be set at $68,000 for the 1993-94 fiscal year. I am also suggesting that compensation for the positions of Assistant Superintendent, Controller, Student Hearing Officer, and Desegregation Facilitator be set at $61,000 for the 1993-94 fiscal year. Further, I am advocating a 1.5% base salary increase for all 12- month administrators except those listed above. In addition, I suggest that all 12-month administrators be placed on a 250 day contract with paid vacation days credited according to years of experience as an administrator in the Little Rock School District and Pulaski County Special School District at the time of the merger in 1987 as follows\ndays\n15+ years, 25 days. 0-7 years, 15 days\n8-14 years, 20 For all administrators whose contracts are less than 12-months, I suggest a 3% base salary increase. Finally, accumulate contract. am sick advocating that administrators be allowed to leave up to the length of the If a contract is reduced. individual's the accumulated sick leave cannot be greater than the length of the current contract. I It is my recommendation, following: therefore. that the Board adopt the A $68,000 annual salary for the positions of Associate Superintendent and Manager of Resources Support for FY 1993-94\nand SchoolA $61,000 annual salary for the positions of Assistant Superintendent, Controller, Student Hearing Officer, and Desegregation Facilitator. 1.5% base salary increase administrators for FY 1993-94\nfor all 12-month A A 250 day contract for all 12-month administrators with paid vacation days based on experience in LRSD and PCSSD of 15 days for 0-7 years of service\n20 days for 8-14 years of service\nand 25 days for 15 or more years of service\nA 3% base salary increase for all administrators on a less than 12-month contract\nand The ability for administrators to accumulate sick leave up to the length of the individual's contract.Little Rock School District June 28, 1993 RECEIVED JUN 2 8 1993 Mr. Chris Heller Friday, Eldredge and Clark 2000 First Commercial Building Offica of Desegregation Monitoring Little Rock, AR 72201 Dear Chris: As a prerequisite to the July 7 and 8 court hearings to review budget matters, I submit the following exhibits as required by Judge Wright's order dated June 15, 1993: 1-A Budget Changes Supported by \"Business Cases\" 1-B Major Deficit Reduction Actions 1-C 1993-94 Certified Teacher Salary Increases Matrix 1-D Budget Revision (Draft 4) 1-E Action Plan Based upon my interpretation of the order, the attached exhibits should complete our required filings for the June 28, 1993 court submission date. Sincerely, Mark D. Milhollen Controller MDM/cfh Attachments I I 810 West Markham Street  Little Rock, Arkansas 72201  (501)374-3361c: Ann, Polly, Bill \u0026amp; Bob FRIDAY, ELDREDGE \u0026amp; CLARK HERSCHEL H. FRIDAY, P.A. ROBERT V. LIGHT, P.A. WILLIAM H. SUTTON, P.A. JAMES W. MOORE BYRON M. EISEMAN, JR.. P.A. JOE 0. BELL. P.A. C. ECHOLS, P.A.  A. 8UTTRY, P.A. h ERICK S. URSERY, P.A. H.T. LARZELERE. P.A. OSCAR . DAVIS. JR.. P.A. JAMES C. CLARK. JR.. P.A. THOMAS P. LEGGETT. P.A. JOHN DEWEY WATSON, P.A. PAUL B. BENHAM III, P.A. LARRY W. BURKS, P.A. A. WYCKLIFF NISBET. JR.. P.A. JAMES EDWARD HARRIS. P.A. J. PHILLIP MALCOM. P.A. JAMES M. SIMPSON. P.A. MEREDITH P. CATLETT. P.A. JAMES M. SAXTON. P.A. J. SHEPHERD RUSSELL III. P.A. DONALD H. BACON. P.A. WILLIAM THOMAS BAXTER, P.A. WALTER A. PAULSON II, P.A. BARRY E. COPLIN. P.A. RICHARD 0. TAYLOR. P.A. JOSEPH 8. HURST, JR.. P.A. ELIZABETH J. ROBBEN, P.A. CHRISTOPHER HELLER. P.A. LAURA HENSLEY SMITH. P.A. ROBERT S. SHAFER. P.A. WILLIAM M. GRIFFIN III. P.A. THOMAS N. ROSE, P.A. MICHAEL S. MOORE. P.A. DIANE S. MACKEY. P.A. WALTER M. EBEL III. P.A. A PARTNERSHIP OF INDIVIDUALS ANO PROFESSIONAL ASSOCIATIONS ATTORNEYS AT LAW 2000 FIRST COMMERCIAL