{"response":{"docs":[{"id":"bcas_bcmss0837_153","title":"Arkansas Department of Education's Executive Summary, Semiannual Monitoring 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"],"dcterms_creator":["Arkansas. Department of Education"],"dc_date":["1997-02-01"],"dcterms_description":null,"dc_format":["application/pdf"],"dcterms_identifier":null,"dcterms_language":["eng"],"dcterms_publisher":["Little Rock, Ark. : Butler Center for Arkansas Studies. Central Arkansas Library System"],"dc_relation":null,"dc_right":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC-EDU/1.0/"],"dcterms_is_part_of":["Office of Desegregation Monitoring records (BC.MSS.08.37)","History of Segregation and Integration of Arkansas's Educational System"],"dcterms_subject":["Pulaski County (Ark.)--History--20th century","Education--Arkansas","Arkansas. Department of Education","Educational statistics","School integration","Education and state","Office of Desegregation Monitoring (Little Rock, Ark.)"],"dcterms_title":["Arkansas Department of Education's Executive Summary, Semiannual Monitoring 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/153"],"dcterms_temporal":null,"dcterms_rights_holder":null,"dcterms_bibliographic_citation":null,"dlg_local_right":["Available for use in research, teaching, and private study. Any other use requires permission from the Butler Center."],"dcterms_medium":["reports"],"dcterms_extent":["706 pages"],"dlg_subject_personal":null,"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":"\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n \n\n\n \n\n \n\n\n \n\n\n \n\n\n\n\n \n\n\n\n\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n \n\n \n\n \n\n\n \n\n \n\n \n\n\n \n\n \n\n \n\n\n \n\n \n\n \n\n\n \n\n \n\n \n\nl1 =~i~ 1 t 1 I I ARKANSAS DEPARTMEN-,- '\"'rEDUCATION'S EXECUT SUMMARY NLRSD. LRSD PCSSD SEMIANNUAL. MONITORING REPORT: FEBRUARY 1, 1997 \u0026lt;, _ DWlCOel - f :~ JI ~:::: :,:, ~t ':: ~~=::~::: I:, :: rr PROGRESS: CURRENT STATUS OF THE CYCLE ONE SCHOOLS IN PULASKI COUNTY A STATISTICAL REVIEW 2 l 11 II ~f:::~:::: t~1iIi,r : 1,: ~ ::\"\n,:'@\n: Ii I 1,,,: { l~lilIiI. 11 J :\n:: - ,, A: ENROLLMENT/ATTENDANCE SUMMARY 1. Enrollment by race, gender, school, grade, transported, non-transported and instructional program CYCLE ONE ENROLLMENT - LRSD 1400 1200 1000 800 600 400 200 0 ENROLLED TRANS Black Male VVhite Male Other Male NON-TRANS INSTR. PROG 3 Black Female White Female Other Female .. - , A: ENROLLMENT/ATTENDANCE SUMMARY Enrollment by race, gender, school, grade, transported, non-transported and instructional program CYCLE ONE ENROLLMENT - NLRSD 700 600 500 400 300 200 100 0 ENROLLED TRANS Black Male White Male Other Male 4 NON-TRANS INSTR. PROG Black Female White Female Other Female 1 . . A: ENROLLMENT/ATTENDANCE SUMMARY Enrollment by race, gender, school, grade, transported, non-transported and instructional program 2000 1500 1000 500 0 CYCLE ONE ENROLLMENT - PCSSD ENROLLED TRANS Black Male \\Nhite Male Other Male NON-TRANS INSTR. P.ROG Black Female \\Nhite Female Other Female A: ENROLLMENT/ATTENDANCE SUMMARY 2. Enrollment by race, gender, grade, transported, non-transported and instructional programs for each magnet school. 700 600 500 400 300 200 100 0 MAGNESTC HOOLE NROLLMENT ENROLLED TRANS Black Male White Male Other Male NON-TRANS INSTR. PROG 6 Black Female White Female Other Female A: ENROLLMENT/ATTENDANCE SUMMARY 2. Enrollment by race, gender, grade, transported, non-transported and instructional programs for each magnet school. MAGNETSCHOOLENROLLMENT-PCSSD 200 150 100 50 0 ENROLLED TRANS NON-TRANS INSTR. PROG Black Male White Male Other Male 7 Black Female White Female II Other Female . : f:_,.: _,, i: :i::~_.:.:.: :!_~. l!l ll::: II=J ==: ~ 1 1I ,It, ~ i '1 I I I, II I ._._:,_:_:_:_ :::: A. ENROLLMENT/ATTENDANCE SUMMARY 3. Number of non-promotes by race, gender, grade, school, teacher, transported and non-transported 50 40 30 20 10 0 CYCLE ONE NON-PROMOTES - LRSD NON-PROMOTES TRANS NON-TRANS Black Male Black Female White Male ~--~ White Female I,@! Other Male ~ .l~~ Other Female 8 A. ENROLLMENT/ATTENDANCE SUMMARY 3. Number of non-promotes by race, gender, grade, school, teacher, transported and non-transported 4 3 2 1 0 CYCLE ONE NON-PROMOTES - NLRSD NON-PROMOTES TRANS Black Male White Male Other Male NON-TRANS - Black Female 9 White Female Other Female ,. .. A. ENROLLMENT/ATTENDANCE SUMMARY 3. Number of non-promotes by race, gender, grade, school, teacher, transported and non-transported CYCLE ONE NON-PROMOTES - PCSSD 100 80 60 40 20 0 ~~~ NON-PROMOTES TRANS WBlhaictek MMaallee --- ~ p \u0026lt;:Y\u0026lt;~.~mmi::?~: ~ Other Male l0/~. .0? .i\u0026amp;\" i~z~~ 10 NON-TRANS Black Female White Female Other Female B. TEST DATA SUMMARY 5. Number of 11th \u0026amp; 12th graders by race and gender, school and guidance counselor who take the PSAT, SAT or ACT. NUMBER OF STUDENTS TAKING TESTS IN CYCLE ONE - LRSD PSAT Black Male White Male Other Male ~*==~:-\"=:~\n,\nSAT ACT Black Female -a White Female II Other Female 11 B. TEST DATA SUMMARY 1~ .,',I 5. Number of 11th \u0026amp; 12th graders by race and gender, school and guidance counselor who take the I I I I I I PSAT, SAT or ACT. Note: Cycle One schools in NLRSD were all elementary schools, thus the PSAT, SAT and ACT were not administered. 12 B. TEST DATA SUMMARY 5. Number of 11th \u0026amp; 12th graders by race and gender, school and guidance counselor who take the PSAT, SAT or ACT. NUMBER OF STUDENTS TAKING TESTS IN CYCLE ONE - PCSSD PSAT SAT ACT Black Male Black Female White Male ~-f?z ~ ~ White Female Other Male ~~~~-.0, :~% -Other Female 13 r .J ' C: STAFF SUMMARY 1. Number of Full Time Equivalent (F.T.E.) classroom teachers by race, gender, school, years of experience. CYCLE ONE F.T.E. TEACHERS Cumulative Years of Experience NLRSD LRSD PCSSD NLRSD - 1,247 Black Male Black Female . . LRSD - 3,546 White Male White Female PCSSD - 3,780 (I ~:-~ Other Male Other Female 14 C. STAFF SUMMARY 2. Number of F.T.E. school-based administrators by job category, race, gender, school, years of experience. Cumulative Years of Experience NLRSD = 128 LRSD = 377 PCSSD = 357 CYCLE ONE F.T.E. SCHOOL-BASED ADMINISTRATORS 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 0 NLRSD LRSD PCS SD 15 , .. C. STAFF SUMMARY 3. Number of F.T.E. counselors by race, gender, school, years of Cumulative Years of Experience NLRSD = 64 LRSD = 277 PCSSD = 233 10 8 6 4 . expenence. CYCLE ONE F.T.E. COUNSELORS ~it~--~~-~~ NLRSD Black Male ~~ Wh1'te Male ~4~ li:J~\nt@~ MO ther Male 16 LRSD PCS SD Black Female ~B,W El White Female !:I _,f.~_i_,. i I ~ II :_:_i_\n_! l:II ti ' I ~ I :::: I !:Ji : I Iii r C. STAFF SUMMARY 4. Number of F.T.E. kindergarten teachers by race, gender, school, years of experience. Cumulative Years of Experience NLRSD = 144 LRSD = 295 Note: All Cycle One schools in PCSSD are secondary thus no kindergarten programs are reflected. CYCLE ONE F.T.E. KINDERGARTEN TEACHERS NLRSD LRSD Black Male Black Female [B~ ,:,\n,\n~ White Male White Female \"i'-?\"~~~ z,~:i-\"~ ~i~~J. Other Male Other Female\n::~?~~~ C. STAFF SUMMARY 5. Number of F.T.E. librarians by race, gender, school, years of e Cumulative Years of Experience e NLRSD = 62 e LRSD = 191 e PCSSD = 125 . expenence. CYCLE ONE F.T.E. LIBRARIANS NLRSD LRSD PCSSD Black Male II Black Female White Male White Female Other Male Other Female 18 C: STAFF SUMMARY 6. Number of F.T.E. department heads by race, gender, school, years of e Cumulative Years of Experience e LRSD = 311 e PCSSD = 683 . expenence CYCLE ONE F.T.E. DEPARTMENT HEAD LRSD Black Male White Male Other Male 19 PCSSD II Black Female White Female Other Female I ==,,,_:,:==,,,_:,'._-==,,,i-~,:=,,:_ 1 lI:,,l,!,l ~--- 11 ~:!:! I1r1 I=-= IItt If 1,,\n 11111 %.~I ~\n)\n-:-: ==~ ~ i I ~ 11 i.,,_:1,,,,,:_.: 1111 ) C. STAFF SUMMARY 7. Number of F.T.E. secretaries by race, gender, school, years of e Cumulative Years of Experience e NLRSD = 101 e LRSD = 275 e PCSSD = 365 . expenence. CYCLE ONE F.T.E. SECRETARIES 30 25 20 15 1gi l~--~~-~~~ NLRSD LRSD PCSSD Black Male Black Female ~ ~~~?: White Male White Female ~~#,m~m.x- if.@~~ Other Male - Other Female 20 T ) C: STAFF SUMMARY 8. Number of F.T.E. central office positions by job category, race, gender, school, years of experience. CENTRAL OFFICE POSITIONS Cumulative Years of Experience NLRSD = 477 LRSD = 1,245 PCSSD = 299 NLRSD LRso PCSSD Black Male Black Female iw .\u0026amp;. .-M:W ~W~ hite Male ,,. White Female ~~ Other Male Other Fem ale ~~?.=~~ ,:1/.:.,\n::::::. 21 D. POLICY AND PROGRAM INFORMATION District policies, rules and regulations. 22 E. BUDGET INFORMATION 1. Cost of operating all elementary programs, junior high school programs, and high school programs by funding source (local/regular state/federal and special state desegregation funding). 2. Transportation Cost and Funding Source. 3. All legal fees reported by type of services. 4. Compensatory Education Program Costs. 5. Magnet School Costs. 23 PULASKI COUNTY SCHOOL DISTRICTS TOTAL PROGRAM OPERATING COST FY 95/96 FUNDING SOURCES LOCAUSTATE FEDERAL LEA# SCHOOL DISTRICT PROGRAM DISTRICT TRANS LEGAL PROGRAM DISTRICT PROGRAM 6~01 LITTlE ROCK 59,499,209 31,474,967 6,464,867 328,745 3,469,669 3,011,807 5,224,242 ~02 NORTH LITTlE ROCK 29,067,633 9,851,918 1,264,088 21,980 1,975,332 1,192,347 1,491,606 6~03 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL 58,635,805 20,711,728 5,733,229 111,498 2,242,921 1,370,124 3,967,329 Funding Categories Local \u0026amp; State This category includes funding from local sources, regular state sources, and unrestricted federal sources. Federal Desag This category includes funding from restricted federal sources which must be accounted for separately from the General Fund. This category consists or funding for desegregation purposes. Expense Categories DESEGREGATION DISTRICT INCENTIVE MAGNET TRANS 7,789,126 7,618,145 14,752,306 2,720,432 232,811 0 0 301,541 5,206,530 0 0 1,553,100 Local \u0026amp; State This category consists or expenses incurred relative to regular program expense, district expense, transportation expense and legal expense funded by unrestricted local, state and federal sources. This category consists or expenses incurred relative to federal program expense and district expense funded by restricted federal sources. LEGAL TOTAL 287,003 142,640,518 98,366 45,497,622 295,802 99,828,066 Federal Desag This category consists or expenses incurred relative to desegregation program expense, district expense, incentive school expense, magnet expense, transportation expense and legal expense funded from desegregation sources. Total Category FY 95196 The totals in this column represent the total expense for each school district for fiscal year 1995/1996. SOURCES: The Finance Offices or each or the school districts in Pulaski County. 24 PULASKI COUNTY SCHOOL DISTRICTS TOTAL PROGRAM OPERATING BUDGET FY 96/97 FUNDING SOURCES LOCAUSTATE FEDERAL DESEGREGATION LEA# SCHOOL DISTRICT PROGRAM DISTRICT TRANS LEGAL PROGRAM DISTRICT PROGRAM DISTRICT INCENTIVE MAGNET TRANS LEGAL 60-01 LITTLE ROCK 67.909,531 32,888,201 6,026,174 219,950 3,053,330 4,114,111 6.449, 163 9,458,364 8,638,910 17,361,466 2,866,793 195,050 60-02 NORTH LITTLE ROCK 32,906,692 14,022,001 1,742,631 35,000 2,164,666 1,406,182 804,070 345,556 0 0 369,312 85,000 60-03 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL 70.573,372 16,480,963 5,865,352 155,000 3,501,563 945,075 5.681, 797 4,831,645 0 0 1,761,205 260,000 Funding Categories Local \u0026amp; State This category includes funding from local sources, regular state sources, and unrestricted federal sources. Federal This category includes funding from restricted federal sources which must be accounted for separately from the General Fund. Deseg This category consists of funding for desegregation purposes. Expense Categories Local \u0026amp; State This category consists of budgeted expenses relative to regular program expense, district expense, transportation expense and legal expense funded by unrestricted local, slate and federal sources. Federal This category consists of budgeted expenses relative to federal program expense and district expense funded by restricted federal sources. Deseg This category consists of budgeted expenses relative to desegregation program expense, district expense, incentive expense, magnet expense, transportation expense and legal expense funded from desegregation sources. Total Category FY 96197 SOURCE: The totals in this column represent the total budget for each school district for fiscal year 199611997. The Finance Offices of each of the school districts In Pulaski County. 25 TOTAL 159,201,043 53 883,33tl 112 075,972 LEA# 60-01 60-02 60-03 PULASKI COUNTY SCHOOL DISTRICTS TRANSPORTATION EXPENSE FY 95196 FUNDING SOURCES LOCAL\u0026amp; DISTRICT STATE FEDERAL DESEG LITTLE ROCK 6,464,867 0 2,720,432 NORTH LITTLE ROCK 1,264,088 0 301,541 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL 5,619,517 0 1,666,812 TRANSPORTATION FY 95/96 10000000 8000000 6000000 4000000 2000000 0 Funding Categories RATIO OF TRANS EXP TOTAL TO TOTAL EXP 9,185,299 6.4% 1,565,629 3.4% 7,286,329 7.3% Local \u0026amp; State This category includes funding from local sources, regular state sources, and unrestricted federal sources. Federal This category includes funding from restricted federal sources which must be accounted for separately from the General Fund. Oeseg This category consists of funding for desegregation purposes. Expense Categories Local \u0026amp; State This category consists of transportation costs incurred relative to programs funded by unrestricted local, state and federal sources. Federal This category consists of transportation costs funded by restricted federal sources. 08$eg This category consists of transportation costs incurred relative to desegregationp rogramsf unded by desegregation sources. Total Category FY 951'96 This category consists of the district's total transportation expense for FY 95/96. Ratio of Transportation Expense to Total Expense FY 951'96 This category indicates the percentage of total district costs attributable to the transportation function. SOURCES: The Finance Offices of each of the school districts in Pulaski County. 26 PULASKI COUNTY SCHOOL DISTRICTS TRANSPORTATION BUDGET FY 96197 FUNDING SOURCES RATIO OF LOCAL\u0026amp; TRANS BUDGET TO LEA# DISTRICT STATE FEDERAL DESEG TOTAL TOTAL BUDGET 60-01 LITTLE ROCK 6,026,174 0 2,886,793 60-02 NORTH LITTLE ROCK 1,742,631 0 369,312 60-03 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL 5,865,352 0 1,781,205 Funding Categories TRANSPORTATION 10000000 8000000 6000000 4000000 2000000 0 FY 96/97 8,912,967 5.6% 2,111,943 3.9% 7,646,557 6.8% Local \u0026amp; State This category includes funding from local sources, regular state sources, and unrestricted federal sources. Federal This category includes funding from restricted federal sources which must be accounted for separately from the General Fund. Deseg This category consists of funding for desegregation purposes. Expense Categories Local \u0026amp; State This category consists of budgeted transportation costs relative to programs funded by unrestricted local, state and federal sources. Federal This category consists of budgeted transportation costs funded by restricted federal sources. Deseg This category consists of budgeted transportation costs relative to desegregation programs funded by desegregation sources. Total Category FY96197 This category consists of the district's total transportation budget for FY 96/97. Ratio of Transportation Budget to Total Budget FY96197 SOURCES: This category indicates the percentage of the district's total budget for FY 96/97 attributable to the transportation function. The Finance Offices of each of the school districts in Pulaski County. 27 PULASKI COUNTY SCHOOL DISTRICTS LEGAL EXPENSE FY 95/96 FUNDING SOURCES RATIO OF LEGAL LOCAL\u0026amp; EXP TO TOTAL LEA# 60-01 60-02 60-03 DISTRICT LITTLE ROCK NORTH LITTLE ROCK PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL 800000 600000 400000 200000 0 Funding Categories STATE FEDERAL DESEG TOTAL 328,745 0 287,003 615,748 21,980 0 98,366 120,346 111,498 0 295,802 407,300 LEGAL FY 95/96 Local \u0026amp; State This category includes funding from local sources, regular state sources, and unrestricted federal sources. Federal This category includes funding from restricted federal sources which must be accounted for separately from the General Fund. Deseg This category consists of funding for desegregation purposes. Expense Categories EXPENSE 0.4% 0.3% 0.4% Local \u0026amp; State This category consists of legal expenses incurred relative to programs funded by unrestricted local, state and federal sources. Federal This category consists of legal expenses funded by restricted federal sources. Deseg This category consists of legal expenses incurred relative to desegregation programs funded by desegregation sources. Total Category FY 95196 This category consists of the district's total legal expense for FY 95/96. Ratio of Legal Expense to Total Expense FY 95196 This category indicates the percentage of total district costs attributable to legal fees. SOURCES: The Finance Offices of each of the school districts in Pulaski County. 28 ' PULASKI COUNTY SCHOOL DISTRICTS LEGAL BUDGET FY 96/97 FUNDING SOURCES RATIO OF LEGAL LOCAL\u0026amp; BUDGET TO LEA# DISTRICT STATE FEDERAL DESEG TOTAL TOTAL BUDGET 60-01 LITTLE ROCK 60-02 NORTH LITTLE ROCK 60-03 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL Funding Categories 500000 400000 300000 200000 100000 0 219,950 0 195,050 415,000 35,000 0 85,000 120,000 155,000 0 260,000 415,000 LEGAL FY 96/97 Local \u0026amp; State This category includes funding from local sources, regular state sources, and unrestricted federal sources. Federal This category includes funding from restricted federal sources which must be accounted for separately from the General Fund. Deseg This category consists of funding for desegregation purposes. Expense Categories 0.3% 0.2% 0.4% Local \u0026amp; State This category consists of budgeted legal expenses relative to programs funded by unrestricted local, state and federal sources. Federal This category consists of budgeted legal expenses funded by restricted federal sources. Deseg This category consists of budgeted legal expenses relative to desegregation programs funded by desegregation sources. Total Category FY9~7 This category consists of the district's total legal budget for FY 96/97. Ratio of Legal Budget to Total Budget FY9~7 SOURCES: This category indicates the percentage of the total district budget for FY 96/97 attributable to legal fees. The Finance Offices of each of the school districts in Pulaski County. 29 l .. LEA# 60-01 60-02 60-03 Total Deseg Expense Comp Ed Expense CompEdPmts ofCompEd ExptoDeseg Expense SOURCES: PULASKI COUNTY SCHOOL DISTRICTS DISTRICT LITTLE ROCK NORTH LITTLE ROCK PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL COMPENSATORY EDUCATION FY 95/96 TOTAL DESEGREGATION COMP ED EXPENSE EXPENSE 38,391,254 5,368,944 2,124,324 603,567 10,807,566 3,000,000 COMP ED EXPENSE FY 95/96 6000000 4000000 2000000 0 The total desegregation expense incurred in FY 95/96. Compensatory Education expense incurred in FY 96/97. COMPEDPMTS FROM ADE IN FY95/96 4,970,262 389,025 0 Compensatory Education payments by the ADE to the district in FY 95/96. Ratio of Compensatory Education expense to desegregation expense for FY 95/96. The Finance Offices of each of the school districts in Pulaski County, the ADE General Finance Section, the ADE Local Fiscal Services Section, and the ADE Lead Planning \u0026amp; Desegregation Monitoring Section. 30 PERCENT OF COMPED EXP TO DESEG EXP 14.0% 28.4% 27.8% ' .. PULASKI COUNTY SCHOOL DISTRICTS COMPENSATORY EDUCATION FY 96/97 TOTAL DESEGREGATION COMPED LEA# DISTRICT BUDGET BUDGET 60-01 LITTLE ROCK 44,989,746 6,518,001 60-02 NORTH LITTLE ROCK 1,603,938 1,149,626 60-03 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL 12,554,647 3,236,036 COMP ED BUDGET 8000000 6000000 4000000 2000000 0 FY 96/97 Total Deseg The total desegregation budget for FY 96/97. Expense Comp Ed Compensatory Education budget for FY 96/97. Expense COMPEDPMTS FROM ADE IN FY96/97 2,527,936 0 0 PERCENT OF COMP ED BUDGET TO DESEG BUDGET 14.5% 71.7% 25.8% Comp Ed Pmts Compensatory Education payments made by the ADE to the district in FY 96/97 in accordance with the Settlement Agreement. \" of Comp Ed Ratio of Compensatory Education budget to total desegregation budget for FY 96/97. Exp toDeseg Expense SOURCES: The Finance Offices of eech of the school districts in Pulaski County, the ADE General Finance Section, the ADE Lace/ Fiscal Services Section, end the ADE Lead Planning \u0026amp; Desegregation Monitoring Section. 31 LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT MAGNET SCHOOLS MAGNET SCHOOL PROGRAM EXPENSE FY 95/96 FUNDING SOURCES LOCAL\u0026amp; LEA# SCHOOL STATE FEDERAL 6001003 MANN JR. HIGH 0 0 6001005 PARKVlEW HIGH 0 0 6001006 BOOKER ELEM 0 0 6001021 CARVER ELEM 0 0 6001027 GIBBS ELEM 0 0 6001043 WILLIAMS ELEM 0 0- TOTAL MAGNET EXPENSE 0 0 MAGNET EXPENSE Funding Categories 4000000 3000000 2000000 1000000 0 FY 95/96 DESEG 3,351,297 3,699,919 2,366,402 2,109,225 1,324,125 1,901,338 1-4,752,306 TOTAL FY 95/96 3,351,297 3,699,919 2,366,402 2,109,225 1,324,125 1,901,338 14,752,306 Local \u0026amp; State This category includes funding from local sources, regular state sources, and unrestricted federal sources. Federal This category includes funding from restricted federal sources which must be accounted for separately from the General Fund. Deseg This category consists of funding for desegregation purposes. Expense Categories Local \u0026amp; State This category consists of expenses incurred relative to magnet programs funded by unrestricted local, state and federal sources. Federal This category consists of magnet program expenses funded by restricted federal sources. Deseg This category consists of expenses incurred relative to magnet programs funded from desegregation sources. Total Category FY 95196 SOURCES: The totals in this column represent the total program expense for each magnet school for fiscal year 1995/1996. The Lltt1e Rock School District Finance O/Tice and the Local Fiscal Services DMsion of the ADE. 32 .. LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT MAGNET SCHOOLS MAGNET SCHOOL PROGRAM BUDGET FY 96/97 FUNDING SOURCES LOCAL \u0026amp; LEA# SCHOOL STATE FEDERAL DESEG TOTAL 6001003 MANN JR. HIGH 0 0 3,808,689 3,808,689 6001005 PARKVIEW HIGH - 0 0 4,357,849 4,357,849 6001006 BOOKER ELEM 0 0 2,814,752 2,814,752 6001021 CARVER ELEM 0 0 2,530,286 2,530,286 6001027 GIBBS ELEM 0 -0 1,611,483 1,611,483 6001043 WILLIAMS ELEM 0 0 2,238.407 2,238.407 TOTAL MAGNET BUDGET 0 0 17,361.466 17,361.466 MAGNET BUDGET FY 96/97 5000000 4000000 3000000 2000000 1000000 0 Funding Categories Local \u0026amp; State Federal Deseg This category includes funding from local sources, regular state sources, and unrestricted federal sources. This category includes funding from restricted federal sources which must be accounted for separately from the General Fund. This category consists of funding for desegregation purposes. Expense Categories Local \u0026amp; State Federal Deseg Total Category FY 96197 SOURCES: This category consists of budgeted expenses relative to magnet programs funded by unrestricted local, state and federal sources. This category consists of budgeted magnet program expenses funded by restricted federal sources. This category consists of budgeted expenses relative to magnet programs funded from desegregation sources. The totals in this column represent the total budget for each magnet school for fiscal year 1996/1997. The Lrltle Rock School District Finance Office and the Local Fiscal Services Division of the ADE. 33 Iii l!IJlllilH I i 11 11111 I==== l::I ~,::: Wz:::: I ~1111 ~:::: I !Ill I F. STUDENT DISCIPLINE Student Expulsions according to type of infractions, length of punishment by race, gender, school and teacher. 2 1 0 DISCIPLINE: PCSSO EXPULSIONS (1st Qtr 96-97) Grade 10 Grade 11 Black Male White Male Other Male 35 . Grade 12 Black Female White Female Other Female I I ! 1,:,__:_i:'_1 11 It :::: ~? ~11:1,:1 . ~Ji!)! 1111 I i G. PERCEPTUAL DATA Results of survey to ascertain perception toward school quality, school services, district and building leadership, special state funded programs and educational equity summarized by race, gender, attendance zone, school and grade. UTILIZATION OF PERCEPTUAL DATA - LRSD 36 .. G. PERCEPTUAL DATA Results of survey to ascertain perception toward school quality, school services, district and building leadership, special state funded programs and educational equity summarized by race, gender, attendance zone, school and grade. UTILIZATION OF PERCEPTUAL DATA - NLRSD 37 G. PERCEPTUAL DATA Results of survey to ascertain perception toward school quality, school services, district and building leadership, special state funded programs and educational equity summarized by race, gender, attendance zone, school and grade. UTILIZATION OF PERCEPTUAL DATA - PCSSD 38 ....., ... EXTENDED COE MONITORING FOURTEEN QUALITATIVE ELEMENTS RESULTS OF THE FOURTEEN QUALITATIVE ELEMENTS EVIDENCE IN THE ALLEN LETTER YES NO NIA-I. Evidence that policies, procedures, rules and regulations are developed and implemented to facilitate 21 I desegregation. 2. E\\idence that plans related to reducing achievement disparity between black and non-black students are 10 12 progressively successful. 3. Evidence that student assignments to schools, classes and programs at each organizational level are made without 22 bias. 4. Evidence that staff de\\'elopment days authorized as a result of the Agreement are used to facilitate the 22 desegregation process. 5. Evidence that travel time to and from schools is not disproportionate among black and non-black students and the percentage of black students transported for desegregation is not significantly greater than the percentage of non- 22 black students transported for desegregation. 6. Evidence that guidance and counseling is designed to meet the needs of a diverse student population. 21 I 7. Evidence of internal procedures for ensuring that materials for appraising or counseling students are non- 22 discriminatory. 39\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\u003eArkansas. Department of Education\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 "},{"id":"bcas_bcmss0837_259","title":"Arkansas Department of Education's Semiannual Monitoring Report, Volume 1","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"],"dcterms_creator":["Arkansas. Department of Education"],"dc_date":["1997-02-01"],"dcterms_description":null,"dc_format":["application/pdf"],"dcterms_identifier":null,"dcterms_language":["eng"],"dcterms_publisher":["Little Rock, Ark. : Butler Center for Arkansas Studies. Central Arkansas Library System"],"dc_relation":null,"dc_right":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC-EDU/1.0/"],"dcterms_is_part_of":["Office of Desegregation Monitoring records (BC.MSS.08.37)","History of Segregation and Integration of Arkansas's Educational System"],"dcterms_subject":["Education--Arkansas","Arkansas. Department of Education","Educational statistics","Education and state","Education--Evaluation"],"dcterms_title":["Arkansas Department of Education's Semiannual Monitoring Report, Volume 1"],"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/259"],"dcterms_temporal":null,"dcterms_rights_holder":null,"dcterms_bibliographic_citation":null,"dlg_local_right":["Available for use in research, teaching, and private study. Any other use requires permission from the Butler Center."],"dcterms_medium":["reports"],"dcterms_extent":["209 pages"],"dlg_subject_personal":null,"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":"\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n \n\n\n \n\n \n\n\n \n\n\n \n\n\n\n\n \n\n\n\n\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n \n\n \n\n \n\n\n \n\n \n\n \n\n\n \n\n \n\n \n\n\n \n\n \n\n \n\n\n \n\n \n\n \n\n,J\n , ~....N. ~\"~~~~~ ~~ ~\n~i~~~:,,a.:~~,,~ J~:, .~~~. . S11!~~~!1~~l~~~ x~1\\l~~~~~~x-~~:~~~:~ ~~~ ~, .~. { ,t1~~ ~S~-0:: ~~,i~~~i ~ ~ ~ :4ffe'\"\"'\"'AJ CONTENTS VOLUME I Monitoring Overview . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 Enrollment/ Attendance Data . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 Little Rock School District Transported and Non-Transported . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 North Little Rock School District Transported and Non-Transported . . . . . . 61 Pulaski Co. Special School District Transported and Non-Transported . . . 104 Little Rock School District Instructional Program . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 123 North Little Rock School District Instructional Program . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 174 Pulaski Co. Special School District Instructional Program .... . . . . . . . . . . 216 Magnet Schools Instructional Program . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 234 Little Rock School District 1995-96 Non-Promotes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 258 North Little Rock School District 1995-96 Non-Promotes ............... 277 Pulaski Co. Special School District 1995-96 Non-Promotes .............. 284 Test Data Number of 11th \u0026amp; 12th Graders Who Took The PSAT, SAT or ACT 301 Little Rock School District . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 302 Pulaski Co. Special School District . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 308 Staff Cycle I Schools . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 323 Staff Narrative . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 324 Little Rock School District Classroom Teachers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 325 North Little Rock School District Classroom Teachers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 358 Pulaski Co. Special School District Classroom Teachers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 379 Little Rock School District School Based Administrators . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 399 North Little Rock School District School Based Administrators .......... 415 Pulaski Co. Special School District School Based Administrators . . . . . . . . . 424 Little Rock School District Counselors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 436 North Little Rock School District Counselors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 446 Pulaski Co. Special School District Counselors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 453 CONTENTS Little Rock School District Kindergarten Teachers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 458 North Little Rock School District Kindergarten Teachers ............... 472 Little Rock School District Librarians . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 482 North Little Rock School District Librarians . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 491 Pulaski Co. Special School District Librarians 498 Little Rock School District Department Heads . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 503 Pulaski Co. Special School District Department Heads . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 506 Little Rock School District Secretaries . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 519 North Little Rock School District Secretaries . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 531 Pulaski Co. Special School District Secretaries . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 541 Little Rock School District Central Office Personnel ........ .-. . . . . . . . . . 553 North Little Rock School District Central Office Personnel . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 579 Pulaski Co. Special School District Central Office Personnel . . . . . . . . . . . . 588 Policy Information Composite of the Cycle I Schools in Pulaski County . . . . . . . . 595 L MONITORING OVERVIEW During the 1996-97 school year, the Director of the Arkansas Department of Education selected monitoring teams for the Pulaski County School Districts to monitor these districts in accordance with the Department's Implementation Plan. Monitoring teams were assigned to intensively monitor Cycle I schools. The following are the 22 schools assigned to Cycle I. Little Rock School District (10) Baseline Elementary, David O' Dodd Elementary, Fair Park Elementary, Forest Park Elementary, J. A. Fair High School, Jefferson Elementary, Parkview Magnet High School, Pulaski Heights Elementary, Terry Elementary and Wilson Elementary. North Little Rock School District (7) Belwood Elementary, Boone Park Elementary, Glenview Elementary, North Heights Elementary, Park Hill Elementary Pike View Elementary, and Redwood Elementary. Pulaski County Special School District (5) Jacksonville High School North Pulaski Junior High Oak Grove High School Sylvan Hills Junior High, and Sylvan Hills High School. IL MONITORING PROCESS A. MONITORING SCHEDULE The monitoring teams visited schools in accordance with an established schedule of announced visits. Announced visits were scheduled from October 28 1996 to December 5 1996. Monitors conducted monitoring visits using instruments developed to align with the established criteria for the Extended Comprehensive Outcomes Evaluation (ECOE). Prior to the initiation of monitoring, the Office of Education Lead 1 Planning and Desegregation provided training to all Cycle I administrators and central office personnel in each school district. Monitors completed classroom observations, a principal's interview, and a document reYiew process at each school. The school document review process was refined by the establishment of the Tri-District Data Collection Committee and the development of a common terminology document for the fourteen qualitative data elements identified on Pages 3 8-41 of the Implementation Plan, and pages 4-5 of the Allen Letter. Accordingly, the ADE identified and monitored the following: 1. Evidence that policies. procedures. rules and regulations are developed and implemented to facilitate desegregation. 2. Evidence that plans related to reducing achievement disparity between black and non-black students are progressively successful. 3. Evidence that student assignments to schools, classes and programs at each organizational level are made without bias. 4. Evidence that staff development days authorized as a result of the Agreement are used to facilitate the desegregation process. 5. Evidence that travel time to and from schools is not disproportionate among black and non-black students and the percentage of black students transported for desegregation is not significantly greater than the percentage of non-black students transported for desegregation is not significantly greater than the percentage of non-black students transported for desegregation. 6. Evidence that guidance and counseling is designed to meet the needs of a diverse student population. 2 7. Evidence of internal procedures for ensuring that materials for appraising or counseling students are nondiscriminatory. 8. Evidence that curricular content and instructional strategies are utilized to meet the diverse needs of the student population served. 9. Evidence that personnel is recruited, employed and assigned in a manner to meet the goals of a desegregating school district. 10. Evidence that procedures related to extracurricular and cocurricula activities are developed and implemented to identify and eliminate conditions that result in participation that is disproportionate to the student population. 11. Evidence of diverse representation on appointed districtwide and school-based committees. 12. Evidence of efforts to ensure that parent attendance at school functions is not disproportionate to the student population. 13. Evidence of success related to 1ajority to Minority transfers. 14. Evidence that magnet schools are an effective inter-district remedy for racial balance. Results of the announced monitoring for the fourteen elements are included in the ECOE monitoring section of this report. 3 B. ENROLLMENT/ATTENDANCE DATA The Allen Letter requires the collection of the following Attendance/Enrollment data from the three Pulaski Count School Districts. 1. Enrollment by race. gender. schooL grade, transported, nontransported and instructional programs. 2. Enrollment by race, gender, grade. transported, nontransported and instructional program for each magnet school. This data follows for each of the Cycle I schools. 3. Number of non promotes by ra e. gender, grade, school, teacher, transported and nontransported. Concept Definition: For the purposes of desegregation monitoring, the Arkansas Department of Education, orth Little Rock School District, Little Rock School District -and Pulaski County Special School District defined an instructional program as follows: A combination of courses and experiences that is designed to accomplish a predetermined objective or set of allied objectives. The three districts have agreed that for the purposes of this report, Compensatory Education costs are the costs that are funded from the special funds received from the ADE for Compensatory Education as specified by the Settlement Agreement. The graphs on the following pages indicate the findings on Enrollment/Attendance in the Cycle I schools in Pulaski County. 4 B . ENROLLMENT/ATTENDANCE DATA (continued) NOTE: The following Cycle I schools did not report non promotes during the 1995-96 school year, thus no graphs appear for these school sites and grade levels: Little Rock School District School Grade Baseline Elementary 3, 5, and 6 David O'Dodd Elementary 2, 3, 4, and 6 Fair Park Elementary 1, 2, 4, 5, and 6 Forest Park Elementary 4, 5, and 6 Jefferson Elementary 2, 3, 4, 5, and 6 Pulaski Heights Elementar 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, and 6 Terry Elementary 4, 5, and 6 Wilson Elementary 1, 2, 3, 4 5 and 6 North Little Rock School District Belwood Elementary ?-, .\"I , 4 5 and 6 Boone Park Elementary 1 3 4 and 6 Glenview Elementary 1, 2 3 5 and 6 North Heights Elementary 1, 2, 3, 4 5, and 6 Park Hill Elementary 2, 3, 4, 5 and 6 Pike View Elementary 2, 3, 4, 5, and 6 Redwood Elementary 3, 4, 5 and 6 Pulaski County Special School District Oak Grove High 10 and 11 5 ENROLLMENT/ ATTENDANCE LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT CYCLE ONE SCHOOLS SOURCE: LRSD 6 Cl) rzw 0 ::::\u0026gt; IC/) LL 0 a: w co ~ :::) z - - BASELINE ELEMENTARY: LRSD TOTAL ENROLLMENT 50 ,------------------------. 40 38 .......................................................................................................................................................................................................................... . 30 20 10 0 WF WM BF BM Grade 1 - -- 2 4 18 14 ............. 8 ........................ . . - _Jransported_ 1 7 Non-Transp __ 2 4 17 7 GRADE, TRANSPORTED AND NON-TRANSPORTED 7 E:JWF mrnwM ~BF BM Cl) rzw 0 ::::) IC/) LL 0 a: w a) ~ :J z BASELINE ELEMENTARY: LRSD TOTAL ENROLLMENT 50 r--------------------- 44 30 ........................................................................... ............................. 20 ......................... ~OF -OM lillfilWF fflfflWM ~BF 10 -- -- .. ......- BM 0 OF OM WF WM BF BM Grade 2 1 1 5 1 16 20 4 Trans orted 2 2 Non-Trans 1 1 5 1 14 18 GRADE, TRANSPORTED AND NON-TRANSPORTED 8 en rzw 0 ::) r( J) LL 0 a: w co ~ ::) z - BASELINE ELEMENTARY: LRSD TOTAL ENROLLMENT 30 r----------------------, 25 20 .. ~-..,,...._._.............,.__._.,,....,..,.,.c r::,WF t2J 15 .. 10 ... . ..... -BM 5 .... ..................................4 ............................... .. 0 Grade 3 Trans orted Non-Trans WF 3 3 WM 1 1 BF 7 1 6 BM 14 2 12 GRADE, TRANSPORTED AND NON-TRANSPORTED 9 .e.n.. . z w 0 ::J ..... en LL BASELINE ELEMENTARY: LRSD TOTAL ENROLLMENT 50 ,---------------------- 40 ................3..8... .......................................... .....................................................................li.l.l.!.J.W....F.. .......................................................................................................................... fifflWM 30 .. --- ~ 20 .. ...................................................................................................... . w co ~ ::J z 10 ..... 0 WF WM BF BM 7 Grade 4 Trans orted Non-Trans 2 2 4 1 3 15 3 12 17 3 14 GRADE, TRANSPORTED AND NON-TRANSPORTED 10 - - BASELINE ELEMENTARY: LRSD TOTAL ENROLLMENT 25 .-------------------. 21 15 . ....................t.I.I.iJ..W....F.. .........rzl18F 10 . . -BM 0 WF BF BM Grade 5 Trans orted Non-Trans 1 1 12 4 8 8 3 5 GRADE, TRANSPORTED AND NON-TRANSPORTED 11 BASELINE ELEMENTARY: LRSD TOTAL ENROLLMENT 35 ___ 3_2 ______________ _ ~ 30 ..... z w 0 ::::) ..... Cl) u_ 0 a: w co ~ :::, z 25 .......................................................................................... .......................................................................................... 20 16 5 0 Grade 6 Trans orted Non-Trans OF 1 1 WF 3 1 2 WM 2 2 BF 18 11 7 BM 8 4 4 GRADE, TRANSPORTED AND NON-TRANSPORTED 12 ~OF EillWF mmWM ~BF -BM DAVID O'DODD ELEMENTARY: LRSD TOTAL ENROLLMENT (f) 1- z w 0 :::\u0026gt; 1--( f) LL 0 a: w en ~ :::\u0026gt; z 50 ,--------------------- 40 ....................3..8.. ................................ ............................................................................................... ................................................................................................................... 30 ..... 20 10 0 WF WM BF BM .. ...................... :27... .................................................................. .............................................. Grade 1 Transpo_rted Non-Trans 5 5 8 5 3 14 10 4 11 7 4 GRADE, TRANSPORTED AND NON-TRANSPORTED 13 DWF W!IWM DAVID O'DODD ELEMENTARY: LRSD TOTAL ENROLLMENT 30 --------------------------, ~ 25 .. 23 .................................................................................................................................................................................. . z w 0 :J ~ Cl) LJ_ 0 a: w co ~ :::) z 20 I------ .. ---- ............................................ . EEIJWF 15 wmWM 15 ========== .. ~ rz118F 10 . .. ...................8... ..........................................B....M...... ... ............... 5 .... 0 Grade 2 Transported Non-Trans WF 2 1 1 WM 2 2 BF 10 6 4 BM 9 8 1 GRADE, TRANSPORTED AND NON-TRANSPORTED 14 z~ w 0 :::) ten LL 0 a: w co ~ :) z - - - DAVID O'DODD ELEMENTARY: LRSD TOTAL ENROLLMENT 35 ------------------------. ~!!!'!!!!'!'!!!'!!!'!'!!'!'!!'!'!!!!'~ 30 ....../ :.: ..:: ::.: -:-::: :-. :::. :::~ :~~.:.: ::.: .: :::::::. :.. ::.~: :,:. ::::~ :: .:-~:\n~:.~~:\n:\n::.:.:: ..:::.:::.:: ....................................................................... ....................................................................................................................... 25 .. ., . ---~-O-F------_ OM 20 15 10 ...... 5 .... 0 OF OM WF WM BF BM Grade 3 1 1 8 2 5 15 Trans orted 6 2 1 13 \\.t'.\n:I.:.~..l~...1..~..~.. ........................................ ................................................ Non-Trans 1 1 2 4 2 GRADE,T RANSPORTEDA ND NON-TRANSPORTED 15 lTIWF WWWM ~BF -BM DAVID O'DODD ELEMENTARY: LRSD TOTAL ENROLLMENT 50 ,-------------------- 43 ~z 40 LU ~OF LlElWF wmWM rzi1BF 0 :::, rC/) LL 0 a: LU Cl) ~ :::, z 30 ..... 20 .. 10 ..... 0 OF WF WM BF BM -12 BM Grade 4 Trans orted Non-Trans 1 1 7 7 7 3 4 13 9 4 15 11 4 GRADE, TRANSPORTED AND NON-TRANSPORTED 16 (J) 1- z w 0 ::J 1- (J) u.. 0 a: w co ~ ::) z - DAVID O'DODD ELEMENTARY: LRSD TOTAL ENROLLMENT 30 r-------------------- 25 20 .. 19.. ~OF 15 10 .. \"\" 5 0 OF WF WM BF BM Grade 5 1 7 1 7 9 Trans orted 4 1 7 7 Non-Trans 1 3 2 GRADE, TRANSPORTED AND NON-TRANSPORTED 17 E:JWF IBIWM rzBBF BM Cl) ~ z LU 0 :.), ._ Cl) LL 0 a: LU en ~ :) z DAVID O'DODD ELEMENTARY: LRSD TOTAL ENROLLMENT 40 ,---------------------, 35 3.4 ............................................... .... 30 .... . 25 .. . 20 15 10 5 0 WF WM BF BM .... Grade 6 1 9 11 13 28 Trans orted 1 7 9 11 ......................................................................................................... .............................................................................................. - 6 Non-Trans 2 2 2 GRADE, TRANSPORTED AND NON-TRANSPORTED 18 L2JWF mmWM rzi1B F BM en J- z UJ 0 ::::, J- en LL 0 a: w co ~ ::) z FAIR PARK ELEMENTARY: LRSD TOTAL ENROLLMENT 40 35 33..................................................... ........ . .. 30 25 . -- 20 . -- 15 ~OF BOM BWF wmwM rzilBF 10 ----- BM 5 0 Grade 1 Transported Non-Trans -+--------+-----' -----+----------- OF 1 1 OM 1 1 WF 3 3 WM 2 2 BF 10 5 5 BM 16 13 3 GRADE, TRANSPORTED AND NON-TRANSPORTED 19 FAIR PARK ELEMENTARY: LRSD TOTAL ENROLLMENT 50 ,-------------------~ 20 10 0 Grade 2 Trans orted Non-Trans WF 2 2 WM 2 2 BF 12 6 6 BM 22 16 6 GRADE, TRANSPORTED AND NON-TRANSPORTED 20 EEJWF mmWM ~BF BM FAIR PARK ELEMENTARY: LRSD TOTAL ENROLLMENT 30 r-------------------~ ~ 25 ...................2..4.. ................. ............................................................................................. ........................................................................................................... z w 0 :::\u0026gt; J-Cf) LL 0 a: w co ~ ::) z 20 ..... 5 .. 0 WF WM BF BM Grade 3 Trans orted Non-Trans 2 2 5 1 4 8 4 4 9 8 1 GRADE, TRANSPORTED AND NON-TRANSPORTED 21 DWF FAIR PARK ELEMENTARY: LRSD TOTAL ENROLLMENT 30 .-----------------------. 26 5 .... . .. 3 0 Grade 4 Trans orted Non-Trans WF 1 1 WM 3 3 BF 10 9 1 BM 12 11 1 GRADE, TRANSPORTED AND NON-TRANSPORTED 22 - - - ~ z w 0 ::::, tC/) LL 0 a: w en ~ ::::) z FAIR PARK ELEMENTARY: LRSD TOTAL ENROLLMENT 35 r---------3--2- ---------- 30 ...... 25 .. .. .............................................. 20 .. 15 10 ... 5 ... 0 WF WM BF BM Grade 5 1 1 15 15 Trans orted 9 14 :9 Non-Trans 1 1 5 2 GRADE, TRANSPORTED AND NON-TRANSPORTED 23 -- filITIWF fflfflWM ~BF BM Cf) tz w 0 ::) IC/) LL 0 a: w co ~ :) z FAIR PARK ELEMENTARY: LRSD TOTAL ENROLLMENT 30 r----------------------, 27 25 20 15 10 5 0 Grade 6 Trans orted Non-Trans WF 3 2 1 WM 2 1 1 BF 8 7 2 BM 14 11 2 GRADE, TRANSPORTED AND NON-TRANSPORTED 24 DWF WilWM 1Z1B1F BM FOREST PARK ELEMENTARY: LRSD TOTAL ENROLLMENT ~ z w 0 ::) r(/) LL 0 er: w ca ~ ::) z 80 .------=7...-=--3--------------- 60 ..... ~OF 41 40 ..... ~~.:::.::::::.::::::::::\n:::::z::z::::z:::.:::: ..................................................................................... ............. 20 0 Grade 1 _ _Ira_nsport~~ Non-Trans OF 1 1 WF 17 7 10 WM 21 4 17 BF 19 15 4 BM 15 14 1 GRADE, TRANSPORTED AND NON-TRANSPORTED 25 Ll21WF mmWM 03BF BM ~ z w 0 :.:,:_:\u0026gt; Cl) LL 0 a: w co ~ ::::\u0026gt; z FOREST PARK ELEMENTARY: LRSD TOTAL ENROLLMENT 100 ,--------------------------, 80 74 40 ..... .. .................3..8.. ............................................. .........3..6.. ................. ........................ 20 .. 0 Grade 2 Trans orted Non-Trans WF 21 6 15 WM 17 3 14 BF 17 14 3 BM 19 15 4 GRADE, TRANSPORTED AND NON-TRANSPORTED 26 EilifilWF wmWM rz1l8F -BM U) ..... z w 0 :::) ..... U) LL 0 a: w co ~ :::) z FOREST PARK ELEMENTARY: LRSD TOTAL ENROLLMENT 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 OF WF WM BF BM 67 :. ... :.:. .:. .- :. ............... . .- -------, ~OF 111111----- lEillWF ..................................................w...m...W....M... ................................. ....... 26~ BF Grade 3 Transported Non-Trans ---- ---+------ ------~-----1 1 18 17 18 13 5 8 17 11 1 13 9 1 2 GRADE, TRANSPORTED AND NON-TRANSPORTED 27 -BM FOREST PARK ELEMENTARY: LRSD TOTAL ENROLLMENT 60 r----------------------, 10 0 OF WF WM BF BM 53 Grade 4 1 16 14 10 12 Transported 9 10 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . Non-Trans 1 16 14 1 2 GRADE, TRANSPORTED AND NON-TRANSPORTED 28 rnOF GiillWF mmWM ~BF -BM - - - -FOREST PARK ELEMENTARY: LRSD ~z w 0 .::.:.\u0026gt;.. (j) LL 0 a: w co ~ :::\u0026gt; z TOTAL ENROLLMENT 60 r--------------------- 54 50 40 ..... 37 30 20 ........................................ ................................................. 10 0 OM WF WM BF BM Grade 5 Transported Non-Trans 1 1 10 1 9 11 6 5 16 13 3 16 16 GRADE, TRANSPORTED AND NON-TRANSPORTED 29 mOM rL::::l:J1 wF FOREST PARK ELEMENTARY: LRSD TOTAL ENROLLMENT 80 r------------------~ 70 \"68 --\".................-..-.-.-...... ............................ 40 . .. ....................................................3......2....- .-..-.-........ ..W...f.f.l.W...M.. ..... .......... rzilBF 30 ........... .... . BM 20 .................. .. 10 ..... 0 Grade 6 Trans orted Non-Trans WF 19 2 17 WM 14 4 10 BF 20 17 3 BM 15 13 2 GRADE, TRANSPORTED AND NON-TRANSPORTED 30 ~ z w 0 :) JC/) LL 0 cc LU co ~ :) z J. A. FAIR HIGH SCHOOL: LRSD TOTAL ENROLLMENT 400 .-----------------------. 350 323 300 272 -OM 250 [E!]WF 200 .......................................W...W....W...M... .......................................... 150 . m-BF 100 50 ..... 0 OM WF WM BF BM Grade 10 3 32 21 128 139 Trans orted 3 7 6 120 136 \" ---- Non-Trans 25 15 8 3 GRADE, TRANSPORTED AND NON-TRANSPORTED 31 en t- z w 0 :::\u0026gt; t- en LL 0 a: w co ~ ::::) z J. A. FAIR HIGH SCHOOL: LRSD TOTAL ENROLLMENT 300 250 200 .. al:WrE3:fEmH1:emmB~.e..w...m...m...m...a.. ................................. ............................................................ 150 -- ................................................................................................................ ................................................................ 100 .................................................................................................................................................................................... 62 50 0 Grade 11 Transported Non-Trans OF 1 1 OM 3 1 2 WF 30 7 23 WM 23 8 15 BF 112 100 12 BM 105 95 10 GRADE, TRANSPORTED AND NON-TRANSPORTED 32 ~OF ROM rITIJWF ifflWM ~BF BM - - - ~z UJ 0 :.:.:.::.\u0026gt;. Cl) LL 0 a: UJ en ~ :::\u0026gt; z J. A. FAIR HIGH SCHOOL: LRSD TOTAL ENROLLMENT 250 ------------------------. 210 150 ..... 100 ----- 1111111 111 50 0 Grade 12 Trans orted Non-Trans OF 2 1 1 WF 28 8 20 WM 30 10 20 BF 76 46 30 BM 74 52 22 GRADE, TRANSPORTED AND NON-TRANSPORTED 33 ~OF EEJWF wmWM ~BF -BM C.l_) z w 0 :.:J_ Cl) LL 0 a: w co ~ :J z JEFFERSON ELEMENTARY: LRSD TOTAL ENROLLMENT 100 ------------------- 80 75-- ~OF 40 0 OF OM WF WM BF BM Grade_ 1_ ___ Tr_a_nsp_o__r_te_ d N_o_n-_T_ra_ns~- 1 1 17 28 14 14 1 14 13 1 1 17 27 1 GRADE, TRANSPORTED AND NON-TRANSPORTED 34 IIIOM WJJWF ~z w 0 .::)_ Cl) LL 0 a: w ca ~ ::) z - - - JEFFERSON ELEMENTARY: LRSD TOTAL ENROLLMENT 70 ---------------------. 60 57 ...... .......................................................................... ,-----, 40 .... . 30 .... . 20 10 ..... 0 OF OM WF WM BF BM Grade 2 1 1 13 17 11 14 33 ~WF Trans orted 11 13 :.ar. .................... ~_,. .............. .,.., ..... .. ....,... ....... . ............. . Non-Trans 1 1 13 17 1 GRADE, TRANSPORTED AND NON-TRANSPORTED 35 (f) rz w 0 ::J r( f) LL 0 a: w en ~ ::J z JEFFERSON ELEMENTARY: LRSD TOTAL ENROLLMENT 100 --------------------~ 80 .....................7..5.. ...............................................................~..O...F.. ................40 ..... 20 0 OF OM WF WM BF BM Grade 3 1 1 23 16 15 19 -OM EEilWF ..3. 6 .......... ................................~...~............................l.W....I. WM Trans orted 1 1 15 19 . ........ . ... . Non-Trans 1 1 22 15 ----- GRADE, TRANSPORTED AND NON-TRANSPORTED 36 ~ z UJ 0 :.:.:.\u0026gt;.. Cl) LL 0 a: w co ~ :::\u0026gt; z JEFFERSON ELEMENTARY: LRSD TOTAL ENROLLMENT 100 .------------------- 80 77 ............................................................................................................................................................................................................................. . 47 40 ........................................... .... .......................... 20 ..... ... 0 OM WF WM BF BM Grade 4 Trans orted Non-Trans ---+-- __ _...___ - ------------------1 1 25 21 13 17 1 13 16 25 21 1 GRADE, TRANSPORTED AND NON-TRANSPORTED 37 IIOM lillTIWF mfflWM rzilBF BM ~z w 0 :.:)_ Cl) LL 0 a: w co ~ ::) z - JEFFERSON ELEMENTARY: LRSD TOTAL ENROLLMENT 100 r-----------------------, 80 :7460 ... @E]WF wmWM 40 ..... 39 rz.j8F 35: 0 WF WM BF BM Grade 5 16 23 19 16 Trans orted 19 16 Non-Trans 16 23 GRADE, TRANSPORTED AND NON-TRANSPORTED 38 - - - JEFFERSON ELEMENTARY: LRSD TOTAL ENROLLMENT 80 r--------------------~ ~ 70 m 60 ..... 0 :::, 50 ~ (./) LL 40 0 aw: 30 ~ 20 :::) z 10 0 OM WF WM BF BM 70 Grade 6 2 19 29 10 10 -- 50 ROM .......................................................................... ... .D...W...F.. .................... .............................................................................. m...W....M... ............... ........................................................................ .... ~...B..F.. ...................... 20 -BM Trans orted 10 10 Non-Trans 2 19 29 GRADE,T RANSPORTEDA ND NON-TRANSPORTED 39 - - - PARKVIEW MAGNET HIGH SCHOOL: LRSD w J- z w 0 :::) JCJ) LL 0 a: w en ::E :::) z TOTAL ENROLLMENT 350 ,-------------------50 ..... -BM 0 Grade 10 Trans orted Non-Trans OF 7 4 3 OM 4 2 2 WF 65 42 23 WM 69 31 38 BF 79 30 49 BM 82 23 59 GRADE,T RANSPORTEDA ND NON-TRANSPORTED 40 - - - PARKVIEW MAGNET HIGH SCHOOL: LRSD ~ z w 0 :::) IC/) LL 0 a: w co ~ :::) z TOTAL ENROLLMENT 350 .-----------------------, 300 304 -----jiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________,._--_---_--_, __________________________________________________________ 250 1------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 200 - 150 100 --------------------------------------D-W-F ---------150 ~~~~~------ mm WM 50 0 OF OM WF WM BF BM ~BF Grade 11 Trans orted Non-Trans 7 5 2 7 3 4 79 45 34 55 36 19 100 39 61 56 22 34 GRADE, TRANSPORTED AND NON-TRANSPORTED 41 - - - PARKVIEW MAGNET HIGH SCHOOL: LRSD en Jz w Cl :) Jen LL 0 a: w co ~ :J z TOTAL ENROLLMENT 300 ,---------------------- 250 200 .... . 150 .... . 100 50 0 OF OM WF WM BF BM 247 Grade 12 13 9 53 48 67 57 ~OF ROM 133[E[]W f 114 ~~~ ~ mmWM Trans orted 10 6 33 26 21 18 Non-Trans 3 3 20 22 46 39 ~BF -BM GRADE, TRANSPORTED AND NON-TRANSPORTED 42 - - - PULASKI HEIGHTS ELEMENTARY: LRSD TOTAL ENROLLMENT 80 ,------------------~ 72 0 WF WM BF BM Grade 1 14 19 23 16 Transported 11 8 Non-Trans 14 19 12 8 GRADE, TRANSPORTED AND NON-TRANSPORTED 43 PULASKI HEIGHTS ELEMENTARY: LRSD TOTAL ENROLLMENT 80 -----------------~ ~z LU 0 :::) ~ Cl) 60 LL 40 0 a: LU ca ~ :::) z 20 0 WF WM BF BM 71 50 Grade 2 Trans orted Non-Trans 12 12 18 1 17 23 11 12 18 9 9 GRADE, TRANSPORTED AND NON-TRANSPORTED 44 IEEWF ffifflWM ~BF -BM PULASKI HEIGHTS ELEMENTARY: LRSD TOTAL ENROLLMENT ~ z w 0 :.:,) ._ Cl) LL 0 a: w co ~ ::) z 80 r----s,r------------------- 40 20 0 Grade 3 Trans orted Non-Trans OM 4 4 WF 20 2 18 WM 19 1 18 BF 13 8 5 BM 17 11 6 GRADE, TRANSPORTED AND NON-TRANSPORTED 45 BIOM lEElWF mmWM ~BF -BM - - - PULASKI. HEIGHTS ELEMENTARY: LRSD Cf) tz w 0 ::) I-Cf) LL 0 er: w en ~ :) z TOTAL ENROLLMENT 80 r----------------------, 60 20 0 OF WF WM BF BM 71 Grade 4 1 13 16 20 21 Transported 1 10 13 47 Non-Trans 1 13 15 10 8 GRADE, TRANSPORTED AND NON-TRANSPORTED 46 ~OF GZJWF mmWM ~BF -BM PULASKI HEIGHTS ELEMENTARY: LRSD TOTAL ENROLLMENT a: w co ~ :J z 60 ___ 5_ 5_ _ _____________ __ 0 Grade 5 Trans orted Non-Trans WF 16 1 15 WM 8 8 BF 15 11 4 BM 16 10 6 GRADE, TRANSPORTED AND NON-TRANSPORTED 47 BE.IWF fflfflWM ~BF BM - PULASKI HEIGHTS ELEMENTARY: LRSD TOTAL ENROLLMENT 60 ,----------------------, 53 40 ... .. ~OF EEJWF 30 .. - --- tlmlWM- ~BF :: 1i1l lli llli lll1 111-B M 0 Grade 6 Transported Non-Trans OF 2 2 WF 9 9 WM 12 1 11 BF 16 12 4 BM 14 11 3 GRADE, TRANSPORTED AND NON-TRANSPORTED 48 z~ w 0 :.:.:.::.\u0026gt;. en LL 0 a: w co ~ :::, z TERRY ELEMENTARY: LRSD TOTAL ENROLLMENT 100 --------------------- 83 60 50 0 Grade 1 Transported Non-Trans - -- OF 3 3 OM 2 2 WF 26 4 22 WM 18 3 15 BF 16 10 6 BM 18 14 4 GRADE, TRANSPORTED AND NON-TRANSPORTED 49 ~OF OM ITIT.JWF Cl) 1- z w 0 :::) IC/) LL 0 a: w co ~ :::) z TERRY ELEMENTARY: LRSD TOTAL ENROLLMENT 80 ,-------------------- 71 40 .... 20 0 OF OM WF WM BF BM 41 ~-~-~---------~------~-- ~::.:~:=-: ::: Grade 2 Transported Non-Trans 2 1 1 2 2 17 6 11 18 4 14 16 9 7 16 10 6 GRADE, TRANSPORTED AND NON-TRANSPORTED 50 ~OF -OM filS1WF wmWM rzaBF ..... BM TERRY ELEMENTARY: LRSD TOTAL ENROLLMENT 80 ------------------- ~ 70 z w 60 0 :J ~ CJ) 50 40 ..... 69 ___._,,_ ----~_,,~ ... .,._._,_...,. ____ __..,,._._ ..---~~.,.. :.:.. : . ..... ~-=' ..... ~. ::~. .: ,~-:~:::~::::~=:~~-::~:-:.:~.,.:- --..~..=. -~,:: .: 39 ......~...-.-. -----------~-~----- 30 -:,. .:. . -OM EJWF wmWM LL 0 a: w co ~ :J z\n~. 11::1~1 11:: 0 OF OM WF WM BF BM Grade 3 1 2 16 23 17 10 Trans orted 4 8 11 7 Non-Trans 1 2 12 15 6 3 GRADE, TRANSPORTED AND NON-TRANSPORTED 51 ~z w 0 :J JC/) LL 0 a: LU en ~ :J z TERRY ELEMENTARY: LRSD TOTAL ENROLLMENT 100 ,--.--------------------, 80 41 40 ..... 39 20 - ....... ..... 0 Grade 4 Trans orted Non-Trans OM 4 1 3 WF 10 3 7 WM 27 11 16 BF 22 12 10 BM 17 14 3 GRADE, TRANSPORTED AND NON-TRANSPORTED 52 BIOM IBillWF wmWM ~BF -BM ~z LU 0 ::) J( J) LL 0 a: LU co ~ ::) z TERRY ELEMENTARY: LRSD TOTAL ENROLLMENT 80 ,------------------------ 71 40 0 OF OM WF WM BF BM ~!'!'!'!''!'!'!'!'!'!'!'!'':!'!'!'!'!'!'!'!'!'!'!' .\n:~. ~- .. . :.:: ~ .. :-.:::~- ~::,:.~ ::: :::::~: ~~--~~~~~~=:~::::~::~:::::.::~::.:::.:. : :, :.: ~ Grade 5 2 2 18 12 20 17 Transported 1 1 9 6 16 14 24 . ----. ----. ~-------- Non-Trans 1 1 9 6 4 3 GRADE, TRANSPORTED AND NON-TRANSPORTED 53 ~OF -OM DWF wmWM ~BF -BM ~z w 0 ::\u0026gt; JC/) LL 0 a: w co ~ ::\u0026gt; z WILSON ELEMENTARY: LRSD TOTAL ENROLLMENT 60 ------------------- 50 IIIOM 40 36 [I[]WF IBIWM 30 .. . r2]8F 20 .. . ---B---M 10 0 OM WF WM BF BM Grade 1 Trans orted Non-Trans 1 1 3 1 2 2 2 26 6 20 18 7 11 GRADE, TRANSPORTED AND NON-TRANSPORTED 55 C.J,)_ z UJ 0 .::), _ CJ) LL 0 a: UJ co ~ ::) z TERRY ELEMENTARY: LRSD TOTAL ENROLLMENT 70 r--------------------- 62 60 .... --ar.-~..- .. ---..~---. ~~~:~:~:::::~\n::::::::.~.:.::::::~:.-:\n~:.:\n~-\n~~:~:~~~~~.-~~~~~=~~~::~~~~G:~~::::~~~~-:~:~~~~-:~~~~~:~:::::~: 40 .... . 31 30 ... ... ...................-..-.-.-.-.-...--.-..-... ... .\":.:.-.:::~..::-.::~.~: :: . . 20 10 ..... 0 Grade 6 Transported Non-Trans OF 1 1 OM 3 1 2 WF 16 4 12 WM 14 3 11 BF 13 11 2 BM 15 12 3 GRADE, TRANSPORTED AND NON-TRANSPORTED 54 ~OF 111110M [[TIWF ..... wmWM r2'iB1 F C.,l) _ z w 0 :.J, _ Cl) LL 0 a: w co ~ :::) z - WILSON ELEMENTARY: LRSD TOTAL ENROLLMENT 70 ,---------------------- 60 58\"\"'\" ............................................................................................................................................................. . 50 ..... 30 20 10 0 OM WF WM BF BM Grade 2 1 4 6 29 18 Trans orted 1 15 12 Non-Trans 4 6 14 6 GRADE, TRANSPORTED AND NON-TRANSPORTED 56 -OM BIT1WF wmWM rzj8F -BM (f) tz w 0 :::) t( f) LL 0 a: w en ~ z= \u0026gt; WILSON ELEMENTARY: LRSD TOTAL ENROLLMENT 70 ...-------------------- 60 ....................5..6.. .................................. ............................................................................................... .................................................................................................................. 50 ...... -- ~OF IIOM 40 .. .. ........................................................................3..5..............................[...J..W...F.. ... ................. 30 20 10 0 OF OM WF WM BF BM Grade 3 1 1 5 1 19 29 ....................................................................... ..l.f.f.l.D...W...M... .......... 21 [!i]8F Trans orted 1 1 1 1 8 9 Non-Trans 4 11 20 GRADE, TRANSPORTED AND NON-TRANSPORTED 57 WILSON ELEMENTARY: LRSD TOTAL ENROLLMENT 60 r-------------------- 50 46-------- .. ................................................................................................................. . 20 ..... 10 0 OF WF WM BF BM Grade 4 1 3 3 15 24 Trans orted 1 3 11 14 Non-Trans 3 4 10 GRADE, TRANSPORTED AND NON-TRANSPORTED 58 ~OF LlillWF wmwM rzllBF BM en 1- z w 0 ::\u0026gt; I-en LL 0 a: UJ en ~ ::) z WILSON ELEMENTARY: LRSD TOTAL ENROLLMENT 50 .--------------------- 20 10 0 OF OM WF WM BF BM 41 19 Grade 5 Trans orted Non-Trans 1 1 1 1 3 1 2 5 3 2 11 5 6 20 12 8 GRADE, TRANSPORTED AND NON-TRANSPORTED 59 ~OF OM IEillWF mmWM ~BF -BM z~ w 0 ::, JC/) LL 0 a: w co ~ ::, z WILSON ELEMENTARY: LRSD TOTAL ENROLLMENT 35 -------------------- 31 20 .. 15 .. .. ................................... ......................................................... 10 .. .. .... ... 5 ...... .. 0 Grade 6 Trans orted Non-Trans OF 2 2 WM 5 2 3 BF 14 10 4 BM 10 8 2 GRADE, TRANSPORTED AND NON-TRANSPORTED 60 ~OF wmWM ~BF -BM ENROLLMENT/ ATTENDANCE NORTH LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT CYCLE ONE SCHOOLS SOURCE: NLRSD 61 - - BELWOOD ELEMENTARY: NLRSD TOTAL ENROLLMENT 25 r-------------------- 15 ..... 5 ..... 0 OF WF WM BF BM Grade 1 1 1 6 4 7 14 DWF Trans orted 1 1 3 Non-Trans 1 1 5 3 4 mmWM ~BF -BM GRADE, TRANSPORTED AND NON-TRANSPORTED 62 - - - BELWOOD ELEMENTARY: NLRSD TOTAL ENROLLMENT 30 ------------------ en 26 ~ 25 --------w I -- 20 ..... . . 18 OM ~ [E)WF en LL 0 a: w en ~ ::) z 15 lmWM [:2']8F 10 8 BM 5 ..... 0 OM WF WM BF BM Grade 2 1 3 6 7 9 Trans orted 1 3 4 Non-Trans 1 2 6 4 5 GRADE, TRANSPORTED AND NON-TRANSPORTED 63 - - - BELWOOD ELEMENTARY: NLRSD TOTAL ENROLLMENT 20 .------------------~ 18 ~ lffl!~mggg~mmffll LL 0 a: w co ~ ::::\u0026gt; z DWF 10 . .. ........................................9. ...................................... .............................. 9................................ fflfflWM ~BF -BM 5 . .. 0 Grade 3 Trans orted Non-Trans WF 1 1 WM 6 2 4 BF 6 4 2 BM 5 2 3 GRADE, TRANSPORTED AND NON-TRANSPORTED 64 - - - a: lJ.J en :E :::\u0026gt; z BELWOOD ELEMENTARY: NLRSD TOTAL ENROLLMENT 30 ----------------- 27 5 ..... 0 Grade 4 Trans orted Non-Trans WF 9 9 WM 3 1 2 BF 6 2 4 BM 9 8 1 GRADE, TRANSPORTED AND NON-TRANSPORTED 65 G\u0026amp;JWF mmWM rzaBF -BM - - - BELWOOD ELEMENTARY: NLRSD TOTAL ENROLLMENT 25 ------------------- Cl) ~ 2 0 ...1..9.. j. ..................................................................................................................................... ... w 0 :) ..... Cl) LL 0 a: w co ~ :::, z 10 ..... 5 0 WF WM BF BM 5 Grade 5 Trans orted Non-Trans 5 5 7 2 5 3 1 2 4 2 2 GRADE, TRANSPORTED AND NON-TRANSPORTED 66 - - - Cl) rzw 0 ::) rCI) LL 0 a: UJ en ~ ::) z BELWOOD ELEMENTARY: NLRSD TOTAL ENROLLMENT 35 -------------------- 30 30 ..... ~OF i!!!!!!!!!!!!'!!!!!!!!!!!!~ ::r::: x.::: : :: . : :::-::.=::~~:::::: :::~-::.~~~~~~=::: ::~::: ::=::~::~::.::-:::::\n:::::::::~:~~:: :~:=~~=- 25 . .. .......................'.:... .....................................................................................2..2.......... IIIIOM 20 ----.................................................................r.r.r..n..w..F.. .................................................................... W\n:\n:\n:J 15 10 .. ..... .... .............. .......... 5 0 OF OM WF WM BF BM Grade 6 1 1 9 7 7 5 Trans orted 1 5 2 Non-Trans 1 1 9 6 2 3 GRADE, TRANSPORTED AND NON-TRANSPORTED 67 - - - BOONE PARK ELEMENTARY: NLRSD Cl) ~ z w 0 ::) ~ Cl) LL 0 a: w co ~ ::) z TOTAL ENROLLMENT 100 r----------------------. 84 81 IIIOM 80 -1 60 - ................................... . . liillWF fflfflWM 40 . ................................................................. ...~..B..F... .............. 20 ..... 0 OM WF WM BF BM Grade 1 3 7 10 30 34 3 Trans orted 1 2 Non-Trans 3 6 10 30 32 GRADE, TRANSPORTED AND NON-TRANSPORTED 68 - - - BOONE PARK ELEMENTARY: NLRSD fE z w 0 ::J r( J) LL 0 a: w ca ~ ::J z TOTAL ENROLLMENT 100 ,------------------- 80 ...............7..5.. ................... ,.. ............................................................. ............................. ............................................................................................... ::--. :-: . 70 60 ...................................... ........................................................ 40 ................. . ................. 20 .... 0 WF WM BF BM Grade 2 5 9 26 35 5 Trans orted 1 1 3 Non-Trans 5 8 25 32 GRADE, TRANSPORTED AND NON-TRANSPORTED 69 DWF mmWM CZ18F BM - - - BOONE PARK ELEMENTARY: NLRSD TOTAL ENROLLMENT 80 ,-----------------------, ~ 69 z w 60 ..... 0 ..... 111110M :.:,:_\u0026gt; Cl) LL 0 a: w co ~ :::\u0026gt; z DWF 40 ~WM 20 ..... 0 OM WF WM BF BM Grade 3 1 6 8 25 33 4 Trans orted 1 3 Non-Trans 1 6 8 24 30 GRADE, TRANSPORTED AND NON-TRANSPORTED 70 ~BF ..... -BM - - - BOONE PARK ELEMENTARY: NLRSD TOTAL ENROLLMENT 80 ------------------- 71 ~ z LU 60 0 :::\u0026gt; J-U) 64 -~OF DWF LL 0 40 mWM a: LU cc ~ :::\u0026gt; z 20 0 OF WF WM BF BM 7 Grade 4 Trans orted Non-Trans 1 1 3 1 2 10 1 9 22 2 20 35 3 32 GRADE, TRANSPORTED AND NON-TRANSPORTED 71 ~BF ..... -BM - - - BOONE PARK ELEMENTARY: NLRSD Cl) 1- z w 0 :::, IC/) LL 0 a: w (0 ~ :::, z TOTAL ENROLLMENT 100 ,---------------------. 80 .................7..8.. ......................................................................7..5.. .....................................-..-................................... .......................................................................... 60 . -.....f ==iWF mfflWM 40 . .. .................................... ...... . . ~BF 20 ..... 0 OM WF WM BF BM Grade 6 1 9 9 29 30 3 Trans orted 3 Non-Trans 1 9 9 29 27 GRADE, TRANSPORTED AND NON-TRANSPORTED 73 - - - BOONE PARK ELEMENTARY: NLRSD TOTAL ENROLLMENT 70 ----------------- 62 50 . 111111111 :~l!i!Iil!~!!!!l~~II!lllll~l!ilillllIElil!ll!lil!l!l~j~ij!ll!l!Itlti 40 30 20 10 ..... 0 WF WM BF BM Grade 5 7 5 25 25 6 Trans orted 3 3 Non-Trans 7 5 22 22 GRADE, TRANSPORTED AND NON-TRANSPORTED 72 DWF W!IWM rnBF -BM - - - GLENVIEW ELEMENTARY: NLRSD TOTAL ENROLLMENT 30 r------------------------.. 20 ..... mEWF 15 .. fflfflWM ~BF 10 . ........................................................................ ..-.B..M... ........................ 5 0 WF WM BF BM Grade 1 2 4 11 8 0 Trans orted 0 Non-Trans 2 4 11 8 GRADE, TRANSPORTED AND NON-TRANSPORTED 74 - - - GLENVIEW ELEMENTARY: NLRSD TOTAL ENROLLMENT 30 ,------------------ ~r- 25 .................,...2... 5., ....~~..,..,..-,.24... ................ ...................... z LU 0 :.:,:). _ Cf) LL 0 a: w en ~ :::) z 20 ------ lETIWF 15 . . mmWM ~BF 10 . .. .. . BM 5 - 0 WF WM BF BM Grade 2 4 2 9 10 1 Trans orted 1 Non-Trans 4 2 9 9 GRADE, TRANSPORTED AND NON-TRANSPORTED 75 - - - GLENVIEW ELEMENTARY: NLRSD TOTAL ENROLLMENT 30 ,---------------------. 20 . ..................................................................... ...E..2..2..].W....F.. .......... 15 ................................ .......................... ............... . l!!IWM ~BF 10 5 .... 0 WF WM BF BM Grade 3 2 1 9 12 0 Trans orted 0 Non-Trans 2 1 9 12 GRADE, TRANSPORTED AND NON-TRANSPORTED 76 ..... BM - - - GLENVIEW ELEMENTARY: NLRSD TOTAL ENROLLMENT 35 .------------------- - t DWF 25 11. 20 ..... ..... lfmJWM 5 ..... 0 WF WM BF BM Grade 4 7 4 10 7 ........... . ....... .. . . .... .. . 1 Trans orted 1 Non-Trans 7 4 10 6 GRADE, TRANSPORTED AND NON-TRANSPORTED 77 - GLENVIEW ELEMENTARY: NLRSD TOTAL ENROLLMENT 30 r------------------ 0 WM BF BM Grade 5 4 13 6 ----- 2 Trans orted 1 1 Non-Trans 3 13 5 GRADE, TRANSPORTED AND NON-TRANSPORTED 78 ifflWM - - - a: w co ~ :J z GLENVIEW ELEMENTARY: NLRSD TOTAL ENROLLMENT 35 -----~-------------------. 10 .. 5 - 0 WF WM BF BM Grade 6 3 3 10 16 Trans orted 2 5 Non-Trans 3 1 10 11 GRADE, TRANSPORTED AND NON-TRANSPORTED 79 - - - NORTH HEIGHTS ELEMENTARY: NLRSD 30 ... 20 10 ..... 0 OF OM WF WM BF BM TOTAL ENROLLMENT Grade 1 2 1 18 16 11 16 Trans orted 2 1 6 2 Non-Trans 1 18 15 5 14 GRADE, TRANSPORTED AND NON-TRANSPORTED 80 ..... mmWM - - - NORTH HEIGHTS ELEMENTARY: NLRSD Cl) 1- z w 0 :J IC/) LL 0 a: w co ~ ::) z TOTAL ENROLLMENT 100 -------------------, 80 ...................7..5.. ............................................................~..O...F.. ....................................................................................................................... 40 ..... 20 0 OF OM WF WM BF BM Grade 2 4 3 13 25 15 15 Trans orted 2 2 1 4 66 Non-Trans 2 1 13 25 14 11 GRADE, TRANSPORTED AND NON-TRANSPORTED 81 BOM - - - NORTH HEIGHTS ELEMENTARY: NLRSD OF OM WF WM BF BM TOTAL ENROLLMENT Grade 3 4 2 17 18 18 7 Trans orted 2 1 1 5 1 Non-Trans 2 1 16 18 13 6 GRADE,T RANSPORTEDA ND NON-TRANSPORTED 82 - - - NORTH HEIGHTS ELEMENTARY: NLRSD Cl) Jz w 0 ::::) JC/) LL 0 cc w co ~ ::::) z TOTAL ENROLLMENT 80 ,-------------------- 70 65 -- 60 ..... --\"'O,58 ~OF !'!'!'!''!''!''!''!'6'!'6'!''!'::.xrA3::'!C: .~ .. :: .. .\n..:::,:- . ..: ::-:,-.-:::::.,:::::,.~ .. ::::,::~:-:.~:::-::::::::::-\n~. :::::::::::::::::::-:,, .. ::~:t \\:::::-:::::~:: .. :-:\n: 50 -- 40 30 20 10 ..... 0 OF OM WF WM BF BM Grade 4 2 3 20 14 11 15 -- ~.. 1 Trans orted 1 4 2 Non-Trans 1 3 20 14 7 13 GRADE, TRANSPORTED AND NON-TRANSPORTED 83 OM wwWF lm!IWM ~BF -BM - - - NORTH HEIGHTS ELEMENTARY: NLRSD ~z w 0 ::\u0026gt; r(/) LL 0 TOTAL ENROLLMENT 60 ------------------, 0 OF OM WF WM BF BM Grade 5 3 3 10 15 12 8 Trans orted 1 2 Non-Trans 3 2 10 15 10 8 GRADE, TRANSPORTED AND NON-TRANSPORTED 84 - - - NORTH HEIGHTS ELEMENTARY: NLRSD TOTAL ENROLLMENT Cl) 80 rz- 67 w 0 ::) rCI) 60 -----,. ~~~~~~~~~ LL 0 40 OF OM WF WM BF BM Grade 6 4 1 18 23 13 14 Trans orted 1 3 2 Non-Trans 3 1 18 23 10 12 GRADE, TRANSPORTED AND NON-TRANSPORTED 85 ~OF BOM rnillWF fflfflWM - - - PARK HILL ELEMENTARY: NLRSD TOTAL ENROLLMENT 60 ,-------------------, 10 ..... 0 WF WM BF BM Grade 1 18 6 10 15 Trans orted 7 9 Non-Trans 18 6 3 6 GRADE, TRANSPORTED AND NON-TRANSPORTED 86 - - - PARK HILL ELEMENTARY: NLRSD TOTAL ENROLLMENT 50 r-----------------~ 0 OM WF WM BF BM 44 Grade 2 1 7 12 13 11 Trans orted 8 6 Non-Trans 1 7 12 5 5 GRADE, TRANSPORTED AND NON-TRANSPORTED 87 - - - PARK HILL ELEMENTARY: NLRSD TOTAL ENROLLMENT 50 ------------------- 0 WF WM BF BM 41 Grade 3 9 10 16 6 ---- I Trans orted 6 3 Non-Trans 9 10 10 3 GRADE, TRANSPORTED AND NON-TRANSPORTED 88 llifilWF wmWM ~BF -BM - - - PARK HILL ELEMENTARY: NLRSD TOTAL ENROLLMENT 40 r------------------ 36 (f) I- ~ 30 ..... 0 ::J 1-- (f) LL 20 0 a: w ~ 10 ::::, z 0 WF WM BF BM I --- 25 Grade 4 Trans orted Non-Trans 6 6 13 13 8 4 4 9 7 2 GRADE, TRANSPORTED AND NON-TRANSPORTED 89 LlWF fflfflWM rzJBF -BM - - - PARK HILL ELEMENTARY: NLRSD TOTAL ENROLLMENT 60 .------------------- ~ 50 48 .... z w 0 ::J IC/) LL 0 a: w en ~ ::J z 30 ..... ---- ........................ . ... . rz1B1 F WWWM 20 - ------------------------------ -----------_.:- \\-:?-'-- -----B-M 10 .. 0 Grade 5 Trans orted Non-Trans WF 14 14 WM 14 14 BF 7 6 1 BM 13 9 4 GRADE, TRANSPORTED AND NON-TRANSPORTED 90 - - - PARK HILL ELEMENTARY: NLRSD TOTAL ENROLLMENT 30 ,-----------------, 0 Grade 6 Trans orted Non-Trans WF 9 9 WM 4 4 BF 6 3 3 BM 4 4 GRADE, TRANSPORTED AND NON-TRANSPORTED 91 r:::77WF ~ mmwM ~BF -BM - - - PIKE VIEW ELEMENTARY: NLRSD TOTAL ENROLLMENT 80 ..--------------------. 20 .. 10 ..... 0 WF WM BF BM Grade 1 9 15 20 23 Trans orted 3 12 14 Non-Trans 9 12 8 9 GRADE, TRANSPORTED AND NON-TRANSPORTED 92 - - - PIKE VIEW ELEMENTARY: NLRSD TOTAL ENROLLMENT 70 ---------------------, ~ 60 ?~ ..................................................................................................................................................................................... .... z 0w 50. , --:::) lETWI F ~ 40 . ... . ... ............................. ....... ........ ......3....8. .......... .. ... ......... .. .. . llmWl M LL I :: .... ..... .....1...1...1 1 1_ ::__~ _ :) z 10 0 WF WM BF BM Grade 2 Trans orted Non-Trans 10 10 15 1 14 15 9 6 19 11 8 GRADE, TRANSPORTED AND NON-TRANSPORTED 93 - - - PIKE VIEW ELEMENTARY: NLRSD TOTAL ENROLLMENT Cf) 35 31 z.._ 30 \"\"w 0 :.:.:,_ Cl) LL 0 a: w en ~ :::) z 25 ..... 20 .... 10 5 . 0 WF WM BF BM Grade 3 5 7 9 10 Trans orted 4 6 Non-Trans 5 7 5 4 GRADE, TRANSPORTED AND NON-TRANSPORTED 94 BfilWF fflfflWM ~BF BM - - - PIKE VIEW ELEMENTARY: NLRSD TOTAL ENROLLMENT 60 .-----------------~ 30 .. 20 10 0 OM WF WM BF BM Grade 4 1 16 11 7 14 Trans orted 1 1 6 8 Non-Trans 16 10 1 6 GRADE, TRANSPORTED AND NON-TRANSPORTED 95 - - - PIKE VIEW ELEMENTARY: NLRSD TOTAL ENROLLMENT 70 ,------------------.. 62 ~ SO 71711!71!l1l\n1li!t7-v1~1 1!7 ................................................................................... ............................................................................................... ~ 50 ..... ::, lliillWF ~ 40 ..... m mwM LL ~ 30 . g ~ w ca 20 ~ ----- ~ 10 0 WF WM BF BM Grade 5 13 14 22 13 Trans orted 14 8 Non-Trans 13 14 8 5 GRADE, TRANSPORTED AND NON-TRANSPORTED 96 ~BF - - - PIKE VIEW ELEMENTARY: NLRSD TOTAL ENROLLMENT 60 ----------------------- 10 ... 0 OM WF WM BF BM Grade 6 1 6 14 10 16 Trans orted 1 4 9 Non-Trans 1 6 13 6 7 GRADE, TRANSPORTED AND NON-TRANSPORTED 97 - - - REDWOOD ELEMENTARY: NLRSD TOTAL ENROLLME T 35 ----------------- BF BM Grade 1 15 14 Trans orted 0 Non-Trans 15 14 GRADE, TRANSPORTED AND NON-TRANSPORTED 98 - - - REDWOOD ELEMENTARY: NLRSD TOTAL ENROLLMENT 50 ------------------~ ~ 40 3.9. z :-: . I 36 w 0 ::) ~ Cl) 30 . . EIJWF LL 0 a: 20 w co ~ ::) z 10 ..... 0 WF BF BM Grade 2 2 16 21 ~BF .............. ........................................ . BM Trans orted 1 2 Non-Trans 2 15 19 GRADE, TRANSPORTED AND NON-TRANSPORTED 99 - - - REDWOOD ELEMENTARY: NLRSD TOTAL ENROLLMENT 30 ----------------- Cr-J) 25 ,....,......2..5.. .....,.,.--.-.-.~..~..-..-.-.......... z ----- I w 22 20 filITIWF .... ~ 15 . .................................................................. ..l.l.l.f.f.lW... M 0 ~BF aw: 10 .. .-.- .. ------- - --- - -BM co ~ :J .......................3.. ..... ... z 5 ..... 0 WF WM BF BM Grade 3 1 1 12 11 ................................................ :::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: Trans orted 1 2 Non-Trans 1 12 9 GRADE, TRANSPORTED AND NON-TRANSPORTED 100 - - - REDWOOD ELEMENTARY: NLRSD TOTAL ENROLLMENT 30 ...--------------------, 10 .... 5 .... . 0 WM BF BM 26 Grade 4 1 10 15 - 2 Trans orted 1 1 Non-Trans 10 14 GRADE, TRANSPORTED AND NON-TRANSPORTED 101 - - - REDWOOD ELEMENTARY: NLRSD TOTAL ENROLLMENT 30 ,------------------- WF BF BM Grade 5 1 14 8 Trans orted 0 Non-Trans 1 14 8 GRADE, TRANSPORTED AND NON-TRANSPORTED 102 - - - REDWOOD ELEMENTARY: NLRSD TOTAL ENROLLMENT 30 ----------------- 5 ... 0 WF WM BF BM Grade 6 1 1 12 10 Trans orted 1 1 Non-Trans 1 11 10 GRADE, TRANSPORTED AND NON-TRANSPORTED 103 ENROLLMENT/ ATTENDANCE PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT CYCLE ONE SCHOOLS SOURCE: PCSSD 104 JACKSONVILLE HIGH SCHOOL: PCSSD TOTAL ENROLLMENT ~z w 0 :::, rcn LL 0 a: w co :?E :::, z 400 ~------------------- 300 200 100 0 OF OM WF WM BF BM 353 Grade 10 2 5 114 131 48 53 247 Transported 1 2 77 95 33 39 108 Non-Trans 1 3 37 38 15 14 GRADE, TRANSPORTED AND NON-TRANSPORTED 105 ~OF IBOM ITiillWF wmwM rziaB F BM - - - JACKSONVILLE HIGH SCHOOL: PCSSD (f) rz w 0 :J r( f) LL 0 a: w co ~ :J z TOTAL ENROLLMENT 400 ---------------------- 350 ....3..3 .1. ... ....................................................................................................... .............................................................................................................. 300 ..... ----~OF 200 150 ..... 100 50 0 OF WF WM BF BM Grade 11 Trans orted Non-Trans 3 1 2 95 62 33 106 65 41 62 51 11 65 48 17 GRADE, TRANSPORTED AND NON-TRANSPORTED 106 mfflWM r2]8F BM - - - JACKSONVILLE HIGH SCHOOL: PCSSD TOTAL ENROLLMENT 350 (f) rz- 300 281- - w 0 250 :::\u0026gt; r- (f) 200 200 II2JWF LL 0 150 ........ .......................................l.i...li.l.W...M... ............................................ a: w 100 ca mBF 81 ~ :::\u0026gt; 50 z 0 Grade 12 Trans orted Non-Trans OF 2 1 1 OM 5 2 3 WF 75 56 19 WM 101 68 33 BF 49 36 13 BM 49 37 12 GRADE, TRANSPORTED AND NON-TRANSPORTED 107 Cl) r z w 0 :::) r Cl) LL 0 a: w (l') ~ :::, z NORTH PULASKI HIGH: PCSSD TOTAL ENROLLMENT 350 .----------------------- 310 300 ..... 250 . 224 ~OF IIIOM 150 .........................................l.!.!.I.W...M... ................................................ ~BF 100 ..... 86 50 0 Grade 10 Trans orted Non-Trans OF 3 2 1 OM 2 2 WF 113 87 26 WM 104 76 28 BF 39 25 14 BM 49 32 17 GRADE, TRANSPORTED AND NON-TRANSPORTED 108 ~ z w 0 ::) JC/) LL 0 a: w co ~ ::) z NORTH PULASKI HIGH: PCSSD TOTAL ENROLLMENT 300 -------------------- 250 242 ..............................................................................................................................................................................................................-.-............... OF 200 m fflfff3fflfflm00fflffifflfflmmfflifflfflij184=~ 150 wmWM 100 ..... 50 0 OF OM WF WM BF BM Grade 11 Transpo_rted Non-Trans 3 2 1 1 1 75 55 20 98 74 24 24 16 8 41 36 5 GRADE, TRANSPORTED AND NON-TRANSPORTED 109 t?iJBF BM Cl) Jz w 0 ::) JC/) LL 0 a: w co ~ ::) z NORTH PULASKI HIGH: PCSSD TOTAL ENROLLMENT 250 ,----------2--2-6-- -------- 200 150 100 50 0 OF OM WF WM BF BM Grade 12 2 1 92 76 27 28 156 Trans orted 2 1 62 57 16 18 70 Non-Trans 30 19 11 10 GRADE, TRANSPORTED AND NON-TRANSPORTED 110 ~OF IIIOM EJJWF wmwM rzj8F -BM OAK GROVE HIGH SCHOOL: PCSSD TOTAL ENROLLMENT ~ 200 ---------------------~ 179 z ~ 150 ..... ::) I-C/) LL 100 0 a: w ~ 50 ..... ::) z 0 OM WF WM BF BM Grade 7 2 58 74 22 23 .. .. .1....3..5...................... ....m.... O...M... ............................................ Trans orted 2 52 62 12 7 GEJWF filWWM ~BF .................4..4.. ..................-.B...M... .............. Non-Trans 6 12 10 16 GRADE, TRANSPORTED AND NON-TRANSPORTED 111 OAK GROVE HIGH SCHOOL: PCSSD TOTAL ENROLLMENT ~ z UJ 0 .::.::_:, Cl) LL 0 a: w co ~ :::::, z 180 ------------------ 160 .................................... 1. .5. .5................................................................................................................................................................................................................ -- 140 ..... 134 ~ ~~ w:: lll.lttwmrn ::::::::::: :::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::60 ..... .. .................................... ...................................................... 40 ..... 21-- ~OF IIOM DWF mmWM ~BF 20 ........... --BM 0 OF OM WF WM BF BM Grade 8 1 1 57 63 16 17 Trans orted 1 1 52 57 13 10 Non-Trans 5 6 3 7 GRADE, TRANSPORTED AND NON-TRANSPORTED 112 OAK GROVE, HIGH SCHOOL: PCSSD .,. ~z w 0 :.:). _ CJ) u_ 0 a: w co :\nE ::) z TOTAL ENROLLMENT 200 ,---------------------, 168 50 ... . 30 0 Grade 9 Trans orted Non-Trans OM 1 1 WF 60 52 8 WM 63 61 2 BF 23 13 10 BM 21 11 10 GRADE, TRANSPORTED AND NON-TRANSPORTED 113 .. ~ z w 0 :::) ~ en LL 0 a: w en ~ :::) z - - - OAK GROVE HIGH SCHOOL: PCSSD TOTAL ENROLLMENT 160 ,--------------------- 142 140 ~~~~~120 100 80 60 ..... -- ~OF -OM lETIWF WWWM ~BF 40 ..... 33 ......................................... -BM 20 0 OF OM WF WM BF BM Grade 10 2 1 46 56 17 20 Trans orted 2 1 42 49 6 9 Non-Trans 4 7 11 11 GRADE, TRANSPORTED AND NON-TRANSPORTED 114 (J) Jz w 0 ::J J--( 1) LL 0 a: w ca :?! ::J z OAK GROVE HIGH SCHOOL: PCSSD TOTAL ENROLLMENT 160 --------------------- 141 BO 11111 60 ..... .. ..................................... ........................................................ 40 .. .............................................. 26 20 ~~mmWJ~~. 0 Grade 11 TranspoDed Non-Trans OF 4 4 WF 49 45 4 WM 51 48 3 BF 23 11 12 BM 14 7 7 GRADE, TRANSPORTED AND NON-TRANSPORTED 115 ~OF IEillWF WIDWM ri2BF -BM OAK GROVE HIGH SCHOOL: PCSSD : TOTAL ENROLLMENT ~ z L1.J 0 :::) t-CI) LL 0 a: L1.J co ~ :::) z 140 -------------------- 60 40 ..... 20 0 OF OM WF WM BF BM Grade 12 1 2 35 53 13 15 Trans orted 1 2 29 44 7 7 29 Non-Trans 6 9 6 8 GRADE, TRANSPORTED AND NON-TRANSPORTED 116 ~BF BM ~z w 0 ::::\u0026gt; ~ (J) LL 0 a: w en ~ ::::\u0026gt; z - SYLVAN HILLS JUNIOR HIGH: PCSSD TOTAL ENROLLMENT 350 ,------------------------. 300 250 200 150 100 ..... 50 0 WF WM BF BM 303 ...8..8.. ........................ ........ ........ Grade 7 Trans orted Non-Trans 106 75 31 125 79 46 40 37 3 32 24 8 GRADE, TRANSPORTED AND NON-TRANSPORTED 117 BzJWF fflmWM 1Zj8f BM ~ z w 0 ::J Jen LL 0 a: w en ~ ::J z SYLVAN HILLS JUNIOR HIGH: PCSSD TOTAL ENROLLMENT 350 --------------------- 300 280 ::: iii.ii! :-182 ___ . ~:~ 150 .... . 100 .... . ............ -.. ..- - . . . . . . : ::}?\\\\:?K:::::.:::/i:::\":,::'/::f\n:\n:'.}/}=f\\/\\ 98 50 0 Grade 8 Trans orted Non-Trans WF 96 59 37 WM 126 73 53 BF 24 21 3 BM 34 29 5 GRADE, TRANSPORTED AND NON-TRANSPORTED 118 ~z w 0 :::) ~ Cl) LL 0 a: w a:l :E :::) z - - - SYLVAN HILLS JUNIOR HIGH: PCSSD TOTAL ENROLLMENT 350 r-------------------- 300 282- 250 200 150 100 ... .. 50 0 WF WM BF BM Grade 9 107 113 27 35 Trans orted 66 73 24 30 89---- Non-Trans 41 40 3 5 GRADE, TRANSPORTED AND NON-TRANSPORTED 119 - - - SYLVAN HILLS HIGH SCHOOL: PCSSD ~ z UJ 0 .::.:.:.\u0026gt;. Cl) LL 0 a: UJ co ~ ::::\u0026gt; z TOTAL ENROLLMENT 300 .------------2--7--1- ---- 250 ..... ...................................... ............. ............................................ ~OF 200 ..... .. ............................................ 180 .. BIOM 150 100 ... 50 0 OF OM WF WM BF BM Grade 10 1 4 89 112 34 31 Trans orted 1 4 66 72 16 21 EJWF WilWM ...................9....1.... ....................................~....B.....F.... ................ Non-Trans 23 40 18 10 GRADE, TRANSPORTED AND NON-TRANSPORTED 120 - - - SYLVAN HILLS HIGH SCHOOL: PCSSD TOTAL ENROLLMENT Cl) Jz w 0 :) JC/) LL 0 er: w co ~ :) z 350 ,----------------------, 300 281... . ............................................ ..........................250 200 150 ...... ..-.. ................................... . 194 ..... . ............................................................................................................................................................................................ . ------------------------- '\"'''''::'''''\\''''\"\"'~:r'':''':''V\\\"':':r:~''~''''''\"':' ...,., ,,,,, ,., , ,. ,. .., ,,r,'''\\' -------- rnOF DOM lEEJWF lifflWM 100 ~BF .....................8..7.. ................. ........ .............. 50 0 OF OM WF WM BF BM Grade 11 4 9 96 92 38 42 Transported 3 8 71 69 19 24 Non-Trans 1 26 23 19 18 GRADE, TRANSPORTED AND NON-TRANSPORTED 121 - - - SYLVAN HILLS HIGH SCHOOL: PCSSD Cl) r z w 0 ::) r Cl) LL 0 cc w co ~ ::) z TOTAL ENROLLMENT 300 ,---~2-=7~1---------------~ 150 100 50 0 OF OM WF WM BF BM Grade 10 1 4 89 112 34 31 Trans orted 1 4 66 72 16 21 91 ~BF Non-Trans 23 40 18 10 BM GRADE, TRANSPORTED AND NON-TRANSPORTED 122 - - - BASELINE ELEMENTARY SCHOOL: 30 Cl) J- z w 25 0 :J 20 J-Cl) LL 15 0 a: 10 w co ~ 5 :J z 0 BM Compensatory Ed. 2 Enrollment 14 Transported 7 LRSD Grade 1 Enrollment - 1996-97 BF 1 18 1 WM 3 4 WF OM OF 2 ~Compensatory Ed. Lill Enrollment Transported INSTRUCTIONAL PROGRAM: COMPENSATORY EDUCATION Instructional Program Type: Elementary 1-6. 123 G, - - - BASELINE ELEMENTARY SCHOOL: 25 Cl) t-z w 20 0 :) t- 15 Cl) LL 0 10 a: w co ~ 5 . :) z 0 BM Enrollment 20 Transported 2 LRSD Grade 2 Enrollment - 1996-97 BF WM WF OM OF 16 1 5 1 1 2 BTEI nrollment Transported INSTRUCTIONAL PROGRAM: COMPENSATORY EDUCATION Instructional Program Type: Elementary 1-6. Note: There were no students receiving Compensatory Education at this grade level. 124 - - - BASELINE ELEMENTARY SCHOOL: 25 Cf) ~ z w 20 0 ::) ~ 15 Cf) LL 0 10 a: w co ~ 5 ::) z 0 - Compensatory Ed. Enrollment Transported LRSD Grade 3 Enrollment - 1996-97 BM BF WM 6 3 1 14 7 1 2 1 1 WF 1 3 OM OF ~Compensatory Ed. EEEJ nrollment Transported INSTRUCTIONAL PROGRAM: COMPENSATORY EDUCATION Instructional Program Type: Elementary 1-6. 125 - - - BASELINE ELEMENTARY SCHOOL: 30 Cf) 1- wz 25 0 ::) 20 I-Cf) LL 15 0 wa: 10 co ~ 5 . ::) z 0 Compensatory Ed. Enrollment Transported LRSD Grade 4 Enrollment - 1996-97 BM BF 6 4 17 15 3 3 WM 1 4 1 WF OM 2 OF ~Compensatory Ed. D Enrollment Transported INSTRUCTIONAL PROGRAM: COMPENSATORY EDUCATION Instructional Program Type: Elementary 1-6. 126 - - - BASELINE ELEMENTARY SCHOOL: 20 Cl) rz-w 15 0 :::\u0026gt; r- CI) LL 10 0 a: UJ co 5 ::E ::) z LRSD Grade 5 Enrollment - 1996-97 -... .-.. . .. 16 1 0 l\"-----.-------~--r-------,---~ BM Enrollment 8 Transported 3 BF WM WF OM 12 4 1 OF Enrollment Transported INSTRUCTIONAL PROGRAM: COMPENSATORY EDUCATION Instructional Program Type: Elementary 1-6. Note: There were no students receiving Compensatory Education at this grade level. 127 - - - BASELINE ELEMENTARY SCHOOL: 35 Cl) rz- 30 w 0 25 ::) r- 20 Cl) LL 0 15 a: w 10 co ~ ::) 5 z 0 BM Enrollment 8 Transported 4 LRSD Grade 6 Enrollment - 1996-97 29 BF WM WF OM 18 11 2 3 1 OF 1 EillEl nrollment -Transported INSTRUCTIONAL PROGRAM: COMPENSATORY EDUCATION Instructional Program Type: Elementary 1-6. Note: There were no students receiving Compensatory Education at this grade level. 128 - - - DAVID O' DODD ELEMENTARY SCHOOL: LRSD Grade 1 Enrollment - 1996-97 30 Cl) tzw 25 0 :::\u0026gt; 20 I-Cl) LL 15 0 ffi 10 ca ~ 5 :::\u0026gt; z 0 !'----.------.---------,---,-----,------( BM BF WM WF OM OF Fpensatory Ed. 4 j Enrollment 11 Transported 7 2 14 10 4 8 5 2 5 5 Instructional Program Type: Elementary 1-6. 129 ~Compensatory Ed. E2l Enrollment Transported - - - DAVID O' DODD ELEMENTARY SCHOOL: LRSD Grade 2 Enrollment - 1996-97 20 Cl) - - - - I-z w 0 15 ~Compensatory Ed. ::J I- Enrollment Cl) LL 10 Transported 0 --- --- a: w co 5 . ~ ::J z 0 BM BF WM WF OM OF Compensatory Ed. 1 1 1 2 Enrollment 9 10 2 2 Transported 8 6 1 INSTRUCTIONAL PROGRAM: COMPENSATORY EDUCATION Instructional Program Type: Elementary 1-6. 130 - - - DAVID O' DODD ELEMENTARY SCHOOL: LRSD Grade 3 Enrollment - 1996-97 20 ~z ~ 15 l/V'/VVVv :) ~ (./) LL 10 0 a: w en 5 ~ :) z BM BF WM WF OM OF Compensatory Ed. 3 1 Enrollment 8 3 Transported 5 1 1 1 1 2 5 3 1 ~Compensatory Ed. Enrollment -Transported INSTRUCTIONAL PROGRAM: COMPENSATORY EDUCATION Instructional Program Type: Elementary 1-6. 131 - - - DAVID O' DODD ELEMENTARY SCHOOL: LRSD Grade 4 Enrollment - 1996-97 40 Cl) ~z 35 _2 _7 _ ___ -... ....-.... .......- - --.. -......- --........ ........ .... .. w 30 0 =\u0026gt; 25 ~ (J) u_ 20 0 a: 15 .:: w a) 10 ~ :) 5 z 0 BM BF WM WF OM OF Compensatory Ed. 9 5 2 Enrollment 15 13 7 Transported 11 9 3 3 7 7 1 1 ~Compensatory Ed. GJ Enrollment Transported INSTRUCTIONAL PROGRAM: COMPENSATORY EDUCATION Instructional Program Type: Elementary 1-6. 132 - - - DAVID O' DODD ELEMENTARY SCHOOL: 30 (J) 1- z 25 w 0 ::) 20 IC/) LL 15 0 ffi 10 co ~ 5 ::) z 0 Compensatory Ed. Enrollment Transported LRSD Grade 5 Enrollment - 1996-97 BM BF WM 7 1 1 9 7 1 7 7 2 WF OM 4 7 4 2 ~ OF 1 1 ~Compensatory Ed. EJ Enrollment Transported INSTRUCTIONAL PROGRAM: COMPENSATORY EDUCATION Instructional Program Type: Elementary 1-6. 133 - - - DAVID O' DODD ELEMENTARY SCHOOL: LRSD Grade 6 Enrollment - 1996-97 35 Cl) ~ 30 w o 25 ::) ~ 20 LL 0 a: 15 . wen 10 ~ ::) z 5 _./ 0 .,..__--,---~-,---------.---~ BM BF WM WF OM OF Compensatory Ed. 7 4 6 1 Enrollment 13 11 9 1 Transported 11 9 7 1 rncompensatory Ed. [EJ Enrollment Transported INSTRUCTIONALP ROGRAM: COMPENSATORYE DUCATION Instructional Program Type: Elementary 1-6. 134 - - - FAIR PARK ELEMENTARY SCHOOL: LRSD Grade 1 Enrollment - 1996-97 35 Cl) ~ 30 w 0 ::) J--( f) 25 ... ~Compensatory Ed. Bill Enrollment LL 0 15 ....... - - ---- - -.-.......T...r.a..n. sported a: w co :?! ::) z 10 . 5 ...... 0 I\"---~----.----------.-------\u0026lt; BM BF WM WF OM OF Compensatory Ed. 2 2 Enrollment 16 10 2 3 1 1 Transported 13 5 INSTRUCTIONAL PROGRAM: COMPENSATORY Instructional Program Type: Elementary 1-6. 135 - - - FAIR PARK ELEMENTARY SCHOOL: 60 (J) r- z 50 w 0 :) r- 40 (J) LL 30 0 a: 20, ,, w a) ~ 10 :) z 0 Compensatory Ed. Enrollment Transported LRSD Grade 2 Enrollment - 1996-97 /. BM 8 22 16 BF 4 12 6 WM WF OM OF 2 2 ~Compensatory Ed. BE Enrollment Transported INSTRUCTIONALP ROGRAM: COMPENSATORYE DUCATION Instructional Program Type: Elementary 1-6. 136 - - - FAIR PARK ELEMENTARY SCHOOL: LRSD Grade 3 Enrollment - 1996-97 25 CJ) rz- .. w 20 - - -- ........ ......-. -.. -- .,_, ......_.. 0 ~Compensatory Ed. :) r- 15 - --- - . -- ------ Enrollment CJ) LL Transported 0 10 - - - -- - - a: w co ~ 5 :) z 0 BM BF WM WF OM OF Compensatory Ed. 2 3 1 Enrollment 9 8 5 2 Transported 8 4 1 INSTRUCTINOAL PROGRAM: COMPENSATORY EDUCATION Instructional Program Type: Elementary 1-6. 137 - - - FAIR PARK ELEMENTARY SCHOOL: LRSD Grade 4 Enrollment - 1996-97 35 ~z 30 w 0 25 .. :::, ~ 20 LL 0 15 ... a: wco 10 ~ 5 z 0 ~-----....---------~ BM BF WM WF OM OF Compensatory Ed. 7 6 1 Enrollment 12 1 o 3 1 Transported 11 9 3 ~Compensatory Ed. EIEEl nrollment Transported INSTRUCTIONAL PROGRAM: COMPENSATORY EDUCATION Instructional Program Type: Elementary 1-6. 138 - - - FAIR PARK ELEMENTARY SCHOOL: LRSD Grade 5 Enrollment - 1996-97 - .... - ......-. - .......... . 25 20 15 5 .,.. ..... 0 !'-----.-----------------\u0026lt; BM BF WM WF OM OF Compensatory Ed. 6 5 Enrollment 15 15 1 1 Transported 14 9 ~Compensatory Ed. D Enrollment Transported INSTRUCTIONALP ROGRAM: COMPENSATORYE DUCATION Instructional Program Type: Elementary 1-6. 139 - - - FAIR PARK ELEMENTARY SCHOOL: LRSD Grade 6 Enrollment - 1996-97 35 Cl) ~ 30 ....::.Y -XX:XXX w .... .... - ... - ... ' ...... -- - -- ...... -- - ...... .----------, 25 . .. ./ ~ 20 . LL 0 15 a: wco 10 ~ 5 z 0 ,,___--,-----,-------,.---,-----,-.-~ BM BF WM WF OM OF Compensatory Ed. 3 2 Enrollment 14 8 2 3 Transported 11 7 1 2 ~Compensatory Ed. CJ Enrollment Transported INSTRUCTIONALP ROGRAM: COMPENSATORYE DUCATION Instructional Program Type: Elementary 1-6. 140 - FOREST PARK ELEMENTARY SCHOOL: LRSD Grade 1 Enrollment - 1996-97 50 0------------------- BM BF WM WF OM OF Compensatory Ed. 7 8 1 Enrollment 15 19 21 17 Transported 14 15 4 7 1 1 ~Compensatory Ed. Eu Enrollment Transported INSTRUCTIONAL PROGRAM: COMPENSATORY EDUCATION Instructional Program Type: Elementary 1-6. 141 - - FOREST PARK ELEMENTARY SCHOOL: LRSD Grade 2 Enrollment - 1996-97 60 z~ 50 ,' 10'...Xj(XX\u0026gt; w 0 :::) JC/) LL 0 a: w cc :E :::) z 40 30 .. 20 10 _./ 0 t\"----.----.------,.---T-\"\"-~~ BM BF WM WF OM OF Compensatory Ed. 15 8 2 1 Enrollment 19 17 17 21 Transported 15 14 3 6 ~Compensatory Ed. E2l Enrollment Transported INSTRUCTIONALP ROGRAM: COMPENSATORYE DUCATION Instructional Program Type: Elementary 1-6. 142 - - - FOREST PARK ELEMENTARY SCHOOL: LRSD Grade 3 Enrollment - 1996-97 (/) 1- 50 ru 40 0 ::) t- 30 (/) LL O 20 a: w ~ 10 ' ::) z ....................... -3g----- .. -- .. .. .. 0 .,.__~-~-----~~ BM BF WM WF OM OF Compensatory Ed. 5 4 4 1 Enrollment 13 18 17 18 Transported 11 17 8 5 Cill Enrollment Transported INSTRUCTIONAL PROGRAM: COMPENSATORY EDUCATION Instructional Program Type: Elementary 1-6. 143 - - - FOREST PARK ELEMENTARY SCHOOL: Cl) 1- z LU 35 o 25 :) IC/) LL 0 a: w co ~ :) z 20 15 ...... 10 ..... 5 _./ 0 Compensatory Ed. Enrollment Tran~ported LRSD Grade 4 Enrollment - 1996-97 BM BF WM 6 9 2 12 10 14 10 9 WF OM 1 16 OF 1 ~Compensatory Ed. D Enrollment Trans_p9rted INSTRUCTIONAL PROGRAM: COMPENSATORY EDUCATION Instructional Program Type: Elementary 1-6. 144 - - - FOREST PARK ELEMENTARY SCHOOL: LRSD Grade 5 Enrollment - 1996-97 50 Cf) rz- w 40 0 :) r- 30 .... Cf) LL 0 20 er: w co 10 ~ ::) z 0----------- BM BF WM WF OM OF Compensatory Ed. 7 8 1 3 Enrollment 16 16 11 10 1 Transported 16 13 6 1 1 ~Compensatory Ed. Enrollment Transported INSTRUCTIONAL PROGRAM: COMPENSATORY EDUCATION Instructional Program Type: Elementary 1-6. 145 - - - FOREST PARK ELEMENTARY SCHOOL: 60 Cl) I- z w 50 0 :::, 40 I-Cl) LL 30 0 a: 20 w co ~ 10 :::::\u0026gt; z 0 Compensatory Ed. Enrollment Transported LRSD Grade 6 Enrollment - 1996-97 BM 7 15 13 BF WM WF OM OF 11 2 1 20 14 19 17 4 2 ~Compensatory Ed. CD Enrollment Transported INSTRUCTIONALS ERVICES: COMPENSATORYE DUCATION Instructional Program Type: Elementary 1-6. 146 - - J. A. FAIR HIGH SCHOOL: LRSD Grade 10 Enrollment - 1996-97 350 Cf) ~ 300 . w 250' ~ 200 LL 0 150 . a: cwo 100 ~ 50 z 0 !\"-~-----r----.---.-----.------------\u0026lt; BM BF WM WF OM OF Compensatory Ed. 19 14 1 1 Enrollment 139 128 21 32 3 Transported 136 120 6 7 3 ~Compensatory Ed. [[I] Enrollment Transported INSTRUCTIONAL PROGRAM: COMPENSATORY EDUCATION Instructional Program Type: High 10-12. 147 J. A. FAIR HIGH SCHOOL: LRSD 250 150 . 100 _. 50 .- 0 Compensatory Ed. Enrollment Transported Grade 11 Enrollment - 1996-97 BM 14 105 95 ErnCompensatory Ed. - - - - - -- - [Bill Enrollment BF WM WF OM OF 5 1 2 112 23 30 3 100 8 7 1 1 1 Transported INSTRUCTIONALP ROGRAM: COMPENSATORYE DUCATION Instructional Program Type: High 10-12. 148 - - - J. A. FAIR HIGH SCHOOL: LRSD Grade 12 Enrollment - 1996-97 140 zfE 120 w 0 100 .. :.: . .. . :J 1225JCompensatEordy. ~ 80 u._ 0 60 . a: cwo 40 ~ :J 20 z 0 Compensatory Ed. Enrollment Transported BM 2 74 52 - . - BF WM WF OM OF 2 76 30 28 46 10 8 2 1 - [TI] Enrollment Transported INSTRUCTIONAL PROGRAM: COMPENSATORY EDUCATION Instructional Program Type: High 10-12. 149 - - - JEFFERSON ELEMENTARY SCHOOL: LRSD Grade 1 Enrollment - 1996-97 -- - - - ------ -- - - - -------- 40 (J) rz 35 w 0 :J r (J) LL 0 a: w en ~ :J z 30 ...- . 25 20 .. 15 .. 10 5 ./ 0 ~----------------~ BM BF WM WF OM OF Compensatory Ed. 5 7 1 Enrollment 14 14 28 17 1 1 Transported 13 14 1 ~Compensatory Ed. Enrollment Transported INSTRUCTIONALP ROGRAM: COMPENSATORYE DUCATION Instructional Program Type: Elementary 1-6. 150 - - - JEFFERSON ELEMENTARY SCHOOL: LRSD Grade 2 Enrollment - 1996-97 40 (J) rz- 35 ~ 30 ~ 25 (f) LL 20 0 a: 15 ~ 10 3 5 / z ------ .... - ------------1 - - .. - . ---- . - - -- - - -- --- 0 l'------,-----r------,---r-----r-----( BM BF WM WF OM OF Compensatory Ed. 7 6 2 1 Enrollment 14 11 17 13 1 Transported 13 11 1 1 ~Compensatory Ed. m Enrollment Transported INSTRUCTIONAL PROGRAM: COMPENSATORY EDUCATION Instructional Program Type: Elementary 1-6. 151 - - - JEFFERSON ELEMENTARY SCHOOL: LRSD Grade 3 Enrollment - 1996-97 60 . 1-- - - - -- - - - ... . ... 0 ----------- BM BF WM WF OM Compensatory Ed. 13 9 1 3 Enrollment 19 15 16 23 1 Transported 19 15 1 1 .............. OF 1 l\u0026amp;ICompensatory Ed. Enrollment Transported INSTRUCTIONAL PROGRAM: COMPENSATORY EDUCATION Instructional Program Type: Elementary 1-6. 152 - - - JEFFERSON ELEMENTARY SCHOOL: LRSD Grade 4 Enrollment - 1996-97 Cl) rzw 0 :::) 50 .,_ 30 Cl) LL O 20 er: w ~ 10 :::) z ------ ----- ---- - ---- 0 l\"-----..--------------.-----.-------r BM BF WM WF OM OF Compensatory Ed. 4 5 2 1 Enrollment 17 13 21 25 1 Transported 16 13 1 ~Compensatory Ed. CIJ Enrollment Transported INSTRUCTIONAL PROGRAM: COMPENSATORY EDUCATION Instructional Program Type: Elementary 1-6. 153 - - - JEFFERSON ELEMENTARY SCHOOL: LRSD Grade 5 Enrollment - 1996-97 50 Cl) I-m 40 - 0 :::\u0026gt; ~Compensatory Ed. Ct-l) 30 - - -- - - -- -- - C2JE nrollment LL 0 a: LU ~ 10- ::::\u0026gt; z 0----------- BM BF WM WF OM OF Compensatory Ed. 4 5 2 1 Enrollment 16 19 23 16 Transported 16 19 Transported INSTRUCTIONALP ROGRAM: COMPENSATORYE DUCATION Instructional Program Type: Elementary 1-6. 154 - - - JEFFERSON ELEMENTARY SCHOOL: 35 Cl) rz- 30 w 0 25 ::) ..... Cl) 20 LL 0 15 a: w 10 co ~ 5 . ::) z 0 Compensatory Ed. Enrollment Transported LRSD Grade 6 Enrollment - 1996-97 BM 4 10 10 ..2. 0 - ..... .. -.. .. - - BF WM WF OM OF 3 1 10 29 19 2 10 ~Compensatory Ed. E:2E1n rollment Transported INSTRUCTIONAL PROGRAM: COMPENSATORY EDUCATION Instructional Program Type: Elementary 1-6. 155 - - - PULASKI HEIGHTS ELEMENTARY SCHOOL: LRSD Grade 1 Enrollment - 1996-97 ~ z w 0 60 50 , .::,,_ 40 Cl) LL 30 0 a: w en ~ ::) z 20 , 10 .. - - - -- - .. -- -~- - .,. __ - - 47 0 r----r-----,---..---,-~--,-------f' BM BF WM WF OM OF Compensatory Ed. 5 13 1 Enrollment 16 23 19 14 Transported 8 11 ~Compensatory Ed. Enrollment -Transported INSTRUCTIONAL PROGRAM: COMPENSATORY EDUCATION Instructional Program Type: Elementary 1-6. 156 - - - PULASKI HEIGHTS ELEMENTARY SCHOOL: LRSD Grade 2 Enrollment - 1996-97 60 ~ 47 zw 50 - --- - - .. -- 0 .:J.. ... 40 (I) LL 30 0 ffi 20 cc ~ 10, :J z 0 ,.._----------.--------~~ BM BF WM WF OM OF Compensatory Ed. 7 13 1 3 1 Enrollment 18 23 18 12 Transported 9 11 1 ~Compensatory Ed. Go Enrollment Transported INSTRUCTIONAL PROGRAM: COMPENSATORY EDUCATION Instructional Program Type: Elementary 1-6. 157 - - PULASKI HEIGHTS ELEMENTARY SCHOOL: LRSD Grade 3 Enrollment - 1996-97 35 CJ) ~ 30 w o 25 :::\u0026gt; JC/) LL 0 a: w ClJ ~ :::\u0026gt; z 15 ... 10 ... 5 ./ 0 ,.....__--.---~----------~ BM BF WM WF OM OF Compensatory Ed. 3 4 2 1 Enrollment 17 13 19 20 4 Transported 11 8 1 2 ~Compensatory Ed. Enrollment Transported INSTRUCTIONAL PROGRAM: COMPENSATORY EDUCATION Instructional Program Type: Elementary 1-6. 158 - - - PULASKI HEIGHTS ELEMENTARY SCHOOL: LRSD Grade 4 Enrollment - 1996-97 50 30 20 0 ,.___~---.----r---~---.---~ BM BF WM WF OM OF Compensatory Ed. 7 9 Enrollment 21 20 16 13 1 Transported 13 1 o 1 ~Compensatory Ed. Ll Enrollment -Transported INSTRUCTIONAL PROGRAM: COMPENSATORY EDUCATION Instructional Program Type: Elementary 1-6. 159 - - PULASKI HEIGHTS ELEMENTARY SCHOOL: LRSD Grade 6 Enrollment - 1996-97 .......... _,, -. ..,_. . - -- - - -- 35 Cl) -- - -- - .,._ z 30 w 0 25 ~Compensatory Ed. .:), ._ Cl) 20 @ Enrollment LL 0 15 Transported a: w 10 en ~ :::\u0026gt; 5 z 0 BM BF WM WF OM OF Compensatory Ed. 3 2 Enrollment 14 16 12 9 2 Transported 11 12 1 2 INSTRUCTIONAL PROGRAM: COMPENSATORY EDUCATION Instructional Program Type: Elementary 1-6. 161 ... - - - TERRY ELEMENTAR SCHOOL: LRSD 50 C.,l) _ z w 40 0 :.:,, _ 30 Cl) LL 0 20 a: w Cll 10 . ~ ::, z 0 Compensatory Ed. Enrollment ,. Transported Grade 1 Enrollment - 1996-97 - - BM BF WM 10 6 2 18 16 18 14 10 3 - WF 3 26 4 - . -- -- OM OF 2 2 3 2 ~Compensatory Ed. D Enrollment Transported INSTRUCTIONAL PROGRAM: COMPENSATORY EDUCATION Instructional Program Type: Elementary 1-6. 162 ~. - - TERRY ELEMENTAR - SCHOOL: LRSD Grade 2 Enrollment - 1996-97 40 (f) Iz- 35 w 30 0 ~Compensatory Ed. :::) I- 25 D Enrollment (f) LL 20 Transported 0 a: 15 w co 10 ~ :::) 5 z 0 BM BF WM WF OM OF Compensatory Ed. 9 5 1 1 Enrollment 16 16 18 17 2 2 Transported 10 9 4 6 1 INSTRUCTIONALP ROGRAM: COMPENSATORYE DUCATION Instructional Program Type: Elementary 1-6. 163 I, - - TERRY ELEMENTAR - SCHOOL: LRSD ~ Grade 3 Enrollment - 1996-97 50 Cf) t-z w 40 0 EZJCompensatory Ed. ::) t- 30 Enrollment Cf) LL Transported 0 20 a: w ,I en ~ 10 ::) z 0 BM BF WM WF OM OF Compensatory Ed. 3 9 4 2 Enrollment 17 22 27 10 4 Transported 14 12 11 3 1 INSTRUCTIONALP ROGRAM: COMPENSATORYE DUCATION Instructional Program Type: Elementary 1-6. 164 - - TERRY ELEMENTAR - SCHOOL: LRSD Grade 4 Enrollment - 1996-97 50 Cl) rz- w 40 0 EZJCompensatorEy d. :::\u0026gt; ...... 30 Enrollment Cl) LL Transported 0 20 a: w ,1 co :?! 10 ::) z 0 BM BF WM WF OM OF Compensatory Ed. 10 9 5 3 1 Enrollment 17 22 27 10 4 Transported 14 12 11 3 1 INSTRUCTIONAL PROGRAM: COMPENSATORY EDUCATION Instructional Program Type: Elementary 1-6. 165 i. - - TERRY ELEMENTAR - SCHOOL: LRSD '\n. 50 (f) I- z w 40 . 0 :J I- 30 (f) LL 0 20 a: w ca ~ 10 :J z 0 Compensatory Ed. Enrollment ,. Transported Grade 5 Enrollment - 1996-97 BM BF WM 7 8 1 17 20 12 14 16 6 WF OM 1 18 2 9 1 OF 2 1 IZJCompensatory Ed. Enrollment Transported INSTRUCTIONAL PROGRAM: COMPENSATORY EDUCATION I nstructidnal Program Type: Elementary 1-6. 166 ~. - - TERRY ELEMENTAR .,, - SCHOOL: LRSD Grade 6 Enrollment - 1996-97 40 Cl) rz- 35 w 30 0 C?aCompensatorEy d. ::\u0026gt; r- 25 Enrollment Cl) u_ 20 -Transported 0 a: 15 w co 10 ~ ::\u0026gt; 5 z 0 BM BF WM WF OM OF CompensatoryE d. 7 1 1 2 2 Enrollment 15 13 14 16 3 1 Transported 12 1 1 3 4 1 INSTRUCTIONAL PROGRAM: COMPENSATORY EDUCATION Instructional Program Type: Elementary 1-6. 167 - - WILSON ELEMENTARY SCHOOL: LRSD Grade 1 Enrollment - 1996-97 50 ~ ~ 40 0 :) 1- 30 Cl) LL 0 a: w co ~ :::\u0026gt; z 20 0 ic- __ _,,___ _______ -~---1 BM BF WM WF OM OF Compensatory Ed. 3 7 1 Enrollment 18 26 2 Transported 7 6 3 1 1 ~Compensatory Ed. - B Enrollment -Transported INSTRUCTIONALP ROGRAM:C OMPENSATORYE DUCATION Instructional Program Type: Elementary 1-6. 168 - - - WILSON ELEMENTARY SCHOOL: LRSD 60 Cl) r- z 50 , w 0 :) r- 40 Cl) LL 30 0 er: 20 w en ~ 10 :) z 0 Compensatory Ed. Enrollment Transported Grade 2 Enrollment - 1996-97 BM BF 9 9 24 15 14 11 WM WF OM OF 3 1 3 3 1 1 ~Compensatory Ed. D Enrollment Transported INSTRUCTIONAL PROGRAM: COMPENSATORY EDUCATION Instructional Program Type: Elementary 1-6. 169 - - - WILSON ELEMENTARY SCHOOL: LRSD Grade 3 Enrollment - 1996-97 60 en I- z w 50 0 :J 40 10]Compensatory Ed. I-en ffiTEI nrollment LL 30 0 -Transported a: 20 w co ~ 10 ::) z 0 BM BF WM WF OM OF Compensatory Ed. 13 5 1 Enrollment 29 19 1 5 1 Transported 9 8 1 1 1 1 INSTRUCTIONALP ROGRAM:C OMPENSATORYE DUCATION Instructional Program Type: Elementary 1-6. 170 - - - WILSON ELEMENTARY SCHOOL: LRSD Grade 4 Enrollment - 1996-97 ~Compensatory Ed. ---- .. - BTI Enrollment -Transported 2 BM BF WM WF OM OF Compensatory Ed. 9 9 1 Enrollment 24 15 3 3 1 Transported 14 11 3 1 INSTRUCTIONAL PROGRAM: COMPENSATORY EDUCATION Instructional Program Type: Elementary 1-6. 171 - - - WILSON ELEMENTARY SCHOOL: LRSD 50 Cl) I-z UJ 40 0 :) I- 30 Cl) LL 0 20 a: UJ co ~ 10 . :) z 0 Compensatory Ed. Enrollment Transported Grade 5 Enrollment - 1996-97 BM BF WM 7 5 20 11 5 12 5 3 WF OM 3 1 1 OF 1 1 ~Compensatory Ed. EITEIJn roll ment Transported INSTRUCTIONAL PROGRAM: COMPENSATORY EDUCATION Instructional Program Type: Elementary 1-6. 172 - - - WILSON ELEMENTARY SCHOOL: LRSD 30 en J- z 25 w 0 ::) 20 J- en LL 15 0 a: w 10 c:o ~ 5 ::) z 0 Compensatory Ed. Enrollment Transported Grade 6 Enrollment - 1996-97 BM 3 10 8 ... - - 26 ... BF WM WF OM OF 2 2 14 5 2 10 2 2 4 ~Compensatory Ed. ETEil nrollment Transported ~------'-----'----'--- ~-'------'-- INSTRUCTIONAL PROGRAM: COMPENSATORY EDUCATION Instructional Program Type: Elementary 1-6. 173 - - - BELWOOD ELEMENTARY SCHOOL: 20 10 5 ./ 0 Compensatory Ed. Enrollment Transported NLRSD Grade 1 Enrollment - 1996-97 BM BF WM 7 4 6 7 4 6 3 1 1 WF OM 1 1 OF 1 1 ~Compensatory Ed. D Enrollment Transported INSTRUCTIONALP ROGRAM: COMPENSATORYE DUCATION Instructional Program Type: Elementary 1-6. 174 - - - BELWOOD ELEMENTARY SCHOOL: NLRSD Grade 2 Enrollment - 1996-97 25 ._. ......-.. -- ...-. ..........-...... ......................................_...._...._... _ .........-... ............-..... . (J) r z w 20 0 :J 1221CompensatoryE d. r 15 Cl) .........-.. ......._................. ..............E..E..J..E ....n...r..o llment LL 0 10 a: w en 5 . ~ :J z 0 II\"----------.-~---,--~ BM BF WM WF OM OF Compensatory Ed. 9 7 6 3 Enrollment 9 7 6 3 Transported 4 3 1 1 1 Transported INSTRUCTIONAL PROGRAM: COMPENSATORY EDUCATION Instructional Program Type: Elementary 1-6. 175 - - - BELWOOD ELEMENTARY SCHOOL: NLRSD Grade 3 Enrollment - 1996-97 20 _____1 6_ ____ _ 0 ...-----,----..---.-------.-------~ BM BF WM WF OM OF Compensatory Ed. 5 6 6 1 Enrollment 5 6 6 1 Transported 2 4 2 1 rncompensatory Ed. u:J Enrollment Transported INSTRUCTIONAL PROGRAM: COMPENSATORY EDUCATION Instructional Program Type: Elementary 1-6. 176 - - - BELWOOD ELEMENTARY SCHOOL: 30 0 Compensatory Ed. Enrollment Transported NLRSD Grade 4 Enrollment - 1996-97 BM BF WM 9 6 3 9 6 3 8 2 1 WF 9 9 OM OF ~Compensatory Ed. C5JE nrollment Transported INSTRUCTIONAL PROGRAM: COMPENSATORY EDUCATION Instructional Program Type: Elementary 1-6. 177 - - - BELWOOD ELEMENTARY SCHOOL: NLRSD Grade 5 Enrollment - 1996-97 20 ~ z ~ 15 ::J rC/) LL 10 0 a: w co 5 ~ ::J z 0 l'---------.------------r BM BF WM WF OM OF Compensatory Ed. 4 3 7 5 Enrollment 4 3 7 5 Transported 2 1 2 ~Compensatory Ed. EZJE nrollment Transported INSTRUCTIONAL PROGRAM: COMPENSATORY EDUCATION Instructional Program Type: Elementary 1-6. 178 - - - BELWOOD ELEMENTARY SCHOOL: NLRSD Grade 6 Enrollment - 1996-97 25 ~ ctj 20 0 :::, IC/) LL 0 a: w co ~ ::, z 15 . .,.../. 19 0 ,._____ ____ --,--_- ___ --\u0026lt;' BM BF WM WF OM OF Compensatory Ed. 5 7 7 9 Enrollment 5 7 7 9 Transported 2 5 1 1 1 1 1 rncompensatory Ed. Enrollment Transported INSTRUCTIONAL PROGRAM: COMPENSATORY EDUCATION Instructional Program Type: Elementary 1-6. 179 - - - BOONE PARK ELEMENTARY SCHOOL: NLRSD Grade 1 Enrollment - 1996-97 - ------------------- 80 Cl) Jz ----05 - ---- - - - - -------- - - - - ~ 60 :) JC/) LL 0 a: w en ~ :) z 50 40 .... 30 ./ 20 10 --.2. 0 - --- --- . .. - -- 15 0 l\"------------------.-------r BM BF WM WF OM OF Compensatory Ed. 34 30 1 o 7 3 Enrollment 34 30 1 0 7 3 Transported 2 1 ~Compensatory Ed. _ G Enrollment _ _ _ Transported INSTRUCTIONAL PROGRAM: COMPENSATORY EDUCATION Instructional Program Type: Elementary 1-6. 180 - - - BOONE PARK ELEMENTARY SCHOOL: 80 0 Compensatory Ed. Enrollment Transported NLRSD Grade 2 Enrollment - 1996-97 BM BF 35 26 35 26 3 1 ~Compensatory Ed. rEJ Enrollment _ 19 ___ _ ____ __ ___________ __T ransported 10 WM WF OM OF 9 5 9 5 1 INSTRUCTIONALP ROGRAM: COMPENSATORYE DUCATION Instructional Program Type: Elementary 1-6. 181 - - - BOONE PARK ELEMENTARY SCHOOL: NLRSD Grade 3 Enrollment - 1996-97 - - .. --- - - - -- - - - _.. _.. - - ----- 80 .. 16 ----1-2----- -..- - 40 30 ..... 20 , ..... 10 ....... ---~J~:~=~~ ll1:~~ 0 ..---~---,------,~--------.---~ BM BF WM WF OM OF Compensatory Ed. 33 25 8 6 1 Enrollment 33 25 8 6 1 Transported 3 1 ~Compensatory Ed. ED Enrollment Transported INSTRUCTIONAL PROGRAM: COMPENSATORY EDUCATION Instructional Program Type: Elementary 1-6. 182 - - - BOONE PARK ELEMENTARY SCHOOL: 80 0 Compensatory Ed. Enrollment Transported NLRSD Grade 4 Enrollment - 1996-97 BM BF WM 35 22 10 35 22 10 3 2 1 WF OM 3 3 1 OF 1 1 ~Compensatory Ed. D Enrollment Transported INSTRUCTIONAL PROGRAM: COMPENSATORY EDUCATION Instructional Program Type: Elementary 1-6. 183 - - - BOONE PARK ELEMENTARY SCHOOL: NLRSD Grade 5 Enrollment - 1996-97 60 - --- - - - -- - --- - - ----- ---- (J) rz50.,.. w 0 :J r( J) LL 0 a: w cc ~ :J z 40 .. .. 30 ,.. ... 20 _./ 10 ...... ------ 0 ----,.-----.-------- BM BF WM WF OM OF Compensatory Ed. 25 25 5 7 Enrollment 25 25 5 7 Transported 3 3 rncompensatory Ed. @J1 Enrollment Transported INSTRUCTIONAL PROGRAM: COMPENSATORY EDUCATION Instructional Program Type: Elementary 1-6. 184 - - - BOONE PARK ELEMENTARY SCHOOL: NLRSD Grade 6 Enrollment - 1996-97 - . - ... - - . ---- - ....----------, ~Compensatory Ed. ------ -- - - - --- -- Enrollment , . 30 .... _ .:.:. ..... . . .... . :. . .. --- - - - --- - - ------ Transported 20 // . :_:: : : : : . 10 ,. .: ..:'. 0 ,._ _____________ ---\u0026lt; BM BF WM WF OM OF Compensatory Ed. 30 29 9 9 1 Enrollment 30 29 9 9 1 Transported 3 INSTRUCTIONAL PROGRAM: COMPENSATORY EDUCATION Instructional Program Type: Elementary 1-6. 185 - - - GLENVIEW ELEMENTARY SCHOOL: NLRSD Grade 1 Enrollment - 1996-97 25 Cl) 1- wz 20 0 :) t- 15 .. Cl) LL 0 a: 10 LU ca ~ 5 ::) z -------------- - .. ----------1 0 ic---,----r-----,--------.--~ BM BF WM WF OM OF Compensatory Ed. 8 11 4 2 Enrollment 8 11 4 2 ~Compensatory Ed. E:1 Enrollment INSTRUCTIONAL PROGRAM: COMPENSATORY EDUCATION Instructional Program Type: Elementary 1-6. 186 - - - GLENVIEW ELEMENTARY SCHOOL: NLRSD Grade 2 Enrollment - 1996-97 Cl) I- 25 m 20 - 0 ::) IC/) LL 0 cc w en ~ ::) z 15 . 1 0 5 ,,.- ~Compensatory Ed. - ------ ------- D Enrollment Transported 0 ,....__ ___________ ---r BM BF WM WF OM OF Compensatory Ed. 1 O 1 o 2 3 Enrollment 1 O 9 2 4 Transported 1 INSTRUCTIONAL PROGRAM: COMPENSATORY EDUCATION Instructional Program Type: Elementary 1-6. 187 - - - GLENVIEW ELEMENTARY SCHOOL: NLRSD Grade 3 Enrollment - 1996-97 30 / 26 (1J-) 2 5 .. DOCDOC~s\u0026amp;I DOC--..~'v'.,)(- z w 0 ::) I(/) LL 0 15 ~x~~= IXXXXXXX a: :::\"..:_I .X X XXXXx w 10 ..- . . ca ~ ::) z - - -- ---- -- -- - --- ,-- ~- ,____ -- 0 ~v-----------------------------------~ BM BF WM WF OM OF Compensatory Ed. 14 8 Enrollment 12 9 1 1 1 2 ~Compensatory Ed. E2JE nrollment INSTRUCTIONALP ROGRAM: COMPENSATORYE DUCATION Instructional Program Type: Elementary 1-6. 188 - - - GLENVIEW ELEMENTARY SCHOOL: (I) rz w 0 ::) 25 r- 15 (I) LL O 10 a: w OJ ~ :::\u0026gt; z 5 .. 0 Compensatory Ed. Enrollment Transported NLRSD Grade 4 Enrollment - 1996-97 19 BM BF WM 7 9 4 7 10 4 1 WF 8 7 - -- --- OM OF ~Compensatory Ed. will] Enrollment Transported INSTRUCTIONAL PROGRAM: COMPENSATORY EDUCATION Instructional Program Type: Elementary 1-6. - - - GLENVIEW ELEMENTARY SCHOOL: NLRSD Grade 5 Enrollment - 1996-97 30 25 - - -2 6 - - ---- - --- - - --- - - ------ - - - - - - - - . - -- - . - - -- - ~Compensatory Ed. CIJ Enrollment g Transported 10 , 5 ..,. ..... ..llllfti ---- ---- ..... ------------------ 0 ----....---------.------.--- BM BF WM WF OM OF Compensatory Ed. 6 13 4 Enrollment 6 13 4 Transported 1 1 Instructional Program Type: Elementary 1-6. 19() - - - GLENVIEW ELEMENTARY SCHOOL: NLRSD Grade 6 Enrollment - 1996-97 40 ~z ~ 30 ::) ..... Cl) u_ 20 0 a: w co 10 ~ ::) z 0 ,._--T-\"-~----,,---------,..----r BM BF WM WF OM OF Compensatory Ed. 15 1 O 3 3 Enrollment 16 1 O 3 3 Transported 5 2 ~Compensatory Ed. 6 Enrollment Transported INSTRUCTIONAL PROGRAM: COMPENSATORY EDUCATION Instructional Program Type: Elementary 1-6. 191 - - NORTH HEIGHTS ELEMENTARY SCHOOL: NLRSD Grade 1 Enrollment - 1996-97 en Jz 40 ~ 30 :) Jen LL 20 0 a: w ca 10 ~ :::\u0026gt; z 0 IL------.------.---------.---~---\u0026lt; BM BF WM WF OM OF Compensatory Ed. 16 11 16 18 1 2 Enrollment 16 11 16 18 1 2 Transported 2 6 1 2 l2Z1Compensatory Ed. @Enrollment Transported INSTRUCTIONAL PROGRAM: COMPENSATORY EDUCATION Instructional Program Type: Elementary 1-6. 192 - - NORTH HEIGHTS ELEMENTARY SCHOOL: NLRSD Grade 2 Enrollment - 1996-97 Cf) 1- z w 60 50 . 40 I- ~ 30 0 a: 20 ' w cc :E 10 , ::) z o~~-~---~-~--\u0026lt; BM BF WM WF OM OF Compensatory Ed. 15 15 25 13 3 4 Enrollment 15 15 25 13 3 4 Transported 4 1 2 2 ~Compensatory Ed. [2] Enrollment Transported INSTRUCTIONAL PROGRAM: COMPENSATORY EDUCATION Instructional Program Type: Elementary 1-6 . . 193 - - NORTH HEIGHTS ELEMENTARY SCHOOL: NLRSD Grade 3 Enrollment - 1996-97 Cf) J- 50 m 40 0 ::J JC/) LL 0 a: w co ~ ::J z 30 10 ,.,. -- -41- - - --- - - - -- 36 35 0 ,....__---,.-----.----...---~----.--------r BM BF WM WF OM OF Compensatory Ed. 7 18 18 17 2 4 Enrollment 7 18 18 17 2 4 Transported 1 5 1 1 2 ~Compensatory Ed. EJ Enrollment Transported INSTRUCTIONALP ROGRAM: COMPENSATORYE DUCATION Instructional Program Type: Elementary 1-6. 194 - - NORTH HEIGHTS ELEMENTARY ~z w 0 ::) t(/) LL 50 40 . 30 O 20 a: w ~ 10 ' ::\u0026gt; z 0 Compensatory Ed. Enrollment Transported SCHOOL: NLRSD Grade 4 Enrollment - 1996-97 BM BF WM 15 11 14 15 11 14 2 4 WF OM 20 3 20 3 OF 2 2 1 12ZJCompensatoEryd . GEEJ nrollment -Transported INSTRUCTIONAL PROGRAM: COMPENSATORY EDUCATION Instructional Program Type: Elementary 1-6. 195 - - NORTH HEIGHTS ELEMENTARY SCHOOL: NLRSD Grade 5 Enrollment - 1996-97 35 ~z 30 w 0 ::) tC/) LL 0 a: w co ~ ::) z 25 20 15 10 5 ... - - - - - 30 - - - - - - - - ..... ... ..... ~- 0 ,.___~---.------.-----~ BM BF WM WF OM OF Compensatory Ed. 8 12 15 1 o 3 3 Enrollment 8 12 15 1 o 3 3 Transported 2 1 ~Compensatory Ed. LEJE nrollment Transported INSTRUCTIONAL PROGRAM: COMPENSATORY EDUCATION Instructional Program Type: Elementary 1-6. 196 - - NORTH HEIGHTS ELEMENTARY SCHOOL: NLRSD Grade 6 Enrollment - 1996-97 60 ~ z 50 w 0 ::, 40 JC/) LL 30 0 wer : 20 (0 ---- ~ 10 :z:, AIII - - - -I 46 0--------------- BM BF WM WF OM OF Compensatory Ed. 14 13 23 18 1 Enrollment 14 13 23 18 1 Transported 2 3 4 4 1 ~Compensatory Ed. E:2E1n rollment Transported INSTRUCTIONAL PROGRAM: COMPENSATORY EDUCATION Instructional Program Type: Elementary 1-6. 197 - - - PARK HILL ELEMENTARY SCHOOL: NLRSD Grade 1 Enrollment - 1996-97 50 Cl) I- zw 40 0 =:, ~Compensatory Ed. t- 30 .... CJ) l/~ ~~11 \u0026lt;\u0026gt;'\"~XX\u0026gt;: ..- .. ......... ... Enrollment LL 0 20 a: Transported -- ......................... -................... . w co ~ 10 =:, z BM BF WM WF OM OF Compensatory Ed. 15 1 o 6 18 Enrollment 15 1 O 6 18 Transported 9 7 INSTRUCTIONAL PROGRAM: COMPENSATORY EDUCATION Instructional Program Type: Elementary 1-6. 198 - - - PARK HILL ELEMENTARY SCHOOL: NLRSD Grade 2 Enrollment - 1996-97 40 U) tz- 35 ~ 30 :) t-U) 34 fgaCompensatory Ed. ... . Eill Enrollment LL 0 20 . 15 10 . ---- ... Transported a: w co ~ :::, z 5 ....... 0 !\"'------,-----,..-----,---~---r BM BF WM WF OM OF Compensatory Ed. 11 13 12 7 1 Enrollment 11 13 12 7 1 Transported 6 8 INSTRUCTIONALP ROGRAM:C OMPENSATORYE DUCATION Instructional Program Type: Elementary 1-6. 199 - - - PARK HILL ELEMENTARY SCHOOL: NLRSD Grade 3 Enrollment - 1996-97 50 -- - -- -- - - - - - -- - Cl) I- 38 m 40. 0 ::J IC/) u_ 0 a: w ca ~ ::J z 30 , 10 ..... 0 l\"--------.-------.-----------r BM BF WM WF OM OF Compensatory Ed. 6 16 1 o 9 Enrollment 6 16 1 O 9 Transported 3 6 ~Compensatory Ed. G:JEnrollment Transported INSTRUCTIONAL PROGRAM: COMPENSATORY EDUCATION Instructional Program Type: Elementary 1-6. 200 - - - PARK HILL ELEMENTARY SCHOOL: NLRSD Grade 4 Enrollment - 1996-97 30 0-------------- BM BF WM WF OM OF Compensatory Ed. 9 8 13 6 Enrollment 9 8 13 6 Transported 7 4 ~Compensatory Ed. CEJ nrollment Transported INSTRUCTIONALP ROGRAM: COMPENSATORYE DUCATION Instructional Program Type: Elementary 1-6. 201 - - - PARK HILL ELEMENTARY SCHOOL: NLRSD Grade 5 Enrollment - 1996-97 ---- --- - - -- - --- - - -- - -- 40 Cl) 1z- 35 w 0 ::) IC/) LL 0 a: w en ~ ::::) z 20 15 _./_ 10 _./ 5 / 28 28 0 ---------------.---- BM BF WM WF OM OF Compensatory Ed. 13 7 14 14 Enrollment 13 7 14 14 Transported 9 6 - ~Compensatory Ed. CJ Enrollment Tra\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\u003eArkansas. Department of Education\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 "},{"id":"bcas_bcmss0837_261","title":"Arkansas Department of Education's Semiannual Monitoring Report, Volume 2","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"],"dcterms_creator":["Arkansas. Department of Education"],"dc_date":["1997-02-01"],"dcterms_description":null,"dc_format":["application/pdf"],"dcterms_identifier":null,"dcterms_language":["eng"],"dcterms_publisher":["Little Rock, Ark. : Butler Center for Arkansas Studies. Central Arkansas Library System"],"dc_relation":null,"dc_right":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC-EDU/1.0/"],"dcterms_is_part_of":["Office of Desegregation Monitoring records (BC.MSS.08.37)","History of Segregation and Integration of Arkansas's Educational System"],"dcterms_subject":["Education--Arkansas","Arkansas. Department of Education","Educational statistics","Education and state","Education--Evaluation"],"dcterms_title":["Arkansas Department of Education's Semiannual Monitoring Report, Volume 2"],"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/261"],"dcterms_temporal":null,"dcterms_rights_holder":null,"dcterms_bibliographic_citation":null,"dlg_local_right":["Available for use in research, teaching, and private study. Any other use requires permission from the Butler Center."],"dcterms_medium":["reports"],"dcterms_extent":["315 pages"],"dlg_subject_personal":null,"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":"\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n \n\n\n \n\n \n\n\n \n\n\n \n\n\n\n\n \n\n\n\n\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n \n\n \n\n \n\n\n \n\n \n\n \n\n\n \n\n \n\n \n\n\n \n\n \n\n \n\n\n \n\n \n\n \n\n CONTENTS VOLUME II Budget Information Overview . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 598 Budget Information Summary FY 95-96 \u0026amp; FY 96-97 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 599 Program Cost Summary FY 95-96 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 601 Little Rock School District Program Cost FY 95-96 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 607 Little Rock School District Program Cost FY 96-97 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 623 North Little Rock School District Program Cost FY 95-96 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 636 North Little Rock School District Program Cost FY 96-97 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 651 Pulaski County Special School District Program Cost FY 95-96 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 663 Pulaski County Special School District Program Cost FY 96-97 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 679 Transportation Cost Summary FY 95-96 \u0026amp; FY 96-97 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 692 Little Rock School District Transportation Cost FY 95-96 \u0026amp; FY 96-97 . . . . . . . . . 699 North Little Rock School District Transportation Cost FY 95-96 \u0026amp; 96-97 ...... 701 Pulaski County Special School District Transportation Cost FY 95-96 \u0026amp; 96-97 . 704 Legal Fees Summary FY 95-96 \u0026amp; 96-97 ............................ . . . . . . 707 Little Rock School District Legal Fees FY 95-96 \u0026amp; 96-97 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 713 North Little Rock School District Legal Fees FY 95-96 \u0026amp; 96-97 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 716 Pulaski County Special School District Legal Fees FY 95-96 \u0026amp; FY 96-97 . . . . . . . 719 Compensatory Education FY 95-96 \u0026amp; 96-97 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 722 Magnet School Cost FY 95-96 \u0026amp; 96-97 ................................... 727 Student Discipline Expulsion PCSSD . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 732 Perceptual Data . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 740 ECOE Monitoring for Cycle I School . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 746 F. BUDGET INFORMATION The Allen Letter requires the collection of the following financial reports quarterly or monthly were available: 1. Cost of operating all elementary programs, junior high school programs, and high school programs by funding source (local/regular state/federal and special state desegregation funding .) 2. Transportation cost and funding source. 3. All legal fees reported by type of services. 4. Compensatory Education Program costs. 