{"response":{"docs":[{"id":"tmll_hpcrc_70046419","title":"Enforcement of the Indian Civil Rights Act : hearing held in Portland, Oregon, March 31, 1988","collection_id":"tmll_hpcrc","collection_title":"Historical Publications of the United States Commission on Civil Rights","dcterms_contributor":null,"dcterms_spatial":["United States, 39.76, -98.5"],"dcterms_creator":["United States Commission on Civil Rights"],"dc_date":["1988"],"dcterms_description":["A digital version of the report published by the United States Commission on Civil Rights.","The Civil Rights Digital Library received support from a National Leadership Grant for Libraries awarded to the University of Georgia by the Institute of Museum and Library Services for the aggregation and enhancement of partner metadata."],"dc_format":["application/pdf"],"dcterms_identifier":null,"dcterms_language":null,"dcterms_publisher":null,"dc_relation":["Forms part of online collection: Historical Publications of the United States Commission on Civil Rights.","Requires Acrobat plug-in to view files."],"dc_right":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/NoC-US/1.0/"],"dcterms_is_part_of":null,"dcterms_subject":["Indians of North America--Civil rights","Civil rights--United States"],"dcterms_title":["Enforcement of the Indian Civil Rights Act : hearing held in Portland, Oregon, March 31, 1988"],"dcterms_type":["Text"],"dcterms_provenance":["Thurgood Marshall Law Library"],"edm_is_shown_by":["http://www2.law.umaryland.edu/Marshall/usccr/documents/cr18in25z.pdf"],"edm_is_shown_at":["http://crdl.usg.edu/id:tmll_hpcrc_70046419"],"dcterms_temporal":null,"dcterms_rights_holder":null,"dcterms_bibliographic_citation":null,"dlg_local_right":null,"dcterms_medium":["reports","records"],"dcterms_extent":["v, 173 p. ; 23 cm."],"dlg_subject_personal":null,"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":null},{"id":"tmll_hpcrc_70046360","title":"Enforcement of the Indian Civil Rights Act : hearing held in Washington, D.C., January 28, 1988","collection_id":"tmll_hpcrc","collection_title":"Historical Publications of the United States Commission on Civil Rights","dcterms_contributor":null,"dcterms_spatial":["United States, 39.76, -98.5"],"dcterms_creator":["United States Commission on Civil Rights"],"dc_date":["1988"],"dcterms_description":["A digital version of the report published by the United States Commission on Civil Rights.","The Civil Rights Digital Library received support from a National Leadership Grant for Libraries awarded to the University of Georgia by the Institute of Museum and Library Services for the aggregation and enhancement of partner metadata."],"dc_format":["application/pdf"],"dcterms_identifier":null,"dcterms_language":null,"dcterms_publisher":null,"dc_relation":["Forms part of online collection: Historical Publications of the United States Commission on Civil Rights.","Requires Acrobat plug-in to view files."],"dc_right":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/NoC-US/1.0/"],"dcterms_is_part_of":null,"dcterms_subject":["Indians of North America--Civil rights","Civil rights--United States"],"dcterms_title":["Enforcement of the Indian Civil Rights Act : hearing held in Washington, D.C., January 28, 1988"],"dcterms_type":["Text"],"dcterms_provenance":["Thurgood Marshall Law Library"],"edm_is_shown_by":["http://www2.law.umaryland.edu/Marshall/usccr/documents/cr18in23z.pdf"],"edm_is_shown_at":["http://crdl.usg.edu/id:tmll_hpcrc_70046360"],"dcterms_temporal":null,"dcterms_rights_holder":null,"dcterms_bibliographic_citation":null,"dlg_local_right":null,"dcterms_medium":["reports","records"],"dcterms_extent":["v, 478 p. ; 23 cm."],"dlg_subject_personal":null,"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":null},{"id":"bcas_bcmss0837_966","title":"Reports: Enrollment, North Little Rock School District","collection_id":"bcas_bcmss0837","collection_title":"Office of Desegregation Management","dcterms_contributor":null,"dcterms_spatial":["United States, 39.76, -98.5","United States, Arkansas, 34.75037, -92.50044","United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, 34.76993, -92.3118","United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, Little Rock, 34.74648, -92.28959"],"dcterms_creator":null,"dc_date":["1988/1999"],"dcterms_description":null,"dc_format":["application/pdf"],"dcterms_identifier":null,"dcterms_language":["eng"],"dcterms_publisher":["Little Rock, Ark. : Butler Center for Arkansas Studies. Central Arkansas Library System."],"dc_relation":null,"dc_right":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC-EDU/1.0/"],"dcterms_is_part_of":["Office of Desegregation Monitoring records (BC.MSS.08.37)","History of Segregation and Integration of Arkansas's Educational System"],"dcterms_subject":["Little Rock (Ark.)--History--20th century","School districts--Arkansas--North Little Rock","Education--Arkansas","Education--Evaluation","Educational statistics","School enrollment"],"dcterms_title":["Reports: Enrollment, North Little Rock School District"],"dcterms_type":["Text"],"dcterms_provenance":["Butler Center for Arkansas Studies"],"edm_is_shown_by":null,"edm_is_shown_at":["http://arstudies.contentdm.oclc.org/cdm/ref/collection/bcmss0837/id/966"],"dcterms_temporal":null,"dcterms_rights_holder":null,"dcterms_bibliographic_citation":null,"dlg_local_right":null,"dcterms_medium":["reports"],"dcterms_extent":null,"dlg_subject_personal":null,"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":"\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n\n\n\n   \n\n\n\n\n   \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n  \n\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 "},{"id":"tmll_hpcrc_70046272","title":"Segregation in Louisville and Lexington public housing","collection_id":"tmll_hpcrc","collection_title":"Historical Publications of the United States Commission on Civil Rights","dcterms_contributor":null,"dcterms_spatial":["United States, Kentucky, Fayette County, 38.04233, -84.45873","United States, Kentucky, Fayette County, Lexington, 37.98869, -84.47772","United States, Kentucky, Jefferson County, Louisville, 38.25424, -85.75941"],"dcterms_creator":["United States Commission on Civil Rights. Kentucky Advisory Committee"],"dc_date":["1988"],"dcterms_description":["A digital version of the report published by the United States Commission on Civil Rights.","The Civil Rights Digital Library received support from a National Leadership Grant for Libraries awarded to the University of Georgia by the Institute of Museum and Library Services for the aggregation and enhancement of partner metadata."],"dc_format":["application/pdf"],"dcterms_identifier":null,"dcterms_language":null,"dcterms_publisher":null,"dc_relation":["Forms part of online collection: Historical Publications of the United States Commission on Civil Rights.","Requires Acrobat plug-in to view files."],"dc_right":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/NoC-US/1.0/"],"dcterms_is_part_of":null,"dcterms_subject":["Discrimination in housing--Kentucky--Louisville","Public housing--Kentucky--Louisville","Civil rights--Kentucky--Louisville","Discrimination in housing--Kentucky--Lexington","Public housing--Kentucky--Lexington","Civil rights--Kentucky--Lexington"],"dcterms_title":["Segregation in Louisville and Lexington public housing"],"dcterms_type":["Text"],"dcterms_provenance":["Thurgood Marshall Law Library"],"edm_is_shown_by":["http://www2.law.umaryland.edu/Marshall/usccr/documents/cr12se4z.pdf"],"edm_is_shown_at":["http://crdl.usg.edu/id:tmll_hpcrc_70046272"],"dcterms_temporal":null,"dcterms_rights_holder":null,"dcterms_bibliographic_citation":null,"dlg_local_right":null,"dcterms_medium":["reports","records"],"dcterms_extent":["20 p. ; 26 cm."],"dlg_subject_personal":null,"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":null},{"id":"bcas_bcmss0837_1211","title":"Magnet Review Committee: Report","collection_id":"bcas_bcmss0837","collection_title":"Office of Desegregation Management","dcterms_contributor":null,"dcterms_spatial":["United States, 39.76, -98.5","United States, Arkansas, 34.75037, -92.50044","United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, 34.76993, -92.3118","United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, Little Rock, 34.74648, -92.28959"],"dcterms_creator":null,"dc_date":["1987-05-05/1987-05-06"],"dcterms_description":null,"dc_format":["application/pdf"],"dcterms_identifier":null,"dcterms_language":["eng"],"dcterms_publisher":["Little Rock, Ark. : Butler Center for Arkansas Studies. Central Arkansas Library System."],"dc_relation":null,"dc_right":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC-EDU/1.0/"],"dcterms_is_part_of":["Office of Desegregation Monitoring records (BC.MSS.08.37)","History of Segregation and Integration of Arkansas's Educational System"],"dcterms_subject":["Little Rock (Ark.)--History--20th century","Little Rock School District","Education--Arkansas","Education--Evaluation","Education--Finance","Magnet schools","School management and organization"],"dcterms_title":["Magnet Review Committee: Report"],"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/1211"],"dcterms_temporal":null,"dcterms_rights_holder":null,"dcterms_bibliographic_citation":null,"dlg_local_right":null,"dcterms_medium":["reports"],"dcterms_extent":null,"dlg_subject_personal":null,"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":"\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n\n\n\n   \n\n\n\n\n   \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n  \n\nReport from Magnet Review Committee to Honorable Henry Woods, U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Arkansas\nThe transcript for this item was created using Optical Character Recognition (OCR) and may contain some errors.\n' The Honorable Henry Woods U. 5. District Court Judge P.O. Box 3683 Little Rock, Arkansas 72203 Dear Judge Woods: OCT 2 0 '9'12 Olfice of Oessgrega\\1011 Won1tonng May 5, 1987 Please find attached the second Magnet Review Committee report on the magnet school development in the Pulaski County School Desegregation case. The committee is prepared to elaborate on the issues described in the report as you may direct. jr Attachment Sincerely, !:::khairman Pulaski County Special School District R~te~ Arkansas Department of Education ~~~ Marcia Hardina - - -  - 0 _,, Arkansas Department of Education Jesse Rancifer Little Rock School District James Smith North Little Rock School District MAGNET REVIEW COMMITTEE REPORT TO THE COURT MAY 6, 1987 - - MAGNET REVIEW COMMITTEE REPORT TO THE COURT MAY 6, 1987 INTRODUCTION In comp 1 i an c e w i th the Inter i m Order of the Un i t e d States District Court, Eastern District of Arkansas, issued February 27, 1987 the Magnet Review Committee (MRC) hereby submits a report on the progress made in imp 1 emen ting the magnet schools. The report is organized into three maJor divisions: a summary. the introduction\neach critical issue area\nand Critical aspects of implementation as stated in the Order will be addressed, as wel 1 as additional areas contained in the January 22, 1987 MRC Report and the , Stipulation approved by the court in the Order of February 27 (referred to by the court as Exhibits A-C). The MRC was instructed in the Order to \"work closely with the three districts and the State in order to have the six magnet schools ready for the 1987-88 school year.\" The MRC has attempted to do so. In keep i n g w i th i ts def i n e d responsi bi 1 it i es the MRC wi 11 al so make findings and recommendations in this report as may be necessary to the efficient operation and administration of magnet schools. II I ' INTERDISTRICT MAGNET SCHOOL PROGRAMS: AREAS OF REVIEW STAFF SELECTION/TEACHER RECRUITMENT BACKGROUND In its report of January 22, 1987 to the court the Magnet Review Committee CMRC) addressed interdistrict magnet school programs staffing in terms of both staff composition and selection. The MRC recommended that the staff: 1) be comprised of highly qualified educators.\n2) ultimately represent a fifty-fifty black to non-black ratio of administrators and teachers\n3) include among its make up persons from the three districts CLRSD, NLRSD, PCSSD)\nand 4) be selected utilizing criteria developed cooperatively by the LRSD and MRC. It is the belief of the MRC that careful selection of principals and teachers to staff the interdistrict magnet school programs is essential to their ultimate success. Staffing of the magnet programs has fol lowed e s s e n t i a l 1 y t h e same p r o c e s s as a l 1 o t h e r LR SD s c h o o 1 s  Th e equ I ty and ba 1 ance er i ter i a established in the terms of the LRSD and CTA staff reassignment agreement served to orchestrate the staffing of the interdistrict magnet schools. Initially twenty percent (201/.) of the teachers in a school building were proposed to be retained as a \"core\" staff\nthis was later increased to an eighty percent (80%) retention level. It was reported to the MRC that ten 2 I I percent (10%) of the positions were to be reserved for faculty desiring to transfer interdistrict. Again, magnet programs were affected in the same manner as al 1 non-magnet schools with regard to staff reassignment. As a result, principals and teachers to date have been assigned to the magnet schools in the absence of an open recruitment process. FINDINGS OF FACT 1 . February 3, 1987 At its regular meeting, the MRC requested that the LRSD provide it with any written criteria pertaining to magnet school staff selection for review. 