BUILDING 400 WEST CAPITOL LITTLE ROCK. ARKANSAS 72201-3493 TELEPHONE 501-376-201 1 FAX NO. 501-376-2147 June 28, 1993 yon KEVIN A. CRASS, P.A. WILLIAM A. WA006LL. JR., P.A. CLYDE 'TAB* TURNER. P.A. CALVIN J. HALL. P.A. SCOTT J. LANCASTER. P.A. JERRY L. MALONE. P.A. M. GAYLE CORLEY. P.A. ROBERT B. BEACH. JR., P.A. J. LEE BROWN. P.A. JAMES C. BAKER. JR.. P.A. H. CHARLES GSCHWEND, JR.. P.A. HARRY A. LIGHT. P.A. SCOTT H. TUCKER. P.A. JOHN CLAYTON RANDOLPH. P.A. GUY ALTON WADE PRICE C. GARDNER THOMAS F. MEEKS J. MICHAEL PICKENS TONIA P. JONES DAVID 0. WILSON JEFFREY H. MOORE T. WESLEY HOLMES ANDREW T. TURNER SARAH J. HEFFLEY JOHN RAY WHITE DAVID M. GRAF PAMELA D. PERCEFULL CARLA Q. SPAINHOUR JOHN C. FENDLEY. JR. COUNSEL WILLIAM J. SMITH WILLIAM A. ELDREDGE, JR.. P.A. B.S. CLARK WILLIAM L. TERRY WILLIAM L. PATTON, JR., P.A. GHiCS of Desegrog. WNITEH'S DIRECT NO. (5011 370-1553 Via Hand Delivery Ms. Ann Brown Office of Desegregation Heritage West Building, Monitoring Suite 510 210 East Markham Little Rock, AR Street 72201 Re\nLittle School Rock School District vs. Pulaski County Special District No. 1, et al.\nUSDC No. LR-C-82-866 Dear LRSD This Enclosed please find three of the booklets being filed by the as required by the Order of the Court dated June 15, 1993. booklet contains those documents submitted in response to paragraph l.A. through I.E. of the Order. Thank you for your attention to this matter. Sincerely yours. L . JUN 1^3 Ann: D Jerry L. Malone JLM/lwg Enclosures Stephens Inc. Mark McBryde Vice President August 26, 1993 Mr. Mark Millhollen Little Rock School District 810 West Markham Street Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Dear Mark: In connection with the Districts refunding bond issue (that refunds the bonds dated May 15, 1988), I am enclosing four schedules. A summary of these schedules appears below. Schedule 1 This represents the outstanding balance on the May 15, 1988 issue. Schedule 2 This represents the refunding issues \"Original\" schedule. Schedule 3 This schedule marked \"Converted\" represents the final repayment schedule for the refunding bond issue. Schedule 4 This report identifies the savings realized by refunding the May 15, 1988 bonds ($742,881.07). A per year breakdown of the savings appears below and on the next page. School Year Savings 1993/1994 1994/1995 1995/1996 1996/1997 1997/1998 1998/1999 1999/2000 2000/2001 2001/2002 $ 65,577.32 48,722.50 46,622.50 48,837.50 50,110.00 50,452.50 49,857.50 48,550.00 46,683.75 Investment Bankers 111 Center Street Suite 2300 Post Office Box 3507 Little Rock, Arkansas 72203 501-377-2306 Fax 501-377-3465School Year Savings 2002/2003 2003/2004 2004/2005 2005/2006 2006/2007 2007/2008 $ 49,080.00 50,465.00 45,955.00 45,780.00 49,447.50 46,690.00 If you have any questions regarding these schedules, please call. Cordially, Mark McBryde MM/mc Enclosures cc: Bob Beach DATE PRINCIPAL Schedule 1 Little Rock School District Debt Outstanding - Series 1988 DEBT SERVICE SCHEDULE COUPON INTEREST PERIOD TOTAL FISCAL p3TAL 12/ 1/93 6/ 1/94 12/ 1/94 6/ 1/95 12/ 1/95 180,000.00 205,000.00 220,000.00 6.200000 6.200000 6.200000 174,532.50 168,952.50 168,952.50 162,597.50 162,597.50 354,532.50 168,952.50 373,952.50 162,597.50 382,597.50 523,485.00 536,550.00 6/ 1/96 12/ 1/96 6/ 1/97 12/ 1/97 6/ 1/98 240,000.00 255,000.00 6.350000 6.500000 155,777.50 155,777.50 148,157.50 148,157.50 139,870.00 155,777.50 395,777.50 148,157.50 403,157.50 139,870.00 538,375.00 543,935.00 543,027.50 12/ 1/98 6/ 1/99 12/ 1/99 6/ 1/ 0 12/ 1/ 0 275,000.00 300,000.00 320,000.00 6.600000 6.750000 6.900000 139,870.00 130,795.00 130,795.00 120,670.00 120,670.00 414,870.00 130,795.00 430,795.00 120,670.00 440,670.00 545,665.00 551,465.00 6/ 1/ 1 12/ 1/ 1 6/ 1/ 2 12/ 1/ 2 h/ 1/ 3 345,000.00 370,000.00 