5. Magnet school cost. This information follows for each school district in Pulaski County. Cost of operating all elementary programs, junior high school programs, and high school programs by funding source (local/regular state/federal and special state desegregation funding). Financial information for FY 96-97 is presented for the three school districts in Pulaski County as specified by the Allen Letter and the Settlement Agreement. The financial information contains actual expenses for the Little Rock School District (LRSD) and the North Little Rock School District (NLRSD) and the Pulaski County Special School District (PCSSD). The financials include schedules on Total Program Costs for FY 96-97 Cost per Student information, Total Program Costs for Elementary, Junior High and High Schools, and Teacher and School Administrator Costs. 598 BUDGET INFORMATION FY 95/96 \u0026amp; FY 96/97 599 F . BUDGET INFORMATION The Allen Letter, the Pulaski County School Desegregation Case Settlement Agreement dated September 28, 1989 (Settlement Agreement) and the Implementation Plan detail specific monitoring responsibilities regarding financial information and various desegregation financial obligations of the Arkansas Department of Education (ADE) to the three school districts in Pulaski County. The financial monitoring responsibilities detailed in the Allen Letter are presented in this section of the February 1, 1997 Monitoring Report. The Settlement Agreement and Implementation Plan state that the ADE is financially responsible for the following: desegregation compensatory education payments\npayments in lieu of formula~ payments for operating the six original magnet schools in the LRSD\nM-to-M incentive payments for sending and receiving schools\nMagnet and M-toM transportation costs\n$20 million in loans to the LRSD\nattorney's fees\n$75,000 annually to the Magnet Review Committee~ and $200,000 annually to the Office of Desegregation Monitoring (ODM) . SOURCES: The ADE General Finance Section and the ADE Local Fiscal Services Section. 600 PROGRAM COST FY 95/96 \u0026amp; FY 96/97 601 F . BUDGET INFORMATION 1. Cost of operating all elementary programs, junior high school programs, and high school programs by funding source (local/regular state/federal and special state desegregation funding). Financial information for FY 95/96 and FY 96/97 is presented for the three school districts in Pulaski County as specified by the Allen Letter and the Settlement Agreement. The information for FY 95/97 reflects each district's expenses for the last fiscal year, and the information for FY 96/97 reflects each district's budget for the current fiscal year. The schedules included in this portion of the Budget Section contain information on Total Program Costs, Cost per Student information, Total Program Costs for Elementary, Junior High and High Schools, and Teacher and School Administrator Costs. The financial information for each district reflects an increase in total expenses in each of the three school districts in Pulaski County in FY 95/96 and additional increases budgeted for FY 96/97. Total expenses for the LRSD increased 4.2 percent in FY 95/96 and are budgeted to increase an additional 11.6 percent in FY 96/97 according to district representatives. NLRSD's total expenses increased 3. 6 percent in FY 95/96 and are budgeted to increase an additional 18.4 percent in FY 96/97 according to district representatives. Total expenses in the PCSSD increased 4.1 percent in FY 95/96 and are budgeted to increase an additional 12.3 percent in FY 96/97 according to district representatives. The enrollment figures for the LRSD as of October 1, 1995 showed an increase of 2.3 percent for FY 95/96 and an increase as of October I, 1996 of 0.4 percent for FY 96/97. Enrollment for the NLRSD as of October 1, 1995 indicated a decrease in FY 95/96 of 1. 7 percent and an increase of 1. 9 percent for FY 96/97 from the enrollment figures as of October 1, 1996. The enrollment figures for the PCS SD showed a decline in the FY 95/96 enrollment for October 1, 1995 of 0.3 percent and a decrease in the FY 96/97 enrollment as of October I, 1996 of 1.2 percent. SOURCES: The Finance Offices of each of the three districts in Pulaski County, the ADE General Finance Section, and the ADE Local Fiscal Services Section. 602 F . BUDGET INFORMATION (Continued) 1. Cost of operating all elementary programs, junior high school programs, and high school programs by funding source (local/regular state/federal and special state desegregation funding). (Continued) The LRSD's cost per student figures increased 1.8 percent in FY 95/96 and are budgeted to increase 11.2 percent in FY 96/97. The NLRSD's cost per student figures increased 5.4 percent in FY 95/96 and are budgeted to increase 16.3 percent in FY 96/97. The cost per student figures in the PCS SD for FY 95/96 increased 4. 4 percent and are budgeted to increase 13. 6 percent in FY 96/97. The increases in the cost per student figures for FY 95/96 and FY 96/97 in each of the districts correspond to the increases in total cost for each of the districts and fluctuations in enrollment for FY 95/96 and FY 96/97. The LRSD received funding for desegregation from the ADE in FY 95/96 totaling $17,668,136 and incurred desegregation expenses of$38,391,254, of which $23,396,956 was eligible for funding from the special desegregation funding from the ADE. The LRSD has budgeted their desegregation expense for FY 96/97 at $44,989,746, of which $27,670, I 03 will be eligible for funding from the desegregation funding from the ADE, and should received funding from the ADE for desegregation of approximately $21,413,282 . The LRSD received funding for desegregation from the ADE in FY 95/96 totaling $1,556,119 and incurred desegregation expenses of $2,124,324. The district has budgeted their desegregation expense for FY 96/97 at $1,603,938 and should received funding for desegregation from the ADE totalin0 appro imately $1,785,092. Of the amount expected to be received by the district in FY 96/97, $297,020 of the funds that they have received in FY 96/97 were for tran portation cost from FY 91/92 through FY 95/96 that under normal circum tance would have b en received in prior p riod . The PCSSD received funding for desegregation from the ADE in FY 95/96 totaling $9,529,691 and incurred desegregation expen e of $10,807,566. The district has budgeted their de egr gation exp n e for FY 96/97 at $12,554, 47 and should receive funding for de egregation from the ADE totaling $6,502.412. All of the information rec ived from the ch l di trict ha b n reconcil d for accuracy and reliability with no e cepti n not d ll of the di trict ar utilizing the fund recciv d from th DE for de gr gation purpo e according t record from the di trict . SOURCE The Finance Q[fices \u0026lt;?/ each of the three districts m P11lask1 Count , the Al E General Finance Section, and the ADE Local Fiscal Ser\\'lces Section. 603 PULASKI COUNTY SCHOOL DISTRICTS TOTAL PROGRAM OPERATING COST FY 95196 FUNDING SOURCES LOCAL/STATE FEDERAL LEA# SCHOOL DISTRICT PROGRAM DISTRICT TRANS LEGAL PROGRAM DISTRICT PROGRAM 60-01 LITTLE ROCK 59,499,209 31 ,47'4,967 6 464,867 328,745 3,469,669 3,011 ,807 5,224,242 60-02 NORTH LITTLE ROCK 29,067,633 9,851 ,918 1,264,088 21 ,980 1,975,332 1,192,347 1,491 ,606 60-03 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL 58,635,805 20,711 ,728 5 733,229 111 ,498 2,242,921 1 370,124 3,967,329 Funding Categories Local \u0026amp; State This category includes funding from local sources, regular state sources, and unrestricted federal sources. Federal Deseg This category includes funding from restricted federal sources which must be accounted for separately from the General Fund. This category consists of funding for desegregation purposes. Expense Categories DESEGREGATION DISTRICT INCENTIVE MAGNET TRANS 7,789,126 7,618,145 14,752,306 2,720,432 232,811 0 0 301 ,541 5,206.530 0 0 1,553,100 Local \u0026amp; State This category consists of expenses incurred relative to regular program expense, district expense, transportation expense and legal expense funded by unrestricted local, state and federal sources. This category consists of expenses incurred relative to federal program expense and district expense funded by restricted federal sources LEGAL TOTAL 287,003 142,640,518 98,366 45,497,622 295,802 99,828,066 Federal Deseg This category consists of expenses incurred relative to desegregation program expense, district expense, incentive school expense, magnet expense, transportation expense and legal expense funded from desegregation sources. total Category FY 95.196 The totals in this column represent the total expense for each school district for fiscal year 1995/1996. U\"CES: The Finance Offices of each of the school districts in Pulaski County. 604 PULASKI COUNTY SCHOOL DISTRICTS TOTAL PROGRAM OPERATING BUDGET FY 96/97 FUNDING SOURCES LOCAUSTATE FEDERAL DESEGREGATION LEA# SCHOOL DISTRICT PROGRAM DISTRICT TRANS LEGAL PROGRAM DISTRICT PROGRAM DISTRICT INCENTIVE MAGNET TRANS LEGAL 60-01 LITTLE ROCK 67,909,531 32,888,201 6,026,174 219,950 3,053,330 4,114,111 6,449,163 9,458,364 8,638,910 17,361 ,466 2,886,793 195,050 60-02 NORTH LITTLE ROCK 32,906,892 14,022,001 1,742,631 35,000 2,164,686 1,408,182 804,070 345,556 0 0 369,312 85,000 60-03 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL 70,573,372 18,480,963 5,865,352 155,000 3,501 ,563 945,075 5,681 ,797 4,831,645 0 0 1,781 ,205 260,000 Funding Categories Local \u0026amp; State This category includes funding from local sources, regular state sources, and unrestricted federal sources. Federal This category includes funding from restricted federal sources which must be accounted for separately from the General Fund. Deseg This category consists of funding for desegregation purposes. Expense Categories Local \u0026amp; State This category consists of budgeted expenses relative to regular program expense, district expense, transportation expense and legal expense funded by unrestricted local, state and federal sources. Federal This category consists of budgeted expenses relative to federal program expense and district expense funded by restricted federal sources. Deseg This category consists of budgeted expenses relative to desegregation program expense, district expense, incentive expense, magnet expense, transportation expense and legal expense funded from desegregation sources 'f otal Category FY 96197 The totals in this column represent the total budget for each school district for fiscal year 199611997. lJ CES: The Finance Offices of each of the school districts in Pulaski County. 605 TOTAL 159,201 ,043 53,883,330 112,075,972 DISTRICT LITTLE ROCK NORTH LITTLE ROCK PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL Enrollment FY 95196 FY 96197 Percent Variance Cost per Student FY 95196 FY 961')7 Percent Variance Total Program Expense FY 95196 FY 961')7 Percent Variance SOURCES: PULASKI COUNTY SCHOOL DISTRICTS PROGRAM VARIANCES FOR FY 96/97 ENROLLMENT COST PER STUDENT TOT Al PROGRAM EXPENSE PERCENT PERCENT PERCENT FY95/96 FY96/97 VARIANCE FY 95/96 FY 96/97 VARIANCE FY95/96 FY96/97 VARIANCE 24,154 24 ,245 04% 5,905 6,566 11 .2% 142,640,518 159,201,043 11.6% 8,802 8,966 1.9% 5,169 6,010 163% 45,497,622 53,883.330 184% 20,285 20,047 -1 .2% 4,921 5,591 136% 99,828,066 112.075,972 12.3% For reporting purposes, the October 1, 1995 enrollment figures verified and published by the ADE are the figures used. For reporting purposes, the October 1, 1996 enrollment figures verified and published by the ADE are the figures used. The difference in the FY 96/97 enrollment and the FY 95/96 enrollment expressed as a percentage. A positive variance indicates the percentage increase in enrollment for FY 96/97 A negative variance indicates the percentage decrease in enrollment for FY 96/97. The average cost per student for the district for FY 95/96. The average cost per student is calculated by dividing total program costs by total enrollment. The average cost per student for the district for FY 96/97. The average cost per student is calculated by dividing total program costs by total enrollment. The difference in the FY 96/97 cost per student and the FY 95/96 cost per student expressed as a percentage. A positive variance indicates the percentage increase in the cost per student for FY 96/97. A negative variance indicates the percentage decrease in the cost per student for FY 96/97. Total expenses for the school district for FY 95/96. Total budget for the school district for FY 96/97. The difference in the FY 96/91 total budget and the total cost for FY 95/96 expressed as a percentage. A positive variance indicates the percentage increase in the total budget for FY 96/97. A negative variance indicates the percentage decrease in the total budget for FY 96/97. The Finance Offices of each of the school districts in Pulaski County. 606 LRSD PROGRAM COST FY 95/96 607 F . BUDGET INFORMATION 1. Co t of operating all elementary programs, junior high school programs, and high school programs by funding source (local/regular tate/federal and special state desegregation funding). Little Rock School District (LRSD) The following is a summary of the LRSD Program Cost Section of the February 1, 1997 Monitoring Report. Total program expense for the district is separated by funding source and expense category within the funding source. Total program expense is actual for FY 95/96 and budgeted for FY 96/97. Separate schedules indicate the total program expense for the Cycle 1 schools. The programs funded by the Cycle 1 schools are also included. Teacher expense and school administrator expense are also presented for the Cycle l schools. Cost per student information is presented for the: district~ elementary school programs~ junior high school programs~ high school programs~ and Cycle 1 school programs. Total Operating Expenses The district's total operating expenses for FY 95/96 were $142,640,518, which was an increase of $5,692,632 or 4.2 percent over FY 94/95 expenses of $136,947,886. The district's total operating expenses for FY 96/97 are budgeted at $159,201,043 resulting in an increase in operating cost of $16,560,525 or 11.6 percent for the current fiscal year. Elementary school operating costs rose from $74,914,489 in FY 94/95 to $78,593,013 in FY 95/96. Elementary school operating costs are budgeted to rise in FY 96/97 to $88,957,879 or 13 .2 percent for the current fiscal year. Operating costs for junior high schools increased 3 .1 percent in FY 95/96 over the operating cost for FY 94/95 of $31,583,460. The cost of operating the district's junior high schools is budgeted to increase $2,753,108 or 8.5 percent in FY 96/97 to $35,295,313 . Operating costs for high schools increased from $30,449,937 in FY 94/95 to $31,505,300 in FY 95/96. The operating costs for the district's high schools are budgeted to increase I 0.9 percent to $34,947,851 in FY 96/97. SOURCES: The Little Rock ,School District Finance q[[ice, the ADE General hnance Section, and the ADE Local Fiscal Services Section. 608 F . BUDGET INFORMATION (Continued) 1. Cost of operating all elementary programs, junior high school programs, and high school programs by funding source (local/regular state/federal and special state desegregation funding). (Continued) Little Rock School District (LRSD) (Continued) Enrollment Total district enrollment as of October 1, 1995 increased by 543 students or 2.3 percent in FY 9 5/96 for a total enrollment of 24, 154 as compared with total enrollment as of October 1, 1994 of 23,611. Enrollment increased in FY 96/97 to 24,245 as of October 1, 1996 resulting in an increase of 0.4 percent. Enrollment in the district's elementary schools increased from 12,959 in FY 94/95 to 13,348 or 3.0 percent in FY 95/96, and elementary enrollment at October 1, 1996 increased to 13,525 for FY 96/97. Junior high school enrollment declined by 58 students from 5,681 in FY 94/95 to 5,623 or 1.0 percent in FY 95/96, and enrollment in the junior high school in FY 96/97 further declined 2.5 percent to 5,486 as of October l, 1996 . Enrollment in the district's high schools increased from 4,97 l in FY 94/95 to 5,183 or 4.3 percent in FY 95/96, and the October 1, 1996 enrollment figures for the district's high schools hawed an increa e in FY 96/97 to 5,234. Cost per Student Rate The district's co t per student rate increa ed from $5,800 in FY 94/95 to $5,905 in FY 95/96 resulting in an overall co t per student incr a e of 1.8 percent. The cost per student rate i budgeted to incr a e l l.2 percent to $6,566 in FY 96/97. The elementary cost per student rate increa cd I. 9 percent in FY 9 5/96 from $5,781 in FY 94/95 to $5,888 in FY 95/96. The elementary co t p r tudent rate is budgeted to increa e an additional 11. 7 percent in FY 96/97 to $6,577. OUR E The Uttle Rock School 1)1stri t Finance q[[ice, the ADE General Finance l 'ection, and the ADE Local Fiscal. 'en1ces l 'ect1011. 609 F . BUDGET INFORMATION (Continued) 1. Cost of operating all elementary programs, junior high school programs, and high school programs by funding source (local/regular state/federal and special state desegregation funding). (Continued) Little Rock School District (LRSD) (Continued) Cost per Student Rate (Continued) The junior high school cost per student rate increased in FY 95/96 to $5,787 from the FY 94/95 cost per student rate of $5,559. The junior high school cost per student rate is budgeted to increase an additional 11.2 percent in FY 96/97 to $6,434. The high school cost per student rate decreased 0.8 percent in FY 95/96 to $6,079 from the FY 94/95 cost per student rate of $6,126. The high school cost per student rate for FY 96/97 is budgeted to increase 9.8 percent to $6,677. Desegregation Expense In FY 95/96, the district's total desegregation expenses totaled $38,391,254 with $23,396,956 of these costs being eligible for funding from the special funding from the ADE for desegregation. The district received $17,668,136 in desegregation funding from the ADE as stipulated in the Settlement Agreement. In FY 96/97, the district has budgeted $44,989,746 in total desegregation costs with $27,670,103 being eligible for funding from the special desegregation payments made by the ADE. The district should receive approximately $21,413,282 in desegregation funding from the ADE in FY 96/97. All of the information received from the LRSD has been reconciled for accuracy and reliability with no exceptions noted. The district is utilizing the funds received from the ADE in accordance with the Settlement Agreement for desegregation purposes. SOURCES: The Lil/le Rock School District Finance (~ffice, the ADE General h11anc:e Section, and the ADE Local Fiscal Services Section. 610 LOCAIJSTATE LEA# SCHOOL PROGRAM DISTRICT TRANS 6001001 CENTRAL HIGH 5,015,500 2,073,225 425,834 6001002 HALL HIGH 3,453 031 1,209,273 248,381 6001003 MANN JR HIGH 0 1,103,722 226,701 6001005 PARKVIEW HIGH 0 1,114,147 228,842 6001006 BOOKER ELEM 0 787,070 161,662 6001007 DUNBAR JR HIGH 2,172,347 953,866 195,921 6001009 FOREST HEIGHTS JR. HIGH 2,527,128 989 049 203,148 6001010 PULASKI HEIGHTS JR HIGH 2,517,134 1,017,718 209,036 6001011 SOUTHWEST JR HIGH 1,863,801 797,494 163,803 6001013 HENDERSON JR HIGH 2,828,893 1,032,052 211,980 6001017 BALE ELEM 1,102,568 406,566 83,507 6001018 BRADY ELEM 1,043,374 491 ,267 100,905 6001020 MCDERMOTT ELEM 1,319,453 634,607 130,347 6001021 CARVER ELEM 0 819,647 168,353 6001023 FAIR PARK ELEM 818,134 304,924 62,631 6001024 FOREST PARK ELEM 1,059,776 566,846 116,429 6001025 FRANKLIN ELEM 0 471 ,721 96,890 6001026 GARLAND ELEM 0 308,834 63,434 6001027 GIBBS ELEM 0 400,050 82,169 6001029 WESTERN HILLS ELEM 874,018 410,475 84,310 6001030 JEFFERSON ELEM 1,376,003 652,851 134,094 6001033 MEAOOWCLIFF ELEM 1,086,027 521 ,238 107,061 6001034 MITCHELL ELEM 0 344,017 70,660 6001035 Ml KING ELEM 83,221 599,424 123,120 6001038 PULASKI HEIGHTS ELEM 984,174 529,057 108,667 6001039 RIGHTSELL ELEM 0 261 ,922 53,798 6001040 ROMINE ELEM 1,090,720 350,533 71 ,998 6001042 WASHINGTON ELEM 1,839,963 785,767 161,394 6001043 WILLIAMS ELEM 0 661 ,972 135,967 6001044 WILSON ELEM 1,159,297 476,933 97,961 6001045 WOODRUFF ELEM 634,204 284,075 5 ,348 6001047 TERRY ELEM 1,355,220 698,459 143,462 6001048 FULBRIGHT ELEM 1,523,422 675,003 138,644 6001050 ROCKEFELLER ELEM 0 407,869 83,775 6001051 BADGETT ELEM 632,756 226,739 46,571 6001052 BASELINE ELEM 825,709 379,201 77,887 6001053 CHICOT ELEM 1,554,714 565,543 116,161 0001054 CLOVERDALE ELEM B 982,416 521 .238 107,061 o001055 DAVID 0'0000 ELEM 863,240 383,110 78,690 1056 GEYER SPRINGS ELEM 817,062 355,745 73,069 001057 MABELVALE ELEM 1,178,663 577,271 118,570 60()1058 OTTER CREEK ELEM 918,017 441 ,749 90,734 001059 WAKEFIELD ELEM 1,164,481 559,028 114,823 1060 WATSON ELEM 1,072,490 532,966 109,470 1 1 CLOVERDALE JR HIGH 1,780,494 793,585 163,000 001 2 MABELVALE JR HIGH 1,931,658 639,820 131,417 001,0 63 JA FAIR HIGH 3,087,463 1,179,301 242,225 4 MCCLELLAN HIGH 3,401,015 1,177,998 241,957 NI~ METRO HIGH 1,499,733 0 0 NI,A,. AlT LEARNING CTR 45 536 0 0 ISH ELEM 16,354 0 0 0 AL PROGRAM EXPENSE 59,499,209 31,474,967 6,464,867 sou C See the note sec:tlon on the next page for explanation, of the c:ategorles. The Little Rock School 01str1ct Finance Office - - LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT TOTAL PROGRAM OPERATING COST FY 96/96 FUNDING SOURCES FEDERAL DESEGREGATION LEGAL PROGRAM DISTRICT PROGRAM DISTRICT INCENTIVE MAGNET TRANS LEGAL TOTAL 21,654 0 198,385 32,518 513,062 0 0 179,192 18,904 8,478,274 12,630 0 115,714 1,351 299,259 0 0 104,519 11,027 5,455,185 11 528 0 105,614 0 273,139 0 3,351,297 95,396 10,064 5,177,461 11,637 0 106,612 0 275,718 0 3,699,919 96,298 10,159 5,543,332 8,221 0 75,314 0 194,777 0 2,366,402 68,028 7,177 3,668,651 9,963 67,947 91 ,274 199,422 236,054 0 0 82,444 8,698 4,017,936 10,330 66,188 94,641 103,104 244,761 0 0 85,485 9,019 4,332,853 10,630 0 97,384 130,593 251 ,855 0 0 87,963 9,280 4,331 ,593 8,330 100,765 76,311 177,553 197,356 0 0 68,929 7,272 3,461,614 10,779 92,137 98,756 160,466 255,402 0 0 89,202 9,411 4,789,078 4,246 102,347 38,904 131,297 100,613 0 0 35,140 3,707 2,008,895 5,131 116,845 47,009 87,026 121 ,574 0 0 42,461 4,480 2,060,072 6,628 78,489 60,725 7,330 157,047 0 0 54,850 5,787 2,455,263 8,561 0 78,431 0 202,838 0 2,109,225 70,843 7,474 3,465,372 3,185 64,690 29,178 102,117 75,460 0 0 26,355 2,780 1,489,454 5,921 62,082 54,241 29,174 140,278 0 0 48,994 5,169 2,088,910 4,927 121 ,033 45,139 0 116,737 1,928,259 0 40,772 4,301 2,829,779 3,226 32,926 29,552 0 76,427 1,288,699 0 26,693 2,816 1,832,607 4,178 0 38,280 0 99,001 0 1,324,125 34,577 3,648 1,986,028 4,287 91 ,578 39,278 12,553 101,580 0 0 35,478 3,743 1,657,300 6,819 88,207 62 471 30,993 161,561 0 0 56,427 5,953 2,575,379 5,444 112,982 49,877 25,907 128,991 0 0 45,051 4,753 2,087,331 3,593 66,158 32,919 0 85,134 1,188,650 0 29,734 3,137 1,824,002 6,261 75,177 57,358 1,688,082 148,340 0 0 51,809 5,466 2,838,258 5,526 113,866 50,625 22,659 130,926 0 0 45,727 4,824 1,996,051 2,736 81 152 25,063 0 64,818 1,106,724 0 22,638 2,388 1,621,2~9 3,661 68,252 33,542 162,944 86,747 0 0 30,297 3,196 1,901 ,890 8,207 154,972 75189 323,683 194,454 0 0 67,915 7,165 3,618,709 6,914 0 63,343 0 163,819 0 1,901,338 57,215 6,036 2,99{j, 04 4,981 110,803 45,637 68,313 118,027 0 0 41 ,222 4,349 2,1,,,s, 2,967 62,001 27 183 86,677 70,300 0 0 24,553 2,590 1,25 .~ a 7,295 0 66,835 20,103 172,848 0 0 60,369 6,369 2,530, ~ 7,050 91 ,541 64,590 32,281 167,043 0 0 58,342 6,155 2,764,0Yi 4,260 250,744 39,029 0 100,936 2,105,813 0 35,253 3,719 3,0l1, 6 2,368 52,261 21,696 111 973 56,111 0 0 19,597 2,068 1,17.t,1.SO 3,961 93,353 36,285 121 ,121 93,841 0 0 32,775 3,458 1,t 7,~il1 5,907 148,894 54,116 99,869 139,955 0 0 48,881 5,157 P3 .1111 5 444 113,076 49,877 143,215 128,991 0 0 45,051 4,753 2,,01,12 4,001 58,752 36,659 23,078 94,808 0 0 33,113 3,493 ,. -,e, 44 3,716 86,941 34,041 110,059 88,036 0 0 30,748 3,244 1, a:\ni, 1 6,029 153,101 55,239 86,195 142,858 0 0 49,895 5,264 2,Jn,P $ 4,614 82,949 42,271 19,639 109,320 0 0 38,181 4,028 1,751 ,002 5,839 111,627 53,493 19,290 138,343 0 0 48,318 5,097 2,22(),)\n!9 5,567 122,465 50,999 146,460 131 ,893 0 0 46,065 4,860 2,223,235 8,289 90,298 75,937 147,431 196,389 0 0 68,591 7,236 3,Jl1 ,1~0 6,683 60,280 61 ,224 49,866 158,337 0 0 55,301 5,834 J,100,!J2t) 12,317 0 112,846 39,300 291,842 0 0 101,929 10,753 1\n,on, 7fl 12,304 0 112,721 77,937 291 ,520 0 0 101 ,816 10,742 5,1.:it,010 0 22,790 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 u:12,61\nI 0 0 0 392,663 0 0 0 0 0 .f'\u0026amp;.1 Q 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 ,:.154 328,745 3,469,669 3,011 ,807 5,224,242 7,789,126 7,618,145 14,752,306 2,720,432 287,003 142,ti-10,\u0026amp;1\u0026amp; 611 NOTES FOR LRSD TOTAL PROGRAM OPERATING COST SCHEDULE FOR FY 95/96 Funding Categories Local \u0026amp; State Federal Deseg This category includes funding from local sources, regular state sources, and unrestricted federal sources. This category includes funding from restricted federal sources which must be accounted for separately from the General Fund. This category consists of funding for desegregation purposes. Expense Categories Local \u0026amp; State Federal Deseg Total Category FY 95/96 SOURCE: This category consists of expenses incurred relative to regular program expense, district expense, transportation expense and legal expense funded by unrestricted local, state and federal sources. This category consists of expenses incurred relative to federal program expense and district expense funded by restricted federal sources. This category consists of expenses incurred relative to desegregation program expense, district expense, incentive expense, magnet expense, transportation expense and legal expense funded from desegregation sources. The totals in this column represent the total expense for each school site for fiscal year 1995/1996. The Little Rock School District Finance Office. 612 LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT CYCLE 1 SCHOOL PROGRAM OPERATING COST FY 96196 FUNDING SOURCES LOCAUSTATE FEDERAL DESEGREGATION LEA# SCHOOL PROGRAM DISTRICT TRANS LEGAL PROGRAM DISTRICT PROGRAM DISTRICT INCENTIVE MAGNET 6001005 PARKVIEW HIGH 0 1,114,147 228,842 11 ,637 0 106,612 0 275,718 0 3,699,919 6001023 FAIR PARK ELEM 818,134 304,924 62,631 3,185 0 29,178 102,117 75,460 0 0 6001024 FOREST PARK ELEM 1,059,776 566,846 116,429 5,921 0 54,241 29,174 140,278 0 0 6001030 JEFFERSON ELEM 1,376,003 652,851 134,094 6,819 112,982 62,471 30,993 161 ,561 0 0 6001038 PULASKI HEIGHTS ELEM 984,174 529,057 108,667 5,526 75,177 50,625 22,659 130,926 0 0 6001044 WILSON ELEM 1,159,297 476,933 97,961 4,981 113,866 45.637 68,313 118,027 0 0 6001047 TERRY ELEM 1,355,220 698,459 143,462 7,295 81 ,152 66,835 20,103 172,848 0 0 6001052 BASELINE ELEM 825,709 379,201 77,887 3,961 113,076 36,285 121 ,121 93,841 0 0 6001055 DAVID O'DODD ELEM 863,240 383,110 78,690 4,001 86,941 36,659 23,078 94,808 0 0 6001063 JA FAIR HIGH 3,087,463 1,179,301 242,225 12,317 153,101 112,846 39,300 291 ,842 0 0 TOTAL CYCLE 1 PROGRAM EXPENSE 11 ,529,016 6,284,829 1,290,888 65,643 736,295 601 ,389 456,858 1,555,309 0 3,699,919 C RCE: The district's Total Program Expense for fiscal year 1995/1996 was $142,640,518. The programs funded In each of the Cycle 1 schools are Indicated on the chart entitled \"Programs In Cycle 1 Schools.\" See note section for Total Program Operating Cost for explanations of the funding categories, expense categories and totals. The Little Rock School District Finance Otrlce. 613 TRANS LEGAL TOTAL 96,298 10,159 5,543,332 26,355 2,780 1,424,764 48,99-4 5,169 2,026,828 56,427 5,953 2,600,154 45,727 4,824 1,957,362 41,222 4,349 2,130,586 60,369 6,369 2,612,112 32,775 3,458 1,687,314 33,113 3,493 1,607,133 101 ,929 10,753 5,231 ,077 543,209 57,307 26,820,662 LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT Programs in Cycle 1 Schools FY 95/96 PARKVIEW FAIR PARK FOREST JEFFERSON PULASKI WILSON TERRY BASELINE DAVID O DODD JA FAIR PROGRAMS HIGH ELEM PARK ELEM ELEM HGTS ELEM ELEM ELEM ELEM ELEM HIGH Four-Year Old X X X Kindergarten X X X X X X X X X X Elementary X X X X X X X X Elementary Music X X X X X X X X Itinerant Instruction X X X X X X X X Resource Room X X X X X X X X X X Special Class X X X Homebound \u0026amp; Hospital X X X X X Gifted \u0026amp; Talented X X X X X X X X Guidance Services X X X X X X X X X X Library Services X X X X X X X X X X High School X X Marketing/District Ed-Coop X Business Ed-Coop X Business Ed- Skill Training X X X I Trade \u0026amp; Ind-Coop X irade \u0026amp; lnd-Expl X cons/Homemaking X X I Comp Ed X x I I Coord Career-Coop X SOURCE: The Little Rock School District Finance Office. 614 --- . - LITTLE ROCK SCHOO D~IN:R,T COST PER STUDENT FOR TOTAL PROGRAMS FY 95/96 FUNDING SOURCES ENROLLMENT LOCAL\u0026amp; COST PER STU LEA# SCHOOL @ 10/01/95 STATE FEDERAL DESEG TOTAL FY 95/96 6001001 CENTRAL HIGH 1,591 7,536,213 198,385 743,676 8,478,274 5,329 6001002 HALL HIGH 928 4,923,315 115,714 416,156 5,455,185 5,878 6001003 MANN JR. HIGH 847 1,341,951 105,614 3,729,896 5,177,461 6,113 6001005 PARKVIEW HIGH 855 1,354,626 106,612 4,082,094 5,543,332 6,483 6001006 BOOKER ELEM 604 956,953 75,314 2,636,384 3,668,651 6,074 6001007 DUNBAR JR. HIGH 732 3,332,097 159,221 526,618 4,017,936 5,489 6001009 FOREST HEIGHTS JR. HIG 759 3,729,655 160,829 442,369 4,332,853 5,709 6001010 PULASKI HEIGHTS JR. HIG 781 3,754,518 97,384 479,691 4,331,593 5,546 6001011 SOUTHWEST JR. HIGH 612 2,833,428 177,076 451 ,110 3,461 ,614 5,656 6001013 HENDERSON JR. HIGH 792 4,083,704 190,893 514,481 4,789,078 6,047 6001017 BALE ELEM 312 1,596,887 141 ,251 270,757 2,008,895 6,439 6001018 BRADY ELEM 377 1,640,677 163,854 255,541 2,060,072 5,464 6001020 MCDERMOTT ELEM 487 2,091 ,035 139,214 225,014 2,455,263 5,042 6001021 CARVER ELEM 629 996,561 78,431 2,390,380 3,465,372 5,509 6001023 FAIR PARK ELEM 234 1,188,874 93,868 206,712 1,489,454 6,365 6001024 FOREST PARK ELEM 435 1,748,972 116,323 223,615 2,088,910 4,802 6001025 FRANKLIN ELEM 362 573,538 166,172 2,090,069 2,829,779 7,817 6001026 GARLAND ELEM 237 375,494 62,478 1,394,635 1,832,607 7,733 6001027 GIBBS ELEM 307 486,397 38,280 1,461 ,351 1,986,028 6,469 6001029 WESTERN HILLS ELEM 315 1,373,090 130,856 153,354 1,657,300 5,261 6001030 JEFFERSON ELEM 501 2,169,767 150,678 254,934 2,575,379 5,140 6001033 MEAOOWCLIFF ELEM 400 1,719,770 162,859 204,702 2,087,331 5,218 6001034 MITCHELL ELEM 264 418,270 99,077 1,306,655 1,824,002 6,909 6001035 ML KING ELEM 460 812,026 132,535 1,893,697 2,838,258 6,170 6001038 PULASKI HEIGHTS ELEM 406 1,627,424 164,491 204,136 1,996,051 4,916 6001039 RIGHTSELL ELEM 201 318,456 106,215 1,196,568 1,621 ,239 8,066 6001040 ROMINE ELEM 269 1,516,912 101,794 283,184 1,901 ,890 7,070 6001042 WASHINGTON ELEM 603 2,795,331 230,161 593,217 3,618,709 6,001 6001043 WILLIAMS ELEM 508 804,853 63,343 2,128,408 2,996,604 5,899 6001044 WILSON ELEM 366 1,739,172 156,440 231 ,911 2,127,523 5,813 6001045 WOODRUFF ELEM 218 979,594 89,184 184,120 1,252,898 5,747 6001047 TERRY ELEM 536 2,204,436 66,835 259,689 2,530,960 4,722 6001048 FULBRIGHT ELEM 518 2,344,119 156,131 263,821 2,764,071 5,336 6001050 ROCKEFELLER ELEM 313 495,904 289,773 2,245,721 3,031 ,398 9,685 6001051 BADGETT ELEM 174 908,434 73,957 189,749 1,172,140 6,736 6001052 BASELINE ELEM 291 1,286,758 129,638 251 ,195 1,667,591 5,731 6001053 CHICOT ELEM 434 2,242,325 203,010 293,862 2,739,197 6,312 6001054 CLOVERDALE ELEM 400 1,616,159 162,953 322,010 2,101 ,122 5,253 6001055 DAVID 0'0000 ELEM 294 1,329,041 95,411 154,492 1,578,944 5,371 6001056 GEYER SPRINGS ELEM 273 1,249,592 120,982 232,087 1,602,661 5,871 6001057 MABELVALE ELEM 443 1,880,533 208,340 284,212 2,373,085 5,357 6001058 OTTER CREEK ELEM 339 1,455,114 125,220 171 ,168 1,751 ,502 5,167 6001059 WAKEFIELD ELEM 429 1,844,171 165,120 211 ,048 2,220,339 5,176 6001060 WATSON ELEM 409 1,720,493 173,464 329,278 2,223,235 5,436 6001061 CLOVERDALE JR. HIGH 609 2,745,368 166,235 419,647 3,331 ,250 5,470 6001062 MABELVALE JR. HIGH 491 2,709,578 121 ,504 269,338 3,100,420 6,315 6001063 JA FAIR HIGH 905 4,521 ,306 112,846 443,824 5,077,976 5,611 6001064 MCCLELLAN HIGH 904 4,833,274 112,721 482,015 5,428,010 6,004 N/A METRO HIGH N/A 1,499,733 22,790 0 1,522,523 N/A N/A ALT LEARNING CTR N/A 45,536 0 392,663 438,199 N/A NIA ISH ELEM N/A 16,354 0 0 16,354 N/A TOTAL EXPENSE 24,154 97,767,788 6,481 ,476 38,391 ,254 142,640,518 5,905 See the note section on the next page for explanations of the categories . SOURCES The Little Rock School District Finance Office and the Local Fiscal Services Division of the ADE. 615 NOTES FOR LRSD COST PER STU FOR TOTAL PROGRAMS FOR FY 95/96 Funding Categories Local \u0026amp; State Federal Deseg This category includes funding from local sources, regular state sources, and unrestricted federal sources. This category includes funding from restricted federal sources which must be accounted for separately from the General Fund. This category consists of funding for desegregation purposes. Expense Categories Local \u0026amp; State Federal Deseg Total Category FY 95196 This category consists of expenses incurred relative to regular program expense funded by unrestricted local, state and federal sources. This category consists of expenses funded by restricted federal sources. This category consists of expenses incurred relative to desegregation programs funded from desegregation sources. The totals in this column represent the total expense for each school site for fiscal year 1995/1996. Cost Per Student Category FY 95196 SOURCES: The cost per student figures were calculated by dividing the school's total expense for fiscal year 1995/1996 by their enrollment as of October 1, 1995. The Little Rock School District Finance Office and the Local Fiscal Services Division of the ADE. 616 LEA# 6001005 6001023 6001024 6001030 6001038 6001044 6001047 6001052 6001055 6001063 SOURCES: LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT COST PER STUDENT FOR CYCLE 1 SCHOOL PROGRAMS FY 95/96 FUNDING SOURCES ENROLLMENT LOCAL \u0026amp; SCHOOL @ 10/01/95 STATE FEDERAL DESEG TOTAL PARKVIEW HIGH 855 1,354,626 106,612 4,082,094 5,543,332 FAIR PARK ELEM 234 1,188,874 93,868 206,712 1,489,454 FOREST PARK ELEM 435 1,748,972 116,323 223,615 2,088,910 JEFFERSON ELEM 501 2,169,767 150,678 254,934 2,575,379 PULASKI HEIGHTS ELEM 406 1,627,424 164,491 204,136 1,996,051 WILSON ELEM 366 1,739,172 156,440 231,911 2,127,523 TERRY ELEM 536 2,204,436 66,835 259,689 2,530,960 BASELINE ELEM 291 1,286,758 129,638 251,195 1,667,591 DAVID O'DODD ELEM 294 1,329,041 95,411 154,492 1,578,944 JA FAIR HIGH 905 4,521,306 112,846 443,824 5,077,976 TOTAL EXPENSE 4,823 19,170,376 1,193,142 6,312,602 26,676,120 See note section for Cost Per Student for Total Programs for explanations of the funding categories, expense categories, totals and cost per student category. The Little Rock School District Finance Office and the Local Fiscal Services Division of the ADE. 617 COST PER STU FY 95/96 6,483 6,365 4,802 5,140 4,916 5,813 4,722 5,731 5,371 5,611 5,531 - LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT COST PER STUDENT BY PROGRAM FY 95/96 PERCENT AVG COST DISTRICT VARIANCE PROGRAM OF PER STUDENT AVG COST OVER DIST AVG/ SCHOOL PROGRAM COST TOTAL COST BY PROGRAM PER STUDENT (UNDER DIST AVG) ELEMENTARY PROGRAMS 78,593,013 55.1% 5,888 5,905 (17) JR. HIGH PROGRAMS 32,542,205 22.8% 5,787 5,905 (118) HIGH SCHOOL PROGRAMS 31,505,300 22.1% 6,079 5,905 174 LRSD PROGRAM COST LRSD COST PER STU FY 95/96 80000000 60000000 40000000 20000000 0 JR PROGRAM COST PERCENT OF TOTAL COST AVG COST PER STUDENT BY PROGRAM FY 95/96 6100 6000 5900 5800 5700 5600 Program costs consist of the total cost for FY 95/96 for the indicated category of school programs. The percentage of program cost to the total district cost of $142,640,518 for FY 95/96. The total program cost for FY 95/96 to the total number of students in the program category. DISTRICT AVG COST PER STU The total cost for FY 95/96 of $142,640,518 to the total enrollment at October 1, 1995 of 24,154. VARIANCE SOURCE: The difference between the cost per student by program and the district average cost per student. A positive variance indicates the cost per student by program is greater than the district cost per student, and a negative variance indicates the cost per student by program is less than the district cost per student. The Little Rock School District Finance Office. 618 LEA# 6001006 6001017 6001018 6001020 6001021 6001023 6001024 6001025 6001026 6001027 6001029 6001030 6001033 6001034 6001035 6001038 6001039 6001040 6001042 6001043 6001044 6001045 6001047 6001048 6001050 6001051 6001052 6001053 6001054 6001055 6001056 6001057 6001058 6001059 6001060 NIA NIA SOURCES: LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT COST PER STUDENT FOR ELEMENTARY PROGRAMS FY 95/96 FUNDING SOURCES ENROLLMENT LOCAL\u0026amp; SCHOOL @ 10101195 STATE FEDERAL DESEG TOTAL BOOKER ELEM 604 956,953 75,314 2,636,384 3,668,651 BALE ELEM 312 1,596,887 141,251 270,757 2,008,895 BRADY ELEM 377 1,640,677 163,854 255,541 2,060,072 MCDERMOTT ELEM 487 2,091,035 139,214 225,014 2,455,263 CARVER ELEM 629 996,561 78,431 2,390,380 3,465,372 FAIR PARK ELEM 234 1,188,874 93,868 206,712 1,489,454 FOREST PARK ELEM 435 1,748,972 116,323 223,615 2,088,910 FRANKLIN ELEM 362 573,538 166,172 2,090,069 2,829,779 GARLAND ELEM 237 375,494 62,478 1,394,635 1,832,607 GIBBS ELEM 307 486,397 38,280 1,461 ,351 1,986,028 WESTERN HILLS ELEM 315 1,373,090 130,856 153,354 1,657,300 JEFFERSON ELEM 501 2,169,767 150,678 254,934 2,575,379 MEADOWCLIFF ELEM 400 1,719,770 162,859 204,702 2,087,331 MITCHELL ELEM 264 418,270 99,077 1,306,655 1,824,002 ML KING ELEM 460 812,026 132,535 1,893,697 2,838,258 PULASKI HEIGHTS ELEM 406 1,627,424 164,491 204,136 1,996,051 RIGHTSELL ELEM 201 318,456 106,215 1,196,568 1,621,239 ROMINE ELEM 269 1,516,912 101,794 283,184 1,901,890 WASHINGTON ELEM 603 2,795,331 230,161 593,217 3,618,709 WILLIAMS ELEM 508 804,853 63,343 2,128,408 2,996,604 WILSON ELEM 366 1,739,172 156,440 231 ,911 2,127,523 WOODRUFF ELEM 218 979,594 89,184 184,120 1,252,898 TERRY ELEM 536 2,204,436 66.835 259,689 2,530,960 FULBRIGHT ELEM 518 2,344,119 156,131 263,821 2 764,071 ROCKEFELLER ELEM 313 495,904 289,773 2,245,721 3,031 ,398 BADGETT ELEM 174 908,434 73,957 189,749 1,172,140 BASELINE ELEM 291 1,286,758 129,638 251 ,195 1,667,591 CHICOT ELEM 434 2,242,325 203,010 293,862 2,739,197 CLOVERDALE ELEM 400 1,616,159 162,953 322,010 2,101 ,122 DAVID O'DODD ELEM 294 1,329,041 95,411 154,492 1,578,944 GEYER SPRINGS ELEM 273 1,249,592 120,982 232,087 1,602,661 MABEL VALE ELEM 443 1,880,533 208,340 284,212 2,373,085 OTTER CREEK ELEM 339 1,455,114 125,220 171 ,168 1,751 ,502 WAKEFIELD ELEM 429 1,844,171 165,120 211 ,048 2 220.339 WATSON ELEM 409 1,720,493 173,464 329,278 2 223,235 ALT LEARNING CTR NIA 45,536 0 392,663 438,199 ISH ELEM NIA 16,354 0 0 16,354 TOTAL EXPENSE 13,348 48,569,022 4,633,652 25,390,339 78,593,013 See note section for Cost Per Student for Total Programs for explanations of the funding categories, expense categories, totals and cost per student category. The Little Rock School District Finance Office and the Local Fiscal Services Division of the ADE. 619 COST PER STU FY 95/96 6,074 6,439 5,464 5,042 5,509 6,365 4,802 7,817 7,733 6,469 5,261 5,140 5,218 6,909 6,170 4,916 8,066 7,070 6,001 5,899 5,813 5,747 4,722 5,336 9,685 6,736 5,731 6,312 5,253 5,371 5,871 5,357 5,167 5,176 5,436 NIA NIA 5,888 I LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT COST PER STUDENT FOR JR HIGH PROGRAMS FY 95/96 FUNDING SOURCES ENROLLMENT LOCAL \u0026amp; COST PER STU LEA# SCHOOL @ 10/01/95 STATE FEDERAL DESEG TOTAL 6001003 MANN JR. HIGH 847 1,341,951 105,614 3,729,896 5,177,461 6001007 DUNBAR JR. HIGH 732 3,332,097 159,221 526,618 4,017,936 6001009 FOREST HEIGHTS JR. HIGH 759 3,729,655 160,829 442,369 4,332,853 6001010 PULASKI HEIGHTS JR. HIGH 781 3,754,518 97,384 479,691 4,331,593 6001011 SOUTHWEST JR. HIGH 612 2,833,428 177,076 451,110 3,461,614 6001013 HENDERSON JR. HIGH 792 4,083,704 190,893 514,481 4,789,078 6001061 CLOVERDALE JR. HIGH 609 2,745,368 166,235 419,647 3,331,250 6001062 MABELVALE JR. HIGH 491 2,709,578 121,504 269,338 3,100,420 TOTAL EXPENSE I 5,623 I 24,530,299 1,178,756 6,833,150 32,542,205 SOURCES: See note section for Cost Per Student for Total Programs for explanations of the funding categories, expense categories, totals and cost per student category. The Little Rock School District Finance Office and the Local Fiscal Services Division of the ADE. 620 FY 95/96 6,113 5,489 5,709 5,546 5,656 6,047 5,470 6,315 5,787 LEA# 6001001 6001002 6001005 6001063 6001064 N/A I SOURCES: LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT COST PER STUDENT FOR HIGH SCHOOL PROGRAMS FY 95/96 FUNDING SOURCES ENROLLMENT LOCAL \u0026amp; COST PER STU SCHOOL @ 10/01/95 STATE FEDERAL DESEG TOTAL CENTRAL HIGH 1,591 7,536,213 198,385 743,676 8,478,274 HALL HIGH 928 4,923,315 115,714 416,156 5,455,185 PARKVIEW HIGH 855 1,354,626 106,612 4,082,094 5,543,332 JA FAIR HIGH 905 4,521,306 112,846 443,824 5,077,976 MCCLELLAN HIGH 904 4,833,274 112,721 482,015 5,428,010 METRO HIGH N/A 1,499,733 22,790 0 1,522,523 TOT AL EXPENSE I 5,183 I 24,668,467 669,068 6,167,765 31,505,300 See note section for Cost Per Student for Total Programs for explanations of the funding categories, expense categories, totals and cost per student category. The Little Rock School District Finance Office and the Local Fiscal Services Division of the ADE. 621 FY 95/96 5,329 5,878 6,483 5,611 6,004 N/A 6,079 I LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT CYCLE 1 SCHOOL TEACHER \u0026amp; ADMINISTRATOR EXPENSE LEA# 6001005 6001023 6001024 6001030 6001038 6001044 6001047 6001052 6001055 6001063 FY 95/96 TEACHER ADMINISTRATOR SCHOOL SALARIES SALARIES PARKVlEW HIGH 2,229,182 224,797 FAIR PARK ELEM 625,035 50,210 FOREST PARK ELEM 732,541 57,412 JEFFERSON ELEM 981,331 100,441 PULASKI HEIGHTS ELEM 706,709 48,690 WILSON ELEM 870,632 46,181 TERRY ELEM 919,575 91,081 BASELINE ELEM 573,244 56,824 DAVID O'DODD ELEM 597,053 53,392 JA FAIR HIGH 2,135,807 200,309 TOTAL II 10,371,109 I 929,337 Total district expense for teacher and school site administrator salaries for FY 95/96 was $62,739,208 or 44.0 percent of total expense for FY 95/96 of $142,640,518. Teacher Expense FY 95196 Teacher salary expense for each Cycle 1 school for FY 95/96. Administrator Expense I FY 95196 Administrator salary expense for each Cycle 1 school for FY 95/96. Total Category TOTAL 2,453,979 675,245 789,953 1,081,772 755,399 916,813 1,010,656 630,068 650,445 2,336,116 11,300,446 FY 95/96 The totals in this column represent the total teacher and administrator expense for each Cycle 1 school for FY 95/96. SOURCE: The Little Rock School District Finance Office. 622 e . LRSD PROGRAM COST FY 96/97 623 LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT TOT AL PROGRAM OPERA TING BUDGET FY 96/97 FUNDING SOURCES LOCAL/STATE FEDERAL LEA# SCHOOL PROGRAM DISTRICT TRANS LEGAL PROGRAM DISTRICT PROGRAM DISTRICT 6001 001 CENTRAL HIGH 5,746,846 2.410.490 441 ,679 16,121 0 301.537 52,464 693,236 6001002 HALL HIGH 3,782,965 1,116 395 204 559 7,466 0 139.654 0 321 ,066 6001003 MANN JR HIGH 0 1,158 4 6 212,264 7,747 0 14 . 914 0 333,159 6001005 PARKVIEW HIGH 0 1,192 358 218,478 7,974 0 149.157 0 342,912 6001006 BOOKER ELEM 0 817,966 149,878 5,470 0 102 323 0 235.240 6001007 DUNBAR JR HIGH 2,532,629 1,051 283 192,629 7,031 7,897 131 ,509 197,727 302,340 6001009 FOREST HEIGHTS JR HIGH 2,656,647 854 ,591 156,589 5,715 31 ,153 106,904 198,760 245,773 6001010 PULASKI HEIGHTS JR HIGH 2,780.689 1,064,848 195,114 7.122 0 133.206 106,931 306,241 6001011 SOUTHWEST JR HIGH 2,132 228 805.758 147,641 5,389 37.239 100.795 195,680 231 ,729 6001013 HENDERSON JR HIGH 3,141 ,993 1,005.162 184,178 6,722 40.678 125,740 146 198 289 ,076 6001 017 BALE ELEM 1,154,155 459 .652 84,260 3,075 46,765 57,525 153,635 132,249 6001016 BRADY ELEM 1,177,507 478,642 87,739 3,202 44 ,553 59 900 104,058 137,711 6001020 MCDERMOTT ELEM 1,519,141 663 ,326 121 ,543 4,436 39,207 82.978 22,193 190,767 6001021 CARVER ELEM 0 819,322 150,126 5,480 0 102,492 0 235,630 6001023 FAIR PARK ELEM 892,836 297 072 54 433 1,987 37,074 37.162 93 101 85,435 6001024 FOREST PARK ELEM 1,311 ,562 609.066 111 ,600 4,073 35,454 76,190 33,391 175.162 6001025 FRANKLIN ELEM 0 515,468 94 450 3,447 87 199 64 ,482 0 148,244 6001026 GARLAND ELEM 0 351 ,332 64 375 2,350 241 ,424 43.949 0 101 040 6001027 GIBBS ELEM 0 423 .226 77,549 2,830 0 52.943 0 121,716 6001029 WESTERN HILLS ELEM 1,073,033 423,226 77 ,549 2,831 32,041 52.943 23,866 121 ,716 6001030 JEFFERSON ELEM 1,653,192 674 ,178 123,531 4,509 82,376 84,335 34,791 193,888 6001033 MEAOOWCLIFF ELEM 1,215.474 505,972 92,710 3,384 69,707 63,294 32,971 145,513 6001034 MITCHELL ELEM 0 330 985 60.647 2 214 41 .749 41 ,404 0 95,188 6001035 ML KING ELEM 62,245 747 .428 136,953 4 999 38,876 93 499 2 176,308 214 ,954 6001038 PULASKI HEIGHTS ELEM 1,280,928 615,848 112,843 4 119 599 206 77.039 26,436 177,113 6001039 RIGHTSELL ELEM 0 309,261 56,670 2,068 36,412 36.669 0 88 ,947 6001040 ROMINE ELEM 1,203,291 363,540 66,612 2,431 40,940 45,477 147,791 104,551 6001042 WASHINGTON ELEM 2,298.859 889,860 163.051 5,951 157.794 111 .316 366,420 255,916 6001043 WILLIAMS ELEM 0 679,604 124.525 4,545 0 65,014 0 195,448 6001044 WILSON ELEM 1,352,091 466,634 85,502 3.121 65,397 58,373 63,793 134,200 6001045 WOODRUFF ELEM 803,753 314,707 57,664 2,105 39,643 39,368 112,848 90,507 6001047 TERRY ELEM 1,638,552 698,595 128,005 4,672 0 87 390 39,277 200,910 6001048 FULBRIGHT ELEM 1,829,125 676,247 124,277 4,536 37.170 64 .845 36,996 195,056 6001050 ROCKEFELLER ELEM 0 457,139 83,762 3,057 161 ,155 57,185 0 131 ,469 6001051 BADGETT ELEM 763,484 255,021 46 728 1,706 44 ,509 31 902 124 291 73.342 6001052 BASELINE ELEM 962,347 360,827 66,115 2,413 66,103 45,137 140.736 103,771 6001053 CHICOT ELEM 1,801 ,817 653,830 119,803 4,373 76,969 61 790 174,079 166,036 6001054 CLOVERDALE ELEM 1,264,299 629,413 115,329 4 209 67,313 78.736 168,664 181 ,014 6001055 DAVID 0'0000 ELEM 925,551 328,272 60,150 2 195 10,779 41 065 42,887 94,408 6001056 GEYER SPRINGS ELEM 840,977 371 .679 68,104 2,466 40 156 46,495 129,590 106,892 6001057 MABELVALE ELEM 1,260,295 543.954 99,670 3,638 109,696 68 045 102,483 156,437 6001058 OTTER CREEK ELEM 1,089,943 420,513 77,052 2,812 37,492 52 604 22 .476 120,936 6001059 WAKEFIELD ELEM 1,335,727 591 ,431 108,369 3,955 327.778 73,984 26,649 170,091 6001060 WATSON ELEM 1,299,044 600,927 110,109 4,019 38,867 75.172 152,372 172.821 6001061 CLOVERDALE JR HIGH 2,072,506 866,600 158,826 5,797 62,759 106,431 219,833 249,284 6001062 MABELVALE JR HIGH 2,235,568 634,839 116,323 4,246 20,670 79.415 45,350 182,574 6001063 JAFAIR HIGH 3,383,370 1,124,534 206,051 7,521 0 140,672 47,059 323,406 6001064 MCCLELLAN HIGH 3,868,990 1,256,114 230.160 8,401 0 157,132 112,171 361 ,248 NIA METRO HIGH 1,475,600 0 0 0 76.908 0 0 0 NIA ALT LEARNING CTR 75,772 0 0 0 0 0 532,484 0 NIA ISH ELEM 14,500 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 TOT AL PROGRAM BUDGET 67,909,531 32,888,201 6,026.174 219,950 3,053.330 4,114,111 6,449,163 9,458,364 The district for the first quarter of FY 96/97 has incurred expenses totaling $20,609,842 or 13.0 percent of their total FY 96/97 budget. SOURCE SH th not section on th next page for expl1natlons of the categories. The Little Rock School DislT/ct Finenctt Otrice 624 DESEGREGATION MAGNET INCENTIVE TRANS LEGAL TOTAL 0 0 211 ,583 14.296 9,888,252 0 0 97 .993 6.621 5,676,719 3,808,689 0 101 ,684 6,870 5,773,773 4,357,849 0 104,660 7,072 6,380 460 2,814,752 0 71 ,798 4,851 4,202.278 0 0 92,277 6,235 4,521 ,557 0 0 75 ,013 5,068 4,336,213 0 0 93,468 6,315 4,693 934 0 0 70,726 4,779 3,731 ,964 0 0 88 ,229 5,961 5,033,937 0 0 40,364 2.727 2.134,807 0 0 42 ,031 2,840 2,138,383 0 0 58,224 3,934 2,705,749 2,530,286 0 71 ,917 4,859 3,920,112 0 0 26,076 1 762 1 526,938 0 0 53,461 3,612 2,413,571 0 2,240,116 45,246 3,057 3,201 ,709 0 1,482,591 30,838 2.084 2,319,983 1,611 ,483 0 37,149 2,510 2,329,406 0 0 37,149 2,510 1,846,864 0 0 59 .177 3,998 2,913,975 0 0 44 ,412 3,001 2,176.438 0 1,359,797 29,052 1,963 1,962,999 0 0 65,606 4 33 3,545,301 0 0 54 ,057 3,652 2,951 ,243 0 1.268,129 27 .147 1,834 1,629,177 0 0 31 ,910 2,156 2,008,699 0 0 78,108 5,277 4,352,552 2,238,407 0 59,653 4,031 3,391 .227 0 0 40,959 2,767 2,292,637 0 0 27 .624 1,866 1,490,285 0 0 61 ,320 4,143 2,862,864 0 0 59,534 4,023 3,053,811 0 2,288,277 40,126 2,711 3,244,881 0 0 22,385 1,513 1,364,861 0 0 31 ,672 2,140 1 781 ,263 0 0 57,391 3 ,878 3,163,966 0 0 55,247 3,733 2,567,957 0 0 28,614 1,947 1,536,068 0 0 32,624 2,204 1,641 ,207 0 0 47,746 3,226 2,395,192 0 0 36,911 2,494 1,863,233 0 0 51 ,913 3,508 2,695,605 0 0 52.747 3,564 2,509,642 0 0 76,084 5,141 3,825.461 0 0 55,724 3,765 3,378,474 0 0 98,707 6,669 5,337,989 0 0 110,257 7,450 6,111 ,923 0 0 0 0 1,552,508 0 0 0 0 608,256 0 0 0 0 14,500 17,361 ,466 8,638,910 2,886,793 195,050 159,201 .043 NOTES FOR LRSD TOTAL PROGRAM OPERATING BUDGET SCHEDULE FOR FY 96/97 Funding Categories Local \u0026amp; State Federal Deseg This category includes funding from local sources, regular state sources, and unrestricted federal sources. This category includes funding from restricted federal sources which must be accounted for separately from the General Fund. This category consists of funding for desegregation purposes. Expense Categories Local \u0026amp; State Federal Deseg Total Category FY 96197 SOURCE: This category consists of budgeted expenses relative to regular program expense, district expense, transportation expense and legal expense funded by unrestricted local, state and federal sources. This category consists of budgeted expenses relative to federal program expense and district expense funded by restricted federal sources. This category consists of budgeted expenses relative to desegregation program expense, district expense, magnet expense, incentive expense, transportation expense and legal expense funded from desegregation sources. The totals in this column represent the total budget for each school site for fiscal year 1996/1997. The Little Rock School District Finance Office. 625 LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT CYCLE 1 SCHOOL PROGRAM OPERATING BUDGET FY 96/97 FUNDING SOURCES LOCAUSTATE FEDERAL DESEGREGATION LEA# SCHOOL PROGRAM DISTRICT TRANS LEGAL PROGRAM DISTRICT PROGRAM DISTRICT MAGNET INCENTIVE 6001005 PARKVIEW HIGH 0 1,192,358 218,478 7,974 0 149,157 0 342,912 4,357,849 0 6001023 FAIR PARK ELEM 892,836 297,072 54,433 1,987 37,074 37,162 93,101 85,435 0 0 6001024 FOREST PARK ELEM 1,311 ,562 609,066 111,600 4,073 35,454 76,190 33,391 175,162 0 0 6001030 JEFFERSON ELEM 1,653,192 674,178 123,531 4,509 82,376 84,335 34,791 193,888 0 0 6001038 PULASKI HEIGHTS ELEM 1,280,928 615,848 112,843 4,119 599,206 77,039 26,438 177,113 0 0 6001044 WILSON ELEM 1,352,091 466,634 85,502 3,121 65,397 58,373 83,793 134,200 0 0 6001047 TERRY ELEM 1,838,552 698,595 128,005 4,672 0 87,390 39,277 200,910 0 0 6001052 BASELINE ELEM 962,347 360,827 66,115 2,413 66,103 45,137 140,738 103,771 0 0 6001055 DAVID 0 '0000 ELEM 925,551 328,272 60,150 2,195 10,779 41 ,065 42,887 94,408 0 0 6001063 JA FAIR HIGH 3,383,370 1,124,534 206,051 7,521 0 140,672 47,059 323,406 0 0 TOTAL CYCLE 1 PROGRAM BUDGET 13,400,429 6,367,384 1 166,708 42,584 896,389 796,520 541 ,475 1,831 ,205 4,357,849 0 OURCE: The district's Total Program Budget for the fiscal year 96/971s $159,201,043. The programs funded In each of the Cycle 1 schools are Indicated on the chart entitled \"Programs In Cycle 1 Schools.\" See note section for Total Program Operating Budget for explanations of the funding categories, expense categories and totals. The Little Rock School District Finance Office. 626 TRANS LEGAL TOTAL 104,660 7,072 6,380,460 26,076 1,762 1,526,938 53,461 3,612 2,413,571 59,177 3,998 2,913,975 54,057 3,652 2,951 ,243 40,959 2,767 2,292,837 61 ,320 4,143 2,862,864 31 ,672 2,140 1,781 ,263 28,814 1,947 1,536,068 98,707 6,669 5,337,989 558,903 37,762 29,997,208 LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT Programs in Cycle 1 Schools FY 96/97 PARKVIEW FAIR PARK FOREST JEFFERSON PULASKI WILSON TERRY BASELINE DAVIDO DODD JA FAIR PROGRAMS HIGH ELEM PARK ELEM ELEM HGTS ELEM ELEM ELEM ELEM ELEM HIGH Four-Year Old X X X Kindergarten X X X X X X X X X X Elementary X X X X X X X X Elementary Music X X X X X X X X Itinerant Instruction X X X X X X X X Resource Room X X X X X X X X X X Special Class X X X Homebound \u0026amp; Hospital X X X X X Gifted \u0026amp; Talented X X X X X X X X Guidance Services X X X X X X X X X X Library Services X X X X X X X X X X High School X X Marketing/District Ed-Coop X Business Ed-Coop X Business Ed- Skill Training X X Trade \u0026amp; Ind-Coop X X Trade \u0026amp; lnd-Expl X X ons/Homemaking X mp Ed X Coord Career-Coop X . SOURCE: ThtJ Little Rock School District FinanctJ OtrictJ. 627 LEAi 6001001 6001002 6001003 6001005 6001006 6001007 6001009 6001010 6001011 6001013 6001017 6001018 6001020 6001021 6001023 6001024 6001025 6001026 6001027 6001029 6001030 6001033 6001034 6001035 6001038 6001039 6001040 6001042 6001043 6001044 6001045 6001047 6001048 6001050 6001051 6001052 6001053 6001054 6001055 6001056 6001057 6001058 6001059 6001060 6001061 6001062 6001063 6001064 NIA NIA NIA SOURCE: LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT COST PER STUDENT FOR TOTAL PROGRAMS FY 96/97 FUNDING SOURCES ENROLLMENT LOCAL \u0026amp; SCHOOL @ 10/01/96 STATE FEDERAL DESEG TOTAL CENTRAL HIGH 1,777 8,615,136 301,537 971,579 9,888,252 HALL HIGH 823 5,111,385 139,654 425,680 5,676,719 MANN JR. HIGH 854 1,378,457 144,914 4,250,402 5,TT3,TT3 PARKVIEW HIGH 879 1,418,810 149,157 4,812,493 6,380,460 BOOKER ELEM 603 973,314 102,323 3,126 641 4,202,278 DUNBAR JR. HIGH ns 3,783,572 139,406 598,579 4,521,557 FOREST HEIGHTS JR. HIGH 630 3,673,542 138,057 524,614 4,336,213 PULASKI HEIGHTS JR. HIGH 785 4,047,773 133,206 512,955 4,693,934 SOUTHWEST JR. HIGH 594 3,091,016 138,034 502,914 3,731,964 HENDERSON JR. HIGH 741 4,338,055 166,418 529,464 5,033,937 BALE ELEM 339 1,701,342 104,290 329,175 2,134,807 BRADY ELEM 353 1,747,290 104,453 286,640 2,138,383 MCDERMOTT ELEM 489 2,308,446 122,185 275,118 2,705,749 CARVER ELEM 604 974,928 102,492 2,842,692 3,920,112 FAIR PARK ELEM 219 1,246,328 74,236 206,374 1,526,938 FOREST PARK ELEM 449 2,036,301 111,644 265,626 2,413,571 FRANKLIN ELEM 380 613,365 151,681 2,436,663 3,201,709 GARLAND ELEM 259 418,057 285,373 1,616,553 2,319,983 GIBBS ELEM 312 503,605 52,943 1,TT2,858 2,329,406 WESTERN HILLS ELEM 312 1,576,639 84,984 185,241 1,846,864 JEFFERSON ELEM 497 2,455,410 166,711 291,854 2,913,975 MEAOOWCLIFF ELEM 373 1,817,540 133,001 225,897 2,176,438 MITCHELL ELEM 244 393,846 83,153 1,486,000 1,962,999 ML KING ELEM 551 951,625 132,375 2,461,301 3,545,301 PULASKI HEIGHTS ELEM 454 2,013,738 676,245 261,260 2,951,243 RIGHTSELL ELEM 228 368,019 75,101 1,386,057 1,829,177 ROMINE ELEM 268 1,635,874 86,417 286,408 2,008,699 WASHINGTON ELEM 656 3,357,721 269,110 725,721 4,352,552 WILLIAMS ELEM 501 808,674 85,014 2,497,539 3,391,227 WILSON ELEM 344 1,907,348 123,770 261,719 2,292,837 WOODRUFF ELEM 232 1,178,229 79,211 232,845 1,490,285 TERRY ELEM 515 2,469,824 87,390 305,650 2,862,864 FULBRIGHT ELEM 500 2,636,185 122,015 295,611 3,053,811 ROCKEFELLER ELEM 337 543,958 238,340 2,462,583 3,244,881 BADGETT ELEM 188 1,066,939 76,411 221,531 1,364,881 BASELINE ELEM 266 1,391,702 111,240 278,321 1,781,263 CHICOT ELEM 482 2,579,823 160,779 423,384 3,163,986 CLOVERDALE ELEM 464 2,013,250 146,049 408,658 2,567,957 DAVID 0'0000 ELEM 242 1,316,168 51,844 168,056 1,536,068 GEYER SPRINGS ELEM 274 1,283,246 86,651 271,310 1,641,207 MABELVALE ELEM 401 1,907,557 177,743 309,892 2,395,192 OTTER CREEK ELEM 310 1,590,320 90,096 182,817 1,863,233 WAKEFIELD ELEM 436 2,039,482 401,762 254,361 2,695,605 WATSON ELEM 443 2 014,099 114,039 381,504 2,509,642 CLOVERDALE JR. HIGH 639 3,103,929 171,190 550,342 3,825,461 MABELVALE JR. HIGH 468 2,990,976 100,085 287,413 3,378,474 JA FAIR HIGH 829 4,721,476 140,672 475,841 5,337,989 MCCLELLAN HIGH 926 5,363,665 157,132 591,126 6,111,923 METRO HIGH NIA 1,475,600 76,908 0 1,552,508 ALT LEARNING CTR NIA 75,772 0 532,484 608,256 ISH ELEM NIA 14,500 0 0 14,500 TOTAL BUDGET 24,245 107,043,856 7,167,441 44,989,746 159,201,043 The district for the first quarter of FY 96/97 has incurred expenses totaling $20,609,842 or 13.0 percent of their total FY 96/97 budget. See the note section on the next page for explanations of the categories. The Little Rock School District Finance Office and the Local Fiscal Services Division of the ADE. 628 COST PER STU FY 96/97 5,565 6,898 6,761 7,259 6,969 5,834 6,883 5,980 6,283 6,793 6,297 6,058 5,533 6,490 6,972 5,375 8,426 8,957 7,466 5,919 5,863 5,835 8,045 6,434 6,501 8,023 7,495 6,635 6,769 6,665 6,424 5,559 6,108 9,629 7,260 6,696 6,564 5,534 6,347 5,990 5,973 6,010 6,183 5,665 5,987 7,219 6,439 6,600 NIA NIA NIA 6,566 NOTES FOR LRSD COST PER STUDENT FOR TOTAL PROGRAMS FOR FY 96/97 Funding Categories Local \u0026amp; State Federal Deseg This category includes funding from local sources, regular state sources, and unrestricted federal sources. This category includes funding from restricted federal sources which must be accounted for separately from the General Fund. This category consists of funding for desegregation purposes. Expense Categories Local \u0026amp; State Federal Deseg Total Category FY96197 This category consists of budgeted expenses relative to regular programs funded by unrestricted local, state and federal sources. This category consists of budgeted expenses funded by restricted federal sources. This category consists of budgeted expenses relative to desegregation programs funded from desegregation sources. The totals in this column represent the total budget for each school site for fiscal year 1996/1997. Cost Per Student Category FY 96197 SOURCE: The cost per student figures were calculated by dividing the school's total budget for FY 96/97 by their enrollment as of October 1, 1996. The Lfttle Rock School District Finance Office and the Local Fiscal Services Division of the ADE. 629 LEA# 6001005 6001023 6001024 6001030 6001038 6001044 6001047 6001052 6001055 6001063 I SOURCE: LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT COST PER STUDENT FOR CYCLE 1 SCHOOL PROGRAMS FY 96/97 FUNDING SOURCES ENROLLMENT LOCAL \u0026amp; [\nJ SCHOOL @ 10/01/96 STATE FEDERAL DESEG PARKVIEW HIGH 879 1,418,810 149,157 4,812,493 6,380,460 FAIR PARK ELEM 219 1,246,328 74,236 206,374 1,526,938 FOREST PARK ELEM 449 2,036,301 111 ,644 265,626 2,413,571 JEFFERSON ELEM 497 2,455,410 166,711 291 ,854 2,913,975 PULASKI HEIGHTS ELEM 454 2,013,738 676,245 261 ,260 2,951 ,243 WILSON ELEM 344 1,907,348 123.770 261 ,719 2,292,837 TERRY ELEM 515 2,469,824 87,390 305,650 2,862,864 BASELINE ELEM 266 1,391.702 111 ,240 278,321 1,781 ,263 DAVID O'DODD ELEM 242 1,316,168 51 ,844 168,056 1,536,068 JA FAIR HIGH 829 4,721,476 140,672 475,841 5,337,989 TOT AL BUDGET I 4,694 I 20,977,105 1,692,909 7,327,194 29,997,208 See note section for Cost per Student for Total Programs for explanations of the funding categories, expense categories, totals and cost per student category. The Little Rock School District Finance Office and the Local Fiscal Services Division of the ADE. 630 COST PER STU FY 96/97 7,259 6,972 5,375 5,863 6,501 6,665 5,559 6,696 6,347 6,439 I 6,391 I LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT COST PER STUDENT BY PROGRAM FY 96/97 PERCENT AVG COST DISTRICT VARIANCE PROGRAM OF PER STUDENT AVG COST OVER DIST AVG/ SCHOOL PROGRAM BUDGET TOTAL BUDGET BY PROGRAM PER STUDENT (UNDER DIST AVG) ELEMENTARY PROGRAMS 88,957,879 55.9% 6,577 6,566 11 JR. HIGH PROGRAMS 35,295,313 22.1% 6,434 6,566 (133) HIGH SCHOOL PROGRAMS 34,947,851 22.0% 6,677 6,566 111 LRSD PROGRAM COST LRSD COST PER STUDENT 100000000 80000000 60000000 40000000 20000000 0 PROGRAM COST FY 96/97 PERCENT OF TOTAL COST AVG COST PER STUDENT BY PROGRAM 6700 6600 6500 6400 FY 96/97 Program costs consist of the total budget for F { 96197 for the indicated category of school programs. The percentage of program budget to the total district budget of $159,201,043 for FY 96/97. The total program budget for FY 96/97 to the total number of students in the program category as of October 1, 1996. DISTRICT AVG COST PER STU The total budget for FY 96/97 of $159,201 , 043 to the total enrollment at October 1, 1996 of 24,245. VARIANCE SOURCE: The difference between the cost per student by program and the district average cost per student. A positive variance indicates the cost per student by program Is greater than the district cost per student, and a negative variance 1nd1cates the cost per student by program Is less than the district cost per student The LiN/e Rock School O,stnct Finance Office 631 LEA# 6001006 600101 7 6001018 6001020 6001021 6001023 6001024 6001025 6001026 6001027 6001029 6001030 6001033 6001034 6001035 6001038 6001039 6001040 6001042 6001043 6001044 6001045 6001047 6001048 6001050 6001051 6001052 6001053 6001054 6001055 6001056 6001057 6001058 6001059 6001060 N/A NIA SOURCE: LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT COST PER STUDENT FOR ELEMENTARY PROGRAMS FY 96/97 FUNDING SOURCES ENROLLMENT LOCAL \u0026amp; SCHOOL @ 10/01 /96 STATE FEDERAL DESEG BOOKER ELEM 603 973,314 102,323 3,126,641 BALE ELEM 339 1 701 ,342 104,290 329,175 BRADY ELEM 353 1,747,290 104,453 286,640 MCDERMOTT ELEM 489 2,308,446 122,185 275,118 CARVER ELEM 604 974,928 102,492 2,842,692 FAIR PARK ELEM 219 1 246,328 74,236 206,374 FOREST PARK ELEM 449 2,036,301 111 644 265,626 FRANKLIN ELEM 380 613,365 151 ,681 2,436,663 GARLAND ELEM 259 418,057 285,373 1,616,553 GIBBS ELEM 312 503,605 52,943 1,772,858 WESTERN HILLS ELEM 312 1,576,639 84,984 185,241 JEFFERSON ELEM 497 2,455,410 166,711 291 ,854 MEADOWCLIFF ELEM 373 1,817,540 133,001 225,897 MITCHELL ELEM 244 393,846 83,153 1,486,000 ML KING ELEM 551 951 ,625 132,375 2,461 ,301 PULASKI HEIGHTS ELEM 454 2,013 738 676,245 261 ,260 RIGHTSELL ELEM 228 368 019 75,101 1,386,057 ROMINE ELEM 268 1,635,874 86,417 286,408 WASHINGTON ELEM 656 3,357,721 269,110 725,721 WILLIAMS ELEM 501 808,674 85,014 2,497,539 WILSON ELEM 344 1 907,348 123,770 261 ,719 WOODRUFF ELEM 232 1,178,229 79,211 232,845 TERRY ELEM 515 2,469,824 87,390 305,650 FULBRIGHT ELEM 500 2,636,185 122,015 295,611 ROCKEFELLER ELEM 337 543,958 238,340 2,462,583 BADGETT ELEM 188 1,066 939 76,411 221 ,531 BASELINE ELEM 266 1,391 ,702 111 ,240 278,321 CHICOT ELEM 482 2,579 823 160,779 423 384 CLOVERDALE ELEM 464 2,013,250 146,049 408,658 DAVID 0'0000 ELEM 242 1,316,168 51 ,844 168,056 GEYER SPRINGS ELEM 274 1,283,246 86,651 271 ,310 MABELVALE ELEM 401 1,907,557 177,743 309,892 OTTER CREEK ELEM 310 1,590,320 90,096 182,817 WAKEFIELD ELEM 436 2,039,482 401,762 254,361 WATSON ELEM 443 2,014,099 114,039 381 ,504 ALT LEARNING CTR NIA 75,772 0 532,484 ISH ELEM NIA 14,500 0 0 TOTAL BUDGET 13,525 53,930,464 5,071 ,071 29,956,344 See note section for Cost per Student for Total Programs for explanations of the funding categories, expense categories, totals and cost per student category. TOTAL 4,202,278 2,134,807 2,138,383 2,705,749 3,920,112 1,526 938 2,413,571 3,201 ,709 2,319,983 2,329,406 1,846,864 2,913,975 2,176,438 1,962,999 3,545,301 2,951 ,243 1,829,177 2,008,699 4,352,552 3,391 ,227 2,292,837 1,490,285 2,862,864 3,053,811 3,244,881 1,364,881 1,781 ,263 3,163,986 2,567,957 1,536,068 1,641 ,207 2,395,192 1,863,233 2,695,605 2,509,642 608,256 14,500 88,957,879 The Little Rock School District Finance Office and the Local Fiscal Services Division of the ADE. 632 COST PER STU FY 96/97 6,969 6,297 6,058 5,533 6,490 6,972 5,375 8,426 8,957 7,466 5,919 5,863 5,835 8,045 6,434 6,501 8,023 7,495 6,635 6,769 6,665 6,424 5,559 6,108 9,629 7,260 6,696 6,564 5,534 6,347 5,990 5,973 6,010 6,183 5,665 NIA NIA 6,577 LEA# 6001003 6001007 6001009 6001010 6001011 6001013 6001061 6001062 I SOURCE: LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT COST PER STUDENT FOR JR HIGH PROGRAMS FY 96/97 FUNDING SOURCES I I ENROLLMENT LOCAL \u0026amp; [\n] SCHOOL @ 10/01/96 STATE FEDERAL DESEG MANN JR. HIGH 854 1,378,457 144,914 4,250,402 5,773,773 DUNBAR JR. HIGH 775 3,783,572 139,406 598,579 4,521,557 FOREST HEIGHTS JR. HIGH 630 3,673,542 138,057 524,614 4,336,213 PULASKI HEIGHTS JR. HIGH 785 4,047,773 133,206 512,955 4,693,934 SOUTHWEST JR. HIGH 594 3,091,016 138,034 502,914 3,731,964 HENDERSON JR. HIGH 741 4,338,055 166,418 529,464 5,033,937 CLOVERDALE JR. HIGH 639 3,103,929 171,190 550,342 3,825,461 MABELVALE JR. HIGH 468 2,990,976 100,085 287,413 3,378,474 TOTAL BUDGET I 5,486 I 26,407,320 1,131,310 7,756,683 35,295,313 See note section for Cost per Student for Total Programs for explanations of the funding categories, expense categories, totals and cost per student category. The Little Rock School District Finance Office and the Local Fiscal Services Division of the ADE. 633 COST PER STU FY 96/97 6,761 5,834 6,883 5,980 6,283 6,793 5,987 7,219 6,434 LEA# 6001001 6001002 6001005 6001063 6001064 N/A I SOURCE: LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT COST PER STUDENT FOR HIGH SCHOOL PROGRAMS FY 96/97 FUNDING SOURCES I ENROLLMENT LOCAL \u0026amp; SCHOOL @10/01/96 STATE FEDERAL DESEG TOTAL CENTRAL HIGH 1,777 8,615,136 301,537 971,579 9,888,252 HALL HIGH 823 5,111,385 139,654 425,680 5,676,719 PARKVIEW HIGH 879 1,418,810 149,157 4,812,493 6,380,460 JA FAIR HIGH 829 4,721,476 140,672 475,841 5,337,989 MCCLELLAN HIGH 926 5,363,665 157,132 591,126 6,111,923 METRO HIGH N/A 1,475,600 76,908 0 1,552,508 TOTAL BUDGET I 5,234 I 26,706,072 965,060 7,276,719 34,947,851 See note section for Cost per Student for Total Programs for explanations of the funding categories, expense categories, totals and cost per student category. The Little Rock School District Finance Office and the Local Fiscal Services Division of the ADE. 634 I COST PER STU FY 96/97 5,565 6,898 7,259 6,439 6,600 N/A 6,677 LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT CYCLE 1 SCHOOL TEACHER \u0026amp; ADMINISTRATOR BUDGET FY 96/97 LEA# SCHOOL TEACHER SALARIES ADMINISTRATOR SALARIES 6001005 PARKVIEW HIGH 2,283,538 228,084 6001023 FAIR PARK ELEM 552,475 50,108 6001024 FOREST PARK ELEM 811,654 59,778 6001030 JEFFERSON ELEM 1,026,676 104,844 6001038 PULASKI HEIGHTS ELEM 773,251 50,841 6001044 WILSON ELEM 888,517 45,990 6001047 TERRY ELEM 982,833 96,083 6001052 BASELINE ELEM 568,672 59,163 6001055 DAVID O'DODD ELEM 543,994 53,307 6001063 JAFAIR HIGH 2,076,618 192,889 TOTAL BUDGET 10,508,228 941,087 Teacher Budget FY 96197 The district's total teacher and school site administrator salary expense for the first quarter of FY 96/97 totaled $6,655,050 or 32.3 percent of the district's total expense for the same time period of $20,609,842. Total district expense for teacher and school site administrator salaries for FY 96/97 is budgeted at $65,272,421 or 41.0 percent of the total budget for FY 96/97 of $159,201,043. Teacher salary budget for each Cycle 1 school for FY 96/97. Administrator Budget TOTAL 2,511,622 602,583 871,432 1,131,520 824,092 934,507 1,078,916 627,835 597,301 2,269,507 11,449,315 FY 96197 School site administrator salary budget for each Cycle 1 school for FY 96/97. Total Category FY 96197 e . SOURCE: The totals in this column represent the total teacher and administrator budget for each Cycle 1 school for fiscal year 1996/1997. The Little Rock School District Finance Office. 635 NLRSD PROGRAM COST FY 95/96 636 F . BUDGET INFORMATION 1. Cost of operating all elementary programs, junior high school programs, and high school programs by funding source (local/regular state/federal and special state desegregation funding). North Little Rock School District (NLRSD) The following is a summary of the NLRSD Program Cost Section of the February 1, 1997 Monitoring Report. Total program expense for the district is separated by funding source and expense category within the funding source. Total program expense is actual for FY 95/96 and budgeted for FY 96/97. Separate schedules indicate the total program expense for the Cycle 1 schools. The programs funded by the Cycle l schools are also included. Teacher expense and school administrator expense are also presented for the Cycle 1 schools. Cost per student information is presented for the: district~ elementary school programs~ junior high school programs\nhigh school programs\nand Cycle 1 school programs. Total Operating Expenses The district's total operating expenses for FY 95/96 were $45,497,622 or an increase of3.6 percent over FY 94/95 expenses of$43,931,450. The district's total operating expenses for FY 96/97 are budgeted at $53,883,330 which is an increase of 18.4 percent. Elementary school operating co ts ro e from $22,125,861 in FY 94/95 to $24,007,591 in FY 95/96. Operating co t for elementary chool are budgeted to rise an additional $4,219,077 in FY 96/97 to $28,226,66 . Operating co t for junior high school increa ed from $7,512,8 0 in FY 94/95 to $7,690,795 in FY 95/96. The junior high chool operating co t for FY 96/97 i budget d to increase 21.3 percent to $9,330,107. Operating co t for high chool decrea ed from 14,292,709 in FY 94/95 to 13,799,236 in FY 95/96 The o t for p rating high chool are budg ted to rncrea 18 3 p rcent in FY 96/97 to $16, 26, 55 OUR E The orth Little Ro -k School n,.,trict Finance (Hfice, the Al I~ General 1'i11wu:, ~\\'ect1011, and the Al 1~ Local Fiscal~ 'ervices Sectw11. 637 F . BUDGET INFORMATION (Continued) 1. Cost of operating all elementary programs junior high school programs, and high school programs by funding source (local/regular state/federal and special state desegregation funding). (Continued) orth Little Rock School District (NLRSD) (Continued) Enrollment Total district enrollment as of October 1, 1995 declined by 155 students or 1. 7 percent in FY 95/96 for a total enrollment of 8,802 as compared with total enrollment as of October 1, 1994 of 8,957. Total enrollment for FY 96/97 increased to 8,966 as of October 1, 1996. Enrollment in the district's elementary chools decreased from 4,807 as of October 1, 1994 to 4,789 or 0.4 percent in FY 95/96 as of October 1, 1995 . Elementary school enrollment decreased in FY 96/97 to 4,773 as of October 1, 1996. Junior high school enrollment declined by 27 students from 1,479 in FY 94/95 to 1,452 or 1.8 percent in FY 95/96. Junior high school enrollment in FY 96/97 increased as of October 1, 1996 to 1,476 . Enrollment in the district's high schools declined in FY 95/96 from 2,671 as of October 1, 1994 to 2,561 or 4.1 percent as of October I, l 995. High school enrollment increased in FY 96/97 to 2,717 as of October 1, 1996. Cost per Student Rate The district's cost per student rate increased from $4,905 in FY 94/95 to $5,169 in FY 95/96 resulting in an overall cost per student increase of 5 .4 percent. The cost per student rate is budgeted to increase 16.3 percent in FY 96/97 to $6,010. The elementary cost per student rate increased in FY 95/96 from $4,603 in FY 94/95 to $5,0 I 3 or 8. 9 percent in FY 95/96. The elementary cost per student rate is budgeted to increase an additional 18.0 percent in FY 96/97 to $5,914. The junior high cost per student rate increased 4.3 percent in FY 95/96 from $5,080 in FY 94/95 to $5,297 in FY 95/96. The junior high cost per student rate is budgeted to increase to $6,321 in FY 96/97. SOURCES: The North Little Rock School District Finance q[/ice, the ADE General hnance ,Section, and the ADJ!.\nLocal Fiscal Services Section. 638 F . BUDGET INFORMATION (Continued) 1. Cost of operating all elementary programs, junior high school programs, and high school programs by funding source (local/regular state/federal and special state desegregation funding). (Continued) North Little Rock School District (NLRSD) (Continued) Cost per Student Rate (Continued) The high school cost per student rate increased from $5,351 in FY 94/95 to $5,388 in FY 95/96. The high school cost per student rate is budgeted to increase an additional 11. 5 percent in FY 96/97 to $6,009. Desegregation Expense The district's desegregation costs for FY 95/96 were $2,124,324. The district received desegregation funding from the ADE in FY 95/96 as stipulated in the Settlement Agreement totaling $1,556,119. The district has budgeted $1,603 938 in total desegregation expense for FY 96/97. The district should receive approximately $1,785,092 in FY 96/97 in de egregation funding from the ADE. Of the amount expected to be received by the di trict in FY 96/97, only $1,488,072 of the total amount relates to expen es for FY 96/97 because the district was reimbursed $297,020 in FY 96/97 for desegregation transportation expenses incurred from FY 91/92 through FY 95/96. All of the information received from the LR D has been reconciled for accuracy and reliability with no exceptions noted. The di trict i utilizing the fund received from the ADE in accordance with the ettlement Agreement for desegregation purpo es OURCES: 77,e North Little Rock School District N11a11ce qf(ice, the Al 1~ General Finance Section, and the ADI~ Local Ftscal Sen ices Sec/l(m . 639 LEA# 6002050 6002053 6002054 6002055 6002056 6002057 6002058 6002059 6002060 6002061 6002063 6002064 6002065 6002067 6002069 6002070 6002072 6002075 6002076 002077 e 2078 NIA NIA 11 NORTH LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT TOTAL PROGRAM OPERATING COST LOCAUSTATE SCHOOL PROGRAM DISTRICT TRANS AMBOY ELEMENTARY 1,173,309 491,365 63,047 BELWOOD ELEMENTARY 492,610 141,029 18,095 BOONE PARK ELEM 1,142,858 480,172 61,610 CRESTWOOD ELEMENTARY 694,330 271,985 34,898 GLENVIEW ELEMENTARY 682,952 233,930 30,015 INDIAN HILLS ELEMENTARY 1,245,767 427,566 54,861 LAKEWOOD ELEMENTARY 555,118 250,719 32,170 CENTRAL ELEMENTARY 1,248,444 451,Q70 57,876 LYNCH DRIVE ELEM 1,133,696 486,888 62,472 MEADOW PARK ELEM 646,017 254,077 32,600 N. HEIGHTS ELEMENTARY 1,066,474 445,474 57,158 PARK HILL ELEMENTARY 684,568 322,353 41,361 PIKE VIEW ELEMENTARY 1,103,469 387,271 49,690 REDWOOD ELEMENTARY 785,594 249,600 32,026 SEVENTH STREET ELEM 1,070,799 421,969 54,142 LAKEWOOD MIDDLE SCHOOL 1,723,479 542,852 69,653 RIDGEROAD MIDDLE SCHOOL 1,876,488 674,927 86,599 NLR HIGH SCHOOL-EAST 4,485,842 1,452,828 186,411 NLR HIGH SCHOOL-WEST 4,436,039 1,413,653 181,384 ROSE CITY MIDDLE SCHOOL 1,609,191 407,419 52,275 BARING CROSS CENTER 347,538 44,771 5,745 SECONDARY ALTERNATIVE 411,646 0 0 ELEMENTARY ALTERNATIVE 451,405 0 0 TOTAL PROGRAM EXPENSE 29,067,633 9,851,918 1,264,088 See the note section on the next page for explanations of the categories. The North Little Rock School District Finance Office. FY 95/96 FUNDING SOURCES FEDERAL LEGAL PROGRAM DISTRICT 1,096 98,758 59,468 315 18,525 17,068 1,071 233,131 58,114 607 18,179 32,918 522 62,208 28,312 954 130,893 51,747 559 86,188 30,344 1,006 158,962 54,592 1,086 149,869 58,926 567 74,625 30,750 994 104,452 53,914 719 77,647 39,013 864 58,166 46,870 557 117,011 30,208 942 103,698 51,070 1,211 2,719 65,700 1,506 48,903 81,684 3,241 53,588 175,831 3,154 117,359 171,090 909 105,647 49,309 100 82,916 5,419 0 51,707 0 0 20,181 0 21,980 1,975,332 1,192,347 640 DESEGREGATION PROGRAM DISTRICT TRANS LEGAL TOTAL 66,150 11,611 15,039 4,906 1,984,749 28,085 3,333 4,317 1,408 724,785 65,288 11,347 14,697 4,794 2,073,082 42,479 6,427 8,325 2,716 1,112,864 50,475 5,528 7,160 2,336 1,103,438 60,320 10,104 13,087 4,269 1,999,568 39,915 5,925 7,674 2,503 1,011,115 62,855 10,659 13,806 4,504 2,063,714 69,349 11,506 14,902 4,861 1,993,! 40,605 6,004 7,777 2,537 1,095,5S9 61,311 10,527 13,635 4,448 1,818,387 48,013 7,617 9,866 3,218 1,234,375 72,041 9,152 11,853 3,867 1,743,24:S 37,453 5,898 7,640 2,492 1,268,479 59,868 9,972 12,915 4,213 1,78 I \u0026amp;.\\ 62,183 12,828 16,615 5,420 2,502, 0 77,128 15,949 20,658 6,739 2,090\n56 180,712 34,332 44,467 14,506 6,8 1,158 229,025 33,406 43,268 14,114 6,842,482 46,638 9,628 12,470 4,068 2,291,5 5,094 1,058 1,370 447 49 ,458 61,633 0 0 0 624, 6 24,986 0 0 0 4 ,r 1,491,606 232,811 301,541 98,366 45.4 1,e22 NOTES FOR NLRSD TOTAL PROGRAM OPERATING COST SCHEDULE FOR FY 95/96 Funding Categories Local \u0026amp; State Federal Deseg Expense Categories Local \u0026amp; State Federal Deseg Total Category FY 95196 SOURCE: This category includes funding from local sources, regular state sources, and unrestricted federal sources. This category includes funding from restricted federal sources which must be accounted for separately from the General Fund. This category consists of funding for desegregation purposes. This category consists of expenses incurred relative to regular program expense, district expense, transportation expense and legal expense funded by unrestricted local, state and federal sources. This category consists of expenses incurred relative to federal program expense and district expense funded by restricted federal sources. This category consists of expenses incurred relative to desegregation program expense, district expense, transportation expense and legal expense funded from desegregation sources. The totals in this column represent the total expense for each school site for fiscal year 1995/1996. The North Little Rock School District Finance Office. 641 LEA# SCHOOL 6002053 BELWOOD ELEMENT ARY 6002054 BOONE PARK ELEM 6002056 GLENVIEW ELEMENTARY 6002063 N. HEIGHTS ELEMENTARY 6002064 PARK HILL ELEMENTARY 6002065 PIKE VIEW ELEMENTARY 6002067 REDWOOD ELEMENTARY TOTAL CYCLE 1 PROGRAM EXPENSE NORTH LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT CYCLE 1 SCHOOL PROGRAM OPERATING COST FY 95/96 FUNDING SOURCES LOCAUSTATE FEDERAL PROGRAM DISTRICT TRANS LEGAL PROGRAM DISTRICT PROGRAM 492,610 141,029 18,095 315 18,525 17,068 28,085 1,142,858 480,172 61,610 1,071 233,131 58,114 65,288 682,952 233,930 30,015 522 62,208 28,312 50,475 1,066,474 445,474 57,158 994 104,452 53,914 61,311 684,568 322,353 41,361 719 77,647 39,013 48,013 1,103,469 387,271 49,690 864 58,166 46,870 72,041 785,594 249,600 32,026 557 117,011 30,208 37,453 5,958,525 2,259,829 289,955 5,042 671,140 273,499 362,666 The district's Total Program Expense for the fiscal year was $45,497,622. The programs funded in each of the Cycle 1 schools are indicated on the chart entitled \"Programs in Cycle 1 Schools.\" DESEGREGATION DISTRICT TRANS 3,333 4,317 11,347 14,697 5,528 7,160 10,527 13,635 7,617 9,866 9,152 11,853 5,898 7,640 53,402 69,168 See the note section for Total Program Operating Cost for explanations of the funding categories, expense categories and totals. SOURCE: The North Little Rock School District Finance Office. 642 LEGAL TOTAL 1,408 724,785 4,794 2,073,082 2,336 1,103,438 4,448 1,818,387 3,218 1,234,375 3,867 1,743,243 2,492 1,268,479 22,563 9,965,768 NORTH LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT Programs in Cycle 1 Schools FY 95/96 BELWOOD BOONE PARK GLENVIEW N. HEIGHTS PARK HILL PIKE VIEW REDWOOD PROGRAMS ELEM ELEM ELEM ELEM ELEM ELEM ELEM Four-Year Old X X Kindergarten X X X X X X X Elementary X X X X X X X Elementary Music X X X X X X X Itinerant Instruction X X X X X X X Resource Room X X X X X X X Special Class X X X X X Homebound \u0026amp; Hospital X X X X X X X Gifted \u0026amp; Talented X X X X X X X Guidance Services X X X X X X X Library Services X X X X X X X SOURCE: The North Little Rock School District Finance Office. 643 - NORTH LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DrSTRICT COST PER STUDENT FOR TOTAL PROGRAMS FY 95/96 FUNDING SOURCES ENROLLMENT LOCAL\u0026amp; COST PER STU LEAi SCHOOL @ 10/01/95 STATE FEDERAL DESEG TOTAL FY 95/96 6002050 AMBOY ELEMENTARY 439 1,728,817 158,226 97,706 1,984,749 4,521 6002053 BELWOOD ELEMENTARY 126 652,049 35,593 37,143 724,785 5,752 6002054 BOONE PARK ELEM 429 1,685,711 291,245 96,126 2,073,082 4,832 6002055 CRESTWOOD ELEMENTARY 243 1,001,820 51,097 59,947 1,112,864 4,580 6002056 GLENVIEW ELEMENT ARY 209 947,419 90,520 65,499 1,103,438 5,280 6002057 INDIAN HILLS ELEMENTARY 382 1,729,148 182,640 87,780 1,999,568 5,234 6002058 LAKEWOOD ELEMENTARY 224 838,566 116,532 56,017 1,011,115 4,514 6002059 CENTRAL ELEMENTARY 403 1,758,396 213,554 91,824 2,063,774 5,121 6002060 LYNCH DRIVE ELEM 435 1,684,142 208,795 100,618 1,993,555 4,583 6002061 MEADOW PARK ELEM 227 933,261 105,375 56,923 1,095,559 4,826 6002063 N. HEIGHTS ELEMENTARY 398 1,570,100 158,366 89,921 1,818,387 4,569 6002064 PARK HILL ELEMENTARY 288 1,049,001 116,660 68,714 1,234,375 4,286 6002065 PIKE VIEW ELEMENTARY 346 1,541,294 105,036 96,913 1,743,243 5,038 6002067 REDWOOD ELEMENTARY 223 1,067,777 147,219 53,483 1,268,479 5,688 6002069 SEVENTH STREET ELEM 377 1,547,852 154,768 86,968 1,789,588 4,747 6002070 LAKEWOOD MIDDLE SCHOOL 485 2,337,195 68,419 97,046 2,502,660 5,160 6002072 RIDGEROAD MIDDLE SCHOOL 603 2,639,520 130,587 120,474 2,890,581 4,794 6002075 NLR HIGH SCHOOL-EAST 1,298 6,128,322 229,419 274,017 6,631,758 5,109 6002076 NLR HIGH SCHOOL-WEST 1,263 6,034,230 288,449 319,813 6,642,492 5,259 6002077 ROSE CITY MIDDLE SCHOOL 364 2,069,794 154,956 72,804 2,297,554 6,312 6002078 BARING CROSS CENTER 40 398,154 88,335 7,969 494,458 12,361 NIA SECONDARY Al TERNA TIVE N/A 411,646 51,707 61,633 524,986 N/A NIA ELEMENTARY ALTERNATIVE NIA 451,405 20,181 24,986 496,572 N/A TOTAL EXPENSE 8,802 40,205,619 3,167,679 2,124,324 45,497,622 5,169 Funding Categories Local \u0026amp; State Federal Deseg Expense Categories Local \u0026amp; State Federal Deseg Total Category FY 95196 This category includes funding from local sources, regular state sources, and unrestricted federal sources. This category includes funding from restricted federal sources which must be accounted for separately from the General Fund. This category consists of funding for desegregation purposes. This category consists of expenses incurred relative to regular program expense funded by unrestricted local, state and federal sources. This category consists of expenses funded by restricted federal sources. This category consists of expenses incurred relative to desegregation programs funded from desegregation sources. The totals in this column represent the total expense for each school site for fiscal year 1995/1996. Cost Per Student Category FY 95196 SOURCES: The cost per student figures were calculated by dividing each school's fiscal year 1995/1996 total expense by their enrollment as of October 1, 1995. The North Little Rock School District Finance Office and the Local Fiscal Services Division of the ADE. 644 - LEA# 6002053 6002054 6002056 6002063 6002064 6002065 6002067 SOURCES: - NORTH LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT COST PER STUDENT FOR CYCLE 1 SCHOOL PROGRAMS FY 95/96 FUNDING SOURCES ENROLLMENT LOCAL \u0026amp; SCHOOL @ 10/01/95 STATE FEDERAL DESEG TOTAL BELWOOD ELEMENTARY 126 652,049 35,593 37,143 724,785 BOONE PARK ELEM 429 1,685,711 291,245 96,126 2,073,082 GLENVIEW ELEMENTARY 209 947,419 90,520 65,499 1,103,438 N. HEIGHTS ELEMENTARY 398 1,570,100 158,366 89,921 1,818,387 PARK HILL ELEMENTARY 288 1,049,001 116,660 68,714 1,234,375 PIKE VIEW ELEMENTARY 346 1,541,294 105,036 96,913 1,743,243 REDWOOD ELEMENTARY 223 1,067,777 147,219 53,483 1,268,479 TOT AL EXPENSE 2,019 8,513,351 944,639 507,799 9,965,789 See the note section for Cost Per Student for Total Programs for explanations of the funding categories, expense categories, totals and cost per student category. The North Little Rock School District Finance Office and the Local Fiscal Services Division of the ADE. 645 - COST PER STU FY 95/96 5,752 4,832 5,280 4,569 4,286 5,038 5,688 4,936 NORTH LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT COST PER STUDENT BY PROGRAM FY 95/96 PERCENT AVG COST DISTRICT VARIANCE PROGRAM OF PER STUDENT AVG COST OVER DIST AVG/ SCHOOL PROGRAM COST TOTAL COST BY PROGRAM PER STUDENT (UNDER DIST AVG) ELEMENTARY PROGRAMS 24,007,591 52.8% 5,013 5,169 (156) JR. HIGH PROGRAMS 7,690,795 16.9% 5,297 5,169 128 HIGH SCHOOL PROGRAMS 13,799,236 30.3% 5,388 5,169 219 NLRSD PROGRAM COST NLRSD COST PER STU 25000000 20000000 15000000 10000000 5000000 0 PROGRAM COST FY 95/96 PERCENT OF TOTAL COST AVG COST PER STUDENT BY PROGRAM DISTRICT AVG COST PER STU VARIANCE SOURCE: 5400 5200 5000 4800 FY 95/96 Program costs consist of the total cost for FY 95/96 for the indicated category of school programs. The percentage of program cost to the total district cost of $45,497,622 for FY 95/96. The total program cost for FY 95/96 to the total number of students in the program category. The total cost for FY 95/96 of $45,497,622 to the total enrollment at October 1, 1995 of 8,802. The difference between the cost per student by program and the district average cost per student. A positive variance indicates the cost per student by program is greater than the district cost per student, and a negative variance indicates the cost per student by program is less than the district cost per student. The North Little Rock School District Finance Office. 646 LEA# 6002050 6002053 6002054 6002055 6002056 6002057 6002058 6002059 6002060 6002061 6002063 6002064 6002065 6002067 6002069 6002078 N/A SOURCES: NORTH LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT COST PER STUDENT FOR ELEMENTARY PROGRAMS FY 95/96 FUNDING SOURCES ENROLLMENT LOCAL \u0026amp; SCHOOL @ 10/01/95 STATE FEDERAL DESEG TOTAL AMBOY ELEMENTARY 439 1,728,817 158,226 97,706 1,984,749 BELWOOD ELEMENTARY 126 652,049 35,593 37,143 724,785 BOONE PARK ELEM 429 1,685,711 291,245 96,126 2,073,082 CRESTWOOD ELEMENTARY 243 1,001,820 51,097 59,947 1,112,864 GLENVIEW ELEMENTARY 209 947,419 90,520 65,499 1,103,438 INDIAN HILLS ELEMENTARY 382 1,729,148 182,640 87,780 1,999,568 LAKEWOOD ELEMENTARY 224 838,566 116,532 56,017 1,011,115 CENTRAL ELEMENTARY 403 1,758,396 213,554 91,824 2,063,774 LYNCH DRIVE ELEM 435 1,684,142 208,795 100,618 1,993,555 MEADOW PARK ELEM 227 933,261 105,375 56,923 1,095,559 N. HEIGHTS ELEMENTARY 398 1,570,100 158,366 89,921 1,818,387 PARK HILL ELEMENTARY 288 1,049,001 116,660 68,714 1,234,375 PIKE VIEW ELEMENTARY 346 1,541,294 105,036 96,913 1,743,243 REDWOOD ELEMENTARY 223 1,067,777 147,219 53,483 1,268,479 SEVENTH STREET ELEM 377 1,547,852 154,768 86,968 1,789,588 BARING CROSS CENTER 40 398,154 88,335 7,969 494,458 ELEMENTARY ALTERNATIVE NIA 451,405 20,181 24,986 496,572 TOTAL EXPENSE 4,789 20,584,912 2,244,142 1,178,537 24,007,591 See the note section for Cost Per Student for Total Programs for explanations of the funding categories, expense categories, totals and cost per student category. The North Little Rock School District Finance Office and the Local Fiscal Services Division of the ADE. 647 COST PER STU FY 95/96 4,521 5,752 4,832 4,580 5,280 5,234 4,514 5,121 4,583 4,826 4,569 4,286 5,038 5,688 4,747 12,361 NIA 5,013 LEA# 6002070 6002072 6002077 I SOURCES: NORTH LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT COST PER STUDENT FOR JR HIGH PROGRAMS FY 95/96 FUNDING SOURCES ENROLLMENT LOCAL \u0026amp; SCHOOL @ 10/01/95 STATE FEDERAL DESEG TOTAL LAKEWOOD MIDDLE SCHOOL 485 2,337,195 68,419 97,046 2,502,660 RIDGEROAD MIDDLE SCHOOL 603 2,639,520 130,587 120,474 2,890,581 ROSE CITY MIDDLE SCHOOL 364 2,069,794 154,956 72,804 2,297,554 TOT AL EXPENSE I 1,452 I 7,046,509 353,962 290,324 7,690,795 See the note section for Cost Per Student for Total Programs for explanations of the funding categories, expense categories, totals and cost per student category. The North Little Rock School District Finance Office and the Local Fiscal Services Division of the ADE. 648 COST PER STU FY 95/96 5,160 4,794 6,312 5,297 - I LEA# 6002075 6002076 NIA I SOURCES: - NORTH LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT COST PER STUDENT FOR HIGH SCHOOL PROGRAMS FY 95/96 I FUNDING SOURCES ENROLLMENT LOCAL \u0026amp; [\nJ SCHOOL @ 10101195 STATE FEDERAL DESEG NLR HIGH SCHOOL-EAST 1,298 6,128,322 229,419 274,017 6,631,758 NLR HIGH SCHOOL-WEST 1,263 6,034,230 288,449 319,813 6,642,492 SECONDARY ALTERNATIVE NIA 411,646 51,707 61,633 524,986 TOT AL EXPENSE I 2,561 II 12,574,198 I 569,575 I 655,463 I 13,799,236 See the note section for Cost Per Student for Total Programs for explanations of the funding categories, expense categories, totals and cost per student category. The North Little Rock School District Finance Office and the Local Fiscal Services Division of the ADE. 649 - COST PER STU FY 95196 5,109 5,259 NIA 5,388 I NORTH LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT CYCLE 1 SCHOOL TEACHER \u0026amp; ADMINISTRATOR EXPENSE FY 95/96 TEACHER ADMINISTRATOR [\n] LEA# SCHOOL SALARIES SALARIES 6002053 6002054 6002056 6002063 6002064 6002065 6002067 BELWOOD ELEMENTARY 172,649 45,194 BOONE PARK ELEM 769,643 81 ,814 GLENVIEW ELEMENT ARY 472,253 45,261 N. HEIGHTS ELEMENTARY 619,285 81 ,621 PARK HILL ELEMENTARY 467,983 44,101 PIKE VIEW ELEMENTARY 771,728 45,397 REDWOOD ELEMENT ARY 478,999 48,828 TOTAL II 3,752,540 I 392,216 Total district expense for teacher and school site administrator salaries for FY 95/96 was $20,715,738 or 45.5 percent of total expense for FY 95/96 of $45,497,622. Teacher Expense II FY95/96 Teacher salary expense for each Cycle 1 school for FY 95/96. Administrator Expense 217,843 851,457 517,514 700,906 512,084 817,125 527,827 4,144,756 FY95/96 Administrator salary expense for each Cycle 1 school for FY 95/96. Total Category FY95/96 The totals in this column represent the total teacher and administrator salary expense for each Cycle 1 school for FY 95/96. SOURCE: The North Little Rock School District Finance Office. 650 I NLRSD PROGRAM COST FY 96/97 651 LEA# 6002050 6002053 6002054 6002055 6002056 6002057 6002058 6002059 6002060 6002061 6002063 6002064 6002065 6002067 6002069 6002070 6002072 6002075 6002076 6002077 NIA NORTH LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT TOTAL PROGRAM OPERATING BUDGET FY 96/97 FUNDING SOURCES LOCAUSTATE FEDERAL DESEGREGATION SCHOOL PROGRAM DISTRICT TRANS LEGAL PROGRAM DISTRICT PROGRAM DISTRICT TRANS AMBOY ELEMENT ARY 1,309,154 561,443 69,775 1,401 113,250 56,384 31,989 13,836 14,787 BELWOOD ELEMENTARY 684,749 256,481 31,875 640 97,256 25,758 16,732 6,321 6,755 BOONE PARK ELEM 1,594,213 871,097 108,259 2,174 175,448 87,481 38,954 21,467 22,943 CRESTWOOD ELEMENTARY 729,529 406,616 50,534 1,015 55,533 40,835 17,826 10,021 10,710 GLENVIEW ELEMENTARY 890,806 292,451 36,345 730 65,726 29,370 21,767 7,207 7,703 INDIAN HILLS ELEMENT ARY 1,375,541 592,721 73,662 1,479 125,284 59,525 33,611 14,607 15,611 LAKEWOOD ELEMENT ARY 674,180 331,549 41,204 828 82,671 33,296 16,473 8,171 8,732 CENTRAL ELEMENTARY 1,303,396 547,368 68,026 1,366 194,355 54,970 31,848 13,489 14,417 LYNCH DRIVE ELEM 1,368,755 691,247 85,907 1,725 135,678 69,420 33,445 17,035 18,206 MEADOW PARK ELEM 767,739 331,549 41,204 828 69,474 33,296 18,759 8,171 8,732 N. HEIGHTS ELEMENTARY 1,146,905 720,962 89,600 1,800 117,670 72,404 28,024 17,767 18,989 PARK HILL ELEMENTARY 844,885 441,022 54,810 1,101 74,142 44,290 20,645 10,868 11,616 PIKE VIEW ELEMENTARY 1,178,378 588,030 73,079 1,468 73,553 59,054 28,793 14,491 15,488 REDWOOD ELEMENTARY 872,657 320,601 39,844 800 78,042 32,197 21,323 7,901 8,444 SEVENTH STREET ELEM 1,163,805 511,398 63,556 1,277 104,156 51,358 28,437 12,603 13,469 LAKEWOOD MIDDLE SCHOOL 1,876,012 792,901 98,541 1,979 132,555 79,628 45,840 19,540 20,883 RIDGEROAD MIDDLE SCHOOL 2,086,635 946,164 117,588 2,362 61,083 95,020 50,986 23,317 24,920 NLR HIGH SCHOOL-EAST 5,242,253 2,144,118 266,467 5,352 21,916 215,327 128,093 52,839 56,472 NLR HIGH SCHOOL-WEST 5,207,064 2,105,020 261,608 5,254 143,064 211,400 127,233 51,876 55,442 ROSE CITY MIDDLE SCHOOL 1,914,800 569,263 70,747 1,421 150,949 57,169 46,788 14,029 14,993 ARGENT A ACADEMY 675,436 0 0 0 92,881 0 16,504 0 0 TOTAL PROGRAM BUDGET 32,906,892 14,022,001 1,742,631 35,000 2,164,686 1,408,182 804,070 345,556 369,312 For the first quarter of FY 96/97, the district Incurred expenses totaling $7,000,164 or 13.0 percent of their total FY 96/97 budget. See the note section on the next page for explanations of the categories. The North Little Rock School District Finance Office. 652 LEGAL TOTAL 3,403 2,175,422 1,555 1,128,122 5,281 2,927,317 2,465 1,325,084 1,773 1,353,878 3,593 2,295,634 2,010 1,199,114 3,318 2,232,553 4,190 2,425,608 2,010 1,281,762 4,370 2,218,481 2,673 1,506,052 3,565 2,035,888 1,943 1,383,752 3,100 1,953,1~9 4,807 3,072,686 5,736 3,41 l 11 12,997 8,145,834 12,760 8,180\n121 3,451 2,843,810 0 784,821 I 85,000 53,6 3,3 D I NOTES FOR NLRSD TOT AL PROGRAM OPERA TING BUDGET SCHEDULE FOR FY 96/97 Funding Categories Local \u0026amp; State Federal Deseg Expense Categories Local \u0026amp; State Federal Deseg Total Category FY 96197 SOURCE: This category includes funding from local sources, regular state sources, and unrestricted federal sources. This category includes funding from restricted federal sources which must be accounted for separately from the General Fund. This category consists of funding for desegregation purposes. This category consists of budgeted expenses relative to regular program expense, district expense, transportation expense and legal expense funded by unrestricted local, state and federal sources. This category consists of budgeted expenses relative to federal program expense and district expense funded by restricted federal sources. This category consists of budgeted expenses relative to desegregation program expense, district expense, transportation expense and legal expense funded from desegregation sources. The totals in this column represent the total budget for each school site for fiscal year 1996/1997. The North Little Rock School District Finance Office. 653 NORTH LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT CYCLE 1 SCHOOL PROGRAM OPERATING BUDGET FY 96/97 FUNDING SOURCES LOCAUSTATE FEDERAL DESEGREGATION LEA# SCHOOL PROGRAM DISTRICT TRANS LEGAL PROGRAM DISTRICT PROGRAM DISTRICT TRANS 6002053 BELWOOD ELEMENTARY 684,749 256.481 31,875 640 97,256 25,758 16,732 6,321 6,755 6002054 BOONE PARK ELEM 1,594,213 871,097 108,259 2,174 175,448 87,481 38,954 21,467 22,943 6002056 GLENVIEW ELEMENT ARY 890,806 292,451 36,345 730 65,726 29,370 21,767 7,207 7,703 6002063 N HEIGHTS ELEMENT ARY 1,146,905 720,962 89,600 1,800 117,670 72.404 28,024 17,767 18,989 6002064 PARK HILL ELEMENTARY 844,885 441,022 54,810 1,101 74,142 44,290 20,645 10,868 11,616 6002065 PIKE VIEW ELEMENTARY 1,178,378 588,030 73,079 1.468 73,553 59,054 28,793 14,491 15,488 6002067 REDWOOD ELEMENT ARY 872,657 320,601 39,844 800 78,042 32,197 21,323 7,901 8.444 TOT AL CYCLE 1 PROGRAM BUDGET 7,212,593 3,490,644 433,812 8,713 681,837 350,554 176,238 86,022 91,938 SOURCE: The district's Total Program Expense for the first quarter of FY 96/97 was $7,000,163, with the Total Program Budget for FY 96/97 budgeted at $53,883,330. The programs funded in each of the Cycle 1 schools are indicated on the chart entitled \"Programs in Cycle 1 Schools.\" See the note section for Total Program Operating Budget for explanations of the funding categories, expense categories and totals. The North Little Rock School District Finance Office. 654 LEGAL TOTAL 1,555 1,128,122 5,281 2,927,317 1,773 1,353,878 4,370 2,218,491 2,673 1,506,052 3,565 2,035,899 1,943 1,383,752 21,160 12,553,511 NORTH LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT Programs in Cycle 1 Schools FY 96/97 BELWOOD BOONE PARK GLENVIEW N. HEIGHTS PARK HILL PIKE VIEW REDWOOD PROGRAMS ELEM ELEM ELEM ELEM ELEM ELEM ELEM Four-Year Old X X Kindergarten X X X X X X X Elementary X X X X X X X Elementary Music X X X X X X X Itinerant Instruction X X X X X X X Resource Room X X X X X X X Special Class X X X X X Homebound \u0026amp; Hospital X X X X X X X Gifted \u0026amp; Talented X X X X X X X Guidance Services X X X X X X X Library Services X X X X X X X SOURCE: The North Little Rock School District Finance Office. 655 NORTH LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL sTRrc COST PER STUDENT FOR TOTAL PROGRAMS FY 96/97 FUNDING SOURCES ENROLLMENT LOCAL\u0026amp; COST PER STU LEA# 6002050 6002053 6002054 6002055 6002056 6002057 6002058 6002059 6002060 6002061 6002063 6002064 6002065 6002067 6002069 6002070 6002072 6002075 6002076 6002077 NIA SCHOOL @ 10/01/96 STATE FEDERAL DESEG TOTAL AMBOY ELEMENTARY 359 1,941,773 169,634 64,015 2,175,422 BELWOOD ELEMENTARY 164 973,745 123,014 31,363 1,128,122 BOONE PARK ELEM 557 2,575,743 262,929 88,645 2,927,317 CRESlWOOO ELEMENTARY 260 1,187,694 96,368 41,022 1,325,084 GLEtMEW ELEMENTARY 187 1,220,332 95,096 38,450 1,353,878 INDIAN HILLS ELEMENT ARY 379 2,043,403 184,809 67,422 2,295,634 LAKEWOOD ELEMENTARY 212 1,047,761 115,967 35,386 1,199,114 CENTRAL ELEMENTARY 350 1,920,156 249,325 63,072 2,232,553 LYNCH DRIVE ELEM 442 2,147,634 205,098 72,876 2,425,608 MEADOW PARK ELEM 212 1,141,320 102,770 37,672 1,281 ,762 N. HEIGHTS ELEMENTARY 461 1,959,267 190,074 69,150 2,218,491 PARK HILL ELEMENTARY 282 1,341 ,818 118,432 45,802 1,506,052 PIKE VIEW ELEMENTARY 376 1,840,955 132,607 62,337 2,035,899 REDWOOD ELEMENTARY 205 1,233,902 110,239 39,611 1,383,752 SEVENTH STREET ELEM 327 1,740,036 155,514 57,609 1,953,159 LAKEWOOD MIDDLE SCHOOL 507 2,769,433 212,183 91 ,070 3,072,686 RIDGEROAD MIDDLE SCHOOL 605 3,152,749 156,103 104,959 3,413,811 NLR HIGH SCHOOL-EAST 1,371 7,658,190 237 ,243 250,401 8,145,834 NLR HIGH SCHOOL-WEST 1 346 7 578,946 354 464 247,311 8,180,721 ROSE CITY MIDDLE SCHOOL 364 2,556,231 208,118 79,261 2,843,610 ARGENTA ACADEMY N/A 675,436 92,881 16,504 784,821 TOTAL BUDGET 8,966 48,706,524 3,572,868 1,603,938 53,883,330 For the first quarter of FY 96/97, the district incurred expenses totaling $7,000,164 or 13.0 percent of their total budget for the fiscal year. Funding Categories Local \u0026amp; State Federal Deseg This category includes funding from local sources, regular state sources, and unrestricted federal sources. This category includes funding from restricted federal sources which must be accounted for separately from the General Fund. This category consists of funding for desegregation purposes. Expense Categories Local \u0026amp; State Federal Deseg Total Category FY 96197 This category consists of budgeted expenses relative to regular programs funded by unrestricted local, state and federal sources. This category consists of budgeted expenses funded by restricted federal sources. This category consists of budgeted expenses relative to desegregation programs funded f ram desegregation sources. The totals in this column represent the total budget for each school site for fiscal year 1996/1997. Cost Per Student Category FY96197 SOURCE: The cost per student figures were calculated by dividing each school's FY 96/97 total budget by their enrollment as of October 1 , 1996. The North Little Rock School District Finance Office and the Local Fiscal Serwces Division of the 656 FY 96/97 6,060 6,879 5,256 5,096 7,240 6,057 5,656 6,379 5,488 6,046 4,812 5,341 5,415 6,750 5,973 6,061 5,643 5,942 6,078 7,812 NIA 6,010 LEA# 6002053 6002054 6002056 6002063 6002064 6002065 6002067 I SOURCE: NORTH LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT COST PER STUDENT FOR CYCLE 1 SCHOOL PROGRAMS FY 96/97 FUNDING SOURCES I ENROLLMENT LOCAL \u0026amp; SCHOOL @ 10/01/96 STATE FEDERAL DESEG TOTAL BELWOOD ELEMENTARY 164 973,745 123,014 31,363 1,128,122 BOONE PARK ELEM 557 2,575,743 262,929 88,645 2,927,317 GLENVIEW ELEMENTARY 187 1,220,332 95,096 38,450 1,353,878 N. HEIGHTS ELEMENTARY 461 1,959,267 190,074 69,150 2,218,491 PARK HILL ELEMENTARY 282 1,341,818 118,432 45,802 1,506,052 PIKE VIEW ELEMENTARY 376 1,840,955 132,607 62,337 2,035,899 REDWOOD ELEMENTARY 205 1,233,902 110,239 39,611 1,383,752 TOT AL BUDGET I 2,232 II 11 ,145,762 I 1,032,391 I 375,358 I 12,553,511 See the note section for Cost per Student for Total Programs for explanations of the funding categories, expense categories, totals and cost per student category. The North Little Rock School District Finance Office and the Local Fiscal Services Division of the ADE. 657 I COST PER STU FY 96/97 6,879 5,256 7,240 4,812 5,341 5,415 6,750 5,624 NORTH LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT COST PER STUDENT BY PROGRAM FY 96/97 PERCENT AVG COST DISTRICT VARIANCE PROGRAM OF PER STUDENT AVG COST OVER DIST AVG/ SCHOOL PROGRAM BUDGET TOTAL BUDGET BY PROGRAM PER STUDENT (UNDER DIST AVG) ELEMENTARY PROGRAMS 28,226,668 52.4% 5,914 6,010 (96) JR. HIGH PROGRAMS 9,330,107 17.3% 6,321 6,010 311 HIGH SCHOOL PROGRAMS 16,326,555 30.3% 6,009 6,010 (1) NLRSD PROGRAM COST FY 96/97 NLRSD COST PER STU FY 96/97 30000000 20000000 10000000 0 PROGRAM COST PERCENT OF TOTAL COST AVG COST PER STUDENT BY PROGRAM DISTRICT AVG COST PER STU VARIANCE SOURCE: 6400 6200 6000 5800 5600 Program costs consist of the total budget for FY 00/97 for the indicated category of school programs. The percentage of program budget to the total district budget of $53,883,330 for FY 96/97. The total program budget for FY 00/97 to the total number of students in the program category. The total budget for FY 96/97 of $53,883,330 to the total enrollment at October 1, 1996 of 8,966. The difference between the cost per student by program and the district average cost per student. A positive variance indicates the cost per student by program is greater than the district cost per student, and a negative variance indicates the cost per student by program is less than the district cost per student. The North Little Rock School District Finance Office. 658 I LEA# 6002050 6002053 6002054 6002055 6002056 6002057 6002058 6002059 6002060 6002061 6002063 6002064 6002065 6002067 6002069 NIA SOURCE: NORTH LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT COST PER STUDENT FOR ELEMENTARY PROGRAMS FY 96/97 I FUNDING SOURCES ENROLLMENT LOCAL \u0026amp; SCHOOL @ 10101196 STATE FEDERAL DESEG TOTAL AMBOY ELEMENT ARY 359 1,941,773 169,634 64,015 2,175,422 BELWOOD ELEMENTARY 164 973,745 123,014 31,363 1,128,122 BOONE PARK ELEM 557 2,575,743 262,929 88,645 2,927,317 CRESTWOOD ELEMENTARY 260 1,187,694 96,368 41,022 1,325,084 GLENVIEW ELEMENT ARY 187 1,220,332 95,096 38,450 1,353,878 INDIAN HILLS ELEMENTARY 379 2,043,403 184,809 67,422 2,295,634 LAKEWOOD ELEMENTARY 212 1,047,761 115,967 35,386 1,199,114 CENTRAL ELEMENTARY 350 1,920,156 249,325 63,072 2,232,553 LYNCH DRIVE ELEM 442 2,147,634 205,098 72,876 2,425,608 MEADOW PARK ELEM 212 1,141,320 102,770 37,672 1,281,762 N HEIGHTS ELEMENTARY 461 1,959,267 190,074 69,150 2,218,491 PARK HILL ELEMENTARY 282 1,341,818 118,432 45,802 1,506,052 PIKE VIEW ELEMENTARY 376 1,840,955 132,607 62,337 2,035,899 REDWOOD ELEMENTARY 205 1,233,902 110,239 39,611 1,383,752 SEVENTH STREET ELEM 327 1,740,036 155,514 57,609 1,953,159 ARGENTA ACADEMY NIA 675,436 92,881 16,504 784,821 TOTAL BUDGET 4,773 24,990,975 2,404,757 830,936 28,226,668 See the note section for Cost per Student for Total Programs for explanations of the funding categories, expense categories, totals and cost per student category. The North Little Rock School District Finance Office and the Local Fiscal Services Division of the ADE. 659 COST PER STU FY 96/97 6,060 6,879 5,256 5,096 7,240 6,057 5,656 6,379 5,488 6,046 4,812 5,341 5,415 6,750 5,973 NIA 5,914 LEA# 6002070 6002072 6002077 I SOURCE: NORTH LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT COST PER STUDENT FOR JR HIGH PROGRAMS FY 96/97 FUNDING SOURCES ENROLLMENT LOCAL \u0026amp; SCHOOL @ 10/01/96 STATE FEDERAL DESEG TOTAL LAKEWOOD MIDDLE SCHOOL 507 2,769,433 212,183 91,070 3,072,686 RIDGEROAD MIDDLE SCHOOL 605 3,152,749 156,103 104,959 3,413,811 ROSE CITY MIDDLE SCHOOL 364 2,556,231 208,118 79,261 2,843,610 TOTAL BUDGET I 1,476 I 8,478,413 576,404 275,290 9,330,107 See the note section for Cost per Student for Total Programs for explanations of the funding categories, expense categories, totals and cost per student category. The North Little Rock School District Finance Office and the Local Fiscal Services Division of the ADE. 660 COST PER STU FY 96/97 6,061 5,643 7,812 6,321 LEA# 6002075 6002076 I OURCE: NORTH LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT COST PER STUDENT FOR HIGH SCHOOL PROGRAMS FY 96/97 FUNDING SOURCES ENROLLMENT LOCAL \u0026amp; SCHOOL @ 10/01/96 STATE FEDERAL DESEG TOTAL NLR HIGH SCHOOL-EAST 1,371 7,658,190 237,243 250,401 8,145,834 NLR HIGH SCHOOL-WEST 1,346 7,578,946 354,464 247,311 8,180,721 TOTAL BUDGET I 2,717 I 15,237,136 591,707 497,712 16,326,555 See the note section for Cost per Student for Total Programs for explanations of the funding categories, expense categories, totals and cost per student category. The North Little Rock School District Finance Office and the Local Fiscal Services Division of the ADE. 661 COST PER STU FY 96/97 5,942 6,078 6,009 NORTH LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT CYCLE 1 SCHOOL TEACHER \u0026amp; ADMINISTRATOR BUDGET FY 96/97 LEA# SCHOOL TEACHER SALARIES ADMINISTRATOR SALARIES 6002053 BELWOOD ELEMENTARY 374,255 45,194 6002054 BOONE PARK ELEM 939,459 96,460 6002056 GLENVIEW ELEMENTARY 460,090 44,966 6002063 N. HEIGHTS ELEMENTARY 656,954 85,575 6002064 PARK HILL ELEMENTARY 556,328 44,101 6002065 PIKE VIEW ELEMENTARY 744,339 45,397 6002067 REDWOOD ELEMENTARY 467,337 48,828 TOTAL BUDGET 4,198,762 410,521 Teacher Budget FY 96197 The district's total teacher and school site administrator salary expense for the first quarter of FY 96/97 was $2,542,867 or 36.3 percent of the district's total expense for the same period of $7,000,164. The district's teacher and school site administrator budget for FY 96/97 totaled $22,450,193 or 41. 7 percent of the district's total budget for FY 96/97 of $53,883,330. Teacher salary budget for each Cycle 1 school for FY 96/97. Administrator Budget FY 96197 Total Category FY 96197 SOURCE: School site administrator budget for each Cycle 1 school for FY 96/97. The totals represent the total teacher and school site administrator salary budget for each Cycle 1 school for FY 96/97. The North Little Rock School District Finance Office. 662 TOTAL 419,449 1,035,919 505,056 742,529 600,429 789,736 516,165 4,609,283 PCSSD PROGRAM COST FY 95/96 663 F . BUDGET INFORMATION 1. Cost of operating all elementary programs, junior high school programs, and high school programs by funding source (local/regular state/federal and special state desegregation funding). Pulaski County Special School District (PCSSD) The following is a summary of the PCS SD Program Cost Section of the February 1, 1997 Monitoring Report. Total program expense for the district is separated by funding source and expense category within the funding source. Total program expense is actual for FY 95/96 and budgeted for FY 96/97. Separate schedules indicate the total program expen e for the Cycle 1 schools. The programs funded by the Cycle l schools are al o included. Teacher expense and school administrator expen e are presented for the Cycle I school . Cost per student information is presented for the: district~ elementary school programs\njunior high school programs~ high school programs~ and Cycle l school programs. Total Operating Expenses The district's total operating expenses for FY 95/96 were $99,828,066 which was an increase of $3,898,714 or 4.1 percent over FY 94/95 expenses of $95,929,352. The district's total operating expenses for FY 96/97 are budgeted at $112,075,972 resulting in an increase of $12,247,906 for the current fiscal year. Elementary school operating costs rose from $52,941,073 in FY 94/95 to $54, I 03,532 in FY 95/96. Elementary school operating costs are budgeted to increase in FY 96/97 to $62,022,138 or 14.6 percent. Operating costs for junior high schools increased 4.5 percent in FY 95/96 over the operating cost for FY 94/95 of $20,285,3 8 l . The district has budgeted junior high operating costs to increase $2,797,739 in FY 96/97 to $23,991,552 . Operating costs for high schools increased from $22,702,898 in FY 94/96 to $24,530,721 in FY 95/97. The cost of operating the district's high schools is budgeted to increase 6.2 percent in FY 96/97 to $26,062,282. SOURCES: The Pulaski County ~\\JJecial School District Finance qf[ice, the ADE General Finance Section, and the A/JI~ Local Fiscal Services Section. 664 F. BUDGET INFORMATION (Continued) 1. Cost of operating all elementary programs, junior high school programs, and high school programs by funding source (local/regular state/federal and special state desegregation funding). (Continued) Pulaski County Special School District (PCSSD) (Continued) Enrollment Total district enrollment as of October I, 1995 declined by 67 students or 0.3 percent in FY 95/96 for a total enrollment of 20,285 as compared with total enrollment as of October I, 1994 of 20,352. Enrollment declined in FY 96/97 to 20,047 as of October 1, 1996 resulting in a decrease in enrollment of 1.2 percent. Enrollment in the district's elementary schools decreased from 11,476 in FY 94/95 to 11,313 or 1.4 percent in FY 95/96. Elementary enrollment decreased an additional 2. 5 percent in FY 96/97 to 11,029 as of October 1, 1996. Junior high school enrollment declined by 27 students from 4,366 in FY 94/95 to 4,339 in FY 95/96. Junior high enrollment further declined in FY 96/97 to 4,249 as of October 1, 1996 . Enrollment in the district's high schools increased from 4,510 in FY 94/95 to 4,633 or 2. 7 percent in FY 95/96. High school enrollment increased an additional 2. 9 percent in FY 96/97 to 4,769 as of October l, I 996. Cost per Student Rate The district's cost per student rate increased from $4,714 in FY 94/95 to $4,921 in FY 95/96 resulting in an overall cost per student increase of 4.4 percent. The district's cost per student rate is budgeted to increase to $5,591 in FY 96/97. The elementary cost per student rate increased from $4,613 in FY 94/95 to $4,782 or 3. 7 percent in FY 95/96. The elementary cost per .. tu dent rate is budgeted to increase in FY 96/97 to $5,624. SOURCES: The Pulaski Co1111ty .\\/H!c:ial School District Finance (!([ice, the ADI~ G,mera! F111a11ce Section and the ADE Local Fisc ,I Services Section. 665 F . BUDGET I FORMATION (Continued) 1. Cost of operating all elementary programs, junior high school programs, and high school programs by funding source (local/regular state/federal and special state desegregation funding). (Continued) Pulaski County Special School District (PCSSD) (Continued) Cost per Student Rate (Continued) The junior high school cost per student rate rose in FY 95/96 to$4,884 from the FY 94/95 junior high cost per student rate of $4,646. The junior high cost per student rate is budgeted to increase an additional 15.6 percent in FY 96/97 to $5,646. The high school cost per student rate increased from $5,034 in FY 94/95 to $5,295 or 5.2 percent in FY 95/96. The high school co t per student rate i budgeted to increase to $5,465 in FY 96/97. Desegregation Expense The district's desegregation costs for FY 95/96 totaled $10,807,566. The district received desegregation funding from the ADE in FY 95/96 as stipulated in the Settlement Agreement totaling $9,529,691. In FY 96/97, the district has budgeted $12,554,647 in total desegregation costs. The ADE's desegregation funding to the district for FY 96/97 should total approximately $6,502,412. All of the information received from the PCS SD has been reconciled for accuracy and reliability with no exceptions noted. The district is utilizing the funds received from the ADE in accordance with the Settlement Agreement for desegregation purposes. SOURCES: The Pulaski County Special School District Finance Office, the ADE General Finance Section, and the ADE Local Fiscal Services Section . 666 LEA# 6003090 6003092 6003093 6003094 6003095 6003099 6003100 6003102 6003103 6003104 6003105 6003106 6003108 6003110 6003111 6003112 6003113 6003116 6003117 6003120 6003122 6003123 e 125 0 3126 003127 1128 00 1 9 'i 31 cl oa 1 00 136 00J137 0031 Ii 0 3140 0 1 .. , 0031 2 31 . 31 SCHOOL HOMER ADKINS ELEM BAKER ELEM CRY ST AL HILL ELEM BAYOU METO ELEM CLINTON ELEM WARREN DUPREE ELEM FULLER ELEM HARRIS ELEM JACKSONVILLE ELEM LANDMARK ELEM LAWSON ELEM TOLLESON ELEM OAK GROVE ELEM ROBINSON ELEM SCOTT ELEM SHERWOOD ELEM SYLVAN HILLS ELEM JACKSONVILLE N. JR. HIGH JACKSONVILLE S. JR. HIGH FULLER JR HIGH SYLVAN HILLS JR. HIGH JACKSONVILLE HIGH WILBUR MILLS HIGH OAK GROVE HIGH ROBINSON HIGH SYLVAN HILLS HIGH CATO ELEM PINEWOOD ELEM COLLEGE STATION ELEM N PULASKI HIGH ARNOLD DRIVE ELEM OAKBROOKE ELEM NORTHWOOD JR HIGH TAYLOR ELEM PINE FOREST ELEM ROBINSON JR HIGH BATES ELEM PROGRAM 974,901 927,176 1,780,513 1,523,076 1,452,638 1,035,756 1,107,476 1,096,278 1,766,632 1,233,319 1,004,504 1,194,529 1,177,956 1,1 5,335 608,781 1,25,227 1,213,016 1,800,333 1,705,891 2,755,634 2,375,053 3,379,584 2,401,907 2,870,890 1,75,859 2,711,067 1,312,641 1,278,582 690,592 2,820,130 958,326 1,394,338 2,662,121 1,228,363 1,216,337 1,517,644 1,593,400 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT TOTAL PROGRAM OPERATING COST LOCAUSTATE DISTRICT 337,107 329,845 761,342 658,654 614,053 479,210 358,888 337,107 780,013 502,030 319,473 564,264 394,155 401,417 141,066 480,247 460,540 658,654 531,073 915,892 889,961 1,035,176 780,013 932,488 374,447 837,062 572,563 600,568 320,511 846,397 394,155 471 ,950 1,019,617 435,645 516,551 485,434 503,067 TRANS 90,034 88,095 203,339 175,913 164,001 127,987 95,852 90,034 208,325 134,082 85,325 150,703 105,271 107,210 37,676 128,264 123,000 175,913 141,838 244,616 237,690 276,474 208,325 249,048 100,007 223,562 152,919 160,399 85,602 226,055 105,271 126,048 272,319 116,352 137,960 129,649 134,359 FY 95/96 FUNDING SOURCES FEDERAL LEGAL PROGRAM DISTRICT 1,786 1,748 4,035 3,490 3,254 2,539 1,902 1,786 4,133 2,660 1,693 2,990 2,089 2,127 748 2,545 2,441 3,490 2,814 4,854 4,716 5,486 4,133 4,941 1,984 4,436 3,034 3,183 1,699 4,485 2,089 2,501 5,403 2,309 2,737 2,572 2,666 116,170 4,577 120,122 94,736 143,380 72,090 165,306 104,260 195,040 149,173 43,574 554 116,148 56,635 49,225 1,495 554 1,163 1,257 32,814 1,418 4,157 2,268 28,138 15,290 21,505 102,349 74,685 80,862 33,224 1,503 25,324 27,649 111 ,470 1,267 769 242,770 21,952 21,479 49,577 42,890 39,986 31,205 23,370 21,952 50,793 32,691 20,803 36,744 25,667 26,139 9,186 31,273 29,989 42,890 34,582 59,641 57,953 67,409 50,793 60,722 24,383 54,508 37,284 39,108 20,871 55,116 25,667 30,732 66,395 28,368 33,637 31 ,610 32,759 PROGRAM 4,991 207,954 341,635 3,000 359,775 2,188 125,467 46,745 32,270 153,045 2,418 0 182,152 0 1,960 0 0 29,268 27,751 614,316 47,652 0 713,258 36,967 24 ,188 2,560 2,809 1,256 547,625 0 0 0 34,258 2,642 2,300 76,105 340,774 TO AL PROGRAM EXPENSE 58,635,805 21 ,040,635 5,619,517 111,498 2,242,921 1,370,124 3,967,329 SOURCE: See the note section on the next page for explanations of the categories. The Pulaski County Special School District Finance Office, 667 DESEGREGATION DISTRICT 78,148 76,465 176,494 152,689 142,349 111,090 83,197 78,148 180,822 116,380 74,060 130,807 91,373 93,056 32,702 111,330 106,762 152,689 123,113 212,321 206,310 239,974 180,822 216,169 86,804 194,047 132,731 139,223 74,300 196,211 91,373 109,407 236,367 100,991 119,746 112,533 116,620 4,877,623 TRANS 26,705 26,130 60,313 52,178 48,644 37,962 28,431 26,705 61,792 39,770 25,308 44,700 31,225 31,800 11,175 38,045 36,483 52,178 42,071 72,556 70,502 82,005 61,792 73,871 29,663 66,311 45,358 47,576 25,390 67,050 31,224 37,387 80,773 34,511 40,921 38,455 39,852 1,666,812 LEGAL 4,739 4,637 10,703 9,260 8,633 6,737 5,046 4,739 10,966 7,058 4,491 7,933 5,541 5,643 1,983 6,752 6,475 9,260 7,466 12,876 12,512 14,553 10,966 13,110 5,264 11 ,768 8,049 8,443 4,506 11,899 5,541 6,635 14,334 6,125 7,262 6,825 7,072 295,802 TOTAL 1,656,533 1,688,106 3,508,073 2,715,886 2,976,713 1,906,764 1,994,935 1,807,754 3,290,786 2,370,208 1,581,649 2,133,22 2,131,577 1,869,362 894,502 2,0 s,rn, 1,979,2 2,925,8 2,617.856 4,92 ,620 3,903,? ? 5,104, 1 4.41i4,277 , 2,1 }\n , 12 ,82 2, .1. -t 2, 3, 3 1, 61, , I 7 1.e, ,1 2,20., 'J'l , ~ \"i ,77 ... a7 ,1 2,40 , 01 , - - NOTES FOR PCSSD TOTAL PROGRAM OPERATING COST SCHEDULE FOR FY 95/96 Funding Categories Local \u0026amp; State Federal Deseg This category includes funding from local sources, regular state sources, and unrestricted federal sources. This category includes funding from restricted federal sources which must be accounted for separately from the General Fund. This category consists of funding for desegregation purposes. Expense Categories Local \u0026amp; State Federal Deseg Total Category FY 95/96 SOURCE: This category consists of expenses incurred relative to regular program expense, district expense, transportation expense and legal expense funded by unrestricted local, state and federal sources. This category consists of expenses incurred relative to federal program expense and district expense funded by restricted federal sources. This category consists of expenses incurred relative to desegregation program expense, district expense, transportation expense and legal expense funded from desegregation sources. The totals in this column represent the total expense for each school site for fiscal year 1995/1996. The Pulaski County Special School District Finance Office. 668 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT CYCLE 1 SCHOOL PROGRAM OPERATING COST FY 95/96 FUNDING SOURCES LOCAUSTATE FEDERAL DESEGREGATION LEA# SCHOOL 6003122 SYLVAN HILLS JR. HIGH 6003123 JACKSONVILLE HIGH 6003126 OAK GROVE HIGH 6003128 SYLVAN HILLS HIGH 6003136 N. PULASKI HIGH TOT AL CYCLE 1 PROGRAM EXPENSE PROGRAM DISTRICT TRANS LEGAL PROGRAM DISTRICT PROGRAM DISTRICT 2,375,053 889,961 237,690 4,716 1,418 57,953 47,652 206,310 3,379,584 1,035,176 276,474 5,486 4,157 67,409 a 239,97 2,870,890 932,488 249,048 4,941 28,138 60,722 36,967 216,169 2,711,067 837,062 223,562 4,436 21,505 54,508 2,560 194,047 2,820,130 846,397 226,055 4,485 33,224 55,116 0 196,211 14,156,724 4,541,084 1,212,829 24,064 88,442 295,708 87,179 1,052,711 The district's Total Program Expense for fiscal year 1995/1996 was $99,828,066. The programs funded in each of the Cycle 1 schools are indicated on the chart entitled Programs in Cycle 1 Schools.\" See note section for Total Program Operating Cost for explanations of the funding categories, expense categories and totals. OURCE: The Pu/ask, County Special School District Finance Office. 