2. February 18, The principals assigned to the six magnet 1987 3. March 13, 1987 schools were publicly announced. The MRC had not been consulted as to selection criteria or a timetable for selection prior to their assignment. At an MRC meeting, Vance Jones and Beverly White of the LRSD presented information on the LRSD general process of teacher reassignment. They received copies of selection criteria developed by the MRC for consideration and inclusion in materlals for dissemination to teachers. The timel ine for the teachers to notify the district 3 II 4. Apr i 1 1 0 , 1987 of their preferred assignments was to be the Monday fol lowing this Friday meeting. The MET began mass distribution of MRCapproved recruitment brochures assuring that teachers for magnet schools were carefully selected. 5. Apr i 1 1987 21, The MRC interviewed the six principals assigned to the magnet programs. Three of the six stated that they had appealed their reassignments to magnet programs. The reassignments held, No application process or special er i ter i a were used RECOMMENDATIONS in placing these principals at the magnet schools. They also had not been given the opportunity to that point to have any direct involvement in staff selection for their programs. 1. Teaching staff wishing to remain in existing magnet schools which wi 11 not undergo major curricular or thematic change should be retained to provide continu1 ty and stability to the overall (d1strictwide) magnet programs. Vacant positions should be declared open and fi 1 led initially with qualified faculty desiring to transfer interdistrict, consistent with the goal of ten percent (101/.) 4 ,= ii ,! I of a magnet school ' s faculty being selected from NLRSD and PCSSD. 2. Teaching positions for all new magnet schools should be declared open and advertised. Information on the magnet programs and criteria for teacher selection should be made available to encourage applicants. The principals should be al lowed to interview and recommend the teaching staff to be hired under the school-based management concept. 3. In staffing the magnet schools a variety of criteria should be used. While this should include the LRSD balance and equity considerations - it must not be solely limited to them, as they will not assure selection of a staff interested in or committed to participation in magnet programs as an educational alternative aiding desegregation. The MRC is committed to working with the LRSD to further define criteria for magnet school staff selection. 4. The goals discussed so extensively by the LRSD of c r e a t i n g b a l an c e an d e q u i t y am on g a l l s c h o o l s t a f f s a r e important in the overall desegregation process. The MRC is cognizant, however, of the need for flexibility in the time-frame for accomplishing this. For this reason, the MRC supports a \"phase in\" process such as that proposed in the LRSD March 1986 Desegregation Plan. 5 . CU~RICULUM DEVELOPMENT BACKGROUND Curriculum development activities for magnet schools 1n the Little Rock School District (LRSD) have been on-going and continuous. Curriculum supervisors for magnet schools have developed and shared a broad description for each new and old magnet school theme with the Magnet Review Committee. The LRSD has informed the MRC that the actual curriculum development and selection of materials for new magnet school themes ( i . e., Carver Basic Skills/ Math-Science, Horace Mann Science/Fine Arts, Gibbs Foreign Language/International Studies and Parkv1ew Arts/Performing Arts) wi 11 be done at the end of the current school year with the assistance of teachers, curriculum supervisors, principals, and consul tan ts. The MRC be 1 i eves that the curriculum and staff development activities for each magnet school are critical for the successful implementation of magnet schools. FINDING OF FACT 1 . Spring 1986 The LRSD Associate Superintendent Curriculum and Instruction\nSupervision and the Special Assistant, Desegregation developed a cri t1cal task calendar for the development 6 ., ,_. 3. 4. September October, 1986 October, 1986 March, 1987 of magnet schools for the LRSD . Draft proposals were developed for three (3) additional magnet schools in the LRSD -- Carver Basic Ski 1 ls Magnet, Dunbar Arts Magnet Junior High School and ParKview Arts Magnet. These proposals included program descript ions , staffing requirements, curriculum design and budgets. These three (3) magnets were to be in addition to the three ( 3) magnet components operative 1n the district -- Booker Arts Magnet, Mann Sc i enc e Mag n e t and W i 1 1 i ams Bas i c SK i 1 1 s Magnet. These draft proposals were presented to the Magnet Review Committee for review/ support as a part of the plan for Pulaski County Schools and for submission for a federal grant under the Magnet Schools Assistance Program. Due to miscommunication among the parties, a formal review by the Magnet Review Cammi ttee did not occur, resulting in no recorpmendation. The Curriculum and Instruction staff of LRSD presented an inst rue ti ona 1 pr ogr am 7 .. . ... 5. 6. March 1987 April 1987 RECOMMENDATIONS overview for each magnet program to the MRC. The Curriculum and Instruction staff of LRSD provided a budget Justification review for the MRC. The principals of the Magnet Schools met in session with the MRC to discuss magnet school programs. The Curr i cul 1Jm and Instruction staff and magnet school principals provided additional programming and program budget just~fication :~formation in a session with the MRC. 1. The Principals and other staff members of magnet schools should become intimately involved in developing the curriculum. 2. The Accelerated Learning Program should undergo further study in 1 ight of the Court Order on the provision \u0026lt; inclusive of cost) of compensatory programs. 3. Remedial assistance should be offered to those students in magnet schools performing below grade level. 8 . . STAFF TRAINING BACKGROUND The MRC has had several opportunities to discuss the staff training and development that are scheduled for personnel that will be employed in the magnet schools, Al though no activities have been implemented as of this report, topics have been selected, consultants are being identified and budget requests have been made, Th e s u mm e r , a f t e r t h i s c u r r e n t s c h o o l ye a r h as be e n c om p l e t e d , h as be e n i de n t i f i e d as t h e t i me f r am e i n w h i c h staff training and development will begin. FINDINGS OF FACT 1. No staff training and development activities for magnet school personnel have been initiated, 2, No operational plan has been reviewed by the MRC. 3. Topics for staff training and development have been identified . 4. Foci of staff training and development are improJement of instruction and curricular development and implementation. 5. Budget requests have been presented to the MRC. RECOMMENDATIONS 1, An operational plan should be developed for staff training and development. 9 Li ' I I: 2. Consultants emplo\u0026gt;'ed to deliver services and employees of the district should be desegregated. 3. Budget requests should be approved contingent upon approval of the operational plan. 10 - MAGNET SCHOOL BUDGETS BACKGROUND The Magnet Review Committee has informed the Little Rock School Di str ict that i ts proposed budgets for magnet schools subs tan ti a 1 1 y e xceed the guide l i nes offered by the c omm i t t e e i n i t s Jan u a r y 2 2 r e p or t as ado p t e d by t h e c o u r t  It i s also the view of the major i ty mambership of the MRC that magnet school budgets should not exceed the general operating cost by more than twelve percent ( 12% ) . It 1s the Little Rock School district ' s position that a trul y extraordinary curriculum experience cannot be prov i ded for students in each magnet school with such a cei 1 ing. The Little Rock School District also contends the twelve percent (12%) figure above regular operating cost was presented in the MRC Report to the court before startup cost was discussed (teacher inservice, curriculum development, etc. ) . FINDINGS OF FACT 1 . March 31, 1987 2. Apr i 1 7, 1 987 Draft copies of proposed magnet school budgets were provided to each member from John Bilheimer Attorney. Revised magnet school budgets for each school were presented to the MRC with justification attached. 11 ( 3. Apr i l 21 , 1 987 4. Apr i l 28, 1 987 5. Apr i l 28, 1 987 RECOMMENDATIONS The principals ind curriculum supervisors for the magnet schools made formal presentations and answered questions on the MRC ' s concerns. Magnet school revised budgets were presented to the MRC and concerns answered. Magnet school principals and program supervisors were scheduled with the MRC in a specific time block to address budget concerns. The MRC voted to disapprove the proposed magnet school budgets. 1. The Little Rock School District should be directed to revise the proposed magnet school qudgets to a level cons i st en t w i th the twe 1 v e percent ( 1 21/.) i n crease-d opera t I n g cost figures used in the original funding formula. 12 RENOVATION/CONSTRUCTION BACKGROUND The terms of financing renovation and construction are clearly stated in the Magnet Review Committee Report of January 22 and Stipulation Agreement approved by the Dist r i ct Court i n Fe br u ar y, 1 987. It is agreed that the State will be a full partner in all phases of construction and renovation from selection of the architect to final approval. At the current time, the Little Rock School District has projected completion of magnet school renovations by fall of 1987 and construction of a new Carver Elementary School by fall of 1988. FINDINGS OF FACT 1. The LRSD and representatives of the State have worked collaboratively to select architects. 2. Architects have been agreed upon by the State and LRSD and approved by the LRSD School Board. RECOMMEl'lDAT IONS 1. The LRSD and the State should continue to work cooperatively in Joint planning with regard to renovation/construction. 2. The parties responsible for the costs of renovation/construction should agree on the nature of the work to be completed prior to soliciting bids. 13 3. An y changes or variances proposed by the LRSD from the renovation/ construction approved for each magnet school by the court in its February 1987 Order shou 1 d be approved by the MRC. 4. The LRSD and State should agree as quickly as possible on renovation p 1 ans to permit the magnet school programs to be operative by September, 1987. 14 GQl..,'ERNANCE BACKGROUND The MRC recommendation on governance of the si x magnet school programs was adopted by the court on Februar y 27, 1987. It provided that the day-to-day operations be the responsiblility of the host district. However, during the course of the Magnet Review Cammi ttee ' s attempts to work closely with the parties, as directed by the court, differing interpretations on the meaning of the governance function has occurred. FINDINGS OF FACT 1. As the host district the LRSD is responsible for the da y-to-day operation of magnet schools. 2. The MRC be 1 i eves the LRSD has app 1 i ed a narrow interpretation of governance in matters of responsibl i 1 i ty assigned to the MRC. 3. The MRC ' s progress has been impeded by the difference of interpretation in the matter of governance. RECOMMENDATIONS 1, The court should reaffirm the authority vested in the Magnet Review Committee. 2, The court should direct the LRSD to tAJorK in concer t withtheMRC . 15 r, STUDENT ENROLLMENT AND RECRUITMENT BACKGROUND The MRC embraces the language regarding student enrollment and recruitment as found in the Stipulation approved by the court on February 27, 1987, It is understood that seat allocations wi 1 l not be made by district to a particular school, but only by elementary, jun i or hi gh and sen i or h i gh level . Therefore, a particular district will be permitted to use its al located seats in accordance with the desires of its students subject to space l i mi tat ions in particular magnet schools and the maintenance of a 50-50 racial balance. If there is oversubscription among the districts by race, grade or school each district may make a recommendation to the MRC for its approval regarding actual distribution of seats. The three districts agree that each district wi I 1 establish an open enrol 1 men t policy for magnet schools and wi I 1 be permitted to de t e rm i n e h ow c h i I d r e n w i I I be s e I e c t e d for the magnet seats al located to each district pursuant to that policy. The MRC has pursued activities consistent with the order in recruiting students for magnet schools. actvi ties are explained in the fol lowing section, FINDINGS OF FACT These 1. The Little Rock School District (LRSD) interpreted the Stipulation to mean that each school district should be allocated seats by school and grade levels. 16 I f : i I I 2. On April 21, 1987 the Magnet Rev i etA.J Commit tee went on record as reaffirming support for the court-approved Stipulation Agreement regarding the al location of seats to the magnet schools. 3. The Pulaski County Special School District has been al located approximately 1257 magnet seats, North Little Rock School District 475 and Little Rock School District 246'?. 4. A great deal of effort has been put forth by the three school districts and the Magnet Educational Team (MET) to recruit students to the magnet schools. 