7.000000 7.100000 109 ,,630.00 109,630.00 97,555.00 97,555.00 84,420.00 109,630.00 454,630.00 97,555.00 467,555.00 84,420.00 550,300.00 552,185.00 551,975.00 12/ 1/ 3 6/ 1/ 4 12/ 1/ 4 6/ 1/ 5 12/ 1/ 5 400,000,00 435,000.00 465,000.00 7.200000 7.200000 7.200000 84,420.00 70,020.00 70,020.00 54,360.00 54,360.00 484,420.00 70,020.00 505,020.00 54,360.00 519,360.00 554,440.00 559,380.00 h/ 1/ 6 12/ 1/ 6 6/ 1/ 7 12/ 1/ 2 h/ 1/ 8 505,000.00 540,000.00 5,055,000.00 ACCRUED 5,055,000.00 Dated 6/ 1/93 Bond Years Average Coupon Average Life NIC % STEPHENS INC. RUNDATE: 7.200000 7.200000 37,620.00 37,620.00 19,440,00 19,440.00 37,620.00 542,620.00 19,440.00 559,440.00 556,980.00 562,060.00 559,440.00 3,174,262.50 3, 174,262.50 8,229,262.50 8,229,262.50 with Delivery of 02-10-1993 6/ 1/93 44,907.500 7.068446 8.883778 7.068446 % Using 100.0000000 10:39:35 FILENAME: LRSD KEY: OLD88DATE PRINCIPAL Schedule 2 Little Rock School District Series 1993 Refunding Issue Original Schedule DEBT SERVICE SCHEDULE COUPON INTEREST PERIOD TOTAL FISCAL TOTAL 12/ 1/93 6/ 1/94 12/ 1/94 6/ 1/95 12/ 1/95 225,000.00 175,000.00 245,000.00 5.140000 5.140000 5.140000 67,783.75 129,785.00 129,785.00 125,287.50 125,287.50 292,783,75 129,785.00 304,785.00 125,287.50 370,287.50 422,568.75 430,072.50 6/ 1/96 12/ 1/96 6/ 1/97 12/ 1/97 6/ 1/98 270,000.00 285,000.00 5.140000 5.140000 118,991.00 118,991.00 112,052.00 112,052.00 104,727.50 118,991.00 388,991.00 112,052.00 397,052.00 104,727.50 489,278.50 501,043.00 501,779.50 12/ 1/98 6/ 1/99 12/ 1/99 6/ 1/ 0 12/ 1/ 0 300,000.00 325,000.00 345,000.00 5.140000 5.140000 5.140000 104,727.50 97,017.50 97,017.50 88,665.00 88,665.00 404,727.50 97,017.50 422,017.50 88,665.00 433,665.00 501,745.00 510,682.50 6/ 1/ 1 12/ 1/ 1 6/ 1/ 2 12/ 1/ 2 6/ 1/ 3 365,000.00 390,000.00 5.140000 5.140000 79,798.50 79,798.50 70,418.00 70,418.00 60,395.00 79,798.50 444,798.50 70,418.00 460,418.00 60,395.Q0 513,463.50 515,216.50 520,813.00 12/ 1/ 3 6/ 1/ 4 12/ 1/ 4 6/ 1/ 5 12/ 1/ 5 415,000.00 445,000.00 465,000.00 5.140000 5.140000 5.140000 60,395.00 49,729.50 49,729.50 38,293.00 38,293.00 475,395.00 49,729.50 494,729.50 38,293.00 503,293.00 525,124.50 533,022.50 6/ 1/ 6 12/ 1/ 6 6/ 1/ 7 12/ 1/ 7 6/ 1/ 8 500,000.00 525,000.00 ACCRUED 5,275,000.00 5,275,000.00 Dated 9/ 1/93 Bond Years Average Coupon Average Life NIC % STEPHENS INC. RUNDATE: 5.140000 5.140000 26,342.50 26,342.50 13,492.50 13,492.50 26,342.50 526,342.50 13,492.50 538,492.50 529,635.50 539,835.00 538,492.50 with Delivery of 08-24-1993 2,297,772.75 20,335.13 2,277,437.62 7,572,772.75 20,335.13 7,552,437.62 9/28/93 44,703.750 5.140000 8.474645 5.140000 % Using 100.0000000 10:02:56 FILENAME: LITTLE KEY: ORGPage 1 Stephens Inc. Schedule 3 Amount of Issue Name of Issue ] Date of Issue Principal Due s 5,385,000.00 Little Rock School District Original Schedule Converted Average Payisent: 526,676.64 DATE 12/ 1/1993 6/ 1/1994 12/ 1/1994 6/ 1/1995 12/ 1/1995 6/ 1/1996 12/ 1/1996 6/ 1/1997 12/ 1/1997 6/ 1/1996 12/ 1/1998 6/ 1/1999 12/ 1/1999 6/ 1/2000 12/ 1/2000 6/ 1/2001 12/ 1/2001 6/ 1/2002 12/ 1/2002 6/ 1/2003 12/ 1/2003 6/ 1/2004 12/ 1/2004 6/ 1/2005 12/ 1/2005 6/ 1/2006 12/ 1/2006 6/ 1/2007 12/ 1/2007 9/ 1/1993 12/ 1 PRINCIPAL 295,000.00 255,000.00 270,000.00 285,000.00 295,000.00 310,000.00 330,000.00 345,000.00 365,000.00 380,000.00 400,000.00 430,000.00 450,000.00 475,000.00 500,000-00 5,385,000.00 Avg Interest Rate Interest Due COUPON 4.2000 4.2000 4.2000 4.2000 4.2000 4.2000 4.3000 4.5000 4.6500 4.8000 4.9000 5.0000 5.1000 5.1000 5.1000 12/ 1 and 4.5897 6/ 1 INTEREST PAYMENT BALANCE PRIOR DEBT TOTAL DEBT REVENUE COVERAGE 62,630.62 119,066.25 119,066.25 113,711.25 113,711.25 108,041.25 108,041.25 102,056.25 102,056.25 95,861.25 95,861.25 89,351.25 89,351-25 82,256.25 82,256.25 74,493.75 74,493.75 