669 TRANS 70,502 82,005 73,871 66,311 67,050 359,739 LEGAL TOTAL 12,512 3,903,767 14,553 5,104,818 13,110 ,-486,34 11,768 4,126,826 11,899 4,260,567 63,842 21,882,322 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT Programs in Cycle 1 Schools FY 95/96 SLYVAN HILLS JACKSONVILLE OAK GROVE SYLVAN HILLS N. PULASKI PROGRAMS JR. HIGH HIGH HIGH HIGH HIGH Middle/Jr. High X High School X X X X Athletics X X X X X Student Activities X X X X X ROTC X Resource Room X X X X X Special Class X X Marketing/Distributive Ed X X X X Business/Office Occupation X X X X X Trade \u0026amp; Industrial X X X X X Home Economics X X X X X Reading X X Career Orientation X X General Cooperative X Special Needs X X X X Tech Prep-Work Place Reading X X X X Itinerant Instruction X Gifted \u0026amp; Talented X X X X X Guidance Services X X X X X Library Services X X X X X SOURCE: The Pulaski County Special School District Finance Office. 670 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT COST PER STUDENT FOR TOTAL PROGRAMS FY 95/96 FUNDING SOURCES ENROLLMENT LOCAL\u0026amp; COST PER STU LEA# SCHOOL @ 10/01/95 STATE FEDERAL DESEG TOTAL FY 95/96 6003090 HOMER ADKINS ELEM 325 1,403,828 138,122 114,583 1,656,533 5,097 6003092 BAKER ELEM 318 1,346,864 26,056 315,186 1,688,106 5,309 6003093 CRYSTAL Hill ELEM 734 2,749,229 169,699 589,145 3,508,073 4,779 6003094 BAYOU METO ELEM 635 2,361,133 137,626 217,127 2,715,886 4,277 6003095 CLINTON ELEM 592 2,233,946 183,366 559,401 2,976,713 5,028 6003099 WARREN DUPREE ELEM 462 1,645,492 103,295 157,977 1,906,764 4,127 6003100 FULLER ELEM 346 1,564,118 188,676 242,141 1,994,935 5,766 6003102 HARRIS ELEM 325 1,525,205 126,212 156,337 1,807,754 5,562 6003103 JACKSONVILLE ELEM 752 2,759,103 245,833 285,850 3,290,786 4,376 6003104 LANDMARK ELEM 484 1,872,091 181 ,864 316,253 2,370,208 4,897 6003105 LAWSON ELEM 308 1,410,995 64,377 106,277 1,581 ,649 5,135 6003106 TOLLESON ELEM 544 1,912,486 37,298 183,440 2,133,224 3,921 6003108 OAK GROVE ELEM 380 1,679,471 141 ,815 310,291 2,131 ,577 5,609 6003110 ROBINSON ELEM 387 1,656,089 82,774 130,499 1,869,362 4,830 6003111 SCOTT ELEM 136 788,271 58,411 47,820 894,502 6,577 6003112 SHERWOOD ELEM 463 1,856,283 32,768 156,127 2,045,178 4,417 6003113 SYLVAN HILLS ELEM 444 1,798,997 30,543 149,720 1,979,260 4,458 6003116 JACKSONVILLE N. JR. HIGH 635 2,638,390 44,053 243,395 2,925,838 4,608 6003117 JACKSONVILLE S. JR. HIGH 512 2,381 ,616 35,839 200,401 2,617,856 5,113 6003120 FULLER JR. HIGH 883 3,920,996 92,455 912,069 4,925,520 5,578 6003122 SYLVAN HILLS JR. HIGH 858 3,507,420 59,371 336,976 3,903,767 4,550 6003123 JACKSONVILLE HIGH 998 4,696,720 71 ,566 336,532 5,104,818 5,115 6003125 WILBUR MILLS HIGH 752 3,394,378 53,061 966,838 4,414,277 5,870 6003126 OAK GROVE HIGH 899 4,057,367 88,860 340,117 4,486,344 4,990 6003127 ROBINSON HIGH 361 1,952,297 39,673 145,919 2,137,889 5,922 6003128 SYLVAN HILLS HIGH 807 3,776,127 76,013 274,686 4,126,826 5,114 6003129 CATO ELEM 552 2,041 ,157 139,633 188,947 2,369,737 4,293 6003130 PINEWOOD ELEM 579 2,042,732 113,793 196,498 2,353,023 4,064 6003135 COLLEGE STATION ELEM 309 1,098,404 101 ,733 651 ,821 1,851 ,958 5,993 6003136 N. PULASKI HIGH 816 3,897,067 88,340 275,160 4,260,567 5,221 6003137 ARNOLD DRIVE ELEM 380 1,459,841 27,170 128,138 1,615,149 4,250 6003139 OAKBROOKE ELEM 455 1,994,837 56,056 153,429 2,204,322 4,845 6003140 NORTHWOOD JR. HIGH 983 3,959,460 94,044 365,732 4,419,236 4,496 6003141 TAYLOR ELEM 420 1,782,669 139,838 144,269 2,066,776 4,921 6003142 PINE FOREST ELEM 498 1,873,585 34,904 170,229 2,078,718 4,174 6003143 ROBINSON JR. HIGH 468 2,135,299 32,379 233,918 2,401 ,596 5,132 6003146 BATES ELEM 485 2,233,492 275,529 504,318 3,013,339 6,213 TOTAL EXPENSE 20,285 85,407,455 3,613,045 10,807,566 99,828,066 4,921 See the note section on the next page for explanations of the categories. SOURCES: The Pulaski County Special School District Finance Office and the Local Fiscal Services Division of the ADE. 671 NOTES FOR PCSSD COST PER STUDENT FOR TOTAL PROGRAMS FOR FY 95/96 Funding Categories Local \u0026amp; State Federal Deseg This category includes funding from local sources, regular state sources, and unrestricted federal sources. This category includes funding from restricted federal sources which must be accounted for separately from the General Fund. This category consists of funding for desegregation purposes. Expense Categories Local \u0026amp; State Federal Deseg Total Category FY 95/96 This category consists of expenses incurred relative to regular pr\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\u003eArkansas. Department of Education\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 "},{"id":"bcas_bcmss0837_240","title":"Arkansas Department of Education's Semiannual Monitoring Report, Volume 2","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"],"dcterms_creator":["Arkansas. Department of Education"],"dc_date":["1997-02-01"],"dcterms_description":null,"dc_format":["application/pdf"],"dcterms_identifier":null,"dcterms_language":["eng"],"dcterms_publisher":["Little Rock, Ark. : Butler Center for Arkansas Studies. Central Arkansas Library System"],"dc_relation":null,"dc_right":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC-EDU/1.0/"],"dcterms_is_part_of":["Office of Desegregation Monitoring records (BC.MSS.08.37)","History of Segregation and Integration of Arkansas's Educational System"],"dcterms_subject":["Education--Arkansas","Arkansas. Department of Education","Educational statistics","Education and state","Education--Evaluation","Education--Finance"],"dcterms_title":["Arkansas Department of Education's Semiannual Monitoring Report, Volume 2"],"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/240"],"dcterms_temporal":null,"dcterms_rights_holder":null,"dcterms_bibliographic_citation":null,"dlg_local_right":["Available for use in research, teaching, and private study. Any other use requires permission from the Butler Center."],"dcterms_medium":["reports"],"dcterms_extent":["178 pages"],"dlg_subject_personal":null,"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":"\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n \n\n\n \n\n \n\n\n \n\n\n \n\n\n\n\n \n\n\n\n\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n \n\n \n\n \n\n\n \n\n \n\n \n\n\n \n\n \n\n \n\n\n \n\n \n\n \n\n\n \n\n \n\n \n\n CONTENTS VOLUME II Budget Information Overview ...................................... , . . 598 Budget Information Summary FY 95-96 \u0026amp; FY 96-97 ................... . . . . 599 Program Cost Summary FY 95-96 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 601 Little Rock School District Program Cost FY 95-96 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 607 Little Rock School District Program Cost FY 96-97 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 623 North Little Rock School District Program Cost FY 95-96 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 636 North Little Rock School District Program Cost FY 96-97 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 651 Pulaski County Special School District Program Cost FY 95-96 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 663 Pulaski County Special School District Program Cost FY 96-97 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 679 Transportation Cost Summary FY 95-96 \u0026amp; FY 96-97 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 692 Little Rock School District Transportation Cost FY 95-96 \u0026amp; FY 96-97 . . . . . . . . . 699 North Little Rock School District Transportation Cost FY 95-96 \u0026amp; 96-97 ...... 701 Pulaski County Special School District Transportation Cost FY 95-96 \u0026amp; 96-97 . 704 Legal Fees Summary FY 95-96 \u0026amp; 96-97 ............................ ...... 707 Little Rock School District Legal Fees FY 95-96 \u0026amp; 96-97 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 713 North Little Rock School District Legal Fees FY 95-96 \u0026amp; 96-97 ............... 716 Pulaski County Special School District Legal Fees FY 95-96 \u0026amp; FY 96-97 . . . . . . . 719 Compensatory Education FY 95-96 \u0026amp; 96-97 ............................... 722 Magnet School Cost FY 95-96 \u0026amp; 96-97 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 727 Student Discipline Expulsion PCSSD . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 732 Perceptual Data . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 740 ECOE Monitoring for Cycle I Schools . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 746 F. BUDGET INFORM.A TION The Allen Letter requires the collection of the following financial reports quarterly or monthly were available: 1. Cost of operating all elementary programs, junior high school programs, and high school programs by funding source (local/regular state/federal and special state desegregation funding.) 2. Transportation cost and funding source. 3. All legal fees reported by type of services. 4. Compensatory Education Program costs. 5. Magnet school cost. This information follows for each school district in Pulaski County. Cost of operating all elementary programs, junior high school programs, and high school programs by funding source (local/regular state/federal and special state desegregation funding). Financial information for FY 96-97 is presented for the three school districts in Pulaski County as specified by the Allen Letter and the Settlement Agreement. The financial information contains actual expenses for the Little Rock School District (LRSD) and the North Little Rock School District (NLRSD) and the Pulaski County Special School District (PCSSD). The financials include schedules on Total Program Costs for FY 96-97 Cost per Student information, Total Program Costs for Elementary, Junior High and High Schools, and Teacher and School Administrator Costs. 598 BUDGET INFORMATION FY 95/96 \u0026amp; FY 96/97 599 F . BUDGET INFORMATION The Allen Letter, the Pulaski County School Desegregation Case Settlement Agreement dated September 28, 1989 (Settlement Agreement) and the Implementation Plan detail specific monitoring responsibilities regarding financial information and various desegregation financial obligations of the Arkansas Department of Education (ADE) to the three school districts in Pulaski County. The financial monitoring responsibilities detailed in the Allen Letter are presented in this section of the February 1, 1997 Monitoring Report. The Settlement Agreement and Implementation Plan state that the ADE is financially responsible for the following: desegregation compensatory education payments\npayments in lieu of formula\npayments for operating the six original magnet schools in the LRSD\nM-to-M incentive payments for sending and receiving schools\nMagnet and M-toM transportation costs\n$20 million in loans to the LRSD~ attorney's fees\n$75,000 annually to the Magnet Review Committee~ and $200,000 annually to the Office of Desegregation Monitoring (ODM) . SOURCES: The ADE General Finance Section and the ADE Local Fiscal Services Section. 600 PROGRAM COST FY 95/96 \u0026amp; FY 96/97 601 F . BUDGET INFORMATION 1. Cost of operating all elementary programs, junior high school programs, and high school programs by funding source (local/regular state/federal and special state desegregation funding). Financial information for FY 95/96 and FY 96/97 is presented for the three school districts in Pulaski County as specified by the Allen Letter and the Settlement Agreement. The information for FY 95/97 reflects each district's expenses for the last fiscal year, and the information for FY 96/97 reflects each district's budget for the current fiscal year. The schedules included in this portion of the Budget Section contain information on Total Program Costs, Cost per Student information, Total Program Costs for Elementary, Junior High and High Schools, and Teacher and School Administrator Costs. The financial information for each district reflects an increase in total expenses in each of the three school districts in Pulaski County in FY 95/96 and additional increases budgeted for FY 96/97. Total expenses for the LRSD increased 4.2 percent in FY 95/96 and are budgeted to increase an additional 11.6 percent in FY 96/97 according to district representatives. LRSD's total expenses increased 3. 6 percent in FY 95/96 and are budgeted to increase an additional 18.4 percent in FY 96/97 according to district representatives. Total expenses in the PCSSD increased 4.1 percent in FY 95/96 and are budgeted to increase an additional 12.3 percent in FY 96/97 according to district representatives. The enrollment figures for the LRSD as of October I, 1995 showed an increase of 2.3 percent for FY 95/96 and an increase as of October 1, 1996 of 0.4 percent for FY 96/97. Enrollment for the NLRSD as of October 1, 1995 indicated a decrease in FY 95/96 of 1. 7 percent and an increase of l. 9 percent for FY 96/97 from the enrollment figures as of October l, 1996. The enrollment figures for the PCS SD showed a decline in the FY 95/96 enrollment for October 1, 1995 of 0.3 percent and a decrease in the FY 96/97 enrollment as of October 1, 1996 of 1.2 percent. SOURCES: The Finance qffices (?/ each of the three districts in Pulaski County, the ADE General Finance Section, and the ADJ~ Local Nscal Services Section . 602 F . BUDGET INFORMATION (Continued) 1. Cost of operating all elementary programs, junior high school programs, and high school programs by funding source (local/regular state/federal and special state desegregation funding). (Continued) The LRSD's cost per student figures increased 1.8 percent in FY 95/96 and are budgeted to increase 11.2 percent in FY 96/97. The NLRSD's cost per student figures increased 5 .4 percent in FY 9 5/96 and are budgeted to increase 16. 3 percent in FY 96/97. The cost per student figures in the PCSSD for FY 95/96 increased 4.4 percent and are budgeted to increase 13.6 percent in FY 96/97. The increases in the cost per student figures for FY 95/96 and FY 96/97 in each of the districts correspond to the increases in total cost for each of the districts and fluctuations in enrollment for FY 95/96 and FY 96/97. The LRSD received funding for desegregation from the ADE in FY 95/96 totaling $17,668,136 and incurred desegregation expenses of $38,391,254, of which $23,396,956 was eligible for funding from the special desegregation funding from the ADE. The LRSD has budgeted their desegregation expense for FY 96/97 at $44,989,746, of which $27,670, I 03 will be eligible for funding from the desegregation funding from the ADE, and should received funding from the ADE for desegregation of approximately $21,413,282 . The NLRSD received funding for desegregation from the ADE in FY 95/96 totaling $1,556,119 and incurred desegregation expenses of$2,124,324. The district has budgeted their desegregation ex pen e for FY 96/97 at $1,603,938 and should received funding for desegregation from the ADE totaling approximately $1,785,092. Of the amount expected to be received by the district in FY 96/97, $297,020 of the funds that they have received in FY 96/97 were for transportation costs from FY 91/92 through FY 95/96 that under normal circum tances would have been received in prior periods. The PCSSD received funding for desegregation from the ADE in FY 95/96 totaling $9,529,691 and incurred desegregation expen es of$ l 0,807,566. The district has budgeted their de egregation expen e for FY 96/97 at 12,554,647 and should receive funding for de egregation from th ADE totaling 6,502,412. All of the information received from the chool di trict ha b en r conciled for accuracy and reliability with no e c ption not d II of the di. trict are utilizing the fund receiv d from the DE fi r d gregation purpo e a ording to r c rd fr m the di trict OURCES: The N11a11ceq [(ic 1s (?( each of the three distnct., 111 Pulaski Co1111',t the ADE General Finance Sect,011,a nd the AJJl!.L.:o cal Fiscal Services 5,ection. 603 PULASKI COUNTY SCHOOL DISTRICTS TOTAL PROGRAM OPERATING COST FY 95/96 FUNDING SOURCES LOCAUSTATE FEDERAL LEA# SCHOOL DISTRICT PROGRAM DISTRICT TRANS LEGAL PROGRAM DISTRICT PROGRAM 60-01 LITTLE ROCK 59,499,209 31,474,967 6,464,867 328,745 3,469,669 3.011,807 5,224,242 60-02 NORTH LITTLE ROCK 29,067,633 9,851,918 1,264,088 21,980 1,975,332 1,192,347 1,491,606 60-03 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL 58,635,805 20,711,728 5,733,229 111,498 2,242,921 1,370,124 3,967,329 Funding Categories Local \u0026amp; State This category includes funding from local sources, regular state sources, and unrestricted federal sources. Federal Deseg This category includes funding from restricted federal sources which must be accounted for separately from the General Fund. This category consists of funding for desegregation purposes. Expense Categories DESEGREGATION DISTRICT INCENTIVE MAGNET TRANS 7,789,126 7,618,145 14,752,306 2,720,432 232,811 0 0 301,541 5,206 530 0 0 1,553,100 Local \u0026amp; State This category consists of expenses incurred relative to regular program expense, district expense, transportation expense and legal expense funded by unrestricted local, state and federal sources. This category consists of expenses incurred relative to federal program expense and district expense funded by restricted federal sources. LEGAL TOTAL 287,003 142,640,518 98,366 45,497,622 295,802 99,828,066 Federal Deseg This category consists of expenses incurred relative to desegregation program expense, district expense, incentive school expense, magnet expense, transportation expense and legal expense funded from desegregation sources. Total Category FY 9~6 The totals in this column represent the total expense for each school district for fiscal year 1995/199'5. OURCES: The Finance Offices of each of the school districts in Pulaski County. 604 PULASKI COUNTY SCHOOL DISTRICTS TOTAL PROGRAM OPERATING BUDGET FY 96/97 FUNDING SOURCES LOCAUSTATE FEDERAL DESEGREGATION LEA# SCHOOL DISTRICT PROGRAM DISTRICT TRANS LEGAL PROGRAM DISTRICT PROGRAM DISTRICT INCENTIVE MAGNET TRANS LEGAL 60-01 LITTLE ROCK 67,909,531 32,888,201 6,026,174 219,950 3,053,330 4,114,111 6,449,163 9,458,364 8,638,910 17,361,466 2,886,793 195,050 60-02 NORTH LITTLE ROCK 32,906,892 14,022,001 1,742,631 35,000 2,164,686 1,406,182 804,070 345,558 0 0 369,312 85,000 60-03 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL 70,573,372 18,480,963 5,865,352 155,000 3,501,563 945,075 5,681,797 4,831,645 0 0 1,781,205 260,000 Funding Categories Local \u0026amp; State This category includes funding from local sources, regular state sources, and unrestricted federal sources. Federal This category includes funding from restricted federal sources which must be accounted for separately from the General Fund. Deseg This category consists of funding for desegregation purposes Expense Categories Local \u0026amp; State This category consists of budgeted expenses relative to regular program expense, district expense, transportation expense and legal expense funded by unrestricted local, state and federal sources. Federal Thts category consists of budgeted expenses relative to federal program expense and district expense funded by restricted federal sources. Deseg This category consists of budgeted expenses relative to desegregation program expense, district expense, incentive expense, magnet expense, transportation expense and legal expense funded from desegregation sources, Total Category FY 96197 The totals in this column represent the total budget for each school district for fiscal year 1996/1997. OURCES: The Finance Offices of each of the school districts in Pulaski County. 605 TOTAL 159,201,043 53,883,330 112,075,972 DISTRICT LITTLE ROCK NORTH LITTLE ROCK PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL Enrollment FY 95196 FY 96197 Percent Variance Cost per Student FY 95196 FY 96197 Percent Variance Total Program Expense FY 95/96 FY 96/97 Percent Variance SOURCES: PULASKI COUNTY SCHOOL DISTRICTS PROGRAM VARIANCES FOR FY 96/97 ENROLLMENT COST PER STUDENT TOTAL PROGRAM EXPENSE PERCENT PERCENT PERCENT FY 95/96 FY 96/97 VARIANCE FY 95/96 FY96/97 VARIANCE FY95/96 FY 96/97 VARIANCE 24,154 24 245 0.4% 5,905 6,566 11.2% 142,640.518 159,201,043 11.6% 8,802 8.966 1.9% 5,169 6,010 163% 45,497,622 53,883,330 18.4% 20.285 20,047 -12% 4 921 5,591 13.6% 99,828.066 112,075,972 123% For reporting purposes, the October 1, 1995 enrollment figures verified and published by the ADE are the figures used. For reporting purposes, the October 1, 1996 enrollment figures verified and published by the ADE are the figures used. The difference in the FY 96/97 enrollment and the FY 95/96 enrollment expressed as a percentage. A positive variance indicates the percentage increase in enrollment for FY 96/97. A negative variance indicates the percentage decrease in enrollment for FY 96/97. The average cost per student for the district for FY 95/96. The average cost per student is calculated by dividing total program costs by total enrollment. The average cost per student for the district for FY 96/97. The average cost per student is calculated by dividing total program costs by total enrollment. The difference in the FY 96/97 cost per student and the FY 95/96 cost per student expressed as a percentage. A positive variance indicates the percentage increase in the cost per student for FY 96/97. A negative variance indicates the percentage decrease in the cost per student for FY 96/97. Total expenses for the school district for FY 95/96. Total budget for the school district for FY 96/97. The difference in the FY 96/97 total budget and the total cost for FY 95/96 expressed as a percentage. A positive variance indicates the percentage increase in the total budget for FY 96/97. A negative variance indicates the percentage decrease in the total budget for FY 96/97. The Finance Offices of each of the school districts in Pulaski County. 606 LRSD PROGRAM COST FY 95/96 607 F . BUDGET INFORMATION 1. Cost of operating all elementary programs, junior high school programs, and high school programs by funding source (local/regular state/federal and special state desegregation funding). Little Rock School District (LRSD) The following is a summary of the LRSD Program Cost Section of the February 1, 1997 Monitoring Report. Total program expense for the district is separated by funding source and expense category within the funding source. Total program expense is actual for FY 95/96 and budgeted for FY 96/97. Separate schedules indicate the total program expense for the Cycle 1 schools. The programs funded by the Cycle 1 schools are also included. Teacher expense and school administrator expense are also presented for the Cycle 1 schools. Cost per student information is presented for the: district\nelementary school programs~ junior high school programs\nhigh school programs\nand Cycle 1 school programs. Total Operating Expenses The district's total operating expenses for FY 95/96 were $142,640,518, which was an increase of $5,692,632 or 4.2 percent over FY 94/95 expenses of $136,947,886. The district's total operating expenses for FY 96/97 are budgeted at $159,201,043 resulting in an increase in operating cost of $16,560,525 or 11.6 percent for the current fiscal year. Elementary school operating costs rose from $74,914,489 in FY 94/95 to $78,593,013 in FY 95/96. Elementary school operating costs are budgeted to rise in FY 96/97 to $88,957,879 or 13 .2 percent for the current fiscal year. Operating costs for junior high schools increased 3 .1 percent in FY 95/96 over the operating cost for FY 94/95 of $31,583,460. The cost of operating the district's junior high schools is budgeted to increase $2,753, l 08 or 8.5 percent in FY 96/97 to $35,295,313. Operating costs for high schools increased from $30,449,937 in FY 94/95 to $31,505,300 in FY 95/96. The operating costs for the district's high schools are budgeted to increase 10.9 percent to $34,947,851 in FY 96/97. SOURCES: The Little Rock , . .\\'chool District Finance Office, the ADE General hnance ,Section, and the ADE Local Fiscal Services Section. 608 F . BUDGET INFORMATION (Continued) 1. Cost of operating all elementary programs, junior high school programs, and high school programs by funding source (local/regular state/federal and special state desegregation funding). (Continued) Little Rock School District (LRSD) (Continued) Enrollment Total district enrollment as of October 1, 1995 increased by 543 students or 2.3 percent in FY 95/96 for a total enrollment of 24,154 as compared with total enrollment as of October 1, 1994 of 23,611. Enrollment increased in FY 96/97 to 24,245 as of October 1, 1996 resulting in an increase of 0.4 percent. Enrollment in the district's elementary schools increased from 12,959 in FY 94/95 to 13,348 or 3.0 percent in FY 95/96, and elementary enrollment at October 1, 1996 increased to 13,525 for FY 96/97. Junior high school enrollment declined by 58 students from 5,681 in FY 94/95 to 5,623 or 1.0 percent in FY 95/96, and enrollment in the junior high school in FY 96/97 further declined 2. 5 percent to 5,486 as of October I, 1996 . Enrollment in the district's high schools increased from 4,971 in FY 94/95 to 5,183 or 4.3 percent in FY 95/96, and the October 1, 1996 enrollment figures for the district's high schools showed an increase in FY 96/97 to 5,234. Cost per Student Rate The di trict's co t per student rate increased from $5,800 in FY 94/95 to 5,905 in FY 95/96 resulting in an overall co t per tu dent increa e of 1. 8 percent. The cost per student rate is budgeted to increa e 11.2 percent to $6,566 in FY 96/97. The elementary co t per tudent rate increa ed l. 9 percent in FY 95/96 from $5,781 in FY 94/95 to $5,888 in FY 95/96. The elementary co t per tudent rate is budgeted to increa e an additional 11. 7 percent in FY 96/97 to $6,577. 0 RCE 1l1e Little Ro k School District Fi11a11ceq [(i e, the Al /-.,G e11eral Finance l 'ectio11, a11d the ADJ~ Lo al Fiscal Services 5,'edion. 609 F . BUDGET INFORMATION (Continued) 1. Cost of operating all elementary programs, junior high school programs, and high school programs by funding source (local/regular state/federal and special state desegregation funding). (Continued) Little Rock School District (LRSD) (Continued) Cost per Student Rate (Continued) The junior high school cost per student rate increased in FY 95/96 to $5,787 from the FY 94/95 cost per student rate of $5,559. The junior high school cost per student rate is budgeted to increase an additional 11.2 percent in FY 96/97 to $6,434. The high school cost per student rate decreased 0.8 percent in FY 95/96 to $6,079 from the FY 94/95 cost per student rate of $6,126. The high school cost per student rate for FY 96/97 is budgeted to increase 9.8 percent to $6,677. Desegregation Expense In FY 95/96, the district's total de egregation expenses totaled $38,391,254 with $23,396,956 of these costs being eligible for funding from the special funding from the ADE for desegregation. The district received $17,668,136 in desegregation funding from the ADE as stipulated in the Settlement Agreement. In FY 96/97, the district has budgeted $44,989,746 in total desegregation costs with $27,670,103 being eligible for funding from the special desegregation payments made by the ADE. The district should receive approximately $21,413,282 in desegregation funding from the ADE in FY 96/97. All of the information received from the LRSD has been reconciled for accuracy and reliability with no exceptions noted. The district is utilizing the funds received from the ADE in accordance with the Settlement Agreement for desegregation purposes. SOURCES: The Li/lie Rock School i)istrict Fi11a11ce(! ffice, the ADE General Fi11a11ce Section, and the ADJ~ Local Fiscal Services Section. 610 - - LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT TOTAL PROGRAM OPERATING COST FY 96/96 FUNDING SOURCES LOCAL/STATE FEDERAL DESEGREGATION LEA# SCHOOL PROGRAM DISTRICT TRANS LEGAL PROGRAM DISTRICT PROGRAM DISTRICT INCENTIVE MAGNET TRANS LEGAL TOTAL 6001001 CENTRAL HIGH 5,015,500 2,073,225 425,834 21,654 0 198,385 32,518 513,062 0 0 179,192 18,9().4 8,478,27'4 6001002 HALL HIGH 3,453,031 1,209,273 248,381 12,630 0 115,714 1,351 299,259 0 0 104,519 11,027 5,455,185 6001003 MANN JR. HIGH 0 1,103,722 226,701 11,528 0 105,614 0 273,139 0 3,351,297 95,396 10,064 5,177,461 6001005 PARKVIEW HIGH 0 1,114,147 228,842 11,637 0 106,612 0 275,718 0 3,699,919 96,298 10,159 5,543,332 6001006 BOOKER ELEM 0 787,070 161,662 8,221 0 75,314 0 194,777 0 2,366,402 68,028 7,177 3,668,651 6001007 DUNBAR JR HIGH 2,172,347 953,866 195,921 9,963 67,947 91,274 199,422 236,054 0 0 82,444 8,698 4,017,936 6001009 FOREST HEIGHTS JR. HIGH 2,527,128 989,049 203,148 10,330 66,188 94,641 103,104 244,761 0 0 85,485 9,019 4,332,853 6001010 PULASKI HEIGHTS JR. HIGH 2,517,134 1,017,718 209,036 10,630 0 97,384 130,593 251,855 0 0 87,963 9,280 4,331,593 6001011 SOUTHWEST JR HIGH 1,863,801 797,494 163,803 8,330 100,765 76,311 177,553 197,356 0 0 68,929 7,272 3,461,614 6001013 HENDERSON JR HIGH 2,828,893 1,032,052 211,980 10,779 92,137 98,756 160,466 255,402 0 0 89,202 9,411 4,789,078 6001017 BALE ELEM 1,102,568 406,566 83,507 4,246 102,347 38,904 131,297 100,613 0 0 3! 140 3,707 2,008,895 6001018 BRADY ELEM 1,043,374 491,267 100,905 5,131 116,845 47,009 87,026 121,574 0 0 4,, 1 4 i() .., N\nO 072 6001020 MCDERMOTT ELEM 1,319,453 634,607 130,347 6,628 78,489 60,725 7,330 157,047 0 0 54,850 ( ( 6001021 CARVER ELEM 0 819,647 168,353 8,561 0 78,431 0 202,838 0 2,109,225 70,843 7,474 6001023 FAIR PARK ELEM 818,134 304,924 62,631 3,185 64,690 29,178 102,117 75,460 0 0 26,355 2,780 6001024 FOREST PARK ELEM 1,059,776 566,846 116,429 5,921 62,082 54,241 29,174 140,278 0 0 48, 4 5,1 9 6001025 FRANKLIN ELEM 0 471,721 96,890 4,927 121,033 45,139 0 116,737 1,928,259 0 40,772 4,301 6001026 GARLAND ELEM 0 308,834 63 434 3,226 32,926 29,552 0 76,427 1,288,699 0 26,693 2,816 6001027 GIBBS ELEM 0 400.050 82 169 4,178 0 38,280 0 99,001 0 1,324,125 34, 77 3,648 6001029 WESTERN HILLS ELEM 874,018 410,475 84,310 4,287 91,578 39,278 12,553 101,580 0 3,743 6001030 JEFFERSON ELEM 1,376,003 652,851 134,094 6,819 AA ?1'17 8 6001033 MEADOWCLIFF ELEM 1,086,027 521,238 107,061 /.. f 4,753 11 6001034 MITCHELL ELEM 0 344,017 70,660 f J 3,137 1,824,00 6001035 ML KING ELEM 83.221 599,424 123,120 5,466 2,831,2 8 6001038 PULASKI HEIGHTS ELEM 984,174 529,057 108,667 /41 ~ 4,824 ,.~ .o~, 6001039 RIGHTSELL ELEM 0 261,922 53,798 ~ 2,388 1621,2 6001040 ROMINE ELEM 1 090,720 350,533 71,998 /1/. ev-,4' 3,196 1,901,1 6001042 WASHINGTON ELEM 1,839,963 785,767 161,394\n',u 7,165 3,611,70 6001043 WILLIAMS ELEM 0 661,972 135,967 6,036 2,996, 6001044 WILSON ELEM 1,159,297 476,933 97,961 4 349 2,127, 6001045 WOODRUFF ELEM 634,204 284,075 58,348 l 2,590 1 252, 6001047 TERRY ELEM 1,355,220 698,459 143,462 6,369 2,530, 6001048 FULBRIGHT ELEM 1,523,422 675,003 138,644 6,155 2,76. 0?1 6001050 ROCKEFELLER ELEM 0 407,869 83,775 'fl' , 3.719 6001051 BADGETT ELEM 632,756 226,739 46,571 ~~\u0026lt;! 2,068 6001052 BASELINE ELEM 825,709 379,201 77,887 , ~,dts'f-r,v 3,458 6001053 CHICOT ELEM 1,554,714 565,543 116,161\n':) /,V 5,157 15001054 CLOVERDALE ELEM B 982,416 521,238 107,061 ~- 1-~ 4,753 6001055 DAVID O'DODD ELEM 863,240 383,110 78,690 3,493 6001056 GEYER SPRINGS ELEM 817,062 355,745 73,069 M.L -1 3,244 001057 MABEL VALE ELEM 1,178,663 577,271 118.570 5.264 001058 OTTER CREEK ELEM 918,017 441,749 90,734 4,028 0()1059 WAKEFIELD ELEM 1,164,481 559,028 114,823 5,097 0010 WATSON ELEM 1,072,490 532,966 109 470 4,860 ,001 CLOVERDALE JR HIGH 1,780,494 793,585 163,000 7,236 001062 MABEL VALE JR HIGH 1,931,658 639,820 131,417 5,834 001063 JA FAIR HIGH 3,087,463 1,179,301 242.225 10,753 ()01064 MCCLELLAN HIGH 3,401,015 1,177,998 241,957 10,742 IJ/A METRO HIGH 1,499,733 0 0 0 NIA ALT LEARNING CTR 45,536 0 0 0 NIA ISH ELEM 16,354 0 0 0 TOTAL PROGRAM EXPENSE 59,499.209 31,474,967 6,464.867 328,745 3,469,669 3,011,807 5,224 242 7,789,126 7,618,1-45 14,752,306 2,720,432 287,003 See the note s etlon on the next page for explanation, of the e egorlee. URCE The Little Rock School D1.slnct Fmence Office 611 LOCAUSTATE LEA# SCHOOL PROGRAM DISTRICT TRANS 6001001 CENTRAL HIGH 5,015,500 2,073,225 425,834 6001002 HALL HIGH 3,453,031 1,209,273 248,381 6001003 MANN JR HIGH 0 1,103,722 226,701 6001005 PARKVIEW HIGH 0 1,114,147 228,842 6001006 BOOKER ELEM 0 787 070 161,662 6001007 DUNBAR JR. HIGH 2,172,347 953,866 195,921 6001009 FOREST HEIGHTS JR HIGH 2,527,128 989,049 203,148 6001010 PULASKI HEIGHTS JR HIGH 2,517,134 1,017,718 209,036 6001011 SOUTHWEST JR HIGH 1,863,801 797,494 163,803 6001013 HENDERSON JR HIGH 2,828,893 1,032,052 211,980 6001017 BALE ELEM 1,102,568 406,566 83,507 6001018 BRADY ELEM 1,043,374 491,267 100,905 6001020 MCDERMOTT ELEM 1,319,453 634,607 130,347 6001021 CARVER ELEM 0 819,647 168.353 6001023 FAIR PARK ELEM 818,134 304,924 62,631 6001024 FOREST PARK ELEM 1,059,776 566,846 116,429 6001025 FRANKLIN ELEM 0 471.721 96.890 6001026 GARLAND ELEM 0 308,834 63 434 6001027 GIBBS ELEM 0 400 050 82,169 6001029 WESTERN HILLS ELEM 874,018 410,475 84,310 6001030 JEFFERSON ELEM 1,376,003 652,851 134,094 6001033 MEADOWCLIFF ELEM 1,086,027 521,238 107,061 6001034 MITCHELL ELEM 0 344,017 70,660 6001035 ML KING ELEM 83.221 599,424 123,120 6001038 PULASKI HEIGHTS ELEM 984,174 529,057 108,667 6001039 RIGHTSELL ELEM 0 261,922 53,798 6001040 ROMINE ELEM 1,090,720 350,533 71,998 6001042 WASHINGTON ELEM 1,839,963 785,767 161,394 6001043 WILLIAMS ELEM 0 661,972 135,967 6001044 WILSON ELEM 1,159,297 476,933 97,961 6001045 WOODRUFF ELEM 634,204 284,075 58,348 6001047 TERRY ELEM 1,355,220 698,459 143,462 6001048 FULBRIGHT ELEM 1,523,422 675,003 138,644 6001050 ROCKEFELLER ELEM 0 407,869 83,775 6001051 BADGETT ELEM 632,756 226,739 46,571 6001052 BASELINE ELEM 825,709 379,201 77,887 6001053 CHICOT ELEM 1,554,714 565,543 116,161 6001054 CLOVERDALE ELEM B 982,416 521,238 107,061 6001055 DAVID 0'0000 ELEM 863,240 383,110 78,690 6001056 GEYER SPRINGS ELEM 817,062 355,745 73,069 ,001057 MABELVALE ELEM 1,178,663 577,271 118,570 {![101058 OTTER CREEK ELEM 918,017 441,749 90,734 Oil1059 WAKEFIELD ELEM 1,164,481 559,028 114,823 O\u0026lt;J1060 WATSON ELEM 1,072,490 532,966 109,470 f.i 01061 CLOVERDALE JR HIGH 1,780,494 793,585 163,000 t,d01062 MABELVALE JR. HIGH 1,931,658 639,820 131,417 001063 JA FAIR HIGH 3,087,463 1,179,301 242,225 -()01064 MCCLELLAN HIGH 3,401,015 1,177,998 241,957 WA METRO HIGH 1,499,733 0 0 NIA ALT LEARNING CTR 45,536 0 0 NIA ISH ELEM 16,354 0 0 TOTAL PROGRAM EXPENSE 59,499,209 31,474,967 6,464,867 See the note section on the next page for explanation of the categories. The Little Rock School District Fmance Office LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT TOTAL PROGRAM OPERATING COST FY 96/96 FUNDING SOURCES FEDERAL DESEGREGATION LEGAL PROGRAM DISTRICT PROGRAM DISTRICT INCENTIVE MAGNET TRANS LEGAL TOTAL 21,654 0 198,385 32,518 513,062 0 0 179,192 18,904 8,478,274 12,630 0 115,714 1,351 299,259 0 0 104,519 11,027 5,455,185 11,528 0 105,614 0 273,139 0 3,351,297 95,396 10,064 5,177,461 11,637 0 106,612 0 275,718 0 3,699,919 96,298 10,159 5,543,332 8,221 0 75,314 0 194,777 0 2,366,402 68,028 7,177 3,668,651 9,963 67,947 91,274 199,422 236,054 0 0 82,444 8,698 4,017,936 10,330 66,188 94,641 103,104 244,761 0 0 85,435 9,019 4,332,853 10,630 0 97,384 130,593 251,855 0 0 87,963 9,280 4,331,593 8,330 100,765 76,311 177,553 197,356 0 0 68,929 7,272 3,461,614 10,779 92,137 98,756 160,466 255,402 0 0 89,202 9,411 4,789,078 4,246 102,347 38,904 131,297 100,613 0 0 35,140 3,707 2,008,895 5,131 116,845 47,009 87,026 121,574 0 0 42,461 4,480 2,060,072 6,628 78,489 60,725 7,330 157,047 0 0 54,850 5,787 2,455,263 8,561 0 78,431 0 202,838 0 2,109,225 70,843 7,474 3,465,372 3,185 64,690 29,178 102,117 75,460 0 0 26,355 2,780 1,489,454 5,921 62,082 54,241 29,174 140,278 0 0 48,994 5,169 2,088,910 4,927 121,033 45,139 0 116,737 1,928,259 0 40,772 4,301 2,829,778 3,226 32,926 29,552 0 76,427 1,288,699 0 26,693 2,816 1,832,607 4,178 0 38,280 0 99,001 0 1,324,125 34,577 3,648 1,986,028 4,287 91,578 39,278 12,553 101,580 0 0 35,478 3,743 1,657,300 6,819 88,207 62,471 30,993 161,561 0 0 56,427 5,953 2,575,37 5,444 112,982 49,877 25,907 128,991 0 0 45,051 4,753 2,087,3 1 3,593 66,158 32,919 0 85,134 1,188,650 0 29,734 3,137 1,824,002 6,261 75,177 57,358 1,688,082 148,340 0 0 51,809 5,466 2,831,2 8 5,526 113,866 50,625 22,659 130,926 0 0 45,727 4,824 1,9h,051 2 736 81,152 25,063 0 64,818 1,106,724 0 22,638 2,388 1,621,2 3,661 68,252 33,542 162,944 86,747 0 0 30,297 3,196 1,901,lio 8,207 154,972 75,189 323,683 194,454 0 0 67,915 7,165 3,611,70 6,914 0 63,343 0 163,819 0 1,901,338 57,215 6,036 2,996,tlli4 4,981 110,803 45,637 68,313 118,027 0 0 41,222 4,349 2,127, i 2,967 62,001 27,183 86,677 70,300 0 0 24,553 2,590 1,252,198 7,295 0 66,835 20,103 172,848 0 0 60,369 6,369 2,530, 0 7,050 91,541 64,590 32,281 167,043 0 0 58,342 6,155 2,764,011 4,260 250,744 39,029 0 100,936 2,105,813 0 35,253 3,719 3,0 ,, 2.368 52,261 21,696 111,973 56,111 0 0 19,597 2,068 1,11 .140 3,961 93,353 36,285 121,121 93,841 0 0 32,775 3,458 1, 7,15 1 5,907 148,894 54,116 99,869 139,955 0 0 48,881 5,157 2,1 @., 7 5,444 113,076 49,877 143,215 128,991 0 0 45,051 4,753 2,101.12:.1 4,001 58,752 36,659 23,078 94,808 0 0 33,113 3,493 1,671.i 3,716 86,941 34,041 110,059 88,036 0 0 30,748 3,244 1,002. e, 6,029 153,101 55,239 86,195 142,858 0 0 49,895 5,264 ~,)1 ,046 4,614 82,949 42,271 19,639 109,320 0 0 38,181 4,028 1,751,602 5,839 111,627 53,493 19,290 138,343 0 0 48,318 5,097 U20, g 5,567 122,465 50,999 146,460 131,893 0 0 46,065 4,860 2,22 ,'.i 5 8,289 90,298 75,937 147,431 196,389 0 0 68,591 7,236 3,J::3111 D 6,683 60,280 61,224 49,866 158,337 0 0 55,301 5,834 3,1co,.t20 12,317 0 112,846 39,300 291,842 0 0 101,929 10,753 \u0026amp;,at7,~75 12,304 0 112,721 77,937 291,520 0 0 101,816 10,742 e.42a,o,o 0 22,790 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1,51 .. 0U 0 0 0 392,663 0 0 0 0 0 4 ,, . 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 18, 6 328,745 3,469,669 3,011,807 5,224,242 7,789,126 7,618,145 14,752,306 2,720,432 287,003 m. ~0.51ij 611 NOTES FOR LRSD TOTAL PROGRAM OPERATING COST SCHEDULE FOR FY 95/96 Funding Categories Local \u0026amp; State Federal Deseg This category includes funding from local sources, regular state sources, and unrestricted federal sources. This category includes funding from restricted federal sources which must be accounted for separately from the General Fund. This category consists of funding for desegregation purposes. Expense Categories Local \u0026amp; State Federal Deseg Total Category FY 95/96 SOURCE: This category consists of expenses incurred relative to regular program expense, district expense, transportation expense and legal expense funded by unrestricted local, state and federal sources. This category consists of expenses incurred relative to federal program expense and district expense funded by restricted federal sources. This category consists of expenses incurred relative to desegregation program expense, district expense, incentive expense, magnet expense, transportation expense and legal expense funded from desegregation sources. The totals in this column represent the total expense for each school site for fiscal year 1995/1996. The Little Rock School District Finance Office. 612 LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT CYCLE 1 SCHOOL PROGRAM OPERATING COST FY 95/96 FUNDING SOURCES LOCAL/STATE FEDERAL DESEGREGATION LEA# SCHOOL PROGRAM DISTRICT TRANS LEGAL PROGRAM DISTRICT PROGRAM DISTRICT INCENTIVE MAGNET 6001005 PARKVIEW HIGH 0 1,114,147 228,842 11,637 0 106,612 0 275,718 0 3,699,919 6001023 FAIR PARK ELEM 818,134 304,924 62,631 3,185 0 29,178 102,117 75 460 0 0 6001024 FOREST PARK ELEM 1,059,776 566,846 116,429 5,921 0 M,241 29174 140,278 0 0 6001030 JEFFERSON ELEM 1,376,003 652,851 134,094 6,819 112,982 62,471 30,993 161,561 0 0 6001038 PULASKI HEIGHTS ELEM 984,174 529,057 108,667 5,526 75,177 50,625 22,659 130,926 0 0 6001044 WILSON ELEM 1,159,297 476.933 97,961 4,981 113,866 45,637 68,313 118,027 0 0 6001047 TERRY ELEM 1,355,220 698,459 143,462 7,295 81,152 66,835 20,103 172,848 0 0 6001052 BASELINE ELEM 825,709 379,201 77,887 3,961 113,076 36,285 121,121 93,841 0 0 6001055 DAVID 0'0000 ELEM 863,240 383,110 78,690 4,001 86,941 36,659 23,078 94,808 0 0 6001063 JA FAIR HIGH 3,087,463 1,179,301 242,225 12,317 153,101 112,846 39,300 291,842 0 0 TOTAL CYCLE 1 PROGRAM EXPENSE 11,529,016 6,284,829 1,290,888 65,643 736,295 601,389 456,858 1,555,309 0 3,699,919 OURCE: The district's Total Program Expense for fiscal year 1995/1996 was $142,640,518. The programs funded In each of the Cycle 1 schools are Indicated on the chart entitled \"Programs In Cycle 1 Schools.\" See note section for Total Program Operating Cost for explanations of the funding categories, expense categories and totals. The Little Rock School District Finance omce. 613 TRANS LEGAL TOTAL 96,298 10,159 5,543,332 26,355 2,780 1,424,764 48,~ 5,169 2,026.828 56,427 5,953 2,600,154 45,727 4,824 1,957,362 41,222 4,349 2,130,586 60,369 6,369 2,612,112 32,775 3,458 1,687,314 33,113 3,493 1,607,133 101,929 10,753 5,231,077 M3,209 57,307 26,820,662 LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT Programs in Cycle 1 Schools FY 95/96 PARKVIEW FAIR PARK FOREST JEFFERSON PULASKI WILSON TERRY BASELINE DAVID O DODD JA FAIR PROGRAMS HIGH ELEM PARK ELEM ELEM HGTS ELEM ELEM ELEM ELEM ELEM HIGH Four-Year Old X X X Kindergarten X X X X X X X X X X Elementary X X X X X X X X Elementary Music X X X X X X X X Itinerant Instruction X X X X X X X X Resource Room X X X X X X X X X X Special Class X X X Homebound \u0026amp; Hospital X X X X X Gifted \u0026amp; Talented X X X X X X X X Guidance Services X X X X X X X X X X Library Services X X X X X X X X X X High School X '1J -- 'id' / r- 7 Marketing/District Ed-Coop ( Business Ed-Coop Uv~ ,M /fl~ /t 1//2 ~J', Business Ed- Skill Training X Trade \u0026amp; Ind-Coop X ~ (~ ? C ~k~ I\\~ Trade \u0026amp; lnd-Expl X Cons/Homemaking X C mp Ed X - Coord Career-Coop SOURCE: The Uttle Rock School District Finance Offlce. 614 LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT Programs in Cycle 1 Schools FY 95/96 PARKVIEW FAIR PARK FOREST JEFFERSON PULASKI WILSON TERRY BASELINE DAVID O DODD JA FAIR PROGRAMS HIGH ELEM PARK ELEM ELEM HGTS ELEM ELEM ELEM ELEM ELEM HIGH Four-Year Old X X X Kindergarten X X X X X X X X X X Elementary X X X X X X X X Elementary Music X X X X X X X X Itinerant Instruction X X X X X X X X Resource Room X X X X X X X X X X Special Class X X X Homebound \u0026amp; Hospital X X X X X Gifted \u0026amp; Talented X X X X X X X X Guidance Services X X X X X X X X X X Library Services X X X X X X X X X X High School X X Marketing/District Ed-Coop X Business Ed-Coop I X Business Ed- Skill Training X )( Trade \u0026amp; Ind-Coop X X I Trade \u0026amp; lnd-Expl X X cons/Homemaking X X I Comp Ed X X Coord Career-Coop X . - SOURCE: The Uttle Rock School District Finance Offlce. 614 - - - - LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DIST fCT COST PER STUDENT FOR TOTAL PROGRAMS FY 95/96 FUNDING SOURCES ENROLLMENT LOCAL\u0026amp; COST PER STU LEA# SCHOOL @ 10101195 STATE FEDERAL DESEG TOTAL FY 95196 6001001 CENTRAL HIGH 1,591 7,536,213 198,385 743,676 8,478,274 5,329 6001002 HALL HIGH 928 4,923,315 115,714 416,156 5,455,185 5,878 6001003 MANN JR. HIGH 847 1,341,951 105,614 3,729,896 5,177,461 6,113 6001005 PARKVIEW HIGH 855 1,354,626 106,612 4,082,094 5,543,332 6,483 6001006 BOOKER ELEM 604 956,953 75,314 2,636,384 3,668,651 6,074 6001007 DUNBAR JR. HIGH 732 3,332,097 159,221 526,618 4,017,936 5,489 6001009 FOREST HEIGHTS JR. HIG 759 3,729,655 160,829 442,369 4,332,853 5,709 6001010 PULASKI HEIGHTS JR. HIG 781 3,754,518 97,384 479,691 4,331,593 5,546 6001011 SOUTHWEST JR. HIGH 612 2,833,428 177,076 451,110 3,461,614 5,656 6001013 HENDERSON JR. HIGH 792 4,083,704 190,893 514,481 4,789,078 6,047 6001017 BALE ELEM 312 1,596,887 141,251 270,757 2,008,895 6,439 6001018 BRADY ELEM 377 1,640,677 163,854 255,541 2,060,072 5,464 6001020 MCDERMOTT ELEM 487 2,091,035 139,214 225,014 2,455,263 5,042 6001021 CARVER ELEM 629 996,561 78,431 2,390,380 3,465,372 5,509 6001023 FAIR PARK ELEM 234 1,188,874 93,868 206,712 1,489,454 6,365 6001024 FOREST PARK ELEM 435 1,748,972 116,323 223,615 2,088,910 4,802 6001025 FRANKLIN ELEM 362 573,538 166,172 2,090,069 2,829,779 7,817 6001026 GARLAND ELEM 237 375,494 62,478 1,394,635 1,832,607 7,733 6001027 GIBBS ELEM 307 486,397 38,280 1,461,351 1,986,028 6,469 6001029 WESTERN HILLS ELEM 315 1,373,090 ,2-0,856 153,354 1,657,300 5,261 6001030 JEFFERSON ELEM 501 2,169,767 150,678 254,934 2,575,379 5,140 6001033 MEAOOWCLIFF ELEM 400 1,719,770 162,859 204,702 2,087,331 5,218 6001034 MITCHELL ELEM 264 418,270 99,077 1,306,655 1,824,002 6,909 6001035 ML KING ELEM 460 812,026 132,535 1,893,697 2,838,258 6,170 6001038 PULASKI HEIGHTS ELEM 406 1,627,424 164,491 204,136 1,996,051 4,916 6001039 RIGHTSELL ELEM 201 318,456 106,215 1,196,568 1,621,239 8,066 6001040 ROMINE ELEM 269 1,516,912 101,794 283,184 1,901,890 7,070 6001042 WASHINGTON ELEM 603 2,795,331 230,161 593,217 3,618,709 6,001 6001043 WILLIAMS ELEM 508 804,853 63,343 2,128,408 2,996,604 5,899 6001044 WILSON ELEM 366 1,739,172 156,440 231,911 2,127,523 5,813 6001045 WOODRUFF ELEM 218 979,594 89,184 184,120 1,252,898 5,747 6001047 TERRY ELEM 536 2,204,436 66,835 259,689 2,530,960 4,722 6001048 FULBRIGHT ELEM 518 2,344,119 156,131 263,821 2,764,071 5,336 6001050 ROCKEFELLER ELEM 313 495,904 289,773 2,245,721 3,031,398 9,685 6001051 BADGETT ELEM 174 908,434 73,957 189,749 1,172,140 6,736 6001052 BASELINE ELEM 291 1,286,758 129,638 251,195 1,667,591 5,731 6001053 CHICOT ELEM 434 2,242,325 203,010 293,862 2,739,197 6,312 6001054 CLOVERDALE ELEM 400 1,616,159 162,953 322,010 2,101,122 5,253 6001055 DAVID 0'0000 ELEM 294 1,329,041 95,411 154,492 1,578,944 5,371 6001056 GEYER SPRINGS ELEM 273 1,249,592 120,982 232,087 1,602,661 5,871 6001057 MABELVALE ELEM 443 1,880,533 208,340 284,212 2,373,085 5,357 6001058 OTTER CREEK ELEM 339 1,455,114 125,220 171,168 1,751,502 5,167 6001059 WAKEFIELD ELEM 429 1,844,171 165,120 211,048 2,220,339 5,176 6001060 WATSON ELEM 409 1,720,493 173,464 329,278 2,223,235 5,436 6001061 CLOVERDALE JR HIGH 609 2,745,368 166,235 419,647 3,331,250 5,470 6001062 MABELVALE JR. HIGH 491 2,709,578 121,504 269,338 3,100,420 6,315 6001063 JA FAIR HIGH 905 4,521,306 112,846 443,824 5,077,976 5,611 6001064 MCCLELLAN HIGH 904 4,833,274 112,721 482,015 5,428,010 6,004 NIA METRO HIGH NIA 1,499,733 22,790 0 1,522,523 NIA NIA ALT LEARNING CTR NIA 45,536 0 392,663 438,199 NIA NIA ISH ELEM NIA 16,354 0 0 16,354 NIA TOTAL EXPENSE 24,154 97,767,788 6,481,476 38,391,254 142,640,518 5,905 See the note section on the next page for explanations of the categories. SOURCES. The Little Rock School District Finance Office and the Local Fiscal Services Division of the ADE. 615 NOTES FOR LRSD COST PER STUDENT FOR TOTAL PROGRAMS FOR FY 95/96 Funding Categories Local \u0026amp; State Federal Deseg This category includes funding from local sources, regular state sources, and unrestricted federal sources. This category includes funding from restricted federal sources which must be accounted for separately from the General Fund. This category consists of funding for desegregation purposes. Expense Categories Local \u0026amp; State Federal Deseg Total Category FY 95196 This category consists of expenses incurred relative to regular program expense funded by unrestricted local, state and federal sources. This category consists of expenses funded by restricted federal sources. This category consists of expenses incurred relative to desegregation programs funded from desegregation sources. The totals in this column represent the total expense for each school site for fiscal year 1995/1996. Cost Per Student Category FY 95196 SOURCES: The cost per student figures were calculated by dividing the school's total expense for fiscal year 1995/1996 by their enrollment as of October 1, 1995. The Little Rock School District Finance Office and the Local Fiscal Services Division of the ADE. 616 LEA# 6001005 6001023 6001024 6001030 6001038 6001044 6001047 6001052 6001055 6001063 SOURCES: LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT COST PER STUDENT FOR CYCLE 1 SCHOOL PROGRAMS FY 95/96 FUNDING SOURCES ENROLLMENT LOCAL \u0026amp; SCHOOL @ 10/01/95 STATE FEDERAL DESEG TOTAL PARKVIEW HIGH 855 1,354,626 106,612 4,082,094 5,543,332 FAIR PARK ELEM 234 1,188,874 93,868 206,712 1,489,454 FOREST PARK ELEM 435 1,748,972 116,323 223,615 2,088,910 JEFFERSON ELEM 501 2,169,767 150,678 254,934 2,575,379 PULASKI HEIGHTS ELEM 406 1,627,424 164,491 204,136 1,996,051 WILSON ELEM 366 1,739,172 156,440 231,911 2,127,523 TERRY ELEM 536 2,204,436 66,835 259,689 2,530,960 BASELINE ELEM 291 1,286,758 129,638 251,195 1,667,591 DAVID O'DODD ELEM 294 1,329,041 95,411 154,492 1,578,944 JA FAIR HIGH 905 4,521,306 112,846 443,824 5,077,976 TOTAL EXPENSE 4,823 19,170,376 1,193,142 6,312,602 26,676,120 See note section for Cost Per Student for Total Programs for explanations of the funding categories, expense categories, totals and cost per student category. The Little Rock School District Finance Office and the Local Fiscal Services Division of the ADE. 617 COST PER STU FY 95/96 6,483 6,365 4,802 5,140 4,916 5,813 4,722 5,731 5,371 5,611 5,531 LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT COST PER STUDENT BY PROGRAM FY 95/96 PERCENT AVG COST DISTRICT VARIANCE PROGRAM OF PER STUDENT AVG COST OVER DIST AVG/ SCHOOL PROGRAM COST TOTAL COST BY PROGRAM PER STUDENT (UNDER DIST AVG) ELEMENTARY PROGRAMS 78,593,013 55.1% 5,888 5,905 (17) JR. HIGH PROGRAMS 32,542,205 22.8% 5,787 5,905 (118) HIGH SCHOOL PROGRAMS 31,505,300 22.1% 6,079 5,905 174 LRSD PROGRAM COST FY 95/96 LRSD COST PER STU FY 95/96 80000000 60000000 40000000 20000000 0 PROGRAM COST PERCENT OF TOTAL COST AVG COST PER STUDENT BY PROGRAM 6100 6000 5900 5800 5700 5600 Program costs consist of the total cost for FY 95/96 for the indicated category of school programs. The percentage of program cost to the total district cost of $142,640,518 for FY 95/96. The total program cost for FY 95/96 to the total number of students in the program category. DISTRICT AVG COST PER STU The total cost for FY 95/96 of $142,640,518 to the total enrollment at October 1, 1995 of 24,154. VARIANCE SOURCE: The difference between the cost per student by program and the district average cost per student. A positivev ariance indicates the cost per student by program is greater than the district cost per student, and a negative variance indicates the cost per student by program is less than the district cost per student. The Little Rock School District Finance Office. 618 LEA# 6001006 6001017 6001018 6001020 6001021 6001023 6001024 6001025 6001026 6001027 6001029 6001030 6001033 6001034 6001035 6001038 6001039 6001040 6001042 6001043 6001044 6001045 6001047 6001048 6001050 6001051 6001052 6001053 6001054 6001055 6001056 6001057 6001058 6001059 6001060 N/A N/A SOURCES LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT COST PER STUDENT FOR ELEMENTARY PROGRAMS FY 95/96 FUNDING SOURCES ENROLLMENT LOCAL \u0026amp; SCHOOL @ 10/01/95 STATE FEDERAL DESEG TOTAL BOOKER ELEM 604 956,953 75,314 2,636,384 3,668,651 BALE ELEM 312 1,596,887 141,251 270,757 2,008,895 BRADY ELEM 377 1,640,677 163,854 255,541 2,060,072 MCDERMOTT ELEM 487 2,091,035 139,214 225,014 2,455,263 CARVER ELEM 629 996,561 78,431 2,390,380 3,465,372 J t {\u0026lt;?v (!. d ? lJ ,~ i a,tf~ (i)QA'r~ p(lJ MABELVALI::: t:Lt:M 'l'I..) 1,oou,-\nJ\"\" .UO,.J'iV LU ... ,L IL L1VIV1\"\"\"'\"\"'\"\"\" OTTER CREEK ELEM 339 1,455,114 125,220 171,168 1,751,502 WAKEFIELD ELEM 429 1,844,171 165,120 211,048 2,220,339 WATSON ELEM 409 1,720,493 173,464 329,278 2,223,235 ALT LEARNING CTR N/A 45,536 0 392,663 438,199 ISH ELEM NIA 16,354 0 0 16,354 TOTAL EXPENSE 13,348 48,569,022 4,633,652 25,390,339 78,593,013 See note section for Cost Per Student for Total Programs for explanations of the funding categories, expense categories, totals and cost per student category. The Little Rock School D1stnct Finance Office and the Local Fiscal SeNices Division of the ADE. 619 COST PER STU FY 95/96 6,074 6,439 5,464 5,042 5,509 6,365 4,802 7,817 7,733 6,469 5,261 5,140 5,218 6,909 6,170 4,916 8,066 7,070 6,001 5,899 5,813 5,747 4,722 5,336 9,685 6,736 5,731 6,312 5,253 5,371 5,871 5,357 5,167 5,176 5,436 NIA NIA 5,888 LEA# 6001006 6001017 6001018 6001020 6001021 6001023 6001024 6001025 6001026 6001027 6001029 6001030 6001033 6001034 6001035 6001038 6001039 6001040 6001042 6001043 6001044 6001045 6001047 6001048 6001050 6001051 6001052 6001053 6001054 6001055 6001056 6001057 6001058 6001059 6001060 NIA NIA SOURCES: LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT COST PER STUDENT FOR ELEMENTARY PROGRAMS FY 95/96 FUNDING SOURCES ENROLLMENT LOCAL \u0026amp; SCHOOL @ 10/01/95 STATE FEDERAL DESEG TOTAL BOOKER ELEM 604 956,953 75,314 2,636,384 3,668,651 BALE ELEM 312 1,596,887 141,251 270,757 2,008,895 BRADY ELEM 377 1,640,677 163,854 255,541 2,060,072 MCDERMOTT ELEM 487 2,091,035 139,214 225,014 2,455,263 CARVER ELEM 629 996,561 78,431 2,390,380 3,465,372 FAIR PARK ELEM 234 1,188,874 93,868 206,712 1,489,454 FOREST PARK ELEM 435 1,748,972 116,323 223,615 2,088,910 FRANKLIN ELEM 362 573,538 166,172 2,090,069 2,829,779 GARLAND ELEM 237 375,494 62,478 1,394,635 1,832,607 GIBBS ELEM 307 486,397 38,280 1,461,351 1,986,028 WESTERN HILLS ELEM 315 1,373,090 130,856 153,354 1,657,300 JEFFERSON ELEM 501 2,169,767 150,678 254,934 2,575,379 MEADOWCLIFF ELEM 400 1,719,770 162,859 204,702 2,087,331 MITCHELL ELEM 264 418,270 99,077 1,306,655 1,824,002 ML KING ELEM 460 812,026 132,535 1,893,697 2,838,258 PULASKI HEIGHTS ELEM 406 1,627,424 164,491 204,136 1,996,051 RIGHTSELL ELEM 201 318,456 106,215 1,196,568 1,621,239 ROMINE ELEM 269 1,516,912 101,794 283,184 1,901,890 WASHINGTON ELEM 603 2,795,331 230,161 593,217 3,618,709 WILLIAMS ELEM 508 804,853 63,343 2,128,408 2,996,604 WILSON ELEM 366 1,739,172 ~56,440 231,911 2,127,523 WOODRUFF ELEM 218 979,594 89,184 184,120 1,252,898 TERRY ELEM 536 2,204,436 66,835 259,689 2,530,960 FULBRIGHT ELEM 518 2,344,119 156,131 263,821 2,764,071 ROCKEFELLER ELEM 313 495,904 289,773 2,245,721 3,031,398 BADGETT ELEM 174 908,434 73,957 189,749 1,172,140 BASELINE ELEM 291 1,286,758 129,638 251,195 1,667,591 CHICOT ELEM 434 2,242,325 203,010 293,862 2,739,197 CLOVERDALE ELEM 400 1,616,159 162,953 322,010 2,101,122 DAVID O'DODD ELEM 294 1,329,041 95,411 154,492 1,578,944 GEYER SPRINGS ELEM 273 1,249,592 120,982 232,087 1,602,661 MABELVALE ELEM 443 1,880,533 208,340 284,212 2,373,085 OTTER CREEK ELEM 339 1,455,114 125,220 171,168 1,751,502 WAKEFIELD ELEM 429 1,844,171 165,120 211,048 2,220,339 WATSON ELEM 409 1,720,493 173,464 329,278 2,223,235 ALT LEARNING CTR NIA 45,536 0 392,663 438,199 ISH ELEM NIA 16,354 0 0 16,354 TOTAL EXPENSE 13,348 48,569,022 4,633,652 25,390,339 78,593,013 See note section for Cost Per Student for Total Programs for explanations of the funding categories, expense categories, totals and cost per student category. The Little Rock School District Finance Office and the Local Fiscal Services Division of the ADE. 619 COST PER STU FY 95/96 6,074 6,439 5,464 5,042 5,509 6,365 4,802 7,817 7,733 6,469 5,261 5,140 5,218 6,909 6,170 4,916 8,066 7,070 6,001 5,899 5,813 5,747 4,722 5,336 9,685 6,736 5,731 6,312 5,253 5,371 5,871 5,357 5,167 5,176 5,436 NIA N/A 5,888 I I LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT COST PER STUDENT FOR JR HIGH PROGRAMS FY 95/96 I FUNDING SOURCES ENROLLMENT LOCAL \u0026amp; COST PER STU LEA# SCHOOL @ 10/01/95 STATE FEDERAL DESEG TOTAL 6001003 MANN JR. HIGH 847 1,341,951 105,614 3,729,896 5,177,461 6001007 DUNBAR JR. HIGH 732 3,332,097 159,221 526,618 4,017,936 6001009 FOREST HEIGHTS JR. HIGH 759 3,729,655 160,829 442,369 4,332,853 6001010 PULASKI HEIGHTS JR. HIGH 781 3,754,518 97,384 479,691 4,331,593 6001011 SOUTHWEST JR. HIGH 612 2,833,428 177,076 451,110 3,461,614 6001013 HENDERSON JR. HIGH 792 4,083,704 190,893 514,481 4,789,078 6001061 CLOVERDALE JR. HIGH 609 2,745,368 166,235 419,647 3,331,250 6001062 MABELVALE JR. HIGH 491 2,709,578 121,504 269,338 3,100,420 TOTAL EXPENSE I 5,623 I 24,530,299 1,178,756 6,833,150 32,542,205 SOURCES See note section for Cost Per Student for Total Programs for explanations of the funding categories, expense categories, totals and cost per student category. w The Little Rock School District Finance Office and the Local Fiscal SeNices D,vision of the ADE. 620 FY 95/96 6,113 5,489 5,709 5,546 5,656 6,047 5,470 6,315 5,787 LEA# 6001001 6001002 6001005 6001063 6001064 N/A I SOURCES: LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT COST PER STUDENT FOR HIGH SCHOOL PROGRAMS FY 95/96 FUNDING SOURCES ENROLLMENT LOCAL \u0026amp; COST PER STU SCHOOL @ 10/01/95 STATE FEDERAL DESEG TOTAL CENTRAL HIGH 1,591 7,536,213 198,385 743,676 8,478,274 HALL HIGH 928 4,923,315 115,714 416,156 5,455,185 PARKVIEW HIGH 855 1,354,626 106,612 4,082,094 5,543,332 JA FAIR HIGH 905 4,521,306 112,846 443,824 5,077,976 MCCLELLAN HIGH 904 4,833,274 112,721 482,015 5,428,010 METRO HIGH N/A 1,499,733 22,790 0 1,522,523 TOT AL EXPENSE I 5,183 I 24,668,467 669,068 6,167,765 31,505,300 See note section for Cost Per Student for Total Programs for explanations of the funding categories, expense categories, totals and cost per student category. The Little Rock School District Finance Office and the Local Fiscal Services Division of the ADE. 621 FY 95/96 5,329 5,878 6,483 5,611 6,004 N/A 6,079 LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT CYCLE 1 SCHOOL TEACHER \u0026amp; ADMINISTRATOR EXPENSE LEA# 6001005 6001023 6001024 6001030 6001038 6001044 6001047 6001052 6001055 6001063 FY 95/96 TEACHER ADMINISTRATOR SCHOOL SALARIES SALARIES PARKVlEW HIGH 2,229,182 224,797 FAIR PARK ELEM 625,035 50,210 FOREST PARK ELEM 732,541 57,412 JEFFERSON ELEM 981,331 100,441 PULASKI HEIGHTS ELEM 706,709 48,690 WILSON ELEM 870,632 46,181 TERRY ELEM 919,575 91,081 BASELINE ELEM 573,244 56,824 DAVID O'DODD ELEM 597,053 53,392 JA FAIR HIGH 2,135,807 200,309 TOTAL I 10,371,109 I 929,337 Total district expense for teacher and school site administrator salaries for FY 95/96 was $62,739,208 or 44.0 percent of total expense for FY 95/96 of $142,640,518. Teacher Expense FY 95196 Teacher salary expense for each Cycle 1 school for FY 95/96. Administrator Expense I FY 95/96 Administrator salary expense for each Cycle 1 school for FY 95/96. Total Category TOTAL 2,453,979 675,245 789,953 1,081,772 755,399 916,813 1,010,656 630,068 650,445 2,336,116 11,300,446 FY 95/96 The totals in this column represent the total teacher and administrator expense for each Cycle 1 school for FY 95/96. SOURCE: The Little Rock School District Finance Office. 622 LRSD PROGRAM COST FY 96/97 623 LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT TOTAL PROGRAM OPERATING BUDGET FY 96/97 FUNDING SOURCES LOCAL/STATE FEDERAL DESEGREGATION LEA# SCHOOL PROGRAM DISTRICT TRANS LEGAL PROGRAM DISTRICT PROGRAM DISTRICT MAGNET INCENTIVE 6001001 CENTRAL HIGH 5,746,846 2,410,490 441,679 16,121 0 301,537 52,464 693,236 0 0 6001002 HALL HIGH 3,782,965 1,116,395 204,559 7,466 0 139,654 0 321,066 0 0 6001003 MANN JR HIGH 0 1,158,446 212,264 7,747 0 144,914 0 333,159 3,808,689 0 6001005 PARKVIEW HIGH 0 1,192,358 218,478 7,974 0 149.157 0 342,912 4,357,849 0 6001006 BOOKER ELEM 0 817,966 149,676 5,470 0 102,323 0 235,240 2,814,752 0 6001007 DUNBAR JR. HIGH 2,532,629 1,051 263 192,629 7,031 7.697 131,509 197,727 302,340 0 0 6001009 FOREST HEIGHTS JR HIGH 2,656,647 854,591 156.569 5,715 31,153 106,904 196.760 245,773 0 0 6001010 PULASKI HEIGHTS JR HIGH 2,780,669 1,064,648 195,114 7,122 0 133,206 106,931 306,241 0 0 6001011 SOUTHWEST JR HIGH 2,132,228 805,758 147,641 5,369 37,239 100,795 195,660 231,729 0 0 6001013 HENDERSON JR HIGH 3,141,993 1,005,162 184,176 6,722 40,678 125,740 146,196 269,076 0 0 6001017 BALE ELEM 1,154,155 459,652 64,260 3,075 46,765 57,525 153,835 132,249 0 0 6001018 BRADY ELEM 1,177,507 478,642 67,739 3,202 44,553 59,900 104,058 137,711 0 0 6001020 MCDERMOTT ELEM 1,519,141 663,326 121,543 4,436 39,207 82,978 22193 190 767 0 0 6001021 CARVER ELEM 0 819,322 150,126 5,480 0 102,492 0 235,630 2,530,286 0 6001023 FAIR PARK ELEM 692,636 297,072 54,433 1.967 37,074 37 162 93,101 65.435 0 0 6001024 FOREST PARK ELEM 1,311,562 609 066 111,600 4,073 35,454 76,190 33.391 175,162 0 0 6001025 FRANKLIN ELEM 0 515.466 94,450 3,447 67,199 64,482 0 148 744 n 2,240,116 6001026 GARLAND ELEM ,.7 1,462,591 6001027 GIBBS ELEM C /lJ 0 6001029 WESTERN HILLS ELEM 1 i I l. ~ 0 6001030 JEFFERSON ELEM 1 ? 0 6001033 MEADOWCLIFF ELEM 1 ( y ~ 0 6001034 MITCHELL ELEM 1 6/1 q 1,359,797 6001035 Ml KING ELEM 0 6001038 PULASKI HEIGHTS ELEM 1 ? ( 0 6001039 RIGHTSELL ELEM 1,268,129 6001040 ROMINE ELEM 1 [) ,-sr v,~c\u0026gt;-8 uJpf ~~~ 0 60010-42 WASHINGTON ELEM 2 ~ 0 6001043 WILLIAMS ELEM ~.IJ.5 0 6001044 WILSON ELEM 1 ~ll/4J 0 6001045 WOODRUFF ELEM t u//~ atf-~ (.,~ 0 60010-47 TERRY ELEM 1 .::rc:_v ~ vt.. 0 6001048 FULBRIGHT ELEM 1 0 6001050 ROCKEFELLER ELEM Ir- b 4,sj/~ 2,268,277 6001051 BADGETT ELEM P-A-~ 0 6001052 BASELINE ELEM ! 0 6001053 CHICOT ELEM 1 0 6001054 CLOVERDALE ELEM 1 0 6001055 DAVID 0'0000 ELEM ! 0 6001056 GEYER SPRINGS ELEM I 0 6001057 MABELVALE ELEM 1 0 6001058 OTTER CREEK ELEM 1 0 6001059 WAKEFIELD ELEM 1 0 6001060 WATSON ELEM 1 0 6001061 CLOVERDALE JR HIGH 2 0 6001062 MABELVALE JR HIGH 2 0 6001063 JA FAIR HIGH 3 0 6001064 MCCLELLAN HIGH 3 0 NIA METRO HIGH 1 0 NIA ALT LEAR ING CTR 0 NIA ISH ELEM 0 I I I I I I I I I TOTAL PROGRAM BUDGET 67.909,531 32,688.201 6,026,174 I 219,950 3 053 330 4 114,111 6 449 163 9.458 364 17,361,466 6,636,910 SOURCE The district for the first qu rter of FY 96197 has Incurred expenses totaling $20,609,842 or 13.0 percent of their total FY 96/97 budget SH the note section on the next p~ fOf explMatlons of the categorles. The L11tieR ock School Dlsr-,ct Fmncs Otrics 624 TRANS LEGAL TOTAL 211,583 14,296 9,868,252 97,993 6,621 5,676,719 101,684 6,870 5,773,773 104,660 7,072 6,380,460 71,796 4,651 4,202,278 92,277 6,235 4,521,557 75,013 5,068 4,336,213 93,468 6,315 4,693,934 70,726 4,779 3,731,964 88,229 5,961 5,033,937 40,364 2,727 2,134,807 42,031 2,840 2,138,383 58,224 3,934 2,705,749 71,917 4.659 3,920,112 26,076 1,762 1,526,936 53,461 3,612 2,413,571 45,246 3,057 3,201,709 30,838 2.064 2,319,983 37.149 2,510 2,329,406 37,149 2,510 1,646,664 59,177 3,996 2,913,975 44,412 3,001 2,176,438 29,052 1.963 1,962,999 65,606 4,433 3,5'45,301 54,057 3.652 2,951.243 27,147 1,634 1,629,177 31,910 2156 2,006,699 78,108 5,277 '4,352,552 59 653 4,031 3,391 227 40,959 2,767 2,292.837 27,624 1,866 1,490,285 61,320 '4,143 2,662,664 59,534 4.023 3,053.611 40,126 2,711 3 244,681 22,385 1,513 1,364.681 31,672 2,1-40 1,781,263 57,391 3678 3,163,966 55,247 3,733 2,567,957 26614 1,947 1,536.063 32,624 2 204 1,641,207 47,746 3 226 2,395,192 36,911 2,494 1,663,233 51,913 3.508 2,695,605 52,747 3.564 2,509,642 76 064 5141 3,825,461 55,724 3,765 3,376,-474 96.707 6,669 5,337,989 110,257 7,450 6,111,923 0 0 1,552,508 0 0 606,256 0 0 1-4,50() 2,686.793 195,050 159.201,0 LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT TOTAL PROGRAM OPERATING BUDGET FY 96/97 FUNDING SOURCES LOCAL/STATE FEDERAL LEA# SCHOOL PROGRAM DISTRICT TRANS LEGAL PROGRAM DISTRICT PROGRAM DISTRICT 6001001 CENTRAL HIGH 5,746,846 2,410,490 441,679 16,121 0 301,537 I 52,464 693,236 6001002 HALL HIGH 3,782 965 1116,395 204,559 7,466 0 139,654 0 321,066 6001003 MANN JR HIGH 0 1,158,446 212,264 7,747 0 144.914 0 333,159 6001005 PARKV1EW HIGH 0 1192,358 218,478 7 974 0 149 157 0 342,912 6001006 BOOKER ELEM 0 817 966 149,878 5,470 0 102 323 0 235,240 6001007 DUNBAR JR HIGH 2,532,629 1,051 283 192,629 7,031 7,897 131,509 197,727 302,340 6001009 FOREST HEIGHTS JR HIGH 2,656,647 854,591 156.589 5,715 31,153 106,904 198 760 245,773 6001010 PULASKI HEIGHTS JR HIGH 2,780,689 1,064,848 195,114 7,122 0 133,206 106,931 306,241 6001011 SOUTHWEST JR HIGH 2,132,228 805.758 147,641 5,389 37,239 100,795 195,680 231,729 6001013 HENDERSON JR HIGH 3,141,993 1 005,162 184,178 6.722 40,678 125,740 146,198 289,076 6001017 BALE ELEM 1,154,155 459,852 84,260 3,075 46,765 57,525 153,835 132,249 6001018 BRADY ELEM 1,177,507 478,842 87,739 3,202 44,553 59,900 104,058 137,711 6001020 MCDERMOTT ELEM 1,519,141 663,326 121,543 4,436 39,207 82,978 22,193 190,767 6001021 CARVER ELEM 0 819,322 150,126 5,480 0 102,492 0 235,630 6001023 FAIR PARK ELEM 892,836 297 072 54,433 1,987 37,074 37162 93,101 85,435 6001024 FOREST PARK ELEM 1,311,562 609.066 111,600 4,073 35,454 76,190 33,391 175,162 6001025 FRANKLIN ELEM 0 515,468 94,450 3,447 87 199 64,482 0 146,244 6001026 GARLAND ELEM 0 351,332 64,375 2,350 241,424 43,949 0 101,040 6001027 GIBBS ELEM 0 423.226 77,549 2,830 0 52,943 0 121.716 6001029 WESTERN HILLS ELEM 1,073,033 423,226 77,549 2.631 32,041 52,943 23,866 121,716 6001030 JEFFERSON ELEM 1,653,192 674 176 123,531 4,509 62,376 64.335 34,791 193,888 6001033 MEADOWCLIFF ELEM 1,215,474 505,972 92,710 3,364 69.707 63,294 32,971 145,513 6001034 MITCHELL ELEM 0 330,985 60,647 2,214 41,749 41,404 0 95,166 6001035 ML KING ELEM 62,245 747,426 136 953 4,999 38,876 93 499 2,176,308 214.954 6001038 PULASKI HEIGHTS ELEM 1,280,926 615,648 112,843 4 119 599,206 77039 26.436 177,113 6001039 RIGHTSELL ELEM 0 309,261 56,670 2,066 36,412 36,689 0 66,947 6001040 ROMINE ELEM 1,203,291 363,540 66,612 2,431 0,940 45,477 147,791 104,551 6001042 WASHINGTON ELEM 2,298,859 889.660 163,051 5,951 157 794 111,316 386,420 255,916 6001043 WILLIAMS ELEM 0 679,604 124,525 4,545 0 65,014 0 195,446 6001044 WILSON ELEM 1,352,091 466,634 85,502 3,121 65,397 56,373 63.793 134 200 6001045 WOODRUFF ELEM 803,753 314,707 57,664 2,105 39,643 39,366 112,646 90,507 6001047 TERRY ELEM 1,638,552 696,595 126,005 4,672 0 67,390 39,277 200,910 6001048 FULBRIGHT ELEM 1,829,125 678,247 124,277 4,536 37,170 64,645 36,996 195,058 6001050 ROCKEFELLER ELEM 0 457,139 63,762 3,057 161 155 57.165 0 131.469 6001051 BADGETT ELEM 763,464 255,021 46,726 1 706 44,509 31 902 124 291 73,342 6001052 BASELINE ELEM 962,347 360,627 66,115 2,413 66,103 45.137 140,736 103,771 6001053 CHICOT ELEM 1,801,817 653,830 119,803 4,373 78,989 81,790 174,079 188,036 6001054 CLOVERDALE ELEM 1,264,299 629,413 115,329 4,209 67,313 78,736 166,664 181,014 6001055 DAVID O'DODD ELEM 925,551 328,272 60,150 2 195 10,779 41,065 42,667 94,408 6001056 GEYER SPRINGS ELEM 840,977 371,679 68,104 2.486 40,156 46,495 129,590 106,892 6001057 MABELVALE ELEM 1,260,295 543,954 99,670 3.638 109,698 68,045 102,483 156,437 6001058 OTTER CREEK ELEM 1,089,943 420,513 77,052 2,612 37,492 52,604 22,476 120,936 6001059 WAKEFIELD ELEM 1,335,727 591,431 108,369 3,955 327 778 73,984 28 649 170,091 6001060 WATSON ELEM 1,299,044 600,927 110,109 4,019 38,867 75,172 152,372 172,821 6001061 CLOVERDALE JR HIGH 2,072,506 866,800 158,826 5,797 62,759 108,431 219,833 249,284 6001062 MABELVALE JR HIGH 2,235,568 634,839 116,323 4,246 20,670 79,415 45,350 182,574 6001063 JA FAIR HIGH 3,383,370 1,124,534 206,051 7,521 0 140,672 47,059 323,406 6001064 MCCLELLAN HIGH 3,868,990 1,256,114 230,160 8,401 0 157,132 112,171 361,248 NIA METRO HIGH 1,475,600 0 0 0 76.908 0 0 0 NIA ALT LEARNING CTR 75,772 0 0 0 0 0 532,484 0 NIA ISH ELEM 14,500 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 TOT AL PROGRAM BUDGET 67,909,531 32,888,201 6,026,174 219,950 3,053,330 4,114,111 6,449,163 9,456,364 The district for the first quarter of FY 96197 has Incurred expenses totaling $20,609,842 or 13.0 percent of their total FY 96/97 budget. SOURCE SH th not section on th next page for explanations of th clllegones. The Little Roel\u0026lt; School District Financi, Otrlci, 624 DESEGREGATION MAGNET INCENTIVE TRANS LEGAL TOTAL 0 0 211,583 14.296 9,888,252 0 0 97,993 6,621 5,676,719 3,808,689 0 101,684 6,870 5,773,773 4,357,849 0 104,660 7,072 6,330,460 2,814,752 0 71.798 4.851 4,202,278 0 0 92,277 6,235 4,521,557 0 0 75,013 5,068 4,336,213 0 0 93,468 6,315 4,693,934 0 0 70,726 4,779 3,731,964 0 0 88,229 5,961 5,033,937 0 0 40,364 2,727 2,134,807 0 0 42,031 2,840 2,138,383 0 0 58,224 3,934 2,705,749 2,530,286 0 71,917 4,859 3,920,112 0 0 26,076 1,762 1,526,938 0 0 53,461 3,612 2,413,571 0 2,240,116 45,246 3,057 3,201,709 0 1,482,591 30,836 2.084 2,319,983 1,611,483 0 37,149 2,510 2,329,406 0 0 37,149 2,510 1,846,864 0 0 59,177 3,996 2,913,975 0 0 44,412 3,001 2,176,438 0 1,359,797 29,052 1,963 1,962,999 0 0 65,606 4,433 3,545,301 0 0 54,057 3,652 2,951,243 0 1,268,129 27,147 1,834 1,829,177 0 0 31,910 2,156 2,008,699 0 0 78,106 5,277 4,352,552 2,236,407 0 59,653 4,031 3,391.227 0 0 40,959 2,767 2,292,637 0 0 27,624 1,666 1,490,265 0 0 61,320 4,143 2,662,664 0 0 59,534 4.023 3,053,811 0 2,288,277 40,126 2.711 3,244,881 0 0 22,385 1,513 1,364,881 0 0 31,672 2,140 1,781,263 0 0 57,391 3,878 3,163,966 0 0 55,247 3,733 2,567,957 0 0 28,814 1,947 1,536,068 0 0 32,624 2,204 1,641,207 0 0 47,746 3,226 2,395,192 0 0 36,911 2,494 1,863,233 0 0 51,913 3,508 2,695,605 0 0 52,747 3,564 2,509,642 0 0 76,084 5,141 3,825,461 0 0 55,724 3,765 3,378,474 0 0 98,707 6,669 5,337,989 0 0 110,257 7,450 6,111,923 0 0 0 0 1,552,508 0 0 0 0 608,25\u0026amp; 0 0 0 0 14,50Q 17,361,466 8,638,910 2,886,793 195,050 159,201,0 J NOTES FOR LRSD TOTAL PROGRAM OPERA TING BUDGET SCHEDULE FOR FY 96/97 Funding Categories Local \u0026amp; State Federal Deseg This category includes funding from local sources, regular state sources, and unrestricted federal sources. This category includes funding from restricted federal sources which must be accounted for separately from the General Fund. This category consists of funding for desegregation purposes. Expense Categories Local \u0026amp; State Federal Deseg Total Category FY 96/97 SOURCE: This category consists of budgeted expenses relative to regular program expense, district expense, transportation expense and legal expense funded by unrestricted local, state and federal sources. This category consists of budgeted expenses relative to federal program expense and district expense funded by restricted federal sources. This category consists of budgeted expenses relative to desegregation program expense, district expense, magnet expense, incentive expense, transportation expense and legal expense funded from desegregation sources. The totals in this column represent the total budget for each school site for fiscal year 1996/1997. The Little Rock School District Finance Office. 625 LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT CYCLE 1 SCHOOL PROGRAM OPERATING BUDGET FY 96/97 - FUNDING SOURCES LOCAUSTATE FEDERAL DESEGREGATION LEA# SCHOOL PROGRAM DISTRICT TRANS LEGAL PROGRAM DISTRICT PROGRAM DISTRICT MAGNET INCENTIVE 6001005 PARKVIEW HIGH 0 1,192,358 218,478 7,974 0 1 9,157 0 342,912 4,357,849 0 6001023 FAIR PARK ELEM 892,836 297,072 54,433 1,987 37,074 37,162 93,101 85,435 0 0 6001024 FOREST PARK ELEM 1,311,562 609,066 111,600 4,073 35,454 76,190 33,391 175,162 0 0 6001030 JEFFERSON ELEM 1,653,192 674,178 123,531 4,509 82,376 84,335 34,791 193,888 0 0 6001038 PULASKI HEIGHTS ELEM 1,280,928 615,848 112,843 4,119 599,206 77,039 26,438 177,113 0 0 6001044 WILSON ELEM 1,352,091 466,634 85,502 3,121 65,397 58,373 83,793 134,200 0 0 6001047 TERRY ELEM 1,638,552 698,595 128,005 4,672 0 87,390 39,277 200,910 0 0 6001052 BASELINE ELEM 962,347 360,827 66,115 2,413 66,103 45,137 140,738 103,771 0 0 6001055 DAVID 0'0000 ELEM 925,551 328,272 60,150 2,195 10,779 41,065 42,887 94,408 0 0 6001063 JA FAIR HIGH 3,383,370 1,124,534 206,051 7,521 0 140,672 47,059 323,406 0 0 TOTAL CYCLE 1 PROGRAM BUDGET 13,400,429 6,367,384 1,166,708 42,584 896,389 796,520 541,475 1,831,205 4,357,849 0 The district's Total Program Budget for the fiscal year 96/97 ls $159,201,043. The programs funded In each of the Cycle 1 schools are Indicated on the chart entitled \"Programs In Cycle 1 Schools.\" See note section for Total Program Operating Budget for explanations of the funding categories, expense categories and totals. The Little Rock School District Finance omce. 626 TRANS LEGAL TOTAL 104,660 7,072 6,380,460 26,076 1,762 1,526,938 53,461 3,612 2,413,571 59,177 3,998 2,913,975 54,057 3,652 2,951,243 40,959 2,767 2,292,837 61,320 4,143 2,862,864 31,672 2,140 1,781,263 28,814 1,947 1,536,068 98,707 6,669 5,337,989 558,903 37,762 29,997,208 LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT Programs in Cycle 1 Schools FY96/97 PARKVIEW FAIR PARK FOREST JEFFERSON PULASKI WILSON TERRY BASELINE DAVIDO DODD JA FAIR PROGRAMS HIGH ELEM PARK ELEM ELEM HGTS ELEM ELEM ELEM ELEM ELEM HIGH Four-Year Old X X X Kindergarten X X X X X X X X X X Elementary X X X X X X X X Elementary Music X X X X X X X X Itinerant Instruction X X X X X X X X Resource Room X X X X X X X X X X Special Class X X X Homebound \u0026amp; Hospital X X X X X Gifted \u0026amp; Talented X X X X X X X X Guidance Services X X X X X X X X X X Library Services X X X X X X X X X X High School X X Marketing/District Ed-Coop X Business Ed-Coop X Business Ed- Skill Training X X Trade \u0026amp; Ind-Coop X X Trade \u0026amp; lnd-Expl X X Cons/Homemaking X X Comp Ed X X Coord Career-Coop X SOURCE: The Little Rock School District Finance Office. 627 LEAt 6001001 6001002 6001003 6001005 6001006 6001007 6001009 6001010 6001011 6001013 6001017 6001018 6001020 6001021 6001023 6001024 6001025 6001026 6001027 6001029 6001030 6001033 6001034 6001035 6001038 6001039 6001040 6001042 6001043 6001044 6001045 6001047 6001048 6001050 6001051 6001052 6001053 6001054 6001055 6001056 6001057 6001058 6001059 6001060 6001061 6001062 6001063 6001064 NIA NIA NIA SOURCE: LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT COST PER STUDENT FOR TOTAL PROGRAMS FY 96/97 FUNDING SOURCES ENROLLMENT LOCAL \u0026amp; SCHOOL @ 10/01/96 STATE FEDERAL OESEG TOTAL CENTRAL HIGH 1,777 8,615,136 301,537 971,579 9,888,252 HALL HIGH 823 5,111,385 139,654 425,680 5,676,719 MANN JR. HIGH 854 1,378,457 144,914 4,250,402 5,n3,n3 PARKVIEW HIGH 879 1,418,810 149,157 4,812,493 6,380,460 BOOKER ELEM 603 973,314 102,323 3,126,641 4,202,278 DUNBAR JR. HIGH ns 3,783,572 139,406 598,579 4,521,557 FOREST HEIGHTS JR. HIGH 630 3,673,542 138,057 524,614 4,336,213 PULASKI HEIGHTS JR. HIGH 785 4,047,773 133,206 512,955 4,693,934 SOUTHWEST JR. HIGH 594 3,091,016 138,034 502,914 3,731,964 HENDERSON JR. HIGH 741 4,338,055 166,418 529,464 5,033,937 BALE ELEM 339 1,701,342 104,290 329,175 2,134,807 BRADY ELEM 353 1,747,290 104,453 286,640 2,138,383 MCDERMOTT ELEM 489 2,308,446 122,185 275,118 2,705,749 CARVER ELEM 604 974,928 102,492 2,842,692 3,920,112 FAIR PARK ELEM 219 1,246,328 74,236 206,374 1,526,938 FOREST PARK ELEM 449 2,036,301 111,644 265,626 2,413,571 FRANKLIN ELEM 380 613,365 151,681 2,436,663 3,201,709 GARLAND ELEM 259 418,057 285,373 1,616,553 2,319,983 GIBBS ELEM 312 503,605 52,943 1,n2,858 2,329,406 WESTERN HILLS ELEM 312 1,576,639 84,984 185,241 1,846,864 JEFFERSON ELEM 497 2,455,410 166,711 291,854 2,913,975 MEAOOWCLIFF ELEM 373 1,817,540 133,001 225,897 2,176,438 MITCHELL ELEM 244 393,846 83,153 1,486,000 1,962,999 ML KING ELEM 551 951,625 132,375 2,461,301 3,545,301 PULASKI HEIGHTS ELEM 454 2,013,738 676,245 261,260 2,951,243 RIGHTSELL ELEM 228 368,019 75,101 1,386,057 1,829,177 ROMINE ELEM 268 1,635,874 86,417 286,408 2,008,699 WASHINGTON ELEM 656 3,357,721 269.110 725,721 4,352,552 WILLIAMS ELEM 501 808,674 85,014 2,497,539 3,391,227 WILSON ELEM 344 1,907,348 123,770 261,719 2,292,837 WOODRUFF ELEM 232 1,178,229 79,211 232,845 1,490,285 TERRY ELEM 515 2,469,824 87,390 305,650 2,862,864 FULBRIGHT ELEM 500 2,636,185 122,015 295,611 3,053,811 ROCKEFELLER ELEM 337 543,958 238,340 2,462,583 3,244,881 BADGETT ELEM 188 1,066,939 76,411 221,531 1,364,881 BASELINE ELEM 266 1,391,702 111,240 278,321 1,781,263 CHICOT ELEM 482 2,579,823 160,779 423,384 3,163,986 CLOVERDALE ELEM 464 2,013,250 146,049 408,658 2,567,957 DAVID 0'0000 ELEM 242 1,316,168 51,844 168,056 1,536,068 GEYER SPRINGS ELEM 274 1,283,246 86,651 271,310 1,641,207 MABELVALE ELEM 401 1,907,557 177,743 309,892 2,395,192 OTTER CREEK ELEM 310 1,590,320 90,096 182,817 1,863,233 WAKEFIELD ELEM 436 2,039,482 401,762 254,361 2,695,605 WATSON ELEM 443 2,014,099 114,039 381,504 2,509,642 CLOVERDALE JR. HIGH 639 3,103,929 171,190 550,342 3,825,461 MABELVALE JR. HIGH 468 2,990,976 100,085 287,413 3,378,474 JA FAIR HIGH 829 4,721,476 140,672 475,841 5,337,989 MCCLELLAN HIGH 926 5,363,665 157,132 591,126 6,111,923 METRO HIGH NIA 1,475,600 76,908 0 1,552,508 ALT LEARNING CTR NIA 75,772 0 532,484 608,256 ISH ELEM NIA 14,500 0 0 14,500 TOTAL BUDGET 24,245 107,043,856 7,167,441 44,989,746 159,201,043 The district for the first quarter of FY 96/97 has incurred expenses totaling $20,609,842 or 13.0 percent of their total FY 96/97 budget. See the note section on the next page for explanations of the categories. The Little Rock School District Finance Office and the Local Fiscal Services Division of the ADE. 628 COST PER STU FY 96/97 5,565 6,898 6,761 7,259 6,969 5,834 6,883 5,980 6,283 6,793 6,297 6,058 5,533 6,490 6,972 5,375 8,426 8,957 7,466 5,919 5,863 5,835 8,045 6,434 6,501 8,023 7,495 6,635 6,769 6,665 6,424 5,559 6,108 9,629 7,260 6,696 6,564 5,534 6,347 5,990 5,973 6,010 6,183 5,665 5,987 7,219 6,439 6,600 N/A NIA NIA 6,566 NOTES FOR LRSD COST PER STUDENT FOR TOTAL PROGRAMS FOR FY 96/97 Funding Categories Local \u0026amp; State Federal Deseg This category includes funding from local sources, regular state sources, and unrestricted federal sources. This category includes funding from restricted federal sources which must be accounted for separately from the General Fund. This category consists of funding for desegregation purposes. Expense Categories Local \u0026amp; State Federal Deseg Total Category FY96/97 This category consists of budgeted expenses relative to regular programs funded by unrestricted local, state and federal sources. This category consists of budgeted expenses funded by restricted federal sources. This category consists of budgeted expenses relative to desegregation programs funded from desegregation sources. The totals in this column represent the total budget for each school site for fiscal year 1996/1997. Cost Per Student Category FY 96/97 SOURCE: The cost per student figures were calculated by dividing the school's total budget for FY 96/97 by their enrollment as of October 1, 1996. The Little Rock School District Finance Office and the Local Fiscal Services Division of the ADE. 629 LEA# 6001005 6001023 6001024 6001030 6001038 6001044 6001047 6001052 6001055 6001063 I SOURCE: LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT COST PER STUDENT FOR CYCLE 1 SCHOOL PROGRAMS FY 96/97 I FUNDING SOURCES II I ENROLLMENT LOCAL \u0026amp; [\nJ SCHOOL @ 10/01/96 STATE FEDERAL DESEG PARKVIEW HIGH 879 1,418,810 149,157 4,812,493 6,380,460 FAIR PARK ELEM 219 1,246,328 74,236 206,374 1,526,938 FOREST PARK ELEM 449 2,036,301 111,644 265,626 2,413,571 JEFFERSON ELEM 497 2,455,410 166,711 291,854 2,913,975 PULASKI HEIGHTS ELEM 454 2,013,738 676,245 261,260 2,951,243 WILSON ELEM 344 1,907,348 123,770 261,719 2,292,837 TERRY ELEM 515 2,469,824 87,390 305,650 2,862,864 BASELINE ELEM 266 1,391,702 111,240 278,321 1,781,263 DAVID 0'0000 ELEM 242 1,316,168 51,844 168,056 1,536,068 JA FAIR HIGH 829 4,721,476 140,672 475,841 5,337,989 TOT AL BUDGET I 4,694 I 20,977,105 1,692,909 7,327,194 29,997,208 See note section for Cost per Student for Total Programs for explanations of the funding categories, expense categories, totals and cost per student category. The Little Rock School District Finance Office and the Local Fiscal Services Division of the ADE. 630 COST PER STU FY 96/97 7,259 6,972 5,375 5,863 6,501 6,665 5,559 6,696 6,347 6,439 6,391 LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT COST PER STUDENT BY PROGRAM FY 96/97 PERCENT AVG COST DISTRICT VARIANCE PROGRAM OF PER STUDENT AVG COST OVER DIST AVG/ SCHOOL PROGRAM BUDGET TOTAL BUDGET BY PROGRAM PER STUDENT (UNDER DIST AVG) ELEMENTARY PROGRAMS 88,957,879 55.9% 6,577 6,566 11 JR. HIGH PROGRAMS 35,295,313 22.1% 6,434 6,566 (133) HIGH SCHOOL PROGRAMS 34,947,851 22.0% 6,677 6,566 111 LRSD PROGRAM COST LRSD COST PER STUDENT 100000000 80000000 60000000 40000000 20000000 0 PROGRAM COST FY 96/97 PERCENT OF TOTAL COST AVG COST PER STUDENT BY PROGRAM 6700 6600 6500 6400 6300 FY 96/97 Program costs consist of the total budget for FY 00/97 for the indicated category of school programs The percentage of program budget to the total district budget of $159,201,043 for FY 00/97. The total program budget for FY 00/97 to the total number of students in the program category as of October 1 , 1996 DISTRICT AVG COST PER STU The total budget for FY 96/97 of $159,201,043 to the total enrollment at October 1, 1900 of 24,245. VARIANCE SOURCE: The difference between the cost per student by program and the district average cost per student. A positive variance indicates the cost per student by program is greater than the district cost per student, and a negative variance indicates the cost per student by program is less than the district cost per student. The Little Rock School Oistnct Finance Office. 631 LEA# 6001006 6001017 6001018 6001020 6001021 6001023 6001024 6001025 6001026 6001027 6001029 6001030 6001033 6001034 6001035 6001038 6001039 6001040 6001042 6001043 6001044 6001045 6001047 6001048 6001050 6001051 6001052 6001053 6001054 6001055 6001056 6001057 6001058 6001059 6001060 NIA NIA SOURCE: LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT COST PER STUDENT FOR ELEMENTARY PROGRAMS FY 96/97 FUNDING SOURCES ENROLLMENT LOCAL \u0026amp; SCHOOL @ 10101196 STATE FEDERAL DESEG BOOKER ELEM 603 973,314 102,323 3,126,641 BALE ELEM 339 1,701,342 104 290 329,175 BRADY ELEM 353 1,747,290 104,453 286 640 MCDERMOTT ELEM 489 2,308 446 122,185 275,118 CARVER ELEM 604 974,928 102,492 2,842,692 FAIR PARK ELEM 219 1 246,328 74,236 206,374 FOREST PARK ELEM 449 2,036,301 111,644 265,626 FRANKLIN ELEM 380 613,365 151,681 2,436,663 GARLAND ELEM 259 418,057 285,373 1,616,553 GIBBS ELEM 312 503,605 52,943 1,772,858 WESTERN HILLS ELEM 312 1,576,639 84,984 185,241 JEFFERSON ELEM 497 2,455,410 166,711 291,854 MEAOOWCLIFF ELEM 373 1,817 540 133,001 225,897 MITCHELL ELEM 244 393,846 83,153 1,486,000 ML KING ELEM 551 951,625 132,375 2,461,301 PULASKI HEIGHTS ELEM 454 2,013 738 676,245 261,260 RIGHTSELL ELEM 228 368,019 75,101 1,386,057 ROMINE ELEM 268 1,635,874 86,417 286,408 WASHINGTON ELEM 656 3,357,721 269,110 725,721 WILLIAMS ELEM 501 808,674 85,014 2,497,539 WILSON ELEM 344 1,907,348 123,770 261,719 WOODRUFF ELEM 232 1,178,229 79,211 232,845 TERRY ELEM 515 2,469,824 87,390 305,650 FULBRIGHT ELEM 500 2,636,185 122,015 295,611 ROCKEFELLER ELEM 337 543,958 238,340 2,462,583 BADGETT ELEM 188 1,066,939 76,411 221,531 BASELINE ELEM 266 1,391,702 111,240 278,321 CHICOT ELEM 482 2,579,823 160,779 423,384 CLOVERDALE ELEM 464 2,013,250 146,049 408,658 DAVID 0'0000 ELEM 242 1,316,168 51,844 168,056 GEYER SPRINGS ELEM 274 1,283,246 86,651 271,310 MABELVALE ELEM 401 1,907,557 177,743 309,892 OTTER CREEK ELEM 310 1,590,320 90,096 182,817 WAKEFIELD ELEM 436 2,039,482 401,762 254,361 WATSON ELEM 443 2,014,099 114,039 381,504 ALT LEARNING CTR NIA 75,772 0 532,484 ISH ELEM N/A 14,500 0 0 TOTAL BUDGET 13,525 53,930,464 5,071,071 29,956,344 See note section for Cost per Student for Total Programs for explanations of the funding categories, expense categories, totals and cost per student category. TOTAL 4,202,278 2,134,807 2,138 383 2,705,749 3,920,112 1,526,938 2,413,571 3,201,709 2,319,983 2,329,406 1,846,864 2,913,975 2,176,438 1,962,999 3,545,301 2,951 243 1,829,177 2,008,699 4,352,552 3,391,227 2,292,837 1,490,285 2,862,864 3,053,811 3,244,881 1,364,881 1,781,263 3,163,986 2,567,957 1,536,068 1,641,207 2,395,192 1,863,233 2,695,605 2,509,642 608,256 14,500 88,957,879 The Little Rock School District Finance Office and the Local Fiscal Services Division of the ADE. 632 COST PER STU FY 96/97 6,969 6,297 6,058 5,533 6,490 6,972 5,375 8,426 8,957 7,466 5,919 5,863 5,835 8,045 6,434 6,501 8,023 7,495 6,635 6,769 6,665 6,424 5,559 6,108 9,629 7,260 6,696 6,564 5,534 6,347 5,990 5,973 6,010 6,183 5,665 NIA NIA 6,577 LEA# 6001003 6001007 6001009 6001010 6001011 6001013 6001061 6001062 I SOURCE: LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT COST PER STUDENT FOR JR HIGH PROGRAMS FY 96/97 FUNDING SOURCES ENROLLMENT LOCAL \u0026amp; SCHOOL @ 10/01/96 STATE FEDERAL DESEG TOTAL MANN JR. HIGH 854 1,378,457 144,914 4,250,402 5,773,773 DUNBAR JR. HIGH 775 3,783,572 139,406 598,579 4,521,557 FOREST HEIGHTS JR. HIGH 630 3,673,542 138,057 524,614 4,336,213 PULASKI HEIGHTS JR. HIGH 785 4,047,773 133,206 512,955 4,693,934 SOUTHWEST JR. HIGH 594 3,091,016 138,034 502,914 3,731,964 HENDERSON JR. HIGH 741 4,338,055 166,418 529,464 5,033,937 CLOVERDALE JR. HIGH 639 3,103,929 171,190 550,342 3,825,461 MABELVALE JR. HIGH 468 2,990,976 100,085 287,413 3,378,474 TOTAL BUDGET I 5,486 I 26,407,320 1,131,310 7,756,683 35,295,313 See note section for Cost per Student for Total Programs for explanations of the funding categories, expense categories, totals and cost per student category. The Little Rock School District Finance Office and the Local Fiscal Services Division of the ADE. 633 COST PER STU FY 96/97 6,761 5,834 6,883 5,980 6,283 6,793 5,987 7,219 I 6,434 I LEA# 6001001 6001002 6001005 6001063 6001064 N/A I SOURCE: LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT COST PER STUDENT FOR HIGH SCHOOL PROGRAMS FY 96/97 FUNDING SOURCES ENROLLMENT LOCAL \u0026amp; SCHOOL @ 10/01/96 STATE FEDERAL DESEG TOTAL CENTRAL HIGH 1,777 8,615,136 301,537 971,579 9,888,252 HALL HIGH 823 5,111,385 139,654 425,680 5,676,719 PARKVIEW HIGH 879 1,418,810 149,157 4,812,493 6,380,460 JA FAIR HIGH 829 4,721,476 140,672 475,841 5,337,989 MCCLELLAN HIGH 926 5,363,665 157,132 591,126 6,111,923 METRO HIGH N/A 1,475,600 76,908 0 1,552,508 TOTAL BUDGET I 5,234 I 26,706,072 965,060 7,276,719 34,947,851 See note section for Cost per Student for Total Programs for explanations of the funding categories, expense categories, totals and cost per student category. The Little Rock School District Finance Office and the Local Fiscal Services Division of the ADE. 634 COST PER STU FY 96/97 5,565 6,898 7,259 6,439 6,600 N/A - 6,677 I LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT CYCLE 1 SCHOOL TEACHER \u0026amp; ADMINISTRATOR BUDGET FY 96/97 LEA# SCHOOL TEACHER SALARIES ADMINISTRATOR SALARIES 6001005 PARKVIEW HIGH 2,283,538 228,084 6001023 FAIR PARK ELEM 552,475 50,108 6001024 FOREST PARK ELEM 811,654 59,778 6001030 JEFFERSON ELEM 1,026,676 104,844 6001038 PULASKI HEIGHTS ELEM 773,251 50,841 6001044 WILSON ELEM 888,517 45,990 6001047 TERRY ELEM 982,833 96,083 6001052 BASELINE ELEM 568,672 59,163 6001055 DAVID O'DODD ELEM 543,994 53,307 6001063 JAFAIR HIGH 2,076,618 192,889 TOTAL BUDGET 10,508,228 941,087 Teacher Budget FY 96197 The district's total teacher and school site administrator salary expense for the first quarter of FY 96/97 totaled $6,655,050 or 32.3 percent of the district's total expense for the same time period of $20,609,842. Total district expense for teacher and school site administrator salaries for FY 96/97 is budgeted at $65,272,421 or 41.0 percent of the total budget for FY 96/97 of $159,201,043. Teacher salary budget for each Cycle 1 school for FY 96/97. Administrator Budget TOTAL 2,511,622 602,583 871,432 1,131,520 824,092 934,507 1,078,916 627,835 597,301 2,269,507 11,449,315 FY 96197 School site administrator salary budget for each Cycle 1 school for FY 96/97. Total Category FY 96197 SOURCE: The totals in this column represent the total teacher and administrator budget for each Cycle 1 school for fiscal year 1996/1997. The Little Rock School District Finance Office. 635 NLRSD PROGRAM COST FY 95/96 636 F . BUDGET INFORMATION 1. Cost of operating all elementary programs, junior high school programs, and high school programs by funding source (local/regular state/federal and special state desegregation funding). North Little Rock School District (NLRSD) The following is a summary of the NLRSD Program Cost Section of the February 1, 1997 Monitoring Report. Total program expense for the district is separated by funding source and expense category within the funding source. Total program expense is actual for FY 95/96 and budgeted for FY 96/97. Separate schedules indicate the total program expense for the Cycle 1 schools. The programs funded by the Cycle 1 schools are also included. Teacher expense and school administrator expense are also presented for the Cycle 1 schools. Cost per student information is presented for the: district~ elementary school programs~ junior high school programs~ high school programs\nand Cycle 1 school programs. Total Operating Expenses The district's total operating expenses for FY 95/96 were $45,497,622 or an increase of3.6 percent over FY 94/95 expenses of$43,93 l,450. The district's total operating expenses for FY 96/97 are budgeted at $53,883,330 which is an increase of 18. 4 percent. Elementary school operating costs rose from $22,125,861 in FY 94/95 to $24,007,591 in FY 95/96. Operating co ts for elementary chool are budgeted to rise an additional $4,219,077 in FY 96/97 to $2 ,226,66 . Operating cost for junior high chools increa ed from 7,512, 0 in FY 94/95 to $7,690,795 in FY 95/96. The junior high chool op rating co. t for FY 96/97 is budgeted to increa e 21.3 percent to $9,330,107. Operating co ts for high school decrea d from $14,292,709 in FY 94/95 to $ I 3,799,236 in FY 95/96. The co t for operating high chool are budg ted to increa e 18.3 p rcent in FY 96/97 to $16,326,555 OUR E The North Li Ille Rock School District Finance O[fice, the ADJ~' General Finance Section, and the ADE Local Fiscal Serwces Sectwn. 637 F . BUDGET INFORMATION (Continued) 1. Cost of operating all elementary programs, junior high chool programs, and high school programs by funding source (local/regular state/federal and special state desegregation funding). (Continued) North Little Rock School District ( LRSD) (Continued) Enrollment Total district enrollment as of October 1, 1995 declined by 155 students or 1. 7 percent in FY 95/96 for a total enrollment of 8,802 as compared with total enrollment as of October 1, 1994 of8,957. Total enrollment for FY 96/97 increased to 8,966 as of October 1, 1996. Enrollment in the district's elementary schools decreased from 4,807 as of October 1, 1994 to 4,789 or 0.4 percent in FY 95/96 as of October 1, 1995. Elementary school enrollment decreased in FY 96/97 to 4,773 as of October l, 1996. Junior high school enrollment declined by 27 students from 1,479 in FY 94/95 to I 452 or 1.8 percent in FY 95/96. Junior high school enrollment in FY 96/97 increased as of October 1, 1996 to 1,476 . Enrollment in the district's high schools declined in FY 95/96 from 2,671 as of October 1, 1994 to 2,561 or 4.1 percent as of October I, 1995. High school enrollment increased in FY 96/97 to 2, 717 as of October 1, 1996. Cost per Student Rate The district's cost per student rate increased from $4,905 in FY 94/95 to $5,169 in FY 95/96 resulting in an overall cost per student increase of 5 .4 percent. The cost per student rate is budgeted to increase 16.3 percent in FY 96/97 to $6,010. The elementary cost per student rate increased in FY 95/96 from $4,603 in FY 94/95 to $5,013 or 8.9 percent in FY 95/96. The elementary cost per student rate is budgeted to increase an additional 18.0 percent in FY 96/97 to $5,914. The junior high cost per student rate increased 4.3 percent in FY 95/96 from $5,080 in FY 94/95 to $5,297 in FY 95/96. The junior high cost per student rate is budgeted to increase to $6,321 in FY 96/97. SOURCES: The North Li/tie Rock School District Finance CHfice, the ADE General Fi11a11ce Sec\ntio,1, and the ADE Local Fiscal Services Section 638 F . BUDGET INFORMATION (Continued) 1. Cost of operating all elementary programs, junior high school programs, and high school programs by funding source (local/regular state/federal and special state desegregation funding). (Continued) North Little Rock School District (NLRSD) (Continued) Cost per Student Rate (Continued) The high school cost per student rate increased from $5,351 in FY 94/95 to $5,388 in FY 95/96. The high school cost per student rate is budgeted to increase an additional 11.5 percent in FY 96/97 to $6,009. Desegregation Expense The district's desegregation costs for FY 95/96 were $2,124,324. The district received desegregation funding from the ADE in FY 95/96 as stipulated in the Settlement Agreement totaling $1,556,119. The district has budgeted $1,603,938 in total desegregation expen e for FY 96/97. The district should receive approximately $1,785,092 in FY 96/97 in desegregation funding from the ADE. Of the amount expected to be received by the di trict in FY 96/97, only $1,488,072 of the total amount relates to expenses for FY 96/97 because the district was reimbursed $297,020 in FY 96/97 for desegregation transportation expense incurred from FY 9 l /92 through FY 95/96. All of the information received from the LR D has been reconciled for accuracy and reliability with no exception noted. The di trict i utilizing the funds received from the ADE in accordance with the ettlement Agreement for de egregation purpo es 0 RCES The North Uttle Rock School District Finance (~[fice, the ADE General Finance . ~ection, and the Al lj Local Fis al Ser\\1/ces Section. 639 NORTH LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT TOTAL PROGRAM OPERATING COST FY 95/96 FUNDING SOURCES LOCAUSTATE FEDERAL LEA# SCHOOL PROGRAM DISTRICT TRANS LEGAL PROGRAM DISTRICT 6002050 AMBOY ELEMENT ARY 1,173,309 491,365 63,047 1,096 98,758 59,468 6002053 BELWOOD ELEMENTARY 492,610 141,029 18,095 315 18,525 17,068 6002054 BOONE PARK ELEM 1,142,858 480,172 61,610 1,071 233,131 58,114 6002055 CRESTWOOD ELEMENTARY 694,330 271,985 34,898 607 18,179 32,918 6002056 GLENVIEW ELEMENTARY 682,952 233,930 30,015 522 62,208 28,312 6002057 INDIAN HILLS ELEMENTARY 1,245,767 427,566 54,861 954 130,893 51,747 6002058 LAKEWOOD ELEMENTARY 555,118 250,719 32,170 559 86,188 30,344 6002059 CENTRAL ELEMENTARY 1,248,444 451,070 57,876 1,006 158,962 54,592 6002060 LYNCH DRIVE ELEM 1,133,696 486,888 62,472 1,086 149,869 58,926 6002061 MEADOW PARK ELEM 646,017 254,077 32,600 567 74,625 30,750 6002063 N. HEIGHTS ELEMENTARY 1,066,474 445,474 57,158 994 104,452 53,914 6002064 PARK HILL ELEMENTARY 684,568 322,353 41,361 719 77,647 39,013 6002065 PIKE VIEW ELEMENTARY 1,103,469 387,271 49,690 864 58,166 46,870 6002067 REDWOOD ELEMENTARY 785,594 249,600 32,026 557 117,011 30,208 6002069 SEVENTH STREET ELEM 1,070,799 421,969 54,142 942 103,698 51,070 6002070 LAKEWOOD MIDDLE SCHOOL 1,723,479 542,852 69,653 1,211 2,719 65,700 6002072 RIOGEROAD MIDDLE SCHOOL 1,876,488 674,927 86,599 1,506 48,903 81,684 6002075 NLR HIGH SCHOOL-EAST 4,485,842 1,452,828 186,411 3,241 53,588 175,831 6002076 NLR HIGH SCHOOL-WEST 4,436,039 1,413,653 181,384 3,154 117,359 171,090 6002077 ROSE CITY MIDDLE SCHOOL 1,609,191 407,419 52,275 909 105,647 49,309 6002078 BARING CROSS CENTER 347,538 44,771 5,745 100 82,916 5,419 N/A SECONDARY ALTERNATIVE 411,646 0 0 0 51,707 0 N/A ELEMENT ARY ALTERNATIVE 451,405 0 0 0 20,181 0 TOTAL PROGRAM EXPENSE 29,067,633 9,851,918 1,264,088 21,980 1,975,332 1,192,347 OURCE: See the note section on the next page for explanations of the categories. The North Little Rock School District Finance Office. 640 DESEGREGATION PROGRAM DISTRICT TRANS LEGAL TOTAL 66,150 11,611 15,039 4,906 1,984,749 28,085 3,333 4,317 1,408 724,785 65,288 11,347 14,697 4,794 2,073,082 42,479 6,427 8,325 2,716 1,112,864 50,475 5,528 7,160 2,336 1,103,438 60,320 10,104 13,087 4,269 1,999,568 39,915 5,925 7,674 2,503 1,011,115 62,855 10,659 13,806 4,504 2,063,774 69,349 11,506 14,902 4,861 1,993,555 40,605 6,004 1,m 2,537 1,095,559 61,311 10,527 13,635 4,448 1,818,387 48,013 7,617 9,866 3,218 1,234,375 72,041 9,152 11,853 3,867 1,74 ,243 37,453 5,898 7,640 2,492 1,2 a,479 59,868 9,972 12,915 4,213 1,78 ,!588 62,183 12,828 16,615 5,420 2,60 ,660 77,128 15,949 20,658 6,739 2,8 0, 61 180,712 34,332 44,467 14,506 6,631,758 229,025 33,406 43,268 14,114 6,tkl, 02 46,638 9,628 12,470 4,068 2,2Q7,554 5,094 1,058 1,370 447 494, M 61,633 0 0 0 624, a 24,986 0 0 0 S , r2 1,491,606 232,811 301,541 98,366 4S,'191,b22 NOTES FOR NLRSD TOTAL PROGRAM OPERATING COST SCHEDULE FOR FY 95/96 Funding Categories Local \u0026amp; State Federal Deseg Expense Categories Local \u0026amp; State Federal Deseg Total Category FY 95/96 SOURCE: This category includes funding from local sources, regular state sources, and unrestricted federal sources. This category includes funding from restricted federal sources which must be accounted for separately from the General Fund. This category consists of funding for desegregation purposes. This category consists of expenses incurred relative to regular program expense, district expense, transportation expense and legal expense funded by unrestricted local, state and federal sources. This category consists of expenses incurred relative to federal program expense and district expense funded by restricted federal sources. This category consists of expenses incurred relative to desegregation program expense, district expense, transportation expense and legal expense funded from desegregation sources. The totals in this column represent the total expense for each school site for fiscal year 1995/1996. The North Little Rock School District Finance Office. 641 LEA# SCHOOL 6002053 BELWOOD ELEMENT ARY 6002054 BOONE PARK ELEM 6002056 GLENVIEW ELEMENTARY 6002063 N. HEIGHTS ELEMENTARY 6002064 PARK HILL ELEMENTARY 6002065 PIKE VIEW ELEMENTARY 6002067 REDWOOD ELEMENTARY TOTAL CYCLE 1 PROGRAM EXPENSE NORTH LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT CYCLE 1 SCHOOL PROGRAM OPERATING COST FY 95/96 FUNDING SOURCES LOCAUSTATE FEDERAL PROGRAM DISTRICT TRANS LEGAL PROGRAM DISTRICT PROGRAM 492,610 141,029 18,095 315 18,525 17,068 28,085 1,142,658 480,172 61,610 1,071 233,131 58,114 65,268 682,952 233,930 30,015 522 62,208 28,312 50,475 1,066,474 445,474 57,158 994 104,452 53,914 61,311 684,566 322,353 41,361 719 77,647 39,013 48,013 1,103,469 387,271 49,690 664 58,166 46,670 72,041 785,594 249,600 32,026 557 117,011 30,206 37,453 5,958,525 2,259,629 289,955 5,042 671,140 273,499 362,666 The district's Total Program Expense for the fiscal year was $45,497,622. The programs funded in each of the Cycle 1 schools are indicated on the chart entitled \"Programs in Cycle 1 Schools.\" DESEGREGATION DISTRICT TRANS 3,333 4,317 11,347 14,697 5,528 7,160 10,527 13,635 7,617 9,866 9,152 11,853 5,898 7,640 53,402 69,168 See the note section for Total Program Operating Cost for explanations of the funding categories, expense categories and totals. SOURCE: The North Little Rock School District Finance Office. 642 LEGAL TOTAL 1,408 724,785 4,794 2,073,082 2,336 1,103,438 4,448 1,818,387 3,218 1,234,375 3,867 1,743,243 2,492 1,268,479 22,563 9,9 }89 NORTH LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT Programs in Cycle 1 Schools FY 95/96 BELWOOD BOONE PARK GLENVIEW N. HEIGHTS PARK HILL PIKE VIEW REDWOOD PROGRAMS ELEM ELEM ELEM ELEM ELEM ELEM ELEM Four-Year Old X X Kindergarten X X X X X X X Elementary X X X X X X X Elementary Music X X X X X X X Itinerant Instruction X X X X X X X Resource Room X X X X X X X Special Class X X X X X Homebound \u0026amp; Hospital X X X X X X X Gifted \u0026amp; Talented X X X X X X X Guidance Services X X X X X X X Library Services X X X X X X X SOURCE: The North Little Rock School District Finance Office. 643 NORTH LITTLE ROCK SCHO DrSTRfCT COST PER STUDENT FOR TOTAL PROGRAMS FY 95/96 FUNDING SOURCES ENROLLMENT LOCAL\u0026amp; LEAi SCHOOL @ 10/01/95 STATE FEDERAL DESEG TOTAL 6002050 AMBOY ELEMENTARY 439 1,728,817 158,226 97,706 1,984,749 6002053 BELWOOD ELEMENT ARY 126 652,049 35,593 37,143 724,785 6002054 BOONE PARK ELEM 429 1,685,711 291,245 96,126 2,073,082 6002055 CRESTWOOD ELEMENTARY 243 1 ,001 ,820 51,097 59,947 1,112,864 6002056 GLENVIEW ELEMENT ARY 209 947,419 90,520 65,499 1,103,438 6002057 INDIAN HILLS ELEMENT ARY 382 1,729,148 182,640 87,780 1,999,568 6002058 LAKEWOOD ELEMENTARY 224 838,566 116,532 56,017 1,011,115 6002059 CENTRAL ELEMENT ARY 403 1,758,396 213,554 91,824 2,063,774 6002060 LYNCH ORNE ELEM 435 1,684,142 208,795 100,618 1,993,555 6002061 MEAOOW PARK ELEM 227 933,261 105,375 56,923 1,095,559 6002063 N. HEIGHTS ELEMENTARY 398 1,570,100 158,366 89,921 1,818,387 6002064 PARK HILL ELEMENTARY 288 1,049,001 116,660 68,714 1,234,375 6002065 PIKE VIEW ELEMENT ARY 346 1,541,294 105,036 96,913 1,743,243 6002067 REDWOOD ELEMENTARY 223 1,067,777 147,219 53,483 1,268,479 6002069 SEVENTH STREET ELEM 377 1,547,852 154,768 86,968 1,789,588 6002070 LAKEWOOD MIDDLE SCHOOL 485 2,337,195 68,419 97,046 2,502,660 6002072 RIDGEROAD MIDDLE SCHOOL 603 2,639,520 130,587 120,474 2,890,581 6002075 NLR HIGH SCHOOL-EAST 1,298 6,128,322 229,419 274,017 6,631,758 6002076 NLR HIGH SCHOOL-WEST 1,263 6,034,230 288,449 319,813 6,642,492 6002077 ROSE CITY MIDDLE SCHOOL 364 2,069,794 154,956 72,804 2,297,554 6002078 BARING CROSS CENTER 40 398,154 88,335 7,969 494,458 N/A SECONDARY ALTERNATIVE NIA 411,646 51,707 61,633 524,986 N/A ELEMENTARY ALTERNATIVE NIA 451,405 20,181 24,986 496,572 TOTAL EXPENSE 8,802 40,205,619 3,167,679 2,124,324 45,497,622 Funding Categories Local \u0026amp; State This category includes funding from 104 Federal This category includes funding from re Deseg This category consists of funding for dE Expense Categories Local \u0026amp; State Federal l~( - ,')JC/v 5 l ~ 1'tJJol es. \u0026lt;.. Deseg Total Category FY 95'96 This category consists of expenses inc This category consists of expenses fun This category consists of expenses inc1 The totals in this column represent the Cost Per Student Category FY95'96 SOURCES: The cost per student figures were calc1.. October 1, 1995. The North Little Rock School District Finance Office and the Local Fiscal Services Division of the ADE. 644 COST PER STU FY 95196 4,521 5,752 4,832 4,580 5,280 5,234 4,514 5,121 4,583 4,826 4,569 4,286 5,038 5,688 4,747 5,160 4,794 5,109 5,259 6,312 12,361 NIA NIA 5,169 - NORTH LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DrSTRrcr COST PER STUDENT FOR TOTAL PROGRAMS FY 95/96 FUNDING SOURCES ENROLLMENT LOCAL\u0026amp; COST PER STU LEAi SCHOOL @ 10/01/95 STATE FEDERAL DESEG TOTAL FY 95/96 6002050 AMBOY ELEMENTARY 439 1,728,817 158,226 97,706 1,984,749 4,521 6002053 BELWOOD ELEMENTARY 126 652,049 35,593 37,143 724,785 5,752 6002054 BOONE PARK ELEM 429 1,685,711 291,245 96,126 2,073,082 4,832 6002055 CRESTWOOD ELEMENTARY 243 1,001 ,820 51,097 59,947 1,112,864 4,580 6002056 GLENVIEW ELEMENT ARY 209 947,419 90,520 65,499 1,103,438 5,280 6002057 INDIAN HILLS ELEMENT ARY 382 1,729,148 182,640 87,780 1,999,568 5,234 6002058 LAKEWOOD ELEMENTARY 224 838,566 116,532 56,017 1,011,115 4,514 6002059 CENTRAL ELEMENTARY 403 1,758,396 213,554 91,824 2,063,774 5,121 6002060 LYNCH DRIVE ELEM 435 1,684,142 208,795 100,618 1,993,555 4,583 6002061 MEADOW PARK ELEM 227 933,261 105,375 56,923 1,095,559 4,826 6002063 N. HEIGHTS ELEMENTARY 398 1,570,100 158,366 89,921 1,818,387 4,569 6002064 PARK HILL ELEMENTARY 288 1,049,001 116,660 68,714 1,234,375 4,286 6002065 PIKE VIEW ELEMENTARY 346 1,541,294 105,036 96,913 1,743,243 5,038 6002067 REDWOOD ELEMENT ARY 223 1,067,777 147,219 53,483 1,268,479 5,688 6002069 SEVENTH STREET ELEM 377 1,547,852 154,768 86,968 1,789,588 4,747 6002070 LAKEWOOD MIDDLE SCHOOL 485 2,337,195 68,419 97,046 2,502,660 5,160 6002072 RIDGEROAD MIDDLE SCHOOL 603 2,639,520 130,587 120,474 2,890,581 4,794 6002075 NLR HIGH SCHOOL-EAST 1,298 6,128,322 229,419 274,017 6,631,758 5,109 6002076 NLR HIGH SCHOOL-WEST 1,263 6,034,230 288,449 319,813 6,642,492 5,259 6002077 ROSE CITY MIDDLE SCHOOL 364 2,069,794 154,956 72,804 2,297,554 6,312 6002078 BARING CROSS CENTER 40 398,154 88,335 7,969 494,458 12,361 NIA SECONDARY ALTERNATIVE NIA 411,646 51,707 61,633 524,986 NIA NIA ELEMENTARY ALTERNATIVE NIA 451,405 20,181 24,986 496,572 NIA TOT AL EXPENSE 8,802 40,205,619 3,167,679 2,124,324 45,497,622 5,169 Funding Categories Local \u0026amp; State Federal Deseg Expense Categories Local \u0026amp; State Federal Deseg Total Category FY 95196 This category includes funding from local sources, regular state sources, and unrestricted federal sources. This category includes funding from restricted federal sources which must be accounted for separately from the General Fund. This category consists of funding for desegregation purposes. This category consists of expenses incurred relative to regular program expense funded by unrestricted local, state and federal sources. This category consists of expenses funded by restricted federal sources. This category consists of expenses incurred relative to desegregation programs funded from desegregation sources. The totals in this column represent the total expense for each school site for fiscal year 199511996. Cost Per Student Category FY 9il96 SOURCES: The cost per student figures were calculated by dividing each school's fiscal year 199511996 total expense by their enrollment as of October 1 , 1995. The North Little Rock School District Finance Office and the Local Fiscal Services Division of the ADE. 644 I LEA# 6002053 6002054 6002056 6002063 6002064 6002065 6002067 I SOURCES: NORTH LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT COST PER STUDENT FOR CYCLE 1 SCHOOL PROGRAMS FY 95/96 I FUNDING SOURCES ENROLLMENT LOCAL \u0026amp; SCHOOL @ 10/01/95 STATE FEDERAL DESEG TOTAL BELWOOD ELEMENTARY 126 652,049 35,593 37,143 724,785 BOONE PARK ELEM 429 1,685,711 291,245 96,126 2,073,082 GLENVIEW ELEMENTARY 209 947,419 90,520 65,499 1,103,438 N. HEIGHTS ELEMENTARY 398 1,570,100 158,366 89,921 1,818,387 PARK HILL ELEMENTARY 288 1,049,001 116,660 68,714 1,234,375 PIKE VIEW ELEMENTARY 346 1,541,294 105,036 96,913 1,743,243 REDWOOD ELEMENTARY 223 1,067,777 147,219 53,483 1,268,479 TOT AL EXPENSE I 2,019 I 8,513,351 944,639 507,799 9,965,789 See the note section for Cost Per Student for Total Programs for explanations of the funding categories, expense categories, totals and cost per student category. The North Little Rock School District Finance Office and the Local Fiscal Services Division of the ADE. 645 COST PER STU FY 95/96 5,752 4,832 5,280 4,569 4,286 5,038 5,688 4,936 - NORTH LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT COST PER STUDENT BY PROGRAM FY 95/96 PERCENT AVG COST DISTRICT VARIANCE PROGRAM OF PER STUDENT AVG COST OVER DIST AVG/ SCHOOL PROGRAM COST TOTAL COST BY PROGRAM PER STUDENT (UNDER DIST AVG) ELEMENTARY PROGRAMS 24,007,591 52.8% 5,013 5,169 (156) JR. HIGH PROGRAMS 7,690,795 16.9% 5,297 5,169 128 HIGH SCHOOL PROGRAMS 13,799,236 30.3% 5,388 5,169 219 NLRSD PROGRAM COST FY 95/96 NLRSD COST PER STU FY 95/96 25000000 20000000 15000000 10000000 5000000 0 PROGRAM COST PERCENT OF TOTAL COST AVG COST PER STUDENT BY PROGRAM DISTRICT AVG COST PER STU VARIANCE SOURCE: 5400 5200 5000 4800 Program costs consist of the total cost for FY 95/96 for the indicated category of school programs. The percentage of program cost to the total district cost of $45,497,622 for FY 95/96. The total program cost for FY 95/96 to the total number of students in the program category. The total cost for FY 95/96 of $45,497,622 to the total enrollment at October 1, 1995 of 8,802. The difference between the cost per student by program and the district average cost per student. A positive variance indicates the cost per student by program is greater than the district cost per student, and a negative variance indicates the cost per student by program is less than the district cost per student. The North Little Rock School District Finance Office. 646 LEA# 6002050 6002053 6002054 6002055 6002056 6002057 6002058 6002059 6002060 6002061 6002063 6002064 6002065 6002067 6002069 6002078 N/A SOURCES: NORTH LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT COST PER STUDENT FOR ELEMENTARY PROGRAMS FY 95/96 FUNDING SOURCES ENROLLMENT LOCAL \u0026amp; SCHOOL @ 10/01/95 STATE FEDERAL DESEG TOTAL AMBOY ELEMENTARY 439 1,728,817 158,226 97,706 1,984,749 BELWOOD ELEMENTARY 126 652,049 35,593 37,143 724,785 BOONE PARK ELEM 429 1,685,711 291,245 96,126 2,073,082 CRESTWOOD ELEMENTARY 243 1,001,820 51,097 59,947 1,112,864 GLENVIEW ELEMENTARY 209 947,419 90,520 65,499 1,103,438 INDIAN HILLS ELEMENTARY 382 1,729,148 182,640 87,780 1,999,568 LAKEWOOD ELEMENTARY 224 838,566 116,532 56,017 1,011,115 CENTRAL ELEMENTARY 403 1,758,396 213,554 91,824 2,063,774 LYNCH DRIVE ELEM 435 1,684,142 208,795 100,618 1,993,555 MEADOW PARK ELEM 227 933,261 105,375 56,923 1,095,559 N. HEIGHTS ELEMENTARY 398 1,570,100 158,366 89,921 1,818,387 PARK HILL ELEMENTARY 288 1,049,001 116,660 68,714 1,234,375 PIKE VIEW ELEMENTARY 346 1,541,294 105,036 96,913 1,743,243 REDWOOD ELEMENTARY 223 1,067,777 147,219 53,483 1,268,479 SEVENTH STREET ELEM 377 1,547,852 154,768 86,968 1,789,588 BARING CROSS CENTER 40 398,154 88,335 7,969 494,458 ELEMENTARY ALTERNATIVE N/A 451,405 20,181 24,986 496,572 TOTAL EXPENSE 4,789 20,584,912 2,244,142 1,178,537 24,007,591 See the note section for Cost Per Student for Total Programs for explanations of the funding categories, expense categories, totals and cost per student category. The North Little Rock School District Finance Office and the Local Fiscal Services Division of the ADE. 647 COST PER STU FY 95/96 4,521 5,752 4,832 4,580 5,280 5,234 4,514 5,121 4,583 4,826 4,569 4,286 5,038 5,688 4,747 12,361 N/A 5,013 LEA# 6002070 6002072 6002077 URGES: NORTH LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT COST PER STUDENT FOR JR HIGH PROGRAMS FY 95/96 FUNDING SOURCES ENROLLMENT LOCAL \u0026amp; SCHOOL @ 10/01/95 STATE FEDERAL DESEG TOTAL LAKEWOOD MIDDLE SCHOOL 485 2,337,195 68,419 97,046 2,502,660 RIDGEROAD MIDDLE SCHOOL 603 2,639,520 130,587 120,474 2,890,581 ROSE CITY MIDDLE SCHOOL 364 2,069,794 154,956 72,804 2,297,554 TOT AL EXPENSE 1,452 7,046,509 353,962 290,324 7,690,795 See the note section for Cost Per Student for Total Programs for explanations of the funding categories, expense categories, totals and cost per student category. The North Little Rock School District Finance Office and the Local Fiscal Services Division of the ADE. 648 COST PER STU FY 95/96 5,160 4,794 6,312 5,297 I LEA# 6002075 6002076 N/A I SOURCES: NORTH LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT COST PER STUDENT FOR HIGH SCHOOL PROGRAMS FY 95/96 I FUNDING SOURCES ENROLLMENT LOCAL \u0026amp; B SCHOOL @ 10/01/95 STATE FEDERAL DESEG NLR HIGH SCHOOL-EAST 1,298 6,128,322 229,419 274,017 6,631,758 NLR HIGH SCHOOL-WEST 1,263 6,034,230 288,449 319,813 6,642,492 SECONDARY ALTERNATIVE N/A 411,646 51,707 61,633 524,986 TOT AL EXPENSE I 2,561 II 12,574,198 I 569,575 I 655,463 I 13,799,236 See the note section for Cost Per Student for Total Programs for explanations of the funding categories, expense categories, totals and cost per student category. The North Little Rock School District Finance Office and the Local Fiscal Services Division of the ADE. 649 COST PER STU FY 95/96 5,109 5,259 N/A 5,388 I NORTH LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT CYCLE 1 SCHOOL TEACHER \u0026amp; ADMINISTRATOR EXPENSE FY 95/96 TEACHER ADMINISTRATOR G\nJ LEA# SCHOOL SALARIES SALARIES 6002053 6002054 6002056 6002063 6002064 6002065 6002067 BELWOOD ELEMENTARY 172,649 45,194 BOONE PARK ELEM 769,643 81,814 GLENVIEW ELEMENTARY 472,253 45,261 N. HEIGHTS ELEMENT ARY 619,285 81,621 PARK HILL ELEMENTARY 467,983 44,101 PIKE VIEW ELEMENTARY 771,728 45,397 REDWOOD ELEMENTARY 478,999 48,828 TOTAL II 3,752,540 I 392,216 Total district expense for teacher and school site administrator salaries for FY 95/96 was $20,715,738 or 45.5 percent of total expense for FY 95/96 of $45,497,622. Teacher Expense II FY95/96 Teacher salary expense for each Cycle 1 school for FY 95/96. Administrator Expense 217,843 851,457 517,514 700,906 512,084 817,125 527,827 4,144,756 FY95/96 Administrator salary expense for each Cycle 1 school for FY 95/96. Total Category FY95/96 The totals in this column represent the total teacher and administrator salary expense for each Cycle 1 school for FY 95/96. SOURCE: The North Little Rock School District Finance Office. 650 I NLRSD PROGRAM COST FY 96/97 651 NORTH LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT TOTAL PROGRAM OPERATING BUDGET FY 96/97 FUNDING SOURCES LOCAUSTATE FEDERAL LEA# SCHOOL PROGRAM DISTRICT TRANS LEGAL PROGRAM DISTRICT 6002050 AMBOY ELEMENT ARY 1,309,154 561,443 69,775 1,401 113,250 56,384 6002053 BELWOOD ELEMENTARY 684,749 256,481 31,875 640 97,256 25,758 6002054 BOONE PARK ELEM 1,594,213 871,097 108,259 2,174 175,448 87,481 6002055 CRESTWOOD ELEMENTARY 729,529 406,616 50,534 1,015 55,533 40,835 6002056 GLENVIEW ELEMENTARY 890,806 292,451 36,345 730 65,726 29,370 6002057 INDIAN HILLS ELEMENTARY 1,375,541 592,721 73,662 1,479 125,284 59,525 6002058 LAKEWOOD ELEMENTARY 674,180 331,549 41,204 828 82,671 33,296 6002059 CENTRAL ELEMENTARY 1,303,396 547,368 68,026 1,366 194,355 54,970 6002060 LYNCH DRIVE ELEM 1,368,755 691,247 85,907 1,725 135,678 69,420 6002061 MEADOW PARK ELEM 767,739 331,549 41,204 828 69,474 33,296 6002063 N HEIGHTS ELEMENT ARY 1,146,905 720,962 89,600 1,800 117,670 72,404 6002064 PARK HILL ELEMENTARY 844,885 441,022 54,810 1,101 74,142 44,290 6002065 PIKE VIEW ELEMENTARY 1,178,378 588,030 73,079 1,468 73,553 59,054 6002067 REDWOOD ELEMENTARY 872,657 320,601 39,844 800 78,042 32,197 6002069 SEVENTH STREET ELEM 1,163,805 511,398 63,556 1,277 104,156 51,358 6002070 LAKEWOOD MIDDLE SCHOOL 1,876,012 792,901 98,541 1,979 132,555 79,628 6002072 RIDGEROAD MIDDLE SCHOOL 2,086,635 946,164 117,588 2,362 61,083 95,020 6002075 NLR HIGH SCHOOL-EAST 5,242,253 2,144,118 266,467 5,352 21,916 215,327 6002076 NLR HIGH SCHOOL-WEST 5,207,064 2,105,020 261,608 5,254 143 064 211,400 6002077 ROSE CITY MIDDLE SCHOOL 1,914,800 569,263 70,747 1,421 N/A ARGENT A ACADEMY 675,436 0 0 0 TOT AL PROGRAM BUDGET 32,906,892 14,022,001 1,742,631 35,000 re daldl SOURCE For the first quarter of FY 96/97, the district Incurred expenses totaling s\nSee the note section on the next page for explanations of the categories. The North Little Rock School District Fin nee Office. 65 DESEGREGATION PROGRAM DISTRICT TRANS LEGAL TOTAL 31,989 13,836 14,787 3,403 2,175,422 16,732 6,321 6,755 1,555 1,128,122 38,954 21,467 22,943 5,281 2,927,317 17,826 10,021 10,710 2,465 1,325,084 21,767 7,207 7,703 1,773 1,353,878 33,611 14,607 15,611 3,593 2,295,634 16,473 8,171 8,732 2,010 1,199,114 31,848 13,489 14,417 3,318 2,232,553 33,445 17,035 18,206 4,190 2,425,608 18,759 8,171 8,732 2,010 1,281,762 28,024 17,767 18,989 4,370 2,218,491 20,645 10,868 11,616 2,673 1,506,052 28,793 14,491 15,488 3,565 2,035,8 21,323 7,901 8,444 1,943 1,383,752 28,437 12,603 13,469 3,100 1,953,159 45,840 19,540 20,883 4,807 3,072,8 50,986 23,317 24,920 5,730 3,413,6i1 128,093 52,839 56,472 12,997 8,145,8 127,233 51,876 55,442 12,760 8,180 721 .. --- A nQ'i ~451 2,843, 10 011,A() v,ut ~ I, ff I \" I NORTH LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT TOTAL PROGRAM OPERATING BUDGET FY 96/97 FUNDING SOURCES LOCAUSTATE FEDERAL DESEGREGATION LEA# SCHOOL PROGRAM DISTRICT TRANS LEGAL PROGRAM DISTRICT PROGRAM DISTRICT TRANS 6002050 AMBOY ELEMENT ARY 1,309,154 561,443 69,775 1,401 113,250 56,384 31,989 13,836 14,787 6002053 BELWOOD ELEMENTARY 684,749 256,481 31,875 640 97,256 25,758 16,732 6,321 6,755 6002054 BOONE PARK ELEM 1,594,213 871,097 108,259 2,174 175,448 87,481 38,954 21,467 22,943 6002055 CRESTWOOD ELEMENTARY 729,529 406,616 50,534 1,015 55,533 40,835 17,826 10,021 10,710 6002056 GLENVIEW ELEMENT ARY 890,806 292,451 36,345 730 65,726 29,370 21,767 7,207 7,703 6002057 INDIAN HILLS ELEMENTARY 1,375,541 592,721 73,662 1,479 125,284 59,525 33,611 14,607 15,611 6002058 LAKEWOOD ELEMENTARY 674,180 331,549 41,204 828 82,671 33,296 16,473 8,171 8,732 6002059 CENTRAL ELEMENTARY 1,303,396 547,368 68,026 1,366 194,355 54,970 31,848 13,489 14,417 6002060 LYNCH DRIVE ELEM 1,368,755 691,247 85,907 1,725 135,678 69,420 33,445 17,035 18,206 6002061 MEADOW PARK ELEM 767,739 331,549 41,204 828 69,474 33,296 18,759 8,171 8,732 6002063 N. HEIGHTS ELEMENTARY 1,146,905 720,962 89,600 1,800 117,670 72,404 28,024 17,767 18,989 6002064 PARK HILL ELEMENTARY 844,885 441,022 54,810 1,101 74,142 44,290 20,645 10,868 11,616 6002065 PIKE VIEW ELEMENT ARY 1,178,378 588,030 73,079 1,468 73,553 59,054 28,793 14,491 15,488 6002067 REDWOOD ELEMENTARY 872,657 320,601 39,844 800 78,042 32,197 21,323 7,901 8,444 6002069 SEVENTH STREET ELEM 1,163,805 511,398 63,556 1,277 104,156 51,358 28,437 12,603 13,469 6002070 LAKEWOOD MIDDLE SCHOOL 1,876,012 792,901 98,541 1,979 132,555 79,628 45,840 19,540 20,883 6002072 RIDGEROAD MIDDLE SCHOOL 2,086,635 946,164 117,588 2,362 61,083 95,020 50,986 23,317 24,920 6002075 NLR HIGH SCHOOL-EAST 5,242,253 2,144,118 266,467 5,352 21,916 215,327 128,093 52,839 56,472 6002076 NLR HIGH SCHOOL-WEST 5,207,064 2,105,020 261,608 5,254 143,064 211,400 127,233 51,876 55,442 6002077 ROSE CITY MIDDLE SCHOOL 1,914,800 569,263 70,747 1,421 150,949 57,169 46,788 14,029 14,993 NIA ARGENT A ACADEMY 675,436 0 0 0 92,881 0 16,504 0 0 TOTAL PROGRAM BUDGET 32,906,892 14,022,001 1,742,631 35,000 2,164,686 1,408,182 804,070 345,556 369,312 For the first quarter of FY 96/97, the district incurred expenses totaling $7,000,164 or 13.0 percent of their total FY 96/97 budget. SOURCE: See the note section on the next page for explanations of the categories. The North Little Rock School District Finance Office. 652 LEGAL TOTAL 3,403 2,175,422 1,555 1,128,122 5,281 2,927,317 2,465 1,325,084 1,773 1,353,878 3,593 2,295,634 2,010 1,199,114 3,318 2,232,553 4,190 2,425,608 2,010 1,281,762 4,370 2,218,491 2,673 1,506,052 3,565 2,035,8 I 1,943 1,383,752 3,100 1,953,159 4,807 3,072,8 5,736 3,413,811 12,997 8,145,8 4 12,760 8,180,121 3,451 2,843, ,o 0 784,821 85,000 53,6 l, .,0 NOTES FOR NLRSD TOTAL PROGRAM OPERATING BUDGET SCHEDULE FOR FY 96/97 Funding Categories Local \u0026amp; State Federal Deseg Expense Categories Local \u0026amp; State Federal Deseg Total Category FY 96197 SOURCE: This category includes funding from local sources, regular state sources, and unrestricted federal sources. This category includes funding from restricted federal sources which must be accounted for separately from the General Fund. This category consists of funding for desegregation purposes. This category consists of budgeted expenses relative to regular program expense, district expense, transportation expense and legal expense funded by unrestricted local, state and federal sources. This category consists of budgeted expenses relative to federal program expense and district expense funded by restricted federal sources. This category consists of budgeted expenses relative to desegregation program expense, district expense, transportation expense and legal expense funded from desegregation sources. The totals in this column represent the total budget for each school site for fiscal year 1996/1997. The North Little Rock School District Finance Office. 