5. Each school district has developed a brochure and is actively recruiting. The MET has been active in developing brochures and posters for dissemination, developing public service announcements for radio and television, and having MRC and MET members speak on a KARN radio talk show. 6. The MET has disseminated to the three school districts more than 66,000 brochures\ntaped the three superintendents for later broadcast on television\nas wel 1 as contacting AP\u0026amp;L, Southwestern Bell, and ARKLA Gas to provide short messages in their bi 11 ings regarding magnet schools. 7. The MET also plans to place advertisements in school newspapers and religious publications, attend PTA meetings, encourage open house 1Jisitations and establish a student buddy system. Long range plans include developing a slide/tape show, highlighting of a magnet school each month, 17 .. using magnet students in recruiting and forming a newcomers' c ornm i t t e e . 8. There is no LRSD employee responsible for desegregation planning on the MET as per the requirement of the Stipulation. 9. To date the fol lowing number of students ' applications for magnet schools have been received. *** LRSD NLRSD PCSSD 2636 Blacks 1444 Whites 63 Blacks 173 Blacks 87 Whites 21 7 Wh i te s *** These are duplicated counts by -virtue of students being permitted to make 1st, 2nd, and 3rd choices. 10. The MRC wi 11 review on May 19 student requests to magnet schools to expedite the student assignment process. RECOMMENDATIONS 1. The MRC recommends that the LRSD advertise extensively in the community the twenty-five percent (25%) shadow provision for each magnet school  2. The MRC recommends that al 1 the par t i es i n v o 1 v e d adhere to the original court-approved Stipulation Agreement regarding the al location of seats to the magnet schools by levels and not by specific schools and grade levels, ie, elementary, junior high and senior high. Si nee there , s _only one junior high and one senior high affected it is ob v i o u s t h a t s u c h a r e c omm e n d a t i on w i 1 1 a f f e c t on 1 y t h e elementary schools. 18 . . 3. The MRC recommends that the LRSD appoint a district representative to the MET consistent with the Stipulation  19 TRANSPORTATI 01'-l BACKGROUND The Stipulation approved by the District Court on February 27, 1987 1 contains the plan of agreement reached by the parties on interdistrict transportation. It provides that an Interdistrict Transportation Authority \u0026lt;ITA) will be formed to administer the Interdistrict Transportation Plan. The ITA shal 1 be composed of an appropriate representative from each district and the State. The parties agreed that: (1) transportation of magnet/ M-to-M students should be done in a cost efficient manner\n(2) each district will accc,unt separately for the costs of transporting these students\nand (3) conflicts wi 11 be resolved through a District Court Special Master. , FINDINGS OF FACT 1. The Interdistrict Transportation Auti-1ority ( !TA) t-1as not been formed. 2. The transportation needs of magnet/M-to-M transfer students cannot be fully determined unti 1 the completion of student enrollment/assignment. RECOMMENDATIONS 1. Parties should be directed to appoint immediately their representative to the ITA. 2. The ITA should conduct an organizational meeting for planning purposes by June 1, 1987. 20 I ! .. 3. Each district should proJide immediately to the ITA a status report on its student assignment and a tentative date by which student assignments wi 11 be finalized to the degree that transportation methods/ routes may be planned . 4. The ITA should submit a status report on transportation to the MRC by June 15, 1987, 21  .. EXTENDED DAY CARE BACKGROIJ~,JD Extended Day Care is a self-supporting program in the Little Rock School District. It is made available in an y elementary school based on demand. At least tv-1elve students. are required to operate the program in any elementar y school. The program cost is $6,00 registration and $3.00 per day per student which includes breakfast and an afternoon snack. The hours of operation are from 7 a.m. u n t i l s c h o o l be g i n s an d i n t h e a f t e r n o on f r om t h e t i me school closes unti 1 5:30 p.m. FI !'JD I NGS OF FACT 1. The unresolved student assignments make It difficult to determine the need for Ex tended Day Programs in magnet schools. 2. Ex tended Day Care programs described above will be useful i n attracting students to magnet schools. RECOMMENDATIONS 1 . Fol lowing assignment of students to magnet school programs, the LRSD should provide the CARE Program with the names and addresses of parents to be contacted regarding the ava i 1 ab i 1 i ty of ex tended day care. 22 ..  ..... ... .  COMMUNITY INPUT/INVOLVEMENT BACKGROUND In the January 22, 1987, report to the court, the MRC r e c omm e n de d a mode l f or c omm u n i t y p a r t i c i p a t i on . Th e components of the model are: (1) an awareness campaign\n( 2 ) a p u b l i c e du c a t i on c amp a i g n\n\u0026lt; 3 ) a n e e d s ass e s sm e n t p r o c e s s\nand (4) a system for processing input. There is no evidence that the model , as such, has been adopted and/ or implemented. However , the Magnet Educ at i on al Team has defined within its scope of activities a public information campaign that attempts to provide to parents a comprehensive perspective of magnet schools that are scheduled to be available during the 87-88 school year. It is also noteworthy to mention that the LRSD has formed a citizen ' s committee to examine the student assignment plan. The committee's scope exceeds the six magnet schools. In addition, the March, 1986 LRSD desegregation plan sets forth a me c h an i sm f or p a r e n t i n v o 1 v em e n t v i a s c h o o 1 i mp r o v em e n t teams. The superintendent of the LRSD has appeared several times on local electronic media and on those occasions, patrons have opportunities to question and advise him regarding the desegregation plan . FINDINGS OF FACT 23     I    t 1 . The model for community participation has not been adopted and/or implemented by the host district for magnet schools. ,,-.:,_ . Provisions for parent involvement through school improvement teams at the building level have been made. 3 . Magnet schools have been inc 1 uded in the genera 1 strategy to involve the community at large in an interdistrict remedy to effect desegregation in the school districts in Pulaski County. 4. The MET has taken on some respons i bi 1 i ty to i nform the patrons and students. 5 . A c i t i z e n ' s adv i so r y c omm i t t e e h as t, e e n c on s t i t u t e d t o review student assignments, including magnet schools . RECOMMENDAT I Of\\lS 1. The LRSD and the MRC should work cooperatively to implement the model approved by the court. 24 \" ' -  1 MAGNET REVIEW COMMITTEE ORGANIZATION BACKGROUND The Magnet Review Cammi ttee has met weekl y to cont i nue the planning reported to the court in January. During this time the committee has: ( 1) heard reports from Little Rock School District personnel regarding curriculum, budgets and personnel\n( 2) established the Magnet/ M-to-M Educational Team\nand ( 3 ) worked to create a collaborati ve atmosphere around the i ssue of magnet schools. FINDINGS OF FACT 1. The MRC advertised for applicants for an executive director. Twenty-five people have applied for the job. 2. The MRC initiated steps to house the MRC office with that of the Pulaski Count y Educational Services Cooperative (Co-op). 3. The MRC has arranged to deposit funds with the North Little Rock School District pending arrangements with the Co-op . 4. The MRC endorsed and paid for activities of the MET. RECOMMENDATIONS 1. The MRC organization, consistent with its charge, should remain intact\". 25\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 Resources.\n   \n\n   \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n   \n\n \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n \n\n  \n\n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n\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_1134","title":"Magnet Review Committee: Report","collection_id":"bcas_bcmss0837","collection_title":"Office of Desegregation Management","dcterms_contributor":null,"dcterms_spatial":["United States, 39.76, -98.5","United States, Arkansas, 34.75037, -92.50044","United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, 34.76993, -92.3118","United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, Little Rock, 34.74648, -92.28959"],"dcterms_creator":null,"dc_date":["1987-01-22"],"dcterms_description":null,"dc_format":["application/pdf"],"dcterms_identifier":null,"dcterms_language":["eng"],"dcterms_publisher":["Little Rock, Ark. : Butler Center for Arkansas Studies. Central Arkansas Library System."],"dc_relation":null,"dc_right":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC-EDU/1.0/"],"dcterms_is_part_of":["Office of Desegregation Monitoring records (BC.MSS.08.37)","History of Segregation and Integration of Arkansas's Educational System"],"dcterms_subject":["Little Rock (Ark.)--History--20th century","Little Rock School District","Education--Arkansas","Education--Evaluation","Education--Finance","Magnet schools","School management and organization"],"dcterms_title":["Magnet Review Committee: Report"],"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/1134"],"dcterms_temporal":null,"dcterms_rights_holder":null,"dcterms_bibliographic_citation":null,"dlg_local_right":null,"dcterms_medium":["reports"],"dcterms_extent":null,"dlg_subject_personal":null,"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":"\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n\n\n\n   \n\n\n\n\n   \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n  \n\nReport from Magnet Review Committee to Honorable Henry Woods, U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Arkansas\nThe transcript for this item was created using Optical Character Recognition (OCR) and may contain some errors.\nc .... OCT 2 0 1992 MAGNET RE.VIE.W C01MITTEE REPORT TO 'IHE COORT January 22, 1987 The Honorable Henry Woods U.S. Federal District Court Eastern District of Arkansas P.O. Box 3683 Little Rock, Arkansas 72203 Dear Judge Woods: January 22, 1987 The Magnet Review Committee submits for your consideration the attached report including nine separate recommendations concerning magnet schools in Pulaski County. The committee is prepared to present the report orally with supporting in formation as you may direct. I jle1iv,'f-,~s f\n1tlc 3 ,__ /fl R c.. ~,~Al'.P~ s ~ Ct\u0026gt; rTs- ? a- S ,i ((,1- 1 .{( Lht1fJtVJ11~ h 1-Y c\u0026gt;NSpwr '7 S\"'t-v\u0026amp;-3 fJJ'ld( F 5vLu(r 1 \u0026amp; J\nOr~.v!l\n\u0026amp; ()  c~ jr Attachments II I 7 Sincerely, -f!~a\nrman\nJ~\"f\n:/~'X'.\nli: Morris Holmes Arkansas Department of Education ~ t(,~' ----- Marcia Harding Arkansas Department of ucation ( Jc,e- A-N-.c.-lv,/_ Mi'tt6r\n+1 ~e,p,y-f) Jesse Rancifer Little Rock School District ~..?Uv James Smith North Little Rock School District I. I rHRODUCT Im~ The Magnet Review Committee IMRCI has been charged by the District Court with \"planning an 1nterdislrict. inagnet school program.\" The MRC's duties and respons1bil1t1es set forth 1n the Court's order 1nclurle: .cons1der1ng plans and proposals for magnet schools submitted by the parties and hearing e  idence 1n relation thereto~ .developing 1nter1m proposals for consideration by the parties\n.e~aluating segregative and desegregative effects of magnet school proposals\n.making findings and recommendations to the court concerning the number, location, staffing, racial ratios. and themes of magnet schools\n.making recommendations as may be necessary to the eff1c1ent operation and administration of magnet schools\n.monitoring, evaluating and recommending changes in the actual operation of the magnet schools implemented\nand .making an annual report to the court pertaining to the approved 1nterdistrict magnet school progr~rns. The court directed that this report with the MRC's recommendations be submitted on or before January 22, 1987. This document addresses that charge. The report is organized into the following major areas: I. Introduction\nII. Activ1t1es of the Magnet Rev1ew Committee\nand III. Recommendations. 2 II. ACTIVITIES OF THE MAGNET REVIEW COMMITTEE CMRC\u0026gt; Parties appointed representatives to the MRC as directed by the Court. Currently those serving on the MRC are: Mr. Gene Jones (White), Chairman, Pulaski County Special School District Dr. Reginald Avery, Ex - Officio (Blacl: ), Vice-Chairman, Joshua Intervenors Ms. Marcia Harding (White\u0026gt;, Arkansas Department of Education Dr. Morris Holmes \u0026lt;Black), Arkansas Department of Education Dr. Jesse Rancifer- (Black), Little Rock School District Mr. James Smith (White ) , North Little Rock School District The MRC first met on September 24, 1986 and agreed to meet weekly at sites to be determined at each meeting. The Committee also agreed to and held additional meetings as they became necessary. At the September ~4 meeting, the MRC organized itself into a working group and began developing the rules and procedures that would govern its mission. Under the rules and procedures developed by the Committee, the following activities were c8nducted: .The MRC considered all plans and proposals that were submitted for magnet schools by the parties represented on the Committee . . The MRC heard evidence and considered the views presented by the parties represented on the Committee . . The MRC e valuated both the segregative and desegregati 1e effects of all proposals for magnet schools . . The MRC reviewed demographic data on each district . . The MRC secured consultative assistance from Dr. Benn~t Mullen, Director of the Technical Assistance of the South~Jest. 3 .The MRC visited the Williams Magnet School, the Mann Science Magnet School, and the Booker Arts Magnet School, all located in the Little Rock School District. At each school, a discussion of the school's philosophy, goals and objectives was conducted with the principal and various staff . . The MRC reviewed considerable research and information on magnet schools and added to this knowledge by visiting magnet schools in Cinc1nnatt1, Ohio, and St. Louis, Missouri. Both visits provided valuable insight on the operation of magnet schools. The Arkansas Department of Education has exercised a positive leadership role in all activities of the Magnet Review Committee. ADE Director Tommy Venters and his staff developed thoughtful proposals which had a major impact on the Committee's recommendation. Additionally, The Department allowed Dr. Angelo Coppola to work full time for the Committee doing valuable research and data gathering. 