66,007.50 66,007.50 56,887.50 56,887.50 47,067.50 47,087.50 36,337.50 36,337.50 24,862.50 24,862.50 12,750.00 12,750.00 476,696.87 487,777.50 491,752.50 495,097.50 492,917.50 495,212.50 501,607.50 501,750.00 505,501.25 502,895.00 503,975.00 513,425.00 511,200.00 512,612.50 512,750.00 2,120,170.62 7,505,170.62 5,090,000.00 4,835,000.00 4,565,000.00 4,280,000.00 3,985,000.00 3,675,000.00 3,345,000.00 3,000,000.00 2,635,000.00 2,255,000.00 1,855,000.00 1,425,000.00 975,000.00 500,000-00 7,985,614.90 8,462,311.7716,160,004.00 7,792,277.40 8,280,054.9016,160,004.00 7,205,568.15 7,697,320.6516,160,004.00 6,982,444.75 7,477,542.2516,160,004.00 6,143,877.00 6,636,794.5016,160,004.00 6,161,434.50 6,656,647.0016,160,004.00 5,929,839-50 6,431,447.0016,160,004.00 5,486,936.00 5,988,686.0016,160,004.00 5,444,044.50 5,949,545.7516,160,004.00 5,400,787.50 5,903,682.5016,160,004.00 5,117,030.00 5,621,005.0016,160,004.00 5,062,286.75 5,575,711.7516,160,004.00 5,001,645.50 5,512,845.5016,160,004.00 4,950,845.50 5,463,458.0016,160,004.00 0.00 4,888,932.50 5,401,682.5016,160,004.00 89,553,564.4597,058,735.07 1.9096 1.9517 2.0994 2.1611 2.4349 2.4276 2.5127 2.6984 2.7162 2.7373 2.8749 2.8983 2.9313 2.9578 2.9917 Purchaser: Account managed by Merrill Lynch Agent: Stephens Inc. Legal: Friday, Eldredge \u0026amp; Clark Trustee: First National Bank of Lawrence CountyDATE PRINCIPAL Schedule 4 Little Rock School District Series 1993 Refunding Issue Converted Schedule - Adjusted PROPOSED DEBT SERVICE COUPON SAVINGS REPORT BB8SBSBBBBSSSB INTEREST TOTAL PRIOR D/S SAVINGS CUMULATIVE SAVINGS 12/ 1/93 6/ 1/94 12/ 1/94 6/ 1/95 12/ 1/95 295,000.00 255,000.00 270,000.00 4.200000 4.200000 4.200000 62,630.63 119,066.25 119,066.25 113,711.25 113,711.25 476,696.68 487,777,50 523,485.00 536,550.00 46,788.13 46,788.13 48,772.50 95,560.63 6/ 1/96 12/ 1/96 6/ 1/97 12/ 1/97 6/ 1/98 285,000.00 295,000.00 4.200000 4.200000 108,041.25 108,041.25 102,056.25 102,056.25 95,861.25 491,752.50 495,097.50 492,917.50 538,375.00 543,935.00 543,027.50 46,622.50 48,837.50 50,110.00 142,183.13 191,020.63 241,130.63 12/ 1/98 6/ 1/99 12/ 1/99 6/ 1/ 0 12/ 1/ 0 310,000.00 330,000.00 345,000.00 4.200000 4.300000 4.500000 95,861.25 89,351.25 89,351.25 82,256.25 82,256.25 495,212.50 501,607.50 545,665.00 551,465.00 50,452.50 49,857.50 291,583.13 341,440.63 6/ 1/ 1 12/ 1/ 1 6/ 1/ 2 12/ 1/ 2 6/ 1/ 3 365,000.00 380,000.00 4.650000 4.800000 74,493.75 74,493.75 66,007.50 66,007.50 56,887.50 501,750.00 505,501.25 502,895.00 550,300.00 552,185.00 551,975.00 48,550.00 46,683.75 49,060.00 389,990.63 436,674.38 485,754.38 12/ 1/ 3 6/ 1/ 4 12/ 1/ 4 6/ 1/ 5 12/ 1/ 5 400,000.00 430,000.00 450,000.00 4.900000 5.000000 5.100000 56,887.50 47,087.50 47,087.50 36,337.50 36,337.50 503,975.00 513,425.00 554,440.00 559,380.00 50,465.00 45,955.00 536,219.38 582,174.38 6/ 1/ 6 12/ 1/ 6 6/ 1/ 7 12/ 1/ 7 6/ 1/ 8 475,000.00 500,000.00 5.100000 5.100000 24,862.50 24,862.50 12,750.00 12,750.00 511,200.00 512,612.50 512,750.00 ACCRUED 5,385,000.00 5,385,000.00 S3BSSS3BBBBBSSB 2,120,170.63 18,789.19 2,101,381.44 SBBBBSBSBBBBSB 7,505,170.63 18,789.19 7,486,381.44 BBBBBBBBBBBBZB Dated 9/ 1/93 Bond Years Average Coupon Average Life with Delivery of 9/28/93 556,960.00 562,060.00 559,440.00 8,229,262.50 8,229,262.50 BKBSSBBBBBSBBB 45,780.00 49,447.50 46,690.00 627,954.38 677,401.88 724,091.88 724,091.88 18,789.19 742,881.07 NIC % 43,766.250 4.844305 8.127437 4.828512 % Using 100.1283603 Net Present Value Savings at: 5.1400% Equals 525,255.39 or or 9.7540% of Par of the Current Issue 10.3908% of Par of the Prior Issue STEPHENS INC. RUNDATE: 08-24-1993 10:27:40 FILENAME: LITTLE KEY: NEWOCTOBER 1993 COURT DIRECTIVES UPDATE Stephens Interdistrict School: The court rejected the LRSDs site proposal, stated that PCSSD must be satisfied with the