653 NORTH LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT CYCLE 1 SCHOOL PROGRAM OPERATING BUDGET FY 96/97 FUNDING SOURCES LOCAUSTATE FEDERAL DESEGREGATION LEA# SCHOOL PROGRAM DISTRICT TRANS LEGAL PROGRAM DISTRICT PROGRAM DISTRICT TRANS 6002053 BELWOOD ELEMENTARY 684,749 256.481 31,875 640 97,256 25,758 16,732 6,321 6,755 6002054 BOONE PARK ELEM 1,594,213 871,097 108,259 2,174 175,448 87,481 38,954 21,467 22,943 6002056 GLENVIEW ELEMENT ARY 890,806 292.451 36,345 730 65,726 29,370 21,767 7,207 7,703 6002063 N.HE~HTSELEMENTARY 1,146,905 720,962 89,600 1,800 117,670 72,404 28,024 17,767 18,989 6002064 PARK HILL ELEMENTARY 844,885 441,022 54,810 1,101 74,142 44,290 20,645 10,868 11,616 6002065 PIKE VIEW ELEMENTARY 1,178,378 588,030 73,079 1,468 73,553 59,054 28,793 14,491 15.488 6002067 REDWOOD ELEMENT ARY 872,657 320,601 39,844 800 78,042 32,197 21,323 7,901 8.444 TOTAL CYCLE 1 PROGRAM BUDGET 7,212,593 3,490,644 433,812 8,713 681,837 350,554 176,238 86,022 91,938 OURCE: The district's Total Program Expense for the first quarter of FY 96/97 was $7,000,163, with the Total Program Budget for FY 96/97 budgeted at $53,883,330. The programs funded in each of the Cycle 1 schools are indicated on the chart entitled \"Programs in Cycle 1 Schools.\" See the note section for Total Program Operating Budget for explanations of the funding categories, expense categories and totals. The North Little Rock School District Finance Office. 654 LEGAL TOTAL 1,555 1,128,122 5,281 2,927,317 1,773 1,353,878 4,370 2,218,491 2,673 1,506,052 3,565 2,035,899 1,943 1,383,752 21,160 12,553,511 NORTH LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT Programs in Cycle 1 Schools FY 96/97 BELWOOD BOONE PARK GLENVIEW N. HEIGHTS PARK HILL PIKE VIEW REDWOOD PROGRAMS ELEM ELEM ELEM ELEM ELEM ELEM ELEM Four-Year Old X X Kindergarten X X X X X X X Elementary X X X X X X X Elementary Music X X X X X X X Itinerant Instruction X X X X X X X Resource Room X X X X X X X Special Class X X X X X Homebound \u0026amp; Hospital X X X X X X X Gifted \u0026amp; Talented X X X X X X X Guidance Services X X X X X X X Library Services X X X X X X X SOURCE: The North Little Rock School District Finance Office. 655 LEA# 6002053 6002054 6002056 6002063 6002064 6002065 6002067 SOURCE: NORTH LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT COST PER STUDENT FOR CYCLE 1 SCHOOL PROGRAMS FY 96/97 I FUNDING SOURCES I ENROLLMENT LOCAL \u0026amp; SCHOOL @ 10/01/96 STATE FEDERAL DESEG TOTAL BELWOOD ELEMENTARY 164 973,745 123,014 31,363 1,128,122 BOONE PARK ELEM 557 2,575,743 262,929 88,645 2,927,317 GLENVIEW ELEMENTARY 187 1,220,332 95,096 38,450 1,353,878 N. HEIGHTS ELEMENTARY 461 1,959,267 190,074 69,150 2,218,491 PARK HILL ELEMENTARY 282 1,341,818 118,432 45,802 1,506,052 PIKE VIEW ELEMENTARY 376 1,840,955 132,607 62,337 2,035,899 REDWOOD ELEMENTARY 205 1,233,902 110,239 39,611 1,383,752 TOT AL BUDGET 2,232 11,145,762 1,032,391 375,358 12,553,511 See the note section for Cost per Student for Total Programs for explanations of the funding categories, expense categories, totals and cost per student category. The North Little Rock School District Finance Office and the Local Fiscal Services Division of the ADE. 657 COST PER STU FY 96/97 6,879 5,256 7,240 4,812 5,341 5,415 6,750 5,624 NORTH LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL msTR CT COST PER STUDENT FOR TOTAL PROGRAMS FY 96/97 FUNDING SOURCES ENROLLMENT LOCAL\u0026amp; COST PER STU LEA# 6002050 6002053 6002054 6002055 6002056 6002057 6002058 6002059 6002060 6002061 6002063 6002064 6002065 6002067 6002069 6002070 6002072 6002075 6002076 6002077 NIA SCHOOL @ 10/01/96 STATE FEDERAL DESEG TOTAL AMBOY ELEMENTARY 359 1,941,773 169,634 64,015 2,175,422 BELWOOD ELEMENTARY 164 973,745 123,014 31,363 1,128,122 BOONE PARK ELEM 557 2,575,743 262,929 88,645 2,927,317 CRESTWOOD ELEMENTARY 260 1,187,694 96,368 41,022 1,325,084 GLENVIEW ELEMENTARY 187 1,220,332 95,096 38,450 1,353,878 INDIAN HILLS ELEMENTARY 379 2,043,403 184,809 67,422 2,295,634 LAKEWOOD ELEMENTARY 212 1,047,761 115,967 35,386 1,199,114 CENTRAL ELEMENTARY 350 1,920,156 249,325 63,072 2,232,553 LYNCH DRIVE ELEM 442 2,147,634 205,098 72,876 2,425,608 MEADOW PARK ELEM 212 1,141,320 102,770 37,672 1,281,762 N. HEIGHTS ELEMENTARY 461 1,959,267 190,074 69,150 2,218,491 PARK HILL ELEMENTARY 282 1,341,818 118,432 45,802 1,506,052 PIKE VIEW ELEMENTARY 376 1,840,955 132,607 62,337 2,035,899 RED'NOOD ELEMENTARY 205 1,233,902 110,239 39,611 1,383,752 SEVENTH STREET ELEM 327 1,740,036 155,514 57,609 1,953,159 LAKEWOOD MIDDLE SCHOOL 507 2,769,433 212,183 91,070 3,072,686 RIDGEROAD MIDDLE SCHOOL 605 3,152,749 156,103 104,959 3,413,811 NLR HIGH SCHOOL-EAST 1,371 7 658,190 237,243 250,401 8,145,834 NLR HIGH SCHOOL-WEST 1,346 7 578,946 354,464 247,311 8,180,721 ROSE CITY MIDDLE SCHOOL 364 2,556,231 208,118 79,261 2,843,610 ARGENTA ACADEMY NIA 675,436 92,881 16,504 784,821 TOTAL BUDGET 8,966 48,706,524 3,572,868 1,603,938 53,883,330 For the first quarter of FY 96/97, the district incurred expenses totaling $7,000,164 or 13.0 percent of their total budget for the fiscal year. Funding Categories Local \u0026amp; State Federal Deseg This category includes funding from local sources, regular state sources, and unrestricted federal sources. This category includes funding from restricted federal sources which must be accounted for separately from the General Fund. This category consists of funding for desegregation purposes. Expense Categories Local \u0026amp; State Federal Deseg Total Category FY96/97 This category consists of budgeted expenses relative to regular programs funded by unrestricted local, state and federal sources. This category consists of budgeted expenses funded by restncted federal sources. This category consists of budgeted expenses relative to desegregation programs funded from desegregation sources. The totals in this column represent the total budget for each school site for fiscal year 1996/1997. Cost Per Student Category FY96197 SOURCE. The cost per student figures were calculated by dividing each school's FY 00/97 total budget by their enrollment as of October 1 , 1996 The North Little Rock School District Finance Office and the Local Fiscal Services Division of the ADE 656 FY 96/97 6,060 6,879 5,256 5,096 7,240 6,057 5,656 6,379 5,488 6,046 4,812 5,341 5,415 6,750 5,973 6,061 5,643 5,942 6,078 7,812 NIA 6,010 NORTH LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT COST PER STUDENT BY PROGRAM FY 96/97 . PERCENT AVG COST DISTRICT VARIANCE PROGRAM OF PER STUDENT AVG COST OVER DIST AVG/ SCHOOL PROGRAM BUDGET TOTAL BUDGET BY PROGRAM PER STUDENT (UNDER DIST AVG) ELEMENTARY PROGRAMS 28,226,668 52.4% 5,914 6,010 (96) JR. HIGH PROGRAMS 9,330,107 17.3% 6,321 6,010 311 HIGH SCHOOL PROGRAMS 16,326,555 30.3% 6,009 6,010 (1) NLRSD PROGRAM COST FY 96/97 NLRSD COST PER STU FY 96/97 30000000 20000000 10000000 0 PROGRAM COST PERCENT OF TOTAL COST AVG COST PER STUDENT BY PROGRAM DISTRICT AVG COST PER STU VARIANCE SOURCE: 6400 6200 6000 5800 5600 Program costs consist of the total budget for FY 00/97 for the indicated category of school programs. The percentage of program budget to the total district budget of $53,883,330 for FY 00/97. The total program budget for FY 00/97 to the total number of students in the program category. The total budget for FY 96/97 of $53,883,330 to the total enrollment at October 1, 1996 of 8,006. The difference between the cost per student by program and the district average cost per student. A positive variance indicates the cost per student by program is greater than the district cost per student, and a negative variance indicates the cost per student by program is less than the district cost per student. The North Little Rock School District Finance Office. 658 I LEA# 6002050 6002053 6002054 6002055 6002056 6002057 6002058 6002059 6002060 6002061 6002063 6002064 6002065 6002067 6002069 N/A SOURCE: - NORTH LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT COST PER STUDENT FOR ELEMENTARY PROGRAMS FY 96/97 I FUNDING SOURCES ENROLLMENT LOCAL \u0026amp; SCHOOL @ 10/01/96 STATE FEDERAL DESEG TOTAL AMBOY ELEMENTARY 359 1,941,773 169,634 64,015 2,175,422 BELWOOD ELEMENT ARY 164 973,745 123,014 31,363 1,128,122 BOONE PARK ELEM 557 2,575,743 262,929 88,645 2,927,317 CRESTWOOD ELEMENTARY 260 1,187,694 96,368 41,022 1,325,084 GLENVIEW ELEMENT ARY 187 1,220,332 95,096 38,450 1,353,878 INDIAN HILLS ELEMENT ARY 379 2,043,403 184,809 67,422 2,295,634 LAKEWOOD ELEMENTARY 212 1,047,761 115,967 35,386 1,199,114 CENTRAL ELEMENTARY 350 1,920,156 249,325 63,072 2,232,553 LYNCH DRIVE ELEM 442 2,147,634 205,098 72,876 2,425,608 MEADOW PARK ELEM 212 1,141,320 102,770 37,672 1,281,762 N. HEIGHTS ELEMENTARY 461 1,959,267 190,074 69,150 2,218,491 PARK HILL ELEMENTARY 282 1,341,818 118,432 45,802 1,506,052 PIKE VIEW ELEMENT ARY 376 1,840,955 132,607 62,337 2,035,899 REDWOOD ELEMENT ARY 205 1,233,902 110,239 39,611 1,383,752 SEVENTH STREET ELEM 327 1,740,036 155,514 57,609 1,953,159 ARGENTA ACADEMY N/A 675,436 92,881 16,504 784,821 TOTAL BUDGET 4,773 24,990,975 2,404,757 830,936 28,226,668 See the note section for Cost per Student for Total Programs for explanations of the funding categories, expense categories, totals and cost per student category. The North Little Rock School District Finance Office and the Local Fiscal Services Division of the ADE. 659 - COST PER STU FY 96/97 6,060 6,879 5,256 5,096 7,240 6,057 5,656 6,379 5,488 6,046 4,812 5,341 5,415 6,750 5,973 N/A 5,914 LEA# 6002070 6002072 6002077 I SOURCE: NORTH LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT COST PER STUDENT FOR JR HIGH PROGRAMS FY 96/97 FUNDING SOURCES ENROLLMENT LOCAL \u0026amp; SCHOOL @ 10/01/96 STATE FEDERAL DESEG TOTAL LAKEWOOD MIDDLE SCHOOL 507 2,769,433 212,183 91,070 3,072,686 RIDGEROAD MIDDLE SCHOOL 605 3,152,749 156,103 104,959 3,413,811 ROSE CITY MIDDLE SCHOOL 364 2,556,231 208,118 79,261 2,843,610 TOTAL BUDGET I 1,476 I 8,478,413 576,404 275,290 9,330,107 See the note section for Cost per Student for Total Programs for explanations of the funding categories, expense categories, totals and cost per student category. The North Little Rock School District Finance Office and the Local Fiscal Services Division of the ADE. 660 COST PER STU FY 96/97 6,061 5,643 7,812 6,321 LEA# 6002075 6002076 I SOURCE: NORTH LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT COST PER STUDENT FOR HIGH SCHOOL PROGRAMS FY 96/97 FUNDING SOURCES ENROLLMENT LOCAL \u0026amp; SCHOOL @ 10/01/96 STATE FEDERAL DESEG TOTAL NLR HIGH SCHOOL-EAST 1,371 7,658,190 237,243 250,401 8,145,834 NLR HIGH SCHOOL-WEST 1,346 7,578,946 354,464 247,311 8,180,721 TOTAL BUDGET I 2,717 I 15,237,136 591,707 497,712 16,326,555 See the note section for Cost per Student for Total Programs for explanations of the funding categories, expense categories, totals and cost per student category. The North Little Rock School District Finance Office and the Local Fiscal SeNices Division of the ADE. 661 COST PER STU FY 96/97 5,942 6,078 6,009 NORTH LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT CYCLE 1 SCHOOL TEACHER \u0026amp; ADMINISTRATOR BUDGET FY 96/97 LEA# SCHOOL TEACHER SALARIES ADMINISTRATOR SALARIES 6002053 BELWOOD ELEMENTARY 374,255 45,194 6002054 BOONE PARK ELEM 939,459 96,460 6002056 GLENVIEW ELEMENTARY 460,090 44,966 6002063 N. HEIGHTS ELEMENTARY 656,954 85,575 6002064 PARK HILL ELEMENTARY 556,328 44,101 6002065 PIKE VIEW ELEMENTARY 744,339 45,397 6002067 REDWOOD ELEMENTARY 467,337 48,828 TOTAL BUDGET 4,198,762 410,521 Teacher Budget FY 96/97 The district's total teacher and school site administrator salary expense for the first quarter of FY 96/97 was $2,542,867 or 36.3 percent of the district's total expense for the same period of $7,000,164. The district's teacher and school site administrator budget for FY 96/97 totaled $22,450,193 or 41. 7 percent of the district's total budget for FY 96/97 of $53,883,330. Teacher salary budget for each Cycle 1 school for FY 96/97. Administrator Budget FY 96197 Total Category FY 96197 SOURCE: School site administrator budget for each Cycle 1 school for FY 96/97. The totals represent the total teacher and school site administrator salary budget for each Cycle 1 school for FY 96/97. The North Little Rock School District Finance Office. 662 TOTAL 419,449 1,035,919 505,056 742,529 600,429 789,736 516,165 4,609,283 PCSSD PROGRAM COST FY 95/96 663 F . BUDGET INFORMATION (Continued) 1. Cost of operating all elementary programs, junior high school programs, and high school programs by funding source (local/regular state/federal and special state desegregation funding). (Continued) Pulaski County Special School District (PCSSD) (Continued) Enrollment Total district enrollment as of October 1, 1995 declined by 67 students or 0.3 percent in FY 95/96 for a total enrollment of 20,285 as compared with total enrollment as of October 1, 1994 of20,352. Enrollment declined in FY 96/97 to 20,047 as of October I, 1996 resulting in a decrease in enrollment of 1. 2 percent. Enrollment in the district's elementary schools decreased from 11,476 in FY 94/95 to 11,313 or 1.4 percent in FY 95/96. Elementary enrollment decrea ed an additional 2.5 percent in FY 96/97 to 11,029 as of October 1, 1996. Junior high school enrollment declined by 27 students\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\u003eArkansas. Department of Education\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 "},{"id":"bcas_bcmss0837_333","title":"Compliance hearing exhibits, 21-22","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":["1997/2000"],"dcterms_description":null,"dc_format":["application/pdf"],"dcterms_identifier":null,"dcterms_language":["eng"],"dcterms_publisher":["Little Rock, Ark. : Butler Center for Arkansas Studies. Central Arkansas Library System"],"dc_relation":null,"dc_right":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC-EDU/1.0/"],"dcterms_is_part_of":["Office of Desegregation Monitoring records (BC.MSS.08.37)","History of Segregation and Integration of Arkansas's Educational System"],"dcterms_subject":["Little Rock (Ark.)--History--20th century","Little Rock School District","Education--Arkansas","Educational law and legislation","Education--Evaluation","Educational statistics"],"dcterms_title":["Compliance hearing exhibits, 21-22"],"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/333"],"dcterms_temporal":null,"dcterms_rights_holder":null,"dcterms_bibliographic_citation":null,"dlg_local_right":["Available for use in research, teaching, and private study. Any other use requires permission from the Butler Center."],"dcterms_medium":["exhibition (associated concept)"],"dcterms_extent":["248 pages"],"dlg_subject_personal":null,"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":"\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n \n\n\n \n\n \n\n\n \n\n\n \n\n\n\n\n \n\n\n\n\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n \n\n \n\n \n\n\n \n\n \n\n \n\n\n \n\n \n\n \n\n\n \n\n \n\n \n\n\n \n\n \n\n \n\nSummary of Assessment/Evaluation Activities Little Rock School District Academic Program Annual Assessments Reports/Docunients English Language Arts Primary Grades (K-2) Teacher-made tests\nGraded Papers Student grades\nGrade Reports Student Report Cards Observation Survey and Developmental Reading Assessmentfall and spring annually, 2000 and 2001, grades K-2\nTitle I/PreK-3 Literacy Plan Program Evaluation for 1999- 2000 (Executive Summary and Draft Copy from PRE) Update on the Implementation of the PreK-3 Literacy Plan, and Highlights. June 2001 (Report to Board of Education from Division of Instruction) DRA Report to Campus Leadership Team Institute, Summer 2000 DRA Reports to Schools and District-Level Staff Achievement Level Test language and reading, spring only, 2000 and 2001, grade 2 ALT Reports to Schools, Teachers, Students/Parents, District-Level Staff, Office of Gifted/Talented Education, and Board of Education English Language Arts Intermediate Grades (3-5) Teacher-made tests\nGraded Papers Student grades\nGrade Reports Student Report Cards Achievement Level Test language and reading, spring 2000, fall 2000, spring 2001, grades 3-5\nALT reports to Schools, Teachers, Students/Parents, District-Level Staff, and Board of Education 1Academic Program Annual Assessments Criterion-Referenced Tests 2000-01, grades 3-5\nReports/Dociiineiits | CRT Reports to Schools, Teachers, and District-Level Staff Grade 4 Literacy Benchmark Examinationspring 1999, spring 2000, and spring 2001, grade 4\nGrade 4 Literacy Benchmark Reports to Schools, Students/Parents, District- Level Staff, and Board of Education Success for AllBrady, Baseline, Charter, Cloverdale, Fair Park, Meadowcliff, Romine, and Woodruff SAT9 reading and languagi annual, grade 5. SFA Site Visits SAT9 Reports to Schools, Students/Parents, District- Level Staff, and Board of Education________________ SFA Site Visit Reports to SFA Teacher Leader, Principals, Director of Early Literacy, other District-Level Staff Eight-Week Assessments Eight-Week Assessment Reports to Principal, SFA Facilitator, SFA Teacher Leader, University of Memphis English Language Arts Middle School (6-8) Program Evaluation conducted by University of Memphis, 1999____________________ Teacher-made tests\nReport to Director of Federal Programs, other District-Level Staff, and SFA principals Graded Papers Student grades\nTeachers Grade Reports Student Report Cards Grade Distribution Reports by Teacher, Course, School Achievement Level Test language and reading, spring 2000, fall 2000, and spring 2001, grades 6-8\nALT Reports to Schools, Teachers, Students/Parents, District-Level Staff, and Board of Education 2Academic Program Aiiiiiinl Assessments Reports/Dociimeiits Criterion-Referenced Tests 2000-01, grades 6-8\nCRT Reports to Schools, Teachers, and District-Level Staff Grade 6 Literacy Benchmark piloted in spring 2001\nGrade 8 Literacy Benchmark piloted in spring 2000\nSAT9 reading and language annual, grade 7\nGrade 6 Literacy Benchmark Reports to Schools, Students/ Parents, District-Level Staff, and Board of Education Grade 8 Literacy Benchmark Reports to Schools, Student/ Parents, District-Level Staff, and Board of Education SAT9 Reports to Schools, Students/Parents, District- Level Staff, and Board of Education English Language ArtsHigh School(9-12) EXPLORE English and reading, annually, grade 8. Teacher-made tests\nEXPLORE Reports to Schools, Students/Parents, Counselors Graded Papers Semester examinations\nTeacher Grade Reports Student grades\nStudent Report Cards Grade Distribution Reports by School, Teacher, Course Achievement Level Tests reading and language, spring 2000, fall 2000, spring 2001\ngrades 9-11\nALT Reports to Schools, Teachers, Students/Parents, District-Level Staff, and Board of Education End-of-Level Literacy Exam to be piloted in spring 2002\nLiteracy Examination Report to School, Students/Parents, District-Level Staff, and Board of Education SAT9 reading and languagi annual, grade 10\nSAT9 Reports to Schools, Students/Parents, District- Level Staff, and Board of Education 3Academic Program Annual Assessments Reports/Dociiiiieiits PLAN English and reading\npractice test for ACT\ngrade 10\nPLAN Reports to Schools, Students/Parents, Counselors PSAT Verbaloptional practice test for SAT\nscreening test for National Merit program\ngrade 11\nPSAT Reports to Schools, Students/Parents ACT English and reading optional test for college admissions, grades 11-12\nACT Reports to Schools, Students/Parents, and District-Level Staff SAT Verbaloptional test for college admissions, grades 11- 12\nSAT Verbal Reports to Schools, Students/Parents ASVABaptitude test for military recruitment, grade 11\nASVAB Reports to Schools, Students/Parents, Counselors Advanced Placement English Language and Composition- optional test for college credit, grades 11-12\nAdvanced Placement English Literature and Composition optional test for college credit, grade 12. College Remediation Reports prepared by Arkansas Department of Higher Education AP English Language and Composition Reports to Schools, Students/Parents, and District-Level Staff AP English Literature and Composition Reports to Schools, Students/Parents, and District-Level Staff Reports sent to Superintendent, high school principals, other District-level staff and are used in Building-Level Report Cards 4Academic Program Annual Assessments MathematicsPrimary Grades (K-2) Teacher-made tests\nReports/Dociiineiits Graded Papers Student grades\nTeacher Grade Reports Student Report Cards MathematicsIntermediate Grades (3-5) Achievement Level Test- mathematics, spring 2000 and spring 2001, grade 2. Teacher-made tests\nStudent grades\nALT Reports to Schools, Teachers, Students/Parents, District-Level Staff, and Board of Education______ Graded Papers Teacher Grade Reports Student Report Cards Criterion-Referenced End-of- Unit Tests, grades 3-5\nGrade 4 Mathematics Benchmark Examination, spring 1999, spring 2000, and spring 2001, grade 4 Achievement Level Test mathematics, spring 2000, fall 2000, and spring 2001, grades 3-5\nCRT Reports to Schools, Teachers, District-Level Staff, and NSF Benchmark Reports to Schools, Students/Parents, Superintendent, District-Level Staff, Board of Education, and NSF ALT Reports to Schools, Teachers, Students/Parents, District-Level Staff, Board of Education, and NSF SAT9 mathematicsannual, grade 5. SAT9 Reports to Schools, Students/Parents, District- Level Staff, Board of Education, and NSF 5Academic Program Annual Assessments MathematicsMiddle School (6-8) Teacher-made tests\nReports/Dociiiiieiits Graded Papers Student grades\nTeacher Grade Reports Student Report Cards Grade Distribution Reports Criterion-Referenced End-of- Module Tests, grades 6-8\nAchievement Level Test mathematics, spring 2000, fall 2000, spring 2001, grades 6-8\nCRT Reports to Schools, Teachers, District-Level Staff, and NSF ALT Reports to Schools, Teachers, Students/Parents, District-Level Staff, Board of Education, and NSF SAT9 mathematicsannual, grade 7\nSAT9 Reports to Schools, Students/Parents, District- Level Staff, Board of Education, and NSF Grade 6 Mathematics Benchmarkpiloted spring 2001, grade 6\nGrade 8 Mathematics Benchmarkpiloted spring 2000, grade 8\nEXPLORE mathematics annually, grade 8. Grade 6 Mathematics Benchmark Reports to Schools, Students/Parents, District-Level Staff, Board of Education, and NSF Grade 8 Mathematics Benchmark Reports to Schools, Students/Parents, District-Level Staff, Board of Education, and NSF EXPLORE Reports to Schools, Students/Parents, Counselors, and NSF 6Academic Program Annual Assessments MathematicsHigh School (9- 12) Teacher-made tests\nReports/Dociinients Graded Papers Semester Examinations\nTeacher Grade Reports Student grades\nStudent Report Cards Grade Distribution Reports Achievement Level Test mathematicsspring 2000, fall 2000, spring 2001, grades 9-11\nALT Reports to Schools, Teachers, Students/Parents, District-Level Staff, Board of Education, and NSF SAT9 mathematicsannual, grade 10\nSAT9 Reports to Schools, Students/Parents, District- Level Staff, Board of Education, and NSF PLAN mathematicspractice test for ACT, annually, grade 10\nPLAN Reports to Schools, Students/Parents, Counselors PSAT mathematicsoptional practice test for SAT and screening test for National Merit program, annually, grade 11\nPSAT Reports to Schools, Students/Parents SAT Mathematicsoptional test for college admissions, grades 11-12\nSAT Results to Schools, Students/Parents ACT Mathematicsoptional test for college admissions, grades 11-12\nACT Results to Schools, Students/Parents, District- Level Staff ASVABaptitude test for military recruitment, grade 11\nACT Results to Schools, Students/Parents, Counselors Advanced Placement Statistics optional test for college credit, grades 10-12\nAP Statistics Reports to Schools, Students/Parents, District-Level Staff 7Academic Program Annual Assessments Advanced Placement Calculus ABoptional test for college credit, grades 11-12\nRepoi'ts/Documents AP Calculus AB Reports to Schools, Students/Parents, District-Level Staff Advanced Placement Calculus BCoptional test for college credit, grade 12. AP Calculus BC Reports to Schools, Student/Parents, District-Level Staff College Remediation Reports prepared by Arkansas Department of Higher Education Reports sent to Superintendent, high school principals, other District-level staff and are used in Building-Level Report Cards After-School Science Clubs with Museum of Discovery Grades 2-11 participation Reports to Systemic Research, to CPMSA Director, other District-Level Staff, and NSf 8Academic Program SMARTAlgebra I Readiness Summer Program National Science Foundation Collaborative Partnerships for Mathematics and Science Achievement (CPMSA) Annual Assessments Evaluation of participation, attendance, and performance measures\nthen success in Algebra I Annual Evaluation Reports\nReports/Documeiits I Reports to CPMSA Director, other District-Level Staff, Schools, Board of Education, and NSF__________________ NSF Evaluation Report to NSF Steering Committee, District- Level Staff, Principals, Board of Education, and NSF Systemic Initiatives Core Data Elements Reports, 1999, and 2000\nTabulated Indicators for Systemic Changes (TISC) Qualitative Report, 1997-2001 Core Data Element Reports to NSF Project Director, other District-Level Staff, Westat Research, and NSF Report submitted to Systemic Research\ndistributed to NSF Project Director, other District- Level Staff, and NSF Tabulated Indicators for Systemic Changes (TISC) Quantitative Report, 1997-2001 Report submitted to Systemic Research\ndistributed to NSF Project Director, other District- Level Staff, and NSF Site Visits\nSite Visit Reports to Superintendent, other District- Level Staff, and NSF Steering Committee Reverse Site Visits. Science^Primary Grades (K-2) Teacher-made tests\nReverse Site Visit Report to Superintendent, other District- Level Staff, and NSF Steering Committee_______________ Graded Papers Student grades\nTeacher Grade Reports Student Report Cards 9Academic Program Aniiiinl Assessments Reports/Docuiiieiits Scienci (3-5) Intermediate Grades Teacher-made tests\nStudent grades\nScience Fairs\nGraded Papers Teacher Grade Reports Student Report Cards Criterion-Referenced End-of- Unit Tests, 2000-01, grades 3- 5\nCRT Reports to Schools, Teachers, District-Level Staff, and NSF Achievement Level Test sciencespring 2000 and spring 2001, grades 3-5\nALT Reports to Schools, Teachers, Students/Parents, District-Level Staff, Board of Education, and NSF SAT9 science, annual, grade 5. SAT9 Reports to Schools, Students/Parents, District- Level Staff, Board of Education, and NSF 10Academic Program Annual Assessments Reports/Docunients ScienceMiddle School (6-8) Teacher-made tests\nGraded Papers Student grades\nTeacher Grade Reports Science Fairs\nStudent Report Cards Grade Distribution Reports Criterion-Referenced End-of- Unit Tests, 2000-01, grades 6- 8\nAchievement Level Test science, spring 2000, fall 2000, spring 2001, grades 6-8\nCRT Reports to Schools, Teachers, District-Level Staff, and NSF ALT Reports to Schools, Teachers, Students/Parents, District-Level Staff, Board of Education, and NSF SAT9 Scienceannual, grade 7\nSAT9 Reports to Schools, Students/Parents, District- Level Staff, Board of Education, and NSF ScienceHigh School (9-12) EXPLORE Science Reasoning, annually, grade 8\nTeacher-made tests\nEXPLORE Reports to Schools, Students/Parents, Counselors, and NSF_________________ Graded Papers Semester Examinations\nTeacher Grade Reports Student grades\nStudent Report Cards Grade Distribution Reports Science Fairs\nParticipation Reports and List of Winners Achievement Level Test science, spring 2000, fall 2000, spring 2001, grades 9-11\nPLAN Science Reasoning practice test for ACT, annually, grade 10\nALT Reports to Schools, Teachers, Students/Parents, District-Level Staff, Board of Education, and NSF PLAN Reports to Schools, Students/Parents, Counselors, and NSF 11Academic Program Annual Assessments Reports/Docunients SAT9 science, annual, grade 10\nSAT9 Reports to Schools, Students/Parents, District- Level Staff, Board of Education, and NSF ACT Science Reasoning optional test for college admission, grades 11-12\nACT Reports to Schools, Students/Parents, District- Level Staff, and NSF Advanced Placement Biologyoptional test for college credit, grades 10-12\nAP Biology Reports to Schools, Students/Parents, District-Level Staff, and NSF Advanced Placement Environmental Science, optional test for college credit, grades 10-12\nAP Environmental Science Reports to Schools, Students/Parents, District- Level Staff, and NSF Advanced Placement Chemistry, optional test for college credit, grades 10-12\nAP Chemistry Reports to Schools, Students/Parents, District-Level Staff, and NSF Social StudiesPrimary Grades (K-2) Advanced Placement Physics, optional test for college credit, grades 10-12._____________ Teacher-made tests\nAP Physics Reports to Schools, Students/Parents, District-Level Staff, and NSF Graded Papers Student grades. Teacher Grade Reports Student Report Cards Social StudiesIntermediate Grades (3-5) Teacher-made tests\nStudent grades\nGrade Distribution Reports 16112)________________ Graded Papers Teacher Grade Reports Student Report Cards SAT9 Social Studies, annual, grade 5. SAT9 Reports to Schools, Students/Parents, District- Level Staff, and Board of Education 12Academic Program Annual Assessments Reports/Pociinients Social Studies^Middle School (6-8) Teacher-made tests\nGraded Papers Student grades\nTeacher Grade Reports Student Report Cards Grade Distribution Reports Social StudiesHigh School (9-12) SAT9 Social Studiesannual, grade 7. Teacher-made tests\nSAT9 Reports to Schools, Students/Parents, District- Level Staff, and Board of Education Graded Papers Semester Examinations\nTeacher Grade Reports Student grades\nStudent Report Cards Grade Distribution Reports SAT9 Social Studiesannual, grade 10. SAT9 Reports to Schools, Students/Parents, District- Level Staff, and Board of Education Civics and United States Historyto be piloted in spring 2002, grade 9 Advanced Placement United States Historyoptional test for college credit, grades 10-12\nAdvanced Placement Psychologyoptional test for college credit, grades 10-12\nAdvanced Placement European Historyoptional test for college credit, grades 10-12\nCRT in Civics and United States History Reports to be provided to Schools, Teachers, and District-Level Staff AP United States History Reports to Schools, Students/ Parents, District-Level Staff AP Psychology Reports to Schools, Students/Parents, District-Level Staff AP European History Reports to Schools, Students/Parents, District-Level Staff 13Academic Program Annual Assessments Reports/Dociiineiits Advanced Placement Economicsoptional test for college credit, grades 10-12\nAP Economics Reports to Schools, Students Barents, District-Level Staff Advanced Placement Government and Politics optional test for college credit, grades 10-12\nAP Government and Politics Reports to Schools, Students/Parents, District- Level Staff Advanced Placement Human Geographyoptional test for college credit, grades 10-12. AP Human Geography Reports to Schools, Students/Parents, District-Level Staff Foreign Language (K-12) Teacher-made tests (K-12)\nGraded Papers Semester Examinations (9-12)\nTeacher Grade Reports Student grades\nStudent Report Cards Grade Distribution Reports (6- 12) Advanced Placement Latin optional test for college credit, grades 10-12\nAP Latin Reports to Schools, Students/Parents, District- Level Staff Advanced Placement Spanishoptional test for college credit, grades 10-12\nAP Spanish Reports to Schools, Students/Parents, District-Level Staff Advanced Placement French optional test for college credit, grades 10-12\nAP French Reports to Schools, Students/Parents, District- Level Staff Advanced Placement Germanoptional test for college credit, grades 10-12. AP German Reports to Schools, Students/Parents, District-Level Staff 14Academic Program Annual Assessments Music (PreK-12) Teacher-made tests (K-12)\nReports/Docunients | Graded Papers Semester Examinations (9-12)\nTeacher Grade Reports Student grades\nStudent Report Cards I Grade Distribution Reports (6- 12) Student performances\nContest ratings Advanced Placement Music Theoryoptional test for college credit, grades 10-12\nAP Music Theory Reports to Schools, Students/Parents, District-Level Staff Art (PreK-12) Teacher-made tests (K-12)\nGraded Papers Semester Examinations (9-12)\nTeacher Grade Reports Student grades\nStudent Report Cards Grade Distribution Reports (6- 12) Student performances\nContest winners Advanced Placement Art Historyoptional test for college credit, grades 10-12\nAP Art History Reports to Schools, Students/Parents, District-Level Staff Physical Education (PreK-12) Advanced Placement Studio Artoptional test for college credit, grades 10-12._______ Teacher-made tests (K-12)\nAP Studio Art Reports to Schools, Students/Parents, District-Level Staff Graded Papers Semester Examinations (9-12)\nTeacher Grade Reports Student grades\nStudent Report Cards Grade Distribution Reports (6- J2) 15Academic Program Annual Assessments Career and Technical Education (PreK-12) Teacher-made tests (K-12)\nSemester Examinations (9-12)\nReports/Documeiits Graded Papers Teacher Grade Reports Student grades\nStudent Report Cards Grade Distribution Reports (6- 12) ASVABaptitude test for military recruitment, grade 11 Student Competition (i.e., VICA) ASVAB Reports to Schools, Students/Parents, Counselors Contest Winners 16i ! i Other Programs Assessments Reports/Dociimeiits I School Effectiveness Arkansas Comprehensive School Improvement Planning (ECOE/ACSIP)\nECOE/AC SIP (accreditation) Reports to Schools, Campus Leadership Teams, District- Level Staff Annual Monitoring for State Accreditation Standards, conducted by ADE Reports sent to Superintendent from Arkansas Department of Education Middle School Self Study Foundation for the MidSouth\nMiddle School Self-Study Reports to Schools, Campus Leadership Teams Middle School Student and Teacher Survey, Spring 2000 Report included in Middle School Transition Program Evaluation Student, Parent, and Teacher SurveysSchool Climate\nClimate Survey Reports to Schools, Campus Leadership Teams, District-Level Staff I 1 I Processes used to analyze data by Campus Leadership Teams in writing the School Improvement Plan (see Guidelines for School Improvement Planning)\nEvaluations required in Waiver Applications\nSchool Improvement Plans to Campus Leadership Teams, Teachers, District-Level Staff, ACSIP Teams, Title I Waiver Evaluation Reports to Campus Leadership Teams and District-Level Staff Magnet School Evaluation (grant-funded schools)\nMagnet School Evaluation Reports to Teachers, Campus Leadership Team, District- Level Staff, MRC, US Department of Education 17 )Other Programs Assessments Reports/Dociimeiits Magnet School Evaluation planned by MRC Magnet School Evaluation in progress by MRC\nReports to Magnet School Campus Leadership Teams, District- Level Staff Formative and Summative Evaluations of School Improvement Plans (as per Guidelines for School Improvement Planning) Information derived from these discussions/processes are used in planning the next years School Improvement Plan by the Campus Leadership team LRSD Quality Index (see pp. 59-65 of Interim Report) Reports on these data to Schools, Campus Leadership Teams, Cabinet Arkansas Comprehensive Testing, Assessment, and Accountability (ACTAAP) Indicators Reports on ACTAAP indicators to ADE, Board of Education, schools, and District-Level staff Arkansas Building-Level Report Cards Arkansas Building-Level Report Cards on ADE web page and mailed to every parent District Effectiveness MGT Management/Finance Study, 1999 MGT Report to Alliance for Public Schools, Board of Education, District-Level Staff Quarterly Data Reports (4* Q 1999-2000,1st Q 2000-01, 2\"* Q 2000-01, 3^** Q 2000-01, 4* Q 2000-01) Q Reports to Cabinet on quarterly basis LRSD Assessment Notebook, Aug. 2000 and annual\nReport to Cabinet, other designated District-Level staff, principals. Campus Leadership Teams 18Other Programs Assessments Repoi'ts/Docuinents _____ Arkansas Quality Award (AQA)included measurements of Customer Focused Results, Financial and Market Results, Human Resources Results, Supplier and Partner Results, and Organizational Effectiveness Results AQA Application and Feedback from Site Visit Reports to Superintendent, District-Level Staff, Principals, and Board of Education Student, Parent, and Teacher SurveysSchool Climate Climate Survey Reports to District-Level Staff and Board of Education District Annual Financial Audit Report presented to Chief Financial Officer, Financial Manager, Superintendent, and Board of Education October 1 Report to Arkansas Department of Education Report submitted annually to ADE\ncopies to District staff and schools Quarterly ReportsRecords of Certifications to Arkansas Department of Education Report submitted quarterly to ADE\ncopies to District staff Annual Reports to EEOC Records of Employees by Race/Gender Report submitted to EEOC annually\ncopy to District staff ODM Report on LRSDs Preparations for Implementation of Its Revised Desegregation and Education Plan, Aug. 11, 1999 ODM Report provide to Superintendent and other District-Level Staff. ODM Report on Achievement Disparity Between the Races in the LRSD, Oct. 26, 1999 ODM Report provided to Superintendent and otoher District-Level Staff. 19Other Programs Assessments Curriculum Handbooks, Catalogs, and Refrigerator Curriculum____________ Curriculum Alignment ODM evaluation of curriculum documents, spring 2000 Curriculum Mapping Early Childhood HIPPY 21^ Century Learning Communities Safe Schools/ Healthy Students Title I Programs Title VI Programs Class-Size Reduction Programs Reports/Docunients | Report sent to Associate Supt. for Instruction and shared with curriculum directors________ Curriculum Alignment Documents at District-Level Monitoring Reports by the Division of Child Care and Early Childhood Education Reports to ADE on ABC Grant Implementation PRE Study, 1999\nSite Visit Report, 2001 Evaluation Report, Annual Evaluation Reportssemiannual Site Visits and Audit Reports Site Visits and Audit Reports Site Visits and Audit Reports\nAnnual Report to ADE. School-Level Maps_________ Reports to Schools, Director of Early Childhood, and Superintendent Reports to Associate Superintendent, Division of Instruction and ADE______ HIPPY Report to HIPPY Supervisor, Director of Early Childhood, other District- Level Staff Site Visit Report to HIPPY Supervisor and Director of Early Childhood Evaluation Report to District- Level Staff, Board of Education, and US Department of Education______________ Evaluation Report to District- Level Staff, Board of Education, and US Department of Education Site Visit and Audit Reports to Superintendent, Federal Programs Director, and other District-Level Staff_________ Site Visit and Audit Reports to Superintendent, Federal Programs Director, and other District-Level Staff_________ Site Visit and Audit Reports to Superintendent, Federal Programs Director, other District-Level Staff, and ADE 20Other Pi ograiiis Assessments Reports/Dociimeiits Eisenhower Programs Evaluation Reports to ADE English as a Second Language Special Education ViPS Extended-Year Education (EYE) Home Language Survey to identify homes where another language other than English is spoken Language Assessment Scale to identify level of English- language proficiency Quarterly Reports on LEP enrollment\nAnnual Report to ADE\nAnnual Evaluation Report to Office of Civil Rights, Dallas State Audit Reports\nFederal Audit Reports. Volunteer Hours Report Reports on Partners in Education Spring 2001 Evaluation Report (in draft) Site Visit and Audit Reports to Superintendent, Federal Programs Director, other District-Level Staff, and ADE Survey filed in student permanent record and sent to ESL Supervisor Report to Language Proficiency Assessment Committee, parent, and ESL Supervisor Quarterly reports to ESL Supervisor and Associate Superintendent for Instruction Report to Associate Superintendent for Instruction, other District-Level Staff, and Principals Annual Evaluation Report to OCR, Board of Education, District-level Staff, and Principals State and Federal Audit Reports to Superintendent and Director of Exceptional Children_________________ Report to Schools, Campus Leadership Teams, Cabinet, other District-Level Staff, ViPS Board, and Board of Education________________ Evaluation Report to EYE Principals and Campus Leadership Teams, District- Level Staff, and Board of Education 21Other Programs Assessments Charter School (at Badgett) Pre-Advanced Placement Courses Advanced Placement Courses Accelerated Learning Center (ACC) Scholarships Budget Parent Involvement Spring 2001 Evaluation Report (in progress) Reports on Enrollment by School, Course, and Race Grade Distribution Reports by School, Teacher, and Race Reports on Enrollment by School, Course, and Race Grade Distribution Reports by School, Teacher, and Race Reports on AP Examination Participation Reports on AP Examination Performance Reports on numbers/percents of students by race who graduate with the Honors Seal Reports on enrollment Reports on graduates Reports on District dropout rates by school and race Reports on amounts of scholarships by school Monthly reports on budget revenue and expenditures Volunteer Hours by School Records of Workshops, Meetings, etc. Program Evaluation design to be completed in 2001-02 Reports/Dociiiiieiits Charter School Evaluation Report to Director of Charter School, Campus Leadership Team, District-Level Staff, Board of Education, and ADE Reports to Schools, Campus Leadership Teams, District- Level Staff, NSF Reports to Schools, Campus Leadership Teams, District- Level Staff, NSF ACC Reports to Superintendent Dropout Reports to Schools, District-Level Staff, and Board of Education______________ Scholarship Reports to Cabinet Budget Reports to Cabinet and Board of Education_________ Reports to Parent Coordinators, ViPS Board, Board of Education, principals, and other District-Level Staff 22Other Programs Assessments Reports/Docunients Summer School Magnet Programs Ombudsman Partnerships Professional Development Summer School Evaluation Report from PRE, Summer 2000 (in progress) MRC has evaluation design in progress Magnet Schools funded through federal grant have an evaluation design. Records of complaints and categories of complaints Donations to District, programs, and schools Records of attendance during calendar days Report will be distributed to Cabinet, other District-level Staff, principals Magnet School evaluation to MRC, Board of Education, District-Level Staff, and principals of magnet schools Reports to US Department of Education, Board of Education, District-Level Staff, and magnet schools Reports to Associate Superintendent and others upon request_____________ Monthly and annual reports to Board of Education, Schools, and District-Level Staff Reports to Schools, District- Level Staff, and ADE Records of attendance during after-school, week-end, and/or summer sessions Reports to Schools, District- Level Staff Teacher evaluations of professional development sessions Reports to Curriculum Directors PathWise Mentoring Program Correlations of teacher participation in professional development and student achievementmathematics, science, and English language arts Participants completed evaluation/survey forms for Domain A, B, C, and D Reports to Curriculum Directors, Principals, Board of Education, and NSF Survey results were submitted to Arkansas Department of Education and University of Central Arkansas from mentors and novice teachersfive times per year, 23Other Programs Assessments Reiioi'ts/Docuiiients Learning to Cope with Differences Each participant developed a self-improvement plan. Self-improvement plan shared orally with the whole group\nsubmitted in writing to Leon Modeste Participant evaluations submitted at the end of each session. Participant evaluations submitted to Terrence Roberts and Leon Modeste at end of each session Each group met monthly for six months to provide updates and reflection on implementation of self-improvement plans. Summary report of training submitted each six months by Leon Modeste to Bonnie Lesley Marco Polo Technology Workshop Evaluations of training are submitted electronically after each training session. Professional Media Center Inventories of books, tapes, videos, magazines memberhsips, etc. for teacher check-out are maintained. Summary of the classes was submitted electronically and the impact of the use with mathematics, science, social studies, and language arts in order to assist the teachers in the classroom.____________ Reports are used in reports on federal programs to Arkansas Department of Education. 24i Quarterly Status Repof 5chof' M 1*, i\u0026gt;\u0026gt; I Services 3r(j 1i^ei{iiai/iq, Jiprif i^SS \u0026gt; I I \u0026lt;9 ) * ^w .^.f f ii Ik 7a mH\n,/f^ ?.. * i w XVl v\u0026lt; 9 9 / l Cw^ iw 1% u Sii^ \u0026lt;3^ s* *?a\nw A 4 ^ j5* ^^Sbii* ?41 ^j g iirfeTABLE OF CONTENTS Pre-AP and/or AP Course Enrollment John Ruffins Pre-AP and/or AP Grades\"C\" or Better John Ruffins Pre-AP and/or Course Drops John Ruffins Absent Teachers Without Subs Richard Hurley Teacher Absences Richard Hurley John Ruffins Drop-Out Data tvl b'S. ~ Everett Hawks John Ruffins - Disciplinary Data Linda Watson \" John Ruffins t Assessment Data - Kathy Lease Grade Distribution John Ruffins'' Academic High Risk Everett Hawks John Ruffins Average Daily Attendance (ADA) John Ruffins Volunteer Hours Debbie Milam School Climate Survey Annual K-8 Retention Rate Kathy Lease John RuffinsStuder's Enrolled in at Least One AP, Pk^-AP Course for 1999-2000 by Scho^lst Quarter Monday, April 17, 2000 ___________________SdiiioL CENTRAL HIGH SCHOOL Grade ! Total Gender I Black i 09 525 F 52 10 505 I ICLOVERDALE MIDDLE SCHO^OL L^'Lii 499 _ Q12ZZ_473 ZO06 - J 264 L_ j)7__ J 1231 [ 08 J .228 DUNBAR INT'L STUDIES MAGNET MIDDLE SC j 06 233 FAIR HIGH SCHOOL . L_ .O7 ._J 238 (ZZZOSZJ 2?2Z T 09 ~T~262 ~ r 10 I 264 M__ F__ M_ F M_ F \"m F M__ F__ M__ F__ M F__ M_ F _ M J__ M __ M _ F _ M _ t I 11__i 222 ,___F L__ .12 186 FORESrHEIGHTSj^lDDLE SCHOOL I 06 s 244 r 07 T 245 08 257 HALL HIGH SCHOOL_____ LPSD Information Senice Dept. .J.. 09 . J 413 1 M F M F M . M F M F 30 64 32_ 48_ 17_ 67 _29_ 45 32 44 30 30 22 19 21 _ 28\" _ 26 40 42 22 17_ 30 23 38_ 15 34 28 21 27 43 21 I %Black j White % White Other i %Other\n10% i 86 16% 5 1%___\n6% 13% 6% 4. i 71 87 71 i i 10%____101_ 14% __Q% 17% 12% 19% 13% 13% 10% 8% 9% 12% 11% 16% 17% 8% 6% _ 11% 9% _17% 7% 18% 15% 15% 11% 18% 9% 75 71 53 2 1 6 1 1 1 15 16 28 42 35 35 10 8 5 11 8 i. 14% 17% 14% 20% 15% 15% 11% 1% 0% 3% 0% 0% 0% i 6% 7% I i I _9____ .52___ L_.. 20%. .. 4------ ___i___ 45 39 I 1 18% _9%. 4 6 31 28 29 21 31 33 21 12% 18% 14% 14% 4% 3% 2% 4% 4% 4% 2% 3% 13% 11% 12% 11% 12% 13% 5% i I i i I j i 14 6 3 4 4 4 4 2 0 3 0 2 0 5 3 9 6 11 5 1 0 3 1 2 1 0 0 1 2 0 2 6 1 4 4- t t t + 1 I 1 I I 3% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% 0% 1% 0% 1% 0% 2% 1% 4% 3% 4% 2% 0% 0% 1% 0% 1% 0% 0% I I I I -I 0%___ 0%___I 1% 0% ' 1% i 2/a 3% 1% ! Page I of 3 i_____________SdinfiL HALL HIGH SCHOOL______ I Grade Total 9nder ff/ack i %Black White %White i Ot, ' r HENDERSON MIDDLE SCHOOL J. MABELVALE MIDDLE SCHOOL____ MANN ARTS/SCIENCES_MAGNET MC CLELLAN HIGH SCHOOL fPARkyiWARTS/SCIEIlCEMAGNET LRSD Information Service Dept. 09 10 11 12 06 07 413 389 272 221 180 189 IZ08 X_i83 . X 06 ! 168 [ 07 XlH ! 08 X 148 I 06 266 T 07__L__281 I 08XL L276_ 309 + i I I I___ 10 L 356 ------ L._.ii_.. LJ2'1 L09 216 220 1\n291 r 10 X 289 I 11 12 I 287 T_265 M F M F M F M F M F M F M F_ M F M F_ M F M F M F_ M E M F M F M E M F M E M F M F I 25 41 17 20 11 28 17 34 37 I r ...I- I 6% 11% 4% 7% 4% 13% 8% 19% 21% J. i 36__._L_. 19% 30 30 21 26 14 '26 18 32 16 43 24 35 51 36 41 25 48 30 45 30 39 21 63 i2 59 ^1 56 35 38 16% 16% 11% 15% _ 8% __ 17% 12% 22% 11% 16% 9% 17% 12% 18% _ 13% 13% 8% 13% 8% 21% 14% 1 i. 1P%_ _ 22X 14% _20%_ 16% 20% 12% _14% 14 23 18 15 6 19 7 7 9 19 13 11 7 15 13 7 _9_ 5 4 44 48 70 42 65 45 2 4 10 1 10 1 12 J 53 54 I ( 3% 6% 5% 6% 2% 9% 3% 4% 5% 10% 7% 6% 4% 9% 8% 5% 6% 3% 3% 17% 18% 2^% 15% 24% T i + I I I i f 1 i 16%- ! _.63___ 43 61 37 57 1% 1% 3% 0% 5% 0% _ _5% 3% 18% _19% _ 22% 15% 21% 13% _ 22%^ I 1 5 5 4 6 8 11 2 5 2 5 6 4 4 0 0 3 0 1 8 6 5 6 9 2 0 0 4 0 0 2 1 1 9 3 11 5 8 5 5 I i t I %Other 0% 1\" I I I I 4- i ! - 1% 1% 1% 2% 4% 5% 1% 3% 1% 3% 3% 2% 2% 0% 0% 2% 0% 1% 3% I ! 2% I 2% 2% 3% 1% 0% 0% I I 1% 0% 0% ' 1% 0% 0% 3% 1% 4% 2% : 3% 2% 2% Page 2 of 3School PARKVIEW ARTS/SCIENCE MAGNET PULASKLHEIGHIS MIDDLE SCHOOL GrodcrTotal^ Black V%Black^ White] %White Otl.^%Other. i M 24 I ^0 , 25 , 9%______5______2% 12 06_ 07 _ J r 08 SOUTHWEST MIDDLE SCHOOL 06 IZoO 1 08 LRSD Information Service Dept. 265 i 255 247 230 155 -J L^l-[ 112 _ Grand Totals: _ M F M F M F M F M F M -4- 1 I 7% 6% 13% 11% 18___ 16___ 33___ 27------[ 28___i. 12% 35 21 20 31 23 19 14 [ 2838 15% 17% _13% 18% 13% 17% 13% 0 I 54 48 44 i 41 r r 32 24 I L! 3 5 1___ 1___ 2288 21% 19% 18% 17% 14% 10% 1% 0% 2% 3% 1% 1% 0 1 i i 1 0 4 2 1 1 1 0 1 3 0 1 0 301 4- i 4- J. I 1 0% 2% 1% 0% 0% 0% 0% 1% 2% 0% 1% 0% 0 -I I 1 i Page 3 of 3Stuaenfs that passed AP or Pre-AP Courts for 1999-2000 by Schooly 2nd Qu^ter Tuesday, April 18, 2000 I ,__________________School CENTRAL HIGH SCHOOL I Grade i Total 09 _525_ L 10 \"L505 Gender F M F M Rlaek ! %Rlack White \\ %White S Other %Other CLOVERDALE MIDDLE SCHOOL ! 11 12 06 07 499 L 473 264 I ....i' I ........i 231 _08__\\__22Z [DUNBARINTIL StZuDJES MAGN^ f 233 I__07 J 238 I__08 [ 252 [fair HIGH SCHOOL r O9'~ r 262 10 264 FOREST HEIGHTS MIDDLE.SCHOOL [hall HIGH SCHOOL. ! LRSD Information Service Dept. L_li T_22i iFJ 186 r 06 n 244\n07 _Z245 I 08 1 257 I 09__L_4.13. F ~M F M F M F M F M F M F, M F M F M F_ M F M F M F M F M F M F .1. I -i- 1 65 26 93 51 ^7 39 I t 12% 5% 18% 231 1 ------ -----i.._ 116 43 185 121 162 84 83 47 43 .^2_ _52_ ^7 55 54 38 25_ 53 32 63 10 51 49 107 68 113 44_ 94 .JQl 66 10% _ i \\77 ! 278 218 i 19% I 8% i .25% ] 402 , ' 247 I -I 1 179 9%_ i 168 70% 46% 70% 36% 36% 2_1% 18% 9 5 20 1 4 _3 29 14% 39 22% 2 0_% _ 22% 21% 15% 43 68 52 57 26 44% 34% 55% 43% 81% 49% 38% 36% 3% 2% 9% 0% 2% 1% 12% 17% 18% 29% 21% 23% 10% + I j I I J0%_____17.____6% 20% 12% 28% 5% _ 27% 26% 44% 28% 46% 18%_ 37% _ 27% _ 16% _ 5____ 19 22 20 9 8 126 107 115 95 92__. 2% 7% 10% 9% 5% 4% 52% 44% 47% 39% 36% I I I 96____27%.. 41 10% 13 43_ 20 13 12 22 18 12 9 0 9 0 10 0 6 10 8 9 13 6 3 0 4 1 4 1 0 0 4 8 0 7 14 22 6 T i I 1 - i 1 2% 8% 4% 3% 2% 4% 4% 3% 3% 0% 4% 0% 4% 0% 3% 4% 3% 4% 5% 2% 1% 0% I I i 2^/r^ ! 0% 2% 0% 0% 0% 2% 3% 0% 3% I 5% 9% , 1% ! Page I of 3 1 I1 HALL HIGH SCHOOL School Grade Total 09 L 10_ I 1 l__j2 iHENDERSON MIDDLE SCHOOL MABELVALE MIDDLE SCHOOL iMANN ARTS/SCIENCES MAGNET ImC CLELLAN HIGH SCHOOL 9^n der f 413 389 272 221 ZLL 06 I 180 07 I 189 I. - 08 1 _ 06 i _ 183 . . L 168 1 r 07 j 152 1 M F M F M M F M F M F M F ...... 08 i__ 148_ . L 06 L 266 r 07 I 281 F M F M M F M CJ)8ZL1276ZL___ F ZL_09i.X_309 ' io F 356 F11__Lj216 E112 220 -.-I_____ PARKVIEW ARTS/SCIENCE MAGNETZ. F .I 091 1 291 jl_ 1 r Jo 11289 287 LRSD htformation Sendee Dept, 12 L 2615 J M F M M M F M F M F M M F I Black 34 66 16 27 15 __ 41 20 125 120 94__ 59 75 51 104 35 42 106 50 137 80 115 70 133 86 71 39 104 51 81 53 52_ 26_ 138 71 101 85 134 56 60 %Black 3% 17% 4% 10% 6% 19%__ 9% 69%_ _ ^1% _ 50% 31% 41% 28% 62% 21% i _ 51% 28% _ 1- 4X i t 34% 52% 30% 41% 25% 48% _ 31% _ 23/,, 13% 29% 14% 38% 25% - 4_.. fThite 4^ 62 45 24 12 _ 30_ _20_ 33 17_ 61 _ 25 42 22 1 ^55 i 49 J 31 i _ 41 _ 21 8 157 192 I I 265 125 235 144 4 5 29 ___1_ 29 3 24% 20 12% 47% _ 24% _ 35% _ 29% 47% 20% _ 23% i 10_ 136 i4d__ 149_ 95 167 76__ 134 10% 16% 12% 9% 4% 14% _9% 18% 9% 32% 13% 23% 12% 33% 29% 20% _27% _14% 5% 59% 72% 94% 44% 85% 52% 1% 2% 8% 0% 13% 1% 9% _5% 47% 48% 52% 33% 58% 26% 51% I ! + 1 I I + I I I i - I I i 4- i 1 10 11 7 9 11 16 8 22 9 15 %White ! f)t. + i I i t 22 16 13 0 0 ' 10 0 5 28 17 21 20 37 7 0 0 11 0 0 851 22 10 42 15 37 18 13 j 1 I 1 1 I 4- i -1- I I 1 I 4- 1 %Other ! 0% ' 3% 3% 3% 3% 5% 7% 4% 12% 5% 8% 12% 9% 8% 0% 0% 7% 0% 3% 11% 6% 7% 7% 13% 3% 0% J I 1 I I i I 0% i 3% 0% 0% 4% 2% I -i II . i 0% t I 1 I 8% ! 3% 15% 5% 13% 6% ! 5% i Page 2 of 3 r L School Grade ! Total , 9nder PARKVIEW ARTS/SCIENCE MAGNET PULASKI HEIGHTS MIDDLE SCHOOL I 12 |__06 j 265 i 255 _ SOUTHWEST MIDDLeZsCHO LRSD Information Service Dept. L.jofZZI IZZosJZ 247 230 r 06 I 155 r~07~7~177 I 08 I 112 M__ F___ M___ F___ M___ _F M__ F__ M _F__ M__ _F___ M T Black. 33 59 39 91 59 75_ I %Black I 12% 23% 15% 37% 24% 33% 106___46%^ 93 64 67 46 51 30 1 I i 60% 41% 3^ 26% 46% 27% 1 , r White 49 234 173 204 168 120 87 6 0_ .8 8 0 4_ 1 %fThite' OtK 18% 92% 68% 83% 68% _ 52% 38% 4% 0% 5% 5% 0% 4% I i 4- 10 0 15 8 3 4 5 0 2 4 0 4 0 h %Other\\ X I 4- I I. 4% 0% 6% 3% 1% 2% 2% 0% 1% 2% 0% 4% 0% Page 3 of 3Stuuenfs that passed AP or Pre-AP Coui9s for 1999-2000 by School^ 3rd Qu^er Tuesday, April IS, 2000 L School iCENTRAL HIGH SCHOOL CLOVERDALE MIDDLE SCHOOL Grade j Toto/ GendeiL 09 10 Cji L _J2 L _ 525 _ F I 505 499 ! 473 ~ T 06 1 2i4 I 07~r23i I 08 228 M F M F M F M F M F M F M lDUNBAR_l2m.SXUD|ES M^NET_IW^DLElJc^ ______F 1_07XZ238 08 L_252 IfAIR HIGH SCHOOL ] 09 T 262 ITJCL.TEZ264 I i 11 222 I 12 JZ_186 FOREST HEIGHTS MiDDLE_SCHOOL r 06 T 1 244_ Oy__L_24_5 IJO8 r 257 iHALLHlGH_SCHOQL__ LRSD Information Service Dept. Z_09 Z 413 M. F M. F M F M F M F_ M F M F M F M F M F Black 82 57 88 47 _89_ ^8_ _106 ^3_ 181 126 144 69 101 66 _ T %lilac^ White f %W\u0026lt;fei7g Other i %Other 16% 7% 17% 9% [ 280 ! 211 i 262 219 t 18%_ 395_ I 8% 249 9%__ 170 159 50__ 35 __ 59_ 55_ 61__ 63__ 43__ 32 59 _ 32 _65 13 _ 48__ 44__ 97 57__ 111 49__ 93 J3 65 69% 48% 62% 30% 44% _29% 21% _15% 25% 23% 24% 25% 16% _ 12% \"22% 12% _ 29% _ 6% 26% 24% 40% 27% 45% _20% _36%__ 25% 16% _9___ 3___ 19__ J___ 5___ 4 _ 32_ 44__ 27 __ 75 59__ 64 21__ 12 8 18 23 15_ 8___ 8 124 105 115 105_ 53% 40% 52% 43% 79% 50% 36% 34% 3% 1% 8% 0% 2% _ 2% 14% _19% 16% 32% 23% 25% 8% 5% 3% 7% 10% _ 7% 4% 4% 51% 43% 47% _ 43% I I I 9_1_____35%. _ 103 4Q_ 40% .10% 17 46 21 13 11 23 16 11 10 0 5 0 10 0 6 8 10 15 13 6 4 0 3 1 5 1 0 0 _4_ 8 0 1 14 24 3 I i 3% 9% 4% 3% 5% 3% 2% 4% i I 1__0% 2% I 1 I I -i 0% 4% 0% 3% 3% 4% I 6% 5% 2% 2% 0% . i r/o 0% 2% 0% 0% 0% 2% 3% I 0% 3% 5% 9% 1% Page I of 3 II___________School 'HALL HIGH_SCHOOL Grade Total 09 413 10 389 I T\u0026lt; T 272 12 ] Z22T HENDERSON MIDDLE SCHOOL 06 180 I 07 LI 89 MABELVALE MIDDLE SCHOOL____ Imann ARTS/SCIENC^ESJWAGNET fi^CLELLAN high SCJIOO^^ [ 08 PT83 r 06 T ies p j52 r 08~ T ~ 148 06 I 266 r 07 ~r~28? [ 08 T 271 I 0^9 P309 --- fZHoZJ 356 iPARKVIEW ARTS/SCIENCE MAGNET I ~ i L 216 EZcl9 2ZIZZ291 r 10 i 289 L 11 L.A2 287 r 265 'jider. M__ _F___ M__ _E___ M__ F M __ F M F M___ _E___ M___ F M _ F _ F___ M___ F___ M___ F___ M___ F___ M__ F___ M___ F___ M___ F___ M___ E__ M___ F___ M__ F_ M___ F___ M___ F + 4. i i I T + Black. 38 67 18 31 16 J4 21 127 J 26 94 52 84 45 _9Z 36 _ 86_ _42 J_00_ 54 131 94 114 71 _132_ 87 82 48 112 54 83 51 _54_ 24_ 133 74 _HL 91 143 61 56 I -L - [ i % Black 9% 17% 5% 11% 6% _20% 10% 71% 70% 50% 28% 46% 25% _ 58% 21% 57% _ 28% I _68% 36% 49% 35% 41% 25% _48% 32% 16% 31% 15% 38% 24% _25% 11% 4^ _25% -40%. 31% 50% 21% 21% LRSD Information Service Dept. -I White 42 69 36 20 12 32 _ 18 40 20 58 31 44 21 _^3 _ 51 _ _28 41 20 9 163 201 255 128 239_ 143 4 8 30 0 31 3 _21 8_ _141_ 131_ L50 93 162 73 121 I 10% 2^^ 18% 9% 7% 4% 14% 8% 22% 11% 31% 16% 24% 11% 32% 30% 18% 27% 14% 6% 61% 76% 91% 46% 87% I i i T i i I 52% I 3% 8% 0% 14% 1% 10% 4% 48% 45% _ 52% 32% 56% 25% _46% i T T 8 11 9 11 10 15 15 19 9 12 22 16 13 0 0 7 0 5 28 20 21 20 37 8 0 0 11 0 0 8 4 1 22 10 43 13 34 15 12 j i I + I 1 I I I _h _ J %Other 0% 2/c 3% 3% 4% 5% 7% 8% 11% 5% 6% 1 12%\n9% I 8% 0% 0% 5% 0% 1 I 3% I 11% 8% ! 7% 7% 13% 3% 0% 0% 3% I I I 0% 0% 4% _ 2% I 0% . i 8% 3% 15% 4% 12% 5% 5% I i Page 2 of 3___________\" School_________ PARKVIEW ARTS/SCIENCE MAGNET PULASKI HEIGHTS MIDDLE SCHOOL SOUTHWEST MIDDLE SCHOOL LRSD Information Service Dept. Grade Total 12 06 265 255 07 ] 247 08 1 230 JZbe IZiss 07 J _177 J 1 LJ)8H4112_4 ! 21^ M___ _F___ M___ _F___ M__ J _F M F M___ _E___ M + 4 1 + I 4- i Black. 31 54 44 87 60 79__ i 10 _9L _66 62. _ 48 2J %Black n% 21% 17% 35% 24% 34% _ 48% 59% 43% 38% 27% 42% 25% White 48 235 180 207 165 119 84 I __.4---- 4 0 7 7_ 4 -l- 1 %White ! Ot, 18% 92% 71% 84% Q7% 52% 2,7% 3% 0% 4% 4% 0% 4% j i 10 0 16 8 3 4 5 0 2 4 0 4 0 t I %Other 4% 0% 6% 3% 1% 2% 2% 0% 1% 2% 0% 4% 0% J i 4 Page 3 of 3Studenfs Enrolled in at Least One AP, Pk9aP Course for 1999-2000 by Schou^4th Quarter Monday, April 17, 2000 Schaal CENTRAL HIGH SCHOOL 1 Grade I Total I Gender f Black . 09 J __..525_. j F ! 49 CLOVERDALE MIDDLE SCHOOL _ (DUNBAR INT^ STUDIES MAGNET MID^^^^ (fair high school___ FOREST HEIGHTS MIDDLE SCHOO*- HALL HIGH SCHOOL LKSD Information Service Dept. ( 10 L L 505_ J i f 3l UZ 499 i_.J2 L .473, Z Z 0 6 ZT 2 6 4 EZ_O7 L.23J._. C 08 L 228 M . M F M 4- I I _._F____ M M . M . M F M . 4 -4- [3.07 r 238 I ' F r 08 ~ r 252 r 09 I 262 10 L_.ii r .12 r~264 I 222 Z r i86z rZ06 Z 244 LO7 l_245 LI 08 .J-.- .L_. 257 1L 09.1313 _ M __L __M_ ___F. __M F M F M ___F_ __M ___L __M ___L M F_ _ M F 24___ 56___ 27 44 _ 17_ 60__ 26__ 45___ 33___ 45___ 30___ 30___ 22 _ 24 _ 20 _ 30___ 21 41___ 42___ 25___ 21_ 32 23__ 31 ^ABlack 5% 11% _5% 9% _ 3% 13% _ 5%_ 17% 13% 19% 13% 13% 10% 10% ___9% _.13____ 1 31 28 31 25 42 21 53 45 42 IThite 86 73 85 _ 70 102 80 _ 69 52Z 2 1 6 1 1 2 _J6 17 I ! 13%. 1 29 __^11% 16% 17% 10% 8%_ __12% 9% _17% _ _6% 17% 15% 15% 10% 17% 43 36 35 10 8 _6 _ 11^ 8 _ 8 _4__ _____ 32 29 28 9%___L__29 21% 18% 10% 3.1 32 22 %Whit^ Other \\ %Other 16% 14% 17% 14% 20% 16% 15% 11% 1% 0% ! I 3%___t 0%___! 0% 1% 7% 7% 12% 18% 14% 14% 4% 3% 2% 4% 4% 4% 2% 4% 13% 12% 11% 12% 12% 12% 5% I i f i ! 1. i 5 15 7 3 4 5 4 4 2 0 2 0 2 0 5 3 9 9 11 5 1 0 3 1 2 1 0 0 1 2 0 2 6 1 4 I I i 4- I t 1% 3% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% 0% 1% J I I 0%___ 1%___ 0% , 2% i 1% i 4% 4% 4% 2%__ 0% 0% 1% ( 0% 1% 0% 0% ( 0% . I 0% I 1% I I 1 i I 0% ! i% ( 2% 3% ( 1% .( Page i of 3i__________________SdinitL HALL HIGH SCHOOL_____ I Grade Total \\ no ^1'1 09 413 !__^10_ 11 1 ! HENDERSON MIDDLE SCHOOL MABELVALE MIDDLE SCHOOL MANN ARTS/SCIENCES MAGNET MC CLELLANJdIGH SCHOOL PARKVIEW ARTS/SCIENCEMAGNET LRSD Information Service Dept. binder 389__ 272 _ 12 1 221 L o\u0026lt; Z38o L_.O7 J 189 [L_O8L L 183L 06 168 I I 07 I 152 L _08 ' J48__i Z T 06 T~ 266 i I l _07_ IZZ281 08 IZZ276\n309 CZlO.ZZ 356 I JI1 ZIZ m 12 1 220 1_IZZogZJ 291 OoZZ 289 Z? l...._1l 287 12 I -----L M__ F___ M__ F___ M__ F M _ F M F M__ F__ M__ F M F _ M F M__ F__ M__ F__ M__ F M _ M__ F__ M__ F__ M__ F M M F__ M I t BlacL 26 42 17 23 -U - ! 11 27 19 35 40 35 33 32 24 26 14 29 18 32 18 43 21 M 35 52 3.6 41 24 54 34 43 28 36 20 T' i ! I %Rlack Q% 11% 4% 8% 4% While. 14 26 20 14 8 12% _ , _19 L., 9% _ -j. 19% - r 8 10 72% _ 10 i I 1 265.1 __ F %White i OtK 19% 17% 17% 13% 15% __i 8% 19% 12% 22% 12% 16% 10% 17% 12% 19% I I 20 16 t 14__t 8 15 15 7 -i I (- 10 1 i _ 5 J i 13%Z 13% 8% 15% 10% 20% 13% _16% 63___I 22% 40 58 47 55 34 30 5 46 50 70 40 64_ 45_ 2 _ 4 11 1 10 1 13 9%______6 14% _ 20%_ 16% 19% 12% 11% 3% 1% 5% 5% 3% 9% 4% 6% 6% 11% 8% 8% 4% 9% 9% 5% 7% 3% 3% 17% 19% 25% 14% 23% 16% 1% 1% 3% 0% 5% 0% 6% 3% I I i I -L 1 t i I 58__L. _ 20% 56 _63^ 40 61 38 1 54 _ i 19% 22% 14% 21% 13% 20% I j T 2 5 6 4 8 8 10 3 5 2 5 6 4 4 0 0 3 0 1 8 6 5 6 9 2 0 0 4 0 0 2 1 1 9 3 12 5 9 5 4 T T i I i i I I 1 1 i I %OtheL 0% 1% 2% 1% 3% 4% 5% 2% 3% 1% 3% 3% 2% 2% 0% 0% 2% 0% I I I I I i 1% _j 3% J 2% J 2%___i 2% 3% 1% 0% 0% 1 1% ' i 0% n 0% J 1% _ 0% 0% 3% 1% 4% 2% 3% 2% 2% 1 .1 I I Page 2 of 3I School Grade Total PARKVIEW ARTS/SCIENCE MAGNET IPULASKI HEIGHTS MIDDLEJSCHOOL___ SOUTHWEST_MIDDLE SCHOOL LRSD Information Service Dept. 12 06 -- i 265 255 [.JO7_T_2^ 08 ] _230 155 I 07 r 177 r I 08 112 Grand Totals 'jideiL M___ F___ M M F M F M _F M F M T Black. 21 17 17 --------- 30 21 28 36 26 21 31 23 19 16 2827 %Slaf^ 8% 7% 7% 12% 11% _ 12% _ 16% _ J 7% + 14% __ 18% __ 13% 17% 14% 0 fThite 24 54 49 46 42 33 25 2 0^_ 3 _ 5 1 1 -k 2333 L %White Oh 9% 21% i 19% i 19% ! 17% 14% 11% 1% 0% 2% 3% 1% 1% 0 1 1 I j 5 0 4 2 1 1 1 0 1 3 0 1 0 311 I -1- i. %Other 2% 0% 2^/0 1% 0% 0% 0% 0% 1% 2% 0% 1% 0% 0 I 1 i I I J Page 3 of 3StuiiCnfs that passed AP or Pre-AP Coui^s for 1999-2000 by School, 1st Qut^^r Tuesday, April 18, 2000 I School i Grade I Total CENTRAL HIGH SCHOOL I 09 _ J 525 idFiZJosl L_ iFZZ^ol [Z_12 T 473 SCLOVERDALE MIDDLE SCHOOL [ 06 264 r 07 1 231 I 08 1 228 ounbarZint'l studies M 06 4. 233 07 IZ238. (fair HIGH SCHOOL [ ^d8_Zl 252 L j09ZZ1262 i 10 -L 264 [forest heights middle school [hall HIGH SCHdOLl, LRSD Information Service Dept. I__11 ! Ti T 06 I 222 I 186 244 I 07 I 245 CdsZZZisf F 09 Gender F M F _ M___ _fL _ __M __F___ _M F M F M F __M__ _ F__ _ M__ __F_ __M _ F M F __M_ __F ___ __M _F__ M F M F M F M _F M _ r 413\"\" 1 I F Black i % Black 92 38 94 49 100 38 123 52 167 111 159 95 106 70 39^ 35 65 51 63 58 34 J 8 63 31 _65 jL 53 104 69 111 50^ 88 58 651 18% 7% 19% _ 10% __20% __ 8%_ _ _ 26%_ 11% 63% 42% 69% 41% 46% _31%_ _17% _ __15% __27% _ 21%_ 25% 23% 13% _ 7% _ 24% 12%_ White 285 217 281 217 _406 _253_ _184 178 9 4 18 4 5 4 _ 30_ __ 36 _ 42 _68 57 54 23 16 _5__ 26_ 29%_____25 28% 25% 43% 28% 45% 20% 34% 23% _ 16% 18 9 8 126 108 116 _92^ 93 101 42 %yrhite Other %Other j 54% 41% 56% 43% 81% 51% 39% 38% 3% 2% 8% 2% 2% 2% 13% 15% 18% 29% 23% 21% 9% 1 I I 1 t T t 1 _ 6% i L 10% 11% _ ^8% 5% 4% 52% 44% 47% 38% 36% 391% 10% - I i 15 48 20 13 12 22 18 13 10 0 10 0 9 0 5 11 10 13 15 5 4 0 4 1 5 0 0 0 4 5 0 6 14 22 7 3% 9% 4% 3% 2% 4% 4% 3% 4% 0% 4% 0% J I I 1 I i 1 I I 1 i I I i 4% _j 0% 2% 4% 5% 6% 2% I 2% 0% 1 0% 2% 0% 0% 0% 2% 2% 0% 2% 5% 9% 2% Pa^e I of 3____________ School HALL HIGH SCHOOL______ Grade.__TalaL Wilder. Black. HENDERSON MIDDLE SCHOOL MABELVALE MIDDLE SCHOOL MANN ARTS/SCIENCEOIAGJMET MC CLELLAN HIGH SCHOOL FpARKVIEW ARTS/SCI^^^ LRSD Information Service Dept. 09 10 413 389__ L 11 I 272 i. 12 i 221 i -i- ____l . 06 180 ..I i 07 Z.189.) [ 08 . J_.li ._J, 06 Cl68_Z [_07 L 152 I 08 I 148 ]__06 I 266 L_J)7L i__281 F 08 n 276 Z 09 F: 309 10_ 1 356_ L 11ZT_216 LZ12^ J_ 220 T 09 291 i I 10 I 289 Qii ! 287 1 12 I 265 ~ M F M F M F M F M F_ M F M F M F M E M F M F M F ! T 36 71 21 35 18 50 22 126 118 97 57 75 48 105 I %Blak. 18% 5% 13% 7% 23% J0% 70% I fVhite 43 59 41 28 10 31 20 33 66% __4 _ 19 51%___^_J 30% 41% 26% i i 1 64 31__ 35__i %White 15% 12% 10% 4% 14% 9% 18% 11% 34% 16% 19% 9% I i ____37_ Ot, t %Other ! 0% _ M _F. __M ___F_ __M ___L __M ___F_ JM F ^_M __L M ___F __M F + 88 48 107 48 127 74 121 86 138 84 83 41 101 49 11 44 58 25_ 43. IQ 132 99 138 60 66 T i ! r 63%_ 22% _ 58% ^2%__ 12% 32% 48% 28% 43% 31% 50% 30% 27% 15% 28% 14% 36% 20% 11%..__. 49% 26% 46% 34% 48% 21% 25% 54. ...[..__32% _51_ 25 4E 17 8 155 195 262 135 231 145 4 8 28 1 26 3 21 10 1'39 152 167 109 174 88 131 I 30% 16% 27% 11%_ 5% 58% 73% 93% 48% 86% 53% 1% 3% 8% 0% 12% 1% 10% 5% 48% 52% 58% 38% 61% 31% 49% I 1 i T 9 8 5 8 10 17 10 23 9 14 16 16 13 0 0 11 0 5 29 15 22 20 40 8 0 0 10 0 0 8 5 1 23 11 43 16 34 17 13 I I 4 1 i 1 I 1- i 2% 2% 2% 3% 5% 8% 6% 13% 5% 7% 9% 9% 8% 0% 0% 7% 0% _ 3% 11% 6% 4 -I I J i I ! i 8% 7% i 14% 3% 0% 0% J%_ 0% 0% 4% 2% 0% 8% 4% 15% 6% 12% 6% 5% ! 1 ! ! Page 2 of 3I __________________SdianL___________ PARKVIEW ARTS/SCIENCE MAGNET PULASKI HEIGHTS,MIDDLE SCHOOL _ 1 Grade \\ Total ^Eier. 12 265 A 05. I 255 07~ n~^47 I r 08 230__ SOUTHWEST MIDDLE SCHOOL___ I __i___ 06 1 155 07 .._L 177_ 08 112 ) M . M F M JL M F M F M F M r Black. 25 58 94 65 82 08 ?---- %Rlack \\ White LRSD Information Service Dept. 84 55 71 45 49 25 ----------4. 9% 23% 18% 38% 26% 36% _ 47% 54% _ 35% 40% 25% 44% 22% 1 53 230 163 203 172 t27__ 86 6 0 8 8 0 4 I imiile. 2Q% 90% 64% 82% 70% _ 55% 37% 4% 0% 5% 5% 0% 4% Oi 11 0 13 8 1 4 5 0 2 4 0 4 0 I I I %Other 4% 0% 5% 3% 0% 2% 2% 0% 1% 2% 0% 4% 0% I i Page 3 of 3Studers Enrolled in at Least One AP, PRj^P Course for 1999-2000 by Schoo^nd Quarter Monday, April 17, 2000 I School CENTRAL HIGH SCHOOL .. \\ Grade \\ Total \\ Gender} Black ... i 0_9 i 525 I F i 52 T %Rlack White I %fVhite] Other ! %Other\\ CLOVERDALE MrDDLZE.SCHdOL____ L36.LI ______L 505.^ 1 11 ~] 499 J2ZJZ473 -ZZE 06 T 264 ! Z07? _!3231 t 08^ r - L.._. 228 DUNBAR INT'L STUDIES MAGNET MIDDLE S\u0026lt;lL 06\n-------- I 233 M F M F M F M F M F M F M F I I , L..07 EZO8 i rL238_Z_ If ZZ L _______Zj___M_____ 252 'FAIR HIGH.SCHQOlL . I 09 I 262 iZloZZ Z264Z [ 11 ]Z222 FOREST HEIGHTS MIDDLE SCHOOL T 06 I_244__ L2d7_ _r_ 245 i .08 1_ 257 HALL high SCHOOL LRSD Information Sertice Dept. ZZZodZZ 1 ______I_ 413.L._ E ~M F M M F M F M F M F M F M F - 30__ 64__ 32 48_ 17 E7__ 29 45__ 32__ 44__ 30__ 30__ 22 19_ 21 __ 28_ 26 40__ 42__ 22__ 17 _ 30_ 23 _ 38 15 34 28 31 27 43 21_ 52 45 10% 6% 13% 6% 10% J% 14% 6% 17% I 12% I i I f 19% 13% 13% 10% _8% ----4.-. I 86 71 87 71 101 15 iy 53 2 1 6 1 1 1 15 iZ 39 LZ _J% _ 12% _11%^ 16% 17% 8% _6% _ 11% _ _ 9%___ J7%_ \u0026lt;8% 15% 15% 11% 18% 9% 20% 18% ,9% i - I 16% 14% 17% 14%_ 20% 15%_ 15% 11% 1% 0% 3% 0% 0% 0% 6% T i _16__4._ 7% 28 42 35 35 10 8 5 11 8 9 4 6 31 28 29 21 3J 33 21 12% 18% 14% 14% 4% 3% _2% _ 4% _ 4% _ 4% 2% 3% 13% 11% 12% 11%_ 12% 13% 5% I I t .1 I I 5 14 6 3 4 4 4 4 2 0 3 0 2 0 5 3 9 6 11 5 1 0 3 1 2 1 0 0 1 2 0 2 6 1 4 I i 3% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% J j I 0%___s 4- i I 1 I t T I T t I I 1% 0% 1% 0% 2% 1% 4% 3% 4% 2% I 0% 0% 1% 0% 1% 0% 0% 0% 0% 1% 0% 1% 2% 3% j 1% ' Page ! of 3 II School T Grade d Total Shall HIGH scHOOi____ 09 10 i 413 i 1 389 I I JI 272 12 _ 1__ 221 HENDERSON MIDDLE SCHOOL 06 _T218O r 07 7 189 r 08 F 183 MABELVALE MIDDLE SCHOOL F 06 1 168 F_O7_F._ 1527 j n' -T-\ni__08 J48 _ MANN ARTS/SCIENCES MAG_NEJ_ T 06 i 266 r 07 I 281 08 L 276^_. MC CLELLAN HIGH SCHOOL F 09 1 7309 10 1356 c_ii 216. F712 F 22o7 IPARKViEWLARTS/SCIENCE-MA^N^T F7O9 F.291_ I ^10 r 289 I 11 i 287 I I 12 2^5 LRSD Information Service Dept. M___ F___ M___ _E___ M___ F M_ F M__ F___ M___ F___ M___ F__ m7._ F _ M__ F _ M__ _F___ M___ F___ M___ F M _ M___ _F___ M___ _F___ M__ F__ M__ F M F M . M F f -1- I I Black 25 41 17 20 11 _28 _ _ _ iL _34__ 37 36__ 30 30 21 _ 26 _ 14 26 18 _32_ 16 43 24 47 35 _51 36 41 25 48 30 45 %Rlack IVhite %White i Qz 6% 11% 4% 7% 4% 13% I T I i 8%....J 19% 21% 19% 16% 16% 11% ....-I 14 23 18 15 6 19 7 15% 8% 17% 12% 22% 11% 16% 9% 17% 12% 18% 13% 13% 8% 13% 8% -1-1- 9 ! 30___ 39___ 21___ 63 4F_ 59__ _ 4,7___ 56___ 35 38__ 21% 14% 19 13 11 7 15 13 2 9 5 4 44 48 70 42 65 45 2 4 10 1 10 1 3% 6% 5% 6% 2% 9% 3% 4% 5% 10% 7% 6% 4% 9% 8% 5% 3% 3% 17% 18% i 18%__i__12 10% _14% .20% 16% 20% 12% 14% 6 I t i i ) i ! 25%\n15% i 24% 16% 1% 1% 3% 0% 5% 0% i 5% ! 3% I 53 F_18%. ._ 54 _ 63 43 61 2,7 J 9% 22% 15% 21% 13% 22% 1 5 5 4 6 8 11 2 5 2 5 6 4 4 0 0 3 0 1 8 6 5 6 9 2 0 0 4 0 0 2 1 1 9 3 11 5 8 5 5 I 1 I I I I I %Other. I -7 I i I i t I J 0% 1% 1% 1% 2% 4% 5% 1% 3% 1% 3% 3% ! I 1 2%___! 2% I 0% 0% 2% i 0% , 1% _ 3% 2% 2% 2% 3% 1% 0% I 1 I 0% J 1% J 0% .J 0%\n1% u 0% 0% 3% 1%__ 4% __ 2% 3% 2%\n2% i Page 2 of 3I School Grade Total^IkderA PARKVIEW ARTS/SCIENCE MAGNET PULASKI HEIGHTS MIDDLE SCHOOL____ 12 06 i 265_J I 255 i SOUTHWEST MIDDLE SCHOOL _ _ LRSD Information Service Dept. I 07 08 06 07 L 08 ' ' 247 230 M F M F M F M .l_f55 F _.L 177- M F ~M F M I T .Black. 2A. 18 16 33 27 _28 35 _27_ _20_ 23 19 14 %ladL . _i- 1 Grand Totals: [ 2838 t ! 9% 7% 6% 13% 11% 12% 15% 17% 13% 18% 13% 17% 13% 0 I i -r White % White 25 54 48 44 41 32 - j 24- 2 0 3 5___ 1___ -J-----[ 2288 i 9% 21% 19% 18% 17% 14% 10% 1% 0% 2% 3% 1% 1% 0 T I i 5 2% 0 4 2 1 1 1 0 1 3 0 1 0 301 I i I r I I 0% 2% 1% 0% 0% 0% 0% I I 1% j 2% I I 0% 1% I 0%___i 0 1 Page 3 of 3Studet^s Enrolled in at Least One AP, PR^AP Course for 1999-2000 by Schou^rd Quarter Monday, April 17, 2000 I_____________________School iCENTRAL HIGH SCHOOL Graded Total 1__Q9 525__ i.... 10 ! 505 CLOVERDALE MIDDLE SCHOOL 11 LLZii J. 499 ___I 06 07 473 1 264 231 I J)8_Z L228 DUNBAR INTX STUDIES MAGNET MIDDLE.SC. [ 06 233 [ ZO7ZL_ 238 r 08 l 252 ! iFAIR HIGH SCHOOL L 09 r'2l^ L ZloZ I_264 O1ZZZ222Z r 12 ZZ 1862 FOREST HEIGHTS MIDDLE SCHOOL 06_.. _L 244_ 07 r 245 L 08l_ J 257 Gender F M ___F._ M F _ M F _ _ M _ F M F M F _ M F__ M_ ^F_ _ M___ F M F __F _ M _ _ F___ F M F M F F T i Slack. 24 56 J2.7 _ _44 _ 17 60 _ ^261 45 33 45 30 30 _23_ _ 24Z _20__ 30 27 41 I i % Black 9% 5% 11% 5% _9% 3% 13%. ___5% i I i 17% 13% 19% 13% -I FFZtffg r % FFA/fe 86 73 85 70 16% 14% 17% 14% 102____20% 81 _69 52 _ Other %Other | ?HALL high SCHOOL __ LRSD Information Service Dept. 09 I 413 ._F 42___ 25___ 21__ 32 __ 23 57^^ 13__ 31___ 28___ 37___ 25___ 42___ 21__ 5J__ 45 42___ I 13% i 10% J 10% 9% J'3% 11% 16% 17% 10% I _8% _ 12% 9% 17% 6%_ 17% 15% 15% 10% 17% _ 9% _ _21% 18%^ To% J___2_ 1 ___6_ ___1_ ___L_ 2 16 17 29 _ 43 36 __35_ __10_ 8 6 11 8 8 4 ___7_ 32 __30_ __28. 29 + 16% 15% 11% 1% 0% 3% 0% 0% 1% 7% 7% 12% 18% 14% 14% 4% 3% __2% 4% 4% 4% 2% 4% 13% 12% 11% 12% 3_1_____12% 32 22 12% 5%.. + I I 5 15 7 3 4 5 4 4 2 0 2 0 2 0 5 3 9 9 11 5 1 0 3 1 2 1 0 0 1 2 0 2 6 7 4 I I I 1 I I t t i i I -I 1% 3% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% 0% 1% 0% 1% 0% 2% 1% 4% 4% 4% 2% 0% 0% 1% I 1 I I 1 I 0% i 1% 0% 0% 0% 0% 1% 0% 1% 2% , 3% ' 1% . I Pa^e I of 3 i i( i_______________School HALL HIGH SCHOOL ! Grade j Total I 09 413 10__^_.389_ I--------- I 11 2T2 HENDERSON MIDDLE SCHOOL. jMABELVALEJVUDDLE SCHOOL JL MANN ARTS/SCIENCES MAGNET_____ iMC CLELLAN HIGH SCHOOL PARKVIEW ARTS/SCIENCE MAGNET LRSD Information Senice Dept. l-__12 ! r\\ I J_221 06 '771180 r~oi 1 189 I 08 I 183 TTZr 06 [168 i 07 T~i52 [ 08 i 148 2 H 06 !2_66 r 07 I 281 fZ 08j T\"276 T? 09 7 309 I io r~356 1 H I 216 I Ti I 220 ETZok 7IZ2^ o 7 7^ CZii77j.Z287 i - _12 I ^I^derl Black L_265 . j. M F M F M F M F M_ F_ M F M iL_ F_ F M F M F M F_ M F M F M F M F M F M_ F M F M F + I 26 42 17 23 11 21 19 35 io 35 33 32 24 26 %Black Q% 11% 4% 8% 4% 12% __ 9% 19%_ 222/t,_ _ 19% 17% __J 4____ 29 18 32 18 43 21 47 35 52 36 41 24 54 34 43 28 36, 20 63 40 47 55 34 30 17% 13% 15% 8% 19% __12% --------- 22% 12% 16% 10% 17% 12% 19% 13% 13% 8% 15% 10% 20% 13% 16% _9% 22% t I fVhite 13 26 20 14 8 19 8 _ 10 JO 20_ 16 14 8 15 _ 15 _1 10_ 5 5 46 50 70 40 64 45 _2_ 4 11 1 10 1 _13._ _ 6 _ 58 %White ! 3% 7% 5% 5% 3% 9% 4% 6% _6% 11% 8% 8% 4% 9% 9% 5% 7% 3% 3% 17% 19% 25% 14% 23% 16% I .14%_____56 20% 16% 19% 12% 11% 63 40 61 38 54 1 1% 3% 0% 5% 0% _6% __3% _20% _19% 22% 14% 21% 13% 20% xzn. 2 5 6 4 8 8 10 3 5 2 5 6 4 4 0 0 3 0 1 8 __6_ __5_ __6_ 9 1-0 4- i I 0 4 0 0 2 1 1 9 3 12 5 9 5 4 1 1 I 4- f %Other Q% 1% 2% 1% 3% _4% 5% 2% 3% 1% 3% 3% 2% 2% 0% 0% 2% 0% 1% 3% 2% I J j 1 I I -i 2% 2% J 3% 1% 0% . 0% 1% 0% 0% I 1% 0% 0% 3% 1% 4% 2%__: __i 2% 2% Page 2 of 3 I\n____________ School---------------- 'PARKVIEW ARTS/SCIENCE MAGNET PULASKI HEIGHTS MIDDLE SCHOOL Grade I Total ^tder 12 _J_ 06 I 265 i 255 ' 07 247Z 08 i 230 I SOUTHWEST MIDDLE SCHOOL . i 07 i 177 I 08 1 112 iGrand Totals: M F M F M F M F _F M F M 1 I- r LRSD hiformalion Service Dept. Black S %Black fVhite , %fhite 7 21 17 17 30 27 28 _36 26 21 _ _31_ 23 19 16 2828 8% 7% 7% 12% 11% 12% 16% 17% 14%_ 1 24 54 49 46 42 33 25 2 0 18%_____3 13% 17% 14% 0 5 1 1 2334 9% 21% 19% 19% 17% 14% 11% 1% 0% 2% 3% 1% 1% 0 1.. + Qlh. 0 4 2 1 1 1 0 1 3 0 __1 0 r 2% J___0% ! I 4- I i _L 311 1% 0% 0% 0% 0% 1% 2% 0% 1% 0% 0 J I Page 3 of 3DATA NOT AVAILABLELOCATION CENTF5AL HALL MANN METRO PARKVIEW DUNBAR J. A. FAIR FOR. HGTS. JR. PUL. HGTS. JR. SOUTHWEST McClellan HENDERSON A.L.C.___________ CLOVERDALE JR. MABELVALE JR. BADGETT BALE___________ BASELINE BOOKER BRADY CARVER CHICOT CLOVERDALE DODD FAIR PARK FOREST PARK FRANKLIN FULBRIGHT GARLAND G. SPRINGS GIBBS________ KING_________ JEFFERSON MABELVALE MCDERMOTT MEADOWCLIFF MITCHELL OTTER CREEK PUL. HEIGHTS RIGHTSELL ROCKEFELLER ROMINE TERRY WAKEFIELD WASHINGTON WATSON W. HILLS WILLIAMS WILSON WOODRUFF TOTALS 1999-2000 Unfilled absences lAug. iSept. Oct. iNov. jPec. Jan. 'Feb, I rt I 4 . A A on I orv c 0! 10: 44: 22, 42 30 56 iMar. I Apr. 1 + I i 1 i I i I I T i 1 I I + I I 01 Z 11 0 0 0, 1 0 2 0 0 0 01 0 0 1 0 01 TT z 11 z z z 0\n0! 0 0 1 IL 0, 5 r\\ 01 0 0 0| ZL _01 01 Zl 121 5! 27 11 16 21 21\ni,l 15 24 35, 27 i 341 22 15! 31' 33 38 60 16 54 33 151 24, 9i 26 28 33! 37 18' 61 12 3 91 / 8 3' 81 1 91 51 131 5 3 10 2 5 4 6 14 2 9 6 36 9 7 4 15 25 12 4 4 15 623 36! 461 58 0! 5 19 5' 14 281 121 11 4\n111 331 10, 24, 8 5 18, 12[ 61 iy 7 14 4 81 \"W 511 91 91 7! 14 5 8 ~5! 947' 13 35 30 8 48 41 1 1 11 5 13 8 1 22 Zl 121 2: IT 161 10, ZI 11 TZ TT 8 13 t 2i 6' 9 56 4 9, 5' 22 6 6 1 J 5! 7381 29 39\n\"l^ 24, 25 21 \\ 361 121 221 521 21 2 37 331 O' 2\\ zi 41 41 Zl Zl 1\\ 9! 6, 61 9! 51 9| 4' zr 13 30! 17 14 6 20 36! w 45\n271 8' 41 i 01 71 31! 561 17 36, 41 68 j Til Za 691 44 38' 21, 21 91 28 24 26! 1 19 1 8 8 3 10 0 6 28' 3 5' 2, 10 1 5 4 4 2 6311 12 52 431 2 39! 141 80! 21. 4! 50' 38\nO' 9 171 14 10 18! IZ 28! m 21 8! 8, JZ 10, Zl 71 5 9 11 11 T 151 30. 1' 1 6 13 18 21 9 T 81 321 8 11 10 26 20 6 2 12 111 15 13\n2T 14 13 9! 61 14 ITT 12 5 1 3 10 26 2 8 \"l^ 3^ 8 6 3 18 23 1 'o 10 141 795 10211 15 19 10! 5, \"l^ 23! 131 131 51 16 11 ' 14 . 11 1 16 3 14 11 45 TZ 4 1 21 20 10 5 8 9 892! 461 30\n381 9' 261 21 381 21 8 12 39 24 0 31 22 1 1 10 13 7 1 16 4 6 12 3 15 jMay June totals 5: 14 4' 2 8 1 9! 9 6 10 5 11 7 22 8 1 1 20 10 3 1 10 9 642 i I T + I I I ! I i I f t I T i I I T I t T T T I I T T I i t I 288 166 275 103 201 199 238 351 109 240 383 255 44 339 276 13 40 98 56 96 61 162 81 85 55 58 136 72 121 47 47 129 42 60 63 60 123 20 67 73 309 68 58 39 148 126 54 31 59 71 6301August, 1999 LOCATION/DATE CENTRAL HALL I 2! 3 4 5 6 9,10 11'12 13!16 17118 19'20 23!24 25 26 27 30 31 i i ! M t i i I ' ' ! i ! ! , IT\" I I ( I TOTALS MANN METRO PARKVIEW T I I + I I 1 I T1 I I T DUNBAR________ J. A. FAIR_______ FOR. HGTS. JR. PUL. HGTS. JR. SOUTHWEST McClellan HENDERSON A.L.C.___________ CLOVERDALE JR. MABELVALE JR. t i i 1 I I iT I t i T T I I J. 1 i T 1 tI 1 T I I I T _L II T I T T I I T I I + I I I i +I 1 1 I + 4- I I I I I I T I I I I I BADGETT BALE BASELINE BOOKER BRADY I T I I I I T TI T I tI I I H 1 i 11 I 4- T I I IT 1 CARVER CHICOT CLOVERDALE J_ _ L DODD FAIR PARK FOREST PARK FRANKLIN I T I T I H I I 1 1 FULBRIGHT GARLAND G. SPRINGS GIBBS KING JEFFERSON MABELVALE 1 I T I 4I I I 1 I + I I I I T I T i I T I T I i + 1 I i I I I 1 IT + I t MCDERMOTT MEADOWCLIFF MITCHELL OTTER CREEK PUL. HEIGHTS RIGHTSELL ROCKEFELLER ROMINE TERRY_______ WAKEFIELD WASHINGTON WATSON W. HILLS WILLIAMS WILSON WOODRUFF I i + + T I I 1 ! t- I 7 I T t I I I i 1 -I-Page 1 1 1 1 1 0 0 0 010 02 0002 0 00 00 010 01 010 010 000 02 0 0 0 0 0000 10 T' 0 1 September, 1999 LOCATION/DATE CENTRAL II 2| 3i 1 HALL T I T 8| 9 10 13\n14\n15 16\n17|20,21 l22l23!24|27l28l29'30i I i i ! I i i I I 5123 TOTALS MANN___________ METRO_________ PARKVIEW ___ DUNBAR________ J. A. FAIR_______ FOR. HGTS. JR. PUL. HGTS. JR. SOUTHWEST McClellan HENDERSON A.L.C.___________ CLOVERDALE JR. MABELVALE JR. BADGETT BALE I BASELINE BOOKER BRADY CARVER CHICOT CLOVERDALE DODD________ FAIR PARK FOREST PARK FRANKLIN FULBRIGHT GARLAND G. SPRINGS GIBBS KING_________ JEFFERSON MABELVALE MCDERMOTT MEADOWCLIFF MITCHELL OTTER CREEK PUL. HEIGHTS RIGHTSELL ROCKEFELLER ROMINE TERRY WAKEFIELD WASHINGTON WATSON W. HILLS WILLIAMS WILSON WOODRUFF m I T i 7 1 n I i 1 I 1 I 21 I I 4. I 2 1 u m\n2 I I T I 1 1 I I ' 1 11 H 1 I 1 1 1_ 1 I ' ii I I X 11 JLL I 1! 1 ! I 2 1' LI T I I i I li I T I I 1 1 1 1 1 2 I I I 1 1| 21 Ij T i r 21 21 3' n 1, 2 ' 3 51 2i 2 2 + I 1 1 3 4! 3 1 1 1 11 2 2 I I 1 1 5 1 IL i 1 2 i 1} 1 I '7* 1 I 1 4- + 2 I + j ...L I I I 11' : i I I 7 1 T I I I I j 11 1 2\\ 4i 1 i L 1 1 3 2 in I X\n3i ii u 1 1 i 2\n4! 2i 1 i li 1 2 1 1 t I 2' 2' 1 3 31 3' in: ii\n1 1 21 12 1 2 3 ' 11 li II 2 1 I 2 1 2 1 1 1 1 i 1 1 1 1 1 2 1 1 i 1 2 2 I 1 3 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 + 5 1 4 3 1 4 1 2 2\n2 1 4 2 1 6 2, 3 I 2 TFT 1 1 2 1 1! 1' T 11 TTY I 1 1 1 1 2 1 ij 1! 1 1 I 11 1 1 11 II 2| 21 1| 2| 3| 31 41 2 1 2\\ 1 2' 4 2 2 3 3 5 3 11 2 2 I 1 1 2 1 5 3 2I 3 1' 4 8 2 3 2 5 1 5 2 1 3 t 4- 1 1 T 1i 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 n 1 1 1 1 2 1 T I i 4 2 sj 2 ^4 2 3 1 1 T 1 1 1 1 r 3 1! 1 1 11 H 1 1 4 1 1 1 i I I 1 1 1 1 1 2 1 1 4 1 1 2 2 1 1 1 I I 1 1 1 2 1 1 1 7 1 1 2 3 3 4 3 1 1 1 1 1 1 T 1 2 1 2 1 1 4 1 2 1 2 2 1 3 Page 1 1 1 1 2 1 1 3 1 1 1 I T 4. 3 1 1i 1 1 1 3 1 I 1 4 2 2 I 10 5 27 11 16 21 21 47 15 24 35 21 4 34 18 9 6 12 3 9 7 18 8 3 8 1 9 5 13 5 3 10 2 5 4 6 14 2 9 6 36 9 1 4 15 25 12 4 4 15October, 1999 LOCATION/DATE CENTRAL_______ HALL___________ MANN___________ METRO_________ PARKVIEW DUNBAR________ J, A. FAIR_______ FOR. HGTS. JR. PUL. HGTS. JR. SOUTHWEST McClellan HENDERSON A.L.C.___________ CLOVERDALE JR. MABELVALE JR. BADGETT_______ BALE___________ BASELINE BOOKER________ BRADY CARVER________ CHICOT_________ CLOVERDALE DODD__________ FAIR PARK FOREST PARK FRANKLIN______ FULBRIGHT GARLAND G. SPRINGS GIBBS__________ KING___________ JEFFERSON MABELVALE MCDERMOTT MEADOWCLIFF MITCHELL OTTER CREEK PUL. HEIGHTS RIGHTSELL ROCKEFELLER ROMINE________ TERRY_________ WAKEFIELD WASHINGTON WATSON_______ W, HILLS_______ WILLIAMS WILSON________ WOODRUFF 1\n4 5' 6 7 8!11 12 13 14 15 18 19 20\n21i22i25 26 2728i29! I I T 2| 4^ 4j 2 6i I i i i Ij 1^ 1' j j __ [ 1 1 TOTALS 4 1 5! 2 31 2 2 6 3\n3 215 i 11 1! 3 3 1 1 II 41 6l 2! 11 li j 1! 3' LA 4 5! 4' 2 1 : 3i 1! ! 3 5' 1! 2 Ij ii ii\n1 1' i\n2 JI 3!- --3- 2I 2! 2\n! l! 2 1 3j 3 3! 21 4 I ! 1 3i I I i 1 2 I T i r ii ii 1 4 21 2 2i ijn 4!~ ! n3j~5 ! 3i ll 1' ' 1\n1| 3j 3i 2l 1i 3i , 1 t 1 li li 3 5 3 21 1: 4 3! 4 13 juU| 6 2 I, 1^ 1 2 1 4! 3 1 3 1 31 5 1j 1' 1j 11 1i 2i~4T I 3, 5| 2| i I 3 I T ! mn I_______I___ __ L!----1----- 1----- i----- ------1----- ------r I L 3 6 2! I 2' 51 31 31 5 li 21 I 6 6 6 ALJ 21 3 1 12 2 i i e' 2 4! T i 211 5! 5 2rL 12' 2 1 1___ I li 11 j 4 2 AU 2 22 3 2I_ __l_!__i__ _I___ L 21 , 3 i 1 2 2 1 lU 4i 3 ' 3 i 1 3! 2 4U 1: 3 1 1 a J li 1 1 1 1i 1 1 1 21 i1 2 3 3 3! 2 1 3i 3 2 li 11 1 13 1 1 ! ! 2U Ui i 2i 4 1 uHI I 1 T I 1 1 1 1 13 1 T 1 i 21 li 2! 6 3\n2 1 2 2 I 1 u I 11 u 2! Ij i 2 4 3 1 1 i 1 1 21 21 13 I T iI X 1 13 1 TU 1 T 1! u 2 22 1 i 1 I 3 2, 2 21 1 2 34 1 2 1 2 2 2 2 1^ 21 ! 4- 2i 1 1! 5 1 1 I I T 1 1 1 2 1 1 1 2.. 111 21 422 1 3 1 2 2 1 2 1 1 li HZ li 2 3 2 11 1 44 1^ i 1 2 1 2 211 2 1 Page 1 I + X 1 1 1 1 4 1 1 3 Lt 21 12 2 1 3 1 1 1 1 1 13 2 21 1 1 1 3 2 14 4 1 3 1 3i 2 52 32 I i 8! 3! 1 I 4 . i I 1| T 1 I li 3I + ! Ii ! 2 itn li 61 4 4| i I 1 3 1 I 1 211 4 11 1 1 1 I + ! 1 1 2 I + i 11 21 2 1 1 1 t T I 1 4 1 1 4 2 2 T li 44 22 34 15 31 33 38 60 16 54 33 36 6 46 58 0 5 19 5 14 4 28 12 11 4 11 33 10 24 8 5 18 12 6 17 7 14 4 8 14 51 9 9 7 16 14 5 8L5 November, 1999 LOCATION/DATE CENTRAL HALL Ij 2 3 4i 5 8\nQUO 11112 15 16 17 18 19 22 23 291301 ---- : 1 -----! 1 I---- I -!\n' - ! i I MANN METRO PARKVIEW DUNBAR i 11 p 121 1 11 I I 2' 4 I 1! J. A. FAIR FOR. HGTS. JR. PUL. HGTS. JR. SOUTHWEST McClellan HENDERSON A.L.C. CLOVERDALE JR. MABELVALE JR. BADGETT BALE BASELINE BOOKER BRADY CARVER CHICOT CLOVERDALE DODD FAIR PARK FOREST PARK FRANKLIN FULBRIGHT _ GARLAND G. SPRINGS GIBBS KING JEFFERSON MABELVALE MCDERMOTT MEADOWCLIFF MITCHELL OTTER CREEK PUL. HEIGHTS RIGHTSELL ROCKEFELLER ROMINE TERRY WAKEFIELD WASHINGTON WATSON W. HILLS WILLIAMS WILSON WOODRUFF I T T li 2! l! 1 TOTALS I + i Hl 1| 1! ' i j 2! 3| 1! I T T 22 15 24 9 26 28 33 37 13 35 30 47 8 48 41 1 1 11 5 13 8 22 5 12 2 11 16 10 14 5 1 16 3 4 5 8 13 2 6 9 56 4 9 5 22 6 6 1 5 5 ! 9: 11 2i i T I I I tin T I ! ! Ii 2i i 11 II I j 2i 11 2\nli I li li 1' ! 3: 2 i 51 21 11 I .j i\n2\\ I 1! 5j 21 31 ~T~ ' 2: 31 21 2| 1 I i I 11 11 I 31 I i '\n2! 2^ , 1' li 1: 1! 3! 3! 3| lT\n3 i 2! ! 1 1 I 3 2| 2 3i 5 31 1 3: 5' i i 1* I I i 1! 3 ! 2i 2 I 3 FF^ 4 2! 2\n31 6| I 2 1 + I 1! 2 II 1 31 + T 1 4 i 3! 6i 41 3 3! 31414 i ij 3' li II ll li 3' 2j 1 2 11 31 4, 1 Ij i I 3 2! 2 1 2 II 3! 4 1 11 I 2 21 I 31 1 51 6 7i 4| li 1 sj 2I 2j l| 3! 2| li 31 i I 2* 5|~4 11112 I i i i i . 1, 31 II 2'' 1 9i 31 4 li 31 li ' 5| 3! 3i 21 si 2i I ! 4i 61 2 4- I I T + I i I I LJ I 2 7 I I 4 I 2i 1 3 6. Fs i 1, 4| 1 \n2 , I 2j ' I 2\n2i i i li 1| i 2\nli 1, i F... 1 ... . 1 nn 1 3 i 4! 1 T I I I 1 I T + 2 2l. 21 li 1! li F T I 2j ! 1! 2 2i 1 2 1 3 1! I T 1 1 X + I T I 1' I 4\nI 1 : 1 tin 2 II 2! i li 2: i F ! i li II i| ' T------:--------H -I -1 -T I r F I T T I 2 1 1 3 1 1 1 1 i 1 1 1 1 1, 1 2 I I I 1 1 1 T 1 1 i 2: li 1! II 1: 3S Ij F i I 1 I 2, 3i 2 I T 1 I 2' FF I 1 II 1' ll 1' 1 li 1 11 I 1 I 31 3\n3 I J I 2 1 I I 1 1 T li T I 3. 1\nl! F_4 I 5 1 2 1 1 ij 1 5! 1 1 1 1 1 Ft 2 1 I I I ! I i ' I I i i H i I 1 no I I i I 2 X ! 1 1 FF I I I I T I 4- 1 1 1 3 1 1 n zz 7 1 5 2 1 1 1 1 2 1 2 1 1 1 1 1 2 1 Page 1 2i 11 FdF7 i 1 2! 11 I } I F 1 2 1 I 2 --------L 1 I I i 1 T 1 1 t i I I I I I T I 1 2 1 1 F 11 T 2 3 1 3 3 2 I I T 1 2 1 6 1 1 5 T 4- 1 2 1 1 3 1 3 1 4 1 1 1 2I IDecember. 1999 LOCATION/DATE CENTRAL HALL___________ MANN___________ METRO_________ PARKVIEW DUNBAR________ J. A. FAIR_______ FOR. HGTS. JR. PUL. HGTS. JR. SOUTHWEST McClellan HENDERSON A.L.C. CLOVERDALE JR. MABELVALE JR. BADGETT BALE BASELINE BOOKER BRADY CARVER________ CHICOT_________ CLOVERDALE DODD FAIR PARK FOREST PARK FRANKLIN FULBRIGHT GARLAND G. SPRINGS GIBBS__________ KING___________ JEFFERSON MABELVALE MCDERMOTT MEADOWCLIFF MITCHELL _____ OTTER CREEK PUL. HEIGHTS RIGHTSELL ROCKEFELLER ROMINE TERRY WAKEFIELD WASHINGTON WATSON_______ W. HILLS_______ WILLIAMS WILSON WOODRUFF____ i V 2! 3 I 1 3' 4 I 1 1' 4 41 3 1! 1 1 I i 2 6! 7, 8i 9 10'13 14 15|16|17i 7~i ! 9! 9\n2! 2, 1 1 2, 6 10 2 3i 2 3 3 I I i 2 6 1 TT li 2, 31 2 41 1611 i 61 1 ' 71 7 1! 1! Il 1i ll 2 I i ITOTALS ! i Z3 42 ' 6 4| li 11 1\n1 1 1 3| 5! ! 2. 21 2 3 3^ 6i I 1! 1! 4 5 2! I 11 31 3i 1| 21 21 21 ! 1: 6 I i 1 1 31121 11 21 4! I 2 1 4 3 ! Ij 51 11 2\\ 2| 2 21 9i 31 7| 7| 1, 2 4 5 6 1 4 II 1 21 41 3| 4r4[ i 1 ! ' ' npi T I I 1 J_Ll I I 1! 2 nU rn T 1 , 1, 2[ 2[ 2 1 1 1 ll \u0026lt; 1 ' ll i I i 11' .1___Ll 1 1 I 1 I I T J. I I I X I + I I i I T I i ! 2 i 21 1 61 2 1I 3, 1i 1 3 5 i 21 5 1 1 I ! I I 21 1 1 2 4 1 4 1 i I 1 1\n2 ' 2I 51 ll it 5 5 3 T T tn I 1 1 nr I 2| .L_ ! 3! 4i 2 I I 1! 2 I 1! I ! ill Eh\ni i 2! I '1 ! i ll II J i i 1 11 i I I 11 ..1-21 , 5' 21 51 31 i 1 M n T I 1 4. T ! 1 11 I i J 1 1 I ant 2 2 1 1 1 i 2! I 1 T i 1 1 1 I 1 1 1 1 4-4 o ' , j 2 21 1\n' 1\n1i 1 ' I I ' I T i 1 3 1l 1 1 1 2 3 1 I ' 11 2! 1 T I I 1 1 1 1 1 UL4 44 I I L I T i + i T T i I T I t 1 1 4 ___i_L 1 I 2! 2 1 1 2 I 1! ll 2 ZH 1 I 1 1 1 1 1 2 2 LT - 1 t - 1 4 1 1 2 1 1 I 2 I ii 1 ll_2 n 1 1 2 1 I 3 + I 1 Ll 3 3 1 1 i t 2 1 1 3 1 1 1 1 Page 1 I 29 39 15 24 25 21 36 12 22 52 21 2 31 33 0 2 4 4 4 6 12 1 9 6 6 9 5 9 4 1 19 1 8 8 3 10 0 2 6 28 3 5 2 10 7 5 4 4 2January. 2000 LOCATION/DATE 3 4 5, 6! 7i10i11 |12l13\n14i CENTRAL_______ HALL___________ MANN___________ METRO_________ PARKVIEW DUNBAR J. A. FAIR_______ FOR. HGTS. JR. PUL. HGTS. JR. SOUTHWEST McClellan HENDERSON A.L.C. CLOVERDALE JR. I r? i 2 1 1 I T 2i 4 lj 2i T 1i 1 1 8 4 li I f 18d9 20\n2i\n24 25 26^31128 I TOTALS 1 1 1 IT 1 1 \"r~ nOr- i 1 1 i 1 1 I 1 2 2 3 1 1 3 3] 2i 2 2i 3 i 3' 11 3i 1 nor ' iij' .... 1 1 T MABELVALE JR. , 1 BADGETT I BALE_________ BASELINE BOOKER BRADY________ CARVER CHICOT_______ CLOVERDALE DODD_________ FAIR PARK FOREST PARK FRANKLIN FULBRIGHT GARLAND G. SPRINGS GIBBS________ KING_________ JEFFERSON MABELVALE MCDERMOTT MEADOWCLIFF MITCHELL OTTER CREEK PUL. HEIGHTS RIGHTSELL ROCKEFELLER ROMINE TERRY_______ WAKEFIELD WASHINGTON WATSON W. HILLS WILLIAMS WILSON WOODRUFF t 2 2 2 1 3 1 1 3i 1 1 2 2 1 1 1 1 1 ! V v 1 4 7 4 2 1 2 I 11 1! ! li + T i T ij 3! 1 3 2 li 1! 1| 2i li 3 1 2 i 1! 1 4 1 1 m\" 2 1 1 j 2 2 1 I I -( 1i 1 2 1 1 2 li 1 2l 2 2 5 2 3 3 I 1 t i 1 1 4 1 2 Il 6| li i 31 3 i 1 21 r 1\nIj 4i 3! 2 kI QI Q 2i 5! Sj I 2 ! 3 2 3} 1 5 1 u L2 I + I I 4- 2} 1 3 1 I I i i i I T 4i 6! 1 J- 3 5i1| 3 1 2 1 3 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 1! 21 l! 11 21 1 ! 4| 8! 2 1 2i 3 2 6|~T 1' 1 1 1 6 I\nli 1 3 5 3' 1 3 1 lit 1 T i 1: i 1| 2 1 J-------r-^ 2, 21 1 3 1 2 1 1 2 I 1 I T I t 4- i T i I T I 1 i I 1! 1 rr 1_2l 1 1 i I 2i 2' 3] 3 ! 1 T I I 1 2nn i 2 2 3 2 T 1 1 3 li l| 2 i i 1 l! 2 1 2 1 2 1 1 2 3 5i 1 I 1 1 I i Ij 2] Ij 2, 1 ! r 4' 3\n6j 2\\ 1\n1 I I Ml H------ 1 + 1 I T T I 1 1 1 1 1 ! I IM I li 1 2 2 1 1 1 2 T 2, 1 2- 1 1 j 1. 2' 1' 2 4 2 2 1 2 2 2 I t 1 2 1 1 2! 1! ! 21 5 I 1 T + I 1 T 2 1 1 I M 1 2I 5j 41 1 1 n 2 1 1 2^ 1 1 1 3 1 1 1 1 1 2 1 2 1 1 1 2 I T I T t r M 2l 1' 3 i I T I 1 1 1 4 1 2 1 1 2 1 1 T 1 2 1 1 V 2 4 1 4 1 1 2 3 1 3 1 r I 1 2 1 2 2 1 1 1| 1, 1 1l li 1 4 2 2 1 1 3 Page 1 1 3 1 1 1 1 1 1 5 1 1 2 1 2 2 3 1 1 1 2 3 1 2 1 I 30 13 30 17 14 6 20 36 12 20 45 27 8 41 23 0 7 17 10 18 16 28 11 21 8 8 18 10 19 7 15 30 7 7 6 13 18 2 9 8 32 8 11 10 26 20 6 2 14 11February, 2000 LOCATION/DATE CENTRAL HALL__________ MANN METRO________ PARKVIEW DUNBAR_______ J. A. FAIR FOR. HGTS. JR. PUL. HGTS. JR. SOUTHWEST McClellan HENDERSON A.L.C. I 1i 2| 3i 4' 7 8' 9 10!l1 14 15 16 17!18i21 '22i23 24!25\n28!29 ( ! ! ! 1 1-IHTT- 1 17-!\n rltt t ! 11 7\n2 2 i: f 1, 1 I 21 sHj sR i I 3I 2Ji\n2\\ 7i 2' 2| 2i 1| i 11 ! I i 1! 2, l! iRT Ij ij 3i Ij 2i 1 i 1, 2 1 I 1 1 3 I 2 i 1 i 5' 4\n2i 4| 2i 1I 4i 2 3 2 I 2 3 2i 4 1| 4 RT 31 3 ZR 4\n5, 4' 2' 1 21 1| Ts 5\n2i 2 5 51 1 1 1 I 1| 3 2! 2\n2\n2 ri TR Rtt 1 3 3 1 3 T 3 3 2 3! 2\n1 I + CLOVERDALE JR. I MABELVALE JR. BADGETT BALE_________ BASELINE BOOKER BRADY CARVER CHICOT CLOVERDALE DODD FAIR PARK FOREST PARK FRANKLIN FULBRIGHT GARLAND G. SPRINGS GIBBS________ KING__________ JEFFERSON MABELVALE MCDERMOTT MEADOWCLIFF MITCHELL OTTER CREEK PUL. HEIGHTS RIGHTSELL ROCKEFELLER ROMINE TERRY________ WAKEFIELD WASHINGTON WATSON W. HILLS WILLIAMS WILSON WOODRUFF 1 1! 4! 2\n2! 21 1| 2] li i 3I 1! 2 I I I T 11 I 1 Ij I i I I + I 1 1 11 1 T\" 1 1 T 1' II II T 1 I 1 I i 1 i 2 3 1 , 1 2\\ 1| J. I 5 , 1l 11 .1 1 1 1 1 1 lU *-Vt i 1 r~T2 1 2 I I T I I 11 ! Il I ' 2 1 1 1 I R . 2, T 1 1 2 I T i_\n1 1 I 4\n91 . r sj 4i I 1! 7\n5, I 1 Ij 2i 1 is 1 2 3 1 1| 11 1 2 4 1 i 8 3 1 5i ' 1' 1\n1\n13i ij 11 I ! ! I 2: 1' 2i io\n1' I I ! 2 2 2 2 I TOTALS 2, 3| 5 2 31 3 4 3 1 3 3 2i 2 1 4i 31 11 6i II 3 2 1 2 2 1! i I 3^1 I 1 2 1 2 1 4i 71 2 I T 1 11 \"i. 1 2 1 2 3\n1 ' RHj I 2 4| 1 3 ll 2 R 1 T rM 1 I 1 2 2 I 2i 2: 1| I. T 1 2 2 2 1 1 1 t 11 2 2 4, 41 2 1 ll L.J 1 I I ! 1! I4 I 2 ! 1 ' 1 1 I 2' 3 3 3 2 2 1 1 1 1 3 1 21 3 I 7 2 4 6 6 6 10 2 3 2 i i ^-U 1 2 i -t I 2 8 2 Mil T 2\n3 4 I I 1 12 9 3 5 7 1 1 2 2 5 31 2 T! 4! 5 3 1 I I 1 1 1 1 2 I 2 1 I ij 2 2! 1 1 1, I 1 R 1 I 1 i R 1 1 1 1 3 1 1 1 1 2 1 2 2 1 2 T 1 1' 1 1 i I 1| 1, 2i 2| 1i I 4 ! O r ! I I I 1 EZ ! 1 I 2 rr 3 L L i 4i 1, 11 11 1 1, 3 1 RR 3 2 1 1 1 1 1 112 11 1 1 1 1 1 2 2 2 Page 1 1 1 1 2 T 1 2 1 1 3 3 2 2 I I 11 2i 1 1 TR\n1! 2' T i I 1 I 1 1] 1 J_ 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 2i I 1 I 1 I I 1 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 1 3 I 1 1 1 1 1 3 _j__ II 1 2 1 1 4 2 2 I 1 1 1 3 2 1 1 1 2 1 2 1 T I 56 31 56 17 36 41 35 68 19 41 69 44 12 52 43 2 9 14 5 15 13 21 14 13 9 6 13 14 14 9 11 12 5 7 3 10 26 2 8 12 39 8 6 3 18 23 7 R 10 14March, 2000 LOCATION/DATE CENTRAL HALL MANN___________ METRO PARKVIEW DUNBAR J, A. FAIR_______ FOR. HGTS. JR. PUL. HGTS. JR. SOUTHWEST McClellan HENDERSON A.L.C.___________ CLOVERDALE JR. MABELVALE JR. BADGETT BALE BASELINE BOOKER BRADY_________ CARVER________ CHICOT_________ CLOVERDALE DODD FAIR PARK FOREST PARK FRANKLIN FULBRIGHT GARLAND_______ G. SPRINGS GIBBS__________ KING___________ JEFFERSON MABELVALE____ MCDERMOTT MEADOWCLIFF MITCHELL OTTER CREEK PUL. HEIGHTS RIGHTSELL ROCKEFELLER ROMINE________ TERRY_________ WAKEFIELD WASHINGTON WATSON_______ W. HILLS_______ WILLIAMS WILSON________ WOODRUFF I V 2 31 6i 71 81 9110 13,14115 1617,20 21 22 23 24'\n ' \" \" 1 ' 1 3i 3i 2! Il 51 2! 21 11 Ij ' ' 2^ i i I 2' 3! i 1U1 U , ! 1 2i 2j 31 21 1,2 5, i ! 1\n4i 8! 3\nI 1! 5 6 I ) I i ! 1' 1' I + II I ' I i 'TOTALS J. 38 21 21 9 28 24 26 39 14 32 80 27 4 50 38 09 11 11 15 12 17 19 10 5 12 23 13 13 5 9 16 11 14 11 7 16 3 14 11 45 19 4 7 21 20 10 5 89 T ! 21 Ij 2i 1 1 i 2^ i I 21 21 1 ' 2 11 1 2, 41 71 ' i ill 1, Ij ~ 1 11 3, 4i 1 2j '1 11 Ij 11 I 2 ' li 3 ! 3' 1 1 11 i 1' 1i 1i I 1. 5' ' li 1i : I 2l j 3^ 1| 1| 1\n' i 1! 3'\nT I 4. 1 1 4i 1 tTI 1 1 i 4! 3! 3 2 -Ji ii!i ^o-\"-!i e\n-ij 5^2 ___ M , 3i 2 9! I 2, , 1: 3lr 2i 4 i 6! 4- 2i 2 I I 1 I i 2i 1 r TI __ I____ Ui i 11 2: 1: 1 1: 1 ' I n i 1 I I 1 1 1 1 1 2 1 1| 2 1 ---- IL 3i 81 22 2 i 31 2 1 1, 1 2| 51 3l 2T 1 ll 2 11 2 + I\n1, 1| il sj 2' i] IT I 3 3' 2 2 1 3 5 3 2' 1i 3'13! 9! 3! 3! 3^7 ! 1: 1i i 3, i 3, ...I 1111\n,,I , I ' ll 31 31 3 1 2i 2' 6i 2' 31 51 4i ----- 1---- i---- 1--- 1------ ---- i---- i---- \\--------- 1--------r-r I I I I I 1 T 2\\ 1! 3i 1 I 1 1 1 1 21 2I 3] 4! 2!~3T 2i i 1----u i 1 1 2 11 1 T 1 1 2 3 I + 1, 2 ll 1 i 1 '_ 14___ 1___I_ U. i I 1 i 1 ! 1 i li 3: I li li 11 1 1 1 1 2 i i| 1 1 T T i 2: 2! 1 3 1 ' 2i 2 1! 1' 1 : 2 11 11 in npi 2! 1 l! rti' i 1 11 1 I 4 1 11 iTT !!I 11 ll 1 It I ! 2 + ! I UT 2n r 1I 1 11 4i 2 1 I 1 4 1 15 1 21 2i ' 1! 1' y r 4 I 1 r 11 2 1 1 1 1 O4 Tr ll 1 TT 11 1! inI ! 3 Ti 12 241 322 1 i 1 1 1 ll r 1 2 iU I 2 2 2 1, 1 1' 2 2 2 i i 1 I + + I I i 2 1 21 i TT I 4- i 2j 2 3 I T 1 11 ll 1 I 2 1 I , I ' I 11 1! Il 2! 1 II Ij 21 I 2 4i IT 1 I IT I 1 1 2 LU It i ci I i 1 411 1 24 3 1 1 i 1 n r 1 u I IT 21 ' 4 j.' 1 121 1 3 l! 4 1 33 11 1 34 1 2 1 2 5152 2 4 21 2 1 1 3 I 1 1 2 11 Page 1 1 2\\+ 1 iI 31 11 2! i 2' 3 2 3 2 1 4 IT 1 2 12 12 1| V12 + 41 1 31 1 23 1 I 4- April, 2000 LOCATION/DATE CENTRAL HALL MANN___________ METRO PARKVIEW DUNBAR________ J. A. FAIR_______ FOR. HGTS. JR. PUL. HGTS. JR. SOUTHWEST McClellan HENDERSON A.L.C.___________ CLOVERDALE JR. MABELVALE JR. BADGETT____ BALE___________ BASELINE_______ BOOKER________ BRADY_________ CARVER________ CHICOT CLOVERDALE DODD FAIR PARK FOREST PARK FRANKLIN FULBRIGHT GARLAND G. SPRINGS____ GIBBS__________ KING JEFFERSON MABELVALE MCDERMOTT MEADOWCLIFF _ MITCHELL_____ OTTER CREEK PUL. HEIGHTS RIGHTSELL ROCKEFELLER 3| 4, 5^ 6 7 10 1lH2i13 14\ni7.18,19i20,21 24,25 26 27 28, 11n 113 1' ij 4i1li 4! I 3! 2i16! 3! ' j 2' 2' 2 2! 3' 8^ 5' T X1 I i I T + I 1 ( +I TOTALS I ROMINE TERRY WAKEFIELD WASHINGTON WATSON W. HILLS WILLIAMS WILSON WOODRUFF 46 30 38 g 26 21 38 27 8 12 39 24 0 31 22 11 10 13 71 16 4 6 12 3 15 5 14 4 2 81996 10 5 11 7 22 871 20 10 31 10 9 i r 31101 3l li 3! 51 474\n_______ ' ' 7 i 3j j I j I I 1\n3i 8 5' j j I ns i 1\nI i 2| 11 I I I 1 I I , i j 1j 21 1! ij ij 51 ll i 41 9' 3i j ,. i1j 22'' l1l jj II 8113! i j I 2' 9j 21 i 1 2i 1 2' 6 2 5 2 Tel T T i T i I I 1 1 I I IT i I I I T I i I I i i 312 II Ij 2! 2| 21 'i 1 6il0 3 2 2| 4t! 4 TI 3' 2! 7! 7' 1j 2j 1 li Ti I 1 i 2 3 1 I 1 I 31 11 I 2! ij ! 1' 4i 6i 6' ! I II 2i 2 ! 4I 2 3 IT 1 rn'y-no ! I 11 6i 3| j i T I I I I I I I I 2! 1 1 2 I I I T I TI T I i + I II 2 ll I 3! 4! IT X t T I I t f i I I ' j i 1, I I II ij 31 r 2' ' ij 7 I I I 2! 3 2 li j 2j ij 1 j 2\\ i 1 ' 1! 1 I I I T1 ' : I j 'i T 1 t 1 I J. 2 3 1' 1 II 1 I\nI 1 1! j ij Ij 4 I i jLiL-I n I I 2' 2 I T I 2 ! : 2! 2i 2\\ 1| 1! ll 1: 7 + i Ij 2i 3j I I 1! 1 nn I T T I 1 '1'2! I i ! I___ II I n [ 212i 211 II-----1-----T----- 1----- ------TTj- I 1 I 2 t I ! 1! I 1 2 I li ry r i Ij 11 i 2 I T 1 p' Ql II ^21l 1 ij 3, 1! 21 1 li I 3 t-T-n T---- ----- 1 2[ lUx T X 2 4! j I I I 5, I i 1 1! I 1 I I T L_1 uI i I T I + I I p I T I I I T I I I I T t I T I 1 T I I T I T I I + i T I IT I I T T -L X f 1 I I I TI I I T+ I TL 1 iI Ir rp 1212 I I _l II 4- 3! 2 11i. i T , , , I I 1, li 1 i 31 Ij li 1! i ' I I I I ! 1 1 T I ' 4, I 1 1' 11 3! 21 4 1 1 j j I Si 1 2' 1 tT I 2 3 + i 4. i 31 1 3 1 1 1 1 2, 1, V I ! t 11 3 1 1 1 7 ' 1 li 1 li 2 31 1 21 I T 113n 31 2 1 1 11 14 I i Page 1 I aI 4. 1 I TEACHER LEAVE ACCOUNTABILITY REPORT BY SITE BY MONTH FROM JULY 1,1999 THRU MARCH 31, 2000 MONTH TOTAL SCHOOL: ACCELERATED LEARNING PROGRAMS FEBRUARY 1.00 MARCH 3.50 TOTAL TEACHER ABSENCES: 4.50 SCHOOL: ADULT EDUCATION AUGUST 13.00 SEPTEMBER 17.50 OCTOBER 23.50 NOVEMBER 27.50 DECEMBER 19.50 JANUARY 22.50 FEBRUARY 28.00 MARCH 19.50 TOTAL TEACHER ABSENCES: 171.00 SCHOOL: ALTERNATIVE AGENCIES AUGUST 2.00 SEPTEMBER 2.00 OCTOBER 14.00 NOVEMBER 6.50 TOTAL TEACHER ABSENCES: 24.50 SCHOOL: ALTERNATIVE LEARNING CENTER AUGUST 23.00 SEPTEMBER 72.00 OCTOBER 31.50 NOVEMBER 19.00 DECEMBER 18.50 JANUARY 2850 FEBRUARY 31.00 MARCH 18.50 TOTAL TEACHER ABSENCES: 242.00 SCHOOL: ATHLETICS/QUIGLEY/SCOTT FIELD DECEMBER 0.00 FEBRUARY 1.00 Wednesday, April 19, 2000 Page 1 of 19I TEACHER LEAVE ACCOUNTABILITY REPORT BY SITE BY MONTH FROM JULY 1,1999 THRU MARCH 31,2000 MONTH TOTAL TOTAL TEACHER ABSENCES: 1.00 SCHOOL: BADGETT AUGUST 10.50 SEPTEMBER 15.00 OCTOBER 8.50 NOVEMBER 18.00 DECEMBER 7.00 JANUARY 4.50 FEBRUARY 23.00 MARCH 18.00 TOTAL TEACHER ABSENCES: 104.50 SCHOOL: BALE AUGUST SEPTEMBER OCTOBER NOVEMBER DECEMBER JANUARY FEBRUARY MARCH TOTAL TEACHER ABSENCES: 5.50 16.00 24.00 18.50 20.00 26.50 24.00 21.50 156.00 SCHOOL: BASELINE AUGUST 12.00 SEPTEMBER 24.00 OCTOBER 35.50 NOVEMBER 17.00 DECEMBER 29.50 JANUARY 35.50 FEBRUARY 50.00 MARCH 44.50 TOTAL TEACHER ABSENCES: 248.00 SCHOOL: BOOKER AUGUST 14.00 SEPTEMBER 53.50 Wednesday, April 19, 2000 Page 2 of 19 TEACHER LEAVE ACCOUNTABILITY REPORT BY SITE BY MONTH FROM JULY 1,1999 THRU MARCH 31,2000 MONTH TOTAL OCTOBER 62.00 NOVEMBER 53.50 DECEMBER 30.50 JANUARY 50.50 FEBRUARY 59.00 MARCH 76.50 TOTAL TEACHER ABSENCES: 399.50 SCHOOL: BRADY AUGUST 18.00 SEPTEMBER 35.00 OCTOBER 41.50 NOVEMBER 23.00 DECEMBER 15.50 JANUARY 28.50 FEBRUARY 51.50 MARCH 39.00 TOTAL TEACHER ABSENCES: 252.00 SCHOOL: CARVER AUGUST 10.50 SEPTEMBER 55.50 OCTOBER 80.50 NOVEMBER 49.00 DECEMBER 28.50 JANUARY 61.50 FEBRUARY 62.50 MARCH 58.50 TOTAL TEACHER ABSENCES: 406.50 SCHOOL: CENTRAL AUGUST 17.00 SEPTEMBER 58.50 OCTOBER 127.50 NOVEMBER 179.50 DECEMBER JANUARY FEBRUARY 136.50 131.50 149.00 MARCH Wednesday, April 19, 2000 136.50 Page 3 of 19 TEACHER LEAVE ACCOUNTABILITY REPORT BY SITE BY MONTH FROM JULY 1,1999 THRU MARCH 31, 2000 MONTH TOTAL TOTAL TEACHER ABSENCES: 936.00 SCHOOL: CHICOT AUGUST 12.50 SEPTEMBER 6550. OCTOBER 63.50 NOVEMBER 58.50 DECEMBER 28.00 JANUARY 48.50 FEBRUARY 51.00 MARCH 100.00 TOTAL TEACHER ABSENCES: 427.50 SCHOOL: CLOVERDALE ELEMENTARY AUGUST 4.50 SEPTEMBER 40.00 OCTOBER 31.00 NOVEMBER 22.50 DECEMBER 20.50 JANUARY 33.50 FEBRUARY 67.00 MARCH 61.50 TOTAL TEACHER ABSENCES: 280.50 SCHOOL: CLOVERDALE JR HIGH AUGUST 2.00 SEPTEMBER 66.00 OCTOBER 96.00 NOVEMBER 67.00 DECEMBER 65.50 JANUARY 64.50 FEBRUARY 80.00 M?\\RCH 78.50 TOTAL TEACHER ABSENCES: 519.50 SCHOOL: DODD SEPTEMBER 12.50 OCTOBER 35.00 Wednesday, April 19, 2000 Page 4 of 19 TEACHER LEAVE ACCOUNTABILITY REPORT BY SITE BY MONTH FROM JULY 1,1999 THRU MARCH 31, 2000 MONTH TOTAL NOVEMBER 52.50 DECEMBER 11.00 JANUARY 26.50 FEBRUARY 21.00 MARCH 61.50 APRIL 1.00 TOTAL TEACHER ABSENCES: 221.00 SCHOOL: DUNBAR AUGUST 6.00 SEPTEMBER 102.50 OCTOBER 104.50 NOVEMBER 104.50 DECEMBER 90.00 JANUARY 55.00 FEBRUARY 148 50 MARCH 123.50 APRIL -5.00 TOTAL TEACHER ABSENCES: 729.50 SCHOOL: ENGLISH NOVEMBER 1.00 DECEMBER 1.00 FEBRUARY 1.00 TOTAL TEACHER ABSENCES: 3.00 SCHOOL: FAIR JULY 13.00 AUGUST 24.50 SEPTEMBER 65.50 OCTOBER 112.00 NOVEMBER 101.50 DECEMBER 83.00 JANUARY 74.00 FEBRU?\\RY 109.00 MARCH 87.00 JUNE 5.00 TOTAL TEACHER ABSENCES: 674.50 Wednesday, April 19, 2000 Page 5 of 19 TEACHER LEAVE ACCOUNTABILITY REPORT BY SITE BY MONTH FROM JULY 1,1999 THRU MARCH 31, 2000 MONTH TOTAL SCHOOL: FAIR PARK AUGUST 25.00 SEPTEMBER 49.00 OCTOBER 47.00 NOVEMBER 13.50 DECEMBER 17.00 JANUARY 2400 FEBRUARY 22.00 MARCH 29.00 JUNE 1.00 TOTAL TEACHER ABSENCES: 227.50 SCHOOL: FEDERAL PROGRAMS JANUARY 1.50 TOTAL TEACHER ABSENCES: 1.50 SCHOOL: FOREST HEIGHTS AUGUST 10.50 SEPTEMBER 88.00 OCTOBER 121.50 NOVEMBER 118.00 DECEMBER 72.00 JANUARY 91.00 FEBRUARY 149.50 MARCH 116.00 TOTAL TEACHER ABSENCES: 766.50 SCHOOL: FOREST PARK AUGUST 22.00 SEPTEMBER 42.50 OCTOBER 69.00 NOVEMBER 68.50 DECEMBER 32.00 JANUARY 58.50 FEBRUARY 57.00 MARCH 44.00 TOTAL TEACHER ABSENCES: 393.50 Wednesday, April 19, 2000 Page 6 of 19 TEACHER LEAVE ACCOUNTABILITY REPORT BY SITE BY MONTH FROM JULY 1,1999 THRU MARCH 31, 2000 MONTH TOTAL SCHOOL: FRANKLIN AUGUST 15.00 SEPTEMBER 55.00 OCTOBER 85.00 NOVEMBER 42.00 DECEMBER 21.50 JANUARY 48.00 FEBRUARY 68.50 MARCH 78 50 TOTAL TEACHER ABSENCES: 413.50 SCHOOL: FULBRIGHT AUGUST 1.50 SEPTEMBER 30.50 OCTOBER 49.00 NOVEMBER 31.00 DECEMBER 28.00 JANUARY 38.00 FEBRUARY 33.50 MARCH 35.00 TOTAL TEACHER ABSENCES: 246.50 SCHOOL: GARLAND AUGUST 19.00 SEPTEMBER 36.50 OCTOBER 46.00 NOVEMBER 40.50 DECEMBER 26.00 JANUARY 42.00 FEBRUARY 46.50 MARCH 37.50 JUNE 2.00 TOTAL TEACHER ABSENCES: 296.00 SCHOOL: GEYER SPRINGS AUGUST 17.00 SEPTEMBER 32.00 OCTOBER 36.50 NOVEMBER 19.00 Wednesday, April 19,2000 Page 7 of 19TEACHER LEAVE ACCOUNTABILITY REPORT BY SITE BY MONTH FROM JULY 1,1999 THRU MARCH 31, 2000 MONTH TOTAL DECEMBER 10.00 JANUARY 26.50 FEBRUARY 30.50 MARCH 8.50 MAY 2.00 TOTAL TEACHER ABSENCES: 182 00 SCHOOL: GIBBS AUGUST 14.00 SEPTEMBER 38.00 OCTOBER 46.50 NOVEMBER 37.00 DECEMBER 22.50 JANUARY 52.50 FEBRU/iRY 64.50 MARCH 82.50 TOTAL TEACHER ABSENCES: 357.50 SCHOOL: HALL AUGUST 22.00 SEPTEMBER 75.50 OCTOBER 126.00 NOVEMBER 93.50 DECEMBER 66.00 JANUARY 81.50 FEBRUARY 139.00 MARCH 116.50 TOTAL TEACHER ABSENCES: 720.00 SCHOOL: HENDERSON AUGUST 9.00 SEPTEMBER 78.00 OCTOBER 105.50 NOVEMBER 93.50 DECEMBER 68.50 JANUARY 78.00 FEBRUARY 107.50 MARCH 78.50 APRIL 1.00 Wednesday, April 19,2000 Page 8 of 19 TEACHER LEAVE ACCOUNTABILITY REPORT BY SITE BY MONTH FROM JULY 1,1999 THRU MARCH 31, 2000 MONTH TOTAL TOTAL TEACHER ABSENCES: 619.50 SCHOOL: INSTRUCTIONAL MATERIALS CENTER JULY 0.50 AUGUST 2.00 OCTOBER 1.00 NOVEMBER 2.00 JANUARY 3.00 TOTAL TEACHER ABSENCES: 8.50 SCHOOL: IRC SEPTEMBER 0.50 OCTOBER 2.50 NOVEMBER bECEMBER 5.00 1.00 JANUARY 2.00 FEBRUARY 3.00 MARCH 0.50 TOTAL TEACHER ABSENCES: 14.50 SCHOOL: JEFFERSON AUGUST 1.50 SEPTEMBER 20.50 OCTOBER 33.00 NOVEMBER 21.00 DECEMBER 17.00 JANUARY 28.00 FEBRUARY 22.50 MARCH 34.50 TOTAL TEACHER ABSENCES: 178.00 SCHOOL: M.L. KING AUGUST 31.00 SEPTEMBER 34.50 OCTOBER 33.50 NOVEMBER 32.50 DECEMBER 18.50 JANUARY 40.50 Wednesday, April 19, 2000 Page 9 of 19TEACHER LEAVE ACCOUNTABILITY REPORT BY SITE BY MONTH FROM JULY 1,1999 THRU MARCH 31, 2000 MONTH TOTAL FEBRUARY 48.00 MARCH 45.00 TOTAL TEACHER ABSENCES: 283.50 SCHOOL: MABELVALE ELEMENTARY AUGUST 5.50 SEPTEMBER 4000 OCTOBER 41.00 NOVEMBER 35.50 DECEMBER 16.50 JANUARY 48.00 FEBRUARY 29.00 MARCH 33.50 MAY -1.00 TOTAL TEACHER ABSENCES: 248.00 SCHOOL: MABELVALE JR HIGH JULY 3.00 AUGUST 4.50 SEPTEMBER 40.00 OCTOBER 72.50 NOVEMBER 75.50 DECEMBER 63.50 JANUARY 54.00 FEBRUARY 107.00 MARCH 94.50 APRIL -14.00 MAY -1.00 TOTAL TEACHER ABSENCES: 499.50 SCHOOL: MANN AUGUST 7.50 SEPTEMBER 83.50 OCTOBER 109.00 NOVEMBER 105.00 DECEMBER 84.00 JANUARY 83.00 FEBRUARY 156.50 MARCH 94.50 MAY 1.00 Wednesday, April 19, 2000 Page 10 of 19TEACHER LEAVE ACCOUNTABILITY REPORT BY SITE BY MONTH FROM JULY 1,1999 THRU MARCH 31,2000 MONTH JUNE TOTAL 0.50 TOTAL TEACHER ABSENCES: 724.50 SCHOOL: MATH SEPTEMBER 1.00 OCTOBER 5.00 NOVEMBER 1.00 JANUARY 8.50 FEBRUARY 5.00 MARCH 12.00 JUNE 1.00 TOTAL TEACHER ABSENCES: 33.50 SCHOOL: MCCLELLAN COMMUNITY HIGH SCH AUGUST 4.00 SEPTEMBER 77.50 OCTOBER 133.00 NOVEMBER 134.50 DECEMBER 116.50 JANUARY 126.50 FEBRUARY 147.00 MARCH 146.00 JUNE 10.00 TOTAL TEACHER ABSENCES: 895.00 SCHOOL: MCDERMOTT AUGUST 10.00 SEPTEMBER 23.50 OCTOBER 37.00 NOVEMBER 38.50 DECEMBER 32.00 JANUARY 32.00 FEBRUARY 26.50 MARCH 25.50 TOTAL TEACHER ABSENCES: 225.00 SCHOOL: MEADOWCLIFF AUGUST Wednesday. April 19, 2000 3.00 Page 11 of 19TEACHER LEAVE ACCOUNTABILITY REPORT BY SITE BY MONTH FROM JULY 1,1999 THRU MARCH 31,2000 MONTH TOTAL SEPTEMBER 13.50 OCTOBER 27.00 NOVEMBER 27.50 DECEMBER 9.00 JANUARY 19.00 FEBRUARY 34.00 MARCH 19.50 TOTAL TEACHER ABSENCES: 152.50 SCHOOL: METROPOLITAN JULY 22.00 AUGUST 25.00 SEPTEMBER 17.00 OCTOBER 16.50 NOVEMBER 16.00 DECEMBER 900 JANUARY 16.50 FEBRUARY 15.50 MARCH 900 JUNE 12.50 TOTAL TEACHER ABSENCES: 159.00 SCHOOL: MITCHELL AUGUST 2.50 SEPTEMBER 26.50 OCTOBER 22.00 NOVEMBER 27.50 DECEMBER 26.00 JANUARY 28.50 FEBRUARY 48.50 MARCH 48.00 TOTAL TEACHER ABSENCES: 229.50 SCHOOL: OTTER CREEK AUGUST 2.00 SEPTEMBER 6.00 OCTOBER 25.00 NOVEMBER 17.00 DECEMBER 20.50 JANUARY 21.50 Wednesday, April 19, 2000 Page 12 of 19TEACHER LEAVE ACCOUNTABILITY REPORT BY SITE BY MONTH FROM JULY 1,1999 THRU MARCH 31, 2000 MONTH TOTAL FEBRUARY 18.50 MARCH 28.50 TOTAL TEACHER ABSENCES: 139.00 SCHOOL: PARKVIEW AUGUST 8.00 SEPTEMBER 81.50 OCTOBER 142.00 NOVEMBER 91.50 DECEMBER 81.00 JANUARY 50.00 FEBRUARY 125.00 MARCH 134.00 TOTAL TEACHER ABSENCES: 713.00 SCHOOL: PULASKI HEIGHTS INT AUGUST 8.00 SEPTEMBER 28.00 OCTOBER 34.00 NOVEMBER 25.50 DECEMBER 13.50 JANUARY 24.50 FEBRUARY 34.50 MARCH 41.00 TOTAL TEACHER ABSENCES: 209.00 SCHOOL: PULASKI HEIGHTS JR HIGH AUGUST 7.50 SEPTEMBER 72.00 OCTOBER 115.50 NOVEMBER 63.00 DECEMBER 48.00 JANUARY 44.00 FEBRUARY 113.00 MARCH 64.00 TOTAL TEACHER ABSENCES: 527.00 SCHOOL: PUPIL PERSONNEL Wednesday, April 19, 2000 Page 13 of 19TEACHER LEAVE ACCOUNTABILITY REPORT BY SITE BY MONTH FROM JULY 1,1999 THRU MARCH 31, 2000 MONTH TOTAL SCHOOL: ROMINE AUGUST 1.00 SEPTEMBER 27.50 OCTOBER 27.00 NOVEMBER 39.00 DECEMBER 12.50 JANUARY 32.00 FEBRUARY 48.00 MARCH 77.50 TOTAL TEACHER ABSENCES: 264.50 SCHOOL: SCIENCE/ENV ED JULY 5.00 AUGUST 3.00 SEPTEMBER 8.50 OCTOBER 4.50 NOVEMBER 2.00 DECEMBER 1.00 JANUARY 8.00 FEBRUARY 8.00 MARCH 9.00 JUNE 5.00 TOTAL TEACHER ABSENCES: 54.00 SCHOOL: SOUTHWEST JULY 2.00 AUGUST 29.00 SEPTEMBER 70.50 OCTOBER 115.50 NOVEMBER 51.50 DECEMBER 61.50 JANUARY 74.50 FEBRUARY 109.00 MARCH 86.50 MAY 0.00 JUNE 3.00 TOTAL TEACHER ABSENCES: 603.00 SCHOOL: SPECIAL EDUCATION Wednesday, April 19, 2000 Page 15 of 19 TEACHER LEAVE ACCOUNTABILITY REPORT BY SITE BY MONTH FROM JULY 1,1999 THRU MARCH 31, 2000 MONTH TOTAL AUGUST 13.00 SEPTEMBER 30.50 OCTOBER 31.00 NOVEMBER 30.00 DECEMBER 21.00 JANUARY 19.00 FEBRUARY 26.50 MARCH 34.00 TOTAL TEACHER ABSENCES: 205.00 SCHOOL: SUBSTITUTES JANUARY 5.00 TOTAL TEACHER ABSENCES: 5.00 SCHOOL: TERRY AUGUST 2.50 SEPTEMBER 25.00 OCTOBER 44.50 NOVEMBER 50.50 DECEMBER 28.00 JANUARY 50.50 FEBRUARY 24.50 MARCH 29.00 TOTAL TEACHER ABSENCES: 254.50 SCHOOL: UNASSIGNED AUGUST 3.00 SEPTEMBER 1.00 OCTOBER 1.00 OCTOBER 7.00 NOVEMBER 2.00 JANUARY 3.50 FEBRUARY 2.50 MARCH 2.00 TOTAL TEACHER ABSENCES: 22.00 SCHOOL: VOCATIONAL EDUCATION JULY Wednesday, April 19, 2000 2.00 Page 16 of 19 TEACHER LEAVE ACCOUNTABILITY REPORT BY SITE BY MONTH FROM JULY 1,1999 THRU MARCH 31,2000 MONTH TOTAL AUGUST 29.50 SEPTEMBER 17.00 OCTOBER 20.50 NOVEMBER 28.50 DECEMBER 24.50 JANUARY 32.00 FEBRUARY 28.00 MARCH 20.50 TOTAL TEACHER ABSENCES: 202.50 SCHOOL: WAKEFIELD AUGUST 9.00 SEPTEMBER 25.00 OCTOBER 36.50 NOVEMBER 23.00 DECEMBER 11.50 JANUARY 34.00 FEBRUARY 34.00 MARCH 31 50 TOTAL TEACHER ABSENCES: 204.50 SCHOOL: WASHINGTON AUGUST 13.00 SEPTEMBER 53.00 OCTOBER 84.50 NOVEMBER 55.00 DECEMBER 35.50 JANUARY 70.50 FEBRUARY 67.50 MARCH 72.00 JUNE 0.50 TOTAL TEACHER ABSENCES: 451.50 SCHOOL: WATSON AUGUST 4.50 SEPTEMBER 41.50 OCTOBER 33.00 NOVEMBER 34.50 DECEMBER 21.50 JANUARY 54.00 Wednesday, April 19, 2000 Page 17 of 19 TEACHER LEAVE ACCOUNTABILITY REPORT BY SITE BY MONTH FROM JULY 1,1999 THRU MARCH 31, 2000 MONTH TOTAL FEBRUARY 42.50 MARCH 35.00 TOTAL TEACHER ABSENCES: 266.50 SCHOOL: WESTERN HILLS AUGUST 9 50 SEPTEMBER 20.50 OCTOBER 32.00 NOVEMBER 18.50 DECEMBER 10.50 JANU/iRY 30.50 FEBRUARY 25.00 MARCH 19.00 TOTAL TEACHER ABSENCES: 165.50 SCHOOL: WILLIAMS AUGUST 30.50 SEPTEMBER 65.00 OCTOBER 74.00 NOVEMBER 60.00 DECEMBER 39.00 JANUARY 53.50 FEBRUARY 67.50 MARCH 71.00 TOTAL TEACHER ABSENCES: 460.50 SCHOOL: WILSON AUGUST 3.00 SEPTEMBER 17.00 OCTOBER 29.50 NOVEMBER 39.00 DECEMBER 21.50 JANUARY 50.50 FEBRUARY 41.00 MARCH 43.50 TOTAL TEACHER ABSENCES: 245.00 SCHOOL: WOODRUFF Wednesday, April 19, 2000 Page 18 of 19 TEACHER LEAVE ACCOUNTABILITY REPORT BY SITE BY MONTH FROM JULY 1,1999 THRU MARCH 31, 2000 MONTH TOTAL AUGUST 10.00 SEPTEMBER 35.50 OCTOBER 19.00 NOVEMBER 23.50 DECEMBER 12.50 JANUARY 40.00 FEBRUARY 38.00 MARCH 21.00 TOTAL TEACHER ABSENCES: 199.50 GRAND TOTAL TEACHER ABSENCES: 19,601.00 Wednesday, April 19, 2000 Page 19 of 19 DROPOUT REPORT 3RD QUARTER 1999-2000 Schools ALT LEARN 7th Grade 8th Grade % CLOVERDALE 6th Grade 7th Grade 8th Grade % DUNBAR 6th Grade 7th Grade 8th Grade % FOREST HTS 6th Grade 7th Grade 8th Grade % Enrollment BM 25 8 17 705 251 241 213 739 240 239 260 785 248 257 280 BF WM WF OM OF Total Dmpouts % HENDERSON 6th Grade 7th Grade 8th Grade % MABELVALE 6th Grade 7th Grade 8th Grade % MANN 6th Grade 7th Grade 8th Grade % PULASKI HTS 6th Grade 7th Grade 8th Grade % 551 183 192 176 494 172 165 157 842 270 291 281 760 262 253 245 SOUTHWEST 6th Grade 7th Grade 8th Grade % TOTAL % DISTRICT TOTALS % 447 150 179 118 5348 0 000 0000 0 0 00001 100 0.1 0 0 0 000000000 000000 00 00 00 0 1 0.02 11 04 0 0 0 00 0 00 00 00 0 0 0 00 000 00 0 000 0 000 0 0 00 0 00 0001 0.02 0 000 0 00 00 0 0 00 0 00 0 00 0 0 00 0 0 0 0 0000 0 00 00 0 0 0 0 00 0 00 0 0 0 001001 0.1 000 0 0 000 0 0 00 000 0 00 00 00 000 00000000001 0.02 0 0 00 0 0 0 0 0 000 00 0 0 0000 0 000 00 0000 0 00 0 00 00 0 00 0 0 000 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 00 0 00 0 0 0 0 00 0 00 0 00 0 00 0 0 0 0 0 1 10 1 001 0 00 0 1 1 0 0 0 00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 00 0 0 00 0 3 12327 34 0.3 11 0.09 3 0.02 1 0.008 1 0.008 0 0 50 Revised - 4/7/2000 4 12.5 0 0.1 0 0 0.5 0 00 0 0.1 0.4 0 0 0 00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 00 0 0 00 0 0.06 0.4 Schools ACC LEARN 9th Grade 10th Grade 11th Grade 12th Grade % CENTRAL 9th Grade 10th Grade 11th Grade 12th Grade % FAIR 9th Grade 10th Grade 11th Grade 12th Grade % HALL 9th Grade 10th Grade 11th Grade 12th Grade % MCCLELLAN 9th Grade 10th Grade 11th Grade 12th Grade % PARKVIEW 9th Grade 10th Grade 11th Grade 12th Grade % ALT LEARN 9th Grade 10th Grade 11th Grade 12th Grade % TOTALS % Enrollment | BM 204 10 61 53 80 2045 517 518 536 474 954 264 270 233 187 1389 439 398 315 237 1192 332 384 249 227 1157 287 293 295 282 38 19 17 11 6979 I DROPOUT REPORT 3RD QUARTER 1999-2000 0 0 0 00 0 13 1 64 2 0.6 0 01 0 0 0 5 0212 0.4 61 2 21 0.5 0 0 0 0 0 0 9 521 1 23.7 33 0.5 BF WM WF OM OF Total Dropouts 0 0 0 0 00 5 02 0 3 0.2 00 00 0 010 0 01 0.07 2 0 110 0.2 0 0 00 0 021 10 0 5.3 10 0.1 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 012 0.1 0 0 0 00 0 0 0 0 0 00 0 00 0 00 00 0 0 00 00 0 0 00 3 0 0 0 000 0 0 0 0 000 0 0 0 00 0 0 0 00 0 0 0 0 0 00 00 0 0 00 00 0 0 00 0 0 0 0 000 1 0 01 0 0.05 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 00 0 0 0 0 0 000 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 01 0.04 0.00 0.01 0 00 0 00 0 0 00 00 0 00 00 0 0 00 0 0 0 0 00 000 0 0 0 000 0 0 0 0 00 00 0 0 0 0 0 22 2 8 6 8 0 01 00 6 0 2 13 8 13 31 0 00 0 0 11 6 31 1 47 Revised - 4/7/2000 % 0 0 0 0 0 1.1 0.4 1.5 1.1 1.7 0 0 0.4 0 0 0.4 0 0.5 0.6 1.3 0.7 0.6 1.3 1.2 0.4 0 0 00 0 28.9 31.6 17.6 100 100 0.7 LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 3RD Quarter Dropout Report Comparison -1999-200011998-1999 Schools_______ ACC___________ Central_________ Fair____________ Hall____________ McClellan_______ Parkview_______ ALC____________ Sub-Totals_____ _______% Cloverdale JH Dunbar JH______ Forest Heights JH Henderson JH Mabelvale JH Mann Magnet JH Pulaski Heights JH Southwest JH ALC____________ Sub-Totals_____ % I Year-2000 Enrollmem Black 204 2045 954 1389 1192 1157 38 6979 705 739 785 551 494 842 760 447 25 5348 Totals___________ District Percentages 12327 0 18 0 6 8 0 11 43 0.7 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 2 0.04 45 0.4 I Quarter 3[ White 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 3 0.1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0.02 4 0.03 Other 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0.01 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0.008 Total Dropouts 0 22 0 6 8 0 11 ~~ 47 % 0 1.1 0 0.4 0.7 0 28.9 0.7 [Year-99 | Enrollment Black I Quarter 3~[ White Other Total Dropouts % 1865 728 783 871 933 50 5230 1 0 1 0 0 0 1 3 50 0.1 0 0.1 0 0 0 0 0 4 0.06 603 755 779 603 500 840 770 431 21 5302 10532 0.4 Revised - 4/7/2000 51 5 6 46 1 4 113 2.2 0 1 0 1 0 0 2 0 10 14 0.3 127 1.2 11 2 3 1 1 1 19 0.4 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 2 0.04 21 0.2 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0.02 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0.02 2 0.02 62 7 10 47 2 5 133 0 2 0 1 0 0 2 0 12 17 150 3.3 1 1.3 5.4 0.2 10 2.5 0 0.3 0 0.2 0 0 0.3 0 57.1 0.3 1.4Ia * 00 * n o sr 0 CM * 0 CM 35 * CM 0 * 0 0 * sr CM 0 * CM o\u0026gt; * \u0026lt;D (\u0026lt;4 8 \u0026lt;M 0 o O 0 0 CM 0 CM 0 o (D 7^ UJ q\na o 0. UJ (X 5 o Q. o q: Q in o \u0026amp; o co UJ o gq : (O CD \"Z. o z-r. ex Oi \u0026lt; O) 0- T K CUOJ Q 8 Xo w 8 X LU o o O' \u0026gt; UJ UJ : I O\u0026gt; O) I 8 coo 3 8IUki !8 CO s 8 o o\u0026gt;s3 1 UI I 8 i s s co M 3 IlU N CM sr 0 0 0 sr CM O CM 0 sr CM sr CM sr o sr 0 * co * * o sr o sr o sr o # CM 5 0 CM o rt 0 O o o o sr CM sr 0 *CM * * CM 2(! CM CM * *\" ** sr CM *CM 0 0 0 0 0 CM 0 0 CM 0 0 CM CM 0 CM CM 0 n 0 sr o * o sr o * 0 CM 0 * sr 0 * * 0 0 0 o is\nO CM CM CM 0 0 o 0 0 0 CM o 0 O 0 s 0 CM 0 0 00 0 O 00 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 0 sr 0 0 0 2 0 sr 0 * n * o 0 CM * o 0 CM CM CM 3 0 0 0 CM s 0 S 0 0 CM 0 o 0 I 0 2 O o 0 sr 0 * * o 0 *O o sr o * 0 o 0 0 o o 0 0 o CM o o o CM o 0 * 0 sr CM 0 sr o 0 0 0 0 0 o 3/: CM 8 * CM * * o * O sr 0 o 0 O 0 o o 0 o 3CM ! * 8 3 0 h * o 8 * cn e o * s S CM 0 sr CM o 0 CM 0 sr 0 O * O 0 * 0 0 0 0 sr 0 # CM 0 sr 0 O sr co sr CM o * o CM 0 CM 0 CM CM CM O 0 0 o 0 0 o N 0 I e8 oc o E I a e Q Ec b I o V) 0 00 o 0 0 00 0 0 3CM 0 CM CM 0 CM 0 3 CM s 0 0 00 0 K e I * 0 8 S 8 or 0 s 0 o sr CM 0 sr CM 0 0 0\nf! o o * 3 I A ? CB o. fi 0 o 0 0 0 CM CM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 CM 0 CM 0 M # ? 0 sr CM 0 CM !P 0 0 00 c 0 0 0 o o o o * 0 * CM * * CM CM CM 0 0 * 0 0 0 CM a m0* $2 0 0 s 0 a Z Ou S * CM 0 CM := 3 \u0026lt;A sr CM CM 0 0 0 O J i (B sr :: SP O 0 o * 0 * CM o 0 0 0 * 0 * 0 0 * o J sr o CM 0 sr CM O CM s CM 0 sr CM CM CM CM o O CM CM 0 CM 0 sr CM CM CM sr 0 * 0 0 CM * 0 0 sr CM CM * * 0 sr *s 0 * 0 CM * I 0 O 0 0 0 0 0 O 0 s 0 o 3 o 0 CM ciic a g O a E 7 Z oe 7 o 5 s- \u0026gt; JC o o z a S S I zot (O 1 o s Central Fair SchooF Hall McClellan Parkview ALC Sub Total Cloverdale Dunbar Forest Heights Henderson Mabelvale Mann Magnet Pulaski Haights Southwest ALC Sub Totti TottlOrogout^^^ Dttbtet Pefcenttgee I I 1998| EnroWntent Btecfc 1865 728 783 871 933 50 6230 603 755 779 803 500 640 770 431 21 5302 10632 144 8% 57 8% 63 8% 111 13% 8 .6% 11 22% 392 7% 39 6% 12 2% 16 2% 16 3% 12 2% 1 .1% 8 1% 17 4% 19 90% 142 3% 534 6% PUPIL SERVICES DEPARTMENT LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DTISTRICT DROPOLTT REPORT THREE YEAR COMPARISON BY RACE 1997-1999 -19991 Wte 28 2% 22 13 9 11 1 64 10 3% 2% 1% 1% 2% 2% 2% 4 .5% 15 13 1 2% 2% .2% 2 2% 1 14 1 61 .1% 3% 5% 1% 146 140% I I I 19977 Othw Totel Dropoute Enrollntent Btecf*\"^ -19981 White I Other Total Propouff I T99^ EnroHmant black -19971 TSBSar I 1 .5% 173 1 3 3 0 0 8 3 2 2 2 0 1 0 1 1 .1% .4% .3% 0% 0% .2% .5% .3% .3% .3% 0% .1% 0% .2% 5% 12 .2% 20 0.20% 80 79 123 17 12 464 52 18 33 33 13 4 9 32 21 215 9% 11% 10% 14% 2% 24% 9% 9% 2% 4% 5% 3% .5% 1% 7% 100% 4% 699 6.60% 1855 757 790 935 911 6 5254 622 721 648 724 506 858 767 510 10 5366 10620 162 9% 101 13% 78 10% 120 13% 5 .5% 2 33% 466 9% 45 12 22 50 13 0 7% 2% 3% 7% 3% 0% 3 .3% 81 12% 4 40% 55 3% 19 3% 18 2% 14 1% 3 3% 0 0% 109 2% 7 1% 17 2% 9 1% 30 4% 1 .1% 0 0% 0 0% 43 8% 0 0% 210 4% 107 2% 078 640% 216 2% 6 .3% 1 .1% 6 1% 4 0 19 4 5 0 2 0 0 0 2 0 .4% 0% 0% .3% .6% .7% 0% .3% 0% 0% 0% 3% 0% 13 .2% 32 0.30% 223 121 104 138 8 2 590 56 34 31 82 14 0 3 106 4 330 12% 16% 13% 15% .8% 33% 11% 9% 5% 4% 11% 3% 0% .3% 21% 40% 6% 920 8.72% Prepared by the Little Rock School District Dropout Prevention Office -10/14/99 1745 814 807 910 866 6142 639 775 830 741 468 854 785 594 6486 10028 210 12% 59 7% 69 8% 97 10% 0 0% 436 e% 20 22 41 53 30 3% 2% 6% 7% 6% 6 .7% 6 .8% 27 4% 205 4% 641 6% 59 3% 19 2% 26 3% 18 2% 1 .1% 123 2% 9 1% 23 12 26 32 11 2% 2% 4% 7% 1% 4 .5% 14 2% 131 2% 254 240% 2 .1% 6 1% 9 1% 2 .2% 0 0% 19 .3% 1 .1% 3 .3% 1 .1% 3 .4% 0 0 0 0 0% 0% 0% 0% a .1* 27 040% Total Dropotrtt 271 84 104 117 1 577 30 48 54 82 62 17 10 41 344 15.5% 10.3% 12.8% 12.8% .1% 11.2% 4.7% 6.2% 8.5% 11% 132% 2% 1.3% 6.9% 6.2% 921 6.70% LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 810 WEST MARKHAM LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS 72201 April 19, 2000 TO: Dr. Leslie Gamine, Superintendent FROM: Linda Watsi ssistant Superintendent SUBJECT: 1999-2000 Third Quarter Disciplinary Management Report The following data represents the Third Quarter Disciplinary Management Report for the 1999-2000 school year. An analysis of the 1998-99 and 1999-2000 school years is presented. The Discipline Sanctions by Reason Codes and Recidivism Reports for the 1999-2000 school year are also included.LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 1999 - 2000 THIRD QUARTER DISCIPLINARY MANAGEMENT REPORT During the third quarter of the 1999 - 2000 school year, the Little Rock School District experienced an overall reduction of 340 suspensions when compared to the number of suspensions for the same period of the 1998 -1999 school year. There were 1255 suspensions issued during the third quarter of the 1999 - 2000 school year and 1595 during the 1998 - 1999 school year. The suspension data indicates there was an increase of 101 suspensions at the senior high level\nhowever, there were decreases of 247 suspensions at the middle school and 194 at the elementary school levels. The increase in the number of suspensions at the senior high level can be attributed to the reorganization of the District's grade levels. During the 1999 - 2000 school year, the District established middle schools wherein the 9* grade students were moved to the senior high schools and 6'^ grade students were moved to middle schools. The recidivism report reveals 1201 students actually received suspensions which represent only 4.8 % of the total student population. The number of students receiving suspensions that must be reported to the Arkansas Department of Education was fewer than 1% of the Districts student population.Discipline Quarterly Comparison Report Year: 1999-2000 Quarters to Quarters School Enrollment Black White Other Total % ACC LEARN 205 0 2 0 2 1.0% AGENCIES 103 I 3 0 0 3 0.0% CENTRAL 2045 I 56 8i 0 64 t i I 3.1% FAIR 955 i 92 18 1 111 11.6% HALL 1391 142 14 9 165 11.9% iMCCLELLA 1192 78 4 2 84 7.0% METRO 0 + 5 1 ' 0 6 0.0% IPARKVIEW 1157 25 6 0 31 2.7% 1 Sub-^Tttua ALT LEARN 63 *1^ 3 c 48 jCLOVR JR 705 -- 97 I IDUNBAR 739 54 Jforst HT II 79 iHENDERSN 551 r MABEL JR 494 1_ _ _ 64 iMANN M/S 26 842 I 43 'PUL HT j' 760 53 SOUTHWST 447 64 'I 6 14, 18\n14\n6 6 7 4 1 4 2 1 0 1 0 0 3 53 107 70 98 78 33 49 60 71 ! Sub-Total 5386 528 79 12 619 i Totals 12434 929 132 24 1085 LRSD Information Services Wednesday, April 19, 2000 84.1% 15.2% 9.5% 12.5% T I I 14.2% 6.7% 5.8% 7.9% 15.9% 11.5% 8.7% II 1 J Page 1 of I Discipline Quarterly Comparison Report Year: 1998-1999 Quarters to Quarter 3 i School j AGENCIES Enrollntent i Black White I Other 1 Total % I t I 0 17 6 0 23 0.0% CENTRAL FAIR ! HALL I\nMCCLELLA ! METRO j PARKVIEW I 1865 728 783 871 0 933 41 40 59 71 10 32 7 6 3 2 0 21 0 1 5 2 1 0 48 47 67 75. 11 53 2.6% 6.5% 8.6% 8.6% 0.0% 5.7% I Sub-Total 5180 270 45 9 324 6.3% ALT LEARN CLOVR JR DUNBAR FORST HT t 71 603 755 34 152 I 779 84 J '91' 5 8 18 22 1 9 0 4 40 169 102 117 56.3% 28.0% 13.5% 15.0% !HENDERSN I -... - \nMABEL JR I 603 135 6 1 I I 500 61 11 1 142 73 23.5% 14.6% i MANN M/S 840 59 14 0 73 8.7% 'PULHTJ 770 108 6 1 i 115 14.9% i SOUTHWST I 431 67 14 3 84 19.5% Sub-Total I 5352 791 104 20 915 17.1% Totals 10532 1061 149 29 1239 11.8% LRSD Information Services Wednesday, April 19, 2000 I I I i I J I Page I of IName ACC LEARN ACC LEARN AGENCIES CENTRAL FAIR HALL MCCLELLA METRO PARKVIEW Totals ALT LEARN CLOVR JR DUNBAR FORST HT HENDERSN MABEL JR MANN M/S PUL HT J SOUTHWST Totals BADGETT BALE BASELINE BOOKER BRADY CARVER CHICOT CLOVR EL DODD School Eiirolleii %Blk 58 205 118 2045 955 1391 1192 0 1157 7121 63 705 739 785 551 494 842 760 447 5386 196 312 296 534 348 525 510 426 203 Wednesday, April 19, 2000 76% 77% 49% 57% 80% 71% 89% 0% 50% 68% 90% 88% 60% 65% 77% 73% 52% 60% 91% 69% 91% 74% 85% 51% 71% 52% 67% 89% 65% LRSD Discipline Management Report 1999/2000 Third Quarter Short Term Suspension BM BF \\wM WF T otal 0 0 0 O' 0 O' 0 1 1 2 3 0 0 0 3 38 46 9^ 49 4 15\n245 32 68 37 53 42 11\n30 37i 44: 354 0 3 li 2 0 6 0 0 0 17 ! 41 46 24 1 6 i 135 7 25 16 25 21 12 10 15 15 146 0 1 2 0 ! 2 2 0 0 7 0 62 11 5 103 18 2 1 1 41 3i 9 12 18i 9! t 6 5 6 73 0 0 0 0 ! 0 0 i oi Oj oi 21 5 3 0 5 19 1 1 4 1 3 2i 0 2 1, 15 0 0: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 159 78 6 21 440 43 103 69 97 75 30 46 59 66 588 0 4 3 2 2 8 0 0 2 Long Term Suspension BM BF WM\\WF Total I 0 0 O' 0^ 0 0 0 0 0 4 6 4 0 4 18 7 4 1 0 1 3 2 1 5 24 0 : 0 0 0 0 3 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 1 0 0 3 2 0 0 1 0 0 . 1 . 0 0 ' 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Expulsion Recommendation BM } BF WF Total 0. 0 i 0 0 0 Total ffSiisp T ! %Blk 0 0% oi o' 0 Oi 0 0 0 0 0 O' 0 0 0 : -..4. 0 0 0 2 0% li 3\nOi 1 Oi oi '! 5' 0 Oi 0 Oi 2! 2L 0: oi Oi 2! oi Oi 0 0 0 0 0\nOi li 0 oi Oi 0! Oi Oi Oi 1 0. Oi Oi Oi oi O'i 21 oi 1, 0\n0 Oi O' 01 Oi 0 Oi Oi 2 8 6 6 0 4 26 10 4 1 1 3 3 3 1 5 31 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 0 1 0 Oi 0 Oi 0 oi o' 0 Oi Oi 0' 21 oi oi oi oi oi 0\nOi O' O' 0 O' 0 Oi 0 0 Oi j. 0 3. J 64 i 100% 88% 0 0 0 0 0 I 0 ! 