4 III. RECOMMENDATIONS A. Magnet Review Committee Organization 1. General Organi ::at1 on Membership and general responsibilities have been outlined for the MRC in the District Court order. The MRC believes this order sufficient to address the membership issue and recommends that each party retain discretion in appointing its representatives on the MRC. Tt-,e MRC has proven itself capable of handling the additicnal organizational aspects of the Committee's work and will continue to do so in the future. ~- Staffing and Funding Efficient and effective operation of the Magnet Review Committee is critical to the success of desegregating the public schools of Pulaski County, Arkansas. In order to function effectively, the MRC recommends it have a staff consisting of at least two staff members- one professional :1.r.d one suppor-t. In addition to a staff, the Magnet Review Committee requires an operating budget consisting of funds for an office, eau1pment 1 travel, staff and consultative services. Consultative services will be critical to data gathering, program monitoring, evaluation and preparation of annual reports to the Court. A budget within a range of $100,000 to $150,000 will be needed, with 50 percent of the 5 cost being borne by the State and the remaining 50 percent being shared by the three school districts. 6 B. Costs and Funding 1. Accounting and Budgeting: The Magnet Review Committee recommends that separate accounting and budgeting procedures for approved magnet programs be maintained by the district(s) hosting each of th~ programs and th~~ magnet program budgets recei v e prior review by the Magnet Review Committee. 2. Construction/Renovations: In accordance with the Eighth Circuit order the State shall pay 50 percent of construction and renovation of approved magnet schools. The remaining 50 pecent shall be paid by the participating districts (See Attachment A, pg. 26). The recommendations on actual allocation and payments are as follows. The State shall pay its 50 percent allocation in quarterly payments upon actual expenditures for renovation and remodeling of approved magnet schools. The host school shall be responsible for the bond issue and payment of the remaining 50 percent since the ownership and management shall stay with that host school. The two remaining districts shall pay their prorated share by the inclusion of debt service payment, both principal and interest, in figuring the cost per child for those children participating from their respective districts. In the event that allocated seats are not filled by any district, the district to which that seat was allocated 7 shall pay t~e host school the per child cost of their debt service payment, both principal and interest. Since the State would have met its obligation up front there will be no debt service payment of principal and interest f1gured into the State's 50 percent cost per child for operation of magnet schc::iols. It 1s recommended that the State be a full partner in all phases of construction and renovation, from selection of the architect to final approval. 3. Operating Costs: The Magnet Review Committee recommends funding the operating costs for the approved interdistrict magnet programs as outlined in Attachment B, pgs. 27-32. The figures ~sed for examples were determined using 1986-87 school year data. This data will change with the change in local wealth, 1ncrease or decrease in WADM, and increase or decrease in State funding. In compliance with the Eighth Circuit order. the State wil l pay to each district the table rate that each respective district qual1f1es for that school year. In addition to the table rate (Customary State Aid) per D1str1ct. the state will pay 50 percent of the cost per student for operation of the magnet schools less the transportation cost and debt service cost. As a result, those stude,1ts at tending magnet schools wi 11 not be counted in any District's WADM for aid. 8 C. INTERDISTRICT MAGNET PROGRAMS STAFFING The men and women selected to staff each of the magnet programs are responsible and accountable for assuring parents and the community that quality exists in both the process and product of schooling. The staff\"s performance should evidence their beliefs.that all children can learn, that the school makes a difference, and that a desegregated school environment has positive effects on the schooling and lives of students. 1. Staff Composition The staff should be composed of appropriately certified and otherwise highly qualified educators. The MRC recommends that the staff represent a 50-50 ratio of Black to White administrators and teachers. If such a ratio is not possible to attain at the time the magnet programs open, a goal sho1ld be set to achieve the ratio within a reasonable time frame. To help ensure interdistrict and community ownership and support, effort should be taken to attract administrators and teachers from the three school districts. ~ Staff Selection The actual selection, hiring and evaluation of the magnet program staff is the responsibility of the district operating the magnet program. However, the MRC will assist 9 with the deveiopment of criteria for staff selection, as well as monitor and evaluate magnet school program effects on student learning and desegregation. 10 D. Community Participation The Magnet Review Committee advocates that the community should participate in planning and developing interdistrict magnet programs developed after the initial year of desegregation. We therefore recommend that a community-school partnership model be adopted by the districts 1n accomplishing the continuing work of the magnet schools. Such a model would include the following components: 1. Awareness Campaign Awareness activities are necessary to: a. Establish within the community and schools a sense of the need for a partnership\nb. stimulate interest in the community-school partnership\nand c. motivate involvement in such a partnership. 2. Public Education Campaign The community must be provided with a base of information about educational equity and e xcellence in a desegregated environment and about the issues in this case. Such information should include, but not be limited to, the following: a. History of desegregation efforts in this community b. Impacts/effects of court rulings and 11 desegregation plans c. Explanation of how the community-school partnership works in planning and implementing desegregation d. Orientation to issues related to educational equity 0. Needs Assessment It is important to identify needs and decide upon priorities among them. Such a process should be utliized to ensure that citizens and educators have the opportunity to participate in quality education planning. 4. System for Processing Input A system must exist for acting upon community input to planning. This is necessarf to any sincere effort to establish and maintain community involvement and support for educational equity and excellence in a desegregated environment. The following process is an example of a system which encompasses this aim. a. Any individual or group is encouraged to submit ideas to the district aimed at affecting educational equity including, but not necessarily limited to, ideas for magnet schools and specialty programs. b. The district sorts and channels t~e ideas(s) to appropriate group(s) for consideration. 12 c. The designated group(sl does the following: (1) Analyzes the ideas (2) Makes a recommendation (develop, postpone, reject) (3) Corresponds with the author regarding the decision d. If the idea is supported, broader community comment is solicited to determine the public's reaction to the proposed idea. The method previously described to involve the community can be applied here. e. If support is apparent, individu~ls are identified to more fully develop the concept into a proposal, which is then shared with the school board. f. The district plans and holds public hearings on the proposal following a period of publicity to stimulate public interest. g. The School Board considers the community reactions and recommendations in decision-making on the proposal. h. If approved by the Board, the program is readied by the district staff. publicized as appropriate, and implemented. 1. As part of the evaluation of each program's effectiveness relative to educational equity and excellence in a desegregated environment, 13 parent/community satisfaction should be assessed and considered before modifications are made. With minimal modifications, a system of this type will work equally as well at the building level (for school-based management) as at the district-wide level. Additionally, when a proposal is made for the establishment or modification of an approved magnet school program, steps would be included to provide for the proposa1 to be brought before the Magnet Review Committee for consideration and ~ndorsement. 14 E. Transportation In fulfilling its responsibility to provide, either directly or indirectly, the magnet program students with transportation, the MRC recommends that the State keep in mind two primary considerations, these being: 1. delivery of magnet school students to their designated schools in a safe, orderly and expedient manner\nand 2. cost efficiency. 15 F. Student Enrollment Guidelines 1. Racial Ratios The Magnet Review Committee recommends that a 50-50 Black to White ratio be used for magnet program enrollment. 2. Seat Allocation The Committee further recommends reserving the first 25 percent of the seats in each magnet school for students in the host district who live in the shadow of the school. The remaining 75 percent of the seats in magnet schools should be allocated to the three districts on the proportional formula based on the percentage of each race residing i\" the affected district. The formula will be revised to maintain the mandated 50-50 ratio. 3. Existing Magnet Programs The Committee recommends that students presently attending existing magnet schools should be allowed to continue i\" those schools as appropriate, but that seats in 1ncominG grades and seats vacated by attrition be allocated to North Little Rock School District and Pulaski County Special School District on the interdistr-ict formula described above. 16 G. Interdistrict Magnet School Programs The MRC recommends that six schools in the Little Rock School District become approved magnets. This proposal incorporates the cont i nuation of the three magnet schools currently in existence and suggests the addition of Carver, Dunbar, and Gibbs. A total of 3,722 students can be educated in the interdistrict magnet programs recommended. In this section of the report, the MRC's rationale for the inclus ion of each proposed school is discussed. 1) \\.Ji 11 i ams Ma.gnet School ( ~~-6) The Little Rock School District ha~ recommended the continuation of Willic,ms as a \"basic skills\" magnet school for elementary students. As presently operated, Williams has continued to attract students since 1982. The waiting list of children whose parents would like to have them attend Williams now stands at 396, indicating much interest in the school and its program. We recommend the continuation of the Williams Magnet School. We also recommend that tl,ose characteristics which appear to have made the program a success be carefully studied prior to making c,ny cha,nges. The Magnet Review Committee, in conducting its monitoring and evaluation activities, will monitor practices such as ability grouping relative to possible segregative and desegregat1ve effects. 2) Booker Arts Magnet \u0026lt;K-6) 17 Booker is also recommended for continuation as an elementary arts magnet. Because it appears to be a highly successful program, the MRC recommends its continuation. The $916,000 estimated by Little Rock for construction and renovation of Booker appears to be too high. We believe that the projects proposed for these funds could be done for 1 ess money. This issue 1s addressed in more detail in the section of the report which deals with construction and renovation costs. 