site, directed the parties to reach a consensus on an alternative site by October 15, 1993, and instructed LRSD to report to ODM on the districts use of the old Stephens building. (DCO 9-27-93) Granted LRSD an extension to reach an agreement with the parties on the site and directed the parties to report to the court by 5:00 p.m. on November 15,1993. (DCO 10-18-93) Scheduled Stephens hearing, if necessary, for December 7, 1993\npleadings are due November 19, 1993 and replies are due November 29. (DCO 10-19-93) Plan Audit: The court required LRSD to correct the audits deficiencies and to submit a \"complete, accurate, and self-explanatory desegregation audit\" by 5:00 p.m. on October 25, 1993. (DCO 10-7-93) ADE Hearing: Scheduled for November 17 and 18\npleadings are due October 29,1993 and replies are due November 8, 1993. (DCO 10-19-93) PCSSDs Racial Balance Hearing: Scheduled beginning on January 25,1994\npleadings are due January 7,1994 and replies are due January 17,1994. (DCO 10-19-93)NOVEMBER 1993 COURT DIRECTIVES UPDATE ADE Hearing: The court excused the LRSD board members from the ADE hearing. (DCO 11-15-93) The court entered a bench ruling finding : 1) Allens monitoring plan was the plan pursuant to the settlement agreement\n2) ADE failed to implement the monitoring plan and the settlement agreement, with the exception of paying money to the parties\nand 3) Joshua was entitled to attorneys fees through the November 18,1993 hearing. The court also ordered ADE to: 1) Develop an action plan by March 15,1994 detailing how it will comply with the settlement agreement and the monitoring plan, including goals, timelines, and the names of people responsible for complying with the settlement agreement and the plan. 2) Submit monthly progress reports, beginning December 17,1993. (DCH 11-18-93) 3) Meet with Joshua to determine attorneys fees Attorney Fees: Scheduled a hearing for December 13,1993 regarding Torrences attorney fees claim from Hollingsworth. (DCO 11-4-93) LRSD Board Attendance at Hearings: Board members required to attend hearings in which the LRSDs obligations under the plan are at issue. (DCO 11-15-93). 1993-94 MRC Budget: Approved the 1993-94 MRC budget and required the following for future budgets: 1) That each member of the MRC receive a copy of this order and the attachment, the March 16, 1992 order\n2) That future budget requests be accompanied by business cases and comply with the March 16, 1992 order\nand 3) That the MRC take affirmative steps to ensure that the LRSD submit its budget sufficiently early in the academic year to allow timely consideration and submission of the magnet schools budget. (DCO 11-16-93)LRSD Board Report: Required the board to file a report with the court by December 3, 1993 at 5:00 p.m. explaining how: 1) Board members are being more involved in the budgeting process\n2) Board members are preparing themselves to make specific budget decisions\n3) Board members financial approval is being sought and received\nand 4) Which specific line item budget transfers the board has approved since the 1993- 94 budget was finalized in August 1993. (DCO 11-16-93)AUGUST 12,1993 HEARING TRANSCRIPT DERECTTVES LRSD Budget Process: \"Establish a budget process that links the Plan with expenditures so the effectiveness of the Plan can be evaluated.\" (T 8-12-93, pg 14) Once the Plan Audit and budget process are in place and administrators are responsive to the Plan, well cut down on hearings and the board wont have to attend, unless there is a specific reason. (T 8-12-93, pg 23) Keep up the process (an impact statement and review process) to assure the court that when you modify programs there is no impact on the Plan or that the modification is proper. (T 8-12-93, pgs 122-123) LRSD Quarterly Reports: File quarterly-reports with the cabinet, board, and court. (T 8- 12-93, pg 126). LRSD July 1993 Action Plan: Keep to the plan, \"we will be watching you to make sure you do these things you plan to do and that you dont push back too many things.