0! .. 4-, 0 ! 0 ! 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 I---- 0 ! 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 -'L 0 0 0 0 I 0 i 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 111 I .__2 0 0 , 0 0 0 ' 0 0 0 i 0 0 i 0! i 0 ' Oj ol 0 + 0 i 0 i 0 0 0 0 i 0 i i 0 i 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 165 84 6 31 466 53 107 70 98 78 33 49 60 71 619 0 4 j _ ?3% I I I t -t 3 2 2 11 0 0 3 I 86% 93% 83% 81% 86% 91% 91% 77% 81% 82% 79% 88% 88% 90% 85% 0% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 0% 0% 0% Page 1 of 2Name FAIR PRK FORST PK FRANKLIN FULBRIGH GARLAND GEYER SP GIBBS JEFFRSN M LKING MABEL EL MCDERMOT MEADCLIF MITCHELL OTTER CR PUL HT E RIGHTSEL ROCKFELR ROMINE TERRY WAKEFIEL School Enrolled %Blk 221 318 485 410 267 324 285 370 612 378 373 251 247 349 306 269 401 322 515 334 72% 44% 96% 41% 94% 82% 52% 39% 55% 57% 73% 97% 47% 57% 97% 61% 66% 46% 84% WASHNGTN 543 61% WATSON 445 94% WEST HIL 255 75% WILLIAMS 458 51% WILSON 313 89% WOODRUFF 282 80% Totals 12683 68% GTotal 99/00 25190 Wednesday, April 19, 2000 67.9% LRSD Discipline Management Report 1999/2000 Third Quarter Short Term Suspension BM BF \\WM \\ WF T otal 0 5\n14 0^ 0 1, 4 2: 1, T 20 5 5 O' 1 Oi Oi oi 9 11 0 3i oi 0 Oi 2i 102 O' I 0! 0 i oi oi 0 0 7 0 0 0 1 0 0 2 2 1 1 i 2\n0 0 0 0 0 1 7 0 1 0 0 0 1 32 i 0 5 0! 0 21 Long Term Suspension BM BF WM ' WF Total 0 0 0 0 Oi 01 0 o\n1 0 0 o! 0 0 1 Expulsion Recommendation BM \\BF \\wM WF Total 0 01 oi 0 ii 0 0 0 0 I 0 0 0 0 I 0 ' 0 0 Total ttSiisp 0 5 22 i %Blk 4 0 0 0 2 0 2 -t 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 10 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 oi Oi 0! o: 0 0 0 0 0 i 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O' 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Oi Oi 2 0 1 5 4 1 11 22 6 8 1 1 0 0 1 13 18 0 4 0 0 0 3 146 0 0 0 Oj 0 1 0 II 0 0 o\n! oi 0 ' 0 li oi1 4 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 1 0 1 ' 0 0 0 0 14 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 0\n0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 3 0 1' 0\nO' O' Oi 0, O' 1_ oi .... I-oi 4- Oi o\nt Oi O' 2i oi Oi 7' 0 0 0 Oi 0 Oi M 0 1. oi 0\noi O' oi oi i i 0 0 2 0 1 6 0 0 1 0 1 1 0 0 2 1 0 1 0 3 0 0 24 0 Oi 0 0 I 0 ! 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 -4.1 .. o: oi O' 0\nO' 0\nOi 0, -------0, Oi1 Oi oi O' Oi Oi 0\nr 0: Oi oi Oi oi 0 0 oi 0! oi 0 , 0 : 0 0 0 0 0 oi oi 0 0 0 0 T 0 0 ' 0 i 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 i 0 7 0% 100% 100% 0% 0% 100% 86% 0 I 'o'! 0 0 . 0 0 0 0, 0 ! i 0 i 0 ' 0 0 0 i 0 i 0 ' 0 0 Oi 0 0 4 50% 0 2 50% 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 17 22 6 9 1 2 1 0 1 15 19 0 5 0 3 0 3 170 I 82% 100% 100% 89% 0% i 100% 100% 0% 0% J-------7-3--%-- ! 100% 0% I 100% 0% 33% 0% 100% 89% 1255 i 86% Page 2 of 2 Discipline Sanctions by Reason Code Year: 2000 Quarter: 3 to Quarter: 3 I9-Apr-00 ,evel School Lvl Code Offense BM WM OM BF WF OF Total Senior High ACC LEARN 2 115 Repeat Violation 0 1 0 0 1 0 2 2 Senior High AGENCIES 2 110 Disorderly Conduct 3 0 0 0 0 0 3 3 Senior High CENTRAL 1 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 3 3 010 030 040 080 100 110 115 121 122 150 091 140 Assault Theft Fighting Malicious Mischief / Vandalis Indecent Exposure Disorderly Conduct Repeat Violation Repeated Violation-Smoking Forgery/Failure to Provide ID Poss, or Use Alcohol/Drugs Possession Weapon/Knife TERRORISTIC THREATENI 1 2 5 0 0 1 25 2 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 4 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 O' 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 7 0 0 2 7 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 2 12 1 1 3 36 2 3 I I I 64 Senior High FAIR 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 3 3 3 3 010 020 040 070 090 100 110 115 120 121 150 000 010 071 072 Assault Battery Fighting Loitering / Criminal Tresspass Non-threaten. Profanity/Staff Indecent Exposure Disorderly Conduct Repeat Violation Harassing Communications Repeated Violation-Smoking Poss, or Use Alcohol/Drugs USE RAP RINGS.CHEMICA Sale/Distribution of Alcohol Physical Assault of Staff Verbal Assault on Staff I I 4 0 5 1 1 26 0 1 6 0 3 0 1 0 0 I 3 0 0 0 1 1 3 2 1 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 9 1 7 0 1 0 3 13 0 7 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 2 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 10 3 12 5 8 1 4 40 I II 8 2 3 1 2 111 Senior High HALL 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 3 010 020 030 040 070 090 100 105 110 115 120 121 122 150 000 Assault Battery Theft Fighting Loitering / Criminal Tresspass Non-threaten. Profanity/Staff Indecent Exposure Refusing to Follow Directives Disorderly Conduct Repeat Violation Harassing Communications Repeated Violation-Smoking Forgery/Failure to Provide ID Poss, or Use Alcohol/Drugs USE RAP RINGS,CHEMICA 1 1 0 4 5 11 3 12 5 43 I 1 0 3 1 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 1 1 3 0 0 0 I 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 I 0 5 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 2 3 5 0 1 9 25 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 1 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 6 10 19 4 15 16 78 1 I 2 4 1 LRSD Information Services ILevel School Lvl Code Offense BM WM (IM. BF WF OF Total Senior High HALL 3 3 3 010 071 072 Sale/Distribution of Alcohol Physical Assault of Staff Verbal Assault on Staff 3 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 1 1 165 Senior High MCCLELLA 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 3 3 3 020 030 040 070 080 090 105 110 115 120 150 071 072 140 Battery Theft Fighting Loitering / Criminal Tresspass Malicious Mischief / Vandalis Non-threaten. Profanity/Staff Refusing to Follow Directives Disorderly Conduct Repeat Violation Harassing Communications Poss, or Use Alcohol/Drugs Physical Assault of Staff Verbal Assault on Staff TERRORISTIC THREATENI 2 0 9 6 0 10 0 5 15 1 1 1 2 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 3 I 1 5 1 1 11 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 I 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 1 12 8 1 17 1 7 27 1 1 1 2 3 84 Senior High METRO 2 2 2 2 010 090 100 123 Assault Non-threaten. Profanity/Staff Indecent Exposure Use of Paging Devices 1 0 1 2 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 2 1 2 6 Senior High PARKVIEW 2 2 2 2 2 2 3 3 3 040 090 105 110 115 150 072 091 140 Fighting Non-threaten. Profanity/Staff Refusing to Follow Directives Disorderly Conduct Repeat Violation Poss, or Use Alcohol/Drugs Verbal Assault on Staff Possession Weapon/Knife TERRORISTIC THREATENI 7 0 2 2 4 0 1 2 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 2 0 2 0 0 0 0 3 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 9 4 2 4 5 3 1 2 I 31 Middle School ALT LEARN 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 3 3 3 3 3 3 010 040 070 090 100 105 110 115 120 150 000 071 072 090 091 140 Assault Fighting Loitering / Criminal Tresspass Non-threaten. Profanity/Staff Indecent Exposure Refusing to Follow Directives Disorderly Conduct Repeat Violation Harassing Communications Poss, or Use Alcohol/Drugs USE RAP RINGS,CHEMICA Physical Assault of Staff Verbal Assault on Staff Possession of Weapon Possession Weapon/Knife TERRORISTIC THREATENI 2 9 1 5 1 2 2 4 5 1 1 3 1 I 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 2 1 1 2 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 LRSD Information Services Senior High 466 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 II 1 8 2 3 4 5 5 2 2 4 1 1 I 1 2Level School Lvl Code Offense. BM,, WM ,r OM BF WF OF Total S3 jddle School CLOVR JR 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 3 3 3 040 080 090 100 105 110 115 121 122 072 090 140 Fighting Malicious Mischief / Vandalis Non-threaten. Profanity/Staff Indecent Exposure Refusing to Follow Directives Disorderly Conduct Repeat Violation Repeated Violation-Smoking Forgery/Failure to Provide ID Verbal Assault on Staff Possession of Weapon TERRORISTIC THREATENI 12 1 7 2 II 6 27 2 0 2 I 1 1 1 0 0 2 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 3 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 3 0 5 4 8 2 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 19 3 10 2 18 10 36 4 1 2 1 I 107 Middle School DUNBAR 2 2 2 2 1 1 2 2 1 2 3 010 020 030 040 060 090 105 110 115 120 121 150 071 Assault Battery Theft Fighting False Alarm Non-threaten. Profanity/Staff Refusing to Follow Directives Disorderly Conduct Repeat Violation Harassing Communications Repeated Violation-Smoking Poss, or Use Alcohol/Drugs Physical Assault of Staff 2 3 1 12 0 4 3 1 7 3 1 0 I 1 0 1 1 0 1 1 0 3 3 0 I 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8 1 1 0 1 4 I 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 3 3 2 21 I 6 6 2 16 7 1 I 1 70 Middle School FORST HT 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 3 010 020 030 040 080 090 105 110 115 120 121 091 Assault Battery Theft Fighting Malicious Mischief / Vandalis Non-threaten. Profanity/Staff Refusing to Follow Directives Disorderly Conduct Repeat Violation Harassing Communications Repeated Violation-Smoking Possession Weapon/Knife 6 2 0 29 1 3 0 6 4 I 1 0 0 1 0 6 0 3 0 4 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 9 0 1 1 10 1 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 6 4 3 45 1 7 I 20 8 1 1 1 98 Middle School HENDERSN 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 3 3 020 030 040 090 110 115 120 150 010 140 Battery Theft Fighting Non-threaten. Profanity/Staff Disorderly Conduct Repeat Violation Harassing Communications Poss, or Use Alcohol/Drugs Sale/Distribution of Alcohol TERRORISTIC THREATENI 1 3 20 5 I 12 0 0 0 1 0 0 4 1 0 4 0 0 2 0 0 0 00 0 0 0 0 00 0 1 II 0 0 8 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 4 36 6 1 25 1 1 2 1 78 LRSD Information Services 3 Level School Lvl Code Offense BM WM OM...... BF ,WF OF Total Middle School MABEL JR 2 2 2 2 2 2 3 3 3 030 040 100 110 115 121 072 091 140 Theft Fighting Indecent Exposure Disorderly Conduct Repeat Violation Repeated Violation-Smoking Verbal Assault on Staff Possession Weapon/Knife TERRORISTIC THREATENI 0 5 1 0 4 1 1 I 1 0 4 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 5 0 3 3 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 16 1 4 7 1 1 1 1 33 Middle School MANN M/S 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 3 3 020 040 050 100 115 120 121 072 091 Battery Fighting Gambling Indecent Exposure Repeat Violation Harassing Communications Repeated Violation-Smoking Verbal Assault on Staff Possession Weapon/Knife 2 5 2 2 16 1 2 0 2 0 4 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 I 0 I 8 0 0 I 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 10 2 3 26 1 2 1 2 49 Middle School PUL HT J 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 3 010 030 040 080 090 105 110 115 121 122 091 Assault Theft Fighting Malicious Mischief / Vandalis Non-threaten. Profanity/Staff Refusing to Follow Directives Disorderly Conduct Repeat Violation Repeated Violation-Smoking Forgery/Failure to Provide ID Possession Weapon/Knife 0 5 11 1 I 2 0 12 4 1 1 1 0 3 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 7 0 2 0 1 2 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 8 22 I 4 2 1 15 4 1 1 60 Middle School SOUTHWST 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 3 3 3 020 030 040 080 090 100 105 110 115 123 072 080 081 Battery Theft Fighting Malicious Mischief / Vandalis Non-threaten. Profanity/Staff Indecent Exposure Refusing to Follow Directives Disorderly Conduct Repeat Violation Use of Paging Devices Verbal Assault on Staff Possession of Firearm Possession of Firearm/Pistol 2 2 16 1 3 I 0 2 16 1 2 1 2 0 0 I 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 12 0 0 0 I 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 I 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 2 32 2 3 1 1 2 20 1 2 1 2 71 Middle School 619 lementary BALE 2 2 110 115 Disorderly Conduct Repeat Violation 2 1 00 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 3 1 4 Elementary BASELINE 2 010 Assault 1 0 0 I 0 0 2 LRSD Information Services 4 Level School Lvl Code Offense BM WM . OM......BF WF OF Total Elementary BASELINE 2 115 Repeat Violation 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 3 mentary BOOKER 2 2 010 040 Assault Fighting 1 I 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 2 Elementary BRADY 2 2 010 110 Assault Disorderly Conduct 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 1 1 2 Elementary CARVER 2 2 2 3 3 030 040 115 060 140 Theft Fighting Repeat Violation Arson TERRORISTIC THREATENI 1 4 1 1 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 6 1 I 2 11 Elementary DODD 2 2 3 020 090 140 Battery Non-threaten. Profanity/Staff TERRORISTIC THREATENI 0 0 0 I 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 I 1 3 Elementary\nThis project was supported in part by a Digitizing Hidden Special Collections and Archives project grant from The Andrew W. Mellon Foundation and Council on Library and Information Resoources.\n \n\n \n\n \n\n\n \n\n \n\n \n\n\n \n\n \n\n \n\n\n \n\n \n\n \n\n \n\n \n\n \n\n\n \n\n \n\n \n\n\n\n \n\n \n\n \n\n\n \n\n \n\n \n\n \n\n \n\n\n \n\n \n\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n \n\n \n\n\n\n \n\n\n \n\n\n\n \n\n\n\n "},{"id":"bcas_bcmss0837_332","title":"Compliance hearing exhibits, 33-36","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":["1997/1999"],"dcterms_description":null,"dc_format":["application/pdf"],"dcterms_identifier":null,"dcterms_language":["eng"],"dcterms_publisher":["Little Rock, Ark. : Butler Center for Arkansas Studies. Central Arkansas Library System"],"dc_relation":null,"dc_right":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC-EDU/1.0/"],"dcterms_is_part_of":["Office of Desegregation Monitoring records (BC.MSS.08.37)","History of Segregation and Integration of Arkansas's Educational System"],"dcterms_subject":["Little Rock (Ark.)--History--20th century","Little Rock School District","Education--Arkansas","Educational law and legislation","Education--Evaluation","Educational statistics"],"dcterms_title":["Compliance hearing exhibits, 33-36"],"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/332"],"dcterms_temporal":null,"dcterms_rights_holder":null,"dcterms_bibliographic_citation":null,"dlg_local_right":["Available for use in research, teaching, and private study. Any other use requires permission from the Butler Center."],"dcterms_medium":["exhibition (associated concept)"],"dcterms_extent":["491 pages"],"dlg_subject_personal":null,"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":"\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n \n\n\n \n\n \n\n\n \n\n\n \n\n\n\n\n \n\n\n\n\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n \n\n \n\n \n\n\n \n\n \n\n \n\n\n \n\n \n\n \n\n\n \n\n \n\n \n\n\n \n\n \n\n \n\nPULASKI COUNTY INTERDISTRICT SCHOOLS EVALUATION 1997-98 Gerald B. DickinsonACKNOWLEDGMENTS I gratefully acknowledge the help of Ms Donna Grady Creer, her office staff, and the teachers and administrators of Pulaski County Interdistrict Magnet Schools. This evaluation project was made easier by their honest, forthright and candid responses. The building principals were especially helpful in accommodating the evaluation team members during site visits. A great debt is owed my respected colleagues for their professional work and dedication to the evaluation project. Finally, thanks to my graduate assistants whose help and assistance is greatly appreciated.TABLE OF CONTENTS 1 Introduction Section I: Student Achievement Standardized Tests...................................... Magnet Schools - All Students.................. Magnet Schools - Dissagregated Groups, Test Score Disparities................................. Summary Findings......................... 3 4 12 28 30 Section H: Desegregation Enrollment, Placement \u0026amp; Waiting Lists. Staffing.......................................................... Social Interaction - Sociograms.............. Student Interaction - Site Visits............. Student/Staff Interaction - Site Visits.... Summary Findings........................ 32 36 38 89 92 94 Section HI: Magnet Theme Magnet Themes.................... Program Availability........... Coherent Magnet Program. Summary Findings.. 96 97 99 101 Section IV: Sumraative Evaluation Conclusions................. Summary Conclusion, 102 103 Section V: Appendix Appendix. 104PULASKI COUNTY INTERDISTRICT MAGNET SCHOOL EVALUATION Evaluation Report December 1998 INTRODUCTION The 1997-98 evaluation report continues the format that has been provided for the past several years. Few changes are noted in order that continuity and consistency may enhance both the short-term and long-term evaluative processes. Any changes in reporting format have been mutually agreed upon by the Magnet Review Committee and the evaluator. Student achievement data continue to be reported in Percentile Ranks (PR) as initiated in the 1996-97 report. In previous reports, only sociogram data for the Fall administration are included, while data analysis for both the Fall and the Spring administrations are provided. Due to requests by the magnet school administrators, and subsequently, the Magnet Review Committee, both Fall and Spring sociogram data and analysis are included in this report. This report also brings together data and findings from previous reports in order to present an element of continuity to conclusions and inferences that assist educational planners in assessment of long term impact of project activities on magnet school goals and purposes. The purpose of this design is to provide a logical, sequential, and continuous accounting of the attainment of evaluation project objectives, assessment activities, and evaluation reports. Section titles are designed and written to correspond to expected outcomes as identified in the evaluation proposal. It should be noted that not all evaluation reports have the same evaluation objectives. Expected outcomes may vary from one project year to another based on the contribution of each component toward assurances that magnet school objectives are successfully met and based on changes in evaluation components agreed upon by the Magnet Review Committee and the evaluator. Some evaluation components may be eliminated or used only during alternative years. Also, data provided during previous or subsequent evaluations may be valuable in providing a degree of confidence about the attainment of specific outcomes. Principal evaluation objectives are retained in each of the project years to assure a continuous measure of magnet school attainment of goals and objectives. Where appropriate, comparisons and contrasts are provided. Comparisons and contrasts that require assumptions about enrollment and program continuity are noted so that any inferences and conclusions drawn might be weighed relative to such assumptions. Additional evaluation objectives may be added in future evaluations as the Magnet Review Committee seeks new and different data regarding the magnet school program. 1Evaluation Objectives 1. Student Achievement To obtain and analyze the 1997-98 standardized test scores for the following tests for appropriate groups. A. Stanford Achievement Tests - Magnet Schools (All grades) Little Rock School District B. Stanford Achievement Tests - Arkansas (state)\nNational (national) 2. 3. Desegregation To develop procedures and instrumentation for data collection regarding the contribution of magnet schools toward the desegregation goals of the project. A. What do enrollment data reveal about the attainment of objectives relative to student enrollment? B. What are the staffing patterns and do they reflect diversity relative to race and gender? C. What are the social interaction patterns between and within the disaggregate groups by race and sex? D. Is there evidence revealed by data during site visits of stereotyping, graffiti, and name calling? Is there evidence of student isolation and solidarity? E. What are the interaction patterns of administrators, staff, and students and between teachers and students? Magnet theme To provide evaluation activities to assess the existence of a sound educational core program and an existing magnet theme as provided by the magnet school program activities. A. What are the magnet school themes available to students in the Pulaski County Interdistrict Magnet School Program? B. Are magnet school programs available to students as prescribed by the magnet school policies and procedures? C. Is there a coherent magnet program in place at each of the magnet school sites? D. Are instructional and non-instructional personnel and resources necessary to support the magnet school program in place at each of the magnet school sites? 2PULASKI COUNTY INTERDISTRICT MAGNET SCHOOL EVALUATION Formative Evaluation: Student Achievement BACKGROUND The purpose of this formative evaluation is to gain insight into the assessment of objectives listed in the evaluation procedures relative to student achievement. Student Achievement - To obtain and analyze standardized test scores for the appropriate grade groups. METHODS/ FINDINGS Magnet school test data were received from the Office of Planning, Research and Development, Little Rock School District. Stanford Achievement Test (SAT 9) data were received for elementary grades 3 and 5, and for grades 7 and 10 at the secondary level. Test data summaries for the state were provided by the Office of Student Assessment, Arkansas Department of Education. The Department of Education requires that students in grades 5, 7, and 10 take the SAT 9. Previous reports have compared students on the basis of Percentile Rank (PR). Given the acceptability and familiarity of reporting percentile ranks, this report continues to utilize percentile ranks to compare and contrast magnet school students with other students in the LRSD, the state of Arkansas and the nation. National norm scores were based on normative data copyrighted by Harcourt Brace \u0026amp; Company. Test data were reported for disaggregate groups, however, percentile ranks for subgroups and for each magnet site were computed by averaging mean NCE scores and converting scores into percentile ranks. Percentile ranks reported may differ slightly due to rounding during computation. Tests results data analysis for Grade Three were accomplished by comparing magnet school student data with scores from the LRSD. Data analysis for grades 5, 7, and 10 were accomplished by comparing magnet school students with student in the LRSD, the state, and the nation. The mean percentile rank for all students nationwide was the 50* percentile. Magnet school students were contrasted on the basis of how they performed relative to the 50* percentile. Students are disaggregated by race. Disaggregate groups are compared with like-type comparison groups. The purpose of this comparison is to determine how magnet school student perform relative to students of the same race. Data analysis is presented in both narrative and graphic form. Test data results were obtained from the 1998 Fall administration of the SAT 9 3Magnet Schools - All Students The first comparison is for magnet schools all students. Percentile ranks are computed by weighting average mean NCE scores. Magnet schools students scores are compared to LRSD, state and national scores. Grade 3 A total of 275 third grade magnet school students took the SAT9 in the Fall of 1998. Test results are depicted in the table that follows. Percentile Ranks are presented for the nation, the LRSD and each of the magnet schools. The Arkansas Department of Education does not require third grade students to be tested. Stanford Achievement Test Third Grades/Percentile Ranks Magnet Schools/ LRSD/ Nation Magnet School N = 275 School total reading total math language arts environment basic battery complete battery Nation 50 50 50 50 50 50 LRSD 45 35 40 35 42 42 Booker 40 36 35 40 42 39 Carver 57 47 50 49 55 56 Gibbs 52 38 56 55 50 51 Williams 66 63 67 59 65 64 Third grade students at Carver, Gibbs, and Williams generally scored higher than students at the national average and students in the Little Rock School District. Booker students scored below the national average and about the same as students in the Little Rock School District. Test results on the complete battery were about the same as for the 1996-97 school year in the magnet schools. Tests scores for the Little School District were slightly higher in 1997-98 than the previous school year. Magnet school test scores were generally lowest in math, with students at Booker and Gibbs scoring well below the national average. Students at Carver, Gibbs, and Williams scored above the national average in reading and language arts. 4The graph below depicts Third Grade test scores for magnet school students. Stanford Achievement Test Third Grade ! Stanford Achievement Test J Percentile Ranks 100 so 1 1 I 60 r I 40 I 20 0 1 I Read Math Lang Boviroo B Battery C Battery National LRSD Legend Booker Carver Glbbi WUlUmi I 5Grade 5 A total of 287 fifth grade magnet school students took the SAT 9 in the Fall of 1998. Tests scores are reported for each of the magnet schools, the LRSD, the state, and the nation. Stanford Achievement Test Fifth Grade/Percentile Ranks Magnet Schools/LRSD/State/National N = 287 School total reading total math language arts science social science basic battery complete battery Nation 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 State 49 41 46 45 45 47 47 LRSD 40 36 42 34 38 41 40 Booker 40 25 45 40 41 38 39 Carver 54 50 50 49 51 52 52 Gibbs 38 34 34 36 37 37 37 Williams 74 67 70 61 73 71 70 Fifth grade students at Williams and Carver magnet schools scored above the national, state, and Little Rock School District average. Students at Booker scored at about the same level as students in the Little Rock School District but below the state average. Students at Gibbs scored well below the state, LRSD, and the nation. Scores for fifth grade students at Gibbs were considerably lower in 1997-98 than for the 1996-97 school year. Scores for students at Booker, Carver, and Williams were about the same as scores for the previous year. The graph on the following page depicts test scores for Fifth Grade students. 6Stanford Achievement Test Fifth Grade ! Stanford Achievement Test I i i Percentile Ranks 100 80 0 40 20 Read Math Lang Science Soc. Science B Battery C Battery Legend National Oibbt LRSD WilliamB Booker Arkaneat Carver 0 ( 1 3 1 J Grade 7 Two hundred seventy Seventh Grade students at Mann Junior High School took the SAT 9 in the Fall of 1999. The percentile ranks for students on all subtests, except math, were above the 50* percentile. The score for math was at the 49* percentile. The table below depicts the test scores for Seventh Grade students in the nation, Arkansas, the LRSD, and Mann Junior High School. Stanford Achievement Test Seventh Grade/Percentile Ranks Mann Junior High /LRSD/State/National N=270 School total reading total math language arts science social science basic battery complete battery Nation 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 State 46 45 45 55 49 48 49 LRSD 39 40 38 42 39 41 41 Mann 57 49 57 59 56 57 57 Mann Seventh Grade students scored considerably higher than students in the LRSD, the state of Arkansas, and across the nation. The graph on the following page depicts the test scores of Mann and other comparison groups. 8Stanford Achievement Test Seventh Grade Stanford Achievement Test Percentile Ranks 100 80 60 5 SiE 40 - 20 rs.'Cfisw Read Math Laag Arte Sienee Soc Smdlrt B BAttery C Banery Maiional Legend Arkaniaa LRSD Mann 1***^ I{ 0 i 5 I I f 9 Grade 10 In the Fall of 1999, 298 Tenth Grade students at Parkview High School took the SAT 9. The percentile ranks for students on all subtests were above the 50* percentile. The table below depicts the test scores for 10* grade students in the nation, Arkansas, the LRSD, and Parkview High School. Stanford Achievement Test Tenth Grade/Percentile Ranks Parkview High School /LRSD/State/National School total reading total math language arts science social science basic battery complete battery Nation 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 State 43 52 46 53 50 47 48 LRSD 36 43 40 45 42 42 42 Parkview 52 55 53 58 54 54 54 Parkview Tenth Grade students scored considerably higher than students in the LRSD, the state of Arkansas, and across the nation. The graph on the following page contrasts the scores of Parkview students against other comparison groups. 10Stanford Achievement Tests Tenth Grade Stanford Achievement Test ! i I 1 Percentile Ranks 100 so 60 aaaagftT7\n.aBe. 40 20 Read Math Lane * Science Soe Stud B Battery C Battery National Legend Arkansas LRSD Parkview 11 i j 0 I t I Magnet Schools - Disaggregate Groups The following comparisons are designed to compared magnet school student with like-type students across the state, the LRSD, and other magnet schools. Because national student test data are not provided for disaggregate groups, the 50* percentile will serve for comparative purposes. Test data for Grade Three are not available for the state since testing of Third Grade students is not mandated by the ADE. Grade 3 Test scores for 3^ grade magnet school students are compared with other magnet school students as well as with test scores for 3\"* grade students in the LRSD. Subgroups compared are black students and white students. Test scores for other students are not used in this portion of the report. Black Students. The table that follows compares Third Grade black students in each of the magnet schools with other magnet school black students and black students in the LRSD. Third Grade Black Students Booker/Carver/Gibbs/Williams/LRSD/National* School total reading total math language arts environment basic battery complete battery Nation* 50 50 50 50 50 50 LRSD 37 27 31 25 35 34 Booker 35 28 32 33 34 34 Carver 42 30 33 25 41 40 Gibbs 33 23 35 30 33 33 Williams 58 48 61 48 57 56 * National scores for all students only Third Grade black students at Williams scored well above Third Grade black student in other magnet schools, black students in the LRSD, and all students across the nation. Booker and Carver Third Grade black students scored higher than black students in the LRSD. Gibbs Third Grade black students scored about the same as Third Grade black students in the LRSD. The graph on the following page depicts black third grade students scores. 12Stanford Achievement Tests Third Grade - Black Students 1 t ! \"7 Stanford Achievement Test Percentile Ranks i 100 80 60 40 20 Read Math Lang Enviros B Battery C Battery National LRSD Legend Booker Carver Gibbt Williatnt National scores are for all students only 13 0 * I f f t t it White Students. The table below compares Third Grade white students with in each of the magnet schools with other magnet school white students and white students in the LRSD. t Third Grade White Students Booker/Carver/Gibbs/Williams/LRSD/National* School total reading total math language arts environment basic battery complete battery Nation* 50 50 50 50 50 50 LRSD 62 56 61 62 61 61 Booker 43 44 36 50 49 43 Carver 69 60 64 72 67 67 Gibbs 76 61 81 84 72 74 Williams 76 70 74 71 73 73 i f 1 *National scores for all students only All magnet school Third Grade white students, except at Booker, scored above the national average for all students. Bookers Third Grade white students scored just below the national average. Gibbs and Williams Third Grade white students were above the 70\" percentile on both the basic and the complete battery. The graph on the following page compares Third Grade magnet school white students scores with Third Grade white students in the LRSD and all students in the nation. I I 14Stanford Achievement Tests Third Grade - White Students Stanford Achievement Test Percentile Ranks 100 so 0 40 20 Read Math Lafig E\u0026amp;viron B Batleiy C Battery i I i f Nation al LRSD Legend Booker Carver Olbbi Williams National scores for all students only 15 s 5 i 0 * i 5 ! I Grade 5 Test scores for Fifth Grade magnet school students are compared with other magnet school students, as well as with test scores for Fifth Grade students in the LRSD, the state, and the nation.. Subgroups are black students and white students. Test scores for other students are not used in this portion of the evaluation report. Black Students. The table that follows compares Fifth Grade black students in each magnet school with other magnet school black students, as well as with black students in the LRSD, and across the state. National scores are not disaggregated by student race. Fifth Grade Black Students Booker/Carver/Gibbs/Williams/LRSD/Arkansas/N ation* School total reading total math language arts science social science basic battery complete battery Nation* 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 State 26 26 32 24 26 30 29 LRSD 27 27 32 23 26 31 30 Booker 27 19 36 28 30 28 28 Carver 33 30 34 26 34 33 33 Gibbs 17 17 15 16 22 19 19 Williams 57 52 60 45 64 59 58 * National scores for all students only Black students at Williams Magnet scored well above the national, state, and LRSD average. Students at Carver Magnet scored well above the state and LRSD average. Bookers Fifth Grade student scores were at or about the same as scores in the LRSD and the state. Gibbs scores were below the LRSD, the state, and other magnet school student scores. The graph on the following page provides a visual comparison of Fifth Grade black student scores by disaggregate groups. 1617 White Students. The table below compares Fifth Grade magnet school white students and students in the LRSD, the state, and the nation. Fifth Grade White Students Booker/Carver/Gibbs/Williams/LRSD/Arkansas/Nation* School total reading total math language arts science social science basic battery complete battery Nation* 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 State 57 47 51 52 51 53 53 LRSD 69 59 62 62 64 64 64 Booker 55 34 55 56 52 51 51 Carver 73 66 65 74 66 68 69 Gibbs 71 63 67 67 71 67 68 Williams 87 80 79 76 82 81 81 * National scores for all students only All Fifth Grade magnet school white students (except math-Booker) scored above the state and the national averages. Student at Carver, Gibbs, and Williams posted outstanding scores at or above the 70*** percentile for the basic and complete batteries. The graph on the following page provides a visual comparison of Fifth Grade white students test scores. 18Stanford Achievement Test Fifth Grade - White Students Stanford Achievement Test t i Percentile Ranks 100 80 60 40 20 Read Math Lang Science Soe. Seieace B Battery C Bflliery 0 Legend E ! 5 1 * National GIbbi LRSD WUliami Booker Arkanaai Carver National scores for all students only 19 i JGrade 7 Test scores for Seventh Grade magnet school students are compared with test scores for students in the LRSD, the state, and the nation. Subgroups are black and white students. Test scores for (C other students are not used in this portion of the evaluation report. Black Students. The table that follows compares Seventh Grade black students at Mann with black 7th grade students in the LRSD, and across the state. National scores are not disaggregated by race. Seventh Grade Black Students Mann/LRSD/Arkansas/Nation* School total reading total math language arts science social science basic battery complete battery Nation 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 State 26 26 31 30 29 32 31 LRSD 27 23 28 29 27 31 30 Mann 40 34 43 42 38 43 42 National scores for all students only Manns Seventh Grade black students scores were higher significantly higher than Seventh Grade black students in the LRSD and in the state Arkansas. National scores are not disaggregated by race. Scores for Seventh Grade black students at Mann for 1997-98 school years were considerably higher than scores Seventh Grade black students at Mann for the 1997-97 school year. The graph on the following page depicts test scores for Seventh Grade students at Mann Junior High School. 20Stanford Achievement Test 7 ! Stanford Achievement Test i Percentile Ranks } i ! i 100 80 60 40 20 Read Math Lang Am Science Soc Sndles B Batteiy C Battery National Legend Arkansas LRSD Mann 0 I i f J I i I ! ! Seventh Grade - Black Students National scores for all students only 21I i White Students. The table that follows compares Seventh Grade white students at Mann with white students in the LRSD and across the state. National scores are not disaggregated by race. Seventh Grade White Students Mann/LRSD/Arkansas/Nation* I I School total reading total math language arts science social science basic battery complete battery Nation 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 State 53 51 50 62 56 53 55 LRSD 66 59 62 73 67 64 65 Mann 72 64 70 73 72 69 70 National scores for all students only White students a Mann Junior High School scored considerably higher than white student in the LRSD, the state of Arkansas, and all students across the nation. Percentile ranks for Seventh Grade students for the 1997-98 school year were slightly higher than percentile ranks for Seventh Grade students for the 1996-97 school year. The graph on the following page depicts test scores for Seventh Grade students at Mann Junior High School. 22Stanford Achievement Test Seventh Grade - White Students ( i Stanford Achievement Test Percentile Ranks ( 100 so 60 J- 40 20 Read Math Lang Arte Science Soc Stndiec B Battery C Battery 0 Legend National Arkanaas LRSD Mann National scores for all students only 23 fGrade 10 Test scores for Tenth Grade magnet school students are compared with test scores for students in the LRSD, the state, and the nation. Subgroups are black and white students. Test scores for other students are not used in this portion of the evaluation report. Black Students. The table that follows compares black Tenth Grade students at Parkview with Tenth Grade black students in the LRSD and across the state. National scores are not disaggregated by race. Stanford Achievement Test Tenth Grade - Black Students Parkview High School /LRSD/State/National School total reading total math language arts science social science basic battery complete battery Nation 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 State LRSD Parkview 23 35 29 33 30 31 32 25 38 33 28 32 31 31 31 42 43 43 39 42 36 National scores for all students only Black students are Parkview scored well above Tenth Grade student in the LRSD and across the state of Arkansas. Scores for the 1997-98 school year were not significantly different from scores for the 1996-97 school year. The graph on the following page depicts test scores for Tenth Grade students at Parkview High School. 24Stanford Achievement Test Tenth Grade - Blacks I ! 5 Stanford Achievement Test ! I Percentile Ranks 100 80 60 f ! i I 40 20 Read Math Lang Science Soe Stud B BaRery National U. Legend A rkaneac LRSD Parkview t I 0 C Bfttlery s J I National scores for all students only 25White Students. The table that follows compares Tenth Grade white students at Parkview with Tenth Grade white students in the LRSD and across the state. National scores are not disaggregated by race. Stanford Achievement Test Tenth Grade - White Students Parkview High School /LRSD/State/National School Nation total reading 50 total math 50 State 50 57 LRSD 65 65 Parkview 67 66 language arts 50 52 67 64 science 50 59 70 73 social science 50 56 70 70 basic battery 50 52 66 66 complete battery 50 54 67 68 National scores for all students only White students at Parkview scored well above Tenth Grade student across the state of Arkansas and all students across the nation.. Scores for the 1997-98 school year were not significantly different from scores for the 1996-97 school year. The graph on the following page depicts test scores for Tenth Grade white students at Parkview High School. 26Stanford Achievement Test Tenth Grade - White Students 1 Stanford Achievement Test i Percentile Ranks I i { I i 100 80 60 aart3a\u0026lt;t5ns 40 20 Read Math Lang Scleoce Soc Stud B Battery C BaUery National Legend Arkantai LRSD Parkview 0 National scores for all students only 27 I I I t ITest Score Disparities An objective of the magnet schools is to reduce the disparities between test scores for black and white students. This section of the evaluation investigates the disparities between tests scores for students in grades 5, 7, and 10. Test score disparities for magnet school students are compared to disparities for students in the LRSD and across the state of Arkansas. Percentile ranks for the complete battery are used for the comparisons. Grade 5 The table that follows presents data for comparing differences between test scores for black and white Fifth Grade students. Test Score Disparities Grade 5 - Blacks/Whites Magnet Schools/LRSD/Arkansas School Black Students- Complete Battery White Students- Complete Battery Difference 97-98 (96-97) Booker 28 51 23 (27) Carver 33 69 36 (47) Gibbs 19 68 49 (23) Williams 58 81 23 (17) LRSD 30 64 34 (38) Arkansas 29 53 24 (24) Some changes in differences were test score variances for black and white Fifth Grade students which decreased at Booker and Carver. However, disparities increased at Gibbs and Williams. Deviations between black and white student scores in the LRSD decreased while the disparities across the state stayed the same. 28Grade 7 The table below depicts the comparison of test scores for black and white students at Mann Junior High School compared to black and white students in the LRSD and across Arkansas. Disparities between black and white student scores at Maim remained the same from the 1996-97 school year to the 1997-98 school year. Test score disparities between black and white students increased slightly in the LRSD and in Arkansas. Test Score Disparities Grade 7 Mann/LRSD/Arkansas School Black Students- Complete Battery White Students- Complete Battery Differences 97-98 (96-97) Mann 42 70 28 (28) LRSD 30 65 35 (32) Arkansas 31 55 24 (23) Grade 10 The table below depicts the comparison of test scores for black and white students at Parkview High School compared to black and white students in the LRSD and across Arkansas. Disparities between black and white student scores at Parkview increased from the 1996-97 school year to the 1997-98 school year. Test score disparities between black and white students increased in the LRSD and decreased slightly in Arkansas. Test Score Disparities Grade 10 Mann/LRSD/Arkansas School Black Students- Complete Battery White Students- Complete Battery Differences 97-98 (96-97) Parkview 36 68 32 (23) LRSD 31 67 36 (31) Arkansas 32 54 22 (23) 29Summary Findings All Students Grade 3 * Third grade students at Carver, Gibbs, and Williams scored higher than students across the nation and in the Little Rock School District. Booker students scored lower than the national average and about the same as students in Little Rock School District. Grade 5 * Magnet school students at Carver and Williams scored above the national, state and Little Rock School District average. Booker students scored at about the same level as students in the Little Rock School District but below the state average. Students at Gibbs scored well below the state, national, and LRSD average. Grade 7 * Magnet school students at Mann Junior High School scored considerably higher than Seventh Grade students in the Little Rock School District, the state of Arkansas, and across the nation. All subtest scores except math (49 percentile) were well above the 50* percentile. Grade 10 * Test scores for Parkview 10* grade students were above the national, state, and Little Rock School District averages on all subtests and on the basic and complete batteries. 30Disaggregate Groups / Disparities Grade 5 * Fifth grade black students scored 20-30 percentiles below white students. Disparities between black and white students at Booker and Carver magnet schools decreased from the 1996-97 school year to the 1997-98 school year while disparities at Gibbs and Williams increased. Disparities between black and white students in the state of Arkansas remained the same. Grade 7 * Test score disparities for black and white 7* grade students at Mann Junior High School remained the same from the 1996-97 to the 1997-98 school years. Test score disparities at Mann (28) were less than for the Little Rock School District (32) and more than for the state of Arkansas (23). Grade 10 * Test score disparities for black and white 10** grade students at Parkview High School increased from the 1996-97 (23) school year to the 1997-98 school year (32). Disparities between black and white students at Parkview are less than in the Little Rock School District (36) but more than in the state of Arkansas (22). Disparities between scores for black and white students * Test score disparities between black and white students continue to be about the same as in previous reports. Some changes occur each year due to the scoring patterns of different classes or grade levels. However, the overall pattern appear to be about the same from year to year. 31PULASKI COUNTY INTERDISTRICT MAGNET SCHOOLS EVALUATION Formative Evaluation: Desegregation BACKGROUND The purpose of this formative evaluation is to gain insight into the assessment of the following objectives relative to Expected Outcomes. Desegregation to develop procedures and instrumentation for data collection regarding the contribution of the magnet schools toward the desegregation goals of the project. A. What do enrollment data reveal about the attainment of objectives relative to student enrollment? B. What are the staffing patterns and do they reflect diversity relative to race and gender? C. What are the social interactions between and within the disaggregate groups of students by race and sex? (Sociograms) D. Is there evidence revealed by data collected during the site visits of stereotyping, graffiti, and name calling? Is there evidence of student isolation and solidarity? (Student Observation) E. What are the interaction patterns of administrators, staff, and students and between teachers and students? (Staff Observations) METHODS\\FINDINGS After approval of the evaluation objectives by the MRC, the research team began to develop and review instruments and procedures to collect data for assessment of the objectives. A. Enrollment, Placement and Waiting Lists What is revealed by enrollment data about the attainment of objectives relative to the magnet school objectives? 32Enrollment Survey forms were constructed by the evaluator to provide information about the enrollment of students at each magnet school site during the visit of the evaluation team. Team members gathered enrollment data from the principals at each of the magnet school sites. School Profiles' provided the available data. Racial allocations for total student enrollments at all of the magnet schools have been maintained at approximately 50-50 for minority and non-minority students. Additionally, a shadow area is designated surrounding each magnet school from which twenty percent (20 %) of the seats (enrollment slots) are filled. The table that follows depicts the student enrollment on the day the evaluation team conducted site visits on May 12-13, 1998. Enrollment data are disaggregated by race and gender for black and white students and for males and females. Students classified as other are not disaggregated by gender. Pulaski County Interdistrict Magnet Schools Student Enrollment N = 3706 School BM % BE % TotB % WM % WE % TotW % Other % Booker Enr. 598 Carver Enr. 595 Gibbs Enr. 306 Williams Enr. 467 Mann Enr. 843 Prkvw Enr. 897 Total 3706 153 25.6 168 28.2 82 26.8 119 25.5 185 21.9 200 22.3 907 24.5 163 27.2 316 52.8 122 20.4 135 22.6 257 43.0 25 4.2 144 24.2 76 24.8 120 25.7 257 30.5 257 28.6 1017 27.4 312 52.4 158 51.6 239 51.2 442 52.4 457 50.9 1924 51.9 33 150 25.2 73 23.9 103 22.0 156 18.5 164 18.3 768 20.7 109 18.3 60 19.6 111 23.8 221 26.2 234 26.1 870 23.5 259 43.5 133 43.5 214 45.8 377 44.7 398 44.4 1662 44.2 24 4.0 15 4.9 14 3.0 24 2.9 42 4.7 144 3.9Magnet school enrollment for the 1997-98 school year was 3706, only 3 students fewer than the 1996-97 school year enrollment. Blacks students accounted for 51.9 percent of the total. Whites students accounted for 44.2 percent of the total, up from 43.6 percent of the total in 1996-97 and 43.5 percent in 1995-96. Other students accounted for 3.9 percent of the total. Placement Placement by District Total enrollment as a percent of capacity stayed about the same from the 1997-98 school year as for the 1996-97 school year. The table below depicts enrollment capacity for seats allocated for the 1998-99 school year. Data were provided by the Office of the Magnet Review Committee. Enrollment data were taken on October 13, 1998. The total seat allocation remained at 3982. The number of seats filled (actual enrollment) was 3763 or 95 percent. The table below depicts the number of seats available and the actual enrollment for each of the three districts. Pulaski County Interdistrict Magnet Schools Enrollment! Allocation Blacks - Non-blacks Settlement Capacities/ District 1998-99 seat allocation black 1998-99 actual enrollment allocation actual enrollment white black white B-W % B-W % LRSD 2343 /2313 (-30) 1364 979 1268 1045 58/42 55/45 PCSSD 1154/944 (-210) 458 696 391 553 40/60 41/59 NLSD 485 / 506 (+21) 241 244 261 245 50/50 52/48 Total 3982/3763 (-219) 2063 1919 1920 1843 52/48 51/49 The Pulaksi County Special School District had the highest number of allotted seat that remained unfilled (210) on October 13,1998. The Little Rock School District had 30 vacant seats while the North Little Rock School District had filled 21 seats above it allocation. A total of 219 seat had not been filled at the time this data were provided, however, seats continue to be filled during the school year as they are available. 34Placement by School The table below depicts data for each of the magnet schools. Data are provided for black, nonblack, and total enrollment by allotment and actual enrollment. Placement Data By District/School Blacks/TSlon-blacks School LRSD Black N-Black Allot/ Allot/ Enroll Enroll Total Allot/ Enroll PCSSD Black N-Black Total NLRSD Black N-Black Total Booker 248/203 134/133 382/336 Carver 242/194 115/130 357/324 Gibbs 124/117 67/96 191/213 Wilms 187/162 100/106 287/268 Marm 261/262 261/258 522/520 Prkvw 302/330 302/322 604/652 Allot/ Allot/ Enroll Enroll Allot/ Enroll Allot/ Allot/ Enroll Enroll Allot/ Enroll 57/55 53/59 29/20 43/51 131/111 145/95 133/113 124/106 66/38 99/88 130/106 144/102 190/168 177/165 95/58 142/139 26.1/217 299/197 42/45 42/55 84/100 39/51 21/19 31/35 58/59 50/52 40/52 21/23 32/33 59/40 50/42 79/103 42/42 63/68 117/99 100/94 For the Little Rock School District (LRSD) 2313 of 2343, or 99 percent, of the allotted seats were filled. For the Pulaski County Special School District (PCSSD) 944 of 1154, only 82 percent of the allotted seats were filled. For the North Little Rock School District (NLSD) 3763 of 3982, or 95 percent of the allotted seats were filled. 35B. Staffing to What are the staffing patterns for both certified and classified staff and do they reflect diversity with regard to race and gender? Certified Instructional Staff Data regarding the certified staff were provided by the principals office at each of the magnet school sites. The table that follows depicts data relative to certified staff. Certified Staff Magnet Schools 1997-98 School Black M Black F White M White F Other M Other F total Booker 17 27 50 Carver 13 30 46 Gibbs 18 30 Williams 27 37 Mann 11 16 27 58 Parkvie w 17 13 28 69 total - % 24 - 8.4 79- 27.2 25 - 8.6 157 -54.1 1-0.3 4-1.4 290 1 5 0 0 0 2 8 2 0 1 1 0 1 2 8 0 0 0 8 4 0 0 1 2 As in 1996-97, white females accounted for the largest group of certified staff. However, the percentage of white females continues to decline from 57 percent in the 1995-96 report and 55.7 percent in the 1996-97 report to 54.1 percent in the 1997-98 evaluation report. The percentage of black females increased .2 percent from the previous report and represent the second largest group. The number of black and white males stayed about the same relative to numbers and percent of total certified staff. 36Classified Staff Support staff data were also provided by the principals office. Staffing patterns were also noted on the survey forms. The table that follows depicts the number, race, and gender of classified staff at each of the magnet school sites. The table includes instructional support, food service, and custodial staffs. Classified Staff Magnet Schools 1997-98 School Black M Black F White M White F Other M Other F total Booker 12 17 Carver 15 25 Gibbs 10 18 Williams 11 22 4 0 1 0 0 4 0 6 0 0 4 0 4 0 0 2 2 7 0 0 Mann 5 1 5 4 0 0 15 Parkview 6 9 2 1 0 0 24 total - % 25 - 20.7 58 - 47.9 9-7.4 29 - 24.0 0-0.0 0-0.0 121 Black females continue to comprise the largest group of classified staff accounting for about 60 percent of the total. The number of white males increased from less than 3 percent for 1996-97 to 7.4 percent for the 1997-98 school year. Additional Comments The use of classified personnel to supervise children during lunch periods and recess continues to appear to be positive. Observations of classified staff in their supervisory roles indicates that they have had in-service training and manifest appropriate behaviors in supervision activities. Students tended to respond favorably to approaches used by aides and other classified staff. 37C. Social Interaction What are the social interactions between and within the disaggregate groups of students by race and sex? Is there evidence of student isolation and solidarity? (Sociograms) Sociograms Sociometric techniques used for previous evaluation years were continued for the 1997-98 school year evaluation project. Previous evaluation have provided a research foundation relative to the appropriateness and usefulness of sociograms in quantifying students relationships. Social interaction patterns may be more useful if observed over a long period of time, thus, providing data from which appropriate interventions, if needed, can be constructed. The sociogram was developed to enable the evaluation staff to make assessments relative to student interactions in a school setting, both in and out of the classroom. Classroom relationships are assessed by the portion in which students choose other students with whom to sit and with whom to work. Other social relationships are assessed by the students choices of other students with whom they prefer to play. Sociograms were administered to all fourth, fifth, and sixth grade students during the Fall of 1997 and the Spring of 1998. This report include complete data analysis for both the Fall and the Spring administrations of the sociograms. Data analysis is provided for each disaggregate group and for subgroups of males/females and blacks/whites. The Chi-Square test for Independence was chosen to assess and evaluate the student choice patterns. The purpose of the analysis is to determine whether race/sex are significant variables in assessing student choice patterns. Chi-Square is the most appropriate statistical test for nominal data and is used to compare categorical data such as sociometric data. The evaluation null hypothesis is stated as: There is no difference in the choice patterns between student groups in choosing students of the opposite race when disaggregated by race/sex or students choice patterns are independent of race/sex. The .05 level of significance was chosen (to reject the null hypothesis). A statistical difierence is noted for inter-group probabilities of .05 or less. Contingency coefficients which are similar to other correlation coefficient are also provided as a measure of strength of the relationships. The PC utilizing the software package Statistics With Finesse was selected to analyze the data yielded by the sociograms. Sociogram data and conclusions drawn from previous reports were considered when comparing and contrasting student choice patterns when appropriate. 38Findings A total of 857 sociograms were administered in the Pulaski County Interdistrict Schools during the Fall of 1997. Black students accounted for 52.0 percent (446) of the total, while white students accounted for 48.0 percent (411). There were 759 sociograms administered in the Spring of 1998. Black students accounted for 51.6 percent (392) of the total and white students accounted for 48.4 percent (367) of the total. Students race was disaggregated for only two groupsblacks and whites. Students classified as other were counted as white students. Students were also disaggregated by gender (sex). Males accounted for 52.0 percent (445) and females accounted for 48.0 percent (411) during the Fall administration. For the Spring administration males accounted for 52.2 percent (396) and females accounted for 47.8 percent (363) of the total. Student groups were further disaggregated into four subgroups: black males, black females, white males, and white females. Disaggregated groups were contrasted and compared to assess significant differences, if any, in choice patterns for each of the subgroups. Sit Near Each student was asked to choose five students in his/her classroom that he/she would prefer to sit near. Statistical analysis of these data are presented in the tables that follow. Complete data and analysis are provided for both the Fall and the Spring administrations. Changes in statistical significance for each of the subgroups from one administration to the other as reflected by the data analysis are reported in the narrative. Disaggregated by Race Black Students Compared to White Students In the Fall of 1997 and in the Spring of 1998, no significant differences were noted in the choice patterns of students when choosing students of the opposite race to sit near when students were disaggregated by race. For the Fall administration, a Chi-Square of 3.3897 was computed yielding a Contingency Coefficient of 0.0628 and a probability of 0.6401. For the Spring administration, a Chi-square of 6.4800 was computed yielding a Contingency Coefficient of 0.0920 and a probability of 0.2623. In the Fall administration, black students, at 17.4 percent, were more likely than white students, at 9.7 percent, to choose no students of the opposite race to sit near. The same pattern was found in the Spring in choosing students of the opposite race to sit with. Black students, at 17.6 percent, and white students, at 13.1 percent, choose no students of the opposite race to sit with. The percentages for both black and white students choosing no students of the opposite race increased from the Fall to the Spring. Data and statistical analysis for both the Fall and Spring administrations of the sociograms are presented in the table that follows. 39Sociograms - Sit Near Opposite Race Black Students Compared to White Students (Fall 97) N = 857 Race/Sex Number of Students of Opposite Race Chosen Total Black Students % 51 118 136 93 38 10 446 17.4 26.5 30.5 20.9 8.5 2.2 100.0 White Students % Total % 40 9.7 91 10.6 119 123 96 26 411 29.0 237 27.6 29.9 259 30.2 23.4 189 22.1 6.3 64 7.5 1.7 17 2.0 100.0 857 100.0 0 1 2 3 4 5 7 Chi-Square Test for Independence Number of Observations Chi-Square Contingency Coefficient Degree of Freedom Probability 857 3.3897 0.0628 5 0.6401 Sociograms - Sit Near Opposite Race Black Students Compared to White Students (Spring 98) N = 759 Race/Sex Number of Students of Opposite Race Chosen Total Black Students % White Students % Total % 69 101 114 76 29 392 17.6 48 13.1 117 15.4 25.8 93 25.3 194 25.6 29.1 113 30.8 227 29.9 19.4 82 22.3 158 20.8 7.4 23 6.3 52 6.9 0.8 2.2 11 1.4 100.0 367 100.0 759 100.0 0 1 2 3 4 5 3 8 Number of Observations Chi-Square Contingency Coefficient Degree of Freedom Probability Chi-Square Test for Independence 759 6.4800 0.0920 5 0.2623 40 Disaggregated by Sex - Males Students Compared to Females Students In the Fall administration of the sociograms, sex was a significant variable when comparing the choice patterns of male and female students in choosing students of the opposite race to sit near. Males at 10.3 percent were only slightly less likely than females at 10.9 percent to choose no students of the opposite race to sit near. A Chi-Square of 13.4937 was computed that yielded a Contingency Coefficient of 0.1245 and a Probability of 0.0192. For the Spring administration of the sociograms, sex was not a significant variable when comparing the choice patterns of male and female students in choosing students of the opposite race to sit near. However, in the Spring, males (16.9 percent) were more likely than females (13.8 percent) to choose no students of the opposite race to play with. A Chi-Square of 7.7671 was computed that yielded a Contingency Coefficient of 0.1006 and a Probability of 0.1695. Tables on the following page depict sociogram data and analysis of student choice patterns for male students and female students with respect to choosing students of the opposite race to sit near for both the Fall and Spring administrations. 41Sociograms - Sit Near Opposite Race Male Students Compared to Female Students (Fall 97) N = 857 Sex Number of Students of Opposite Race Chosen Total Male Students % Female Students % Total % 46 110 135 101 46 446 10.3 45 10.9 91 10.6 24.7 127 30.9 237 27.6 30.3 124 30.2 259 30.2 22.6 88 21.4 189 22.1 10.3 18 4.4 64 7.5 1.8 2.2 17 2.0 100.0 411 100.0 857 100.0 0 1 2 3 4 5 8 9 Number of Observations Chi-Square Contingency Coefficient Degree of Freedom Probability Chi-Square Test for Independence 857 13.4937 0.1245 5 0.0192 Sociograms - Sit Near Opposite Race Male Students Compared to Female Students (Spring 98) N = 759 Sex Number of Students of Opposite Race Chosen Total Male Students % Female Students % Total % 67 86 121 90 27 396 16.9 50 13.8 117 15.4 21.7 108 29.7 194 25.6 30.6 106 29.2 227 29.9 22.7 68 18.7 158 20.8 6.8 25 6.9 52 6.9 1.3 1.7 11 1.4 100.0 363 100.0 759 100.0 0 1 2 3 4 5 5 6 Number of Observations Chi-Square Contingency Coefficient Degree of Freedom Probability Chi-Square Test for Independence 759 7.7671 0.1006 5 0.1695 42 Black Males Compared to Black Females In the Fall of 1997, sociograms were administered to 446 black students. Black males accounted for 55 percent of the total and black females accounted for 45 percent of the total. Sex was not a significant variable when comparing the choice patterns of black students in choosing students of the opposite race to sit near. A Chi-Square of 0.3378 was computed yielding a Contingency Coefficient of 0.1122 and a Probability of 0.3378. Black males at 12.3 percent were more likely than black females at 10.3 percent to choose no members of the opposite race to sit near. In the Spring of 1998, sociograms were administered to 392 black students. Respectively, males and females accounted for the same percent of total black students as in the Fall administration. As in the Fall administration, there was no significant difference between black males and females when comparing choice patterns of choosing students of the opposite race to sit near. A Chi- Square of 5.4236 was computed yielding a Contingency Coefficient of 0.1168 and a Probability of 0.3664. Black males were again more likely (20.6 percent) than females (14.0 percent) to choose no students of the opposite race to sit near. Sociogram data and analysis are depicted in the tables that follow. 43Sociograms - Sit Near Opposite Race Black Males Compared to Black Females (Fall 97) N = 446 Sex Number of Students of Opposite Race Chosen Total Male Students % Female Students % Total % 30 55 77 50 25 243 12.3 21 10.3 51 11.4 22.6 63 31.0 118 26.5 31.7 59 29.1 136 30.5 20.6 43 21.2 93 20.9 10.3 13 6.4 38 8.5 2.5 2.0 10 2.2 100.0 203 100.0 446 100.0 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 4 Number of Observations Chi-Square Contingency Coefficient Degree of Freedom Probability Chi-Square Test for Independence 446 5.6876 0.1122 5 0.3378 Sociograms - Sit Near Opposite Race Black Males Compared to Black Females (Spring 98) N = 392 Sex Number of Students of Opposite Race Chosen Total Male Students % Female Students % Total % 44 52 59 45 13 214 20.5 25 14.1 69 17.6 24.3 49 27.5 101 25.7 27.6 55 30.9 114 29.1 21.0 31 17.4 76 19.4 6.1 16 9.0 29 7.4 0.5 1.1 3 0.8 100.0 178 100.0 392 100.0 0 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 Number of Observations Chi-Square Contingency Coefficient Degree of Freedom Probability Chi-Square Test for Independence 392 5.4236 0.1168 5 0.3664 44 Black Males Compared to White Males There were 446 males in the Fall administration of the sociograms. Black males accounted for 55 percent and white males accounted for 45 percent of the total. Race was not a significant variable when comparing the choice patterns of black and white males in choosing members of the opposite race to sit near. However, black males were more likely at 12.3 percent than white mies at 7.9 percent to choose no students of the opposite race to sit near. A Chi-Square of 5.7515 was computed yielding a Contingency Coefficient of 0.1128 and a Probability of 0.3312. No significant difference was noted between black and white males in choosing students of the opposite race to sit near in the Spring administration of the sociograms. The sociograms were administered to 396 male students, 214, or 54 percent, of whom were black males and 182, or 46 percent, of whom were white males. A Chi-Square of 9.7387 was computed yielding a Contingency Coefficient of 0.1549 and a Probability of 0.0830. Data and complete analysis for both the Fall and Spring administrations of the sociograms are presented in the tables that follow. 45Sociograms - Sit Near Opposite Race Black Males Compared to White Males (Fall 98) N = 446 Race 0 Number of Students of Opposite Race Chosen 1 2 3 4 5 Total Black Students % White Students % Total % 30 55 77 50 25 243 12.3 16 7.9 46 10.3 Number of Observations Chi-Square Contingency Coefficient Degree of Freedom Probability Race Black Students % White Students % Total % 44 20.5 23 12.6 67 16.9 22.6 55 27.1 110 24.7 31.7 58 28.6 135 30.3 20.6 51 25.1 101 22.6 Chi-Square Test for Independence 10.3 21 10.3 46 10.3 2.5 1.0 8 1.8 446 5.7515 0.1128 5 0.3312 Sociograms - Sit Near Opposite Race Black Males Compared to White Males (Spring 98) N = 396 Number of Students of Opposite Race Chosen 53 59 45 13 24.3 34 18.7 86 21.7 27.6 62 34.1 121 30.6 21.0 45 24.7 90 22.7 6.1 14 7.7 27 6.8 0.5 2.2 5 1.3 100.0 203 100.0 446 100.0 Total 214 100.0 182 100.0 396 100.0 Number of Observations Chi-Square Contingency Coefficient Degree of Freedom Probability Chi-Square Test for Independence 396 9.7387 0.1549 5 0.0830 46 0 1 2 3 4 6 2 5 1 4Black Males Compared to White Females A total of 451 sociograms were administered during the Fall of 1997 to black males and white females. Black males (243) accounted for 54 percent of the total with white females (208) accounting for 46 percent of the total. Race/sex was a significant variable when comparing the choice patterns of black males and white females in choosing members of the opposite race to sit near. A Chi-Square of 13.4134 was computed yielding a Contingency Coefficient of 0.1699 and a Probability of 0.0198. Black males at 12.3 percent were more likely than white females at 11.5 percent to choose no students of the opposite race to sit near. Race/sex was not a significant variable when comparing the choice patterns of black males and white females for the Spring administration of the sociograms. A total of 399 sociograms were administered with black males accounting for 214 of the total while white females accounted for 185 of the total. A Chi-Square of 7.4947 was computed yielding a Contingency Coefficient of 0.1358 and a Probability of 0.1864. Black males at 20.6 percent were more likely than white females at 13.5 percent of choose no students of the opposite race to sit near. Data and complete analysis for both the Fall and Spring administrations of the sociograms are presented in the tables that follow. 47Sociograms - Sit Near Opposite Race Black Males Compared to White Females (Fall 97) N = 451 Race/Sex Number of Students of Opposite Race Chosen Total Black Males % 30 55 77 50 25 243 12.3 22.6 31.7 20.6 10.3 2.5 100.0 White Females % 24 64 65 45 208 11.5 30.8 31.3 21.6 2.4 2.4 100.0 Total % 54 12.0 119 26.4 142 31.5 95 21.1 30 6.6 11 2.4 451 100.0 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 5 5 Chi-Square Test for Independence Number of Observations Chi-Square Contingency Coefficient Degree of Freedom Probability 451 13.4134 0.1699 5 0.0189 Sociograms - Sit Near Opposite Race Black Males Compared to White Females (Spring 98) N = 399 Race/Sex Number of Students of Opposite Race Chosen Total Black Males % White Females % Total % 44 52 59 45 13 214 20.6 25 13.5 69 17.3 24.3 59 31.9 111 27.8 27.6 51 27.6 110 27.6 21.0 37 20.0 82 20.6 6.1 4.9 22 5.5 0.4 2.1 5 1.2 100.0 185 100.0 399 100.0 0 1 2 3 4 5 1 9 4 Number of Observations Chi-Square Contingency Coefficient Degree of Freedom Probability Chi-Square Test for Independence 399 7.4947 0.1358 5 0.1864 48 Black Females Compared to White Males A total of 406 black females and white males completed the sociograms in the Fall of 1997. Black females (203) and white males (203) each accounted for 50 percent of the total. No significant differences were noted in choosing students of the opposite race to sit near when comparing black females and white males. Black females at 10.3 percent were more likely than white males at 7.9 percent to choose no students of the opposite race to sit near. A Chi-Square of 4.4565 was computed that yielded a Contingency Coefficient of 0.1042 and a Probability of 0.4857. For the Spring administration, a total of 360 black females and white females completed the sociograms. As in the Fall administration, race/sex was not a significant variable when comparing the choice patterns of black females and white males in choosing students of the opposite race to sit near. Black females accounted for 178, or 49 percent, with white males accounting for 182, or 51 percent, of the total. Black females were more likely at 14.1 percent than white males at 12.6 percent to choose no students of the opposite race to sit near. A Chi-Square of 6.5483 was computed yielding a Contingency Coefficient of 0.1337 and a Probability of 0.2565. Complete data and analysis are provided in the tables that follow. 49Sociograms - Sit Near Opposite Race Black Females Compared to White Males (Fall 98) N = 406 Race/Sex 0 Number of Students of Opposite Race Chosen I I 1 2 3 4 5 Total Black Females % White Males % Total % 21 63 59 43 13 203 10.3 31.0 29.1 21.2 6.4 2.0 100.0 16 55 58 51 21 203 7.9 37 9.1 Number of Observations Chi-Square Contingency Coefficient Degree of Freedom Probability Race/Sex Black Females % White Males % Total % 25 14.1 23 12.6 48 13.3 27.1 118 29.1 28.6 117 28.8 25.1 94 23.1 Chi-Square Test for Independence 10.3 34 8.4 1.0 6 1.5 406 4.4565 0.1042 5 0.4857 Sociograms - Sit Near Opposite Race Black Females Compared to White Males (Spring 98) N = 360 Number of Students of Opposite Race Chosen 49 55 31 16 27.5 34 18.7 83 23.1 30.9 62 34.1 117 32.5 17.4 45 24.7 76 21.1 9.0 14 7.7 30 8.3 1.1 2.2 6 1.7 100.0 406 100.0 Total 178 100.0 182 100.0 360 100.0 Number of Obsen ations Chi-Square Contingency Coefficient Degree of Freedom Probability Chi-Square Test for Independence 360 6.5483 0.1337 5 0.2565 50 4 2 0 1 2 3 4 5 2 4 Black Females Compared to White Females Sociograms were administered to 411 female students in the Fall of 1997. Black females accounted for 203, or 49 percent, of the total with white females accounting for 208 (51 percent) of the total. Race was not a significant variable when comparing the choice patterns of black and white females in choosing members of the opposite race to sit near. White females were more likely at 11.5 percent than black females at 10.3 percent to choose no members of the opposite race to sit near. A Chi-Square of 4.1501 was computed that yielded a Contingency Coefficient of 0.1000 and a Probability of 0.5280. Race was not a significant variable in the choice patterns of black and white females in choosing members of the opposite race to sit near in the Spring administration of the sociograms. A totd of 363 sociograms were completed with black females accounting for 178, or 49 percent, of the total and white females accounting for 185, or 51 percent, of the total. Black females at 14.1 percent were slightly more likely than white females at 13.5 percent to choose no students of the opposite race to sit near. Complete data and analysis are provided in the tables that follow. 51Sociograms - Sit Near Opposite Race Black Females Compared to White Females (Fall 97) N = 411 Race Number of Students of Opposite Race Chosen Total Black Females % 21 63 59 43 13 203 10.3 31.0 29.1 21.2 6.4 2.0 100.0 White Females % 24 64 65 45 208 11.5 30.8 31.3 21.6 2.4 2.4 100.0 Total % 45 10.9 127 30.9 124 30.2 88 21.4 18 4.4 9 2.2 411 100.0 0 1 2 3 4 5 5 4 5 Chi-Square Test for Independence Number of Observations Chi-Square Contingency Coefficient Degree of Freedom Probability 411 4.1501 0.1000 5 0.5280 Sociograms - Sit Near Opposite Race Black Females Compared to White Females (Spring 98) N = 363 Race Number of Students of Opposite Race Chosen Total Black Females % 25 49 55 31 16 178 14.1 27.5 30.9 17.4 9.0 1.1 100.0 White Females % 25 59 51 37 185 13.5 31.9 27.6 20.0 4.9 2.2 100.0 Total % 50 13.8 108 29.7 106 29.2 68 18.7 25 6.9 6 1.7 363 100.0 0 1 2 3 4 5 2 9 4 Number of Observations Chi-Square Contingency Coefficient Degree of Freedom Probability Chi-Square Test for Independence 363 4.0995 0.1057 5 0.5352 52White Males Compared to White Females Sociograms were administered to 411 white students during the Fall of 1997. White males at 203 accounted for 49 percent of the total while white females at 208 accounted for 51 percent of the total. Sex was a significant variable when comparing the choice patterns of white males and white females in choosing students of the opposite race to sit near. White females at 11.5 percent were more likely than white males at 7.9 percent to choose no students of the opposite race to sit near. A Chi-Square of 14.1272 was computed yielding a Contingency Coefficient of 0.1823 and a Probability of 0.0148. Sex was not a significant variable for white males and white females in choosing students of the opposite race to sit near in the Spring administration of the sociograms. Males and females each represented approximately one-half of the total 367 white students completing the sociograms. Females at 13.5 percent were only slightly more likely than males at 12.6 percent to choose no students of the opposite race to sit near. A Chi-Square of 9.7181 was computed yielding a Contingency Coefficient of 0.1606 and a Probability of 0.0836. Complete data and a analysis are provided in the tables that follow. 53Sex Sociograms - Sit Near Opposite Race White Males Compared to White Females (Fall 97) N = 411 0 Number of Students of Opposite Race Chosen 1 2 3 4 5 Total White Males % 16 55 58 51 21 203 7.9 27.1 28.6 25.1 10.3 1.0 100.0 White Females % Total % 24 64 65 45 208 11.5 40 9.7 30.8 119 29.0 31.3 123 29.9 21.6 96 23.4 2.4 26 6.3 2.4 7 1.7 100.0 411 100.0 5 2 5 Number of Observations Chi-Square Contingency Coefficient Degree of Freedom Probability Chi-Square Test for Independence 411 14.1272 0.1823 5 0.0148 Sociograms - Sit Near Opposite Race White Males Compared to White Females (Spring 98) N = 367 Sex Number of Students of Opposite Race Chosen Total White Males % White Females % Total % 23 34 62 45 14 182 12.6 25 13.5 48 13.1 18.7 59 31.9 93 25.3 34.1 51 27.5 113 30.8 24.7 37 20.0 82 22.3 7.7 4.9 23 6.3 2.2 2.2 8 2.2 100.0 185 100.0 367 100.0 0 1 2 3 4 5 4 9 4 Number of Observations Chi-Square Contingency Coefficient Degree of Freedom Probability Chi-Square Test for Independence 367 9.7181 0.1606 5 0.0836 54 Work With Each student was asked to choose five students in his/her classroom that he/she would prefer to work with. Statistical analysis of these data are presented in the narrative and tables that follow. Complete data and analysis are provided for both the Fall and Spring administrations of the sociograms. Disaggregated by Race Black Students Compared to White Students Results of both the Fall and Spring administrations of the sociograms revealed that race was a significant variable in choosing students of the opposite race to work with when comparing black and white students. For the Fall administration, a Chi-Square of 31.7260 was computed yielding a Contingency Coefficient of 0.1889 and a Probability of 0.0001. For the Spring administration, a Chi-Square of 29.1624 was computed yielding a Contingency Coefficient of0.1924 and a Probability of 0.0001. White students were more likely than black students in both the Fall and Spring to choose no students of the opposite race. Complete data and analysis for both the Fall and Spring administrations of the sociograms are provided in the tables that follow. 55Race/Sex Sociograms - Work With Opposite Race Black Students Compared to White Students (Fall 97) N = 857 0 Number of Students of Opposite Race Chosen 1 2 3 4 5 Total Black Students % 40 88 125 117 58 18 446 9.0 19.8 28.0 26.2 13.0 4.0 100.0 White Students % 44 127 124 86 26 411 10.7 30.9 30.2 20.9 6.3 1.0 100.0 Total % 84 9.8 225 26.2 249 29.0 203 23.7 84 9.8 22 2.5 857 100.0 Number of Observations Chi-Square Contingency Coefficient Degree of Freedom Probability Chi-Square Test for Independence 857 31.7260 0.1889 5 0.0001 Sociograms - Work With Opposite Race Black Students Compared to White Students (Spring 98) N = 759 Race/Sex Number of Students of Opposite Race Chosen Total Black Students % White Students % Total % 38 84 116 105 38 11 392 9.7 48 13.1 117 15.4 Number of Observations Chi-Square Contingency Coefficient Degree of Freedom Probability 21.4 122 33.2 206 27.1 29.6 113 30.8 229 30.2 26.8 60 16.4 165 21.7 Chi-Square Test for Independence 56 9.7 21 5.7 59 7.8 2.8 0.8 14 1.8 759 29.1624 0.1924 5 0.0001 100.0 367 100.0 759 100.0 4 0 1 2 3 4 5 3 Disaggregated by Sex - Males Students Compared to Females Students In the Fall administration of the sociograms, sex was a significant variable when comparing the choice patterns of male and female students in choosing students of the opposite race to work with. Males at 8.1 percent were less likely than females at 11.7 percent to choose no students of the opposite race to work with. A Chi-Square of 19.5028 was computed that yielded a Contingency Coefficient of 0.1492 and a Probability of 0.0015. For the Spring administration of the sociograms, sex was not a significant variable when comparing the choice patterns of male and female students in choosing students of the opposite race to work with. As in the Fall, males at 10.9 percent were less likely than females at 12.1 percent to choose no students of the opposite race to play with. A Chi-Square of 10.1468 was computed that yielded a Contingency Coefficient of 0.1149 and a Probability of 0.0712. Tables on the following page depict sociogram data and analysis of student choice patterns for male students and female students in choosing students of the opposite race to work with for both the Fall and Spring administrations. 57Sociograms - Work With Opposite Race Male Students Compared to Female Students (Fall 97) N = 857 Sex Number of Students of Opposite Race Chosen Total Male Students % Female Students % Total % 36 8.1 48 11.7 84 9.8 103 116 125 51 15 446 23.1 112 27.2 215 25.1 26.0 133 32.4 249 29.0 28.0 78 19.0 203 23.7 11.4 33 8.0 84 9.8 3.4 1.7 22 2.6 100.0 411 100.0 857 100.0 0 1 2 3 4 5 7 Number of Observations Chi-Square Contingency Coefficient Degree of Freedom Probability Chi-Square Test for Independence 857 19.5028 0.1492 5 0.0015 Sociograms - Work With Opposite Race Male Students Compared to Female Students (Spring 98) N = 759 Sex Number of Students of Opposite Race Chosen Total Male Students % 43 89 129 94 33 396 10.9 22.5 32.6 23.7 8.3 2.0 100.0 Female Students % Total % 44 116 100 71 26 363 12.1 87 11.5 31.9 205 27.0 27.5 229 30.2 19.6 165 21.7 7.2 59 7.8 1.7 14 1.8 100.0 759 100.0 0 1 2 3 4 5 8 6 Number of Observations Chi-Square Contingency Coefficient Degree of Freedom Probability Chi-Square Test for Independence 759 10.1468 0.1149 5 0.0712 58 Black Males Compared to Black Females In the Fall of 1997, sociograms were administered to 446 black students. Black males accounted for 55 percent of the total with black females accounting for 45 percent of the total. Sex was a significant variable when comparing the choice patterns of black students in choosing students of the opposite race to work with. A Chi-Square of 12.7577 was computed yielding a Contingency Coefficient of 0.1668 and a Probability of 0.0258. Black females were more likely at 9.4 percent than black males at 8.6 percent to choose no members of the opposite race to work with. In the Spring of 1998, sociograms were administered to 392 black students. Males and females, respectively, accounted for the same percent of total black students as in the Fall administration. Unlike the Fall administration, there was no significant difference between black males and females when comparing choice patterns of choosing students of the opposite race to work with. A Chi-Square of 7.7672 was computed yielding a Contingency Coefficient of 0.1392 and a Probability of 0.1695. Black males were more likely (10.3 percent) than females (9.6 percent) to choose no students of the opposite race to work with. Sociogram data and analysis are depicted in the tables that follow. 59Sociograms - Work With Opposite Race Black Males Compared to Black Females (Fall 97) N = 446 Sex Number of Students of Opposite Race Chosen Total Male Students % Female Students % Total % 21 43 57 76 33 13 243 8.6 19 9.3 40 9.0 17.7 45 22.2 88 19.7 23.5 68 33.5 125 28.1 31.3 41 20.2 117 26.2 13.6 25 12.3 58 13.0 5.3 2.5 18 4.0 100.0 203 100.0 446 100.0 0 1 2 3 4 5 5 Chi-Square Test for Independence Number of Observations Chi-Square Contingency Coefficient Degree of Freedom Probability 446 12.7577 0.1668 5 0.0258 Sociograms - Work With Opposite Race Black Males Compared to Black Females (Spring 98) N = 392 Sex Number of Students of Opposite Race Chosen Total Male Students % Female Students % Total % 22 35 69 61 20 214 10.3 17 9.6 39 9.9 16.4 48 27.0 84 21.4 32.2 47 26.4 116 29.5 28.5 44 24.7 105 26.7 9.3 18 10.1 38 9.7 3.3 2.2 11 2.8 100.0 178 100.0 392 100.0 0 1 2 3 4 5 7 4 Number of Observations Chi-Square Contingency Coefficient Degree of Freedom Probability Chi-Square Test for Independence 392 7.7672 0.1392 5 0.1695 60 Black Males Compared to White Males There were 446 males in the Fall administration of the sociograms. Black males accounted for 55 percent and white males accounted for 45 percent of the total. Race was a significant variable when comparing the choice patterns of black and white males in choosing members of the opposite race to work with. However, white males were more likely at 8.6 percent than black males at 7.4 percent to choose no students of the opposite race to work with. A Chi-Square of 18.7138 was computed yielding a Contingency Coefficient of 0.2007 and a Probability of 0.0022. A significant difference was also noted between black and white males in choosing students of the opposite race to work with in the Spring administration of the sociograms. The sociograms were administered to 396 male students, 214 (54 percent) were black males and 182 (46 percent) were white males. A Chi-Square of 16.5549 was computed yielding a Contingency Coefficient of 0.2003 and a Probability of 0.0054. Data and complete analysis for both the Fall and Spring administrations of the sociograms are presented in the tables that follow. 61Sociograms - Work With Opposite Race Black Males Compared to White Males (Fall 98) N = 446 Race 0 Number of Students of Opposite Race Chosen 1 2 3 4 5 Total Black Students % 21 43 57 76 33 13 243 8.6 17.7 23.5 31.3 13.6 5.3 100.0 White Students % Total % 15 60 59 49 18 203 7.4 36 8.1 Number of Observations Chi-Square Contingency Coefficient Degree of Freedom Probability Race Black Students % 22 10.3 29.5 103 23.1 29.1 116 26.0 24.1 125 28.0 Chi-Square Test for Independence 8.9 51 11.4 1.0 15 3.4 446 18.7138 0.2007 5 0.0022 Sociograms - Work With Opposite Race Black Males Compared to White Males (Fall 98) N = 396 Number of Students of Opposite Race Chosen 35 69 61 20 16.4 32.2 28.5 9.3 3.3 100.0 446 100.0 Total 214 100.0 White Students % Total % 21 54 60 33 13 182 11.5 43 10.9 Number of Observations Chi-Square Contingency Coefficient Degree of Freedom Probability 29.7 89 22.5 33.0 129 32.6 18.1 94 23.7 Chi-Square Test for Independence 62 7.1 33 8.3 0.6 8 2.0 396 16.5549 0.2003 5 0.0054 100.0 396 100.0 2 0 1 2 3 4 5 7 1Black Males Compared to White Females A total of 451 sociograms were administered during the Fall of 1997 to black males and white females. Black males (243) accounted for 54 percent of the total and white females (208) accounted for 46 percent of the total. Race/sex was a significant variable when the choice patterns of black males and white females in choosing members of the opposite race to work with were compared. A Chi-Square of 41.3445 was computed yielding a Contingency Coefficient of 0.2898 and a Probability of 0.0001. White females at 13.9 percent were more likely than black males at 8.6 percent to choose no students of the opposite race with whom to work. Race/sex was also a significant variable when comparing the choice patterns of black males and white females for the Spring administration of the sociograms. A total of 399 sociograms were administered with black males accounting for 214 of the total while white females accounted for 185 of the total. A Chi-Square of 32.3012 was computed yielding a Contingency Coefficient of 0.2737 and a Probability of 0.0001. Black males at 10.3 percent were less likely than white females at 14.6 percent to choose no students of the opposite race with whom to work. Data and complete analysis for both the Fall and Spring administrations of the sociograms are presented in the tables that follow. 63Sociograms - Work With Opposite Race Black Males Compared to White Females (Fall 97) N = 451 Race/Sex Number of Students of Opposite Race Chosen Total Black Males % White Females % Total % 21 43 57 76 33 13 243 8.6 29 13.9 50 11.1 17.7 67 32.2 110 24.4 23.5 65 31.3 122 27.0 31.3 37 17.8 113 25.1 13.6 3.8 41 9.1 5.3 1.0 15 3.3 100.0 208 100.0 451 100.0 0 1 2 3 4 5 8 2 Chi-Square Test for Independence Number of Observations Chi-Square Contingency Coefficient Degree of Freedom Probability 451 41.3445 0.2898 5 0.0001 Sociograms - Work With Opposite Race Black Males Compared to White Females (Spring 98) N = 399 Race/Sex Number of Students of Opposite Race Chosen Total Black Males % 22 35 69 61 20 214 10.3 16.4 32.2 28.5 9.3 3.3 100.0 White Females % 27 68 53 27 185 14.6 36.8 28.6 14.6 4.3 1.1 100.0 Total % 49 12.3 103 25.8 122 30.6 88 22.0 28 7.0 9 2.3 399 100.0 0 1 2 3 4 8 5 7 2 Number of Observations Chi-Square Contingency Coefficient Degree of Freedom Probability Chi-Square Test for Independence 399 32.3012 0.2737 5 0.0001 64Black Females Compared to White Males No significant differences were noted when comparing black females and white males in choosing students of the opposite race with whom to work. Black females (9.3 percent) were more likely than white males (7.4 percent) to choose no students of the opposite race to work with. A Chi- Square of 6.3876 was computed of that yielded a Contingency Coefficient of 0.1245 and a Probability of 0.2703. As in the Fall administration, race/sex was not a significant variable when comparing the choice patterns of black females and white males in choosing students of the opposite race with whome to work. Black females were less likely (9.6 percent) than white males (11.5 percent) to choose no students of the opposite race to sit near. A Chi-Square of 6.3966 was computed yielding a Contingency Coefficient of 0.1319 and a Probability of 0.2695. Complete data and analysis are provided in the tables that follow. 65Sociograms - Work With Opposite Race Black Females Compared to White Males (Fall 98) N = 406 Race/Sex Number of Students of Opposite Race Chosen Total Black Females % White Males % Total % 19 45 68 41 25 203 9.3 15 7.4 34 8.4 22.2 60 29.5 105 25.8 33.5 59 29.1 127 31.3 20.2 49 24.1 90 22.2 12.3 18 8.9 43 10.6 2.5 1.0 7 1.7 100.0 203 100.0 406 100.0 0 1 2 3 4 5 5 2 Number of Observations Chi-Square Contingency CoefTicient Degree of Freedom Probability Chi-Square Test for Independence 406 6.3876 0.1245 5 0.2703 Sociograms - Work With Opposite Race Black Females Compared to White Males (Spring 98) N = 360 Race/Sex Number of Students of Opposite Race Chosen Total Black Females % White Males % Total % 17 48 47 44 18 178 9.6 21 11.5 38 10.6 27.0 54 29.7 102 28.3 26.4 60 33.0 107 29.7 24.7 33 18.1 77 21.4 10.1 13 7.1 31 8.6 2.2 0.6 5 1.4 100.0 182 100.0 360 100.0 0 1 2 3 4 5 4 1 Number of Observations Chi-Square Contingency Coefficient Degree of Freedom Probability Chi-Square Test for Independence 360 6.3966 0.1319 5 0.2695 66 Black Females Compared to White Females Race was a significant variable when comparing the choice patterns of black and white females in choosing members of the opposite race to work with. White females were more likely (11.5 percent) than black females (9.3 percent) to choose no members of the opposite race to work with. A Chi-Square of 16.6625 was computed that yielded a Contingency Coefficient of 0.1974 and a Probability of 0.0052 Race was a significant variable in the choice patterns of black and white females in choosing members of the opposite race to work with in the Spring administration of the sociograms. Black females at 9.6 percent were less likely than white females at 14.6 percent to choose no students of the opposite race to work with. A Chi-Square of 14.2064 was computed that yielded a Contingency Coefficient of 0.1938 and a Probability of 0.0144. Complete data and analysis are provided in the tables that follow. 67Sociograms - Work With Opposite Race Black Females Compared to White Females (Fall 97) N = 411 Race 0 Number of Students of Opposite Race Chosen 1 2 3 4 5 Total Black Females % White Females % Total % 19 45 68 41 25 203 9.3 29 13.9 48 11.7 Number of Observations Chi-Square Contingency Coefficient Degree of Freedom Probability Race Black Females % White Females % Total % 17 9.6 27 14.6 44 12.1 22.2 67 32.2 112 27.2 33.5 65 31.3 133 32.4 20.2 37 17.8 78 19.0 Chi-Square Test for Independence 12.3 3.8 33 8.0 2.5 1.0 7 1.7 411 16.6625 0.1974 5 0.0052 Sociograms - Work With Opposite Race Black Females Compared to White Females (Spring 98) N = 363 Number of Students of Opposite Race Chosen 48 47 44 18 27.0 68 36.8 116 32.0 26.4 53 28.6 100 27.5 24.7 27 14.6 71 19.6 10.1 4.3 26 7.2 2.2 1.1 6 1.6 100.0 208 100.0 411 100.0 Total 178 100.0 185 100.0 363 100.0 Number of Observations Chi-Square Contingency Coefficient Degree of Freedom Probability Chi-Square Test for Independence 363 14.2064 0.1938 5 0.0144 68 5 0 1 2 3 8 2 4 8 5 4 2White Males Compared to White Females Sex was not a significant variable when comparing the choice patterns of white males and white females in choosing students of the opposite race to work with. White females, at 13.9 percent, were more likely than white males, at 7.4 percent, to choose no students of the opposite race to work with. A Chi-Square of 10.5920 was computed yielding a Contingency Coefficient of 0.1585 and a Probability of 0.0601. Sex was not a significant variable for white males and white females in choosing students of the opposite race to work with in the Spring administration of the sociograms. Males and females each represented approximately one-half of the total 367 white students completing the sociograms. Females (14.6 percent) were only slightly more likely than males (11.5 percent) to choose no students of the opposite race to work with. A Chi-Square of 9.7178 was computed yielding a Contingency Coefficient ofO.1606 and a Probability of 0.0836. Complete data and a analysis are provided in the tables that follow. 69Sociograms - Work With Opposite Race White Males Compared to White Females (Fall 97) N = 411 Sex Number of Students of Opposite Race Chosen Total White Males % White Females % Total % 15 60 59 49 18 203 7.4 29 13.9 44 10.7 29.5 67 32.2 127 30.9 29.1 65 31.3 124 30.2 24.1 37 17.8 86 20.9 8.9 3.8 26 6.3 1.0 1.0 4 1.0 100.0 208 100.0 411 100.0 0 1 2 3 4 8 5 2 2 Chi-Square Test for Independence Number of Observations Chi-Square Contingency Coefficient Degree of Freedom Probability 411 10.5920 0.1585 5 0.0601 Sociograms - Work With Opposite Race White Males Compared to White Females (Spring 98) N = 367 Sex Number of Students of Opposite Race Chosen Total White Males % White Females % Total % 21 54 60 33 13 182 11.5 27 14.6 48 13.2 29.7 68 36.8 122 33.2 33.0 53 28.6 113 30.8 18.1 27 14.6 60 16.3 7.1 4.3 21 5.7 0.6 1.1 3 0.8 100.0 185 100.0 367 100.0 0 1 2 3 4 8 5 1 2 Number of Observations Chi-Square Contingency Coefficient Degree of Freedom Probability Chi-Square Test for Independence 367 9.7181 0.1606 5 0.0836 70 Play With Each student was asked to choose five students in his/her classroom with whom he/she would prefer to play. Statistical analysis of these data are presented in the narrative and tables that follow. Complete data and analysis are provided for both the Fall and Spring administrations of the sociograms. Disaggregated by Race Black Students Compared to White Students Race was not a significant variable in choosing students of the opposite race to play with when comparing black and white students in the Fall administration\nhowever, race was a significant variable in the Spring administration of the sociograms. For the Fall administration, a Chi-Square of 10.8172 was computed yielding a Contingency Coefficient of 0.1116 and a Probability of 0.0551. For the Spring administration, a Chi-Square of 28.4364 was computed yielding a Contingency Coefficient of 0.1900 and a Probability of 0.0001. Black students were more likely than white students in both the Fall and Spring administrations to choose no students of the opposite race with whom to play. Complete data and analysis for both the Fall and Spring administrations of the sociograms are provided in the tables that follow. 71Sociograms - Play With Opposite Race Black Students Compared to White Students (Fall 97) N = 857 Race/Sex Number of Students of Opposite Race Chosen Total Black Students % White Students % Total % 74 143 125 61 358 446 16.6 50 12.1 124 14.4 32.1 119 28.9 262 30.6 28.0 112 27.3 237 27.6 13.7 87 21.2 148 17.3 8.5 37 9.0 75 8.8 1.1 1.5 11 1.3 100.0 411 100.0 857 100.0 0 1 2 3 4 5 5 6 Chi-Square Test for Independence Number of Observations Chi-Square Contingency Coefficient Degree of Freedom Probability 857 10.8172 0.1116 5 0.0551 Sociograms - Play With Opposite Race Black Students Compared to White Students (Spring 98) N = 759 Race/Sex Number of Students of Opposite Race Chosen Total Black Students % White Students % Total % 91 124 103 50 24 392 23.2 48 13.1 139 18.3 31.6 96 26.2 220 29.0 26.3 119 32.4 222 29.2 12.8 69 18.8 119 15.7 6.1 27 7.3 51 6.7 0.0 2.2 8 1.1 100.0 367 100.0 759 100.0 0 1 2 3 4 5 0 8 Number of Observations Chi-Square Contingency Coefficient Degree of Freedom Probability Chi-Square Test for Independence 759 28.4364 0.1900 5 0.0001 72 Disaggregated by Sex - Males Students Compared to Females Students In the Fall admimstration of the sociograms, sex was a not significant variable when comparing the choice patterns of male and female students in choosing students of the opposite race to play with. Males at 12.1 percent were less likely than females at 17.0 percent to choose no students of the opposite race with whom to play. A Chi-Square of 12.8711 was computed that yielded a Contingency Coefficient of 0.1216 and a Probability of 0.0246. The Spring administration of the sociograms revealed that sex was a significant variable when comparing the choice patterns of male and female students in choosing students of the opposite race to play with. As in the Fall, males (14.7 percent) were less likely than females (22.3 percent) to choose no students of the opposite race with whom to play. A Chi-Square of 11.6914 was computed that yielded a Contingency Coefficient of 0.1232 and a Probability of 0.0393. Tables on the following page depict sociogram data and analysis of student choice patterns for male students and female students in choosing students of the opposite race to work with for both the Fall and Spring administrations. 73Sociograms - Play With Opposite Race Male Students Compared to Female Students (Fall 97) N = 857 Sex 0 Number of Students of Opposite Race Chosen 1 2 3 4 5 Total Male Students % 54 126 127 83 50 446 12.1 28.3 28.5 18.6 11.2 1.3 100.0 Female Students % 70 136 110 65 25 411 17.0 33.1 26.8 15.8 6.1 1.2 100.0 Total % 124 14.4 262 30.6 237 27.6 148 17.3 75 8.8 11 1.3 857 100.0 Number of Observations Chi-Square Contingency Coefficient Degree of Freedom Probability Chi-Square Test for Independence 857 12.8711 0.1216 5 0.0246 Sociograms - Play With Opposite Race Male Students Compared to Female Students (Spring 98) N = 759 Sex Number of Students of Opposite Race Chosen Total Male Students % Female Students % Total % 58 112 123 71 25 396 14.7 81 22.3 139 18.3 Number of Observations Chi-Square Contingency Coefficient Degree of Freedom Probability 28.4 108 29.7 220 29.0 31.1 99 27.2 222 29.2 18.0 48 13.2 119 15.7 Chi-Square Test for Independence 74 6.3 26 7.1 51 6.7 1.5 0.5 8 1.1 759 11.6914 0.1232 5 0.0393 100.0 363 100.0 759 100.0 0 1 2 3 4 6 5 5 6 2Black Males Compared to Black Females In the Fall administration of the sociograms, sex was not a significant variable when comparing the choice patterns of black students in choosing students of the opposite race to play with. A Chi-Square of 3.3305 was computed yielding a Contingency Coefficient of 0.0861 and a Probability of 0.6492. Black females (18.2 percent) were more likely than black males (15.2 percent) to choose no members of the opposite race with whom to play. In the Spring of 1998 administration of the sociograms, there was no significant difference between black males and females when comparing choice patterns of choosing students of the opposite race to play with. A Chi-Square of 4.9649 was computed yielding a Contingency Coefficient of 0.1118 and a Probability of 0.4202. Black females (25.8) were more likely than males (21.0 percent) to choose no students of the opposite race with whom to work. Sociogram data and analysis are depicted in the tables that follow. 75Sociograms - Play With Opposite Race Black Males Compared to Black Females (Fall 97) N = 446 Sex Number of Students of Opposite Race Chosen Total Male Students % Female Students % Total % 37 78 66 35 25 243 15.2 37 18.2 74 16.6 32.1 65 32.0 143 32.1 27.2 59 29.1 125 28.0 14.4 26 12.8 61 13.7 10.3 13 6.4 38 8.5 0.8 1.5 5 1.1 100.0 203 100.0 446 100.0 0 1 2 3 4 5 2 3 Number of Observations Chi-Square Contingency Coefficient Degree of Freedom Probability Chi-Square Test for Independence 446 3.3305 0.0861 5 0.6492 Sociograms - Play With Opposite Race Black Males Compared to Black Females (Spring 98) N = 392 Sex Number of Students of Opposite Race Chosen Total Male Students % Female Students % Total % 45 69 61 29 10 214 21.0 46 25.8 91 23.2 32.2 55 30.9 124 31.6 28.5 42 23.6 103 26.3 13.6 21 11.8 50 12.8 4.7 14 7.9 24 6.1 0.0 0.0 0 0.0 100.0 178 100.0 392 100.0 0 1 2 3 4 5 0 0 Number of Observations Chi-Square Contingency Coefficient Degree of Freedom Probability Chi-Square Test for Independence 392 4.9649 0.1118 5 0.4202 76Black Males Compared to White Males Race was a significant variable when comparing the choice patterns of black and white males in choosing members of the opposite race to play with in the Fall administration of the sociograms. White males were less likely at 8.4 percent than black males at 15.2 percent to choose no students of the opposite race with whom to play. A Chi-Square of 13.9749 was computed yielding a Contingency Coefficient of 0.1743 and a Probability of 0.0158. A significant difference was also noted between black and white males in choosing students of the opposite race with whom to play in the Spring administration of the sociograms. A Chi-Square of 31.8023 was computed yielding a Contingency Coefficient of 0.2730 and a Probability of 0.0001. Data and complete analysis for both the Fall and Spring administrations of the sociograms are presented in the tables that follow. 77Sociograms - Play With Opposite Race Black Males Compared to White Males (Fall 98) N = 446 Race Number of Students of Opposite Race Chosen Total Black Students % White Students % Total % 37 78 66 35 25 243 15.2 17 8.4 54 12.1 32.1 48 23.6 126 28.3 27.2 61 30.0 127 28.5 14.4 48 23.6 83 18.5 10.3 25 12.3 50 11.2 0.8 2.0 6 1.3 100.0 203 100.0 446 100.0 0 1 2 3 4 5 2 2 Chi-Square Test for Independence Number of Observations Chi-Square Contingency Coefficient Degree of Freedom Probability 446 13.9749 0.1743 5 0.0158 Sociograms - Play With Opposite Race Black Males Compared to White Males (Spring 98) N = 396 Race Number of Students of Opposite Race Chosen Total Black Students % White Students % Total % 45 69 61 29 10 214 21.0 13 7.1 58 14.6 32.2 43 23.6 112 28.3 28.5 62 34.1 123 31.1 13.6 42 18.1 71 17.9 4.7 16 8.8 26 6.6 0.0 3.3 6 1.5 100.0 182 100.0 396 100.0 0 1 2 3 4 5 0 6 Number of Observations Chi-Square Contingency CoefTicient Degree of Freedom Probability Chi-Square Test for Independence 396 31.8023 0.2730 5 0.0001 78 - I Black Males Compared to White Females Race/sex was a not significant variable when comparing the choice patterns of black males and white females in choosing members of the opposite race to play with. A Chi-Square of 4.5757 was computed yielding a Contingency Coefficient of 0.1002 and a Probability of 0.4698 White females at 15.9 percent were more likely than black males at 15.2 percent to choose no students of the opposite race with whom to play. I Race/sex was a significant variable when comparing the choice patterns of black males and white females for the Spring administration of the sociograms. A Chi-Square of 32.3012 was computed yielding a Contingency Coefficient of 0.2737 and a Probability of 0.0001 Black males at 21.1 percent were more likely than white females at 18.9 percent of choose no students of the opposite race to play with. Data and complete analysis for both the Fall and Spring administrations of the sociograms are presented in the tables that follow. I I 79Race/Sex Sociograms - Play With Opposite Race Black Males Compared to White Females (Fall 97) N = 451 0 Number of Students of Opposite Race Chosen 1 2 3 4 5 Total Black Males % White Females % Total % 37 78 66 35 25 243 15.2 33 15.9 70 15.5 Number of Observations Chi-Square Contingency Coefficient Degree of Freedom Probability Race/Sex Black Males % White Females % Total % 45 21.0 35 18.9 80 20.1 32.1 71 34.1 149 33.0 27.2 51 24.5 117 26.0 14.4 39 18.7 74 16.4 Chi-Square Test for Independence 10.3 12 5.8 37 8.2 0.8 1.0 4 0.9 451 4.5757 0.1002 5 0.4698 Sociograms - Play With Opposite Race Black Males Compared to White Females (Spring 98) N = 399 Number of Students of Opposite Race Chosen 69 61 29 10 32.2 53 28.7 122 30.7 28.5 57 30.8 118 29.6 13.6 27 14.6 56 14.1 4.7 11 5.9 20 5.0 0.0 1.1 2 0.5 100.0 208 100.0 451 100.0 Total 214 100.0 185 100.0 399 100.0 Number of Observations Chi-Square Contingency Coefficient Degree of Freedom Probability Chi-Square Test for Independence 399 32.3012 0.2737 5 0.0001 80 2 2 0 1 2 3 4 5 0 2 Black Females Compared to White Males For both the Fall and Spring administrations of the sociograms, significant differences were noted in choosing students of the opposite race with whom to play when comparing black females and white males. Black females at 18.2 percent were more likely than white males at 8.4 percent to choose no students of the opposite race with whom to play in the Fall adininistration. A Chi- Square of 20.4711 was computed of that yielded a Contingency Coefficient of 0.2191 and a Probability of 0.0010. In the Spring administration, race/sex continued to be a significant variable when comparing the choice patterns of black females and white males in choosing students of the opposite race to play with. Black females (25.8 percent) were more likely than white males (7.1 percent) to choose no students of the opposite race with whom to play. A Chi-Square of 36.7830 was computed yielding a Contingency Coefficient of 0.3041 and a Probability of 0.0001. Complete data and analysis are provided in the tables that follow. 81Sociograms - Play With Opposite Race Black Females Compared to White Males (Fall 98) N = 406 ace/Sex Number of Students of Opposite Race Chosen Total Black Females % White Males % Total % 37 65 59 26 13 203 18.2 17 8.4 54 1.3 32.0 48 23.7 113 27.8 29.1 61 30.0 120 29.6 12.8 48 23.6 74 18.2 6.4 25 12.3 38 9.4 1.5 2.0 7 1.7 100.0 203 100.0 406 100.0 0 1 2 3 4 5 3 4 Chi-Square Test for Independence Number of Observations Chi-Square Contingency Coefficient Degree of Freedom Probability 406 20.4711 0.2191 5 0.0001 Sociograms - Play With Opposite Race Black Females Compared to White Males (Spring 98) N = 360 Race/Sex Number of Students of Opposite Race Chosen Total Black Females % White Males % Total % 46 55 42 21 14 178 25.8 13 7.1 59 16.4 30.9 43 23.6 98 27.2 23.6 62 34.1 104 28.9 11.8 42 23.1 63 17.5 7.9 16 8.8 30 8.3 0.0 3.3 6 1.7 100.0 182 100.0 360 100.0 0 1 2 3 4 5 0 6 Number of Observations Chi-Square Contingency Coefficient Degree of Freedom Probability Chi-Square Test for Independence 360 36.7830 0.3041 5 0.0001 82 Black Females Compared to White Females Race was not a significant variable when comparing the choice patterns of black and white females in choosing members of the opposite race to play with for either the Fall or Spring administrations of the sociograms. For the Fall, white females (15.8 percent) were less likely at than black females (18.2 percent) to choose no members of the opposite race with whom to work. A Chi-Square of 3.8548 was computed that yielded a Contingency Coefficient of 0.0964 and a Probability of 0.5705. In the Spring administration of the sociograms, a Chi-Square of 7.0720 was computed yielding a Contingency Coefficient of 0.1381 and a Probability of 0.2153. Black females (25.8 percent) were less likely than white females (18.9 percent) to choose no students of the opposite race with whom to work. Complete data and analysis are provided in the tables that follow. 83Sociograms - Play With Opposite Race Black Females Compared to White Females (Fall 97) N = 411 Race Number of Students of Opposite Race Chosen Total Black Females % White Females % Total % 37 65 59 26 13 203 18.2 33 15.8 70 17.0 32.0 71 34.1 136 33.1 29.1 51 24.5 110 26.8 12.8 39 18.8 65 15.8 6.4 12 5.8 25 6.1 1.5 1.0 5 1.2 100.0 208 100.0 411 100.0 0 1 2 3 4 5 3 2 Chi-Square Test for Independence Number of Observations Chi-Square Contingency Coefficient Degree of Freedom Probability 411 3.8548 0.0964 5 0.5705 Sociograms - Play With Opposite Race Black Females Compared to White Females (Spring 98) N = 363 Race Number of Students of Opposite Race Chosen Total Black Females % White Females % Total % 46 55 42 21 14 178 25.8 35 18.9 81 22.3 30.9 53 28.7 108 29.8 23.6 57 30.8 99 27.2 11.8 27 14.6 48 13.2 7.9 11 5.9 25 6.9 0.0 1.1 2 .6 100.0 185 100.0 363 100.0 0 1 2 3 4 5 0 2 Number of Observations Chi-Square Contingency Coefficient Degree of Freedom Probability Chi-Square Test for Independence 363 7.0720 0.1381 5 0.2153 84 White Males Compared to White Females Sex was a significant variable when comparing the choice patterns of white males and white females in choosing students of the opposite race to play with. White females (15.8 percent) were more likely than white males (8.4 percent) to choose no students of the opposite race to with whom to play. For the Fall administration, a Chi-Square of 16.5651 was computed yielding a Contingency Coefficient of 0.1968 and a Probability of 0.0054. Sex continued to be a significant variable for white males and white females in choosing students of the opposite race to play with in the Spring administration of the sociograms. Females, at 18.9 percent, were more likely than males, at 7.1 percent, to choose no students of the opposite race to play with. A Chi-Square of 17.4985 was computed yielding a Contingency Coefficient of 0.2133 and a Probability of 0.0036. Complete data and a analysis are provided in the tables that follow. 85Sex Sociograms - Play With Opposite Race White Males Compared to White Females (Fall 97) N = 411 0 Number of Students of Opposite Race Chosen 1 2 3 4 5 Total White Males % White Females % Total % 17 48 61 48 25 203 8.4 33 15.8 50 12.1 Number of Observations Chi-Square Contingency Coefficient Degree of Freedom Probability Sex White Males % White Females % Total % 13 7.1 35 18.9 48 13.1 23.7 71 34.1 119 28.9 30.0 51 24.5 112 27.3 23.6 39 18.8 87 21.2 Chi-Square Test for Independence 12.3 12 5.8 37 9.0 2.0 1.0 6 1.5 411 16.5651 0.1968 5 0.0054 Sociograms - Play With Opposite Race White Males Compared to White Females (Spring 98) N = 367 Number of Students of Opposite Race Chosen 43 62 42 16 23.6 53 28.7 96 26.1 34.1 57 30.8 119 32.4 23.1 27 14.6 69 18.8 8.8 11 5.9 27 7.4 3.3 1.1 8 2.2 100.0 208 100.0 411 100.0 Total 182 100.0 185 100.0 367 100.0 Number of Observations Chi-Square Contingency Coefficient Degree of Freedom Probability Chi-Square Test for Independence 367 17.4985 0.2133 5 0.0036 86 4 2 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 2 Summary - Social Interactions (sociograms) The table below summarizes the data analysis for the sociograms administered in the Fall of 1997 and Spring of 1998. Summary- Sociograms Fall 1997 - Spring 1998 Probabilities / Categories I Sociogram Categories Fall/ Spring Black/ White Males/ Female BM/ BF BM/ WM BM/ WF BF/ WM BF/ WF WM/ WF .6401 .0192* .3378 .3312 .0189* .4857 .5280 .0148* F Sit Near .2623 .1695 .3664 .0830 .1864 .2565 .5352 .0836 S .0001** .0015* .0258* .0022** .0001** .2703 .0052* .0601 Work With .0001** .0712 .1695 .0054** .0001** .2695 .0144* .0836 .0551 .0246* .6492 .0158* .4698 .0010** .5705 .0054** Play With .0001** .0393* .4202 .0001* .0001** .0001** .2153 .0036 F S F S * Significant at the .05 level\n** Significant at the .01 level Black Students Compared to White Students Race was not significant when comparing white students to black students for choosing students of the opposite race to sit near, race was significant in choosing students of the opposite race with whom to work\nand race was inconclusive when choosing students of the opposite race with whom to play. Male Students Compared to Females Students Sex was inconclusive when comparing male and female students in choosing students of the opposite race to sit near and with whom to work\nand significant when choosing members of the opposite race with whom to play. Black Males Compared to Black Females Sex was not significant when comparing black males and black females in choosing students of the opposite race to sit near and with whom to play and inconclusive when choosing students of the opposite race with whom to work. 87Black Males Compared to White Males Race was not a significant variable when comparing black males and white males in choosing students of the opposite race to sit near\nand race was a significant variable when students of the opposite race chose with whom they wanted to work and play. Black Males and White Females Race/sex was inconclusive when comparing black males and white females in choosing students of the opposite race to sit near and with whom to play\nand race/sex was significant when students of the opposite race choose with whom they wanted to work. Black Females and White Males Race/sex was not significant when comparing black females and white males choices of which students of the opposite race they want to sit near or with whom they want to work\nyet, race/sex was significant when students chose peers with whom they wanted to play. Black Females and White Females Race was not significant when comparing black females and white females in choosing students of the opposite race to sit near or with whom to play\nyet, race was significant when choosing students of the opposite race with whom to work. White Males and White Females Sex was inconclusive when comparing white males and white females in choosing students of the opposite race to sit near and with whom to play\nand sex was not significant when choosing students of the opposite race with whom to work. 88D. Site Visits -Student Interactions Is there evidence revealed by data collected during site visits of stereotyping, graffiti and name calling? Is there evidence of student isolation and solidarity? Site visits by the research evaluation team were scheduled for May 12-13, 1998. Each magnet school site was visited by two evaluation team members. The visits were scheduled for approximately a half day, including observations of lunch periods at all sites and recess periods at elementary sites. The team consisted of five professionals fiom Arkansas State University and one from The University of Arkansas, Pine Bluff. Team members possessed competencies in speciality areas of elementary, middle level, and secondary education, as well as education administration and program evaluation. Team member also had experience in evaluating magnet school programs. The purpose of the site visits was to collect data relevant to the assessment of project activities. Each magnet school site visit lasted for a half-day, including both classroom and non-classroom activities. Forms developed for previous evaluation were used to record and codify data collected during the observation. Both qualitative and quantitative data were collected. Stereotyping and name calling Team members observed students during movement in halls between classes and other scheduled activities. Student were also observed during lunch periods and recess periods by at least one team member. The purpose of these observations was to determine whether students used any offensive or racial language or behaviors during general movement and\\or student interaction activities. Observation responses relative to use of offensive language and name calling are provided on PCIMS, Form 1, page 2. 4. Students (were .0. were not_7_) observed using racial slurs and inappropriate language during play. lO.There (was_0_ was not_8_ ) any offensive or racial language or behavior observed during the lunch period. Graffiti Evaluation team members were asked to observe whether or not there were graffiti and\\or offensive language written on walls in the restrooms, halls, and other places in the building. Responses were recorded on PCIMS, Form 1, page 2. 11. There (was_0. was not 8 ) any racial graffiti observed on the walls in the halls, bathrooms, and other places in the buildings. 89Student isolation and solidarity Student isolation and solidarity were not observed by the evaluation team. Students were observed associating in small groups which were disproportionate by race (many members of one race and few of another race) during lunch periods at the secondary schools. Seating behaviors tended to reflect segregation by peer-interest group rather than by race. Groups did not tend to segregate themselves from other groups. Playground Observations Team members were asked to observe playground activities in order to assess the activities of students relative to interaction patterns. Playground activities were observed only at the elementary magnet school sites. Responses from observation forms (PCIMS 1) were used to record the observations of team members. Team member observations are presented below. 1, Student play activities were: (directed_J_ not directed 7 ) 2. If student play activities are not directed, students tend to\nchoose playmates (without 4 with 3 ) regard to race\nchoose playmates (without 2 with 5 ) regard to gender. 3. There (was 0 was not ) evidence of student isolation or solidarity during playground activities. 4. Students (were 0 were not 8 ) observed using racial slurs and inappropriate language during play time. Cafeteria Observations Team members observed the cafeteria at each of the magnet school sites. Data were collected on the appropriate forms and are presented below. Lunchroom observations were made at all magnet school sites. 5. Seating arrangements appeared to be based on: (student choice 4 student assignment 7 ) Seating arrangements at the elementary schools appeared to be on some assignment basis. Students appeared to come to the lunchroom from the classroom in some predetermined manner (lined-up) and took seats in the same order as they took their lunch trays. Seating arrangements at the secondary schools appeared to be by choice. 901 ! 1 i 1 6. If seating arrangements appeared to be by student choice students tend to\nchoose seat mates (with 2 without 2 ) regard to race. choose seat mates (with 0 without 4 ) regard to gender. As mentioned previously, students tend to associate in peer groups which were disproportionate by race (a dominance of one race or the other, but inclusive of both races). These peer groups did not tend to segregate on the basis of the race. 7. 8. 9. Teachers (remained 0 did not remain 11 ) with students while the students were eating. There (was 0 was not 11 ) any visible distinction by race for students who ate free or reduced lunch or paid full price. The cafeteria staff was composed of: Black Males White Males Black Females White Females Other The data from this portion of PCIMS, form 1, are presented in the section B, Staffing Patterns. Cafeteria staff appeared to interact with each other and with students and professional staff without regard to race. 10. There (was 0 was not 11 ) any offensive or racial language or behaviors observed during the lunch period. Halls Team members observed students as they passed from classes and other activities at the secondary schools. Interactions patterns between students were noted and recorded (PCIMS, Form 1). classes. 