31 Mann Junior High Arts and Sciences Magnet 17-91 The Mann program has entered its fourth vear with a sci er,ce magnet program which is a \"school within a school,\" serving approximately 300 students in grades 7-9. Making the entire school a junior high science magnet next year has been considered. However, its waiting list consists of onl y eight students, hardly enough, even when combined with students from Pulaski County and North Little Rock to fill the school with over 1,100 junior high students all eager to study the sciences. The MRC recommends instead that Mann Junior High School become c\u0026gt;.n \"arts and sciences\" magnet. To combine thes e themes within one magnet school would a c complish several objectives. First, it would bring together junior high students with strong interests and/or aptitude in two major a r eas but wh o may not yet be either willing or ready to nar row their choices entirely to one field or the other. For elementary students interested in the arts, 1t would 18 provide a natural extension for =hildren now attending Booker, but it would also help to expand, rather than narrow, students participation in other fields of i,nowl edge. It would accommodate the present math/science orogram (300 students) as well as the number of students who presumably would have gone to East Side under another proposal. It would be far less expensive than renovating East Side. It has an auditorium with a seating capacity of 1,100 and a gymnasium which could be useful for various arts activities as well as science presentations and e,1hibits. It is closely located to Booker and the Arts Center, thus providing opportunities to both schools to utilize consultants, artists in residence, craftsmen, and performers. We support the continuation of Mann as a magnet school. However, we believe that students interested in both the arts and sciences could be accommodated there. 4) Carver Math and Science Magnet CK-6) The Little Rock District contends that Carver should become a magnet school because it will be impossible to desegregate the school otherwise. It proposes to tear down the present structure and relocate it on other land somewhere in the neighborhood that has not yet been purchased. C~rver is said to be improperly located on its present school site, and the playground particuarly dif~icult to maintain because of neighborhood v~ndalism. Little Rock has proposed that Carver become a \"b.=1sic skills\" school similar to Williams, though without 19 the dress code and without ability grouping. The District views the \"basic skills\" theme as one particularly likely ta generate parent support. The MRC agrees that the basic skills theme is likely ta generate support, but we also believe that a basic skills program which emphasizes mathematics and science would enhance this school. In recommending Carver as a ma~n~t, the MRC advises caution in changing characteristics which appear ta have made the other basic skills program a success. We envision a science program at Carver which would not only enable youngsters to study the sciences through hands-on laboratory experiences but would also enable them to take part in such national competitions as Invent America, a program which encourages creativity and problem salving in the development of new inventions and the uses of technology. Carver could also host science fairs and exhibits for other students 1n the area, as well as throughout the State, and could serve as a model for other districts in Arkansas. 5) Dunbar International Education Complex (l\u0026lt;-9) In order to provide mare magnet choices far parents and students at an affordable cost, the MRC reco,nmends that Dunbar and Gibbs (which are located adJacent to each other) become a magnet school complex with an 1nternat1onal studies and global cultures theme. Gibbs would provide the elementary (K-6) program and Dunbar would provide the junior high (7-9) program. We 20 believe this magnet program holds excellent promise for offering an educational program that truly prepares youngsters for life and work in the twenty-first century. Such pr-epar ation means, in large measLwe, preparir\"-\ni a populace who can understand, interact with, and appreciate people rep r esenti~g many different cultures. A school experience t~at pr-ovides opportunities for growth, development, and understanding in these areas will be crucial for our continued success in the world. We must educate young people who can function effectively as the citizens our- country must have in the \"global village\" in which we live. Included in the K-9 curriculum at the Dunbar International Education Complex would be foreign languages, technology, multi-cultural studies, international relations, geography, government, and law. Students would be involved in cr-oss-age grouping and multi-disciplinary studies and would have opportunities to learn within their own miniature \"globed villi:\\ge,\" consisting of the two campuses. would learn about the operation of government through functioning in a \"micro-society\" which 1-iould require their full par-ticipation. Student exchange programs would be encourc'\u0026lt;.ged. Teachers would also be exchanged among schools to provide specialized educational opportunities for students of different ages. Satellite instruction would bring programs to the schools from throughout the country. School \"wa.11 s\" would be mini mi zed as students par-ti ci pated 21 in \"community\" act1-1ities intended to strengthen and enhance the culture of the school and community and their understanding and appreciation of individual differences among themselves. These schools would establish linkages with the UALR Visitor Center, the business community, UCA, and the city's international community. The Complex could host \"Academic 01 ymp i cs\" for othet- schools throughoL1t the State. It would serve as an educational model for other schools in the State, showing how schools could be structured in such a way as to prepare youngsters for effective and intelligent participation in local, national, and world communities. Benefits to be derived from the Dunbar International Educ a ti on Comp le\n: are as foll 01-,s: (a) A continuous program in grades K-9 would be provided with themes that would foster multi-cultural understanding, exploration of international studies and global cultures, and the study of languages. (bl n program such as the one described for the Complex would serve as a model for providing students with an \"1nternationally competitive\" educc,tion. Cc) The cultural resources of the area (e.g., Quapaw Quarter, Dunbar Alumni Assoc1ation, UALR International V1s1tor Center, Arts Center, etc. 1nter~at1ona l studies program. would enrich the (dl Programs in these schools appear to have a good possibility of meeting the three object1~es of magnet 22 schools as stated by the Court, i.e., to provide quality ed1Jation, serve as a tool for achieving integration, and attract white students back to the Little Rock School District. le) The Complex could host contests, exhibits, and cultural events for other st~dents throughout the State and could serve as a model program for other districts. Attachment C, page 33 , visually displays the MRC ' s proposal for interdistr1ct magnet school programs. 23 H. Governance The Magnet Review Committee recommends that the day- to-day operations of magnet schools be the responsibility of the host school district. 24 I. E~tended Dav Care The Magnet Review Committe recommends that self-supporting extended day care services be available for students at each of the interdistrict magnet schools. A substantial number of parents living in the metropolitan area drive long distances to work each day. The Committee believes that the availability of extended day care services will substantially enhance the desegregative effects of the magnet schools. The cost associated with the extended day care services shall not be included in the operating costs of the magnet schools . 25 BUILDING Carver Booker Mann Williams DJnbar Gibbs LRSD ESTIMATE $2,420,00. $2,070,000 $ 916,000 $2,511,400 None $1,220,000 $ 605,800 FACILITIES RmRl' ~CJll/RU01ATIOf srATE BUILDI~ SERVICES REPORT ~uct $350,000 for laoo purchase 12% too much oontingency ($248,400) 8% too much oontingency ($73,280) 9% too much oontingency ($226,026) 20% too much contingency ($244,000) 5% too much oontingency (30,290) \"ID'mL STATE'S PCRTIOO 26 REVISED ESTIMATE $1,821,600.00 $ 842,720.00 $2,285,374.00 $ 976,000.00 $ 575,510.00 $6,501,204.00 $3,250,602.00 .. RESCURCES: MFPA CALaJIATICffi CHER ,er 34 (SCHXL Fnw:E IC'f) 1. Real property assessmant tirnes 19 mills (.019) AlTNllIDrl'B 2. Personal property assessment (year before base year) tirnes current revenue divided by base year revenue times 45 mills (.045). 3. Utility assessment (year before base year) times current revenue divided by base year revenue times 45 mills (.045). 4. Seventy-five (75) percent of miscellaneous revenue. 5. Masters' degree credit. calculations: 6. 1 + 2 + 3 + 4 - 5 = Resources 7. Resources divided by WAI1-1 = Resource Rate 8. State Base F.qi.Ja.lization Rate minus Resource Rate= Table Rate 9. Table Rate times WAil-1 = MFPA (Minimum Foundation Program Aid) 27  Magnet School Stooents Total Little Rock (25% shadow) plus 43% of 2791 Pulaski County - 40% of 2791 North Little Rock - 17% of 2791 M1aE:r sanx.s BASE Di\\.TA 931] 1200J 'lUfAL EXPENSE\"' Bt.n::GET 86-87 3,722 2,131 1,116 475 EXP/AI::M +12%** Little Rock North Little Rock Pulaski County $49,510,543 $24,633,000 $69,057,078 AI::M 19116 9419 30015 $2,590.01 $2,900.81 $2,615.25 * $2,300.75 State Base Equalization Rate= $1,687.02 Table Rates (State Aid per Stooent): Little Rock $ 635.86 North Little Rock$ 986.04 Pulaski County $1,136.17 I:bes not include transportation costs ** 12% has been added to the Little Rock expense per AI::M for estimated increased operation costs for magnet schools within the Little Rock School District. 28 Magnet School Expense Per Student Expense for Regular Student Nunber of Magnet School Students State Aid per Student (Table Rate) LITILE RXX $2,900.81 $2,590.01 2131 $ 635.86 1he State will pay one half of the expense of the Magnet ScOClOls plus the State Aid. $2,900.81 divided by 2 = $1,450.41 State's share $1,450.41 - $635.86 = $814.55 Cost per student for a Little Rock student. $814.55 X 2,131 = $1,735,806 Little Rock's costs for magnet students. Little Rock's expense for a regular student is $2,590.01. $2,590.01 less $1,687.02 (State Base F.qualization Rate)= $902.99 Expenditure per regular stooent. $902.99 (available funds for each stooent) less $814.55 = $88.44 Excess funds per magnet student over and above Little Rock's cost. $88.44 X 2131 = $188,466 Total incentive savi~s for Magnet participation 29   RRl'B LIT.ILE RXlC Magnet School Expense Per Student Expense for Regular Student (North Little lock) State Aid Per Stl.rlent (Table Rate) Nunber of Magnet School Stl.rlents $2,900.81 $2,615.25 $ 986.04 475 '!he State will pay one half of the expense of the Magnet Schools plus the State Aid. $2,900.81 divided by 2 = $1,450.41 State's share. $1,450.41 - $986.04 = $464.37 Cost per student for a North Little Rock student.  $464.37 X 475 = $220,576 North Little lock's rost for magnet school stl.rlents. North Little Rock's expense for a regular student is $2,615.25. $2,615.25 less $1,687.02 (State Base Fqualization Rate) = $928.23 Expenditure per Regular student. $928.23 (available funds for each stl.rlent) less $464.37 = $463.86 Excess funds per magnet stl.rlent over and above North Little Rock's cost. $463.86 X 475 = $220,334 Total incentive savi~s for magnet participation. 30 POI.ASKI cnNlY Magnet School Expense per Student Expense for Regular Student {Pulaski County) State Aid per Student {Table Rate) Number of Magnet School Students $2,900.81 $2,300.75 $1,136.17 1116 'l11e State will pay one half of the expense of the ~net Schools plus the State Aid. $2,900.81 divided by 2 = $1,450.41 State share. $1,450.41 - $1 136.17 = $314.24 COst per student for a Pulaski County Student. $314.24 X 1116 = $350,692 Pulaski County's oost for magnet school students. Pulaski County's expense for a regular student is $2,300.75. $2,300.75 less $1,687.02 {State Base F,qualization Rate)= $613.73 Expenditure per regular student. $613.73 {available funds for each stooent) less $314.24 = $299.49 Excess funds per magnet student over and above Pulaski County's oost. $299.49 X 1116 = $334,231 Total incentive savin\nJs for magnet participation. 31   * SIM1ARY OF IaiE'l' SCRX\u0026gt;L \u0026lt;m'l'S Total nunber of students - 3,722 Total Cbst of Magnet Students$ 2,900.81 X 3,722 = $10,796,815 State will pay a total of $8,489,760 Districts will pay a total of $2,307,055 * Note that Custcmary State Aid is incllrled in this figure. Cbst to the State in excess of custcmary State Aid $2,210,672. 32 .AT'rllCIMXl' C ~ FCE MAGNET SCRX\u0026gt;L PRXiRN'6 ESTIMATED STUDENI' RE\u0026lt;n!MENDED BUILDING SQJOOL CAPACITY nIEMES RENOVATION COOTS Williams 432 Basic Skills None Booker 478 Fine Arts $ 842,720 Mann 1,194 Arts \u0026amp; Sciences $2,285,374 Carver 478 Math \u0026amp; Science\na Basic Skills $1,821,600 C 792 International Stooies\nGlobal Cultures $ 976,000 Gibbs 348 International Studies\nGlobal Cultures $ 575,510 'IDTAL STCJIll'S 3,722 'IDTAL cnrr $6,501,204 STATE'S PCET!Cfi $3,250,602 t 33\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 Resources.