\" (T 8-12-93, pg 44, 46) Inform new board members of the districts action plan. (T 8-12-93, pg 84) 1993-94 LRSD Budget: The court will make sure desegregation programs are funded. The district should develop a budget and budget process that can be monitored. (T 8-12-93, pg 74) Budget decisions should rest with the board, but the \"Court will do it if she has to.\" (T 8-12- 93, pg 76) 1994-95 LRSD Budget: \"Think what youre going to do before next May and take a look at these quarterly reports...so that you can make some planning decisions for them next year as you go.\" (T 8-12-93, pg 120) LRSD Desegregation Plan Audit: The court and Walker would like a copy of the desegregation program inventory. (T 8-12-93, pg 100) Include court orders in the audit. (T 8-12-93, pgs 108, 140,149, 154) If you cannot meet an order or you want the court to change an order, petition the court. (T 8-12-93, pg 140) Include the courts directive that the McClellan Community High School Advisory Council should help the district monitor the effects of the budget cuts. (T 8-12-93, pg 149)Include the court orders regarding a recruitment tracking system. (T 8-12-93, pg 154,157) Area School Grants: The plan requires the district to complete a needs assessment on these grants. (T 8-12-93, pg 109). Incentive School Scholarships: The court suggested that Joshua file a motion requesting a hearing on the scholarships (T 8-12-93, pg 9) King Reserved Seats: \"It would be a good idea if you would make a firm policy on [the number of PCSSD seats reserved at King.]\" (T 8-12-93, pg 17) Interdistrict Schools: Goal to strive for-is 50-50 racial balance. (T 8-12-93, pg 70) Plan Obligations: Make the new administrators fully aware of the plan obligations (T 8-12- 93, pg 22) Inform new board members of the districts desegregation requirements. (T 8-12-93, pg 84) Ish Incentive School: \"I dont want you do anything to that building that would prevent it from reopening.\" (T 8-12-93, pgs 40, 41) LRSD Junior High Study and PCSSD Crystal Hill Jr. High: The court will consider the junior high study when considering PCSSDs motion to build a junior high school at Crystal HUI. (T 8-12-93, pg 95) Include Walker in working on the study, and \"if [the district] does not contact you about [the study], you contact them.\" (T 8-12-93, pg 97). LRSD Communications Assistant: \"The court is going to watch this.\" (T 8-12-93, pg 137) VEPS Budget Cuts: \"We will watch this.\" (T 8-12-93, pg 160). Board Member Review Session: Schedule a review session for Moore and JacovelU. (T 8-12-93, pg 169)CORR38 REVISED 06 DEC 93 LRSD BUDGET CYCLE ANALYSIS FOR POSSIBLE HEARING DATES 170 Prepare initial financial forecasts 12/01/93 12/30/93 171 Issue budget preparation instructions 11/30/93 12/03/93 172 Develop budget prep training material 11/18/93 11/30/93 173 Conduct budget prep training sessions 12/06/93 12/17/93 268 Complete fast-track evaluations 08/30/93 12/31/93 96 Generate program inventory report 01/07/94 01/07/94 174 Budget managers submit budget requests 01/14/94 01/14/94 175 Begin budget development 01/18/94 01/18/94 78 Publish needs assessment report 01/31/94 01/31/94 168 Submit business cases/programs to Board 02/14/94 02/14/94 POSSIBLE INFORMATIONAL HEARING 02/14/94 02/28/94 272 Review non-deseg program evaluations 02/15/94 03/15/94 176 Revise financial forecasts 03/01/94 03/15/94 177 Submit proposed budget to Board 03/24/94 03/24/94 POSSIBLE MAJOR HEARING ON DOCUMENT 03/24/94 03/31/94 178 Conduct Board work sessions 03/28/94 04/15/94 179 Revise budget 04/18/94 04/30/94 