12. Students (did 1 did not 3 ) appear to associate by race while passing between During regular class period changes, students tended to go from class to class without appearance of any bi-racial associations. However, during extended periods, such as lunch periods, students tended to associate in small single race, and\\or mixed race groups. 91E. Site Visits (Student-Staff Interactions) What are the interactions of administrators, staff and students and between teachers, and students and between students and other students. Professional team members were asked to complete observation forms (PCIMS 1, 3) to assess the interactions of administrators, teachers, staff, and students. Observations were in both instructional and non-instructional settings. Playground, lunchroom, and hallway conduct was monitored to note the interaction patterns of staff and students. Interaction patterns of students and classified staff were noted in the previous section. Certified Instructional Staff - Students Data regarding the number, race, and gender of certified staff are presented in the Section B of this section and labeled Certified Staff. Classroom observations for at least one-half hour were also scheduled in order to record student-teacher interactions patterns (PCIMS 2). Student- certified staff interaction patterns appeared to be without regard to race and gender. Classroom Observation Professional team members visited 25 classrooms during the two-day site visit. One purpose of the classroom visit was to gather data regarding student seating arrangements relative to desegregation goals. Classrooms representing all grades were visited. Classes involving all disciplines, as well as the fine and performing arts were observed. Data were recorded (PCIMS 3) relative to the seating arrangements in classrooms and student interactions patterns with teachers. Page two of PCIMS 3 is designed to note the interaction of teachers and student by race and gender. 6. Seating arrangements: Assignment: Assigned 14 Unassigned 9 Could not determine _2_ By race: Segregated 0 Integrated 23 Could not determine _2_ By gender: Segregated 2 Integrated 22 Could not determine _]_ Assigned seating was typically observed at the elementary level, while in most classrooms at the secondary level, unassigned seating was noted. No classes were observed that had segregated seating by race. However, in two classes at the secondary level, evaluation as to whether or not there was segregated seating by race could not be determined due to limited enrollment present of both races. 92There were two classes appropriately segregated by gender in order to engage in class activities. Certified Staff - Administrators No formal evaluation instruments were designed to note the interaction patterns between staff and administrators. During site visits, administrators and staff appeared to interact without regard to race or gender. Both certified staff and administrators appeared to have a clear focus on the nature of the magnet school to which they were assigned and spoke of each other in very complimentary and supportive ways. Students - Administrators Administrator-student interactions were observed to be very typical. Students were polite and administrators appeared respectful of students. 93Summary Findings A. Enrollment Data * The Office of The Magnet Review Committee staff continues to provide enrollment opportunities for students in the Little Rock School District, North Little Rock School District, and the Pulaski County Special School District. Allotment rates continue to be above the 95 percent level. B. Staffing Patterns * White females continue to constitute the majority of certified staff, and black females make up the majority of the classified staff. C. Social Interactions -Students * Race/sex was significant when comparing: Work With: Play With\nBlack/Whites: Black MalesAVhite Males: Black Males/White Females: Black Females/White Males Males/Females: Black Males/White Males Black Females/White Males Sit Near\nData were inconslusive D. Site Visits * There was no evidence of stereotyping, graffiti, and name calling noted during the site visits. No evidence of student isolation or solidarity was observed. E. Interaction Patterns - Staff Interaction patterns between certified staff and students, as well as, classified staff and students appeared to be without regard to race or sex. Observations of classified staff revealed no interaction patterns based on race or sex. 94PULASKI COUNTY INTERDISTRICT MAGNET SCHOOL EVALUATION Formative Evaluation: Magnet Theme Background The purpose of this formative evaluation is to gain insight into the assessment of objectives in expected outcomes listed below: Magnet Theme to provide evaluation activities to assess the existence of a sound educational core program and an existing magnet theme as provided by the magnet school program. A. What are the magnet school themes available to students in the Pulaski County Interdistrict Magnet School Program? B. Are magnet school programs available to students as provided by magnet school policies and procedures? C. Is there a coherent magnet theme in place at each of the magnet school sites? D. Are instructional and non-instructional personnel resources necessary to support the magnet school program in place at each of the magnet school sites? METHODS\\FINDINGS Procedures and methods were developed to provide information relative to the evaluation objectives. Data were furnished by the Magnet Review Office and the principals office at each of the magnet schools. Forms were developed to assist in data collection and presentations reflect the times at which data were collected and may differ according to the primary purposes for data collection activities. Magnet school publications and printed materials were provided to the evaluator by the Magnet Review Office, as well as the principals office at each site. 95A. Magnet Themes What are the magnet school themes available in the Pulaski County Interdistrict Magnet School Program? Pulaski County Interdistrict Magnet Schools continue to offer a variety of magnet school themes at the elementary and secondary level. Elementary themes are provided at four elementary sites and secondary themes at one junior high and one senior high site. The names of the students and school choices from all applications received are placed in the computer after the initial application period. The computer software internally matches students who have applied with the seats available for placement. Students are assigned to a magnet school as they have been selected. Those students who applied but were not assigned are ordered numerically and placed on a waiting list for assignment as seats become available. Sites Themes Booker Arts Magnet School offers student in grades K-6 an environment of spontaneity, freedom of expression, individuality, and creativity. Booker offers a strong emphasis on the arts, coupled with high academic standards in the basic courses. Reading, writing, grammar, spelling, math, social studies, and science are enhanced with a fine arts emphasis. Students learn by experiencing creative movement, by hearing and performing music, and by creating and seeing art. Students engage in performances for their classmates and parents and both during and after school hours.. \u0026gt;5 Carver Basic Skills/Math Science Magnet focuses on developing A Pathway to Excellence. The staff recognizes that Carver students are culturally diverse and a reflection of a pluralistic society. They strive to promote understanding and respect for individual and cultural differences. It is the staffs philosophy that all children develop self-directed responsible behaviors and an intrinsic life-long love of learning. Teachers believe that all can learn through active participation in a process-focused curriculum. Gibbs International Studies/Foreign Language Magnet School offers an International studies program based upon the belief that people are more alike than different. The curriculum is based in part on universals of culture or commonalities of all people. Each grade level has a different cultural focus. The foreign language program is based on the belief that young children can attain the noviceproficient level in foreign languages. The following languages are offered beginning at the kindergarten level: French, German, and Spanish. Foreign language specialists provide instruction 96on a daily basis. Williams Basic Skills Magnet School boasts high academic achievement with a structured discipline plan creating an environment conducive to learning, and strong parental involvement. Williams is a high-performance, high-expectations school that best serves responsible students who learn well in a highly structured environment and are motivated by competition in all program areas. Williams students subscribe and adhere to a strict dress code policy believing that students who demonstrate discipline in appearance tend to transfer that same discipline into behavior and learning. Uniforms are mandatory for all students. Mann Arts and Science Magnet Schools boasts of motivated and energetic students and staff and numerous course offering. This junior high school houses grades 7,8, and 9. The school consists of two different curricular programs: the School of Sciences and the School of Arts. In the School of Science, students participate in traditional and required curriculum of English, science, mathematics, and social studies, and, in addition, take a laboratory science class. Every student is required to complete a research project each year. In the School of Arts, students also take the traditional and required curriculum, and in addition, participate in courses focused on selected areas of concentration: visual arts, drama, dance, or music. Parkview Arts and Sciences Magnet School offers students that opportunity to choose expanded and specialized courses the arts and sciences. The total educational curriculum is enhanced by a variety of extracurricular and athletic opportunities. Students enrolled in the Fine Arts Magnet Program select an area of emphasis from the arts: dance, drama, instrumental music, orchestra, visual arts, or vocal music. Students follow an expanded curriculum in their specialized area. The Science Magnet Program combines the high-tech speciality science courses with a magnet curriculum that will prepare students for an undergraduate, pre-professional, or technical major in the area of medicine and health. B. Program Availability Are magnet school programs available to students as provided by magnet school policies and procedures? 97Enrollment for the total magnet school program for the 1997-98 school year was 3706, about the same as for the 1996-97 school year of 3709. Black students accounted for 51.9 percent of the total student population, up .1 percent from the previous year. White students accounted for 44.9 percent of the total number of students, up from 43.6 percent in the 1996-97 school year. The number of other students declined from 4.4 percent for the previous year to 3.9 percent in 1997- 98. Black females continue to constitute the largest subgroup of students. The charts below depicts the percentages of students for black, white, and other students for the past two years. The percentage enrollment of black and white students has remained approximately the same for the past two years Enrollment by Race - Comparison 1996-97/1997-98 Enrollment by Race 1996-97 Enrollment by Race 1997-98 [ B M 24.e% | I B F 27.1% [ I B M 24.5% ] M\\F 4.4% I I W M 20 J%1 Vt f 221^ I [V M 20.7% I M I MV' W F 23.5* I I I Black Males I White Males r~l others 1^ Black Females I White Females Black Males While Males Others B Black Females I White Females [ 0 The largest group of students is black females (27.4 %), followed closely by black males (24.5%), and white females (23.5%). White males made up 20.7 percent, with students classified as others making up 3.9 percent. Females constituted 50.9 percent and males made up 45.2 percent of the total. Other students, males and females, accounted for 3.9 percent. 98C. Coherent Magnet Theme Is there a coherent magnet theme in place at each of the magnet school sites? Classroom Visits A total of thirty-eight (38) classrooms were visited by the evaluation team. Twenty-one (21) elementary classrooms and seventeen (17) secondary classroom were visited. The secondary classrooms by subject matter included: Science Art Math Dance (2) (2) (4) (1) English (4) Social Studies (3) Chorus (1) Evaluation forms (PCIMS 3) were designed to gather data on the assessment of magnet school activities relative to the goals and objectives. Response total for items may not be equal due to the responses recorded by evaluation team members and multiple responses provided for some items. Team members were asked to observe three or more classrooms at each site for at least a 20 minute uninterrupted time period. In some instances, class schedules and student activity may not have allowed for uninterrupted observation. The first three items on PCIMS, Form 3 relate to school name, sex and race of the teacher, grade level, type class, number of students, and classroom seating. The responses for these items have been included in other portions of this report. Items 7,8, and 9 relate to support of the magnet school theme through instruction and non- instructional supplies and materials. Item 10 relates to the instructional practices of teachers in the classrooms observed by the evaluation team. Item 7. Classroom space and equipment appear to be appropriate for the magnet theme, the particular class and class activities: Yes 35 No 4 Item 8. Bulletin boards, displays, posters student work and other items reflect the magnet theme: Yes 30 No 9 In general, secondary classrooms and the buildings tend to rely less on displays and other practices that appear more appropriate for elementary students. 99Item 9. Non-text materials and resources are available in the classroom that support the magnet theme. Yes 29 No 7 Secondary class assignments appeared to require students to utilize the media center/computer laboratory resources. Item 10. Evaluators were asked to record the type of instructional activities used in the classrooms they observed. Responses were as follows: Lecture: Guided Practice Other 7 18 2* Student Presentation Independent Work 11 7 In one elementary class (Carver), the students and teacher were discussing research procedures. Questions and answers flowed from, to, and among students and the teacher. The most predominant instructional methodology was guided practice, followed by student presentation. Instructional activities appeared to be appropriate for the level, discipline, and class activities in which students were engaged. Evaluation Team Comments Very strong discipline and classroom management. Outstanding musical performance. Staff appears to function as a unit. Subject matter integrated well into lesson content. Strong instructional program. 100Summary Findings * PCIMS offers a variety of magnet school programs for students who reside in the three Pulaski County school districts. * Magnet school placement and assignment procedures are in compliance with policies approved by the MRC. * Instructional and non-instructional resources appear to be adequate and in place to support the various programs offered by PCIMS. * There is very strong evidence of a coherent magnet theme at each of the PCIMS sites. 101PULASKI COUNTY INTERDISTRICT MAGNET SCHOOL EVALUATION Summative Evaluation: January 30,1999 The purpose of this summative evaluation is to make an overall assessment with regard to the total magnet program. The scope of this evaluation covers magnet school objectives relative to student achievement, desegregation, and magnet theme during the 1997-98 school year. Conclusions and summary findings are drawn from the insights gained from the review of the literature, previous magnet school evaluations, site visits, and analysis of data collected for the 1997-98 school year. Valuable data were provided by the Arkansas Department of Education, the Little Rock School District Office of Planning, Research and Development, and the office of the Executive Director of the Magnet Review Committee. CONCLUSIONS Student Achievement He * Magnet school students perform better on standardized tests than students across the nation, the state and in the LRSD. He * Both black and white students continue to perform better on standardized tests than like-type students across the state and in the LRSD. HtHt Test score disparities are about the same as in previous reports, although disparities at grade levels may change from one project year to the next. Desegregation *He The Office of the Magnet Review Committee staff provides maximum enrollment opportunities for students in the Little Rock, North Little Rock and Pulaksi County school districts. A* White females continue to constitute the majority of certified staff with black females accounting for a majority of classified staff. Race/sex was not significant in choice patterns of black and white students in choosing students of the opposite race to sit near. Race/sex was inconclusive as a variable in choice patterns of black and white students in choosing member of the opposite race to work with and play with. 102Magnet Theme ft ft A sound educational core program and a coherent magnet theme are provided at each of the magnet school sites. SUMMARY CONCLUSION ft * * Pulaski County Interdistrict Magnet Schools continue to manifest compelling evidence of fulfilling their purposes and expectations for providing maximum educational opportunities for students in the Little Rock School District, the North Little Rock School District, and the Pulaski County School District. 103APPENDIX 104 PCIMS-3 PULASKI COUNTY INTERDISTRICT MAGNET SCHOOL EVALUATION 1997-98 CLASSROOM OBSERVATION (complete 3 or more, 20 minutes uninterrupted) I. School 2. Teacher (no name) Sex: Race: M B F_ W 0 3. Grade 4. Type class (Eng. Math, ie.) 5. Number/Race of students: Black Males Black Females White Males White Females Others total blacks total females total others Total 6. Classroom seating arrangements: Assignment (check one): By race By gender Assigned ___ Segregated ___ Segregated___ Unassigned___ Integrated ___ Integrated ___ Other comments about seating: 7. Classroom space and equipment appear to be appropriate for the magnet theme, the particular class and class activities: Yes No 8. Bulletin boards, displays, posters, student work and other items reflect the magnet theme: Yes No 9. Non-text materials and resources are available in the classroom that support the magnet theme: Yes___ No 10. Presentation (check all that apply): Lecture: Student Presentation: Guided Practice: Independent Work: Test: OtherSTUDENT INTERACTION OBSERVATION (please note student-teacher-student communication) Teacher\nThis project was supported in part by a Digitizing Hidden Special Collections and Archives project grant from The Andrew W. Mellon Foundation and Council on Library and Information Resoources.\n \n\n \n\n \n\n\n \n\n \n\n \n\n\n \n\n \n\n \n\n\n \n\n \n\n \n\n \n\n \n\n \n\n\n \n\n \n\n \n\n\n\n \n\n \n\n \n\n\n \n\n \n\n \n\n \n\n \n\n\n \n\n \n\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n \n\n \n\n\n\n \n\n\n \n\n\n\n \n\n\n\n "},{"id":"bcas_bcmss0837_987","title":"Discipline: ''Analysis of Disciplinary Actions, District Level,'' 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":["1997/1998"],"dcterms_description":null,"dc_format":["application/pdf"],"dcterms_identifier":null,"dcterms_language":["eng"],"dcterms_publisher":["Little Rock, Ark. : Butler Center for Arkansas Studies. Central Arkansas Library System"],"dc_relation":null,"dc_right":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC-EDU/1.0/"],"dcterms_is_part_of":["Office of Desegregation Monitoring records (BC.MSS.08.37)","History of Segregation and Integration of Arkansas's Educational System"],"dcterms_subject":["Little Rock (Ark.)--History--20th century","North Little Rock School District","Education--Arkansas","Education--Evaluation","School discipline","Educational statistics"],"dcterms_title":["Discipline: ''Analysis of Disciplinary Actions, District Level,'' 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/987"],"dcterms_temporal":null,"dcterms_rights_holder":null,"dcterms_bibliographic_citation":null,"dlg_local_right":["Available for use in research, teaching, and private study. Any other use requires permission from the Butler Center."],"dcterms_medium":["documents (object genre)"],"dcterms_extent":["324 pages"],"dlg_subject_personal":null,"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":"\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n \n\n\n \n\n \n\n\n \n\n\n \n\n\n\n\n \n\n\n\n\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n \n\n \n\n \n\n\n \n\n \n\n \n\n\n \n\n \n\n \n\n\n \n\n \n\n \n\n\n \n\n \n\n \n\nThe transcript for this item was created using Optical Character Recognition (OCR) and may contain some errors.\nII q q II ~ ~ ~ ~ II NORTH L1TTL ROCl{ SCHOOL D1STR1CT RECEIVED JUL 7 1998 OFFIOCFE DESEGREMGAOTNIIOTNO RING ANALYSIS 0f DISCIPLINARY ACTI0NS DISTRICT LEVEL ll@~7/c~rnJ FRANCICAL J. JACKSON Director of Student Affairs RECEIVED JUL 7 1998 OFFIOCFE DESEGREMGAOTNIIOTNO RING NORTH l1TTL ROCl{ PVBllC SCHOOLS DISCIPLINARY ACTIC,NS DISTRICT LEVEL FROM: AUGUST 1997 THRU: JUNE 1998 D18032 e 6/ 1 7 /98 8: 27: i .i Analysis of Disciplinary Actions DISTRICT LEVEL From AU(\nUST Thro u g h JUi'ff ===~=========================================---------==----=====------====== i9'?'6-97 =~=======================-==============---------------------------------------- -----BM------ -----BF------ # REF PCT/TOT # REF PCT/TOT # STU # STU -----NBM----# REF PCT/TOT # STU -----NBF----# REF PCT /TOT # STU =~==~~==============================-==--===-------====------------------------- '- A. c- 1219 5i. 57: 552 23. 3% 454 i9. .,:\ni=. ,. 142 6. U - :,\n. 2367 483 269 243 84 1079 HCH\"iF SUSP. 460 61. 5% 179 23. 6% 10i i3. 3~,: i2 i. 6~\n- 758 ,-,::\n--, c:. ...-.t ::_ 108 61 9 430 BDVS CLUB 356 58. 7~,: i 1~6 24. 1,,\n. 84 13. 9o/: 20 '', \"' 3% 606 200 95 66 ~?O 381 i::. I. C. 154 70. 3% 30 13. 7% 32 14. 6% 3 1. 4% 219 65 i2 14 ~, i=. 93 F.J.f\"\"ULSION 3 30. 01/. 7 70. 0% 0 0% 0 01/. 10 3 7 0 0 10 1 9 9 7 - 9 8 ~~-==================~===========================================-=======--===== ,- .. :., {\\ . C. ,10ME SUSP. COV:J CLUB ... [. C. E,ff'ULSI ON ------Br1-----# REF PCT/TOT # STU 1805 53. 9'1/. 670 ~-1 1 67. q, 'I . ~69 ~) 16 65. a1 279 0 0% 0 7 58. 3% 7 -----BF------ # REF PCT /TOT # STU 863 ,c:\ni=.w. 8% 4ii 125 16. bi~ 78 148 18. 91/. o, , C. 0 O~i. 0 5 4 i. 7% 5 -----NBM----- # REF PCT/TOT # STU 550 16. 4'1/. 278 104 1.3. 8 ., 1. 67 112 14. 3'1/. 73 0 0% 0 0 Ot. 0 -----NBF----# REF PCT/TOT # STU 132 --,,. 9 94 13 1. 7% 10 8 i. 0% 6 0 0% 0 0 o,\n0 3350 i453 753 424 784 450 0 0 12 12 ~~-==~=========================================================================== COMPARISON -=========:=====-============================================================ S. 1\\ C. f-1DME SUSP. 80'{3 CLUB '-- l C. EXPULSION -----BM------ -----BF------ -----NBM----- -----NBF----# REF PCT(+/--l # REF PCT(+/-l # REF PCT(+/-l # REF PCT(+/-) # STU # STU # STU # STU 586 48. 1 ,~ 311 56.3 I. 96 21. 1 ,: 10- 7. 0-\n. 187 142 35 10 45 9. 7 I. 54- 30.2-\n. 3 3. 0 I. 1 8 . '_\"J_ , I. 17 30- 6 1 160 44. 9 % 2 1. 4 % 28 33. 3 ,~ 12- 60. o-,\n79 3- 7 14- 154- 100. 0-% 30- i00.0-% 32- 100. 0-\n. 3- 100. 0-% 65- 12- 14- 2- 4 i3:3. 3 'X 2- 28. 6-1/. 0 .0 1\n0 .0 1\n4 2- 0 0 983 374 5- 6- 178 69 219- 93- 2 2 DIS032 6/17/98 8:27:24 Analysis of Disciplinary Actions HIGH SCHOOLS From AUGUST Through JUNE ----~------------------------------------------------------------------------ :!.996-97 ~===~=~============-============-=====------------------------------------------ .. -----DM------ -----BF------ # REF PCT/TOT # REF PCT/TOT # STU # STU -----rJBM----# REF PCT /TOT # STU -----r-lBF----# REF PCT/TOT # STU ====:=======~============================-=------=====-----------------====--- S. (\\ ,~~. 64i .C_::,'\".J_ ,_6 /: .-,i..\"J .,,, 0'1/. 209 i 7. 5/: 82 6. 9'1/. 1195 c:.-1-I c:..c:.. . 268 137 110 50 565 : Ci~if: SUSP 8 57 1 '1/. 6 4 ., c::.. 9:,\n0 Oi'\n0 0'1/. 14 8 6 0 0 14 81]'-r'S CLUI:l 1.91 65. 9'l. 60 20. 7'1/. 32 11. Qi'\n7 c,:,.. 4'1/. 290 115 4:3 26 7 191 E l. C. 0 Ot. 0 0'1/. 0 Ot. 0 o,\n0 0 0 0 0 0 i::/PULSION 0 0'1/. 6 iOO. 0'1/. 0 0'1/. 0 0'1/. 6 0 6 0 0 6 ===~===================================================---------===========--- l 9 9 7 - 9 8 ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- -----BM------ -----BF------ -----NBM----- -----NBF----- # REF PCT/TOT # REF PCT/TOT # REF PCT /TOT # REF PCT /TOT # STU # STU # STU # STU -~========================================================--================== s A C. 738 50. 4'1/. 397 27. 1% 270 18. 5% 58 4. 0% 1463 274 190 132 44 640 '-1\\JME SUSP. ii 1 63. 41/. 31 17. 7% 28 16. O'i'\n5 2. 9'1/. 175 43 14 17 2 76 BOY':::\u0026gt; CLUB .-,.,,., c:.c:.c:. 72 . 1'1/. 37 12. O'l. 48 15. 6'1/. 1 31/. 308 125 29 36 1 191 E 1 C. 0 0'1/. 0 0'1/. 0 0'1/. 0 O'l. 0 0 0 0 0 0 EX!'ULSION 2 28. 6'1/. 5 71. 4'1/. 0 0'1/. 0 O'l. 7 2 5 0 0 7 :--=========================================================~=================== COMPARISON ~-==~==============:======================================-=================== -----BM------ -----BF------ -----NBM----- -----NBF----- # REF PCT(+/-)# REF PCT(+/-i # REF PCT(+/-) # REF PCT(+/-i # STU # STU # STU # STU ~-==~========================================================================= 5 A. C. 97 15. 1 '1/. 134 51. 0 '1/. 61 29. 2 '1/. 24- 29. 3-'l. 268 6 53 22 6- 75 i10r1E SUSP. 103 1287. 5 '1/. 25 416. 7 '1/. 28 2800. 0 '1/. 5 500. 0 % 161 35 8 17 ., c:. 62 ' BOVS CLUB 31 16. 2 'l. 23- 38. 3-'1/. 16 50. 0 '1/. 6- 85. 7-'1/. 18 10 i4- 10 6- 0 E. [ C. 0 .0 1/. 0 .0 '1/. 0 .0 '1/. 0 .0 '1/. 0 0 0 0 0 0 F. X tULS ION ., t::.. 200. 0 '1/. 1- 16. 7-'1/. 0 .0 '1/. 0 .0 'l. 1 ', c:. 1- 0 0 1 DIS032 e: 6/17/98 8:27:19 Analysis of Disciplinary Actions MIDDLE SCHOOLS From AUGUST Through JUNE l 9 9 6 - 9 7 -----B:~------- ti REF PCT /TOT # STU -----BF------ H REF PCT/TOT # STU -----NBM----# REF PCT/TOT # STU -----NBF----# REF PCT/TOT # STU --------------------- ---------------------------------------------------------- 578 49. 3% 289 24. 215 i32 - HCwif SUSP. 3 60. 0% ., c:.. 40. 3 .-, c:.. DCt'r'\nCLUB i65 :-:7, c:... --,':li 86 27 . C:..I 85 52 E i. C. 0 0% 0 () 0 F:XF'ULSION i 50. 0% i 50. 1 i 7% 245 133 0% 0 0 . -,=\n52 C:..I 40 0% 0 0 0% 0 0 20. 9'i. . 0% . 0% 60 34 0 0 i3 13 0 0 0 0 5. 1% ii 72 5i4 U -,,-,. 5 5 4. io/. 3i6 190 U -,,-,. 0 0 0% ., c:.. ., c:.. -===================~========================================================= 1 9 9 7 - 9 8 -----RM------ -----BF------ -----NBM----- -----NBF----- # REF PCT/TOT # REF PCT/TOT # REF PCT /TOT # REF PCT /TOT # STU # STU # STU # STU ~============================================================================= s c'\\. C. 714 54. 3'1/. 359 27. 3% 181 13. 8% 62 4. 7'1/. 1316 252 161 99 40 552 i!OME SUSP. 72 63. ...,., l l. 27 23. 9'1/. 11 9. 7'1/. 3 2. 7'1/. 113 31 16 7 3 57 BO''l'S CLUB 243 63. 8'1/. 85 ,..,.., c...-::... 3'1/. 46 12. 1 '1/. 7 1. 8'1/. 381 124 35 29 5 213 E [ .~ 0 0% 0 01/. 0 0'i. 0 0'1/. 0 0 0 0 0 0 EX F'Li1-SI Ol'J 2 100. 0% 0 U -,,,- 0 0% 0 0'i. ,. .. ., c:.. .-. 0 0 0 ', c:.. c:.. -===========~===~============================================================= COMPARISON --=========================================================================== -----BM------ -----BF------ -----NBM----- -----NBF----# REF ?CT(+/-)# REF PCT(+/-)# REF PCT(+/-) # REF PCT(+/-) # STU # STU # STU # STU ----=========:================================================================ s (\\ C. 136 23. 5 '1/. 70 24.2 '1/. 64- 26. 1-% 2 3.3 '1/. 144 37 29 34- 6 38 r-iCIME SUSP. 69 2300.0 '1/. 25 1250.0 'l. 11 1100.0 'l. 3 300.0 'l. 108 28 14 7 3 52 BiJ'lS CL\\JB 78 47. 3 1/. 1- 1. 2--:,\n6- 11. 5-% 6- 46. 2-'1/. 65 39 3 11- 8- 23 !:. I C. 0 .0 ,~ 0 .0 ,: 0 .0 ,: 0 .0 i'~ 0 0 0 0 0 0 E/PULSION 1 i00.0 ~~ i- 100 0-\"i 0 .0 ,: 0 .0 '1/. 0 1 1- 0 0 0 DIS032 2. 6/17/98 D: 27: 14 Analysis cf Disciplinary Actions ELEMENTARY K-6 From AUGUST Through JUNE ~===============-======~====--=====------------------------------------------ i9'?\"6-97 _c--=--:------~----========-----=--===--===---=----------=---------------------- -----BM------ -----BF------ -----NBM----- -----NBF----# REF PCT/TOT # REF PCT/TOT # REF PCT/TOT # REF PCT/TOT # STU # STU # STU # STU -~=================--=--=-----=-=----------------------------------------------- S. i\\. C. HDriE St..iSP. BiJ~i'S C Lt)B 0 0 455 242 , .. V 0 154 65 0 i7i 1 ()0 0 0 30 i2 .-,.-, ~...,J. 1.-.-.:.\n. . ()I'\n0 0 i ~{ 10i 6i o~.1: 0 0 7% \"'.l7 '-'\"'- 14 . 0% i3. 7/. 0 0 i2 9 0 0 .3, c.. . 0% 1 . . ..1,1.1,1.. j 0 0 739 412 0 0 219 93 ,1 E/PULSION c7. . 100. 01~ 0 0 Qi'\n0 . 0'1/. 0 0 ., c.. 2 0 2 ====================================-=========-=========-----------=~==-==--- i 9 9 7 - 9 8 - -~===============-------~-=========-------=-=--========---------------------- ,. 0. A. C. ,. HOMJ= SUSP. .i 1 BOV~, CL.UB -------Hi\"i------# REF PCT/TOT # STU 353 61. 8% 144 328 70. 5,\n. w 5i 53. Ti. -----BF------ # REF PCT /TOT # STU 107 18. 7% 60 67 14. 4 ,,\n. 48 26 27. 4% -----NBM----- # REF PCT/TOT # STU 99 17. 3~,: 48 65 14. 0% 43 18 i8. 9% -----NBF------# REF PCT /TOT # STU 12 2. 1% 10 5 i. i ~,: 5 0 0% 571 262 465 293 95 qE. 30 8 8 0 46 t. C. 0 Oo/. 0 0% 0 U-=\n, . 0 0% 0 0 0 0 0 0 l 7 Ei('Ui_SION 'C--j ' iOO. 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 3 3 0 0 0 3 m========-===========================================================-=======- :,q , i .t. :.:::.. COMPARISON ---=============--------===========----------------=------------------------- -----BM------ -----BF------ -----NBM----- -----NBF----# REF PCT(+/-)# REF PCT(+/-) # REF PCT(+/-) # REF PCT(+/-) # STU # STU # STU # STU ----============-----------===================-========-----=---==========--- S. ,\\ C. 353 35300. 0 i'~ 107 10700. 0 1/. 99 9900. 0 i'~ 12 1200.0 % 571 144 60 48 10 262 !10ME SUSP. 127- 27. 9-% 104- 60. 8-i. 36- 35.6-% 7- 58.3-'1/. 274- 45- 52- 18- 4- 119- BOYS CLUB 51 5100. 0 o/. 26 2600. 0 % 18 1800. 0 % 0 .0 '1/. 95 30 8 8 0 46 E 1. C. 154- iOO. 0-,\n30- 100. 0-i'\n32- 100. 0-% 3- 100. 0-' 219- 65- 12- 14- 2- 93- EXPULSION 1 50. 0 % 0 .0 ,\n0 .0 '1/. 0 .0 ,\n1 i 0 0 0 1 DIS032S e: 6/17/96 8:27:27 oo). 012 Analysis of Disciplinary Actions by School From AUGUST Through JUNE NORTH LITTLE ROCK HIGH SCHOOL - 11/12 ====-==---------------------------------------------------------------------- 1 9 9 6 - 9 7 :=-==~====================-=--=--=--==----===----------------------------------- :. 7 -----BM------ -----BF------ # REF PCT/TOT # REF PCT/TOT # STU # STU -----NBM----- # REF PCT /TOT # STU -----NBF----~ REF PCT/TOT # STU ===~=====================================================---=-----------=-=-= C: 1\\ C. 160 56. i\n,\n45 i 5. 8'1/. -..J. 9i 38 dOt-ii: SUSP. \"7 - 40. O. .\".J. ., 60. O. 2 3 BOIS CLUB 40 70. 2. 9 i 5. 8. :34 8 ~ r. C. 0 Qi'\n0 O. 0 0 EXPULSION 0 0% 2 100. 0% 0 2 i 9 9 7 - 9 8 -----BM------ -----BF------ # REF PCT/TOT # REF PCT/TOT # STU # STU i53 49. 8 .,,. 92 30. 0 .,,. 99 64 H0J-1E SUSP. 6 60. o\n,\n3 30. 0'1/. ~, c:. 7 c:.. 44 83. o~~ 5 9. 4 ,\n. 33 5 0 01/. 0 01/. 0 0 0 o:,,\n0 O'Y. 0 0 60 2i. i 'I. 42 0 0'1/. 0 7 1.-, c:... 3. 7 0 O. 0 0 0% 0 -----NBM----# Rl::t- t-'C I / I U I # STU 47 15. 3 .,,. 38 1 10. 0% i 4 -,\n. 5% 4 0 o:,,\n0 0 O'Y. 0 20 7. o\n,\n14 0 o~~ 0 1 j__ Bi'\n1 0 O. 0 0 O. 0 -----NBF----' lf Hl::t- t-'CI/IUI # STU 15 4. 9. 15 0 0'1/. 0 0 U - ,,,.. 0 0 0% 0 0 O'Y. 0 285 185 5 5 57 50 0 0 \"\"I c:. \"\"I C. 307 216 10 5 53 42 0 0 0 0 -~--=~=========================================================================== COMPARISON ---============================================================================= -----fiM------ -----BF------ -----NBM----- -----NBF----# REF PCT(+/-) # REF PCT(+/-)# REF PCT(+/-) # REF PCT(+/-) # STU # STU # STU # STU . ---=========-================================================================== ~ (\\ C. 7- 4. 4-'Y. 47 104. 4 'i': 13- 21. 7-'1/. 5- 25. 0-'1/. 22 8 26 4- 1 31 iOME SUSP. 4 200. 0 'l. 0 0 'l. 1 100. 0 'l. 0 0 '1/. 5 0 1- 1 0 0 BtJY:3 cLUB 4 10. 0 1\n4- 44. 4-\"1/. 3- 42. 9-'1/. 1- 100. 0-'1/. 4- 1- .,_ ._, 3- 1- 8- - I. C. 0 0 ,~ 0 0 /~ 0 .0 ,: 0 0 '1/. 0 0 0 0 0 0 i::lPULSION 0 0 1\n2- 100. 0-\"1/. 0 0 'i': 0 0 '1/. 2- () 2- 0 0 2- D!S0325 Analysis of Disciplinary Actions 6/17/98 by School 8:27:34 From AUGUST Through JUNE 013 NORTH LITTLE ROCK HIGH SCHOOL - 09/10 ====~==--------====-----===------=------====-------------------=====----==~-= i 9 9 6 - 9 7 -----BM------ -----BF------ -----NBM----- -----NBF----# REF PCT/TOT # REF PCT/TOT # REF PCT/TOT w ~~~ ~c111uT ff STU # STU # STU ~ STU ~---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 481 5 '\") 9~,~ 2i8 24. 0% i48 16. -J7!.j \"- 6'.J 6. 81/. 909 .., ,. i78 99 67 36 380 SUE:P. 6 66. 7% 3 33. 3% 0 01/. 0 U - ,,\n. 9 6 3 0 0 9 CLUB i5i 64. Bo/: 5i 2i. 9% 25 iO. 1=\n6 ., , ,. 61/. 233 \"- Bi 35 19 6 i4i 0 01/. 0 0% 0 01/. 0 Oo/. 0 0 0 0 0 0 EXPULSIOi'i 0 01/. 4 iOO. O 0 Oo/. 0 O 4 0 4 0 0 4 --============================================================================= i 9 9 7 - 9 8 -----BM------ # REF PCT/TOT # STU -----BF------ # REF PCT/TOT # STU -----NBM----- # REF PCT/TOT # STU -----NBF----# REF PCT/TOT # STU --=========================================================================== 584 50. 6 307 26. 6'1/. 220 19. 0'1/. 44 3. 8/ 1155 176 129 93 30 428 SUSP. ., ._, 75. 0'1/. 0 . 0'1/. 1 25. o,\n0 . 0'1/. 4 \") 0 1 0 4 ..I CLUB 177 69. 7'1/. 32 12. 6'1/. 44 17. 3'1/. 1 . 4'1/. 254 91 24 32 1 148 0 . 0'1/. 0 . Qi'\n0 . o,\n0 . o,\n0 C, 0 0 0 0 EXPULSI hi .2, 28. 6,\n5 71. 4'1/. 0 . Oi'\n0 . 0% 7 c.. 5 0 0 7 --=======--================================================================== COMPARISON -----=~==============-========-================================================= -----BM------ -----BF------ -----NBM----- -----NBF----# REF PCT(+/-)# REF PCT(+/-) # REF PCT(+/-) # REF PCT(+/-) tt STU # STU # STU # STU =~==-================~==================~======================================= 103,, _ 21. 4 '1/. 89 40. 8 '1/. 72 48. 6 '1/. 18- 29. 0-'1/. 246 r. 30 26 6- 48 SUSP. 3- 50. 0-'1/. 3- 100. 0-'1/. 1 100. 0 '1/. 0 .0 '1/. 5- 3- 3- 1 0 5- CLUB 26 17.2 '1/. 19- 37. 3-'1/. 19 76. 0 I. 5- 83. 3- 21 10 11- 13 5- 7 0 .0 '1/. 0 .0 '1/. 0 .0 ',I . 0 .0 '1/. 0 0 0 0 0 0 2~ . 200. 0 o/. 1 25. 0 '1/. 0 .0 0 .0 o/. 3 \"- 1 0 0 3 DIS032:J e. 6/17/98 8: 27: 3S OGJ. 020 Analysis of Disciplinary Actions by School From AUGUST Through JUNE ARGENTA ACADEMY l 9 9 6 - 9 7 -----BM------ # REF PCT/TOT # STU -----BF------ # REF PCT/TOT # STU -----t'IIBM----# REF PCT/TOT # STU -----f'JB F ----# REF PCT/TOT # STU -=~-==========================================================------==-----=== ....,_ ('. C . 0 o,: 0 01: 0 Or: 0 o:,: 0 (j 0 0 0 0 :+Jfi-= f:USP. 0 Of~ 0 o,\n0 Or: 0 Or: 0 \u0026lt;) 0 0 0 0 8J]'i:3 CLUB 0 Or: 0 0 .,, . 0 0%: 0 Or: 0 0 0 0 0 0\n:_ I. C. 0 01: 0 0% 0 0%: 0 O'l. 0 0 0 0 0 0 E1sPULSION 0 0'1/. 0 0'1/. 0 0'1/. 0 0'1/. 0 0 0 0 0 0 =~============================================================================== i 9 9 7 - 9 8 ------BM------ # REF PCT/TOT # STU -----BF------- # REF PCT/TOT # STU -----NBM----# REF PCT /TOT # STU -----NBF----- # REF PCT/TOT # STU - ~==========================================================-=========~========= s A 'r-. 1 100. 01. 0 . 01. 0 . 0'1/. 0 . 0'1/. 1 1 0 0 0 1 !-l1Ji'1E SIJSP. 186 64. 1\n. 57 19. 7% 40 13. 8% 7 ,, ,::... 4'.1/. 290 70 25 21 4 120 EO'y'S CLUB 0 O'l. 0 . 0% 0 . 0Y. 0 . 0'1/. 0 0 0 0 0 0\n:: t !\" 0 . 01/. 0 . 0% 0 . 0'i. 0 . 0Y. 0 0 0 0 0 0 r..XF'ULSI OH 0 . Oo/. 0 . Oo/\n0 . 0% 0 '0% 0 0 0 0 0 0 =~==~========================================================================= COMPARISON --========================================================-====-============== -----BM------ -----BF------ -----NBM----- -----NBF----- # REF PCT(+/-i # REF PCT(+/-i # REF PCT(+/-) # REF PCT(+/-) # STU # STU # STU # STU --=~================~========================================================== .::\n(\\ C. 1 100. 0 'l. 0 0 '1/. 0 0 '1/. 0 0 Y. 1 1 0 0 0 1 -FJt-1E SUSP. 186 18600. 0 Y. 57 5700. 0 '1/. 40 4000. 0 '1/. 7 700. 0 Y. 290 70 25 21 4 120 BO''/S CLUB 0 0 '1/. 0 0 '1/. 0 0 '1/. 0 0 Y. 0 0 0 0 0 0 ,. i. C. 0 0 % 0 0 i'~ 0 0 ~~ 0 0 Y. 0 0 0 0 0 0 E.\u0026lt;PULSION 0 0 :~ 0 0\n. 0 0 i': 0 0 'l. 0 0 0 0 0 0 DIS0323 t-/17/98 .\u0026gt;JO). 024 Analysis of Disciplinary Actions by School From AUGUST Through JUNE RTDGEROAD MIDDLE SCHOOL i 9 9 6 - 9 7 ----~- r~M------ # REF PCT /TOT # STU -----BF------ -----NBM----# REF PCT/TOT # REF PCT/TOT # STU # STU -----NBF----# REF PCT/TOT # STU ~============================================================================= s t-. C. 360 51. .-,.,. 176 .-\n,,=_ O\nC.I, 126 i 7. 9'1/. 41 5. 8'1/. 703 .,__..,_ ,. 1i6 7-3 62 2i 272 i-iCiMi:: SUSP. i 50. 01/. i 50. 01/. 0 0% 0 OY. --\nC'.. i i 0 0 --\nC. BD'i'S CLUB 93 55. 0% 40 2 , -.J. 7% 26 15. 4i': 10 5. 9% 169 40 27 .,., c.c. 10 99 --- I. C. Ci 0'1/. 0 Oi': 0 o,\n0 0'1/. 0 0 0 0 0 0 EXPULSION 0 0% 1 100. 0% 0 0% 0 Or. 1 Ci i 0 0 1 =-====~========================================================================= i 9 9 7 - 9 8 ~===~========================================================================= -----BM------ tt REF PCT/TOT # STU -----BF------ # REF PCT/TOT # STU -----NBM----# REF PCT/TOT # STU -----NBF----# REF PCT/TOT # STU - ~===:========================================================================== s A C. 416 54. 8'1/. 209 27. 5'1/. 95 12. 5% 39 5. 1 '1/. 759 125 80 43 23 27i t-i0i'1E SUSP. 4 40. 0'1/. 3 30. 0% 2 20. 0'1/. 1 10. 0'1/. 10 4 3 2 i 10 BOYS CLUB 124 6 ~, \"' 6'1/. 41 20. 7'1/. 29 14. 6'1/. 4 2. 0'1/. 198 62 28 16 ~, C. 108 E T. C: 0 0'1/. 0 0'1/. 0 . 01/. 0 . 01/. 0 0 0 0 0 0 F:\u0026lt;fULSION c~.., i00. O,\n. 0 . Oi'.: 0 . 0'1/. 0 Or. 2 ~, c.. 0 0 0 2 - ============================================================================= COMPARISON ----=========~=========-======================================================== -----B~------ -----BF------ -----NBM----- -----NBF----# REF PCT(+/-)# REF PCT(+/-)# REF PCT(+/-)# REF PCT(+/-) # STU # STU # STU # STU -~=--============================-============================================== S. t\\. r 56 15.6 '1/. ~.-.\",':). ..., 18. 8 '1/. 31- 24. 6-% 2- 4. 9-% 56 9 7 19- ,, ca. 1- HOME SUSP. ...,, 300.0 1/. 2 200.0 1/. 2 200. 0 1/. 1 100.0 r. 8 ., -., --\n2 1 8 ,:. Bovs CLUB 31 33.3 I i ., cc. 5 '1/. 3 11. 5 1: 6- 60. 0-'1/. 29 22 1 6- 8- 9 t:.. I. C. 0 .0 1/. 0 .0 i'\n0 .0 i'\n0 .0 '1/. 0 0 0 0 0 0 i::lPULSION 2 200. 0 '1/. 1- 100. 0-1/. 0 .0 i'~ 0 .0 r. 1 2 1- 0 0 1 e: Analysis of Disciplinary Actions by School - i n1e. DIS032S 6/17/98 8:27:42 o:ic:\nFrom AUGUST Through JUNE ~ , oo l: LAKEWOOD MIDDLE SCHOOL ---------------------------------------------------------------------===-==== i 9 9 6 - 9 7 ------ -----------------------------------------------------------------------== '!. 7' # REF PCT/TOT # STU -----BF------ # REF PCT/TOT # STU -----NBM----# REF PCTiTDT # STU -----tmF----# REF PCTiTOT # STU ~==========--==========-=----====----====-----===----=====-----------========== S. \" ,~ 1, ~, i24 49. 81/. 64 25. 71/. 52 20. 91/. 9 3.6% 249 58 40 39 5 142 HDi\"iE SUSP. i 100, 01/. 0 01/. 0 o,\n0 o,\n1 1 0 0 0 1 B!J'{S CLUB 35 58.3'1/. 19 31, 7'1/. 6 10. o,\n0 0% 60 ~'J C::,.,J 14 3 0 40 ,_ I. C. 0 Oi'\n0 0'1/. 0 . 0'1/. 0 0'1/. 0 0 0 0 0 0 EXPULSION 1 100. 0'1/. 0 0'1/. 0 0'1/. 0 0% 1 1 0 0 0 i -----=========================================================================== 1 9 9 7 - 9 8 -----BM------ -----BF------ # REF PCT/TOT # REF PCT/TOT U STU # STU -----NBM----# REF PCT/TOT # STU -----NBF----# REF PCT/TOT # STU -==:=============-============================================================= C -' !'\u0026gt;.. C 144 54. 5'1/. /4 28. 0'1/. 40 15. 21. 6 ~, ,:,., 3'1/. 264 68 40 27 6 141 HOME SUSP. 1 33. 3o/. i 33. 3% 1 33. 31/. 0 0% 3 1 1 1 0 3 BDYS CLUB 4i 67. 2o/. i6 26. 2% 4 6. 6% 0 0% 61 25 9 3 0 37 E. 1. C 0 0% 0 0% 0 01/. 0 0% 0 0 0 0 0 0 EXPULSION 0 0'1/. 0 01. 0 0'1/. 0 0'1/. 0 0 0 0 0 0 ~w~--==============~============================================================ COMPARISON ---==:============-============================================================ C' (',. C. ..J, HOME SUSP. BOV3 CLUB [. I. C. i::XPULSION -----HM------ -----BF------ -----NBM----- -----NBF----# REF PCT(+/-) # REF PCT(+/-)# REF PCT(+/-) # REF PCT(+/-) # STU # STU # STU # STU 20 16. 1 '1/. 10 15.6 I. 12- ',,:',J.- ,, 1-'1/. 3- 33.3-'1/. 10 0 12- 1 0 0 '1/. i 100. 0 '1/. 1 100. 0 '1/. 0 0 % 0 l 1 0 6 17. 1 '1/. 3- 15.8-'1/. 2- 33. 3-'1/. 0 0 '1/. .-, 5- 0 0 c.. 0 0 1\n0 0 7\n0 0 '1/. 0 .0 '1/. 0 0 0 0 i- 100. 0-'1/. 0 0 '1/. 0 0 i'~ 0 0 '1/. i- 0 0 0 15 1- 2 2 1 3- 0 0 1- 1- [IS032S e. 6/17/98 u11e: 8:27:45 Q,'J J. 026 Analysis of Disciplinary Actions by School From AUGUST Through JUNE ROSE CITY MIDDLE SCHOOL ===:==================-===-=======--====-----------===---------------=------- i 9 9 6 - 9 7 _____ .n.r.,.r,' i _ ____ _ # REF P\u0026lt;::T/T DT # STU -----BF------ -----NBM----- -----NBF----- # REF PCT/TOT # REF PCT/TOT # REF PCT/TOT # STU # STU # STU =~=~============~============================================================ t.\\ C. 94 /1\"1 5~~ 49 '\")'\") ,..,., - . ...,..,__ c:.c:.. C:. /a 46 \u0026gt;\"'1 c:.=- HCJt1\"ES.U SP. (j 0i'\ni i00. 0i'\n0 1 r3G'{S CLUB 37 4 ~, c:.. 5 .,,., 27 31. 0'1/. 7'\"J C:....J i4 i:: I C. 0 0'i 0 0'1/. 0 0 E:\u0026lt;:PUi_SION 0 0i'\n0 O'i. 0 0 1 9 9 7 - 9 8 -----BM------ -----BF------ # REF PCT/TOT # REF PCT/TOT # STU # STU s A. C. 155 52. 4'1/.. 75 25. 3% 67 42 riJMi= SUSP. ~, c:.. 66. 7% 1 33. 3% ~, c:.. 1 BOYS CLUB 78 63, 9% 28 23. 01: 40 19 E. [. c.: 0 01/. 0 01/. 0 0 F. X PULS I Oi'l 0 0% 0 0% 0 0 COMPARISON 68 30. o\n\\.Jlo :33 0 0'i. 0 20 23. 0/~ 15 0 0% 0 0 0% 0 -----NBM----# REF PCT/TOT # STU 49 16. 6% 30 0 0i': 0 13 10. 7% 10 0 0% 0 0 0% 0 10 4. c:\nj -.JI 8 0 01/. 0 .\".J. , 3. 41/. 3 0 o,\n0 0 0'1/. 0 -----NBF----# REF PCT/TOT # STU 17 5. 7% 11 0 0% 0 3 r\nc:.. So/\n3 0 01/. 0 0 01/. 0 221 109 i 1 87 55 0 0 0 0 296 150 3 3 i22 72 0 0 0 0 -============================================================================= -----Br'!------ -----BF------ -----NBM----- -----NBF----- # REF PCT(+/-) # REF PCT(+/-) # REF PCT(+/-) # REF PCT(+/-) # STU # STU # STU # STU ~~~-=~=========================================================================== .C_ , (\\ C. 61 64. 9 1/. 26 53. 1 % 19- 27. 9-1/. 7 70. 0 I. 75 21 20 3- 3 41 rl01'1E SUSP. 2 200. 0 '1/. 0 0 '1/. 0 0 1/. 0 0 % 2 2 0 0 0 2 BOYS CLUB 41 i 10. 8\n1 3. 7 1/. 7- 35. 0- 0 0 I. 35 17 5 5- 0 17 l:: I. C. 0 .0 1/. 0 0 '1/. 0 0 1/. 0 0 '1/. 0 0 0 0 0 0 E:\u0026lt;PULSION 0 0 '1/. 0 0 '1/. 0 0 1/. 0 0 '1/. 0 0 0 0 0 0 c:- DIS032S 6/17/98 8:27:46 030 A. , '-' HCJiiF SUSP. BDVS Ci...UB E. r. C. EXPULSION Analysis of Disciplinary Actions by School From AUGUST Through JUNE POPLAR STREET MIDDLE SCHOOL i 9 9 6 - 9 7 -----BM------ # REF PCT/TOT # STU ij U -,\nI 0 0 0% 0 0 01/. 0 0 01/. 0 0 01/. 0 -----BF------ # REF PCT/TOT # STU 0 o~~ 0 0 0o/: 0 0 01/. 0 0 0o/: 0 0 0'1/. 0 1 9 9 7 - 9 8 -----BM------ # REF PCT/TOT # STU -----BF------ # REF PCT/TOT # STU -----NBM----- # REF PCT/TOT # STU 0 01/. 0 0 01/. 0 0 0% 0 0 01/. 0 0 0% 0 -----NBM----- # REF PCT/TOT # STU -----NBF----# REF PCT /TOT # STU 0 01/. 0 0 01/. 0 0 01/. 0 0 01/. 0 0 0'1/. 0 -----NBF----- # REF PCT/TOT # STU 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ============================================================================= ::' l\\. C. 273 57. o:,,\n98 20. 5'l. 98 20. 5,: 10 r\n-' \"'-. 1 '1/. 479 108 52 47 8 215 HDrE SUSP. 10 83. 3:,:. 2 16. 71 0 0'1/. 0 0'1/. 12 9 . .., .::. 0 0 11 BiJV3 CLUB 52 54.2'1/. 26 27. 1 '1/. 18 18. Br. 0 . 0'1/. 96 :31 JL_ JL 0 47 E I. C 0 . o,: 0 O'l. 0 . o,: 0 . 0% 0 (j 0 0 0 0 EX:PULSION .-.:l. ., 100. o,: 0 0o/: 0 0'1/. 0 . 0'1/. 3 \":} .., 0 0 0 3 =~=======~=================================================================== COMPARISON ----============================================================================ -----Bi\"l------ -----BF------ -----NBM----- -----NBF----- # REF PGT(+/-i # REF PCT(+/-) # REF PCT(+/-i # REF PCT(+/-i # STU # STU # STU # STU =---==-=========================================================================\n:, A. C. 273 27300. 0 I. 98 9800. 0 I. 98 9800. 0 '1/. 10 1000. 0 '1/. 479 108 52 47 8 215 HOliE SUSP. 10 1000. 0 '1/. ,.., C. 200. 0 I. 0 0 '1/. 0 0 '1/. 12 9 ~, C. 0 0 11 :5D'Y5 CLUB 52 5200. 0 '1/. 26 2600. 0 I. 18 1800. 0 '1/. 0 0 '1/. 96 31 8 8 0 47 E. 1. C. 0 0 ,\n. 0 0 /. 0 0 '1/. 0 0 '1/. 0 0 0 0 0 0 EXPULSION 3 300 0 % 0 0 I. 0 0 % 0 0 I. 3 3 0 0 0 3 DIS032S :.e: l,/17/98 8: 27: 4.:,\n,col: 031 AMBOY Analysis of Disciplinary Actions by School From AUGUST Through JUNE ELEMENTARYS CHOOL ====-===================-===========--=======---------------------------------- i 9 9 6 - 9 7 -----BM------ # REF PCT /TOT # STU -----BF------ # REF PCT/TOT # STU -----NBM----# REF PCT/TOT # STU -----NBF----# REF PCT /TOT :ii' STU -==---=---------------------------------------------------------------------- s A ,.-. 0 0% 0 0% 0 0 HDi'iF. SUSP. 5 45. 51/. 0 0% 5 0 Bm 1S CLUB 0 01/. 0 0% 0 0 - I. C. 0 o~~ 0 o~~ 0 0 Eif'ULSION 0 0'1/. 0 0% 0 0 i 9 9 7 - 9 8 -----HM------ -----BF------ # REF FCT/TOT # REF PCT/TOT # STU # STU S. i\\. C. 0 . 0% 0 . 0'1/. 0 0 ilDl'iE SUSP. :J3 68. 8% 5 10. 4% 18 5 BOYS CLUB 0 . O'l. 0 . 0'1/. 0 0 E I. C 0 . 0'1/. 0 . 0'1/. 0 0 '1:::-\u0026lt;:PULSIOhi 0 . O'l. 0 . 0% 0 0 0 0% 0 6 54. 5% 6 0 0% 0 0 0'1/. 0 0 0% 0 -----NBM----# REF PCT/TOT # STU 0 . 0% 0 10 20.8'1/. 7 0 . 0'1/. 0 0 . 0'1/. 0 0 . 0% 0 0 0% 0 0 0% 0 0 0% 0 0 U -,-,,,.\n0 0 0% 0 -----~JBF----# REF PCT/TOT # STU 0 . 0% 0 0 . 0'1/. 0 0 . 0'1/. 0 0 . 0'1/. 0 0 . 0'1/. 0 0 0 11 1 i 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 48 30 0 0 0 0 0 0 - ~4===========-================================================================= COMPARISON -============================================================================= -----BM------ -----BF------ -----NBM----- -----NBF----- # REF ?~T(+/-i # REF PCT(+/-i # REF PCT(+/-i # REF PCT(+/-i # STU # STU # STU # STU --============================================================================== S. A. C. 0 .0 '1/. 0 .0 '1/. 0 .0 '1/. 0 .0 '1/. 0 0 0 0 0 0 HOi1E SUSP. 28 560. 0 '.'i. 5 500. 0 '1/. 4 66. 7 }': 0 .0 'l. 37 13 5 1 0 19 BOYS CLUB 0 .0 1/. 0 .0 % 0 .0 '1/. 0 .0 % 0 0 0 0 0 0 E 1. C. 0 .0 '1/. 0 .0 % 0 .0 '1/. 0 .0 % 0 0 0 0 0 0 F XP~iLS I ON 0 .0 o/. 0 .0 % 0 .0 '1/. 0 .0 '1/. 0 0 0 0 0 0 DIS032S 6/17/98 8: 27: 47 032 Analysis of Disciplinary Actions by School From AUGUST Through JUNE LAKEWOOD ELEMENTARY SCHOOL l 9 9 6 - 9 7 ==~===========================================================================~= ------BM------ ~~ REF PCT /TOT ,f~ STU -----BF------ # REF PCT/TOT # STU -----NBM----# REF PCT/TOT # STU -----NBF----# REF PCT/TOT # STU ~===~========================================================================= ~ A C. 0 U -,\n,. 0 01/. 0 01/. 0 0% 0 \u0026gt;J 0 0 0 0 1,iJME SUSP. 18 90. 0% ,.., c:. 10. 0% 0 0'1/. 0 01/. 20 10 i 0 0 11 BiJYi:, CLUB 0 0% 0 01/. 0 0'1/. 0 01/. 0 0 0 0 0 0 E. I. C. 0 0'1/. 0 0% 0 0'1/. 0 0% 0 0 0 0 0 0 D!PULSION 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0 0 0 0 0 -~--~==-===============~========================================================= S. /', C. HOME SUSP. .BG\\'S CLUB E. I C EXPULSION 1 9 9 7 - 9 8 -----BM------ # REF PCT/TOT # STU 0 . Or. 0 6 ss. n: 5 0 . 01\n0 0 . 01\n0 0 . 01/. 0 -----BF------ # REF PCT/TOT # STU 0 . Or. 0 0 . 01/. 0 0 . 01\n0 0 . 0'1/. 0 0 . 01/. 0 -----NBM----- # REF PCT/TOT # STU 0 . 0'1/. 0 1 14. 31\n1 0 O 0 0 Or. 0 0 . Or. 0 -----NBF----# REF PCT/TOT # STU 0 . Oi: 0 0 . 01/. 0 0 . 0'1/. 0 0 . 01/. 0 0 . 01/. 0 0 0 7 6 0 0 0 0 0 0 ~- ============================================================================= COMPARISON =--~-============================================================================ -----BM------ -----BF------ -----NBM----- -----NBF----# REF PCT(+/-) # REF PCT(+/-)# REF PCT(+/-) # REF PCT(+/-i # STU # STU # STU # STU =~:-==~========================================================================= S. A. C. 0 0 '1/. 0 0 1/. 0 0 r. 0 0 1/. 0 0 0 0 0 0 HtJME SUSP. i2- 66. 7-% 2- 100. 0-% 1 100. 0 r. 0 0 1/. 13- 5- i- 1 0 5- B0VS CLUB 0 0 ,,\n. 0 0 % 0 0 1/. 0 0 o/. 0 0 0 0 0 0 E. l. ,.\n_ 0 0 1/. 0 0 :,\n. 0 0 1/. 0 0 'Y. 0 0 0 0 0 0 EXPULSION 0 0 % 0 0 I. 0 0 % 0 0 '1/. 0 0 0 0 0 0 DIS032S .,. 6/17/98 8: 27:48 Analysis of Disciplinary Actions by School From AUGUST Through JUNE ,ocl: 033 BOONE PARK ELEMENTARY SCHOOL i 9 9 6 - 9 7 -----BM------ -----BF------ -----NBM----- -----NBF----# REF PCT/TOT # REF PCT/TOT # Her ~CI/IUI ~ Her ~CI/IUI # STU # STU # STU # STU ~========================================-===------======--------------------- s A. C. 0 U - ,\n. 0 0 .,\n. 0 0% 0 Oi: 0 C,i 0 0 0 0 HCtME SUSP. io8 58. '-i :,\n. 79 27. 7% 29 i0. 27: 9 ''\"\"j ' 27~ 285 \"/3 4i 19 -,, 140 BOVS CLUB 0 o=\n0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0 0 0 0 0 E. i. C. 0 0% 0 0% 0 Oo/. 0 0% 0 0 0 0 0 0 EX1-ULSION 0 0'1/. 0 0'1/. 0 0'1/. 0 0'1/. 0 0 0 0 0 0 ~=============================================================================== S. I\\.,:. HOME SUSP. BOYS CLUB i:.. TL. C E.\u0026lt;PULSION 1 9 9 7 - 9 8 -----BM------ # REF PCT/TOT # STU 79 88. 8'1/. 35 46 76. 7'1/. 24 0 . 01\n0 Q . or. 0 0 . 0'1/. 0 -----BF------ # REF PCT/TOT # STU 8, 9.0% , 12 20. or\n6 0 . 0% 0 Q . 0% 0 0 . 0% 0 -----NBM----# REF PCT/TOT # STU 1 1. 1 ,\n. 1 '\") 3. 3'1/. c.. 'c\".l. 0 . 0'1/. 0 0 . Oi\n0 0 . Oi'\n0 -----NBF----# REF PCT/TOT # STU 1 1. 1 '1/. 1 0 . 0'1/. 0 0 . 01, 0 0 . 0% 0 0 . 0% 0 89 44 60 32 0 0 0 0 0 0 -============================================================================= COMPARISON =---=================-========================================================== -----BM------ -----BF------ -----NBM----- -----NBF----# REF PCT(+/-)# REF PCT(+/-) # REF PCT(+/-)# REF PCT(+/-) # STU # STU # STU # STU ~==-============================================================================ S. A. C. 79 7900.0 '1/. 8 800. 0 I. 1 100. 0 '1/. 1 100. 0 I. 89 35 7 1 1 44 HOME SUSP. 122- 72. 6-'1/. 67- 84. 8-% 27- 93. 1-\"1/. 9- 100. 0-% 225- 49- 35- 17- 7- 108- BOVS CLUB 0 .0 '1/. 0 .0 % 0 .0 /: 0 .0 I. 0 0 0 0 0 0 E. I. C. 0 .0 '1/. 0 .0 I. 0 .0 \"1/. 0 .0 I. 0 0 0 0 0 0 EXPULSION 0 .0 % 0 .0 % 0 .0 1/. 0 .0 I. 0 0 0 0 0 0 i7 DIS032S 6/17/9E: 8:27:48 035 Analysis of Disciplinary Actions by School From AUGUST Through JUNE SEVENTH STREET ELEMENTARY SCHOOL ===--==-=------=====--------===---------===--------=----------------==-======= o. A. C. t-iOfiE SUSP. BiJy:::\nCLUB i.:: [. C. F.XF'ULSI Oi'i l 9 9 6 - 9 7 -----Bi'\"i------ U REF PCT/TOT # STU 0 0 :, I. 0 3 75. 0% 3 0 o\n~ 0 0 0 ,1. 0 1 iOO. 0'1/. i -----BF------ # REF PCT/TOT # STU 0 0'1/. 0 i 25. 0'1/. 1 0 Oo/. 0 0 0% 0 0 0% 0 -----NBM----# REF PCT/TOT # STU 0 o,\n0 0 0'1/. 0 0 Oo/. 0 0 Oo/. 0 0 0% 0 -----NBF----# REF PCT/TOT # STU 0 0% 0 0 Oo/\n0 0 0% 0 0 Oo/. 0 0 0% 0 0 0 4 4 0 0 0 0 i i ======~========================================================================= 1 9 9 7 - 9 8 -----BM------- # REF PCT /TOT # STU -----BF------ # REF PCT/TOT # STU -----NBM----# REF PCT/TOT # STU -----l'JB F----# REF PCT /TOT # STU ============================================================================== S. t'.. C. 0 . 0% 0 . O'l. 0 . 0'1/. 0 . 0% 0 0 0 0 0 0 HOl''!E SUSP. .,,..., \u0026lt;=-\u0026lt;.:. 81. 5'1/. 3 11. 1 '1/. 2 7.4% 0 . 0'1/. 27 16 3 1 0 20 BDYS CLUB 0 . O'l. 0 0'1/. 0 . 0'1/. 0 . 0'1/. 0 0 0 0 0 0 E I. C 0 . 0'1/. 0 . O'l. 0 . 01. 0 . 0'1/. 0 0 0 0 0 0 EX:PULSION 0 . 0'1/. 0 . 0'1/. 0 . 0'1/. 0 . 0'1/. 0 0 0 0 0 0 - -============================================================================= COMPARISON ---==~=======~=============-===================================================== -----BM------ -----BF------ -----NBM----- -----NBF----# REF PCT(+i-i # REF PCT(+/-)# REF PCT(+/-)# REF PCT(+i-i # STU # STU # STU # STU ~\n--============================================================================ s A. C. 0 .0 I. 0 .0 'l. 0 0 I. 0 0 ,: 0 0 0 0 0 0 HDME SIJSP. 19 633. 3 ., .-, ,. 200 0 'l. 2 200. 0 'l. 0 0 '1/. 23 C. i3 ~. C. 1 0 16 BOYS CLUB 0 .0 % 0 .0 /. 0 .0 % 0 .0 I. 0 0 0 0 0 0 E. I. C. 0 .0 o/. 0 .0 % 0 .0 ,: 0 .0 I. 0 0 0 0 0 0 ExPULSION 1- 100. 0-% 0 .0 /. 0 .0 'l. 0 .0 'l. 1- 1- 0 0 0 1- . 111,e: D!S032S 6/17/98 8:27: 48 037 Analysis of Disciplinary Actions by School From AUGUST Through JUNE LYNCH DRIVE ELEMENTARY SCHOOL i 9 9 6 - 9 7 -----BM------ # REF PCT/TOT # STU -----BF------ # REF PCT/TOT # STU -----l'~B M----# REF PCT/TOT # STU -----NBF----# REF PCT/TOT # STU -============================================================================ is. t\\. C. 0 IJ \"\".,\\, .. 0 0% 0 0% 0 O,\n. 0 0 0 0 0 0 1r-l1Jt1E SUSP. 30 66. n: 9 20. o,: 6 13. 3,: 0 O'l. 45 21 7 5 0 33 BIJ:l'S CLUB 0 o~~ 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0 0 0 0 0 c I. C. 0 0/~ 0 0% 0 0% 0 o~~ 0 0 0 0 0 0 ElPULSION 0 Oi': 0 0'1/. 0 Oi'\n0 0% 0 0 0 0 0 0 ---==========-================================================================== 1 9 9 7 - 9 8 ~===-~======================================================================== -----BM------ tt REF PCT /TOT H STU -----BF------ # REF PCT/TOT # STU -----NBM----# REF PCT/TOT # STU -----NBF----# REF PCT/TOT # STU - ~====================================-======================================== ,-.\n:) A. C. 0 O'.'I: 0 01/. 0 . o,\n0 01/. 0 0 0 0 0 0 1HOi1E SUSP. ~, I c.0 74. 3'.'i. 7 20. 0'1/. 1 c... .. ., 9% 1 \".'-- , 9'1/. 35 i9 7 1 i 28 BJYS CLUE 0 0'1/. 0 0'1/. 0 . O'X 0 0% 0 0 0 0 0 0 E [ C 0 0'1/. 0 . 0'1/. 0 0'1/. 0 0'1/. 0 0 0 0 0 0 E):PULSION 0 0'1/. 0 0'1/. 0 O'l. 0 0'1/. 0 0 0 0 0 0 ---=~========================================================================= COMPARISON =~---~=========================================================================== -----BM------ -----BF------ -----NBM----- -----NBF----# REF PCT(+/-, # REF PCT(+/-) # REF PCT(+/-) # REF PCT(+/-) # STU # STU # STU # STU -~=~-==-======================================================================== s ('.. C. 0 .0 '1/. 0 .0 '1/. 0 0 'l. 0 .0 '1/. 0 0 0 0 0 0 HOl'iE SUSP. 4- 13. 3-'i. 2- 22. 2-'i. 5- 83. 3-'1/. 1 100. 0 ,: 10- 2- 0 4- 1 5- 80VS CLUB 0 .0 'i. 0 .0 'i. 0 0 i'~ 0 .0 ,\n0 0 0 0 0 0 E. I. C. 0 .0 '1/. 0 .0 '1/. 0 0 i'~ 0 .0 '1/. 0 0 0 0 0 0 c. ,:PULS ION 0 .0 /: 0 .0 '1/. 0 0 'l. 0 .0 '1/. 0 0 0 0 0 0 DIS032S 6/17/98 Analysis of Disciplinary Actions by School - .:.r11e. 8: 27: 49 From AUGUST Through JUNE - IOQ): 038 CENTRAL ELEMENTARY ===========================-=======--------=---------------------------------- i 9 9 6 - 9 7 _____ i..1r .. _____ _ ,_,,' # REF PCT/TOT # STU -----BF------ # REF PCT/TOT # STU -----NBM----# REF PCT/TOT # STU -----NBF----# REF PCT/TOT # STU ==~==============~===--------------------------------------------------------- s (.\\ -. J. I\niJMi:: SUSP. BJVS CLUB E I. C. EXPULSION s A. C. HOl'ii=. SUSP. BOYS CLUB E. i C EXPULSION 0 01\n0 0'1/. 0 0 67 65. o:,,\n12 11. 7'1/. 37 8 0 01/. 0 01/. 0 0 154 71. 6'1/. 30 14. o,\n65 12 0 0'1/. 0 . 0'Y. 0 0 i 9 9 7 - 9 8 -----Bi1-----\nf REF PCT /TOT # STU 0 o\n~ 0 0 o~~ 0 0 0% 0 0 01/. 0 0 01/. 0 -----BF------ # REF PCT/TOT # STU 0 0% 0 0 O'.'i. 0 0 0'1/. 0 0 0'1/. 0 0 0% 0 0 0'1/. 0 23 '\")'\") c.i::... 3:,,\n10 0 . 01/. 0 0 13. o,\n11 0 0'Y. 0 -----NBM----# REF PCT/TOT # STU 0 0% 0 0 0% 0 0 0'1/. 0 0 01/. 0 0 0% 0 0 o:,,\n0 1 1. 0'1/. 1 0 01/. 0 0 1. 41/. 2 0 0'Y. 0 -----NBF----- # REF PCT/TOT # STU 0 0% 0 0 0'1/. 0 0 0% 0 0 0'1/. 0 0 0'1/. 0 0 0 103 56 0 0 215 90 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ~=~=========================================================================== COMPARISON ---================-============================================================ -----BM------ -----BF------ -----NBM----- -----NBF----# REF PCT(+/-) # REF PCT(+/-)# REF PCT(+/-) # REF PCT(+/-1 # STU # STU # STU # STU ==--~=========================================================================== S. t\\. C. 0 .0 \"I. 0 .0 \"I. 0 .0 I. 0 .0 '1/. 0 0 0 0 0 0 HOME SUSP. 67- 100. 0-'1/. 12- 100. 0-Y. 23- 100. 0-'1/. 1- 100. 0-'1/. 103- 37- 8- 10- 1- 56- BOYS CLUB 0 .0 ~~ 0 .0 ,\n0 .0 ,\n0 .0 ,\n0 0 0 0 0 0 I:.. l C. 154- .0 '1/. 30- .0 \"I. 28- .0 r\n3- .0 'i. 215- 1- 1- 28- 3- 90- i::.\u0026lt;PULSION 0 0 'i. 0 .0 I. 0 .0 I. 0 .0 Y. 0 0 0 0 0 0 D!S032S / ,e: 6/ i 7 /98 Analysis of Disciplinary Actions by School From AUGUST Through JUNE MEADO~ PARK ELEMENTARY SCHOOL -------------------------------------------------------------------------===== i 9 9 6 - 9 7 _____ n r.ri ____ _ ...,', -----BF------ # REF PCT /TOT # REF PCT/TOT # STU # STU -----NBM----- # REF PCT/TOT # STU -----NBF----# REF PCT /TOT # ST~J ==-==========================================================================\n.\\ __,_ \\.,. 0 01: 0 Qi\n0 O'i 0 0% 0 '' ,. 0 0 0 0 0 1r-\nOtic SUSP. 4, .-:_l , 53. Bi'\ni6 20. 0i'\ni9 23. 8'1/. ---\nr\n51: 80 C- c... )\"'1 8 6 1 37 \"'-\"'- i:iO'-/S CLUB 0 Oi\n0 0% 0 0'1/. 0 C -,,,,-. 0 0 0 0 0 0 '-- I C. 0 Qi'\n0 0'1/. 0 0i'\n0 0% 0 0 0 0 0 0 EXPULSIO~~ j_ 100. O\"i 0 0% 0 o'i\n0 0% 1 1 0 0 0 1 -----=========================================================================== ft 1997-98 ~---~=~========================================================================= -----BM------ -----BF------ -----NBM----- -----NBF----- # REF PCT/TOT # REF PCT/TOT # REF PCT/TOT # REF PCT/TOT ~ STU # STU # STU # STU --~=========================================================================== 0 0% 0 0% 0 0'1/. 0 0/. 0 0 0 0 0 0 SUSP. 40 80. 01/. 2 4. 0% 7 14. 01/. i ., c... 01/. 50 13 r\nc.. 5 1 21 BDVS CL_UB 0 0% 0 01/. 0 01/. 0 0% 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0% 0 0% 0 0'1/. 0 0% 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 01/. 0 0% 0 0'1/. 0 0% 0 0 0 0 0 0 =~=========-================================================================= COMPARISON -----BM------ -----BF------ -----NBM----- -----NBF----# REF PCT(+/-)# REF PCT(+/-) # REF PCT(+/-)# REF PCT(+/-) # STU # STU # STU # STU -===~==============~===-======================================================== S. 1\\. C. 0 .0 'l. 0 .0 'l. 0 0 'l. 0 .0 'l. 0 0 0 0 0 0 HOME SUSP. ,.-.:,__ , 7. 0-'l. 14- 87. 5-% 12- 63. 2-'l. 1- 50. 0-% 30- 9- 6- 1- 0 16- B:JVS CLUB 0 .0 'l. 0 .0 '1/. 0 .0 'l. 0 .0 'l. 0 0 0 0 0 0 t:. I. C. 0 .0 'l. 0 .0 'l. 0 .0 /: 0 .0 'l. 0 0 0 0 0 0 l::J:'.PULS ION 1- 100. 0--:,\n0 .0 'l. 0 .0 'i~ 0 .0 % 1- 1- 0 0 0 1- DIS032S Analysis of Disciplinary Actions A/17/98 by School 8:27: 51 From AUGUST Through JUNE 041 NORTH HEIGHTS ELEMENTARY SCHOOL '============================================================================= i 9 9 6 - 9 7 -----Bt'i-----# REF PCT/TOT # STU -----BF------ # REF PCT/TOT # STU -----NBM----# REF PCT/TOT # STU ------NBF----# REF PCT/TOT # STU ============================================================================= !S. (\\ ,: . 0 or: 0 0'1/. 0 01\n0 o~,: 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ii lfit\"it: SUSP. 24 6 ..,. ..,_2 7: 4 i0. 51/. iO 26. 3/: 0 0% 38 14 4 10 0 28 bl3'lS Ci_UB 0 0'1/. 0 01\n0 0\n. 0 O',I . 0 0 0 0 0 0 t:.. I. C. 0 01: 0 01\n0 100. 0\n. 0 01/. ,., c.. 0 0 2 0 ,., c.. EXPULSION 0 0'1/. 0 0'1/. 0 0\n. 0 0'1/. 0 0 0 0 0 0 ================================================================================ s A C. HOI-JE SUSP. BOYS CLUB E. [. C\nEXPULSION 1 9 9 7 - 9 8 -----BM------ # REF PCT/TOT # STU 0 0% 0 36 69. 21/. 23 0 0% 0 0 Oo/. 0 0 01/. 0 -----BF------ # REF PCT/TOT # STU 0 0% 0 0 0% 0 0 0'1/. 0 0 01/. 0 0 01/. 0 -----NBM----# REF PCT/TOT # STU 0 0% 0 14 ,.,, c..tl. 9% 8 0 0% 0 0 01/. 0 0 01/. 0 -----NBF----# REF PCT/TOT # STU 0 0% ,0. , c.. 3. 8% ~, c.. 0 0% 0 0 0% 0 0 Oo/. 0 0 0 52 33 0 0 0 0 0 0 ~============================================================================= COMPARISON ----============================================================================= -----BM------ -----BF------ -----NBM----- -----NBF----- # REF PCT(+/-) # REF PCT(+/-) # REF PCT(+/-) # REF PCT{+/-) # STU # STU # STU # STU ---=~=========================================================================== S. i'.. C. 0 .0 '1/. 0 .0 1/. 0 .0 r. 0 .0 1/. 0 0 0 0 0 0 HOME SUSP. 12 50. 0 r. 4- 100. 0-\n. 4 40. 0 r. 2 200. 0 '1/. 14 9 4- 2- 2 5 BOYS CLUB 0 .0 1/. 0 .0 '1/. 0 .0 '1/. 0 .0 '1/. 0 0 0 0 0 0 I::., I. C. 0 .0 ~~ 0 .0 7\n2- .0 ~~ 0 .0 % 2- 0 0 2- 0 2- EXPULSION 0 .0 '1/. 0 .0 '1/. 0 .0 r. 0 .0 '1/. 0 0 0 0 0 0 DIS032S Analysis of Disciplinary Actions ie: 6/17/98 by School 1\n,,e: 8: 27: 51 From AUGUST Through JUNE 1 001: 0~2 CRESTWOOD ELEMENTARY SCHOOL - l :.7 i 9 9 6 - 9 7 -----BM------ -----BF------ # REF PCT/TOT # REF PCT/TOT # STU # STU -----NBM----# REF PCT/TOT # STU -----NBF----# REF PCT/TOT # STU ~============================================================================= !~. ,.. . C. 0 o~,: 0 0% 0 O'/: 0 O'/: 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 d:Jl1E SUSP. 2i 55. 3% i6 4 ., \"'- D\n1 ., c:... 6'i. 0 01/. 38 '.\n...J . , i2 1 0 26 'BO''l'S CLUB 0 0% 0 0% 0 O'i. 0 0% 0 0 0 0 0 0 E. I C. 0 O'i. 0 0'1/. 0 O'/: 0 0% 0 0 0 0 0 0 EX:PULSIOi\\l 0 o\n,: 0 o\n,\n0 o\n,\n0 o,\n0 0 0 0 0 0 i997-98 t============================================================================= -----BM------ -----BF------ -----NBM----- -----NBF----ff REF PCT/TOT # REF PCT/TOT # REF PCT/TOT # REF PCT/TOT H STU # STU # STU # STU _s=A=c===========~=======o,.=====g=o=,.===== ~=====O='.i .=====g====o=,=.=. ====g IHOME SUSP. 15 57. 7% 7 26. 9% 4 15. 4'i. 0 0% 26 11 7 2 0 20 1 BOYS CLUB O 0'1/. 0 . 0% 0 . 0% 0 0% 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0% 0 . 0'1/. 0 . 01/. 0 . 0'1/. 0 0 0 0 0 0 :EXPULSION O 0'1/. 0 . 0% O . 01/. 0 . 0'1/. 0 0 0 0 0 0 --~============================================================================= COMPARISON ~--============================================================================= SUSP. :soys CLUB EXPULSION -----BM------ -----BF------ -----NBM----- -----NBF----# REF PCT(+/-) # REF PCT(+/-) # REF PCT(+/-) # REF PCT(+/-) # STU # STU # STU # STU 0 .0 '1/. 0 .0 I,, 0 .0 '1/. 0 .0 '1/. 0 0 0 0 6- 28. 6-% 9- 56. 3-1,, 3 300. 0 /~ 0 .0 I. 2- 5- 1 0 0 .0 1: 0 .0 '1/. 0 .0 '1/. 0 .0 I,, 0 0 0 0 0 .0 '1/. 0 .0 % 0 .0\n,\n0 .0 '1/. 0 0 0 0 0 .0\n,\n0 .0 '1/. 0 .0 '1/. 0 .0 % 0 0 0 0 0 0 12- 6- 0 0 0 0 0 0 DIS032S ,e: 6/17/98 111,e: i:-1:27:51 ,ool 043 ~s I\\. C. ,riiJMi:: SUSP. ii. BiJYS CLUB a C '- J C. 17 EX:PULSION Analysis of Disciplinary Actions by School From AUGUST Through JUNE PARK HILL ELEMENTARYS CHOOL 1 9 9 6 - 9 7 -----BM------- # REF P,:T iTIJT # STU 0 . Or. C, ii 61. 11: 8 0 0'1/. 0 0 0 ., I. 0 0 0'1/. 0 -----BF------ # REF PCT /TOT # STU 0 01: 0\n:\u0026gt; 27. 8% 2 0 0'1/. 0 0 0'1/. 0 0 O'l. 0 -----NBM-----# REF PCT /TOT # STU 0 01: 0 ,2. ., 11. i % C- 0 . 0'1/. 0 0 0'1/. 0 0 0'1/. 0 -----i'mF----# REF PCT /TOT # STU 0 . 0% 0 0 01: 0 0 o\n,: 0 0 0'1/. 0 0 0'1/. 0 0 0 i8 12 0 0 0 0 0 0 --- ==:========================================================================== 1 9 9 7 - 9 8 --============================================================================ -----Bi'1-----# REF PCT/TOT # STU -----BF------ # REF PCT/TOT # STU -----NBM----- # REF PCT/TOT # STU -----NBF----# REF PCT /TOT # STU ---=========================================================================== 0 . 0% 0 O'l. 0 m: 0 0'1/. 0 0 0 0 0 0 SUSP. 33 54. 1% i2 i 9. 7% 15 24. 6% i i. 61/. 61 25 6 12 i 44 BOYS CLUB 0 0% 0 0% 0 01/. 0 01/. 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 01: 0 01: 0 O'l. 0 0'1/. 0 0 0 0 0 0 EXPULSION 0 0% 0 01/. 0 01/. 0 0'1/. 0 0 0 0 0 0 --~~-=========================================================================== COMPARISON -~~--=-========================================================================= -----Br1------ -----BF------ -----NBM----- -----NBF----- # REF PCT(+/-) # REF PCT\u0026lt;+i-) # REF PCT\u0026lt;+i-) # REF PCT(+/-) # STU # STU # STU # STU -=~==-=========================================================================== S. t .. C. 0 0 '1/. 0 0 '1/. 0 0 'l. 0 0 '1/. 0 0 0 0 0 0 HOME SUSP. 22 200. 0 1: 7 140. 0 '1/. 13 650. 0 '1/. 1 100. 0 '1/. 43 17 4 10 1 32 BOYS CLUB c) 0 1: 0 0 i\n0 0 t: 0 0 I. 0 0 0 0 0 0 i:.. I C. 0 0 ,: 0 0 1: 0 0 ,: 0 0\n,: 0 0 0 0 0 0 ElPULSION 0 0 I. 0 0 % 0 0 '1/. 0 0 '1/. 0 () 0 0 0 0 - DIS032S 6/17/98 8:27: 5.? oaf 044 Pi~ .. E Analysis of Disciplinary Actions by School From AUGUST Through JUNE VIEW ELEMENTARY SCHOOL ============================================================================= i 9 9 6 - 9 7 -----BM------ -----BF------ # REF PCT/TOT # REF PCT/TOT # STU # STU S. /\\ C. 0 O,\n. ,\"\"\\ f\"\\i V v,. 0 0 HCJM:i: SUSP. 2i 72 4\n,\n6 20. n\ni5 6 i3\nJ\\iS CLUB 0 0'1/. 0 O,\n. 0 0 C.. l. C. 0 o\n,\n0 0'1/. 0 0 E:\u0026lt;PULSIDN 0 0'1/. 0 0'. 0 0 -----NBM----# REF PCT/TOT # STU 0 1v1,. .1 0 2 6. 9/: r\nc:.. 0 01/. 0 0 0'1/. 0 0 o,\n0 -----NBF----# REF PCT/TOT # STU 0 O,\n. 0 0 0'1/. 0 0 0'1/. 0 0 0'1/. 0 0 0% 0 0 0 29 23 0 0 0 0 0 0 --====--========================================================================= l 9 9 7 - 9 8 ============================================================================= S. A. C. IHOME SUSP. BOiS CLUB E. i C F.i.f'ULSION -----Bi'i-----tf REF PCT/TOT tt STU 0 0'1/. 0 ii 84. 6% 9 0 01/. 0 0 0% 0 0 0% 0 -----BF------ ti REF PCT /TOT # STU 0 0% 0 i 7. 7% l 0 01/. 0 0 0% 0 0 0o/. 0 -----NBM----- # REF PCT/TOT # STU 0 0% 0 1 7. 7% i 0 01/. 0 0 0% 0 0 0% 0 -----NBF----# REF PCT/TOT # STU 0 0% 0 0 0% 0 0 0% 0 0 0% 0 0 0o/. 0 0 0 13 ii 0 0 0 0 0 0 =~=========================================================================== COMPARISON --=---========~================================================================== II -----BM------ -----BF------ -----NBM----- -----NBF----# REF PCT(+/-) # REF PCT(+/-) # REF PCT(+/-) # REF PCT(+/-) # STU # STU # STU # STU .---=- --:::==~============-============================================================ II s i\\ C. 0 0 'l. 0 0 'l. 0 0 'l. 0 0 I. 0 0 0 0 0 0 10 HOl\"ft:. SUSP. 10- 47. 6-% 5- 83. 3-'l. 1- 50. 0-'l. 0 0 'l. 16- Ill 6- 5- 1- 0 12- BOYS CLUB 0 0 I. 0 0 'l. 0 0 'l. 0 0 'l. 0 0 0 0 0 0 !.2 E. I. C. 0 0 'l. 0 0 'l. 0 0 'l. 0 0 'l. 0 0 0 0 0 0 E.\u0026lt;PULSION 0 0 'l. 0 0 '1/. 0 0 ,~ 0 0 1/. 0 0 0 0 0 0 _7 DIS032S e: 6/ 1 7 /98 8:27: 52 col: 045 Analysis of Disciplinary Actions by School From AUGUST Through JUNE BELWOOD ELEMENTARY SCHOOL ================--======----===-===------------------------===----=====-===-- S. (\\. C. HOME SUSP. CLUB - J. C. EXPULSION l 9 9 6 - 9 7 -----BM------ # REF PCT/TOT # STU 0 O,\n. C .-, \u0026lt;:.. 40. o,\n7 .::.. 0 o,\n0 0 01/. 0 0 0'1/. 0 -----BF------ # REF PCT/TOT # STU 0 o,\n0 0 o,\n0 0 Or. 0 0 01/. 0 0 0'1/. 0 -----NBM----- # REF PCT/TOT # STU 0 OY. 0 3 60. o,\n1 0 Or. 0 0 O,\n. 0 0 0'1/. 0 -----NBF----- # REF PCT/TOT # STU 0 O,\n. 0 0 0% 0 0 0~'~ 0 0 o,\n0 0 0% 0 0 0 5 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 --====\n========================================================================= 1 9 9 7 - 9 8 -----BM------ # REF PCT/TOT # STU -----BF------ # REF PCT/TOT # STU -----NBM----# REF PCT/TOT # STU -----NBF----# REF PCT /TOT # STU --=-========================================================================= S. A C. 0 . 0'1/. 0 . 0'1/. 0 . 0'1/. 0 0% 0 0 0 0 0 0 HOME SUSP. 5 83. 3'.'I. 1 16. 7'1/. 0 0'.'I. 0 O'.'I. 6 4 1 0 0 5 BOYS CLUB 0 . 0'.'I. 0 0% 0 . Or. 0 . 0'.'I. 0 0 0 0 0 0 E. 1. C 0 o\n,\n. 0 01/. 0 . 0% 0 . o\n,\n. 0 0 0 0 0 0 r:XPULSiON 0 0% 0 . 0% 0 . 0% 0 . 0% 0 0 0 0 0 0 ----=~==============================================================~============ COMPARISON -----BM------ -----BF------ -----NBM----- -----NBF----# REF PCT(+/-)# REF PCT(+/-) # REF PCT(+/-) # REF PCT(+/-) # STU # STU # STU # STU ~===:=========================================================================== S. t-, C. HOME SUSP. BOYS CLUB - EXPULSION 0 .0 0 .3, 150. 0 c.. 0 .0 0 0 .0 0 0 .0 0 '1/. 0 .0 1/. 0 'l. 1 100. 0 1/. 1 '.'I. 0 .0 'l. 0 ,: 0 .0 ,~ 0 1/. 0 .0 'l. 0 0 .0 1/. 0 .0 'l. 0 0 0 0 3- 100. 0-'l. 0 .0 'l. 1 1- 0 2 0 .0 '.'I. 0 .0 '.'I. 0 0 0 0 0 .0 o/~ 0 .0 I. 0 0 0 0 0 .0 'l. 0 .0 '1/. 0 0 0 0 DIS032S Analysis of Disciplinary Actions e: 6/17/98 by School ime: 8:27: 5? From AUGUST Through JUNE ool 046 GLENVIEW ELEMENTARY SCHOOL i 9 9 6 - 9 7 ~-=~===============-=------------=-==---===--------=-=--=------==------======== -----BM------ -----BF------ # REF PCT/TOT # REF PCT/TOT # STU # STU -----NBM----- # REF PCT/TOT # STU -----~~BF----# REF PCT/TOT # STU -============================================================================ C: t - '-'. (\\. C. 0 0~'~ 0 0'1/. 0 Oi'\n0 0 .,,. 0 0 0 0 0 0 HOtiE SUSP. 9 100. 0'1/. 0 o~~ 0 Or. 0 Oi'\n9 8 0 0 0 8 CLUB 0 0% 0 Qi'\n0 Or\n0 Oo/\n0 0 0 0 0 0 t:.. I. C. 0 Qi'\n0 0'1/. 0 100. Or. 0 Qi'\n.-, c:\n. 0 0 1 0 1 EiPULSION 0 0'1/. 0 0% 0 0'1/. 0 Oi'\n0 0 0 0 0 0 ---==-============================================================================ - 1 9 9 7 - 9 8 -~=========================================================================== -----BM------ # REF PCT /TOT # STU -----BF------ # REF PCT/TOT # STU -----NBM----# REF PCT/TOT # STU -----NBF----# REF PCT/TOT # STU ----------------------------=================================================== S. A C. 0 0'1/. 0 0'1/. 0 0'1/. 0 0'1/. 0 0 0 0 0 0 HOl'i:E SUSP. 9 81. 8'1/. 2 18. 2'1/. 0 0'1/. 0 0'1/. 11 6 2 0 0 8 BCJVS CLUB 0 0'1/. 0 0'1/. 0 0'1/. 0 0'1/. 0 0 0 0 0 0 I. C 0 0'1/. 0 OY. 0 0'1/. 0 OY. 0 0 0 0 0 0 E\u0026gt;(F'ULSION 0 0'1/. 0 0% 0 0'1/. 0 0% 0 0 0 0 0 0 -----=========================================================================== COMPARISON -=----=========================================================================== -----RM------ -----BF------ -----NBM----- -----NBF----# REF PCT(+/-i # REF PCT(+/-) # REF PCT(+/-i # REF PCT(+/-) # STU # STU # STU # STU -~==~=========================================================================== S. t\\. C. rl!JME SUSP. BOYS CLUB 0 0 0 2- 0 0 0 0 0 0 .0 '1/. 0 % .0 1: .0 '1/. .0 ,: 0 0 '1/. 0 7 c:.. 200. 0 '1/. 2 0 0 1\n0 0 0 '1/. 0 0 0 I. 0 0 0 '1/. 0 .0 '1/. 0 0 0 0 0 0 '1/. 0 .0 I. 2 0 0 0 0 0 I. 0 0 '1/. 0 0 0 0 2- 0 '1/. 0 0 ,~ 2- 2- 0 1- 0 0 '1/. 0 0 '1/. 0 0 0 0 . DIS032S Analysis of Disciplinary Actions --~ 6/17/98 by School lfile: 8: 27: 5? From AUGUST Through JUNE -ool: 048 INDIAN HILLS ELEMENTARY SCHOOL ~=~==~======-=====--=-======--====================-===========-=============== IIJ 1 9 9 6 - 9 7 -----BM------ -----BF------ -----NBM----- -----NBF----# REF PCT/TOT # REF PCT/TOT # REF PCT/TOT # REF PCT/TOT # STU # STU # STU # STU lls.= r\\. c. ==========o====0=%= =. ====o= =====o. ,~= ====o = =====o_, ~====o== =====0.1 . =====o .HOi1E SUSP. \ni ~ i3!JYS CLUB -L r.. .. ,,-:. .. i 7 EX:PULSIC.m 0 0 0 0 0 14 53. 8% 12 46. 2% 0 . 0% 0 . 0% 26 10 6 0 0 16 0 .0% 0 . 0% 0 . 0% 0 . 0% 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 .0% 0 . 0% 0 . 0% 0 . 0% 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 '0% 0 0 '0'1/. 0 0 . 0% 0 0 '0% 0 0 ------=====:===========-===-===================================================== ===:=====:============!=:=:=:=====~============================================= -----BM------ -----BF------ -----NBM----- -----NBF----- # REF PCT/TOT # REF PCT/TOT # REF PCT/TOT # REF PCT/TOT Ill:===:==========#= STU=========S=T#=U ==========ST#=U =========S=T#=U =============== )9 S. A. C. 0 . 0% 0 . 0% 0 . 0% 0 . 0% 0 IIHOi'iF: 0 0 0 0 0 SUSP. i7 68. Oo/: 6 24. Oo/\n2 8. 0% 0 0% ,,c:\nc.~ 12 6 2 0 20 ~ l i -l::B0\\ 1 .,s ~-CLUB 0 Oo/\n0 0'1/. 0 0'1/. c-. 0% 0 0 0 0 0 0 - ' ' . ~ 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0 0 0 0 0 EXPUL.SIDN 0 0% 0 0% 0 O,t. 0 0% 0 0 0 0 0 0 ---============================================================================= Cot1Pt-,R ISiJI'~ ~~w~-===~======================================================================== IIJ -----BM------ -----BF------ -----NBM----- -----NBF----# REF PCT(+/-l # REF PCT(+/-)# REF PCT(+/-) # REF PCT(+/-) # STU # STU # STU # STU ~~==~=========================================================================== II -- .C.'. ,, 1\\. ,-. 0 0 1/. 0 0 \"I 0 0 '1/. 0 0 /. 0 \\.,, ,. 0 0 0 0 0 1 () HOME SUSP. 3 21. 4 1/. 6- 50. O _.,,.. 2 200. 0 '1/. 0 0 '1/. 1- 2 0 ., C. 0 4 BOV:J CLUB 0 0 % 0 0 /: 0 0 ,~ 0 0 ,\n. 0 0 0 0 0 0 12 c I. C. 0 0 y\n0 0 o/: 0 0 o/\n0 0 ,: 0 EXPULSION 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o/: 0 0 1: 0 0 1: 0 0 o/. 0 0 0 0 0 0 -II DIS0:32S e: 6/17/98 8:27: 5? a o 1: 049 Analysis of Disciplinary A~tions by School From AUGUST Through JUNE REDWOOD ELEMENTARY SCHOOL i 9 9 6 - 9 7 =============================================================================== -----RM------ -----BF------ # REF PCT/TOT # REF PCT/TOT # STU # STU C t\\ C. 0 ,-,2\nv,. 0 0'1/. 0 0 , fU(4~ f\niJSP. 2c, 69. Oi'\n9 :3i. Qi\ni3 7 CLUB 0 O'i 0 0'1/. 0 0 [: 1 C. 0 0'1/. 0 0'1/. 0 0 EXPULSION 0 0'1/. 0 0'1/. 0 0 - -----NBM----# REF PCT/TOT # STU 0 O,\n. 0 0 0\n,\n0 0 o:,\n0 0 o:,\n0 0 0'1/. 0 -----i'JBF----# REF PCT/TOT # STU 0 O,\n. 0 0 Q~l~ 0 0 o:,\n0 0 0'1/. 0 0 O 0 0 0 29 20 0 0 0 0 0 0 - ------------=====--------------=============================================== l 1 9 9 7 - 9 8 --=~========================================================================= -----BM------ t-t REF PCT /TOT # STU -----BF------ # REF PCT/TOT # STU -----NBM----- # REF PCT/TOT # STU -----NBF----# REF PCT/TOT # STU =~===========================================================================\n:\nA. C. 0 o~~ 0 0'1/. 0 0% 0 0'1/. 0 0 0 0 0 0 HOr-iE SUSP. 0 01/. 0 01/. 0 01/. 0 01/. 0 0 0 0 0 0 50YS CLUB 0 01/. 0 0% 0 0% 0 0 .. /. 0 0 0 0 0 0 - I. C 0 01/. 0 0% 0 0% 0 O 0 0 0 0 0 0 F~F'ULSION 0 01/. 0 0% 0 0% 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 -----=========================================================================== COMPARISON -~-============================================================================ -----8M------ -----BF------ -----NBM----- -----NBF----# REF PCT(+/-)# REF PCT(+/-) # REF PCT(+/-) # REF PCT(+/-) # STU # STU # STU # STU -~~============================================================================= - - S. I',. C. 0 .0 '1/. 0 0 '1/. 0 0 '1/. 0 0 '1/. 0 0 0 0 0 0 HOME SUSP. 20- 100.0-1/. 9- 100. 0-'1/. 0 0 i'~ 0 0 '1/. 29- 13- 7- 0 0 20- BOYS CLUB 0 .0 1\n0 0 1/. 0 0 ,~ 0 .0 '1/. 0 0 0 0 0 0 E r. C. 0 .0 '1/. 0 0 '1/. 0 0 '1/. 0 .0 '1/. 0 0 0 0 0 0 i::/..PULSION 0 .0 i:: 0 .0 i'\n0 0 i'~ 0 .0 I. 0 0 0 0 0 0 NORTH l1TTL ROCl{ PVBL1C SCHOOLS DISCIPLINARY ACTIC,NS DISTRICT LEVEL 199i-98 Action 09: S.A.C. DISCIPLINARY ACTIONS SCHOOL YEAR 97-98 DISTRICT LEVEL Action 10: Home Suspension 700 ...--------------~ ~ 96-97 1~~4 I ::s [4:~ -~!: l D96-97 1,801 862 547 132 -~-- Action 11: Boys Club Suspension 600 ---------------, 300 200 100 0 ~96-97 Fo97- 8 96-97 0 96-97 96-97 97-98 600 500 400 300 200 100 0 96-97 97-98 BM BF 591 208 511 125 NBM l25 104 ----+-~ Action 12 Elem Intervention Class 200 -------------~ 150 100 50 0 96-97 97-98 BM 154 0 - BF 30 0 ~B_MINBF j 32 3 o a 96-97 0 97-98 Action 17 Expulsion DISCIPLINARY ACTIONS SCHOOL YEAR 97-98 DISTRICT LEVEL 8.....---------------, 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 0 97-98 6 -1--~5- NBM 0 0 i:96-971 B~ 7 ____,___ -'-------'- NB 0 0 96-97 0 97-98 L- uAn_'-n_lJ1'~ DISCIPLINARY ACTIONS SCHOOL YEAR 97-98 ELEMENTARY LEVEL Action 09: S.A.C. 90 ~----------------, 80 1---.--,---------------------i 70 -- 60 - 50- 40~ 30 -- 20 -- 96-97 10 - I I 0 96-97 0 '-------L----lL....---L--'-------====-.J ~-~ BM Bf NBM NBF 96-97 0 0 0 0 096-97 79 10 1 2 BM 96-97 322 O 97-98 299 Action 10: Home Suspension BF NBM NBF 112 64 5 58 59 5 Action 11: Boys Club Suspension Action 12 Elem Intervention Class 0.8 0.6 0.4 0.2 0 196-97 BM BF NBM NBF 0 0 0 0 097-98 0 0 0 0 96-97 0 97-98 96-97 1197-98 BM 135 0 BF 24 0 NBM NBF 29 3 0 0 96-97 0 97-98 96-97 fl 97-98 0.8 0.6 0.4 0.2 0 ~ 96-9~ 8 : 97-98 0 NORTH LITTLE ROCK PUBLIC SCHOOLS DISCIPLINARY ACTIONS SCHOOL YEAR 97-98 ELEMENTARY LEVEL Action 17 Expulsion --- 96-97 0 97-98 i ~i NB Nr~ 0- 0 DISCIPLINARY ACTIONS SCHOOL YEAR 97-98 MIDDLE SCHOOL LEVEL Action 09: S.A.C. Action 10: Home Suspension 1200 ~--------------. 600 400 200 0 BF 290 455 NBM 250 279 60 72 r\n9,6 -97 f ~~ tE96 -97 985 NBU -L-----'---------'-- Action 11: Boys Club Suspension 350 ~------------, 150 100 50 0 ~ BM BF 96-97 165 86 D 97-9=-8-+---,2\"'9--.4 BM NBF --5=2~--13 64 96-97 D 96-97 96-97 D 97-98 BM BF NB 96-97 186 73 52 097-98 ~01 36 17 MEBF 12 3 Action 12 Elem Intervention Class BM BF 96-97 19 - 6 97-98 0 0 96-97 D 97-98 Action 17 Expulsion DISCIPLINARY ACTIONS SCHOOL YEAR 97-98 MIDDLE SCHOOL LEVEL 6 ~---------- 5 4 3 2 1 0 Action 09: S.A.C. DISCIPLINARY ACTIONS SCHOOL YEAR 97-98 HIGH SCHOOL LEVEL Action 10: Home Suspension 800 ~--------------, 120 .----------------, 700 600 500 400 300 200 100 0 f.9 6-\nT ~fi~-+-J!~~ ~~1 N8~F l l9_96-97 t ~397 267 58 150 100 50 0 Action 11: Boys Club Suspension 96-97 0 96-97 96-97 0 97-98 100 80 60 40 20 0 -- BM 96-97- 83 97-98 111 BF NBM NBF 23 9 0 31 28 5 Action 12 Elem Intervention Class 0.8 0.6 0.4 0.2 --- --- 0 .......__ ________ _ BM I BF i 96-97 0 0 97-98 0 0 NBM 0 tEI 0 96-97 0 97-98 96-97 97-98 NORTH LITTLE ROCK PUBLIC SCHOOLS DISCIPLINARY ACTIONS SCHOOL YEAR 97-98 HIGH SCHOOL LEVEL Action 17 Expulsion 7~-----------, 61----~ 5 1-----c 41-----1 3 1-----c 21-----, BM 96-97 0 97-98 1 BF 6 5 96-97 ,-----, 097-98 NBM NBF 0 0 0 O NORTH l1TTL ROCl{ P\\/OllC SCHOOLS . DISCIPLINARY ACTI'-?NS [5 YEAR TRENDS] NORTH LITTLE ROCK PUBLIC SCHOOLS DISCIPLINARY ACTIONS 5 YEAR TRENDS Action 09: Student Assignment Class (SAC) 2000 ...--------------------, 1500 1-- 1000 0 r- BF 9~_...-,--------..~--+------,,~------t-----.....---t-----,06 - 94-\"9o 460 20 gs-=gs- 1,0 446 ---_,_ 41f-a oo=g----- ~.2~ 1~ 97-98 1,~--l---~--+---~-~-t- 3~ -~- --'----- 93-94 EJ 94-95 95-96 IIJ 96-97 97-98 NORTH LITTLE ROCK PUBLIC SCHOOLS DISCIPLINARY ACTIONS 5 YEAR TRENDS Action 10: Home Suspensions 700 .--------------------, 600 500 400 300 ,_ _ ----------- - 93-94 200 100 0 [TI 94-95 95-96 IT] 96-97 97-98 II II .-.-.. NORTH LITTLE ROCK PUBLIC SCHOOLS DISCIPLINARY ACTIONS 5 YEAR TRENDS Action 11: Boys Club 600 ~--------------- 500 1------------- 400 1------------- 300 ,_ _ 2 00 1---- 100 - 0 93-94 rn 94-95 95-96 ~ 96-97 97-98 II II II II NORTH LITTLE ROCK PUBLIC SCHOOLS DISCIPLINARY ACTIONS 5 YEAR TRENDS Action 12: Elementary Assignment Class (E.I.C.) 2000 ---------------- 1500 1000 0 ---- 1' 54 93-94 94-95 95-96 el 96-97 97-98 ... .-.-- NORTH LITTLE ROCK PUBLIC SCHOOLS DISCIPLINARY ACTIONS 5 YEAR TRENDS Action 17: Expulsions a.---------------------. 7 1--------------~---------I 6 5 - 4 - 3 - 2 - 1 - 0 93-94 IT:] 94-95 95-96 ~ 96-97 97-98\nThis project was supported in part by a Digitizing Hidden Special Collections and Archives project grant from The Andrew W. Mellon Foundation and Council on Library and Information Resoources.\n \n\n \n\n \n\n\n \n\n \n\n \n\n\n \n\n \n\n \n\n\n \n\n \n\n \n\n \n\n \n\n \n\n\n \n\n \n\n \n\n\n\n \n\n \n\n \n\n\n \n\n \n\n \n\n \n\n \n\n\n \n\n \n\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n \n\n \n\n\n\n \n\n\n \n\n\n\n \n\n\n\n "},{"id":"bcas_bcmss0837_404","title":"Discipline, management 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":["1997/1998"],"dcterms_description":null,"dc_format":["application/pdf"],"dcterms_identifier":null,"dcterms_language":["eng"],"dcterms_publisher":["Little Rock, Ark. : Butler Center for Arkansas Studies. Central Arkansas Library System"],"dc_relation":null,"dc_right":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC-EDU/1.0/"],"dcterms_is_part_of":["Office of Desegregation Monitoring records (BC.MSS.08.37)","History of Segregation and Integration of Arkansas's Educational System"],"dcterms_subject":["Little Rock (Ark.)--History--20th century","Little Rock School District","Education--Arkansas","Education--Evaluation","Educational statistics","School discipline","School management and organization"],"dcterms_title":["Discipline, management 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/404"],"dcterms_temporal":null,"dcterms_rights_holder":null,"dcterms_bibliographic_citation":null,"dlg_local_right":["Available for use in research, teaching, and private study. Any other use requires permission from the Butler Center."],"dcterms_medium":["reports"],"dcterms_extent":["52 pages"],"dlg_subject_personal":null,"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":"\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n \n\n\n \n\n \n\n\n \n\n\n \n\n\n\n\n \n\n\n\n\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n \n\n \n\n \n\n\n \n\n \n\n \n\n\n \n\n \n\n \n\n\n \n\n \n\n \n\n\n \n\n \n\n \n\nRecidivism Report - Black/White Year: 99 Quarter: 1 Quarter: 4 Counts Each Student Once LEVEL SCHOOL BM BE WM WF OM Senior High ACC-LEARH - 0 2 0 AGENCIES- 19 1 Junior High Elementary AlTJ^iiABN------- \\J CENTRAL ' FAIR HALL /mcclella HiETRO^- PARKVIEW -Am.EAeu '/CLOVRJR J J J DUNBAR FORST HT HENDERSN siWABEL JR MM, 4m, MANN M/S /pUL HT J SOUTHWST J, BADGETT 'BALE J BASELINE J BOOKER 7 BRADY 7. 1. J, CARVER 'CHICOT CLOVR EL DODD Tuesday, July 27,1999 15 81 55 95 103 16 37 ---------68--. 145 87 14- 118 87 54 109 . 1_ . 40 39 54 52 21 18 65 40 1 86 58 55 32 46 3 ------ -1 - 30 7 7 5 15 9 5 5 1... 26 ----------- 10 26 47 9 20 24 17 0 32_ 1^ 4 9 17 6 13 10 4 7T_ ?I7 15-^ JU?: _8 5 2 10 19 21 9 11 60 1 6 3 4 5 2 2 18 0 2 ' 3 0 1 0 8 1 1 1 1 1 10 2 0 5 0 2 'I RECEIVED AUG 8 1999 OFFICE OF DESEGREGATION UOmORIIIS OF 0 ..... -1 - 0 0 O' 1 1 9 1 1.. - -Q 1^ ienior High 1 - 5 2 6 2 3 2 2 Junior High 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 \u0026gt; 0 2 2 3 0 Ll 0 - 1 2 3 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 Total 3 25 2cr 159 109 184 169 26 117 842- 98 230 166 300 194 178 123 178 153 *620 8 16 25 36 14 15 91 1 15 Page 1 of 2 PRecidivism Report - Bl ack/White Year: 99 Quarter: 1 Quarter: 4 Counts Each Student Once LEVEL SCHOOL BM BF WM WF OM OF Total Elementary FAIR PRK 16 24 6 1 0 1 0 V FORST PK 0 0 0 0 3 4 7 'FRANKLIN 38 52 FULBRIGH 11 16 8 3 2 0 1 I 4 1 0 0 0 GARLAND 0 0 0 6 2 4 0 GEYER SP 15 13 29 ^GIBBS 14 22 ^JEFFRSN 11 25 M L KING 21 12 39 MABEL EL 19 13 44 MCDERMOT 21 10 35 I 'MEADCLIF si J. y 14 22 MITCHELL OTTER CR PUL HT E 22 14 40 RIGHTSEL 11 18 J 7 2 2 9 3 9 5 1 0 6 0 6 3 3 2 0 0 3 0 1 0 2 2 3 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 8 0 2 0 1 ROCKFELR 3 4 3 0 0 1 11 '' ROMINE 7 1 2 0 1 0 11 TERRY 20 31 6 4 1 0 0 WAKEFIEL Aa/ashngtn 6 1 1 0 0 0 8 3 4 4 0 2 0 13 \u0026gt;/WATSON 1 2 0 0 0 0 9 -WEST HIL Z/VILLIAMS 17 32 10 WILSON 46 13 63 9 5 1 0 0 7 2 1 2 0 0 0 0 0 2 WOODRUFF 0 0 0 0 0 7 7 Tuesday, July 27,1999 Elementary 805 V - ifiCrand Total 3237 Page 2 of.Recidivism Report - Black/White Year: 98 Quarter: 1 Quarter: 4 Counts Each Student Once LEVEL SCHOOL BM BE WM WF OM Senior High -ALT LEARN ^JENTRAL ^4^ 43- 127- 60-1 28-1 Junior High Elementary /FAiR ^HALL 90-3 50 -I 4 ^CCLELLA METRO vPARKVIEW ALT LEARN CLOVR JR i/DUNBAR '/FORST HT 'BENDERSN MABEL JR MANN M/S /pULHTJ y^OUTHWST ,j6ADGETT / BALE /baseline -BOOKER /brady vCARVER CHICOT DODD , FAIR PRK /FORST PK J FRANKLIN 115 -V 41 M received AUG 8 1999 OfflCEOF DESEGREGATION MONITORING OF Total 4______ 3------ 14 0 4 8 42 8'1 6 13 -3^ 30 17 22- 118 Senior High 3. 95-^ 10 8 11 73-1 Tuesday, July 27,1999 XT 0 1 0 7 0 4 3 3 6- 0 -56- - 229 1 63 149 Us 188 181 -43 82-yi -903 4t^------ 9 6 299 JJg*? 111 -1 133-5 lilt 179'3 J'l 92 - -I 79 ll'i 121 57 38 - 21 8 2 2Z7 66 -T 32-' 14 4 1 250 142- 67-1 65-4 34 40-9 69 -- llle 1^-7^ 4 4 20 -J- 18 19-1 11 19 ' 0 1^^ 8 3 1 278 2Ti 9 1 1 186 ns 10 3 3 142 IIO 4 2 0 136 13 3 10 0 5^ 3 lunior High iS- 223 Ilf 0 0 10 32 25 21 27 56 - 11 10 18 29 6 2 0 0 0 18 12 4 0 0 0 48 3 5 0 1 0 34 6 2 3 2 0 34 4 5 0 1 0 37 13 13 3 2 1 B8 4 5 0 0 1 21 13 10 5 1 2 3 0 1 0 25 1 0 0 31 2 0 0 39 Page 1 of 2 Recidivism Report - Black/White Year: 98 Quarter: 1 Quarter: 4 Counts Each Student Once LEVEL SCHOOL BM BF WM WF OM OF Total Elementary FULBRIGH 20 10 3 3 0 0 36 J GARLAND 1 1 0 0 0 0 2 ! vGEYER SP 7 7 2 1 0 0 17 GIBBS 7 1 2 0 0 0 10 -^JEFFRSN L KING '/ MABEL EL JMCDERMOT 18 34 8-' 12 13 MEADCLIF 19 39 65 16 25 / 1 1 0 8 0 5 4 7 6 2 1 4 1 1 0 0 2 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 MITCHELL 8 5 1 0 0 0 14 J OTTER CR 11 2 1 0 0 0 14 PUL HT E 32 16 51 4?IGHTSEL 12 15 xTROCKFELR 18 34 3 0 0 0 3 0 0 0 0 6 8 1 1 0 1/ROMINE 8 1 6 1 0 0 16 7TERRY 23-1 35 / WAKEFIEL 23 11 34 vWASHNGTN 21-3 ^^/ATSON -Awest hil 61 15 ./WILLIAMS -Wilson 35 '0 15 86 28 11 46 5 5 2 0 0 1 6 8 0 0 7 3 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 36 32- 3 2 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 . WOODRUFF 9 1 3 0 0 13 62^^ BY 1^ Elementary 3 Grand Total 4018 |Q 1.:^ \\ Tuesday, July 27,1999 SMBca Page 2 of 2 LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT SUSMRC 07/27/98 PAGE 1 i SCHOOL: 001 CENTRAL HIGH SCHOOL FROM DATE: DISCIPLINE BY REASON CODE 8/20/97 TO DATE: 6/03/98 OFFENCE LVL CODE BM BF OUT OF SCHOOL BLK TOT WM WF WHT TOT BM SANCTIONS LONG TERM EXPELLED TOTAL BF BLK TOT WM WF WHT TOT BM BF BLK TOT WM UF WHT TOT 6LK WHT TOT Foul Lan CLASS 1 110 SUBTOTAL 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Ref Ruis PROSTAFF Dis Cond CLASS 01 1 2 2 062 090 110 1 SUBTOTAL 1 1 1 1 3 1 2 1 4 1 2 1 4 1 2 1 4 INSUBORD CLASS 05 2 105 SUBTOTAL 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Fighting PROSTAFF CLASS 07 2 2 040 090 1 SUBTOTAL 1 1 1 1 1 2 1 1 2 1 1 2 Pos Weap CLASS 09 3 090 SUBTOTAL 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 LeftSchl FAILOBEY Ref Ruis Smoking Tardies Assault Battery Theft Fighting Gambling Loiter Mischief PROSTAFF Ind Exp INSUBORD Dis Cond Paging D FIREWORK AL-DRUGS V As Sf In Riot Gang Mem CLASS 10 1 1 1 1 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 3 3 3 050 060 062 100 133 010 020 030 040 050 070 080 090 100 105 110 123 140 150 072 120 123 1 1 1 5 1 2 1 8 1 39 15 1 11 SUBTOTAL 87 1 2 1 1 2 1 1 2 1 1 1 1 3 2 1 10 1 1 8 1 2 1 10 1 40 25 1 1 11 1 1 1 1 4 2 2 3 3 1 3 1 3 1 1 1 1 22 109 8 8 3 1 7 16 2 6 5 2 11 1 12 8 1 20 4 9 4 9 1 1 13 13 1 1 LeftSchl FAILOBEY Ref Ruis 1 1 1 050 060 062 1 1 2 1 1 2 1 1 2 1 3 3 2 8 1 2 1 11 1 42 36 1 1 11 4 9 1 142 1 1 2 1 3 1 3 1 7 1 17 1 1 2 1 1 3 3 2 11 1 2 1 12 1 45 37 1 1 18 4 10 1 159 1 1 2SCHOOL: 001 CENTRAL HIGH SCHOOL LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT FROM DATE: DISCIPLINE BY REASON CODE 8/20/97 TO DATE: SUSMRC 6/03/98 07/27/98 PAGE 2 I SANCTIONS OFFENCE LVL CODE BM BF OUT OF SCHOOL LONG TERM EXPELLED TOTAL BLK TOT UM UF WHT TOT BM BF BLK TOT UH WF WHT TOT BM BF BLK TOT UM WF UHT TOT BLK WHT TOT Battery Theft Fighting PROSTAFF Ind Exp INSUBORD Dis Cond Har Conn Paging D AL-DRUGS Ass Staf V As Sf WEAPONS2 In Riot Gang Mem CLASS 11 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 3 3 3 3 3 020 030 040 090 100 105 110 120 123 150 071 072 092 120 123 2 7 3 1 11 8 12 SUBTOTAL 48 5 5 3 7 1 1 5 1 28 2 12 8 1 14 15 1 1 17 1 k 1 k 1 1 1 1 1 76 7 3 2 3 1 21 1 1 2 8 3 2 3 2 23 1 2 4 1 1 2 5 2 1 4 9 1 1 1 1 1 3 12 8 3 15 19 1 1 17 1 1 k 8 3 6 1 8 1 1 7 1 9 1 1 1 1 1 9k 2 3 2 1 24 1 3 13 12 3 23 22 1 3 20 3 1 1 7 1 118 Fighting Loi ter Mischief INSUBORD Dis Cond Paging D AL-DRUGS V As Sf WEAPONSI In Riot CLASS 12 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 3 3 3 040 070 080 105 110 123 150 072 091 120 1 1 1 1 8 3 1 k k 1 1 2 12 1 1 2 SUBTOTAL SCHOOL SUBTOTAL 2 1 1 3 1 1 1 1 2 1 1 2 1 1 1 14 10 24 3 4 7 2 2 4 2 1 2 14 1 1 4 4 2 2 2 2 3 1 1 2 30 1 2 1 1 2 7 4 2 2 k 15 1 5 1 1 2 SI 153 64 217 33 14 47 20 13 33 23, T Ik 2 21k 49 323 yvSCHOOL: 008 FAIR HIGH SCHOOL OUT OF SCHOOL OFFENCE LVL CODE BH BF BLK TOT WM WF LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT FROM DATE: WHT TOT BM SUSMRC 07/27/98 PAGE 12 DISCIPLINE BY REASON CODE 8/20/97 TO DATE: 6/03/98 SANCTIONS LONG TERM EXPELLED TOTAL BF BLK TOT UM WF WHT TOT BH BF BLK TOT WH WF WHT TOT 8LK WHT TOT Dis Cond AL-DRUGS CLASS 08 2 2 110 150 SUBTOTAL 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 1 1 2 Ref Ruts CLASS 09 1 062 SUBTOTAL 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 FAILOBEY Ref Ruis Bus Regs FAILDET Ref Det Foul Lan Assault Theft Fighting Gambli ng PROSTAFF Ind Exp INSUBORD Dis Cond AL-DRUGS WEAPONS1 CLASS 10 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 3 060 062 070 080 090 110 010 030 040 050 090 100 105 110 150 091 11 1 1 1 SUBTOTAL 1 1 1 11 1 9 1 23 7 6 Ti 1 8 3 3 4 2\\ 1 11 1 1 1 1 1 1 19 1 12 1 26 11 6 1 4 5 1 1 2 2 2 1 1 1 4 4 1 1 9 1 1 2 2 2 4 1 1 1 1 1 11 1 1 1 1 3 1 19 1 12 1 26 13 6 1 99 2 1 4 1 1 9 1 11 1 1 1 1 3 1 21 1 13 1 30 14 7 1 108 FAILOBEY Ref Ruts Ref Det Foul Lan Battery Fighting Gambling Loi ter Mischief PROSTAFF INSUBORD Dis Cond Paging 0 V As Sf Pos Weap CLASS 11 1 1 1 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 3 3 060 062 090 110 020 040 050 070 080 090 105 110 123 072 090 1 5 2 2 1 5 2 2 1 1 SUBTOTAL Mi nA I ter LeftSchl FAILOBEY 1 1 1 030 050 060 6 1 1 1 3 11 6 1 38 1 1 4 4 1 4 15 2 1 10 1 1 1 7 12 10 1 53 2 1 2 1 1 3 1 1 1 1 2 2 5 2 2 1 1 1 5 1 1 1 2 1 1 1 6 1 1 1 2 3 1 2 3 1 5 2 2 2 10 1 1 1 7 13 12 1 2 2 62 2 1 2 1 1 1 1 2 6 1 6 2 2 2 11 1 1 1 8 14 14 1 2 2 68 2 1 2 ISCHOOL: 008 FAIR HIGH SCHOOL OUT OF SCHOOL OFFENCE LVL CODE BM BF BLK TOT WM WF LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT FROM DATE: WHT TOT BM SUSMRC 07/27/98 PAGE 13 DISCIPLINE BY REASON CODE 8/20/97 TO DATE: 6/03/98 SANCTIONS LONG TERM EXPELLED TOTAL BF BLK TOT UM UF WHT TOT BM BF BLK TOT WM WF WHT TOT BLK WHT TOT Ref Ruis FAILDET Ref Det Foul Lan Assault Battery Fighting Loiter PROSTAFF INSUBORD Dis Cond WEAPONSi WEAPONS2 CLASS 12 1 1 1 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 3 3 062 080 090 110 010 020 040 070 090 105 110 091 092 9 2 1 3 2 5 7 1 SUBTOTAL 32 SCHOOL SUBTOTAL 145 1 1 1 2 5 1 5 1 1 25 61 10 3 2 2 8 2 9 8 6 1 1 57 206 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 3 1 3 1 2 2 1 5 6 10 3 2 2 1 1 8 2 9 8 9 2 1 63 1 1 2 10 3 3 2 1 1 8 2 10 8 9 2 1 65 10 6 16 8 9 17 1 1 (5 (D 4 227 17 244 ILITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT SUSMRC 07/27/98 PAGE 3 SCHOOL: 002 HALL HIGH SCHOOL FROM DATE: DISCIPLINE BY REASON CODE 8/20/97 TO DATE: 6/03/98 OUT OF SCHOOL SANCTIONS LONG TERM EXPELLED TOTAL OFFENCE LVL CODE BM BF BLK TOT UM UF UHT TOT BM BF BLK TOT UM UF UHT TOT BM BF BLK TOT UM UF UHT TOT BLK UHT TOT Fighting CLASS 07 2 040 SUBTOTAL 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 PROSTAFF INSUBORO CLASS 08 2 2 090 105 SUBTOTAL 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 Hi nA I ter LeftSchl FAILOBEY Ref Ruis Smok i ng Battery Theft Fighting Mischief PROSTAFF INSUBORD Dis Cond Har Conm Paging D AL-DRUGS V As Sf Pos Ueai UEAPONS, In Riot CLASS 10 1 1 1 1 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 3 3 3 3 030 050 060 062 100 020 030 040 080 090 105 110 120 123 150 072 090 092 120 1 1 1 1 SUBTOTAL 1 1 4 1 5 7 1 1 4 1 12 1 1 1 1 2 44 9 1 5 3 1 79 2 11 8 4 55 17 1 5 3 1 1 1 1 10 8 1 1 1 1 10 9 4 1 1 1 5 1 1 1 1 9 2 13 1 1 1 3 2 1 3 3 5 1 3 3 1 1 1 1 1 1 28 107 23 1 24 1 14 5 1 19 4 4 3 1 1 5 3 1 1 5 4 58 22 2 5 3 5 2 1 1 131 1 1 1 13 9 1 1 28 1 1 1 1 1 9 2 14 1 5 71 31 2 6 3 6 2 1 1 159 Mi nA I ter FAILOBEY Ref Ruis Assault Battery Theft Fighting INSUBORD Dis Cond Forgery Paging D AL-DRUGS Poss Exp In Riot CLASS 11 1 1 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 3 3 030 060 062 010 020 030 040 105 110 122 123 150 100 120 2 2 7 1 3 1 3 12 15 1 6 1 1 1 5 1 2 2 1 3 2 7 1 3 1 8 13 17 1 8 2 1 1 1 4 4 4 1 LeftSchl SUBTOTAL 55 12 67 6 1 050 1 1 1 1 1 5 1 1 1 1 1 3 9 1 3 9 1 3 9 3 2 7 1 7 1 8 13 18 1 8 2 2 3 76 1 1 5 1 1 1 9 3 2 7 1 8 1 13 14 19 1 8 3 2 3 85 1SCHOOL: 002 HALL HIGH SCHOOL OUT OF SCHOOL OFFENCE LVL CODE BM BF BLK TOT WM WF LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT FROM DATE: WHT TOT BM DISCIPLINE BY REASON CODE 8/20/97 TO DATE: SANCTIONS LONG TERM BF BLK TOT WM WF SUSMRC 6/03/98 WHT TOT BM BF EXPELLED BLK TOT UM 07/27/98 UF WHT TOT BLK PAGE TOTAL WHT 4 TOT FAILOBEY Assault Battery Fighting False Al Loiter PROSTAFF INSUBORD Dis Cond Har Comm Paging D WEAPONSI In Riot Weapon CLASS 12 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 3 3 3 060 010 020 040 060 070 090 105 110 120 123 091 120 121 1 2 4 8 6 1 4 1 SUBTOTAL 28 SCHOOL SUBTOTAL 164 1 1 1 1 4 1 4 1 1 1 1 3 4 1 13 53 2 7 12 7 1 4 1 41 217 1 1 3 1 1 1 7 36 1 2 1 3 3 1 1 2 2 3 8 10 44 5 5 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 4 1 2 1 12 7 1 !\u0026gt; 1 2 1 1,1 1 1 3 3 1 1 10 2 1 2 4 1 2 8 15 10 2 5 1 2 1 57 28 5 33 4 4 6 c 256 48 304 z' \u0026gt; C'\"' V J 'f I 'LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT SUSMRC 07/27/98 PAGE 19 SCHOOL: 012 MC CLELLAN HIGH SCHOOL FROM DATE: DISCIPLINE BY REASON CODE 8/20/97 TO DATE: 6/03/98 OUT OF SCHOOL OFFENCE LVL CODE BM BF BLK TOT WM WF WHT TOT BM SANCTIONS LONG TERM EXPELLED TOTAL BF BLK TOT WM WF WHT TOT BM BF BLK TOT WM WF WHT TOT BLK WHT TOT INSUBORD CLASS 09 2 105 SUBTOTAL 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 LeftSchl FAILOBEY Ref Ruis Ref Det Assault Battery Theft Fighting Gambling Loi ter Mischief PROSTAFF Ind Exp INSUBORD Dis Cond Paging D AL-DRUGS V As Sf WEAPONS2 CLASS 10 1 1 1 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 3 3 050 060 062 090 010 020 030 040 050 070 080 090 100 105 110 123 150 072 092 5 7 4 1 2 2 5 7 6 3 1 1 SUBTOTAL 1 16 3 1 2 13 1 2 29 3 1 1 1 9 34 24 3 3 2 1 14 9 1 1 11 1 48 33 3 4 1 1 2 2 1 4 111 47 158 1 1 1 1 2 3 1 2 10 1 1 1 6 1 1 2 2 1 1 4 2 3 16 1 1 1 1 6 1 7 1 1 4 1 1 4 1 1 1 1 5 7 6 3 1 2 2 31 3 1 14 1 49 34 3 4 2 1 169 1 1 1 4 4 2 3 1 17 5 1 7 5 1 2 2 32 3 1 1 18 1 53 36 3 7 3 1 186 MinAI ter LeftSchl FAILOBEY Ref Ruis Bus Regs FAILDET Ref Det Battery Fighting Gambling PROSTAFF Ind Exp INSUBORD Dis Cond Har Comm AL-DRUGS V As Sf WEAPONS1 CLASS 11 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 3 3 030 050 060 062 070 080 090 020 040 050 090 100 105 110 120 150 072 091 1 2 14 1 4 1 3 18 SUBTOTAL FAILOBEY 1 060 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 1 2 1 3 18 9 1 9 2 2 1 1 45 5 2 1 1 9 1 11 1 10 1 2 2 1 1 54 6 1 1 1 1 5 2 2 2 1 1 1 6 2 5 2 5 1 1 1 2 11 1 10 1 1 2 2 1 1 2 59 6 1 2 2 1 6 1 3 19 2 1 1 1 2 13 1 11 1 1 2 2 1 1 2 65 6 ISCHOOL: 012 MC CLELLAN HIGH SCHOOL OUT OF SCHOOL LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT FROM DATE: DISCIPLINE BY REASON CODE 8/20/97 TO DATE: SANCTIONS LONG TERM SUSMRC 6/03/98 EXPELLED OFFENCE LVL CODE BM BF BLK TOT WM WF WHT TOT BM BF BLK TOT WM WF WHT TOT BM BF BLK TOT WM 07/27/98 WF WHT TOT BLK PAGE TOTAL WHT 20 TOT Ref Ruis Battery Fighting Gambling Mischief PROSTAFF INSUBORD Dis Cond Paging D AL-DRUGS WEAPONSl CLASS 12 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 3 062 020 040 050 080 090 105 110 123 150 091 9 1 4 1 1 5 1 2 SUBTOTAL 29 SCHOOL SUBTOTAL 186 2 2 2 1 1 9 65 11 1 6 1 1 2 1 6 1 2 38 251 1 1 1 1 4 15 11 1 1 1 1 4 1 1 1 1 11 1 6 1 1 2 1 6 1 2 1 39 1 1 1 1 4 12 1 7 1 1 2 2 7 1 2 1 43 26 12 1 13 4 4 1 1 268 27 295 I aSCHOOL: 005 PARKVIEW ARTS/SCIENCE MAGNET OUT OF SCHOOL OFFENCE LVL CODE BM BF BLK TOT WM WF LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT FROM DATE: DISCIPLINE BY REASON CODE 8/20/97 TO DATE\nSANCTIONS LONG TERM SUSMRC 6/03/98 EXPELLED 07/27/98 PAGE TOTAL 8 WHT TOT BM BF BLK TOT WM WF WHT TOT BM BF BLK TOT WM WF WHT TOT BLK WHT TOT Fighting INSUBORD CLASS 07 2 2 040 105 SUBTOTAL 2 1 3 2 1 3 2 1 3 2 1 3 Ref Ruis Smok i ng Theft Fighting Loiter PROSTAFF Ind Exp INSUBORD Dis Cond AL-DRUGS CLASS 10 1 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 062 100 030 040 070 090 100 105 110 150 3 5 2 1 1 5 1 SUBTOTAL 18 2 5 2 1 1 8 1 15 2 6 2 2 1 13 2 33 1 1 5 1 1 1 1 2 1 3 7 5 1 16 4 3 1 10 11 8 2 26 1 2 1 2 3 b 2 2 1 13 2 1 35 1 1 3 11 8 2 26 5 1 3 7 2 5 1 21^ 10 3 61 MinAlter FAILOBEY Ref Ruis Fighting Loi ter PROSTAFF INSUBORD Dis Cond Har Comm Paging D AL-DRUGS V As Sf Pos Weap WEAPONSI CLASS 11 1 1 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 3 3 3 030 060 062 040 070 090 105 110 120 123 150 072 090 091 1 1 1 2 1 1 1 1 2 1 1 1 SUBTOTAL 3 3 2 5 3 1 2 1 1 1 2 3 1 1 1 2 1 1 2 1 2 1 2 1 1 1 2 5 3 2 3 15 1 3 1 18 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 2 8 3 11 1 1 1 1 1 19 1 1 2 1 1 12 1 2 1 2 1 2 8 3 1 1 It 3 1 1 31 Smok i ng Fighting Loiter Mischief PROSTAFF INSUBORD Dis Cond Paging 0 AL-DRUGS CLASS 12 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 Z 2 100 040 070 080 090 105 110 123 150 1 1 1 SUBTOTAL 2 5 SCHOOL SUBTOTAL 41 2 2 4 22 3 1 2 1 2 9 63 1 1 3 2 1 2 10 34 1 2 3 5 1 2 6 2 1 2 15 3 1 1 18 52 1 1 2 1 1 1 1 2 10 1 2 6 2 1 2 15 1 3 1 1 4 7 3 1 It 2^^ 4 4 (3\u0026gt; 1 67 53 120SCHOOL: 015 CLOVERDALE JUNIOR HIGH SCHOOL OUT OF SCHOOL OFFENCE LVL CODE BM BF BLK TOT WM WF LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT FROM DATE: WHT TOT BM SUSMRC 07/27/98 PAGE 23 DISCIPLINE BY REASON CODE 8/20/97 TO DATE: 6/03/98 SANCTIONS LONG TERM EXPELLED TOTAL BF BLK TOT WM WF WHT TOT BM BF BLK TOT WM WF WHT TOT BLK WHT TOT Dis Cond CLASS 01 2 110 SUBTOTAL 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 PROSTAFF CLASS 04 2 090 SUBTOTAL 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 MinAlter FAILOBEY Ref Ruis Foul Lan Assault Battery Theft Fighting Loi ter M i sch i ef PROSTAFF Ind Exp INSUBORD Dis Cond Har Conm Forgery Paging D Ass Staf V As Sf In Riot CLASS 07 1 1 1 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 3 3 3 030 060 062 110 010 020 030 040 070 080 090 100 105 110 120 122 123 071 072 120 1 9 1 1 1 9 1 1 1 1 SUBTOTAL 1 22 1 3 8 1 73 25 1 16 1 21 8 1 2 1 38 1 3 9 1 94 33 1 2 1 2 3 5 1 1 5 5 2 2 1 9 1 1 148 48 196 10 2 15 1 5 11 2 20 1 1 1 2 1 1 1 8 1 9 2 2 1 1 2 1 1 2 5 1 38 1 3 9 1 96 34 1 2 1 1 1 1 207 3 5 1 11 2 22 1 9 1 1 3 5 1 43 1 3 10 1 107 36 1 2 1 1 1 1 229 Mi nA I ter FAILOBEY Assault Battery Fighting Loi ter Mischief PROSTAFF Ind Exp INSUBORD Dis Cond Har Conm Paging D AL-DRUGS Sale Ale Ass Staf V As Sf 1 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 3 3 3 030 060 010 020 040 070 080 090 100 105 110 120 123 150 010 071 072 7 20 1 1 11 1 40 16 2 1 1 3 3 1 13 1 2 4 14 12 2 1 10 3 1 33 2 3 15 1 54 28 2 1 2 1 1 1 1 4 3 3 7 3 2 5 4 1 1 1 1 3 6 5 1 1 1 1 1 1 10 10 4 33 2 3 15 1 54 29 2 1 3 1 1 3 6 5 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 11 10 4 34 2 3 18 1 60 34 2 1 3 1 1 2SCHOOL: 015 CLOVERDALE JUNIOR HIGH SCHOOL OUT OF SCHOOL OFFENCE LVL CODE BM BF BLK TOT WM WF LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT FROM DATE: WHT TOT BM SUSMRC 07/27/98 PAGE 24 DISCIPLINE BY REASON CODE 8/20/97 TO DATE: 6/03/98 SANCTIONS LONG TERM EXPELLED TOTAL BF BLK TOT WM WF WHT TOT BM BF BLK TOT WM WF WHT TOT BLK WHT TOT WEAPONSI In Riot CLASS 08 3 3 091 120 SUBTOTAL 100 56 156 12 5 17 1 9 4 1 13 1 1 1 1 2 2 1 1 4 1 2 173 18 1 2 191 LeftSchl FAILOBEY Assault Battery F i ght ing Loiter Mischief PROSTAFF Ind Exp INSUBORD Dis Cond Har Comm Paging D AL-DRUGS Ass Staf V As Sf Pos Weap WEAPONSI In Riot CLASS 09 1 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 3 3 3 3 3 050 060 010 020 040 070 080 090 100 105 110 120 123 150 071 072 090 091 120 1 6 1 3 1 9 1 SUBTOTAL SCHOOL SUBTOTAL 16 1 3 20 2 50 27 2 4 133 382 5 4 20 8 1 21 1 3 24 2 70 35 1 2 4 1 1 4 6 1 6 5 12 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 42 175 147 529 2 1 2 3 4 4 1 1 1 1 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 5 6 11 14 8 22 2 2 2 4 2 4 1 9 6 12 21 1 3 25 2 70 35 1 2 I, 1 4 1 1 2 201 1 1 1 2 4 4 13 1 9 7 12 22 1 4 27 2 74 39 1 2 4 1 4 1 1 2 214 32 16 48 31 13 44 3 2 5 (!) 10 583 53 636LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT SUSMRC 07/27/98 PAGE 10 I SCHOOL: 007 DUNBAR INT'L STUDIES MAGNET JH FROM DATE: DISCIPLINE BY REASON CODE 8/20/97 TO DATE: 6/03/98 OFFENCE LVL CODE BM BF OUT OF SCHOOL BLK TOT UM UF WHT TOT BM SANCTIONS LONG TERM EXPELLED TOTAL BF BLK TOT UM WF WHT TOT BM BF BLK TOT UM UF WHT TOT BLK WHT TOT Ois Cond CLASS 04 2 110 SUBTOTAL 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Assault Battery Theft Fighting False Al Loiter Mischief PROSTAFF Ind Exp INSUBORD Dis Cond Har Coma Paging D AL-DRUGS Ass Staf V As Sf WEAPONS 1 Extort In Riot CLASS 07 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 3 3 3 3 3 010 020 030 040 060 070 080 090 100 105 110 120 123 150 071 072 091 110 120 1 1 1 19 1 1 1 9 2 20 7 3 1 1 1 12 3 1 9 7 2 1 1 1 2 31 1 1 1 12 3 29 14 5 1 2 1 1 SUBTOTAL 1 1 69 36 105 2 8 2 8 1 1 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 3 1 5 3 24 6 6 3 1 11 3 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 1 1 30 7 3 10 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 3 2 32 2 1 1 12 3 29 15 5 1 3 2 3 1 2 8 1 1 3 1 11 3 1 1 2 1 2 1 2 1 1 117 1 32 2 3 4 40 2 1 1 13 4 32 16 16 1 6 2 3 1 1 1 149 Ref Ruis Assault Battery Theft Fighting Mischief PROSTAFF Ind Exp INSUBORD Dis Cond Har Conm Paging D AL-DRUGS Ass Staf V As Sf WEAPONS1 Weapon CLASS 08 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 3 3 3 3 062 010 020 030 040 080 090 100 105 110 120 123 150 071 072 091 121 4 3 7 SUBTOTAL FAILOBEY Foul Lan 1 1 060 110 1 2 13 1 1 10 3 1 2 23 1 4 1 1 1 1 5 5 7 11 7 3 43 1 4 1 1 22 15 8 2 2 3 1 3 2 3 1 1 1 1 1 1 3 1 1 3 1 1 1 4 2 2 23 1 4 1 16 8 1 5 3 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 65 18 2 20 1 6 1 6 1 1 1 2 3 1 1 1 1 3 2 3 1 1 74 1 1 4 1 22 7 1 2 2 28 1 7 3 20 8 1 1 7 2 3 1 2 96 1 1 1 1 1 1 1SCHOOL: 007 DUNBAR INT'L STUDIES MAGNET JH OUT OF SCHOOL OFFENCE LVL CODE BM BF BLK TOT WM WF LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT FROM DATE: WHT TOT BM SUSMRC 07/27/98 PAGE 11 DISCIPLINE BY REASON CODE 8/20/97 TO DATE: 6/03/98 SANCTIONS LONG TERM EXPELLED TOTAL BF BLK TOT WM WF WHT TOT BM BF BLK TOT WM WF WHT TOT BLK WHT TOT Assault Battery Theft Fighting Gambling Mischief PROSTAFF Ind Exp INSUBORD Dis Cond Har Comm Paging 0 FIREWORK AL-DRUGS Ass Staf V As Sf Pos Weap WEAPONSI Extort In Riot Gang Mem CLASS 09 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 010 020 030 040 050 080 090 100 105 110 120 123 140 150 071 072 090 091 110 120 123 3 3 SUBTOTAL SCHOOL SUBTOTAL 1 10 2 1 2 25 8 1 3 1 1 1 60 173 5 4 4 7 1 1 22 80 1 15 2 1 6 29 15 1 1 3 2 1 1 82 253 1 5 2 7 5 1 2 1 25 67 2 2 3 1 2 1 1 2 2 1 1 2 1 2 3 1 13 21 I, 1 7 1 1 1 1 2 2 1 3 2 1 2 1 2 1 1 5 2 1 16 2 1 6 1 32 17 3 7 5 3 7 8 1 5 1 1 1 5 1 1 1 38 88 14 27 6 9 2 b 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 20 36 1 1 4 6 2 3 6 1 2 1 6 1 1 1 3 1 7 1 1 3 3 b 3 1 1 4 2 109 5 1 2 1 44 5 2 4 23 2 1 11 4 39 25 1 1 1 8 3 7 5 2 1 4 2 153 9 CD 3 12 d) 1 301 98 399SCHOOL: 009 FOREST HEIGHTS JR HIGH SCHOOL OUT OF SCHOOL OFFENCE LVL CODE BM BF BLK TOT UM UF LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT FROM DATE: UHT TOT BM SUSMRC 07/27/98 PAGE 14 DISCIPLINE BY REASON CODE 8/20/97 TO DATE: 6/03/98 SANCTIONS LONG TERM EXPELLED TOTAL BF BLK TOT UM UF UHT TOT BM BF BLK TOT UM UF UHT TOT BLK UHT TOT Battery CLASS 01 2 020 SUBTOTAL 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 PROSTAFF INSUBORD Forgery CLASS 02 2 2 2 090 105 122 1 SUBTOTAL 1 2 1 1 1 1 1 3 1 1 1 3 1 1 1 3 Assault Battery Theft Fighting PROSTAFF INSUBORD Dis Cond Paging D AL-DRUGS Sale Ale Ass Staf V As Sf CLASS 07 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 3 3 3 010 020 030 040 090 105 110 123 150 010 071 072 1 1 1 24 11 35 33 1 1 1 7 1 7 9 2 1 1 31 12 42 42 1 1 2 2 SUBTOTAL 1 1 110 25 1 1 135 1 6 4 15 8 2 38 1 6 7 1 7 I, 21 8 2 45 1 2 3 1 1 1 1 1 2 2 1 4 1 1 4 5 4 5 2 4 1 31 12 42 42 1 1 1 1 6 144 2 1 7 4 22 8 2 46 4 4 2 38 16 64 50 1 3 1 1 6 190 MinAlter LeftSchl Ref Ruis Assault Battery Theft Fi ghting Mischief PROSTAFF Ind Exp INSUBORD Dis Cond Har Comm Forgery V As Sf CLASS 08 1 1 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 3 030 050 062 010 020 030 040 080 090 100 105 110 120 122 072 1 2 1 2 1 1 SUBTOTAL 12 1 16 1 17 33 1 11 14 1 87 9 12 2 1 1 53 1 1 3 1 2 1 23 1 30 1 26 45 2 2 1 140 1 1 6 3 6 4 2 22 2 3 1 3 4 13 2 9 1 3 9 8 2 35 1 1 5 6 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 8 1 9 2 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 3 1 8 1 23 1 30 1 27 46 2 2 3 150 1 2 10 1 3 10 8 2 37 1 1 4 1 8 3 33 2 33 1 37 54 4 2 3 187 MinAlter Harass LeftSchl Ref Ruis Bus Regs Foul Lan 1 1 1 1 1 1 030 040 050 062 070 110 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 1 1SCHOOL: 009 FOREST HEIGHTS JR HIGH SCHOOL OUT OF SCHOOL LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT FROM DATE: DISCIPLINE BY REASON CODE 8/20/97 TO DATE: SANCTIONS LONG TERM SUSMRC 6/03/98 EXPELLED OFFENCE LVL CODE BM BF BLK TOT WM WF WHT TOT BM BF BLK TOT WM WF WHT TOT BM BF BLK TOT UM 07/27/98 UF WHT TOT BLK PAGE TOTAL WHT 15 TOT Assault Battery Theft Fighting Mischief PROSTAFF INSUBORD Dis Cond Paging D AL-DRUGS Arson Ass Staf V As Sf WEAPONSI WEAPONS2 CLAS\n09 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 3 3 3 3 3 010 020 030 040 080 090 105 110 123 150 060 071 072 091 092 2 3 1 10 10 44 42 3 1 3 SUBTOTAL 121 PROSTAFF Dis Cond CLASS 10 2 2 090 110 1 SUBTOTAL 1 SCHOOL SUBTOTAL 321 1 3 1 6 9 7 1 2 34 114 2 3 2 13 1 16 53 49 1 3 1 5 155 1 1 435 1 1 1 1 1 1 4 8 3 1 1 20 1 1 81 1 1 2 22 5 8 3 1 1 1 22 1 1 103 1 1 1 1 4 7 2 3 13 1 3 1 1 1 1 7 20 3 3 1 1 3 3 2 13 1 16 54 52 1 3 1 2 5 1 1 1 5 8 3 1 2 1 1 1 1 163 1 23 3 3 3 14 1 21 62 55 1 4 3 2 5 1 1 186 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 7 1 462 107 569SCHOOL: 013 HENDERSON JUNIOR HIGH SCHOOL OUT OF SCHOOL OFFENCE LVL CODE BM BF BLK TOT WM WF LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT FROM DATE: WHT TOT BM DISCIPLINE BY REASON CODE 8/20/97 TO DATE: SANCTIONS LONG TERM BF BLK TOT WM WF SUSMRC 6/03/98 WHT TOT BM BF EXPELLED BLK TOT WM 07/27/98 WF WHT TOT BLK PAGE TOTAL WHT 21 TOT INSUBORD CLASS 03 2 105 SUBTOTAL 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 INSUBORD CLASS 06 2 105 SUBTOTAL 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 LeftSchl FAILOBEY Ref Ruis Bus Regs Ref Det foul Lan Assault Battery Theft Fighting Gambling Mischief PROSTAFF Ind Exp INSUBORD Dis Cond Har Comm FIREWORK AL-DRUGS Ass Staf V As Sf Pos Weap WEAPONS1 WEAPONS2 Poss Exp CLASS 07 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 3 3 3 3 3 3 050 060 062 070 090 110 010 020 030 040 050 080 090 100 105 110 120 140 150 071 072 090 091 092 100 4 8 1 1 4 1 1 3 SUBTOTAL 3 3 54 1 13 3 46 9 1 2 2 2 1 1 159 1 1 16 5 1 11 1 1 5 1 3 3 70 1 1 1 1 1 1 5 1 7 21 6 1 1 59 1 1 1 1 1 6 1 1 2 1 1 20 3 67 15 1 1 2 2 3 1 1 218 1 4 5 20 1 1 4 5 1 1 1 2 1 2 1 1 1 1 1 2 1 2 1 1 1 1 21 1 10 2 1 12 1 1 1 1 2 5 1 11 1 1 5 1 5 3 70 1 1 21 4 68 17 1 1 2 4 2 3 2 1 1 232 1 1 1 1 1 1 6 1 4 5 22 6 2 12 1 1 5 2 6 lb 1 2 25 73 17 1 1 2 2 3 2 1 1 2bl, MinAlter LeftSchl FAILOBEY Ref Ruis Smoking Foul Lan Assault Battery Theft Fighting Gambling False Al 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 030 050 060 062 100 110 010 020 030 040 050 060 1 2 10 1 3 1 1 1 21 3 3 5 3 1 1 15 3 1 2 15 1 6 2 2 1 36 3 1 1 1 1 2 1 1 1 1 4 4 1 1 1 1 1 1 3 1 2 15 1 6 2 3 1 37 4 1 1 2 1 4 4 1 2 17 1 6 2 4 1 41 4 1SCHOOL: 013 HENDERSON JUNIOR HIGH SCHOOL OUT OF SCHOOL LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT FROM DATE: DISCIPLINE BY REASON CODE 8/20/97 TO DATE: SANCTIONS LONG TERM SUSMRC 6/03/98 EXPELLED OFFENCE LVL CODE BM BF BLK TOT WM WF WHT TOT BM BF BLK TOT WM WF WHT TOT BM BF BLK TOT WM 07/27/98 WF WHT TOT BLK PAGE TOTAL WHT 22 TOT Mischief PROSTAFF Ind Exp INSUBORD Dis Cond Har Conm Forgery Paging D RAPRINGS AL-DRUGS Ass Staf V As Sf Pos Weap CLASS 08 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 3 3 3 080 090 100 105 no 120 122 123 130 150 071 072 090 9 2 30 5 3 1 3 1 SUBTOTAL 98 1 5 7 1 1 1 1 45 1 14 2 37 6 3 1 1 3 2 1 143 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 1 1 1 1 1 3 1 4 5 6 11 10 3 13 1 14 2 39 7 3 1 1 1 1 3 6 1 156 1 1 1 11 1 15 2 40 8 3 1 1 1 1 3 6 1 167 MinAlter LeftSch I FAILOBEY Ref Ruis FAILDET Foul Lan Assault Battery Theft Fighting Gambling False Al M i sch i ef PROSTAFF INSUBORD Dis Cond Har Comm AL-DRUGS Ass Staf V As Sf Extort Weapon ROBBERY CLASS 09 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 3 3 3 3 3 030 050 060 062 080 110 010 020 030 040 050 060 080 090 105 110 120 150 071 072 110 121 130 1 2 2 29 1 6 1 3 6 22 2 2 10 5 8 2 8 1 SUBTOTAL 111 Dis Cond CLASS 11 2 110 SUBTOTAL 1 1 SCHOOL SUBTOTAL 372 3 7 7 1 2 20 124 1 2 5 36 1 6 1 3 6 29 2 2 11 7 8 2 8 1 131 1 1 496 5 3 5 3 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 5 1 1 1 18 43 1 1 8 6 1 1 1 19 51 1 1 1 1 1 3 2 1 1 1 1 1 13 33 1 3 8 1 1 2 3 2 2 1 1 1 16 41 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 2 1 1 2 2 2 2 2 1 2 5 36 1 6 2 3 6 29 2 1 2 11 8 9 11 3 3 1 2 1 149 5 3 1 1 1 6 1 1 1 1 2 23 1 2 10 39 1 7 3 4 6 35 2 1 2 12 9 9 U 12 5 1 2 1 172 1 2 3 (5 4 7 2 1 1 1 1 541 56 597SCHOOL: 016 MABELVALE JUNIOR HIGH SCHOOL OUT OF SCHOOL LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT FROM DATE: DISCIPLINE BY REASON CODE 8/20/97 TO DATE: SANCTIONS LONG TERM SUSMRC 6/03/98 EXPELLED OFFENCE LVL CODE BM BF BLK TOT WM WF WHT TOT BM BF BLK TOT WM WF WHT TOT BM BF BLK TOT WM 07/27/93 WF WHT TOT BLK PAGE TOTAL WHT 25 TOT Fighting CLASS 02 I PROSTAFF CLASS 04 Harass FAILOBEY Ref Ruis Battery Theft Fighting PROSTAFF Ind Exp INSUBORD Dis Cond RAPRINGS AL-DRUGS Ass Staf V As Sf CLASS 07 FAILOBEY Ref Ruis Foul Lan Assault Battery Theft Fighting Mischief PROSTAFF Ind Exp INSUBORD Dis Cond Paging D AL-DRUGS Ass Staf V As Sf WEAPONSI WEAPONS2 In Riot CLASS 08 Ref Ruis Foul Lan 2 040 SUBTOTAL 2 090 SUBTOTAL 1 1 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 3 3 040 060 062 020 030 040 090 100 105 110 130 150 071 072 SUBTOTAL 1 1 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 3 3 3 3 3 060 062 110 010 020 030 040 080 090 100 105 110 123 150 071 072 091 092 120 SUBTOTAL 1 1 062 110 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 3 1 1 1 3 4 1 1 16 1 1 2 13 16 1 1 1 1 1 32 2 1 3 14 1 1 1 2 1 2 3 3 1 3 4 3 1 40 22 62 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 6 6 1 1 6 1 1 1 7 32 2 1 3 16 1 1 1 1 69 1 2 1 1 6 1 3 5 3 1 34 2 1 4 17 1 1 1 1 75 3 6 1 1 1 4 7 1 1 1 2 2 13 1 3 1 16 10 4 3 8 1 5 1 4 1 2 2 2 21 2 8 1 17 14 5 5 2 2 1 2 3 1 1 4 4 2 2 2 2 1 2 1 3 2 4 3 1 1 3 3 6 65 25 90 12 5 17 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 8 6 14 1 1 1 3 1 3 4 7 1 2 5 2 21 2 8 2 17 20 5 6 1 1 1 1 1 107 1 4 3 2 4 3 1 18 8 1 2 5 2 25 2 11 2 19 24 5 9 1 1 1 2 1 125 5 1 5 1 1 1 1 1 6 1 1 7 1LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT SUSMRC 07/27/98 PAGE 26 I SCHOOL: 016 MABELVALE JUNIOR HIGH SCHOOL FROM DATE: DISCIPLINE BY REASON CODE 8/20/97 TO DATE: 6/03/98 OUT OF SCHOOL OFFENCE LVL CODE BM BF BLK TOT UM UF UHT TOT BM SANCTIONS LONG TERM EXPELLED TOTAL BF BLK TOT UM UF UHT TOT BH BF BLK TOT UM UF UHT TOT BLK WHT TOT Assault Battery Fighting PROSTAFF INSUBORD Dis Cond Paging D AL-DRUGS Ass Staf V As Sf FIREARM2 WEAPONSl WEAPONS2 In Riot CLASS 09 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 3 3 3 3 3 3 010 020 040 090 105 110 123 150 071 072 082 091 092 120 1 11 6 4 5 2 1 11 3 3 8 1 22 9 7 13 2 1 3 7 1 10 1 2 2 1 1 SUBTOTAL 36 SCHOOL SUBTOTAL 142 1 1 2 3 3 6 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 1 1 1 2 1 2 26 62 5 9 14 7 2 6 2 13 5 1 3 1 8 1 3 22 9 7 19 2 3 1 2 1 2 1 3 83 10 1 2 14 1 3 32 10 7 21 2 3 1 2 1 2 1 3 97 74 216 23 14 37 21 13 34 1 1 5^ 11 261 38 299SCHOOL: 003 MANN ARTS/SCIENCES MAGNET OUT OF SCHOOL OFFENCE LVL CODE BM BF BLK TOT WM WF LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT FROM DATE: WHT TOT BM SUSMRC 07/27/98 PAGE 5 DISCIPLINE BY REASON CODE 8/20/97 TO DATE: 6/03/98 SANCTIONS LONG TERM EXPELLED TOTAL BF BLK TOT UM UF WHT TOT BM BF BLK TOT UM UF WHT TOT BLK WHT TOT Dis Cond CLASS 02 2 110 SUBTOTAL 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Harass FAILOBEY FAILDET Theft Fighting PROSTAFF Ind Exp INSUBORD Dis Cond Har Conm Paging D AL-DRUGS CLASS 07 1 1 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 040 060 080 030 040 090 100 105 110 120 123 150 2 1 18 1 2 10 1 6 1 1 2 1 24 2 1 1 SUBTOTAL 1 35 2 1 1 1 13 I, 11 1 1 1 48 3 2 3 5 3 3 7 1 3 8 1 1 1 1 1 1 14 6 20 2 2 1 1 1 2 1 24 2 1 4 12 1 1 1 50 1 5 3 3 9 21 1 1 2 1 29 5 1 7 21 1 1 1 71 MinAlter FAILOBEY Ref Ruis FAILDET Theft Fighting Gambling PROSTAFF Ind Exp INSUBORD Dis Cond Har Conm AL-DRUGS WEAPONSI CLASS 08 1 1 1 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 3 030 060 062 080 030 040 050 090 100 105 110 120 150 091 1 2 2 1 SUBTOTAL 1 11 2 14 3 1 37 1 5 1 9 2 19 1 3 2 1 1 16 1 2 23 5 1 56 1 1 4 1 4 3 1 14 1 1 1 1 5 1 1 1 3 2 1 1 16 1 1 2 5 6 3 1 3 1 1 3 1 1 5 24 6 1 5 1 1 19 4 1 5 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 62 6 3 1 1 20 1 3 3 1 2 21 2 1 5 30 9 1 1 2 82 LeftSchl Ref Ruis Assault Theft Fighting Gambling Mischief PROSTAFF Ind Exp INSUBORD Dis Cond Paging D 1 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 050 062 010 030 040 051 081 090 100 105 110 123 1 1 1 1 1 6 2 1 2 3 11 9 1 6 3 3 3 3 1 12 2 1 5 6 14 12 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 2 1 1 1 3 1 3 1 1 1 1 1 12 2 1 5 6 15 12 1 1 1 1 3 1 3 1 2 1 2 15 2 1 5 6 16 15 1 ILITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT SUSMRC 07/27/98 PAGE 6 i SCHOOL: 003 MANN ARTS/SCIENCES MAGNET FROM DATE: DISCIPLINE BY REASON CODE 8/20/97 TO DATE: 6/03/98 OUT OF SCHOOL SANCTIONS LONG TERM EXPELLED TOTAL OFFENCE LVL CODE BM BF BLK TOT UM UF UHT TOT BM BF BLK TOT UM UF UHT TOT BM BF BLK tot UM UF UHT TOT BLK UHT TOT AL-DRUGS CLASS 09 2 150 SUBTOTAL 2 40 18 2 58 2 8 1 5 3 13 1 1 2 59 3 13 5 72 SCHOOL SUBTOTAL 112 51 163 36 16 52 7 1 8 1 1 1 1 172 54 226 ISCHOOL: 010 PULASKI HEIGHTS JUNIOR HIGH OUT OF SCHOOL LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT FROM DATE: DISCIPLINE BY REASON CODE 8/20/97 TO DATE: SANCTIONS LONG TERM SUSMRC 6/03/98 EXPELLED OFFENCE LVL CODE BM BF BLK TOT UM UF UHT TOT BM BF BLK TOT UM UF UHT TOT BM BF BLK TOT UM 07/27/98 UF UHT TOT BLK PAGE TOTAL UHT 16 TOT Battery Theft Fighting PROStAFF INSUBORD Dis Cond Forgery V As Sf CLASS 07 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 3 020 030 040 090 105 110 122 072 2 18 5 10 14 1 11 2 1 1 3 29 5 12 15 1 3 3 SUBTOTAL 49 16 65 3 3 1 1 1 1 2 2 1 1 1 1 1 3 30 5 12 15 1 1 68 3 3 1 3 33 5 12 15 1 1 71 Ref Ruis Theft Fighting Loiter PROSTAFF INSUBORD Dis Cond Paging D V As Sf Pos Ueap UEAPONS1 UEAPONS2 CLASS 08 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 3 3 3 3 062 030 040 070 090 105 110 123 072 090 091 092 3 5 22 1 3 16 8 1 7 5 3 6 29 1 3 21 8 3 1 4 1 SUBTOTAL 2 1 1 62 1 14 2 1 1 1 76 4 1 1 1 1 5 1 1 2 1 9 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 3 6 29 1 3 21 8 3 1 2 1 78 4 1 1 2 1 1 10 3 6 33 1 4 22 10 1 3 1 3 1 88 FAILOBEY Ref Ruis Foul Lan Assault Theft Fighting Mischief PROSTAFF Ind Exp INSUBORD Dis Cond Har Comm Paging D AL-DRUGS Ass Staf Pos Ueap In Riot CLASS 09 1 1 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 3 3 3 060 062 110 010 030 040 080 090 100 105 110 120 123 150 071 090 120 1 1 1 1 1 2 1 SUBTOTAL SCHOOL SUBTOTAL 3 7 1 1 3 18 129 14 3 21 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 1 1 3 21 1 2 1 2 21 51 2 2 2 6 1 6 1 2 2 2 2 5 2 1 2 1 2 2 2 2 1 1 1 6 3 39 12 1 13 180 19 6 25 1 1 2 1 1 4 1 2 1 6 3 3 1 1 1 1 5 2 1 1 46 2 1 1 16 1 2 1 1 3 22 1 1 2 8 5 2 2 (\u0026gt; 3 1 1 b2 6 3 9 4 4 (S) 3 192 29 221LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT SUSMRC 07/27/98 PAGE 17 SCHOdfL: 011 SOUTHWEST JUNIOR HIGH SCHOOL FROM DATE: DISCIPLINE BY REASON CODE 8/20/97 TO DATE: 6/03/98 OFFENCE LVL CODE BM BF OUT Of SCHOOL BLK TOT WM WF WHT TOT BM SANCTIONS LONG TERM EXPELLED TOTAL BF BLK TOT WM WF WHT TOT BM BF BLK TOT WM WF WHT TOT BLK WHT TOT Dis Cond CLASS 01 2 no SUBTOTAL 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Ref Ruis Ref Det Assault Battery Theft Fighting Gambling Mischief PROSTAFF Ind Exp INSUBORD Dis Cond Har Comm Paging D AL-DRUGS V As Sf CLASS 07 1 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 3 062 090 010 020 030 040 050 080 090 100 105 110 120 123 150 072 1 1 1 1 SUBTOTAL 1 3 23 1 2 k 2 19 11 1 1 69 15 2 3 3 1 25 1 3 38 1 2 6 2 22 14 2 1 94 3 3 2 5 1 1 2 2 1 1 7 1 6 4 5 6 1 1 1 1 2 1 1 2 1 1 1 1 5 7 3 39 1 2 6 4 23 15 2 1 1 3 2 1 12 1 5 1 17 1 1 1 111 1 8 1 1 5 8 3 42 1 2 6 4 23 17 3 1 1 1 119 MinAlter FAILOBEY Ref Ruis Ref Det Foul Lan Assault Battery Fighting Mischief PROSTAFF INSUBORD Dis Cond AL-DRUGS V As Sf Extort CLASS 08 1 1 1 1 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 3 3 030 060 062 090 110 010 020 040 080 090 105 110 150 072 110 2 1 1 1 1 1 2 1 1 2 1 SUBTOTAL 1 19 16 20 10 2 73 11 1 4 19 8 45 1 30 1 20 39 18 2 118 4 1 1 3 2 1 1 2 1 5 1 2 5 3 5 1 2 1 7 2 2 1 1 2 2 11 5 16 8 3 11 2 2 1 1 1 1 2 1 1 2 1 1 8 30 1 21 39 18 2 2 1 130 2 5 1 2 5 3 18 2 1 1 2 1 1 10 35 2 23 44 21 2 2 1 148 LeftSchl Assault Battery Theft Fighting Gambling Mischief 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 050 010 020 030 040 050 080 1 1 2 24 1 4 1 1 8 1 1 3 1 32 1 4 1 1 4 2 1 2 5 1 1 3 1 4 1 3 8 1 32 1 4 1 1 4 2 4 8 1 36 1 4SCHOOL: 011 SOUTHWEST JUNIOR HIGH SCHOOL OUT OF SCHOOL OFFENCE LVL CODE BM BF BLK TOT WM WF LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT FROM DATE: WHT TOT BM SUSMRC 07/27/98 PAGE 18 J DISCIPLINE BY REASON CODE 8/20/97 TO DATE: 6/03/98 SANCTIONS LONG TERM EXPELLED TOTAL BF BLK TOT WM WF WHT TOT BM BF BLK TOT WM WF WHT TOT BLK WHT TOT PROSTAFF Ind Exp INSUBORD Dis Cond Paging D AL-DRUGS Ass Staf V As Sf WEAPONS1 Extort Weapon CLAS^ 09 2 2 2 2 2 2 3 3 3 3 3 090 100 105 110 123 150 071 072 091 110 121 8 1 18 8 1 5 5 11 9 13 1 29 17 1 5 4 1 1 2 5 3 SUBTOTAL 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 2 75 35 110 9 5 14 INSUBORD CLASS 10 2 105 SUBTOTAL Z 2 1 1 3 3 1 1 1 1 11 1 4 1 1 1 1 1 15 1 2 1 1 1 2 1 2 1 2 4 1 2 3 14 1 29 19 1 5 2 4 1 1 1 128 3 3 Ref Ruis Dis Cond CLASS 11 1 2 062 110 SUBTOTAL 1 1 1 1 1 1 SCHOOL SUBTOTAL 221 106 327 25 1 1 1 1 13 38 31 12 43 5 2 7 (3) 4 374 1 5 3 2 1 18 14 2 34 22 1 5 2 6 1 2 1 146 3 3 1 1 1 1 2 45 419SCHOOL: 019 BADGETT ELEMENTARY SCHOOL OUT OF SCHOOL OFFENCE LVL CODE BM BF BLK TOT WM WF LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT FROM DATE: WHT TOT BM SUSMRC 07/27/98 PAGE 29 DISCIPLINE BY REASON CODE 8/20/97 TO DATE: 6/03/98 SANCTIONS LONG TERM EXPELLED TOTAL BF BLK TOT WM WF WHT TOT BM BF BLK TOT WM WF WHT TOT BLK WHT TOT INSUBORO Dis Cond CLASS 01 2 2 105 110 SUBTOTAL 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 1 1 2 Dis Cond CLASS 02 2 no SUBTOTAL 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Ref Ruis Theft Fighting CLASS 05 1 2 2 062 030 040 SUBTOTAL 1 1 1 3 1 1 2 1 1 4 2 1 1 4 2 1 1 4 Fighting Dis Cond CLASS 06 2 2 040 110 1 subtotal 1 2 2 1 2 3 1 2 3 1 2 3 SCHOOL SUBTOTAL 5 3 8 1 1 2 10 10 I ILITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT SUSMRC 07/27/98 PAGE 27 SCHOOL: 017 BALE ELEMENTARY SCHOOL FROM DATE: DISCIPLINE BY REASON CODE 8/20/97 TO DATE: 6/03/98 OFFENCE LVL CODE BM BF OUT OF SCHOOL BLK TOT WM WF WHT TOT BM SANCTIONS LONG TERM EXPELLED TOTAL BF BLK TOT WM WF WHT TOT BM BF BLK TOT WM WF WHT TOT BLK WHT TOT Fighting CLASS 02 2 040 SUBTOTAL 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Dis Cond CLASS 03 2 110 SUBTOTAL 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Ref Ruis fighting Dis Cond CLASS 04 1 2 2 062 040 110 SUBTOTAL 2 2 2 6 2 2 2 6 2 2 2 6 2 2 2 6 Theft Fighting Ind Exp Dis Cond WEAPONSI CLASS 05 2 2 2 2 3 030 040 100 110 091 1 2 1 1 1 1 2 1 2 1 1 SUBTOTAL 5 1 6 1 2 1 2 2 2 1 2 1 8 2 2 1 2 1 8 Ref Ruis Loi ter INSUBORD Dis Cond WEAPONSI CLASS 06 1 2 2 2 3 062 070 105 110 091 1 1 1 1 1 3 2 1 3 SUBTOTAL 2 6 8 1 1 1 1 2 1 2 3 1 9 2 1 2 3 1 9 INSUBORO CLASS 08 2 105 SUBTOTAL 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 PROSTAFF CLASS 10 2 090 SUBTOTAL 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 SCHOOL SUBTOTAL 15 7 22 2 2 2 1 3 25 2 27SCHOOL: 022 BASELINE ELEMENTARY SCHOOL OUT OF SCHOOL LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT FROM DATE: DISCIPLINE BY REASON CODE 8/20/97 TO DATE: SANCTIONS LONG TERM SUSMRC 6/03/98 EXPELLED OFFENCE LVL CODE BM BF BLK TOT UM UF UHT TOT BM BF BLK TOT UM UF UHT TOT BM BF BLK TOT UM 07/27/98 UF UHT TOI BLK PAGE TOTAL UHT 32 TOT I I i i I FAILOBEY Foul Lan Assault PROSTAFF CLASS K 1 1 2 2 060 110 010 090 1 1 SUBTOTAL 2 1 1 1 3 1 2 1 1 5 1 2 1 1 5 1 2 1 1 5 Foul Lan Assault Battery Fighting X As Sf CLASS 01 Ref Ruis CLASS 02 FAILOBEY Ref Ruis Foul Lan Loiter V As Sf CLASS 03 Harass FAILOBEY Ref Ruis foul Lan Assault Fighting Loiter Ass Staf CLASS 04 FAILOBEY Ref Ruis Foul Lan Theft F i ght ing Loiter INSUBORD V As Sf CLASS 05 Ref Ruis Foul Lan 1 2 2 2 3 110 010 020 040 072 3 1 3 1 1 1 1 1 3 1 SUBTOTAL 4 1 5 1 2 1 2 1 1 1 062 SUBTOTAL 1 1 1 2 3 060 062 110 070 072 SUBTOTAL 1 1 1 1 2 2 2 3 040 060 062 110 010 040 070 071 SUBTOTAL 1 1 1 2 2 2 2 3 060 062 110 030 040 070 105 072 SUBTOTAL 1 1 062 110 5 1 2 3 1 1 1 1 7 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 2 1 2 2 1 6 1 6 1 1 1 1 1 2 2 1 1 7 1 2 2 1 1 7 1 1 5 2 2 3 1 1 16 1 1 5 2 2 3 1 1 16 1 1 1 1 1 1 5 2 2 3 1 1 16 1 1 1 1 5 3 2 3 1 1 17 1 2 3 1 1 3 1 2 3 1 4 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 9 3 4 3 2 1 1 12 5 5 1 1 1 1 1 1 3 3 1 1 2 1 1 1 2 3 1 4 1 1 1 14 5 5 1 1 1 1 4 2 2 4 1 5 1 2 1 18 5 5SCHOOL: 022 BASELINE ELEMENTARY SCHOOL OUT OF SCHOOL LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT FROM DATE: DISCIPLINE BY REASON CODE 8/20/97 TO DATE: SANCTIONS LONG TERM SUSMRC 6/03/98 EXPELLED OFFENCE LVL CODE BM BF BLK TOT WM WF WHT TOT BM BF BLK TOT WM WF WHT TOT BM BF BLK TOT WM 07/27/98 WF WHT TOT BLK PAGE TOTAL WHT 33 TOT Fighting INSUBORD Dis Cond CLASS 06 2 2 2 040 105 110 SUBTOTAL 7 2 1 17 3 1 7 10 2 2 24 10 2 2 24 10 2 2 24 SCHOOL SUBTOTAL 55 14 69 6 6 1 2 3 1 1 72 7 79SCHOOL: 006 BOOKER ARTS MAGNET SCHOOL OUT OF SCHOOL OFFENCE LVL CODE BM BF BLK TOT WM WF LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT FROM DATE: WHT TOT BM SUSMRC 07/27/98 PAGE 9 DISCIPLINE BY REASON CODE 8/20/97 TO DATE: 6/03/98 SANCTIONS LONG TERM EXPELLED TOTAL BF BLK TOT WM WF WHT TOT BM BF BLK TOT WM WF WHT TOT BLK WHT TOT INSUBORD Dis Cond CLASS K 2 2 105 110 SUBTOTAL 1 1 2 1 1 2 1 1 2 1 1 2 Assault INSUBORD Ois Cond CLASS 01 2 2 2 010 105 110 SUBTOTAL 2 1 1 4 1 1 2 1 2 5 2 1 2 5 2 1 2 5 Dis Cond CLASS 02 2 110 SUBTOTAL 2 2 3 3 5 5 5 5 5 5 Assault INSUBORD Ois Cond Har Comn V As Sf CLASS 03 2 2 2 2 3 010 105 110 120 072 SUBTOTAL 2 4 1 1 8 2 4 1 1 8 1 1 1 1 1 1 3 3 2 4 1 1 8 1 1 1 3 1 3 5 1 1 11 Assault INSUBORD Dis Cond CLASS 04 2 2 2 010 105 110 SUBTOTAL 1 1 3 5 1 1 3 5 1 1 1 1 1 2 3 6 1 2 3 6 Theft Mischief INSUBORD Dis Cond CLASS 05 2 2 2 2 030 080 105 110 2 2 SUBTOTAL 3 1 6 3 1 6 1 1 2 1 1 3 1 6 1 1 2 1 3 1 7 Fighting INSUBORD Dis Cond Har Comm CLASS 06 2 2 2 2 040 105 110 120 SUBTOTAL 1 1 3 1 6 1 1 3 1 6 2 2 2 2 1 1 3 1 6 2 2 1 1 5 1 8 INSUBORD CLASS 08 2 105 SUBTOTAL 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 SCHOOL SUBTOTAL 34 4 38 6 6 1 1 39 6 45SCHOOL: 018 BRADY ELEMENTARY SCHOOL OUT OF SCHOOL LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT FROM DATE: DISCIPLINE BY REASON CODE 8/20/97 TO DATE: SANCTIONS LONG TERM SUSMRC 6/03/98 EXPELLED OFFENCE LVL CODE BM BF BLK TOT WM WF WHT TOT BM BF BLK TOT WM WF WHT TOT BM BF BLK TOT WM 07/27/98 UF WHT TOT BLK PAGE TOTAL WHT 28 TOT FAILOBEY Dis Cond CLASS K 1 2 060 110 1 SUBTOTAL 1 1 1 1 1 2 1 1 2 1 1 2 Harass FAILOBEY Ref Ruis RAPRINGS Ass Staf CLASS 01 1 1 1 2 3 040 060 062 130 071 SUBTOTAL 1 1 1 1 1 5 1 1 1 1 1 5 1 1 1 1 1 5 1 1 1 1 1 5 Ref Ruis Foul Lan F i gh t i ng Dis Cond RAPRINGS CLASS 02 1 1 2 2 2 062 110 040 110 130 2 1 1 SUBTOTAL 1 5 2 2 2 1 1 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 1 1 2 1 7 1 1 2 1 2 2 1 8 FAILOBEY Foul Lan Fighting CLASS 03 1 1 2 060 110 040 SUBTOTAL 3 1 1 5 3 1 1 5 1 1 2 1 1 2 3 1 1 5 2 2 5 1 1 7 MinAlter FAILOBEY Ref Ruis Foul Lan Assault CLASS 04 1 1 1 1 2 030 060 062 110 010 2 1 1 2 1 2 1 2 1 1 SUBTOTAL 3 3 6 1 2 1 2 1 2 1 2 6 1 1 2 1 3 1 2 1 8 MinAlter Ref Ruis Dis Cond CLASS 05 1 1 2 030 062 110 1 1 1 2 1 1 1 SUBTOTAL 2 1 3 1 1 1 1 1 1 Fighting CLASS 07 2 040 SUBTOTAL 2 2 2 2 SCHOOL SUBTOTAL 22 6 28 5 3 8 1 1 3 1 4 2 2 29 1 1 3 1 1 5 2 2 8 37 ISCHOOL: 021 CARVER MATH/SCIENCE MAGNET OUT OF SCHOOL LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT FROM DATE: DISCIPLINE BY REASON CODE 8/20/97 TO DATE: SANCTIONS LONG TERM SUSMRC 6/03/98 EXPELLED OFFENCE LVL CODE BM BF BLK TOT UM UF WHT TOT BM BF BLK TOT UM UF UHT TOT BM BF BLK TOT UM I I I i 07/27/98 UF UHT TOT BLK PAGE TOTAL UHT 31 TOT Theft CLASS K 2 030 SUBTOTAL 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 Ref Ruis Assault Dis Cond CLASS 01 Dis Cond CLASS 02 LeftSchl FAILOBEY Theft Fighting INSUBORD Dis Cond CLASS 03 Assault Theft Fighting bis Cond CLASS 04 Battery Theft Fighting INSUBORO CLASS 05 MinAlter FAILOBEY Ref Ruis Theft Fighting Ind Exp Har Conm V As Sf UEAPONS1 CLASS 06 1 2 2 062 010 110 SUBTOTAL 1 1 1 3 1 1 1 3 1 1 1 3 1 1 1 3 2 110 SUBTOTAL 1 1 2 2 2 2 050 060 030 040 105 110 SUBTOTAL 2 2 2 2 010 030 040 no SUBTOTAL 2 2 2 2 020 030 040 105 SUBTOTAL 1 1 1 2 2 2 2 3 3 030 060 062 030 040 100 120 072 091 SUBTOTAL SCHOOL SUBTOTAL 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 Z 1 2 2 1 1 3 10 1 2 2 1 1 3 10 1 1 1 1 1 3 1 3 1 2 2 1 1 3 10 1 1 1 3 1 3 2 2 1 I, 13 1 1 5 2 9 5 1 6 1 1 2 2 2 1 9 39 1 1 2 4 1 1 5 2 9 1 6 1 8 1 1 2 2 2 1 9 43 1 1 1 1 1 1 5 2 9 1 1 1 1 6 2 10 1 1 1 1 1 2 7 1 1 1 2 7 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 6 1 8 1 1 2 2 2 1 1 10 44 1 1 1 1 2 7 1 1 6 1 9 1 1 2 1 2 2 1 1 1 12 51 I I ISCHOOL: 028 CHICOT ELEMENTARY SCHOOL OUT OF SCHOOL OFFENCE LVL CODE BM BF BLK TOT UM UF LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT FROM DATE: WHT TOT BM SUSMRC 07/27/98 PAGE 39 DISCIPLINE BY REASON CODE 8/20/97 TO DATE: 6/03/98 SANCTIONS LONG TERM EXPELLED TOTAL BF BLK TOT WM WF UHT TOT BM BF BLK TOT UM WF UHT TOT BLK WHT TOT I I I I I i j i FAILOBEY Ref Ruis INSUBORD Dis Cond Ass Staf CLASS K 1 1 2 2 3 060 062 105 110 071 1 2 2 4 1 2 2 4 2 1 2 1 SUBTOTAL 9 9 3 3 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 2 2 11 2 1 3 1 2 4 5 2 14 MinAlter Ref Ruis Fighting IN SUBORD Dis Cond Y As Sf GLASS 01 Ref Ruis Battery Fighting PROSTAFF INSUBORD Dis Cond Ass Staf WEAPONSI CLASS 02 MinAlter FAILOBEY Ref Ruis Assault Ind Exp INSUBORD Dis Cond CLASS 03 MinAlter Ref Ruis Foul Lan Assault Fighting PROSTAFF INSUBORD Dis Cond Arson Ass Staf WEAPONS? 