\n   \n\n   \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n   \n\n \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n \n\n  \n\n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n\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":"tmll_hpcrc_68811514","title":"Collecting data on bias-related incidents in Connecticut","collection_id":"tmll_hpcrc","collection_title":"Historical Publications of the United States Commission on Civil Rights","dcterms_contributor":["United States Commission on Civil Rights. Connecticut Advisory Committee"],"dcterms_spatial":["United States, Connecticut, 41.66704, -72.66648"],"dcterms_creator":null,"dc_date":["1987"],"dcterms_description":["A digital version of the report published by the United States Commission on Civil Rights.","The Civil Rights Digital Library received support from a National Leadership Grant for Libraries awarded to the University of Georgia by the Institute of Museum and Library Services for the aggregation and enhancement of partner metadata."],"dc_format":["application/pdf"],"dcterms_identifier":null,"dcterms_language":["eng"],"dcterms_publisher":null,"dc_relation":["Forms part of online collection: Historical Publications of the United States Commission on Civil Rights."],"dc_right":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/NoC-US/1.0/"],"dcterms_is_part_of":null,"dcterms_subject":["Hate crimes--Connecticut--Statistics","Criminal statistics--Connecticut"],"dcterms_title":["Collecting data on bias-related incidents in Connecticut"],"dcterms_type":["Text"],"dcterms_provenance":["Thurgood Marshall Law Library"],"edm_is_shown_by":["http://www2.law.umaryland.edu/Marshall/usccr/documents/cr12b47z.pdf"],"edm_is_shown_at":["http://crdl.usg.edu/id:tmll_hpcrc_68811514"],"dcterms_temporal":null,"dcterms_rights_holder":null,"dcterms_bibliographic_citation":null,"dlg_local_right":null,"dcterms_medium":["reports","records"],"dcterms_extent":["[2], 7 p. ; 26 cm."],"dlg_subject_personal":null,"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":null},{"id":"tmll_hpcrc_40880550","title":"Community forum on the status of civil rights in Garden City and Finney County, Kansas","collection_id":"tmll_hpcrc","collection_title":"Historical Publications of the United States Commission on Civil Rights","dcterms_contributor":["United States Commission on Civil Rights. Kansas Advisory Committee"],"dcterms_spatial":["United States, Kansas, Finney County, 38.0443, -100.73699","United States, Kansas, Garden City"],"dcterms_creator":null,"dc_date":["1987"],"dcterms_description":["A digital version of the report published by the United States Commission on Civil Rights.","The Civil Rights Digital Library received support from a National Leadership Grant for Libraries awarded to the University of Georgia by the Institute of Museum and Library Services for the aggregation and enhancement of partner metadata."],"dc_format":["application/pdf"],"dcterms_identifier":null,"dcterms_language":null,"dcterms_publisher":null,"dc_relation":["Forms part of online collection: Historical Publications of the United States Commission on Civil Rights.","Requires Acrobat plug-in to view files."],"dc_right":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/NoC-US/1.0/"],"dcterms_is_part_of":null,"dcterms_subject":["Civil rights--Kansas--Garden City","Hispanic Americans--Civil rights--Kansas--Garden City","Civil rights--Kansas--Finney County","Hispanic Americans--Civil rights--Kansas--Finney County"],"dcterms_title":["Community forum on the status of civil rights in Garden City and Finney County, Kansas"],"dcterms_type":["Text"],"dcterms_provenance":["Thurgood Marshall Law Library"],"edm_is_shown_by":["http://www2.law.umaryland.edu/marshall/usccr/documents/cr12c733z.pdf"],"edm_is_shown_at":["http://crdl.usg.edu/id:tmll_hpcrc_40880550"],"dcterms_temporal":null,"dcterms_rights_holder":null,"dcterms_bibliographic_citation":null,"dlg_local_right":null,"dcterms_medium":["reports","records"],"dcterms_extent":["22 p."],"dlg_subject_personal":null,"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":null},{"id":"bcas_bcmss0837_409","title":"Discipline, annual district suspension summary report","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":["1987/1988"],"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","Education--Evaluation","Educational statistics","School discipline","Student suspension"],"dcterms_title":["Discipline, annual district suspension summary report"],"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/409"],"dcterms_temporal":null,"dcterms_rights_holder":null,"dcterms_bibliographic_citation":null,"dlg_local_right":null,"dcterms_medium":["reports"],"dcterms_extent":null,"dlg_subject_personal":null,"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":"\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n\n\n\n   \n\n\n\n\n   \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n  \n\nLITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 1987-88 ANNUAL DISTRICT SUSPENSION SUMMARY REPORT August 31, 1987 - June 15, 1988 Pupil Services Department Little Rock School District 810 West Markham Little Rock, Arkansast  LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT SUSPENSION DATA 1987-8,8 Annual District Summary August 31, 1987 - June IS, 1 08 SCHOOL REASON CODE (SHMT-TERi^. 3-10 DAYS) B/H B/F H/H H/F WAL (BEvtffiS^\u0026amp;AYS) 0/H B/F H/H H/F TOTAL Senior High Totals Junior High Totals Elementary Totals GRAND TOTALS Percent District-Wide Total 317 114 74 22 527 24 9 3 0 36 1,005 349 553 359 108 2,025 56 12 13 2 83 75 49 3 476 2 1 0 0 3 1,671 li\\2 25% 482 16% 133 4% 3,028 94% 82 67% 22 16 18% 13% 2 2% 122 4% 1,671 742 482 133 3,028 82 22 16 2 122 55% 25% 16% 18% 13% 2% 4% 1987-88 D STRICT Black Male Black Female Miite Male I'Jliite Female Black Male Black Female Total 8,003 7,860 15,863 3T 30' fV .o 1% 61% 1,780 777 2,557 506 137 WIDE ENROLLMENT BY RACl White Male 5,021  White Female 4^9^ Total 9,950 Black Male Overrepreseitatior : Izt Black Overrepresentati30: 19% District Suspi lyt)7-88 Li.,ti ict Wide T 'tal Enrol lemnt Black Enrollment White Enrollment Other Enrollment EXPULSION 6/M B/F W/H H/F TOTAL 26,128 15,863 9.950 315 OTT total 61% 33% * Q\u0026gt; 1 16 10 1 27 7 6 0 13 54% 26% 21 13 1 7 0 8 16% 8 0 2 0 2 4% 2 24 25 1 50 2% 50 587 2,133 480 3.200 3,200 16' '.*8 67J 15' O' 12.2% 12.2 54% 26% 16% 4% 27 56% 24% 80% 16% 4% 20% AND s :x 19' e' A\u0026gt; 19% 387 nsion Suspension Rate 22- 10'\n16% 10% 3% 6% Other Male Other Female Total !ate\n12.2% 169 146 315 0.6' 0.5 1.1SCHOOL TLASON COOL 1-1 1-2 1-3 1-4 1-5 1-6A 1-68 1-7 1-8 1-9 1-10 1-11 1-12 Sub-Total Sub-Total GRAND TOTAL r-'. LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL UlilRlCl SUSPENSION DATA 1987-88 Annual District Summary by Reason Code August 31, 1987 - June 15, 1988 WT-Of-ME------ {SH0RT-TERJ4. 3-10 DAYS) B/H B/F W/H H/F DIAL (beyI^*?X^\u0026amp;ays) B/H B/F M/H H/F TOTAL EXPULSION B/W B/F W/H H/F TOTAL WT TOTAL 9 19 465 4 50 217 348 8 5 146 6 102 23 8 5 245 1 33 110 109 6 137 3 1 26 1-13A 16 1-13B 2-1 2-2 2-3 2-3A 2-38 2-4 2-5 2-6 2-7 2-8 2-10 2-11 2-12 3-3 3-4 3-6 3-7A 3-78 3-8 3-9 3-10 3-11 3-12 4 16 1 86 1 44 17 3 4 51 29 99 1 1 27 32 29 1 9 14 13 3 36 1,434 667 436 2 17 8 9 3 3 4 128 20 31 873  5 147 359 592 9 9 276 47 184 44 31 38 2,665 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 20 31 873 5 147 359 592 9 9 276 47 184 44 31 38 2,665 1 83'5 42 14 36 1 6 8 2 6 6 5 57 1 1 7 9 12 7 3 2 12 237 8 8 11 1 4 1 4 1 54 23 52 2 7 11 5 1 1 28 1 7 4 13 1 2 1 8 6 2 1 75 1,671 742 1 8 3 46 482 1 5 133 6 8 2 7 13 TOO 2 1 1 8 18 27 7 5 2 16 363 3,028 1 5 1 1 3 1 1 1 4 22 1 6 2 1 1 2 6 3 7 1 1 5 32 82 2 2 8 2 22 22 4 1 2 16 16 1 2 2 11 12 6 1 1 5 1 2 1 2 1 1 5 31 1 4 8 3 20 2 1 9 122 122 1 1 1 2 1 3 1 2 1 11 5 2 10 1 5 2 4 1 12 22 1 2 1 2 66 37 58 3 1 11 8 3 7 14 132 2 4 2 1 16 27 15 07 9 6 5 25 27 21 13 8 2 50 535 17, 13 8 2 50 3,200 12*.LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT Revised Susper n Reason Codes 19O7-CO 1 - Violations of Category 1 offenses\nClassroom and Building Rules: 1-1 1-2 - Academic dishonesty (cheating on tests: copying\nforging signature of teacher o.' parent) - Failure to report to office when directed to do so 2-4 2-5 2-6 1-3 1-4 1-5 1-6A 1-6B 1-7 1-8 1-9 - Fighting - Harassment (nuisance telephone calls to students, or staff Bsabers\ncontinued coerments or passing of notes to another Individual that ha does not wish to hear or receive) - Leaving school grounds without permission - Teacher disobedience - Refusing to obey rules and regulations - Refusing to follow bus rules and regulations - Refusing to do assigned work - Refusing to serve detention 2-7 2-0 2-9 2-10 2-11 . 2-12 1-10 1-11 1-12 1-13A 1-130 - Smoking - Using foul or abusive language (obscenities) - Verbal assault on another student or others (fighting words) - First offense use and/or possession of alcohol - First offense use and/or possession of nonprescribed drugs, hallucinogens, marijuana or similar substances or of any unauthorized drugs . or substances. 2 - Violations of Category 2 offenses 2-1 - Assault 2-2 - Oattery 2-3 - Theft 2-3A - Burglary/larccny 2-33 - Robbery - Criminal trespassing - Gambling - False alarm - Loitering - Hallclous mischief - Unlawful asscffhly - Indecent exposure - Disorderly conduct - Harassing communications 3 - Violations of Category 3 offenses: 3-1 3-2 3-3 3-4 3-5 3-6 3-7A 3-70 3-8 3-9 3-10 3-11 3-12 - Sale or distribution of alcohol - Second offense, alcohol - Sale or distribution of drugs - Second offense, drugs - Failure to follow through with drug or alcohol counseling or trcatra\nnt - Arson - Physical assault on staff - Verbal assault on staff - Possession of firearm - Possession of weapon - Possession of flrcirorks or explosives - Extortion, blaclunall or coercion - Encl ting to riot 4 - (Offense not specifically ^ntioned in studwt conduct code but which calls for disciplinary action if It is disruptive, hams others, or has a potentially d1sn4)ltvo affect on the school environment because of Its criminal nature.) (Revised 1/C3)GRADE LEVEL ENROLLEHEWT little ROCk SCHOOL DISTRICT SUSPENSION DATA Grade Black ? White % Other % Total % 10th 1076 51 985 48 31 1 2092 34 1987-83 Annual District Summary ills 1085 51 i 55 August 31, 1987 - June 15, 1988 51 985 I 108! 48 31 SCHOOL (EASON CODE MiW-^ (SWJST-TEHM, 3-10 DAYS) B/H B/F H/H U/F TOL (BEyhS^iJ^YS) B/M b/F N/H tf/F TOTAL Senior High Total Grade 10 Percent Black White Grade 11 Percent Black White Grade 12 Percent Black White GRAND TOTAL Percent Bl ack White 141 58% 118 60 15 243 16 7 2 0 25 25% 11% 201/83% 42/17% 6% 86% 64% 28% 8% 23/92% 2/8% 0 9% 37 18 3 176 7 1 0 0 9 67% 21% 10% 155/88% 21/12% 2% 92% 78% z2% 9/100% 0 58 17 29 4 108 1 0 1 0 1 53% 16% 27% 75/69% 33/31% 317 114 60% 22% 74 14% 431/82% 96/18% 4% 22 4% 95% 50% 50% 1/50% 1/50% 2% 527 90% 24 9 3 0 36 67% 25% 8% 33/92% 3/8% 0 6% Enrollment Black Enrollment White Enrollment Other EXPULSION 8/W 6ZF WZH /F 10 4 1 0 67% in n 14/93% 1/7% 0 4 1 0 0 bn 33% 6/100% 0 1 1 0 0 67% 33% 3/100% 0 16 1 1 0 67% 29% 4% 23/96% 1/4% 0 6,143 2,935 3,119 89 TOTAL 15 5% 6 3 3% 24 4% 48% 51% 1% w TOTAL 283 238 45 191 170 21 113 79 34 587 487 100 I 48% 84% 16% . 33% 89% 11% 19% 70% 30% 18 83% 17%SCHOOL (EASON C)E 53T1OT55L------- (SHORT-TERM, 3-10 DAYS) B/H B/E M/H M/F CENTRAL HIGH SCHOOL LITTLE RoCK SCHOOL DISTRICT SUSPENSION DATA 1987-83 Annual District Summary August 31, 1987 - June 15, 1983  I , I 50/ OUIlC I J , Senior High Level 1987-88 Enrol Itnenr Black Enrol lire\" Whi te Enrol lirent Other 6,143 2,935 3,119 89 48? 51 * n 1% TOL (beyS^TJ^^ys) B/H B/F W/H H/F TOTAL EXPULSION B/H B/F M/H H/F TOTAL TOTAL 1 Grand Tota Percent Black White 35 39% 26 29% 20 22% 61/68% 29/32% 9 10% 90 84% 5 46% 3 27% 8/73% 3/27% 3 27% 0 0 11 10% 3 50% 2 33% 5/83% 1/17% 1 17% 0 6 6% 107 18% FAIR HIGH SPOOL Grand Total Percent Black White HALL HIGH SCtOOL Grand Tota' Percent Black White 18 25 18 1 162 7 2 0 0 9 3 0 0 0 3 73% 81 66% MCCLELLAN HIC TSCHC )L Grand Total Percent Black White 59 58% 15% 11% 143/88% 19/12% 30 25% 10 8% 111/91% 11/9% 26 26% 12 12% 85/84% 16/16% METROPOLITAN VO-TEC 1 Grand Tota' Percent Black White 12 43% 3 10% 8 29% 15/54% 13/46% 1% 1 1% 4 4% 5 18% 93% 78% 22% 9/100% 0 5% 100% 3/100% 0 2% PhRKVIEW HIGH SCHOO. 74 33 174 155 19 122 88% 101 89% 28 100% 69% 31% 30% 89% 11% 5 71% 6 75% 0 2 29% 0 0 7 5% 5 50% 5 50% 0 0 10 7% 139 24% 7/100% 0 10/100% 0 128 11 92% 8% 2 25% 0 0 8 7% 5 100% 0 0 0 5 4% 114 19% 8/100% 0 5/100% 0 98 6 86% 14% 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 28 15 13 5% 54% 46% Grand Total Percent Black White TCTAL SENIOR HIGH LI Grand Total Percent Black White 12 50% 4 17% 6 25% 16/67% 8/33% 2 8% 24 96% 1 00% 0 0 0 1 4% 0 0 0 0 0 25 4% . VEL 317 60% 114 22% 74 14% 431/82% 96/18% 22 4% 527 90% 24 )7% 1/100% 0 9 25% 3 8% 33/92% 3/8% 0 0 36 6% 16 67% 0 0 17 8 68% 32% 7 29% 1 4% 23/96% 1/4% 0 0 24 4% 587 18% 487 100 18t 83% 17'll Hli. T\nI, 1 Ota I 1 .TIB ,.'.0116 I ,'115 5.854 uUl L I I..,, , 33?. 