180 Notify certified personnel 04/01/94 04/30/94181 Board approval of tentative budget 05/02/94 05/26/94 POSSIBLE MAJOR HEARING ON DOCUMENT 05/26/94 05/31/94 182 Notify classified personnel 05/03/94 05/31/94 183 Board adoption of budget 07/01/94 07/28/94 184 Submit budget to state 08/01/94 08/26/94TO: GARLAND INCENTIVE SCHOOL 3615 WEST 25TH LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS 72204 FtB 2 4 Office c? Descyr ! J n Moc\n'or\nj  Mr. Mark Milhollen, Director of Finance FROM: Robert L. Brown, Jr., Principal DATE: February 16, 1994 SUBJ.: Variance in Budget Responses After the end of a hectic day, I had time to reflect on the events that I have been involved in as it relates to the allocation of financial resources for Garland's theme. In retrospect, I find the responses given to be conflicting. In fact, it is now necessary for me to inform my parents that another answer has been given to explain what happened to the money that was earmarked to purchase multimedia hardware. On October 5, 1994 at 3:00 p.m., a scheduled meeting with Estelle Matthis and Larry Robertson was convened in her office. You attended the meeting and provided the basis for Estelle's response and explanation as to what happened to the money. In your budget summation of Garland's previous expenditures, you concluded your presentation by stating that we went over our budget allocations for the 1993-93 school year. According to your report, there was no money to roll over or bring forth into this current year. Estelle indicated that the $45,000.00 dollars that she approved was tied to the $45,000.00 that Gary Jones told you to include in this year's budget. I informed my PTA Board of this in an effort to answer their questions on the money issue. I told them that according to Mr. Milhollen, we had no money left from the previous year. I told them that Mrs. Matthis indicated that the additional $45,000.00 she approved was not additional money but was what she could do to reflect the commitment made by the previous administration. Yesterday, your response to the lost of approximately $36,000.00 from our current budget was in stark contrast to the above account. Yesterday's meeting included Larry S. Robertson and Mr. David Jones. You stated that the decision to allocate funds for Extended Year and Inservice Stipends was based upon the fact that we didn't spend all of the allocated amount for each code. The combined total for the twocodes last year equals $60,000.00. The total for this year is $24,244.76. After asking for clarification on your response, you again affirmed that you allocated the latfer amount because we did not spend the money last school year. I argued our cause based upon the events which transpired last year. After we hire^a theme specialist, Mr. David Jones, Mrs. Hart directed us, under the authority of Janet Bernard, to get some equipment in our building because of the impending Court procedures. It was considered most important for us to find funds to begin the implementation process. After visiting your office, you helped me to find money in our account, including the Extended Year allocation. With your approval, we made the transfer requests in order to purchase the technology. The Purchasing Department did not complete the process. My stated position is that we should not be penalized for not spending the money if our intent to spend was made to the appropriate department, especially since you were a part of that process. These two accounts vary greatly. In fact, they are really opposites. How can this be? staf\nThis project was supported in part by a Digitizing Hidden Special Collections and Archives project grant from The Andrew W. Mellon Foundation and Council on Library and Information Resoources.