1 1 2 2 2 3 030 062 040 105 110 072 4 3 4 3 SUBTOTAL 1 3 1 12 1 3 1 12 1 1 2 1 1 2 4 3 1 3 1 12 1 1 2 4 3 1 1 4 1 14 1 2 2 2 2 2 3 3 062 020 040 090 105 110 071 091 2 1 1 2 1 1 2 2 SUBTOTAL 1 2 1 1 9 1 2 1 1 9 1 1 2 1 1 2 3 3 1 2 1 1 9 1 3 1 1 1 1 2 1 1 12 1 1 1 2 2 2 2 030 060 062 010 100 105 110 1 1 SUBTOTAL 2 1 2 1 3 10 2 1 3 t, 1 2 1 U 13 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 k 1 2 1 4 13 1 1 2 1 1 4 1 2 2 I. 15 1 1 1 2 2 2 2 2 3 3 3 030 062 110 010 040 090 105 110 060 071 092 3 1 1 5 1 1 7 1 1 1 1 2 3 2 1 1 7 1 1 7 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 3 2 1 1 7 1 1 8 1 1 1 1 1 1 4 2 1 2 7 1 1 8 1 2 1SCHOOL: 028 CHICOT ELEMENTARY SCHOOL OUT OF SCHOOL OFFENCE LVL CODE BM BF BLK TOT WM WF CLASS 04 SUBTOTAL 21 4 25 4 LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT FROM DATE: WHT TOT BM SUSMRC 07/27/')i, PAGE 40 4 1 DISCIPLINE BY REASON CODE 8/20/97 TO DATE: 6/03/98 SANCTIONS LONG TERM EXPELLED TOTAL BF BLK TOT WM WF WHT TOT BM BF BLK TOT WM WF WHT TOT BLK WHT TOT i I I I 1 26 4 30 MinAlter Ref Ruis Assault Theft Ind Exp INSUBORD Dis Cond Arson Weapon CLASS 05 1 1 2 2 2 2 2 3 3 030 062 010 030 100 105 no 060 121 1 1 1 SUBTOTAL 1 4 4 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 4 5 1 1 1 1 1 1 11 3 14 1 1 2 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 4 5 1 1 16 1 2 1 2 1 1 2 !, 5 1 1 18 MinAlter FAILOBEY Ref Ruis Foul Lan Assault Theft Fighting PROSTAFF Ind Exp INSUBORD Dis Cond Har Conm AL-DRUGS Ass Staf V As Sf WEAPONSI CLASS 06 1 1 1 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 3 3 3 030 060 062 110 010 030 040 090 100 105 110 120 150 071 072 091 3 2 3 1 1 1 3 3 4 1 SUBTOTAL SCHOOL SUBTOTAL 1 10 2 1 3 6 1 1 34 106 2 2 1 2 1 1 1 2 i-t 24 3 12 3 1 3 8 2 2 1 2 48 130 1 1 3 4 3 4 1 1 1 1 2 1 1 9 1 10 1 3 1 3 3 3 4 1 1 3 12 3 1 3 8 2 2 2 2 1 51 3 4 1 2 10 3 3 4 1 1 3 15 7 1 4 10 2 2 2 2 1 61 22 3 25 7 7 1 1 T 1 138 26 164SCHOOL: 032 DODD ELEMENTARY SCHOOL OUT OF SCHOOL LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT FROM DATE: DISCIPLINE BY REASON CODE 8/20/97 TO DATE: SANCTIONS LONG TERM SUSMRC 6/03/98 EXPELLED OFFENCE LVL CODE BH BF BLK TOT WM WF WHT TOT BM BF BLK TOT WM WF WHT TOT BM BF BLK TOT WM 07/27/98 WF WHT TOT BLK PAGE TOTAL WHT 43 TOT MinAlter Dis Cond Ass Staf CLASS 02 1 2 3 030 110 071 1 1 1 1 SUBTOTAL 2 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 3 1 1 1 3 Fighting INSUBORD Har Comm CLASS 03 2 2 2 040 105 120 SUBTOTAL 1 1 1 3 1 1 1 3 1 1 1 3 1 1 1 3 Assault Battery INSUBORD Dis Cond CLASS 04 2 2 2 2 010 020 105 110 1 1 SUBTOTAL 3 3 1 3 4 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 3 3 3 4 1 1 1 3 1 2 1 3 7 Theft Fighting PROSTAFF INSUBORD Ass Staf V As Sf WEAPONSl CLASS 05 2 2 2 2 3 3 3 030 040 090 105 071 072 091 1 1 SUBTOTAL 1 1 1 4 1 1 1 4 2 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 3 3 3 1 2 1 2 1 1 4 1 5 1 3 1 1 1 1 1 9 MinAlter FAILOBEY Assault Theft fighting PROSIAFF INSUBORD WEAPONSl CLASS 06 1 1 2 2 2 2 2 3 030 060 010 030 040 090 105 091 1 2 1 2 SUBTOTAL 6 SCHOOL SUBTOTAL 18 1 1 3 1 1 1 3 3 1 2 1 1 1 6 7 12 25 1 1 1 1 2 1 1 3 3 1 2 1 1 7 1 8 1 1 2 2 12 26 1 2 1 1 3 3 2 2 1 1 14 10 36I I SCHOOL: 023 FAIR PARK ELEMENTARY SCHOOL OUT OF SCHOOL LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT FROM DATE: DISCIPLINE BY REASON CODE 8/20/97 TO DATE: SANCTIONS LONG TERM SUSMRC 6/03/98 EXPELLED OFFENCE LVL CODE BM BF BLK TOT WM WF WHT TOT BM BF BLK TOT WM WF WHT TOT BM BF BLK TOT WM 07/27/98 WF WHT TOT BLK PAGE TOTAL WHT 34 TOT Foul Lan Assault Fighting INSUBORD Dis Cond WEAPONSI CLASS 02 1 2 2 2 2 3 110 010 040 105 110 091 1 1 1 1 SUBTOTAL 3 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 4 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 4 1 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 6 Ref Ruis Assault Theft CLASS 03 1 2 2 062 010 030 2 2 SUBTOTAL 1 3 1 3 2 2 2 2 2 1 3 2 2 2 2 1 5 INSUBORD Dis Cond CLASS 04 2 2 105 110 SUBTOTAL 1 1 2 1 1 2 1 1 2 1 1 2 Fighting INSUBORD Har Conm CLASS 05 2 Z 2 040 105 120 1 SUBTOTAL 1 4 1 1 6 5 1 1 7 1 1 1 1 6 1 1 8 6 1 1 8 Foul Lan Fighting PROSTAFF INSUBORD Dis Cond Ass Staf V As Sf WEAPONSI CLASS 06 1 2 2 2 2 3 3 3 110 040 090 105 110 071 072 091 1 1 1 4 2 1 4 1 2 1 SUBTOTAL 3 6 9 1 1 1 1 4 1 1 1 1 4 1 4 1 2 2 1 1 1 13 1 4 1 2 2 1 1 1 13 SCHOOL SUBTOTAL 12 13 25 3 3 5 5 1 1 30 4 34SCHOOL: 024 FOREST PARK ELEMENTARY SCHOOL OUT OF SCHOOL OFFENCE LVL CODE BM BF BLK TOT WM WF LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT FROM DATE: DISCIPLINE BT REASON CODE 8/20/97 TO DATE: SANCTIONS LONG TERM SUSMRC 6/03/98 EXPELLED 07/27/98 PAGE TOTAL 35 Dis Cond CLASS K 2 no SUBTOTAL 1 1 1 1 Z Z 1 1 WHT TOT BM BF BLK TOT WM WF WHT TOT BM BF BLK TOT WM WF WHT TOT BLK WHT TOT 1 1 Z Z 1 1 3 3 FAILOBEY Ind Exp INSUBORD Dis Cond CLASS 01 1 2 2 2 060 100 105 110 1 1 SUBTOTAL 2 1 1 1 3 1 1 2 1 5 1 1 2 1 5 1 1 2 1 5 Foul Lan Theft CLASS 02 1 2 110 030 1 SUBTOTAL 1 1 1 1 1 2 1 1 2 1 1 2 Ind Exp Dis Cond CLASS 03 2 2 100 110 SUBTOTAL 1 2 3 1 2 3 1 2 3 1 2 3 Harass Ref Ruis Extort CLASS 04 1 1 3 040 062 110 3 1 SUBTOTAL 4 1 1 3 1 1 5 3 1 1 5 3 1 1 5 INSUBORD Dis Cond CLASS 05 2 2 105 110 SUBTOTAL 3 2 5 1 1 3 3 6 3 3 6 3 3 6 Fighting PROSTAFF Ind Exp INSUBORD Dis Cond V As Sf CLASS 06 2 2 Z Z 2 3 040 090 100 105 110 072 1 2 SUBTOTAL 2 1 4 1 3 6 2 1 1 5 1 10 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 2 1 1 5 1 10 1 1 2 1 2 1 2 5 1 12 FAILOBEY CLASS 07 1 060 SUBTOTAL 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 SCHOOL SUBTOTAL 21 13 34 2 1 3 34 3 37LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT SUSMRC 07/27/98 PAGE 36 I I SCHOOL: 025 FRANKLIN ELEMENTARY SCHOOL FROM DATE\nDISCIPLINE BY REASON CODE 8/20/97 TO DATE: 6/03/98 OUT OF SCHOOL OFFENCE LVL CODE BM BF BLK TOT WM WF WHT TOT BM SANCT IONS LONG TERM EXPELLED TOTAL BF BLK TOT WM WF WHT TOT BM BF BLK TOT WM WF WHT TOT BLK WHT TOT Ind Exp INSUBORD WEAPONSI CLASS K 2 2 3 100 105 091 2 1 2 1 SUBTOTAL 3 3 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 1 3 2 2 2 1 2 5 Assault PROSTAFF INSUBORD Dis Cond WEAPONSI CLASS 2 2 2 2 3 010 090 105 110 091 01 SUBTOTAL 2 2 1 5 1 1 2 1 2 3 1 7 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 3 1 8 1 1 2 3 1 8 INSUBORD Dis Cond 2 2 105 110 CLASS 02 SUBTOTAL 2 2 4 2 2 2 2 t. 2 2 4 F i ghting INSUBORD Dis Cond Har Conm AL-DRUGS 2 2 2 2 2 040 105 110 120 150 CLASS 03 SUBTOTAL 2 5 5 1 1 14 1 1 2 b 5 1 1 15 1 1 1 1 2 6 5 1 1 15 1 1 2 7 b 1 1 16 Foul Lan F i ght i ng Mischief PROSTAFF Dis Cond 1 2 2 2 2 110 040 080 090 110 CLASS 04 SUBTOTAL 3 1 1 6 11 3 1 1 b 11 1 1 1 1 3 1 1 6 11 1 1 1 3 1 1 6 12 Fighting PROSTAFF INSUBORD Dis Cond 2 2 2 2 040 090 105 110 1 CLASS 05 SUBTOTAL 4 2 7 2 1 3 1 2 5 2 10 1 1 1 1 1 2 5 2 10 1 1 2 2 5 2 11 Foul Lan Battery Fighting PROSTAFF INSUBORD Dis Cond 1 2 2 2 2 2 110 020 040 090 105 110 CLASS 06 SUBTOTAL 1 1 3 1 2 1 9 1 1 3 1 2 1 9 1 1 3 1 2 1 9 1 1 3 1 2 1 9 SCHOOL SUBTOTAL 53 6 59 3 1 4 1 1 1 1 60 5 65 ISCHOOL: 048 FULBRIGHT ELEMENTARY SCHOOL OUT OF SCHOOL OFFENCE LVL CODE BM BF BLK TOT UM UF LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT FROM DATE: DISCIPLINE BY REASON CODE 8/20/97 TO DATE\nSANCTIONS LONG TERM SUSMRC 6/03/98 EXPELLED 07/27/98 PAGE TOTAL 61 FAILOBEY CLASS 01 1 060 SUBTOTAL 2 2 2 2 FAILOBEY CLASS 02 1 060 SUBTOTAL 1 1 1 1 1 1 WHT TOT BM BF BLK TOT UM UF WHT TOT BM BF BLK TOT UM UF WHT TOT BLK WHT TOT 1 1 2 2 1 1 1 1 2 2 2 2 FAILOBEY CLASS 03 1 060 SUBTOTAL 5 5 1 1 6 6 6 6 6 6 FAILOBEY CLASS 04 1 060 SUBTOTAL 4 4 5 5 9 9 9 9 9 9 FAILOBEY Bus Regs Foul Lan Fighting CLASS[ 05 1 1 1 2 060 070 110 040 SUBTOTAL 23 1 1 1 26 23 1 1 1 26 2 2 1 1 1 1 2 2 1 1 1 1 24 1 1 1 27 3 3 27 1 1 1 30 FAILOBEY Ref Ruis Theft Fighting CLASS 06 1 1 2 2 060 062 030 040 5 1 9 1 SUBTOTAL 6 1 11 14 1 1 1 17 1 1 SCHOOL SUBTOTAL 43 18 61 2 2 2 4 3 3 6 1 1 1 1 14 1 1 1 17 62 3 3 7 17 1 1 1 20 69SCHOOL: 026 GARLAND INCENTIVE SCHOOL OUT OF SCHOOL OFFENCE LVL CODE BM BF BLK TOT WM WF LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT FROM DATE: WHT TOT BM SUSMRC 07/27/98 PAGE 37 DISCIPLINE BY REASON CODE 8/20/97 TO DATE: 6/03/98 SANCTIONS LONG TERM EXPELLED TOTAL BF BLK TOT WM WF WHT TOT BM BF BLK TOT WM WF WHT TOT BLK WHT TOT Pos Weap CLASS 05 3 090 SUBTOTAL 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Pos Weap CLASS 06 3 090 SUBTOTAL 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 SCHOOL SUBTOTAL 1 1 CD 1 2 2 I I I i tSCHOOL: 037 GEYER SPRINGS ELEMENTARY LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT FROM DATE: DISCIPLINE BY REASON CODE 8/20/97 TO DATE: SUSMRC 6/03/98 07/27/98 PAGE 48 I SANCTIONS OFFENCE LVL CODE BM BF OUT OF SCHOOL LONG TERM EXPELLED TOTAL BLK TOT UM UF UHT TOT BM BF BLK TOT UM UF UHT TOT BM BF BLK TOT UM UF UHT TOT BLK UHT TOT INSUBORD CLASS K 2 105 SUBTOTAL 1 1 1 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 Fighting CLASS 01 2 040 SUBTOTAL 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Assault INSUBORD CLASS 02 2 2 010 105 SUBTOTAL 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 1 1 2 INSUBORD CLASS 03 2 105 SUBTOTAL 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 Fighting PROSTAFF Har Comm CLASS 04 2 2 2 040 090 120 3 3 SUBTOTAL 1 1 3 1 4 1 1 3 1 1 1 4 1 1 3 1 1 5 MinAlter Theft Fighting INSUBORD Dis Cond AL-DRUGS CLASS 05 1 2 2 2 2 2 030 030 040 105 110 150 1 1 2 SUBTOTAL 1 1 1 2 3 8 1 1 2 3 9 1 1 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 4 10 1 1 2 1 1 1 2 11 INSUBORD CLASS 06 2 105 SUBTOTAL 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 SCHOOL SUBTOTAL 7 11 18 3 1 4 1 1 2 20 4 24SCHOOL: 027 GIBBS MAGNET SCHOOL OUT OF SCHOOL OFFENCE LVL CODE BM BF BLK TOT WM WF LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT FROM DATE: WHT TOT BM SUSMRC 07/27/98 PAGE 38 DISCIPLINE BT REASON CODE 8/20/97 TO DATE: 6/03/98 SANCTIONS LONG TERM EXPELLED TOTAL BF BLK TOT WM WF WHT TOT BM BF BLK TOT WM UF WHT TOT BLK WHT TOT MinAlter F i ght i ng CLASS 03 1 2 030 040 1 1 SUBTOTAL 1 1 2 2 2 2 1 1 2 2 1 2 3 F ighting Dis Cond CLASS 04 2 2 040 110 SUBTOTAL 2 1 3 2 1 3 2 1 3 2 1 3 MinAlter Fighting CLASS 05 1 2 030 040 SUBTOTAL 1 4 5 1 4 5 1 4 5 1 4 5 Ref Ruis CLASS 06 1 062 SUBTOTAL 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 SCHOOL SUBTOTAL 9 1 10 2 2 10 2 12 I I I iSCHOOL: 030 JEFFERSON ELEMENTARY SCHOOL LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT FROM DATE: DISCIPLINE BY REASON CODE 8/20/97 TO DATE: SUSMRC 6/03/98 07/27/98 PAGE 42 I I OFFENCE LVL COOE BM BF OUT OF SCHOOL BLK TOT WM UF WHT TOT BM SANCTIONS LONG TERM EXPELLED TOTAL BF BLK TOT WM WF WHT TOT BM BF BLK TOT WM WF WHT TOT BLK WHT TOT Mi nAlter FAILOBEY Fighting INSUBORD Paging D RAPRINGS AL-DRUGS CLASS 06 1 1 2 2 2 2 2 030 060 040 105 123 130 150 1 SUBTOTAL 1 2 1 1 1 7 1 1 1 1 1 2 1 1 1 8 1 1 1 2 1 1 1 8 1 1 1 2 1 1 1 8 SCHOOL SUBTOTAL 7 1 8 8 8LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT SUSMRC 07/27/98 PAGE 46 SCHOOL: 035 MARTIN LUTHER KING JR. ELEMENTARY FROM DATE: DISCIPLINE BY REASON CODE 8/20/97 TO DATE: 6/03/98 OUT OF SCHOOL OFFENCE LVL CODE BH BF BLK TOT WM WF WHT TOT BH SANCTIONS LONG TERM EXPELLED TOTAL BF BLK TOT WM WF WHT TOT BM BF BLK TOT WH WF WHT TOT BLK WHT TOT False Al INSUBORD CLASS K 2 2 060 105 SUBTOTAL 1 1 2 1 1 2 1 1 2 1 1 2 Battery INSUBORD Dis Cond Ass Staf WEAPONSl CLASS 01 2 2 2 3 3 020 105 110 071 091 1 1 1 1 1 1 SUBTOTAL 1 1 2 1 3 1 1 1 2 1 1 3 1 1 1 1 3 1 1 3 1 1 1 1 2 6 INSUBORD Dis Cond WEAPONSl CLASS 02 2 2 3 105 110 091 3 4 1 7 1 1 1 SUBTOTAL 3 5 8 1 1 1 1 2 7 1 8 1 1 2 8 1 1 10 Theft Fighting PROSTAFF INSUBORD Dis Cond Har Conm CLASS 03 2 2 2 2 2 2 030 040 090 105 110 120 3 1 4 2 1 SUBTOTAL 10 1 2 3 1 5 2 1 12 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 2 4 3 1 5 2 1 12 1 1 1 1 4 1 4 1 6 3 1 16 Fighting INSUBORD Dis Cond Har Conm CLASS 04 2 2 2 2 040 105 110 120 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 SUBTOTAL 2 2 1 1 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 3 1 1 2 1 2 1 1 5 Battery Fighting INSUBORD CLASS 05 2 2 2 020 040 105 SUBTOTAL 1 1 2 4 1 1 2 4 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 4 1 1 1 1 3 5 Assault Battery Fighting PROSTAFF INSUBORD Har Cornu CLASS 06 2 2 2 2 2 2 010 020 040 090 105 120 1 1 SUBTOTAL SCHOOL SUBTOTAL 1 1 5 8 1 1 1 1 5 1 9 1 1 1 30 10 40 1 2 1 2 1 1 5 1 9 1 1 2 1 1 1 1 5 2 11 7 6 13 1 1 1 41 14 55LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT SUSMRC 07/27/98 PAGE 57 SCHOOL: 046 MABELVALE ELEMENTARY SCHOOL FROM DATE: DISCIPLINE BY REASON CODE 8/20/97 TO DATE: 6/03/98 SANCTIONS OFFENCE LVL CODE BM BF OUT OF SCHOOL LONG TERM EXPELLED TOTAL BLK TOT WM WF WHT TOT BM BF BLK TOT WM WF WHT TOT BM BF BLK TOT WM WF WHT TOT BLK WHT TOT FAILOBEY Assault PROSTAFF CLASS K 1 2 2 060 010 090 1 1 SUBTOTAL 1 1 1 1 1 3 1 1 1 3 1 1 1 1 1 3 2 1 1 4 MinAlter Foul Lan Battery Fighting INSUBORD CLASS 01 1 1 2 2 2 030 110 020 040 105 1 1 SUBTOTAL 1 1 3 1 1 3 1 1 1 1 4 1 1 1 1 4 1 1 1 3 1 1 1 1 4 1 1 1 2 2 7 Ref Ruis Assault Fighting INSUBORD Dis Cond Poss Gun WEAPONS2 CLASS 02 1 2 2 2 2 2, 3 062 010 040 105 110 080 092 1 1 1 1 1 1 SUBTOTAL 2 2 1 2 1 4 1 1 3 2 3 1 7 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 3 1 2 3 1 1 8 1 1 3 3 1 1 1 11 Ref Ruis Fighting INSUBORD Dis Cond CLASS 03 1 2 2 2 062 040 105 110 SUBTOTAL 2 3 3 8 16 1 1 2 2 4 3 9 18 1 1 1 1 2 4 3 9 18 1 1 3 4 3 9 19 FAILOBEY Ref Ruis Fighting INSUBORD Dis Cond CLASS 04 1 1 2 2 2 060 062 040 105 110 1 1 SUBTOTAL 5 5 1 12 5 5 1 12 2 2 2 2 1 4 4 5 5 1 12 2 2 4 1 2 1 5 1 16 MinAlter Ref Ruis Assault Fighting INSUBORD Dis Cond CLASS 05 1 1 2 2 2 2 030 062 010 040 105 110 1 3 1 3 SUBTOTAL 3 3 2 12 2 2 5 3 2 14 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 1 3 2 3 5 5 3 2 14 1 1 1 2 5 1 4 1 6 5 2 19 FAILOBEY Ref Ruis Battery 1 1 2 060 062 020 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 2 1 2 2 1 2 2SCHOOL: 046 MABELVALE ELEMENTARY SCHOOL OUT OF SCHOOL LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT FROM DATE: DISCIPLINE BY REASON CODE 8/20/97 TO DATE: SANCTIONS LONG TERM SUSMRC 6/03/98 EXPELLED OFFENCE LVL CODE BM BF BLK TOT WM WF WHT TOT BM BF BLK TOT WM WF WHT TOT BM BF BLK TOT UM 07/27/98 WF WHT TOT BLK PAGE TOTAL WHT 58 TOT Fighting PROSTAFF INSUBORD Dis Cond CLASS 06 2 2 2 2 040 090 105 110 SUBTOTAL 1 1 2 2 9 4 2 2 10 5 1 4 4 19 4 4 4 4 1 1 1 1 5 1 4 5 20 4 4 9 1 4 5 24 SCHOOL SUBTOTAL 55 14 69 22 6 28 1 1 2 1 1 71 29 100 ISCHOOL: 020 MCDERMOTT ELEMENTARY SCHOOL OUT OF SCHOOL OFFENCE LVL COOE BM BF BLK TOT UM WF LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT FROM DATE: UHT TOT BM SUSMRC 07/27/98 PAGE 30 DISCIPLINE BY REASON COOE 8/20/97 TO DATE: 6/03/98 SANCTIONS LONG TERM EXPELLED TOTAL BF BLK TOT UM UF UHT TOT BM BF BLK TOT UM WF UHT TOT BLK UHT TOT PROSTAFF Dis Cond Pos Ueap CLASS 02 2 2 3 090 110 090 2 2 SUBTOTAL 2 1 1 1 3 1 1 2 1 1 1 3 1 1 2 1 1 4 Fighting Dis Cond CLASS 03 2 2 040 110 SUBTOTAL 1 1 1 3 4 1 4 5 1 4 5 1 4 5 Mischief INSUBORO Dis Cond CLASS 05 2 2 2 080 105 110 1 1 SUBTOTAL 2 1 1 2 1 2 1 4 1 2 1 I, 1 2 1 4 Theft F i ght ing INSUBORD Dis Cond V As Sf CLASS 06 2 2 2 2 5 030 040 105 110 072 4 1 1 1 1 5 1 1 SUBTOTAL 1 6 2 1 8 1 1 1 1 5 1 1 1 2 1 8 1 1 2 1 5 2 1 1 10 INSUBORO CLASS 08 2 105 SUBTOTAL 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 SCHOOL SUBTOTAL 12 9 21 2 1 3 21 3 24 I i 1LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT SUSMRC 07/27/98 PAGE 44 SCHOOL: 033 MEADOUCLIFF ELEMENTARY SCHOOL FROM DATE: DISCIPLINE BY REASON CODE 8/20/97 TO DATE: 6/03/98 OUT OF SCHOOL SANCTIONS LONG TERM EXPELLED TOTAL OFFENCE LVL CODE BM BF BLK TOT UM UF UHT TOT BM BF BLK TOT UM UF UHT TOT BM BF BLK TOT UM WF UHT TOT BLK UHT TOT INSUBORD CLASS 01 2 105 SUBTOTAL 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 INSUBORD CLASS 02 2 105 SUBTOTAL 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 INSUBORD Dis Cond Har Conrn Pos Weap CLASS 03 2 2 2 3 105 110 120 090 1 2 1 1 2 1 SUBTOTAL 4 4 1 1 1 1 1 2 1 1 5 1 2 1 1 5 Assault Fighting INSUBORD Dis Cond CLASS 04 2 2 2 2 010 040 105 110 1 SUBTOTAL 1 2 2 1 3 1 2 2 5 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 1 2 2 5 1 1 2 1 2 2 2 7 Fighting PROSTAFF INSUBORD Dis Cond WEAPONSI CLASS 05 2 2 2 2 3 040 090 105 110 091 3 1 1 1 1 3 1 2 1 SUBTOTAL 6 1 7 1 1 1 1 3 1 2 1 1 8 3 1 2 1 1 8 Fighting INSUBORD Dis Cond CLASS 06 2 2 2 040 105 110 SUBTOTAL 1 3 4 8 1 3 4 8 1 3 4 8 1 3 4 8 SCHOOL SUBTOTAL 22 4 26 1 1 2 2 2 28 2 30 ISCHOOL: 034 MITCHELL INCENTIVE SCHOOL OUT OF SCHOOL LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT FROM DATE: DISCIPLINE BY REASON CODE 8/20/97 TO DATE: SANCTIONS LONG TERM SUSMRC 6/03/98 EXPELLED OFFENCE LVL CODE BM BF BLK TOT WM WF WHT TOT BM BF BLK TOT WM WF WHT TOT BM BF BLK TOT UM 07/27/98 PAGE TOTAL UF WHT TOT BLK WHT 45 TOT Ref Ruis Dis Cond CLASS 02 1 2 062 110 SUBTOTAL 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 1 1 2 1 1 2 Fighting CLASS 03 2 040 SUBTOTAL 3 3 1 1 4 4 4 4 4 4 Ref Ruis Assault Dis Cond Ass Staf CLASS 04 1 2 2 3 062 010 110 071 1 1 SUBTOTAL 1 2 1 1 1 1 3 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 4 1 1 1 1 4 Assault Fighting PROSTAFF CLASS 05 2 2 2 010 040 090 1 1 SUBTOTAL 1 1 1 1 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 1 1 1 1 1 3 Fighting CLASS 06 2 040 SUBTOTAL 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Fighting CLASS 08 2 040 SUBTOTAL 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 SCHOOL SUBTOTAL 8 5 13 1 1 1 1 14 1 15LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT SUSMRC 07/27/98 PAGE 62 SCHOOL: 050 OTTER CREEK ELEMENTARY SCHOOL FROM DATE: DISCIPLINE BY REASON CODE 8/20/97 TO DATE: 6/03/98 OUT OF SCHOOL OFFENCE LVL CODE BM BF BLK TOT WM WF WHT TOT BM SANCTIONS LONG TERM EXPELLED TOTAL BF BLK TOT WM WF WHT TOT BM BF BLK TOT WM WF WHT TOT BLK WHT TOT Dis Cond CLASS K 2 110 SUBTOTAL 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Ref Ruis CLAS^ 01 1 062 SUBTOTAL 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 MinAlter Fighting PROSTAFF CLASS 03 1 2 2 030 040 090 SUBTOTAL 1 1 1 3 1 1 1 3 1 1 1 3 1 1 1 3 Ref Ruis INSUBORD Ois Cond Har Conm CLASS 04 1 2 2 2 062 105 110 120 2 2 1 2 2 1 2 2 1 SUBTOTAL 5 5 1 1 1 1 5 1 1 2 2 1 1 6 Fighting CLASS 05 2 040 SUBTOTAL 1 1 1 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 Fighting PROSTAFF Dis Cond CLASS 06 2 2 2 040 090 110 SUBTOTAL 3 1 1 5 1 1 4 1 1 6 4 1 1 6 4 1 1 6 SCHOOL SUBTOTAL 16 2 18 1 1 18 1 19SCHOOL: 038 PULASKI HEIGHTS ELEMENTARY OUT OF SCHOOL OFFENCE LVL COOE BM BF BLK TOT UM UF LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT FROM DATE: UHT TOT BM SUSMRC 07/27/98 PAGE 49 DISCIPLINE BY REASON CODE 8/20/97 TO DATE: 6/03/98 SANCTIONS LONG TERM EXPELLED TOTAL BF BLK TOT UM UF UHT TOT BM BF BLK TOT UH UF WHT TOT BLK WHT TOT Dis Cond CLASS K 2 110 SUBTOTAL 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Ref Ruis Dis Cond CLASS 01 1 2 062 110 SUBTOTAL 1 7 8 4 4 1 11 12 1 11 12 1 11 12 Fighting Dis Cond Har Conm CLASS 02 2 2 2 040 110 120 1 2 SUBTOTAL 3 2 1 3 1 i. 1 6 1 4 1 6 1 4 1 6 Theft Dis Cond CLASS 03 2 2 030 110 SUBTOTAL 1 1 2 1 1 2 1 1 2 1 1 2 Ref Ruis Foul Lan Fighting Dis Cond CLASS 04 1 1 2 2 062 110 040 110 SUBTOTAL 1 2 2 5 2 2 4 1 4 4 9 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 4 4 10 1 1 1 1 4 5 11 FAILOBEY Fighting Dis Cond WEAPONSI CLASS 05 1 2 2 3 060 040 110 091 SUBTOTAL 4 4 1 9 1 3 2 6 1 7 6 1 15 1 1 1 1 1 7 6 1 15 1 1 1 8 6 1 16 Ref Ruis Foul Lan Fighting False Al Ind Exp Dis Cond Har Conm V As Sf CLASS 06 1 1 2 2 2 2 2 3 062 110 040 060 100 110 120 072 1 1 1 1 1 1 SUBTOTAL 7 1 9 2 1 5 9 1 1 14 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 2 9 1 1 14 1 1 2 1 1 1 1 1 9 1 1 16 Dis Cond CLASS 11 2 110 SUBTOTAL 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 SCHOOL SUBTOTAL 37 23 60 4 4 1 1 61 4 65SCHOOL: 039 RIGHTSELL INCENTIVE SCHOOL OUT OF SCHOOL LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT FROM DATE: DISCIPLINE BY REASON CODE 8/20/97 TO DATE: SANCTIONS LONG TERM SUSMRC 6/03/98 EXPELLED OFFENCE LVL CODE BM BF BLK TOT WM WF WHT TOT BM BF BLK TOT WM WF WHT TOT BM BF BLK TOT UM 07/27/98 WF WHT TOT BLK PAGE TOTAL WHT 50 TOT Fighting CLASS K 2 040 SUBTOTAL 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 Ref Ruis Foul Lan INSUBORD CLASS 02 1 1 2 062 110 105 SUBTOTAL 1 1 3 5 1 1 2 1 3 6 2 1 3 6 2 1 3 6 MinAlter F i ghting INSUBORD CLASS 03 1 2 2 030 040 105 SUBTOTAL 1 1 1 3 1 1 2 2 2 1 5 2 2 1 5 2 2 1 5 F i ght i ng INSUBORD Dis Cond FIREWORK V As Sf CLASS 05 2 2 2 3 040 105 110 140 072 3 1 1 1 SUBTOTAL 5 1 2 3 1 1 1 1 7 3 1 1 1 1 7 3 1 1 1 1 7 Fighting CLASS 06 2 040 SUBTOTAL 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 SCHOOL SUBTOTAL 16 5 21 21 21 ISCHOOL: 036 ROCKEFELLER INCENTIVE SCHOOL OUT OF SCHOOL OFFENCE LVL CODE BM BF BLK TOT WM WF LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT FROM DATE: DISCIPLINE BY REASON CODE 8/20/97 TO DATE: SANCTIONS LONG TERM SUSMRC 6/03/98 EXPELLED 07/27/98 PAGE TOTAL 47 UHT TOT BM BF BLK TOT UM UF UHT TOT BM BF BLK TOT WM UF UHT TOT BLK WHT TOT Dis Cond CLASS K 2 110 SUBTOTAL 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 Theft Loi tdr Ind Exp Dis Cond CLASS 01 2 2 2 2 030 070 100 110 SUBTOTAL 1 1 1 6 9 1 1 1 6 9 1 1 Dis Cond CLASS 02 2 110 SUBTOTAL 2 2 2 2 3 3 3 3 1 1 2 1 1 6 10 2 2 3 3 2 1 1 9 13 2 2 Foul Lan Fighting Dis Cond CLASS 03 1 2 2 110 040 110 1 1 SUBTOTAL 1 1 2 1 3 2 1 3 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 2 1 3 1 2 2 5 FAILOBEY Theft Fighting Loi ter PROSTAFF INSUBORD Dis Cond CLASS 04 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 060 030 040 070 090 105 110 1 2 2 SUBTOTAL 1 1 5 1 2 2 2 1 3 2 1 3 1 1 1 1 7 12 1 3 6 1 3 b 2 1 3 2 1 3 1 1 12 1 3 6 2 1 4 3 1 4 7, 18 Theft Dis Cond CLASS 05 2 2 030 110 SUBTOTAL 1 1 2 1 1 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 1 1 1 2 3 Fighting Loi ter PROSTAFF INSUBORD Dis Cond CLASS 06 2 2 2 2 2 040 070 090 105 110 3 1 3 1 SUBTOTAL 2 3 9 2 3 9 2 2 2 2 4 SCHOOL SUBTOTAL 28 9 37 15 2 17 1 1 1 1 3 1 1 2 3 10 4 3 1 1 2 7 14 3 3 40 17 57SCHOOL: 040 ROMINE ELEMENTARY SCHOOL OUT OF SCHOOL LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT FROM DATE: DISCIPLINE BY REASON CODE 8/20/97 TO DATE: SANCTIONS LONG TERM SUSMRC 6/03/98 EXPELLED OFFENCE LVL CODE BM BF BLK TOT WM WF UHT TOT BM BF BLK TOT WM WF WHT TOT BM BF BLK TOT WM 07/27/98 WF WHT TOT BLK PAGE TOTAL UHT 51 TOT Assault CLASS K 2 010 SUBTOTAL 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Assault CLASS 01 2 010 SUBTOTAL 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Ind Exp INSUBORD Weapon CLASS 02 2 2 3 100 105 121 1 1 1 1 1 1 SUBTOTAL 1 1 2 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 3 1 2 1 4 PROSTAFF Ind Exp CLASS 03 2 2 090 100 1 1 SUBTOTAL 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 FAILOBEY CLASS 04 1 060 SUBTOTAL 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Assault Fighting Ois Cond CLASS 05 2 2 2 010 040 110 SUBTOTAL 2 1 3 2 1 3 1 1 1 1 2 1 3 1 1 1 2 1 4 MinAlter Assault Fighting INSUBORD Weapon CLASS 06 1 2 2 2 3 030 010 040 105 121 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 SUBTOTAL 2 2 2 1 SCHOOL SUBTOTAL 6 3 9 5 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 3 6 1 1 1 1 1 3 1 1 3 1 1 2 1 1 6 2 2 2 2 11 8 19SCHOOL: 047 TERRY ELEMENTARY SCHOOL OUT OF SCHOOL LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT FROM DATE: DISCIPLINE BY REASON COOE 8/20/97 TO DATE: SANCT IONS LONG TERM SUSMRC 6/03/98 EXPELLED OFFENCE LVL COOE BM BF BLK TOT UM UF UHT TOT BM BF BLK TOT UM UF UHT TOT BM BF BLK TOT UM 07/27/98 UF UHT TOT BLK PAGE TOTAL UHT 59 TOT Ind Exp Har Conm Pos Ueap CLASS K 2 2 3 100 120 090 1 1 1 1 1 1 SUBTOTAL 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 3 1 1 2 1 1 4 Dis Cond V As Sf CLASS 01 2 3 110 072 1 1 SUBTOTAL 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 1 1 2 MinAlter Ass Staf CLASS 02 1 3 030 071 1 1 SUBTOTAL 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 MinAlter FAILOBEY Ref Ruis Theft Fighting INSUBORD Dis Cond CLASS 03 1 1 1 2 2 2 2 030 060 062 030 040 105 110 SUBTOTAL 1 1 1 3 1 5 12 1 1 1 1 1 1 3 1 5 13 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 1 1 1 1 3 1 5 13 1 1 2 1 1 1 1 4 1 6 15 Assault Fighting Har Conm Ass Staf CLASS 04 2 2 2 3 010 040 120 071 3 3 1 1 SUBTOTAL 3 3 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 3 1 4 1 1 2 1 3 1 1 6 Theft Fighting PROSTAFF Ind Exp Dis Cond Har Conm CLASS 05 2 2 2 2 2 2 030 040 090 100 110 120 1 2 SUBTOTAL 1 3 1 8 1 1 2 1 3 1 1 3 1 10 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 3 1 1 3 1 11 1 1 2 3 2 1 3 1 12 Assault Theft Fighting Mischief INSUBORD Dis Cond Har lomn CLASS 06 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 010 030 040 080 105 110 120 1 1 6 4 2 SUBTOTAL 14 1 1 1 7 1 2 4 2 1 16 1 1 1 1 7 1 1 4 2 1 16 1 1 1 1 7 1 4 2 1 17SCHOOL: 047 TERRY ELEMENTARY SCHOOL OUT OF SCHOOL OFFENCE LVL CODE BM BF BLK TOT WM WF SCHOOL SUBTOTAL 39 6 45 4 1 LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT FROM DATE: WHT TOT BM SUSMRC 07/27/98 PAGE 60 DISCIPLINE BY REASON CODE 8/20/97 TO DATE: 6/03/98 SANCT IONS LONG TERM EXPELLED TOTAL BF BLK TOT WM WF WHT TOT BM BF BLK TOT WM WF WHT TOT BLK WHT TOT 5 4 4 2 1 3 1 50 8 58 ILITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT SUSMRC 07/27/98 PAGE 63 SCHO(|L: 051 WAKEFIELD ELEMENTARY SCHOOL FROM DATE: DISCIPLINE BY REASON CODE 8/20/97 TO DATE: 6/03/98 OUT OF SCHOOL SANCTIONS LONG TERM EXPELLED TOTAL OFFENCE LVL CODE BM BF BLK TOT WM WF WHT TOT BM BF BLK TOT WM WF WHT TOT BM BF BLK TOT WM WF WHT TOT BLK WHT TOT MinAlter FAILOBEY Foul Lan Assault Pos Weap CLASS 01 1 1 1 2 3 030 060 110 010 090 SUBTOTAL 1 4 1 1 1 8 1 1 1 5 1 1 1 9 1 5 1 1 1 9 1 5 1 1 1 9 FAILOBEY Ref Ruis Assault Battery Dis Cond Har Comm Ass Staf CLASS 02 1 1 2 2 2 2 3 060 062 010 020 110 120 071 1 1 1 1 SUBTOTAL 4 5 6 1 Theft Fighting CLASS 03 2 2 030 040 1 SUBTOTAL 1 1 1 7 1 1 FAILOBEY Battery fighting CLASS 04 1 2 2 060 020 040 1 SUBTOTAL 1 2 1 1 Pos Weap CLASS 05 3 090 SUBTOTAL 1 1 1 1 11 1 1 2 1 1 1 3 1 1 1 2 1 2 6 1 1 1 1 1 2 13 6 1 1 1 1 1 2 13 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 1 1 1 3 1 1 1 1 2 1 1 1 3 1 1 MinAlter Foul Lan Battery Fighting Dis Cond Har Conm V As Sf CLASS 06 1 1 2 2 2 2 3 030 110 020 040 110 120 072 2 1 4 1 1 4 1 SUBTOTAL 8 1 7 2 1 1 8 1 1 1 15 2 1 1 8 1 1 1 15 2 1 1 8 1 1 1 15 SCHOOL SUBTOTAL 23 17 40 3 3 43 43SCHOOL: 042 WASHINGTON MATH/SCIENCE MAGNET OUT OF SCHOOL LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT FROM DATE: DISCIPLINE BY REASON CODE 8/20/97 TO DATE: SANCT IONS LONG TERM SUSMRC 6/03/98 EXPELLED OFFENCE LVL CODE BM BF BLK TOT WM WF WHT TOT BM BF BLK TOT WM WF WHT TOT BM BF BLK TOT WM 07/27/98 WF WHT TOT BLK PAGE TOTAL WHT 52 TOT Ass Staf V As Sf CLASS K 3 3 071 072 SUBTOTAL 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 1 1 2 1 3 Assault Battery WEAPONS2 CLASS 01 2 2 3 010 020 092 1 1 1 1 SUBTOTAL 2 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 1 1 1 3 Assault AL-DRUGS Sale Ale Ass Staf Assembly CLASS 02 2 2 3 3 3 010 150 010 071 122 1 1 SUBTOTAL 1 2 1 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 2 5 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 6 Assaul t Battery Theft Pos Weap CLASS 03 2 2 2 3 010 020 030 090 1 1 2 2 2 1 1 SUBTOTAL 1 3 4 1 1 2 1 1 2 1 1 2 2 1 1 6 1 1 3 2 1 1 7 Battery INSUBORD Pos Weap CLASS 04 2 2 3 020 105 090 1 1 1 1 2 SUBTOTAL 2 1 3 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 1 4 1 1 1 2 2 5 Assault Battery Fighting Mischief Ind Exp Dis Cond Paging 0 Weapon CLASS 05 I Assault Battery CLASS 06 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 3 010 020 040 080 100 110 123 121 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 SUBTOTAL 2 2 010 020 SUBTOTAL SCHOOL SUBTOTAL 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 5 1 6 2 2 1 5 1 5 2 2 1 1 1 2 1 1 11 1 1 2 3 3 1 1 1 2 1 1 13 1 1 12 5 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 17 3 3 9 1 1 1 10 5 5 1 4 1 1 2 2 1 1 2 1 3 31 9 40SCHOOL: 052 WATSON ELEMENTARY SCHOOL OUT OF SCHOOL LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT FROM DATE: DISCIPLINE BY REASON CODE 8/20/97 TO DATE: SANCT IONS LONG TERM SUSMRC 6/03/98 EXPELLED OFFENCE LVL CODE BM BF BLK TOT WM WF WHT TOT BM BF BLK TOT WM WF WHT TOT BM BF BLK TOT WM 07/27/98 WF WHT TOT BLK PAGE TOTAL WHT 64 TOT FAILOBEY Assault Battery INSUBORD Dis Cond Ass Staf CLASS K 1 2 2 2 2 3 060 010 020 105 110 071 2 2 SUBTOTAL 1 1 1 5 1 1 1 2 1 6 1 1 1 1 2 1 1 1 1 2 1 2 1 6 2 2 1 1 1 2 1 a Ref Ruis Foul Lan Battery Fighting INSUBORD Dis Cond Pos Weap CLASS 01 1 1 2 2 2 2 3 062 110 020 040 105 110 090 1 SUBTOTAL 1 1 2 2 1 8 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 2 1 9 1 1 1 1 2 2 1 9 1 1 1 1 2 2 1 9 FAILOBEY Ref Ruis Bus Regs Assault Battery Theft Fighting Ind Exp INSUBORD Dis Cond Pos Weap CLASS 02 1 1 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 3 060 062 070 010 020 030 040 100 105 110 090 2 1 1 1 1 SUBTOTAL 1 1 5 1 14 1 1 2 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 5 1 16 2 1 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 4 1 5 1 1 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 5 1 16 2 1 1 1 1 6 4 2 1 1 1 1 1 2 2 6 1 22 FAILOBEY Ref Ruis Theft Fight i ng PROSTAFF INSUBORD Dis Cond Har Conm CLASS 03 1 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 060 062 030 040 090 105 110 120 SUBTOTAL 4 1 1 3 1 3 2 1 16 2 2 4 6 1 1 5 1 3 2 1 20 1 1 1 1 6 1 1 5 1 3 2 1 20 1 1 6 1 1 5 1 4 2 1 21 Harass FAILOBEY Foul Lan Theft Fighting 1 1 1 2 2 040 060 110 030 040 5 1 1 8 1 1 1 5 1 2 8 1 5 1 2 8 1 5 1 2 8SCHOOL: 052 WATSON ELEMENTARY SCHOOL OUT OF SCHOOL OFFENCE LVL COOE BM BF BLK TOT UM UF LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT FROM DATE: UHT TOT BM SUSMRC 07/27/98 PAGE 65 DISCIPLINE SY REASON COOE 8/20/97 TO DATE: 6/03/98 SANCTIONS LONG TERM EXPELLED TOTAL BF BLK TOT UM UF UHT TOT BM BF BLK TOT UM WF UHT TOT BLK UHT TOT False Al PROSTAFF INSUBORD Dis Cond CLASS 04 2 2 2 2 060 090 105 110 SUBTOTAL 1 1 1 4 22 2 1 1 1 k 24 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 5 25 1 1 1 5 25 MinAlter FAILOBEY Fighting INSUBORD Dis Cond CLASS 05 1 1 2 2 2 030 060 040 105 110 SUBTOTAL 2 1 5 2 2 12 1 1 2 2 5 2 2 13 1 1 2 3 4 1 3 5 1 1 1 1 2 2 5 2 2 13 2 4 6 2 2 7 2 6 19 FAILOBEY Ref Ruis Foul Lan Battery Fighting Ind Exp INSUBORO Dis Cond CLASS 06 1 1 1 2 2 2 2 2 060 062 110 020 040 100 105 110 SUBTOTAL 1 1 1 3 2 1 1 4 14 3 2 5 1 4 1 3 2 1 1 6 19 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 I, 1 I, 2 1 1 6 20 1 1 1 4 1 4 3 1 1 6 21 Theft CLASS 08 2 030 SUBTOTAL 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Foul Lan CLASS 09 1 110 SUBTOTAL 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 SCHOOL SUBTOTAL 93 16 109 10 4 14 2 2 1 1 2 111 16 127 ILITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT SUSMRC 07/27/98 PAGE 41 I SCHOOL: 029 WESTERN HILLS ELEMENTARY FROM DATE: DISCIPLINE BY REASON CODE 8/20/97 TO DATE: 6/03/98 OUT OF SCHOOL SANCTIONS LONG TERM EXPELLED TOTAL OFFENCE LVL CODE BM BF BLK TOT UM UF UHT TOT BM BF BLK TOT UH UF UHT TOT BM BF BLK TOT UM UF UHT TOT BLK UHT TOT FAILOBEY INSUBORD CLASS K 1 2 060 105 SUBTOTAL 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 1 1 2 1 1 1 1 2 1 2 3 INSUBORD Dis Cond CLASS 01 2 2 105 110 2 2 SUBTOTAL 2 2 1 1 1 1 2 2 1 1 2 1 3 UEAPONS1 CLASS 02 3 091 SUBTOTAL 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 INSUBORD Dis Cond CLASS 03 2 2 105 110 SUBTOTAL 1 2 3 1 2 3 1 1 1 1 1 2 3 1 1 1 5 4 MinAlter Fighting INSUBORD Dis Cond CLASS 04 1 2 2 2 030 040 105 110 1 1 1 1 1 SUBTOTAL 3 1 3 2 2 1 1 6 2 2 1 1 6 2 2 1 1 6 Fighting PROSTAFF Di s Cond CLASS 05 2 2 2 040 090 110 SUBTOTAL 3 1 1 5 4 4 7 1 1 9 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 9 1 1 7 Z 1 10 FAILOBEY Dis Cond CLASS 06 1 2 060 110 SUBTOTAL 3 3 1 1 4 4 1 2 3 1 2 3 4 4 1 2 3 1 6 7 1 SCHOOL SUBTOTAL 18 8 26 8 8 26 8 34SCHOOL: 043 WILLIAMS MAGNET SCHOOL OUT OF SCHOOL OFFENCE LVL CODE BM BF BLK TOT WM WF LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT FROM DATE: WHT TOT BM SUSMRC 07/27/98 PAGE 53 DISCIPLINE BY REASON CODE 8/20/97 TO DATE: 6/03/98 SANCTIONS LONG TERM EXPELLED TOTAL BF BLK TOT WM WF WHT TOT BM BF BLK TOT WM WF WHT TOT BLK WHT TOT Assault CLASS 06 2 010 SUBTOTAL 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 SCHOOL SUBTOTAL 1 1 1 1 ILITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT SUSMRC 07/27/98 PAGE 54 SCHOOL: 044 WILSON ELEMENTARY SCHOOL FROM DATE: DISCIPLINE BY REASON CODE 8/20/97 TO DATE: 6/03/98 SANCTIONS OFFENCE LVL CODE BM BF OUT OF SCHOOL LONG TERM EXPELLED TOTAL BLK TOT WM WF WHT TOT BM BF BLK TOT WM WF WHT TOT BM BF BLK TOT WM WF WHT TOT BLK WHT TOT FAILOBEY Ref Ruis Fighting Dis Cond CLASS K 1 1 2 2 060 062 040 110 SUBTOTAL 3 3 1 1 8 3 3 1 1 8 3 3 1 1 8 3 3 1 1 8 LeftSchl FAILOBEY Ref Ruts Dis Cond CLAS: 01 1 1 1 2 050 060 062 110 SUBTOTAL 6 2 1 9 1 1 1 3 1 7 3 1 12 1 7 3 1 12 1 7 3 1 12 FAILOBEY Ref Ruis CLASS 02 1 1 060 062 1 SUBTOTAL 1 1 1 1 1 2 1 1 2 1 1 2 Ref Ruis Bus Regs Dis Cond CLASS 03 1 1 2 062 070 110 1 SUBTOTAL 1 2 1 1 1 1 1 3 1 1 1 3 1 1 1 3 MinAlter FAILOBEY Ref Ruis Foul Lan Dis Cond Ass Staf CLASS 04 1 1 1 1 2 3 030 060 062 110 110 071 1 5 1 SUBTOTAL 1 1 9 1 1 1 5 1 1 1 1 10 1 1 1 1 2 5 1 1 1 1 11 2 5 1 1 1 1 11 MinAlter FAILOBEY Ref Ruis Theft PROSTAFF Dis Cond CLASS 05 1 1 1 2 2 2 030 060 062 030 090 110 2 1 2 1 3 SUBTOTAL 1 7 1 1 5 2 1 5 1 1 2 12 2 1 5 1 1 2 12 2 1 5 1 1 2 12 FAILOBEY Ref Ruis Foul Lan Assault PROSTAFF Dis Cond CLASS 06 1 1 1 2 2 2 060 062 110 010 090 110 1 1 1 SUBTOTAL 1 1 2 6 1 2 1 5 2 1 1 1 3 3 11 2 1 1 1 3 3 11 2 1 1 1 3 3 11SCHOOL: 044 WILSON ELEMENTARY SCHOOL OUT OF SCHOOL OFFENCE LVL COOE BM BF BLK TOT WM WF SCHOOL SUBTOTAL 42 16 58 LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT FROM DATE: WHT TOT BM 1 SUSMRC 07/27/98 PAGE 55 DISCIPLINE BY REASON COOE 8/20/97 TO DATE: 6/03/98 SANCTIONS LONG TERM EXPELLED TOTAL BF BLK TOT WM WF WHT TOT BM BF BLK TOT WM WF WHT TOT BLK WHT TOT 1 59 59SCHOOL: 045 WOODRUFF ELEMENTARY SCHOOL OUT OF SCHOOL LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT FROM DATE: DISCIPLINE BY REASON CODE 8/20/97 TO DATE: SANCT IONS LONG TERM SUSMRC 6/03/98 EXPELLED OFFENCE LVL CODE BM BF BLK TOT WM WF WHT TOT BM BF BLK TOT WM WF WHT TOT BM BF BLK TOT WM 07/27/98 WF WHT TOT BLK PAGE TOTAL WHT 56 TOT Battery CLASS 02 2 020 SUBTOTAL 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Battery Ind Exp INSUBORD CLASS 03 2 2 2 020 100 105 SUBTOTAL 2 1 3 2 1 3 1 1 1 1 1 2 1 4 1 2 1 4 Assault WEAPONSI CLASS 04 2 3 010 091 SUBTOTAL 1 1 2 1 1 2 1 1 2 1 1 2 Assault INSUBORD Dis Cond RAPRINGS AL-DRUGS CLASS 05 2 2 2 2 2 010 105 110 130 150 SUBTOTAL 1 1 1 3 1 1 1 1 1 1 4 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 4 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 5 Dis Cond CLASS 06 2 110 SUBTOTAL 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 SCHOOL SUBTOTAL 9 1 10 3 3 1 1 11 3 14LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT SUSMRC 07/27/98 PAGE 68 LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT TOTALS FROM DATE: DISCIPLINE BY REASON CODE 8/20/97 TO DATE: 6/03/98 I SANCTIONS BM BF OUT OF SCHOOL BLK TOT WM WF UHT TOT BM BF LONG TERM BLK TOT WM WF UHT TOT BM BF EXPELLED BLK TOT WM WF UHT TOT BLK TOTAL UHT TOT DISTRICT TOTALS tomtit #### 1,3/^ 4829 625 210 835 296 117 413 45 16 61 75 24 99 9 1 10 5341 906 6247 o or o o (V' LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT SUSMRC 09/28/98 PAGE 68 LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT TOTALS FROM DATE: DISCIPLINE BY REASON COOE 8/20/97 TO DATE: 6/03/98 BM BF OUT OF SCHOOL BLK TOT WM WF WHT TOT DISTRICT TOTALS *1 o f* u n u u 4830 625 210 835 BM 297 SANCTIONS BF 117 LONG TERM BLK TOT 414 WM WF WHT TOT BM BF EXPELLED BLK TOT WM WF WHT TOT BLK TOTAL WHT TOT 45 16 61 75 24 99 9 1 10 5343 906 6249LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT TOTALS DISTRICT TOTALS I BM BF OUT OF SCHOOL BLK TOT WM WF LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT FROM DATE: WHT TOT BM SUSMRC 07/27/98 PAGE 68 DISCIPLINE BY REASON CODE 8/20/97 TO DATE: 6/03/98 SANCTIONS BF LONG TERM BLK TOT WM WF WHT TOT BM BF EXPELLED BLK TOT WM WF WHT TOT BLK TOTAL WHT TOT #### 1^3/^ 4829 625 210 835 296 117 413 45 16 61 75 24 99 9 1 10 5341 906* 6247 o ty O O ' J' a c\\ I ISCHOOL: 004 METROPOLITAN VO-TECH ED CENTER OUT OF SCHOOL LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT FROM DATE: DISCIPLINE BY REASON CODE 8/20/97 TO DATE: SANCTIONS LONG TERM SUSMRC 6/03/98 EXPELLED OFFENCE LVL CODE BM BF BLK TOT UM UF UHT TOT BM BF BLK TOT UM UF UHT TOT BM BF BLK TOT UM 07/27/98 UF UHT TOT BLK PAGE TOTAL UHT 7 / TOT Foul Lan Gambling Mischief INSUBORD Dis Cond Paging D V As Sf CLASS 09 1 2 2 2 2 2 3 110 050 080 105 110 123 072 1 1 6 1 1 1 1 1 6 1 1 1 1 SUBTOTAL 9 1 10 3 1 1 1 1 1 1 4 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 7 2 1 1 14 1 1 1 1 1 7 3 1 1 15 Ref Ruts Smoking PROSTAFF INSUBORD CLASS 10 1 1 2 2 062 100 090 105 1 1 SUBTOTAL 2 1 1 1 1 1 3 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 4 1 1 1 1 1 2 5 Ref Ruis PROSTAFF INSUBORD CLASS 11 1 2 2 062 090 105 SUBTOTAL 1 1 1 3 1 1 1 3 1 1 1 3 1 1 1 3 INSUBORD CLASS 12 2 105 SUBTOTAL 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 SCHOOL SUBTOTAL 15 2 17 1 1 3 1 4 1 1 1 1 22 2 24 ILITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT SUSMRC 07/27/98 PAGE 67 SCHOOL: 714 ALTERNATIVE LEARNING ENVIRONMENTS FROM DATE: DISCIPLINE BY REASON CODE 8/20/97 TO DATE: 6/03/98 OUT OF SCHOOL SANCTIONS LONG TERM EXPELLED TOTAL OFFENCE LVL CODE BM BF BLK TOT UM UF UHT TOT BM BF BLK TOT UM UF UHT TOT BM BF BLK TOT UM UF UHT TOT BLK UHT TOT Ref Ruis Fighting PROSTAFF INSUBORD Dis Cond Ass Staf CLASS 07 1 2 2 2 2 3 062 040 090 105 110 071 1 3 4 8 1 1 2 3 4 9 1 1 SUBTOTAL 16 2 18 2 3 6 1 1 2 1 3 7 2 1 3 1 1 3 1 4 2 3 I, 12 1 22 1 2 1 3 7 1 2 5 5 15 1 29 Battery Fighting Mischief PROSTAFF INSUBORD Dis Cond Ass Staf V As Sf UEAPONS1 CLASS 08 2 2 2 2 2 2 3 3 3 020 040 080 090 105 110 071 072 091 1 3 3 5 2 1 3 2 2 1 4 6 7 3 2 1 1 3 2 1 1 SUBTOTAL 12 8 20 7 7 2 2 4 4 2 2 1 4 6 11 6 6 1 1 1 1 26 3 2 1 1 1 8 2 2 1 4 9 13 1 1 1 34 Mischief PROSTAFF Ind Exp INSUBORD Dis Cond Ass Staf CLASS 09 2 2 2 2 2 3 080 090 100 105 110 071 2 1 3 5 1 2 2 2 1 1 5 7 1 1 SUBTOTAL 11 5 16 1 1 1 1 2 2 2 1 3 2 1 1 5 9 1 19 1 1 2 1 1 5 10 1 20 PROSTAFF INSUBORD Dis Cond CLASS 10 2 2 2 090 105 110 SUBTOTAL 1 1 2 1 3 4 1 1 4 6 1 1 4 b 1 1 4 6 SCHOOL SUBTOTAL 41 19 60 14 1 15 10 3 13 1 1 73 16 89LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 1998-1999 ANNUAL DISCIPLINARY MANAGEMENT REPORTLITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT TOTALS DISTRICT TOTALS BM BF OUT OF SCHOOL IJ It II 11 It It II n LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT FROM DATE: DISCIPLINE BY REASON CODE 8/20/97 TO DATE: SANCTIONS SUSMRC 6/03/98 07/27/98 PAGE ( 68 BLK TOT WM WF WHT TOT BM BF LONG TERM BLK TOT WM WF WHT TOT BM BF EXPELLED BLK TOT WM WF WHT TOT BLK TOTAL WHT TOT 4829 625 210 835 296 117 413 45 16 61 75 24 99 9 1 10 5341 906 \u0026lt;6247 O GIT' O 1/ OSCHOOL: 001 CENTRAL HIGH SCHOOL OUT OF SCHOOL OFFENCE LVL CODE BM BF BLK TOT WM WF LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT FROM DATE: UHT TOT BM SUSMRC 07/27/98 PAGE 1 ( DISCIPLINE BY REASON CODE 8/20/97 TO DATE: 6/03/98 SANCTIONS LONG TERM EXPELLED TOTAL BF BLK TOT WM WF UHT TOT BM BF BLK TOT WM WF UHT TOT BLK WHT TOT Foul Lan CLASS 1 110 SUBTOTAL 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Ref Ruis PROSTAFF Dis Cond CLASS 01 1 2 2 062 090 110 1 INSUBORD SUBTOTAL 2 105 CLASS 05 SUBTOTAL Fighting PROSTAFF 2 2 040 090 CLASS 07 SUBTOTAL Pos Weap 3 090 CLASS 09 SUBTOTAL LeftSchl FAILOBEY Ref Ruts Smoking Tardies Assault Battery Theft Fighting Gambling Loiter Mischief PROSTAFF Ind Exp INSUBORD Dis Cond Paging D FIREUORK AL-DRUGS V As Sf In Riot Gang Mem 1 1 1 1 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 3 3 3 050 060 062 100 133 010 020 030 040 050 070 080 090 100 105 110 123 140 150 072 120 123 CLASS 10 SUBTOTAL LeftSchl FAILOBEY Ref Ruis 1 1 1 050 060 062 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 5 1 2 1 8 1 39 15 1 11 87 1 1 2 1 1 1 3 1 2 1 4 1 2 1 4 1 2 1 4 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 1 1 2 1 1 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 1 1 2 1 1 2 1 1 2 1 1 1 1 3 2 1 10 1 1 8 1 2 1 10 1 40 25 1 1 11 1 1 1 1 4 2 2 3 3 1 3 1 3 1 1 1 1 22 109 8 8 3 1 7 16 2 6 5 2 11 1 12 8 1 20 4 9 4 9 1 1 13 13 1 1 1 3 3 2 8 1 2 1 11 1 k2 36 1 1 11 4 9 1 142 1 3 1 3 1 7 1 17 1 1 2 1 1 3 3 2 11 1 2 1 12 1 45 37 1 1 18 4 10 1 159 1 1 2 1 1 2 1 1 2SCHOOL: 001 CENTRAL HIGH SCHOOL OUT OF SCHOOL OFFENCE LVL CODE BM BF BLK TOT WM WF LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT FROM DATE: WHT TOT BM SUSMRC 07/27/98 PAGE 2 DISCIPLINE BY REASON CODE 8/20/97 TO DATE: 6/03/98 SANCTIONS LONG TERM EXPELLED TOTAL BF BLK TOT WM WF WHT TOT BM BF BLK TOT WM WF WHT TOT BLK WHT TOT Battery Theft Fighting PROSTAFF Ind Exp INSUBORD Dis Cond Har Conm Paging D AL-DRUGS Ass Staf V As Sf WEAPONS2 In Riot Gang Mem CLASS 11 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 3 3 3 3 3 020 030 040 090 100 105 110 120 123 150 071 072 092 120 123 2 1 3 1 11 8 12 SUBTOTAL 48 5 5 3 1 1 1 5 1 28 2 12 8 1 14 15 1 1 17 1 4 1 It 1 1 1 1 1 76 7 3 2 3 1 21 1 1 2 8 3 2 3 2 23 1 2 4 1 1 2 2 1 It 1 1 1 1 1 3 12 8 3 15 19 1 1 17 1 1 I, 8 3 5 9 6 1 8 1 1 7 1 9 1 1 1 7 1 94 2 3 2 1 24 1 3 13 12 3 23 22 1 3 20 3 1 1 7 1 118 Fighting Loiter Mischief INSUBORD Ois Cond Paging D AL-DRUGS V As Sf WEAPONSI In Riot CLASS 12 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 3 3 3 040 070 080 105 110 123 150 072 091 120 1 1 1 1 8 3 1 4 It 1 1 2 12 1 1 2 SUBTOTAL SCHOOL SUBTOTAL 2 1 1 3 1 1 1 1 2 1 1 2 1 1 2 2 4 2 1 2 14 14 10 153 64 1 1 1 24 3 4 7 4 4 2 2 2 2 3 1 1 2 30 1 2 1 1 2 7 4 2 2 4 15 1 5 1 1 2 37 217 33 14 47 20 13 33 23 1 24 2 2 274 49 323 , / /SCHOOL: 002 HALL HIGH SCHOOL OUT OF SCHOOL OFFENCE LVL CODE BM BF BLK TOT WM WF LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT FROM DATE: UHT TOT BM SUSMRC 07/27/98 PAGE 3 \u0026gt; DISCIPLINE BY REASON CODE 8/20/97 TO DATE: 6/03/98 SANCTIONS LONG TERM EXPELLED TOTAL BF BLK TOT WM WF WHT TOT ' BM BF BLK TOT WM WF WHT TOT BLK WHT TOT Fighting CLASS 07 2 040 SUBTOTAL 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 PROSTAFF INSUBORD CLASS 08 2 2 090 105 SUBTOTAL 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 MinAlter LeftSchl FAILOBEY Ref Ruis Smoking Battery Theft Fighting Mischief PROSTAFF INSUBORD Dis Cond Har Comm Paging D AL-DRUGS V As Sf Pos Weal WEAPONS, In Riot s CLASS 10 1 1 1 1 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 3 3 3 3 030 050 060 062 100 020 030 040 080 090 105 110 120 123 150 072 090 092 120 1 1 1 1 1 1 SUBTOTAL 1 1 4 1 5 7 1 1 4 1 12 1 1 2 44 9 1 5 3 1 79 2 11 8 28 4 55 17 1 5 3 1 1 1 1 10 8 1 1 1 1 10 9 4 1 1 1 5 1 1 1 1 9 2 13 1 1 1 3 2 1 3 3 5 1 3 3 107 23 1 24 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 14 5 1 19 4 4 3 1 1 3 1 1 5 5 4 58 22 2 5 3 5 2 1 1 131 1 1 1 13 9 1 1 28 1 1 1 1 1 9 2 14 1 5 71 31 2 6 3 6 2 1 1 159 MinAlter FAILOBEY Ref Ruis Assault Battery Theft Fighting INSUBORD Dis Cond Forgery Paging 0 AL-DRUGS Poss Exp In Riot CLASS 11 1 1 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 3 3 030 060 062 010 020 030 040 105 110 122 123 150 100 120 2 2 7 1 3 1 3 12 15 1 6 1 1 1 5 1 2 2 1 3 2 7 1 3 1 8 13 17 1 8 2 1 1 1 4 4 SUBTOTAL 55 12 67 4 1 6 LeftSchl 1 050 1 1 1 1 1 5 1 1 1 3 9 1 1 1 3 9 1 3 9 3 2 7 1 7 1 8 13 18 1 8 2 2 3 76 1 5 1 1 1 9 3 2 7 1 8 1 13 14 19 1 8 3 2 3 85 1 1SCHOOL: 002 HALL HIGH SCHOOL OUT OF SCHOOL OFFENCE LVL CODE BM BF BLK TOT UH UF LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT FROM DATE: UHT TOT BM SUSMRC 07/27/98 PAGE 4 DISCIPLINE BY REASON CODE 8/20/97 TO DATE: 6/03/98 SANCTIONS LONG TERM EXPELLED TOTAL BF BLK TOT UM UF UHT TOT BM BF BLK TOT UM UF UHT TOT BLK UHT TOT FAILOBEY Assault Battery Fighting False Al Loiter PROSTAFF INSUBORD Dis Cond Har Comm Paging D UEAPONS1 In Riot Ueapon CLASS 12 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 3 3 3 060 010 020 040 060 070 090 105 110 120 123 091 120 121 1 1 1 1 SUBTOTAL SCHOOL SUBTOTAL 1 4 1 4 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 4 8 6 1 4 1 3 4 1 2 1 12 7 1 It 1 3 1 1 1 1 2 1 3 3 1 1 2 2 28 13 41 7 3 10 5 5 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 It 1 2 1 12 1 1 4 1 2 1 ttl 1 1 3 3 1 1 10 2 1 2 It 1 2 8 15 10 2 5 1 2 1 57 164 53 217 36 8 44 28 5 33 4 4 6 6 *7 256 48 304SCHOOL: 003 MANN ARTS/SCIENCES MAGNET OUT OF SCHOOL OFFENCE LVL CODE BM BF BLK TOT WM WF Dis Cond 2 110 CLASS 02 SUBTOTAL 1 1 1 1 LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT FROM DATE: WHT TOT BM SUSMRC 07/27/98 PAGE 5 DISCIPLINE BY REASON CODE 8/20/97 TO DATE: 6/03/98 SANCTIONS LONG TERM EXPELLED TOTAL BF BLK TOT WM WF WHT TOT BM BF BLK TOT UM UF WHT TOT BLK WHT TOT 1 1 1 1 Harass FAILOBEY FAILDET Theft Fighting PROSTAFF Ind Exp INSUBORD Dis Cond Har Comm Paging D AL-DRUGS 1 1 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 040 060 080 030 040 090 100 105 110 120 123 150 2 1 18 1 2 10 CLASS 07 SUBTOTAL 1 35 1 6 1 2 1 1 1 13 1 2 1 24 2 4 11 1 1 1 48 1 1 3 2 3 5 3 3 7 1 3 8 1 1 1 1 1 1 14 6 20 2 2 1 1 1 2 1 24 2 1 It 12 1 1 1 50 1 5 3 3 9 21 1 1 2 1 29 5 1 7 21 1 1 1 71 MinAlter FAILOBEY Ref Ruis FAILDET Theft Fighting Gambling PROSTAFF Ind Exp INSUBORD Dis Cond Har Comm AL-DRUGS WEAPONSI 1 1 1 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 3 030 060 062 080 030 040 050 090 100 105 110 120 150 091 1 2 2 1 CLASS 08 SUBTOTAL LeftSchl Ref Ruis Assault Theft Fighting Gambling Mischief PROSTAFF Ind Exp INSUBORD Dis Cond Paging D 1 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 050 062 010 030 040 050 080 090 100 105 110 123 1 11 2 14 3 1 37 1 1 1 6 2 1 2 3 11 9 1 1 5 1 9 2 19 6 3 3 3 3 1 3 2 1 1 16 1 2 23 5 1 56 1 1 1 12 2 1 5 6 14 12 1 1 1 4 1 4 3 1 14 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 5 1 1 1 3 2 1 1 16 1 1 2 5 2 2 6 3 1 3 1 1 3 1 1 5 24 6 1 5 1 1 19 1 1 1 3 1 3 4 1 5 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 62 6 3 1 1 20 1 3 3 1 2 21 2 1 5 30 9 1 1 2 82 1 1 1 1 1 12 2 1 5 6 15 12 1 1 1 1 3 1 3 1 2 1 2 15 2 1 5 6 16 15 1LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT SUSMRC 07/27/98 PAGE 6 i SCHOOL: 003 MANN ARTS/SCIENCES MAGNET FROM DATE\nDISCIPLINE BY REASON CODE 8/20/97 TO DATE: 6/03/98 SANCTIONS OFFENCE LVL CODE BM BF OUT OF SCHOOL LONG TERM EXPELLED TOTAL BLK TOT WM WF WHT TOT BM BF BLK TOT WM WF WHT TOT BM BF BLK TOT WM UF WHT TOT BLK WHT TOT AL-DRUGS CLASS 09 2 150 SUBTOTAL 2 40 18 2 58 2 8 1 5 3 13 1 1 2 59 3 13 5 72 SCHOOL SUBTOTAL 112 51 163 36 16 52 7 1 8 1 1 1 1 1 1 172 54 226SCHOOL\n004 METROPOLITAN VO-TECH ED CENTER OUT OF SCHOOL OFFENCE LVL CODE BM BF BLK TOT WM WF LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT FROM DATE: WHT TOT BM SUSMRC 07/27/98 PAGE 7 / DISCIPLINE BY REASON CODE 8/20/97 TO DATE: 6/03/98 SANCT IONS LONG TERM EXPELLED TOTAL BF BLK TOT WM WF WHT TOT BM BF BLK TOT WM WF WHT TOT BLK WHT TOT Foul Lan Gambling Mischief INSUBORD Dis Cond Paging 0 V As Sf CLASS 09 1 2 2 2 2 2 3 110 050 080 105 110 123 072 1 1 6 1 1 1 1 1 6 1 1 1 1 SUBTOTAL 9 1 10 3 1 1 1 1 1 1 4 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 7 2 1 1 14 1 1 1 1 1 7 3 1 1 15 Ref Ruis Smoki ng PROSTAFF INSUBORD CLASS 10 1 1 2 2 062 100 090 105 1 1 1 SUBTOTAL 1 2 1 1 1 1 3 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 4 1 1 1 1 1 2 5 Ref Ruis PROSTAFF INSUBORD CLASS 11 1 2 2 062 090 105 SUBTOTAL 1 1 1 3 1 1 1 3 1 1 1 3 1 1 1 3 INSUBORD CLASS 12 2 105 SUBTOTAL 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 SCHOOL SUBTOTAL 15 2 17 1 1 3 1 4 1 1 1 1 22 2 24LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT SUSMRC 07/27/98 PAGE 8 SCHOOL: 005 PARKVIEW ARTS/SCIENCE MAGNET FROM DATE: DISCIPLINE BY REASON CODE 8/20/97 TO DATE: 6/03/98 OFFENCE LVL CODE BM BF OUT OF SCHOOL BLK TOT WM UF WHT TOT BM SANCTIONS LONG TERM EXPELLED TOTAL BF BLK TOT WM WF WHT TOT BM BF BLK TOT WM WF WHT TOT BLK WHT TOT Fighting INSUBORD CLASS 07 2 2 040 105 SUBTOTAL 2 1 3 2 1 3 2 1 3 2 1 3 Ref Ruis Smok i ng Theft Fighting Loiter PROSTAFF Ind Exp INSUBORD Dis Cond AL-ORUGS CLASS 10 1 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 062 100 030 040 070 090 100 105 110 150 3 5 2 1 1 5 1 SUBTOTAL 18 2 2 1 1 8 1 15 5 2 6 2 2 1 13 2 33 1 1 5 1 1 1 1 2 1 3 7 5 1 16 4 3 1 10 11 8 2 26 1 2 1 2 3 6 2 2 1 13 2 1 35 1 1 3 11 8 2 26 5 1 3 7 2 5 1 24 10 3 61 MinAlter FAILOBEY Ref Ruis Fighting Loiter PROSTAFF INSUBORD Dis Cond Har Comm Paging D AL-DRUGS V As Sf Pos Weap WEAPONSI CLASS 11 1 1 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 3 3 3 030 060 062 040 070 090 105 110 120 123 150 072 090 091 1 1 1 2 1 1 1 1 2 1 1 1 SUBTOTAL 3 3 2 5 3 1 2 1 1 1 2 3 1 1 1 2 1 1 2 1 2 1 2 1 1 1 2 5 3 2 3 15 1 3 1 18 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 2 8 3 11 1 1 1 1 1 19 1 1 2 1 1 12 1 2 1 2 1 2 8 3 1 1 4 3 1 1 51 Smoking Fighting Loi ter Mischief PROSTAFF INSUBORD Dis Cond Paging D AL-DRUGS CLASS 12 1 2 Z 2 2 2 2 2 2 100 040 070 080 090 105 110 123 150 1 1 1 SUBTOTAL 2 5 SCHOOL SUBTOTAL 41 2 2 4 22 3 1 2 1 2 9 63 1 1 3 2 1 2 10 34 1 2 3 5 1 2 6 2 1 2 15 3 1 1 18 52 1 1 2 1 1 1 1 2 10 1 2 i\u0026gt; 2 1 2 15 1 3 1 1 4 7 5 1 25 4 4 1 1 67 53 120SCHOOL: 006 BOOKER ARTS MAGNET SCHOOL OUT OF SCHOOL LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT FROM DATE: DISCIPLINE BY REASON CODE 8/20/97 TO DATE: SANCTIONS LONG TERM SUSMRC 6/03/98 EXPELLED OFFENCE LVL CODE BM BF BLK TOT WM WF WHT TOT BM BF BLK TOT WM WF WHT TOT BM BF BLK TOT WM 07/27/98 UF WHT TOT BLK PAGE TOTAL WHT 9 TOT INSUBORD Dis Cond CLASS K 2 2 105 110 SUBTOTAL 1 1 2 1 1 2 1 1 2 1 1 2 Assault INSUBORD Dis Cond CLASS 01 2 2 2 010 105 110 SUBTOTAL 2 1 1 I, 1 1 2 1 2 5 2 1 2 5 2 1 2 5 Dis Cond CLASS 02 2 110 SUBTOTAL 2 2 3 3 5 5 5 5 5 5 Assault INSUBORD Dis Cond Har Comm V As Sf CLASS 03 2 2 2 2 3 010 105 110 120 072 SUBTOTAL 2 4 1 1 8 2 4 1 1 8 1 1 1 1 1 1 3 3 2 4 1 1 8 1 1 1 3 1 3 5 1 1 11 Assault INSUBORD Dis Cond CLASS 04 2 2 2 010 105 110 SUBTOTAL 1 1 3 5 1 1 3 5 1 1 1 1 1 2 3 6 1 2 3 6 Theft M i sch i ef INSUBORD Dis Cond CLASS 05 2 2 2 2 030 080 105 110 2 2 SUBTOTAL 3 1 6 3 1 6 1 1 2 1 1 3 1 6 1 1 2 1 3 1 7 Fighting INSUBORD Ois Cond Har Comm CLASS 06 2 2 040 105 110 120 SUBTOTAL 1 1 3 1 6 1 1 3 1 6 2 2 2 2 1 1 3 1 6 2 2 1 1 5 1 8 INSUBORD CLASS 08 2 105 SUBTOTAL 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 SCHOOL SUBTOTAL 34 4 38 6 6 1 1 39 6 45SCHOOL: 007 DUNBAR INT'L STUDIES MAGNET JH OUT OF SCHOOL LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT FROM DATE: DISCIPLINE BY REASON CODE 8/20/97 TO DATE: SANCTIONS LONG TERM SUSMRC 6/03/98 EXPELLED OFFENCE LVL CODE BM BF BLK TOT WM WF WHT TOT BM BF BLK TOT WM WF WHT TOT BM BF BLK TOT WM 07/27/98 WF WHT TOT BLK PAGE TOTAL WHT 10 TOT Dis Cond CLASS 04 2 110 SUBTOTAL 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Assault Battery Theft Fighting False Al Loiter Mischief PROSTAFF Ind Exp INSUBORD Dis Cond Har Comm Paging D AL-DRUGS Ass Staf V As Sf WEAPONSl Extort In Riot CLASS 07 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 3 3 3 3 3 010 020 030 040 060 070 080 090 100 105 110 120 123 150 071 072 091 110 120 1 1 1 19 1 1 1 9 2 20 7 3 1 1 1 12 3 1 9 7 2 1 1 1 2 31 1 1 1 12 3 29 14 5 1 2 1 1 SUBTOTAL 1 1 69 36 105 2 8 2 8 1 1 1 1 2 1 1 1 1 3 1 5 6 3 1 11 1 1 3 3 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 3 2 32 2 1 1 12 3 29 15 5 1 3 2 3 1 2 8 1 1 3 1 11 3 24 6 30 7 3 10 1 1 2 1 2 1 2 1 1 117 1 32 2 3 4 40 2 1 1 13 I, 32 16 16 1 6 2 3 1 1 1 149 Ref Ruis Assault Battery Theft Fighting Mischief PROSTAFF Ind Exp INSUBORD Dis Cond Har Comm Paging D AL-DRUGS Ass Staf V As Sf WEAPONSl Weapon CLASS 08 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 7. 2 2 2 3 3 3 3 062 010 020 030 040 080 090 100 105 110 120 123 150 071 072 091 121 4 3 7 7 SUBTOTAL FAILOBEY Foul Lan 1 1 060 110 1 2 13 1 1 10 3 1 2 23 1 4 1 1 1 1 5 5 11 7 3 43 1 4 1 1 22 15 8 3 1 65 1 2 2 3 1 1 3 18 1 1 1 2 3 2 3 1 1 4 20 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 2 23 1 4 1 16 8 1 5 3 2 4 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 1 6 1 6 1 1 1 2 3 1 1 1 1 3 2 3 1 1 74 1 1 4 1 22 7 1 2 2 28 1 1 3 20 8 1 1 7 2 5 1 2 9b 1 1 1 1SCHOOL: 007 DUNBAR INT'L STUDIES MAGNET JH OUT OF SCHOOL OFFENCE LVL CODE BM BF BLK TOT UM WF LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT FROM DATE: UHT TOT BM SUSMRC 07/27/98 PAGE 11 DISCIPLINE BY REASON CODE 8/20/97 TO DATE: 6/03/98 SANCTIONS LONG TERM EXPELLED TOTAL BF BLK TOT WM WF UHT TOT BM BF BLK TOT WM WF UHT TOT BLK UHT TOT Assault Battery Theft Fighting Gambling Mischief PROSTAFF Ind Exp INSUBORD Dis Cond Har Conm Paging D FIREWORK AL-DRUGS Ass Staf V As Sf Pos Weap WEAPONSI Extort In Riot Gang Mem 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 010 020 030 040 050 080 090 100 105 110 120 123 140 150 071 072 090 091 110 120 123 3 3 CLASS 09 SUBTOTAL SCHOOL SUBTOTAL 1 10 2 1 2 25 8 1 3 1 1 1 60 173 5 4 4 1 1 1 22 80 1 15 2 1 6 29 15 1 1 3 2 1 1 82 253 1 5 2 7 5 1 2 1 25 67 2 2 2 1 2 3 1 13 21 3 7 4 1 7 7 1 5 1 1 38 88 2 1 1 2 2 1 1 1 1 2 2 1 3 2 1 2 1 2 1 1 5 2 1 16 2 1 6 1 32 17 3 7 1 5 1 1 1 14 27 6 9 2 6 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 20 36 4 2 6 1 2 1 6 1 1 1 3 1 7 1 1 3 3 6 3 1 1 k 2 109 5 3 7 8 1 5 1 2 1 44 5 2 It 23 2 1 11 It 39 25 1 1 1 8 3 7 5 2 1 it 2 153 6 3 9 9 3 12 1 1 301 98 399SCHOOL: 008 FAIR HIGH SCHOOL OUT OF SCHOOL OFFENCE LVL CODE BM BF BLK TOT WM WF LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT FROM DATE: WHT TOT BM SUSMRC 07/27/98 PAGE 12 DISCIPLINE BY REASON CODE 8/20/97 TO DATE: 6/03/98 SANCTIONS LONG TERM EXPELLED TOTAL BF BLK TOT WM WF WHT TOT BM BF BLK TOT WM WF WHT TOT BLK WHT TOT Dis Cond AL-DRUGS CLASS 08 2 2 110 150 SUBTOTAL 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 1 1 2 Ref Ruis CLASS 09 1 062 SUBTOTAL 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 FAILOBEY Ref Ruis Bus Regs FAILDET Ref Det Foul Lan Assault Theft Fighting Gambling PROSTAFF Ind Exp INSUBORD Dis Cond AL-DRUGS WEAPONSI CLASS 10 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 3 060 062 070 080 090 110 010 030 040 050 090 100 105 110 150 091 11 1 1 1 SUBTOTAL 1 1 1 11 1 9 1 23 7 6 73 1 8 3 3 4 21 1 11 1 1 1 1 1 1 19 1 12 1 26 11 6 94 1 1 2 1 4 5 2 2 1 1 1 4 4 1 1 9 1 1 2 2 2 4 1 1 1 1 1 11 1 1 1 1 3 1 19 1 12 1 26 13 6 1 99 2 1 4 1 1 9 1 11 1 1 1 1 3 1 21 1 13 1 30 14 7 1 108 FAILOBEY Ref Ruis Ref Det Foul Lan Battery Fighting Gambling Loiter Mischief PROSTAFF INSUBORD Dis Cond Paging D V As Sf Pos Weap CLASS 11 1 1 1 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 3 3 060 062 090 110 020 040 050 070 080 090 105 110 123 072 090 1 5 2 2 1 5 2 2 1 1 SUBTOTAL MinAlter LeftSchl FAILOBEY 1 1 1 030 050 060 6 1 1 1 3 11 6 1 38 1 1 4 4 1 4 15 2 1 10 1 1 1 7 12 10 1 53 2 1 2 1 1 2 2 1 1 1 1 2 1 1 1 1 2 1 1 3 2 5 1 1 5 1 6 1 1 1 2 3 1 2 3 1 5 2 2 2 10 1 1 1 1 13 12 1 2 2 62 2 1 2 1 1 1 1 2 6 1 6 2 2 2 11 1 1 1 8 14 14 1 2 2 68 2 1 2SCHOOL: 008 FAIR HIGH SCHOOL OUT OF SCHOOL LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT FROM DATE: DISCIPLINE BY REASON CODE 8/20/97 TO DATE: SANCTIONS LONG TERM SUSMRC 6/03/98 EXPELLED OFFENCE LVL CODE BM BF BLK TOT UM UF WHT TOT BM BF BLK TOT UM UF UHT TOT BM BF BLK TOT UM 07/27/98 WF UHT TOT BLK PAGE TOTAL UHT 13 TOT Ref Ruis FAILDET Ref Det Foul Lan Assault Battery Fighting Loi ter PROSTAFF INSUBORD Dis Cond WEAPONSI UEAPONS2 CLASS 12 1 1 1 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 3 3 062 080 090 110 010 020 040 070 090 105 110 091 092 9 2 1 3 2 5 7 1 SUBTOTAL 32 SCHOOL SUBTOTAL 145 1 1 1 2 5 4 1 5 1 1 25 61 10 3 2 2 8 2 9 8 6 1 1 57 206 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 3 1 3 1 2 2 1 5 6 10 3 2 2 1 1 \u0026amp; Z 9 8 9 2 1 63 1 1 2 10 3 3 2 1 1 8 2 10 8 9 2 1 65 10 6 16 8 9 17 1 1 3 1 4 227 17 244SCHOOL: 012 MC CLELLAN HIGH SCHOOL OUT OF SCHOOL LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT FROM DATE: DISCIPLINE BY REASON CODE 8/20/97 TO DATE: SANCTIONS LONG TERM SUSMRC 6/03/98 EXPELLED 07/27/98 PAGE TOTAL 19 OFFENCE LVL CODE BM BF BLK TOT WM WF WHT TOT BM BF BLK TOT WM WF UHT TOT BM BF BLK TOT WM WF WHT TOT BLK WHT TOT INSUBORD CLASS 09 2 105 SUBTOTAL 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 LeftSchl FAILOBEY Ref Ruis Ref Det Assault Battery Theft Fighting Gambling Loiter Mischief PROSTAFF Ind Exp INSUBORD Dis Cond Paging D AL-DRUGS V As Sf WEAPONS2 CLASS 10 1 1 1 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 3 3 050 060 062 090 010 020 030 040 050 070 080 090 100 105 110 123 150 072 092 5 7 4 1 2 2 5 7 6 3 1 1 SUBTOTAL 1 16 3 1 2 13 1 2 29 3 1 1 1 9 34 24 3 3 2 1 14 9 1 1 11 1 48 33 3 4 1 1 2 2 1 4 111 47 158 1 1 1 1 2 3 1 2 10 1 1 1 6 4 2 3 16 1 6 1 1 1 2 2 1 1 1 1 1 7 1 1 4 1 1 4 1 1 1 1 5 1 6 3 1 2 2 31 3 1 14 1 49 34 3 4 2 1 169 1 1 1 4 4 2 3 1 17 5 7 1 3 1 2 2 32 3 1 1 18 1 53 36 3 7 3 1 186 MinAlter LeftSchl FAILOBEY Ref Ruis Bus Regs FAILDET Ref Det Battery Fighting Gambling PROSTAFF Ind Exp INSUBORD Dis Cond Har Comm AL-DRUGS V As Sf WEAPONSI CLASS 11 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 3 3 030 050 060 062 070 080 090 020 040 050 090 100 105 110 120 150 072 091 1 2 14 1 4 1 3 18 FAILOBEY SUBTOTAL 1 060 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 1 2 1 3 18 9 1 9 2 2 1 1 45 5 2 1 1 9 1 11 1 10 1 2 2 1 1 54 6 1 1 1 1 5 2 2 2 1 1 1 6 2 5 2 5 1 1 1 2 11 1 10 1 1 2 2 1 1 2 59 6 1 2 2 1 6 1 3 19 2 1 1 1 2 13 1 11 1 1 2 2 1 1 2 65 6LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT SUSMRC 07/27/98 PAGE 20 SCHOOL: 012 MC CLELLAN HIGH SCHOOL FROM DATE: DISCIPLINE BY REASON CODE 8/20/97 TO DATE: 6/03/98 SANCTIONS OUT OF SCHOOL LONG TERM' EXPELLED TOTAL OFFENCE LVL CODE BM BF BLK TOT WM WF WHT TOT BM BF BLK TOT WH WF WHT TOT BM BF BLK TOT WM WF WHT TOT BLK WHT TOT Ref Ruis Battery Fighting Gambling Mischief PROSTAFF INSUBORD Dis Cond Paging D AL-DRUGS WEAPONSl CLASS 12 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 3 062 020 040 050 080 090 105 110 123 150 091 9 1 4 1 1 2 2 SUBTOTAL SCHOOL SUBTOTAL 5 1 2 2 1 1 11 1 6 1 1 2 1 6 1 2 1 1 1 1 29 186 9 65 38 251 1 1 1 1 4 4 1 1 1 1 11 1 6 1 1 2 1 6 1 2 1 39 1 1 1 1 4 12 1 7 1 1 2 2 7 1 2 1 43 15 11 26 12 1 13 4 4 1 1 268 27 295SCHOOL: 015 CLOVERDALE JUNIOR HIGH SCHOOL OUT OF SCHOOL LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT FROM DATE: DISCIPLINE BY REASON CODE 8/20/97 TO DATE: SANCTIONS LONG TERM SUSMRC 6/03/98 EXPELLED 07/27/98 PAGE TOTAL 23 OFFENCE LVL CODE BM BF BLK TOT UM UF UHT TOT BM BF BLK TOT UM UF UHT TOT BM BF BLK TOT UM UF UHT TOT BLK UHT TOT Dis Cond CLASS 01 2 110 SUBTOTAL 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 PROSTAFF CLASS 04 2 090 SUBTOTAL 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 MinAlter FAILOBEY Ref Ruis Foul Lan Assault Battery Theft Fighting Loi ter Mischief PROSTAFF Ind Exp INSUBORD Dis Cond Har Comm Forgery Paging D Ass Staf V As Sf In Riot CLASS 07 1 1 1 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 3 3 3 030 060 062 110 010 020 030 040 070 080 090 100 105 110 120 122 123 071 072 120 1 9 1 1 1 9 1 1 1 1 SUBTOTAL 1 22 1 3 8 1 73 25 1 16 1 21 8 1 2 1 38 1 3 9 1 94 33 1 2 1 5 5 2 2 1 9 1 1 2 3 5 1 1 148 48 196 10 2 15 1 5 11 2 20 1 1 1 2 1 1 1 8 1 9 2 2 1 1 2 1 1 2 5 1 38 1 3 9 1 96 34 1 2 1 1 1 1 207 3 5 1 11 2 22 1 9 1 1 3 5 1 43 1 3 10 1 107 36 1 2 1 1 1 1 229 MinAlter FAILOBEY Assault Battery Fighting Loi ter Mischief PROSTAFF Ind Exp INSUBORD Dis Cond Har Comm Paging D AL-DRUGS Sale Ale Ass Staf V As Sf 1 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 3 3 3 030 060 010 020 040 070 080 090 100 105 110 120 123 150 010 071 072 7 20 1 1 11 1 40 16 2 1 1 3 3 1 13 1 2 4 14 12 2 1 10 3 1 33 2 3 15 1 54 28 2 1 2 1 1 1 1 4 3 3 7 3 2 5 4 1 1 1 1 3 6 5 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 10 10 4 33 2 3 15 1 54 29 2 1 3 1 1 3 6 5 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 11 10 4 34 2 3 18 1 60 34 2 1 3 1 1 2SCHOOL: 015 CLOVERDALE JUNIOR HIGH SCHOOL OUT OF SCHOOL OFFENCE LVL CODE BM BF BLK TOT UM UF LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT FROM DATE: UHT TOT BM SUSMRC 07/27/98 PAGE 24 DISCIPLINE BY REASON CODE 8/20/97 TO DATE: 6/03/98 SANCTIONS LONG TERM EXPELLED TOTAL BF BLK TOT UM UF UHT TOT BM BF BLK TOT UM UF UHT TOT BLK UHT TOT UEAPONS1 In Riot CLASS 08 3 3 091 120 SUBTOTAL 100 56 156 12 5 17 1 9 4 1 13 1 1 1 1 2 2 1 1 4 1 2 173 18 1 2 191 LeftSchl FAILOBEY Assault Battery Fighting Loiter Mischief PROSTAFF Ind Exp INSUBORD Dis Cond Har Conrn Paging D AL-DRUGS Ass Staf V As Sf Pos Ueap UEAPONSI In Riot CLASS 09 1 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 3 3 3 3 3 050 060 010 020 040 070 080 090 100 105 110 120 123 150 071 072 090 091 120 1 6 1 3 1 9 1 SUBTOTAL SCHOOL SUBTOTAL 16 1 3 20 2 50 21 2 4 133 382 5 4 20 8 1 21 1 3 2 70 35 1 2 4 1 1 4 6 1 6 5 12 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 42 175 147 529 2 1 2 3 4 4 1 1 1 1 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 5 6 11 14 8 22 2 2 2 4 2 4 1 9 6 12 21 1 3 25 2 70 35 1 2 4 1 4 1 1 2 201 1 1 1 2 4 4 13 1 9 7 12 22 1 4 27 2 74 39 1 2 4 1 h 1 1 2 214 32 16 48 31 13 44 3 2 5 8 2 10 583 53 636SCHOOL: 009 FOREST HEIGHTS JR HIGH SCHOOL OUT OF SCHOOL LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT FROM DATE: DISCIPLINE BY REASON CODE 8/20/97 TO DATE: SANCTIONS LONG TERM SUSMRC 6/03/98 EXPELLED OFFENCE LVL CODE BM BF BLK TOT UM UF UHT TOT BM BF BLK TOT UM UF UHT TOT BM BF BLK TOT UM 07/27/98 UF UHT TOT BLK PAGE TOTAL WHT 14 TOT Battery CLASS 01 2 020 SUBTOTAL 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 PROSTAFF INSUBORD Forgery CLASS 02 2 2 2 090 105 122 1 SUBTOTAL 1 2 1 1 1 1 1 3 1 1 1 3 1 1 1 3 Assault Battery Theft Fighting PROSTAFF INSUBORD Dis Cond Paging D AL-DRUGS Sale Ale Ass Staf V As Sf CLASS 07 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 3 3 3 010 020 030 040 090 105 110 123 150 010 071 072 1 1 1 24 11 35 33 1 1 1 7 1 7 9 2 1 1 31 12 42 42 1 1 2 2 SUBTOTAL 1 1 110 25 1 1 135 1 6 4 15 8 2 38 1 6 7 1 7 4 21 8 2 45 1 2 3 1 1 1 1 1 2 2 1 t, 1 1 4 5 4 5 2 lo 1 31 12 42 42 1 1 1 1 6 144 2 1 7 4 22 8 2 46 4 4 2 38 16 bk 50 1 3 1 1 6 190 MinAlter LeftSchl Ref Ruis Assault Battery Theft Fighting Mischief PROSTAFF Ind Exp INSUBORD Dis Cond Har Comm Forgery V As Sf CLASS 08 1 1 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 3 030 050 062 010 020 030 040 080 090 100 105 110 120 122 072 1 2 1 2 1 1 SUBTOTAL MinAlter Harass LeftSchl Ref Ruis Bus Regs Foul Lan 1 1 1 1 1 1 030 040 050 062 070 110 12 1 16 1 17 33 1 11 14 1 87 9 12 2 1 1 53 1 1 3 1 2 1 23 1 30 1 26 45 2 2 1 140 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 1 1 6 3 2 3 1 2 9 1 3 1 5 6 1 1 6 4 2 3 4 9 8 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 22 13 35 1 1 8 1 9 2 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 3 1 8 1 23 1 30 1 27 46 2 2 3 150 1 2 10 1 3 10 8 2 37 1 1 4 1 8 3 33 2 33 1 37 54 4 2 3 187 1 1 1 1 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 1 1LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT SUSMRC 07/27/98 PAGE 15 SCHOOL: 009 FOREST HEIGHTS JR HIGH SCHOOL FROM DATE: DISCIPLINE BY REASON CODE 8/20/97 TO DATE: 6/03/98 SANCTIONS OUT OF SCHOOL LONG TERM EXPELLED TOTAL OFFENCE LVL CODE BM BF BLK TOT UM WF UHT TOT BM BF BLK TOT WM WF WHT TOT BM BF BLK TOT WM WF WHT TOT BLK WHT TOT Assault Battery Theft Fighting Mischief PROSTAFF INSUBORD Dis Cond Paging D AL-DRUGS Arson Ass Staf V As Sf WEAPONSI WEAPONS2 CLASS 09 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 3 3 3 3 3 010 020 030 040 080 090 105 no 123 150 060 071 072 091 092 2 3 1 10 10 44 42 3 1 3 SUBTOTAL 121 PROSTAFF Dis Cond CLASS 10 2 2 090 110 1 SUBTOTAL 1 SCHOOL SUBTOTAL 321 1 3 1 6 9 7 1 2 34 114 2 3 2 13 1 16 53 49 1 3 1 5 155 1 1 435 1 1 1 1 1 1 4 8 3 1 5 8 3 1 1 2 1 3 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 3 3 2 13 1 16 54 52 1 3 1 2 5 1 1 1 5 8 3 1 2 20 1 2 1 22 4 3 7 1 1 1 1 163 1 23 3 3 3 14 1 21 62 55 1 4 3 2 5 1 1 186 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 81 22 103 7 13 20 3 3 5 2 7 1 1 462 107 569SCHOOL: 013 HENDERSON JUNIOR HIGH SCHOOL OUT OF SCHOOL LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT FROM DATE: DISCIPLINE BY REASON CODE 8/20/97 TO DATE: SANCTIONS LONG TERM SUSMRC 6/03/98 EXPELLED OFFENCE LVL CODE BM BF BLK TOT UM UF UHT TOT BM BF BLK TOT UM UF UHT TOT BM BF BLK TOT UM 07/27/98 UF UHT TOT BLK PAGE TOTAL UHT 21 TOT INSUBORD CLASS 03 2 105 SUBTOTAL 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 INSUBORD CLASS 06 2 105 SUBTOTAL 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 LeftSchl FAILOBEY Ref Ruis Bus Regs Ref Det Foul Lan Assault Battery Theft Fighting Gambling Mischief PROSTAFF Ind Exp INSUBORD Dis Cond Har Comm FIREUORK AL-ORUGS Ass Staf V As Sf Pos Ueap UEAPONSI UEAPONS2 Poss Exp CLASS 07 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 5 3 3 3 3 3 050 060 062 070 090 110 010 020 030 040 050 080 090 100 105 110 120 140 150 071 072 090 091 092 100 4 8 1 1 4 1 1 3 SUBTOTAL 3 3 54 1 13 3 46 9 1 2 2 2 1 1 159 1 1 16 5 1 11 1 1 5 1 3 3 70 1 1 1 1 1 1 5 1 7 21 6 1 1 59 1 1 1 1 1 6 1 1 2 1 1 20 3 67 15 1 1 2 2 3 1 1 218 1 4 5 20 1 1 4 5 1 1 1 2 1 2 1 1 1 1 1 2 1 2 1 1 21 1 10 2 1 12 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 5 1 11 1 1 5 1 5 3 70 1 1 21 4 68 17 1 1 2 4 2 3 2 1 1 232 1 1 1 1 1 1 6 1 4 5 22 6 2 12 1 1 5 2 6 4 76 1 2 25 I, 17 1 1 2 2 3 2 1 1 254 MinAlter LeftSchl FAILOBEY Ref Ruts Smok ing Foul Lan Assault Battery Theft Fighting Gambling False Al 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 030 050 060 062 100 110 010 020 030 040 050 060 1 2 10 1 3 1 1 1 21 3 3 5 3 1 1 15 3 1 2 15 1 6 2 2 1 36 3 1 1 1 1 2 1 1 1 1 4 4 1 1 1 1 1 1 3 1 2 15 1 6 2 3 1 37 4 1 1 2 1 4 4 1 2 17 1 6 2 4 1 41 4 1SCHOOL: 013 HENDERSON JUNIOR HIGH SCHOOL OUT OF SCHOOL LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT FROM DATE: DISCIPLINE BY REASON CODE 8/20/97 TO DATE: SANCT IONS LONG TERM SUSMRC 6/03/98 EXPELLED OFFENCE LVL CODE BM BF BLK TOT UM UF UHT TOT BM BF BLK TOT UM UF UHT TOT BH BF BLK TOT UM 07/27/98 WF UHT TOT BLK PAGE TOTAL UHT 22 TOT Mischief PROSTAFF Ind Exp INSUBORD Ois Cond Her Comm Forgery Paging D RAPRINGS AL-DRUGS Ass Staf V As Sf Pos Ueap CLASS 08 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 3 3 3 080 090 100 105 110 120 122 123 130 150 071 072 090 9 2 30 5 3 1 3 1 SUBTOTAL 98 1 5 7 1 1 1 1 45 1 14 2 37 6 3 1 1 3 2 1 143 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 3 1 1 1 5 6 11 10 3 2 1 1 1 4 13 1 14 2 39 1 3 1 1 1 1 3 6 1 156 1 1 1 11 1 15 2 40 8 3 1 1 1 1 3 6 1 167 MinAlter LeftSchl FAILOBEY Ref Ruis FAILDET Foul Lan Assault Battery Theft Fighting Gambling False Al Mischief PROSTAFF INSUBORD Dis Cond Har Comm AL-DRUGS Ass Staf V As Sf Extort Ueapon ROBBERY CLASS 09 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 3 3 3 3 3 030 050 060 062 080 110 010 020 030 040 050 060 080 090 105 110 120 150 071 072 110 121 130 1 2 2 29 1 6 1 3 6 22 2 2 10 5 8 2 8 1 SUBTOTAL 111 3 7 7 1 2 20 Dis Cond CLASS 11 2 110 SUBTOTAL 1 1 SCHOOL SUBTOTAL 372 124 1 2 5 36 1 6 1 3 b 29 2 2 11 7 8 2 8 1 131 1 1 496 5 3 5 3 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 5 1 6 1 1 1 1 1 18 43 1 8 1 1 1 1 1 1 3 2 1 1 1 1 19 1 13 1 3 1 1 2 3 2 2 1 1 1 16 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 2 1 1 2 2 2 2 2 1 2 5 36 1 6 2 3 6 29 2 1 2 11 8 9 4 11 3 3 1 2 1 149 5 3 1 1 1 6 1 1 1 1 2 23 1 2 10 39 1 7 3 4 b ^5 2 1 2 12 9 9 4 12 b 5 1 2 1 172 51 33 8 41 1 2 3 3 1 4 2 2 1 1 1 1 541 56 597LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT SUSMRC 07/27/98 PAGE 25 SCHOOL: 016 MABELVALE JUNIOR HIGH SCHOOL FROM DATE: DISCIPLINE BY REASON CODE 8/20/97 TO DATE: 6/03/98 OUT OF SCHOOL SANCTIONS LONG TERM EXPELLED TOTAL OFFENCE LVL CODE BM BF BLK TOT UM UF WHT TOT BM BF BLK TOT UM UF UHT TOT BM BF BLK TOT UM WF WHT TOT BLK UHT TOT Fighting 2 040 CLASS 02 SUBTOTAL 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 PROSTAFF 2 090 CLASS 04 SUBTOTAL 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Harass FAILOBEY Ref Ruis Battery Theft Fighting PROSTAFF Ind Exp INSUBORD Dis Cond RAPRINGS AL-DRUGS Ass Staf V As Sf 1 1 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 3 3 040 060 062 020 030 040 090 100 105 110 130 150 071 072 1 2 3 1 1 1 3 4 1 1 CLASS 07 SUBTOTAL FAILOBEY Ref Ruis Foul Lan Assault Battery Theft Fighting Mischief PROSTAFF Ind Exp INSUBORD Dis Cond Paging D AL-DRUGS Ass Staf V As Sf WEAPONSI WEAPONS2 In Riot 1 1 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 3 3 3 3 3 060 062 110 010 020 030 040 080 090 100 105 110 123 150 071 072 091 092 120 CLASS 08 SUBTOTAL Ref Ruis Foul Lan 1 1 062 110 16 1 1 2 13 16 1 1 1 1 1 32 2 1 3 14 1 1 1 2 1 2 3 3 1 3 4 3 1 40 22 62 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 6 6 1 1 6 1 1 1 7 32 2 1 3 16 1 1 1 1 69 1 2 1 1 6 1 3 5 3 1 34 2 1 4 17 1 1 1 1 75 3 6 1 1 1 4 7 1 1 1 2 2 13 1 3 1 16 10 4 3 8 1 5 1 4 1 2 2 2 21 2 8 1 17 14 5 5 2 2 1 2 3 1 1 4 2 2 2 2 1 2 1 65 25 90 12 5 4 3 2 4 3 17 1 1 3 3 6 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 8 6 14 1 1 1 3 1 3 4 7 1 2 5 2 21 2 8 2 17 20 5 6 1 1 1 1 1 107 1 4 3 2 4 3 1 18 4 8 1 2 5 2 25 2 11 2 19 24 5 9 1 1 1 2 1 125 5 1 5 1 1 1 1 1 6 1 1 7 1SCHOOL: 016 MABELVALE JUNIOR HIGH SCHOOL OUT OF SCHOOL LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT FROM DATE: DISCIPLINE BY REASON CODE 8/20/97 TO DATE: SANCTIONS LONG TERM SUSMRC 6/03/98 EXPELLED OFFENCE LVL CODE BM BF BLK TOT WM WF WHT TOT BM BF BLK TOT WM WF WHT TOT BM BF BLK TOT WM 07/27/98 WF WHT TOT BLK PAGE TOTAL WHT 26 TOT Assault Battery Fighting PROSTAFF INSUBORD Dis Cond Paging D AL-DRUGS Ass Staf V As Sf FIREARM2 WEAPONSl WEAPONS2 In Riot CLASS 09 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 3 3 3 3 3 3 010 020 040 090 105 110 123 150 071 072 082 091 092 120 1 11 6 4 5 2 1 11 3 3 8 1 22 9 7 13 2 1 3 7 1 10 1 2 2 1 1 SUBTOTAL 36 SCHOOL SUBTOTAL 142 1 1 2 3 3 6 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 26 62 5 9 14 7 2 6 2 13 74 216 23 14 37 21 13 34 1 1 2 1 1 5 5 1 2 1 2 1 3 6 1 8 11 1 3 22 9 7 19 2 3 1 2 1 2 1 3 83 10 1 2 14 1 3 32 10 7 21 2 3 1 2 1 2 1 3 97 261 38 299SCHOOL: 010 PULASKI HEIGHTS JUNIOR HIGH OUT OF SCHOOL LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT FROM DATE: DISCIPLINE BY REASON CODE 8/20/97 TO DATE: SANCTIONS LONG TERM SUSMRC 6/03/98 EXPELLED 07/27/98 PAGE TOTAL 16 OFFENCE LVL CODE BM BF BLK TOT UM UF UHT TOT BM BF BLK TOT UM UF UHT TOT BM BF BLK TOT UM UF UHT TOT BLK UHT TOT Battery Theft Fighting PROSTAFF INSUBORD Dis Cond Forgery V As Sf 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 3 020 030 040 090 105 110 122 072 2 18 5 10 14 1 11 2 1 1 3 29 5 12 15 1 3 3 1 1 1 1 CLASS 07 SUBTOTAL 49 16 65 3 3 2 2 1 1 1 1 1 3 30 5 12 15 1 1 68 3 3 1 3 33 5 12 15 1 1 71 Ref Ruis Theft Fighting Loiter PROSTAFF INSUBORD Dis Cond Paging D V As Sf Pos Ueap UEAPONSI UEAPONS2 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 3 3 3 3 062 030 040 070 090 105 110 123 072 090 091 092 3 5 22 1 3 16 8 1 7 5 3 6 29 1 3 21 8 3 1 4 CLASS 08 SUBTOTAL FAILOBEY Ref Ruis Foul Lan Assault Theft Fighting Mischief PROSTAFF Ind Exp INSUBORD Dis Cond Har Comm Paging D AL-DRUGS Ass Staf Pos Ueap In Riot 1 1 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 3 3 3 060 062 110 010 030 040 080 090 100 105 110 120 123 150 071 090 120 CLASS 09 SUBTOTAL SCHOOL SUBTOTAL 1 2 1 1 62 1 14 2 1 1 1 76 4 1 1 1 1 1 2 1 3 7 1 1 3 18 129 14 3 21 1 1 1 1 2 1 2 21 51 2 2 2 5 39 180 6 1 2 12 19 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 5 9 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 6 1 1 1 6 1 2 2 2 2 2 1 1 1 2 1 1 13 25 4 6 1 2 3 1 6 9 3 3 4 4 1 1 1 1 3 3 3 6 29 1 3 21 8 3 1 2 1 78 1 2 1 1 3 21 2 2 2 2 5 2 1 1 46 192 4 1 1 2 1 1 10 1 1 1 6 3 2 1 1 16 29 3 6 33 1 4 22 10 1 3 1 3 1 88 1 2 1 1 3 22 1 1 2 8 5 2 2 6 5 1 1 62 221SCHOOL: 011 SOUTHWEST JUNIOR HIGH SCHOOL OUT OF SCHOOL OFFENCE LVL CODE BM BF BLK TOT WM WF LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT FROM DATE: DISCIPLINE BY REASON CODE 8/20/97 TO DATE: SANCTIONS LONG TERM SUSMRC 6/03/98 EXPELLED 07/27/98 PAGE TOTAL 17 Dis Cond CLASS 01 2 110 SUBTOTAL 1 1 1 1 WHT TOT BM BF BLK TOT WM WF WHT TOT BM BF BLK TOT WM WF WHT TOT BLK WHT TOT 1 1 1 1 Ref Ruis Ref Det Assault Battery Theft Fighting Gambling Mischief PROSTAFF Ind Exp INSUBORD Dis Cond Har Comm Paging D AL-DRUGS V As Sf CLASS 07 1 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 3 062 090 010 020 030 040 050 080 090 100 105 110 120 123 150 072 1 1 1 1 SUBTOTAL 1 3 23 1 2 4 2 19 11 1 1 69 15 2 3 3 1 25 1 3 38 1 2 b 2 22 14 2 1 94 3 3 2 5 1 1 2 2 1 1 7 1 6 4 5 6 1 1 1 1 2 1 1 2 1 1 1 1 5 7 3 39 1 2 6 4 23 15 2 1 1 3 2 1 12 1 5 1 17 1 1 1 111 1 8 1 1 5 8 3 42 1 2 6 4 23 17 3 1 1 1 119 MinAlter FAILOBEY Ref Ruis Ref Det Foul Lan Assault Battery Fighting Mischief PROSTAFF INSUBORD Dis Cond AL-DRUGS V As Sf Extort CLASS 08 1 1 1 1 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 3 3 030 060 062 090 110 010 020 040 080 090 105 110 150 072 110 2 1 1 1 1 1 2 1 1 2 1 SUBTOTAL 1 19 16 20 10 2 73 11 1 4 19 8 45 1 30 1 20 39 18 2 118 4 1 1 3 2 1 1 2 1 5 1 2 5 3 5 1 2 1 7 2 2 1 1 2 2 11 5 16 8 3 11 2 2 1 1 1 1 2 1 1 2 1 1 8 30 1 21 39 18 2 2 1 130 2 5 1 2 5 3 18 2 1 1 2 1 1 10 35 2 23 2} 2 2 1 148 LeftSchl Assault Battery Theft Fighting Gambling Mischief 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 050 010 020 030 040 050 080 1 1 2 24 1 4 1 1 8 1 1 3 1 32 1 4 1 1 4 2 1 2 5 1 1 3 1 4 1 3 8 1 32 1 4 1 1 4 2 4 8 1 36 1 4SCHOOL: on SOUTHWEST JUNIOR HIGH SCHOOL OUT OF SCHOOL LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT FROM DATE: DISCIPLINE BY REASON CODE 8/20/97 TO DATE: SANCTIONS LONG TERM SUSMRC 6/03/98 EXPELLED OFFENCE LVL CODE BM BF BLK TOT UM UF UHT TOT BM BF BLK TOT UM WF UHT TOT BH BF BLK TOT UM 07/27/98 WF UHT TOT BLK PAGE TOTAL UHT 18 J TOT PROSTAFF Ind Exp INSUBORD Dis Cond Paging D AL-DRUGS Ass Staf V As Sf UEAPONS1 Extort Ueapon CLASS 09 2 2 2 2 2 2 3 3 3 3 3 090 100 105 110 123 150 071 072 091 110 121 8 1 18 8 1 5 5 11 9 13 1 29 17 1 5 4 1 1 2 5 3 SUBTOTAL 1 1 1 1 2 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 75 35 110 9 5 14 1 1 11 1 4 1 1 1 1 1 15 1 1 1 2 1 2 1 1 2 2 4 1 2 3 14 1 29 19 1 5 2 4 1 1 1 128 1 5 3 2 1 18 14 2 34 22 1 5 2 6 1 2 1 146 INSUBORD CLASS 10 2 105 SUBTOTAL 2 2 1 1 3 3 3 3 3 3 Ref Ruis Dis Cond CLASS 11 1 2 062 110 SUBTOTAL 1 1 1 1 1 1 SCHOOL SUBTOTAL 221 106 327 25 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 13 38 31 12 43 5 2 7 2 2 4 374 45 419LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT SUSMRC 07/27/98 PAGE 27 SCHOOL: 017 BALE ELEMENTARY SCHOOL FROM DATE: DISCIPLINE BY REASON CODE 8/20/97 TO DATE: 6/03/98 OFFENCE LVL CODE BM BF OUT OF SCHOOL BLK TOT WM WF WHT TOT BM SANCTIONS LONG TERM EXPELLED TOTAL BF BLK TOT UM WF WHT TOT BM BF BLK TOT WM WF WHT TOT BLK WHT TOT Fighting CLASS 02 2 040 SUBTOTAL 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Dis Cond CLASS 03 2 110 SUBTOTAL 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Ref Ruis Fighting Dis Cond CLASS 04 1 2 2 062 040 110 SUBTOTAL 2 2 2 (\u0026gt; 2 2 2 6 2 2 2 6 2 2 2 6 Theft Fighting Ind Exp Dis Cond WEAPONSI CLASS 05 2 2 2 2 3 030 040 100 110 091 1 2 1 1 1 1 2 1 2 1 1 SUBTOTAL 5 1 6 1 2 1 2 2 2 1 2 1 3 2 2 1 2 1 8 Ref Ruis Loiter INSUBORD Dis Cond WEAPONSI CLASS 06 1 2 2 2 3 062 070 105 110 091 1 1 1 1 1 3 2 1 2 3 SUBTOTAL 2 6 8 1 1 1 1 2 1 2 3 1 9 2 1 2 3 1 9 INSUBORD CLASS 08 2 105 SUBTOTAL 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 PROSTAFF CLASS 10 2 090 SUBTOTAL 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 SCHOOL SUBTOTAL 15 7 22 2 2 2 1 3 25 2 27SCHOOL: 018 BRADY ELEMENTARY SCHOOL OUT OF SCHOOL OFFENCE LVL CODE BM BF BLK TOT UM UF LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT FROM DATE: UHT TOT BM SUSMRC 07/27/98 PAGE 28 DISCIPLINE BY REASON CODE 8/20/97 TO DATE: 6/03/98 SANCTIONS LONG TERM EXPELLED TOTAL BF BLK TOT UM UF UHT TOT BM BF BLK TOT UM WF UHT TOT BLK UHT TOT FAILOBEY Dis Cond CLASS K 1 2 060 110 1 SUBTOTAL 1 1 1 1 1 2 1 1 2 1 1 2 Harass FAILOBEY Ref Ruis RAPRINGS Ass Staf CLASS 01 1 1 1 2 3 040 060 062 130 071 SUBTOTAL 1 1 1 1 1 5 1 1 1 1 1 5 1 1 1 1 1 5 1 1 1 1 1 5 Ref Ruis Foul Lan Fighting Dis Cond RAPRINGS 1 1 2 2 2 062 110 040 110 130 2 1 1 CLASS 02 SUBTOTAL 1 5 2 2 2 1 1 2 1 7 1 1 1 1 2 1 1 2 1 7 1 1 2 1 2 2 1 8 FAILOBEY Foul Lan Fighting 1 1 2 060 110 040 CLASS 03 SUBTOTAL 3 1 1 5 3 1 1 5 1 1 1 1 2 2 3 1 1 5 2 2 5 1 1 7 MinAlter FAILOBEY Ref Ruis Foul Lan Assault 1 1 1 1 2 030 060 062 110 010 2 1 1 2 1 2 1 2 1 1 1 2 1 2 1 CLASS 04 SUBTOTAL 3 3 6 1 2 1 2 6 1 2 1 3 1 2 1 8 MinAlter Ref Ruis Dis Cond 1 1 2 030 062 110 1 1 1 2 1 1 1 3 1 CLASS 05 SUBTOTAL 2 1 3 1 1 1 1 1 1 4 1 1 3 1 1 5 Fighting 2 040 CLASS 07 SUBTOTAL 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 SCHOOL SUBTOTAL 22 6 28 5 3 8 1 1 29 8 37LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT SUSMRC 07/27/98 PAGE 29 t\nThis project was supported in part by a Digitizing Hidden Special Collections and Archives project grant from The Andrew W. Mellon Foundation and Council on Library and Information Resoources.\n \n\n \n\n \n\n\n \n\n \n\n \n\n\n \n\n \n\n \n\n\n \n\n \n\n \n\n\u003cdcterms_creator\u003eLittle Rock School District\u003c/dcterms_creator\u003e\n \n\n \n\n \n\n\n \n\n \n\n \n\n\n\n \n\n \n\n \n\n\n \n\n \n\n \n\n \n\n \n\n\n \n\n \n\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n \n\n \n\n\n\n \n\n\n \n\n\n\n \n\n\n\n "},{"id":"bcas_bcmss0837_1195","title":"Magnet Review Committee: Budget","collection_id":"bcas_bcmss0837","collection_title":"Office of Desegregation Management","dcterms_contributor":null,"dcterms_spatial":["United States, 39.76, -98.5","United States, Arkansas, 34.75037, -92.50044","United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, 34.76993, -92.3118","United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, Little Rock, 34.74648, -92.28959"],"dcterms_creator":null,"dc_date":["1997/1998"],"dcterms_description":null,"dc_format":["application/pdf"],"dcterms_identifier":null,"dcterms_language":["eng"],"dcterms_publisher":["Little Rock, Ark. : Butler Center for Arkansas Studies. Central Arkansas Library System"],"dc_relation":null,"dc_right":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC-EDU/1.0/"],"dcterms_is_part_of":["Office of Desegregation Monitoring records (BC.MSS.08.37)","History of Segregation and Integration of Arkansas's Educational System"],"dcterms_subject":["Little Rock (Ark.)--History--20th century","Little Rock School District","Education--Arkansas","Education--Finance","Education--Evaluation","Educational statistics","Magnet schools"],"dcterms_title":["Magnet Review Committee: Budget"],"dcterms_type":["Text"],"dcterms_provenance":["Butler Center for Arkansas Studies"],"edm_is_shown_by":null,"edm_is_shown_at":["http://arstudies.contentdm.oclc.org/cdm/ref/collection/bcmss0837/id/1195"],"dcterms_temporal":null,"dcterms_rights_holder":null,"dcterms_bibliographic_citation":null,"dlg_local_right":["Available for use in research, teaching, and private study. Any other use requires permission from the Butler Center."],"dcterms_medium":["documents (object genre)"],"dcterms_extent":["131 pages"],"dlg_subject_personal":null,"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":"\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n \n\n\n \n\n \n\n\n \n\n\n \n\n\n\n\n \n\n\n\n\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n \n\n \n\n \n\n\n \n\n \n\n \n\n\n \n\n \n\n \n\n\n \n\n \n\n \n\n\n \n\n \n\n \n\nThe transcript for this item was created using Optical Character Recognition (OCR) and may contain some errors.\nFILED U.S. DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT ARKANSAS IN THE UNITED STA TES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION JUL D 9 1998 JAMES r McRORMACK, CLERK By: \\ ,e\nJ\\1/\\ MO f\\ LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT, Plaintiff, vs. PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, et al., Defendants, MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, et al., Intervenors, KATHERINE KNIGHT, et al., Intervenors. * * * * * * * * * * * * * ORDER .- OEP CLERK '-- No. LR-C-82-866 ,ll 11 1 3 1998 OfflCEOf IISf.GREGATIOfl d0RIN6 Before the Court is the request of the Magnet Review Committee for the approval of the Interdistrict Magnet School Budget for the 1997-98 school year (Draft 1).1 The proposal now under consideration was communicated to the Court in a letter from the Magnet Review Committee dated June 20, 1998. The proposed budget includes the second year of funding for the five-year proposed program improvement plan for the six original magnet schools. The total amount budgeted, $18, 159, 205, is based on a per pupil expenditure of $4,654 per student, calculated from an actual third-quarter enrollment of 3,901.89 students. The budget shows an increase of $84.00 per student over the 1996-97 budget, with the second year of the five-year proposed program improvement plan included. 2 1 Attached hereto as Exhibit 1. 2 The Magnet Review Committee acknowledged in its letter to this Court that the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals had before it an appeal regardil!,g teacher retirement and health insurance which may The Court hereby approves the Interdistrict Magnet School Budget for 1997-98 school year (Draft 1). IT IS SO ORDERED THIS cfA--day of July 1998. ~u ?DSTAw TES DIkSTRI)CTU~DGE rHIS DOCUMENT ENTERED ON DOCKET SHEET IN C( ,MPLIANCE WM RULE ~ AND/OR 79(a) FRCP ON '] ll~~ ev_rJS::,__ _ impact the proposed lnterdistrict Magnet School Budget for the 1997-98 school year (Draft 1). The Eighth Circuit has now decided the case regarding teacher retirement and health insurance, and this Court anticipates making additional rulings regarding those issues in the future based upon the Eighth Circuit's decision. The Court expects, as the Magnet Review Committee has stated, that any revisions to the proposed lnterdistrict Magnet School Budget for the 1997-98 school year (Draft 1) required to be made in light of these decisions will be submitted to this Court for approval. 2 1997-98 BUDGET PROPOSAL(ORAFT 1) 96-97 96-97 96-97 97-98 97-98 SUMMARY FOR MAGNET SCHOOLS F.T.E. Budget Actual F.T.E. Proposed CERTIFIED 01 Principal 60 $369,070 $369,069 60 $376 587 STAFF 02 Asst. Prin. 10 0 $\u0026lt;\\63,584 $463,585 10 0 $488 462 03 Spec1al1sts 39 2 $1 327 018 S1 362 980 39 2 s 1 343 11 9 04 Counselors 12 4 S476,963 $476 836 12 4 $505 88' 05 Media Spec. 6 5 S248,736 $248 693 6 5 5253 085 06 Art-Pert/Prod. 1 0 $23. 723 S23 723 1 0 526 065 07 MUSIC 00 so so 00 so 08 Foreign Lang 00 so so 00 SC 09 Vocational 12 6 $347,888 S378,577 12 6 $343.81' 10 Special Education 8 2 $264,005 $265 751 8 7 S289 709 11 Gifted 5 4 $197,633 $197 633 5 4 S199 275 12 Classroom 177 9 $5,877,608 $5,843,911 177 9 S5 14 7 115 13 Substitutes 00 $154 ,990 $166,607 00 S155 000 14 Other-K1nderg art en 14 0 $486,252 $486,572 13 0 S425 964 TOTAL CERTIFIED SALARY 293 2 $10,237,470 $10,283 936 292 7 S1 0 564 086 SUPPORT 15 Secretaries 20 0 $373,625 $373 570 20 0 $407 495 STAFF 16 Nurses 54 $163,071 $163 569 5 4 S163262 17 Custodians 29 0 $369,006 $365,788 29 0 S356.470 18 Information Services 00 so so 1 0 $22 415 19 Paraprofessionals-Other 60 $156,854 $130.1 43 60 S133 806 20 Other-Aides 37.0 $312,743 $317,095 37 0 S285101 21 Fringe Benefits(20' $3,115,089 $3,080 923 xxxxxxxx S3 090 046 TOTAL SUPPORT SALARY 97 4 $4 ,490,388 $4,431 ,089 98 4 S\u0026lt;: 458. 595 TOTAL (10-20) $14,727 ,858 $14,715,.024 $15,022 681 PURCHASED 22 Ut11it1es $591 ,944 $574 528 $617 803 SERVICES 23 Travel $33,600 $13,472 S27 000 (30) 24 Maintenance Agreements $8,750 so so 25 Other $82,878 S123 953 xxxxxxxx S156 919 TOTAL (30) $717 ,172 $711,953 xxxxxxxx $801 722 MATERIALS, 25 Pnncip al's Office $3,600 so xxxxxxxx S2 500 SUPPLIES 27 Reqular Classroom $425,485 $450,479 xxxxxxxx S574 289 (40) 28 Media $41 ,523 $35,436 )()()0()()00( S35 450 29 Other $28,771 $20,114 xxxxxxxx $17 632 TOTAL (40) $499,379 $506 030 xxxxxxxx S629.871 CAPITAL 30 Equipment $376,785 $316,694 xxxxxxxx S281 692 OUTLAY 31 Buildinq Repair. etc. $5,500 so xxxxxxxx $0 (50) 32 Other $350 $106 xxxxxxxx so TOTAL (50) $382,635 $316,800 xxxxxxxx S281,692 OTHER 33 Dues and Fees $27,402 $30,648 xxxxxxxx $11 ,213 (60) 34 Other $0 $0 xxxxxxxx so TOTAL (60) $27,402 $30,648 xxxxxxxx S11 213 TOTAL (30-60) $1 ,626,587 $1,565,431 xxxxxxxx S1,724,498 TOTAL (10-60) 390.6 $16,354 ,446 $16,280,455 391 1 $16,747, 17(\nTOTAL LINE ITEMS (SECOND PAGE) $890,896 $929,702 xxxxxx:xx $1 412,026 GRAND TOTAL xxxxxx $17,245,342 $17,210,157 xxxxxx $18,159,205 Exhibit 1 Line Item Costs - Budget Actual Proposed 1996-97 1996-97 1997-98 Stipends $69,094 $19,983 $33,837 Other Objects $0 $0 so Indirect Costs $736,303 $824,092 $1 284 189 Vocational $32,000 $32,000 $32,000 Athletics $32,000 $31 ,964 $40 500 Gifted Programs $500 $502 $500 Plant SerY1ces $15,000 $15,000 $15 000 Reading $500 $500 $500 Science $0 $0 $0 Enqlish $1 ,500 $1 ,660 $1,500 Special Education $4 ,000 $4,000 $4 ,000 $0 $0 $0 xxxxxx $0 $0 so xxxxxx $0 $0 $0 Total Line Items $890,896 $929,702 $1 ,41 2,026 Per Pupil Cost 1996-97 1996-97 1997-98 3rd Qtr. ADM or Proj. 3,765.61 3,76561 3,901 89 Total Costs $17,245,342 $17,210,157 $18,159,205 Per Pupil Co\u0026amp;t $4,580 $4,570 $4,654 1997-98 BUDGET PROPOSAL(DRAFT1) 96-97 96-97 96-97 97-98 97-98 Booker Magnet School F.T.E. Budget Actual F.T.E. Proposed CERTIFIED 01 Principal 1 0 $59 663 S59 663 '0 $6' 58'.2 STAFF 02 Asst. Prin. 1 0 S40.672 S40.672 c S3 -5- 03 Specialists 7 0 $261 .827 S262.25- 7 0 S268 .:oa 04 Counselors 20 $73,553 S73. 468 2 0 S76 55 05 Media Spec. 1 0 $41 ,963 S41.963 1 0 S42 653 06 Art-Pert/Prod 1 0 $23.723 $23. 723 1 0 S26 065 07 Mus,c 0 0 $0 $0 00 so 08 Foreign Lang 00 $0 so 00 so 09 Vocational 00 $0 so 00 so 10 Special Education 1 3 $50,243 S50 243 1 3 S55 624 11 Gifted 1 0 $38,946 $38 946 1 0 S39 594 12 Classroom 30 2 $998,938 $1 ,001 ,579 30 2 $1042379 13 Substitutes 00 $20,000 $47 ,118 00 $30 000 14 Other-Kindergarten 4.0 $126,243 $126.243 4 0 S105 300 TOTAL CERTIFIED SALARY 49 5 $1 735,772 S1,765 876 49 5 S1 791 516 SUPPORT 15 Secretaries 2.0 $34,706 $35,046 20 $39,821 STAFF 16 Nurses 1 0 $31 ,825 $32,145 1 0 $33 050 17 Custodians 4.0 $55,01 9 $54 ,958 4 0 $53 033 18 Information Services 00 $0 $0 02 $3 736 19 Paraprofessionals-Other 0.0 $0 so 00 so 20 Other-Aides 7.0 $59,679 $60,277 70 $56 973 21 Frinqe Benefits(20' $520,352 $520,341 S519,779 TOTAL SUPPORT SALARY 14.0 $701 ,580 $702:767 14 2 $706 392 TOTAL (10-20) $2,437,352 $2,468,642 $2,497,909 PURCHASED 22 Utilities $78,070 $66,703 $81 480 SERVICES 23 Travel $5,000 $2,355 $2,000 (30) 24 Maintenance Agreements 25 Other $8,493 $12,711 $13350 TOTAL (30) $91,563 $81,769 $96,830 MATERIALS, 26 Pnnc1pal's Office SUPPLIES 27 Regular Classroom $42,079 $40,397 $105,498 (40) 28 Media $6,1 50 $6,105 $5250 29 Other $4,205 $3,475 $3,372 TOTAL (40) $52,434 $49,977 xxxxxxxx $114 ,120 CAPITAL 30 Equipment $60,059 $50,840 $65,760 OUTLAY 31 Buildinq Repair, etc. $2,500 so so (50) 32 Other TOTAL (50) $62,559 $50 840 $65.760 OTHER 33 Dues and Fees $259 $259 xxxxxxxx $250 (60) 34 Other xxxxxxxx TOTAL (60) $259 $259 XXXlOOOO( S250 TOTAL (30-60) $206,816 $182,845 xxxxxxxx S276. 960 TOTAL (10-60) 63.5 $2,644,1 67 $2,651,488 63 7 $2,774,869 TOTAL LINE ITEMS (SECOND PAGE) $145,777 $138,793 xxxxxxxx $217 370 GRAND TOTAL xxxxxx $2,789,944 $2,790,280 xxxxxx $2,992,238 Line Item Co\u0026amp;ts Budget Actual Proposed Booker 1996-97 1996-97 1997-98 Stipends $20,733 S3.789 58 357 Other Objects Indirect Costs $121 ,381 S131 ,479 S205 ~99 Vocational $0 $0 so Athletics $0 so so Gifted Programs $155 $149 S153 Plant Services $2,505 $2,393 S2 400 Reading $84 $80 S80 Science $0 so so English $251 $265 S240 Special Education $668 $638 $640 xxxxxx xxxxxx Total Line Items $145,777 $138,793 $217 370 Per Pupil Cost 1996-97 1996-97 1997-98 3rd Qtr. ADM or Proj. 600 78 600 78 624 39 Total Costs $2,789,944 $2.790,280 $2,992,238 Per Pupil Cost $4,644 $4,644 $4,792 1997-98B UOGET PROPOSAL(DRAFT1) 96-97 96-97 96-97 97-98 97 -98 Carver Magnet School F.T.E. Budget Actual F.T.E. Proposed CERTIFIED 01 Principal 1 0 $55,761 $55 761 1 0 S57 650 STAFF 02 Asst. Pnn. 1 0 $43,871 $43,871 1 0 S45 ,\n95 03 Spec1al1sts 80 $262,515 S276,461 8 0 S285971 04 Counselors 20 $68,259 $68 259 20 S70. 795 05 Media Spec. 1 5 $52,645 $52 645 1 5 S54 248 06 Art-Peri /Prod. 0 0 $0 so 00 so 07 Music 00 $0 so 00 so 08 Foreign Lang 0 0 $0 so 00 so 09 Vocational 00 $0 so 00 SC 10 Special Education 1 5 $48,900 $48,900 5 S50. 773 11 Gifted 1.4 $51 ,170 $51 ,170 1 4 S48. 976 12 Classroom 24 3 $706,362 $697 875 24 3 S694 929 13 Substitutes 00 $17 ,150 $19,700 00 $25,000 14 Other-Kindergarten 4 0 $131 ,099 $131 ,099 4 0 $128 706 TOTAL CERTIFIED SALARY 44 7 $1 ,437,732 $1 445,741 44 7 $1462545 SUPPORT 15 Secretaries 3.0 $51 ,357 $5 1,357 3 0 S48 392 STAFF 16 Nurses 1.0 $31 ,419 $31,597 1 0 S24 383 17 Custodians 4 0 $46,837 S46 108 4 0 $43 692 18 Information Services 0.0 $0 so 02 S3 736 19 Paraprofessionals-Other 0.0 $0 : $0 0 0 so 20 Other-Aides 11 .0 $93,398 $94 ,091 11 0 $87, 41 9 21 Fringe Benefits(20) $477,906 $474 ,656 S456 . 456 TOTAL SUPPORT SALARY 19.0 $700,917 $697,81 0 19 2 S664 078 TOTAL (10-20) $2,138,649 $2,143,551 S2, 126,623 PURCHASED 22 Utilities $71 ,899 $75,210 $81 653 SERVICES 23 Travel $9,000 $5,202 S9.000 (30) 24 Maintenance Agreements 25 Other $8,591 $9,735 S8.560 TOTAL (30) $89,490 $90,147 $99,213 MATERIALS, 26 Principal's Office SUPPLIES 27 Regular Classroom $68,000 $68,975 $5 7 660 (40) 28 Media $9,314 $9,319 $5 500 29 Other $3,500 $4 ,029 $3,600 TOTAL (40) $80,814 $82,323 $66,760 CAPITAL 30 Eauioment $56,240 $49,380 $56,167 OUTLAY 31 Building Repair, etc. (50) 32 Other TOTAL (50) $56,240 $49,380 xxxxxxx~ $56,167 OTHER 33 Dues and Fees $15,023 $18,064 $4 ,000 (60) 34 Other \u0026gt;YYY TOTAL (60) $15,023 $18,064 $4.000 TOTAL (30-60) $241 ,567 $239,915 $226,1 40 TOTAL 110-60) 63.7 $2,380,216 $2,383,466 63 .9 $2,352,763 TOTAL LINE ITEMS - (SECOND PAGE) $151 ,993 $138,821 $217 .1 67 .. , GRAND TOTAL ...... xxxxxx $2,532,209 $2,522,286 xxxxxx $2,569,930 Line Item Costs Budget Actual Proposed Carver 1996-97 1996-97 1997-98 Stipends $28,990 $2 607 $13 390 Other Objects Indirect Costs $119,516 $132,656 $200 352 Vocational $0 so so Athletics $0 so so Gifted Programs $145 $151 $149 Plant Services $2,385 $2,415 $2 340 Reading $82 $80 $78 Science $0 so so English $239 S267 $234 Special Education $636 $644 $624 xxxxxx xxxxxx Total Line Items $151 ,993 $138,821 S217 167 Per Pupil Co\u0026amp;t 1996-97 1998-97 1997-98 3rd Qtr. ADM or Proj. 606 16 606 16 608 75 Total Costs $2,532,209 $2,522,286 S2,569,930 Per Pupil Cost $4,177 $4,161 $4,222 1997-98 BUDGET PROPOSAL(DRAFT1) 96-97 96-97 96-97 97-98 97-98 Gibbs Magnet School F.T.E. Budget Actual F.T.E. Proposed CERTIFIED 01 Principal 1 0 $51 ,859 S51 859 1 C 350 35,\nSTAFF 02 Asst. Prin. 1 0 S47,653 $4 7,653 ' D $58 119 03 Specialists 5 8 S 182,294 $177 .83 \u0026lt;: 5 8 5169956 04 Counselors 1 0 $42,870 $42 870 1 0 s.\n3 55~ 05 Media Spec. 1 0 $42,303 $42,260 1 0 S43 696 06 Art-Pert/Prod. 00 $0 so 00 SO 07 MUSIC 00 $0 so 00 SC 08 Foreign Lang 00 $0 so 0 0 so 09 Vocational 00 $0 so 00 so 10 Special Education 1 5 $56,580 $56,580 1 5 $50,753 11 Gifted 1 0 $29,832 $29,832 1 0 S31 04 7 12 Classroom 15 0 $462,335 $460.177 15 0 S485,954 13 Substitutes 0.0 $14 ,000 $12,600 00 $14 000 14 Other-Kindergarten 20 $63,266 $63,500 2 0 SG7 J 12 TOTAL CERTIFIED SALARY 29 3 $992,991 $985,1 66 29 3 S1 014 757 SUPPORT 15 Secretaries 1 4 $20,666 $20,666 1 4 S22 339 STAFF 16 Nurses 0 8 $11 ,181 $11 ,181 0 8 S14 569 17 Custodians 30 $38,802 $38 259 30 S40 09~ 18 Information Services 00 $0 so 02 SJ 736 19 Para professionals-Other 00 $0 . so 0 0 so 20 Other-Aides 5.6 $44 ,411 $44 ,644 56 $40,499 21 Fringe Benefits(20) $300,641 $292,885 $303,473 TOTAL SUPPORT SALARY 10.8 $415,701 $407,635 11 0 S424.712 TOTAL (10-20) $1,408,693 $1,392,802 S1 439,470 PURCHASED 22 Utilities $38,577 $33,320 S39 439 SERVICES 23 Travel $2,000 $762 $2 .000 (30) 24 Maintenance Agreements $250 )()()OCl()O(X. 25 Other $3,262 $4,899 xxxxxxxx S3 . 985 TOTAL (30) $44,089 $38,980 $45. 424 MATERIALS, 26 Princ1pal's Office $0 $0 S1 ,000 SUPPLIES 27 Reqular Classroom $35,000 $49,466 S49 625 (40) 28 Media $3,500 $1 ,897 $3,500 29 Other $1 ,860 $1 ,651 $1 ,260 TOTAL (40) $40,360 $53,013 $55 385 CAPITAL 30 Equipment $51 ,231 $24 ,156 S62 .059 OUTLAY 31 Buildinq Repair, etc. (50) 32 Other TOTAL (50) $51,231 $24 ,156 S62 059 OTHER 33 Dues and Fees $3,048 $2,983 S1 ,000 (60) 34 Other TOTAL (60) $3,048 $2,983 $1 ,000 TOTAL (30-60) $138,729 $119,133 $163,868 TOTAL (10-60) 40.1 $1,547,421 $1,511,935 40.3 $1 ,603,338 TOTAL LINE ITEMS (SECOND PAGE) $63,816 $71 ,037 $106 558 GRAND TOTAL xxxxxx $1,611,238 $1,582,971 xxxxxx $1,709 ,895 Line Item Costs Budget Actual Proposed Gibb\u0026amp; 1996-97 1996-97 1997 -98 Stipends $771 $771 $540 Other ObJects Indirect Costs $6 1,1 42 $68,431 $104 236 Vocational $0 so so Athletics so so so Gifted Programs $80 $78 $78 Plant Services $1 ,305 $1 ,246 $1 218 Reading $42 $42 $41 Science $0 $0 so English $129 $1 38 $122 Special Education $348 $332 S325 xxxxxx )()()()()()( Total Line Items $63,816 $71 ,037 $106 558 Per Pupil Co\u0026amp;t 1996-97 1996-97 1997-98 3rd Qtr. ADM or ProJ. 312 69 312 69 316 71 Total Costs $1 ,611 ,238 $1 ,582,971 $1,709,895 Per Pupil Cost $5,153 $5 ,062 $5 ,399 1997-98 BUDGET PROPOSAL(DRAFT1) 96-97 96-97 96-97 97-98 97-98 Wllllams Magnet School - F.T.E. Budqet Actual F.T.E. Proposed CERTIFIED 01 Principal 1 0 S64 667 S64 667 '0 $66 66:: STAFF 02 Asst. Pnn. 1 0 $43,238 $43,238 o s.\n.i 83~ 03 Spec1al1sts 50 $195 748 $195 603 5 0 $201 181 04 Counselors 1 4 $34 952 $34 ,952 1 4 $51 530 05 Media Spec. 1 0 $31 818 S31,818 1 0 $31 151 06 Art-Perf /Prod 00 so so 00 so 07 Music 00 $0 so 00 so 08 Foreign Lang 00 $0 so 00 so 09 Vocational 00 so so 0 0 so 10 Special Education 11 $41,125 $39,793 1 $39 220 11 Gifted 20 S77,685 $77 685 20 S ~9 658 12 Classroom 20.0 $710,889 $710,623 20 0 S ~03 555 13 Substitutes 00 $16,000 $18,709 0 0 $20 000 14 Other-Kindergarten 3.0 $122,544 $122,629 3 0 S124 646 TOTAL CERTIFIED SALARY 35.5 $1 ,338,667 $1 ,339,717 35 5 S1362442 SUPPORT 15 Secretaries 2.6 $43, 1 so $43,1 51 26 $47,016 STAFF 16 Nurses 1.0 $38,427 $38,427 1 0 $39,749 17 Custodians 4.0 $52,200 $52,040 4 0 $47,750 18 Information Services 0.0 $0 $0 0 2 S3 736 19 Paraprofessionals-Other 0.0 $0 $0 0 0 $0 20 Other-Aides 9.0 $46,919 $46,146 90 S31 ,968 21 Fringe Benefits(20) $412,498 $406,793 S397,919 TOTAL SUPPORT SALARY 16.6 $593,194 $586,557 16 8 S568 138 TOTAL (10-20) $1 ,931 ,861 $1,926,274 S1,930,580 PURCHASED 22 Utilities $52,119 $49,359 $54 789 SERVICES 23 Travel $3,700 $305 $3,000 (30) 24 Maintenance Agreements 25 Other $4 ,650 $6,835 $6 ,000 TOTAL (30) $60,469 $56,499 $63,789 MATERIALS, 26 Principa l's Office xxxxxxxx SUPPLIES 27 Reqular Classroom $64,055 $66,541 $66 090 (40) 28 Media $5,000 $1 ,469 xxxx:xxxx $5,000 29 Other $1 ,681 $2,202 xxxxxxxx $1 ,400 TOTAL (40) $70,735 $70,212 xxxx:xxxx S 72 490 CAPITAL 30 Equipment $45,734 $43,453 xxxxxxxx $34 ,460 OUTLAY 31 Buildinq Repair, etc. xxxx:xxxx (50) 32 Other $350 so so TOTAL (50) $46,084 $43,453 xxxx:xxxx $34 480 OTHER 33 Dues and Fees $1 ,560 $1 ,560 xxxxxxxx $800 (60) 34 Other xxxxxxxx TOTAL (60) $1 ,560 $1 ,560 xxxxxxxx $800 TOTAL (30-60) $178,849 $171,725 xxxxxxxx $171 ,559 TOTAL (10-60) 52.1 $2,110,709 $2,097 ,998 52 3 S2, 102 138 TOTAL LINE ITEMS - (SECOND PAGE) $110,401 $119,320 xxxxxxxx S 172 794 GRAND TOTAL \u0026lt; ' .. xxxxxx $2,221,111 $2,217,319 xxxxxx $2,274 ,932 Line Item Costs - Budget Actual Proposed Williams 1996-97 1996-97 1997-98 Stipends $10,000 $6. 734 SB 400 Other Objects Indirect Costs $97 ,573 $109,647 S161 631 Vocation al $0 $0 so Athletics $0 so so Gifted Programs $120 $125 S120 Plant Services $1,935 S1 ,996 s, 888 Reading $63 S67 S63 Science $0 so so English S194 S221 S1fl9 Special Education S516 S532 $503 xxxxxx xxxxxx Total Line Items $110,401 S119,320 S172 794 Per Pupil Cost 1996-97 1996-97 1997-98 3rd Qtr. ADM or Proj 501 02 501 02 491 10 Total Costs $2,221 ,111 $2,217,319 $2,274,932 Per Pupil Co\u0026amp;t $4,433 $4,426 $4,632 1997-98 BUDGET PROPOSAL(ORAFT 1) 96-97 96-97 96-97 97-96 97-96 Mann Magnet School F.T.E. Budqet Actual F.T.E. Proposed CERTIFIED 01 Principal 1 0 $67,161 $67,180 1 0 $68 17' STAFF 02 Asst. Prin. 3 0 $131 ,072 $131 ,072 30 $134 985 03 Specialists 36 $1 03,620 $117,165 36 $9~ 23 04 Counselors 3 0 $11 9, 497 $119497 3 0 5'229 .. 9 05 Media Spec. 1 0 $43,986 $43 986 1 0 $44 702 06 Art-Per1./Prod. 00 $0 so 00 so 07 Music 00 $0 so 00 so 06 Foreign Lang 00 $0 $0 00 so 09 Vocational 56 $146,116 $176,765 5 6 S149 318 10 Special Education 1 3 $27,691 $30 769 1 3 S36 600 11 Gifted 0.0 $0 $0 00 so 12 Classroom 47 8 $1 ,540,964 $1,498,933 47 8 S1605497 13 Substitutes 00 $36,200 $34,438 00 $36 000 14 Other-Kindergarten 00 $0 $0 00 so TOTAL CERTIFIED SALARY 66 3 $2,216,326 $2,219,805 66 3 S2 292 381 SUPPORT 15 Secretaries 5.0 $87,147 $86,952 5 0 S98 328 STAFF 16 Nurses 1.0 $34 ,275 $34 ,275 1 0 S34 864 17 Custodians 60 $71 ,239 $71 ,238 60 $64 058 18 Information Services 0.0 $0 so 02 S3 736 19 Paraprofessionals-Other 1.0 $31 ,583 $30\n542 1 0 S33 763 20 Other-Aides 2.4 $37 ,956 $40,304 2 4 S37,240 21 Fringe Benefits(20) $663,070 $654 ,732 XXXXX\u0026gt;X\u0026lt; S657 749 TOTAL SUPPORT SALARY 15.4 $925,270 S918,043 15 6 $929 738 TOTAL (10-20) $3,141,596 $3,137,849 S3.222 119 PURCHASED 22 Utilities $169,940 $145,168 $169,276 SERVICES 23 Travel $6,900 $2,622 S4,000 (30) 24 Maintenance Agreements $4 ,500 $0 xxxxxxxx so 25 Other $37 ,011 $59,559 S61 4 74 TOTAL (30) $218,351 $207,349 S234, 750 MATERIALS, 26 Principal's Office $2,750 so $1 000 SUPPLIES 27 Reciular Classroom $100,928 $110,322 $129,299 (40) 28 Media $11 ,156 $10,71 0 $7 000 29 Other $5,900 $3,306 $3 000 TOTAL (40) $120,734 $124 ,337 S140 299 CAPITAL 30 Equipment $80,520 $91 ,316 S19,790 OUTLAY 31 BuildinQ Repair, etc. $3,000 $0 so (50) 32 Other TOTAL (50) $83,520 $91 ,316 $19,790 OTHER 33 Dues and Fees $2,400 $1 ,925 S1 500 (60) 34 Other TOTAL (60) $2,400 $1,925 S1.500 TOTAL /30-60) $425,005 $424,927 $396,339 TOTAL (10-60) 81.7 $3,S66,601 S3,562, 776 81 9 S3,618 457 TOTAL LINE ITEMS (SECOND PAGE) $204 ,382 $225,819 $339,350 \". GRAND TOTAL ... xxxxxx $3,770,984 $3,788,595 xxxxxx $3 ,957,807 Line Item Costs - Budget Actual Proposed Mann 1996-97 1996-97 1997 -98 Stipends $4,600 S2,543 S3, 150 Other Objects Indirect Costs $164,452 $187,1 27 $296 283 Vocational $16,000 $15,681 S 15 480 Athletics $14 ,500 $15,663 S19,592 Gifted Programs $0 so so Plant Services $3,450 $3, 406 $3,461 Reading $115 $114 $115 Science $0 $0 so English $31\\5 $377 $346 Special Education $920 $908 $923 xxxxxx xxxxxx Total Line Items $204,382 $225,819 $339,350 Per Pupil Co\u0026amp;t 1996-97 1996-97 1996-97 3rd Qtr. ADM or Proj. 855 06 855 06 900 23 Total Costs $3,770,984 $3,788,595 $3,957,807 Per Pupil co,t $4,410 $4,431 $4 ,396 1997-98 BUDGET PROPOSAL(ORAFT1) 96-97 96-97 96-97 97-98 97-98 Parkvlew Magnet School F.T.E. BudQet Actual F.T.E. Proposed CERTIFIED 01 Principal 1 0 $69,939 $69,939 1 0 S72 162 STAFF 02 Asst. Prin. 3 0 $157,079 $157079 30 S16 268 03 Specialists 9 8 $321 ,01 4 $333,660 9 8 S323 -180 04 Counselors 30 $137,832 $137,790 30 S140 860 OS Media Spec. 1 0 $36,020 $36,020 1 0 S36 635 06 Art-Perf./Prod 00 $0 so 0 0 so 07 Music 00 $0 so 0 0 so 08 Foreign Lang. 00 $0 so 0 0 so 09 Vocational 7.0 $201 ,772 $201 ,812 70 $194 499 10 Special Education 1.5 $39,465 $39,465 2 0 SS6 739 11 Gifted 00 $0 $0 00 so 12 Classroom 40.6 $1 ,458,121 $1 ,474.723 40 6 $1 614 801 13 Substitutes 00 $51 ,640 $34 042 0 0 $40 000 14 Other-Kindergarten 1 0 $43,100 $43,100 00 so TOTAL CERTIFIED SALARY 67 9 $2,515,982 $2,527,630 67 4 $2 640.444 SUPPORT 15 Secretaries 6.0 $136,599 $136,399 6 0 $151,599 STAFF 16 Nurses 0.6 $15,944 $15,944 06 $16,648 17 Custodians 8.0 $104 ,910 $103,185 8 0 S107,841 18 Information Services 0.0 $0 $0 02 $3,736 19 Paraprofessionals-Other 5.0 $125,271 $99\n602 5 0 $100,043 20 Other-Aides 2.0 $30,381 $31 ,632 20 $31 ,002 21 Fringe Benefits(20) $740,622 $731,515 $754 ,670 TOT AL SUPPORT SALARY 21 .6 $1,153,726 $1 ,118,277 21 8 S1, 165.538 TOTAL (10-20) $3,669,708 $3,645,907 xxxxxxxx S3 805,982 PURCHASED 22 Utilities $181,339 $204,767 xxxxxxxx S191 166 SERVICES 23 Travel $7,000 $2,225 S7 ,000 (30) 24 Maintenance Agreements $4,000 25 Other $20,870 $30,215 S63.550 TOTAL (30) $213,209 $237,207 S261 716 MATERIALS, 26 Principal's Office $850 $0 S500 SUPPLIES 27 Regular Classroom $115,423 $114,779 S166, 117 (40) 28 Media $6,403 $5,937 S9,200 29 Other $11 ,625 $5,451 $5,000 TOTAL (40) $134,301 $126,167 $180 817 CAPITAL 30 Equipment $83,000 $57,549 $43,437 OUTLAY 31 Buildinci Repair, etc. (SO) 32 Other $106 TOTAL (50) $83,000 $57,655 $43,437 OTHER 33 Dues and Fees $5,112 $5,857 $3,663 (60) 34 Other TOTAL (60) $5,112 $5,857 $3 663 TOTAL (30-60) $435,622 $426,886 $489,633 TOTAL (10-60) 89.5 $4,105,330 $4,072,793 89 2 $4 ,295,614 TOTAL LINE ITEMS - (SECOND PAGE) $214,526 $235,913 $358 787 .,,,./\"''''''\"'/\u0026lt; GRAND-TO.TAL :: .. ,:\n.:~:/ xxxxxx $4,319,857 $4,308,705 xxxxxx $4,654,401 Line Item Coats Budget Actual Proposed Parkvlew 1996-97 1996-97 1996-97 Stipends $4,000 $3,539 so Other Objects Indirect Costs $172,238 $194,752 S316 189 Vocational $16,000 $16 319 $16,520 Athletics $17 ,500 $16,301 $20 908 Gifted Programs $0 $0 so Plant Services $3 ,420 $3,545 $3 693 Reading $114 $118 $123 Science $0 $0 $0 English $342 $392 S369 Special Education $912 $945 S985 xxxxxx xxxxxx Total Line Items $214 ,526 $235,913 $358,787 Per Pupil Cost 1996-97 1996-97 1996-97 3rd Qtr. ADM or Proj. 889.90 889 90 960 71 Total Costs $4,319,857 $4,308,705 $4,654,401 Per Pupil Cost $4,854 $4,842 $4,845 Donna Grady Creer Executive Director June 10, 1998 Magnet Review Committee 1900 North Main Street Suite 101 North Little Rock, Arkansas 72114 The Honorable Susan Webber Wright Judge, U.S. District Court Eastern District of Arkansas 600 West Capitol Suite 302 Little Rock, AR 72201 Dear Judge Wright: RECEIVED JUN 1 5 1998 OFFICE OF DESEGREGATIOt~ N~qffi~ At its June 9, 1998 regularly-called meeting, the Magnet Review Committee, by formal motion and unanimous 6-0 vote, approved the interdistrict magnet schools' budget for the six original magnet schools for the 1997-98 school year (Draft l l, which includes the second year of funding for the fiveyear proposed program improvement plan for the same schools. The total amount budgeted, $18,159,205, is based on a per pupil expenditure of $4,654 per student, calculated from an actual third-quarter enrollment of 3, 90 l .89 students. This budget shows an increase of $84 .00 per student over the 1996-97 budget, with the second year of the five-year proposed program improvement plan included. As you know, there is an appeal before the Eighth Circuit regarding teacher retirement and health insurance which may have impact on the attached budget. Any revisions to the budget will be submitted to you for approval. It is the intention of the Magnet Review Committee, therefore, to submit this budget with the recognition that some flexibility may be necessary, particularly during the 1998-99 school year. The Magnet Review Committee respectfully requests the Court's review and approval of the 1997-98 interdistrict magnet schools' budget attached herewith. The Magnet Review Committee is committed to maintaining the existing quality of the interdistrict magnet schools. We will continue to work with the host district as we exercise stringent oversight of the magnet schools' budget in an effort to achieve and ensure efficient management and cost containment to the greatest extent possible. Sincerely, c:zk-~ ~w.JJ Sadie Mitchell, Chairperson Magnet Review Committee SM/DGC:sl Attachment: 1997-98 lnterdistrict Magnet Schools' Budget (Approved Draft l l cc: Ann Brown, Federal Monitor - Office of Desegregation Monitoring '.1Jijl7~ BV.DGET P~Of.\u0026gt;..OSA.L(DRAFT 1) ... 96-97 96-97 96-97 97-98 97-98 SUMMARY FOR.MAGNET SCHOOLS F.T.E. Budget Actual F.T.E. Proposed CERTIFIED 01 Principal 6.0 $369,070 $369,069 6.0 $376 ,587 STAFF 02 Asst. Prin. 10 0 $\u0026lt;163 ,584 $463,585 10 0 S488, 462 03 Specialists 39.2 $1,327,018 $1,362,980 39 2 $1,343, 119 04 Counselors 12.4 $476,963 $476,836 12 4 $505,887 05 Media Spec. 6.5 $248,736 $248,693 6 5 $25 3,085 06 Art-Perf./Prod. 1.0 $23,723 $23,723 1 0 S26,065 07 Music 0.0 $0 so 00 so 08 Foreiqn Lanq . 0.0 $0 so 00 so 09 Vocational 12.6 $347 ,888 $378,577 12 6 $343,8 17 10 Special Education 8.2 $264 ,005 $265 ,751 8 7 $289,709 11 Gifted 5.4 $197,633 $197,633 5 4 $199,275 12 Classroom 177.9 \" $5,877,608 $5,84 3,9 11 177 9 $6 147,1 15 13 Substitutes 0 0 $154 ,990 $1 66,607 00 $165,000 14 Other-Kindergarten 14.0 $486,252 $486,572 13 0 $425,964 TOTAL CERTIFIED SALARY 293.2 $10,237,470 $10, 283,936 292 7 $10 564 086 SUPPORT 15 Secretaries 20.0 $373,625 $373,570 20 0 $407 495 STAFF 16 Nurses 5.4 $163 ,071 $1 63,569 5 4 $163,262 17 Custodians 29.0 $369,006 $365,788 29 0 S356,470 18 Information Services 0.0 $0 so 1 0 S22,415 19 Paraprofessionals-Other 6 0 $156,854 $130, 143 60 $133,806 20 Other-Aides 37 0 $312,743 $317 ,095 37 0 $285,101 21 Frinqe Benefits(20) $3,115,089 $3, 080,923 xxxxxxxx $3,090.046 TOTAL SUPPORT SALARY 97 .4 $4 ,490,388 $4 ,431 ,089 98 4 $4 458,595 TOTAL (10-20) $14,727 ,858 $14,715,.024 xxxxxxxx $15,022 681 PURCHASED 22 Utilities $591 ,944 $574 528 $617 803 SERVICES 23 Travel $33,600 $13,472 $27,000 (30) 24 Maintenance Agreements $8,750 $0 so 25 Other $82,878 $123,953 xxxxxxxx S156.919 TOTAL (30) $717 ,172 $711 ,953 x:xxxxxxx $801,722 MATERIALS, 26 Principal's Office $3,600 so xxxxx:xxx $2 500 SUPPLIES 27 Reqular Classroom $425,485 $450,479 xxxxxxxx S574 289 (40) 28 Media $41 ,523 $35 436 xxxxxxxx S35 450 29 Other $28,771 $20,114 )000()()()()( $17 632 TOTAL (40) $4 99, 379 $506,030 x:xxxxxxx $629 871 CAPITAL 30 Equipment $376,785 $316,694 xxxxxxxx $281 692 OUTLAY 31 Buildinci Repair, etc. xxxxxxxx $5,500 so xxxxxxxx so (50) 32 Other $350 S106 xxxxxxxx so TOTAL (50) $382,635 $316 800 xxxxxxxx $281 692 OTHER 33 Dues and Fees $27, 402 $30,648 xxxxxxxx S11 213 (60) 34 Other $0 $0 xxxxxxxx $0 TOTAL (60) $27,402 $30,648 x:xxxxxxx $11,213 TOTAL (30-60) $1 ,626,587 $1,565,431 xxxxxxxx $1 724,498 TOTAL (10-60) 390.6 $16,354 ,446 $16,280.455 391 1 $16 747 179 TOTAL LINE ITEMS - (SECOND PAGE) $890, 896 $929 702 xxxxxxxx S1 412.026 GRAND TOTAL xxxxxx $17,245 ,342 $17,210,157 xxxxxx $18,159,205 Line Item Costs - Budget Actual Proposed 1996-97 1996-97 1997-98 Stipends $69,094 $19,983 $33 837 Other Objects $0 $0 $0 Indirect Costs $736,303 $824,092 $1.284 189 Vocational $32,000 $32,000 $32 000 Athletics $32,000 $31,964 $40 500 Grfted Programs $500 $502 S500 Plant Services $15,000 $15,000 $15,000 Readinq $500 $500 $500 Science $0 $0 $0 Enqlish $1 ,500 $1,660 $1 500 Special Education $4,000 $4,000 $4 ,000 $0 $0 $0 )00()()()( $0 $0 $0 )00()()()( $0 $0 $0 Total Line Items $890,896 $929,702 $1 412 026 Per Pupil Cost 1996-97 1996-97 : 1997-98 3rd Qtr. ADM or Proj. 3,765.61 3,765 61 3,901 89 Total Costs $17,245,342 $17,210,157 $18159,205 Per Pupil Cost $4,580 $4,570 $4,654 1~7'.-98 BUDGET PROPOSAL(ORAFT1) 96-97 96-97 96-97 97-98 97 -98 BQOker Magnet School F.T.E. Budget Actual F.T.E. Proposed CERTIFIED 01 Principal 1.0 $59,663 $59,663 1 0 $61,582 STAFF 02 Asst. Prin. 1.0 $40,672 $40,672 1 0 $43,757 03 Specialists 70 $261 ,827 $262,257 7 0 $268,408 04 Counselors 2.0 $73 ,553 $73, 468 2 0 $76,155 05 Media Spec. 1.0 $41 ,963 $41 ,963 1 0 $42,653 06 Art-Perf./Prod. 1.0 $23,723 $23,723 1 0 $26,065 07 Music 00 $0 so 0 0 $0 08 Foreign Lang . 00 $0 $0 00 so 09 Vocational 0.0 $0 $0 0 0 so 10 Special Education 1.3 $50,243 $50,243 1 3 $55,624 11 Gifted 1.0 $38,946 $38,946 1 0 $39,594 12 Classroom 30.2 $998,938 $1,001,579 30.2 $1 042,379 13 Substitutes 0.0 $20,000 $47,118 00 $30,000 14 Other-Kindergarten 4.0 $126,243 $126,243 4 0 S105,300 TOTAL CERTIFIED SALARY 49.5 $1,735,772 $1,765,876 49 5 S1 791,516 SUPPORT 15 Secretaries 2.0 $34 ,706 $35,046 2 0 $39,821 STAFF 16 Nurses 1.0 $31 ,825 $32,145 1 0 $33 050 17 Custodians 4.0 $55,019 $54 ,958 4 0 $53,033 18 Information Services 0.0 $0 $0 02 $3,736 19 Para professionals-Other 0.0 $0 $0 0.0 so 20 Other-Aides 7.0 $59,679 $60,277 7.0 $56,973 21 Fringe Benefits(20) $520,352 $520,341 xxxxxxxx S519 779 TOTAL SUPPORT SALARY 14.0 $701 ,580 $702:767 14 2 $706,392 TOTAL (10-20) $2,437,352 $2,468,642 xxxxxxxx $2 497,909 PURCHASED 22 Utilities $78,070 $66,703 $81,480 SERVICES 23 Travel $5,000 $2,355 $2,000 (30) 24 Maintenance Agreements 25 Other $8,493 $1 2,7 11 I S13.350 TOTAL (30) $91 ,563 $81,769 $96,830 MATERIALS, 26 Principal's Office SUPPLIES 27 Reqular Classroom $42,079 $40,397 $105 498 (40) 28 Media $6,150 $6, 105 xxxxxxxx $5,250 29 Other $4,205 $3,475 $3,372 TOTAL (40) $52,434 $49,977 xxxxxxxx $1 14,120 CAPITAL 30 Equipment $60,059 $50,840 $65,760 OUTLAY 31 Buildinq Repair, etc. $2,500 so \" so (50) 32 Other xxxxxxxx TOTAL (50) $62,559 $50,840 xxxxxxxx S65 760 OTHER 33 Dues and Fees $259 $259 xxxxxxxx $250 (60) 34 Other TOTAL (60) $259 $259 xxxxxxxx S250 TOTAL (30-60) $206,816 $182,845 $276.960 TOTAL (10-60) 63.5 $2,644 ,167 $2,651 ,488 63.7 $2,774,869 TOTAL LINE ITEMS (SECOND PAGE) $145,777 $138,793 S217,370 GRAND TOTAL xxxxxx $2,789,944 $2,790,280 xxxxxx $2,992,238 Line Item Costs Budget Actual Proposed Booker 1996-97 1996-97 1997-98 Stipends $20,733 $3 789 S8 357 Other Objects Indirect Costs $121,381 $131,479 S205 ,499 Vocational $0 $0 so Ath lelics $0 so so Gifted Programs $155 S149 S153 Plant Services S2,505 $2,393 $2 400 Reading $84 S80 S80 Science $0 $0 so Engli sh S251 $265 S240 Speci al Education $668 S638 S640 xxxxxx xxxxxx Total Line Items $145,777 $138,793 $217 ,370 Per Pupil Cost 1996-97 1996-97 1997-98 3rd Qtr. ADM or Proj. 600. 78 600.78 624 39 Tota l Costs $2,789,944 $2,790,280 $2,992,238 Per Pupil Cost ' $4,644 $4,644 $4,792 199!