34\n33-. little rock school district SUSPENSION DATA 1987-88 Aiinudl District Summary August 31, 1987 - June 15, 1988 'ior High Enrollment 5.854 Black Enrollment White Enrollment Other 3,613 2,166 75 62% 37% 1% SCHOOL IWSON CODE {SHORT-TERM, 3-10 OATS) JUNIOR HIGH Grade 7 Percent Black White Grade 8 Percent Black White Grade 9 Percent Black White Grand Total Percent Black White total\nfl/H B/F M/H 368 171 127 54% 25% 539/79% 141/21% 358 192 19% 81 53% 29% 550/82% 122/18% 279 190 12% 151 41% 28%\n469/70% 204/30% 1,005 553 23% 359 50% 27% 1,558/77% 467/23% 18% H/F 14 2% 41 6% 53 8% 108 5% WAL 680 97% 672 95% 673 92% 2,025 955 (BEtl^iJ^\u0026amp;Ays) B/M B/F H/H M/F 9 4 3 0 56% 17 63% 30 75% 56 68% TOTAL 16 25% 19% 13/81 % 3/19% 0 2% 5 3 2 27 19% 11% 22/81% 5/19% 7% 4% 3 7 0 40 7% 18% 33/83% 7/17% 12 13 14% 16% 68/82% 15/18% 0 2 2% 6% 83 4% EXPULSION B/H 8/F W/H H/F TOTAL TOT total 1 2 3 0 0 5 701 33% 40% 4 67% 4 29% 10 40% 60% 5/100% 0_____ 0 0 1% 557 144 79% 21 (W la 2 0 0 6 705 33% 33% 6/100% 0 0 0 1% 578 127 82% 18% 1 7 2 14 727 34% 7% 5/36% 9/64% 50% 14% 2% ' 507 220 70% 30% 6 7 2 25 2,133 67, 24% 16/64% 9/36% 28% 8% 1 1,642 491 77% 23%SCHOOL lEASON CODE dUT-OP-MiWi:------ (SHORT-TERM, 3-10 OATS) B/H B/F W/H H/F CLOVERDALE 31 . HIGH SCHOOL Grand Total Percent Black White_______ DUNBAR 3R. H Grand Total Percent Black White 221 56% 105 56 26% 14% 325/82% 71/18% 15 4% GH SCIOOL 195 51% 121 52 32% 14% 316/83% 65/17% 13 3% FOREST HEIGHTS 3R. HIGH SCHOOL Grand Total Percent Black White HENDERSON 3R . HIGH 121 42% 83 58 29% 20% 204/71% 83/29% 25 9% SCHOOL Grand Total Percent Black White HABELVALE 3R Grand Total Percent Black White HIGH 179 49% SCHOOL 99 47% 93 65 25% 18% 272/74% 97/26% 64 46 30% 22% 163/77% 48/23% 32 8% LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT SUSPENSION DATA 1987-88 Annual District Summary August 31, 1987 - June 15, 1988 BIAL 396 93% 381 95% 287 98% 369 98% B/M B/F M/H tf/F TOTAL 2 1% 211 95% 28 88% 9 53% 0 0 0 0 3 50% 2 6% 30/94% 2/6% 3 18% 12/71% 5/29% 0 0 0 2 6% 0 0 32 7% 3 2 18% 11% 2 100% 2/100% 0 0 4 ( 100% ( 4/100% 0 0 0 ! 3/50% 3/50% 3 50% 0 0 0 0 0 0 17 4% 2 1% 4 1% 6 3% Enrollment Black Enrollment White Enrollment Other EXPULSION B/M B/F W/H M/F 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 25% 25% 2/50% 2/50% 1 25% 1 25% 1 3 25% 75% 4/100% 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 1 33\n, 2 67% 0 0 0 100% 0 4/100% 0______ 0 0 0 0 5,854 3,613 2,166 75 TOTAL 0 0 4 1% 4 1% 3 1% 4 2% 62% 37% 1% TOT TOTAL 428 355 73 402 330 72 293 208 85 376 277 99 221 170 -Si 20% 83% 17% 19% 82% 18% 14% 71% 29% 18% 74% 26% 10% 77% 231LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT SUSPENSION DATA 1987-88 Annual District Summary August 31, 1987 - June 15, 1988 SCHOOL CEASOR CODE oorsrsnroc (SHORT-TERM, 3-10 DAYS) B/H B/F M/H W/F mi (BEYl583'iJ^^YS) B/M b/F H/H W/F TOTAL EXPULSION B/M B/F W/M W/F TOTAL TO TOTAL 1 MANN OR. HIGH MAGNE' SCHOOL Grand Total Percent Black White 25 36% 19 : 27%\n44/63% 26/37% 21 30% 5 7% 70 95% 3 75% 1 ( 25% I 4/100% 0 0 0 0 0 4 5% 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 74 48 26 3% 65% 35% PULASKI HEIGH S OR. HIGH SCHOOL Grand Total Percent Black . White 58 59% 26 27% 84/86% 14/14% 10 10% 4 4% 98 90% 5 63% 2 25% 7/88% 1/12% 1 12% 0 0 8 7% 3 100% 0 I 0 I 3/100% 0 0 0 0 0 3 3% 109 94 15 5% 86% 14% SOUTHWEST JR. HIGH Grand Total Percent Black White 107 50% 43 ! 20% : 150/70% 63/30% 51 24% 12 6% 213 93% 8 80% 0 0\n8/80% 2/20% 2 20% 0 0 10 4% 1 14% 1 14% ! 2/29% 5/71% 4 58% 1 14% 7 3% 230 11% TOTAL JUNIOR 1 IGH LE7EL Grand Total Percent Black White 1,005 50% 553 27% 1,558/77% 467/23% 359 18% 108 5% 2,025 95! 56 68% 12 14% 68/82% 15/18% 13 16% 2 2% 83 4% 10 40% 6 24%\n16/64% 9/36% 7 28% 2 8% 25 1% 160 70 70% 30% 2,133 67i 1,642 491 77% 23%ripinentary Enrollment Total\nBl ack Whi te ether 14,192 9,352 4,691 149 LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 33.1% 1987-83 1.0% SUSPENSION DATA Annual Sunmary I EASON SCHOOL CODE OUT-OF-iCHOOL (SHORT-TERM, 3-10 DAYS) - ........ H/F UIAL B/H BZF W/H B/M (BEYbSS^iS^^YS) B/F M/H H/F TOTAL EXPULSION B/M B/F W/H H/F TOTAL W TOTAL 1 ELEMENTARY SCHOOL TOTALS GRADE K Percent Black Whi te GRADE 1 Percent Black White GRADE 2 Percent Black White GRADE 3 Percent Black White GRADE 4 Percent Black White GRADE 5 Percent Black White 2 67 0 1 33 2/67% 1/33% 0 3 0 0 3 .6 67 33 12 75 1 2 6.3 12.4 13/81.2% 3/18.8% 1 6.3 16 0 0 16 3.3 31.2 18.8 21 78 0 I 6 22 21/77.8% 6/22.2% 0 27 0 0 27 5.6 77.8 22.2 65 76 12 14 9 10 77/90% 9/10% 0 86 0 0 86 17.9 90 10 77 72 81 18 11 16.8 10.3 95/88.8% 12/11.2% 28 8 69.3 23.9 6.8 109/93.2% ____________8/6.8% 1 .9 0 107 99.1 117 99.2 1 100 0 0 0 0 1 100 0 0 0 1/100% 0 1 .8 1/100% 0 1 .9 0 108 118 22.5 88.8 11.2 24.6 93.2 6.8LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 1987-88 SUSPENSION DATA Annual Sunmary SCHOOL lEASON CODE (SHORT-TERM. 3-10 DAYS) B/l-1 B/F H/H F- W/F IJIAL B/H (.nWSn) B/F M/H W/F TOTAL EXPULSION B/H B/F H/H H/F TOTAL TOT TOTAL 1 GRADE 6 Percent Black White 91 16 12 75.9 13.3 10 107/89% 13/11% 1 .8 120 98.4 1 50 1 50 2/100% 0____ 2 1.6 0 122 25.5 89.3 10.7 GRAND TOTAL Percent Black White_____ 349 75 49 73.3 15.8 10.3 424/89.1' * . K 52/10.9% 3 .6 476 99.2 2 67 1 33 0 0 3 .6 1 100 0 0 0 1 .2 480 15 3/100% 0 1/100% 0 89.2 10.SV E'.en-entary Enrollment Total: Slack White ether ELEMENTARY GRANO TOTALS 14,192 9,352 4,691 149 65.9% 33 .'1% l.OX LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT SUSPENSION DATA 1987-88 Annual Summary SCHOOL lEASON CODE 6uT-6F-Sro----- (SHORT-TERM, 3-10 DAYS) -  -- ....... W/F B/H \u0026gt; B/F W/H TOAL B/H (beyEnoiJ^Says) B/F W/H M/F TOTAL EXPULSION B/M B/F W/H M/F TOTAL W TOTAL z BADGETT Grand Total Percent Black White 415 Grand Total 'Percent SI ack Whi te BASELINE jrand Total arcent Black Xhile BOOKER Brand Total Bercent Black Xhite BRADY Grand Total ercent Black White GARVER Grand Total ercent Black White 16 100 0 0 0 1 100 0 12 7S 21 16/100% 0 0 0 16 100 0 0 16 3.. 10, 1/100% 0 4 25 0 0 1 1 100 0 0 1 .2 IOC 16/100% 0 2 87.5 4.2 8.3 22/91.7% 2/ 8.3% 2 50 12 80 0 1 25 0 16 100 24 100 0 0 16 3.  IOC 0 0 24 5.C 91. 8.3 1 25 3/75% 1/25% 3 20 12/80% 3/20% 0 0 4 100 15 100 0 0 4 .3 75 25 0 0 15 3.1 80 20r LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT SUSPENSION DATA ELEMENTARY GRAND TOTALS 1987-88 Annual Sumnarv SCHOOL 1 EASON CODE WT-W-SCOT------- (SHORT-TEBH, 3-10 DAYS) B/H B/F W/H W/F WAL B/H (beyEnoiJ^^ys) B/F M/H W/F TOTAL B/M EXPULSION B/F W/H H/F TOTAL TOT TOTAL I CHICOT Grand Total Percent Black White DODD Grand Total Percent Black White FOREST PARK Grand Total Percent Black White FRANKLIN Grand Total Percent Black White FULBRIGHT Grand Total Percent Black White GARLAND Grand Total Percent Black White 72 75 16 7 16.7 7.3 88/91.7? 8/ 8.3? 1 1.0 96 100 0 0 96 20 O L 10 1 5 58.8 5.9 29.4 11/64.71 n 6/35.3? 19 5 4 67.8 17.9 14.3 24/85.7? 4/14.3? 4 3 0 57.1 42.9 7/100? 0 1 100 0 0 1/100? 0 14 3 0 82.4 17.6 17/100? 0 1 5.9 17 94.4 1 100 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 28 100 7 100 1 100 17 94.4 1/100? _Q__ 1 5.6 0 18 3.E 66. 33. 0 0 28 5.E 85. 14. 0 0 0 1 100 0 0 0 0 7 1.5 icr 0 1 .2 IOC 1/100? 0 1 5.6 18 3.8 100LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT SUSPENSION DATA 1987-88 Annual ELEMENTARY GRAND TOTALS Sunmary SCHOOL REASON CODE mrOTJi (SHORT-TERM, 3-10 DAYS) B/H B/F M/H W/F UTAL B/M {BEYbMD^iJ^\u0026amp;AYS) B/F W/H W/F TOTAL B/H EXPULSION B/F W/H W/F TOTAL TOT TOTAL I. GEYER SPRINGS Grand Total Percent Black White 8 3 53.3 20 4 26.7 0 15 I nn* 0 0 15 3.1 '/26.7 73. 26. GIBBS ijrand Total Percent Black White ISH JrTnd Total Percent Black White JEFFERSON Grand Total Percent Black White MABELVALE Grand Total Percent Black White MeOEPMOTT Grand Total Percent Bl acl i\u0026gt;'h i te 4 67 2 33 0 0 1 50 6 75 18 1 50 2 25 4 6/100? 0 6 100? 0 c 6 1.5 IOC 0 0 2/100? _2__ 2 100? 0 0 2 .4 ICC 0 0 8/100? 0 8 100? 0 0 8 1.7 ICC 1 78.2 17.4 4.4 22/95.7 ___________1/4.3 19 3 2 79.2 12.5 8.3 22/91.7 ___________2/8^ 0 0 23 100? 24 961 1 100 0 0 0 0 0 23 4.8 95. 4.3 1/1001 0 I? 1 4? 25 5.2 92 _____8..ELEMENTARY GRAND TOTALS SCHOOL REASON CODE ronoro {SHORT-TERM, 3-10 OATS) LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT SUSPENSION DATA 1987-88 Annual Sunmary MEADOWCUFF Grand Total Percent Black White 8/H B/F W/H 4 100 0 0 4/100% 0 W/F 0 TJTAL 4 100% (BEvbSg^J^\u0026amp;Jrs) B/M B/F W/H W/F TOTAL 0 EXPULSION B/H B/F W/H W/F TOTAL 0 W TOTAL 4 1 .8 100 MITCHELL Grand Total Percent Black White OTTER CREEK (Irand Total Percent Black White RIGHTSELL Grand Total Percent Black White ROCKEFELLER Grand Total Percent Black White ROMINE Grand Total Percent Black White 1 25 0 3 75 1/25% 3/75% 0 4 100% 0 0 4 .8 25 75 1 100 0 0 0 2 25 22 88 0 1/100% 0 1 5 12.5 62.5 3/37.5% 5/62.5% 0 0 I 3 12 22/88% 3/12% 0 0 I 3 100 0 3/100% 0 1 50% 8 100% 25 lOOJ 3 100% 0 1 ( 100 1/100% 0 0 0 1 50% 0 2 .4 100 0 0 8 1.7 37.5 62.5 0 0 25 5.2 88 12 0 0 3 .6 100ELEMENTARY GRAND TOTALS SCHOOL lEASON CODE 5u7:i5rOTn[ (SHORT-TERM, 3-10 DAYS) B/n B/F W/H H/F LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 1987-88 THAL SUSPENSION DATA Annual Suonary B/M (BEYbNS'iJ^\u0026amp;AYS) B/F W/H W/F TOTAL B/M EXPULSION B/F W/M W/F TOTAL TOTAL TERRY Grand Total Percent Black White WAKEFIELD Grand Total Percent Black White WASHINGTON Grand Total Percent Black White WATSON Grand Total Percent Black White WESTERN HILLS Grand Total Percent Black White WILLIAMS MAGNET\"' Grand Total Percent Black White 24 5 2 0 77.4 16.1 6.5 29/93.6% 2/6.4% 4 40 5 50 1 I 10 9/90% 1/10% 0 6 100 0 0 0 6 50 12 31 100% 10 100% 6 100% 0 0 31 6.5 93.6 6.4 0 0 10 2.1 90 10 0 0 6 1.3 6/100% 0 4 1 33.4 8.3 10/83% 2/17% 1 8.3 12 lOOS 0 0 12 100 2.5 83 17 1 0 92.3 7.7 13/100% 0 3 60 2 40 0 5/100% 0 0 0 13 100% 5 100% 0 0 13 2.7 100 0 0 5 1.0 100LLEMENTARY GRAND TOTALS (EASON SCHOOL CODE LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 1987-88 SUSPENSION DATA Annual Summary -----TOTOTT , (SHORT-TERM, 3-10 DAYS) B/H B/F W/H W/F M UTAL , LONG-TERM ,, (BEYOND 16 DAYS) B/H B/F W/H W/F TOTAL B/H EXPULSION B/F W/H W/F TOTAL OT TOTAL WILSON Grand Total Percent Black White 8 6 0 0 57.1 42.9 14.100% ---------------------6------ 14 100% 0 0 14 2.9 100 WQDRUFF Grand Total Percent Black White McClellan HTUrmNDER- GARTEN---------- GRADE K Grand Total Percent Black White ELEMENTARY TOTALS Percent Black White 16 2 1 0 84.2 10.5 5.3 18/94.7% __________l/53_ U. 0 IL 0 1 1 100 0 1/100% IL 0 349 75 49 73.3 15.8 10.3 424/89.1% 52/10.9% 3 .6 19 100% 1 100 476 99.2 0 0 0 0 0 0 19 4.0 94.7 5.3 TL 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 .2 100 2 67 1 33 0 0 3/100% 0 3 .6 1 100 0 0 0 1 .2 480 15' 1/100% 0 89.2 10.8\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":"tmll_hpcrc_40345387","title":"Federal enforcement of equal employment requirements","collection_id":"tmll_hpcrc","collection_title":"Historical Publications of the United States Commission on Civil Rights","dcterms_contributor":null,"dcterms_spatial":["United States, 39.76, -98.5"],"dcterms_creator":null,"dc_date":["1987"],"dcterms_description":["A digital version of the report published by the United States Commission on Civil Rights.","The Civil Rights Digital Library received support from a National Leadership Grant for Libraries awarded to the University of Georgia by the Institute of Museum and Library Services for the aggregation and enhancement of partner metadata."],"dc_format":["application/pdf"],"dcterms_identifier":null,"dcterms_language":null,"dcterms_publisher":null,"dc_relation":["Forms part of online collection: Historical Publications of the United States Commission on Civil Rights.","Requires Acrobat plug-in to view files."],"dc_right":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/NoC-US/1.0/"],"dcterms_is_part_of":null,"dcterms_subject":["United States. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission--Evaluation","United States. Dept. of Justice. Civil Rights Division--Evaluation","United States. Office of Federal Contract Compliance Programs--Evaluation","Discrimination in employment--United States","Affirmative action programs--United States"],"dcterms_title":["Federal enforcement of equal employment requirements"],"dcterms_type":["Text"],"dcterms_provenance":["Thurgood Marshall Law Library"],"edm_is_shown_by":["http://www2.law.umaryland.edu/marshall/usccr/documents/cr11093z.pdf"],"edm_is_shown_at":["http://crdl.usg.edu/id:tmll_hpcrc_40345387"],"dcterms_temporal":null,"dcterms_rights_holder":null,"dcterms_bibliographic_citation":null,"dlg_local_right":null,"dcterms_medium":["reports","records"],"dcterms_extent":["iv, 140 p. : ill. ; 28 cm."],"dlg_subject_personal":null,"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":null},{"id":"tmll_hpcrc_40679159","title":"Hispanic student dropout problem in Colorado","collection_id":"tmll_hpcrc","collection_title":"Historical Publications of the United States Commission on Civil Rights","dcterms_contributor":["United States Commission on Civil Rights. Colorado Advisory Committee"],"dcterms_spatial":["United States, Colorado, 39.00027, -105.50083"],"dcterms_creator":null,"dc_date":["1987"],"dcterms_description":["A digital version of the report published by the United States Commission on Civil Rights.","The Civil Rights Digital Library received support from a National Leadership Grant for Libraries awarded to the University of Georgia by the Institute of Museum and Library Services for the aggregation and enhancement of partner metadata."],"dc_format":["application/pdf"],"dcterms_identifier":null,"dcterms_language":null,"dcterms_publisher":null,"dc_relation":["Forms part of online collection: Historical Publications of the United States Commission on Civil Rights."],"dc_right":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/NoC-US/1.0/"],"dcterms_is_part_of":null,"dcterms_subject":["Hispanic American dropouts--Colorado","High school dropouts--Colorado"],"dcterms_title":["Hispanic student dropout problem in Colorado"],"dcterms_type":["Text"],"dcterms_provenance":["Thurgood Marshall Law Library"],"edm_is_shown_by":["http://www2.law.umaryland.edu/marshall/usccr/documents/cr12d83z.pdf"],"edm_is_shown_at":["http://crdl.usg.edu/id:tmll_hpcrc_40679159"],"dcterms_temporal":null,"dcterms_rights_holder":null,"dcterms_bibliographic_citation":null,"dlg_local_right":null,"dcterms_medium":["reports","records"],"dcterms_extent":["20 p."],"dlg_subject_personal":null,"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":null},{"id":"tmll_hpcrc_40345381","title":"New