\n   \n\n   \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\u003cdcterms_creator\u003eLittle Rock School District\u003c/dcterms_creator\u003e\n   \n\n \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n \n\n  \n\n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n   \n\n \n\n\n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n\n\n  \n\n\n\n "}],"pages":{"current_page":1,"next_page":null,"prev_page":null,"total_pages":1,"limit_value":12,"offset_value":0,"total_count":8,"first_page?":true,"last_page?":true},"facets":[{"name":"type_facet","items":[{"value":"Text","hits":8}],"options":{"sort":"count","limit":16,"offset":0,"prefix":null}},{"name":"creator_facet","items":[{"value":"Little Rock School District","hits":4},{"value":"Area School Advisory Committee","hits":1},{"value":"Dunbar Arkansans for Gifted and Talented Education, (A.G.A.T.E.)","hits":1},{"value":"United States. District Court (Arkansas: Western District)","hits":1}],"options":{"sort":"count","limit":11,"offset":0,"prefix":null}},{"name":"subject_facet","items":[{"value":"Education--Arkansas","hits":8},{"value":"Little Rock (Ark.)--History--20th century","hits":8},{"value":"Little Rock School District","hits":7},{"value":"Educational planning","hits":3},{"value":"Education--Finance","hits":2},{"value":"Educational law and legislation","hits":2},{"value":"Educational statistics","hits":2},{"value":"School management and organization","hits":2},{"value":"Education--Evaluation","hits":1},{"value":"Gifted \u0026 talented","hits":1},{"value":"Maps--20th Century--Little Rock (Ark.)","hits":1}],"options":{"sort":"count","limit":11,"offset":0,"prefix":null}},{"name":"location_facet","items":[{"value":"United States, 39.76, -98.5","hits":8},{"value":"United States, Arkansas, 34.75037, -92.50044","hits":8},{"value":"United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, 34.76993, -92.3118","hits":8},{"value":"United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, Little Rock, 34.74648, -92.28959","hits":8},{"value":"United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, North Little Rock, 34.76954, -92.26709","hits":1}],"options":{"sort":"count","limit":11,"offset":0,"prefix":null}},{"name":"us_states_facet","items":[{"value":"Arkansas","hits":8}],"options":{"sort":"count","limit":11,"offset":0,"prefix":null}},{"name":"year_facet","items":[{"value":"1992","hits":7},{"value":"1993","hits":7},{"value":"1994","hits":7},{"value":"1995","hits":6},{"value":"1991","hits":5},{"value":"1996","hits":5},{"value":"1990","hits":4},{"value":"1997","hits":4},{"value":"1998","hits":4},{"value":"1999","hits":3},{"value":"2000","hits":3},{"value":"2001","hits":3},{"value":"2002","hits":3},{"value":"2003","hits":3},{"value":"2004","hits":3},{"value":"2005","hits":2},{"value":"1989","hits":1},{"value":"2006","hits":1}],"options":{"sort":"count","limit":100,"offset":0,"prefix":null},"min":"1989","max":"2006","count":71,"missing":0},{"name":"medium_facet","items":[{"value":"printouts","hits":8}],"options":{"sort":"count","limit":11,"offset":0,"prefix":null}},{"name":"rights_facet","items":[{"value":"http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC-EDU/1.0/","hits":8}],"options":{"sort":"count","limit":11,"offset":0,"prefix":null}},{"name":"collection_titles_sms","items":[{"value":"Office of Desegregation Management","hits":8}],"options":{"sort":"count","limit":11,"offset":0,"prefix":null}},{"name":"provenance_facet","items":[{"value":"Butler Center for Arkansas Studies","hits":8}],"options":{"sort":"count","limit":11,"offset":0,"prefix":null}},{"name":"class_name","items":[{"value":"Item","hits":8}],"options":{"sort":"count","limit":100,"offset":0,"prefix":null}},{"name":"educator_resource_b","items":[{"value":"false","hits":8}],"options":{"sort":"count","limit":100,"offset":0,"prefix":null}}]}}