-988UOGET PROPOSAL(DRAFT1) 96-97 96-97 96-97 97-98 97-98 Carvei Ma~met School F.T.E. Budqet Actual F.T.E. Proposed CERTIFIED 01 Principal 1.0 $55,761 $55,761 1 0 $57,650 STAFF 02 Asst. Prin. 1.0 $43,871 $43,871 1 0 $45,496 03 Specialists 8.0 $262,515 $276,461 8 0 $285,971 04 Counselors 2.0 $68,259 $68,259 2 0 $70,795 05 Media Spec. 1.5 $52,645 $52,645 1 5 $54,248 06 Art-Perf./Prod. 0.0 $0 so 00 so 07 Music 00 $0 so 00 so 08 Foreign Lang. 00 $0 $0 00 so 09 Vocational 0.0 $0 so 00 so 10 Special Education 1.5 $48,900 $48,900 1 5 $50,773 11 Gifted 1.4 $51 ,170 $5 1,170 1 4 $48,976 12 Classroom 24.3 $706,362 $697,875 24 3 $694 929 13 Substitutes 0.0 $17,150 $1 9,700 00 $25,000 14 Other-K1nderga rten 4.0 $131 ,099 $1 31,099 4 0 $128,706 TOTAL CERTIFIED SALARY 44.7 $1 ,437 ,732 $1,445,741 44 7 $1,462,545 SUPPORT 15 Secretaries 3.0 $51 ,357 $51,357 3 0 $48,392 STAFF 16 Nurses 1.0 $31 ,419 $3 1,597 1 0 S24 383 17 Custodians 4.0 $46,837 $46,108 4 0 S43,692 18 Information Services 0.0 $0 so 0 2 $3.736 19 Para professionals-Other 0.0 $0 '$0 00 $0 20 Other-Aides 11 .0 $93,398 $94 ,091 11 0 $87, 419 21 Fringe Benefits(20) $477 ,906 $474,656 - $456,456 TOTAL SUPPORT SALARY 19.0 $700,917 $697,810 19 2 S664,078 TOTAL (10-20) $2,138,649 $2, 143,551 S2, 126,623 PURCHASED 22 Utilities $71 ,899 $75,210 v v $81 653 SERVICES 23 Travel $9,000 $5,202 $9,000 (30) 24 Maintenance Agreements xxxxxxxx 25 Other $8,591 $9,735 $8,560 TOTAL (30) $89,490 $90,1 47 $99,213 MATERIALS, 26 Princioal's Office v SUPPLIES 27 Reqular Classroom $68,000 $68.975 $57.660 (40) 28 Media $9,314 $9,319 $5.500 29 Other $3,500 $4 ,029 $3,600 TOTAL (40) $80,814 $82,323 $66.760 CAPITAL 30 Equipment $56,240 $49,380 S56 167 OUTLAY 31 Building Repair, etc. (50) 32 Other TOTAL (50) $56,240 $49,380 )()()()(X)()(X $56,167 OTHER 33 Dues and Fees $15,023 $1 8,064 $4,000 (60) 34 Other TOTAL (60) $15,023 $18,064 $4,000 TOTAL (30-60) $241 ,567 $239,915 $226,140 TOTAL {10-60) 63.7 $2,380,216 $2,383,466 63 9 S2,352 763 TOTAL LINE ITEMS (SECOND PAGE) $151 ,993 $138 821 $217 167 GRAND TOTAL xxxxxx $2,532,209 $2,522,286 xxxxxx $2,569,930 Line Item Costs - Budget Actual Proposed Carver 1996-97 1996-97 1997-98 Stipends $28,990 S2 607 S13.390 Other Objects Indirect Costs $119,516 $132,656 S200 352 Vocational $0 so so Athletics so so so Gifted Programs $145 $151 $149 Plant Services $2,385 $2,415 $2 340 Reading $82 $80 S78 Science $0 so $0 English $239 $267 S234 Special Education $636 $644 S624 xxxxxx xxxxxx Total Line Items $151 ,993 $138 821 $217,167 Per Pupil Cost 1996-97 1998-97 1997-98 3rd Qtr. ADM or Proj. 606.16 606.16 608 75 Total Costs $2,532,209 $2,522,286 $2,569,930 Per Pupil Cost $4,177 $4,161 $4,222 1997..~3 BUDGET PROPOSAL(ORAFT1) 96-97 96-97 96-97 97-96 97-98 GlbbsMagnet School F.T.E. Budget Actual F.T.E. Proposed CERTIFIED 01 Principal 1.0 $51 ,859 $51 ,859 1 0 S50,354 STAFF 02 Asst Prin. 1.0 $47 ,653 $47,653 1 0 S58, 119 03 Specialists 5.8 $182,294 $177 ,834 5 8 $169,956 04 Counselors 1.0 $42,870 $42,870 1 0 $43,567 05 . Media Spec. 1.0 $42,303 $42,260 1 0 $43,696 06 Art-Perf./Prod. 0.0 $0 so 00 $0 07 Music 0.0 $0 $0 00 so 08 Foreign Lang . 0.0 $0 $0 00 so 09 Vocationa l 0.0 $0 so 00 so 10 Special Education 1.5 $56,580 $56,580 1 5 S50,753 11 Gifted 1 0 $29, 832 $29,832 1 0 S31 04 7 12 Classroom 15.0 $462 ,335 $460,177 15 0 S485,954 13 Substitutes 0.0 $14 ,000 $12,600 00 $14 000 14 Other-Kindergarten 2.0 $63,266 $63,500 2 0 $67,312 TOTAL CERTIFIED SALARY 29.3 $992,991 $985,166 29 3 S1 014,757 SUPPORT 15 Secretaries 1.4 $20,666 $20,666 1 4 $22,339 STAFF 16 Nurses 0.8 $11,181 $11,181 08 $14 569 17 Custodians 3.0 $38,802 $38,259 3 0 S40 097 18 Information Services 0.0 $0 so 02 S3. 736 19 Para professionals-Other 0.0 $0 : $0 00 so 20 Other-Aides 5.6 $44 ,411 $44 ,644 5 6 $40,499 21 Fringe Benefits(20) $300,641 $292,885 S303,473 TOTAL SUPPORT SALARY 10.8 $415,701 $407,635 11 0 S424,712 TOTAL (10-20) $1 ,408,693 $1,392,802 $1,439,470 PURCHASED 22 Utilities $38, 577 $33,320 xxxxxxxx $39 439 SERVICES 23 Travel . $2,000 $762 xxxxxxxx $2 000 (30) 24 Maintenance Agreements $250 xxxxxxxx 25 Other $3,262 $4,899 . . .. $3,985 TOTAL (30) $44 ,089 $38,980 S45.424 MATERIALS, 26 Principal's Office $0 so - - S1,000 SUPPLIES 27 Regular Classroom $35,000 $49,466 S49 625 (40) 28 Media $3,500 $1 897 $3,500 29 Other $1 ,860 $1,651 - S1,260 TOTAL (40) $40,360 $53,013 $55 385 CAPITAL 30 Equipment $51 ,231 $24,156 $62 059 OUTLAY 31 Buildinq Repair, etc. (50) 32 Other xxxxxxxx TOTAL (50) $51 ,231 $24,156 $62059 OTHER 33 Dues and Fees $3,048 $2 983 $1 000 (60) 34 Other TOTAL (60) $3,048 $2,983 . $1 000 TOTAL (30-60) $138,729 $1 19,133 $163,868 TOTAL (10-60) 40.1 $1 ,547 ,421 $1,511 ,935 40 3 $1 603,338 TOTAL LINE ITEMS - (SECOND PAGE) $63,816 $71,037 $106,558 GRAND TOTAL xxxxxx $1,611,238 $1 ,582,971 xxxxxx $1,709,895 Line Item Costs - Budget Actual Proposed Gibbs 1996-97 1996-97 1997-98 Stipends $771 $771 S540 Other Objects Indirect Costs $61,142 $68,431 S104 .236 Vocational $0 $0 so Athletics $0 $0 so Gifted Programs $80 $78 S78 Plant Services $1,305 $1,246 $1,218 Reading $42 $42 $41 Science $0 $0 so English $129 $138 $122 Special Education $348 $332 $325 xxxxxx xxxxxx Total Line Items $63,816 $71,037 $106,558 Per Pupil Colit 1996-97 1996-$7 1997-98 3rd Qtr. ADM or Proj. 312.69 312 69 316 71 Total Costs $1,611 ,238 $1 ,582 ,971 $1,709,895 Per Pupil Cost $5,153 $5,062 $5,399 '!997~~8 BUDGET PROPOSAL(DRAFT1) 96-97 96-97 96-97 97 -98 97-98 wiui,ffi's Mai.net School . F.T.E. Budqet Actual F.T.E. Proposed CERTIFIED 01 Principa l 1.0 $64,667 $64 667 1 0 $66 662 STAFF 02 Asst. Prin. 1 0 $43,238 $43,238 1 0 $~4 837 03 Speci al ists 5.0 $195,748 $195,603 50 $201 HJ1 04 Counselors 1.4 $34,952 $34,952 1 4 $51,530 05 Media Spec. 1.0 $31,818 $31,818 1 0 S31, 151 06 Art-Perf./Prod. 0.0 $0 so 00 so 07 Music 00 $0 $0 00 $0 08 Foreign Lang . 0.0 $0 $0 00 so 09 Vocational 0.0 $0 $0 00 $0 10 Speci al Educat ion 1. 1 $41,125 $39,793 1 1 $39 220 11 Gifted 2 0 $77,685 $77,685 20 $79 658 12 Classroom 20.0 $7 10,889 $710,623 20 0 $703,555 13 Substitutes 0.0 $16,000 $18,709 00 $20 000 14 Other-Kindergarten 3.0 $122,544 $122,629 30 $124,646 TOTAL CERTIFIED SALARY 35.5 $1,338,667 $1,339,717 35 5 $1 362,442 SUPPORT 15 Secretaries 2.6 $43,150 $43,151 26 $47,016 STAFF 16 Nurses 1.0 $38,427 $38,427 1 0 S39,749 17 Custodians 4.0 $52,200 $52,040 4 0 $47,750 18 Information Services 0.0 $0 $0 02 $3,736 19 Para profess ionals-Other 0.0 $0 $0 00 $0 20 Other-Aides 9.0 $46,919 $46,146 9 0 $31,968 21 Fringe Benefits(20) $41 2, 498 $406,793 xxxxxxxx $397,919 TOTAL SUPPORT SALARY 16.6 $593,194 $586,557 16.8 $568 138 TOTAL (10-20) $1, 931 ,861 $1,926,274 $1,930,580 PURCHASED 22 Utilities $52,1 19 $49,359 $54,789 SERVICES 23 Travel $3,700 $305 $3,000 (30) 24 Maintenance Agreements 25 Other $4,650 $6,835 $6,000 TOTAL (30) $60,469 $56,499 $63 789 MATERIALS, 26 Principal's Office xxxxxxxx SUPPLIES 27 Regular Classroom $64 ,055 $66,541 $66,090 (40) 28 Media $5,000 $1,469 xxxxxxxx S5,000 29 Other $1,681 $2,202 xxxxxxxx $1,400 TOTAL (40) $70,735 $70,212 $72 490 CAPITAL 30 Equipment $45,734 $43,453 xxxxxxxx $34,480 OUTLAY 31 Building Repair, etc. xxxxxxxx (50) 32 Other $350 $0 $0 TOTAL (50) $46,084 $43,453 xxxxxxxx $34 480 OTHER 33 Dues and Fees $1 ,560 $1,560 xxxxxxxx $800 (60) 34 Other xxxxxxxx TOTAL (60) $1,560 $1,560 xxxxxxxx $800 TOTAL (30-60) $178,849 $17 1,725 $171,559 TOTAL (10-60) 52.1 $2,110,709 $2, 097,998 52 3 $2,102.138 TOTAL LINE ITEMS - (SECOND PAGE) $110,401 $119,320 xxxxxxxx $172.794 GRAND TOTAL xxxxxx $2,221 ,111 $2,217 ,319 xxxxxx $2 ,274,932 Line Item Costs - Budget Actual Proposed Williams 1996-97 1996-97 1997-98 Stipends $10,000 $6,734 S8.400 Other Objects Indirect Costs $97,573 $109 647 S161 631 Vocational $0 $0 so Athletics $0 $0 so Gifted Programs $120 $125 S120 Plant Services $1,935 $1,996 S1 888 Reading $63 $67 S63 Science $0 so so English $194 $221 $189 Special Education $516 $532 S503 )00()()()( )00()()()( Total Line Items $110,401 $119,320 $172794 Per Pupil Cost 1996-97 1996-97 1997-98 3rd Qtr. ADM or Proj. 501.02 501 02 491 10 Total Costs $2,221 ,111 $2,217 ,319 $2,274 ,932 Per Pupil Cost $4,433 $4,426 $4,632 1~1~.\n13UQGET f'ROPOSAl(ORAFT 1) 96-97 96-97 96-97 97-98 97-98 MahhMaqnet School f. F.T.E. 8Ud\\'.let Actual F.T.E. Proposed CERTIFIED 01 Principal 1.0 $67,181 $67,180 1 0 $68.177 STAFF 02 Asst. Prin. 3.0 $131,072 $131,072 3 0 $134,985 03 Specialists 3.6 $103,620 $117,165 3 6 $94,123 04 Counselors 3.0 $119,497 $119,497 3 0 $122,979 05 Media Spec. 1 0 $43,986 $43,986 1 0 $44,702 06 Art-Perf./Prod. 0.0 $0 $0 0 0 $0 07 Music 0.0 $0 $0 0 0 $0 08 Foreign Lang. 0.0 $0 $0 0 0 so 09 Vocational 5.6 $146,116 $176,765 5 6 $149 318 10 Special Education 1.3 $27,691 $30,769 1 3 S36,600 11 Gifted 00 $0 $0 00 so 12 Classroom 47.8 $1,540,964 $1,498,933 47 8 $1,605,497 13 Substitutes 0.0 $36,200 $34 ,438 00 $36 000 14 Other-Kindergarten 0.0 $0 $0 00 $0 TOTAL CERTIFIED SALARY 66.3 $2,216,326 $2,219,805 66.3 $2,292,381 SUPPORT 15 Secretaries 5.0 $87,147 $86,952 5.0 $98,328 STAFF 16 Nurses 1.0 $34,275 $34 ,275 1 0 $34,864 17 Custodians 6.0 $71,239 $71,238 60 $64,058 18 Information Services 0.0 $0 $0 0.2 S3,736 19 Paraprofessionals-Other 1.0 $31,583 $30,'.542 1 0 $33,763 20 Other-Aides 2.4 $37,956 $40,304 2 4 $37 240 21 Fringe Benefits(20) $663,070 $654,732 S657,749 TOTAL SUPPORT SALARY 15.4 $925,270 $918,043 15.6 $929,738 TOTAL (10-20) $3,141,596 $3,137,849 S3,222,119 PURCHASED 22 Utilities $169,940 $145,168 xxxxxxxx $169,276 SERVICES 23 Travel $6,900 $2,622 $4,000 (30) 24 Maintenance Agreements $4,500 $0 xxxxxxxx so 25 Other $37,011 $59,559 $61 474 TOTAL (30) $218,351 $207 ,349 $234,750 MATERIALS, 26 Principal's Office $2,750 $0 $1,000 SUPPLIES 27 Regular Classroom $100,928 $110,322 xxxxxxxx $129,299 (40) 28 Media $11,156 $10,710 $7,000 29 Other $5,900 $3,306 S3 000 TOTAL (40) $120,734 $124,337 $140299 CAPITAL 30 Equipment $80,520 $91,316 $19,790 OUTLAY 31 Building Repair, etc. $3,000 $0 $0 (50) 32 Other TOTAL (50) $83,520 $91 ,316 S 19 790 OTHER 33 Dues and Fees $2,400 $1 ,925 $1 500 (60) 34 Other TOTAL (60) $2,400 $1 ,925 $1 500 TOTAL (30-60) $425,005 $424,927 $396,339 TOTAL (10-60) 81.7 $3,S66,601 $3 562,776 81 9 S3618,457 TOTAL LINE ITEMS - (SECOND PAGE) $204,382 $225,819 S339.350 GRAND TOTAL xxxxxx $3,770,984 $3,788,595 xxxxxx $3 ,957,807 Line Item Costs - Budget Actual Proposed Mann 1996-97 1996-97 1997-98 Stipends $4,600 $2,543 $3,150 Other Objects Indirect Costs $164,452 $187 ,127 $296,283 Vocational $16,000 $15,681 $15480 Athletics $14,500 $15,663 $19 592 Gifted Programs $0 $0 $0 Plant Services $3,450 $3,406 $3,461 Reading $115 $114 $115 Science $0 $0 so English $31\\5 $377 S346 Special Education $920 $908 $923 xxxxxx xxxxx:x Total Line Items $204,382 $225,819 $339,350 Per Pupil Cost' 1996-97 1996-97 1996-97 3rd Qtr. ADM or Proj. 855.06 855 06 900 23 Total Costs $3,770,964 $3,788,595 $3,957,807 Per Pupil Cost \" i\"' $4,410 $4,431 $4,396 1~1i!d~HRC}F'.!PB9~P~AL(OR),\\FT1} ' 96-97 96-97 96-97 97-98 97-98 P.an\u0026amp;lew-Ma!'inetsc:tioo1 :, ' F.T.E. Budi:iet Actual F.T.E. Proposed CERTIFIED 01 Principal 1.0 $69,939 $69,939 1 0 $72,162 STAFF 02 Asst. Prin. 3.0 $157,079 $157,079 3.0 $161,268 03 Specialists 9.8 $321 ,014 $333,660 98 $323,480 04 Counselors 3.0 $137 ,832 $137,790 3 0 $140,860 05 Media Spec. 1.0 $36,020 $36,020 1 0 $36,635 06 Art-Peri.IP rod. 0.0 $0 $0 00 $0 07 Music 0.0 $0 $0 00 $0 08 Foreign Lang. 0,0 $0 so 00 so 09 Vocational 7.0 $201,772 $201 ,812 7 0 $194,499 10 Special Education 1.5 $39,465 $39,465 2.0 S56,739 11 Gifted 0.0 $0 so 00 $0 12 Classroom 40.6 $1 ,458,121 $1,474,723 40 6 $1,614,801 13 Substitutes 0.0 $51 ,640 $34 ,042 00 $40,000 14 Other-Kindergarten 1.0 $43,100 $43,100 00 $0 TOTAL CERTIFIED SALARY 67.9 $2,515,982 $2,527,630 67 4 $2,640,444 SUPPORT 15 Secretaries 6,0 $136,599 $136,399 60 $151,599 STAFF 16 Nurses 0.6 $15,944 $15,944 06 $16,648 17 Custodians 8.0 $104 ,9 10 $103,185 8 0 $107,841 18 Information Services 0,0 $0 $0 02 $3,736 19 Paraprofessionals-Other 5.0 $125,271 $99\n602 5 0 $100043 20 Other-Aides 2.0 $30,381 $31,632 20 $31,002 21 Fringe Benefits(20) $740,622 $731,515 $754,670 TOT AL SUPPORT SALARY 21 .6 $1 ,153,726 $1,118,277 21 8 $1,165538 TOTAL (10-20) $3,669,708 $3,645,907 xxxxxxxx $3,805,982 PURCHASED 22 Utilities $181,339 $204 767 xxxxxxxx $191,166 SERVICES 23 Travel $7,000 $2,225 xxxxxxxx $7 000 (30) 24 Maintenance Agreements . $4,000 25 Other $20,870 $30,215 xxxxxxxx $63 550 TOTAL (30) $213,209 $237,207 xxxxxxxx $261,716 MATERIALS, 26 Principal's Office ... $850 so xxxxxxxx $500 SUPPLIES 27 Regular Classroom $115,423 $114,779 $166,117 (40) 28 Media $6,403 $5,937 $9,200 29 Other $11 ,625 $5,451 xxxxxxxx $5 000 TOTAL (40) $134,301 $126,167 $180,817 CAPITAL 30 Eouipment $83,000 $57,549 $43,437 OUTLAY 31 Building Repair, etc. (SO) 32 Other $106 TOTAL (50) $83,000 $57,655 $43,437 OTHER 33 Dues and Fees $5,112 $5,857 $3,663 (60) 34 Other xxxxxxxx TOTAL (60) $5,112 $5,857 xxxxxxxx $3,663 TOTAL (30-60) $435,622 $426,886 $489 633 TOTAL (10-60) 89.5 $4,105,330 $4,072,793 89 2 $4 295 614 TOTAL LINE ITEMS - (SECOND PAGE) $214,526 $235,913 xxxxxxxx $358,787 GRAND TOTAL xxxxxx $4,319,857 $4,308 ,705 xxxxxx $4,654,401 Line Item Costs - Budget Actual Proposod Parkview 1996-97 1996-97 1996-97 Stipends $4,000 $3,539 so Other Objects Indirect Costs $172,238 $194,752 $316,189 Vocational $16,000 $16 319 $16 520 Athletics $17,500 $16,301 $20,908 Gifted Programs $0 $0 so Plant Services $3,420 $3,545 $3,693 Reading $114 $118 $123 Science $0 $0 $0 English $342 $392 $369 Special Education $912 $945 $985 xxxxxx xxxxxx Total Line Items $214,526 $235,913 $358,787 1996-97 1996-97 1996-97 3rd Qtr. ADM or Proj. 889.90 889.90 960.71 Total Costs $4,319,857 $4,308,705 $4,654,401 $4,854 $4,842 $4,845 Memo To: From: Subject: Date: Ann Gene Magnet budget '97-'98 June 9, 1998 The new procedure for magnet school budgeting requires the MRC to reconcile the budget following the 3rd quarter adm figures so that the final budget can be based on actual student enrollment. The attached attendance figures and summary of the budget were approved by the MRC 6-9-98 for submission to the Court for approval. Please note that this budget is for the 1997-98 school year. ORIGINAL SIX MAGNET SCHOOLS ATTENDANCE UPDATE ADM METHOD 05/12/98 3 Qtr Avg 3rd Quarter 2nd Quarter 1st Quarter -- -\u0026gt;- SCHOOLS 1997-98 1997-98 1997-98 1997-98 1996-97 1995-96 1994-95 BOOKER 624.39 622.21 624.46 632.16 600.78 594.05 559.63 CARVER 608.75 607.12 609.63 610.47 606.16 595.67 582.50 GIBBS 316.71 319.36 319.90 318.02 312.69 290.60 289.10 WILLIAMS 491.10 494.13 499.16 484.55 501 .02 496.17 449.80 MANN 900.23 900.62 901 .23 895.45 855.06 821 .75 842.80 PARKVIEW 960.71 959.86 959.01 948.31 889.90 832.65 799.00 TOTAL 3901 .89 3903.30 3,913.39 3,888.96 3,765.61 3,630.89 3,522.83 DISTRICTS LASO 2441 .09 2457.85 2,451 .09 2,413.63 2312.63 2201.59 2090.95 NLASD 512.78 506.98 509.35 522.27 474.81 477.83 468.47 PCSSD 948.02 938.47 952.95 953.06 978.171 951 .47 963.41 I I TOTAL 3901 .89 3,903.30 3,913.39 3888.96 3765.61 3630.891 3522.83 I I RATE /ADM $ 4,654.00 $ 4,570.00 $4,063.00 S 4,053.00 -- --~ I i ----- I FIRST QUARTER 1997-98 SCHOOLS LASO NLRSD PCSSD TOTAL BOOKER 373.37 104.47 154.32 632.16 CARVER 333.37 106.20 170.90 610.47 GIBBS 214.89 44.89 58.24 318.02 WILLIAMS 287.95 59.13 137.47 484.55 MANN 562.81 105.64 227.00 895.45 PARKVIEW 641 .24 101.94 205.13 948.31 TOTAL 2,413.63 522.27 953.06 3,888.96 SECOND QUARTER 1997--98 LASO NLRSD PCSSD TOTAL SCHOOLS - - --- ----------- BOOKER 374.96 99.76 149.74 624.46 CARVER 330.33 106.01 173.29 609.63 GIBBS 220.18 42.74 56.98 319.90 WILLIAMS 298.89 60.67 139.60 499.16 MANN 572.07 100.60 228.56 901.23 PARKVIEW 654.66 99.57 204.78 959.01 TOTAL 2,451.09 509.35 952.95 3,913.39 THIRD QUARTER 1997-98 LASO NLRSD PCSSD TOTAL SCHOOLS -- ------ BOOKER 374.49 101.09 146.63 622.21 CARVER 331.36 103.70 172.06 607.12 GIBBS 221.19 42.85 55.32 319.36 WILLIAMS 294.96 59.15 140.02 494.13 MANN 572.37 99.29 228.96 900.62 PARKVIEW 663.48 100.90 195.48 959.86 TOTAL 2457.85 506.98 938.47 3903.30 THREE QUARTER AVG 1997-98 LASO NLASD PCSSD TOTAL SCHOOLS BOOKER 373.27 100.54 150.58 624.39 CARVER 333.56 104.56 170.63 608.75 GIBBS 217.42 42.87 56.42 316.71 WILLIAMS . 292.93 59.94 138.23 491.10 MANN 570.08 101.94 228.21 900.23 PARKVIEW 653.83 102.931 203.95 960.71 TOTAL 2441.09 512.781 948.02 3901.89 , / / 1r~1~w~~5~fttiuE+~~irti1i::i11111~:~:11!:1 :::1) .- 96~97/ ::~~::~: /{.96:.9]:/''it'\\t WNJ%96~97/:i'/S, . 97-98\\. ?:i/\\#'97::.ssth\\:@ F.~T.E'i .:~~li:=i= BudgeC':W: tWttActuak%t\\, i F,T.E') MM Prol:!OsecfNt CERTIFIED 01 Principal 6.0 $369,070 $369,069 6.0 $376,587 STAFF 02 Asst. Prin. 10.0 $463,584 $463,585 10.0 $488,462 03 Specialists 39.2 $1 ,327,018 $1,362,980 39.2 $1,343,119 04 Counselors 12.4 $476,963 $476,836 12.4 $505,887 05 Media Spec. 6.5 $248,736 $248,693 6.5 $253,085 06 Art-Pert/Prod. 1.0 $23,723 $23,723 1.0 $26,065 07 Music 0.0 $0 so 0.0 $0 08 Foreign Lang. 0.0 $0 so 0.0 $0 09 Vocational 12.6 $347,888 $378,577 12.6 $343,817 10 Special Education 8.2 $264,005 $265,751 8.7 $289,709 11 Gifted 5.4 $197,633 $197,633 5.4 $199,275 12 Classroom 177.9 $5,877,608 $5,843,911 177.9 $6.147,115 13 Substitutes 0.0 $154,990 $166,607 0.0 $165,000 14 Other-Kinderqarten 14.0 S486,252 $486,572 13.0 $425,964 TOTAL CERTIFIED SALARY 293.2 $10,237,470 $10,283,936 292.7 $10,564,086 SUPPORT 15 Secretaries 20.0 $373,625 $373,570 20.0 $407,495 STAFF 16 Nurses 5.4 $163,071 $163,569 5.4 $163,262 17 Custodians 29.0 $369,006 $365,788 29.0 $356,470 18 Information Services 0.0 $0 so 1.0 522.415 19 Paraprofessionals-Other 6.0 $156,854 $130,1 43 6.0 $133,806 20 Other-Aides 37.0 $312,743 $317,095 37.0 S285, 101 21 Fringe Benefits(20) $3,115,089 $3,080,923 $3,090,046 TOTAL SUPPORT SALARY 97.4 $4,490,388 S4,431 ,089 98.4 $4,458,595 TOTAL (10-20) $14,727,858 $14,715,024 $15,022,681 PURCHASED 22 Utilities $591,944 $574,528 $617,803 SERVICES 23 Travel $33,600 $13,472 $27,000 (30) 24 Maintenance Agreements $8,750 so $0 25 Other S82,878 $123,953 $156,919 TOTAL (30) $717,172 $711 ,953 $801,722 MATERIALS, 26 Principal's Office $3,600 so $2,500 SUPPLIES 27 Regular Classroom $425,485 $450,479 $574,289 (40) 28 Media $41 ,523 $35,436 $35,450 29 Other $28,771 $20,114 $17,632 TOTAL (40) $499,379 $506,030 CV\"'\"'...--..,..,,. $629,871 ~ CAPITAL 30 Equipment $376,785 $316,69\u0026lt;1 $281 ,692 OUTLAY 31 Building Repair, etc. $5,500 so ' $0 (50) 32 Other $350 $106 $0 TOTAL (50) $382,635 $316,800 $281 ,692 OTHER 33 Dues and Fees $27,402 $30,648 $11 ,213 (60) 34 Other $0 so $0 TOTAL (60) $27,402 $30,648 $11,213 TOTAL (30-60) $1,626,587 $1,565,431 $1,724,498 TOTAL (10-60) 390.6 $16,354,446 $16,280,455 391.1 $16,747,179 TOTAL LINE ITEMS - (SECOND PAGE) $890,896 $929,702 $1,412,026 : h l'){GRANOTOTAlf /{{/::}: xxxxx:( { : $17~.245i:34Z ::\\:),.$.17i210\n15'l,:: xxxxxx::: t'$t8n~i2os:,,\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_581","title":"M to M (Majority to Minority) transfers","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":["1997/2004"],"dcterms_description":null,"dc_format":["application/pdf"],"dcterms_identifier":null,"dcterms_language":["eng"],"dcterms_publisher":["Little Rock, Ark. : Butler Center for Arkansas Studies. Central Arkansas Library System"],"dc_relation":null,"dc_right":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC-EDU/1.0/"],"dcterms_is_part_of":["Office of Desegregation Monitoring records (BC.MSS.08.37)","History of Segregation and Integration of Arkansas's Educational System"],"dcterms_subject":["Little Rock (Ark.)--History--20th century","Little Rock School District","Education--Arkansas","School management and organization","Educational law and legislation","Educational statistics","School enrollment"],"dcterms_title":["M to M (Majority to Minority) transfers"],"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/581"],"dcterms_temporal":null,"dcterms_rights_holder":null,"dcterms_bibliographic_citation":null,"dlg_local_right":["Available for use in research, teaching, and private study. Any other use requires permission from the Butler Center."],"dcterms_medium":["documents (object genre)"],"dcterms_extent":["29 pages"],"dlg_subject_personal":null,"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":"\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n \n\n\n \n\n \n\n\n \n\n\n \n\n\n\n\n \n\n\n\n\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n \n\n \n\n \n\n\n \n\n \n\n \n\n\n \n\n \n\n \n\n\n \n\n \n\n \n\n\n \n\n \n\n \n\nUJ/ 110/ / i / : OU (.0 Arri^-iL.^ 4ia '^ '^ * UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE EIGHTH circuit No. 96-3333 RECEIVED I MAR 3 11997 Little Rock School District\nA A Appellant, OFFICE OF DESEGREGATION MONITORING Lorene Joshua\nIntervenor Plaintiffs, * Servicemaster Management Services\nIntervenor, * Anne Mitchell\nBob Moore, Pat Gee\nPat Rayburn\nMary J, Gage\n* North Little Rock Classroom Teachers Association\nPulaski Association of Classroom * Teachers\nLittle Rock Classroom * Teachers Association\nAlexa Armstrong\nKarlos Armstrong\nEd Bullington\nKhayyam Davis\nJanice Dent\nJohn Harrison\nAlvin Hudson\nTatia Hudson\nMilton Jackson\nLeslie Joshua\nStacy Joshua\nWayne Joshua\nKatherine Knight\nSara Matthews\nBecky McKinney\nDerrick Miles\nJanice Miles\nJohn M. Miles\nNAACP\nJoyce Person\nBrian Taylor\nHilton Taylor\n'Parsha Taylor\nRobert Willingham\nTonya Willingham\nA A A Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Arkansas. Intervenor Plaintiffs, V. North Little Rock School District\nLeon Barnes\nSheryl Dunn\nMac Faulkner\nRichard A. A A A03/28/a\ni/ :37 Udo Giddings\nMarianne Gosser\nDon Hindman\nShirley Lowery\nBob Lyon\nGeorge A. McCrary\nBob Moore\nSteve Morley\nBuddy Raines\nDavid Sain\nBob Stendar\nDale Ward\nJohn Ward\nJudy Wear\nGrainger Williams\n Defendants, * Pulaski County Special School District\n Appellee, it State of Arkansas, Defendants, Office of Desegregation Monitor\n* Claimant, Horace A. Walker\nP. A. Hollingsworth\nKenneth G. Torrence\nPhillip E. Kaplan\nJanet Pulliam\nJohn Bilheimer\nDale Charles\nRobert L. Brown, Sr.\nGwen Hevey Jackson\nDiane Davis\nRaymond Frazier\n Plaintiffs, * V. Pulaski County Board of Education\nO. G. Jacovelli, individually and as President of the Board of Education of lb* lb A lb * the Little Rock School District\n* Patricia Gee, individually and * in her official capacity as a * member of the Board of * Education of the Little Rock * School District, a public body\n* Dr. George Cannon, individually * and in his official capacity as a member of the Board of Education of the Little Rock -2-03/28/97 17:38 031^3^945 US COURT APPEALS 1^006 School District, a public body\n* John Moore, individually and in * his official capacity as a member of the Board of Education of the Little Rock School District, a public body\n* Dorsey Jackson, individually and in his official capacity as a member of the Board of Education of the Little Rock School District, a public body\n lb Dr. Katherine Mitchell, Indivi- * dually and in her official capacity as a men)er of the Board of Education of the Little Rock School District, * a public body\nW. D. Hamilton, * individually and in his official* capacity as a member of the Board of Education of the Little Rock School District, public body\nCecil Bailey, Individually and in his a official capacity as a member of the Pulaski County Board of Education, a public corporate\nThomas Broughton, individually and in his official capacity as a member of the Pulaski County Board of Education, a public corporate\nDr. Martin Zoldessy, individually and in his official capacity as a member of the Pulaski County Board of Education, a public corporate\n* * * * * * * Defendants, * * Submitted: February 25, 1997 Filed: March 31, 1997 Before RICHARD S. ARNOLD, Chief Judge, and HEANEY and MOLLMAN, Circuit Judges. -3-HEANEY, Circuit Judge. Little Roclt School District (LRSD) appeals from an order of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Arkansas requiring it to pay the Pulaski County School District (PCSSD) $345,294 pursuant to settlement agreement in the a interdistrict desegregation case. We affirm the order of the district court essentially for the reasons stated in its opinion. At issue in this appeal is the entitlement to majority-to*- minority [M-to-M] payments and the amount each school district would receive pursuant to the settlement agreement, the settlement agreement provides in part: Paragraph O-of [A]11 M-to-M payments generated by Interdistrict School students paid by the State to LRSD and PCSSD (including payment to each district as sending district and receiving district), except transportation payments, will be pooled for the education of all Interdistrict School students. The instructional budgets of the Interdistrict Schools will be equalized. This provision does not change each district's obligation to construct and maintain the Interdistrict Schools within its boundaries. (Settlement Agreement, II, I 0(3).) Pursuant to this court's.instructions, the district court judge conducted an evidentiary hearing and subsequently ordered: [F]or each school year, the amount of LRSD's and PCSSD's financial contribution to the pool is calculated in accordance with Paragraph 0 of the Settlement Agreement. [There IS no dispute as to calculating these amounts.) the methodology for The total amount of funds in the pool for a given year is then divided by the total -4-number of M-to-M students in the interdistrict schools in both districts to arrive at an equalized, per-student dollar amount for educating them in the Interdistrict schools. For each school district, the equalized per- student dollar amount is then multiplied by the number of M-to-M students hosted by that district in its interdistrict schools to determine the amount of the pooled funds to which each district is entitled. Little Rock School Dist. v. Pulaski Cty. Special school Dist. No. LR-C-82-866, at 3 (E.D. Ark. July 30, 1996) (citations omitted) , On appeal, LRSD argues that the district court erred in dividing the pool based on the number of M-to-M transfer students\nrather, it asserts that the court should have divided the pool based on the total number of students in the interdistrict schools. Under LRSD's method of calculation, PCSSD would owe LRSD $1,270,839, instead of LRSD's owing PCSSD $345,294 as ordered'by the district court. We review the factual findings of the district court under a clearly erroneous standard and its interpretation of the Settlement Agreement de novo. The district court's interpretation of paragraph 0 is an acceptable one: it is just, it will promote voluntary interdistrict transfers to interdistrict schools, and it will provide a financial incentive to both districts to receive M- to-M transfer students- Cty, Special. School Dist 1990). Little Rock School Dist. v. Pulaski 1, 921 F.2d 1371, 1394 (Sth Cir. Werecognize that LRSD spends more per pupil to educate its students in the interdistrict schools than PCSSD does and that the district court formula will not fully equalize these costs, but we do not believe that these differences are sufficient to release LRSD from its pooling obligation. Such a release would certainly -5-03/28/97 J JuLki ita uua inhibit efforts to provide an integrated education to many students, proposal. the principal objective of the school integration Nor are the differences sufficient to justify the alternative method of equalization suggested by LRSD. The practical problems in that approach were found by the district court to be insurmountable and we are not prepared to say that the district court erred in making that assessment. The judgment of the district court is affirmed- A true copy. Attest: CLERK, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS, EIGHTH CIRCUIT. -6-IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT RECEI L? V. NO. 96-3333 APR 1 4 1997 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT DESEGREWTlOfJ MONlTOfiiKa^^ MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME For its motion, the Little Rock School District (LRSD) states: 1. LRSD's deadline for filing a petition for rehearing by the panel is April 14, 1997. Because of the time necessary for a public body such as LRSD to determine a course of action. and because of the press of business, LRSD requires additional time within which to file its petition for rehearing by the panel. 2. Mr. Sam Jones, counsel for the Pulaski County Special School District, has stated that he does not oppose this motion. WHEREFORE, for the reasons set forth above, LRSD requests an order extending the time within which it may file a petition for rehearing by the panel of fourteen (14) days, to and including April 28, 1997. Respectfully submitted. LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT FRIDAY, ELDREDGE \u0026amp; CLARK First Commercial Building 400 West Capitol, Suite 2000 Little Rock, AR 72201-3493 501/376\n:Z0ii--// Arkansas Bar No. 1083 f:'han\\k*xfay'ppeal\\3333xxiCERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I certify that a copy of the foregoing Motion for Extension of Time has been served on the following on this 11th day of April, 1997: Mr. John Walker JOHN WALKER, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72206 Mr. Sam Jones WRIGHT, LINDSEY \u0026amp; JENNINGS 2200 Worthen Bank Bldg. 200 West Capitol Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Steve Jones JACK, LYON \u0026amp; JONES, P.A. 3400 Capitol Towers Capitol \u0026amp; Broadway Streets Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Richard Roachell Roachell and Streett First Federal Plaza 401 West Capitol, Suite 504 Little Rock, AR 72201 Ms. Ann Brown Heritage West Bldg., Suite 510 201 East Markham Street Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Timothy G. Gauger Office of the Attorney General 323 Center Street 200 Tower Building Little Rock, AR 72201 f:^tanB\\la(iQA|]pMl\\3333xxt 2 Office of Desegregation Monitoring United States District Court Eastern District of Arkansas Ann S. Brown, Federal Monitor 201 East Markham, Suite 510 Heritage West Building Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 (501)376-6200 Fax (501) 371-0100 To: From\nNancy Acre, Director of Student Assignment Melissa Guldin, Associate Monitor Subject: M-to-M Data Date: June 17, 1998 We are currently updating our records on M-to-M student transfers. We have some data regarding the LRSD students participating in the M-to-M program for the years through 1993-94. We do not have the figures for any years subsequent to 1993-94. Please send us: the numbers of LRSD students participating in the M-to-M program during 1994-95. 1995- 96, 1996-97, and 1997-98. It would be helpful if this information included both the sending (LRSD) and receiving school (NLRSD or PCSSD). However, the data must include the receiving district the data regarding the number of M-to-M students transferring to the LRSD from NLRSD and PCSSD. We would expect that the race of students transferring from the LRSD would be black and the race of students transferring to the district would be white, but the shifting demographics in the NLRSD could allow for some variance from this expectation. In order to keep everything perfectly clear, please be sure to designate the race of the transfer students as part of your data. I would appreciate receiving this information by July 6, 1998. If you have any questions, or if the date is a problem, please call me.RECEIVED C.-. FILED JUL 2 1998 U.S. DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT ARKANSAS OFFICE OF DESEGREGATION MONITORING IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION JUL 0 rl99fl JAMES W. McCOBMACK, CLERK By\nLITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT, Plaintiff, vs. PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, etal.. Defendants, MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, et al.. Intervenors, KATHERINE KNIGHT, et al., Intervenors. * * * * * * * * * * * * * DEP CLERK No. LR-C-82-866 f ORDER Pending before the Court is a motion filed by the Pulaski County Special School District (PCSSD\") requesting summary judgment and an Order directing the Little Rock School District (LRSD\") to pay over immediately the sums owed to the PCSSD pursuant to the pooling agreement.' In open Court today, counsel for the PCSSD stated that, after discussing the pooling agreement matter with counsel for the LRSD, the PCSSD moved to withdraw without prejudice its pending motion regarding the sums owed pursuant to the pooling agreement. As stated on the record, this Court grants the PCSSDs request. The PCSSDs motion regarding the pooling agreement is hereby dismissed without prejudice. IT IS SO ORDERED THIS day of July 1998. ' UUNMITTEEDD SsTtAaTtEeSs JUDGE 1 Docket No. 3161. rmS DOCUMENT ENTERED ON DOCKET SHEET IN COMPLIANCE RULE SS AND/OR 79(a) FRCP ON BY_ r' LRSD SOMM^iRY OFM-TO-M TRANSFER STUDENTS iPednesday, August OS, 1998 [ [ Year Student 1994-95 1995-96 1996-97 1997-98 10 274 791 249 570 946 1421 154 527 1097 1392 98 536 1245 1390 Receiving District LRB NLR PCS NLR LRS PCS LRS NLR LRS PCS LRS NLR LRS PCS LRS Sending District PCS LRS LRS LRS NLR LRS PCS LRS NLR LRS PCS LRS NLR LRS PCS RECEIVEO AUG %o 1998 OFFICE OF DESEGREGATION MONITORING LRSD INFORMATION SERVICE DEPT. Page I of 1CN O X h trlTTLB kOOC PietVleb \" FAPD NO. 3A 76-01 tsXA tfuabec isaaaa. school year I i \u0026lt;I I 3*1' Lr u_ S' I 1 XO/23/S8 B\u0026amp;ding DsiTe' 1 MAGNET SCHOOL REPORT SUPERINTENDENTS QUARTERLY ATTENDANCE REPORT. KI 2 ADT - ADA - ADM' TELEPHONE NUMBEFCJ24^2QtXL This Is to report Intormalioo co the students sttending msgeet schools. I 1 Days b* Otr 2-.'_[ ZZE Dyj| in Artendwee T* Nf A A. i Ja-.I Total Ce(23 Deys AbsenT ToM T*Kr KIMOERGARTEN I ADM ToM Col 4*3 mXCoil DY In AttendenM T NT U IX XL I XX ! XA C, Little Rock (7641) sent to Lrttte Rocl( (78^1) C. North Little Rock (76-02) sent to Little Rock (78-01) 4b1 1? I s.ur 2U MT 33AM 3M 7ZA33 KI NPERGARTEW 11AM e,Boa Total CokMfm* 7*3 GRAPES MIM QRA0E8 7. MAM C3J29 27,5M MAS3 GRAPES 1-S nm ORAOes 7-13 KM* Deys Ahoant Total T*WT 1yM IA3S A21 3sa 333 ADM TcrtM Cd 9*14 -:Cof 1 2AM Combined Tobi Owclen K 12 ADT CI27 .iColl ADA Cel 4*4 .:coii ADM Coi44* MUM Coll 1.793 2.382 2,U9 IP o CM C'j co O m C. Pulasfo'Coenty Special (76-03) - sent to fO M 1333 1AM 41 U 29,343 29AM Ml 473 4M 3M KrNDERGARTEM GRAPga 1.4 24A33 20 am 740 L LHtle Rock (76-01) GRAPES 7-13 Utas M,t22 7S4 Total K*U 44 2.374 2,374 \u0026lt;7 o CM Total to he used in funding I I 1 39,237 I 39,237 1A*4 cn CP u 2 ' Number of KIndeigerten pupDe enrolled ,) querter: Fall-Time.\nU HelfTIme\nAdditional Instruction, are on the back CD CM S\u0026gt; . VCS G3 LiJ (5 \u0026lt;I Q. I Lirrtg ROCK Distiict 17-01 LBA ttiunbeir 1 10/23/98 Oct nnai ng\" Dat---------- FAPD NO. 38 11/13/98 ^aLe 3iwo)Xc ceo I laaszisa school year XJrtfTRjBKeF* Jli Superintendent This report is due within fifteen (15) days after the RqcK, Arkansas 72201 and one copy to tie Counly Board of Education? Earh' M to M TRANSFERS SUPERINTENDENT'S QUARTERLY ATTENDANCE ADT - ADA - ADM TELEPHONE NUMBER J24:200.(J_ REPORT, K12 \u0026gt; CL LJ cn o z 4 I I 7-r ) A I KIN OE^ A f T quartet is to be no less than 40 and i i Figuics in column* 2 IhAi 14 sAculd t* to ihe ra*rtst ^Mioie nu*^ ! i I I Qdr *T Oi GARTEN \u0026gt;aysJadUiuuiaoce.J NT |cn'3 ( J ! A ! 7 a no more than SO days. I 2L GRADES 1 - 12 Ui Seivices, M Slate Capitol Mall, Room 202.A, Little I i II I I '*1 i i.'\" ___Py*Attendance Abseflt i____________________r...............T 'Absefli i - j Cof4*S Total TNT I -Coll ]..... I .mt I \"TOT-- Column* 8 Absent Total T4NT I JA I 11 u_ Q : C. Resident pupils sent to other di5trict(s) under \"M to M\" transfers List PistTicttsl North Lltil Rock iA# f FuUsJri County Special Pvtaski County Sprcfal P-4 I I 7 w 45 49 D. Total C of columns 12,13,14. These II L 1^, iiKse will be used for State Equalizatron Aid i Total ColHtO i .iCol 1 Aor Col 2*7 -:Col 1 3 COMBIWEOlOTAt GRAOtS K . 12 AOA Cot 4*9 I -ccod ADM Col 4+5* 91(t: Cot 1 2.820 I 3.788 I 3.481 I t.o I 41 puqQoses I I 3,rc8 J I 237 I 142 7\u0026gt; f I I 4e I i 8T I 10,MS j 44.821 I I 103114 I 4t.t 57 i dSB 1,771 i i I I 2S3 tar 298 f,128 i i.nt 1^13 cn o Cl O'! CO in : E. Non-Resident pupils received from other , district(s) under \"M lo M\" transfers si Isi Id L North Little Rock Pulaski County Special Pufasfci County Special P-4 40 45 49 ) I I I 113 133 ( S 1,818 1.594 un I 1.\u0026lt;4\u0026lt; { 58 71 I I t I } 3 I 1.189 1.189 T 42 37 I 15,181 15.181 I ** i 74\u0026lt; I n 354 I i 1 2 378 39 398 uD I O H, Humber of kindergarten pupils enrolled (his quarter\" Full-Time JB3_ HalMtme I I Additional Instructions on tn cn lD C4LITTLE ROCK District 77-01______ LEA Nuxober 10/23/97 Qrtr EiTciin^Date 11/21/97 Date Bubmittecl 1 Qrtr Nunicer recehie FAPD NO. 3B -1997- 98 SCHOOL YEAR M to M TRANSFERS Signati SEP 11 1998 at superintendent SUPERINTENDENT'S QUARTERLY ATTENDANCE REPORT, KI 2 ADT - ADA - ADM TELEPHONE NUMBER_324=2.Q.0,0__ OFFICE OF DESEGREGATION MONITORiBS This report is due within fifteen (15) days after the end of each quarter (Ark.Code Ann. 6-18-213). Send one copy to the office of Local Fiscal Services, #4 State Capitol Mall, Room 202-A, Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 and one copy to the County Board of Education. Each quarter is to be no less than 40 and no more than 50 days. j I I I I ric'. n columns 2 thru 14 should be to me nearest whole number Days in Qrtr *T I. KIND EiR GARTEN Days in Attenrianr-ft *NT Total Col 2+3 Days Absent Total T+ NT ADM Total Col 4+5 Col 1 a. GRADES 1 -12 Days in Attendance *T lUT Total Columns 7 + 8 in Days Absent Total T+NT JI Total Col 9+10 -iCoH. II ADT Col 2+7 -iCol 1 II II COM BIfJED TOTAL GRADES K-12 ADA Coi 4+9 -4 Col 1 ADM Col 4+5+ 9+104 Cot 1 I 7 I A 1 1 i i C. Resident pupils sent to other district(s) under \"M to M\" transfers I I T I i I I List Dtstrict(s) North Little Rock LEA# 43 I 4,009 4,009 i 21Z 100 93 100 Pulaski County Special 3,810 3,810 168 88 Pulaski County Special P-4 45 2,673 2,673 98 62 I -4?p48 i I t VWS-' I 4r44fl- I 1,190 45 i i I I I D. Total C of columns 12, 13, 14. These will be used for State Equalization Aid purposes ///7 E. Non-Resident pupils received from other district(s) under \"M to M\" transfers /^OL i List Districtfs) North Little Rock Pulaski County Special LEA# 45 90 90 Pulaski County Special P-4 45 I 1,524 I 1,625 I 1,524 1,625 62 95 35 38 H. Number of kindergarten pupils enrolled this quarter\" Full-Time 44 Half-time 1,612 I 15,751 I 1,612 15,751 j 111 38 38 40 633 364 384 399 Additional instructions on back FlN-09-00-005 5/91 i 7 2 i I i I i V /j/n^lLyrU XJ\u0026amp;ipCfr ' r r ./} A .-I, VO 1)^1I C. 0. E. G. H. Lillie Rock Distria FORM NO. FAPO-38 Figures in columns 2 thru 14 should be to the nearest whole number______________ Resident pupQs sent to other (fistCs) under M to M' transfers List Districts Pulaski County Pulaski County North Little Rock LEA NO. Total C of columns 12, 13. 14. These win be used for MFP/Trartsp. Aid purposes Non-residerrt pupils received from other district(s) under 'M to M' trartsfers. List Disuicts LEA NO. Pulaski County North Little Rock Pulaski County - P4 Total E 77-01 LEA Number 10/15/96 Quarter Endisg Date 11/4/96 Dau Submioed 1 QuansNumber M to M TRViSFERS ' SUPERINTENDENT'S QUARTERLY ATTENDANCE REPORT, GRADES K-12 ACT - ADA - ADM Thii report u due witfain fifteen (15) dajs after tbe end of the quarter (.Ark. Code .Aim. 6-18-213. Su^- 1991). Scad ooe copy to du office of Local Fiscal SnSeei,it4 Capitol SlalL Room 202.A. Little Rock. Arkansas 72201 and ooe copy to the Coinay Board of Edocadoo. Eacbqnaneru lobe DO less fort\u0026gt;- (40) sad no more I 3 fifty (50) day. I KINDERGARTEN DAY3 IN ATTENDANCE I S 7 8 9 I DAYS .ADM SEP 11 199? OFFICE OF DAYS IN OTR. NT* TOTAL COL 2+3 ABSENT* TOTAL TOTAL COL 4+5 /COL I 43 43 42 40 40 40 40 Number of kindergarten pupfe enrolled this quarter: 4023 2042 1927 so 1923 2007 FuU-tiaie: 4023 2042 1927 SO 1923 2007 62 160 90 24 57 24 Half'doe: 97 50 49 2 50 51 43252 6226 1996-97 Year Pbooe 32- ffiSFfiRFGATIONMOm1TTQQRRlINNS3 , , y ! / ! n / 10 II 12 I 13 I 14 GRADES 1 12 D.AYS IX ATTEX'DAXCE TOTAL DAYS TOTAL ABSENT T+NT ' TOTAL COL 9+10 /COL XT COLfMXS 7+8 43252 6226 I 15377 1576 16953 AdditKXX^ tastrocooo* od hart 15377 1576 16953 1955 358 526 77 603 FTN-O9-00-005 5/91 1051 157 398 41 439' COMBINED TOT-AL GRADES K- 12 ADT COL /COL .AD.A COL 4 - 9 /COL 1 ADM COL 4-5^ 9-iaCOL 1 W/P4 1099 148 U48 1099 148 U48 433 41 474 1149 157 1^05 446 43 489 Li tt1e Rock 77- d! LEA Number 10/21/93 Quarter Ending Date 11/12/9.3______ Date Submitted 1 Quarter Number Signature of SSuuppeerriinnttiendent 3EC5KF'LFAPD-3B 1993-04 School Year M to M TRANSFERS Telephone Number 324-2285 SUPERINTENDENT'S QUARTERLY ATTENDANCE REPORT, GRADES K-12 SEP 11 1998 ADT ADA ADM Off ICE OF DESEGREGATION MONITORING (15) days after the end of each quarter (Ark. Code Ann. 6-18-213, Supp. 1991). Keep one copy to tbe office of Statistics This report is due within fifteen ----------- . . , , and Local Fiscal Services, #4 State Capitol Hall, Rocet 202-A, Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 and one copy to the County Board of EducaUon. Each quaiter is to I kigures in columns 2 thru 14 he no less than 40 and ry Bcre than 50 days. 1 2 T~TI 4 I 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 is T 14 KINDERGARTEN Days in Attendance GRADES 1 12 should be to the -'nearest whole number. Days in Qrtr T NT Tota.l Col. 213 Days Absent Total T t NT ADM Total Col. 4t5 t Col. 1 Days in Attendance T NT Total Columns 7+8 Days Absent Total T t NT Total Col. 9+10 + Col. 1 ( COMBINED GRADES ADT Col. 2+' t Col. K ADA Col. 4+91 + Col. 1| TOTAL - 12 I ADM ll Col. 4 + 5 + .1 9 + 10 + 1 C. Resident pupils sent to other district(s) under \"M\" to \"M\" transfers. District(s) Pulaski County North I ittip Bnrk, LEA 43 13 3201 13 320.4. 197 23. 3143-5. 31.435 1203. Uh. .and. 13 3. 2. 11360. 11,36a 811 283 233. 233. 233. D. Total C of columns 12, 13, 14. These will be used for MFP/Transp Aid purposes. 4 E. Non-resident pupils received from other dlstrict{s) under \"M\" to M'* transfers. D i strict (.s) LEA t) Pulaski r.niinty 33 1033 1037. 1 33 15978 15,978. 136. 384 313 409- North little Pnrk PCSSD - P4 Tol al E 43 43 43 II. MwiUkT ul kiiidergarten pupils enrolled this quarter: -213. 1343 1270___ EulJ-Titne _213. 1343 3 3 3333 3,311 _L33 83 27 32 34. 31 .93 32 1270 33 11\nlldlt-Timo 30. AUdilioiial inalruct loiis on back 19369 19.369 93 487 fm-oy-Dii-ous 5/+1 W/P4 lao. 511 .493 529 Office of Desegregation Monitoring United States District Court Eastern District of Arkansas Ann S. Brown, Federal Monitor 201 East Markham, Suite 510 Heritage West Building Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 (501)376-6200 Fax (501) 371-0100 October 18, 1999 Ms. Julie Wiedower, Interim Director of Student Registration Little Rock School District 810 West Markham Street Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Dear Julie: The Office of Desegregation Monitoring is examining the effects of interdistrict transfers of magnet students and M-to-M students on the racial balances of the districts and schools in Pulaski County. This examination will not include school choice transfers or special case transfers, because the study is limited to the effectiveness of desegregation strategies described in plans, stipulations, or agreements in the desegregation case. To examine the effects of the transfers, we ask that you identify, by residence attendance zone, the race, grade level, and receiving school of all students who transferred out of their home attendance zones as magnet or M-to-M students for the 1999-2000 school year. In order that I may verify the above data, please provide also, in the same format, the lists of students received by each school as M-to-M or magnet transfers. We will use the data to simulate the racial make-up of schools as if all students were attending their neighborhood or area schools and compare the simulated enrollment of each school to existing enrollment. We believe the M-to-M and magnet programs have been remarkably successful desegregation strategies, but, because no comprehensive study of them has been conducted, we do not know the extent of their successes. This study may yield information useful for planning future desegregation strategies. As usual, we appreciate the cooperation you give us. I will discuss timetables of this project with you as the need arises. Sincerely, Gene Jones, Associate Monitor 12/10/2001 14:17 5013242079 LRSD FINANCIAL SERV ' \u0026gt;k^4JAGE 01 MAGNET STUDENT QUARTERLY ATTENDANCE RSPORT TV 2001/02 received DEC 1 0 200! (rOft CALCULATING ADT. ADA. AND ADM OF MAOiJZT SCHOOL STUDENTS IN GRADES R-12) 6001000 COUJaTYt PULASKI DISTRICTS Little JUaeit school Diatrict QUARTS KO. OmCEOF DESf^SPfGAPON MONITORING 1 - 7601 LITTLE ROCK STUDENTS SENT TO - 7601 little rock MAGNET SCNOOLS 7602 MORTH little ROCK STUDENTS SENT TO 7601 LITTLlG rock MACNET SCHOOLS \u0026lt; 7603 PUTA5KI CO SPECIAL STUDENTS SOfT TO = 7601 LITTLE ROCK MAONET SCTOOl^ 1 DAYS IM CFTR *0 *0 *0 2 DAYS PRESENT TRANSPORTED 57392 12* 241 3 DAYS PRESENT MON' transported 35896 10792 35797 4 S 6 7 DATS AeSSNT 2995 778 1212 TOTAL ADT. ADh. AND ADM OF STUDENTS ATTStWlNG MAGNET SCHOOLS: STUDfiMTS ELIOXRLE to BE COUNTBO AS TRANSPORTED RjSPECTIVfi ASSIGNED SCHOOLS t PAGE* 1 1 i t C 2^ S:-\nfiDt 2/1 ADA 2-*.3/l ASM 23**/l 1*34.ao 2332.21 2*07.07 3.11 6.03 1*43.9* *72.90 900.96 3706.07 492.33 931.26 3830.66 INCLUDE RE5ID?*r STUDENTS JOSSTDIMG TWO ROUTE MILES OR H0R PRO* THAIR %12/10/2001 14:17 5013242079 LRSD FlhWCIAL SERV PAGE 02 M TO M STUDENT QUARTERLY ATTENDANCE RDFORT FY 2001/03 (FOR CALCUIJ^TIIKS WOT. AD\u0026amp;. AND ADM OF M TO M 8CWOOL STUDSWTS IN GRADttS K-12) LEA: SOCIOOO COUMTT\nPUIASKI DISTRICT* Lxt\u0026amp;ie Rock School 0i*crlcc CUARTEF, NO. 1 DAYS DAYS DAYS PRESENT in PRESENT nomDAYS ADT ADA ADM QTR TRANSPORT]^ TRANSPORTED ABSENT 3/1 2*3/1 2-.3*4/l 1 2 3 5 6 1 NON-RESIDENT STUEEmS RECEIVED TO (BY H TO M transfer: 7701 LITTIzS ROCK 40 0.00 0.00 o.oc 7702 HORTU DITTDE ROCK 40 508 17 0.00 12.59 13.00 7703 PUX^Kl CO SPECXAX 40 13255 1007 0 00 331.17 3Se.32 TOTAL ADT, ADA. AND ADM OF M TO M RECEIVED\nSTUDENTS ELIGIBLE TO BE COUirTBD TRANSPORTED INCLUDE RESPECTIVE ASSIGNED SCHOOLS 0.00 343.76 3S9.32 RESIDENT STUDENTS RESIDING TO ROUTE MILES OR MORE FROM THEIR PAGE: 1 0 0 0 0 011/20/2000 11:43 5013242079 LRSD FINANCIAL SERV PAGE 01 M TO M STUDENT QUARTERLY ATTENDANCE REPORT FY 2000/01 (FOR CALCULATING ADT, ADA. AND ADM OF M IO (4 SCHOOL eTUDJWTS IN GRRDFS K-1A\u0026gt; LEA: eOOlOOO COUNTY! PULASKI PlSTRlCTr Litcl Rock School Diacricc QUARTER NO. DAYS DAYS DAYS PRESENT IN PRESENT NONDAYS ADT ADA ADM QTR TRANSPORTED TRANSPORTED ABSENT 2/1 2*3/l 2*3*4/l 1 2 3 4 S 5 1 7 NON-RESIDSWT STUDENTS RECEIVED TO (BY M TO M TRANSFER) 77^1 LITTLE ROCK 43 0.00 0.00 0.00 7703 NORTH LITTLE ROCK 42 SS 13 0.00 1.20 i.se 7703 PULASKI CO SPECIAL 42 15677 1154 0.00 364.8S 351.74 TOTAL ADT. ADA, AND ADM OF M TO H RECEIVED: 0.00 366.16 353.32 0 0 0 0 0 STUDENTS ELIOIRLE TO BE COUNTED AS TRANSPORTED INCLUDE RESIDENT STUDENTS RESIDING TWO ROUTE MILES OR MORE FROM THEIR RESPECTIVE ASSIGNED SC3100LS PAGE: 1EDWARD L. WRIGHT (1903-1977) ROBERT S. LINDSEY (1913-1991) ALSTON JENNINGS (1917-2004) ISAAC A. SCOTT. JR. JOHN G. LILE GORDON S. RATHER. JR. MARTIN G. GILBERT ROGER A. GLASGOW C. DOUGLAS BUFORD, JR. PATRICK J. GOSS ALSTON JENNINGS. JR. JOHN R. TISDALE KATHLYN GRAVES M. SAMUEL JONES III JOHN WILLIAM SPIVEY III LEE J. MULDROW N.M. NORTON CHARLES C. PRICE CHARLES T. COLEMAN JAMES J. GLOVER EDWIN L. LOWTHER. JR. WALTER E. MAY GREGORY T. JONES BETTINA E. BROWNSTEIN WALTER McSPADDEN JOHN D. DAVIS JUDY SIMMONS HENRY WRIGHT, LINDSEY \u0026amp; JENNINGS LLP ATTORNEYS AT LAW 200 WEST CAPITOL AVENUE SUITE 2300 LITTLE ROCK. ARKANSAS 72201-3699 (501) 371-0808 FAX (50'1) 376-9442 ww w. wi j. com OF COUNSEL RONALD A. MAY BRUCE R. LINDSEY JAMES R. VAN DOVER GREGORY S. MUZINGO* Writer's Direct Dial No. 501-212-1273 sjones@wlj .com KIMBERLY WOOD TUCKER RAY F. COX. JR.* TROY A. PRICE PATRICIA SIEVERS HARRIS KATHRYN A. PRYOR J. MARK DAVIS CLAIRE SHOWS HANCOCK KEVIN W. KENNEDY JERRY J. SALLINGS WILLIAM STUART JACKSON MICHAEL D. BARNES STEPHEN R. LANCASTER JUDY ROBINSON WILBER KYLE R. WILSON C. TAD BOHANNON KRISTI M. MOODY J. CHARLES DbUCHERTY* M. SEAN HATCH J. ANDREW VINES JUSTIN T. ALLEN MICHELLE M. KAEMMERLING SCOTT ANDREW IRBY PATRICK D. WILSON REGINA A. SPAULDING MARY ELIZABETH ELDRIDGE BLAKE S. RUTHERFORD PAUL D. MORRIS EDWARD RIAL ARMSTRONG Ms. Ann Brown Marshall ODM 1 Union National Plaza 124 W. Capitol, Suite 1895 Little Rock, AR 72201 RE\nMay 28, 2004 * Ijmutd Io pneaa befon tht Uiiitai Suua Patet and Tndemart Office ** Licensed to pracace in Midtigan mfy RECEIVED JUN 1 - 2004 OFFICE OF DESEGREGATION ..jflNITOHING Dispute concerning M-to-M transfer procedures Dear Ann: It is my understanding that there are differences in rules interpretations between the PCSSD and the LRSD which may be affecting the process of recruitment and assignment for M-to-M students this coming school year as well as guaranteeing their transportation needs. Efforts to resolve these issues strictly between the PCSSD and LRSD have thus far been unsuccessful. Accordingly, I have been asked if you will lend your offices to this matter in an attempt to resolve these matters. I know that the PCSSD would like for you to schedule a meeting, if you are willing, at your first opportunity. Cordially yours, WRIGHT, LINDSEY \u0026amp; JENNINGS LLP MSJ\nao . Samuel Jones, III 502765-vl(, f a\u0026gt;i er=^ PCSSD PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT 925 East Dixon Road/P.O. Box 8601 Little Rock, Arkansas 72216 June 1, 2004 RECEIVED www.pcssd.org (501) 490-2000 Junious Babbs, Associate Superintendent-LRSD 501 Sherman Street Little Rock, Arkansas 72202 JUN -7 2004 OFFICE OF DESEGREGATION MONITORING Dear Mr. Babbs: Enclosed you will find individual student transfer forms and school lists which document the students' school assignment for the 2004-2005 school year. With the exception of Oak Grove High School, each list documents students changing grade configurations. Additionally, we are returning the M-to-M student assignments that you provided to our office on May 24, 2004. We are providing this information in a timely manner to ensure transportation is provided for each student at the beginning of the 2004-2005 school year. For clarity, it is necessary to reinform you that because of capacity issues Sylvan Hills Middle School, Sylvan Hills High School, Robinson Middle School, and Robinson High School are not eligible to receive transfers of any type. Sincerely, Kari Brown, Assistant Superintendent Equity and Pupil Services Dr. Brenda Bowles, Director Equity and Multicultural Education C: Ann Marshall, Federal Monitor Sam Jones, District Counsel Donna Creer, Executive Director Magnet Review Committee Julie Wiedower, Director of Student Registration IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT PLAINTIFF ' V. NO. 4:82CV00866WRW PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, ET AL. DEFENDANTS MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL. INTERVENORS KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL. INTERVENORS RECEIVE COMBINED PCSSD MOTION AND MEMORANDUM REGARDING M-TO-M DISAGREEMENT JUN - 8 2OOJ OFFICE OF DESEGREGATION 1.10.\n...J The PCSSD for its combined motion and memorandum, states: 1. To promote brevity, the PCSSD is combining its motion and memorandum into one document. 2. This dispute centers around different interpretations of the M-to-M stipulation by the PCSSD and the LRSD. The PCSSD is concerned that these disagreements will not be resolved in time to permit all current M-to-M students and applicants to actually transfer for the impending year and be guaranteed transportation. Hence this motion. 3. Counsel is informed that the LRSD is requiring existing M-to-M students to resubmit an application to it to reaffirm school choices and M-to-M status as these smdents matriculate from one organizational level to the next. 504196-vl'I 4. Rather than requiring reapplication, the PCSSD has developed a tracking form, attached as Exhibit A, which should suffice for LRSDs needs but not require a reapplication. 5. While the tracking form is very similar to the M-to-M application, it avoids the disruption and concern expressed by students and parents that a reapplication jeopardizes their M-to-M status by promoting unnecessary delay and procedures. The PCSSD believes that the current LRSD process and procedures are inconsistent with Paragraph 6 of the M-to-M stipulation, attached as Exhibit B, which states: The commitment to accept a student shall be for the duration of the students voluntary participation. Once a student exercises his or her right to participate, the student will continue in the initially selected school for at least one full school year or until the student graduates or affirmatively withdraws from participation herein set out. Students will not have to transfer each year or as exercise a transfer choice to remain in the host district. Students shall be encouraged to continue to participate at their initial school of choice. It is expected that the student will follow the pattern of assigned schools for the resident students in the school in which the transfer student first enrolls. 5. The PCSSD has proposed a solution to these issues but as indicated by its memorandum dated May 25, 2004, attached as Exhibit C, the LRSD has not agreed. 6. PCSSD interprets Paragraph 6 of the M-to-M stipulation to mean that once an LRSD student acquires M-to-M status in the PCSSD, then that student becomes, for all purposes, a PCSSD student unless or until the student affirmatively seeks to withdraw. In that sense, the PCSSD believes that these former LRSD students acquire the same rights as to future school assignments as are enjoyed by indigenous PCSSD students. This includes not only mandatory assignment patterns but the availability of assignment via the PCSSDs intra- 504196-vl 2district voluntary transfer programs as well as the privilege to apply for PCSSD specialty schools pursuant to the rules which apply to all PCSSD students. 7. Upon information and belief, LRSDs contract with Laidlaw requires that all M- to-M students be identified and processed \u0026gt;5 sometime this summer. Obviously, if the process is not finalized by then, these students may be denied transportation and hence will not transfer. 8. Upon information and belief, the LRSD is holding tracking forms until this dispute is resolved. (Please seen Exhibit C). WHEREFORE, the PCSSD prays for an order of this Court directing the parties to comply with the language of Paragraph 6 of the M-to-M stipulation and to conform their current policies and procedures to the M-to-M stipulation so that the M-to-M process may proceed smoothly and without creating unnecessary concern on the part of M-to-M students and their parents and for all proper relief. Respectfully submitted. WRIGHT, LINDSEY \u0026amp; JENNINGS LLP 200 West Capitol Avenue, Suite 2300 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201-3699 (501)371-0808 FAX\n(501)376-9442 \u0026lt;Samue| .Jones III (76060) Attornewfor F ScboefDistrict la^i County Special 504196-V1 31 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE On June 7, 2004, a copy of the foregoing was served via U.S. mail on each of the following: Mr. John W. Walker John W. Walker, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Mr. Mark A. Hagemeier Assistant Attorney General . Arkansas Attorney Generals Office 323 Center Street, Suite 200 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Mr. Christopher Heller Friday, Eldredge \u0026amp; Clark 2000 Regions Center 400 West Capitol Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Mr. Stephen W. Jones 3400 TCBY Tower 425 West Capitol Avenue Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Ms. Ann Brown Marshall ODM One Union National Plaza 124 West Capitol, Suite 1895 Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Clayton Blackstock Mr. Mark Burnett 1010 W. Third Street Little Rock, AR 72201 Judge J. Thomas Ray U.S. District Courthouse 600 West Capitol Avenue, Suite 149 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Mr. Robert Pressman 22 Locust Avenue Lexington, Massachusetts 02173 M. Samuel Jones III 504196-vl 4 06/84/2004 16:24 5014901352 EQUIP/ PUPIL SERVICE PAGE 06/0E PCSSD (M to M) STUDENT TRACKING FORM This form is to track (M to M) student the student wishes an alternative pla'SiXTStS^h^organizational level. If students, these assignments will be made wi Awci XA the pattern of assigned schools for resident STUDENTS NAME:.______ STUDENTS RESIDENCE ADDRES S City:_______________ Student ID # GRADE LEVEL AS OF SEPT. 2004: __State: vr iiiF1, 2004 DATEnn nroTti-------- SCHOOL attended duwng THElobs PARENT OR guardian HAVING CUSTODY Zip Code: RACE: ~ PARENTSS JvLAJLING ADDRESS' City: ------ OR CHARGE OF THE STUDEOT PARENTS HOME PHONE NUMBER PARENTS WORK PHONE NUMBER .State\n__Zip Code\nreached DOES THIS STUDENT REQUIRE TRANSPORTATTnic DOES THIS STUDENT require SEEoA IF YES, PLEASE INDICATE HOW SElS^^s SERVICES health plan ARE RECEIVED\nYES YES ____^NO NO -SECTION 504 ACCOMMODATION PLAN I give permission to the school i ' .IEP/SPECIAL EDUCATION or school records necessary to complete the requested transfer. PARENTS SIGNATURE\nDATE: Form completed by: Forward to the OFFICE OF EQUITY AND PUPIL Counselors office SERVICES DATE approval ---------------- ------- TRANSFER .4PPR0\\TD- SCHOOOL TO ^^BICH TrInsf^^?^vw ^^^ANCE DATE [ EXHIBIT sIN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT PLAINTIFF MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL. INTERVENORS VS. NO. LR-C-82-866 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL, SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, ET AL. DEFENDANTS STIPULATION FOR PROPOSED ORDER ON VOLUNTARY MAJORITY TO MINORITY TRANSFERS Plaintiff Little Rock School District (\"LRSD\"), and defendants Pulaski County Special School District (\"PCSSD\"), North Little Rock School District (\"NLRSD\"), and Arkansas State I i Board of Education (\"State Board\"), being voluntary majorityto-minority transfers, stipulations for the proposed order: in agreement on the submit the following 1. Beginning in the 1987-88 school year and continuing thereafter, LRSD, PCSSD and NLRSD will permit and encourage voluntary majority-to-minority interdistrict transfers. The three districts will cooperate in the development of programs to acquaint parents. guardians and students with interdistrict opportunities. The transfer provisions implementation of majority-to-minority is contingent upon the implementation of all other provisions of the remedy ordered by the Court. 2 . Eligibility: EXHIBIT M aI a. Black students who are members of the racial majority at a school in any participating district which district is 50 percent or more black in its enrollment shall be eligible to transfer voluntarily to a school and district in any other participating district in which school and district they would be in the racial minority. b. White students who are members of the racial majority at a school in a participating district which district is more than 50% white in its enrollment c. shall be eligible to transfer voluntarily to a school and district in any other participating district in which they would be in the racial minority. Prior to the transfer of any student. the home district shall issue a statement that the transferring student is in good standing. If the student is not in good standing, the student may be permitted to transfer on a provisional basis. 3 . Students wishing to transfer shall file applications with their home districts. Applications must be filed before May 1 of the preceding school year and a student may not transfer more than once in any school year. The home district will process all applications and forward copies to the host' districts . The home district will furnish its complete file on each student with his/her application. 24 . Transfer assignments will be made subject to av ^lability of space in schools and grade levels, and the host districts' ability to comply with state standards. 5 . The host district shall honor the placement for the students as certified by the home district, which shall be communicated to the parent or guardian prior to transfer. If, during the first semester. testing, performance. remedial efforts, and consultation indicate that an adjustment of placement should be made. it shall be made after the first semester in consultation with the student's parent or guardian. 6 . The commitment to accept a student shall be for the duration of the student's voluntary participation. Once a student exercises his or her right to participate, the student will continue in the initially selected school for at least one full school year or until the affirmatively withdraws from student graduates or participation as herein set out. Students will not have to transfer each year or exercise a transfer choice to remain in the host district. Students shall be encouraged to continue to participate at their initial school of choice. It is expected that the student will follow the pattern of assigned schools for the resident students in the school in which the transfer student first enrolls. 7. Students who have elected to transfer shall remain' students of the host district until they the district where they reside. choose to return to 31 8. Host districts shall not have the authority to remand tr Bsfer students to the home district. Host districts shall have the authority to discipline, suspend or expel a transfer student using the same due process procedures applicable to resident students. 9 . Once admitted, transfer students will be expected to meet the same general standards. academic and other. as applied to students of the host district. 10. Information about each district' s academic and disciplinary policies and procedures will be made available to prospective transfer students on request. This should include information on pupil-teacher ratios, promotion and retention\ncounseling assistance. grading, student code of conduct. disciplinary action. and suspension and expulsion. 11. The host district shall respond to the educational needs of students without regard to their status as a transfer or resident student. Transfer students shall be eligible and encouraged to participate in all school programs funded and sponsored by the host district (academic. athletic. extra-curricular and other) and shall not suffer any disability or ineligibility because they are voluntary interdistrict transfer students. Participation in after-school activities will be facilitated by the provision where needed of extra-curricular buses or other forms of transportation which will be available to all such transfer students, the cost of which shall be borne by the State as provided in paragraph 12. 412 . The State Board shall pay the full cost of ti ^sporting students opting for interdistrict transfers. However, the State Board shall have the option of (1) paying the school districts for transporting the students or (2) contracting for the services or (3) transporting the students with a state operated system. The State Board shall pay the home and host districts in accordance with the following procedures: 13 . a . Each year school districts shall calculate and certify to the State Board of Education their cost per student in regular schools (grades K-12) including all add -ons for special education, TAG, vocational education and other purposes. The cost per student shall include all costs for instruction and support services minus student transportation. food service. and restricted federal program costs. (To the extent that the host district does not receive pro rata increases in restricted federal program costs by hosting transfer students who are eligible to participate in federal programs, the cost per student shall be increased on a pro-rata basis for such transfer students.) The State shall pay the . costs for full-time equivalent students who have been transferred to the host district. Payments made for the current year shall be based on costs for the 5b. c. previous year. The host district shall report transfer student on forms Department of Education. Each host district each as required by the State shall estimate the full-time equivalent of transfer students and transmit such estimate. along with the names of the the State in September of each begins. year. students, to year when payment A correction will be made in January of each Payments shall be made by the State monthly through forward funding to each district based the September estimate transferred to the in the number used the district. Each home district each student who home district to State aid (table student remained upon as corrected. The students host district shall not be to calculate regular state counted aid for shall receive from the State for voluntarily transfers from his/her a host district one-half of the rate) it would have received had the in his/her home district. Information about these students shall be reported on forms as required by the State Department of Education and shall be reported at the same time as the reports are made by the host district. The students transferred from the home district shall not be counted in the number used to calculate regular 6d. state aid for the home district. handicapped students shall be availability of All transfers' of contingent on the appropriate programs and resources. as identified in the lEP, at the host school. The provisions contained herein do not apply to magnet schools and programs. 14 . All parties to this stipulation recognize that the present racial balance of the North Little Rock School District approximates that of the entire county and they are desirous of not upsetting that balance through the Majority to Minority Transfer Program. operation of the The parties further recognize that any court approved student assignment plan by any party could be compromised if the Majority to Minority Transfer Program caused significant changes in student assignment plans. To avoid this result, all parties agree that any party may choose to include or not include said Majority to Minority transfer students for purposes of student assignment under any court order. Further, all parties recognize that substantial participation in the Majority to Minority program could have the result of creating technical departures from targeted student ratios at one or more schools. All parties agree that any such departure resulting from the lawful operation of thfe Majority to Minority program shall not give rise to a claim or contention that such departure from targeted ratios constitute 7violations of any law or regulation and, specifically, shall ne- be urged or suggested similar litigation. as grounds for liability in this II or Additionally, any such resulting departures from targeted ratios shall not require the districts affected to reconstitute or recompose the student body of any affected school. Agreed this 26th day of August, 1986 . PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT By. By, (Po.'tl ( NORTH L Dis'hrn? 'TLE ROi SCHOOL :t 2258L ARKANSAS STATE BOARD OF EDUCATION By 8 06/04/2004 16:24 5014901352 EQUITY PUPIL SERVICE PAGE 04/06 b /004 LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT SOI shekman street LITTLE ROCK, 72202 student registration office Phone (501) 447-2950 Fax: (501) 447~29S1 May 25, 2004 TO: FROM: Karl Brov-n, Assistant Superintendent for Eqtljty and Pupil Services Julie Wledo^l^heetor. of Student Registratio^ THROUGH: Junious BabC^^\n^Associate Superintendent for Administrative R: PCSSD Tracking Forms Services Last week we received copies of a PCSSD Tracking Form for who will he changing organizational levels fm these forms we identified a varietv of mnnA school year. In looking Other questions arose regarding *e status ofthe^s regarding specific __ some are not - and a number of fomSTliS a LRSD completed a M to M Withdrawal form In fact students who are not even on our datoHnc^ wtraclong forms are on to sit down and go over fte7o ^t^d^nts! it and hnw w. .L 2 so we can understand how your distrir over students. it and how we can address some of these issues. ! Clearly, we need your district intends to utilize However, at this point such a meeting would be J Xx (Cl ------- Mudrr\u0026lt;aaufjoti rijMtvyic etrmou uoMrraainnnaoduruiimtxyi ooTfjr aUUnnnsdfdeeerrrsssttaa hnnudHtsi^n^ne ^ pir. emt ature. Our disPtrCicStS uhDoass R rrewegceeaiirvvdeeinddg a Rather to hold the forms ^itiJ agreement is rel^hed to a meeting to iron out the aforementionf/t occurs we look forward available as our transportation routes are created. middje of June so accurate data will be Cc: /Dr. Brenda Bowles, Director ?SeLT of Equity and Pupil S?erZvi^ceitstee Becky Rather EXHIBIT g 7/2334 13:89 501-4472351 ! 1'^ I LTTTLE R.OCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 501 SHERMAN STREET T-iTTT .F POCK AR 72202 . Effice of ADMSNISTRAT It I ti iVE oEck r xvCrtS loas C. Babbs, Associate Saperinteadent ^hooe\n(Svl) 447-2955 Y-.X'TaIV. juuiOuS.vAuuw^uBu.urg TO: Mr, Karl Brov7H, PCSSD, A-ssist I \"it St 'QI Dr Srsnda Botvlas, PCSSD Dirsd\nor of Equity' \u0026amp; Pupil Serncss n FROM\nJuoivUS DauvS SUSJECT\nM-io-M Agreement DAit: June i 1, 2004 mv conversation with Dr. Brenda Bowles ton June 15, 2004, it appears that we have reached Resolution of bo sides concerns regai^g M-to^ attempt to record the items of agreement from n| conversation with Dr. Bowles. f-' I - ti'*' 4^ 1, Pulaski County 1 Soecial School District (PCSBD) wiU only utilize the proposed tracking fonn _ A ( ____________Y1,*aa..T a ^^71 C n in instances where students progressing from|one organization^ Uvel to e eJ'*' Moreover. PCSSD use of the tracking fonn ------------- . of established feeder paiterri. Moreover, PCSSD use of the traclcmg form tJinV/resttictwe onlv to eligible PCSSD scl4\u0026gt;ols in adherence with Paragraph 2.a. of toe Qrder OU VolimtaryjMaionty to Minority Transfers ( Stipulation ) ,,---------------------------- J nrn(n\"eSS oilteide r now kJUMAV \u0026lt;*** lAW 3,.. M,to-Mktudents enrolled and participating in the Gifted caXentar, Fuller Middle, and Mills High School, jutiLAVAA * \\***** * J and Talented ProEram at College stanorx cisssemary, ruxi- ~ aotwitostandins its intorpretation of the StiXion. In an effort to resolve Uxe tosues uckv.^n ^0 disixicts, LRSD agrees to permit tho^ students to coatmue a^signinem duwuga S-SCSSD Gifted^and Talented Pro-am (Program) and organizational students not enrolled in the aforementioned lies during the 20uj-u4 scnooi year wmi not o -----' Rowed to attend these sites without stnet ad|ernce to varagrapn 2.a, ol toe stipulation. UkCXLXVJlA 01 Uic. OIL Ji 3. LRSD will continue to adhere to the )nnnue to coordinate student tialsportation as prescnbed. Ongoing efforts to agreement with MRC fecilitatioh wiU continue to include (a) recognition o nl enrollment counts, and (b) processing and approving M-to-M apphcations in yearly official exirolhnent the order they are receivei Time and efforts toward resolution are appreciated cg: DoTin.5. I 1UO/ X / ! Z.UU' XU. UXHDOXOQZ C.WUX I Y ruriL btKViUt Hrtbt ui/u:z DiiSjoL-'! ruidbM vuuiiuy iwwi . Rniiirv Anri Pijoil Services ,-- - 925 E. Dixon Rd/P.O. Box_8601 Little Rock, Arkansas /22ib (501) 490-6215 (501) 490- 1352 Fax FAX TRANSMISSION COVER SHEET J Date\n1 T I Fax\n'J-k ? ) 1-L o 1 cn Re: 4 Ssndsr* k YOU SHOULD RECEIVE YOU C PAGE (S), INCLUDING THIS COVER SHEET. IF DO NO I RtCEIVc ALL THE PAGES, ________(501) 490-6215.______ rLEASE CALL MESSAGE\n(J, /4^a\u0026lt;U- / et- IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT PLAINTIFF V. NO. 4:82CV00866WRW PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, ET AL. RECEIVED DEFENDANTS MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL. JUN /? .004 INTERVENORS KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL. OFFICE OF DESEGREGATION MONITORING INTERVENORS LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICTS RESPONSE TO PCSSDS COMBINED MOTION AND MEMORANDUM REGARDING M-TO-M DISAGREEMENT Comes now, Little Rock School District (hereinafter, LRSD) by and through their undersigned attorneys, Friday, Eldredge \u0026amp; Clark, for Response to Pulaski County Special School Districts (PCSSD) Combined Motion and Memorandum Regarding M-to-M Disagreement states: 1. LRSD does not require existing M-to-M students to resubmit an application to it to reaffirm M-to-M status at the conclusion of one organizational level to the next. According to the Stipulation for Proposed Order on Voluntary Majority to Minority Transfers (Stipulation), attached as Exhibit B to PCSSDs motion, students who elect to transfer via the M-to-M program remain students of the host district until such time as they choose to return to the district where they reside. 2. Rather, LRSD asks students who participate in the M-to-M program progressing from one organizational level to the next (i.e., from elementary school to middle school or from middle school to high school) to submit a form affirming the school choice site. LRSDimplemented this process for two reasons: (1) to ascertain the space available in each of its schools to accommodate the LRSD attendance zone population each year, and (2) to ascertain the M-to-M students attending schools at the next organizational level outside of established PCSSD feeder patterns. This process does not violate the provisions of Paragraph 6 of the Stipulation. 3. The tracking form the PCSSD speaks of in its Motion and Memorandum is strikingly similar to the M-to-M application, as PCSSD concedes. Because of the similarity between the two documents, several parents wishing to withdraw their students from the M-to-M program are misguided regarding their students school assignment. 4. As an example, in the tracking forms attached hereto as Exhibit A, the PCSSDs Assistant Superintendents approval stamp has given many parents the impression that their student has been assigned to the school requested upon completion of the tracking form. This, notwithstanding the fact that (1) the students have not submitted M-to-M withdrawal forms\n(2) the students do not reside in the requested schools attendance zone\n(3) the school requested is a LRSD specialty magnet school and the student has not applied for admission to the specialty magnet, thinking that the PCSSD tracking form is the application\nor (4) the requested school is not a school in the LRSD. See Exhibit A. 5. Moreover, LRSD believes PCSSDs interpretation of Paragraph 6 of the M-to M stipulation to be clearly violative of the plain language of Paragraph 2 of the same stipulation which, in pertinent part, states: a. Black students who are members of the racial majority at a school in any participating district which district is 50 percent or more black in its enrollment shall be eligible to transfer voluntarily to a school and district they would be in the racial minority. b. White students who are members of the racial majority at a school in a participating district which district is more than 50% white in its6. enrollment shall be eligible to transfer voluntarily to a school and district in any other participating district in which they would be in the racial minority. Among the specialty schools the PCSSD speaks of in Paragraph 6 of its Motion and Memorandum are College Station Elementary, Fuller Middle School and Mills High School. 7. During the 2003-2004 school year, each of the aforementioned school sites was more than 50 percent black. LRSD, therefore, believes that to assign an indigenous LRSD student to a PCSSD school that is more than 50 percent black via an M-to-M transfer contravenes the plain language in Paragraph 2 of the M-to-M stipulation and the goals of the M-to-M program as a whole. WHEREFORE, the LRSD prays for an order directing the parties to comply with Paragraph 2 of the Stipulation and for all other proper relief. Respectfully submitted. Christopher J. Heller Khayyam M. Eddings Friday, Eldredge \u0026amp; Clark, LLP 2000 Regions Center 400 West Capitol Avenue Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 (501)376-2011 FAX: (501) 37^-2147 By: Khayyam Mi j^dings (020i Attorneys for Little Rock School DistrictCERTIFICATE OF SERVICE On June 17, 2004, a copy of the foregoing was served via U.S. mail on each of the following: Mr. John W. Walker John W. Walker, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72206 Mr. Mark A. Hagemeier Assistant Attorney General Arkansas Attorney Generals Office 323 Center Street, Suite 200 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Mr. M. Samuel Jones, III Wright, Lindsey \u0026amp; Jennings, LLP 200 West Capitol Avenue, Suite 2300 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Mr. Stephen W. Jones 3400 TCBY Tower 425 West Capitol Avenue Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Ms. Ann Brown Marshall ODM One Union National Bank Plaza 124 West Capitol, Suite 1895 Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Clayton Blackstock Mr. Mark Burnette 1010 W. Third Street Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Judge J. Thomas Ray U.S. District Courthouse 600 West Capitol Avenue, Suite 149 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Mr. Robert Pressman 22 Locust Avenue Lexington, Massachusetts 02173 YYAM M. ED. GS PCSSB (M t M) STUDENT TR.ACKING F@RM This form is to track (M to M) student movement to the next grade and or organizational level. If the student wishes an alternative placement other than the pattern of assigned schools for resident students, these assignments will be made with consideration of space available at the requested school and other factors, such as racial composition of the requested school. STUDENTS NAME I STUDENTS RESIDE: AD City: UAA^g'/^OCV. fit S: State: Student ID # 553^-. Zip Code: GRADE LEVEL AS OF SEPT. 2004: DATE OF BIRTH:oi WZeX: P RACE:^ . , , SCHOOL ATTENDED DURING THE 2003-04 SCHOOL \\TAR\n\\QtC5C)ir\\ AA \\ QO IA PARENT OR GU. D CUSTODY OR CHARGE OF THE STUDENT ro^ PARElffl^i^i\\4A^ING.ADDRS^i^(T(g (^CL City. Zl 1 0- vKjC K_________________State: W., Zip Code: -5Z--ZQ5 PARENTS HOME PHONE NUMBER Oci ) 3(o PARENTS WORK PHONE NUMBER OTHER NUMBER WHERE PARENT CAN BE REACHED SCHOOL REQUESTED DOES THIS STUDENT REQUIRE TRANSPORTATIC ION iZ DOES THIS STUDENT REQUIRE SPECIAL SERVICES_______ IF YES, PLEASE INDICATE HOW SERVICES ARE RECEIVED: YES YES NO HEALTH PLAN SECTION 504 ACCOMMODATION PLAN lEP/SPECIAL EDUCATION SPECIAL TRANSPORTATION I give permission to the school in which my child is currently enrolled to release any information or school records necessary to complete the requester PARENTS SIGNATURE: DATE: or*** Form completed by: fLiY5 Counselors ofFice Forward to the OFFICE OF EQUITY AND PUPIL SERVICES 1 DATE ASEEQNAD TRANSFER APPROVED: DATES OF ATTENDANCE DATE SCHOOOL TO WHICH TRANSFER APPROVED: exhibit 5^ PCSSD (M to M) STUDENT TRACKING FORM ^4^0 7 2054 This form is to track (M to M) student movement to the next grade and or organizational level. If the student wishes an alternative placement other than the pattern of assigned schools for resident students, these assignments will be made with consideration of space available at the requested school and other factors, such as racial composition of the requested school. STUDENTS N. |^_Student ID # 1 /I t X r STUDENTS RESIDENCE ADDRESS: ____________________ City: I VVl-p ___________ State: AtC Zip Code: D-dQ GRADE LEVEL AS OF.SEPT. 2004: G^UPATE OF BIRTH: )Vl|-VSEX. M RACE:_B SCHOOL ATTENDED DURING THE 2003-04 SCHOOL YEAR: ('.bQ-Ubn PARE CUSTODY OR CHARGE OF THE STUDENT PaMtS^^IAILING ADDRE^r C q r cl.4 - City: State: iMt________________^Zip Code: ~7 ------------------------------------ _________________ PARENTS HOME PHONE NUMBER State: PARENTS WORK PHONE NUMBER \"7 53' SS OTHER NUMBER WHERE PARENT CAN BE REACHED SCHOOL REQUESTED iAATUtl ia DOES THIS STUDENT REQUIRE TRANSPORTATION DOES THIS STUDENT REQUIRE SPECIAL SERVICES 2 YES YES NO NO IF YES, PLEASE INDICATE HOW SERVICES ARE RECEIVED: HEALTH PLAN SECTION 504 ACCOMMODATION PLAN lEP/SPECIAL EDUCATION SPECIAL TRANSPORTATION I give permission to the school in which my child is currently enrolled to release any information ) complete the requested transfer or school records necessary to transfer. PARENTS SIGNATURE: DATE: Form completed by: Counselors office Forward to the OFFICE QF EQUITY AND PUPIL SERVICES APPROVAL DATE DATE transfer APPROVED: DATES OF ATTENDANCE SCHOOOL TO WHICH TRANSFER APPROVED:PCSSD (M to M) STUDENT TRACKING FORM Q This form is to track (M to M) student movement to the next grade and or organizational level. If the student wishes an alternative placement other than the pattern of assigned schools for resident students, these assignments will be made with consideration of space available at the requested school and other factors, such as racial composition of the requested school. STUDENT'S NSCvTS.Sil^^^lllHIIIBiP.Studetrt ID STUDENTS RESIDENCE ADDRESS: M C STUDENTS NAME: City: U-Hte GRADE LEVEL AS OF 1^^ Zip Code: ^^^7^y'/ _________________State: Zip Code: / SEPT. 2004: U? DATE OF BIRTH: 7//j^SEX: PZ RACE^^/^| SCHOOL ATTENDED DURING THE 2003-04 SCHOOL YEAR: PAREN' .GE OF THE STUDENT parenIJsJsmAilij^g Address.: ... City: l^\u0026lt;K-_______ PARENTSvHOME PHONE NUMBER State: Zip CoiQ'^l PARENTS WORK PHONE NUMBER /}.7 / )'Q OTHER NUMBER WHERE J^ARENT CATJ BE REACHED SCHOOL REQUESTED .-'fl ( 1^1^/7^'5^'t ii\u0026gt; 1//'Jlt: DOES THIS STUDENT REQ TRANSPORTATION DOES THIS STUDENT REQUIRE SPECIAL SERVICES /\" YES YES ' NO IF YES, PLEASE INDICATE HOW SERVICES ARE RECEIVED: HEALTH PLAN IEP/SPECIAL EDU CATION SECTION 504 ACCOMMODATION PLAN SPECIAL TRANSPORTATION I give permission to the school in whigh my child is currently enrolled to release any information or school records necessary to complete the requested transfer., PARENTS SIGNATURE:, V.' 4\u0026lt; DATE: y / Form completed by: Counselors office Forward to the OFFICE OF EQUITY AND PUPIL SERVICES DATE APPROVAL DATE TRANSFER APPROVED: DATES OF ATTENDANCE SCHOOOL TO WHICH TRANSFER APPROVED:PCSSD (M to M) STUDENT TRACKING FORM This form is to track (M to M) student movement to the next grade and or organizational level. If the student wishes an alternative placement other than the pattern of assigned schools for resident students, these assignments will be made with consideration of space available at the requested school and other factors, such as racial composition of the requested school. STUDENTS NAMEH^^UHI STUDENTS RESIDENCE ADDRESS: City: Uh __________Student ID #____________ VJ Li rR 1 -C-_____________ State: AES Zip Code: QlIZoA GRADE LEVEL AS OF SEPT. 2004: d~^DATE OF BIRTH: ^-I^-^ISEX: FIT RACE: fo SCHOOL ATTENDED DURING THE 2003-04 SCHOOL YEAR: P. OR GUARDIAN .VING CUSTODY OR CHARGE OF l4~i 11 ^Upne/7~it3u -t ' TiiE STUDENT PARENTS City: PARENTS HOME PHONE NUMBER PARENTS WORK PHONE NUMBER\"hnM- 2.SS 4 Zip Code: \"^22y-j OTHER NUMBER WHERE PARENT CAN BE REACHED SCHOOL REQUESTED Xr\nUVlch DOES THIS STUDENT REQUTRE TRANSPORTATION DOES THIS STUDENT REQUIRE SPECIAL SERVICES IF YES, PLEASE DIDICATE HOW SERVICES ARE RECEIVED: YES YES NO NO HEALTH PLAN SECTION 504 ACCOMMODATION PLAN' IEP/SPECIAL EDUCATION SPECIAL TRANSPORTATION State: Ath I give permission to the school in which my child is currently enrolled to release any information or school records necessary to complete the requested transfer. PARENTS SIGNATURE: C DATE: Form completed by: Counselors office Forward to the OFFICE OF EQUITY AND PUPIL SERVICES DATE APPROVAL DATE T TRANSFER APPROVED: DATES OF ATTENDANCE SCHOOOL TO WHICH TRANSFER APPROVED:PCSSD (M to M) STUDENT TRACKING FORM 0 7 2004 This form is to track (M to M) student movement to the next grade and or organizational level. If the student wishes an alternative placement other than the pattern of assigned schools for resident students, these assignments will be made with consideration of space available at the requested school and other factors, such as racial composition of the requested school. STUDENTS NAME! Student ID # STUDENTS RESIDENCE ADDRESS: F I City:_f\\ _______________________ ,_________I _________________________ [------ I 's-i ly GRADE LEVEL AS OF SEPT. 2004: b DATE OF BIRTH:4f7p5SEX: F RACE: 6 SCHOOL ATTENDED DURING THE 2003-04 SCHOOL YEAR: State: Zip Code. rW PARENT G CUSTODY OR CHARGE OF THE STUDENT * pWW?S MAILING ADDRESS: 4 City: (\\j PARENTS HOME PHONE NUMBER PARENTS WORK PHONE NUMBER State\nA Zip Code: 77JT^ OTHER NUMBER WHERE PARENT CAN BE REACHED SCHOOL REQUESTED DOES THIS STUDENT REQUIRE TRANSPORTATION V DOES THIS STUDENT REQUIRE SPECIAL SERVICES YES YES NO NO IF YES, PLEASE INDICATE HOW SERVICES ARE RECEIVED: HEALTH PLAN lEP/SPECIAL EDUCATION SECTION 504 ACCOMMODATION PLAN SPECIAL TRANSPORTATION I give permission to the school in which my child is currently enrolled to release any information or school records necessary to ^mplete the requested transfer. PARENTS SIGNATURE: DATE: ^6 Form completed by: Counselors office Forward to the OFFICE OF EQUITY AND PUPIL SERVICES DATE APPROVAL DATE TRANSFER APPROVED: DATES OF ATTENDANCE SCHOOOL TO WHICH TRANSFER APPROVED: 04/1B/2004 08:16 5013709755 QUALITYSECURITV PAGE 02 PCSSD (M to M) STUDENT TRACKING FORM This form is to track (M to M) student movement to the next grade and or organizational level. If the student wishes an alternative placement other than the pattern of assigned schools for resident students, these assignments will be made with consideration of space available at the requested school and other factors, such as racial coimmopoossiittiioonn of the rnequested school.________ STUDENTS N. STUDENTS RESIDENCE ADDRES^ Citv: Li'iklt _ U____State: itudent ID #_ Zip Code\nGRADE LEVEL AS OF SEPT. 2004- 'J7 DATE OF BIRTH:?-/.Y ^^EX: SCHOOL ATTENDED DURING THE^3-04 SCHOOL YEAR: PARENT DR GUARDIAN HAVING CUSTODY OR CHARGE OF STUDENT PARE] City: State: PARENTS HOME PHONE NUMBER g'cV-st' Zip Code: PARENTS WORK PHONE NUMBER - S'? a - / OTHER NUMBER WERE P ARENT CAN BE REACHED ' SCHOOL REQUESTED ft# DOES THIS STUDENT REQUIRE TRANSPORTATION DOES THIS STUDENT REQUIRE SPECIAL SERVICES YES YES NO NO IF YES, PLEASE INDICATE HOW SERVICES ARE RECEIVED: HEALTH PLAN lEP/SPECIAL EDUCATION SECTION 504 ACCOMMODATION PLAN SPECIAL TRANSPORTATION I give permission to the school in which my child is currently enrolled to release any information or school records necessary to complete the requested transfer. PARENTS SIGNATURE: DATE: Form completed by: Counselors office Forward to the OFFICE OF EQUITY AND PUPIL SERVICES DATE APPROVAL DATE 3E \u0026lt;7 ? TRANSFER APPROVED\nDATES OF ATTENDANCE SCHOOOL TO WHICH TRANSFER .APPROVED: lUi or^u Oi/01 Holmes, Morr(5s I 1 From: Sent\nTo: Cc: Subject\nKbsyyam Eddiri igs [KEciciifiysigjf sc.netj Thu^Ay.June24:2004 1^:^:\n^' Babbs, Junious\nHolmec ft/nrrL Chris Heller Meeting with PCSSD I By way of suntnary, Sabbs and i - ---J f a. narl Brown of the pPS5ti June 18. met with Sam / 1. I believe that we made S33rdii*y M-to'M tra: regarding the two districts' form\" only to identify to from one organisational letters RCSSD to studi following school school Id de\n'9 3-od proyrei disagreements. feeder patterns. \u0026gt;s\n^nes, Dr. Brenda Bowles and ier issues on last, ill coming to a resdlCtittit\n, LRSD its agreed to use their to studer.ta Of/ regarding their yea, leaving that task to \u0026gt; V? a the assignment of L 1 .,---i ai-uucnca level to the next outside of In turn, RSD agreed not to send acpool assignments for the 'RSD M-to-M Stu resolve difference^ onm nA LRSD agreed to allow 200 3-04 at PCSSD speci enrollment to tudei^' t to PCSSD specialty B ind in the interest of the M-to-^ students enrolled during _ , . CXAiWXXeQ remain ^0 percent black -.j-i- ----r^v^xEoo cuxougn the isoec] al t-v a. Moreover, both cough thejspecialty program. allowed to attend .xuicllt, sides agreed that no new M-to-4 stt nd a PCSSD specialty school witih Tmajoritv felacv witn one caveat. PCSSD requested chat LRSD all^w 5 gifted ajt Clinton Elementary uller Middle ii|chool. nAoT, 9 students tUat ^--7\"\"\" . . \u0026gt;==1,1 luencified as attend the specialty = \" already made this commitmen.r to the studerf names of the Clinton** to 2 , , . since the PCSSD had J Sabbs asked PCSSD to request under advisement. s and agreed to PoSSDs M. xbduxngti Friday, Eldrsdge a lark 400 West Capitol, Suite Little Rock, AR Email\n72201 2000 i J I I Citect Phone\nkeddingsief ec. net 1 V SOl-370-1417 I . I i t I !Z I I 1 k (f /a L I * 4 J I' I I I 1 Ii ! PCSSD PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT 925 East Dixon Road/P.O. Box 8601 Little Rock, Arkansas 72216 www.pcssd.org (501) 490-2000 July 7, 2004 Bobby Acklin, Assistant Superintendent for Desegregation 2700 Poplar Street North Little Rock, Arkansas 72115-0687 RECEIVED JUL 0 3 2004 n-n... OFFICEOF desegregation monitoring Dear Mr. Acklin: All secondary schools in the Pulaski County Special School District have reached school capacity for the 2004-2005 school year. Therefore, we are unable to accept M-to-M transfers at this time. Thank you for your continued cooperation. Sincerely, Karl Brown, Assistant Superintendent Equity and Pupil Services / Dr. Brenda Bowles, Director Equity and Multicultural Education C: Ann Marshall, Federal Monitor Sam Jones, District Counsel John Walker, Joshua Intervenors Donna Creer, Executive Director Magnet Review Committee II PCSSD PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT 925 East Dixon Road/P.O. Box 8601 Little Rock. Arkansas 72216 www.pcssd.org (501) 490-2000 July 7, 2004 Junious Babbs, Associate Superintendent-LRSD 501 Sherman Street Little Rock, Arkansas 72202 Dear Mr. Babbs: All secondary schools in the Pulaski County Special School District have reached school capacity for the 2004-2005 school year. Therefore, we are unable to accept M-to-M transfers at this time. Thank you for your continued cooperation. Sincerely, Karl Brown, Assistant Superintendent Equity and Pupil Services Dr. Brenda Bowles, Director Equity and Multicultural Education C: Ann Marshall, Federal Monitor Sam Jones, District Counsel John Walker, Joshua Intervenors Donna Creer, Executive Director Magnet Review Committee received JUL 12 OFFICE OF DESEGREGATION MONITORING IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT CASE NO. 4:82CV00866WRW/JTR PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT, ET AL. PLAINTIFF DEFENDANT JOSHUA INTERVENORS MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF MOTION REGARDING LRSDS AND PCSSDS M TO M DISAGREEMENT The Joshua Intervenors submit that the relief which they seek by their Motion herewith is authorized by the 8* Circuit, Little Rock School District v. Pulaski County Special School District, et. al. 92 J F.2d 1371, 1394. (1990) That Court created the Office of Desegregation Monitoring (ODM) so that it could effectively monitor the implementation process. It is the primary monitor in this case. Neither it nor the Joshua Intervenors have been significantly involved in the subject controversy. Joshua interests is obvious. The ODMs role is to provide useful information to the parties and to the Court. An ODM report to the Court with respect to the subject issue should therefore be commissioned. Joshuas concern is twofold, i.e., educational and segregational. The educational advantage imder the parties plan enures to white students. For African American students are not allowed entry into the subject programs unless they are from outside the PCSSD. But now, LRSD proposes to retain LRSD students in its schools, although they may be in more heavily one 1 race situations, than to allow them to attend and remain in the specialty programs at College Station, Fuller and Mills. LRSD effectively proposes to require return of African American students from the far more desegregated PCSSD schools on a technical basis, i.e., the school has become majority African American. The law of the case required maximization of desegregation within a context where educational disparity is reduced rather than enhanced. A hearing on the matter is appropriate. Respectfully submitted. Robert Pressman 22 Locust Lexington, MA 02421 862-781-1955 John W. Walker, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, Arkansas 501-374-3758 501-374-4187 (fax) rW.^Walker CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I do hereby state that a copy of the foregoing Motion has been served on all counsel of record on this 8' day of July, 2004. CU Jr V. A------------------------------------------------------- / // 2 received PILPT} JUL 1 ? 2004 COURT OFFICE OF DESEGREGATION MONITORING IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT CO^^S W. EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANsS''~~ WESTERN DIVISION S \u0026gt;'/ ^LcR^ LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT PL.MNTIFF CASE NO. 4:82CV00866WRW/JTR PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT, ET AL. DEFENDANT JOSHUA INTERVENORS MOTION REGARDING LRSDS AND PCSSDS M TO M DISAGREEMENT The Joshua Intervenors respectfully move the Court to set an evidentiary hearing with respect to the pending Majority to Minority (M to M) disagreement between the Pulaski County Special School District (PCSSD) and the Little Rock School District (LRSD), Joshua also respectfully requests that such hearing be preceded by a report to the Court regarding the matter from the Office of Desegregation Monitoring (ODM). For cause, Joshua respectfully shows the Court: 1. On or about June 7, 2004, PCSSD filed a Motion and Memorandum regarding Majority to Minority transfer concerns. 2. On June 17, 2004, LRSD filed its response. 3. The LRSD and PCSSD parties have not involved Joshua or the Office of Desegregation Monitoring (ODM), on information and belief, regarding the controversy. 4. The Joshua Intervenors understand the conflict as follows: a. White students are being allowed to transfer into majority black schools in 1PCSSD. Their transfers into those schools result in reinforcement of racially segregated gifted and talented and academically enriched programs. For example, at College Station Elementary, white students are allowed entry thereto for the gifted and talented (GT) program. The result is that GT is overwhelmingly white, but the school is disproportionately black. LRSD white students thus have more academically enriched options than LRSD black students who are not allowed to transfer into that substantially segregated program. A second example is reflected at the high school level. Mills High also has a school within a school. The specialty school is disproportionately white. It has a separate staff as well, although the school principal is African American. LRSD African American students are denied transfer from Little Rock into the Mills specialty program, while white students are allowed transfer. b. LRSD administration promotes continuation of segregated programs, practices and activities by its refusal to allow African American students to transfer from the LRSD into strong academic settings which its makes available to white students. This is a continuation of LRSDs emphasis upon promoting educational advantage for white students while not doing likewise for African American students. 5. LRSD effectively takes the position that when a school enrollment in PCSSD reaches 50% African American, LRSD African American may not attend the PCSSD school. LRSD interprets the M to M transfer provision to require return of those African American students to LRSD who, by their presence in Fuller, Mills and College Station, cause racial imbalance. PCSSD, on the other hand, would allow such students to remain in specialty schools throughout their academic careers. The effect of LRSDs position is to take higher achieving African American students who have opted for specialty programs in PCSSD from PCSSD and place 2them back into lower level academic programs within the LRSD. LRSD thus appears to promote continuation of stronger academic programs for its white students through their assignment to such programs in PCSSD but not for its African American students. WHEREFORE, the Joshua Intervenors respectfully request the Court to have the Office of Desegregation Monitoring to prepare a monitoring report regarding the situation and subsequent to such report, set the matter for evidentiary hearing. Thereafter, the Court is requested to provide appropriate relief including but not limited to modifying the M to M stipulation to reflect tlie intended puipose and then to allow African American students entry into the disproportionately one race schools within schools at College Station Elementary, Fuller Middle, and Mills High schools. Respectfully submitted. Robert Pressman 22 Locust Lexington, MA 02421 862-781-1955 John W. Walker, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, Arkansas 501-374-3758 501-374-4187 (fax) f i 7 _ (z--- John W. Walker CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I do hereby state that a copy of the foregoing Motion has been served on all counsel of record on this 8* day of July, 2004. I I I '/ 7^ % -n ,11 ' rf . f 21 JC\nc.= RECEIVED IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION JUL 2 0 2004 OFFICE OF DESEGREGATION MONITORING LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT PLAINTIFF V. NO. 4:82CV00866WRW PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, ET AL. DEFENDANTS MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL. INTERVENORS KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL. INTERVENORS PCSSDS RESPONSE TO JOSHUA INTERVENORS MOTION REGARDING LRSDS AND PCSSDS M-TO-M DISAGREEMENT The PCSSD for its response states: 1. Joshuas motion is in actuality a response to PCSSDs motion. 2. The PCSSD sought unsuccessfully to involve the ODM in a resolution of this dispute. 3. The PCSSD has not heretofore involved Joshua believing this to be a simple dispute with the LRSD over interpretation of long-standing rules. 4. LRSD black students are allowed to exercise M-to-M transfers into the PCSSD specialty program so long as those schools are eligible for M-to-M transfers. 5. PCSSD denies any remaining allegations contained in the motion to the extent that those allegations questioned practices or motives as regards M-to-M transfers. 249234-V1WHEREFORE, the PCSSD prays that the motion be denied and for all proper relief. Respectfully submitted, WRIGHT, LINDSEY \u0026amp; JENNINGS LLP 200 West Capitol Avenue, Suite 2300 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201-3699 (501) 371-0808 FAX: (501)376-9442 By. . Samuel Jones lII W6060) Attorneys for P 'Schoer District ilasja County Special 249234-V1 2CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE On July 19, 2004, a copy of the foregoing was served via U.S. mail on each of the following\nMr. John W. Walker John W. Walker, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Mr. Mark A. Hagemeier Assistant Attorney General Arkansas Attorney Generals Office 323 Center Street, Suite 200 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Mr. Christopher Heller Friday, Eldredge \u0026amp; Clark 2000 Regions Center 400 West Capitol Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Mr. Stephen W. Jones 3400 TCBY Tower 425 West Capitol Avenue Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Ms. Ann Brown Marshall ODM One Union National Plaza 124 West Capitol, Suite 1895 Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Clayton Blackstock Mr. Mark Burnett 1010 W. Third Street Little Rock, AR 72201 Judge J. Thomas Ray U.S. District Courthouse 600 West Capitol Avenue, Suite 149 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Mr. Robert Pressman 22 Locust Avenue Lexington, Massachusetts 02173 M. luel Bones III 249234-V1 309/13/2004 11\n44 501-4472951 V LRSD SRO e derate, 4- 01/02 ef=^ ) EDWARD L. WftlGMT \u0026lt;1903-1917) ROSBRT 5. UXMCY 0913-1991) ALSTON JBWNIKOS \u0026lt;19)7.2004) ISAAC A. SCOTT. JA. JOHN G. LILS GORDON S. HaTHER, JR. MARTIN G. CILBERT KOGBR A. GLASCO* PATRICK 7. COSS ALSTON J8WNJN0S. JR. JOHN R. TISDAL? KATHLYN ORavbS M. SAMUEL JONES III JOHN WILLIAM SPJVEY III LEE J. MULDROW N.M. NORTON CHARLES C. PRICE ! CHARLBS T. COtfiMAN JA.MES I. atovim eOWIN L. LOWTHBR. JR- ORECORY T: JONBS J SBTTINA B. BROWNSTEIN j WALTCK MtiPAPO^N . JIM-Ot SXAMtS iutwr $11H MJ\u0026gt;H5 ........ RJARX-is * ?\n40: Mr. Chris Heller WRIGHT, LINDSEY \u0026amp; JENNINGS LLP 1 aTTORNEYS-aT law i 200 *ST CAPITOL AV^t\u0026lt;tje. SUITE 2300 LJTTLS XOCK. aRKa*i5aS 12201-3699 {50n )11-0Q8 FAX^IJOn 576-9442 901 \\ORTN 43TH STftfBET. SUITE lOI ROCSaS. ARKANSAS 2736 (i 984-OU8 PAXi(79) 966-H31 T -/-irV .wlj .^9in OF COuJ^SL RONALD a\nMAY 9RUCS ft LINOSEY 2 JAMES ft VAlj CRBOOftV $ OOVBR lUZINGO** I whi*'- j OVreet OlAl ite-K 001.-2124273 Friday, Eldredge \u0026amp; Clark 400 W. Capitol Avenue, Suite 2000 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201-3493 RE: September9, 2004 KATHRYN A PRYOB }. WARK DAVI5 } clairb shows Hancock 4 KEVIN W. KENH6D JERRY J. SALLINGS WJLLlAM STUART JACKSON MICHAEL D. SARNES STEPHgN ft. LANXASTSR JUDY ftOBlNSON' WILSER KT L8 R. WILSON C. TAO SOHaNNON / KftlSTt M. MOODY J. CHARLES OOUCHBRTY* M. SBAN HATCH J. ANDREW VJ^ES JUSTIN T. ALL6X MICHELLE M. Kaemmerling ) SCOTT ANOREU' tR8Y PATRICK 0. WILSON RBClNA A. S9aULONG MARY BLIZaBBTH ELDRIDGE BLAKS S. RUTHERFOftO PAUL D. MORRIS EDWARD RIAL ARMSTRONG BVA.C. MADISO.*- 6 J. RBBBCCA fRATT WASS OAWH O' bBOPUs CALR-y B. VO l\u0026amp;OLIM ReJORGeNSEN GARY Oz!\u0026lt;*MT5'. )R,i TA. . \u0026gt; UiakitaH OitiHe: ef 3 New rort S North Carnlt^o 6 Oklchfun rr^infitcf * Ufvvt^ mSlant P^sm * UUHM hl ftafhff ylirhiffut t 1 I M-to-M Agreement Between PCSSD and LRSD Dear Chris: 1 original of the M-to-M Agreemenit that was facilitated by Horace Smith. ..Si. - y' ' I**.. \u0026gt; A _ I __ _ __ signature and return to met Brenda Bowles is out of town until next ahS I'\u0026lt;v2l get her signature then after you return this to me. Cordially yours, 1 WRIGHT, LINDSEY \u0026amp; JENNINGS LLP 1 M. S luel Jones, HI MSJ:ao Encl. i I I I I 524319-vl I 109/13/2004 11:44 501-4472951 LRSD SRO PAGE 02/02 11 One Year M-to-M Agreement Befween the PCSSD and LRSD September__i, 2004 During an August 6, 2004 meeting at the ODM, the rejjresenutives of Pulaski County Special School District (PCSSD) and the Little Rock School District (IRSD) tentatively reached the following one-year agreement to settle issues regarding M-to-M transfers. II 1. PCSSD agrees to use its tracking form\" only to identify to LRSD its M-to-M students progressing from one organizational level to the next outside of established PCSSD feeder patterns. For those M-to-M students who progress outside of the feed* patterns, PCSSD will provide its tracking form to the LRSD to document the students school assii 4 p icnmilents. LRSD agrees to discontinue the longstanding practjce of sending letters to M-to-M. students 3. jn^ard^ scl^l assignments for the foUowit^ year, leaving that task to PCSSD. LRSD agrees to continue to transport M-to-M students who are returning to their original school sites in the PCSSD, or to the next school in their eftafalished feeder pattern, with the exception of the five students already agreed upon, as well as at odier properly enrolled M-to-M students. 4. Both PCSSD and LRSD agree that no new M-to-i students will be allowed to attend a PCSSD specialty school with a majority black enrollment taring the 2004-05 school year. 1 5. I LRSD agrees to transport five (5) M-to-M sixth-gr^de students who attended Clinton. Crystal Hill, and College Station in 2(X)3-04 to the specialty prtiram at Fuller Middle School in 2(X)4-05. These students were identified as gifted and the PCSSD Fuller. id already assured them that they could attend 6. Both LRSD and PCSSD agree to work with the Ntfcth Little Rock School District, Joshua Intervenors, Magnet Review Committee, and Offiojs of Desegregation Monitorir^ to develop solutions to remaining M-to-M disagreements and completed on or before December 31, 2004, o in^rove procedures. This process will be 7. The parties request that the MRC and ODM establi ih a regular meeting schedule to ensure that the December 31, 2004 deadline is met. So agreed this___ day of September, 2004. JOSi By. INTgRVE] John Walker Limfe ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT By_J__________________________ j Junious Babbs, Associate Superintendent PULAtKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT By. 1 Dr. Brenda Bowles 520624-vI s Office of Desegregation Monitoring United States District Court Eastern District of Arkansas One Union National Plaza 124 West Capitol, Suite 1895 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 (501)376-6200 Fax (501) 371-0100 November 2, 2004 Mr. Junious Babbs Associate Superintendent Little Rock School District 501 Sherman Street Little Rock, AR 72202 Dear Junious: The M-to-M agreement that PCSSD, LRSD, and Joshua signed in late September requested that the Magnet Review Committee and the Office of Desegregation Monitoring facilitate meetings to help the parties settle remaining M-to-M disagreements. The first meeting to address those issues will be held at the MRC office in North Little Rock on Wednesday, November 17, 2004 at 9:30 a.m. Our second meeting will be held on Thursday, December 9, 2004 at 9:30 a.m. at the MRC office. Please let me know by the end of the week if these dates are agreeable. I can be reached at 376-6200, by fax at 371-0100, and by email at hrsmithfrz'.aristotle.net. Thank you for your attention to this matter. Sincerely, Horace R. Smith Monitorrf-tac. ux/ ux I little rock s thool district 501 SHERMAN s: REFT LlrTT E ROCK, R 72202 {)FndE OF ADlvnNISTRATIVF SERVICES uniou i C. Babbs, Associate Superintendent 1 'hone: ] i-Maii (501) 447-2955 junious,babbsi'gU rsd.org TO\nMr. Horace Smith, Office of Dese\nreg at\non and Monitoring FROM: Babbs I SUBJECT\nIdei tifying M-to-M Issues ATE\nNot amber 15, 2004 In preparation for \u0026lt; i requesting identific ur November 17*^ meeting am I respi inse to your November 11 th 1. 2. 3. ation of pending M-to-M issues, the Use of PCJ:SD tracking form (#1 in Sept. A. Wh I memo ollowing information is being provided\n!O4 M( )U Agreement) 6 PCSSD will provide their tra :king sch\niol assignment, an anticipated orm to LRSD to document students I time c f receipt is requested. B. Be i aminded that LRSD students ^-to-f 1 from PCSSD) must reapply upon corr Dietion of a classification level (K-5 t 6-8). LRSD agre ss to discontinue the longstaniing practice of sending letters to M-to-M students re PCSSD. ! larding their school assignments for the following year, leaving that task to It is imports established notification It that PCSSD notify each LR 5D sk dent attending PCSSD via M-to-M. Our 1| contact period will be March 4Cai PCSSD coincide to provide a letter of or our students? I Tentative a\u0026gt; treement has been established that ichooi composition percentages reflect official sch do! counts reported to ADE di ring tf e second submission cycle. When and I ow would this communicationjbe pre vided to each district? Informational / )iscussion Items I 1. Given seat ivailabi'ity, it is anticipated tha M-to-iVl transfers will be available to enter LRSD scho ils, including LRCH at second semester 2. When open School and designated i id. M-to-M transfer will be avajiabie Io the new PCSSD Maumelle Middle 3henal Elementary\nhowever, there s no set or established number of ieats. 1! i i I 12/10/2804 12:20 501-4472951 LRSD SRO PAGE 01/01 LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 501 SHERMAN STREET LITTLE ROCK, AR 72202 I )IFIC E OF ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES . uniou I C. Babbs, Associate Superintendent : hone: (501) 447-2955\n\u0026gt;Mail junious.babb8@Ir$d.org TO: Karl Brown, Pulaski County Spec al Scl Donna Creer, Magnet Review Co: amith i ool District e Horace Smith, Office of Desegrej ation Monitoring FROM. OUS Babbs SUBJECT: Requested Information DATE: December 10, 2004 In response to information requested in our Dec\nmber 9* meeting, I have indicated all Little Rock School District Schools that are NOT elig ble to receive M-to-M transfers based on October 1,2004 enrollment. Elementary Forest Park Fulbright Jefferson Pulaski Heights Elementary If questions surface, please contact me.\nThis project was supported in part by a Digitizing Hidden Special Collections and Archives project grant from The Andrew W. Mellon Foundation and Council on Library and Information Resoources.\n \n\n \n\n \n\n\n \n\n \n\n \n\n\n \n\n \n\n \n\n\n \n\n \n\n \n\n \n\n \n\n \n\n\n \n\n \n\n \n\n\n\n \n\n \n\n \n\n\n \n\n \n\n \n\n \n\n \n\n\n \n\n \n\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n \n\n \n\n\n\n \n\n\n \n\n\n\n \n\n\n\n "},{"id":"bcas_bcmss0837_1280","title":"'Plain Talk, the Future of Little Rock's Public Schools,'' University of Arkansas at Little Rock","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, Little Rock, 34.74648, -92.28959"],"dcterms_creator":null,"dc_date":["1997"],"dcterms_description":null,"dc_format":["application/pdf"],"dcterms_identifier":null,"dcterms_language":["eng"],"dcterms_publisher":["Little Rock, Ark. : Butler Center for Arkansas Studies. Central Arkansas Library System"],"dc_relation":null,"dc_right":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC-EDU/1.0/"],"dcterms_is_part_of":["Office of Desegregation Monitoring records (BC.MSS.08.37)","History of Segregation and Integration of Arkansas's Educational System"],"dcterms_subject":["Little Rock (Ark.)--History--20th century","Little Rock School District","University of Arkansas at Little Rock","Education--Arkansas","Education--Curricula","Education--Evaluation","Education--Finance","Education--Standards","Educational law and legislation","Educational planning","Educational statistics","School enrollment","School improvement programs","School integration"],"dcterms_title":["'Plain Talk, the Future of Little Rock's Public Schools,'' University of Arkansas at Little Rock"],"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/1280"],"dcterms_temporal":null,"dcterms_rights_holder":null,"dcterms_bibliographic_citation":null,"dlg_local_right":["Available for use in research, teaching, and private study. Any other use requires permission from the Butler Center."],"dcterms_medium":["documents (object genre)"],"dcterms_extent":["11 pages"],"dlg_subject_personal":null,"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":null},{"id":"bcas_bcmss0837_944","title":"School Monitoring Report,; 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":["1997/1998"],"dcterms_description":null,"dc_format":["application/pdf"],"dcterms_identifier":null,"dcterms_language":["eng"],"dcterms_publisher":["Little Rock, Ark. : Butler Center for Arkansas Studies. Central Arkansas Library System"],"dc_relation":null,"dc_right":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC-EDU/1.0/"],"dcterms_is_part_of":["Office of Desegregation Monitoring records (BC.MSS.08.37)","History of Segregation and Integration of Arkansas's Educational System"],"dcterms_subject":["Little Rock (Ark.)--History--20th century","North Little Rock School District","Education--Arkansas","Education--Evaluation","School principals","School facilities","Office of Desegregation Monitoring (Little Rock, Ark.)","Educational statistics","School enrollment"],"dcterms_title":["School Monitoring Report,; 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/944"],"dcterms_temporal":null,"dcterms_rights_holder":null,"dcterms_bibliographic_citation":null,"dlg_local_right":["Available for use in research, teaching, and private study. Any other use requires permission from the Butler Center."],"dcterms_medium":["reports"],"dcterms_extent":["60 pages"],"dlg_subject_personal":null,"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":"\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n \n\n\n \n\n \n\n\n \n\n\n \n\n\n\n\n \n\n\n\n\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n \n\n \n\n \n\n\n \n\n \n\n \n\n\n \n\n \n\n \n\n\n \n\n \n\n \n\n\n \n\n \n\n \n\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 "}],"pages":{"current_page":21,"next_page":22,"prev_page":20,"total_pages":48,"limit_value":12,"offset_value":240,"total_count":567,"first_page?":false,"last_page?":false},"facets":[{"name":"type_facet","items":[{"value":"Text","hits":567}],"options":{"sort":"count","limit":16,"offset":0,"prefix":null}},{"name":"creator_facet","items":[{"value":"Little Rock School District","hits":90},{"value":"Arkansas. Department of Education","hits":73},{"value":"Office of Desegregation Monitoring (Little Rock, Ark.)","hits":53},{"value":"United States. District Court (Arkansas: Eastern District)","hits":33},{"value":"North Little Rock School District","hits":6},{"value":"Arkanasas State University. Office of Educational Research and Services","hits":5},{"value":"Office of Education and Lead Planning and Desegregation","hits":5},{"value":"Center for Research in Educational Policy, University of Memphis, Memphis, Tennessee","hits":3},{"value":"Ross, Steven M.","hits":3},{"value":"William Gordon Associates","hits":3},{"value":"Area School Advisory Committee","hits":2}],"options":{"sort":"count","limit":11,"offset":0,"prefix":null}},{"name":"subject_facet","items":[{"value":"Educational statistics","hits":567},{"value":"Education--Arkansas","hits":561},{"value":"Education--Evaluation","hits":400},{"value":"Little Rock School District","hits":376},{"value":"Little Rock (Ark.)--History--20th century","hits":351},{"value":"School integration","hits":176},{"value":"School improvement programs","hits":174},{"value":"Educational law and legislation","hits":173},{"value":"Education--Finance","hits":156},{"value":"School management and organization","hits":151},{"value":"Little Rock (Ark.)--History--21st Century","hits":144}],"options":{"sort":"count","limit":11,"offset":0,"prefix":null}},{"name":"subject_personal_facet","items":[{"value":"Wright, Susan Webber, 1948-","hits":1}],"options":{"sort":"count","limit":11,"offset":0,"prefix":null}},{"name":"event_title_sms","items":[{"value":"Little Rock Central High School Integration","hits":3}],"options":{"sort":"count","limit":11,"offset":0,"prefix":null}},{"name":"location_facet","items":[{"value":"United States, Arkansas, 34.75037, -92.50044","hits":566},{"value":"United States, 39.76, -98.5","hits":565},{"value":"United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, 34.76993, -92.3118","hits":555},{"value":"United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, Little Rock, 34.74648, -92.28959","hits":486},{"value":"United States, Arkansas, Chicot County, 33.26725, -91.29397","hits":1},{"value":"United States, Massachusetts, Middlesex County, Cambridge, Harvard University, 42.377, -71.11666","hits":1}],"options":{"sort":"count","limit":11,"offset":0,"prefix":null}},{"name":"us_states_facet","items":[{"value":"Arkansas","hits":566},{"value":"Massachusetts","hits":1}],"options":{"sort":"count","limit":11,"offset":0,"prefix":null}},{"name":"year_facet","items":[{"value":"1994","hits":129},{"value":"1995","hits":120},{"value":"1996","hits":107},{"value":"1993","hits":98},{"value":"1997","hits":93},{"value":"1992","hits":85},{"value":"1998","hits":82},{"value":"1999","hits":81},{"value":"2000","hits":78},{"value":"1991","hits":77},{"value":"2001","hits":72},{"value":"2003","hits":62},{"value":"1990","hits":53},{"value":"2002","hits":53},{"value":"2004","hits":50},{"value":"2005","hits":47},{"value":"1989","hits":39},{"value":"2006","hits":31},{"value":"1988","hits":24},{"value":"2010","hits":21},{"value":"2008","hits":19},{"value":"2009","hits":17},{"value":"2007","hits":15},{"value":"2013","hits":15},{"value":"1986","hits":14},{"value":"2012","hits":14},{"value":"1987","hits":13},{"value":"2011","hits":9},{"value":"1984","hits":8},{"value":"1985","hits":8},{"value":"2014","hits":6},{"value":"1974","hits":4},{"value":"1975","hits":4},{"value":"1976","hits":4},{"value":"1977","hits":4},{"value":"1978","hits":4},{"value":"1979","hits":4},{"value":"1980","hits":4},{"value":"1981","hits":4},{"value":"1982","hits":4},{"value":"1983","hits":4},{"value":"1973","hits":3},{"value":"1950","hits":2},{"value":"1951","hits":2},{"value":"1952","hits":2},{"value":"1953","hits":2},{"value":"1954","hits":2},{"value":"1955","hits":2},{"value":"1956","hits":2},{"value":"1957","hits":2},{"value":"1958","hits":2},{"value":"1959","hits":2},{"value":"1960","hits":2},{"value":"1961","hits":2},{"value":"1962","hits":2},{"value":"1963","hits":2},{"value":"1964","hits":2},{"value":"1965","hits":2},{"value":"1966","hits":2},{"value":"1967","hits":2},{"value":"1968","hits":2},{"value":"1969","hits":2},{"value":"1970","hits":2},{"value":"1971","hits":2},{"value":"1972","hits":2},{"value":"2015","hits":1},{"value":"2016","hits":1},{"value":"2017","hits":1},{"value":"2018","hits":1},{"value":"2019","hits":1},{"value":"2020","hits":1},{"value":"2021","hits":1},{"value":"2022","hits":1},{"value":"2023","hits":1},{"value":"2024","hits":1},{"value":"2025","hits":1},{"value":"2026","hits":1}],"options":{"sort":"count","limit":100,"offset":0,"prefix":null},"min":"1950","max":"2026","count":1641,"missing":0},{"name":"medium_facet","items":[{"value":"documents (object genre)","hits":282},{"value":"reports","hits":194},{"value":"filing","hits":49},{"value":"exhibition (associated concept)","hits":34},{"value":"agendas (administrative records)","hits":17},{"value":"handbills","hits":16},{"value":"minutes (administrative records)","hits":16},{"value":"correspondence","hits":3},{"value":"books","hits":2},{"value":"newspaper clippings","hits":2},{"value":"printouts","hits":2}],"options":{"sort":"count","limit":11,"offset":0,"prefix":null}},{"name":"rights_facet","items":[{"value":"http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC-EDU/1.0/","hits":567}],"options":{"sort":"count","limit":11,"offset":0,"prefix":null}},{"name":"collection_titles_sms","items":[{"value":"Office of Desegregation Management","hits":566}],"options":{"sort":"count","limit":11,"offset":0,"prefix":null}},{"name":"provenance_facet","items":[{"value":"Butler Center for Arkansas Studies","hits":567}],"options":{"sort":"count","limit":11,"offset":0,"prefix":null}},{"name":"class_name","items":[{"value":"Item","hits":566},{"value":"Collection","hits":1}],"options":{"sort":"count","limit":100,"offset":0,"prefix":null}},{"name":"educator_resource_b","items":[{"value":"false","hits":567}],"options":{"sort":"count","limit":100,"offset":0,"prefix":null}}]}}