evidence on school desegregation","collection_id":"tmll_hpcrc","collection_title":"Historical Publications of the United States Commission on Civil Rights","dcterms_contributor":["Light, Audrey","Unicon Research Corporation"],"dcterms_spatial":["United States, 39.76, -98.5"],"dcterms_creator":["Welch, Finis, 1938-"],"dc_date":["1987"],"dcterms_description":["A digital version of the report published by the United States Commission on Civil Rights.","The Civil Rights Digital Library received support from a National Leadership Grant for Libraries awarded to the University of Georgia by the Institute of Museum and Library Services for the aggregation and enhancement of partner metadata."],"dc_format":["application/pdf"],"dcterms_identifier":null,"dcterms_language":null,"dcterms_publisher":null,"dc_relation":["Forms part of online collection: Historical Publications of the United States Commission on Civil Rights.","Requires Acrobat plug-in to view files."],"dc_right":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/NoC-US/1.0/"],"dcterms_is_part_of":null,"dcterms_subject":["School integration--United States","United States--Race relations"],"dcterms_title":["New evidence on school desegregation"],"dcterms_type":["Text"],"dcterms_provenance":["Thurgood Marshall Law Library"],"edm_is_shown_by":["http://www2.law.umaryland.edu/marshall/usccr/documents/CR12D45Z.pdf"],"edm_is_shown_at":["http://crdl.usg.edu/id:tmll_hpcrc_40345381"],"dcterms_temporal":null,"dcterms_rights_holder":null,"dcterms_bibliographic_citation":null,"dlg_local_right":null,"dcterms_medium":["reports","records"],"dcterms_extent":["viii, 176 p. ; 23 cm."],"dlg_subject_personal":null,"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":null}],"pages":{"current_page":32,"next_page":33,"prev_page":31,"total_pages":115,"limit_value":12,"offset_value":372,"total_count":1371,"first_page?":false,"last_page?":false},"facets":[{"name":"educator_resource_mediums_sms","items":[{"value":"timelines (chronologies)","hits":4},{"value":"online exhibitions","hits":2},{"value":"teaching guides","hits":2},{"value":"annotated bibliographies","hits":1},{"value":"learning modules","hits":1},{"value":"slide shows","hits":1},{"value":"worksheets","hits":1}],"options":{"sort":"count","limit":16,"offset":0,"prefix":null}},{"name":"type_facet","items":[{"value":"Text","hits":1362},{"value":"StillImage","hits":48},{"value":"MovingImage","hits":3}],"options":{"sort":"count","limit":16,"offset":0,"prefix":null}},{"name":"creator_facet","items":[{"value":"Spaulding, Elna B. (Elna Bridgeforth)","hits":101},{"value":"United States Commission on Civil Rights","hits":86},{"value":"South Carolina Council on Human Relations","hits":78},{"value":"Office of Desegregation Monitoring (Little Rock, Ark.)","hits":58},{"value":"Newman, I. DeQuincey (Isaiah DeQuincey), 1911-1985","hits":51},{"value":"Mississippi State Sovereignty Commission","hits":49},{"value":"Arkansas. Department of Education","hits":39},{"value":"Little Rock School District","hits":38},{"value":"Women-In-Action for the Prevention of Violence and Its Causes, Inc. Durham Chapter (Durham, N.C.)","hits":34},{"value":"Adams, E. A. (Eugene Avery), 1886-1958","hits":29},{"value":"Whitener, Basil Lee, 1915-","hits":29}],"options":{"sort":"count","limit":11,"offset":0,"prefix":null}},{"name":"subject_facet","items":[{"value":"Education--Arkansas","hits":255},{"value":"Race relations","hits":252},{"value":"Educational statistics","hits":193},{"value":"African Americans--Civil rights","hits":188},{"value":"Education--Evaluation","hits":187},{"value":"Civil rights--South Carolina","hits":164},{"value":"Little Rock (Ark.)--History--20th century","hits":158},{"value":"Durham (N.C.)--History","hits":141},{"value":"Little Rock School District","hits":131},{"value":"African American civil rights workers","hits":90},{"value":"Civil rights--Arkansas","hits":86}],"options":{"sort":"count","limit":11,"offset":0,"prefix":null}},{"name":"subject_personal_facet","items":[{"value":"Branton, Wiley Austin, 1923-1988","hits":29},{"value":"Adams, E. A. (Eugene Avery), 1886-1968--Correspondence","hits":27},{"value":"Chenault, Henry Clay","hits":27},{"value":"Davis, L. Clifford, 1924-","hits":27},{"value":"Dickey, Jay W., Sr.","hits":27},{"value":"Hunt, Silas Herbert, 1922–1949","hits":27},{"value":"Jones, Edith Irby, 1927-2019","hits":27},{"value":"Jones, Lewis Webster, 1899-1975","hits":27},{"value":"Parsons, Floyd W.","hits":23},{"value":"Spaulding, Elna B. (Elna Bridgeforth)","hits":19},{"value":"De Laine, Joseph A. (Joseph Armstrong), 1898-1974","hits":17}],"options":{"sort":"count","limit":11,"offset":0,"prefix":null}},{"name":"name_authoritative_sms","items":[{"value":"Branton, Wiley Austin, 1923-1988","hits":29},{"value":"Adams, E. A. (Eugene Avery), 1886-1968","hits":27},{"value":"Chenault, Henry Clay","hits":27},{"value":"Davis, L. Clifford, 1924-","hits":27},{"value":"Dickey, Jay W., Sr.","hits":27},{"value":"Hunt, Silas Herbert, 1922–1949","hits":27},{"value":"Jones, Edith Irby, 1927-2019","hits":27},{"value":"Jones, Lewis Webster, 1899-1975","hits":27},{"value":"Parsons, Floyd W.","hits":23},{"value":"Spaulding, Elna B. (Elna Bridgeforth)","hits":20},{"value":"De Laine, Joseph A. (Joseph Armstrong), 1898-1974","hits":17}],"options":{"sort":"count","limit":11,"offset":0,"prefix":null}},{"name":"event_title_sms","items":[{"value":"Housing Act of 1961","hits":43},{"value":"Civil Rights Act of 1957","hits":2},{"value":"Civil Rights Act of 1964","hits":2},{"value":"University of Georgia Integration","hits":2},{"value":"Freedom Rides","hits":1},{"value":"Little Rock Central High School Integration","hits":1},{"value":"Martin Luther King, Jr.'s Nobel Prize","hits":1},{"value":"Montgomery Bus Boycott","hits":1},{"value":"New York School Boycott","hits":1}],"options":{"sort":"count","limit":11,"offset":0,"prefix":null}},{"name":"location_facet","items":[{"value":"United States, 39.76, -98.5","hits":555},{"value":"United States, Arkansas, 34.75037, -92.50044","hits":342},{"value":"United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, 34.76993, -92.3118","hits":247},{"value":"United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, Little Rock, 34.74648, -92.28959","hits":211},{"value":"United States, South Carolina, 34.00043, -81.00009","hits":170},{"value":"United States, North Carolina, Durham County, Durham, 35.99403, -78.89862","hits":160},{"value":"United States, Mississippi, 32.75041, -89.75036","hits":38},{"value":"United States, District of Columbia, Washington, 38.89511, -77.03637","hits":37},{"value":"United States, Tennessee, Shelby County, Memphis, 35.14953, -90.04898","hits":36},{"value":"United States, Tennessee, Shelby County, 35.184, -89.8956","hits":34},{"value":"United States, Alabama, Lee County, Auburn, 32.60986, -85.48078","hits":30}],"options":{"sort":"count","limit":11,"offset":0,"prefix":null}},{"name":"us_states_facet","items":[{"value":"Arkansas","hits":345},{"value":"South Carolina","hits":215},{"value":"North Carolina","hits":193},{"value":"Mississippi","hits":84},{"value":"Georgia","hits":52},{"value":"Tennessee","hits":49},{"value":"Alabama","hits":43},{"value":"District of Columbia","hits":37},{"value":"Texas","hits":36},{"value":"Florida","hits":35},{"value":"New York","hits":17}],"options":{"sort":"count","limit":11,"offset":0,"prefix":null}},{"name":"year_facet","items":[{"value":"1968","hits":226},{"value":"1963","hits":187},{"value":"1967","hits":187},{"value":"1966","hits":181},{"value":"1964","hits":179},{"value":"1969","hits":173},{"value":"1961","hits":170},{"value":"1970","hits":165},{"value":"1965","hits":164},{"value":"1962","hits":162},{"value":"1981","hits":162},{"value":"1957","hits":159},{"value":"1960","hits":156},{"value":"1958","hits":152},{"value":"1980","hits":150},{"value":"1959","hits":147},{"value":"1972","hits":145},{"value":"1977","hits":144},{"value":"1974","hits":139},{"value":"1973","hits":137},{"value":"1982","hits":137},{"value":"1979","hits":136},{"value":"1955","hits":135},{"value":"1952","hits":133},{"value":"1956","hits":132},{"value":"1976","hits":132},{"value":"1978","hits":132},{"value":"1953","hits":126},{"value":"1954","hits":124},{"value":"1971","hits":122},{"value":"1994","hits":122},{"value":"1951","hits":121},{"value":"1946","hits":119},{"value":"1950","hits":119},{"value":"1975","hits":114},{"value":"1947","hits":113},{"value":"1948","hits":113},{"value":"1949","hits":112},{"value":"1945","hits":110},{"value":"1995","hits":103},{"value":"1996","hits":103},{"value":"1983","hits":102},{"value":"1992","hits":97},{"value":"1993","hits":92},{"value":"1991","hits":89},{"value":"1997","hits":87},{"value":"1989","hits":85},{"value":"1990","hits":84},{"value":"1998","hits":84},{"value":"1999","hits":84},{"value":"1943","hits":77},{"value":"2000","hits":77},{"value":"1944","hits":76},{"value":"1984","hits":76},{"value":"1987","hits":76},{"value":"2001","hits":73},{"value":"1988","hits":72},{"value":"1940","hits":71},{"value":"1941","hits":71},{"value":"1942","hits":71},{"value":"2004","hits":71},{"value":"1986","hits":70},{"value":"2002","hits":70},{"value":"1985","hits":69},{"value":"1931","hits":68},{"value":"1935","hits":68},{"value":"1936","hits":68},{"value":"1937","hits":68},{"value":"1938","hits":68},{"value":"1939","hits":68},{"value":"1930","hits":67},{"value":"1932","hits":67},{"value":"1933","hits":67},{"value":"1934","hits":67},{"value":"2003","hits":67},{"value":"2005","hits":65},{"value":"2006","hits":62},{"value":"1929","hits":60},{"value":"2008","hits":54},{"value":"2013","hits":53},{"value":"1925","hits":52},{"value":"1927","hits":52},{"value":"1928","hits":52},{"value":"1924","hits":51},{"value":"1926","hits":51},{"value":"2007","hits":51},{"value":"2009","hits":49},{"value":"2011","hits":49},{"value":"2010","hits":47},{"value":"1918","hits":46},{"value":"1919","hits":46},{"value":"1920","hits":46},{"value":"1921","hits":46},{"value":"1922","hits":46},{"value":"1923","hits":46},{"value":"2012","hits":46},{"value":"2014","hits":46},{"value":"1917","hits":45},{"value":"1909","hits":44},{"value":"1910","hits":44}],"options":{"sort":"count","limit":100,"offset":0,"prefix":null},"min":"1061","max":"2034","count":12089,"missing":0},{"name":"medium_facet","items":[{"value":"reports","hits":1371},{"value":"records","hits":254},{"value":"memorandums","hits":198},{"value":"letters (correspondence)","hits":186},{"value":"minutes (administrative records)","hits":127},{"value":"correspondence","hits":118},{"value":"agendas (administrative records)","hits":106},{"value":"notes","hits":80},{"value":"pamphlets","hits":79},{"value":"articles","hits":70},{"value":"newsletters","hits":67}],"options":{"sort":"count","limit":11,"offset":0,"prefix":null}},{"name":"rights_facet","items":[{"value":"http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC/1.0/","hits":413},{"value":"http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC-EDU/1.0/","hits":371},{"value":"http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/NoC-US/1.0/","hits":253},{"value":"http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/UND/1.0/","hits":207},{"value":"http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/CNE/1.0/","hits":128}],"options":{"sort":"count","limit":11,"offset":0,"prefix":null}},{"name":"collection_titles_sms","items":[{"value":"Office of Desegregation Management","hits":255},{"value":"Historical Publications of the United States Commission on Civil Rights","hits":247},{"value":"Asa and Elna Spaulding papers, 1909-1997 and undated, bulk 1935-1983","hits":127},{"value":"Land of (Unequal) Opportunity: Documenting the Civil Rights Struggle in Arkansas","hits":84},{"value":"New insights in the American civil rights movement: South Carolina Council on Human Relations records","hits":78},{"value":"Isaiah DeQuincey Newman, (1911-1985), Papers, 1929-2003","hits":74},{"value":"Sovereignty Commission Online","hits":49},{"value":"Voter Education Project Organizational Records","hits":43},{"value":"Volunteer Voices","hits":39},{"value":"Inventory of the Women-In-Action for the Prevention of Violence and Its Causes, Inc. Durham chapter records, 1968-1998","hits":34},{"value":"John J. Herrera Papers","hits":32}],"options":{"sort":"count","limit":11,"offset":0,"prefix":null}},{"name":"provenance_facet","items":[{"value":"Butler Center for Arkansas Studies","hits":256},{"value":"Thurgood Marshall Law Library","hits":248},{"value":"David M. Rubenstein Rare Book \u0026 Manuscript Library","hits":195},{"value":"Atlanta University Center Robert W. Woodruff Library","hits":98},{"value":"University of South Carolina. Libraries","hits":90},{"value":"University of Arkansas, Fayetteville. Libraries","hits":84},{"value":"University of South Carolina. South Carolina Political Collections","hits":74},{"value":"South Caroliniana Library","hits":62},{"value":"Mississippi. Department of Archives and History","hits":50},{"value":"University of Tennessee, Knoxville. Special Collections","hits":43},{"value":"University of North Texas. Libraries","hits":32}],"options":{"sort":"count","limit":11,"offset":0,"prefix":null}},{"name":"class_name","items":[{"value":"Item","hits":1339},{"value":"Collection","hits":32}],"options":{"sort":"count","limit":100,"offset":0,"prefix":null}},{"name":"educator_resource_b","items":[{"value":"false","hits":1364},{"value":"true","hits":7}],"options":{"sort":"count","limit":100,"offset":0,"prefix":null}}]}}